text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'Studies of the cosmic gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and their host galaxies are starting to provide interesting or even unique new insights in observational cosmology. GRBs represent a new way of identifying a population of star-forming galaxies at cosmological redshifts. GRB hosts are broadly similar to the normal field galaxy populations at comparable redshifts and magnitudes, and indicate at most a mild luminosity evolution out to $z \sim 1.5 - 2$. GRB optical afterglows seen in absorption provide a powerful new probe of the ISM in dense, central regions of their host galaxies, complementary to the traditional studies using QSO absorbers. Some GRB hosts are heavily obscured, and provide a new way to select a population of cosmological sub-mm sources, and a novel constraint on the total obscured fraction of star formation over the history of the universe. Finally, detection of GRB afterglows at $z > 6$ may provide a unique way to probe the primordial star formation, massive IMF, early IGM, and chemical enrichment at the end of the cosmic reionization era.'
author:
- 'S.G. Djorgovski$^*$, S.R. Kulkarni$^*$, D.A. Frail$^\dagger$, F.A. Harrison$^*$, J.S. Bloom$^\ddag$, E. Berger$^*$, P.A. Price$^*$, D. Fox$^*$, A.M. Soderberg$^*$, R. Sari$^*$, S. Yost$^*$, A.A. Mahabal$^*$, S.M. Castro$^*$, R. Goodrich$^\star$, F. Chaffee$^\star$'
title: 'Cosmological Uses of Gamma-Ray Bursts'
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction: The Birth of the GRB Cosmology
============================================
Ever since the establishment of their cosmological nature (Metzger et al. 1997), and considering their increasingly probable relation to massive star formation (e.g., Paczyński 1998, Totani 1997, etc.), GRBs promised to become new probes of cosmology and galaxy evolution. As the numbers of GRB redshifts and detected hosts and afterglows grow, it becomes possible to use GRBs in new, systematic studies in cosmology. There are now (late 2002) plausible or certain host galaxies found for all but 1 or 2 of the bursts with optical, radio, or x-ray afterglows localised with arcsec precision, and over 30 redshifts measured for GRB hosts and/or afterglows, ranging from 0.25 (or perhaps 0.0085?) to 4.5, with the median $\langle z \rangle \approx 1.0$. GRBs and their afterglows should be readly detectable at large redshifts (Lamb & Reichart 2000).
There are three basic ways of learning about the evolution of luminous matter and gas in the universe. First, a direct detection of sources (i.e., galaxies) in emission, either in the UV/optical/NIR (the unobscured component), or in the FIR/sub-mm/radio (the obscured component). Second, the detection of galaxies selected in absorption along the lines of sight to luminous background sources, traditionally QSOs. Third, diffuse extragalactic backgrounds, which bypass all of the flux or surface brightness selection effects plaguing all surveys of discrete sources found in emission, but at a price of losing the redshift information, and the ability to discriminate between the luminosity components powered by star formation and powered by AGN. Studies of GRB hosts and afterglows can contribute to all three of these methodological approaches, bringing in new, independent constraints for models of galaxy evolution and of the history of star formation in the universe.
In this review we focus on some of the cosmological aspects of GRBs and their host galaxies. Parts of the present text have also appeared in the reviews by Hurley, Sari & Djorgovski (2003), and Djorgovski et al. (2003). Some of the general issues regarding GRB redshifts and host galaxies have been reviewed previously, e.g., by Djorgovski et al. (2001b, 2002), and many others.
GRB Hosts and Galaxy Evolution
==============================
The median apparent magnitude of GRB hosts is $R \approx 25$ mag, with tentative detections or upper limits reaching down to $R \approx 29$ mag. The few missing cases are at least qualitatively consistent with being in the faint tail of the observed distribution of host galaxy magnitudes. Down to $R \sim 25$ mag, the observed distribution is consistent with deep field galaxy counts (Brunner, Connolly, & Szalay 1999), but fainter than that, complex selection effects may be playing a role. It can also be argued that the observed distribution should correspond roughly to luminosity-weighted field galaxy counts. The actual distribution would depend on many observational selection and physical (galaxy evolution) effects, and a full interpretation of the observed distribution of GRB host galaxy magnitudes requires a careful modeling (see, e.g., Krumholz, Thorsett, & Harrison 1998; Hogg & Fruchter 1999). The observed visible light (restframe UV) traces an indeterminate mix of recently formed stars and an older population, and cannot be unambiguously interpreted in terms of either the total baryonic mass, or the instantaneous SFR, and their relative importance is a function of redshift.
Spectroscopic measurements provide direct estimates of recent, massive SFR in GRB hosts, from the luminosity of star formation powered recombination lines, notably the \[O II\] 3727 doublet, Ly$\alpha$, and Balmer lines (Kennicut 1998), the UV continuum at $\lambda_{rest} = 1500$ or 2800 Å (Madau, Pozzetti, & Dickinson 1998). All of these estimators are susceptible to the internal extinction and its geometry, and have an intrinsic scatter of at least 30%. The observed $unobscured$ SFR’s range from a few tenths to a few $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$. Applying the reddening corrections derived from the Balmer decrements of the hosts, or from the modeling of the broad-band colors of the OTs (and further assuming that they are representative of the mean extinction for the corresponding host galaxies) increases these numbers typically by a factor of a few. All this is entirely typical for the normal field galaxy population at comparable redshifts. However, such measurements are completely insensitive to any fully obscured SFR components, which could be considerably higher.
Equivalent widths of the \[O II\] 3727 doublet in GRB hosts, which may provide a crude measure of the SFR per unit luminosity (and a worse measure of the SFR per unit mass), are on average somewhat higher (Djorgovski et al. 2001b) than those observed in magnitude-limited field galaxy samples at comparable redshifts (Hogg et al. 1998). One intriguing hint comes from the flux ratios of \[Ne III\] 3869 to \[O II\] 3727 lines: they are on average a factor of 4 to 5 higher in GRB hosts than in star forming galaxies at low redshifts (Djorgovski et al. 2001b). Strong \[Ne III\] requires photoionization by massive stars in hot H II regions, and may represent indirect evidence linking GRBs with massive star formation.
The interpretation of the luminosities and observed star formation rates is vastly complicated by the unknown amount and geometry of extinction. Both observational windows, the optical/NIR (rest-frame UV) and the sub-mm (rest-frame FIR) suffer from some biases: the optical band is significantly affected by dust obscuration, while the sub-mm and radio bands lack sensitivity, and therefore uncover only the most prodigiously star-forming galaxies. As of late 2002, radio and/or sub-mm emission powered by obscured star formation has been detected from 4 GRB hosts (Berger, Kulkarni & Frail 2001; Berger et al. 2002b; Frail et al. 2002). The surveys to date are sensitive only to the ultra-luminous ($L > 10^{12} L_\odot$) hosts, with SFR of several hundred M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, but suggest that about 20% of GRB hosts are ULIRGs.
Given the uncertainties of the geometry of optically thin and optically thick dust, optical colors of GRB hosts cannot be used to make any strong statements about their net star formation activity. The broad-band optical colors of GRB hosts are not distinguishable from those of normal field galaxies at comparable magnitudes and redshifts (Bloom, Djorgovski, & Kulkarni 2001; Sokolov et al. 2001; Chary, Becklin, & Armus 2002; Le Floc’h et al. 2003). It is notable that the optical/NIR colors of GRB hosts detected in the sub-mm are much bluer than typical sub-mm selected galaxies: the GRB selection may be revealing a previously unprobed population of dusty star-forming galaxies.
The magnitude and redshift distributions of GRB host galaxies are typical for the normal, faint field galaxies (e.g., Schaefer 2000), as are their morphologies (e.g., Odewahn et al. 1998, Bloom, Kulkarni & Djorgovski 2002): they are often compact, and sometimes suggestive of a merger (Djorgovski, Bloom & Kulkarni 2001, Hjorth et al. 2002), but that is not unusual for galaxies at comparable redshifts. The observed redshift distribution of GRBs is also at least qualitatively as expected for an evolving, normal field galaxy population (Mao & Mo 1998).
1.8 truecm =cmr10
If GRB’s follow the luminous mass, then the expected distribution would be approximated by the luminosity-weighted galaxy luminosity function (GLF) for the appropriate redshifts. The hosts span a wide range of luminosities, with a characteristic absolute restframe B band magnitude $M_{B,*} \approx -20$ mag, approximately half a magnitude fainter than in the GLF at $z \approx 0$, but comensurate with the late-type (i.e., star forming disk) galaxy population at $z \approx 0$ (Madgwick et al. 2002; Norberg et al. 2002). This is somewhat surprising, since one expects that the evolutionary effects would make the GRB host galaxies, with a typical $z \sim 1$, brighter than their descendants today. The GRB host GLF also has a somewhat steeper tail than the composite GLF at $z \approx 0$, but again similar to that of the star-forming, late-type galaxies. This is in a broad agreement with the results of deep redshift surveys which probe the evolution of field galaxy populations out to $z \sim 1$ (Lilly et al. 1995; Fried et al. 2001; Lin et al. 1999), although our understanding of the field galaxy evolution in the same redshift range is still very incomplete. While much remains to be done, it seems that GRB hosts provide a new, independent check on the traditional studies of galaxy evolution at moderate and high redshifts.
GRBs as Probes of the Obscured Star Formation
=============================================
Already within months of the first detections of GRB afterglows, no OT’s were found associated with some well-localised bursts despite deep and rapid searches; the prototype “dark burst” was GRB 970828 (Djorgovski et al. 2001a). One explanation is that at least some of these “missing” afterglows are obscured by dust in their host galaxies, which is certainly plausible if GRBs are associated with massive star formation. This is supported by detections of RTs without OTs (e.g., Frail et al. 2000, Taylor et al. 2000). Dust reddening has been detected directly in some OTs (Ramaprakash et al. 1998, Bloom et al. 1998, Djorgovski et al. 1998, etc.); however, this only covers OTs seen through optically thin dust, and there must be others, hidden by optically thick dust. An especially dramatic case was the RT (Taylor et al. 1998) and IR transient (Larkin et al. 1998) associated with GRB 980329 (Yost et al. 2002). We thus know that at least some GRB OTs must be obscured by dust.
This offers a possibility of making a completely new and independent estimate of the mean obscured star formation fraction in the universe. The redshift distribution is not a critical factor here; GRBs are now detected out to $z \sim 4.5$ and that there is no correlation of the observed fluence with the redshift (Djorgovski et al. 2002), so GRBs are, at least to a first approximation, good probes of the star formation over the observable universe.
As of late 2002, there have been $\sim 70$ adequately deep and rapid searches for OTs from well-localised GRBs, reaching at least to $R \sim 20$ mag within less than a day from the burst, and/or to at least to $R \sim 23 - 24$ mag within 2 or 3 days. In just over a half of such searches, OTs were found. Inevitably, some OTs may have been missed due to an intrinsically low flux, an unusually rapid decline rate (Fynbo et al. 2001; Berger et al. 2002a), or very high redshifts (so that the brightness in the commonly used $BVR$ bands would be affected by the intergalactic absorption). Thus the $maximum$ fraction of all OTs (and therefore massive star formation) hidden by the dust is $\sim 50$%.
This is a remarkable result. It broadly agrees with the estimates that there is roughly an equal amount of energy in the diffuse optical and FIR backgrounds (see, e.g., Madau 1999). This is contrary to some claims in the literature which suggest that the fraction of the obscured star formation was much higher at high redshifts. Recall also that the fractions of the obscured and unobscured star formation in the local universe are comparable.
There is one possible loophole in this argument: GRBs may be able to destroy the dust in their immediate vicinity (up to $\sim 10$ pc?) (Waxman & Draine 2000; Galama & Wijers 2000), and if the rest of the optical path through their hosts ($\sim$ kpc scale?) was dust-free, OTs would become visible. Such a geometrical arrangement may be unlikely in most cases, and our argument probably still applies. A more careful treatment of the dust evaporation geometry is needed, but it is probably safe to say that GRBs can provide a valuable new constraint on the history of star formation in the universe.
GRBs as Probes of the ISM in Evolving Galaxies
==============================================
Absorption spectroscopy of GRB afterglows is now becoming a powerful new probe of the ISM in evolving galaxies, complementary to the traditional studies of QSO absorption line systems. The key point is that the GRBs almost by definition (that is, if they are closely related to the sites of ongoing or recent massive star formation, as the data seem to indicate) probe the lines of sight to dense, central regions of their host galaxies ($\sim 1 - 10$ kpc scale). On the other hand, the QSO absorption systems are selected by the gas cross section, and favor large impact parameters ($\sim 10 - 100$ kpc scale), mostly probing the gaseous halos of field galaxies, where the physical conditions are very different.
The associated GRB absorption systems show exceptionally high column densities of gas, when compared to the typical QSO absorption systems; only the highest column density DLA systems come close (Savaglio, Fall & Fiore 2002, Castro et al. 2003, Mirabal et al. 2002). Lower redshift, intervening absorbers are also frequently seen, and their properties appear to be no different from those of the QSO absorbers. This opens the interesting prospect of using GRB absorbers as a new probe of the chemical enrichment history in galaxies in a more direct fashion than what is possible with the QSO absorbers, where there may be a very complex dynamics of gas ejection, infall, and mixing at play.
Properties of the GRB absorbers are presumably, but not necessarily (depending on the unknown geometry of the gas along the line of sight) reflecting the ISM of the circum-burst region. Studies of their chemical composition do not yet reveal any clear anomalies, or the degree of depletion of the dust, but the samples in hand are still too small to be really conclusive. Also, there have been a few searches for the variability of the column density of the gas on scales of hours to days after the burst, with no clear detections so far. Such an effect may be expected if the burst afterglow modifies the physical state of the gas and dust along the line of sight by the evaporation of the dust grains, additional photoionization of the gas, etc. However, it is possible that all such changes are observable only on very short time scales, seconds to minutes after the burst. A clear detection of a variable absorption against a GRB afterglow would be an important result, providing new insight into the circumstances of GRB origins.
High-Redshift GRBs: A Unique Probe of the Primordial Star Formation and Reionization
====================================================================================
Possibly the most interesting use of GRBs in cosmology is as probes of the early phases of star and galaxy formation, and the resulting reionization of the universe at $z \sim 6 - 20$. If GRBs reflect deaths of massive stars, their very existence and statistics would provide a superb probe of the primordial massive star formation and the initial mass function (IMF). They would be by far the most luminous sources in existence at such redshifts (much brighter than SNe, and most AGN), and they may exist at redshifts where there were $no$ luminous AGN. As such, they would provide unique new insights into the physics and evolution of the primordial IGM during the reionization era (see, e.g., Lamb & Reichart 2001; Loeb 2002a,b).
There are two lines of argument in support of the existence of copious numbers of GRBs at $z > 5$ or even 10. First, a number of studies using photometric redshift indicators for GRBs suggests that a substantial fraction (ranging from $\sim 10$% to $\sim 50$%) of all bursts detectable by past, current, or forthcoming missions may be originating at such high redshifts, even after folding in the appropriate spacecraft/instrument selection functions (Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz 2002; Reichart et al. 2001; Lloyd-Ronning, Fryer, & Ramirez-Ruiz 2002).
Second, a number of modern theoretical studies suggest that the very first generation of stars, formed through hydrogen cooling alone, were very massive, with $M \sim 100 - 1000 ~M_\odot$ (Bromm, Coppi & Larson 1999; Abel, Bryan, & Norman 2000; Bromm, Kudritzki, & Loeb 2001; Bromm, Coppi & Larson 2002; Abel, Bryan & Norman 2002). While it is not yet absolutely clear that some as-yet unforseen effect would lead to a substantial fragmentation of a protostellar object of such a mass, a top-heavy primordial IMF is at least plausible. It is also not yet completely clear that the (probably spectacular) end of such an object would generate a GRB, but that too is at least plausible (Fryer, Woosley & Heger 2001). Thus, there is some real hope that significant numbers of GRBs and their afterglows would be detectable in the redshift range $z \sim 5 - 20$, spanning the era of the first star formation and cosmic reionization (Bromm & Loeb 2002).
Spectroscopy of GRB aftergows at such redshifts would provide a crucial, unique information about the physical state and evolution of the primordial ISM during the reionization era. The end stages of the cosmic reionization have been detected by spectroscopy of QSOs at $z \sim 6$ (Djorgovski et al. 2001c; Fan et al. 2001; Becker et al. 2001). GRBs are more useful in this context than the QSOs, for several reasons. First, they may exist at high redshifts where there were no comparably luminous AGN yet. Second, their spectra are highly predictable power-laws, without complications caused by the broad Ly$\alpha$ lines of QSOs, and can reliably be extrapolated blueward of the Ly$\alpha$ line. Finally, they would provide a genuine snapshot of the intervening ISM, without an appreciable proximity effect which would inevitably complicate the interpretation of any high-$z$ QSO spectrum: luminous QSOs excavate their Stromgren spheres in the surrounding neutral ISM out to radii of at least a few Mpc, whereas the primordial GRB hosts would have a negligible effect of that type.
We wish to thank numerous collaborators, and the staff of Palomar and W.M. Keck Observatories for their expert help during our observing runs. Our work was supported by grants from the NSF, NASA, and private donors.
=cmr10
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The near-infrared colors of the planets directly imaged around the A star HR 8799 are much redder than most field brown dwarfs of the same effective temperature. Previous theoretical studies of these objects have concluded that the atmospheres of planets b, c, and d are unusually cloudy or have unusual cloud properties. Some studies have also found that the inferred radii of some or all of the planets disagree with expectations of standard giant planet evolution models. Here we compare the available data to the predictions of our own set of atmospheric and evolution models that have been extensively tested against observations of field L and T dwarfs, including the reddest L dwarfs. We require mutually consistent choices for effective temperature, gravity, cloud properties, and planetary radius. This procedure thus yields plausible values for the masses, effective temperatures, and cloud properties of all three planets. We find that the cloud properties of the HR 8799 planets are not unusual but rather follow previously recognized trends, including a gravity dependence on the temperature of the L to T spectral transition–some reasons for which we discuss. We find the inferred mass of planet b is highly sensitive to whether or not we include the $H$ and $K$ band spectrum in our analysis. Solutions for planets c and d are consistent with the generally accepted constraints on the age of the primary star and orbital dynamics. We also confirm that, like in L and T dwarfs and solar system giant planets, non-equilibrium chemistry driven by atmospheric mixing is also important for these objects. Given the preponderance of data suggesting that the L to T spectral type transition is gravity dependent, we present an exploratory evolution calculation that accounts for this effect. Finally we recompute the the bolometric luminosity of all three planets.'
author:
- 'Mark S. Marley'
- Didier Saumon
- Michael Cushing
- 'Andrew S. Ackerman'
- 'Jonathan J. Fortney'
- Richard Freedman
title: 'Masses, Radii, and Cloud Properties of the HR 8799 Planets'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Establishing the masses, radii, effective temperatures, and atmospheric composition of the planets orbiting the A star HR 8799 has been a challenge. Of the four planets [@Mar08; @Mar10] directly imaged orbiting the star HR 8799, broad photometric coverage (1 – $5\,\rm \mu m$) is available for three planets, b, c, and d [@Mar08; @Cur11], and some spectral data is available for one planet, b [@Bar11a]. Efforts to fit the available data with atmosphere and evolution models have produced mixed results. In some cases the best-fitting models predict radii and ages that are at odds with other constraints, such as evolution models and the age of the system. The purportedly unusual cloud properties of the planets have also received great attention. Here we present an examination of the properties of HR 8799 b, c, and d using publicly available data as well as our own evolution and atmosphere models. Our aim is to determine if a set of planet properties can be derived that simultaneously satisfy all observational and theoretical constraints and to ascertain the nature of atmospheric condensate layers in each planet.
We open below with a summary of the model parameters previously derived for these planets. In the remainder of this section we briefly review what is known about the atmospheric evolution of brown dwarfs and discuss the issues that have arisen to date in the study of the HR 8799 planets, particularly regarding the inferred cloud properties and planet radii. In succeeding sections we explore the nature of clouds in low-mass objects more deeply and present model solutions for the masses, effective temperatures $(T_{\rm eff}$), and cloud properties of the planets. We find, as have all other previous studies, that clouds are present in the visible atmosphere of these planets at lower effective temperatures than in typical field brown dwarfs. In agreement with @Bar11a but unlike most other previous studies [e.g., @Bow10; @Cur11; @Mad11] we find that the clouds of the HR 8799 planets are similar to those found in field L dwarfs.
Masses and Radii of HR 8799 b,c, and d
--------------------------------------
In the HR 8799 b, c, and d discovery paper, @Mar08 derived the mass and effective temperature of each object in two ways. In the first method they computed the luminosity of each object and compared that to theoretical cooling tracks for young giant planets given the constraint of their estimated age of the primary star. In the second method they fit atmosphere models derived using the PHOENIX code [@Hau99] to the available six-band near-infrared photometry (1 to $2.5\,\rm \mu m$) to constrain $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$, the two most important tunable parameters of atmosphere models. Radii of each planet were derived by comparing the model emergent spectra with the observed photometry and known distance to the target. Notably only models that included the effects of refractory silicate and iron clouds were consistent with the data. However the radii estimated by this method were far smaller than expected for solar metallicity gas giant planets at such young ages.
A number of followup studies presented new data new data and models in an attempt to better understand the planets. @Bar11a fit a suite of models to the available photometry (but not the $M$ band [@Gal11] data) and $H$ and $K$ band spectra that they obtained for planet b. By comparing the integrated flux from their best fitting model atmosphere to the estimated bolometric luminosity of the planet, they found a small radius for the planet $R\sim0.75\,\rm R_J$. @Gal11 also fit the Barman atmosphere models to the photometry, including new $M$ band data. They found somewhat higher gravity solutions than @Bar11a but also required a small radius for planet b, approximately 70%–or about one-third the volume–expected from planetary evolution models. Such a large discrepancy is difficult to reconcile with our understanding of both giant planet evolution and the high pressure equation of state of hydrogen. Instead the most straightforward interpretation is that the atmosphere models are not representative of the actual planetary atmosphere and Barman et al. suggest that higher metallicity models might provide a better fit and give more plausible radii.
Likewise @Bow10 selected the model spectra (from among the models of @Hub07 [@Bur06; @All01]) which best fit the available photometry for HR 8799b. Their best fitting spectra were quite warm, with $T_{\rm eff}$ from 1300 to 1700 K and thus they required even smaller radii ($\sim 0.4\,\rm R_J$) in order to meet the total luminosity constraint given the photometry available at that time.
In contrast @Cur11 searched for the best fitting models while requiring that the planet radii either matched those predicted by a set of evolution models [@Bur97] or were allowed to vary. They found that what they termed to be “standard” brown dwarf cloud models required unphysically small planet radii to fit the data. However their “thick cloud” models could fit the data shortward of $3\,\rm \mu m$ by employing planetary radii that were within about 10% of the usual evolution model prediction. As we note below, however, the “standard” cloud model has itself not been demonstrated to fit cloudy, late L-type dwarfs; thus this exercise does not necessarily imply the planets’ clouds are “non-standard”. Nevertheless they were able to fit much of the photometry with planetary radii consistent with evolution model predictions.
Finally @Mad11 explored a set of models similar to those studied by Currie et al. with yet another cloud model but without the radius constraint. Their best fits are very similar to those of Currie et al. but with somewhat lower $T_{\rm eff}$.
The characteristics of the planets as derived in the 2011 publications are summarized in Table 1. Not all authors report every parameter so some radii and ages are left blank. Note the diverse set of masses, radii, and effective temperatures derived by the various studies. Despite the variety some trends are clear: planet b consistently is found to have the lowest mass and effective temperature and its derived radius is almost always at odds with the expectation of evolution and interior models.
We note that at very young ages the model radii of giant planets depends on the initial conditions of the evolutionary calculation [@Ste82; @Bar02; @Mar07a; @Spi12]. However at ages younger than several hundred million years the planetary radius is expected to be no smaller than about 1.1 times that of Jupiter regardless of the formation mechanism. Hence radii derived by @Bar11a and @Gal11 are not consistent with evolutionary calculations, regardless of the initial boundary conditions. Indeed the equation of state for gas giant planets, even ones enriched in heavy elements, preclude such radii.
Clouds
------
### Brown Dwarfs
As a brown dwarf ages it radiates and cools. When it is warm, refractory condensates, including iron and various silicates, form clouds in the visible atmosphere. Over time the clouds become progressively thicker and more opaque, leading to ever redder near-infrared colors. As the dwarf cools the cloud decks are found at higher pressures, deeper in the atmosphere. Eventually the clouds disappear from the photosphere. Indeed the first two brown dwarfs to be discovered, GD 165B [@Beck88] and Gl 229B [@Nak95], were ultimately understood to represent these two different end cases: the cloudy L and the clear T dwarfs (see @Kir05 for a review). Understanding the behavior of clouds in substellar atmospheres and how it might vary with gravity has become one of the central thrusts of brown dwarf science.
The earliest models for these objects assumed that the condensates were uniformly distributed vertically throughout the atmosphere [e.g., @Chab00]. Later, more sophisticated approaches attempted to model the formation of discrete cloud layers that would result from the gravitational settling of grains.
With falling effective temperature, $T_{\rm eff}$, the bases of the iron and silicate cloud decks are found progressively deeper in the atmosphere. Because of grain settling the overlying atmosphere well above the cloud deck loses grain opacity and becomes progressively cooler. Thus over time more of the visible atmosphere becomes grain free and cooler. Cooler temperatures favor $\rm CH_4$ over CO. The removal of the opacity floor that the clouds provided at higher $T_{\rm eff}$ also allows flux in the water window regions to escape from deeper in the atmosphere. This leads to a brightening in the $J$ band and a blueward color shift in the near-infrared. In field brown dwarfs this color change begins around effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}\sim 1200$ to $1400\, \rm K$ and is complete over a strikingly small effective temperature range of only 100 to 200$\,$K (see @Kir05 for a review). This experience led to the presumption that all objects with effective temperatures below about 1100 K would have blue near-infrared colors, like the field brown dwarfs.
### HR 8799 b, c, and d
The early directly imaged low mass companions confounded these expectations from the brown dwarf experience. The companion 2MASSW J1207334-393254 b (hereafter 2M1207 b) has red infrared colors despite its low luminosity and apparently cool $T_{\rm eff}$ [@Cha04] . Likewise the HR 8799 planets have colors reminiscent of hot, cloudy L dwarfs but their bolometric luminosities coupled with radii from planetary structure calculations imply $T_{\rm eff}\sim 1000\,\rm K$ or lower [@Mar08; @Mar10].
The red colors, particularly of the HR 8799 planets, spawned a storm of studies investigating the atmospheric structure of the planets. Essentially all of these papers concluded that the planets could be best explained by invoking thick cloud decks. Since this ran counter to expectation, these clouds were deemed “radically enhanced” when compared to “standard” models [@Bow10]. Likewise @Cur11 compared their data to the @Bur06 model sequence and concluded (their §5) that the HR 8799 planets have much thicker clouds than “...standard L/T dwarf atmosphere models.” @Mad11 state that their fiducial models “...have been shown to provide good fits to observations of L and T dwarfs [@Bur06]”. They then find that much cloudier models are required to fit the imaged exoplanets and thus conclude that the cloud properties must be highly discrepant from those of the field L dwarfs.
Such conclusions, however, seem to overlook that the study of L dwarf atmospheres is still in its youth. Cloudy atmospheres of all kinds are challenging to model and the L dwarfs have proven to be no exception. Thus whether or not the HR 8799 planets have unusual clouds depends on the point of reference. Indeed while most published models of brown dwarfs are able to reproduce the spectra of cloudy, early L-type dwarfs and cloudless T dwarfs, the latest, reddest—and presumably cloudiest—L dwarfs have been a challenge. The points of comparison for the work of @Cur11 and @Mad11 were the models described in @Bur06. When compared to the red-optical and near-infrared photometry of L and T dwarfs, those models did not reproduce the colors of the latest L dwarfs as the models are too blue (see figure 17 of @Bur06) implying that they lacked sufficient clouds. @Bur06 also presented comparisons of their models to L dwarf spectra; however the comparisons are only to an L1 and an L5 dwarf. There are no comparisons to very cloudy late L dwarf spectra in the paper so the fidelity of their model under such conditions cannot be judged. For these reasons a comparison of the cloudy HR 8799 planets to the “standard” L dwarf models, such as presented by @Mad11 and @Cur11, does not address the question whether the HR 8799 planets are really all that different from the cloudiest late L dwarfs since those models have apparently do not reproduce the colors of the latest L dwarfs.
At least one set of atmosphere and evolution models is available that has been compared against the near- to mid-infrared spectra and colors of latest L dwarfs. In @Cus08 and @Ste09 we compared our group’s models to observed far-red to mid-infrared spectra of L and T dwarfs, including L dwarfs with IR spectral types as late as L9 (with 7 objects in the range L7 to L9.5). We found that the models with our usual cloud prescription fit the spectra of L dwarfs of all spectral classes (including the latest field dwarfs) well, but not perfectly. In @Sau08 we also presented a model of brown dwarf evolution that well reproduced the usual near-infrared color magnitude diagrams of L and T dwarfs, including the reddest L dwarfs. Here we apply our set of cloudy evolution models to the HR 8799 planet observations in an attempt to better understand these objects.
Chemical Mixing
---------------
Shortly after the discovery of Gl 229B, @Feg96 predicted that—as in Jupiter—vertical mixing might cause CO to be overabundant compared to $\rm CH_4$ in chemical equilibrium in this object. This was promptly confirmed by the detection of CO absorption at $4.6\,\rm \mu m$ by @Nol97 and @Opp98. The overabundance is caused by the slow conversions of CO to $\rm CH_4$ relative to the mixing time scale.
An obvious mechanism for vertical mixing in an atmosphere is convection. Brown dwarf atmospheres are convective at depth where the mixing time scale is short (minutes). The overlying radiative zone is usually considered quiescent but a variety of processes can cause vertical mixing, albeit on much longer time scales. Since the conversion time scales for $\rm CO \rightarrow CH_4$ and $\rm N_2 \rightarrow NH_3$ range from seconds (at $T\sim 3000\,\rm K$) to many Hubble times (for $T< 1000\,\rm K$), even very slow mixing in the radiative zone can drive the chemistry of carbon and nitrogen out of equilibrium. From this basic consideration, it appears that departures from equilibrium are inevitable in the atmospheres of cool brown dwarfs and indeed the phenomenon is well established [e.g., @Sau00; @Geb01; @Hub07; @Geb09; @Mai07; @Sau06; @Ste09].
With falling gravity the point at which chemical reactions are quenched occurs deeper in the atmosphere, where the higher temperature result in a greater atmospheric abundance of CO [@Hub07; @Bar11a]. At exoplanet gravities, mixing can even produce CO/$\rm CH_4$ ratios in excess of 1 [@Bar11a]. Thus a complete giant planet exoplanet atmosphere model must account for such departures from chemical equilibrium as well.
Gravity, Refractory Clouds and the L/T Transition
=================================================
Nature of the Transition
------------------------
Two main causes of the loss of cloud opacity at the L to T transition have been suggested. In one view the atmospheric dynamical state changes, resulting in larger particle sizes that fall out of the atmosphere more rapidly, leading to a sudden clearing or collapse of the cloud [@Kna04; @Tsu03; @Tsu04]. This view is supported by fits of spectra to model spectra [@Sau08] computed with the @Ack01 cloud model. In that formalism, a tunable parameter, $f_{\rm sed}$ controls cloud particle sizes and optical depth. Larger $f_{\rm sed}$ yields larger particles along with physically and optically thinner clouds. @Cus08 and @Ste09 have demonstrated that progressively later dwarfs (L9 to T4) can be fit by increasing $f_{\rm sed}$ across the transition at a nearly fixed effective temperature. A variation on this hypothesis is that a cloud particle size change is responsible for the transition [@Bur06].
The second view is inspired by thermal infrared images of the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn at $\sim 5\,\mu$m [e.g. @Wes69; @Wes74; @Ort96; @Bai05]. Gaseous opacity is low at this wavelength and the clouds stand out as dark, mottled features against a bright background of flux emitted from deeper, warmer levels in the atmosphere. Such images of both Jupiter and Saturn clearly show that the global cloud decks are not homogenous, but rather are quite patchy. @Ack01, @Bur02, and @Marl10 have suggested that the arrival of holes in brown dwarf clouds, perhaps due to the clouds passing through a dynamical boundary in the atmosphere, might also be responsible for the L to T transition. This view is supported by the discovery of L-T transition dwarfs that vary in brightness with time with relatively large near-infrared amplitudes [@Art09; @Rad11]. Indeed Radigan (in prep) has found in a survey of about 60 L and T type brown dwarfs that the most variable dwarfs are the early T’s, which are in the midst of the $J-K$ color change.
In order to match observations, modern thermal evolution models for the cooling of brown dwarfs have to impose some arbitrary mechanism, such as varying sedimentation efficiency or the imposition of cloud holes, by which the thick clouds in the late L dwarfs dissipate. A uniform cloud layer that simply sinks with falling $T_{\rm eff}$ as the atmosphere cools turns to the blue much more slowly than is observed. Application of such a transition mechanism to reliably reproduce the colors and spectra of late L and early T dwarfs (e.g., near-infrared color-magnitude diagrams) led to the expectation that the normal behavior for cooling brown dwarfs–or extrasolar giant planets–is to turn to the blue at around 1300 K.
However there have been indications that such a narrative is too simplistic and that gravity plays a role as well. Two brown dwarf companions to young main sequence stars were found to have unexpectedly cool effective temperatures for their L-T transition spectral types by @Met06 and @Luh07. The analysis of Luhman et al. of the T dwarf HN Peg B was further supported by additional modeling presented in @Leg08. @Dup09 presented evidence of a gravity dependent transition $T_{\rm eff}$ on the basis of a dynamical mass determination of an $\rm M8 + L7$ binary. @Ste09 fit the model spectra of [@Mar02] to the 1 – $15\,\rm \mu m$ spectra of L and T dwarfs and found that L dwarf cloud clearing (as characterized by large $f_{\rm sed}$) occurs at $T_{\rm eff} \sim 1300\,\rm K$ for $\log g = 5.0$ and at $\sim 1100\,\rm K$ for $\log g = 4.5$, although the sample size was admittedly small (Figure 1). Nevertheless such an association implies a cooler transition temperature at even lower gravity.
Clouds at Low Gravity
---------------------
Even if directly imaged planets are not considered, there is already considerable evidence that the cloud clearing associated with the L to T transition occurs at lower effective temperatures in lower gravity objects than in high gravity ones. To understand what underlies this trend it is necessary to consider three separate questions. First, where does the optically-thick portion of the cloud lie in the atmosphere relative to the photosphere, as a function of gravity? An optically-thick cloud lying well below the photosphere will be essentially invisible whereas the same cloud lying higher in the atmosphere would be easily detected. Second, how does the total optical depth of the cloud vary with gravity? This is a complex problem involving the pressure of the cloud base and the particle size distribution. Third, how does the mechanism by which clouds dissipate vary with gravity? For example, do holes form at a different effective temperature in different gravity objects? In this section we consider only the first two questions and defer the third question to Section 5.6.
To address the first question we need to understand how atmospheric temperature $T$ varies with pressure $P$ as a function of gravity. For a fixed effective temperature, a lower gravity atmosphere is warmer at a fixed pressure level than a higher gravity one. This is because more atmospheric mass–and thus greater opacity–overlies a given pressure level at lower gravity. Figure 2 provides an example using our model profiles. Since at equilibrium condensation begins at the intersection of the vapor pressure and thermal profiles, the cloud base occurs at lower pressure (higher in the atmosphere) in a low gravity object than a high gravity one.
As objects cool with time (at essentially fixed gravity) clouds will persist at lower pressure and remain visible to cooler effective temperatures in lower gravity objects than higher gravity ones. For example in Figure 2 the lowest gravity model shown at $T_{\rm eff}=900\,\rm K$ is hotter at all pressures greater than a few hundred millibar than a higher gravity $T_{\rm eff}=1300\,\rm K$ object. As explained below this degeneracy between cooler low gravity and warmer high gravity temperature profiles lies at the heart of the problem of simultaneously distinguishing gravity and effective temperature with a limited photometric dataset.
Addressing the second question requires us to understand how the cloud column optical depth varies with gravity. This depends both on the amount of condensible material in the atmosphere available to form clouds and on the cloud particle size. From basic scaling laws and mass balance @Mar00 derived an expression for the wavelength-dependent total column optical depth $\tau_\lambda$ of a cloud in a hydrostatic atmosphere $$\tau_\lambda = 75 \epsilon Q_\lambda(r_{\rm eff})\varphi{\biggl({P_{cl}\over {1\,\rm bar}}\biggr)} {\biggl({10^5\,{\rm cm\,s^{-2}}\over {g}}\biggr)} {\biggl({1\,{\rm \mu m}\over {r_{\rm eff}}}\biggr)} {\biggl({1.0\,{\rm g\,cm^{-3}}\over {\rho_c}}\biggr)}. \eqno(1)$$ Here $P_{cl}$, $r_{\rm eff}$ and $\rho_c$ refer to the pressure at the cloud base and the condensate effective (area-weighted) radius[^1] and density (see also Eq. 18 of @Ack01). $\varphi$ is the product of the condensing species number mixing ratio and the ratio of the mean molecular weight of the condensate to that of the atmosphere. The expression assumes that some fraction $\epsilon$ of the available mass above the cloud base forms particles with extinction cross section $Q_\lambda$ (which can be computed through Mie theory) . @Ack01 also estimate the column optical depth of a cloud with a similar result. Generalizing their Eq. 16, $$\tau_\lambda \propto {P_{cl} \over{g r_{\rm eff} (1+f_{\rm sed})} }. \eqno(2)$$
Both Equations (1) and (2) hold that all else being equal–including particle sizes–we expect $\tau \propto P_{cl}/g$, just because the column mass above a fixed pressure level is greater at low gravity and there is more material to condense. Any cloud model which self-consistently computes the column mass of condensed material should reproduce this result. As shown above, however, the cloud base is at lower pressure in lower gravity objects, roughly $P_{cl} \propto g$, thus leading to the expectation that the cloud $\tau$ would be approximately constant with changing gravity. This is not exactly true since there is a slope to the vapor pressure equilibrium curve and thus the actual variation is somewhat weaker, but the effects of gravity and the cloud base pressure alone do not strongly influence cloud column optical depth.
The second component affecting the column cloud opacity is particle size. While a cloud model is required for rigorous particle size computation, we can examine the scaling of size with gravity. At lower gravity particle fall speeds are reduced, which reduces the downward mass flux carried by condensates of a given size $r$. Since fall speed is proportional to $r^2$ in the Stokes limit (the viscous regime at low Reynolds numbers) while the mass is proportional to $r^3$, the flux scales with $r^5$, a slight increase in particle size can produce the same mass balance in the atmosphere at lower gravity, and thus $r$ is expected to increase relatively slowly with decreasing $g$. At large Reynolds number the dependence on fall speed is weaker than $r^2$ and the equivalent result is found. Indeed recasting the @Ack01 model equations suggests $r\propto (f_{\rm sed} / g)^{1/2}$, although the actual dependence is more complex as it depends upon an integral over the size distribution. Tests with the complete cloud model coupled to our atmosphere code predict about a factor of 4 increase in cloud particle radius (25 to $100\,\rm \mu m$) as gravity decreases by an order of magnitude from 300 to $30\,\rm m\,s^{-2}$, a slightly faster increase than $\sqrt{g}$. A roughly $r\propto g^{-1/2}$ relationship is also seen in the cloud model of @Coo03 (see their Figures 2, 3, and 4). Returning to Eq. (1) and combining with the scaling discussed above thus suggests that all else being equal we expect cloud $\tau \propto \sqrt{g}$.
Figure 3 illustrates all of these effects in model cloud profiles calculated for three atmosphere models with varying $g$ and $T_{\rm eff}$. The atmospheric gravity spans two orders of magnitude while the effective temperature varies from 1200 to 1000 K from the warmest to coolest object. As expected the cloud particle size indeed varies inversely with gravity($r \sim g^{-1/2}$) while the cloud base pressure decreases with decreasing gravity. The choice in the plot of a cooler $T_{\rm eff}$ for the lowest gravity object counteracts what would otherwise be an even greater difference in the cloud base pressure. The net result is that the total column optical depth for the silicate cloud in all three objects is very similar, $\tau\sim 10$. [*Thus a cooler, low gravity object has a cloud with a column optical depth that is almost indistinguishable from that of a warmer, more massive object.*]{}
The thicker portion of the lines denoting cloud column optical depth signify the regions in the atmosphere where the brightness temperatures between $\lambda = 1$ and $6\,\rm \mu m$ are equal to the local temperature. In other words the thick line represents the near-infrared photosphere. In all three cases there is substantial cloud optical depth ($\tau_{\lambda}>0.1$) in the deeper atmospheric regions from which flux emerges in the near-infrared. As a result clouds play comparable roles in all three objects despite the two order of magnitude difference in gravity and the 200 K temperature difference. We thus conclude that the net effect of all of these terms is to produce clouds in lower gravity objects with optical depths and physical locations relative to the photosphere comparable to clouds in objects with higher gravity and higher effective temperature.
Modeling Approach
=================
To model the atmospheres and evolution of exoplanets we apply our usual modeling approach which we briefly summarize in this section. We stress that the fidelity of model fits in previous applications of our method to both cloudy and clear atmosphere brown dwarfs [@Mar96; @Mar02; @Bur97; @Roe04; @Sau06; @Sau07; @Leg07a; @Leg07b; @Mai07; @Bla07; @Cus08; @Geb09; @Ste09] validates our overall approach and provides a basis of comparison to the directly imaged planet analysis. In addition to brown dwarfs the model has been applied to Uranus [@Mar99] and Titan [@Mck89] as well.
Atmosphere and Cloud Models
---------------------------
The atmospheric structure calculation is described in @Mck89 [@Mar96; @Bur97; @Mar99; @Mar02; @Sau08]. Briefly we solve for a radiative-convective equilibrium thermal profile that carries thermal flux given by $\sigma T_{\rm eff}^4$ given a specified gravity and atmospheric composition. The thermal radiative transfer follows the source function technique of @Too89 allowing inclusion of arbitrary Mie scattering particles in the opacity of each layer. Our opacity database includes all important absorbers and is described in @Fre08.
There are, however, two particularly important updates to our opacity database since @Fre08. First we use a new molecular line list for ammonia [@Yur11]. Secondly we have updated our previous treatment of pressure-induced opacity arising from collisions of $\rm H_2$ molecules with $\rm H_2$ and He. This new opacity is discussed in @Fro10 and the impact on our model spectra and photometry in general is discussed in @Sau12.
The abundances of molecular, atomic, and ionic species are computed for chemical equilibrium as a function of temperature, pressure, and metallicity following @Feg94 [@Feg96; @Lod99; @Lod02; @Lod03; @Lod06] assuming the elemental abundances of @Lod03. In this paper we explore only solar composition models.
For cloud modeling we employ the approach of @Ack01 which parameterizes the importance of sedimentation relative to upwards mixing of cloud particles through an efficiency factor, $f_{\rm sed}$. Large values of $f_{\rm sed}$ correspond to rapid particle growth and large mean particle sizes. Under such conditions condensates quickly fall out of the atmosphere, leading to physically and optically thinner clouds. In the case of small $f_{\rm sed}$ particles grow more slowly resulting in a larger atmospheric condensate load and thicker clouds. Both our cloud model and chemical equilibrium calculations are fully coupled with the radiative transfer and the $(P, T )$ structure of the model during the calculation of a model so that they are fully consistent when convergence is obtained.
We note in passing that the cloud models employed in previous studies of the HR 8799 planets have been [*ad hoc*]{}, as straightforwardly discussed in those papers. Particle sizes, cloud heights, and other cloud properties are fixed at given values while gravity, $T_{\rm eff}$, and other model parameters are varied. The methodology used here is distinct since in each case we compute a consistent set of cloud properties given a specific modeling approach, the Ackerman & Marley cloud.
The coupled cloud and atmosphere models have been widely compared to spectra and photometry of L and T dwarfs in the publications cited in the introduction to this section. We emphasize in particular that @Cus08 and @Ste09 show generally good fits between our model spectra and observations of cloudy L dwarfs. The near-infrared colors of brown dwarfs are quite sensitive to the choice of $f_{\rm sed}$, a point we will return to in Section 5.4.
Evolution Model
---------------
Our evolution model is described in @Sau08. In fitting the HR 8799 data, we use the sequence computed with a surface boundary condition extracted from our cloudy model atmospheres with ${f_{\rm sed}}=2$. As we will see below, our best fits show that all three planets are cloudy with ${f_{\rm sed}}=2$, which justifies this choice of evolution [*a posteriori*]{}. As the three planets appear to have significant cloud decks (as will be confirmed below), it is not necessary to use evolution sequences that take into account the transition explicitly in this comparison with models. Nevertheless, we will explore the effects of a gravity-dependent transition between cloudy and cloudless atmospheres in Section 5.4 as this is a topic of growing interest.
The @Sau08 models were computed with what has come to be known as a traditional or hot-start initial condition. As discussed in @Bar02, @Mar07a and @Spi12 however, the computed radii of young giant planets at ages of 100 Myr and less is highly dependent on the details of the assumed initial condition. Even assuming very cold initial conditions, however, computed planetary radii never fall below $1\,\rm R_J$ at ages of less than 1 Gyr. Rather than carrying out the model fitting for an uncertain set of assumed cold initial conditions, we choose here to employ the traditional hot-start boundary conditions for the evolution modeling. In this way we avoid unphysical very small radii ($R < 1\,\rm R_J$) while adding an additional constraint to the modeling.
Application to HR 8799 Planets
==============================
Constraints on the HR 8799 System Properties
--------------------------------------------
A number of the properties of the HR 8799 system as a whole help to constrain the properties of the individual planets. Of foremost importance of course is the age of the primary star since older ages require greater planetary masses to provide a fixed observed luminosity. The massive dust disk found outside of the orbit of the most distant planet, HR 8799 b, constrains the mass of that planet since a very massive planet would disrupt the disk. Finally dynamical models of the planetary orbits circumscribe the parameter space of orbits and masses that are stable over the age of the system. All of these topics have been discussed extensively in the literature so here we briefly summarize the current state of affairs. A more thorough review can be found in @Sud12.
Since the discovery of the first three planets, the age of HR 8799 has been debated. As summarized initially by the discoverers, most indicators suggest a young age of 30 to 60 Myr [@Mar08]. However the typical age metrics are somewhat more in doubt than usual because HR 8799 is a $\lambda$ Boo-type star with an unusual atmospheric and uncertain internal composition. @Moy10 review the various estimates of the age of the star prior to 2010 and argue that most of the applied metrics, including color and position on the HR diagram, are not definitive. Most recently @Zuc11 conclude that the Galactic space motion of HR 8799 is very similar to that of the 30 Myr old Columba association and suggest that it is a member of that group. They also argue that the $B-V$ color of HR 8799 in comparison to Pleiades A stars also supports a young age, although the unusual composition hampers such an argument. Perhaps the fairest summary of the situation to date would be that most traditional indicators support a young age for the primary, but that no single indicator is entirely definitive on its own.
One indicator that the age could be much greater than usually assumed is discussed by @Moy10. Those authors use the $\gamma$ Doradus g-mode pulsations of the star to place an independent constraint on the stellar age. Their analysis is dependent upon the rotation rate of the star and consequently the unknown inclination angle and thus is also uncertain. Nevertheless they find model solutions that match the observed properties of the star in which the stellar age can plausibly be in excess of 100 Myr and in some cases as large as 1 Gyr or more. They state that their analysis is most uncertain for inclination angles in the range of 18 to $36^\circ$, which corresponds to the likely inclination supported by observations of the surrounding dust belt (see below). Thus stellar seismology provides an intriguing, but likewise still uncertain constraint.
The dust disk encircling the orbits of the HR 8799 planets can in principle provide several useful constraints on the planetary masses and orbits. First the inclination of the disk affects the computed orbital stability of the companions [@Fab10] if we assume the disk is coplanar with the planetary orbits. If the rotation axis of the star is perpendicular to the disk, the inclination also has a bearing on the stellar age since the seismological analysis in turn depends upon its inclination to our line of sight [@Moy10]. @Hug11 discuss a variety of lines of evidence that bear on the inclination, $i$, of the HR 8799 dust disk. While they conclude that inclinations near $20^\circ$ are most likely, the available data cannot rule out a face-on ($i=0^\circ$) configuration. Finally an additional important constraint on the mass of HR 8799 b could be obtained if it is responsible for truncating the inner edge of the dust disk. An inner edge at 150 AU is consistent with available data [@Su09] and this permits HR 8799 b to have a mass as large as $20\,\rm M_J$ [@Fab10]. It is worth noting, however, that this limit depends upon the model-dependent inner edge of the disk and the dynamical simulations.
Finally dynamical simulations of the planetary orbits constrained by the available astrometric data can provide planetary mass limits. In the most thorough study to date @Fab10 found that if planets c and d were in a 2:1 mean-motion resonance their masses could be no larger than about $10\,\rm M_J$. However if there were a double resonance in which c, d, and b participated in a “double 2:1” or 1:2:4 resonance (originally identified by [@Goz09]) then masses as large as $20\,\rm M_J$ are permitted and such systems are stable for 160 Myr [@Fab10]. Such a resonance was found to be consistent with the limited baseline of astrometric data. HR 8799 b,c, and d have also been identified in an archived HST image taken in 1998 [@Laf09; @Sou11]. These data continue to allow the possibility of the 1:2:4 mean motion resonance, a solution which implies a moderate inclination ($i=28^\circ$) for the system. New dynamical models that include both this new astrometric data and the innermost e planet are now required to fully evaluate the system’s stability. @Sud12 studied such a system with masses of 7, 10, 10, and $10\,M_{\rm J}$. They generally found system lifetimes shorter than 50 Myr for such large masses but at least one system was found to be stable for almost 160 Myr.
Taken as a whole the age of the system and the available astrometric data and dynamical models are consistent with a relatively young age (30 to 60 Myr) and low masses for the planets (below $10\,\rm M_J$). However the possibility of an older system age, as allowed by the asteroseismology, and higher planet masses, as permitted if the planets are in resonance and by the dust disk dynamics, cannot be fully ruled out. Given this background we now consider the planetary atmosphere models.
Data Sources
------------
The available photometric data for each planet is summarized in Table 2 and shown on Figures \[planet\_b\]–\[planet\_d\]. In addition for planet b we employ $H$ and $K$ band spectra as tabulated in @Bar11a. We do not include the narrow band photometry of @Bar11a since this dataset has been superseded by the spectroscopy. We also do not include very recent 3.3-$\rm \mu m$ photometry from @Ske12 which became available after the submission of this manuscript although we do plot the point in Figures \[planet\_b\]–\[planet\_d\]. Below we summarize the sources of the photometry used in the fitting. With the exception of the Subaru z-band which sits in an atmospheric window, we included an atmospheric transmission curve when computing the synthetic magnitudes of the model spectra. The transmission curve was generated with ATRAN (Lord 1992) at an airmass of 1 with a precipitable water vapor content of $2\,\rm mm$.
### Subaru-$z$ band
The Subaru-$z$-band photometry is from @Cur11 and was obtained with the Infrared Camera and Spectrograph (IRCS; @Tok98) on the Subaru Telescope. The filter profile was kindly provided by Tae-Soo Pyo. No atmospheric absorption was included because the filter sits in a window that is nearly perfectly transparent.
### $J$ band
The $J$ band data were taken from @Mar08 and @Cur11. The former observations were done with the Near-Infrared Camera (NIRC2) on Keck II which uses a Mauna Kea Observatories Near-Infrared (MKO-NIR) $J$ band filter. We used the filter transmission profile from @Tok02. The latter observations were obtained with the Infrared Camera and Spectrograph (IRCS; @Tok98) on the Subaru Telescope which also uses a MKO-NIR $J$ band filter.
### $H$ and $Ks$ bands
The $H$-band and $K_s$-band data were taken from @Mar08. The observations were done with the Near-Infrared Camera (NIRC2) on Keck II which uses MKO-NIR filters. We used the filter transmission profile from @Tok02.
### \[3.3\] band
The \[3.3\]-band data was taken from [@Cur11]. The observations were done with the Clio camera at the MMT Telescope [@Fre04; @Siv06]. The filter is non standard and has a central wavelength of $3.3\,\rm \mu m$, and half-power points of 3.10 and $3.5\,\rm \mu m$. The filter transmission profile was provided by Phil Hinz.
### $L^\prime$ band
The $L^\prime$-band data was taken from @Cur11. The filter is the $L^\prime$ filter in the MKO-NIR system so we used the filter transmission profile from @Tok02.
### $M^\prime$-band
The $M$-band photometry of @Gal11 was obtained using the Near-Infrared Camera (NIRC2) on Keck II. This filter profile is the same as the $M^\prime$ band of the MKO-NIR system. We therefore used the filter transmission profile from @Tok02.
Fitting Method
--------------
In order to determine the atmospheric properties of the HR 8799 planets, we compared the observed photometry to synthetic spectra generated from our model atmospheres. We used a grid of solar metallicity models with the following parameters: $T_{\rm eff}=600$–$1300\,\rm K$ in steps of 50 K, $\log g =
3.5$–5.5 in steps of 0.25 dex, $f_{\rm sed}=1, 2$, and eddy mixing coefficient $K_{\rm zz}=0$, $10^4\,\rm cm ^2\, s^{-1}$. We identify the best fitting model and estimate the atmospheric parameters of the planets following the technique described in Cushing et al. (2012, in prep). In brief, we use Bayes’ theorem to derive the joint posterior probability distribution of the atmospheric parameters given the data $P(T_{\rm eff},\log g,f_{\rm sed},K_{\rm zz} |\mathbf{f})$, where $\mathbf{f}$ represents a vector of the flux density values (or upper limits) in each of the bandpasses. Since the posterior distribution is only known to within a multiplicative constant, the practical outcome is a list of models ranked by their relative probabilities.
Estimates and uncertainties for each of the atmospheric parameters can also be derived by first marginalizing over the other parameters and then computing the mean and standard deviation of the resulting distribution. For example, the posterior distribution of $T_{\rm eff}$ is given by,
$$P(T_{\rm eff}|\mathbf{f}) = \int P(T_{\rm eff},\log g,f_{\rm sed},K_{\rm zz}|\mathbf{f}) \,\, d\,\log g \,\,d f_{\rm sed} \,\, d\,K_{\rm zz}$$
Since $(T_{\rm eff},\log g)$ values can be mapped directly to $(M, R, L_{\rm bol})$ values using evolutionary models, we can also construct marginalized distribution for $M$, $R$, and $L_{\rm bol}$. Figure \[hist\] shows the resulting distribution of $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, $M$, and $L_{\rm bol}$ for each planet and indicates the formal solution for these parameters and and their associated uncertainties.
Finally note that we chose to use a Bayesian formalism rather than the more common approach of minimizing $\chi^2$ because 1) we can marginalize over model parameters such as the distance and radii of the brown dwarfs, and 2) we can incorporate upper limits using the formalism described in @Iso86.
Results of Model Fitting
------------------------
In this section we discuss the individual best fits to each planet. Figures \[planet\_b\] – \[planet\_d\] display the model fits to the observed spectra and photometry. Each panel of Figure \[contour\] shows contours, denoting integrated probabilities of 68, 95, and 99%, in the $\log g - T_{\rm eff}$ plane. In these figures evolution tracks for planets and brown dwarfs of various masses are shown. The objects evolve from right to left across the figures as they cool over time. Isochrones for a few ages are shown; the kinks arise from deuterium burning. In some cases at a fixed age a given $T_{\rm eff}$ can correspond to three different possible masses (e.g., a 1150 K object at 160 Myr). Also shown are contours of constant $L_{\rm bol}$. Note that the isochrones are derived from the conventional hot-start giant planet evolution calculation. A different choice of initial conditions would result in different isochrones.
The best fitting parameters are also shown in Figure \[hist\] as histograms of probability distribution for $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, $M$ and $L$. For $\log g$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ the histograms are projections of the contours shown in Figure \[contour\] onto these two orthogonal axes. The mean of the fit and the size of the standard deviation is indicated in each panel and also illustrated by the solid and dashed vertical lines. The third and fourth columns of Figure \[hist\] depict the same information but for the mass and luminosity corresponding to each $(T_{\rm eff}, \log g)$ pair, as computed by the evolution model.
We discuss each set of fits for each planet in turn below.
### HR 8799b
HR 8799b is the only one of the three planets considered here for which there is spectroscopic data and our results are sensitive to whether or not this data is included in our fit. Contours which show the locus of the best fitting models for the photometry are shown in the left-hand panel of Figure \[contour\]. When only the photometric data is fit high masses around $\sim 26\,\rm M_J$ are favored. The photometry-only fit finds $T_{\rm eff} = 1000\,\rm K$ and $f_{\rm sed}=2$ while a fit to both the spectroscopy and the photometry results in $T_{\rm eff} = 750\,\rm K$ and $f_{\rm sed}=2$ with a mass of $\sim 3\,\rm M_J$. We reject the low temperature fit for several reasons: the solution lies at the edge of our model grid, such a planet would be very young, and such a cold effective temperature is not consistent with the bolometric luminosity of planet b (see §5.2). These models are illustrated in the top two panels of Figure \[planet\_b\].
To isolate the effect of the spectroscopy of @Bar11a on the preferred fit, we relaxed the radius and distance constraint on the fitting and found the model that best reproduces the shape of the spectra. Somewhat surprisingly this is a cold, very low gravity and very cloudy model ($T_{\rm eff} = 600\,\rm K$, $\log g=3.5$ and $f_{\rm sed}=1$). With a standard radius such a model is again too young and faint and also lies at the edge of the model grid.
The reason the derived gravity depends so strongly on the $H$ and $K$ spectra is that the shape of the emergent flux–and not just the total flux in a given band–contains information about the gravity. In particular a “triangular” $H$ band shape serves as an indicator of low gravity (see @Ric11 and @Bar11a). This shape results from the interplay of a continuum opacity source–either cloud opacity (in a cloudy atmosphere) or the collision-induced opacity of molecular hydrogen (when cloud opacity is unimportant)–and a sawtooth-shaped water opacity (discussions in the literature generally only highlight the latter). At high pressures the continuum hydrogen opacity and/or the cloud opacity tends to fill in the opacity trough at the minimum of the water opacity in $H$ band. Since the photosphere of lower gravity objects at fixed effective temperature is at lower pressures, the $\rm H_2$ and cloud opacity is somewhat less important allowing the angular shape of the water opacity to more strongly control the emergent flux (see Figure \[models\] and Figure 6 of @Ric11).
Thus we find that the shape of the $H$ band spectrum is responsible for pulling the preferred model fits to low gravity and low effective temperature. Weaker methane bands at lower $\log g$ in this $T_{\rm eff}$ range also push the fit to lower gravity. The greater number of datapoints in the spectra overwhelms the photometric data which is why the contours for the best overall fit lie outside of the accepted luminosity range. As we discuss in Section 5.1 our preferred interpretation is that none of our current models match the true composition, mass, and age of this planet.
The model which best fits the photometry alone in the top panel of Figure \[planet\_b\] fits the $YJHK$ and \[3.3\]-$\rm \mu m$ (but not the revised @Ske12 \[3.3\]) photometry to within $1\sigma$. The model is too bright at $L^\prime$ and $M^\prime$. The photometry plus spectrum fit features a methane band head at $2.2\,\rm \mu m$ that is too prominent, even with $\log K_{zz} = 4$. Both sets of solutions, are inconsistent with the accepted age of the the star. The lower mass solution would imply very young ages for the planet, well below 30 Myr. Conversely the higher mass range implies ages in excess of about 300 Myr. Thus along with the discarded low mass fit the photometry-only, higher mass fit is problematical since the mass conflicts with the constraints discussed in Section 4.1
### HR 8799c
For planet c there is no available spectroscopy and we fit only to the photometry. The formal best fitting solution yields $T_{\rm eff}=980\pm70\,\rm K$ and $\log g = 4.33 \pm 0.28$ for a mass of $15\pm 8\,\rm M_{\rm J}$. However in both the contour diagram (Figure \[contour\]) and the histogram (Figure \[hist\]) we find two islands or clusters of acceptable fits, one at higher gravity and effective temperature, and one with lower values for both. The high mass solution lies at masses greater than $20\,\rm M_J$ and $T_{\rm eff}\sim 1100\,\rm K$. Such models are consistent only with ages around 300 My, well in excess of the preferred age range for the primary and the dynamical constraints on the mass. The second island of acceptable fits lies at $\log g \sim 4.25$ and $T_{\rm eff}\sim 950\,\rm K$. Figure \[planet\_c\] illustrates the spectra for the best fitting model from each case. The lower mass model has $\log g = 4.25$, $f_{\rm sed}=2$, and $\log K_{\rm zz}=4$, implying $M\approx10\,\rm M_J$ which is consistent with the dynamical mass constraint and represents our preferred solution and is listed in Table 1. The age predicted by the evolution of these models is about 160 Myr, consistent with the asteroseismological age constraint but not the generally favored range of 30 to 60 Myr. However models with modestly lower gravity and slightly smaller masses also fall within the $1\sigma$ contours seen in Figure \[contour\] do lie within this age range.
The cooler model fits most of the photometric points to within 2$\sigma$ or better, but varies most significantly from the data at $[3.3]\, \rm \mu m$ and $L^\prime$, which perhaps imply that despite the disequilibrium chemistry the models have too much methane. The lower gravity solutions differ from the high gravity ones most prominently in the red side of $K$ band (where the cooler model has a much more prominent methane band head) and at 3 to $4\,\rm \mu m$. By constraining the methane band depth in the $K$ band and, to a lesser extent, in the $H$ band, spectroscopy has the potential to distinguish between these two cases. The shape of $H$ band (Figure \[models\]) can also serve as a gravity discriminator with a more triangular shape indicating lower gravity.
### HR 8799d
Because of larger observational error bars, the model fits for the innermost of the three planets considered here are the most uncertain. As seen in Figure \[contour\] the best fitting models allow masses ranging from 5 to $60\,\rm M_J$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ between 900 and 1200 K. However the very best fitting models favor solutions with $\log g$ around 4.25 to 4.50 and $T_{\rm eff} = 1000\,\rm K$ yielding a mass of 10 to $20\,\rm M_{\rm J}$. As with planet c such a solution is consistent with the dynamical constraint but not the age constraint. Also as with planet c the lower end of this mass range offers marginally poorer fits that nevertheless still lie within the $1\sigma$ contour and that do satisfy the age constraint. The best fitting spectrum is shown in Figure \[planet\_d\].
Discussion
==========
Implied Masses and Ages
-----------------------
To summarize our findings from the previous section, each of the three planets considered presents a different challenge to characterize. Some model fits to planets c and d imply implausibly large masses or ages but other acceptable fits satisfy all of the available constraints. Both c and d can be characterized as having masses as low as 7 to $8\,\rm M_{\rm J}$, $T_{\rm eff}=1000\,\rm K$, and $f_{\rm sed}=2$ which implies ages of around 60 Myr, within the most commonly cited age range of the primary. Some better fitting models have slightly larger masses ($10\,\rm M_{\rm J}$) and ages (160 Myr). This age is greater than the range of ages typically quoted for the primary star of 30 to 60 Myr, although it is within the range permitted by the asteroseismology. Evolution models starting from a cooler initial state than the hot-start models would reach these effective temperatures and gravity at a younger age than 160 Myr and be more in accord with the usual age range.
For planet b none of the models are satisfactory. Since we do not allow arbitrary radii models to fit the data (with the exception of the lowermost panel in Figure \[planet\_b\]), we cannot invoke what we judge to be unphysical radii to produce acceptable fits. The solution which best fits the photometry alone has $M=26\,\rm M_{\rm J}$, $T_{\rm eff}=1000\,\rm K$, and $f_{\rm sed}=2$, but this mass clearly violates the constraints discussed in Section 4.1. A fit to the entire spectral and photometric dataset results in $M\approx 3\,\rm M_{\rm J}$, $T_{\rm eff}=750\,\rm K$, and $f_{\rm sed}=1$. However we discard this model as discussed in Section 4.4.1. This effective temperature is cooler than favored by @Bar11a and @Cur11 but is comparable to that found by @Mad11.
The most likely explanation for the difficulty in fitting this object is that one of the assumptions of the modeling is incorrect. @Bar11a speculate that a super-solar atmospheric abundance of heavy elements might explain the departures of the data from the models. Indeed all of the atmospheres of solar system giant planets are enhanced over solar abundance with a trend that the enhancement is greater at lower masses. For example Saturn’s atmosphere is enhanced in methane by about a factor of ten while Jupiter is only a factor of about three (see @Mar07 for a review). The available data on exoplanet masses and radii suggest that lower mass planets are more heavily enriched in heavy elements than higher mass planets [@Mil11]. If the mass of HR 8799b is intermediate between our two sets of best fits, for example with a mass near 6 or $7\,\rm M_J$, as favored by the discovery paper, and if atmospheric abundance trends are similar in the HR 8799 system to our own, then it may not be surprising if planet b has different atmospheric heavy element abundances than c and d. We will consider non-solar abundance atmosphere models in a future paper. The full range of model phase space has certainly not yet been explored.
Overall we find that a consistent solution can be found for planets c and d in which both have similar masses and ages. This is essentially the solution favored by the discovery paper [@Mar08] and is within the ranges of favored solutions presented by @Cur11 and @Mad11. However we differ from some of these previous studies in our finding that the radii for planets b and c that are fully consistent with that expected for their individual masses. Unusual radii are not required.
Bolometric Luminosities
-----------------------
The distance to HR 8799 has been measured as $d=39\pm1.0\,\rm pc$ [@van07] and thus the bolometric luminosity of each planet can be computed from the observed photometry. In the discovery paper, @Mar08 compare the photometry available at that time to models and brown dwarf spectra and report the now commonly cited results $\log
L_{\rm bol} / L_\odot = -5.1\pm0.1$ for planet b and $-4.7\pm0.1$ for c and d.
Since the work of @Mar08, the photometry of the three planets has been expanded to cover the SED from $\sim 1$–4.8$\,\mu$m. This better constrains $L_{\rm bol}$ as $\sim$80% of the flux is emitted at these wavelengths. In principle, the bolometric luminosity can be obtained by fitting synthetic photometry to the observations, with a scaling factor chosen to minimize the residuals. The integrated scaled flux of the model and the known distance gives $L_{\rm bol}$ [@Mar08]. The fitted model thus provides an effective bolometric correction to the photometry by approximating the flux between the photometric bands. The scaling factor corresponds to $(R/d)^2$, where $R$ is the radius of the planet. The optimized scaling thus corresponds to an optimization of the radius independent of the physical radius of the planet. As is well known, this results in radii for the HR 8799 planets that are considerably smaller than be accounted for with the evolution models (Section 1.1). The approach can also lead to unrealistic bolometric corrections if the fitted ${T_{\rm eff}}$ deviates too far from the actual value.
To circumvent this difficulty, here we determine $L_{\rm bol}$ by using the radius obtained from our evolution sequences, which is consistent with our approach to fit the photometry. Of course such theoretical radii have their own uncertainty, including a dependence at young ages – particularly below 100 Myr – on the initial conditions [@Bar02; @Mar07a; @Spi12]. We neglect the dependence on initial conditions since planets forming in the ‘cold-start’ calculation of @Mar07a never get as warm or as bright as the HR 8799 planets. Intermediate cases, such as explored by @Spi12 are possible, but we set those aside for now. Our approach, however, does eliminate unphysical solutions by constraining the radius to reasonable values (in excess of $1\,\rm R_J$). Thus, for each fitted model $({T_{\rm eff}}, \log g)$ we obtain a $L_{\rm bol}$ from the radius $R({T_{\rm eff}}, \log g)$ obtained with the evolution[^2]. The resulting probability distributions of $L_{\rm bol}$ for each planet are shown in Fig. \[hist\], along with the mean value and dispersion of each distribution.
Our fits are based on a model grid with spacing of 50$\,$K and 0.25$\,
$dex in ${T_{\rm eff}}$ and $\log g$, respectively, which introduces an additional uncertainty intrinsic to the fitting procedure of about half a grid spacing, or $\pm25\,$K and $\pm0.13\,$dex. We derive the corresponding uncertainty in $L_{\rm bol}$ as follows. The bolometric luminosity is given by $$L_{\rm bol}=4\pi R^2 \sigma T_{\rm eff}^4 = {4\pi GM_\odot \sigma
{T_{\rm eff}}^4\over g}\Bigl({M \over M_\odot}\Bigr),$$ where the symbols have their usual meaning. From the cloudy evolution of @Sau08, we find an approximate relation for $M({T_{\rm eff}},\log g)
$ in the range of ${T_{\rm eff}}$ and mass of interest: $$\log {M \over M_\odot} = 0.746\log g + {{T_{\rm eff}}\over 5090} - 5.35,$$ where ${T_{\rm eff}}$ is in $K$ and $g$ in cm$\,$s$^{-2}$. Thus, $$\log L_{\rm bol} = 4\log{T_{\rm eff}}+ {{T_{\rm eff}}\over 5090} - 0.254\log g +
A,$$ where $A$ is a constant. With the grid spacing uncertainties given above, we find $\Delta \log L_{\rm bol}= \pm0.054$, which we round up to 0.06. Combining quadratically this uncertainty with the dispersion in $L_{\rm bol}$ found in our fits (Fig. \[hist\]), we find the luminosity for planet b to be $\log L_{\rm bol}/L_\odot=-4.95\pm0.06$, $-4.90 \pm
0.10$ for planet c[^3], and $-4.80 \pm 0.09$ for planet d. These values are consistent with those reported by @Mar08 although they are 0.1$\,$dex brighter for planet b, 0.2$\,$dex fainter for planet c, and 0.1$\,$dex fainter for planet d. The quoted uncertainties are lower limits of course, since they do not account for obvious systematic errors in the models (Figures \[planet\_b\]–\[planet\_d\]).
Cloud Properties
----------------
Although there is a dispersion in the best fitting $\log g$ and $T_{\rm eff}$, essentially all of the acceptable fits require a cloud sedimentation efficiency of $f_{\rm sed}=2$. As shown in Figure 1 this value is typical of the best fitting parameters for most field L dwarfs we have previously studied [@Cus08; @Ste09]. The persistence of clouds to lower effective temperatures at low gravity is also apparent from this figure. By 1000 K most field dwarfs with $\log g \ge 5$ have already progressed to $f_{\rm sed} \ge 4$ whereas clouds persist much more commonly among lower gravity objects down to 1000 K. By very cool effective temperatures, however, the silicate and iron clouds have certainly departed from view as demonstrated by the one $\log g = 4$, $T_{\rm eff}\sim 500\,\rm K$ object (ULAS J133553.45+113005.2, [@Bur08; @Leg09]).
As Figure 1 attests, the cloud in planets b, c, and d are unusual not so much for their global characteristics (the same cloud model that describes L dwarf clouds fits them as well), but rather for their persistence. At $f_{\rm sed} = 2$ there are three field objects with $T_{\rm eff} \le 1200\,\rm K$. These objects are 2MASS 0825196+211552 [@Kir00], SDSS 085758+570851 [@Geb02], and SDSS J151643.01+305344.4 (@Chi06; hereafter SDSS 1516+30). Their infrared spectral types are L6, L8, and T0.5 and the first two are both redder in $J-K$ than is typical for those spectral types [@Ste09].
Figure 3 compares some of the model silicate cloud properties of a low gravity planet with models for field L6 and T0.5 objects. As expected from the discussion in Section 2.2, the lower gravity model is marked by a larger particle size than the higher gravity models, and the column optical depth of the silicate cloud in all three objects ends up being very similar. More importantly the range of cloud optical depths that lie in the near-infrared photosphere are similar for all three objects. Thus a low gravity ($\log g = 3.5$) object with $T_{\rm eff} = 1000\,\rm K$ ends up with cloud opacity that is very similar to a high gravity ($\log g = 5.5$) object with $T_{\rm eff} = 1200\,\rm K$ and consequently similar spectra and colors. Indeed @Bar11a has already noted the similarity of SDSS 1516+30 to HR 8799b. This congruence between lower gravity and higher gravity models led to the initial surprise that the apparently cool planets seem to have clouds reminiscent of higher gravity–and warmer–L dwarfs.
The relative contribution of clouds to the opacity in individual photometric bands is depicted in Figure \[contrib\]. This figure presents contribution functions for the $J$, $H$, $K$, $L^\prime$, and $M^\prime$ bands for six different combinations of gravity, effective temperature, and cloud treatment. The contribution functions illustrate the fractional contribution to the emergent flux as a function of pressure in the atmosphere. In a cloud-free, $T_{\rm eff}=1000\,\rm K$, $\log g = 5.0$ atmosphere (left panel, Figure \[contrib\]a) the $L^\prime$ flux emerges predominantly near $P=0.6\,\rm bar$ while the $J$-band flux emerges from near 8 bar. The contribution functions do not account for the effect of cloud opacity, but rather show for each case where the flux would emerge from for that particular model if there were no clouds.
The center two panels of Figure \[contrib\]a and b illustrate the vertical location of the cloud layers for both $f_{\rm sed}=1$ and 2. The $f_{\rm sed}=2$ clouds are thinner and the cloud base is deeper since these less cloudy atmospheres are cooler than the $f_{\rm sed}=1$ case, as seen in the right hand panels. If the cloud deck lies above or overlaps the plotted contribution function of a given band then the emergent flux in that band will be strongly affected by the presence of the cloud. The figure makes clear that regardless of gravity thicker clouds impact more of the emergent spectra than thinner clouds. Clouds described by $f_{\rm sed}=2$ strongly impact $J$, $H$, and $K$ bands, but are less important at $L^\prime$, and $M^\prime$. We conclude that at least for the effective temperature range inhabited by HR 8799 b, c, and d that clouds are most strongly impacting the observed spectra at wavelengths shorter than about $2.5\,\rm \mu m$ while the longer wavelength flux is primarily emerging from above the cloud tops. Figures such as this illustrate the value multi-band photometry has in both constraining not only the total emergent flux, but also the vertical structure of the clouds.
Evolution with a gravity-dependent L to T transition
----------------------------------------------------
The growing evidence that the cloudy to cloudless transition in field brown dwarfs depends on gravity (§2.1) is complemented by the published analyzes of the HR 8799 planets (including the present work) which all indicate that their atmospheres are cloudy and that they have ${T_{\rm eff}}$ well below the estimated $\sim 1400 \,$K limit of the L dwarf sequence. Thus, it appears that the atmospheres of lower gravity dwarfs and of imaged exoplanets retain their clouds to lower ${T_{\rm eff}}$, which is supported by simple cloud model arguments (§2.2). As we have argued, this is the simplest interpretation of the fact that the HR 8799 planets have ${T_{\rm eff}}$ typical of cloudless T dwarfs but have evidently cloudy atmospheres. How is the evolution of brown dwarfs across the transition from cloudy to clear atmosphere affected?
The atmosphere of a brown dwarf largely controls its evolution because it acts as a surface boundary condition for the interior. A more opaque atmosphere (more clouds, or higher metallicity, for instance) slows the escape of radiation and increases the cooling time of the interior. @Sau08 looked at the evolution of brown dwarfs across the transition by assuming that the atmosphere was cloudy (${f_{\rm sed}}=2$) down to ${T_{\rm eff}}=1400\,$K, and clear below 1200$\,$K, with an linear interpolation of the atmospheric boundary condition in the transition regime. This effectively corresponds to increasing the sedimentation efficiency across the transition, one of the proposed explanations for the cloud clearing (§2.1). By converting the evolution sequences to magnitudes using synthetic spectra ($f_{\rm sed}=1$ for cloudy atmospheres, and $f_{\rm sed}=4$ for “clear” atmospheres[^4]) a good match to the near-infrared color magnitude diagrams of field dwarfs was found from the cloudless late M dwarfs, along the cloudy L dwarf sequence, across the L/T transition and down to late T dwarfs.
We now extend this toy model to include a gravity-dependent range of ${T_{\rm eff}}$ for the transition to explore the consequences, at the semi-quantitative level, on the cooling tracks of brown dwarfs and exoplanets. In view of the success obtained for field dwarfs (of relatively high gravity) with the @Sau08 toy model, and the requirement that the lower gravity HR 8799 planets be cloudy at ${T_{\rm eff}}\sim 1000\,$K, we define the transition region to be ${T_{\rm eff}}= 1400$ to 1200$\,$K at $\log g=5.3$ (cgs) and 900 to 800$\,$K at $\log g=4$ with a linear interpolation in between (Fig. \[trans\_gdep\]). The cloudy boundary condition above the transition is based on our ${f_{\rm sed}}=2$ atmosphere models, and our cloudless models below the transition, as in @Sau08. Synthetic magnitudes are generated from the cooling tracks using our new ${f_{\rm sed}}=1$ and cloudless atmosphere models [@Sau12].
The resulting cooling tracks of two low-mass objects of 5 and 20$\,$M$_{\rm J}$ are shown in Fig. \[evol\_gdep\] where the same calculation, but based on a fixed ${T_{\rm eff}}$ transition (Fig. \[trans\_gdep\]) is also displayed for comparison. It is immediately apparent that these low-mass objects, which retain their clouds to lower ${T_{\rm eff}}$ ($\sim 850\,$K for 5$\,$M$_{\rm J}$ and $\sim 1050\,$K for 20$\,$M$_{\rm J}$) with the prescribed gravity-dependent transition evolve along the L dwarf sequence longer and reach the region of the color-magnitude diagram occupied by the HR 8799 planets before they turn to blue $J-K$ colors as the cloud clears. Also remarkable is that in the transition region where the $J-K$ color changes from $\sim 2$ to $\sim 0$, the low mass object is [*fainter*]{} in $K$ than the higher mass object, the reverse of the situation for a transition that is independent of ${T_{\rm eff}}$. This effect persists up to a cross over mass of $\sim 60\,$M$_{\rm J}$ above which the trend reverses (Fig. \[trans\_gdep\]). This implies that low mass objects that are in the transition region should appear below (i.e. be dimmer) the field T0–T4 dwarfs, perhaps by up to 1–2 magnitudes. We note that the pile up of objects in the transition region reported in @Sau08 still occurs in this new calculation but it is more spread out in ${T_{\rm eff}}$, as would be expected from the broader span of the transition in ${T_{\rm eff}}$ (Fig. \[trans\_gdep\]).
We emphasize that this evolution calculation is a toy model that has been loosely adjusted to account for limited observational constraints. It reveals trends but is not quantitatively reliable. In particular, we have had to use ${f_{\rm sed}}=1$ to match the near infrared colors of the HR 8799 planets while our best fits give ${f_{\rm sed}}=2$ for all three planets. This reflects the fact that the models give different best-fit parameters when applied to a subset of the data, a well-known difficulty with current models [@Cus08; @patience12].
Mixing
------
Given the discussion in Section 1.3 regarding the prevalence of atmospheric mixing resulting in departures from chemical equilibrium in solar system giants and brown dwarfs, it is not surprising that mixing is also important in warm exoplanet atmospheres as well. @Bar11a discuss the influence of non-equilibrium chemistry at low gravity and find that the $\rm CO/CH_4$ ratio can become much larger than 1 in the regimes inhabited by the HR 8799 planets. Also @Bar11b found non-equlibrium chemistry was likely important in 2M1207b.
We find that all of the best fitting models for each planet, b, c, and d, include non-equilibrium chemistry. Within our limited grid with $K_{zz}= 0$ and $10^4\,\rm cm^2\,s^{-1}$, the latter choice was strongly preferred in all cases providing yet another indication of the importance of chemical mixing in substellar atmospheres. This also suggests that a fuller range of models with a greater variety of eddy mixing strengths should be considered in future studies to better constrain this parameter.
Mechanism for Gravity Dependent Transition
------------------------------------------
In Section 2.2 we demonstrated that the effect of a given cloud layer, all else being equal, is greater in a lower mass extrasolar giant planet than in a more massive brown dwarf of the same effective temperature. If we add effective temperature as a variable then we find that a cooler low mass object can have clouds comparable to a warmer high mass object. Such a congruence is empirically demonstrated by the similar spectra of SDSS 1516+30 and HR 8799 b (as originally noted by [@Bar11a]). The former is a $\sim70\,\rm M_J$, 1200 K field L dwarf while the latter is plausibly a few Jupiter mass, 1000 K young gas giant planet (although the modeling discussed here does not select this solution). Likewise in Section 5.4 our simple evolution calculation with a gravity-dependent L to T type transition temperature illustrates that the location of young objects on the color magnitude diagram can be understood if clouds remain to lower effective temperatures at lower gravity. The fact that such behavior is dependent upon gravity is not in itself surprising as a lower gravity would be expected to alter its behavior. However the specific question remains, what is the specific mechanism that results in lower mass objects making the L to T type spectral transition at lower effective temperatures than higher mass objects? In this section we offer some speculation while recognizing that a serious analysis is beyond the scope of this paper.
A possible contributing factor might be found in the relative positions of the convection zone and the photosphere as a function of gravity (a point also raised in @Bar11a [@Bar11b] and @Ric11. To illustrate this effect in Figure \[contrib\] the contribution functions for different bandpasses are shown for two different gravities. At $T_{\rm eff}=1000\,\rm K$ for moderately cloudy ($f_{\rm sed}=2$) atmospheres the convection zone, regardless of gravity, penetrates into the cloud layers that control the $J$ and $H$ band fluxes. For cloudless atmospheres, however, the convection zone for the high gravity case is quite deep ($P>20\,\rm bar$), well below even the region probed by the $J$ band (Figure \[contrib\]a). At lower gravity, however, the convection zone penetrates higher into the atmosphere to much lower pressure, overlapping the $J$ band contribution function (Figure \[contrib\]b). If we imagine that a given patch of atmosphere begins to clear, perhaps because of more efficient local sedimentation, in the high gravity case the removal of cloud opacity leads the atmosphere to become radiative and more quiescent, favoring particle sedimentation relative to convective mixing and enlarging what began as a localized clearing. At low gravity however the removal of cloud opacity does not as dramatically push the atmosphere to a quiescent state. Thus convection continues to loft cloud particles and the local clearing fills back in. Only when the clear atmosphere convection zone lies very deep do the clouds dissipate. Since low gravity atmospheres are more opaque than high gravity ones this process of the growth of clearings begins at lower effective temperature at lower gravity.
Another possibility is that detached convection zones play a role in hastening the L to T transition. Within some effective temperature ranges there are two atmospheric convection zones, one deeply seated and a detached zone that is separated by a small radiative zone. This can be seen in the $f_{\rm sed}=1$ temperature profiles in Figure \[contrib\]. @Bur06 and @Wit11 have speculated that the interplay of dynamical and cloud microphysics effects that may occur when the intermediate radiative zone forms or departs may play a role in the transition. Perhaps at some effective temperature threshold particles forming in the upper convective zone grow large enough that they fall all the way through the cloud base and the intermediate radiative zone before they completely evaporate. Depending on the efficiency of mixing in the radiative zone this could result in a net transport and sequestration of condensate away from the near-infrared photosphere. @Wit11 discuss a similar idea of the convection “fanning” the fall of particles away from the upper zone. As seen in Figure \[contrib\], however, for both the $f_{\rm sed}=2$ and the cloudless case there is only one convection zone, so the potential for multilayered convection is less compelling in this case. Nevertheless such mechanisms require more sophisticated modeling to ascertain how they might be affected by gravity and effective temperature.
Arguments such as these that are based upon 1D radiative convective models only scratch the surface of the underlying complex dynamical problem. For example @Fre10 performed two-dimensional radiation hydrodynamic simulations of brown dwarf atmospheres to study the effects of clouds on atmospheric convection. They found that atmospheric mixing driven by cloud opacity launches gravity waves that in turn play a role in maintaining the cloud structure. The Freytag et al. study considered a domain a few hundred kilometers wide by about 100 km deep and only investigated a single gravity ($\log g=5$) so how such effects might vary with gravity is not yet known. Furthermore how the local clouds might interact with the very large scale planetary circulation has not been explored. Perhaps clouds form holes or otherwise dissipate only when most of the cloud optical depth lies deeply enough to be strongly influenced by global atmospheric circulation. Large scale global dynamical simulations that capture the relevant physics of particle and energy vertical and horizontal transport are likely required to fully describe the L to T transition mechanism.
Future
------
Our experience in fitting the spectra of planet b in particular points to the importance of spectra in the analysis. Adding the $H$ and $K$ band spectra to the analysis results in much lower preferred masses than fitting photometric data alone. Thus we expect that additional spectral data will further inform future model fits.
As noted in Section 2.1 one hypothesis for the nature of the L to T transition is that it involves partial clearing of the assumed global cloud cover. It is possible that models which include partial cloudiness may better describe the observed flux and @Cur11 have explored this possibility. Given the limited data available today we feel the addition of another free model parameter is premature and in any event we have found that brown dwarfs with partial cloud cover have an overall near-infrared spectrum that resembles a homogeneous dwarf with a thinner, homogenous global cloud [@Marl10].
Another method for characterizing these planets and probing atmospheric condensate opacity in self-luminous planets is by polarization [@Marl11; @dek11]. @Marl11 found that rapidly rotating, homogenously cloud-covered planets may be sufficiently distorted to show polarization fractions of a few percent if they are relatively low mass. @dek11 found that even when partial cloudiness is considered much larger polarization fractions are unlikely. However if this level of polarization could be measured in one of the HR 8799 planets this would confirm the presence of clouds and also place an upper limit on the planetary mass. Objects in this effective temperature range (near 1000 K) and with $\log g > 4$ are predicted to exhibit polarization well below 0.2%. Both SPHERE and GPI have polarization imaging modes, but it is not clear if they would have sufficient sensitivity to place useful upper limits on the HR 8799 system.
Conclusions
===========
We have explored the physical properties of three of the planets orbiting HR 8799 by fitting our standard model spectra to the available photometry and spectroscopy. Unlike some previous studies we have required that models with a given $\log g$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ have a corresponding radius that is calculated from a consistent set of evolution models. While the radii of the planets are not variables, we do include two other free parameters: the cloud sedimentation efficiency $f_{\rm sed}$ and the minimum value of the atmospheric eddy mixing coefficient $K_{zz}$.
In agreement with all previous studies we find that the atmospheres of all three planets are cloudy, which runs counter to the expectation of conventional wisdom given their relative low effective temperature. However as we argue in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, finding clouds to be present at lower effective temperatures in lower gravity objects is fully consistent with trends already recognized among field L and T dwarfs and from basic atmospheric theory. We uniformly find that the best fitting value of the sedimentation efficiency $f_{\rm sed}$ is, in essentially all cases, 2, which is typical of the value seen in pre-L/T transition field L dwarfs (Fig. 1) [@Cus08; @Ste09]. In agreement with @Bar11a we thus find that the clouds in these objects are neither “radically enhanced” [@Bow10] nor representative of a “new class” [@Mad11] of atmospheres.
As have some previous authors [@Bar11a; @Bar11b] we find that eddy mixing in nominally stable atmospheric layers is an important process for altering the chemical composition of all three planets. While we have not carried out a comprehensive survey of non-equilibrium models, we find that values of the eddy mixing coefficient near $\log K_{zz}\sim4$ generally fit the available data better than models that neglect mixing. Such values are typical of those found for field L and T dwarfs [e.g., @Ste09] and the stratospheres of solar system giant planets (e.g., see the detailed discussion for Neptune in @Bis95).
The best fitting values for the primary model parameters $\log g$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ are less secure. For HR 8799 b the inclusion of the $H$ and $K$ band spectra of @Bar11a drive our fits to low masses of $\sim 3\,\rm M_J$ and effective temperatures, a solution which we discard as discussed in Section 4.1.1. The photometry alone favors much higher masses, $\sim 25\,\rm M_J$ that are apparently ruled out by dynamical considerations. Thus we find no plausible model that fits all of the accepted constraints. Fits for the planets c and d likewise generally favor higher masses, although there are some solutions that are consistent with masses near or below $\sim 10\,\rm M_J$ with ages consistent with the available constraints. For all three planets the photometry predicted by the best fitting model is generally consistent with the observed data within 1 to 2 standard deviations. We stress that all of these fits have radii that are appropriate for the stated effective temperature and gravity.
In conclusion the modeling approach that has successfully reproduced the spectra of field L and T dwarfs seems to also be fully applicable to the directly imaged planets. Nevertheless a larger range of model parameters, including non-solar metallicity, must be explored in order to fully characterize these objects as well as the planets yet to be discovered by the upcoming GPI, SPHERE, and other coronagraphs.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Travis Barman and Bruce Macintosh for helpful conversations and Travis Barman for a particularly helpful review. This material is based upon work supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through the Planetary Atmospheres and Astrophysics Theory Programs as well as the Spitzer Space telescope Theoretical Research Program. This research was supported in part by an appointment to the NASA Postdoctoral Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, administered by Oak Ridge Associated Universities through a contract with NASA. Based in part on data collected at Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. Observations used here were obtained at the MMT Observatory, a joint facility of the University of Arizona and the Smithsonian Institution. Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation.
Ackerman, A. & Marley, M. S.2001, ApJ, 556, 872.
Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., Tamanai, A., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, , 556, 357
Artigau, [É]{}., Bouchard, S., Doyon, R., & Lafreni[è]{}re, D. 2009, , 701, 1534
Baines, K. H., et al. 2005, Earth Moon and Planets, 96, 119
Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2002, , 382, 563
Barman, T. S., Macintosh, B., Konopacky, Q. M., & Marois, C. 2011a, , 733, 65
Barman, T. S., Macintosh, B., Konopacky, Q. M., & Marois, C. 2011b, , 735, L39
Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P.H. 2002 , 563
Becklin, E. E., & Zuckerman, B. 1988, , 336, 656
Bishop, J., Atreya, S. K., Romani, P. N., et al. 1995, Neptune and Triton, 427
Blake, C. H., Charbonneau, D., White, R. J., Marley, M. S., & Saumon, D. 2007, , 666, 1198
Bowler, B. P., Liu, M. C., Dupuy, T. J., & Cushing, M. C. 2010, , 723, 850
Burgasser, A. J., Marley, M. S., Ackerman, A. S., Saumon, D., Lodders, K., Dahn, C. C., Harris, H. C., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2002, , 571, L151
Burgasser, A.J., Kirkpatrick, J.D., Cruz, K. L., Reid, N. I., Leggett, S. K., Liebert, J., Burrows, A. & Brown, M. 2006, , 166, 585
Burgasser, A. J., Looper, D. L., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Cruz, K. L., & Swift, B. J. 2008, , 674, 451
Burningham, B., Pinfield, D. J., Leggett, S. K., et al. 2008, , 391, 320
Burrows, A., et al. 1997, , 491, 856
Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., & Hubeny, I. 2006, , 640, 1063
Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. 2000, , 542, 464
Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Dumas, C., Zuckerman, B., Mouillet, D., Song, I., Beuzit, J.-L., & Lowrance, P. 2004, , 425, L29
Chiu, K., Fan, X., Leggett, S. K., et al. 2006, , 131, 2722
Cooper, C. S., Sudarsky, D., Milsom, J. A., Lunine, J. I., & Burrows, A. 2003, , 586, 1320
Cushing, M. C. et al. 2008, ApJ, 678,1372.
Currie, T., et al. 2011, , 729, 128
Dahn, C. C., Harris, H. C., Vrba, F. J., Guetter, H. H., Canzian, B., Henden, A. A., Levine, S. E., Luginbuhl, C. B., Monet, A. K. B., Monet, D. G., and 8 coauthors, 2002, , 124, 1170
de Kok, R. J., Stam, D. M., & Karalidi, T. 2011, , 741, 59
Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., & Ireland, M. J. 2009, , 699, 168
Fabrycky, D. C., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2010, , 710, 1408
Fegley, B. & Lodders, K. 1994, 110, 117
Fegley, B. & Lodders, K. 1996 , 472 L37
Freed, M., Hinz, P. M., Meyer, M. R., Milton, N. M., & Lloyd-Hart, M. 2004, , 5492, 1561
Freedman, R., Marley, M., & Lodders, K. 2008, , 174, 504
Freytag, B., Allard, F., Ludwig, H.-G., Homeier, D., & Steffen, M. 2010, , 513, A19
Frommhold, L., Abel, M., Wang, F., Li, X., & Hunt, K. L. C. 2010, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 1290, 219
Galicher, R., Marois, C., Macintosh, B., Barman, T., & Konopacky, Q. 2011, , 739, L41
Geballe, T. R., Saumon, D., Leggett, S. K., et al. 2001, , 556, 373
Geballe, T. R., Knapp, G. R., Leggett, S. K., et al. 2002, , 564, 466
Geballe, T. R., Saumon, D., Golimowski, D. A., et al. 2009, , 695, 844
Go[ź]{}dziewski, K., & Migaszewski, C. 2009, , 397, L16
Hauschildt, P. H., Allard, F., & Baron, E. 1999, , 512, 377
Hubeny, I., & Burrows, A. 2007, , 669, 1248
Hughes, A. M. et al. 2011, arxiv:1107.3153v1
Isobe, T., Feigelson, E. D., & Nelson, P. I. 1986, , 306, 490
Kirkpatrick, J. D., Reid, I. N., Liebert, J., et al. 2000, , 120, 447
Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2005, ARAA, 43, 195.
Knapp, G. R., et al. 2004, , 127, 3553
Lafreni[è]{}re, D., Marois, C., Doyon, R., & Barman, T. 2009, , 694, L148
Leggett, et al. 2002, , 564, 452
Leggett, S. K., Marley, M. S., Freedman, R., Saumon, D., Liu, M. C., Geballe, T. R., Golimowski, D. A., & Stephens, D. C. 2007a, , 667, 537
Leggett, S. K., Saumon, D., Marley, M. S., Geballe, T. R., Golimowski, D. A., Stephens, D., & Fan, X. 2007b, , 655, 1079
Leggett, S. K., Saumon, D., Albert, L., et al. 2008, , 682, 1256
Leggett, S. K., Cushing, M. C., Saumon, D., et al. 2009, , 695, 1517
Liu, M.C. & Leggett, S.K. 2005, , 634, L616
Lodders, K. 1999, , 519, 793 Lodders, K. 2003, , 591, 1220 Lodders, K. & Fegley, B. 2002, , 155, 393 Lodders, K. & Fegley, B. 2006, in Astrophysics Update 2, ed. J. W. Mason (Berlin: Springer), 1
Lord, S. D. 1992, NASA Tech. Memo. 103957
Luhman, K. L., et al. 2007, , 654, 570
McCaughrean, M.J., Close, L.M., Scholz, R.-D., Lenzen, R., Biller, B., Brandner, W., Hartung, M. & Lodieu, N. 2004, , 413, 1029
Madhusudhan, N., Burrows, A., & Currie, T. 2011, , submitted.
Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2007, , 662, 1245
Mainzer, A., Cushing, M. C., Skrutskie, M., et al. 2011, , 726, 30
Marocco, F., Smart, R.L., Jones, H.R.A., Burningham, B., Lattanzi, M.G., Leggett, S.K., Lucas, P.W., Tinney, C.G., Adamson, A., Evans, D.W., and 4 coauthors, 2010, , 524, 38
Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Guillot, T., Freedman, R. S., Hubbard, W. B., Burrows, A., & Lunine, J. I. 1996, Science, 272, 1919
Marley, M. S., & McKay, C. P. 1999, , 138, 268
Marley, M. 2000, From Giant Planets to Cool Stars, 212, 152
Marley, M. S. et al. 2002, ApJ, 568, 335.
Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., & Lissauer, J. J. 2007, , 655, 541
Marley, M. S., Fortney, J., Seager, S., & Barman, T. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 733
Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., & Goldblatt, C. 2010, , 723, L117
Marley, M. S., & Sengupta, S. 2011, , 417, 2874
Marois, C., Macintosh, B., Barman, T., Zuckerman, B., Song, I., Patience, J., Lafreni[è]{}re, D., & Doyon, R. 2008, Science, 322, 1348
Marois, C., Zuckerman, B., Konopacky, Q. M., Macintosh, B., & Barman, T. 2010, , 468, 1080
McKay, C. P., Pollack, J. B., & Courtin, R. 1989, , 80, 23
Metchev, S. A., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2006, , 651, 1166
Miller, N., & Fortney, J. J. 2011, , 736, L29
Moya, A., Amado, P. J., Barrado, D., et al. 2010, , 406, 566
Nakajima, T., Oppenheimer, B. R., Kulkarni, S. R., Golimowski, D. A., Matthews, K., & Durrance, S. T. 1995, , 378, 463
Noll, K. S., Geballe, T. R., & Marley, M. S. 1997, , 489, L87
Oppenheimer, B. R., Kulkarni, S. R., Matthews, K., & van Kerkwijk, M. H. 1998, , 502, 932
Orton, G., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 839
Patience, J., King, R. R., De Rosa, R. J., Vigan, A., Witte, S., Rice, E., Helling, Ch., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2012, astro-ph ArXiv:1201.3921
Perryman, M. A. C., et al. 1997, , 323, L49
Radigan, J., et al. 2011, 750, 105
Rice, E. L., Faherty, J. K., Cruz, K., et al. 2011, arXiv:1101.4231
Roellig, T. L., et al. 2004, , 154, 418
Saumon, D., Geballe, T. R., Leggett, S. K., et al. 2000, , 541, 374
Saumon, D., Marley, M. S., Cushing, M. C., Leggett, S. K., Roellig, T. L., Lodders, K., & Freedman, R. S. 2006, , 647, 552
Saumon, D., et al. 2007, , 656, 1136
Saumon, D. & Marley, M. S. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1327.
Saumon, D., Marley, M. S., Abel, M., Frommhold, L., & Freedman, R. S. 2012, , 750, 74
Sivanandam, S., Hinz, P. M., Heinze, A. N., Freed, M., & Breuninger, A. H. 2006, , 6269,
Skemer, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, in press
Soummer, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, in press.
Spiegel, D. S., & Burrows, A. 2012, , 745, 174
Stephens, D. C. et al. 2009, ApJ, 702,154.
Stevenson, D. J. 1982, , 30, 755
Su, K. Y. L., Rieke, G. H., Stapelfeldt, K. R., et al. 2009, , 705, 314
Sudol, J. J. & Haghighipour, N. 2012, arXiv:1201.0561v2
Tinney, C. G., Burgasser, A. J. & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2003, , 126, 975
Tokunaga, A. T., Kobayashi, N., Bell, J., et al. 1998, , 3354, 512
Tokunaga, A. T., Simons, D. A., & Vacca, W. D. 2002, , 114, 180
Toon, O., McKay, C., & Ackerman, T. 1989, , 94, D13 16287-16301
Tsuji, T., & Nakajima, T. 2003, , 585, L151
Tsuji, T., Nakajima, T., & Yanagisawa, K. 2004, , 607, 511 van Leeuwen, F. 2007, , 474, 653
Vrba, F. J., et al. 2004, , 127, 2948
Westphal, J. A. 1969, , 157, L63
Westphal, J. A., Matthews, K., & Terrile, R. J. 1974, , 188, L111
Witte, S., Helling, C., Barman, T., Heidrich, N., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2011, , 529, A44
Yurchenko, S. N., Barber, R. J., & Tennyson, J. 2011, , 413, 1828
Zuckerman, B., Rhee, J. H., Song, I., & Bessell, M. S. 2011, , 732, 61
[clcccccc]{} b & B11a & $0.1 - 3.3$ &$3.5\pm0.5$ & $1100\pm 100$ &0.63 - 0.92 & $30 - 300$&$-5.1\pm0.1\tablenotemark{3}$\
& C11& $5 - 15$ &$4-4.5$ & $800-1000$ && $30 - 300$\
& G11 & 1.8 &$4$ & $1100$ & 0.69 &\
& M11 & $2-12$ &$3.5-4.3$ & $750-850$ && $10-150$\
& M12 & 26 & 4.75 & 1000 & 1.11& 360 &$-4.95\pm0.06$\
c & C11 & $7 - 17.5$ &$4-4.5$ & $1000-1200$ & & $30 - 300$&$-4.7\pm0.1\tablenotemark{3}$\
& G11 & 1.1 &$3.5$ & $1200$ &0.97 &\
& M11 & $7-13$ &$4-4.3$ & $950-1025$ & & $30-100$\
& M12 & 8 – 11 &$4.1\pm0.1$ & $950\pm 60$ &1.32 – 1.39 &40 – 100&$-4.90\pm0.10$\
d & C11 & $5 - 17.5$ &$3.75-4.5$ & $1000-1200$ && $30 - 300$&$-4.7\pm0.1\tablenotemark{3}$\
& G11 & 6 &$4.0$ & 1100 &1.25 &\
& M11 & $3-11$ &$3.5-4.2$ & $850-1000$ && $10-70$\
& M12 & $8-11$ & $4.1\pm0.1$& $1000\pm 75$ & 1.33 – 1.41& 30 – 100&$-4.80\pm0.09$\
[cccl]{} b & Subaru-$z$ & $18.24 \pm 0.29$ & C11\
& $J$ & $16.52 \pm 0.14$ & C11\
& $H$ & $14.87 \pm 0.17$ & M08\
& $K_s$ & $14.05\pm0.08$ & M08\
& \[3.3\] & $13.96\pm0.28$ & C11\
& $L^\prime$ & $12.68\pm0.12$ & C11\
& $M^\prime$ & $13.07\pm0.30$ & G11\
c & Subaru-$z$ & $>16.48$ & C11\
& $J$ & $14.65 \pm 0.17$ & M08\
& $H$ & $13.93 \pm 0.17$ & M08\
& $K_s$ & $13.13\pm0.08$ & M08\
& \[3.3\] & $12.64\pm0.20$ & C11\
& $L^\prime$ & $11.83\pm0.07$ & C11\
& $M^\prime$ & $12.05\pm0.14$ & G11\
d & Subaru-$z$ & $>15.03$ & C11\
& $J$ & $15.26 \pm 0.43$ & M08\
& $H$ & $13.86 \pm 0.22$ & M08\
& $K_s$ & $13.11\pm0.12$ & M08\
& \[3.3\] & $>11.63$ & C11\
& $M^\prime$ & $11.67\pm0.35$ & G11\
![Model parameters $f_{\rm sed}$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ as derived by various applications of Marley & Saumon atmosphere and evolution models. Size of dot reflects derived $\log g (\rm cm\,s^{-2})$ and ‘nc’ denotes cloudless models (note that ‘nc’, which corresponds to $f_{\rm sed}\rightarrow \infty$, is arbitrarily plotted at $f_{\rm sed}=5$). Points which would otherwise overlap are slightly offset vertically and the $T_{\rm eff}$ values decrease to the right to suggest evolution in time. The points for HR 8799 c and d from the analysis here are labeled with planet designator. Remaining points are from @Geb01 [@Mai07; @Leg07a; @Leg08; @Geb09; @Leg09; @Ste09; @Mai11] although fits to unresolved binaries and objects with very poorly constrained properties (e.g., Gl 229 B with $\log g$ uncertain by a full dex) are excluded. SDSS 1516+30 is denoted by ‘1516’. The cross denotes size of the typical uncertainties in the model fits which are usually $\pm 100\,\rm K$ in effective temperature, $\pm0.25\,\rm dex$ in $\log g$, and $\pm 0.5$ in $f_{\rm sed}$, although the uncertainty analysis is not uniform across the various sources. []{data-label="fig1"}](f1)
![Model atmosphere temperature-pressure profiles for cloudy brown dwarfs and planets assuming $f_{\rm sed} = 2$ [@Ack01]. Each profile is labeled with $\log g$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ of the model. The condensation curve for forsterite is shown with a dotted line.[]{data-label="profiles"}](f2)
![Silicate cloud properties as computed by the @Ack01 cloud model for three models. From left to right the the best-fitting models [@Ste09] for 2MASS 0825+21 and SDSS 1516+30 are shown along with a profile for a young, cloudy, three Jupiter mass planet. Labels underneath each object name denote model $T_{\rm eff} (\rm K )$ / $\log g\,({\rm cgs})$ / $f_{\rm sed}$. Dashed curves show the effective radius, $r_{\rm eff}$ of the particles on the top axis. The column optical depth as measured from the top of the atmosphere is shown by the solid lines and the scale on the bottom axis. Thicker lines denote the region of the cloud which lies within the $\lambda = 1$ to $6\,\rm \mu m$ photosphere. Other modeled clouds are not shown for clarity. []{data-label="fsed"}](f3)
![Observed (black) and model (red, green, purple) photometry and spectra (see Table 1 and Barman et al. (2011a)) for HR 8799b. Models are identified in the upper left hand corner of each panel by $T_{\rm eff}/\log g\,({\rm cgs}) /f_{\rm sed}/ K_{zz}$. The top panel shows the model that best fits the photometry alone while the middle panel shows the solution that best fits both the photometry (excluding $H$ and $K$ bands) and spectroscopy simultaneously. Model fluxes and photometry have been computed for radii specific to the $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$ of the atmosphere model at a distance of 39.4 pc as observed from Earth. The \[3.3\] $\rm \mu m$ photometry of @Ske12 is shown as a blue star and is not included in the fits but rather is shown for comparison purposes only. The lower panel shows the model that best fits the $H$ and $K$-band spectrum alone. However in contrast to the top two panels where the absolute flux level of the models are set by the model radii and known distance to HR 8799, the absolute flux level of the model in the lower panel is determined by minimizing $\chi^2$ between the models and data. []{data-label="planet_b"}](f4)
![The two best fitting model spectra for HR 8799 c. Observed photometry (see Table 2) is shown in black, high and low gravity solutions in green and red, respectively. The two solutions correspond to the centers of the two best fitting islands in the contour plot shown in the middle panel of Figure \[contour\]. Models are identified in the upper left hand corner by $T_{\rm eff}/\log g\,({\rm cgs}) /f_{\rm sed}/ K_{zz}$. The \[3.3\] $\rm \mu m$ photometry of @Ske12 is shown as a blue star and is not included in the fits but rather is shown for comparison purposes only. []{data-label="planet_c"}](f5)
![The best fitting model for HR 8799 d. Observed photometry (see Table 1) is shown in black; model photometry is indicated by the red dots. Model is identified in the upper left hand corner by $T_{\rm eff}/\log g\,({\rm cgs}) /f_{\rm sed}/ K_{zz}$. The 3.3-$\rm \mu m$ photometry of @Ske12 is shown as a blue star and is not included in the fits but rather is shown for comparison purposes only. []{data-label="planet_d"}](f6)
![Histograms depicting the probability density distributions of the various model parameters to planets HR 8799 b, c, and d. For planet b only the results for the fitting of the photometry are shown. The $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$ histograms can be thought of as the projection of the contours shown in Figure \[contour\] onto these two orthogonal axes. In each case the mean of the fit and the standard deviation are indicated by $\mu$ and $\sigma$, respectively. These quantities are in turn illustrated by the solid and dashed vertical lines. For the parameters for planet b, only a single model is identified so no standard deviation is given. The third and fourth columns of histograms depict the same information as the first two, but for the mass and luminosity corresponding to each $(T_{\rm eff}, \log g)$ pair, as computed by the evolution model. []{data-label="hist"}](f7)
![Contours illustrate domain of best-fitting models on the $\log g - T_{\rm eff}$ plane. For each planet three contours are shown which correspond to integrated probabilities of 68, 95, and 99% (red, thick to thin contours). Evolution tracks from @Sau07 are shown as labeled black curves; planets evolve from right to left with time across the diagram as they cool and contract. Blue curves are isochrones at (bottom to top) 30, 160, and 300 Myr; kinks in the older two isochrones arise from deuterium burning (objects burning D are substantially hotter than lower mass objects of the same age). Green curves are constant luminosity curves at (left to right) $\log L/L_\odot=-5, -4.75, -4.5$. For planet b solid contours denote fits to only the photometry while dashed curves are fits to photometry and H and K-band spectra. Crosses denote the individual model cases plotted in Figures 4 – 6. []{data-label="contour"}](f8a "fig:") ![Contours illustrate domain of best-fitting models on the $\log g - T_{\rm eff}$ plane. For each planet three contours are shown which correspond to integrated probabilities of 68, 95, and 99% (red, thick to thin contours). Evolution tracks from @Sau07 are shown as labeled black curves; planets evolve from right to left with time across the diagram as they cool and contract. Blue curves are isochrones at (bottom to top) 30, 160, and 300 Myr; kinks in the older two isochrones arise from deuterium burning (objects burning D are substantially hotter than lower mass objects of the same age). Green curves are constant luminosity curves at (left to right) $\log L/L_\odot=-5, -4.75, -4.5$. For planet b solid contours denote fits to only the photometry while dashed curves are fits to photometry and H and K-band spectra. Crosses denote the individual model cases plotted in Figures 4 – 6. []{data-label="contour"}](f8b "fig:") ![Contours illustrate domain of best-fitting models on the $\log g - T_{\rm eff}$ plane. For each planet three contours are shown which correspond to integrated probabilities of 68, 95, and 99% (red, thick to thin contours). Evolution tracks from @Sau07 are shown as labeled black curves; planets evolve from right to left with time across the diagram as they cool and contract. Blue curves are isochrones at (bottom to top) 30, 160, and 300 Myr; kinks in the older two isochrones arise from deuterium burning (objects burning D are substantially hotter than lower mass objects of the same age). Green curves are constant luminosity curves at (left to right) $\log L/L_\odot=-5, -4.75, -4.5$. For planet b solid contours denote fits to only the photometry while dashed curves are fits to photometry and H and K-band spectra. Crosses denote the individual model cases plotted in Figures 4 – 6. []{data-label="contour"}](f8c "fig:")
![Model spectra at fixed $T_{\rm eff} = 900\,\rm K$ and varying gravities (labeled along right hand side), including several of the cases shown in Figure 2. Models are shown at a spectral resolution $R=1000$. []{data-label="models"}](f9)
![Illustration of the effect of gravity and cloud properties on modeled emergent flux for $T_{\rm eff}=1000\,\rm K$ and $\log g=5.0$ [**(a)**]{} and 3.75 [**(b)**]{}. Both plots (a) and (b) consist of four sub-panels. The right-most sub-panel depicts the $T(P)$ profiles for three atmosphere models with the indicated $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$. In both cases the profiles are for (left to right) for cloudless, $f_{\rm sed}=2$, and 1 models. Thick lines denote the convective regions of the atmosphere models. The dotted line denotes chemical equilibrium between CO and $\rm CH_4$. The dashed lines are the condensation curves for Fe (right) and $\rm Mg_2SiO_4$ (left). The cloud base is expected at the point where the condensation curves cross the $T(P)$ profiles. Remaining panels show the contribution function (see text) averaged over the [*J, H, K,*]{} $L^\prime$ and $M^\prime$ bandpasses (colored lines) for each of the three model cases. The shaded regions denote the extent of the cloud, extending from the point where the integrated optical depth from the top of the model is 0.1 to the cloud base. Thick horizontal dashed line denotes cloud $\tau = 2/3$.[]{data-label="contrib"}](f10a "fig:"){width="4in"} ![Illustration of the effect of gravity and cloud properties on modeled emergent flux for $T_{\rm eff}=1000\,\rm K$ and $\log g=5.0$ [**(a)**]{} and 3.75 [**(b)**]{}. Both plots (a) and (b) consist of four sub-panels. The right-most sub-panel depicts the $T(P)$ profiles for three atmosphere models with the indicated $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$. In both cases the profiles are for (left to right) for cloudless, $f_{\rm sed}=2$, and 1 models. Thick lines denote the convective regions of the atmosphere models. The dotted line denotes chemical equilibrium between CO and $\rm CH_4$. The dashed lines are the condensation curves for Fe (right) and $\rm Mg_2SiO_4$ (left). The cloud base is expected at the point where the condensation curves cross the $T(P)$ profiles. Remaining panels show the contribution function (see text) averaged over the [*J, H, K,*]{} $L^\prime$ and $M^\prime$ bandpasses (colored lines) for each of the three model cases. The shaded regions denote the extent of the cloud, extending from the point where the integrated optical depth from the top of the model is 0.1 to the cloud base. Thick horizontal dashed line denotes cloud $\tau = 2/3$.[]{data-label="contrib"}](f10b "fig:"){width="4in"}
![Examples of cooling tracks for objects of 5$\,$M$_{\rm J}$ (red) and 20$\,$M$_{\rm J}$ (blue) in a $M_K$ vs. $J-K$ (MKO system) color-magnitude diagram where the transition from cloudy (${f_{\rm sed}}=1$) to cloudless atmospheres is taken into account explicitly as in @Sau08. Dashed lines show the evolution when the transition occurs over a fixed range of ${T_{\rm eff}}$ that is independent of gravity, solid lines show the evolution for the gravity-dependent transition (see Fig. \[trans\_gdep\]). The planets in the HR 8799 planets are shown with green symbols while resolved field objects are shown in black (M dwarfs), red (L dwarfs) and blue (T dwarfs). The photometry is from @leggett02, @Kna04, @marocco10 @mccaugh04, @burgasser06, and @ll05. The parallaxes are from @perryman97, @dahn02, @tbk03, @Vrb04, @marocco10, and various references in @leggett02.[]{data-label="evol_gdep"}](f12){width="5in"}
[^1]: Marley (2000) employed the mean particle size $r_c$ rather than the more rigorous area-weighted size.
[^2]: With “perfect” atmosphere and evolution models the two methods would give identical results.
[^3]: Note that the dispersion for planet c is non-Gaussian (Fig. \[hist\]).
[^4]: These are not fully consistent with the values used for the evolution, but the effect on the evolution of this small difference in ${f_{\rm sed}}$ is small.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Answering a question posed by Adam Epstein, we show that the collection of conjugacy classes of polynomials admitting a parabolic fixed point and at most one infinite critical orbit is a set of bounded height in the relevant moduli space. We also apply the methods over function fields to draw conclusions about algebraically parametrized families, and prove an analogous result for quadratic rational maps.'
address: 'York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, Canada'
author:
- Patrick Ingram
title: Critical orbits of polynomials with a periodic point of specified multiplier
---
Introduction
============
The orbits of critical points, and their relation to local behaviour at fixed points, has long been a subject of interest in holomorphic dynamics. The collection of rational functions of a given degree (modulo change of coordinates and ignoring the Lattès examples) with all critical orbits finite turns out to be a set of bounded height, a fact conjectured by Silverman [@barbados] and proven by Benedetto, the author, Jones, and Levy [@pcfrat] (see also [@epstein; @pcfpoly; @hcrit; @alon; @js:thurston]). Silverman’s conjecture was motivated in part by Thurston’s rigidity result for families of post-critically finite rational functions, and Epstein pointed out to the author that there are other, related rigidity results that might suggest similar arithmetic conjectures. In particular, Epstein asked whether the set of polynomials with a parabolic fixed point and at most one infinite critical orbit is a set of bounded height. In this note, we show that it is.
Let $d\geq 2$, let ${\mathsf{P}_{d}}$ be the moduli space of polynomials of degree $d$, modulo change of coordinates, let $h$ be any ample Weil height on ${\mathsf{P}_{d}}$, and let $\hat{h}_f$ be the canonical height associated to $f$. For $\lambda\in \overline{{\mathbb{Q}}}^\times$, let ${\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}\subseteq {\mathsf{P}_{d}}$ be the collection of polynomials admitting a point of period $n$ with multiplier $\lambda$. We remind the reader of the definition of independence below, but on first reading it suffices to note that independent critical points are certainly distinct.
\[th:main\] For any $d\geq 2$ and $n\geq 1$ there exist constants ${\varepsilon}>0$, $A$, and $B$, such that for any $\lambda\in \overline{{\mathbb{Q}}}^\times$ and any $f\in {\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}\subseteq {\mathsf{P}_{d}}$, either $$h(f)\leq Ah(\lambda)+B$$ or else $f$ has independent critical points $c_1$ and $c_2$ such that $$\min\{\hat{h}_f(c_1), \hat{h}_f(c_2)\}> {\varepsilon}h(f).$$
In light of the relation between the moduli height and the critical height established in [@pcfpoly; @hcrit], one may view Theorem \[th:main\] as showing that on ${\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}$, no single critical point accounts for almost all of the critical height of the polynomial $f$. For polynomials in general, of course, this claim is false (for example the unicritical families).
Theorem \[th:main\] answers the question asked by Epstein (other variants remain open).
The set of $f\in {\mathsf{P}_{d}}$ with a parabolic fixed point and fewer than two independent, infinite critical orbits is a set of bounded height. Consequently, over a given number field $K$ there are only finitely many polynomials of degree $d$ with a parabolic fixed point and fewer than two independent, infinite critical orbits.
Before proceeding, we make a few remarks on the proof. The proof in [@pcfpoly] that the collection of PCF polynomials is a set of bounded height is essentially local, constructing an inequality at each place of a number field, and concluding the main result simply by summing those inequalities. The analogous result for rational functions [@pcfrat] is similarly local, as is proof of the stronger result that the critical height is commensurate to an ample Weil height on the moduli space [@hcrit] (although in this case the local inequality is not quite a local version of the global inequality, due to some extra terms which vanish when summing over all places).
The main result of this note starts with the same idea as in [@pcfpoly], namely that in any absolute value, the trivial upper bound on the size of branch points relative to critical points is more-or-less sharp, and so once the critical points are large enough, some branch point is so large as to easily escape to infinity under iteration. Given a critical point $c$ with an infinite orbit, and an absolute value in which $c$ is much smaller than the largest critical point, the argument in fact produces a critical point *other than $c$* which must escape to infinity. This results in a local lower bound on escape rates for critical points excluding $c$, but one that holds only at certain places. The argument is completed not by understanding what happens in the remaining absolute values, but simply by showing that the condition $f\in {\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}$ ensures that the absolute values in which this argument goes through contribute a positive proportion of $h(f)$.
Just as with the results in [@pcfpoly], the arguments in the present note can be implemented over function fields of irreducible varieties over algebraically closed fields of characteristic 0 or $p>d$, and in this context many of the in-principle-effective constants end up vanishing.
\[th:geom\] Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characterstic 0 or $p>d$, let $U/k$ be an irreducible quasi-projective variety, fix $\lambda\in k^\times$ and $n\geq 1$, and let $$f:U\to {\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}\subseteq {\mathsf{P}_{d}}$$ be a non-constant parametrized family of polynomials. Then $f$ has two generical independent and infinite critical orbits (defined on some extension of the base).
The statement of this result is motivated in part by an “unlikely intersections” result of Baker and DeMarco [@bd2 Theorem 1.2], which shows that in certain families of polynomials over ${\mathbb{C}}$ with two independent, infinite critical orbits on the generic fibre, there are only finitely many post-critically finite specializations. Unfortunately, the conditions of [@bd2 Theorem 1.2] (specifically the condition that the critical points are rational on $U={\mathbb{A}}^1$) are such that we are unable to combine that result with Theorem \[th:geom\] to conclude finiteness of PCF points on curves in ${\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}$, for $\lambda\neq 0$, although further results along the lines of [@bd2] may allow such an application. We note that the case $n=1$ and $d=3$ of Theorem \[th:geom\], with $k={\mathbb{C}}$, is already apparent in [@bd2], and was extended by Favre and Gauthier [@fg] to ${\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}\subseteq {\mathsf{P}_{3}}$ for arbitrary $n\geq 1$.
Of course, one would like to extend Theorem \[th:main\] from polynomials to rational functions, but at the moment we are able to establish this only for quadratic morphisms with marked fixed points. Note that heights of critical points in this setting have already been studied much more deeply by DeMarco, Wang, and Xe [@dwx], who also obtained lower bounds on the canonical heights of both critical points on ${\operatorname{Per}_{1}({\lambda})}$. The focus there was on equidistribution applications, requiring significantly more detail about the local heights, and not on uniformity in $\lambda$.
\[th:quad\] There exist constants ${\varepsilon}>0$, $A$, and $B$ such that for any $\lambda\in \overline{{\mathbb{Q}}}^\times$ and $f\in {\operatorname{Per}_{1}({\lambda})}\subseteq \mathsf{M}_2$, we have either $$h(f)\leq Ah(\lambda)+B,$$ or else the critical points $c_1,
c_2$ of $f$ satisfy $$\min\{\hat{h}_f(c_1), \hat{h}_f(c_2)\}\geq {\varepsilon}h(f).$$
In particular, for $f$ in the normal form $$f(z)=\frac{\lambda_0 z+ z^2}{\lambda_\infty z+1},$$ we show that both critical points $c$ satisfy $$\hat{h}_f(c)\geq \frac{1}{32}h(\lambda_\infty)-\frac{25}{32}h(\lambda_0)-\frac{5}{4},$$ on the hypothesis that $\lambda_0\neq 0$. The one-parameter family of quadratic morphisms not of this form is treated separately.
Results in this note relate to conjectures made in [@hcrit]. There, we defined the *$k$-depleted critical height* for a rational function $f$ with critical points $c_1, ..., c_{2d-2}$ (listed with multiplicity) by $$\hat{h}^{(k)}_{\mathrm{crit}}(f)=\min_{\substack{I\subseteq \{1, ..., 2d-2\} \\ |I|=k}}\sum_{i\not\in I} \hat{h}_{f}(c_i),$$ so that $$0=\hat{h}^{(2d-2)}_{\mathrm{crit}}\leq\cdots \leq \hat{h}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{crit}}\leq \hat{h}^{(0)}_{\mathrm{crit}}=\hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}.$$ Alternatively, one could define $\hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}^{(k)}$ by excluding critical points with multiplicity, or even excluding entire dependence classes, but the definition here is more natural as a function on $\mathsf{M}_d$.
In these terms, the main results of [@pcfpoly; @hcrit] are that $$\hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}\asymp h_{{\mathsf{P}_{d}}}$$ away from the flexible Lattès examples, while Theorems \[th:main\] and \[th:quad\] prove the conjectured asymptotic $$\label{eq:asymp}\hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}^{(1)}\asymp h_{{\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}}$$ for polynomials and quadratic rational functions (for $n=1$, in the latter case), with additional uniformity of the implied constants in terms of $\lambda\neq 0$. Note that only one direction of this asymptotic is explicitly treated, but the other follows from $\hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}^{(1)}\leq \hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}\ll h_{\mathsf{M}_d}$. We expect to hold for rational functions in general, excluding the flexible Lattès families.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \[sec:local\], we refine the arguments in [@pcfpoly] to establish lower bounds on escape rates of critical points at certain places. In Section \[sec:global\], we show that the collection of places at which the inequalities from the previous section hold contribute enough to $h(f)$ that using trivial lower bounds at the other places proves Theorem \[th:main\]. In Section \[sec:function\] we explore implications for families of maps, and in Section \[sec:quad\] we treat quadratic rational functions.
Local inequalities {#sec:local}
==================
Fix $d\geq 2$. In this section, we let $K$ stand for a field of characteristic 0 or $p>d$, equipped with some absolute value $|\cdot|$, with associated valuation $v$. We will say that $v$ is *$p$-adic*, for a particular prime $p\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, just in case $0<|p|<1$, and *archimedean* just in case there is an integer $n$ with $|n|>1$. Let $R={\mathbb{Z}}[\frac{1}{2}, ..., \frac{1}{d}]$, which we may map uniquely to a subring of $K$ given our hypothesis on the characteristic of $K$. We will say that $R$ is $v$-integral if and only if $|x|\leq 1$ for all $x\in R$, noting that this occurs if $|\cdot|$ is neither archimedean nor $p$-adic for any $p\leq d$. Given a point $\mathbf{x}=(x_1, ..., x_n)\in {\mathbb{A}}^n(K)$, we set $$\|\mathbf{x}\|=\max\{|x_1|, ..., |x_n|\}.$$
Anticipating a lemma in the next section which allows us to choose a normal form, we will consider only polynomials of the form $$\label{eq:normalform}
f_{\mathbf{c}}(z)=\frac{1}{d}z^d-\frac{1}{d-1}(c_1+\cdots + c_{d-1})z^{d-1}+\cdots +(-1)^{d-1}c_1c_2\cdots c_{d-1} z,$$ for $\mathbf{c}=(c_1, ..., c_{d-1})\in \mathbb{A}^{d-1}$, so that $$\frac{d}{dz}f_{\mathbf{c}}(z)=(z-c_1)(z-c_2)\cdots(z-c_{d-1}).$$ We will fix a $\lambda\in K^\times$ (although any dependence on this value will be tracked explicitly), and we restrict attention to points $\mathbf{c}\in \mathbb{A}^{d-1}$ satisfying $$c_1c_2\cdots c_{d-1}=(-1)^{d-1}\lambda,$$ that is, points $\mathbf{c}$ for which the fixed point at $z=0$ for $f_\mathbf{c}$ has multiplier $\lambda$. The map $\mathbf{c}\mapsto f_{\mathbf{c}}$ is a finite map from this restricted domain to ${\operatorname{Per}_{1}({\lambda})}\subseteq {\mathsf{P}_{d}}$, surjective when we extend to the algebraic closure $\overline{K}$.
As usual, we set $$G_{f_\mathbf{c}}(z)=\lim_{n\to\infty}d^{-n}\log^+|f_{\mathbf{c}}^n(z)|,$$ where $\log^+x=\log\max\{1, x\}$. The existence of this limit for all $z\in K$ is standard, as is the following lemma.
\[lem:greensprops\] There exist constants $C_{1}$, $C_{2}$, and $C_{3}$ depending just on $d$ and $K$ such that the following hold.
1. \[it:crudebound\] For all $z\in K$, $$G_{f_\mathbf{c}}(z)\leq \log^+|z|+\frac{d}{d-1}\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|+C_1.$$
2. \[it:escaperegion\] If $\log|z|>\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|+C_2$ then $$-C_3\leq G_{f_\mathbf{c}}(z)-\log^+|z|\leq C_3.$$
Furthermore, we may take $C_1=C_2=C_3=0$ if $R$ is $v$-integral.
The argument is standard, coming from an elementary estimate on the difference between $\log^+|f_\mathbf{c}(z)|$ and $d\log^+|z|$; for example see [@pcfpoly]. We note here that the constants can easily be made explicit, and we may take $C_1=C_2=C_3=0$ whenever $|1/d|= 1$, and $|1/(d-1)|, ..., |1/2|\leq 1$, which is the case when $R$ is $v$-integral.
We now recall the definition of dependence introduced by Baker and DeMarco [@bd2]. Fix a polynomial $f(z)\in K[z]$ with $\deg(f)\geq 2$, and two points $a$, $b$. We say that $a$ and $b$ are *dependendent* if and only if there exist $k$, $m$, $n$ and a non-constant poylnomial $g$ such that $$\label{eq:dep}g\circ f^k=f^k\circ g\text{ and }f^n(a)=g\circ f^m(b).$$ Note that if $K\subseteq {\mathbb{C}}$, then a theorem of Ritt [@ritt] implies that in any relation of this form, $g$ is either linear or $f$ and $g$ share an iterate. In particular, dependence is an equivalence relation over ${\mathbb{C}}$, and in general we will extend it to be one. Given Ritt’s result, we can show that if $a$ and $b$ satisfy a dependence as above, then either $a$ and $b$ are preperiodic or else the quantity $d^{m-n}\deg(g)$ is well-defined (although of course $g$, $n$, and $m$ are not). We will give a simple, self-contained proof of the part of this that we need, which does not assume that we are working over a field of characteristic 0.
Let $\mathcal{G}_{K, f}$ be the set of functions $\psi:K\to{\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $$\psi\circ g = \deg(g)\psi+O_g(1)$$ for any polynomial $g(z)\in K[z]$, and $\psi\circ f=\deg(f)\psi$.
Let $a, b\in K$ be dependendent under $f(z)\in K[z]$. Then there exists a number $\rho(a, b)\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that for all $\psi\in \mathcal{G}_{K, f}$ we have $$\psi(a)=\rho(a, b)\psi(b).$$
It follows from the definition of $\mathcal{G}_{K, f}$ that whenever $g\circ f^n=f^n\circ g$, we have for any $k\geq 1$ $$\begin{gathered}
\psi\circ g = \deg(f)^{-{kn}}\psi\circ f^{kn}\circ g = \deg(f)^{-{kn}}\psi\circ g\circ f^{kn} \\ = \deg(f)^{-{kn}}\left(\deg(g)\psi \circ f^{kn}+O_g(1)\right)=\deg(g)\psi+o_g(1),\end{gathered}$$ where $o_g(1)\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$. Hence for $g$ commuting with $f$ we have $\psi\circ g = \deg(g)\psi$ for all $\psi\in \mathcal{G}_{K, f}$. The relation $f^n(a)=g\circ f^m(b)$ now implies $$\psi(a) = d^{-n}\psi(f^n(a)) = d^{-n}\psi\circ g\circ f^m(b)=d^{m-n}\deg(g)\psi(b),$$ and so we may take $\rho(a, b)=d^{m-n}\deg(g)$ for any relation of the form above, which is necessarily well-defined if there is a single $\psi\in \mathcal{G}_{K, f}$ with $\psi(a)\neq 0$. If there is no such $\psi$, then we adopt the convention that $\rho(a, b)=1$.
We note that the $v$-adic escape-rate function $G_f$ is an element of $\mathcal{G}_{K, f}$, and $\rho(a, b)$ essentially measures how much further along the escape to infinity $a$ is compared to $b$. The point of the previous lemma is simply that if $a$ and $b$ are dependent, then the ratio $G_f(a)/G_f(b)$, if defined, is in fact independent of the choice of absolute value (if $K$ admits more than one such choice), a fact that follows from the aforementioned result of Ritt when $K\subseteq {\mathbb{C}}$. Note that if $K$ is a number field, then the canonical height $\hat{h}_f$ is also in $\mathcal{G}_{K, f}$, in which case the condition that $\psi(a)=0$ for all $\psi\in \mathcal{G}_{K, f}$ implies that $a$ is preperiodic.
In general, we decompose the set of critical points into dependence-equivalence classes, and declare a representative $c$ to be *$K$-maximal* if and only if either $\psi(c)=0$ for all $\psi\in \mathcal{G}_{K, f}$, or else $\rho(c, b)\geq 1$ for all dependent critical points $b$. Every equivalence class has at least one $K$-maximal representative, because $\rho(b, a)=\rho(a, b)^{-1}$ and $\rho(a, c)=\rho(a, b)\rho(b, c)$. Note that if $K$ is a number field, $c$ being a $K$-maximal representative is equivalent to it having maximal canonical height in its equivalence class.
\[lem:localindep\] For any $d\geq 3$, there exists a constant $C_4$ depending only on $d$ and $K$ such that the following holds. Suppose that $c_1$ is a $K$-maximal representative of its dependence class, and suppose that $$\label{eq:c1small}5\log|c_1|<\log\|\mathbf{c}\|.$$ Then either
1. $f_\mathbf{c}$ has only one dependency class of critical points, and $$\label{eq:maincbound}\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\| \leq C_4,$$ or
2. there is a critical point $c_i$, independent of $c_1$, with $$\label{eq:mainGbound} G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_i)\geq \log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|-C_4.$$
Furthermore, if $R$ is $v$-integral, we may take $C_4=0$.
We begin by remarking that if we, in any special case, establish the bound , then we have proven the lemma in that case. In these cases holds for all critical points, by the non-negativity of $G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}$, and the non-positivity of the right-hand-side of given . Similarly, as long as we insist that that our choice satisfies $C_4\geq 0$, the claim in the lemma is trivially true when $\|\mathbf{c}\|\leq 1$. So we will suppose throughout that $\|\mathbf{c}\| >1$ which will ensure under that $\|\mathbf{c}\| = \|c_2, ..., c_{d-1}\|$.
For each $2\leq i\leq d-1$, write $$f_{\mathbf{c}}(c_i)=P_i(c_2, ..., c_{d-1})+c_1Q_i(c_1, ..., c_{d-1}),$$ where $P_i, Q_i$ are homogeneous forms over $R$ of degree $d$ and $d-1$. It was shown in [@pcfpoly] (see also [@berteloot Section 2.2.2]) that the homogeneous forms $f_{\mathbf{c}}(c_1), ..., f_{\mathbf{c}}(c_{d-1})$ have no common non-trivial root in any extension of $R/\mathfrak{m}$, for any maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}\subseteq R$, and so neither do the forms $P_2, ..., P_{d-1}$ in the variables $c_2, ..., c_{d-1}$ (since any common root corresponds to a common root of the previous collection of forms with $c_1=0$). It follows (from Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz) that there exist an integer $e$ and forms $A_{i, j}\in R[c_2, ..., c_{d-1}]$ of degree $e-d$ such that $$c_i^e=A_{i, 2}P_2+\cdots +A_{i, d-1}P_{d-1}$$ for each $2\leq i\leq d-1$. By the triangle inequality, we have $$d\log\|c_2, ..., c_{d-1}\|\leq \log\|P_2(c_2, ..., c_{d-1}), ..., P_{d-1}(c_2, ..., c_{d-1})\|+C_5,$$ where we may take $C_5=0$ if $R$ is $v$-integral.
Now, our hypotheses imply that $$\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|=\log\|\mathbf{c}\|=\log\|c_2, ..., c_{d-1}\|,$$ so there exists an $i\geq 2$ with $$\label{eq:fminusQ}\log|f_{\mathbf{c}}(c_i)-c_1Q_i(\mathbf{c})|\geq d\log^+ \|\mathbf{c}\|-C_5.$$ Also, since the coefficients of $Q_i$ are in $R$, we have from the triangle inequality $$\label{eq:c1Q}\log|c_1Q_i(\mathbf{c})|\leq\log|c_1|+ (d-1)\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\| + C_6< \left(d-\frac{4}{5}\right)\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\| + C_6$$ for some constant $C_6$ which we can take to be 0 if $R$ is $v$-integral.
Now, if we have $$\label{eq:morethanhalf}\log|c_1Q_i(\mathbf{c})|\geq \log|f_{\mathbf{c}}(c_i)-c_1Q_i(\mathbf{c})|-\log^+|2|,$$ then it follows from and that $$\frac{4}{5}\log^+ \|\mathbf{c}\| \leq C_5+C_6+\log^+|2|.$$ Taking $C_4\geq \frac{5}{4}\left( C_5+C_6+\log^+|2|\right)$ in this case we obtain . We have seen that this is sufficient to establish the lemma in this case.
So we may suppose that fails, and so $$\begin{aligned}
\log|f_\mathbf{c}(c_i)|&\geq& \log|f_{\mathbf{c}}(c_i)-c_1Q_i(\mathbf{c})|-\log^+|2|\\&\geq& d\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|-C_5-\log^+|2|.\end{aligned}$$
First suppose that $\log|f_{\mathbf{c}}(c_i)|\leq \log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|+C_2$, so that we may not apply Lemma \[lem:greensprops\] (\[it:escaperegion\]) to $z=f_\mathbf{c}(c_i)$. In this case, $$\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|\leq \frac{1}{d-1}\left(C_2+C_5+\log^+|2|\right),$$ which implies , as long as we take $C_4\geq \frac{1}{d-1}(C_2+C_5+\log^+|2|)$, and hence the lemma is proved in this case.
On the other hand, suppose that $\log|f_{\mathbf{c}}(c_i)|> \log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|+C_2$ whereupon, by Lemma \[lem:greensprops\] (\[it:escaperegion\]), $$\begin{aligned}
G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_i)&=&\frac{1}{d}G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(f_{\mathbf{c}}(c_i))\\
&\geq& \frac{1}{d}\log|f_\mathbf{c}(c_i)|-\frac{1}{d}C_3\\
&\geq& \log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|-\frac{1}{d}(C_3+C_5+\log^+|2|).\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $C_4\geq \frac{1}{d}(C_3+C_5+\log^+|2|)$, this is at least as strong as the lower bound claimed in , and so if $c_i$ is independent of $c_1$, this completes the proof of the lemma.
Otherwise, suppose that $c_i$ is dependent on $c_1$. Since $c_1$ was assumed $K$-maximal, we have $G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_1)\geq G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_i)$. There is a lower bound on $G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_i)$ above, and we can construct an upper bound on $G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_1)$. In particular, note that the homogeneous form $f_{\mathbf{c}}(c_1)\in R[c_1, ..., c_{d-1}]$, is divisible by $c_1^2$. We thus have from that $$\begin{aligned}
\log|f_{\mathbf{c}}(c_1)|&\leq& 2\log |c_1|+(d-2)\log\|\mathbf{c}\|+C_7\\
&\leq& \left(d-\frac{8}{5}\right)\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|+C_7\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C_7$ which we can take to be 0 if $R$ is $v$-integral.
It follows from Lemma \[lem:greensprops\] (\[it:crudebound\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_1)&=&\frac{1}{d}G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(f_\mathbf{c}(c_1))\\
&\leq &\frac{1}{d}\left(\left(d-\frac{8}{5}\right)\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|+C_7+\frac{d}{d-1}\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|+C_1\right)\\
&\leq & \left(1-\frac{3d-8}{5d(d-1)}\right)\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|+\frac{1}{d}\left(C_1+C_7\right).\end{aligned}$$
Combining the upper bound on $G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_1)$ with the lower bound on $G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_i)$, we have $$\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|\leq \frac{5(d-1)}{3d-8}\left(C_1+C_3+C_5+C_7+\log^+|2|\right).$$ Choosing $C_4$ large enough, this establishes and hence proves the lemma in the remaining case.
The proof of Theorem \[th:main\] {#sec:global}
================================
We now work over a number field $K$, applying the results of the previous section to the various standard absolute values on $K$. Quantities from the previous section which depend on the place $v$ now acquire an appropriate subscript.
We begin by explaining why we may freely fix a normal form. Silverman has shown [@barbados p. 103] that in general we have for a rational function $f$ $$h_{\mathsf{M}_d}(f)\asymp \min_{g\sim f}h_{\operatorname{Hom}_d}(g),$$ where the minimum is taken over functions conjugate to $f$, and $\operatorname{Hom}_d\subseteq {\mathbb{P}}^{2d+1}$ is the space of rational functions of degree $d$ parametrized by their coefficients. A normal form corresponds to a subvariety $U\subseteq \operatorname{Hom}_d$, and so we have $$h_{\mathsf{M}_d}(f_u)\ll h_{{\mathbb{P}}^{2d+1}}(u)$$ for any $u\in U$. In our case, the normal form $f_{\mathbf{c}}$ corresponds to an embedding ${\mathbb{A}}^{d-1}\to \operatorname{Hom}_d$, and one can check directly that $h_{\operatorname{Hom}_d}(f_\mathbf{c})\ll h(\mathbf{c})$, and hence $$h_{\mathsf{M}_d}(f_\mathbf{c})\leq \alpha h(\mathbf{c})+\beta$$ for some constants $\alpha$ and $\beta$ depending on $d$.
If we can show that for all $\mathbf{c}$ such that $f_\mathbf{c}\in {\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}$ we have $$h(\mathbf{c})\leq Ah(\lambda)+B$$ or else there exist two independent critical points $c_1$ and $c_2$ of $f_\mathbf{c}$ with $$\hat{h}_{f_\mathbf{c}}(c_1), \hat{h}_{f_\mathbf{c}}(c_2)>{\varepsilon}h(\mathbf{c}),$$ then we will have shown that either $$h_{{\mathsf{M}_{d}}}(f_\mathbf{c})\leq \alpha Ah(\lambda)+(\alpha B+\beta)$$ or else $$\hat{h}_{f_\mathbf{c}}(c_1), \hat{h}_{f_\mathbf{c}}(c_2)> {\varepsilon}\alpha^{-1}( h_{{\mathsf{M}_{d}}}(f_\mathbf{c})- \beta)> \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2 \alpha}h_{{\mathsf{M}_{d}}}(f_\mathbf{c}),$$ except where $h_{{\mathsf{M}_{d}}}(f_\mathbf{c})\leq 2\beta$. This will prove the result for all conjugacy classes in ${\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}$ containing a polynomial of the form $f_{\mathbf{c}}$, but every polynomial is conjugate over $\overline{K}$ to one of this form.
We can further simplify the argument by restricting to the case $n=1$.
\[lem:ntoone\] If Theorem \[th:main\] is true with $n=1$, then it is true in full generality.
Let $f\in {\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}$ and suppose that Theorem \[th:main\] is known in the case $n=1$. If $P$ is a point of period $n$ and multiplier $\lambda$ for $f$, then it is a fixed point of multiplier $\lambda^n$ for $f^n$. Since $f^n\in {\operatorname{Per}_{1}({\lambda^n})}$, we have either $$\label{eq:fnbound}h(f^n)\leq Ah(\lambda^n)+B,$$ or else there are independent critical points $c_1, c_2$ of $f^n$ such that $$\hat{h}_{f^n}(c_1), \hat{h}_{f^n}(c_2)\geq {\varepsilon}h(f^n).$$ Note that $\hat{h}_f=\hat{h}_{f^n}$, that $h(\lambda^n)=nh(\lambda)$, and that $$h(f)\ll \hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}(f)=\frac{1}{n}\hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}(f^n)\ll h(f^n),$$ by the main result of [@pcfpoly]. In particular, implies $h(f)\leq A' h(\lambda)+B'$, for some constants $A'$ and $B'$ depending on $d$ and $n$.
Now suppose that is not satisfied. Note that for each critical point $c$ of $f^n$, we have $f'(f^j(c))=0$ for some $0\leq j<n$, and so we have critical points $\zeta_1=f^{j_1}(c_1)$ and $\zeta_2=f^{j_2}(c_2)$ of $f$ satisfying $$\hat{h}_f(\zeta_i)=d^{j_i}\hat{h}_f(c_1)\geq d^{j_1}{\varepsilon}h(f^n)\gg h(f).$$ Adjusting the constant $B'$ if necessary, we then have either $h(f)\leq A'h(\lambda)+B'$ again, or else $$\hat{h}_f(\zeta_i)\geq \delta h(f)$$ for some $\delta>0$.
It now remains to check that the independence of $c_1$ and $c_2$ under $f^n$ implies the independence of $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ under $f$. Suppose to the contrary that $g\circ f^k=f^k\circ g$ for some $k\geq 1$, and that $f^a(\zeta_1)=g\circ f^b(\zeta_2)$, taking $b\geq n$ without loss of generality. Choose $0\leq r, s<n$ so that $a+j_1+r$ and $b+j_2-s$ are divisible by $n$. Then $$(f^n)^{(a+j_1+r)/n}(c_1)=f^r\circ f^a(\zeta_1)=f^r\circ g\circ f^b(\zeta_2)=f^r\circ g\circ f^s \circ (f^n)^{(b+j_2-s)/n}(c_2).$$ Since $f^r\circ g\circ f^s$ commutes with $f^{kn}$, given that $g$ commutes with $f^k$, we have exhibited a dependence between $c_1$ and $c_2$ under $f^n$.
Now that we know that we may restrict attention to the case $n=1$, and to the normal form , we outline the strategy of the proof. If $f_\mathbf{c}$ has any infinite critical orbits at all, we will let $c_1$ be the critical point of maximal canonical height, and attempt to bound from below the sum of $\hat{h}_{f_\mathbf{c}}(c_i)$ for $c_i$ independent of $c_1$. We obtain a non-trivial contribution to this quantity from each place at which the hypotheses of Lemma \[lem:localindep\] are met, and so the last ingredient is an estimate of how much these places contribute to the weighted sum defining $h(\mathbf{c})$.
\[lem:Sweight\] Suppose that $\prod c_i=(-1)^{d-1}\lambda\neq 0$, and let $$\label{eq:Sdef}S=\left\{v\in M_K:5\log|c_1|_v<\log\|\mathbf{c}\|_v\right\}.$$ Then $$\sum_{v\in S}\frac{[K_v:{\mathbb{Q}}_v]}{[K:{\mathbb{Q}}]}\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v\geq\frac{1}{5d-9}h(\mathbf{c})-\frac{5d-4}{5d-9}h(\lambda).$$
To ease notation, we set $n_v=[K_v:{\mathbb{Q}}_v]/[K:{\mathbb{Q}}]$. Note that the relation $\prod_{i\geq 1} c_i=\pm\lambda$ gives us both $$\log\|\mathbf{c}\|_v\leq \log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v\leq \log\|\mathbf{c}\|_v+\frac{1}{d-1}\log^+|\lambda|_v$$ and $$|c_1|_v^{-1}\leq |\lambda^{-1}|_v\|\mathbf{c}\|_v^{d-2}.$$ We apply these and the product formula to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{v\not\in S}n_v\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v&\leq & \sum_{v\not\in S}n_v\left(\log\|\mathbf{c}\|_v+\frac{1}{d-1}\log^+|\lambda|_v\right)\\
&\leq &\sum_{v\not\in S}n_v5\log|c_1|_v+\sum_{v\not\in S}\frac{1}{d-1}n_v\log^+|\lambda|_v\\
&\leq &\sum_{v\in S}n_v5\log|c_1|^{-1}_v + \frac{1}{d-1}h(\lambda)\\
&\leq &\sum_{v\in S}n_v5\left(\log^+|\lambda^{-1}|_v+(d-2)\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v\right)\\&&+\frac{1}{d-1}h(\lambda)\\
&\leq & 5(d-2)h(\mathbf{c})-\sum_{v\not\in S}5(d-2)n_v \log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v \\&&+ \left(5+\frac{1}{d-1}\right) h(\lambda),\end{aligned}$$ and so $$\sum_{v\not\in S}n_v\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v\leq \frac{5(d-2)}{1+5(d-2)}h(\mathbf{c})+\frac{5d-4}{1+5(d-2)}h(\lambda),$$ whereupon $$\label{eq:cbound}\sum_{v\in S}n_v\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v\geq \frac{1}{5d-9}h(\mathbf{c})-\frac{5d-4}{5d-9}h(\lambda).$$
As noted above, it will suffice to prove the result with $n=1$ for polynomials of the form $f_{\mathbf{c}}$, taking $h(f_{\mathbf{c}})=h(\mathbf{c})$. In the case $d=2$, we have $\mathbf{c}=c_1=-\lambda$ on ${\operatorname{Per}_{1}({\lambda})}$, and so the result follows immediately. We will assume from now on that $d\geq 3$.
If $f_\mathbf{c}$ is post-critically finite (PCF), then we have from [@pcfpoly] a bound on $h(\mathbf{c})$, so the conclusion of the theorem holds. Suppose that $f_{\mathbf{c}}$ is not PCF, and without loss of generality suppose that $c_1$ has maximal canonical height (which is positive). It follows that $c_1$ is a maximal representative of its dependency class, $D$, and in particular that $G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}, v}(c_1)\geq G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}, v}(c_i)$ for any $c_i$ dependent on $c_1$, and any place $v\in M_K$.
Note that we might have $D=\{c_1, ..., c_{d-1}\}$, in which case we must bound $h(\mathbf{c})$. Let $S$ be the set of places defined in , and note that by Lemma \[lem:localindep\] we have, for each $v\in S$, $$\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v \leq C_{4, v}.$$ Applying Lemma \[lem:Sweight\], we have a constant $C_{21}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{5d-9} h(\mathbf{c})-\frac{5d-4}{5d-9}h(\lambda) &\leq & \sum_{v\in S}n_v\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v\\
&\leq & \sum_{v\in S}n_v C_{4, v},\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$h(\mathbf{c})\leq (5d-4)h(\lambda)+(5d-9)\sum_{v\in M_K}n_v C_{4, v}.$$
Now, if at least some critical point is independent of $c_1$, Lemma \[lem:localindep\] furnishes at each place $v\in S$ a critical point $c_{i_v}\not\in D$ with $$G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}, v}(c_{i_v})\geq \log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v-C_{4, v}.$$ By the non-negativity of $G_v$, we have $$\sum_{c_i\not\in D}G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}, v}(c_{i_v})\geq \log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|-C_{4, v}$$ at every place $v\in S$. Again using the non-negativity of $G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}, v}$, and Lemma \[lem:Sweight\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{5d-9} h(\mathbf{c})&\leq& \sum_{v\in S} n_v\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v + \left(\frac{5d-4}{5d-9}\right)h(\lambda)\\
&\leq & \sum_{v\in S} n_v\sum_{c_i\not\in D} n_vG_{f_{\mathbf{c}}, v}(c_i) + \sum_{v\in S} n_v C_{4, v}+ \left(\frac{5d-4}{5d-9}\right)h(\lambda) \\
&\leq & \sum_{c_i\not\in D}\sum_{v\in M_K} n_v G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}, v}(c_i)+ \sum_{v\in M_K} n_v C_{4, v}+ \left(\frac{5d-4}{5d-9}\right)h(\lambda)\\
&=& \sum_{c_i\not\in D}\hat{h}_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_i)+ \sum_{v\in M_K} n_v C_{4, v}+ \left(\frac{5d-4}{5d-9}\right)h(\lambda)\\
&\leq& (d-2)\max_{c_i\not\in D}\hat{h}_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_i)+ \sum_{v\in M_K} n_v C_{4, v}+ \left(\frac{5d-4}{5d-9}\right)h(\lambda).\end{aligned}$$ So for some $c_i$ independent of $c_1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{h}_{f_\mathbf{c}}(c_i)&\geq&\frac{1}{(d-2)(5d-9)} h(\mathbf{c})- \left(\frac{5d-4}{(d-2)(5d-9)}\right)h(\lambda) \\&&- \left(\frac{1}{d-2}\right) \sum_{v\in M_K} n_v C_{4, v}\\
&>&\frac{1}{2(d-2)(5d-9)} h(\mathbf{c})\end{aligned}$$ unless $$\label{eq:hboundeq}h(\mathbf{c})\leq (10d-8)h(\lambda)+ 2(5d-9) \sum_{v\in M_K} n_v C_{4, v}.$$ In other words, we have either or else $f_{\mathbf{c}}$ has independent critical points $c_1$ and $c_2$ satisfying $$\min\{\hat{h}_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_1), \hat{h}_{f_{\mathbf{c}}}(c_2)\}>\left(\frac{1}{2(d-2)(5d-9)}\right)h(\mathbf{c}),$$ which is what we set out to prove.
As noted, this proves Theorem \[th:main\] for conjugacy classes in ${\operatorname{Per}_{1}({\lambda})}$ containing a polynomial of the form $f_{\mathbf{c}}$, with $\mathbf{c}\in K^{d-1}$. But the bounds are independent of $K$, and so hold over any finite extension of $K$, and hence over $\overline{K}$. As noted, every conjugacy class in ${\operatorname{Per}_{1}({\lambda})}\subseteq {\mathsf{P}_{d}}$ is the conjugacy class of some $f_{\mathbf{c}}$ over $\overline{K}$.
Algebraic families in ${\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}$ {#sec:function}
===========================================================
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$ or $p>d$, and let $U/k$ be an irreducible quasi-projective variety. Given a set of absolute values $M$ on the function field $K=k(U)$ satisfying the product formula, that is $\prod_{v\in M}|x|_v=1$ for all $x\neq 0$, we define as usual $$h_{{\mathbb{P}}^N, M}([x_0:\cdots :x_N])=\sum_{v\in M}\log^+\|x_0, ..., x_N\|_v.$$ The following standard result asserts that we may always choose such a set of absolute values so that the points of height zero are exactly those defined over the constant field.
\[lem:ffheights\] Let $k$ be algebraically closed, and let $U/k$ be an irreducible quasi-projective variety. There exists a set $M_K$ of non-archimedean, non-$p$-adic absolute values on $K=k(U)$ satisfying the product formula. Futhermore, there is a canonical extension of the places in $M_K$ to any finite extension $L/K$ such that $h$ is well-defined on $\overline{K}$, and we have $$\{P\in {\mathbb{P}}^N(\overline{K}):h_{{\mathbb{P}}^N, M}(P)=0 \}={\mathbb{P}}^N(k).$$
See [@bg Section 1.4 and Example 2.4.11], but we remind the reader here that if $U$ is normal and projective, then the absolute values in $M_K$ correspond to prime divisors $Z$ on $X$. We set $$|x|_Z=e^{-{\operatorname{ord}}_{Z}(x)\deg(Z)},$$ where $\deg(Z)$ is the degree of $Z$ relative to some chosen ample class on $X$. It follows that $h([x:y])$ is the degree of the pole divisor of $x/y$ relative to $Z$, and since $U$ is normal and projective, only constants have trivial pole divisors.
In general, $K$ is $k$-isomorphic to the function field of some normal, projective variety, so it suffices to consider that case, although the abundance of non-isomorphic projective normalizations of $U$ suggests correctly that $M_K$ is not itself canonical.
We note that if $M$ is a absolute values as furnished by Lemma \[lem:ffheights\], then $|x|_v=1$ for any $x\in k^\times$. In particular, in the terminology of Section \[sec:local\], $R$ is $v$-integral for every $v\in M$.
\[lem:cink\] Let $\lambda\in k^\times\subseteq K^\times$, and let $\mathbf{c}\in {\mathbb{A}}^{d-1}(K)$ satisfy $c_1c_2\cdots c_{d-1}=(-1)^{d-1}\lambda$. Then either $f_{\mathbf{c}}$ has two independent, infinite critical orbits, or else $\mathbf{c}\in {\mathbb{A}}^{d-1}(k)$.
With $h$ a height relative to a set $M$ of places as provided by Lemma \[lem:ffheights\], the condition $\mathbf{c}\in {\mathbb{A}}^{d-1}(k)$ is equivalent to $h(\mathbf{c})=0$, and so we will work in terms of heights. Note that our assumptions also imply that $|\lambda|_v=1$ for all $v\in M$.
Let $S\subseteq M$ be the set of places $v$ witnessing $5\log|c_1|_v<\log\|\mathbf{c}\|_v$. If there exists a place $v\in S$ with $\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v\neq 0$, we may apply Lemma \[lem:localindep\] to conclude that $f_{\mathbf{c}}$ has a critical point $c_i$ independent of $c_1$ satisfying $G_{f_{\mathbf{c}}, v}(c_i)\geq \log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v> 0$, and so a critical point independent of $c_1$ with an infinite orbit.
On the other hand, suppose that we have $\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v=0$ for each $v\in S$. Our hypothesis $\lambda\in k^\times$ ensures that $\log\|\mathbf{c}\|_v=\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v$ and $c_1\neq 0$, so by the product formula we have $$\begin{aligned}
h(\mathbf{c})&=&\sum_{v\in M}\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v\\&=&\sum_{v\not\in S}\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v\\
&\leq &5\sum_{v\not\in S} \log|c_1|_v\\
&=&5\sum_{v\in S}\log|c_1^{-1}|_v\\
&=&5\sum_{v\in S}\log|c_2\cdots c_{d-1}|_v\\
&\leq &5(d-2)\sum_{v\in S}\log^+\|\mathbf{c}\|_v=0.\end{aligned}$$
So if $\mathbf{c}\not\in{\mathbb{A}}^{d-1}(k)$, then $f_{\mathbf{c}}$ has at least one infinite critical orbit. Re-arranging the indices so that this critical point is $c_1$, we may run the argument through again to find some $c_i$ independent of $c_1$ which also has an infinite forward orbit.
Recall that a polynomial $f$ defined over a function field $K$ with algebraically closed constant field $k$ is *isotrivial* if and only if it is conjugate over some extension of $K$ to a polynomial with constant coefficients.
As in the case of number fields, we will first show that it suffices to treat the case $n=1$. Let $K=k(U)$, and let $f\in {\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}$ be the generic fibre of the family, with $\lambda\in k^\times$. Since $f^n\in {\operatorname{Per}_{1}({\lambda^n})}$, we see that either $f^n$ isotrivial (defined over $k$ after a change of variables), or else $f^n$ has two independent infinite critical orbits. In the latter case, one concludes as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:ntoone\] that $f$ does as well. But if $f^n$ is isotrivial, then so is $f$ (see [@benedetto]; the hypothesis therein that $\dim(U)=1$ is superfluous, e.g., see [@baker]).
Now suppose that $f\in {\operatorname{Per}_{1}({\lambda})}$ over $K$, with $\lambda\in k^\times$, and suppose that $f$ does not have two independent, infinite critical orbits. Over some extension of $K$, $f$ is conjugate to $f_\mathbf{c}$ with $c_1c_2\cdots c_{d-1}=(-1)^{d-1}\lambda$, and hence by Lemma \[lem:cink\] we have $\mathbf{c}\in {\mathbb{A}}^{d-1}(k)$. Since $f_{\mathbf{c}}$ has constant coefficients and is conjugate to $f$, $f$ is isotrivial.
Note that while the condition $\hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}(f)=0$ over a number field precisely identifies PCF polynomials, in the function field context it precisely identifies those that are isotrivial, that is, conjugate over some extension of $K$ to a polynomial with constant coefficients.
In one direction this is relatively straightforward. If $f$ is defined over the constant field, then $\hat{h}_f(z)=0$ for all $z\in k\subseteq K$, simply because $f(k)\subseteq k$ and $h(z)=0$ for all $z\in k$. Since a $k$-rational polynomial has $k$-rational critical points, it follows that $\hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}(f)=0$ for $f$ defined over $k$, and since $\hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}$ is well-defined on conjugacy classes, the same is true for any polynomial conjugate to one with constant coefficients.
On the other hand, if $\hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}(f)=0$ then $f$ is conjugate to a map of the form $f_{\mathbf{c}}$ with $\mathbf{c}\in {\mathbb{A}}^{d-1}(k)$, by the proof of Theorem \[th:geom\]. Alternatively, over $k={\mathbb{C}}$, we could appeal to the compactness of the connectedness locus, or Thurston’s rigidity theorem to conclude that any PCF family of polynomials is isotrivial.
Similarly, the argument that proves Theorem \[th:geom\] shows that for $\lambda\in k^{\times}$ and $f\in {\operatorname{Per}_{n}({\lambda})}\subseteq {\mathsf{P}_{d}}$, we have $f$ isotrivial if and only if $\hat{h}_{\mathrm{crit}}^{(1)}(f)=0$.
This property is a natural one for heights over functions fields. Indeed, suppose that $L$ is an ample divisor on $\mathsf{M}_d$ and $\psi:\mathsf{M}_d\to {\mathbb{P}}^N$ is an embedding relative to which $nL$ corresponds to the hyperplane $H\subseteq {\mathbb{P}}^N$ at infinity, for some $N, n\geq 1$. Then define $h_{\mathsf{M}_d, L}=\frac{1}{n}\psi^* h_{{\mathbb{P}}^N, H}$. If $L$ is $k$-rational, and we choose $\psi$ to be as well, then $h_{\mathsf{M}_d, L}(f)=0$ if and only if $f\in \psi^{-1}({\mathbb{P}}^N(k))=\mathsf{M}_d(k)$. In other words, for ample Weil heights on $\mathsf{M}_d$ constructed in this manner, $h_{\mathsf{M}_d, L}(f)=0$ if and only if $f$ is isotrivial.
Quadratic morphisms {#sec:quad}
===================
In this section we treat the case of rational functions of degree 2, with the aim of proving Theorem \[th:quad\]. We work over a number field $K$ with the usual set of places $M_K$.
From now on, let $$f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}(z)=\frac{\lambda_0 z+z^2}{\lambda_\infty z + 1}.$$ Over $\overline{K}$, every quadratic endomorphism of $\mathbb{P}^1$ is conjugate either to one of this form, as shown by Milnor [@milnor] and Silverman [@md] (see also [@ads Section 4.2]), or to a member of a one-parameter family treated separately below. We will think of $\lambda_0$ as being fixed, but explicit dependence on this value will be tracked under the hypothesis only that $\lambda_0\neq 0$. The following result is enough to establish Theorem \[th:quad\], modulo the separate handling of the one-parameter family.
\[th:quad2\] For $\lambda_0\neq 0$, and $\zeta_1, \zeta_2$ the critical points of $f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}$, we have $$\min\left\{\hat{h}_{f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}}(\zeta_1), \hat{h}_{f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}}(\zeta_2) \right\}\geq \frac{1}{32}h(\lambda_\infty)-\frac{25}{32}h(\lambda_0)-\frac{47}{32}\log 2-\frac{3}{16}\log 3.$$
Note that we may as well assume that $\lambda_\infty\neq 0$. In order to speak about the critical points, we introduce a variable $w$ satisfying $$\lambda_0\lambda_\infty w^2+2w+1=0,$$ after which $f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}$ has critical points $$\zeta_1=\lambda_0 w, \zeta_2=\frac{\lambda_0 w}{(2w+1)}$$ and branch points $\xi_i=-\zeta_i^2$, so $$\xi_1=-\lambda_0^2w^2, \xi_2=\frac{-\lambda_0^2w^2}{(2w+1)^2}.$$ Note that it suffices to obtain a lower bound on $\hat{h}_{f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}}(\xi_1)$ in terms of $h(\lambda_0)$ and $h(\lambda_\infty)$, since the branch points are swapped by the involution $w\mapsto -w/(2w+1)$ which fix $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_\infty$. We will assume, without loss of generality, that $\lambda_0$, $\lambda_\infty$, and $w$ are $K$-rational, since the constants we derive do not depend on $K$.
We first note the following lemma, quoted directly from [@hcrit].
\[lem:quadgbound\] For any $v\in M_K$ and $z\in K_v$, $$g_{f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}, v}(z, \infty)\geq \log^+|z|_v-2\log\|1, \lambda_0, \lambda_\infty\|_v-\frac{3}{2}\log|1-\lambda_0\lambda_\infty|-\log^+|2|_v.$$
Now, we define a set of places which depends on $\lambda_0$, $\lambda_\infty$, and $w$. Let $$C_v=\begin{cases}\log 2 & \text{if }v\text{ is archimedean or 2-adic}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}.\end{cases}$$ and $$\label{eq:Sdefff}S=\left\{v\in M_K:\log |w|_v>\log^+|\lambda_0^{-1}|_v+C_v\right\}.$$
For each $k\geq 1$ and each $v\in S$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
g_{f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}, v}(f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}^k(\xi_1), \infty)\\\geq k(\log^+|\lambda_\infty^{-1}|_v-{\varepsilon}_v) -2\log\|1, \lambda_0, \lambda_\infty\|_v-\frac{3}{2}\log|1-\lambda_0\lambda_\infty|-\log^+|2|_v.\end{gathered}$$
By the Lemma \[lem:quadgbound\], it is enough to show that, in the case $v\in S$, we have $$\log^+|f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}^k(\xi_1)|_v\geq k(\log^+|\lambda_\infty^{-1}|_v-{\varepsilon}_v).$$ Furthermore, as in the proof of [@hcrit Lemma 21], this follows if we can show that $$\log|\xi_1|_v> \log\|\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty^{-1}\|_v+\log^+|2|_v.$$ Note that $v\in S$ already implies $$\left|\frac{w}{2+1/w}\right|_v\leq |w|_v\cdot\begin{cases} 2 & \text{if }v\text{ is 2-adic}\\ 1 & \text{otherwise}.\end{cases}$$ So it follows from $v\in S$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\log|\xi_1|_v&=&2\log|\lambda_0|_v+2\log^+|w|_v\\
&> &2\log|\lambda_0|_v+\log^+|\lambda_0^{-1}|_v+C_v+\log^+\left|\frac{w}{2+1/w}\right|_v\\&& - \begin{cases}\log 2 & \text{if }v\text{ is 2-adic}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}.\end{cases}\\
&\geq & \log^+|\lambda_0|_v+\log\left\|\lambda_0, \frac{\lambda_0 w}{2+1/w}\right\|_v+\log^+|2|_v\\
&\geq &\log\|\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty^{-1}\|_v+\log^+|2|_v,\end{aligned}$$ since $\lambda_0w/(2+1/w)=-\lambda_\infty^{-1}$.
Drawing together what we have so far, note that we may use the previous lemma at places $v\in M_K$ and the trivial bound $\log^+|z|\geq 0$ to obtain for any $k\geq 1$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:quadk}
2^k\hat{h}_{f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}}(\xi_1)\geq \sum_{v\in S}\frac{[K_v:{\mathbb{Q}}_v]}{[K:{\mathbb{Q}}]}k\log^+|\lambda_\infty^{-1}|_v\\- k\log 12 - 2h(\lambda_0)-2h(\lambda_\infty)-\log 2.\end{gathered}$$
It remains to determine the extent to which the height of $\lambda_\infty$ is supported by places in $S$.
\[lem:halfheight\] With $S$ defined as in , we have $$\sum_{v\in S}\frac{[K_v:{\mathbb{Q}}_v]}{[K:{\mathbb{Q}}]}\log^+|\lambda_\infty^{-1}|_v\geq \frac{1}{2}h(\lambda_\infty)-\frac{5}{2}h(\lambda_0)-\frac{7}{2}\log 2.$$
We have (writing $n_v=[K_v:{\mathbb{Q}}_v]/[K:{\mathbb{Q}}]$) $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{v\not\in S} n_v\log^+|\lambda_{\infty}^{-1}|_v&=&\sum_{v\not\in S} n_v\log^+\left|\frac{\lambda_0 w^2}{2w+1}\right|_v\\
&\leq & \sum_{v\not\in S} n_v\log^+|w^2|_v+ \sum_{v\not\in S} n_v\log^+|\lambda_0|_v+ \sum_{v\not\in S} n_v\log^+\left|\frac{1}{2w+1}\right|_v\\
&\leq & \sum_{v\not\in S}2(n_v \log^+|\lambda^{-1}_0|+C_v)+h(\lambda_0)+h(2w+1)\\
&\leq & 3h(\lambda_0)+4\log 2 + h(2w+1).\end{aligned}$$ Now, since $\lambda_\infty = \lambda_0 w^2/(2w+1)$, one can check that $$h(\lambda_\infty)\geq 2h(1+2w)-h(\lambda_0)-3\log 2$$ (treating $\lambda_\infty$ as a quadratic rational function in $2w+1$), and so we have $$\sum_{v\not\in S} n_v\log^+|\lambda_{\infty}^{-1}|_v\leq \frac{1}{2}h(\lambda_\infty) +\frac{7}{2}h(\lambda_0)+\frac{11}{2}\log 2,$$ from which the claim in the lemma follows.
Combining Lemma \[lem:halfheight\] with inequality , we have $$\begin{gathered}
2^{k+1} \hat{h}_{f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}}(\zeta_i)\geq \left(\frac{k}{2}-2\right)h(\lambda_\infty)-\left(\frac{7k}{2}+2\right)h(\lambda_0)\\-\left(\frac{15k}{2}+1\right)\log 2-k\log 3\end{gathered}$$ for all $k\geq 0$, so taking $k=3$, we have $$\hat{h}_{f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}}(\zeta_i)\geq\frac{1}{32}h(\lambda_\infty)-\frac{25}{32}h(\lambda_0)-\frac{47}{32}\log 2-\frac{3}{16}\log 3.$$ This completes the proof of Lemma \[th:quad2\].
For example, if $\lambda_0$ is a root of unity and $f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}$ fails to have both critical orbits infinite, then $$h(\lambda_\infty)\leq 47\log 2+6\log 3 \approx 39.17$$ Unforunately, enumerating all $\lambda_\infty$ up to this height and algebraic degree 3 (if $f_{\lambda_0, \lambda_\infty}$ is conjugate to a function defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$), presents computational challenges.
As noted, Theorem \[th:quad\] follows from Lemma \[th:quad2\], except that the latter says nothing about quadratic morphisms of the form $z+a+z^{-1}$. The next lemma, then, completes the proof of Theorem \[th:quad\].
Let $f_a(z)=z+a+z^{-1}$ have a fixed point of multiplier $\lambda$. Then the critical points $\zeta_1$, $\zeta_2$ satisfy $$\hat{h}_f(\zeta_i)\geq Ah(a)-B.$$
Note that the critical points of $f_a$ are $z=\pm 1$. It is straightforward to check that $\deg_a(f^n(\pm 1))=2^{n-1}$, and so on the generic fibre of the family, $\hat{h}_f(\pm 1)=\frac{1}{2}$. By a result of Call and Silverman [@call-silv Theorem 4.1], we have (for any ${\varepsilon}>0$) $$\hat{h}_f(\pm 1)\geq \left(\frac{1}{2}-{\varepsilon}\right)h(a)-C_{\varepsilon}.$$ Taking ${\varepsilon}<\frac{1}{2}$, and noting as above that $h_{\mathsf{M}_2}(f_a)\ll h(a)$, we have $\hat{h}_f(\pm 1)\gg h(f)$ in this family.
[99]{} M. Baker. A finiteness theorem for canonical heights attached to rational maps over function fields, *J. Reine Angew. Math.* **626** (2009), pp. 205–233.
M. Baker and L. DeMarco. Special curves and postcritically-finite polynomials, *Forum Math., Pi*, **1** (2013), e3 (35 pages), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/fmp.2013.2.
R. L. Benedetto. Heights and preperiodic points of polynomials over function fields. *Int. Math. Res. Not.* 2005, no. 62, pp. 3855-–3866.
R. L. Benedetto, P. Ingram, R. Jones, and A. Levy. Attracting cycles in $p$-adic dynamics and height bounds for post-critically finite maps. *Duke Math. J.* **163** (2014), no. 13, pp. 2325–2356
F. Berteloot. Bifurcation currents in holomorphic families of rational maps, *Pluripotential theory*, volume 2075 of *Lecture Notes in Math.*, Springer, Heidelberg, 2013
E. Bombieri and W. Gubler. *Heights in Diophantine geometry.*, volume 4 of *New Mathematical Monographs*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
G. S. Call and J. H. Silverman. Canonical heights on varieties with morphisms, *Compositio Math.* **89** (1993), pp. 163–205.
L. DeMarco, X. Wang, and H. Ye. Bifurcation measures and quadratic rational maps. *Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3)* **111** (2015), no. 1, pp. 149-–180.
A. L. Epstein, Integrality and rigidity for postcritically finite polynomials. With an appendix by Epstein and Bjorn Poonen. *Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.* **44** (2012), no. 1, pp. 39–46.
C. Favre and T. Gauthier. Cclassification of special curves in the space of cubic polynomials. arXiv:1603.05126
P. Ingram. A finiteness result for post-critically finite polynomials. *Int. Math. Res. Not.* 2012, no. 3, pp. 524–543.
P. Ingram. The critical height is a moduli height. arXiv:1610.07904
A. Levy. An Algebraic Proof of Thurston’s Rigidity for a Polynomial. arXiv:1201.1969
J. Milnor. Geometry and dynamics of quadratic rational maps. With an appendix by the author and Lei Tan. *Experiment. Math.* **2** (1993), no. 1, pp. 37-–83.
C. McMullen. Families of rational maps and iterative root-finding algorithms, *Ann. of Math.* **125** (1987), pp. 467–493.
J. F. Ritt. Permutable rational functions. *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **25** (1923), pp. 399-–448.
J. H. Silverman. The space of rational maps on [$\mathbf{P}^1$]{}. *Duke Math. J.* **94** (1998), no. 1, pp. 41–-77.
J. H. Silverman, An algebraic approach to certain cases of Thurston rigidity. *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **140** (2012), no. 10, pp. 3421–3434.
J. H. Silverman. *The Arithmetic of Dynamical Systems*, volume 241 of *Graduate Texts in Mathematics*. Springer, 2007.
J. H. Silverman. *Moduli Spaces and Arithmetic Dynamics*, volume 30 of *CRM Monograph Series*. AMS, 2012.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A network model that can describe light propagation in one-dimensional ring-resonator arrays with a dimer structure is studied as a Su-Schrieffer-Heeger-type Floquet network. The model can be regarded as a Floquet system without periodic driving and exhibits quasienergy band structures of the ring propagation phase. Resulting band gaps support deterministic edge states depending on hopping S-matrices between adjacent rings. The number of edge states is one if the Zak phase is $\pi$. If the Zak phase is 0, the number is either zero or two. The criterion of the latter number is given analytically in terms of the reflection matrix of the semi-infinite system. These properties are directly verified by changing S-matrix parameters and boundary condition continuously.'
author:
- Tetsuyuki Ochiai
title: 'Su-Schrieffer-Heeger-type Floquet network'
---
introduction
============
Floquet engineering is a keyword in current condensed matter physics [@bukov2015universal]. By irradiating electronic systems with monochromatic light, the systems can show exotic physical properties that are not accessible without the irradiation [@PhysRevB.79.081406; @PhysRevLett.105.017401]. The systems are thus engineered by driving external fields. Theoretically, such a system is described by a time-dependent and time-periodic hamiltonian, and is called a Floquet system. Its eigenvalue equation is the diagonalization of the unitary time-translation operator for one period.
Interestingly, similar eigenvalue equations of unitary matrices are obtained in certain network models without disorder [@PhysRevB.89.075113; @PhysRevB.95.205413] and in discrete-time quantum walks [@PhysRevB.86.195414]. Network models were first introduced to study the Anderson localization in quantum Hall systems [@0022-3719-21-14-008], and were later applied to light propagation in ring-resonator lattices in two or three spatial dimensions [@hafezi2011robust; @PhysRevLett.110.203904; @PhysRevB.93.144114]. These investigation unveils various interesting topological properties of the network models including single Dirac cone at $\Gamma$ [@PhysRevB.54.8708; @PhysRevLett.117.013902], anomalous Floquet insulator phases [@PhysRevB.89.075113], Floquet-Weyl phases [@PhysRevB.93.144114; @ochiai2016floquet], and synthetic gauge fields [@hafezi2011robust; @0953-8984-29-4-045501]. There, driving external fields are completely absent. The network models (together with discrete-time quantum walks) share the same mathematical structures inherent in Floquet systems, so that resulting physical phenomena are quite similar to Floquet ones, and thus can be exotic and topological. These properties enable us to study network models in more detail as alternative Floquet systems [^1].
Here, we propose a simple one-dimensional (1D) network model that imitates the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) model [@PhysRevLett.42.1698]. The former model is a Floquet network in the sense given above. It can simulate the light propagation in 1D ring-resonator arrays. The latter model is a well-known tight-binding model that exhibits a topological phase transition regarding the Zak phase [@PhysRevLett.62.2747] and deterministic zero-energy edge states. One of the advantages in the former model is that we can change continuously the boundary condition, which is often crucial for edge states. We can thus directly check the robustness of possible edge states by changing the boundary condition.
On the contrary to a common understanding of the SSH model, in this paper on the 1D network model, we find edge states even if the Zak phase is zero. The common understanding of no edge state for the zero Zak-phase systems is limited in a certain region of possible boundary conditions. We derive these results analytically by considering a relation between the Zak phase and a S-matrix of the semi-infinite system with edge. We also directly confirm the above prediction numerically.
We should note that there is another route to realize 1D Floquet systems from the SSH model [@PhysRevA.92.023624]. That is, just replacing the hopping parameters by those with Piers phases of driving laser light. In contrast to this route, our model is easier to solve nonperturbatively and exhibits various different properties.
An optical realization of the present model seems to have less difficulty. Using Silicon nanowire, it is possible to realize 1D ring-resonator arrays with high quality [@xia2007ultracompact]. Target frequencies can vary from visible to infrared. With such optical systems, novel phase modulations via topological band gaps, nonlinear optical effects via strongly localized edge states with tunable resonant frequencies, and topological lasing such as given in [@ota2018topological] will occur using the properties discussed in this paper. Therefore, even in simpler 1D optical structures, various applications using topological effects are available.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we define a SSH-type network model. In Sec. 3, bulk eigenmodes are considered and the phase diagram regarding the Zak phase is derived. In Sec. 4, finite systems with edges are studied. Their eigenvalue spectra and analytic properties of a relevant S-matrix are investigated. The conditions of finding edge states are also given. Finally, in Sec. 5, we summarize the results.
model
=====
Let us consider a network model for the light propagation in the linear chain of ring resonator. A schematic illustration of the system under study is shown in Fig. \[Fig\_geo1d\].
{width="80.00000%"}
We consider identical rings and control the distances between adjacent rings such that a dimer structure is formed. As a result, there are two rings (A and B rings) per unit cell. In the A rings, light flows clockwise, whereas in the B rings, light flows counter-clockwise. In both the rings, the light propagating phase per half circle is common and denoted as $\phi$.
At the AB interface, we introduce the hopping S-matrix as $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\begin{array}{c}
a_n'\\
b_n'
\end{array}\right)=S_{\rm AB}\left(\begin{array}{c}
a_n\\
b_n
\end{array}\right),\label{Eq_S_AB}\\
&S_{\rm AB}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
r_{\rm AB} & t'_{\rm AB}\\
t_{\rm AB} & r'_{\rm AB}
\end{array}\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $S_{\rm AB}$ is unitary provided that there is no dissipation. Similarly, at the BA interface, the S-matrix is written as $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\begin{array}{c}
a_{n+1}{\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\phi}\\
b_n {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\phi}
\end{array}\right)=S_{\rm BA}\left(\begin{array}{c}
a'_{n+1}{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi}\\
b'_n {\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi}
\end{array}\right),\label{Eq_S_BA}\\
&S_{\rm BA}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
r_{\rm BA} & t'_{\rm BA}\\
t_{\rm BA} & r'_{\rm BA}
\end{array}\right). \end{aligned}$$ Again, $S_{\rm BA}$ is assumed to be unitary.
Because of the mirror symmetry between the A and B rings, the S-matrices satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
& S_{\rho}=\sigma_1 S_{\rho}\sigma_1 \quad (\rho={\rm AB},{\rm BA}), \\
& \sigma_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{array}\right). \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, they are parametrized as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rho}={\rm e}^{{\rm i}\kappa_\rho}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\theta_\rho & {\rm i}\sin\theta_\rho \\
{\rm i}\sin\theta_\rho & \cos\theta_\rho
\end{array}\right). \end{aligned}$$ The parameter $\theta_\rho$ represents the coupling strength between the A and B rings, and is controlled by the distance between the rings. The parameter $\kappa_\rho$ is the overall phase, and can be absorbed in the redefinition of the ring propagation phase $\phi$. In what follows, we put $\kappa_\rho=0$.
We should note that if the dimer-like structure is absent, the system is merely a conventional model for coupled ring-resonator optical waveguides [@poon2004matrix]. Nevertheless, the present system with the dimer-like structure exhibits rich topological structures that are not known in the context of photonics.
bulk systems
============
In the bulk system, the Bloch theorem can be applied. After introducing Bloch momentum $k_x$ as $a_{n+1}=a_n\exp({\rm i}k_x)$ etc, Eqs. (\[Eq\_S\_AB\]) and (\[Eq\_S\_BA\]) cast into the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
&U_{\rm bulk}(k_x)\psi_{k_x}={\rm e}^{-2{\rm i}\phi}\psi_{k_x},\quad \psi_{k_x}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
a_n\\
b_n
\end{array}\right),\\
&U_{\rm bulk}(k_x)=\tilde{S}_{\rm BA}S_{\rm AB},\\
&\tilde{S}_{\rm BA}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\rm e}^{-{\rm i}k_x} & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right)S_{\rm BA} \left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\rm e}^{{\rm i}k_x} & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ This is an eigenvalue equation for unitary matrix $U_{\rm bulk}$ and the propagation phase $\phi$ acts as the compactified eigenphase. Therefore, the equation is analogous to that in the Floquet system with a time-periodic hamiltonian, where the diagonalization is for a time-translation operator of one period.
Figure \[Fig\_bulk1d\] shows typical quasi-energy band structures of the 1D SSH-type network model.
![\[Fig\_bulk1d\] Quasienergy band structure of the 1D SSH-type Floquet network. We assume $\theta_{\rm BA}=0.3\pi$. Parameter $\theta_{\rm AB}$ are changed from $0.2\pi$ to $0.8\pi$. ](fig2.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
We have the two bands that are symmetric under $k_x$ and $\phi$ inversions. The band gaps are found around $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pm \pi/2$. The former gap closes at $\theta_{\rm AB}=\theta_{\rm BA}$, whereas the latter gap closes at $\theta_{\rm AB}+ \theta_{\rm BA}=\pm \pi$. At generic points of $(\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA})$, the band width $w$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
w={\rm min}(|\theta_{\rm AB}|,|\theta_{\rm BA}|,\pi-|\theta_{\rm AB}|,\pi-|\theta_{\rm BA}|),\end{aligned}$$ provided $|\theta_{\rm AB}|,|\theta_{\rm BA}|\le \pi$.
The symmetry under $k_x$ inversion is due to the mirror symmetry. We can easily show $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_1U_{\rm bulk}(k_x)\sigma_1 =U_{\rm bulk}(-k_x). \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi_{-k_x}={\rm e}^{{\rm i}\lambda_{k_x}}\sigma_1\psi_{k_x}, \label{Eq_psi_inv}\\
&\phi(-k_x)=\phi(k_x).\end{aligned}$$ We should note that the time-reversal symmetry is broken. This broken time-reversal symmetry is due to the decoupling between the clockwise and counter-clockwise modes in each ring, which is implicitly assumed in the formulation. If the contact region between adjacent rings is large enough compared to the relevant wavelength of light, this assumption is fairly justified.
Besides, under the inversion of $\theta_{\rm AB}$ and $\theta_{\rm BA}$, we have a momentum shift as $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{-\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA}}(k_x)=\phi_{\theta_{\rm AB},-\theta_{\rm BA}}(k_x)=\phi_{\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA}}(k_x+\pi). \label{Eq_1d_shift} \end{aligned}$$ Also, under the swap of $\theta_{\rm AB}$ and $\theta_{\rm BA}$, we have a $k_x$ inversion: $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi_{\theta_{\rm BA},\theta_{\rm AB}}(k_x)
=\phi_{\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA}}(-k_x). \label{Eq_1d_swap} \end{aligned}$$ The inversion of both $\theta_{\rm AB}$ and $\theta_{\rm BA}$ leads to the $\phi$-flip: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{-\theta_{\rm AB},-\theta_{\rm BA}}(k_x)=-\phi_{\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA}}(k_x). \label{Eq_1d_flip}\end{aligned}$$ Combining Eqs. (\[Eq\_1d\_shift\]) and (\[Eq\_1d\_flip\]), we have the chiral symmetry. Namely, the band structure is symmetric under the $\phi$ inversion as shown in Fig. \[Fig\_bulk1d\].
As in the SSH model, topological properties of the Floquet network are characterized by the Zak phase $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{\rm Z} = \int_{-\pi}^\pi {\rm d}k_x \psi_{k_x}^\dagger {\rm i}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_x} \psi_{k_x} \quad {\rm mod}(2\pi), \end{aligned}$$ which is equal to either 0 or $\pi$. Using the mirror symmetry \[Eq. (\[Eq\_psi\_inv\])\], we can easily show that $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{\rm Z} = \lambda_\pi-\lambda_0. \label{Eq_Zak}\end{aligned}$$ Both $\lambda_\pi$ and $\lambda_0$ take either 0 or $\pi$. The phase diagram regarding the Zak phase is shown in Fig. \[Fig\_bulk1d\_Zak\].
![\[Fig\_bulk1d\_Zak\] Phase diagram regarding the Zak phase, in the parameter space of $(\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA})$. On the solid line, the band gap around $\phi=0$ closes. On the dashed line, the band gap around $\phi=\pm\pi/2$ closes. These lines form the phase boundaries. ](fig3.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Since both $\theta_{\rm AB}$ and $\theta_{\rm BA}$ are angle variables, the resulting phase diagram is a bit complicated compared with the SSH model.
finite systems
==============
Next, let us consider a finite system with $2N$ rings. To study possible eigenmodes in the finite system, we need to fix the boundary condition. The boundary condition at the edge rings is taken as $$\begin{aligned}
&a_1={\rm e}^{2{\rm i}\phi}{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\varphi_{\rm L}}a'_1, \label{Eq_left_BC}\\
&b_N={\rm e}^{2{\rm i}\phi}{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\varphi_{\rm R}}b'_N. \label{Eq_right_BC}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we introduce the phase delays $\varphi_{\rm L}$ and $\varphi_{\rm R}$ there, resulting in continuous control of the boundary condition. Such a controllability is one of the advantages in the network model. In the tight-binding model, possible boundary conditions are limited and generally discrete. In our case, however, we can choose freely the boundary condition, providing us a direct check of robustness in possible edge states.
The eigenvalue equation for the finite system is again the diagonalization of the unitary matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
&U_{\rm finite}\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\bm a}\\
{\bm b}
\end{array}\right)={\rm e}^{-2{\rm i}\phi}\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\bm a}\\
{\bm b}
\end{array}\right),\\
&{\bm a}=(a_1,a_2,...,a_N)^t, \quad {\bm b}=(b_1,b_2,...,b_N)^t,\\
&U_{\rm finite}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
U_{aa} & U_{ab}\\
U_{ba} & U_{bb}
\end{array}\right),\\
&[U_{aa}]_{nm}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\varphi_{\rm L}}r_{\rm AB} & n=m=1\\
r_{\rm BA}r_{\rm AB} & n=m\ge 2\\
t'_{\rm BA}t_{\rm AB} & n=m+1\\
0 & {\rm otherwise}
\end{array}\right.,\\
&[U_{ab}]_{nm}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\varphi_{\rm L}}t'_{\rm AB} & n=m=1\\
r_{\rm BA}t'_{\rm AB} & n=m\ge 2\\
t'_{\rm BA}r'_{\rm AB} & n=m+1\\
0 & {\rm otherwise}
\end{array}\right.,\\
&[U_{ba}]_{nm}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\varphi_{\rm R}}r_{\rm AB} & n=m=N\\
r'_{\rm BA}t_{\rm AB} & n=m\le N-1\\
t_{\rm BA}r_{\rm AB} & n=m-1\\
0 & {\rm otherwise}
\end{array}\right.,\\
&[U_{bb}]_{nm}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\varphi_{\rm R}}r'_{\rm AB} & n=m=N\\
r'_{\rm BA}r'_{\rm AB} & n=m\le N-1\\
t_{\rm BA}t'_{\rm AB} & n=m-1\\
0 & {\rm otherwise}
\end{array}\right..\end{aligned}$$
Typical eigenvalue spectra for the finite systems are shown in Figs. \[Fig\_finite1d\]. For simplicity, we assume zero phase delay $\varphi_{\rm L}=\varphi_{\rm R}=0$ at the edges.
![\[Fig\_finite1d\] Quasienergy eigenvalues in the finite systems of $N=50$. Eigenvalues are plotted in the unit circle of $\exp(-2{\rm i}\phi)$ in the complex plane. Four representative points of $(\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA})$ located in different regions in the phase diagram of Fig. \[Fig\_bulk1d\_Zak\] are taken. ](fig4.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Depending on $(\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA})$, edge states emerge in a different way. For instance, at $(\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA})=(0.2\pi,0.4\pi)$, we have two edge state (bonding and antibonding orbitals of the left and right edges) at $\phi=0$ , whereas at $(0.6\pi,0.2\pi)$, no edge states are found. Since the former and latter systems have $\theta_{\rm Z}=\pi$ and 0, respectively, the emergence of the edge states seems to correlate well with the Zak phase. This is the same property as in the SSH model. A peculiarity in the network model is that there are two band gaps around $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi/2$, and the edge states can emerge in both the gaps. In fact, at $(\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA})=(0.8\pi,0.6\pi)$ ($\theta_{\rm Z}=\pi$), we have two edge states at the gap around $\phi=\pi/2$. Furthermore, we have four edge states (two at $\phi=0$ and other two at $\phi=\pi/2$) at $(\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA})=(0.4\pi,0.8\pi)$, whereas the Zak phase is zero.
To further understand edge states in the Floquet network, we consider the response of the edge states against the phase delay. We should remind that the results of Fig. \[Fig\_finite1d\] are obtained under a naive boundary condition of zero phase delays, $\varphi_{\rm L}=\varphi_{\rm R}=0$. Figure \[Fig\_finite1d\_psL\] shows the spectra as a function of the phase delay at the left edge.
![\[Fig\_finite1d\_psL\] Eigenvalues of finite system of $N=50$ at (a) $(\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA})=(0.2\pi,0.4\pi)$ and at (b) $(0.6\pi,0.2\pi)$, as a function of phase delay $\varphi_{\rm L}$ at the left edge. The phase delay at the right edge is kept fixed to $\varphi_{\rm R}=0$. The zero mode that is insensitive to $\varphi_{\rm L}$ in the left panel is the edge mode localized near the right edge. ](fig5.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
As we can see, if we include nonzero $\varphi_{\rm L}$, two edge states per fixed $\varphi_{\rm L}$ emerge at the left edge even for the zero Zak phase (the right panel of Fig. \[Fig\_finite1d\_psL\]). One is in the band gap around $\phi=0$, and the other is in the band gap around $\phi=\pi/2$. They disappear around $\varphi_{\rm L}=0$. If the Zak phase is $\pi$ (the left panel of Fig. \[Fig\_finite1d\_psL\]), we have only one edge state at the left edge. However, it can emerge also in the band gap around $\phi=\pi/2$. The edge state at $\phi=0$ of the right boundary.
A standard understanding in the SSH model is that if the Zak phase is $\pi$, the system exhibits a zero mode at the edge. This is also OK for our model at $\varphi_{\rm L}=0$. To understand twisted cases ($\varphi_{\rm L}\ne 0$) in our model, we need further criteria.
Let us re-consider the condition of having an edge state in the gaps. To this end, it is convenient to introduce the S-matrix in the finite system. The S-matrix is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{l}
b_N'\\
a_1'
\end{array}\right) = S_N \left(\begin{array}{l}
a_1\\
b_N
\end{array}\right). \end{aligned}$$ In the gap region, the incident light from the left or right edge cannot propagate in the bulk, and is just reflected. Therefore, the S-matrix behaves like $$\begin{aligned}
S_N\to \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & R'_\infty \\
R_\infty & 0
\end{array}\right) \quad (N\to\infty), \label{Eq_Rinfty}\end{aligned}$$ with $|R_\infty|=|R'_\infty|=1$ from the unitarity. We thus have $$\begin{aligned}
&a_1'={\rm e}^{{\rm i}{\rm arg}R_\infty}a_1. \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the boundary condition at the left edge is given by Eq. (\[Eq\_left\_BC\]). To have an edge-state solution somewhere in the gap, we need $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm arg}R_\infty(\phi) + 2\phi = -\varphi_{\rm L} \; ({\rm mod}2\pi). \label{Eq_ssh1d_wind}\end{aligned}$$
The semi-infinite reflection matrix $R_\infty$ is available analytically via the forward propagating or forward evanescent eigenmode of the transfer matrix $T(\phi)$ as [@Botten:N:M:d:A::6404:p046603:2001] $$\begin{aligned}
&R_\infty = r_{AB} + t'_{AB}\frac{\beta}{\alpha}, \\
&T(\phi)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha\\
\beta
\end{array}\right) = \tau\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha\\
\beta
\end{array}\right), \quad |\tau|\le 1 ,\\
&
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a_{n+1}\\
b_{n+1}
\end{array}\right)=
T(\phi)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a_n\\
b_n
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ In the bulk band regions, $\tau=\exp({\rm i}k_x)$ and the eigenstate is also the eigenstate of $U_{\rm bulk}(k_x)$. In the gap regions, $\log(1/\tau)$ represents the inverse penetration depth of the evanescent mode at propagating phase $\phi$. This $R_\infty$ is also related to the Zak phase. For instance, at the band edge of $k_x=\pi$, $\lambda_\pi=0$ or $\pi$. This implies $\beta/\alpha=\pm 1$, so that ${\rm arg}R_\infty=\pm \theta_{\rm AB}$.
A schematic behavior of ${\rm arg}R_\infty$ as a function of $\phi$ is given in Fig. \[Fig\_bulk1d\_argR\_schematic\].
![\[Fig\_bulk1d\_argR\_schematic\] Typical behavior of ${\rm arg}R_\infty$ as a function of $\phi$ in case of $\theta_{\rm Z}=\pi$. Grey region represent the bulk-band regions. Parameter $\lambda$ is related to the semi-infinite reflection coefficient $R_\infty$ and Zak phase $\theta_{\rm Z}$. Here, we also assume that the band width is given by $\theta_{\rm AB}(>0)$. ](fig6.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
We found that ${\rm arg}R_\infty$ is an increasing and odd function of $\phi$ in the band gaps. At the band edges, it is pinned to $\pm \theta_{\rm AB}$, depending on the $\lambda$ parameter there. This parameter is related to the Zak phase through Eq. (\[Eq\_Zak\]).
Figure \[Fig\_bulk1d\_argR\] shows the left-hand side of Eq. (\[Eq\_ssh1d\_wind\]).
![\[Fig\_bulk1d\_argR\] Winding features of ${\rm arg}R_\infty$ as a function of $\phi$. (a) $(\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA})=(0.2,0.4)\pi$, (b) $(0.6,0.2)\pi$, (c) $(0.8,0.6)\pi$, (d) $(0.4,0.8)\pi$. Solid line represents ${\rm arg}R_\infty + 2\phi$. Dashed line represents $2\phi$. Grey regions represent the bulk band regions of band width $w$. Region enclosed by dotted line represents the deficit region such that if the phase delay $\varphi_{\rm L}$ is in this region, no edge state emerges.](fig7ab.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![\[Fig\_bulk1d\_argR\] Winding features of ${\rm arg}R_\infty$ as a function of $\phi$. (a) $(\theta_{\rm AB},\theta_{\rm BA})=(0.2,0.4)\pi$, (b) $(0.6,0.2)\pi$, (c) $(0.8,0.6)\pi$, (d) $(0.4,0.8)\pi$. Solid line represents ${\rm arg}R_\infty + 2\phi$. Dashed line represents $2\phi$. Grey regions represent the bulk band regions of band width $w$. Region enclosed by dotted line represents the deficit region such that if the phase delay $\varphi_{\rm L}$ is in this region, no edge state emerges.](fig7cd.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
We can see that if the Zak phase is $\pi$, a perfect winding of $2\pi$ as a function of $\phi$ takes place. Therefore, we have only one edge state irrespective of $\varphi_{\rm L}$. This perfect winding is due to the cancellation of discontinuity (of $2\theta_{\rm AB}$) of ${\rm arg}R_\infty$ in the bulk band regions by the addition of twice the band width $w$ ($2w=2\theta_{\rm AB}$ in (a)) via $2\phi$ term of ${\rm arg}R_\infty(\phi) + 2\phi$. On the other hand, if the Zak phase is 0, we have two windings with the deficit of the bulk band regions. The deficit region of $\varphi_{\rm L}$ has $2w$ width centered at $\varphi_{\rm L}=0$ or $\pi$. If the phase delay is in the deficit region, no edge state is found. Otherwise, two edge states emerge. These results explain what happens in Figs. \[Fig\_finite1d\] and \[Fig\_finite1d\_psL\].
Summary
=======
In summary, we have presented the detailed physical properties of the SSH-type Floquet network. It can simulate the light propagation in ring-resonator arrays with a dimer-like unit cell. We have characterized the network model by the Zak phase, and found a nontrivial phase diagram. The phase diagram well correlates with the number of the edge states in the band gaps of the quasienergy spectra, regardless of the boundary condition. A novelty of this system is that even if the Zak phase is 0, the system system can exhibit two edge states per edge. We have presented an analytic criterion for having the two edge states, and confirm it numerically.
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. 17K05507.
[23]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
[^1]: Another alternative Floquet systems without time-periodic driving is the helix array of optical waveguides [@rechtsman2013photonic].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Models for the origin of the slow solar wind must account for two seemingly-contradictory observations: The slow wind has the composition of the closed-field corona, implying that it originates from the continuous opening and closing of flux at the boundary between open and closed field. On the other hand, the slow wind also has large angular width, up to $\sim 60^\circ$, suggesting that its source extends far from the open-closed boundary. We propose a model that can explain both observations. The key idea is that the source of the slow wind at the Sun is a network of narrow (possibly singular) open-field corridors that map to a web of separatrices and quasi-separatrix layers in the heliosphere. We compute analytically the topology of an open-field corridor and show that it produces a quasi-separatrix layer in the heliosphere that extends to angles far from the heliospheric current sheet. We then use an MHD code and MDI/SOHO observations of the photospheric magnetic field to calculate numerically, with high spatial resolution, the quasi-steady solar wind and magnetic field for a time period preceding the August 1, 2008 total solar eclipse. Our numerical results imply that, at least for this time period, a web of separatrices (which we term an S-web) forms with sufficient density and extent in the heliosphere to account for the observed properties of the slow wind. We discuss the implications of our S-web model for the structure and dynamics of the corona and heliosphere, and propose further tests of the model.'
author:
- 'S. K. Antiochos'
- 'Z. Mikić, V. S. Titov, R. Lionello, J. A. Linker'
title: A Model for the Sources of the Slow Solar Wind
---
\#1[[**\#1**]{}]{}
Introduction
============
Decades of in situ measurements of the heliosphere have firmly established that the Sun’s wind consists of two distinct types: “fast” and “slow”. In terms of its origins at the Sun, the best understood is the fast wind, which typically exhibits speeds in excess of 600 km/s at 1 AU and beyond [e.g., @mccomas08]. The fast wind is measured to be approximately steady, except for some Alfvénic turbulence [e.g., @bame77; @bruno05]. This wind is known to originate from coronal holes, regions that appear dark in XUV and X-ray images, due to a plasma density that is substantially lower ($<50\%$) than in surrounding coronal regions [@zirker77]. As implied by eclipse and coronagraph images, the magnetic field in coronal holes is open—appearing mainly radial and stretching out without end—whereas the field in the surrounding regions is closed, looping back down to the photosphere. Hence, the fast wind corresponds to the steady wind predicted by Parker in his classic work [@parker58; @parker63].
The slow wind, however, is much less understood. In particular, its origin at the Sun has long been one of the major unsolved problems in solar/heliospheric physics. This wind has a number of observed features that distinguish it physically from the fast wind. First, its speeds are typically slower, $< 500\,{\rm km/s}$. More important, the slow wind appears to be inherently non-steady when compared to the fast wind [e.g., @bame77; @schwenn90; @gosling97; @mccomas00]. It exhibits strong and continuous variability in both plasma (for example, speed and composition) and magnetic field properties; variability that cannot be described as simply Alfvénic disturbances superimposed on a steady background [@zurbuchen06; @bruno05]. Finally, its location in the heliosphere is distinct; it is generally found surrounding the heliospheric current sheet (HCS) [e.g., @burlaga02]. A key point is that the HCS is always embedded inside slow wind, never fast. From the presently available spacecraft observations, it is not possible to rule out the possibility that slow wind also occurs in locations unconnected to the HCS, in other words, that there are pockets of slow wind with no embedded HCS and surrounded completely by fast wind. However, the present data are certainly consistent with the picture that, at least, during solar minimum when the corona-wind mapping can be determined with some accuracy, all slow wind originates from a band that encompasses the HCS, so that the mapping of the slow wind down to the Sun appears to connect to or near the helmet streamer belt [e.g., @gosling97; @zhao09].
Another key feature of the slow wind is its latitudinal extent, which typically ranges from $40^\circ$–$60^\circ$ near solar minimum, a time when it is easiest to distinguish the sources of fast and slow wind. Within this broad region of slow wind the actual HCS, across which the magnetic field changes direction, is very narrow. As for any current sheet, one can identify in the heliospheric data a scale over which the field becomes small and the plasma beta, defined as the ratio of the gas pressure $P_g$ to the magnetic pressure $B^2/8\pi$, becomes large. This region is termed the plasma sheet and is usually of the order of a few degrees in angular width [e.g., @winterhalter94; @bavassano97; @wang00; @crooker04]. It is important to note that the HCS is often not symmetrically located within the broad band of slow wind, but is often found nearer to one edge of the slow wind region [@burlaga02]. It is also important to note that the field almost never vanishes at the HCS, as would be expected for a true steady-state. This observation implies that, at least, the wind near the HCS must be continuously dynamic.
The final and most critical feature of the slow wind that distinguishes it from the fast is the plasma composition [@geiss95; @vonsteiger95]. It is well-known that in the closed field corona, the ratio of the abundances of elements with low first ionization potential (FIP), such as Mg and Fe, to those with high FIP, such as C and Ne, is a factor 4 or so higher than in the photosphere [e.g., @meyer85; @feldman03]. This so-called FIP effect is not seen in the fast wind, which has abundances similar to those of the photosphere; but, it is present in the slow wind, which has abundances similar to that of the closed corona [@gosling97; @zurbuchen06; @zurbuchen07].
Along with the difference in elemental abundances, the slow and fast wind also exhibit clear differences in their ion charge state abundances, for example, the ratio of ${\rm O}^7/{\rm O}^6$. This ratio can be used to determine the “freeze-in” temperature of the ion charge states at the source of the wind. Close to the Sun where the time scales for ionization and recombination are much shorter than the plasma’s expansion time-scales, the ion charge states are approximately in ionization equilibrium with the local electron temperature. As the solar wind plasma expands outward, however, the electron density drops rapidly and the recombination time scales become so large that the ionic charge states stop changing, freezing-in the electron temperature at this point. The freeze-in radius varies for the different ions, but is typically 1 - 3 R$_\odot$. The data show that the slow wind has a higher freeze-in temperature ($\ge 1.5 \times 10^6\,{\rm K}$) than the fast wind ($\le
1.2 \times 10^6\,{\rm K}$) [@vonsteiger97; @vonsteiger01; @zurbuchen99; @zurbuchen02]. Note, however, that this freeze-in temperature corresponds only to the electron temperature in the low corona. The proton and ion temperatures measured in situ and in coronal holes by UVCS, for example, [e.g., @kohl06] show the opposite trend in that the ion temperatures are substantially higher in the fast wind than in the slow [@marsch06]. The origin of these differences in the ion temperatures between the two winds is still not clear, but in any case, both the ion and freeze-in temperatures suggest that the sources of the two winds near the Sun are physically different.
The elemental abundances track very well the ionic abundances, indicating that there is a consistent compositional distinction between the two winds. Furthermore, the two winds have markedly different temporal variability in elemental and ionic composition. The fast exhibits an approximately constant composition; whereas the slow exhibits large and continuous variability, so that its elemental composition varies from coronal to near photospheric. The composition results suggest that the fast wind has a unique origin, presumably in coronal holes, but that the slow wind originates from a mixture of sources.
In fact, Zurbuchen and coworkers have argued that the compositional differences, rather than the speed, are what truly distinguish the two winds, because it is possible to find solar wind whose composition and constancy match that of the “fast wind,” but that has relatively slow speed, $< 500\,{\rm km/s}$ [@zhao09]. Note also that, as determined by the composition measurements [@zurbuchen99], the boundary between the slow and fast wind in the heliosphere is sharp, of order a few degrees in angular extent, much smaller than the angular width of the slow wind region, but comparable to that of the plasma sheet. An important point is that the observed sharpness of the composition transition is not merely a dynamical effect, because it does not depend on whether the stream-stream transition is fast to slow or slow to fast [@geiss95; @zurbuchen07]. We conclude, therefore, that the fast and slow winds are far more appropriately described as the steady and unsteady winds, and that the boundary layer between the two winds is much narrower than the width of either wind.
Since the differences in plasma composition of the two winds must be due to differences in their origins at the Sun, the composition data place severe constraints on the possible sources of the slow wind. In particular, the data imply that the slow wind originates in the dynamic opening of closed magnetic flux, which releases closed-corona plasma into the wind. Such a process would also naturally explain the difference in variability between the fast and slow wind.
It should be emphasized, however, that this constraint on the slow wind’s origin is not universally accepted. Several authors have argued that the slow wind originates from open-field coronal holes, just like the fast wind, but from the [*edges*]{} of the holes, where the field expands super-radially as it extends from the photosphere out to the heliosphere [e.g., @kovalenko81; @wang91; @cranmer05; @cranmer07; @wang09]. The hypothesis is that a large expansion factor can both slow down the wind by affecting the location of wave energy deposition in coronal flux tubes, and change the plasma composition by the FIP mechanism proposed by @laming04. Note that in the expansion factor model, as in all steady state wind solutions, the properties of the wind in a given flux tube are determined uniquely, in most cases, by the flux tube geometry and the forms of the heating and momentum deposition [@cranmer07]. Of course the detailed forms of the heating and momentum deposition will depend on the flux tube geometry, and may depend on other factors, as well, but the dependence on these other factors cannot be dominant; otherwise the calculated wind speed would not be well correlated with expansion factor. In other words, two flux tubes on the Sun with identical geometry should have similar heating/momentum deposition and end up with the same wind properties. Therefore, the steady-state models inherently predict a tight correlation between speed and composition [e.g., @cranmer07].
The problem, however, is that observations indicate that wind speed is not tightly correlated with composition. The wind from small equatorial coronal holes with a large expansion factor is indeed slow, with speeds $< 500\,{\rm km/s}$, in good agreement with the predictions of the expansion factor models. But this wind has photospheric FIP ratios, so it is still considered to be “fast wind” [@zhao09]. Furthermore, this not-so-fast wind has the temporal quasi-steadiness of the fast wind, rather than the quasi-chaotic time variation of the slow wind.
We conclude, therefore, that the most likely source for the true slow wind, that with FIP-enhanced coronal composition, is the closed-field corona. In this case, the process that releases the coronal plasma to the wind must be either the opening of closed flux or interchange reconnection between open and closed magnetic field lines. This latter process is the underlying mechanism invoked by Fisk and co-workers [@fisk98; @fisk03; @fisk09] in their model for the heliospheric field. These authors argue that open flux can diffuse freely throughout the solar surface, even deep inside the helmet streamer region. If so, then the interchange reconnection between open and closed magnetic field lines would naturally account for both the composition and geometrical properties of the slow wind. The difficulty with this model is that it has not been demonstrated that such open flux diffusion can actually occur. In fact, detailed MHD simulations indicate that it is difficult to bring open fields into closed-field regions without having them close down [@edmondson10; @linker10]. The simulation results are in agreement with @ska07, who argued that, for the low-beta corona, basic MHD force balance forbids the presence of open flux deep inside the closed helmet streamer region.
Within the context of MHD models, the most likely location for the release of closed-field plasma is from the tops of helmet streamers (the Y-point at the bottom of the HCS), where the balance between gas pressure and magnetic pressure is most sensitive to perturbations. A number of authors have argued that streamer tops are unstable and should undergo continual opening and closing as a result of thermal instability [@suess96; @endeve04; @rappazzo05]. Even if streamer tops are stable, it seems inevitable that the constant emergence and disappearance of photospheric flux and the constant motions of the photospheric would force them to be continuously evolving. Furthermore, coronagraph observations often show the ejection of “blobs” from the tops of streamers and into the HCS [@sheeley97].
Although this streamer top model seems promising in that it naturally explains both the composition and variability, it has difficulty in accounting for the large angular widths of the slow wind. One would expect the instabilities to be confined to the high-plasma beta region about the current sheet. In fact, the plasma emanating from the streamer tops, the so-called stalks, is observed to be only $\sim
3^{\circ}$–$6^{\circ}$ wide, which agrees well with the plasma sheet width in the heliosphere [@bavassano97; @wang00]. Even if the plasma sheet width were to be widened by the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability [e.g., @einaudi99], there would not be enough mass flux from the narrow region at the streamer tops to account for the slow wind. The streamer-top models can account for a thin band of slow wind around the HCS, but it seems unlikely that this is the origin of the bulk of the slow wind, which can extend as far as $30^{\circ}$ in latitude from the HCS.
In order to be compatible with the in situ data, we require some process that releases closed-field plasma onto open field lines that, in the heliosphere, can be far from the HCS. This requirement seems impossible to satisfy, because the plasma release must occur at the boundary between the open and closed field in the corona, which maps directly to the HCS. We describe below, however, a magnetic topology that resolves this slow wind paradox: the flux associated with an open-field corridor can be simultaneously near to and far from the open-closed boundary!
The Topology of an Open-Field Corridor
======================================
Figure 1 illustrates the magnetic connectivity from the photosphere to the heliosphere that results from an open-field corridor. The dark yellow inner sphere in the figure represents the photosphere, while the light yellow, semi-transparent one represents an arbitrary radial surface in the open-field heliosphere, say at $5R_\odot$ The green line on the photosphere marks the boundary between open (gray) and closed (yellow) field regions, which is mapped by the magnetic field (red lines) to the HCS (thick green line) at the $5R_\odot$ surface. The green line at the HCS is also the polarity inversion line at this surface. Note that the four points, a, b, c, and d, which are meant to represent the end-points of the corridor at the Sun, map sequentially to the corresponding points a$^\prime$, b$^\prime$, c$^\prime$, and d$^\prime$ along the HCS.
The open field pattern at the photosphere of Fig. 1 consists of a large polar coronal hole and, as is often seen, a smaller low-latitude hole. In recent work, we argued that if the two holes are in the same photospheric polarity region, then by our uniqueness conjecture the holes must be connected by an open field corridor, as illustrated above [@ska07]. It is evident from the figure that the flux in the corridor maps on the heliospheric surface to a thin arc (light gray band), bounded at both ends by the HCS. The flux between the arc and the HCS maps to the low-latitude extension while the flux outside the arc maps to the main part of the polar coronal hole. The corridor and its associated arc are the footprints of two quasi-separatrix layers [QSLs, e.g., @priest95; @demoulin96] that combine into a hyperbolic flux tube, as has been described in detail by @titov02 [@titov08] for the case of closed magnetic configurations. In contrast, the HCS is a true separatrix.
The key point for understanding the origin of the slow wind is that, just like the HCS, the QSL arc in the heliosphere can also be a source region for slow wind. If the open-field corridor at the Sun is sufficiently narrow, then the continual evolution of the photosphere, driven by the ever-present supergranular flow and flux emergence/submergence in particular, will continually change the exact location of this corridor. But, by the uniqueness conjecture [@ska07], the corridor is a topologically robust feature, similar to a null-point, and must be present on the photosphere as long as the low-latitude coronal hole extension is present. Its location and shape, however, will vary in response to local photospheric changes. These variations require field line opening/closing and interchange reconnection, thereby releasing closed-field plasma all along the QSL arc in the heliosphere. Therefore, if the QSL arc extends to high latitudes, this will naturally produce slow wind with an extent far from the HCS.
To determine whether the QSL resulting from an open field corridor does, indeed, reach high heliospheric latitudes, we have calculated an example of a field such as that of Fig. 1 using the source surface model [@altschuler69; @schatten69; @hoeksema91]. The field is most easily determined from the image-dipole formula derived by @ska07. For a dipole with moment $\vec{d}$ located at a point $\vec{r}_d$ inside the Sun, and a source surface at radius $R_S$, the magnetic field $\vec{B}$ is determined from the potential $\Phi$ via $\vec{B} = - \nabla \Phi$, where $\Phi$ is given by: $$\Phi = \frac{\vec{d} \cdot (\vec{r} - \vec{r}_d)}{| \vec{r} - \vec{r}_d|^3}
- \frac{R_S r_d^3 \vec{d} \cdot (R_S^2 \vec{r} - r^2 \vec{r}_d)}
{| r_d^2 \vec{r} - R_S^2 \vec{r}_d|^3}.$$ This field satisfies the source-surface boundary condition that $B_\theta=B_\phi=0$ at $r=R_S$, since $\Phi=0$ there. The advantage of this formulation is that most active regions can be approximated by a collection of dipoles, and one can build up a field of arbitrary complexity by simply adding a series of dipoles of the form of Eq. (1). Each dipole is specified in terms of its position in spherical coordinates $\vec{r}_d=r_d\vec{\hat r}(\theta_d,\phi_d)$, where $r_d$, $\theta_d$, and $\phi_d$ specify the location of the dipole, and the spherical components of its dipole moment, $\vec{d}=(d_r,d_\theta,d_\phi)$.
Figure 2 shows the field computed from Eq. (1) for the case of two dipoles: a sun-centered global dipole with a dipole moment of unit magnitude directed along the north polar axis, and an equatorial “active region” dipole at $\vec{r}_d=0.8R_\odot\vec{\hat r}(90^\circ,0^\circ)$ with a northward-pointing dipole moment $\vec{d} = (0,-0.2,0)$. The source surface radius is chosen as $R_S=4R_\odot$, though the exact value is not critical for our argument. Note that for convenience in viewing the magnetic field, we have selected the dipole parameters so that the system has symmetry across both the equatorial $(\theta = 90^{\circ})$ and meridional $(\phi = 0)$ planes. Also, for ease of viewing, we show in the Fig. 2 only the front hemisphere defined by the angular region $(15^{\circ} \le \theta \le 90^{\circ})$ and $(-90^{\circ} \le \phi \le 90^{\circ})$.
The solar surface, the photosphere, corresponds to the gray grid in Fig. 2. The colored contours on this surface correspond to contours of radial flux, indicating the presence of the active region dipole at the equator. We selected the parameters for the active region dipole so that its structure would be easily resolved. It is evident from Fig. 2 that the region is large compared to real active regions, which are generally only a few degrees in angular extent. On the other hand, the maximum field strength at the dipole center is only $\sim 20$ times that of the polar region, which is much less than the corresponding ratio for solar active regions, so the flux ratio between the active region and global background field is approximately correct. This ratio is the important parameter to obtain a coronal hole extension.
The thick black line along the equator is the $B_r = 0$ contour, i.e., the polarity inversion line. The thick black line above the solar surface is the polarity inversion line at the source surface, i.e., the bottom of the HCS. Red field lines are traced at equal intervals along the HCS down to the solar surface. These define the boundary between open and closed field lines. As expected, the effect of the equatorial dipole is to pull the open-closed boundary down to lower latitudes; in other words, to create a low-latitude extension of the coronal hole, which can be seen as the gray shaded region in the Figure. Far from the dipole, the coronal hole boundary is at a latitude of $\sim 54^\circ$, whereas at the meridional symmetry plane the boundary drops down to $\sim 26^\circ$.
For the large spatial scale of our active region dipole, the extension of the coronal hole down to low latitudes is gradual rather than in the form of a distinct “elephant trunk”, but the basic effect is clearly present. There is no open-field corridor in Fig. 2, but let us now add another dipole to the system, displaced $20^{\circ}$ in both latitude and longitude from the equatorial one and a factor of five times weaker. This dipole is located at $\vec{r}_d=0.8R_\odot\vec{\hat r}(70^\circ,20^\circ)$ with a primarily southward-pointing dipole moment $\vec{d} = (0,0.05,0)$. In order to maintain the equatorial and meridional symmetry, as mentioned earlier, we actually add 4 dipoles symmetrically located about the equatorial and meridional planes.
The resulting field is shown in Figure 3. The effect of the additional dipoles is to add high-latitude polarity inversion lines to the system. These “squeeze” the open-flux extension of Fig. 2 to form a narrow corridor and a low-latitude coronal hole. As in Fig. 2, red field lines are traced from equidistant footpoints along the HCS down to the solar surface. The red footpoints at the photosphere appear to traverse the boundary of the low-latitude hole and then jump abruptly to the polar hole boundary, which implies that the mapping defined by the field develops extreme gradients in the region connecting the two holes. To clarify this point, we have traced two sets of field lines, colored in blue, from footpoints that are closely located at the HCS. The corresponding solar footpoints are much more widely spaced, running along the corridor. The resulting structure, Fig. 3, looks very similar to the mapping drawn in Fig. 1, in that the closely spaced pairs of points a$^\prime$,b$^\prime$ and c$^\prime$,d$^\prime$ at the HCS map to far-separated points a,b and c,d at the solar surface. Note also that although the footpoints of the two sets of blue lines approach each other very closely at the photosphere, they are far separated at the HCS, by a distance of order $R_\odot$. This result indicates that even though the low-latitude coronal hole has small area, it contains a substantial magnetic flux. As is evident from the colored contours in Fig. 3, the photospheric field strength in the low-latitude hole is large due to the presence of the active region dipole.
The analytic model underlying Fig. 3 has similar topology to the case shown schematically in Fig. 1. The low-latitude coronal hole extension in Fig. 3 is connected to the main polar hole by a corridor that becomes very narrow. Furthermore, this type of topology is not difficult to obtain. It is often observed in quasi-steady MHD solutions for observed photospheric fields, as will be shown below. A similar corridor was found for Carrington rotation 1922 [@ska07].
The question now is whether the open flux in the corridor connects to large latitudes in the heliosphere. To answer this question, we trace field lines from a set of photospheric footpoints lying on a latitudinal line segment spanning the narrowest width of the corridor, which is only of order $5{,}000\,{\rm km}$ at the photosphere. Fig. 4b shows the footpoints and the field lines (green) near the photosphere and Fig. 4a shows where they map to on the source surface. We note that the corridor maps to high latitudes. In fact, for this analytic case, the corridor mapping defines a QSL arc that reaches latitudes $> 45^{\circ}$, greater than that of the observed slow wind.
This result, that the corridor maps to heliospheric latitudes far above the HCS, is robust in that it is not sensitive to the exact position of the secondary dipole. The position and geometry of the corridor, on the other hand, is very sensitive to the photospheric flux distribution. For example, its width would change or even become singular [@titov11], and its location would change substantially if the secondary dipoles were moved in longitude. Based on flux conservation arguments, and the fact that the heliospheric magnetic field is almost uniform in latitude, we can argue that the angular extent of the QSL arc, however, would be expected to depend primarily on the ratio of the flux in the low-latitude coronal hole extension to that in the polar hole. For example, in the extreme case that the fluxes were equal, the corridor mapping would be expected to reach the heliospheric pole ($90^\circ$ from the HCS!), irrespective of the geometry of the corridor or of the coronal holes.
The S-Web Model
===============
If the width of the corridor at the photosphere is small compared to the scale of typical motions there, such as the supergranular flow, we expect that the whole corridor will continuously disrupt and reform at the photosphere and, consequently, closed-field plasma will be released by reconnection all along the QSL arc in the heliosphere. Therefore, the topology of Fig. 2 may be able to resolve the slow wind paradox. The overriding question, however, is whether there are enough such corridors and corresponding QSL arcs in the heliosphere to account for the slow wind that is observed. The flux distribution of Fig. 2 produces only one such arc, which would certainly not be sufficient to reproduce the observed slow wind. There are two issues that must be addressed, the number of arcs (their density and extent on the Sun and heliosphere), and the amount of mass and energy that each arc can be expected to release. In this paper we concentrate on the first issue and only briefly discuss the second in Section 4 below, because addressing this issue requires fully dynamic calculations.
In order to address the issue of the number of QSL arcs, we calculated the quasi-steady model for an observed photospheric flux distribution. Figure 5a shows the photospheric radial field as derived from MDI observations on SOHO [@scherrer95] for a time period preceding the August 1, 2008 total solar eclipse. This calculation was used to predict the structure of the corona prior to the eclipse, using magnetic field data measured during the period June 25–July 21, 2008. The prediction compares very favorably with images of the corona taken during the eclipse in Mongolia [@rusin10]. Note that the high resolution of the calculation captures the details of many small-scale bipoles in the photospheric magnetic field [@harvey85]. This has been incorporated into the idea of the “magnetic carpet” [@schrijver97]. We also show the polarity inversion line $B_r=0$ slightly above the photosphere, at $r=1.05R_\odot$ to delineate the magnetic polarity of the large-scale structures. (The polarity inversion line in the photosphere itself shows an enormous complexity that overshadows its usefulness to discern the large-scale magnetic polarity.)
The quasi-steady model was calculated by using the 3D MHD code MAS. The MAS code and its implementation are described in detail by @mikic94, @mikic99, @linker99, and @lionello09. MAS solves the time-dependent MHD equations, including a realistic energy equation with optically thin radiation and thermal conduction parallel to the magnetic field. Given the magnetic field at the photosphere and an assumption for the coronal heating source, the MHD equations are advanced until the magnetic field settles down close to steady state. MHD models are generally considered to be the most sophisticated implementation of Parker’s solar wind theory because they incorporate all the essential physics, including the balance between gas pressure and Lorentz force. An important assumption is the form of coronal heating, which is prescribed empirically at the present time since the coronal heating process is still unknown. The parameters of the empirical heating model are constrained by observations of coronal emission in EUV and X-rays [e.g., @lionello09], as well as by solar wind measurements. Details on the assumed form for the heating and on the thermodynamics used in the MAS code can be found in @mikic07 and @lionello09.
In order to capture as much of the photospheric magnetic structure as possible, we ran the MAS code with unprecedented resolution. Our calculation used more than 16 million mesh cells and was run on over 4000 processors of NSF’s Ranger supercomputer at the Texas Advanced Computing Center, making it possible to include much of the small-scale structure of the photospheric field in both the quiet sun and in coronal holes, as shown in Fig. 5a. These calculations are unique in the degree to which they capture the small-scale structure of the measured magnetic field.
Figure 5b shows the distribution of open and closed magnetic field regions at the solar surface as determined by the model. It is evident that there are many low-latitude coronal hole extensions, similar to that in Fig. 3, but with much more structure. Several of these extensions appear to be disconnected from the main polar holes, but this is partly due to the limited resolution of the figure. A few of these coronal hole extensions are indeed connected by very thin corridors in the photosphere, though many are only linked to the polar coronal holes in a singular manner, as described in detail by @titov11, and as discussed further below.
The open field pattern in Fig. 5b is clearly complex, but the important issue is the degree of complexity of the mapping into the heliosphere and, in particular, the structure of the separatrices and QSLs there. We determined the open field mapping in great detail by tracing tens of millions of magnetic field lines. The topology of this mapping, as evidenced by structures such as separatrices and QSLs, is most easily seen by analyzing the squashing factor $Q$ [@titov02; @titov07]. $Q$ is a measure of the distortion in the magnetic field mapping, and is directly related to the gradients in the connectivity. QSLs are regions of very large $Q$; we generally define them as any region with $Q > 10^3$. True separatrices such as the HCS have infinite $Q$, because the mapping is singular there, but when computed numerically they appear as surfaces with very large (unresolved) values of $Q$. The gray arc at $r=5R_\odot$ in Fig. 1 is a QSL in the open field, and consequently would be a region of high $Q$. The green HCS would also be a region of high (infinite) $Q$. As will be seen below, a high-resolution analysis of the $Q$ properties of our MHD simulation is extremely informative.
Figure 6a shows $Q$ in a meridional plane at a central Carrington longitude of $23.33^\circ$ at the time of the eclipse at 10:21UT, while Figure 6b shows magnetic field lines traced from the vicinity of the solar limbs at the same time. We see that $Q$ outlines the boundary between open and closed field, which is a true separatrix surface, but it is apparent that there is much more detailed structure in both the closed and open field regions. The complex structure of $Q$ in the closed-field region is expected; it simply reflects the fact that the photospheric field consists of many small bipoles; but, there is also substantial structure in the open field near the open-closed boundary. Note the presence of a “pseudostreamer” on the NE limb, a feature that has been discussed by @wang07. The relationship of pseudostreamers to open hole corridors and the S-web is discussed in detail in @titov11
Figure 7a shows $Q$ in the spherical surface at $r=10R_\odot$ using a logarithmic scale. This is the structure that is expected to map into the inner heliosphere (appropriately wrapped into a spiral magnetic field by solar rotation), since the magnetic field has reached its asymptotic structure by this radius. The thick black line is the heliospheric current sheet (at which $B_r$ reverses sign). Figure 7b shows the magnitude of $B_r$ at the same radial surface $r=10R_\odot$. Note that the choice of $10R_\odot$ is not crucial. Any surface in the heliosphere (where the field is all open) yields similar results.
It is important to emphasize that the apparent structure in $Q$ expresses only the connectivity of the open field, not its actual magnitude. In spite of the enormous magnetic complexity at the solar surface, the radial field distribution in the heliosphere is completely unremarkable, Fig. 7b. There is a single polarity inversion line denoting a single HCS, as is generally observed near solar minimum, and this HCS runs more or less equatorial. The radial field is essentially uniform away from the HCS, as would be expected from simple pressure balance. (Careful examination of the plot of $B_r$ shows that there is a faint semblance of the structure that can be seen in $Q$, but it is only a small perturbation.)
On the other hand, the $Q$ map at this surface [*is*]{} remarkable, indeed, Fig. 7a. We see that surrounding the HCS is a broad web of separatrices and QSLs of enormous complexity. There are at least four striking features of this S-web. First, it has an angular extent in latitude of approximately $40^\circ$, sufficient to account for the observed extent of the slow wind. Note also that the angular extent does vary with longitude, but only by a factor of two or so. Second, the HCS is not necessarily in the center of the S-web, but is sometimes near its edge. This can explain the frequent observation that the HCS is usually not centrally located within slow wind streams [e.g., @burlaga02]. Third, the boundary between the S-web layer and the featureless polar hole region is sharp; it is narrow compared to the width of the S-web. This can explain the observation that the transition from slow to fast wind as measured by the composition data is narrow compared to the slow wind region itself [@zurbuchen99].
In order to explore the details of how coronal hole extensions connect to the polar holes, we calculated coronal hole areas at different heights in the corona. Figure 8 shows the location of a region near longitude $75^\circ$ and latitude $15^\circ$N in which we explored the connection between the low-latitude coronal hole extensions (of negative polarity, shown in blue) in detail. It is evident that the coronal hole extensions in this region appear disconnected from the north polar hole in the photosphere, but connect with it low in the corona (at heights approximately between $0.01R_\odot$ and $0.02R_\odot$ above the photosphere). Figure 9 shows explicitly how these coronal holes connect in the low corona. The three-dimensional shape of the coronal hole boundary is shown as a green semi-transparent surface in the low corona in the region detailed in Figure 8. This is the boundary between open and closed field regions. The regions marked by A, B, and C show examples in which the extensions of coronal holes are not connected in the photosphere, at least by any measurable open-field corridor, but appear to connect above the photosphere in the low corona. These regions are also indicated in Figure 8 for ease of cross-reference. Despite the fact that these coronal holes are “disconnected” in the photosphere, they always remain topologically [*linked*]{} in a singular manner with the polar coronal hole, as discussed by @titov11.
Finally, note that the connections of the high-$Q$ lines between the neighborhood of the HCS and the photosphere and low corona that were postulated by the uniqueness conjecture [@ska07] are largely present, even though the insight from these new high-resolution MHD simulations has led us to generalize the uniqueness conjecture. We have found that, in general, coronal hole extensions are sometimes connected to the polar holes in the photosphere via narrow corridors, as originally postulated [@ska07], but in other instances they are disconnected in the photosphere, but remain topologically linked to the polar holes [@titov11]. In either case, these connections are responsible for the formation of the S-web. It should be emphasized that in order to capture the intricate structure of these connections, very high resolution models are required that can incorporate some of the complexity of the photospheric magnetic carpet fields. Given sufficient resolution, the S-web should appear as a generic feature of all quasi-steady models, including the PFSS. In fact, the PFSS models should be more effective than the MHD for studying the complex topology of the S-web, because they allow for much higher spatial resolution than is possible with an MHD code. On the other hand, for quantitative comparison with observations, the MHD models should be more effective, because they include the gas thermal and kinetic pressure forces and Lorentz forces that we know are present in the real corona.
Discussion
==========
The major conclusion from our results is that the underlying premise of the streamer top model is valid. The slow wind is expected to originate from the release of closed-field plasma due to the dynamic rearrangement of the open-closed field boundary. The key new addition of our S-web model to this picture is that the inherent complexity of the photospheric field leads to a network of narrowly connected and disconnected coronal holes that nevertheless always remain linked. This produces a separatrix web in the heliosphere that extends the release of slow wind to regions that significantly depart from the HCS. Hence, our model accounts for both the observed composition and the broad extent of the slow wind.
One immediate prediction from the model is that the angular width of the slow wind is determined primarily by the complexity of the flux distribution in the photosphere. This complexity produces a very convoluted polarity inversion line in the low corona and an intricate coronal hole pattern (Figure 5). Our ability to identify the S-web and its manifestations rests on high-resolution calculations that are beginning to capture the multitude of small dipoles in the photospheric magnetic field. If the solar field were a pure dipole, producing an inversion line that runs straight along the equator, then only the polar coronal holes would be present and there would be no separatrix web in the heliosphere. For this “basal” (though idealized) slow wind case, if we assume that the dynamic broadening of the open-closed boundary at the Sun is of order the scale of a supergranule, $\sim 30{,}000\,{\rm km}$, the angular extent of the wind would be only of order $3^\circ$–$5^\circ$, and would be centered about the HCS. Of course, the solar field is never a simple dipole.
At the present time we do not know if the complexity seen in Figures 5–7 is typical, or whether it is particular to this late declining phase of Cycle 23. It should be noted that the present minimum appears to be somewhat different than the previous few minima. In particular, the polar field strength is significantly weaker [e.g., @luhmann09].
The S-web model predicts that for time periods during which extensions of coronal holes away from the main polar holes are less prevalent than in Cycle 23, the angular extent of the slow wind region would be smaller. In fact, there is clear evidence from radio scintillation data [@tokumaru10] and recent Ulysses solar wind measurements that the Cycle 23 minimum has a substantially broader and more structured slow wind region than that of the previous cycle. Indeed, during the previous minimum (circa 1996), equatorial coronal hole extensions were less common than during the recent solar minimum. Further high-resolution numerical calculations will be needed to address this result.
Another prediction of the model is that the slow wind region is actually a mixture of winds. It is evident from Fig. 7 that the separatrix web is not space-filling. There are regions within the broad S-web band where the wind emanates from the low-latitude coronal hole extensions. These regions are likely to have large expansion factor, so that the wind will be slow compared to the fast wind from the polar regions, but its composition will be different than that of closed-field plasma. Our model, therefore, naturally explains the observed variability of the slow wind composition.
A key aspect of the S-web model that has yet to be calculated is the dynamic release of closed-field plasma. Although our quasi-steady calculations allow us to investigate the topology of the field, and to identify the structure of the separatrix web in the heliosphere, they do not actually produce a slow wind with closed-field composition. For this we need fully dynamic simulations that include the driving due to photospheric motions (e.g., resulting from differential rotation) and flux emergence. Such simulations are now being performed in 3D [e.g., @edmondson09; @edmondson10; @linker10] for simplified photospheric flux distributions and driving flows. These simulations do verify the basic idea of the S-web model that open-field corridors will form and evolve in response to photospheric motions [@edmondson09]. Higher resolution simulations will be needed, however, to test the model in detail. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that dynamic calculations with the degree of structure present in Fig. 7 will be feasible in the near future. It is likely that a definitive treatment of the slow wind will require the development of a statistical theory of the dynamics of the S-web model.
This work has been supported by the NASA TR&T, SR&T, and HTP Programs. The work has benefited greatly from the authors’ participation in the NASA TR&T focused science team on the solar-heliospheric magnetic field. SKA thanks J. Karpen for invaluable scientific discussions and help with the graphics.
Altschuler, M. D. & Newkirk, G. 1969, , 131
Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., Karpen, J. T., & Mikić, Z. 2007, , 671, 936
Bame, S. J., Asbridge, J. R., Feldman, W. C., & Gosling, J. T. 1977, , 82, 148
Bavassano, B., Woo, R., & Bruno, R. 1997, , 24, 1655
Bruno, R. & Carbone, V. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, no. 4, http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2005-4/
Burlaga, L. F., Ness, N. F., Wang, Y.-M., & Sheeley, N. R. 2002, , 107(A11), 1410, doi:10.1029/2001JA009217
Cranmer, S. R. & van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2005, , 156, 265
Cranmer, S. R., van Ballegooijen, A. A., & Edgar, R. J. 2007, , 171, 520
Crooker, N. U., Huang, C.-L., Lamassa, S. M., Larson, D. E., Kahler, S. W., & Spence, H. E. 2004, , 109, A03107, doi:10.1029/2003JA010170
Démoulin, P., Henoux, J. C., Priest, E. R., & Mandrini, C. H. 1996, , 308, 643
Edmondson, J. K., Lynch, B. J., Antiochos, S. K., De Vore, C. R., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2009, , 707, 1427
Edmondson, J. K., Antiochos, S. K., De Vore, C. R., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2010, , submitted
Einaudi, G., Boncinelli, P., Dahlburg, R. B., & Karpen, J. T. 1999, , 104, 521
Endeve, E., Holzer, T. E., &Leer, E. 2004, , 603, 307
Feldman, U. & Widing, K. G. 2003, , 107, 665
Fisk, L. A., Schwadron, N. A., & Zurbuchen, T. H. 1998, , 86, 51
Fisk, L. A. 2003, , 108, 1157
Fisk, L. A. & Zhao, L. 2009, in Universal Heliospheric Processes, Proc. IAU Symp. 257, 109
Geiss, J., Gloeckler, G, & von Steiger, R. 1995, , 72, 49
Gosling, J. T. 1997, in AIP Conf. Proc. 385, Robotic Exploration Close to the Sun: Scientific Basis, ed. S. R. Habbal (Woodbury: AIP), 17
Harvey, K. L. 1985, Aust. J. Phys., 38, 875
Hoeksema, J. T. 1991, Adv. Space Res., 11, 15
Kohl, J. L., Noci, G., Cranmer, S. R., & Raymond, J. C. 2006, , 13, 31
Kovalenko, V. A. 1981, , 73, 383
Laming, J. M. 2004, , 614, 1063
Luhmann, J. G. et al. 2009, , 256, 285
Linker, J. A., Mikić, Z., Biesecker, D. A., Forsyth, R. J., Gibson, S. E., Lazarus, A. J., Lecinski, A., Riley, P., Szabo, A., & Thompson, B. J. 1999, , 104, 9809
Linker, J. A., Lionello, R., Mikić, Z., Titov, V. S., & Antiochos, S. K. 2010, , submitted
Lionello, R., Linker, J. A., & Mikić, Z. 2009, , 690, 902
Marsch, E. 2006, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 3, no. 1, http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2006-1/
McComas, D. J., Barraclough, B. L., Funsten, H. O., Gosling, J. T., Santiago-Munoz, E., Skoug, R. M., Goldstein, B. E., Neugebauer, M., Riley, P., & Balogh, A. 2000, , 105, 10419
McComas, D. J., et al. 2008, , 35, L18103
Meyer, J.-P. 1985, , 57, 173
Mikić, Z., & Linker, J. A. 1994, , 430, 898
Mikić, Z., Linker, J. A., Schnack, D. D., Lionello, R., & Tarditi, A. 1999, Phys. Plasmas, 6, 2217
Mikić, Z., Linker, J. A., Lionello, R., Riley, P., & Titov, V. 2007, in Solar and Stellar Physics Through Eclipses, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 370, eds. O. Demircan, S. O. Selam, & B. Albayrak, (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), p.299
Parker, E. N. 1958, , 128, 664
Parker, E. N. 1963, Interplanetary Dynamic Processes, (New York: Interscience Publishers)
Priest, E. R., & Démoulin, P. 1995, , 100, 23443
Rappazzo, A. F.,Velli, M., Einaudi, G., & Dahlburg, R. B. 2005, , 633, 474
Ru[š]{}in, V., Druckmüller, M., Aniol, P., Minarovjech, M., Saniga, M., Mikić, Z., Linker, J. A., Lionello, R., Riley, P., & Titov, V. S. 2010, , 513, A45
Schatten, K., Wilcox, J. W., & Ness, N. F. 1969, , 9, 442
Scherrer, P. H. et al. 1995, , 162, 129
Schrijver, C. J. et al. 1997, Nature, 48, 424
Schwenn, R., 1990, in Physics of the Inner Heliosphere I, eds. R Schwenn & E. Marsch, (Berlin:Springer-Verlag), p.99
Sheeley, N. R., Jr. et al. 1997, , 484, 472
von Steiger, R., Schweingruber, R. F., Wimmer, R., Geiss, J., & Gloeckler, G. 1995, Adv. Space Res.y, 15(7), 3
von Steiger, R., Geiss, J., & Gloeckler, G. 1997, in Cosmic Winds and the Heliosphere, eds. J. R. Jokipii, C. P. Sonett, & M. S. Giampapa (Tucson: Arizona U Press), p. 581.
von Steiger, R., et al., 2000, , 105, 27217.
von Steiger, R., Zurbuchen, T. H., Geiss, J., Gloeckler, G., Fisk, L. A., & Schwadron, N. A. 2001, , 97, 123
Suess, S.T., Wang, A-H. & Wu, S. T. 1996, 101, 19957
Titov, V. S., Démoulin, P., & Hornig, G. 1999, in Magnetic Fields and Solar Processes, ESA SP-448, 715T
Titov, V. S., Hornig, G., & Démoulin, P. 2002, , 107, 1164
Titov, V. S. 2007, , 660, 863
Titov, V. S., Mikić, Z., Linker, J. A., & Lionello, R. 2008, , 675, 1614
Titov, V. S., Mikić, Z., Linker, J. A., Lionello, R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2011, , in press
Tokumaru, M., Kojima, M., & Fujiki, K. 2010, , 115(A4), 4102, doi:10.1029/2009JA014628
Wang, Y.-M., & Sheeley, N. R. 1991, , 372, L45
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R., Socker, D. G., Howard, R. A., & Rich, N. B. 2000, , 105(A11), 25133
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R., Jr., & Rich, N. B. 2007, , 658, 1340
Wang, Y.-M., Ko, Y.-K., & Grappin, R. 2009, , 691, 760
Winterhalter, D., Smith, E. J., Burton, M. E., Murphy, N., & McComas, D. J. 1994, , 99(A4), 6667
Zhao, L., Zurbuchen, T. H., & Fisk, L. A. 2009, , 36, CiteID L14104, doi:10.1029/2009GL039181
Zirker, J. B. 1977, Coronal Holes and High Speed Wind Streams, (Boulder: Colorado Assoc. University Press)
Zurbuchen, T. H., Hefti, S., Fisk, L. A., Gloeckler, G., & von Steiger, R. 1999, , 87, 353
Zurbuchen, T. H., Fisk, L. A., Gloeckler, G., & von Steiger, R. 2002, , 29, 66, doi: 10.1029/2001GL013946
Zurbuchen, T. H., & von Steiger, R. 2006, in SOHO 17: 10 years of SOHO and Beyond, ed. H. Lacoste & B. Fleck, (Noordwijk, ESA), SP-617, p. 7.1
Zurbuchen, T. H. 2007, , 45, 297
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
=6 mm
**Multisoliton solutions of the two-component Camassa-Holm system**
**and their reductions**
Yoshimasa Matsuno[^1]
*Division of Applied Mathematical Science,*
*Graduate School of Sciences and Technology for Innovation,*
*Yamaguchi University, Ube, Yamaguchi 755-8611, Japan*
[**Abstract**]{}
We develop a systematic procedure for constructing soliton solutions of an integrable two-component Camassa-Holm (CH2) system. The parametric representation of the multisoliton solutions is obtained by using a direct method combined with a reciprocal transformation. The properties of the solutions are then investigated in detail focusing mainly on the smooth one- and two-soliton solutions. The general $N$-soliton case is described shortly. Subsequently, we show that the CH2 system reduces to the CH equation and the two-component Hunter-Saxton (HS2) system by means of appropriate limiting procedures. The corresponding expressions of the multisoliton solutions are presented in parametric forms, reproducing the existing results for the reduced equations. Last, we discuss the reduction from the HS2 system to the HS equation.
In this paper, we consider the following two-component generalization of the Camassa-Holm (CH) equation $$m_t+um_x+2mu_x+\rho\rho_x=0, \eqno(1.1a)$$ $$\rho_t+(\rho u)_x=0, \eqno(1.1b)$$ which is abbreviated as the CH2 system. Here, $u=u(x,t), \rho=\rho(x,t)$ and $m=m(x,t)\equiv u-u_{xx}+\kappa^2$ are real-valued functions of time $t$ and a spatial variable $x$, and the subscripts $x$ and $t$ appended to $u$ and $\rho$ denote partial differentiation. The parameter $\kappa$ in the expression of $m$ is assumed to be a non-negative real number.
The CH2 system (1.1) has been derived for the first time in \[1\] in search of the bi-Hamiltonian formulation of integrable nonlinear evolution equations. Actually, the system can be represented as the dual bi-Hamiltonian system for a coupled Korteweg-de Vries equation introduced independently by Zakharov \[2\] and Ito \[3\]. Later, a similar system with the coefficient of $\rho\rho_x$ in (1.1a) being minus was studied \[4-6\]. In particular, a reciprocal transformation between the system and the first negative flow of the AKNS hierarchy was established in \[6\]. In the physical context, on the other hand, the CH2 system with $\kappa=0$ was derived by applying an asymptotic analysis to the fully nonlinear Green-Naghdi equations for shallow water waves, where $u$ represents the horizontal velocity and $\rho$ is related to the depth of the fluid in the first approximation \[7\]. The same system with $\kappa\not= 0$ was also obtained from the basic Euler system for an incompressible fluid with a constant vorticity \[8\]. One can also consult Ref. \[9\] as for a brief history of the CH2 system.
One remarkable feature of the CH2 system is that it is a completely integrable system. Indeed, it has a Lax representation given by $$\Psi_{xx}=\left(-\lambda^2\rho^2+\lambda m+{1\over 4}\right)\Psi, \eqno(1.2a)$$ $$\Psi_t=\left({1\over 2\lambda}-u\right)\Psi_x+{u_x\over 2}\Psi, \eqno(1.2b)$$ where $\lambda$ is the spectral parameter \[7, 8\]. It turns out that the compatibility condition of the linear system (1.2) yields (1.1), thus enabling us to apply the inverse scattering transform method (IST) \[10, 11\]. A number of works have been devoted to the study of the mathematical properties of (1.1). For example, some conditions were provided for the wave breaking and the existence of the traveling waves \[7, 12, 13\]. The explicit solitary wave solutions were obtained by using the method of dynamical systems \[14, 15\], and the general multisoliton solutions were constructed by means of the IST \[16\]. More precisely, the IST is reformulated as a Riemann-Hilbert problem \[11\], and the $N$-soliton solution is given by a parametric form. However, the analysis of multisoliton solutions has not been done as yet.
Various reductions are possible for the CH2 system while preserving its integrability. Specificallly, the reduction to the CH equation is of great importance. This can be accomplished simply by putting $\rho=0$ in (1.1), giving \[17\] $$u_t+2\kappa^2u_x-u_{xxt}+3uu_x=2u_xu_{xx}+uu_{xxx}. \eqno(1.3)$$ The CH equation describes the unidirectional propagation of shallow water waves over a flat bottom. Its structure has been studied extensively from both theoretical and numerical points of view \[18, 19\]. The Lax representation associated with the CH equation can be obtained simply by putting $\rho=0$ in (1.2). This enables us to apply the IST which has been successfully used for various integrable soliton equations such as the Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) and nonlinear Schrödinger equations. Unlike the KdV equation which is a typical model of shallow water waves, the CH equation could explain the wave breaking as well as the existence of peaked waves (or peakons) which are inherent in the basic Euler system.
Another reduction is the two-component Hunter-Saxton (HS2) system which can be derived by means of the short-wave limit of the CH2 system. It has the same form as the system (1.1) with the variable $m$ replaced by $-u_{xx}+\kappa^2$. Explicitly, it can be written in the form $$u_{xxt}-2\kappa^2 u_x+uu_{xxx}+2u_xu_{xx}-\rho\rho_x=0, \quad \rho_t+(\rho u)_x=0. \eqno(1.4)$$ Furthermore, on taking $\rho=0$, the HS2 system (1.4) reduces to $$u_{xxt}-2\kappa^2u_x+uu_{xxx}+2u_xu_{xx}=0. \eqno(1.5)$$ In the case of $\kappa=0$, equation (1.5) becomes the classical Hunter-Saxton (HS) equation which is a model for describing the propagation of weakly nonlinear orientation waves in a massive nematic liquid crystal director field \[20\]. We refer to (1.5) as the HS equation hereafter.
The purpose of the present paper is to develop a systematic method for obtaining the multisoliton solutions of the CH2 system and investigate their properties. Subsequently, a reduction procedure is performed to obtain the multisoliton solutions of the CH equation and the HS2 system from those of the CH2 system. We impose the boundary conditions $u(x,t) \rightarrow 0$ and $\rho(x,t) \rightarrow \rho_0$ as $|x| \rightarrow \infty$, where $\rho_0$ is a positive constant. These boundary conditions are consistent with the hydrodynamic derivation of the system \[7, 8\]. A direct method is employed to obtain solutions which worked effectively for the construction of the soliton solutions of the CH equation \[21\] and the modified CH equations \[22, 23\].
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we transform the CH2 system to a system of partial differential equations (PDEs) by means of a reciprocal transformation similar to that employed for the CH and modified CH equations \[21-23\]. We then perform the bilinearization of the latter system through appropriate dependent variable transformations. Following the standard procedure of the bilinear transformation method \[24, 25\], we construct the $N$-soliton solution of the bilinear equations in terms of the tau-functions, where $N$ is an arbitrary positive integer, thus obtaining the parametric representation for the $N$-soliton solution of the system (1.1). The dispersion relation of the soliton is explored in detail to feature its propagation characteristics. In section 3, we investigate the properties of the soliton solutions. First, we address the one-soliton solutions, showing that the profile of $\rho$ always takes the form of bright soliton whereas that of $u$ takes both bright and dark solitons depending on the dispersion relation of the soliton. Subsequently, the asymptotic analysis of the $N$-soliton solution is performed to derive the formula for the phase shift. Last, the interaction process of two solitons is exemplified for both overtaking and head-on collisions. In section 4, we carry out various reductions of the CH2 system. Specifically, by introducing appropriate scaling variables, we demonstrate that the CH2 system reduces to the CH equation in the limit $\rho_0 \rightarrow 0$, and recover the $N$-soliton solution of the CH equation as well as the formula for the phase shift. We also show that the short-wave limit of the CH2 system leads to the HS2 system, and the $N$-soliton solution of the latter system is recovered from that of the former system. Then, we give a brief summary about the reduction to the HS equation. Section 5 is devoted to some concluding remarks. In appendix A, we detail the bilinearization of the CH2 system. In appendix B, we provide a proof of the bilinear identities for the tau-functions associated with the $N$-soliton solution of the CH2 system.
[**2. Exact method of solution**]{}
In this section, we develop a systematic method for constructing the multisoliton solutions of the CH2 system. To this end, we employ an exact method of solution which is referred to as the direct method \[24\] or the bilinear transformation method \[25\]. When compared with the IST, this method is an especially powerful technique for obtaining particular solutions like soliton and periodic wave solutions. After transforming the system (1.1) to an equivalent system of PDEs by a reciprocal transformation, we bilinearize the latter system and then solve it in terms of the tau-functions, thus giving rise to the parametric representation of the $N$-soliton solution.
[*2.1. Reciprocal transformation*]{}
First of all, we introduce the reciprocal transformation $(x ,t) \rightarrow (y, \tau)$ according to $$dy=\rho\,dx-\rho u\,dt,\qquad d\tau=dt. \eqno(2.1a)$$ Then, the $x$ and $t$ derivatives transform as $${\partial\over\partial x}=\rho{\partial\over\partial y}, \qquad {\partial\over\partial t}
={\partial\over\partial \tau}-\rho u{\partial\over\partial y}. \eqno(2.1b)$$ Applying the transformation (2.1) to the system (1.1), we obtain the system of PDEs $$\left({m\over \rho^2}\right)_\tau+\rho_y=0, \eqno(2.2a)$$ $$\rho_\tau+\rho^2u_y=0. \eqno(2.2b)$$ It then follows from $(2.1b)$ that the variable $x=x(y, \tau)$ obeys a system of linear PDEs $$x_y={1\over \rho}, \eqno(2.3a)$$ $$x_\tau=u. \eqno(2.3b)$$ The system of equations (2.3) is integrable since its compatibility condition $x_{\tau y}=x_{y\tau}$ is assured by virtue of $(2.2b)$.
Now, the quantity $m=u-u_{xx}+\kappa^2$ in (1.1) can be rewritten in terms of the new coordinate system as $$m=u+\rho({\rm ln}\,\rho)_{\tau y}+\kappa^2,\eqno(2.4)$$ where we have used $(2.2b)$ to replace $u_y$ by $-\rho_\tau/\rho^2$. Let us introduce the new dependent variable $Y=Y(y, \tau)$ by the relation $${m\over \rho^2}-{\kappa^2\over \rho_0^2}=Y_y. \eqno(2.5)$$ Subsituting (2.5) into $(2.2a)$ and then integrating the resultant expression by $y$ under the boundary conditions $Y_\tau\rightarrow 0$ and $\rho\rightarrow \rho_0$ as $|y|\rightarrow \infty$, we obtain $$\rho=\rho_0-Y_\tau. \eqno(2.6)$$
The following proposition is the starting point in the present analysis.
[**Proposition 2.1.**]{} [*The variables $x$ and $Y$ satisfy the system of PDEs $$x_y(\rho_0-Y_\tau)=1, \eqno(2.7)$$ $$(\rho_0-Y_\tau)\left({\kappa^2\over \rho_0^2}+Y_y\right)=x_\tau x_y-[(\rho_0-Y_\tau)x_{\tau y}]_y+\kappa^2 x_y. \eqno(2.8)$$*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} Equation (2.7) follows immediately from $(2.3a)$ and (2.6). If we substitute $m$ from (2.5) into (2.4) and use $(2.3a)$ and $(2.3b)$ to express $\rho$ and $u$ in terms of $x_y$ and $x_\tau$, respectively, (2.4) becomes $${\kappa^2\over \rho_0^2}+Y_y=x_\tau x_y^2-x_{\tau yy}+{x_{\tau y}x_{yy}\over x_y}+\kappa^2x_y^2.$$ Dividing this expression by $x_y$ and using (2.7), we arrive at (2.8). $\square$
[*2.2. Bilinearization*]{}
In applying the bilinear transformation method to the given nonlinear equations, the first step is to transform the equations into the bilinear equations, which we shall now demonstrate. To this end, we introduce the dependent variable transformations $$x={y\over \rho_0}+{\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}+d, \eqno(2.9)$$ $$Y={\rm i}\,{\rm ln}\,{\tilde g\over g}, \eqno(2.10)$$ where $f, \tilde f, g$ and $\tilde g$ are tau-functions and $d$ is an arbitrary constant. One advantage of the form (2.10) is that the structure of the system of bilinear equations becomes transparent when compapred with the introduction of another form like $Y=2\,{\tan}^{-1}({\rm Im}\,g/{\rm Re}\,g)$. This facilitates the analysis, in particular the construction of solutions. Obviously, the definition of $Y$ from (2.5) implies that it can be taken as a real quantity which is achieved simply if one chooses the tau-function $\tilde g$ as a complex conjugate of $g$. This recipe can be used successfully in constructing real soliton solutions, as will be manifested in theorem 2.2.
Now, we establish the following proposition.
[**Proposition 2.2.**]{} [*Consider the following system of bilinear equations for $f, \tilde f, g$ and $\tilde g$: $$D_y\tilde f\cdot f+{1\over \rho_0}(\tilde f f-\tilde g g)=0, \eqno(2.11)$$ $${\rm i}D_\tau\tilde g\cdot g+ \rho_0(\tilde f f-\tilde g g)=0, \eqno(2.12)$$ $$D_\tau D_y\tilde f\cdot f +{1\over \rho_0}D_\tau\tilde f\cdot f+\kappa^2D_y\tilde f\cdot f=0, \eqno(2.13)$$ $$D_\tau D_y\tilde g\cdot g-{\rm i}\,{\kappa^2\over \rho_0^2}\,D_\tau\tilde g\cdot g+{\rm i}\rho_0 D_y\tilde g\cdot g=0, \eqno(2.14)$$ where the bilinear operators are defined by $$D_y^mD_\tau ^nf\cdot g=\left(\partial_y-\partial_{y^\prime} \right)^m\left(\partial_\tau-\partial_{\tau^\prime} \right)^n
f(y,\tau)g(y^\prime,\tau^\prime)|_{y^\prime=y,\,\tau^\prime=\tau}, \qquad (m, n=0, 1, 2, ...). \eqno(2.15)$$ Then, the solutions of this system of equations solve the equations (2.7) and (2.8).* ]{}
The proof of proposition 2.2 will be detailed in appendix A.
[*2.3. Parametric representations of the solutions*]{}
[**Theorem 2.1.**]{} [*The two-component CH system (1.1) admits the parametric representations of the solutions $$u(y, \tau)=\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}\right)_\tau, \eqno(2.16)$$ $$\rho(y, \tau)=\rho_0-{\rm i}\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde g\over g}\right)_\tau, \eqno(2.17)$$ $$x(y, \tau)={y\over \rho_0}+{\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}+d. \eqno(2.18)$$* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} The expression (2.16) follows by introducing $(2.9)$ into $(2.3b)$ whereas the expression (2.17) comes from (2.6) and (2.10). The expression (2.18) is just (2.9). $\square$
[**Remark 2.1.**]{} The parametric representations of $1/\rho$ and $m/\rho^2$ in terms of the tau-functions are also available from $(2.3a)$, (2.5), (2.9) and (2.10). Explicitly, they read $${1\over \rho}={1\over \rho_0}+\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}\right)_y, \eqno(2.19)$$ $${m\over \rho^2}={\kappa^2\over \rho_0^2}+{\rm i}\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde g\over g}\right)_y. \eqno(2.20)$$
[*2.4. $N$-soliton solution*]{}
[**Theorem 2.2.**]{} [*The tau-functions $f, \tilde f, g$ and $\tilde g$ constituting the $N$-soliton solution of the system of bilinear equations (2.11)-(2.14) are given by the expressions $$f=\sum_{\mu=0,1}{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N\mu_j\left(\xi_j+\phi_j\right)
+\sum_{1\le j<l\le N}\mu_j\mu_l\gamma_{jl}\right], \eqno(2.21a)$$ $$\tilde f=\sum_{\mu=0,1}{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N\mu_j\left(\xi_j-\phi_j\right)
+\sum_{1\le j<l\le N}\mu_j\mu_l\gamma_{jl}\right], \eqno(2.21b)$$ $$g=\sum_{\mu=0,1}{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N\mu_j\left(\xi_j+{\rm i}\psi_j\right)
+\sum_{1\le j<l\le N}\mu_j\mu_l\gamma_{jl}\right], \eqno(2.22a)$$ $$\tilde g=\sum_{\mu=0,1}{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N\mu_j\left(\xi_j-{\rm i}\psi_j\right)
+\sum_{1\le j<l\le N}\mu_j\mu_l\gamma_{jl}\right], \eqno(2.22b)$$ where $$\xi_j=k_j\left(y-c_j\tau-y_{j0}\right), \qquad (j=1, 2, ..., N),\eqno(2.23a)$$ $${\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}={\kappa^2(c_j-c_l)^2-\rho_0(k_j-k_l)c_jc_l(c_jk_j-c_lk_l)\over \kappa^2(c_j-c_l)^2-\rho_0(k_j+k_l)c_jc_l(c_jk_j+c_lk_l)}, \qquad (j, l=1, 2, ..., N; j\not=l),
\eqno(2.23b)$$ $${\rm e}^{-\phi_j}=\sqrt{(1-\rho_0k_j)c_j-\rho_0\kappa^2\over (1+\rho_0k_j)c_j-\rho_0\kappa^2},\qquad (j=1, 2, ..., N),\eqno(2.23c)$$ $${\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\psi_j}=\sqrt{\left({\kappa^2\over \rho_0}-{\rm i}\rho_0k_j\right)c_j+\rho_0^2\over \left({\kappa^2\over \rho_0}+{\rm i}\rho_0k_j\right)c_j+\rho_0^2},\qquad (j=1, 2, ..., N),\eqno(2.23d)$$ and $c_j$ is the velocity of $j$th soliton in the $(y, \tau)$ coordinate system which is given by the solution of the quadratic equation $$(1-\rho_0^2k_j^2)c_j^2-2\rho_0\kappa^2c_j-\rho_0^4=0, \qquad (j=1, 2, ..., N).\eqno(2.23e)$$ Here, $k_j$ and $y_{j0}$ are arbitrary complex parameters satisfying the conditions $k_j\not= k_l$ for $j\not=l$. The notation $\sum_{\mu=0,1}$ implies the summation over all possible combinations of $\mu_1=0, 1, \mu_2=0, 1, ...,
\mu_N=0, 1$*]{}.
A proof of theorem 2.2 will be given in appendix B in which the tau-functions (2.21) and (2.22) are shown to satisfy the system of bilinear equations (2.11)-(2.14) by means of mathematical induction.
[**Remark 2.2.**]{} The bilinear equations (2.13) and (2.14) arise from the reduction of the BKP family of integrable soliton equations \[26, 27\]. The tau-functions associated with the $N$-soliton solutions of these equations have the same forms as those given by (2.21) and (2.22). Within this framework, however, the parameters $c_j$ and $k_j$ in $(2.23b)$ can be taken independently. On the other hand, for the present $N$-soliton solutions, both parameters are related to each other by the quadratic equation $(2.23e)$. This follows from the requirement that the tau-functions solve the bilinear equations (2.11) and (2.12) simultaneously.
The parametric representation of the $N$-soliton solution given by (2.16)-(2.18) with the tau-functions (2.21) and (2.22) is characterized by the $2N$ complex parameters $k_j$ and $y_{j0}\ (j=1, 2. ..., N)$. The parameters $k_j$ determine the amplitude and the velocity of the solitons, whereas the parameters $y_{j0}$ determine the position (or phase) of the solitons. If we impose the conditions $\tilde f=f^*$ and $\tilde g=g^*$ where the asterisk denotes complex conjugate, then the solutions become real functions of $x$ and $t$. Note, however that they would yield multi-valued functions unless certain conditions are imposed on the parameters $k_j (j=1, 2, .., N)$. The similar situation has already been encountered in investigating the structure of the soliton solutions of the CH and modified CH equations \[21-23\]. We will address this issue in the next section where the detailed analysis of the soliton solutions will be performed.
{width="8cm"}
[[**Figure 1.**]{} The velocity $c=c_\pm$ of the soliton as a function of $\rho_0 k$ for $\rho_0=1$ and $\kappa=1$: $c_+$(solid curve), $c_-$(dashed curve).]{}
Before proceeding, we investigate the characteristics of the velocity of the soliton in the $(y, \tau)$ coordinate system. As will be discussed in section 3.1, the corresponding velocity in $(x, t)$ coordinate system is given simply by $c_j/\rho_0$. The quadratic equation $(2.23e)$ has two roots $$c_j={\rho_0\over 1-(\rho_0k_j)^2}\,(\kappa^2+d_j)={\rho_0^3\over d_j-\kappa^2}, \qquad (j=1, 2, ..., N),\eqno(2.24a)$$ where $$d_j=\epsilon_j\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2-\rho_0^4k_j^2},\qquad (\epsilon_j=\pm1, \quad j=1, 2, ..., N). \eqno(2.24b)$$ To assure the reality of $c_j$, one must impose the condition for the parameter $\rho_0 k_j$. Actually, it must lie in the interval $$0<\rho_0 k_j<\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}/ \rho_0,\qquad (j=1, 2, ..., N), \eqno(2.25)$$ where we have assumed $k_j>0\ (j=1, 2, ..., N)$. Figure 1 plots the velocities $c_+\equiv c_j(\epsilon_j=+1)$ and $c_-\equiv c_j(\epsilon_j=-1)$ as a function of $\rho_0 k\equiv \rho_0 k_j$. The velocity $c_+$ is positive for $0<\rho_0 k<1$ and negative for $1<\rho_0 k<\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}/\rho_0$. It exhibits the singularity at $\rho_0 k=1$. Specifically, $$\rho_0\left(\kappa^2+\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}\right)<c_+ <\infty, \ (0<\rho_0k<1), \eqno(2.26a)$$ $$-\infty<c_+ <-\rho_0^3/ \kappa^2,\ \left(1<\rho_0k<{\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}/ \rho_0}\right). \eqno(2.26b)$$ On the other hand, the velocity $c_-$ is a continuous function of $\rho_0 k$ and takes negative values in the interval (2.25), as indicated by the inequality $$-\rho_0^3/\kappa^2<c_-<-\rho_0\left(\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}-\kappa^2\right),\ \left(0<\rho_0k<{\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}/ \rho_0}\right). \eqno(2.27)$$ In particular, $c_-=-\rho_0^3/(2\kappa^2)$ at $\rho_0k=1$. It turns out that the soliton with the velocity $c_-$ always propagates to the left whereas the soliton with the velocity $c_+$ propagates to the right and left depending on the value of $\rho_0 k$. Thus, the two-soliton solution exhibits both the overtaking and head-on collisions.
Using (2.24), the expressions $(2.23c)$ and $(2.23d)$ become $${\rm e}^{-\phi_j}={|(1-\rho_0k_j)c_j-\rho_0\kappa^2|\over \rho_0\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}}
={\{(1-\rho_0k_j)c_j-\rho_0\kappa^2\}{\rm sgn}\ c_j,\over \rho_0\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}}, \eqno(2.28)$$ $${\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\psi_j}={\kappa^2c_j+\rho_0^3-{\rm i}\rho_0^2k_jc_j\over \sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}\,|c_j|}. \eqno(2.29)$$ where the last expression in (2.28) is obtained by employing (2.24) again with ${\rm sgn}$ being the sign function. Substituting $c_j$ from (2.24) into (2.28), one can show that ${\rm e}^{-\phi_j}<1$ and hence $\phi_j>0$. In view of the relation $d_j^2-d_l^2=\rho_0^4(-k_j^2+k_l^2)$ which comes from $(2.24b)$, one can derive the formula $$\kappa^2(d_j-d_l)^2+\rho_0^4(k_j\pm k_l)(k_jd_l\pm k_ld_j)+\kappa^2\rho_0^4(k_j\pm k_l)^2$$ $$={1\over 2}(d_j+d_l+2\kappa^2)\left\{(d_j-d_l)^2+\rho_0^4(k_j\pm k_l)^2\right\}.$$ Inserting this into $(2.23b)$, we obtain a simplified expression for it $${\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}={(d_j-d_l)^2+\rho_0^4(k_j-k_l)^2\over (d_j-d_l)^2+\rho_0^4(k_j+k_l)^2}. \eqno(2.30)$$ It will be used in proving the $N$-soliton solution. See appendix B.
[**Remark 2.3.**]{} Equation $(1.1a)$ with a term $-\rho\rho_x$ instead of $+\rho\rho_x$ coupled with equation $(1.1b)$, i.e. $$m_t+um_x+2mu_x-\rho\rho_x=0, \quad \rho_t+(\rho u)_x=0, \eqno(2.31)$$ has been introduced in purely mathematical contexts \[4-6\]. It exhibits peculiar features when compared with features of the system (1.1). In particular, it admits peakons and kinks as well as smooth solitons \[6\]. The smooth $N$-soliton solutions with $N\leq 4$ have been obtained by using the Darboux transformation \[28\]. The exact method of solution developed here enables us to construct the general $N$-soliton solution in a simple manner, which we shall summarize shortly. The expressions corresponding to (2.1)-(2.6) follow by the replacement of the variables in accordance with the rule $\rho\rightarrow {\rm i}\,\rho\,(\rho_0\rightarrow {\rm i}\,\rho_0),
y\rightarrow {\rm i}y, Y\rightarrow {\rm i}Y$ while other variables remain unchanged. The parametric representation of the solutions then takes the form $$u(y, \tau)=\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}\right)_\tau, \quad
\rho(y, \tau)=\rho_0-\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde g\over g}\right)_\tau, \quad
x(y, \tau)={y\over \rho_0}+{\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}+d. \eqno(2.32)$$ The tau-functions associated with the $N$-soliton solution can be obtained from (2.21)-(2.23) if one replaces the parameters as $k_j\rightarrow -{\rm i}k_j, c_j\rightarrow {\rm i}c_j, y_{j0}\rightarrow {\rm i}y_{j0}\ (j=1, 2, ...., N)$, in addition to the replacements of the variables prescribed above. The soliton solutions have a rich mathematical structure and their properties deserve further study. The results of the detailed analysis will be reported elsewhere.
[**3. Properties of soliton solutions**]{}
In this section, we first explore the properties of the one-soliton solution in detail and then perform an asymptotic analysis of the general $N$-soliton solution. Consequently, the formula for the phase shift of each soliton will be derived. The two-soliton case is discussed in some detail.
[*3.1. One-soliton solution*]{}
The tau-functions corresponding to the one-soliton solution are given by (2.21) and (2.22) with $N=1$ $$f=1+{\rm e}^{\xi+\phi}, \qquad \tilde f=1+{\rm e}^{\xi-\phi}, \eqno(3.1)$$ $$g=1+{\rm e}^{\xi+{\rm i}\psi}, \qquad \tilde g=1+{\rm e}^{\xi-{\rm i}\psi}, \eqno(3.2)$$ with $$\xi=k\left(y-c\tau -y_0\right), \eqno(3.3a)$$ $$c=c_{\pm}={\rho_0^3\over \pm\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2-\rho_0^4k^2}- \kappa^2}, \eqno(3.3b)$$ $${\rm e}^{-\phi}={|(1-\rho_0k)c-\rho_0\kappa^2|\over \rho_0\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}}, \eqno(3.3c)$$ $${\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\psi}={\kappa^2c+\rho_0^3-{\rm i}\rho_0^2kc\over \sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}\,|c|}, \eqno(3.3d)$$ where we have put $\xi=\xi_1, k=k_1, c=c_1, \phi=\phi_1, \psi=\psi_1$ and $y_0=y_{10}$ for simplicity.
The parametric representation of the one-soliton solution is obtained by introducing (3.1) and (3.2) with (3.3) into (2.16)-(2.18). It can be written in the form $$u={kc\, \sinh\,\phi\over \cosh\,\xi+\cosh\,\phi}, \eqno(3.4a)$$ $$\rho=\rho_0+{kc\,\sin\,\psi\over \cosh\,\xi+\cos\,\psi}, \eqno(3.4b)$$ $$X\equiv x-\tilde c t-x_0={\xi\over \rho_0k}+{\rm ln}{1-\tanh\,{\phi\over 2}\,\tanh{\xi\over 2}\over 1+\tanh\,{\phi\over 2}\,\tanh{\xi\over 2}}, \eqno(3.4c)$$ with $$\sinh\,\phi={k|c|\over \sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}},\qquad \cosh\,\phi=\sqrt{1+{k^2c^2\over \kappa^4+\rho_0^2}}, \eqno(3.4d)$$ $$\sin\,\psi= {\rho_0^2kc\over \sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}\,|c|}, \qquad \cos\,\psi={\kappa^2c+\rho_0^3\over \sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}\,|c|}, \eqno(3.4e)$$ where $\tilde c=c/\rho_0$ is the velocity of the soliton in the $(x, t)$ coordinate system, $x_0=y_0/\kappa$ and the constant $d$ in (2.18) has been chosen such that $\xi=0$ corresponds to $X=0$. The traveling wave coordinate $X$ defined by (3.4c) is particularly useful for the description of the one-soliton solution since it becomes stationary in this coordinate system. One can use the formula $\tanh(\phi/2)=\sinh\,\phi/(\cosh\,\phi+1)$ to rewrite (3.4c) in terms of $\sinh\,\phi$ and $\cosh\,\phi$.
It now follows from $(3.4d)$ and $(3.4e)$ that $c\,\sin\,\psi=\rho_0^2\,\sinh\,\phi$. Since $\phi>0$, the sign of $c$ must coincide with that of $\sin\,\psi$. This condition coupled with $(3.4e)$ is used to determine the permissible value of $\psi$. Explicitly, $$c_+\, (0<\rho_0k<1): 0<\psi<\pi/2, \quad c_+\, (1<\rho_0k<\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}/\rho_0): \pi<\psi<3\pi/2,$$ $$c_-\,(0<\rho_0k<\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}/\rho_0): 3\pi/2<\psi<2\pi. \eqno(3.4f)$$
Let us now describe some important properties of the solution.
[*(a) Smoothness of the solution*]{}
We compute the $y$ derivative of $x$ from (3.4c) to obtain $$x_y={1\over \rho_0}-{k\,\sinh\,\phi\over \cosh\,\xi+\cosh\,\phi}. \eqno(3.5)$$ Since $k>0$ and $\phi>0$, one has the inequality $x_y\geq x_y|_{\xi=0}$. Substituting $(3.4d)$ for $\sinh\,\phi$ and $\cosh\,\phi$ and using $(2.23e)$, we obtain $$x_y|_{\xi=0}={1\over \rho_0}-{k\,\sinh\,\phi\over 1+\cosh\,\phi}$$ $$={1\over \rho_0}\left[1-{1\over |c|}\left(|c-\rho_0\kappa^2|-\rho_0\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}\right)\right]
={1\over |c|}\left(\sqrt{\rho_0^2+\kappa^4}+\kappa^2{\rm sgn}\,c\right). \eqno(3.6)$$ The last expression follows from the previous one by considering the cases $c>0$ and $c<0$ separately with the help of the inequalities (2.26) and (2.27) for $c_\pm$. Note, in particular that $c_+>\rho_0\kappa^2$ for $0<\rho_0k<1$ which is a unique positive branch of the dispersion curve, as is evident from Figure 1. Thus, if $c$ is finite, then $x_y>0$, and the map (2.1) becomes one-to-one, assuring that the solution is smooth and nonsingular. Actually, one can show that the derivatives $du/dX$ and $d\rho /dX$ are finite for arbitrary $X \in \mathbb{R}$. Furthermore, it turns out from $(3.3b)$ and (3.6) that the smoothness of the solution prevails in the zero dispersion limit $\kappa \rightarrow 0$. However, the limit operation $\rho_0 \rightarrow 0$ with $\kappa$ being fixed at a constant value requires a delicate analysis. See section 4.1.
[*(b) Amplitude-velocity relation*]{}
The amplitude-velocity relation of the soliton is an important characteristic of the wave. It can be derived simply from the explicit form (3.4) of the solution. To this end, let $A_\rho$ be the amplitude of the wave measured from the constant level $\rho=\rho_0$ and $A_u$ be that of the fluid velocity, i.e., $A_\rho=\rho(X=0)-\rho_0$, and $ A_u=|u(X=0)|$. We find that $$A_\rho=\left(\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}\,|\tilde c|-\kappa^2\tilde c-\rho_0^2\right)/\rho_0, \eqno(3.7a)$$ $$A_u=\left ||\tilde c-\kappa^2|-\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}\right |, \eqno(3.7b)$$ where $\tilde c=c/\rho_0$. Note that $$u(X=0)=kc\,\tanh\, {\phi\over 2}=\left(|\tilde c-\kappa^2|-\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}\right)\, {\rm sgn}\,\tilde c.$$ Invoking the expression of the velocity $c$ from $(3.3b)$, we can see that $A_\rho>0$ for arbitrary $c=c_\pm$ whereas $u(X=0)>0$ for $c>0$ and $u(X=0)<0$ for $c<0$. These results show that the profile of $\rho$ is always of bright type, but that of $u$ depends on the propagation direction of the soliton. Actually, if $c$ is positive (negative), then $u$ is curved upward (downward).
Figure 2 depicts the typical profile of $u$ and $\rho$ for the right-going soliton (a), and the left-going soliton (b) and (c), respectively
{width="16cm"}
[[**Figure 2.**]{} One-soliton solution. $u$: thin solid curve, $\rho$: bold solid curve. a: $\kappa=1, \rho_0=1, k=0.4, \tilde c=\tilde c_+=2.81 $, b: $\kappa=1, \rho_0=1, k=1.4, \tilde c=\tilde c_+=-1.25 $, c: $\kappa=1, \rho_0=1, k=1.4, \tilde c=\tilde c_-= -0.83 .$]{}
[*3.2. $N$-soliton solution*]{}
Here, we investigate the asymptotic behavior of the $N$-soliton solution for large time. Let $\tilde c_n(=c_n/\rho_0),\ (n=1, 2, ..., N)$ be the velocity of the $n$th soliton in the $(x, t)$ coordinate system, and order them in accordance with the relation $\tilde c_N<\tilde c_{N-1}<... < \tilde c_1$. We take the limit $t\rightarrow -\infty$ with the phase variable $\xi_n$ of the $n$th soliton being fixed. Then, the other phase variables behave like $\xi_1, \xi_2, ..., \xi_{n-1} \rightarrow +\infty$, and $\xi_{n+1}, \xi_{n+2}, ..., \xi_N \rightarrow -\infty$. Performing an asymptotic analysis for the tau-functions (2.21) and (2.22), the leading-order approximations for them are found to be $$f \sim \left(\prod_{1\leq j<l\leq n-1}{\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}\right)\, {\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(\xi_j+\phi_j)\right]\left(1+{\rm e}^{\xi_n+\phi_n+\delta_n^{(-)}}\right), \eqno(3.8a)$$ $$\tilde f \sim \left(\prod_{1\leq j<l\leq n-1}{\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}\right)\, {\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(\xi_j-\phi_j)\right]\left(1+{\rm e}^{\xi_n-\phi_n+\delta_n^{(-)}}\right), \eqno(3.8b)$$ $$g \sim \left(\prod_{1\leq j<l\leq n-1}{\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}\right)\, {\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(\xi_j+{\rm i}\psi_j)\right]\left(1+{\rm e}^{\xi_n+{\rm i}\psi_n+\delta_n^{(-)}}\right), \eqno(3.9a)$$ $$\tilde g \sim \left(\prod_{1\leq j<l\leq n-1}{\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}\right)\, {\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(\xi_j-{\rm i}\psi_j)\right]\left(1+{\rm e}^{\xi_n-{\rm i}\psi_n+\delta_n^{(-)}}\right), \eqno(3.9b)$$ where $$\delta_n^{(-)}=\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{nj}=\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}{\rm ln}\left[{(d_n-d_j)^2+\rho_0^4(k_n-k_j)^2\over (d_n-d_j)^2+\rho_0^4(k_n+k_j)^2}\right]. \eqno(3.10)$$ Substituting (3.8) and (3.9) into (2.16)-(2.18), we obtain the asymptotic form of $u$, $\rho$ and $x$ $$u \sim {k_nc_n\, \sinh\,\phi_n\over \cosh\left(\xi_n+\delta_n^{(-)}\right)+\cosh\,\phi_n}, \eqno(3.11)$$ $$\rho \sim \rho_0+{k_nc_n\,\sin\,\psi_n\over \cosh\left(\xi_n+\delta_n^{(-)}\right)+\cos\,\psi_n}, \eqno(3.12)$$ $$x-\tilde c_nt-x_{n0} \sim {\xi_n\over \rho_0k_n} +{\rm ln}\ {1-\tanh\,{\phi_n\over 2}\,\tanh{\left(\xi_n+\delta_n^{(-)}\right)\over 2}\over 1+\tanh\,{\phi_n\over 2}\,\tanh{\left(\xi_n+\delta_n^{(-)}\right)\over 2}}
-2\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\phi_j. \eqno(3.13)$$
In the limit $t \rightarrow +\infty$, on the other hand, we see that $\xi_1, \xi_2, ..., \xi_{n-1} \rightarrow -\infty$, and $\xi_{n+1}, \xi_{n+2}, ..., \xi_N \rightarrow +\infty$. Applying the similar analysis yields the asymptotic forms corresponding to (3.8)-(3.13) $$f \sim \left(\prod_{n+1\leq j<l\leq N}{\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}\right)\, {\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=n+1}^{N}(\xi_j+\phi_j)\right]\left(1+{\rm e}^{\xi_n+\phi_n+\delta_n^{(+)}}\right), \eqno(3.14a)$$ $$\tilde f \sim \left(\prod_{n+1\leq j<l\leq N}{\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}\right)\, {\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=n+1}^{N}(\xi_j-\phi_j)\right]\left(1+{\rm e}^{\xi_n-\phi_n+\delta_n^{(+)}}\right), \eqno(3.14b)$$ $$g \sim \left(\prod_{n+1\leq j<l\leq N}{\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}\right)\, {\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=n+1}^{N}(\xi_j+{\rm i}\psi_j)\right]\left(1+{\rm e}^{\xi_n+{\rm i}\psi_n+\delta_n^{(+)}}\right), \eqno(3.15a)$$ $$\tilde g \sim \left(\prod_{n+1\leq j<l\leq N}{\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}\right)\, {\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=n+1}^{N}(\xi_j-{\rm i}\psi_j)\right]\left(1+{\rm e}^{\xi_n-{\rm i}\psi_n+\delta_n^{(+)}}\right), \eqno(3.15b)$$ where $$\delta_n^{(+)}=\sum_{j=n+1}^{N}\gamma_{nj}=\sum_{j=n+1}^{N}{\rm ln}\left[{(d_n-d_j)^2+\rho_0^4(k_n-k_j)^2\over (d_n-d_j)^2+\rho_0^4(k_n+k_j)^2}\right], \eqno(3.16)$$ and $$u \sim {k_nc_n\, \sinh\,\phi_n\over \cosh\left(\xi_n+\delta_n^{(+)}\right)+\cosh\,\phi_n}, \eqno(3.17)$$ $$\rho \sim \rho_0+{k_nc_n\,\sin\,\psi_n\over \cosh\left(\xi_n+\delta_n^{(+)}\right)+\cos\,\psi_n}, \eqno(3.18)$$ $$x-\tilde c_nt-x_{n0} \sim {\xi_n\over \rho_0k_n} +{\rm ln}\ {1-\tanh\,{\phi_n\over 2}\,\tanh{\left(\xi_n+\delta_n^{(+)}\right)\over 2}\over 1+\tanh\,{\phi_n\over 2}\,\tanh{\left(\xi_n+\delta_n^{(+)}\right)\over 2}}
-2\sum_{j=n+1}^N\phi_j. \eqno(3.19)$$
These results show that as $t \rightarrow \pm\infty$, the $N$-soliton solution is represented by a superposition of $N$ independent solitons each of which has the form of the one-soliton solution given by (3.4). The net effect of the collision of solitons appears as a phase shift. To see this, let $x_{nc}$ be the center position of the $n$th soliton. It then follows from (3.13) and (3.19) that the trajectory of $x_{nc}$ is given by $$x_{nc} \sim \tilde c_nt-{\delta_n^{(-)}\over \rho_0k_n}-2\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\phi_j, \quad (t \rightarrow -\infty), \eqno(3.20a)$$ $$x_{nc} \sim \tilde c_nt-{\delta_n^{(+)}\over \rho_0k_n}-2\sum_{j=n+1}^{N}\phi_j, \quad (t \rightarrow +\infty). \eqno(3.20b)$$ We define the phase shift of the $n$th soliton which propagates to the right by $\Delta_n^{R}=x_{nc}(t\rightarrow +\infty)-x_{nc}(t\rightarrow -\infty)$, and that propagates to the left by $\Delta_n^{L}=x_{nc}(t\rightarrow -\infty)-x_{nc}(t\rightarrow +\infty)$. Using (2.23c), (3.10), (3.16) and (3.20), we find that $$\Delta_n^{R}={1\over \rho_0k_n} \left[\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}{\rm ln}\left[{(d_n-d_j)^2+\rho_0^4(k_n-k_j)^2\over (d_n-d_j)^2+\rho_0^4(k_n+k_j)^2}\right]
-\sum_{j=n+1}^{N}{\rm ln}\left[{(d_n-d_j)^2+\rho_0^4(k_n-k_j)^2\over (d_n-d_j)^2+\rho_0^4(k_n+k_j)^2}\right]\right]$$ $$+\sum_{j=n+1}^N{\rm ln}\left[(1-\rho_0k_j)\tilde c_j-\kappa^2\over (1+\rho_0k_j)\tilde c_j-\kappa^2\right]
-\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}{\rm ln}\left[(1-\rho_0k_j)\tilde c_j-\kappa^2\over (1+\rho_0k_j)\tilde c_j-\kappa^2\right]. \eqno(3.21)$$ The expression of $\Delta_n^{L}$ is equal to $-\Delta_n^{R}$.
[*3.3. Two-soliton solution*]{}
The two-soliton solution is the most fundamental element in understanding the dynamics of solitons since each soliton exhibits pair wise interactions with every other soliton, as indicated by the formulas of the phase shift. There exist two types of interactions for the CH2 system, i.e., the overtaking and head-on collisions. We describe them separately.
The tau-functions for the two-soliton solution are given by (2.21)-(2.23) and (2.30) with $N=2$. They read $$f=1+{\rm e}^{\xi_1+\phi_1}+{\rm e}^{\xi_2+\phi_2}+\delta\, {\rm e}^{\xi_1+\xi_2+\phi_1+\phi_2}, \eqno (3.22a)$$ $$\tilde f=1+{\rm e}^{\xi_1-\phi_1}+{\rm e}^{\xi_2-\phi_2}+\delta\, {\rm e}^{\xi_1+\xi_2-\phi_1-\phi_2}, \eqno (3.22b)$$ $$g=1+{\rm e}^{\xi_1+{\rm i}\psi_1}+{\rm e}^{\xi_2+{\rm i}\psi_2}+\delta\, {\rm e}^{\xi_1+\xi_2+{\rm i}\psi_1+{\rm i}\psi_2}, \eqno (3.23a)$$ $$\tilde g=1+{\rm e}^{\xi_1-{\rm i}\psi_1}+{\rm e}^{\xi_2-{\rm i}\psi_2}+\delta\, {\rm e}^{\xi_1+\xi_2-{\rm i}\psi_1-{\rm i}\psi_2}, \eqno (3.23b)$$
{width="16cm"}
[[**Figure 3.**]{} The overtaking collision of two solitons. $u$: thin solid curve, $\rho$: bold solid curve. $\kappa=1, \rho_0=1, k_1=0.8, k_2=0.7, \tilde c_{1+}=6.02, \tilde c_{2+}=4.37$.]{}
where $$\xi_j=k_j\left(y-c_j\tau-y_{j0}\right), \qquad (j=1, 2),\eqno(3.24a)$$ $$\delta={\rm e}^{\gamma_{12}}={(d_1-d_2)^2+\rho_0^4(k_1-k_2)^2\over (d_1-d_2)^2+\rho_0^4(k_1+k_2)^2}, \eqno(3.24b)$$ $${\rm e}^{-\phi_j}=\sqrt{(1-\rho_0k_j)c_j-\rho_0\kappa^2\over (1+\rho_0k_j)c_j-\rho_0\kappa^2},\qquad (j=1, 2),\eqno(3.24c)$$ $${\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\psi_j}=\sqrt{\left({\kappa^2\over \rho_0}-{\rm i}\rho_0k_j\right)c_j+\rho_0^2\over \left({\kappa^2\over \rho_0}+{\rm i}\rho_0k_j\right)c_j+\rho_0^2},\qquad (j=1, 2).\eqno(3.24d)$$ Recall from (2.24) that the velocity of $j$th soliton in $(x, t)$ coordinate system is given by $$\tilde c_j=c_j/\rho_0={\rho_0^2\over d_j-\kappa^2}, \quad d_j=\epsilon_j\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2-\rho_0^4k_j^2}, \quad (j=1, 2). \eqno(3.25)$$ Substituting (3.22)-(3.25) into (2.16)-(2.18), we obtain the parametric representation of the two-soliton solution. Since the velocity $\tilde c_j$ takes either the positive or negative values, this solution enables us to describe both the overtaking and head-on collisions between two solitons.
{width="16cm"}
[[**Figure 4.**]{} The head-on collision of two solitons. $u$: thin solid curve, $\rho$: bold solid curve. $\kappa=1, \rho_0=1, k_1=0.8, k_2=1.4
, \tilde c_{1+}=6.02, \tilde c_{2+}=-1.25$]{}
[*(a) Overtaking collision*]{}
We consider the case $c_j=c_{j+}, 0<\rho_0k_j<1$ so that $0<\tilde c_{2+}<\tilde c_{1+}$. Figure 3 illustrates the overtaking collision of two solitons for four distinct values of $t$. The solitonic feature of the solution is obvious from the figure which confirms an asymptotic analysis presented in §3.1. The phase shift of each soliton is given by (3.21). Explicitly, $$\Delta_1^R=-{1\over \rho_0k_1}\,{\rm ln}\ \left[{(d_1-d_2)^2+\rho_0^4(k_1-k_2)^2\over (d_1-d_2)^2+\rho_0^4(k_1+k_2)^2}\right]
+\,{\rm ln}\ \left[{(1-\rho_0k_2)\tilde c_2-\kappa^2\over (1+\rho_0k_2)\tilde c_2-\kappa^2}\right], \eqno(3.26a)$$ $$\Delta_2^R={1\over \rho_0k_2}\,{\rm ln}\ \left[{(d_1-d_2)^2+\rho_0^4(k_1-k_2)^2\over (d_1-d_2)^2+\rho_0^4(k_1+k_2)^2}\right]
-{\rm ln}\ \left[{(1-\rho_0k_1)\tilde c_1-\kappa^2\over (1+\rho_0k_1)\tilde c_1-\kappa^2}\right], \eqno(3.26b)$$ with $$d_1=\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2-\rho_0^4k_1^2}, \quad d_2=\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2-\rho_0^4k_2^2}. \eqno(3.26c)$$ [*(b) Head-on collision*]{}
An example of the head-on collision is shown in Figure 4, where the velocity of each soliton is chosen as $c_{2+}<0<c_{1+}$. The formula of the phase shift for the right-running soliton is the same as $(3.26a)$ whereas that of the left-running soliton is given by $\Delta_2^L=-\Delta_2^R$.
[**Remark 3.1.**]{}
As noticed in \[7\], the CH2 system (1.1) with $\kappa=0$ does not admit peakons. The same will be true in the case of $\kappa\not= 0$. Recall, however that another integrable CH2 system (2.31) exhibits peakons when the parameter $\kappa$ is related to the boundary value $\rho_0$ of $\rho$ as $\rho_0=\kappa^2$. See, for example \[28\].
[**4. Reductions to the CH equation, the HS2 system and the HS equation**]{}
[$$\begin{CD}
\fboxrule=0.3mm\fbox{CH2} @>{\rm SL}>> \fboxrule=0.3mm\fbox{CH} \\
@VV {\rm SWL}V @VV {\rm SWL}V \\
\fboxrule=0.3mm\fbox{HS2} @>{\rm SL}>> \fboxrule=0.3mm\fbox{HS}
\end{CD}$$]{}
[**Figure 5.**]{} The reduction process for the CH2 system in which SL and SWL abbraviate
the scaling and short-wave limits, respectively.
In this section, we first show that the CH2 system and its $N$-soliton solution reduce to the CH equation and the corresponding $N$-soliton solution under an appropriate limiting procedure, or more precisely, the scaling limit. Then, we demonstrate that the short-wave limit of the CH2 system yields the HS2 system. The reduction to the HS equation is outlined shortly.
The primary difference between the scaling limit and short-wave limit is that in the former limit, no scalings are prescribed for the space and time variables whereas in the latter limit, the rapidly-varying space variable $\hat x$ and slowly-varying time variable $\hat t$ are introduced via the relations $\hat x=x/\epsilon$ and $\hat t=\epsilon t$, where $\epsilon$ is a scaling parameter. The reduction process developed here is displayed in Figure 5 in which the two different avenues leading to the HS equation are indicated.
[*4.1. Reduction to the CH equation*]{}
The CH equation (1.2) is derived formally from the CH2 system by putting $\rho=0$. In this setting, one must impose the boundary condition $\rho_0=0$. The $N$-soliton solution of the CH equation is reduced from that of the CH2 system by taking the limit $\rho_0\rightarrow 0$. This limiting procedure is, however highly non-trivial, as will be shown below.
First, we introduce the following scaling variables with an overbar $$u=\bar u,\ \rho=\rho_0\bar\rho,\ m=\bar m, \ x=\bar x, \ y={\rho_0\over \kappa}\,\bar y,\ t=\bar t, \ \tau=\bar\tau, \ d=\bar d,$$ $$\ k_j={\kappa\over \rho_0}\,\bar k_j, \ c_j={\rho_0\over \kappa}\,\bar c_j,\ y_{j0}={\rho_0\over \kappa}\,\bar y_{j0}, \ (j=1, 2, ..., N). \eqno(4.1)$$ Then, the leading-order asymptotics of $c_j$ from (2.24), and $\gamma_{jl}, \phi_j$, and $\psi_j$ from (2.23) are found to be $$c_j \sim {2\rho_0\kappa^2\over 1-(\kappa \bar k_j)^2}, \ (j=1,2, ..., N), \eqno(4.2a)$$ $${\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}=\left({\bar k_j-\bar k_l\over \bar k_j+\bar k_l}\right)^2\equiv {\rm e}^{\bar \gamma_{jl}}, \ (j, l=1, 2, ..., N; j\not=l), \eqno(4.2b)$$ $${\rm e}^{-\phi_j} \sim {1-\kappa \bar k_j\over 1+\kappa \bar k_j}\equiv {\rm e}^{-\bar\phi_j}, \ (j=1,2, ..., N), \eqno(4.2c)$$ $${\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\psi_j} \sim 1-{\rm i}\, {\rho_0\over \kappa}\, \bar k_j, \ (j=1,2, ..., N). \eqno(4.2d)$$ We note that a limiting form $\bar c_j \sim -\rho_0^2/(2\kappa)$ of the velocity which arises from (2.24) with $\epsilon_j=-1\ (j=1, 2)$ is not relevant since in accodance with the scaling (4.1), this expression leads to $\bar c_j/\rho_0 \sim -\rho_0/(2\kappa) \rightarrow 0\ (\rho_0 \rightarrow 0)$, showing that the velocity in the $(\bar x, \bar t)$ coordinate system degenerates to zero.
The asymptotics of the tau-functions $f$ and $\tilde f$ from (2.21) and $g$ and $\tilde g$ from (2.22) become $$f \sim \sum_{\mu=0,1}{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N\mu_j\left(\bar\xi_j+\bar\phi_j\right)
+\sum_{1\le j<l\le N}\mu_j\mu_l\bar\gamma_{jl}\right] \equiv \bar f, \eqno(4.3a)$$ $$\tilde f \sim \sum_{\mu=0,1}{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N\mu_j\left(\bar\xi_j-\bar\phi_j\right)
+\sum_{1\le j<l\le N}\mu_j\mu_l\bar\gamma_{jl}\right] \equiv \bar{\tilde f}, \eqno(4.3b)$$ $$g =\bar f_0+{\rm i}\,{\rho_0\over \kappa}\,\bar f_{0,\bar y}+O(\rho_0^2), \eqno(4.4a)$$ $$\tilde g =\bar f_0-{\rm i}\,{\rho_0\over \kappa}\,\bar f_{0,\bar y}+O(\rho_0^2), \eqno(4.4b)$$ where $$\bar f_0 = \sum_{\mu=0,1}{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N\mu_j\bar\xi_j
+\sum_{1\le j<l\le N}\mu_j\mu_l\bar\gamma_{jl}\right], \eqno(4.5a)$$ $$\bar\xi_j=\bar k_j\left(\bar y-\bar c_j\bar\tau-\bar y_{j0}\right), \quad \bar c_j={2\kappa^3\over 1-(\kappa \bar k_j)^2}, \qquad (j=1, 2, ..., N).\eqno(4.5b)$$ Introducing (4.1), (4.3) and (4.4) into (2.16)-(2.18) and taking the limit $\rho_0\rightarrow 0$, we obtain the limiting forms of $u$, $\rho$ and $x$ $$\bar u=\left({\rm ln}\,{\bar{\tilde f}\over \bar f}\right)_{\bar\tau}, \eqno(4.6)$$ $$\rho \sim \rho_0\left(1-{2\over\kappa}\,({\rm ln} \bar f_0)_{\bar y\tau}\right)\equiv \rho_0\bar\rho, \eqno(4.7)$$ $$\bar x={\bar y\over\kappa}+ {\rm ln}\,{\bar{\tilde f}\over \bar f}+\bar d. \eqno(4.8)$$
The parametric representation of the $N$-soliton solution given by (4.6) and (4.8) with the tau-functions (4.3) coincides perfectly with that of the CH equation presented in \[21\]. In particular, the one-soliton solution (3.4) reduces to $$\bar u={2\kappa\bar c\bar k^2\over 1+\kappa^2\bar k^2+(1-\kappa^2\bar k^2)\,\cosh\,\bar\xi}, \eqno(4.9a)$$ $$\bar X=\bar x-\bar{\tilde c}-\bar x_0={\bar \xi\over \kappa\bar k}
+{\rm ln}\,{(1-\kappa\bar k)\,{\rm e}^{\bar \xi}+1+\kappa\bar k \over (1+\kappa\bar k)\,{\rm e}^{\bar \xi}+1-\kappa\bar k}, \eqno(4.9b)$$ with $$\bar\xi=\bar k(\bar y-\bar c\bar\tau-\bar y_0) \quad \bar c={2\kappa^3\over 1-(\kappa\bar k)^2}, \quad \bar{\tilde c}=\bar c/\kappa, \eqno(4.9c)$$ reproducing the one-soliton solution of the CH equation.
The limiting form of the phase shift which is denoted by $\bar\Delta_n^R$ can be derived from (3.21) by using $(4.2a)$. It reads $$\bar\Delta_n^R={1\over \kappa\bar k_n}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}{\rm ln}\left({\bar k_n-\bar k_j\over \bar k_n+\bar k_j}\right)^2
-\sum_{j=n+1}^N{\rm ln}\left({\bar k_n-\bar k_j\over \bar k_n+\bar k_j}\right)^2\right]$$ $$+\sum_{j=n+1}^N{\rm ln}\left({1-\kappa \bar k_j\over 1+\kappa \bar k_j}\right)^2-\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}{\rm ln}\left({1-\kappa \bar k_j\over 1+\kappa \bar k_j}\right)^2. \eqno(4.10)$$ This is just the formula for the phase shift of the $N$-soliton solution of the CH equation presented in \[21\].
[**Remark 4.1.**]{}
If we put $\bar r=\kappa-2({\rm ln}\,\bar f_0)_{\bar y\tau}$, then $$\bar\rho={\bar r\over \kappa}, \quad \bar m=\bar r^2. \eqno(4.11)$$ The first equation in (4.11) follows immediately from (4.7), and the second equation can be derived by taking the scaling limit of (2.20). The reciprocal transformation $(2.1a)$ reproduces the corresponding one for the CH equation \[21\] $$d\bar y=\bar r\,d\bar x-\bar r\bar u\,d\bar t, \quad d\bar \tau=d\bar t. \eqno(4.12)$$ In terms of the scaling variables (4.1), the bilinear equations (2.11)-(2.13) reduce respectively to $$\kappa D_{\bar y}\bar{\tilde f}\cdot \bar f+\bar{\tilde f}\bar f-\bar f_0^2=0, \eqno(4.13)$$ $$D_{\bar\tau}D_{\bar y}\bar f_0\cdot \bar f_0+\kappa(\bar{\tilde f}\bar f-\bar f_0^2)=0, \eqno(4.14)$$ $$\kappa D_{\bar\tau}D_{\bar y} \bar{\tilde f}\cdot \bar f +D_{\bar\tau}\bar{\tilde f}\cdot \bar f+\kappa^3 D_{\bar y} \bar{\tilde f}\cdot \bar f=0. \eqno(4.15)$$ The scaling limit of (2.14) is performed after eliminating the derivative $D_\tau\tilde g\cdot g$ in (2.14) by means of (2.12). We then find that the limiting form of (2.14) coincides with (4.14). One can show that the tau-functions $\bar f$ and $\bar{\tilde f}$ from (4.3) and $\bar f_0$ from (4.5) solve the above bilinear equations.
[*4.2. Reduction to the HS2 system*]{}
The HS2 system arises from the short-wave limit of the CH2 system. In this case, we introduce the scaling variables with a hat $$u=\epsilon^2\hat u,\ \rho=\epsilon\hat\rho,\ m=\hat m, \ x=\epsilon\hat x, \ y=\epsilon^2 \hat y,\ t={\hat t \over \epsilon}, \ \tau={\hat\tau\over \epsilon}. \eqno(4.16)$$ Rescaling the CH2 system (1.1) by (4.16) and taking the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, we obtain the HS2 system $$\hat m_{\hat t}+\hat u\hat m_{\hat x}+2\hat m \hat u_{\hat x}+\hat\rho\hat\rho_{\hat x}=0, \eqno(4.17a)$$ $$\hat \rho_{\hat t}+(\hat\rho \hat u)_{\hat x}=0, \eqno(4.17b)$$ where $\hat m=-\hat u_{\hat x\hat x}+\kappa^2$, which coincides with (1.4) upon removing the hat attached to the variables.
The $N$-soliton solution of the HS2 system can be recovered from that of the CH2 system by means of a scaling limit. The appropriate scaling variables are found to be $$\ k_j={\hat k_j \over \epsilon^2}, \ c_j=\epsilon^3\hat c_j,\ y_{j0}=\epsilon^2\hat y_{j0}, \ (j=1, 2, ..., N), \ \rho_0=\epsilon\hat \rho_0, \ d=\epsilon \hat d. \eqno(4.18)$$ In the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, the soliton parameters corresponding to those given by (4.2) have the leading-order asymptotics $$c_j\sim -{\epsilon^3\over \hat \rho_0\hat k_j^2}\,(\kappa^2+\hat d_j), \quad \hat d_j=\epsilon_j\sqrt{\kappa^4-\hat\rho_0^4\hat k_j^2}, \quad (j=1, 2, ..., N), \eqno(4.19a)$$ $${\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}} \sim {(\hat d_j-\hat d_l)^2+\hat \rho_0^4(\hat k_j-\hat k_l)^2\over (\hat d_j-\hat d_l)^2+\hat \rho_0^4(\hat k_j+\hat k_l)^2}
\equiv {\rm e}^{\hat \gamma_{jl}}, \ (j, l=1, 2, ..., N; j\not=l), \eqno(4.19b)$$ $${\rm e}^{-\phi_j} \sim 1+\epsilon\,{\hat k_j\hat c_j\over \kappa^2}, \ (j=1,2, ..., N), \eqno(4.19c)$$ $${\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\psi_j} \sim \sqrt{{\left({\kappa^2\over \hat\rho_0}-{\rm i}\hat\rho_0\hat k_j\right)\hat c_j+\hat\rho_0^2 \over
\left({\kappa^2\over \hat \rho_0}+{\rm i}\hat\rho_0\hat k_j\right)\hat c_j+\hat\rho_0^2}} \equiv {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\hat\psi_j},
\ (j=1,2, ..., N). \eqno(4.19d)$$
The tau-functions (2.21) and (2.22) have the leading-order asymptotics $$f \sim \hat f+{\epsilon\over \kappa^2}\,\hat f_{\hat\tau}, \quad \tilde f \sim \hat f-{\epsilon\over \kappa^2}\,\hat f_{\hat\tau}, \eqno(4.20)$$ $$g \sim \sum_{\mu=0,1}{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N\mu_j\left(\hat\xi_j+{\rm i}\hat\psi_j\right)
+\sum_{1\le j<l\le N}\mu_j\mu_l\hat\gamma_{jl}\right] \equiv \hat g, \eqno(4.21a)$$ $$\tilde g \sim \sum_{\mu=0,1}{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N\mu_j\left(\hat\xi_j-{\rm i}\hat\psi_j\right)
+\sum_{1\le j<l\le N}\mu_j\mu_l\hat \gamma_{jl}\right] \equiv \hat{\tilde g}, \eqno(4.21b)$$ where $$\hat f=\sum_{\mu=0,1}{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N\mu_j\hat\xi_j
+\sum_{1\le j<l\le N}\mu_j\mu_l\hat\gamma_{jl}\right], \eqno(4.22a)$$ $$\hat\xi_j=\hat k_j(\hat y-\hat c_j\hat\tau-\hat y_{j0}),
\quad \hat c_j= -{1\over \hat \rho_0\hat k_j^2}\,\left(\kappa^2+\epsilon_j\sqrt{\kappa^4-\hat\rho_0^4\hat k_j^2}\right), \quad (j=1, 2, ..., N). \eqno(4.22b)$$
The parametric representation for the $N$-soliton solution of the HS2 system follows by introducing (4.20) and (4.21) into (2.16)-(2.18) and taking the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$. Explicitly, $$\hat u=-{2\over\kappa^2}\,({\rm ln}\, \hat f)_{\hat\tau\hat\tau}, \eqno(4.23)$$ $$\hat\rho=\hat \rho_0-{2\over\kappa^2}\,{\rm i}\left({\rm ln}\,{\hat{\tilde g}\over \hat g}\right)_{\hat\tau}, \eqno(4.24)$$ $$\hat x ={\hat y\over \hat\rho_0}-{2\over\kappa^2}\,({\rm ln}\, \hat f)_{\hat\tau}+\hat d. \eqno(4.25)$$ The limiting forms of (2.19) and (2.20) turn out to be $${1\over \hat\rho}={1\over \hat\rho_0}-{2\over\kappa^2}\,({\rm ln}\, \hat f)_{\hat\tau\hat y}, \eqno(4.26)$$ $${\hat m\over \hat\rho^2}={\kappa^2\over \hat\rho_0^2}+{\rm i}\left({\rm ln}\,{\hat{\tilde g}\over \hat g}\right)_{\hat y}. \eqno(4.27)$$
We write the one-soliton solution for reference. $$\hat u=-{1\over 2\kappa^2}{(\hat k\hat c)^2\over \cosh^2{\hat\xi\over 2}},
\quad \hat\rho={1\over {1\over\hat\rho_0}+{\hat k^2\hat c\over 2\kappa^2}{1\over \cosh^2{\hat\xi\over 2}}}, \eqno(4.28a)$$ $$\hat X=\hat x-\hat{\tilde c}\hat t-\hat x_0={\hat \xi\over \hat\rho_0\hat k}+{\hat k\hat c\over\kappa^2}\, \tanh\,{\hat\xi\over 2}, \quad \eqno(4.28b)$$ with $$\hat\xi=\hat k(\hat y-\hat c\hat\tau-\hat y_0), \quad \hat c=-{1\over \hat\rho_0\hat k^2}\left(\kappa^2\pm\sqrt{\kappa^4-\hat\rho_0^4\hat k^2}\right), \quad \hat{\tilde c}=\hat c/\hat\rho_0. \eqno(4.28c)$$ Notice that the velocities $\hat{\tilde c}$ from $(4.28c)$ are negative for both plus and minus signs so that the soliton propagates to the left as opposed to the soliton solution of the CH2 system for which the bi-directional propagation is possible. Furthermore, in contrast to the CH2 case, the profile of $\hat\rho$ takes the form of a dark soliton. We also remark that all the results reduced from the CH2 system reproduce the corresponding ones obtained recently by an analysis of the HS2 system \[29\].
[**Remark 4.2.**]{}
Under the scaling (4.16), the reciprocal transformation (2.1) and equations (2.2)-(2.5) remain the same form. The bilinear equations (2.11), (2.12) and (2.14) reduce respectively to $$D_{\hat\tau}D_{\hat y}\hat f\cdot\hat f-{\kappa^2\over \hat \rho_0^2}\,(\hat f^2-\hat{\tilde g}\hat g)=0, \eqno(4.29)$$ $${\rm i}D_{\hat\tau}\hat{\tilde g}\cdot \hat g+\hat\rho_0\,(\hat f^2-\hat{\tilde g}\hat g)=0, \eqno(4.30)$$ $$D_{\hat\tau}D_{\hat y} \hat{\tilde g}\cdot \hat g-{\rm i}\,{\kappa^2\over \hat \rho_0^2}\,D_{\hat\tau} \hat{\tilde g}\cdot \hat g+{\rm i}\hat \rho_0\,D_{\hat y} \hat{\tilde g}\cdot \hat g=0, \eqno(4.31)$$ whereas the bilinear equation (2.13) reduces to (4.29) when coupled with (2.11).
[*4.3. Reduction to the HS equation*]{}
The HS equation (1.5) can be reduced from either the short-wave limit of the CH equation or the scaling limit of the HS2 system, as shown in Figure 5. The former reduction has been performed in \[30\]. To attain the latter reduction, we employ the same scaling variables as those given by (4.1) and find that the resulting expressions reproduce those obtained in \[30\]. The reduction process can be established in parallel with that for the CH2 system, and hence the detail of the computation is omitted here.
The parametric representation of the $N$-soliton solution can be obtained by taking the scaling limit of (4.22), (4.23) and (4.25). It leads, after removing the hat appended to the variables for simplicity, to $$u=-{2\over\kappa^2}\,({\rm ln}\, f)_{\tau\tau}, \eqno(4.32a)$$ $$x ={ y\over \kappa}-{2\over\kappa^2}\,({\rm ln}\, f)_{\tau}+ d, \eqno(4.32b)$$ with $$f=\sum_{\mu=0,1}{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N\mu_j\xi_j
+\sum_{1\le j<l\le N}\mu_j\mu_l\gamma_{jl}\right], \eqno(4.33a)$$ $$\xi_j= k_j( y-c_j\tau- y_{j0}),
\quad c_j= -{2\kappa\over k_j^2}, \ (j=1, 2, ..., N), \eqno(4.33b)$$ $${\rm e}^{\gamma_{jl}}=\left({ k_j- k_l\over k_j+ k_l}\right)^2, \ (j, l=1, 2, ..., N; j\not=l). \eqno(4.33c)$$
The one-soliton solution is given by $$u=-{2\over k^2}{1\over \cosh^2{\xi\over 2}}, \quad X=x-\tilde ct-x_0={\xi\over \kappa k}-{2\over \kappa k}\,\tanh\,{\xi\over 2}, \eqno(4.34a)$$ with $$\xi=k(y-c\tau-y_0),\quad c=-{2\kappa\over k^2}, \quad \tilde c={c\over\kappa}. \eqno(4.34b)$$ The above parametric solution takes the form of a cusp soliton. This can be confirmed simply by computing the derivative $u_X(=u_\xi/X_\xi)$ from (4.34), giving $u_X=4\kappa/(k\,\sinh\,\xi)$. Thus, $\lim_{X\rightarrow \pm 0}u_X=\pm\infty$, showing that the slope of the soliton becomes infinite at the crest.
[**5. Concluding remarks**]{}
An intriguing feature of the CH equation is the existence of peakons which mimic Stokes’ limiting solitary waves in the classical shallow water wave theory \[31\]. The peakons can be reduced from the smooth solitons by taking the zero dispersion limit $\kappa\rightarrow 0$. See, for example \[32, 33\]. Since the CH2 system under consideration is an integrable generalization of the CH equation, one can expect that it exhibits peakons as well. The detailed analysis of the one-soliton solution (3.4) reveals that the peakon can not be produced from the smooth soliton in any limiting procedure. On the other hand, another integrable CH2 system (2.31) admits peakons \[6\]. However, the general $N$-peakon solution is still unavailable for this system. In addition, whether peakons can be reduced from smooth solitons or not has not been resolved. The complete classification of traveling wave solutions of the CH2 system has not been performed yet for both periodic and nonperiodic boundary conditions. Specifically, as for the existence of multi-valued solutions, no decisive answer exists even today. These interesting problems will be considered in a future work.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
This work was partially supported by Yamaguchi University Foundation. The author appreciated critical review comments from two anonymous reviewers, which greatly improve an earlier draft of the manuscript.
[**Appendix A. Proof of Proposition 2.2.**]{}
First, we show that the solutions of the bilinear equations (2.11) and (2.12) solve (2.7). Upon substituting (2.9) and (2.10) into (2.7), the equation to be proved becomes $P=0$, where $$P\equiv \left\{{1\over\rho_0}+\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}\right)_y\right\}\left\{\rho_0-{\rm i}\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde g\over g}\right)_\tau\right\}-1.$$ Invoking the definition of the bilinear operator (2.15), $P$ is rewritten in the form $$P=\left\{\left({1\over\rho_0}\tilde f f+D_y\tilde f\cdot f\right)\left(\rho_0\tilde g g-{\rm i}D_\tau\tilde g\cdot g\right)-\tilde f\tilde g fg\right\}/(\tilde f\tilde g fg).$$ This expression becomes zero by virtue of (2.11) and (2.12).
To preceed, we introduce (2.9) and (2.10) into (2.8), and obtain $$\left\{\rho_0-{\rm i}\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde g\over g}\right)_\tau\right\}\left\{{\kappa^2\over \rho_0^2}+{\rm i}\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde g\over g}\right)_y\right\}
=\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}\right)_\tau\left\{{1\over\rho_0}+\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}\right)_y\right\}$$ $$-\left[\left\{\rho_0-{\rm i}\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde g\over g}\right)_\tau\right\}\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}\right)_{\tau y}\right]_y+\kappa^2\left\{{1\over\rho_0}+\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}\right)_y\right\}.$$ In view of (2.11) and (2.12), the second term on the right-hand side of the above equation is modified as $$\left[\left\{\rho_0-{\rm i}\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde g\over g}\right)_\tau\right\}\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}\right)_{\tau y}\right]_y=\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde g g\over \tilde f f}\right)_{\tau y}.$$ Inserting this relation and using (2.11) and (2.12), the equation to be proved reduces to $Q=0$, where $$Q\equiv \left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde g g\over \tilde f f}\right)_{\tau y}+{\rm i}\rho_0\,{\tilde f f\over \tilde g g}\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde g\over g}\right)_y
-{1\over \rho_0}{\tilde g g\over \tilde f f}\left({\rm ln}\,{\tilde f\over f}\right)_\tau+{\kappa^2\over\rho_0}\left({\tilde f f\over \tilde g g}-{\tilde g g\over \tilde f f}\right).$$ It now follows from the the definition of the bilinear operators that $$({\rm ln}\,\tilde f f)_{\tau y}={D_\tau D_y\tilde f\cdot f\over \tilde f f}-{1\over (\tilde f f)^2}(D_\tau\tilde f\cdot f)(D_y\tilde f\cdot f),$$ $$({\rm ln}\,\tilde g g)_{\tau y}={D_\tau D_y\tilde g\cdot g\over \tilde g g}-{1\over (\tilde g g)^2}(D_\tau\tilde g\cdot g)(D_y\tilde g\cdot g).$$ Substituting these identities into the first term of $Q$ and rewriting the second and third terms by means of the bilinear operators, $Q$ recasts to $$Q={D_\tau D_y\tilde g\cdot g\over \tilde g g}+{\rm i}\,{D_y\tilde g\cdot g\over (\tilde g g)^2}\,({\rm i}D_\tau\tilde g\cdot g+ \rho_0\tilde f f)
-{D_\tau D_y\tilde f\cdot f\over \tilde f f}$$ $$+{D_\tau\tilde f\cdot f\over (\tilde f f)^2}\left(D_y\tilde f\cdot f-{1\over\rho_0}\,\tilde g g\right)+{\kappa^2\over\rho_0}\left({\tilde f f\over \tilde g g}-{\tilde g g\over \tilde f f}\right).$$ This expression turns out to be zero by virtue of (2.11)-(2.14).
In this appendix, we show that the tau-functions (2.21) and (2.22) solve the system of bilinear equations (2.11)-(2.14). We use a mathematical induction similar to that has been employed for the proof of the $N$-soliton solution of the nonlinear network equations \[34\]. Since the proof can be performed in a similar manner for all equations, we describe the proof of (2.11) in some detail, and outline the proof for other three equations.
First, we substitute the tau-functions $f$ and $\tilde f$ from (2.21) into the bilinear equation (2.11) and use the formula $$D_\tau^mD_y^n\,{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\xi_i\right]\cdot {\rm exp}\left[\sum_{i=1}^N\nu_i \xi_i\right]$$ $$=\left\{-\sum_{i=1}^N(\mu_i-\nu_i)k_i c_i\right\}^m\left\{\sum_{i=1}^N(\mu_i-\nu_i)k_i\right\}^n{\rm exp}\left[\sum_{i=1}^N(\mu_i+\nu_i)\xi_i\right],\ (m, n=0, 1, 2, ...), \eqno(B. 1)$$ to show that the equation to be proved becomes $$\sum_{\mu, \nu=0,1}\left[\left\{\sum_{i=1}^N(\mu_i-\nu_i)k_i+{1\over \rho_0}\right\}\,{\rm exp}\left[-\sum_{i=1}^N(\mu_i-\nu_i)\phi_i\right]
-{1\over \rho_0}\,{\rm exp}\left[-{\rm i}\sum_{i=1}^N(\mu_i-\nu_i)\psi_i\right]\right]$$ $$\times {\rm exp}\left[\sum_{i=1}^N(\mu_i+\nu_i)\xi_i+\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq N}(\mu_i\mu_j+\nu_i\nu_j)\gamma_{ij}\right]=0. \eqno(B. 2)$$
Let $P_{m, n}$ be the coefficient of the factor ${\rm exp}\left[\sum_{i=1}^n \xi_i+\sum_{i=n+1}^m 2\xi_i\right]\ (1\leq n<m\leq N)$ on the left-hand side of (B.2). This coefficient is obtained if one performs the summation with respect to $\mu_i$ and $\nu_i$ under the conditions $\mu_i+\nu_i=1\ (i=1, 2, ..., n), \ \mu_i=\nu_i=1\ (i=n+1, n+2, ..., m),
\ \mu_i=\nu_i=0\ (i=m+1, m+2, ..., N).$ We then introduce the new summation indices $\sigma_i$ by the relations $\mu_i=(1+\sigma_i)/2,\ \nu_i=(1-\sigma_i)/2$ for $i=1, 2, ..., n$, where $\sigma_i$ takes either the value $+1$ or $-1$, so that $\mu_i\mu_j+\nu_i\nu_j=(1+\sigma_i\sigma_j)/2$.
Consequently, $P_{m, n}$ can be rewritten in the form $$P_{m,n}=\sum_{\sigma=\pm 1}\left[\left\{\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_ik_i+{1\over \rho_0}\right\}{\rm exp}\left[-\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i\phi_i\right]
-{1\over \rho_0}\,{\rm exp}\left[-{\rm i}\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i\psi_i\right]\right]$$ $$\times {\rm exp}\left[{1\over 2}\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(1+\sigma_i\sigma_j)\gamma_{ij}+\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{\substack{j=n+1\\ (j\not=i)}}^m\gamma_{ij}\right]. \eqno(B. 3)$$ If we invoke (2.24) and (2.28)-(2.30) as well as the definition of $\sigma_i$, we deduce $${\rm exp}\left[-\sum_{i=1}^n \sigma_i\phi_i\right]=\prod_{i=1}^n\left[{{\rm sgn}\,c_i\over \sqrt{\rho_0^2+\kappa^4}}{d_i-\kappa^2\rho_0\sigma_ik_i\over 1+\rho_0\sigma_ik_i}\right], \eqno(B. 4)$$ $${\rm exp}\left[-{\rm i}\sum_{i=1}^n \sigma_i\psi_i\right]=\prod_{i=1}^n\left[{{\rm sgn}\,c_i(d_i-{\rm i}\rho_0^2\sigma_ik_i)\over \sqrt{\rho_0^2+\kappa^4}}\right], \eqno(B. 5)$$ $${\rm exp}\left[{1\over 2}\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(1+\sigma_i\sigma_j)\gamma_{ij}\right]
=\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\left[{(d_i-d_j)^2+\rho_0^4(\sigma_ik_i-\sigma_jk_j)^2\over (d_i-d_j)^2+\rho_0^4(\sigma_ik_i+\sigma_jk_j)^2}\right]. \eqno(B. 6)$$ Substituting (B. 4)-(B. 6) into (B. 3), $P_{m, n}$ becomes $$P_{m, n}=c_{m, n}\sum_{\sigma=\pm 1}\left[\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\rho_0\sigma_ik_i+1\right)\prod_{i=1}^n{d_i-\kappa^2\rho_0\sigma_ik_i\over 1+\rho_0\sigma_ik_i}
-\prod_{i=1}^n(d_i-{\rm i}\rho_0^2\sigma_ik_i)\right]$$ $$\times \prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\left[(d_i-d_j)^2+\rho_0^4(\sigma_ik_i-\sigma_jk_j)^2\right], \eqno(B. 7)$$ where $c_{m, n}$ is a multiplicative factor independent of the summation indices $\sigma_i\ (i=1, 2, ..., n)$. To put (B. 7) into a more tractable form, we introduce the new variables $r$ and $\theta_i$ by $d_i+{\rm i}\rho_0^2k_i=r{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\theta_i}=rz_i$, where $z_i={\rm e}^{{\rm i}\theta_i}, r=\sqrt{d_i^2+\rho_0^4k_i^2}=\sqrt{\kappa^4+\rho_0^2}$. Note that $r$ is a constant independent of $k_i$. To proceed, we substitute the relation $${d_i-\kappa^2\rho_0\sigma_ik_i\over 1+\rho_0\sigma_ik_i}={-\kappa^2d_i+\kappa^4+\rho_0^2-\rho_0^3\sigma_ik_i\over d_i-\kappa^2}, \eqno(B. 8)$$ which follows from (2.24) into the first term on the right-hand side of (B. 7) and then rewrite $P_{m, n}$ in terms of the new variables $z_i$. Dropping a factor independent of the summation indices $\sigma_i$, the equation to be proved reduces to the following algebraic identity in $z_1, z_2, ..., z_n$:
$P_n(z_1, z_2, ..., z_n)$ $$\equiv \sum_{\sigma=\pm 1}\Biggl[\left\{{r\over 2{\rm i}\rho_0}\sum_{i=1}^n\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_i^{-\sigma_i}\right)+1\right\}
\prod_{j=1}^n\left\{-{\kappa^2\over 2r}\left(z_j+z_j^{-1}\right)+1-{\rho_0\over 2{\rm i}r}\left(z_j^{\sigma_j}-z_j^{-\sigma_j}\right)\right\}$$ $$-\prod_{j=1}^n\left\{{1\over 2}\left(z_j+z_j^{-1}\right)-{\kappa^2\over r}\right\}z_j^{-\sigma_j}\Biggr]
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_j^{\sigma_j}\right)\left(z_i^{-\sigma_i}-z_j^{-\sigma_j}\right)=0,\ (n= 1, 2, ..., N). \eqno(B. 9)$$
The proof proceeds by mathematical induction. The identity (B. 9) can be confirmed for $n=1, 2$ by a direct computation. Assume that $P_{n-2}=P_{n-1}=0$. Then, $$P_n|_{z_1=1}=2\left(1-{\kappa^2\over r}\right)\prod_{i=2}^n(1-z_i)(1-z_i^{-1})P_{n-1}(z_2, z_3, ..., z_n)=0. \eqno(B. 10)$$ $$P_n|_{z_1=z_2}=-2(z_1-z_1^{-1})^2\left\{{1\over 2}(z_1+z_1^{-1})-{\kappa^2\over r}\right\}^2$$ $$\times\prod_{j=3}^n(z_1-z_j)(z_1^{-1}-z_j^{-1})(z_1^{-1}-z_j)(z_1-z_j^{-1})P_{n-2}(z_3, z_4, ..., z_n)=0. \eqno(B. 11)$$ The function $P_n$ is symmetric with respect to $z_1, z_2, ..., z_n$ and invariant under the transformation $z_i \rightarrow z_i^{-1}$ for arbitrary $i$. When coupled with the above two properties (B. 10) and (B. 11), one can see that $P_n$ is factored by a function $$\prod_{i=1}^n(z_i-1)(z_i^{-1}-1)\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(z_i-z_j)(z_i-z_j^{-1})(z_i^{-1}-z_j)(z_i^{-1}-z_j^{-1}). \eqno(B. 12)$$ It turns out from this expression that $$\prod_{i=1}^nz_i^2\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(z_iz_j)^2P_n=A_n\prod_{i=1}^n(z_i-1)(1-z_i)\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(z_i-z_j)^2(z_iz_j-1)^2, \eqno(B. 13)$$ where $A_n$ is a polynomial of $z_1, z_2, ..., z_n$. The left-hand side of (B. 13) is a polynomial whose degree in $z_1, z_2, ..., z_n$ is at most $2n^2+2n$ whereas that of the right-hand side is $3n^2-n$ at least. This is impossible for $n\geq 4$ except $P_n\equiv 0$. The identity $P_3=0$ can be checked by a direct computation, implying that the identity (B. 9) holds for all $n$.
The bilinear equations (2.12), (2.13) and (2.14) reduce, after substituting the tau-functions (2.21) and (2.22), to the algebraic identities $Q_n=0, R_n=0$ and $S_n=0$, respectively, where
$Q_n(z_1, z_2, ..., z_n)$ $$\equiv \sum_{\sigma=\pm 1}\Biggl[\biggl[\prod_{i=1}^n\left\{{1\over 2}(z_i+z_i^{-1})-{\kappa^2\over r}\right\}+{1\over 2}\sum_{i=1}^n\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_i^{-\sigma_i}\right)
\prod_{\substack{j=1\\ (j\not=i)}}^n\left\{{1\over 2}(z_j+z_j^{-1})-{\kappa^2\over r}\right\}\biggr]\prod_{j=1}^nz_j^{-\sigma_j}$$ $$-\prod_{i=1}^n\left\{-{\kappa^2\over 2r}(z_i+z_i^{-1})+1-{\rho_0\over 2{\rm i}r}\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_i^{-\sigma_i}\right)\right\}\Biggr]
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_j^{\sigma_j}\right)\left(z_i^{-\sigma_i}-z_j^{-\sigma_j}\right),$$ $$(n=1, 2, ..., N). \eqno(B. 14)$$
$R_n(z_1, z_2, ..., z_n)$ $$\equiv \sum_{\sigma=\pm 1}\Biggl[\left\{1+{r\over 2{\rm i}\rho_0}\sum_{i=1}^n\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_i^{-\sigma_i}\right)\right\}\biggl[\sum_{i=1}^n\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_i^{-\sigma_i}\right)
\prod_{\substack{j=1\\ (j\not=i)}}^n\left\{{1\over 2}(z_j+z_j^{-1})-{\kappa^2\over r}\right\}\biggr]$$ $$-{\kappa^2r\over \rho_0^2}\sum_{i=1}^n\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_i^{-\sigma_i}\right)\prod_{i=1}^n\left\{{1\over 2}(z_i+z_i^{-1})-{\kappa^2\over r}\right\}\Biggr]$$ $$\times\prod_{i=1}^n\left\{-{\kappa^2\over 2r}(z_i+z_i^{-1})+1-{\rho_0\over 2{\rm i}r}\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_i^{-\sigma_i}\right)\right\}$$ $$\times \prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_j^{\sigma_j}\right)\left(z_i^{-\sigma_i}-z_j^{-\sigma_j}\right), \quad (n=1, 2, ..., N). \eqno(B. 15)$$
$S_n(z_1, z_2, ..., z_n)$ $$\equiv \sum_{\sigma=\pm 1}\Biggl[\left\{{\kappa^2\over r}+{1\over 2}\sum_{i=1}^n\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_i^{-\sigma_i}\right)\right\}\sum_{i=1}^n\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_i^{-\sigma_i}\right)
\prod_{\substack{j=1\\ (j\not=i)}}^n\left\{{1\over 2}(z_j+z_j^{-1})-{\kappa^2\over r}\right\}\biggr]$$ $$+\sum_{i=1}^n\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_i^{-\sigma_i}\right)\prod_{i=1}^n\left\{{1\over 2}(z_i+z_i^{-1})-{\kappa^2\over r}\right\}\Biggr]$$ $$\times \prod_{i=1}^nz_i^{-\sigma_i}\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\left(z_i^{\sigma_i}-z_j^{\sigma_j}\right)\left(z_i^{-\sigma_i}-z_j^{-\sigma_j}\right), \quad (n=1, 2, ..., N). \eqno(B. 16)$$ The polynomials $Q_n, R_n$ and $S_n$ are shown to be factored by a function (B. 12). Applying the similar induction argument to that used in proving (B. 9), one can establish the identities $Q_n=0, R_n=0$ and $S_n=0$. This completes the proof of theorem 2.2.
=5.5mm
1. Olver P and Rosenau P 1996 Tri-Hamiltonian duality between solitons and solitary-wave solutions having compact support [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**53**]{} 1900-6
2. Zakharov V E 1980 The inverse scattering method [*Solitons ( Topics in Current Physics [**vol 17**]{})*]{} ed R K Bullough and D J Caudrey (New York: Springer) pp 243-85
3. Ito M 1982 Symmetries and conservation laws of a coupled nonlinear wave equation [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**91**]{} 335-8
4. Liu S-Q and Zhang Y 2005 Deformation of semisimple bihamiltonian structures of hydrodynamic type [*J. Geom. Phys.*]{} [**54**]{} 427-53
5. Falqui G 2006 On a Camassa-Holm type equation with two dependent variables [*J. Phys. A: Mth. Gen.*]{} [**39**]{} 327-42
6. Chen M, Liu S-Q and Zhang Y 2006 A two-component generalization of the Camassa-Holm equation and its solutions [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**75**]{} 1-15
7. Constantin A and Ivanov R I 2008 On an integrable two-component Camassa-Holm shallow water system [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A 372**]{} 7129-32
8. Ivanov R I 2009 Two-component integrable systems modelling shallow water waves: The constant vorticity case [*Wave Motion*]{} [**46**]{} 389-96
9. Holm D D and Ivanov R I 2010 Multi-component generalization of the CH equation: geometric aspects, peakons and numerical examples [*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*]{} [**43**]{} 492001
10. Ablowitz M J and Segur H 1981 [*Solitons and the Inverse Scattering Transform (SIAM Studies in Applied Mathematics [vol 4]{})*]{} (Philadelphia, PA: SIAM)
11. Ablowitz M J and Clarkson P A 1991 [*Nonlinear Evolution Equations and Inverse Scattering (London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series \#149)*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
12. Escher J, Lechtenfeld O and Yin Z 2007 Well-posedness and blow-up phenomena for the 2-component Camassa-Holm equation [*Discrete Continuous Dyn. Syst.*]{} [**19**]{} 493-513
13. Gui G and Liu Y 2010 On the global existence and wave-breaking criteria for the two-component Camassa-Holm system [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**258**]{} 4251-78
14. Li J B and Li Y S 2008 Bifurcations of travelling wave solutions for a two-component Camassa-Holm equation [*Acta Math. Sinica*]{} [**24**]{} 1319-30
15. Dutykh D and Ionescu-Kruse D 2016 Travelling wave solutions for some two-component shallow water models [*J. Diff. Eqs.*]{} [**261**]{} 1099-114
16. Holm D D and Ivanov R I 2011 Two-component CH system: inverse scattering, peakons and geometry [*Inverse Problems*]{} [**27**]{} 045013
17. Camassa R and Holm D D 1993 An integrable shallow water equation with peaked solitons [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**71**]{} 1661-4
18. Camassa R, Holm D and Hyman J 1994 A new integrable shallow water wave equation [*Adv. Appl. Mech.*]{} [**31**]{} 1-33
19. Holm D D and Ivanov R I 2010 Smooth and peaked solitons of the CH equation [*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*]{} [**43**]{} 434003
20. Hunter J and Saxton R 1991 Dynamics of director fields [*SIAM J. Appl. Math.*]{} [**51**]{} 1498-521
21. Matsuno Y 2005 Parametric representation for the multisoliton solution of the Camassa-Holm equation [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**74**]{} 1983-87
22. Matsuno Y 2013 Bäcklund transformation and smooth multisoliton solutions for a modified Camassa-Holm equation with cubic nonlinearity [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**54**]{} 051504
23. Matsuno Y 2014 Smooth and singular multisoliton solutions of a modified Camassa-Holm equation wih cubic nonlinearity and linear dispersion [*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*]{} [**47**]{} 125203
24. Hirota R 1980 Direct Methods in Soliton Theory [*Solitons (Topics in Current Physics [**vol 17**]{})*]{} ed RK Bullough and DJ Caudrey (New York: Springer) pp 157-76
25. Matsuno Y 1984 [*Bilinear Transformation Method*]{} (New York: Academic)
26. Date E, Jimbo M and Miwa T 1983 Method for generating discrete soliton equations. V [J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.]{} [**52**]{} 766-71
27. Jimbo M and Miwa T 1983 Solitons and infinite dimensional Lie algebras [*Publ. RIMS Kyoto Univ.*]{} [**19**]{} 943-1001
28. Wu C Z 2006 On solutions of the two-component Camassa-Holm system [*J. Math. Phys*]{} [**47**]{} 083513
29. Lau S, Feng B F and Yao R 2016 Multi-soliton solution to the two-component Hunter-Saxton equation [*Wave Motion*]{} [**65**]{} 17-28
30. Matsuno Y, 2006 Cusp and loop soliton solutions of short-wave models for the Camassa-Holm and Degasperis-Procesi equations [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**359**]{} 451-457
31. Whitham G B 1974 [*Linear and Nonlinear Waves*]{} (New York: John Wiley & Sons)
32. Parker A and Matsuno Y 2006 The peakon limits of soliton solutions of the Camassa-Holm equation [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**75**]{} 124001
33. Matsuno Y 2007 The peakon limit of the $N$-soliton solution of the Camassa-Holm equation [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**76**]{} 034003
34. Hirota R 1973 Exact $N$-soliton solution of nonlinear lumped self-dual network equations [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**35**]{} 289-294
[^1]: [*E-mail address*]{}: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The distinction between proper and improper mixtures is a staple of the discussion of foundational questions in quantum mechanics. Here we note an analogous distinction in the context of the theory of entanglement. The terminology of ‘proper’ versus ‘improper’ separability is proposed to mark the distinction.'
author:
- |
Christopher G. Timpson[^1]\
*[Division of History and Philosophy of Science,]{}*\
*[School of Philosophy, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.]{}*
- |
Harvey R. Brown[^2]\
*Faculty of Philosophy,*\
*University of Oxford, 10 Merton St, Oxford, OX1 4JJ, UK.*
date: 23 May 2005
title: Proper and Improper Separability
---
Proper and Improper mixtures
============================
In many discussions of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, it has proved essential to distinguish between density operators which can be given an ‘ignorance’ interpretation; and those which cannot. In the former case, the system whose state the density operator represents is in some definite quantum state from a specified set — say a pure state ${|\psi_{i}\rangle _{}}$ — but we don’t know which. Our ignorance of the actual state can be represented by a probability distribution $\{p_{j}\}$ over the different (not necessarily orthogonal) possibilities $\{{|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}\}$, and the density operator may be written as $$\rho=\sum_{j}p_{j}{|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}{\langle _{}\psi_{j}|}. \label{proper}$$ An ensemble of such systems will also be described by the density operator (\[proper\]); in this case each of the elements of the ensemble will be in a definite state ${|\psi_{i}\rangle _{}}$, and the relative frequency with which elements of the ensemble are in the $j$-th state will be given by the probability $p_{j}$. One usually thinks of such an ensemble as arising from a preparation procedure which, on any given run, produces the state ${|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}$ with probability $p_{j}$. Ensembles which can be given an ignorance interpetation are called *proper* mixtures; the terminology is due to d’Espagnat [@d'Espagnat]. While the statistics that one will obtain following measurements on an ensemble of systems in a proper mixture will simply be governed by the density operator $\rho$, which, as a mathematical object, may be expressed in various forms [@schrodinger2; @jaynes:1957ii; @hjw], it is nevertheless the case that there is only one privileged decomposition in the form (\[proper\]) for a given proper mixture—that one expressing the actual probabilities and definite states according to which the systems have been mixed. It then follows, of course, that one will not be able to determine the actual composition of a proper mixture by measurements on the systems making up the ensemble alone, but will require some further information.
By contrast, density operators which cannot be given an ignorance interpretation are said to represent *improper* mixtures. Here the density operator arises from tracing out irrelevant, or unavailable, degrees of freedom. In this case, individual systems cannot be thought to be in some definite state of which we are ignorant; rather, the (reduced) density operator is the only description that they can have. The well-known ambiguity of the representation of a density operator now achieves free rein: as we have said, for a given operator $\rho$, there exist many decompositions of the form (\[proper\]). For improper mixtures there is no longer any fact of the matter as to which decomposition is privileged or correct. Indeed the very notion of correctness has no application in this case.
The significance of the distinction between proper and improper mixtures for the measurement problem in orthodox quantum theory is, of course, just this: Proceeding within the orthodox theory, what one wants as the end result of a measurement procedure is to be left with a proper mixture, corresponding to definite measurement outcomes, whereas what one actually gets (in the absence of the problematic process of genuine collapse) is an improper mixture; even if it is one in which decoherence has ensured that off-diagonal elements of the density matrix in the position basis tend rapidly to zero [@decoherence]. And improper mixtures do not correspond to definite measurement outcomes. (That is, unless one abandons orthodoxy and relativizes the notion of definite outcome, leading to an Everett-type theory [@everett; @simonrelativism].)[^3]
At first sight, the distinction between proper and improper mixtures appears to suffer from a certain restriction in its range of application. According to interpretations in which quantum mechanics *without* collapse is a complete theory, as in the Everett interpretation, a state being mixed is *always* the result of tracing out unwanted degrees of freedom[^4]. In this case, there would seem to be no scope left for the category of proper mixtures. However, even in no-collapse quantum mechanics, a useful distinction may be made between proper and improper mixtures, if this characterisation is recognised as relative to the experimental context.
To see this, consider again the example of states ${|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}$ being produced with probabilities $p_{j}$.[^5] In a no-collapse framework, we may model the preparation procedure, schematically, in the following way.
We begin with a preparation device, that is, some apparatus which, on any given run of the procedure, will prepare an object system in one of the states ${|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}$, depending upon the setting of some internal degree of freedom — imagine a knob which may be turned to one of $j=1,\ldots,n$ different positions. Next, mixing probabilities are introduced. These probabilities arise because the setting of the knob for each run of the apparatus is controlled by some further degree of freedom, which we may think of as a quantum ‘die’ that is thrown. This die has a set of orthogonal states $\{{|d_{j}\rangle _{}}\}, j=1,\ldots,n$, which correlate to the possible knob positions and hence to the states, ${|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}$, of the object system that are produced. If the die begins in a superposition of ${|d_{j}\rangle _{}}$ states, ${|D\rangle _{}}=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\sqrt{p_{j}}\,{|d_{j}\rangle _{}}$, then the joint state of die and object system following the preparation procedure will be $${|\Psi\rangle _{}} = \sum_{j=1}^{n} \sqrt{p_{j}}\,{|d_{j}\rangle _{}}{|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}. \label{n-c proper}$$ This corresponds to the states ${|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}$ of the object system being mixed with probabilities $p_{j}$; note that the reduced state of the object system indeed takes the form (\[proper\]).
At this stage, we may not yet talk of a proper mixture. To do this, further systems need to be introduced. In particular, let us consider adding the environment and an observer.
As we have said, the characteristic feature of a proper mixture is that there is some fact about the state our object system is in, that goes beyond the density operator ascribed to it. In the no-collapse context, such a fact must be understood as relational, that is, as a matter of correlations between the object system, or systems, and states of the environment and observers. Thus we may understand the preparation procedure just outlined as giving rise to a proper mixture if it turns out that following the preparation, the relative state of the object system with respect to the state of some particular observer is one of the states ${|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}$. For this to happen, the interaction between the systems involved in the preparation procedure and the environment must be such that the observer will become correlated to the die and object system states, or, must be such that an effectively classical record (that is, a record robust against decoherence) of the state of the die and object system is left in the environment.
Following the preparation of state ${|\Psi\rangle _{}}$ in (\[n-c proper\]), then, we can imagine two distinct scenarios. In the first, an observer, Alice, indeed becomes correlated to the states produced in the preparation procedure; with respect to her, the object system is in a proper mixture. In the second scenario, another observer, Bob, remains uncorrelated to the states ${|d_{j}\rangle _{}}{|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}$; with respect to him, the object system is in an *improper* mixture. It is in this sense that the proper/improper mixture distinction becomes relative to the experimental context in no-collapse quantum mechanics.
The proper/improper distinction will be most interesting when we have an ensemble of systems; that is, when the outlined preparation procedure has been run a very large number of times. The total state of the ensemble of object systems and dice will then be of the form: ${|\Omega\rangle _{}}={|\Psi\rangle _{}}{|\Psi\rangle _{}}\ldots{|\Psi\rangle _{}}\ldots$. If, when an observer is included, his state factorises from ${|\Omega\rangle _{}}$, then with respect to him, the ensemble of object systems will be in an improper mixture (whose state may be written as $\rho^{1}\otimes\rho^{2}\otimes\ldots\otimes\rho^{m}\otimes\ldots$, where $\rho^{i}$ is the density operator of the $i$th object system and is given by the expression (\[proper\]) ).
However, the state ${|\Omega\rangle _{}}$ may also be written as a superposition of terms which would correspond to the object systems having been prepared in particular sequences of the states ${|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}$, that is, as a superposition of terms of the form: $${|d_{j}\rangle _{}}{|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}} {|d_{j^{\prime}}\rangle _{}}{|\psi_{j^{\prime}}\rangle _{}} \ldots {|d_{j^{\prime\prime}}\rangle _{}}{|\psi_{j^{\prime\prime}}\rangle _{}}\ldots \label{sequence}$$ If an observer becomes *correlated to* (entangled with) these states of the dice and object systems (if, for example, the setting of the apparatus knob for each run of the procedure has left a record in the environment), then with respect to him or her, the ensemble will be in a proper mixture: each of the object systems will be in some particular state ${|\psi_{i}\rangle _{}}$. Of course, the superposition of terms of the form (\[sequence\]) will include very many sequences in which the relative frequencies of occurrence of the states ${|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}$ will not match the probabilities $p_{j}$. But, in the usual way [@everett; @hartle], as the number of object systems in the ensemble becomes very large, then the overwhelming weight (given by the standard mod squared measure) will lie with those terms in the superposition for which the relative frequency of the appearance of a state ${|\psi_{i}\rangle _{}}$ is very close to its mixing probability $p_{i}$.
We should note a final important facet of the proper/improper mixture distinction, whether in the context-relative no-collapse quantum mechanical setting, or otherwise. This is the fact that when an ensemble is described as improperly mixed, this means that it is ‘structureless’, or ‘homogeneous’ in von Neumann’s sense [@vN] (see also [@elbybrownfoster]). That is, if the ensemble is divided up into sub-ensembles by some place selection procedure, then the resulting sub-ensembles will have just the same predicted statistics for measurement outcomes as the original ensemble. By contrast, an ensemble that is a proper mixture is not structureless in this way, as we are supposing that there are further facts about the states of each individual system making up the ensemble (even if these facts happen to be construed relationally). In this case, a place selection procedure does in principle exist, that would allow the ensemble to be separated out into statistically distinct sub-ensembles: all that is required is access to these further facts. In picturesque illustration, we might imagine that all along there had been a technician operating the state preparation device, who secretly took a note of the states of the emitted systems, one by one; and who then reveals his list to us. What will be required in the no-collapse context, of course, is access to the dice systems associated with each run of the preparation procedure. Separation into the required sub-ensembles may then proceed via some suitable unitary dynamics conditioned on the dice states associated with each particular object system[^6].
Entanglement
============
We now turn to entanglement. The conundrums that are posed by the existence of entangled states in quantum mechanics were first vividly emphasised by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [@EPR][^7]. In recent years, with the advent of quantum information theory, it has come to be recognised that entanglement can function as a communication and computational resource; and our understanding of the phenomenon has, accordingly, considerably increased. Achievements include a range of quantitative measures of entanglement and the recognition of qualitatively distinct categories of entangled states (e.g.‘bound’ versus ‘distillable’ states [@horodeckisPRL:1998], GHZ versus EPR-type entanglement[@LindenetalGHZvsEPR]).
A state is called entangled if it is not separable, that is, for bipartite systems, if it cannot be written in the form:$$\rho^{AB}=\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}\rho^{A}_{i}\otimes\rho^{B}_{i}, \label{separable}$$ where $\lambda_{i} \geq 0$, $\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}=1$ and $A$, $B$ label the two subsystems. States of the form (\[separable\]) are often also called *classically correlated* [@werner], as the outcomes of measurements on these states can always be modelled by a local hidden variable theory (consider in particular the simplest case in which the hidden variable just specifies the quantum states $\rho^{A}_{i}$ and $\rho^{B}_{i}$). For the purposes of *using* entanglement, whether for computation or communication, the overriding question when presented with a pair of systems is whether their state is or is not separable; whether the state can, or cannot be written in the form (\[separable\])[^8]. However, if one is also interested in the conceptual questions that entanglement raises, then a more finely grained approach may be desirable.
The point is this: separability is a property of a density operator, and as we know, a given density operator can arise in a variety of different ways. In particular, it is possible that a density operator which is separable can arise from taking a mixture of *entangled* states (we shall see some examples in Section [\[illustrations\]]{}). Thus it appears that the special property of being entangled can be made to disappear simply by taking a mixture of systems. It is natural to think of the existence of entangled states, ontologically, as corresponding to a distinct feature of holism in the quantum world; entanglement seems to mark the possession by joint systems of properties that differ profoundly from classical physical properties (for example, one might note that the properties of entangled systems are not reducible to properties of the component systems). But, if the entanglement associated with a group of systems can be made to disappear by so innocuous a process as mixing them together, it would seem that entanglement must be too ephemeral a property to be associated with any signficant ontological distinction.
However, we can avoid this rather surprising conclusion by drawing a distinction in the context of entanglement that is analogous to the distinction between proper and improper mixtures discussed above. Note that the problematic scenario arises when one is considering taking a proper mixture of entangled states in such a way that the density operator describing the resultant ensemble is separable. This means, for example, that one will not be able to observe violation of any Bell inequality for measurements on the ensemble.
Imagine, then, that our ${|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}$ in (\[proper\]) form a set of entangled states mixed with probabilities $p_{j}$ such that $\rho$ is separable. As the ensemble is a *proper* mixture, then each of the elements of the ensemble will in fact be, by hypothesis, in an entangled state. Since it is a proper mixture and there is a fact about which state each of the elements of the ensemble possesses, there exists, in principle, a selection procedure which would allow us to separate the ensemble back out into sub-ensembles, each of which will be described by a pure state density operator ${|\psi_{j}\rangle _{}}{\langle _{}\psi_{j}|}$ and which will display all the properties associated with entanglement. Thus, in this case, although the original ensemble is described by a separable density operator, we can nonetheless make sense of there really being entanglement associated with the systems: it hasn’t, after all, mysteriously vanished.
We suggest that this sort of scenario, in which a proper mixture containing entangled states gives rise to a separable density operator, be termed an example of *improper separability*. By contrast, we suggest that if a separable density operator results from a proper mixture of *separable* states, then we have a case of *proper separability* (Figure \[distinction\]). We see that although entanglement can be made experimentally inaccessible by mixing, this only results in improper, rather than proper separability and there need be no mystery at the conceptual level over the disappearance.
![The place of the proper/improper separability distinction: If one has a *proper* mixture which is separable, it is possible to ask whether the mixture actually contains any entanglement or not. If it does then the mixture is improperly separable, if it does not, the mixture is properly separable. If instead one has an improper mixture, the question of the actual composition of the mixture does not arise. \[distinction\]](diag.eps)
In the no-collapse setting, entanglement is generic: sub-systems into which the world is divided will typically be entangled with one another. Furthermore, we have noted that whether the ensemble resulting from a given preparation procedure may be said to be properly or improperly mixed will depend on the experimental setting. But, given a context in which the ensemble resulting from the preparation procedure can indeed be said to be properly mixed, and if it so happens that the density operator describing this ensemble is a separable one, then the distinction between proper and improper separability may still be applied. The question is whether the object systems making up the ensemble are themselves in entangled states or not. If one simply considers the reduced density operators of the individual object systems, tracing out all other degrees of freedom, then the answer will be in the negative. But, if the ensemble is a proper mixture, we have another way of considering the question. We may ask instead whether the *relative* states of the object systems with respect to the experimentalist are entangled or not. If they are, then the ensemble exhibits improper separability; if not, the ensemble exhibits proper separability. By contrast, if we focus on a context with respect to which our ensemble is in an improper mixture, then this question about the relative states of the systems making up the ensemble doesn’t arise. One can then only enquire about the reduced states of each individual system, which in this case will be separable.
Illustrations
=============
The fact that mixtures of entangled states can give rise to separable states is a commonplace in entanglement theory, but that it may be of conceptual importance has so far been little noted, with the exception of some remarks by Popescu and Collins [@popescuPRL:1994; @collins:popescu] and Seevinck and Uffink [@seevinckuffink]. We should perhaps not be too surprised that this phenomenon may occur. Consider the four Bell-states, $$\begin{array}{c}
{|\phi^{+}\rangle _{}}=1/\sqrt{2}({|{\!\uparrow}\rangle _{}}{|{\!\uparrow}\rangle _{}}+{|{\!\downarrow}\rangle _{}}{|{\!\downarrow}\rangle _{}}),\\
{|\phi^{-}\rangle _{}}=1/\sqrt{2}({|{\!\uparrow}\rangle _{}}{|{\!\uparrow}\rangle _{}}-{|{\!\downarrow}\rangle _{}}{|{\!\downarrow}\rangle _{}}),\\
{|\psi^{+}\rangle _{}}=1/\sqrt{2}({|{\!\uparrow}\rangle _{}}{|{\!\downarrow}\rangle _{}}+{|{\!\downarrow}\rangle _{}}{|{\!\uparrow}\rangle _{}}),\\
{|\psi^{-}\rangle _{}}=1/\sqrt{2}({|{\!\uparrow}\rangle _{}}{|{\!\downarrow}\rangle _{}}-{|{\!\downarrow}\rangle _{}}{|{\!\uparrow}\rangle _{}}).
\end{array}$$ These maximally entangled states form an orthonormal basis for $2\otimes2$ dimensional quantum systems, hence projectors onto these states satisfy the completeness relation, summing to the identity operator $\mathbf{1}\otimes\mathbf{1}$; thus an equally weighted mixture of these states will correspond to the maximally mixed state $1/4(\mathbf{1}\otimes\mathbf{1})$, which, of course, is separable. Less trivial examples exist. We shall consider, in illustration, what happens when one takes general convex combinations of projectors onto the Bell states, giving rise to the class of so-called *Bell-diagonal* states[^9].
It is often useful to consider the set of Hermitian operators on an $n$-dimensional complex Hilbert space as themselves forming a real Hilbert space of $n^{2}$ dimensions, on which we have defined a scalar product $(A,B)=\mathrm{Tr}(AB)$ [@Fano]. For $n=2^{m}$, $m$-fold tensor products of the Pauli operators and the identity constitute a convenient basis set for this space. The density operator for an $n$-dimensional quantum system can then be written as a vector whose (real) components are simply the expectation values of these basis operators. In particular, the density operator for a $2\otimes2$ dimensional system may be written in the general form: $$\rho^{AB}=\frac{1}{4}\Bigl( \mathbf{1}\otimes\mathbf{1} + \mathbf{a}.\boldsymbol{\sigma}\otimes\mathbf{1} + \mathbf{1}\otimes\mathbf{b}.\boldsymbol{\sigma} +\sum_{ij}c_{ij}\sigma_{i}\otimes\sigma_{j}\Bigr),$$ where $a_{i}$, $b_{i}$ and $c_{ij}$ are the expectation values of the operators $\sigma_{i}\otimes\mathbf{1}$, $\mathbf{1}\otimes\sigma_{i}$ and $\sigma_{i}\otimes\sigma_{j}$, respectively. For the projectors onto the four Bell states, $\mathbf{a}=\mathbf{b}=0$, and $c_{ij}$ is diagonal. So in this case, we need only consider the possible values of the diagonal components $c_{ii}$, which will form a vector in a 3-dimensional real space, allowing one to represent the states in an easily visualisable manner. As is well known, the vectors corresponding to the Bell state projectors are: $$\mathbf{c}_{\phi +}= \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ -1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}, \mathbf{c}_{\phi -}= \begin{pmatrix} -1 \\ 1 \\ 1\end{pmatrix}, \mathbf{c}_{\psi +}= \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}, \mathbf{c}_{\psi -}= \begin{pmatrix} -1 \\ -1 \\ -1\end{pmatrix}.$$ These four vectors correspond to the vertices of a tetrahedron $\cal{T}$ centred on the origin (see Figure \[tetrahedron\]); the Bell-diagonal states, given by convex combinations of the Bell-state projectors, will then correspond to vectors lying on or within the surfaces of $\cal{T}$. It has been shown [@horodeckisPRA:1996] that a Bell-diagonal state is separable if and only if the end point of its corresponding vector $\mathbf{c}$ lies on or within the octohedron given by the intersection of $\cal{T}$ with its reflection through the origin, $-\cal{T}$ (Figure \[tetrahedron\]).
We now have a very clear picture of when mixing maximally entangled states of a $2\otimes2$ system can give rise to (improperly) separable states (note that degree of entanglement is invariant under $U_{1}\otimes U_{2}$ rotation, hence an identical picture may be drawn for any maximally entangled basis set): it will happen whenever the mixing probabilities take us from the vertices of the tetrahedron into the central separable octohedron. In particular, let us consider the example of mixing ${|\phi^{+}\rangle _{}}$ and ${|\phi^{-}\rangle _{}}$. In this case, we will be constrained to the plane $c_{zz}=1$ and mixing the two states will move us along the line from $(c_{xx},c_{yy})=(-1,1)$ to $(c_{xx},c_{yy})=(1,-1)$. The octohedron of separable states only intersects the plane $c_{zz}=1$ at the single point above the origin, $(c_{xx},c_{yy})=(0,0)$, i.e. when we have an exact 50/50 mixture of the two entangled states. The resultant state is the (improperly) separable state with maximal classical correlations: $\rho =1/2({|{\!\uparrow}{\!\uparrow}\rangle _{}}{\langle _{}\,{\!\uparrow}{\!\uparrow}\!|}+ {|{\!\downarrow}{\!\downarrow}\rangle _{}}{\langle _{}\,{\!\downarrow}{\!\downarrow}\!|})$.[^10]
As another familiar example, consider the generalized Werner states for $2\otimes2$ systems. These are mixtures of the singlet state ${|\psi^{-}\rangle _{}}$ and spherically symmetric noise, and take the form$$\rho(\lambda)= \lambda {|\psi^{-}\rangle _{}}{\langle _{}\psi^{-}|} + (1-\lambda)\frac{1}{4}\mathbf{1}\otimes\mathbf{1} = \frac{1}{4}\bigr(\mathbf{1}\otimes\mathbf{1} - \lambda(\sigma_{x}\otimes\sigma_{x}+ \sigma_{y}\otimes\sigma_{y} + \sigma_{z}\otimes\sigma_{z})\bigl).$$ These states lie on the line joining the origin to the vertex representing the singlet state. The class is of particular interest as for certain ranges of the value of $\lambda$, the state will be entangled, but will not violate any Bell inequality, a possibility first noted by Werner [@werner]. The mixture will move from being separable to entangled when it crosses the surface of the octohedron, a distance of $1/\sqrt{3}$ along the line from the origin, corresponding to $\lambda=1/3$. (It follows from a result of the Horodeckis giving necessary and sufficient conditions for Bell inequality violation in the case of two qubits [@horodeckisPLA:1995] that the mixture will not violate a Bell inequality until the distance is greater than $\sqrt{3}/\sqrt{2}$ from the origin, $\lambda >1/\sqrt{2}$.) Mixing the singlet state with a fraction $>2/3$ of the maximally mixed state (which, as we have said, may itself be an equal mixture of the four Bell states) will thus result, again, in an improperly separable state.
Reflecting on the case of Werner states raises the following possibility. One could imagine taking a proper mixture of states which are themselves entangled but do not violate any Bell inequality (hence are necessarily mixed [@popescurohrlich], but perhaps improperly), in such a way that the resulting density operator is separable. This would be another example of improper separability. However, in this case, although the possibility exists in principle of selecting out sub-ensembles corresponding to each of the states making up the mixture, these sub-ensembles will not make their entanglement manifest by violating a Bell inequality. Popescu has shown [@popescu:hidden] that for dimensions greater than five, Werner states can be made to display ‘hidden’ non-locality, i.e., violate a Bell inequality after a sequence of measurements, but this particular technique will not be applicable with dimensions $2\otimes2$. It would thus seem that when improper separability results from mixing entangled states that do not themselves violate any (at least single measurement) Bell inequality, although it remains true that the ensemble can be said genuinely to contain some entanglement at the ontological level, it is certainly lying very low.
Discussion
==========
We began by noting that the venerable distinction between proper and improper mixtures may be sustained in the context of no-collapse versions of quantum mechanics, if it is recognised that the distinction becomes relative to the experimental context. We then remarked on the fact that the process of mixing entangled states, even *maximally* entangled states, can, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, result in separable states. The examples given by the Bell diagonal states illustrate how this can happen and that the phenomenon is widespread. This would appear to make entanglement a disturbingly ephemeral property at the ontological level. However, by introducing a distinction analogous to that between proper and improper mixtures, a distinction between proper and improper separability, we have seen that it remains possible to retain an ontologically robust notion of entanglement.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Jon Barrett and Michiel Seevinck for discussion and also the anonymous referee for comments which resulted in clarification of some key arguments in the paper.
[10]{}
B d’Espagnat. . Addison-Wesley, second edition, 1976.
Erwin Schr[ö]{}dinger. Probability relations between separated systems. , 32:446–452, 1936.
Edwin T Jaynes. Information theory and statistical mechanics [II]{}. , 108:171, 1957.
L P Hughston R Jozsa W K Wootters. A complete classification of quantum ensembles having a given density matrix. , 183:14–18, 1993.
Wojciech Hubert Zurek. Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. , 75(3):715–775, 2003.
Hugh Everett, III. “[R]{}elative state" formulation of quantum mechanics. , 29:454–62, 1957.
Simon Saunders. Relativism. In R. Clifton, editor, [*Perspectives on Quantum Reality*]{}, pages 125–142. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996.
K A Kirkpatrick. Indistinguishability and improper mixtures, 2001. ar[X]{}iv:quant-ph/0109146.
B d’Espagnat. Reply to [K]{} [A]{} [K]{}irkpatrick, 2001. ar[X]{}iv:quant-ph/0111081.
J B Hartle. Quantum mechanics of individual systems. , 36:704–712, 1968.
J von Neumann. , chapter 4. Princeton University Press, 1955. English Translation.
Andrew Elby, Harvey R Brown, and Sara Foster. What makes a physical theory “complete"? , 23(7), 1993.
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? , 47:777, 1935.
Christopher G. Timpson and Harvey R. Brown. Entanglement and relativity. In Rosella Lupacchini and Vincenzo Fano, editors, [*Understanding Physical Knowledge*]{}. University of Bologna, CLUEB, Bologna, 2002. ar[X]{}iv:quant-ph/0212140.
Michal Horodecki, Pawel Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki. Mixed-state entanglement and distillation: Is there a “bound" entanglement in nature? , 80:5239, 1998.
N Linden, S Popescu, B Schumacher, and M Westmoreland. Reversibility of local transformations of multiparticle entanglement, 1999. ar[X]{}iv:quant-ph/9912039.
Reinhard F. Werner. Quantum states with [E]{}instein-[P]{}odolsky-[R]{}osen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model. , 40(8):4277–4281, 1989.
Michal Horodecki, Pawel Horodecki, and Ryszard Horodecki. Separability of mixed states: Necessary and sufficient conditions. , 223, 1996.
Asher Peres. Separability criterion for density matrices. , 77(8):1413–1415, 1996.
Sandu Popescu. Bell’s inequalities versus teleportation: What is nonlocality? , 72(6):797–799, 1994.
Daniel Collins and Sandu Popescu. Classical analog of entanglement. , 65(3):032321, 2002. ar[X]{}iv:quant-ph/0107082.
Michael Seevinck and Jos Uffink. Sufficient conditions for three-particle entanglement and their tests in recent experiments. , 65:012107, 2001.
U. Fano. Description of states in quantum mechanics by density operator techniques. , 29(1):74–93, 1957.
Ryszard Horodecki and Michal Horodecki. Information theoretic aspects of inseparability of mixed states. , 54(3):1838–1843, 1996.
R Horodecki, P Horodecki, and M Horodecki. Violating [B]{}ell inequality by mixed spin-1/2 states: Necessary and sufficient conditions. , 200:340–344, 1995.
S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich. Generic quantum nonlocality. , 166:293–297, 1992.
S. Popescu. Bell’s inequalities and density matrices. [R]{}evealing ‘hidden’ non-locality. , 74:2619–2622, 1995. r[X]{}iv:quant-ph/9502005.
[^1]: `[email protected]`
[^2]: `[email protected]`
[^3]: For a recent exchange which betrays that there can still be some confusion over the notions of proper and improper mixtures, see [@Kirkpatrick] and d’Espagnat’s reply [@d'Espagnatreply].
[^4]: The only exception would be if the universal state were itself mixed, rather than pure, as usually assumed.
[^5]: The following sketch can be generalized to include cases in which mixtures of *mixed* states are prepared.
[^6]: In the no-collapse case, there is the further complication of distinguishing place selection from separation following a measurement interaction. If one is presented with an improper mixture, one can take it into the form of a proper mixture by performing a measurement interaction; this corresponds to the familiar ‘effective collapse’. One might then proceed to separate the — now properly mixed — ensemble. The process of place selection differs from this two-step process, as it is required that the relative states of the object systems with respect to the observer do not change under the sub-ensemble selection procedure. This will not be the case if one first performs a measurement-type interaction in order to change an improper mixture to a proper one before proceeding to select sub-ensembles.
[^7]: For a recent discussion of the EPR argument and a discussion of aspects of the relationships between entanglement, relativity and nonlocality, see [@erpart1].
[^8]: A range of operational criteria exist with which to address this question, necessary and sufficient conditions in the $2\otimes 2$ and $2\otimes 3$ cases, and necessary conditions for separability otherwise [@horodeckisPLA:1996; @peresseparability]. Note that one might also be interested, if the state turns out to be entangled, in whether this entanglement may be distilled and put to use.
[^9]: The Bell-diagonal states and their $U_{1}\otimes U_{2}$ equivalents are a proper subset of the set of $2\otimes 2$ density operators, as mixtures of maximally entangled states always have maximally mixed reduced states for subsystems, which will not be the case for general $2\otimes 2$ density operators, whether entangled or separable.
[^10]: A related example has also been given by Seevinck and Uffink [@seevinckuffink] in the context of distinguishing genuine $N$-party entanglement from $M<N$-party entanglement. They note that an $N$-party state can be $M$-party entangled even though there is no $M$-party subsystem whose reduced state is $M$-party entangled. The example they give is precisely an example of improper separability, in which the 2-party entanglement of the pair of Bell states ${|\psi^{+}\rangle _{}}$ and ${|\psi^{-}\rangle _{}}$ becomes hidden on mixing.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we propose and practically evaluate a class of gradient-free control functions ensuring the motion of a unicycle-type system towards the extremum point of a time-varying cost function. We prove that the unicycle is able to track the extremum point, and illustrate our results by numerical simulations and experiments that show that the proposed control functions exhibit an improved tracking performance in comparison to standard extremum seeking laws based on Lie bracket approximations.'
bibliography:
- 'biblio\_es.bib'
---
[**A family of extremum seeking laws for a unicycle model with a moving target: theoretical and experimental studies$^{*}$**]{}
[ **Victoria Grushkovskaya$^{1,3}$, Simon Michalowsky$^{1}$, Alexander Zuyev$^{2,3}$,\
[Max May]{}$^{1}$ and Christian Ebenbauer$^{1}$** ]{}
$^{1}$Institute for Systems Theory and Automatic Control, University of Stuttgart, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany {grushkovskaya,michalowsky,may,ce}@ist.uni-stuttgart.de\
$^{2}$Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany\
[email protected]\
$^{3}$Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,\
84100 Sloviansk, Ukraine
[^1]
Introduction
============
[Extremum seeking]{} typically refers to the problem of constructing a gradient-free control law that ensures the motion of a dynamical system to the minimum (or maximum) of a partially or completely unknown and possibly time-varying cost or performance function. Over the past decades, significant advances in the theory and applications of extremum seeking have been made, see, e.g., [@Krst03; @review]. Today, there exist many ways to design and analyze extremum seeking laws exploiting, e.g., averaging and singular perturbation techniques, Lie bracket approximation techniques, least squares estimation approaches, stochastic and hybrid approaches, see, e.g., [@Att-Joh-Gus-15; @Due-Krs-Sch-Ebe-15; @DurrAuto; @Guay03; @Har-Wou-Nes-13; @Khong15; @Kr00; @Liu12; @Nes10; @Pov-Tee-17]. Many extremum seeking schemes use control functions [depending on the current value of the cost function modulated by]{} time-periodic oscillating excitation (or dither, learning) signals in order to explore and extract sufficient information from the dynamical system and/or from the unknown cost function to solve the extremum seeking problem. The choice of the [control function]{} as well as the excitation signals plays an important role for the performance of the extremum seeking scheme [@Chi07; @Nes09; @Sch16; @TNM08]. In the recent paper [@GZE], a broad family of control functions for extremum seeking schemes based on Lie bracket approximations was presented for systems with single-integrator dynamics and for time-invariant cost functions. This class of controls has several favorable properties including the possibility of adapting and constraining the amplitude of the excitation signal. Moreover, in the paper [@GDEZ17] the extremum seeking problem for time-varying cost functions has been considered in the framework of Lie bracket approximations, but again with single-integrator dynamics and [with standard control functions as used in [@DurrAuto]]{}.
The first [contribution]{} of this paper is a whole family of control functions which enables a system with unicycle-type dynamics to approximate the gradient-like flow of a time-varying cost functions. This result justify the use of gradient-free controllers presented in [@GZE] in time-varying extremum seeking problems. For the sake of simplicity, we consider a distance-like time-varying cost function. Such problems arise, for example, when a robot has to follow a moving target [(tracking problem)]{} and only the distance (but not the relative position) to the moving target can be measured. Although gradient-free control laws for the tracking of a moving target have been previously considered (see, e.g., [@De05; @Due-Sta-Joh-Ebe-12; @Hua13; @Mand15; @Mos15; @Sah12; @Schei12; @Sch14; @Vweza2015; @Yu05; @Zhu13]), the main advantage of the proposed family of extremum seeking laws is, on the one hand, the high flexibility in designing the [control functions]{} such that they meet further specifications like input constraints, and, on the other hand, the family of control functions ensures rigorous stability and tracking properties.
As it will be shown, some important control strategies in the proposed class are not continuously differentiable. In view of this, the second [contribution]{} of this paper is [the relaxation of]{} the “${{C}}^2$-requirement” for the Lie bracket approximation approach [@DurrAuto; @GDEZ17]. Instead, we will require the continuity of Lie derivatives. This result will allow [us]{} to exploit a much wider class of admissible extremum seeking laws. Extremum seeking systems with non-${{C}}^2$ vector fields were also considered in [@GZE; @Sch14b] for time-invariant cost functions. However, the results of the above papers are not directly applicable for time-varying extremum seeking problems.
[[As the third]{} contribution]{} of this paper, [we]{} show by numerical simulations and experiments with [a mobile robot]{} that the high flexibility of the proposed control functions can be utilized to significantly improve the tracking behavior [ in comparison to standard extremum seeking approaches considered, for example, in [@DurrAuto].]{}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[Prel\], we formulate the extremum seeking problem and recall some results on the Lie bracket approximation approach. Section \[Main\] presents a class of extremum seeking laws for a unicycle-type system and stability results for time-varying cost functions. The numerical simulations and experiments for several extremum seeking laws with different qualitative properties are discussed in Section \[appl\].
Problem Statement and Preliminaries
===================================
\[Prel\]
Problem statement
-----------------
Consider a unicycle model $$\label{uni}
\begin{aligned}
&\dot x_1=u\cos(\Omega t),\\
&\dot x_2=u\sin(\Omega t),\\
\end{aligned}$$ where [[$x=(x_1,x_2)^T\in\mathbb R^2$ is the state, $u\in\mathbb R$ is the control]{}]{}, and $\Omega>0$ is constant angular velocity. These equations correspond to the standard unicycle model where the equation for the angular velocity $\dot \theta = \Omega$, $\theta(0)=0$, has been eliminated (see, e.g., [@Sch14; @GE16] for details). Note that the model with non-constant angular velocity can also be considered using, e.g., singular perturbations techniques [@Due-Krs-Sch-Ebe-15]. In the sequel, $\mathbb R^+$ denotes the set of all non-negative real numbers. In this paper, we address the following problem:
*For a cost function $\hat J\in C^2(\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R^2; \mathbb R)$, $\hat J{=}\hat J({x},\gamma)$, with an (unknown) $\gamma:\mathbb R^+{\to}\mathbb R^2$, $\gamma=(\gamma_1(t),\gamma_2(t))^T$ and a unique (possibly time-varying) minimum $x^*(\gamma(t))$, the goal is to construct a control function $ u = u\big(t,\hat J(x(t),\gamma(t))\big)$ that asymptotically steers system to an arbitrary small neighborhood of $x^*(\gamma(t))$ as $t\to +\infty$.*
In particular, if $$\label{J}
\hat J(x,\gamma)=J(x-\gamma)= \kappa\|x-\gamma\|^2 \text{ with some }\kappa>0,$$ then the above extremum seeking problem leads to steering the control system to an arbitrary small neighborhood of [the curve ]{} $x^*(t)=\gamma(t)$.
[Notations]{}
-------------
For $f_i,f_j:\mathbb R\times\mathbb R^n\to\mathbb R^n $, $x\in\mathbb R^n$, we denote the Lie derivative $L_{f_i}f_j(t, x)=\lim\limits_{y\to0}\frac{1}{y}(f_j(t,x+yf_i(t,x))-f_j(t,x))$ and the Lie bracket $[f_i,f_j](t, x){=}L_{f_i}f_j(t, x){-}L_{f_j}f_i(t,x)$; for a function $h\in {{C}^1}(\mathbb R^n\times \mathbb R^k;\mathbb R)$ and $\xi\in\mathbb R^n$, the gradient of $h$ with respect to $\xi$ is denoted as $\nabla_\xi h(\xi,\eta)=\frac{\partial h(\xi,\eta)}{\partial \xi}^T$; for a one-parameter family of non-empty sets $\mathcal L_t\subset\mathbb R^n$, $t\in\mathbb R^+$, $
B_{\delta}(\mathcal L_{t}){=}\cup_{y{\in}\mathcal L_{t}}\{x{\in}\mathbb R^n:\|x{-}y\|{<}\delta\}
$ is a $\delta$-neighborhood of the set $\mathcal L_{t}$ at time $t$, and $\bar B_{\delta}(\mathcal L_{\lambda,t})$ denotes the closure of $B_{\delta}(\mathcal L_{\lambda,t})$. [For $m,n\in\mathbb Z$, the notation $i=\overline{m,n}$ means that $i$ takes all possible values from the set $\{m,m+1,\dots,n\}$.]{}
Preliminaries
-------------
In this section, we summarize some basic facts about Lie bracket approximation techniques. Consider a control-affine system $$\label{aff}
\dot x=f_0(t,x)+\sum_{j=1}^{{\ell}} f_j(t,x)\sqrt\omega u_j(\omega t),$$ where [$x{=}(x_1(t),\dots,x_n(t))^T{\in}D\subseteq\mathbb R^n$]{}, $x(t_0){=}x^0{\in}D$, $t_0{\in}{\mathbb R}^+$, $\omega{>}0$. Let the following assumptions be satisfied:\
(A1) $f_i\in C^2(\mathbb R^+\times D;\mathbb R^n)$, $i=\overline{0,\ell}$;\
(A2) the functions $\|f_i(t,x)\|$,$\|\frac{\partial f_i(t,x)}{\partial t}\|$,$\|\frac{\partial f_i(t,x)}{\partial x}\|$,$\|\frac{\partial^2 f_j(t,x)}{\partial t\partial x}
\|$, $\left\|\frac{\partial [f_j,f_k](t,x)}{\partial t}\right\|$, $\left\|\frac{\partial [f_j,f_k](t,x)}{\partial x}\right\|$ are bounded on each compact set $x{\in}\mathcal X{\subseteq}D$ uniformly in $t{\ge}0$, for [[$i{=}\overline{0,\ell}$, $j{=}\overline{1,\ell}$, $k{=}\overline{j,\ell}$.]{}]{}\
(A3) the functions $u_j$ are Lipschitz continuous and $T$-periodic with some $T{>}0$, and $\int_0^Tu_j(\tau)d\tau=0$, $j=\overline{1,\ell}$.\
Since in time-varying extremum seeking problems it is often necessary to investigate the stability of a family of sets (instead of a single set), we will make use of the following definitions which can be found, e.g., in [@GDEZ17].
A family of [non-empty]{} sets [$\mathcal L_{t} \subseteq D $, $ t \in{\mathbb R}^+$,]{} is said to be *locally practically uniformly asymptotically stable* for if it is\
$\bullet$ *practically uniformly stable*: for any $\varepsilon{>}0$ there exist $\delta,\omega_0{>}0$ such that, for all $t_0{\in}\mathbb R^+$ and $\omega{>}\omega_0$, the following property holds [for the solutions of ]{}: $$x^0{\in} B_{\delta}(\mathcal L_{t_0})\Rightarrow x(t){\in} B_{\varepsilon}(\mathcal L_{t})\text{ for all }t{\ge} t_0;$$ $\bullet$ $\hat\delta$-*practically uniformly attractive* with some $\hat\delta>0$: for every $\varepsilon>0$ there exist $t_1\ge0$ and $\omega_0>0$ such that, for all $t_0\in\mathbb R^+$ and $\omega>\omega_0$, the following property holds [for the solutions of ]{}: $$x^0{\in} B_{\hat\delta}(\mathcal L_{t_0})\Rightarrow x(t)\in B_{\varepsilon}(\mathcal L_{t})\text{ for all }t{\ge} t_0+t_1;$$$\bullet$ the solutions of are *practically uniformly bounded*: for each $\delta{>}0$ there are $\varepsilon{>}0$ and $\omega_0{>}0$ such that, for all $t_0{\in}\mathbb R^+$ and $\omega{>}\omega_0$, the following property holds [for the solutions of ]{}: $$x^0{\in} B_{\delta}(\mathcal L_{t_0})\Rightarrow x(t){\in} B_{\varepsilon}(\mathcal L_{t})\text{ for all }t{\ge} t_0.$$ If the attractivity property holds for every $\hat\delta{>}0$, then the family of sets $\mathcal L_{t}$ is called *semi-globally practically uniformly asymptotically stable* for . For systems independent [of]{} $\omega$ we omit the terms *practically* and *semi*.
The following result from [@GDEZ17] allows to establish practical asymptotic stability properties of from asymptotic stability properties of the so-called Lie bracket system.
\[ourthm\] *Let [[(A1)–(A3)]{}]{} hold. Suppose that a family of sets $ \mathcal L_t\subset D$ is locally (globally) uniformly asymptotically stable for the Lie bracket system $$\label{affLie}
\dot {\bar x}{=}f_0(t,\bar x){+}\frac{1}{T} {\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{\substack{ j=2 \\ j > i}}^{n} } [f_i,f_j](t,\bar x){\int_0^{T}}{{\int_0^\theta}{u_j(\theta)u_i(\tau)}d\tau}d\theta,$$ and suppose that there exists a compact set $S{\subset}\mathbb R^n$ such that $\mathcal L_t{\subseteq }S$ for all $t\in\mathbb R^+$. Then $ \mathcal L_t$ is locally (semi-globally) practically uniformly asymptotically stable for .*
In order to characterize the stability and tracking behavior of with respect to time-varying cost functions [of the form]{} , we will consider [the following]{} family of level sets of the cost function $\hat J$: $$\mathcal L_{\lambda,t}=\{x\in\mathbb R^2: \hat J(x,\gamma(t)) - \hat J(x^*(\gamma(t)),\gamma(t))\le \lambda\},{\; \lambda,t\geq0}.$$
Let us emphasize that most of [the]{} results presented in the following [apply]{} to general time-varying cost functions not necessarily restricted to the form . [However, in target tracking applications, the cost function often takes the form with a possibly unknown $\gamma$. ]{}
Main results
============
\[Main\]
Family of extremum seeking controls
-----------------------------------
\[sec\_uni\] [In [@GZE], we have introduced a novel family of extremum seeking controls for systems with integrator dynamics and time-invariant cost [functions]{}. In this section, we show that a similar result can be obtained for system with time-varying cost functions.]{}
\[classthm\] *Consider the control function $$\label{cont}
\begin{aligned}
u^\omega(t,\hat J(x,\gamma))=\sqrt{\vartheta\alpha\omega}\big(&F_1(\hat J(x,\gamma)) {\cos(\omega t)}+F_2(\hat J(x,\gamma)){\sin(\omega t)} \big),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega=k\Omega$ with some $k\in\mathbb N$, [$k>1$]{}, $\alpha=4(1-k^{-2})$, $\vartheta>0$, and the functions $F_1,F_2$ are such that $F_s\in C(\mathbb R;\mathbb R)$, $F_s\circ \hat J\in C^1(\mathbb R^n \times \mathbb R^n ;\mathbb R)$ ($s=1,2$), and $$\label{class}
F_2(z)=-F_1(z)\int{{\frac{dz}{F_1(z)^2} } }.$$ Then the Lie bracket system corresponding to the closed-loop system with control function has the form $$\label{uni_Lie}
\begin{aligned}
{\dot{\bar x}}=-{{\vartheta}}\nabla_{\bar x} \hat J(\bar x,\gamma)+\Phi(\bar x,\gamma),
\end{aligned}$$ with $\Phi(\bar x,\gamma)=(-\varphi_2(\bar x,\gamma),\varphi_1(\bar x,\gamma))^T$,* $$\varphi_s(\bar x,\gamma)=\frac{1}{2k}\nabla_{\bar x_s}\Big(F_1^2(\hat J(\bar x,\gamma))+F_2^2(\hat J(\bar x,\gamma))\Big),\;s=1,2.$$
In formula , we assume that $F_1(z)\ne0$ except for at most a countable set of isolated zeros $Z^*=\{z_k^*\}$. We treat the function $\Psi_1(z):=\int{{\frac{dz}{F_1(z)^2} } }$ as an antiderivative of $\displaystyle\frac{1}{F_1(z)^2}$ defined on the open set ${\mathbb R}\setminus Z^*$, so that holds as an identity with continuous functions in a neighborhood of each point $z\notin Z^*$. As the functions $F_1$ and $F_2$ are assumed to be globally continuous, formula is treated in the sense that $F_2(z_k^*)=-\lim\limits_{z\to z_k^*}F_1(z)\Psi_1(z)$ at each $z_k^*\in Z$.
*Proof of Theorem 2:* Substituting the controls into system , we obtain a system of the [form]{} $$\begin{aligned}
~\label{uninew}
&\quad\quad\quad\dot x=\sum_{j=1}^4 f_j(t,x)\sqrt\omega v_j(\omega t),\end{aligned}$$ [where]{} [$v_j$]{} are the new [$ \frac{2\pi k}{\omega}$-periodic]{} inputs, $$\begin{aligned}
&v_1(\omega t)=\cos(\omega t)\cos\Big(\frac{\omega t}{k}\Big),\,
v_2(\omega t)=\sin(\omega t)\cos\Big(\frac{\omega t}{k}\Big),\\
&v_3(\omega t)=\cos(\omega t)\sin\Big(\frac{\omega t}{k}\Big),\,
v_4(\omega t)=\sin(\omega t)\sin\Big(\frac{\omega t}{k}\Big),\end{aligned}$$ and the new vector fields are $
f_i(t,x){=}\big(F_i(\hat J(x,\gamma(t)),0\big)^T,$ $f_{i+2}(t,x){ =}\big(0,F_i(\hat J(x,\gamma(t))\big)^T,\ i=1,2$. Direct construction of system with the use of completes the proof.$\blacksquare$\
Notice that the above control laws leave a lot of freedom for tuning by choosing the functions $F_1$ and $F_2$ appropriately.
[Stability conditions]{}
------------------------
\[sec\_gen\]
If the functions $F_1$ and $F_2$ are of class $C^2$, then the stability properties of the unicycle model controlled by can be deduced from the stability properties of the corresponding Lie bracket system . This directly follows from Theorem \[ourthm\]:
*Let the functions $F_s(\hat J(\cdot,\cdot))$ satisfy (A1)–(A2), and suppose that a one-parameter family of sets $ \mathcal L_{\lambda,t}$ is locally (globally) uniformly asymptotically stable for with some $\lambda>0$, and there exists a compact set $S{\subset}\mathbb R^n$ such that $\mathcal L_{\lambda,t}{\subseteq }S$ for all $t\in\mathbb R^+$, then $ \mathcal L_{\lambda,t}$ is locally (semi-globally) practically uniformly asymptotically stable for with controls .*
In combination with asymptotic stability conditions of families of sets for the Lie bracket system, the above result describes a solution to Problem 1 with a wide class of time-varying cost functions $\hat J$, provided that $\lambda$ is small enough. Although, unlike [@GDEZ17], the Lie bracket system for is not the exact gradient flow of the cost function, it admits the same asymptotic stability conditions for $\mathcal L_{\lambda,t}$ as proposed in [@GDEZ17] because of the property $(\Phi(\bar x,\gamma),\nabla \hat J(\bar x,\gamma))\equiv 0$. However, many functions $F_1,F_2$ described by fail to satisfy the ${{C}}^2$-condition at the origin (so that Corollary 1 and the results of [@GDEZ17] are not applicable), but exhibit much better performance in comparison with systems with smooth vector fields (see [@Sch14b; @GZE; @SD17] and Section IV for some examples). To overcome such limitation, we will present stability results under relaxed assumptions. Note that, although extremum seeking problems for systems with non-$C^2$ vector fields were previously considered, e.g., in [@Sch14b; @GZE], the results of the above papers are not applicable because of several reasons. First, it is easy to see that the time-varying function [$x^*(\gamma(t))$]{} is not a solution of system , [therefore, the considered problem cannot be reduced to control design in a neighborhood of an admissible trajectory]{}. Second, the approximation result in [@Sch14b] has been proved under the assumption that the Lie bracket system possesses $C^2$-vector fields: $[f_i,f_j]\in C^2(\mathbb R^+\times D)$. However, the function $\varphi_1,\varphi_2$ in Theorem \[classthm\] do not necessary satisfy this requirement. The following result establishes the stability of the unicycle model controlled by under relaxed assumptions. For clarity of presentation and because of space limitations, our next theorem and its proof will be stated for system with time-varying cost functions of the form . It is expected that similar results can be obtained for a wide class of time-varying cost functions (but with more involved conditions). We leave the general case for future studies.
\[thm\_quad\] *Let the cost $J=J(x-\gamma(t))$ be of the form , $\rho>0$, $D= \displaystyle\cup_{t\ge 0}\mathcal L_{\rho,t}$, and $F_1,F_2$ be defined from .\
Assume that:\
$(B1)$ $F_i\circ J \in C^2(D\setminus\{0\};\mathbb R)$, $L_{F_j}(F_i\circ J)\in C(D;\mathbb R)$, and $L_{F_k}L_{F_j}(F_i\circ J)\in C(D;\mathbb R)$ for all $i,j,k\in\{1,2\}$;\
$(B2)$ the first-order partial derivatives of $F_i\circ J$ and of $L_{F_i}(F_j\circ J)$ are uniformly bounded in $D\setminus\{0\}$ for all $i,j,k\in\{1,2\}$;\
$(B3)$ $\gamma\in C^1(\mathbb R^+;\mathbb R^2)$, and there exists a $\nu>0$ such that $\|\dot\gamma(t)\|\le\nu$ for all $t\in\mathbb R^+$.\
Then, for any $\lambda\in(0,\rho)$, $\delta\in\Big(0,\frac{\sqrt\rho-\sqrt\lambda}{\sqrt\kappa}\Big)$, and $\vartheta>\frac{\nu}{2\sqrt{\kappa\lambda}}$, the family of sets $$\label{set}
\mathcal L_{\lambda,t}=\{x\in\mathbb R^2: J(x-\gamma(t)) \le \lambda\},\;t\in\mathbb R^+$$ is practically uniformly [asymptotically]{} stable for system with $x^0\in B_{\delta}(\mathcal L_{\lambda,t_0})$.*
The proof is in Appendix A. Note that the proof technique is similar to [@GZE Theorem 3]. However, since the results of [@GZE] are proved for the case of [time-invariant]{} vector fields $f_i(x)$ and constant $x^*$, they are not directly applicable. The proof of Theorem \[thm\_quad\] requires some extensions of the approach of [@GZE] to control-affine systems with time-varying vector fields and non-vanishing drift term. Furthermore, unlike many other results on the time-varying extremum seeking problems, we do not assume that $\gamma(t)$ is uniformly bounded.
Numerical Simulations and Experiments
=====================================
\[appl\] In this section, we illustrate our results with examples and discuss some interesting choices of the functions $F_1$ and $F_2$ in the control law .
Moving target tracking
----------------------
Let $\Omega=5$, $\omega=50$, and $
\gamma(t)=(0.1t,\sin(0.1t))^T,
$ so that the cost function is of the form $$\label{J1}
\hat J(x,\gamma)= J(x-\gamma)=(x_1-0.1t)^2+{(x_2-\sin(0.1t))^2}.$$ [In all simulations, we assume that system is initialized at $ x_1(0) = -1 ,x_2(0) = 1 $, [the functions $F_1,F_2$ satisfy , and $\vartheta=1$]{}.]{} [For the first case, take]{} $$\label{cont1}
u(t)=\sqrt{\alpha\omega}\big(J(x-\gamma){\cos(\omega t)}+{\sin(\omega t)} \big).$$ Here and in the sequel, we denote $u(t):=u^\omega(t,J(x-\gamma))$. Such type of controls were introduced in [@DurrAuto] [[and also used in other classical extremum seeking approaches (e.g., [@Kr00])]{}, possibly with additional filters]{}. [[The main advantages of this control are its simple analytical form and applicability for a wide class of cost functions.]{}]{} The corresponding plots are shown in Fig. \[figJ\] (left). The [following]{} control, [ introduced in [@Sch14], possesses similar properties (and, moreover, has an a priori known bound):]{} $$\begin{aligned}
&u(t)=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha\omega}{2}}\big(\sin(J(x-\gamma)){\cos(\omega t)}+\cos(J(x-\gamma)){\sin(\omega t)} \big),\nonumber\\
&|u(t)|\le\sqrt{{\alpha\omega}} \quad \text{ for any }J \; \text{and all }x\in\mathbb R^2,\,t\ge 0. \label{cont2}\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding plots are shown in Fig. \[figJ\] (center).
{width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"}\
{width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"}\
{width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"}\
Although the controls and possess several useful properties, they always lead to non-vanishing oscillations of the trajectories of the extremum seeking system. This can be explained, in particular, by the fact that the controls and do not vanish for $J=0$, i.e., when approaching the target. Requiring $F_1(J),F_2(J)\to 0$ as $J\to 0$, it is possible to construct control laws which reduce the amplitude of oscillations and ensure better convergence properties. In particular, these properties are ensured with the following control [proposed in [@SD17]]{}: $$\label{cont3}
\begin{aligned}
u(t)=&\sqrt{\alpha\omega}\big(\sqrt{ |J(x-\gamma)|}\sin(\ln(|J(x-\gamma)|)){\cos(\omega t)}\\
&+\sqrt{|J(x-\gamma)|}\cos(\ln(|J(x-\gamma)|)){\sin(\omega t)}\big).
\end{aligned}$$ In order to combine the advantages of controls (i.e., vanishing amplitudes when reaching the target) [and ]{} (i.e., bounded excitation signals independent of the cost function), the following control function has been proposed in [@GZE]: $$\label{cont4}
u(t)=\sqrt{\alpha\omega\phi}\big(\sin(\psi){\cos(\omega t)}+\cos(\psi)){\sin(\omega t)} \big),$$ where $\phi={\frac{1{-}e^{{-}|J(x-\gamma)|}}{1{+}e^{J(x-\gamma )}}}$, $\psi=e^{|J(x-\gamma)|}{+}2\ln(e^{|J(x-\gamma)|}{-}1)$ for $J{\ne} 0$, and $u{=}0$ for $J{=}0$. Fig. \[figJ\] (right) presents the simulation results for system with the controls . It can be seen that the controls and exhibit smaller tracking error and the control amplitudes. [However, it has to be noticed that both controls and exhibit better behavior of an extremum seeking system only in case of known minimal value of the cost function, and control requires that $x(t_0)$ is close enough to $x^*(\gamma(t_0))$ (under a proper scaling of the cost function) for better convergence properties.]{}
Experimental results
--------------------
The above examples show that the proposed new extremum seeking control laws perform very well in numerical simulations. In this section we want to illustrate that the benefits also transfer to an experimental setup. We validated the control on a three-wheeled mobile robot (see Fig. \[figRobot\]) both in a fixed and a moving target tracking scenario.
Due to limitations in the experimental setup we do not directly measure the distance to the target but evaluate it using $ (x_1,x_2) $-position measurements of both the robot and the target obtained from tracking them with a camera.
In the fixed target scenario, we let $ \omega = 3 $, $ \Omega = 1.5 $ and assume the cost function to be of the form with $ \gamma \equiv x^\star = ( 0.5, 0.7 )^\top $ being the constant position of the target. We compared the control laws , and where the parameters $ \alpha $ and $ \kappa $ were tuned under the assumption that the input is bounded as $ \vert u(t) \vert \leq 0.4 $, see Table \[tabParams\].
------------- ---------------------- ------------ ----------------------- ------------
**Control**
**law** $ \alpha $ $ \kappa $ $ \alpha $ $ \kappa $
$2.25\cdot 10^{-4}$ $10$ – –
\[0.5em\] $4.84\cdot 10^{-2}$ $4$ $ 5.29\cdot 10^{-2} $ $4$
\[0.5em\] $3.249\cdot 10^{-1}$ $4$ $ 2.5 \cdot 10^{-1} $ $1$
------------- ---------------------- ------------ ----------------------- ------------
: Parameters used in the experiments.[]{data-label="tabParams"}
![The omni wheel robot used in the experiments.[]{data-label="figRobot"}](robot_sm.jpg){width="0.4\linewidth"}
The experimental results are depicted in Fig. \[figFixedTarget\]. Control law shows the worst performance and does not converge very close to the target, even in much longer time. The performance of and is comparable in terms of the accumulated squared distance error and the convergence time. However, while control law is non-vanishing and thus the robot circulates around the target in the end, the robot only makes small movements in the end when using control law , and the resulting total control [effort]{} is drastically reduced in comparison to control law . The reason why the control input does not vanish completely is the imperfect rotational motion of the robot when $ u(t) = 0 $.
In the moving target scenario, we let $ \omega = 3 $, $ \Omega = 1 $. The goal is to track a target moving along a figure eight curve, i.e., the cost function takes the form with $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma = \big( 0.8 \cos( 0.025 t ) + 0.08, 0.8 \sin(0.05 t) + 0.5 \big)^\top .\end{aligned}$$
We compared the control laws and . Again, the parameters $ \alpha $ and $ \kappa $ were tuned under the assumption that the input is bounded as $ \vert u(t) \vert \leq 0.4 $, see Table \[tabParams\]. The experimental results are depicted in Fig. \[figMovingBounded\] (left) for control and in Fig. \[figMovingBounded\] (right) for control law . Both control laws achieve tracking the moving target, where control law shows a better behavior in terms of the tracking error while requiring only approximately half the control [effort]{}.
All in all, the experimental results show that the new extremum seeking control laws can lead to improved performance also in practical implementations. Nevertheless, due to low upper limits for $ \omega $ and $ \Omega $, there is still quite a gap between experimental and simulative results.
![[Experimental results for the moving target scenario using control law (left) and (right). The target trajectory is depicted in black and the robot trajectory is depicted in green. The accumulated tracking error is $ \int_{0}^{500} \Vert x(t) - \gamma(t) \Vert^2 \mathrm{d}t \approx 367.7589 $ for and $\approx 75.3409$ for , and the accumulated control [effort]{} is $ \int_{0}^{500} \vert u(t) \vert \mathrm{d}t \approx 129.2032 $ for and $\approx 64.7733$ for .]{}[]{data-label="figMovingBounded"}](plotNonMoving.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
![[Experimental results for the moving target scenario using control law (left) and (right). The target trajectory is depicted in black and the robot trajectory is depicted in green. The accumulated tracking error is $ \int_{0}^{500} \Vert x(t) - \gamma(t) \Vert^2 \mathrm{d}t \approx 367.7589 $ for and $\approx 75.3409$ for , and the accumulated control [effort]{} is $ \int_{0}^{500} \vert u(t) \vert \mathrm{d}t \approx 129.2032 $ for and $\approx 64.7733$ for .]{}[]{data-label="figMovingBounded"}](movingTarget_Bounded.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![[Experimental results for the moving target scenario using control law (left) and (right). The target trajectory is depicted in black and the robot trajectory is depicted in green. The accumulated tracking error is $ \int_{0}^{500} \Vert x(t) - \gamma(t) \Vert^2 \mathrm{d}t \approx 367.7589 $ for and $\approx 75.3409$ for , and the accumulated control [effort]{} is $ \int_{0}^{500} \vert u(t) \vert \mathrm{d}t \approx 129.2032 $ for and $\approx 64.7733$ for .]{}[]{data-label="figMovingBounded"}](movingTarget_Vanishing.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
In this paper, a novel family of extremum seeking laws have been introduced for unicycle models. We have proved that the proposed controls can be utilized for tracking an extremum point of a time-varying cost function by extending the theoretical results from [@GZE] and [@GDEZ17]. [In particular, we have discussed how the results can be applied to moving target tracking problems.]{} [We have illustrated by simulations as well as experiments]{} that the proposed family of extremum seeking laws performs remarkably well for these type of problems. Our next goals are to construct further extensions of the family of control functions for more general classes of cost functions and to evaluate their performance with simulations and experiments.
[Appendix A. Proof of Theorem \[thm\_quad\]]{} {#appendix-a.-proof-of-theoremthm_quad .unnumbered}
==============================================
*Step 0. Preliminary constructions.*\
Let $\lambda\in(0,\rho)$, $\vartheta>\bar \vartheta=\frac{\nu}{2\sqrt{\kappa\lambda}}$, $\delta\in\Big(0,\frac{\sqrt\rho-\sqrt\lambda}{\sqrt\kappa}\Big)$, $x^0\in B_{\delta}(\mathcal L_{\lambda,t_0})$. Introducing the new variables $$\label{zam}
\xi= x-x^*(\gamma),$$ we rewrite system with controls as $$\label{afft}
\dot \xi=-\dot\gamma+\sum_{j=1}^4g_j(J(\xi))\sqrt\omega v_j(\omega t),$$ with $J(\xi)=\kappa\|\xi\|^2$, $
g_i(J(\xi)){=}\big(F_i(J(\xi)),0\big)^T,$ $g_{i+2}(J(\xi)){ =}\big(0,F_i(J(\xi))\big)^T,\ i=1,2$, $v_i$ defined as in the proof of Theorem 2, and $\xi(t_0)=\xi^0=x(t_0)-\gamma(t_0)$, $$\xi^0\in \widetilde D_0=B_{\delta}\big(\{\xi\in\mathbb R^2:\kappa\|\xi\|^2\le\lambda\}\big)=B_{\delta+\sqrt{{\lambda}/{\kappa}}}(0).$$ We denote $\widetilde D=\{\xi\in\mathbb R^2:J(\xi)\le\rho\}$, take $K>1$ such that $\vartheta>K\bar \vartheta$, and fix any $\mu,\delta_0,\delta_{\min}$ satisfying $$1<\mu<K, \,\frac{\mu^2\lambda}{K^2}<\delta_0<\lambda, \,\delta_{\min}\in(0,\delta_0).$$ Since $F_i\circ J\in C(\widetilde D;\mathbb R^2)$, there is a $\tau_0>0$ such that the solutions of are well-defined in $\widetilde D$ for all $t\in[t_0;t_0+\tau_0]$.\
*Step 1. A priori bounds of the solutions.* Consider the function $w(t)=\|\xi(t)-\xi^0\|$. Estimating the derivative of $w^2(t)$ along the trajectories of with regard to the assumptions of this theorem, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\dot w(t)&\le \|\dot\gamma(t)\|+\sqrt\omega\sum_{j=1}^4\|g_j(J(\xi))\|| v_j(\omega t)|\\
&\le \nu+ M\sqrt\omega \quad \text{ with } M=2\sqrt{\alpha \vartheta}\max\limits_{\xi\in \widetilde D}{\sum\limits_{i=1,2}}\Big|F_i(J(\xi))|.
\end{aligned}$$ Solving the corresponding comparison equation with $w(t_0)=0$, we conclude that $w(t)\le (\nu+ M\sqrt\omega)(t-t_0)$. Hence, for all $t\in[t_0;t_0+T]$ ($T=\tilde k/\omega$, $\tilde k=2\pi k$), we have $\|\xi(t)-\xi^0\|\le \frac{\tilde k(\nu+M\sqrt{\omega})}{\omega}$. Define $$d=\min\Big\{\frac{\sqrt\lambda-\sqrt\delta_0}{\sqrt\kappa},
\frac{\sqrt\delta_0-\sqrt\delta_{\min}}{\kappa},\frac{\sqrt\rho-\sqrt\lambda}{\sqrt\kappa}-\delta\Big\}.$$ Then, for all $\omega>\omega_1=\max\Big\{\frac{\tilde k}{\tau_0},\frac{4\nu\tilde k^2}{(\sqrt{M\tilde k^2+4d\nu\tilde k}-M\tilde k)^2}\Big\}$, $t\in[t_0;t_0+T]$, the following properties hold:\
(P1) $\|\xi(t){-}\xi^0\|< d<\frac{\sqrt\lambda}{\sqrt\kappa}$;\
(P2) $\xi^0\in \widetilde D_0\Rightarrow \xi(t)\in\widetilde D$ for all $t\in[t_0;t_0+T]$;\
(P3) $J(\xi^0)\le\delta_0\Rightarrow J(\xi(t))<\lambda$ for all $t\in[t_0;t_0+T]$;\
(P4) $J(\xi^0)>\delta_0\Rightarrow J(\xi(t))>0$ for all $t\in[t_0;t_0+T]$.\
*Step 2. Representation of the solutions.* Let us expand the solutions of system into the Volterra-type series. From (P4) and (B1), the representation $$\begin{aligned}
g_j(J(\xi(t)))&=g_j(J(\xi^0))+\int_{t_0}^t\frac{dg_j(J(\xi(s)))}{ds}ds\\
&=g_j(J(\xi^0))+\int_{t_0}^t\frac{\partial g_j(J(\xi(s)))}{\partial \xi}\dot\xi(s)ds=g_j(J(\xi^0))\\
&{-}\int\limits_0^t\Big(L_{\dot\gamma}(g_j\circ J)(\xi(s))+\sum_{k=1}^4L_{g_k}(g_j\circ J)(\xi(s))\sqrt\omega v_k(\omega s)\Big)ds\end{aligned}$$ is well-defined for all $t\in[t_0;t_0+T]$. Applying the same procedure to $L_{F_j}(F_i\circ J)(\xi(s))$ and using $$\xi(t){=}\xi^0{-}{\int_0^t}\dot\gamma(\xi(\tau))d\tau{+}{\sum\limits_{j=1}^4}{\int_0^t}g_j(J(\xi(\tau)))\sqrt\omega v_j(\omega\tau)d\tau,$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\xi(t)&=\xi^0-\int\limits_{t_0}^t \dot\gamma(\tau)d\tau{+}\sum_{j=1}^4g_j(J(\xi^0))\sqrt\omega\int\limits_{t_0}^t v_j(\omega \tau)d\tau \label{volt}\\
&{+}\sum_{j,k=1}^4L_{g_k}(g_j\circ J)(\xi^0)\omega\int\limits_{t_0}^t\int\limits_{t_0}^\tau v_k(\omega s)v_j(\omega\tau)dsd\tau+r(t),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $r(t)$ is the remainder, $$\begin{aligned}
r(t)&=\omega^{3/2}\sum_{j,k,l=1}^4\int\limits_{t_0}^t\int\limits_{t_0}^\tau\int\limits_{t_0}^s L_{g_l}L_{g_k}(g_j\circ J)(\xi(p))v_l(\omega p) v_k(\omega s)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\times v_j(\omega\tau)dpdsd\tau\\
&+\sqrt\omega \sum_{j=1}^4\int\limits_{t_0}^t\int\limits_{t_0}^\tau L_{\dot\gamma}(g_j\circ J)(\xi(s))v_j(\omega\tau)dsd\tau\nonumber\\
&+\omega\sum_{j,k=1}^4\int\limits_{t_0}^t\int\limits_{t_0}^\tau\int\limits_{t_0}^sL_{\dot\gamma}L_{g_k}(g_j\circ J)(\xi(p)) v_j(\omega\tau)v_k(\omega s)dpdsd\tau.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It can be shown that $$\|r(t_0+T)\|\le \tilde k^2\omega^{-3/2}R,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
R=&\frac{\tilde k(H+\nu M_2\omega^{-1/2})}{3}+\nu M_1, \,M_1{=}\max\limits_{\xi\in \widetilde D}{\sum\limits_{i=1,2}}\Big\|\nabla F_i(J(\xi))\Big\|,\\
&M_2{=}\max\limits_{\xi\in \widetilde D}{\sum\limits_{i,j=1,2}}\Big\|\nabla\big(L_{F_j}(F_i\circ J)\big)(\xi)\Big\|,\\
&H=\max\limits_{\xi\in \widetilde D}\sum\limits_{i=1,2}\Big\|L_{F_k}L_{F_j}(F_i\circ J)(\xi)\Big\|.
\end{aligned}$$ Recall that the above represenation of the solutuons of is well-defined for all $t\in[t_0;t_0+T]$ because of (P4) and (B1).\
*Step 3. Estimation of the cost function.* Direct calculation of integrals in for $t=T+t_0$ and the application of formula imply $$\begin{aligned}
\xi(t_0+T)&=\xi^0-\int\limits_{t_0}^t \dot\gamma(\tau)d\tau-T (\vartheta\nabla J(\xi^0)^T-\Phi(J(\xi^0)))+r(t)\\
&\le \xi^0-T \big(\vartheta\nabla J(\xi^0)^T-\nu-\Phi(J(\xi^0))\big)+\tilde k^2\omega^{-3/2}R,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi(J(\xi))=(-\varphi_2(\xi),\varphi_1(\xi))^T$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_s(\xi)=& \frac{1}{2k}\nabla_{\xi_s}\Big(F_1^2( J(\xi))+F_2^2( J(\xi)\Big),\;s=1,2.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\big(\Phi(J(\xi)),\nabla J(\xi)\big)=0$ for each $\xi$.\
Define $y=\xi(t_0+T)-\xi^0$, $\eta{=}(1{-}\theta)\xi^0{+}\theta \xi(t_0+T)$, $\theta{\in}(0,1)$. Using the Taylor expansion of $J$ with the Lagrange form of the remainder, $$\begin{aligned}
J(\xi(t_0+T))=J(\xi^0)+{\nabla J(\xi^0)y}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^n\frac{\partial^2 J(\xi)}{\partial \xi_i\partial \xi_j}\bigg|_{\xi=\eta}y_iy_j,
\end{aligned}$$ we get the following estimate for $J(x^0)> \delta_0$: $$\begin{aligned}
J(\xi(t_0+T))&\le J(\xi^0)-T \vartheta\|\nabla J(\xi^0)\|^2\\
&+T\big(\Phi(J(\xi^0)),\nabla J(\xi^0)\big)+\|\nabla J(\xi^0)\|(T\nu+\tilde k^2\omega^{-3/2}R)\\
&+\kappa\tilde k^2\omega^{-2}\Big(\vartheta\|\nabla J(\xi^0)\|+\nu+\|\Phi(J(\xi^0))\|+\omega^{-1/2}R\Big)^2\\
&\le J(\xi^0)-\|\nabla J(\xi^0)\|^2T\big( \vartheta-\frac{\nu}{2\sqrt{\kappa\delta_0}}-\tilde k^2\omega^{-3/2}\widetilde R\big),\\
&\widetilde R=\frac{\nu R(T)}{2\sqrt{\kappa\delta_0}}+\kappa\omega_1^{-1/2}\Big(\vartheta+L+\frac{\omega_1^{-1/2} R}{2\sqrt{\kappa\delta_0}}\Big)^2>0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $L=\max\limits_{\xi\in \widetilde D}\sum\limits_{i=1,2}\Big\|L_{F_i}(F_i\circ J)(\xi)\Big\|$.\
By the definition of $\delta_0$, $\vartheta-\frac{\nu}{2\sqrt{\kappa\delta_0}}>(1-{\mu^{-1}})\bar \vartheta=:\bar\beta>0.$ For any $\beta\in(0,\bar \beta)$, let $\omega_2=\max\Big\{\omega_1,\Big(\frac{\tilde k^2 \widetilde R}{\bar\beta-\beta}\Big)^{2/3}\Big\}$.\
Then, for all $\omega>\omega_2$, $\xi_0\in\widetilde D_0\setminus\{\xi:J(\xi)\le\delta_0\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
J(\xi(t_0+T))&\le J(\xi^0)-4\kappa TJ(\xi^0) \big(\bar\beta-\tilde k^2\omega^{-3/2}\widetilde R\big)\\
&\le J(\xi^0)-4\kappa T J(\xi^0) \beta.\end{aligned}$$ Defining $\omega_3=\max\{\omega_2,4\kappa\tilde k \beta\}$, we conclude that $4\kappa \tilde k\omega^{-1} \beta<1$ for all $\omega>\omega_3$. Therefore, $\xi(T)\in\widetilde D_0$, and the last estimate can be rewritten as $$\label{estJ}
J(\xi(t_0+T))\le J(\xi^0)e^{-4\kappa \beta T}.$$ *Step 4. Attractivity.* On this step we show that there exists an $N\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$ such that $J(\xi(NT))<\delta_0$, and $J(\xi(t))\le\lambda$ for all $t\ge NT$. Suppose that $J(\xi(pT))\ge\delta_0$, for all $p=0,1,2,\dots$, and take $N=\Big[\frac{1}{4\kappa \beta T}\ln\frac{(\delta+\sqrt{\lambda/\kappa})^2}{\delta_0}\Big]+1$. Then the iteration of with $t=t_0+T,t_0+2T,\dots$ gives $$J(\xi(t_0+N T))\le J(\xi^0)e^{-4\kappa \beta N T}<\delta_0.$$ So, we get the contradiction which proves that there exists an $N>0$ such that $J(\xi(NT))<\delta_0$. Thus, we have two possibilities. If $J(\xi(t))<\delta_0<\lambda$ for all $t\ge NT$, then the proof of the attractivity is completed. Otherwise, we recall from (P3) that $J(\xi(t))<\lambda$ for all $t\in[NT,(N+1)T]$. This again yields two possibilities:\
a) $J(\xi((N+1)T))<\delta_0$;\
b) $\delta_0\le J(\xi((N+1)T))<\lambda$, so that we can apply estimate . Repeating the above argumentation, we obtain $J(\xi(t))\le\lambda$ for all $t\ge NT$.\
*Step 5. Decay rate.* Without loss of generality, assume that $J(\xi(pT))\ge\delta_0$ for all $p=\overline{0,N-1}$. Then $$\label{estJ2}
J(\xi(t))\le J(\xi^0)e^{-4\kappa \beta (t-t_0)}\quad \text{ for }t=t_0+T,\dots, t_0+NT.$$ The estimate together with (P2), (P3), and the results of Step 4 implies that the solutions of system with the initial conditions from $\widetilde D_0$ are well-defined in $\widetilde D$ for all $t\ge t_0$. It remains to estimate $\|\xi(t)\|$ for the solutions of if $t\in [t_0,t_0+NT]$. For any $t\in[t_0,t_0+NT]$, we denote the integer part of $tT$ as $t^T_{int}$, and observe that $0<t-{t^T_{int}}{T}<T$. Using (P1), we obtain that, for all $t\in[t_0,t_0+NT]$, $$\begin{aligned}
J(\xi(t))&\le\Big(J^{1/2}(\xi(t^T_{int}T))+\sqrt\kappa\|\xi(t)-\xi(t^T_{int}T)\|\Big)^2\le\Big(J^{1/2}(\xi^0)e^{-2\kappa \beta (t^T_{int}T-t_0)}+\sqrt\lambda\Big)^2\\
&\le \Big(e^{2\kappa \beta T}J^{1/2}(\xi^0)e^{-2\kappa \beta (t-t_0)}+\sqrt\lambda\Big)^2.\end{aligned}$$ Formula completes the proof: for $\lambda\in(0,\rho)$, $\delta\in\Big(0,\frac{\sqrt\rho-\sqrt\lambda}{\sqrt\kappa}\Big)$, $\vartheta>\frac{\nu}{2\sqrt{\kappa\lambda}}$, we may take $\omega_0>\omega_3$, $\tau(\omega_0)>\Big[\frac{1}{4\kappa \omega_0 \beta \tilde k}\ln\frac{(\delta+\sqrt{\lambda/\kappa})^2}{\lambda}\Big]+1$, and conclude that, for all $x^0\in B_{\delta}(\mathcal L_{\lambda,t_0})$, $\omega>\omega_0$, the solutions of system with controls satisfy the following property: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|x(t)-\gamma(t)\|\le \Big(e^{\frac{4\pi k\kappa \beta}{\omega}}\|x^0-\gamma(t_0)\|e^{-2\kappa \beta (t-t_0)}+\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\kappa}}\Big),\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\text{ for }t< t_0+\tau,\\
&x(t)\in\mathcal L_{\lambda,t}\;\text{ for }t\in[ t_0+\tau,\infty).\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: $^{*}$ This paper is an extended version of [@GMZME18] which contains the proof of the main result. This work was supported in part by the German Research Foundation (DFG, EB 425/4-1).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
---
[**Cascading failures in spatially-embedded random networks** ]{}\
Andrea Asztalos$^{1,2,3}$[^1], Sameet Sreenivasan$^{1,2,3}$[^2], Boleslaw K. Szymanski$^{1,2}$ Gyorgy Korniss$^{1,3}$\
**[1]{} Social and Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, USA\
**[2]{} Department of Computer Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, USA\
**[3]{} Department of Physics, Applied Physics and Astronomy, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, USA\
******
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
Cascading failures constitute an important vulnerability of interconnected systems. Here we focus on the study of such failures on networks in which the connectivity of nodes is constrained by geographical distance. Specifically, we use random geometric graphs as representative examples of such spatial networks, and study the properties of cascading failures on them in the presence of distributed flow. The key finding of this study is that the process of cascading failures is non-self-averaging on spatial networks, and thus, aggregate inferences made from analyzing an ensemble of such networks lead to incorrect conclusions when applied to a single network, no matter how large the network is. We demonstrate that this lack of self-averaging disappears with the introduction of a small fraction of long-range links into the network. We simulate the well studied preemptive node removal strategy for cascade mitigation and show that it is largely ineffective in the case of spatial networks. We introduce an altruistic strategy designed to limit the loss of network nodes in the event of a cascade triggering failure and show that it performs better than the preemptive strategy. Finally, we consider a real-world spatial network viz. a European power transmission network and validate that our findings from the study of random geometric graphs are also borne out by simulations of cascading failures on the empirical network.
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Cascading failures represent a particular vulnerability of networked systems, and their effects have been experienced and documented in several domains such as infrastructure networks [@blackout], financial systems [@Sachs2009], and biological systems [@Ischemic2011]. An important feature of real-world networks that has not been incorporated into most studies on cascading failures, with some notable exceptions [@Zussman2011; @Verma2013; @Havlin2012], is the fact that they are subject to spatial constraints. In other words, in most real-world networks, which node a given node connects to, or interacts with, is largely determined by the geographic distance between the two nodes. This rather severe constraint has important consequences on the network’s behavior, and gives rise to significant differences in the scaling behavior of quantities of interest when compared to spatially unconstrained networks [@Barthelemy2011].
In the context of cascading failures and strategies for their mitigation, studying the effect of spatial constraints is crucial to providing fundamental insights that are practically applicable. A specific context within which studies of cascading failures have proliferated is that of electrical power transmission systems [@Kinney05; @Dobson07; @Zussman2011; @Verma2013; @Chertkov2013; @Scala12; @Majeed2013]. However, understanding such failures in the more general context of flow bearing networks is just as important, especially when confronted with the imminent rise of technologies like the [*Internet of Things*]{} [@Pereira2013], which essentially consists of everyday physical objects equipped with sensors to communicate with users or other objects within their range.
Motivated by these reasons, we study a model of load-based cascading failures on networks on a particular class of spatially constrained networks - the Random Geometric Graph (RGG) [@Penrose03; @Dall02] - carrying distributed flows and compare its behavior to that of unconstrained network classes. Closely related earlier and recent works, employing resistor networks, investigated transport efficiency, flow optimization, and vulnerability in complex networks [@Lopez_PRL2005; @KornissSWPhysLettA06; @KornissweightsPRE; @Asztalos12; @KornissBookCh], and the emergence of traffic gridlocks and congestion in road networks [@Mendes_PhysicaA2012; @Colak_NJP2013].
To validate the insights obtained from these spatially-embedded model networks (RGGs), we also study the same load-based cascading failure process on a real-world network with spatial constraints - the European power transmission network maintained and operated by the Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE). We find several revealing features that arise from the presence of spatial constraints, the most noticeable being a lack of self-averaging on such networks. This is in stark contrast to the results for unconstrained random networks, and thus points to the potential pitfalls of ignoring spatial constraints when studying cascade mitigation strategies.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
Here, we briefly describe the distributed flow model and cascade model that we utilize in this study. For clarity, we note that we use the term ‘node’ and ‘vertex’ interchangeably in the rest of the paper.
1. Distributed flow {#distributed-flow .unnumbered}
-------------------
We assume the flow on the network to be both directed and distributed. Specifically, each unit of flow is associated with a source and a sink, and takes advantage of all possible paths between the source and the sink. We adopt a simple model of such flow, by modeling the network as a random resistor network with unit conductances along the links [@Asztalos12; @KornissBookCh]. As each node and edge plays a role in forwarding the current from the source to the target node, each of them experiences a load. For one source-target pair and for unit current flowing between them, the load on an arbitrary edge $e \equiv (i,j)$ is the current along that edge: $\ell_{ij}=I_{ij}^{(st)}$; analogously, the load on an arbitrary node $i$ is the net current flowing through that node: $\ell_{i}=I_{i}^{(st)}$. These two loads are related by the expression $$I_i^{(st)} =\frac{1}{2} \sum_{j } |I_{ij}^{(st)} |.
\label{eq:1}$$ For all our studies presented here, we assume that unit current flows between $N$ source/target pairs simultaneously. Specifically, we assume that all nodes are simultaneously sources and unit current flows into the network at each source. For each source node, a target is chosen randomly and uniformly from the remaining $N-1$ nodes. Consequently, the load is defined as the superposition of all currents flowing through an arbitrary edge/node, which is identical to the edge/node current-flow betweenness [@Newman_betw; @BrandesCflow; @KornissBookCh]: $$\ell_{ij}=\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{s,t=1}^N |I_{ij}^{(st)}|, \;\; \ell_i =\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{s,t=1}^N |I_i^{(st)}|.
\label{eq:2}$$ Currents $I_{ij}^{(st)}$ along the edges due to [*one*]{} source/target pair are obtained by writing down Kirchhoff’s law for each node $i$ in the network and solving the system of linear equations: $$\sum_{j=1}^{N} A_{ij} (V_{i} - V_{j}) = I(\delta_{is} -\delta_{it}), \;\; \forall i=1,\dots,N,
\label{eq:3}$$ where we assumed that $I$ units of current flow into the network at a source $s$ and leave at a target $t$, and where $A_{ij}$ denotes the adjacency matrix of the network. Rewritten in terms of the weighted network Laplacian $\mathcal{L}_{ij}=\delta_{ij} k_i - A_{ij}$, where $k_i=\sum_{j}A_{ij}$ denotes the degree of node $i$, the system (\[eq:3\]) transforms into the matrix equation $\mathcal{L} V=\mathcal{I}$, where $V$ is the unknown column voltage vector, while $\mathcal{I}_i$ is the net current flowing into the network at node $i$, which is zero for all nodes with the exception of the source and target nodes. As the network Laplacian $\mathcal{L}$ is singular, we use spectral decomposition [@KornissweightsPRE; @Slepc_Hernandez] to find the pseudo-inverse Laplacian $G=\mathcal{L}^{-1}$, defined in the space orthogonal to the zero mode. For example, by choosing the reference potential to be the mean voltage [@KornissSWPhysLettA06], $\hat{V}_i = V_i -\langle V \rangle$, where $\langle V \rangle = (1/N)\sum_{j=1}^N V_j$, one obtains: $$\hat{V_i} =(G\mathcal{I})_i =\sum_{j=1}^N G_{ij} I(\delta_{js} -\delta_{jt})= I(G_{is} -G_{it}),
\label{eq:voltage}$$ for each node $i$. Thus, for $I$ units of current and for a given source/target pair, the current flowing through edge $(i,j)$ is: $$I_{ij}^{(st)} = A_{ij} (V_i -V_j) = A_{ij}I (G_{is}-G_{it}-G_{js}+G_{jt}),
\label{eq:current}$$ This relation shows that current along an arbitrary edge is uniquely determined by the network topology. Therefore, this is a fully deterministic model of flow and the only source of randomness in the problem arises in the specific instantiation of the network from its parent ensemble.
Electrical flows when applied to explicitly modeling the power grid have commonly used a DC power flow model [@Zimmerman; @Zussman2011; @Scala12; @Majeed2013; @Verma2013] wherein links also possess a reactance in addition to resistance. However, as pointed out in [@Zussman2011], the equations for this DC model of power flow bear a close resemblance to that of a simple electrical circuit with the current playing the analogous role of power. Further, Scala et al. [@Scala12] have demonstrated that inferences made using a DC power flow model, can still be useful despite neglecting the true AC nature of the power transmission network [@Helbing08]. We emphasize that although the empirical network on which we validate our results is an electrical grid, our studies are aimed at understanding fundamental aspects of cascades on spatial networks carrying distributed flow, and not towards designing strategies specifically tailored for electrical power transmission systems.
2. Cascade model {#cascade-model .unnumbered}
----------------
We model a cascading failure on a network carrying distributed flow following the seminal model of Motter and Lai [@MotterLai02]. We assume that each node is equipped with a load handling capacity that is proportional to the steady-state load on it when the network is intact. Specifically, the capacity of a node $i$ is $C_i =
(1+\alpha)\ell_i^0$ where $\alpha$ plays the role of a tolerance parameter, and $\ell_i^0$ is the load on the node for the intact network. If a node on the network fails, i.e. is absent or removed from the network, then the flow undergoes a redistribution, and consequently, so do the loads on the surviving nodes. If the new load on any surviving node exceeds its capacity, i.e. if $\ell_i >
C_i$, then that node also fails which leads to a further redistribution and possibly further failures. This process constitutes the model of a cascading failure that we utilize here.
3. Network models {#network-models .unnumbered}
-----------------
We briefly outline the network models used in this paper and the methods employed for generating associated ensembles.
### Random Geometric Graphs {#random-geometric-graphs .unnumbered}
A Random Geometric Graph (RGG) of size $N$ in 2D is constructed by placing $N$ nodes randomly in the unit square with open boundary conditions, and connecting any pair of nodes if the Euclidean distance between them is less than a distance $R$, the [*connection radius*]{} [@Penrose03; @Dall02]. The average degree of the graph $\langle k \rangle$ can be controlled by varying $R$ since $\langle k \rangle = \pi R^2 N$.
### Erdős-Rényi graphs {#erdős-rényi-graphs .unnumbered}
An Erdős-Rényi (ER) graph [@Bollobas] of size $N$ is constructed by connecting every pair of nodes with probability $p$. The average degree of the network can be controlled through $p$ since $\langle k \rangle = p (N-1)$.
### Scale-Free networks {#scale-free-networks .unnumbered}
Scale-free (SF) networks [@BarabasiAlbert99] of size $N$ and degree-exponent $\gamma$ are constructed by first generating a degree sequence by sampling the prescribed power-law distribution $P(k) \sim k^{-\gamma}$ that yields a desired average-degree $\langle k \rangle$. The network is then constructed using this degree sequence following the Configuration Model [@Molloy95].
### Rewired Random Geometric Graphs {#rewired-random-geometric-graphs .unnumbered}
To better understand the role of spatial constraints in the observed characteristics of cascades on spatial networks, we generated rewired RGGs as follows. Starting with the original spatial network, we rewire an arbitrarily chosen end of each link to a randomly chosen node in the network with probability $p$. During this process, we ensure that no self-loops or multiple edges are generated, by rejecting any rewiring step that leads to these undesired features.
4. Empirical Network {#empirical-network .unnumbered}
--------------------
As a realistic testbed on which to validate our results, we use the UCTE European power transmission network from the year 2002 [@Bialek05; @Bialek13; @newdata], which we will henceforth refer to simply as the UCTE network. This network is spread over a geographic area that comprises 18 countries, and consists of $N = 1254$ buses which constitute the nodes for our purposes. The average degree of the network is $\langle k \rangle = 2.89$.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
1. Load landscapes in RGGs {#load-landscapes-in-rggs .unnumbered}
--------------------------
We begin by analyzing the vertex load distributions in RGGs and comparing them to those in ER graphs with the same average degree, the latter playing the role of a null-model where spatial constraints are absent. Both RGGs and ER graphs are characterized by homogeneous (Poissonian) degree distributions [@Herrmann_PRE03]. In addition, RGGs exhibit a high clustering coefficient [@Dall02], resulting from the spatial dependance of the connectivity and the transitivity of spatial relationships. Path lengths on RGGs scale with the network size $N$ in contrast to the $\log N$ scaling found in ER graphs. Given these differences, we expect that the vertex load distribution for RGGs would also differ significantly from that of ER graphs. Indeed, as shown in Figs. \[fig:1\]A and \[fig:1\]B respectively, the vertex load distribution for RGGs has an exponentially decaying tail with a decay constant $\approxeq
0.083$, while the distribution for ER graphs is best-fitted by a Gaussian distribution (parameters in caption). For identical average degrees, the mean vertex-load in RGGs, ($\langle \ell
\rangle=32.54$), is almost six times as large as that for ER graphs. Figure \[fig:1\]C shows the average vertex-load conditioned on the vertex-degree, as a function of the degree. Again, in contrast to the case of ER graphs, the plot for RGGs does not display an unambiguously positive correlation of vertex-load with degree over the entire degree range. The vertex-loads are strongly correlated with degrees up until a value close to the average degree, after which they show a subtle decline. A visualization of the network (Fig. \[fig:1\]D) makes it clear that the nodes with the highest loads do not have degrees anywhere as high as the largest degree in the network.
![ [**Vertex load profiles in RGGs and ER networks.**]{} Calculated on (A) random geometric graphs and (B) Erdős-Rényi random grahs, composed of $N=1500$ nodes with $\langle k \rangle=10$ and averaged over $2000$ network realizations. (C) Positive correlations are shown in the case of ER graphs, while these correlations seem to disappear in RGGs for degree classes higher than the average degree of the network ensemble. Data were averaged over more than $3000$ network realizations for networks of $N=1000$ and $\langle k \rangle=10$. The fluctuating tail of the red curve originates from the lack of sufficient number of samples in the specific degree classes. The error bars correspond to one standard deviations. (D) A single network realization showing the vertex loads. Note, that the node with the highest connections (blue arrows indicate the 3 highest degree nodes) does not carry the highest load in the network (loads are color coded, and node sizes are proportional to loads).[]{data-label="fig:1"}](fig1.pdf){width="5in"}
For a network where connections are spatially constrained, we intuitively expect that a high load on a node is indicative of a high load in its neighborhood. To substantiate this, we investigate the spatial correlation between vertex loads on the network. Specifically, we measure the correlation between vertex loads as a function of the distance separating them, by systematically obtaining all pairs of nodes $(i,j)$ separated by a distance that lies within $(r-\Delta r,r + \Delta r)$, and computing the Pearson correlation coefficient between these pairs: $$C_L(r) = \frac{\sum_{i,j|r_{ij} \in (r-\Delta_r/2,r+\Delta_r/2)}(\ell_i - \langle \ell_i \rangle)(\ell_j - \langle \ell_j \rangle)}{\sigma_{i} \sigma_{j}}
\label{pearsoncorrelation}$$
Figure \[fig:2\]A shows the Pearson correlation coefficient between loads at a distance $r$ apart from each other. $150$ evenly spaced values of $r$ were considered within the complete range $(0,
\sqrt{2}/2)$, with $\Delta_r = \frac{\sqrt{2}/2}{150}$. The resulting picture shows that loads are positively correlated for nodes within a distance $r = R$ where $R$ is the connection radius, while just beyond this value the correlation sharply drops and continues to decrease monotonically thereafter, reaching slightly negative values at very large separations. The picture obtained for networks with different average degrees is qualitatively similar, and does not change significantly for rewired RGGs generated using small values of the rewiring parameter. It is worth mentioning that although the spatial correlation captured by the Pearson correlation coefficient indicates vertex loads being correlated only within a short distance, it does not preclude the existence of lower dimensional correlated structures - such as a 1D backbone formed by vertices with high loads [@Marek10] -within the network. To conclude this study of the load profiles, we analyze the extreme value scaling of the load distribution with network size $N$, a quantity of significance in determining the effective throughput of the network [@SameetBottleneck07]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:2\]B, the maximum vertex load on RGGs scales as a power law with $N$, with an exponent of $0.75$. This is a much faster growth in comparison to the scaling,$\sim N^{0.25}$ found for ER graphs. Rewiring the links of the RGG with increasing probability $p$, gradually but systematically lowers the loads, and their scaling. (The scaling exponents found for $p = 0.005$ and $p = 0.01$ are $0.545$ and $0.44$ respectively.)
![[**Correlations of vertex loads as a function of distance between vertices and extreme value characteristics of loads.**]{} (A) Load and distance correlations in RGG. Pearson correlation coefficient as function of distance $r$ measured between two arbitrary nodes. Data were averaged over $100$ network realizations for networks having $500$ nodes. (B) System size dependence of the maximum vertex load in networks with $\langle k\rangle=6$. Data were averaged over $2000$ network realizations. The parameter $p$ corresponds to the rewiring probability for links in the RGG.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](fig2.pdf){width="5in"}
2. Cascades of overload failures {#cascades-of-overload-failures .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
Next, we simulate cascading failures on a network triggered either by random or targeted removals of nodes, and quantify the resilience of the network to such failures. The model used (see Methods) is identical to that used in earlier studies [@Motter04; @MotterLai02; @Asztalos12], and is parametrized by a single tolerance parameter $\alpha$ which quantifies the excess load bearing capacity of a node. Following the notation introduced in [@MotterLai02], the resilience of a network is quantified in terms of the fractional size of the surviving largest connected component after the cascade ends: $G=N'/N$, where $N'$ is the number of nodes belonging to the largest network component after the cascade and $N$ is the undamaged (connected) network size.
![[**Cascades triggered by targeted and random removals.**]{} (A) Probability that a single node removal will trigger a cascade as function of the tolerance parameter. (B) The ratio $G$ of the size of the largest surviving network component to the initial network size, as function of $\alpha$, the tolerance parameter when the initial failure triggers a cascade. (C) Similar to (B), except for the case where the initial failure does not trigger a cascade. In all (A), (B) and (C) subplots the red curve corresponds to the case when the triggered node is the node with the highest load, the blue curve to the case when the triggered node is the most connected node in the network and the green curve shows the case when the triggered node was chosen randomly. Network parameters are $N=1500$, $\langle k \rangle=6.0$, while the data was averaged over $500$ network realizations. Error bars correspond to the standard error of the mean. (D) $G$ as a function of tolerance parameter, unconditioned on whether or not a cascade was triggered for RGGs, SF networks and ER networks.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](fig3.pdf){width="5in"}
Figure \[fig:3\]A shows the probability that a cascade ensues after an initial node removal. As seen, irrespective of the tolerance parameter, cascades triggered by the removal of the node with the highest load in the network leave behind the largest damage when compared with those resulting from removal of the highest degree node or a random node. Figures \[fig:3\]B,C show the fractional size of the surviving giant component $G$ as a function of the tolerance parameter in the presence and the absence of a cascade. Once again, the damage done is the worst for the case where the initial node removed is the one with the maximal load, even in the case where no cascade is triggered, suggesting that vertices with the highest loads are those responsible for bridging together distinct connected components and ensuring the structural integrity of the network. Finally, Fig. \[fig:3\]D compares the damage done due to cascading failures on RGGs with the damage in SF and ER networks, all having the same average degree. Clearly, while increasing excess capacity does lead to an increase, on average, of the surviving giant component, the growth is profoundly slower for RGGs than for the spatially unconstrained networks. Henceforth, as we further investigate more detailed characteristics of cascades, we restrict our studies to cascades triggered by the removal of the vertex with the highest load, since the damage done to the network is the most severe in this case.
As shown above, increased capacity allocation results in a monotonic increase in the average surviving giant component size, where the averaging is done over an ensemble of network realizations. If such a monotonic increase was also obtained for individual network instances, then increased capacity allocation, although only weakly effective, would at least be a justifiable preventative measure against cascades. Figures \[fig:4\] A, B show the size of the surviving giant component $G$ as a function of the tolerance parameter $\alpha$ for three individual instances of RGGs, for different respective average degrees. As is clearly seen, the variation in $G$ is far from monotonic for a single network instance, and differs significantly across instances. Thus, the trend observed by averaging a macroscopic quantity, $G$, over an ensemble of RGG networks (as was the case in Fig. \[fig:3\]) provides little indication of the true behavior of the same quantity for an individual network instance. This behavior persists even if the network size is increased (not shown). Such lack of self-averaging has been observed previously in fragmentation processes on lattices, to which cascades bear a close resemblance [@Krapivsky2000]. In contrast, results of cascades on single instances of ER and SF networks, shown in Figs. \[fig:4\]B,C, are consistent with those obtained by averaging $G$ over respective network ensembles.
Presumably, this lack of self-averaging is a feature that results from the embedding of the network in two-dimensions (with no shortcuts). To conclusively validate this argument, we study how the presence of a few spatially unconstrained links affects the surviving giant component size, since the addition of such links has the effect of increasing the underlying dimensionality of the space in which the network is embedded. Specifically, for each link, we rewire with probability $p$ one end of the link with a randomly chosen node in the network, without allowing self-loops or multiple edges to form. Similar constructions have been used before in [@SmallWorld98; @RGG_rewired09; @Qiming_PRE2008]. By varying $p$ between $0$ and $1$, we can interpolate between RGGs and ER graphs, as is confirmed by the results shown in Fig. \[fig:5\], where both the degree-conditioned average load and the average load undergo a smooth crossover from the results expected for RGGs to those expected for ER graphs. Figure \[fig:6\] shows that even with as low as $5\%$ of the links of the RGG rewired, the non-monotonicity in $G$ versus $\alpha$ completely disappears. The interval of $p$ within which the crossover takes place contains values larger than the theoretical estimate of $p^* \sim 1/(\langle k \rangle N/2)$ [@Newman99] at which the small-world crossover occurs, likely a finite-size-effect due to the small system sizes considered here. Thus, from a theoretical network-design point of view, the incorporation of a few long-range links would be a simple step in stabilizing flows and managing cascades, since it results in a more predictable relationship between surviving-component size and excess capacity. However, in practical situations the cost of adding such long-range links could be prohibitive, and therefore may not constitute a feasible solution for controlling the grid.
We also studied how length dependent link-conductances affected our results. Specifically, we assumed that $C_{ij} = A_{ij}/d_{ij}$ for a link connecting nodes $i$ and $j$ where $d_{ij}$ denotes the Euclidean distance between them, and performed simulations to study the dependence of the surviving giant component size $G$ as a function of the tolerance parameter $\alpha$ (analogous to results in Fig. \[fig:4\] A,B), and to investigate the effect of rewiring links to create a few long-range connections in the network (similar to the results in Fig. \[fig:6\]). For both cases, we found no significant quantitative difference in the results for the case where conductances were length-dependent. In particular, the non-self-averaging nature of cascades manifested itself in exactly the same manner as is demonstrated in Supplementary Figs. S1 and S2.
As a next step in understanding the nature of spatial cascades, we measure the spatial correlations between nodes that fail in successive stages of the cascade. Here, a single [*stage*]{} refers to a round of calculating vertex loads, and removing those nodes whose load exceeds their respective capacity. Figure. \[fig:7\]A shows the [*average*]{} location of failing nodes per stage of the cascade, relative to the node that triggers the cascade. The most significant feature observed here, as well as in the distribution of distance (from the cascade-triggering node) for failing nodes in each cascade stage (Fig. \[fig:7\]B) is the separation between the most likely locations for nodes removed in the first and second stages. In subsequent stages, the distribution of the location of failing nodes gets progressively more uniform. In general, as seen from our simulations, cascades last for only a few stages (the longest found in the systems studied here was $11$ stages) with most of the damage occurring by the second stage, and then declining rapidly. The stage-wise distributions in Fig. \[fig:7\]B were obtained by aggregating all nodes removed in a particular stage and belonging to a particular distance bin over $540$ distinct cascades, and normalizing them by the total number of nodes removed over the distinct cascades. Thus, declining contribution of later stages is due to a combination of two factors: the reduction in the number of nodes removed during later stages, and the decrease in the probability of the cascade surviving up to that stage. The all-stage distribution was generated in a similar fashion as the stage-wise distribution, but disregarding the stages associated with the nodes.
![[**Cascades on single network realizations.**]{} Simulations were performed on networks of size $N=1300$. Fractional size of surviving giant component as a function of $\alpha$ for (A),(B) RGGs, (C),(D) ER networks and (E),(F) SF networks.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](fig4.pdf){width="5in"}
![[**Effect of rewiring in RGGs.**]{} (A) Transition in network structure from an RGG towards an ER network through the process of rewiring. Multiple rewired versions are shown together with the two extreme cases. (B) Average vertex load in RGG, ER and rewired versions of RGG as function of the fraction of rewired links $p$. Network parameters are: $N=500$, $\langle k \rangle=6.0$. Data were averaged over $500$ network realizations.[]{data-label="fig:5"}](fig5.pdf){width="5in"}
![[**Effect of rewiring on cascades in RGGs.**]{} Cascades were triggered by the removal of the highest load. Simulations were performed on networks of size $N=1300$ with $\langle k \rangle=5.0$. As $p$ is increased the lack of self-averaging manifested by the non-monotonicities in the curves for $G$ versus $\alpha$ disappears.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](fig6.pdf){width="5in"}
![[**Location of overloaded nodes.**]{} (A) Position (distance and angle) of failed nodes relative to the initially removed one, here the highest load in the network. Different colors correspond to different iterations of the cascade: blue squares (1st), red squares (2nd), green squares (3rd), light blue triangles (4th), black squares (5th), magenta circles (6th), orange circles (7th), light green squares (8th), yellow triangles (9th). Network parameters are the same as in Fig. \[fig:1\], while each data point is the average value of $540$ cascades. (B) Probability density function of the distance $r$ from the cascade-triggering node for nodes that fail in the course of a cascade. []{data-label="fig:7"}](fig7.pdf){width="5in"}
Finally in this section, we study the effect of average degree of RGGs on their resilience to cascading failures. Figure \[fig:8\] compares the fractional size of the largest connected component as a function of $\alpha$ for networks with average degree $\langle k \rangle=6$ and $\langle k \rangle=10$. Surprisingly, the damage caused by cascading failures is far more severe for the more well connected of the two network ensembles. Although, for other dynamical processes such as epidemic spreading and diffusion it is intuitively obvious that more connections lead to more spread, here we would expect that the presence of more paths between any source-sink pair on a denser network would lead to more effective load balancing, and therefore weaker cascading failures.
![[**The effect of average degree upon cascading failures.**]{} Fraction of the largest surviving network component following cascading failures $(G)$ triggered by the removal of a single, randomly chosen node as function of $\alpha$ tolerance parameter. The two curves correspond to two ensembles of random geometric graphs, one with $\langle k\rangle=6$ (maroon) and one with $\langle k\rangle=10$ (green). Data were obtained for RGGs of size $(N=1500)$, averaged over more than $400$ network realizations. The error bars correspond to the standard error of the mean.[]{data-label="fig:8"}](fig8.pdf){width="4in"}
However, while increasing the average degree does cause loads for each node to be lower and more balanced initially, the excess capacity allocation in proportion to these lower and more uniform loads, makes the network ill-equipped to handle variations in load resulting from the initial node removal. As a result, cascades cause more damage for a denser RGG than a sparser one. In contrast, as is well known, denser RGGs are structurally more resilient to random (non-cascading) failures occurring in the network, since the giant component undergoes a transition in size at $f_c =1 - \frac{\langle k_c \rangle}{\langle k \rangle}$ [@Diaz01; @Kong10] where $f_c$ is the critical fraction of randomly removed nodes from a RGG, and $\langle k_c \rangle$ is an embedding-dimension dependent constant taking the value $4.52$ [@Dall02] for two dimensions.
3. Cascade mitigation strategies {#cascade-mitigation-strategies .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
Next, we study two cascade mitigation strategies and evaluate their effectiveness. We begin by analyzing the preemptive node removal strategy proposed by Motter [@Motter04]. Intuitively, this method aims to utilize node removal in such a way that the two competing objectives of reducing the load on the network, and keeping the network connected, are balanced. Specifically, the method involves removing a fraction $f$ of the lowest load nodes after the initial node failure. This method was motivated by studies on scale-free networks where the load distribution is heavy-tailed implying that a significant fraction of nodes despite contributing to the total load on the network by acting as sources of current/packets, only frugally participate in the carrying of loads generated by other source-sinks pairs, due to their low betweenness. The load distribution for RGGs however, is comparatively much narrower, and we would therefore expect that preemptive node removal would not yield significant success. The results of investigating the efficacy of preemptive node removal as a cascade mitigation strategy are presented in Fig. \[fig:9\]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:9\]A, the probability of a cascade occurring decreases (with increasing $f$) until it reaches a minimum, and beyond which, it increases again. A similar profile is also observed for the ensemble averaged values of the fractional size of the giant surviving component $G$ as a function of $f$. Both plots show however, that even at the optimal $f$, and for as large as $50\%$ additional capacity (i.e. $\alpha = 0.5$), the gains obtained are weak. Furthermore, as a consequence of the lack of self-averaging, individual network instances show profiles that are highly variable and showing little resemblance to the ensemble averaged results. Three such examples for individual network instances are shown in Fig. \[fig:9\]C. Finally, we study how the throughput in the giant surviving component after a cascade, $\phi_f$, compares to the throughput on the original network, $\phi_i$. The throughput captures the maximum current that can be injected per source without the network becoming congested. For $\phi$ units of current injected at every source, the network is uncongested if for every node $j$, the inequality, $\phi_j \leq C_j$ holds. Consequently, for the intact network (indicated by subscript $i$), the throughput is $\phi_i = \frac{1}{\max_j \{l_j/C_j\}}$. The throughput can similarly be calculated for the surviving component after a cascade. As shown in Fig. \[fig:9\]D, the throughput after the cascade $\phi_f$ is larger than the initial throughput for $f>0$. The increase in throughput is expected since the size of the network is smaller after a cascade, leading to a reduction in loads (due to the $N$ dependance in the definition of loads, see Eq. \[eq:2\]) and thereby an increase in the quantity $\max_j \{l_j/C_j\}$. For the case where $f=0$, although the ensemble average of the ratio $\phi_f/\phi_i$ is smaller than one ($\approx 0.98$), in most individual instances the ratio is exactly one. In these cases, the throughput after the cascade is determined by a node whose connectivity before and after the cascade is $k=1$. Such a [*dangling end*]{} has initial load equal to $1$ which remains unchanged after the cascade as well i.e. the reduction in the number of sources and sinks in the system has no effect on its load, unlike for other nodes which have higher connectivity. Therefore the value of $l_j/C_j$ after the cascade for such a node often ends up being the highest among all nodes, and by definition results in the throughput after the cascade being identical to that before the cascade i.e. $(1 + \alpha)$. When $f >0$, such dangling ends are removed as part of the preemptive node removal process, and all surviving nodes end up experiencing a reduction in load due to the reduced size of the surviving giant component. As a result, the final throughput is higher than the initial throughput, resulting in $\phi_f/\phi_i$ being greater than one.
In view of the observation that the pre-cascade vertex load distribution in the RGG is not highly skewed, we propose a cascade mitigation strategy where rather than reducing the total load on the network by the making a fraction of nodes “absent" from the network as we did for the preemptive strategy, we assign a random fraction $f$ of nodes to be altruists who cease to act as sources in the event of a node failure, but continue conducting flow between other source-sink pairs. Figure \[fig:10\]A shows the drop in the probability of a cascade as a function of the fraction $f$ of altruistic nodes. Clearly, the drop is significant in comparison to that achieved by the preemptive node removal strategy. We also show the results of a third strategy which involves all surviving nodes reducing the net current they inject into the network (per sink) to a fraction $f$ of its original value. We show the results (in red) for the two values of $f = 0.2,0.4$, and note that the probability of a cascade is approximately the same as that obtained when only a fraction $f$ of nodes are fully altruistic (i.e. inject no current into the network). Figures \[fig:10\]B and C show comparative plots of the size of the surviving giant component obtained for each of these strategies, conditioned on whether a cascade occurs or not. In both cases, the altruistic strategy, as well as the overall current reduction strategy, show a significant improvement over the preemptive node removal strategy. Understandably, this improvement comes at the cost of the overall throughput in the network. Figure \[fig:10\]D shows the [*effective*]{} throughput in the surviving component $\phi_f$ normalized by the initial throughput $\phi_{i}$ of the intact network, as a function of the altruist fraction $f$. For a principled comparison of the throughputs before and after the cascade , we define the effective throughput of the surviving giant component as the current per source on the intact network that would yield the same total current as that flowing through the surviving giant component after the cascade. Mathematically, when the number of altruist nodes in the surviving component is $n$, this effective throughput is written as: $$\phi_f = \frac{1}{\max_j \{l_j/C_j\} }\frac{N-n}{N}
\label{effectivethroughput}$$ As seen in Fig. \[fig:10\]D, the ratio $\phi_f/\phi_i$ decreases as the altruist fraction is increased, thus indicating that the increased surviving fraction comes at the expense of the throughput of the network.
![[**Preemptive node removal in RGGs.**]{} (A) Probability that a cascade occurs after removal of the node with highest load, despite a fraction $f$ of nodes being preemptively removed immediately after the initial trigger. (B) Fractional size of the largest surviving network component $G$ as a function of preemptively removed fraction $f$, when there is a cascade. (C) Fractional size of the largest surviving network component $G$ as a function of preemptively removed fraction $f$ for a single network instance for different values of the tolerance parameter $\alpha$. (D) The ratio of the throughput (defined in text) of the surviving giant component and the throughput of the original network as a function of the altruist node fraction. The red circle corresponds to the case when there no nodes are preemptively removed. Network parameters are: $N=1500$, $\langle k \rangle=6.0.$[]{data-label="fig:9"}](fig9.pdf){width="5in"}
FIGURE 10
![[**Increasing the resilience of the network by introducing altruist nodes.**]{} (A) Probability that a cascade is triggered for an altruist/preemptively removed fraction $f$. The orange squares indicated the probability of cascade when no nodes (other than the initial cascade-triggering node) are removed, but when the current per source is reduced by $20\%$ (upper square) or $80\%$ (lower square) immediately after the initial node removal. (B) The fractional size of the surviving giant component $G$ when a cascade is triggered, as a function of the altruist/preemptively-removed node fraction. Also shown are the results when the current per source is reduced by $20\%$ (upper square) or $80\%$ (lower square) immediately after the initial node removal, which coincide with the $f=0.2$ and $f=0.8$ results respectively for altruistic node removal. (C) Similar to (B), but for the cases where a cascade is not triggered. (D) The ratio of the effective throughput (defined in text) of the surviving giant component and the throughput of the original network as a function of the altruist node fraction. The red circle corresponds to the case when there are no altruist nodes. Network parameters for all these plots are: $N=1500$, $\langle k \rangle=6.0$, $\alpha$=0.15. []{data-label="fig:10"}](fig10.pdf){width="5in"}
4. Cascade model on an empirical spatial network: The UCTE network {#cascade-model-on-an-empirical-spatial-network-the-ucte-network .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus far, our studies have been confined to a stylized model of a spatial network, viz. the RGG. We now study the outcomes of the same cascading failure model on the UCTE network, several aspects of which, have been studied elsewhere [@Bialek05; @Sole07; @Verma2013]. The network consists of $N=1254$ transmission stations, with an average degree $\langle k \rangle =2.889$, spanning 18 European countries in 2002. The network is disassortative with an assortativity coefficient of $-0.1$, and with a higher average clustering coefficient than an ER graph ($0.127$). Figure \[fig:11\] shows several other properties of this network. The load appears to be positively correlated with the degree (Fig. \[fig:11\]A), while the degree and load distributions span a relatively narrow range (Fig. \[fig:11\]B,C respectively), as observed also for RGGs. It is worth noting however, that the variance of loads is significant even for small degree values, which makes it difficult to straightforwardly assess the load bearing responsibility of a node purely from its degree.
![[**Characteristics of the UCTE network.**]{} (A) The average load across nodes of degree $k$ as a function of $k$. (B) The load distribution on the intact UCTE network. (C) The degree distribution of the UCTE network. (D) A visualization of the UCTE network with loads indicated using both node size and color.[]{data-label="fig:11"}](fig11.pdf){width="5in"}
Figures \[fig:12\] A,B show the cascades triggered on the UCTE network by the removal of a a single edge and a single node, respectively. The non-monotonicity observed in $G$ versus $\alpha$ for the model spatial networks is also observed here, thus reinforcing the non-self-averaging nature of spatially constrained networks. In the case of node-removal triggered cascades, removal of the highest-load node results in the worst overall damage, as was also the case for RGGs.
![[**Cascades on the UCTE network.**]{} (A) Cascades triggered by the removal of a single node where the node was chosen using three different criteria i.e. randomly, highest load or highest degree. (B) Cascades triggered by the removal of a single edge where the edge was either chosen randomly or was the one with the highest load. Data obtained for cascade triggered by the random removal of a single node (edge) were averaged over $100$ different scenarios.[]{data-label="fig:12"}](fig12.pdf){width="5in"}
The visualization panels presented in Fig. \[fig:13\] provide some intuition on the cause of the observed non-monotonicity in $G$ as the tolerance parameter is increased. Figure \[fig:13\] A shows the landscape of loads on the network before the initiation of a cascade where the size of the node is directly proportional to the load on the node. Figure \[fig:13\] B shows, the state of the network with tolerance parameter $\alpha = 0.4$ after a cascade initiated by the removal of the highest load, has terminated. Figure \[fig:13\] C shows a similar picture for the case where the tolerance parameter is higher, ($\alpha = 0.45$), but where the eventual damage is greater (i.e. $G$ is smaller than the value obtained for Fig.\[fig:13\] B). In this last panel, the network consists of several nodes, indicated in red, that had been removed in the course of the cascade depicted in Fig.\[fig:13\] B, but are now intact as a consequence of the increased tolerance. However, counter-intuitively, the survival of these nodes result in wider load imbalances, resulting in a larger overall number of failures and a smaller surviving giant component. Thus, to some degree, the nodes shown in red, behave like fuses which if removed in the course of a cascade, end up saving a larger part of the network from failure. Dynamic visualizations of the progression of the cascades resulting in the final states shown in Figs.\[fig:13\]B,C are provided in Supplementary Movies S1 and S2, respectively. A feature that becomes apparent in these dynamic visualizations is the non-local nature of the progression of the cascade. As pointed out in [@Zussman2011] such non-local progression is commonly observed in real cascade situations, and is a feature which can be reproduced by a more realistic DC power flow model, but not by simpler epidemic or percolation based models. Thus it is worth noting that the model presented in this work, despite being simpler than the DC power flow model used in [@Zussman2011], can nevertheless capture a distinctive attribute of real cascade progression.
![[**UCTE network snapshots before and after cascades** ]{} (A) The intact network with node sizes in proportion to their respective steady-state loads. (B) The network and the loads after a highest-load-removal-triggered cascade has terminated, with the tolerance parameter $\alpha = 0.4$. (C) The network and the loads after a highest-load-removal-triggered cascade has terminated, with the tolerance parameter $\alpha = 0.45$. The red nodes here indicate nodes that were removed in the cascade leading to (B), but survived in the cascade leading to (C).[]{data-label="fig:13"}](fig13.pdf){width="3in"}
Next, we compare the two cascade mitigation strategies, viz. preemptive node removal and assignment of altruistic nodes, for cascades initiated by highest load removal on the UCTE network. As Fig. \[fig:14\] A and B show, the altruistic strategy generally results in a larger surviving giant component after the cascade, than in the case when preemptive node removal is employed. It is also worth noting that non-monotonicities due to the lack of self-averaging in the cascade process, manifest themselves in these plots as well.
![[**Cascade mitigation on the UCTE network.**]{} Comparison between the preemptive and altruistic node removal strategies on the UCTE network with tolerance parameter (A) $\alpha = 0.2$ and (B) $\alpha = 0.3$.[]{data-label="fig:14"}](fig14.pdf){width="5in"}
We conclude with an investigation of whether, in the case of multiple initial failures, the failures being spatially localized has any effect on the severity of the cascade. Figure \[fig:15\]A shows for a given value of the tolerance parameter $\alpha$, the size of the surviving giant component $G$ as a function of the number of nodes removed, for concentrated and random failures on an RGG. Random failures are only marginally more destructive than concentrated ones, which is understandable in light of how the different cascade stages resulting from just a single node’s removal can cover a wide spatial spread, as seen in Fig. \[fig:7\]. We arrive at a similar conclusion for the case of concentrated and randomly located failures within the UCTE network from the results shown in Fig. \[fig:15\]B. Dynamic visualizations of the progression of spatially localized and distributed cascades on the UCTE network for the same number of initially removed nodes are provided in Supplementary Movies S3 and S4, respectively.
![[**Cascades triggered by concentrated versus randomly distributed removals.**]{} (A) Fractional surviving giant component size after a cascade as a function of number of initial nodes removed in concentrated and random removals for RGGs with $N=1500$ and $\langle k \rangle = 6$. (B) Fractional surviving giant component size after a cascade as a function of number of initial nodes removed in concentrated and random removals for the UCTE network.[]{data-label="fig:15"}](fig15.pdf){width="5in"}
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
In summary, we have attempted a thorough analysis of the characteristics of cascading failures and strategies for their mitigation on spatially constrained networks, including a model of such networks viz. the random geometric graph, as well as a real-world power transmission network. The key finding worth emphasizing from these studies is the inherent lack of self-averaging for cascade processes on spatial networks. In other words, conclusions gleaned from aggregate statistics on an ensemble of such networks, yield information of little value pertaining to a single network instance. For example, in contrast to the observation for an ensemble of RGGs, for a single network instance, increasing the excess load bearing capacity does not necessarily reduce the severity of the cascade in a monotonic fashion. Thus a straightforward measure for cascade prevention could yield counter-intuitive results. We demonstrate that increasing the effective dimensionality of the system i.e. easing the effect of the spatial constraints by introducing rewired long-range links eliminates these non-intuitive features. A standard cascade mitigation strategy, extensively studied in the past, of preemptively removing a fraction of underperforming nodes does not effectively reduce the severity of cascades on spatially constrained networks, due to the fairly narrow initial range of loads in spatial networks. Instead, the strategy of introducing a fraction of altruistic nodes appears to be a more effective alternative. This holds true both for the model networks as well as for the empirical network. Finally, we also find that cascades resulting from spatially concentrated node failures do not appear to be significantly less destructive than ones that are distributed over the network. Thus, our results paint a complex picture for how failure cascades induced by load redistribution on spatial networks carrying distributed flow propagate through the network. In short, for spatial networks, details specific to a network instance play a very important role in determining strategies to increase the resilience of the network against cascading failures, and methods based on aggregate observations from a network ensemble will present substantial pitfalls.
[**Note:**]{} Data on the UCTE network [@Bialek05] that we used in this work was obtained from the website <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~jbialek/Europe_load_flow> which is currently non-functional. A processed version of the original data (the UCTE network structure) can be obtained by emailing the corresponding author (SS).
Author contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered}
====================
Conceived and designed the experiments: AA, SS, BKS, GK. Performed the experiments: AA, SS. Analyzed the data: AA, SS, BKS, GK. Wrote the manuscript: AA, SS, BKS, GK.
Supporting Information {#supporting-information .unnumbered}
======================
[**Supplementary Figure S1.**]{} [**Cascade realizations on a single RGG of size $N=1300$ where conductances on links are inversely proportional to their lengths.**]{} The behavior of the surviving giant component size $G$ as a function of the tolerance parameter $\alpha$ (three individual realizations are shown) is practically indistinguishable from that found in the case where conductances on all links are identical, shown in Fig. \[fig:4\]A in the main text. All remaining parameters (besides conductances) and simulation details are identical to that in Fig. \[fig:4\]A.
[**Supplementary Figure S2.**]{} [**Effect of rewiring links in an RGG with link-length dependent conductances**]{}. As the rewiring probability $p$ is increased, the non-monotonicities in $G$ as a function of tolerance parameter $\alpha$ gradually disappear, similarly to the case where link conductances are independent of their length (see Fig. \[fig:5\]). Simulations were performed with $N=1300$ and $\langle k \rangle = 5$.
[**Supplementary Movie S1.**]{} [Progression of the cascade initiated by the removal of the node with the highest load on the UCTE network ($N=1254$) with tolerance parameter $\alpha = 0.4$]{}. Node sizes are proportional to the load on them. The single orange node at the beginning of the movie indicates the node with the largest node which is removed to trigger a cascade. The overloaded nodes in subsequent stages are shown in orange before they are removed. The total number of nodes removed in the cascade is $167$, and the number of nodes in the surviving giant component is $465$.
[**Supplementary Movie S2.**]{} [**Progression of the cascade initiated by the removal of the node with the highest load on the UCTE network with tolerance parameter $\alpha = 0.45$.**]{} Although the tolerance parameter is greater than in the case of Movie S1, a greater number of nodes, $299$, fail in the cascade, and the resulting giant component is also smaller, with $315$ nodes. The nodes shown in gray indicate those nodes which failed in course of the cascade occurring for $\alpha = 0.40$ (shown in Movie S1), but survived when $\alpha$ was increased to $0.45$. The survival of these nodes potentially plays a role in making the cascade more severe. All other color and node size conventions are identical to those in Movie S1.
[**Supplementary Movie S3.**]{} [**Progression of a cascade initiated by a spatially localized removal of $9$ nodes.**]{} Color and node size conventions are as explained in caption for Movie S1. The tolerance parameter used here is $\alpha=0.15$. The number of nodes removed in the course of the cascade is $297$, and the number of nodes in the surviving giant component is $329$.
[**Supplementary Movie S4.**]{} [**Progression of a cascade initiated by distributed (random) removal of $9$ nodes.**]{} Color and node size conventions are as explained in caption for Movie S1. The tolerance parameter used here is $\alpha=0.15$. The number of nodes removed in the course of the cascade is $297$ (same as for Movie S3), and the number of nodes in the surviving giant component is $374$.
[10]{} \[1\][`#1`]{} urlstyle \[1\][doi:\#1]{}
\[1\][ ]{} \[2\]
> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Key:</span> \#1\
> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Annotation:</span> \#2
Northeast blackout of 2003.
Sachs JD (2009) Rethink the global money supply. Scientific American 300: 34.
Anrather CIJ (2011) The immunology of stroke: from mechanisms to translation. Nature Medicine 17: 796–808.
Bernstein A, Bienstock D, Hay D, Uzunoglu M, Zussman G (2011) Power grid vulnerability to geographically correlated failures - analysis and control implications. Technical Report Technical Report No. 2011-05-06, Nov. 2011, Columbia University, Electrical Engineering. arXiv:1206.1099 \[cs.SY\]
Verma T, Ellens W, Kooij R. E Context-independent centrality measures underestimate the vulnerability of power grids. arXiv:1304.5402 \[physics.soc-ph\].
Li W, Bashan A, Buldyrev SV, Stanley HE, Havlin S (2012) Cascading failures in interdependent lattice networks: The critical role of the length of dependency links. Phys Rev Lett 108: 228702.
Barthélemy M (2011) Spatial networks. Physics Reports 499: 1–101.
Kinney R, Crucitti P, Albert R, Latora V (2005) Modeling cascading failures in the north american power grid. The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 46: 101–107.
Dobson I, Carreras BA, Lynch VE, Newman DE (2007) Complex systems analysis of series of blackouts: Cascading failure, critical points, and self-organization. Chaos 17: 026103.
D[ö]{}rfler F, Chertkov M, Bullo F (2013) Synchronization in complex oscillator networks and smart grids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 2005–2010.
Scala A, Pahwa S, Scoglio C (2012) Cascade failures from distributed generation in power grids. arXiv:1209.3733v2.
Rahnamay-Naeini M, Wang Z, Ghani N, Mammoli A, Hayat MM (2013) Stochastic Analysis of Cascading-Failure Dynamics in Power Grids. Under review in IEEE Transaction on Power Systems.
Zaslavsky A, Perera C, Georgakopoulos D (2013) Sensing as a service and big data. arXiv:1301.0159 \[cs.CY\].
Penrose M (2003) Random Geometric Graphs, volume 5 of *Oxford Studies in Probability*. Oxford University Press.
Dall J, Christensen M (2002) Random geometric graphs. Phys Rev E 66: 016121.
López E, Buldyrev SV, Havlin S, Stanley HE (2005) Anomalous Transport in Scale-Free Networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94: 248701.
Korniss G, Hastings MB, Bassler KE, Berryman MJ, Kozma B, et al. (2006) Scaling in small-world resistor networks. Phys Lett A 350: 324–330.
Korniss G (2007) Synchronization in weighted uncorrelated complex networks in a noisy environment: Optimization and connections with transport efficiency. Phys Rev E 75: 051121.
Asztalos A, Sreenivasan S, Szymanski BK, Korniss G (2012) Distributed flow optimization and cascading effects in weighted complex networks. The European Physical Journal B 85: 288.
Korniss G, Huang R, Sreenivasan S, Szymanski BK (2012) Optimizing synchronization, flow and robustness in weighted complex networks. in [*Handbook of Optimization in Complex Networks*]{}, edited by Thai MT, Pardalos P, Springer Optimization and Its Applications Vol. 58, Part 1 (Springer, New York), pp. 61–96.
Mendes GA, da Silva LR, Herrmann HJ (2012) Traffic gridlock on complex networks. Physica A 391: 362-–370.
Colak S, Schneider CM, Wang P, González MC (2013) On the role of spatial dynamics and topology on network flows. New Journal of Physics (in press).
Newman MEJ (2005) A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social Networks 27: 39–54.
Brandes U, Fleischer D (2005) Centrality measures based on current flow. In: Diekert V, Durand B, editors, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, NY, volume 3404. pp. 533–544.
Hernandez V, Roman JE, Vidal V (2005) [SLEPc]{}: A scalable and flexible toolkit for the solution of eigenvalue problems. ACM Trans Math Software 31: 351–362.
Zimmerman R, Murillo-S[á]{}nchez C, Thomas R (2011) Matpower: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education. Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on 26: 12–19.
Simonsen I, Buzna L, Peters K, Bornholdt S, Helbing D (2008) Transient dynamics increasing network vulnerability to cascading failures. Phys Rev Lett 100: 218701.
Motter AE, Lai YC (2002) Cascade-based attacks on complex networks. Phys Rev E 66: 065102(R).
Bollobás B (1985) Random Graphs. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Barabási A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286: 509–512.
Molloy M, Reed B (1995) A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence. Random Struct Algorithms 6: 161–179.
Zhou Q, Bialek JW (2005) Approximate model of [E]{}uropean interconnected system as a benchmark system to study effects of cross-border trades. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 20: 782–788.
Zhou Q, Bialek JW (2013) Updated and validated power flow model of the main continental European transmission network. Draft of a paper accepted for IEEE PowerTech 2013,.
Updated UCTE data (2013) <http://www.powerworld.com/bialek> Accessed November 15, 2013.
Herrmann C, Barthélemy M, Provero P (2003) Connectivity distribution of spatial networks. Phys Rev E 68: 026128.
Ercsey-Ravasz M, Toroczkai Z (2010) Centrality scaling in large networks. Phys Rev Lett 105: 038701.
Sreenivasan S, Cohen R, López E, Toroczkai Z, Stanley HE (2007) Structural bottlenecks for communication in networks. Phys Rev E 75: 036105.
Motter AE (2004) Cascade control and defense in complex networks. Phys Rev Lett 93: 098701.
Krapivsky PL, Grosse I, Ben-Naim E (2000) Scale invariance and lack of self-averaging in fragmentation. Phys Rev E 61: R993–R996.
Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393: 440.
Diaz-Guilera A, Gomez-Gardenes J, Moreno Y, Nekovee M (2009) Synchronization in random geometric graphs. Int J Bifurcation and Chaos 19: 687–693.
Lu Q, Korniss G, Szymanski BK, (2008) Naming Games in Two-Dimensional and Small-World-Connected Random Geometric Networks. Phys Rev E 77: 016111.
Newman MEJ, Watts DJ (1999) Scaling and percolation in the small-world network model. Phys Rev E 60: 7332–7342.
Díaz J, Petit J, Serna M (2001) Faulty random geometric networks. Parallel Processing Letters 10: 2000.
Kong Z, Yeh E (2010) Resilience to degree-dependent and cascading node failures in random geometric networks. Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on 56: 5533–5546.
Rosas-Casals M, Valverde S, Solé RV (2007) Topological vulnerability of the European power grid under errors and attacks. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos 17: 2465–2475.
[**SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURES**]{}
![ [**Cascade realizations on a single RGG of size $N=1300$ where conductances on links are inversely proportional to their lengths.**]{} The behavior of the surviving giant component size $G$ as a function of the tolerance parameter $\alpha$ (three individual realizations are shown) is practically indistinguishable from that found in the case where conductances on all links are identical, shown in Fig. \[fig:4\]A in the main text. All remaining parameters (besides conductances) and simulation details are identical to that in Fig. \[fig:4\]A. []{data-label="fig:S1"}](figS1.pdf){width="4.5in"}
![ [**Effect of rewiring links in an RGG with link-length dependent conductances**]{}. As the rewiring probability $p$ is increased, the non-monotonicities in $G$ as a function of tolerance parameter $\alpha$ gradually disappear, similarly to the case where link conductances are independent of their length (see Fig. \[fig:5\]). Simulations were performed with $N=1300$ and $\langle k \rangle = 5$. []{data-label="fig:S2"}](figS2.pdf){width="4.5in"}
[^1]: Current address: NCBI, NLM, NIH Bethesda, Maryland, USA
[^2]: Corresponding author: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In simple fluids, such as water, invariance under parity and time-reversal symmetry imposes that the rotation of constituent “atoms” are determined by the flow and that viscous stresses damp motion. Activation of the rotational degrees of freedom of a fluid by spinning its atomic building blocks breaks these constraints and has thus been the subject of fundamental theoretical interest across classical and quantum fluids [@lenz_membranes_2003; @yeo_rheology_2010; @furthauer_active_2013; @nguyen_emergent_2014; @goto_purely_2015; @yeo_collective_2015; @climent_dynamic_2006; @avron_viscosity_1995; @wiegmann_anomalous_2014; @ariman_microcontinuum_1973; @rosensweig2013; @Rinaldi2014]. However, the creation of a model liquid which isolates chiral hydrodynamic phenomena has remained experimentally elusive. Here we report the creation of a cohesive two-dimensional chiral liquid consisting of millions of spinning colloidal magnets and study its flows. We find that dissipative viscous “edge pumping” is a key and general mechanism of chiral hydrodynamics, driving uni-directional surface waves and instabilities, with no counterpart in conventional fluids. Spectral measurements of the chiral surface dynamics reveal the presence of Hall viscosity, an experimentally long sought property of chiral fluids [@avron_viscosity_1995; @avron_odd_1998; @abanov2018; @banerjee_odd_2017]. Precise measurements and comparison with theory demonstrate excellent agreement with a minimal but complete chiral hydrodynamic model, paving the way for the exploration of chiral hydrodynamics in experiment.'
author:
- 'Vishal Soni\*'
- 'Ephraim Bililign\*'
- 'Sofia Magkiriadou\*'
- Stefano Sacanna
- Denis Bartolo
- 'Michael J. Shelley'
- 'William T. M. Irvine'
title: 'The free surface of a colloidal chiral fluid: waves and instabilities from odd stress and Hall viscosity'
---
Hydrodynamic theories describe the flow of systems as diverse as water, quantum electronic states [@bandurin_negative_2016], and galaxies [@pringle_astrophysical_2007] over decades in scale [@secchi_massive_2016]. Since hydrodynamic equations are built on symmetry principles and conservation laws alone, systems with similar symmetries have similar descriptions and flow in the same way.
For example, symmetry under parity and time reversal – conditions met by all conventional fluids at thermal equilibrium – constrains both the stress and viscosity tensors to be symmetric. These constraints are in principle alleviated in collections of interacting units that are driven to rotate [@tsai_chiral_2005; @scaffidi_hydrodynamic_2017; @wiegmann_anomalous_2014; @banerjee_odd_2017; @van_zuiden_spatiotemporal_2016; @furthauer_active_2013; @avron_viscosity_1995; @snezhko_complex_2016; @kokot2017]. This seemingly innocent twist on an otherwise structureless fluid represents, however, an elemental change with rich hydrodynamic consequences common to quantum Hall fluids, vortex fluids, and chiral condensed matter. Collections of spinning particles offer a natural opportunity to engineer and study the properties of such chiral fluids; experimental examples include rotating bacteria [@petroff_fast-moving_2015], colloidal and millimeter-scale magnets [@grzybowski_dynamic_2000; @grzybowski_dynamic_2001; @grzybowski_dynamics_2002; @grzybowski_dynamic_2002; @belovs_hydrodynamics_2016; @yan_rotating_2014; @yan_jing_colloidal_2015], ferrofluids in rotating magnetic fields [@rosensweig2013; @Rinaldi2014], and shaken chiral grains [@tsai_chiral_2005; @scholz_rotating_2018]. Such systems have been shown to have non-trivial dynamics. For example, ferrofluids driven by AC fields can flow against external pressure [@Bacri1995] and small numbers of spinning particles self-assemble into dynamic crystalline clusters [@grzybowski_dynamic_2000; @grzybowski_dynamic_2001; @grzybowski_dynamics_2002; @grzybowski_dynamic_2002; @climent_dynamic_2006; @yan_rotating_2014; @yan_jing_colloidal_2015].
{width="\textwidth"}
A colloidal chiral fluid
========================
We report the creation of a millimeter-scale cohesive chiral fluid (Fig. \[fig:chiralfluid\]a) by spinning millions of colloidal magnets with a magnetic field (Figs. \[fig:chiralfluid\]b, \[fig:chiralfluid\]c), and we track its flows over hours (see Supplementary Movies 1, 2). The macroscopic flow of our chiral fluid is reminiscent of free surface flows of Newtonian fluids: nearby droplets merge (Fig. \[fig:chiralfluid\]d and Supplementary Movie 3), fluid spreads on a surface under the influence of gravity (Fig. \[fig:chiralfluid\]e and Supplementary Movie 4), voids collapse (Fig. \[fig:chiralfluid\]f and Supplementary Movie 5), and thin streams go unstable, as revealed by flowing fluid past a solid object (Fig. \[fig:chiralfluid\]g and Supplementary Movie 6). We demonstrate that these seemingly familiar features are accompanied by unique free surface flows. We then exploit the odd interfacial dynamics of this prototypical chiral liquid to infer its material constants, which remain out of reach of conventional rheology.
In contrast to Newtonian fluids, the surface of our fluid supports a spontaneous unidirectional edge flow in its rest state, as well as unusual morphological dynamics such as the rotation of asymmetric droplets illustrated in Supplementary Movie 3.
Chiral surface waves and ‘edge pumping’
=======================================
To investigate these lively surface flows, we first look at surface excitations in a simple slab geometry, as shown in Fig. \[fig:spectrum\]a and Supplementary Movie 7. We measure the spectrum of surface fluctuations, $|h(k,\omega)|^2$, by tracing the height profile, $h(x,t)$, of the surface and Fourier-transforming it in space and time. We observe the spectrum to be peaked along a curve $\omega(k)$, revealing the existence of dispersive waves (see Fig. \[fig:spectrum\]b). The curve has only one branch with odd parity, meaning that the waves are unidirectional. This behavior contrasts that of conventional surface waves that propagate in all directions.
{width="100.00000%"}
These surface waves beg a hydrodynamic description. Chiral-fluid hydrodynamics follows from conservation of momentum and angular momentum, and thus includes both the spinning rate of individual fluid particles as well as the momentum and angular momentum of their flow [@furthauer_active_2013; @bonthuis_electrohydraulic_2009; @tsai_chiral_2005; @dahler_theory_1963; @huang_continuum_2010]. Because our colloids are birefringent, we are able to measure their individual spinning rate by imaging through crossed polarizers. We find that all particles rotate at the same rate, $\Omega$, which is set by the rotating magnetic field (see Fig. \[fig:droplets\]a and Supplementary Movie 8). From this it follows that the particles’ rotational inertia is negligible; the torque exerted on each particle by the magnetic field instantly adjusts to balance the frictional torques exerted by the neighboring particles and the solid substrate. This fast response enables the decoupling of the angular momentum equation from the momentum equation. Nonetheless a strong signature of the microscopic angular momentum manifests as an ‘odd’ stress. A minimal hydrodynamic theory then balances the force generated by viscous and odd hydrodynamic stresses, $\partial_j \sigma_{ij}$, against friction with the substrate, $\Gamma_{u} v_i$, and surface tension $\gamma$ at the fluid interface. In this theory, which has been used to capture the bulk flows of chiral granular fluids, the hydrodynamic stress tensor is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{ij} &= -p \delta_{ij} + \eta \left(\partial_i v_j+\partial_j v_i\right) + \eta_{\rm R} \epsilon_{ij}\left(2\Omega-\omega\right).\end{aligned}$$ $\sigma_{ij}$ includes the pressure $p$ and ordinary viscous stress also present in Newtonian fluids with a shear viscosity $\eta$. The additional term containing the Levi-Civita symbol $\epsilon_{ij}$ and the rotational viscosity $\eta_R$, captures the rotational friction between neighboring particles [@dahler_theory_1963; @bonthuis_electrohydraulic_2009; @tsai_chiral_2005; @furthauer_active_2013]. Such an odd stress builds up as the local spinning rate $\Omega$ deviates from half the local fluid vorticity $\omega = \hat{z}\cdot (\nabla \times v)$. In torque-free fluids, angular momentum conservation constrains these two quantities to be equal: odd stresses are unique to chiral fluids.
We note that there is no direct appearance of the magnetic field or its stresses in this hydrodynamic description unlike in conventional ferrofluids. In this respect, our colloidal chiral fluid can be seen as a special type of driven ferrofluid in which the only role of magnetic forces is to induce chirality.
To make a quantitative comparison between our model and the flows we observe, we require a measurement of the hydrodynamic and friction coefficients $\eta$, $\eta_{\rm R}$, and $\Gamma_{u}$. Fortunately, the prominent effect of odd stress at the free surface of our chiral fluid can be effectively exploited to infer its bulk rheology. The homogeneous spinning motion of the colloidal particles gives rise to a net tangential edge flow even in the absence of pressure gradients. These tread-milling dynamics, characteristic of all chiral fluids [@tsai_chiral_2005; @nguyen_emergent_2014; @petroff_fast-moving_2015; @yan_rotating_2014; @van_zuiden_spatiotemporal_2016], are illustrated in circular droplets in Figs. \[fig:droplets\]b-e and Supplementary Movie 9. The tangential flow that is localized at the free surface is readily explained by expressing the hydrodynamic equation in terms of vorticity for an incompressible chiral fluid: $$\left(\nabla^2-{\delta^{-2}}\right)\omega=0
\label{Eq:vorticity}$$ where $\delta=\sqrt{{(\eta+\eta_{R})}/{\Gamma_{u}}}$. This Helmholtz equation indicates that the vorticity generated at the surface decays exponentially into the fluid, with a characteristic penetration depth $\delta$ (see Figs. \[fig:droplets\]c, d, g). In this model, the absence of substrate friction causes the penetration depth to diverge, resulting in rigid-body rotation of the entire fluid, as observed in ferrofluid droplets [@Bacri1994]. The magnitude of the vorticity at the free surface, $\omega_{\rm edge}=2\Omega\,\eta_{\rm R}/(\eta+\eta_{\rm R})$, is set by the stress-free boundary condition for a flat strip and expresses the competition between the odd and viscous stresses (see Supplementary Information). We point out that $\omega_{\rm edge}$ is directly proportional to $\eta_R$, which demonstrates the importance of odd stress for the dynamics. Comparison between experiment and prediction (Fig. \[fig:droplets\]d) yields the values of $\eta$ and $\eta_{R}$ in terms of $\Gamma_{u}$. The latter is then measured by tilting the substrate and measuring the sedimentation rate of droplets (see Fig. \[fig:droplets\]f, and Supplementary Information). Ultimately, we find $\eta= 4.9\pm 0.2 \times 10^{-8}\ \rm Pa\ m\ s$, $\eta_{R} = 9.1\pm 0.1\times 10^{-10}\ \rm Pa\ m\ s$, and $\Gamma_{u}=2.49\pm 0.03 \times 10^{3}\rm\ Pa\ s/m$.
Equipped with the hydrodynamic coefficients we can now investigate the origin of the surface waves within our model. The mass flux in the tangential surface flow provides significant insight. This flow, sketched in Fig. \[fig:spectrum\]d and plotted in Figs. \[fig:spectrum\]e-f, is determined by the balance of the tangential odd stress at the boundary, the shear stress, and the substrate friction. In the presence of a perturbation that varies the curvature of the interface, resistance to flow due to the shear stress will be modulated. For a sinusoidal perturbation, there is enhanced flow in positively curved regions (top of the wave) and decreased flow in negatively curved regions (bottom of the wave). This ‘edge-pumping’ moves material away from curved regions towards the flat wave front, giving rise to uni-directional wave motion.
A linear stability analysis of the hydrodynamic equations (see Supplementary Information for a detailed calculation) confirms this scenario and yields a prediction for the dispersion relation, dissipation rate, and flow fields of surface waves, which we plot in Fig. \[fig:spectrum\]b (red dashed curves). With no fitting parameters, our model shows excellent agreement with the experimentally measured dispersion relation. For surface waves $h\sim e^{i(k x + \omega t)} $ of long wavelength $k \ll 1/\delta$, the asymptotic dispersion relation is: $$\omega(k)
= 2 \omega_{\rm edge} \frac{\eta_{\rm R}}{\eta + \eta_{\rm R}} (k \delta)^3 = 2 u_{\rm edge} \frac{\eta}{\Gamma_{u}} k^3.
\label{Eq:dispersion}$$ where $u_{\rm edge}=2\frac{\eta_R}{\eta+\eta_R}\Omega \delta$.
![[**Characterization of a droplet of chiral spinner fluid.**]{} [**a,**]{} When viewed through crossed polarizers, the particles blink as they spin. This allows us to confirm that they all spin at the same frequency, set by the rotating magnetic field. [**b,**]{} By measuring the velocity of each particle within a cluster, we find a flow profile that is concentrated at the edge within a penetration layer $\delta$ shown in [**c, d,**]{} and [**g**]{}. [**c,**]{} A zoomed-in view of the flow streamlines, obtained by averaging several instantaneous velocity profiles such as the one shown in [**b**]{}. [**d,**]{} By measuring the flow profile, the edge current $\mathrm{u}_{\rm edge}$ and penetration depth $\delta$ are extracted. [**e, g,**]{} By measuring the flow profile $u(r)$ at a range of frequencies, we extract the shear viscosity, $\eta$, and rotational viscosity, $\eta_{R}$, in terms of the substrate friction, $\Gamma_{u}$. [**f,**]{} Finally, by tilting a sample and measuring the sedimentation velocity of a droplet, we extract the substrate friction. []{data-label="fig:droplets"}](fig3.pdf){width=".5\textwidth"}
The wave dynamics are thus crucially sensitive to boundary layer flows. A natural avenue for investigation, then, is to seek to increase the thickness of the boundary in order to increase its relative role. We now show how a slight increase of the penetration depth of the boundary layer amplifies chiral effects and reveals a long sought-after source of stress, commonly referred to as Hall viscosity.
Chiral wave damping and measurement of Hall Viscosity
=====================================================
We reduce the surface friction by allowing our chiral liquid to sediment upon an air-water interface (Fig. \[fig:etao\]b), as opposed to a glass surface (Fig. \[fig:etao\]a). Due to the difficulty in maintaining a slab geometry in this regime, we examine surface fluctuations on circular droplets.
As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:etao\]a-b and Supplementary Movie 10, the edge flow penetrates deeper into the chiral fluid as friction is reduced. The dispersion relations for high and low friction droplets display the same trend, although the range of accessible wave vectors normalized by the penetration length ($k\delta$) is larger in the low friction case. An extension of our theory to circular geometries (see Supplementary Information) again accurately captures the dispersion relations for high friction (Fig. \[fig:etao\]a) and low friction (Fig. \[fig:etao\]b).
The remarkable agreement between experiment and theory is however challenged when investigating the damping dynamics of the chiral waves. Experimentally, the damping rate $\alpha$ of chiral waves of wave vector $k$ is given by fitting a Lorentzian to the width of the power spectrum (see Supplementary Information); the resulting damping rates are shown in Fig. \[fig:etao\]c-d. Our hydrodynamic theory predicts this damping rate to be proportional to surface tension. This is natural since surface tension flattens interfacial deformation: in the absence of inertia, the relaxation does not overshoot and capillary waves are overdamped. In the long wavelength limit ($k\delta\ll 1$), the damping rate $\alpha\sim (\gamma/\Gamma_u) |k|^3$ stems from the competition between surface tension and substrate friction. As seen in Fig. \[fig:etao\]c, in the high friction case we again find excellent agreement between theory and experiment, which provides a direct measurement of surface tension. The value we find, $\gamma = 2.3 \pm 0.2 \times 10^{-13}\rm\ N$, is consistent with an estimate based on magnetic interactions between rotating dipoles (see Supplementary Information).
In the case of low surface friction, however, we observe a distinct new feature in the dissipation rate: a leveling off of the dissipation rate at short wavelengths which cannot be accounted for by the hydrodynamic theory discussed thus far, suggesting the presence of an additional mechanism for surface wave dissipation in our chiral fluid. Seeking a hydrodynamic description, we recall that isotropic chiral fluids can in principle possess an additional stress in their constitutive relation, known interchangeably as “anomalous viscosity", “odd viscosity" or “Hall viscosity" [@avron_viscosity_1995; @avron_odd_1998; @read_non-abelian_2009]. This non-dissipative, transverse stress is linked by Onsager relations to the breaking of time-reversal symmetry.
Theoretically, odd viscosity has indeed been shown to arise in the hydrodynamics of plasmas and systems of spinning molecules, ‘gears’, as well as quantum Hall fluids and vortex fluids [@radin_lorentz_1972; @robinson_variational_1962; @pitaevskii_physical_1981; @wiegmann_anomalous_2014; @banerjee_odd_2017]. We therefore conjecture our chiral fluid to support an additional Hall stress $\sigma^{\rm o}_{ij}=\eta_o \left( \partial_i \epsilon_{jk}v_k + \epsilon_{ik}\partial_k v_j\right)$. In incompressible fluids such as the one considered here, the effect of odd viscosity can solely be seen at the edge. This is because in the bulk flow Hall stress is merely absorbed into the fluid pressure. The signature of odd viscosity in our chiral fluid is thus an additional boundary stress. The component normal to the interface $\sigma_{nn}$ is given by $$\sigma_{nn}=\eta_{\rm o}\left(\partial_sv_{n}+\frac{v_s}{R(s)}\right),
\label{Eq:Hallstress}$$ where $v_{n}$ (resp. $v_s$) is the velocity normal (resp. tangential) to the surface (see Fig. \[fig:etao\]e), and $R(s)$ is the local radius of curvature.
In our system, where odd stress powers a boundary-layer edge flow, we thus expect odd viscosity to flatten surface deformation in a manner akin to surface tension, $\sigma^{\rm o}\sim \eta_{\rm o}v_s/R$. The excellent agreement between our measurements and predictions from a full hydrodynamic theory confirms this simplified picture and establishes the presence of Hall viscosity in our colloidal chiral fluid (see Fig. \[fig:etao\]d, f-g). From the fit we obtain $\eta_{\rm o}=1.4\pm 0.1 \times 10^{-8}\ \rm Pa\ m\ s$.
{width="100.00000%"}
The clearly visible decrease in slope in the damping relation is the most visible signature of Hall viscosity in our data and can be understood on dimensional grounds. In the long wavelength limit, the wave relaxation time is controlled by the competition of either surface tension or Hall stress with substrate friction. Dimensionally this implies a scaling $\alpha \sim \vert k\vert^3$ since the ratios $\gamma/\Gamma_u$ and $\eta_{\rm o} v_s/\Gamma_u$ have dimension of volume per unit time. In contrast, in the short wavelength limit, surface friction plays no role and damping stems from the competition of surface tension or Hall stress and bulk viscosities alone. In this case dimensional analysis requires linear scaling with wavenumber in the case of surface tension, and wave-number independence in the case of Hall stress (see Supplementary Information). This change in wavenumber dependence brings about a visible rollover to a decreased slope in the wave damping rate.
We note that for small ranges of $k\delta \sim [-1,1]$, characteristic of spectral measurements in the presence of high surface friction, the leveling off cannot be seen and the relative roles of Hall viscosity and surface tension become hard to separate. This is the case for the damping shown in Fig. \[fig:etao\]c which can be fit well by both a non-zero and zero value of Hall viscosity (see Supplementary Information).
Having established the presence of Hall viscosity by examining wave damping, it follows to ask whether it has an effect on wave propagation. The first term in Eq. suggests that Hall viscosity and surface tension could act together to support wave propagation. Surface tension acts on a sinusoidal surface deformation by pulling down peaks and pushing up troughs, generating an in-phase normal velocity component. The normal Hall stress $\partial_s v_n$ would then act out of phase on the inflection points of the sinusoidal perturbation to propagate it in a chiral fashion. Our full theory confirms that this additional wave-pumping mechanism indeed exists and generates waves even in the absence of edge currents. However, for our hydrodynamic parameters, their effect on the dispersion is minimal.
An odd instability
==================
In much of the phenomenology we have discussed, surface dynamics are essentially boundary layer dynamics. Another natural question, then, is what happens when two boundary layers meet? Draining fluid past a curved obstacle brings about the progressive thinning of a curved strip of chiral fluid, as shown in Fig. \[fig:chiralfluid\]g and Supplementary Movie 6. The flow is smooth until the strip thickness becomes comparable to the penetration depth $\delta$; at that point the flow goes unstable, resulting in the formation of circular droplets. We study this novel pearling mechanism in experiment by creating a sequence of strips of decreasing thickness, as shown in Fig. \[fig:instability\]a and Supplementary Movie 11. We find that over a period of 10 minutes the strips of chiral fluid are stable for thicknesses above $\sim 32\,\rm \mu m$ and unstable below.
{width="\textwidth"}
Although visually reminiscent of the Rayleigh-Plateau instability of a thin fluid cylinder jet [@eggers_nonlinear_1997], this instability is fundamentally different. In our two-dimensional system, surface tension is a purely stabilizing force, as seen in the wave analysis discussed above. Instead, the instability originates from the chiral surface dynamics of our fluid. A visual signature of this origin is the consistent offset in the phase between top and bottom perturbations at the moment the instability occurs in all strips: Fig. \[fig:instability\]b shows one such example.
A linear stability analysis of a thin strip of chiral fluid quantitatively predicts the existence of unstable modes which consist of wave-like perturbations on the top and bottom surfaces that have a relative phase offset, as sketched in Fig. \[fig:instability\]d. These are accompanied by a stable mode with an opposite relative phase. The associated stability diagram is shown in Fig. \[fig:instability\]e, together with our experimental observations. As the Hall stress has little effect on the stability of modes for small $\delta$ (see Supplementary Information), here we set $\eta_o=0$.
An intuitive picture for the mechanism driving the instability is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:instability\]d. The geometry of a thin slab with out-of-phase perturbations on the top and bottom surfaces can be approximated by a collection of elongated droplets of chiral fluid all canted in the same direction. Droplets of this kind rotate in the direction of the edge current, in this case clockwise (see Fig. \[fig:chiralfluid\]d and Supplementary Movie 3). Depending on the phase difference between the two interfaces, the rotation of these effective droplets will either increase the amplitude of the perturbation, resulting in the breakup of the strip (top); or decrease the amplitude of the perturbation and restore the flat interface (bottom). The consistent observation of this phase relation between the top and bottom perturbations across many experiments of strips going unstable (Fig. \[fig:instability\]c) further corroborates our theoretical picture of the instability.
We have broken parity symmetry at the microscopic level in a colloidal chiral fluid, resulting in the emergence of an odd stress that in turn generates lively surface flows. Likewise, we have broken time reversal symmetry, giving rise to Hall viscosity, a dissipationless transport property which has thus far remained experimentally elusive. The combination of these features drives rich interfacial dynamics with no analogues in conventional fluids. These dynamics include the uni-directional propagation and anomalous attenuation of surface waves and an asymmetric pearling instability. In principle, these chiral phenomena can be tuned, for instance by altering the colloidal particles’ shape and their effective interactions. Beyond enabling the study of universal aspects of a new class of hydrodynamics, colloidal chiral fluids provide a platform for engineering active materials with so far untapped, ‘odd’ behaviors [@avron_odd_1998; @avron_viscosity_1995; @banerjee_odd_2017].
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** **** ().
& . ** ****, ().
, & . ** **** ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
** (, ).
& . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
& ** (, ).
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
& ** (, ).
. ** ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Self-Destructing Dark Matter (SDDM) is a class of dark sector models in which the collision of a dark sector particle with the earth induces its prompt decay into Standard Model particles, generating unique signals at neutrino detectors. The inherent fragility of SDDM makes its survival from the early universe unlikely, implying a late time production mechanism. We present an efficient late time production mechanism for SDDM based on atomic rearrangement, the mechanism responsible for muon or anti-proton capture in hydrogen. In this model, an atomic rearrangement process occurs in our galaxy, converting dark atoms into highly excited bound states - our SDDM candidates. While the resulting SDDM is only a small fraction of the dark matter flux, its striking self-destruction signals imply a significant discovery reach in the existing data from the Super-Kamiokande experiment.'
author:
- 'Michael Geller${}^{1}$'
- 'Ofri Telem${}^{2\,3}$'
bibliography:
- 'SDDM.bib'
title: Self Destructing Atomic DM
---
Introduction
============
The nature of dark matter (DM), which makes up 75% of the matter density in the universe, is still an open question. In the past two decades, direct searches for DM have been guided by the Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP) paradigm, in which DM is a single particle that interacts weakly with Standard Model (SM). Following the stringent bounds on this scenario from direct and indirect detection, much of the experimental and theoretical focus has recently shifted from WIMP candidates to more broad dark sectors, potentially including sub-GeV DM.
A common thread in DM searches is the direct detection of nuclear or electron recoils from their elastic collisions with incoming DM particles [@Goodman:1984dc]. Searches for WIMP-nucleon recoils have been conducted in the Xenon1T [@Aprile:2018dbl], LUX [@Akerib:2016vxi], PandaX-II [@Cui:2017nnn], and CRESST-II [@Angloher:2015ewa] detectors, to name a few. The current leading bound on spin-independent WIMP-nucleon elastic scattering was set by the Xenon1T detector, with a minimum of $\sigma=4.1\times10^{-47}\,\text{cm}^2$ at $30\,\text{GeV}$. The limit was set after 278.8 days of data collection, with a fiducial detector volume of 2 tons filled with radio-pure liquid xenon.
In comparison, the fiducial volume of the Super-Kamiokande (Super-K) neutrino detector is 50,000 tons of ultra-pure water [@Richard:2015aua], and so it is tempting to try and harness its large volume to search for DM. Unfortunately, neutrino detectors like Super-K have $\mathcal{O}(\text{MeV})$ thresholds, far above the typical DM-nucleon recoil energy of $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\text{recoil}}~\sim~\frac{1}{2}r\,m_{\text{DM}}\,v^2_{\text{DM,gal}}~\lsim~\text{keV}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $v_{\text{DM,gal}}\sim10^{-3}c$ and $r=4m_{\text{DM}}m_{\text{N}}/(m_{\text{DM}}+m_{\text{N}})^2$ is the efficiency factor of the collision, which peaks for $m_{\text{DM}}=m_{\text{N}}$[^1].
A caveat to the above no-go argument is self destructing dark matter (SDDM), first introduced in [@Grossman:2017qzw]. In essence, SDDM is a meta-stable state in the dark sector, whose interaction with the earth or with particle detectors can induce its decay. As a result, all of the rest mass of the SDDM is converted to a detectable signal, with an energy $c^2/v^2_{\text{DM}} \sim 10^6$ higher than a typical nuclear recoil signal. This allows for the novel use of high-threshold, large neutrino detectors in the search for this DM candidate. The resulting extraordinary signal - four jets or two simultaneous, highly energetic lepton pairs within the detector - would be a smoking gun for DM self-destruction. The signals of SDDM are very different from those of other DM models that can be probed at neutrino detectors [@Davoudiasl:2011fj; @Huang:2013xfa; @Agashe:2014yua; @Berger:2014sqa; @Kong:2014mia; @Alhazmi:2016qcs; @Kim:2016zjx; @Kachulis:2017nci; @Dror:2019onn; @Dror:2019dib].
The meta-stability of SDDM, together with its inherent tendency to decay upon scattering, make its early universe production challenging. This was addressed in [@Grossman:2017qzw] by suggesting that SDDM could be produced via late time processes in the galaxy. In this work we present a concrete mechanism for the late time production of SDDM out of partially atomic DM. Strikingly, even though SDDM composes only an extremely small fraction of the DM, it can already be discovered in existing neutrino detectors such as Super-Kamiokande.
Our late time SDDM production mechanism is based on the process of atomic rearrangement, analogous to cosmic ray muon capture in hydrogen. This process, first explored by Fermi and Teller in 1947 ([@Fermi:1947uv] see also [@Wightman:1950zz; @Bracci:1979iw; @Hydrogen1; @Hydrogen2; @Hydrogen3; @Geller:2018biy]), involves a negative muon and a hydrogen atom rearranging into muonic hydrogen and a free electron. Remarkably, the typical cross section for this process is the geometric size of the hydrogen atom - much larger than the size of the $(\mu p)$ system. This is an indication that the electron serves as a catalyst for the process. Due to the large impact parameter of the muon and the proton, the resulting muonic hydrogen is formed at an extremely excited state, both in energy and in angular momentum.
We utilize this mechanism in our model by considering a dark sector with heavy $X$ and light $\ell$ fermions, charged under a dark $U(1)$. In the galaxy, $(X\ell)$ atoms are formed, and together with $\bar{X}$ are rearranged into highly excited $(X\bar{X})$ states - our SDDM. These excited $(X\bar{X})$ states are protected from self-annihilation by their high angular momentum, and from spontaneous emission by a small dark photon mass.
When incident upon the earth, the $(X\bar{X})$ exhibit a typical SDDM phenomenology: they can collide with the nucleus through the dark photon portal and undergo a radiative transition to an unstable, low angular momentum state. Subsequently, they self-annihilate into two or more dark photons, leading to potential striking signals such as two simultaneous lepton or jet pairs in the detector.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In section \[sec:atomic\_rear\] we review the physics of atomic rearrangement. In section \[sec:SDDM\_general\] we present the main ingredients of a dark sector that incorporates the galactic production of SDDM. Next, in section \[sec:toy\] we provide a particular implementation of our framework, exploring in section \[sec:dynamics\] its early universe and late time dynamics in detail, including the stability of SDDM to self-annihilation, spontaneous emission, collisional de-excitation and inverse rearrangement. In section \[sec:detection\] we calculate the discovery reach for our model in the Super-Kamiokande detector, and show how its large fiducial volume allows for a significant discovery reach in the $m_X-\epsilon$ plane.
Atomic rearrangement {#sec:atomic_rear}
====================
At the core of our late time production mechanism for SDDM is the process of atomic rearrangement. This simple mechanism plays an elegant role in SM physics, while it remains mostly overlooked in model building beyond the SM (see [@Kang:2006yd; @DeLuca:2018mzn; @Contino:2018crt; @Geller:2018biy; @Mitridate:2017oky] for implementations of rearrangement in the context of a confining gauge group). Atomic rearrangement was first studied in a pioneering work by Fermi and Teller [@Fermi:1947uv]. In a modern context, rearrangement is what happens when a cosmic $\mu^-$, that has already been slowed down, is incident upon a hydrogen atom, leading to the process: $$H\,+\,\mu^-~\rightarrow~\left(p^+\,\mu^-\right)\,+\,e^-\, ,$$ in which the electron is ionized and the muon is captured. This happens when the muon energy is below the binding energy of hydrogen. In [@Fermi:1947uv], Fermi and Teller found that the cross section for this process is at least geometric, $$\sigma_{\text{rear}}\,\ge \pi r^2_c~~,~~r_c=0.638\,r_{\text{Bohr}}\, .$$ To understand the significance of this result, note that the cross section for simple recombination $p^+\,+\,\mu^-\rightarrow \left(p^+\,\mu^-\right)\,+\,\gamma$ is of order $\frac{1}{\alpha^2 m^2_{\mu}}$, which is a factor of $\left(\frac{m_e}{m_{\mu}}\right)^2$ smaller than rearrangement. In this way, the electron crucially serves as a catalyst for enhanced muon capture.
The physics responsible for the large rearrangement cross section becomes clear in the semiclassical picture once we consider the wavefunction of the electron in the potential of classical, adiabatically moving proton and muon. In the limit when the proton and muon are far away, the electron is simply in the hydrogen ground state around the proton. Conversely, in the limit of zero distance between the proton and the muon, their charge is completely screened, and so there cannot be any bound state for the electron. Evidently, at some critical radius, the two-center potential from the proton and the muon can no longer sustain an electron bound state. Explicit calculation [@Fermi:1947uv; @Wightman:1950zz] shows that this critical radius is $r_c=0.638\,r_{\text{Bohr}}$.
From this semiclassical intuition we can construct a dynamical picture of the rearrangement process. Any muon incident upon the hydrogen atom with an impact parameter smaller than $r_c$ will ionize it. If the initial kinetic energy of the muon is low enough, the ionized electron will carry enough energy such that the remaining proton and muon bind into $\left(p^+\,\mu^-\right)$, with a cross section which is at least geometric. In practice, for slow enough muons, the capture happens even at much larger impact parameters due to the focusing effect of the induced hydrogen dipole. A detailed calculation of the rearrangement process was presented in [@Bracci:1979iw] as a function of the temperature $T$, with an anti-proton instead of a muon. There, the cross section was found to be $$\label{eq:rea}
\sigma_{\text{rear}}\,=\,{\left(\frac{T}{5\,E_B}\right)}^{-\frac{16}{25}}\,r^2_{\text{Bohr}} \, ,$$ where $E_B=\frac{1}{2}\,\alpha^2\,m_e$. The calculation in [@Bracci:1979iw] was semi-classical and adiabatic, in the sense that it assumed a zero kinetic energy for the outgoing electron. There has been a considerable theoretical effort in going beyond this approximation using semi-classical methods [@PhysRevA.27.167; @PhysRevA.65.052714; @Kwong_1989; @Sakimoto_2001] as well as fully quantum solutions [@Sakimoto_2004; @Tong; @Sakimoto_low] (For a comprehensive review, see [@Cohen_2004]). These further studies have shown that the actual cross section tends to be up to $50\%$ larger than the adiabatic calculation, and that the typical angular momenta of the outgoing bound state are larger as well. To be conservative, we will use [@Bracci:1979iw] as our reference for the process, keeping in mind that the full analysis only strengthens our results.
In the model for SDDM presented in the next section, a similar rearrangement mechanism happens in the galaxy, with a dark bound state $\left(X\ell\right)$ playing the role of the Hydrogen atom, while a dark fermion $\bar{X}$ plays the role of the muon/anti-proton. As we demonstrate in Section \[sec:xxbarprod\], this process effectively converts any existing $(X \ell)$ into a free $\ell$ and an $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$, which is our SDDM candidate.
Cosmologically Viable SDDM {#sec:SDDM_general}
===========================
Minimal Components of a Dark Sector with Self-Destruction {#sec:components}
---------------------------------------------------------
In this paper we seek to realize self-destructing dark matter as a dark positronium-like state, as in [@Grossman:2017qzw]. For that we need a symmetric abundance of dark fermions $X,\,\bar{X}$, which can form bound states under a dark $U(1)_D$. In the next sections we present an efficient mechanism for the creation of these $(X\bar{X})$ bound states with particularly high angular momentum ($L\sim30$).
As in [@Grossman:2017qzw], the high-L $(X\bar{X})$ are cosmologically stable by virtue of their high angular momentum, i.e. to self-annihilate they need to penetrate through a large centrifugal barrier. Additionally, we will show that these states are stable against de-excitation due to a mass for the binding dark photon $A_D$. When this mass is significantly larger than the energy difference between adjacent energy levels in the $(X\bar{X})$ states, the $(X\bar{X})$ can only de-excite via highly forbidden transitions, effectively rendering them cosmologically stable.
Next, to allow for the $(X\bar{X})$ to self-destruct (transition to a low-L state and self-annihilate) in the detector, we need a mediator, which we take to be a massive dark photon $A_V$ mixing with the SM photon. The mediator gives rise to the self-destruction process depicted in Fig. \[fig:SDDMcartoon\], namely, a stable, high-L $(X\bar{X})$ state collides with the SM nucleus through the $A_V$ portal, transitioning to an unstable, low-L $(X\bar{X})$ state. Subsequently, the unstable $(X\bar{X})$ decays to two back-to-back dark photons $A_V$, each one flying a macroscopic distance before decaying to SM jets/lepton pairs through its mixing with the SM.
{width="10cm"}
The essential ingredients for SDDM phenomenology are summarized in the top part of table \[tab:SD\]. These are the same states that were included in the original SDDM proposal [@Grossman:2017qzw] (the motivation for including two $X$ species will be explained in section \[sec:toy\]) .
Outline of the SDDM Production Mechanism {#sec:overview}
----------------------------------------
Our dark sector consists of the essential ingredients of a self-destructing dark sector[^2] described in the previous section, namely the fermions $X,\,\bar{X}$ and the dark photons $A_D$ and $A_V$. Additionally, we include a light fermion $\ell$, whose role is to catalyze the production of high-L $(X\bar{X})$ in the galaxy, as described in Section \[sec:xxbarprod\]. The overall matter content is detailed in table \[tab:SD\].
[|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Field** $\mathbf{(q_D,q_V)}$ & **Description** & **Mass**\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$X_{1,2}\,(\pm 1,\mp 1)$ & make up $(X\bar{X})$ & $1-100~\text{GeV}$ \
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$A_D$ (0,0) & binds $(X\bar{X})$ & $1-100~\text{keV}$ \
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$A_V$ (0,0) & mediator to the SM & $0.1-10~\text{GeV}$ \
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ell$ (1,0) & catalyzes $(X\bar{X})$ production & $1-100~\text{MeV}$ \
In this scenario, the universe is initially populated by the photons $A_V,\,A_D$ and the fermions $X,\,\bar{X},\,\ell,\,\bar{\ell}$. We postulate a primordial asymmetry between $X$ and $\ell$, whose origin we leave unspecified.
As we will see in our concrete model, the $X,\,\bar{X}$ freeze-out in the early universe and end up with a mostly symmetric relic abundance. In contrast, the lighter $\ell$ fermions annihilate much more efficiently, and so below $m_\ell$ the $\bar{\ell}$ population essentially disappears and we are left with an asymmetric abundance of $\ell$ only. In total, the dark sector today contains a subcomponent of $X,\,\bar{X}$ and $\ell$ fermions charged under a short range $U(1)_D$ interaction (the range of the $U(1)_V$ is negligible due to the large mass of $A_V$). The abundances are dynamically set such that the universe is neutral under the dark $U(1)_D$. Remarkably, these simple components naturally give rise to $(X\bar{X})$ SDDM in the following manner:
1. *Galactic production of $(X\bar{X})$:* In the relatively higher density environment of the galaxy, recombination is turned on, followed by atomic rearrangement. This leads to an ongoing formation of $\left(X\ell\right)$ atoms that are later converted to $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ by capturing a free $\bar{X}$ and emitting an $\ell$. As we will see in Section \[sec:xxbarprod\], the $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ is generated in highly excited states with very large angular momentum.
2. *$(X\bar{X})$ stability:* The $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ are cosmologically stable by virtue of their high angular momentum and the mass of the dark photon. They are mainly destroyed by the inverse process to atomic rearrangement, and their lifetime is found to be comparable to the age of the universe. The $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ are constantly produced and destroyed throughout the history of the galaxy, resulting in a small flux of $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ through the earth.
3. *SDDM detection:* When incident upon the detector, the $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ acts as bona-fide SDDM, i.e. it can collide with nuclei through the $A_V$ portal and subsequently self-annihilate into a pair of $A_V$, which then decay into jets/lepton pairs. In this way, all of the rest mass of the $(X\bar{X})$ is converted into relativistic SM particles.
A Concrete Model {#sec:toy}
================
Here we present a concrete model which implements the cosmological history outlined in the previous section. The matter content of the model is presented in table \[tab:SD\].
As can be seen from the table, the heavy fermions $X_{1,2}$ and the light fermions $\ell$ are charged under $U(1)_D$, whose photon $A_D$ has a $\mathcal{O}(1-100\,\text{keV})$ mass. This prevents long range interactions in the dark sector (Compton wavelength $<\text{nm}$), but allows for $(X_i\ell)$ and $(X_i\bar{X}_i)$ bound states to form. Additionally, the $X_{1,2}$ are charged under a $U(1)_V$ mediated by the $\mathcal{O}(0.1-10\,\text{GeV})$ dark photon $A_V$. This heavy photon mixes with the SM photon, and so acts as the portal for direct detection.
We consider two mass degenerate ‘flavors’ $X_{1,2}$ in order to prevent the mixing of $U(1)_D$ with $U(1)_V$ and $U(1)_{\text{E\&M}}$. This sort of mixing would have been in tension with the constraints on the production of $\ell$s in SN1987a [@Chang:2018rso]. The mixing is forbidden by a discrete global symmetry acting as $X_1 \leftrightarrow X_2,\,A_V\to -A_V$, with the light fermion $\ell$ and the dark photon $A_D$ left invariant. We denote this symmetry $\mathcal{C}_{\leftrightarrow}$, due to the similarity with charge conjugation. The charges and mass ranges for the different particles are presented in table \[tab:SD\].
The mass of the binding dark photon $A_D$ has to be light enough to allow $(X_i\ell)$ bound states to form, but heavy enough to forbid the spontaneous de-excitation of high-L $(X_i\bar{X}_i)$, $$\label{eq:dphrange}
f_{{X\bar{X}}}\,\frac{1}{2}\alpha_D^2 \,m_\ell < m_{D} < \frac{1}{2}\alpha_D^2\, m_\ell\, .$$ The upper bound allows the recombination of $(X_i\ell)$ atoms, while the lower bound is from requiring $A_D$ to be heavier than several energy splittings of $(X_i\bar{X}_i)$. The exact factor $f_{X\bar{X}}<1$ is calculated in Eq. \[eq:stability\_frac\].
Throughout most of the text we set $$r_{X\ell}~\equiv~\frac{m_X}{m_\ell}~=~\frac{m_p}{m_e}~=~1800\, ,
~\alpha_V = \alpha_D = 0.1\,.$$ We choose our benchmark mass ratio to be the same as the mass ratio between the SM proton and electron, so that we can easily extrapolate from the SM results for $\bar{p}$ capture in hydrogen [@Bracci:1979iw].\
\
The $U(1)_V$ photon is heavy, $\alpha_V m_X<m_V<m_X$, and so it does not significantly affect the potential within the $(X_i\ell)$ and $(X_i\bar{X}_j)$ bound states. Instead, the $U(1)_V$ photon serves as a mediator for $(X_i\bar{X}_i)$ self-annihilation into the SM. Accordingly, $U(1)_V$ is mixed the SM hypercharge, while $U(1)_D$ is not mixed at tree level[^3], $$L = \frac{1}{4} F^2_D + \frac{1}{4} F^2_V + \epsilon_{V} F_V F_{EM} + m_V^2 A^2_V + m_D^2 A^2_D\, .$$ By virtue of our $\mathcal{C}_{\leftrightarrow}$ symmetry, there is no loop level generation of a mixing term $\epsilon_{D} F_D F_{V}$. If this symmetry is broken and the $X_1$ and $X_2$ have a small difference in mass $\delta m$, then this mixing is generated as $\epsilon_D \sim \frac{2}{9\pi^2} \alpha_D \alpha_V \frac{\delta m }{m_X}$. As the the light fermions $\ell$ are in the range of masses that can be produced in core-collapse supernovae, this mixing is severely constrained by the SN1987A cooling constraints. Additionally, if $\mathcal{C}_{\leftrightarrow}$ is broken, the $A_V$ dark photons produced in the self-destruction process have a large probability to decay invisibly to an $\ell^+\ell^-$ pair, suppressing our direct detection signal. These effects are negligible as long as $\epsilon_D\ll \epsilon_V$ and $\epsilon_D \epsilon_V \lsim 10^{-10}$, where the discovery reach on $\epsilon_V$ we get is around $10^{-6}-10^{-4}$. Both conditions hold if $\frac{\delta m }{m_X}\lsim 10^{-2}$.
Early universe and late time dynamics {#sec:dynamics}
=====================================
The Origin of $X,\,\bar{X}$ and $\ell$
--------------------------------------
We assume that the dark sector is UV-completed such that it is initially in thermal equilibrium with the visible sector after reheating, but decouples from it below the mass $m_V$ of the heavy dark photon $A_V$ (recall that the binding photon $A_D$ does not mix with the SM photon).
The cosmological abundance of $\ell$ is determined by a primordial asymmetry, analogous to the one responsible for baryogenesis in the SM. This asymmetry takes the form: $$\begin{aligned}
2 \,n\left(\bar{X}_1\right) - 2\, n\left(X_1\right)&=&2 \,n\left(\bar{X}_2\right)-2\, n\left(X_2\right) \nonumber\\ &=& n\left(\ell\right) - n\left(\bar{\ell}\right) = \eta s \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $s$ is the entropy density and $\eta$ is the asymmetry. We can see that the $U(1)_D$ charges are balanced between $X_{1,2}$ and $\ell$, and so there is no charge excess. In the following sections we drop the $1,2$ labels from $X$, and refer to $X_{1,2}$ collectively as $X$. For a small enough asymmetry $\eta$, the symmetric component of $\Omega_X$ is a simple thermal relic and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:omega_symm}
\Omega_{\text{symm}} \, h^2~&\sim&~10^{-7} \left(\frac{m_{X}}{\text{GeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{0.1}{\alpha_D}\right)^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ This equation holds long as $\Omega_{\text{asymm}}\ll\Omega_{\text{symm}}$, which is the case we consider, and we assume that the two sectors are in thermal equilibrium when $X, \bar{X}$ freeze out. For the light $\ell$s, the annihilation is much more efficient, and only the asymmetric component of $\ell$ remains.\
Once the temperature drops below the recombination temperature, $(X\ell)$ atoms are formed. When the $(X\ell)$ meet a free $\bar{X}$, they can undergo a rearrangement process $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rearr_proc}
(X\ell)\,+\,\bar{X}~\leftrightarrow~(X\bar{X})\,+\,\ell\, ,\end{aligned}$$ as we described in detail in the section \[sec:atomic\_rear\]. The generated $(X\bar{X})$ are highly excited, as we will show, and can potentially de-excite and self-annihilate. We comment on the ensuing early universe dynamics in the next section. Here we simply make sure that it does not lead to a second phase of annihilations [@Kang:2006yd; @Boddy:2014qxa; @Geller:2018biy] which further reduces the symmetric abundance of $X$, $\bar{X}$. This is easily guaranteed by keeping $n_\ell< \frac{H(T_{\text{BSF}})}{\sigma_{\text{rear}}v_{X}}$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\text{rear}}~=~n_{(X\ell)}\sigma_{\text{rear}}v_{X}~<~n_{\ell}\sigma_{\text{rear}}v_{X}~<~H(T_{\text{BSF}})\,,\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $H(T_{\text{BSF}})$ is Hubble at the time of the bound state dynamics. Using the cross section given in Eq. \[eq:rea\], we find the following upper bound on the $\ell$ abundance $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:asym_abundance}
&&\Omega_{\ell}\, h^2 = r_{X\ell}\,\Omega_{\text{asymm}}\, h^2 \lsim 10^{-8} \nonumber\\
&&\left(\frac{m_X}{\text{GeV}} \right)^2 \sqrt{\frac{m_p/m_e}{r_{X\ell}}} \frac{0.1}{\alpha_D}\, .\end{aligned}$$ Having included light fermions and a light dark photon in our sector, we now turn to the relevant bounds from $\Delta N_{\text{eff}}$. Here we assume that $A_D$ decays out of equilibrium to light unspecified states which were not previously reheated[^4]. At BBN, the number of relativistic degrees of freedom in the dark sector is $g^{D}_*~=~7.5$, including the light fermions $\ell$ and the binding dark photon $A_D$. To be consistent with the stringent bounds on $\Delta N_{\text{eff}}$ from BBN [@Fields:2019pfx] and the CMB [@Aghanim:2018eyx], our dark sector has to be colder than the SM at BBN and CMB times. The contribution from the dark sector to $\Delta N_{\text{eff}}$ is $$\Delta N_{\text{eff}}~=~\frac{g^{D}_*}{0.46}\,{\left(\frac{T_{\text{SM}}}{T_{\text{dark}}}\right)}^{-4}\,.$$
Assuming that the two sectors decouple above the QCD phase transition, i.e. taking $m_V > T_{\text{QCD}}$, we get $\Delta N_{\text{eff}} \sim 0.41$. Such a high value can be motivated by the Hubble tension [@Riess_2018; @Aghanim:2018eyx], as the combined fit of CMB and the local SHOES measurement [@Riess_2018] favors $N_{\text{eff}}=3.27\pm 0.15$. Should the tension disappear without any change in the CMB analysis we would need to satisfy the CMB+BBN $95\%$ C.L. bound on $\Delta N_{\text{eff}}\lsim 0.3$ which would require $T_{\text{SM}}/T_{\text{dark}}>2.71$. This temperature ratio may be obtained by a late time entropy dump into the SM from a decay of a heavy new particle, after the decoupling of the two sectors and before BBN. We choose to remain agnostic about the exact nature of this late time entropy dump, which is unconstrained by current observations, and is overall orthogonal to our work.
Early universe bound state dynamics
-----------------------------------
Here we briefly review the complex (dark-) recombination dynamics in our model. Dark recombination in our model begins at $T^D \lsim T^D_{\text{rec}}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\,\alpha^2_D \,m_\ell$, when $(X \ell)$ atoms are allowed to form. This triggers a complicated dynamics which involves the following processes:
- Recombination/ionization: $$\begin{aligned}
X+\ell~\leftrightarrow~(X\ell)\,+\,A_D\end{aligned}$$
- Atomic rearrangement/inverse rearrangement: $$\begin{aligned}
(X\ell)\,+\,\bar{X}~\leftrightarrow~(X\bar{X})\,+\,\ell\end{aligned}$$
- De-excitation and self-annihilation of $(X\bar{X})$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&(X\bar{X})_{\text{high-L}}\,+\,(X\,\text{or }\,\bar{X})~\leftrightarrow~(X\bar{X})_{\text{low-L}}\,+\,(X\,\text{or }\,\bar{X})\nonumber\\
&&(X\bar{X})_{\text{low-L}}~\rightarrow~(A_V\,\text{or } A_D) + (A_V\,\text{or } A_D)\, .\end{aligned}$$
We leave the study of this complicated early universe dynamics for future work, and instead make the most conservative assumption that no $(X\ell)$ or $(X\bar{X})$ states remain from the early universe, and so the only surviving states are free $X,\,\bar{X}$ and $\ell$. The relic abundances of $\{X,\bar{X},\ell\}$ remain unaffected by this discussion as long as Eq. \[eq:asym\_abundance\] is satisfied.
$(X\bar{X})$ production in the galaxy {#sec:xxbarprod}
-------------------------------------
We’ve seen above that the early universe abundance of $(X\ell)$ atoms is set dynamically by a complicated freezout process that involves recombination, atomic rearrangement and its inverse, and de-excitation of $(X\bar{X})$. Importantly, due to the low relic abundance of $\ell$, the abundance of free $X,\,\bar{X}$ is not affected by this complicated dynamics. Instead of solving the coupled Boltzmann equations for the $(X\ell)$ freezout process, we simply make the conservative assumption that all the $\ell$s in the galaxy start as free, and only later recombine into $(X\ell)$ atoms. Before diving into the galactic recombination dynamics, let us comment on the galactic density profiles for our dark sector components. For simplicity we assume in this paper that the galactic density profiles for $X,\,\bar{X}$ and $\ell$ follow the NFW profile of [@Nesti:2013uwa], scaled by the appropriate ratio of abundances: $$\begin{aligned}
n^{\text{total}}_{\ell}~&=&~\frac{1}{m_X}\frac{\Omega_{\text{asymm}}}{\Omega_{\text{DM}}}\,\rho^{\text{NFW}}_{\text{\text{gal}}}\nonumber\\
n_{\bar{X}}~=~n_{X}~&=&~\frac{1}{m_X}\frac{\Omega_{\text{symm}}}{\Omega_{\text{DM}}}\,\rho^{\text{NFW}}_{\text{\text{gal}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Where $n^{\text{total}}_{\ell}$ is the total number of $\ell$ particles, bound and free. We have checked all our results with the Burkert distribution from [@Nesti:2013uwa] as well, and found only a weak sensitivity of our results on the assumed profile. Moreover, the NFW profile gives the more conservative results, and so we use it for the calculation of the all the rates. We further assume that the profiles of the produced states - $(\bar{X}X)$ and $(X\ell)$ quickly relax to the appropriately scaled profiles. An alternative assumption, that the density of the bound states is governed by local dynamics gives similar results, since the local DM density $\rho_{\text{local}}\simeq 0.3~\text{GeV/cm}^{3}$ is close to the rms value of both the Burkert and NFW distributions in [@Nesti:2013uwa]. Finally, we checked that the cooling of the species $X,\bar{X},\ell$ is inefficient for gravitational collapse, due to the low abundance of the light species $\ell$ [@Fan:2013yva]. We leave a more detailed analysis of the galactic dynamics in this scenario for future work.
In contrast with the early universe recombination of $p$ and $e$ in the SM, the galactic recombination of $(X\ell)$ is governed by direct recombination to the ground state. This is because the mean free path for ionization of the outgoing dark photon is larger than the size of the galaxy. Therefore, the production rate for $(X\ell)$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rec_rate}
&&\frac{d\Gamma_{\text{rec}}}{dV}~=~n_{X}\, n^{\text{free}}_{\ell}\,\sigma_{\text{rec}}\,v_{\ell}~=~8.6\times10^{-26}~\text{cm}^{-3}\text{s}^{-1}\nonumber\\
&&{\left(\frac{ n_X n^{\text{free}}_{\ell}}{\braket{n_X n^{\text{total}}_\ell} }\right)}\,{\left(\frac{r_{X\ell}}{m_p/m_e}\right)}\,{\left(\frac{10^{-3}\,c}{v_{\text{\text{gal}}}}\right)}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $n^{\text{free}}_\ell$ and $n_X$ are the number densities of the free $\ell$ and $X$, and the cross section $\sigma_{\text{rec}}$ for direct recombination was calculated in [@berestetskii1982quantum]. We assume that all the $\ell$s are thermalized so that $v_\ell=\sqrt{r_{X\ell}}\,v_{\text{\text{gal}}}$. To verify this assumption, we estimate the mean free time for the $\ell$s to thermalize through collisions with $X,\,\bar{X}$ as $\tau_{\ell X}=\frac{3 m_{X} T_{\text{gal}}^{3 /2}}{16 e^4_D \left(2 \pi m_{\ell}\right)^{1 / 2}n_{X} \log \Lambda }$, where $e_D$ is the charge of $\ell$, $T_{\text{gal}}\sim \frac{1}{2}m_X v^2_{\text{gal}}$ and $\log \Lambda$ is the Coulomb logarithm, $\Lambda\sim\frac{\sqrt{m_e T_X}}{ m_{D}}$. The resulting time is much shorter than the age of the galaxy for all of our parameter space. In any case, increasing the velocity of $\ell$s lowers the recombination rate and so Eq. \[eq:rec\_rate\] can be seen as a conservative estimate.
The rearrangement cross section can be read directly from Eq. \[eq:rea\] (see also Fig. 2 of [@Bracci:1979iw]), with the effective “temperature” set to $T_{\text{\text{gal}}}=\frac{1}{2}\,m_X\,v^2_{\text{\text{gal}}}=0.1\,E_B$. Substituting this temperature, we get $$\sigma_{\text{rear}}=\frac{8.4}{\alpha^2_D\,m^2_\ell}\, .$$ The SDDM production rate per volume is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rear_rate}
&&\frac{d\Gamma_{\text{rear}}}{dV}~=~r_{\text{L}}\,n_{(X\ell)}\,n_{\bar{X}}\,\sigma_{\text{rear}}\,v_{\text{\text{gal}}}~=~3.5\cdot 10^{-26}\,\text{cm}^{-3}\text{s}^{-1}\nonumber\\
&&\left(\frac{n_{(X\ell)} n_{\bar{X}}}{\braket{n^{\text{total}}_\ell n_{\bar{X}}}}\right){\left(\frac{r_{\text{L}}}{0.2}\right)}\,{\left(\frac{0.1}{\alpha_D}\right)}^5\,{\left(\frac{r_{X\ell}}{m_p/m_e}\right)}^{\frac{3}{2}}\,{\left(\frac{v_{\text{\text{gal}}}}{10^{-3}\,c}\right)}\, ,\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{\text{L}}$ is the $\mathcal{O}(1)$ fraction of high-L states out of the generated $(X\bar{X})$.
Cosmological Stability of $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ states {#sec:stability}
--------------------------------------------------------
There are four processes that might lead to the elimination of $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ states, namely:
- Direct self-annihilation of high-L states
- De-excitation followed by self-annihilation
- Self-destruction through collisions with free $X$ or $\bar{X}$ particles
- Inverse rearrangement $(X\bar{X})\,+\,\ell\rightarrow(X\ell)\,+\,\bar{X}$.
We now show that all of these processes are slow enough such that the $(X\bar{X})$ has a phenomenologically significant abundance in the galaxy.
### Direct self-annihilation
First, we consider direct self-annihilation of the high-L $(X\bar{X})$ states. This is highly suppressed due to the large centrifugal barrier preventing the wavefunctions of the $X$ and $\bar{X}$ from overlapping. Indeed, the self-annihilation rate for the $(n,L)$ state is proportional to $|\partial^L \Psi|_{r=0}|^2$, and given by [@An:2016gad] $$\Gamma_{(n, L)} \sim\left(\frac{\alpha_{D}}{n}\right)^{2 L+3} f_\alpha\, m_{X}\, .$$ The factor $f_\alpha$ depends on whether the bound state is $\mathcal{C}_{\text{SM}}$-even (para), or $\mathcal{C}_{\text{SM}}$-odd (ortho). In the para case, the bound state decays to $A_V\,A_V,\,A_D\,A_V$ or $A_D\,A_D$, and so $f_\alpha=\alpha^2_V+2\alpha_V\alpha_D+\alpha^2_D$. In the ortho case, it decays to $\ell^+\ell^-$, and so $f_\alpha=\alpha^2_D/3$. The $\alpha^{2L+3}_D$ dependence comes from the wavefunction suppression in the bound state. This gives a lifetime hierarchically larger than the age of the universe. Note that the same conclusion holds when considering QED corrections to the $(X\bar{X})$, with the replacement [@Jaffe:1989jz] $L\rightarrow J_{\text{QED}}=L+S+J_{\text{photons}}$, so that the $J_{\text{QED}}=30$ is cosmologically stable.
### De-excitation
The $(X\bar{X})$ in the universe can be eliminated by a process of spontaneous de-excitation followed by self-annihilation. This process is suppressed by the need to undergo forbidden transitions. Crucially, the rearrangement process produces highly excited $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ states. This is because the typical impact parameter of $\bar{X}$ on $(X\ell)$ is of order $\frac{1}{\alpha_D m_\ell}\gg r^{XX}_{\text{Bohr}}$. Consequently, $(X\bar{X})$ bound states are produced with $L\,\in\,[0,30]$ as can be see from Fig. 3 of [@Bracci:1979iw] at $T=T_{\text{\text{gal}}}=0.18\,E_B$. The majority of these states are produced with a high angular momentum, as the number of states scales linearly with $L$. States produced with $n>L+1$ de-excite promptly to $\left(L+1,\,L\right)$ through a cascade of allowed $\Delta L=1$ transitions with large jumps in $n$. In contrast, states at $\left(L+1,\,L\right)$ are stable on cosmological scales, as we check below. Choosing the dark photon mass to satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&&m_D>\Delta E^{\left(n,\,L\right)}_{\Delta n=\Delta L}~=\nonumber\\
&& \left(\frac{1}{(L+1-\Delta L)^2}-\frac{1}{(L+1)^2}\right)\,\frac{1}{4}\alpha_D^2 \,m_X\, ,\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta L\sim5$, it is evident that the $\left( L+1,\,L\right)$ bound states can only de-excite through the highly forbidden $\Delta L \geq 6$ transition. In the notation of Eq. \[eq:dphrange\], we have $$\label{eq:stability_frac}
f_{{X\bar{X}}}=\left(\frac{1}{(L+1-\Delta L)^2}-\frac{1}{(L+1)^2}\right)\,\frac{m_X}{2m_\ell}\, ,$$ where $f_{{X\bar{X}}}<1$ is required in order to have a viable mass range for $m_D$. We can see this is satisfied for states with $L>28$, which make out around 20% of all the produced SDDM, i.e. $r_{\text{L}}=0.2$. The lifetime of the forbidden transition is given by $$\tau_{\rm forbidden}~\sim~10^{-19}\,\text{s}\,{\left(\frac{\alpha_0}{\alpha}\right)}^{2-\Delta L}~{\left[(2\Delta L+1)!!\right]}^2~{\left(\frac{20 L}{\Delta L}\right)}^{2\Delta L}\, .$$ This approximation is obtained by expanding $j_{\Delta L}( q r )\sim\frac{(q r)^{\Delta L}}{(2\Delta L+1)!!}$ around $q r\sim (\Delta E/2)\,a_0\,n^2$ where the overlap integral has maximal support. The $\Delta L \geq 6$ bottle neck protects the $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ from the forbidden transition, with a lifetime of $\tau_{\rm forbidden} \sim 10^{21}\,\text{s}$.
Another possible channel for de-excitation is through the emission of an off-shell $A_V$ which goes to two neutrinos by loop-level mixing with the SM Z-boson. The lifetime for this highly suppressed process was estimated in [@Grossman:2017qzw] to be larger than $10^{41}\,\text{s}$.
### Self-Destruction
Here we consider the typical time for an $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ to collide with a free $X$ or $\bar{X}$, lose angular momentum, and become unstable. In particular, if the $X\bar{X}$ goes to a sufficiently small $L_{\text{small}}\sim 10$, it can de-excite promptly through a cascade of spontaneous emissions, first to $(L_{\text{small}}+1,L_{\text{small}})$, and then through $\Delta L=1$ transitions, which are larger than the photon mass below $L\sim 10$. When the $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ reaches a low enough angular momentum, it self-annihilates promptly. The lifetime of $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ in the free $X$ or $\bar{X}$ plasma is given by $$\tau^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{scat}} = \frac{1}{n_X\,\sigma^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{scat}} \, v_{\text{\text{gal}}}}\, ,$$ where $\sigma^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{scat}}$ is cross section for $\left(X\bar{X}\right)$ to scatter into a state with $L<L_{\text{small}}$, i.e. $$\frac{d\sigma^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{scat}} }{d|q|^2}~=~\frac{4\pi\alpha_D^2}{|q|^4v_{\text{\text{gal}}}^2} F^2_{X\bar{X}}(q)\,. \label{eq:SDDMkill}$$ In the latter equation, $\Delta E$ is the difference in the binding energy of the initial and final state. The form factor $F_{X\bar{X}}$ can be calculated using: $$F_{X\bar{X}}(q)~=~\int d^3 x \,\Psi^*_i(x) \Psi_f(x) \left[e^{i q x/2} -e^{-i q x/2}\right]\,. \label{eq:formfactor}$$ We calculate this cross section for $r_{X\ell}=m_p/m_e$ and find that $\sigma^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{scat}}=\hat{\sigma}_{\text{scat}}\,\left(\frac{\text{GeV}}{m_X}\right)^2$ with: $$\hat{\sigma}_{\text{scat}}~\simeq~2.2\times 10^{-20}\,\text{ cm}^2\,,$$ for $\alpha_D=0.1$.
The resulting lifetime is then $\Gamma^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{scat}}=1/\tau^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{scat}} $ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:scat_lifetime}
&&\tau^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{scat}} = 3\cdot\,10^{18}~\text{s}\nonumber\\
&&{\left(\frac{\hat{\sigma}^{\alpha_D=0.1}_{\text{scat}}}{\hat{\sigma}_{\text{scat}}}\right)}{\left(\frac{\alpha_D}{0.1}\right)}^2\,{\left(\frac{m_X}{\text{GeV}}\right)}\,{\left(\frac{\sqrt{\braket{n^2_X}}}{n_X}\right)}\,{\left(\frac{10^{-3}\,c}{v_{\text{\text{gal}}}}\right)}\,,\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ which is larger than the age of the universe for most of our parameter space.
### Inverse Rearrangement
We assume that the cross section for inverse rearrangement $\sigma_{\text{inv-rear}} \sim \sigma_{\text{rear}}$. This is close to the unitarity bound and is in line with the full quantum result for the muon system following [@InvSak], where the inverse rearrangement cross section was actually an ${\cal O}(1)$ smaller. The lifetime for inverse rearrangement is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:inv_lifetime}
&&\tau^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{inv-rear}} = 1.4\cdot\,10^{16}~\text{s}\nonumber\\
&&\left(\frac{\sqrt{\braket{\left(n^{\text{total}}_\ell\right)^2}}}{n_\ell}\right){\left(\frac{\alpha_D}{0.1}\right)}^3\,{\left(\frac{m_X}{\text{GeV}}\right)}\,{\left(\frac{m_p/m_e}{r_{X\ell}}\right)^{2}}\,{\left(\frac{10^{-3}\,c}{v_{\text{\text{gal}}}}\right)}\, .\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
This is comparable to the age of the universe for our nominal parameters, even if slightly below it.
The Galactic Number Density of SDDM
-----------------------------------
To find the number density of SDDM today we solve the coupled Boltzmann equations for $n_{(X\bar{X})}$ and $n_{(X\ell)}$, taking into account that $n^{\text{free}}_\ell+n_{(X\ell)}=n^{\text{total}}_\ell$. These equations are: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d n_{(X\bar{X})}}{dt}~&=&~~~ ~~~~~\frac{d\Gamma_{\text{rear}} }{dV} - \frac{n_{(X\bar{X})}}{\tau^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{inv-rear}}} - \frac{n_{(X\bar{X})}}{\tau^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{scat}} }\nonumber\\
\frac{d n_{(X\ell)}}{dt}~&=& ~ -\frac{1}{r_\text{L}}\frac{d\Gamma_{\text{rear}} }{dV} + \frac{n_{(X\bar{X})}}{\tau^{X\bar{X}}_{\text{inv-rear}}} + \frac{d\Gamma_{\text{rec}} }{dV}\, .\end{aligned}$$
We solve these equations numerically, averaged over the galactic profile, to calculate the average SDDM fraction in our galaxy today as a function of $m_X$, under the assumption that the local density of SDDM can be inferred directly from the average fraction and the incoming DM flux. This holds when the SDDM distribution follows the cuspy NFW or the cored Burkert distribution [@Nesti:2013uwa], and so should hold reasonably well for a variety of different SDDM distributions. Nevertheless, the above assumption should be verified in a more robust analysis of galactic dynamics in our setting.
The result of this calculation is used in Fig. \[FIG:SDDM\_detection\], where $\Omega_{\text{SDDM}}\sim10^{-11}-10^{-7}$ (see top horizontal axis). As we will see in the next Section, despite this incredibly small fraction, the detection of these bound states is possible even with existing data.
Detection at neutrino detectors {#sec:detection}
================================
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
Upon its collision with the earth through the dark photon portal, SDDM loses angular momentum, and subsequently self-annihilates into two or more dark photons. The cross section for collisional de-excitation with SM nuclei is calculated similarly to the $(X\bar{X})$ de-excitation from collisions with free $X$ (Eq. \[eq:SDDMkill\]). In the nucleus case, the cross section is given by: $$\frac{d\sigma_{XX}}{d|q|^2} = \frac{4\pi\alpha_V \alpha }{\left(|q|^2 +m^2_V\right)^2v_{\text{\text{gal}}}^2} F_{X\bar{X}}(q) \, F_{\text{nuc}}(q)$$ where $F_{\text{nuc}}(q)$ is the Woods-Saxon form factor [@Woods:1954zz], and $F_{X\bar{X}}$ is given in Eq. \[eq:formfactor\]. The resulting unstable $(X\bar{X})$ state decays promptly to a number of dark photons $A_D$ or $A_V$. For direct detection purposes, we are particularly interested in the process $$\label{eq:rate}
(X\bar{X})\rightarrow (A_V\rightarrow \text{SM}) (A_V\rightarrow \text{SM})$$ with a branching ratio of $BR(X\bar{X})\rightarrow A_VA_V\sim1/4\cdot1/4$, since this decay only happens for $1/4$ of the para states, which occur $1/4$ of the time (see section \[sec:stability\]). This results in two energy depositions with $\mathcal{O}(m_X)$ energy, with a mean time difference $\Delta t=10\text{ps}-200\text{ns}$, depending on the dark photon lifetime and boost (see Figure \[FIG:moneyplot\]). Since the original $(X\bar{X})$ is slow moving, the dark photons emerge back-to-back, and the SM energy depositions are separated by a distance of $\beta_V\Delta t\sim1\,\text{mm}-40\,\text{m}$. The SM energy depositions can be either a dilepton pair or jets. Notably, the initial collision serves merely as a trigger for SDDM self-destruction, and the SM products have $\mathcal{O}(m_X)$ energies. Consequently, the only important factor in SDDM detection is the fiducial mass of the detector and the exposure time. This makes the Super-Kamiokande detector ideal for SDDM searches, with a fiducial volume of $50\,\text{kton}$ of ultra-pure water.
In the vast majority of our parameter space, the time difference between the decay of the two dark photons is smaller than the $200\text{ns}$ sliding window used in Super-K. The two $A_V$ decays will be counted as one single event that is very different from all other decay events in Super-K, with two primary vertices instead of one, separated by $\sim1\,\text{mm}-40\,\text{m}$. Since both vertices have similar scintillation energies associated with them, this should result in low maximum-likelihood in the standard reconstruction of the event as a single vertex event. A dedicated analysis will then require a modification of Super-K’s event reconstruction algorithm [@Missert_2017; @Jiang:2019xwn] to allow for two primary vertices. Additionally, if both dark photons decay leptonically, there will be exactly two Cherenkov rings of the same kind associated with each vertex, of similar brightness, and so it should be possible to resolve the two primary vertices in the event. These unusual characteristics could be used to conduct a very low background search for SDDM at Super-K.
In Fig. \[FIG:moneyplot\] we present the discovery reach for SDDM in Super-K, assuming a *signal* rate of 100 events/year for mass ratios of $m_X/m_V=3$ (left panel) and $m_X/m_V=10$ (right panel). Additional bounds on our model are:
1. Standard direct detection of DM - nuclear and electron recoil at XENON1T [@Aprile:2019xxb]. This bound is shown in Fig. \[FIG:moneyplot\] shaded in blue.
2. Bounds on production of $X$ and $A_V$ - these bounds are shaded in light red in Fig. \[FIG:moneyplot\]. The bounds include SN1987A cooling [@Chang:2018rso], LHCb [@Aaij:2017rft; @Aaij:2019bvg], KLOE [@Anastasi:2018azp], BABAR [@Lees:2014xha], Na48 [@Goudzovski:2014rwa], and several beam dump experiments [@Bl_mlein_2014]. The relevant bounds were reproduced from [@Curtin:2014cca] and [@Ilten:2018crw].
We see that the discovery prospects in the existing data are not currently constrained by any other experiments in a large fraction of the parameter space. This is particularly striking in light of the low values of $\Omega_{\text{SDDM}}$ depicted in the plot. The reason for this is of course the large volume of the Super-K detector.
Outlook
=======
In this paper we introduced a model of self-destructing DM with a viable cosmological history. The dark sector has a component of mostly symmetric free heavy fermions $X,\,\bar{X}$ and a small asymmetric population of light $\ell$ fermions. We assume conservatively that the early universe dynamics leaves all of the $\ell$ free. In the higher density environment of the galaxy, recombination into $(X\ell)$ atoms is constantly occurring, followed by an atomic rearrangement reaction $(X\ell)+\bar{X}\rightarrow (X\bar{X})+\ell$ analogous to muon capture in the SM. The latter process was studied by Fermi and Teller in the ‘40s, and found to be geometric and adiabatic. Furthermore, the atomic rearrangement process in our model naturally generates high angular momentum $(X\bar{X})$, which is our SDDM candidate.
The high-L $(X\bar{X})$ have a lifetime comparable to the age of the universe - they are protected from self-annihilation by virtue of their large angular momentum, and from spontaneous emission due to the mass of the dark photon, which implies highly forbidden radiative transitions.
When incident upon the detector, the $(X\bar{X})$ can undergo collisional de-excitation with the nucleus through the dark photon portal, transitioning into an unstable low-L $(X\bar{X})$ state. The resulting low-L state is no longer protected by angular momentum, and so it self-annihilates promptly into two or more dark photons, which decay in the detector, leading to striking signals in large volume, high threshold neutrino detectors. For example, this could lead to smoking-gun signatures in the Super-Kamiokande detector, involving simultaneous $\ell^\pm$ pairs, a macroscopic distance apart. We explore the detection prospects for such a signal in Super-K, and find that it can be discovered in a dedicated analysis of the existing data.
We thank Asher Berlin, Itay Bloch-Mimouni, Jeff Dror, Mitrajyoti Ghosh, Yann Gouttenoire, Yuval Grossman, Ed Kearns, Simon Knapen, Eric Kuflik, Marcus Luty, Nadav Joseph Outmezguine, Yael Shadmi, Yotam Soreq, Chen Sun, and Tomer Volansky for useful discussions. We would especially like to thank Jeff Dror, Eric Kuflik and Tomer Volansky for invaluable comments on the draft. Many thanks to Asher Berlin and Simon Knapen, who helped us avoid an unnecessary mistake concerning the BBN bound on our model. MG thanks the hospitality of KITP at UC Santa Barbara and MIAPP where part of this project was completed. MG is supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 1302/19). OT is supported in part by the DOE under contract DE-AC02-05CH11231.
[^1]: For $m_{\text{DM}}\ll m_{\text{N}}\sim 1\,\text{GeV}$, nuclear recoils are an inefficient way to look for DM, and so electron recoils are used instead [@Angle:2011th; @Agnes:2018ves; @Agnese:2017jvy; @Crisler:2018gci; @Agnese:2018col]. The typical electron recoil energy is $\mathcal{O}(\text{eV})$.
[^2]: Here we only consider angular momentum protected SDDM. Other possibilities have been explored in [@Grossman:2017qzw], potentially with very different cosmology.
[^3]: The kinetic mixing of $A_V$ and $A_{SM}$ breaks $\mathcal{C}_{\leftrightarrow}$, but leaves an unbroken $\mathcal{C}_{\leftrightarrow} \mathcal{C}_{\text{SM}}P$ that forbids the mixing with $A_D$.
[^4]: To ensure the stability of our SDDM, we assume $A_D$ decays through long-lived intermediate states with mass of the same order as $m_D$. The de-excitation of $(\bar{X}{X})$ through an off-shell $A_D$ is therefore highly suppressed(see section \[sec:stability\]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Alexey Mints[^1]'
- Saskia Hekker
bibliography:
- 'sage\_gap.bib'
date: 'XXX/YYY'
title: 'A Unified tool to estimate Distances, Ages, and Masses (UniDAM) from spectrophotometric data.[^2]'
---
.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Milky Way Galaxy is a unique object to test our understanding of stellar evolution, galaxy formation, and cosmology. For this test a detailed map of our Galaxy, including bulge, disk, halo, spiral structure, and streams formed by recent mergers, is required. Through an analysis of the Galaxy, we can learn how our Galaxy has formed, evolved, and how it interacts with its surroundings. To build such a map we need to find the distribution of stars in their positions, velocities, chemical compositions, and ages throughout the Galaxy. These parameters can be measured with different kinds of observations, such as astrometry, photometry, spectroscopy, and asteroseismology.
Astrometric observations provide stellar positions, proper motions and, through parallaxes, distances. These kind of data have been available for decades . In the nearest future Gaia [@2016arXiv160904172G] will vastly increase the precision and amount of such information. The first Gaia data release [@2016arXiv160904303L] already provides proper motions and parallaxes for about two million stars, although the precision of parallaxes in this sample limits their application [see e.g. @2016arXiv160905390S]. In the next data releases Gaia will provide high-precision parallaxes and proper motions for hundreds of millions of stars, vastly increasing our knowledge of the Galaxy.
Another rich source of data is spectroscopy, which can provide radial velocities, chemical compositions as well as the effective temperature ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$ and the surface gravity $\log g$. These data can be used to derive stellar ages and distances (see below). A growing number of large spectroscopic surveys, such as RAdial Velocity Experiment [RAVE; @2016arXiv160903210K], Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fibre Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) surveys [@2015RAA....15.1095L], Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment [APOGEE; @2014ApJS..211...17A], Sloan Extension for Galactic Understanding and Exploration [SEGUE; @2009AJ....137.4377Y], and Gaia-ESO [@GAIA_ESO] provide rich spectroscopic information for millions of stars.
Photometric surveys can be used in two ways. Stromgren or Washington-DDO51 photometry can be used to estimate stellar parameters such as the effective temperature ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$, surface gravity $\log g$, and metallicity ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$ [see @2011AA...530A.138C], or to separate giants from dwarfs for spectroscopic follow-up [@2000AJ....120.2550M]. Otherwise, broadband photometry is commonly used as a supplement to spectroscopic data to infer stellar distances.
Asteroseismology is a relatively young and very promising method of exploring stars. For low-mass dwarfs, subgiants, and red giant stars asteroseismology can provide a direct measure of mean density and surface gravity. The surface gravities measured by asteroseismic methods have much higher precision than spectroscopic methods. In case the effective temperature ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$ or luminosity $L$ are also measured it is possible to obtain stellar mass and radius from the asteroseismic observables. When compared with models stellar ages can also be determined from asteroseismology. COnvection ROtation and planetary Transits [CoRoT; @2006ESASP1306...33B], *Kepler* [@2010Sci...327..977B], and *K2* [@2014PASP..126..398H] observations provide such asteroseismic data. These datasets provide high-precision data on small patches of the sky and also have proved to be a perfect sample for the calibration of large spectroscopic surveys . Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite [TESS; @2014SPIE.9143E..20R] and PLAnetary Transits and Oscillations of stars [PLATO; @2014ExA....38..249R] space missions are scheduled to be launched in 2018 and 2024, respectively, and will vastly increase the number of stars with asteroseismic data in the coming years.
Stellar ages and distances remain among the most challenging parameters to measure. A comprehensive list of age determination methods is given in . For a number of stars ages can be derived from asteroseismic observations [@2016AN....337..823S] or from carbon and nitrogen abundances [@2016MNRAS.456.3655M]. When these data are not available, a typical approach is to compare the parameters directly derived from spectroscopic measurements, which we designate as observed parameters, such as the effective temperature ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$, surface gravity $\log g$, and metallicity ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$, to a grid of stellar models. A model or a set of models that have their parameters close to observed parameters give estimates of ages, masses, and absolute magnitudes $M_\lambda$ of a star. Then by comparing the absolute magnitudes to visible magnitudes $m_\lambda$ from photometric surveys we can estimate distances to stars. An overview of this approach is given by and .
Proper application of this approach requires some care. First, the transformation from observed ([${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{}) to stellar parameters (age and mass) and distance is often degenerate, with the same observables giving two or more possible combinations of stellar parameters. This degeneracy can in some rare cases be resolved when additional observables are available, for example from asteroseismology. Second, the interstellar extinction needs to be accounted for in distance estimations. Extinction values can be taken from external sources or can be derived from observables. Both ways have their advantages and disadvantages. We discuss this in Section \[sec:bayes\]. Third, observed parameters have their uncertainties and correlations that have to be propagated to uncertainties in stellar parameters.
In the literature a number of methods based on the comparison of observed parameters from spectroscopic and photometric surveys with models to estimate distances and other stellar parameters were proposed and used recently. Here we briefly discuss some of them, and how they deal with the issues stated above.
#### GCS. {#gcs. .unnumbered}
The Geneva-Copenhagen Survey (GCS) [@2011AA...530A.138C] team exploited the advantage of having *HIPPARCOS* parallaxes for the majority of their objects; this facilitated the calculation of absolute magnitudes for each star. @2011AA...530A.138C used a Bag of Stellar Tracks and Isochrones (BASTI) [@2009ApJ...697..275P and references therein] and PAdova and TRieste Stellar Evolution Code (PARSEC) [@PARSEC] isochrones to select models that have ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$, absolute Johnson $V$ magnitude and metallicity close to the observed ones for each star. Applying a Bayesian scheme described in to selected models, Casagrande et al. derived masses and ages of stars. They used a flat prior on ages and a Salpeter initial mass function (IMF) as a prior for masses.
#### RAVE. {#rave. .unnumbered}
There is a series of papers on distance estimations for stars in the RAVE survey [DR5 is described in @2016arXiv160903210K]. proposed a method for distance estimation for RAVE stars based on a comparison of observed ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, metal abundance ${[\rm{M/H}]},$ and colour $(J-K_s)$ with $Y^2$ models [@2004ApJS..155..667D]. For each star 5000 realisations of observed parameters were sampled from a Gaussian distribution with dispersions equal to the measured uncertainties and for each realisation a closest model was selected. These authors took an average of the model parameters measured in all realisations to derive an absolute $J$ magnitude of the star $M_J$. The difference between the derived absolute magnitude and visible $J$ magnitude from Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) gives a distance. Extinction was ignored in this work. This approach is limited by the fact that it does not take into account the inhomogeneity of models in the ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}- \log g$ plane, effectively increasing the weight for short evolutionary stages and decreasing it for longer ones. This issue was solved in by weighting models with a weight proportional to age and mass range represented by each model. A likelihood depending on the difference between observed and model ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$ and $\log g$ was also added. Other important changes were applied, including a change from $Y^2$ to PARSEC [@PARSEC] isochrones, the addition of a prior on mass (assuming [@2003PASP..115..763C] IMF), and the application of a volume correction. Zwitter et al. calculated an absolute $J$ magnitude as a weighted mean of the absolute magnitudes derived from luminosities of the models. The difference between the visible $J$ magnitude from 2MASS and the absolute magnitude gives the distance modulus for each star. As in , extinction was ignored.
[@2014MNRAS.437..351B] further developed the above method by adding priors from the Galactic structure; they provide priors on age, metallicity, and positions from halo, thin, and thick disk models. A kinematic correction [see @2012MNRAS.420.1281S] was also applied. Extinction was included into distance calculations. An exponential prior on the value of $ln(A_V)$ was imposed with the extinction value at infinity $ A_{V\infty}(b, l)$ taken from [@1998ApJ...500..525S]. The extinction at a given distance was calculated as $A_{Vprior}(b, l, s) = A_{V\infty}(b, l) \int_0^s \rho(s) ds / \int_0^\infty \rho(s) ds$, where $\rho(s)$ is the density of extincting material along the line of sight, taken from the model of the Galaxy [see the Equation 10 in @2014MNRAS.437..351B]. This is so far the most advanced method and it was applied with minor modifications to LAMOST data as well (see below). Distance moduli (but not ages and masses) were recalculated with the same method for RAVE DR5. [@2014MNRAS.437..351B] solved the problem of multimodal probability distribution functions (PDFs) for the distance modulus by fitting a Gaussian mixture model to it with up to three Gaussians. This approach works fine in most cases. However, as we illustrate below in it cannot be applied to mass and log(age) PDFs because they can be skewed or truncated, a shape which is hard to fit with a small set of Gaussians. Truncated shapes of the PDF arise from a limited range of allowed masses and log(age)s. For [@2014MNRAS.437..351B] limits are imposed by an age prior; see their Equations 3, 4, and 5.
#### APOKASC. {#apokasc. .unnumbered}
[@2014MNRAS.445.2758R] applied Bayesian methods to estimate distances and extinctions for approximately 2000 red giant stars from the joint APOGEE and Kepler Asteroseismic Science Consortium (APOKASC) sample [@2014ApJS..215...19P], which is a part of APOGEE [@2014ApJS..211...17A], covering the *Kepler* field of view. They supplemented spectroscopic parameters ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$ and ${[\rm{M/H}]}$ with asteroseismic data from *Kepler*. As alluded to before, from asteroseismic values $\Delta \nu$ and $\nu_{\rm{max}}$ and knowing ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$, it is possible to derive an estimate of stellar radius $R$ and mass $M$, using scaling relations from , i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \nu &\propto& M^{1/2} R^{-3/2} \\
\nu_{\rm{max}} &\propto & M R^{-2} {\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}^{-1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ This puts more constraints on stellar models, thus increasing the precision of stellar parameters and distance determinations. Using PARSEC isochrones, [@2014MNRAS.445.2758R] built PDFs for stellar parameters (mass, radius, and surface gravity) and stellar absolute magnitudes. The latter were then combined with photometric data from Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), 2MASS, and Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) to be converted to the PDFs of distance modulus $\mu_d$ and extinction $A_K$. The mode and 68% confidence intervals of the PDFs were calculated for both distance and extinction. [@2014MNRAS.445.2758R] noted that over one-third of stars in their sample have bimodal PDFs. Bimodal PDFs were treated in the same way as single-peaked PDFs. Using the mode allows one to select the highest peak of the PDF and other peaks only show themselves by broadening of confidence intervals. Only distance estimates were published by [@2014MNRAS.445.2758R].
#### LAMOST. {#lamost. .unnumbered}
The LAMOST team is also working on estimating distances to stars from spectroscopic data. First and second public data releases of the project include spectral properties for about one and two million stars, respectively [@2015RAA....15.1095L].
[@2015AJ....150....4C] used a Bayesian approach to derive distances from LAMOST DR1 data combined with 2MASS photometry. They used the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Database [@2008ApJS..178...89D] and a Bayesian technique similar to that by to derive the PDF of the absolute magnitude for each star. This was then converted to distances using 2MASS photometry. Interstellar extinction was ignored in this work. [@2015AJ....150....4C] performed a comparison with RAVE distances to test their method. The derived distances are systematically smaller by 12% than those derived by with 16% spread. Given the precision of the LAMOST data, they derived distance uncertainties to be on the order of 40%.
[@2016MNRAS.456..672W] applied the Bayesian approach from [@2014MNRAS.437..351B] to derive parallaxes and extinctions for LAMOST data. Again, 2MASS photometry was used. The reported uncertainty in parallax is about 20% for dwarf stars and 40% for giants. Kinematic correction [see @2012MNRAS.420.1281S] was applied using PPMXL [@2010AJ....139.2440R] and UCAC4 [@2013AJ....145...44Z] data. Data from [@2015AJ....150....4C] and [@2016MNRAS.456..672W] are not yet publicly available.
Distances are provided in the LAMOST Galactic Anti-Centre project data release [@2015MNRAS.448..855Y]. These data include spectroscopic measurements of [${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{} and photometry from 2MASS and Xuyi Schmidt Telescope Photometric Survey [@2014RAA....14..456Z]. In their work, [@2015MNRAS.448..855Y] applied two different methods to get distances. In the first method, which they call “empirical”, stars are divided into four groups (OB stars, giants, and two groups of dwarfs). For each group absolute magnitudes were calculated using a third-order polynomial of [${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{}. Polynomials were derived by fitting data from the parts of the medium resolution INT Library of Empirical Spectra (MILES) library [@2006MNRAS.371..703S] corresponding to each group. The precision of the obtained distance modulus is about $0.^m65$ for GKM giants and $0.^m3$ for other groups. A second, “isochrone” distance estimate was derived using the isochrones of Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Database [@2008ApJS..178...89D]. For each star a model with closest values of [${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{} was selected from the database. A difference between the visible magnitudes of the star and absolute magnitudes for the closest model provides distance. For both methods extinction values were derived from the LAMOST data using the star-pairs method, which is described in [@2014IAUS..298..240Y]. The “isochrone” method provides distances that are about 5 percent lower than those derived by the “empirical” method.
#### {#section .unnumbered}
Studies listed above use similar methods, but the implementation can vary, leading to different results even for the same input data. Moreover, while distances are typically calculated, mass and, most importantly, age estimates are less common. The amount of complementary spectroscopic data available in different surveys calls for a more unified approach. In this paper we present a Unified tool to estimate Distances, Ages, and Masses from spectrophotometric data (UniDAM). There are two major points in which we differ from studies listed above:
First, whereas most of the previously published studies were dedicated to data from a single survey, we processed data from several large surveys with one tool. For some surveys no data on distances, masses, and ages are publicly available to date. For others our results are consistent with previously published studies with the advantage that our catalogue was produced with the same method, isochrones, and priors on parameters for all surveys. Thus all differences in results for different surveys can be attributed to systematic differences in parameters determined in the spectroscopic surveys. We provide more details on spectroscopic surveys used in Section \[sec:catalog\]. Another advantage of using many surveys simultaneously comes from the fact that different surveys probe different parts of the Galaxy because of different observing strategies and locations of telescopes. Therefore we do not simply increase the statistics, but have a more complete coverage of the Galaxy.
Second, we try to lift the degeneracy of the transformation from observed to stellar parameters by representing PDFs as sums of unimodal functions (unimodal sub-PDFs or USPDF) for each evolutionary stage. Thus we separate out physically different solutions. This allows us to increase the precision of stellar parameters for each solution.
Data samples used {#sec:catalog}
=================
We used observable parameters from a set of publicly available spectroscopic surveys in our work. All surveys were cross-matched with 2MASS [@2006AJ....131.1163S] and AllWISE [@2014yCat.2328....0C] to get the infrared photometry. We used only ”clean“ photometry that is only bands that are not affected by low photometric quality, contamination, or confusion. This was achieved by taking only bands with 2MASS quality flag (`Qfl`) set to `’A’` and AllWISE bands with the contamination and confusion flag (`ccf`) set to zero and photometric quality flag (`qph`) set to `’A’`. We also requested that the reported uncertainty in magnitude has a positive value. summarises properties of the spectroscopic surveys from which we extracted our input data. We discuss some of them below, focusing on parameters for each survey, which we added or modified for our purposes.
[lrrd[3.1]{}ccc]{} Survey & N sources & Resolution & [ ]{} & [ ]{} & [ ]{} & Reference\
APOGEE (DR12) & $88\,000$ & $22\,500$ & 91.5 & 0.11 & 0.03 &\
APOGEE (DR13)\* & $89\,000$ & $22\,500$ & 91.5 & 0.11 & 0.03 &\
APOKASC & $2\,000$ & $22\,500$ & 91.5 & 0.11 & 0.03 &\
LAMOST-GAC (Main sample)\* & $368\,000$ & $1\,800$ & 115 & 0.19 & 0.15 &\
LAMOST-GAC (Bright sample)\* & $1\,075\,000$ & $1\,800$ & 100 & 0.15 & 0.13 &\
LAMOST-CANNON\* & $450\,000$ & $1\,800$ & 96.3 & 0.13 & 0.05 &\
RAVE (DR5) & $450\,000$ & $7\,500$ & 92 & 0.20 & 0.10 &\
RAVE-on\* & $450\,000$ & $7\,500$ & 85 & 0.14 & 0.07 &\
GCS\* & $13\,800$ & $20\,000$ & 80 & 0.10 & 0.10 &\
SEGUE\* & $277\,500$ & $2\,000$ & 145 & 0.26 & 0.13 &\
Gaia-ESO (DR2)\* & $7\,000$ & $16\,000$ & 50 & 0.10 & 0.07 &\
AMBRE\* & $3\,400$ & $16\,000$ & 120 & 0.20 & 0.10 &\
GALAH (DR1)\* & $28\,000$ & $10\,700$ & 108 & 0.30 & 0.11 &\
Mock & $4 \times 8\,000$ & - & 100 & 0.10 & 0.10 & -\
\[tbl:catalog\]
APOGEE and APOKASC {#sec:apogee}
------------------
We used APOGEE data from SDSS DR12 [@2015ApJS..219...12A] and DR13 [@2016arXiv160802013S]. We kept only those stars that belong to the Main Survey Targets[^3] and have their temperatures, gravities, and metallicities measured. Both DR12 and DR13 were used, as they differ mainly in spectroscopic calibration, and it is interesting to test how that influences the estimates of age, mass, and distance. We include our results for DR13 data in our final catalogue, whereas results for DR12 data are provided as a separate table.
We use as a separate input survey the APOKASC sample [@2014ApJS..215...19P], although it is in this context just a subset of APOGEE. Therefore the result for this sample is not included in our final catalogue. These data were used to compare the results of [@2014MNRAS.445.2758R] with the prospect of the inclusion of asteroseismic data (see Section \[sec:compare\_apokasc\]).
LAMOST
------
The second public data release of the LAMOST project [@2015RAA....15.1095L] contains spectral parameters for over 2 million stars. However, the uncertainties in the stellar parameters reported, i.e. $170\,$K in ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$, $0.5\,$dex in $\log
g$ and $0.2\,$dex in ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$, are too high for these data to be used reliably for the model fitting. Therefore we decided not to use the main LAMOST dataset. We focused instead on the LAMOST Galactic Anti-Center (LAMOST-GAC) project second data release [@2017arXiv170105409X]. This data release contains spectral parameters for about one-third of a million stars in the direction of the Galactic anti-center in its main sample. The bright sample contains over a million stars from a larger area. A different processing pipeline was used by LAMOST-GAC team, which resulted in substantially lower parameter uncertainties of $115\,$K in ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$, $0.2\,$dex in $\log g,$ and $0.13\,$dex in ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$.
An additional dataset derived from LAMOST DR2 data was prepared with The Cannon tool [@2015ApJ...808...16N; @2016arXiv160200303H]. This tool allows the transfer of parameters from high-resolution APOGEE spectra to LAMOST data using stars observed by both surveys for the calibration. This method transfers APOGEE uncertainties in the measured parameters to the LAMOST data, improving the precision of obtained parameters. To account for calibration uncertainties we added in quadrature the median APOGEE absolute uncertainties to the formal uncertainties reported by *The Cannon*. Another benefit of *The Cannon* tool is that it measures the value of $[\alpha/\rm{Fe}]$, which is not provided by LAMOST. The *The Cannon* tool was only calibrated for giant stars, which are available from APOGEE-LAMOST overlap and therefore the LAMOST-CANNON sample contains only giant stars.
RAVE surveys
------------
The fifth data release of the RAVE project [@2016arXiv160903210K] contains spectral parameters for almost half a million stars. This release contains a flag indicating whether the fitting algorithm has converged, but it turns out that even for stars with this flag set to zero (indicating that the fit converged) there are clear concentrations of values of effective temperatures and gravities towards grid points. This feature is known to the community [see @2014MNRAS.437..351B]. We added in the output catalogue a flag that indicates if $\log {\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$ is within $0.01\,$dex of a grid point or if $\log g$ or ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$ are on a grid point. About one-third of the stars are affected by clustering around grid points.
The RAVE-on [@2016arXiv160902914C] is a product of processing of original RAVE spectra with *The Cannon* tool. Calibration set was constructed from the overlap of RAVE with APOGEE giants and K2/EPIC survey [@2016ApJS..224....2H]. In addition to [${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{},the output of *The Cannon* tool also contains the value of $[\alpha/\rm{Fe}]$ and abundances for several chemical elements. The RAVE-on data refer to exactly the same stars as the main RAVE survey, but the reported stellar parameters might be slightly different and the quoted uncertainties are smaller, therefore we chose to use RAVE-on in our catalogue, providing results for the main RAVE survey in a separate table.
Geneva-Copenhagen survey
------------------------
Geneva-Copenhagen survey (GCS) is the only non-spectroscopic survey used in this work. GCS is a photometric survey, which contains [${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{} derived using Stromgren photometry. We used GCS re-analysed data published by [@2011AA...530A.138C]. We exclude $15\%$ of the stars for which no estimates of [${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{} are provided or for which no photometry was present. The latter was mainly because a number of GCS sources are too bright for 2MASS.
SEGUE
-----
We used SEGUE data from SDSS DR12 [@2009AJ....137.4377Y] with internal uncertainties from the SDSS database. We add in quadrature the internal and systematic uncertainties derived by [@2008AJ....136.2070A] of $130\,$K in ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$, $0.21\,$dex in $\log g$ and $0.11\,$dex in ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$. The SEGUE survey is based on SDSS photometry, which is deeper than 2MASS, therefore for about one-half of SEGUE targets no 2MASS or AllWISE photometry is available or the photometry is very uncertain. We do not use such stars in our work.
Gaia-ESO
--------
For the Gaia-ESO survey, the data release 2 [@GAIA_ESO] was used. For nearly half of its nearly $15\,000$ spectra ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$ and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$ are available. So we used approximately $7\,000$ sources from this survey.
AMBRE
-----
Atmospheric Parameters and Chemical Abundances from Stellar Spectra [AMBRE; @AMBRE] project released parameters extracted from the automatic analysis of the ESO spectral data archives for over $4\,500$ observations (over $2\,000$ sources). No photometry or positional information are provided in the project data, so we attempted to get this information using target names. With the SIMBAD service we obtained positions for nearly $1\,500$ sources, having a total of $3\,400$ observations in the AMBRE survey.
GALAH
-----
[@GALAH] describe the GALactic Archaeology with HERMES (GALAH) survey first data release. Stellar parameters were derived for 2576 GALAH stars with the Spectroscopy Made Easy (SME) tool [@2012ascl.soft02013V]. These data were used as a training sample for *The Cannon* tool, which was then used to derive stellar parameters for the rest of the survey. @GALAH provide typical uncertainties of *The Cannon* tool used to derive spectral parameters and internal precision of the SME. We added them in quadrature to get uncertainties of $108\,$K in ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$, $0.3\,$dex in $\log g$ and $0.11\,$dex in ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$.
Mock survey {#sec:data_mock}
-----------
In addition to real survey data we also created a mock survey to test our UniDAM tool. In this case we have full control on both the input parameters for our tool and the desired output parameters of the star. We produced mock surveys by sampling a number of models from PARSEC isochrones [@PARSEC] (see Section \[sec:iso\]).
We stress that the choice of models was aimed at covering model parameter space. So our mock survey does not resemble observed stellar surveys, which are typically magnitude-limited, nor a physical distribution of stars in masses and ages. We motivate our choice by the need to study the behaviour of our tool over a large parameter range. We chose isochrones with 8 different metallicities and 20 ages, which we selected at random. From each isochrone we randomly selected 20 models (with mass below 4 ${\ensuremath{\rm{M}_\odot}}$). We used ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g, {[\rm{Fe/H}]}$ as well as 2MASS and AllWISE magnitudes for each selected model. High-mass stars were excluded because of their rarity. We took absolute magnitudes from PARSEC models as our “observed” magnitudes, thus setting the distance to 10 pc and extinction to zero. Parameter uncertainties were taken to be $100\,$K for ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$, $0.1\,$dex for $\log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$, and $0^m.03$ for each magnitude $m_\lambda$, which is similar to uncertainties in real spectroscopic and photometric surveys.
We prepared four mock surveys. In the first survey we took spectral and photometric values as provided by the PARSEC models. In the second survey we perturbed photometric parameters with random Gaussian noise, while keeping original spectroscopic parameters. In the third we perturbed spectral parameters with random Gaussian noise, while keeping original photometry. In the last survey all parameters were perturbed. Perturbation spread was always taken to be equal to the chosen parameter uncertainties. This allows us to control how uncertainties in observations influence our results.
Isochrones {#sec:iso}
==========
We used PARSEC 1.2S isochrones [@PARSEC], which provide a large sample of models covering a wide range of stellar parameters. These data include effective temperatures, surface gravities, radii, and absolute photometric magnitudes for a models covering large ranges in metallicities, ages, and masses. We selected nearly three million models that cover the following ranges:
- $10^{-4} : 0.06\,$dex in metallicity ($Z$), corresponding to $-2.2 : 0.6\,$dex in ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$
- $6.6 : 10.13$ in log(age) $\tau$, corresponding to $4\cdot 10^6 : 13.5\cdot10^9$ years
- $0.09 : 67\,{\ensuremath{\rm{M}_\odot}}$ in mass
The density of models varies within the ranges indicated above. The reason for this is that isochrones are designed to reproduce details of stellar evolution. Therefore, there are a relatively large number of models covering some rapid stages of evolution and there are a lower number of models for stages of slow evolution. To account for this, we introduced a value $w_j$ that is a measure of the volume of the parameter space (metallicity, age, and mass) represented by each model. Otherwise we would be biased towards rare evolutionary stages.
We calculated $w_j$ for each model as a product of width of the bin in each dimension represented by the model, $$w_j = w_{\rm{age}, j} w_{Z, j} w_{\rm{mass}, j}. \label{eq:weight}$$ The PARSEC isochrone models are calculated for the bin mid-points and they are not equal to the average model in each bin, which makes the binning somewhat arbitrary.
The PARSEC isochrones are equally spaced in log(age)s $\tau$. Therefore the density of models with lower ages is higher than that of models with higher ages. This has to be compensated for to avoid a bias towards lower ages. We took for the age bin width $w_{\rm{age}}$ the time span represented by the isochrone. It is calculated as $w_{\rm{age}, j} = (10^{\tau_{j+1}} - 10^{\tau_{j-1}})/2$, so time span range is defined by mid-points between isochrones in age.
Observations provide ${[\rm{M/H}]}$ or ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$, which are proportional to the logarithm of $Z$. We created a grid in $Z$, ranging from $10^{-4}$ to $0.05$, such that the spacing between the values of ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$ is smaller than the mean uncertainty $\sigma_{{[\rm{Fe/H}]}}$ of iron abundance measure at a given ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$ in the most precise input data, i.e. APOGEE data. Typically, uncertainties in ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$ are smaller for metal-rich stars than for metal-poor stars with $\sigma_{{[\rm{Fe/H}]}} \propto Z^{-0.15}$. Therefore $\Delta_Z$ – the bin width in $Z$ – is roughly $\Delta_Z \propto Z \sigma_{{[\rm{Fe/H}]}} \propto Z^{1 - 0.15} = Z^{0.85}$. The width of the bin in $Z$ was used for $w_Z$, thus ensuring a flat prior in $Z$. To check the impact of this, we performed tests with $w'_Z$ proportional to the width of the bin in ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$. These tests showed that this difference has little impact on our results. This is caused by the fact that for given values of ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$ and $\log g$, stellar parameters like age, mass, and luminosity are changing slowly with ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$ and $Z$, so the variations in weights are second-order effects. Thus $w_Z$ is the second-order effect, but we kept it to keep the flat prior in physical quantity $Z$.
Masses for models were selected by the PARSEC algorithm to track the shape of the isochrone as well as possible. This results in more models in more curved parts of the isochrone. Such an approach produces heavily inhomogeneous coverage of the mass range, which has to be corrected for. We used for $w_{\rm{mass}}$ the width of the bin in mass.
One of nine evolutionary stages is assigned to every PARSEC model. We grouped these stages into main-sequence stars and giants ascending the red giant branch (pre-core-helium burning; stage I), core-helium burning stars (stage II), and asymptotic giant branch stars (post-core-helium burning; stage III). These stage labels were used to separate models with different internal structures.
Column Description Unit
------------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
Z Metallicity -
log(age/yr) Age log(years)
M\_ini Initial mass ${\ensuremath{\rm{M}_\odot}}$
M\_act Actual mass ${\ensuremath{\rm{M}_\odot}}$
logL/Lo Luminosity -
logTe Effective temperature -
logG Gravity -
... Set of absolute magnitudes (see text) mag
int\_IMF Value of the cumulative IMF function $F(M_{ini})$ -
stage Evolutionary stage -
: PARSEC model columns (as named in the output of <http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/cgi-bin/cmd_2.7>).[]{data-label="tbl:parsec"}
For each model we used basic physical information (see ) and 2MASS and AllWISE absolute magnitudes that were derived from the luminosities. Other magnitudes are often available, but we did not use them for the reasons discussed below.
Methodology {#sec:bayes}
===========
The method used in our tool is similar to the Bayesian method described in [@2014MNRAS.445.2758R]. We introduced the vector ${\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}$ for input (“observed”) parameters and their uncertainties ${\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}= ({\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g, {[\rm{Fe/H}]}, m_\lambda, \sigma_{{\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}}, \sigma_{\log g}, \sigma_{{[\rm{Fe/H}]}}, \sigma_{m_\lambda})$. Here, $m_\lambda$ indicates visible magnitudes in several photometric bands and $\sigma_x$ is the uncertainty of the parameter $x$. These values were taken from surveys listed in . When $\alpha$ element abundances were available, the metallicity ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$ was corrected with the relation ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}= {[\rm{Fe/H}]}_0 + \log(1. + 0.638[\alpha/\rm{M}])$ [see @1993ApJ...414..580S]. Additional input parameters for each star can be used in ${\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}$, for example masses and radii derived from asteroseismic data or parallaxes from Gaia.
We used two vectors for output parameters. The first vector, $\textbf{X}_m = (\tau, M, {[\rm{Fe/H}]})$ represents stellar model parameters log(age), mass, and metallicity. These parameters are taken from isochrone models and therefore have discrete values. We always refer to the actual rather than initial stellar mass because this quantity can be measured from other data, for example from asteroseismic quantities or from binary orbital solutions. The second vector, ${\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p = (\mu_d, A_K),$ where subscript $p$ stands for photometry, represents distance modulus and extinction; these parameters can formally have any value, but we set a physically motivated limit $A_K \geq 0$ (see discussion in ). The full output parameter vector is then ${\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}= {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_m \cup {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p$.
The probability of having parameters ${\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}$ with given observables ${\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}$ can be expressed via Bayesian formula as $$P({\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}) = \frac{P({\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}) P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}})}{P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}})} \propto P({\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}) P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}).\label{eq:bayes}$$
We used flat priors on age (in linear scale) and metallicity $Z$, which means a star formation rate that is constant in time and is independent of $Z$. The quantitative effect of different priors is described below in Section \[sec:compare\_rave\]. We used a mass prior based on the IMF $F_\textrm{IMF}$ from @2003ApJ...598.1076K. Therefore, $$P({\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}) = F_\textrm{IMF}({\ensuremath{M}}).\label{eq:prior}$$
Isochrones give us for each ${\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_m$ a new vector $\textbf{O'} = ({\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g, {[\rm{Fe/H}]}, M_\lambda)$, where $M_\lambda$ indicates absolute magnitudes in several photometric bands. So we can define a function $\mathcal{I}$ as $\textbf{O'} = \mathcal{I}({\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_m)$. Noticeably, ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$ is contained in both ${\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_m$, so $\mathcal{I}_{{[\rm{Fe/H}]}}({\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_m) \equiv {[\rm{Fe/H}]}$. We express $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}})$ using two log-likelihoods $$P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}) = P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_m, {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p) = e^{-L_{iso}-L_{sed}}.$$
Here, $L_{iso}$ is a measure of the separation between observed spectral parameters [${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{} and those predicted by model parameters ${\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_m$. Assuming Gaussian uncertainties in ${\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
L_{iso} &= \sum_{i \in ({\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g, {[\rm{Fe/H}]})} \frac{(O'_i - O_i)^2}{2 \sigma^2_{O, i}} \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{i \in ({\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g, {[\rm{Fe/H}]})} \frac{(\mathcal{I}_i({\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}) - O_i)^2}{2 \sigma^2_{O, i}}\label{eq:liso}.\end{aligned}$$
We use for the log-likelihood as in most cases spectroscopic surveys do not provide information about the correlations of the uncertainties on the different parameters. When this information or the PDFs of the spectroscopic parameters are known, this information can be included in $L_{iso}$.
$L_{sed}$ is a measure of similarity of the observed spectral energy distribution (SED) (set of $m_\lambda$ obtained from photometric surveys) and that predicted by isochrone model for ${\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}$. Visible magnitudes $m_\lambda$ come from 2MASS and AllWISE. These magnitudes are related to the absolute magnitudes $M_\lambda$ in ${\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}'$ by the following relation: $$m_\lambda = \mu_d + M_\lambda + A_\lambda = \mu_d + M_\lambda + C_\lambda A_K,$$ where the extinction in band $\lambda$ is defined as $A_\lambda = \frac{R_\lambda}{R_K} A_K = C_\lambda A_K$, with the extinction coefficients $R_\lambda$ taken from [@Extinction] and summarised in . Therefore to compare observed visible and model absolute magnitudes we need to know the distance modulus $\mu_d$ and the extinction $A_K$ in the direction of the star. The latter can be obtained from extinction maps or by comparing magnitudes in different bands. We chose the second method and calculated the extinction value for each star using photometric infrared data. This allowed us to take into account variations of extinction that might occur on scales smaller than the typical map resolution. We were also able to calculate extinction for any position on the sky and any distance, whereas a detailed three-dimensional extinction maps are created only for the nearest kiloparsec [@2012AstL...38...87G] or for the Galactic plane [@2014MNRAS.443.2907S], which is not sufficient for our purpose. A more recent three-dimensional map by @2015ApJ...810...25G covers a large fraction of the sky, but a full-sky three-dimensional extinction map is still not available.
We use 2MASS and AllWISE data as infrared bands are much less affected by interstellar extinction. Extinction in optical bands is generally higher than in the infrared and can have higher spectral variations between different points on the sky [see a discussion in @2011ApJ...739...25M]. By using infrared data alone we increased the precision of our distance estimates at a cost of decreasing the precision for the extinction estimate. As far as we focus on distances, this seems a fair trade.
Band Value of $R_\lambda$ Value of $C_\lambda$
------ ---------------------- ----------------------
J 0.720 2.35
H 0.460 1.5
K 0.306 1
W1 0.180 0.59
W2 0.160 0.52
: Values of the extinction coefficients $R_\lambda$ and $C_\lambda$ used for 2MASS and AllWISE photometry. Values were taken from @Extinction[]{data-label="tbl:rlambda"}
For $L_{sed}$ we use the following expression: $$L_{sed} = \sum_\lambda \frac{(m_\lambda - M_\lambda - C_\lambda A_K - \mu_d)^2}{2 \sigma_{m_\lambda}^2} - V_{corr}(\mu_d),$$ where the summation is carried out over all bands, for which photometry is available for a given star and $V_{corr}(\mu_d)$ is a volume correction. We introduce volume correction to compensate for the fact that with a given field of view we probe larger space volume at larger distances than at smaller distances. See a discussion of the effect of volume correction in . Using the relation between distance modulus and distance ($d = 10^{0.2\mu_d + 1}$), we can write $$V_{corr}(\mu_d) = \log d^2 = \log 10^{2 (0.2 \mu_d + 1)} = (0.4 \mu_d + 2) \log 10.$$
We use both $L_{iso}$ and $L_{sed}$ in $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}})$. Therefore on top of the spectroscopic parameters we utilise additional information, namely, the SED of the star. The drawback is that this also brings in the systematic errors of both stellar spectra modelling in PARSEC and possible large errors in photometry in the case of a mismatch between spectroscopic and photometric surveys.
Probability distribution functions {#sec:pdf}
----------------------------------
In order to get the PDF in each parameter, we need to marginalise a multi-dimensional PDF of output parameters, $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}})$, defined in , over all other parameters. For example, for log(age) $\tau$ one has to calculate $$P(\tau) = \iiiint P({\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}) P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}) dM d{[\rm{Fe/H}]}d{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p,$$ with the integral taken over the whole parameter space. In practice, we have a discrete sample of models from isochrones. So we can replace $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}})$ with the sum of delta functions $$\
P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}) = \sum_j P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{m,j}, {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p) {\delta_{\tau,j}}{\delta_{M,j}}{\delta_{{[\rm{Fe/H}]},j}}w_j,\label{eq:pox}$$ where we write for brevity ${\delta_{\tau,j}}= \delta(\tau_j - \tau)$, ${\delta_{{[\rm{Fe/H}]},j}}= \delta({[\rm{Fe/H}]}_j - {[\rm{Fe/H}]})$, ${\delta_{M,j}}= \delta(M_j - M)$. Here we have to use volumes represented by each model $w_j$ from , which reflect the volume of the parameter space represented by the model. The summation is carried out over all models and ${\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{m,j} = (\tau_j, M_j, {[\rm{Fe/H}]}_j)$ is a vector of parameters of the model $j$. Therefore we can write, using equations \[eq:prior\] and \[eq:pox\], $$\begin{aligned}
P(\tau) = \sum_j \iiiint & F_{IMF}(M) P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{m,j}, {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p) {\delta_{\tau,j}}{\delta_{M,j}}{\delta_{{[\rm{Fe/H}]},j}}\nonumber \\
& \times w_j d M\,d{[\rm{Fe/H}]}\,d{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p, \label{eq:p_tau}\end{aligned}$$ with again the summation carried out over all models. We need to keep integration over ${\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p$, because both $\mu_d$ and $A_K$ are continuous values.
We can make two important simplifications here. First, there is no need to sum over all models because for most of them $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}})$ is very small. We chose a threshold of $L_{iso} < 8$. In this case [${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{} are within 4 sigma uncertainties from observed values. We verified that increasing the threshold from 8 to 12.5 (or going from a combined 4 sigma to 5 sigma uncertainty threshold) leads to marginal changes in the output; parameter estimates change by more than 3% for only less than 2 percent of the stars. Because models are selected from three-dimensional space, this comes at a cost of doubling the number of models to be considered. A decreasing the likelihood threshold however leads to more significant changes in the resulting parameters.
Second, $L_{sed}$ is a quadratic form in $\mu_d$ and $A_K$. Therefore, for a given model $j$, $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{p,j}) = \exp(-L_{sed})$ is a bivariate Gaussian distribution. The location of the maximum of this distribution can be found by solving the system of equations as follows: $$\large{
\begin{cases}
{\ensuremath{\frac{\partial {L_{sed}}}{\partial {\mu_d}}}} &= 0 \\
{\ensuremath{\frac{\partial {L_{sed}}}{\partial {A_K}}}} &= 0
\end{cases}}.$$ This is equivalent to the following set of equations: $$\label{eq:old_system}
\large{
\begin{cases}
\sum_\lambda {\ensuremath{\frac{1}{\sigma_{m_\lambda}^2}}}\mu_d + \sum_\lambda {\ensuremath{\frac{C_\lambda}{\sigma_{m_\lambda}^2}}} A_K &= \sum_\lambda {\ensuremath{\frac{m_\lambda - M_\lambda}{\sigma_{m_\lambda}^2}}} - 0.4 \log 10 \\
\sum_\lambda {\ensuremath{\frac{C_\lambda}{\sigma_{m_\lambda}^2}}} \mu_d + \sum_\lambda {\ensuremath{\frac{C_\lambda^2}{\sigma_{m_\lambda}^2}}} A_K &= \sum_\lambda {\ensuremath{\frac{C_\lambda(m_\lambda - M_\lambda)}{\sigma_{m_\lambda}^2}}},
\end{cases}}$$ which is solved for $\mu_d$ and $A_K$. If $A_K < 0$, which is not physical, or if only one magnitude is available we set $A_K = 0$ and obtained $\mu_d$ from the first part of . By doing so we increase $L_{sed}$ for a given model, which decreases the contribution of this model to the PDFs. In some cases $A_K$ is zero for all models for a star. This indicates either that the extinction for this star is statistically indistinguishable from zero or that there is a mismatch between spectral and photometric data, which results in using visible magnitudes from a different star. In the first case we still produce a reliable distance estimate, while in the second case the obtained $L_{sed}$ is high and the quality of the result is low (see Section \[sec:p\_best\_p\_sed\]).
The covariance matrix of $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{p,j})$ is exactly the inverse Hessian matrix $H$ of $L_{sed}$ , i.e. $$\large{
H =
\begin{vmatrix}
\frac{\partial^2 L_{sed}}{\partial \mu_d^2} & \frac{\partial^2 L_{sed}}{\partial \mu_d \partial A_K} \\
\frac{\partial^2 L_{sed}}{\partial \mu_d \partial A_K} & \frac{\partial^2 L_{sed}}{\partial A_K^2}
\end{vmatrix} =
\begin{vmatrix}
\sum_\lambda{\ensuremath{\frac{1}{\sigma_{m_\lambda}^2}}} & \sum_\lambda{\ensuremath{\frac{C_\lambda}{\sigma_{m_\lambda}^2}}} \\
\sum_\lambda{\ensuremath{\frac{C_\lambda}{\sigma_{m_\lambda}^2}}} & \sum_\lambda{\ensuremath{\frac{C_\lambda^2}{\sigma_{m_\lambda}^2}}}
\end{vmatrix}
}.$$ It is important to note that $H$ depends only on $C_\lambda$, which are constants and photometric uncertainties $\sigma_{m_\lambda}$, thus $H$ has a constant value for a given star.
The width of the $L_{sed}$ distribution in $\mu_d$ for a given model is thus $\Delta_{\mu_d} = \sqrt{H^{-1}_{0,0}}$, which is of the order of $\sigma_m$ and is about an order of magnitude smaller than a typical uncertainties in $\mu_d$ that we derive. This is not true for the extinction, but we are not focused on derivation of high-quality extinctions. Moreover, tests show that the error we bring into mean extinction values by this simplification is small. Furthermore there is an obvious correlation between $\mu_d$ and $A_K$, but we ignore it here. This is justified because $\Delta_{\mu_d}$ is approximately one order of magnitude smaller than a typical uncertainties in $\mu_d$ for a star, so a correlation between derived $\mu_d$ and $A_K$ in a two-dimensional PDF $P(\mu_d, A_K)$ for a given star is dominated by scatter in $\mu_d$ and $A_K$ for models used to build the PDF, rather than by correlation of $\mu_d$ and $A_K$ for each model.
As far as $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p)$ is a bivariate Gaussian function, the integral over $d{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p$ in is exactly the value of $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p)$ at the location of its maximum, derived in . So we can replace the integral in with a delta function $$\begin{aligned}
P(\tau) &= \sum_j \iiiint F_{IMF}(M) P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}) {\delta_{\tau,j}}{\delta_{M,j}}{\delta_{{[\rm{Fe/H}]},j}}\nonumber \\
& \times \delta({\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{p,j} - {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p) w_j d M d {[\rm{Fe/H}]}d {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p \label{eq:pdf} \\
& = \sum_j P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{m,j}, {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{p,j}) F_{IMF}(M_j) \delta(\tau_j - \tau) w_j, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{p,j}$ is the solution of for model $j$. A similar equation can be written for $P(M)$.
For $\mu_d$ and $A_K$ each model contributes to the PDF a Gaussian summand with a width of $\Delta_{\mu_d}$ and $\Delta_{A_K} = \sqrt{H^{-1}_{1,1}}$, respectively. We can correct for using delta function in place of a bivariate Gaussian for $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_p)$ by adding a Gaussian smoothing multiplier with the corresponding width
$$\begin{aligned}
P(\mu_d) &= \sum_j P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{m,j}, {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{p,j}) F_{IMF}(M_j) w_j e^{-\frac{(\mu_{d,j} - \mu_d)^2}{2 \Delta_{\mu_d}^2}} \\
P(A_K) &= \sum_j P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{m,j}, {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{p,j}) F_{IMF}(M_j) w_j e^{-\frac{(A_{K,j} - A_K)^2}{2 \Delta_{A_K}^2}}.\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:pdf\_mu\]
Quality of model fit to the data {#sec:p_best_p_sed}
--------------------------------
It is important to quantify how well a set of models represents the observed parameters of a star. To accomplish this, we used the $\chi^2$ distribution to get the $p$ values from our log-likelihoods. We characterise our model quality by the $p$ value corresponding to the value of $\chi^2 = L_{iso}+L'_{sed}$ for the model with the highest $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{m,j}, {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{p,j})$. Here we use $L'_{sed} = L_{sed} + V_{corr}(\mu_d)$. We added $V_{corr}(\mu_d)$, thus removing the volume correction. This is necessary because $V_{corr}(\mu_d)$ adds a non-$\chi^2$ summand, that depends on $\mu_d$. Thus, the $\chi^2$ value used to compute the $p$ value is not the lowest possible value, but that corresponding to the model with the highest $P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{m,j}, {\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_{p,j})$, thus the value that is closest to observables. The number of degrees of freedom in this case equals the number of observables, which is the number of available magnitudes plus three (for the temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity dimensions). This $p$ value is designated as $p_{best}$. Low values of $p_{best}$ can be caused either by observables falling out of the range covered by the models or by inconsistencies between observed stellar parameters and the observed SED. We flagged data with $p_{best} < 0.1$ (see Section \[sec:quality\]).
In addition to $p_{best}$, we quantify how good our models are at representing the observed SED. We use the same model used for $p_{best}$ and report as $p_{sed}$ the $p$ value corresponding to the chi-square value $\chi^2 = -L'_{sed}$. The number of degrees of freedom in this case is equal to the number of available magnitudes. Low values of $p_{sed}$ might be caused, for example, by a mismatch between spectral and photometric data, which results in using visible magnitudes from a different star. Another possible reason is a problematic spectral parameter estimation, which makes ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}$ inconsistent with the SED from photometry. We flagged data with $p_{sed} < 0.1$ (see Section \[sec:quality\]).
Calculating final values {#sec:final_values}
------------------------
From we can define a weight for each model $j$ as $$\label{eq:model_weight}
W_j = P({\ensuremath{\textbf{O}}}|{\ensuremath{\textbf{X}}}_j)F_{IMF}(M_j) w_j = e^{-L_{iso}-L_{sed}} w_j F_{IMF}(M_j).$$
The PDF in each parameter can thus be calculated as a distribution of parameters for models, with weights $W_j$. For the PDF in $\mu_d$ and $A_K$ we smooth histograms with Gaussian kernel of width $\Delta_{\mu_d}$ or $\Delta_A$, respectively (see ).
### Determination of unimodal sub-PDFs
For each combination of stellar mass, age, and metallicity, PARSEC models provide a single combination of effective temperature and surface gravity. The transition from the effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity to stellar mass and age is however non-unique. For a given combination of [${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{} with their uncertainties it is possible to find more than one corresponding model with different combinations of age and mass. For example, red clump stars and red giant stars can have similar spectral parameters [${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{}, but different ages, masses, and internal structures. Therefore, distributions in ages, masses, and absolute magnitudes (and thus distances) are in some cases different from Gaussian. This is illustrated in , where we show typical PDFs in log(age), mass, and distance modulus for two stars. Some of the distributions shown are multimodal with two or more peaks. Reporting mean values and standard deviations do not capture that properly. Mode values, as used by [@2014MNRAS.445.2758R], give the value of the highest peak only. Full distributions can be provided, but they are often considered too complex for further analysis. We suggest an intermediate solution: split PDFs into several USPDFs with each of these described by a unimodal function, assuming that this represents a group of models with similar stellar structure.
We split all models in three evolutionary stages, described in Section \[sec:iso\], i.e. pre-core-helium burning, core-helium burning, and post-core-helium burning stars (plotted in with red, blue, and yellow, respectively). Splitting our results this way has a benefit in case of overlapping isochrones from different evolutionary stages for a given ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g, {[\rm{Fe/H}]}$ combination. Without this split, we would combine values for substantially different evolutionary stages that are not physical.
Splitting in evolutionary stages is not enough, as due to curvature of isochrones we can have sub-groups of models within one stage that are physically different. A good example is stage I, which contains both main-sequence and giant stars. This results in multimodal distributions of models in space of stellar parameters. An example of such a situation is given in (see their Figures 1 and 2). To split a multimodal distribution into several unimodal distributions we applied an additional empirically derived routine to our PDFs, which is described in . This routine works in the vast majority of cases. Those cases in which our splitting of the PDFs breaks down typically have too few models to produce a histogram (such cases are given the quality flag “N”, see Section \[sec:quality\]).
The overall weight $V_m$ for a USPDF $m$ is defined as a ratio of the sum of weights of models within the USPDF and the sum of weights of all models $$V_m = \frac{\sum_{j \in m}W_j}{\sum W_j}.$$
{width="90.00000%"}
### Output values {#sec:outvalues}
We provide output for each USPDF such that it is possible to reproduce the PDF in each parameter we are interested in mass ${\ensuremath{M}}$, logarithm of age $\tau$, distance modulus $\mu_d$, distance $d$, parallax $\pi$, and extinction $A_K$. Even for a unimodal distribution the mean, median, or mode might be a poor estimate for the value of interest in case the distribution is non-symmetric. Values of mode and median might produce less bias but should be used with care as they are not proper moments of the PDF and many statistical methods rely on moments. To provide a simple representation of each USPDF (for each parameter), we fit them with a Gaussian, a skewed Gaussian, a truncated Gaussian, a modified truncated exponential distribution (MTED) and a truncated [Student’s t-distribution]{} (see definitions of these functions in the Appendix \[app:functions\]). For the truncated functions the upper and lower truncation limits were not fitted, but were set to upper and lower limits of the considered USPDF. We selected the function that gives the lowest symmetric Kullback–Leibler divergence value, which is the measure of the information gain $$D_{KL} = \sum_i H_i \log \frac{H_i}{F_i},$$ where $H_i$ are histogram counts and $F_i$ are fitted function values.
Truncated functions were taken because we have a natural upper limit on the age of the star, which is the age of the Universe and therefore there is a lower limit on the mass of a star that left the main sequence, which is approximately $0.7 {\ensuremath{\rm{M}_\odot}}$ if we consider the full range of metallicities. This limit produces sharp cut-offs in histograms, making truncated functions a natural choice.
A modified truncated exponential distribution in log-age is equivalent to a flat distribution in ages, thus such a fit indicates that age is poorly constrained. Such PDFs are typical for main-sequence stars, where, as expected, it is hard to constrain age from spectrophotometric data.
In rare (less than $1\%$) cases in which the fit did not converge for all five fitting functions. This is primarily caused by long tails in the distributions or insufficient data for a proper fit. In this case we reported only mean and standard deviation of the data as fit parameters.
An important property of our result is that values of distance, mass, and log(age) for models are strongly correlated. We used the fact that distance modulus, log(age), and logarithm of mass have a nearly linear correlation within every USPDF in most cases. We report coefficients (slope $a$ and intercept $b$) of a weighted linear fit and a scatter around it for three relations for each USPDF: $\tau = a_1 \mu_d + b_1$ (distance modulus versus logarithm of age; red lines on left panels of ), $\mu_d = a_2 \tau + b_2$ (logarithm of age versus distance modulus; blue lines on left panels of ), and $M = 10^{a_3 \mu_d + b_3}$ (distance modulus versus logarithm of mass; red lines on right panels of ). An illustration of correlations is given in , where we show the two-dimensional PDFs for several stars and our fits to them. From the right-hand side panels it is clear that the relation of distance modulus and logarithm of mass is close to linear; the mass is plotted in linear scale, thus our fits are not straight lines. The relation of distance modulus and log(age) is weak for the main-sequence stars and lower giant branch stars. The shape of two-dimensional PDF can be quite complex, like in panels a and c of . For these cases the scatter is large and our relations does not work. For giant stars these correlations are much more pronounced, as can be seen in panels e and g of . Correlations between distance modulus, log(age), and log(mass) can be used, for example, if the new distance estimate $\mu'_d$ is obtained from some external source (like Gaia) for a star in our catalogue. We verified that our estimates for mass and log(age) can then be corrected for by the value of the slope times the difference between the externally determined distance modulus and our estimate as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau' &=& \tau + a_1 (\mu'_d - \mu_d) \\
M' &=& M \times 10^{a_3 (\mu'_d - \mu_d)}.\end{aligned}$$ In the future work we will show applications of these relations, which are beyond the scope of this work.
{width="80.00000%"}
Summing up, we chose to provide for each USPDF $m$ and each stellar parameter designated as $Y_{i, m}$, where $Y_i \in ({\ensuremath{M}}, \tau, \mu_d, d, \pi, A_K)$ the following quantities:
- A weighted mean (catalogue column suffix `_mean`) of model values $Y_{i,j}$ for all models, $$Y_{i,m} = \frac{\sum_{j \in m} W_j Y_{i,j}}{\sum_{j \in m}W_j},$$ where the summation is carried out over all models within USPDF $m.$
- A weighted standard deviation (suffix `_err`), $$\sigma_{Y_{i, m}} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{j \in m} W_j (Y_{i,j} - Y_{i, m})^2}{\sum_{j \in m}W_j}}
.$$
- A mode of the USPDF (suffix `_mode`).
- A weighted median value (suffix `_median`).
- A character indicating which fitting function was chosen: <<G>> for Gaussian, <<S>> for skewed Gaussian, <<T>> for truncated Gaussian, <<L>> for MTED, <<P>> for truncated [Student’s t-distribution]{}, <<E>> if the fit failed for all five functions, and <<N>> if there was not enough data for a fit (suffix `_fit`).
- Parameters for a chosen fit (suffix `_par`). The first two values are location and shape for the chosen best fitting function. For a Gaussian function, by definition, location parameter is equal to the mean value and shape parameter to the variance. If the chosen function is a skewed Gaussian then the third value is the skew value. If the chosen function is a truncated Gaussian or MTED, then third and fourth values are lower and upper limits. If the chosen function is [Student’s t-distribution]{} then the third value is the number of degrees of freedom and the fourth and fifth values are lower and upper limits.
- One- and three- sigma confidence intervals. These are defined as a region containing 68.27% (for one-sigma uncertainties) or 99.73% (for three-sigma uncertainties) of the USPDF, positioned to minimise its span. By construction, such a confidence interval always includes the mode value. For a Gaussian distribution this is equivalent to a range centred on the mean value with width of one- or three- standard deviations. (suffixes `_low_1sigma, _up_1sigma, _low_3sigma, _up_3sigma`).
We report all USPDFs with weights $V_m$ higher than $0.03$. Integer priority values starting from 0 were assigned to each USPDF in order of decreasing weights $V_m$. We list all measures provided for our catalogue in .
In we show examples of different USPDFs and fits to them. For the first star (left column) three different evolutionary stages are possible. For the evolutionary stage I a truncated Gaussian is required to fit log(age) distribution and for the evolutionary stage II a skewed Gaussian is needed to fit distribution in mass and distance modulus. For the second star (right column) mainly stage II is possible, but the distribution for this stage can be split in two parts. We need a truncated [Student’s t-distribution]{} to fit the histogram for the higher age solution. The small USPDF visible for mass around $1 {\ensuremath{\rm{M}_\odot}}$ and log(age) of $9.3$ for stage I was excluded because its weight $V_m$ is below the accepted $0.03$ threshold.
[lcp[4cm]{}]{}\
Column name & Units & Description\
id & & Unique ID of the star from the input data\
stage & & Stage number (I, II or III)\
uspdf\_priority & & Priority order of a given USPDF (starting from 0)\
uspdf\_weight & & Weight $V_m$ of a given USPDF\
total\_uspdfs & & Number of USPDF with $V_m > 0.03$\
p\_best & & Probability for a best-fitting model (see Section \[sec:p\_best\_p\_sed\])\
p\_sed & & $p$-value from $\chi^2$ SED fit (see Section \[sec:p\_best\_p\_sed\])\
quality & & Quality flag (see Section \[sec:quality\])\
distance\_modulus$\dagger$ & mag & Distance modulus $\mu_d$\
distance$\dagger$ & kpc & Distance $d$\
parallax$\dagger$ & mas & Parallax $\pi$\
extinction$\dagger$ & mag & Extinction $A_K$ in 2MASS K-band\
mass$\dagger$ & ${\ensuremath{\rm{M}_\odot}}$ & Mass\
age$\dagger$ & log(yr) & Logarithm of age $\tau$\
\
dm\_age\_slope & & Slope of the relation\
dm\_age\_intercept & & Intercept of the relation\
dm\_age\_scatter & & Scatter of the relation\
\
age\_dm\_slope & & Slope of the relation\
age\_dm\_intercept & & Intercept of the relation\
age\_dm\_scatter & & Scatter of the relation\
\
dm\_mass\_slope & & Slope of the relation\
dm\_mass\_intercept & & Intercept of the relation\
dm\_mass\_scatter & & Scatter of the relation\
Role of age and extinction cuts {#sec:cuts}
-------------------------------
We chose to impose hard cuts on log(age) $\tau \leq 10.13$ and extinction $A_K \geq 0$. This is not an obvious choice, so we justify it here.
We first consider a star for which two equally good solutions are possible: one with $\tau = 8$ and one with $\tau = 10.7$, where all other parameters are equal (see ). If we do not use the hard cut on ages, both solutions are reported with good quality flags and equal weights $W_{1,2} = 0.5$ (blue lines in ). The unphysical age value for the second solution might be used as a sign of a problem either with data or with models. It is therefore likely that this solution or even both solutions for this star will be dropped from further study. If we, on the other hand, use the cut in log(age) $\tau \leq 10.13$, we will keep both solutions, but their weights will change. Only the tail of the USPDF for the second solution will be retained. Because the sum of USPDF weight still has to be unity, the weight of the first solution will increase. We get for this example $W_1 = 0.89$ and $W_2 = 0.11$ (red lines in ). As a result, we get a “realistic” first solution with $\tau = 8$ and retain a part of the second solution. For the second solution, and, in general, for all cases when part of the USPDF is cut away, the mean of the USPDF is a poor measure of log(age) and it is biased towards lower values. But in such cases the USPDF is fitted with either a MTED, a truncated Gaussian or a truncated [Student’s t-distribution]{}. So instead of a solution with high weight and correct, but unphysical, mean log(age), we get a solution with lower weight and biased value of the mean with a proper fitting function.
![Sketch of PDF in log(age) for a star with two possible ages without (blue lines) and with (red lines) hard upper limit on log(age). See text for details.[]{data-label="fig:cut"}](age_cut_example.png){width="48.00000%"}
We now consider the case when only one solution is available for a given star, which is $\tau = 10.7$. We can use such values of $\tau$ as an indication of a problem in spectroscopic parameters, photometry, or in isochrones. If the cut in log(age) $\tau \leq 10.13$ is applied, there are several possibilities. In some cases the PDF in log(age) follows an exponential distribution, which means that the age is poorly constrained for a given star and extending the range of possible ages does not improve this.
An other possibility is that models that have $\tau \leq 10.13$ represent observables and thus have $p_{best}$ close to unity; see . This means that we still have a reliable log(age) PDF for $\tau \leq 10.13$, but the mean, mode, and median values might be biased. Without the age cut, the mean, mode, and median log(age) values will be above $\tau = 10.13$, and such solution will likely be excluded from further analysis, despite the fact that a fraction of it is reliable.
In yet another case the value for a best-fitting model probability $p_{best}$ will be small, which will indicate potential problems in either the data or with the models. Such cases will be flagged as unreliable with and without age cut.
The same arguments as discussed above are applicable to the cut in extinction. Moreover, a cut in extinction has minor influence on the result, as extinction values are typically very small, i.e. about 10 times smaller than the derived uncertainty in the distance modulus. We verified that negative extinctions typically arise for faint stars, for which photometric uncertainties are large. In the vast majority of cases for which the derived value of extinction is negative, the value is still consistent with zero within uncertainties.
Tests: Comparison with other measurements {#sec:test}
=========================================
We tested our UniDAM tool in two ways. We first applied it to mock surveys (see Section \[sec:data\_mock\]). By doing that we checked the accuracy and performance of the tool and explored the effect of random perturbations added to input values. Then we proceeded with comparing our parameter measurements for real stars with those obtained by other groups and presented in the literature. The aim of these exercises was to check the quality of our estimates compared to results obtained by the consortia of the different surveys and the sensitivity of our results to priors.
Mock survey {#mock-survey}
-----------
We ran our UniDAM tool on all four mock surveys, described in Section \[sec:data\_mock\]. Knowing the input values allowed us to evaluate which of the reported measures, that is mean, median, or mode, is the best proxy. In agreement with we find that the mode is less biased than the mean or median, but produces slightly more outliers.
Mean, mode, and median values show similar qualitative patterns, so we used only mean output values of the highest weight USPDF for comparison. We compared derived mean values $X$ with input values $X_0$. We considered several measures of interest as follows:
- Median fractional uncertainty of derived value ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}\!\left( \frac{\sigma_X}{X} \right)}}$ ; this is an internal precision measure.
- Median relative deviation (median bias) of derived value ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}\!\left( \frac{\Delta X}{X} \right)}} = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}\!\left( \frac{X_0-X}{X} \right)}}$; this shows whether the values that we calculate are systematically offset with respect to the input.
- Median absolute relative deviation of derived value ${\ensuremath{\rm{M.A.D.}}}= {\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}\!\left( \left|\frac{\Delta X}{X} - {\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}\!\left( \frac{\Delta X}{X} \right)}}\right| \right)}}$; this shows how scattered our derived values are with respect to input. Median absolute deviation is a much better estimate of scatter than standard deviation in the presence of outliers [@Leys2013].
- Outlier fraction rate $O$; this is the fraction of stars for which the input value $X_0$ lies outside the three-sigma confidence interval. We use two values: $O_{best}$ is calculated using only highest weight USPDF, whereas $O_{all}$ is calculated using all USPDFs (i.e. $X_0$ lies outside the three-sigma confidence intervals of all reported USPDFs).
Measures for all four mock surveys are listed in . For a normally distributed random variable, median absolute deviation $\sigma_{MAD}$ relates to standard deviation $\sigma$ as $\sigma \approx 1.4826\,\sigma_{MAD}$, therefore we expected median absolute relative deviation to be approximately equal to two-thirds of the median fractional uncertainty. As can be seen from the second and fourth columns of , this is the case for our data, which means that the distribution of the offsets is close to normal.
Outliers are expected for two reasons. First, a model with the “correct” (i.e. input) values might not belong to the highest weight USPDF. This is revealed by $O_{best}$. We detected that in about one to seven percent of the cases input parameters are better recovered with USPDF that has second (or even the third) priority. This happens primarily in the upper part of the giant branch, where isochrone overlap is highest. This is inherent to the method; we seek a model that most likely represents the data. If the mock star was taken to be in some short phase of its evolution (thus having low model weight $w_j$), chances are high that we assign a highest weight USPDF not to this phase but to a much longer phase, which has similar observables. Second, because the three-sigma range includes by definition $99.7\%$ of the data, we expect at least a fraction of $0.003$ of stars for which no USPDF recovers the “correct” values within three-sigma confidence intervals (i.e. $O_{all} \gtrsim 0.003$) due to our random perturbations added to input values. In fact, this fraction is slightly higher, of the order of $0.01-0.02$. We checked that this is caused by a combination of both the perturbations of input values and models selected for the mock sample that is in a very short phase of evolution. In the latter case USPDFs might be pulled away from the “correct” solution by nearby models with higher weights. Another possible case in which there might be no “correct” solution found is when the mock star is located on the edge of the parameter space covered by models.
In cases where perturbations were added, the values of the bias, median absolute relative deviation, and outlier fractions increase. This increase is most prominent in the outlier fractions; this is caused by the fact that sometimes even a small perturbation of input parameters might change the priorities of USPDFs, thus changing the parameters of the highest weight USPDF by a large value.
[lrrrp[0.9cm]{}p[0.9cm]{}]{} Parameter & ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}\!\left( \frac{\sigma_X}{X} \right)}}$ & ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}\!\left( \frac{\Delta X}{X} \right)}}$ & ${\ensuremath{\rm{M.A.D.}}}$ & $O_{best}$ & $O_{all}$\
\
mass & 0.17 & -0.02 & 0.10 & 0.06 & 0.01\
age & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.06 & 0.00\
distance & 0.13 & -0.02 & 0.08 & 0.06 & 0.00\
\
mass & 0.17 & -0.00 & 0.10 & 0.04 & 0.01\
age & 0.03 & 0.00 & 0.02 & 0.04 & 0.00\
distance & 0.13 & 0.01 & 0.08 & 0.03 & 0.00\
\
mass & 0.17 & -0.00 & 0.12 & 0.06 & 0.02\
age & 0.03 & 0.00 & 0.02 & 0.06 & 0.01\
distance & 0.13 & 0.00 & 0.11 & 0.05 & 0.01\
\
mass & 0.17 & -0.01 & 0.12 & 0.06 & 0.02\
age & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.06 & 0.01\
distance & 0.13 & 0.00 & 0.11 & 0.06 & 0.01\
We also tested if distance modulus or parallax provide a better estimate of distance than distance value itself. We find that this is not the case, and all three estimates give very similar precision, with distance itself showing a slightly smaller fraction of outliers. This contradicts the statement of [@2014MNRAS.437..351B] that “the most reliable distance indicator is the expectation of parallax”. This might be because [@2014MNRAS.437..351B] compared their derived values with parallaxes from *HIPPARCOS*, and comparing parallaxes with parallaxes is likely less biased. We nevertheless provide all three estimates for each star in the output catalogue.
Literature {#sec:compare}
----------
We compared our results with values available in the literature. Results of this comparison are shown in and in , and are discussed here. The aim of this comparison is to show that our results are consistent with previous studies. In most cases these previous studies were based on similar data and methods. So the differences that appear are primarily due to different models used and differences in details of the method implementation. The exceptions are GCS parallaxes that are coming from *HIPPARCOS* and APOKASC distances, derived with asteroseismic values of $\log g$, which are more precise than spectroscopic values. In both cases our results are consistent with published data.
We verified that our extinction estimates are consistent with those provided in surveys. In fact, the differences between our extinction estimates and those in surveys are comparable to differences between extinctions derived with different methods for the same survey, for example, in the LAMOST-GAC data [@2017arXiv170105409X]. We do not provide a detailed analysis here, as the derivation of precise extinctions is beyond the scope of this work.
{height="0.95\textheight"}
[ccd[1.2]{}d[1.2]{}d[1.2]{}c]{} Survey & Value & [ ]{} & [ ]{} & [ ]{} & $O_{best}$\
GCS &$\pi$ & 0.13 & -0.065 & 0.03 & 0.03\
&${\ensuremath{M}}$ & 0.064 & 0.024 & 0.024 & 0.02\
&$\tau$ & 0.02 & -0.000 & 0.005 & 0.05\
APOKASC &$d$ & 0.11 & -0.017 & 0.05 & 0.15\
RAVE (1) & $\mu_{d, \textrm{Z}}$ & 0.044 & -0.011 & 0.050 & 0.20\
RAVE (2) &$\mu_{d, \textrm{B}}$ & 0.044 & -0.03 & 0.055 & 0.25\
&${\ensuremath{M}}$ & 0.15 & -0.016 & 0.12 & 0.17\
&$\tau$ & 0.027 & 0.009 & 0.018 & 0.13\
LAMOST-GAC &$d_{\textrm{emp}}$ & 0.20 & 0.1 & 0.08 & 0.03\
(main sample)&$d_{\textrm{iso}}$ & 0.20 & 0.02 & 0.063 & 0.05\
### GCS parallaxes, masses, and ages
The GCS [@2011AA...530A.138C and references therein] mainly covers nearby main-sequence stars. The big advantage is that for most of them parallaxes were measured by *HIPPARCOS*. The three top rows of and show differences between parallaxes, masses, and log(age)s from GCS and our estimate. We detected a small bias in parallaxes and masses but a negligible bias in log(age)s. Median absolute deviations are three times lower than fractional uncertainties, which means that our method is consistent with GCS results.
### Distances of APOKASC red giants {#sec:compare_apokasc}
[@2014MNRAS.445.2758R] have determined distances for about 2000 red giant stars from the APOKASC sample. Our distances are less precise than those of [@2014MNRAS.445.2758R] because we do not include asteroseismic data. This test therefore helps us estimate the quality of distance estimations we make for the whole APOGEE sample, as stellar parameters in APOGEE DR13 were calibrated with the use of asteroseismic data from APOKASC. We predicted slightly larger distances ($-0.017$ relative offset), but both bias and scatter are well below the mean fractional uncertainty ($0.11$) of our derived distances. The origin of the bias is likely the difference in how the distance value is calculated when distance PDF is multimodal. This is supported by the fact that for stars with unimodal PDFs we got a relative distance bias of less than $0.0025$.
### RAVE stars {#sec:compare_rave}
We ran the UniDAM tool on RAVE DR4 data [@2013AJ....146..134K] and compared these findings with the results of for distance moduli and @2014MNRAS.437..351B for distance moduli, log(age)s, and masses. We used DR4 data here, as these were used by and @2014MNRAS.437..351B. The relative difference between our distance estimates and $\mu_{d, \textrm{Z}}$ by is around $-0.01$. As compared to the @2014MNRAS.437..351B results ($\mu_{d, \textrm{B}}$), our distance moduli have a relative difference of $-0.03$. The median absolute deviations are large in both cases and are comparable to or larger than the mean relative uncertainties of our values.
The reason for a larger difference for $\mu_{d, \textrm{B}}$ is that @2014MNRAS.437..351B use strong priors on distances, metallicities, and ages coming from a model of the Galaxy. These priors are decreasing functions of distance from the Galactic centre and from the Galactic plane. Therefore they decrease with distance from the Sun for the majority of directions probed by RAVE. The prior that decreases with distance results in smaller estimates for stellar distances and thus slightly smaller masses and larger ages as compared to our results. Difference in log(age) are further enhanced due to age priors used by @2014MNRAS.437..351B.
As can be seen in panels *c* and *e* of , distributions of differences between our results for log(age)s and masses and @2014MNRAS.437..351B results are bimodal, with a secondary peak at approximately $-0.75$ in relative mass difference and $0.2$ in relative log(age) difference. The same can be seen in panel *d*. In panel *f* the second peak is out of the plotted range. This second peak contains about 12% of stars and is caused by a difference in the evolutionary stages accepted in @2014MNRAS.437..351B and by our UniDAM tool. A similar pattern but with a much smaller secondary peak can be seen with data from the mock survey (black histogram in panels c and d of ).
We show in the distributions of the median difference between our results and the @2014MNRAS.437..351B results for distance modulus and log(age) on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. We chose RAVE because it contains estimates for both distance modulus and log(age) and because it covers both main-sequence and giant stars. There is clearly a good agreement in both distance modulus and log(age) for the main-sequence stars and large fraction of giant branch, including the red clump. A disagreement for pre-main-sequence stars and large and hot (thus most massive) giants is primarily due to difference in the models and priors used. Similar plots can be produced for other datasets, revealing similar patterns.
![Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams of RAVE data showing colour differences between our results and RAVE results [@2014MNRAS.437..351B] for distance moduli (top panel) and log(age)s (bottom panel).[]{data-label="fig:RAVE"}](RAVE_distance_modulus.png){width="48.00000%"}
![Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams of RAVE data showing colour differences between our results and RAVE results [@2014MNRAS.437..351B] for distance moduli (top panel) and log(age)s (bottom panel).[]{data-label="fig:RAVE"}](RAVE_age.png){width="48.00000%"}
### LAMOST-GAC distances
We compared our results with two distance estimates provided in [@2015RAA....15.1095L]. Our values are systematically smaller by a fraction of $0.1$ as compared to their “empirical” estimates based on the MILES library. We have much better agreement with estimates based on isochrones from Dartmouth Stellar Evolution Database ($0.02$ fractional difference). [@2015RAA....15.1095L] do not provide uncertainties for their distance estimates. Relative uncertainties of our distance estimates for LAMOST-GAC are higher than estimates build on data from other surveys due to the higher uncertainties in spectral parameters, which lead to a fractional uncertainties on our distances of $0.2$.
Effect of the volume correction {#sec:priors}
-------------------------------
We ran tests to see how much the use of the volume correction (see ) affects our results. Volume correction can be seen as a distant prior that ensures constant number density. In general, if the distance prior is a decreasing (increasing) function, the resulting distance is smaller (larger) than in the case of a flat prior. The size of this effect depends on the relative variation of the prior function within the uncertainty range of the parameter. We chose two datasets for the test: GCS and APOKASC giants [@2014MNRAS.445.2758R]. The GCS dataset contains primarily main-sequence stars with distances derived from *HIPPARCOS* parallaxes. These parallaxes are in most cases more precise than our distance measurements. Distances of APOKASC giants were derived using asteroseismic data, and therefore should also be more precise than our measurements. We ran our UniDAM tool with and without volume correction. We selected only USPDFs with highest weight for analysis in each case. We then explored how parallaxes, distances, masses, and log(age)s were affected by volume correction. For multimodal cases it is important that the use of the volume correction might change the relative weights of USPDFs, so that priorities might also change. The result of our experiment is that in $7\%$ cases for APOGEE the assigned evolutionary stage changed when we applied the volume correction. This did not happen for GCS as PDFs are unimodal in most cases for main-sequence stars in that survey. By removing volume correction we decreased distance estimations in both datasets by a fraction of $0.032$ if the assigned evolutionary stage did not change. This is well below the median relative distance uncertainties that we have ($\approx 0.13$). The mass estimates are correlated with distance, and decreased by a fraction of $0.03$, again, this is well below relative uncertainties in mass that we find ($\approx 0.15$). The logarithm of age estimates, which are anti-correlated with distance, increased, but only by a fraction of $0.005$ (log(age) fractional uncertainties $\approx 0.03$). So the conclusion here is that the volume correction has a measurable and well understood effect on measured parameters, but this effect is smaller than our typical parameter uncertainties. This effect is systematic and has to be taken into account when comparing with results obtained with distance priors; see for example . However, we expect the contribution from the (unknown) systematic uncertainties of spectroscopic measurements to be at least as high as the influence of the volume correction.
We also compare how the volume correction affects the agreement between our measurements and data from the literature, which is described above in Section \[sec:compare\]. The effect of volume correction is summarised in the . For the GCS sample there is a clear advantage of using the volume correction. Without volume correction our parallax estimates are lower than those in GCS by a fraction $0.091$. If we use the volume correction, our parallax estimates increase on average, which improves the agreement (fractional difference of $0.059$; see the first row of ). The same applies for log(age) and mass estimates. As for the APOKASC sample, there seems to be an opposite result, as we seem to overestimate the distance compared to [@2014MNRAS.445.2758R]. This is likely caused by the fact that distances provided in [@2014MNRAS.445.2758R] are in fact modes of probability density function. If we use modes instead of means for our USPDFs for distances, than we get a relative difference of less than $10^{-3}$ if the volume correction is included and a relative difference around $0.014$ if there is no volume correction used.
The effect of the volume correction increases gradually with increasing distances, where our distance uncertainty is larger. This is caused by an increase in the relative variation of the value of the volume correction within the distance uncertainty. The effect of volume correction is approximately proportional to a square of the uncertainty in distance modulus. If the assigned evolutionary stage changes, the estimates of distance, mass, and log(age) can change by a large amount, sometimes by more than $50\%$.
[ccd[1.3]{}d[1.3]{}]{} Survey & Value & [ ]{} & [ ]{}\
GCS & $\pi$ & -0.091 & -0.059\
& $M$ & 0.027 & 0.015\
& $\tau$ & -0.000 & 0.000\
APOKASC & $d$ & -0.001 & -0.021\
Stellar parameters catalogue
============================
We provide a catalogue of stellar distances, masses, and log(age)s determined with the UniDAM tool described in this manuscript. Our catalogue contains over 3.8 million rows (one row for each USPDF) for over 2.5 million stars. We summarise some properties of this catalogue in . This figure shows medians of different quantities in each bin on the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram. Data from all input spectroscopic surveys have been used to produce this figure. Quantification of differences between spectroscopic data from different surveys and effects of incompleteness and selection are beyond the scope of this paper and will be addressed in future work. Here, we are interested in a qualitative description of how the quality of our estimates vary in different parts of the HR diagram. Panels *a* and *b* of show uncertainties in measured log(age)s and masses. Log-ages are best constrained in the upper part of the main sequence, where parameters change fast as a star leaves the main sequence. On the contrary, masses are much better constrained on the main sequence.
Panels *c* and *d* show median values of $p_{best}$ (the probability for a best-fitting model) and $p_{sed}$ (a measure of how good we reproduce SED with our model). Patterns on both panels are similar with worse results close to the edges of the region covered by the PARSEC isochrones and additionally for $p_{sed}$ between the main sequence and giant branch.
Panels *e* and *f* show median values for the weights $V_0$ of the highest weight USPDF and total number of USPDFs with $V_i > 0.03$. The patterns are nearly inverse: on the main sequence we typically have only one USPDF with weight equals to unity, whereas on the giant branch the number of USPDFs increases and the weights of the highest weight USPDF decreases. It is important that for the giant branch we typically have two or more USPDFs, therefore using just the one with the highest weight is insufficient; the best solution is to use all USPDFs with their relative weight taken into account.
{width="90.00000%"}
Quality flags {#sec:quality}
-------------
The output catalogue contains a `quality` column, which indicates how reliable data contained in each row are. Values have been assigned as follows:
1
: - single PDF
A
: - highest-weight USPDF has power of 0.9 or more
B
: - 1st and 2nd priority USPDFs together have power of 0.9 or more
C
: - 1st, 2nd, and 3rd priority USPDFs together have power of 0.9 or more
D
: - 1st, 2nd, and 3rd priority USPDFs together have power of less than 0.9
L
: - low power USPDF (between 0.03 and 0.1)
E
: - USPDF has $p_{sed} < 0.1$ (possibly bad photometry)
X
: - highest weight USPDF has $p_{best} < 0.1$ (likely off the model grid)
N
: - USPDF has less than 10 models (unreliable result)
Although `the quality` value provides some information on the quality of the parameter estimation, it is not recommended to select stars based on that value alone (apart from removing unreliable results with values **E, N,** or **X**), because the quality value varies heavily over the HR diagram: for main-sequence stars the quality is in most cases **1** or **A**, whereas for giants quality **B, C,** or even **D** are much more common. This is illustrated by the distribution of the number of USPDFs in panel f of . There are $2\%$ cases where a highest weight USPDF has quality **E**, $4.2\%$ cases with quality **X,** and less than $0.01\%$ cases with quality **N**.
Discussion and conclusions {#sec:discussion}
==========================
We provide a catalogue of distances, log(age)s, and masses for over 2.5 million stars. This number will increase as new data is made available, for example new data releases for surveys already included, or data from new surveys. Gaia data will be of high value and can be used as an independent test of our distances or as a parallax prior. In the latter case it should improve our extinction, mass, and log(age) estimates considerably.
In the current version of our UniDAM tool we use infrared magnitudes, [${\ensuremath{T_{\rm{eff}}}}, \log g$, and ${[\rm{Fe/H}]}$]{} as inputs to derive distances, log(age)s, and masses of stars. The tool was also successfully used to derive temperatures for a APOKASC sample, with inputs being surface gravities, and masses derived from seismic information and spectroscopic metallicities (Tayar et al. 2017, accepted).
An advantage of our approach is that we represent multi-peaked PDFs for parameters with a sum of unimodal distributions. Additionally we provide parameters of fits representing each distribution and the correlations between distance modulus, log(age), and mass. Therefore our catalogue contains not only mean values and uncertainties, but detailed information on PDFs. This allows us to apply more sophisticated analysis to the dataset to reveal both global and local structures in the Galaxy.
The next step will be to add proper motion data, thus obtaining all six dimensions of stellar positions and velocities. Combination of positions and velocities with ages, metallicities, and (where available) chemical abundances will open up new possibilities to study Galactic structure. Furthermore, it is important to get a correct estimate of the selection function, as this might affect results not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively, as was shown by @2012ApJ...751..131B. We intend to produce a selection function for our catalogue and then proceed to study Galactic structure on large and small scales.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Authors thank the anonymous referee for a detailed report with many useful suggestions. It helped us to improve the manuscript substantially.
The research leading to the presented results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007- 2013)/ERC grant agreement (No 338251, StellarAges).
This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.
Guoshoujing Telescope (the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope LAMOST) is a National Major Scientific Project built by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Funding for the project has been provided by the National Development and Reform Commission. LAMOST is operated and managed by the National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
This publication makes use of data products from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, which is a joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, and NEOWISE, which is a project of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology. WISE and NEOWISE are funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Funding for RAVE has been provided by the Australian Astronomical Observatory; the Leibniz-Institut fuer Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP); the Australian National University; the Australian Research Council; the French National Research Agency; the German Research Foundation (SPP 1177 and SFB 881); the European Research Council (ERC-StG 240271 Galactica); the Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica at Padova; The Johns Hopkins University; the National Science Foundation of the USA (AST-0908326); the W. M. Keck foundation; the Macquarie University; the Netherlands Research School for Astronomy; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the Slovenian Research Agency; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the UK; Opticon; Strasbourg Observatory; and the Universities of Groningen, Heidelberg and Sydney. The RAVE website is at <https://www.rave-survey.org>.
Funding for SDSS-III has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science. The SDSS-III website is http://www.sdss3.org/. SDSS-III is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions of the SDSS-III Collaboration including the University of Arizona, the Brazilian Participation Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Florida, the French Participation Group, the German Participation Group, Harvard University, the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, the Michigan State/Notre Dame/JINA Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, New Mexico State University, New York University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the Spanish Participation Group, University of Tokyo, University of Utah, Vanderbilt University, University of Virginia, University of Washington, and Yale University.
This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France
Splitting the PDF into unimodal sub-PDFs {#sec:split_uspdf}
========================================
Here we describe a method used to split complex PDFs into a set of unimodal sub-PDFs.
First, we produced a histogram for logarithm of stellar masses of models of the same evolutionary stage (weighted by $W_j$, see ). Then, we detected local minima and maxima of this histogram. Local minima (or maxima) are defined as locations of bins that have lower (higher) value $h_i$ than all other bins within the window: i.e. $h_i = min\{h_j, i-n \leq j \leq i+n\}$ for a local minimum and $h_i = max\{h_j, i-n \leq j \leq i+n\}$ for a local maximum. Window size $n$ was taken to be 3 for maxima and 2 for minima. Differences in window sizes are caused by the need to locate minima with high precision and to avoid too many maxima in noisy data. Formally, it is possible to have more than one local minimum between two local maxima; we split only by the lowest of them in this case. We split the sample at positions of local minima that are lower than 0.75 times the value of the smallest of the two enclosing maxima. We thus could have one or several USPDFs, for each evolutionary stage.
We chose the histogram in logarithm of mass to split the multimodal PDFs as the logarithmic scale is close to linear one around $1 {\ensuremath{\rm{M}_\odot}}$, but gives a smoother histogram for high-mass stars. Mass is a better choice to split the PDF because values of log(age)s are quantised by construction of the isochrones, and distances are much less sensitive to evolutionary stage.
Distributions used in the paper {#app:functions}
===============================
Here we give definitions for some functions used in the paper.
We define $\phi(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}x^2\right)$ as the PDF of the standard normal distribution and $\Phi(x)$ as it’s cumulative distribution. This PDF is designated as a Gaussian in the text.
Introducing $\xi=\frac{x-\alpha}{\sigma}$ and $Z=\Phi(\frac{b-\alpha}{\sigma})-\Phi(\frac{a-\alpha}{\sigma})$, we have for a truncated Gaussian $$f(x,\alpha,\sigma, a,b) = \frac{\phi(\xi)}{\sigma Z},$$ if $a < x < b$ and $f(x;\alpha,\sigma, a,b) = 0$ otherwise. Here $\alpha$ is a location, $\sigma$ - scale, $a, b$ - lower and upper limits.
For skewed Gaussian with a shape parameter $s$ $$f(x,\alpha,\sigma, s) = \frac{2}{\sigma} \phi(\xi) \Phi(s \xi).$$
We use the definition of the truncated [Student’s t-distribution]{}$$f_t(x, \nu) = \frac{\Gamma \left(\frac{\nu+1}{2} \right)} {\sqrt{\nu\pi}\,\Gamma \left(\frac{\nu}{2} \right)} \left(1+\frac{x^2}{\nu} \right)^{-\frac{\nu+1}{2}},$$ where $\nu$ is the “number of degrees of freedom” (which can be an arbitrary real number here). Again, $\Phi_t(x, \nu)$ is the cumulative distribution function.
A modified truncated exponential distribution with lower and upper limits $a$ and $b$, respectively is defined as $$f_{\textrm{exp}}(x, \alpha, \sigma, a, b) =
\begin{cases}
C e^{-\frac{|x-\alpha|}{\sigma}}, & \textrm{if}\ a < x < b \\
0,& \textrm{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Here, $C$ is the normalisation constant, so that $\int_a^b f_{\textrm{exp}}(x, \alpha, \sigma, a, b) = 1$.
For a truncated Student’s t-distribution with lower and upper limits $a$ and $b$, respectively, we define $\xi=\frac{x-\alpha}{\sigma}$ and $Z_t=\Phi_t(\frac{b-\alpha}{\sigma}, \nu)-\Phi_t(\frac{a-\alpha}{\sigma}, \nu)$. Then for the PDF we have $$f_{\textrm{truncated-t}}(x, \alpha, \sigma, a, b) = \frac{f_t(\xi, \nu)}{Z_t}.$$
[^1]: email: [email protected]
[^2]: The unified tool source code is available at <https://github.com/minzastro/unidam>, tables with results are available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via <http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/>
[^3]: see APOGEE target selection description at <http://www.sdss.org/dr12/irspec/targets/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper describes a novel method of compiling ranked tagging rules into a deterministic finite-state device called a [*bimachine*]{}. The rules are formulated in the framework of [*regular rewrite operations*]{} and allow unrestricted regular expressions in both left and right rule contexts. The compiler is illustrated by an application within a speech synthesis system.'
author:
- |
Wojciech Skut, Stefan Ulrich and Kathrine Hammervold\
Rhetorical Systems\
4 Crichton’s Close, Edinburgh\
EH8 8DT\
Scotland\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- '../references/references.bib'
title: A Bimachine Compiler for Ranked Tagging Rules
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Fermi Large Area Telescope has provided the measurement of the high energy (20 GeV to 1 TeV) cosmic ray electrons and positrons spectrum with unprecedented accuracy. This measurement represents a unique probe for studying the origin and diffusive propagation of cosmic rays as well as for looking for possible evidences of Dark Matter. In this contribution we focus mainly on astrophysical sources of cosmic ray electrons and positrons which include the standard primary and secondary diffuse galactic contribution, as well as nearby point-sources which are expected to contribute more significantly to higher energies. In this framework, we discuss possible interpretations of Fermi results in relation with other recent experimental data on energetic electrons and positrons (specifically the most recent ones reported by PAMELA, ATIC, PPB-BETS and H.E.S.S.).'
author:
- '\'
title: Possible Interpretations of the High Energy Cosmic Ray Electron Spectrum measured with the Fermi Space Telescope
---
Cosmic ray electrons, Fermi Gamma Ray Telescope
Introduction
============
Prior to 2008, the high energy electron spectrum was measured by balloon-born experiments [@Kobayashi:2003kp] and by a single space mission AMS-01 [@ams1]. Those data are compatible with a featureless power law spectrum within their errors. This is in agreement with theoretical predictions (for a recent review see [@Strong:2007nh]) assuming: i) that the source term of CR electrons is treated as a time-independent and smooth function of the position in the Galaxy, and the energy dependence is assumed to be a power law; ii) that the propagation is described by a diffusion-loss equation whose effect is to steepen the spectral slope respect to the injection. Possible deviations from a simple power law spectrum may, however, be expected above several hundred GeV as a consequence of synchrotron radiation and Inverse Compton (IC) energy losses which, at those high energies, limit the electron propagation length to a distance comparable to the mean distance between astrophysical sources [@Aharonian:95; @Pohl:1998ug] or because the possible presence of exotic sources.
Few months ago, the ATIC balloon experiment [@atic] found a prominent spectral feature at around 600 GeV in the total electron spectrum. Furthermore, the H.E.S.S. [@hess; @hess:09] atmospheric Cherenkov telescope reported a significant steepening of the electron plus diffuse photon spectrum above 600 GeV. Another independent indication of the presence of a possible deviation from the standard picture came from the recent measurements of the positron to electron fraction, e$^+$ /(e$^-$+ e$^+$), between 1.5 and 100 GeV by the PAMELA satellite experiment [@PAMELA; @PAMELA_Nature]. PAMELA found that the positron fraction changes slope at around 10 GeV and begins to increase steadily up to 100 GeV. This behavior is very different from that predicted for secondary positrons produced in the collision of CR nuclides with the interstellar medium (ISM).
Recently the experimental information available on the CRE spectrum has been drastically expanded as the Fermi Collaboration has reported a high precision measurement of the electron spectrum from 20 GeV to 1 TeV performed with its Large Area Telescope (LAT) [@Fermi_CRE_1]. A simple power law fit of the Fermi-LAT electron energy spectrum (see Fig.\[fig:elepos\_242reac\]) is possible giving: $\displaystyle J_{e^\pm} = (175.40 \pm 6.09) \left(\frac{E}{1~{{\rm GeV}}} \right)^{-(3.045 \pm 0.008)} {{\rm GeV}}^{-1} {\rm m}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1} {\rm sr}^{-1} $ with $\chi^2$ = 9.7 (for 23 d.o.f.) where statistical and systematic (dominant) errors have been, conservatively, added in quadrature. The electron spectrum measured by Fermi-LAT reveals a hardening at around 70 GeV and a steepening above $\sim 500$ GeV. Although the significance of those features is low within current systematics, they suggest the presence of more components in the electron high energy spectrum. It is also worth noticing here that the hard electron spectrum observed by this experiment exacerbates the discrepancy between the predictions of standard CR theoretical models and the positron faction excess measured, most conclusively, by PAMELA [@PAMELA; @PAMELA_Nature]. This makes the exploration of some non-standard interpretations more compelling.
Conventional interpretation {#sec:GCRE}
===========================
We start considering a possible interpretation of Fermi-LAT CRE data in terms of a conventional [*Galactic CR electron scenario*]{} (GCRE) model assuming that electrons sources are continuously distributed in the Galactic disk and that positrons are only produced by the collision of primary CR nuclides with the interstellar gas. To this purpose we use the GALPROP numerical CR propagation code [@Moskalenko:01]. We consider here two reference conventional models with injection spectral index $\gamma_0 = 2.42$ above 4 GeV, if the value of power law index of the diffusion coefficient dependence on energy is $\delta = 0.33$, and $\gamma_0 = 2.33$ if $\delta = 0.6$ (see Tab. 1 in [@interpretation_paper] for more details about those models). As shown in Fig. \[fig:elepos\_242reac\] these models provide a good representation of Fermi-LAT CRE data. In the same figure we also show for comparison a conventional model with $\gamma_0 = 2.54$ which was already successfully used to interpret pre-Fermi CRE data [@Strong:04] and the diffuse gamma-ray emission measured by Fermi-LAT at intermediate Galactic latitudes [@GeVexc].
![Fermi-LAT CRE data [@Fermi_CRE_1], as well as several other experimental data sets, are compared to the $e^- + e^+$ spectrum modeled with GALPROP. The gray band represents systematic errors on the CRE spectrum measured by Fermi-LAT. The dotted (black) line correspond to the conventional model used in [@Strong:04] to fit pre-Fermi data conventional model. The dashed (red) and dash-dotter (blue) lines are obtained with modified injection indexes $\gamma_0 = 2.42$ (for $\delta = 0.33$) and $\gamma_0 = 2.33$ (for $\delta = 0.6$) respectively. In the insert the positron fraction for the same models is compared with experimental data. All models account for solar modulation in the force field approximation assuming a potential $\Phi = 0.55~{\rm GV}$. []{data-label="fig:elepos_242reac"}](icrc473_fig1){width="3in"}
GCRE models, however, face a series of problems, when compared with other experimental data sets, namely: i) they display a significant tension with respect to low energy pre-Fermi data, AMS-01[@ams1] and HEAT [@DuVernois:2001bb] most noticeably; ii) they exceed H.E.S.S. data above 1 TeV; iii) most seriously, the positron fraction $e^+/(e^+ + e^-)$ they predict is not consistent with that measered by PAMELA [@PAMELA; @PAMELA_Nature] (see the insert in Fig. \[fig:elepos\_242reac\]) . While item (ii) may be interpreted as a consequence of the stochastic nature of astrophysical sources (see Sec. 2.2 in [@interpretation_paper] and ref.s therein) the other caveats are most serious. For these reasons in the following sections we consider the possibility that an additional electron and positron primary component contribute to the observed Fermi-LAT, H.E.S.S. and PAMELA data at high energy.
Pulsar interpretation {#sec:pulsars}
=====================
Pulsars are undisputed sources of relativistic electrons and positrons, believed to be produced in their magnetosphere and subsequently possibly reaccelerated by the pulsar wind or in the supernova remnant shocks (see e.g. [@Harding:87; @Zhang:01]). For bright young pulsars the maximal acceleration energy can be as large as $10^3$ TeV. This quantity decreases for middle-age or, so called, [*mature*]{} pulsars (i.e. with age $10^4 \simleq T \simleq 10^6~{\rm yr}$ ). Electrons and positrons are expected to be liberated into the ISM only after pulsar wind nebulae or the surrounding supernova remnant merge into the ISM, $10^{4}$ - $10^{5}$ years after the pulsar birth. This process should be relatively fast so that [*mature*]{} pulsars can effectively be treated as burst-like sources of electrons and positrons. The possible role of these source explaining the PAMELA positron fraction anomaly [@PAMELA; @PAMELA_Nature] has been discussed in several papers (see e.g. [@Zhang:01; @Hooper:2008kg; @Profumo:2008ms] and ref.s therein).
We compute the spectrum of electrons and positrons from each pulsar by following the approach reported in the appendix of [@interpretation_paper]. The basic input is the $e^\pm$ energy release of each mature pulsar that we determine by integrating the observed spin-down luminosity over time giving (see e.g. [@Profumo:2008ms]) $E_{e^\pm} \simeq \eta_{e^\pm}~ {\dot E}_{\rm PSD}~\frac{T^2}{\tau_0}$ where $ {\dot E}_{\rm PSD}$ is the present time spin-down luminosity determined form the observed pulsar timing, $T = P/2{\dot P}$ (where $P$ is the pulsar period) the pulsar age, and $\eta_{e^\pm}$ is the $e^\pm$ pair conversion efficiency of the radiated electro-magnetic energy. For the characteristic luminosity decay time we assume $\tau_0 = 10^4~{\rm years}$ as conventionally adopted for mature pulsars. The setup we use here to model the large-scale GCRE spectrum is a slightly rescaled version of the conventional model used to interpret pre-Fermi data [@Strong:04] (we reduced the electron flux normalization by a factor $\sim 0.95$ respect to that model so to leave room to the extra pulsar $e^\pm$ component).
In general several pulsars contribute to the electron and positron fluxes reaching the Earth. For this reason we summed the contribution to the electron and positron flux of all pulsars in ATNF radio pulsar catalogue (http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat/ ) [@Manchester:05] with distance $d < 3~{{\rm kpc}}$ and age $T > 5 \times 10^4~{\rm yr}$ ( $\sim 150$ pulsars). More distant pulsars give a negligible contribution at the energies considered here; we assume that electron accelerated in younger pulsars are still confined in their nebulae (lowering this limiting age would not change significantly our results). For each of these pulsars we use the spin-down luminosity given in the catalogue and randomly vary the relevant parameter in the following representative ranges: $800 < E_{\rm cut} < 1400~{{\rm GeV}}$, $10 < \eta_{e^\pm} < 30~\%$ and $5 < (\Delta t / 10^4~{\rm yr} ) < 10$ and $1.5 < \Gamma < 1.9$. These ranges of parameter are compatible with our observational and theoretical knowledge of particle acceleration in PWNe (see e.g. [@Aharonian_book]). Following this approach we find that Fermi-LAT CRE data comfortably lie within the bands of those realizations (see Fig. \[fig:elepos\_random\_pulsars\]) and are in reasonable agreement with the positron fraction measured by PAMELA (see the insert in the same figure). It should be noted that the ATFN catalogue does not include all pulsars. Some pulsars radio beams are not pointing toward us and also selection effects in the radio detection intervene to reduce the number of the observed pulsars. Furthermore, the recent discovery of a population of radio-quiet gamma-ray pulsars by Fermi-LAT [@blind_search] has demonstrated that those pulsars are a significant fraction of the total pulsar set. We do not expect, however, that the average spectral shape would change significantly by accounting for pulsars not included in the ATFN catalogue. The larger electron and positron primary flux due to the contribution of those sources can be compensated by invoking a smaller pair conversion efficiency $\eta_{e^\pm}$ making this scenario even more appealing. While selection effects may lead to underestimate older pulsar at large distance, their role is almost negligible at the energies of interest here.
![The $e^- + e^+$ spectrum from pulsars plus the Galactic (GCRE) component with experimental data (dotted line). Each gray line represents the sum of all pulsars for a particular combination of pulsar parameters. The dashed (pulsars only) and solid (pulsars + GCRE component) blue lines correspond to a representative choice among that set of possible realizations. The dot-dashed (purple) line represents the contribution of Monogem pulsar in that particular case. Note that for graphical reasons here Fermi-LAT statistical and systematic errors are added in quadrature. In the insert the positron fraction for the same models is compared with experimental data. Solar modulation is accounted as done in Fig.\[fig:elepos\_242reac\]. []{data-label="fig:elepos_random_pulsars"}](icrc473_fig2){width="3in"}
Dark matter interpretation {#sec:DM}
==========================
Here we briefly discuss about the alternative possibility of interpreting in Fermi-LAT CRE data in terms of an electron and positron component originated from the pair-annihilation of Galactic dark matter (DM). The new Fermi-LAT data affect a dark matter interpretation of CRE data in at least three ways: [*i)*]{} The rationale to postulate a particle dark matter mass in the 0.5 to 1 TeV range, previously motivated by the ATIC data and the detected “bump”, is now much weaker, if at all existent, with the high statistics Fermi-LAT data; [*ii)*]{} CRE data can be used, in the context of particle dark matter model building, to set constraints on the pair annihilation rate or on the decay rate, for a given dark matter mass, diffusion setup and Galactic halo model; [*iii)*]{} as discussed in Sec.\[sec:GCRE\], unlike the Fermi-LAT CRE result, the PAMELA positron fraction measurement requires one or more additional primary sources in addition to the standard GCRE component, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:GCRE\]; if the PAMELA data are interpreted in the context of a dark-matter related scenario, Fermi-LAT data provide a correlated constraint to the resulting total CRE flux.
Here we consider the following representative class of models:
1. [*Pure $e^\pm$ models*]{}: for this class of models, the dark matter pair annihilation always yields a pair of monochromatic $e^\pm$, with injection energies equal to the mass of the annihilating dark matter particle. Such models arise for instance in the context of frameworks where the dark matter sector is [*secluded*]{} [@Pospelov:2007mp], and the dark matter pair-annihilates into a [*light gauge boson*]{} which can then kinematically decay only into $e^\pm$ [@ArkaniHamed:2008qn].
2. [*Lepto-philic models*]{}: here we assume a democratic dark matter pair-annihilation branching ratio into each charged lepton species: 1/3 into $e^\pm$, 1/3 into $\mu^\pm$ and 1/3 into $\tau^\pm$. Here too antiprotons are not produced in dark matter pair annihilation. Examples of models where the leptonic channels largely dominate include frameworks where either a discrete symmetry or the new physics mass spectrum suppresses other annihilation channels [@Fox:2008kb; @Harnik:2008uu].
3. [*Super-heavy dark matter models*]{}: As pointed out in [@Cirelli:2008pk], antiprotons can be suppressed below the PAMELA measured flux if the dark matter particle is heavy (i.e. in the multi-TeV mass range), and pair annihilates e.g. in weak interaction gauge bosons. Models with super-heavy dark matter can have the right thermal relic abundance, e.g. in the context of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model, as shown [@Profumo:2005xd].
For those models the flux of antiprotons is generically suppressed to a level compatible with experimental data. For the three classes of models outlined above, we consider here the same large scale Galactic CR electron and positron spectrum adopted in Sec.\[sec:pulsars\] Both the pure $e^\pm$ model and in the lepto-philic models allow a reasonable fit to both the PAMELA and the Fermi data is possible (though the latter seems to be favored). The preferred range for the dark matter mass lies between 400 GeV and 1-2 TeV, with larger masses increasingly constrained by the H.E.S.S. results [@hess; @hess:09]. The required annihilation rates, when employing a conventional dark matter density profile (see [@interpretation_paper] for details), imply typical boost factors ranging between 20 and 100, when compared to the value $\langle\sigma v\rangle\sim3\times 10^{-26}\ {\rm cm}^3/{\rm sec}$ expected for a thermally produced dark matter particle relic. The super-heavy dark matter models are significantly disfavored by Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. CRE data. Notice that other dark matter models (including e.g. TeV-scale dark matter particles annihilating in muon-antimuon final states, either monochromatically or through the decays of intermediate particles) offer additional possible case-studies, as discussed [*e.g.*]{} in [@Bergstrominprep; @Meade:2009iu].
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We reported on possible interpretations for the cosmic ray electron-plus-positron (CRE) spectrum measured by Fermi-LAT. The measured CRE flux is significantly harder than previously believed, and it does not show any sharp feature in the multi-hundred GeV range, although there are hints of an extra-component between 100 GeV and 1 TeV.
In the context of astrophysical interpretations to the CRE data, we discussed in the present analysis the case of a single large-scale diffuse Galactic (GCRE) component, and a two-component scenario which adds to the GCRE flux a primary electron and positron component produced by mature pulsars. In the GCRE scenario, a spatially continuous distribution of primary CRE sources in the Galactic disk, provides a satisfactory explanation to the Fermi-LAT CRE data for several combinations of the injection spectral index $\gamma_0$ and the CR propagation parameters. This scenario, however, is in sharp tension with the PAMELA data on the positron fraction, more than previously considered in the framework of GCRE models, as a consequence of the hardness of the electron plus positron spectrum measured by Fermi-LAT. Furthermore, a tension is also present between these GCRE models fitting the Fermi-LAT CRE spectrum and pre-Fermi experimental data below 10 GeV and H.E.S.S. CRE data above the TeV. Taking into account nearby mature pulsars as additional sources of high-energy CRE, we showed that both the PAMELA positron excess and the Fermi CRE data are naturally explained by known objects.
We also briefly considered another possible primary source of high-energy CRE: the annihilation or decay of particle dark matter in the Galactic halo. Fermi-LAT CRE data do not confirm the sharp spectral feature in the 500-1000 GeV range that prompted several studies to consider a dark matter particle mass in that same range. Yet, we showed that a dark matter particle annihilating or decaying dominantly in leptonic channels, and with a mass between 400 GeV and 2 TeV is compatible with both the positron excess reported by PAMELA and with the CRE spectrum measured by Fermi-LAT. While we found that the pulsar interpretation seems to be favored by Fermi-LAT CRE data, a clear discrimination between this and the dark matter scenario is not possible on the basis of the currently available data and may require to consider complementary observations. Most relevant Fermi measurements in this framework will be: (i) extend the energy range both to lower and to higher energies than reported so far, (ii) allow anisotropy studies of the arrival direction of high-energy CRE, which could conclusively point towards one (or more than one) nearby mature pulsar as the origin of high-energy CRE, and (iii) deepen our understanding of pulsars via gamma-ray observations, and via the discovery of new gamma-ray pulsars, potentially extremely relevant as high-energy CRE sources. Last but not least, Fermi measurements of the spectrum and angular distribution of the diffuse gamma-ray emission of the Galaxy will also shed light on the nature and spatial distribution of CRE sources.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The Fermi LAT Collaboration acknowledges support from a number of agencies and institutes for both development and the operation of the LAT as well as scientific data analysis. These include the NASA and the DOE United States, CEA/Irfu and IN2P3/CNRS in France, ASI and INFN in Italy, MEXT, and the K. A. Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish National Space Board in Sweden. Additional support from INAF in Italy for science analysis during the operations phase is also gratefully acknowledged. D.G. is supported by the Italian Space Agency under the contract AMS-02.ASI/AMS-02 n.I/035/07/0.
[99]{}
T. Kobayashi, Y. Komori, K. Yoshida and J. Nishimura, ApJ [601]{} (2004) 340. M. Aguilar [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Reports [**366**]{} (2002) 331.
A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko and V. S. Ptuskin, [Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.]{} [57]{} (2007) 285 F. A. Aharonian, A. M. Atoyan and H. J. Völk, A&A 294 (1995) L41.
M. Pohl and J. A. Esposito, ApJ [507]{} (1998) 327. J. Chang [*et al.*]{} \[ATIC Collaboration\], Nature [456]{} (2008) 362.
F. Aharonian [*et al.*]{} \[H.E.S.S. Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{} (2008) 261104. F. Aharonian [*et al.*]{} \[H.E.S.S. Collaboration\], arXiv:0905.0105 \[astro-ph.HE\]. O. Adriani [*et al.*]{} \[PAMELA Collaboration\], 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. [102]{} (2009) 051101. O. Adriani [*et al.*]{} \[PAMELA Collaboration\], Nature [**458**]{} (2009b) 607.
A.A. Abdo et al. 2009 \[Fermi collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, (2009) 181101. I. Moskalenko, A. Strong, Adv. Space Res. [**27**]{} (2001b) 717. D. Grasso [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi Collaboration\], arXiv:0905.0636 \[astro-ph.HE\]. A.W. Strong, I.W. Moskalenko and O. Reimer, ApJ 613 (2004) 962. A.A. Abdo et al. \[Fermi collaboration\], submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. (2009b).
M. A. DuVernois [*et al.*]{} \[HEAT Collaboration\], ApJ 559 (2001) 296. A. K. Harding and R. Ramaty, Proc. of the 20th International Cosmic Ray Conference Moscow, Volume 2, (1987) 92.
L. Zhang and K.S. Cheng, A&A 368 (2001) 1063.
D. Hooper, P. Blasi and P. D. Serpico, JCAP [**0901**]{} (2009) 025. S. Profumo, arXiv:0812.4457 \[astro-ph\]. Manchester, R.N., Hobbs, G.B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993
F.A. Aharonian, Very High Energy Cosmic Radiation, World Scientific, 2004.
A.A. Abdo et al. \[Fermi collaboration\], submitted to Science (2009c).
M. Pospelov, A. Ritz and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B [**662**]{} (2008) 53. N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. Slatyer and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D [79]{} (2009) 015014. P. J. Fox and E. Poppitz, arXiv:0811.0399 \[hep-ph\]. R. Harnik and G. D. Kribs, arXiv:0810.5557 \[hep-ph\].
M. Cirelli [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [813]{} (2009) 1. S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} (2005) 103521. L. Bergstrom, J. Edsjo and G. Zaharijas, arXiv:0905.0333 \[astro-ph.HE\]. P. Meade, M. Papucci, A. Strumia and T. Volansky, arXiv:0905.0480 \[hep-ph\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Given a family of lattice polytopes, two common questions in Ehrhart Theory are determining when a polytope has the integer decomposition property and determining when a polytope is reflexive. While these properties are of independent interest, the confluence of these properties is a source of active investigation due to conjectures regarding the unimodality of the $h^\ast$-polynomial. In this paper, we consider the Newton polytopes arising from two families of polynomials in algebraic combinatorics: Schur polynomials and inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials. In both cases, we prove that these polytopes have the integer decomposition property by using the fact that both families of polynomials have saturated Newton polytope. Furthermore, in both cases, we provide a complete characterization of when these polytopes are reflexive. We conclude with some explicit formulas and unimodality implications of the $h^\ast$-vector in the case of Schur polynomials.'
author:
- |
Margaret Bayer, Bennet Goeckner, Su Ji Hong, Tyrrell McAllister,\
McCabe Olsen, Casey Pinckney, Julianne Vega, and Martha Yip
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Lattice polytopes from Schur and symmetric Grothendieck polynomials
---
Introduction
============
Of central interest in algebraic combinatorics are polynomials $f \in \mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\dots, x_m]$, which commonly appear as generating functions that encode some combinatorial information. Associated to each polynomial $f$ is the Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(f)$, which is the convex hull of the exponent vectors occurring in the monomials in $f$. A polynomial has [**saturated Newton polytope**]{} if every lattice point appearing in the Newton polytope corresponds to the exponent vector of a monomial in $f$ with nonzero coefficient [@Monical-Tokcan-Yong].
If a polynomial $f$ has saturated Newton polytope, then checking if a monomial has nonzero coefficient is equivalent to checking if the corresponding integer lattice point is in the Newton polytope. Adve, et al. [@Adve-Robichaux-Yong] use this perspective to study the computational complexity of the “nonvanishing problem” for polynomials, with a focus on Schubert polynomials.
In this paper, we study Newton polytopes arising from Schur polynomials and a generalization of symmetric Grothendieck polynomials, which we call inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials. We denote these polytopes by ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda)$ and ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda})$, respectively. The polytopes ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda)$ and ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{1,\lambda})$ have previously been studied by Monical, Tokcan, and Yong [@Monical-Tokcan-Yong] and Escobar and Yong [@Escobar-Yong], but many open questions remain. We are particularly interested in determining when ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda)$ and ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda})$ are reflexive and when they have the integer decomposition property (IDP), both of which we define in Section \[Section:Background\].
The Ehrhart series of a lattice polytope $\mathcal{P}$ is a combinatorial tool that enumerates the lattice points in dilations of $\mathcal{P}$. The $h^\ast$-vector of $\mathcal{P}$, denoted $h^\ast(\mathcal{P})$, records the coefficients in the numerator of the rational function representing the Ehrhart series. Understanding the $h^\ast$-vectors of reflexive polytopes has been a topic of extensive recent research [@Braun-Unimodality-Survey]. Hibi showed that reflexive polytopes have palindromic $h^\ast$-vectors [@Hibi--Palindromic].
A lattice polytope $\mathcal{P}$ is [**Gorenstein**]{} if some positive integer dilate of $\mathcal{P}$ is reflexive, and hence the Gorenstein property is a relaxation of reflexivity. The following conjecture is commonly attributed to Ohsugi and Hibi [@Ohsugi-Hibi] in the modern literature, though it is a special case of conjectures of Brenti [@Brenti--LogConcave] and of Stanley [@Stanley--LogConcave].
\[conj-unimodal\] If $\mathcal{P}$ is a Gorenstein polytope that has the integer decomposition property, then $h^\ast(\mathcal{P})$ is unimodal.
A prominent open question in Ehrhart Theory is whether the $h^\ast$-vector of every lattice polytope with IDP is unimodal [@Schepers-VanLangenhoven]; this is related to a conjecture of Stanley’s on the unimodality of $h$-vectors of Cohen-Macaulay and Gorenstein domains [@Stanley-Hilbert-Functions-CM]. Schepers and Van Langenhoven [@Schepers-VanLangenhoven] show that lattice parallelepipeds, which are among the simplest examples of polytopes that have IDP, also have unimodal $h^\ast$-vectors. We show ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda)$ and ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda})$ have IDP and then consider unimodality of the $h^\ast$-vector of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda)$.
Our main contributions in this paper are as follows. We show that all Newton polytopes that arise from Schur polynomials have IDP, and characterize which of these are reflexive. We present closed-form expressions for the $h^\ast$-vectors of those that are reflexive and show that these vectors are all unimodal. This is a family for which Conjecture \[conj-unimodal\] holds. Further, we consider symmetric Grothendieck polynomials, which are linear combinations of Schur polynomials and can be thought of as their inhomogeneous analogue. We show that all Newton polytopes arising from inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials have IDP, and characterize the very few that are reflexive.
**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to thank Federico Castillo and Semin Yoo for helpful discussions and contributions to the early stages of the project.
This work was completed in part at the 2019 Graduate Research Workshop in Combinatorics, which was supported in part by NSF grant \#1923238, NSA grant \#H98230-18-1-0017, a generous award from the Combinatorics Foundation, and Simons Foundation Collaboration Grants \#426971 (to M. Ferrara) and \#315347 (to J. Martin). Margaret Bayer was partially supported by a University of Kansas General Research Fund grant. Bennet Goeckner was partially supported by an AMS-Simons travel grant. Martha Yip was partially supported by a Simons Collaboration grant.
Background {#Section:Background}
==========
In this section, we briefly recall notions from convex geometry, Ehrhart theory, and the study of Newton polytopes in algebraic combinatorics.
Convex polytopes and Ehrhart theory
-----------------------------------
A [**polytope**]{} ${\mathcal{P}}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^m$ is the convex hull of finitely many points $\bv_1,\ldots,\bv_k\in{\mathbb{R}}^m$. That is, $${\mathcal{P}}= \operatorname{conv}\{\bv_1,\ldots,\bv_k\}\coloneqq
\left\{ \x=\sum_{i=1}^k \nu_i \bv_i \ \bigg| \ 0\leq \nu_i\leq 1 \mbox{ and } \sum_{i=1}^k\nu_i=1\right\}.$$ The inclusion-minimal set $V\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^m$ such that ${\mathcal{P}}=\operatorname{conv}(V)$ is called the [**vertex set**]{} of ${\mathcal{P}}$. A polytope is called [**lattice**]{} (resp. [**rational**]{}) if ${\mathcal{P}}=\operatorname{conv}(V)$ for $V\subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}^m$ (resp. $V\subseteq {\mathbb{Q}}^m$). Given a polytope ${\mathcal{P}}\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^m$, the classical Minkowski–Weyl theorem states that we can express ${\mathcal{P}}$ as a bounded set of the form $${\mathcal{P}}=\{\x\in{\mathbb{R}}^m \mid \langle \a_i,\x \rangle \leq b_i \mbox{ for } i=1,\ldots,\ell\}$$ where $\langle \a_i,\x \rangle = \sum_{j=1}^m a_{ij}x_j$ for some $\a_1,\ldots,\a_\ell\in{\mathbb{R}}^m$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_\ell\in {\mathbb{R}}$. If none of these inequalities are redundant, these inequalities define the [**facets**]{}, or codimension 1 faces of ${\mathcal{P}}$. The [**dimension**]{} of ${\mathcal{P}}$, denoted $\dim({\mathcal{P}})$, is defined to be the dimension of its affine span in ${\mathbb{R}}^m$.
Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a lattice polytope with $\dim({\mathcal{P}})=d\leq m$. Given a positive integer $t$, let $t{\mathcal{P}}\coloneqq \{t\x \mid \x \in {\mathcal{P}}\}$ be the $t$-th dilate of ${\mathcal{P}}$. The lattice point enumeration function $$\operatorname{ehr}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)\coloneqq \#(t{\mathcal{P}}\cap {\mathbb{Z}}^m)$$ is called the [**Ehrhart polynomial**]{} of ${\mathcal{P}}$. By a classical result of Ehrhart [@Ehrhart], this polynomial agrees with a polynomial of degree $d$ in the variable $t$. Equivalently, one may also consider the [**Ehrhart series**]{} of ${\mathcal{P}}$ which is defined to be the formal power series $$\operatorname{Ehr}_{\mathcal{P}}(z)\coloneqq 1+ \sum_{t\geq 1}\operatorname{ehr}_{\mathcal{P}}(t)z^t=\frac{1+h_1^\ast z+\cdots +h_{d-1}^\ast z^{d-1}+h_d^\ast z^d}{(1-z)^{d+1}}.$$ The numerator of the Ehrhart series is called the [**$h^\ast$-polynomial**]{} and the vector of coefficients $h^\ast({\mathcal{P}})=(1,h^\ast_1,\ldots, h^\ast_d)$ the [**$h^\ast$-vector**]{}. By a result of Stanley [@Stanley-Hilbert-Functions-CM], $(1,h^\ast_1,\ldots, h^\ast_d)\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^{d+1}$.
Studying $h^\ast({\mathcal{P}})$ often informs the algebraic and geometric structure of a lattice polytope ${\mathcal{P}}$. If $\mathbf{0}$ is in the interior of ${\mathcal{P}}$, the [**(polar) dual polytope**]{} of ${\mathcal{P}}$ is the rational polytope $${\mathcal{P}}^\ast\coloneqq \left\{\y\in{\mathbb{R}}^m \mid \langle\y,\x\rangle\leq 1 \mbox{ for all } \x\in {\mathcal{P}}\right\}.$$ A polytope ${\mathcal{P}}$ with $\mathbf{0}$ in its interior is called [**reflexive**]{} if ${\mathcal{P}}^\ast$ is a lattice polytope. Equivalently, ${\mathcal{P}}$ is reflexive (up to translation and lattice preserving transformations) if it contains a unique lattice point $\p$ in its interior, and for any facet ${\mathcal{P}}\cap\{\x\in{\mathbb{R}}^m \mid \langle\a,\x\rangle= b\}$ where $\a$ is primitive (meaning the greatest common divisor of the coordinates of $\a$ is 1) we have $|\langle\a,\p\rangle -b\,|=1$. This final quantity is called the [**lattice distance**]{} of $\p$ from the facet.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a lattice polytope of dimension $d$ containing the origin in its interior and having Ehrhart series $$\textnormal{Ehr}_{\mathcal{P}}(z) = \frac{h_0^{\ast}+h_1^\ast z+\cdots +h_{d-1}^\ast z^{d-1}+h_d^\ast z^d}{(1-z)^{d+1}}.$$ Then $\mathcal{P}$ is reflexive if and only if $h_i^{\ast}=h_{d-i}^{\ast}$ for all $0\leq i \leq \lfloor\frac{d}{2}\rfloor$.
In other words, the $h^\ast$-polynomial of a reflexive lattice polytope is a palindromic polynomial of degree $d$.
A relaxation of reflexivity is the Gorenstein property. We say that ${\mathcal{P}}$ is [**Gorenstein**]{} if there is some positive integer $c$ such that $c{\mathcal{P}}$ is a reflexive polytope, and the integer $c$ is called the [**Gorenstein index**]{} of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Similarly, this is completely detected by the Ehrhart series as ${\mathcal{P}}$ is Gorenstein if and only if its $h^\ast$-polynomial is palindromic of degree $d-c+1$ by a result of De Negri and Hibi [@DeNegri-Hibi].
Given a lattice polytope ${\mathcal{P}}$, one can consider the interplay between the convex geometry of ${\mathcal{P}}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^m$ with the induced arithmetic structure of ${\mathcal{P}}\cap {\mathbb{Z}}^m$. This motivates the discussion of triangulations and the integer decomposition property. A [**(lattice) triangulation**]{} $\mathcal{T}$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a decomposition of ${\mathcal{P}}$ as a lattice simplicial complex. We say that $\mathcal{T}$ is [**regular**]{} if the triangulation is induced as the domains of linearity of a piecewise-linear, convex function $\sigma:{\mathcal{P}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$. We say that $\mathcal{T}$ is [**unimodular**]{} if each maximal simplex $\Delta\in \mathcal{T}$ is a [**unimodular simplex**]{}, that is, if the vertices of $\Delta$ generate ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$. We say that ${\mathcal{P}}$ has the [**integer decomposition property (IDP)**]{} if for any positive integer $t$ and any lattice point $\p \in t\mathcal{P}\cap \mathbb{Z}^m$, there are $t$ lattice points $\bv_1, \ldots, \bv_t \in \mathcal{P}\cap \mathbb{Z}^m$ such that $\p= \bv_1+\cdots+\bv_t.$ The existence of a (regular) unimodular triangulation of ${\mathcal{P}}$ ensures that ${\mathcal{P}}$ has IDP. This implication is strict as one can construct examples of polytopes with IDP without a unimodular triangulation (see, e.g., [@Bruns-Gubeladze; @Firla-Ziegler]).
A sequence $a_0,a_1,\dots,a_n$ of real numbers is [**unimodal**]{} if there is some $0\leq j\leq n$ such that $a_0 \leq a_1 \leq \cdots \leq a_{j-1} \leq a_j \geq a_{j+1} \geq \cdots \geq a_n$. A common investigatory theme in Ehrhart theory is determining under what conditions one may ensure that coefficients of the $h^\ast$-vector form a unimodal sequence. The most notable sufficient result is the following.
\[thm-GorensteinTriangulation\] *(Bruns and Römer [@Bruns-Roemer], Athanasiadis [@Athanasiadis-h*-vectors Theorem 1.3][^1])* If ${\mathcal{P}}$ is Gorenstein and admits a regular, unimodular triangulation, then $h^\ast({\mathcal{P}})$ is a unimodal sequence.
Given that these conditions are rather restrictive, it is natural to consider relaxations to determine if unimodality still holds. It is known that Gorenstein is not sufficient for unimodality as indicated by Payne [@Payne], though none of these examples exhibit IDP.
The following even broader question was posed by Scheppers and Van Langenhoven:
If ${\mathcal{P}}$ has the integer decomposition property, is $h^\ast({\mathcal{P}})$ a unimodal sequence?
Newton polytopes
----------------
Given a polynomial $f=\sum_{\alpha}c_{\alpha} \x^{\alpha} \in \mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\dots, x_m]$ where $\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}^m_{\geq 0}$, the [**Newton polytope**]{} ${\mathrm{Newt}}(f)$ of $f$ is defined as the convex hull of the exponent vectors of $f$. That is, $${\mathrm{Newt}}(f)\coloneqq \operatorname{conv}\{\alpha \mid c_{\alpha}\neq 0\}.$$ A polynomial $f$ has [**saturated Newton polytope (SNP)**]{} if every lattice point $\alpha\in{\mathrm{Newt}}(f)\cap {\mathbb{Z}}^m$ appears as an exponent vector of $f$, that is, $c_\alpha\neq 0$. This notion was introduced by Monical, Tokcan, and Yong in [@Monical-Tokcan-Yong].
We now define our main objects of study in this paper, Newton polytopes arising from Schur polynomials and from inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials, both of which have SNP. A [**partition**]{} of a nonnegative integer $n$ with at most $m$ parts is $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_m)$ with $\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2 \geq \cdots \geq \lambda_m\geq 0$ and $\sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i = n$. This is denoted by $\lambda\vdash n$. The number of positive parts of $\lambda$ is denoted by $\ell(\lambda)$. The [**Young diagram**]{} associated to $\lambda$ is an arrangement of boxes with $\lambda_i$ boxes in the $i$-th row, with rows aligned at the left. Given partitions $\mu$ and $\lambda$ such that the Young diagram of $\lambda$ is contained in the Young diagram of $\mu$, the [**skew shape**]{} $\mu/\lambda$ is the Young diagram consisting of boxes in $\mu$ which are not in $\lambda$. A [**semistandard Young tableau**]{} is a filling of a Young diagram with positive integers such that entries are weakly increasing along each row and strictly increasing along each column. Let $\operatorname{SSYT}^{[m]}(\mu/\lambda)$ denote the set of all semistandard Young tableaux of shape $\mu/\lambda$ with fillings from $[m]=\{1,\dots,m\}$.
Let $\x = (x_1,\ldots,x_m)$. The [**Schur polynomial**]{} in $m$ variables indexed by $\lambda\vdash n$ is $$s_{\lambda}(\x)=\sum_{T\in\operatorname{SSYT}^{[m]}(\lambda)} \x^T,$$ where $\x^T= x_1^{d_1(T)}\cdots x_m^{d_m(T)}$ such that $d_i(T)$ is the number of times $i$ appears in $T$.
\[ex:(3)\] Consider the partition $\lambda=(3,0,0)\vdash 3$. Let $m=3$ and $\x = (x_1,x_2,x_3)$. The semistandard Young tableaux are $$\ytableausetup{smalltableaux}
\ytableaushort{111}\quad
\ytableaushort{222}\quad
\ytableaushort{333}\quad
\ytableaushort{112}\quad
\ytableaushort{113}\quad
\ytableaushort{122}\quad
\ytableaushort{133}\quad
\ytableaushort{223}\quad
\ytableaushort{233}\quad
\ytableaushort{123}$$ and the associated Schur polynomial is $$s_{(3,0,0)}(\x) =
x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3
+ x_1^2x_2+x_1^2x_3+x_1x_2^2+x_1x_3^2+x_2^2x_3+x_2x_3^2
+x_1x_2x_3.$$ The Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{(3,0,0)}(\x))$ is the convex hull of the points $$(3,0,0),(2,1,0),(2,0,1),(1,2,0),(1,1,1),(1,0,2),(0,3,0),(0,2,1),(0,1,2),(0,0,3)
.$$
\[ex:(2,1)\] Consider the partition $\lambda=(2,1,0)\vdash 3$. Let $m=3$ and $\x = (x_1,x_2,x_3)$. The semistandard Young tableaux are $$\ytableaushort{11,2}\quad
\ytableaushort{11,3}\quad
\ytableaushort{12,2}\quad
\ytableaushort{13,3}\quad
\ytableaushort{22,3}\quad
\ytableaushort{23,3}\quad
\ytableaushort{12,3}\quad
\ytableaushort{13,2}$$ and the associated Schur polynomial is $$s_{(2,1,0)}(\x) =
x_1^2x_2+x_1^2x_3+x_1x_2^2+x_1x_3^2+x_2^2x_3+x_2x_3^2+2x_1x_2x_3.$$ The Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{(2,1,0)}(\x))$ is the convex hull of the points $$(2,1,0),(2,0,1),(1,2,0),(1,0,2),(0,2,1),(0,1,2),(1,1,1).$$
Since Schur polynomials are homogeneous polynomials, we have that ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(x_1,\ldots, x_m))$ is an $(m-1)$-dimensional polytope in $\mathbb{R}^m$. Consequently, the polytopes for the Schur polynomials in Example \[ex:(3)\] and Example \[ex:(2,1)\] are $2$-dimensional polytopes in $\mathbb{R}^3$. In Figure \[fig:schur\], we have depicted these polytopes (equivalently) in the plane for convenience. It is known that Schur polynomials have SNP [@Monical-Tokcan-Yong Proposition 2.5].
![Newton polytopes for Schur polynomials in Example \[ex:(3)\] (left) and Example \[ex:(2,1)\] (right) drawn in $\mathbb{R}^2$ rather than in a $2$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{R}^3$. Both of these polytopes can be shown to be reflexive if we translate them so that their unique interior point is $(0,0)$.[]{data-label="fig:schur"}](SageImage-schur_3_3-reflexive-triangle.png "fig:"){height="3.5cm"} ![Newton polytopes for Schur polynomials in Example \[ex:(3)\] (left) and Example \[ex:(2,1)\] (right) drawn in $\mathbb{R}^2$ rather than in a $2$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{R}^3$. Both of these polytopes can be shown to be reflexive if we translate them so that their unique interior point is $(0,0)$.[]{data-label="fig:schur"}](SageImage-schur_21_3-reflexive-hexagon.png "fig:"){height="3.5cm"}
In Section \[sec:Reflexive\_Schur\], we characterize which Newton polytopes arising from Schur polynomials are reflexive. Figure \[fig:Reflexive-Nonreflexive-BG\] illustrates examples of reflexive and nonreflexive ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))$, generated using Normaliz [@Normaliz] and SageMath [@sagemath].
![The polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{(2,1,1,0)}(\x))$, on the left, is reflexive and the polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{(2,1,0,0)}(\x))$, on the right, is not reflexive.[]{data-label="fig:Reflexive-Nonreflexive-BG"}](SageImage_Schur_211_4_shift-Reflexive.png "fig:"){height="5.5cm"} ![The polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{(2,1,1,0)}(\x))$, on the left, is reflexive and the polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{(2,1,0,0)}(\x))$, on the right, is not reflexive.[]{data-label="fig:Reflexive-Nonreflexive-BG"}](SageImage_Schur_21_4-Non-reflexive.png "fig:"){height="5.5cm"}
The Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))$ of a Schur polynomial can be realized as the $(m-1)$-dimensional [**$\lambda$-permutohedron**]{} $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ in $\mathbb{R}^m$, which is the convex hull of the $S_m$-orbit of $(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_m)\in \mathbb{R}^m$.
Symmetric Grothendieck polynomials can be thought of as an inhomogeneous analogue of Schur polynomials. The following definition is due to Lenart [@Lenart Theorem 2.2].
Let $\x=(x_1,\ldots, x_m)$ and let $\lambda$ be a partition with at most $m$ parts. For any partition $\mu\supseteq \lambda$ with at most $m$ rows, let $a_{\lambda\mu}$ be the number of fillings of the skew shape $\mu/ \lambda$ such that the filling increases strictly along each row and each column, and the filling in the $r$-th row is from $\{1,\ldots, r-1\}$. Let $$A(\lambda) = \{ \mu \mid a_{\lambda\mu} \neq 0 \}.$$ The [*symmetric Grothendieck polynomial*]{} indexed by $\lambda$ is $$G_\lambda(\x) = \sum_{\mu\in A(\lambda)} (-1)^{|\mu/\lambda|} a_{\lambda\mu} s_\mu(\x).$$
\[210example\] Let $\lambda =(2,1,0)\vdash 3$, $m=3$, and $\mathbf{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)$. Then $$G_{(2,1,0)}(\mathbf{x}) = \textcolor{black}{s_{(2,1,0)}(\mathbf{x})} - \textcolor{black}{\left(s_{(2,2,0)}(\mathbf{x}) + 2s_{(2,1,1)}(\mathbf{x})\right)} + \textcolor{black}{2s_{(2,2,1)}(\mathbf{x})} - \textcolor{black}{s_{(2,2,2)}(\mathbf{x})}.$$ See Figure \[fig.Grothendieck\] for an illustration of the Newton polytope of $G_{(2,1,0)}(\mathbf{x})$.
Escobar and Yong [@Escobar-Yong] have shown that symmetric Grothendieck polynomials $G_\lambda(\x)$ have SNP.
The Integer Decomposition Property
==================================
In this section we will show that the Integer Decomposition Property (IDP) holds for Schur polynomials and a generalization of the symmetric Grothendieck polynomials.
The Newton polytope of a Schur polynomial
-----------------------------------------
Using the realization of the Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))$ as the $\lambda$-permutohedron $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^{m}$, we show that all Newton polytopes of Schur polynomials have IDP.
\[thm:Schur\_IDP\] Let $\lambda$ be a partition with at most $m$ parts and let $\x = (x_1,\ldots, x_m)$. Then the Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x)) = \mathcal{P}_{\lambda}^m$ has the integer decomposition property.
The vertices of the $t$-th dilate $t\mathcal{P}_\lambda^{m}$ are the vertices of $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^{m}$ scaled by $t$, so the vertices of $t\mathcal{P}_\lambda^{m}$ are given by the $S_m$-orbit of $t\lambda$, and $t\mathcal{P}_\lambda^{m} = {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{t\lambda}(\x))$.
Let $\p$ be a point in the $t$-th dilate $t\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m = {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{t\lambda}(\x))$. Since $s_{t\lambda}(\x)$ has saturated Newton polytope, then $\p$ is the content vector of a semistandard Young tableaux $T$ of shape $t\lambda$. The tableau $T$ decomposes into $t$ semistandard Young tableaux $T_1,\ldots, T_t$ each of shape $\lambda$ such that $T_i$ consists of the $j$-th columns of $T$ for $j\equiv i\mod t$. Letting $\bv_i$ denote the content vector of $T_i$, then $\p = \bv_1 + \cdots + \bv_t$, so ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))$ has IDP.
Let $m=3$, $\x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)$, and $\lambda = (2,1,0)\vdash 3$. Each lattice point in the dilated polytope $3{\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x)) = {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{3\lambda}(\x))$ is the content vector of a semistandard Young tableau $T$ of shape $3\lambda = (6,3,0)$, and the lattice point can be decomposed into the sum of three points which are content vectors of semistandard Young tableaux $T_1, T_2, T_3$ of shape $\lambda$ by taking the columns of $T$ mod $3$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{ytableau}
*(pink1) 1 &*(green2) 1 &*(yellow) 2 &*(pink1) 2 &*(green2) 2 &*(yellow) 3 \\
*(pink1) 2 &*(green2) 3 &*(yellow) 3
\end{ytableau}
&=
\begin{ytableau}
*(pink1) 1 &*(pink1) 2 \\
*(pink1) 2
\end{ytableau}
+
\begin{ytableau}
*(green2) 1&*(green2) 2 \\
*(green2) 3
\end{ytableau}
+
\begin{ytableau}
*(yellow) 2 &*(yellow) 3 \\
*(yellow) 3
\end{ytableau}\\ \\
(2,4,3) &= (1,2,0) + (1,1,1) + (0,1,2) \end{aligned}$$
The Newton polytope of a symmetric Grothendieck polynomial
----------------------------------------------------------
A notable difference between the Newton polytope of Schur polynomials versus symmetric Grothendieck polynomials is that unlike the case of Schur polynomials, $t{\mathrm{Newt}}(G_\lambda(\x)) \neq {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{t\lambda}(\x))$. Motivated by our study of the integer decomposition property of the Newton polytope of symmetric Grothendieck polynomials, we make the following definition.
Let $h$ be a positive integer. Let $\x=(x_1,\ldots, x_m)$ and let $\lambda \vdash n$ be a partition with at most $m$ parts. For any partition $\mu \supseteq \lambda$ with at most $m$ rows, let $b_{h,\lambda\mu}$ be the number of fillings of the skew shape $\mu/\lambda$ such that the filling increases strictly along each row and each column, and the filling in the $r$-th row is from $\{1,\ldots, h(r-1)\}$. Let $$A(h,\lambda) = \{ \mu \mid b_{h,\lambda\mu}\neq0 \}.$$ The [**inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomial**]{} indexed by $\lambda$ and $h$ is $$G_{h,\lambda}(\x) = \sum_{\mu\in A(h,\lambda)} (-1)^{|\mu/\lambda|} b_{h,\lambda\mu}s_\mu(\x).$$
Let $\lambda =(2,1,0) \vdash 3$, $m=3$, $h=2$, and $\x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)$. Then $$G_{2,(2,1,0)}(\x) = s_{(2,1,0)}(\x) - (2s_{(2,2,0)}(\x) + 4s_{(2,1,1)}(\x))
+ 8s_{(2,2,1)}(\x) - 11 s_{(2,2,2)}(\x).$$ Compare with Example \[210example\].
Note that $G_{1,\lambda}(\x)=G_\lambda(\x)$ is the usual symmetric Grothendieck polynomial.
Escobar and Yong [@Escobar-Yong] showed that the symmetric Grothendieck polynomial $G_\lambda(\x)$ has SNP and described the components of the Newton polytope associated to the homogeneous components of $G_\lambda(\x)$. We extend the work of Escobar and Yong to $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$ and show that $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$ also has SNP.
### Inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials and SNP
For two partitions $\mu,\lambda \vdash n$, we say $\mu$ [**dominates**]{} $\lambda$ and write $\mu \,\unrhd\, \lambda$, if $\mu_1 + \cdots +\mu_i \geq \lambda_1 + \cdots + \lambda_i$ for every $i \geq 1$.
\[defn.partition\_sequence\] Let $h$ be a positive integer and let $\lambda$ be a partition with at most $m$ parts. Let $\lambda^{(0)} =\lambda$ and for $k\geq 1$, let $\lambda^{(k)} \vdash |\lambda|+k$ be the partition obtained by adding a box to the $r_k$-th row of $\lambda^{(k-1)}$, where $r_k\in[m]$ is the smallest integer such that $$\lambda^{(k-1)}_{r_k} - \lambda_{r_k} < h(r_k-1),$$ and adding a box to the $r_k$-th row of $\lambda^{(k-1)}$ results in a valid partition. If $\deg G_{h,\lambda}(\x) = |\lambda|+N$, we say $\lambda^{(0)}, \ldots, \lambda^{(N)}$ is the [**sequence of dominating partitions for $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$**]{}.
We justify this terminology with the next result. Lemma \[lem.dominance\](a) is an extension of the result [@Escobar-Yong Claim A] of Escobar-Yong to the case of inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials.
\[lem.dominance\] Let $\deg G_{h,\lambda}(\x)=|\lambda|+N$, and let $\{\lambda^{(0)}, \ldots, \lambda^{(N)}\}$ be the sequence of dominating partitions for $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$.
1. For $k=0,\ldots, N$, the partition $\lambda^{(k)}$ dominates all other partitions $\mu\in A(h,\lambda)$ such that $\mu \vdash |\lambda|+k$.
2. The partition $\lambda^{(N)}$ is the unique partition $\mu\in A(h,\lambda)$ such that $\mu \vdash |\lambda|+N$.
3. $A(h,\lambda) = \{\mu \mid \lambda \subseteq \mu \subseteq \lambda^{(N)} \}. $
Let $\mu\in A(h,\lambda)$ such that $\mu \vdash |\lambda|+k$. Suppose for contradiction that $\lambda^{(k)}$ does not dominate $\mu$, so that there exists a minimum $s>1$ such that $\mu_1+\cdots+\mu_{s-1} \leq \lambda_1^{(k)} + \cdots +\lambda_{s-1}^{(k)}$ but $\mu_1+\cdots+\mu_s > \lambda_1^{(k)} + \cdots +\lambda_s^{(k)}$. This implies $\mu_s > \lambda_s^{(k)}$.
The partition $\lambda^{(k)}$ was obtained by adding a box to $\lambda^{(k-1)}$ in the $r_k$-th row. If $s< r_k$, then $$\lambda_s^{(k-1)}-\lambda_s \leq \lambda_s^{(k)}-\lambda_s < \mu_s - \lambda_s \leq h(s-1),$$ so a box would have been added to $\lambda^{(k-1)}$ in the $s$-th row to obtain $\lambda^{(k)}$, contradicting the construction of $\lambda^{(k)}$. Thus $s\geq r_k$. But then by the construction of $\lambda^{(k)}$, for all $j\geq r_k$, $$(\lambda_1^{(k)}+\cdots+\lambda_{j}^{(k)}) - \left(\lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_{j} \right) = k
\geq (\mu_1+\cdots+\mu_{j}) - \left(\lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_{j} \right),$$ which contradicts the existence of $s$, so part (a) holds.
Parts (b) and (c) follow from the maximality of $\lambda^{(N)}$.
\[proposition\_layers\_of\_polytope\] Let $h$ be a positive integer, and let $\lambda$ be a partition with at most $m$ parts. Suppose $\deg G_{h,\lambda}(\x) = |\lambda|+N$, and let $\lambda^{(0)},\ldots, \lambda^{(N)}$ be the sequence of dominating partitions for $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$. Further, let $H_k$ be the hyperplane in $\mathbb{R}^m$ defined by $\sum_{i=1}^m x_i = |\lambda|+k$. Then $${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) \cap H_k = {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(k)}}(\x)).$$
For $k\geq0$, if $(p_1,\ldots, p_m) \in H_k$, then $\sum_{i=1}^m p_i = |\lambda|+k$, thus ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))\cap H_k$ is the convex hull of the content vectors of the partitions $\mu\in A(h,\lambda)$ such that $\mu \vdash |\lambda|+k$.
A result of Rado [@Rado Proposition 2.5] states that $${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\alpha(\x))\subseteq {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\beta(\x)) \hbox{ if and only if } \alpha \,\unlhd\, \beta$$ for any two partitions $\alpha, \beta$. By Lemma \[lem.dominance\](a), since $\lambda^{(k)}$ dominates all partitions $\mu\in A(h,\lambda)$ such that $\mu \vdash |\lambda|+k$, then ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\mu(\x)) \leq {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(k)}}(\x))$, and we conclude that $H_k \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) = {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(k)}}(\x))$.
The intersection of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ with the hyperplane $H_k$ corresponds to the homogeneous component of $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$ of degree $|\lambda|+k$.
\[proposition\_snp\_of\_sgp\] The inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomial $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$ has SNP.
In [@Escobar-Yong], the proof that $G_{1,\lambda}(\x)=G_\lambda(\x)$ has SNP does not depend on the inflation parameter $h$ other than in [@Escobar-Yong Claim A], which describes the structure of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_\lambda(\x))$ arising from the homogeneous components of $G_\lambda(\x)$. Using the description of the homogeneous components of $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$ from Proposition \[proposition\_layers\_of\_polytope\], the rest of the proof in [@Escobar-Yong] applies to arbitrary $h\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$ and shows that $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$ has SNP.
We revisit Example \[210example\] from the viewpoint of dominating partitions. (Here $h=1$.)
\[eg.sgp21\] Let $\lambda =(2,1,0)\vdash 3$, $m=3$, and $\x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)$. Then $$G_{(2,1,0)}(\x) = \textcolor{blue}{s_{(2,1,0)}(\x)} - \textcolor{green}{\left(s_{(2,2,0)}(\x) + 2s_{(2,1,1)}(\x)\right)} + \textcolor{purple}{2s_{(2,2,1)}(\x)} - \textcolor{orange}{s_{(2,2,2)}(\x)}.$$ The sequence of dominating partitions for $G_{(2,1,0)}(\x)$ is $$\textcolor{blue}{\lambda^{(0)}=\ydiagram{2,1}}\quad
\textcolor{green}{\lambda^{(1)}=\ydiagram{2,2}}\quad
\textcolor{purple}{\lambda^{(2)}=\ydiagram{2,2,1}}\quad
\textcolor{orange}{\lambda^{(3)}=\ydiagram{2,2,2}}$$
[SageImage\_sym\_groth\_21\_slices\_crop.jpg]{} (100,3)[![The lattice points of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{(2,1,0)}(\mathbf{x}))$ are color-coded to reflect the structure arising from the four homogeneous components of $G_{(2,1,0)}(\mathbf{x})$; see Example \[eg.sgp21\]. The intersection of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{(2,1,0)}(\mathbf{x}))$ with the hyperplane $x_1+x_2+x_3 =4$ is shown on the right. The extreme points are given by the $S_3$-orbit of the dominating partition $\lambda^{(1)}=(2,2,0)$. []{data-label="fig.Grothendieck"}](SageImage_sym_groth_21_slice_crop.png "fig:"){height="5.2cm"}]{}
### Inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials and IDP
We now show that the Newton polytopes of inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials have IDP. As a corollary, symmetric Grothendieck polynomials have IDP.
By Proposition \[proposition\_layers\_of\_polytope\], we know that ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is the convex hull of the $S_m$-orbits of the sequence of dominating partitions $\lambda^{(0)}, \ldots, \lambda^{(N)}$, but the next result shows that it suffices to take a certain subset of these partitions.
Let $A \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^m$. A point $\mathbf{a} \in A$ is an [**extreme point**]{} if $\mathbf{a} = t\mathbf{b}+(1-t)\mathbf{c}$ for some $\mathbf{b}, \mathbf{c} \in A$ and $t\in (0,1)$ implies $\mathbf{b}=\mathbf{c}=\mathbf{a}$.
By Minkowski’s Theorem a compact convex set is a convex hull of the set of its extreme points. Thus, ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is the convex hull of its extreme points.
\[proposition\_vertices\_of\_sgp\] Let $h$ be a positive integer, and let $\lambda$ be a partition with at most $m$ parts. Suppose $\deg G_{h,\lambda}(\x) = |\lambda|+N$, and let $\lambda^{(0)},\ldots, \lambda^{(N)}$ be the sequence of dominating partitions for $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$. Suppose $\lambda^{(N)} =(\lambda_1+a_1, \ldots, \lambda_m+a_m)$ for some nonnegative integers $a_1,\ldots, a_m$, and let $b_k = a_1+\cdots+ a_k$ for $k=1,\ldots ,m$. Then $${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) = \mathrm{conv} \bigcup_{k=1}^m {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$$ is the convex hull of the $S_m$-orbits of the partitions $\lambda^{(b_1)}, \ldots, \lambda^{(b_m)}$. Moreover, $\lambda^{(b_1)} = \lambda^{(0)} =\lambda$ and $\lambda^{(b_m)} = \lambda^{(N)}$.
We shall show that for $k=0,\ldots, N$, $\lambda^{(k)}$ is an extreme point of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ only if $k\in \{b_1,\ldots, b_m\}$.
If $\p=(p_1,\ldots,p_m)$ is an extreme point of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$, then any permutation of $\p$ is also an extreme point of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$, since ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is the convex hull of the $S_m$-orbits of $
\lambda^{(0)},\ldots,\lambda^{(N)}$ by Proposition \[proposition\_layers\_of\_polytope\].
As $\lambda^{(N)} = (\lambda_1+a_1, \ldots, \lambda_m+a_m),$ then the largest number of boxes that can be added to the $r$-th row of $\lambda$ is $a_r$. Thus $\lambda_r \leq \lambda^{(k)}_r \leq \lambda_r+a_r$ for each $k=0,\ldots, N$. By construction, $$\lambda^{(b_i)} = (\lambda_1 + a_1, \ldots, \lambda_i + a_i, \lambda_{i+1},\ldots, \lambda_m)$$ for each $i=1,\ldots,m$, so that each part of the partition is either at a maximum or a mininum. Thus if $\mu,\nu\in {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ are lattice points such that $t\mu+(1-t)\nu = \lambda^{(b_i)}$, then $\mu = \nu = \lambda^{(b_i)}$ necessarily. So $\{\lambda^{(b_1)},
\ldots, \lambda^{(b_m)}\}$ is a set of extreme points of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$.
On the other hand, suppose $k\notin \{b_1,\ldots, b_m\}$. Then there exists $j$ such that $$\lambda^{(k)} = (\lambda_1+a_1,\ldots, \lambda_{j-1}+a_{j-1}, \lambda_j + c , \lambda_{j+1},\ldots, \lambda_m)$$ with $0<c<a_j$. In this case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^{(k-1)}
&= (\lambda_1+a_1,\ldots, \lambda_{j-1}+a_{j-1}, \lambda_j+c-1, \lambda_{j+1},\ldots, \lambda_m), \\
\lambda^{(k+1)}
&= (\lambda_1+a_1,\ldots, \lambda_{j-1}+a_{j-1}, \lambda_j+c+1, \lambda_{j+1},
\ldots, \lambda_m),\end{aligned}$$ so $\lambda^{(k)} = \frac12(\lambda^{(k-1)}+\lambda^{(k+1)})$. Thus $\lambda^{(k)}$ is an extreme point of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ if and only if $k\in \{b_1,\ldots, b_m\}$.
Lastly, $a_1=0$ and $N=a_1+\cdots+a_m$, so $\lambda^{(b_1)} = \lambda^{(0)}=\lambda$ and $\lambda^{(b_m)} = \lambda^{(N)}$.
\[eg.210a\] Let $\lambda =(2,1,0)\vdash 3$ and $m=3$. Then ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{\lambda}(\x))$ is the convex hull of the $S_3$-orbit of $$\textcolor{blue}{\lambda^{(0)} = \ydiagram{2,1}}\quad
\textcolor{green}{\lambda^{(1)} = \ydiagram{2,2}} \quad\hbox{and}\quad
\textcolor{orange}{\lambda^{(3)} = \ydiagram{2,2,2}}$$ In Figure \[fig.Grothendieck\], we see that that $\lambda^{(2)}=(2,2,1)$ is not an extreme point of the Newton polytope.
\[prop.dilate\] Let $t$ be a positive integer. Then $$t{\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) = {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{th,t\lambda}(\x)).$$
Let $\mathcal{P} = {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ and $\mathcal{Q} = {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{th,t\lambda}(\x))$. Also let $\deg G_{h,\lambda}(\x)= |\lambda|+N$ while $\deg G_{th, t\lambda}(\x) = |t\lambda|+N'$. By Proposition \[proposition\_vertices\_of\_sgp\], the vertices of $t\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ are determined by the partitions $t\lambda^{(N)}\vdash t|\lambda|+tN$ and $(t\lambda)^{(N')}\vdash t|\lambda|+N'$, respectively, so it suffices to show that $t\lambda^{(N)} = (t\lambda)^{(N')}$. Furthermore by Lemma \[lem.dominance\](b), $(t\lambda)^{(N')}$ is the unique partition $\mu\in A(th,t\lambda)$ such that $b_{th,t\lambda\mu}\neq 0$ in the definition of the inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomial $G_{th,t\lambda}(\x)$ and $|\mu|\vdash t|\lambda|+N'$, so it suffices to show that $t\lambda^{(N)} \vdash t|\lambda|+N'$. Suppose $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^{(N)} &= (\lambda_1+a_1,\ldots, \lambda_m+a_m),\\
(t\lambda)^{(N')} &= (t\lambda_1+a_1',\ldots, t\lambda_m+a_m').\end{aligned}$$ We shall show via induction that $ta_r = a_r'$ for $r=1,\ldots, m$. The base case is $r=1$, where by definition, $a_1' = 0 = a_1 = ta_1.$ Assume that $a_j' = ta_j$ for all $j<r$.
If $\lambda$ has a maximum of $a_r$ addable boxes in its $r$-th row, then at least $ta_r$ boxes can be added to the $r$-th row of $t\lambda$, and so $ta_r \leq a_r'$ for $r=1,\ldots, m$.
Suppose $ta_r < a_r' \leq th(r-1)$. Then $a_r < h(r-1)$ implies that the $(r-1)$-th and $r$-th rows of $\lambda^{(N)}$ have the same length. In other words, $\lambda_{r-1}+a_{r-1} = \lambda_r + a_r$. But by the induction hypothesis, $$\begin{aligned}
(t\lambda)_{r-1}^{(N')}
&= t\lambda_{r-1} +a_{r-1}'
= t\lambda_{r-1} +ta_{r-1}
= t\lambda_{r} +ta_{r}
< t\lambda_r + a_r'
= (t\lambda)_r^{(N)},\end{aligned}$$ which contradicts the fact that $(t\lambda)^{(N)}$ is a partition. Therefore, $ta_r = a_r'$ for $r=1,\ldots,m$. Since $t\lambda^{(N)} \vdash t|\lambda|+N'$, it follows from Lemma \[lem.dominance\](b) that $t\lambda^{(N)}=(t\lambda)^{(N')}$. The result follows.
Let $\lambda$ be a partition with at most $m$ parts and let $\x = (x_1,\ldots, x_m)$. Then the Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ has the integer decomposition property.
Let $\mathcal{P} = {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ and $\mathcal{Q} = {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{th,t\lambda}(\x))$. By Proposition \[prop.dilate\], $t\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{Q}$.
Let $\nu = t\lambda$ and let $\p$ be a lattice point in the $t$-th dilate $t\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{Q}$. The polynomial $G_{th,t\lambda}(\x)$ has SNP, and by Proposition \[proposition\_vertices\_of\_sgp\], the point $\p$ is a lattice point in ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\nu^{(k)}})$ for some $k$, so $\p$ is the content vector of a semistandard Young tableau $T$ of shape $\nu^{(k)} \in A(th,t\lambda)$. The tableau $T$ decomposes into $t$ semistandard Young tableaux $T_1,\ldots, T_t$, where the tableau $T_i$ of shape $\theta(i)$ is obtained by taking the $j$-th columns of $T$ for $j \equiv i \mod t$. We shall show that the partitions $\theta(1),\ldots, \theta(t)$ are in $A(h,\lambda)$. By Lemma \[lem.dominance\](c), it suffices to show that $\lambda \subseteq \theta(i) \subseteq \lambda^{(N)}$, where $\deg G_{h,\lambda}(\x) = |\lambda|+N$.
The tableau $T_i$ is comprised of every $t$-th column of $T$, so its shape is $$\theta(i)=(\lambda_1 + \ell_{i,1}, \ldots, \lambda_m + \ell_{i,m})$$ for some nonnegative integers $\ell_{i,1},\ldots, \ell_{i,m}$. Thus $\theta(i)\supseteq \lambda$.
Now, $\nu^{(k)}\in A(th,t\lambda)$, so Proposition \[prop.dilate\] gives $$0\leq \nu_r^{(k)} - t\lambda_r \leq ta_r,$$ for each $r=1,\ldots, m$, where $\lambda^{(N)} = (\lambda_1 +a_1,\ldots, \lambda_m+a_m)$. Again, since the partition $\theta(i)$ is comprised of every $t$-th column $\nu^{(k)}$, then this implies $$0 \leq \theta(i)_r - \lambda_r \leq a_r$$ for each $r=1,\ldots, m$. Therefore, $\theta(i)\subseteq \lambda^{(N)}$. So by Lemma \[lem.dominance\](c), $\theta(i)\in A(h,\lambda)$.
Finally, let $k_i = \ell_{i,1}+\cdots+\ell_{i,m}$. Since $\theta(i)\vdash |\lambda|+k_i$ is a partition in $A(h,\lambda)$, then $\lambda^{(k_i)} \unrhd \theta(i)$. If $\bv_i$ denotes the content vector of $T_i$, then $\bv_i$ is a lattice point in ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(k_i)}}(\x))$, since ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(k_i)}}(\x))$ has IDP. As $\p = \bv_1 + \cdots + \bv_t$, then ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ has IDP.
The Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_\lambda(\x))$ has the integer decomposition property.
Reflexivity
===========
Reflexive and Gorenstein Newton polytopes of Schur polynomials {#sec:Reflexive_Schur}
--------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize which Newton polytopes arising from Schur polynomials are reflexive, we first identify facet-defining hyperplanes which will allow us to classify the reflexive $\lambda$-permutohedra.
Let $\lambda$ be a partition with at most $m$ parts and let $\x=(x_1,\ldots, x_m)$. Recall that the Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))$ is the $\lambda$-permutohedron $\mathcal{P}^m_\lambda$, which is the convex hull of the $S_m$-orbit of $(\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_m)$ in $\mathbb{R}^m$. This polytope is of dimension $m-1$, and is determined by Rado’s inequalities [@Rado]: $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i \hbox{ for all } I\subseteq [m], \qquad\hbox{ and }\qquad \sum_{i=1}^m x_i = |\lambda|.$$
Note that whether one of Rado’s inequalities is facet-defining depends only on $|I|$ and $\lambda$, and not on the set $I$ itself.
\[prop:facets\] The facets of $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ are determined by the following inequalities.
1. For all $i=1,\ldots, m$, $x_i\leq \lambda_1$, unless $\lambda_2 = \lambda_3 = \cdots =\lambda_m$.
2. For $2\le |I|\le m-2$, $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{|I|}\lambda_i,$$ unless $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = \cdots =\lambda_{|I|}$ or $\lambda_{|I|+1} = \lambda_{|I|+2} = \cdots =\lambda_{m}$.
3. For $|I|=m-1$, $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{m-1}\lambda_i,$$ unless $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = \cdots =\lambda_{m-1}$.
The set of permutations $(x_1,\ldots, x_m)$ of $(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_m)$ that satisfy $\sum_{i\in I} x_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i$ with equality is the set of products of the permutations of $(\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_{|I|})$ and the permutations of $(\lambda_{|I|+1}, \lambda_{|I|+2}, \cdots, \lambda_m)$. The convex hull of the permutations of $(\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_{|I|})$ has dimension $0$ if $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = \cdots =\lambda_{|I|}$, and otherwise it has dimension $|I|-1$. Similarly, the convex hull of the permutations of $(\lambda_{|I|+1}, \lambda_{|I|+2}, \cdots, \lambda_m)$ has dimension 0 if $\lambda_{|I|+1} = \lambda_{|I|+2} = \cdots= \lambda_m$, and otherwise it has dimension $m-|I|-1$. So the convex hull of the products has dimension $m-2$ exactly when $|I|=1$ and not all the $\lambda_i$ are equal for $i\geq2$, or when $|I|=m-1$ and not all the $\lambda_i$ are equal for $i\leq m-1$, or when $2\leq |I|\leq m-2$ and not all the $\lambda_i$ are equal for $i\leq |I|$ and not all the $\lambda_i$ are equal for $i\geq |I|+1$.
Now that we know the facet-defining hyperplanes of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))=\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$, we will characterize which Schur polynomials give rise to reflexive Newton polytopes. Recall that a lattice polytope is reflexive if it contains a unique lattice point $\p$ in its interior and for any facet $\{ \x \in \mathbb{R}^m \mid \langle \a, \x \rangle = b\}$ with primitive normal $\a$, we have lattice distance $|\langle \a,\p \rangle -b\, |=1$.
First we consider the following special case when $m<|\lambda|$.
\[prop.mmm\] Let $m\geq2$, and $\lambda=(m,\ldots,m,0)\vdash m(m-1)$. Then the Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))=\mathcal{P}^m_\lambda$ is reflexive.
The $\lambda$-permutohedron $\mathcal{P}^m_\lambda$ is the convex hull of the $S_m$-orbit of $(m,\dots,m,0)$ in $\mathbb{R}^m$. The polytope lies in the hyperplane $\sum_{i=1}^m x_i = (m-1)m$, and by Theorem \[prop:facets\] the facets are determined by the inequalities $x_i\leq m$ for $i=1,\ldots, m$. Thus, the lattice point $(m-1,\ldots, m-1)$ in the interior of $\mathcal{P}^m_\lambda$ is unique, and it is lattice distance $1$ from the facets. Therefore, $\mathcal{P}^m_\lambda$ is reflexive.
We next consider the case $m=|\lambda|$.
\[refl-list\] Let $m\geq 2$. The Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x)) = \mathcal{P}^m_\lambda$ is reflexive when $\lambda\vdash m$ is one of the following partitions:
1. $\lambda=(m,0,\ldots,0)$,
2. $\lambda=(2,\ldots,2,0,\ldots,0)$ when $m$ is even,
3. $\lambda=(2,\ldots,2,1,0,\ldots,0)$ when $m$ is odd,
4. $\lambda=(2,1,\ldots,1,0)$.
We shall show in each case that $(1,\ldots,1)$ is the unique interior lattice point in $\mathcal{P}^m_\lambda$ and it is lattice distance one from every facet of the Newton polytope.
1. The polytope $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ is the convex hull of $(m,0,\ldots, 0)$ in $\mathbb{R}^m$. By Theorem \[prop:facets\], the facet-defining inequalities of $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ are just those for $|I| =m-1$, and these can be written as $$\sum_{i\neq j} x_i \leq m$$ for each $j=1,\ldots, m$. From this, we see that the point $(1,\ldots,1)$ is the unique lattice point in the interior of $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$, and it is lattice distance one from all facet-defining hyperplanes.
Notice that $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ lies in the hyperplane $\sum_{i=1}^m x_i =m$, so the inequality $ \sum_{i\neq j} x_i \leq m$ is equivalent to $x_j \geq0$. Although these two inequalities represent different half-spaces in $\mathbb{R}^m$, their intersection with the hyperplane $\sum_{i=1}^m x_i =m$ is the same. The point $(1,\ldots,1)$ is lattice distance one from both of the hyperplanes of $\mathbb{R}^m$ that bound these two half-spaces, and is lattice distance one from their intersection, considered as a hyperplane (of dimension $m-2$) in the $(m-1)$-dimensional space given by $\sum_{i=1}^m x_i =m$.
2. Suppose $m\geq2$ is even. The polytope $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ is the convex hull of the $S_m$-orbit of $(2,\ldots, 2,0,\ldots, 0)$ in $\mathbb{R}^m$. By Theorem \[prop:facets\], the facet-defining inequalities of $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ are $x_i\leq 2$ for each $i=1,\ldots,m$, and $\sum_{i\neq j} x_i \leq m$, for each $j=1,\ldots, m$. Thus the point $(1,\ldots,1)$ is the unique lattice point in the interior of $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$, and it is lattice distance one from all facet-defining hyperplanes.
3. Suppose $m\geq3$ is odd. This case is essentially the same as the previous. The facet-defining inequalities of $\mathcal{P}^m_\lambda$ are $x_i\leq 2$ and $x_i\geq 0$ for $i=1,\ldots, m$. Thus the point $(1,\ldots,1)$ is the unique lattice point in the interior of $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$, and it is lattice distance one from all facet-defining hyperplanes.
4. The polytope $\mathcal{P}^m_\lambda$ is the convex hull of the $S_m$-orbit of $(2,1,\ldots, 1,0)$ in $\mathbb{R}^m$. By Theorem \[prop:facets\], the facet-defining inequalities of $\mathcal{P}^m_\lambda$ are $$x_{i_1}+ \cdots + x_{i_s} \leq s+1$$ for all nonempty $I = \{i_1,\ldots, i_s\} \subseteq [m]$ with $|I|\leq m-1.$ Thus the point $(1,\ldots,1)$ is the unique lattice point in the interior of $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$, and is lattice distance $1$ from all facet-defining hyperplanes.
Therefore we conclude in each case that $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ is reflexive.
We next prove that Propositions \[prop.mmm\] and \[refl-list\] give a complete list of reflexive permutohedra. To do this, we analyze the unique interior point of the reflexive polytope up to translation. Let ${\mathcal{P}}^\circ$ denote the interior of a polytope ${\mathcal{P}}$.
\[prop:SingleInterior\] Let $m\geq2$ and let $\lambda\vdash n$ be a partition with at most $m$ parts. If $|(\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m)^\circ \cap \mathbb{Z}^m|=1$, then $m|n$.
If a lattice point is contained in the interior of $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ then so is its entire $S_m$-orbit. Thus, the only candidate for a single interior point is $(\frac{n}{m},\ldots,\frac{n}{m})$ which is only a lattice point when $m|n$.
\[prop:SubtractFullColumns\] Let $m\geq2$ and let $\lambda\vdash n$ be a partition with $m$ parts. Let $\lambda'=(\lambda_1-\lambda_m,\ldots, \lambda_{m-1}-\lambda_m, 0)\vdash n-m\lambda_m$. Then $\mathcal{P}_{\lambda'}^m$ is a translation of $\mathcal{P}_{\lambda}^{m}$.
The vertex description of $\lambda$-permutohedra implies that $\mathcal{P}_{\lambda'}^{m}$ is precisely the polytope $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ translated linearly by the vector $(\lambda_m,\ldots, \lambda_m)$.
In this case, we say that $\lambda$ ${\textbf{reduces by translation}}$ to $\lambda'$.
\[thm:reflexive\] Let $m\geq2$ and let $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_m)\vdash n$ be a partition with at most $m$ parts. The Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))=\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ is reflexive if and only if $\lambda$ reduces by translation to $\lambda'$ of the following form: $$\lambda' =
\begin{cases}
(m,0,\ldots,0) \vdash m,\\
(2,1,\ldots,1,0) \vdash m,\\
(2,\ldots,2,0,\ldots,0) \vdash m, & \hbox{ when $m$ is even},\\
(2,\ldots,2,1,0,\ldots,0) \vdash m, & \hbox{ when $m$ is odd},\\
(m,\ldots,m,0) \vdash m(m-1).
\end{cases}$$
Propositions \[prop.mmm\] and \[refl-list\], and Lemmas \[prop:SingleInterior\] and \[prop:SubtractFullColumns\] show that if $\lambda$ reduces to one of these forms, then $\mathcal{P}^m_{\lambda}$ is reflexive. We now prove the converse.
Suppose $\mathcal{P}_{\lambda}^m$ is reflexive. By Lemma \[prop:SingleInterior\] we may assume that $m|n$ and $\mathcal{P}_{\lambda}^m$ has the unique interior lattice point $(\frac{n}{m},\ldots,\frac{n}{m})$. By Lemma \[prop:SubtractFullColumns\], if $\ell(\lambda)=m$, we may replace $\lambda$ by its translation by $(-\lambda_m,\dots,-\lambda_m)$. Thus we assume that $\lambda_m=0$.
We examine the cases $\lambda_2=0$ and $\lambda_2 >0$. If $\lambda_2=0$, then $\lambda=(n,0,\ldots,0)\vdash n$. By Theorem \[prop:facets\](c), $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} x_i\leq n$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of $\mathcal{P}_{\lambda}^m$. Its unique interior lattice point is lattice distance one from this hyperplane, so $n - (m-1)\frac{n}{m} = 1$ implies $n=m$, giving the first case on the list of possible $\lambda'$.
Now assume $\lambda_2 > 0$. We claim that $\lambda_1=\frac{n}{m}+1$. First, since $\lambda \vdash n$ and $\lambda_m=0$, then $\lambda_1 \geq \frac{n}{m}+1$. Suppose $\lambda_1=\frac{n}{m}+j$ for some positive integer $j$. By Theorem \[prop:facets\](a), for each $i\in[m]$, $\mathcal{P}^m_{\lambda}$ has the facet-defining hyperplane $$x_i\leq \frac{n}{m}+j.$$ The interior lattice point $(\frac{n}{m},\ldots,\frac{n}{m})$ is lattice distance $j$ from each of these facets. $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ is reflexive implies $j=1$, so $\lambda_1 \leq \frac{n}{m}+1$. We conclude that $\lambda_1 = \frac{n}{m}+1$.
We next examine the subcases $\lambda_{m-1} = \frac{n}{m}+1$ and $\lambda_{m-1} \leq \frac{n}{m}$. If $\lambda_{m-1}= \frac{n}{m}+1$, then $\lambda_i=\frac{n}{m}+1$ for all $i=1,\ldots, m-1$, so $n= \sum_{i=1}^{m} \lambda_i = (m-1)(\frac{n}{m}+1)$ implies $n=m(m-1)$ and $\lambda_i = \frac{m(m-1)}{m}+1 = m$ for $i=1,\ldots, m-1$. This is the last case on the list of possible $\lambda'$.
Now assume $\lambda_{m-1} \leq \frac{n}{m}$. Since $\lambda_1=\frac{n}{m}+1$, then by Theorem \[prop:facets\](c), for any $I\subseteq[m]$ with $|I|=m-1$, $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ has the facet-defining hyperplane $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i\leq n.$$ The interior lattice point $(\frac{n}{m},\ldots,\frac{n}{m})$ is lattice distance $\frac{n}{m}$ from these facets, so $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ reflexive implies $n=m$, and $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ has the unique interior lattice point $(1,\ldots,1)$.
Continuing, we have $\lambda\vdash m=n$ with $\lambda_1=\frac{n}{m}+1 =2$, $\lambda_2 >0$, $\lambda_{m-1}\leq1$ and $\lambda_m=0$, so $\lambda$ is of the form $(2^k, 1^{m-2k}, 0^k)$ for some $k\geq1$. Assuming that $m-2k\geq2$, then by Theorem \[prop:facets\](b), for any subset $I\subseteq[m]$ with $|I|=k+1$, $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ has the facet-defining hyperplane $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i\leq 2k+1.$$ The interior lattice point $(1,\ldots,1)$ is lattice distance $k$ from this facet, so $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ is reflexive implies $k=1$, giving the second case on the list of possible $\lambda'$.
Lastly, if $m-2k =0$ or $1$, this gives the remaining cases on the list of possible $\lambda'$. Thus this completes the proof that $\mathcal{P}^m_\lambda$ is reflexive implies that $\lambda$ reduces to one of the $\lambda'$ on the list.
The result of Theorem \[thm:reflexive\] allow us to give a characterization of the Gorenstein property as a corollary.
\[cor:Schur\_gorenstein\]Let $\lambda$ be a partition with at most $m$ parts. The Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))=\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ is Gorenstein if and only if $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ is reflexive or $\lambda$ reduces by translation to $\lambda'$ of the following form: $$\lambda'=\begin{cases}
(k,0,\ldots,0),& \hbox{ where $k|m$},\\
(1,\ldots, 1,0,\ldots,0), & \hbox{ if $m$ is even},\\
(k,\ldots, k,0), & \hbox{ where $k|m$}.
\end{cases}$$
If $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ is Gorenstein, there exists $a \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 1}$ so that $a\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m=\mathcal{P}_{a\lambda}^m$ is reflexive. If $a=1$, then $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ is reflexive. Assume $\mathcal{P}_{a\lambda}^m$ is reflexive for some $a \geq 2$. Then $(a\lambda)'=a\lambda'$ is one of the cases in Theorem \[thm:reflexive\].
Suppose $a\lambda'\vdash m$. If $a\lambda' = (m,0,\ldots,0)$, then $\lambda' = (\frac{m}{a},0,\ldots,0)$, so $\lambda_1'$ divides $m$. If $a\lambda' = (2,\ldots,2,0,\ldots,0)$ where $m$ is even, then $\lambda' = (\frac{2}{a},\ldots, \frac{2}{a},0,\ldots,0)$. As $a\geq2$, then $\lambda_1'=\frac{2}{a}=1$. If $a\lambda' = (2,\ldots,2,1,0)$, then $\lambda' = (\frac{2}{a},\ldots,\frac{2}{a}, \frac{1}{a},0,\ldots,0)$. This is not possible as $a\geq2$. Similarly, $a\lambda' \neq (2,1,\ldots,1,0,\ldots,0)$.
Lastly, suppose $a\lambda' = (m,\ldots, m,0)\vdash m(m-1)$. Then $\lambda'= (\frac{m}{a},\ldots,\frac{m}{a},0)$, so $\lambda_1',\ldots,\lambda_{m-1}'$ all divide $m$.
As an immediate consequence of Corollary \[cor:Schur\_gorenstein\], we recover a result on the Gorenstein property for hypersimplices originally given by De Negri–Hibi [@DeNegri-Hibi Theorem 2.4].
\[cor:hypersimplices\] Let $\Delta_{k,n}$ be a hypersimplex. Then $\Delta_{k,n}$ is Gorenstein if and only if $n=2k$, $k=1$, or $k=n-1$.
Reflexive Newton polytopes of inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We begin by determining the set of facet-defining hyperplanes of the Newton polytope of an inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomial. From this, we deduce which Newton polytopes are reflexive.
Let $f$ be a linear functional and let $H = \{\x \in \mathbb{R}^m \mid f(\x) = a\}$ be an affine hyperplane in $\mathbb{R}^m$. Define the closed half-spaces $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{H_+} &= \{\x \in \mathbb{R}^m \mid f(\x)\geq a\},\\
\overline{H_-} &= \{\x \in \mathbb{R}^m \mid f(\x)\leq a\}.\end{aligned}$$ For any set $S\subseteq \mathbb{R}^m$, we say $H$ [**isolates**]{} $S$ if $S$ is contained in $\overline{H_+}$ or $\overline{H_-}$.
Given an $m$-dimensional polytope ${\mathcal{P}}$, if $H$ is an affine hyperplane which isolates ${\mathcal{P}}$ and $\dim ({\mathcal{P}}\cap H)=m-1$, then $H$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathcal{P}}$.
For the remainder of this section, we assume that $\lambda$ is a partition with at most $m$ parts and that it is reduced by translation, so $\lambda= (\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_{m-1},0)$. Also let $\deg G_{h,\lambda}(\x) = |\lambda|+N$, so the sequence of dominating partitions is $\lambda^{(0)},\ldots, \lambda^{(N)}$.
We pinpoint some facet-defining inequalities of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ to show that if it is reflexive, then there is a very limited region where its unique interior lattice point may lie.
\[lem.frontandback\] The inequality $x_1+\cdots+x_m \geq |\lambda|$ is a facet-defining inequality of the polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$. Furthermore, if the $S_m$-orbit of $\lambda^{(N)}$ is non-trivial, then $x_1+\cdots+x_m \leq |\lambda|+N$ is also a facet-defining inequality of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$.
Recall that the Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(k)}}(\x))$ lies in the hyperplane $x_1+\cdots +x_m = |\lambda^{(k)}| = |\lambda|+k$, and following from Proposition \[proposition\_layers\_of\_polytope\] we know that $${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) = \operatorname{conv}\left(\coprod_{k=0}^N {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(k)}}(\x)) \right),$$ so the hyperplane $H_{|\lambda|}$ defined by $x_1+\cdots+x_m=|\lambda|$ isolates ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$. Also, ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) \cap H_{|\lambda|} = {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))$, which has dimension $m-1$ because we assume that $\lambda$ is reduced by translation and thus does not have a trivial $S_m$-orbit. Thus $x_1+\cdots+x_m=|\lambda|$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$.
Similarly, if the $S_m$-orbit of $\lambda^{(N)}\in \mathbb{R}^m$ is non-trivial, then ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) \cap H_{|\lambda|+N} = {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(N)}}(\x))$ is $(m-1)$-dimensional. Since ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(N)}}(\x))$ lies in the hyperplane $x_1+\cdots+x_m=|\lambda|+N$, then it is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$. The result follows as ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ lies in $\overline{H_{|\lambda|}}_+$ and $\overline{H_{|\lambda^{(N)}|}}_-$.
\[cor.uonone\] If ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive, then its unique interior lattice point must lie on ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(1)}}(\x))$.
Let $\u=(u,\ldots,u)$ be the unique interior lattice point of the reflexive polytope. It must lie on ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(k)}}(\x))$ for some $k=1,\ldots, N-1$, so $mu = |\lambda|+k$. Furthermore, by Lemma \[lem.frontandback\], $x_1+\cdots+x_m=|\lambda|$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ and because the polytope is reflexive, $\u$ is lattice distance one from this hyperplane, therefore we can conclude that $k=1$.
Recall from Proposition \[proposition\_vertices\_of\_sgp\] that ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is the convex hull of the union of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$ for $k=1,\ldots, m$, where if $\lambda^{(N)}= (\lambda_1+a_1,\ldots, \lambda_m+a_m)$ then $b_k=a_1+\cdots+a_k$. We next show how the remaining facet-defining inequalities of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ arise from the facet-defining inequalities of the polytopes ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$.
Let $F=F(I)$ be a facet of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$ defined by the inequality $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i^{(b_k)} \hbox{ for some proper nonempty } I\subset [m].$$ (Recall from Theorem \[prop:facets\] that all facet-defining inequalities of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$ are of this form.) Since ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$ lies in the affine hyperplane $x_1+\cdots + x_m = |\lambda^{(b_k)}|$, then $F$ is of the form $$F= H(F)_{1} \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))
= H(F)_{0} \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x)),$$ where $L=\sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i^{(b_k)}$ and the affine hyperplanes are given by $$\begin{array}{ll}
H(F)_{1} &= \left\{ \x \in \mathbb{R}^m \mid \hbox{$\sum_{i\in I}x_i = \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i^{(b_k)}$} = L\right\},\\
H(F)_{0} &= \left\{ \x \in \mathbb{R}^m \mid \hbox{$\sum_{i\notin I}x_i = \sum_{i=|I|+1}^{m} \lambda_i^{(b_k)}$} = |\lambda^{(b_k)}|-L\right\}.
\end{array}$$ We will determine which of these hyperplanes isolate ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$.
\[lem.facetsofG\] Let $I$ be a proper nonempty subset of $[m]$, let $F=F(I)$ be a facet of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$ defined by $\sum_{i\in I} x_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i^{(b_k)}=L$ for some $k=1,\ldots,m$, and let $H(F)_1, H(F)_0$ be the hyperplanes associated to $F$. Then $H(F)_1$ isolates ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ if $|I|\leq k$, and $H(F)_0$ isolates ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ if $|I|\geq k$.
As each ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_\ell)}}(\x))$ is the convex hull of the $S_m$-orbit of $\lambda^{(b_\ell)}$, it suffices to show that the $S_m$-orbits of $\lambda^{(b_\ell)}$ for $\ell=1,\ldots, m$ all lie on one side of the proposed ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$-isolating hyperplane.
Let $\pi\in S_m$, so that $\pi(\lambda^{(b_\ell)}) = (\lambda_{\pi^{-1}(1)}^{(b_\ell)}, \ldots, \lambda_{\pi^{-1}(m)}^{(b_\ell)})$. Then $$\sum_{i\in I} \pi(\lambda^{(b_\ell)})_i
= \sum_{j \in \pi^{-1}(I)} \lambda^{(b_\ell)}_j
\leq \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i^{(b_\ell)},$$ where the inequality follows because whether Rado’s inequalities are facet-defining depends only on $|I|$ and not on $I$ itself.
As the partiton $\lambda^{(b_k)}$ is obtained by adding the maximum allowable number ($a_\ell$) of boxes to the $\ell$-th row of $\lambda$ for $\ell=1,\ldots k$, then for $i\leq k$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_i^{(b_\ell)} \leq \lambda_i^{(b_k)},
&\hbox{ for } \ell \leq k,\\
\lambda_i^{(b_\ell)} = \lambda_i^{(b_k)},
&\hbox{ for } \ell \geq k.\end{aligned}$$ And for $i>k$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_i^{(b_\ell)} = \lambda_i^{(b_{k})},
&\hbox{ for } \ell\leq k,\\
\lambda_i^{(b_\ell)} \geq \lambda_i^{(b_{k})},
&\hbox{ for } \ell\geq k. \end{aligned}$$ If $|I|\leq k$, then $H(F)_{1}$ isolates ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_\ell)}}(\x))$ for all $\ell=0,\ldots,N$ since $$\sum_{i\in I} \pi(\lambda^{(b_\ell)})_i
\leq \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i^{(b_\ell)}
\leq \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i^{(b_k)}
= L.$$ In other words, ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) \subseteq \overline{(H(F)_{1})_-}$. Similarly, if $|I|\geq k,$ then $H(F)_{0}$ isolates ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_\ell)}}(\x))$ for all $\ell=0,\ldots,N$ since $$\sum_{i\notin I} \pi(\lambda^{(b_\ell)})_i
= \sum_{j\notin \pi^{-1}(I)} \lambda_j^{(b_\ell)}
\geq \sum_{i=|I|+1}^m \lambda_i^{(b_\ell)}
\geq \sum_{i=|I|+1}^m \lambda_i^{(b_k)}
= |\lambda^{(b_k)}|-L,$$ and ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) \subseteq \overline{(H(F)_{0})_+}$. The result now follows.
We will see that nearly all of the ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$-isolating hyperplanes of Lemma \[lem.facetsofG\] are facet-defining. We first identify some that are not.
\[lem.exclude1\] For $j=1,\ldots, m$, the affine hyperplanes $$\mathcal{J}_j = \left\{ \x\in \mathbb{R}^m \mid \hbox{$\sum_{i\neq j} x_i = |\lambda|-\lambda_1$} \right\}$$ are not facet-defining hyperplanes of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$.
By Lemma \[lem.facetsofG\], the hyperplanes $\mathcal{J}_j$ isolate ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$. However, since $\sum_{i=2}^m \lambda_i^{(\ell)} > \sum_{i=2}^m \lambda_i$ for all $\lambda^{(\ell)} \neq \lambda$, then $$\mathcal{J}_j \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))
=\operatorname{conv}\left\{(\lambda_1, \lambda_{\sigma(2)}, \ldots, \lambda_{\sigma(m)})\mid \sigma \in S_{\{2,\ldots, m\}} \right\} \subseteq {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x)),$$ so $\dim (\mathcal{J}_j \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))) < m-1$ for $j=1,\ldots, m$, and $\mathcal{J}_j$ is not a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$.
We can further narrow down the set of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$-isolating hyperplanes of Lemma \[lem.facetsofG\] that are facet-defining.
\[lem.exclude2\] The facet-defining hyperplanes of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_m)}}(\x))$ that isolate ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ are a subset of the facet-defining hyperplanes of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_{m-1})}}(\x))$ that isolate ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$.
Recall that $\lambda^{(b_m)}=\lambda^{(N)}$ and it is distinct from $\lambda^{(b_{m-1})}$ since we assumed that $\lambda_m=0$. The only difference between the partitions $\lambda^{(b_{m-1})}$ and $\lambda^{(b_m)}$ is in their $m$-th row, so no additional ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$-isolating hyperplane that arises from a facet of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_m)}}(\x))$ is introduced.
\[thm.facetsofG\] Let $I$ be a proper nonempty subset of $[m]$ and let $F=F(I)$ be a facet of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$ defined by $\sum_{i\in I} x_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i^{(b_k)}=L$ for some $k=1,\ldots,m$. Suppose $H(F)$ is a hyperplane associated to $F$ which isolates ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ and is not of the form $\mathcal{J}_j$. Then $H(F)$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$.
First, suppose $H(F)$ is of the form $H(F)_1$ so that by Lemma \[lem.facetsofG\], ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ lies in the half-space $$\overline{(H(F)_1)_-} = \left\{\x\in \mathbb{R}^m \mid \hbox{$\sum_{i\in I} x_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i^{(b_k)}=L$} \right\},$$ with $|I|\leq k$. Furthermore by Lemma \[lem.exclude2\], it suffices to assume $k=1,\ldots, m-1$. So if $\pi\in S_m$ is a permutation such that $\pi^{-1}(I)= \{1,\ldots, |I|\}$, then $$\sum_{i\in I} \pi(\lambda^{(b_k+1)})_i
= \sum_{j\in \pi^{-1}(I)} \lambda^{(b_k+1)}_j
= \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda^{(b_k+1)}_i
= \sum_{i=1}^{|I|} \lambda_i^{(b_k)}
=L,$$ noting that the partition $\lambda^{(b_k+1)}$ exists since $k\leq m-1$. Thus $\pi(\lambda^{(b_k+1)})$ is a point that lies on $H(F)_1 \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$, but not on ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$.
Second, suppose $H(F)$ is of the form $H(F)_0$ so that by Lemma \[lem.facetsofG\], ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ lies in the half-space $$\overline{(H(F)_0)_+} = \left\{\x\in \mathbb{R}^m \mid \hbox{$\sum_{i\notin I} x_i \geq \sum_{i=|I|+1}^m \lambda_i^{(b_k)}=|\lambda^{(b_k)}|-L$} \right\},$$ with $|I|\geq k$. Furthermore by Lemma \[lem.exclude2\], it suffices to assume $k=2,\ldots, m$. So if $\pi\in S_m$ is a permutation such that $\pi^{-1}(I)= \{1,\ldots, |I|\}$, then $$\sum_{i\notin I} \pi(\lambda^{(b_k-1)})_i
= \sum_{j\notin \pi^{-1}(I)} \lambda^{(b_k-1)}_j
= \sum_{i=|I|+1}^{m} \lambda^{(b_k-1)}_i
= \sum_{i=|I|+1}^{m} \lambda^{(b_k)}_i
=|\lambda^{(b_k)}|-L,$$ noting that the partition $\lambda^{(b_k-1)}$ exists since $k\geq 2$. Thus $\pi(\lambda^{(b_k-1)})$ is a point that lies on $H(F)_0 \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$, but not on ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$.
In both of these cases, note that $\dim(H(F) \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))) = m-2$ because it is a facet of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$. Also, ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$ lies on the hyperplane $x_1+\cdots +x_m = |\lambda^{(b_{k})}|$ while $\p=\pi(\lambda^{(b_k\pm1)})$ is a point on $H(F)$ that lies on $x_1+\cdots +x_m = |\lambda^{(b_k\pm1)}|$. Thus $$m-1 \geq \dim(H(F)\cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)))
\geq \dim \operatorname{conv}\left(\left( H(F)\cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x)) \right) \cup \p \right) > m-2.$$ Therefore, $\dim(H(F) \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))) = m-1$ and $H(F)$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$.
\[cor.soneisreflexive\] If ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive, then so is ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(1)}}(
\x))$.
If ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive, then by Corollary \[cor.uonone\] its unique interior lattice point $\u$ lies on ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(1)}}(\x))$, so $\u$ is also the unique interior lattice point of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(1)}}(\x))$.
Suppose $H$ is an affine hyperplane in $\mathbb{R}^m$ such that $H$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(1)}}(\x))$. The partitions $\lambda^{(0)}$ and $\lambda^{(1)}$ differ by exactly one box, and if this occurs in the $r$-th row, then $\lambda^{(0)} \subset \lambda^{(1)} \subseteq \lambda^{(b_r)}$ for some $r\geq2$. By the arguments in Theorem \[thm.facetsofG\], if ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(1)}}(\x))\subseteq \overline{H_-}$, then $H$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_r)}}(\x))$, and if ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(1)}}(\x))\subseteq \overline{H_+}$, then $H$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(0)}}(\x))$. Moreover, Theorem \[thm.facetsofG\] states that in either case, $H$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$, and since it is reflexive, then $\u$ is lattice distance one from $H$. Thus it follows that ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(1)}}(\x))$ is reflexive.
\[cor.lambda\_and\_u\] If ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive and $\u=(u,\ldots,u)$ is its unique interior lattice point, then $\lambda_1 = u+1$.
By Theorem \[thm.facetsofG\], $x_i = \lambda_1$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$. If ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive, then $\u$ is lattice distance one from these hyperplanes, so in particular, $|\lambda_1-u|=1$. Note that $\u$ and $\lambda^{(1)}$ form a primitive pair, so $u < \lambda_1^{(1)} = \lambda_1$ implies $\lambda_1 = u+1$.
Let $\lambda = (2,1,0)$ and $h=1$. Recall from Example \[eg.210a\] that $$\textcolor{blue}{\lambda^{(b_1)} = \ydiagram{2,1}}\quad
\textcolor{green}{\lambda^{(b_2)} = \ydiagram{2,2}} \quad\hbox{and}\quad
\textcolor{orange}{\lambda^{(b_3)} = \ydiagram{2,2,2}}$$ The facet-defining inequalities from Theorem \[prop:facets\] for the Newton polytopes ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$ are (the $S_3$ permutations of) the following: $$\begin{array}{l|ccc}
& H(F)_{1} && H(F)_{0} \\\hline
\lambda^{(b_1)}
& x_1 \leq 2 & \hbox{ or } & x_2+x_3 \geq 1\\
& x_1+x_2 \leq 3 & \hbox{ or } & x_3 \geq 0\\
\hline
\lambda^{(b_2)}
& x_1\leq 2 & \hbox{ or } & x_2+x_3 \geq 2\\
\hline
\lambda^{(b_3)}
& \emptyset && \emptyset
\end{array}$$ Lemma \[lem.facetsofG\] states that $x_i =2$, $x_i+x_j =1$, and $x_i=0$ are the hyperplanes which isolate ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{1,\lambda}(\x))$. Theorem \[thm.facetsofG\] states that only $x_i \leq2$ and $x_i\geq0$ are facet-defining inequalities of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{1,\lambda}(\x))$; the hyperplanes $x_i+x_j=1$ isolate ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{1,\lambda}(\x))$, but are not facet-defining.
It remains to prove that the facet-defining inequalities of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ are precisely the ones appearing in Lemma \[lem.frontandback\] and Theorem \[thm.facetsofG\].
\[thm.ineqsofG\] The facets of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ are determined by the following inequalities.
1. $\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^m x_i \geq |\lambda|$.
2. $\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^m x_i \leq |\lambda|+N$, if the $S_m$-orbit of $\lambda^{(N)}$ is nontrivial.
3. $\displaystyle \sum_{i\in I}x_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{|I|}\lambda_i^{(b_k)}$, if $I$ is a nonempty proper subset of $[m]$, $|I|\leq k$, and the inequality is a facet-defining inequality of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$.
4. $\displaystyle \sum_{i\notin I}x_i \geq \sum_{i=|I|+1}^m\lambda_i^{(b_k)}$, if $I$ is a nonempty proper subset of $[m]$, $|I|\geq k$, and the inequality is a facet-defining inequality of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$.
Suppose $H$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$. Then there exists a $k$ such that $H \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda^{(b_k)})\neq \emptyset$ and $H$ isolates ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda^{(b_k)})$. Thus $H$ is a face of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda^{(b_k)})$ and by Rado’s inequalities, $H$ is defined by $\sum_{i\in I} x_i = a$ for some $a >0$ and $I\subset [m].$ Recall $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{H_+} &= \left\{\x \in \mathbb{R}^m \mid \hbox{$\sum_{i\in I} x_i\geq a$}\right\},\\
\overline{H_-} &= \left\{\x \in \mathbb{R}^m \mid \hbox{$\sum_{i\in I} x_i\leq a$}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
Suppose $H$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ so that, in particular, $$m-1
= \dim (H\cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)))
\geq \dim (H\cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x)))$$ for $k=1,\ldots, m$.
Suppose $\dim (H\cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x)))=m-1$ for some $b_k$. If ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) \subseteq \overline{H_+}$, then $b_1=0$ and $H\cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(0)}}(\x)) = {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(0)}}(\x))$, since $\dim {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(0)}}(\x)) = m-1$. This case corresponds to the facet-defining inequality $\sum_{i=1}^m x_i \geq |\lambda|$.
Otherwise, if ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) \subseteq \overline{H_-}$, then $b_m=N$ and $H\cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(N)}}(\x)) = {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(N)}}(\x))$. If the $S_m$-orbit of $\lambda^{(N)}$ is nontrivial, then $\dim {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(N)}}(\x)) = m-1$. This case corresponds to the facet-defining inequality $\sum_{i=1}^m x_i \leq |\lambda|+N$.
Now suppose $\dim (H\cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_\ell)}}(\x)))<m-1$ for all $\ell=1,\ldots,m$ . It remains to show that there exists $1\leq k \leq m$ such that $\dim (H\cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x)))=m-2$.
Since the symmetric group $S_m$ acts on ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ (and hence its facet-defining hyperplanes) then without loss of generality, it suffices to assume that $H$ is defined by an equation of the form $\sum_{i=1}^r x_i = d$ for some $r \leq m$.
First assume that ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) \subseteq \overline{H_-}$. Since $H$ is facet-defining, then it contains at least one vertex of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$, say $\lambda^{(b_k)}$, where we choose $k$ to be the smallest index for which this is true. By the same argument as in the proof of Lemma \[lem.exclude2\], we may assume that $k\leq m-1$. This implies $d = \sum_{i=1}^r \lambda_i^{(b_k)}$. Since $\lambda_i^{(b_k)} \leq \lambda_i^{(b_\ell)}$ for all $i$ and all $\ell\geq k$, then $$d = \sum_{i=1}^r \lambda_i^{(b_k)} \leq \sum_{i=1}^r \lambda_i^{(b_\ell)} \leq d,$$ where the second inequality is due to ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) \subseteq \overline{H_-}$. So the vertices $\lambda^{(b_\ell)}$ also lie in $H$ for all $\ell\geq k$.
From this observation, we see that the vertices of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ which lie in $H$ consists of concatenating an $S_r$-permutation of $(\lambda_1^{(b_k)},\ldots, \lambda_r^{(b_k)})$ with an $S_{m-r}$-permutation of $(\lambda_{r+1}^{(b_\ell)},\ldots, \lambda_m^{(b_\ell)})$ for any $\ell\geq k$. The convex hull of the permutations of $(\lambda_{r+1}^{(b_\ell)},\ldots, \lambda_m^{(b_\ell)})$ for $\ell=k,\ldots, m$ has dimension $m-r$ as $k<m$ and $\lambda_m^{(b_k)}=0\neq \lambda_m^{(b_m)}$. Let $s$ be the dimension of the convex hull of the permutations of $(\lambda_1^{(b_k)},\ldots, \lambda_r^{(b_k)})$, so that $$\dim ( H \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) ) = s+m-r.$$ But $H$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$, so $s+m-r=m-1$ implies $s=r-1$.
Now, the dimension of $H \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$ is the sum of $s$ and the dimension of the convex hull of the permutations of $(\lambda_{r+1}^{(b_k)},\ldots, \lambda_m^{(b_k)})$, which is $m-r-1$ as $k<m$. Thus $$\dim ( H \cap {\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x)) ) = (r-1) + (m-r-1) = m-2.$$ Thus $H$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(b_k)}}(\x))$.
A similar argument works in the case ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x)) \subseteq \overline{H_+}$. Therefore the result follows.
We are now ready to classify the Newton polytopes of inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials that are reflexive. First, we examine the simple case when $m=2$.
\[prop.m2\] Let $m=2$, and assume that $\lambda=(\lambda_1,0)$. The only Newton polytopes of inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials that are reflexive are ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,(3,0)}(\x))$ for $h\geq2$.
If ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive, then by Corollary \[cor.uonone\] its unique interior lattice point $\u = (u,u)$ lies in ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(1)}}(\x))$ so $2u = |\lambda|+1$. Since $\lambda$ is assumed to be reduced by translation, then $\lambda = (2u-1,0)$. By Corollary \[cor.lambda\_and\_u\] we know $\lambda_1=u+1$, so $2u-1=u+1$ implies $u=2$ and $\lambda=(3,0)$. When $h=1$, $\lambda^{(N)}=\lambda^{(1)}= (3,1)$ and ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{1,\lambda}(\x))$ has no interior lattice points.
When $h=2$, ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{2,\lambda}(\x)) = \operatorname{conv}\{(3,0), (3,2), (2,3), (0,3) \}$ with the unique interior lattice point $(2,2)$ so it is reflexive.
Finally when $h\geq3$, ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{2,\lambda}(\x)) = \operatorname{conv}\{(3,0), (3,3), (0,3) \}$ with the unique interior lattice point $(2,2)$ so it is also reflexive.
\[prop.classifyrefG\] Let $m\geq3$ and assume that $\lambda$ is reduced by translation so that $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_{m-1},0)$. If $\mathrm{Newt}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive, then $\lambda$ is of one of the following forms: $$\lambda = \begin{cases}
(m+1,\ldots, m+1,0) \vdash m^2-1,\\
(2,\ldots,2,1,0,\ldots,0) \vdash m-1, &\hbox{ if $m$ is even,}\\
(2,\ldots, 2,0,\ldots,0) \vdash m-1, &\hbox{ if $m$ is odd.}
\end{cases}$$
By Corollary \[cor.soneisreflexive\], if $\mathrm{Newt}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive then ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(1)}}(\x))$ is reflexive, so we know from Theorem \[thm:reflexive\] that the partition $s_{\lambda^{(1)}}$ is a translate of one of $$(m,0,\ldots,0), (2,1^{m-2},0), (2^\ell,0^\ell), (2^\ell,1,0^\ell)\vdash m,
\hbox{ or } (m,\ldots, m,0)\vdash m(m-1).$$
First suppose $\lambda^{(1)}$ is a translate of $(m,0,\ldots,0)$ so that it is of the form $(m+c,c,\ldots,c)$ for some nonnegative integer $c$. Then $\lambda = (m+c,c,\ldots,c,c-1)$ or $(m+c-1,c\ldots,c)$. Since $\lambda$ is assumed to be reduced by translation, then $c=1$ and $\lambda = (m+1,1,\ldots,1,0)$ or $c=0$ and $\lambda = (m-1,0,\ldots,0)$. In the first case, this implies that the box that was added to $\lambda$ to obtain $\lambda^{(1)}$ is in the $m$-th row (where $m\geq3$), but by definition it should have been in the second row so this case is not possible. In the second case, this implies that the box that was added to $\lambda$ to obtain $\lambda^{(1)}$ is in the first row but this is also not possible by definition.
Next, suppose $m\geq4$ and $\lambda^{(1)}$ is a translate of $(2,1^{m-2},0)$ so that it is of the form $(2+c,(1+c)^{m-2},c)$ for some nonnegative integer $c$. Then $\lambda = (2+c, (1+c)^{m-2}, c-1)$, $(2+c, (1+c)^{m-3},c,c)$, or $((1+c)^{m-1},c)$. Since $\lambda$ is assumed to be reduced by translation, then $c=1$ in the first case and $c=0$ in the second and third cases. All three of these cases are not possible for reasons analogous to the previous case. When $m=3$, the only possible case is when $\lambda^{(1)} = (2,1,0)$ and $\lambda = (2,0,0)$. This case is also covered in one of the cases below.
Now, suppose $\lambda^{(1)}$ is a translate of $(2^\ell,0^\ell)\vdash m=2\ell$ or $(2^\ell,1,0^\ell)\vdash m = 2\ell+1$ so that it is of the form $((2+c)^\ell, c^\ell)$ or $((2+c)^\ell,1+c,c^\ell)$. When $m$ is even, then $\lambda = ((2+c)^\ell, c^{\ell-1}, c-1)$ or $((2+c)^{\ell-1}, 1+c, c^\ell)$. Since $\lambda$ is assumed to be reduced by translation, then $c=1$ and $\lambda = (3^\ell,1^{\ell-1},0)$ in the first case, or $c=0$ and $\lambda=(2^{\ell-1},1,0^\ell)\vdash m-1$ in the second. In the first case, this implies that the box that was added to $\lambda$ to obtain $\lambda^{(1)}$ is in the $m$-th row (where $m\geq4$), when it should have been added in the $(\frac{m}{2}+1)$-th row, so this case may be eliminated. When $m$ is odd, then $\lambda=((2+c)^\ell,1+c,c^{\ell-1},c-1)$, $((2+c)^\ell,c^{\ell+1})$ or $((2+c)^{\ell-1},(1+c)^2,c^\ell)$. Since $\lambda$ is assumed to be reduced by translation, then $c=1$ in the first case and $c=0$ in the second and third cases. By arguments similar to those in the previous cases, the only possible case is the second, when $\lambda=(2^\ell,0^{\ell+1})\vdash m-1$.
Finally, suppose $\lambda^{(1)}$ is a translate of $(m,\ldots,m,0)$, so that it is of the form $(m+c,\ldots,m+c,c)$ for some nonnegative integer $c$. Then $\lambda = (m+c,\ldots,m+c,c-1)$ or $(m+c,\ldots,m+c-1,c)$. Since $\lambda$ is assumed to be reduced by translation, then $c=1$ and $\lambda=(m+1,
\ldots,m+1,0)$ in the first case, or $c=0$ and $\lambda= (m,\ldots,m, m-1,0)$ in the second. To rule out this latter possibility, note that if ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive, then by Corollary \[cor.uonone\] its unique interior lattice point is $\u=(u,\ldots,u)\vdash mu=|\lambda|+1= m^2-m$, so $u=m-1$. By Theorem \[thm.ineqsofG\], $x_i\geq0$ is a facet-defining inequality of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$, and $\u$ is lattice distance $m-1\geq2$ from each of these hyperplanes, so ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ cannot be reflexive.
The result now follows.
We next determine the values of $h$ for which the partitions $\lambda$ in Proposition \[prop.classifyrefG\] give rise to reflexive Newton polytopes of inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials.
\[prop.reflG1\] Let $\lambda=(m+1,\ldots,m+1,0)\vdash m^2-1$. Then the Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive when $h=1$ and $m=3$, or $h\geq2$ and $m\geq3$.
We first deduce where an interior lattice point can occur in ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$. The sequence of dominating partitions for $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$ is $$\lambda^{(k)} = (m+1,\ldots, m+1,k)$$ for $k=0,\ldots, N=\min(h(m-1),m+1)$. If the partition $\mu=(\mu_1,\ldots, \mu_m)$ is an interior lattice point of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$, then it lies in ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(r)}}(\x))$ for some $r=1,\ldots, N-1$, and so $\mu \vdash |\lambda|+r = m^2-1+r$. Moreover, $\mu$ is an interior lattice point only if $$\sum_{i=1}^\ell \mu_i < \sum_{i=1}^\ell \lambda_i^{(k)} = \ell(m+1)$$ for every $\ell=1,\ldots, m-1$ and $k=1,\ldots, N-1$. In particular when $\ell=1$, this implies $m\geq\mu_1\geq\cdots\geq\mu_m$, so it follows that $\sum_{i=1}^\ell \mu_i \leq \ell m$ for $\ell=1,\ldots, m$. Therefore, $$m^2-1+r = |\lambda|+r = \sum_{i=1}^m \mu_i \leq m^2,$$ and we conclude that $r=1$ necessarily. This means $\mu \vdash m^2$ so the only possible $\mu$ is $\mu = (m,\ldots, m)$, whose $S_m$-orbit is trivial. Therefore when $\lambda = (m+1,\ldots, m+1,0)$, the polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ has the unique interior lattice point $\u=(m,\ldots, m)$.
If the $S_m$-orbit of $\lambda^{(N)}$ is not trivial, then by Lemma \[lem.frontandback\], $x_1+\cdots+x_m=|\lambda|+N=m^2-1+N$ is a facet-defining hyperplane of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$. Thus for ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ to be reflexive, we require $N=2$, as the interior lattice point $\u=(m,\ldots,m)$ must be lattice distance one from this hyperplane.
In other words, $N=\min(h(m-1),m+1)=2$. Since we assumed $m\geq3$, then $h=1$ and $m=3$ is the only possibility. In this case, $\lambda = (4,4,0)$ and by Theorem \[thm.ineqsofG\] the facet-defining hyperplanes of this Newton polytope are $$x_i=4 \hbox{ for } i=1,2,3, \quad x_1+x_2+x_3=8, \quad \hbox{ and }\quad x_1+x_2+x_3=10.$$ The unique interior lattice point $\u=(3,3,3)$ is lattice distance one from each of these facet-defining hyperplanes, so ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{1,(4,4,0)}(\x))$ is reflexive.
Otherwise, if the $S_m$-orbit of $\lambda^{(N)}$ is trivial, then we must have $\lambda^{(N)}=(m+1,\ldots, m+1)$. This implies $h(m-1)\geq m+1$, or equivalently, $h\geq 1+\frac{2}{m-1}$. As $m\geq3$, then $h\geq2$.
In this case, we have $\lambda^{(b_1)} = \cdots = \lambda^{(b_{m-1})} = (m+1,\ldots, m+1,0)$ and $\lambda^{(b_m)}=(m+1,\ldots, m+1)$. By Theorem \[thm.ineqsofG\], the facet-defining hyperplanes of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ are $$x_1+\cdots+x_m=m^2-1,\quad \hbox{ and }\quad x_i = m+1 \hbox{ for } i=1,\ldots, m,$$ and we see that this Newton polytope is an $m$-simplex. The unique interior lattice point $\u = (m,\ldots, m)$ is lattice distance one from each of these hyperplanes so ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive.
\[prop.reflG2\] Let $m\geq3$ and let $$\lambda = \begin{cases}
(2^\ell, 0^{\ell+1})\vdash m-1, &\hbox{ if $m=2\ell+1$ is odd,}\\
(2^{\ell-1},1,0^\ell)\vdash m-1, &\hbox{ if $m=2\ell$ is even.}
\end{cases}$$ Then ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive for $h\geq1$.
We first deduce where an interior lattice point can occur in ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$. For all $h\geq1$ and $m\geq3$, if $\lambda^{(0)}, \ldots, \lambda^{(N)}$ is the sequence of dominating partitions for $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$, then $N=m+1$. In particular, $\lambda_1^{(k)}=2$ for all $k=0,\ldots, N$. If the partition $\mu=(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_m)$ is an interior lattice point of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ that lies in ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{\lambda^{(r)}}(\x))$ for some $r=1,\ldots, N-1$, then $\mu \vdash |\lambda|+r = m-1+r$. As $\mu$ is an interior lattice point, it must satisfy $\mu_1 < \lambda_1^{(k)}=2$, so we have $1\geq \mu_1 \geq \cdots \geq \mu_m$ and $$m-1+r = |\lambda|+r = \mu_1+\cdots+\mu_m \leq m.$$ This implies $r=1$, and the only possible $\mu$ is $\mu=(1,\ldots,1)
\vdash m$, whose $S_m$-orbit is trivial. The point $\mu=(1,\ldots,1)$ satisfies $\sum_{i=1}^\ell\mu_i < \sum_{i=1}^\ell \lambda_i^{(k)}$ for all $k=1,\ldots, N-1$, thus ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ has the unique interior lattice point $\u=(1,\ldots,1)$.
First consider the case $m=3$, $h=1$, and $\lambda=(2,0,0)$. The dominating sequence of partitions is $(2,0,0)$, $(2,1,0)$ and $(2,1,1)$. The facet-defining hyperplanes of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(x))$ are $$x_i=0,2 \hbox{ for } i=1,2,3,\quad
x_i+x_j = 3 \hbox{ for } i\neq j \in [3],\quad
\hbox{ and }\quad x_1+x_2+x_3=2,4.$$
Evidently, $\u$ is lattice distance one from every facet-defining hyperplane of the Newton polytope, so ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive. Next consider the cases $m=3$ and $h\geq2$, or $m\geq4$ and $h\geq1$. In all cases, we have $N= m+1$, with $\lambda^{(N)}= (2^m)$, and the Newton polytope is the same for all $h$ in the given range. The vertices of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ are the $S_m$-orbits of $\lambda^{(0)}, \lambda^{(2)}, \ldots, \lambda^{(N)}$ if $m$ is odd, and are the $S_m$-orbits of $\lambda^{(0)}, \lambda^{(1)}, \lambda^{(3)}, \ldots, \lambda^{(N)}$ if $m$ is even.
By Theorem \[thm.ineqsofG\], the facet-defining hyperplanes of ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ are $$x_i=0,2 \hbox{ for } i=1,\ldots,m,\quad \hbox{ and }\quad x_1+\cdots+x_m=m-1,$$ and we see that ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is the truncation of the $m$-cube $[0,2]^m$ by the hyperplane $x_1+\cdots+x_m = m-1$. The unique interior lattice point $\u=(1,\ldots,1)$ is lattice distance one from each of these hyperplanes, and we conclude that ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive.
The Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ is reflexive if and only if $h$ and $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_m)$ are one of the following cases: $$\begin{array}{lll}
h\geq1,
& \lambda=(2,\ldots,2,0,\ldots,0)\vdash m-1
& \hbox{ for odd $m\geq3$},\\
h\geq1,
& \lambda=(2,\ldots,2,1,0,\ldots,0)\vdash m-1
& \hbox{ for even $m\geq4$},\\
h\geq2,
& \lambda=(m+1,\ldots,m+1,0)\vdash m^2-1
& \hbox{ for } m\geq2,\\
h=1,
& \lambda=(4,4,0).
\end{array}$$
The result follows from combining Propositions \[prop.m2\], \[prop.reflG1\] and \[prop.reflG2\].
Tables of $h^\ast$-vectors for reflexive polytopes in the family ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda}(\x))$ can be found in the Appendix.
$h^\ast$-polynomials
====================
Thus far we have shown that the Newton polytopes arising from Schur polynomials have the integer decomposition property (Theorem \[thm:Schur\_IDP\]). In addition, we have classified the polytopes that are reflexive (Theorem \[thm:reflexive\] and Gorenstein (Corollary \[cor:Schur\_gorenstein\]). Following the motivation of Conjecture \[conj-unimodal\], we study the $h^\ast$-polynomials of these polytopes.
In this section, we provide closed-form expressions for the $h^\ast$-polynomials of the four families of reflexive Newton polytopes of Schur polynomials from Theorem \[thm:reflexive\]. We also prove that all of these $h^\ast$-polynomials are unimodal. Figure \[fig.Reflexive-Nonreflexive-h\*\] depicts examples of reflexive and nonreflexive ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))$ with their corresponding $h^{\ast}$-vectors. The $h^\ast$-vectors of reflexive ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))$ for several partitions are provided in Table \[tab:h\*-vecs\] in the Appendix.
![The reflexive polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{(2,2,0,0)}(\x))$ has $h^{\ast}$-vector $(1,15,15,1)$ and is shown on the left. The polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{(3,1,0,0)}(\x))$, which has $h^{\ast}$-vector $(1,27,31,1)$, is shown on the right and is not reflexive.[]{data-label="fig.Reflexive-Nonreflexive-h*"}](SageImage_Schur_22_4_shift-Reflexive.png "fig:"){height="5.8cm"} ![The reflexive polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{(2,2,0,0)}(\x))$ has $h^{\ast}$-vector $(1,15,15,1)$ and is shown on the left. The polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_{(3,1,0,0)}(\x))$, which has $h^{\ast}$-vector $(1,27,31,1)$, is shown on the right and is not reflexive.[]{data-label="fig.Reflexive-Nonreflexive-h*"}](SageImage_Schur_31_4-Non-reflexive.png "fig:"){height="6cm"}
\[prop:(n)\_h\*\] Let $\lambda= (n)$. The $h^\ast$-polynomial of the Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(s_\lambda(\x))=\mathcal{P}^n_\lambda$ is of degree $n-1$, and has coefficients $$h^\ast_j = \sum_{i=0}^j (-1)^i {n\choose i}{(j-i+1)n-1\choose n-1}.$$
Let $\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{P}^n_\lambda$. We first calculate the Ehrhart polynomial $\operatorname{ehr}_\mathcal{P}(k)$. The polytope $\mathcal{P}$ has vertices $ne_i$ for $1\le i\le n$ and the polytope $k\mathcal{P}$ has vertices $kne_i$ for $1\le i\le n$, where $e_i$ is the $i^{th}$ standard basis vector. The lattice points in $k\mathcal{P}$ are all the points $(v_1,v_2,\ldots, v_n)$ with all $v_i$ nonnegative integers and $\sum_i v_i = kn$. These are in natural bijection with all weak compositions of $kn$ into $n$ parts. The number of these is well known, so we get $$\operatorname{ehr}_\mathcal{P}(k) = {kn+n-1 \choose n-1}.$$ Thus the Ehrhart series of $\mathcal{P}$ is $$\sum_{k=0}^\infty \operatorname{ehr}_\mathcal{P}(k) x^k = \sum_{k=0}^\infty {kn+n-1 \choose n-1}x^k.$$ To get the $h^\ast$-polynomial, we multiply the Ehrhart series by $(1-x)^n$.
$$\begin{aligned}
(1-x)^n \sum_{k=0}^\infty \operatorname{ehr}_\mathcal{P}(k) x^k &=&
\left(\sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^i{n\choose i}x^i\right)
\left(\sum_{k=0}^\infty {kn+n-1 \choose n-1}x^k\right)\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}
\left(\sum_{i=0}^j (-1)^i {n\choose i}{(j-i)n+n-1\choose n-1}\right)x^j.\end{aligned}$$
So for $0\le j\le n-1$, $$h^\ast_j = \sum_{i=0}^j (-1)^i {n\choose i}{(j-i+1)n-1\choose n-1}.$$
\[prop:(2,1,...,1)\_h\*\] Let $\lambda = (2,1,\ldots,1)\vdash n$ and $\mathcal{P}^n_\lambda$ be the corresponding Newton polytope. Its $h^\ast$ coefficients are given by the following formula. $$\begin{aligned}
h^\ast_j &=& {n-1\choose j}^2 $$
Let $Q$ be the translation of $\mathcal{P}^n_\lambda$ so that the origin is its unique interior latttice point. Then $Q$ is the convex hull of all vectors $e_i - e_j$ for all $i,j \in [n]$. Thus $Q$ is precisely the polytope $\mathcal{P}_{A_{n-1}}$ as stated in [@Ardila-etal Theorem 2]. This theorem shows that $h^\ast_j = {n-1\choose j}^2.$
\[prop:(2,...,2)\_h\*\] Let $\lambda = (2,\ldots, 2)\vdash n$ ($n$ even) or $\lambda = (2,\ldots, 2,1)\vdash n$ ($n$ odd) and $\mathcal{P}^n_\lambda$ be the corresponding Newton polytope. The $h^\ast$ coefficients are given by the following formula. $$\begin{aligned}
h^\ast_j &=& \sum_{k=0}^j (-1)^{j-k} {n\choose j-k} a_{n,k}, \text{ where } \\
a_{n,k} &=& \sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^i {n\choose i}
{nk+n-1-i(2k+1) \choose n-1}. $$
We proceed in the same way as Proposition \[prop:(n)\_h\*\]. Let $n$ be even and $\lambda = (2,\ldots, 2)\vdash n$. Define $\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{P}^n_\lambda$. We first calculate the Ehrhart polynomial $\operatorname{ehr}_\mathcal{P}(k)$. The vertices of $\mathcal{P}$ are $2\sum_{i \in I} e_i$ for all $I \subseteq [n]$ such that $|I| = n/2.$ Thus $k\mathcal{P}$ has vertices $2k\sum_{i \in I} e_i$ for these same $I$. Therefore the lattice points in $k\mathcal{P}$ are the points $(v_1,\dots,v_n)$ such that $0 \le v_i \le 2k$ and $\sum_i v_i = kn$. There are in natural bijection with the weak compositions of $kn$ into $n$ parts such that each part has size less than or equal to $2k$. This number is counted by $a_{n,k}$ above. Therefore $\operatorname{ehr}_\mathcal{P}(k) = a_{n,k}$.
Thus the Ehrhart series of $\mathcal{P}$ is $$\sum_{k=0}^\infty \operatorname{ehr}_\mathcal{P}(k)x^k = \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_{n,k} x^k.$$ To get the $h^\ast$-polynomial, we multiply the Ehrhart series by $(1-x)^n$: $$\begin{aligned}
(1-x)^n \sum_{k=0}^\infty \operatorname{ehr}_\mathcal{P}(k)x^k &=&
\left(\sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^i{n\choose i}x^i\right)
\left(\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_{n,k} x^k\right)\end{aligned}$$
So for $0\le j\le n-1$, the coefficient of $x^j$ in the above series is $$h^\ast_j = \sum_{k=0}^j (-1)^{j-k} {n \choose j-k} a_{n,k}.$$
Now suppose that $n$ is odd and $\lambda = (2,\ldots, 2,1)\vdash n$. Again define $\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{P}^n_\lambda$. The vertices of $\mathcal{P}$ are $e_j + 2\sum_{i \in I}e_i$ for all $j \notin I \subseteq [n]$ with $|I|= \lfloor n/2 \rfloor.$ Thus $k\mathcal{P}$ has vertices $k(e_j + 2\sum_{i \in I}e_i)$ for these same $I$ and $j$. Therefore the lattice points in $k\mathcal{P}$ are the points $(v_1,\dots,v_n)$ such that $0 \le v_i \le 2k$ and $\sum_i v_i = kn$. Thus the $h^\ast$-polynomial calculation in the even case works precisely the same in the odd case.
Now that we have determined the $h^\ast$-polynomials for these reflexive polytopes, we verify that Conjecture \[conj-unimodal\] holds in the case of Newton polytopes of Schur polynomials. That is, we show that the cofficients of the $h^\ast$-polynomials of the polytopes listed in Theorem \[thm:reflexive\] are unimodal.
\[prop:HibiOhsugi\_Schur\] All Newton polytopes arising from Schur polynomials that are reflexive have $h^\ast$-polynomials with unimodal coefficients.
We note that if $\mathcal{P}$ is reflexive and $\mathcal{P}$ has a regular unimodular triangulation, then the $h^\ast$-polynomial of $\mathcal{P}$ has unimodal coefficients by Theorem \[thm-GorensteinTriangulation\]. Thus, we can prove this result by showing that these polytopes have regular unimodular triangulations.
If $\mathcal{P}$ is the polytope from Proposition \[prop:(n)\_h\*\], then $\mathcal{P}$ is a dilate of a unimodular simplex. By [@Haase_etal Theorem 4.8], the dilate of any polytope with a regular unimodular triangulation has a regular unimodular triangulation.
If $\mathcal{P}$ is the polytope from Proposition \[prop:(2,1,...,1)\_h\*\], we observe that the coefficients are log-concave by a routine calculation since binomial coefficients are log-concave.
If $\mathcal{P}$ is the polytope from Proposition \[prop:(2,...,2)\_h\*\] when $n$ is even, then $\mathcal{P}$ is a dilate of a hypersimplex, which is known to have a unimodular triangulation by [@LamPostnikov].
If $\mathcal{P}$ is the polytope from Proposition \[prop:(2,...,2)\_h\*\] when $n$ is odd, we note that the facets for this polytope are listed in Proposition \[refl-list\](c). We can translate $\mathcal{P}$ so that the origin is the unique interior point of $\mathcal{P}$. The facet-defining matrix for this translate of $\mathcal{P}$ is easily seen to be unimodular, so by [@Haase_etal Theorem 2.4], $\mathcal{P}$ has a regular unimodular triangulation. Thus the conjecture holds for this family of polytopes.
One could also consider the question of $h^\ast$-unimodality for Gorenstein $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$, but these results follow rather quickly. Several of the Gorenstein examples are hypersimplices (Corollary \[cor:hypersimplices\]) which are known to have combinatorial formulas [@Kim-Hypersimplices] and are known to have unimodular triangulations [@LamPostnikov]. The remaining examples of Gorenstein $\mathcal{P}_\lambda^m$ are dilated standard simplicies and arguments will follow in a similar vein to the case of $\lambda=(n)$.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we study the Newton polytopes of Schur polynomials and show that they all have the integer decomposition property. We determine which Schur polynomials have reflexive Newton polytopes, and for which the Newton polytope is Gorenstein. For the reflexive Newton polytopes of Schur polynomials, we give the $h^\ast$-polynomials, and show that they are unimodal.
We also introduce a generalization of symmetric Grothendieck polynomials, called inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials. We show that all these polynomials have saturated Newton polytope and their Newton polytopes have the integer decomposition property. We characterize the partitions whose inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials have reflexive Newton polytopes and provide a table of their $h^\ast$-vectors.
The study of polynomials with saturated Newton polytope both introduces additional lattice polytopes of combinatorial interest and provides a new tool for approaching problems in Ehrhart theory. It may be fruitful to consider questions of the integer decomposition and reflexive polytopes for the Newton polytopes of other families of polynomials which are known to have SNP, such as chromatic symmetric polynomials and Schubert polynomials. Additionally, it is worth noting that the Newton polytopes of many polynomials of interest in algebraic combinatorics appear not only to have SNP, but also to have nice Ehrhart theoretic properties such as IDP and $h^\ast$-unimodality, either by our theorems or computationally. Perhaps it would be of interest to investigate if these Newton polytopes have other sought after properties, such as Ehrhart positivity.
Tables of $h^\ast$-vectors for reflexive polytopes
==================================================
We present some tables of $h^\ast$-vectors for reflexive Newton polytopes arising from inflated symmetric Grothendieck polynomials $G_{h,\lambda}(\x)$ and Schur polynomials $s_\lambda(\x)$.
$m$ $h$ $h^\ast$-vector
----- ---------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
3 $\geq 2$ 1, 27, 27, 1
4 $\geq 2$ 1, 121, 381, 121, 1
5 $\geq 2$ 1, 456, 3431, 3431, 456, 1
6 $\geq 2$ 1, 1709, 26769, 60691, 26769, 1709, 1
7 $\geq 2$ 1, 6427, 193705, 848443, 848443, 193705, 6427, 1
8 $\geq 2$ 1, 24301, 1343521, 10350421, 19610233, 10350421, 1343521, 24301, 1
: \[tab:h\*-vecs3\] $h^\ast$-vectors of some reflexive Newton polytopes arising from $G_{h,\lambda}$ for $\lambda=((m+1)^{m-1},0)$. For $m\geq 3$ and $h\geq 2$, $h(m-1) \geq 2(m-1) \geq (m+1)$. Thus, $G_{2,\lambda} = G_{h,\lambda}$ for all $h\geq 2$.
$m$ $h$ $h^\ast$-vector
----- ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 1 1, 12, 12, 1
3 $\geq 2$ 1, 19, 19, 1
4 $\geq 1$ 1, 61, 183, 61, 1
5 $\geq 1$ 1, 186, 1301, 1301, 186, 1
6 $\geq 1$ 1, 554, 7974, 17756, 7974, 554, 1
7 $\geq 1$ 1, 1639, 44997, 191955, 191955, 44997, 1639, 1
8 $\geq 1$ 1, 4841, 241861, 1805773, 3393515, 1805773, 241861, 4841, 1
9 $\geq 1$ 1, 14308, 1261900, 15539722, 49625029, 49625029, 15539722, 1261900, 14308, 1
: \[tab:h\*-vecs2\] $h^\ast$-vectors of some reflexive Newton polytopes arising from $G_{h,\lambda}$ for $\lambda=(2^\ell,0^{\ell+1})$ or $(2^{\ell-1},1,0^\ell)$. Since $\lambda_1=2$ in these cases, then for $m=3$ and all $h\geq2$, and for $m\geq4$ and all $h\geq1$, the Newton polytope ${\mathrm{Newt}}(G_{h,\lambda})$ stabilizes and is the truncation of the $m$-cube $[0,2]^m$ by the hyperplane $x_1+\cdots+x_m=m-1$.
$\lambda$ n $h^\ast$-vector
----------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------- --
(21) 3 1, 4, 1
(3) 3 1, 7, 1
(211) 4 1, 9, 9, 1
(22) 4 1, 15, 15, 1
(4) 4 1, 31, 31, 1
(2111) 5 1, 16, 36, 16, 1
(221) 5 1, 46, 136, 46, 1
(5) 5 1, 121, 381, 121, 1
(21111) 6 1, 25, 100, 100, 25,1
(222) 6 1, 135, 920, 920, 135, 1
(6) 6 1, 456, 3431, 3431, 456, 1
(211111) 7 1, 36, 225, 400, 225, 36, 1
(2221) 7 1, 386, 5405, 11964, 5405, 386, 1
(2111111) 8 1, 49, 441, 1225, 1225, 441, 49, 1
(2222) 8 1, 1099, 29337, 124187, 124187, 29337, 1099, 1
(22221) 9 1, 3130, 152110, 1126258, 2112016, 1126258, 152110, 3130, 1
: \[tab:h\*-vecs\] $h^\ast$-vectors of some reflexive Newton polytopes arising from Schur polynomials $s_\lambda$.
[^1]: In this paper, the author also acknowledges unpublished work of Hibi and Stanley
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We investigate, in detail, a model in which the third family fermions are subjected to an SU(2) dynamics different from the first two families. Constrained by the precision $Z$-pole data, the heavy gauge boson mass is bounded from below to be about $1.7$ TeV at the $2\sigma$ level. The flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) in the lepton sector can be significant in $\tau\leftrightarrow e$ and $\tau \leftrightarrow \mu$ transitions. In the latter case, the ratio ${\rm{Br}}(\tau\rightarrow \mu \overline{\nu_\mu} \nu_\tau)/
{\rm{Br}}(\tau\rightarrow e \overline{\nu_e} \nu_\tau)$ and ${\rm{Br}}(\tau\rightarrow \mu \mu \mu)$ can constrain the model better than LEP/SLC data in some region of the parameter space. Furthermore, FCNCs are unavoidable in the quark sector. Significant effects to the $B^0$-$\overline{B^0}$ mixing and the rare decays of the $K$ and $B$ mesons, such as $K^\pm \to \pi^\pm \nu {\overline \nu}$, $b \to s \nu {\overline \nu}$, $B_s \to \tau^+\tau^-$, $\mu^+\mu^-$ and $B_{s,d} \to \mu^\pm \tau^\mp$, are expected.
---
hep-ph/9906215\
June 1999 MSUHEP-90523
[**Ehab Malkawi$^{a,}$[^1] and C.–P. Yuan$^b$**]{}
[$^a$Department of Physics, Jordan University of Science & Technology\
Irbid 22110, Jordan]{}
[$^b$Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University\
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA]{}
PACS numbers:12.15.Ji, 12.60.-i, 12.60.Cn, 13.20.- v, 13.35.-r
/ 0[DØ ]{}
Introduction
============
The search for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) is an ongoing endeavor. Usually, a search for new physics implies investigating higher and higher energy regime where new physics effects are expected to appear. Nevertheless, it remains a necessary and useful approach to study the low-energy regime where interesting phenomena may be expected in a particular model. The work presented here is an example where new physics diminishes in some of the very low-energy processes and flourishes in the others.
The flavor physics of the third generation is particularly mysterious for the smallness of the mixing angles and the huge hierarchy in masses. Furthermore, the heavy top quark mass can be an indication for a new dynamics in the third fermion generation different from the first two generations. It is interesting to investigate the idea of treating the third generation differently from the first two generations in the context of strong or electroweak interactions. Fortunately, the already available low energy data can largly constrain such a picture. In this regard, several studies have been pursued in the literature. In the context of the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) interaction, we refer the reader to Refs. [@hill1; @hill2]. In the context of the electroweak interaction, several published works also exist. As an example, in the context of Tecnicolor theories, we refer the reader to Ref. [@chiv]. The idea that the third generation carries a seperate $SU(2)$ was proposed in Refs. [@lima; @ehab5; @muller]. The two models in Refs. [@ehab5; @muller] differ in the assignment of the quantum numbers to the Higgs sector which leads to different phenomenological implications. Constraints from low energy data on such models have been discussed in Refs. [@ehab5; @muller; @lee; @andrea].
In Ref. [@ehab5], we proposed a model in which the third generation feels a different gauge dynamics (with a new $SU(2)$ gauged symmetry) from the usual weak interaction proposed in the SM. (No modification to the QCD interaction was considered, because that case has been discussed elsewhere [@hill1; @hill2].) Consequently, a new spectrum of gauge bosons emerges in the model. We, then, used the available CERN Large Electron Positron (LEP) and SLAC Stanford Linear Collider (SLC) data to constrain the parameters of the model. We found the model to be consistent with data (at the 3$\sigma $ level) as long as the heavy gauge boson mass is larger than 1.3 TeV. A similar conclusion was also found in Refs. [@muller; @lee; @andrea].[^2]
In this current work, we first update the previous analysis on constraining the parameter space of the proposed model using the most recent LEP and SLC data [@lep], then discuss the zero-momentum transfer physics in the low-energy regime where interesting effects may be expected in both lepton and quark sectors. We find that flavor-changing neutral currents (FCNCs) may exist in the lepton sector and are unavoidable in the quark sector. As a consequence, neutrinos can mix via gauge interaction despite of their zero mass. Furthermore, deviations from the SM predictions are expected for some particular low-energy processes. For example, the decay process $\tau \longrightarrow \mu
\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau $ can impose a stronger constraint than the $Z$-pole data for some particular parameter space. Similarly, the $B^0$-$\overline{B^0}$ mixing and the rare decay rates of the $K$ and $B$ mesons, such as $K^\pm \to \pi^\pm \nu {\overline \nu}$ and $B_{s} \to \tau^+ \tau^-, \mu^+ \mu^-$ are expected to exceed the SM prediction for some region of the parameter space. Non-SM decay modes, such as $B_{s,d} \to \mu^\mp \tau^\pm$, can also occur.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we briefly review the model. In Sec. 3, we discuss the constraints on the model from the $Z$-pole data at LEP and SLC. After a general discussion on the possible new effects on low energy data in Sec. 4, we discuss all possible new physics effects, including all FCNC processes as predicted by this model, in Secs. 5 and 6. We summarize our conclusions in Sec. 7.
The Model
=========
For the detailed structure of the model, we refer the reader to Ref. [@ehab5]. In this section we only outline the main features of the proposed model. The model is based on the gauge symmetry G= $SU(2)_l\times
SU(2)_h\times U(1)_Y$. The third generation of fermions (top quark, $t$, bottom quark, $b$, tau lepton, $\tau $, and its neutrino, $\nu
_\tau $) experiences a new gauge interaction, instead of the usual weak interaction advocated by the SM. On the contrary, the first and second generations only feel the weak interaction supposedly equivalent to the SM case. The new gauge dynamics is attributed to the $SU(2)_h$ symmetry under which the left-handed fermions of the third generation transform in the fundamental representation (doublets), while they remain to be singlets under the $SU(2)_l$ symmetry. On the other hand, the left-handed fermions of the first and second generation transform as doublets under the $SU(2)_l$ group and singlets under the $SU(2)_h$ group. The $U(1)_Y$ group is the SM hypercharge group. The right-handed fermions only transform under the $U(1)_Y $ group as assigned by the SM. Finally the QCD interactions and the color symmetry $SU(3)_C$ are the same as that in the SM.
The symmetry breaking of the Lie group G into the electromagnetic group $U(1)_{{\rm {em}}}$ is a two-stage mechanism. First, $SU(2)_l \times
SU(2)_h\times U(1)_Y$ breaks down into $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ at some large energy scale. The second stage is that $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ breaks down into $U(1)_{{\rm {em}}}$ at an energy scale about the same as the SM electroweak symmetry-breaking scale. The spontaneous symmetry-breaking of the group $SU(2)_l \times SU(2)_h\times U(1)_Y$ is accomplished by introducing two scalar matrix fields $\Sigma$ and $\Phi$ which transform as $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma\sim (2,2)_0 \,\, ,\hspace{1cm} \Phi \sim (2,1)_1\,\,\, ,\end{aligned}$$ i.e., the $\Sigma$ field transforms as a doublet under both $SU(2)_l$ and $SU(2)_h$ and as a singlet under $U(1)_Y$. On the other hand, the $\Phi$ field transforms as a doublet under $SU(2)_l$, as a singlet under $SU(2)_h$, and its hypercharge quantum number $Y$ is 1. Thus, the scalar doublet $\Phi$ carries equivalent quantum numbers as the SM Higgs doublet.
As a realization of the symmetry, the $\Sigma$ and $\Phi$ fields transform as $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma \rightarrow g_1\Sigma g_2^{\dagger }\,\,,\hspace{1cm}\Phi \rightarrow
g_1g_Y\Phi \,\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $g_1\in SU(2)_l$, $g_2\in SU(2)_h$, and $g_Y\in U(1)_Y$. For completeness, we briefly discuss the structure of the boson and lepton sectors as follows.
The Boson Sector
----------------
The covariant derivatives of the scalar fields are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
D^\mu \Sigma =\partial^\mu \Sigma +ig_lW_l^\mu \Sigma -ig_h\Sigma W_h^\mu\,,
\nonumber \\
D^\mu \Phi =\partial^\mu \Phi +ig_lW_l^\mu \Phi +\frac{i}{2}g^{\prime }B^\mu
\Phi \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{l,h}\equiv W_{l,h}^a\tau ^a/2$ and where $W_{l,h}^a$ are the gauge boson fields of the $SU(2)_{l,h}$ groups, respectively. ($\tau^a$’s are the Pauli matrices, and ${\rm {Tr}}(\tau^a \tau^b)=2\delta_{ab}$.)
With these definitions, the gauge invariant Lagrangian of the boson sector is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal {L}}_B &=& \frac{1}{2} D_\mu \Phi^{\dagger} D^\mu \Phi +
\frac{1}{4}{\rm {Tr}}(D_\mu \Sigma^{\dagger }D^\mu \Sigma )+
{\rm {V}}(\Phi ,\Sigma ) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{4} {W_l^a}_\mu {W_l^a}^\mu -\frac{1}{4}{W_h^a}_\mu {W_h^a}^\mu -
\frac{1}{4}B_\mu B^\mu \,\,,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm {V}}(\Phi ,\Sigma )$ is the scalar potential. We assume that the first stage of symmetry breaking is accomplished through the $\Sigma $ field by acquiring a vacuum expectation value (VEV) $\,u$, i.e., $
\left\langle \Sigma \right\rangle =\pmatrix{u & 0 \cr 0 & u \cr}\,.
$ The second stage is through the scalar $\Phi $ field by acquiring a vacuum expectation value $v$, so $
\left\langle \Phi \right\rangle=\pmatrix{0 \cr v\cr}\, ,
$ where $v$ is at the same order as the SM symmetry-breaking scale. Because of this pattern of symmetry breaking, the gauge couplings are related to the $U(1)_{{\rm {em}}}$ gauge coupling $e$ by the relation $$\frac 1{e^2}=\frac 1{g_l^2}+\frac 1{g_h^2}+\frac 1{{g^{\prime }}^2}\,\,.$$ We then define $$g_l=\frac e{\sin \theta \cos \phi }\,,\hspace{1cm}
g_h=\frac e{\sin \theta \sin \phi }\,,\hspace{1cm}
g^{\prime }=\frac e{\cos \theta }\,,$$ where $\theta$ plays the role of the usual weak mixing angle and $\phi $ is a new parameter of the model. The scalar fields, except ${\rm {Re}}(\phi ^0)$ from the $\Phi $ doublet and $\sigma $ from the $\Sigma(\equiv \sigma +i\pi^a\tau^a)$ matrix field, become the longitudinal components of the physical gauge bosons. The surviving ${\rm {Re}}(\phi ^0)$ field behaves similar to the SM Higgs boson except that it does not have the usual Yukawa couplings to the third generation.
To derive the mass eigenstates and physical masses of the gauge bosons, we need to diagonalize their mass matrices. For $g_h>g_l$ (equivalently $\tan \phi <1$), we require $g_h^2\leq 4\pi $ (which implies $\sin ^2\phi \geq g^2/(4\pi )\sim 1/30$) so that the perturbation theory is valid. Similarly, for $g_h<g_l$, we require $\sin ^2\phi \leq 0.96$. For simplicity, we focus on the region where $x(\equiv u^2/v^2)$ is much larger than 1, and ignore the corrections which are suppressed by higher powers of $1/x$. To the order $1/x$, the light gauge boson masses are found to be [@ehab5] $$M^2_{W^\pm }=M_0^2(1-\frac{\sin ^4\phi }x)\,,$$ $$M_Z^2=\frac{M_0^2}{\cos ^2{\theta }\,}(1-\frac{\sin ^4\phi }x)\,,
\label{chapter5_mz}$$ where $M_0 \equiv ev/2\sin \theta $. While for the heavy gauge bosons, one finds $$M^2_{{W^\prime}^\pm} = M^2_{Z^\prime }=M_0^2\left( \frac x{\sin^2\phi
\cos^2\phi }+\frac{\sin^2\phi }{\cos^2\phi }\right) \,.$$ It is interesting to notice that up to this order the heavy gauge bosons are degenerate in mass. This is because the heavy gauge bosons do not mix with the hypercharge gauge boson field, $B_\mu $.
The Fermion Sector
------------------
As discussed before, the third generation interacts with the $SU(2)_h$ gauge bosons, and the first and second generations interact with the $SU(2)_l$ gauge bosons. Explicitly, under the $SU(2)_l\times SU(2)_h\times U(1)_Y$ symmetry, the quantum numbers of the fermions are assigned as follows. For the first and second generation fermions, we assign\
left-handed quarks : $(2,1)_{1/3}$ , left-handed leptons : $(2,1)_{-1}$ .\
For the third generation, we have\
left-handed quarks : $(1,2)_{1/3}$ , left-handed leptons : $(1,2)_{-1}$ .\
For all the right-handed fermions, we assign\
right-handed quarks and leptons : $(1,1)_{2Q}$ ,\
where $Q$ is the electric charge of the fermions. Because of this assignment, the model is anomaly free, and the cancellation of anomalies is satisfied family by family.
In terms of the mass eigenstates of the gauge bosons $W^{\pm}$, $Z$, ${W^\prime}^\pm$, and $Z^{\prime}$, the fermionic interaction Lagrangian is $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal L}_f^{int}= \frac{e}{\sin\theta}\overline{\Psi_L}\gamma^{\mu}
\left [ T_l^\pm + T_h^\pm +\frac{\sin^2\phi}{x} \left(
T_h^\pm \cos^2\phi-T_l^\pm\sin^2\phi\right ) \right ] \Psi_L W_\mu^\pm +
\nonumber \\
&&\frac{e}{\sin\theta\cos \theta}\overline{\Psi_L}\gamma^{\mu}
\left [T_l^3+ T_h^3 -Q \sin^2\theta +\frac{\sin^2\phi}{x} \left(
\cos^2\phi T_h^\pm-\sin^2\phi T_l^\pm\right) \right ] \Psi_L Z_\mu
\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{e}{\sin\theta}\overline{\Psi_L}\gamma^{\mu}
\left [- \frac{\sin\phi}{\cos \phi}T_l^\pm +
\frac{\cos\phi}{\sin \phi}T_h^\pm -
\frac{\sin^3\phi\cos\phi}{x\cos^2\theta}
\left(T_h^\pm + T_l^\pm\right) \right ]
\Psi_L {W_\mu^\prime}^\pm + \nonumber \\
&&\frac{e}{\sin\theta}\overline{\Psi_L}\gamma^{\mu}
\left [- \frac{\sin\phi}{\cos \phi}T_l^3 + \frac{\cos\phi}{\sin \phi}T_h^3 -
\frac{\sin^3\phi\cos\phi}{x\cos^2\theta}
\left( T_h^3 + T_l^3-Q\sin^2\theta \right)\right ] \Psi_L Z_\mu^{\prime}
\nonumber \\
&&+eQ\overline{f}^i\gamma^\mu f^i A_\mu -\frac{eQ\sin^2\theta}
{\sin\theta\cos\theta}\overline{f_R}^i\gamma^\mu f_R^i\left (Z_\mu -
\frac{\sin^3\phi \cos\phi}{x\cos\theta}Z_\mu^{\prime} \right )\, .\end{aligned}$$
The first and second generations acquire their masses through the Yukawa interactions to the $\Phi $ doublet field. The fermions Yukawa Lagrangian is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{\mbox{\rm{Yukawa}}} &=&\overline{\Psi _L}^1\Phi \left[
g_{11}^ee_R+g_{12}^e\mu _R+g_{13}^e\tau _R\right] + \nonumber \\
&&\ \overline{\Psi _L}^2\Phi \left[ g_{21}^ee_R+g_{22}^e\mu _R+g_{23}^e\tau
_R\right] +h.c. \label{chap5_mass_1}\end{aligned}$$ For the third generation one cannot generate their masses through the usual Yukawa terms (dimension-four operators), as it is not allowed by gauge invariance. This can be an indication that the mass generation of the third family is due to a different mechanism than the first two generations. One way to realize this is to assume that our proposed symmetry can be embedded in a larger symmetry at a much higher energy scale. The breaking of the large symmetry is responsible for the generation of the third family masses as it is also responsible for the new non-universal gauge dynamics. At the low energy scale this can be effectively written in terms of higher dimension operators. For example, the mass of the the $\tau$ lepton can be generated through the following dimension-five operators: $$\frac 1\Lambda \overline{\Psi _L}^3\Sigma ^{\dagger }\Phi \left[
g_{31}e_R+g_{32}\mu _R+g_{33}\tau _R\right] +h.c., \label{chap5_mass_2}$$ where $\Psi _L^3={\pmatrix{\nu _{\tau L} \cr \tau_L \cr}}$, and $\Lambda $ characterizes some large mass scale associated with the strong flavor interaction. It is reasonable to assume $\Lambda \sim u\gg v$, so that the mass of $\tau$ is about equal to $g_{33}\, v$. Thus, although the masses of the first and second generations are generated through the Yukawa interactions as in the SM, the mass spectrum of third generation must be generated by a different mechanism. This conclusion may be attributed to strong flavor dynamics which could be evident at high energies, where the interactions become strong. Another scenario [@lima] for generating the third family masses in this model is to introduce an additional scalar doublet which only couples to the third generation through the usual Yukawa interactions. In general, this scenario will introduce extra interaction terms to the gauge dynamics and will modify the conclusions presented in this paper.
Given the fermion mass matrices, one can derive their physical masses by diagonalizing the mass matrices using bilinear unitary transformations. For example, for the lepton sector, the lepton mass matrix $M_e$ can be read out from the Lagrangian written above in Eqs. (\[chap5\_mass\_1\]) and (\[chap5\_mass\_2\]). We introduce the unitary matrices $L_e$ and $R_e$ with the transformations: $$e_L^i\rightarrow L_e^{ij}e_L^j\,,\hspace{1cm}e_R^i\rightarrow
R_e^{ij}e_R^j\,.$$ Hence, the physical mass matrix is given by $$M_e^{{\rm {diag.}}}=L_e^{\dagger }M_eR_e\,.$$ Because the third family interacts differently from the first and second generation, we expect in general flavor-changing neutral currents to occur at tree level.
In terms of the fermion mass eigenstates, the left-handed neutral-current interactions are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac e{2\sin \theta \cos \theta }\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{e_L} & \overline{\mu _L} & \overline{\tau _L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[ -1+2\sin ^2\theta +\frac{\sin ^4\phi }x-
\frac{\sin ^2\phi }xL_e^{\dagger }GL_e\right] \left(
\begin{array}{c}
e_L \\
\mu _L \\
\tau _L
\end{array}
\right) Z_\mu \, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac e{2\sin \theta \cos \theta }\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{{\nu _e}_L} & \overline{{\nu _\mu }_L} & \overline{{\nu _\tau }_L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[ 1-\frac{\sin ^4\phi }x+\frac{\sin ^2\phi }
xL_e^{\dagger }GL_e\right] \left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\nu _e}_L \\
{\nu _\mu }_L \\
{\nu _\tau }_L
\end{array}
\right) Z_\mu \, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac e{2\sin \theta}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{e_L} & \overline{\mu _L} & \overline{\tau _L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[ \frac{\sin\phi}{\cos\phi}+
\frac{\sin^3\phi \cos\phi}{x\cos^2\theta}(1-2\sin ^2\theta)-
\frac{L_e^{\dagger}GL_e}{\sin\phi\cos\phi} \right] \left(
\begin{array}{c}
e_L \\
\mu _L \\
\tau _L
\end{array}
\right) Z^\prime_\mu \,,\end{aligned}$$ $$\frac e{2\sin \theta}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{{\nu _e}_L} & \overline{{\nu _\mu }_L} & \overline{{\nu _\tau }_L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[-\frac{\sin\phi}{\cos\phi}-
\frac{\sin^3\phi \cos\phi}{x\cos^2\theta} +
\frac{L_e^{\dagger}GL_e}{\sin\phi\cos\phi} \right] \left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\nu _e}_L \\
{\nu _\mu }_L \\
{\nu _\tau }_L
\end{array}
\right) Z^\prime_\mu \, ,$$ where $$G=\pmatrix{0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr}\,. \label{G}$$
The left-handed charged-current interactions are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac e{\sqrt{2}\sin \theta }\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{e_L} & \overline{\mu _L} & \overline{\tau _L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[ 1-\frac{\sin ^4\phi }x+\frac{\sin ^2\phi }
xL_e^{\dagger }GL_e\right] \left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\nu _e}_L \\
{\nu _\mu }_L \\
{\nu _\tau }_L
\end{array}
\right) W_\mu ^{-}+\, h.c.,\end{aligned}$$ $$\frac e{\sqrt{2}\sin \theta }\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{e_L} & \overline{\mu _L} & \overline{\tau _L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[- \frac{\sin\phi}{\cos\phi}-
\frac{\sin^3\phi \cos\phi}{x\cos^2\theta} +
\frac{L_e^{\dagger}GL_e}{\sin\phi\cos\phi} \right] \left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\nu _e}_L \\
\nu {_\mu }_L \\
{\nu _\tau }_L
\end{array}
\right) {W_\mu ^\prime}^- \, +{h.c.}$$ Similarly, for the quark sector we introduce the unitary matrices $L_u$ and $L_d$. In terms of the mass eigenstates one finds the following interaction terms: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac e{2\sin \theta \cos \theta }\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{u_L} & \ \overline{c_L} & \overline{t_L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[ 1-\frac 43\sin ^2\theta -\frac{\sin ^4\phi }x+
\frac{\sin ^2\phi }xL_u^{\dagger }GL_u\right] \left(
\begin{array}{c}
u_L \\
c_L \\
t_L
\end{array}
\right) Z_\mu ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac e{2\sin \theta \cos \theta }\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{d_L} & \ \overline{s_L} & \overline{b_L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[ -1+\frac 23\sin ^2\theta +\frac{\sin ^4\phi }x-
\frac{\sin ^2\phi }xL_d^{\dagger }GL_d\right] \left(
\begin{array}{c}
d_L \\
s_L \\
b_L
\end{array}
\right) Z_\mu \, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac e{2\sin \theta}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{u_L} & \ \overline{c_L} & \overline{t_L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[ -\frac{\sin\phi}{\cos\phi}-
\frac{\sin^3\phi \cos\phi}{x\cos^2\theta}(1-\frac{4}{3}\sin^2\theta) +
\frac{L_u^{\dagger}GL_u}{\sin\phi\cos\phi}\right] \left(
\begin{array}{c}
u_L \\
c_L \\
t_L
\end{array}
\right) Z^\prime_\mu \,,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac e{2\sin \theta}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{d_L} & \ \overline{s_L} & \overline{b_L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[ \frac{\sin\phi}{\cos\phi}+
\frac{\sin^3\phi \cos\phi}{x\cos^2\theta}(1-\frac{2}{3}\sin^2\theta) -
\frac{L_d^{\dagger }GL_d}{\sin\phi\cos\phi}\right] \left(
\begin{array}{c}
d_L \\
s_L \\
b_L
\end{array}
\right) Z^\prime_\mu \, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac e{\sqrt{2}\sin \theta }\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{u_L} & \ \overline{c_L} & \overline{t_L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[ (1-\frac{\sin ^4\phi }x)L_u^{\dagger }L_d+
\frac{\sin ^2\phi }xL_u^{\dagger }GL_d\right] \left(
\begin{array}{c}
d_L \\
s_L \\
b_L
\end{array}
\right) W_\mu ^{+}\,+h.c.,\end{aligned}$$ $$\frac e{\sqrt{2}\sin \theta }\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{u_L} & \ \overline{c_L} & \overline{t_L}
\end{array}
\right) \gamma ^\mu \left[ \left(-\frac{\sin\phi}{\cos\phi}-
\frac{\sin^3\phi \cos\phi}{x}\right)L_u^\dagger L_d +
\frac{L_u^{\dagger}GL_d}{\sin\phi\cos\phi} \right ]
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
d_L \\
s_L \\
b_L
\end{array}
\right) {W_\mu ^\prime}^+ \,+\, h.c. \label{qu2}$$ The right-handed fermion couplings to the neutral gauge bosons $Z$ and $Z^{\prime }$ are, respectively, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac e{2\sin \theta \cos \theta }\left( -2Q\sin ^2\theta \right) ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\frac e{2\sin \theta }\left( 2Q\sin ^2\theta \frac{\sin ^3\phi \cos \phi }
{x\cos ^2\theta }\right) .$$ The fermion couplings to the photon are the usual electromagnetic couplings. As shown above, it is evident that if $g_h>g_{{\em l}}$, then the heavy gauge bosons would couple strongly to the third generation and weakly to the first two generations, and vice versa.
For the charged-current interactions in the quark sector, one observes that in the case of ignoring the new physics effect, quark mixing is described by a unitary matrix $V=L_u^{\dagger }L_d$ which is identified as the usual Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mixing matrix. With the inclusion of new physics, the mixing acquires an additional contribution proportional to $\sin ^2\phi /x$, with $${L_u^{\dagger }}GL_d={L_u^{\dagger }}L_dL_d^{\dagger }GL_d=VL_d^{\dagger
}GL_d={L_u^{\dagger }}GL_uV.$$ Therefore, we would expect the extracted values of the CKM matrix elements to be slightly modified due to the new contributions of the model.
In this model, lepton mixing is an exciting possibility. Needless to say, there are already significant constraints on lepton universality and lepton number violation from the low energy data. As an example is the almost vanishing decay width $\Gamma _{\mu^- \rightarrow e^- e^+ e^-} $ which severely suppresses any possible mixing between the first and second lepton generations. Similarly, the experimental limit on the decay width $\Gamma_{\mu^- \rightarrow e^- \gamma}$ does not favor such a mixing. Since the other lepton number violation processes, especially those involving the third family, are not as well constrained as $\mu \rightarrow eee$ and $\mu \rightarrow e \ \gamma $ [@data], it is still interesting to explore such a possibility. Furthermore, FCNCs can exist in the neutrino sector in spite that the neutrinos are massless, that may induce an interesting effect to the neutrino oscillation phenomena. As to be shown later, FCNCs are unavoidable in the quark sector of the model, which can lead to appreciable effects that can be verified or ruled out by future data on Kaon and $B$ physics.
In the following sections, we discuss the effect of the new physics predicted by this model to low energy experiments, and derive the constraints on the parameter space of the model from the present data. Using the latest LEP/SLC data we update our previous analysis in Ref. [@ehab5]. For completeness, we also study the constraints from current data on a model in which only the top and bottom doublet has a different $SU(2)$ gauge interaction, which is another possible model of top quark interactions. Furthermore, we shall systematically include all the low energy data from Tau, Kaon, and $B$ physics, and identify a few interesting observables that can be sensitive to this type of new physics. We have also examined the one-loop contribution to the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$, $B^0$-$\overline{B^0}$ mixing, and to the branching ratio of $b\rightarrow s \gamma$.
Constraints Imposed by $Z$-Pole Data
====================================
In the SM, the parameters $\alpha$, $G_F$, and $M_Z$ are determined through three experimental measurements, e.g., $e$-$p$ scattering, $\mu $ decay, and $Z$ peak at LEP/SLC, respectively. In this model, two additional parameters enter through the gauge sector. These two parameters can be taken as $x$ and $\sin^2\phi $ (or equivalently, the heavy gauge boson mass $M_{Z^\prime }$ and its decay width $\Gamma_{Z^\prime}$). Similar to the SM case, it is necessary to fix the input parameters $\alpha $, $G_F$, $M_Z$, $\sin^2\phi $, and $x$ in this model to make prediction and compare with experimental data. The first three parameters can be fixed in the same way as the SM, and the last two parameters, $\sin^2\phi $ and $x$, will be constrained through available data. Because of the symmetry-breaking pattern, the electromagnetic coupling $\alpha$ coincides with the SM value. To fix the weak coupling constant, we use the $\mu$-lifetime to define $G_F$. We calculate the $\mu $-decay width in this model by including the $W$ and $W^{\prime }$ contributions. We find that, as to be discussed later, $G_F=G_F^{{\rm {SM}}}$ (equivalently $v=v^{{\rm {SM}}}$) as long as one demands no mixing between the first and second lepton families [@ehab5]. Finally, we define $M_Z$ using the $Z$ peak at LEP/SLC, i.e., $M_Z=M_Z^{\rm {SM}}$.
In Ref. [@ehab5] we studied the constraints imposed by the already existed LEP and SLC data, we found that the lower bound on the heavy gauge boson mass was $M_{Z^\prime}\simeq 1.3$ TeV at the $3\sigma$ level. The lower limit on $M_{Z^\prime}$ was established for small values of $\sin^2\phi$, for larger values of $\sin^2\phi$ the lower bound on $M_{Z^\prime}$ is larger. Since the $Z$-pole physics program at LEP has completed, it is worthwhile to update our previous analysis using the most recent data. Following Ref. [@ehab5], we calculate the changes in the relevant physical observables relative to their SM values to leading order in $1/x$, i.e., $$O=O^{\rm{SM}}\left(1+\delta O\right ) \, ,$$ where $O^{\rm{SM}}$ is the SM prediction (including the one-loop SM correction) for the observable $O$, and $\delta O$ represents the new physics effect to leading order in $1/x$. We list the calculated observables as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_Z = \Gamma_Z^{\rm{SM}}\left( 1+\frac{1}{x}\left[-0.896\sin^4\phi
+ 0.588\sin^2\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
R_e =R_e^{\rm{SM}}\left(1 + \frac{1}{x}\left[0.0794\sin^4\phi +
0.549\sin^2\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
R_\mu =R_\mu^{\rm{SM}}\left(1 + \frac{1}{x}\left[0.0794\sin^4\phi +
0.549\sin^2\phi -2.139\sin^2\beta
\sin^2\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
R_\tau =R_\tau^{\rm{SM}}\left(1 + \frac{1}{x}\left[0.0794\sin^4\phi +
0.549\sin^2\phi -2.139\cos^2\beta
\sin^2\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
A_{FB}^e={(A^e_{FB}})^{\rm{SM}}\left(1+
\frac{1}{x}\left[10.44\sin^4\phi\right]
\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
A_{FB}^\mu={(A^\mu_{FB})}^{\rm{SM}}
\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\left[10.44\sin^4\phi +
12.14\sin^2\beta\sin^2\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
A_{FB}^\tau={(A^\tau_{FB})}^{\rm{SM}}\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\left[10.44
\sin^4\phi +12.14\cos^2\beta\sin^2\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
A_e =A_e^{\rm{SM}}\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\left[
5.22\sin^4\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
A_\tau =A_\tau^{\rm{SM}}\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\left[ 5.22\sin^4\phi
+12.14\cos^2\beta\sin^2\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_h^0 ={(\sigma_h^0)}^{\rm{SM}}
\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\left[ -0.01 \sin^4\phi
-0.628\sin^2\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
M_W = M_W^{\rm{SM}}\left(1+\frac{1}{x}
\left[1+0.215\sin^4\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
R_b=R_b^{\rm{SM}}\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\left[ -0.015\sin^4\phi
+ 1.739\sin^2\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
R_c=R_c^{\rm{SM}}\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\left[0.038\sin^4\phi-
0.549\sin^2\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
A_b=A_b^{\rm{SM}}\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\left[0.068\sin^4\phi
+ 0.157\sin^2\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
A_c=A_c^{\rm{SM}}\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\left[0.514\sin^4\phi\right]\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ A\_[FB]{}\^c=[(A\_[FB]{}\^c)]{}\^[[SM]{}]{}(1+ ) , where $\beta$ is the lepton mixing angle, which will be discussed in the following sections. In this analysis we do not include the measurement of $A_{LR}$ at SLC and the measurement of $A_{FB}^b$ at LEP. The quantity $A_{LR}$ in the proposed model is identical to $A_e$, therefore, this model cannot explain the discrepancy between the SLC measurement $A_{LR}=0.1547\pm 0.0032$ and the LEP measurement $A_e=0.1399\pm 0.0073$ [@lep]. The SM predicts $A_{FB}^b=0.1040$, which is more than $2\sigma$ above the LEP measurement $A_{FB}^b=0.0984\pm 0.0024$ [@lep]. The new contribution in this model to $A_{FB}^b$ can be found as A\_[FB]{}\^b=[(A\_[FB]{}\^b)]{}\^[[SM]{}]{}(1+ ) . which is positive and thus it worsens the discrepancy with LEP data. Therefore, we cannot accommodate either $A_{LR}$ or $A_{FB}^b$ in this model at the $2\sigma$ level.
Following Ref. [@ehab5] and using the most recent LEP and SLC measurements [@lep], shown in Table 1 (which includes the total width of the $Z$ boson $\Gamma_Z$, $R_e$, $R_\mu$, $R_\tau$, the vector $g_{Ve}$ and the axial-vector $g_{Ae}$ couplings of the electron, the ratios $g_{V(\mu,\tau)}/g_{Ve}$, $g_{A(\mu,\tau)}/g_{Ae}$, $A_{FB}^e$, $A_{FB}^\mu$, $A_{FB}^\tau$, $A_e$, $A_\tau$, $M_W$, the hadronic cross section $\sigma_h^0$, $R_b$, $R_c$, $A_b$, $A_c$, and $A_{FB}^c$), we update the allowed values of $\sin^2\phi$ and $x$ at the $2\sigma$ level. The SM prediction for the observables listed in Table 1 is given for $m_t=175$ GeV, $\alpha_s=0.118$, $m_H=100$ GeV, $1/{\alpha(M_Z^2)}=128.75$, $M_Z=91.187$ GeV, and $G_F=1.16637 \times 10^{-5} \, {\rm GeV}^{-2}$ [@hagiwara].
In Figure 1 (solid curve) we show the minimal $Z^\prime$ mass as a function of $\sin^2\phi$ at the $2\sigma$ level for the case that there is no mixing in the lepton sector. We find that $M_{Z^\prime}$ is constrained to be larger than about $1.9$ TeV. (At the $3\sigma$ level, this corresponds to about 1.4 TeV.) In Figure 2 (solid curve), we show the constraint for the quantity $x$ as a function of $\sin^2\phi$. We find that $x$ can be as small as 20 for the smallest value of $\sin^2\phi$ ($=0.04$), and it increases as $\sin^2\phi$ increases. For example, $x>90$ for $\sin^2\phi>0.2$. Furthermore, the quantity $\sin^2\phi/x$ is constrained by data to be less than about $2\times 10^{-3}$ for a large range of $\sin^2\phi$.
We find the most important factor in constraining the free parameters of the model is the breakdown of the universality property of the the gauge boson couplings to leptons. The $Z$-pole observable that imposes the most stringent constraint on the model is $R_\tau$, which is the ratio of the partial decay widths of $Z\rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-$ and the hadronic modes. The measurement of $\Gamma_Z$ also plays an important role secondary to $R_\tau$, especially for small $\sin^2\phi$, due to the high precision of data. It is interesting to note that, as shown in Figure 1 (dotted curve), without including the leptonic observables from the $Z$-pole data, i.e., only including $M_W$, $R_b$, $R_c$, $A_b$, $A_c$, and $A_{FB}^c$, the bounds on $M_{Z^\prime}$ is about 900 GeV at the $2\sigma$ level. Also, Figure 2 (dotted curve), shows that $x>5$ for $\sin^2\phi=0.04$ and $x>24$ for $\sin^2\phi>0.2$. In this case, the important constraint is coming from the measurement of $R_b$. The last bound is relevant for models in which only the top and bottom doublet has a different $SU(2)$ gauge interaction. In Table 1, we also show the predictions of this model for the $Z$-pole observables with three choices of the parameters $x$, $\sin^2\phi$, and $\sin^2\beta$.
Low-Energy Constraints
======================
Even though the $Z$-pole data already impose significant constraints, this model has a rich structure that can be further examined at much lower energy scales. In the following sections, we would like to examine those constraints obtained from the low-energy hadronic, leptonic, and semi-leptonic data. We will concentrate on the very low-energy regime, i.e., physics at zero-momentum transfer, and examine whether the parameters of the model can be better constrained than those imposed by LEP and SLC data.
To study the low-energy region, it is necessary to understand the form of the four-fermion current-current interaction at zero-momentum transfer. The four-fermion charged-current weak interactions are given by [@ehab5; @ununi] $$\frac 2{v^2}(j_l^{\pm }+j_h^{\pm })^2+\frac 2{u^2}j_h^{+}\,j_h^{-}\,.
\label{cc}$$ The first term refers to the SM contribution, while the second term expresses the new contribution to the order $1/u^2$. The charged current $j_l^{\pm } $ refers to the first two fermion generations, while $j_h^\pm $ refers to the third generation. For example, for the lepton sector, $ j_h^{+}=\overline{\tau _L}\ \gamma _\mu \ \nu _{\tau _L}$. We note that in the above formula, the charged currents $j_h^{\pm }$ are written in terms of the weak eigenstates $\tau _L$ and $\nu _{\tau _L}$ and not the mass eigenstates.
Similarly, the neutral-current four-fermion interactions are given by [@ehab5; @ununi] $$\frac 4{v^2}(j_l^3+j_h^3-\sin ^2\theta \ j_{{\rm {em}}})^2+\frac
4{u^2}(j_h^3-\sin ^2\phi \sin ^2\theta \ j_{{\rm {em}}})^2\,, \label{nc}$$ where, $j_{l,h}^3$ refers to the left-handed $T^3_{l,h}$ currents, while $j_{\rm {em}}$ represents the full electromagnetic current of the three families. The first term refers to the SM contribution while the second one represents the extra contribution. For example, for the lepton sector, $$j_h^3=\overline{\tau _L}\ \gamma _\mu \left( \frac{-1}2\right) \tau _L\
+
\overline{\nu _{\tau L}}\ \gamma _\mu \left( \frac 12\right) \nu _{\tau _L},$$ and $$j_{{\rm em}}=
\overline{e}\ \gamma _\mu (-1) e \
+
\overline{\mu}\ \gamma _\mu (-1) \mu \
+
\overline{\tau}\ \gamma _\mu (-1) \tau \, ,$$ in terms of the weak eigenstates.
For clarity, we shall separately discuss below the effects from the lepton and quark sectors to the lepton number violation phenomena, as well as the kaon and bottom physics.
The Lepton Sector
=================
As previously mentioned, lepton mixing is an interesting feature of this model. However, because of the almost null measurement of $\mu^{-}\rightarrow e^{-}e^{+}e^{-}$ and $\mu^- \to e^- \gamma$, we expect the mixing between the first and second lepton families to be highly suppressed. Nevertheless, fermion mixing may be large between the third family and the first or second family. To clarify this point, we write the unitary matrix $L_e$, which is introduced to diagonalize the mass matrix $M_e$, in the general form $$L_e={\pmatrix{L_{11} & L_{12} &
L_{13} \cr L_{21} & L_{22} & L_{23} \cr L_{31} & L_{32} & L_{33} \cr}} \,.$$ It is easy to show that $$L_e^{\dagger }GL_e=
{\pmatrix{|L_{31}|^2 & L_{31}^\ast L_{32} & L_{31}^\ast L_{33} \cr
L_{31}L_{32}^\ast & |L_{32}|^2 & L_{32}^\ast L_{33} \cr
L_{31}L_{33}^\ast & L_{32}L_{33}^\ast & |L_{33}|^2 \cr}}\,.
\label{LG}$$ Thus, leptonic FCNC dynamics only depends on the third row of the mixing matrix $L_e$. In other words, we can only probe the third row of the unitary matrix $L_e$ through the leptonic FCNC processes.
Using the expression for the four-fermion neutral-current interaction, a direct calculation of the decay width $\mu \longrightarrow $ $eee$ yields $${\rm{Br}} (\mu \rightarrow eee)=
\frac{|L_{31}|^2|L_{32}|^2}{4x^2}\left(
(|L_{31}|^2-2\sin ^2\phi\sin ^2\theta)^2
+4\sin ^4\phi \sin ^4\theta \right) .$$ Notice that the partial decay width of $\mu \to eee$ is already of order $1/x^2$. Therefore, to keep the leading contribution of order $1/x^2$, we set the total decay width, used in the above equation, to be the SM value. The above branching ratio has to be compared with the very stringent limit set by data which is less than $10^{-12}$ [@data]. Thus, a severe constraint on the following combination is established: $$\frac{|L_{31}|^2 |L_{32}|^2 \sin^4\phi}{x^2} \lsim 1.6\times 10^{-11}\, .$$ As shown in the previous section, the $Z$-pole observables bound the quantity of $\sin^2\phi/x$ to be less than $2\times 10^{-3}$. Therefore, taking $\sin^2\phi/x \sim 2\times 10^{-3}$, we get $${|L_{31}|}^2 {|L_{32}|}^2 < 4\times 10^{-6}\, .$$
Another process to consider is $\mu\rightarrow e \ \gamma$, which can only occur via loop correction in this model. The experimental limit on this branching ratio is found to be less than $4.9\times 10^{-11}$ [@data]. A one-loop calculation of the branching ratio in the model yields $${\rm{Br}}(\mu \rightarrow e \ \gamma )\simeq 8.7\times 10^{-4}
\frac{|L_{31}|^2 |L_{32}|^2}{x^2}(1+1.2\sin ^2\phi +
1.2\sin ^4\phi )\, ,$$ which implies $$\frac{|L_{31}|^2|L_{32}|^2}{x^2} < 5.6 \times 10^{-8} \,$$ when compared with data. For the smallest possible value of $x$($\sim 20$) allowed by $Z$-pole data, the above constraint yields $$|L_{31}|^2|L_{32}|^2 \lsim 2.2 \times 10^{-5}\, ,$$ which is weaker (by a factor of 5) than the one imposed by the measurement of $\mu\rightarrow eee$. Other limits on FCNC processes, such as $\tau \rightarrow eee$, $\tau \rightarrow \mu\mu\mu$, $\tau \rightarrow ee\mu$, are not as severe as the ones mentioned above. (Their branching ratios are typically bounded from above at the order of $10^{-6}$ [@data].)
The above constraints on the elements of the lepton mixing matrix $L_e$ can be automatically satisfied if $L_{31}=0$ and/or $L_{32}=0$, which means there is no mixing between the third family and the first and/or the second family leptons. Consequently, with this choice, this model predicts no transition between $\mu$ and $e$ leptons. Although both cases of lepton mixing are allowed, it is more natural to assume the mixing strength between leptons to be directly related to their masses. If so, one would expect the mixing between the second and third families to be more significant than the first and third families. Hence, in the following discussion, we will assume that leptonic mixing is only allowed between the second and third families (i.e., we set $L_{31}=0$).
The lepton-mixing matrix has the form $L_e^{\dagger }GL_e$, given in Eq. (\[LG\]), where the matrix $G$ is defined in Eq. (\[G\]). Using unitarity of $L_e$ and taking $L_{31}=0$, we have $|L_{32}|^2+$ $|L_{33}|^2=1$. Therefore, the mixing matrix between the second and third lepton families can be simply expressed in terms of a one free real parameter, and the $2\times 2$ mixing matrix can be written as $$\pmatrix{\sin^2\beta & \cos\beta\sin\beta \cr \cos\beta\sin\beta & \cos^2
\beta \cr}\,,$$ where $\sin \beta $ is a free parameter of the model for describing the mixing between the second and third lepton families. The phases in the matrix $L_e^{\dagger }GL_e$ can be simply absorbed in the definitions of the lepton fields. It is easy to see that if there is no mixing among leptons, then all the leptonic decay rates are identical to the SM, and $\tau $ lifetime is not modified. (This also explains why $G_F=G_F^{\rm {SM}}$ from the $\mu $-decay if there is no mixing between the first and second lepton families.) If the lepton mixing involves the third family, then the lifetime of the $\tau $ lepton will be modified.
At this stage it is relevant to return back to the LEP and SLC data and study the new constraints on the model if a mixing between $\mu$ and $\tau$ is allowed. In this case we also need to include the limit on the branching ratio of $Z\rightarrow \mu \tau$, which is found to be less than $1.7\times 10^{-5}$ at the $2\sigma$ level [@data]. In Figure 1 (dashed curve), we depict the new constraints on $\sin^2\phi$ and $M_{Z^\prime}$ for the case of a maximal possible mixing, i.e., $\sin^2\beta=0.5$. We find that the lower limit on the heavy mass is reduced to $M_{Z^\prime}\approx 1.7$ TeV, which is slightly lower than that for the case of no mixing ($\approx 1.9$ TeV). The reason for this lower bound is due to the reduced non-universal effect in $R_\tau$. In Figure 2 (dashed curve) we show the new constraint on $x$, assuming the maximal lepton mixing. We find that for the smallest value of $\sin^2\phi=0.04$, the value of $x$ can be as low as 20. For $\sin^2\phi=0.2$, $x > 80$. The quantity $\sin^2\phi/x$ is found to be less than about $0.3\%$. It is interesting to notice that the lower bound $x=20$ is the same for both cases of $\sin^2\beta=0$ and $\sin^2\beta=0.5$. The reason is that for small values of $\sin^2\phi<0.2$, the measurement $\Gamma_Z$, which is independent of the mixing angle $\sin^2\beta$, plays the important rule in constraining the parameter $x$. In Table 1, we give a few predictions of this model with various $\sin^2\beta$ for the $Z$-pole observables.
Next, we examine the other interesting low-energy leptonic processes and ask whether we can learn more about the proposed model. We start by examining the decay process $\tau \rightarrow \mu \overline{\nu _\mu }\nu_\tau$. In this model, both the charged and neutral currents contribute to the decay width $\Gamma\left( \tau ^{-}\rightarrow \mu ^{-}\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau
\right)$. Adding both contributions, we find $$\Gamma\left( \tau ^{-}\rightarrow \mu ^{-}\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau
\right) =\Gamma^{\rm{SM}}\left( \tau ^{-}\rightarrow \mu ^{-}\overline
{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau \right) \left( 1+\frac{3\cos ^2\beta \sin ^2\beta }
x\right) .$$ The only modification to the total decay width, at the order of $1/x$, is coming from the partial decay width $\Gamma\left( \tau ^{-}\rightarrow \mu ^{-}
\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau\right)$. The partial decay width $\Gamma\left( \tau ^{-}\rightarrow e ^{-}\overline{\nu _e }\nu _\tau\right)$ is not modified because of the assumption of no $\tau \leftrightarrow e$ mixing. The ratio $\Gamma\left(\tau^{-}\rightarrow
\mu^{-}\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau\right)/\Gamma\left(\tau^{-}\rightarrow
e^{-}\overline{\nu _e }\nu _\tau\right)$, can be written as $$\frac{\Gamma\left(\tau^{-}\rightarrow
\mu^{-}\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau\right)}{\Gamma\left(\tau^{-}\rightarrow
e^{-}\overline{\nu _e }\nu _\tau\right)}=
\frac{{\rm{Br}} \left( \tau ^{-}\rightarrow
\mu ^{-}\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau
\right)}
{{\rm{Br}}\left( \tau ^{-}\rightarrow e ^{-}\overline
{\nu _e }\nu _\tau \right)}=f(m_\mu/m_\tau)
\left( 1+\frac{3\cos ^2\beta \sin ^2\beta}{x}\right)\, ,$$ where $f(m_\mu/m_\tau)$ is a phase factor given by [@park] $$f(y)=1-8y^2+8y^6-y^8-24y^4\ln(y) \,.
\label{phase}$$ Hence, an increase by a factor of ${3\cos ^2\beta\sin ^2\beta} /x$ is expected in the above ratio.
The experimental measurement of ${\Gamma\left(\tau^{-}\rightarrow
\mu^{-}\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau\right)}/{\Gamma\left(\tau^{-}\rightarrow
e^{-}\overline{\nu _e }\nu _\tau\right)}$ can directly constrain the quantity $\cos ^2\beta \sin ^2\beta /x$. As shown by the Particle Data Group (PDG) [@data], for the ratio $\Gamma\left(\tau^{-}\rightarrow
\mu^{-}\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau\right)/\Gamma\left(\tau^{-}\rightarrow
e^{-}\overline{\nu _e }\nu _\tau\right)$, the average of the available experimental data yields $0.978\pm 0.011$ while the result of a global fit gives $0.976 \pm 0.006$. In this model, new decay channels for the $\tau$ lepton can occur, e.g., $\tau\rightarrow \mu \mu \mu$ and $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$. However, as to be discussed below, their decay widths can only be modified at the order $1/x^2$. Thus, to the order $1/x$, we can use both data, the average and the fit results, to constrain the parameter $x$. Using the PDG data average and assuming a maximal lepton mixing $\sin^2\beta=0.5$, we find $x> 27$ at the $2\sigma$ confidence level. On the other hand, using the PDG fit result we find $x>48$. The difference in the $x$ range, 27 to 48 can then be interpreted as the theoretical error in our model.
For a lepton mixing angle $\sin^2\beta$ smaller than 0.5, the constraint on the parameter $x$ is more relaxed. If there is no lepton mixing at all, then the decay width of $\tau ^{-}\rightarrow \mu ^{-}\overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau $ is not modified as compared with the SM prediction. Since this decay width is independent of the parameter $\sin^2\phi $ (gauge coupling) and the only dependence besides lepton mixing is the parameter $x$ (the ratio of the two symmetry-breaking scales of the gauge group), this measurement imposes a direct and significant constraint on $x$ for a non-vanishing $\sin^2\beta$.
Another interesting process for testing this model is to detect $\tau \rightarrow \mu \mu \mu $. One can show that[^3], keeping the leading contribution in $1/x$, $$\frac{{\rm{Br}}(\tau^- \rightarrow \mu^- \mu^- \mu^+)}
{{\rm{Br}} (\tau^- \rightarrow \mu^- \nu_\tau {\overline{\nu }}_\mu )}=
\frac{\sin ^2\beta \cos ^2\beta }{4x^2}\left( \sin ^4\beta -4\sin ^2\beta \sin
^2\theta \sin ^2\phi +8\sin ^4\phi \sin ^4\theta \right) \,\label{muuu}\,.$$ This decay width will also impose a direct constraint on the parameters of the model. For $\sin^2\beta=0.5$ and $\sin^2 \phi=0.04$, the predicted branching ratio is $${\rm{Br}}(\tau ^{-}\rightarrow \mu ^{-}\mu ^{-}\mu ^{+})\simeq
\frac{0.0025}{x^2}\, .$$ If we compare this effect with data which is found to be less than $1.9\times 10^{-6}$ [@data], the parameter $x$ is constrained to be above 37, which is consistent with the constraint ($x>27\sim 48$) derived from the measurement of ${\rm{Br}}(\tau\rightarrow \mu \overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau)/
{\rm{Br}}(\tau\rightarrow e \overline{\nu _e }\nu _\tau)$.
Other processes to consider is the lepton number violation process $\tau \rightarrow \mu \, \gamma $, which can only occur in this model at the loop level. For this process, up to the order $1/x$, there are four diagrams which contribute to the one-loop amplitude, Two of those diagrams involve either two $W$ or two $W^\prime$ exchange. The other two diagrams involve $Z$ or $Z^\prime$ exchange (due to FCNC). A detailed calculation of the branching ratio yields $${\rm{Br}}(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma )\simeq 1.5\times 10^{-4}
\frac{\sin^2\beta \cos ^2\beta }{x^2}(1+1.2\sin ^2\phi +1.2\sin ^4\phi )\, .$$ This result has to be compared with the limit imposed by data (less than $4.2\times 10^{-6}$ [@data]). For a maximal possible mixing effect, the present limit on the above branching ratio is not of any significance in constraining the values of $x$ ($>3$).
The final leptonic observable we consider is the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the muon, $a_\mu=\frac{1}{2}{(g-2)}_\mu$. A precise measurement of $a_\mu$ is underway at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) with a perspective goal [@bnl_amu] of $$\Delta a_\mu^{\rm{exp.}} = 4.0\times 10^{-10}\,\,.$$ At this level of accuracy, higher order electroweak corrections become important and new physics at higher energy scales can be probed.
The one-loop electroweak contribution to $a_\mu$ as predicted by the SM is [@amu_sm] $$a_\mu^{\rm{weak}} \approx 19.5\times 10^{-10}\, \, .$$ In our proposed model the one-loop electroweak contribution is modified due to the modified couplings and the new heavy gauge bosons. We calculate the new contribution to $a_\mu$ at the one-loop level. We find the new contribution to the anomalous magnetic dipole moment to be $$a_\mu^{\rm{new}}\approx a_\mu^{\rm{weak}} \frac{\sin^2\beta}{x}\, \, .$$ Using the $Z$-pole constraints, for a maximal mixing, $\sin^2\beta=0.5$ and $x\geq 20$ we conclude that the new contribution does not exceed the level of $0.5 \times 10^{-10}$. Therefore, the predicted new effect to $a_\mu$ is too small to be detected even at the perspective precision at BNL. In conclusion, assuming the third family lepton does not mix with the first family lepton, then the partial decay widths of $\mu \rightarrow eee$, $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$, and $\tau \rightarrow e \overline{\nu _e }\nu _\tau $ are not modified. However, for the maximal mixing case, the measurement of the ratio $\Gamma(\tau \rightarrow \mu \overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau)/
\Gamma(\tau \rightarrow e \overline{\nu _e }\nu _\tau)$ constrain the parameter $x>27\sim 48$. Also the lepton number violation process $\tau \rightarrow \mu \mu \mu $ provides the constraint $x>37$ consistent with the above measurement. Therefore, the above two measurements give a stronger constraint than the $Z$-pole data for $\sin^2\phi <0.1$ (cf. Figure 2). On the other hand, given the current experimental data, the decay process $\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma$ and the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the muon have not yet played a significant role in constraining the model. Nevertheless, if the above discussed processes can be measured to a better accuracy in future experiments, they can further test the proposed model. In discussing the predictions of our model to other low-energy processes we will use the range $x\geq 20$ for $\sin^2\beta=0.0$, and $x\geq 48$ for $\sin^2\beta=0.5$.
The Quark Sector
================
The quark sector has a far more rich structure than the lepton sector in this model. To completely describe the interactions of gauge bosons and quarks, it requires two mixing matrices $L_u$ and $L_d$ because both the up- and down-type quarks are massive. As noted in Eq. (\[qu2\]) the neutral-current mixing matrices ($L_u^{\dagger }GL_u$ and $L_d^{\dagger }GL_d$) are related to the charged-current mixing matrix ($L_u^{\dagger }L_d$). Because of the experimental evidence of the CKM matrix in charged currents, FCNCs must occur in the interaction of quarks to gauge bosons.
First we make the following observation. Assume neither up- or down-type quark sectors has FCNC, i.e., assume $L_u$ (and $L_d$) has the general form $$L_u=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
u_{11} & u_{12} & 0 \\
u_{21} & u_{22} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & u_{33}
\end{array}
\right) .$$ It is straight forward to show that $L_u^{\dagger }GL_u=L_d^{\dagger }GL_d=G$ and that the charged-current mixing matrix $V=L_u^{\dagger }L_d$ has the same general form as $L_u$ and $L_d$. This means that $V$ will only mix the first and second generation, i.e., the CKM matrix is a $2\times 2$ matrix. Therefore, unless we assume the existence of FCNCs in the quark sector, this model cannot explain some observed decay processes, such as $B_d^0\longrightarrow J/\psi (1S)\, K^0$, in which $b\longrightarrow cW^*\longrightarrow c\overline{c}s$ whose branching ratio was measured to be $(7.5\pm 2.1)\times 10^{-4}$ [@data]. Hence, FCNCs must exist in the quark sector.
Based on the above observation, FCNC data in the quark sector can be used to further test this model. FCNCs in the quark sector can be realized in three possible ways: (i) in the down-quark sector only, (ii) in the up-quark sector only, and (iii) in both sectors. All the three possibilities have to confront the large body of existing low-energy data. In the following, we investigate these three possibilities, separately.
Mixing in the Down-Quark Sector
-------------------------------
Here, we consider the case that only down-type quarks can mix, so that $L_u^{\dagger }GL_u=G$, and $L_d^{\dagger }GL_d=V^{\dagger}GV$. In this case, the quark interactions to the gauge bosons are given in Eq. (\[qu2\]) with the above substitutions. Similar to the SM case, the mixing matrix $V$ contains the same number of independent parameters, namely, three real parameters and one phase. Therefore, there is no extra parameter in the quark sector in spite of the new features of the model. This implies that FCNC processes are completely determined by the matrix $V$ in addition to the other two parameters $\sin^2\phi $ and $x$. The matrix $V^{\dagger }GV$ can be explicitly written as $$V^{\dagger }GV=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
|V_{td}|^2 & V_{ts}V_{td}^{*} & V_{tb}V_{td}^{*} \\
V_{td}V_{ts}^{*} & |V_{ts}|^2 & V_{tb}V_{ts}^{*} \\
V_{td}V_{tb}^{*} & V_{ts}V_{tb}^{*} & |V_{tb}|^2
\end{array}
\right) .$$ It is interesting to notice that the matrix elements of $V^{\dagger }GV$ are naturally small, so that we generally do not expect large effects in FCNC processes.
### Charged-Current Phenomenology
In general, this model predicts new contributions to charged-current processes as well. Under the down-quark mixing scenario, the non-standard contribution to charged-current processes can be written as $$\frac{2\sqrt{2}G_F}xj_h^{+}\ j_h^{-} \, ,
\label{eq:cc}$$ where $j_h^{-}=\overline{t_L}\gamma _\mu b_L$, written in terms of the weak eigenstates $t_L$ and $b_L$. Since we assume no FCNCs in the up-type quark sector, the top quark does not mix with the other up-type quarks at tree level. Furthermore, for the low-energy charged-current observables (with momentum transfer $q^2$ much less than $M_Z^2$), top quark does not contribute at tree level. Hence, we conclude that under this scenario, no new physics effect to the low-energy charged-current interaction is expected at tree level. Therefore, the values of the CKM matrix elements extracted from low-energy charged-current data coincide with those in the SM.
### Neutral-Current Phenomenology
On the contrary, the neutral-current hadronic and semi-leptonic interactions can be modified at tree level for the case of down-type quark mixing. The non-standard contribution to neutral-current processes can be written as $$\frac{4\sqrt{2}G_F}{x} (j_h^3-\sin ^2\phi \sin ^2\theta \ j_{{\rm {em}}})^2\, ,$$ where $j_h^3$ contains $ \overline{b_L}\gamma_\mu (-1/2) b_L$, written in terms of the weak eigenstate. In terms of the mass eigenstates, the following currents are generated: $|V_{td}|^2\, \overline{d_L}\gamma_{\mu} d_L$, $|V_{ts}|^2\, \overline{s_L}\gamma_{\mu} s_L$, $|V_{tb}|^2\, \overline{b_L}\gamma_{\mu} b_L$, $V_{td}^* V_{ts}\, \overline{d_L}\gamma_{\mu} s_L$, $V_{td}^* V_{tb}\, \overline{d_L}\gamma_{\mu} b_L$, and $V^*_{ts}V_{tb}\, \overline{s_L} \gamma_{\mu}b_L$, whose effects to low-energy FCNC data are discussed as follows.
The first interesting process to investigate is the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ mixing, whose transition amplitude receives in this model a new contribution at the tree level. Up to the order of $1/x$, it is $$T=\frac{\sqrt{2}G_F}{x} {(V_{td} V_{ts}^*)}^2 [\overline{s_L}\gamma_\mu d_L]
[\overline{s_L}\gamma_\mu d_L]\, .$$ In the SM, ignoring the QCD corrections, the short distance transition amplitude induced from box diagrams for the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ mixing is given by [@lashin; @inami] $$T^{\rm{SM}}=\frac{G_F^2 M_W^2}{\pi ^2}
\left[ \lambda_c^2 S(y_c) + \lambda_t^2 S(y_t)+2\lambda_c \lambda_t S(y_c,y_t)
\right] \left[ \overline{s_L}\gamma _\mu \ d_L\right]
\left[ \overline{s_L}\gamma _\mu \ d_L\right],$$ where, $y_c=m_c^2/M_W^2$, $y_t=m_t^2/M_W^2$, $\lambda_c= V_{cs}^* V_{cd}$, $\lambda_t= V_{ts}^* V_{td}$, and the functions $S(y)$ and $S(y_c,y_t)$ are the Inami-Lim functions [@inami]: $$\begin{aligned}
S(y)=y\left[\frac{1}{4}+\frac{9}{4}\frac{1}{1-y}-\frac{3}{2}
\frac{1}{{(1-y)}^2}\right] -\frac{3}{2} {\left[\frac{y}{1-y}\right]}^3 \ln y
\, \label{s_y} , \end{aligned}$$ $$S(y_c,y_t)=-y_c\ln y_c +y_c\left[\frac{y_t^2-8y_t+4}{4{(1-y_t)}^2}\ln y_t
+ \frac{3}{4}\frac{y_t}{y_t-1} \right]\, .$$ When comparing the non-standard and the SM amplitude, which is proportional to the $\Delta M$ ratio, we find approximately $$\frac{\Delta M}{{\Delta M}^{\rm{SM}}}=
\frac{T}{T^{\rm{SM}}}\lsim \frac{4}{x}\, ,$$ in which we have used $m_t=175$ GeV, $m_c=1.5$ GeV, $M_W=80.4$ GeV and all the CKM elements are taken from Refs. [@data; @ali1]. For $x>20$ (implied by $Z$-pole data), it would correspond to a change in the transition amplitude by less than about 20%. Although the mass difference between $K_L$ and $K_S$ states has been measured experimentally with a great accuracy (about 0.4%), the theoretical uncertainty in the long distance part of contribution remains to be improved. (Currently, its uncertainty is about $40\%$ to $60\%$ [@lashin].) To use the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ mixing data to further test this model requires a better understanding of the long-distance contribution.
It is well known that the rare decay process $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu\overline{\nu}$ is one of the best places to search for new physics. This is because its decay rate has a small theoretical uncertainty, and the long-distance contribution has been estimated to be less than $10^{-3}$ of the short-distance contribution [@ellis]. Recently, E787 collaboration reported the first observation consistent with this decay rate and obtained ${\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu\overline{\nu})= 4.2^{+9.7}_{-3.5}
\times 10^{-10}$ [@e787]. The branching ratio predicted by the SM is ${\rm{Br}}^{\rm{SM}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu\overline{\nu})=
(9.1\pm 3.8) \times 10^{-11}\,$, where the error is dominated by the uncertainties of the CKM matrix elements [@buras].
Since under the scenario considered, this process can occur at the tree level through the flavor-changing neutral current $s\rightarrow d\, Z \rightarrow d \nu \overline{\nu}$, it can be used to test the model. The expected branching ratio, normalized to the predicted branching ratio for $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^0 e^+ \nu_e $, can be written as $$\frac{{\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu \overline{\nu})}
{{\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^0 e^+ \nu_e)}=
\frac{1}{4x^2} \left( \frac{|V_{td}|^2 |V_{ts}|^2}{|V_{us}|^2}\right)\, .$$ It is obvious that the partial decay width of $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^0 e^+ \nu_e$ predicted by this model coincides with the SM prediction at tree level for the undertaken scenario that the third family lepton does not mix with the first family lepton. Therefore, assuming the experimental data ${\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^0 e^+ \nu_e)=
(4.82\pm 0.06)\times 10^{-2}$ [@data] to be consistent with the model, we can compare the predicted ${\rm{Br}}(K^+\rightarrow \pi^+ \nu\overline{\nu})$ with the E787 result. After spanning all the allowed values of the CKM elements, we find that $${\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu\overline{\nu})
\lsim\frac{1.1\times 10^{-7}}{x^2}\, ,$$ in which we have included all three neutrino species, i.e., $\nu_\mu \overline{\nu_\mu}$, $\nu_\tau \overline{\nu_\tau}$, $\nu_\mu \overline{\nu_\tau}$, and $\nu_\tau \overline{\nu_\mu}$, so that the lepton mixing angle dependence cancel. Comparing this branching ratio with the E787 result, we can set a lower bound $ x > 7$ at the $2\sigma$ level based on one observed event. For $x>20$ (as implied by $Z$-pole data), this branching ratio is smaller than about $3\times 10^{-10}$, which is however larger than the SM prediction by almost an order of magnitude.
The measurement of ${\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu \overline{\nu})$ is highly valuable in our analysis because it is independent of the parameters $\sin^2\beta$ and $\sin^2\phi$. It directly constrains the parameter $x$ independently of the other parameters. Hence, an improvement on the measurement of this branching ratio is very important to test this model.
Similarly, this model predicts non-standard effects for bottom quark physics. The important process to consider is $B^0_q$-$\overline{B^0_q}$ mixing where new effect is expected to occur at tree level. The tree-level transition amplitude is found to be $$T=\frac{\sqrt{2}G_F}{x} {({V_{tq}^*} V_{tb})}^2 [\overline{q_L}\gamma_\mu b_L]
[\overline{q_L}\gamma_\mu b_L]\, .$$ The new contribution can be compared with the SM prediction which is given by $$T^{\rm{SM}}=\frac{G_F^2 M_W^2}{\pi^2}\left( V_{tq}^{*}V_{tb}\right) ^2
\left[ \overline{q_L}\gamma _\mu \ b_L\right]
\left[ \overline{q_L}\gamma _\mu \ b_L\right] S(y_t) \label{B_mix},$$ where $S(y)$ is given in Eq. (\[s\_y\]) with $y_t=m^2_t/M^2_W$. After substituting all the relevant variables by their numerical values, we find $$\frac{\Delta M_{B_q}}{(\Delta M_{B_q})^{\rm{SM}}}=
\frac{T}{T^{\rm{SM}}}=\frac{72}{x}\, .$$ With the limit on $x$ ($>20$) imposed by the $Z$-pole data alone, we expect the new contribution to reach the level of $360\%$ for the small possible values of $x$. In the case that the third and the second generation fermions mix with the maximal strength, the ${\rm{Br}}(\tau\rightarrow \mu\overline{\nu_\mu} \nu_\tau)$ data requires $x>48$, so that the new contribution to the $B^0_q$-$\overline{B^0_q}$ mixing is expected to be less than $150\%$.
The measured value of $\Delta M_{B_d}=0.470\pm 0.019 \, ps^{-1}$ [@data] can be turned into an information on the CKM elements product $|V_{td}V^*_{tb}|$ which yields $|V_{td}V^*_{tb}|=0.0084\pm 0.0018$ for the SM [@data]. In the proposed model, the prediction for $\Delta M_{B_d}$ is larger than the SM value by a factor $1+ 72/x$ (adding both SM and the new effect). Therefore, the extracted $|V_{td} V^*_{tb}|$ will be modified accordingly. For example, for $x=20$, we find $0.0022< |V_{td}V^*_{tb}| <0.0056$ at the $2\sigma$ level. This shift is not expected to appreciably affect the unitarity condition [@ali1] $$|V_{td}|^2+|V_{ts}|^2+|V_{tb}|^2=0.98\pm 0.30 \, .$$ For example, for $x\geq 20$ the deviation from unity will be of the order $\sim \frac{72}{x} |V_{td}|^2 \lsim 7\times 10^{-4}\, ,
$ which is much smaller than the present errors. Also, it is clear that the predicted ratio $\Delta M_{B_d}/\Delta M_{B_s}$ in our model is the same as the SM prediction. Therefore, the extracted ratio $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ yields the same SM result.
Next, we consider the CLEO limit on ${\rm Br}(b\rightarrow s \ell^+\ell^-)$ and study its impact on the model. At tree level, the expected branching ratio is given by $$\frac{{\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \mu^-\mu^+)}
{{\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow c \mu^- \overline{\nu_\mu})}
=\frac{1}{4x^2}
\frac{|V_{ts}V_{tb}|^2}{|V_{cb}|^2 f(z)}
\left( \sin^4\beta-4\sin^2\beta\sin^2\phi\sin^2\theta +
8\sin^4\theta\sin^4\phi \right) \, ,
\label{eq:bsuu}$$ where $f(z)$ is given in Eq. (\[phase\]) and where $z=m_c/m_b$ [@buras; @ahmad]. Using the experimental data ${\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow c \mu^- {\overline \nu_\mu})=(10.5 \pm 0.5)\%$ [@cleo1], we get $${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \mu^-\mu^+)\lsim \frac{2.1\times 10^{-2}}{x^2}\,$$ after spanning the allowed values of the CKM matrix elements with $\sin^2\beta=0.5$ and $\sin^2\phi=0.04$. To agree with the CLEO upper limit, which is $5.8\times 10^{-5}$ [@cleo2], $x$ is found to be larger than 19, which should be compared with the bound ($x>48$) obtained from the ${\rm{Br}}(\tau\rightarrow \mu \overline{\nu_\mu} \nu_\tau)/
{\rm{Br}}(\tau\rightarrow e \overline{\nu_e} \nu_\tau)$ data. To reach the same sensitivity as $\tau$ decay for $\sin^2\beta=0.5$, the measurement of ${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \mu^-\mu^+)$ has to be improved by a factor of 10, although in general, they have different dependence on $\sin^2\beta$
With the assumption that lepton mixing is only present between the third and the second generation, there is no new contribution to the decay rate of $b\rightarrow s e^+ e^-$. If we assume the opposite, namely that mixing is significant between the first and third generation, then we expect the decay rate of $b\rightarrow s e^+ e^-$ to dominate the decay rate of $b\rightarrow s \mu^+ \mu^-$. Since the CLEO bound on ${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s e^+ e^-)$, less than $5.7\times 10^{-5}$ [@cleo2], is similar to the bound on the $\mu \mu $ channel, we expect a similar conclusion on constraining the parameter $x$. Furthermore, the decay rate of $b\rightarrow s e^\pm \mu^\mp$ is highly suppressed because of the sever constraint on the $e$-$\mu$ mixing established from the decay of $\mu \rightarrow eee$ and $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$, as discussed in section 5. On the other hand, the branching ratio ${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \mu^\pm \tau^\mp)$ predicted in this model is of the same order as ${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \mu^- \mu^+)$. In the limit of ignoring the mass difference between $\tau$ and $\mu$, it can be obtained from Eq. (\[eq:bsuu\]) by multiplying a factor of $2 \cot^2 \beta$ and setting $\sin^2\phi=0$. Since this decay mode is absent in the SM, it can be very useful to further test the model.
Similarly, our model predicts a tree-level contribution to the process $b\rightarrow s \nu \overline{\nu}$, whose branching ratio, when normalized by ${{\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow c \mu^- \overline{\nu_\mu})}$, is given as $$\frac{{\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \nu \overline{\nu})}
{{\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow c \mu^- \overline{\nu_\mu})}
=\frac{1}{4x^2}
\frac{|V_{ts}V_{tb}|^2}{|V_{cb}|^2 f(z)} \, ,
\label{eq:bsnn}$$ where $f(z)$ is given in Eq. (\[phase\]) and $z=m_c/m_b$ [@buras; @ahmad]. In the above result we summed over all neutrino flavors, therefore, the $\sin^2\beta$ dependence cancels. Using the experimental data ${\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow c \mu^- {\overline {\nu_\mu}})=(10.5 \pm 0.5)\%$ [@cleo1], we conclude $${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \nu\overline{\nu})\lsim
\frac{9.1\times 10^{-2}}{x^2}\,$$ after spanning the allowed values of the CKM matrix elements. It is interesting to notice that the predicted branching ratio is independent of $\sin^2\beta$ and $\sin^2\phi$ similar to the case of ${\rm{Br}}(K^+\rightarrow \pi^+ \nu\overline{\nu})$. To agree with the experimental upper limit, which is $3.9\times 10^{-4}$ [@nardi], it requires $x>15$, independent of the parameters $\sin^2\phi$ and $\sin^2\beta$. Currently, for ${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \nu\overline{\nu})$ to reach the same sensitivity as $\tau$ decay for $\sin^2\beta=0.5$, the measurement of ${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \nu\overline{\nu})$ has to be improved by a factor of 10.
Another interesting process to consider is the decay $B_{s,d}\rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-$. At tree level, the decay rate is given by $$\Gamma(B_q\rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^- )=
\frac{G_F^2 f_{B_q}^2 m_{B_q} m_\tau^2 |V_{tb}V_{tq}|^2}{4\pi x^2}
{\left(\cos^2\beta -4\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi\right)}^2
{\left(1-\frac{4m_\tau^2}{m^2_{B_q}}\right)}^{3/2}\, .$$ Using the values $\cos^2\beta=0.5$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$, $m_{B_s}=5.369$ GeV, and $f_{B_s}=0.23$ GeV [@ali2], the branching ratio ${\rm{Br}}(B_{s}\rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-)$ is given as $${\rm{Br}}(B_{s}\rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-)=\frac{4.6\times 10^{-3}}{x^2}\, .$$ For $x\geq 48$, it corresponds to ${\rm{Br}}(B_{s}\rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-) \lsim 2.0\times 10^{-6}\, ,
$ which is of the same order as the SM prediction [@buras]. For the process $B_d\rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-$, with $m_{B_d}=5.279$ GeV and $f_{B_d}=0.18$ GeV [@ali2], the branching ratio ${\rm{Br}}(B_{d}\rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^- )$ is given as $${\rm{Br}}(B_{d}\rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^- )=\frac{2.4\times 10^{-4}}{x^2}\, .$$ For $x\geq 48$, it corresponds to ${\rm{Br}}(B_{d}\rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^- ) \lsim 1.0\times 10^{-7}\, ,
$ which is again of the same order as the SM prediction [@buras].
Next, consider the decay rates of $B_{s,d}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$. At tree level, the decay rate is given by $$\Gamma(B_{q}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^- )= \frac{G_F^2 f_{B_{q}}^2 m_{B_q}
m_\mu^2 |V_{tb}V_{tq}|^2 }{4\pi x^2}
{\left(\sin^2\beta -4\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi\right)}^2
{\left(1-\frac{4m_\mu^2}{m^2_{B_q}}\right)}^{3/2}\, .$$ Using the values $\sin^2\beta=0.5$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$, and $f_{B_s}=0.23$ GeV [@ali2], the branching ratio ${\rm{Br}}(B_{s}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ is given as $${\rm{Br}}(B_{s}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)=\frac{3.8\times 10^{-5}}{x^2}\, .$$ For $x\geq 48$, we find ${\rm{Br}}(B_{s}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) \lsim 1.7\times 10^{-8}\, .
$ This result is smaller than the current experimental upper limit, $2.6\times 10^{-6}\,$ [@abe], by about two orders of magnitude. Similarly, the branching ratio of ${B_d}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ is given as $${\rm{Br}}(B_{d}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)=\frac{2.0\times 10^{-6}}{x^2}\, .$$ For $x\geq 48$, we find ${\rm{Br}}(B_{d}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) \lsim 8.8\times 10^{-10}\, .
$ Again, this result is smaller than the experimental upper limit, $8.6\times 10^{-7}\,$ [@abe], by three orders of magnitude.
Finally, we note that in this model, with lepton mixing, it is possible to have the decay modes of $B_{d,s}\rightarrow \mu^\pm \tau^\mp$, which are absent in the SM. In the limit of ignoring the mass difference between $\tau$ and $\mu$, with maximal lepton mixing, their branching ratios are about twice of those for the $\tau \tau$ modes. Hence, detecting such non-standard decay modes can further constrain the model, especially on the lepton mixing parameter $\sin^2 \beta$.
In conclusion, under the down-type quark mixing scenario, the decay width of $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^0 e^+ \nu_e$ is not modified at tree level, if assuming the third family lepton does not mix with the first family lepton. The branching ratios of $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu\overline{\nu}$ can be an order of magnitude larger than the SM prediction, and can be tested at Kaon factories. The effect to the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ mixing is of the same order as the SM prediction, which can prove to be useful if the long-distance contribution can be better understood theoretically. Similarly, the branching ratio ${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \nu\overline{\nu})$ is modified and can be an order of magnitude larger than the SM prediction. Furthermore, since the branching ratios ${\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu\overline{\nu})$ and ${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \nu\overline{\nu})$ do not depend on $\sin^2\phi$ and $\sin^2\beta$, they can be extremely useful in constraining the remaining parameter $x$.
The current data on the branching ratios of $B_{s,d} \rightarrow \tau^- \tau^+, \mu^- \mu^+$ and $b \rightarrow s \mu^- \mu^+, s e^- e^+$ does not impose a better constraint on the model than that by the $Z$-pole measurements. However, with a much larger statistics of the data in the $B$-factories, we expect it to be improved. Since this model also predicts non-SM decay modes, such as $b \rightarrow s \mu^\pm \tau^\mp$ and $B_{s,d} \rightarrow \mu^\pm \tau^\mp$, with comparable branching ratios, they should be measured to test the model prediction on the lepton mixing dynamics (i.e., $\sin^2\beta$ dependence). For the range of the parameter $x$ consistent with the $Z$-pole data, it is found that in this model a new contribution to the $B^0$-$\overline{B^0}$ mixing can reach the range of $150\%$–$360\%$.
As a summary, in Table 3 we tabulate the predictions of this model for various decay processes. Two cases are considered, one for $\sin^2\beta=0.0$ and $x=20$, another for $\sin^2\beta=0.5$ and $x=48$. For both cases we set $\sin^2\phi=0.04$.
Mixing in the Up-Quark Sector
-----------------------------
In this section we assume that no mixing occurs in the down-type quarks, so that $L_d^{\dagger }GL_d=G$, and $L_u^{\dagger}GL_u=VGV^{\dagger}$. In this case, the quark interactions to the gauge bosons are given in Eq. (\[qu2\]) with the above substitutions. Similar to the case of down-type quark mixing, the FCNC interactions are completely determined by the CKM matrix $V$ and the two parameters $\sin^2\phi $ and $x$. The matrix $VGV^{\dagger}$ can be explicitly written as $$VGV^\dagger=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
|V_{ub}|^2 & V_{ub}V_{cb}^{*} & V_{ub}V_{tb}^{*} \\
V_{cb}V_{ub}^{*} & |V_{cb}|^2 & V_{cb}V_{tb}^{*} \\
V_{tb}V_{ub}^{*} & V_{tb}V_{cb}^{*} & |V_{tb}|^2
\end{array}
\right) .$$ Again, because the elements of the matrix $V^{\dagger }GV$ are naturally small, we do not expect large effects in the FCNC processes.
### Charged-Current Phenomenology
The non-standard contribution to charged-current processes is given by Eq. (\[eq:cc\]). In terms of the mass eigenstates and assuming no mixing in the down-type quarks, $j_h^{-}$ contains the following charged currents: $$j_h^{-}=V_{ub}\overline{\ u_L}\gamma _\mu \ b_L\ ,\
V_{cb}\ \overline{c_L}\gamma _\mu \ b_L\ ,\
V_{tb}\ \overline{t_L}\gamma _\mu \ b_L.$$ It is important to note that only the $b$ quark, among the down-type quarks, appears in $j_h^{-}$, which implies that new effects in the charged currents must involve the $b$ quark. Because the non-standard contribution has the form $j_h^{+}j_h^{-}$, the only non-vanishing effect we expect in the pure hadronic charged-current interaction (at the leading order in $1/x$) is that with a $b$ quark in both currents, i.e., with $\Delta B=0$. Therefore, no new effect is expected in any of the hadronic decay channel of $K$, $D$, and $B$ mesons.
Next, let us consider the semi-leptonic decay processes. The relevant hadronic currents are $$V_{ub}\ \overline{u_L}\gamma _\mu \ b_L\ ,\ V_{cb}\ \overline{c_L}
\gamma _\mu \ b_L,$$ while the relevant leptonic currents are $$\sin^2\beta \ \overline{\mu _L}\ \gamma _\mu \ {\nu _\mu }_L\ ,\
\cos^2\beta \ \overline{\tau _L}\ \gamma _\mu\ {\nu _\tau}_L\ ,\
\sin \beta \cos \beta \ \overline{\mu _L}\ \gamma _\mu \ {\nu_\tau }_L\ ,\
\sin \beta \cos \beta \ \overline{\tau _L}\ \gamma _\mu \ {\nu }_{\mu L}\ .$$ It is clear that new effects in the charged-current semi-leptonic decays are only expected in the $b$-quark system. Explicitly, the decay processes $b\rightarrow u\ (\mu ,\tau )(\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )$ will receive new contributions induced by the following interaction terms: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\ \frac{2\sqrt{2}G_F\ V_{ub}\ }x\left\{ \sin ^2\beta
\left( \ \overline{u_L}\gamma _\mu \ b_L\right)
\left( \overline{\mu _L}\ \gamma _\mu \ {\nu _\mu }
_L\right) ,\ \cos ^2\beta \left( \ \overline{u_L}\gamma _\mu \ b_L\right)
\left( \overline{\tau _L}\ \gamma _\mu \ {\nu _\tau }_L\right) \right\}, \\
&&\ \frac{2\sqrt{2}G_F\ V_{ub}\ \sin \beta \cos \beta }x\left\{ \left( \
\overline{u_L}\gamma _\mu \ b_L\right) \left( \overline{\mu _L}\ \gamma _\mu
\ {\nu _\tau }_L\right) ,\ \left( \ \overline{u_L}\gamma _\mu \ b_L\right)
\left( \overline{\tau _L}\ \gamma _\mu \ {\nu _\mu}_{L}\right)
\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ A similar expression for the $b$ decay to charm can be obtained with $V_{ub}$ replaced by $V_{cb}$. Hence, we expect an increase in the $b$-quark semi-leptonic decays as compared to the SM. As an example, the branching ratio of $B_d^0\longrightarrow D^{-}\ell^{+}\nu $ and $B_s^0\longrightarrow D_s^{-}\ell^{+}\nu $ is predicted to be $${\rm{Br}(B^0\longrightarrow D^{-}\ell ^{+}\nu)}=
{\rm{Br}}^{\rm{SM}}(B^0\longrightarrow D^{-}\ell ^{+}\nu)
\left( 1+\frac{2}{x}\right) ,$$ where all the three lepton (including neutrino) flavors are included. (Note that the $\sin^2\beta$ dependence cancels.) With $x>20$, imposed by $Z$-pole data, we do not expect the new physics effect to exceed $10\%$. Because of the large uncertainty (exceeding $25\%$ [@data]) of present data, these processes do not offer a stringent constraint on the model. With more statistics of the future data, these decay processes can be useful for constraining the parameter $x$.
Under this scenario, we conclude that the values of the CKM matrix elements extracted from tree-level processes not involving the $b$ quark are not modified by the model. In other words, the extracted values of the CKM elements, $V_{ud}$, $V_{us}$, $V_{cd}$, and $V_{cs}$, for the SM and this model coincide. However, the matrix elements $V_{ub}$ and $V_{cb}$ are modified slightly. To explore this effect, let us consider the transition $b\rightarrow u \mu^- {\overline {\nu_\mu}}$. Its amplitude is modified with $V_{ub}$ replaced by $V_{ub}(1+{\sin^2 \beta}/{x})$. Therefore, the extracted experimental value of $V_{ub}$, assuming the validity of the SM, is equivalent to the quantity $V_{ub}(1+{\sin^2\beta}/{x})$ in this model. From the data, the unitarity condition for the SM reads as [@ali1] $${|V_{ud}|}^2 +{|V_{us}|}^2 +{|V_{ub}|}^2=0.997 \pm 0.002\, .$$ Hence, at the $2\sigma$ level, we conclude that $x \geq 0.05\sin^2\beta$. It is clear that the unitarity condition does not add any useful constraint on the model after testing against the $Z$-pole data which requires $x>20$.
### Neutral-Current Phenomenology
First, let us consider neutral-current processes of hadron-hadron interactions. In this case, the relevant neutral currents are $$j_h^3=\overline{t_L}\gamma _\mu \left(\frac{1}{2}\right) t_L\ ,
\overline{b_L} \gamma _\mu \left(-\frac{1}{2}\right) b_L,$$ written in terms of the weak eigenstates, which yields the following four-fermion interaction current in terms of the mass eigenstates: $$|V_{ub}|^2\ \overline{u}_L\gamma _\mu \ u_L \, ,
|V_{cb}|^2\ \overline{c}_L\gamma _\mu \ c_L\, ,
V_{ub}V^*_{cb}\ \ \overline{u_L}\gamma_\mu c_L\, . \label{last}$$ In the four-fermion neutral-current interaction we notice that the $d$ and $s$ quarks will appear only through the electromagnetic current $J_{\rm{em}}$ (cf. Eq. (\[nc\])). Because of the structure of the neutral-current interaction, new physics can only contribute to processes with $\Delta B=0$. Thus, neither the $B$ hadronic decay nor the $B^0$-$\overline{B^0}$ mixing is modified at tree level in this model. Similarly, we conclude that new effects must have $\Delta S=0$ in pure hadronic interaction. Therefore, $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ mixing is not modified. We conclude that new physics effects, in the pure hadronic decay modes, are only expected in the $c$-quark decay channels. Nevertheless, these new physics effects are naturally small because the FCNC couplings predicted by this model at tree level are suppressed by products of CKM matrix elements.
Second, let us consider the semi-leptonic decays. Again, we do not expect any new effects in the $b$-quark semi-leptonic decays because of the requirement $\Delta B=0$. Effects are only expected in the charm decay where we get interactions of the form $$\frac{\sqrt{2}G_F}xV_{ub}^{*}V_{cb}\ \ (\overline{u_L}\gamma ^\mu c_L)\left(
\sin ^2\beta (\overline{\mu }_L\gamma _\mu \ \mu _L)-2\sin ^2\phi
\sin^2\theta \ (\overline{\mu }\ \gamma _\mu \ \mu )\right) .$$ Because of the large suppression factor $V_{ub}^{*}V_{cb}$ and large error on present experimental data, it is extremely difficult to gain any further information about the model from the semi-leptonic decay channels of charm hadrons.
The only suspected new effect in the $b$-quark system is through the $\Upsilon(1S)$ decay. In this case, the decay proceeds through $b\overline{b}\rightarrow \gamma, Z, Z^\prime \rightarrow \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}$. At tree level, the new contribution is expressed through the interaction term $$\frac{\sqrt{2}G_F}{x} \left( (\overline{b_L}\gamma^\mu b_L)-
\frac {2}{3} \sin^2\phi \sin^2\theta
(\overline{b}\ \gamma _\mu \ b)\right)
\left( \sin^2\beta (\overline{\mu }_L\gamma _\mu \mu _L)-
2\sin ^2\phi \sin ^2\theta (\overline{\mu }\ \gamma _\mu \ \mu )\right) .$$ For very small values of $\sin^2\phi $ and for large possible lepton mixing (i.e., large $\sin^2\beta$), we can approximate the above interaction relevant to $\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-$ as $$\frac{\sqrt{2}G_F \sin^2\beta}{x} \left( \overline{b_L}\gamma^\mu b_L\right)
\left(\overline{\mu }_L\gamma _\mu \ \mu _L\right) .$$ Needless to say, the dominant contribution to the $\Upsilon(1S)$ decay width is coming from the photon exchange. The non-standard contribution predicted by this model can be estimated as follows. The amplitude $\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \ell^+\ell^-$ can in general be written as [@hill2] $$T(\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \ell^+\ell^-)=-\frac{4\pi \alpha}{3M_\Upsilon^2}
<0|(bb)_V|\Upsilon>\left[r_V(\ell\ell)_V + r_A(\ell\ell)_A\right]\, .$$ For the dominant photon contribution, $r_V=1$ and $r_A=0$. In the case of $\tau$ lepton mode, these couplings in the proposed model will be modified into $$r_V=1-\frac{3M_\Upsilon^2 \cos^2\beta}{16\sin^2\theta M_W^2 x}\, ,$$ $$r_A= \frac{3M_\Upsilon^2 \cos^2\beta}{16\sin^2\theta M_W^2 x}\, .$$ A similar relation holds for the $\mu$ lepton mode, but with $\cos^2\beta$ replaced by $\sin^2\beta$. The ratio of the $\tau$ lepton decay rate to the $\mu$ lepton decay rate is $$\frac{\Gamma(\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-)}
{\Gamma(\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)} =
\sqrt{1-4\frac{m_\tau^2}{M_\Upsilon^2}}
\left(1+2\frac{m_\tau^2}{M_\Upsilon^2}\right)
\left[1 -\frac{3M_\Upsilon^2}{8\sin^2\theta M_W^2 x}
\left(\cos^2\beta-\sin^2\beta\right) \right]\, ,$$ which amounts to new effect of the order $$-2.3 \times 10^{-2}\frac{1}{x}\left(\cos^2\beta-\sin^2\beta\right) \, .$$ Therefore, the expected maximal deviation is less than $\pm0.1\%$, for $x\geq 20$. (It vanishes for the maximal lepton mixing scenario, i.e. for $\sin^2\beta=0.5$.) The current experimental error is at the percent level [@data], so that it does not provide additional constraints on the model. However, it is interesting to notice that the sign of the deviation is governed by the difference $\cos^2\beta -\sin^2\beta$. Future measurements with a much less error can be used to determine the lepton mixing angle. Finally, we note that the non-SM decay mode $\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \mu^\pm \tau^\mp$ is expected by this model with a branching ratio less than $4\times 10^{-10}$. Since this decay process is not allowed by the SM, it can provide a significant constraint on the lepton mixing parameter $\sin^2\beta$.
The above discussion is valid for tree-level contributions. We now consider whether one-loop effects can be significant to some observables, such as the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$, $B^0$-$\overline{B^0}$ mixing, and the decay branching ratio of $b \to s \gamma$.
### One-Loop Effects
In the SM, $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ and $B^0$-$\overline{B^0}$ mixing are induced via one-loop $W$-$W$ exchange box diagrams. In this model and under the scenario of a trivial $L_d$, the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ and $B^0$-$\overline{B^0}$ mixing can occur at the one-loop level through box diagrams involving the exchange of $W$ and/or $W^\prime$ gauge bosons. In addition to the SM diagrams, there are four box diagrams with one $W$ and one $W^\prime$ exchange. Diagrams with two $W^\prime$ exchange do not contribute at the order $1/x$ but at the higher order $1/x^2$.
For the case of $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ mixing, we calculate the one-loop amplitude and compare with the short distance contribution of the SM. Substituting the values of $M_W$, $m_t$, $m_c$, and the $V_{CKM}$ elements [@data], we find $$\frac{T}{T^{\rm{SM}}}=\frac{\Delta M}{{\Delta M}^{\rm{SM}}}
\lsim 3.4\times 10^{-3} \frac{\sin ^4\phi }x .$$ Since constraints imposed by the $Z$-pole data require $\sin^2\phi/x < 0.3\%$, new effect to the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ are extremely small and of no relevance to the discussion.
Next, let us consider the $B_q$-$\overline{B_q}$ mixing. The leading SM one loop amplitude is given in Eq. (\[B\_mix\]). Similar to the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ case, we include the additional box diagrams that contribute at the order $1/x$, we find $$\frac{T}{T^{\rm{SM}}}=\frac{\Delta M_q}{{\Delta M_q}^{\rm{SM}}}=
\frac{2\sin^2\phi}{x} -2.24\frac{\sin^4\phi}{x}\, .$$ Using the $Z$-pole constraint ($x>20$ for $\sin^2\phi >0.04$), we expect new effect to the amplitude not to exceed $0.4\%$ relative to the SM. Therefore, we do not expect large new effect to the $B_q$-$\overline{B_q}$ mixing at the one-loop level for the case of trivial $L_d$.
Finally, let us consider the decay of $b\rightarrow s \gamma$. The SM amplitude for the process $b \rightarrow s\, \gamma$ is given by [@fuji] $$T^{\rm{SM}}=\frac 1{16\pi ^2}\frac{m_b}{M^2} \left( \frac{e g^2}{4}
V_{ts}^{*}V_{tb}\right) \left[ \overline{u_s}(1+\gamma _5)\left(
2p.\varepsilon -\varepsilon _\mu \gamma ^\mu \right) u_b\right]
\left\{T_1+T_2\right\} ,$$ where $$T_1=\frac 1{(y-1)^4}\left[ \frac{y^4}2+\frac 34y^3-\frac 32y^2+\frac
14y-\frac 32y^3\ln y\right] ,$$ $$T_2=\frac{Q_t}{(y-1)^4}\left[ \frac{y^4}4-\frac 32y^3+\frac 34y^2+\frac
12y+\frac 32y^2\ln y\right] ,$$ and $Q_t=2/3$ is the electric charge of the top quark.
In this model, the $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ amplitude will be slightly changed due to the modified couplings. The only diagrams we need to consider are the usual $W$ exchange penguin diagrams. Since the fermion couplings are slightly modified, these diagrams will contain an extra contribution with respect to the SM. The penguin diagrams with $W^\prime$ exchange do not contribute to the order $1/x$. We calculate the new amplitude as predicted by the model and compare it to the SM one. After substituting the values of $M_W$ and $m_t$, we find $$\frac{T}{T^{{\rm SM}}}= -1.7\frac{\sin^2\phi}{x}+
1.4\frac{\sin^4\phi}{x}\, .$$ Therefore, for the $Z$-pole limit ($x>20$), we expect new contribution not to exceed $0.3\%$ of the SM.
In conclusion, under the up-type quark mixing scenario, this model does not modify the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$, $B^0$-$\overline{B^0}$ mixing, and the decay width of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ at tree level. The one-loop effects to these observables are small, and do not exceed the level of $0.4\%$ of the SM values. In general, we conclude that the up-type quarks mixing scenario can hardly be examined against the low-energy data available so far.
The general mixing scenario
---------------------------
In this section, we consider the general case of both types of quark mixing, i.e, where both $L_u$ and $L_d$ are non-trivial. The charged-current mixing matrix $V$ is defined the same as before, $V=L_u^{\dagger} L_d$. The interaction Lagrangian can be expressed using two matrix structures, such as $V$ and $L_d^{\dagger}G L_d$. In this case $L_u^\dagger G L_u=VL_d^{\dagger}G L_d V^\dagger$. Therefore, under the general mixing scenario, there are additional free parameters in comparison with the previously discussed two cases. The additional parameters appear in the matrix $L_d^\dagger GL_d$, where $$L_d^\dagger GL_d= {\pmatrix{|d_{31}|^2 & d_{31}^\ast d_{32} & d_{31}^\ast
d_{33} \cr
d_{31}d_{32}^\ast & |d_{32}|^2 & d_{32}^\ast d_{33} \cr
d_{31}d_{33}^\ast & d_{32}d_{33}^\ast & |d_{33}|^2 \cr}}\,.$$ Since unitarity condition implies that $|d_{31}|^2 + |d_{32}|^2 +|d_{33}|^2 =1$, there are only two additional free parameters which will be assumed to be real numbers hereafter. (Additional phases can be generated which would signal a new source of CP violation.)
The general case is more tolerant to accommodate low-energy data because of the additional parameters. Nevertheless, as to be shown later, we can set significant constraints on some combination of those additional parameters. In the following, we shall examine a few relevant tree-level FCNC processes.
As a start, we consider the decay $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu {\overline \nu} $. As discussed before, this process can occur in this model at tree level through the flavor-changing neutral current $s\rightarrow d\, Z\rightarrow d \nu \overline{\nu}$. The branching ratio of this process can be obtained from the ratio $$R=\frac{{\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu\overline{\nu})}
{{\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^0 e^+ \nu_e )}=
\frac{1}{4x^2} \left( \frac{|d_{31}|^2|d_{32}|^2} {|V_{us}|^2}\right)\, ,$$ which noticeably is independent of the parameters $\sin^2\beta$ and $\sin^2\phi$. Therefore, the ratio $R$ can be used to directly set a limit on $|d_{31}d_{32}|/x$, without any assumptions regarding other parameters. If we compare this result with the published result of the E787 collaboration [@e787], ${\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu\overline{\nu})= 4.2^{+9.7}_{-3.5}
\times 10^{-10}$, we obtain the $2\sigma$ level constraint: $$\frac{|d_{31} d_{32}|}{x} \lsim 10^{-4}\, .
\label{eq:kpnn}$$ For $x=20$, the smallest value of $x$ consistent with the $Z$-pole data, it requires $|d_{31}d_{32}|< 2 \times 10^{-3}$.
Now we consider the new effect to the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ mixing. A straightforward calculation of the tree-level amplitude as compared with the SM short distance contribution gives $$\frac{T}{T^{\rm{SM}}}=\frac{\Delta M}{{\Delta M}^{\rm{SM}}}
\approx 1\times 10^{7}
\frac{{\rm{Re}}{\left( d^*_{31} d_{32}\right)}^2}{x}\, .$$ Combined with the previous constraint derived from $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu {\overline{\nu}} $, we conclude $$\frac{\Delta M}{{\Delta M}^{\rm{SM}}} \lsim 1 \times 10^{3}
|d_{31} d_{32}| \, .$$ Hence, the combination of the $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu {\overline{\nu}} $ and $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ mixing data directly constrains the magnitude of $|d_{31} d_{32}|$ because the explicit $x$ dependence cancels. If $x=20$, the non-standard contribution in $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ mixing can be as large as twice the SM short distance contribution.
Next, we use bottom physics data to constrain the second additional free parameter. Consider the decay rate $b\rightarrow s \nu \overline{\nu}$. The expected branching ratio, which is independent of the parameters $\sin^2\phi$ and $\sin^2\beta$, is given by $$\frac{{\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \nu \overline{\nu})}
{{\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow c \mu^- \overline{\nu_\mu})}
=\frac{1}{4x^2}
\frac{|d_{32} d_{33}|^2}{|V_{cb}|^2 f(z)} \, ,$$ where $f(z)$ is given in Eq. (\[phase\]) and $z=m_c/m_b$. Using the experimental data, ${\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow c \mu^- {\overline {\nu_\mu}})=(10.5 \pm 0.5)\%$ [@cleo1] and ${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \nu\overline{\nu})
< 3.9\times 10^{-4}$ [@nardi], we obtain the constraint $$\frac{|d_{32} d_{33}|}{x} < 2.9 \times 10^{-3} \, ,$$ For $x = 20$, it requires $|d_{32} d_{33}| < 0.06$. Next, we consider the $B^0_s$-$\overline{B_s^0}$ mixing. A straightforward calculation of the new physics effect to the $B^0_s$-$\overline{B_s^0}$ mixing compared with the SM contribution gives $$\frac{T}{T^{\rm{SM}}}=
\frac{\Delta M_{B_s}}{{(\Delta M_{B_s})}^{\rm{SM}}}
\approx 3.4\times 10^{4}
\frac{{\rm{Re}}{\left( d^*_{32} d_{33}\right)}^2}{x} \, .$$ When combined with the previous constraint derived from the measurement of ${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \nu\overline{\nu})$, it yields $$\frac{\Delta M_{B_s}}{{(\Delta M_{B_s})}^{\rm{SM}}}
\lsim 100 |d_{32} d_{33}| \, .$$ Hence, the combination of the $b\rightarrow s \nu\overline{\nu}$ and $B^0_s$-$\overline{B_s^0}$ mixing data directly constrains the magnitude of $|d_{32} d_{33}|$ because the explicit $x$ dependence cancels. For $x=20$, the non-standard contribution to $B^0_s$-$\overline{B_s^0}$ mixing can be as large as six times the SM short distance contribution.
Given the constraints on $|d_{31} d_{32}|$, $|d_{32} d_{33}|$, and the unitarity condition on the matrix $L_d$, one can derive the allowed space of the parameters $|d_{31}|$, $|d_{32}|$, and $|d_{33}|$. It is interesting to notice that in the SM neither $L_u$ nor $L_d$ can be separately determined, and only the CKM matrix $V$, which is the product of $L_u^\dagger$ and $L_d$, can be measured experimentally. However, in this model, the elements in the third column of the $L_{u,d}$ mixing matrices can be determined, and can be further constrained by including other low-energy data. Unfortunately, in general, those observables depend also on some other parameters, such as $\sin^2\phi$ and $\sin^2\beta$, of the model. Some of them are discussed below.
The expected branching ratio for $b\rightarrow s \mu^+\mu^-$ is given by $$\frac{{\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \mu^-\mu^+)}
{{\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow c \mu^- {\overline{\nu_\mu}})}=
\frac{1}{4x^2}
\frac{|d_{32}|^2 |d_{33}|^2}{|V_{cb}|^2 f(z)}
\left( \sin^4\beta-4\sin^2\beta\sin^2\phi\sin^2\theta +
8\sin^4\theta\sin^4\phi \right)\, .$$ Using the CLEO data [@cleo1], we obtain $$\frac{|d_{32} d_{33}|}{x} < 2.4 \times 10^{-3} \, ,$$ for $\sin^2\beta=0.5$ and $\sin^2\phi=0.04$. For $x = 48$, the minimal value of $x$ consistent with $Z$-pole data and $\tau$ life-time, it requires $|d_{32} d_{33}| < 0.12$.
Next, consider the decay rate of $B_{s,d}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$. The tree level contribution gives $$\Gamma(B_{s}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^- )= \frac{G_F^2 f_{B_{q}}^2 m_{B_q}
m_\mu^2 |d_{32} d_{33}|^2 }{4\pi x^2}
{\left(\sin^2\beta -4\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi\right)}^2
{\left(1-\frac{4m_\mu^2}{m^2_{B_q}}\right)}^{3/2}\, .$$ For $\sin^2\beta=0.5$ and $\sin^2\phi=0.04$, the branching ratio ${\rm{Br}}(B_{s}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ is $${\rm{Br}}(B_{s}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)=0.018 \frac{|d_{32}d_{33}|^2}{x^2}\, .$$ Comparing this result with the experimental upper limit [@abe], we obtain $$\frac{|d_{32}d_{33}|}{x} < 1.2\times 10^{-2}\, .$$ This constraint is not as strong as the one obtained from $b \rightarrow s \mu^+\mu^-$, the latter is stronger by one order of magnitude.
The branching ratio of $B_{d}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$, for $\sin^2\beta=0.5$ and $\sin^2\phi=0.04$, is $${\rm{Br}}(B_{d}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)=0.01 \frac{|d_{31}d_{33}|^2}{x^2}\, .$$ Comparing this result with the experimental upper limit [@abe], we obtain $$\frac{|d_{31}d_{33}|}{x} < 9.1\times 10^{-3}\, .$$ For $x=48$, it yields $|d_{31}d_{33}| < 0.44$.
The new physics effect to the $B^0_d$-$\overline{B_d^0}$ mixing compared with the SM contribution can be written as $$\frac{\Delta M_{B_d}}{({\Delta M_{B_d})}^{\rm{SM}}}=
\frac{T}{T^{SM}}
\approx 3.6\times 10^{5}
\frac{{\rm{Re}}{\left( d^*_{31} d_{33}\right)}^2}{x}\, .$$ When combined with the above constraint derived from the decay $B_d \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-$ [@abe], it yields $$\frac{\Delta M_{B_d}}{{(\Delta M_{B_d})}^{\rm{SM}}}
\lsim 3.3\times 10^{3} |d_{31} d_{33}| \, .$$ If we consider the values $x=48$, $\sin^2\beta=0.5$, and $\sin^2\phi=0.04$, then $|d_{31}d_{33}| < 0.44$ and ${\Delta M_{B_d}}/{{(\Delta M_{B_d})}^{\rm{SM}}} \lsim 1450$, which implies that the current measurement of ${\rm{Br}}(B_{d}\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ is not useful to constrain this model, and new physics effect to $B^0_d$-$\overline{B_d^0}$ mixing can be much larger than the SM prediction. A precision measurement of $B^0_d$-$\overline{B_d^0}$ mixing will be extremely valuable to test this model with the scenario that both the up- and down-type quarks can mix in their mass eigenstates.
Similar to the discussions given for the other two scenarios, this model also allows lepton number violation processes, such as $B_{s,d}\rightarrow \mu^\pm \tau^\mp$ and $b \rightarrow s \mu^\pm \tau^\mp$. Since their branching ratios are of the same order as those for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ mode, they can be very useful for further testing the model. In conclusion, under the general mixing scenario, the model requires two additional free (real) parameters, although additional phases can be introduced to generate a new source of CP violation. Depending on the values of the parameters, sizable effects in various FCNC processes are expected. In Table 4, we summarize the results of this section by giving the constraints on the mixing parameters as extracted from different experiments.
Conclusions
===========
In this work, we revisit the model in Ref. [@ehab5], and update the constraints on this model from the $Z$-pole data at LEP/SLC. We find that the heavy gauge boson mass is bounded from below to be about $1.7$ TeV at the $2\sigma$ level. The parameter $x$, the square of the ratio of the two VEVs involved in the breaking pattern of the gauge symmetry, is larger than 20 assuming no lepton mixing, and 48 with the maximal possible lepton mixing between $\mu$ and $\tau$. Given that, we study the potential of the new physics effect predicted by this model to low-energy data with zero momentum transfer, such as $K$ and $B$ physics. We concentrate on the region where $x$ is large. Using an effective current-current interaction Lagrangian, we systematically examine the possible new physics effects in the charged-current and the neutral-current interactions. We show that FCNC couplings in this model can be written as the product of CKM matrix elements, so that FCNC processes are naturally suppressed. To examine how well low-energy data can further test this model, we have separately studied three different scenarios of quark mixing.
Assuming the third family lepton does not mix with the first family lepton, the partial decay width of $\mu \rightarrow eee$ and $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$ will not be modified. The current data on the measurement of the ratio $\Gamma(\tau \rightarrow \mu \overline{\nu _\mu }\nu _\tau)/
\Gamma(\tau \rightarrow e \overline{\nu _e }\nu _\tau)$ places the strongest constraint on the parameter $x$, which is even better than $Z$-pole constraint for $\sin^2\phi <0.1$ (cf. Figure 2). The lepton number violation process $\tau \rightarrow \mu \mu \mu $ is also significant and gives a compatible constraint as the above measurement. On the other hand, given the current experimental data, the decay process $\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma$ and the measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the muon are not yet significant in constraining the model. If the above discussed processes can be measured to a better accuracy in future experiments, they will play a more significant role in testing the model considered in this work.
Under the down-type quark mixing scenario, the decay width of $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^0 e^+ \nu_e$ is not modified at tree level, if assuming the third family lepton does not mix with the first family lepton. The branching ratio of $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu \overline{\nu}$ can be an order of magnitude larger than the SM prediction. In that case, it can be tested at Kaon factories. The effect to the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ mixing is of the same order as the SM prediction, which can only be useful if the long distance contribution can be better understood theoretically. Furthermore, since the above observables do not depend on the parameter $\sin^2\phi$, they can directly constrain the parameter $x$ of the model. The current data on the branching ratios of $B_{s,d} \rightarrow \tau^- \tau^+, \mu^- \mu^+$ and $b \rightarrow s \mu^- \mu^+, s e^- e^+, s\nu\overline{\nu}$ do not impose a better constraint on the model than that by the $Z$-pole measurements. However, with a much larger statistics of the data in $B$ (Beauty) factories, we expect it to be improved. Since this model also predicts the non-SM decay modes, such as $b \rightarrow s \mu^\pm \tau^\mp$ and $B_{s,d} \rightarrow \mu^\pm \tau^\mp$, with comparable branching ratios, they should be measured to test the model prediction on the lepton mixing dynamics (i.e., $\sin^2\beta$ dependence). For the range of the parameter $x$ consistent with the $Z$-pole data, it is found that in this model a new contribution to the $B^0_q$-$\overline{B^0_q}$ mixing can reach the range of $150\%$–$360\%$. Hence, this measurement is useful for testing the model. As a summary to this scenario, in Table 2 we give the lower bound on the parameter $x$ derived from including the low energy data as well as the $Z$-pole data. We consider two cases. Case I: No lepton mixing ($\sin^2\beta=0$). Case II: Maximal lepton mixing ($\sin^2\beta=0.5$). In both cases we set $\sin^2\phi=0.04$, since it corresponds to the minimal value of $x$. Also, in Table 3 we tabulate the predictions of our model for various processes and for two cases. Case I: No lepton mixing ($\sin^2\beta=0.0$) and $x=20$. Case II: Maximal lepton mixing ($\sin^2\beta=0.5$) and $x=48$. For both cases we set $\sin^2\phi=0.04$.
Under the scenario of up-type quark mixing, there will be no non-standard effect present in the hadronic decays of $K$, $D$ and $B$ mesons. This is because in the pure hadronic charged-current interaction, the new physics effect is only expected in processes that involve the $b$ quark and where $\Delta B$ vanishes. Furthermore, the present data of semi-leptonic $b$-quark decays is not accurate enough to further constrain the model, though it can be improved in the $B$ factories. Under this scenario, the unitarity condition of the CKM matrix is modified, but its change is extremely small for the values of $x$ that agree with $Z$-pole data. In this case, this model does not modify either the $B^0$-$\overline{B^0}$ or the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$ mixing at tree level. Although FCNC decay of charm meson is expected to be modified, the non-standard effect is very small because of the natural suppression imposed by the tree level FCNC couplings (which are the product of CKM matrix elements). With enough data in future experiments, the measurement of the partial decay widths of $\Upsilon(1S)$ into the $\tau^+ \tau^-$, $\mu^+ \mu^-$, and $\mu^\pm \tau^\mp$ modes can further test the model. Furthermore, it can also modify the $K^0$-$\overline{K^0}$, $B^0$-$\overline{B^0}$ mixing and the decay width of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ at one-loop level. However, the one-loop effects are small compared to the SM predictions and do not exceed the level of $0.4\%$ of the SM values.
Under the general mixing scenario, the model requires two additional free (real) parameters, although additional phases can be introduced to generate a new source of CP violation. Depending on the values of the parameters, sizable effects in various FCNC processes are expected. Therefore, low-energy data can also test the model with a general mixing scenario. In Table 4 we summarize the results of the general mixing scenario by giving the constraints on the mixing parameters as extracted from different experiments. The general mixing scenario also allows lepton number violation processes, such as $B_{s,d}\rightarrow \mu^\pm \tau^\mp$ and $b \rightarrow s \mu^\pm \tau^\mp$. Since their branching ratios are of the same order as those for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ mode, they can be very useful for further testing the model.
It is interesting to notice that in the SM neither $L_u$ nor $L_d$ can be separately determined, and only the CKM matrix $V$, which is the product of $L_u^\dagger$ and $L_d$, can be measured experimentally. However, in this model, the elements in the third column of the $L_{u,d}$ mixing matrices can be determined, and can be further constrained by including other low-energy data. Unfortunately, in general, those observables also depend on some other parameters, such as $\sin^2\phi$ and $\sin^2\beta$, of the model.
Acknowledgments
===============
E.M. would like to thank K. Hagiwara, Y. Okada, for useful discussion and comments. He also thanks KEK for the kind hospitality, where part of this work was done, and the Matsumae International Foundation for their Fellowship to support his visit in Japan. This work was supported in part by the U.S. NSF under grant PHY-9802564.
[99]{}
C. T. Hill, Phys. Lett. [**B266**]{}, 419 (1991); Phys. Lett. [**B345**]{}, 483 (1995); S.P. Martin, Phys. Rev. [**D46**]{}, 2197 (1992); Phys. Rev. [**D45**]{}, 4283 (1992); Nucl. Phys. [**B398**]{}, 359 (1993); M. Lindner and D. Ross, Nucl. Phys. [**B370**]{}, 30 (1992); R. Bonisch, Phys. Lett. [**B268**]{}, 394 (1991); C.T. Hill, D. kennedy, T. Onogi, and H.L. Yu, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}, 2940 (1993).
G. Buchalla, G. Burdman, C.T. Hill, and D. Kominis, Phys. Rev. [**D53**]{}, 5185 (1996).
R.S. Chivukula, E.H. Simmons, J. Terning, Phys. Lett. [**B331**]{}, 383 (1994); ibid, Phys. Rev. [**D53**]{}, 5258 (1996).
X. Li and E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**47**]{}, 1788 (1981); E. Ma, X. Li, and S.F. Tuan Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 495 (1988); X. Li and E. Ma, Phys. Rev. [**D46**]{}, 1905 (1992); J. Phys. [**G19**]{}, 1265 (1993).
E. Malkawi, T. Tait, and C.–P. Yuan. Phys. Lett. [**B385**]{}, 304 (1996).
D.J. Muller and S. Nandi, Phys. Lett. [**B383**]{}, 345 (1996).
J.C. Lee and K.Y. Lee, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{}, 115001 (1998); J.C. Lee and K.Y. Lee, and J.K. Kim, Phys. Lett. [**B424**]{}, 133 (1998).
A. Donini, F. Feruglio, J. Matias, F. Zwirner, Nucl. Phys. [**B507**]{}, 51 (1997).
The LEP Electroweak Working group and the SLD Heavy Flavor Group, CERN-PPE/97-154, December 1997.
Review of Particle Properties, [*The European Physical Journal* ]{} [**C3**]{}, 1 (1998), and the www page, http://pdg.lbl.gov.
K. Hagiwara, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**48**]{}, 463 (1998).
H. Georgi, E.E. Jenkins, and E.H. Simmons, Phys. Rev. Lett [**62**]{}, 2789 (1989); [*ibid.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B331**]{}, 541 (1990);\
R.S. Chivukula, E.H. Simmons and J. Terning, Phys.Lett. [**B346**]{}, 284 (1995).
I. Park, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Supp. [**65**]{}, 136 (1998); M. Schmidtler, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Supp. [**65**]{}, 142 (1998).
B.L. Roberts et al, The E821 Collaboration. Published in the proceedings of the 28th International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP 96), Warsaw, Poland. World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, 1997, pp. 1035. R.M. Carey, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1632 (1999).
Andrzej Czarnecki and Bernd Krause, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**51C**]{}, 148 (1996); and the references therein.
V. Antonelli, S. Bertolini, M. Fabbrichesi, and E.I. Lashin, Nucl. Phys. [**B493**]{}, 281 (1997).
T. Inami and C.S. Lim, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**65**]{}, 297 (1981).
A. Ali and B. Kayser, hep-ph/9806230.
J. Ellis and J.S. Hagelin, Nucl. Phys. [**B217**]{}, 189 (1983); D. Rein and L.M. Sehgal, Phys. Rev. [**D39**]{}, 3325 (1989); J.S. Hagelin and L.S. Littenberg, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**23**]{}, 1 (1989); C.Q. Gang, I.J. Hsu, and Y.C. Lin, Phys. Lett. [**B355**]{}, 569 (1995); S. Fajfer, Nuov. Cim. [**A110**]{}, 397 (1997).
E787 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2204 (1997).
A.J. Buras and R. Fleischer, hep-ph/9704376; A.J. Buras, hep-ph/9711217; G. Buchalla and A.J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. [**B400**]{}, 225 (1993); A. Ali, C. Greub and T. Mannel, DESY-93-016; G. Buchalla and A.J. Buras, M.E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 1125 (1996).
Mohammad R. Ahmady, Phys. Rev. [**D53**]{}, 2843 (1996);
CLEO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1150 (1998).
CLEO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2289 (1998).
Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, E. Nardi, Nucl. Phys. [**B465**]{}, 369 (1996).
A. Ali, DESY 96-106, hep-ph/9606324, and the references therein.
F. Abe et al. The CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. [**D57**]{}, 3811 (1998).
K. Fujikawa and A. Yamada, Phys. Rev. [**D49**]{}, 5890 (1994).
Table Captions {#table-captions .unnumbered}
==============
Table. 1.\
Experimental data and predicted values of various electroweak observables in the SM and the proposed model (with different choices of parameters), for $\alpha_s=0.118$, $m_t=175$ GeV and $m_H=100$ GeV.
Table. 2.\
The lower bound on $x$ derived from various decay processes for the proposed model with the $d$-quark mixing scenario. Case I: $\sin^2\beta=0$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$. Case II: $\sin^2\beta=0.5$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$.
Table. 3.\
Predictions of various decay rates and mixing in the SM and the proposed model with the $d$-quark mixing scenario. Case I: $\sin^2\beta=0$, $x=20$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$. Case II: $\sin^2\beta=0.5$, $x=48$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$.
Table. 4.\
Constraints on the quark mixing parameters from various decay processes for the proposed model with the general mixing scenario.
Figure Captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
Fig. 1.\
[The lower bound on the heavy $Z^\prime$ mass as a function of $\sin^2\phi$ at the $2\sigma$ level. Solid curve: including all $Z$-pole data and assuming no lepton mixing. Dashed curve: including all $Z$-pole data and assuming maximal lepton mixing ($\sin^2\beta=0.5$). Dotted curve: only including the hadronic measurements in the fit and assuming no lepton mixing.]{}\
Fig. 2.\
[The lower bound on the parameter $x$ as a function of $\sin^2\phi$ at the $2\sigma$ level.\
Solid curve: including all $Z$-pole data and assuming no lepton mixing.\
Dashed curve: Including all data and assuming maximal lepton mixing ($\sin^2\beta=0.5$).\
Dotted curve: Including hadronic data only and assuming no lepton mixing.]{}\
Observables Experimental data SM
------------------------- ----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Included in fit a b c
$g_V(e)$ $-0.0367\pm 0.0015$ -0.0374 -0.0374 -0.0374 -0.0375
$g_A(e)$ $-0.50123\pm 0.00044$ -0.50142 -0.50140 -0.50141 -0.50132
$g_V(\mu)/g_V(e)$ $1.02\pm 0.12$ 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.02
$g_A(\mu)/g_A(e)$ $ 0.9993\pm 0.0017$ 1.0000 1.0000 1.0004 1.0000
$g_V(\tau)/g_V(e)$ $0.998\pm 0.060$ 1.000 1.027 1.006 1.027
$g_A(\tau)/g_A(e)$ $0.9996\pm 0.0018$ 1.0000 1.0020 1.0004 1.0020
$\Gamma_Z ({\rm{GeV}})$ $2.4948\pm 0.0025$ 2.4972 2.4999 2.4983 2.4992
$R_e$ $20.757\pm 0.056 $ 20.747 20.770 20.757 20.770
$R_\mu$ $20.783\pm 0.037 $ 20.747 20.770 20.738 20.770
$R_\tau$ $20.823\pm 0.050 $ 20.795 20.730 20.786 20.730
$\sigma_h^0 (nb)$ $41.486\pm 0.053 $ 41.474 41.422 41.452 41.422
$A_e$ $0.1399\pm 0.0073$ 0.1484 0.1485 0.1484 0.1487
$A_\tau$ $0.1411\pm 0.0064$ 0.1484 0.1521 0.1492 0.1523
$A^{FB}_e$ $0.0160\pm 0.0024$ 0.0165 0.0165 0.0165 0.0166
$A^{FB}_\mu$ $0.0163\pm 0.0014$ 0.0165 0.0165 0.0166 0.0166
$A^{FB}_\tau$ $0.0192\pm 0.0018$ 0.0165 0.0169 0.0166 0.0170
$R_b$ $0.2170\pm 0.0009$ 0.2157 0.2165 0.2160 0.2165
$R_c$ $0.1734\pm 0.0048$ 0.1721 0.1719 0.1720 0.1719
$A_{FB}^c$ $0.0741\pm 0.0048$ 0.0744 0.0744 0.0744 0.0746
$A_b$ $0.900\pm 0.050$ 0.935 0.935 0.935 0.935
$A_c$ $0.650\pm 0.058$ 0.668 0.668 0.668 0.668
$M_W ({\rm{GeV}})$ $80.430\pm 0.084$ 80.402 80.403 80.403 80.409
$A_{FB}^b$ $0.0984\pm 0.0024$ 0.1040 0.1041 0.1040 0.1043
$A_{LR}$ $0.1547\pm 0.0032$ 0.1484 0.1485 0.1484 0.1487
: Experimental data and predicted values of various electroweak observables in the SM and the proposed model (with different choices of parameters), for $\alpha_s=0.118$ with $m_t=175$ GeV and $m_H=100$ GeV. Case a: $\sin^2\beta=0$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$, $x=20$, $M_Z^\prime=1.9$ TeV, $\Gamma_Z^\prime=490$ GeV. Case b: $\sin^2\beta=0.5$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$, $x=48$ (equivalently, $M_Z^\prime=2.8$ TeV, $\Gamma_Z^\prime=760$ GeV) Case c: $\sin^2\beta=0.0$, $\sin^2\phi=0.2$, $x=100$ (equivalently, $M_Z^\prime=2$ TeV, $\Gamma_Z^\prime=100$ GeV)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process
------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- ----
– I II
$Z$-Pole data 20 20
${\rm{Br}}(\tau^-\rightarrow \mu^- \overline{\nu_\mu} \nu_\tau)/ 0 48
{\rm{Br}}(\tau^-\rightarrow e^- \overline{\nu_e} \nu_\tau)$
${\rm{Br}}(\tau^-\rightarrow\mu^- \mu^+ \mu^-)$ 0 37
${\rm{Br}}(\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma)$ 0 3
${\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu \overline{\nu})$ 7 7
${\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow s \mu^+\mu^-)$ 0 19
${\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow s \nu\overline{\nu})$ 15 15
${\rm{Br}}(B_d \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-)$ 0 1
${\rm{Br}}(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-)$ 0 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The lower bound on $x$ derived from various decay processes for the proposed model with the $d$-quark mixing scenario. Case I: $\sin^2\beta=0$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$. Case II: $\sin^2\beta=0.5$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Data SM
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
– – – I II
$\frac{{\rm{Br}}(\tau^-\rightarrow \mu^- \overline{\nu_\mu} \nu_\tau)} $0.976\pm 0.006$ 0.9729 0.9729 0.9881
{{\rm{Br}}(\tau^-\rightarrow e^- \overline{\nu_e} \nu_\tau)}$
${\rm{Br}}(\tau^-\rightarrow \mu^- \mu^+ \mu^-)$ $ < 1.9 \times 10^{-6}$ 0 0 $1.1\times 10^{-6}$
${\rm{Br}}(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma)$ $<4.2\times 10^{-6}$ 0 0 $ 1.7\times 10^{-8}$
${\rm{Br}}(K^0_L \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ $(7.2\pm 0.5)\times 10^{-9}$ $\sim 7\times 10^{-9}$ $1.3\times 10^{-10}$ $3.4\times 10^{-9}$
${\rm{Br}}(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \nu \overline{\nu})$ $4.2 ^{+9.7}_{-3.5}\times 10^{-10}$ $(9.1 \pm 3.8)\times 10^{-11}$ $2.8 \times 10^{-10}$ $4.8 \times 10^{-11}$
$\Delta M_K \, (ns^{-1})$ $5.311\pm 0.019$ $2.23 \sim 7.43$ $2.6\sim 8.9$ $2.4 \sim 8.0$
$\Delta M_{B_s} \, (ps^{-1})$ $>10.2 $ $ 1\sim 15$ $5 \sim 69$ $3 \sim 37$
${\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow s \mu^+\mu^-)$ $<5.8 \times 10^{-5}$ $\sim 7\times 10^{-6}$ $1.6\times 10^{-7}$ $9.2 \times 10^{-6}$
${\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow s \nu\overline{\nu})$ $<3.9 \times 10^{-4}$ $\sim 4.2\times 10^{-5}$ $2.3\times 10^{-4}$ $4.0 \times 10^{-5}$
${\rm{Br}}(b \rightarrow s \mu^\pm \tau^\mp)$ ? 0 0 $2.0 \times 10^{-5}$
${\rm{Br}}(B_d \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-)$ $<8.6 \times 10^{-7}$ $ 2.1\times 10^{-10}$ $3.2\times 10^{-11}$ $8.8 \times 10^{-10}$
${\rm{Br}}(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-)$ $<2.6 \times 10^{-6}$ $ 4.3 \times 10^{-9}$ $6.1\times 10^{-10}$ $1.7 \times 10^{-8}$
${\rm{Br}}(B_d \rightarrow \mu^\pm \tau^\mp)$ $<8.3 \times 10^{-4}$ 0 0 $4.0 \times 10^{-7}$
${\rm{Br}}(B_s \rightarrow \mu^\pm \tau^\mp)$ ? 0 0 $7.7 \times 10^{-6}$
${\rm{Br}}(B_d \rightarrow \tau^+\tau^-)$ ? $ 4.3\times 10^{-8}$ $2.6\times 10^{-6}$ $1.0 \times 10^{-7}$
${\rm{Br}}(B_s \rightarrow \tau^+\tau^-)$ ? $ 9.1 \times 10^{-7}$ $5.0\times 10^{-5}$ $2.0 \times 10^{-6}$
$\Upsilon(1S) \to \mu^\pm \tau^\mp $ ? 0 0 $ 4\times 10^{-10}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Predictions of various decay rates and mixing in the SM and the proposed model with the $d$-quark mixing scenario. Case I: $\sin^2\beta=0$, $x=20$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$. Case II: $\sin^2\beta=0.5$, $x=48$, $\sin^2\phi=0.04$.
Process $\sin^2\beta$ $\sin^2\phi$ Constraint
----------------------------------------------------- --------------- -------------- ----------------------------------------------
${\rm{Br}}(K^+\rightarrow \pi^+ \nu\overline{\nu})$ independent independent $|d_{31}d_{32}|/x \lsim 1.0\times 10^{-4}$
${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \nu\overline{\nu})$ independent independent $|d_{32}d_{33}|/{x}\lsim 2.9\times 10^{-3}$
${\rm{Br}}(b\rightarrow s \mu^+\mu^-)$ 0.5 0.04 $|d_{32}d_{33}|/{x}\lsim 2.3\times 10^{-3}$
${\rm{Br}}(B_d\rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-)$ 0.5 0.04 $|d_{31}d_{33}|/x \lsim 9.1 \times 10^{-3}$
${\rm{Br}}(B_s\rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-)$ 0.5 0.04 $|d_{32}d_{33}|/{x}\lsim 1.2 \times 10^{-2}$
: Constraints on the quark mixing parameters from various decay processes for the proposed model with the general mixing scenario.
[^1]: e-mail:[email protected]
[^2]: Though, the assignment of the fermion quantum numbers may not be identical.
[^3]: Our prediction for ${\rm{Br}}(\tau \rightarrow \mu \mu \mu )$ is slightly different from that in Ref. [@lee].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We explore the topology of real Lagrangian submanifolds in a toric symplectic manifold which come from involutive symmetries on its moment polytope. We establish a real analog of the Delzant construction for those real Lagrangians, which says that their diffeomorphism type is determined by combinatorial data. As an application, we realize all possible diffeomorphism types of connected real Lagrangians in toric symplectic del Pezzo surfaces.'
address:
- 'Institut de Mathématiques, Université de Neuchâtel, Rue Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland'
- 'School of Mathematics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 85 Hoegiro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02455, Republic of Korea'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Ajou University, 206 Worldcup-ro, Suwon 16499, South Korea'
author:
- 'Joé Brendel, Joontae Kim, and Jiyeon Moon'
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: On the topology of real Lagrangians in toric symplectic manifolds
---
Introduction {#sec: intro}
============
A diffeomorphism $R$ on a symplectic manifold is called an *antisymplectic involution* if it is an involution, $R \circ R = \operatorname{id}$, and if it is antisymplectic, $R^*\omega = -\omega$. Fixed point sets of antisymplectic involutions are either empty or Lagrangian. A Lagrangian $L \subset M$ is called *real* if it is the fixed point set of an antisymplectic involution. We restrict ourselves to the study of real Lagrangians in *toric* symplectic manifolds.
A symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$ of dimension $2n$ is called *toric* if it is equipped with an effective Hamiltonian action of the torus $T^n$. Complex projective space ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^n$ is a typical example. A classical result by Atiyah–Guillemin–Sternberg [@Atiyah; @GuilStern] states that the image of the moment map $\mu$ of a Hamiltonian torus action is a convex polytope $\Delta \subset \operatorname{Lie}(T^n)^* = (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$, called the *moment polytope*. In the case of ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^n$ the moment polytope is the $n$-simplex. Toric manifolds are classified up to equivariant symplectomorphisms by their moment polytope. This was proved by Delzant [@Del], who starts out with a given polytope satisfying certain properties (called *Delzant polytope*) and gives an explicit description of $M$ as a symplectic quotient of a symplectic vector space. For details on the Delzant construction, see Section \[sec: delzantconst\].
Let $\mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ denote the group of lattice-preserving automorphisms of $(\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ which leave $\Delta$ invariant. We construct antisymplectic involutions from symmetries of the moment polytope.
\[thm: antilift\] Let $(M,\omega)$ be a toric symplectic manifold with moment map $\mu$ and moment polytope $\Delta$. Furthermore, let $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ be an involution of $\Delta$. Then $\sigma$ lifts to an antisymplectic involution $R^{\sigma}$ of $M$, $$\label{eq: compintro}
\mu \circ R^{\sigma} = \sigma \circ \mu.$$
The antisymplectic involution $R^{\sigma}$ we construct is not unique with respect to the property $(\ref{eq: compintro})$. Henceforth, we will refer to it as the *standard antisymplectic lift of $\sigma$*. The most basic example for Theorem \[thm: antilift\] is the following one. Let $(S^2, \omega)$ be the two-sphere equipped with its area form. The toric structure is given by rotation around a fixed axis and the corresponding moment map is given by projection onto that axis, see Figure \[fig: s2\]. Therefore $\Delta$ can be identified with a segment in ${{\mathbb{R}}}$. Let $\sigma$ be the only non-trivial involution on $\Delta$ given by the flip around the mid-point of the segment. The corresponding antisymplectic involution on $S^2$ is given by the flip fixing the equator.
(0,0) circle (2cm); (5,-2)–(5,2); (4.9,-0.1)–(5.1,0.1); (4.9,0.1)–(5.1,-0.1); (5,-2) circle (1.5pt); (5,2) circle (1.5pt); (0,0) +(180:2) arc (180:360:2 and 0.3); (0,0) +(0:2) arc (0:180:2 and 0.3); (0,0) circle (2cm); (3,0)–node\[above\][$\mu$]{}(4,0); (-2.2,-0.5) to \[out=180,in=180, looseness=2\] (-2.2,0.5); (5.2,-0.5) to \[out=0,in=0, looseness=2\] (5.2,0.5); at (6.1,0) [$\sigma$]{}; at (-3.2,0) [$R^{\sigma}$]{};
Even for general toric symplectic manifolds $M$, there is a particularly simple way of understanding the involutions $R^{\sigma}$ in Theorem \[thm: antilift\] if we restrict our attention to the open and dense subset $\mu^{-1}(\mathring{\Delta})$ formed by the pre-image of the interior of $\Delta$. In fact, $\mu^{-1}(\mathring{\Delta})$ is equivariantly symplectomorphic to $T^n \times \mathring{\Delta}$, when we equip the latter space with the natural $T^n$-action and the symplectic form coming from the inclusion $T^n \times \mathring{\Delta} \subset T^*T^n \cong T^n \times (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$. Under this identification, the moment map corresponds to the natural projection $T^n \times \mathring{\Delta} \rightarrow \mathring{\Delta}$. We observe
1. For any lattice preserving involution $\sigma$ on the moment polytope, the map $(\sigma^T)^{-1} \times \sigma$ defines a symplectomorphism on $T^n \times \mathring{\Delta}$. The transpose $\sigma^T \colon \mathfrak{t}^n \rightarrow \mathfrak{t}^n$ is well-defined on $T^n$, since it preserves the lattice. Hence we obtain a *symplectic* involution on $T^n \times \mathring{\Delta}$.
2. There is a natural antisymplectic involution $R^0$ on $T^n \times \mathring{\Delta}$ given by taking the group inverse on the $T^n$-component. The involution $R^0$ preserves the fibres of $T^n \times \mathring{\Delta} \rightarrow \mathring{\Delta}$.
The desired antisymplectic involution $R^{\sigma}$ is obtained by composing the maps obtained in the two observations. Since they commute, the resulting diffeomorphism will indeed be an involution. The main problem with this heuristic argument is extending everything to the singular fibres over $\partial \Delta$. In Section \[sec: lifting\] we thus stick to the more conventional approach via Delzant’s point of view on toric manifolds. As we shall see, this approach also has the merit of providing a method to understand the fixed point set of $R^\sigma$.
In the special case where $\sigma = \operatorname{id}$, we obtain an antisymplectic involution $R^0$ which leaves the moment map invariant $\mu \circ R^0 = \mu$. This involution is widely known in toric geometry, where it corresponds to complex conjugation. Its fixed point set $\operatorname{Fix}R^0$ is the *real locus* of the toric variety, in the case of ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^n$ it corresponds to ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^n$. Duistermaat [@Duist] studied more general real Lagrangians $L=\operatorname{Fix}R$ in Hamiltonian $T^k$-spaces $(M,{\omega},\mu)$ for any $k \leqslant n$, which arise as the fixed point set of involutions leaving the moment map invariant, $\mu \circ R = \mu$. He proved that real Lagrangians of this type are tight and have a convex image under the moment map. Tightness of the real Lagrangian $L$ means that for any $\xi\in \mathfrak{t}^n$ the restriction $H_\xi|_L$ of the Hamiltonian function $H_\xi=\langle\mu, \xi \rangle$ is *tight* in the sense that the sum of the Betti numbers of $L$ and the one of the critical set of $H_\xi|_L$ coincide.
Another class of interesting Lagrangians are regular fibres $\mu^{-1}(x) \subset M$ of the toric moment maps. Entov–Poterovich [@EP] studied the rigidity of intersections of *Lagrangian fibres*, namely that the barycentric fibre in a closed monotone symplectic manifold cannot be displaced by a Hamiltonian isotopy. See also results of Fukaya–Oh–Ohta–Ono [@FOOO]. Theorem \[thm: antilift\] shows that the toric fibre $\mu^{-1}(0)$ is real whenever the moment polytope is invariant under the central symmetry $\sigma = -\operatorname{id}$. Indeed, we will see that $\operatorname{Fix}R^{\sigma} \neq \varnothing$, and since $0 \in (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ is the only fixed point of $-\operatorname{id}$, the fixed point set of $R^{-\operatorname{id}}$ is the entire fibre $\mu^{-1}(0)$ for dimensional reasons. Under some additional assumptions on $M$, one can show that $\mu^{-1}(0)$ being real is a sufficient condition for $\Delta$ to be invariant under $-\operatorname{id}$. We refer to [@Bre] for details. In a sense, the two classical situations $R=\operatorname{id}$ and $R=-\operatorname{id}$ are opposite to each other and all other $R^{\sigma}$ which we obtain from Theorem \[thm: antilift\] are intermediate cases.
The remainder of the paper is dedicated to a topological study of the fixed point sets of the involutions $R^{\sigma}$. The main result in this direction is the so-called *real Delzant construction*, which states that the diffeomorphism type of $L=\operatorname{Fix}(R^\sigma)$ is completely determined by the moment polytope $\Delta$ and the involution $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$.
We briefly explain relevant notions in the classical Delzant construction, see Section \[sec: delzantconst\] for details. The moment polytope $\Delta$ with $k$ facets yields the moment map $$\nu \colon {{\mathbb{C}}}^k\longrightarrow \mathfrak{k}^*,$$ where $\mathfrak{k}=\operatorname{Lie}(K)$ is the Lie algebra of the kernel $K$ of the characteristic map $\pi\colon T^k\to T^n$. By the Marsden–Weinstein theorem, we can reconstruct the toric symplectic manifold, $$M \cong \nu^{-1}(0)/K.$$ In a similar vein, we will define a real analog of the maps $\nu$ and $\pi$, namely $$\pi_R\colon \operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^k})\longrightarrow \operatorname{Fix}(R_{T^n})$$ the *real characteristic map*, and $$\nu_R\colon \operatorname{Fix}(\rho)\longrightarrow (\mathfrak{k}/\mathfrak{k}_R)^*,$$ where $\mathfrak{k}_R\subset \mathfrak{k}$ is the Lie algebra of the kernel $K_R=\ker \pi_R$. Here $\rho$ and $\rho_{T^k}$ are involutions on ${{\mathbb{C}}}^k$ and $T^k$, respectively, determined by the involution $\sigma\in \mathcal{S}_\Delta$. See Section \[sec: realdelconst\] for details.
The main result of the paper is the following [*real Delzant construction*]{}.
\[thm: realdelzant\] Let $(M,{\omega},\mu)$ be a toric symplectic manifold and let $R^\sigma$ be the standard antisymplectic involution of $M$ given by the lift of an involution $\sigma\in \mathcal{S}_\Delta$. Then the real Lagrangian $L=\operatorname{Fix}(R^\sigma)$ is diffeomorphic to $\nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R$.
As a partial generalization of Duistermaat’s result, we prove convexity and tightness for the real Lagrangians $L=\operatorname{Fix}(R^\sigma)$.
\[thm: tightconvex\] Let $(M,{\omega},\mu)$ be a toric symplectic manifold with moment polytope $\Delta$ and let $R^\sigma$ be the standard antisymplectic involution of $M$ given by the lift of an involution $\sigma\in \mathcal{S}_\Delta$. Then $\mu(L)=\operatorname{Fix}(\sigma)$ is convex, and for any $\xi\in \mathfrak{t}^n$ we have $$\dim H_*(L;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2) = \dim H_*(\operatorname{Crit}(H_\xi|_L);{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2),$$ where $H_\xi$ is the smooth function $\langle \mu,\xi \rangle$ on $M$ and $\operatorname{Crit}(H_\xi|_L)$ denotes the set of critical points of $H_\xi|_L$.
In particular, both Theorem \[thm: realdelzant\] and \[thm: tightconvex\] imply that $L=\operatorname{Fix}(R^\sigma)$ is not empty. Example \[ex: tightconvexfails\] shows that the tightness and the convexity, in general, fail if the real Lagrangian is not of the form $\operatorname{Fix}R^{\sigma}$.
As an application, we show that the class of real Lagrangians that come from involutive symmetries of moment polytopes provides a starting point for the classification of real Lagrangians in toric symplectic del Pezzo surfaces.
Recall that the symplectic del Pezzo surfaces $Q=S^2\times S^2$ and $X_k={{\mathbb{C}}}P^2\# k\overline{{{\mathbb{C}}}P^2}$ for $0\le k \le 3$ are *monotone* and toric. Being monotone means that their first Chern class is positively proportional to the cohomology class of the symplectic form, see Section \[sec: delpezzo\]. Using Smith theory, the Arnold lemma, and homological obstructions for Lagrangians, we show that any real Lagrangian $L$ in a toric symplectic del Pezzo surface $M$ must be diffeomorphic to one of cases listed in Table \[tab: delpezzo\]. We then realize all of these possible cases as fixed point sets of lifted antisymplectic involutions $R^{\sigma}$. The real Delzant construction will be used to determine their diffeomorphism types. We refer to Section \[sec: delpezzo\] for details.
Let $L$ be a connected real Lagrangian submanifold of a toric symplectic del Pezzo surface $M$. Then $L$ is diffeomorphic to one of the surfaces in Table \[tab: delpezzo\], and each of these diffeomorphism types is realized as the fixed point set $\operatorname{Fix}R^{\sigma}$ of an antisymplectic involution from Theorem \[thm: antilift\].
[c|cccccc]{} $M$ & $L=\operatorname{Fix}(R)$ & & &&&\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$S^2\times S^2$ & $ S^2$ & $ T^2$ & &&&\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$X_0$ & & & $ {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$ &&&\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$X_1$ & & & &$ {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2\# {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$&&\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$X_2$ & & & $ {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$ && $ \#_3{{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$&\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$X_3$ & $ S^2$ & $ T^2$ & & $ {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2\# {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$ && $ \#_4{{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$
Classify connected real Lagrangians in toric symplectic del Pezzo surfaces up to Hamiltonian isotopy.
For fixed diffeomorphism type of the real Lagrangian, uniqueness up to Hamiltonian isotopy is known for $S^2$ in $S^2\times S^2$ and $X_3$ by [@HindS2S2] and [@Evans], and for ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$ in $X_0$ by [@LiWu]. Indeed, every real Lagrangian in a monotone symplectic manifold is monotone and there are no exotic monotone submanifolds in these cases.
Is every connected real Lagrangian with fixed diffeomorphism type in toric del Pezzo surfaces unique up to Hamiltonian isotopy?
Since $S^2\times S^2$ and $X_3$ admit infinitely many exotic monotone Lagrangian tori [@Vianna], a positive answer to this question would crucially depend on the submanifold being real.
Basic geometry
==============
We refer to [@Sja], [@Audin] and [@McduffSalamon Chapter 5] for (real) symplectic geometry and Hamiltonian torus actions.
Basics
------
Let $(M,\omega)$ be a symplectic manifold and let the $n$-torus $T^n$ act on $M$ by symplectomorphisms. We denote this action by $(t,p) \mapsto t.p$ for $p\in M$ and $t\in T^n$ and the corresponding Lie algebra by $\mathfrak{t}^n = \operatorname{Lie}(T^n)$. The associated infinitesimal action $\mathfrak{t}^n \rightarrow \Gamma(TM)$ is defined by $$\xi\longmapsto X_{\xi}, \quad \left(X_{\xi}\right)_p := \left.\frac{d}{ds}\right\vert_{s=0} \exp(s\xi).p,\quad p\in M.$$ A symplectic $T^n$-action on a symplectic manifold $M$ is called *Hamiltonian* if there exists a smooth map $\mu : M\to (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ such that
- for each $\xi\in \mathfrak{t}^n$ we have $d\langle \mu, \xi\rangle=\iota_{X_\xi}{\omega}$, where $\langle\cdot,\cdot \rangle$ denotes the natural pairing between $\mathfrak{t}^n$ and $(\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$,
- the map $\mu$ is invariant under the $T^n$-action, i.e. $\mu(t.p)=\mu(p)$ for all $t \in T^n$ and $p \in M$.
The map $\mu$ is called a *moment map* of the Hamiltonian $T^n$-action.
A triple $(M,\omega,\mu)$ is called a [**Hamiltonian $T^n$-space**]{} if $(M,{\omega})$ is a symplectic manifold equipped with a Hamiltonian $T^n$-action and $\mu\colon M\to (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ is a moment map associated to the action.
The equation $d\langle \mu , \xi \rangle = \iota_{X_{\xi}}\omega$ means that the Hamiltonian flow of $ \langle \mu , \xi \rangle \in C^{\infty}(M) $ at time $t$ corresponds to the action of $\exp(t\xi)$ on $M$. Furthermore, this equation can be used to prove the following geometric properties of the moment map $$\begin{aligned}
(\ker d\mu\vert_p)^{\omega} &=& T_p(T^np) ,\\
\operatorname{Ann}(\operatorname{Im}d\mu\vert_p) &=& \operatorname{Lie}(\operatorname{Stab}(p)). \label{eq:momentstab}\end{aligned}$$
A classical result by Atiyah–Guillemin–Sternberg states that the image of $\mu$ is a convex polytope in $(\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$, called the *moment polytope*.
\[rk:momentnorm\] [As for Hamiltonians in general, adding a constant vector to the moment map does not change the group action it generates. We choose the normalization $\int_M \mu \omega^n= 0 \in (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ for compact $M$ unless otherwise stated. ]{}
The *standard lattice* $\mathfrak{t}^n_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ is defined as the kernel of the exponential map $\exp:\mathfrak{t}^n \rightarrow T^n$. Furthermore, the group formed by the automorphisms of $\mathfrak{t}^n$ which preserve the standard lattice will be denoted by $\operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}\mathfrak{t}^n$. The dual of the standard lattice is defined by $$(\mathfrak{t}^n_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}})^* = \{\eta \in \mathfrak{t}^* \,\vert\, \langle \eta , x \rangle \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}\text{ for all } x \in \mathfrak{t}^n_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}} \}.$$ The corresponding group $\operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}\mathfrak({\mathfrak{t}}^n)^*$ is defined similarly.
\[rk:liftingonT\] [Since $T^n \cong \mathfrak{t}^n / \mathfrak{t}^n_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}$, any element $\alpha \in \operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}\mathfrak{t}^n$ induces a group automorphism $A$ of $T^n$. Conversely, for any group automorphism $A$ of $T^n$, its differential $A_*$ belongs to $\operatorname{Aut}_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{t}^n$. ]{}
Recall that for a given Hamiltonian $T^n$-space, one can perform symplectic reduction on certain level sets of the moment map in order to obtain a new symplectic manifold. See [@Can] for details.
\[prop:red\] Let $(M,\omega,\mu)$ be a Hamiltonian $T^n$-space and $0 \in (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ a regular value of $\mu$ such that $T^n$ acts freely on the corresponding level set $\mu^{-1}(0)$. Then the quotient $$\widehat{M} = \mu^{-1}(0)/T^n$$ carries a unique symplectic structure $\widehat{\omega}$ such that $$\iota^* \omega = p^*\widehat{\omega}$$ where $\iota : \mu^{-1}(0) \hookrightarrow M$ is the natural inclusion and $p : \mu^{-1}(0) \twoheadrightarrow \widehat{M}$ is the natural projection.
The space $(\widehat{M},\widehat{\omega})$ is called *symplectic quotient* or *Marsden–Weinstein quotient* at the level $0$. This construction is best summarized by the reduction diagram
(\^[-1]{}(0), \^\*= p\^\* ) \[swap\][p]{} & ( M, )\
(, ).
Compatible maps
---------------
Let $(M,\omega,\mu)$ be a Hamiltonian $T^n$-space. We will define a notion of compatibility between the torus action and a given diffeomorphism $\varphi$ of $M$ which either preserves or reverses the symplectic form, i.e. which is either symplectic or antisymplectic. In order to treat both cases simultaneously, we attach a sign ${\varepsilon}(\varphi) \in \{-1,1\} $ to the diffeomorphism $\varphi$ such that $$\varphi^* \omega = {\varepsilon}(\varphi) \omega.$$
\[prop:compatibility\] Let $\varphi$ be a diffeomorphism of a Hamiltonian $T^n$-space $(M,\omega,\mu)$ satisfying $\varphi^* \omega = {\varepsilon}(\varphi) \omega$ for ${\varepsilon}(\varphi) \in \{-1,1\}$. Then the following are equivalent.
- There is a group automorphism $\tau: T^n \rightarrow T^n$ such that $$\label{eq:comp1}
\varphi(t.p) = \tau(t).\varphi(p), \quad p\in M,\, t \in T^n;$$
- There is a map $\sigma \in \operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}(\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ such that $$\label{eq:comp2}
\mu \circ \varphi = \sigma \circ \mu;$$
- There is a map $\alpha \in \operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}\mathfrak{t}^n$ such that $$\label{eq:comp3}
\varphi^{-1}_*(X_{\xi} \circ \varphi) = X_{\alpha(\xi)}, \quad \xi \in \mathfrak{t}^n.$$
Furthermore, if the statements are true, then the above maps are related by $$\label{eq:comprel}
\tau^{-1}_* = {\varepsilon}(\varphi)\sigma^* = \alpha.$$
First suppose that ${\varepsilon}(\varphi)=1$.\
We will show that both $1)$ and $2)$ are equivalent to the infinitesimal condition $3)$. Since the exponential map of $T^n$ is surjective, $1)$ is equivalent to $$\varphi(\exp s \xi . p) = \tau(\exp s \xi).\varphi(p), \quad p \in M, \, \xi \in \mathfrak{t}^n.$$ Differentiating with respect to $s$ and rearranging terms, we obtain $$\varphi_*^{-1}(X_{\xi})_{\varphi(p)} = (X_{\tau^{-1}_*\xi})_p, \quad p \in M, \, \xi \in \mathfrak{t}^n.$$ The equivalence of $1)$ and $3)$ follows by defining, with the help of Remark \[rk:liftingonT\], $\alpha := \tau^{-1}_* \in \operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}\mathfrak{t}^n$ and conversely by defining $\tau$ as the automorphism obtained by lifting $\alpha^{-1}$ to $T^n$.
In order to prove the equivalence of $2)$ and $3)$, recall that given a Hamiltonian $H$, its vector field $X_H$ transforms under a symplectomorphism $\varphi$ to the Hamiltonian vector field $X_{H \circ \varphi} = \varphi^{-1}_*(X_H \circ \varphi)$. Since $X_{\xi}$ is the vector field corresponding to the Hamiltonian function $H=\langle \mu , \xi \rangle$, identity $\eqref{eq:comp3}$ can be rewritten as $$X_{\langle \mu \circ \varphi, \xi \rangle} = X_{\langle \mu , \alpha(\xi) \rangle},$$ which is equivalent to $$\mu \circ \varphi = \alpha^* \circ \mu.$$
The case ${\varepsilon}(\varphi) = -1$ can be proved similarly. The only notable difference is the fact that if $\varphi$ is antisymplectic, then the Hamiltonian vector fields transform as follows, $$X_{H \circ \varphi} = - \varphi^{-1}_*(X_H \circ \varphi).$$ This accounts precisely for the additional minus sign in equation . [ $\Box$\
]{}
\[rk:involutioncomp\] In the antisymplectic case, we will mostly work with involutions, i.e. diffeomorphisms $R:M \rightarrow M$ satisfying $R^*\omega = -\omega$ and $R^2 = \operatorname{id}$. In this case, the maps $\tau$, $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ are involutions as well.
\[def:compatibility\] An (anti-)symplectic diffeomorphism $\varphi$ on a Hamiltonian $T^n$-space $(M,\omega,\mu)$ is called [**compatible**]{} if one of the equivalent conditions in Proposition \[prop:compatibility\] holds.
This compatibility condition is a special case of the notion of *real Hamiltonian $G$-manifold* given in [@Sja], which contains many examples. These ideas go back to Duistermaat’s work [@Duist], who considered the case where $\tau(t)=t^{-1}$.
In case the Hamiltonian $T^n$-space admits symplectic reduction, a given compatible (anti-)symplectic map yields an (anti-)symplectic map on the symplectic quotient.
\[prop:symplecticred\] Let $\varphi$ be a compatible diffeomorphism on a Hamiltonian $T^n$-space $(M,\omega,\mu)$ satisfying $\varphi^* \omega = {\varepsilon}(\varphi) \omega$ for ${\varepsilon}(\varphi) \in \{-1,1\}$. Furthermore, suppose that $M$ admits symplectic reduction at the level $0 \in (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$. Then $\varphi$ induces a diffeomorphism $\widehat{\varphi} : \widehat{M} \rightarrow \widehat{M}$ on the symplectic quotient satisfying $\widehat{\varphi}^* \widehat{\omega} = {\varepsilon}(\varphi) \widehat{\omega}$ such that the following diagram commutes,
\^[-1]{}(0) \[swap\][p]{} & M\
The diffeomorphism $\varphi$ preserves the level set $\mu^{-1}(0)$, as can be read off from . Furthermore, the restriction $\varphi\vert_{\mu^{-1}(0)}$ descends to $\widehat{M}$ by equation to yield a diffeomorphism $\widehat{\varphi}$. Since $\widehat{\omega}$ is defined by $\iota^*\omega = p^* \widehat{\omega}$, we can compute $$\begin{aligned}
p^* \widehat{\varphi}^* \widehat{\omega}
&=& \varphi\vert_{\mu^{-1}(0)}^* p^* \widehat{\omega} \\
&=& \varphi\vert_{\mu^{-1}(0)}^* \iota^* \omega \\
&=& \iota^* \varphi^* \omega \\
&=& \iota^* \left( {\varepsilon}(\varphi) \omega \right) \\
&=& p^* \left( {\varepsilon}(\varphi) \widehat{\omega} \right). \end{aligned}$$ Since $p$ is a surjective submersion, this implies that $\widehat{\varphi}^* \widehat{\omega} = {\varepsilon}(\varphi)\widehat{\omega}$. [ $\Box$\
]{}
Toric symplectic manifolds
==========================
We refer to [@Audin], [@Can], [@Del], [@Gui2] or [@Mcduffmono] for details on toric symplectic manifolds and the Delzant construction.
Basics
------
Toric symplectic manifolds are a special case of Hamiltonian $T^n$-spaces.
A Hamiltonian $T^n$-space $(M,\omega,\mu)$ is called [**toric**]{} if $n = \frac{1}{2} \dim M $ and the action is effective.
In the case of toric symplectic manifolds the moment map is a quotient map for the torus action, and our choice of normalization in Remark \[rk:momentnorm\] implies that the barycentre of its moment polytope $\Delta$ lies at $0 \in (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$. Furthermore, by a classical result of Delzant, $\Delta = \mu(M)$ takes a particular form and is, in fact, a sufficient datum to reconstruct $(M,\omega,\mu)$ along with its $T^n$-action up to equivariant symplectomorphisms. We will recall Delzant’s result and some of the facts surrounding it, since these will be used later on.\
Let $\Delta \subset (\mathfrak{t}^n)^* $ be a rational polytope with respect to the standard lattice $(\mathfrak{t}^n_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}})^*$ bounded by $k$ hyperplanes. A lattice vector $v \in \mathfrak{t}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}^n$ is called *primitive* if it cannot be written as a non-trivial integer multiple of another lattice vector. Equivalently, a primitive vector is the first intersection of the line it spans with the standard lattice. We can describe $\Delta$ in terms of primitive vectors $v_i \in \mathfrak{t}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}^n$ and a set of numbers $\kappa_i \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$, $$\label{eq:polytopedescription}
\Delta = \{ \eta \in (\mathfrak{t}^n)^* \, \vert \, \langle \eta , v_i \rangle \leq \kappa_i \}.$$
After identifying $\mathfrak{t}^n$ and $(\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ with ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ by the choice of a basis, the vectors $v_i$ correspond to outward pointing primitive normal vectors to the facets. The constants $\kappa_i$ measure the affine distance of the facets to the origin. Details can be found in [@Mcduffmono].
The Delzant construction {#sec: delzantconst}
------------------------
A rational polytope $\Delta \subset (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ is called [**Delzant**]{} if each of its vertices is formed by the intersection of $n$ hyperplanes whose primitive normal vectors form a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$-basis of $\mathfrak{t}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}^n$.
\[rk:alternativedelzant\] If we identify $\mathfrak{t}^n_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ with ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^n$, the Delzant condition on polytopes is equivalent to requiring that the set of primitive normal vectors at any given vertex can be mapped to the standard basis $\{e_1,...,e_n\} \subset {{\mathbb{Z}}}^n$ by an element of $\operatorname{GL}(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$.
\[thm:delzant\] The moment polytope of a toric symplectic manifold is Delzant and there is a bijective correspondence between Delzant polytopes up to $\operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}} (\mathfrak{t}^n)^* $-action and toric symplectic manifolds up to $T^n$-equivariant symplectomorphisms.
Furthermore, Delzant gave an explicit construction of the toric symplectic manifold $(M,\omega,\mu)$, starting from a given Delzant polytope $\Delta = \{ \eta \in (\mathfrak{t}^n)^* \, \vert \, \langle \eta , v_i \rangle \leq \kappa_i \} $ such that $\mu(M)=\Delta$. The desired manifold $M$ is obtained as a symplectic quotient of $({{\mathbb{C}}}^k,\omega_0)$. Since we will heavily rely on the details of this construction, it will be recalled here. Details can be found in the original paper [@Del], or in [@Can] and [@Gui2].\
Let $\Delta \subset (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ be a Delzant polytope. Up to a translation, we can assume that the normalization convention from Remark \[rk:momentnorm\] holds. Via the description $(\ref{eq:polytopedescription})$, the polytope $\Delta$ uniquely defines a set of pairs $\{(v_i,\kappa_i)\}_{i\in \{1,...,k\}}$. The [**characteristic map**]{} associated to $\Delta$ is defined as $$\label{eq:charmap}
\pi : \mathfrak{t}^k \rightarrow \mathfrak{t}^n, \quad \pi(e_i) = v_i,$$ where $e_i$ denotes the $i$-th standard basis vector of $\mathfrak{t}^k \cong {{\mathbb{R}}}^k$. The characteristic map is thus a linear map of full rank $n$. Furthermore, it maps $\mathfrak{t}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}^k$ to $\mathfrak{t}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}^n$, since the vectors $v_i$ are integral. Hence it descends to the respective tori to yield a map $T^k \rightarrow T^n$, which we again denote by $\pi$. Let $K = \ker \pi \subset T^k$ and denote by $\mathfrak{k}$ and $\mathfrak{k}^*$ its Lie algebra and its dual Lie algebra. We get three short exact sequences, $$\begin{aligned}
{7}
\label{eq:ses}
1 &\rightarrow
&& \;\; K
&& \stackrel{j}{\hookrightarrow}
&& \;\; T^k
&& \stackrel{\pi}{\rightarrow}
&& \; T^n
&& \rightarrow 1, \nonumber \\
0 &\rightarrow
&& \;\; \mathfrak{k}
&& \stackrel{j_*}{\rightarrow}
&& \;\; \mathfrak{t}^k
&& \stackrel{\pi}{\rightarrow}
&& \;\; \mathfrak{t}^n
&& \rightarrow 0, \nonumber \\
0 &\rightarrow
&& (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*
&& \stackrel{\pi^*}{\rightarrow}
&& (\mathfrak{t}^k)^*
&& \stackrel{j^*}{\rightarrow}
&& \;\; \mathfrak{k}^*
&& \rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$
The desired toric manifold $(M,\omega)$ arises as a symplectic quotient of $({{\mathbb{C}}}^k,\omega_0)$ as follows. The moment map
$$\nu_0 : {{\mathbb{C}}}^k \rightarrow (\mathfrak{t}^k)^*\cong {{\mathbb{R}}}^k, \quad (z_1,\ldots,z_k) \mapsto \frac{1}{2}\left(\vert z_1 \vert^2,\ldots, \vert z_k \vert^2 \right) - (\kappa_1,\ldots,\kappa_k)$$
generates the standard $T^k$-action on ${{\mathbb{C}}}^k$. The inclusion $j : K \hookrightarrow T^k$ induces a $K$-action on ${{\mathbb{C}}}^k$. The moment map corresponding to this $K$-action is given by
$$\label{eq: numap}
\nu : {{\mathbb{C}}}^k \rightarrow \mathfrak{k}^*, \quad \nu = j^* \circ \nu_0.$$
One can show that $0 \in \mathfrak{k}^*$ is a regular value of $\nu$ and that $K$ acts freely on $\nu^{-1}(0)$. Thus the conditions for symplectic reduction are satisfied. One can show that the symplectic quotient $\nu^{-1}(0)/K$ with its induced symplectic form is the desired toric manifold $(M,\omega)$. We will briefly describe how the moment map $\mu : M \rightarrow (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ defining the toric structure on $M$ is obtained. Combine the symplectic reduction diagram defining $M$
$$\label{eq:delzantred}
\begin{tikzcd}
M
& \nu^{-1}(0) \arrow[two heads]{l}[swap]{p}{/K} \arrow[hook]{r}{\iota}
& {{\mathbb{C}}}^k
\end{tikzcd}$$
with the short exact sequence from to obtain the commutative diagram
$$\label{eq:toricdiag}
\begin{tikzcd}
M \arrow[dashed]{dr}[swap]{\mu}
& \nu^{-1}(0) \arrow[two heads]{l}[swap]{p}{/K} \arrow[hook]{r}{\iota} \arrow[dashed]{d}{\overline{\mu}}
& {{\mathbb{C}}}^k \arrow{d}{\nu_0} \arrow{dr}{\nu} \\
0 \arrow{r}
& (\mathfrak{t}^n)^* \arrow{r}{\pi^*}
& (\mathfrak{t}^k)^* \arrow{r}{j^*}
& \mathfrak{k}^* \arrow{r}
& 0.
\end{tikzcd}$$
The map $\mu$ is the desired moment map. We will show that both $\mu$ and $\overline{\mu}$ are well-defined maps. Since $\nu$ is defined as $j^* \circ \nu_0$, the composition $\nu_0 \circ \iota$ maps $\nu^{-1}(0)$ to the kernel of $j^*$ and thus, by exactness of the lower row, to the image of $\pi^*$. Since $\pi^*$ is injective, we obtain a unique map $\overline{\mu}: \nu^{-1}(0) \rightarrow (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ with
$$\pi^* \circ \overline{\mu} = \nu_0 \circ \iota.$$
Since $\iota$ is $K$-equivariant and $\nu_0$ is $T^k$-invariant and therefore in particular $K$-invariant, we obtain that $\overline{\mu}$ is $K$-invariant. Since $\nu^{-1}(0)$ is a $K$-principal bundle with base $M$, this implies that $\overline{\mu}$ factors through $M$ to yield the desired moment map $\mu$ defined by the equation
$$\pi^* \circ \mu \circ p = \nu_0 \circ \iota.$$
\[ex:s2delzant\] [Let $n=1$ and take the Delzant polytope $ [-1,1] \subset {{\mathbb{R}}}\cong (\mathfrak{t}^1)^*$. Then $k=2$, the outward pointing normal vectors are given by $v_1= (1), v_2=(-1)$, and the corresponding constants are $\kappa_1 = \kappa_2 = 1$. The characteristic map is $\pi = (1,-1)$ and furthermore $$\nu_0 : {{\mathbb{C}}}^2 \rightarrow (\mathfrak{t}^2)^*\cong {{\mathbb{R}}}^2, \quad (z_1,z_2) \mapsto \left(\frac{1}{2}\vert z_1 \vert^2 - 1 , \frac{1}{2} \vert z_2 \vert^2 -1 \right).$$ Since $K = \ker \pi = \langle (1,1) \rangle$, the map $j^*$ is given by projection to the vector $(1,1)$ and hence $$\nu(z_1,z_2) = \frac{1}{2}\left( \vert z_1 \vert^2 + \vert z_2 \vert^2 \right) - 2.$$ Therefore, the level set $\nu^{-1}(0)$ is a $3$-sphere on which $K \cong {S}^1$ acts diagonally. Hence we obtain the Hopf fibration and the quotient is $M \cong {{\mathbb{C}}}P^1 \cong {S}^2$ with the $K$-equivalence classes $[(z_1,z_2)]_K$ corresponding to the homogeneous coordinates $[z_1 : z_2]$ on ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. ]{}
Lifting symmetries of the moment polytope {#sec: lifting}
=========================================
Throughout this section, let $(M,\omega)$ be a toric symplectic manifold with moment map $\mu$ and moment polytope $\Delta = \mu(M) \subset (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ with normalization $\int_M \mu \omega^n = 0 \in (\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$.
Symmetries of the moment polytope {#ssec:symm}
----------------------------------
\[def: symmetry\] Let $(M,\omega,\mu)$ be a toric symplectic manifold with moment polytope $\Delta$. The group $$\mathcal{S}_{\Delta}=\{ \sigma \in \operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}} (\mathfrak{t}^n)^* \mid \sigma(\Delta)=\Delta \}$$ is called the [**symmetries of $\Delta$**]{}.
\[ex:symmetry\] As discussed in the introduction, there are five toric symplectic del Pezzo surfaces, namely $S^2 \times S^2$ and the blow-ups $X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3$ of ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2$. Their moment polytopes and the corresponding groups $\mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ are given in Figure \[fig:delpezzo\], where $D_n$ denotes the dihedral group of order $2n$. These groups are readily found by noting that elements of $\operatorname{GL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ preserve the affine length of edges. For example after identfying $\operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}} (\mathfrak{t}^2)^*$ with $\operatorname{GL}(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$, the subgroup $\mathcal{S}_{\Delta_{X_0}} \cong D_3$ is generated by the matrices $$\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & -1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\text{ and }
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.$$
[0.3]{}
(-1,-1)–(-1,1)–(1,1)–(1,-1)–(-1,-1); (-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5,2.5); (-1,-1)–(-1,1)–(1,1)–(1,-1)–(-1,-1); (-2,0)–(2,0); (0,-2)–(0,2); at (0,1.4)\[right\][$S^2 \times S^2$]{};
[0.3]{}
(-1,-1)–(-1,2)–(2,-1)–(-1,-1); (-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5,2.5); (-1,-1)–(-1,2)–(2,-1)–(-1,-1); (-2,0)–(2,0); (0,-2)–(0,2); at (0,1.3)\[right\][$X_0$]{};
[0.3]{}
(-1,0)–(-1,2)–(2,-1)–(0,-1)–(-1,0); (-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5,2.5); (-1,0)–(-1,2)–(2,-1)–(0,-1)–(-1,0); (-2,0)–(2,0); (0,-2)–(0,2); at (0,1.3)\[right\][$X_1$]{};
[0.3]{}
(-1,-1)–(-1,1)–(0,1)–(1,0)–(1,-1)–(-1,-1); (-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5,2.5); (-1,-1)–(-1,1)–(0,1)–(1,0)–(1,-1)–(-1,-1); (-2,0)–(2,0); (0,-2)–(0,2); at (0,1.3)\[right\][$X_2$]{};
[0.3]{}
(-1,0)–(-1,1)–(0,1)–(1,0)–(1,-1)–(0,-1)–(-1,0); (-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5,2.5); (-1,0)–(-1,1)–(0,1)–(1,0)–(1,-1)–(0,-1)–(-1,0); (-2,0)–(2,0); (0,-2)–(0,2); at (0,1.3)\[right\][$X_3$]{};
Let $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$. Recall from that we can associate a unique pair $(v_i,\kappa_i)$ to each facet of $\Delta$ such that $$\Delta = \{ \eta \in (\mathfrak{t}^n)^* \, \vert \, \langle \eta , v_i \rangle \leq \kappa_i \}.$$ Applying any $\sigma \in \operatorname{Aut}(\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$ to $\Delta$ yields $$\sigma(\Delta) = \{ \eta \in (\mathfrak{t}^n)^* \, \vert \, \langle \eta , (\sigma^{-1})^* v_i \rangle \leq \kappa_i \}.$$ Hence, applying $\sigma$ to the moment polytope amounts to applying $(\sigma^{-1})^* \in \operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}\mathfrak{t}^n$ to its associated normal vectors $v_i$. The hypothesis $$\sigma(\Delta) = \Delta$$ along with the uniqueness of the set of pairs $\{(v_i,\kappa_i)\}_{1\leq i \leq k}$ thus implies that $(\sigma^{-1})^*$ permutes normal vectors. In conclusion, there is a permutation on $k$ elements $\tau \in S_k$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tau}
(\sigma^{-1})^*v_i &=& v_{\tau(i)}, \\
\kappa_{i} &=& \kappa_{\tau(i)}.
\end{aligned}$$
Lifted symplectomorphisms {#ssec:liftsymp}
-------------------------
Let $\varphi$ be a compatible symplectomorphism of $M$. In order to clarify notation, the corresponding homomorphism on $T^n$ will be denoted by $\varphi_{T^n}$ from now on. It follows from Proposition \[prop:compatibility\] that $\varphi$ descends to a map on $\Delta$. In the following, we will be concerned with proving the opposite direction, namely that symmetries of $\Delta$ can be lifted to symplectomorphisms of $M$.
\[lem:liftsymp\] Let $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ be a symmetry of the moment polytope of $M$. Then $\sigma$ lifts to a compatible symplectomorphism $\varphi^{\sigma} \in \operatorname{Symp}(M,\omega)$ with $$\label{eq:phisigmacomp}
\mu \circ \varphi^{\sigma} = \sigma \circ \mu.$$
Our construction below will shows that $\varphi^{\sigma \tau} = \varphi^{\sigma} \circ \varphi^{\tau}$. Consequently, the symmetries of $\Delta$ yield a subgroup of the symplectomorphisms of $M$, that we identify with $\mathcal{S}_\Delta$.
The group of symmetries $\mathcal{S}_\Delta$ is a subgroup of $\operatorname{Symp}(M,{\omega})$.
The lift $\varphi^{\sigma}$ of $\sigma$ is not uniquely determined by . Nonetheless, any other $\varphi \in \operatorname{Symp}(M,\omega)$ satisfying $\mu \circ \varphi = \sigma \circ \mu$ is closely related to $\varphi^{\sigma}$. This will be discussed in Subsection \[ssec:classification\].
[[*Proof of Lemma \[lem:liftsymp\].* ]{}]{} The main idea of the proof is to view $M$ as a symplectic quotient of ${{\mathbb{C}}}^k$ via Delzant’s construction, then to let the permutation $\tau \in S_k$ defined by $(\ref{eq:tau})$ act on ${{\mathbb{C}}}^k$ by permutation of coordinates, and to check that this map descends to a symplectomorphism on $M$. Recall that the Delzant construction describes the toric manifold $M$ as a symplectic quotient of $({{\mathbb{C}}}^k,\omega_0)$ by $K = \ker \pi < T^k$. Let $\tau \in S_k$ be the permutation associated to $\sigma$ via equation . Since we have $\pi(e_i) = v_i$, applying $(\sigma^{-1})^*$ to $\mathfrak{t}^n$ corresponds to permuting coordinates according to $\tau$ on $\mathfrak{t}^k$, $$\label{eq:groupcomp2}
(\sigma^{-1})^*(\pi(e_i)) = \pi(e_{\tau(i)}).$$ Notice that this equation holds on the corresponding tori as well, since all maps involved preserve the corresponding lattices. This leads us to define the following permutations of coordinates $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: rhomap}
\Phi : {{\mathbb{C}}}^k & \rightarrow & {{\mathbb{C}}}^k, \quad (z_1,\ldots,z_k) \mapsto (z_{\tau(1)},\ldots,z_{\tau(k)}), \\\label{eq: rhoTkmap}
\Phi_{T^k} : T^k & \rightarrow & T^k, \quad (t_1,\ldots,t_k) \mapsto (t_{\tau(1)},\ldots,t_{\tau(k)}).\end{aligned}$$ The map $\Phi$ is symplectic and compatible with the $T^k$-action, $$\label{eq:rhocomp}
\Phi(t.z) = \Phi_{T^k}(t).\Phi(z), \quad t \in T^k, \; z \in {{\mathbb{C}}}^k.$$
We will prove that $\Phi$ is $K$-compatible as well. This allows us to apply Proposition \[prop:symplecticred\] to the reduction in the Delzant construction, which yields an induced symplectomorphism $\varphi^{\sigma} \in \operatorname{Symp}(M,\omega)$ on the quotient $M$ such that the following diagram commutes $$\label{eq:spacecomp}
\begin{tikzcd}
M \arrow[loop above]{d}{\varphi^{\sigma}}
& \nu^{-1}(0) \arrow[hook]{r} \arrow[loop above]{}{\Phi \vert_{\nu^{-1}(0)}} \arrow[two heads]{l}{/K}
& ({{\mathbb{C}}}^k, \omega_0) \arrow[loop above]{}{\Phi}.
\end{tikzcd}$$
Since $\Phi$ is compatible with the full $T^k$-action, it suffices to prove that $\Phi_{T^k}$ preserves the subgroup $K$ in order to prove that it is $K$-compatible. The identity \[eq:groupcomp2\] now reads $$\label{eq:groupcomp}
\sigma^* \circ \pi = \pi \circ \Phi^{-1}_{T^k}.$$
Recall that by definition $K = \ker \pi$ and hence $$\label{eq:kpreserved}
\Phi_{T^k} (K) = \Phi_{T^k} (\ker \pi) = \ker (\pi \circ \Phi_{T^k}^{-1}) = \ker (\sigma^* \circ \pi) = \ker \pi = K,$$ where we have used elementary properties of $\ker(\cdot)$. This proves that $\Phi$ is $K$-compatible and therefore that $\varphi^{\sigma} : M \rightarrow M$ is a well-defined symplectomorphism.\
We now show that the symplectomorphism $\varphi^{\sigma}$ is compatible with the Hamiltonian $T^n$-action on $M$ and induces the initially chosen symmetry $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ on $\Delta$, $$\label{eq:momentcomp}
\mu \circ \varphi^{\sigma} = \sigma \circ \mu.$$
Since $\Phi$ is $T^k$-compatible, Proposition \[prop:compatibility\] yields $$\nu_0 \circ \Phi = (\Phi_{T^k}^{-1})^* \circ \nu_0.$$ Adding all of the above maps to $(\ref{eq:toricdiag})$ we obtain the following commutative diagram. $$\begin{tikzcd}
M \arrow[loop above]{d}{\varphi^{\sigma}} \arrow{dr}{\mu}
& \nu^{-1}(0) \arrow[loop above]{}{\Phi\vert_{\nu^{-1}(0)}} \arrow[two heads]{l}[swap]{p}{/K} \arrow[hook]{r}{\iota}
& {{\mathbb{C}}}^k \arrow[loop above]{}{\Phi} \arrow{d}{\nu_0} \arrow{dr}{\nu} \\
0 \arrow{r}
& (\mathfrak{t}^n)^* \arrow[loop below]{d}{\sigma} \arrow{r}{\pi^*}
& (\mathfrak{t}^k)^* \arrow[loop below]{}{(\Phi_{T^k}^{-1})^*} \arrow{r}{j^*}
& \mathfrak{k}^* \arrow{r}
& 0
\end{tikzcd}$$ Since the moment map $\mu$ was defined by this diagram, the claim follows. [ $\Box$\
]{}
[ Let $M = S^2 = {{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ be equipped with its standard toric structure given in Example \[ex:s2delzant\]. The moment polytope is $\Delta = [-1,1]$ and there is only one non-trivial symmetry $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ given by $z\mapsto -z$. Since $\sigma$ exchanges the two normal vectors $v_1 = (1)$ and $v_2 = (-1)$, the corresponding permutation is the non-trivial permuation on two elements and $\Phi(z_1,z_2) = (z_2,z_1)$. This yields the lifted symplectomorphism $\varphi^{\sigma}([z_1 : z_2]) = [z_2 : z_1]$ on $S^2 \cong {{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$. When we view $S^2$ as embedded in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$, this symplectomorphism corresponds to the map $(x,y,z) \mapsto (x,-y,-z)$, which obviously induces $\sigma$ on $\Delta$. ]{}
[Let $M= {{\mathbb{C}}}P^2$ be equipped with its standard toric structure. Then $\mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ is isomorphic to the dihedral group $D_3$. The generators given in Example \[ex:symmetry\] correspond to the symplectomorphisms $$[z_0 : z_1 : z_2] \mapsto [z_2 : z_0 : z_1] \; \text{ and } \; [z_0 : z_1 : z_2] \mapsto [z_0 : z_2 : z_1].$$ ]{}
Lifted antisymplectic involutions {#ssec:liftantisymp}
---------------------------------
We restrict our attention to the case where $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ is an involution and prove Theorem \[thm: antilift\] stated in the introduction.
\[thm:liftanti\] Let $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ be an involution on the Delzant polytope of a toric symplectic manifold $(M,\omega,\mu)$. Then there is an antisymplectic involution $R^{\sigma}$ such that $$\label{eq:comprsigma}
\mu \circ R^{\sigma} = \sigma \circ \mu.$$
The idea of proof is as follows. By Lemma \[lem:liftsymp\], the involution $\sigma$ lifts to a symplectic involution $\varphi^{\sigma}$ on $M$. To make this map antisymplectic, we will compose it with a standard antisymplectic involution $R^0$, coming from the toric structure on $M$, and apply the following remark
\[rk:commuteinvol\] Let $S$ be a symplectic involution and $R$ an antisymplectic involution on a symplectic manifold $M$, such that $S$ and $R$ commute. Then $S \circ R$ defines an antisymplectic involution on $M$.
In order to prove the theorem, we will first construct the antisymplectic involution $R^0$ on $M$. This construction is well-known, see for example [@Gui Definition 2.6] or [@Haug Section 2.6]. We will prove it for the convenience of the reader and in order to expose its relation to the Delzant construction.
\[prop:stdantiinvol\] Let $(M,\omega,\mu)$ be a toric symplectic manifold. Then there is an antisymplectic involution $R^0$ which leaves the moment map invariant, i.e. $$\label{eq:rzerocomp}
\mu \circ R^0 = \mu.$$
Let $$\begin{tikzcd}
M
& \nu^{-1}(0) \arrow[two heads]{l}[swap]{\pi}{/K} \arrow[hook]{r}{\iota}
& {{\mathbb{C}}}^k
\end{tikzcd}$$ denote the reduction diagram of the Delzant construction. Take the standard antisymplectic involution on ${{\mathbb{C}}}^k$ defined by complex conjugation $\rho^0(z_1,...,z_k) = (\overline{z}_1,...,\overline{z}_k)$. It descends to an antisymplectic involution on the quotient $M$ satisfying equation \[eq:rzerocomp\]. Indeed, we have $$\rho^0(t.z) = t^{-1}.\rho^0(z), \quad t \in T^k, z \in {{\mathbb{C}}}^k.$$ Hence, $\rho^0$ is compatible in the sense of Definition \[def:compatibility\] and the claim follows from Proposition \[prop:symplecticred\], since $\rho^0$ leaves the moment map $\nu_0$ invariant. [ $\Box$\
]{}
\[rk:reallocus\] In the context of algebraic geometry, the fixed point set $\operatorname{Fix}R^0$ of the above involution is commonly referred to as *real locus* of the toric variety $M$. See also [@DJ] for a topological generalization of real toric varieties.
Alternatively, $R^0$ can be viewed as follows. The pre-image $\mu^{-1}(\mathring{\Delta}) \subset M$ of the interior of $\Delta$ is equivariantly symplectomorphic to the product $T^n \times \mathring{\Delta} \subset T^*T^n$ equipped with the natural symplectic form. In the language of Hamiltonian dynamics, this symplectomorphism is referred to as *global action-angle coordinates*, since it corresponds to Arnold–Liouville coordinates on an open dense subset of $M$. There is a natural antisymplectic involution on $T^n \times \mathring{\Delta}$ given by group inversion on the $T^n$-component. This involution extends to all of $M$ and corresponds to $R^0$.
[[*Proof of Theorem \[thm:liftanti\].* ]{}]{} Let $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ be an involution of the moment polytope and $\varphi^{\sigma}$ its symplectic lift to $M$ given by Lemma \[lem:liftsymp\]. We will show that $\varphi^{\sigma}$ and $R^0$ commute and apply Remark \[rk:commuteinvol\]. Recall from the proof of Lemma \[lem:liftsymp\] that $\varphi^{\sigma}$ is induced by a coordinate permutation $\Phi(z_1,\ldots,z_k) = (z_{\tau(1)},\ldots,z_{\tau(k)})$ on ${{\mathbb{C}}}^k$. Similarly, $R^0$ is induced by complex conjugation $\rho^0(z_1,...,z_k) = (\overline{z}_1,...,\overline{z}_k)$. Since the maps $\Phi$ and $\rho^0$ commute, the corresponding maps $\varphi^{\sigma}$ and $R^0$ on $M$ commute as well. Hence we can define the antisymplectic involution $$R^{\sigma} = R^0 \circ \varphi^{\sigma}.$$ The compatibility condition $(\ref{eq:comprsigma})$ follows from equations $(\ref{eq:phisigmacomp})$ and $(\ref{eq:rzerocomp})$. [ $\Box$\
]{}
The following alternative view of $R^{\sigma}$ will be used in Section \[sec: realdelconst\]. Define $$\label{eq:rhodef}
\rho = \rho^0 \circ \Phi : {{\mathbb{C}}}^k \rightarrow {{\mathbb{C}}}^k, \quad (z_1,\ldots,z_k) \mapsto (\overline{z}_{\tau(1)},\ldots,\overline{z}_{\tau(k)}).$$ This is a compatible antisymplectic involution. The corresponding group involution is given by $$\label{eq:rhot}
\rho_{T^k} = \rho^0_{T^k} \circ \Phi_{T^k} : T^k \rightarrow T^k, \quad (t_1,\dots,t_k) \mapsto (t^{-1}_{\tau(1)},\dots,t^{-1}_{\tau(k)}).$$ Since $\rho^0_{T^k}$ and $\Phi_{T^k}$ both preserve $K$ (see equation \[eq:kpreserved\]), so does $\rho_{T^k}$ and hence $\rho$ is $K$-compatible. By Proposition \[prop:symplecticred\], $\rho$ induces an antisymplectic involution $R^{\sigma}$ on $M$. By the compatibility of $R^{\sigma}$, there is an involutive automorphism $R^{\sigma}_{T^n}$ on the torus such that $R^{\sigma}(t.p)=R^{\sigma}_{T^n}(t).R^{\sigma}(p)$. This automorphism is related to $\rho_{T^k}$ via $$\label{eq:antigroupcomp}
R^{\sigma}_{T^n}\circ \pi = \pi \circ \rho_{T^k}.$$ Note that this is a direct analogue of $(\ref{eq:groupcomp})$.
Classification of compatible maps {#ssec:classification}
---------------------------------
The lifts constructed in Sections $\ref{ssec:liftsymp}$ and $\ref{ssec:liftantisymp}$ are not unique with respect to their respective compatibility conditions. However, any two maps inducing the same symmetry $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ on the moment polytope are closely related. We start by a lemma which follows from Proposition \[prop:compatibility\].
\[lem:equivariantsympl\] Let $\varphi$ be a symplectomorphism on a toric symplectic manifold $(M,\omega,\mu)$ which leaves the moment map invariant, i.e. $\mu \circ \varphi = \mu$. Then $\varphi$ is of the form $$\label{eq:fibrerot}
p \mapsto {\vartheta}(\mu(p)).p$$ for a smooth map[^1] ${\vartheta}: \Delta \rightarrow T^n$.
Symplectomorphisms of the form \[eq:fibrerot\] will be denoted by $\psi_{{\vartheta}} : M \rightarrow M$. These maps rotate a given fibre $\mu^{-1}(b)$ by an angle ${\vartheta}(b) \in T^n$.\
[[*Proof of Lemma \[lem:equivariantsympl\].* ]{}]{} Let $\varphi$ be a symplectomorphism which leaves the moment map invariant. Hence $\varphi$ preserves the torus fibres, and since $T^n$ acts transitively on each fibre, there is a smooth map $\tilde{{\vartheta}} : M \rightarrow T^n$ such that $\varphi$ takes the form $$\varphi(p) = \tilde{{\vartheta}}(p).p, \quad p \in M.$$ We will prove that $\tilde{{\vartheta}}(p)=\tilde{{\vartheta}}(p')$ whenever $p$ and $p'$ lie in the same fibre, and thus $\tilde{{\vartheta}}$ factors through $\Delta$ to yield a map ${\vartheta}: \Delta \rightarrow T^n$. By , the symplectomorphism $\varphi$ is $T^n$-equivariant, i.e. $$\varphi(t.p) = t.\varphi(p), \quad t \in T^n, p \in M.$$ Now let $p,p' \in M$ be points in the fibre over $b\in \Delta$. Since $T^n$ acts transitively on $\mu^{-1}(b)$, there is $t \in T^n$ such that $p' = t. p$. Using the $T^n$-equivariance of $\varphi$, we compute $$\tilde{{\vartheta}}(p').p' = \varphi(p') = \varphi(t.p) = t.\varphi(p) = (t\tilde{{\vartheta}}(p)).p = (\tilde{{\vartheta}}(p) t).p =\tilde{{\vartheta}}(p).p'.$$ Since the action of $T^n$ is free on an open dense subset of $M$, we deduce that $\tilde{{\vartheta}}(p)=\tilde{{\vartheta}}(p')$ and thus $\tilde{{\vartheta}}$ is constant on fibres. [ $\Box$\
]{}
Lemma \[lem:equivariantsympl\] allows us to classify compatible symplectomorphisms as well as compatible antisymplectic involutions. We will use the convention established in \[ssec:liftsymp\] and \[ssec:liftantisymp\] and denote the standard lift of $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ by $\varphi^{\sigma}$ and $R^{\sigma}$, respectively.
Let $\varphi$ be a compatible symplectomorphism on $M$ such that $\mu \circ \varphi = \sigma \circ \mu$, for $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$. Then there is a smooth map ${\vartheta}: \Delta \rightarrow T^n$ such that $$\varphi = \psi_{{\vartheta}} \circ \varphi^{\sigma}.$$
By the construction of $\varphi^{\sigma}$, we have $\mu \circ \varphi^{\sigma} = \sigma \circ \mu$ and hence we can apply Lemma \[lem:equivariantsympl\] to the symplectomorphism $\varphi \circ (\varphi^{\sigma})^{-1}$ to prove the claim. [ $\Box$\
]{}
Let $R$ be a compatible antisymplectic involution on $M$ such that $\mu \circ R = \sigma \circ \mu$, for $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$. Then there is a smooth map ${\vartheta}: \Delta \rightarrow T^n$ such that $$\label{eq:rrsigma}
R = \psi_{{\vartheta}} \circ R^{\sigma}.$$ Furthermore, ${\vartheta}$ satisfies $R^{\sigma}_{T^n} ({\vartheta}( \sigma(x))) = {\vartheta}(x)^{-1}$ for all $x \in \Delta$.
Again, apply Lemma \[lem:equivariantsympl\] to the symplectomorphism $R \circ (R^{\sigma})^{-1}$, to prove the first claim. For the condition on ${\vartheta}$, we use and compute, $$p = R(R(p)) = (\psi_{{\vartheta}} \circ R^{\sigma} \circ \psi_{{\vartheta}} \circ R^{\sigma}) (p) = ({\vartheta}(x) R^{\sigma}_{T^n}({\vartheta}(\sigma(x))).p.$$ Since $T^n$ acts freely on an open dense set in $M$, the claim follows. [ $\Box$\
]{}
Let $R_1,R_2 \colon M \rightarrow M$ be two compatible antisymplectic involutions satisfying $\mu \circ R = \sigma \circ \mu$, for some $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$. Even though they are related by $(\ref{eq:rrsigma})$, their respective fixed point sets may have different topology. For example, take $M={{\mathbb{C}}}P^3$ equipped with its standard toric structure and define $$\begin{aligned}
R_1[z_0:z_1:z_2:z_3] &=& [\bar{z}_1:\bar{z}_0:\bar{z}_3:\bar{z}_2], \\
R_2[z_0:z_1:z_2:z_3] &=& [-\bar{z}_1:\bar{z}_0:-\bar{z}_3:\bar{z}_2].\end{aligned}$$ Both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are compatible with $\sigma(x,y,z)=(-x-y-z,z,y)$, but $\operatorname{Fix}R_1 \cong {{\mathbb{R}}}P^3$ and $\operatorname{Fix}R_2 = \varnothing$. See Example \[ex: cp3\] and [@Kim Example 2.4] for details.
Real Delzant construction {#sec: realdelconst}
=========================
In this section, we describe in detail the real Delzant construction stated in Section \[sec: intro\]. Let $(M^{2n},{\omega},\mu)$ be a toric symplectic manifold with moment polytope $\Delta=\mu(M)$. By the Delzant construction (Section \[sec: delzantconst\]), we can write $$M=\nu^{-1}(0)/K,$$ where $\nu$ is defined as in and $\pi\colon T^k\to T^n$ is the characteristic map with kernel $K=\ker \pi$. Let $R=R^{\sigma}$ be the standard antisymplectic involution on $M$ given by the lift of an involution $\sigma\in \mathcal{S}_\Delta$ from Theorem \[thm:liftanti\]. By Proposition \[prop:compatibility\] there is a group involution $R_{T^n}$ of $T^n$ satisfying . Recall that $$\rho_{T^k}(t_1,\dots,t_k)=(t^{-1}_{\tau(1)},\dots,t^{-1}_{\tau(k)})$$ is the group involution of $T^k$ defined in equation . Here $\tau\in S_k$ is the permutation satisfying . By Equation \[eq:antigroupcomp\], we see that $\pi\big(\operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^k})\big) \subset \operatorname{Fix}(R_{T^n})$ and thus we can define
The [**characteristic map**]{} $\pi_R$ associated to $L=\operatorname{Fix}(R)$ is the group homomorphism defined as the restriction $$\pi_R:=\pi|_{\operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^k})}\colon \operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^k})\to \operatorname{Fix}(R_{T^n}).$$
We write $K_R := \ker \pi_R = K\cap \operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^k})$ and denote its Lie algebra by $\mathfrak{k}_R$. Recall that $$\rho(z_1,\dots,z_k)=(\bar{z}_{\tau(1)},\dots,\bar{z}_{\tau(k)})$$ is the antisymplectic involution of ${{\mathbb{C}}}^k$ given in .We construct the real analogue of the moment map $\nu\colon {{\mathbb{C}}}^k\to \mathfrak{k}^*$ defined in as follows. We define $$\nu_R\colon \operatorname{Fix}(\rho)\to (\mathfrak{k}/\mathfrak{k}_R)^*, \quad \nu_R(z)[\xi]_{\mathfrak{k}_R}:=\langle \nu(z),\xi \rangle \quad \text{for $[\xi]_{\mathfrak{k}_R}\in \mathfrak{k}/\mathfrak{k}_R$}.$$ It follows from Lemma \[lem: nuRwelldef\] below that $\nu_R$ is well-defined. Recall from Section \[ssec:liftantisymp\] that $\rho_{T^k}$ preserves $K$ and hence we write $$\rho_K:=\rho_{T^k}|_K\colon K\to K$$ for the group involution on $K$ with $\operatorname{Fix}(\rho_K)=K_R$. One checks that $\operatorname{Fix}((\rho_K)_*)=\mathfrak{k}_R$ and $\operatorname{Fix}(\rho_K^*)=\mathfrak{k}_R^*$.
\[lem: nuRwelldef\] We have $\langle\nu(z), \xi\rangle=0$ for all $z\in \operatorname{Fix}(\rho)$ and $\xi\in \mathfrak{k}_R$.
Let $z\in \operatorname{Fix}(\rho)$. Using Proposition \[prop:compatibility\], we verify that $$\begin{aligned}
\nu(z) &= \nu(\rho(z))\\
&= (j^* \circ \nu_0\circ \rho)(z)\\
&= -(j^* \circ \rho_{T^k}^* \circ \nu_0)(z)\\
&= -(\rho_K^* \circ j^*\circ \nu_0)(z)\\
&= -\rho_K^* (\nu (z)).\end{aligned}$$ Now, for any $\xi\in \mathfrak{k}_R$ we see that $$\langle\nu(z), \xi\rangle=-\langle \rho_K^*\big(\nu(z)\big),\xi\rangle=-\langle\nu(z),(\rho_K)_*(\xi)\rangle=-\langle\nu(z),\xi\rangle,$$ which yields $\langle\nu(z),\xi\rangle=0$.
We observe that $$\nu^{-1}_R(0) =\nu^{-1} (0) \cap \operatorname{Fix}(\rho)=\operatorname{Fix}(\rho|_{\nu^{-1}(0)}).$$ Since $\nu_R^{-1}(0)$ is given by the fixed point set of the involution $\rho|_{\nu^{-1}(0)}$ and $\nu^{-1}(0)$ is compact, $\nu_R^{-1}(0)$ is a closed submanifold of $\nu^{-1}(0)$.
In the spirit of the Delzant construction, one can also prove that $0\in (\mathfrak{k}/\mathfrak{k}_R)^*$ is a regular value of $\nu_R\colon \operatorname{Fix}(\rho)\to (\mathfrak{k}/\mathfrak{k}_R)^*$. Hence, $\nu_R^{-1}(0)$ is a closed submanifold of $\nu^{-1}(0)$ of dimension $n+\dim K_R$.
Since the map $\nu$ is $T^k$-invariant and $K$ acts freely on $\nu^{-1}(0)$, the action of $K_R$ on $\nu_R^{-1}(0)$ is well-defined and free. As a result, the quotient $\nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R$ is a closed manifold. The natural inclusion $$\nu_R^{-1}(0){\ensuremath{\lhook\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow}}\nu^{-1}(0)$$ induces the well-defined smooth map on the quotients $$I\colon \nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R\to \nu^{-1}(0)/K,\quad I({K_R}z) = Kz.$$ Recall that $M=\nu^{-1}(0)/K$.
The map $I\colon \nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R\to \nu^{-1}(0)/K$ is an embedding.
Since $\nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R$ is compact, it suffices to show that $I$ and its differential are injective.
Let $z_1,z_2\in \nu_R^{-1}(0)$ such that $I(K_Rz_1)=I(K_Rz_2)$. Then there is an element $t\in K$ such that $t.z_1=z_2$. Applying the involution $\rho$ to both sides, we get $$\rho_K (t). z_1=\rho_K (t).\rho(z_1)=\rho(z_2)=z_2=t.z_1.$$ Since $K$ acts freely on $\nu^{-1}(0)$, we conclude that $\rho_K(t)=t$ and hence $t\in \operatorname{Fix}(\rho_K)=K_R$. Therefore $K_Rz_1=K_Rz_2$.
We are left with showing that the differential of $I$ is injective. Notice that $$T_{z} \big(\nu_{R}^{-1}(0)/K_R\big) \cong T_z \nu^{-1}_{R}(0)/T_z K_Rz$$ and $$T_{z} \big(\nu^{-1}(0)/K \big) \cong T_z \nu^{-1}(0)/T_z Kz$$ for all $z\in \nu^{-1}_{R}(0)$. In order to prove that the differential of $I$ is injective, it suffices to prove that $T_{z} \big(\nu_{R}^{-1}(0)/K_R\big)$ is a subspace of $T_{z} \big(\nu^{-1}(0)/K \big)$, which follows from $$\label{eq:tangentspace}
T_z K_Rz =T_z Kz \cap T_z \nu^{-1}_R (0).$$ To prove this identity, consider the following representations of tangent spaces $$\begin{aligned}
T_z K_Rz &= \bigg\{X\in T_z \nu^{-1}_R (0)\mid X=\frac{d}{dt} \exp(t\xi).z,\ \xi\in \mathfrak{k}_R\bigg\}\\
&=\bigg\{X\in T_z \nu^{-1}(0) \mid X=\frac{d}{dt} \exp(t\xi).z,\ \xi\in \mathfrak{k}_R \text{ and } \rho_* X=X\bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ $$T_z Kz \cap T_z \nu^{-1}_R (0) = \bigg\{X\in T_z \nu^{-1}(0) \mid X=\frac{d}{dt} \exp(t\xi).z,\ \xi\in \mathfrak{k} \text{ and } \rho_* X=X\bigg\}.$$ [**Claim.**]{} *Let $\xi\in \mathfrak{k}$ and $X=\frac{d}{dt}\exp(t\xi).z$. If $\rho_*X=X$, then $(\rho_K)_* \xi=\xi$.*
By direct computation, we verify that $$\frac{d}{dt}\exp(t\xi).z=\frac{d}{dt}\exp(({\rho_K})_* t\xi).z.$$ Since the action of $K$ on $\nu^{-1}(0)$ is free, we have that $(\rho_K)_*\xi=\xi$, and so the claim follows.
We are now in a position to prove the main theorem of the paper.
Since we already know that $I\colon \nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R\to M$ is an embedding, it suffices to show that $\operatorname{Fix}(R)=I(\nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R)$. We prove this claim by double inclusion. Recall from Section \[ssec:liftantisymp\] that $\rho$ is $K$-compatible with $\rho_{T^k}$, whence $R\colon M\to M$ is given by $$R(Kz) = K\rho(z)\quad \text{for $z\in \nu^{-1}(0)$}.$$ Let $K_Rz\in \nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R$. Since $\rho(z)=z$, we have $R(Kz)=Kz=I(K_Rz)$. This shows that $I(\nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R)\subset \operatorname{Fix}(R)$, and hence $\operatorname{Fix}(R)$ is not empty. To prove the other inclusion, let $Kz\in \operatorname{Fix}(R)$. Since $R(Kz)=K\rho(z)=Kz$, there exists $t\in K$ such that $\rho(z) = t.z$. We observe that $$z=\rho(t.z) = \rho_K(t).\rho(z) = \rho_K(t)t.z.$$ Since the $K$-action is free, we have $\rho_K(t)=t^{-1}$. Recalling that $K$ is a subtorus, we can choose $\tilde{t}\in K$ such that $\tilde{t}^2=t$ and $\rho_K(\tilde{t})=\tilde{t}^{-1}$. Finally, we get $$\rho(\tilde{t}.z) = \rho_K(\tilde{t}).\rho(z) = \rho_K(\tilde{t})t.z = \rho_K(\tilde{t})\tilde{t}^2.z = \tilde{t}.z.$$ Hence, $Kz=K(\tilde{t}.z)=I(K_R(\tilde{t}.z))$. This implies that $\operatorname{Fix}(R)\subset I(\nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R)$, which completes the proof.
\[ex: cp3\] Consider complex projective space ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^3$ with moment map $$\mu[z_0:z_1:z_2:z_3] = \frac{4}{\|z\|^2}(|z_1|^2,|z_2|^2,|z_3|^2)-(1,1,1),$$ where $\|z\|^2=\sum_{j=0}^3|z_j|^2$. We subtract $(1,1,1)$ in order for the normalization $\int_{{{\mathbb{C}}}P^3} \mu \omega^3 =0$ to hold. The moment polytope is the 3-simplex given as the convex hull of the vectors $$\left\{ (-1,-1,-1),(-1,-1,3),(-1,3,-1),(3,-1,-1) \right\}.$$ Let $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$ be the involution defined by $\sigma(x,y,z)=(-x-y-z,z,y)$. Its standard lift is given by the antisymplectic involution $$R^{\sigma}[z_0:z_1:z_2:z_3]=[\bar{z}_1:\bar{z}_0:\bar{z}_3:\bar{z}_2].$$ Using Theorem \[thm: realdelzant\], we verify that $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma})$ is diffeomorphic to ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^3$. Figure \[fig:cp3\] describes the fixed point set of $\sigma$ in the moment polytope $\Delta$ of ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^3$.
(0,0)–(0,1)–(1,-0.58)–(0,0); (0,1)–(1.5,0)–(1,-0.58)–(0,1); (0,0)–(1.5,0); (0.49,-0.29)–(0.75,0.5); (0,0)–(0,1)–(1.5,0)–(1,-0.58)–(0,0); (0,1)–(1,-0.58);
(0,0)–(0.75,0); (0.75,0)–(1.8,0); (0,0)–(0.75,0); (0.75,0)–(2,0); (0, 0)–(0, 0.5); (0,0.5)–(0,1.5);
We take the primitive outward pointing normal vectors of each facet of $\Delta$, $$v_1 = (0, -1, 0),\quad
v_2 = (0, 0, -1),\quad
v_3 = (-1, 0, 0),\quad
v_4 = (1,1,1),$$ with $\kappa_1=\dots=\kappa_4=1$, and hence $$\pi=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -1 & 1 \\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Since $\sigma^*v_1 = v_2$ and $\sigma^*v_3 = v_4$, we obtain two involutions $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{T^4}(t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4) &=& (t_2^{-1}, t_1^{-1}, t_4^{-1}, t_3^{-1}), \\
\rho(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4) &=& (\bar{z}_2, \bar{z}_1, \bar{z}_4, \bar{z}_3).\end{aligned}$$ One can direct check that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^4}) &=&
\{(t,t^{-1},s,s^{-1})\mid t,s\in S^1 \},\\
\operatorname{Fix}(\rho) &=& \{(z,\bar{z},w,\bar{w}) \mid z,w\in {{\mathbb{C}}}\}. \end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
K &=& \ker \pi = \{(t,t,t,t)\mid t\in S^1\}\cong S^1,\\
\nu^{-1}(0) &=& \left\{ (z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4) \mid \sum_{j=1}^4|z_j|^2 = 2 \right\},\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
K_R &=& K\cap \operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^4})=\{ (1,1,1,1), (-1,-1,-1,-1) \}\cong {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2, \\
\nu_R^{-1}(0) &=& \nu^{-1}(0)\cap \operatorname{Fix}(\rho)=\left\{(z,\bar{z},w,\bar{w})\mid |z|^2 +|w|^2 = 1\right\}\cong S^3.\end{aligned}$$ Since $K_R$ acts by the antipodal action on $\nu_R^{-1}(0)$, we deduce that $\nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R \cong {{\mathbb{R}}}P^3$.
Convexity and Tightness
=======================
In this section we shall prove Theorem \[thm: tightconvex\]. We follow the same setup as in Section \[sec: realdelconst\]. Let $(M,{\omega},\mu)$ be a toric symplectic manifold with moment polytope $\Delta=\mu(M)$. By the Delzant construction, we can write $M=\nu^{-1}(0)/K$. Suppose that $R$ is the antisymplectic involution of $M$ which is the lift of an involution $\sigma\in \mathcal{S}_{\Delta}$, see Theorem \[thm:liftanti\].
We know that $\operatorname{Fix}(\sigma)=\Delta \cap \{x\in \mathfrak{t}^*\mid \sigma(x)=x\}$ and that the Delzant polytope is convex. Since the intersection of two convex sets is again convex, so is $\operatorname{Fix}(\sigma)$.
\[thm: convexity\] We have $\operatorname{Fix}(\sigma)=\mu(L)$. In particular, $L$ is nonempty and $\mu(L)$ is convex.
Let $x\in \mu (L)$. Then there is an element $Kz\in M=\nu^{-1}(0)/K$ such that $R(Kz) = Kz$ and $\mu(Kz)=x$. Since $R$ is compatible, we obtain $$\sigma(x)=\sigma(\mu(Kz))=\mu(R(Kz))=\mu(Kz)=x.$$ This imples that $\mu(L)\subset\operatorname{Fix}(\sigma)$.
Let $x\in \operatorname{Fix}(\sigma)\subset\Delta$ and let $Kz \in M$ with $\mu(Kz)=x$. We show that there is $\tilde{t} \in T^n$ such that $\tilde{t}.Kz \in L$. Note that $$\mu(K\rho(z))=\mu(R(Kz))=\sigma(\mu(Kz))=\sigma(x)=x=\mu(Kz),$$ and hence there is an element $t\in T^n$ such that $K\rho(z)=t.Kz$. This follows from the fact that $T^n$ acts transitively on fibres. Applying the involution $R$, we obtain $$\label{equ : conv}
Kz = R_{T^n} (t)t.Kz.$$ [**Claim.**]{} *There exists $\tilde{t}\in T^n$ such that $\tilde{t}^2=t$ and $Kz=R_{T^n}(\tilde{t})\tilde{t}.Kz$.*
The claim is obvious in case $t=1$ and thus we assume that $t \neq 1$. Denote by $S^1\langle t\rangle$ the subgroup of $T^n$ generated by $t\in T^n$ and consider the group homomorphism $$\phi\colon S^1\langle t \rangle \to T^n, \quad \phi(s)=R_{T^n}(s)s.$$ Since the stabilizer $\operatorname{Stab}(Kz)$ of the $T^n$-action at the point $Kz\in M$ is a subtorus and, by , $\phi(t)=R_{T^n}(t)t\in \operatorname{Stab}(Kz)$, we have $\operatorname{Im}\phi \le \operatorname{Stab}(Kz)$. If we choose $\tilde{t}\in S^1\langle t\rangle$ such that $\tilde{t}^2=t$, then $\phi(\tilde{t})=R_{T^n}(\tilde{t})\tilde{t}\in \operatorname{Stab}(Kz)$. Hence, the claim follows.
In order to show $\tilde{t}.Kz\in L= \operatorname{Fix}(R)$, we verify $$R(\tilde{t}.Kz)=R_{T^n}(\tilde{t}).R(Kz)=R_{T^n}(\tilde{t})t.Kz=R_{T^n}(\tilde{t})\tilde{t}^2.Kz=\tilde{t}.Kz.$$ This completes the proof.
We denote the set of critical points of $f\in C^{\infty}(M)$ by $\operatorname{Crit}(f)$. We recall Duistermaat’s tightness theorem [@Duist Theorem 3.1].
\[thm: duistermaat\] Let $(M,\omega,\mu)$ be a compact connected Hamiltonian $T^n$-space. Suppose that $R$ is an antisymplectic involution on $M$ such that $\mu\circ R=\mu$ and $L=\operatorname{Fix}(R)$ is nonempty. For any $\xi\in \mathfrak{t}$ we have $$\dim H_{*} (L;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2)= \dim H_{*} (\operatorname{Crit}(H_{\xi}|_L);{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2).$$
Our tightness result is a corollary of this theorem.
The convexity result follows from Theorem \[thm: convexity\]. To prove the tightness, let $\sigma^*$ denote the transpose of $\sigma \in \operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}(\mathfrak{t}^n)^*$. Then $\sigma^*$ is an involution on $\mathfrak{t}^n$ and for any $\xi \in \mathfrak{t}^n$ we can decompose $\xi$ as $\xi=\xi_1 +\xi_2$ with $\sigma^* \xi_1 = -\xi_1$ and $\sigma^* \xi_2 =\xi_2$. Note that $H_{\xi}=H_{\xi_1}+H_{\xi_2}$. If $x\in \operatorname{Fix}(R)$, we have $$\langle \mu(x), \xi_1 \rangle = \langle \mu(R(x)), \xi_1 \rangle
= \langle \sigma(\mu(x)), \xi_1 \rangle
= \langle \mu(x), \sigma^* \xi_1 \rangle
= \langle \mu(x), -\xi_1 \rangle,$$ which implies $$\label{eq: xi1vanish}
H_{\xi_1}|_L\equiv 0.$$ Furthermore, we see that $$\langle \mu \circ R, \xi_2 \rangle = \langle \sigma \circ \mu, \xi_2 \rangle = \langle \mu, \sigma^* \xi_2 \rangle = \langle \mu, \xi_2 \rangle.$$ We take the subtorus $T_0 \stackrel{j} \hookrightarrow T^n$ such that $ \operatorname{Lie}(T_0) = \mathfrak{t}_0 = \{\xi\in \mathfrak{t}^n \mid \sigma^* \xi =\xi\}$, i.e., $T_0$ is the identity component of $\operatorname{Fix}(\sigma^*)$. Then the induced $T_0$-action on $M$ is Hamiltonian and has moment map $\tilde{\mu}:=j^*\mu$ with $\tilde{\mu} \circ R = \tilde{\mu}$. Since $\xi_2\in \mathfrak{t}_0$ by Theorem \[thm: duistermaat\] and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\dim H_{*} (L;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2) &=& \dim H_{*} (\operatorname{Crit}(H_{\xi_2}|_L);{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2) \\
&=& \dim H_{*} (\operatorname{Crit}(H_{\xi}|_L);{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2). \end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
The following example illustrates that the tightness and convexity do not hold if we drop the compatible condition on the real Lagrangian $L=\operatorname{Fix}(R)$.
\[ex: tightconvexfails\] Consider the two-sphere $S^2$ equipped with the Euclidean area form. Any embedded loop in $S^2$ dividing $S^2$ into two discs of equal area is a real Lagrangian. Pick $\xi=1\in \mathfrak{t}\cong {{\mathbb{R}}}$ so that $\mu=H_\xi$. It is not difficult to find a real Lagrangian $L$ in $S^2$ such that $\operatorname{Crit}(H_\xi|_L)$ consists of four critical points, see Figure \[fig: tightnessfails\]. Hence, tightness fails for the real Lagrangian $L\cong S^1$, namely, $$\dim H_{*} (L;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2)= 2 \neq 4 =\dim H_{*} (\operatorname{Crit}(H_{\xi}|_{L});{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2).$$
[0.48]{}
(0,0) circle (2cm); (5,-2)–(5,2); (5,-2) circle (1.5pt); (5,2) circle (1.5pt); (0,0) +(180:2) arc (180:360:2 and 0.3); (0,0) +(0:2) arc (0:180:2 and 0.3); (-2,0) .. controls +(85:1.3) and +(105:1.2) .. (0,-0.3); (0,-0.3) .. controls +(285:1.2) and +(270:1) .. (2,0); (-2,0) .. controls +(270:1.3) and +(250:1) .. (0,0.3); (0,0.3) .. controls +(60:1) and +(90:1) .. (2,0); (0,0) circle (2cm); (-1.45,-0.725) circle (2pt); (-1.25,0.8) circle (2pt); (1.1,-0.95) circle (2pt); (1.25,0.85) circle (2pt); (3,0)–node\[above\][$\mu$]{}(4,0); (0, -2.3)–(1, -2.3); (0, 2.3)–(1, 2.8);
[0.48]{}
(-1.4,-1.4) grid (1.4,1.4); (-1,-1)–(-1,1)–(1,1)–(1,-1)–(-1,-1);
(-1,1)–(1,-1); (-1.4,0)–(1.4,0); (0,-1.4)–(0,1.4);
(0,0) ellipse (0.33cm and 0.15cm); (-0.32,0) ellipse (0.3cm and 0.23cm);
(0.32,0) ellipse (0.3cm and 0.23cm); (0.02, 0)–(0.5, 0)–(0.5, 0.5)–(0.02, 0.5)–(0.02, 0); (-0.02, 0)–(-0.5, 0)–(-0.5, -0.5)–(-0.02, -0.5)–(-0.02, 0); (-0.7, 0)–(0.7,0); (-0.008, -0.02)–(0.01, -0.02)–(0.008, 0.02)–(-0.01, 0.02)–(-0.008, -0.02);
One can easily find a real Lagrangian torus $L$ in $S^2\times S^2$ such that $\mu(L)$ is not convex. Indeed, let $$L'=\operatorname{Fix}(R')=\{(x,-x) \mid x\in S^2\}$$ be the real Lagrangian in $S^2\times S^2$, where $R'(x,y)=(-y,-x)$. Note that $\mu(L')=\{(\xi,-\xi) \mid \xi\in \mathfrak{t}^* \}\cap \Box$ with $\Box=\mu(S^2\times S^2)$. Then one can choose a suitable Hamiltonian diffeomorphism $\phi$ on $S^2\times S^2$ which is compactly supported in $\mu^{-1}(U_0)$, where $U_0\subset \Box$ is a small open set of the origin, such that the antisymplectic involution $R:=\phi \circ R'\circ \phi^{-1}$ has fixed point set $\operatorname{Fix}(R)=\phi(\operatorname{Fix}(R'))$ whose moment image is wiggled near the origin. See Figure \[fig: convexityfails\].
Real Lagrangians in toric symplectic del Pezzo surfaces {#sec: delpezzo}
=======================================================
As an application of our real Delzant construction, we study real Lagrangians in toric symplectic del Pezzo surfaces. Recall that a *symplectic del Pezzo surface* is one the following symplectic 4-manifolds:
1. $Q:=S^2 \times S^2$ the product of the 2-sphere $(S^2,{\omega})$, where ${\omega}$ denotes an area form on $S^2$,
2. $X_k:={{\mathbb{C}}}P^2\# k\overline{{{\mathbb{C}}}P^2}$ the $k$-fold monotone symplectic blow-up of ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2$ for $0\le k\le 8$.
Every closed monotone symplectic 4-manifold is one of the symplectic del Pezzo surfaces and that the monotone symplectic structures on del Pezzo surfaces are unique, see [@Vianna Section 1] for the references. The following is an analogue of [@Evans Lemma 2.3], which gives a homological obstruction for being Lagrangian in symplectic del Pezzo surfaces.
\[lem: lagindelpezzo\] Symplectic del Pezzo surfaces contain no Lagrangian $\Sigma_g$ for all $g\ge 2$, where $\Sigma_g$ denotes the closed oriented surface of genus $g$. Furthermore, $X_1$ does not contain any Lagrangian sphere.
Let $L$ be an orientable Lagrangian in a symplectic del Pezzo surface $X$. It suffices to show that $\chi(L)\ge 0$. Since $L$ is Lagrangian and $X$ is monotone, the homology class $[L]\in H_2(M;{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ satisfies $$\label{eq:cL}
c_1(X)[L]=0,\quad [L]\cdot[L]=-\chi(L).$$ The second property follows from the Weinstein neighborhood theorem, which asserts that the normal bundle of $L$ is isomorphic to $T^*L$, and from $\dim L=2$.\
\
[**Case of $Q$.**]{} The first Chern class $c_1(Q)$ is Poincaré dual to $2\alpha+2\beta$, where $\alpha=[S^2\times \{pt\}]$ and $\beta=[\{pt\}\times S^2]$ are generators of $H_2(Q;{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. Let $[L]=a\alpha+b\beta$ for $a,b\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Then the identities become $$2a+2b=0,\quad 2ab=-\chi(L),$$ which shows that $\chi(L)=2 b^2\ge 0$.\
\
[**Case of $X_k$ for $1\le k\le 8$.**]{} Note that $c_1(X_k)$ is Poincaré dual to the class $$3H-\sum_{j=1}^kE_j\in H_2(X_k;{{\mathbb{Z}}}),$$ where $H=[{{\mathbb{C}}}P^1]$ and the $E_j$ are the classes of the exceptional spheres. Write $[L]=aH-\sum_{j=1}^kb_jE_j$. Equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
3a-\sum_{j=1}^k b_j=0,\quad a^2-\sum_{j=1}^kb_j^2=-\chi(L),\end{aligned}$$ which yields $$9\sum_{j=1}^kb_j^2-\left(\sum_{j=1}^k b_j\right)^2=9\cdot \chi(L).$$ This identity can be rewritten as $$9\chi(L)=(9-k)\sum_{j=1}^kb_j^2+\sum_{i<j}(b_i-b_j)^2.$$ Since $k \leq 8$ we conclude that $\chi (L) \geq 0$ also in this case.
In order to prove the last statement, note that if $L$ were a Lagrangian sphere in $X_1$ with $[L]=aH - bE_1$, then by the second property in equation $(\ref{eq:cL})$ we would have $a^2 - b^2 = -2$.
Smith theory [@Bredon Theorems 4.1 and 4.3, Chapter III] implies that any real Lagrangian $L$ in a symplectic manifold $(M,{\omega})$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\dim H_*(M; {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2) &\ge& \dim H_*(L;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2),\\
\chi(M) &=& \chi(L)\mod 2.\end{aligned}$$ Together with Lemma \[lem: lagindelpezzo\] one obtains Table \[tab: delpezzo\] for the candidates of diffeomorphism types except for the cases of ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2\#{{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$ in $S^2\times S^2$ and $T^2$ in $X_1$. We are only interested in the symplectic del Pezzo surfaces that have a toric structure, namely $S^2\times S^2$ and $X_k$ for $0\le k \le 3$. By [@Kim Lemma 4.4], we can exclude ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2\# {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$ in $S^2\times S^2$ in Table \[tab: delpezzo\].
Arnold lemma and its application
--------------------------------
In order to show that $T^2$ cannot be a real Lagrangian in $X_1$, we employ the Arnold lemma which we now explain. We refer to [@Arnold] for details. Let $\tau$ be an orientation-preserving involution of a closed oriented manifold $X^{4}$. Assume that the fixed point set $\operatorname{Fix}(\tau)$ of $\tau$ is a closed surface. The involution $\tau$ induces the isomorphism $\tau_*\colon H_2(X;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2)\to H_2(X;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2)$. We define the symmetric ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-bilinear form $\Phi_\tau$ (called *the twisted intersection form*) on $H_2(X;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2)$ by $$\Phi_\tau(\alpha,\beta)=\alpha\cdot \tau_*(\beta)\mod 2,$$ where $\cdot$ denotes the intersection number. Recall that $w\in H_2(X;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2)$ is called *characteristic class (or fundamental class)* of $\Phi_\tau$ if $\Phi_\tau(w,\alpha)=\Phi_\tau(\alpha,\alpha)$ for all $\alpha\in H_2(X;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2)$. Since $\Phi_\tau$ is non-degenerate, there exists a unique characteristic class of $\Phi_\tau$. Note that the characteristic class of $\Phi_\tau$ vanishes if and only if $\Phi_\tau(\alpha,\alpha)=0$ for all $\alpha\in H_2(X;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2)$. The following is the so-called *Arnold lemma*, see [@Arnold Lemma 3] for the proof.
\[lem: arnold\] The ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-homology class $[\operatorname{Fix}(\tau)]_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2}\in H_2(X;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2)$ represented by $\operatorname{Fix}(\tau)$ is the characteristic class of $\Phi_\tau$.
We are ready to prove the following lemma.
Assume that $L$ is a real Lagrangian in $X_1$ that is diffeomorphic to a closed connected surface. Then $L$ must be non-orientable.
Let $L=\operatorname{Fix}(R)$ for some antisymplectic involution $R$ of $X_1$. Assume to the contrary that $L$ is orientable, and hence $L$ represents a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$-homology class $[L]_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}\in H_2(X_1;{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. Using the notations in the proof of Lemma \[lem: lagindelpezzo\], we take the generators $H$ and $E_1$ on $H_2(X_1;{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. Since $R$ is orientation-preserving, $R_*$ preserves the intersection form. Using also that $R_*^2 = \operatorname{id}$ and that $R^*[\omega] = -[\omega]$ on $H^2(X_1;{{\mathbb{Z}}})$, one computes that that the induced map $R_*$ on $H_2(X_1;{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ is given by $R_*=-\operatorname{id}$. Since $R_*[L]_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}=[L]_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}$, we obtain $[L]_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}=0$ and hence $[L]_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2}=0$ as well. Noting that $R_*^{{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2}=\operatorname{id}$ on $H_2(X_1;{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2)$, the twisted intersection form $\Phi_R$ is the usual mod 2 intersection form of $X_1$. By Lemma \[lem: arnold\], the characteristic class of $\Phi_R$ vanishes and so the intersection form of $X_1$ must be even, which yields a contradiction.
We conclude that there are no real Lagrangian tori in $X_1$.
Constructions of explicit real Lagrangians
------------------------------------------
We now explicitly construct real Lagrangians that realize all diffeomorphism types in Table \[tab: delpezzo\].
On every toric manifold $M$, we can lift the trivial involution $\sigma_0 = \operatorname{id}$, which yields the natural antisymplectic involution $R^0$ on $M$. Its fixed point set corresponds to the *real locus*, see Proposition \[prop:stdantiinvol\] and Remark \[rk:reallocus\]. In particular, the real locus of $X_k$, that is diffeomorphic to $\#_{k+1}{{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$, is the real Lagrangian $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\operatorname{id}})$ in $X_k$ for each $0\le k \le 3$.
\[example: cp2\] Consider ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2$ equipped with the Fubini-Study form ${\omega}_{\operatorname{{FS}}}$. Its Delzant polytope $\Delta$ is defined by the outward pointing normal vectors $$v_1=(-1,0),\quad v_2=(0,-1), \quad v_3=(1,1).$$ There is one non-trivial involution in $\mathcal{S}_\Delta$, namely the reflection $\sigma(x,y)=(y,x)$ with respect to the diagonal line, see Figure \[fig: 1\].
(-1.5,-1.5) grid (4.5,4.5);
(0,0)–(0,3)–(3,0)–(0,0); (0,0)–(0,3)–(3,0)–(0,0); (3, 1.5)–(1.5,1.2);
at (3,1.5)\[right\][$\operatorname{Fix}(\sigma_0)$]{};
(-2,0)–(3,0); (0,-2)–(0,3);
(0,0)–(0,3)–(3,0)–(0,0);
(-1.5,-1.5) grid (4.5,4.5);
(0,0)–(0,3)–(3,0)–(0,0); (0,0)–(1.5,1.5); (3,1.5)–(1.5,1.2);
at (3,1.5)\[right\][$\operatorname{Fix}(\sigma)$]{};
(-2,0)–(3,0); (0,-2)–(0,3);
We use the real Delzant construction to prove that $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma})$ is diffeomorphic to ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$. Since $\sigma$ exchanges the normal vetors $v_1$ and $v_2$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\rho\colon {{\mathbb{C}}}^3\to {{\mathbb{C}}}^3, \quad \rho(z_1,z_2,z_3)=(\bar{z}_2,\bar{z}_1,\bar{z}_3), \\
&&\rho_{T^3}\colon T^3\to T^3, \quad \rho_{T^3}(t_1,t_2,t_3)=(t_2^{-1},t_1^{-1},t_3^{-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\operatorname{Fix}(\rho)=\{(z,\bar{z},x) \mid z\in {{\mathbb{C}}},\ x\in {{\mathbb{R}}}\},\\
&& \operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^3})= \left\{(t,t^{-1},s) \mid t\in S^1,\ s=\{1,-1 \} \right\} \cong S^1\oplus {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the kernel of $\pi_R$ is $$K_R=K\cap \operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^3})=\{(1,1,1),(-1,-1,-1)\}\cong {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$$ and $$\nu_R(z,\bar{z},x)=|z|^2+\frac{x^2}{2}-3.$$ Therefore $\nu_R^{-1}(0)$ is a 2-sphere on which $K_R$ acts by the antipodal mapping and hence $$\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma})\cong \nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R\cong {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2.$$ In fact, it follows from Smith theory that any real Lagrangian in ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2$ (not necessarily compatible with the torus action) is diffeomorphic to ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$.
Consider $(S^2 \times S^2, \omega_0 \oplus \omega_0, \mu)$, where $\omega_0$ is the area form on the sphere and its Delzant polytope is $$\Box:=[-1,1]^2=\mu(S^2\times S^2)$$ with outward pointing normal vectors $$v_1=(1,0),\quad v_2=(0,1),\quad v_3=(-1,0),\quad v_4=(0,-1)$$ and $\kappa_1=\dots=\kappa_4=1$. Hence, $$\pi=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & -1
\end{pmatrix},\quad K = \{(e^{2\pi i \alpha},e^{2\pi i \beta},e^{2\pi i \alpha},e^{2\pi i \beta})\}$$ We consider the four involutions in $\mathcal{S}_{\Box}$ given in Figure \[fig: involutionsonS2S2\], namely $$\sigma_0 = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}, \quad
\sigma_1 = \begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{pmatrix},\quad
\sigma_2 = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\quad
\sigma_3 =\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.$$
[0.24]{}
(-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5,2.5); (-1,-1)–(-1,1)–(1,1)–(1,-1)–(-1,-1); (-2,0)–(2,0); (0,-2)–(0,2);
at (1,1.5)\[right\][$\sigma_0$]{};
[0.24]{}
(-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5,2.5); (-1,-1)–(-1,1)–(1,1)–(1,-1)–(-1,-1); (-2,0)–(2,0); (0,-2)–(0,2); (0,0) circle\[radius=2pt\]; at (1,1.5)\[right\][$\sigma_1$]{};
[0.24]{}
(-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5,2.5); (-1,-1)–(-1,1)–(1,1)–(1,-1)–(-1,-1); (-2,0)–(2,0); (0,-2)–(0,2); (-1,1)–(1,-1);
at (1,1.5)\[right\][$\sigma_2$]{};
[0.24]{}
(-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5,2.5); (-1,-1)–(-1,1)–(1,1)–(1,-1)–(-1,-1); (-2,0)–(2,0); (0,-2)–(0,2); (0,-1)–(0,1);
at (1,1.5)\[right\][$\sigma_3$]{};
\
[*Involution $\sigma_0$.*]{} Since the real locus of $S^2\times S^2={{\mathbb{C}}}P^1\times {{\mathbb{C}}}P^1$ is diffeomorphic to ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^1\times {{\mathbb{R}}}P^1 \cong T^2$, so is $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_0})$.\
\
[*Involution $\sigma_1$.*]{} Since $\operatorname{Fix}(\sigma_1)$ is a singleton, the corresponding real Lagrangian is given by the Lagrangian fibre $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_1})=\mu^{-1}\big((0,0)\big)\cong T^2$, which is called the *Clifford torus* in $S^2\times S^2$.\
\
[*Involution $\sigma_2$.*]{} We observe that $$\nu^{-1}(0)=\big\{(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)\mid |z_1|^2 +|z_3|^2 = 4,\ |z_2|^2 +|z_4|^2 = 4\big\}\cong S^3 \times S^3.$$ Since $\sigma_2$ exchanges $v_1$ with $v_4$ and $v_2$ with $v_3$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& \operatorname{Fix}(\rho)=\{(z,w,\bar{w},\bar{z}) \mid z,w \in {{\mathbb{C}}}\},\\
&& \operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^3})=\{(t,s,s^{-1},t^{-1})\mid t,s\in S^1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\nu_R^{-1}(0)=\{(z,w,\bar{w},\bar{z})\mid |z|^2+|w|^2=4\}\cong S^3$$ and $K_R=K\cap \operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^3})=\{(t,t^{-1},t,t^{-1})\mid t\in S^1\}$. Hence the $K_R$-action on $\nu_R^{-1}(0)$ can be identified with the Hopf action on $S^3$, and we obtain $$\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_2})\cong \nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R\cong S^2,$$ which is called the *antidiagonal sphere* $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_2})=\overline{\Delta}:=\{(x,-x)\mid x\in S^2\}$.\
\
[*Involution $\sigma_3$.*]{} Similarly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\nu_R^{-1}(0) = \{(z,x_1,\bar{z},x_2) \mid z\in {{\mathbb{C}}},\ x_1,x_2\in {{\mathbb{R}}},\ |z|^2=2,\ x_1^2+x_2^2=2\}\cong T^2, \\
&& K_R=\left\{(s_1,s_2,s_1,s_2)\mid s_1,s_2 \in \{1,-1\} \right\}\cong {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2^2,\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_3})\cong {{\mathbb{R}}}P^1\times {{\mathbb{R}}}P^1\cong T^2.$$ Recall that any two embedded loops in $S^2$ are Hamiltonian isotopic if they divide the sphere into two discs with equal area. Using this, one can easily show that the real Lagrangian tori $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_0})$, $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_1})$, and $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_3})$ are (pairwise) Hamiltonian isotopic to each other.
Consider the monotone toric symplectic manifold ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2 \# \overline{{{\mathbb{C}}}P^2}$ with moment polytope the isosceles trapezoid $\Delta$ depicted in Figure \[fig: blow up\]. Then we have $$v_1 =(-1,0),\quad v_2 =(0,-1),\quad v_3 =(1,1),\quad v_4 =(-1,-1)$$ and $\kappa_1 =\dots= \kappa_4 =1$. Note that $$\pi=\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 & 1 & -1 \\
0 & -1 & 1 & -1
\end{pmatrix},\quad K=\{(e^{2\pi i \alpha},e^{2\pi i \alpha},e^{2\pi i (\alpha + \beta)},e^{2\pi i \beta})\},$$
(-1,2)–(2,-1)–(0,-1)–(-1,0)–(-1,2); (-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5, 2.5); (-1,2)–(2,-1)–(0,-1)–(-1,0)–(-1,2);
(-2.5,0)–(2.5,0); (0,-2.5)–(0,2.5); (-0.5, -0.5)–(0.5, 0.5);
There is only one non-trivial involution on $\Delta$, namely $\sigma(x,y)=(y,x)$. We show that $\operatorname{Fix}(R^\sigma)\cong {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2\# {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$ using the real Delzant construction. Observe that $$\nu^{-1}(0)=\Big\{(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)\ \Big|\ |z_1|^2 +|z_2|^2 + |z_3|^2 = 6,\ |z_3|^2+|z_4|^2=4 \Big\}.$$ The involution $\sigma$ acts on $\Delta$ by exchanging $v_1$ with $v_2$ and leaving $v_3$ and $v_4$ invariant, whence $$\begin{aligned}
&& \operatorname{Fix}(\rho) =\{
(z,\bar{z},x,y)\mid z\in {{\mathbb{C}}},\ x,y\in {{\mathbb{R}}}\}, \\
&& \operatorname{Fix}(\rho_{T^4}) = \left \{ (t,t^{-1},s_1,s_2)\mid t\in S^1,\ s_1,s_2 \in \{1,-1\} \right\}\cong S^1\oplus {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& \nu_R^{-1}(0) =\{(z,\bar{z}, x,y) \mid 2|z|^2+x^2=6,\ x^2+y^2=4\}\cong T^2,\\
&& K_R= \left\{(1,1,1,1),(-1,-1,-1,1),(1,1,-1,-1), (-1,-1,1,-1) \right\}\cong {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2 \oplus {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2.\end{aligned}$$ We claim that the quotient map $$T^2 \cong \nu_R^{-1}(0) \longrightarrow \nu_R^{-1}(0)/K_R$$ is a 4-fold covering of the Klein bottle ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2\# {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$. This follows from Table \[tab: delpezzo\]. To see this explicitly, we first identify $\nu_R^{-1}(0)$ with the torus $T^2$ obtained by the product of two circles, namely $$S_{xy}:=\{x^2+y^2=4\} \quad\text{and}\quad S_{z}:=\{2|z|^2+x^2=6\}.$$ Note that $S_z$ varies depending on $x$. We obtain the identification in Table \[tab: kleinbottle\]. Using this, we see that the quotient map above is a 4-fold covering of ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2\#{{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$ as desired, see Figure \[fig: 4foldcover\].
[c|c|c|c]{}
$K_R$ &&$S_z$ & $S_{xy}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$(1,1,1,1)$ & &$\operatorname{id}$ & $\operatorname{id}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$(-1,-1,-1,1)$ & & antipodal map & $y$-axis reflection\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$(1,1,-1,-1)$ & & $\operatorname{id}$ & antipodal map\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$(-1,-1,1,-1)$ & & antipodal map & $x$-axis reflection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(-2, -2)–(-2, 2)–(2, 2)–(2,-2)–(-2,-2);
(-2,0)–(2,0); (0,-2)–(0,2); (-2,-2)–(-2,2)–(2,2)–(2,-2)–(-2,-2);
(-2,-1.5)–(-2,-0.5);
(2,-1.5)–(2,-0.5);
(-1.5,2)–(-0.5,2); (-1.5,-2)–(-0.5,-2);
(2.7,0)–(3.5,0); at (5,0)[${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2\# {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$]{}; at (-2.7, 1.5)[$T^2$]{};
(-1.7, -1.6) circle\[radius=2pt\]; (0.3, -0.4) circle\[radius=2pt\]; (-1.7, 0.4) circle\[radius=2pt\]; (0.3, 1.6) circle\[radius=2pt\];
(-2.5, -0.5)–(-2.5,0.5); at (-3, 0)[$S_{xy}$]{}; (-0.5, -2.5)–(0.5,-2.5); at (0, -3)[$S_z$]{};
Consider the monotone toric symplectic manifold ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2\# 2\overline{{{\mathbb{C}}}P^2}$ with moment polytope $\Delta$ given on the left in Figure \[fig: 2blowup\]. Since the real locus of ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2\# 2\overline{{{\mathbb{C}}}P^2}$ is diffeomorphic to $\#_3{{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$, the standard antisymplectic involution $R^0$ yileds the real Lagrangian $\operatorname{Fix}(R^0)\cong \#_3{{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$. We claim that the real Lagrangian $\operatorname{Fix}(R^\sigma)$ associated to the involution $\sigma(x,y)=(y,x)$ is diffeomorphic to ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$. To see this, recall that by Example \[example: cp2\] the real Lagrangian $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_2})$ in ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2$ is diffeomorphic to ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$. Since the blow-ups of ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2$ were performed away from the real Lagrangian $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_2})$, we deduce that $\operatorname{Fix}(R^\sigma)\cong {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$.
(-1,2)–(0,1)–(1,0)–(2,-1)–(-1,-1)–(-1,2); (-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5, 2.5); (-1,2)–(0,1)–(1,0)–(2,-1)–(-1,-1)–(-1,2);
(-1.5,1)–(0.5,1); (1,-1.5)–(1,0.5);
(-2.5,0)–(2.5,0); (0,-2.5)–(0,2.5); (-1, -1)–(0.5, 0.5);
(-1,1)–(0,1)–(1,0)–(1,-1)–(-1,-1); (-2.5,-2.5) grid (2.5, 2.5); (-1,1)–(0,1)–(1,0)–(1,-1)–(-1,-1)–(-1,1);
(-2.5,0)–(2.5,0); (0,-2.5)–(0,2.5); (-1, -1)–(0.5, 0.5);
(-4.5,0)–(-3.5,0);
Consider the three-fold monotone blow-up of ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2$ as in Figure \[fig: threefold\]. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& v_1=(1,0),\ v_2=(0,1),\
v_3=(-1,0),\ v_4=(0,-1),\ v_5=(1,1),\ v_6=(-1,-1), \\
&& \kappa_1=\dots=\kappa_6=1.\end{aligned}$$ We exhibit the real Lagrangians corresponding to the four involutions, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sigma_0=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix},\quad \sigma_1=\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{pmatrix},\quad \sigma_2=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\quad \sigma_3=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$
[0.24]{}
(-3,-3) grid (3,3);
(0,2)–(2,0)–(4,0)–(4,2)–(2,4)–(0,4)–(0,2);
(0,2)–(2,0)–(4,0)–(4,2)–(2,4)–(0,4)–(0,2);
(-3,0)–(3,0); (0,-3)–(0,3);
[0.24]{}
(-3,-3) grid (3,3);
(0,2)–(2,0)–(4,0)–(4,2)–(2,4)–(0,4)–(0,2);
(0,2)–(2,0)–(4,0)–(4,2)–(2,4)–(0,4)–(0,2);
(-3,0)–(3,0); (0,-3)–(0,3); (0, 0) circle\[radius=4pt\];
[0.24]{}
(-3,-3) grid (3,3);
(0,2)–(2,0)–(4,0)–(4,2)–(2,4)–(0,4)–(0,2);
(0,2)–(2,0)–(4,0)–(4,2)–(2,4)–(0,4)–(0,2);
(-3,0)–(3,0); (0,-3)–(0,3); (2,-2) – (-2,2);
[0.24]{}
(-3,-3) grid (3,3);
(0,2)–(2,0)–(4,0)–(4,2)–(2,4)–(0,4)–(0,2);
(0,2)–(2,0)–(4,0)–(4,2)–(2,4)–(0,4)–(0,2);
(-3,0)–(3,0); (0,-3)–(0,3); (1,1) – (-1,-1);
[*Involution $\sigma_1$*]{}. Since $\operatorname{Fix}(\sigma_1)$ is a singleton, we have $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_1})=\mu^{-1}\big((0,0)\big)\cong T^2$.\
\
[*Involution $\sigma_2$*]{}. Note that the moment polytope of ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2\#3\overline{{{\mathbb{C}}}P^2}$ can be seen as the polytope obtained by two fold blow-up of $S^2\times S^2$. Since the real Lagrangian in $S^2\times S^2$ corresponding to the antidiagonal line in the polytope $\Box$ is diffeomorphic to $S^2$ and the blow-ups are performed away from it, we obtain that $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_2})\cong S^2$.\
\
[*Involution $\sigma_3$*]{}. In a similar vein, since the real Lagrangian in the one point blow up $X_1$ of ${{\mathbb{C}}}P^2$, corresponding to the diagonal line, is diffeomorphic to ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2\# {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$, so is $\operatorname{Fix}(R^{\sigma_3})\cong {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2\# {{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
The authors cordially thank Felix Schlenk for careful reading of the first draft. The paper was carried out when the authors visited the Institut de Mathématiques at Neuchâtel and the Korea Institute for Advanced Study at Seoul. We are grateful for their warm hospitality. JM specially thanks her advisor Suyoung Choi for continued support and encouragement. JB is supported by the grant 200021-181980/1 of the Swiss National Foundation. JK and JM are supported by Samsung Science and Technology Foundation under Project Number SSTF-BA1901-01. JM is supported by NRF-2019R1A2C2010989.
[^1]: We define ${\vartheta}: \Delta \rightarrow T^n$ to be *smooth* if it comes from a smooth map $\tilde{{\vartheta}} : M \rightarrow T^n$ which satisfies ${\vartheta}\circ \mu = \tilde{{\vartheta}}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Morphological reinflection is the task of generating a target form given a source form, a source tag and a target tag. We propose a new way of modeling this task with neural encoder-decoder models. Our approach reduces the amount of required training data for this architecture and achieves state-of-the-art results, making encoder-decoder models applicable to morphological reinflection even for low-resource languages. We further present a new automatic correction method for the outputs based on edit trees.'
author:
- |
Katharina Kann and Hinrich Schütze\
Center for Information & Language Processing\
LMU Munich, Germany\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'acl2016.bib'
title: 'Single-Model Encoder-Decoder with Explicit Morphological Representation for Reinflection'
---
Introduction
============
Morphological analysis and generation of previously unseen word forms is a fundamental problem in many areas of natural language processing (NLP). Its accuracy is crucial for the success of downstream tasks like machine translation and question answering. Accordingly, learning morphological inflection patterns from labeled data is an important challenge.
The task of morphological reinflection (MRI) consists of producing an inflected form for a given source form, source tag and target tag. A special case is morphological inflection (MI), the task of finding an inflected form for a given lemma and target tag. An English example is “tree”+PLURAL $\rightarrow$ “trees”. Prior work on MI and MRI includes machine learning models and models that exploit the paradigm structure of the language [@ahlberg2015paradigm; @dreyer2011non; @nicolai2015inflection].
In this work, we propose the neural encoder-decoder MED – Morphological Encoder-Decoder – a character-level sequence-to-sequence attention model that is a language-independent solution for MRI. In contrast to prior work, we train a *single* model that is trained on all source to target mappings of the language that are attested in the training set. This radically reduces the amount of training data needed for the encoder-decoder because most MRI patterns occur in many source-target tag pairs. In our model design, what is learned for one pair can be transferred to others.
The key enabler for this single-model approach is a novel representation we use for MRI. We encode the input as a single sequence of (i) the morphological tags of the source form, (ii) the morphological tags of the target form and (iii) the sequence of letters of the source form. The output is the sequence of letters of the target form. As the decoder produces each letter, the attention mechanism can focus on *the input letter sequence* for parts of the output that simply copy the input. For other parts of the output, e.g., an inflectional ending that is predicted using the target tags, the attention mechanism can focus on *the target morphological tags*. In more complex cases, *simultaneous attention can be paid to subsequences of all three input types* – source tags, target tags and input letter sequence. We can train a single generic encoder-decoder per language on this representation that can handle all tag pairs, thus making it possible to make efficient use of the available training data. MED outperformed other systems on the SIGMORPHON16 shared task[^1] for all ten languages that were covered [@kann16med; @cotterell-sigmorphon2016].
We also present POET – Prefer Observed Edit Trees – a new generic method for correcting the output of an MRI system. The combination of MED and POET is state-of-the-art or close to it on a CELEX-based evaluation of MRI even though this evaluation makes it difficult to exploit generalizations across tag pairs.
Model Description {#sec:model}
=================
Our model is based on the network architecture proposed by for machine translation.[^2] They describe the model in detail; unless we explicitly say so in the description of our model below, we use the same network configuration as .
’s model is an extension of the recurrent neural network (RNN) encoder-decoder developed by Cho et al. and Sutskever et al. . The encoder of the latter consists of an RNN that reads an input sequence of vectors $x$ and encodes it into a fixed-length context vector $c$, computing hidden states $h_t$ and $c$ by $$\label{eq:1}
h_t = f(x_t, h_{t-1}), \quad c = q({h_1, ..., h_{T_x}})$$ with nonlinear functions $f$ and $q$. The decoder is trained to predict each output $y_{t}$ dependent on $c$ and previous predictions [$y_1$, ..., $y_{t-1}$]{}: $$\label{eq:2}
p(y) = \prod_{t=1}^{T_y} p(y_t | \{y_1, ..., y_{t-1}\}, c)$$ with $y = (y_1, ..., y_{T_y})$ and each conditional probability being modeled with an RNN as $$p(y_t | \{y_1, ..., y_{t-1}\}, c) = g(y_{t-1}, s_t, c)$$ where $g$ is a nonlinear function and $s_t$ is the hidden state of the RNN.
Bahdanau et al. proposed an attention-based extension of this model that allows different vectors $c_t$ for each step by automatic learning of an alignment model. Additionally, they made the encoder bidirectional: each hidden state $h_j$ at time step $j$ does not only depend on the preceding, but also on the following input: $$h_j = \left[\overrightarrow{h_j^T}; \overleftarrow{h_j^T}\right]^T$$ The formula for $p(y)$ changes as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
p(y) &= \prod_{t=1}^{T_y} p(y_t | \{y_1, ..., y_{t-1}\}, x) \\
&= g(y_{t-1}, s_t, c_t)\end{aligned}$$ with $s_t$ being an RNN hidden state for time $t$ and $c_t$ being the weighted sum of the annotations $(h_1, ..., h_{T_x})$ produced by the encoder, using the attention weights. Further descriptions can be found in [@bahdanau2014neural].
The final model is a multilayer network with a single maxout [@goodfellow2013maxout] hidden layer that computes the conditional probability of each element in the output sequence (a letter in our case, [@pascanu2013construct]). As MRI is less complex than machine translation, we reduce the number of hidden units and embedding size. After initial experiments, we fixed the hyperparameters of our system and did not further adapt them to a specific task or language. Encoder and decoder RNNs have 100 hidden units each. For training, we use stochastic gradient descent, Adadelta [@zeiler2012adadelta] and a minibatch size of 20. We initialize all weights in the encoder, decoder and the embeddings except for the GRU weights in the decoder with the identity matrix as well as all biases with zero [@le2015simple]. We train all models for 20,000 iterations. We settled on this number in early experimentation because training usually converged before that limit.
MED is an ensemble of five RNN encoder-decoders. The final decision is made by majority voting. In case of a tie, the answer is chosen randomly among the most frequent predictions.
We define the alphabet $\Sigma\dnrm{lang}$ as the set of characters used in the application language. As each morphological tag consists of one or more subtags, e.g. “number“ or “case“, we further define $\Sigma\dnrm{src}$ and $\Sigma\dnrm{trg}$ as the set of morphological subtags seen during training as part of the source tag and target tag, respectively. Let $S\dnrm{start}$ and $S\dnrm{end}$ be predefined start and end symbols. Then each input of our system is of the format $S\dnrm{start} \Sigma\dnrm{src}^+ \Sigma\dnrm{trg}^+ \Sigma\dnrm{lang}^+ S\dnrm{end}$. In the same way, we define the output format as $S\dnrm{start} \Sigma\dnrm{lang}^+ S\dnrm{end}$.
A sample input for German is *<w> IN=pos=ADJ IN=case=GEN IN=num=PL OUT=pos=ADJ OUT=case=ACC OUT=num=PL i s o l i e r t e r </w>*. The system should produce the corresponding output *<w> i s o l i e r t e </w>*. The high-level structure of MED can be seen in Figure \[fig:systemoverview\].
![Overview of MED[]{data-label="fig:systemoverview"}](SystemOverview.png){width="40.00000%"}
We now describe POET (Prefer Observed Edit Trees), a new generic method for correcting the output of an MRI system. We use it in combination with MED in this paper, but it can in principle be applied to any MRI system.
An edit tree $e(\sigma, \tau)$ specifies a transformation from a source string $\sigma$ to a target string $\tau$ [@chrupala2008towards]. To compute $e(\sigma,\tau)$, we first determine the longest common substring (LCS) [@gusfield1997algorithms] between $\sigma$ and $\tau$ and then recursively model the prefix and suffix pairs of the LCS. If the length of LCS is zero for $(\sigma,\tau)$, then $e(\sigma,\tau)$ is simply the substitution operation that replaces $\sigma$ with $\tau$. Figure \[fig:edittree\] shows an example.
![Edit tree for the inflected form *abgesagt* “canceled” and its lemma *absagen* “to cancel”. The highest node contains the length of the parts before and after the LCS. The left node in the second row contains the length of the parts before and after the LCS of *abge* and *ab*. The prefix *sub* indicates that the node is a substitution operation.[]{data-label="fig:edittree"}](EditTree3.png){width="30.00000%"}
Let $X$ be a training set for MRI. For each pair $(s,t)$ of tags, we define: $$E_{s,t} \!=\! \{ e' | \exists x \!\in\! X: e'\!=\!e(x),s\!=\!S(x),t\!=\!T(x) \}$$ where $S(x)$ and $T(x)$ are source and target tags of $x$ and $e(x)$ is $e(\sigma(x),
\tau(x))$, the edit tree that transforms the source form into the target form.
Let $\rho$ be a target form predicted by the MRI system for the source form $\sigma$ and let $s$ and $t$ be source and target tags. POET does not change $\rho$ if $e(\sigma,\rho) \in E_{s,t}$. Otherwise it replaces $\rho$ with $\tau$: $$\tau :=
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\tau' & \mbox{if} \ \ e(\sigma,\tau') \in E_{s,t},|\rho,\tau'|=1\\
\rho & \mbox{else} \end{array} \right.$$ where $|\rho,\tau'|$ is the Levenshtein distance. If there are several forms $\tau'$ with edit distance 1, we select the one with the most frequent edit tree. Ties are broken randomly.
We observed that MED sometimes makes errors that are close to the target, but differ by one edit operation. Those errors are often not covered by edit trees that are observed in the training data whereas the correct form is. Thus, substituting a form not supported by an observed edit tree with a close one that is supported promises to reduce the error rate.
The effectiveness of POET depends on a training set that is large enough to cover the possible edit trees that can occur in reinflection in a language. Thus, if the training set is not large enough in this respect, then POET will not be beneficial.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
We compare MED with the three models of as well as with two recently proposed models: (i) discriminative string transduction [@durrett2013supervised; @nicolai2015inflection], the SIGMORPHON16 baseline, and (ii) ’s encoder-decoder model.[^3] We call the latter MODEL\*TAG as it requires training as many models as there are target tags.
We evaluate MED on two MRI tasks: CELEX and SIGMORPHON16.
This task is based on complete inflection tables for German extracted from CELEX. For this experiment we follow . We use four pairs of morphological tags and corresponding word forms from the German part of the CELEX morphological database. The 4 different transduction tasks are: 13SIA $\rightarrow$ 13SKE, 2PIE $\rightarrow$ 13PKE, 2PKE $\rightarrow$ z and rP $\rightarrow$ pA.[^4] An example for this task would be to produce the output *gesteuert* (target tag *pA*) for the source *steuert* (source tag *rP*). To do so, the system has to learn that the prefix *ge-*, which is used for many participles in German, has to be added to the beginning of the original word form.
We use the same data splits as , dividing the original $2500$ samples for each tag into five folds, each consisting of $500$ training and $1000$ development and $1000$ test samples. We train a separate model for each fold and report exact match accuracy, averaged over the five folds, as our final result.
This task covers eight languages and does not provide complete paradigms, but only a set of quadruples, each consisting of word form, source tag, target tag and target form. The main difference to CELEX is that the number of tag pairs is large, resulting in much less training data per tag pair. The number of tag pairs varies by language with Georgian being an extreme case; it has 28 tag pairs in dev that appear less than 10 times in train. For each language, we have around 12,800 training and 1600 development samples. We report exact match accuracy on the development set, as the final test data of the shared task is not publically available yet.
Results
=======
Table \[table:CELEXresults\] gives CELEX results. MED+POET is better than prior work on one task, close in performance on two and worse by a small amount on the third. Unlike ’s models, MED does not use any hand-crafted features. MED’s results are weakest on 13SIA. Typical errors on this task include epenthesis (e.g., *zirkle* vs. *zirkele*) and irregular verbs (e.g., *abhing* vs. *abhängte*).
[model]{}
-- ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
backoff 82.8 88.7 74.7 69.9
lat-class 84.8 93.6 75.7 81.8
lat-region **87.5** 93.4 87.4 **84.9**
baseline 77.6 **95.1** 82.5 69.6
MODEL\*TAG 76.4 92.1 83.4 81.8
MED 82.3 94.4 86.8 83.9
MED+POET 83.9 95.0 **87.6** 84.0
: Exact match accuracy of MRI on CELEX. Results of [@dreyer2008latent]’s model are from their paper; backoff: *ngrams+x* model; lat-class: *ngrams+x+latent class* model; lat-region: *ngrams+x+latent class+latent region* model; baseline: SIGMORPHON16 baseline.[]{data-label="table:CELEXresults"}
For SIGMORPHON16, Table \[table:SIGMORPHONresults\] shows that MED outperforms the baseline for all eight languages. Absolute performance and variance is probably influenced by type of morphology (e.g., templatic vs. agglutinative), regularity of the language, number of different tag pairs and other factors. MED performs well even for complex and diverse languages like Arabic, Finnish, Navajo and Turkish, suggesting that the type of attention-based encoder-decoder we use – single-model, using an explicit morphological representation – is a good choice for MRI.
We do not compare to MODEL\*TAG here because it requires training a large number of individual networks. This is a disadvantage compared to MED both in terms of the number of models that need to be trained and in terms of the effective use of the small number of training examples that are available per tag pair.
-------------- ---------- ------------ ---------- --
baseline average ensemble
[Arabic]{} 58.8 83.1 (0.4) **88.8**
[Finnish]{} 64.6 92.5 (0.8) **95.6**
[Georgian]{} 91.5 95.7 (0.3) **97.3**
[German]{} 87.7 92.1 (0.5) **95.1**
[Navajo]{} 60.9 85.0 (1.1) **91.1**
[Russian]{} 85.6 84.2 (0.3) **88.4**
[Spanish]{} 95.6 96.3 (0.3) **97.5**
[Turkish]{} 54.9 94.7 (1.3) **97.6**
-------------- ---------- ------------ ---------- --
: Exact match accuracy of MRI on SIGMORPHON16; baseline: SIGMORPHON16 baseline; MED/average: average of five MED models (standard deviation in parentheses); MED/ensemble: majority voting of five MED models.[]{data-label="table:SIGMORPHONresults"}
**POET** improves the results for all tag pairs for CELEX. However, initial experiments indicated that it is not effective for SIGMORPHON16 because its training sets are not large enough.
Analysis {#sec:analysis}
========
The main innovation of our work is that MED learns a single model of all MRI patterns of a language and thus can transfer what it has learned from one tag pair to another tag pair. Using CELEX, we now analyze how much our design contributes to better performance by conducting two experiments in which we gradually decrease the training set in two different ways. (i) Large general training set. We only reduce the number of training examples available for a tag pair $(s,t)$ and retain all other training examples. (ii) Small training set. We reduce the number of training examples available for all tag pairs, not just for one.
A typical example of the large general training set scenario is that familiar second person forms are rare in genres like encyclopedia and news. So a training set derived from these genres will be large, but it will have very few tag pairs whose target tag is familiar second person.
A typical example of the small training set scenario is that we are dealing with a low-resource language.
In the following two experiments, we only reduce the training set and do not change the test set.
![Results for the large general training set experiment: effect of reducing the training set *for only 2PIE $\rightarrow$ 13PKE* on the accuracy for 2PIE $\rightarrow$ 13PKE for MED and MODEL\*TAG.[]{data-label="fig:reductionOfOneTag"}](Plots/analysisOneTag_nw.pdf){width="35.00000%"}
We iteratively halve the training data for 2PIE $\rightarrow$ 13PKE until only $6.25\%$ or $32$ samples are left. Figure \[fig:reductionOfOneTag\] shows that MED performs well even if only $6.25\%$ of the training examples for the tag pair remain. In contrast, MODEL\*TAG struggles to generalize correctly. This is due to the fact that we train one single model for all tags, so it can learn from other tags and transfer what it has learned to the tag pair that has a small training set.
![Results for the small training set experiment: effect of reducing the training set *for all tag pairs* on accuracy for MED and MODEL\*TAG.[]{data-label="fig:reductionAll"}](Plots/analysisAll_13SIA_nw.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Results for the small training set experiment: effect of reducing the training set *for all tag pairs* on accuracy for MED and MODEL\*TAG.[]{data-label="fig:reductionAll"}](Plots/analysisAll_2PIE_nw.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Results for the small training set experiment: effect of reducing the training set *for all tag pairs* on accuracy for MED and MODEL\*TAG.[]{data-label="fig:reductionAll"}](Plots/analysisAll_2PKE_nw.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Results for the small training set experiment: effect of reducing the training set *for all tag pairs* on accuracy for MED and MODEL\*TAG.[]{data-label="fig:reductionAll"}](Plots/analysisAll_rP_nw.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[fig:reductionAll\] shows results for reducing the training data equally for all tags. MED performs much better than the baseline for less than 50% of the training data. This can be explained by the fact that MED learns from all given data at once and thus is able to learn common patterns that apply across different tag pairs.
Related Work {#sec:related_work}
============
Earlier work on morphology includes morphological segmentation [@harris1955; @hafer1974word; @dejean1998morphemes] and different approaches for MRI [@ahlberg2014semi; @durrett2013supervised; @eskander2013automatic; @nicolai2015inflection]. defined edit trees and and use them for morphological tagging and lemmatization.
In the last years, RNN encoder-decoder models and RNNs in general were applied to several NLP tasks. For example, they proved to be useful for machine translation [@cho2014properties; @sutskever2014sequence; @bahdanau2014neural], parsing [@vinyals2015grammar] and speech recognition [@graves2005framewise; @graves2013speech].
MED bears some resemblance to ’s work. However, they train one network for every tag pair; this can negatively impact performance for low-resource languages and in general when training data are limited. In contrast, we train a single model for each language. This radically reduces the amount of training data needed for the encoder-decoder because most MRI patterns occur in many tag pairs, so what is learned for one can be transferred to others. To be able to model all tag pairs of the language together, we introduce an explicit morphological representation that enables the attention mechanism of the encoder-decoder to generalize MRI patterns across tag pairs.
Conclusion and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
We have presented MED, a language independent neural sequence-to-sequence mapping approach, and POET, a method based on edit trees for correcting the output of an MRI system. MED obtains results comparable to state-of-the-art systems for CELEX and establishes the state-of-the-art for SIGMORPHON16. POET improves results further for large training sets. Our analysis showed that MED outperforms a neural encoder-decoder baseline system by a large margin, especially for small training sets.
In future work, we would like to make POET less dependent on the source tag and thus increase its accuracy for small training sets. Second, we will look into ways of taking advantage of additional information sources including unlabeled corpora.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Siemens for this research.
[^1]: [ryancotterell.github.io/sigmorphon2016/](ryancotterell.github.io/sigmorphon2016/)
[^2]: Our implementation of MED is based on [github.com/mila-udem/blocks-examples/tree/master/machine\_translation](github.com/mila-udem/blocks-examples/tree/master/machine_translation).
[^3]: For our experiments we ran the code available at [github.com/mfaruqui/morph-trans](github.com/mfaruqui/morph-trans). We used the *enc-dec-attn* model as overall results for the CELEX task were better than with the *sep-morph* model.
[^4]: 13SIA=1st/3rd sg. ind. past; 13SKE=1st/3rd sg. subjunct. pres.; 2PIE=2nd pl. ind. pres.; 13PKE=1st/3rd pl. subjunct. pres.; 2PKE=2nd. pl. subjunct. pres.; z=infinitive; rP=imperative pl.; pA=past part.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss recent evidence for an accelerating Universe from measurements of type Ia supernovae at high redshift, and describe tests of various systematic effects such as extinction and evolution that could be biasing the cosmological result. Continued observations of these objects, both over a wider wavelength region and at higher redshift, should provide strong evidence in favor or against the accelerating Universe hypothesis.'
author:
- Saurabh Jha
- 'and the High-Z Supernova Search Team'
title: Testing Cosmic Acceleration with Type Ia Supernovae
---
Introduction
============
Recent observations of type Ia supernovae (SN Ia) at high redshift ($z
\ga 0.3$) by two groups provide evidence that the Universe is accelerating at the current epoch (Riess et al. 1998, hereafter R98; Perlmutter et al. 1999, hereafter P99). This result implies the existence of a constituent of the Universe, either the cosmological constant, $\Lambda$, or something else with similarly negative pressure capable of accelerating the expansion, generically dubbed “dark energy” (see Riess 2000 for a review).
Restricting ourselves to a cosmological-constant model, the current constraints on cosmological parameters from SN Ia and cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations are shown in Figure 1. The shaded SN Ia region corresponds to the 99.7% confidence region on the matter density and vacuum energy density ($\Omega_M$, $\Omega_\Lambda$) from a combination of both groups’ published data (R98; P99), ensuring the sets of supernovae used were independent. Similarly, the shaded CMB region corresponds to the same 99.7% confidence region on these parameters from the latest CMB results, including the published BOOMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 data sets (Jaffe et al. 2000). The combined confidence region is shown with the contours, representing 68.3, 95.4 and 99.7% confidence levels. The combined constraints rule out a flat, matter-dominated Universe ($\Omega_M = 1$, $\Omega_\Lambda =
0$), as well as an open Universe with no cosmological constant (e.g., $\Omega_M = 0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0$), at high statistical significance. In this framework, the data clearly favor a significant and even dominant fraction of the energy density of the Universe in the cosmological constant. Even allowing for more exotic possibilities such as quintessence, the SN Ia data still require a dark energy component to cause acceleration of the Universe (Garnavich et al. 1998; P99).
How secure is this result? The SN Ia data support an accelerating Universe at a high level of statistical confidence, but as is always the case, systematic uncertainties then become the primary concern. The observational result is simple: SN Ia at $z \simeq 0.5$ appear approximately 50% fainter than expected for a flat, matter-dominated Universe, and about 25% fainter than expected for an open Universe with $\Omega_M = 0.3$. Both groups observing high-redshift SN have explored a number of systematic effects that could bias the measurements (R98; P99), including Malmquist bias, sample contamination and gravitational lensing. None of these particular effects reconcile the data with a decelerating (or even coasting) Universe.
There are two other potential sources of systematic uncertainty that are of obvious concern. First, a natural candidate to explain the observed faintness of the high-redshift supernovae is extinction by interstellar dust. Second, evolution of the intrinsic properties of SN Ia, or a change in the population of SN Ia observed at high-redshift relative to those nearby, could bias the results. In this paper we describe methods of testing these possibilities from measurements of SN Ia themselves. We are in the midst of carrying out these tests; the results will either bolster confidence in our current cosmological paradigm or present a serious challenge to the picture, by teaching us something new about cosmic dust or supernova evolution.
Extinction
==========
Nearby SN Ia clearly show effects of dust extinction from the Milky Way and the SN host galaxy (Hamuy et al. 1996; Riess, Press, & Kirshner 1996; Phillips et al. 1999; Jha et al. 1999). Extinction by normal dust grains reveals itself as a color excess, preferentially extinguishing bluer light. Both groups observing high-redshift SN Ia now measure light curves in at least two passbands, typically rest-frame $B$ and $V$, allowing for a measurement of any color excess and a correction for extinction using a standard reddening law with $R_V = 3.1$ (Cardelli, Clayton, & Mathis 1989) performed either on an individual supernova by supernova basis or in the mean.
The results from both groups to date suggest that extinction by normal dust is not the reason for the apparent faintness of high-redshift SN Ia. The color excess $E(B-V)$ for the high-redshift objects is consistent with zero in both the R98 and P99 samples[^1]. Furthermore, systematic uncertainties are unlikely to change this result significantly, the “worst-case” plausible color excess is likely no more than 0.03 or 0.04 mag, which for normal dust grains ($R_V = 3.1$) implies an extinction of at most $\sim 0.1$ mag, not enough to disfavor an accelerating Universe.
What about sources of opacity along the line of sight other than normal dust grains? For instance, dust which reddens less than normal (i.e., a distribution of dust grains with high $R_V$) could extinguish enough light to reconcile the SN Ia data with a non-accelerating Universe without measurable reddening. Nonetheless, the current SN data can still constrain such “grey” dust. The scatter of the SN Ia measurements at high redshift does not show any increase relative to the nearby sample beyond that caused by measurement uncertainties (R98; P99). This rules out the existence of grey dust that is patchy like normal dust; if some of the SN were extinguished by grey dust more or less than the others, the scatter at high redshift would increase. Thus, any grey dust dimming the light of high redshift SN must be relatively uniform, similarly extinguishing the light from *every* SN. Even with such strong constraints, there are still models for dust which could behave this way; Aguirre (1999) and Aguirre & Haiman (2000) have proposed that *intergalactic* grey dust could exist in sufficient quantities to dim the light from distant SN Ia by 0.25 mag, without violating other astrophysical constraints.
How do we detect such grey dust? Fortunately, any realistic model of such grains leads to dust that is not completely grey; by observing distant SN Ia over a wide wavelength range we can detect reddening by such “grey” dust. Riess et al. (2000) showed that observations of a high-redshift SN in the rest-frame $B$, $V$, and $I$ bands could begin to detect the effects of grey dust. However, the data in that paper were not sufficient to provide a strong constraint, and it was clear that additional, precise measurements were required. We in the High-Z SN Search Team are in the process of making such measurements, by extensively observing a sample of seven SN Ia at $z \simeq 0.5$ from the ground and with *HST*, covering rest-frame $UBVRI$ (which approximately corresponds to observer-frame $VRIZJ$).
Figure 2 shows how these observations constrain extinction. The curves show the expected color excess as a function of wavelength (i.e., $E(U-B)$, $E(U-V)$, etc.) for different extinction models, normalized to produce an extinction $A_V = 0.25$ mag necessary to explain the R98 and P99 data in a non-accelerating Universe. The normal dust curves correspond to dust grains with $R_V = 3.1$, while the grey dust curves correspond to two models presented by Aguirre (1999). We also show the expectation of zero color excess if there were no dust present. The error bars in the figure indicate the precision with which we can determine the color excesses for each supernova based on the details of our observing strategy and measurement errors. With seven SN Ia these observations should definitively show whether the apparent faintness of high-redshift SN is due to extinction by dust, grey or otherwise.
Our campaign to discover and followup these $z \simeq 0.5$ SN Ia is well underway. We discovered a large number of candidates during our searches at the Canada-France-Hawaii 3.6m telescope and at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory 4m telescope, with template runs in late September 2000 and search runs in late October 2000 (Schmidt et al. 2000). With subsequent spectroscopy of these candidates from the European Southern Observatory 8.2m ANTU Very Large Telescope, we were able to choose seven SN Ia for the intensive followup with *HST* and ground-based telescopes. We list these supernovae in Table 1. Figure 3 shows one of these objects as imaged by *HST*.
[lcccc]{} SN Ia & R.A. (2000) & Dec. (2000) & Discovery $R$ Mag & $z$\
SN 2000dy (Elmo) & 23:25:35.93 & $-$00:22:34.0 & 22.7 & 0.61\
SN 2000dz (PlasticMan) & 23:30:41.36 & $+$00:18:42.7 & 23.1 & 0.50\
SN 2000ea (RubberDucky) & 02:09:54.02 & $-$05:28:17.8 & 23.3 & 0.42\
SN 2000ec (Submariner) & 02:11:32.03 & $-$04:13:56.1 & 22.7 & 0.47\
SN 2000ee (InvisibleWoman) & 02:27:34.53 & $+$01:11:49.4 & 22.6 & 0.47\
SN 2000eg (WonderWoman) & 02:30:21.05 & $+$01:03:48.5 & 22.5 & 0.54\
SN 2000eh (Penguin) & 04:15:02.44 & $+$04:23:18.1 & 22.4 & 0.49\
In addition to settling the question of extinction, the full $UBVRI$ light curves for these high-redshift SN Ia will allow us to address other questions. For instance, precise measurements of the SN color evolution will allow us to check that our adopted K-corrections are valid (a potential systematic uncertainty that affects both teams in common, as the K-corrections are based on the same, small sample of nearby SN spectrophotometry). Additionally, the $U$-band observations are particularly interesting; they provide great leverage on measuring variations in the extinction law. However, in order to make sense of the rest-frame $U$-band data at high redshift, we also need a comparison sample of $U$-band light curves of *nearby* SN Ia. Such a sample is becoming available only now, with $UBVRI$ light curves of about 40 SN Ia observed as part of a monitoring campaign at the CfA (Jha et al. 2001, in preparation).
Evolution
=========
If the observed faintness of high-redshift SN Ia cannot be explained by intervening material along the line of sight, intrinsic variations in the luminosities of the supernovae themselves may be the culprit. Without a detailed understanding of SN Ia and their progenitors, predicting the expected evolutionary effects to $z \simeq 0.5$ is difficult. So far there is no indication that the SN Ia observed at high-redshift are intrinsically different from those nearby, with the light curves and spectra showing a strong similarity (R98; P99; Coil et al. 2000). More observations may strengthen this case; for instance the rest-frame $U$-band data from the current *HST* campaign may be useful in this regard, as variations in SN Ia progenitors are predicted to lead to observable effects in the near ultraviolet (Höflich et al. 2000). However, it is unclear whether the data will be precise enough to detect subtle indications of evolution. Beyond this, we do not have clear knowledge of how potential evolution of SN Ia would affect their luminosities (and more importantly, the luminosity/decline-rate relationship), which are the basis for the cosmological inferences (see Leibundgut 2000 for a recent review).
Because of the difficulty of definitively ruling out evolution or other systematic uncertainties, it would be desirable to test directly that the SN Ia are faint because of cosmology. Fortunately, the best-fit cosmologies in Figure 1 provide an avenue for such a test. In a flat $\Omega_M = 0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$ Universe there was a transition from decelerated expansion (where the energy density was dominated by matter) to accelerated expansion that occurred at $z \simeq 0.7$. This effect is shown in Figure 4, where we display the luminosity-distance/redshift relation for various cosmologies, relative to an empty Universe. The heavy dashed line shows the expectation for an $\Omega_M = 0.2$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.8$ model, and it shows that at higher redshifts $z \simeq 1$, the SN become less faint relative to an empty Universe, i.e. the prediction turns over. If the current SN data were explained by other effects, for instance a systematic uncertainty which grows linearly with redshift illustrated as by the heavy solid line, we would expect the SN Ia results at higher redshift to diverge significantly from the cosmological prediction. Thus, observations of SN Ia at $z \simeq 1$ provide an excellent test to confirm or refute the current cosmological paradigm.
The downside is that finding and following up SN Ia at $z \simeq 1$ with the necessary precision is quite a bit more difficult than measuring SN Ia at $z \simeq 0.5$. Both groups have undertaken efforts to observe such SN Ia (e.g., Fabbro et al. 1999; Tonry et al. 1999), and the reduction and analysis of these objects are underway. More objects are necessary, and we in the High-Z Team will make these higher-redshift SN Ia a priority in the upcoming year. With these data, we expect to measure the luminosity-distance/redshift relation at $z \simeq 0.8$ and $z \simeq
1.2$ with the uncertainties shown by the heavy open and filled points in Figure 4. This should allow us to discriminate the cosmological signal from systematic effects.
Other lines of astrophysical evidence suggest that we live in a flat Universe with low matter density ($\Omega_M \simeq 0.3$), with a dominant contribution from “dark energy” such as the cosmological constant. But *only* the data from SN Ia provide clear and direct evidence for the qualtiative prediction of dark energy: acceleration of the expansion. It is imperative, then, that the SN Ia results be checked against systematic error, which is the purpose of the observations discussed here. If the SN Ia results indeed arise from some systematic uncertainty, resolving the current cosmological constraints will be an exciting challenge. On the other hand, confirming the SN Ia results will open up even more exciting questions as to the nature and evolution of the mysterious dark energy. It is quite likely that continued precise observations of SN Ia will provide an important tool for these further investigations.
We thank Andrew Jaffe for providing the CMB likelihood distribution used in Figure 1. We also express our appreciation to the *HST* and numerous ground-based telescope time allocation committees for support. This research is also supported at Harvard by grant AST 98-19825 from the National Science Foundation and by grant GO:08648 provided by NASA through the Space Telescope Science Institute which is operated by AURA under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
Aguirre, A. 1999, , 525, 583
Aguirre, A., & Haiman, Z. 2000, , 532, 28
Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, , 345, 245
Coil, A. L., & the High-Z SN Search Team 2000, , 544, L111
Fabbro, S., & the Supernova Cosmology Project 1999, IAUC 7311
Falco, E. E., Impey, C. D., Kochanek, C. S., Lehár, J., McLeod, B. A., Rix, H.-W., Keeton, C. R., Muñoz, J. A., & Peng, C. Y. 1999, , 523, 617
Garnavich, P. M., & the High-Z SN Search Team 1998, , 509, 74
Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Schommer, R. A., Suntzeff, N. B., Maza, J., & Avilés, R. 1996, , 112, 2391
Höflich, P., Nomoto, K., Umeda, H., Wheeler, J. C. 2000, ApJ, 528, 590
Jaffe, A. H., et al. 2000, , in press (astro-ph/0007333)
Jha, S., et al. 1999, , 125, 73
Leibundgut, B. 2000, A&A Review, 10, 179
Perlmutter, S., & the Supernova Cosmology Project 1999, , 517, 565
Phillips, M. M., Lira, P., Suntzeff, N. B., Schommer, R. A., Hamuy, M., Maza, J. 1999, , 118, 1766
Riess, A. G., Press, W. H., & Kirshner, R. P. 1996, , 473, 88
Riess, A. G., & the High-Z SN Search Team 1998, , 116, 1009
Riess, A. G. 2000, , 112, 1284
Riess, A. G., & the High-Z SN Search Team 2000, , 536, 62
Schmidt, B. P., & the High-Z SN Search Team 2000, IAUC 7516
Tonry, J. L., & the High-Z SN Search Team 1999, IAUC 7312
[^1]: Falco et al. (1999) point out that the mean color excess of the R98 sample is *negative* at the 1 to 2$\sigma$ level of significance, meaning the SN Ia at high redshift may be *bluer* than the nearby sample. The more precise observations described here will confirm or modify this result.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the Whitham equation $u_t + 2u u_x+Lu_x = 0$, where L is the nonlocal Fourier multiplier operator given by the symbol $m(\xi) = \sqrt{\tanh \xi /\xi}$. G. B. Whitham conjectured that for this equation there would be a highest, cusped, travelling-wave solution. We find this wave as a limiting case at the end of the main bifurcation curve of $P$-periodic solutions, and give several qualitative properties of it, including its optimal $C^{1/2}$-regularity. An essential part of the proof consists in an analysis of the integral kernel corresponding to the symbol $m(\xi)$, and a following study of the highest wave. In particular, we show that the integral kernel corresponding to the symbol $m(\xi)$ is completely monotone, and provide an explicit representation formula for it.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematical Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway'
- 'Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Lund University, PO Box 118, 22100 Lund, Sweden\'
author:
- Mats Ehrnström
- Erik Wahlén
bibliography:
- 'highest.bib'
title: 'On Whitham’s conjecture of a highest cusped wave for a nonlocal dispersive equation'
---
Introduction
============
In 1967, G.B. Whitham proposed in [@0163.21104] a nonlocal shallow water wave model for capturing the balance between linear dispersion and nonlinear effects, so that one would have smooth periodic and solitary waves, but also the features of wave breaking and surface singularities. To accomplish that he considered the symbol $$m(\xi) = \sqrt{{\textstyle \frac{\tanh{\xi}}{\xi} }},$$ arising as the full frequency dispersion for linear gravity water waves on finite depth, and its inverse Fourier transform, $$\label{eq:K}
K(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb R}m(\xi) \exp(ix\xi)\,{{\mathrm d}}\xi.$$ If one denotes by $L \colon f \mapsto K \ast f$ the action by convolution with the kernel $K$, the *Whitham equation* is the nonlinear, nonlocal evolution equation $$\label{eq:whitham}
u_t + (Lu + u^2)_x = 0.$$ While many shallow water-wave equations can be written in this form, their symbols are generally leading order approximations of the exact linear dispersion $m(\xi)$, and therefore behaves radically different for large frequencies $\xi$; a typical example is the Korteweg–de Vries equation, whose symbol $1 - \frac{1}{6}\xi^2$ consists of the two first terms in the Maclaurin series for $m(\xi)$. The goal of introducing the operator $L$, on the other hand, was to weaken the dispersion so as to allow also for solutions with singularities.
As it turns out, Whitham was correct: the equation features solitary waves, wave breaking, and, as we will show, periodic waves with a sharp crest. This was not clear. In fact, the operator $L$ is not only weaker, but *much* weaker than that of both the KdV equation and almost any other shallow water wave equation, so that the existence of solitary waves was, until recently [@EGW11], an open problem. So was wave breaking (see just below), and the existence of a highest, cusped, travelling wave.
Singularities in solutions of appear in two forms: in the form of wave breaking when the spatial derivative of a bounded solution blows up in the evolution problem, and in the form of a sharp crests for a travelling wave. Although the idea behind wave breaking was introduced already by Seliger [@0159.28502], the full details for the Whitham equation were settled much later, with [@0802.35002], [@MR1668586] and [@Hur15]. We, however, shall be concerned with steady waves.
In steady variables $\varphi(\tilde x) = u(x-\mu t)$ the Whitham equation takes the form $$\label{eq:steadywhitham}
-\mu \varphi + L\varphi +\varphi^2 = 0,$$ where the equation has been integrated once, and the constant of integration set to zero. There is no loss of generality in doing so, since the Galilean change of variables $$\varphi \mapsto \varphi + \gamma, \qquad \mu \mapsto \mu + 2 \gamma, \qquad \lambda \mapsto \lambda + \gamma(1-\mu-\gamma),$$ maps solutions of $-\mu \varphi + L\varphi +\varphi^2 = \lambda$ to solutions of a new equation of the same form. The equation can be rigorously justified as a model for shallow water waves travelling rightward with a permanent form and a constant, nondimensionalised, wave speed $\mu$ [@MR3060183], and can, consistently, be obtained from the Euler equations via an exponential scaling [@MR3390078]. We shall deal with somewhat generally. *With a solution of the steady Whitham equation we denote a real-valued, continuous and bounded function $\varphi$ that satisfies almost everywhere.* As Whitham himself conjectured in [@MR1699025 p. 479] (here, the notation has been changed to match that of ),
> …it seems reasonable to assume that in fact a critical height is reached when $\varphi = \frac{\mu}{2}$. If $K(x)$ behaves like $|x|^p$ as $x \to 0$ and $\varphi(x)$ behaves like $\frac{\mu}{2} - |x|^q$, a local argument in suggests that $2q - 1 = p + q$; hence $ q = p +1$. According to this, the crest would be cusped with $\varphi \sim \frac{\mu}{2} - |x|^{1/2}$ for $K$.
The simplicity in Whitham’s formal argument is striking, even the more so as the equation easily eludes any first attempts at obtaining such a cusped, highest, wave.
Even though the kernel $K$ in is real, even, and smooth for all $x \neq 0$ with derivates of rapid decay, as made precise in Proposition \[prop:decay\], Proposition \[prop:kernel decomposition\] and Corollary \[cor:improved asymptotics\], it is also singular at the origin, causing nontrivial problems when one wants to analyse it (to come to any conclusion, Whitham in his further analysis replaced the exact kernel $K$ with a continuous ‘approximation’ of it, something that however changes the weak dispersion of the equation , and interchanges it with the Burgers–Poisson equation that does not feature cusps). We approach $K$ by investigating the signs of its derivatives, taking a route via complex analysis and the theory of completely monotone functions. As it turns out, the kernel $K$ can be understood via both the theory of Stieltjes functions and the theory of positive definite functions, depending on whether one considers the Laplace or the Fourier transform, respectively. As a by-product of our study we obtain a closed formula for the kernel $K$ in physical space, as well as for its periodisation. It is worth noting that $K$ appears in the classical water-wave problem, as well as in the derivation of numerous dispersive equations [@MR3060183], so that our analysis might prove useful in other settings as well.
Building on the results for the integral kernel $K$ we are able to prove the main result of this paper: the existence of a highest, cusped and periodic travelling-wave solution of , monotonically increasing and smooth between its sole trough and crest in a half-period, and belonging to the Hölder space $C^{1/2}({\mathbb R})$ — but to no smaller space in the same scale. The proof thereof has two main components. The construction of a global, locally analytic, curve of sinusoidal, periodic smooth waves along which $\max\varphi \to \mu/2$ on the one hand, and a detailed analysis of solutions satisfying $\max \varphi = \mu/2$ on the other. The first part is attained via analytic global bifurcation theory developed by Buffoni, Dancer and Toland [@MR1956130], where we rule out all alternatives along the main bifurcation curve but $\max\varphi \to \mu/2$, including in particular that the curve could return to a line of constant, but nonzero, solutions (see Figure \[fig:bifurcation\] on p. for a qualitative picture of the bifurcation diagram as a whole). It is then straightforward to find a subsequence of waves converging to a solution with $\max \varphi = \mu/2$, and we use elliptic properties of the equation to rule out the possibility of the wave speed $\mu$ vanishing in the limit.
![The highest wave found in Theorem \[thm:main\]. This travelling-wave solution of is obtained as a limit along the main global bifurcation curve established in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\]. By construction, the solution is $P$-periodic, even, and strictly increasing on the interval $(-P/2,0)$, satisfying $\varphi(0) = \frac{\mu}{2}$. As proved in Theorem \[thm:regularity II\], it is furthermore smooth away from any crest, and obtains its optimal Hölder regularity $C^{1/2}({\mathbb R})$ exactly at the crest. []{data-label="fig:highest"}](highest.pdf){width="0.5\linewidth"}
For an in-depth analysis of the resulting limiting wave a detailed study of the integral equation appears to be unavoidable. Functional-analytic arguments provides one with $C^\alpha$-regularity for any $\alpha < 1/2$, but not better. To improve our estimates we use several differing ways of expressing $\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h)$, which makes it possible to move first- and second-order differences between $K$ and $\varphi$ in the integrals that appear. We first move second-order differences to $K$ and use the $C^\alpha$-regularity of $\varphi$, $\alpha < 1/2$, to get $C^{1/2}$-regularity exactly at the crest. We then place one first-order difference on $\varphi$ and one on $K$ to deploy an interpolation argument between the global $C^{\alpha}$-regularity and the $C^{1/2}$-regularity exactly at the top, to obtain global $C^{1/2}({\mathbb R})$-regularity. The highest wave is qualitatively depicted in Figure \[fig:highest\]. We conjecture that it is everywhere convex and satisfies $$\varphi = {\textstyle\frac{\mu}{2}} - {\textstyle \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{8}}}|x|^{1/2} + o(x) \quad\text{ as }\quad x \to 0,$$ but a proof of these facts has so far evaded us. If such a formula holds, then one can show that the constant in front of $|x|^{1/2}$ must indeed take the value $\sqrt{\pi /8}$. The same constant would furthermore scale with $K$, so that a different normalisation of the inverse Fourier transform would lead to a corresponding scaling in the limiting constant.
Some comments on related recent work on the Whitham equation not mentioned above. The equation features the same kind of Benjamin–Feir instability as the full Euler equations [@MR3298879; @MR3226084], although its uni-directional character excludes other (small-amplitude, high-frequency) instabilities seen in the Euler equations [@DT15]. It is locally well-posed in $H^{3/2+}$, in both the periodic setting and on the line [@MR3375167], but a large-time existence theory is so far lacking for equations with a generic nonlinearity and such weak dispersion, see [@LannesSaut13] and [@MR3188389]. As described above, waves with sufficiently large inclination will eventually break, and numerical data indicates that the form of breaking waves mimics that of the highest wave constructed in this paper [@MR3317254]. The results presented in this paper are in turn based on [@EK08] and [@EK11], in which global branches of periodic, but smooth, periodic solutions were analytically constructed and numerically investigated.
The outline of our investigation is as follows. In Section \[sec:K\] we inspect the integral kernel $K$ corresponding to the symbol $m(\xi)$. Although some of our results are valid for general completely monotone functions, the results with most consequence for our further investigation are Propositions \[prop:g is Stieltjes\] and \[prop:Whitham formula\], where we prove that $K$ is completely monotone—meaning that all its odd derivatives are negative on a half-line, and contrariwise for the even derivatives—and give a closed formula for it. In Section \[sec:Kp\] we continue the study of the integral operator $L$, now for the periodised integral kernel $K_P$, and give some useful properties of $L$ in general. Interestingly, $K_P$ is completely monotone as well, on a half-period (this is not a coincidence, but a general fact for integrable completely monotone functions). A closed formula for the periodised kernel is given in Corollary \[cor:periodic formula\].
In Section \[sec:nodal\] we prove some general lemmas about solutions of , whereof the most important to us is Theorem \[thm:nodal\], which establishes the nodal properties of solutions along the main bifurcation branch to be constructed. As it turns out, satisfies a maximum principle (touching lemma), making it resemblant of an elliptic equation. The nodal properties are essential in avoiding the closed-loop alternative in the global bifurcation analysis, but they also give information about the waves in their own right.
Section \[sec:singularity\] is the main part of the paper, in the sense that it contains the a priori analysis the highest wave. It is also the most technical, making use of both Besov spaces and, mostly, of integral estimates adapted for the assumed optimal regularity of the wave. Since $K(x) \sim |x|^{-1/2}$ and we expect $\frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi \sim |x|^{1/2}$, both relations for small values of $x$, one difficulty is that the integral $\int K^\prime(y) (\frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi(y))\,{{\mathrm d}}y$ diverges exactly at the expected regularity; another is that the point where $\varphi = \frac{\mu}{2}$ must be treated separately from other points. The main results of Section \[sec:singularity\] are summarised in Theorem \[thm:regularity II\] about the regularity of the highest wave. Lastly, we revisit in Section \[sec:global\] the bifurcation analysis from [@EK08; @EK11], ultimately proving that there is a sequence of waves converging to a wave of greatest height $\varphi(0) = \frac{\mu}{2}$, with a nontrivial wave speed $\mu \in (0,1)$. We underscore that several parts of Section \[sec:global\] are new with respect to [@EK08; @EK11], including the bifurcation formulas given in the proof of Theorem \[thm:local\_whit\].
Finally, the existence of a highest, cusped travelling-wave solution of the Whitham equation was announced earlier this year in [@E15_highest] (without proofs). The paper at hand provides a complete account of this fact, as well as several improvements—the most eminent examples being the regularity of the highest wave, and the properties of the kernels $K$ and $K_P$.
Completely monotone functions and the integral kernel $K$ {#sec:K}
=========================================================
In this section we investigate the properties of the integral kernel $K$ in . Two routes towards understanding this transform are described—via positive definite functions (related to the Fourier transform), and via completely monotone functions (related to the Laplace transform). We start our exposition with a survey and analysis of completely monotone functions in general, whereafter the applications to the Whitham symbol $m$ are investigated. Among other things, we obtain complete monotonicity and an explicit series expression for the Whitham kernel $K$.
Regularity properties {#regularity-properties .unnumbered}
---------------------
Recall . We consider in this paper the Fourier transform as a continuous isomorphism $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}\colon {\mathcal{S}}^\prime({\mathbb R}) \to {\mathcal{S}}^\prime({\mathbb R})$ on the space ${\mathcal{S}}^\prime({\mathbb R})$ of tempered distributions, defined by duality from the Fourier transform on the Schwartz space ${\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb R})$ of smooth and rapidly decaying functions. Our normalisation of $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}$ is $$(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f)(\xi) = \int_{{\mathbb R}} f(x) \exp(-ix\xi) \,{{\mathrm d}}x \quad\text{ for }\quad f \in {\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb R}),$$ which implies that $(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(x)=\frac1{2\pi} (\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f)(-x)$. Clearly $m\in {\mathcal{S}}^\prime({\mathbb R})$, whence $K$ exists at least as an element of ${\mathcal{S}}^\prime({\mathbb R})$. However, since $m$ is smooth and all of its derivatives are integrable, $K$ is actually smooth for $x\ne 0$, and all its derivatives have rapid decay. In fact, since $m$ is analytic in a strip containing the real axis, $K$ and all of its derivatives are exponentially decaying.
\[prop:decay\] For any fixed $s_0 \in (0, \pi/2)$, $n\ge 0$, one has $$|\operatorname{D}_x^{n} K(x)| \lesssim \exp(-s_0 |x|)$$ for all $|x|\ge 1$.
Throughout this paper, $\lesssim$ and $\gtrsim$ shall indicate inequalities that hold up to a uniform positive factor. When the factor involved depends on some additional parameter or function, this will be indicated with subscripts such as $\gtrsim_\mu$.
More precise asymptotics for $K(x)$ as $|x|\to \infty$ is given in Corollary \[cor:improved asymptotics\] below.
Since $K$ is even it suffices to consider $x\ge 1$. Note that the integral $$\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix\xi) m(\xi)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi$$ converges conditionally. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-R}^R \exp(ix\xi) m(\xi)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi&=2\int_{0}^R \cos(x\xi) m(\xi)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi\\
&=\frac{2\sin(Rx)m(R)}{x} -\frac{2}{x} \int_0^R \sin(x\xi) m^\prime(\xi)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi\\
&\to -\frac{2}{x} \int_0^\infty \sin(x\xi) m^\prime(\xi)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi\end{aligned}$$ as $R\to \infty$; the latter integral converges absolutely since $m^\prime(\xi)=\mathcal{O}(|\xi|^{-3/2})$ as $|\xi|\to \infty$. The function $\zeta \mapsto m(\zeta)$ is analytic in ${\mathbb C}\setminus S$, where $S=\cup_{k=1}^\infty i[k\pi-\pi/2, k\pi]\cup i[-k\pi, -k\pi+\pi/2]$. Furthermore, $$\label{eq:tanh bound}
\begin{aligned}
|\tanh(\zeta)|^2
&=\left|\frac{\exp(\xi+is)-\exp(-\xi-is)}{\exp(\xi+is)+\exp(-\xi-is)}\right|^2\\
&=\frac{\exp(2\xi)-2\cos(2s)+\exp(-2\xi)}{\exp(2\xi)+2\cos(2s)+\exp(-2\xi)}\\
&\le \coth^2 \xi \\
&\le \coth^2 \xi_0
\end{aligned}$$ when $|\xi|\ge \xi_0>0$, in which $\zeta=\xi+is$. Noting that $\exp(ix\zeta)$ is bounded for $x > 0$ when $\operatorname{Im}\zeta \ge 0$, we therefore obtain that $$\label{eq:deformation estimate}
\lim_{|\xi|\to \infty} \sup_{s \ge 0} |\exp(ix\zeta)m(\xi+is)|=0.$$ Fix a number $s_0\in (0, \pi/2)$. Using Cauchy’s theorem on a bounded rectangle with vertices $\pm R$, $\pm R+is_0$, and letting $R\to \infty$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:first deformation}
\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix\xi) m(\xi)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi&=
\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix(\xi+is_0))m(\xi+is_0)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi\\
&
=\exp(-xs_0) \int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix\xi)m(\xi+is_0)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi.
\end{aligned}$$ Integrating by parts and using the estimate $|\partial_\xi m(\xi+is_0)|=\mathcal{O}(|\xi|^{-3/2})$ as $|\xi|\to \infty$, we obtain the desired exponential decay of $K$.
In order to estimate the derivatives of $K$, we note that $|\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}(x^{n} \operatorname{D}_x^n K)(\xi)|= |\operatorname{D}_\xi^{n} (\xi^n m(\xi))|$, for any $n\ge 0$, where $\operatorname{D}_\xi^{n} (\xi^n m(\xi))$ extends analytically to the strip $0\le \operatorname{Im}\zeta <\pi/2$ and satisfies the estimate $|D_\xi^{n+k} ((\xi+is_0)^n m(\xi+is_0))|=\mathcal{O}(|\xi|^{-1/2-k})$ as $|\xi|\to \infty$, for any $k\ge 0$ and $s_0\in (0, \pi/2)$. Repeating the above argument, we obtain exponential decay for $x^n \operatorname{D}_x^n K(x)$ and hence also for $\operatorname{D}_x^n K$.
Due to the fact that $m\not \in L^1({\mathbb R})$, it follows that $K$ is singular at the origin. We can give a precise description of this singularity as follows.
\[prop:kernel decomposition\] The Whitham kernel satisfies $$K(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi|x|}}+K_\text{reg}(x),$$ where $K_\text{reg}$ is real analytic on ${\mathbb R}$.
Write $$\sqrt{\frac{\tanh \xi}{\xi}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\xi|}}+\frac{\sqrt{\tanh |\xi|}-1}{\sqrt{|\xi|}}.$$ The first term has inverse Fourier transform $1/\sqrt{2\pi|x|}$, while the second term is integrable and exponentially decaying and hence has a real-analytic transform.
Positivity and monotonicity properties: general theory {#positivity-and-monotonicity-properties-general-theory .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------
Our next aim is to show certain positivity and monotonicity properties of $K$. We begin by proving such results for the Fourier transforms of a general class of functions. In the next subsection, we then show that the Whitham symbol $m$ belongs to this class. Much of the general theory discussed in this section is adapted from the monograph [@SchillingSongVondracek12], although we slightly extend some of it. Most importantly, we relate it to the theory of positive definite functions and the kernel $K$.
A function $g\colon (0, \infty)\to {\mathbb R}$ is called [*completely monotone*]{} if it is of class $C^\infty$ and $$\label{eq:completely monotone}
(-1)^n g^{(n)}(\lambda)\ge 0$$ for all $n \in {\mathbb Z}_0$ and all $\lambda >0$.
We shall sometimes say that a function is completely monotone on some interval (typically, a half-period), meaning that holds on that interval. Moreover, if $g\colon {\mathbb R}\setminus \{0\} \to {\mathbb R}$ is even, we shall say that $g$ is completely monotone if it is completely monotone on the interval $(0,\infty)$. One of the main reasons for introducing completely monotone functions is that they are precisely the functions which arise as Laplace transforms of measures. This is known as the Bernstein, or Bernstein–Hausdorff–Widder, theorem. We adopt here the convention that *a measure is always countably additive and positive*.
\[thm:HBW\] Let $g$ be completely monotone. Then it is the Laplace transform of a unique Borel measure $\mu$ on $[0,\infty)$, i.e. $$\label{eq:representation of completely monotone functions}
g(\lambda)={\mathcal{L}}(\mu; \lambda):=\int_{[0,\infty)} \exp(-\lambda s) \, {{\mathrm d}}\mu(s).$$ Conversely, if $\mu$ is a Borel measure on $[0,\infty)$ with ${\mathcal{L}}(\mu;\lambda)<\infty$ for every $\lambda>0$, then $\lambda \mapsto
{\mathcal{L}}(\mu;\lambda)$ is a completely monotone function.
For a proof of this result, see [@SchillingSongVondracek12 Theorem 1.4]. A consequence of Bernstein’s theorem is that if $g$ is completely monotone, then holds with strict inequality for every $\lambda$ and every $n$, unless $g$ is identically constant. Note also that the measure $\mu$ in is finite if and only if $\lim_{\lambda\searrow 0} g(\lambda)<\infty$.
For later use we introduce the following subclass of the completely monotone functions.
\[def:Stieltjes function\] A function $g\colon (0, \infty)\to [0,\infty)$ is called a (nonnegative) [*Stieltjes function*]{} if it can be written in the form $$\label{eq:Stieltjes}
g(\lambda)=\frac{a}{\lambda}+b+\int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{1}{\lambda+t}\, {{\mathrm d}}\sigma(t),$$ where $a, b\ge 0$ are constants and $\sigma$ is a Borel measure on $(0, \infty)$ such that $
\int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{{{\mathrm d}}\sigma(t)}{1+t}<\infty$.
Note that if $g$ has a finite limit at the origin, then $a=0$ and $\int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{{{\mathrm d}}\sigma(t)}{t}<\infty$ by Fatou’s lemma. Moreover, $b=\lim_{\lambda \to \infty} g(\lambda)$. The fact that Stieltjes functions are completely montone is proved in [@SchillingSongVondracek12].
[[@SchillingSongVondracek12 Theorem 2.2]]{} Stieltjes functions are completely monotone. A completely monotone function is a Stieltjes function if and only if the measure $\mu$ in is absolutely continuous on $(0,\infty)$ and its Radon–Nikodym derivative is completely monotone.
It turns out that any Stieltjes function has an analytic extension to the cut complex plane ${\mathbb C}\setminus (-\infty,0]$. This property gives a complete characterisation of the class of Stieltjes functions. Let ${\mathbb C}_+=\{z\in {\mathbb C}\colon \operatorname{Im}z>0\}$ and ${\mathbb C}_-=\{z\in {\mathbb C}\colon \operatorname{Im}z<0\}$.
[[@SchillingSongVondracek12 Corollary 7.4]]{} \[thm:Stieltjes extensions\] Let $g$ be a positive function on $(0,\infty)$. Then $g$ is a Stieltjes function if and only if the limit $\lim_{x\searrow 0} g(x)$ exists in $[0,\infty]$ and $g$ extends analytically to ${\mathbb C}\setminus (-\infty, 0]$ such that $\operatorname{Im}z \cdot \operatorname{Im}g(z)\le 0$.
Note that positive constant functions are examples of Stieltjes functions. It follows easily by basic properties of analytic functions that a nonconstant Stieltjes function maps ${\mathbb C}_+$ to ${\mathbb C}_-$. Note also that if $g$ is not identically $0$, then $1/g(z)$ is a Nevanlinna function (also known as Herglotz or Pick functions). The corresponding function $1/g(x)$ is then a complete Bernstein function, see [@SchillingSongVondracek12].
It is possible to compute the measure $\sigma$ in using the analytic extension of $g$. The following result follows from [@SchillingSongVondracek12 Corollary 6.3] and the fact that $x g(x)$ is a complete Bernstein function if $g(x)$ is a Stieltjes function (see [@SchillingSongVondracek12 Theorem 6.2]).
The measure $\sigma$ in can be recovered from $g$ by the formula $$\label{eq:inversion formula}
\sigma(u,v]=-\lim_{\delta \searrow 0} \lim_{h\searrow 0} \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{u+\delta}^{v+\delta} \operatorname{Im}g(-t+ih) \, {{\mathrm d}}t, \quad 0<u<v<\infty.$$
We also record the following lemma which follows easily from Theorem \[thm:Stieltjes extensions\].
\[lemma:composition\] If $g$ is a Stieltjes function, then so is $g^\alpha$ for any $\alpha \in (0,1]$.
Next, we are interested in characterising functions with a positive Fourier transform. We refer to [@MR2284176] for the following standard results.
A function $f\colon {\mathbb R}^d \to {\mathbb C}$ is said to be *positive definite* if for every $n \in {\mathbb N}$, the $n \times n$-matrix with values $a_{ij} = f(\xi_i - \xi_j)$, $1 \leq i,j \leq n$, is positive semi-definite.
\[thm:schur\] Let $\{f_j\}_j$ be a countable family of positive definite functions. Then $\prod_{j} f_j$ is positive definite.
\[thm:bochner\] Any positive definite function continuous at zero is the Fourier transform of a finite Borel measure.
A common way of stating Bochner’s theorem is as a one-to-one correspondence between continuous positive definite functions and probability measures. This form of the statement is in agreement with Theorem \[thm:bochner\] as long as one requires $f(0) = 1$ for the positive definite functions.
Let $f$ be a positive definite function. If $f^r$ is positive definite for any real power $r \geq 0$, then $f$ is said to be *infinitely divisible*. By definition, any root $f^{1/n}$ of an infinitely divisible function $f$ is a positive definite function. It follows from Theorem \[thm:schur\] that any product of infinitely definite functions is again infinitely divisible. Moreover, $f$ is infinitely divisible if and only if $f^{1/n}$ is positive definite for any $n \in {\mathbb N}$, since products and pointwise limits of positive definite functions are positive definite.
We next recall Schoenberg’s theorem which links completely monotone functions and positive definite functions.
[@MR1503439]\[thm:characterisation\] A function $g \colon [0,\infty)\to {\mathbb R}$ continuous at zero is completely monotone if and only if $g(|\cdot|^2)$ is positive definite on ${\mathbb R}^d$ for all $d \in {\mathbb N}$.
We have the following two results, giving us properties of transforms of completely monotone and Stieltjes functions, respectively.
\[prop:completely monotone Fourier\] Let $f$ and $g$ be two functions satisfying $f(\xi)=g(\xi^2)$. Then $f$ is the Fourier transform of an even, integrable function such that $(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(\sqrt{\cdot})$ is completely monotone if and only if $g$ is completely monotone with $\lim_{\lambda \searrow 0} g(\lambda)<\infty$ and $\lim_{\lambda \to \infty} g(\lambda)=0$. In this case, $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f$ is smooth and monotone outside of the origin.
For a related result by Bochner (on subordinate Brownian motions), see [@MR0072370 Theorem 4.3.3] and [@SchillingSongVondracek12 Example 13.16].
When $g$ is completely monotone and continuous at zero, Bochner’s theorem guarantees us that $f(\xi)=g(\xi^2)$ is the Fourier transform of a measure. In fact, by Bernstein’s theorem (cf. Theorem \[thm:HBW\]), we have that $$f(\xi)=\mu(\{0\})+\int_{(0,\infty)} \exp(-\xi^2 t)\, {{\mathrm d}}\mu(t)$$ for some finite Borel measure $\mu$ on $[0, \infty)$. Since $\lim_{\xi\to \infty} f(\xi)=0$, we infer that $\mu(\{0\})=0$, whence $$\label{eq:Bochner_formula}
f(\xi)=\int_{(0,\infty)} \exp(-\xi^2 t)\, {{\mathrm d}}\mu(t).$$ Noting that $$\exp(-t \xi^2)=\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}\left(\frac{\exp(-\frac{(\cdot)^2}{4 t })}{\sqrt{4\pi t }}\right)(\xi)=
\int_{{\mathbb R}} \frac{\exp(-\frac{x^2}{4t})}{\sqrt{4\pi t}}\exp(-i x\xi) \, {{\mathrm d}}x,$$ it follows that $$\label{eq:f Fubini}
\begin{aligned}
f(\xi)&= \int_{(0,\infty)} \left( \int_{{\mathbb R}} \frac{\exp(-\frac{x^2}{4t})}{\sqrt{4\pi t }} \exp(-i x\xi)\, {{\mathrm d}}x \right) \, {{\mathrm d}}\mu(t)\\
&= \int_{{\mathbb R}} \left(\int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{\exp(-\frac{x^2}{4 t })}{\sqrt{4\pi t }} \, {{\mathrm d}}\mu( t )\right) \exp(-i x\xi)\, {{\mathrm d}}x,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Fubini’s theorem; in order to verify that it applies one can consider the change of variables $y=x/\sqrt{t}$, recalling that $\mu$ is finite. Hence, $$\label{eq:inverse Fourier Bernstein I}
(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(x) = \int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{\exp(-\frac{x^2}{4 t })}{\sqrt{4\pi t }} \, {{\mathrm d}}\mu(t).$$ This calculation together with Bochner’s theorem implies that $ \operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f \in L^1({\mathbb R})\cap C^\infty({\mathbb R}\setminus\{0\})$, so that $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f$ is actually given by a function and not just a measure (in this and the following proof it does not matter if we consider $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f$ or $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1}f$, since they differ only by a constant factor). The positivity of $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f$ is clear from the above formula, too, and we in addition see that $ \operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f$ is monotone for $x>0$. More precisely, $$(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)^\prime(x)=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi}} \int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{x\exp(-\frac{x^2}{4t})}{t^{3/2}} \,{{\mathrm d}}\mu(t) <0.$$ Finally, the fact that $(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(\sqrt{\cdot})$ is completely monotone is a consequence of Bernstein’s theorem and the computation $$\label{eq:inverse Fourier Bernstein II}
(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(\sqrt{\lambda}) = \int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{\exp(-\frac{\lambda}{4 t })}{\sqrt{4\pi t }} \, {{\mathrm d}}\mu(t)=
\int_{(0,\infty)} \exp(-s\lambda)\, {{\mathrm d}}\tilde \mu(s),$$ in which the measure $\tilde \mu$ is given by $$\label{eq:tilde mu definition}
{{\mathrm d}}\tilde \mu=\sqrt{\frac{\cdot}{\pi}} {{\mathrm d}}(\psi_*(\mu)),$$ where $\psi(t)=\frac{1}{4t}$ and $\psi_*(\mu)$ is the pushforward of $\mu$ by $\psi$.
Conversely, suppose that $f$ is the Fourier transform of an even, integrable function $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f$ and that $(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(\sqrt{\cdot})$ is completely monotone. Then we can write $(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(\sqrt{\cdot})$ in the form $$(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(\sqrt{\lambda}) =
\int_{[0,\infty)} \exp(-s\lambda)\, {{\mathrm d}}\tilde \mu(s),$$ where $\tilde \mu$ is obtained using Bernstein’s theorem. Consequently, $$(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(x) =
\int_{[0,\infty)} \exp(-sx^2)\, {{\mathrm d}}\tilde \mu(s),$$ and integrating this relation using the change of variables $y=\sqrt{s}x$ yields that ${{\mathrm d}}\tilde \mu(s)/\sqrt{s}$ is a finite measure. In particular, $\tilde \mu$ has no mass at $0$, so that holds, where $\mu$ is the finite measure defined by . Consequently, we have and the calculation is now justified by Fubini’s theorem. Thus, holds and this in turn implies that $g$ is completely monotone with $\lim_{\lambda \searrow 0} g(\lambda)=0$ and $\lim_{\lambda \to \infty} g(\lambda)=0$.
When the function $g$ is Stieltjes one can sharpen these conclusions. It is already clear from Theorem \[thm:characterisation\] and Lemma \[lemma:composition\] that $g(\xi^2)$ is infinitely divisible. In addition, we have:
\[prop:Stieltjes Fourier\] Let $f$ and $g$ be two functions satisfying $f(\xi)=g(\xi^2)$. Then $f$ is the Fourier transform of an even, integrable and completely monotone function if and only if $g$ is Stieltjes with $\lim_{\lambda \searrow 0} g(\lambda)<\infty$ and $\lim_{\lambda \to \infty} g(\lambda)=0$. One has $$\label{eq:g representation}
g(\lambda)=\int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{1}{\lambda+t}\, {{\mathrm d}}\sigma(t),$$ and, with $\psi = \sqrt{\cdot}$, the pushforward of $\sigma$ by $\psi$ relates $f$ to $g$ via $$\label{eq:f representation}
(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(x)=\int_{(0,\infty)} \exp(-s|x|) \, {{\mathrm d}}\mu(s), \qquad {{\mathrm d}}\mu=\frac{1}{2(\cdot)}{{\mathrm d}}( \psi_*(\sigma)).$$
The main part of this result is known in the theory of subordinate Brownian motions; see [@MR2860308 Proposition 2.14] and [@SchillingSongVondracek12 Example 13.16]. We include a proof for completeness since our result is slightly different as well as phrased in a different language.
Suppose first that $g$ is a Stieltjes function with $\lim_{\lambda \searrow 0} g(\lambda)<\infty$ and $\lim_{\lambda \to \infty} g(\lambda)=0$. By assumption, $g$ is given by with $\int_{(0,\infty)}\frac{{{\mathrm d}}\sigma(t)}{t}<\infty$ (see the remark after Definition \[def:Stieltjes function\]) and hence we obtain from $f(\xi)=g(\xi^2)$ that $$f(\xi) =\int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{1}{\xi^2+t}\, {{\mathrm d}}\sigma(t).$$ From the transform $$\label{eq:exponential transform}
\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} \left( \frac{s}{\xi^2+s^2} \right)(x) =\frac12 \exp(-s\, |x|),$$ with $s = \sqrt{t}$, and an argument as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:completely monotone Fourier\], we get that $$\label{eq:fhat_Stieltjes}
(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(x)= \int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{\exp(-\sqrt{t}\, |x|)}{2\sqrt{t}} \, {{\mathrm d}}\sigma(t).$$ Here, one makes the changes of variables $y = \sqrt{t} x$ in order to justify the use of Fubini’s theorem. Making the change of variables $t \mapsto \sqrt{t} = \psi(t)$ in the integral, we obtain in the variable $s = \sqrt{t}$. In particular, $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f$ is completely monotone by Bernstein’s theorem (${{\mathrm d}}\mu(s)/s$ is finite). The evenness of $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f$ follows immediately from the evenness of $g(\xi^2)$, and the fact that $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f \in L^1({\mathbb R})$ is a consequence of Proposition \[prop:completely monotone Fourier\].
Conversely, suppose that $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f\in L^1({\mathbb R})$ is even and completely monotone. Then $$(\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1} f)(x)=\int_{[0, \infty)} \exp(-|x|s)\,{{\mathrm d}}\mu(s),$$ for some Borel measure $\mu$ on $[0,\infty)$ and the integrability of $\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}f$ implies that ${{\mathrm d}}\mu(s)/s$ is a finite measure. In particular, $\mu$ has no mass at $0$ so that the left-most equality in holds. Thus, we have with $\sigma$ defined by , and together with Fubini’s theorem yield . Moreover, it is easily seen that ${{\mathrm d}}\sigma(t)/t$ is finite so that $g$ is a Stieltjes function with the desired properties.
Positivity and monotonicity properties: the Whitham kernel {#positivity-and-monotonicity-properties-the-whitham-kernel .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------
Note that we can write the Whitham symbol as $m(\xi)=g(\xi^2)$, where $$\label{eq:gm}
g(\lambda)=\sqrt{\frac{\tanh \sqrt{\lambda}}{\sqrt{\lambda}}}, \qquad \lambda\ge 0.$$
\[prop:g is Stieltjes\] $(g(\lambda))^{2\alpha}$ is a Stieltjes function for any $\alpha \in (0, 1]$.
To see this, note that the reciprocal $$\lambda \to \frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{\tanh \sqrt{\lambda}}$$ is positive on $(0, \infty)$ with the finite limit $1$ as $\lambda \searrow 0$, and extends to an analytic function on ${\mathbb C}\setminus (-\infty, 0]$ if we let $\sqrt{\lambda}$ denote the principal branch of the square root. It also maps ${\mathbb C}_+$ to ${\mathbb C}_+$. Indeed, a straightforward calculation shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Im}\left(\frac{z}{\tanh z}\right)&=\frac{2}{|\exp(z)-\exp(-z)|^2} (\operatorname{Im}z \sinh(2\operatorname{Re}z)-\operatorname{Re}z \sin(2\operatorname{Im}z))\\
&>
\frac{4}{|\exp(z)-\exp(-z)|^2} (\operatorname{Im}z \operatorname{Re}z-\operatorname{Re}z \operatorname{Im}z)=0\end{aligned}$$ when $\operatorname{Re}z, \operatorname{Im}z>0$, from which it follows that $
\operatorname{Im}(\sqrt{\lambda}/\tanh \sqrt{\lambda}))> 0$ when $\operatorname{Im}\lambda >0$. This implies that $\lambda \mapsto \tanh \sqrt{\lambda}/\sqrt{\lambda}$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[thm:Stieltjes extensions\]. Hence, $(g(\lambda))^{2\alpha}$ is a Stieltjes function by Lemma \[lemma:composition\].
Throughout the rest of Section \[sec:K\] we let $\alpha=1/2$. The following is our main result concerning the kernel $K$, and will be used repeatedly in the later sections.
\[prop:Whitham formula\] The Whitham kernel can be expressed in the form . The Borel measure $\sigma$ in the same formula satisfies $\int_{(0,\infty)}\frac{{{\mathrm d}}\sigma(t)}{t}<\infty$, and is absolutely continuous with density $$\frac{1}{\pi} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sqrt{\frac{|\tan \sqrt{t}|}{\sqrt{t}}}\chi_{((\frac{(2n-1)\pi}{2})^2, (n\pi)^2)}(t).$$ Thus $$\label{eq:explicit expression for Whitham kernel}
K(x)=\frac1{\pi} \sum_{n=1}^\infty\int_{\frac{(2n-1)\pi}{2}}^{n\pi} \exp(-s |x|)\sqrt{\frac{|\tan s|}{s}}\, {{\mathrm d}}s,$$ and $K$ is completely monotone on $(0,\infty)$. In particular, it is positive, strictly decreasing and strictly convex for $x>0$.
For $g$ as in we have $\lim_{\lambda\to \infty} g(\lambda)=0$ and $\lim_{\lambda\to 0} g(\lambda)=1$. Applying Proposition \[prop:Stieltjes Fourier\] we immediately obtain the first part of the proposition. The inversion formula furthermore gives us $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(u,v]&=-\lim_{h\searrow 0} \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{(u,v]} \operatorname{Im}\sqrt{\frac{\tanh\sqrt{-t+ih}}{\sqrt{-t+ih}}}
\, {{\mathrm d}}t\\
&=
-\lim_{h\searrow 0} \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{(u,v]} \operatorname{Im}\sqrt{\frac{\tan\sqrt{t-ih}}{\sqrt{t-ih}}}
\, {{\mathrm d}}t.\end{aligned}$$ We get a contribution from each interval on which $\tan\sqrt{t}/\sqrt{t}$ is negative, i.e., from each interval $$((\pi/2)^2, \pi^2),\quad ((3\pi/2)^2, (2\pi)^2),\quad \ldots\quad,\quad (((2n-1)\pi/2)^2, (n\pi)^2),\quad \ldots,$$ giving the announced expression for $\sigma$. The formula for $K$ then follows by substituting this expression for $\sigma$ in and making the change of variables $s=\sqrt{t}$ in order to determine $\mu$.
We remark that could also be obtained by deforming the contour in the calculation of the Fourier transform of $m(\xi)$ further. Assume that $x>0$ and recall from that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix\xi) m(\xi)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi&=
\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix(\xi+is_0))m(\xi+is_0)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi\\
&=\exp(-xs_0) \int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix\xi)m(\xi+is_0)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi,\end{aligned}$$ for any $s_0\in (0, \pi/2)$. We can extend the contour by replacing $s_0$ with a number $s_1\in (\pi, 3\pi/2)$, obtaining $$\label{eq:second deformation}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix(\xi+is_0))m(\xi+is_0)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi\\
&=
\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix(\xi+is_1))m(\xi+is_1)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi\\
&\qquad
+i\lim_{{s}\searrow 0} \int_{\frac{\pi}{2}}^{\pi} \left(\exp(ix({s}+is)) m({s}+is) - \exp(ix(-{s}+is)) m(-{s}+is)\right) \, {{\mathrm d}}s\\
&=
\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix(\xi+is_1))m(\xi+is_1)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi
+2\int_{\frac{\pi}{2}}^{\pi} \exp(-xs)
\sqrt{\frac{|\tan s|}{s}}\, {{\mathrm d}}s;
\end{aligned}$$ see Figure \[fig:contour\]. Repeating this procedure, we may replace $s_1$ by a number $s_N \in (N\pi, (2N+1)\pi/2)$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix\xi) m(\xi)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi&=
\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix(\xi+is_N))m(\xi+is_N)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi\\
&\quad
+2 \sum_{n=1}^N\int_{\frac{(2n-1)\pi}{2}}^{n\pi} \exp(-s x) \sqrt{\frac{|\tan s|}{s}}\, {{\mathrm d}}s,\end{aligned}$$ for $N=1,2,3,\ldots$. Taking $s_N=\pi/4+N\pi$, and noting that $|\partial_\xi m(\xi+is_N)|\lesssim (|\xi|+1)^{-3/2}$ uniformly in $N$, we find that $$\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix(\xi+is_N))m(\xi+is_N)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi=\exp(-xs_N)\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix\xi)m(\xi+is_N)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi\to 0$$ as $N\to \infty$ (the convergence is uniform for $x\ge x_0>0$). It follows that $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb R}\exp(ix\xi) m(\xi)\, {{\mathrm d}}\xi=
\frac{1}{\pi} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\int_{\frac{(2n-1)\pi}{2}}^{n\pi} \exp(-s x) \sqrt{\frac{|\tan s|}{s}}\, {{\mathrm d}}s,\quad x>0.$$
![By Cauchy’s theorem and , the integral of $e^{ix\zeta} m(\zeta)$ along the dashed contour vanishes. The filled intervals on the positive $s$-axis are the branch cuts $[\pi/2, \pi], [3\pi/2, 2\pi], \ldots$. Equation is obtained by letting the inner contour converge to the branch cut which it surrounds.[]{data-label="fig:contour"}](contour.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
We also remark that an alternative approach to obtaining the above positivity and monotonicity properties of the Whitham kernel is to study the functions $-x \operatorname{D}_x K(x)$ and $x^2 \operatorname{D}_x^2 K (x)$. These functions are regular at the origin and one can show that their Fourier transforms $\operatorname{D}_\xi(\xi m(\xi))$ and $\operatorname{D}_\xi^2 (\xi^2 m(\xi))$, respectively, are positive definite.
We now improve upon Proposition \[prop:decay\] by taking advantage of the expression for the kernel $K$. For the technique behind our approach, we refer the reader to [@CKP66].
\[cor:improved asymptotics\] The Whitham kernel satisfies $$K(x)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi\sqrt{|x|}} \exp(-{\textstyle \frac{\pi}{2}|x|}) +{\mathcal O}(|x|^{-3/2}\exp(-{\textstyle \frac{\pi}{2}|x|}))$$ as $|x|\to \infty$.
Note that $$\label{eq:K splitting}
K(x)=\frac1{\pi}\int_{\frac{\pi}{2}}^{\frac{3\pi}{4}} \exp(-s|x|) \sqrt{\frac{|\tan s|}{s}}\, {{\mathrm d}}s
+\int_{\frac{3\pi}{4}}^\infty \exp(-s|x|) g(s)\, {{\mathrm d}}s,$$ where $$g(s)=\frac1\pi\sum_{n=1}^\infty \sqrt{\frac{|\tan s|}{s}}\chi_{((2n-1)\pi/2, n\pi)}(s).$$ The integral of $g$ over each interval $((2n-1)\pi/2, n\pi)$ can be estimated by the same constant (due to the periodicity of $\tan s$) and we therefore find that the second term in is ${\mathcal O}(\exp(-{\textstyle \frac{3\pi}{4}}|x|))$ as $|x|\to \infty$. On the other hand, letting $$h(s)=\frac1{\pi}\sqrt{\frac{|\tan s|(s-\frac{\pi}{2})}{s}},$$ which is smooth on the interval $ [\frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{3\pi}{4}]$, we can write the first term in as $$\int_{\frac{\pi}{2}}^{\frac{3\pi}{4}} \frac{\exp(-s|x|)}{\sqrt{s-\frac{\pi}{2}}} h(s)\, {{\mathrm d}}s=
\frac{\exp(-{\textstyle \frac{\pi}{2}}|x|)}{\sqrt{|x|}}\int_0^{\frac{\pi}{4}|x|} \frac{\exp(-u)}{\sqrt{u}} h({\textstyle \frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{u}{|x|})}\, {{\mathrm d}}u,$$ where $u=(s-\frac{\pi}{2})|x|$. By the mean value theorem, we have that $$h({\textstyle \frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{u}{|x|})}=h({\textstyle \frac{\pi}{2}})+ {\mathcal O}({\textstyle \frac{u}{|x|}}),$$ uniformly for $0\le u\le \frac{\pi}{4}|x|$. Estimating $$\int_0^{\frac{\pi}{4}|x|} \frac{\exp(-u)}{\sqrt{u}} \frac{u}{|x|}\, {{\mathrm d}}u \le
\frac1{|x|} \int_0^{\infty} \sqrt{u} \exp(-u)\, {{\mathrm d}}u$$ and $$\int_{\frac{\pi}{4}|x|}^\infty \frac{\exp(-u)}{\sqrt{u}}\, {{\mathrm d}}u={\mathcal O}(\exp(-{\textstyle \frac{\pi}{4}} |x|)),$$ we therefore obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{\frac{\pi}{4}|x|} \frac{\exp(-u)}{\sqrt{u}} h({\textstyle \frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{u}{|x|})}\, {{\mathrm d}}u
&=\int_0^{\infty} \frac{\exp(-u)}{\sqrt{u}} h({\textstyle \frac{\pi}{2}})\, {{\mathrm d}}u
+{\mathcal O}( |x|^{-1})\\
&=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi}+{\mathcal O}(|x|^{-1}),\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the proof.
The periodised Whitham kernel and the operator $L$ {#sec:Kp}
==================================================
We introduce the periodised Whitham kernel $$\label{def:Kp}
K_{P}(x) = \sum_{n \in {\mathbb Z}} K(x + nP),$$ for $P \in (0,\infty)$. Note that this sum is absolutely convergent, in view of that $K$ has rapid decay. Note also that the evenness of $K$ is inherited by $K_P$.
Equivalently, $K_P$ can be expressed as the Fourier series $$K_P(x)=\frac{1}{P} \sum_{n\in {\mathbb Z}} m\left(\frac{2\pi n}{P}\right)\exp\left(\frac{2\pi i n x}{P}\right).$$ For convenience we shall accept also $P=\infty$, with the convention $K_\infty = K$. The periodisation $K_P$ is introduced to facilitate the analysis of periodic solutions satisfying certain sign conditions in a half-period.
Using the exponential decay of $K$ and all of its derivatives, one obtains directly the corresponding description of $K_P$ (note here, though, that the singularity is repeated periodically at all integer multiples of $P$).
\[prop:periodic kernel decomposition\] The periodic Whitham kernel satisfies $$K_P(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi|x|}}+K_{P,\text{reg}}(x)$$ where $K_{P, \text{reg}}$ is real analytic in $(-P, P)$.
This follows by combining Proposition \[prop:kernel decomposition\] with the definition of $K_P$, noting that one may differentiate termwise in to arbitrary high order in view of Proposition \[prop:decay\].
We obtain monotonicity results for $K_P$ by applying the following general result concerning periodic kernels. The latter follows from Bernstein’s theorem by noting that ${{\mathrm d}}\mu(s)/s$ is a finite measure (cf. the proof of Proposition \[prop:Stieltjes Fourier\]), and by differentiating under the integral sign in the below formula for $g_P$.
\[prop:periodic formula\] Let $g\in L^1({\mathbb R})$ be even and completely monotone. Then the periodisation $$g_P(x) =\sum_{n\in {\mathbb Z}} g(x+nP)$$ converges for each $x \in {\mathbb R}\setminus P{\mathbb Z}$, and is given by $$g_P(x)=
\int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{\cosh(s(x-\frac{P}{2}-P \lfloor \frac{x}{P}\rfloor))}{\sinh(\frac{P}{2} s)} \, {{\mathrm d}}\mu(s),$$ for $x\in {\mathbb R}\setminus P{\mathbb Z}$, and $g$ the Laplace transform of $\mu$. Hence, $g_P$ is smooth in ${\mathbb R}\setminus P{\mathbb Z}$ and completely monotone on $(0, P/2)$.
Combining Proposition \[prop:periodic formula\] with the formula for the Whitham kernel, we get the following result for its periodisation.
\[cor:periodic formula\] The $P$-periodic Whitham kernel is given by $$K_P(x)=\frac{1}{\pi}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty\int_{\frac{(2n-1)\pi}{2}}^{n\pi}\frac{\cosh(s(x-\frac{P}{2}-P \lfloor \frac{x}{P}\rfloor))}{\sinh(\frac{P}{2} s)} \sqrt{\frac{|\tan s|}{s}}\,{{\mathrm d}}s,$$ for $x \in {\mathbb R}\setminus P{\mathbb Z}$. Hence, $K_P$ is smooth in ${\mathbb R}\setminus P{\mathbb Z}$ and completely monotone on $(0, P/2)$. In particular, it is positive, strictly decreasing on $(0,P/2)$, and convex on $(0, P)$.
The monotonicity of $K_P$ in $(0,P/2)$ can in fact be proved using just the convexity and monotonicity of $K$ (and the rapid decay of $K$ and its derivatives). Indeed, one has that $$\label{eq:monotone_periodic}
\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{D}_x K_P(x) &= \sum_{n \in {\mathbb N}} K'(x + nP)\\
&= \sum_{k \geq 0} \left( K'(x+kP) + K'(x-(k+1)P)\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Let $a_k = x + kP$ and $b_k = x - (k+1)P$. Then $K'(a_k) < 0$, whereas $K'(b_k) > 0$, for all $x \in (0,P/2)$ and all integers $k \geq 0$. We thus want $$|K'(a_k)| > |K'(b_k)|.$$ By the evenness of $K$, we have $|K'(\zeta)| = |K'(-\zeta)|$ for any $\zeta \neq 0$. And by Proposition \[prop:Whitham formula\], $|\zeta| \mapsto |K'(|\zeta|)|$ is furthermore a strictly decreasing function of $|\zeta|$, so that $$|a_k| < (k+1/2)P < |b_k|$$ guarantees that $|K'(a_k)| > |K'(b_k)|$. Hence, the sum in is strictly negative for all $x \in (0, P/2)$. Similarly, one may prove strict signs of higher-order derivatives of $K_P$ on $(0,P/2)$ by using the signs of higher-order derivatives of $K$.
The operator $L$ {#the-operator-l .unnumbered}
----------------
Now let $L$ be the operator $$L \colon f \mapsto K \ast f,$$ defined via duality on the space ${\mathcal{S}}^\prime({\mathbb R})$ of tempered distributions. From the definition of $K_P$, one readily sees that for a continuous periodic function $f$, the operator $L$ is given by $\int_{-P/2}^{P/2} K_p(x-y)f(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y$, and more generally by $\int_{{\mathbb R}} K(x-y)f(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y$ if $f$ is bounded and continuous.
Let $H^s({\mathbb R})$, $s \in {\mathbb R}$, denote the Sobolev (Bessel-potential) spaces with norm $$\|f\|_{H^s({\mathbb R})} = \left(\int_{\mathbb R}(1+k^2)^s |\hat f(k)|^2 \, {{\mathrm d}}k\right)^{1/2},$$ and let $H^s({\mathbb S}_P)$ be the corresponding Sobolev spaces of $P$-periodic tempered distributions $f = (1/P)\sum_{k \in {\mathbb Z}} \hat f_k \exp(i2\pi k \cdot /P)$ satisfying $$\|f\|^2_{H^s({\mathbb S}_P)} = \sum_{k \in {\mathbb Z}} \left(1+\frac{4 \pi^2 k^2}{P^2}\right)^s |\hat f_k|^2 < \infty,$$ where ${\mathbb S}_P$ denotes the circle of circumference $P>0$. Note that $H^0({\mathbb S}_P)$ can be identified with ${L^2}(-P/2,P/2)$. For a nonnegative integer $k$ we let ${BUC}^k({\mathbb R})$ be the space of $k$ times continuously differentiable functions on ${\mathbb R}$, whose derivatives of order less than or equal to $k$ are bounded and uniformly continuous on ${\mathbb R}$.
We shall say that a function $\varphi$ is *Hölder continuous of regularity $\alpha \in (0,1)$ at a point $x \in {\mathbb R}$* if $$|\varphi|_{C^\alpha_x} := \sup_{h \ne 0} \frac{|\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x)|}{|h|^\alpha} < \infty,$$ and let $$C^\alpha({\mathbb R})=\{ \varphi \in BUC({\mathbb R}) \colon \sup_{x}|\varphi|_{C_x^\alpha}<\infty\},$$ $$C^{k,\alpha}({\mathbb R})=\{\varphi \in BUC^k({\mathbb R}) \colon \varphi^{(k)} \in C^\alpha({\mathbb R})\}.$$ With $C^{k, \alpha}({\mathbb S}_P)$ we denote the closed subspace of $C^{k, \alpha}({\mathbb R})$ consisting of functions that are $P$-periodic.
We also recall the definition of Besov spaces $B_{p,q}^s({\mathbb R})$ using the Littlewood–Paley decomposition. Let $\varrho \in C_0^\infty({\mathbb R})$ with $\varrho(\xi)=1$ if $|\xi|\le 1$, $\varrho(\xi)=0$ if $|\xi|\ge 2$, and define $$\gamma(\xi)=\varrho(\xi)-\varrho(2\xi),$$ so that $\gamma\in C_0^\infty({\mathbb R})$ is supported in the set $1/2\le |\xi|\le 2$. We let $$\gamma_0(\xi)=\varrho(\xi)$$ and $$\gamma_j(\xi)=\gamma(\xi/2^j), \quad j\ge 1,$$ so that $\gamma_j$ is supported in the set $2^{j-1}\le |\xi|\le 2^{j+1}$ when $j\ge 1$ and $|\xi|\le 2$ when $j=0$, and $$\sum_{j=0}^\infty \gamma_j(\xi)=1, \quad \xi\in {\mathbb R}.$$ For a tempered distribution $f\in {\mathcal{S}}'({\mathbb R})$ we let $\gamma_j(D) f=\operatorname{{\mathcal F}}^{-1}(\gamma_j(\xi) \hat f(\xi))$, so that $$f=\sum_{j=0}^\infty \gamma_j(D) f.$$ The Besov spaces $B_{p,q}^s({\mathbb R})$, $s\in {\mathbb R}$, $1\le p\le\infty$, $1\le q<\infty$ are defined by $$\Bigg\{f \in {\mathcal{S}}'({\mathbb R})\colon \|f\|_{B_{p,q}^s({\mathbb R})} :=\Big[\sum_{j=0}^\infty (2^{sj}\|\gamma_j(D) f\|_{L^p({\mathbb R})})^q\Big]^{\frac1q}<\infty\Bigg\}.$$ For $1\le p\le \infty$ and $q=\infty$, we instead define $$B_{p,\infty}^s({\mathbb R}) = \Bigg\{f \in {\mathcal{S}}'({\mathbb R})\colon \|f\|_{B_{p,\infty}^s({\mathbb R})}:=\sup_{j\ge 0} 2^{sj}\|\gamma_j(D) f\|_{L^p({\mathbb R})}<\infty\Bigg\}.$$ For a $P$-periodic tempered distribution $f = (1/P)\sum_{k \in {\mathbb Z}} \hat f_k \exp(i2\pi k \cdot /P)$, we have the identity $$\gamma_j(D) f=\frac1P \sum_{k \in {\mathbb Z}} \gamma_j\left(\frac{2\pi k}{P}\right) \hat f_k \exp\left(\frac{2\pi ik x}{P}\right),$$ so that $\gamma_j(D) f$ is a trigonometric polynomial. The space $B_{p,q}^s({\mathbb S}_P)$, $s\in {\mathbb R}$, $1\le p,q\le \infty$, is defined by replacing ${\mathbb R}$ by ${\mathbb S}_P$ in the definition of $B_{p,q}^s({\mathbb R})$. Note that $B_{2,2}^s$ can be identified with $H^s$, on the line as well as on the circle.
We furthermore define the Zygmund spaces $ {\mathcal C}^s$, $s \in {\mathbb R}$, by $${\mathcal C}^s(X)=B_{\infty, \infty}^s(X), \qquad X \in \{{\mathbb R}, {\mathbb S}_P\},$$ and recall that ${\mathcal C}^s=C^{\lfloor s\rfloor, s-\lfloor s\rfloor}$ for $s \in {\mathbb R}_{> 0} \setminus {\mathbb N}$, while $W^{s, \infty} \subsetneq {\mathcal C}^s$ when $s$ is a nonnegative integer; both relations valid on the line as well as on the circle. It follows from the estimate $|D^n_\xi m(\xi)|\lesssim (1+|\xi|)^{-1/2-n}$, $n\ge 0$, that $L$ defines a bounded operator $$L\colon B_{p,q}^s(X)\to B_{p,q}^{s+\frac12}(X), \qquad X \in \{{\mathbb R},{\mathbb S}_P\},$$ see, e.g., [@MR2064734; @BahouriCheminDanchin11]. In particular, the operators $$\begin{aligned}
L\colon H^s(X) \to H^{s+\frac{1}{2}}(X) \quad &\text{and} \quad L\colon {\mathcal C}^s(X)\to {\mathcal C}^{s+\frac{1}{2}}(X)\end{aligned}$$ are bounded on ${\mathbb R}$ as well as on ${\mathbb S}_P$, for all $s \in {\mathbb R}$. For an introduction to periodic distributions and function spaces, we refer the reader to Chapter 9 in the monograph [@MR781540] by Triebel.
Notational conventions {#notational-conventions .unnumbered}
----------------------
To ease notation in what follows, when $f(x) > g(x)$ for all $x$ we write $f > g$, and when $f(x) \geq g(x)$ for all $x$ with $g(x_0) > f(x_0)$ for some $x_0$ we write $f \gneq g$. Similarly, $f \geq g$ indicates that $f(x) \geq g(x)$ for all $x$, and $f = g$ that $f$ and $g$ are identically equal. We make the corresponding conventions for the relations $<$, $\lneq$, and $\leq$. Finally, $f \neq g$ denotes the situation when $f(x_0) \neq g(x_0)$ for some $x_0$.
\[lemma:Lmonotone\] $L$ is strictly monotone: $Lf > Lg$ if $f$ and $g$ are bounded and continuous functions with $f \gneq g$.
This is immediate from the strict positivity of $K$ and $K_P$, see Proposition \[prop:Whitham formula\] and Corollary \[cor:periodic formula\].
\[lemma:parity\] The operator $L$ is parity-preserving on any period $P \in (0,\infty]$, and $L f(x) > 0$ on $(-P/2,0)$ for $f$ $P$-periodic, odd and continuous with $f \gneq 0$ on $(-P/2,0)$.
To see that $L$ is parity-preserving, note that $$\begin{aligned}
Lf(x) \pm Lf(-x) &= \int_{-P/2}^{P/2} K_P(x-y)f(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y \pm \int_{-P/2}^{P/2} K_P(-x-y)f(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y\\
&= \int_{-P/2}^{P/2} K_P(x-y) \left( f(y) \pm f(-y)\right)\,{{\mathrm d}}y,\end{aligned}$$ which vanishes for $f$ odd (even).
Next, assume that $f$ is $P$-periodic, odd and continuous, with $f(x) \geq 0$ for $-P/2 \leq x \leq 0$ and $f(x) \neq 0$ for some $x$. Then $$\label{eq:Lf}
\begin{aligned}
Lf(x) &= \int_{-P/2}^{P/2} K_P(x-y)f(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y\\
&= \int_{-P/2}^0 \left(K_P(x-y) - K_P(x+y)\right) f(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y.
\end{aligned}$$ Fix $x \in (-P/2,0)$, and consider first the case when $P=\infty$. We have $$|x+y| = |x| + |y| > |x - y|, \qquad y \in (-P/2,0),$$ so that the distance from the origin to the point $x+y$ is larger than that to the point $x-y$. Since $K$ is even and strictly decreasing as a function of the distance to the origin, we find that $K(x-y) > K(x+y)$, which proves the desired conclusion.
When $P < \infty$, fix again $x\ \in (-P/2,0)$ and consider $y$ such that $$-P<x+y\leq x-y <P/2.$$ This covers all possible values of $x+y$ and $x-y$ appearing in the last integral in . Since $K_P$ decreases with the distance to the origin in the period $(-P/2,P/2)$, and is periodic with period $P$, all that remains is to convince ourselves that $$\operatorname{dist}(x-y,0) < \min\{\operatorname{dist}(x+y,0),\operatorname{dist}(x+y,-P)\}.$$ The inequality $|x-y| < |x+y|$ holds as above for all same-signed $y \neq x$, as does $|x-y| < P+x+y$ for all $x,y > -P/2$. This proves that $K_P(x-y) > K_P(x+y)$ almost everywhere in the interval, and therefore $Lf(x) > 0$ when $-P/2 < x < 0$. (Note that when $x$ is a multiple of $P$ the same argument fails, because $K_P$ is even around those points.)
Nodal pattern {#sec:nodal}
=============
In this section we record some basic properties of Whitham solutions, including a priori bounds, regularity estimates and a maximum principle. This will enable us to establish a nodal pattern for solutions of the steady Whitham equation, recorded in Theorem \[thm:nodal\]. It is interesting to note how the equation features many of the properties of elliptic equations.
We remind the reader that with a solution of the steady Whitham equation we mean a real-valued, continuous and bounded function $\varphi$ that satisfies pointwise. *In the case $P < \infty$, we presuppose that any solution $\varphi$ is $P$-periodic.* We shall furthermore call a continuous and bounded function $\varphi$ a *supersolution* of if $$-\mu \varphi + L\varphi + \varphi^2 \leq 0.$$ Similarly, we call $\varphi$ a *subsolution* of if $-\mu \varphi + L\varphi + \varphi^2 \geq 0$.
\[lemma:apriori\_1\] Let $I_\mu$ be the closed interval with endpoints $\mu -1$ and $0$. Then supersolutions $\varphi_1$ and subsolutions $\varphi_2$ of the steady Whitham equation satisfy $$\inf \varphi_1 \in I_\mu \quad\text{ and }\quad \sup \varphi_2 \not\in \mathrm{int}(I_\mu),$$ where $\mathrm{int}(I_\mu)$ is the interior of the interval $I_\mu$. In particular, if $\varphi$ is a solution, then either $\mu-1\le \inf \varphi \le 0\le \sup\varphi$ or $\varphi(x)\equiv \mu-1$ if $\mu\le 1$, while either $0\le \inf \varphi \le \mu-1\le \sup\varphi$ or $\varphi(x) \equiv 0$ if $\mu>1$.
\[rem:sign-changing\] One can see directly from that if a solution satisfies $\varphi(x) = 0$ for some $x$, then $\varphi$ is either identically zero or it changes sign. Indeed, at $x$ the equation reduces to $L\varphi = 0$. Since $L$ is a strictly monotone operator this is impossible unless $\varphi$ is sign-changing or vanishes everywhere.
For $\varphi_1$ a supersolution, we have $\left( \varphi_1 - \frac{\mu}{2} \right)^2 \leq \frac{\mu^2}{4} - L\varphi_1$. By Lemma \[lemma:Lmonotone\], $L$ is a strictly monotone operator. Since furthermore $L c = c$ for constants $c$, we therefore obtain that $$\left( \varphi_1 - \frac{\mu}{2} \right)^2 \leq \frac{\mu^2}{4} - \inf \varphi_1.$$ In particular, $\left( \inf \varphi_1 - \frac{\mu}{2} \right)^2 \leq \frac{\mu^2}{4} - \inf \varphi_1$, and therefore $$(\inf \varphi_1) \left( \inf \varphi_1 - (\mu -1)\right) \leq 0.$$ Similarly, for $\varphi_2$ a subsolution one obtains $
\left( \varphi_2 - \frac{\mu}{2} \right)^2 \geq \frac{\mu^2}{4} - L\varphi_2 \geq \frac{\mu^2}{4} - \sup\varphi_2,
$ which yields that $(\sup \varphi_2) \left( \sup \varphi_2 - (\mu -1)\right) \geq 0$.
Since a solution is simultaneously a subsolution and a supersolution, in that case we obtain from Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_1\] that either $\inf \varphi=\sup\varphi=\mu-1$ or $\sup \varphi \ge 0$ when $\mu \le 1$. When $\mu>1$, we obtain instead that either $\inf \varphi=\sup\varphi=0$ or $\sup \varphi\ge \mu-1$.
The following lemma is the equivalent of the strong maximum principle for elliptic equations.
\[lemma:touching\] Let $\varphi_1$ be a supersolution and $\varphi_2$ a subsolution of the steady Whitham equation with $\varphi_1 \geq \varphi_2$. Then either
- $\varphi_1 = \varphi_2$, or
- $\varphi_1 > \varphi_2$ with $\varphi_1 + \varphi_2 < \mu$.
Since $\varphi_1, \varphi_2$ are super- and subsolutions, respectively, we have that, $$(\mu-L) (\varphi_1 - \varphi_2) \geq (\varphi_1 + \varphi_2) (\varphi_1 - \varphi_2).$$ If $\varphi_1 = \varphi_2$ there is nothing to prove, so assume that $\varphi_1\gneq \varphi_2$. Since $L$ is a strictly monotone operator, we then see that $$\left( \mu - (\varphi_1 + \varphi_2) \right) (\varphi_1 - \varphi_2) \geq L(\varphi_1 - \varphi_2) > 0.$$ Thus $\varphi_1(x) \neq \varphi_2(x)$ and $\mu \neq \varphi_1(x) + \varphi_2(x)$ for all $x$. In view of that $\varphi_1 \geq \varphi_2$ by assumption, so that $\varphi_1 - \varphi_2$ and $L(\varphi_1 - \varphi_2)$ therefore have the same sign, we conclude that $\varphi_1 > \varphi_2$ and $\varphi_1 + \varphi_2 < \mu$.
\[cor:mubound\] Except for the trivial solutions $\varphi = 0$ and $\varphi = \mu -1$, supersolutions $\varphi$ of the steady Whitham equation satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\mu -1 < \varphi < 1, &\qquad \mu < 1,\\
0 < \varphi < \mu &\qquad \mu > 1.\end{aligned}$$
For $\mu = 1$, the solution $\varphi = 0$ is the unique integrable supersolution, cf. Proposition \[prop:mean\] below.
For any $\mu \in {\mathbb R}$, the functions $x \mapsto \mu -1 $ and $x \mapsto 0$ are constant solutions of the Whitham equation.
For $\mu < 1$, Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_1\] guarantees that $\varphi \geq \mu - 1$ for any supersolution $\varphi$. Thus, we may apply Lemma \[lemma:touching\] with $\varphi_1 = \varphi$ and $\varphi_2 = \mu -1$ to conclude that $\varphi > \mu -1 $ and, furthermore, that $\varphi + \mu -1 < \mu$, meaning that $\varphi < 1$.
Similary, for $\mu > 1$ we have $\varphi \geq 0$ for any supersolution $\varphi$ by Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_1\], and the rest of the conclusion follows from Lemma \[lemma:touching\].
\[prop:mean\] Any solution $\varphi \in {L^1}(-P/2,P/2)$ of the steady Whitham equation belongs to ${L^2}(-P/2,P/2)$ and has negative or positive mean according to whether $\mu < 1$ or $\mu > 1$. More precisely, $$(\mu -1)\int_{-P/2}^{P/2} \varphi(x) \,{{\mathrm d}}x = \|\varphi\|_{{L^2}(-P/2,P/2)}^2$$ holds for any $\mu \in {\mathbb R}$, where $P \in (0,\infty]$ is the possibly infinite period.
By integrating $(\mu - L)\varphi = \varphi^2$ over a period, we get $$\mu \int_{-P/2}^{P/2} \varphi(x)\,{{\mathrm d}}x - \int_{-P/2}^{P/2} L\varphi(x)\,{{\mathrm d}}x = \int_{-P/2}^{P/2} \left(\varphi(x)\right)^2\,{{\mathrm d}}x.$$ Consider first $P < \infty$. In view of that $\int_{-P/2}^{P/2} \varphi(x)\,{{\mathrm d}}x = \hat \varphi_0$, we have that $(\mu - m(0)) \hat\varphi_0 = \|\varphi\|_{{L^2}(-P/2,P/2)}^2$. For $P = \infty$, replace $\hat \varphi_0$ by $\hat \varphi(0)$.
The following result improves upon Lemma \[lemma:touching\] in the case when one has additional control of the first-order derivatives of the solutions. An important consequence of it is Theorem \[thm:nodal\].
\[lemma:touching2\] Let $\varphi_1, \varphi_2$ be even and continuously differentiable solutions of the steady Whitham equation with $\varphi_1 \geq \varphi_2$ and $\varphi_1^\prime \gneq \varphi_2^\prime \geq 0$ in $(-P/2,0)$. Then $\varphi_1^\prime > \varphi_2^\prime$ and $\varphi_1 + \varphi_2 < \mu$ in $(-P/2,0)$.
It follows from Lemma \[lemma:touching2\] that $\varphi_1 > \varphi_2$ on the whole interval $(-P/2,P/2)$. This is due to the evenness of $\varphi_1, \varphi_2$ and the strict inequality $\varphi_1^\prime > \varphi_2^\prime$ on $(-P/2,0)$.
Both $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ solve $(\mu - L)\varphi = \varphi^2$, so we may subtract and differentiate to obtain $$\label{eq:mu-L}
(\mu - L) (\varphi_1^\prime - \varphi_2^\prime) = (\varphi_1^2 - \varphi_2^2)^\prime.$$ Since $ (\varphi_1^\prime + \varphi_2^\prime)(\varphi_1 - \varphi_2) \geq 0$ on $(-P/2,0)$ by assumption, we see by expanding the right-hand side of that $$(\mu -\varphi_1 - \varphi_2) (\varphi_1^\prime - \varphi_2^\prime) \geq L (\varphi_1^\prime - \varphi_2^\prime) > 0 \qquad \text{ on }\quad (-P/2,0),$$ where Lemma \[lemma:parity\] has been used with $f=\varphi_1'-\varphi_2'$. Because $\varphi_1^\prime \geq \varphi_2^\prime$ on $(-P/2,0)$, this implies both that $\varphi_1^\prime > \varphi_2^\prime$ and that $\varphi_1 + \varphi_2 < \mu$ on that interval.
We have now come to the main result of this section, which we shall later need to prove that the global bifurcation branch of steady solutions does not form a closed loop.
\[thm:nodal\] Let $P \in (0,\infty]$. Any $P$-periodic, nonconstant and even solution $\varphi \in BUC^1({\mathbb R})$ of the steady Whitham equation which is nondecreasing on $(-P/2,0)$ satisfies $$\varphi' > 0, \: \varphi < \frac{\mu}{2} \qquad\text{ on }\quad (-P/2,0).$$ For such a solution one necessarily has $\mu>0$.
If furthermore $\varphi \in BUC^2({\mathbb R})$, then $\varphi < \frac{\mu}{2}$ everywhere and $$\varphi^{\prime\prime}(0) < 0.$$ For $P < \infty$ one has $\varphi^{\prime\prime}(\pm P/2) > 0$. If in addition $\mu \leq 1$ and $\varphi(0) \geq \frac{\mu}{4}$, then $$\varphi^{\prime\prime}(\textstyle{\frac{P}{2}}) - \varphi^{\prime\prime}(0)\\ \geq \frac{1}{2} |K_P^\prime(\frac{P}{4})|.$$
To prove that $\varphi' > 0$ and $\varphi < \frac{\mu}{2}$ on $(-P/2,0)$, note first that by assumption $\varphi'$ must be odd, nontrivial, and nonnegative in $(-P/2,0)$. According to Lemma \[lemma:parity\], we then have $L\varphi' > 0$ in $(-P/2,0)$, and by $(\mu - 2 \varphi) \varphi' = L \varphi'$ also $$\varphi' (\mu - 2\varphi) > 0 \qquad\text{ in } \quad (-P/2,0).$$ The sign of $\mu - 2 \varphi$ can then be inferred from that of $\varphi'$. This proves that $\varphi^\prime > 0$ and $\varphi < \frac{\mu}{2}$ on the open half-period $(-P/2,0)$. On the other hand, since $\varphi$ is nonconstant it follows from Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_1\] and Remark \[rem:sign-changing\] that $\varphi(0)=\sup \varphi>0$, so that $\mu>0$.
Now suppose that $\varphi \in BUC^2({\mathbb R})$. To show that $\varphi^{\prime\prime}(0)$ is strictly negative, we differentiate the equation twice to obtain that $$(\mu - 2\varphi) \varphi^{\prime\prime} = 2(\varphi^\prime)^2 + L \varphi^{\prime\prime}.$$ Evaluating this equality at $x = 0$ using the evenness of $K$ and $\varphi$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi(0)\right) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(0) &= \int_{0}^{P/2} K_P(y) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y\\
& = \int_{0}^{{\varepsilon}} K_P(y) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y + \int_{{\varepsilon}}^{P/2} K_P(y) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y\\
&= \int_{0}^{{\varepsilon}} K_P(y) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y + \left[K_P(y) \varphi^{\prime}(y)\right]_{y= {\varepsilon}}^{y=P/2}\\
&\quad -\int_{{\varepsilon}}^{P/2} K_P^\prime(y) \varphi^{\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y.\end{aligned}$$ Because $\varphi^{\prime\prime}$ is continuous and $K_P$ is integrable, with $K_P(x) \sim |x|^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ for $|x| \ll 1$, the first integral vanishes as ${\varepsilon} \to 0$. The boundary term $K_P(P/2) \varphi^\prime(P/2)$ vanishes in view of that $\varphi^\prime(P/2)=0$ if $P<\infty$ and because $\lim_{x\to \infty} K(x)=0$ and $\varphi'$ is bounded if $P=\infty$. Due to the regularity and evenness of $\varphi$, we also have $\varphi^\prime({\varepsilon}) = O({\varepsilon})$ so that $\varphi^\prime({\varepsilon}) K_P({\varepsilon}) = O({\varepsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}) \to 0$ as ${\varepsilon} \to 0$.
By Corollary \[cor:periodic formula\] and what we just proved, both $K_P^\prime$ and $\varphi^\prime$ are strictly negative on $(0,P/2)$. Thus $-\int_{{\varepsilon}}^{P/2} K_P^\prime(y) \varphi^{\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y$ is negative for any ${\varepsilon} > 0$, and strictly decreasing as ${\varepsilon} \searrow 0$ (note also that $K_P$ is smooth in a vicinity of $P/2$, see Proposition \[prop:periodic kernel decomposition\]). Thus, we may let ${\varepsilon} \searrow 0$ to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi(0)\right) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(0) &= - \lim_{{\varepsilon} \searrow 0} \int_{{\varepsilon}}^{P/2} K_P^\prime(y) \varphi^{\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y < 0.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\varphi$ is continuous with $\varphi < \frac{\mu}{2}$ on $(-P/2,0)$, this proves that $\varphi < \frac{\mu}{2}$ everywhere, and that $\varphi^{\prime\prime}(0) < 0$.
When $P < \infty$, note that $K_P(P/2 -y) = K_P(-P/2 - y) = K_P(y + P/2)$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi(P/2)\right) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(P/2) &= \int_{0}^{P/2} K_P(y + P/2) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y\\
& = \left( \int_{0}^{P/2- {\varepsilon}} + \int_{P/2- {\varepsilon}}^{P/2} \right) K_P(y + P/2) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y \\
&= \left[K_P(y+P/2)\varphi^\prime(y) \right]_{y=0}^{y=P/2- {\varepsilon}}\\
&\quad+ \int_{P/2- {\varepsilon}}^{P/2} K_P(y + P/2) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y \\
&\quad- \int_0^{P/2- {\varepsilon}} K_P^\prime(y + P/2) \varphi^{\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y. \end{aligned}$$ By the same arguments as above all terms but the last on the right-hand side vanish as ${\varepsilon} \searrow 0$, and the term $-\int_0^{P/2- {\varepsilon}} K_P^\prime(y + P/2) \varphi^{\prime}(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y$ is strictly positive and increasing as ${\varepsilon} \searrow 0$. Thus $\varphi^{\prime\prime}(P/2) > 0$.
To prove the final estimate, note that $$\label{eq:firstbound}
\begin{aligned}
&( \textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(P/2)) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(P/2) - ( \textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(0)) \varphi^{\prime\prime}(0)\\ &= \int_{-P/2}^{0} (K_P^\prime(y) - K_P^\prime(y + P/2)) \varphi^\prime(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y\\
& \geq \min_{x \in [-P/4,0]} K_P^\prime(x) \int_{-P/2}^{0} \varphi^\prime(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y\\
& = |K_P^\prime(P/4)| (\varphi(0)- \varphi(P/2)),
\end{aligned}$$ since $K_P$ is even and strictly convex on $(-P/2,P/2)$. We rewrite as $$( \textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(0)) (\varphi^{\prime\prime}(\frac{P}{2}) - \varphi^{\prime\prime}(0))\\ \geq \left(|K_P^\prime(\frac{P}{4})| - \varphi^{\prime\prime}(\frac{P}{2})\right) (\varphi(0)- \varphi(\frac{P}{2})).$$ Now, either $
\varphi^{\prime\prime}(\frac{P}{2}) \geq \frac{1}{2} |K_P^\prime(\frac{P}{4})|,
$ or $$|K_P^\prime(\textstyle{\frac{P}{4}})| - \varphi^{\prime\prime}(\textstyle{\frac{P}{2}}) \geq \frac{1}{2} |K_P^\prime(\frac{P}{4})|.$$ In the second case, note first that one has $ \varphi(0)- \varphi(P/2) \geq \frac{\mu}{4} \geq \textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(0)$ by the assumptions and the fact that nonconstant solutions with $\mu \leq 1$ are sign-changing (cf. Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_1\] and Remark \[rem:sign-changing\]). Using this estimate, and dividing by $\mu > 0$, we see that in either case $$\varphi^{\prime\prime}(\textstyle{\frac{P}{2}}) - \varphi^{\prime\prime}(0)\\ \geq \frac{1}{2} |K_P^\prime(\frac{P}{4})|.$$
About the singularity at $\varphi = \mu/2$ {#sec:singularity}
==========================================
We now move on to investigate the case when a solution touches the value $\frac{\mu}{2}$ from below. We begin by noting that a solution is smooth as long as it remains bounded away from $\frac{\mu}{2}$.
\[thm:regularity I\] Let $\varphi \leq \frac{\mu}{2}$ be a solution of the steady Whitham equation . Then:\
- If $\varphi <\mu/2$ uniformly on ${\mathbb R}$, then $\varphi \in C^\infty({\mathbb R})$ and all of its derivatives are uniformly bounded on ${\mathbb R}$.
- If $\varphi<\mu/2$ uniformly on ${\mathbb R}$ and $\varphi \in L^2({\mathbb R})$, then $\varphi \in H^\infty({\mathbb R})$.
- $\varphi$ is smooth on any open set where $\varphi<\mu/2$.
Assume first that $\varphi < \frac{\mu}{2}$, uniformly on ${\mathbb R}$. The operator $L$ maps $B_{p,q}^s({\mathbb R})$ into $B_{p,q}^{s+1/2}({\mathbb R})$, $L^\infty({\mathbb R})\subset B_{\infty, \infty}^0({\mathbb R})$ into ${\mathcal C}^{1/2}({\mathbb R})=B_{\infty, \infty}^{1/2}({\mathbb R})\subset L^\infty({\mathbb R})$, and the Nemytskii operator $$u \mapsto \mu/2 - \sqrt{\mu^2/4 - u}$$ maps $B_{p,q}^s({\mathbb R})\cap L^\infty({\mathbb R})$ into itself for $u < \frac{\mu^2}{4}$ and $s > 0$ (see ). All three mappings are continuous. Since $\varphi < \frac{\mu}{2}$, it follows that $L\varphi < \frac{\mu^2}{4}$, and therefore $$\label{eq:bootstrapping}
[L\varphi \mapsto \mu/2 - \sqrt{\textstyle{\frac{\mu^2}{4}} - L\varphi}] \circ [\varphi \mapsto L\varphi] \colon B^s_{p,q}({\mathbb R})\cap L^\infty({\mathbb R}) \hookrightarrow B^{s+\frac{1}{2}}_{p,q}({\mathbb R}),$$ for all $s \ge 0$. Hence, the equality $\varphi = \frac{\mu}{2} - \sqrt{\frac{\mu^2}{4} - L\varphi}$ guarantees that $\varphi \in C^\infty({\mathbb R})$ with uniformly bounded derivatives as long as $\varphi \in L^\infty({\mathbb R})$ (take $p=q=\infty$). This proves (i). Taking $p=q=2$ proves (ii).
Now, If $\varphi$ is in $L^\infty({\mathbb R})$ and ${\mathcal C}_\text{loc}^s$ on an open set $U$ in the sense that $\psi \varphi\in {\mathcal C}^s({\mathbb R})$ for any $\psi \in C^\infty_0(U)$, we still get that $L\varphi$ is ${\mathcal C}_\text{loc}^{s+1/2}$ in $U$. Indeed, let $\psi\in C_0^\infty(U)$ and let $\tilde \psi\in C_0^\infty(U)$ be a smooth cut-off function with $\tilde\psi=1$ in a neighbourhood $V \Subset U$ of $\operatorname{supp}\psi$. Then $$\psi L\varphi=\psi L(\tilde \psi \varphi)+\psi L((1-\tilde \psi)\varphi).$$ The first term on the right-hand side is of class $\mathcal{C}^{s+1/2}$. On the other hand, the second term is given by $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} K(x-y)\psi(x)(1-\tilde \psi(y))\varphi(y)\, {{\mathrm d}}y.$$ where the integrand vanishes for $y$ near $x$; it is therefore smooth. Hence, $L\varphi$ is $\mathcal{C}^{s+1/2}_\text{loc}$ in $U$ and by the above iteration argument, if $\varphi<\mu/2$ in $U$ it is also smooth there. This proves (iii).
The following lemma is essential in showing that solutions which touch $\mu/2$ from below are not smooth.
\[lemma:essentialbound\] Let $P < \infty$, and let $\varphi$ be an even, nonconstant solution of the steady Whitham equation such that $\varphi$ is nondecreasing on $(-P/2, 0)$ with $\varphi \le \frac{\mu}{2}$. Then there exists a universal constant $\lambda_{K,P} > 0$, depending only on the kernel $K$ and the period $P$, such that $$\label{eq:essentialbound}
\textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(\textstyle{\frac{P}{2}}) \geq \lambda_{K,P}.$$ More generally, $$\label{eq:essentialbound II}
\textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(x) \gtrsim_{K,P} |x_0|^{1/2}$$ uniformly for all $x \in [-P/2,x_0]$, with $x_0 < 0$.
For the sake of clearness we prove first under the assumption that $\varphi(0)<\mu/2$ (which implies that $\varphi<\mu/2$ uniformly on ${\mathbb R}$). Subsequently, a short analogous argument is given for the general estimate under the same assumption. Finally, it is shown how to modify the argument to allow for $\varphi(0)=\mu/2$.
Note first that, by Theorem \[thm:regularity I\] (i), $\varphi$ is smooth under the assumption $\varphi(0)<\mu/2$. Let $x \in [-\frac{3P}{8}, -\frac{P}{8}]$. For a solution $\varphi$ as in the assumptions, one has $$\label{eq:essentialapproach}
\begin{aligned}
(\textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(P/2)) \varphi^\prime(x) &\geq (\textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(x)) \varphi^\prime(x)\\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_{-P/2}^{P/2} K_P(x-y) \varphi^\prime(y) \, {{\mathrm d}}y\\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_{-P/2}^{0} ( K_P(x-y) - K_P(x+y)) \varphi^\prime(y) \, {{\mathrm d}}y\\
&\geq \frac{1}{2} \int_{-3P/8}^{-P/8} ( K_P(x-y) - K_P(x+y)) \varphi^\prime(y) \, {{\mathrm d}}y,
\end{aligned}$$ in view of that $K_P(x-y) > K_P(x+y)$ for $x,y \in (-\frac{P}{2},0)$. In fact, there exists a universal constant $\tilde \lambda_{K,P} > 0$ depending only on the kernel $K$ and the period $P < \infty$, such that $$\min \left\{ K_P(x-y) - K_P(x+y) \colon x,y \in [-\textstyle\frac{3P}{8},-\textstyle\frac{P}{8}] \right\} \geq \tilde \lambda_{K,P}.$$ Thus, integrating in $x$ over the interval $(-\frac{3P}{8}, - \frac{P}{8})$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
&(\textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(\frac{P}{2})) (\varphi(-\frac{P}{8}) - \varphi(-\frac{3P}{8}))\\
&\geq \frac{1}{2} \int_{-3P/8}^{-P/8} \left( \int_{-3P/8}^{-P/8} ( K_P(x-y) - K_P(x+y)) \, {{\mathrm d}}x\right) \varphi^\prime(y) \, {{\mathrm d}}y\\
& \geq \textstyle{\frac{P}{8}} \tilde \lambda_{K,P} (\varphi(-\frac{P}{8}) - \varphi(-\frac{3P}{8}) ). \end{aligned}$$ Now, according to Theorem \[thm:nodal\], $\varphi(-\frac{3P}{8}) < \varphi(-\frac{P}{8})$ for a solution $\varphi$ as in the assumptions, whence we may divide with $ \varphi(-\frac{P}{8}) - \varphi(-\frac{3P}{8})$ to conclude that $$\textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(\frac{P}{2}) \geq \textstyle{\frac{P}{8}} \tilde \lambda_{K,P} := \lambda_{K,P}.$$
For the $x$-dependent estimate ($\xi$ will here play the role of $x$), fix $x_1, x_2$ with $-P/4 < x_2 < x_1 < 0$, let $x \in (x_2, x_1)$ and consider $\xi \in [-P/2,x_2]$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
(\textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(\xi)) \varphi^\prime(x) &\geq \frac{1}{2} \int_{x_2}^{x_1} ( K_P(x-y) - K_P(x+y)) \varphi^\prime(y) \, {{\mathrm d}}y\\
&\geq \frac{1}{2} \int_{x_2}^{x_1} (-2y) K_P^\prime(y + \zeta) \varphi^\prime(y) \, {{\mathrm d}}y\\
&\geq -x_1 K_P^\prime(2 x_2) \left( \varphi(x_1) - \varphi(x_2) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Integrating over $(x_2,x_1)$ in $x$, and dividing out then yields $$\textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(\xi) \geq |x_1(x_2 - x_1)| K_P^\prime(2 x_2).$$ Now let $x_2 = x_0$ and $x_1 = x_0 /2$ to obtain that $$\textstyle{\frac{\mu}{2}} - \varphi(\xi) \geq \frac{1}{4} x_0^2 K_P^\prime(2 x_0) \gtrsim_{K,P} |x_0|^{1/2},$$ in view of that $K_P^\prime(x) \sim |x|^{-3/2}$ for $0 < -x \ll 1$.
In the case when $\varphi(0)=\frac{\mu}{2}$, $\varphi$ might not be $C^1$ (in fact, we will show that it is not) and hence we cannot appeal to Theorem \[thm:nodal\] to show that $\varphi$ is strictly increasing on $(-P/2,0)$. We will instead use the double symmetrisation formula $$\label{eq:double symmetrisation I}
\begin{aligned}
&(L\varphi)(x + h) - (L\varphi)(x - h)\\
&\quad= \int_{-P/2}^0 (K_P(y-x) - K_P(y+x))(\varphi(y+h) - \varphi(y-h))\,{{\mathrm d}}y
\end{aligned}$$ to prove the strict monotonicity. It will then follow from Theorem \[thm:regularity I\] that $\varphi$ is smooth away from $x = kP$, $k \in {\mathbb Z}$. The validity of the formula follows from the evenness and periodicity of $K_P$ and $\varphi$. Note that both factors in the integrand are nonnegative for $x\in (-P/2, 0)$ and $h\in (0, P/2)$. We also have the equality $$\label{eq:smoothregularity}
(\mu - \varphi(x) - \varphi(y)) (\varphi(x) - \varphi(y)) = L\varphi(x) - L\varphi(y),$$ which shows that $L\varphi(x)=L\varphi(y)$ whenever $\varphi(x)=\varphi(y)$. This identity, together with , yields that $\varphi$ is strictly increasing on $(-P/2,0)$ (recall that $\varphi$ is nonconstant by assumption). The differentiation under the integral sign for $x \in (-P/2,0)$ in can now be justified by applying Fatou’s lemma to $(\frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi(x))\varphi^\prime(x) = \lim_{h \to 0} (L\varphi(x+h) - L\varphi(x-h))/4h$. From , we then obtain that $$({\textstyle \frac{\mu}{2}}-\varphi(x))\varphi^\prime(x)\ge
\frac12\int_{-P/2}^0 (K_P(y-x) - K_P(y+x))\varphi^\prime(y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y.$$ The rest of the proof remains unchanged.
\[thm:regularity II\] Let $\varphi \leq \frac{\mu}{2}$ be a solution of the steady Whitham equation , which is even, nonconstant, and nondecreasing on $(-P/2,0)$ with $\varphi(0) = \frac{\mu}{2}$. Then:
- $\varphi$ is smooth on $(-P, 0)$.
- $\varphi \in C^{1/2}({\mathbb R})$.
- $\varphi$ has Hölder regularity precisely $\frac12$ at $x=0$, that is, there exist constants $0<c_1<c_2$ such that $$\label{eq:precise regularity at origin}
c_1|x|^{\frac12}\le {\textstyle \frac{\mu}{2}}-\varphi(x)\le c_2|x|^{\frac12}$$ for $|x|\ll 1$.
Note that the period $P$ in Theorem \[thm:regularity II\] could be infinite.
Part (i) follows directly from Theorem \[thm:regularity I\] (iii) since $\varphi$ is strictly increasing on $(-P/2,0)$.
We next show that $\varphi \in C^{\alpha}({\mathbb R})$ for all $\alpha < \frac{1}{2}$. Recall first that $L$ maps $\mathcal{C}^0({\mathbb R})$ continuously into $\mathcal{C}^{1/2}({\mathbb R}) = C^{1/2}({\mathbb R})$, see Section \[sec:Kp\]. The equality implies that at any point where $\varphi(x) < \frac{\mu}{2}$, the functions $\varphi$ and $L\varphi$ have the same Hölder regularity (this provides an immediate proof of that $\varphi$ is at least $C^\frac{1}{2}$ wherever $\varphi(x) \neq \frac{\mu}{2}$). At any point $x_0$ where $\varphi(x_0) = \frac{\mu}{2}$, reduces to $$(\varphi(x_0) - \varphi(x))^{2} = L\varphi(x_0) - L\varphi(x).$$ This means that if $L\varphi$ is $2\alpha$-Hölder continuous at $x_0$, then $\varphi$ is $\alpha$-Hölder continuous at the same point. So say that $\varphi \in C^{\alpha}({\mathbb R})$ (here one needs the uniformity in $x$). Then $L\varphi \in C^{\alpha + 1/2}({\mathbb R})$ and $\varphi$ has Hölder regularity $\frac{1}{2}(\alpha + \frac{1}{2})$ at $x_0$. In view of that $\frac{1}{2}(\alpha + \frac{1}{2}) > \alpha$ for $\alpha < \frac{1}{2}$, this shows that for any such $\alpha$, the function $\varphi$ has the corresponding Hölder regularity at $x=0$.
This argument can be extended to a global one in the following way. Since $\varphi \leq \frac{\mu}{2}$, we have $\varphi(x) - \varphi(y) \leq \mu - \varphi(x) - \varphi(y)$, so shows that $$(\varphi(x) - \varphi(y))^2 \leq |L\varphi(x) - L\varphi(y)|,$$ for all $x, y \in {\mathbb R}$. Thus $\varphi \in C^{\alpha}({\mathbb R})$ for all $\alpha < \frac{1}{2}$.
We next prove that $\varphi \in C^{\frac{1}{2}}({\mathbb R})$. The first part of the argument concerns the $C^{1/2}$-estimate at the point $x=0$; the second the corresponding global estimate. Part (iii) in Theorem \[thm:regularity II\] then follows from the first estimate combined with the choice with $x = x_0$ in Lemma \[lemma:essentialbound\], which proves the lower bound in . To start with, let $$u(x):=\frac{\mu}{2}-\varphi(x)=\varphi(0)-\varphi(x).$$ We want to show that there is a constant $c_2>0$ such that $|u(x)|\le c_2|x|^{1/2}$ for all $x$. Note first that $u$ satisfies the equation $$\label{eq:simple symmetrisation}
\begin{aligned}
(u(x))^2&=(L\varphi)(0)-(L\varphi)(x)\\
&=\frac12\int_{{\mathbb R}} (K(x+y)+K(x-y)-2K(y))u(y)\, {{\mathrm d}}y.
\end{aligned}$$ We claim that there is a constant $c_2$, independent of $\alpha$, such that $$\label{eq:key estimate}
\frac12\int_{{\mathbb R}} |K(x+y)+K(x-y)-2K(y)|(w(y))^{\alpha}\, {{\mathrm d}}y\le c_2 (w(x))^{2\alpha},\quad 0\le \alpha \le 1/2,$$ where $$w(x)=\min\{|x|,1\}.$$ Indeed, for $|x|\ge 1$, this follows directly from the integrability of $K$ and the fact that $\|w\|_\infty \le 1$. For $|x|\le 1$, we use the splitting $$K(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi|x|}}+K_\text{reg}(x)$$ from Proposition \[prop:kernel decomposition\]. For the regular part, we note that $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{{\mathbb R}} |K_\text{reg}(x+y)+K_\text{reg}(x-y)-2K_\text{reg}(y)|(w(y))^{\alpha}\, {{\mathrm d}}y\\
&\le \int_{{\mathbb R}} |K_\text{reg}(x+y)+K_\text{reg}(y-x)-2K_\text{reg}(y)|\, {{\mathrm d}}y\\
&\lesssim \int_{{\mathbb R}} \frac{|x|^2}{(1+|y|)^{5/2}}\, {{\mathrm d}}y\\
&\lesssim |x|^2,\end{aligned}$$ for $|x|\le 1$, where we have used Taylor expansion around $y$ and the estimate $$|K_\text{reg}^{\prime\prime}(y)|=\left|K^{\prime\prime}(y)-\frac{3}{4\sqrt{2\pi} |y|^{5/2}}\right|
\lesssim \frac1{(1+|y|)^{5/2}}$$ in the third line (recall that $K_\text{reg}$ is smooth and that $K^{\prime\prime}$ decays exponentially). For the singular part, we use the identity $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{{\mathbb R}} \left|\frac1{\sqrt{|x+y|}}+\frac1{\sqrt{|y-x|}}-\frac{2}{\sqrt{|y|}}\right||y|^{\alpha}\, {{\mathrm d}}y\\
&= |x|^{\frac12+\alpha}\int_{{\mathbb R}}\left|\frac1{\sqrt{|1+s|}}+\frac1{\sqrt{|s-1|}}-\frac{2}{\sqrt{|s|}}\right||s|^{\alpha}\, {{\mathrm d}}s,\end{aligned}$$ where $y=xs$ and the integral converges since $$\left|\frac1{\sqrt{|1+s|}}+\frac1{\sqrt{|s-1|}}-\frac{2}{\sqrt{|s|}}\right| \lesssim |s|^{-\frac{5}{2}}, \quad |s|\gg 1.$$ The estimate now follows by noting that $|x|^{\frac12+\alpha}\le |x|^{ 2\alpha}$ for $|x|\le 1$ and $0\le \alpha\le 1/2$. Combining with , we obtain that $$\|w^{-\alpha} u\|_\infty^2 \le c_2\|w^{-\alpha} u\|_\infty.$$ For $\alpha<1/2$ we know a priori that the right-hand side is bounded. Hence, we obtain that $$\|w^{-\alpha} u\|_\infty\le c_2$$ and thus $$|u(x)|\le c_2|x|^{\alpha}$$ for all $\alpha \in [0,1/2)$ and $|x|\le 1$. Letting $\alpha \to 1/2$ shows that $$|u(x)|\le c_2|x|^{\frac12}$$ for all $|x|\le 1$. We have thus proved the upper bound in .
To establish global $C^{1/2}$-Hölder regularity (that is, to prove (ii)), we shall use a second double symmetrisation formula, $$\label{eq:double symmetrisation II}
\begin{aligned}
&(L\varphi)(x + h) - (L\varphi)(x - h)\\
&\quad= \int_{-P/2}^0 (K_P(y+h) - K_P(y-h))(\varphi(y-x) - \varphi(y+x))\,{{\mathrm d}}y,
\end{aligned}$$ which follows in the same way as . Equivalently, reads $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\mu - \varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h)\right)\left(\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h)\right)\\
&\quad= \int_{-\infty}^0 (K(y+h) - K(y-h))(\varphi(y-x) - \varphi(y+x))\,{{\mathrm d}}y,\end{aligned}$$ where we consider $x \in (-P/2,0)$ and $ 0 < h \leq |x| \leq \delta$ (by symmetry, one of them is the smallest, call it $h$). Note that $\varphi$ is continuously differentiable on any set $(\delta,P)$, so it is sufficient to establish that $$\sup_{0 < h \leq |x| \leq \delta} \frac{\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h)}{\sqrt{h}} < \infty,$$ for some $\delta \ll 1$. First, note that $$\mu - \varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h) \geq \frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi(x-h) \geq \frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi(x),$$ whence $\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h) \geq 0$ implies that $$\label{eq:fix estimated doublesym}
\begin{aligned}
&\left(\frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi(x)\right)\left(\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h)\right)\\
&\quad\leq \int_{-\infty}^0 (K(y+h) - K(y-h))(\varphi(y-x) - \varphi(y+x))\,{{\mathrm d}}y.
\end{aligned}$$ We shall interpolate between two estimates for $\varphi(y-x) - \varphi(y+x)$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
|\varphi(y-x) - \varphi(y+x)| &\lesssim \|\varphi\|_{C^\alpha} \min (|x|^\alpha, |y|^\alpha), \qquad 0 < \alpha < 1/2,\\
\intertext{and}
|\varphi(y-x) - \varphi(y+x)| &\lesssim |\varphi|_{C^{1/2}_{0}} \max (|x|^\frac{1}{2}, |y|^\frac{1}{2}),\end{aligned}$$ where the second follows from the already proved (upper and lower) estimate $\frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi(x) \sim |x|^{1/2}$. Thus $$|\varphi(y-x) - \varphi(y+x)| \lesssim \|\varphi\|_{C^\alpha}^\eta \min (|x|^{\alpha\eta}, |y|^{\alpha\eta}) \max (|x|^{\frac{1-\eta}{2}}, |y|^{\frac{1-\eta}{2}}),$$ for all $(\alpha,\eta) \in (0,\frac{1}{2}) \times [0,1]$. We now choose $\eta$ such that $$\alpha\eta = \frac{1-\eta}{2}, \quad \text{ meaning that }\quad \eta = \frac{1}{1+2\alpha} \in (1/2,1).$$ Then $$\chi_\eta(x,y) := |\varphi(y-x) - \varphi(y+x)| \lesssim \|\varphi\|_{C^\alpha}^\eta |xy|^{\alpha\eta} = \|\varphi\|_{C^\alpha}^\eta |xy|^{\frac{1-\eta}{2}},$$ and, consequently, $$\label{eq:interpolation argument}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_{-\infty}^0 (K(y+h) - K(y-h))(\varphi(y-x) - \varphi(y+x))\,{{\mathrm d}}y\\
&\quad \lesssim \|\varphi\|_{C^\alpha}^\eta \bigg( |x|^{\alpha\eta}\frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^0 \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{|y+h|}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{|y-h|}} \right) |y|^{\alpha\eta}\,{{\mathrm d}}y\\
&\qquad + \int_{-\infty}^0 |K_\text{reg}(y+h) - K_\text{reg}(y-h)| \chi_\eta(x,y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y\bigg)\\
&\quad= \|\varphi\|_{C^\alpha}^\eta \bigg( |x|^{\alpha\eta} \underbrace{|h|^{1/2}|h|^{\alpha\eta}}_{|h|^{1- \frac{\eta}{2}}}\frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^0 \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{|s+1|}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{|s-1|}} \right) |s|^{\alpha\eta}\,{{\mathrm d}}s + O(h)\bigg).
\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the smoothness and decay of $$K_\text{reg}^\prime = K^\prime + \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2\pi}} \operatorname{sgn}{(\cdot)} |\cdot|^{-3/2}$$ to estimate the regular part: $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{-\infty}^0 |K_\text{reg}(y+h) - K_\text{reg}(y-h)| \chi_\eta(x,y)\,{{\mathrm d}}y\\
&\leq 2h \| \varphi\|_\infty \int_{-\infty}^0 \int_{-1}^1 |K_\text{reg}^\prime(y +th)| \,{{\mathrm d}}t \,{{\mathrm d}}y\\
&\lesssim h,\end{aligned}$$ since $K^\prime$ has exponential decay and $|\cdot|^{-3/2}$ is integrable at infinity. Note that the factor $|s|^{\alpha\eta}$ in satisfies $\alpha\eta \leq 1/4$ by choice of $\eta$, so that the integral is uniformly bounded for all $\alpha \in (0,\frac{1}{2})$. Combining with , one therefore obtains $$\left(\frac{\frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi(x)}{|x|^{\frac{1-\eta}{2}}}\right)\left(\frac{\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h)}{h^{1-\frac{\eta}{2}}}\right) \lesssim \|\varphi\|_{C^\alpha}^\eta.$$ Now, in view of that $|x| \geq h$ and $\frac{\mu}{2} - \varphi(x) \gtrsim |x|^{1/2}$, one may further reduce this estimate to $$\frac{\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h)}{h^{1-\eta}}\lesssim \|\varphi\|_{C^\alpha}^\eta,$$ and, because $1-\eta = \alpha\eta + \frac{1-\eta}{2}$ we obtain that $$\left(\frac{\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h)}{h^{\alpha}}\right)^\eta \left(\frac{\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h)}{h^{1/2}}\right)^{1-\eta} \lesssim \|\varphi\|_{C^\alpha}^\eta.$$ Since $h \ll 1$, we can estimate $h^{-1/2}$ from below with $h^{-\alpha}$. Note that $$\label{eq:alpha-norm bounded by local estimate}
\|\varphi\|_{C^\alpha} \lesssim \max \left\{1, \sup_{0 < h < |x| < \delta} \frac{|\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h)|}{h^{\alpha}} \right\}$$ for all $\alpha \leq 1/2$. Indeed, $\varphi(x+y) - \varphi(x-y)$ is symmetric in $x$ and $y$, so the largest difference quotient is always obtained by dividing with the smallest of $|x|$ and $|y|$, whence it is enough to consider $0 < |y| \leq |x| \leq P/2$. If $|y| \geq \delta/2$, then $$\frac{|\varphi(x+y) - \varphi(x-y)|}{|y|^{\alpha}} \leq \frac{4 \|\varphi\|_{\infty}}{\delta},$$ for all $x$. If, on the other hand, $|x| \geq \delta$ and $|y| \leq \delta/2$, then $$\frac{|\varphi(x+y) - \varphi(x-y)|}{|y|^{\alpha}} \leq \left(\frac{\delta}{2}\right)^{1-\alpha} \|\varphi\|_{C^1([\delta/2,P/2])}
\leq \|\varphi\|_{C^1([\delta/2,P/2])},$$ by the mean value theorem. For a given $\varphi$ and $\delta$, both these quantities are ${\mathcal O}(1)$, and independent of $\alpha \in (0,\frac{1}{2})$. Hence holds and, in any case, we obtain that $$\sup_{0 < h < |x| < \delta} \left(\frac{\varphi(x+h) - \varphi(x-h)}{h^{\alpha}}\right)^{1-\eta} \lesssim 1, \qquad 1- \eta \in \left[{\textstyle\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}}\right],$$ uniformly for $\alpha \in [\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2})$. As above, the uniformity in $\alpha$ allows for letting $\alpha \to \frac{1}{2}$ to obtain the global $C^{1/2}$-regularity of $\varphi$.
Global bifurcation and the Whitham conjecture {#sec:global}
=============================================
We now fix $\alpha \in (\frac{1}{2},1)$, and consider $C^{\alpha}_{\text{even}}({\mathbb S}_P)$, the space of even and $\alpha$-H[ö]{}lder continuous real-valued functions on the circle ${\mathbb S}_P$ of finite circumference $P > 0$. Let furthermore $F \colon C^\alpha_\text{even}({\mathbb S}_P) \times {\mathbb R}\to C^{\alpha}_\text{even}({\mathbb S}_P)$ be the operator defined by
\begin{align}\label{eq:fop_whitham}
F(\varphi,\mu) & = \mu \varphi - L \varphi - \varphi^2 ,
\end{align}
The following local bifurcation result is an extension of results proved in \cite{EK11} (for \(P=2\pi$) and [@EK08] (for a general $P$, but with less information on the bifurcation branches).
\[thm:local\_whit\] $ $\
[**(i) Sub- and supercritical bifurcation.**]{} For each finite period $P > 0$ and each integer $k\ge 1$ there exist $\mu_{P,k}^* = \left({\tanh(\frac{2\pi k}{P})}/(\frac{2\pi k }{P})\right)^{1/2}$ and a local, analytic curve $${s} \mapsto (\varphi_{P,k}({s}),\mu_{P,k}({s})) \in C^\alpha_{\rm{even}}({\mathbb S}_P) \times {\mathbb R}$$ of nontrivial $P/k$-periodic Whitham solutions with $\operatorname{D}_{s} \varphi_{P,k}(0) = \cos(2\pi k \cdot /P)$ that bifurcates from the trivial solution curve $\mu \mapsto (0,\mu)$ at $(\varphi_{P,k}(0),\mu_{P,k}(0)) = (0,\mu_{P,k}^*)$. The curve can be parametrised in such a way that $$s \mapsto \mu_{P,k}({s}) \text{ is even,}$$ and there exists a positive number $P_0 \approx 2.57$ with the property that $$\mu_{P< kP_0,k}''(0)>0, \quad \mu_{P> kP_0,k}''(0)<0, \quad \text{ while }\quad \mu_{kP_0,k}^{(4)}(0)>0.$$ Hence, a subcritical pitchfork bifurcation takes place at $(0,\mu_{P,k}^*)$ for $P>kP_0$, while a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation occurs for $P\le kP_0$.\
[**(ii) Transcritical bifurcation.**]{} At $\mu =1$ the trivial solution curve $\mu \mapsto (0,\mu)$ intersects the curve $\mu \mapsto (\mu -1, \mu)$ of constant solutions $\varphi_0 = \mu - 1$.\
Together, the solutions in (i) and (ii) constitute all nonzero solutions of $F(\varphi,\mu) = 0$ in $C^\alpha_{\rm{even}} ({\mathbb S}_P) \times {\mathbb R}$ in a neighbourhood of the trivial solution curve $\{(0,\mu)\colon \mu \in {\mathbb R}\}$.
The proof makes use of the same arguments as in [@EK11]. The only modification is that we consider a general period and obtain some additional information on the curves $(\varphi_{P,k}({s}),\mu_{P,k}({s}))$ in the case of sub- or supercritical bifurcation. In that case, the sign of $\mu_{2\pi,1}''(0)$ was computed in [@EK11 Theorem 4.6]. We repeat this computation for a general period, using a slightly different method. It suffices to consider $k=1$; the general result follows by rescaling $P$. To simplify the notation, we will abbreviate $(\varphi_{P, 1}({s}), \mu_{P,1}({s}))$ by $(\varphi(s), \mu(s))$.
We begin by showing that $$\label{eq:mu even}
\mu(s)=\mu(-s)$$ after a suitable choice of parametrisation. We denote by $$[\varphi]_j=
\frac{2}{P} \int_{-P/2}^{P/2} \varphi(x) \cos\left(\frac{2\pi j x}{P}\right)\, {{\mathrm d}}x, \quad j=0,1,2,\ldots$$ the coefficients in the cosine expansion of an even $P$-periodic function $\varphi= \frac{[\varphi]_0}{2} +
\sum_{j=1}^\infty [\varphi]_j \cos(\frac{2\pi j \cdot}{P})$.[^1] We parametrise the local bifurcation curve in such a way that $[ \varphi(s) ]_1={s}$. This parametrisation corresponds to the Lyapunov-Schmidt reduction used in [@EK11 Section 4.1]. Note that for a given even $P$-periodic solution $(\varphi, \mu)$, $(\varphi(\cdot+P/2),\mu)$ is also an even $P$-periodic solution and satisfies $$[\varphi(\cdot+P/2)]_1=-[\varphi]_1.$$ Since $ [\varphi(s)(\cdot +P/2)]_1=-[\varphi(s)]_1=-{s}$, it follows by uniqueness that $$(\varphi(s)(\cdot +P/2), \mu(s))=(\varphi(-s), \mu(-s)).$$ This proves .
In view of and the analyticity of $\mu^{s}$, we can write $$\mu(s)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \mu_{2n} {s}^{2n}$$ with uniform convergence for ${s}$ in a neighbourhood of the origin. We also expand $$\varphi(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \varphi_n {s}^n$$ with convergence in $C^\alpha_\text{even}({\mathbb S}_P)$. By uniqueness, we can compute the coefficients by substituting the above expansions into the Whitham equation and identifying terms of equal order in ${s}$. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:expansion 1}
L\varphi_1-\mu_0 \varphi_1&=0,\\
\label{eq:expansion 2}
L\varphi_2-\mu_0 \varphi_2&=-\varphi_1^2,\\
\label{eq:expansion 3}
L\varphi_3-\mu_0\varphi_3&=\mu_2 \varphi_1-2\varphi_1\varphi_2,\\
\label{eq:expansion 4}
L\varphi_4-\mu_0\varphi_4&=\mu_2\varphi_2-2\varphi_1\varphi_3-\varphi_2^2,\\
\label{eq:expansion 5}
L\varphi_5-\mu_0\varphi_5&=\mu_2\varphi_3+\mu_4 \varphi_1
-2\varphi_1\varphi_4-2\varphi_2\varphi_3.\end{aligned}$$ By definition, $\varphi_1(x)=\cos(\xi x)$ and $\mu_0=m(\xi)$, where $\xi=2\pi/P$, so that is satisfied. The remaining coefficients in the power series for $\mu$ can be determined by the requirement that each right-hand side must lie in the range of the linear operator defined by the left-hand side. The functions $\varphi_n$ are then obtained by solving the resulting equations. By choice of parametrisation, $[\varphi_n]_1=0$ for each $n\ge 2$. Using the formula for $\varphi_1$, the right-hand side of reduces to $$-\frac12-\frac12 \cos(2\xi x),$$ which in turn yields $$\varphi_2(x)=-\frac{1}{2(m(0)-m(\xi))}-\frac{1}{2(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))}\cos(2\xi x).$$ The right-hand side of then simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\mu_2-\frac{1}{m(\xi)-m(0)}-\frac{1}{2(m(\xi)-m(2\xi))} \right)\cos(\xi x)\\
&\quad
-\frac{1}{2(m(\xi)-m(2\xi))} \cos(3\xi x),\end{aligned}$$ yielding the relation $$\mu_2=\frac{1}{m(\xi)-m(0)}+\frac{1}{2(m(\xi)-m(2\xi))}.$$ We note that this a strictly increasing function of $\xi$ which vanishes at a unique positive wave number $\xi_0\approx 2.44$ (so that $P_0=2\pi/\xi_0\approx 2.57$). By solving , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_3(x)=\frac{1}{2(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))(m(3\xi)-m(\xi))}\cos(3\xi x).\end{aligned}$$ The right-hand side of now reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{4(m(0)-m(\xi))^2}-\frac{1}{4(m(0)-m(\xi))(m(\xi)-m(2\xi))}-\frac{1}{8(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))^2}\\
&
-\frac{1}{2(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))}\left(\frac{1}{m(3\xi)-m(\xi)}{-\frac{1}{2(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))}}\right)\cos(2\xi x)
\\
&-\frac{1}{2(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))}\left(\frac{1}{m(3\xi)-m(\xi)}+\frac{1}{4(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))}\right)\cos(4\xi x),\end{aligned}$$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_4(x) &=
\frac{1}{4(m(0)-m(\xi))^3}
-\frac{1}{4(m(0)-m(\xi))^2(m(\xi)-m(2\xi))}
\\
&\quad-\frac{1}{8(m(0)-m(\xi))(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))^2}\\
&\quad-\frac{1}{2(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))^2}\left(\frac{1}{m(3\xi)-m(\xi)}{-\frac{1}{2(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))}}\right)\cos(2\xi x)
\\
&\quad- \frac{1}{2(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))(m(4\xi)-m(\xi))} \\
&\qquad \times \left(\frac{1}{m(3\xi)-m(\xi)}+\frac{1}{4(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))}\right) \cos(4\xi x).\end{aligned}$$ In order to determine $\mu_4$, we finally compute the $\cos(\xi x)$ component of the right-hand side of . This results in $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_4&=
\frac{1}{2(m(0)-m(\xi))^2}\left(\frac{1}{m(0)-m(\xi)}+\frac{1}{m(2\xi)-m(\xi)}\right)\\
&\quad-\frac{1}{4(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))^2} \left( \frac{1}{m(0)-m(\xi)} + \frac{3}{m(3\xi)-m(\xi)}\right)\\
&\quad +\frac{1}{4(m(2\xi)-m(\xi))^3}\end{aligned}$$ and one finds that $\mu_4>0$ for $\xi=\xi_0$.
With $$U = \left\{ (\varphi,\mu) \in C^\alpha_\text{even}({\mathbb S}_P) \times {\mathbb R}\colon \varphi < \mu/2 \right\},$$ we let $$\label{eq:S}
S = \left\{ (\varphi,\mu) \in U \colon F(\varphi,\mu) = 0 \right\}$$ be our set of solutions. Note that for nonconstant solutions satisfying $\varphi \leq \mu/2$, the wave speed $\mu$ is a priori bounded from above. Since $K$ is positive with $\int_{\mathbb R}K(x)\,{{\mathrm d}}x = 1$, one namely has $\mu \sup \varphi \leq (\sup \varphi)^2 + \sup \varphi$. Because furthermore $\sup \varphi > 0$ for nonconstant solutions by Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_1\] and Remark \[rem:sign-changing\], one obtains $\mu \leq 1 + \frac{\mu}{2}$, and thus $$\label{eq:mu leq 2}
\mu \leq 2.$$ We shall later improve this general bound in the case when $\mu = \mu(s)$ is taken along our bifurcation curve (cf. the proof of Theorem \[thm:noperiod\]), but we first extend the curve to a global one. The following theorem is is an easy adaption of [@EK11 Theorem 4.4.] with $U$ and $S$ as above.
![The global bifurcation diagram obtained in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\]. As follows by construction and from Section \[sec:nodal\], the maxima of these solutions for $\mu \in [0,1]$ lie in the interval $[0,\mu/2]$. The solutions with wave speed $\mu \in [1,2]$ are in one-to-one-correspondence with the former via the Galilean transformation . Along the main bifurcation branch the wave speed $\mu$ is bounded away both from vanishing, cf. Corollary \[cor:essentialbound\], and from unit speed, cf. Remark \[rem:wavespeed bounded away from 1\]. As proved in Theorem \[thm:local\_whit\], for periods $P\geq P_0 \approx 2.57$ the bifurcation is of sub-critical pitchfork type, and in this case numerical calculations [@EK11; @MR3390078] show a turning point near the highest wave.[]{data-label="fig:bifurcation"}](bifurcation.pdf){width="0.5\linewidth"}
\[thm:global\_whit\] For all finite periods $P > 0$, the curves $s \mapsto (\varphi_{P,1}({s}),\mu_{P,1}({s}))$ of solutions to the Whitham equation from Theorem \[thm:local\_whit\] extend to global continuous curves of solutions $\mathfrak{R}_{P} \colon {\mathbb R}_{\geq 0} \to S$, that allow a local real-analytic reparametrisation around each ${s} > 0$. One of the following alternatives holds:
- $\| (\varphi_{P,1}({s}), \mu_{P,1}({s})) \|_{C^\alpha({\mathbb S}) \times {\mathbb R}} \to \infty$ as ${s} \to \infty$.
- $\operatorname{dist}(\mathfrak{R}_P, \partial U) = 0.$
- ${s} \mapsto (\varphi_{P,1}({s}),\mu_{P,1}({s})) $ is (finitely) periodic.
If $\mathfrak{R}_P({s}_1) = \mathfrak{R}_P({s}_2)$ for some ${s}_1 \neq {s}_2$ at a point where $ \ker \operatorname{D}F (\mathfrak{R}({s}_1)) = \{0\}$, then alternative (iii) in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\] occurs with $|{s}_1 - {s}_2|$ being a multiple of the period. Also, the values of ${s}$ for which the kernel of $\operatorname{D}F(\mathfrak{R}({s}))$ is nontrivial are isolated. For both these facts, see [@MR1956130].
This assertion was proved in the case $P=2\pi$ in [@EK11] using compactness properties of the operator $L$ and the fact that $ \mu_{2\pi,1}^{\prime\prime}(0) \neq 0$. For a general period $P>0$ the assertion follows in the same way using the fact that either $ \mu_{P,1}^{\prime\prime }(0) $ or $ \mu_{P,1}^{(4)}(0) $ is nonzero by Theorem \[thm:local\_whit\].
We shall now prove that alternative (iii) in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\] is excluded, and that (i) and (ii) happen simultaneously as ${s} \to \infty$ along the primary bifurcation branch $\mathfrak{R}_P$. To that aim, let $\mu^* = \mu_{P,1}^*$ be the primary bifurcation point from Theorem \[thm:local\_whit\] and let $$\varphi^* = \cos(2\pi \cdot /P)$$ be the direction of bifurcation in $C^{\alpha}({\mathbb S}_P)$. We follow the route of [@EK11], adding more information to the behaviour along the bifurcation branch.
We start by proving that alternative (iii) in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\] cannot occur. To that aim, introduce $$\mathcal{K} = \{ \varphi \in C_\text{even}^\alpha({\mathbb S}_P) \colon \varphi \text{ is nondecreasing on } (-P/2,0)\},$$ which is a closed cone in $C^\alpha({\mathbb S}_P)$. Let furthermore $\varphi({s}) = \varphi_{P,1}({s})$, $\mu({s}) = \mu_{P,1}({s})$, $\mathfrak{R} = \mathfrak{R}_{P}$, and let $\mathfrak{R}^1$ and $S^1$ denote the $\varphi$-components of $\mathfrak{R}$ and $S$, respectively.
\[thm:noperiod\] Alternative (iii) in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\] cannot occur.
\[rem:noperiod\] Our proof of Theorem \[thm:noperiod\] is based on [@MR1956130 Theorem 9.2.2], but has been rewritten to deal with the transcritical curve of constant solutions $\mu \mapsto (\mu -1, \mu)$ crossing the line of trivial solutions at $\mu = 1$. Note in particular in that $\varphi({s}) \in \mathcal{K}\setminus \{0\}$.
\[rem:wavespeed bounded away from 1\] The proof of Theorem \[thm:noperiod\] furthermore shows that $\mu({s}) < 1$, uniformly for all ${s}$. We have $\mu(s) < 1$ for small $s$, and Proposition \[prop:mean\] implies that the only way to reach $\mu = 1$ is by approaching $\varphi = 0$. Theorem \[thm:local\_whit\] (ii) holds that the unique solutions in a neighbourhood of $(\varphi,\mu) = (0,1)$ are the constant solutions. Since we show below that the main bifurcation curve does not connect to the two lines of constant solutions, it follows that the wave speed is bounded away from $1$ from the left.
If $\varphi({s}) \in \mathcal{K}\setminus \{0\}$ for all ${s} > 0$ there is nothing to prove, so assume for a contradiction that there exists $\bar {s}$; the largest positive number such that $\varphi({s}) \in \mathcal{K}\setminus \{0\}$ for all ${s} < \bar {s}$. Since $\mathcal{K}$ is closed in $C_\text{even}^\alpha({\mathbb S}_P)$, we have $\varphi(\bar{s}) \in \mathcal{K}$. We now argue that $\varphi(\bar{s}) = const$, by showing that if $\varphi \in \mathfrak{R}^1 \cap \mathcal{K}$ is nonconstant, then $\varphi$ is an interior point of $S^1 \cap \mathcal{K}$ with respect to the $C^\alpha$-metric relative to $S^1$.
Thus, let $\varphi$ be a nonconstant function on the main bifurcation branch that is nondecreasing on $(-P/2,0)$. According to Theorem \[thm:regularity I\], $\varphi$ is then smooth. Hence we can apply Theorem \[thm:nodal\], which shows that $ \varphi' > 0$ on $(-P/2,0)$, $\varphi^{\prime\prime}(0) < 0$ and $\varphi^{\prime\prime}(P/2) > 0$. Let $\phi$ be another solution, lying within $\delta$-distance to $\varphi$ in $C^\alpha$, with $\delta \ll 1$ small enough for $\phi < \frac{\mu}{2}$ to hold. Then, for both these solutions, iteration of yields a continuous fixed-point map $C^\alpha \to C^k$, $k \geq 1$ arbitrary, so that in fact $\|\varphi - \phi\|_{C^2} < \tilde \delta \ll 1$, where $\tilde \delta$ can be made arbitrarily small by choosing $\delta$ even smaller. It follows that, for $\delta$ small enough, $\phi$ is strictly increasing on $(-P/2,0)$. This means that $\varphi(\bar {s}) = const$ (anything else would violate the definition of $\bar{s}$).
If $\varphi(\bar{s}) = 0$, Theorem \[thm:local\_whit\] enforces $\mu(\bar{s})$ to be a bifurcation point. To exclude $\varphi(\bar{s}) = const \neq 0$, note first that all nonzero constant solutions are of the form $\varphi = \mu - 1$, $\mu \neq 1$. Now, given that $\varphi(\bar{s})$ is a nonzero constant (which we shall refute) Proposition \[prop:mean\] implies that $\mu(\bar{s}) < 1$, since in passing $\mu = 1$ the solution $\varphi$ would have to vanish, which in turn would imply that $\varphi(\bar{s}) = 0$. We now claim that, for $\mu < 1$, the curve $\mu \mapsto (\mu -1,\mu)$ of trivial solutions is locally unique, meaning that no other solutions in $S$ connect to this curve. The key to this observation is the Galilean transformation $$\label{eq:galilean}
\mu \mapsto 2 - \mu, \qquad \varphi \mapsto \varphi + 1 - \mu,$$ giving a one-to-one correspondence between solutions with wave speed $\mu < 1$ and such with $\mu > 1$. In particular, defines a map $(\mu -1, \mu) \mapsto (0,2-\mu)$ between the two lines of constant solutions in the $(\varphi,\mu)$-plane (see Figure \[fig:bifurcation\]). But according to Theorem \[thm:local\_whit\], there are no nonzero solutions connecting to the line $(0,\tilde\mu)$ at $\tilde\mu = 2 - \mu > 1$. Thus $\varphi(\bar{s}) = 0$.
We now rule out $\mu(\bar{s}) = 1$ in the case $\varphi(\bar{s})= 0$. From Proposition \[prop:mean\] we know that $\mu({s}) < 1 $, for all ${s} < \bar{s}$. Also, Theorem \[thm:local\_whit\] implies that the only solutions with $\mu < 1$ connecting to $(\varphi, \mu) = (0,1)$ lie on the curves $(0,\mu)$ and $(\mu -1,\mu)$ of constant solutions. The latter curve we already proved is not connected to $\mathcal{K} \setminus \{0\}$ for $\mu < 1$. The only remaining possibility for $\mu(\bar{s}) = 1$ would be that $\mathfrak{R}$ connects $(0,\mu^*)$ to $(0,1)$ via the line of zero solutions. Since this violates the definition of $\bar{s}$, we conclude that $\mu(\bar{s}) = \mu_{P,k}^*$, for some $k \geq 1$.
Thus, we may assume that the point $(\varphi,\mu)(\bar{s})$ is a local bifurcation point, and according to Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\] we may choose a real-analytic reparametrisation of $\mathfrak{R}$ around that point. In view of that $\varphi(\bar{s}) = 0$, there then exists a largest integer $j$ such that $$\varphi({s}) = \frac{\operatorname{D}^j_{s} \varphi(\bar{s})}{j!}({s} - \bar{s})^j + O(|{s} - \bar{s}|^{j+1}).$$ By considering ${s} < \bar{s}$, one sees that $$(-1)^j \operatorname{D}^j_{s} \varphi(\bar{s}) \in \mathcal{K} \setminus \{0\}.$$ On the other hand, by differentiating $F(\varphi({s}),\mu({s})) = 0$ $j$ times with respect to ${s}$, one obtains that $$(-1)^j \operatorname{D}F(0,\mu_{P,k}^*) \operatorname{D}^j_{s} \varphi(\bar{s}) = 0,$$ so that $\phi = (-1)^j \operatorname{D}^j \varphi(\bar{s})$ fulfils $(L - \mu_{P,k}^*) \phi = 0$. This enforces $\varphi(x) = \tau \cos(2\pi k/P)$, since we are in a space of even $P$-periodic functions. Now, such functions cannot lie in $\mathcal{K}$ if $k \geq 2$. Also, since $-\varphi^* \not \in \mathcal{K}$, we have found that for ${s} < \bar{s}$ but sufficiently close, $\mathfrak{R}$ coincides with the primary branch (that is, with itself) for $0 <{s} \ll 1$.[^2] This, in turn, implies that there are countably many pairs $({s}_{1,j},{s}_{2,j})$ with ${s}_{1,j} \searrow 0$ and ${s}_{2,j} \nearrow \bar{s}$ for which $\mathfrak{R}({s}_{1,j}) = \mathfrak{R}({s}_{2,j})$. In light of the remark following Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\] this is a contradiction, and we conclude that $\bar{s}$ does not exists. Thus, $\varphi({s}) \subset \mathcal{K} \setminus \{0\}$ for all ${s} > 0$.
To exclude a trivial wave in the limit $s \to \infty$ we need a couple of results which show that $\mu$ is a priori bounded away from $0$ along the bifurcation branches. Recall that we already know that $\mu$ is bounded from above by $1$; cf. Remark \[rem:wavespeed bounded away from 1\].
\[lemma:convergence\] Any sequence of Whitham solutions $(\varphi_n,\mu_n) \in S$ with $(\mu_n)_n$ bounded has a subsequence which converges uniformly to a solution $\varphi$.
We have $$\|\varphi\|_\infty^2 \leq \|\mu \varphi\|_{\infty} + \|L\|_{B(L^{\infty}({\mathbb R}))} \|\varphi\|_\infty = ( |\mu| + 1) \|\varphi\|_\infty,$$ so that $(\varphi_n)_n$ is bounded whenever $(\mu_n)_n$ is. Since $K$ is integrable and continuous almost everywhere, it follows by dominated convergence that $(L\varphi_n)_n$ is equicontinuous. Arzela–Ascoli’s lemma then implies the existence of a uniformly convergent subsequence.
\[cor:essentialbound\] For any fixed period $P> 0$, one has $$\mu(s) \gtrsim 1,$$ uniformly for all ${s} \geq 0$ along the global bifurcation curve in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\].
Assume for a contradiction that there is a sequence $(\mu_n)_n$ such that $\mu_n \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$, while at the same time $\varphi_n = \varphi_{\mu_n}$ is a sequence along the global bifurcation curve in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\]. According to Lemma \[lemma:convergence\], a subsequence $(\varphi_{n_k})_k$ converges uniformly to a solution $\varphi_0$ of . Because $\varphi_{n_k} < \frac{\mu_k}{2} \to 0$ as $k \to \infty$, it follows that $\varphi_0 \leq 0$. In view of Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_1\], we have $\max_x \varphi_0(x) = 0$, whence $\varphi_0 \equiv 0$ by Remark \[rem:sign-changing\]. Lemma \[lemma:essentialbound\] thus leads to a contradiction: $$0 = \lim_{k \to \infty} \left( \textstyle{\frac{\mu_{n_k}}{2}} - \varphi_{n_k}(\frac{P}{2}) \right) \geq \lambda_{K,P} > 0,$$ which implies that $\mu({s}) \gtrsim 1$, uniformly for all ${s} \geq 0$.
Remark \[rem:wavespeed bounded away from 1\] and Corollary \[cor:essentialbound\] show that $\mu(s)$ is bounded from above and below. A bounded $\mu$ is enough to conclude from [@EK11 Proposition 4.9] that blow-up in $S$ can only happen by approaching the boundary of $U$.
\[prop:i implies ii\][@EK11] If alternative (i) in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\] occurs, then $$\lim_{s \to \infty} \left( \frac{\mu(s)}{2} - \max(\varphi(s)) \right) = 0.$$ In particular, alternative (i) in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\] implies alternative (ii).
We also have the following:
In Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\], alternative (ii) implies alternative (i).
Assume for a contradiction that alternative (ii), but not alternative (i), in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\] occurs. Then there exists a sequence $(\varphi_n,\mu_n)$ of even solutions to the steady Whitham equation satisfying $\varphi_n^\prime \geq 0$ on $(-P/2,0)$, $\varphi_n < \frac{\mu_n}{2}$, and $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \left| \frac{\mu_n}{2} - \varphi_n(0) \right| = 0,$$ while $\varphi_n$ remains bounded in $C^\alpha({\mathbb S})$, $\alpha > \frac{1}{2}$. This, however, contradicts Lemma \[lemma:essentialbound\], and hence alternative (i) in Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\] occurs.
We are now at the final building block for our main result. Pick any sequence $(s_n)_n$ with $s_n \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$. According to Remark \[rem:noperiod\] and Corollary \[cor:essentialbound\], $\mu(s_n)$ is bounded, whence Lemma \[lemma:convergence\] implies the existence of a subsequence $(\varphi_{n_k})_k$ converging uniformly to a solution $\varphi_0$ as $k \to \infty$. Let $\mu_0$ be the wave speed associated to $\varphi_0$. By the nodal properties of $\varphi_{n_k}$, it immediately follows that $\varphi_0(0) = \frac{\mu_0}{2}$. Thus, in view of Theorem \[thm:regularity II\], we have proved:
\[thm:main\] In Theorem \[thm:global\_whit\], alternatives (i) and (ii) both occur. Given any unbounded sequence of positive numbers $s_n$, there exists a limiting wave obtained as the uniform limit of a subsequence of $(\varphi({s_n}))_n$. The limiting wave solves the steady Whitham equation with $$\varphi(0) = {\textstyle \frac{\mu}{2}} \quad\text{ and }\quad \varphi \in C^{1/2}({\mathbb R}).$$ It is even, strictly increasing on $(-P/2,0)$, smooth on ${\mathbb R}\setminus P{\mathbb Z}$, and has Hölder regularity exactly $\frac{1}{2}$ at $x \in P{\mathbb Z}$.
M.E. would like to thank Eugenia Malinnikova for an original idea about proving the positivity of the kernel $K$, which later led to the proof of $K$ being convex described in [@E15_highest]. M.E. is also thankful to David Lannes and Mathew Johnson for their hospitality and for sharing their expertise during visits when part of this research was carried out. Both authors are grateful to Mateusz Kwaśnicki for helpful comments on Stieltjes functions and subordinate Brownian motions.
[^1]: Note that we use a slightly different convention here compared to the treatment of Fourier series in Section \[sec:Kp\].
[^2]: Note here that $\mathfrak{R}_{{s} \ll 1}$ belongs to $\mathcal K$: From Theorem \[thm:local\_whit\] we get that $\varphi({s}) = {s} \cos(2\pi k x/P) + O({s}^2)$ in $C^\alpha({\mathbb S}_P)$, and from Theorem \[thm:regularity I\] that all small solutions are smooth. By combining these two properties one gets the desired uniformity in $x$ to conclude that $\varphi({s})$ is strictly increasing on $(-P/2,0)$ for ${s} \ll 1$ small enough.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Particle Metropolis-Hastings (PMH) allows for Bayesian parameter inference in nonlinear state space models by combining Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and particle filtering. The latter is used to estimate the intractable likelihood. In its original formulation, PMH makes use of a marginal MCMC proposal for the parameters, typically a Gaussian random walk. However, this can lead to a poor exploration of the parameter space and an inefficient use of the generated particles.
We propose a number of alternative versions of PMH that incorporate gradient and Hessian information about the posterior into the proposal. This information is more or less obtained as a byproduct of the likelihood estimation. Indeed, we show how to estimate the required information using a fixed-lag particle smoother, with a computational cost growing linearly in the number of particles. We conclude that the proposed methods can: (i) decrease the length of the burn-in phase, (ii) increase the mixing of the Markov chain at the stationary phase, and (iii) make the proposal distribution scale invariant which simplifies tuning.
author:
- 'Johan Dahlin, Fredrik Lindsten and Thomas B. Schön[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'dahlin.bib'
title: 'Particle Metropolis-Hastings using gradient and Hessian information[^2]'
---
Introduction
============
We are interested in Bayesian parameter inference in nonlinear state space models (SSM) of the form $$\begin{aligned}
x_{t}|x_{t-1} \sim f_{\theta}(x_{t}|x_{t-1}), \quad
y_{t}|x_t \sim g_{\theta}(y_{t}|x_t),
\label{eq:SSM}\end{aligned}$$ where the latent states and the measurements are denoted by $\mathbf{x} = x_{0:T} \triangleq \{x_t\}_{t=0}^T$ and $\mathbf{y} = \measurementsdef$, respectively. Here, $f_{\theta}(\cdot)$ and $g_{\theta}(\cdot)$ denote the transition and observation kernels, respectively, parametrised by the unknown static parameter vector $\theta \in \Theta \subset \mathbb{R}^d$. The initial state is distributed according to some distribution $\mu(x_0)$ which, for notational simplicity, is assumed to be independent of $\theta$.
The aim of Bayesian parameter inference (in SSMs) is to compute the *parameter posterior distribution* $$\begin{aligned}
p(\theta | \mathbf{y}) = \frac{ p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y}) p(\theta)}{p(\mathbf{y})},
\label{eq:parameterPosterior}\end{aligned}$$ where $p(\theta)$ denotes the prior of $\theta$ and $p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y})$ denotes the likelihood, which for an SSM can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y}) = p_{\theta}(y_1) \prod_{t=2}^T p_{\theta}(y_t|y_{1:t-1}).
\label{eq:likeFunc}\end{aligned}$$ The one-step ahead predictor $p_{\theta}(y_t|y_{1:t-1})$, and thus also the likelihood function, is in general not analytically tractable. However, unbiased estimators of the likelihood can be constructed using sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) [@DoucetJohansen2011; @DelMoral2004] and these can be used as *plug-in estimators*. This is especially useful in the Metropolis-Hastings (MH) algorithm that can be used for estimating the parameter posterior in .
This combination of MH and SMC is known as the particle Metropolis-Hastings (PMH) algorithm [@AndrieuDoucetHolenstein2010]. The MH acceptance probability depends on the intractable likelihood, which in PMH is estimated using SMC (see Section \[sec:overview\]). Despite the apparent approximation, this results in an algorithm that targets the correct posterior distribution [@AndrieuDoucetHolenstein2010]. The original PMH algorithm makes use of a marginal proposal for $\theta$, i.e. only the current parameter is used when proposing a new parameter. The theoretical properties of the marginal PMH algorithm have been analysed in @AndrieuVihola2012 [@PittSilvaGiordaniKohn2012; @DoucetPittKohn2012] and it has been applied for a number of interesting applications in, e.g., economics, social network analysis and ecology [@FluryShephard2011; @Everitt2012; @GolightlyWilkinson2011].
In this paper, we show that information such as the gradient and the Hessian about the posterior can be included in the construction of the PMH proposal. This idea is first suggested by @DoucetJacobJohansen2011 in the discussions following @GirolamiCalderhead2011. In two previous proceedings, we have applied and extended this idea with gradient information [@DahlinLindstenSchon2013a] and also using Hessian information [@DahlinLindstenSchon2014a]. The present article builds upon and extends this preliminary work. A PMH method using gradient information similar to @DahlinLindstenSchon2013a has recently been proposed by @NemethFearnhead2014.
In the context of MH sampling, it has been recognised that the gradient and Hessian can be used to construct efficient proposal distributions. In the Metropolis adjusted Langevin algorithm (MALA) [@RobertsStramer2003], a drift term is added to the proposal in the direction of the gradient, which intuitively guides the Markov chain to regions of high posterior probability. In the manifold MALA (mMALA) [@GirolamiCalderhead2011], the Hessian (or some other appropriate metric tensor) is also included to scale the proposal to take the curvature of the log-posterior into account. Drawing parallels with the optimisation literature, mMALA shares some properties with Newton-type optimisation algorithms (where MALA is more similar to a steepest ascent method). In particular, scaling the proposal with the Hessian can considerably simplify the tedious tuning of the method since it removes the need for running costly pilot runs, which are commonly used to tune the covariance matrices of the random walk MH and the MALA.
In our problem, i.e. for inference in a nonlinear SSM , the gradient and Hessian cannot be computed analytically. However, in analogue with the intractable likelihood, these quantities can be estimated using SMC algorithms, see e.g. @PoyiadjisDoucetSingh2011 [@DoucetJacobRubenthaler2013]. This provides us with the tools necessary to construct PMH algorithms in the flavour of the MALA and the mMALA, resulting in the two methods proposed in this paper, PMH1 and PMH2, respectively. In particular, we make use of a fixed-lag (FL) particle smoother [@KitagawaSato2001] to estimate the gradient and Hessian. The motivation for this is that this smoother only makes use of the weighted particles computed by the particle filter. Consequently, we obtain this information as a *byproduct* of the likelihood computation in the PMH algorithm. This results in only a small computational overhead for the proposed methods when compared to the marginal method.
Finally, we provide numerical experiments to illustrate the benefits of using the gradient and Hessian and the accuracy of the FL smoother. We demonstrate some interesting properties of the proposed algorithms, in particular that they enjoy (i) a shorter burn-in compared with the marginal algorithm, (ii) a better mixing of the Markov chain in the stationary phase, and (iii) a simplified tuning of the step length(s), especially when the target distribution is non-isotropic.
Particle Metropolis-Hastings {#sec:overview}
============================
In this section, we review the PMH algorithm and show how the random variables used to compute the likelihood estimator can be incorporated in the proposal construction. We also outline the idea of how this can be used to construct the proposed PMH1 and PMH2 algorithms.
MH sampling with unbiased likelihoods {#sec:PMH}
-------------------------------------
The MH algorithm (see, e.g. @RobertCasella2004) is a member of the MCMC family for sampling from a target distribution $\pi(\theta)$ by simulating a carefully constructed Markov chain on $\Theta$. The chain is constructed in such a way that it admits the target as its unique stationary distribution.
The algorithm consists of two steps: (i) a new parameter $\theta''$ is sampled from a proposal distribution $q(\theta''|\theta')$ given the current state $\theta'$ and (ii) the current parameter is changed to $\theta''$ with probability $\alpha(\theta',\theta'')$, otherwise the chain remains at the current state. The acceptance probability is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(\theta',\theta'')
=
1 \wedge
\frac{ \pi(\theta'') }{\pi(\theta')}
\frac{ q(\theta' | \theta'')}{q(\theta'' | \theta')},
\label{eq:MHacceptprob}\end{aligned}$$ where we use the notation $a \wedge b \triangleq \min\{a,b\}$.
In this paper, we have the parameter posterior distribution as the target distribution, i.e. $\pi(\theta) = p(\theta|\mathbf{y})$. This implies that the acceptance probability will depend explicitly on the intractable likelihood $p_\theta(\mathbf{y})$, preventing direct application of the MH algorithm to this problem. However, this difficulty can be circumvented by using a *pseudo-marginal* approach [@Beaumont2003; @AndrieuRoberts2009].
Assume that there exists an unbiased, non-negative estimator of the likelihood $\widehat{p}_{\theta}(\mathbf{y}|u)$. We introduce explicitly the random variable $u \in \mathsf{U}$ used to construct this estimator, and we let $m_{\theta}(u)$ denote the probability density of $u$ on $\mathsf{U}$.
The pseudo-marginal method is then a standard MH algorithm operating in a non-standard extended space $\Theta \times \mathsf{U}$, with the *extended target* $$\begin{aligned}
\pi( \theta, u | \mathbf{y} )
=
\frac{ \widehat{p}_{\theta}( \mathbf{y} | u ) m_{\theta}(u) p(\theta) } { p(\mathbf{y}) }
=
\frac{ \widehat{p}_{\theta}( \mathbf{y} | u ) m_{\theta}(u) p(\theta | \mathbf{y}) } { p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y}) },\end{aligned}$$ and proposal distribution $m_{\theta''}(u'') q(\theta'' | \theta')$.
Since the likelihood estimator is unbiased, $\mathbb{E}_{u|\theta}[\widehat{p}_{\theta}(\mathbf{y}|u)] = p_{\theta}( \mathbf{y} )$, it follows that the extended target admits $p(\theta | \mathbf{y})$ as a marginal. Hence, by simulating from the extended target $\pi( \theta, u | \mathbf{y} ) $ we obtain samples from the original target distribution $p(\theta | \mathbf{y})$ as a byproduct.
If the likelihood is estimated by using SMC (see Section \[sec:SMC\]) we obtain the PMH algorithm. The random variable $u$ then corresponds to all the weighted particles generated by the SMC algorithm. However, these random variables carry useful information, not only about the likelihood, but also about the geometry of the posterior distribution. We suggest to incorporate this information into the proposal construction. With $(\theta', u')$ being the current state of the Markov chain we simulate $\theta'' \sim q(\cdot | \theta', u')$ and $u'' \sim m_{\theta''}(\cdot)$, using some proposal $q$ (see Section \[sec:constructPMH2\]).
It follows that the (standard) MH acceptance probability for the extended target is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\alpha(\theta'',u'', \theta', u')
&= 1 \wedge
\frac{ \widehat{p}_{\theta''}(\mathbf{y} | u'') m_{\theta''}(u'') p(\theta'')}{ \widehat{p}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{y} | u') m_{\theta'}(u') p(\theta') }
\frac{ m_{\theta'}(u') q(\theta' | \theta'', u'') }{ m_{\theta''}(u'') q(\theta'' | \theta', u' )} \\
&=1 \wedge
\frac{ \widehat{p}_{\theta''}(\mathbf{y} | u'') p(\theta'')}{ \widehat{p}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{y} | u') p(\theta') }
\frac{ q(\theta' | \theta'', u'') }{ q(\theta'' | \theta', u' )}.
% &= 1
% \wedge
% \frac{ \widehat{p}_{\theta''}(\mathbf{y} | u'') }{ \widehat{p}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{y} | u') }
% \frac{ p(\theta'') }{ p(\theta') }
% \frac{ q(\theta' | \theta'', u'') }{ q(\theta'' | \theta', u' )}.
\label{eq:PMHaprob}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $ q(\theta'' | \theta', u' )$ may depend on the auxiliary variable $u'$ in a (formally) arbitrary way. In particular, in Section \[sec:SMC\] we propose a construction making use of *biased* estimates of the gradient and Hessian of the log-posterior. Nevertheless, expression still defines a correct MH acceptance probability for the extended target, ensuring the validity of our approach. Note also that the aforementioned proposal construction opens up for a wide range of adapted proposals, possibly different from the ones considered in this work.
Constructing PMH1 and PMH2 {#sec:constructPMH2}
--------------------------
We now turn to the construction of a proposal that makes use of the gradient and Hessian of the log-posterior. Following @RobertCasella2004, we do this by a Laplace approximation of the parameter posterior around the current state $\theta'$. Hence, consider a second order Taylor expansion of $\log p(\theta''|\mathbf{y})$ at $\theta'$: $$\begin{aligned}
\log p(\theta''|\mathbf{y})
&\approx
\log p(\theta'|\mathbf{y})
+ (\theta'' - \theta')^{\top} \Big[ \Dtheta \log p(\theta|\mathbf{y}) \Big]_{\theta=\theta'} \\
&+ \frac{1}{2} (\theta'' - \theta')^{\top} \Big[ \DDtheta \log p(\theta|\mathbf{y}) \Big]_{\theta=\theta'} (\theta'' - \theta').\end{aligned}$$ Taking the exponential of both sides and completing the square, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
p(\theta''| \mathbf{y})
&\approx
\textsf{N} \Big( \theta'';\theta' + \mathsf{I}^{-1}_T(\theta') \mathsf{S}_T(\theta'), \mathsf{I}^{-1}_T(\theta') \Big),\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced $\mathsf{S}_T(\theta') = \Dtheta \log p(\theta|\mathbf{y})|_{\theta=\theta'}$ and $\mathsf{I}_T(\theta') = - \DDtheta \log p(\theta|\mathbf{y})|_{\theta=\theta'}$, for the gradient and the negative Hessian of the log-posterior, respectively. Here, we assume for now that the negative Hessian is positive definite; see Section \[sec:regularisation\] for further discussion on this matter.
As pointed out above, these quantities cannot be computed in closed form, but they can be estimated from the random variable $u'$ (see Section \[sec:SMC\]). This suggests three different versions of the PMH algorithm, each resulting from a specific choice of the proposal: $$\begin{aligned}
q(\theta''|\theta',u') =
\begin{dcases}
\textsf{N}\left( \theta', \Gamma \right), & \text{[PMH0]} \\
\textsf{N}\left( \theta' + {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}} \Gamma \widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta'|u'), \Gamma \right), & \text{[PMH1]} \\
\textsf{N}\left( \theta' + \widehat{\textsf{G}}(\theta'|u'), \widehat{\textsf{H}}(\theta'|u') \right). & \text{[PMH2]}
\end{dcases}
\label{eq:2orderproposal}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we use the notation $\widehat{\textsf{G}}(\theta|u) = \frac{1}{2} \Gamma\, \widehat{\mathsf{I}}^{-1}_T(\theta|u) \, \widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta|u)$ and $\widehat{\textsf{H}}(\theta|u) = \Gamma\, \widehat{\mathsf{I}}^{-1}_T(\theta|u)$ for the natural gradient and scaled inverse Hessian, respectively. Furthermore, $\Gamma$ denotes a scaling matrix that controls the step lengths of the proposal. For PMH0 and PMH1, $\Gamma$ can be chosen as the inverse of an estimate of the posterior covariance matrix. However, computing this estimate typically requires costly and tedious trial runs. For PMH2, the curvature of the problem is captured by the Hessian matrix, i.e. a single step length can by used which can significantly simplify the tuning. It is also possible to choose different step lengths for the drift term and for the covariance matrix of the proposal.
The final PMH2 algorithm is presented in Algorithm \[alg:PMH2order\]. It makes use of Algorithm \[alg:SMCfull\], described in Section \[sec:SMC\], to estimate the quantities needed for computing the proposal and the acceptance probability. Clearly, PMH0 and PMH1 are special cases obtained by using the corresponding proposal from in the algorithm. Note that, while the algorithm make explicit reference to the auxiliary variable $u$, it only depends on this variable through the estimates $\widehat{p}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{y})$, $\widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta')$ and $\widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta')$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Inputs:</span> Algorithm \[alg:SMCfull\]. $M>0$ (no. MCMC steps), $\theta_0$ (initial parameters), $\gamma$ (step length).\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Output:</span> $\theta=\{\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_M\}$ (samples from the posterior).
Run Algorithm \[alg:SMCfull\] to obtain $\widehat{p}_{\theta_0}(\mathbf{y})$, $\widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta_0)$ and $\widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta_0)$. Sample $\theta' \sim q(\theta'|\theta_{k-1},u_{k-1})$ by , $\widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta_{k-1})$ and $\widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta_{k-1})$. Run Algorithm \[alg:SMCfull\] to obtain $\widehat{p}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{y})$, $\widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta')$ and $\widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta')$. Sample $\omega_k$ uniformly over $[0,1]$. $\theta_k \leftarrow \theta'$. $\{ \widehat{p}_{\theta_k}(\mathbf{y}), \widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta_{k}), \widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta_{k}) \} \leftarrow \{ \widehat{p}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{y}) , \widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta') , \widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta') \}$. $\theta_k \leftarrow \theta_{k-1}$. $\{ \widehat{p}_{\theta_k}(\mathbf{y}), \widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta_{k}), \widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta_{k}) \} \leftarrow \{ \widehat{p}_{\theta_{k-1}}(\mathbf{y}) , \widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta_{k-1}) , \widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta_{k-1}) \}$.
\[alg:PMH2order\]
Properties of the PMH1 and PMH2 proposals
-----------------------------------------
In the sequel, we use a single step size $\Gamma = \gamma^2 I_d$ for all the parameters in the (standard) proposal. This is done to illustrate the advantage of adding the Hessian information, which rescales the step lengths according to the local curvature. Hence, it allows for taking larger steps when the curvature is small and vice verse.
This property of PMH2 makes the algorithm scale-free in the same manner as a Newton algorithm in optimisation [@NocedalWright2006 Chapter 3]. That is, the proposal is invariant to affine transformations of the parameters. Note that, since the local information is used, this is different from scaling the proposal in PMH0 with the posterior covariance matrix estimated from a pilot run, as this only takes the geometry at the mode of the posterior into account.
Some analyses of the statistical properties are available for PMH0 [@SherlockThieryRobetsRosenthal2013], MH using a random walk [@RobertsGelmanGilks1997] and MALA [@RobertsRosenthal1998]. It is known from these analyses that adding the gradient into the proposal can increase the mixing of the Markov chain. Note that these results are obtained under somewhat strict assumptions. Also, we know from numerical experiments [@GirolamiCalderhead2011] that there are further benefits of also taking the local curvature into account.
Estimation of the likelihood, gradient, and Hessian {#sec:SMC}
===================================================
In this section, we show how to estimate the likelihood together with the gradient and Hessian using SMC methods.
Auxiliary particle filter
-------------------------
An auxiliary particle filter (APF) [@PittShephard1999] can be used to approximate the sequence of joint smoothing distributions (JSDs) $p_{\theta}(x_{1:t}|y_{1:t})$ for $t = 1$ to $T$. The APF makes use of a particle system consisting of $N$ weighted particles $\{x_{1:t}\pIdx{i},w_t\pIdx{i}\}_{i=1}^N$ to approximate the JSD at time $t$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{p}_{\theta}(\dd x_{1:t} | y_{1:t} )
\triangleq
\sum_{i=1}^N
\frac
{ w_t\pIdx{i} }
{ \sum_{k=1}^N w_t\pIdx{k} }
\delta_{x_{1:t}\pIdx{i}} (\dn x_{1:t}).
\label{eq:empericalfiltering}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\delta_z(\dn x_{1:t})$ denotes the Dirac measure placed at $z$. The particle system is propagated from $t-1$ to $t$ by first sampling an *ancestor index* $a_t\pIdx{i}$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}( a_t\pIdx{i} = j ) = \nu_{t-1}^{(j)} \left[ \sum_{k=1}^N \nu\pIdx{k}_{t-1} \right]^{-1},
\quad i,j = 1,\dots,N,
\label{eq:APFresampling} \end{aligned}$$ where $\nu\pIdx{i}_{t-1}$ denotes the resampling weights. Given the ancestor index, a new particle is sampled according to $$\begin{aligned}
\quad
x_t\pIdx{i} \sim R_{\theta} \Big( x_t | x^{a_t\pIdx{i}}_{1:t-1}, y_t \Big),
\quad i = 1,\dots,N.
\label{eq:APFpropagation} \end{aligned}$$ Finally, we append the obtained sample to the trajectory by $x_{1:t}\pIdx{i}=\{x_{1:t-1}^{a_t\pIdx{i}},x_t\pIdx{i}\}$ and compute a new importance weight by $$\begin{aligned}
w_{t}\pIdx{i}
&\triangleq
\frac
{w_{t-1}^{a\pIdx{i}_t}}
{\nu_{t-1}^{a\pIdx{i}_t}}
\frac
{ g_{\theta} \Big( y_t \Big| x_t\pIdx{i} \Big) f_{\theta} \Big( x_t\pIdx{i} \Big| x_{t-1}^{a\pIdx{i}_t} \Big) }
{ R_{\theta} \Big( x_t\pIdx{i} \Big| x_{1:t-1}^{a\pIdx{i}_t},y_t \Big) },
\quad i = 1,\dots,N.
\label{eq:APFweights}\end{aligned}$$Hence, the empirical approximations of the smoothing distributions can be computed sequentially for $t=1$ to $T$ by repeating –.
Note that the random variables $u$ appearing in the extended target of the PMH algorithm correspond to all the random variables generated by the APF, i.e. all the particles and ancestor indices, $$\begin{aligned}
% u= (\{x\pIdx{i}_{0}\}_{i=1}^N, \{x\pIdx{i}_{t}, a\pIdx{i}_{t}\}_{i=1}^N, t = 1,\,\dots,\,T ). \\
u= \bigg( \Big\{x\pIdx{i}_{t}, a\pIdx{i}_{t} \Big\}_{i=1}^N, t = 1,\,\dots,\,T \bigg).\end{aligned}$$ In this article, we make use of two important special cases of the APF: the bootstrap particle filter (bPF) [@GordonSalmondSmith1993] and the fully adapted particle filter (faPF) [@PittShephard1999]. For the bPF, we select the proposal kernel $R_{\theta}(x_t|x_{1:t-1},y_t) = f_{\theta}(x_t|x_{t-1})$ and the auxiliary weights $\nu_t = w_t = g_{\theta}(y_t|x_t)$. The faPF is obtained by $R_{\theta}(x_t|x_{1:t-1},y_t) = p_{\theta}(x_t|y_t,x_{t-1})$ and $\nu_t = p_{\theta}(y_{t+1}|x_t)$, resulting in the weights $w_t \equiv 1$. Note, that the faPF can only be used in models for which these quantities are available in closed-form.
Estimation of the likelihood
----------------------------
The likelihood for the SSM in can be estimated using by inserting estimated one-step predictors $p_{\theta}(y_t|y_{1:t-1})$ obtained from the APF. The resulting likelihood estimator is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{p}_{\theta}( \mathbf{y} | u )
= \frac{1}{N^T} \sum_{i=1}^N w_{T}\pIdx{i} \left\{ \prod_{t=1}^{T-1}
\sum_{i=1}^N \nu_{t}\pIdx{i} \right\}.
\label{eq:EstLikelihood}\end{aligned}$$ It is known that this likelihood estimator is unbiased for any number of particles, see e.g. [@PittSilvaGiordaniKohn2012] and Proposition 7.4.1 in [@DelMoral2004]. As discussed in Section \[sec:PMH\], this is exactly the property that is needed in order to obtain $p(\theta | \mathbf{y})$ as the unique stationary distribution for the Markov chain generated by the PMH algorithm.
Consequently, PMH will target the correct distribution for any number of particles $N\geq 1$. However, the variance in the likelihood estimate is connected with the acceptance rate and the mixing of the Markov chain. Therefore it is important to determine the number of particles that balances a reasonable acceptance rate with a reasonable computational cost. This problem is studied for PMH0 in @PittSilvaGiordaniKohn2012 [@DoucetPittKohn2012].
Estimation of the gradient
--------------------------
As we shall see below, the gradient of the log-posterior can be estimated by solving a smoothing problem. The APF can be used directly to address this problem, since the particles $\{x_{1:T}^{(i)}, w_T^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^N$ provide an approximation of the JSD at time $T$ according to (see also @PoyiadjisDoucetSingh2011). However, this method can give estimates with high variance due to *particle degeneracy*.
Instead, we make use of the FL smoother [@KitagawaSato2001] which has the same linear computational cost, but smaller problems with *particle degeneracy* than the APF. Alternative algorithms for estimating this information are also available [@DelMoralDoucetSingh2010; @PoyiadjisDoucetSingh2011].
The gradient of the parameter log-posterior is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf{S}_T(\theta) = \Dtheta \log p(\theta) + \Dtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y}),
\label{eq:deffirst order}\end{aligned}$$ where it is assumed that the gradient of the log-prior $\Dtheta \log p(\theta)$ can be calculated explicitly. The gradient of the log-likelihood $\Dtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y})$ can, using *Fisher’s identity* [@CappeMoulinesRyden2005], be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\Dtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y})
&=
%\dint
%\Dtheta \log p(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})
%p(\mathbf{x}|\mathbf{y})
%\dd \mathbf{x} \nonumber
%\\
%&=
\mathbb{E}_{\theta} \left[ \Dtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}) \Big| \mathbf{y} \right],
\label{eq:FishersIdentity} \end{aligned}$$ where for an SSM we can write the gradient of the complete data log-likelihood as $$\begin{aligned}
\Dtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})
&=
\sum_{t=1}^T
\xi_{\theta}(x_t,x_{t-1}), \text{ where}
\label{eq:jointdistSSM} \\
\xi_{\theta}(x_t,x_{t-1}) &=
\Dtheta \log f_{\theta}(x_t|x_{t-1}) + \Dtheta \log g_{\theta}(y_t|x_{t}). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Combining with Fisher’s identity yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Dtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y})
&=
\sum_{t=1}^{T} \dint
\xi_{\theta}(x_{t}, x_{t-1})
p_{\theta}(x_{t-1:t}|\mathbf{y}) \dd x_{t-1:t},\end{aligned}$$ which depends on the (intractable) two-step smoothing distribution $p_{\theta}(x_{t-1:t}|\mathbf{y})$. To approximate this quantity we use the FL smoother which relies on the assumption that there is a decaying influence of future observations $y_{t+\Delta:T}$ on the state $x_t$. This means that $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\theta}(x_{t-1:t}|\mathbf{y}) \approx p_{\theta}(x_{t-1:t}|y_{1:\kappa_t}),\end{aligned}$$ holds for some large enough $\kappa_t=\min\{t+\Delta,T\}$. Here, $\Delta$ denotes a pre-determined lag decided by the user, which depends on the forgetting properties of the model. By marginalisation of the empirical smoothing distribution $\widehat{p}_{\theta}(x_{1:\kappa_t}|y_{1:\kappa_t})$ over $x_{1:t-2}$ and $x_{t+1:\kappa_t}$, we obtain the approximation $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{p}_{\theta}^\Delta(\dn x_{t-1:t}| \mathbf{y})
\triangleq
\sum_{i=1}^N
w_{\kappa_t}\pIdx{i}
\delta_{\tilde{x}_{\kappa_t,t-1:t}\pIdx{i}}
(\dn x_{t-1:t}).
\label{eq:FL2step}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we use the notation $\tilde{x}_{\kappa_t,t}^{(i)}$ to denote the ancestor at time $t$ of particle $x_{\kappa_t}^{(i)}$ and $\tilde{x}_{\kappa_t,t-1:t}^{(i)} = \{ \tilde{x}_{\kappa_t,t-1}^{(i)}, \tilde{x}_{\kappa_t,t}^{(i)} \}$. Inserting – into provides an estimator of , $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta|u)
&=
\nabla \log p(\theta) +
\sum_{t=1}^{T}
\sum_{i=1}^N
w_{\kappa_t}\pIdx{i}
\xi_{\theta} \Big( \tilde{x}_{\kappa_t,t}\pIdx{i}, \tilde{x}_{\kappa_t,t-1}\pIdx{i} \Big),
\label{eq:FisherScoreParticleApproximation}\end{aligned}$$ which is used in the proposal distributions in .
Estimation of the Hessian
-------------------------
The negative Hessian of the parameter log-posterior can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf{I}_T(\theta) = -\DDtheta \log p(\theta) - \DDtheta \log p_{\theta}( \mathbf{y} ),
\label{eq:defSecondOrder}\end{aligned}$$ where it is assumed that the Hessian of the log-prior $\DDtheta \log p(\theta)$ can be calculated analytically. The negative Hessian of the log-likelihood, also known as the *observed information matrix*, can using *Louis’ identity* [@CappeMoulinesRyden2005] be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
- \DDtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y})
&=
\Dtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y})^2
-
\mathbb{E}_{\theta}
\Big[ \DDtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}) \Big| \mathbf{y} \Big] \nonumber \\
&-\mathbb{E}_{\theta} \Big[
\Dtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})^2
\Big| \mathbf{y} \Big].
\label{eq:LouisIdentity}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have introduced the notation $v^2=vv^{\top}$ for a vector $v$. From this, we can construct an estimator of using the estimator of the gradient in , of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta|u)
=
-\DDtheta \log p(\theta)
+ \widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta|u)^2
- \widehat{\mathsf{I}}^{(1)}_T(\theta|u)
- \widehat{\mathsf{I}}^{(2)}_T(\theta|u),
\label{eq:LouisIdentityEst}\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce $\mathsf{I}^{(1)}_T(\theta)= \mathbb{E}_{\theta} \left[ \DDtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}) | \mathbf{y} \right]$ and ${\mathsf{I}^{(2)}_T(\theta)= \mathbb{E}_{\theta} \left[ \Dtheta \log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})^2| \mathbf{y} \right]}$. We obtain the estimator of the first term analogously to as $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\mathsf{I}}^{(1)}_{T}(\theta|u)
&= \sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{i=1}^N
w_{\kappa_t}\pIdx{i} \zeta_{\theta} \Big( \tilde{x}_{\kappa_t,t}\pIdx{i}, \tilde{x}_{\kappa_t,t-1}\pIdx{i} \Big), \text{ where} \label{eq:LouisIdentityEstTerm1Final} \\
\zeta_{\theta}(x_t, x_{t-1})
&=
\DDtheta \log f_{\theta}(x_t|x_{t-1}) + \DDtheta \log g_{\theta}(y_t|x_{t}). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The estimator of the second term needs a bit more work and we start by rewriting the last term in as $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{s=1}^T \mathbb{E}_{\theta} \left[ \xi_{\theta}(x_t,x_{t-1}) \xi_{\theta}(x_s,x_{s-1})^{\top} \Big| \mathbf{y} \right] \nonumber \\
&=
\sum_{t=1}^T
\bigg\{
\mathbb{E}_{\theta} \left[ \xi_{\theta}(x_t,x_{t-1})^2 \Big| \mathbf{y} \right] \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{s=1}^{t-1}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta} \left[ \big( \xi_{\theta}(x_t,x_{t-1}),\xi_{\theta}(x_s,x_{s-1}) \big)^{\dagger} \Big| \mathbf{y} \right]
\bigg\}, \label{eq:LouisIdentityEstTerm2}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the operator $(a,b)^{\dagger}=ab^{\top}+ba^{\top}$ for brevity. Consider the last term appearing in this expression, we can rewrite it as $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{s=1}^{t-1}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta} \left[ \xi_{\theta}(x_t,x_{t-1}) \xi_{\theta}(x_s,x_{s-1})^{\top} \Big| \mathbf{y} \right] \\
&=
\mathbb{E}_{\theta} \Bigg[ \xi_{\theta}(x_t,x_{t-1})
\underbrace{\left\{ \sum_{s=1}^{t-1}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta} \left[ \xi_{\theta}(x_s,x_{s-1})
\big| x_{t-1}, y_{1:t-1} \right] \right\}^{\top}}
_{\triangleq \alpha_{\theta}(x_{t-1})^{\top}}
\Big| \mathbf{y} \Bigg].\end{aligned}$$ From this, we see that can be written as an additive functional of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{t=1}^T
\mathbb{E}_{\theta} \left[
(\xi_{\theta}(x_t,x_{t-1}))^2
+
\big(( \xi_{\theta}(x_t,x_{t-1}),\alpha_{\theta}(x_{t-1}) \big)^{\dagger}
\Big| \mathbf{y}
\right],\end{aligned}$$ which can be estimated using the FL smoother as before. However, for this we need to compute the quantities $\alpha_{\theta}(x_{t-1})$. One option is to make use of a type of fixed-lag approximation for $\alpha_{\theta}(x_{t-1})$, by assuming that $x_s$ and $x_t$ are conditionally independent given $y_{1:\kappa_t}$, whenever $|s-t| > \Delta$. This approach has previously been used by @DoucetJacobRubenthaler2013. Alternatively, we can use a filter approximation according to $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\alpha}_{\theta} \Big( x_{t}\pIdx{i} \Big)
=
\widehat{\alpha}_{\theta} \Big( x_{t-1}^{a_{t}\pIdx{i}} \Big) +
\xi_{\theta} \Big( x_t\pIdx{i},x_{t-1}^{a_{t}\pIdx{i}} \Big),
\label{eq:alphaEst}\end{aligned}$$ for $i=1, \ldots, N$. Note that this approach suffers from the same particle degeneracy as the APF. However, this only affects a small number of terms and in our experience this approximation works sufficiently well to give estimates with reasonable variance. The resulting estimator using is $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\mathsf{I}}^{(2)}_{T}(\theta|u)
&= \sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{i=1}^N
w_{\kappa_t}\pIdx{i} \eta_{\theta} \Big( \tilde{x}_{\kappa_t,t}\pIdx{i}, \tilde{x}_{\kappa_t,t-1}\pIdx{i} \Big), \label{eq:LouisIdentityEstTerm2Final} \text{ where} \\
\eta_{\theta}(x_t, x_{t-1})
&=
\xi_{\theta}(x_t, x_{t-1})^2 + \big( \xi_{\theta}(x_t, x_{t-1}),\widehat{\alpha}_{\theta}(x_{t-1}) \big)^{\dagger}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the Hessian can be estimated using by inserting the estimators from , and .
Regularisation of the estimate of the Hessian {#sec:regularisation}
---------------------------------------------
The PMH2 proposal relies on the assumption that the observed information matrix is positive definite (PD). The estimator given in does not always satisfy this, especially when the Markov chain is located far from the posterior mode. Typically, the amount of information is limited in such regions and this results in that the curvature is difficult to estimate. To cope with this issue, one alternative is to regularize the Hessian by adding a diagonal matrix to shift the eigenvalues to be positive. The diagonal matrix can e.g. be selected such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \widehat{I}_T = \max \Big\{0, - 2 \lambda_{\min} \big( \widehat{I}_T \big) \Big\} I_d,
\label{eq:Hessianregularization}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{\min}(\widehat{I}_T)$ denotes the smallest eigenvalue of $\widehat{I}_T(\theta|u)$. In this article, we make use of this method for handling non–PD estimates of the negative Hessian for the PMH2 algorithm. This heuristic is common for Newton-type optimisation algorithms [@NocedalWright2006 Chapter 3.4].
Note, that there are other solutions available for ensuring positive definiteness that only shifts the negative eigenvalues, see [@NocedalWright2006 Chapter 3]. We emphasise that this type of regularization keeps the Markov chain invariant, i.e. still targets the correct posterior distribution (recall Section \[sec:PMH\]).
Another alternative is to replace the estimate of the negative Hessian with the inverse sample covariance matrix calculated using the trace of Markov chain when the estimate is not PD. This can be seen as a hybrid between the PMH2 algorithm and a *pre-conditioned PMH1 algorithm*. This resembles some other adaptive MH algorithms [@AndrieuThoms2008] in which the same procedure is used to adapt the covariance matrix of a random walk proposal. For this, we can make use of the last $L$ iterations of the MH algorithm after that the Markov chain has reached stationarity. During the burn-in phase, non–PD estimates can be handled using a regularization approach or by rejecting the proposed parameter. In this article, we refer to this method for handling non–PD estimates of the negative Hessian as the *hybrid PMH2 algorithm*, where we use the latter alternative during the burn-in phase. Note that this pre-conditioning can also be applied to the PMH0 and PMH1 algorithm, we return to this in Section \[sec:results:earth\].
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Inputs:</span> $\mathbf{y}$ (data), $R(\cdot)$ (propagation kernel), $\nu(\cdot)$ (weight function), $N > 0$ (no. particles), $0 < \Delta \leq T$ (lag).\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Outputs:</span> $\widehat{p}_{\theta}(\mathbf {y})$ (est. of the likelihood), $\widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta)$ (est. of the gradient), $\widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta)$ (est. of the negative Hessian).
Initialise each particle $x_0\pIdx{i}$. Resample and propagate each particle using . Calculate the weights for each particle using . Compute $\widehat{p}_{\theta}(\mathbf{y})$ by . Compute $\widehat{\mathsf{S}}_T(\theta)$ and $\widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta)$ by and , respectively. Regularize $\widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta)$ by adding $\Delta\widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T$ computed by Replace $\widehat{\mathsf{I}}_T(\theta)$ by the inverse covariance matrix computed using the $L$ final samples of the Markov chain during the burn-in.
\[alg:SMCfull\]
Resulting SMC algorithm
-----------------------
In Algorithm \[alg:SMCfull\], we present the complete procedure that combines the APF with the FL smoother to compute the estimates needed for the PMH2 proposal . Note that the two different methods to handle non–PD estimates of the negative Hessian matrix results in the *standard* and *hybrid* PMH2 algorithm, respectively.
We end this section by briefly discussing the statistical properties of the estimates of the gradient and Hessian obtained from the FL smoother. From @OlssonCappeDoucMoulines2008, we know that the FL smoother gives biased estimates of the gradient and Hessian for any number of particles. Remember that this does not effect the invariance of the Markov chain (recall Section \[sec:PMH\]). The main advantage of the FL smoother over the APF (which gives a consistent estimate) is that the former enjoys a smaller variance than the APF, i.e. we obtain a favourable bias-variance trade-off for a certain choice of lag $\Delta$. Note that a too small lag gives a large bias in the estimate and a too large lag gives a large variance in the estimate; we return to this choice in Section \[sec:results\].
Numerical illustrations {#sec:results}
=======================
In this section, we provide illustrations of the properties of the FL smoother and the different proposed algorithms. The source code in Python and the data used for some of the numerical illustrations are available for download at: <http://liu.johandahlin.com/>.
Estimation of the log-likelihood and the gradient {#sec:results:flsmoother}
-------------------------------------------------
We begin by illustrating the use of the FL smoother for estimating the log-likelihood and the gradient. Here, we consider a linear Gaussian state space (LGSS) model given by
$$\begin{aligned}
x_{t+1}|x_{t} &\sim \textsf{N} \Big( x_{t+1}; \phi x_{t}, \sigma_v^2 \Big), \\
y_{t} |x_{t} &\sim \textsf{N} \Big( y_{t}; x_{t}, \sigma_e^2 \Big).\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:lgss\]
We generate two data realisations of length $T=100$ using parameters $\theta^{(1)} = \{\phi,\sigma_v^2,\sigma_e^2\} = \{0.5,1.0,0.1^2\}$ and $\theta^{(2)} = \{0.5,1.0,1.0\}$ with a known initial zero state. We use the lag $\Delta = 5$ and run the PFs with systematic resampling [@CarpenterCliffordFearnhead1999].
![The log $L_1$-error in the log-likelihood estimates and the estimates of the gradient with respect to $\phi$ in the LGSS model with $\sigma_e=0.1$ (left) and $\sigma_e=1$ (right). The bPF (black) and faPF (red) are evaluated by $1 \thinspace 000$ MC iterations using a fixed data set with $T=100$.[]{data-label="fig:score-lgss-n-paper"}](lgss-score-npart.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
For this model, we can compute the true values of the log-likelihood and the gradient by running an RTS smoother [@RauchTungStriebel1965]. In Figure \[fig:score-lgss-n-paper\], we present boxplots of the $L_1$-errors in the estimated log-likelihood and the gradient of the log-posterior with respect to $\phi$, evaluated at the true parameters. When $\sigma_e=0.1$, we observe that the faPF has a large advantage over the bPF for all choices of $N$. When $\sigma_e=1.0$, we get smaller difference in the error of the gradient estimates, but the log-likelihood estimates are still better for the faPF. Similar results are also obtained for the gradient with respect to $\sigma_v$.
![The log $L_1$-error in the estimates of the gradient with respect to $\phi$ in the LGSS model with $\sigma_e=0.1$ (left) and $\sigma_e=1$ (right). The bPF (black) and faPF (red) are evaluated by $1 \thinspace 000$ Monte Carlo iterations using a fixed data set with $T=100$.[]{data-label="fig:score-lgss-lag-paper"}](lgss-score-lag.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In Figure \[fig:score-lgss-lag-paper\], we present the error in the gradient estimates with respect to $\phi$ using a varying lag $\Delta$ and a varying number of particles $N$. The results are obtained by $1 \thinspace 000$ Monte Carlo runs on a single data set generated from the previously discussed LGSS model with $T=100$. We conclude again that faPF is preferable when available. The results are largely robust to the lag, as long as this is chosen large enough when using the faPF. A lag of about $12$ seems to be a good choice for this model when $T=100$ and when using the faPF with systematic resampling.
Burn-in and scale-invariance
----------------------------
![The trace plots of the first $50$ steps using PMH0 (black), PMH1 (red) and PMH2 (blue). The dotted lines show the *true* parameters of the LGSS model. The gray contours show the log-posterior.[]{data-label="fig:lgss-scaleinvariance"}](lgss-scaleinvariance-paper.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Consider the problem of inferring $\{\theta_1,\theta_2\}=\{\phi,\sigma_v\}$ in the LGSS model . We simulate a single data set with parameters $\theta^{(1)}$ (as defined in the previous section) of length $T=250$. We use an uniform parameter prior over $|\phi|<1,\sigma_v > 0$ and initialise in $\theta_0=\{0.1,2\}$. We use faPF with systematic resampling, $N=100$ and $\Delta=12$. Here, we use the standard version of Algorithm \[alg:SMCfull\] to adjust the estimate of the Hessian in the cases when it is not PD, resulting in the PMH2 algorithm.
We adjust the step lengths $\gamma$ to give an acceptance rate during a pilot run of between $0.7$ and $0.8$ in the stationary phase. We obtain $\gamma=\{0.04,0.065,1.0\}$ for PMH$\{0,1,2\}$, respectively. Note that a single step length is used for each proposal to simplify the tuning. Of course, different step lengths can be used for each parameter, and we could also use different step lengths during the burn-in and the stationary phase of the algorithm using the approach discussed in Section \[sec:constructPMH2\]. As previously mentioned, the PMH2 algorithm avoids this (potentially difficult and time-consuming) procedure, by taking the local geometric information into account.
In the left column of Figure \[fig:lgss-scaleinvariance\], we present the first $50$ iterations of the Markov chain from the three different algorithms. We note that the added information in the proposals of PMH1 and PMH2 aids the Markov chain in the burn-in phase. This results in that the Markov chains for the proposed algorithms reach the mode of the posterior quicker than the random walk used in PMH0.
To illustrate the scale invariance of the PMH2 algorithm, we reparametrise the LGSS model by $\{\theta_3,\theta_4\}=\{\phi,\sigma_v/10\}$. We keep the same settings as for the previous parametrisation and rerun the algorithms. From this run we obtain the middle column in Figure \[fig:lgss-scaleinvariance\]. We see clearly that the PHM1-algorithm does not perform well and gets stuck at the initial parameter value. The reason is that the second component of the gradient is increased by a factor 10 for the rescaled model. Since we still use the same step length, this will cause the PMH1 algorithm to overshoot the region of high posterior probability when proposing new values, and these will therefore never be accepted.
Finally, to improve the performance we recalibrate the three algorithms on the new parametrisation using the same procedure as before. We then obtain the new step lengths $\{0.005,0.0075,1.0\}$. The resulting Markov chains are presented in the right column of Figure \[fig:lgss-scaleinvariance\]. Despite the new step lengths, PMH0 and PMH1 continue to struggle. The reason is that the step lengths are limited by the small posterior variance in the $\theta_4$-parameter, resulting in a very slow progression in the $\theta_3$-direction. Again, for PMH2, the added Hessian information is used to rescale the proposal in each dimension resulting in a more efficient exploration of the posterior than for PMH0 and PMH1.
The mixing of the Markov chains at stationarity
-----------------------------------------------
We continue by investigating the mixing of the Markov chains at stationarity using an estimate of the integrated autocorrelation time (IACT) given by $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\textsf{IACT}}(\theta_{1:M}) = 1 + 2 \sum_{k=1}^{K} \widehat{\rho}_k (\theta_{1:M}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\widehat{\rho}_k(\theta_{1:M})$ denotes the empirical autocorrelation at lag $k$ of $\theta_{1:M}$ (after the burn-in has been discarded). A low value of the IACT indicates that we obtain many uncorrelated samples from the target distribution, implying that the chain is mixing well. Here, $K$ is determined as the first index for which the empirical autocorrelation satisfies $|\widehat{\rho}_K(\theta_{1:M})| < 2/\sqrt{M}$, i.e. when the coefficient is statistically insignificant.
We return to the LGSS model in with the original parameterisation $\{\theta_1,\theta_2\}=\{\phi,\sigma_v\}$ using the same settings as before. A total of $25$ data sets are generated using the parameters $\theta^{(1)}$ and the algorithms are initialised at the true parameter values to avoid a long burn-in phase. The step sizes are determined using a series of pilot runs on the first generated dataset to minimise the total IACT for each algorithm. This is done to make a fair comparison between the different algorithms at their near *optimal* performance. The resulting step sizes are obtained as $\{0.08, 0.075, 1.50\}$.
---------------------------------- ----------- --------------- -------- ----- -------- -----
**Acc. rate**
(r)[3-3]{} (r)[4-5]{} (r)[6-7]{} Median Median IQR Median IQR
bPF(500) 0.02 257 146 265 371
bPF(1000) 0.06 83 129 79 118
bPF(2000) 0.15 29 23 15 24
faPF(50) 0.37 9 8 8 5
faPF(100) 0.38 9 6 7 4
faPF(200) 0.38 7 6 7 4
bPF(500) 0.02 187 271 203 347
bPF(1000) 0.10 64 85 49 72
bPF(2000) 0.22 23 16 12 24
faPF(50) 0.58 **3** 2 **3** 1
faPF(100) 0.59 4 2 **3** 1
faPF(200) 0.58 **3** 1 **3** 1
bPF(500) 0.03 170 211 164 190
bPF(1000) 0.10 59 73 65 80
bPF(2000) 0.24 13 10 19 17
faPF(50) 0.66 **3** 1 4 2
faPF(100) 0.66 **3** 1 5 2
faPF(200) 0.66 **3** 1 4 2
---------------------------------- ----------- --------------- -------- ----- -------- -----
: Median and IQR for the acceptance rate and IACT using different SMC algorithms. The values are computed using $25$ different data sets from the LGSS model.[]{data-label="tbl:pmh-lgss"}
Finally, we estimate the mixing in each of the $25$ simulated data sets during $M=30 \thinspace 000$ MCMC iterations (discarding the first $10 \thinspace 000$ iterations as burn-in). The results are presented in Table \[tbl:pmh-lgss\], where the median and interquartile range (IQR; the distance between the $25\%$ and $75\%$ quartiles) are presented for each PMH algorithm. Here, we present the results the standard version of Algorithm \[alg:SMCfull\].
We see that the added information decreases the IACT about $2$ times for PMH1 and PMH2 compared with PMH0. We conclude that the extra information brought by the gradient and the Hessian improves the mixing of the Markov chains in this model, which results in a more efficient exploration of the posterior. Note that, for this parametrisation of the LGSS model the posterior is quite isotropic (which can also be seen in the left column of Figure \[fig:lgss-scaleinvariance\]). Hence, the conditions are in fact rather favourable for PMH0 and PMH1.
Parameter inference in a Poisson count model {#sec:results:earth}
--------------------------------------------
In this section, we analyse the annual number of major earthquakes[^3] (over $7$ on the Richter scale) during the period from year $1900$ to $2014$. Following @Langrock2011, we model the data using
$$\begin{aligned}
x_{t+1}|x_{t} &\sim \mathsf{N} \Big( x_{t+1}; \phi x_t, \sigma^2 \Big), \\
y_{t}|x_{t} &\sim \mathsf{P} \Big( y_t; \beta \exp(x_t) \Big),\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:earthquakemodel\]
with parameters $\theta=\{\phi,\sigma,\beta\}$ and uniform priors over $|\phi| < 1$, $\sigma > 0$ and $\beta >0$. Here, $\mathsf{P}(\lambda)$ denotes a Poisson distribution with parameter $\lambda$.
We repeat the procedure from the previous subsection and obtain the step lengths $\{0.06,0.006,0.85\}$. Here, we use $M = 30 \thinspace 000$ MCMC iterations (discarding the first $10 \thinspace 000$ iterations as burn-in), the bPF with systematic resampling, $\Delta=12$, $\theta_0=\{0.5, 0.5, 18\}$ and $L=2 \thinspace 500$. In this model, the estimate of the negative Hessian is often non–PD (during about half of the iterations) and the choice of regularisation is therefore important. To explore the properties of the regularisation, we apply both the standard and hybrid version of the PMH2 algorithm discussed in Section \[sec:regularisation\]. We compare these methods to standard and pre-conditioned versions of the the PMH0 and PMH1 algorithms, using the sample posterior covariance matrix calculated in the same manner as for the hybrid PMH2 algorithm.
---------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- --------------- -------- ----- -------- ----- -------- ------
Version SMC alg. **Acc. rate**
(r)[4-4]{} (r)[5-6]{} (r)[7-8]{} (r)[9-10]{} Median Median IQR Median IQR Median IQR
Standard bPF(500) 0.26 497 712 16 3 2639 1163
Standard bPF(1000) 0.30 89 150 15 3 2680 438
Pre-cond. bPF(500) 0.43 35 17 16 1 107 105
Pre-cond. bPF(1000) 0.45 38 28 16 2 129 131
Standard bPF(500) 0.76 665 442 277 162 2651 364
Standard bPF(1000) 0.82 490 134 205 30 2875 1007
Pre-cond. bPF(500) 0.62 266 187 **9** 3 1728 1638
Pre-cond. bPF(1000) 0.70 98 209 **9** 3 1480 1732
Standard bPF(500) 0.24 91 17 53 14 222 37
Standard bPF(1000) 0.28 60 14 47 17 139 59
Hybrid bPF(500) 0.45 20 3 17 4 30 15
Hybrid bPF(1000) 0.49 **17** 4 18 3 **23** 5
---------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- --------------- -------- ----- -------- ----- -------- ------
In Table \[tbl:pmh-earth\], we present the resulting acceptance rates and IACT values for each parameter and algorithm. We note the large decrease in IACT for $\beta$ when using the Hessian information, where the hybrid PMH2 seems to perform better than standard version for this model. The improved mixing by using PMH2 is due to the scale invariance property, as the parameter $\beta$ is at least an order of magnitude larger than $\phi$ and $\sigma$ (c.f. Figure \[fig:lgss-scaleinvariance\]). Note that a reparameterisation or using separate step lengths for the parameters could possibly have helped in improving the mixing in $\beta$ for the standard versions of PMH0 and PMH1.
Using the standard and hybrid version of PMH2, decreases the overall computational cost by a factor of about $100$ for a specific number of effective samples. The poor performance of the pre-conditioned algorithms is probably due to that the sample posterior covariance matrix does not fully capture the geometry of the posterior distribution.
![Part of the trace (left) and posterior estimates (right) for the $\beta$ parameter in the earthquake count model using standard versions of PMH0 (black), PMH1 (red) and hybrid version of PMH2 (blue). Dotted lines indicate the posterior means.[]{data-label="fig:earthquake-beta-post"}](earthquake-beta-post.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In Figure \[fig:earthquake-beta-post\], we present the trace and posterior estimates for $\beta$ using the standard versions of PMH0 and PMH1 as well as hybrid PMH2. The posterior estimates are obtained by pooling the $10$ parallel Markov chains after the burn-ins have been discarded. We see that the traces behave rather differently with hybrid PMH2 exploring the space well compared with the other methods.
Using the parameter posterior estimate, we can compute point estimates for the parameters of the model. The posterior mean for hybrid PMH2 is obtained as $\{0.88, 0.15 , 16.58\}$ with standard deviations $\{0.07,0.03,2\}$. The parameter estimate is comparable to the estimate $\{0.88,0.15,17.65\}$ obtained by a maximum likelihood-based method using the same data and model in @Dahlin2014 [Example 4.9].
Robustness in the lag and step size
-----------------------------------
The PMH2 algorithm requires a number of parameters to be select by the user for each parameter inference problem. It is therefore interesting to discuss the robustness of the method with respect to these parameters. In the previous illustrations, we have seen that the number of particles $N$ is an important factor in determining the mixing.
![The IACT for $\phi$ (black), $\sigma$ (red) and $\beta$ (blue) for varying step sizes $\gamma$ (upper) and lag $\Delta$ (lower). The values are computed as the median of $10$ runs using standard PMH2 with the same data.[]{data-label="fig:earthquake-sensitivity"}](earth-sensitivity.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Two other important parameters are the step length $\gamma$ and the lag in the FL-smoother $\Delta$. To illustrate the impact of these quantities on the IACT, we return to the Earthquake model in using the standard PMH2 algorithm with the same settings but with $M= 15 \thinspace 000$ (discarding the first $5 \thinspace 000$ iterations as burn-in) and $N=1 \thinspace 500$. In Figure \[fig:earthquake-sensitivity\], we present the IACT for the three parameters in the model when varying $\gamma$ and $\Delta$, keeping everything else fixed. The standard PMH2 algorithm seems to be rather robust to both the choice of $\Delta$ and $\gamma$ after a certain threshold. Recall the discussion in Section \[sec:results:flsmoother\] for the FL smoother. We conclude that a suitable standard choice for the step length could be $\gamma=1$, which can be fine tuned if the performance is not good enough. This recommendation is also common in the literature concerning Newton-type algorithms.
Discussion and future work
==========================
Adding the gradient and Hessian information to the PMH proposal can have beneficial results including: (i) a shorter burn-in phase, (ii) a better mixing of the Markov chain, and (iii) scale-invariance of the proposal which simplifies tuning. The latter point is true in particular for PMH2, since this method takes the local curvature of the posterior into account, effectively making the method invariant to affine transformations.
It is common to distinguish between two phases of MCMC algorithms: the burn-in and stationary phases. We have seen empirically that the proposed methods can improve upon the original PMH0 during both of these phases but the *best* choices for the step lengths can differ between these two phases. Typically, a smaller step length is preferred during burn-in and a larger during stationarity (the opposite holds for PMH0). The reason for this is that during burn-in, the (natural) gradient information will heavily skew the proposal in a direction of increasing posterior probability. That is, the methods tend to be *aggressive* and propose large steps to make rapid progression toward regions of high posterior probability. While this is intuitively appealing, the problem is that we require the Markov chains to be reversible at all times. The reverse of these large steps can have very low probability which prevents them from being accepted.
One interesting direction for future work is therefore to pursue adaptive algorithms (see e.g. @AndrieuThoms2008 [@PetersHosackHayes2010; @PittSilvaGiordaniKohn2012]), to automatically tune the step lengths during the different phases of the algorithms. Another interesting possibility is to relax the reversibility requirement during burn-in; see [@DiaconisHolmesNeal2000] for a related reference. This would cause the methods to behave like optimisation procedures during the initial phase, but transition into samplers during the second phase.
Finally, another very interesting direction for future work is to extend the proposed methods to develop a particle-version of the manifold Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (mHMC) algorithm [@DuaneKennedyPendletonRoweth1987; @Neal2010; @GirolamiCalderhead2011]. The reason for this is motivated by the large improvement in mixing seen by e.g. @Neal2010 [@GirolamiCalderhead2011] for high dimensional problems in *vanilla* MH sampling.
[^1]: This work was supported by: Learning of complex dynamical systems (Contract number: 637-2014-466) and Probabilistic modeling of dynamical systems (Contract number: 621-2013-5524) and CADICS, a Linnaeus Center, all funded by the Swedish Research Council. JD is with the Division of Automatic Control, Link[ö]{}ping University, Link[ö]{}ping, Sweden. E-mail: ` [email protected]`. FL is with the Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. E-mail: `[email protected]`. TS is with Division of Systems and Control, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: `[email protected]`.
[^2]: The final publication is available at Springer via: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11222-014-9510-0>
[^3]: The data is obtained from the Earthquake Data Base System of the U.S. Geological Survey, which can be accessed at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The present controversy over the origin of glasslike thermal conductivity observed in certain crystalline materials is addressed by studies on single-crystal x-ray diffraction, thermal conductivity $\kappa(T)$ and specific heat $C_p(T)$ of carrier-tuned Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$X$_{30}$ (X = Ge, Sn) clathrates. These crystals show radically different low-temperature $\kappa(T)$ behaviors depending on whether their charge carriers are electrons or holes, displaying the usual crystalline peak in the former case and an anomalous glasslike plateau in the latter. In contrast, $C_p(T)$ above 4 K and the general structural properties are essentially insensitive to carrier tuning. We analyze these combined results within the framework of a Tunneling/Resonant/Rayleigh scatterings model, and conclude that the evolution from crystalline to glasslike $\kappa(T)$ is accompanied by an increase both in the effective density of tunnelling states and in the resonant scattering level, while neither one of these contributions can solely account for the observed changes in the full temperature range. This suggests that the most relevant factor which determines crystalline or glasslike behavior is the coupling strength between the guest vibrational modes and the frameworks with different charge carriers.'
author:
- 'M. A. Avila'
- 'K. Suekuni'
- 'K. Umeo'
- 'H. Fukuoka'
- 'S. Yamanaka'
- 'T. Takabatake'
title: 'Glasslike vs. crystalline thermal conductivity in carrier-tuned Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$X$_{30}$ clathrates (X = Ge, Sn)'
---
Introduction
============
The understanding of thermal conductivity behavior $\kappa(T)$ is of direct interest to any research involving the discovery, design and development of materials for thermoelectric conversion applications, where $\kappa(T)$ should be as small as possible, while at the same time thermopower $S(T)$ and electrical conductivity $\sigma(T)$ should be large. In the semiclassical theory for electron and phonon transport,[@ziman60a; @tritt04a] several mechanisms are known as contributors to heat conduction/phonon scattering in a material, consequently affecting its overall thermal conductivity.
In metals, heat conduction by charge carriers is the largest contribution, and is well described by the Wiedemann-Franz law $\kappa_c=L\sigma T$, which directly relates the carrier thermal conductivity $\kappa_c$ with an appropriate Lorentz number $L\sim
2-3\times 10^{-8}$ W$\Omega$/K$^2$, the electrical conductivity $\sigma$ and the temperature $T$. Due to their typically large charge carrier densities $n_c$, metals have large $\sigma(n_c,T)$ and thus large $\kappa_c$ in the range of $50-500$ W/m K at room temperature. Conversely, semi-metallic, semi-conducting and insulating compounds have low $n_c$ and $\sigma(T)$, therefore small and often negligible $\kappa_c(T)$ and the overall heat conduction behavior $\kappa(T)$ near room temperature is in the range of $10-50$ W/m K, governed mostly by contributions $\kappa_L(T)$ arising from the crystal lattice. At $T\rightarrow0$, $\kappa(T)\rightarrow0$ from basic thermodynamic principles, so within the first few Kelvins $\kappa(T)$ increases quickly as a power law $T^r$, with $1\le r\le3$ depending on which phonon scattering mechanisms dominate at low temperatures. At higher temperatures the phonon scattering is generally described as governed mostly by umklapp processes, for which the Debye approximation approach shows a decrease with a $T^{-1}$ dependence. Therefore, at some intermediate temperature usually around $10-50$ K, a characteristic “crystalline peak” is observed in $\kappa(T)$ for common compounds, due to the crossover from one regime to another.[@tritt04a]
The peak usually appears equally in polycrystalline materials since grain boundary scattering is in general a minor contribution,[@tritt04a; @nol98a] unless the average grain size becomes very small or the temperature very low. However, glasses are an exception to the above because of two basic factors: the very low mean free path for both electrons and phonons, and the presence of low-energy tunnelling states (TS), i.e., different localized potential minima for atomic positions in their amorphous distribution of nuclei.[@tritt04a] This class of materials shows extremely low heat conduction and a universal behavior of $\kappa(T)$: the lowest temperature behavior (up to $\sim1$ K) rises as $T^2$ due to scattering by the tunnelling states, then levels off as a characteristic intermediate temperature plateau (attributed to Rayleigh scattering). Above $\sim20$ K it resumes a slow increase, until roughly levelling off again at higher temperatures.
In more recent years, the search for new and potentially useful thermoelectric materials[@wood88a; @sla95a] has led to the discovery of compounds that not only have unusually low thermal conductivity, but whose general behavior resembles that of a glassy material despite the fact that they are true (albeit disordered) crystalline lattices.[@cah92a] A prominent example is the intermetallic compound Sr$_8$Ga$_{16}$Ge$_{30}$, with a filled type-I clathrate structure[@eis86a] (6 larger $X_{24}$ cages forming tetrakaidecahedra plus 2 smaller $X_{20}$ cages forming dodecahedra, see Fig. \[T1Cages\]) for which $\kappa(T)$ was first measured by Nolas *et al.* in 1998.[@nol98a] A model was proposed[@cohn99a] to explain this material’s glasslike behavior, based on the idea that TS exist for the Sr(2) guest ion in the $X_{24}$ cage,[@nol00a] to which it is rather loosely bound because of an ion-to-cage size mismatch. A combination of phonon scattering by TS, resonant scattering on large, Einstein-like localized vibration modes (guest *rattling*) and Rayleigh scattering was used to adequately reproduce the experimental $\kappa(T)$ behavior (henceforth we will refer to this combination as the TRR model). Later investigations amply demonstrated a splitting of the Sr(2) site into four off-center positions,[@cha00a; @sal01a; @zer04a] among which the ions could indeed tunnel.
![\[T1Cages\] (Color online) The two cages of the type-I clathrate structure adopted by Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$Ge$_{30}$. If we consider the cage “construction unit” as 4 atoms connected in zig-zag from top to bottom, then the larger $X_{24}$ cage (left) is made of 6 such units and the smaller $X_{20}$ cage (right) is made of 5 units.](T1Cages){width="86mm"}
As other clathrate compounds started being investigated, the TRR model was challenged by at least two other models. One proposes that the tunnelling states are not required, only an *off-center* vibration of the guest ions,[@bri04a; @baum05a] and another proposes that the guest ions don’t play a major role at all at low temperatures, but rather it is the phonon scattering on charge carriers that leads to the glasslike behavior.[@ben04a; @ben05a; @pach05a; @ben06a]
![\[T8Cage\] (Color online) Irregular cage of the type-VIII clathrate structure adopted by Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$Sn$_{30}$. The four smaller cage spheres represent the $8c$ site, preferentially occupied by Ga atoms.](T8Cage){width="60mm"}
In this work we address the issue by performing single crystal x-ray diffraction (SCXRD), thermal conductivity $\kappa(T)$ and heat capacity $C_p(T)$ experiments on Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$Sn$_{30}$ (BGS) and Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$Ge$_{30}$ (BGG) crystals, which have been tuned through the crystal growth process to display n-type or p-type majority charge carriers as a result of small imbalances in their Ga:Ge or Ga:Sn ratios.[@avi06a; @avi06b] By analyzing the differences and similarities between the behaviors of these samples, we can test the applicability of the various models proposed to explain the origin of unusual glasslike behavior, in this case observed for p-type samples whereas the n-type samples show the normal crystalline peak.
Experimental Details
====================
Growth details of the batches used in this work are described in previous papers.[@huo05a; @avi06a; @avi06b] Single crystalline polyhedrons of 3-10 mm in diameter were obtained by a self-flux method. The carrier type is tuned by choosing Ga or Sn flux[@avi06a] in the case of BGS or by adjusting the relative Ge content in the initial mix with Ga flux[@avi06b] in the case of BGG. The batch name, flux composition and crystal composition determined by a JEOL JXA-8200 electron-probe microanalyzer (EPMA) are summarized in table \[EPMA\]. The composition values are averages over 10 regions of each crystal, although there are random fluctuations of up to $\pm0.1$ throughout the crystals. The values shown for the p-BGG sample should be considered a correction to those published in refs. and , since this was a more careful evaluation made on the same batch. As expected from charge balance principles, Ga-rich samples show p-type carriers while Ge-rich samples show n-type carriers.
-------- --------------- ---------------------
Sample Starting Flux Crystal
Name Composition Composition
n-BGS 8 : 16 : 60 8.0 : 15.98 : 30.02
n-BGG 8 : 38 : 34 8.0 : 15.94 : 30.06
p-BGS 8 : 38 : 30 8.0 : 16.14 : 29.86
p-BGG 8 : 38 : 30 8.0 : 16.10 : 29.90
-------- --------------- ---------------------
: \[EPMA\] Average Ba:Ga:X content (X = Ge, Sn) in the four measured crystals as determined by electron-probe microanalysis.
Thermal conductivity experiments were performed using a steady-state method on home-made systems, in the range of 0.3-300 K (BGG) and 4-300 K (BGS), although reliable data is only obtainable up to about 150 K. At higher temperatures, thermal losses by radiation and wire conduction prevent the correct measurement of the intrinsic sample properties. The electronic contribution $\kappa_c(T)$ of all samples estimated by the Wiedeman-Franz law is negligible up to 100 K, so the measured $\kappa(T)$ is equated to the lattice contribution $\kappa_L(T)$. Heat capacity was measured using a Quantum Design PPMS with its standard thermal-relaxation method, in the range $0.4\le
T\le300$ K.
For SCXRD experiments, broken pieces of n-BGS and p-BGS with approximate dimensions of $0.1\times0.1\times0.1$ mm$^3$ were selected. The diffraction data were collected with a Rigaku R-AXIS RAPID imaging plate area detector using graphite-monochromated Mo $K_{\alpha}$ radiation. Refinements were performed using the CrystalStructure[@SCXRD] software. Structures were solved by direct methods and expanded using Fourier techniques. All sites were assumed to be fully occupied.
![\[kappa\] (Color online) Temperature dependence of the thermal conductivity of Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$Ge$_{30}$ and Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$Sn$_{30}$ with different carrier types. Solid lines are best fits of the TRR model as described in the Discussion section.](kappa){width="86mm"}
Experimental Results
====================
Thermal Conductivity
--------------------
The lattice thermal conductivity $\kappa_L(T)$ of all four samples is shown in Fig. \[kappa\] (symbols are the as-measured experimental data points and solid lines represent fits to the data by the TRR model which will be detailed in the Discussion section). At 100 K and above (not shown), $\kappa_L(T)$ for BGS is roughly half that of BGG (about 1 and 2 W/m K respectively). This can be understood as a consequence of three main factors: (i) if the rattling of the guest ions is the main contributor to the unusually high phonon scattering level in these materials,[@dong01a] the larger cage size in BGS leads to larger rattling of the guest ions; (ii) in the BGS unit cell all 8 guest ions vibrate with equal intensity (single crystallographic site for Ba in the Type-VIII clathrate structure), while in BGG only the 6 guest ions inside the $X_{24}$ cages show large rattling; and (iii) the heavier Sn atoms produce lower frequency phonons, which are more easily scattered.
Below 100 K, each sample behaves quite differently, depending more on the carrier type than on the compound. The two n-type samples increase towards a peak, while the p-type samples remain at a plateau, smaller by a factor of $3-4$ in value than the n-type counterparts near the peak. Below 10 K, $\kappa_L(T)$ for all samples decreases fast and, in the case of BGG which was measured to lower temperatures, a gradual crossover to a $T^2$ regime is clearly observed. This implies a phonon mean free path inversely proportional to frequency[@cohn99a] which is the expected dependence when phonon scattering by tunnelling states is dominant. The $T^{2}$ behavior contrasts with a previously reported result showing a $T^{1.5}$ dependence for p-type BGG.[@ben04a]
![\[CpBGX\] (Color online) Heat capacity $C_p$ of Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$Sn$_{30}$ and Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$Sn$_{30}$ with different carrier types, presented as $Cp/T^3 vs. T$. Solid lines are best fits of the Einstein model as described in the Discussion section.](CpBGX){width="86mm"}
Atom site $x$ $y$ $z$ $B_{eq}$ (Å$^2$) occupancy
--------------- ------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------------ -----------------------
Ba(1) 8c 0.68490(5) 0.31510(5) 0.31510(5) 3.32(1) 1
Ga(1) / Sn(1) 12d 0.5000 0.0000 0.2500 1.65(1) 0.184(12) / 0.816(12)
Ga(2) / Sn(2) 2a 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.97(2) 0.158(22) / 0.842(22)
Ga(3) / Sn(3) 24g 0.41549(4) 0.14887(4) 0.41549(4) 1.333(9) 0.314(8) / 0.686(8)
Ga(4) / Sn(4) 8c 0.36558(6) 0.36558(6) 0.36558(6) 1.07(2) 0.766(12) / 0.234(12)
Atom site $x$ $y$ $z$ $B_{eq}$ (Å$^2$) occupancy
--------------- ------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------------ -----------------------
Ba(1) 8c 0.68507(8) 0.31493(8) 0.31493(8) 3.25(2) 1
Ga(1) / Sn(1) 12d 0.5000 0.0000 0.2500 1.69(2) 0.152(16) / 0.848(16)
Ga(2) / Sn(2) 2a 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.90(3) 0.233(26) / 0.767(26)
Ga(3) / Sn(3) 24g 0.41565(4) 0.14836(4) 0.41565(4) 1.308(14) 0.318(10) / 0.682(10)
Ga(4) / Sn(4) 8c 0.36577(6) 0.36577(6) 0.36577(6) 1.077(14) 0.707(12) / 0.293(12)
Heat Capacity
-------------
The data points in Figs. \[CpBGX\]a and \[CpBGX\]b show the as-measured specific heats $C_p(T)$ for the BGS and BGG samples respectively, plotted as $Cp/T^3$ $vs.$ $T$. This plotting style emphasizes the contributions of localized vibrations of guest atoms (Einstein oscillators), which appear as pronounced peaks over a “background” contribution of a Debye solid. For these samples, the charge carrier contribution is negligible above $\sim4$ K, but responsible for the $T^{-2}$ upward curvature upon cooling below this temperature. A more traditional plot of $Cp/T$ $vs.$ $T^2$ below 4 K (not shown) is used to estimate with good accuracy the Sommerfeld coefficient $\gamma$ of the charge carriers and the Debye temperature $\Theta_D$ of the 46 framework atoms, and then subtract the host contribution $C_h$ (dotted lines) in order to isolate the Einstein-like contribution $C_g$ of the guest ions (dash-dotted peak).
Contrary to the heat transport data, in both BGS and BGG the heat capacity data show the same behavior above $\sim4$ K for different carrier types. This result demonstrates there is no fundamental change in the entropic properties of these compounds within the range of deviations from stoichiometry studied. If the rattling behavior of the guest ion is not significantly changed for different carrier types in the framework, then it should be the coupling between the guest vibration and the frameworks with different carriers that changes. In other words, frameworks with holes have their phonon modes more effectively scattered by the Ba vibration than those with electrons.
Single-Crystal X-Ray Diffraction
--------------------------------
Tables \[n-SCXRD\] and \[p-SCXRD\] summarize the refinement results made for room temperature SCXRD data of n-BGS and p-BGS respectively. The anomalously large isotropic thermal parameter $B_{eq}$ of the Ba site compared to the Ga/Sn sites is a signature of the enhanced vibration (rattling) of the guest ion in the oversized cage, however, no relevant difference is observed between the crystals.
The resulting sets of data do not allow a detailed composition analysis for comparison with EPMA results, because the R factor was insensitive to occupation probability within deviations of $\pm0.2$ from stoichiometry, but the framework sites show consistent preferential occupations for Sn(1) and Sn(2) in the respective $12d$ and $2a$ crystallographic sites, while Ga(4) has the preferential occupation of the $8c$ site (in accordance with the idea that the smaller Ga atom should more easily occupy the site with smaller bond distances between neighbors) and the $24g$ site remains more randomly occupied by Sn(3) and Ga(3). This is true for crystals with both types of carriers, the only consistent and relevant difference we could find in these refinements was a larger relative occupation of the $2a$ site by Ga(2) for the p-BGS samples (the top atom in Fig. \[T8Cage\]). This could be where the “extra” Ga ions prefer to enter in Ga-rich samples, but whether or not this can have any influence on the overall guest/framework coupling would require more detailed investigation.
Discussion
==========
We now present and discuss the models used to analyze the data in Figs. \[kappa\] and \[CpBGX\]. The specific heat is expressed as a sum of 3 main contributions:
$$C_p = C_c+C_D+C_E%
\label{eq:Cp},$$
where $C_c=\gamma T$ is the electronic specific heat of the charge carriers,
$$C_D = \frac{12\pi^4N_Dk_B}{5} \int_0^{\Theta_D/T}\frac{x^4e^xdx}{(e^x-1)^2}%
\label{eq:CD}$$
with $x=\hbar ck/k_BT$ is the Debye model for the lattice specific heat of $N_D$ Debye oscillators per unit cell, whose numerical solution can be found in Solid State Physics textbooks, and
$$C_{Ei} = \sum_{i}p_iN_{Ei}R\left(\frac{\Theta_{Ei}}{T}\right)^2\frac{e^{\Theta_{Ei}/T}}{\left(e^{\Theta_{Ei}/T}-1\right)^2}%
\label{eq:CE}$$
is the Einstein specific heat of the $i$-th vibrational mode of any existing rattling ions. For our analysis we assume that the 8 rattling guest ions are sufficiently decoupled from the 46 rigid framework atoms, so that we can make the association $C_g =
C_{Ei}$ and $C_h = C_c + C_D$ respectively.
The solid line in Fig. \[CpBGX\]a indicates the best fit of eq. \[eq:CE\] to the isolated Einstein contribution in p-BGS. It is important to emphasize that in this analysis for the type-VIII structure, the dimensionality and the number of Einstein oscillators are fixed at $p=3$ and $N_E=8$ so there is a *single* fitting parameter $\Theta_E$ for BGS, which alone governs all the peak characteristics - position, height and width. The fact that the best fitted curve with $\Theta_E=49.9$ K so closely reproduces the experimental peak in all these aspects is a solid testimony to how successful the Einstein model is in describing the vibrational behavior of the 8 Ba ions in this compound. The data is actually slightly broadened with respect to the model, which may be the result of a narrow distribution of $\Theta_E$ around the mean value (a consequence of Ga/Sn site disorder), and/or a slightly anisotropic vibration of each guest ion in its respective irregular cage (resembling an ovoid with diameter varying between $7.3-8.2$ Å, see Fig. \[T8Cage\]). We will see next how anisotropic vibration plays a much more important role in the BGG compound.
Contrary to BGS, the specific heat of BGG *cannot* be adequately fit with a single $\Theta_{E}$ and $N_E=8$. If $N_E$ is freed as a fitting parameter, the best fit naturally decreases this to $N_E=6.1$ (and $\Theta_{E}=55$ K), consistent with the fact that the 6 Ba(2) ions in the larger $X_{24}$ cages are the main rattlers, but the fitting quality is still not satisfactory. Until now, the usual approach[@ben04a; @umeo05a] to analyze the heat capacity of BGG has been to assign two different Einstein contributions ($i=2$ in Eq. \[eq:CE\]). This results in excellent fits with $\Theta_{E1}=70-80$ K and $\Theta_{E2}=30-40$ K. However, the *number* of Einstein oscillators $N_{E1}$ and $N_{E2}$ results opposite to what one would expect if these numbers were to represent the two Ba sites, i.e., there is a greater number of Ba oscillators with larger $\Theta_{E1}$ ($N_{E1}=6-9$) than those with smaller $\Theta_{E2}$ ($N_{E2}=1.5-2.0$). This is difficult to physically justify, since larger rattling implies *smaller* $\Theta_{E}$.
We offer an analysis which better reconciles with the guest ions’ known physical properties. The starting point is that, due to the $X_{24}$ cage shape (Fig. \[T1Cages\], left), the Ba(2) ions show a strongly *anisotropic* vibration with greater amplitude within the plane parallel to the cage’s two hexagons.[@nol00a] Because the dimensionality $p$ plays a role in the Einstein model (see Eq. \[eq:CE\]), at least two vibrational modes should be required to describe the Ba(2) site alone: in-plane ($\Theta_{E2}^\parallel$) and out-of-plane ($\Theta_{E2}^\perp$) respectively. In addition, a third vibrational mode ($\Theta_{E1}$) is required to account for the smaller, but still Einstein-like, rattling of the two Ba(1) site ions in the $X_{20}$ dodecahedra (Fig. \[T1Cages\], right), which can be assumed isotropic.[@sal01a] In this model, the dimensionalities and numbers of oscillators are predefined: $p_1N_{E1}=3\times2$, $p_2^\parallel N_{E2}^\parallel=2\times6$, $p_2^\perp N_{E2}^\perp=1\times6$, so the fitting parameters are only the three Einstein temperatures, with the additional constraint that $\Theta_{E2}^\parallel<\Theta_{E2}^\perp,\Theta_{E1}$. The best fitting of this model results in $\Theta_{E1}=87.2$ K, $\Theta_{E2}^\parallel=49.4$ K and $\Theta_{E2}^\perp=87.1$ K. The similarity between $\Theta_{E2}^\parallel$ of BGG and $\Theta_{E}$ of BGS is reasonable, since the largest diameters of both cages are essentially the same ($\sim8.2$ Å). The similarity between $\Theta_{E2}^\perp$ and $\Theta_{E1}$ in BGG is also reasonable since the $X_{24}$ cage size in the out-of-plane direction is very close to the $X_{20}$ cage size ($\sim5.5$ Å). This means a further simplification can be made in the model by assuming only two parameters $\Theta_{E1}$ and $\Theta_{E2}$ with $p_1N_{E1}=p_2N_{E2}=12$, where $\Theta_{E1}$ represents the 3D vibration of the Ba(1) ions and the 1D out-of-plane vibration of the Ba(2) ions; while $\Theta_{E2}$ represents the larger, 2D in-plane vibration of the Ba(2) ions. This results in the solid curve shown in Fig. \[CpBGX\]b and, as with BGS, the data for BGG is only slightly broadened with respect to the model.
With the heat capacity parameters determined, we now analyze the lattice thermal conductivity $\kappa_L$ of all samples, using the same procedure applied previously for analysis of the n-BGS sample,[@huo05a] which is in turn based on the TRR model initially used in ref. to describe Sr$_8$Ga$_{16}$Ge$_{30}$. In the semi-classical theory, $\kappa_L$ is given by
$$\kappa_L = \frac{1}{3}\int_0^{\omega_D}d\omega[C_L(\omega,T)vl]%
\label{eq:kappa},$$
where $C_L(\omega,T)$ is the phonon specific heat, $\omega_D$ is the Debye frequency, $v$ is the average sound velocity and $l$ is the phonon mean free path, which must be averaged over all major contributing scattering mechanisms. Thus, in the TRR model it is written as
$$l = (l_{TS}^{-1}+l_{Res}^{-1}+l_{Ray}^{-1})^{-1}+ l_{min}%
\label{eq:mfp}.$$
The low-energy excitations of the guest ions tunnelling between localized states scatter phonons as
$$l_{TS}^{-1} = A\left(\frac{\hbar\omega}{k_B}\right)\text{tanh}\left(\frac{\hbar\omega}{2k_BT}\right)+\frac{A}{2}\left(\frac{k_B}{\hbar\omega}+\frac{1}{B T^3}\right)^{-1}%
\label{eq:lTS},$$
where A and B are microscopic parameters describing the tunnelling states characteristics.[@grae86a] At higher energies, phonons are scattered through a resonance effect against guest ion rattling as:
$$l_{Res}^{-1} = \sum_{i}\frac{C_i\omega^2T^2}{\left(\omega_i^2-\omega^2\right)^2+\Gamma_i\omega_i^2\omega^2}%
\label{eq:lRes},$$
where $C_i$ and $\Gamma_i$ are phenomenological parameters related to a simple mechanical oscillator.[@pohl62a] We also need to include the empirical but always present, frequency-only dependent Rayleigh scattering
$$l_{Ray}^{-1} = D\left(\frac{\hbar\omega^4}{k_B}\right)%
\label{eq:lRay},$$
and finally the last term $l_{min}=1$ Å$ $ is the cut-off limit.
Results from the best fits of the data shown in Figs. \[kappa\] and \[CpBGX\] are summarized in Table \[FITS\]. The most relevant results in terms of comparing the p-type with n-type samples are the increase in the resonant scattering level ($C_i$), and in the TS scattering level. The latter can be expressed by the ratio $A/B=\tilde{n}(\hbar v)^2/\pi k_B$, which in glasses is essentially a measure of the *subset* density of tunnelling states $\tilde{n}$ that are able to strongly couple to the phonons and effectively scatter them.[@grae86a] Therefore, the increase in A/B observed upon changing from n-type to p-type cages does not necessarily mean the total density of TS has increased, only that the existing states are more effectively coupled.
Symbol Unit n-BGG p-BGG n-BGS p-BGS
--------------- ------------------- -------- ------- ------- -------
$A$ $10^4$/(m K) 1.4 2.5 2.5 17
$B$ 1/K$^2$ 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
$A/B$ $10^5$K/m 1.4 2.5 2.5 17
$C_1$ 1/(m s$^2$ K$^2$) 0.2 2.0 0.7 5.0
$\Theta_{E1}$ K 87 87 50 50
$\Gamma_1$ 0.5 1.5 0.4 1.5
$C_2$ 1/(m s$^2$ K$^2$) 0.2 2.0 - -
$\Theta_{E2}$ K 49[^1] 49 - -
$\Gamma_2$ 0.5 1.5 - -
$D$ K$^{4}$/m 0.85 0.5 2.8 1.7
$\gamma$ mJ/(mol K$^2$) 6 9 1.3 11
$\Theta_D$ K 288 288 200 200
$v$ m/s 2898 2898 2250 2250
: \[FITS\] Parameters used to generate the solid line curves in Figs. \[kappa\] and \[CpBGX\], which best fit the respective experimental data set for lattice thermal conductivity and specific heat. See text for detailed descriptions.
An interesting exercise can be made to help understand the influence of these different contributions in the TRR model. If we begin with the fitting results for $\kappa_L(T)$ of the n-type samples, it is impossible to fit the respective p-type $\kappa_L(T)$ by increasing the intensity of only one of these contributions (TS or resonant). The TS are mainly responsible for decreasing the low-temperature $\kappa_L(T)$ up to the first few Kelvins, and by itself the TS contribution is incapable of changing the peak into a plateau. Conversely, an increase in the resonant scattering level (based on *fixed* values of $\Theta_{E}=50$ K from heat capacity and increased phenomenological coupling strength parameters $C_i$), readily brings the peak down to a plateau/dip, but quickly loses its ability to follow the $\kappa_L(T)$ drop below about 10 K. Therefore, we may conclude that the TRR model adequately reproduces the entire range of $\kappa_L(T)$ for all samples up to 100 K, provided that the coupling of the framework phonons with the guest ion tunnelling *and* rattling is increased in p-type samples.
Let us now focus on some other proposals regarding candidate mechanisms for glasslike behavior in clathrates, which challenge the TRR model. First: is the presence of tunnelling states really necessary, or is *off-center* vibration a sufficient mechanism? The question was raised by Bridges and Downward[@bri04a] primarily based on the existing data at the time, where Sr and Eu guests clearly show off-center sites[@cha00a; @sal01a; @zer04a] and glasslike $\kappa(T)$, while Ba guests appear to show *on-center* vibration[@cha00a; @sal01a; @zer04a] (within experimental resolution) and a crystalline peak. Later studies demonstrated glasslike behavior for p-type BGG[@ben04a; @avi06b] and now for p-type BGS (this work), so this argument by itself is no longer valid, unless a closer look at the Ba vibration in these compounds through microscopic techniques shows that off-center vibration modes do exist for p-type samples (even if much smaller than for Sr and Eu guests) but not for n-type samples. Raman scattering and EXAFS studies are presently being conducted on our carrier-tuned BGG crystals, which may help clarify this issue. Still, good arguments were made by the authors in terms of describing how off-center vibration does indeed help enhance the *coupling* between guest vibration modes and the framework phonons.[@bri04a; @baum05a]
A second challenge to the TRR model is: can the shift from crystalline to glasslike behavior be explained solely by phonon scattering mechanisms within the framework, i.e., by interactions between phonons and charge carriers? This question was raised in a series of papers by Bentien *et al.*[@ben04a; @ben05a; @ben06a] which we now discuss.
The first work[@ben04a] called attention to an observed $\kappa(T)\propto T^{1.5}$ dependence at low-temperature for p-BGG and a kink in their data at about 2 K (neither of which were reproduced with our crystals). They also pointed out that the phonon-charge carrier mechanism could not explain the lowering of $\kappa_L(T)$ above $\sim15$ K, so the resonant scattering on the guest vibration was once again invoked, but to account for only the differences above 15 K. The second work[@ben05a] compared several polycrystalline samples of type-VIII and type-I Eu$_8$Ga$_{16}$Ge$_{30}$ ($\alpha$-EGG and $\beta$-EGG respectively,[@pas01a] all with n-type carriers), clearly demonstrating that $\beta$-EGG shows glasslike $\kappa_L(T)$ while $\alpha$-EGG does not. The difference was interpreted in terms of changes in the band structure, with a much enhanced effective mass $m^*$ found in $\beta$-EGG. However, the cage sizes and shapes are also quite different between these two structures. The type-I $X_{24}$ cages are essentially the same size for all Ge clathrates ($5.5\times8.2$ Å, see Fig. \[T1Cages\]) but the type-VIII cage in $\alpha$-EGG ($6.7\times7.5$ Å$ $ ovoid similar to Fig. \[T8Cage\]) is significantly smaller than that of BGS, so any change in $\kappa_L(T)$ can also be argued or modelled in terms of changes in the Eu vibration modes and their coupling to the framework. Unfortunately $\alpha$-EGG samples with p-type carriers are as yet unavailable, but it wouldn’t be surprising if they showed glasslike $\kappa_L(T)$ as we found in p-BGS. The third and more recent work[@ben06a] shows results for Ba$_8$Ni$_x$Ge$_{46-x}$ similar to what we have obtained here for BGG and BGS, therefore the same analysis and discussion we have conducted here can also be applied to those results.
Still, it is obvious that the influence of charge-carriers cannot be neglected with respect to their density $n_c$, effective mass $m^*$, electronic mean free path $l_c$, etc. It is quite clear from our measurements and all previously reported data on Ba-filled clathrates, that the p-type carriers are playing a relevant role in producing an increased phonon scattering in these compounds, which we view as yet another additional factor capable of contributing to lower $\kappa_L(T)$, possibly through direct interaction with the phonons, but especially by mediating an enhanced coupling of these with the guest vibration modes. A few brief examples for such mediation possibilities are: 1) n-type frameworks could allow a greater degree of *coherence* in the vibrations of neighboring Ba guests than p-type frameworks, which would lead to larger mean free paths and less effective scattering; 2) Since the type and density of charge carriers result from stoichiometry imbalances, they may affect the framework rigidity at certain sites, and therefore how easily it can couple with the rattler ions.
Conclusion
==========
We have succeeded in growing large single crystals of Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$Sn$_{30}$ and Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$Ge$_{30}$ with both n-type and p-type majority carriers, and found that these compounds show low temperature lattice thermal conductivity behavior strongly dependent on the carrier type. A shift from crystalline to glasslike behavior is observed for both compounds when changing the majority carriers from n-type to p-type through composition tuning. These differences can be mostly reproduced by an increase in resonant scattering, however, an increase in both resonant and tunnelling scattering levels are required to reproduce the full set of data below 100 K. Heat capacity and single-crystal x-ray diffraction data indicated that these increases are not the result of any major change in the guest ions’ vibrational behaviors, therefore a more effective coupling of the frameworks with p-type carriers to the TS and rattling vibrations of the guest ions is the most likely mechanism. The $T^2$ dependence in $\kappa_L(T)$ obtained at lowest temperatures for both n-type and p-type Ba$_8$Ga$_{16}$Ge$_{30}$ indicates that tunnelling states should be present for the Ba(2) ions in this compound, therefore its mere presence is insufficient to guarantee glasslike $\kappa_L(T)$.
In fact, our results indicate that the various proposed mechanisms which may lead to glasslike behavior are all partially correct and at the same time incomplete. The general scenario that we see emerging can indeed be expressed as: *it’s all about the coupling*. For reasons that still need to be explained microscopically, the n-type frameworks are more weakly coupled to the guest vibration modes than the p-type frameworks. Thus, the Ba ions’ smaller and (almost?) on-center vibration is not coupled strongly enough to the n-type framework phonons to produce the glasslike behavior, but the p-type framework crosses the necessary coupling strength threshold to achieve this scattering regime. In contrast, Sr and Eu ions in the type-I Ge clathrates have clearly off-center and larger rattling, capable of a strong enough coupling even with the n-type frameworks to produce glass-like behavior (no p-type frameworks have been reported yet for these compounds). In a series of carefully tuned Ba-based clathrates it should be possible to observe a continuous transition from glasslike to crystalline $\kappa_L(T)$. Likewise, in a series of n-type (Sr,Eu)-based clathrates the same continuous transition should be observed not from carrier tuning, but from a physical or chemical reduction of cage size to dampen the off-center vibration level.
We thank M. Udagawa, F. Bridges and D. Huo for fruitful discussions, and Y. Shibata for the EPMA analysis. Specific heat and thermal conductivity measurements were carried out at Natural Science Center for Basic Research and Development (N-BARD) Hiroshima University. This work was financially supported by the Grants in Aid for Scientific Research(A) (No. 18204032), the COE Research (13CE2002) and the priority area “Skutterudite” (No. 15072205) from MEXT, Japan.
[27]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ** (, ).
, ed., ** (, ).
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, ), chap. , p. .
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , .
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
.
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
[^1]: Two-dimensional vibration (see text).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the Choquard equation (also known as stationary Hartree equation or Schrödinger–Newton equation) $$-\Delta u + u = (I_\alpha \ast {\lvert u \rvert}^p) {\lvert u \rvert}^{p - 2}u.$$ Here $I_\alpha$ stands for the Riesz potential of order $\alpha \in (0,N)$, and $\frac{N - 2}{N + \alpha} < \frac{1}{p} \le \frac{1}{2}$. We prove that least energy nodal solutions have an odd symmetry with respect to a hyperplane when $\alpha $ is either close to $0$ or close to $N$.'
address:
- |
Universidad de Granada\
Departamento de Análisis Matemático\
Campus Fuentenueva\
18071 Granada\
Spain
- |
Université Catholique de Louvain\
Institut de Recherche en Mathématique et Physique\
Chemin du Cyclotron 2 bte L7.01.01\
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve\
Belgium
author:
- David Ruiz
- Jean Van Schaftingen
---
Introduction
============
In this paper we are interested in the Choquard equation (also known as stationary Hartree equation or Schrödinger–Newton equation) $$\label{eqChoquard}
-\Delta u + u = (I_\alpha \ast {\lvert u \rvert}^p) {\lvert u \rvert}^{p - 2}u,$$ where $I_\alpha : {\mathbb{R}}^N \to {\mathbb{R}}$ denotes the Riesz potential, which is defined for each $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus \{0\}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqRiesz}
I_\alpha (x) = \frac{A_\alpha}{{\lvert x \rvert}^{N - \alpha}}, \
\text{ where } \
A_\alpha = \frac{\Gamma(\tfrac{N-\alpha}{2})}
{\Gamma(\tfrac{\alpha}{2})\pi^{N/2}2^{\alpha} }.\end{aligned}$$ Problem is the Euler–Lagrange equation of the *Choquard action functional* $J_\alpha : H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ which is defined for each $u$ in the Sobolev space $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ by $$ \label{thefunctional} J_{\alpha}(u)
= \frac{1}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \big ( {\lvert \nabla u \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u \rvert}^2 \big )
- \frac{1}{2p} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_{\alpha} \ast {\lvert u \rvert}^p \bigr) {\lvert u \rvert}^{p}.$$
When $N = 3$, $\alpha = 2$ and $p = 2$, the equation arises in Pekar’s model of the polaron . It has also appeared by introducing classical Newtonian gravitation in quantum physics . The Choquard equation has been the object of many mathematical works (see [@MVSReview]).
The existence of groundstate solutions (or least energy solutions) is quite well-known, see . Those solutions are positive and radially symmetric. The uniqueness is known in some cases (see for instance [@Lieb1977]). It is also well-known that problem admits sign-changing solutions with various symmetries .
Recently, other type of sign-changing solutions have been found for the Choquard equation. If $\frac{N - 2}{N + \alpha} < \frac{1}{p} < \frac{N}{N + \alpha}$ there exist solutions which are odd with respect to a hyperplane of ${\mathbb{R}}^N$, see [@GhimentiVanSchaftingen]. Those solutions have minimal energy among all solutions with that symmetry. Furthermore, there are also nodal solutions which minimize the energy in the so-called Nehari nodal set in the case $\frac{N - 2}{N + \alpha} < \frac{1}{p} \le \frac{1}{2}$ (see ), which will be called *least energy nodal solutions*. We point out that, in both cases, those solutions do not have a counterpart in the framework of the usual stationary nonlinear Schrödinger equation.
At this point, it is quite reasonable to ask whether those solutions coincide; in other words, *whether the least energy nodal solutions are odd-symmetric with respect to a hyperplane*. The aim of this work is to give an affirmative answer to that question, if the order $\alpha$ of the Riesz potential is either close to $0$ or close to $N$.
We first state the result for $\alpha$ close to $0$.
\[theoremMain0\] If $ 1 - \frac{2}{N} < \frac{1}{p} \leq \frac{1}{2}$, then there exists $\alpha_\star \in (0, N)$ such that for any $\alpha \in (0,\alpha_\star)$, any least energy nodal solution $u_{\alpha} \in H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ of the Choquard equation is odd with respect to a hyperplane of ${\mathbb{R}}^N$.
By odd, we mean that there exists a reflection $R : {\mathbb{R}}^N \to {\mathbb{R}}^N$ of the Euclidean space ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ with respect to an affine hyperplane of ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ such that $u \circ R = - u$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$.
For the case where $\alpha$ is close to $N$ our result is the following.
\[theoremMainN\] If $\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{N} < \frac{1}{p} < \frac{1}{2}$, then there exists $\alpha^\star \in (0, \ N)$ such that for any $\alpha \in (\alpha^\star, N)$, any least energy nodal solution $u_{\alpha} \in H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ of the Choquard equation is odd with respect to a hyperplane.
In general, the hypothesis $\frac{N - 2}{N + \alpha} < \frac{1}{p} < \frac{N}{N + \alpha}$ in necessary by a Pohozhaev-type inequality for the existence of sufficiently regular finite energy solutions to [@MVSGNLSNE]\*[Theorem 2]{}. Since Theorems \[theoremMain0\] and \[theoremMainN\] are concerned with the case $\alpha \to 0$ and $\alpha \to N$ respectively, the restrictions on $p$ imposed are the natural limit of these conditions.
The proofs use an argument by contradiction. We study the behavior of least energy nodal solutions $u_\alpha$ of the Choquard equation when either $\alpha \to 0$ or $\alpha \to N$. This process leads us naturally to certain limit problems. If $\alpha \to 0$ the limit problem is just a usual stationary nonlinear Schrödinger equation, but in the case $\alpha \to N$ the equation includes an additional coefficient depending on the nonlocal quantity $\Vert u\Vert_{L^p}$.
A crucial ingredient of the proofs is the asymptotics of the Riesz potential energy $ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (I_{\alpha} \ast {\lvert u \rvert}^p) {\lvert u \rvert}^p$. In the régime $\alpha \to 0$, the approximation is uniform on bounded sets of the Sobolev space $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ (see § \[sectionConcentratingRiesz\] below), which suits perfectly in our proofs. When $\alpha \to N$, the analysis is more delicate, because there is only a unilateral uniform approximation property on bounded sets (see § \[sectionDelocalizingRiesz\]).
We point out that the family $u_\alpha$ *does not converge* to a solution to the limit problem, even up to translations in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ and up to the extraction of a subsequence, an issue that makes our proof more involved. In the proof of Theorem \[theoremMain0\] we show that the sequence of solutions actually forms a *Palais–Smale sequence* for the limit equation. As a consequence, our solutions behave asymptotically like differences of two positive solutions of the local problem moving away one from the other. With this in hand, we use the nondegeneracy of solutions to the local problem to conclude that the solution has an odd symmetry.
For Theorem \[theoremMainN\] we need to describe more accurately the solutions, and we prove that the positive and negative parts of $u_\alpha$ converge to a groundstate of the corresponding limit problem. Moreover we also need to estimate the distance between the two bumps: it is going to infinity but slowly enough to preserve the interaction between the bumps as much as possible. In contrast with Theorem \[theoremMain0\] which still holds for *low-energy nodal solutions* (see Proposition \[puf\] below), the proof of Theorem \[theoremMainN\] uses essentially the minimizing character of the nodal solutions.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sectionPreliminaries\] we state some known results about groundstate solutions and nodal solutions of the Choquard equation. We also review properties of the limit problems that we encounter in the proofs. Section \[sectionAsymptoticRiesz\] is devoted to the study of the asymptotic behavior of the Riesz potential when $\alpha$ tends to $0$ or $N$. Theorems \[theoremMain0\] and \[theoremMainN\] are proved in Sections \[sectionProofTheoremMain0\] and \[sectionProofTheoremMainN\], respectively.
Preliminaries {#sectionPreliminaries}
=============
Groundstates and least energy nodal solutions of the Choquard equations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For any $\alpha \in (0, N)$ and $p \in (1, \infty)$ such that $\frac{N - 2}{N + \alpha}< \frac{1}{p} <\frac{N}{N + \alpha}$, the solutions in $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ to the Choquard equation correspond to critical points of the energy functional $J_\alpha$ defined on $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ by . The Choquard equation has a positive, radially symmetric groundstate solution $U_\alpha \in H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ whose energy level will be denoted by $c_\alpha^{\mathrm{gst}}= J_\alpha(U_\alpha)$.
The groundstate level $c_\alpha^{\mathrm{gst}}$ has many different characterizations [@MVSGNLSNE]\*[§2.1]{}; it can be obtained as a minimum $$c_\alpha^{\mathrm{gst}}= \inf\,\bigl\{ J_{\alpha}( u) {\;\vert\;}u \in \mathcal{N}_\alpha \bigr\},$$ on the *Nehari manifold* which is defined by $$\mathcal{N}_\alpha
= \bigl\{ u \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N) \setminus \{ 0\}
{\;\vert\;}{\langle J_{\alpha}'(u), u \rangle}=0 \bigr\}.$$ The level $c_\alpha^{\mathrm{gst}}$ can be equivalently characterized variationally as a minimax level: $$\label{eqChoquardGroundstateMinimax}
c_\alpha^{\mathrm{gst}}= \inf\,\Bigl\{\max_{t \ge 0} J_{\alpha}(t u) {\;\vert\;}u \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N) \setminus \{0\}\Bigr\}.$$
We now turn our attention to *nodal solutions for the Choquard equation*. As for local problems in bounded domains (see ) least energy nodal solutions can be constructed when $p \ge 2$ by minimizing the action functional on the Nehari nodal set : $$c_{\alpha}^{{\mathrm{nod}}} = \inf\,\bigl\{ J_{\alpha}(u) {\;\vert\;}u \in \mathcal{N}_\alpha^{{\mathrm{nod}}}\bigr\},$$ where the *Nehari nodal set* $\mathcal{N}_\alpha^{nod}$ is defined by $$\mathcal{N}_\alpha^{{\mathrm{nod}}}
= \bigl\{ u \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)
{\;\vert\;}{\langle J_{\alpha}'(u), u^+ \rangle}=0, \ {\langle J_{\alpha}'(u), u^- \rangle}=0,\ u^+\neq 0\text{ and } u^- \neq 0\bigr\}.$$ This level can also be characterized by $$c_{\alpha}^{{\mathrm{nod}}}
= \inf\,\Bigl\{\max_{t, s \ge 0} J_{\alpha}(tu^+ + s u^-) {\;\vert\;}u\in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N), \ u^+ \neq 0 \text{ and } u^- \neq 0\Bigr\}.$$ This can be seen as follows (see [@GhimentiVanSchaftingen]): if $u \in H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, and if $u^+ \ne 0$ and $u^- \ne 0$, then for every $\sigma, \tau \in [0, \infty)$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{expansion}
J_{\alpha}(\tau^{1/p} u^+ + \sigma^{1/p} u^-) \\
= \frac{\tau^{2/p}}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u^+ \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u^+ \rvert}^2
+ \frac{\sigma^{2/p}}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u^- \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u^- \rvert}^2 \\
- \frac{1}{2p} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast (\tau {\lvert u^+ \rvert}^p + \sigma {\lvert u^- \rvert}^p) \bigr) \bigl(\tau {\lvert u^+ \rvert}^p + \sigma {\lvert u^- \rvert}^p\bigr);\end{gathered}$$ the right-hand side is a strictly concave function in the variables $\sigma$, $\tau$ (see [@LiebLoss2001]\*[Theorem 9.8]{}) and achieves its maximum at a unique point $(\sigma, \tau) \in (0, \infty)^2$. If $u \in \mathcal{N}_\alpha^{\mathrm{nod}}$, then $(\tau, \sigma) = (1, 1)$ is a critical point and the conclusion thus follows.
The level $c_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{nod}}$ can be estimated by the groundstate level $c_\alpha^{\mathrm{gst}}$ [@GhimentiVanSchaftingen].
\[propositionControlGroundNodal\] If $p \ge 2$ and $((N - 2)p - N)_+ < \alpha < N$, then $$c_{\alpha}^{{\mathrm{nod}}} < 2 c_\alpha^{\mathrm{gst}}.$$
Limiting problems
-----------------
When $\alpha \to 0$, the Choquard equation reduces at least formally to the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with exponent $q = 2 p$ $$ \label{limit0} - \Delta u + u = {\lvert u \rvert}^{q-2}u.$$ The latter equation is the Euler–Lagrange equation of the energy functional $\Phi_q: H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ defined for each $u \in H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ by $$\label{functional0} \Phi_q (u)
= \frac{1}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl( {\lvert \nabla u \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u \rvert}^2 \bigr) - \frac{1}{q} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert u \rvert}^{q}.$$ Problem has a positive groundstate $U$ which is *radially symmetric*, *unique up to translations* and *nondegenerate*, that is, any solution $v \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ to the linearized problem $$- \Delta v + v = (q-1)U^{q-2}v$$ is a directional derivative of the function $U$: it can be written $v = h \cdot \nabla u$, for some constant vector $h \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$ .
The *groundstate level* $\gamma_{q} = \Phi_q (U)$ has many different variational characterizations. We will be using the fact that the groundstate solution minimizes $$\label{eqSchrodingerGroundstateMinimax}
\gamma_{q} = \inf\, \Bigl\{ \max_{t \ge 0} \Phi_q (t u) {\;\vert\;}u \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)\setminus \{0\}\Bigr\}.$$ Indeed, it can be proved that the above infimum is attained by the groundstate $U$ and $\max_{t \ge 0} \Phi_q (t U)= \Phi_q(U)$.
It is also well known that any other solution $u$ of must change sign and satisfies $$\label{strictOtherSolutions0}
\Phi_q (u) > 2 \gamma_q.$$
Finally, the behavior of the Palais–Smale sequences of has been fully described :
\[PS\] If the sequence $(u_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ in $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ is a Palais–Smale sequence for the functional $\Phi_q$, that is, if the sequence $(\Phi_q(u_n))_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ is bounded in ${\mathbb{R}}$ and if the sequence $(\Phi_q'(u_n))_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ converges to $0$ in $ H^{-1} ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, then, there exists an integer $m \geq 0$, sequences $(a_n^i)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ for $i= 1, \dotsc, m$), and nonzero solutions $U_i$ of such that, as $n \to \infty$,
i) $ u_n - \sum_{i =1}^m U_i(\cdot- a_n^i) \to 0$ strongly in $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$,
ii) $\Phi_q(u_n) \to \sum_{i =1}^m \Phi_q (U_i)$,
iii) ${\lvert a_n^i - a_n^j \rvert} \to +\infty$ if $i \neq j$.
In the study of the Choquard equation for $\alpha$ close to $N$, we will encounter the following variant of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation: $$\label{limit1}
-\Delta u + u
= \mu \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert u \rvert}^p \Bigr) {\lvert u \rvert}^{p-2}u,$$ for some parameter $\mu > 0$. This equation is the Euler–Lagrange equation of the energy functional $\Psi_{p,\mu}: H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ defined for each $u \in H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ by $$\label{functional1} \Psi_{p, \mu}(u)
= \frac{1}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl({\lvert \nabla u \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u \rvert}^2\bigr)
- \frac{\mu}{2p} \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}{\lvert u \rvert}^{p}\Bigr)^2.$$
The solutions of the problems and are related to each other. Indeed, if $u \in H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ is a solution of the equation with $q=p$, we define $$v = \frac{u}{\Bigl(\displaystyle \mu \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert u \rvert}^p \Bigr)^\frac{1}{2p - 2}}.$$ We observe that $v$ is solution to problem $\eqref{limit1}$ and that $$ \label{energies} \Psi_{p, \mu} (v)
= \frac{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2p}}
{\mu^{\frac{1}{p-1}}}
\biggl(\frac{\Phi_p (u)}{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}}\biggr)^{\frac{p-2}{p-1}}.$$ Conversely, if $v \in H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ is a solution of problem , then the function $$u = \biggl(\mu \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert v \rvert}^p \biggr)^\frac{1}{p - 2} v$$ is a solution of equation with $q=p$.
The groundstate $V$ of problem inherits the sign, uniqueness and symmetry properties of the groundstate $U$ of problem . The groundstate levels are related as follows: $$\label{eqKappa}
\kappa_{p, \mu} = \Psi_{p, \mu} (V) = \frac{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2p}}
{\mu^{\frac{1}{p-1}}}
\biggl(\frac{\Phi_p (U)}{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}}\biggr)^{\frac{p-2}{p-1}}
= \frac{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2p}}
{\mu^{\frac{1}{p-1}}}
\biggl(\frac{\gamma_p}{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}}\biggr)^{\frac{p-2}{p-1}}.$$ The groundstate level $\kappa_{p,\mu}$ can be characterized variationally as $$\label{eqCharactKappa}
\kappa_{p, \mu} = \inf\,\Bigl\{\max_{t \ge 0} \Psi_{p, \mu} (t u) {\;\vert\;}u \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)\setminus\{0\}\Bigr\} = \inf \,\bigl\{ \Psi_{p,\mu}(u): \ u \in \mathcal{N}_{p,\mu}\bigr\},$$ where the Nehari manifold associated to is defined by $$\label{othernehari} \mathcal{N}_{p,\mu} = \bigl\{ u \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)\setminus\{0\},\ \Psi_{p,\mu}'(u)(u)=0\bigr\}.$$
The following lemma will be needed later in the proofs, and basically states that minimizing sequences in $\mathcal{N}_{p, \mu}$ are convergent to the groundstate, up to translations. Its proof is standard and will be omitted.
\[salut\] Let $(u_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ be a sequence in $\mathcal{N}_{p,\mu}$. If $\Psi_{p,\mu}(u_k) \to \kappa_{p, \mu}$ as $k \to \infty$, then there exists sequences $(\xi_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ and $(\gamma_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ in $\{-1, 1\} $ such that $$u_k - \gamma_k V(\cdot - \xi_k) \to 0 \text{ in \(H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)\)},$$ where $V$ is the groundstate of problem .
Finally, if $u$ is a sign-changing solution of problem , then, in view of $$\label{strictOtherSolutionsN} \Psi_{p, \mu} (u) > 2^{\frac{p-2}{p-1}} \kappa_{p, \mu}
= 2 \kappa_{p, 2 \mu}.$$
Asymptotic behavior of the Riesz potential energy {#sectionAsymptoticRiesz}
=================================================
Concentrating Riesz potentials {#sectionConcentratingRiesz}
------------------------------
In order to understand the asymptotic behavior of the Riesz potential energy as $\alpha \to 0$, we rely on the following $L^2$ estimate.
\[lemmaConvolutions\] Let $s \in (0, N)$ and $\beta \in (0, \infty)$. For every $f, g \in L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and every $\alpha \in (0, \beta]$ such that $I_{\beta} \ast f \in L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and $(-\Delta)^{s/2} f \in L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, one has $${\Bigl\lvert \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (I_\alpha \ast f) g - \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} fg \Bigr\rvert}\le
\bigl(\tfrac{\alpha}{\beta} {\lVert I_{\beta} \ast f \rVert}_{L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} + \tfrac{\alpha}{s} {\lVert (-\Delta)^\frac{s}{2} f \rVert}_{L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}\bigr){\lVert g \rVert}_{L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}.$$
If $\widehat{f}$ and $\widehat{g}$ denote the Fourier transforms of the functions $f$ and $g$, we have by the Plancherel theorem and by the formula for the Fourier transform of a Riesz potential $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (I_\alpha \ast f) g - \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} fg
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl((2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha} - 1)\, \widehat{f}(\xi)\, \overline{\widehat{g}(\xi)}{\,\mathrm{d}}\xi\,.$$ We first observe by the Young inequality that if $2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert} \le 1$, then $$1 \le (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha}
\le 1 - \tfrac{\alpha}{\beta} + \tfrac{\alpha}{\beta}(2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\beta}
\le 1 + \tfrac{\alpha}{\beta}(2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\beta}$$ and therefore $${\bigl\lvert (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha} - 1 \bigr\rvert} = (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha} - 1 \le \tfrac{\alpha}{\beta} (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\beta}.$$ It follows thus by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality that $$\begin{split}
{\Bigl\lvert \int_{B_{1/(2 \pi)}} \bigl((2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha} - 1)\, \widehat{f}(\xi) \overline{\widehat{g}(\xi)} {\,\mathrm{d}}\xi \Bigr\rvert}
&\le \tfrac{\alpha}{\beta} {\Bigl\lvert \int_{B_{1/(2 \pi)}} (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\beta}\, \widehat{f}(\xi) \overline{\widehat{g}(\xi)} {\,\mathrm{d}}\xi \Bigr\rvert}\\
&\le \tfrac{\alpha}{\beta} \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-2\beta} {\bigl\lvert \widehat{f}(\xi) \bigr\rvert}^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\xi \Bigr)^\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\bigl\lvert \widehat{g}(\xi) \bigr\rvert}^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\xi \Bigr)^\frac{1}{2}\\
&= \tfrac{\alpha}{\beta} {\lVert I_{\beta} \ast f \rVert}_{L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} {\lVert g \rVert}_{L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}.
\end{split}$$ On the other hand, if $2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert} \ge 1$, we have, by Young’s inequality again, $$(2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha}
\le 1 \le \tfrac{s}{\alpha + s}(2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha}
+ \tfrac{\alpha}{\alpha + s}(2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{s}
\le (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha}
+ \tfrac{\alpha}{s}(2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{s},$$ so that $${\bigl\lvert (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha} - 1 \bigr\rvert} = 1 - (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha}\le \tfrac{\alpha}{s} (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{s}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{split}
{\Bigl\lvert \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus B_{1/(2 \pi)}} \bigl((2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha} - 1)\, \widehat{f}(\xi) \overline{\widehat{g}(\xi)} {\,\mathrm{d}}\xi \Bigr\rvert}
&\le \tfrac{\alpha}{s} {\Bigl\lvert \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus B_{1/(2 \pi)}} (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-s}\, \widehat{f}(\xi) \overline{\widehat{g}(\xi)} {\,\mathrm{d}}\xi \Bigr\rvert}\\
&\le \tfrac{\alpha}{s} \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (2 \pi {\lvert \xi \rvert})^{2s} {\bigl\lvert \widehat{f}(\xi) \bigr\rvert}^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\xi \Bigr)^\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\bigl\lvert \widehat{g}(\xi) \bigr\rvert}^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\xi \Bigr)^\frac{1}{2}\\
&= \tfrac{\alpha}{s} {\lVert (-\Delta)^\frac{s}{2} f \rVert}_{L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} {\lVert g \rVert}_{L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}\,.
\end{split}$$ This concludes the proof.
A variant of Lemma \[lemmaConvolutions\] can then be deduced, where the error is estimated in classical $L^q ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and Sobolev norms.
\[convolution0\]If $q > 2$, $\max \{\frac{2N}{N + 2}, 1\} < r < 2$, and if $$0< \alpha \le \tfrac{N}{q} - \tfrac{N}{2},$$ then $${\Bigl\lvert \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (I_\alpha \ast f) g - \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} fg \Bigr\rvert}\le
C \alpha \bigl({\lVert f \rVert}_{L^q ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} + {\lVert \nabla f \rVert}_{L^r ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} \bigr){\lVert g \rVert}_{L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}.$$
We shall apply the estimate of Lemma \[lemmaConvolutions\]. We take $\beta = N (\frac{1}{q} - \frac{1}{2})$, so that, by the classical Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality (see for example [@LiebLoss2001]\*[theorem 4.3]{}), $${\lVert I_{\beta} \ast f \rVert}_{L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} \le C {\lVert f \rVert}_{L^q ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}.$$ We next take $s = 1 - N (\frac{1}{r} - \frac{1}{2})$ and we estimate by the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality: $$\begin{split}
{\lVert (-\Delta)^\frac{s}{2} f \rVert}_{L^2}
&= {\lVert (2 \pi |\xi|)^s \Hat{f}(\xi) \rVert}_{L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N, {\,\mathrm{d}}\xi)}
= (2 \pi)^s {\lVert {\lvert \xi \rvert}^{s-1} \, {\lvert \xi \rvert} \, \Hat{f}(\xi) \rVert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^N, {\,\mathrm{d}}\xi)} \\
&= {\lVert I_{1 - s} \ast {\lvert \nabla f \rvert} \rVert}_{L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}
\le C {\lVert \nabla f \rVert}_{L^r}.\qedhere
\end{split}$$
The control in terms of ${\lVert \nabla f \rVert}_{L^r ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}$ might seem unnatural in Lemma \[convolution0\], but it is actually necessary for Lemma \[convolution0\] to hold. Indeed, if we choose a nonzero function $\psi \in C^{\infty}_0({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and define $f_n(x)=g_n(x)= e^{2\pi i\, n \eta\cdot x} \, \psi(x)$ for some fixed $\eta \in {\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus \{0\}$, clearly, ${\lvert f_n \rvert} = {\lvert f_0 \rvert}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ and then the sequence $(f_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ is bounded in $L^q ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ for every $q > 2$. By the translation properties of the Fourier transform, $\widehat{f_n}(\xi)= \widehat{\psi}(\xi- n \eta)$. Now, if $n^{\alpha_n} \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl((2 \pi{\lvert \xi \rvert})^{-\alpha_n} - 1\bigr) {\bigl\lvert \widehat{f_n}(\xi) \bigr\rvert}^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}\xi =
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl((2\pi {\lvert \zeta + n \eta \rvert})^{-\alpha_n} - 1\bigr) {\bigl\lvert \widehat{\psi}(\zeta) \bigr\rvert}^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}\zeta \\
\to -
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \widehat{\psi}(\zeta) \rvert}^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}\zeta<0.\end{gathered}$$ Observe that in this case, the sequence $({\lvert \nabla f_n \rvert})_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ is not bounded in any $L^r ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ space.
\[convolution1\] Given $u \in H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, we set $f = g = {\lvert u \rvert}^p$. By the Sobolev embedding theorem and by the Hölder inequality, we have ${\lvert u \rvert}^p \in L^q ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ for every $q >1$ such that $\frac{1}{q} \ge p (\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{N})$ and $$\nabla ({\lvert u \rvert}^p) = p \,{\lvert u \rvert}^{p-2} u \,\nabla u \ \in L^{r} ({\mathbb{R}}^N), \text{ for each \(r \in [1, \infty)\) such that } \frac{1}{r} \ge \frac{p}{2} - \frac{p - 1}{N},$$ by Hölder’s inequality. Since $\frac{1}{p} > 1 - \frac{2}{N}$ we have $$\frac{p}{2} - \frac{p - 1}{N} < \frac{1}{N} + \frac{1}{2} = \frac{N + 2}{2N},$$ and we are thus in the applicability range of Lemma \[convolution0\], and we have $${\Bigl\lvert \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert u \rvert}^{2 p} - \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert u \rvert}^p) {\lvert u \rvert}^p \Bigr\rvert}
\le C \alpha \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u \rvert}^2 \Bigr)^p.$$
Delocalizing Riesz potentials {#sectionDelocalizingRiesz}
-----------------------------
In the régime $\alpha \to N$, we consider the potential $\Tilde{I}_\alpha$ defined for $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus \{0\}$ by $$\label{eqDefUnnormalizedRieszPotential}
\Tilde{I}_\alpha (x) = \frac{1}{{\lvert x \rvert}^{N - \alpha}};$$ this potential is related to the Riesz potential as follows $$\Tilde{I}_{\alpha} = \frac{\Gamma(\tfrac{\alpha}{2})\pi^{N/2}2^{\alpha} }{\Gamma(\tfrac{N-\alpha}{2})} I_\alpha,$$ and, as $\alpha \to N$, $$\frac{\Gamma(\tfrac{\alpha}{2})\pi^{N/2}2^{\alpha} }{\Gamma(\tfrac{N-\alpha}{2})}
= \Gamma (\tfrac{N}{2}) \pi^{N/2} 2^{N - 1} (N - \alpha) \bigl(1 + o (1)\bigr).$$
In the next lemma we give un upper bound for the Riesz potential energy:
\[lemmaConvEstimate\] Let $r \in (1, \infty)$. For every $\alpha \in (N/r, N)$, if $f \in L^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N) \cap L^r ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ is nonnegative and $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$, $$(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast f) (x) \le \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f +
C \frac{N - \alpha}{(r \alpha - N)^{1 - 1/r}}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f^r \Bigr)^\frac{1}{r}.$$ In particular, if the function $g \in L^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ is nonnegative, then $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast f) \, g
\le \biggl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f\biggr) \biggl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} g\biggr)
+ C \frac{N - \alpha}{(r \alpha - N)^{1 - 1/r}}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f^r \Bigr)^\frac{1}{r} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} g.$$
Since the function $f$ is summable and nonnegative, for each $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$, $$\begin{split}
(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast f) (x) - \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \biggl(\frac{1}{{\lvert x-y \rvert}^{N - \alpha}} - 1\biggr) f (y) {\,\mathrm{d}}y
\le \int_{B_1 (x)} \biggl(\frac{1}{{\lvert x-y \rvert}^{N - \alpha}} - 1\biggr) f (y) {\,\mathrm{d}}y.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, by the classical Hölder inequality, we have $$\label{ineqTIalphaxisyr}
(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast f) (x) - \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f
\le \Bigl(\int_{B_1 (0)} \Bigl(\frac{1}{{\lvert z \rvert}^{N - \alpha}} - 1\Bigr)^\frac{r}{r - 1} \Bigr)^{1 - \frac{1}{r}}\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f^r \Bigr)^\frac{1}{r}.$$
In order to estimate the first integral, we first perform a radial integration: $$\label{eqRadialIntegration}
\int_{B_1 (0)} \Bigl(\frac{1}{{\lvert z \rvert}^{N - \alpha}} - 1\Bigr)^\frac{r}{r - 1}{\,\mathrm{d}}z
= {\lvert \partial B_1 (0) \rvert} \int_0^1 \Bigl(\frac{1 - s^{N - \alpha}}{s^{N - \alpha}}\Bigr)^\frac{r}{r - 1}s^{N - 1} {\,\mathrm{d}}s.$$ On the one hand, the latter integral can be bounded by $$\label{ineqTIalphaxisyrLargealpha}
\int_0^1 \Bigl(\frac{1 - s^{N - \alpha}}{s^{N - \alpha}}\Bigr)^\frac{r}{r - 1}s^{N - 1} {\,\mathrm{d}}s
\le \int_0^1 s^{N - (N - \alpha)\frac{r}{r - 1} - 1} {\,\mathrm{d}}s
= \frac{r - 1}{N - r \alpha}.$$ On the other hand, by elementary convexity, we have for each $s \in (0, 1]$, $$1 + (N - \alpha) \ln s
\le \exp \Bigl((N - \alpha) \ln s\Bigr) =
s^{N - \alpha},$$ and therefore $$\label{ineqTIalphaxisyrSmallalpha}
\begin{split}
\int_0^1 \Bigl(\frac{1 - s^{N - \alpha}}{s^{N - \alpha}}\Bigr)^\frac{r}{r - 1}s^{N - 1} {\,\mathrm{d}}s
&\le (N - \alpha)^\frac{r}{r - 1} \int_0^1 \Bigl(\ln \frac{1}{s} \Bigr)^\frac{r}{r - 1} s^{N - 1 - \frac{r}{r - 1}(N - \alpha)} {\,\mathrm{d}}s.
\end{split}$$ The first inequality follows from , , and .
The second inequality is obtained by multiplying the first one by $g (x)$ and integrating with respect to $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$.
Next lemma is concerned with the reversed inequality:
\[lemmaConv\] Let $r \in (1, \infty)$, $(\alpha_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ be a sequence in $(N/r, N)$ converging to $N$, $(\xi_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and let $(f_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ be a bounded sequence of functions in $L^r ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$. If $(f_n(\cdot - \xi_n))_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ converges strongly to $f$ in $L^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and if $(1/(1+|\xi_n|)^{N-\alpha_n})_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ converges to $\varrho \in [0,1]$, then $$\label{uno}
\lim_{n \to \infty} (\Tilde{I}_{\alpha_n} \ast f_n) (x) = \varrho \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f \ \mbox{ for any } x \in {\mathbb{R}}^N.$$ If moreover $(g_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ is a sequence of functions that converges to $g$ strongly in $L^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, then $$\label{dos}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (\Tilde{I}_{\alpha_n} \ast f_n)\, g_n = \varrho \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f\Bigr) \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} g \Bigr).$$
Lemma \[lemmaConv\] gives a good idea of the validity of the reversed bound of Lemma \[lemmaConvEstimate\]. Indeed, $\Tilde{I}_{\alpha_n} \ast f_n(x) \to \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f$ for *converging sequences* $f_n$, but it can fail for sequences of functions given by translations in the $x$-variable. We shall prove later that the least energy nodal solutions behave as two signed bumps whose distance diverges. As we shall see, this makes our proofs more involved in the case $\alpha$ close to $N$.
We can assume that $x=0$, by making a suitable translation. We rewrite for each $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ the quantities appearing in in integral form $$(\Tilde{I}_{\alpha_n} \ast f_n) (0) - \varrho \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f_n
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f_n (y) \biggl(\frac{1}{{\lvert y \rvert}^{N - \alpha_n}} - \rho\biggr){\,\mathrm{d}}y.$$ Given $\delta \in (0, 1)$, by the Hölder inequality and by Lemma \[lemmaConvEstimate\], we first have $$\begin{split}
{\Bigl\lvert \int_{B_\delta}f_n ( y) \biggl(\frac{1}{{\lvert y \rvert}^{N - \alpha_n}} - \rho\biggr){\,\mathrm{d}}y \Bigr\rvert}
&\le \int_{B_\delta} {\lvert f_n ( y) \rvert}\, \biggl(\frac{1}{{\lvert y \rvert}^{N - \alpha_n}} + \rho\biggr){\,\mathrm{d}}y\\
&\le (1+ \varrho) {\lvert B_\delta \rvert}^{1 - \frac{1}{p}} \| f_n\|_{L^p({\mathbb{R}}^N)} + C(N - \alpha_n) \| f_n\|_{L^r({\mathbb{R}^N})},
\end{split}$$ Next, we write $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus B_\delta}f_n (y) \biggl(\frac{1}{{\lvert y \rvert}^{N - \alpha_n}} - \rho\biggr){\,\mathrm{d}}y
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus B_\delta (\xi_n) }f_n (z - \xi_n) \biggl(\frac{1}{{\lvert z - \xi_n \rvert}^{N - \alpha_n}} - \rho\biggr) {\,\mathrm{d}}y.$$ We observe that for every $z \in {\mathbb{R}}^N $, $$\label{eqLimitRieszTranslated}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \Bigl(\frac{1}{{\lvert z - \xi_n \rvert}^{N - \alpha_n}} - \rho\Bigr) \chi_{B_\delta (\xi_n)} = 0.$$ Indeed, we have by the triangle inequality, on the one hand, $${\lvert z - \xi_n \rvert} \le {\lvert z \rvert} + {\lvert \xi_n \rvert} \le (1 + {\lvert z \rvert})(1 + {\lvert \xi_n \rvert})$$ and on the other hand, if $z \in {\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus B_\delta (\xi_n)$, we have $${\lvert z - \xi_n \rvert}
\ge (1 - \lambda) \delta + \lambda ({\lvert \xi_n \rvert} - {\lvert z \rvert})
= \lambda ({\lvert \xi_n \rvert} + 1).$$ with $\lambda = \delta/(1 + {\lvert z \rvert} + \delta)$. Therefore it follows that, if $z \not \in B_{\delta} (\xi_n)$ $$\Bigl(\frac{1}{{\lvert z \rvert} + 1}\Bigr)^{N - \alpha_n} \frac{1}{(1 + {\lvert \xi_n \rvert})^{N - \alpha_n}} \le \frac{1}{{\lvert z - \xi_n \rvert}^{N - \alpha_n}} \le \Bigl(\frac{1 + {\lvert z \rvert} + \delta}{\delta}\Bigr)^{N - \alpha_n} \frac{1}{(1 + {\lvert \xi_n \rvert})^{N - \alpha_n}},$$ and the limit follows. Therefore, by Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus B_\delta (\xi_n) }f_n (z - \xi_n) \biggl(\frac{1}{{\lvert z - \xi_n \rvert}^{N - \alpha_n}} - \rho\biggr) {\,\mathrm{d}}y = 0.$$ Since $\delta>0$ is arbitrary, the first conclusion follows.
In order to prove , we pass to a subsequence so that $g_n \to g$ almost everywhere in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ as $n \to \infty$ and for each $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $|g_n| \leq h$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ for some $h \in L^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$. By , the sequence $(\Tilde{I}_{\alpha_n} \ast f_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ converges to the constant $\varrho \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} f$ everywhere in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$. By Lemma \[lemmaConvEstimate\], the sequence $(\Tilde{I}_{\alpha_n} \ast f_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ is uniformly bounded over ${\mathbb{R}}^N$, so that Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem applies and brings the conclusion.
Proof of Theorem \[theoremMain0\] {#sectionProofTheoremMain0}
=================================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[theoremMain0\]. As a first step, in the next proposition we show that least energy nodal solutions are asymptotically odd with respect to a hyperplane.
\[puf\] Let $u_\alpha$ be a family of solutions to that changes sign and satisfying $I_\alpha (u_\alpha) \le 2 c_\alpha $, then $$\lim_{\alpha \to 0} \ \ \inf_{\xi^+, \xi^- \in {\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lVert u_\alpha - (U (\cdot - \xi^+) - U (\cdot - \xi^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} = 0.$$ Moreover, for $\alpha \in (0, N)$ small enough there exist $\xi_\alpha^+, \xi_\alpha^-$ such that $${\lVert u_\alpha - (U (\cdot - \xi_\alpha^+) - U (\cdot - \xi_\alpha^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}
=\inf_{\xi^+, \xi^- \in {\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lVert u_\alpha - (U (\cdot - \xi^+) - U (\cdot - \xi^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}$$ and $$\label{distance}
\lim_{\alpha \to 0} \, {\lvert \xi_\alpha^+ - \xi_\alpha^- \rvert} = + \infty.$$
By Proposition \[propositionControlGroundNodal\], if $u_\alpha$ is a least energy nodal solution we have $I_{\alpha}(u_\alpha) = c_\alpha^{\mathrm{nod}}< 2 c_{\alpha}$ and thus $u_\alpha$ satisfies the assumption of Proposition \[puf\].
The proof relies on some preliminary results which are stated in form of claims.
\[claim0Gst\] One has $$\lim_{\alpha \to 0} c_\alpha^{\mathrm{gst}}= \gamma_{2 p}.$$
Given $u \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N) \setminus \{0\}$, by Lemma \[convolution0\] we have, as $\alpha \to 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\alpha}^{{\mathrm{gst}}} \leq \max_{t>0} J_{\alpha}( t u) = \frac{t^2}{2} \Big (\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} |\nabla u|^2 + {\lvert u \rvert}^2 \Big) - \frac{t^{2p}}{2p} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert u \rvert}^p\bigr){\lvert u \rvert}^p \\ \to \max_{t>0} \frac{t^2}{2} \Big (\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} |\nabla u|^2 + {\lvert u \rvert}^2 \Big )- \frac{t^{2p}}{2p} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert u \rvert}^{2p} = \max_{t>0} \Phi_{2p}(tu).\end{aligned}$$ Taking the infimum with respect to $u \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N) \setminus \{0\}$, we deduce that $$\label{ineqClaim1Limsup}
\limsup_{\alpha \to 0}c_{\alpha}^{{\mathrm{gst}}} \leq \gamma_{2p}.$$ Since $$c_\alpha^{{\mathrm{gst}}} = \Big (\frac 1 2 - \frac{1}{2p} \Big) \Big (\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} |\nabla U_\alpha|^2 + U_\alpha^2 \Big),$$ the groundstate solution $U_\alpha$ remains bounded in $H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ as $\alpha \to 0$. By Lemma \[convolution0\] again, we also have $$c_{\alpha}^{{\mathrm{gst}}} =J_{\alpha}(U_\alpha) = \max_{t>0} J_{\alpha}(t U_\alpha) = \max_{t>0} \Phi_{2p}(tU_\alpha) + o (\alpha),$$ as $\alpha \to 0$. This implies $$\label{ineqClaim1Liminf}
\liminf_{\alpha \to 0}
c_{\alpha}^{{\mathrm{gst}}}
\ge \gamma_{2 p}.$$ The claims follows from the combination of the inequalities and .
\[claim0Bounded\] The family $(u_\alpha)_{\alpha > 0}$ is bounded in $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ as $\alpha \to 0$.
By assumption, we have for each $\alpha \in (0, N)$ $I_{\alpha}(u_\alpha) \le 2 c_{\alpha} $. Since for each $\alpha \in (0, N)$, we also have ${\langle I_\alpha'(u_\alpha), u_\alpha \rangle}=0$, we deduce $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^2
= \frac{2 p}{p - 1} I_\alpha (u_\alpha) \le \frac{2 p}{p - 1} 2 c_\alpha.$$ The claim follows then from Claim \[claim0Gst\].
\[claimTheorem0SignChanges\]One has $$\liminf_{\alpha \to 0} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 =
\liminf_{\alpha \to 0} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^p > 0.$$
We recall that the optimal Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality states that if $f, g \in L^\frac{2N}{N + \alpha} ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, then $$\label{ineqOptimalHLSRiesz}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (I_\alpha \ast f) g
\le C_{N, \alpha} \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert f \rvert}^\frac{2N}{N + \alpha} \Bigr)^\frac{N + \alpha}{2 N}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert g \rvert}^\frac{2N}{N + \alpha} \Bigr)^\frac{N + \alpha}{2 N},$$ and the optimal constant $C_{N, \alpha}$ is given in terms of the gamma function $\Gamma$ by $$\label{ineqOptimalHLSRieszConstant}
C_{N, \alpha} = \frac{\Gamma (\frac{N - \alpha}{2})}{2^\alpha \pi^{\alpha/2} \Gamma (\frac{N + \alpha}{2}) }
\biggl(\frac{\Gamma(\frac{N}{2})}{\Gamma (N)}\biggr)^\frac{\alpha}{N}.$$ If $p > 2$, we observe that, by the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality and by the classical Sobolev inequality $$\begin{split}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^p\\
&\le C C_{N, \alpha} \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^2 \Bigr)^\frac{p}{2}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 \Bigr)^\frac{p}{2}.
\end{split}$$ We deduce therefrom that $$1 \le C C_{N, \alpha} \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^2 \Bigr)^\frac{p}{2}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 \Bigr)^\frac{p - 2}{2}.$$ In view of , we have $$\lim_{\alpha \to 0} C_{N, \alpha} = 1,$$ and the constant $C_{N, \alpha}$ remains thus bounded as $\alpha \to 0$. Since the family $(u_\alpha)_{\alpha \in (0, N)}$ is bounded in $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ in view of Claim \[claim0Bounded\], we have, if $p > 2$, $$\liminf_{\alpha \to 0} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}{\lvert \nabla u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2
> 0.$$ The claim is thus proved in the case $p > 2$.
If $p = 2$ we adapt the strategy of [@GhimentiMorozVanSchaftingen]. Since for each $\alpha \in (0, N)$ $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^2
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^2\bigr) {\lvert u_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2
\le C C_{N, \alpha} \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^2 \Bigr)^2,$$ the functions $u_\alpha$ stay away from $0$ as $\alpha \to 0$: $$\liminf_{\alpha \to 0} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}{\lvert \nabla u_\alpha \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^2
> 0.$$ Without loss of generality, we can assume that $$\liminf_{\alpha \to 0} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha^+ \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha^+ \rvert}^2 > 0.$$ We are going to prove that $$\liminf_{\alpha \to 0} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha^- \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha^- \rvert}^2 > 0.$$ Otherwise, there would exist a sequence $(\alpha_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ in $(0, N)$ converging to $0$ such that $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}{\lvert \nabla u_{\alpha_n}^- \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_{\alpha_n}^- \rvert}^2 = 0.$$ We could then define for each $\alpha \in (0, N)$ the normalized negative part of $u_\alpha$ by $$v_\alpha = \frac{u_\alpha^-}{{\lVert u_\alpha^- \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}}.$$ By the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev and by the Sobolev inequalities, for every $\alpha \in (0, N)$, $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_{\alpha} \ast {\lvert u_{\alpha}^- \rvert}^2\bigr){\lvert u_{\alpha}^- \rvert}^2
\le C \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_{\alpha}^- \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_{\alpha}^- \rvert}^2 \Bigr)^2,$$ and therefore, we would write $$\begin{split}
1 &= \frac{\displaystyle \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_{\alpha_n} \ast {\lvert u_{\alpha_n} \rvert}^2\bigr){\lvert u_{\alpha_n}^- \rvert}^2}
{\displaystyle \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_{\alpha_n}^- \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_{\alpha_n}^- \rvert}^2}
=\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\displaystyle \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_{\alpha_n} \ast {\lvert u_{\alpha_n}^+ \rvert}^2\bigr){\lvert u_{\alpha_n}^- \rvert}^2}
{\displaystyle \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_{\alpha_n}^- \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_{\alpha_n}^- \rvert}^2}\\
&=\lim_{n \to \infty} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_{\alpha_n} \ast {\lvert u_{\alpha_n}^+ \rvert}^2\bigr){\lvert v_{\alpha_n}^- \rvert}.
\end{split}$$ Now, by taking into account Remark \[convolution1\], we would apply Lemma \[convolution0\] with $g={\lvert v_{\alpha_n} \rvert}^2$ to obtain $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_{\alpha_n} \ast {\lvert v_{\alpha_n} \rvert}^2 \bigr){\lvert u_{\alpha_n}^+ \rvert}^2
-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert u_{\alpha_n}^+ \rvert}^2 {\lvert v_{\alpha_n} \rvert}^2 \Bigr)= 0.$$ But, by construction, ${\lvert u_\alpha^+ \rvert}^2 {\lvert v_\alpha \rvert}^2 = 0$ almost everywhere in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$, and we would thus reach a contradiction.
With those results in hand, we are now in condition to prove Proposition \[puf\]. By Lemma \[convolution0\] and Remark \[convolution1\], if $\alpha \to 0$, then the family $(u_{\alpha})_{\alpha \in (0, N)}$ forms a Palais–Smale sequence for the limit problem . Moreover, by Claim \[claim0Gst\] and by our assumption $$\limsup_{\alpha \to 0} I_{\alpha}(u_{\alpha})
\le \limsup_{\alpha \to 0} 2 c^{gst}_\alpha
\le 2 \gamma_{2p}.$$ In view of , Lemma \[PS\] implies that $m \leq 2$ and $u_i = \pm U$. By Claim \[claimTheorem0SignChanges\], we can assume without loss of generality that $$\label{justone} u_\alpha = U(\cdot-\tilde{\xi}^+_\alpha) - U(\cdot-\tilde{\xi}^-_\alpha) + o(1), \ \ |\tilde{\xi}^+_\alpha - \tilde{\xi}^-_\alpha| \to +\infty.$$ We observe that, by Fatou’s lemma, for each $\alpha \in (0, N)$, $$\liminf_{{\lvert \xi^+ \rvert} + {\lvert \xi^- \rvert} \to +\infty}
{\lVert u_\alpha - (U (\cdot - \xi^+) - U (\cdot - \xi^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}
\ge \min \{{\lVert u_\alpha \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}, {\lVert U \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} \},$$ By Claim \[claimTheorem0SignChanges\], the right-hand side stays away from $0$ as $\alpha \to 0$. When $\alpha \in (0, N)$ is small enough, by the first part of the claim, the function $$(\xi^+, \xi^-) \in {\mathbb{R}}^N \times {\mathbb{R}}^N
\longmapsto {\lVert u_\alpha - (U (\cdot - \xi^+) - U (\cdot - \xi^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}$$ achieves thus its minimum at some pair of vectors $(\xi_{\alpha}^+, \xi_{\alpha}^-) \in {\mathbb{R}}^N \times {\mathbb{R}}^N$. By , that minimum goes to $0$, that is, $$u_\alpha = U(\cdot-{\xi}^+_\alpha) - U(\cdot-{\xi}^-_\alpha) + o(1).$$ We note that, again by , $|\tilde{\xi}^\pm_\alpha - {\xi}^\pm_\alpha| \to 0$. Finally, Lemma \[PS\] implies that ${\lvert \xi_\alpha^+ - \xi_\alpha^- \rvert} \to +\infty$ as $\alpha \to 0$.
\[Proof of Theorem \[theoremMain0\]\] Since the Choquard equation is invariant under translations and rotations, we can assume that for each $\alpha \in (0, N)$ sufficiently close to $0$, $\xi_{\alpha, +} = 0$ and $\xi_{\alpha,-} = \xi_{\alpha} = (m_\alpha, 0, \dotsc, 0)$, for some $m_\alpha \to
+ \infty$. We define then $R_\alpha$ to be the orthogonal reflection that sends $0$ to $\xi_\alpha$, that is, for each $ x = (x_1, \dotsc, x_N) \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$, $$R_{\alpha} (x) = (m_\alpha -x_1, x_2, \dotsc, x_N).$$ We set $v_\alpha = u_\alpha + \Breve{u}_\alpha$, where $\Breve{u}_\alpha = u_\alpha \circ R_\alpha$. We define also for every such $\alpha \in (0, N)$ the half-space $$\Omega_\alpha = \Bigl\{ x=(x_1, \dotsc, x_N) \in {\mathbb{R}}^N {\;\vert\;}x_1 < \frac{m_\alpha}{2}\Bigr\}.$$ By construction, $v_\alpha \circ R_\alpha = v_\alpha$, and thus the function $v_\alpha$ is even with respect to $\partial \Omega_\alpha$.
Our purpose is to show that for $\alpha>0$ small enough, $v_\alpha=0$, from which Theorem \[theoremMain0\] will follow immediately. The proof will rely on some preliminary results:
\[claimTheorem0Orthogonality\] For any direction $\zeta \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$, $$\begin{aligned}
{({v_\alpha} \vert {\partial_\zeta U})}_{H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)} &=0,&
&{({v_\alpha} \vert {\partial_\zeta U})}_{H^1 (\Omega_\alpha)}
= o \bigl({\lVert v_\alpha \rVert}_{H^1 (\Omega_\alpha)}\big),\end{aligned}$$ as $\alpha \to 0$.
The function $$(\xi^+, \xi^-) \in {\mathbb{R}}^N \times {\mathbb{R}}^N \mapsto {\lVert u_\alpha - (U (\cdot - \xi^+) - U (\cdot - \xi^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}^2$$ attains a minimum at $(0, \xi_{\alpha})\in {\mathbb{R}}^N \times {\mathbb{R}}^N$. Differentiating with respect to the variable $\xi^+$ in the direction $\zeta \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$, we obtain $$\label{eqTheorem0torecall}
{({u_\alpha} \vert {\partial_\zeta U})}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} = 0.$$ Reasoning in an analogous way on the variable $\xi^-$, we get $${({u_\alpha} \vert {\partial_{\zeta} U (\cdot - \xi_\alpha)})}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} = 0.$$ We now observe that
1. if $\zeta=\xi_{\alpha}$, then $\partial_\zeta U \circ R_{\alpha}(x)= -\partial_{\zeta} U (\cdot - \xi_\alpha)$,
2. if $\zeta \cdot \xi_{\alpha} = 0$, then $\partial_\zeta U \circ R_{\alpha}(x)= \partial_{\zeta} U (\cdot - \xi_\alpha)$,
so that, in any case, $${({u_\alpha} \vert {\partial_{\zeta} U (\cdot - \xi_\alpha)})}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} = \pm {({\Breve{u}_\alpha} \vert {\partial_{\zeta} U})}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}=0.$$ This, together with , concludes the proof of the first assertion. The second follows since ${\lVert \partial_\zeta U \rVert}_{H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N \setminus \Omega_\alpha)}=o(1)$.
The function $v_\alpha$ satisfies the linear equation $$\label{extra0}
\mathcal{L}_\alpha v_\alpha = 0,$$ where the linear operator $\mathcal{L}_\alpha$ is defined by $$\mathcal{L}_\alpha v = -\Delta v + v - (I_\alpha \ast G_\alpha v) H_\alpha
- (I_\alpha \ast K_\alpha) L_\alpha v,$$ with the functions $G_\alpha$, $H_\alpha$, $K_\alpha$ and $L_\alpha$ being given by $$\begin{aligned}
G_\alpha
&= \begin{cases}
\frac{{\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^p - {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p}{u_\alpha + \Breve{u}_\alpha}& \text{where \(u_\alpha \ne - \Breve{u}_\alpha\)},\\
p \,{\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} u_\alpha & \text{elsewhere},
\end{cases}\\
H_\alpha
&=\frac{1}{2} \bigl({\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} u_\alpha
- {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Breve{u}_\alpha\bigr),\\
K_\alpha &=\frac{1}{2} \bigl({\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^p + {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p\bigr),\\
L_\alpha &= \begin{cases}
\frac{{\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} u_\alpha
+ {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Breve{u}_\alpha}{u_\alpha + \Breve{u}_\alpha} & \text{where \(u_\alpha \ne -\Breve{u}_\alpha\)},\\
(p - 1) {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} & \text{elsewhere}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
By definition of $v_\alpha$ in terms of $u_\alpha$ and by the equation satisfied by $u_\alpha$, the function $v_\alpha$ obeys the equation $$\label{eqTheorem0v}
-\Delta v_\alpha + v_\alpha = (I_\alpha \ast {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^p) {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} u_\alpha \
+ (I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p) {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Breve{u}_\alpha .$$ We observe that $$\begin{gathered}
(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^p) {\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} u_\alpha
+ (I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p) {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Breve{u}_\alpha\\
=\frac{1}{2} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast ({\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^p + {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p)\bigr) ({\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} u_\alpha
+ {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Breve{u}_\alpha)\\
+ \frac{1}{2}\bigl(I_\alpha \ast ({\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^p - {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p) \bigr) ({\lvert u_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} u_\alpha
- {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Breve{u}_\alpha).\end{gathered}$$
Conclusion of the proof of Theorem \[theoremMain0\].
As commented above, Theorem \[theoremMain0\] follows if we show that $v_{\alpha}=0$ for $\alpha > 0$ small enough. We assume by contradiction that there is a sequence $(\alpha_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ in $(0, N)$ that converges to $0$ such that for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $v_{\alpha_n} \ne 0$. For each $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we define the normalized sequence $$w_n = \frac{v_{\alpha_n}}{{\lVert v_{\alpha_n} \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}}.$$ Without loss of generality, the sequence $(w_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ converges weakly in $H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ to some function $w \in H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$.
By Proposition \[puf\], we have the following convergences: $$\label{convNonlinPotentials}
\begin{aligned}
G_\alpha- p\, (U^{p-1} - U^{p-1}(\cdot - \xi_\alpha)) & \to 0
& &\text{in } L^q({\mathbb{R}}^N), &&\text{if } \tfrac{1}{2} - \tfrac{1}{N} \le \tfrac{p - 1}{q} \le \tfrac{1}{2},\\
H_\alpha - (U^{p-1} - U^{p-1}(\cdot - \xi_\alpha)) & \to 0
& &\text{in } L^q({\mathbb{R}}^N), &&\text{if } \tfrac{1}{2} - \tfrac{1}{N} \le \tfrac{p - 1}{q} \le \tfrac{1}{2},\\
K_\alpha -( U^p + U^p(\cdot- \xi_\alpha)) & \to 0
& &\text{in } L^q({\mathbb{R}}^N), &&\text{if } \tfrac{1}{2} - \tfrac{1}{N} \le \tfrac{p}{q} \le \tfrac{1}{2},\\
L_\alpha - (p-1) ( U^{p-2} + U^{p-2}(\cdot- \xi_\alpha))& \to 0
& & \text{in } L^q({\mathbb{R}}^N), &&\text{if } \tfrac{1}{2} - \tfrac{1}{N} \le \tfrac{p - 2}{q} \le \tfrac{1}{2}.
\end{aligned}$$
If we test the equation $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha} w_\alpha$, against the function $\varphi \in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, we have $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (\nabla w_\alpha \cdot \nabla \varphi + w_\alpha \varphi)
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (I_\alpha \ast G_\alpha w_\alpha) H_\alpha \varphi
+ (I_\alpha \ast K_\alpha ) L_\alpha w_\alpha\varphi$$ We now apply Lemma \[convolution0\] first to $f= G_\alpha w_\alpha$ and $g = H_\alpha \varphi$ and next to $f= K_\alpha$ and $g = L_\alpha w_\alpha \varphi$. As in Remark \[convolution1\], the boundedness of $\nabla f$ in $L^r({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ for some $r>1$ follows from the Sobolev and Hölder inequalities. In combination with the asymptotic behavior of $G_\alpha$, $H_\alpha$, $K_\alpha$, and $L_\alpha$ in , we deduce that $w$ is a weak solution of the equation $$-\Delta w + w = (2 p - 1) U^{2 p - 2} w.$$ By Step \[claimTheorem0Orthogonality\] and the nondegeneracy of the limiting problem we have $w = 0$.
For each $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we now test the equation $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha_n} v_{\alpha_n} = 0$ against $v_{{\alpha_n}}$ and divide by ${\lVert v_{{\alpha_n}} \rVert}^2_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}$, to obtain $$\label{limit1a}
\begin{split}
1 &= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla w_n \rvert}^2 + {\lvert w_n \rvert}^2\\
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_{\alpha_n} \ast (G_{\alpha_n} w_n)\bigr) H_{\alpha_n} w_n
+ \bigl(I_{\alpha_n} \ast K_{\alpha_n}\bigr) L_{\alpha_n} {\lvert w_n \rvert}^2.
\end{split}$$ By Lemma \[convolution0\], on the other hand, we have as $n \to \infty$ $$\label{limit10}
\begin{split}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_{\alpha_n} \ast (G_{\alpha_n} w_n)\bigr) &H_{\alpha_n} w_n
+ \bigl(I_{\alpha_n} \ast K_{\alpha_n}\bigr) L_{\alpha_n} {\lvert w_n \rvert}^2\\
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(G_{\alpha_n} H_{\alpha_n}
+ K_{\alpha_n} L_{\alpha_n}\bigr) {\lvert w_n \rvert}^2 + o(1)\\
& =2 \int_{\Omega_{\alpha_n}} \bigl(G_{\alpha_n} H_{\alpha_n}
+ K_{\alpha_n} L_{\alpha_n}\bigr) {\lvert w_n \rvert}^2 + o(1) \\
&= 2 (2 p - 1) \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert U \rvert}^{2p - 2} {\lvert w_n \rvert}^2 + o(1),
\end{split}$$ in view of . Since the sequence $(w_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ converges weakly to $0$ in $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, we have in view of Rellich’s compactness theorem and the decay of $U$ at infinity, $$\label{limit1b}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert U \rvert}^{2p - 2} {\lvert w_n \rvert}^2 = 0,$$ By taking into account , and are in contradiction. Hence $v_\alpha = 0$ for $\alpha$ close enough to $0$. The proof of Theorem \[theoremMain0\] is thus complete.
Proof of Theorem \[theoremMainN\] {#sectionProofTheoremMainN}
=================================
We now turn our attention to the proof of Theorem \[theoremMainN\]. The main difficulty with respect to Theorem \[theoremMain0\] comes from the fact that the asymptotics of Riesz potential energy are not as accurate when $\alpha \to N$ as in the case $\alpha \to 0$. This requires additional steps in the proof.
To alleviate the notations, we define $\underline{\alpha} = \max \{ 0, (N - 2) p - N \}$. For $\alpha \in (\underline{\alpha}, N)$, we first set $$\Tilde{u}_\alpha = (A_\alpha)^\frac{1}{2p - 2} u_\alpha,$$ where $A_\alpha$ is the normalizing constant in the Riesz potential $I_\alpha$ coming from . The function $\Tilde{u}_{\alpha}$ satisfies then the equation $$\label{cov}
-\Delta \Tilde{u}_\alpha + \Tilde{u}_\alpha
= \bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Tilde{u}_\alpha,$$ with the unnormalized Riesz potential $\Tilde{I}_\alpha$ that was defined in . We let $\Tilde{J}_\alpha$, $\Tilde{c}_\alpha^{\mathrm{gst}}$ and $\Tilde{c}_\alpha^{\mathrm{nod}}$ denote the corresponding functional, groundstate and least energy nodal solution levels.
In the next proposition we prove an analogue to Proposition \[puf\] of the previous section.
\[pufii\] If $\Tilde{u}_\alpha$ are least energy nodal solutions of , then $$\lim_{\alpha \to N} \ \ \inf_{\xi^+, \xi^- \in {\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lVert \Tilde{u}_\alpha - (V (\cdot - \xi^+) - V (\cdot - \xi^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} = 0,$$ where $V=V_2$ denotes a groundstate of for $\mu=2$. Moreover, for $\alpha \in (\underline{\alpha}, N)$ close enough to $N$ there exists vectors $\xi_\alpha^+, \xi_\alpha^-$ such that $${\lVert \Tilde{u}_\alpha - (V (\cdot - \xi_\alpha^+) - V(\cdot - \xi_\alpha^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}
=\inf_{\xi^+, \xi^- \in {\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lVert \Tilde{u}_\alpha - (V (\cdot - \xi^+) - V (\cdot - \xi^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)};$$ moreover they satisfy the asymptotics $$\lim_{\alpha \to N} {\lvert \xi_\alpha^+ - \xi_\alpha^- \rvert} = \infty,
\qquad \text{and}\qquad
\lim_{\alpha \to N} {\lvert \xi_\alpha^+ - \xi_\alpha^- \rvert}^{N - \alpha} = 1.$$
The proof of Proposition \[pufii\] requires some preliminaries, stated in the form of claims.
\[claimTheoremNCvgGst\] One has $$\lim_{\alpha \to N} \Tilde{c}_\alpha^{\mathrm{gst}}= \kappa_{p, 1}.$$
We recall that the quantity $\kappa_{p,1}$ is the groundstate level of the limiting problem defined in .
Given $u \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)\setminus \{0\}$, by Lemma \[lemmaConv\] with $\xi_n=0$ we have, as $\alpha \to N$, $$\begin{split}
\Tilde{c}_{\alpha}^{{\mathrm{gst}}}
&\leq \max_{t>0} J_{\alpha}( t u)
= \frac{t^2}{2} \Big (\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} |\nabla u|^2 + {\lvert u \rvert}^2 \Big) - \frac{t^{2p}}{2p} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert u \rvert}^p){\lvert u \rvert}^p \\
&\to \max_{t>0} \frac{t^2}{2} \Big (\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} |\nabla u|^2 + {\lvert u \rvert}^2 \Big )- \frac{t^{2p}}{2p} \Big ( \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert u \rvert}^{p} \Big )^2 = \max_{t>0} \Psi_{p,1}(tu).
\end{split}$$ Taking the infimum with respect to $u \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)\setminus \{0\}$, we get that $\limsup_{\alpha \to N} \Tilde{c}_{\alpha}^{{\mathrm{gst}}} \leq \kappa_{p, 1}$. In particular, the groundstate solution $\Tilde{U}_\alpha$ of remains bounded in $H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ as $\alpha \to N$, since $$\Tilde{c}_\alpha^{{\mathrm{gst}}} = \Big (\frac 1 2 - \frac{1}{2p} \Big) \Big (\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} |\nabla \Tilde{U}_\alpha|^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{U}_\alpha \rvert}^2 \Big).$$ Lemma \[lemmaConvEstimate\] yields $$\liminf_{\alpha \to N} \Tilde{c}_{\alpha}^{{\mathrm{gst}}} = \liminf_{\alpha \to N} \max_{t>0} J_{\alpha}(t U_\alpha) \geq \liminf_{\alpha \to N} \max_{t>0} \Psi_{p,1}(tU_\alpha) \geq \kappa_{p,1},$$ from which the reversed inequality follows.
\[claimTheoremNBounded\] The family $(\Tilde{u}_\alpha)_{\alpha \in (\underline{\alpha}, N)}$ is bounded in $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ as $\alpha \to N$.
We observe that, by Proposition \[propositionControlGroundNodal\], $$\Bigl(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2 p}\Bigr)
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^2
= \Tilde{J}_\alpha (\Tilde{u}_\alpha)
\le 2 \Tilde{c}_\alpha^{\mathrm{gst}},$$ and the conclusion follows then from Claim \[claimTheoremNCvgGst\].
\[claimTheoremNSignChanges\] One has $$\liminf_{\alpha \to N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2>0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\liminf_{\alpha \to N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^{\pm} \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^p > 0.$$
We recall that by the optimal Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality for all functions $f, g \in L^\frac{2N}{N + \alpha} ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, we have $$\label{ineqOptimalHLSPower}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast f) g
\le \Tilde{C}_{N, \alpha} \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert f \rvert}^\frac{2N}{N + \alpha} \Bigr)^\frac{N + \alpha}{2 N}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert g \rvert}^\frac{2N}{N + \alpha} \Bigr)^\frac{N + \alpha}{2 N},$$ with an optimal constant $\Tilde{C}_{N, \alpha}$ that can be expressed as $$\label{ineqOptimalHLSPowerConstant}
\Tilde{C}_{N, \alpha}
= \frac{\pi^\frac{N - \alpha}{2} \Gamma (\frac{\alpha}{2})}
{\Gamma (\frac{N + \alpha}{2}) }
\biggl(\frac{\Gamma (N)}{\Gamma(\frac{N}{2})}\biggr)^\frac{\alpha}{N}.$$ By the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality and by the Sobolev inequality, we observe that $$\begin{split}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^p\\
&\le C \Tilde{C}_{N, \alpha} \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^2 \Bigr)^\frac{p}{2}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 \Bigr)^\frac{p}{2}.
\end{split}$$ so that, since $p > 2$, we have $$1 \le C \Tilde{C}_{N, \alpha}\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^2 \Bigr)^\frac{p}{2}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 \Bigr)^\frac{p - 2}{2}.$$ In view of , we have $$\lim_{\alpha \to N} \Tilde{C}_{N, \alpha}
= 1,$$ so that, by Claim \[claimTheoremNBounded\], $$\liminf_{\alpha \to N}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}{\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^2 = \liminf_{\alpha \to N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^p > 0$$
For the second estimate, we write, by the positive definiteness of the Riesz potential energy and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality (see [@LiebLoss2001]\*[Theorem 9.8]{}), $$\begin{split}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} &\bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\\
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert u_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p
- \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\\
&\ge \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert u_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p
- \Big ( \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^p \Big )^\frac{1}{2}.
\end{split}$$ The conclusion follows then from the fact that $u_\alpha^+ \ne 0$,from the boundedness of the family $u_\alpha^-$ in $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and from the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality .
\[cnodlimit\] We have $$\lim_{\alpha \to N} \Tilde{c}_{\alpha}^{{\mathrm{nod}}}
= 2 \kappa_{p, 2}
= 2^\frac{p - 2}{p - 1} \kappa_{p, 1}.$$ Moreover, define $t_\alpha, s_\alpha \in (0, \infty)$ such that $$t_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \in \mathcal{N}_{p,2}, \qquad \text{and} \qquad s_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \in \mathcal{N}_{p,2}$$ where $\mathcal{N}_{p,2}$ is the Nehari manifold associated to the functional $\Psi_{p, 2}$ (see ). Then, $t_\alpha$, $s_\alpha$ are bounded and the satisfy the following asymptotics as $\alpha \to 0$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqRieszYoungbis}
t_\alpha^p s_\alpha^p\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_{\alpha}^- \rvert}^p = \frac{t_\alpha^{2 p}}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_{\alpha}^+ \rvert}^p +
\frac{s_\alpha^{2 p}}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_{\alpha}^- \rvert}^p + o(1),\\
\label{ciao2bis}
\Psi_{p, 2} (t_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+) \to \kappa_{p, 2}, \ \ \Psi_{p, 2} (s_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^-) \to \kappa_{p, 2}.\end{gathered}$$
We take a function $v \in C^\infty_c ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and we choose a vector $\xi \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$ such that ${\lvert \xi \rvert} > \operatorname{diam}(\operatorname{supp} v )$. We now define the function $u : {\mathbb{R}}^N \to {\mathbb{R}}$ for each $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$ by $u (x) = v (x) - v (x - \xi)$. In view of Lemma \[lemmaConv\], we have $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert t u^+ + s u^- \rvert}^p\bigr)\,{\lvert t u^+ + s u^- \rvert}^p
= \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert t u^+ + s u^- \rvert}^p\Bigr)^2 + o (1)\, ({\lvert t \rvert}^{2 p} + {\lvert s \rvert}^{2 p}).$$ It follows therefore that $$\label{eqlimTildeJPsi}
\lim_{\alpha \to N} \max\, \bigl\{ \Tilde{J}_\alpha (t u^+ + s u^-) {\;\vert\;}t, s \in [0, \infty)\}
\le \max\, \{ \Psi_{p, 1} (t u^+ + s u^-) {\;\vert\;}t, s \in [0, \infty) \bigr\}.$$ Moreover, we have for every $s, t \in [0, \infty)$, $$\begin{split}
\label{eqPsi12}
\Psi_{p, 1} (t u^+ + s u^-)
&= \frac{t^2 + s^2}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla v \rvert}^2 + {\lvert v \rvert}^2 - \frac{(t^{p} + s^{p})^2}{2 p}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert v \rvert}^p \Bigr)^2\\
&\le r^2 \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla v \rvert}^2 + {\lvert v \rvert}^2 - \frac{2 r^{2p}}{p}
\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert v \rvert}^p \Bigr)^2 = 2 \Psi_{p, 2} (r v),
\end{split}$$ where $r = \sqrt{\frac{t^2 + s^2}{2}}$. By combining and , we get, in view of the definition of the level $\Tilde{c}_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{nod}}$ $$\limsup_{\alpha \to N} \Tilde{c}_\alpha^{\mathrm{nod}}\le 2 \Psi_{p, 2} (r v).$$ Since the latter inequality holds for every $v \in C^\infty_c ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and since the set $C^\infty_c ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ is dense in the Sobolev space $H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, we have in view of the characterization and of the identity , $$\limsup_{\alpha \to N} \Tilde{c}_\alpha^{\mathrm{nod}}\le 2 \kappa_{p, 2} = 2^\frac{p - 2}{p - 1} \kappa_{p, 1}.$$
For the reversed inequality, first observe that $$t_\alpha^{2(p-1)}= \tfrac{\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}^N}} |\nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+|^2 + |\Tilde{u}_\alpha^+|^2 }{\displaystyle 2 \Big (\int_{{\mathbb{R}^N}} |\Tilde{u}_\alpha^+|^p \Big)^2 }
\qquad \text{and}\qquad
s_\alpha^{2(p-1)}= \tfrac{\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}^N}} |\nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha^-|^2 + |\Tilde{u}_\alpha^-|^2 }{\displaystyle2 \Big (\int_{{\mathbb{R}^N}} |\Tilde{u}_\alpha^-|^p \Big)^2 }.$$ Combining Lemma \[lemmaConvEstimate\] and Claim \[claimTheoremNSignChanges\], we conclude that $t_\alpha$ and $s_\alpha$ remain bounded and bounded away from $0$ as $\alpha \to N$. Then, $$\label{eqFirsurysr}
\Tilde{c}_\alpha^{\mathrm{nod}}= \Tilde{J}_\alpha (\Tilde{u}_\alpha)
\ge \Tilde{J}_\alpha (t_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ + s_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^-).$$ By the positive definiteness of the Riesz potential energy and by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality (see [@LiebLoss2001]\*[Theorem 9.8]{}), we have $$\label{eqRieszYoung}
\begin{split}
t_\alpha ^p s_\alpha ^p\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_{\alpha}^- \rvert}^p \le \frac{t_\alpha^{2 p}}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_{\alpha}^+ \rvert}^p +
\frac{s_\alpha^{2 p}}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_{\alpha}^- \rvert}^p.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, in view of , we deduce that $$\label{eqTildecalphaDecoupled}
\begin{split}
\Tilde{c}_\alpha^{\mathrm{nod}}\ge {} \frac{t_\alpha^2}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^2 &+ {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^2
-\frac{t_\alpha^{2 p}}{p} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\\
&+ \frac{s_\alpha^2}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^2
-\frac{s_\alpha^{2p}}{p} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^p) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^p.
\end{split}$$
By Lemma \[lemmaConvEstimate\], we have, as $\alpha \to N$, $$\label{ciao}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^p
\le \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^p\Bigr)^2 + O (N - \alpha).$$ In view of this leads us to $$\label{ciao2}
\Tilde{c}_\alpha^{\mathrm{nod}}\ge \Psi_{p, 2} (t_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+) + \Psi_{p, 2} (s_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^-)
+ O (N - \alpha).$$ By the characterization and by the identity , it follows that $$\liminf_{\alpha \to N} \Tilde{c}_\alpha^{\mathrm{nod}}\ge 2 \kappa_{p, 2} = 2^\frac{p - 2}{p - 1} \kappa_{p, 1},$$ which proves the first part of the claim.
As a byproduct, the inequalities and become equalities in the limit $\alpha \to N$; this gives and .
We are now in conditions to prove Proposition \[pufii\]. First, let us show that $t_{\alpha} \to 1$ and $s_{\alpha} \to 1$ as $\alpha \to N$. In view of Claim \[claimTheoremNBounded\] and Lemma \[lemmaConvEstimate\], and by using the positive definiteness of the Riesz potential energy and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality (see [@LiebLoss2001]\*[Theorem 9.8]{}) we have: $$\begin{split}
\Tilde{c}_\alpha^{\mathrm{nod}}= \Tilde{J}_\alpha (\Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ + \Tilde{u}_\alpha^-)
&\ge \frac{1}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha^+ \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha^+ \rvert}^2
- \frac{1}{p}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl( I_\alpha \ast {\lvert u_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\bigr){\lvert u_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\\
&\qquad
+\frac{1}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla u_\alpha^- \rvert}^2 + {\lvert u_\alpha^- \rvert}^2
- \frac{1}{p}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl( I_\alpha \ast {\lvert u_\alpha^- \rvert}^p\bigr){\lvert u_\alpha^- \rvert}^p\\
&\ge \Psi_{p, 2} (\Tilde{u}_\alpha^+) + \Psi_{p, 2} (\Tilde{u}_\alpha^-) + o (1).
\end{split}$$ By Claim \[cnodlimit\], we have$$\begin{split}
2 \kappa_{p, 2} &\ge \Psi_{p, 2} (t_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+) + \Psi_{p, 2} (s_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^-)\\
&\qquad+ \Psi_{p, 2} (\Tilde{u}_\alpha^+) - \Psi_{p, 2} (t_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+) + \Psi_{p, 2} (\Tilde{u}_\alpha^-) - \Psi_{p, 2} (s_\alpha \Tilde{u}_\alpha^-) + o (1)\\
&\ge 2 \kappa_{p, 2} +
\frac{1}{2}\biggl(1 - \Bigl(1 - \frac{1}{p}\Bigr)t_\alpha^2 - \frac{1}{p t_\alpha^{2 p - 2}} \biggr)
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^2 \\
&\qquad+
\frac{1}{2}\biggl(1 - \Bigl(1 - \frac{1}{p}\Bigr)s_\alpha^2 - \frac{1}{p s_\alpha^{2 p - 2}} \biggr)
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^2 + {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^2 + o (1)
\end{split}$$ Since the integrals on the right-hand side remain bounded away from $0$ (Claim \[claimTheoremNSignChanges\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \to \infty} 1 - \Bigl(1 - \frac{1}{p}\Bigr)t_\alpha^2 - \frac{1}{p t_\alpha^{2 p - 2}} &= 0,&
&\text{and}&
\lim_{n \to \infty} 1 - \Bigl(1 - \frac{1}{p}\Bigr)s_\alpha^2 - \frac{1}{p s_\alpha^{2 p - 2}} & = 0.\end{aligned}$$ By Young’s inequality, we have for each $\tau \in (0, \infty)$, $$1 \le \frac{1}{p} \frac{1}{\tau^{2 p - 2}} + \Bigl(1 - \frac{1}{p}\Bigr) \tau^2,$$ Therefore the function $ \theta : (0, \infty) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ defined for every $\tau \in (0, \infty)$ $$\theta (\tau) = 1 - \Bigl(1 - \frac{1}{p}\Bigr)\tau^2 - \frac{1}{p \tau^{2 p - 2}},$$ is nonnegative and $\theta (\tau) = 0$ if and only if $\tau = 1$. Since we have $\lim_{\tau \to 0} \theta (\tau) = \infty$ and $\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \theta (\tau) = \infty$, we conclude that $t_\alpha \to 1$ and $s_\alpha \to 1$ as $\alpha \to N$.
By , the families $t_\alpha u_\alpha^+$, $s_\alpha u_\alpha^-$ minimize the functional $\Psi_{p,2}$ restricted to its Nehari manifold $\mathcal{N}_{p,2}$ (as $\alpha \to N$ ). Lemma \[salut\] implies the existence of vectors $\Tilde{\xi}_\alpha^+$, $\Tilde{\xi}_\alpha^- \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$ such that $$\label{solounavez}
u_{\alpha}^+ - V(\cdot - \Tilde{\xi}_\alpha^+) \to 0,\quad
u_{\alpha}^- - V(\cdot - \Tilde{\xi}_\alpha^-) \to 0 \quad \text{in \(H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)\)},$$ as $\alpha \to N$ where $V=V_2$ is the groundstate of problem for $\mu=2$. In particular,
$$u_{\alpha} - (V(\cdot - \Tilde{\xi}_\alpha^+) - V(\cdot - \Tilde{\xi}_\alpha^-) ) \to 0 \quad \text{in \(H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)\)}.$$
If the sequence $\Tilde{\xi}_\alpha^+ - \Tilde{\xi}_\alpha^-$ were bounded, taking positive and negative part of the above expression yields a contradiction with . Hence $|\Tilde{\xi}_\alpha^+ - \Tilde{\xi}_\alpha^-| \to +\infty$. Then, $$\lim_{\alpha \to N} \ \ \inf_{\xi^+, \xi^- \in {\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lVert u_{\alpha} - (V (\cdot - \xi^+) - V (\cdot - \xi^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} = 0.$$ Since by Fatou’s lemma, $$\liminf_{{\lvert \xi^+ \rvert} + {\lvert \xi^- \rvert} \to +\infty} {\lVert \Tilde{u}_\alpha - (V (\cdot - \xi^+) - V (\cdot - \xi^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} \ge \min\,\bigl\{{\lVert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}, {\lVert V \rVert}_{H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)}\bigr\},$$ the function $$(\xi^+, \xi^-) \in {\mathbb{R}}^N \times {\mathbb{R}}^N \longmapsto {\lVert \Tilde{u}_\alpha - (V (\cdot - \xi^+) - V (\cdot - \xi^-)) \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}$$ attains its infimum at some pair of vectors $(\xi_{\alpha}^+, \xi_{\alpha}^-) \in {\mathbb{R}}^N \times {\mathbb{R}}^N$ for $\alpha$ sufficiently close to $N$. As in Section \[sectionProofTheoremMain0\] we can conclude that $| \xi_\alpha^{\pm} - \tilde{\xi}_\alpha^\pm| \to 0$; in particular, $|{\xi}_\alpha^+ - {\xi}_\alpha^-| \to +\infty$.
Finally, we prove that ${\lvert \xi_\alpha^+ - \xi_\alpha^- \rvert}^{N-\alpha} \to 1$ as $\alpha \to N$. By , $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_{\alpha}^- \rvert}^p \to \frac{1}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_{\alpha}^+ \rvert}^p +
\frac{1}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^- \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_{\alpha}^- \rvert}^p.$$ But, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^+ \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_{\alpha}^- \rvert}^p = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (I_\alpha \ast V(\cdot- \xi_\alpha^+)^p) V(\cdot- \xi_\alpha^-)^p + o(1) \\ =\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (I_\alpha \ast V(\cdot- (\xi_\alpha^+ - \xi_\alpha^-)^p) V^p + o(1),\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we have just made a change of variables. Ana6logously, $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha^\pm \rvert}^p\bigr) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_{\alpha}^\pm \rvert}^p
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast V(\cdot- \xi_\alpha^\pm)^p\bigr)\, V(\cdot- \xi_\alpha^\pm)^p + o(1)
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_\alpha \ast V^p\bigr)\, V^p + o(1).$$ Lemma \[lemmaConv\] implies that ${\lvert \xi_\alpha^+ - \xi_\alpha^- \rvert}^{N - \alpha} \to 1$, concluding the proof.
With Proposition \[pufii\] in hand, we follow the same ideas used to prove Theorem \[theoremMain0\]. Also here we can assume without loss of generality that $\xi_{\alpha}^+ = 0$ and $\xi_{\alpha}^- = \xi_{\alpha}= (m_\alpha, 0, \dotsc, 0)$.
By Proposition \[pufii\], we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{key_estimate2}
\lim_{\alpha \to N} m_\alpha = \lim_{\alpha \to N} {\lvert \xi_\alpha \rvert} &= \infty,&
&\text{ and }&
\lim_{\alpha \to N} m_\alpha^{N-\alpha} = \lim_{\alpha \to N} {\lvert \xi_{\alpha} \rvert}^{N-\alpha} &= 1.\end{aligned}$$ Again we define then $R_\alpha$ to be the orthogonal reflection of ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ that sends $0$ to $\xi_\alpha$, that is for each $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$ $$R_{\alpha} (x) = (m_\alpha -x_1, x_2, \dotsc, x_N).$$ We also define the functions $\Breve{u}_\alpha = \Tilde{u}_\alpha \circ R_\alpha$, and $v_\alpha = \Tilde{u}_\alpha + \Breve{u}_\alpha$, and the half-space $$\Omega_\alpha = \bigl\{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^N {\;\vert\;}\xi_\alpha \cdot x < {\lvert \xi_\alpha \rvert}^2/2\bigr\}.$$ By construction, $v_\alpha \circ R_\alpha = v_\alpha$, and thus the function $v_\alpha$ is even with respect to $\partial \Omega_\alpha$.
By Proposition \[pufii\], we have $v_\alpha \to 0$ in $H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ as $\alpha \to N$. We will show that for $\alpha$ sufficiently close to $N$, we have $v_\alpha=0$, that is, the solution $\Tilde{u}_\alpha$ has an odd reflection symmetry with respect to the hyperplane $\partial \Omega_\alpha$.
\[claimTheoremNOrthogonality\] For every direction $\zeta \in {\mathbb{R}}^N$, $$\begin{aligned}
{({v_\alpha} \vert {\partial_\zeta V})}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)} & = 0,&
&\text{ and }&
{({v_\alpha} \vert {\partial_\zeta V})}_{H^1 (\Omega_\alpha)} & = o \bigl({\lVert v_\alpha \rVert}_{H^1 (\Omega_\alpha)}\big).\end{aligned}$$
The proof is the same as Step 1 in Theorem \[theoremMain0\].
The function $v_\alpha$ satisfies the linear equation $$\label{extra}
\mathcal{L}_\alpha v_\alpha = 0 \qquad \text{in \({\mathbb{R}}^N\)},$$ where the linear differential operator $\mathcal{L}_\alpha$ is defined by $$\mathcal{L}_\alpha v = -\Delta v + v - (\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast (G_\alpha v)) H_\alpha
- (\Tilde{I}_\alpha \ast K_\alpha ) L_\alpha v,$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
G_\alpha
&= \begin{cases}
\frac{{\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p - {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p}{\Tilde{u}_\alpha + \Breve{u}_\alpha}& \text{where \(\Tilde{u}_\alpha \ne - \Breve{u}_\alpha\)},\\
p {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Tilde{u}_\alpha & \text{elsewhere},
\end{cases}\\
H_\alpha
&=\frac{1}{2} \bigl({\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Tilde{u}_\alpha
- {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Breve{u}_\alpha\bigr),\\
K_\alpha &=\frac{1}{2} ({\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p + {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^p),\\
L_\alpha &= \begin{cases}
\frac{{\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Tilde{u}_\alpha
+ {\lvert \Breve{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} \Breve{u}_\alpha}{\Tilde{u}_\alpha + \Breve{u}_\alpha} & \text{where \(\Tilde{u}_\alpha \ne -\Breve{u}_\alpha\)},\\
(p - 1) {\lvert \Tilde{u}_\alpha \rvert}^{p - 2} & \text{elsewhere}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Again, the proof is identical to that of Step 2 of Theorem \[theoremMain0\].
Conclusion of the proof of Theorem \[theoremMainN\].
The idea here is also very closely related to that of Theorem \[theoremMain0\]; the main difference is in the way one passes to the limit. As commented above, Theorem \[theoremMainN\] follows if we show that $v_{\alpha}=0$ for $\alpha$ sufficiently close $N$. Let us assume by contradiction that there is a sequence $(\alpha_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ in $(\underline{\alpha}, N)$, $\alpha_n \to N$ such that $v_{\alpha_n} \ne 0$. We define for each $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ the normalized functions $$w_n = \frac{v_{\alpha_n}}{{\lVert v_{\alpha_n} \rVert}}.$$ Without loss of generality, we can assume that the sequence $(w_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ converges weakly in $H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ to some function $w \in H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)$.
By Proposition \[pufii\], we have that $$\label{eqTheoremNCvgcs}
\begin{aligned}
G_\alpha- p\, \bigl(V^{p-1} - V^{p-1}(\cdot - \xi_\alpha)\bigr) & \to 0
& &\text{in } L^q({\mathbb{R}}^N),
& & \text{if } \tfrac{1}{2}-\tfrac{1}{N} \le \tfrac{p - 1}{q} \le \tfrac{1}{2}\\
H_\alpha - \bigl(V^{p-1} - V^{p-1}(\cdot - \xi_\alpha)\bigr) & \to 0
& &\text{in } L^q({\mathbb{R}}^N),
& & \text{if } \tfrac{1}{2}-\tfrac{1}{N} \le \tfrac{p - 1}{q} \le \tfrac{1}{2},\\
K_\alpha - \bigl( V^p + V^p(\cdot- \xi_\alpha)\bigr) & \to 0
& &\text{in } L^q({\mathbb{R}}^N),
& & \text{if } \tfrac{1}{2}-\tfrac{1}{N} \le \tfrac{p}{q} \le \tfrac{1}{2},\\
L_\alpha - (p-1) \bigl( V^{p-2} + V^{p-2}(\cdot- \xi_\alpha)\bigr)& \to 0
& & \text{in } L^q({\mathbb{R}}^N),
& & \text{if } \tfrac{1}{2}-\tfrac{1}{N} \le \tfrac{p}{q} \le \tfrac{1}{2}.
\end{aligned}$$
We test the equation against $\varphi \in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and we obtain, in view of , $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqylan}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} (\nabla w_n \cdot \nabla \varphi + w_n \varphi) \\
= p \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \frac{ \bigl(V^{p-1}(x) - V^{p-1}(x - \xi_{\alpha_n})\bigr)\, w_n(x)\, \bigl(V^{p-1}(y) - V^{p-1}(y - \xi_{\alpha_n})\bigr)\, \varphi(y)}{{\lvert x - y \rvert}^{N-{\alpha_n}}} {\,\mathrm{d}}x {\,\mathrm{d}}y \\ + (p-1) \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \frac{ \bigl(V^{p}(x) + V^{p}(x - \xi_{\alpha_n})\bigr)\, \bigl(V^{p-2}(y) +V^{p-2}(y - \xi_{\alpha_n})\bigr)\,w_n(y)\, \varphi(y)}{{\lvert x - y \rvert}^{N-{\alpha_n}}} {\,\mathrm{d}}x {\,\mathrm{d}}y\\ + o(1).\end{gathered}$$
We claim that $$\label{last}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \frac{ \bigl(V^{p-1}(x) - V^{p-1}(x - \xi_{\alpha_n})\bigr)\, w_n(x)\, \bigl(V^{p-1}(y) - V^{p-1}(y - \xi_{\alpha_n})\bigr)\, \varphi(y)}{{\lvert x - y \rvert}^{N-{\alpha_n}}} {\,\mathrm{d}}x {\,\mathrm{d}}y \to 0.$$ Indeed, we observe that $V^{p-1} w_n \to V^{p-1} w$ and $(V^{p-1}(y) - V^{p-1}(y - \xi_{\alpha_n})) \varphi(y) \to V^{p-1}(y) \varphi(y)$ in $L^q({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, for $q \in [1, \frac{2N}{N-2})$. By Lemma \[lemmaConv\], $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \to +\infty} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \frac{ V^{p-1}(x) w_n(x) (V^{p-1}(y) - V^{p-1}(y - \xi_{\alpha_n})) \varphi(y)}{{\lvert x - y \rvert}^{N-{\alpha_n}}} {\,\mathrm{d}}x {\,\mathrm{d}}y \\
= \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} V^{p-1} w_n\Bigr) \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}
V^{p-1} \varphi \Bigr). \end{aligned}$$
Moreover, by the evenness of $w_n$ with respect to $\partial \Omega_\alpha$, and since $R_\alpha (\xi_\alpha) = 0$, we have ${\lvert R_\alpha (z) - \xi_{\alpha} \rvert} = {\lvert z \rvert}$. Recalling that $V$ is radially symmetric, we have by changes of variable $\check{x}=R_\alpha(x)$ and $\check{y}= R_\alpha (y)$, $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \frac{ V^{p-1}(x-\xi_{\alpha_n})\, w_n(x)\, \bigl(V^{p-1}(y) - V^{p-1}(y - \xi_{\alpha_n})\bigr)\, \varphi(y)}{{\lvert x - y \rvert}^{N-{\alpha_n}}} {\,\mathrm{d}}x {\,\mathrm{d}}y\\
=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \frac{ V^{p-1}(\check{x})\, w_n(\check{x})\,\bigl(V^{p-1}(\check{y} - \xi_{\alpha_n}) - V^{p-1}(\check{y})\bigr)\, \check{\varphi}(\check{y} - \xi_{\alpha_n})}{{\lvert \check{x} - \check{y} \rvert}^{N-{\alpha_n}}} {\,\mathrm{d}}\check{x} {\,\mathrm{d}}\check{y},\end{gathered}$$ where $\check{\varphi} (y_1, y_2, \dotsc, y_N) = \varphi (-y_1, y_2, \dotsc, y_N)$. Again by Lemma \[lemmaConv\] and by the radial symmetry of $V$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \to +\infty} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \frac{ V^{p-1}(x-\xi_{\alpha_n})\, w_n(x) \,(V^{p-1}(y) - V^{p-1}(y - \xi_{\alpha_n})) \varphi(y)}{{\lvert x - y \rvert}^{N-{\alpha_n}}} {\,\mathrm{d}}x {\,\mathrm{d}}y \\ = \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} V^{p-1} w_n\Bigr) \Bigl( \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}
V^{p-1} \check{\varphi} \Bigr)
=\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} V^{p-1} w_n\Bigr) \Bigl( \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}
V^{p-1} \varphi \Bigr),\end{aligned}$$ Hence follows.
Reasoning analogously and recalling that $\varphi$ has compact support, the second term in the right-hand side of converges to $$2 (p-1) \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} V^{p}\Bigr) \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}V^{p-2} w \varphi\Bigr).$$ We conclude that $w$ is a (weak) solution of $$-\Delta w + w = 2 (p - 1) {\lVert V \rVert}_{L^p ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}^p V^{p - 2} w.$$ By Step \[claimTheoremNOrthogonality\] and the nondegeneracy of (recall that $V=V_2$ is a groundstate solution of for $\mu=2$), we have $w = 0$.
We now multiply the equation by the function $v_{{\alpha_n}}$, integrate and divide by ${\lVert v_{{\alpha_n}} \rVert}_{H^1 ({\mathbb{R}}^N)}^2$, to obtain: $$\begin{split}
1 =& \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} {\lvert \nabla w_n \rvert}^2 + {\lvert w_n \rvert}^2 = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \bigl(I_{\alpha_n} \ast (G_{\alpha_n} w_n)\bigr) H_{\alpha_n} w_n
+ (I_{\alpha_n} \ast K_{\alpha_n}) L_{\alpha_n} w_n^2 + o(1) \\
= &\, p \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \frac{ \bigl(V^{p-1}(x) - V^{p-1}(x - \xi_{\alpha_n})\bigr)\, w_n(x)\, \bigl(V^{p-1}(y) - V^{p-1}(y - \xi_{\alpha_n})\bigr)\, w_n (y)}{{\lvert x - y \rvert}^{N-{\alpha_n}}} {\,\mathrm{d}}x {\,\mathrm{d}}y \\
& + (p-1) \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \frac{\bigl(V^{p}(x) + V^{p}(x - \xi_{\alpha_n})\bigr)\, \bigl(V^{p-2}(y) +V^{p-2}(y - \xi_{\alpha_n})\bigr)\,w^2_{n}(y) }{{\lvert x - y \rvert}^{N-{\alpha_n}}} {\,\mathrm{d}}x {\,\mathrm{d}}y\\ & \qquad+ o(1).
\end{split}$$ We argue again as in the proof of to conclude that the first term in the right-hand side converges to $0$. Again, Lemma \[lemmaConv\] and imply that the second term in the right-hand side converges to $$4 (p-1) \Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} V^{p} \Bigr)\Bigl(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} V^{p-2} w^2 \Bigr) = 0,$$ since $V^{p-2} w_n^2 \to V^{p-2} w^2=0$ strongly in $L^q({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, for $q \in [1, \frac{N}{N-2})$. This yields the desired contradiction and concludes the proof of Theorem \[theoremMainN\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using direct numerical simulations of Rayleigh-Bénard convection (RBC), we perform a comparative study of the spectra and fluxes of energy and entropy, and the scaling of large-scale quantities for large and infinite Prandtl numbers in two (2D) and three (3D) dimensions. We observe close similarities between the 2D and 3D RBC, in particular the kinetic energy spectrum $E_u(k) \sim k^{-13/3}$, and the entropy spectrum exhibits a dual branch with a dominant $k^{-2}$ spectrum. We showed that the dominant Fourier modes in the 2D and 3D flows are very close. Consequently, the 3D RBC is quasi two-dimensional, which is the reason for the similarities between the 2D and 3D RBC for large- and infinite Prandtl numbers.'
author:
- Ambrish Pandey
- 'Mahendra K. Verma'
- 'Anando G. Chatterjee'
- Biplab Dutta
title: Similarities between 2D and 3D convection for large Prandtl number
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Thermal convection is an important mode of heat transport in the interiors of stars and planets, as well as in many engineering applications. Rayleigh-Bénard convection (RBC) is an idealized model of thermal convection, in which a fluid, placed between two horizontal thermally conducting plates, is heated from the bottom and cooled from the top [@Ahlers:RMP2009]. The resulting convective motion is primarily governed by two nondimensional parameters, the Rayleigh number $\mathrm{Ra}$, which is the ratio between the buoyancy and viscous force, and the Prandtl number $\mathrm{Pr}$, which is the ratio between the kinematic viscosity and thermal diffusivity.
Earth’s mantle and viscous fluids have large Prandtl number, and their convective flow is dominated by sharp “plumes". Schmalzl *et al.* [@Schmalzl:GAFD2002; @Schmalzl:EPL2004] and van der Poel *et al.* [@Poel:JFM2013] showed that for large Prandtl number, the flow structures and global quantities, e.g., the Nusselt number and Reynolds number, exhibit similar behaviour for three dimensions (3D) and two dimensions (2D). In the present paper, we analyze the flow behavior of 2D and 3D flows for large Prandtl numbers, and show that the flow in the third direction in 3D RBC gets suppressed, and the large-scale Fourier modes of 2D and 3D RBC are very similar.
The energy and entropy spectra are important quantities in Rayleigh-Bénard convection, and have been studied extensively for various Prandtl numbers [@Lohse:ARFM2010; @Grossmann:PRA1992; @Lvov:PRL1991; @Lvov:PD1992; @Toh:PRL1994; @Vincent:PRE1999; @Vincent:PRE2000; @Mishra:PRE2010; @Pandey:PRE2014]. Pandey *et al.* [@Pandey:PRE2014], in their numerical simulations for very large Prandtl numbers in three dimensions, reported that the kinetic energy spectrum $E_u(k)$ scales as $k^{-13/3}$, and the entropy spectrum $E_\theta(k)$ shows a dual branch with a dominant $k^{-2}$ spectrum. They also showed that the scaling of the energy and entropy spectra are similar for the free-slip and no-slip boundary conditions, apart from the prefactors.
In this paper, we performed 2D and 3D RBC simulations for the Prandtl numbers $10^2, 10^3$, and $\infty$, and the Rayleigh numbers between $10^5$ and $5 \times 10^8$. We compute the ten most dominant Fourier modes of 2D and 3D flows, and show them to be very close, which is the reason for the similarities between 2D and 3D RBC. We compute the spectra and fluxes of energy and entropy for 2D and 3D flows, and show them to be very similar. We also show that the viscous and thermal dissipation rates for 2D and 3D RBC behave similarly. For completeness and validation, we demonstrate similarities between the Nusselt and Péclet numbers and temperature fluctuations for 2D and 3D RBC, consistent with the earlier results of Schmalzl *et al.* [@Schmalzl:GAFD2002; @Schmalzl:EPL2004], van der Poel *et al.* [@Poel:JFM2013], and Silano *et al.* [@Silano:JFM2010].
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[sec:equations\], we discuss the governing equations for large- and infinite Prandtl numbers. Details of our numerical simulations are provided in Sec. \[sec:numerical\]. In Sec. \[sec:similarity\], we compare the most dominant Fourier modes of 2D and 3D RBC for $\mathrm{Pr}=\infty$. In Sec. \[sec:spectra\], we discuss the spectra and fluxes of the kinetic energy and entropy. Scaling of large-scale quantities such as the Nusselt and Péclet numbers, the temperature fluctuations, and the viscous and thermal dissipation rates are discussed in Sec. \[sec:results\]. We conclude in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\].
Governing equations {#sec:equations}
===================
The equations of Rayleigh-Bénard convection under Boussinesq approximation for a fluid confined between two plates separated by a distance $d$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial {\bf u}}{\partial t} + ({\bf u} \cdot \nabla){\bf u} & = & - \nabla \sigma + \theta \hat{z} + \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{Pr}}{\mathrm{Ra}}} \nabla^2 {\bf u}, \label{eq:u_non} \\
\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial t} + ({\bf u} \cdot \nabla)\theta & = & u_z + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{Pr Ra}}} \nabla^2 \theta, \label{eq:th_non} \\
\nabla \cdot {\bf u} & = & 0, \label{eq:cont}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf u}=(u_x, u_y, u_z)$ is the velocity field, $\theta$ and $\sigma$ are the deviations of the temperature and pressure fields from the conduction state, and $\hat{z}$ is the buoyancy direction. The two nondimensional parameters are Rayleigh number $\mathrm{Ra} = \alpha g \Delta d^3 /\nu \kappa$ and the Prandtl number $\mathrm{Pr} = \nu/\kappa$, where $\Delta$ is the temperature difference between top and bottom plates, $g$ is the acceleration due to gravity, and $\alpha$, $\nu$, and $\kappa$ are the heat expansion coefficient, kinematic viscosity, and thermal diffusivity of the fluid, respectively. The above nondimensional equations are obtained by using $d$, $\sqrt{\alpha g \Delta d}$, and $\Delta$ as the length, velocity, and temperature scales, respectively.
For very large Prandtl number, $\sqrt{\alpha g \Delta d / \mathrm{Pr}}$ is used as the velocity scale for the nondimensionalization, which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mathrm{Pr}}\left[ \frac{\partial {\bf u}}{\partial t} + ({\bf u} \cdot \nabla){\bf u} \right] & = & - \nabla \sigma + \theta \hat{z} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{Ra}}} \nabla^2 {\bf u}, \label{eq:u_non_inf} \\
\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial t} + ({\bf u} \cdot \nabla)\theta & = & u_z + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{Ra}}} \nabla^2 \theta, \label{eq:th_non_inf} \\
\nabla \cdot {\bf u} & = & 0. \label{eq:cont_inf}\end{aligned}$$ In the limit of infinite Prandtl number, Eq. (\[eq:u\_non\_inf\]) reduces to a linear equation [@Pandey:PRE2014] $$- \nabla \sigma + \theta \hat{z} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{Ra}}} \nabla^2 {\bf u} = 0. \label{eq:u_inf}$$ In the Fourier space, the above equation transforms to $$\begin{aligned}
-i {\mathbf k} \hat{\sigma}(\mathbf k) + \hat{\theta}(\mathbf k) \hat{z}- \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{Ra}}} k^2 \hat{\mathbf u}(\mathbf k) & = & 0, \label{eq:u_k}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\sigma}$, $\hat{\theta}$, and $\hat{{\bf u}}$, are the Fourier transforms of $\sigma$, $\theta$, and ${\bf u}$, respectively, and ${\bf k}=(k_x, k_y, k_z)$ is the wave vector. Using the constraint that the flow is divergence-free, i.e., ${\mathbf k} \cdot \hat{\mathbf u}({\mathbf k}) = 0$, the velocity and pressure fields can be expressed in terms of temperature fluctuations as [@Pandey:PRE2014] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}(\mathbf k) & = & -i \frac{k_z}{k^2} \hat{\theta}(\mathbf k), \label{eq:p_k} \\
\hat{u}_z (\mathbf k) & = & \sqrt{\mathrm{Ra}} \frac{k_\perp^2}{k^4} \hat{\theta}(\mathbf k), \label{eq:u_z} \\
\hat{u}_{x,y} (\mathbf k) & = & - \sqrt{\mathrm{Ra}} \frac{k_z k_{x,y}}{k^4} \hat{\theta}(\mathbf k), \label{eq:u_xy}\end{aligned}$$ where $k_\perp^2 = k_x^2 + k_y^2$ in 3D, and $k_\perp^2 = k_x^2$ in 2D (assuming $k_y=0$). Using these relations, the kinetic energy $E_u$ can be expressed in terms of entropy as $$E_u({\bf k}) = \frac{1}{2} |\hat{{\mathbf u}} ({\mathbf k})|^2 = \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{Ra} \frac{k_\perp^2}{k^6} |\hat{\theta} ({\mathbf k})|^2 = \mathrm{Ra} \frac{ k_\perp^2}{k^6} E_\theta({\bf k}). \label{eq:Eu_Eth}$$
For the $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$ limit, the nonlinear term for the velocity field, $({\bf u} \cdot \nabla){\bf u}$ is absent, and the pressure, buoyancy, and viscous terms are comparable to each other. Assuming that the large-scale Fourier modes dominate the flow, we can estimate the ratios of these terms by computing them for the most dominant $\mathrm u(\mathbf k)$ that occurs for ${\mathbf k} = (\pi/\sqrt{2},0,\pi)$. Hence, the aforementioned ratios can be estimated to be approximately $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|\theta|}{|\nabla \sigma|} \approx \frac{|\theta({\bf k}) |}{|k \sigma({\bf k})|} & \approx & \frac{k}{k_z} \approx 1 \label{eq:buoyancy_pressure}, \\
\frac{|\theta|}{|\nabla^2 {\mathbf u}|/\sqrt{\mathrm{Ra}} } \approx \frac{|\theta({\bf k}) |}{|k^2 {\mathbf u}({\bf k})/\sqrt{\mathrm{Ra}}|} & \approx & \frac{k}{k_\perp} \approx 1. \label{eq:theta_visc} \end{aligned}$$
For very large $\mathrm{Pr}$, the nonlinear term for the velocity field, $({\bf u} \cdot \nabla){\bf u}$ is weak, consequently the kinetic energy flux is very weak in this regime. The flow is dominated by the pressure, buoyancy, and viscous terms similar to that for the $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$ limit. The nonlinearity of the temperature equation, $({\bf u} \cdot \nabla)\theta$, however is quite strong, and it yields a finite entropy flux for large- and infinite Prandtl numbers. We will demonstrate this statement using numerical data.
In this paper, we solve RBC for large- and infinite $\mathrm{Pr}$; for large $\mathrm{Pr}$, we solve Eqs. (\[eq:u\_non\_inf\]$-$\[eq:cont\_inf\]), while for $\mathrm{Pr}=\infty$, we solve Eqs. (\[eq:u\_inf\], \[eq:th\_non\_inf\], \[eq:cont\_inf\]). In the next section, we describe the numerical method used for our simulations.
Numerical Method {#sec:numerical}
================
We solve the governing equations \[Eqs. (\[eq:u\_non\_inf\]$-$\[eq:cont\_inf\])\] for large Prandtl numbers, and Eqs. (\[eq:u\_inf\], \[eq:th\_non\_inf\], \[eq:cont\_inf\]) for $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$. The box geometry of the 2D simulations is $2\sqrt{2}:1$, and that for the 3D simulations is $2\sqrt{2}:2\sqrt{2}:1$. For the horizontal plates, we employ stress-free boundary condition for the velocity field, and conducting boundary condition for the temperature field. However, for the vertical side walls, periodic boundary condition is used for both the temperature and velocity fields. The fourth order Runge-Kutta method is used for the time advancement, and 2/3 rule for dealiasing. We use the pseudospectral code TARANG [@Verma:Pramana2013] for our simulations. More details about the numerical scheme can be found in Ref. [@Mishra:PRE2010].
We perform direct numerical simulations (DNS) for Prandtl numbers $10^2, 10^3$, and $\infty$ and Rayleigh numbers in the range $10^5$ to $5 \times 10^8$. The parameters and grid resolutions of all our runs are listed in Table \[table:details\]. Our grid resolution is such that the Batchelor length scale is larger than the mean grid spacing, thus ensuring that our simulations are fully resolved. Quantitatively, $k_{\mathrm{max}} \eta_\theta \geqslant 1$ for all the runs, where $k_\mathrm{max}$ is the maximum wavenumber (inverse of the smallest length scale), and $\eta_\theta = (\kappa^3/\epsilon_u)^{1/4}$ is the Batchelor length.
We also perform simulations for $\mathrm{Pr} = 10^2$ in a 2D box of aspect ratio one with no-slip boundary condition on all sides. We use the spectral element code NEK5000 [@Fischer:JCP1997]. The Rayleigh number is varied from $10^4$ to $5 \times 10^7$. We chose a box with $28 \times 28$ spectral elements and 7th-order polynomials within each element, therefore overall grid resolution is $196^2$. For the spectra study, however, we use 15th-order polynomials that yields $420^2$ effective grid points in the box.
We compute the energy and entropy spectra and fluxes, Nusselt and Péclet numbers, temperature fluctuations and dissipation rates using the numerical data of the steady state. These quantities are averaged over 2000 eddy turnover times.
$\mathrm{Pr}$ $\mathrm{Ra}$ $N_x \times N_y \times N_z$ Nu Pe $C_{\epsilon_u}^{\mathrm{comp.}}$ $C_{\epsilon_u}^{\mathrm{est.}}$ $C_{\epsilon_T,1}^{\mathrm{comp.}}$ $C_{\epsilon_T,2}^{\mathrm{comp.}}$ $C_{\epsilon_T,2}^{\mathrm{est.}}$ $k_{\mathrm{max}}\eta_{\theta}$
--------------- ------------------- ------------------------------- ------ -------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------
$10^2$ $1 \times 10^5$ 256 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 128 9.8 $1.98 \times 10^2$ 22.3 22.3 9.8 0.61 0.61 2.9
$10^2$ $5 \times 10^5$ 256 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 128 14.5 $4.98 \times 10^2$ 28.5 27.3 14.5 0.37 0.35 1.8
$10^2$ $1 \times 10^6$ 512 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 128 17.3 $7.16 \times 10^2$ 34.4 31.8 17.3 0.31 0.29 2.0
$10^2$ $5 \times 10^6$ 512 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 256 27.4 $1.84 \times 10^3$ 42.5 38.9 27.4 0.19 0.18 1.7
$10^2$ $1 \times 10^7$ 1024 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 256 34.7 $3.13 \times 10^3$ 36.5 34.5 34.7 0.14 0.13 1.9
$10^2$ $5 \times 10^7$ 1024 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 512 61.6 $1.03 \times 10^4$ 28.7 28.6 61.6 0.072 0.072 1.5
$10^2$ $1 \times 10^8$ 2048 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 512 79.8 $1.70 \times 10^4$ 27.1 27.1 79.8 0.056 0.056 1.7
$10^3$ $1 \times 10^5$ 256 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 128 9.8 $1.98 \times 10^2$ 22.3 22.3 9.8 0.60 0.60 1.6
$10^3$ $5 \times 10^5$ 512 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 128 16.0 $5.36 \times 10^2$ 26.1 26.1 16.0 0.36 0.36 1.4
$10^3$ $1 \times 10^6$ 512 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 256 19.8 $8.24 \times 10^2$ 27.7 27.7 19.8 0.29 0.29 1.5
$10^3$ $5 \times 10^6$ 1024 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 512 28.9 $2.10 \times 10^3$ 33.2 31.7 28.9 0.17 0.16 1.9
$10^3$ $1 \times 10^7$ 1024 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 512 35.4 $3.26 \times 10^3$ 33.5 32.4 35.4 0.13 0.13 1.5
$10^3$ $5 \times 10^7$ 2048 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 1024 57.7 $8.79 \times 10^3$ 38.0 36.7 57.3 0.080 0.078 1.7
$\infty$ $1 \times 10^5$ 128 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 64 9.8 $1.98 \times 10^2$ 22.3 22.3 9.8 0.60 0.60 4.5
$\infty$ $5 \times 10^5$ 128 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 64 16.0 $5.37 \times 10^2$ 26.1 26.1 16.1 0.36 0.36 2.7
$\infty$ $1 \times 10^6$ 256 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 128 19.8 $2.25 \times 10^2$ 27.6 27.6 19.8 0.29 0.29 4.3
$\infty$ $5 \times 10^6$ 512 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 128 32.6 $2.27 \times 10^3$ 30.8 30.8 32.6 0.17 0.17 3.6
$\infty$ $1 \times 10^7$ 512 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 256 40.5 $3.52 \times 10^3$ 31.9 31.9 40.5 0.14 0.14 4.0
$\infty$ $5 \times 10^7$ 1024 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 256 60.0 $9.51 \times 10^3$ 33.5 32.6 60.0 0.077 0.075 3.5
$\infty$ $1 \times 10^8$ 1024 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 512 74.3 $1.49 \times 10^4$ 33.9 32.9 74.7 0.061 0.059 3.9
$\infty$ $5 \times 10^8$ 2048 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 512 124 $4.27 \times 10^4$ 34.8 33.7 124 0.036 0.034 3.2
$10^2$ $1.0 \times 10^5$ $256^3$ 9.8 $1.98 \times 10^2$ 22.3 22.3 9.8 0.60 0.60 1.9
$10^2$ $6.5 \times 10^5$ $256^3$ 17.3 $6.15 \times 10^2$ 28.6 28.3 17.5 0.36 0.34 1.0
$10^2$ $2.0 \times 10^6$ $512^3$ 24.1 $1.20 \times 10^3$ 32.1 32.2 24.1 0.25 0.24 1.4
$10^2$ $5.0 \times 10^6$ $512^3$ 31.0 $1.96 \times 10^3$ 39.5 39.1 30.9 0.19 0.19 1.1
$10^2$ $1.0 \times 10^7$ $1024^3$ 38.1 $2.92 \times 10^3$ 43.7 43.4 38.2 0.16 0.16 1.7
$10^3$ $6.5 \times 10^4$ $256^3$ 8.6 $1.53 \times 10^2$ 21.4 21.4 8.6 0.69 0.68 1.3
$10^3$ $1.0 \times 10^5$ $256^3$ 9.8 $1.98 \times 10^2$ 22.3 22.3 9.8 0.60 0.60 1.1
$10^3$ $3.2 \times 10^5$ $512^3$ 14.1 $3.98 \times 10^2$ 27.2 27.1 14.1 0.42 0.43 1.5
$10^3$ $2.0 \times 10^6$ $1024^3$ 24.3 $1.10 \times 10^3$ 38.7 38.3 24.3 0.26 0.26 1.6
$10^3$ $6.0 \times 10^6$ $1024^3$ 34.2 $2.13 \times 10^3$ 43.4 43.7 34.2 0.19 0.19 1.1
$\infty$ $7.0 \times 10^4$ $128^3$ 8.8 $1.59 \times 10^2$ 21.4 21.6 8.8 0.67 0.68 1.7
$\infty$ $3.2 \times 10^5$ $128^3$ 14.1 $4.14 \times 10^2$ 25.1 25.1 14.1 0.41 0.42 2.0
$\infty$ $6.5 \times 10^5$ $128^3$ 17.4 $6.36 \times 10^2$ 26.7 26.7 17.4 0.33 0.34 1.6
$\infty$ $3.9 \times 10^6$ $256^3$ 30.3 $1.95 \times 10^3$ 30.3 30.4 30.3 0.19 0.19 1.8
$\infty$ $6.5 \times 10^6$ $256^3$ 36.1 $2.70 \times 10^3$ 33.5 31.8 36.0 0.16 0.16 1.5
$\infty$ $9.8 \times 10^6$ $256^3$ 41.2 $3.34 \times 10^3$ 35.8 35.6 41.1 0.15 0.15 1.3
$\infty$ $1.0 \times 10^8$ $512^3$ 87.5 $1.38 \times 10^4$ 45.6 45.3 87.2 0.07 0.07 1.3
\[table:details\]
Low wavenumber Fourier modes of 2D and 3D flows {#sec:similarity}
===============================================
Schmalzl *et al.* [@Schmalzl:GAFD2002; @Schmalzl:EPL2004] and van der Poel *et al.* [@Poel:JFM2013] showed that the flow of 3D RBC resembles quite closely the 2D flow for large Prandtl numbers. The temperature isosurfaces for $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$ shown in Fig. \[fig:profile\_3D\] illustrates an array of parallel rolls, thus suggesting a quasi two-dimensional structures for the flow. For 2D RBC, the temperature field exhibited in Fig. \[fig:profile\] for $\mathrm{Pr} = 10^3, \infty$, and $\mathrm{Ra} =10^6$ resembles quite closely the rolls of 3D RBC. At larger Rayleigh numbers, the plumes become somewhat turbulent, as shown in Fig. \[fig:profile\_ra5e7\] for $\mathrm{Ra} =5 \times 10^7$ and $\mathrm{Pr} = 100, 1000, \infty$. Note that the plumes become sharper with increasing Prandtl number. This similarity is because the most dominant $\theta$ modes are common among 2D and 3D RBC. This is the reason why 3D RBC for large- and infinite Prandtl numbers is quasi two-dimensional.
![Temperature isosurfaces for $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$ and $\mathrm{Ra} = 6.6 \times 10^6$ exhibiting sharp plumes and quasi-2D nature of 3D RBC. The red (blue) structures represent hot (cold) fluid going up (down). \[Figure adapted from Pandey *et al.* [@Pandey:PRE2014]\][]{data-label="fig:profile_3D"}](Pr_inf_3D)
![Density plots of the temperature field in a 2D box for $\mathrm{Ra} = 10^6$ and (a) $\mathrm{Pr} = 10^3$; (b) $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$. The figures illustrate hot (red) and cold (blue) plumes.[]{data-label="fig:profile"}](profile_ra1e6)
![Density plots of the temperature field for $\mathrm{Ra} = 5 \times 10^7$ and (a) $\mathrm{Pr} = 10^2$; (b) $\mathrm{Pr} = 10^3$; (c) $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$. The structures get sharper with increasing Prandtl numbers [@Poel:JFM2013].[]{data-label="fig:profile_ra5e7"}](profile_ra5e7)
For comparison between the 2D and 3D RBC, we perform 2D and 3D simulations for $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$ and $\mathrm{Ra} = 10^7$. In Table \[table:energy\], we list the ten most dominant temperature modes along with their entropy and kinetic energy. According to Table \[table:energy\], the entropy and the kinetic energy of the top ten modes, $(k_x, k_z)$ in 2D and $(k_x, 0, k_z)$ in 3D, are very close. This is the reason why the flow structures of the 3D RBC is quasi two-dimensional. Also, the first six most dominant $\theta$ modes are $(0,0,2n) \approx -1/(2 n\pi)$, where $n=1..6$, as shown by Mishra and Verma [@Mishra:PRE2010]; for these modes ${\mathbf u}({\mathbf k}) = 0$ \[see Eq. (\[eq:Eu\_Eth\])\].
------------------- -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Mode (3D) $E_\theta^{\mathrm{mode}} / E^{3D}_\theta$ $E_u^{\mathrm{mode}} / E^{3D}_u$ Mode (2D) $E_\theta^{\mathrm{mode}} / E^{2D}_\theta$ $E_u^{\mathrm{mode}} / E^{2D}_u$
($k_x, k_y, k_z$) ($\%$) ($\%$) ($k_x, k_z$) ($\%$) ($\%$)
(0,0,2) 30.4 0 (0,2) 30.6 0
(0,0,4) 7.81 0 (0,4) 7.79 0
(0,0,6) 3.56 0 (0,6) 3.54 0
(0,0,8) 2.03 0 (0,8) 2.03 0
(0,0,10) 1.30 0 (0,10) 1.31 0
(0,0,12) 0.87 0 (0,12) 0.90 0
(1,0,1) 0.018 19.6 (1,1) 0.020 20.4
(3,0,1) 0.011 2.05 (3,1) 0.018 3.39
(1,0,3) 0.011 0.046 (1,3) 0.011 0.046
(3,0,3) 0.003 0.039 (3,3) 0.007 0.095
------------------- -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
\[table:energy\]
Apart from $\hat{\theta}(0,0,2n)$ modes, the next four most dominant 2D modes are $(1,1), (3,1), (1,3)$, and $(3,3)$. Clearly, $(1,1)$ is the most dominant mode with a finite kinetic energy, and it corresponds to a pair of rolls shown in Figs. \[fig:profile\_3D\]$-$\[fig:profile\_ra5e7\]. The mode $(1,1)$ is a part of the most dominant triad interaction $\{ (1,1), (-1,1), (0,2)\}$ [@Mishra:PRE2010]. The other modes $ (3,1), (1,3)$ arise due to nonlinear interaction with the $(2,2)$ mode, which is relatively weak, but quite important [@Chandra:PRL2013].
We also compute the total energy of the three components of the velocity field in 3D, and the two components in 2D. We observe that in 3D, $E_x/E_u = 0.55, E_y/E_u = 0.02$, and $E_z/E_u = 0.43$, clearly demonstrating the quasi 2D nature of the flow. Here, $E_x = \langle u_x^2 \rangle /2$, $E_y = \langle u_y^2 \rangle /2$, $E_z = \langle u_z^2 \rangle /2$, $E_u = E_x+E_y+E_z$, and $\langle . \rangle$ represents time averaged value in the steady state. In 2D, the ratios are $E_x/E_u = 0.58$ and $E_z/E_u = 0.42$, which are quite close to the corresponding ratios for the 3D RBC.
We also performed similar analysis for $\mathrm{Pr}=100$ and 1000 for 2D and 3D, whose behaviour is similar to that for $\mathrm{Pr}=\infty$ described above.
Schmalzl *et al.* [@Schmalzl:GAFD2002; @Schmalzl:EPL2004] decomposed the 3D velocity field into toroidal and poloidal components, and showed that the toroidal component disappears in the limit of infinite Prandtl number, consistent with the analytical results of Vitanov [@Vitanov:PLA1998]. Schmalzl *et al.* [@Schmalzl:GAFD2002] argue that the vertical component of the vorticity disappears in the $\mathrm{Pr}=\infty$ limit, leading to vanishing of the toroidal component of the velocity, hence the two-dimensionalization of the $\mathrm{Pr}=\infty$ RBC. Our results are consistent with those of Schmalzl *et al.* [@Schmalzl:GAFD2002; @Schmalzl:EPL2004] and Vitanov [@Vitanov:PLA1998].
In the next section, we will discuss the spectra and fluxes of energy and entropy for large- and infinite Prandtl numbers.
Energy spectra and fluxes {#sec:spectra}
=========================
In this section, we compute the spectra and fluxes of energy and entropy for 2D and 3D RBC for large- and infinite Prandtl numbers and compare them. We show that these quantities are very close to each other for 2D and 3D RBC because the dominant Fourier modes for them are very close to each other.
The one-dimensional kinetic energy and entropy spectra are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
E_u(k) & = & \sum_{k \leq |{\bf k'}| < k+1} \frac{|\hat{\mathbf u}(\mathbf k')|^2}{2}, \label{eq:sptr_u} \\
E_{\theta}(k) & = & \sum_{k \leq |{\bf k'}| < k+1} \frac{|\hat{\theta}(\mathbf{k'})|^2}{2} \label{eq:sptr_th}.\end{aligned}$$ The flow is anisotropic in 2D RBC, e.g., $E_x/E_z = 1.37$, but the degree of anisotropy is rather small. Hence, the aforementioned one-dimensional spectra are good description of the flow properties.
The nonlinear interactions induce kinetic energy and entropy transfers from larger length scales to smaller length scales that results in kinetic energy and entropy fluxes. Note that for $\mathrm{Pr}=\infty$, the nonlinear interaction among the velocity modes is absent, hence the kinetic energy flux is zero for this case. The kinetic energy and entropy fluxes coming out of a wavenumber sphere of radius $k_0$ are given by [@Verma:PR2004; @Mishra:PRE2010] $$\Pi_u(k_0) = \sum_{k \geq k_0} \sum_{p < k_0} \delta_{\mathbf k, \mathbf p+\mathbf q} \Im([\mathbf k \cdot \hat{\mathbf u}(\mathbf q)][\hat{\mathbf u}^*(\mathbf k) \cdot \hat{\mathbf u}(\mathbf p)]), \label{eq:u_flux}$$ $$\Pi_{\theta}(k_0) = \sum_{k \geq k_0} \sum_{p < k_0} \delta_{\mathbf k, \mathbf p+\mathbf q} \Im([\mathbf k \cdot \hat{\mathbf u}(\mathbf q)][\hat{\theta}^*(\mathbf k) \cdot \hat{\theta} (\mathbf p)]), \label{eq:th_flux}$$ where $\Im$ stands for the imaginary part of the argument, and ${\mathbf k,\mathbf p,\mathbf q}$ are the wavenumbers of a triad with ${\mathbf k=\mathbf p+ \mathbf q}$.
For 3D RBC with $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$, Pandey *et al.* [@Pandey:PRE2014] derived the kinetic energy and entropy spectra as $$\begin{aligned}
E_u(k) & = & (a_2^2 a_3)^{\frac{2}{3}} d \left(\frac{\kappa}{d}\right)^2 \mathrm{Ra}^{\frac{2}{3}(3-2\delta-\zeta)}(kd)^{-\frac{13}{3}}, \label{eq:Euk} \\
E_\theta(k) & = & (a_2^2 a_3)^{\frac{2}{3}} d \Delta^2 \mathrm{Ra}^{\frac{2}{3}(\delta-\zeta)} (kd)^{-\frac{1}{3}}, \label{eq:Ethk}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_2$, $a_3$, $\zeta$ and $\delta$ are defined using $\theta_{\mathrm{rms}} = a_2 \Delta$, $\mathrm{Pe} = a_3 \mathrm{Ra}^{1 - \zeta}$, and $\theta_{\mathrm{res}} \sim \mathrm{Ra}^{\delta}$. The $\theta_{\mathrm{res}}$ is the temperature fluctuation without $\hat{\theta}(0,0,2n)$ modes [@Pandey:PRE2014]. They also argued that the kinetic energy flux $\Pi_u(k) \rightarrow 0$, but $\Pi_\theta(k) \approx \mathrm{const}$ in the inertial range for $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$ RBC. They showed that the above formulae also describe the energy spectra for very large Prandtl numbers, e.g., for $\mathrm{Pr} > 100$.
The arguments of Pandey *et al.* [@Pandey:PRE2014] are independent of dimensionality, hence we expect the above expressions to hold in 2D as well for large- and infinite Prandtl numbers. In fact, the similarities must be very close because of the identical dominant Fourier modes in 2D and 3D RBC (see Sec. \[sec:similarity\]). To verify the above conjecture, we compute the energy and entropy spectra, as well as their fluxes.
In Fig. \[fig:E\_u\], we plot the normalized kinetic spectrum $E_u(k)k^{13/3}$ for ($\mathrm{Pr} = 100, \mathrm{Ra} = 10^7$), and ($\mathrm{Pr} = \infty, \mathrm{Ra} = 10^8$) for both 2D and 3D RBC. The figure illustrates that the energy spectrum for 2D and 3D are quite close. Hence, our conjecture that 2D and 3D RBC exhibit similar kinetic energy spectrum is verified. Figure \[fig:E\_u\_no\] exhibits the kinetic spectrum for a RBC simulation in a unit box with no-slip boundary condition for $\mathrm{Pr} = 100$ and $\mathrm{Ra} = 10^7$. The figure demonstrates that $E_u(k) \sim k^{-13/3}$, similar to that of free-slip boundary condition.
![The compensated kinetic energy spectrum $E_u(k)k^{13/3}$ as a function of wavenumber. Curves for 2D and 3D collapse on each other and are nearly constant in the inertial range, hence $E_u(k) \sim k^{-13/3}$.[]{data-label="fig:E_u"}](E_u)
![The kinetic energy spectrum $E_u(k)$ for $\mathrm{Pr} = 10^2$ and $\mathrm{Ra} = 10^7$ with no-slip boundary condition in a 2D box. The normalized spectrum is nearly constant in the inertial range, hence $E_u(k) \sim k^{-13/3}$. \[Figure adapted from Pandey *et al.* [@Pandey:PRE2014]\][]{data-label="fig:E_u_no"}](E_u_no)
The kinetic energy flux $\Pi_u$ for $\mathrm{Pr}=\infty$ is zero due to the absence of nonlinearity. However $\Pi_u$ is expected to be small ($\ll 1$ in normalized units of ours) for large $\mathrm{Pr}$. In Fig. \[fig:Pi\_u\], we plot the kinetic energy flux $\Pi_u(k)$ for $\mathrm{Pr} = 10^2$ and $10^3$ for 2D and 3D RBC. As expected, the $\Pi_u$ are small for all the four cases. Interestingly, the kinetic energy flux for 2D RBC is negative at small wavenumbers, which is reminiscent of 2D fluid turbulence [@Boffetta:ARFM2012; @Toh:PRL1994]. The KE flux for 3D RBC is positive almost everywhere. Thus, the KE fluxes for 2D and 3D RBC are somewhat different, but they play insignificant role in the large- and infinite Prandtl number RBC. Hence, we can claim that a common feature for the large $\mathrm{Pr}$ 2D and 3D RBC is that $\Pi_u \rightarrow 0$.
![Plot of the kinetic energy flux $\Pi_u(k)$ vs. $k$. The fluxes for $\mathrm{Pr} = 10^2$ have been multiplied by a factor of $10^{-2}$ to fit properly in this figure. In 2D, $\Pi_u(k)<0$, reminiscence of 2D fluid turbulence.[]{data-label="fig:Pi_u"}](flux_u)
The smallness of kinetic energy flux for the large- and infinite $\mathrm{Pr}$ RBC is because the nonlinear term is much weaker than the pressure gradient and the buoyancy terms of Eq. (\[eq:u\_non\]). In Fig. \[fig:ratio\], we plot $|({\bf u} \cdot \nabla){\bf u}|/|\nabla \sigma|$ and $|{\bf u} \cdot \nabla){\bf u}|/|\theta|$ as a function of $\mathrm{Ra}$. The aforementioned ratios lie between 0.001 to 0.1, and they become smaller as $\mathrm{Pr}$ increases. These results show that the nonlinear term is weak for large- and infinite $\mathrm{Pr}$ RBC. Note that $|\nabla \sigma| \approx |\theta|$, consistent with Eq. (\[eq:buoyancy\_pressure\]).
![Plots of the ratios between (a) nonlinear and pressure gradient terms; (b) nonlinear and buoyancy terms of Eq. (\[eq:u\_non\]). The nonlinearity is weak compared to pressure gradient and buoyancy.[]{data-label="fig:ratio"}](ratio_nl_gp "fig:") ![Plots of the ratios between (a) nonlinear and pressure gradient terms; (b) nonlinear and buoyancy terms of Eq. (\[eq:u\_non\]). The nonlinearity is weak compared to pressure gradient and buoyancy.[]{data-label="fig:ratio"}](ratio_nl_th "fig:")
In Fig. \[fig:E\_th\], we plot the entropy spectrum for ($\mathrm{Pr}=100, \mathrm{Ra}=10^7$) and ($\mathrm{Pr}=\infty, \mathrm{Ra}=10^8$) for 2D and 3D RBC. Clearly, the entropy spectrum for the 2D and 3D RBC also show very similar behaviour. Note that the entropy spectrum exhibits a dual spectrum, with the top curve ($E(k) \sim k^{-2}$) representing the $\hat{\theta}(0,0,2n)$ modes, whose values are close to $-1/(2 n\pi)$ (see Sec. \[sec:similarity\] and Mishra and Verma [@Mishra:PRE2010]). The lower curve in the spectrum, corresponding to the modes other than $\hat{\theta}(0,0,2n)$, is somewhat flat. We also observe similar entropy spectrum for no-slip boundary condition, which is shown in Fig. \[fig:E\_th\_no\] for $\mathrm{Pr} = 100$ and $\mathrm{Ra} = 10^7$.
![Entropy spectrum $E_\theta(k)$ vs. $k$. $E_\theta(k)$ exhibits a dual branch with a dominant upper branch with $E_\theta(k) \sim k^{-2}$. The lower branch is almost flat in the inertial range. []{data-label="fig:E_th"}](E_th)
![Entropy spectrum $E_\theta(k)$ for $\mathrm{Pr} = 10^2$ and $\mathrm{Ra} = 10^7$ with no-slip boundary condition in a 2D box. It has a very similar behaviour as that for the free-slip boundary condition. \[Figure adapted from Pandey *et al.* [@Pandey:PRE2014]\][]{data-label="fig:E_th_no"}](E_th_no)
We compute the entropy flux defined in Eq. (\[eq:th\_flux\]) [@Mishra:PRE2010] for ($\mathrm{Pr} = 100$, $\mathrm{Ra} = 10^7$), and ($\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$, $\mathrm{Ra} = 10^8$) for both 2D and 3D RBC. In Fig. \[fig:Pi\_th\], we plot the entropy flux $\Pi_\theta(k)$ for the above four cases. Clearly, the behaviour of 2D and 3D RBC are very similar, with a constant entropy flux in the inertial range.
![Plot of the entropy flux $\Pi_\theta(k)$ vs. $k$. The fluxes are nearly constant in the inertial range, and are similar for the 2D and 3D RBC.[]{data-label="fig:Pi_th"}](flux_th)
In the next section, we will compute the large-scale quantities for 2D and 3D RBC with large- and infinite Prandt numbers.
Scaling of large-scale quantities {#sec:results}
=================================
Nusselt and Péclet numbers
--------------------------
Schmalzl *et al.* [@Schmalzl:GAFD2002; @Schmalzl:EPL2004] and van der Poel *et al.* [@Poel:JFM2013] showed that the Nusselt and Péclet numbers for 2D and 3D RBC exhibit similar scaling. For validation of our data, we also compute the Nusselt number $\mathrm{Nu}$ and Péclet number $\mathrm{Pe}$, as well as $\theta_\mathrm{rms}$ using our data sets.
In Fig. \[fig:nu\_pe\], we plot the Nusselt number, Péclet number and normalized root mean square temperature fluctuations for $\mathrm{Pr}=100, 1000, \infty$ and $\mathrm{Ra}$ ranging from $10^4$ to $5 \times 10^8$ for both 2D and 3D RBC. We also plot $\mathrm{Nu}$ and $\mathrm{Pe}$ for $\mathrm{Pr} = 100$ with no-slip boundary condition (shown by orange triangles). The figures show that the 2D and 3D RBC have similar Nusselt and Péclet number scaling, in particular $\mathrm{Nu} \sim \mathrm{Ra}^{0.3}$ and $\mathrm{Pe} \sim \mathrm{Ra}^{0.6}$, with a weak variation of the exponents with $\mathrm{Pr}$ and $\mathrm{Ra}$. However, the $\mathrm{Nu}$ and $\mathrm{Pe}$ prefactors for the no-slip data are lower than those for free-slip runs, which is due to lower frictional force for the free-slip boundary condition. These results are consistent with those of Schmalzl *et al.* [@Schmalzl:GAFD2002; @Schmalzl:EPL2004], van der Poel *et al.* [@Poel:JFM2013], Silano *et al.* [@Silano:JFM2010], and Pandey *et al.* [@Pandey:PRE2014].
We observe that $\theta_\mathrm{rms}/\Delta$ is a constant. The details of scaling and error bars are discussed in Pandey *et al.* [@Pandey:PRE2014]. The above similarities are primarily due to the quasi 2D nature of the 3D RBC.
![Plots of (a) Nusselt number $\mathrm{Nu}$; (b) Péclet number $\mathrm{Pe}$; (c) normalized root mean square temperature fluctuations $\theta_{\mathrm{rms}}/\Delta$ as a function of Rayleigh number. The 2D and 3D RBC exhibit similar scaling for large-scale quantities, except for the no-slip data for $\mathrm{Pr} = 100$ (orange triangles), for which the prefactors are lower.[]{data-label="fig:nu_pe"}](nu "fig:") ![Plots of (a) Nusselt number $\mathrm{Nu}$; (b) Péclet number $\mathrm{Pe}$; (c) normalized root mean square temperature fluctuations $\theta_{\mathrm{rms}}/\Delta$ as a function of Rayleigh number. The 2D and 3D RBC exhibit similar scaling for large-scale quantities, except for the no-slip data for $\mathrm{Pr} = 100$ (orange triangles), for which the prefactors are lower.[]{data-label="fig:nu_pe"}](pe "fig:") ![Plots of (a) Nusselt number $\mathrm{Nu}$; (b) Péclet number $\mathrm{Pe}$; (c) normalized root mean square temperature fluctuations $\theta_{\mathrm{rms}}/\Delta$ as a function of Rayleigh number. The 2D and 3D RBC exhibit similar scaling for large-scale quantities, except for the no-slip data for $\mathrm{Pr} = 100$ (orange triangles), for which the prefactors are lower.[]{data-label="fig:nu_pe"}](theta "fig:")
Dissipation rates
-----------------
In this subsection, we will discuss the scaling of normalized viscous and thermal dissipation rates for large Prandt numbers. Shraiman and Siggia [@Shraiman:PRA1990] derived the following exact relations between dissipation rates, $\mathrm{Pr}$, $\mathrm{Ra}$, and $\mathrm{Nu}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_u & = & \nu \langle |\nabla \times \mathbf u|^2 \rangle = \frac{\nu^3}{d^4} \frac{(\mathrm{Nu}-1)\mathrm{Ra}}{\mathrm{Pr}^2}, \label{eq:eps_u} \\
\epsilon_T & = & \kappa \langle |\nabla T|^2 \rangle = \kappa \frac{\Delta^2}{d^2} \mathrm{Nu}, \label{eq:eps_th} \end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_u$ and $\epsilon_T$ are the volume-averaged viscous and thermal dissipation rates, respectively. For large- and infinite Prandtl numbers, which corresponds to the viscous dominated regime, an appropriate formula for the normalized viscous dissipation rate is [@Pandey:PRE2014] $$C_{\epsilon_u} = \frac{\epsilon_u}{\nu U_L^2/d^2} = \frac{(\mathrm{Nu}-1)\mathrm{Ra}}{\mathrm{Pe}^2}. \label{eq:C_eps_u2}$$ The corresponding formulas for the normalized thermal dissipation rate are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:C_eps_t1}
C_{\epsilon_T,1} & = & \frac{\epsilon_T}{\kappa \Delta^2/d^2} = \mathrm{Nu}, \label{eq:C_eps_t1} \\
C_{\epsilon_T,2} & = & \frac{\epsilon_T}{U_L \theta_L^2/d} = \frac{\mathrm{Nu}}{\mathrm{Pe}} \left( \frac{\Delta}{\theta_L} \right)^2. \label{eq:C_eps_t2}\end{aligned}$$ See Pandey *et al.* [@Pandey:PRE2014] for a detailed discussion on the dissipation rates for large Prandtl number convection.
Using the scaling of Nu and Pe, we find that for $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$, $C_{\epsilon_u}$ is an approximate constant independent of $\mathrm{Ra}$ [@Pandey:PRE2014]. In Fig. \[fig:c\_eps\_u\], we plot $C_{\epsilon_u}$ for $\mathrm{Pr} = 10^3$ and $\infty$, according to which $C_{\epsilon_u}$ is nearly a constant with a significant scatter of data. As evident from the figure, the normalized viscous dissipation rate for the 2D RBC is a bit lower than the corresponding data for the 3D RBC, which is due the inverse cascade of energy in 2D RBC that suppresses $\Pi_u$ (see Fig. \[fig:Pi\_u\]).
![Normalized viscous dissipation rate $C_{\epsilon_u}$ as a function of $\mathrm{Ra}$. The values of $C_{\epsilon_u}$ are lower in 2D compared to 3D RBC.[]{data-label="fig:c_eps_u"}](c_eps_u)
In Table 1, we list the normalized thermal dissipation rate $C_{\epsilon_T,1}$ and the Nusselt number, and they are observed to be quite close to each other, consistent with Eq. (\[eq:C\_eps\_t1\]). In the table, we also list the computed dissipation rate $C_{\epsilon_T,2}^\mathrm{comp.} = \epsilon_T/ (U_L \theta_L^2/d)$ and the estimated dissipation rate $C_{\epsilon_T,2}^\mathrm{est.} = \mathrm{(Nu/Pe)}(\Delta/\theta_L)^2$, where $U_L = \sqrt{2 E_u}$ and $ \theta_L = \sqrt{2 E_\theta}$. These quantities are close to each other, consistent with Eq. (\[eq:C\_eps\_t2\])
Figure \[fig:c\_eps\_t2\] exhibits $C_{\epsilon_T,2}$ as a function of Ra. The figure shows that the scaling of $C_{\epsilon_T,2}$ in 2D is similar to that for 3D RBC. A detailed analysis indicates that for 2D RBC, $C_{\epsilon_T,2} = (22 \pm 9)\mathrm{Ra}^{-0.31 \pm 0.03}$, $(24 \pm 1.7)\mathrm{Ra}^{-0.32 \pm 0.01}$ and $(24 \pm 2.1)\mathrm{Ra}^{-0.32 \pm 0.01}$ for $\mathrm{Pr} = 10^2$, $10^3$, and $\infty$, respectively.
These computations show that the behaviour of viscous and thermal dissipation rates for 2D and 3D RBC are quite similar.
![Normalized thermal dissipation rate $C_{\epsilon_T,2}$ as a function of Rayleigh number. We observe $C_{\epsilon_T,2} \sim \mathrm{Ra}^{-0.32}$ in 2D, which is similar to the scaling for $\mathrm{Pr} = \infty$ in 3D.[]{data-label="fig:c_eps_t2"}](c_eps_t2)
Discussions and conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========================
We performed numerical simulations of 2D and 3D RBC for $\mathrm{Pr}=100, 1000, \infty$, and $\mathrm{Ra}$ in the range of $10^5$ to $5\times 10^8$. We showed that the dominant Fourier modes of the 2D and 3D flows are very close to each other, which is the reason for the similarities between the Nusselt and Péclet numbers in 2D and 3D RBC, as reported by Schmalzl *et al.* [@Schmalzl:GAFD2002; @Schmalzl:EPL2004] and van der Poel *et al.* [@Poel:JFM2013]. The flow in 3D RBC is quasi two-dimensional because of the strong suppression of the velocity in one of the horizontal directions. These results are consistent with the results of Schmalzl *et al.* [@Schmalzl:GAFD2002; @Schmalzl:EPL2004] and Vitanov [@Vitanov:PLA1998], according to which the toroidal component of the velocity field in 3D RBC vanishes for $\mathrm{Pr}=\infty$.
We compute the spectra and fluxes of the kinetic energy and entropy for the 2D RBC, show them to be very similar to those for 3D RBC. In particular, we observe that the kinetic energy spectrum $E_u(k) \sim k^{-13/3}$, while the entropy spectrum exhibits a dual branch, with a dominant $k^{-2}$ branch corresponding to the $\hat{\theta}(0,0,2n)$ Fourier modes. The other entropy branch is somewhat flat. The similarities between the spectra and fluxes of 2D and 3D RBC are due to the quasi 2D nature of 3D RBC.
We compute the global quantities such as the Nusslet and Péclet numbers, $\theta_\mathrm{rms}$, the kinetic energy and thermal dissipation rates. All these quantities exhibit similar behaviour in 2D and 3D RBC, which is consistent with the results of Schmalzl *et al.* [@Schmalzl:GAFD2002; @Schmalzl:EPL2004] and van der Poel *et al.* [@Poel:JFM2013].
Our results are essentially numerical. It will be useful to construct low-dimensional models of $\mathrm{Pr}=\infty$ convection, and study how the velocity in one of the perpendicular direction gets suppressed. This work is under progress.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
Our numerical simulations were performed at [*hpc*]{} and [*newton*]{} clusters of IIT Kanpur, and at [*Param Yuva*]{} cluster of CDAC Pune. This work was supported by a research grant SERB/F/3279/2013-14 from Science and Engineering Research Board, India. We thank Supriyo Paul for useful comments and sharing his earlier results on 2D RBC. We also thank A. Kumar for providing help in flow visualization.
[21]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we propose a new way of organizing many-body perturbation theory in the Path-integral formulation where a set of quasi-particle wave-functionals $\psi$’s are introduced and are identified with quasi-particles in Landau Fermi liquid theory. We show how Fermi liquid theory can be obtained through $\psi$’s in this new framework of perturbation theory, where the only assumption is adiabaticity between non-interacting and interacting states and the quasi-particle renormalization factor [*z*]{} does not appear explicitly. Consequences of our new formulation are discussed.'
address: |
department of Physics, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,\
Clear Water Bay Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong
author:
- 'Tai-Kai Ng'
date:
title: ' Functional Integral approach to quasi-particles in Fermi liquid theory '
---
For four decades Fermi liquid theory has formed the basis for our understanding of interacting fermion systems like electron liquids in metals and normal state of liquid $He^3$. The theory was originally proposed phenomenologically by Landau[@l1; @l2] and was later put on a firm basis by a formal ’proof’ using diagramatic perturbation theory techniques[@l3; @b1; @no]. Although formally exact, the existing perturbation theory formulation of Fermi liquid theory has a drawback. In the original Fermi liquid theory of Landau, the only assumption was adiabaticity or a one-to-one correspondence between non-interacting states (bare particles) and states when interaction is turned on (quasi-particles). However, in the existing diagrammatic technique, perturbation theory was carried out in terms of [*bare particles*]{} and the connection between bare particles and quasi-particles is established by assuming that there is a non-vanishing overlap $z^{1/2}\sim{O}(1)$ between the two. It would be much more satisfying if the perturbation theory can be formulated directly in terms of quasi-particles where the introduction of renormalization factor [*z*]{} can be avoided, as is in the original Landau formulation.
In this paper we shall show that within the path-integral formulation it is possible to formulate perturbation theory in terms of a set of quasi-particle wave-functionals which can be identified with quasi-particles in Fermi liquid theory. With these wave-functionals Fermi liquid theory can be derived directly without referring to the quasi-particle renormalization factor [*z*]{}. The one-particle Green’s function will be studied where we shall show that the quasi-particle renormalization factor $z^{1/2}$ measures the overlap between bare-particle states and our quasi-particle states on the Fermi surface. For simplicity we shall consider a gas of spinless fermions interacting through a scalar potential $v(r)$. The formulation can be generalized to include spin easily. We shall restrict us to zero temperature where the perturbation theory is formulated in terms of real-time Path Integral and Green’s functions. The Hamiltonian is, in momentum space,
$$\label{h}
H=\sum_{\vec{k}}\epsilon(\vec{k})f^+_{\vec{k}}f_{\vec{k}}+\lim_{\eta
\rightarrow0} e^{-\eta|t|}{1\over2}
\sum_{\vec{q}}v(q)\rho(\vec{q})\rho(-\vec{q}),$$
where $\epsilon(\vec{k})=(\hbar\vec{k})^2/2m$ and $f(f^+)_{\vec{k}}$’s are fermion annihilation(creation) operators. $\rho(\vec{q})=\sum_{\vec{k}}
f^+_{\vec{k}+\vec{q}}f_{\vec{k}}$ is the density operator for fermions. Notice that we have inserted a $e^{-\eta|t|}$ factor in front of the interaction term to emphasize that the states in the interacting system are obtained from states of the non-interacting system by turning on the interaction [*adiabatically*]{}, as is required in Landau Fermi liquid theory. In particular, the time evolution operator $U(t,t')$, when operate on the ground state of the non-interacting system at $t'=-\infty$, turns the state into the ground state of the interacting system at time $t$. $U$ can be expressed in terms of a path integral over (fermionic) coherent states $\Psi, \Psi^+$[@no2]. In particular,
$$\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}Tr\left[U(T,-T)|\right]=\int
D\Psi{D}\Psi^+\int{D}\phi{e}^{{i\over2}\int_{-T}^T
dt'\int{d}^dq{\phi(\vec{q},t')\phi(-\vec{q},t')\over{v}(q)}}
e^{{i\over\hbar}\int_{-T}^T
L(\phi;\Psi^+,\Psi,t')dt'},
\label{u1}$$
where $$\label{l1}
L(\phi;\Psi^+,\Psi,t)=\int{d}^dx\left\{i\hbar\Psi^+(\vec{x},t){\partial\Psi(\vec{x},t)
\over\partial{t}}-{\hbar^2\over2m}|\nabla\Psi(\vec{x},t)|^2
-\lim_{\eta\rightarrow0}e^{-{\eta\over2}|t|}\phi(\vec{x},t)
\Psi^+(\vec{x},t)\Psi(\vec{x},t)\right\},$$
is the Lagrangian for a system of [*non-interacting*]{} fermions moving in the auxillary field $\phi(\vec{x},t)$, introduced through an Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation from the interaction term in the original Hamiltonian. In this form, the time evolution operator $U$ can be interpreted as a weighted sum of time evolution operators $U(\phi)$’s, where $U(\phi)$ is the time evolution operator for system of non-interacting fermions moving in given auxillary field $\phi(\vec{x},t)$, with each configuration of $U(\phi)$ weighted by the factor $e^{i
\int{d}^dq\int{d}t{\phi(\vec{q})\phi(-\vec{q})\over2v(q)}}$ in the sum [@no2]. The interacting ground state wavefunction can thus be interpreted as superposition of ’ground state’ wavefunctions $|G(\phi)>$’s, generated by operators $U(\phi)$’s acting on the free fermion ground state at $t'=-\infty$, and weighted by the same $e^{i\int{\phi^2\over2v}}$ factors. Notice also that the auxillary field $\phi$ is turned on adiabatically at $t=-\infty$, as a result of adiabaticity of the original interacting fermion problem.
Next we introduce the Green’s function operator $G[\phi]$, which is a functional of $\phi$ field, with
\[gx\] $$G^{-1}[\phi]=i\hbar{\partial\over\partial{t}}+{\hbar^2\over2m}\nabla^2-
\lim_{\eta\rightarrow0}e^{-{\eta\over2}|t|}\phi(\vec{x},t),$$ and with Fourier transform $$\label{gk}
G^{-1}_{k,k'}[\phi]=(\hbar\omega-\epsilon(\vec{k})+i\delta_{\vec{k}})
\delta_{k,k'}-\phi(k-k'),$$
where $k=(\vec{k},\omega)$ and $\delta_{\vec{k}}=\delta{sgn}(\xi_{\vec{k}})$, where $\xi_{\vec{k}}=\epsilon(\vec{k})-\mu$ and $\mu=$ chemical potential. Notice that the adiabaticity requirement is handled by introducing the $i\delta_{\vec{k}}$ term in $G$ as in usual perturbation theory. The ground state energy, one particle Green’s function, etc, can be determined as appropriate functional averages of $G$ or functions of $G$ over $\phi$ field[@no2]. $G_{k.k'}[\phi]$ can be expanded directly in a power series of $\phi$ as in usual perturbation theory. However, here we shall rearrange the perturbation expansion in a slightly different way, by introducing first the [*eigenfunctions*]{} and corresponding [*eigenvalues*]{} of $G^{-1}[\phi]$, where $G^{-1}[\phi]\psi_k[\phi]=\lambda_k[\phi]\psi_k[\phi]$. Notice that both $\psi_k$’s and $\lambda_k$’s are functionals of $\phi$. The perturbative eigenstates $\psi_k$ satisfies the Lippman-Schwinger equation $$\psi_k(x;[\phi])=A_k[\phi]\psi_k^{(0)}(x)+\int{d}^{d+1}xG_0(\lambda_k,
x-x')\phi(x')\psi_k(x';[\phi]),
\label{ls}$$ where $x=(\vec{x},t)$, $A_k$ is a renormalization factor determined by $<\psi_k|\psi_k>=1$ and $G_0(\lambda,x)$ is the Fourier transform of the unperturbed Green’s function, $G_0(\lambda,k')=(\lambda-(\omega'-
\epsilon(\vec{k'})+i\delta_{\vec{k'}})^{-1}$. $\psi_k^{(0)}(x)\sim{e}^{-i(\omega{t}-\vec{k}.\vec{x})}$ is an unperturbed eigenstate of $G_0^{-1}$. The eigenvalue $\lambda_k$ can be written as $\lambda_k=\omega-\epsilon(\vec{k})-\Sigma(k;[\phi])+
i\delta_{\vec{k}}$, where $\Sigma(k;[\phi])
=\int_0^1dg\int{d}^{d+1}x\phi(x)|\psi_k
(x;[g\phi])|^2$, by the Hellmann-Feynman theorem. $\int_0^1dg$ is a coupling constant integral. Using the fact that $G^{-1}[\phi]$ is a first order differential equation in time, it can be shown easily that $\psi_{\vec{k},\omega+\Omega}(x;[\phi])=e^{-i\Omega{t}}\psi
_{\vec{k},\omega}(x;[\phi])$ and the self energy $\Sigma(k;[\phi])=\Sigma(\vec{k};[\phi])$ and renormalization factor $A_{k}[\phi]=A_{\vec{k}}[\phi]$ are [*independent*]{} of $\omega$. The Green’s function $G(x,x';[\phi])$ is given by $$\label{gs}
G(x,x';[\phi])=\sum_k{\psi_k(x;[\phi])\psi^*_k(x';[\phi])\over\hbar\omega-
\epsilon(\vec{k})-\Sigma(\vec{k};[\phi])+i\delta_{\vec{k}}},$$ and the usual perturbation expansion for $G$ can be recovered by expanding $\psi_k[\phi]$ and $\Sigma(\vec{k};[\phi])$ in power series of $\phi$.
The advantage of introducing eigenstates $\psi_k$’s can be seen when we expand the Grassman fields $\Psi(x)$ in terms of $\psi_k$’s using the completeness relation, $\Psi(x)=\sum_k\psi_k(x;[\phi])c_k$, with an analogous relation between $\Psi^+(x)$ and $c^+_k$ fields, where $c_k$ and $c^+_k$ are Grassman number fields and $\psi_k$’s are complex-number wavefunctionals of $\phi$. The time evolution operator $U$ can be expressed in terms of path integral over $c_k$ and $c^+_k$ fields through an Unitary transformation. In particular,
\[lcc\] $$\label{tru}
\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}Tr\left[U(T,-T)\right]=
\int{D}cDc^+\int{D}\phi{e}^{i\sum_q
{\phi(q)\phi(-q)\over2v(|\vec{q}|)}}e^{{i\over\hbar}\int^T_{-T}dt
{\em L}(\phi,c,c^+,t)},$$ where $$\label{ldia}
{\em L}(\phi,c,c^+,t)=\sum_{\vec{k}}c^+_{\vec{k}}(t)
\left[i\hbar{\partial\over\partial{t}}-\epsilon(\vec{k})-
\Sigma(\vec{k};[\phi])+i\delta_{\vec{k}}\right]c_{\vec{k}}(t),$$
$c_{\vec{k}}(t)=\int{d\omega\over2\pi}e^{-i\omega{t}}c_k$ and $\int{D}cDc^+=\Pi_{k}\int{D}c_kDc_k^+$. Notice that although $\psi_k(x;[\phi])$’s are in general time-dependent, $\Sigma(\vec{k};[\phi])$ is independent of $t$ because of the independence of $\Sigma(\vec{k};[\phi])$ on $\omega$. In the $T\rightarrow\infty$ limit, we may integrate out [*first*]{} the $\phi$ field in Eq. (\[ldia\]), obtaining
\[lform\] $$\label{seff}
\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}TrU(T,-T)=\int{D}cDc^+e^{{i\over\hbar}
\int^T_{-T}dt\left[\sum_{\vec{k}}c^+_{\vec{k}}(t)(i\hbar{\partial\over
\partial{t}}-\epsilon(\vec{k})+i\delta_{\vec{k}})c_{\vec{k}}(t)
-E_{int}[n(\vec{k},t)]\right]},$$ where $$\label{Eint}
E_{int}[n(\vec{k},t)]
\sim(i\hbar)ln\left[\int{D}\phi{e}^{i\int
^{\infty}_{-\infty}dt'\sum_{\vec{q}}{\phi(\vec{q},t')
\phi(-\vec{q},t')\over2v(|\vec{q}|)}-{i\over\hbar}\sum_{\vec{k}}
\Sigma(\vec{k};[\phi])n(\vec{k},t)}\right],$$
where $n(\vec{k},t)=c^+_{\vec{k}}(t)c_{\vec{k}}(t)$. Notice that we have extented the limit of time integration over $\phi$ fields from $\pm{T}$ to $\pm\infty$ in Eq. (\[Eint\]). This is valid if $T$ is much larger than the characteristic time scale $\hbar/E_{\phi}$ governing the fluctuations of $\phi$ field, where $E_{\phi}$ is the corresponding characteristic energy . Notice also that although the precise form of $E_{int}$ is hard to determine, it is clear that $E_{int}$ is a functional only of the occupation numbers $n(\vec{k})$. The special form of action (\[seff\]) implys that in the long-time, low energy ($<<E_{\phi}$) limit, the Hamltonian of the system, when expressed in terms of the occupation numbers $n(\vec{k})$’s, has the diagonal form $$H=\sum_{\vec{k}}\epsilon(\vec{k})n(\vec{k})+E_{int}[n(\vec{k})],$$ i.e., the low energy eigenstates of the system are completely characterised by occupation numbers $n(\vec{k})$, suggesting that the states represented by $n(\vec{k})$ are in fact the quasi-particle states in Landau Fermi liquid theory[@l1; @l2].
To show that $n(\vec{k})$ indeed characterizes quasi-particle states we examine the ground state [*quasi-particle*]{} occupation number $<n(\vec{k})>=<n(\vec{k};[\phi])>_{\phi}$, where $$n(\vec{k};[\phi])={\hbar\over2\pi{i}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega
{e^{-i\omega0^-}\over\hbar\omega-\epsilon(\vec{k})-\Sigma(\vec{k};
[\phi])+i\delta_{\vec{k}}}=\theta(-\xi_{\vec{k}}),$$ is independent of $\phi$, and $$\label{nk2}
<F[\phi]>_{\phi}={\int{D}\phi\left(F[\phi]\right)e^{iS_{eff}(\phi)}\over
\int{D}\phi{e}^{iS_{eff}(\phi)}},$$ where $S_{eff}(\phi)\sim\left(\sum_q{\phi(q)\phi(-q)\over2v(|\vec{q}|)}-i
\sum_kln(1+G_0(0,k)\Sigma(\vec{k};[\phi]))\right)$ is obtained from Eq. (\[lcc\]) by first integrating over the fermion fields. It is easy to see that $<n(\vec{k})>=\theta(-\xi_{\vec{k}})$, i.e., the quasi-particle ground state occupation number is a $\theta$-function as the occupation number for non-interacting fermions, in agreement with Fermi liquid theory[@l1; @l2]. Notice this is a direct consequence of adiabaticity requirement, that for any configuration $\phi$, the ground state is obtained by switching on $\phi$ adiabatically, and the occupation number $n(\vec{k};
[\phi])$ is not affected by the switching process. Notice also that in an interacting system, the quasi-particle wavefunction is a many-body wave-function. This is reflected in our formalism where $\psi_k$’s are functionals of auxillary $\phi$ field which represents density fluctuations in the system. The many-body nature of $\psi_k[\phi]$’s appears as a weighted sum over all possible configurations of $\phi$ (or density fluctuations) carried by quasi-particles when physical quantities are computed.
For small derivations $\delta{n}(\vec{k})=n(\vec{k})-\theta(-\xi_{\vec{k}})$, the energy of the system is given by the Landau expression, $$\label{elandau}
E[n(\vec{k})]\sim{E}_0+\sum_{\vec{k}}E_{\vec{k}}\delta{n}(\vec{k})+
{1\over2}\sum_{\vec{k},\vec{k}'}f_{\vec{k}\vec{k}'}\delta{n}(\vec{k})
\delta{n}(\vec{k}'),$$ where $E_0$ is the ground state energy and the quasi-particle energy dispersion $E_{\vec{k}}=
\epsilon(\vec{k})+\Sigma(\vec{k})$ and Landau parameters $f_{\vec{k}
\vec{k}'}$ can be computed in our scheme as functional derivatives of $E_{int}$ with respect to $n(\vec{k})$’s. It is straightforward to show from Eqs. (\[lform\]) and (\[nk2\]) that $\Sigma(\vec{k})=
\delta{E}_{int}/\delta{n}(\vec{k})=
<\Sigma(\vec{k};[\phi])>_{\phi}$ and $f_{\vec{k}\vec{k}'}=
\delta\Sigma(\vec{k})/\delta{n}(\vec{k'})=
<\Sigma(\vec{k};[\phi]\Sigma(\vec{k'};[\phi])>^c_{\phi}$, where $<AB>^c_{\phi}=<AB>_{\phi}-<A>_{\phi}<B>_{\phi}$.
The transport equation for quasi-particles can be constructed following the phenomenological approach of Landau[@l2] where [*local*]{} distribution of quasi-particles $n(\vec{r},\vec{k};t)$ is introduced and the transport equation is derived using Eq. (\[elandau\]) by assuming validity of usual classical kinetic theory. It has to be emphasised that the quasi-particle states which are exact eigenstates of the system are extended throughout whole space[@pn] and quasi-particles localized in space are only approximate eigenstates of the system and have finite life-time $\tau$[@l2; @pn]. To derive the transport equation more rigorously we have to define first local quasi-particle states in our formulation. An effective low energy Hamiltonian for the [*local*]{} quasi-particles can then be derived to obtain the correct transport equation.
For non-interacting system a localized state can be formed by superposition of plane wave states. However, in our formulation since quasi-particle wavefunctions are functionals of $\phi$ which characterize density fluctuations in the system, a local quasi-particle state can be constructed only if we restrict also density fluctuations (or $\phi$) carried by the quasi-particle to be local also. For [*local*]{} quasi-particle state of size scale $q^{-1}$, we expect that the $\phi$ field associated with the quasi-particle should be restricted to momentum scale $>q_c\sim
{q}$. To implement this scheme we divide the $\phi$ field into slow and fast varying parts $\phi(x)=\phi_s(x)+\phi_f(x)$, where $\phi_{s(f)}(x)=\sum_{|\vec{q}|<(>)q_c}e^{i\vec{q}.\vec{x}}\phi(q)$ , and we shall assume that local quasi-particles of size $q_c$ can be constructed from superposition of quasi-particle states of the corresponding interacting system, when $\phi(x)$ is replace by $\phi_f(x)$. Notice that for a system of size $L\sim{q}_c^{-1}$, our local quasi-particle states become exact eigenstates of the system, as is expected physically.
With this definition of [*local*]{} quasi-particles we can derive the effective low energy Hamiltonian and transport equation for local quasi-particles straightforwardly. The algebra of this derivation is lengthy and we shall report the details in a seperate paper. We find that the usual Fermi liquid transport equation is recovered in the limit $q_c\rightarrow0$[@ng].
Lastly we examine the quasi-particle renormalization factor [*z*]{}. To compute [*z*]{}, we examine the usual one-particle Green’s function $g(\vec{k},\omega)$ in our theory. Using Eq.(5), it is straightforward to show that $$\label{g1}
g(\vec{k},\omega)=\sum_{k'}<\left({|<\psi_k^{(0)}|\psi_{k'}>|^2\over
\hbar\omega'-\epsilon(\vec{k}')-\Sigma(\vec{k}';[\phi])+i\delta_{\vec{k}'}}
\right)>_{\phi},$$ where $k'=(\vec{k}',\omega')$ and $<\psi_k^{(0)}|\psi_{k'}>=\int{d}^{d+1}
x\psi_k^{(0)*}(x)\psi_{k'}(x;[\phi])$. The bare-particle occupation number is $$n^b(\vec{k})={\hbar\over2\pi{i}}\int{d}\omega{g}(\vec{k},\omega)
=\sum_{\vec{k'}}\theta(-\xi_{\vec{k}})<|F_{\vec{k}\vec{k}'}
^{\phi}(t)|^2>_{\phi},$$ where $F_{\vec{k}\vec{k}'}^{\phi}(t)=
\int{d^dx\over(2\pi)^d}e^{-i\vec{k}.\vec{x}}\psi_{\vec{k}',0}(\vec{x},t;
[\phi])$. We have again made used of the result $\psi_{\vec{k},\omega+\Omega}
(x;[\phi])=e^{-i\Omega{t}}\psi_{\vec{k},\omega}(x;[\phi])$ in deriving the last expression. Assuming that the wavefunctions $\psi_{k}(x;[\phi])$ are smooth functions of $\vec{k}$ which do not show any discontinuity across Fermi surface, it is easy to show using Eq. (\[ls\]) that, $z=
n^b(k_F^+)-n^b(k_F^-)=<|A_{k_F}[\phi]|^2>_{\phi}$, i.e., $z$ is equal to the weighted average over $\phi$ field the wavefunction overlap between non-interacting states $\psi_k^{(0)}(x)$ and $\psi_k(x;[\phi])$ on the Fermi surface, as is expected from our identification of $\psi_k(x;[\phi])$’s as quasi-particles wavefunctionals in our theory.
A few comments on our formulation of Fermi liquid theory is now in order. By organizing perturbation theory in a slightly different way, we have succeeded in formulating Fermi liquid theory directly in terms of quasi-particles in our theory. Notice that as far as an order-by-order expansion in computing quantities like one- and two- particle Green’s functions are concerned, our formulation offers nothing new. However, the possibility of identifying quasi-particles in our theory enables us to compute quantities like Landau-parameters and quasi-particle energies more directly. For example, it is straightforward to show that by keeping the self-energy $\Sigma(\vec{k};[\phi])$ to second order in $\phi$, we obtain the usual RPA (Random-Phase Approximation) expression for ground state energy, with the occupation number $n^{(0)}(\vec{k})$ in the Lindhard function $\chi_0$ replaced by the corresponding quasi-particle occupation number in our theory. The quasi-particle self-energy $\Sigma(\vec{k})$ is found to be equal to the RPA on-shell self-energy $\Sigma^{RPA}(\vec{k},\xi_{\vec{k}})$. Notice that in general there are more than one ways of introducing the Hubbard-Strotonovich transformation and the auxillary fields, corresponding to different ways of organizing perturbation series[@no2]. Our results remain unchanged as long as single-particle wave-functionals $\psi_k(x;[\phi])$ can be introduced and can be obtained perturbatively from the non-interacting states $\psi_k^{(0)}(x)$.
The main power of our formulation appears in studying Fermi liquids with $z\rightarrow0$, where usual perturbation theory fails. Notice that $z\rightarrow0$ does not necessarily imply breakdown of adiabaticity. For example, for a system of volume $L^d$, and in the presence of auxillary field $\phi$, an eigenstate $\psi_k$ is formed by mixing plane wave state $\psi_k^{(0)}$ with other plane wave states $\psi_{k'}^{(0)}$. The probability of mixing is of order $1/L^d$ for each state $\vec{k'}\neq\vec{k}$. As long as the renormalization factor $A_{k}[\phi]$ is of order $\geq{1/L^d}$, the state $\psi_k$ may still ’remembers’ its parent plane wave state $\psi_{k}^{(0)}$ and adiabaticity can be kept, although $z$ may approach zero in the $L\rightarrow\infty$ limit. Our formulation implys that a Fermi-Liquid description may still be applicable in describing the thermodynamics and low-energy, long-wavelength propteries of these systems where the one-particle properties may be drastically different from usual $z\neq0$ Fermi liquids. Examples of these systems include one-dimensional Luttinger liquids[@hl] where similar idea has been proposed by Carmelo [*et.al.*]{}[@ca] and systems with super-long-range interactions in dimensions $>1$[@wen]. We find that our Fermi-liquid formulation, after suitably refined, can be applied to describe these systems[@ng] where the one-particle properties are non-Fermi liquid like. The details of our calculations will be presented in a seperate paper.
L.D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JEPT, [**3**]{}, 920(1956). L.D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JEPT, [**5**]{}, 101(1957). L.D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JEPT, [**8**]{}, 70(1959). see for example, A.A. Abrikosov, L.P. Gorkov and I.E. Dzyaloshinski, [*Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics*]{}, Dover, NY (1975). see for example, P. Nozieres, [*Theory of Interacting Fermi Systems*]{}, Addison-Wesley,(1974). see for example, J.W. Negele and H. Orland, [*Quantum Many-Particle Systems*]{}, Addison-Wesley, (1988). see for example, D. Pines and P. Nozieres, [*The Theory of Quantum Liquids, Vol.1: Normal Fermi Liquids*]{}, Addison-Wesley, (1989). T.K. Ng, unpublished. see for example, E.H. Lieb and D.C. Mattis, [*Mathematical Physics in One Dimension*]{}, Academic Press, NY (1966); see also F.D.M. Haldane, J. Phys. C [**14**]{}, 2585 (1981). J. Carmelo and A.A. Ovchinnikov, J. Phys. Cond. Mat. [**3**]{} , 757 (1991); J. Carmelo and A.H. Castro Neto, , 11230 (1996) and references therein. P.A. Bares and X.G. Wen, , 8636 (1993).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the effect of competition between short-term synaptic depression and facilitation on the dynamical properties of attractor neural networks, using Monte Carlo simulation and a mean field analysis. Depending on the balance between depression, facilitation and the noise, the network displays different behaviours, including associative *memory* and switching of the activity between different attractors. We conclude that synaptic facilitation enhances the attractor instability in a way that (*i*) intensifies the system adaptability to external stimuli, which is in agreement with experiments, and (*ii*) favours the retrieval of information with less error during short–time intervals.'
author:
- |
J. J. Torres$^{\dag }$, J.M. Cortes$^{\dag \ddag}$[^1], J. Marro$^{\dag }$ and H.J. Kappen$^{\ddag }$\
$^{\dag}$Institute *Carlos I* for Theoretical and Computational Physics, and\
Departamento de Electromagnetismo y Física de la Materia,\
University of Granada, E-18071 Granada, Spain.\
$^{\ddag}$Department of Biophysics and SNN, Radboud University of Nijmegen,\
6525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
title: Competition between synaptic depression and facilitation in attractor neural networks
---
Introduction and model
======================
Recurrent neural networks are a prominent model for information processing and memory in the brain. [@hopfield; @amitB]. Traditionally, these models assume synapses that may change on the time scale of learning, but that can be assumed constant during memory retrieval. However, synapses are reported to exhibit rapid time variations, and it is likely that this finding has important implications for our understanding of the way information is processed in the brain [@abbNATURE]. For instance, Hopfield–like networks in which synapses undergo rather generic fluctuations have been shown to significantly improve the associative process, e.g., [@marroPRL]. In addition, motivated by specific neurobiological observations and their theoretical interpretation [@tsodyksNC], activity–dependent synaptic changes which induce *depression* of the response have been considered [@torresNC; @bibitchkov]. It was shown that synaptic depression induces, in addition to memories as stable attractors, special sensitivity of the network to changing stimuli as well as rapid switching of the activity among the stored patterns [@torresNC; @cortesNEUCOM; @marroPRE; @cortesBIOPHYSCHEM; @cortesNC]. This behaviour has been observed experimentally to occur during the processing of sensory information [@laurentANNUREVNEUROSCI; @mazor; @hibrido].
In this paper, we present and study networks that are inspired in the observation of certain, more complex synaptic changes. That is, we assume that repeated presynaptic activation induces at short times not only depression but also *facilitation* of the postsynaptic potential [@thomsonTRENDSNEUROSCI; @facil; @facil2]. The question, which has not been quite addressed yet, is how a competition between depression and facilitation will affect the network performance. We here conclude that, as for the case of only depression [@torresNC; @cortesNC], the system may exhibit up to three different *phases* or regimes, namely, one with standard associative memory, a disordered phase in which the network lacks this property, and an oscillatory phase in which activity switches between different memories. Depending on the balance between facilitation and depression, novel intriguing behavior results in the oscillatory regime. In particular, as the degree of facilitation increases, both the sensitivity to external stimuli is enhanced and the frequency of the oscillations increases. It then follows that facilitation allows for recovering of information with less error, at least during a short interval of time and can therefore play an important role in short–term memory processes. We are concerned in this paper with a network of binary neurons. Previous studies have shown that the behaviour of such a simple network dynamics agree qualitatively with the behaviour that is observed in more realistic networks, such as integrate and fire neuron models of pyramidal cells [@torresNC].
Let us consider $N$ binary neurons, $s_{i}=\{1,0\},$ $i=1,...,N,$ endowed of a probabilistic dynamics, namely,$$\mathrm{Prob}\left\{ s_{i}\left( t+1\right) =1\right\} =\frac{1}{2}\left\{
1+\tanh \left[ 2\beta h_{i}\left( t\right) \right] \right\} , \label{s}$$which is controlled by a *temperature* parameter, $T\equiv 1/\beta ;$ see, for instance, [@marroB] for details. The function $h_{i}\left(
t\right) $ denotes a time–dependent *local field*, i.e., the total presynaptic current arriving to the postsynaptic neuron $i.$ This will be determined in the model following the phenomenological description of nonlinear synapses reported in [@markramPNAS; @tsodyksNC], which was shown to capture well the experimentally observed properties of neocortical connections. Accordingly, we assume that $$h_{i}\left( t\right) =\sum_{j=1}^{N}\omega _{ij}\mathcal{D}_{j}\left(
t\right) \mathcal{F}_{j}\left( t\right) s_{j}\left( t\right) -\theta _{i},
\label{h}$$where $\theta _{i}$ is a constant threshold associated to the firing of neuron $i,$ and $\mathcal{D}_{j}(t)$ and $\mathcal{F}_{j}(t)$ are functions —to be determined— which describe the effect on the neuron activity of short–term synaptic depression and facilitation, respectively. We further assume that the weight $\omega _{ij}$ of the connection between the (presynaptic) neuron $j$ and the (postsynaptic) neuron $i$ are static and *store* a set of patterns of the network activity, namely, the familiar *covariance rule*: $$\omega _{ij}=\frac{1}{Nf\left( 1-f\right) }\sum_{\nu =1}^{P}\left( \xi
_{i}^{\nu }-f\right) \left( \xi _{j}^{\nu }-f\right) .$$Here, $\mathrm{\xi }^{\nu }=\left\{ \xi _{i}^{\nu }\right\} ,$ with $\nu
=1\ldots ,P,$ are different binary–patterns of average activity $\langle
\xi _{i}^{\nu }\rangle \equiv f$. The standard Hopfield model is recovered for $\mathcal{F}_{j}=\mathcal{D}_{j}=1$, $\forall j=1,\ldots ,N.$
We next implement a dynamics for $\mathcal{F}_{j}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{j}$ after the prescription in [@markramPNAS; @tsodyksNC]. A description of varying synapses requires, at least, three local variables, say $x_{j}\left(
t\right) $, $y_{j}\left( t\right) $ and $z_{j}\left( t\right) ,$ to be associated to the fractions of neurotransmitters in recovered, active, and inactive states, respectively. A simpler picture consists in dealing with only the $x_{j}\left( t\right) $ variable. This simplification, which seems to describe accurately both interpyramidal and pyramidal interneuron synapses, corresponds to the fact that the time in which the postsynaptic current decays is much shorter than the recovery time for synaptic depression, say $\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}$ [@markramNATURE] (Time intervals are in milliseconds hereafter). Within this approach, one may write that $$x_{j}\left( t+1\right) =x_{j}\left( t\right) +\frac{1-x_{j}\left( t\right) }{%
\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}}-\mathcal{D}_{j}\left( t\right) \mathcal{F}_{j}\left(
t\right) s_{j}\left( t\right) , \label{x}$$where$$\mathcal{D}_{j}\left( t\right) =x_{j}\left( t\right) \label{D}$$and$$\mathcal{F}_{j}\left( t\right) =U+\left( 1-U\right) \,u_{j}\left( t\right) .
\label{F}$$The interpretation of this ansatz is as follows. Concerning any presynaptic neuron $j,$ the product $\mathcal{D}_{j}\mathcal{F}_{j}$ stands for the total fraction of neurotransmitters in the recovered state which are activated either by incoming spikes, $U_{j}x_{j},$ or by facilitation mechanisms, $\left( 1-U_{j}\right) x_{j}u_{j};$ for simplicity, we are assuming that $U_{j}=U\in \left[ 0,1\right] $ $\forall j.$ The additional variable $u_{j}\left( t\right) $ is assumed to satisfy, as in the quantal model of transmitter release in [@markramPNAS], that$$u_{j}\left( t+1\right) =u_{j}\left( t\right) -\frac{u_{j}\left( t\right) }{%
\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}}+U\left[ 1-u_{j}\left( t\right) \right] s_{j}\left(
t\right) , \label{u}$$which describes an increase with each presynaptic spike and a decay to the resting value with relaxation time $\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}$ (that is given in milliseconds) Consequently, facilitation washes out ($u_j \rightarrow 0, F_j \rightarrow U$) as $\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}\rightarrow 0,$ and each presynaptic spike uses a fraction $U$ of the available resources $x_{j}\left( t\right) .$ The effect of facilitation increases with decreasing $U,$ because this will leave more neurotransmitters available to be activated by facilitation. Therefore, facilitation is not controlled only by $\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}$ but also by $U.$
The Hopfield case with static synapses is recovered after using $x_{j}=1$ in eq.(\[D\]) and $u_{j}=0$ in eq.(\[F\]) or, equivalently, $\tau _{\mathrm{%
rec}}=\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}=0$ in eqs. (\[x\]) and (\[u\]). In fact, the latter imply fields $h_{i}\left( t\right) =\sum_{j}\omega _{ij}Us_{j}\left(
t\right) -\theta _{i},$ so that one may simply rescale both $\beta $ and the threshold.
The above interesting phenomenological description of dynamic changes has already been implemented in attractor neural networks [@torresNC] for pure depressing synapses between excitatory pyramidal neurons [@tsodyksPNAS]. We are here interested in the consequences of a competition between depression and facilitation. Therefore, we shall use $%
T,U,\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}$ and $\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}$ in the following as relevant control parameters.
Mean–field solution
===================
Let us consider the mean activities associated, respectively, with active and inert neurons in a given pattern $\nu ,$ namely,$$m_{+}^{\nu }(t)\equiv \frac{1}{Nf}\sum_{j\in \text{Act}(\nu )}s_{j}(t),\quad
m_{-}^{\nu }(t)\equiv \frac{1}{N(1-f)}\sum_{j\not\in \text{Act}(\nu
)}s_{j}(t).$$It follows for the overlap of the network activity with pattern $\nu $ that$$m^{\nu }(t)\equiv \frac{1}{Nf\left( 1-f\right) }\sum_{i}\left( \xi _{i}^{\nu
}-f\right) s_{i}(t)=m_{+}^{\nu }(t)-m_{-}^{\nu }(t), \label{m}$$$\forall \nu .$ One may also define the averages of $x_{i}$ and $u_{i}$ over the sites that are active and inert, respectively, in a given pattern $\nu ,$ namely,$$\begin{array}{c}
x_{+}^{\nu }(t)\equiv \dfrac{1}{Nf}\sum_{j\in \text{Act}(\nu
)}x_{j}(t),\quad x_{-}^{\nu }(t)\equiv \dfrac{1}{N(1-f)}\sum_{j\not\in \text{%
Act}(\nu )}x_{j}(t) \\
u_{+}^{\nu }(t)\equiv \dfrac{1}{Nf}\sum_{j\in \text{Act}(\nu
)}u_{j}(t),\quad u_{-}^{\nu }(t)\equiv \dfrac{1}{N(1-f)}\sum_{j\not\in \text{%
Act}(\nu )}u_{j}(t),%
\end{array}%$$$\forall \nu ,$ which describe depression (the $x$s) and facilitation (the $%
u $s), each concerning a subset of neurons, e.g., $N/2$ neurons for $f=1/2.$ The local fields then ensue as $$h_{i}(t)=\sum_{\nu =1}^{P}\left( \xi _{i}^{\nu }-f\right) M^{\nu }\left(
t\right) , \label{haprox}$$$M^{\nu }(t)\equiv \left[ U+\left( 1-U\right) \,u_{+}^{\nu }(t)\right]
\,x_{+}^{\nu }(t)\,m_{+}^{\nu }(t)-\left[ U-\left( 1-U\right) \,u_{-}^{\nu
}(t)\right] \,x_{-}^{\nu }(t)\,m_{-}^{\nu }(t).$
One may solve the model (\[s\])–(\[u\]) in the thermodynamic limit $%
N\rightarrow \infty $ under the standard mean-field assumption that $%
s_{i}\approx \langle s_{i}\rangle .$ Within this approximation, we may also substitute $x_{i}$ ($u_{i}$) by the mean–field values $x_{\pm }^{\nu }$ ($u_{\pm }^{\nu }$). (Notice that one expects, and it will be confirmed below by comparisons with direct simulation results, that the mean–field approximation is accurate away from any possible critical point.) Assuming further that patterns are random with mean activity $f=1/2,$ one obtains the set of dynamic equations:$$\qquad \quad x_{\pm }^{\nu }(t+1)=x_{\pm }^{\nu }(t)+\frac{1-x_{\pm }^{\nu
}(t)}{\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}}-\left[ U+\left( 1-U\right) \,u_{\pm }^{\nu }(t)\,%
\right] \,x_{\pm }^{\nu }(t)\,m_{\pm }^{\nu }(t),$$$$u_{\pm }^{\nu }(t+1)=u_{\pm }^{\nu }(t)-\frac{u_{\pm }^{\nu }(t)}{\tau _{%
\mathrm{fac}}}+U\,[1-u_{\pm }^{\nu }(t)]\,m_{\pm }^{\nu }(t),\qquad \qquad$$$$\qquad m_{\pm }^{\nu }(t+1)=\frac{1}{N}{\sum_{i}}\left\{ 1\pm \tanh \left(
\beta \left[ M^{\nu }\left( t\right) \pm \sum_{\mu \neq \nu }\epsilon
_{i}^{\mu }M^{\mu }\left( t\right) \right] \right) \right\} ,$$$$m^{\nu }(t+1)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i}\epsilon _{i}^{\nu }\tanh \left[ \beta
\sum_{\mu }\epsilon _{i}^{\mu }M^{\mu }\left( t\right) \right] ,\qquad
\qquad \qquad \label{dyn}$$where $\epsilon _{i}^{\mu }\equiv 2\xi _{i}^{\mu }-1.$ This is a $6P$–dimensional coupled map whose analytical treatment is difficult for large $%
P,$ but it may be integrated numerically, at least for not too large $P.$ One may also find the fixed–point equations for the coupled dynamics of neurons and synapses; these are$$\begin{aligned}
x_{\pm }^{\nu } &=&\left\{ 1+\,\left[ U\,+\,\left( 1-U\right) \,\,u_{\pm
}^{\nu }\right] \,\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}\,m_{\pm }^{\nu }\right\} ^{-1},
\notag \\
u_{\pm }^{\nu } &=&U\,\,\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}\,\,m_{\pm }^{\nu }\left(
1\,\,+\,\,U\,\,\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}\,\,m_{\pm }^{\nu }\right) ^{-1}, \notag
\\
2m_{\pm }^{\nu } &=&1\pm \frac{2}{N}{\sum_{i}}\tanh \left[ \beta \left(
M^{\nu }\pm \sum_{\mu \neq \nu }\epsilon _{i}^{\mu }M^{\mu }\right) \right] ,
\notag \\
m^{\nu } &=&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i}\epsilon _{i}^{\nu }\tanh \left( \beta
\sum_{\mu }\epsilon _{i}^{\mu }M^{\mu }\right) . \label{steady}\end{aligned}$$The numerical solution of these transcendental equations describes the resulting order as a function of the relevant parameters. Determining the stability of these solutions for $\alpha =P/N\neq 0$ is a more difficult task, because it requires to linearize (\[dyn\]) and the dimensionality diverges in the thermodynamical limit (see however [@torresCAPACITY]). In the next section we therefore deal with the case $\alpha \rightarrow 0.$
Main results
============
Consider a finite number of stored patterns $P,$ i.e., $\alpha
=P/N\rightarrow 0$ in the thermodynamic limit. In practice, it is sufficient to deal with $P=1$ to illustrate the main results (therefore, we shall suppress the index $\nu $ hereafter).
Let us define the vectors of order parameters $\vec{y}\equiv
(m_{+},m_{-},x_{+},x_{-},u_{+},u_{-})$, its stationary value $\vec{y}_{st}$ that is given by the solution of Eq. \[steady\], and $\vec{F}$ whose components are the functions on the right hand side of (\[dyn\]). The stability of (\[dyn\]) around the steady state (\[steady\]) follows from the first derivative matrix $D\equiv \left( \partial \vec{F}\diagup
\partial \vec{y}\right) _{\vec{y}_{\mathrm{st}}}.$ This is $$D=\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\bar{\beta}A_{+} & -\bar{\beta}A_{-} & \bar{\beta}B_{+} & -\bar{\beta}B_{-}
& \bar{\beta}C_{+} & -\bar{\beta}C_{-} \\
-\bar{\beta}A_{+} & \bar{\beta}A_{-} & -\bar{\beta}B_{+} & \bar{\beta}B_{-}
& -\bar{\beta}C_{+} & \bar{\beta}C_{-} \\
-A_{+} & 0 & \tau -B_{+} & 0 & -C_{+} & 0 \\
0 & -A_{-} & 0 & \tau -B_{-} & 0 & -C_{-} \\
D_{+} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \tau -E_{+} & 0 \\
0 & D_{-} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \tau -E_{-}%
\end{array}%
\right) \label{mD}$$where $\bar{\beta}\equiv 2\beta m_{+}m_{-},$ $A_{\pm }\equiv \left[ U+\left(
1-U\right) \,u_{\pm }\right] \,x_{\pm },$ $B_{\pm }\equiv \left[ U+\left(
1-U\right) \,u_{\pm }\right] \,m_{\pm },$ $C_{\pm }\equiv \left( 1-U\right)
\,x_{\pm }m_{\pm },$ $D_{\pm }\equiv U(1-u_{\pm }),$ $\tau \equiv 1-\tau _{%
\mathrm{rec}}^{-1},$ and $E_{\pm }\equiv Um_{\pm }.$ After noticing that $%
m_{+}+m_{-}=1,$ one may numerically diagonalize $D$ and obtain the eigenvalues $\lambda _{n}$ for a given set of control parameters $T,U,\tau _{%
\mathrm{rec}},\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}.$ For $\left\vert \lambda _{n}\right\vert
<1$ $(\left\vert \lambda _{n}\right\vert >1),$ the system is stable (unstable) close to the fixed point $y_{n}$. The maximum of $\left\vert
\lambda _{n}\right\vert $ determines the local stability: for $\left\vert
\lambda _{n}\right\vert _{\mathrm{max}}<1,$ the system (\[dyn\]) is locally stable, while for $\left\vert \lambda _{n}\right\vert _{\mathrm{max}%
}>1$ there is at least one direction of instability, and the system consequently becomes locally unstable. Therefore, varying the control parameters one crosses the line $|\lambda |_{\mathrm{max}}=1$ that signals the bifurcation points.
The resulting situation is summarized in figure \[fig1\] for specific values of $U,$ $T$ and $\tau _{%
\mathrm{fac}},$. Eqs. (\[steady\]) have three solutions, two of which are memory states corresponding to the pattern and anti-pattern and the other a so-called paramagnetic state that has no overlap with the memory pattern. The stability of the two solutions depends on $\tau_{\mathrm{rec}}$. The region $\tau_{\mathrm{rec}} > \tau_{rec}^{\ast\ast}$ corresponds to the non-retrieval phase, where the paramagnetic solution is stable and the memory solutions are unstable. In this phase, the average network behaviour has no significant overlap with the stored memory pattern. The region $\tau_{\mathrm{rec}} < \tau_{\mathrm{rec}}^*$ corresponds to the memory phase, where the paramagnetic solution is unstable and the memory solutions are stable. The network retrieves one of the stored memory patterns. For $\tau_{\mathrm{rec}}^{\ast }<\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}<\tau _{\mathrm{%
rec}}^{\ast \ast }$ (denoted “O” in the figure) none of the solutions is stable. The activity of the network in this regime keeps moving from one to the other fixed–points neighborhood (the pattern and anti-pattern in this simple example). This rapid switching behaviour is typical for dynamical synapses and does not occur for static synapses. A similar oscillatory behavior was reported in [@torresNC; @cortesNEUCOM] for the case of only synaptic depression. A main novelty is that the inclusion of facilitation importantly modifies the *phase diagram*, as discussed below (figure \[fig2\]). On the other hand, the phases for $\tau _{\mathrm{%
rec}}<\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}^{\ast }$ (F) and $\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}>\tau _{%
\mathrm{rec}}^{\ast \ast }$ (P) correspond, respectively, to a locally–stable regime with associative memory ($m\neq 0$) and to a disordered regime without memory (i.e., $m\equiv m^{1}=0$).
The values $\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}^{\ast }$ and $\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}^{\ast
\ast }$ which, as a function of $\tau _{\mathrm{fac}},$ $U$ and $T,$ determine the limits of the oscillatory phase correspond to the onset of condition $|\lambda _{n}|_{\mathrm{max}}>1.$ This condition defines lines in the parameter space ($\tau _{\text{rec}},\tau _{\text{fac}}$) that are illustrated in figure \[fig2\]. This reveals that $\tau _{\text{rec}%
}^{\ast }$ (separation between the F and O regions) in general decreases with increasing facilitation, which implies a larger oscillatory region and consequently a reduction of the memory phase. On the other hand, $%
\tau _{\text{rec}}^{\ast \ast }$ (separation between O and P regions) in general increases with facilitation, thus broadening further the width of the oscillatory phase $\delta \equiv \tau _{\text{rec}}^{\ast \ast }-\tau _{%
\text{rec}}^{\ast }.$ The behavior of this quantity under different conditions is illustrated in the insets of figure \[fig2\].
Another interesting consequence of facilitation are the changes in the phase diagram as one varies the facilitation parameter $U$ which measures the fraction of neurotransmitter that are not activated by the facilitating mechanism**.** In order to discuss this, we define the ratio between the time scales, $\gamma \equiv
\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}/\tau _{\mathrm{rec}},$ and monitor the phase diagram ($%
\tau _{\mathrm{rec}},U$) for varying $\gamma .$ The result is also in figure \[fig2\] —see the bottom graphs for $\gamma =1$ (left) and $0.25$ (right) which correspond, respectively, to a situation in which depression and facilitation occur in the same time scale and to a situation in which facilitation is four times faster. The two cases exhibit a similar behavior for large $U,$ but they are qualitatively different for small $U.$ In the case of faster facilitation, there is a range of $U$ values for which $\tau
_{\text{rec}}^{\ast }$ increases, in such a way that one passes from the oscillatory to the memory phase by slightly increasing $U.$ This means that facilitation tries to drive the network activity to one of the attractors ($%
\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}<\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}$) and, for weak depression ($U$ small), the activity will remain there. Decreasing $U$ further has then the effect of increasing effectively the system temperature, which destabilizes the attractor. This only requires small $U$ because the dynamics (\[u\]) rapidly decreases the second term in $\mathcal{F}_{j}$ to zero.
Figure \[fig3\] shows the variation with both $\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}$ and $%
\tau _{\mathrm{fac}}$ of the stationary locally–stable solution with associative memory, $m\neq 0$, computed this time both in the mean field approximation and using Monte Carlo simulation. This Monte Carlo simulation consists of iterating eqs. (\[s\]), (\[x\]) and (\[u\]) using parallel dynamics. This shows a perfect agreement between our mean–field approach above and Monte Carlo simulations as long as one is far from the transition, a fact which is confirmed below (in figure \[figure5\]). This is because, near $\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}^{\ast },$ the simulations describe hops between positive and negative $m$ which do not compare well with the mean–field absolute value $\left\vert m\right\vert .$
The most interesting behavior is perhaps the one revealed by the phase diagram $(T,\tau _{\mathrm{fac}})$ in figure \[figure4\]. Here we depict a case with $U=0.1,$ in order to clearly visualize the effect of facilitation —facilitation has practically no effect for any $U>0.5,$ as shown above— and $\tau _{\mathrm{rec}}=3$ms in order to compare with the situation of only depression in [@torresNC]. A main result here is that, for appropriate values of the working temperature $T$, one may force the system to undergo different types of transitions by simply varying $\tau _{\mathrm{%
fac}}.$ First note, that the line $\tau_{\mathrm{fac}}=0$ corresponds roughly to the case of static synapses, since $\tau_{\mathrm{rec}}$ is very small. In this limit the transition between retrieval (F) and non-retrieval (P) phases is at $T=U=0.1$ At low enough $T,$ there is transition between the non–retrieval (P) and retrieval phases (F) as facilitation is increased. This reveals a positive effect of facilitation on memory at low temperature, and suggests improvement of the network storage capacity which is usually measured at $%
T=0,$ a prediction that we have confirmed in preliminary simulations. At intermediate temperatures, e.g., $T\approx 0.22$ for $U=0.1,$ the systems shows no memory in the absence of facilitation, but increasing $\tau _{%
\mathrm{fac}}$ one may describe consecutive transitions to a retrieval phase (F), to a disordered phase (P), and then to an oscillatory phase (O). The latter is associated to a new instability induced by a strong depression effect due to the further increase of facilitation. At higher $T,$ facilitation may drive the system directly from complete disorder to an oscillatory regime.
In addition to its influence on the onset and width of the oscillatory region, $\tau _{\text{fac}}$ determines the frequency of the oscillations of $m.$ In order to study this effect, we computed the average time between consecutive minimum and maximum of these oscillations, i.e., a half period. The result is illustrated in the left graph of figure \[figure5\]. [This shows that the frequency of the oscillations increases with the facilitation time. This means that the access of the network activity to the attractors is faster with increasing facilitation, though the system then remains a shorter time near each attractor due to an stronger depression. ]{}On the other hand, we also computed the maximum of $m$ during oscillations, namely, $|m|_{\mathrm{max}}.$ This, which is depicted in the right graph of figure \[figure5\], also increases with $\tau _{\text{fac}}.$ The overall conclusion is that not only the access to the stored information is faster under facilitation but that [increasing facilitation will also help to retrieve information with less error.]{}
In order to deepen further on some aspects of the system behavior, we present in figures \[figure6\] and \[figure7\] a detailed study of specific time series. The middle graph in figure \[figure6\] corresponds to a simulation of the system evolution for increasing values of $\tau _{%
\text{fac}}$ as one describes the horizontal line for $T=0.22$ in figure [figure4]{}. The system thus visits consecutively the different regions (separated by vertical lines) as time goes on. That is, the simulation starts with the system in the stable *paramagnetic* phase, denoted P1 in the figure, and then successively moves by varying $\tau _{\text{fac}}$ into the stable *ferromagnetic* phase F, into another paramagnetic phase, P2, and, finally, into the oscillatory phase O.
We interpret that the observed behavior in P2 is due to competition between the facilitation mechanism, which tries to bring the system to the fixed–point attractors, and the depression mechanism, which tends to desestabilize the attractors. The result is a sort of intermittent behavior in which oscillations and convergence to a fixed point alternates, in a way which resembles (but is not) chaos. The top graph in figure \[figure6\], which corresponds to an average over independent runs, illustrates the typical behaviour of the system in these simulations; the middle run depicts an individual run.
Further interesting behavior is shown in the bottom graph of figure [figure6]{}. This corresponds to an individual run in the presence of a very small and irregular external stimulus which is represented by the (green) line around $m=0.$ This consist of an irregular series of positive and negative pulses of intensity $\pm 0.03\xi ^{1}$ and duration of 20 ms. In addition to a great sensibility to weak inputs from the environment, this reveals that increasing facilitation tends to significantly enhance the system response.
Figure \[figure7\] shows the power spectra of typical time series such as the ones in figure \[figure6\], namely, describing the horizontal line for $T=0.22$ in figure \[figure4\] to visit the different regimes. We plot here time series $m\left( t\right) $ obtained, respectively, for $\tau _{%
\text{fac}}=2,$ 20, 50 and 100 and, on top of each of them, the corresponding spectra. This reveals a flat, white–noise spectra for the P1 phase and also for the stable fixed–point solution in the F regime. However, the case for the intermittent P2 phase depicts a small peak around 65 Hz. The peak is much sharper and it occurs at 70 Hz in the oscillatory case.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that the dynamical properties of synapses have profound consequences on the behaviour, and the possible functional role, of recurrent neural networks. Depending on the relative strength of the depression, the facilitation and the noise in the network, one observes attractor dynamics to one of the stored patterns, non-retrieval where the neurons fire largely at random in a fashion that is uncorrelated to the stored memory patterns, or switching where none of the stored patterns is stable and the network switches rapidly between (the neighborhoods of) all of them. These three behaviours were also observed in our previous work where we studied the role of depression.
The particular role of facilitation is the following. The transitions between these possible phases are controlled by two facilitation parameters, namely, $\tau_{ \mathrm{fac}}$ and $U.$ Analysis of the oscillatory phase reveals that the frequency of the oscillations, as well as the maximum retrieval during oscillations increase when the degree of facilitation increases. That is, facilitation favours in the model a faster access to the stored information with a noticeably smaller error. This suggests that synaptic facilitation might have an important role in short–term memory processes.
There is increasing evidence in the literature that similar jumping processes could be at the origin of the animals ability to adapt and rapidly response to the continuously changing stimuli in their environment. We therefore believe that the network behaviour that is the consequence of dynamic synapses as presented in this paper may have important functional implications.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the *MEyC–FEDER* project FIS2005-00791, the *Junta de Andalucía* project FQM 165 and the EPSRC-funded COLAMN project Ref. EP/CO 10841/1. We thank useful discussion with Jorge F. Mejías.
[Laurent et al.(2001)Laurent, Stopfer, Friedrich, Rabinovich, Volkovskii, and Abarbanel]{} L. F. Abbott and W. G. Regehr. Synaptic computation. , 431:0 796–803, 2004.
D. J. Amit. . Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[bibitchkov]{} D. Bibitchkov, J. M. Herrmann, and T. Geisel. Pattern storage and processing in attractor networks with short-time synaptic dynamics. , 13:0 115–129, 2002.
N. Burnashev and A. Rozov. Presynaptic Ca2+ dynamics, Ca2+ buffers and synaptic efficacy. , 37:0 489–495, 2005.
[cortesNEUCOM]{} J. M. Cortes, P. L. Garrido, J. Marro, and J. J. Torres. Switching between memories in neural automata with synaptic noise. , 58-60:0 67–71, 2004.
[cortesNC]{} J. M. Cortes, J. J. Torres, J. Marro, P. L. Garrido, and H. J. Kappen. Effects of [F]{}ast [P]{}resynaptic [N]{}oise in [A]{}ttractor [N]{}eural [N]{}etworks. , 180 (3):0 614–633, 2006.
J. J. Hopfield. Neural [N]{}etworks and [P]{}hysical [S]{}ystems with [E]{}mergent [C]{}ollective [C]{}omputational [A]{}bilities. , 79:0 2554–2558, 1982.
G. Laurent, M. Stopfer, R. W. Friedrich, M. I. Rabinovich, A. Volkovskii, and H. D. I. Abarbanel. Odor encoding as an active, dynamical process: experiments, computation and theory. , 24:0 263–297, 2001.
H. H. Markram and M. V. Tsodyks. Redistribution of synaptic efficacy between pyramidal neurons , 382:0 807–810, 1996.
H. H. Markram, Y. Wang, and M. V. Tsodyks. Differential signaling via the same axon of neocortical pyramidal neurons. , 95:0 5323–5328, 1998.
J. Marro and R. Dickman. *Nonequilibrium phase transitions in lattice models*. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
J. Marro, P. L. Garrido, and J. J. Torres. Effect of correlated fluctuations of synapses in the performance of neural networks. , 81:0 2827–2830, 1998.
J. Marro, J. J. Torres, and J. M. Cortes. Chaotic hopping between attractors in neural automata. , 2005.
[hibrido]{} J. Marro, J. J. Torres, J. M. Cortes, B. Wemmenhove, and H. J. Kappen. Sensitivity, itinerancy and chaos in partly–synchronized weighted networks. , 2006.
O. Mazor and G. Laurent. Transient Dynamics versus Fixed Points in Odor Representations by Locust Antennal Lobe Projection Neurons. , 48:0 661–673, 2005.
L. Pantic, J. J. Torres, H. J. Kappen, and S. C. A. M. Gielen. Associative [M]{}emory with [D]{}ynamic [S]{}ynapses. , 14:0 2903–2923, 2002.
A. M. Thomson and J. Deuchars. Temporal and spatial properties of local circuits in neocortex. , 17:0 119–126, 1994.
[cortesBIOPHYSCHEM]{} J. J. Torres, J. Marro, P. L. Garrido, J. M. Cortes, F. Ramos, and M. A. Munoz. Effects of static and dynamic disorder on the performance of neural automata. , 115:0 285–288, 2005.
J. J. Torres, L. Pantic, and H. J. Kappen. Storage capacity of attractor neural networks with depressing synapses. , 66:0 061910, 2002.
M. Tsodyks, K. Pawelzik, and H. Markram. Neural networks with dynamic synapses. , 10:0 821–835, 1998.
M. V. Tsodyks and H. H. Markram. The neural code between neocortical pyramidal neurons depends on neurotransmitter release probability. , 94:0 719–723, 1997.
R.S. Zucker and W. G. Regehr. Short–time synaptic plasticity. , 64:0 355–405, 2002.
[^1]: Present address: Institute for Adaptive and Neural Computation, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 5 Forrest Hill, EH1 2QL, UK.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The spatial, kinematic, and elemental-abundance structure of the Milky Way’s stellar disk is complex, and has been difficult to dissect with local spectroscopic or global photometric data. Here, we develop and apply a rigorous density modeling approach for Galactic spectroscopic surveys that enables investigation of the global spatial structure of stellar sub-populations in narrow bins of [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} and [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}, using 23,767 G-type dwarfs from [*SDSS*]{}/[*SEGUE*]{}, which effectively sample $5 < R_{GC} < 12$ kpc and 0.3 $\lesssim |Z|
\lesssim 3$ kpc. We fit models for the number density of each such (\[$\alpha$/Fe\] & \[Fe/H\]) mono-abundance component, properly accounting for the complex spectroscopic [*SEGUE*]{} sampling of the underlying stellar population, as well as for the metallicity and color distributions of the samples. We find that each mono-abundance sub-population has a simple spatial structure that can be described by a single exponential in both the vertical and radial direction, with continuously increasing scale heights ($\approx$200 pc to 1 kpc) and decreasing scale lengths ($>$4.5 kpc to 2 kpc) for increasingly older sub-populations, as indicated by their lower metallicities and [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}enhancements. That the abundance-selected sub-components with the largest scale heights have the shortest scale lengths is in sharp contrast with purely geometric ‘thick–thin disk’ decompositions. To the extent that \[$\alpha$/Fe\] is an adequate proxy for age, our results directly show that older disk sub-populations are more centrally concentrated, which implies inside-out formation of galactic disks. The fact that the largest scale-height sub-components are most centrally concentrated in the Milky Way is an almost inevitable consequence of explaining the vertical structure of the disk through internal evolution. Whether the simple spatial structure of the mono-abundance sub-components, and the striking correlations between age, scale length, and scale height can be plausibly explained by satellite accretion or other external heating remains to be seen.
author:
- 'Jo Bovy, Hans-Walter Rix, Chao Liu, David W. Hogg, Timothy C. Beers, and Young Sun Lee'
title: 'The spatial structure of mono-abundance sub-populations of the Milky Way disk'
---
Introduction
============
The formation of galactic disks is a long-standing problem in galaxy formation. In numerical simulations, disks form through gas dissipation [@Sandage70a; @Larson76a], and the formation of the outer regions of the disk happens on longer time scales than the inner disk [@Gott76a; @Larson76a; @Katz91a]. The disks that form have exponential density profiles [@Lake88a], possibly due to the detailed conservation of angular momentum of an initially spherical cloud in solid-body rotation [@Fall80a; @Gunn82a]. Yet, direct observational evidence for this picture is scant [[e.g.]{}, @Dalcanton97a; @Somerville08a; @Wang11a], and forming realistic disks within the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm remains challenging [[e.g.]{}, @Abadi03a; @Scannapieco09a; @Guedes11a].
Central to the question as to how galactic disks form and evolve is the existence of “thick” disk components. First discovered in external galaxies [@Tsikoudi79a; @Burstein79a; @vanderkruit81a], thick-disk components represent excess light or stars beyond the canonical thin disk’s exponential vertical profile. The Milky Way’s thick-disk component [@Yoshii82a; @Gilmore83a; @Reid93a; @Majewski93a; @Juric08a] provides us with a detailed look at this common galactic component. Generally, thick-disk components are found to be old [@Bensby05a; @Yoachim08a], kinematically hot [@Chiba00a; @Soubiran03a; @Gilmore02a; @Yoachim05a], and metal-poor (compared to the thin-disk components), as well as enhanced in $\alpha$-elements [@Fuhrmann98a; @Prochaska00a; @Taut01a; @Bensby03a; @Feltzing03a; @Mishenina04a; @Bensby05a; @Reddy06a; @Haywood08a]. Density decompositions of the stellar disk into thinner and thicker components of external galaxies and the Milky Way have found that thicker-disk components have larger scale heights and longer scale lengths than their corresponding thin disk [@Robin96a; @Buser99a; @Chen01a; @Ojha01a; @Neeser02a; @Larsen03a; @Yoachim06a; @Pohlen07a; @Juric08a]. However, these decompositions are purely geometric, and do not take kinematics or abundance information into account when assigning thinner- or thicker-disk membership.
A number of qualitatively very different models have been proposed for the formation of thick-disk components. External mechanisms, such as the direct accretion of stars from a disrupted satellite galaxy [@Abadi03a] or the heating of a pre-existing thin disk through a minor merger [@Quinn93a; @Wyse06a; @Kazantzidis08a; @Villalobos08a; @Moster10a], can explain many of the observed properties of thick-disk components. Thick-disk components can also be formed internally through star formation following a gas-rich merger [[e.g.]{}, @Brook04a] or by quiescent internal dynamical evolution [@Schoenrich08a; @Schoenrich09a; @Loebman11a].
The idea that the thick-disk component could arise in good part through internal evolution is an intriguing possibility, as it explains a range of other observations. Significant redistribution of angular momentum without radially heating the disk (“radial migration”) happens naturally if spiral structure is transient [@sellwood02a; @roskar08a; @roskar11a], and has also been shown to occur through bar–spiral structure interactions [@Minchev10a; @Minchev11a]. It can also be induced by an orbiting satellite [@Quillen09a; @Bird11a]. The transient nature of spiral structure is favored both theoretically [[e.g.]{}, @Sellwood84a; @Carlberg85a; @Sellwood89a] and observationally from surveys of the Solar neighborhood [[e.g.]{}, @Dehnen98b; @deSimone04a; @Bovy09a; @Bovy10a; @Sellwood11a] and of external galaxies [[e.g.]{}, @Meidt09a; @Foyle11a]. Radial migration naturally explains the flatness and spread in the age-metallicity relation in the Solar neighborhood, as the large-scale changes in the guiding radii of stars tend to flatten radial-abundance gradients. A thicker-disk component arises through radial migration when stars from the inner Galaxy migrate outward, where the gravitational attraction toward the mid-plane is smaller, such that they reach larger heights above the plane. However, to date, radial-migration models have essentially only been confronted with data at the Solar radius, and observational tests to discriminate formation scenarios for thicker-disk components have not been conclusive [[e.g.]{}, @Dierickx10a].
Because radial migration is effectively a diffusion process, it complicates, if not erases, the link between the present-day chemo-orbital distribution and the orbital characteristics and abundance distribution at the time of a given stars’ birth. Without detailed modeling of the episodes of transient spiral structure (or the equivalent in other radial-migration scenarios), reconstructing the radial and azimuthal actions is problematic as well. However, the vertical action is an adiabatic invariant during the slow change in the vertical potential that ensues from this migration. The overall (mass-weighted) radial structure of the disk is left relatively unchanged as radial migration proceeds [@sellwood02a; @Minchev11a]—essentially because any redistribution of the surface-mass density would provide energy to heat the disk, and to avoid this heating the overall surface-mass density profile needs to be conserved—but if different (age- or abundance-) components of the disk have a different initial structure, radial migration will work to bring the spatial distribution of different populations closer to the mean.
In this paper we implement for the first time an alternative approach to globally ‘dissecting’ the Milky Way’s stellar disk: we study the overall (vertical and radial) spatial structure of large samples of stars selected to be sub-populations in the elemental-abundance space spanned by metallicity \[Fe/H\] and $\alpha$-abundance [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}[^1], as it is becoming increasingly clear that a characterization of the thicker disk components based only on stellar abundances is superior to kinematic definitions [@Navarro11a; @Lee11b]. The [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} ratio in particular is a crucial parameter, as it can be used as a relative age indicator [@Wyse88a]. At early times, the low-metallicity interstellar medium is enriched by type II supernovae (SNeII). After about 2 to 3 Gyr, type Ia SNe occur [[e.g.]{} @Maoz11a], and the stellar yields shift toward Fe, leading to a decreasing [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} with increasing age. Therefore, populations of stars with enhanced [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}ratios are chemically older than those with [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} closer to the solar ratio. By using the [*SDSS*]{}/[*SEGUE*]{} G-dwarf sample, we observe stars globally across the Milky Way, constraining their vertical distributions from 300 pc to 4 kpc from the mid-plane, and their radial densities from Galactocentric radii ranging from 5 to 12 kpc. We show that the scale length of the $\alpha$-enhanced—and thus probably oldest—population is much shorter than that of the chemically more-evolved stars with solar [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}. This is opposite to previous disk decompositions into thicker and thinner components that make use of geometric information alone [[e.g.]{}, @Juric08a and see above]. Also, we do not detect any discontinuity in the vertical scale height as a function of [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} that might be expected if the thick-disk component was formed through a singular external or internal event, but instead observe a continuous increase in scale-height with [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}. This casts doubt on how sensible or useful it is to think of distinct thin- and thick-disk components in the Milky Way.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In [$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:data\] we present the details of our data sample. Our density-fit methodology, accounting for the various aspects of the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function, is given in [$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:density\]. We give the results of the density fits to the various abundance-selected samples in [$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:results\], and discuss these results in terms of disk formation and evolution models in [$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:discussion\]. We summarize the main conclusions of the paper in [$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:conclusion\]. The appendices describe our model for the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function, some details of our fitting methodology, and detailed comparisons between our fits and the data. Modeling the spectroscopic [*SEGUE*]{} selection function is central to our analysis. It is described in an appendix to aid the readability of the paper, as its implementation requires a detailed and hence extensive description that may not be of interest to all readers. Throughout this paper, we assume that the Sun’s displacement from the mid-plane is 25 pc toward the North Galactic Pole [@Chen01a; @Juric08a], and that the Sun is located at 8 kpc from the Galactic center [[e.g.]{}, @Bovy09b].
Data {#sec:data}
====
The *Sloan Digital Sky Survey* ([*SDSS*]{}; @York:2000gk) has obtained *u,g,r,i* and *z* CCD imaging of $\approx$ 10$^4$ deg$^2$ of the northern and southern Galactic sky [@Gunn:1998vh; @Stoughton:2002ae; @Gunn06a]. All the data processing, including astrometry [@Pier:2002iq], source identification, deblending, and photometry [@Lupton:2001zb], calibration [@Fukugita:1996qt; @Hogg01a; @Smith:2002pca; @Ivezic:2004bf; @Padmanabhan08a], and spectroscopic fiber placement [@Blanton:2001yk], are performed with automated [*SDSS*]{}software. The [*SDSS*]{} spectroscopic survey uses two fiber-fed spectrographs that have 320 fibers each.
The *Sloan Extension for Galactic Understanding and Exploration* ([*SEGUE*]{}; @Yanny09a) is a low-resolution ($R\approx2,000$) spectroscopic sub-survey of the [*SDSS*]{} focused on Galactic science. We select a sample of G-type dwarfs from the [*SDSS*]{}/[*SEGUE*]{} Data Release 7 (DR7; @Abazajian09a). G-type dwarfs are the most luminous tracers whose main-sequence lifetime is larger than the expected disk age at basically all metallicities. G-type stars are selected from the full DR7 [*SEGUE*]{} sample using a simple color–magnitude-cut that corresponds to the [*SEGUE*]{} G-star target type: 0.48 $\leq g-r \leq
0.55$ and $r < 20.2$. All magnitudes here and in what follows are absorption-corrected and dereddened, respectively, using the reddening maps of @Schlegel98a; as we only use lines of sight with relatively small extinction and we do not use the [*SDSS*]{} $u$ band, using the improved reddening maps of @Schlafly11a leads to insignificant differences for the purpose of our analysis. We further limit the spectroscopic sample to those lines of sight with $E(B-V) <
0.3$, to minimize effects due to uncertainty in extinction, to objects having spectra with signal-to-noise ratio [SN]{} $> 15$, and to objects with valid metallicities, heliocentric line-of-sight velocities, and proper motions (even though the latter two are not used in the analysis). All of the selected objects have valid values for their stellar atmospheric parameters as determined by the [*SEGUE*]{} Stellar Parameter Pipeline [@Lee08a; @Lee08b; @AllendePrieto08a; @Lee11a; @Smolinski11a]. Typical uncertainties in these parameters are 0.2 dex for the spectroscopic metallicity [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}, 0.1 dex for [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}, 0.25 dex for the surface gravity [log g]{}, and 180 K for the effective temperature [@Schlesinger10a; @Smolinski11a]. In what follows we are primarily interested in the relative rankings of stars based on [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} and [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}, such that random uncertainties are all that matter. Note that our signal-to-noise-ratio cut of [SN]{} $>15$ is more inclusive than recommended by @Lee11a (who recommend [SN]{} $> 20$), but this does not increase the uncertainties in [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} by much. For dwarfs with [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} $> -2$, there is no significant correlation between the [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}and [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} estimates. We use this sample of G-type stars to determine the [*SEGUE*]{} G-star selection function in \[sec:selection\] below.
We select G-type dwarfs by selecting stars with [log g]{} $> 4.2$, to eliminate giant stars (we have verified that more conservative [log g]{}cuts give the same results, see \[sec:datamodel\]). We perform no other cuts ([e.g.]{}, other color cuts or distance cuts) beyond these basic cuts in order to preserve a relatively simple spatial selection function. This sample contains about 28,000 stars, 23,767 of which lie within the well-populated bins in the ([$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{},[$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}) plane that we analyze below. Distances to individual stars are obtained from the @Ivezic08a photometric color–metallicity-absolute-magnitude relation (their eqn. A7) applied to the $g-r$ color, rather than the $g-i$ color, using $$\label{eq:ri_gr} r-i =
\frac{(g-r-0.12)}{2.34}\, ,$$ and employing the spectroscopic metallicity. These distances are about 10percent larger than the distances obtained from the @An09a stellar isochrones, with little to no color or metallicity dependence over the color and metallicity ranges considered here (see \[fig:dm\_anjuric\_ivezic\] and further discussion in [$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:discussion\]). Individual distance uncertainties are typically $\lesssim$ 10percent, and thus do not greatly smooth the underlying Galactic density, whose scales are much larger than this (for an illustration of this see @Juric08a, where much larger distance uncertainties of around 20percent were shown to influence the inferred scale heights by less than 5percent).
![Distribution of the spectroscopic sample of G dwarfs in elemental-abundance space. The density is linear, and the contours contain 68, 95, and 99percent of the distribution. Outliers beyond 99percent are individually shown. Our cuts to select [$\alpha$-old]{} (top, left) and [$\alpha$-young]{} (bottom, right) samples are shown as dashed boxes. The dotted lines indicate the median \[Fe/H\] for the [$\alpha$-old]{} sample (rounded to the nearest 0.05 dex), used to split the [$\alpha$-old]{} sample in \[Fe/H\], and for [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} $<$ 0.25 the dotted box indicates the metal-poor [$\alpha$-young]{} sample, used in [$\mathsection$]{}[$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:aenhancedresults\] and \[sec:apoorresults\].[]{data-label="fig:afeh_g"}](afeh_g_rich.ps){width="50.00000%"}
The distribution of the G-dwarf sample in the elemental abundance space, made up of \[Fe/H\] and \[$\alpha$/Fe\], is shown in \[fig:afeh\_g\]. This distribution is characterized by two modes, one a metal-poor, $\alpha$-enhanced population that must represent the oldest part of the Galactic disk, and another that is metal-rich and has a solar \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratio. The two boxes delineated by dashed lines constitute our broad separation of these two populations, which we will refer to as [$\alpha$-old]{} and [$\alpha$-young]{}, respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sampledef}
\alpha\text{-}\mathrm{old\ sample}:\qquad \qquad \qquad &\nonumber\\
\qquad -1.5 < {\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}< -0.25,\, & 0.25 < {\ensuremath{[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]}}< 0.50\,,\\
\nonumber\\
\alpha\text{-}\mathrm{young\ sample}:\qquad \qquad \ \ &\nonumber\\
\qquad -0.3 < {\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}< \phantom{-}0.25,\,& 0.00 < {\ensuremath{[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]}}< 0.25\,.\end{aligned}$$
![Spatial distribution of the spectroscopic sample of [$\alpha$-old]{} (*top panel*) and [$\alpha$-young]{} (*bottom panel*) G dwarfs in the $R,Z$ plane.[]{data-label="fig:dataxyrz_g_poor"}](datarz_g_poor.ps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}\
![Spatial distribution of the spectroscopic sample of [$\alpha$-old]{} (*top panel*) and [$\alpha$-young]{} (*bottom panel*) G dwarfs in the $R,Z$ plane.[]{data-label="fig:dataxyrz_g_poor"}](datarz_g_rich.ps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
The spatial distributions of the [$\alpha$-old]{} and [$\alpha$-young]{} G-dwarf samples are shown in \[fig:dataxyrz\_g\_poor\], without accounting for the selection function. It is clear from this figure that the bright limit of the G-dwarf sample ($r > 14.5$, see below) is such that the effective minimum distance is approximately 600 pc. This means that for the thinner disk components, stars within one scale height are not sampled by [*SDSS*]{}/[*SEGUE*]{} (this is also apparent in \[fig:afeh\_g\], where most stars have sub-solar metallicities). However, because the thinner components also contain the most stars (see below and @Bovy12a), there are still sufficient stars above one scale height of these components such that the G-dwarf data set contains a large number of them.
Understanding and modeling the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function, [i.e.]{}, the relation between the stars with successfully determined spectral parameters that enter our sample, and their photometric or volume-complete parent population, is central to any analysis that involves the spatial structure of spectroscopically-selected samples. It has not been worked out previously, and while in principle straightforward, it requires attention to a number of details. We describe our model for the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function in \[sec:selection\]. The [*SEGUE*]{} G-star sample was obtained by uniformly sampling the dereddened color–magnitude boxes with color range 0.48 $\leq g-r \leq 0.55$ and a “bright” (14.5 $\leq r \leq 17.8$) and “faint” (17.8 $\leq r \leq 20.2$) apparent magnitude range along a set of $\approx 150$ lines of sight. Due to our signal-to-noise ratio cut, this uniform sampling is truncated at a brighter magnitude, where the cut-off is different for each line of sight. We determine the cut-off for each [*SEGUE*]{} plug-plate (which we refer to simply as “plates” in what follows) as the faintest star in the color–magnitude box, and model the $r$-dependence of the selection function using a hyperbolic-tangent step around the cut-off. We obtain the overall selection fraction for each line of sight by comparing the size of the spectroscopic sample to that of the photometric sample in the targeted color–magnitude box for each individual line of sight. This model is described in more detail in \[sec:selection\].
Density fitting methodology {#sec:density}
===========================
Generalities
------------
Fitting the spatial-density profiles of various G-dwarf sub-samples must account for the fact that the observed star counts do not reflect the underlying stellar distribution, but are strongly shaped by (a) the strongly position-dependent selection fraction of stars with spectra (see \[fig:sfxyrz\_g\]), (b) the need to use photometric distances that in turn depend on the color and metallicity distribution of the sample (as the magnitude-limited [*SEGUE*]{} sample corresponds to a color- and metallicity-dependent distance-limited sample), and (c) the pencil-beam nature of the [*SEGUE*]{} survey. To properly take all of these effects into account, we need to use forward modeling: in what follows we fit stellar-density models to the data by generating the expected observed distribution of stars in the spectroscopic sample, based on our model for the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function and the photometric distance relation; this predicted distribution is then compared to the observed star counts. We show below how this can be expressed as a maximum likelihood problem. This general density-fitting methodology applies to any spectroscopic survey, with minor modifications, and needs to be applied to obtain selection-corrected distributions from spectroscopically selected stellar samples. In particular, this methodology needs to be applied to constrain the structural parameters of abundance-selected samples in the Milky Way.
As the photometric distance estimates depend on the $g-r$ color, metallicity \[Fe/H\], and apparent $r$-band magnitude, and because the selection function is a function of position, $r$, and $g-r$, we need to model the observed density of stars in color–magnitude–metallicity–position space, $\lambda(l,b,d,r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}})$. This density of stars can be written as $$\label{eq:rate}
\begin{split}
\lambda(l,b,d,r,&g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}})= \\
& \rho(r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z,\phi)\times{\ensuremath{\nu_*}}(R,Z,\phi)
\\ & \times |J(R,Z,\phi;l,b,d)| \times S(\mathrm{plate},r,g-r)\,.
\end{split}$$ Here, $(R,Z,\phi)$ are Galactocentric cylindrical coordinates corresponding to rectangular coordinates $(X,Y,Z)$, which can be calculated from $(l,b,d)$. The factor $\rho(r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z,\phi)$ is the number density in magnitude–color–metallicity space as a function of position (see further discussion in \[sec:colorFeh\]). The $|J(R,z;l,b,d)|$ is a Jacobian term because of the $(X,Y,Z)
\rightarrow (l,b,d)$ coordinate transformation; the crucial factor $S(\mathrm{plate},r,g-r)$ is the selection function as given in [[equation]{}]{} (\[eq:seguesf\]). Finally, ${\ensuremath{\nu_*}}(R,Z,\phi)$ is the underlying spatial number density of the sample; we stress that this is a density as a function of rectangular coordinates $(X,Y,Z)$ that we evaluate through $(R,Z,\phi)$ (as we will assume later that the density is axisymmetric), [i.e.]{}, its dimension is 1 / (spatial unit)$^3$. In what follows we will assume that our models for this density ([e.g.]{}, exponentials in the vertical and radial direction) are characterized by a set of parameters denoted as $\theta$ and that the density is axisymmetric, such that ${\ensuremath{\nu_*}}\equiv {\ensuremath{\nu_*}}(R,Z|\theta)$.
The likelihood of a given model for the density ${\ensuremath{\nu_*}}(R,z|\theta)$ is given by that of a Poisson process with rate parameter $\lambda$ $$\label{eq:likelike}
\begin{split}
\ln & \mathcal{L} = \sum_i \left[ \ln \lambda(\{l,b,d,r,\right.\left.g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\}_i|\theta)
\right]\\
& -\int {\mathrm{d}}l \,{\mathrm{d}}b\, {\mathrm{d}}d\, {\mathrm{d}}r\, {\mathrm{d}}(g-r) \,{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\,\lambda(l,b,d,r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|\theta)\, ,
\end{split}$$ where the integral is over the domain surveyed and $i$ indexes the observed objects. Because the Jacobian, the selection function, and the density in magnitude–color–metallicity space only enter $\lambda$ multiplicatively ([equation]{} (\[eq:rate\])) their contribution to the first term ($\ln \lambda$) in [equation]{} (\[eq:likelike\]) is a constant that does not depend on the density parameters. Thus, up to a term that does not depend on $\theta$, the log likelihood is equivalent to $$\label{eq:densitylike}
\begin{split}
\ln \mathcal{L} &= \sum_i \left[ \ln {\ensuremath{\nu_*}}(R,z|\{l,b,d\}_i,\theta)
\right]\\
& \ -\int {\mathrm{d}}l \,{\mathrm{d}}b\, {\mathrm{d}}d\, {\mathrm{d}}r\, {\mathrm{d}}(g-r) \,{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\,\lambda(l,b,d,r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|\theta) \, .
\end{split}$$ Note that the Jacobian, the density in the magnitude–color–metallicity space, and the selection function only enter through the second term, and do not need to be evaluated on a star–by–star basis. The second term in [equation]{} (\[eq:densitylike\])—the normalization integral—can be written as (assuming that the density does not depend on $(l,b)$ over the area of a plate, although this can easily be relaxed) $$\label{eq:normint}
\begin{split}
\int & {\mathrm{d}}l\, {\mathrm{d}}b\,{\mathrm{d}}d\, {\mathrm{d}}r\, {\mathrm{d}}(g-r) \,{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\,\lambda(l,b,d,r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|\theta) \\
&= A_p\,\sum_{\mathrm{plates}\ p}
\int {\mathrm{d}}(g-r)\,{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\,{\mathrm{d}}r \, S(p,r,g-r) \\
& \qquad \int {\mathrm{d}}d\,
\rho(r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z,\phi)\,d^2\,{\ensuremath{\nu_*}}(R,z|l,b,d,\theta)\,,
\end{split}$$ where $A_p$ is the area of a [*SEGUE*]{} plate (approximately 7 deg$^2$).
In the following, we analytically marginalize over the amplitude of the rate $\lambda$ with a logarithmically flat prior. In that case, the log likelihood becomes $$\label{eq:densitylike2}
\begin{split}
\ln& \mathcal{L} =\\& \sum_i \left[ \ln {\ensuremath{\nu_*}}(R,z|\{l,b,d\}_i,\theta)\right.\\
&\left.-\ln \int {\mathrm{d}}l \,{\mathrm{d}}b\, {\mathrm{d}}d\, {\mathrm{d}}r\, {\mathrm{d}}(g-r) \,{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\,\lambda(l,b,d,r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|\theta)\right]\,.
\end{split}$$ Note that the normalization integral is now moved inside of the logarithm.
In \[sec:colorFeh\], we discuss how we include the magnitude–color–metallicity factor $\rho(r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z,\phi)$ in the likelihood.
Stellar number density models
-----------------------------
We fit number-density models for the various abundance sub-populations, consisting of a disk with an exponential profile in both the vertical and radial direction, plus a constant density $$\label{eq:densmodel} \begin{split} {\ensuremath{\nu_*}}(&R,Z) =\\
& N({\ensuremath{R_0}})\left[\frac{1}{2\,{\ensuremath{h_z}}}\,\exp\left(-\frac{R-{\ensuremath{R_0}}}{{\ensuremath{h_R}}}\right)\,\exp\left(-\frac{|Z|}{{\ensuremath{h_z}}}\right) + \frac{\beta_c}{24}\right]\,,
\end{split}$$ where $N({\ensuremath{R_0}})$ is the vertically-integrated number density at [$R_0$]{}. We refer to this model below as a single-exponential disk fit, as in all cases the data imply $\beta_c \ll 1$. We also fit combinations of exponential disks as $$\begin{split}{\ensuremath{\nu_*}}& (R,Z) =\\
& N({\ensuremath{R_0}})\,\left[\frac{1-\beta_2}{2\,{\ensuremath{h_z}}}\,\exp\left(-\frac{R-{\ensuremath{R_0}}}{{\ensuremath{h_R}}}\right)\,\exp\left(-\frac{|Z|}{{\ensuremath{h_z}}}\right)
\right. \\ & \left. +
\frac{\beta_2}{2\,h_{z,2}}\,\exp\left(-\frac{R-{\ensuremath{R_0}}}{h_{R,2}}\right)\,\exp\left(-\frac{|Z|}{h_{z,2}}\right)\right]\, . \end{split}$$ In particular in the $Z$ direction, this is analogous to traditional density fits based on photometric data, which require (at least) two exponential components. We do not fit for the overall normalization, $N({\ensuremath{R_0}})$, as we are interested primarily in the shape of the stellar-density profile.
To determine the best-fit parameters and their uncertainties we use Powell’s method for minimization [@Press07a], and then MCMC-sample the posterior distribution function, obtained by multiplying the likelihood in [equation]{} (\[eq:densitylike2\]) with flat logarithmic priors for the scale parameters ([$h_z$]{}, [$h_R$]{}, $h_{z,2}$, $h_{R,2}$) and flat priors on the contamination-fraction parameters ($\beta_c$, $\beta_2$), using an ensemble MCMC sampler (@Goodman10a; Foreman-Mackey [et al.]{}, 2011, in preparation).
Tests on mock data
------------------
In \[sec:fakedata\], we discuss tests of the fitting methodology on mock data sets made up of single-exponential disk components observed using the [*SEGUE*]{} sampling. These tests show that we can recover the input density structure to within the MCMC-determined uncertainties over the range of inferred scale heights, scale lengths, and sample sizes found below.
Density structure {#sec:results}
=================
First, we briefly discuss the result of fitting the broad bins in abundance as defined in [equation]{} (\[eq:sampledef\]), in order to explore the broad trends in spatial structure with elemental abundance. In [$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:monoresults\], we then split the sample finely in elemental-abundance space and map the structure of mono-abundance populations.
The [$\alpha$-old]{} stars {#sec:aenhancedresults}
--------------------------
[cr@lr@lr@lr@lr@lr@l]{} all plates & 701&$\pm$5& 2.06&$\pm$0.03& …& & …& & …& & 0.0000&$\pm$0.0009\
bright plates & 769&$\pm$14& 1.79&$\pm$0.05& …& & …& & …& & 0.004&$\pm$0.009\
faint plates & 714&$\pm$11& 2.25&$\pm$0.05& …& & …& & …& & 0.001&$\pm$0.001\
$b < 0^\circ$ & 694&$\pm$9& 2.02&$\pm$0.05& …& & …& & …& & 0.0000&$\pm$0.0010\
$b > 0^\circ$ & 699&$\pm$8& 2.10&$\pm$0.04& …& & …& & …& & 0.000&$\pm$0.001\
$|b| > 45^\circ$ & 696&$\pm$6& 2.23&$\pm$0.06& …& & …& & …& & 0.0000&$\pm$0.0009\
$|b| < 45^\circ$ & 640&$\pm$10& 2.05&$\pm$0.04& …& & …& & …& & 0.002&$\pm$0.002\
\
all plates & 686&$\pm$11& 2.01&$\pm$0.05& 933&$\pm$49& 3.0&$\pm$0.4& 0.04&$\pm$0.03& …&\
bright plates & 764&$\pm$20& 1.78&$\pm$0.04& 3126&$\pm$271& $>$64 & & 0.01&$\pm$0.02& …&\
faint plates & 688&$\pm$40& 2.2&$\pm$0.1& 1311&$\pm$189& $>$3.0 (5&$\pm$1)& 0.03&$\pm$0.04& …&\
$b < 0^\circ$ & 671&$\pm$22& 1.97&$\pm$0.08& 993&$\pm$169& 3.7&$\pm$0.4& 0.05&$\pm$0.05& …&\
$b > 0^\circ$ & 687&$\pm$11& 2.06&$\pm$0.07& 886&$^{+350}_{-708}$& 3&$\pm$1& 0.04&$\pm$0.04& …&\
$|b| > 45^\circ$ & 692&$\pm$11& 2.2&$\pm$0.1& 800&$\pm$88& 4.3&$\pm$0.4& 0.01&$\pm$0.07& …&\
$|b| < 45^\circ$ & 639&$\pm$17& 2.03&$\pm$0.07& 1142&$\pm$99& $>$5 & & 0.01&$\pm$0.02& …&\
\
Fe/H\] $<$ -0.7 & 856&$\pm$20& 2.06&$\pm$0.08& 865&$\pm$108& 2.1&$\pm$0.3& 0.07&$\pm$0.08& …&\
Fe/H\] $>$ -0.7 & 583&$\pm$16& 1.97&$\pm$0.08& 873&$\pm$62& 4.0&$\pm$0.5& 0.03&$\pm$0.04& …&\
\
0.25 $\leq$ \[$\alpha$/Fe\] $<$ 0.35 & 627&$\pm$18& 2.23&$\pm$0.10& 802&$\pm$104& 3.5&$\pm$0.3& 0.03&$\pm$0.06& …&\
0.35 $\leq$ \[$\alpha$/Fe\] $<$ 0.5 & 765&$\pm$15& 1.89&$\pm$0.04& 826&$\pm$45& 2.0&$\pm$0.1& 0.03&$\pm$0.06& …&
For the [$\alpha$-old]{} sample, the fit results for single exponential profiles in $R$ and $Z$, and for a combination of two exponential profiles for both $R$ and $Z$, are given in \[table:poor\_results\]. The model with two exponentials in both $R$ and $Z$ is preferred, but the parameters of the dominant double-exponential disk are similar for both fits. That is, *even when we give the model the additional freedom of two vertical scale heights, the data lead us to employ only a single exponential scale height*. There is no evidence for a thinner component in the [$\alpha$-old]{} abundance range. We see that the [$\alpha$-old]{} sample is dominated by a population of stars with a scale height of 686$\pm$11 pc, and a short scale length of 2.01$\pm$0.05 kpc (consistent with the rough estimate of 2 kpc based on a handful of stars by @Bensby11a and the indirect dynamical estimate of 2.2$\pm$0.35 kpc of @Carollo10a).
We have split the [$\alpha$-old]{} sample into more metal-poor and more metal-rich sub-samples by cutting the sample at \[Fe/H\] = $-0.7$. This is close to the median \[Fe/H\] of the [$\alpha$-old]{} sample. The metal-poor sub-sample may be identified with the metal-weak thick disk (MWTD) population discussed by @Carollo10a, which they argue covers the metallicity range $-1.8 \leq {\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\ \leq -0.8$. The resulting fits for the spatial structure of these sub-samples are given in \[table:poor\_results\]. The inferred scale lengths for these sub-samples are equal to within the uncertainties. However, the scale height of the more metal-poor sample is 856$\pm$20 pc while that of the more metal-rich sample is 583$\pm$16 pc. The radial scale length of the MWTD determined from the indirect dynamical analysis of @Carollo10a is roughly 2 kpc, while the scale height is 1.36$\pm$0.13 kpc.
We have also split the [$\alpha$-old]{} sample into two bins in [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} by splitting the sample at [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} = 0.35. The best-fit density profiles, given at the bottom of \[table:poor\_results\], again have similar scale lengths, around 2 kpc, and different scale heights. The stars that are most enhanced in $\alpha$-elements have the largest scale height (765$\pm$15 pc) and the shortest scale length (1.89$\pm$0.04 kpc), while the less $\alpha$-enhanced stars have a smaller scale height (627$\pm$18 pc) and longer scale length (2.23$\pm$0.1 kpc). As the latter dominate the full [$\alpha$-old]{}sample, their scale height is very similar to that inferred for the full sample. We explore the dependence of the disk parameters on [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}and [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} in more detail in [$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:monoresults\] below.
The [$\alpha$-young]{} sample {#sec:apoorresults}
-----------------------------
The results for single exponential disk fits and double exponential disk fits for the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample are given in \[table:rich\_results\]. The double exponential disk fit model is formally preferred, but the parameters of the dominant double-exponential disk are again similar for both fits. We see that the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample is dominated by a population of stars with a low scale height of 256$\pm$4 pc and a long scale length of 3.6$\pm$0.2 kpc.
The second double-exponential disk in the best-fit model for the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample has a scale height of 664$\pm$132 pc, which is consistent with the scale-height measurement of the [$\alpha$-old]{} sample above. However, the fraction of stars in this secondary component is too small to constrain its scale length, and is conceivably simply a result of ‘abundance contamination’ of the sample.
Density fits for [$\alpha$-young]{} samples with the same [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} limits as the nominal [$\alpha$-young]{} sample shown in the top panel, but that are more metal-poor, are also given in \[table:rich\_results\]. We do not measure any radial density decline for these more metal-poor [$\alpha$-young]{} samples, and short scale lengths for these samples are ruled out by the data. We consider this further in [$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:monoresults\] and in the discussion section below.
When we split the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample into two pieces, by cutting at [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}= 0.15, we find that the more $\alpha$-enhanced sample has the shortest scale length (2.3$\pm$0.2 kpc) and the largest scale height (348$\pm$13 pc). The sample with [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} closer to solar has a longer scale length of 4.3$\pm$0.2 kpc and a smaller scale height of 239$\pm$4 pc.
[cr@lr@lr@lr@lr@lr@l]{} all plates & 270&$\pm$3& 3.8&$\pm$0.2& …& & …& & …& & 0.0005&$\pm$0.0010\
bright plates & 267&$\pm$3& 3.6&$\pm$0.2& …& & …& & …& & 0.0009&$\pm$0.0003\
faint plates & 329&$\pm$14& $>$3.8 (5.1&$\pm$1.0)& …& & …& & …& & 0.0010&$\pm$0.0003\
$b < 0^\circ$ & 264&$\pm$4& 3.6&$\pm$0.2& …& & …& & …& & 0.0008&$\pm$0.0009\
$b > 0^\circ$ & 271&$\pm$4& 3.80&$\pm$0.10& …& & …& & …& & 0.000&$\pm$0.001\
$|b| > 45^\circ$ & 270&$\pm$5& 4.2&$\pm$0.8& …& & …& & …& & 0.0004&$\pm$0.0008\
$|b| < 45^\circ$ & 264&$\pm$3& 4.0&$\pm$0.2& …& & …& & …& & 0.0006&$\pm$0.0007\
\
all plates & 256&$\pm$4& 3.6&$\pm$0.2& 664&$\pm$132& $>$5 & & 0.012&$\pm$0.004& …&\
bright plates & 260&$\pm$5& 3.5&$\pm$0.3& 491&$\pm$83& $>$2 & & 0.02&$\pm$0.02& …&\
faint plates & 268&$\pm$23& $>$3.8 (5.0&$\pm$0.8)& 910&$\pm$152& $>$2.9 (6&$\pm$2)& 0.014&$\pm$0.008& …&\
$b < 0^\circ$ & 242&$\pm$8& 3.2&$\pm$0.2& 639&$\pm$81& $>$5 & & 0.017&$\pm$0.010& …&\
$b > 0^\circ$ & 263&$\pm$6& 3.7&$\pm$0.2& 834&$\pm$70& $>$4 & & 0.004&$\pm$0.002& …&\
$|b| > 45^\circ$ & 249&$\pm$6& 3.8&$\pm$0.8& 631&$\pm$142& $>$6 & & 0.015&$\pm$0.005& …&\
$|b| < 45^\circ$ & 252&$\pm$5& 3.9&$\pm$0.3& 656&$\pm$65& $>$5 & & 0.012&$\pm$0.005& …&\
\
-1.5 $<$ Fe/H\] $<$ -0.6 & 689&$\pm$25& $>$37 & & 1431&$^{+704}_{-1916}$& 1.1&$^{+0.6}_{-1.0}$& 0.03&$\pm$0.07& …&\
-0.6 $<$ \[Fe/H\] $<$ -0.3 & 360&$\pm$9& $>$16 & & 946&$\pm$92& $>$14 & & 0.018&$\pm$0.009& …&\
\
0.00 $<$ \[$\alpha$/Fe\] $<$ 0.15 & 239&$\pm$4& 4.3&$\pm$0.2& 647&$\pm$53& $>$7 & & 0.010&$\pm$0.003& …&\
0.15 $\leq$ \[$\alpha$/Fe\] $<$ 0.25 & 348&$\pm$13& 2.3&$\pm$0.2& 959&$\pm$335& $>$2.0 (5&$\pm$2)& 0.018&$\pm$0.009& …&
The spatial structure of mono-abundance sub-populations {#sec:monoresults}
-------------------------------------------------------
In the previous two sections we found that sub-samples of stars defined by their element abundances appear to have a simple spatial structure, approximated by a single exponential in the radial and vertical direction. The scale lengths and heights of these sub-sets seem to vary systematically with the abundances: the [$\alpha$-old]{}sample has a shorter scale length than the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample, and if we split those two samples further in [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}, the part of the [$\alpha$-young]{}sample that has the closest to the solar [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} ratio has the longest scale length and the smallest scale height. We also noticed that populations with [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} $< 0.25$ have longer scale lengths and scale heights with decreasing [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}.
\
To further investigate these trends, we have fit disk models with single exponential profiles in $R$ and $Z$ to sub-populations of stars with narrow bins in [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} and [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}. We divide stars into bins of width 0.1 dex in [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} and 0.05 dex in [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}, and only fit those bins with more than 100 stars. The results from these fits are shown in \[fig:pixelFit\_g\]. The populations in the lower left part of the [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}–[$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} diagram all have best-fit scale lengths in excess of 4.5 kpc.
We also fit two-component, [i.e.]{}, two exponential disks to each of the bins, but found that these led to overfitting, and only marginal improvements in the likelihood for the best fit. Thus, for narrow bins in elemental-abundance space, the sub-populations are very-well described by single exponential profiles in the $R$ and $Z$ directions.
\
A different view of the results in \[fig:pixelFit\_g\] is given in \[fig:pixelFit\_g\_alt\]. The results in the different [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}–[$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} bins are shown as a function of scale length and scale height; the points are color-coded by their [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} or [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}dependence, and the size of the points corresponds to the total stellar surface-mass density—corrected for mass and sample selection effects–in each population (calculated in @Bovy12a). \[fig:pixelFit\_g\_alt\] also shows the uncertainties in the inferred parameters; the formal uncertainty in the scale height for some points is so small that it cannot be seen. The bins with dashed error bars lie in a part of the abundance plane where abundance contamination is likely to be the most severe, where the [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}-based age ranking is least reliable, and where the spatial properties change most rapidly. They contain $<$ 5percent of the disk surface mass.
We see that these fits for mono-abundance sub-components flesh out the main trends we noted in the broader [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} and [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} ranges above. At any given metallicity [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}, the scale length increases and the scale height decreases when moving from [$\alpha$-old]{} to [$\alpha$-young]{}populations. At any given $\alpha$-age, the scale length and the scale height increase for the more metal-poor components, implying an outward metallicity gradient. And, as \[fig:pixelFit\_g\_alt\] shows most clearly, increasing scale lengths are correlated with decreasing scale heights (except for a few bins on the boundary between the very long scale lengths at low metallicity and solar $\alpha$-enhancement and the shorter scale lengths of the [$\alpha$-old]{} populations; see further discussion in [$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:discuss\_evolve\]). From \[fig:pixelFit\_g\] it is clear that neither [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} or [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}, on its own, accounts for the trends in scale height and scale length. We discuss what this implies for disk formation and evolution in [$\mathsection$]{}[$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:discuss\_form\] and \[sec:discuss\_evolve\], respectively.
\
\[fig:one\_vs\_two\] shows the results of fitting two components with exponential profiles in both $R$ and $Z$ to each abundance bin. The scale height of the dominant component is shown against the best-fit scale height, when fitting a single exponential profile in $R$ and $Z$. We see that these scale heights are strongly clustered around the one–to–one correspondence line. Thus, for each bin, a single vertical exponential suffices to explain the observed number counts. The fact that the two measurements agree better than would be expected, given the uncertainties shown, is due to the fact that the scale heights for each bin are strongly correlated when fitting a single or a double exponential profile in $R$ and $Z$. Overall, \[fig:one\_vs\_two\] confirms that a single exponential model in $Z$ and $R$ is a good model for the spatial structure of mono-abundance sub-populations.
In \[sec:fakedata\], we perform a test to determine whether abundance uncertainties can plausibly lead us to find spurious disk components between a “thin” and a “thick” component. That is, we ask whether it is plausible that an underlying density dominated by distinct thin- and thick-disk components can be smoothed by abundance errors into the density structure we inferred in s \[fig:pixelFit\_g\] to \[fig:one\_vs\_two\]. This test shows that if this were the case, every bin is preferentially fit with two components, corresponding to the input thin and thick components. The equivalent of \[fig:one\_vs\_two\], shown in the bottom right panel of \[fig:fakeBimodalResults\], is qualitatively different, with a distinct difference between the single-component scale height and the scale height of the dominant component in the two-component fit.
To test whether the analysis in this section is influenced by our signal-to-noise ratio cut of [SN]{} $> 15$, we have repeated the analysis with a cut of [SN]{} $> 30$, as also used by @Lee11b. The equivalents of s \[fig:pixelFit\_g\] to \[fig:one\_vs\_two\] look qualitatively the same, albeit with larger uncertainties for each bin, and the dependence of [$h_z$]{} and [$h_R$]{}on elemental abundance is the same as that inferred from the sample with the [SN]{} $> 15$ cut. The number of ([$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{},[$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}) bins with more than 100 stars is smaller, but the inferred ([$h_z$]{},[$h_R$]{}) for those bins with more than 100 stars when using [SN]{} $> 30$ cut are consistent within the uncertainties with those found with the less restrictive signal-to-noise ratio cut. We stress that even when selecting stars with [SN]{} $>30$, the equivalent of \[fig:one\_vs\_two\] does not show any sign of a second component in the mono-abundance bins.
To perform the binning in this section, we used narrow bins of 0.1 dex in [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} and 0.05 dex in [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}. These bins are somewhat narrower than the total typical uncertainty ($\approx 0.15$ dex in [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}, $\approx
0.07$ dex in [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}; @Bovy12b), but we prefer to oversample, rather than undersample, to avoid smoothing out underlying structure. The analysis in each bin holds irrespective of the bin size. What matters for the analysis is that the data in each bin are disjoint, such that the bins are statistically independent.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Our basic result is that various stellar disk sub-components, when defined purely through stellar abundances, are *simple*, [i.e.]{}, can be described by a single exponential in $R$ and $Z$, and exhibit distinctive trends of the scale height and scale length with chemical abundance. This suggests that dissecting the Milky Way’s disk on the basis of chemical abundances alone is a useful approach. In this section we go through a number of practical issues pertaining to these estimates, before discussing possible implications for galactic disk formation and evolution.
Distance systematics
--------------------
The absolute values of the distance scales measured in this paper are subject to distance systematics, which we discuss in this subsection. We have used the data-driven photometric-distance relation from @Ivezic08a to infer the spatial structure of the various samples of stars, but an alternative photometric-distance relation can be obtained by using the @An09a stellar isochrones in the [*SDSS*]{} passbands. These isochrones depend on [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} as well as on [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}, although in practice a linear relation between [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} and [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} is assumed, and the spectroscopically measured [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} is not used directly to estimate the photometric distance. In the top panel of \[fig:dm\_anjuric\_ivezic\] we compared the distance moduli derived using the @An09a stellar isochrones with those obtained using the @Ivezic08a relation for a few values of [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}. We see that, for the values of [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} that span most of our sample, the distance modulus difference is -0.12 mag, corresponding to a systematic difference in the inferred distances of about 6percent, nearly independent of color. Thus, if we had used the @An09a photometric distances we would have obtained scale lengths and scale heights that were 6percent shorter.
A second distance systematic that could influence our results is the Malmquist bias [@Malmquist20a; @Malmquist22a]—the fact that brighter stars are over-represented in a magnitude-limited survey. For our relatively bright sample, this is dominated by the finite width of the photometric distance relation. The Malmquist bias in absolute magnitude is apparent-magnitude dependent and approximately equal to $-\sigma^2 {\mathrm{d}}\ln A(r) / {\mathrm{d}}r$, where $A(r)$ is the differential number count as a function of apparent magnitude and $\sigma$ is the dispersion in the absolute magnitudes (either due to photometric uncertainties or due to intrinsic scatter in the photometric distance relation). Conservatively assuming that the combination of the finite width of the photometric distance relation and the photometric uncertainties is 0.2 mag, and that the underlying density is constant, the Malmquist bias would be of order 2.5percent. However, due to the exponential fall-off of the density in both the $R$ and $Z$ directions, the differential number counts are (a) flat near the peak induced by the vertical exponential, and (b) for most apparent magnitudes $|{\mathrm{d}}\ln A(r) / {\mathrm{d}}r|$ is less than 1. Therefore, the Malmquist bias is at most about 2percent, and will not strongly affect the measurement of the vertical scale height in particular.
We have assumed throughout our analysis that all of the stars in our sample are single. The presence of unresolved binaries will lead us to underestimate scales, as these binaries will appear to us as brighter, and thus closer, single stars. The binary fraction and companion-mass distribution for G-type dwarfs remains controversial, but it appears that the overall binary fraction for G dwarfs is approximately 40percent [@Abt76a; @Duquennoy91a; @Raghavan10a], similar to but slightly larger than that of M dwarfs [@Fischer92a; @Raghavan10a]. The distribution of companion masses is poorly known, and could range from being peaked around 20percent of the primary’s mass [@Duquennoy91a], to being relatively flat between 20 and 100percent of the primary’s mass [@Raghavan10a], with numerical simulations indicating that multiple-star systems form preferentially with approximately equal-mass members [@Bate05a], and an overall multiplicity fraction of around 40percent [@Bate03a]. Lower-metallicity stars most likely have a higher binary fraction [@Machida09a], and could reach 100percent for [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} $< -0.8$ [@Raghavan10a].
For a likely scenario where 40percent of our [$\alpha$-young]{} sample is made up of binary stars (ignoring higher-order multiplicities) with a flat distribution of companion masses between 20 and 100percent of the primary’s mass, the magnitude would be overestimated on average by 0.12 mag, such that the scale height and scale length would be underestimated by about 6percent. If 70percent of the [$\alpha$-old]{}sample would consist of binary systems (taking into account the rising binary fraction with decreasing metallicity), the magnitudes would be overestimated by approximately 0.21 mag, and the [$\alpha$-old]{} scale heights and scale lengths would be underestimated by 10percent. These biases are somewhat larger than the statistical uncertainties on our results, but they are similar to the overall distance-scale uncertainty (see above), and they do not change the conclusion that the [$\alpha$-old]{} scale length is much shorter than that of the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample. Even in a worst-case scenario, where all binary systems have equal-mass companions and where 100percent of the [$\alpha$-old]{} stars are in binaries, the [$\alpha$-old]{} scale-length would still be $\lesssim 2.8$ kpc (40percent up from 2 kpc), which is shorter than the scale length measured for the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample in \[table:rich\_results\] and \[fig:pixelFit\_g\_alt\], and the [$\alpha$-young]{} scale lengths themselves would also increase by about 15percent in this scenario. In principle, a careful spectral analysis of the [*SEGUE*]{}spectra itself could provide direct constraints on the (unresolved) binary contamination in this sample.
Halo contamination
------------------
In our density fits we have mostly fit disk components to the data, except for the single exponential disk model where we added a uniform density ([equation]{} (\[eq:densmodel\])). We thus assumed that the stellar halo does not influence our disk fits, beyond what can be described by a uniform density across our survey volume. We can estimate the expected number of halo stars in our sample using the @Bell08a density fits to the smooth stellar halo. We run the @Bell08a stellar-halo density through the G-star [*SEGUE*]{}selection function, and marginalize over $g-r$ color using a flat distribution over $0.48 \leq g-r \leq 0.55$, and over [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} using the @Ivezic08a halo metallicity distribution (mean [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} = -1.52, width = 0.32). We then find that for $\approx 10^8$ G-type stars between 1 and 40 Galactocentric kpc in the stellar halo, there should be about 100 halo stars in our sample, compared to the total sample size of 30,353 G-type dwarfs. Hence, the halo contamination is very small and does not influence the fits. Additionally, halo contamination will be most severe for the [$\alpha$-old]{} sub-populations, and this contamination should work to *increase* the inferred scales (length and height). Therefore, the result that the radial scale length of [$\alpha$-old]{} sub-populations is shorter than that of [$\alpha$-young]{} sub-populations is robust against any halo contamination.
Comparison to traditional geometric disk decompositions
-------------------------------------------------------
The density fits in this paper are the first to constrain the vertical scale height and radial scale length of numerous disk sub-components, defined using elemental abundances alone, from a large sample of stars. Our results show that the vertically thicker disk sub-components—when chemically defined—have a much shorter scale length than the thinner-disk sub-components, which is opposite to traditional purely geometric disk decompositions [[e.g.]{}, @Robin96a; @Ojha01a; @Larsen03a], which typically find that the thick-disk component has a *longer* scale length than the thin disk, and that this scale length is $\gtrsim 3.5$ kpc [[e.g.]{}, @Juric08a].
When we fit the spatial structure in our approach, taking stars of all metallicities (specifically, the combination of our [$\alpha$-old]{}(“thick”) and [$\alpha$-young]{} (“thin”) samples), we can recover the result of purely geometric decompositions: the thin-disk component—[i.e.]{}, the component with the lowest scale height, $\approx$ 300 pc—gets paired with the shortest scale length ($\approx$ 2 kpc), while the thicker-disk component gets assigned both the largest scale height and scale length (for our particular sample fit with a combination of three double-exponential disks these are $\approx$ 600 pc and $\approx$ 2.4 kpc, with a small component with an even larger scale height and scale length). Thus, it seems that purely geometric decompositions naturally associate the longest scale length with the largest scale height. That *both* geometrically determined scale lengths are shorter than the scale length of the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample is due to the fact that the metallicity distribution for the entire sample extends down to [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} = -1.5, such that the model ‘expects’ many low-metallicity stars in the “thin” component at large distances (as the model does not contain the information that the thin component has higher metallicities), which are not observed. Therefore, metallicity and $\alpha$-element abundances, which are manifestly quantities that can identify sub-samples of stars independent of their spatial structure and kinematics, lead to a qualitatively different decomposition into two (or more) sub-components than the purely geometrical approach, with its inherent risk of circular reasoning.
Implications for disk formation {#sec:discuss_form}
-------------------------------
The distinctive changes of the global disk structure with abundance, especially with the age proxy [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}, should provide valuable clues to the formation of the Milky Way’s disk. While a concrete and quantitative model comparison is beyond the scope of this paper, we discuss some of the qualitative implications here. As mentioned in Section 1, the overall radial-density profile of the stellar disk is expected to be conserved even in the face of large-scale radial migration, but the radial profile of sub-components will tend to relax to the mass-weighted mean radial profile. Thus, a difference in the radial distribution of various populations of stars today is a less-pronounced version of more different initial radial distributions (at formation). Assuming that the [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} ratio is an adequate proxy for age [[e.g.]{}, @Schoenrich09a], our results then imply that the $\alpha$-enhanced, hence oldest, populations are more centrally concentrated—have a shorter scale length—than populations with $\alpha$-abundances that are closer to Solar, and therefore younger. This is direct observational evidence for inside-out formation of galactic disks across the presumed age range of our sample, 1 – 10 Gyr, where the inner parts of the disk form before the outer part of the disk. A similar age-dependence of the exponential scale length has been found in several external galaxies [@deJong07a; @Radburn12a].
Second, our analysis shows that our Milky Way has not only a metallicity gradient among its youngest stars, but that it has always had one [@Cheng11a]: at a given [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}, standing in for age, sub-populations with lower [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} have a longer scale length than more metal-rich stars. This picture is confirmed by looking at the orbital properties of the stars when integrating our sample of G-type dwarfs in a simple model for the Milky Way’s potential, made up of a Miyamoto-Nagai disk with a radial scale of 4 kpc and vertical scale of 300 pc contributing 60percent of the radial force at the Solar radius, a Hernquist bulge with a scale radius of 600 pc contributing 5percent of the radial force, and a Navarro-Frenk-White halo with a scale radius of 36 kpc that contributes 35percent of the rotational support at the Sun’s position. The median of the mean orbital radii as a function of elemental abundance is shown in \[fig:gOrbits\] (see also @Lee11b and Liu & van de Ven, 2011, in prep. for similar figures of the eccentricity and rotational velocity). We see that stars with [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} $< 0.25$ and lower [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} are thin-disk stars that live, on average, farther out than more metal-rich stars. Thus, the longer scale length for outer-disk stars, combined with the fact that, for solar [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} decreasing [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} is correlated with decreasing age [[e.g.]{}, @Schoenrich09a], implies that the outer part of the disk formed later than the inner part.
We have assumed that [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} is an adequate proxy for age, such that the mono-abundance populations that are more [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}-enhanced are older than the populations with solar [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}. This is typically the case in standard scenarios for the star formation history of the Milky Way disk, in which [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} steeply drops around 2 to 3 Gyr due to the onset of type Ia supernovae [@Dahlen08a; @Maoz11a], and then stays roughly constant, although the value of [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} at which the [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}downturn happens depends on the star formation history [@Matteucci01a]. Only if the local star formation was characterized by bursts of star formation can younger populations of stars have similar levels of [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} as older stars [@Gilmore91a]. Most current fits of the local star formation history prefer a smooth history [[e.g.]{}, @Aumer09a], although it is difficult to rule out epochs of enhanced star formation [[e.g.]{}, @RochaPinto00a].
Implications for disk evolution {#sec:discuss_evolve}
-------------------------------
The spatial structure inferred for mono-abundance sub-populations (s \[fig:pixelFit\_g\] and \[fig:pixelFit\_g\_alt\]) show two important results: first, there is a tight anti-correlation between the scale heights and scale lengths of the sub-components. Secondly, there is a continuous distribution in scale height when moving from $\alpha$-enhanced, metal-poor populations to stars with solar [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} and [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}. This suggests that the [$\alpha$-old]{}—“thick”—and the $\alpha$-younger, “thin”, regime of the stellar disk are not two separate entities, but merely opposite ends of the disk evolution spectrum [suggested before in @Norris87a but never directly measured as we do here]. This issue, which requires proper stellar-mass weighting of the sub-components, is worked out in a separate paper [@Bovy12a]. Taken together, these findings suggest a continuous evolutionary mechanism created the observed scale-height distribution, rather than a discrete external heating or accretion event. Radial migration is an obvious candidate for this internal evolution mechanism. That the most centrally concentrated component of the disk is not only the ($\alpha$-)oldest part, but also has the largest scale height, is a nearly inevitable condition, and hence a natural prediction, of any scenario where much of the disk scale-height distribution is created through radial migration. The $\alpha$-old sub-population not only had the most time to evolve, but its centrally concentrated parent population implies that stars at $6 < R < 12$ kpc have migrated out by the largest factor.
A different internal explanation for the thicker disk components in the Milky Way is that, rather than being thickened over the history of the Galactic disk, thick components were created thick during an early, turbulent phase in the formation of the disk [[e.g.]{}, @Bournaud09a; @ForsterSchreiber09a]. If such a scenario is combined with a inside-out growth of the disk, and the disk remains turbulent over a significant fraction of its history, this formation scenario could plausibly explain the continuous dependence of disk structure on elemental abundance found in this paper.
Our result that the transition between the [$\alpha$-young]{}, “thin”, components and the [$\alpha$-old]{}, “thick”, components is smooth, rather than showing a clear separation between thin and thick components, may appear to be in conflict with local, high-resolution spectroscopic samples of stars [[e.g.]{}, @Reddy06a; @Fuhrmann11a; @Navarro11a] or other analyses of the [*SEGUE*]{} data [[e.g.]{}, @Lee11b]. A detailed comparison between these and our results requires careful accounting for the spectroscopic volume sampling, which has not been done in the @Lee11b analysis or for the high-resolution samples, except for the sample of @Fuhrmann11a, which is volume complete out to 25 pc. Without taking the volume selection into account, the sample used here also displays a bi-modality in the [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}–[$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} plane (see \[fig:afeh\_g\]). We discuss this issue in more detail in @Bovy12a, but we note here that the apparent bi-modality in the observed number density of stars disappears when properly correcting for the spectroscopic sampling. Furthermore, the local, high-resolution analyses cannot directly measure the spatial distribution of stars of different elemental abundances ([e.g.]{}, @Fuhrmann11a, which only has 15 high-[$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} stars out to 25 pc; @Reddy06a) and therefore rely on kinematics to argue that the vertical distribution of stars in the Solar neighborhood is characterized by a bi-modal “thin”–“thick”-disk dichotomy. This interpretation is driven by the selection of stars that are disjoint in [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}, which leads to disjoint kinematics because the kinematics is a strong—and smooth—function of abundance as well [@Bovy12b]. While the stellar content of different survey volumes can (and should) be connected by dynamics, we note that the effective volumes sampled by, [e.g.]{}, the @Fuhrmann11a survey and by our analysis differ by a factor of about $10^5$; hence the extrapolation from one to the other is enormous. The analysis of the vertical kinematics of stars in our sample confirms the existence of the intermediate populations with scale heights between 400 and 600 pc and vertical-velocity dispersions of 30 to 35 km s$^{-1}$ [@Bovy12b].
Our finding that the scale length does not behave as smoothly as the scale height, as a function of [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}, is presumably a consequence of the disk’s formation history: here the increasing metallicity as a function of time ([i.e.]{}, youth) and the radial metallicity gradient compete. As the mapping between [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} and age is not linear, but rather, [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} steeply drops around 2 to 3 Gyr due to the onset of type Ia supernovae [@Matteucci01a; @Dahlen08a; @Maoz11a], and then stays roughly constant, the scale length should change similarly rapidly with [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}. The scale height, however, is determined by subsequent evolution, where radial migration transports stars to larger Galactocentric radii, where the lower disk density allows them to travel farther from the plane. Since this evolution is continuous, rather than sudden, and includes additional contributions from heating, trends in scale height versus elemental abundance should be expected to be smoother, even if radial migration is not the disk’s dominant evolutionary mode. Our results are therefore consistent with a scenario where the thick-disk component is the inner part of the disk that formed at the earliest time, and either by having formed thick or through the effect of radial migration, has a large scale height at the present time.
A gas-rich merger, followed by intense star formation at an early time, could have affected the formation of the early disk [@Brook04a], as seems consistent with the observed distribution of eccentricities of the thick-disk component [@Sales09a; @Dierickx10a; @Wilson11a]. However, it would lead to a scale length for the thicker component that is larger than that of the thinner component [@Qu11a]. It is clear that internal mechanisms must have played an important role during the evolution of the disk. However, we caution that the radial and vertical consequences of neither radial migration, nor turbulent disk evolution, nor of satellite thickening, have been worked out in quantitative detail, and, in particular, resonant coupling between satellites and the disk might induce some similar observational signatures to radial migration.
The rapid change in the mean stellar population in an [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}– [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}abundance bin at the onset of type Ia supernovae is also likely the explanation for the presence of the few points of intermediate [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}and [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} in \[fig:pixelFit\_g\_alt\] that do not follow the anti-correlation between scale height and scale length; these bins, which do not contribute significantly to the total stellar mass (indicated by the size of the symbols in \[fig:pixelFit\_g\_alt\]), are also the bins that fall short of the one-to-one correlation between single- and two-disk fits in \[fig:one\_vs\_two\]. This provides further evidence of the fact that at the rapid [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} (age) transition our bins do not adequately resolve single components.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
The main conclusions of this paper are as follows
$\bullet$ An assessment of the global ($R,Z$) structure of the Milky Way’s stellar disk for sub-components selected solely by their elemental abundances is now feasible, [e.g.]{}, with spectroscopic surveys such as [*SEGUE*]{}, but requires a thorough accounting for the effective selection function of the spectroscopic sample.
$\bullet$ A decomposition of the Galactic disk, based on [*SDSS*]{}/[*SEGUE*]{}data for G-type dwarfs, into mono-abundance sub-populations in the [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}–[$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} plane, reveals that each such component has a simple spatial structure that can be described by *single exponential profiles* in *both* the vertical and the radial direction.
$\bullet$ Adopting increasing levels of [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} enhancement as a proxy for the increasing age of the stellar population, the disk dissection into narrow mono-abundance populations in the space of [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} and [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}exhibits a continuous trend of increasing scale height and decreasing scale length, when moving from younger to older populations of stars.
$\bullet$ We find that the oldest—most $\alpha$-enhanced—part of the disk is both the thickest and the most centrally concentrated. If we split the sample in only two broad abundance regimes we can make a precise determination of the [$\alpha$-old]{} scale length, 2.01$\pm$0.05 kpc, and scale height, 686$\pm$11 pc. The scale length of the $\alpha$-younger disk is around 3.5 kpc (3.6$\pm$0.2 kpc for our nominal [$\alpha$-young]{} sample) and is far thinner, with a vertical scale height of 256$\pm$4 pc.
$\bullet$ These observations show quite directly that the bulk of the Galactic disk has formed from the inside out.
$\bullet$ The tight (anti-) correlations between population age, vertical scale height, and radial scale length strongly suggest that the disk’s subsequent evolution must have been heavily influenced by internal mechanisms, such as radial migration or turbulent, gravitationally-unstable disk evolution, as this naturally explains the continuous increase of scale height with decreasing scale length. At first sight, external mechanisms to form the Milky Way’s thick disk component through external heating or accretion appear to be inconsistent with our results, but a thorough model comparison is warranted.
While, at face value, our results emphasize the importance of evolutionary processes that could be purely internal to the Milky Way (radial migration, turbulent disk formation), the overall $\Lambda$CDM cosmogony makes it likely that external processes must also have played some role. In the end, it is likely that the Milky Way disk’s formation history may be more complex than inferred here, especially once not only the spatial distribution but also the orbital distribution of the mono-abundance sub-populations is fully analyzed.
It is a pleasure to thank the anonymous referee, James Binney, Doug Finkbeiner, Dan Foreman-Mackey, Patrick Hall, Juna Kollmeier, George Lake, Rok Ro[š]{}kar, Scott Tremaine, Glenn van de Ven, and Lan Zhang for helpful comments and assistance. We thank the [*SEGUE*]{} team for their efforts in producing the [*SEGUE*]{} data set, and Connie Rockosi and Katie Schlesinger in particular for help with the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function. Support for Program number HST-HF-51285.01-A was provided by NASA through a Hubble Fellowship grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555. J.B. and D.W.H. were partially supported by NASA (grant NNX08AJ48G) and the NSF (grant AST-0908357). D.W.H. is a research fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation of Germany. J.B. and H.W.R acknowledge partial support from SFB 881 funded by the German Research Foundation DFG. Y.S.L. and T.C.B. acknowledge partial funding of this work from grants PHY 02-16783 and PHY 08-22648: Physics Frontier Center / Joint Institute for Nuclear Physics (JINA), awarded by the National Science Foundation.
Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
The [*SEGUE*]{} G-star selection function {#sec:selection}
=========================================
To determine the spatial distribution of the G dwarfs, we require a good understanding of the [*SEGUE*]{} G-star selection function, [i.e.]{}, the fraction of stars that has been targeted by [*SEGUE*]{} and produced good enough spectra to derive the parameters needed in the present (or any other) analysis ([e.g.]{}, [SN]{} $> 15$), and we need this selection fraction as a function of position, color, and apparent magnitude. The observed density of G-type stars is simply the product of the underlying density with the sampling selection function, suggesting that one constrains this underlying density by forward modeling of the observations.
The spectroscopic G-star target type was selected uniformly from the set of objects in the G-star color–magnitude box in the area and apparent magnitude range of the spectroscopic plug-plates (simply “plates” hereafter), thus the selection function can be reconstructed. The [*SEGUE*]{} survey implementation distinguishes between “bright” and “faint” plates, with bright plates containing stars with $r \leq 17.8$ mag and faint plates containing stars with $r >
17.8$ mag. For the purposes of the selection function, we assume that this separation at 17.8 mag is a hard cut, even though in reality some stars were observed on both bright and faint plates for calibration purposes, and some “bright” stars are part of faint plates, and vice versa, because of changes between the photometry used for target selection and that released as part of the [*SDSS*]{} DR7, which we employ here. Duplicates are resolved in favor of the higher signal-to-noise ratio observation (typically on the faint plate as this has a longer integration time). We retain stars with $r \geq 17.8$ mag when they were observed on a bright plate, and we keep objects with $r < 17.8$ mag when they were observed on a faint plate, even though this should not happen in our model for the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function below. A total of 586 stars in the [$\alpha$-old]{} sample and 47 stars in the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample fall into this category; they do not influence any of the fits or conclusions in this paper.
We select the superset of targets by querying the [*SDSS*]{} DR7 imaging CAS[^2] for all potential targets in the color–magnitude box of the G-star target type in the area of a [*SEGUE*]{} plate [@Yanny09a]. These objects are [``]{}[^3] detections (removing duplicates and objects from overlapping imaging scans) with stellar PSFs ([``]{} equal to 6). Objects must not be [``]{}, nor be close to the [``]{}, nor have an interpolated PSF ([``]{}), and must not have an inconsistent flux count ([``]{}). Furthermore, if the center is interpolated ([``]{}), there should not be a cosmic ray indicated ([``]{}). See @Stoughton:2002ae for a description of the [*SDSS*]{} photometric [``]{}. Using the superset of targets we determine for each plate the fraction of stars that were observed spectroscopically of all available targets.
![Distribution of the photometric sample of G-type stars (linear density grayscale; black curves) and the spectroscopic sample (white contours, dashed histograms) after the signal-to-noise ratio cut of [SN]{} $>
15$. The contours contain 68, 95, and 99percent of the distribution.[]{data-label="fig:colormag_g"}](colormag_sn_g_arxiv.ps){width="50.00000%"}
To infer the dependence on color and apparent magnitude of the selection function, we look at the distribution of the potential G-star targets in color–magnitude space. This is shown in \[fig:colormag\_g\]. The distribution of the spectroscopic sample is overlaid. This shows that the spectroscopic sampling is relatively fair in $g-r$ color, with some frayed edges because of changes between target and current photometry, and that the selection as a function of $r$-band magnitude tapers at the faint end, as should be expected when using a signal-to-noise ratio cut. If all [*SEGUE*]{} plates were integrated to the same depth, the signal-to-noise ratio cut should be a clean cut in $r$, but it is clear from \[fig:colormag\_g\] that this is not the case. To distinguish between relatively shallow and relatively deep plates, we introduce the overall plate signal-to-noise ratio [`plateSN_r`]{}$$\label{eq:platesn} \mathrm{plateSN\_r} =
(\mathrm{sn1\_1}+\mathrm{sn2\_1})/2\,,$$ where sn1\_1 and sn2\_1 are the $r$-band plate signal-to-noise ratio for the two [*SDSS*]{}spectrographs [see 17 in @Stoughton:2002ae]. The faintest spectroscopic G-type star per plate as a function of [`plateSN_r`]{} for the faint plates is shown in \[fig:platesn\_maxr\_g\] for the faint plates. This figure shows that there is a clear difference in the faintest object that could have been successfully observed at ${SN}> 15$ between relatively shallow and relatively deep plates. The bottom panel of \[fig:platesn\_maxr\_g\] shows the signal-to-noise ratio of stars on four plates chosen to cover a range in the overall plate signal-to-noise ratio. This shows that the ${SN}> 15$ cut for the entire sample translates into a fairly sharp $r$-band cut for each individual plate.
Our model for the [*SEGUE*]{} G-star selection function is then the following: For each plate we find the faintest targeted object in $r$-band magnitude with [SN]{} larger than our signal-to-noise-ratio cut, with apparent magnitude $r_{\mathrm{cut}}$ (if this object is fainter than the nominal limit $r_{\mathrm{max}}$ for bright or faint plates, we set $r_{\mathrm{cut}}$ equal to this limit; $r_{\mathrm{max}} = 17.8$ mag for bright plates and 20.2 mag for faint plates), and then assume that the selection function for that plate is given by a hyperbolic tangent cut-off, centered on $r_{\mathrm{cut}}-0.1$ mag, and with a width-parameter whose natural logarithm is -3 ($\approx 0.05$ mag), such that the total width of the cut-off is about 0.2 mag and the faintest object on the plate is about 2 widths from the center of the cut-off. The function value at the bright end is equal to the number of spectroscopic objects brighter than $r_{\mathrm{cut}}$ divided by the total number of targets brighter than $r_{\mathrm{cut}}$. Thus, the plate-dependent selection function is given by $$\label{eq:seguesf}
\begin{split}
S(\mathrm{plate},&r,g-r)= \\
& \frac{\# \mathrm{spectroscopic\ objects\ with}\ r_{\mathrm{min}} \leq r \leq r_{\mathrm{cut}}}{\# \mathrm{targets\ with}\ r_{\mathrm{min}} \leq r \leq r_{\mathrm{cut}}}\times
\left[1-\tanh\left(\frac{r-r_{\mathrm{cut}}+0.1}{\exp\left(-3\right)}\right)\right]\Big/ 2\,,
\end{split}$$ where the numbers of objects are evaluated within the $\approx 7$ deg$^2$ area of the plate in question and in the $0.48 \leq g-r \leq
0.55$ G-star color range; $r_{\mathrm{min}}$ is 14.5 mag for bright plates and 17.8 mag for faint plates. The selection function is zero outside of the apparent $r$-band magnitude range of the plate ($[14.5,17.8]$ for bright plates and $[17.8,20.2]$ for faint plates).
We use this model both for the bright plates and the faint plates, although most bright plates are in fact consistent with being complete up to 17.8 mag. \[fig:ks\_tanhr\] shows the distribution of Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) probabilities that the spectroscopic sample for any given plate was selected from the target sample with this model for the selection function. All but 7 plates have probabilities larger than 0.001 and the distribution of probabilities is relatively flat, as expected.
Rather than using a smooth hyperbolic tangent cut-off, we also tried a sharp cut at $r_{\mathrm{cut}}$. With this model for the selection function, 79 plates have a KS probability $< 0.05$ ($\approx$25percent of the number of plates), as opposed to 30 plates in the hyperbolic-tangent-cut-off model ($\approx$9percent of the sample). Therefore, the smooth cut-off is necessary to fully model the selection function. The fact that the distribution of KS probabilities in \[fig:ks\_tanhr\] is not entirely flat is due to remaining details in the faint cut-off of the selection function, as we know that the selection function is flat at brighter magnitudes. This does not impact our analsis greatly, as most stars are much brighter than the cut-off (as compared to the scale over which the selection function changes near the cut-off).
The selection function is simplest in its native coordinates, survey plate, and $r$-band magnitude. For each value of $g-r$ and \[Fe/H\], the $r$-dependent selection function above translates into a (different) spatial selection function through the use of the photometric distance relation. The selection function projected into spatial coordinates for a typical value of $g-r$ and \[Fe/H\] is shown in \[fig:sfxyrz\_g\]. Near $|b| = 90^\circ$ the spectroscopic sample is relatively complete, whereas near the Galactic plane the selection is much less complete.
We have posted Python code that implements this model for the [*SEGUE*]{}selection function. It is publicly available at
<https://github.com/jobovy/segueSelect>.
The Magnitude–color–metallicity density and estimates of the effective survey volume {#sec:colorFeh}
====================================================================================
The density in magnitude–color–metallicity space needs to be included in the likelihood in [equation]{} (\[eq:densitylike\]), because it forms the basis of the photometric distance relation used to translate observed colors, metallicities, and apparent magnitudes into distances, which ultimately relate to the effective search volume. We assume here for simplicity that stars of a given $g-r$ and [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} follow a single stellar isochrone given by the @Ivezic08a photometric distance relation in terms of $g-r$ using [equation]{} (\[eq:ri\_gr\]) to translate $g-r$ into the $g-i$ color used by the @Ivezic08a relation. The reason for expressing the @Ivezic08a $g-i$–metallicity–magnitude relation into $g-r$ is to keep the integration in [equation]{} (\[eq:normint\]) simple; if we had chosen to use the $g-i$ relation we would have to include the $r-i$ color as well, and model and integrate over the full $g-r$,$r-i$ plane. As the stellar locus is very narrow ($\lesssim 0.1$ mag), this adds less (random) scatter than is intrinsic to the photometric distance relation.
In the single-isochrone model, $\rho(r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z,\phi)$ becomes the product of a delta function with the density in the color–metallicity plane $$\rho(r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z,\phi) = \delta(r-r[g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}},d]|R,Z,\phi)\,\rho(g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z)\,,$$ where $r[g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}},d]$ is the apparent magnitude derived from the photometric distance relation combined with the distance, and by a slight abuse of notation we have used the same symbol to denote the density in the color–metallicity plane. We assume that this density is independent of Galactocentric azimuth $\phi$, but for now allow it to depend on $R$ and $Z$. Using this, the normalization integral in [equation]{} (\[eq:normint\]) simplifies to $$\label{eq:normint2}
\begin{split}
\int & {\mathrm{d}}l\,{\mathrm{d}}b\,{\mathrm{d}}d\, {\mathrm{d}}r\, {\mathrm{d}}(g-r) \,{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\,\lambda(l,b,d,r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|\theta) \\
&= A_p\,\sum_{\mathrm{plates}\ p}
\int {\mathrm{d}}(g-r)\,{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\, \\
& \,\times
\int_{d[r_{\mathrm{min}},g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}]}^{d[r_{\mathrm{max}},g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}]} {\mathrm{d}}d\,
S(p,r[g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}},d],g-r)\,\rho(g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z)\,d^2\,{\ensuremath{\nu_*}}(R,z|l,b,d,\theta)\,,
\end{split}$$ where $r_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $r_{\mathrm{max}}$ are the minimum and maximum apparent magnitude of plate $p$, and the functions $d[\cdot]$ and $r[\cdot]$ use the photometric distance relation.
\
\
\
\
\
\
The color–metallicity distribution for the [$\alpha$-young]{} and [$\alpha$-old]{}sample is shown in [s]{} \[fig:FeH\_RZ\_rich\_g\] and \[fig:FeH\_RZ\_poor\_g\], respectively. The top-left panel shows the distribution for the entire sample; the remaining panels show the color–metallicity distribution as a function of Galactocentric radius (including all vertical heights) and as a function of vertical height (including all Galactocentric radii). For both samples, the color–metallicity distribution separates into the product of one-dimensional color and metallicity distributions, thus we assume that $\rho(g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z)
=\rho^c(g-r|R,Z)\,\rho^{{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}}({\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z)$. The $g-r$ distribution is independent of $R$ and $Z$ for both the [$\alpha$-young]{} and the [$\alpha$-old]{}sample; we use a spline interpolation of the color distribution for the full sample for $\rho^c(g-r|R,Z)$, independent of $R$ and $Z$. This interpolation is shown in the top histogram in all panels of [s]{} \[fig:FeH\_RZ\_rich\_g\] and \[fig:FeH\_RZ\_poor\_g\]. The metallicity distribution of the [$\alpha$-old]{} sample is also mostly independent of $R$ and $Z$, with only a hint of a trend toward a more metal-poor distribution at large distances from the plane. The [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} distribution of the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample shows expected trends with $R$ and $Z$: The peak of the metallicity distribution goes from more metal-rich closer to the Galactic center and closer to the plane, to more metal-poor at larger Galactocentric radii and at larger $Z$. These shifts are modest ($\lesssim 0.1$ dex), which is partly due to the fact that farther from the Solar radius we preferentially see stars at larger distances from the plane. We stress that these metallicity distributions are the *observed* distributions uncorrected for selection effects, but selection effects play a minor role and merely shift the overall distribution by $\approx$ 0.1 dex (Schlesinger [et al.]{}, 2011, in preparation). We investigate the effect of systematically shifting the metallicity distribution below.
The effect of metallicity and color on the absolute magnitude using the @Ivezic08a color–metallicity–magnitude relation is shown in the bottom right panel of [s]{} \[fig:FeH\_RZ\_rich\_g\] and \[fig:FeH\_RZ\_poor\_g\], for the ranges in color and metallicity considered for both samples. From the blue and metal-rich to the red and metal-poor end the shift in absolute magnitude is about 1 mag, or a factor of about 1.6 in distance.
As the [$\alpha$-old]{} metallicity distribution depends only weakly on $R$ and $Z$, we will assume that it is constant, and use a spline interpolation of the [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} distribution of the full sample as our model for $\rho^{{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}}({\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z)$. We do the same for the [$\alpha$-young]{}sample, even though there are slight trends with $R$ and $Z$. These models are shown in the right histograms of all panels in [s]{} \[fig:FeH\_RZ\_rich\_g\] and \[fig:FeH\_RZ\_poor\_g\]. We can then simplify the normalization integral in [equation]{} (\[eq:normint2\]) further to $$\label{eq:normint3}
\begin{split}
\int & {\mathrm{d}}l\,{\mathrm{d}}b\,{\mathrm{d}}r\, {\mathrm{d}}d\, {\mathrm{d}}r\, {\mathrm{d}}(g-r) \,{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\,\lambda(l,b,d,r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|\theta) \\
&= A_p\,\sum_{\mathrm{plates}\ p}
\int {\mathrm{d}}(g-r)\,\rho^c(g-r|R,Z) \int{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\,\rho^{{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}}({\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|R,Z) \\
& \,\times
\int_{d[r_{\mathrm{min}},g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}]}^{d[r_{\mathrm{max}},g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}]} {\mathrm{d}}d\,
S(p,r[g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}},d],g-r)\,d^2\,{\ensuremath{\nu_*}}(R,z|l,b,d,\theta)\,.
\end{split}$$ If we then determine the overall minimum and maximum heliocentric distance at which we can observe stars in both samples, we can calculate the inner integral between these limits, with the understanding that the selection function is zero outside of the apparent-magnitude range of the plate in question (since bluer or more metal-rich stars can only be observed at distances starting at a value that is larger than the overall minimum distance, and redder and more metal-poor stars can only be seen out to distances that fall short of the overall maximum distance, because of the color and metallicity dependence of the photometric distance method). We can then calculate the integral by summation on a regular grid as $$\label{eq:normint4}
\begin{split}
\int & {\mathrm{d}}l\,{\mathrm{d}}b\,{\mathrm{d}}r\,{\mathrm{d}}d\, {\mathrm{d}}(g-r) \,{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}\,\lambda(l,b,d,r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}|\theta) \\
&= A_p\,\sum_{\mathrm{plates}\ p}
\sum_{d}\,d^2\,{\ensuremath{\nu_*}}(R,z|l,b,d,\theta)\,\\
& \qquad \sum_{g-r} \,\sum_{{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}}\,\rho^c(g-r)\,\rho^{{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}}({\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}})\,
S(p,r[g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}},d],g-r)\,,
\end{split}$$ where the distance summation is between the overall minimum and maximum distance. We dropped integration factors $\Delta d$, $\Delta(g-r)$, and $\Delta {\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}$, as these only contribute terms that do not depend on the parameters $\theta$ in the log likelihood in [equation]{} (\[eq:densitylike2\]) (note that they *do* contribute when we do not marginalize over the amplitude of the density in [equation]{} \[\[eq:densitylike\]\]). Written in this way, this normalization integral can be computed efficiently, as all of the necessary coordinate transformations, selection function evaluations, and color–metallicity-distribution function calls can be pre-computed on a dense grid.
Detailed data versus model comparisons {#sec:datamodel}
======================================
In this we present detailed comparisons of our best-fit density models with the observed data, as ultimately the best-fit density parameters are constrained through the quality of the fit in the natural coordinates of the spectroscopic data ($l,b,r,g-r,{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}}$). We also show that the results we obtain for different sub-samples of our nominal samples are consistent with the best fits for the full samples. As we fit density models by forward modeling the underlying density model, [i.e.]{}, by taking the spatial density and running it through the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function and the photometric distance relation, we cannot show direct maps of the density in any meaningful way without massaging the data excessively. Therefore, we compare the observed star counts with the best-fit model by running the underlying star counts model through the selection function and photometric magnitude–color–metallicity relation, and then comparing it with the observed star counts. This has the added advantage that it shows that the entire framework of (a) the underlying density, (b) the photometric magnitude–color–metallicity relation, and (c) our model of the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function provides a valid description of the observed data.
The [$\alpha$-old]{} disk stars
-------------------------------
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\[fig:model\_data\_poor\_g\_zdist\] compares the observed distribution of vertical heights $|Z|$ of the [$\alpha$-old]{}G-dwarf sample to that predicted by the best-fit model. This prediction is obtained by running the best-fit density model integrated over the color–metallicity distribution through our model for the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function. There are 35 stars with magnitudes that should put them on faint plates, but that were observed on bright plates, and 551 stars in the opposite situation are cut from the data sample to show this comparison. The comparison between the data and the model is shown for all plates and for the bright and faint plates separately. The agreement between the model and observed distribution is excellent for all of these. \[fig:model\_data\_poor\_g\_Rdist\] shows a similar comparison for the distribution of Galactocentric radii of the data and in the model. The model correctly predicts the observed star counts for most Galactocentric radii, except the smallest around 5 kpc, where the model slightly overpredicts the number of stars (here, and in further comparisons below, the model around 8 kpc behaves somewhat erratically, as this is the boundary between $90^\circ \leq l \leq 270^\circ$ and $-90^\circ < l < 90^\circ$ plates, and we do not use the finite extent of the plate in our model distributions). Also shown in this figure and in \[fig:model\_data\_poor\_g\_zdist\] are models that only differ from the best-fit model in their radial scale length: a model with a scale length of 3 kpc and one with a scale length of 4 kpc. It is clear that these longer scale lengths are strongly ruled out by the model, as they strongly overpredict the star counts at large Galactocentric radii.
\[table:poor\_results\] lists the best-fit parameters for fits that only use (a) bright or faint plates, (b) $b >
0^\circ$ or $b < 0^\circ$ plates, or (c) $|b| > 45^\circ$ or $|b| <
45^\circ$ plates. The results from all of these different samples are roughly consistent with each other; we note that we can even measure the radial scale length with high-latitude plates ($|b| >
45^\circ$) alone.
s \[fig:model\_data\_poor\_g\_zdist\] and \[fig:model\_data\_poor\_g\_Rdist\] show comparisons between the observed star counts and the model, when we split the [$\alpha$-old]{}sample into more metal-poor and more metal-rich sub-samples by cutting the sample at \[Fe/H\] = $-0.7$. Comparisons for when we split the [$\alpha$-old]{} sample into two bins in [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}, by cutting the sample at [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} = 0.35, are shown in \[fig:model\_data\_afe\].
The [$\alpha$-young]{} disk sample
----------------------------------
\[fig:model\_data\_rich\_g\_zdist\] compares the best-fit model to the observed star counts as a function of vertical height and \[fig:model\_data\_rich\_g\_Rdist\] shows this comparison as a function of Galactocentric radius, again removing 4 stars with magnitudes that should put them on faint plates but that were observed on bright plates and removing 43 stars in the opposite situation. We also show models whose parameters are the same as those of the best-fit model, but with shorter scale lengths of 2 and 3 kpc. The faint plates, which only contain 6percent of the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample, rule out a short scale length of 2 kpc for the [$\alpha$-young]{} disk. The best-fit model provides a good fit to the observed star counts.
We again also list the best-fit parameters for fits that only use (a) bright or faint plates, (b) $b > 0^\circ$ or $b < 0^\circ$ plates, or (c) $|b| > 45^\circ$ or $|b| < 45^\circ$ plates in \[table:rich\_results\]. The results from all of these different samples are again roughly consistent, except for the faint plates fit, which prefer even longer radial scale lengths, but faint plates only contain 6percent of the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample. We have also run fits for the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample where we (a) employ a more conservative [SN]{} cut of ${SN}> 30$, (b) enlarge our sample with a less conservative [SN]{} cut of ${SN}> 10$, (c) remove stars on plates whose K-S probability for the spectroscopic sample to have been drawn from the underlying photometric sample combined with our model for the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function (see \[fig:ks\_tanhr\]) is smaller than 0.1, (d) use stars from the [*SEGUE*]{} database that were explicitly targeted as G-type stars (with all other [log g]{}, [SN]{}, $E(B-V)$ cuts), (e) remove stars with magnitudes that should put them on [*SEGUE*]{} bright plates, but that were observed as part of a faint plate and vice versa, and (f) artificially shift the metallicity distribution 0.1 dex toward the more metal-rich end. The results from these fits are all consistent with those obtained for our nominal sample with fiducial cuts.
s \[fig:model\_data\_rich\_g\_zdist\] and \[fig:model\_data\_rich\_g\_Rdist\] show comparisons between the observed and predicted star counts for the [$\alpha$-young]{} samples that are more metal-poor than the nominal [$\alpha$-young]{} sample. The fit for the $-0.6
<$ [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} $< -0.3$ sample is good, while the fit for the most metal-poor [$\alpha$-young]{} sub-sample is not entirely satisfactory. Comparisons between the observed star counts and the model when we split the [$\alpha$-young]{} sample into two, by cutting at [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} = 0.15, are shown in the lower two rows of \[fig:model\_data\_afe\].
Analysis test on mock data samples {#sec:fakedata}
==================================
\
In order to test the methodology for fitting the density discussed in [$\mathsection$]{} \[sec:density\], and as check on the code, we create mock data samples selected in exactly the same way as the [*SEGUE*]{}G-dwarf sample and fit them using our algorithm. We also use this framework to test whether the results we obtain can plausibly be the result of abundance errors smoothing out an underlying two-component thin–thick disk structure.
We create mock data sampled from a model underlying density by calculating, for each line of sight, (i) the fraction of stars in the sample that lies along that line of sight and (ii) the distribution in $r$-band magnitude as a function of color $g-r$ and metallicity [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{}. For calculating both of these, we take the [*SEGUE*]{} selection function, described in \[sec:selection\], into account. Thus, we can obtain a sample that is equivalent to what [*SEGUE*]{} would have observed for a particular density model.
To test the methodology and code we populate each mono-abundance bin in the ([$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{},[$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}) plane with a sample drawn from a thin-disk component with $h_z = 300$ pc and $h_R = 3.5$ kpc, keeping the abundances and number of stars in each bin the same as in the observed sample. We then run the same analysis code on this sample as is run to produce the real data results in s \[fig:pixelFit\_g\] to s \[fig:one\_vs\_two\]. We find results that are consistent with the input model within the uncertainties for each bin. The uncertainties are similar to those found for the real data near $h_z = 300$ pc and $h_R = 3.5$ kpc. We repeat this for an input “thick” disk model with $h_z = 850$ pc and $h_R = 2$ kpc, and again find results that are consistent with the input model within the uncertainties.
We use a similar procedure to investigate whether abundance errors can smooth out an underlying disk model made up of a thin- and thick-disk component without showing up in our analysis. Assuming [*SEGUE*]{}abundance uncertainties of 0.2 dex in [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} and 0.15 dex in [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}, we first model the underlying abundance distribution using two Gaussian components, and fit this model to the observed distribution with the assumed abundance uncertainties using the extreme-deconvolution technique [@Bovy11a]. We use a Gaussian mixture model for the underlying distribution solely as a convenient of decomposing the observed distribution for the purpose of this test. The two-Gaussian mixture model adequately represents the observed distribution after convolving again with the uncertainties. The best-fit mixture has a Gaussian centered near solar abundances (40percent of the sample; [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} = $-0.3$ dex, [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} = 0.1 dex) and one at metal-poor and $\alpha$-enhanced abundances (60percent of the sample; [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} = $-0.7$ dex, [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{} = 0.35 dex). To reproduce the observed distribution, these components both need a dispersion of 0.2 dex in [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} and 0.07 dex in [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}, with a correlation of $-0.85$ and $-0.6$, respectively. We then assign stars to these two components with probabilities computed from their posterior probability of being drawn from either component, based on their abundances and assumed abundance uncertainties. We sample new $r$-band magnitudes and coordinates for these stars based on the component they are assigned to: we draw the stars assigned to the solar-abundances component from a thin-disk density with $h_z$ = 300 pc and $h_R = 3.5$ kpc, and stars assigned to the $\alpha$-enhanced component from a thick-disk distribution with $h_z = 850$ pc and $h_R$ = 2.5 kpc. We then run the same analysis code on this sample as is run on the real data.
The results from this test are shown in \[fig:fakeBimodalResults\]. Although in certain respects they are similar to the results for the real data, they are different in a few crucial ways. Most importantly, when fitting a mixture of two exponential models to each bin we find unambiguous evidence in many bins for two components. This is shown in the lower right panel of \[fig:fakeBimodalResults\], where the scale height of the dominant component when fitting the mixture is shown vs. the scale height when fitting a single exponential. For most bins with single-exponential $h_z \lesssim 800$ pc, the dominant component is the $h_z = 300$ pc input thin-disk component. Therefore, even though the abundance pattern of the single-exponential scale height in the lower left panel of \[fig:fakeBimodalResults\] is smooth between thin and thick components, most bins are actually resolved into the two input components. This is a major difference with the real data, for which the equivalent comparison, shown in \[fig:one\_vs\_two\], shows a striking one-to-one correlation between the single-exponential and the mixture scale height, with no evidence for a second component for the vast majority of the mono-abundance bins.
In addition to the fact that our analysis correctly identifies two components in each mono-abundance bin in the mock data, the abundance dependence of the inferred single-exponential scale height and scale length is also quite different from that of the mock data. The inferred scale length for the mock data is short for most abundance bins and only reaches $h_R \gtrsim 3$ kpc for those abundance bins that are farthest from the center of the metal-poor and $\alpha$-enhanced abundance component. Thus, the contamination from the thick-disk component with its short scale length drives the inferred scale length for most abundance bins to small values. This behavior is not observed in the real data ( \[fig:pixelFit\_g\]). The abundance dependence of the single-exponential scale height for the mock data is also much steeper than observed in the real data, with values of $h_z \gtrsim 600$ pc as metal-rich as [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} = -0.3.
From these tests we conclude that abundance errors cannot explain the single-exponential components we observe in each mono-abundance bin in the real data or the abundance behavior of the scale height and scale length. Based on an entirely different argument that uses the observed isothermality of the vertical kinematics of the same mono-abundance populations, @Bovy12b infer that the internal [*SEGUE*]{} abundance uncertainties are likely somewhat smaller than the values reported by [*SEGUE*]{}, with likely uncertainties of 0.15 dex in [$[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$]{} and 0.07 dex in [$[\alpha\mathrm{/Fe}]$]{}. Thus, abundance uncertainties do not influence the main conclusions of this paper.
Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., Steinmetz, M., & Eke, V. R. 2003, , 591, 499 Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agũeros, M. A., [et al.]{} 2009, , 182, 543 Abt, H. A. & Levy, S. G. 1976, , 30, 273 Allende Prieto, C., Sivarani, T., Beers, T. C., [et al.]{} 2008, , 136, 2070 An, D., Pinsonneault, M. H., Masseron, T., [et al.]{} 2009, , 700, 523 Aumer, M. &Binney, J. J. 2009, , 397, 1286 Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Bromm, V. 2003, , 339, 577 Bate, M. R. 2005, , 363, 363 Bell, E. F., Zucker, D. B., Belokurov, V., [et al.]{} 2008, , 680, 295 Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Lundström, I. 2003, , 410, 527 Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., Lundström, I., & Ilyin, I. 2005, , 433, 185 Bensby, T., Alves-Brito, A., Oey, M. S., Yong, D., & Meléndez, J. 2011, , 735, L46 Bird, J. C., Kazantzidis, S., & Weinberg, D. H. 2011, , submitted, arXiv:1104.0933 Blanton, M. R., Lupton, R. H., Miller Malley, F., [et al.]{} 2003, , 125, 2276 Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Martig, M. 2009, , 707, L1 Bovy, J., Hogg, D. W., & Roweis, S. T. 2009a, , 700, 1794 Bovy, J., Hogg, D. W., & Rix, H.-W. 2009b, , 704, 1704 Bovy, J. & Hogg, D. W. 2010, , 717, 617 Bovy, J., Hogg, D. W., & Roweis, S. T. 2011, Ann. Appl. Stat., 5, 1657, arXiv:0905.2979 Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., & Hogg, D. W. 2012a, , 751, 131 Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Hogg, D. W., [et al.]{} 2012b, , submitted, arXiv:1202.2819 Brook, C. B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B. K., & Freeman, K. C. 2004, , 612, 894 Burstein, D. 1979, , 234, 829 Buser, R., Rong, J., & Karaali, S. 1999, , 348, 98 Carlberg, R. G., & Sellwood, J. A. 1985, , 292, 79 Carollo, D., Beers, T. C., Chiba, M., [et al.]{} 2010, , 712, 692 Chen, B., Stoughton, C., Smith, J. A., [et al.]{} 2001, , 553, 184 Cheng, J., Rockosi, C. M., Morrison, H. L., [et al.]{} 2011, , submitted Chiba, M. & Beers, T. C. 2000, , 119, 2843 Dahlen, T., Strolger, L.-G., & Riess, A. G. 2008, , 681, 462 Dalcanton, J. J., Spergel, D. N., & Summers, F. J. 1997, , 482, 659 Dehnen, W. 1998, , 115, 2384 de Jong, R. S., Seth, A. C., Radburn-Smith, D. J., 2007, , 667, 49 De Simone, R., Wu, X., & Tremaine, S. 2004, , 350, 627 Dierickx, M., Klement, R., Rix, H.-W., & Liu, C. 2010, , 725, L186 Duquennoy, A. & Mayor, M. 1991, , 248, 485 Fall, S. M. & Efstathiou, G. 1980, , 193, 189 Feltzing, S., Bensby, T., & Lundström, I. 2003, , 397, 1 Fischer, D. A. & Marcy, G. W. 1992, , 396, 178 F[ö]{}rster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Bouch[é]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2009, , 706, 1364 Foyle, K., Rix, H.-W., Dobbs, C. L., Leroy, A. K., & Walter, F. 2011, , 735, 101 Fuhrmann, K. 1998, , 338, 161 Fuhrmann, K. 2008, , 384, 173 Fuhrmann, K. 2011, , 414, 2893 Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K., & Schneider, D. P. 1996, , 111, 1748 Gilmore, G. & Reid, N. 1983, , 202, 1025 Gilmore, G. & Wyse, R. F. G. 1991, , 367, 55 Gilmore, G., Wyse, R. F. G., & Norris, J. E. 2002, , 574, 39 Goodman, J. & Weare, J. 2010, Comm. App. Math. and Comp. Sci., 5, 65 Gott, J. R. & Thuan, T. X. 1976, , 204, 649 Guedes, J., Callegari, S., Madau, P., & Mayer, L. 2011, , 742, 76 Gunn, J. E. 1982, in Astrophysical Cosmology, eds. H. A. Bruck, G. V. Coyne, & M. S. Longair (Pontificia Academia Scientarum) Gunn, J. E., Carr, M., Rockosi, C., [et al.]{} 1998, , 116, 3040 Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., [et al.]{} 2006, , 131, 2332 Haywood, M. 2008, , 388, 1175 Hogg, D. W., Finkbeiner, D. P., Schlegel, D. J., & Gunn, J. E. 2001, , 122, 2129 Ivezić, Ž., Lupton, R. H., Schlegel, D., [et al.]{} 2004, AN, 325, 583 Ivezić, Ž., Sesar, B.; Jurić, M., [et al.]{} 2008, 684, 287 Jurić, M., Ivezić, Ž., Brooks, A., [et al.]{} 2008, 673, 864 Katz, N. & Gunn, J. E. 1991, , 377, 365 Kazantzidis, S., Bullock, J. S., Zentner, A. R., Kravtsov, A. V., Moustakas, L. A. 2008, apj, 688, 254 van der Kruit, P. C. & Searle, L. 1981, , 95, 105 Lake, G. & Carlberg, R. G. 1988, , 96, 1581 Larsen, J. A. & Humphreys, R. M. 2003, , 125, 1958 Larson, R. B. 1976, , 176, 31 Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Sivarani, T., [et al.]{} 2008a, , 136, 2022 Lee, Y. S., Bers, T. C., Sivarani, T., [et al.]{} 2008b, , 136, 2050 Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Allende Prieto, C., [et al.]{} 2011a, , 141, 90 Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., An, D., [et al.]{} 2011b, , 738, 187 Loebman, S. R., Ro[š]{}kar, R., Debattista, V. P., [et al.]{} 2011, , 737, 8 Lupton, R., Gunn, J. E., Ivezić, Ž., [et al.]{} 2001, ASPC, 238, 269 Machida, M. N., Omukai, K., Matsumoto, T., & Inutsuka, S. 2009, , 399, 1225 Majewski, S. R. 1993, , 31, 575 Malmquist, K. G. 1920, Medd. Lunds Astron. Obs., Ser. 2., No. 22 Malmquist, K. G. 1922, Medd. Lunds Astron. Obs., Ser. 1, No. 100 Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., Li, W., [et al.]{} 2011, , 412, 1508 Matteucci, F. & Recchi, S. 2001, , 558, 351 Meidt, S. E., Rand, R. J., & Merrifield, M. R. 2009, , 702, 277 Minchev, I. & Famaey, B. 2010, , 722, 112 Minchev, I., Famaey, B., Combes, F., [et al.]{} 2010, , 527, 147 Mishenina, T. V., Soubiran, C., Kovtyukh, V. V., & Korotin, S. A. 2004, , 418, 551 Moster, B. P., Macciò, A. V., Somerville, R. S., Johansson, P. H., & Naab, T. 2010, , 403, 1009 Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., Venn, K. A., Freeman, K. C., & Anguiano, B. 2011, , 412, 1203 Neeser, M. J., Sackett, P. D., De Marchi, G., & Paresce, F. 2002, , 383, 472 Norris, J. 1987, , 314, L39 Ojha, D. K. 2001, , 322, 426 Padmanabhan, N., Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., [et al.]{} 2008, , 674, 1217 Pier, J. R., Munn, J. A., Hindsley, R. B., [et al.]{} 2003, , 125, 1559 Pohlen, M., Zaroubi, S., Peletier, R. F., & Dettmar, R.-J. 2007, , 378, 594 Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A, Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 2007, Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, 3rd Edition (Cambridge University Press) Prochaska, J. X., Naumov, S. O., Carney, B. W., McWilliam, A., & Wolfe, A. M. 2000, , 120, 2513 Qu, Y., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., & van Driel, W. 2011, , 530, A10 Quillen, A. C., Minchev, I., Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Haywood, M. 2009, , 397, 1599 Quinn, P. J., Hernquist, L., & Fullagar, D. P. 1993, , 403, 74 Radburn-Smith, D. J., Ro[š]{}kar, R., Dalcanton, J. J, [et al.]{} 2012, , submitted Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., [et al.]{} 2010, , 190, 1 Reddy, B. E., Lambert, D. L., & Allende Prieto, C. 2006, , 367, 1329 Reid, N. & Majewski, S. R. 1993, , 409, 635 Robin, A. C., Haywood, M., Crézé, M., Ojha, D. K., & Bienaymé, O. 1996, , 305, 125 Rocha-Pinto, H., Scalo, J., Maciel, W. J., & Flynn< C. 2000, , 358, 869 Ro[š]{}kar, R., Debattista, V. P., Quinn, T. R., Stinson, G. S., & Wadsley, J. 2008, , 684, L79 Ro[š]{}kar, R., Debattista, V. P., Quinn, T. R., & Wadsley, J. 2011, , submitted, arXiv:1110.4413 Sales, L. V., Helmi, A., Abadi, M. G., [et al.]{} 2009, , 400, L61 Sandage, A., Freeman, K. C., & Stokes, N. R. 1970, , 160, 831 Scannapieco, C., White, S. D. M., Springel, V., & Tissera, P. B. 2009, , 396, 696 Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, , 737, 103 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525 Schlesinger, K. J., Johnson, J. A., Lee, Y. S., [et al.]{} 2010, , 719, 996 Schönrich, R. & Binney, J. J. 2009a, , 396, 203 Schönrich, R. & Binney, J. J. 2009b, , 399, 1145 Sellwood, J. A. & Carlberg, R. G. 1984, , 282, 61 Sellwood, J. A. & Lin, D. N. C. 1989, , 240, 991 Sellwood, J. A. & Binney, J.J. 2002, , 336, 785 Sellwood, J. A. 2011, , 409, 145 Siegel, M. H., Majewski, S. R., Reid, I. N., & Thompson, I. B. 2002, , 578, 151 Smith, J. A., Tucker, D. L., Kent, S., [et al.]{} 2002, , 123, 2121 Smolinski, J. P., Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., [et al.]{} 2011, , 141, 89 Somerville, R. S., Barden, M., Rix, H.-W., [et al.]{} 2008, , 672, 776 Soubiran, C., Bienaymé, O., & Siebert, A. 2003, , 398, 141 Stoughton, C., Lupton R. H., Bernardi, M., [et al.]{} 2002, , 123, 485 Tautvai[š]{}ien[ė]{}, G., Edvardsson, B., Tuominen, I., & Ilyin, I. 2001, , 380, 578 Tsikoudi, V. 1979, , 234, 842 Villalobos, A. & Helmi, A. 2008, , 391, 1806 Wang, J., Kauffmann, G., Overzier, R., [et al.]{} 2011, , 412, 1081 Wilson, M. L., Helmi, A.; Morrison, H. L., [et al.]{} 2011, , 413, 2235 Wyse, R. F. G. & Gilmore, G. 1988, , 95, 1404 Wyse, R. F. G., Gilmore, G., Norris, J. E., [et al.]{} 2006, , 639, 13 Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., Newberg, H. J., [et al.]{} 2009, , 137, 4377 Yoachim, P. & Dalcanton, J. J. 2005, , 624, 701 Yoachim, P. & Dalcanton, J. J. 2006, , 131, 226 Yoachim, P. & Dalcanton, J. J. 2008, , 683, 707 York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E., [et al.]{} 2000, , 120, 1579 Yoshii, Y. 1982, , 34, 365
[^1]: The \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratio in this paper is an average of the \[Mg/Fe\], \[Si/Fe\], \[Ca/Fe\], and \[Ti/Fe\] ratios [@Lee11a].
[^2]: http://cas.sdss.org/dr7/en/ .
[^3]: See <http://sdss3.org/dr8/algorithms/bitmask_flags1.php> and\
<http://sdss3.org/dr8/algorithms/bitmask_flags2.php> for a description of these flags.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We define a class of groups constructed from rings equipped with an involution. We show that under suitable conditions, these groups are either algebraic or arithmetic, including as special cases the orientation-preserving isometry group of hyperbolic 4-space, $SL(2,R)$ for any commutative ring $R$, various symplectic and orthogonal groups, and an important class of arithmetic subgroups of $SO^+(4,1)$. We investigate when such groups are isomorphic and conjugate, and relate this to problem of determining when hyperbolic $4$-orbifolds are homotopic.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Graduate Center at CUNY, 365 5th Ave, New York, NY 10016'
author:
- 'Arseniy (Senia) Sheydvasser'
bibliography:
- 'AlgebraicIsomorphism.bib'
title: Algebraic Groups Constructed From Rings with Involution
---
Introduction:
=============
The idea of representing elements of $\text{M\"{o}b}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ with $2\times 2$ matrices with entries in a Clifford algebra goes back at least to Vahlen [@Vahlen1902], and was later popularized by Ahlfors [@Ahlfors1986]. More recently, this approach was used by the author to construct explicit examples of integral, crystallographic sphere packings [@Sheydvasser2019]; briefly, these are generalizations of the classical Apollonian gasket which arise from hyperbolic lattices. Such packings were formally defined by Kontorovich and Nakamura [@KontorovichNakamura2019], although they were studied in various forms previously [@GLMWY2005; @GuettlerMallows2010; @Stange2015]. How to define $\text{M\"{o}b}({\mathbb{R}})$ and $\text{M\"{o}b}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ in terms of the real and complex matrices is well-known. In order to describe $\text{M\"{o}b}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ in terms of $2 \times 2$ matrices, we proceed as follows: let $H_\mathbb{R}$ be the standard Hamilton quaternions, and define an involution $(x + yi + zj + tk)^\ddagger = x + yi + zj - tk$. One can then define the set $$\begin{aligned}
SL^\ddagger(2,H_\mathbb{R}) = \left\{\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,H_\mathbb{R}) \middle| ab^\ddagger = ba^\ddagger, \ cd^\ddagger = dc^\ddagger, \ ad^\ddagger - bc^\ddagger = 1\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
One checks that this is a group, and that $SL^\ddagger(2,H_\mathbb{R})/\{\pm I\} \cong \text{ M\"{o}b}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$—or, if one prefers, since $\text{ M\"{o}b}({\mathbb{R}}^3) \cong SO^+(4,1)$, $SL^\ddagger(2,H_\mathbb{R}) \cong \text{Spin}(4,1)$, the universal cover of $SO^+(4,1)$. However, one observes that there is nothing in the definition of $SL^\ddagger(2,H_\mathbb{R})$ that is specific to the quaternions: one can just as well choose any ring equipped with an involution $\sigma$ and this will allow you to define a group $SL^\sigma(2,R)$. Our goal shall be describe what these groups are and under what circumstances they are isomorphic to one another. For example, if $R$ is an associative algebra over a field $F$ and $\sigma: R \rightarrow R$ is a morphism of affine $F$-varieties, then this an algebraic group. In fact, our first major result will be the following.
\[dimension restriction\] Let $F$ be a field of characteristic not $2$, $A$ a central simple algebra over $F$ of dimension $n^2$, and $\sigma: A \rightarrow A$ an $F$-linear involution. Then $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ is a linear algebraic group over $F$. Specifically, it is either a symplectic group of dimension $2n^2 + n$, or an orthogonal group of dimension $2n^2 - n$.
Section \[SECTION CSA\] proves this result along with more detailed information, such as working out the Lie algebra of this algebraic group. We primarily consider the case where $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ is symplectic since in that case it is simply-connected and we can get very detailed information about when such groups are isomorphic. In Section \[SECTION Orders and Arithmetic Groups\], we restrict to looking at algebraic number fields, as then we can consider orders ${\mathcal{O}}$ of the central simple algebra $A$. If ${\mathcal{O}}$ is closed under $\sigma$, then $SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ is a well-defined group; in fact, it is an arithmetic subgroup of $SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})$. Assuming $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ is symplectic, we can give a nice description of when such groups are isomorphic to one another in a sense that behaves well with respect to algebraic groups.
\[general isomorphism theorem\] Let $K$ be an algebraic number field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $K$, $\sigma: A \rightarrow A$ an $F$-linear involution, and ${\mathcal{O}}_1,{\mathcal{O}}_2$ orders of $A$ closed under $\sigma$. If $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ is a symplectic group, then there exists a group isomorphism $\Psi: SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \rightarrow SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ which lifts to an automorphism of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ if and only if there exists a ring isomorphism $\Phi: {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \rightarrow {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ such that $\Phi \circ \hat{\sigma} = \hat{\sigma} \circ \Phi$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}: {\text{Mat}}(2,A) &\rightarrow {\text{Mat}}(2,A) \\
\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} &\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} \sigma(d) & -\sigma(b) \\ -\sigma(c) & \sigma(a) \end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$
If we restrict to the case of rational quaternion algebras, then we can remove the requirement that the group isomorphism $\Psi: SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \rightarrow SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ extends to an automorphism of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$, which is proved in Section \[SECTION Quaternion Orders\]. In this setting, $SL^\sigma(2,H)$ is symplectic group if and only if $\sigma$ is $F$-linear and is not quaternion conjugation—such involutions are called orthogonal and we shall always denote such an involution by $\ddagger$. We then have the following.
\[special isomorphism theorem\] Let $H_1, H_2$ be rational quaternion algebras with orthogonal involutions $\ddagger_1, \ddagger_2$. Let ${\mathcal{O}}_1, {\mathcal{O}}_2$ be orders of $H_1, H_2$ closed under $\ddagger_1, \ddagger_2$, respectively. Then $SL^{\ddagger_1}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \cong SL^{\ddagger_2}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ as a group if and only if there exists a ring isomorphism $\Phi: {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \rightarrow {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ such that $\Phi \circ \hat{\ddagger}_1 = \hat{\ddagger}_2 \circ \Phi$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\ddagger}_i: {\text{Mat}}(2,H_i) &\rightarrow {\text{Mat}}(2,H_i) \\
\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} &\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} d^{\ddagger_i} & -b^{\ddagger_i} \\ -c^{\ddagger_i} & a^{\ddagger_i} \end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$
This is interesting from a geometric point of view due to an accidental isomorphism between the symplectic groups $SL^\ddagger(2,H)$ quotiented by $\{\pm 1\}$ and orthogonal groups of indefinite, quinary quadratic forms, which we prove in Section \[SECTION QAs\].
\[Correspondence between QAs and Orthogonal Groups\] Let $F$ be a characteristic $0$ field. Then there is a bijection $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\substack{\text{Isomorphism classes of} \\ \text{quaternion algebras over } F}\right\} &\rightarrow \left\{\substack{\text{Isomorphism classes of} \\ \text{orthogonal groups of indefinite,} \\ \text{quinary quadratic forms over } F} \right\} \\
[H] & \mapsto \left[SL^\ddagger(2,H)/\{\pm 1\}\right].
\end{aligned}$$
In particular, this implies that if $H$ is a rational, definite quaternion algebra, $\ddagger$ an orthogonal involution on $H$, and ${\mathcal{O}}$ is a $\ddagger$-order, then $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}})/\{\pm 1\}$ is an arithmetic subgroup of $SO(4,1) \cong {\text{Isom}}({\mathbb{H}}^4)$, the isometry group of hyperbolic $4$-space—this makes $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}})/\{\pm 1\}$ a Kleinian group, and so have an immediate corollary to Theorem \[special isomorphism theorem\] as a consequence of Mostow rigidity.
Let $H_1, H_2$ be rational quaternion algebras with orthogonal involutions $\ddagger_1, \ddagger_2$. Let ${\mathcal{O}}_1, {\mathcal{O}}_2$ be orders of $H_1, H_2$ closed under $\ddagger_1, \ddagger_2$, respectively. For $i = 1,2$, let $\Gamma_i = SL^{\ddagger_i}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_i)/\{\pm 1\}$, which we think of as subgroups of $\text{Isom}({\mathbb{H}}^4)$. The following are equivalent.
1. The orbifolds ${\mathbb{H}}^4/\Gamma_1,{\mathbb{H}}^4/\Gamma_2$ are homotopic.
2. The orbifolds ${\mathbb{H}}^4/\Gamma_1,{\mathbb{H}}^4/\Gamma_2$ are isometric.
3. There exists a ring isomorphism $\Phi: {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \rightarrow {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ such that $\Phi \circ \hat{\ddagger}_1 = \hat{\ddagger}_2 \circ \Phi$, where $\hat{\ddagger}_i$ is defined as in Theorem \[special isomorphism theorem\].
This property of the groups $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ is analogous to the Bianchi groups $SL(2,\mathfrak{o}_K)$, where $K$ is an imaginary quadratic field and $\mathfrak{o}_K$ is its ring of integers. Recall that $PSL(2,\mathfrak{o}_K)$ can be viewed as an arithmetic subgroup of $\text{Isom}({\mathbb{H}}^3)$, and the corresponding orbifolds ${\mathbb{H}}^3/PSL(2,\mathfrak{o}_K)$ are homotopic if and only if the rings of integers are isomorphic. The Bianchi groups have the additional property that they are in some sense maximal—$SL(2,\mathfrak{o}_K)$ is not contained inside any larger arithmetic subgroup of $SL(2,K)$. As it happens, our new groups also have this property, which shall be shown in Section \[SECTION Orders and Arithmetic Groups\].
\[Maximal Arithmetic Groups for QAs\] Let $K$ be an algebraic number field, $H$ a quaternion algebra over $K$, $\ddagger$ an orthogonal involution on $H$, and ${\mathcal{O}}$ an order of $H$ that is closed under $\ddagger$ but is not contained inside any larger order closed under $\ddagger$. Then $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ is a maximal arithmetic subgroup of $SL^\ddagger(2,H)$ in the sense that it is not contained inside any larger arithmetic subgroup of $SL^\ddagger(2,H)$.
In Section \[SECTION Quaternion Orders\], we conclude with a variety of examples and counter-examples demonstrating that our results are in some sense sharp—for example, we show that in Theorem \[special isomorphism theorem\], one cannot replace ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ with ${\mathcal{O}}$ instead, which is a major discrepancy from the comparatively simpler theory for commutative rings.
Acknowledgements: {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
-----------------
The author would like to thank Joseph Quinn for a very productive conversation about invariants and isomorphisms of hyperbolic quotient manifolds, which inspired many of the approaches used in this paper, as well as Ara Basmajian and Abhijit Champanerkar, for asking pointed questions.
General Rings: {#SECTION General Rings}
==============
Let $R$ be a ring. An *involution* on $R$ is a map $\sigma: R \rightarrow R$ such that for all $x,y \in R$,
1. $\sigma(\sigma(x)) = x$,
2. $\sigma(x + y) = \sigma(x) + \sigma(y)$, and
3. $\sigma(xy) = \sigma(y)\sigma(x)$.
Given two rings with involution $(R_1, \sigma_1)$, $(R_2, \sigma_2)$, a *morphism* between them is a ring homomorphism $\varphi: R_1 \rightarrow R_2$ such that $\varphi(\sigma_1(x)) = \sigma_2(\varphi(x))$ for all $x \in R_1$. There are countless standard examples of involutions; for instance, if $F$ is a field, we can consider $M = {\text{Mat}}(n,F)$, the ring of $n\times n$ matrices with coefficients in $F$, together with the adjugate map, usually written as $\dagger$. For our purposes, a particularly useful example is when $n = 2$—in that case, $R = {\text{Mat}}(2,F)$ is a quaternion algebra over $F$, and the adjugate is $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}^\dagger = \begin{pmatrix} d & -b \\ -c & a \end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
which happens to be the standard involution, also known in this context as quaternion conjugation. More generally, for any commutative ring $S$, $R = {\text{Mat}}(2,S)$ equipped with the adjugate is a ring with involution. The same is not true if the base ring is not commutative, but there certainly exists a way to fix this in the $n = 2$ case, as follows.
Let $(R, \sigma)$ be a ring with involution. Then ${\text{Mat}}(2,R)$ together with the map $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}: {\text{Mat}}(2,R) &\rightarrow {\text{Mat}}(2,R) \\
\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} &\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} \sigma(d) & -\sigma(b) \\ -\sigma(c) & \sigma(a) \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
is a ring with involution.
It is easy to see that $\hat{\sigma}$ squares to the identity and that it preserves addition. It remains to prove that it reverses multiplication. This is a straightforward computation. On the one hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}\left(\begin{pmatrix} a_1 & b_1 \\ c_1 & d_1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} a_2 & b_2 \\ c_2 & d_2 \end{pmatrix}\right) &= \hat{\sigma}\left(\begin{pmatrix} a_1a_2 + b_1 c_2 & a_1 b_2 + b_1 d_2 \\ c_1 a_2 + d_1 c_2 & c_1 b_2 + d_1 d_2 \end{pmatrix}\right) \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} \sigma(c_1 b_2 + d_1 d_2) & -\sigma(a_1 b_2 + b_1 d_2) \\ -\sigma(c_1 a_2 + d_1 c_2) & \sigma(a_1 a_2 + b_1 c_2) \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}\left(\begin{pmatrix} a_2 & b_2 \\ c_2 & d_2 \end{pmatrix}\right)&\hat{\sigma}\left(\begin{pmatrix} a_1 & b_1 \\ c_1 & d_1 \end{pmatrix}\right) \\ &= \begin{pmatrix} \sigma \left(d_2\right) & -\sigma \left(b_2\right) \\ -\sigma \left(c_2\right) & \sigma \left(a_2\right) \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} \sigma \left(d_1\right) & -\sigma \left(b_1\right) \\ -\sigma \left(c_1\right) & \sigma \left(a_1\right) \end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} \sigma(d_2)\sigma(d_1) + \sigma(b_2)\sigma(c_1) & -\sigma(d_2)\sigma(b_1) - \sigma(b_2)\sigma(a_1) \\ -\sigma(c_2)\sigma(d_1) - \sigma(a_2)\sigma(c_1) & \sigma(c_2)\sigma(b_1) + \sigma(a_2)\sigma(a_1) \end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$
By the properties of $\sigma$, these are in fact the same.
As an aside, it is entirely possible that there is a nice generalization of this argument for $n > 2$—however, it is not clear to the author how to do this, since in general the adjugate is defined in terms of the minors of the matrix, whereas there are many different generalizations of the determinant for non-commutative rings. This is left as a question for the reader to ponder.
A slightly more standard way to define an involution on ${\text{Mat}}(n,R)$ is by composing the transpose map with element-wise application of $\sigma: R \rightarrow R$—one checks that this works for any $n$. (Consult [@Involutions] for more details and examples.) For $n = 2$, this is related to $\hat{\sigma}$ in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}\left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}\right) = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \sigma(a) & \sigma(c) \\ \sigma(b) & \sigma(d) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
In any case, this lemma allows us to make the following definition.
\[DEFINITION twisted SL\] Let $(R,\sigma)$ be a ring with involution. By the *special linear group on $R^2$ twisted by $\sigma$*, we shall mean the group $$\begin{aligned}
SL^{\sigma}(2,R) := \left\{M \in {\text{Mat}}(2,R)\middle|M\hat{\sigma}(M) = 1\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to see that this really is a group under matrix multiplication. The name of this group is motivated as follows. For convenience, define $$\begin{aligned}
R^+ :&= \left\{x \in R\middle| \sigma(x) = x\right\} \\
R^- :&= \left\{x \in R\middle| \sigma(x) = -x\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Then we have the following lemma.
Let $(R,\sigma)$ be a ring with involution. Then $$\begin{aligned}
SL^{\sigma}(2,R) = \left\{\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,R)\middle|a\sigma(b), c\sigma(d) \in R^+, \ a\sigma(d) - b\sigma(c) = 1\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Choose any matrix $$\begin{aligned}
M=\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,R)
\end{aligned}$$
and compute $$\begin{aligned}
M\hat{\sigma}(M) &= \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} \sigma(d) & -\sigma(b) \\ -\sigma(c) & \sigma(a) \end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} a\sigma(d) - b\sigma(c) & -a\sigma(b) + b\sigma(a) \\ c\sigma(d) - d\sigma(c) & -c\sigma(b) + d\sigma(a)\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$
This matrix is equal to $I$ if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
a\sigma(d) - b\sigma(c) &= 1 \\
a\sigma(b) &= \sigma\left(a\sigma(b)\right) \\
c\sigma(d) &= \sigma\left(c\sigma(d)\right),
\end{aligned}$$
which is to say that $$\begin{aligned}
M \in \left\{\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,R)\middle|a\sigma(b), c\sigma(d) \in R^+, \ a\sigma(d) - b\sigma(c) = 1\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Ergo, these two sets are in fact one and the same.
It is now easy to see that Definition \[DEFINITION twisted SL\] has two important special cases:
1. If $R$ is commutative, then the identity map $id: R \rightarrow R$ is an involution, and it is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
SL^{id}(2,R) = SL(2,R).
\end{aligned}$$
That is, if the twist is trivial, then we simply reduce to the ordinary special linear group.
2. If $R = H_{\mathbb{R}}$, the Hamiltonian quaternions, and $\ddagger: H_{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow H_{\mathbb{R}}$ is the map $(x + wi + yj + zk)^\ddagger = x + wi + yj - zk$, then $SL^\ddagger(2,H_{\mathbb{R}})$ is exactly the group we saw in the introduction, and so $$\begin{aligned}
SL^\ddagger(2,H_{\mathbb{R}})/\{\pm I\} \cong SO^+(3,1) \cong {\text{Isom}}^0({\mathbb{H}}^4),
\end{aligned}$$
the orientation-preserving isometry group of hyperbolic $4$-space.
Central Simple Algebras: {#SECTION CSA}
========================
Generalizing the example of $SL^\ddagger(2,H_{\mathbb{R}})$, one could take any field $F$, a central simple algebra $A$ over $F$, and an involution $\sigma: A \rightarrow A$. This group is also known under another name: it is $\text{Isom}({\text{Mat}}(2,A), \hat{\sigma})$, the collection of elements $M \in {\text{Mat}}(2,A)$ with the property that $A\hat{\sigma}(A) = 1$, which are known as isometries. (Consult [@Involutions] for more details.) It is easily checked that for any central simple algebra $A$ over a field $F$, any involution $\sigma$ preserves its center; consequently, the restriction of $\sigma$ to $F$ is either the identity or an automorphism of order two. Involutions that fix $F$ are known as *involutions of the first kind*; the other type are *involutions of the second kind*. We will not consider involutions of the second kind here for a variety of reasons; ultimately, we will be interested in the case where $F = {\mathbb{Q}}$, in which case all involutions are of the first kind. It is easy to see that for any $\lambda \in F$, $\hat{\sigma}(\lambda) = \sigma(\lambda)$, so $\hat{\sigma}$ is of the first kind if and only if $\sigma$ itself is.
Involutions of the first kind are further split into symplectic and orthogonal involutions. These can defined as follows: any involution of the first kind $\sigma: A \rightarrow A$ can be extended to an involution on $A \otimes_F \overline{F}$, where $\overline{F}$ is the algebraic closure of $F$. However, by the Artin-Wedderburn theorem, $A \otimes_F \overline{F} \cong {\text{Mat}}(n, \overline{F})$ for some $n$. It readily checked that on such an algebra, any involution of the first kind $\sigma$ corresponds to a bilinear form $b_\sigma$ with the defining property that for all $v,w \in \overline{F}^n$ and all $M \in {\text{Mat}}(n,\overline{F})$ $$\begin{aligned}
b_\sigma(v,Mw) = b_\sigma(\sigma(M)v,w).
\end{aligned}$$
This form is unique up to multiplication by scalars, and it is either symmetric or alternating. If it is symmetric, we say that $\sigma$ is *orthogonal*; it is alternating, we say that it is *symplectic*.
\[Orthogonal to Symplectic\] Let $F$ be a field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $F$, and $\sigma: A \rightarrow A$ be an involution of the first kind. If $\sigma$ is symplectic, then $\hat{\sigma}$ is orthogonal, and vice versa.
Let $b_\sigma$ be a bilinear form on $A \otimes_F \overline{F}$ such that for all $v,w \in \overline{F}^n$ and all $M \in {\text{Mat}}(n,\overline{F})$ $$\begin{aligned}
b_\sigma(v,Mw) = b_\sigma(\sigma(M)v,w).
\end{aligned}$$
We shall construct a corresponding bilinear form for $\hat{\sigma}$. Specifically, note that ${\text{Mat}}(2,A \otimes_F \overline{F}) \cong {\text{Mat}}(2n, \overline{F})$, and so we shall want a bilinear form $b_{\hat{\sigma}}$ on $\overline{F}^{2n} = \overline{F}^{n} \times \overline{F}^{n}$. We do this by $$\begin{aligned}
b_{\hat{\sigma}}\left((v_1, v_2), (w_1,w_2)\right) &= b_\sigma(v_1, w_2) - b_\sigma(v_2, w_1),
\end{aligned}$$
in which case for any $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma = \begin{pmatrix} M_1 & M_2 \\ M_3 & M_4 \end{pmatrix} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,{\text{Mat}}(n,\overline{F})) \cong {\text{Mat}}(2n,\overline{F}),
\end{aligned}$$
we have $$\begin{aligned}
b_{\hat{\sigma}}\left((v_1, v_2), \gamma(w_1,w_2)\right) &= b_{\hat{\sigma}}\left((v_1, v_2), (M_1 w_1 + M_2 w_2, M_3 w_1 + M_4 w_2)\right) \\
&= b_\sigma(v_1, M_3 w_1 + M_4 w_2) - b_\sigma(v_2, M_1 w_1 + M_2 w_2) \\
&= b_\sigma(\sigma(M_3)v_1, w_1) + b_\sigma(\sigma(M_4) v_1, w_2) \\ &- b_\sigma(\sigma(M_1)v_2, w_1) - b_\sigma(\sigma(M_2)v_2, w_2) \\
&= b_\sigma(\sigma(M_4)v_1 - \sigma(M_2)v_2, w_2) - b_\sigma(-\sigma(M_3)v_1 + \sigma(M_1)v_2, w_1) \\
&= b_{\hat{\sigma}}\left((\sigma(M_4)v_1 - \sigma(M_2)v_2,-\sigma(M_3)v_1 + \sigma(M_1)v_2),(w_1,w_2)\right) \\
&= b_{\hat{\sigma}}\left(\hat{\sigma}(\gamma)(v_1,v_2),(w_1,w_2)\right),
\end{aligned}$$
as desired. Note that if $\sigma$ is orthogonal, then $$\begin{aligned}
b_{\hat{\sigma}}\left((v_1, v_2), (v_1,v_2)\right) &= b_\sigma(v_1, v_2) - b_\sigma(v_2, v_1) = 0,
\end{aligned}$$
so the form is alternating and $\hat{\sigma}$ is symplectic. On the other hand, if $\sigma$ is symplectic, then $$\begin{aligned}
b_{\hat{\sigma}}\left((v_1, v_2), (w_1,w_2)\right) &- b_{\hat{\sigma}}\left((w_1, w_2), (v_1,v_2)\right) \\
&= b_\sigma(v_1, w_2) - b_\sigma(v_2, w_1) - b_\sigma(w_1, v_2) + b_\sigma(w_2, v_1) \\
&= b_\sigma(v_1 + w_2, v_1 + w_2) - b_\sigma(v_2 + w_1, v_2 + w_1) = 0,
\end{aligned}$$
so the form is symmetric and $\hat{\sigma}$ is orthogonal.
Notice that because did not identify alternating and skew-symmetric forms, this proof applies perfectly well in characteristic $2$, where those two types of forms are distinct.
\[Is symplectic or orthogonal\] Let $F$ be a field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $F$, and $\sigma: A \rightarrow A$ be an involution of the first kind. If $\sigma$ is orthogonal, then $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ is a symplectic group. Otherwise, it is an orthogonal group.
As was shown in the proof of Lemma \[Orthogonal to Symplectic\], $SL^\sigma(2,A \otimes_F \overline{F})$ is the group of linear transformations that preserve a bilinear form $b_{\hat{\sigma}}$ which is alternating if $\sigma$ is orthogonal, and symmetric otherwise. In the first case, we have that $SL^\sigma(2,A \otimes_F \overline{F}) = \text{Sp}(b_{\hat{\sigma}})$, the symplectic group of $b_{\hat{\sigma}}$; in the second case, we have that $SL^\sigma(2,A \otimes_F \overline{F}) = O(b_{\hat{\sigma}})$, the orthogonal group of $b_{\hat{\sigma}}$.
Since $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ is an algebraic group, we can work out its Lie algebra. In this context, a Lie algebra is a subspace of an associative $F$-algebra that is closed under the bracket $[x,y] = xy - yx$. Any algebraic group $G$ has an associated Lie algebra consisting of its left invariant derivations—that is, if $R = F[G]$ is the space of regular functions on $G$, then it is the subspace $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(G) &= \left\{\delta \in \text{Der}(R)\middle|\delta \circ \lambda_x = \lambda_x \circ \delta, \ \forall x \in G\right\}
\end{aligned}$$
where $\text{Der}(R)$ is the set of derivations on $R$ and $(\lambda_x f)(y) = f(x^{-1}y)$ for any $f \in R$. Of course, the Lie algebras of the symplectic and orthogonal groups are known, but here we can give a nice description in terms of the central simple algebra $A$.
Let $F$ be a field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $F$, $\sigma: A \rightarrow A$ an involution of the first kind. Then we define $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{sl}^\sigma(2,A) = \left\{X \in {\text{Mat}}(2,A)\middle| \hat{\sigma}(X) = -X\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
$\mathfrak{sl}^\sigma(2,A)$ is a Lie algebra.
Since $\sigma$ is $F$-linear, $\hat{\sigma}$ is $F$-linear. Therefore $\mathfrak{sl}^\sigma(2,A)$ is an $F$-vector space. Checking that it is closed under the bracket is also easy, since $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}(XY - YX) &= \hat{\sigma}(Y)\hat{\sigma}(X) - \hat{\sigma}(X)\hat{\sigma}(Y) \\
&= -(XY - YX),
\end{aligned}$$
concluding the proof.
\[Lie algebra computation\] Let $F$ be a field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $F$, $\sigma: A \rightarrow A$ an involution of the first kind. Then $\mathfrak{sl}^\sigma(2,A)$ is isomorphic to the Lie algebra of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$.
The group $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ is a closed subgroup of $GL(2,A)$. The Lie algebra of $GL(2,A)$, $\mathfrak{gl}(2,A)$, is isomorphic to ${\text{Mat}}(2,A)$ via the map $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Mat}}(2,A) &\rightarrow \mathfrak{gl}(2,A) \\
M &\mapsto \left(f \mapsto \left(X \mapsto \left.\frac{d}{dt}f(X(I + tM))\right|_{t = 0}\right)\right).
\end{aligned}$$
However, it is more convenient to use the fact that the Lie algebra can be identified with the tangent space at $I$—this we can define as the ideal of rational functions $p: F \rightarrow GL(2,A)$ such that $p(0) = I$, quotiented by the square of this ideal. In that case, the Lie algebra of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ can be viewed as the sub-ideal consisting of all rational functions $p: F \rightarrow SL^\sigma(2,A)$. By our isomorphism, this is equivalent to finding all $M \in {\text{Mat}}(2,A)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
(I + tM)\hat{\sigma}(I + tM) = I + O(t^2).
\end{aligned}$$
However, $$\begin{aligned}
(I + tM)\hat{\sigma}(I + tM) &= (I + tM)(I + t\hat{\sigma}(M)) \\
&= I + tM + t\hat{\sigma}(M) + t^2 M \hat{\sigma}(M),
\end{aligned}$$
so this actually happens if and only if $\hat{\sigma}(M) = -M$.
One benefit of having this explicit description of the Lie algebra is that it makes it very easy to see what the dimension of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ is.
\[dimension computation\] Let $F$ be a field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $F$, $\sigma: A \rightarrow A$ an involution of the first kind. Then $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ is a linear algebraic group over $F$ of dimension $$\begin{aligned}
\dim_F(A) + 2\dim_F(A^+).
\end{aligned}$$
The dimension of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ is the dimension of $\mathfrak{sl}^\sigma(2,A)$. But $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} = -\hat{\sigma}\left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}\right) = \begin{pmatrix} -\sigma(a) & \sigma(b) \\ \sigma(c) & -\sigma(d) \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
if and only if $d = -\sigma(a)$ and $b,c \in A^+$.
It is known that if the characteristic is not $2$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\dim_F(A^+) = \begin{cases} \frac{n(n + 1)}{2} & \text{if $n$ is orthogonal} \\ \frac{n(n - 1)}{2} & \text{if $n$ is symplectic}, \end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
(see [@Involutions]), and so Theorem \[dimension restriction\] is an immediate corollary of this and Corollary \[Is symplectic or orthogonal\].
Orders and Arithmetic Groups: {#SECTION Orders and Arithmetic Groups}
=============================
If $A$ is a central simple algebra over an algebraic number field $K$, then we can consider orders of $A$—in this context, an *order* is a sub-ring ${\mathcal{O}}\subset A$ that is finitely-generated as a $\mathfrak{o}_K$-module, where $\mathfrak{o}_K$ is the ring of integers of $K$, and such that $K{\mathcal{O}}= A$. If $\sigma: A \rightarrow A$ is an involution and $\sigma({\mathcal{O}}) = {\mathcal{O}}$, then we say that ${\mathcal{O}}$ is a $\sigma$-*order* of $A$. If it is not contained inside any larger $\sigma$-order, then we say that it is a *maximal $\sigma$-order*. Such orders were studied by Scharlau [@Scharlau1974] in the 1970s and then generalized to Azumaya algebras by Saltmann [@Saltman1978]. More recently, the author demonstrated how to classify the $\sigma$-orders of a quaternion algebra over local and global fields, which we will discuss in Section \[SECTION Quaternion Orders\]. In the meantime, we consider some of the broader theory.
If $\sigma$ is an involution of the first kind on $A$ and ${\mathcal{O}}$ is a $\sigma$-order of $A$, then it is easy to see that $SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ is an arithmetic subgroup of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$. If $\sigma$ is an orthogonal involution, then we can say significantly more; this is because $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ is a symplectic group, and it is therefore an almost simple, simply-connected group. Moreover, it is easy to see that if $\nu$ is an infinite place of $\mathfrak{o}_K$ then $SL^\sigma(2,A_\nu)$ is not a compact group since none of the symplectic groups over ${\mathbb{R}}$ or ${\mathbb{C}}$ are; here $A_\nu = A \otimes_K K_\nu$, where $K_\nu$ is the localization of $K$ at the place $\nu$. Therefore, we can use the strong approximation theorem proved by Knesser and Platonov [@Kneser1965; @Platonov1969].
\[Strong Approximation\] Let $K$ be an algebraic number field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $K$, $\sigma$ an orthogonal involution on $A$, and $S$ be the set of infinite places of $K$. Then $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ has strong approximation with respect to $S$.
The version of strong approximation that we will need can be summarized as follows.
\[Strong Approximation Useful\] Let $K$ be an algebraic number field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $K$, $\sigma$ an orthogonal involution on $A$, ${\mathcal{O}}$ a $\sigma$-order of $A$, and $S$ be the set of infinite places of $K$. Then $SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ is dense inside $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{\mathfrak{p} \text{ prime}}SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}_\mathfrak{p})
\end{aligned}$$
given the direct product topology, where ${\mathcal{O}}_\mathfrak{p} = {\mathcal{O}}\otimes_{\mathfrak{o}_K} \mathfrak{o}_{K, \nu}$, $\mathfrak{o}_K$ is the ring of integers of $K$, and $\mathfrak{o}_{K, \nu}$ is the ring of integers of $K_\nu$.
The reason why this is helpful is that it will allow us to compute an important invariant, the matrix ring of the group.
Let $K$ be an algebraic number field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $K$, and $\sigma$ an orthogonal involution on $A$. Let $\Gamma \subset SL^\sigma(2,A)$ be a subgroup. The *matrix ring* $\mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma]$ of $\Gamma$ is the subring of ${\text{Mat}}(2,A)$ generated by $\mathfrak{o}_K$ and the elements of $\Gamma$.
One might ask in what sense this is an invariant. If $\Gamma, \Gamma'$ are conjugate to one another in $GL(2,A \otimes_K \overline{K})$, then it is clear that this extends to an isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma] &\rightarrow \mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma'] \\
M &\mapsto \gamma M \gamma^{-1}
\end{aligned}$$
for some $\gamma \in GL(2,H \otimes_K \overline{K})$. Thus, in some sense any isomorphism of arithmetic groups leaves the matrix rings of the groups invariant. We shall see later that in special cases we can generalize this to group isomorphisms.
\[Group Ring\] Let $K$ be an algebraic number field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $K$, $\sigma$ an orthogonal involution on $A$, and ${\mathcal{O}}$ a $\sigma$-order of $A$. Then $\mathfrak{o}_K\left[SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})\right] = {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}})$.
Obviously, $\mathfrak{o}_K\left[SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})\right]$ is contained inside of ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}})$, so it shall suffice to show that every element of ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ is contained in $\mathfrak{o}_K\left[SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})\right]$. Since $\mathfrak{o}_K \subset {\mathcal{O}}$, we know that ${\text{Mat}}(2,\mathfrak{o}_K) \subset \mathfrak{o}_K\left[SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})\right]$. Now, let $\hat{\mathfrak{o}}_K$ be the inverse limit $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathfrak{o}}_K = \varprojlim_{\mathfrak{a} \text{ ideal}} \mathfrak{o}_K/\mathfrak{a} = \prod_{\mathfrak{p} \text{ prime}} \mathfrak{o}_{K, \mathfrak{p}}.
\end{aligned}$$
This is the completion of $\mathfrak{o}_K$ given the structure of a topological ring by specifying that the prime ideals $\mathfrak{p}$ form a basis of open sets for $0$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{{\mathcal{O}}} = \prod_{\mathfrak{p} \text{ prime}} {\mathcal{O}}_\mathfrak{p} = \prod_{\mathfrak{p} \text{ prime}} {\mathcal{O}}\otimes_{\mathfrak{o}_K}\mathfrak{o}_{K, \mathfrak{p}} = {\mathcal{O}}\otimes_{\mathfrak{o}_K} \hat{\mathfrak{o}}_K,
\end{aligned}$$
giving it the structure of a topological ring via the product topology. Thinking of $\hat{{\mathcal{O}}}$ as a group, we can take the quotient $\hat{{\mathcal{O}}}/\hat{\mathfrak{o}}_K$, which inherits the quotient topology. All of this allows us to define the following continuous projection. $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi: \prod_{\mathfrak{p} \text{ prime}} SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_\mathfrak{p}) &\rightarrow \hat{{\mathcal{O}}}/\hat{\mathfrak{o}}_K \\
\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} &\mapsto a + \hat{\mathfrak{o}}_K.
\end{aligned}$$
This projection is surjective—this is because for any $z_\mathfrak{p} \in {\mathcal{O}}_\mathfrak{p}$, there exists some $\lambda_\mathfrak{p} \in \mathfrak{o}_{K,\mathfrak{p}}$ such that $\lambda_\mathfrak{p} + z_\mathfrak{p} \in {\mathcal{O}}_\mathfrak{p}^\times$. So, defining $\lambda \in \hat{\mathfrak{o}}_K$, $z \in \hat{{\mathcal{O}}}$ such that their $\mathfrak{p}$-th coordinates are $\lambda_\mathfrak{p}$ and $z_\mathfrak{p}$ respectively, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix} \lambda + z & 0 \\ 0 & \left(\lambda + \sigma(z)\right)^{-1} \end{pmatrix}}_{\in SL^\sigma(2,\hat{{\mathcal{O}}})} \mapsto z + \hat{\mathfrak{o}}_K.
\end{aligned}$$
However, by Corollary \[Strong Approximation Useful\], we know that $SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ is dense, hence its image is also dense, which is to say that for any $a \in {\mathcal{O}}/\mathfrak{o}_K$ and any prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$, there exists $\gamma \in SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ such that $\Psi(\gamma) - a \in \mathfrak{p}{\mathcal{O}}$. Choose a basis $\{e_i\}_{i = 1}^n$ for ${\mathcal{O}}$ and an ideal $\mathfrak{a} \subset \mathfrak{o}_K$ such that $\{e_i + \alpha_i\}_{i = 1}^n$ is a basis for all $\alpha_i \in \mathfrak{a}{\mathcal{O}}$. Then there exist $\lambda_i \in \mathfrak{o}_K$ and $\alpha_i \in \mathfrak{a}{\mathcal{O}}$ such that there exists $\gamma_i \in SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ such $\Psi(\gamma_i) = \lambda_i + e_i + \alpha_i$, and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \gamma_i \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} - \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_i & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} e_i + \alpha_i & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \in \mathfrak{o}_K\left[SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})\right].
\end{aligned}$$
However, since $\{e_i + \alpha_i\}_{i = 1}^n$ is a basis, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} {\mathcal{O}}& 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \subset \mathfrak{o}_K\left[SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})\right].
\end{aligned}$$
By conjugating with elements in ${\text{Mat}}(2,\mathfrak{o}_K)$, we get that ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}})\subset \mathfrak{o}_K\left[SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})\right]$, as desired.
More generally, for other arithmetic subgroups of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$, the matrix ring is an order of ${\text{Mat}}(2,A)$.
\[Lattices beget lattices\] Let $K$ be an algebraic number field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $K$, $\sigma$ an orthogonal involution on $A$, and $\Gamma$ an arithmetic subgroup of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$. Then $\mathfrak{o}_K\left[\Gamma\right]$ is an order of the central simple algebra ${\text{Mat}}(2,A)$.
First, note that since $\Gamma \subset SL^\sigma(2,A)$, $\mathfrak{o}_K\left[\Gamma\right] \subset \mathfrak{o}_K\left[SL^\sigma(2,A)\right] = {\text{Mat}}(2,A)$. Since $\Gamma$ is an arithmetic group, for some integer $l$, there is a morphism $\Psi:\Gamma \rightarrow SL(l,\mathfrak{o}_K)$ with a finite kernel. It is easy to see that $\mathfrak{o}_K\left[SL(l,\mathfrak{o}_K)\right] = {\text{Mat}}(l,\mathfrak{o}_K)$ is a finitely-generated, Noetherian $\mathfrak{o}_K$-module. Therefore, the sub-module $\mathfrak{o}_K\left[\Psi(\Gamma)\right]$ is finitely-generated. This, in turn, means that $\mathfrak{o}_K\left[\Gamma\right]$ is finitely-generated as an $\mathfrak{o}_K$-module. Since it is a subring of the finite-dimensional algebra ${\text{Mat}}(2,A)$, it is therefore an order.
We can use this invariant to characterize when arithmetic subgroups are conjugate to each other.
\[Conjugation turns into isomorphism\] Let $K$ be an algebraic number field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $K$, $\sigma$ an orthogonal involution on $A$. Let $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2$ be arithmetic subgroups of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ such that $\Gamma_i = \mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma_i] \cap SL^\sigma(2,A)$. The following are equivalent.
1. There exists an element $\gamma \in SL^\sigma(2,A\otimes_K \overline{K})$ such that $\Gamma_2 = \gamma \Gamma_1 \gamma^{-1}$.
2. There exists a group isomorphism $\Psi: \Gamma_1 \rightarrow \Gamma_2$ that extends to an automorphism of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ as an algebraic group.
3. $(\mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma_1],\hat{\sigma}) \cong (\mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma_2],\hat{\sigma})$.
Since $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2$ are arithmetic groups, if $\Gamma_2 = \gamma \Gamma_1 \gamma^{-1}$ then this extends to an automorphism of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$; thus, the first condition certainly implies the second. On the other hand, any automorphism of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ must come from an automorphism of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{sl}^\sigma(2,A)$, since the group is simply-connected. Since the Lie algebra is of type $C_n$, all of its automorphisms are inner, which is to say that they arise as conjugation by elements in $SL^\sigma(2,A\otimes_K \overline{K})$—therefore, the second condition implies the first. Now, if $\Gamma_2 = \gamma \Gamma_1 \gamma^{-1}$, then this extends to a ring isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma_1] &\rightarrow \mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma_1] \\
M &\mapsto \gamma M \gamma^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
If $\gamma \in SL^\sigma(2,A \otimes_K \overline{K})$, then we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma\left(\gamma M \gamma^{-1}\right) &= \sigma(\gamma^{-1})\sigma(M)\sigma(\gamma) \\
&= \gamma \sigma(M) \gamma^{-1},
\end{aligned}$$
hence this is actually an isomorphism of rings with involution. On the other hand, since $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2$ are arithmetic, any isomorphism $(\mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma_1],\hat{\sigma}) \cong (\mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma_2],\hat{\sigma})$ extends to an automorphism of $({\text{Mat}}(2,A),\hat{\sigma})$. Since ${\text{Mat}}(2,A)$ is a central simple algebra, there exists $\gamma \in GL(2,A)$ such that this automorphism has the form $M \mapsto \gamma M \gamma^{-1}$. Since this is an automorphism of rings with involution, it must be that $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(\gamma M \gamma^{-1}) = \sigma(\gamma^{-1}) \sigma(M) \sigma(\gamma) = \gamma\sigma(M)\gamma^{-1}
\end{aligned}$$
for all $M \in {\text{Mat}}(2,A)$, which implies that $\gamma\sigma(\gamma)$ is in the center of ${\text{Mat}}(2,A)$, which is $K$. Therefore, there exists $\lambda \in \overline{K}$ such that $\gamma' = \lambda \gamma$ satisfies the property $\gamma'\sigma(\gamma') = 1$, which is to say that $\gamma' \in SL^\sigma(2,A \otimes_K \overline{K})$. Therefore, we can take our desired isomorphism to be of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma_1] &\rightarrow \mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma_1] \\
M &\mapsto \gamma' M {\gamma'}^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
Since $\mathfrak{o}_K[\Gamma_i] \cap SL^\sigma(2,A) = \Gamma_i$, this isomorphism restricts to a group isomorphism from $\Gamma_1$ to $\Gamma_2$ by looking at the subgroup of elements $M$ such that $M\hat{\sigma}(M) = 1$.
Theorem \[general isomorphism theorem\] is an immediate corollary of this result and Lemma \[Group Ring\].
We shall see later in the context of quaternion algebras, that while $({\mathcal{O}}_1, \sigma) \cong ({\mathcal{O}}_2, \sigma)$ certainly implies $({\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1),\hat{\sigma}) \cong ({\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2), \hat{\sigma})$, the converse is false; in fact, there are examples where ${\mathcal{O}}_1 \ncong {\mathcal{O}}_2$, but $({\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1),\hat{\sigma}) \cong ({\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2), \hat{\sigma})$. Requiring $({\mathcal{O}}_1, \sigma) \cong ({\mathcal{O}}_2, \sigma)$ actually corresponds to a significantly more stringent notion of isomorphism.
\[Special Isomorphism of Orders Is Equivalent to Special Isomorphism of Groups\] Let $K$ be an algebraic number field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $K$, $\sigma$ an orthogonal involution on $A$, and ${\mathcal{O}}_1, {\mathcal{O}}_2$ be $\sigma$-orders of $A$. The following are equivalent.
1. There exists $\gamma \in SL^\sigma(2,A \otimes_K \overline{K})$ such that $\gamma SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \gamma^{-1} = SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ and $\gamma M \gamma^{-1} = M$ for all $M \in SL(2,K)$.
2. $({\mathcal{O}}_1,\ddagger) \cong ({\mathcal{O}}_2,\ddagger)$.
If $({\mathcal{O}}_1, \sigma) \cong ({\mathcal{O}}_2,\sigma)$, then this isomorphism extends to an automorphism of $(A,\sigma)$. Since $A$ is a central simple algebra, this automorphism must take the form $x \mapsto uxu^{-1}$ for some $u \in A^\times$. Furthermore, it must be that $u\sigma(u) \in K^\times$. Therefore, there exists some $\lambda \in \overline{K}$ such that $v = \lambda u$ satisfies $v\sigma(v) = 1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{O}}_1 & \rightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_2 \\
x &\mapsto vxv^{-1}
\end{aligned}$$
is the desired isomorphism of rings with involution. Now, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma = \begin{pmatrix} v & 0 \\ 0 & \sigma(v)^{-1} \end{pmatrix} \in SL^\sigma(2,A \otimes_K \overline{K})
\end{aligned}$$
and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
SL^\sigma(2,A) &\mapsto SL^\sigma(2,A) \\
M &\mapsto \gamma M \gamma^{-1}
\end{aligned}$$
is an automorphism. However, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \gamma^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} vav^{-1} & vbv^{-1} \\ vcv^{-1} & vdv^{-1} \end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
and therefore $\gamma SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \gamma^{-1} = SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ and this map acts as the identity on $SL(2,K)$. In the other direction, suppose that there exists an element $\gamma \in SL^\sigma(2,H \otimes_K \overline{K})$ such that $\gamma SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \gamma^{-1} = SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ and $\gamma M \gamma^{-1} = M$ for all $M \in SL(2,K)$. Then, by Lemma \[Group Ring\], the conjugation map extends to a ring isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) &\rightarrow {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2) \\
M &\mapsto \gamma M \gamma^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
This map restricts to the identity on ${\text{Mat}}(2,\mathfrak{o}_K)$. This means that if we define subrings $$\begin{aligned}
U_i = \left\{M \in {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_i) \middle| M\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}M\right\},
\end{aligned}$$
then we are guaranteed that the ring isomorphism between the ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_i)$ restricts to a ring isomorphism between the $U_i$. However, it is easy to see that $M \in U_i$ if and only if it is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} s & t \\ 0 & s \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
for some $s, t \in {\mathcal{O}}_i$. Therefore, for any $z \in {\mathcal{O}}_1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma \begin{pmatrix} 1 & z \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \gamma^{-1} \in U_2.
\end{aligned}$$
Write $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma = \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in SL^\sigma(2,A \otimes_K \overline{K}),
\end{aligned}$$
and note that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma \begin{pmatrix} 0 & z \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \gamma^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} * & * \\ cz\sigma(c) & * \end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
hence $cz\sigma(c) = 0$. Since $cz\sigma(c) = 0$ for all $z \in {\mathcal{O}}_1$, it must be that $cz\sigma(c) = 0$ for all $z \in A \otimes_K \overline{K}$. Since $A \otimes_K \overline{K} \cong {\text{Mat}}(n,\overline{K})$ for some $n$, we can think of $c,z$ as linear transformations. Suppose that there exists $v \in \overline{K}^n$ such that $cv \neq 0$. Then there must also exist $w \in \overline{K}^n$ such that $\sigma(c)w \neq 0$. Therefore, there exists $z \in {\text{Mat}}(n, \overline{K})$ such that $z\sigma(c)w = v$, which means that $cz\sigma(v)w \neq 0$. This is contradicted by the fact that $cz\sigma(c) = 0$ identically, which means that $c = 0$. By a similar argument with the sub-ring $$\begin{aligned}
L_i = \left\{M \in {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_i) \middle| M\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}M\right\},
\end{aligned}$$
we can prove that $b = 0$ as well. Thus $\gamma$ is a diagonal matrix, which is to say that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma = \begin{pmatrix} u & 0 \\ 0 & \sigma(u)^{-1} \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
for some $u \in \left(A \otimes_K \overline{K}\right)^\times$. Thus ${\mathcal{O}}_2 = u{\mathcal{O}}_1 u^{-1}$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} u & 0 \\ 0 & \sigma(u)^{-1} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} u^{-1} & 0 \\ 0 & \sigma(u) \end{pmatrix} &= \begin{pmatrix} 1 & u\sigma(u) \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
we have that $u\sigma(u) = 1$, which means that the map $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) &\rightarrow {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2) \\
M &\mapsto uMu^{-1}
\end{aligned}$$
is an isomorphism of rings with involution.
We end this section by proving that if ${\mathcal{O}}$ happens to be a maximal $\sigma$-order, then $SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ is also a maximal arithmetic group in some sense.
\[Maximal Arithmetic Groups\] Let $K$ be an algebraic number field, $A$ a central simple algebra over $K$, $\sigma$ an orthogonal involution on $A$, and ${\mathcal{O}}$ a maximal $\sigma$-order of $A$. Then $SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ is a maximal arithmetic subgroup of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$ in the sense that it is not contained inside any larger arithmetic subgroup of $SL^\sigma(2,A)$.
Suppose that $\Gamma$ is an arithmetic group containing $SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})$. By Lemma \[Lattices beget lattices\], we know that $\mathfrak{o}_K\left[\Gamma\right]$ is an order of ${\text{Mat}}(2,A)$ which, by Lemma \[Group Ring\] contains ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}})$. Choose any element $\gamma \in \Gamma$, and choose any one of its coordinates $x$. Since the matrix ring contains $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
it is clear that $\mathfrak{o}_K\left[\Gamma\right]$ must contain ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}[x])$. However, since $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} \sigma(d) & -\sigma(b) \\ -\sigma(c) & \sigma(a) \end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
we see that it must actually contain ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}[x,\sigma(x)])$. Since ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}[x,\sigma(x)])$ is a subring of the matrix ring, it must also be an order, from which we get that ${\mathcal{O}}[x,\sigma(x)]$ is an order. However, ${\mathcal{O}}[x,\sigma(x)]$ is clearly closed under $\sigma$, hence it is a $\sigma$-order. Since ${\mathcal{O}}$ is a maximal $\sigma$-order, it follows that ${\mathcal{O}}[x,\sigma(x)] = {\mathcal{O}}$. Therefore, $\Gamma \subset {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}})$. However, $SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}}) = {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}) \cap SL^\sigma(2,A)$, therefore $\Gamma = SL^\sigma(2,{\mathcal{O}})$.
Theorem \[Maximal Arithmetic Groups for QAs\] is nothing more than a special case of this result.
Quaternion Algebras: {#SECTION QAs}
====================
We shall now explore the special case where $A = H$ is a *quaternion algebra* over a field $F$—that is, a central simple algebra over $F$ such that every element has degree at most $2$ over $F$. For simplicity, we shall only consider the case where $\text{char}(F) \neq 2$, in which case we can equivalently describe a quaternion algebra as an $F$-algebra generated by two elements $i,j$ subject to the relations $i^2 = a, j^2 = b, ij = -ji$ for some $a,b \in F^\times$—we typically denote such an algebra by $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{a,b}{F}\right).
\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to check that such an algebra is dimension $4$—each element can be written in the form $x + yi + zj + tij$ for some $x,y,z,t \in F$—and it has an involution $\overline{x + yi + zj + tij} = x - yi - zj - tij$ known as the *standard involution* or *quaternion conjugation*.The subspace on which the standard involution acts as the identity is just $F$; the subspace on which it acts as multiplication by $-1$ is three-dimensional and will be denoted by $H^0$. It is common to define the *(reduced) trace* and $\emph{(reduced) norm}$ in terms of the standard involution as $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{tr}}(x) &= x + \overline{x} \\
{\text{nrm}}(x) &= x\overline{x},
\end{aligned}$$
respectively. The standard involution is clearly an involution of the first kind. Any other involution of the first kind will be of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma: H &\rightarrow H \\
x &\mapsto a\overline{x}a^{-1}
\end{aligned}$$
for some $a \in H^\times \cap H^0$. One can check that quaternion conjugation is the unique symplectic involution on the quaternion algebra, whereas all the other involutions are orthogonal. In fact, one can show that for any orthogonal involution, if one correctly chooses a basis $1,i,j,ij$ for $H$, then the involution will be of the form $$\begin{aligned}
(x + yi + zj + tij)^\ddagger &= x + yi + zj - tij
\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, any such involution will act as the identity on a subspace of dimension $3$, which we shall denote by $H^+$, and act as multiplication by $-1$ on a subspace of dimension $1$, which we shall denote by $H^-$.
An objection might be raised to the notation $\ddagger$ to denote an orthogonal involution. The motivation for this notation is simple: ${\text{Mat}}(2,F)$ is a quaternion algebra and one can check that in that case $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}} = \begin{pmatrix} d & -b \\ -c & a \end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$
This is the adjugate, which is usually denoted by $\dagger$. Since orthogonal involutions are related to the standard involution but are nevertheless distinct, we choose the notation $\ddagger$ to represent them.
Since orthogonal involutions act as the identity on a space of dimension $1$, we can define their *discriminant* as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{disc}}: \left\{\text{orthogonal involutions}\right\} & \rightarrow F^\times / \left(F^{\times}\right)^2 \\
\ddagger &\mapsto x^2 \left(F^{\times}\right)^2,
\end{aligned}$$
where $x$ is any element of $H^\times \cap H^-$. The discriminant uniquely determines the involution in the sense that if $\ddagger_1,\ddagger_2$ are orthogonal involutions on $H$ then there exists an isomorphism of rings with involutions $(H,\ddagger_1) \cong (H,\ddagger_2)$ if and only if ${\text{disc}}(\ddagger_1) = {\text{disc}}(\ddagger_2)$. In general, a quaternion algebra admits many inequivalent orthogonal involutions; however, the linear algebraic groups $SL^\ddagger(2,H)$ that arise as a result are all essentially the same.
\[Conjugate groups\] Let $F$ be a field of characteristic not $2$. Let $H$ be a quaternion algebra over $F$, and let $\ddagger_1,\ddagger_2$ be orthogonal involutions on $H$. Then $SL^{\ddagger_1}(2,H)$ and $SL^{\ddagger_2}(2,H)$ are conjugate inside $GL(2,H \otimes_F \overline{F})$, where $\overline{F}$ is the algebraic closure of $F$.
Both $\ddagger_1$ and $\ddagger_2$ can be extended to orthogonal involution on $H \otimes_F \overline{F}$—however, since every element is a square in $\overline{F}$, it follows that $(H \otimes_F \overline{F}, \ddagger_1) \cong (H \otimes_F \overline(F), \ddagger_2)$. Since $H \otimes_F \overline{F}$ is a central simple algebra, by the Skolem-Noether theorem there must exist $u \in H \otimes_F \overline{F}$ such that the desired isomorphism of the form $x \mapsto uxu^{-1}$ for all $x \in H \otimes_F \overline{F}$. Now, choose any $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma = \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in SL^{\ddagger_1}(2,H)
\end{aligned}$$
and note that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{pmatrix} u & 0 \\ 0 & u \end{pmatrix}\gamma\begin{pmatrix} u & 0 \\ 0 & u \end{pmatrix}^{-1}\right)^{\hat{\ddagger}_2} &= \begin{pmatrix} uau^{-1} & ubu^{-1} \\ ucu^{-1} & udu^{-1} \end{pmatrix}^{\ddagger_2} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} \left(udu^{-1}\right)^{\ddagger_2} & -\left(ubu^{-1}\right)^{\ddagger_2} \\ -\left(ucu^{-1}\right)^{\ddagger_2} & \left(uau^{-1}\right)^{\ddagger_2} \end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} ud^{\ddagger_1}u^{-1} & -ub^{\ddagger_1}u^{-1} \\ -uc^{\ddagger_1}u^{-1} & ua^{\ddagger_1}u^{-1} \end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} u & 0 \\ 0 & u \end{pmatrix}\gamma^{\hat{\ddagger}_1}\begin{pmatrix} u & 0 \\ 0 & u \end{pmatrix}^{-1} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} u & 0 \\ 0 & u \end{pmatrix}\gamma^{-1}\begin{pmatrix} u & 0 \\ 0 & u \end{pmatrix}^{-1},
\end{aligned}$$
from which we conclude that we have constructed a map $$\begin{aligned}
SL^{\ddagger_1}(2,H) &\rightarrow SL^{\ddagger_2}(2,H) \\
\gamma &\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} u & 0 \\ 0 & u \end{pmatrix}\gamma\begin{pmatrix} u & 0 \\ 0 & u \end{pmatrix}^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to see that this map is the desired isomorphism.
Since these groups are conjugate inside $GL(2,H\otimes_F \overline{F})$, they are isomorphic as algebraic groups. In contrast, purely by dimensional considerations, we can see that $SL^\dagger(2,H)$ is not isomorphic to these algebraic groups. Furthermore, if we restrict from $H$ to a sub-ring, we shall again find that these groups are not isomorphic in general.
We know that if $\ddagger$ is an orthogonal involution, then $SL^\ddagger(2,H)$ is a symplectic group. However, in low dimensions, there is an accidental isomorphism between symplectic groups and spin groups. With our machinery, we can work out this isomorphism very explicitly.
\[Algebraic Group Exact Sequence\] Let $H$ be a quaternion algebra over a field $F$ not characteristic $2$, with orthogonal involution $\ddagger$. Define a quadratic form $q_H$ on $F^2 \oplus H^+$ by $$\begin{aligned}
q_H(s,t,z) = st - {\text{nrm}}(z).
\end{aligned}$$
Then there is an exact sequence of algebraic groups $$\begin{aligned}
1 \rightarrow \left\{\pm 1\right\} \rightarrow SL^\ddagger(2,H) \rightarrow O^0(q_H) \rightarrow 1,
\end{aligned}$$
where $O^0(q_H)$ is the connected component of the orthogonal group of $q_H$.
The special case where $K = {\mathbb{Q}}$ and $H$ is positive definite was worked out in [@Sheydvasser2019]. We follow mostly the same argument.
Define a set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_H = \left\{M = \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,H)\middle|\overline{M}^T = M, \ ab^\ddagger, cd^\ddagger \in H^+\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to see that there is a bijective linear map $$\begin{aligned}
F^2 \oplus H^+ &\rightarrow \mathcal{M}_H \\
(s, t, z) &\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} s & z \\ \overline{z} & t \end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
taking the quadratic norm to the quasi-determinant $st^\ddagger -z\overline{z}^\ddagger = st - {\text{nrm}}(z)$—thus, we can identify these two sets. On the other hand, if $\gamma \in SL^\ddagger(2,H)$ and $M \in \mathcal{M}_H$, then it is easy to check that $\gamma M \overline{\gamma}^T \in \mathcal{M}_H$ as well, and has the same quasi-determinant as $\gamma$. Therefore, we have defined a morphism of algebraic groups $SL^\ddagger(2,H) \rightarrow O(q_H)$. For any element of the kernel, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} &= \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} \overline{a} & \overline{c} \\ \overline{b} & \overline{d} \end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} a & 0 \\ c & 0 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} \overline{a} & \overline{c} \\ \overline{b} & \overline{d} \end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} {\text{nrm}}(a) & a\overline{c} \\ c\overline{a} & {\text{nrm}}(c) \end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
from which we conclude that $c = 0$ and ${\text{nrm}}(a) = 1$. Similarly, the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} &= \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ 0 & d \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} \overline{a} & 0 \\ \overline{b} & \overline{d} \end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & b \\ 0 & d \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} \overline{a} & 0 \\ \overline{b} & \overline{d} \end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} {\text{nrm}}(b) & b\overline{d} \\ d\overline{b} & {\text{nrm}}(d) \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
gives us that $b = 0$ and ${\text{nrm}}(d) = 1$. Finally, we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & z \\ \overline{z} & 0 \end{pmatrix} &= \begin{pmatrix} a & 0 \\ 0 & d \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 0 & z \\ \overline{z} & 0 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} \overline{a} & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{d} \end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & az \\ d\overline{z} & 0 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} \overline{a} & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{d} \end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & az\overline{d} \\ d\overline{z}\,\overline{a} & 0 \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
implies $az\overline{d} = z$ for all $z \in H^+$. Since ${\text{nrm}}(d) = 1$, this is just to say that $az = zd$ for all $z \in H^+$, and since $ad^\ddagger = 1$, this is the same as saying that $az = z\overline{a^\ddagger}$ for all $z \in H^+$. It is easy to check this equation is satisfied only if $a \in F$, but since ${\text{nrm}}(a) = 1$, we see that $a^2 = 1$, and therefore the kernel actually just consists of $\pm 1$, as claimed. Since the kernel has dimension $0$, the dimension of the image is $\dim\left(SL^\ddagger(2,H)\right) = 10$ by Corollary \[dimension computation\], which is the same as the dimension of $O(q_H)$. Since $SL^\ddagger(2,H)$ is a symplectic group by Corollary \[Is symplectic or orthogonal\], it is connected, and so its image must be $O^0(q_H)$, the connected component of the identity.
In characteristic $0$, this sets up a correspondence between the groups $SL^\ddagger(2,H)$ and spin groups of quadratic forms.
\[Correspondence between QAs and Spin Groups\] Let $F$ be a characteristic $0$ field. Then there is a bijection $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\substack{\text{Isomorphism classes of} \\ \text{quaternion algebras over } F}\right\} &\rightarrow \left\{\substack{\text{Isomorphism classes of} \\ \text{spin groups of indefinite,} \\ \text{quinary quadratic forms over } F} \right\} \\
[H] & \mapsto \left[SL^\ddagger(2,H)\right].
\end{aligned}$$
By Theorem \[Algebraic Group Exact Sequence\], we know that $SL^\ddagger(2,H)$ is a double-cover of an orthogonal group, which is to say that it is a spin group. By Lemma \[Conjugate groups\], we know that this map is well-defined in that the choice of orthogonal involution $\ddagger$ does not change the isomorphism class of $SL^\ddagger(2,H)$. It is easy to check that this map is surjective. Choose any indefinite, quinary quadratic form $q$ over $F$. Since it is indefinite, we can decompose it as $\langle 1, -1 \rangle \oplus \langle a,b,c \rangle$, for some $a,b,c \in F^\times$. In fact, since scaling the quadratic form does not change the spin group, we can assume that the quadratic form is $\langle 1, -1 \rangle \oplus \langle 1,b,c \rangle$. In that case, it is clear that the image of $$\begin{aligned}
H = \left(\frac{-b,-c}{F}\right)
\end{aligned}$$
will be the desired spin group. So, we are finally left with checking that the map is injective, which is to say that if $SL^{\ddagger_1}(2,H_1)$ is isomorphic to $SL^{\ddagger_2}(2,H_2)$, then $H_1 \cong H_2$. An isomorphism of the algebraic groups induces an isomorphism of the Lie algebras, which we know are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{sl}^{\ddagger_i}(2,H_i) = \left\{M \in {\text{Mat}}(2,H_i)\middle| M^{\hat{\ddagger}_i} = -M\right\}
\end{aligned}$$
by Theorem \[Lie algebra computation\]. This extends to an isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{sl}^{\ddagger_1}(2,H_1 \otimes_F \overline{F}) \cong \mathfrak{sl}^{\ddagger_2}(2,H_2 \otimes_F \overline{F}).
\end{aligned}$$
However, we know that $(H_1 \otimes_F \overline{F}, \ddagger_1) \cong (H_2 \otimes_F \overline{F}, \ddagger_2)$, and in fact we can view $(H_1,\ddagger_1)$ and $(H_2, \ddagger_2)$ as embedded inside of a ring with involution $(H,\ddagger)$ where $H$ is the unique quaternion algebra over $\overline{F}$. Thus, the isomorphism of Lie algebras can be considered as coming from an automorphism of $\mathfrak{sl}^\ddagger(2,H)$. However, by Theorem \[dimension restriction\], we know that this is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{sp}(4)$ which is a simple Lie algebra of type $C_n$. In characteristic $0$, the outer automorphisms of such Lie algebras correspond to graph automorphisms of their corresponding Dynkin diagrams—however, there are no such automorphisms for the $C_n$ type, and therefore the automorphism of $\mathfrak{sl}^\ddagger(2,H)$ must be inner. That is to say, there exists some element $\gamma \in SL^\ddagger(2,H)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{sl}^{\ddagger_1}(2,H_1) &\rightarrow \mathfrak{sl}^{\ddagger_2}(2,H_2) \\
M &\mapsto \gamma M \gamma^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
This extends to an isomorphism of ${\text{Mat}}(2,H_1)$ with ${\text{Mat}}(2, H_2)$. Why is this? Well, any element $M \in {\text{Mat}}(2,H_1)$ can be written uniquely as a sum $M = M' + M''$ such that ${M'}^{\hat{\ddagger}} = M'$ and ${M''}^{\hat{\ddagger}} = -M''$. Clearly, $M'' \in \mathfrak{sl}^{\ddagger_1}(2,H_1)$ and there exists some $M''' \in \mathfrak{sl}^{\ddagger_1}(2,H_1)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
M' = \underbrace{\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}}_{\in \mathfrak{sl}^{\ddagger_1}(2,H_1)}M'''.
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, $\gamma M' \gamma^{-1}, \gamma M'' \gamma^{-1} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,H_2)$, so $\gamma M \gamma^{-1} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,H_2)$ for all $M \in {\text{Mat}}(2,H_1)$, and so we have our desired map $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Mat}}(2,H_1) &\rightarrow {\text{Mat}}(2,H_2) \\
M &\mapsto \gamma M \gamma^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
However, ${\text{Mat}}(2,H_1)$ and ${\text{Mat}}(2,H_2)$ are central simple algebras and so there is an isomorphism between them if and only if $H_1 \cong H_2$.
Theorem \[Correspondence between QAs and Orthogonal Groups\] is an immediate consequence of Theorem \[Correspondence between QAs and Spin Groups\].
Orders of Quaternion Algebras: {#SECTION Quaternion Orders}
==============================
We shall now consider some of the special features that are true for orders of quaternion algebras. First, note that all orders of a quaternion algebra are automatically closed under quaternion conjugation; therefore, there is only interest in looking at orders closed under an orthogonal involution. We previously noted that orthogonal involutions are classified by their discriminant. As it happens, if $\ddagger$ is an orthogonal involution on a quaternion algebra, then we can compute an important algebraic invariant of the maximal $\ddagger$-orders in terms of this discriminant. However, to state our desired result, we shall need two other notions of discriminant as well. First, any quaternion algebra $H$ over $K$ is either a division algebra or isomorphic to ${\text{Mat}}(2,K)$. For any place $\nu$ of $K$, we say that $H$ *ramifies* if $H_\nu$ is a division algebra, and we say that it *splits* otherwise. Recalling that the finite places of $K$ correspond to its prime ideals, we define the *discriminant* of $H$ to be the ideal $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{disc}}(H) = \prod_{\substack{\mathfrak{p} \text{ a prime ideal} \\ H_\mathfrak{p} \text{ ramifies}}} \mathfrak{p}.
\end{aligned}$$
The places at which $H$ ramify uniquely determine it up to isomorphism; thus, knowing the infinite places where $H$ ramifies and the discriminant uniquely determines $H$. In fact, since the number of ramified places is always even, over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ the discriminant uniquely determines the isomorphism class. There is also the related notion of the discriminant of an order ${\mathcal{O}}$, which we shall define as $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{disc}}({\mathcal{O}})^2 = \det\left({\text{tr}}(e_i \overline{e_j})\right)_{0 \leq i,j \leq 3}\mathfrak{o}_K,
\end{aligned}$$
where $e_0, e_1, e_2, e_3$ is any basis of ${\mathcal{O}}$. One checks that the expression on the right is always a square ideal. One also checks that ${\mathcal{O}}$ is a maximal order if and only if ${\text{disc}}({\mathcal{O}}) = {\text{disc}}(H)$. A similar characterization applies to $\ddagger$-orders as well.
[@Sheydvasser2017 Theorem 1.1]\[MainTheoremOrderPaper\] Given a quaternion algebra $H$ over a local or global field $F$ of characteristic not $2$ and with an orthogonal involution $\ddagger$, the maximal $\ddagger$-orders of $H$ are exactly the orders of the form ${\mathcal{O}}\cap {\mathcal{O}}^\ddagger$ with discriminant $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{disc}}(H) \cap \iota({\text{disc}}(\ddagger)),
\end{aligned}$$
where ${\mathcal{O}}$ is a maximal order and $\iota$ is the map $$\begin{aligned}
\iota: F^\times/\left(F^\times\right)^2 &\rightarrow \left\{\text{square-free ideals of } \mathfrak{o}_F\right\} \\
[\lambda] &\mapsto \bigcup_{\lambda \in [\lambda] \cap \mathfrak{o}} \lambda \mathfrak{o}_F.
\end{aligned}$$
Over local fields, one can obtain more detailed information about isomorphism classes. Surprisingly, unlike maximal orders, maximal $\ddagger$-orders are not necessarily all of the same isomorphism class over a local field; if the maximal ideal of the ring of integers contains $2$, there can be multiple isomorphism classes—precise statements can be found in [@Sheydvasser2017]. Depending on the choice of involution, maximal $\ddagger$-orders can be maximal (in the usual sense) or strictly smaller. The number of isomorphism classes depends both on the class number and the number of local isomorphism classes.
\[Non Isomorphic Orders\] Define $(x + yi + zj + tij)^\ddagger = x + yi - zj + tij$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{O}}_1 &= {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}i \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1 + j}{2} \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{i + ij}{2} \subset \left(\frac{-1,-23}{{\mathbb{Q}}}\right) \\
{\mathcal{O}}_2 &= {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus 3{\mathbb{Z}}i \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1 + j}{2} \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{11 i + ij}{6} \subset \left(\frac{-1,-23}{{\mathbb{Q}}}\right)
\end{aligned}$$
are both easily checked to be $\ddagger$-orders. Both of them have discriminant $(23)$, which is the discriminant of the quaternion algebra; consequently, they are both maximal and $\ddagger$-maximal. All of the localizations of ${\mathcal{O}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_2$ are isomorphic as algebras with involution; this can be seen from the fact that there is only one isomorphism class for each localization [@Sheydvasser2017]. However, not only is it true that $({\mathcal{O}}_1,\ddagger) \ncong ({\mathcal{O}}_2,\ddagger)$, in fact ${\mathcal{O}}_1 \ncong {\mathcal{O}}_2$, since ${\mathcal{O}}_1^\times = \{1,-1,i,-i\}$, whereas ${\mathcal{O}}_2^\times = \{1,-1\}$. This is an easy computation using the fact that $u \in {\mathcal{O}}_i^\times$ if and only if ${\text{nrm}}(u) = 1$; since both ${\mathcal{O}}_i$ are contained inside a definite quaternion algebra, there are only finitely many possibilities for the units and it is easy to enumerate all of them.
Define $(x + yi + zj + tij)^\ddagger = x + yi + zj - tij$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{O}}_1 &= {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}i \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{i + j}{2} \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1 + ij}{2} \subset \left(\frac{-1,-3}{{\mathbb{Q}}}\right) \\
{\mathcal{O}}_2 &= {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}i \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1 + j}{2} \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{i + ij}{2} \subset \left(\frac{-1,-3}{{\mathbb{Q}}}\right)
\end{aligned}$$
are both $\ddagger$-orders, and both have discriminant $(3)$. Thus, they are both maximal and $\ddagger$-maximal. It is true that ${\mathcal{O}}_1 \cong {\mathcal{O}}_2$—this can be seen from a computation of the class number, which is $1$—but $({\mathcal{O}}_1,\ddagger) \ncong ({\mathcal{O}}_2,\ddagger)$. This is because ${\text{tr}}({\mathcal{O}}_1^+) = (2)$, but ${\text{tr}}({\mathcal{O}}_2^+) = (1)$.
Define $(x + yi + zj + tij)^\ddagger = x + yi + zj - tij$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{O}}= {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}i \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1 + i + j}{2} \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1 + i + ij}{2} \subset \left(\frac{-1,-6}{{\mathbb{Q}}}\right)
\end{aligned}$$
is a $\ddagger$-order with discriminant $(6)$. The discriminant of the quaternion algebra is $3$, so this order is not maximal. However, it is $\ddagger$-maximal since ${\text{disc}}(\ddagger) = -6 \left({\mathbb{Q}}^\times\right)^2$, and therefore ${\text{disc}}(H) \cap \iota({\text{disc}}(\ddagger)) = (6)$.
We already know that the groups $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ are arithmetic subgroups of symplectic groups or, equivalently by Theorem \[Algebraic Group Exact Sequence\], arithmetic subgroups of spin groups. The case of the greatest interest to the author is when $H$ is a definite, rational quaternion algebra as then $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ will be an arithmetic subgroup of ${\text{Isom}}^0({\mathbb{H}}^4) \cong SO^+(4,1)$. However, we can state our result a little more generally and just consider the case where $H$ is a rational quaternion algebra; then $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}})$ will either be an arithmetic group of $SO^+(4,1)$ if $H$ is definite or $SO^+(3,2)$ if it is indefinite. In either case, the matrix ring is now an invariant under group isomorphism.
\[Ring is Group Invariant\] Let $H_1, H_2$ be rational quaternion algebras with orthogonal involutions $\ddagger_1, \ddagger_2$. Let $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2$ be lattices of $SL^{\ddagger_1}(2,H_1)$, $SL^{\ddagger_2}(2,H_2)$ such that their centers are $\{\pm 1\}$. If $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are isomorphic as groups, then $({\mathbb{Z}}[\Gamma_1],\hat{\ddagger}_1) \cong ({\mathbb{Z}}[\Gamma_2],\hat{\ddagger}_2)$.
Let $\phi: \Gamma_1 \rightarrow \Gamma_2$ be the group isomorphism. Note that $\phi(-I) = -I$, since $-I$ is the unique non-identity element of the centers of $\Gamma_i$. Therefore, it induces an isomorphism $\overline{\phi}: \overline{\Gamma}_1 \rightarrow \overline{\Gamma}_2$ between the images of the $\Gamma_i$ inside $SL^{\ddagger_i}(2,H_i)/\{\pm I\}$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
SL^{\ddagger_i}(2,H_i \otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{R}})/\{\pm I\} \cong \begin{cases} PSO^+(4,1) & \text{if } H_i \otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{R}}\cong H_{\mathbb{R}}\\ PSO^+(3,2) & \text{if } H_i \otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{R}}\cong {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathbb{R}}), \end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
and so we can apply the Mostow rigidity theorem to conclude that both $\overline{\Gamma_1}$ and $\overline{\Gamma_2}$ can be viewed as being lattices of the same Lie group $G$, namely either $PSO^+(3,2)$ or $PSO^+(4,1)$. In either case, $G$ is simple, and therefore by Mostow rigidity $\overline{\Gamma_1}$ and $\overline{\Gamma_2}$ are conjugate in $G$. Let $g \in G$ be such that $\overline{\Gamma_2} = g \overline{\Gamma_1}g^{-1}$, and choose an element $g' \in SL^\ddagger(2,H_i \otimes_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{R}})$ such that its image in the quotient is $g$. Then we have a well-defined ring isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi: {\mathbb{Z}}[\Gamma_1] &\rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}[\Gamma_2] \\
M &\mapsto g' M {g'}^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
Letting $\ddagger$ be the orthogonal involution on $H_1 \otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{R}}\cong H_2 \otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{R}}$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(g' M {g'}^{-1}\right)^{\hat{\ddagger}} = g' M^{\hat{\ddagger}} {g'}^{-1}
\end{aligned}$$
since $g' \in SL^\ddagger(2,H_i \otimes_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathbb{R}})$. Therefore, the map we have constructed is an isomorphism of rings with involution.
The use of the Mostow rigidity theorem in Lemma \[Ring is Group Invariant\] makes clear why we restrict to the case where $H$ is a quaternion algebra over ${\mathbb{Q}}$—over other number fields, the set of infinite places $\Omega_\infty$ has more than one element, and so rather than $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}})/\{\pm I\}$ injecting as a lattice into $PSO^0(4,1)$ or $PSO^0(3,2)$, it will instead inject into some non-simple Lie group.
In light of Theorem \[Conjugation turns into isomorphism\], Lemma \[Ring is Group Invariant\] immediately implies Theorem \[special isomorphism theorem\].
For commutative rings, it is true that ${\text{Mat}}(2,R) \cong {\text{Mat}}(2,S)$ implies $R \cong S$. This is false in general for non-commutative rings. We know that $SL^{\ddagger_1}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \cong SL^{\ddagger_2}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ if and only if $({\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1),\hat{\ddagger}_1) \cong ({\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2),\hat{\ddagger}_1)$; we now give a couple of examples showing that this latter condition could not be replaced with $({\mathcal{O}}_1, \ddagger_1) \cong ({\mathcal{O}}_2, \ddagger_2)$ or ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \cong {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$.
\[Isomorphic but not Conjugate Groups\] Let $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{O}}_1 &= {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}i \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1 + j}{2} \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{i + ij}{2} \subset \left(\frac{-1,-7}{{\mathbb{Q}}}\right) \\
{\mathcal{O}}_2 &= {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}i \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{i + j}{2} \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1 + ij}{2} \subset \left(\frac{-1,-7}{{\mathbb{Q}}}\right).
\end{aligned}$$
Both of these are maximal $\ddagger$-orders, if we take the usual involution $\left(x + yi + zj + tij\right)^\ddagger = x + yi + zj - tij$. Since ${\text{tr}}({\mathcal{O}}_1 \cap H^+) = (1)$ and ${\text{tr}}({\mathcal{O}}_2 \cap H^+) = (2)$, we see that $({\mathcal{O}}_1,\ddagger) \ncong ({\mathcal{O}}_2,\ddagger)$. However, $(1 + i) {\mathcal{O}}_1 (1 + i)^{-1} = {\mathcal{O}}_2$, and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1 + i}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{-1 + i}{\sqrt{2}} \end{pmatrix} SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1 + i}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{-1 + i}{\sqrt{2}} \end{pmatrix}^{-1} &= SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2).
\end{aligned}$$
This example was originally worked out in [@Sheydvasser2019].
\[Non Isomorphic Orders with Isomorphic Groups\] Take ${\mathcal{O}}_1, {\mathcal{O}}_2$ as in Example \[Non Isomorphic Orders\]. We proved that ${\mathcal{O}}_1 \ncong {\mathcal{O}}_2$; however, we claim that $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \cong SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$.
Define $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1 - 6i + j}{2\sqrt{3}} & \frac{1 + j}{2\sqrt{3}} \\ \frac{1 + 6i + j}{2\sqrt{3}} & \sqrt{3} i \end{pmatrix} \in SL^\ddagger\left(2,H \otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{3})\right).
\end{aligned}$$
By an easy computation,
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \gamma^{-1} &\in {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2) \\
\gamma \begin{pmatrix} 0 & i \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \gamma^{-1} &\in {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2) \\
\gamma \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \frac{1 + j}{2} \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \gamma^{-1} &\in {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \frac{i + ij}{2} \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \gamma^{-1} &\in {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2) \\
\gamma \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \gamma^{-1} &\in {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2).
\end{aligned}$$
However, the elements $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 0 & i \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \frac{1 + j}{2} \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \frac{i + ij}{2} \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
generate ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1)$ as a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-algebra, so we have a well-defined, injective ring homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) &\rightarrow {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2) \\
M &\mapsto \gamma M \gamma^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
This map must be surjective, as can be checked either from computing the discriminants of ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1)$ and ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$, or simply by noting that $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1), SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ are maximal arithmetic groups. In any case, this is an isomorphism of rings with involution, and therefore by Theorem \[special isomorphism theorem\], $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \cong SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$.
Note that we have effectively produced a proof that one can find two non-isomorphic rings ${\mathcal{O}}_1, {\mathcal{O}}_2$ such that ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \cong {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$. While this is technically a new proof of that fact, this example was in fact already worked out by Chatters [@Chatters1996 Example 5.1].
Let $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{O}}_1 &= {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}i \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}j \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1 + i + j + ij}{2} \subset \left(\frac{-1,-5}{{\mathbb{Q}}}\right) \\
{\mathcal{O}}_2 &= {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}i \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1 + i + j}{2} \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1 + i + ij}{2} \subset \left(\frac{-1,-10}{{\mathbb{Q}}}\right).
\end{aligned}$$
In both cases, define $(x + yi + zj + tij)^\ddagger = x + yi + zj - tij$—this is slight abuse of notation, since these two orders have entirely different bases. However, ${\mathcal{O}}_1 \cong {\mathcal{O}}_2$—this is because both of their ambient quaternion algebras have discriminant $(2)$ and so are isomorphic, they both have discriminant $(10)$, and their class numbers are $1$. Thus, they are both Eichler orders of the same level and must be conjugate to one another. This means that ${\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \cong {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$. However, we claim that $({\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1),\hat{\ddagger}) \ncong ({\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2),\hat{\ddagger})$, and consequently $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \ncong SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$.
Define two lattices $$\begin{aligned}
M_i = \left\{M \in {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_i)^+\middle|{\text{tr}}(M) = 0\right\}
\end{aligned}$$
and consider the integral quadratic forms $$\begin{aligned}
q_i: M_i &\rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}\\
M &\mapsto {\text{tr}}(M^2).
\end{aligned}$$
What do these quadratic forms look like? First, note that $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_i)^+ &= \left\{\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & a^\ddagger\end{pmatrix} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_i)\middle| b,c \in {\mathcal{O}}_i^-\right\} \\
M_i &= \left\{\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & a^\ddagger\end{pmatrix} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_i)\middle| b,c \in {\mathcal{O}}_i^-, \ {\text{tr}}(a) = 0\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{tr}}\left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & a^\ddagger\end{pmatrix}^2\right) &= {\text{tr}}\left(\begin{pmatrix} a^2 + bc & ab + ba^\ddagger \\ cb + a^\ddagger c & cb + \left(a^\ddagger\right)^2\end{pmatrix}\right) \\
&= 2{\text{tr}}(bc) + 2{\text{tr}}(a^2).
\end{aligned}$$
Since ${\text{tr}}(a) = 0$, $a^2 = -{\text{nrm}}(a)$. Furthermore, any element $x \in {\mathcal{O}}_i^-$ with be of the form $n ij$ for some integer $n$. Therefore, our quadratic forms actually look like $4{\text{nrm}}(ij)st - 4{\text{nrm}}(a)$. Working out exactly what this is in coordinates, we have $$\begin{aligned}
q_1(s,t,x,y,z) &= 5 s t - x^2 - 5 y^2 - x z - 5 y z - 3 z^2 \\
q_2(s,t,x,y,z) &= 10 s t - x^2 - x y - 3 y^2 - x z - y z - 3 z^2.
\end{aligned}$$
One can check that these quadratic forms are not equivalent. However, if there was an isomorphism $({\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1),\hat{\ddagger}) \rightarrow ({\text{Mat}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2),\hat{\ddagger})$ then it would give a polynomial map between $M_1$ and $M_2$, and thus an equivalence between $q_1$ and $q_2$.
We include one final example showing that conjugacy in $SL^\ddagger(2,H \otimes_K \overline{K})$ cannot be replaced with conjugacy in $SL^\ddagger(2,H)$, even if $({\mathcal{O}}_1, \ddagger) \cong ({\mathcal{O}}_2, \ddagger)$.
Let $K$ be any characteristic $0$ local field with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{p}$. Choose any $\lambda \in \mathfrak{o}_F$ such that $1 + \lambda \in \mathfrak{p} \backslash \mathfrak{p}^2$. Then $H = {\text{Mat}}(2,K)$ is a quaternion algebra over $F$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}^\ddagger = \begin{pmatrix} a & c/\lambda \\ b\lambda & d \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
defines an orthogonal involution. Since $\lambda \in \mathfrak{o}^\times$, ${\mathcal{O}}_1 = {\text{Mat}}(2,\mathfrak{o}_K)$ is a maximal $\ddagger$-order. Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{O}}_2 = \underbrace{\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -1 \\ \lambda & 1 \end{pmatrix}}_{:= u} {\mathcal{O}}_1 \begin{pmatrix} 1 & -1 \\ \lambda & 1 \end{pmatrix}^{-1}
\end{aligned}$$
must be a maximal $\ddagger$-order; indeed, $({\mathcal{O}}_1,\ddagger) \cong ({\mathcal{O}}_2,\ddagger)$. However, $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1)$ and $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$ are not conjugate in $SL^\ddagger(2,H)$.
Suppose that there exist $a,b,c,d \in H$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma := \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in SL^\ddagger(2,H)
\end{aligned}$$
and $\gamma SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1)\gamma^{-1} = SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & z \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}^{-1} &= \begin{pmatrix} * & aza^\ddagger \\ -czc^\ddagger & * \end{pmatrix} \\
\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ z & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}^{-1} &= \begin{pmatrix} * & -bzb^\ddagger \\ dzd^\ddagger & * \end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
we wish to determine for which $v \in H$ $v{\mathcal{O}}_1^+ v^\ddagger \subset {\mathcal{O}}_2$. This is the same as determining all $v \in H$ such that $u^{-1}v{\mathcal{O}}_1^+ v^\ddagger u \subset {\mathcal{O}}_1$. We shall show that this is possible only if $v \in {\mathcal{O}}_1$, proving that $\gamma \in SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1)$. Write $$\begin{aligned}
v = \begin{pmatrix} v_1 & v_2 \\ v_3 & v_4 \end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
so $$\begin{aligned}
u^{-1}v \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} v^\ddagger u &= \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\left(v_1+v_3\right)^2}{\lambda +1} & -\frac{\left(\lambda v_1-v_3\right) \left(v_1+v_3\right)}{\lambda (\lambda +1)} \\
-\frac{\left(\lambda v_1-v_3\right) \left(v_1+v_3\right)}{\lambda +1} & \frac{\left(\lambda v_1-v_3\right)^2}{\lambda (\lambda +1)} \end{pmatrix} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,\mathfrak{o}_K) \\
u^{-1}v \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} v^\ddagger u &= \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\lambda \left(v_2+v_4\right)^2}{\lambda +1} & -\frac{\left(\lambda v_2-v_4\right) \left(v_2+v_4\right)}{\lambda +1} \\ -\frac{\lambda \left(\lambda v_2-v_4\right) \left(v_2+v_4\right)}{\lambda +1} & \frac{\left(\lambda v_2-v_4\right)^2}{\lambda +1} \end{pmatrix} \in {\text{Mat}}(2,\mathfrak{o}_K).
\end{aligned}$$
Note that this is only possible if $v_1 + v_3, \lambda v_1 - v_3, v_2 + v_4, \lambda v_2 - v_4 \in \mathfrak{p}$. From it follows that $(1 + \lambda)v_1,(1 + \lambda)v_3 \in \mathfrak{p}$, hence $v_1, v_3 \in \mathfrak{o}_F$. Therefore, $v_3, v_4 \in \mathfrak{o}_F$. We conclude that $v \in {\mathcal{O}}_1$. Ergo, $\gamma \in SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1)$, and so $\gamma SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \gamma^{-1} = SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) = SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$. However, since $$\begin{aligned}
u \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} u^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{1+\lambda } & \frac{1}{1 + \lambda} \\ \frac{\lambda }{1+\lambda } & \frac{\lambda }{1 + \lambda} \end{pmatrix} \notin {\mathcal{O}}_1,
\end{aligned}$$
${\mathcal{O}}_1 \neq {\mathcal{O}}_2$, and so $SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_1) \neq SL^\ddagger(2,{\mathcal{O}}_2)$. This is a contradiction, and so we are done.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We briefly discuss some of the developments since the publication of the MMHT14 parton distributions. In particular we explore the impact of recent LHC data for $W^\pm,Z$ and $t\bar{t}$ production, and perform a preliminary new analysis including these data. In this re-fit (which we tentatively call ‘MMHT16’) there are few changes of significance in the central values of the PDFs, but some data reduce the uncertainties, mainly in the strange and valence quark distributions. We find that an extended $\bar{d}-\bar{u}$ parametrization only leads to minor changes, with the difference going to zero as $x \to 0$. We comment on the determination of the photon PDF.'
bibliography:
- 'F.bib'
---
IPPP/16/95\
\
[**Updates of the MMHT2014 PDFs[^1]**]{}
[L.A. Harland-Lang]{}$^{a}$, [A.D. Martin]{}$^b$ and [ R.S. Thorne]{}$^{a}$\
$^a$ [*Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, WC1E 6BT, UK*]{}\
$^b$ [*Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK*]{}\
Introduction
============
The MMHT14 PDFs [@MMHT14] are the successor to the MSTW08 parton distributions [@MSTW]. Briefly the improvements then made were (i) the parametrization of the input distributions were in terms of Chebyshev polynomials, giving more stability to the parameter values, (ii) the deuteron corrections were parametrized and the values of the parameters were determined by the fit, (iii) there was a multiplicative treatment of the errors, (iv) the nuclear corrections were updated, (v) the optimal General Mass-Variable Flavour Number Scheme was used [@Thorne] and (vi) the experimental value $B_\mu =0.092\pm 10$%$ $ of the $D \to \mu$ branching ratio was input in the fit (whereas MSTW08 used the fixed 0.099 NuTeV value). Improvements (i) and (ii) had already been implemented in an intermediary publication [@MMSTWW]. The differences between the MSTW08 and MMHT14 PDFs are small – an exception is $(u_V-d_V)$ at low $x$ which is constrained by more precise $W^\pm$ charge asymmetry data. Improvement (vi) found $B_\mu=(0.085-0.091)\pm 15$%$ $, which results in the uncertainty and the value of $(s+\bar{s})$ distribution being increased.
The new data fitted in MMHT14 (as compared to the MSTW08 global fit) were the HERA I combined data, the updated Tevatron $W^{\pm},~Z$ data and the LHC data available then. Below we shall discuss a preliminary new global fit (‘MMHT16’) which includes the HERA I+II combined data and recent LHC data, particularly those on $W^\pm$ and $Z$ production.
Updates of MMHT2014 PDFs already published
==========================================
There are three published extensions of the MMHT14 analysis. The first is a study of the role of $\alpha_S$ in the analysis [@MMHT1]. PDF sets in an extended range of fixed values of $\alpha_S$ (about the best-fit value) were made available. This allows the error due to $\alpha_S$ to be added in quadrature in any predictions made using MMHT14 PDFs. The best-fit values in the NNLO and NLO global analyses were $\alpha_S(M_Z^2)=0.1172\pm 0.0013$ and $0.1201\pm 0.0015$ respectively.
The second paper [@MMHT2] investigated the variation in the MMHT14 PDFs when the heavy quark masses $m_c$ and $m_b$ were varied from their default values of 1.4 and 4.75 GeV respectively. The predictions of standard processes at the LHC show the effects of varying $m_c$ are small but not insignificant, whereas varying $m_b$ is largely insignificant, except for the $b$ quark PDF itself.
The third paper [@MMHT3] examined the impact of the final HERA combination of inclusive cross section data [@HERA]. Already the MMHT14 predictions describe these data very well, particularly at NNLO. Consequently the inclusion of these data has little impact on the central values of the PDFs, though they do reduce the uncertainty of the PDFs, mainly for the gluon. The improvement in the uncertainty is more noticeable in the predictions of the benchmark LHC cross sections, with the uncertainty in Higgs production being 10$\%$ smaller. This paper also investigates the effects of varying $Q^2_{\rm min}$. It was also noted that the low $x$, low $Q^2$ HERA data can be accommodated by a power correction to $F_L$, namely $F_L\to F_L(1+a/Q^2)$ with $a\sim 4.3$ GeV$^2$, see also [@Mandy]. No similar modification to $F_2$ was found to be preferred.
Impact of new LHC data
======================
--------------------------------------- ------------ ----------------- --------------- --
MMHT14 ‘MMHT16’
no. points $\chi^2$(pred.) $\chi^2$(fit)
$\sigma(t\bar{t})$ Tevatron+CMS+ATLAS 18 14.7 15.5
LHCb 7 TeV $W^\pm, Z$ [@LHCbW7latest] 33 37.1 36.7
LHCb 8 TeV $W^\pm,~Z$ [@LHCbWZ8] 34 76.1 67.2
LHCb 8 TeV $Z\to e^+e^-$ [@LHCbWZ8] 17 30.0 27.8
CMS 8 TeV $W^\pm$ [@CMSW] 22 57.6 29.4
CMS 7 TeV $W+c$ [@CMSWc] 10 8.7 8.0
D0 $e$ charge asymmetry [@D0e] 13 27.3 22.9
total 3405 3768.0 3739.3
--------------------------------------- ------------ ----------------- --------------- --
: The NNLO description of new LHC data
\[tab:a\]
In Table \[tab:a\] we show the predicted values of $\chi^2$ for LHC data not included in the NNLO MMHT2014 global analysis, together with the $\chi^2$ values when these data are included in a new global analysis - the preliminary MMHT2016 fit. The MMHT14 predictions are remarkably good, as is to be expected by comparing the values of $\chi^2$(MMHT16) with $\chi^2$(MMHT14). Examples are shown in Fig. \[fig:LHCbWZ\]. The only exception are the CMS $W^\pm$ data points at small rapidity, see Fig. \[fig:CMSW\].
\[H\]
\[fig:LHCbWZ\]
\[H\]
\[fig:CMSW\]
The MMHT16 fit shows no tension, so the PDFs are very similar to those of MMHT14. Indeed, $\chi^2$ increases by only 15 for the remainder of the data. The only significant change is in $u_V$ and $d_V$, and a reduction in the uncertainty of ($s+\bar{s}$) due to the data of [@CMSWc], see Fig. \[fig:Fig1MMHTdiff\]. These changes are to be expected from the inclusion of the more precise $W^\pm$ and $Z$ LHC data in the fit, since they probe the quark distributions in an $x$ region from $2\times 10^{-4}$ to 0.5
Since there was a claim [@ABM] that $x(\bar{d}-\bar{u})$ surprisingly preferred a negative value as $x\to 0$, we investigated this further by extending the ($\bar{d}-\bar{u}$) parameterization from 3 to 5 free parameters. The result shows that ($\bar{d}-\bar{u})\to 0$ as $x\to 0$, see the last plot of Fig. \[fig:Fig1MMHTdiff\]. Also we see there is no inclination for ($\bar{d}-\bar{u}$) to go negative in a small region around $x=0.3$, which was a feature of earlier fits. Finally, if the coupling is left free then $\alpha_S(M_Z^2)\simeq 0.118$ as compared to 0.1172 for MMHT14, and we obtain a good description of the $\sigma(t{\bar t})$ data with $m_t^{\rm pole}$=173.4 GeV.
PDFs with QED corrections
=========================
For the level of accuracy that we are now approaching, it is important to account for electroweak corrections. That is, we need PDFs which incorporate QED into the evolution – in other words, we need to include the photon PDFs, $\gamma_{p,n}(x,Q^2)$ of the proton and neutron. Previous MRST2004QED sets [@MRSTqed] assumed that the $\gamma(x,Q^2)$ partons were generated by photon emission off a model for valence quarks with QED evolution from $m_q \to Q_0$. The most direct measurement of the photon PDF at that time was wide-angle scattering of the photon by an electron beam via the process $ep \to e\gamma X$, where the final state electron and photon are produced with equal and opposite large transverse momentum. The MRST2004QED photon PDF was in agreement with the existing ZEUS measurement of this process. Recent sets published by NNPDF [@NNPDF] and CT [@CT] have large uncertainties for $\gamma(x,Q^2)$.
\[h\]
In a ‘new’ development [@MR; @HKM; @Salam] it was emphasized that the photon PDF, $\gamma_p(x,Q_2)$, is actually quite precisely known. The distribution is divided into two components $\gamma_p(x,Q_0^2)=\gamma_p^{\rm coh}+\gamma_p^{\rm incoh}$, see Fig. \[fig:photonPDF\]. The first contribution (which comes from coherent photon emission from the ‘elastic’ proton) is accurately known from the form factors of [*elastic*]{} electron-proton scattering; it is the major part of the input $\gamma_p(x,Q^2_0)$. Similarly, the incoherent term is constrained by the well-measured structure functions of [*inelastic*]{} electron-proton scattering for $W^2\gapproxeq 3.5$ GeV$^2$, together with information from the resonance region $W^2\lapproxeq 3.5$ GeV$^2$ [@Salam]. Actually this observation is closely related to [@HKM], where it was shown that the incoherent contribution may be determined from DGLAP evolution (including the $\gamma_p$ PDF), which will allow a global parton analysis with a full treatment of uncertainties; this procedure is currently being implemented, possibly with further improvements suggested by the study in [@Salam].
[^1]: Talk presented by A.D.Martin at Diffraction 2016, Acireale, Sicily, Sept. 2-8, 2016, to be published in AIP conference Proceedings.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In quantum Hall systems with two narrow constrictions, tunneling between opposite edges can give rise to quantum interference and Aharonov-Bohm-like oscillations of the conductance. When there is an integer quantized Hall state within the constrictions, a region between them, with higher electron density, may form a compressible island. Electron-tunneling through this island can lead to residual transport, modulated by Coulomb-blockade type effects. We find that the coupling between the fully occupied lower Landau levels and the higher-partially occupied level gives rise to flux subperiods smaller than one flux quantum. We generalize this scenario to other geometries and to fractional quantum Hall systems, and compare our predictions to experiments.'
author:
- 'B. Rosenow'
- 'B. I. Halperin'
date: 'November 3, 2006'
title: 'Influence of Interactions on Flux and Back-gate Period of Quantum Hall Interferometers'
---
[^1]
Quantum Hall (QH) devices are supposed to be an ideal laboratory for the study of interference effects, because within a conductance plateau, the bulk of a sample is insulating and current is confined to conducting edge states [@review]. Closed interference paths can be defined with the help of constrictions, which mediate tunneling from one edge to the other. Quantum interference should then manifest itself in flux- and gate-voltage- dependent conductance oscillations. For a multiply connected tunneling geometry with flux through a “hole", the partition function and hence all system properties are periodic under changing the flux by one quantum $h/e$ [@ByYa61], and in some cases, this is indeed the smallest period. Subperiods are allowed, however, and we shall argue below that they will often be seen in interference experiments, particularly in interacting systems. Multiple periodicities can occur in more complicated geometries.
While interference effects in QH systems are well understood for idealized models, the influence of interactions in more realistic models has not been analyzed in detail. Moreover, the filling fraction in constriction regions can be different from the bulk filling fraction [@Roddaro+05; @Camino+05; @CaZhGo05] even giving rise to fractional QH physics while the bulk is in an integer plateau [@Roddaro+05]. In this Letter, we study the influence of interactions on the flux and back-gate [@back-gate] periodicity of interference effects in QH systems with a center island, whose filling fraction is larger than that of the constriction regions connecting it to the bulk, see Fig. 1.
Consider a sample with $f_c$ fully occupied Landau levels (LLs) in the constrictions and an additional partially filled LL in the center island. Deviations from the ideal quantized conductance may be caused by tunneling of electrons through the center island, and when the tunneling matrix elements are small, this may be strongly modulated by Coulomb blockade physics of the partially occupied LL. If one varies the magnetic field, one also varies the number of electrons contained in the filled LLs in the center region, which couple electrostatically to the partially occupied LL. If one flux quantum is added to the center region, then $f_c$ electrons are added to the filled LLs, and an equal number must be expelled from the partially filled level. From this, we shall find a subperiod of $1/f_c$ flux quanta for the conductance, and a back-gate period corresponding to one electron charge. We shall discuss this type of physics for several geometries, and argue that the theoretically derived subperiod has already been experimentally observed in integer QH systems [@CaZhGo05; @ZhCaGo05; @vanWees+89; @Alphenaar+92]. We also generalize our findings to the fractional QH regime, and comment on the interpretation of experiments [@Camino+05] in that regime.
[*Description of Geometry:*]{} We consider a Hall bar geometry with two quantum point contacts (QPCs) and an island between them [@machzender]. We assume that the QPCs are sufficiently wide open so that at zero magnetic field many transverse modes are transmitted. Magnetic field and QPC voltages can be tuned such that the two constrictions are in an integer QH plateau with $f_c$ occupied Landau levels. In our simplest model Fig. \[interferometer.fig\]a, the actual filling fraction of the bulk and island regions is assumed to be sufficiently larger than $f_c$ so that these regions are compressible. There is both theoretical [@ChShGl92; @GeHa94] and experimental [@Ilani+04] support for the idea of spatially extended compressible regions. In an alternative picture, appropriate for samples with still larger density difference between constriction and bulk, we shall assume that both bulk and island include an incompressible region with $f_b=f_c + 1$ occupied LLs. (See Fig. \[interferometer.fig\]b.)
In the absence of tunneling, both geometries in Fig. \[interferometer.fig\] have a conductance $G\equiv I/ (V_2 -
V_1) = f_c (e^2/h)$. We consider here several types of tunneling processes which may modify this conductance: (A.) Forward tunneling processes, through the island and the two constrictions, ( dashed blue lines in Fig. \[interferometer.fig\]) can increase the conductance. Such processes should be particularly important on the low-magnetic field side of the $f_c$ plateau as the boundaries of the island and of the compressible regions in the leads become close together. (B.) Backscattering processes, which reduce the conductance, can occur throughout the plateau region, if electrons tunnel from one edge to the other through the center island (dashed red lines in Fig. \[interferometer.fig\]). We find that contributions A and B will be oscillatory functions of magnetic flux or back-gate voltage, due to Coulomb-blockade-type effects. (C.) Direct tunneling across the constrictions (dashed black lines in Fig. \[interferometer.fig\]) can occur, which would again lead to backscattering and a reduction of the conductance relative to the plateau value. This process is most likely to be important on the high-field side of the plateau. Process C can lead to oscillatory conductance if there is quantum interference between particles tunneling across the two QPCs but the oscillation periods will generally be different from those of A or B. In real samples, all three types of tunneling may occur simultaneously, and it is important to understand which is the dominant contribution to observed oscillations.
![Sketch of a QH interferometer with (a) compressible island and bulk, where light and dark shading indicate regions of lower and higher conductivity $\sigma_{xx}$. In the lower panel (b), an additional incompressible region (white) surrounds the (shaded) compressible regions. Three possible tunneling paths indicated by dashed lines: (A) forward tunneling through the constrictions and center island (blue lines), (B) backwards tunneling between opposite edge states through the island (red lines), and (C) backwards tunneling across the constrictions (black lines). In the upper panel []{data-label="interferometer.fig"}](compressible.eps "fig:"){width="0.85\linewidth"} ![Sketch of a QH interferometer with (a) compressible island and bulk, where light and dark shading indicate regions of lower and higher conductivity $\sigma_{xx}$. In the lower panel (b), an additional incompressible region (white) surrounds the (shaded) compressible regions. Three possible tunneling paths indicated by dashed lines: (A) forward tunneling through the constrictions and center island (blue lines), (B) backwards tunneling between opposite edge states through the island (red lines), and (C) backwards tunneling across the constrictions (black lines). In the upper panel []{data-label="interferometer.fig"}](multichannel.eps "fig:"){width="0.85\linewidth"}
[*Tunneling into a compressible island.*]{} When the tunneling conductance between island and bulk is much smaller than $e^2/h$, quantum mechanical delocalization of charge is strongly suppressed, and the island charge is quantized in units of the electron charge. If the tunneling amplitudes are sufficiently small, broadening of levels on the island is due to temperature and not due to the tunnel coupling. Conductance across the island is controlled by Coulomb blockade [@Lee90; @McEuen+92], i.e. tunneling onto the island is only possible if its electrostatic energy is degenerate, on the scale $k_B T$, with respect to adding or removing an electron. The period of conductance oscillations can be determined by calculating the period of the island energy with respect to changes in the magnetic field or back-gate voltage.
Let us choose some value of the magnetic field and back-gate voltage, and draw a closed curve, of area $A_0$, within the $f_c$ incompressible region, slightly outside the compressible island. If we fix the position of this curve, and change the field by a small amount $\delta B$, the flux through the reference area $A_0$ will change by $\phi={\delta B A_0/ \Phi_0}$. Due to the quantized Hall conductance of the incompressible region, electric fields generated during the flux change will cause a net charge $f_c \phi e$ to flow inward through the reference curve, where $e<0$ is the electron charge. In addition, an integer number of electrons can hop across the incompressible region, into or out of the compressible island changing its charge by $N e$. Using a back-gate, the positive background charge in the island area can be increased and $N_{\rm
gate}$ additional electrons can be attracted to the area $A_0$. Hence, we obtain a total charge imbalance inside the area $A_0$ given by $f_c
e \phi + e N- e N_{\rm gate}$, which leads to a charging energy $$\begin{aligned}
E & = & {e^2 \over 2 C_{i} } ( f_c \phi \ + \ N - N_{\rm gate})^2 \ \ ,
\label{energy_flux.eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_i$ is the capacitance of the island. Note that the energy Eq. (\[energy\_flux.eq\]) returns to its original value when changing $N$ by -1 and $\phi$ by $1/f_c$, so the magnetic field period is $$\Delta B = {1 \over f_c} {\phi_0 \over A_0} \ .
\label{fieldperiod.eq}$$ The $f_c$–dependence is caused by the Coulomb repulsion between electrons, and for $f_c>1$, the magnetic field period is strikingly different from the period ${\phi_0 / A_0}$ that one would obtain for a simple Aharonov-Bohm effect in an area $A_0$. The back-gate [@back-gate] period, however, is one electron charge in the island area independent of the filling fraction. If the field or the back-gate-voltage is changed by an amount which is too large, we will need to take into account the change in position of the boundaries between the compressible and incompressible regions, which will lead in turn to a continuous change in the field period $\Delta B$ and gate period $\Delta V_G$.
[*Calculation of conductance.*]{} For the calculation of the fluctuating part of the conductance, one needs to know the addition energy $\Delta_+^{(N)}$ for adding an electron to the island and the subtraction energy $\Delta_-^{(N)}$ for removing one. The conductance $\delta G$ may then be related, via the fluctuation–dissipation theorem, to the diffusion rate for motion of electrons into and out of the island. One finds $\delta G= M\beta \tilde{D}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{D} = {\sum_{N} e^{-\beta E(N)} [f(\Delta_+^{(N)}) + 1
- f(-\Delta_-^{(N)})] \over \sum_{N} e^{- \beta E(N)}} \ ,
\label{diffusion.eq}\end{aligned}$$ $f(x) = (1+e^{\beta x})^{-1}$ is the Fermi distribution in the reservoir, with $\beta = 1/(k_B T)$, and $M$ contains the tunneling matrix elements and other factors, which, for the moment, we treat as constants. The analysis we have carried out for the forward tunneling process, A, can also be applied to the backward process B of tunneling through the island, giving the same flux and gate periods.
[*Process C: Back–scattering at the constrictions.*]{} If there is weak backscattering across the constriction regions with $f_c$ fully occupied LLs (dashed black lines in Fig. \[interferometer.fig\]), there can be interference between paths which scatter at the left and at the right constriction, respectively. For the moment, we assume that the area enclosed by this interference path is the same as the area of the compressible island, and generalize to different areas later. Without the coupling between edge mode and inner island, the flux-dependence of the interference phase would be $- 2 \pi \phi$. Due to the Coulomb interaction between the edge and island, a charge imbalance on the island shifts the edge potential on average by $\delta V = \Delta_X (f_c \phi + N - N_{\rm gate})$. Here, $\Delta_X$ is the coupling energy for one extra electron on the island. If the total length of the interference path surrounding the island is $L$, then the effective level spacing along this interference path is $\Delta = 2 \pi \hbar v/L$, where $v$ is edge-mode velocity . As the level spacing $\Delta$ corresponds to a phase shift of $2 \pi$, the potential shift $\delta V$ causes a phase shift $2 \pi \delta V/ \Delta$. Hence, the total variation in the conductance is proportional to $$\delta G \sim \Big\langle \cos \Big[ - 2 \pi \phi +
2 \pi {\Delta_X \over \Delta} (f_c \phi + N - N_{\rm gate})\Big] \Big\rangle_N
\label{oscillation.eq}$$ The thermal average has to be taken with respect to the number $N$ of extra electrons on the island and is weighted with a Boltzmann factor containing the island charging energy Eq. (\[energy\_flux.eq\]). If the coupling between island and edge is weak, the resulting flux period is one flux quantum, while for strong coupling a subperiod of $1/(f_c -1)$ flux quanta is found. (See Fig. \[fluxperiod.fig\].) As the inverse energies $1/\Delta$ and $1/\Delta_\times$ are proportional to the capacitance per unit length of the edge and the cross–capacitance between edge and island respectively, we can estimate the ratio $\Delta_\times/\Delta$ from a purely electrostatic calculation of the capacitance matrix for a two–dimensional conducting disk surrounded by (but electrically isolated from) a thin conducting annulus. For reasonable input parameters, we find $\Delta_\times/\Delta \approx 0.35$ (Figs. \[fluxperiod.fig\](b) and (c)).
![Flux dependence of the conductance due to backscattering at the constrictions (process C) for $\beta e^2/2 C_i = 5$ and $f_c = 4$. (a) Weak coupling $\Delta_\times / \Delta = 0.1$ between compressible island and edge. The period is one flux quantum. (b) Stronger coupling $\Delta_\times / \Delta = 0.35$, with zero gate voltage ($N_{\rm gate} = 0)$. An additional modulation with small amplitude can be seen. (c) Gate voltage with $N_{\rm gate} = 0.4$, and $\Delta_\times / \Delta = 0.35$, leads to a splitting of the main peak. (d) Strong coupling $\Delta_\times / \Delta = 0.7 $. With one large and two smaller peaks, one sees an apparent subperiod of $1/(f_c
-1)$ flux quanta.[]{data-label="fluxperiod.fig"}](period.eps){width="0.85\linewidth"}
[*Incompressible island.*]{} The geometry Fig. \[interferometer.fig\]b, with an incompressible region of filling $f_b=f_c+1$ inside the island is more complicated than that of a simple compressible island. Here, we envision a relatively narrow compressible region, or quantum Hall edge state, separating the incompressible strips at $f_c$ and $f_b$, as well as a compressible region at the center of the island. The charging energy will have contributions from the two compressible regions and the coupling between them. For sufficiently strong cross–coupling, the magnetic field period is again given by Eq. (\[fieldperiod.eq\]). For weak cross–coupling, the charging of the edge state is approximately independent from that of the island center, and the field period is ${\phi_0 \over A_0}$. For intermediate coupling strengths, a crossover between these periods is observed. If we can ignore the difference between the overall island area $A_0$ and the area of the inner compressible region, we find, typically, one large and $f_c -1$ smaller peaks in the period Eq. (\[fieldperiod.eq\]), similar to that shown in Fig. \[fluxperiod.fig\]b for a compressible island with scattering process C .
[*Several characteristic areas.*]{} In a more general situation, the inner compressible region may have an area significantly different than $A_0$. For process C, the compressible region may be significantly smaller than the area between the two QPCs. Then, the system is characterized by at least two areas and the resistance will be, in general, a quasiperiodic function of the magnetic field. If the areas are commensurate, then the fundamental frequency is given by the largest common factor of the areas, and a [*superperiod*]{} could result. If the areas are incommensurate and are subject to strong electrostatic coupling, phase offsets like $N_{\rm gate}$ in Eq. (\[oscillation.eq\]) will vary with the flux, and both the positions and heights of Coulomb blockade peaks may appear to vary randomly as a function of magnetic field. In a Fourier spectrum, several distinct frequencies may be prominent.
[*What is a compressible region?*]{} Thus far, we have assumed that the boundaries between compressible and incompressible regions can be located with some accuracy. The definition of a compressible region depends, however, on the time-scale of measurement. For Coulomb blockade energies, we are primarily concerned with equilibrium charge numbers and charge distributions. Then, even a very small value of $\sigma_{xx}$ is sufficient to render a region conducting, or effectively compressible, and we expect that the incompressible regions will be very narrow, typically only a few times larger than the magnetic length.
The concept of Coulomb blockade requires that the number $N$ of excess electrons inside the area $A_0$ may be treated as an integer. For this, it is necessary that the total Corbino conductance between the compressible island and the outside world be small compared to $e^2/h$. If $L$ is the perimeter of the compressible island, and $w$ is the width of the incompressible strip, this requires that the effective value of $\sigma_{xx}$ for the incompressible region must be small compared to $(w/L)(e^2/h)$.
For an electron to contribute to the conductivity via transport process A or B, it is necessary that after tunneling into the compressible island, it can travel half-way around the island edge in a time comparable to the dwell time on the island. This does not depend directly on $\sigma_{xx}$; if there is a gradient in the Hall conductivity $\sigma_{xy}$, an electric charge can move rapidly perpendicular to the gradient, due to its Coulomb charging energy, following a contour of constant $\sigma_{xy}$. However, we may expect that $\sigma_{xy}$ is very nearly constant in any region where $\sigma_{xx} \ll e^2/h$, and carriers in the partially filled Landau level then move only slowly, by hopping processes. The region useful for transport, therefore, is only a portion of the compressible strip, where $\sigma_{xx}$ is large, and the gradient of $\sigma_{xy}$ is significant, indicated schematically by the dark shaded region in Fig. \[interferometer.fig\]a. Hence, an electron must not only tunnel across the incompressible strip, it must also get across the outer light-shaded region, either by tunneling or by thermally activated hopping, to reach the dark shaded area. This may cause a significant decrease in the amplitude of the contribution to the conductance, and affect the temperature dependence. However, the oscillatory dependence on magnetic field or back-gate voltage should still be determined by the area $A_0$ of a curve embedded in the narrow incompressible region.
By contrast, Aharonov-Bohm oscillations due to Process C require fast transport along the edges, so that there can be quantum interference between the two constrictions. For such fast processes, we may consider that the incompressible regions are broad and the compressible regions are narrow; i.e., we may treat them as narrow edge states. Thus, the area which determines the flux $\phi$ for the interference process (e.g., first term in (\[oscillation.eq\])) is the area enclosed by the indicated edge states between the two constrictions.
[*Application to fractional QH systems.*]{} Consider now a device with an incompressible [*fractional*]{} QH state in the constrictions, with filling fraction $f_c = r/s$, and compressible regions in the island center and the bulk. Now we expect that charge can tunnel across the incompressible region, into or out of the island, in units of the quasiparticle charge $q=e/s$. For processes analogous to A and B above, the charging energy corresponding to Eq. (\[energy\_flux.eq\]), is then given by $$E \ = \
{e^2 \over 2 C_i} \ {1 \over s^2} \Big[ r \phi + N - s {N_{\rm gate} }
\Big]^2 \ , \label{fraccharge.eq}$$ the integer $N$ denotes the number of charge $q$ quasiparticles that have hopped onto the island. We then find a subperiod $\phi = {1 \over
r}$, similar to the integer case, but a back-gate period $\Delta N =
1/s$. If other transport mechanisms are important, or if the island contains an additional fractional QH state, with filling $f_b > f_c$ the situation becomes more complicated, and multiple periods may be observed as in the analogous integer cases.
[*Comparison with experiments.*]{} In the integer QH regime, a Landau-level dependence of the magnetic field period $\Delta B \sim {1
\over f_c}$, as described by Eq. (\[fieldperiod.eq\]), has been seen in experiments with QPCs defined by etch trenches [@CaZhGo05; @ZhCaGo05]. In an earlier experiment [@vanWees+89], a strong dependence of $\Delta B$ on $f_c$ was found as well but interpreted in terms of a magnetic-field-dependent island radius. In a reanalysis [@CaZhGo05; @Dharma-wardana+92] of that experiment, however, it was pointed out that under the assumption of a magnetic field independent island radius the data agree with $\Delta B \sim {1 \over f_c}$ as well.
Recently, interference in a fractional QH system was studied experimentally [@Camino+05]. A flux period $\Delta \phi = 5$ and a back-gate period $\Delta N_{\rm gate} =2$ was observed in a regime where the bulk was believed to have $f_b=2/5$ and the constrictions $f_c=1/3$. The models considered in our paper do not easily explain these observations.
[*Conclusions.*]{} A realistic modeling of QH interferometers should take into account the filling-fraction difference between constrictions and bulk. Due to the requirement of charge neutrality, the interaction between fully occupied lower and the partially occupied higher Landau levels can give rise to flux subperiods in quantum Hall interferometers. Comparison with experiments in the integer QH regime support our findings.
[*Acknowledgments.*]{} The authors thank A. Yacoby, V. Goldman, M. Kastner, C. Marcus, J. Miller, A. Stern, and D. Zumbuhl for important discussions. Work was supported by NSF grant DMR 05-41988, and by a Heisenberg stipend of DFG for B. R.
[10]{} For a review see [*The Quantum Hall Effect*]{}, edited by R.E. Prange and S.M. Girvin (Springer, New York, 1987). N. Byers and C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**7**]{}, 46 (1961). S. Roddaro, V. Pellegrini, F. Beltram, L.N. Pfeiffer, and K.W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 156804 (2005). F.E. Camino, Wei Zhou, and V.J. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 246802 (2005). F.E. Camino, W. Zhou, and V.J. Goldman, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 155313 (2005). We assume spatially uniform capacitive coupling between an idealized back gate and charge carriers. W. Zhou, F.E. Camino, and V.J. Goldman, to appear in Proc. 24th Intl. Conf. Low Temp. Physics (2005). B.J. van Wees et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2523 (1989). B.W. Alphenaar et al., Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 7236 (1992). Interference effects in a different (Mach-Zender) geometry have been observed, e.g., by \[Y. Ji, Y. Chung, D. Sprinzak, M. Heiblum, D.ZMahalu, and H. Shtrikman, Nature [**422**]{}, 415 (2003)\].
D.B. Chklovskii, B.I. Shklovskii, and L.I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 4026 (1992). B.Y. Gelfand and B.I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 1862 (1994). S. Ilani, J. Martin, E. Teitelbaum, J.H. Smet, D. Mahalu, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Nature [**427**]{} ,328 (2004). P.A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 2206 (1990). Coulomb blockade effects in a dot [*weakly*]{} coupled to leads, in a region with several filled LLs, have been studied, e.g., by P.L. McEuen et al., Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 11419 (1992), and C.M. Marcus et al., Surf. Science [**305**]{}, 480 (1994), and in a region with occupancy of the lowest LL only, by C.W.J. Beenakker et al., Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 1657.
M.W.C. Dharma-wardana et al., Solid State Commun. [**84**]{}, 631 (1992).
[^1]: On leave from the Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität zu Köln, D-50923, Germany
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a recent paper Calogero and Alcantara [@CalogeroRVMFP] derived a Lorentz-invariant Fokker-Planck equation, which corresponds to the evolution of a particle distribution associated with relativistic Brownian Motion. We study the “one and one-half” dimensional version of this problem with nonlinear electromagnetic interactions - the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck system - and obtain the first results concerning well-posedness of solutions. Specifically, we prove the global-in-time existence and uniqueness of classical solutions to the Cauchy problem and a gain in regularity of the distribution function in its momentum argument.'
author:
- 'Nicholas Michalowski [^1]'
- 'Stephen Pankavich [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'SDPrefs.bib'
title: 'Global Existence for the “One and one-half” dimensional relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck system [^3] '
---
Kinetic Theory, Vlasov, Fokker-Planck equation, global existence
**[Subject classifications. 35L60, 35Q83, 82C22, 82D10]{}**
Introduction
============
A plasma is a partially or completely ionized gas. Matter exists in this state if the velocities of individual particles in a material achieve magnitudes approaching the speed of light. If a plasma is of sufficiently low density or the time scales of interest are small enough, it is deemed to be “collisionless”, as collisions between particles become extremely infrequent. Many examples of collisionless plasmas occur in nature, including the solar wind, the Van Allen radiations belts, and galactic nebulae.
From a mathematical perspective, the fundamental Lorentz-invariant equations which describe the time evolution of a collisionless plasma are given by the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system: $$\label{RVM} \tag{RVM} \left \{ \begin{gathered} \partial_t f + \hat{v} \cdot \nabla_x f + \left (E + \hat{v} \times
B \right ) \cdot \nabla_v f = 0 \\ \rho(t,x) = \int f(t,x,v) \ dv, \quad j(t,x)= \int \hat{v} f(t,x,v) \ dv \\ \partial_t E = \nabla \times B - j, \qquad \nabla \cdot E = \rho \\ \partial_t B = - \nabla \times E,
\qquad \nabla \cdot B = 0. \\ \end{gathered} \right.$$ Here, $f$ represents the distribution of (positively-charged) ions in the plasma, while $\rho$ and $j$ are the charge and current density, and $E$ and $B$ represent electric and magnetic fields generated by the charge and current. The independent variables, $t \geq 0$ and $x,v \in \bfR^3$ represent time, position, and momentum, respectively, and physical constants, such as the charge and mass of particles, as well as, the speed of light, have been normalized to one. The structure of the velocity terms $\hat{v}$ in (\[RVM\]) arise due to relativistic corrections, and this quantity is defined by $$\hat{v} = \frac{v}{v_0}, \qquad v_0 = \sqrt{1 + \vert v \vert^2}.$$
In order to include collisions of particles with a background medium in the physical formulation, often a diffusive Fokker-Planck term is added to the Vlasov equation in (\[RVM\]). With this, the system is referred to as the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck equation. Since basic questions of well-posedness remain unknown even in lower dimensions, we study a dimensionally-reduced version of this model for which $x \in \bfR$ and $v \in \mathbb{R}^2$, the so-called “one and one-half dimensional” analogue, given by $$\label{RVMFP} \tag{RVMFP} \left \{ \begin{gathered} \partial_t f + \hat{v}_1 \partial_x f + K \cdot \nabla_v f = \nabla_v \cdot \left ( D \nabla_v f \right ) \\ D = \frac{1}{v_0} \left [ \begin{array}{lr} 1 + v_1^2 & v_1v_2\\ v_1v_2 & 1 + v_2^2 \end{array} \right ]\\
K_1 = E_1 + \hat{v}_2 B, \qquad K_2 = E_2 - \hat{v}_1 B\\ \rho(t,x) = \int f(t,x,v) \ dv - \phi(x), \quad j(t,x)= \int \hat{v} f(t,x,v) \ dv \\ \partial_t E_2 = -\partial_x B - j_2, \quad \partial_t B = - \partial_x E_2, \quad \partial_x E_1 = \rho, \quad \partial_t E_1 = j_1.
\end{gathered} \right.$$ Here, we assume a single species of particles described by $f(t,x,v)$ in the presence of a given, fixed background $\phi \in C_c^1(\bfR)$ that is neutralizing in the sense that $$\int \rho(0,y) \ dy = 0.$$ The electric and magnetic fields are given by $E(t,x) = \langle E_1(t,x),E_2(t,x) \rangle$ and $B(t,x)$, respectively. Finally, the matrix $D = v_0^{-1} ( \mathbb{I} + v \otimes v) \in \bfR^{2 \times 2}$ is the relativistic diffusion operator and possesses some desirable properties, as discovered for its three-dimensional variant in [@CalogeroRVMFP]. We note, however, that the operator $\nabla_v \cdot (D \nabla_v f)$ is not uniformly elliptic and provides less dissipation than the Laplacian $\Delta_v f$. Namely, for any $u \in \bfR^2$, $D$ satisfies $$\label{D1}
v_0^{-1} \vert u \vert^2 \leq \vert u \cdot Du \vert \leq v_0 \vert u \vert^2.$$ For initial data we take a nonnegative particle density $f^0$ with compact $x$-support and bounded moments $v_0^\b {\partial}_x^k f^0 \in L^2(\bfR^3)$, along with fields $E^0_2, B^0 \in H^2(\bfR)$. Additionally, we specify particular data for $E_1$, namely $$E_1(0,x) = \int_{-\infty}^x \left ( \int f^0(y,w) \ dw - \phi(y) \right ) \ dy.$$ In fact, this particular choice of data for $E_1$ is the only one which leads to a solution possessing finite energy (see Lemma \[L2\] and [@GlaSch90]). The inclusion of the neutralizing density $\phi$ is also necessary in order to arrive at finite energy solutions for (\[RVMFP\]) with a single species of ion.
Over the past twenty-five years significant progress has been made in the analysis of (\[RVM\]), specifically, the global existence of weak solutions (which also holds for the non-relativistic system (VM); see [@DPL]) and the determination of conditions which ensure global existence of classical solutions (originally discovered in [@GlStr], and later in [@BGP] and [@KlStaf] using different methods) for the Cauchy problem. Additionally, a wide array of results have been obtained regarding electrostatic simplifications of (\[RVM\]) - the Vlasov-Poisson and relativistic Vlasov-Poisson systems, obtained by taking the limit as $c \to \infty$ [@Sch86] and $B \equiv 0$, respectively. These models do not include magnetic effects, and the electric field is given by an elliptic equation rather than a hyperbolic PDE. This simplification has led to a great deal of progress concerning the electrostatic systems, including theorems regarding the well-posedness of solutions [@LP; @VPSSA3DGeneral; @Pfaff; @SchVP]. General references on kinetic equations of plasma dynamics, such as (\[RVM\]) and (\[RVMFP\]), include [@Glassey] and [@VKF].
Independent of recent advances, many of the most basic existence and regularity questions remain unsolved for (\[RVMFP\]). For much of the existence theory for collisionless models, one is mainly focused on bounding the velocity support of the distribution function $f$, assuming that $ f^0$ possess compact momentum support, as this condition has been shown to imply global existence [@GlStr]. Hence, one of the main difficulties which arises for (\[RVMFP\]) is the introduction of particles that are propagated with infinite momentum, stemming from the inclusion of the diffusive Fokker-Planck operator. Thus, the momentum support is necessarily unbounded and many known tools are unavailable. Though the $v$-support of the distribution function is not bounded, we are able to overcome this issue by controlling large enough moments of the distribution to guarantee sufficient decay of $f$ in its momentum argument. This also allows us to control the singularities which arise from representing derivatives of the fields. As an additional difference arising from the Fokker-Planck operator, we note that when studying collisionless systems, in which $D \equiv 0$, $L^\infty$ is typically the proper space in which to estimate both the particle distribution and the fields. With the addition of the diffusion operator, though, the natural space in which to estimate $f$ is now $L^2$. Thus, to take advantage of the gain in regularity that should result from the Fokker-Planck term, we iterate in a weighted $L^2$ setting, estimating moments $v_0^\gamma \partial_{x,v}^k f$ in $L^2$. Other crucial features which appear include the cone estimate, conservation of mass, and the symmetry and positivity of the diffusive operator.
Though this is the first investigation of the well-posedness of (\[RVMFP\]), others have studied Vlasov-Maxwell models incorporating a Fokker-Planck term. Both Yu and Yang [@YangYu] and Chae [@Chae] constructed global classical solutions to the non-relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck system for initial data sufficiently close to Maxwellian using Kawashima estimates and the well-known energy method. Additionally, Lai [@Lai; @Lai2] arrived at a similar result for a one and one-half dimensional “relativistic” Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck system using classical estimates. The unfortunate commonality amongst these models, however, is that they lack invariance properties. Namely, each couples the Lorentz-invariant Maxwell equations to either a Galilean-invariant Vlasov equation with non-relativistic velocities or a hybrid Vlasov equation that includes relativistic velocity corrections, but utilizes the Laplacian $\Delta_v$ as the Fokker-Planck term. This latter term destroys the inherent Lorentz-invariance of the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system. Thus, we consider a diffusive operator of the form $\nabla_v \cdot (D \nabla_v f)$ which preserves this property. With this structure in place, we can prove global existence of classical solutions under relatively relaxed assumptions:
\[T1\] Assume the initial particle distribution satisfies $v_0^\a f^0 \in L^\infty(\bfR^3)$ and $v_0^{\b-k/2} {\partial}_x^k f^0 \in L^2(\bfR^3)$ for some $ \a > 5, \b > 2$, and all $k=0,1,2$. Additionally, assume $f^0$ possesses compact support in $x$ with $E_2^0, B^0 \in H^2(\mathbb{R})$ and $\phi \in C^1_c(\bfR)$. Then, for any $T > 0$ there exist unique functions $f \in C^1((0,T) \times\bfR; C^2(\bfR^2)), E \in C^1((0,T) \times \mathbb{R};\bfR^2)$, and $B \in C^1((0,T) \times \mathbb{R})$ satisfying (\[RVMFP\]) on $(0,T)$ and the Cauchy data $f(0,x,v) = f^0(x,v)$, $E_2(0,x) = E_2^0(x)$, and $B(0,x) = B^0(x)$.
We note that a similar global existence theorem for classical solutions can be proven by adapting the methods of Lai [@Lai] and Degond [@Degond], which rely only on $L^\infty$ estimates of the density and its derivatives. The initial data would need to satisfy $v_0^\a f^0 \in C^k(\bfR^3)$ for some $\a > 3$ and $k \geq 2$ with $E_2^0, B^0 \in C^2(\bfR)$, which is more restrictive than our assumptions and requires derivatives in $v$ initially. Since we utilize $L^2$ estimates instead, we are able to gain derivatives in $v$ for the particle distribution. Of course, the methods we employ are also valid in the case $D = \mathbb{I}$, and hence provide an improved global existence theorem for the systems studied by Lai, Yu-Yang, and Chae, but with less regularity imposed on the initial data. Finally, Theorem \[T1\] can be altered slightly to accommodate friction terms which may arise within the formulation of the model. In this case, the Maxwell equations are unchanged and the Vlasov equation undergoes very minor alterations, taking the form $$\partial_t f + \hat{v}_1 \partial_x f + K \cdot \nabla_v f = \nabla_v \cdot \left ( D \nabla_v f + vf \right ).$$ The new terms are lower order and have no additional effect on the results we present. Lai has already displayed this within the context of his methods [@Lai2], though the additional friction term in [@Lai2] is $\hat{v} f$ and not $vf$. Additionally, we note that the friction term destroys the Lorentz-invariant structure of the equation.
This paper proceeds as follows. In the next section, we will derive *a priori* estimates in order to simplify the proof of the existence and uniqueness theorem. In Section $3$, we prove the lemmas of Section $2$, and then sketch the proof of global-in-time existence and uniqueness in Section $4$. Throughout the paper the value $C > 0$ will denote a generic constant that may change from line to line. When necessary, we will specifically identify the quantities upon which $C$ may depend. Regarding norms, we will abuse notation and allow the reader to differentiate certain norms via context. For instance, $\Vert f(t) \Vert_\infty = \mathop{\esssup}\limits_{x \in \bfR,v \in \bfR^2} \vert f(t,x,v) \vert$, whereas $\Vert B(t) \Vert_\infty = \mathop{\esssup}\limits_{x \in \bfR} \vert B(t,x) \vert$, with analogous statements for ${\ensuremath{\left\| \cdot \right\|}}_2$ and ${\ensuremath{\left\langle \cdot, \cdot \right\rangle}}$ which denote the $L^2$ norm and inner product, respectively. Finally, for derivative estimates we will use the notation $$\Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_x^j {\nabla}_v^k f(t) \Vert_2 = \sum_{\vert \alpha \vert = k} \Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_x^j \partial_v^\alpha f(t) \Vert_2$$ for $\gamma \in \bfR$, $j,k = 0,1,2,...$, and a multi-index $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ where we denote ${\partial}_{v_1}^{\alpha_1}{\partial}_{v_2}^{\alpha_2}$ by ${\partial}_v^\alpha$.
*A priori* estimates
=====================
Let $T > 0$ be given so that we may estimate on the bounded time interval $(0,T)$ when necessary. To begin, we will first prove a result that will allow us to estimate the particle density and its moments. When studying collisionless kinetic equations, one often wishes to integrate along the Vlasov characteristics in order to derive estimates. However, the appearance of the Fokker-Planck term changes the structure of the operator in (\[RVMFP\]), and the values of the distribution function are not conserved along such curves. Hence, the following lemma (similar to that of [@Degond]) will be utilized to estimate the particle distribution in such situations.
\[L1\] Let $g \in L^1((0,T), L^\infty(\bfR^3))$, $F \in W^{1,\infty}((0,T) \times \bfR^3; \bfR^2)$, and $h_0 \in L^\infty(\bfR^3) \cap L^2(\bfR^3)$ be given with $D \in C(\bfR^2; \bfR^{2 \times 2})$ positive semi-definite. Assume $h(t,x,v)$ is a weak solution of $$\label{LinVlasov}
\left \{ \begin{gathered}
\partial_t h + \hat{v}_1 \partial_x h + F(t,x,v) \cdot \nabla_v h - \nabla_v \cdot \left ( D \nabla_v h \right) = g(t,x,v)\\
h(0,x,v) = h_0(x,v).
\end{gathered} \right.$$ Then, for every $t \in [0,T]$ $${\ensuremath{\left\| h(t) \right\|}}_\infty \leq {\ensuremath{\left\| h_0 \right\|}}_\infty + \int_0^t {\ensuremath{\left\| g(s) \right\|}}_\infty \ ds.$$
Next, we state a lemma that will allow us to control the fields and moments of the particle distribution.
\[L2\] Assume $v_0^\a f^0 \in L^\infty(\bfR^3)$ for some $\a > 3$, $ f^0$ possesses compact support in $x$, and $E_2^0, B^0 \in H^1(\bfR)$. Then, for any $t \in [0,T]$, $x\in\mathbb{R}$, we have $$\label{cone}
\begin{gathered}
\int_0^t \left ( \int (v_0 \pm v_1)f(s, x \pm (t-s),v) \ dv + \frac{1}{2} \vert E_1(s, x \pm (t-s)) \vert^2 \right. \\ \qquad + \left. \frac{1}{2}\vert E_2 \pm B \vert^2 (s, x \pm (t-s)) \right ) \ ds \leq C(1+t),
\end{gathered}$$ $$\label{j2}
\int_0^t \vert j_2(s, x \pm (t-s)) \vert ds \leq C(1 + t),$$ and $$\label{fieldbounds}
\Vert E(t) \Vert_\infty +\Vert B(t) \Vert_\infty \leq C(1 + t).$$
Once control of the fields is obtained, higher moments of the particle distribution function can be controlled as well.
\[L3\] Let the assumptions of Lemma \[L2\] hold. Then, for any $\gamma \in [0,\a]$ and $t \in [0,T]$ $$\label{densitybounds}
\Vert v_0^\gamma f(t) \Vert_\infty \leq C(1 + t)^{2\gamma}$$ and for any $\gamma \in [0,\a-2)$ and $t \in [0,T]$ $$\label{rhobounds}
{\ensuremath{\left\| \int v_0^{\gamma} f(t) \ dv \right\|}}_\infty \leq C(1 + t)^{2\a}.$$
With control on moments of the density, we may bound derivatives of the field by adapting a well-known argument [@GlaSch90; @GlStr] that projects these derivatives onto the backward light cone.
\[L4\] Let the assumptions of Lemma \[L2\] hold, and assume additionally that $E_2^0, B^0 \in H^2(\bfR)$. Then, for any $t \in [0,T]$, we have $$\label{fieldderivbounds}
\Vert \partial_t E(t) \Vert_\infty + \Vert \partial_x E(t) \Vert_\infty + \Vert \partial_t B(t) \Vert_\infty + \Vert \partial_xB(t) \Vert_\infty \leq C(1 + t)^{2(\a+1)}.$$
Thus, we have $C^1$ estimates on the fields without requiring any regularity of the density. Next, we utilize energy estimates to bound the density and its derivatives in $L^2(\bfR^3)$.
\[L5\] Assume $f^0\in L^2(\bfR^3)$. Then, for every $t \in [0,T]$ $${\ensuremath{\left\| f(t) \right\|}}_2 \leq {\ensuremath{\left\| f^0 \right\|}}_2.$$ If additionally, $v_0^\gamma f^0\in L^2(\bfR^3)$ for some $\gamma > 0$ and the hypotheses of Lemma \[L2\] hold, then $${\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma f(t) \right\|}}_2 \leq C_T$$ for every $t \in [0,T]$.
\[L6\] Assume the hypotheses of Lemma \[L4\] hold with $v_0^{\gamma+1} f^0, v_0^\gamma \partial_x f^0 \in L^2(\bfR^3)$ for some $\gamma \geq 0$. Then for all $t \in [0,T]$ we have $${\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma {\partial}_x f(t) \right\|}}_2 \leq C_T.$$
\[L7\] Assume the hypotheses of Lemma \[L4\] hold with $v_0^\a f^0 \in L^\infty(\bfR^3)$ and $v_0^{\b-k/2} {\partial}_x^k f^0\in L^2(\bfR^3)$ for some $\a > 5$, $\b > 2$ and any $k =0,1,2$. Then, for all $t \in [0,T]$ $$\Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2 + \sum_{k=0}^2 \left ( \Vert \partial^k E(t) \Vert_2 + \Vert \partial^k B(t) \Vert_2 \right ) \leq C_T$$ for every $\gamma \in [0, c]$, where $c= \min \left \{\frac{\a - 3}{2}, \b-1 \right \}$ and $\partial^k$ is any $t$ or $x$ derivative of order $k$.
Next, we derive dissipative inequalities for lower-order derivatives of the density. Ultimately, these will be used to prove the gain in regularity achieved by Lemma \[L8\].
\[dissipative\] Assume the hypotheses of Lemma \[L7\] hold. Then, for all $t \in (0,T)$, we have the following $$\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \Vert v_0^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2 - \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ $$\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T\left ( \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert v_0 \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right )- \Vert v_0 {\nabla}^2_v f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ $$\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \left (\Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert v_0^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) - (1-\eps) \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 & \leq & C_T \left ( \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) \\
& \ & \ - (1-\eps) \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2.\end{aligned}$$
The next lemma contains dissipative inequalities for higher-order derivatives of the density. In particular, it will allow us to trade $v$-derivatives of the density for those which are two orders less with the associated penalty of an $x$-derivative and a $v_0$ moment. For instance, use of this lemma will allow us to conclude the estimates $$\Vert {\nabla}^4_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \lesssim \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \lesssim \Vert \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T$$ along with the previously obtained bound on the second spatial derivative.
\[v\_deriv\_lemma\] Assume the hypotheses of Lemma \[L7\] hold. Then, for all $t \in (0,T)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma {\nabla}_v^k f (t) \right\|}}_2^2 & \leq &
C_T\biggl({\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma {\nabla}_v^k f (t) \right\|}}_2^2 +
\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma+j-k} {\nabla}_v^j f (t) \right\|}}_2^2
+ {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma+1/2}{\partial}_x{\nabla}_v^{k-2} f(t) \right\|}}_2^2\Big) \\
& \ & \ - (1- \eps) {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma -1/2} {\nabla}_v^{k+1} f (t) \right\|}}_2^2 \end{aligned}$$ for every $\gamma \in [0, \b -k/2]$, $k=2, 3, 4$, and $\eps > 0$ sufficiently small. Additionally, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^2 \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 & \leq & C_T \biggl(\Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^2 \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \sum_{j=1}^2 {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{2 - j/2} {\nabla}_v^j f (t) \right\|}}_2^2 \\
& \ & + \Vert \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2^2 \biggr)- (1- \eps) {\ensuremath{\left\| {\nabla}_v^3 \partial_x f (t) \right\|}}_2^2 \end{aligned}$$ for all $t \in (0,T)$ and $\eps > 0$ sufficiently small.
Our final lemma removes the need for regularity of the initial density in $v$ in order to obtain derivative bounds. Hence, solutions achieve a gain in regularity where $f$ and $\partial_x f$ are smooth in $v$ even for initial data which are not.
\[L8\] Assume the hypotheses of Lemma \[L7\] hold. Then for all $t \in (0,T)$, $$\sum_{k=0}^4 \frac{t^k}{2^k k!} {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{(4-k)/2} {\nabla}_v^k f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 + \sum_{k=0}^2 \frac{t^k}{2^k k!} {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{(3-k)/2} {\nabla}_v^k \partial_x f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 \leq C_T.$$
The gain in regularity achieved from the momentum argument is generally expected from the diffusive term. Additionally, it is possible that the solution gains regularity in its spatial argument as well, but this feature of the system remains unknown. Precedent exists for this possibility, however, as analogous work of Herau [@Herau] and Villani [@Villani] has determined that this does, in fact, occur for the linear, non-relativistic Fokker-Planck equation, as long as the given potential is sufficiently smooth.
Proofs of Lemmas and Estimates
==============================
We first prove Lemma \[L1\], and this will require an additional result regarding the positivity of solutions to the linear Fokker-Planck equations arising from positive initial data.
Much of our argument is adapted from ideas of Lions [@LionsJL], Tartar [@Tartar], and Degond [@Degond]. Thus, we sketch the proof of the lemma using results from these papers while correcting for the differences in the systems, including changes in dimension and the appearance of a diffusion operator with variable coefficients. Consider the linear equation (\[LinVlasov\]) and define $$\mcL h:= \partial_t h + \hat{v}_1 \partial_x h + F \cdot \nabla_v h - \nabla\cdot(D \nabla_v h).$$ We first comment that solutions $h \in L^\infty((0,T); L^2(\mathbb{R}^3))$ of the equation $\mcL h = g$ exist for any $T > 0$ and $g \in L^\infty((0,T); L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3))$, and this follows directly from either a variational argument [@Degond], the use of Green’s functions [@VictoryODwyer], or by properties of the heat equation on a Riemannian manifold [@CalogeroRVMFP]. With this, we prove a positivity result:
\[Lnew\] Let $T > 0$ be given. Assume $h_0 \in L^2(\bfR^3)$ and $g \in L^\infty((0,T); L^2(\bfR^3))$ are given with $h\in L^\infty((0,T); L^2(\bfR^3))$ satisfying $\mcL h = g \geq 0$ and $h(0,x,v) = h_0(x,v) \geq 0$. Then, $h(t,x,v) \geq 0$ for all $t \geq 0, x \in \bfR, v \in \bfR^2$.
Let $\lambda > \frac{1}{2}{\ensuremath{\left\| \nabla_v \cdot F \right\|}}_\infty$ be given. Define $u(t,x,v) = e^{-\lambda t} h(t,x,v)$ and $f(t,x,v) = e^{-\lambda t} g(t,x,v)$. These functions then satisfy $$\label{lambda}
\left \{ \begin{gathered}
\mcL u + \lambda u = f\\
u(0,x,v) = h_0(x,v)
\end{gathered} \right.$$ Let $u_-(t,x,v)= \max \{-( u(t,x,v)),0 \}$. In what follows, we will use the notation ${\ensuremath{\left\langle \cdot , \cdot \right\rangle}}$ to denote the $L^2$ inner product in $(t,x,v)$ and ${\ensuremath{\left\| \cdot \right\|}}_2$ to denote the corresponding induced norm. It follows immediately from [@Degond; @Tartar] that $$\label{Tartar}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle \frac{{\partial}u}{{\partial}t} + \hat{v}_1 {\partial}_x u, \ u_- \right\rangle}}= \frac{1}{2} \left( \iint {\ensuremath{\left| u_-(0,x,v)\right|}}^2 \, dx \, dv - \iint {\ensuremath{\left| u_-(t,x,v)\right|}}^2 \, dx \, dv \right) .$$ Using this, we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle f, u_- \right\rangle}} & = & {\ensuremath{\left\langle \mcL u + \lambda u, u_- \right\rangle}}\\
& = & {\ensuremath{\left\langle \frac{{\partial}u}{{\partial}t} + \hat{v}_1 {\partial}_x u, u_- \right\rangle}}
+ {\ensuremath{\left\langle F \cdot \nabla_v u, u_- \right\rangle}} - {\ensuremath{\left\langle {\nabla}_v \cdot (D {\nabla}_v \cdot u), u_- \right\rangle}}
+ \lambda {\ensuremath{\left\langle u, u_- \right\rangle}} \end{aligned}$$ For the last term we split the integral into two portions, namely $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle u, u_- \right\rangle}} &= \int_0^T\iint u(t,x,v) u_{-}(t,x,v)\,dv\,dx\,dt\\ & = \int_{A} u(t,x,v) u_{-}(t,x,v)\,dv\,dx\,dt + \int_{A^c} u(t,x,v) u_{-}(t,x,v)\,dv\,dx\,dt\end{aligned}$$ where $A = {\{(t,x,v) : u(t,x,v) \geq 0\}}$. On the set $A$, we have $u_{-}(t,x,v) = 0$, and the corresponding integrals vanish. On $A^c$ we have $u_{-}(t,x,v) = -u(t,x,v)$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T \iint u(t,x,v)u_{-}(t,x,v) \,dv\,dx\,dt & = -\int_{A^c} {\ensuremath{\left|u_{-}(t,x,v)\right|}}^2 \,dv\,dx\,dt\\
& = - \int_0^T\iint {\ensuremath{\left|u_{-}(t,x,v)\right|}}^2 \,dv\,dx\,dt.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we find $$\lambda{\ensuremath{\left\langle u, u_- \right\rangle}} = -\lambda \Vert u \Vert_2$$ After a similar analysis for the other terms above, we find $${\ensuremath{\left\langle F \cdot \nabla_v u, u_- \right\rangle}} = -{\ensuremath{\left\langle F \cdot \nabla_v u_-, u_- \right\rangle}}.$$ For the diffusion term, we proceed similarly and integrate by parts to find $$\begin{aligned}
- {\ensuremath{\left\langle {\nabla}_v\cdot (D {\nabla}_v \cdot u), u_- \right\rangle}}
&= {\ensuremath{\left\langle D {\nabla}_v u , {\nabla}_v u_{-} \right\rangle}}\\
&= -{\ensuremath{\left\langle D{\nabla}_v u_{-}, {\nabla}_v u_- \right\rangle}}\\
&\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ since $D$ is positive semi-definite. Therefore, using these identities with (\[Tartar\]) we have the inequality $${\ensuremath{\left\langle f, u_- \right\rangle}} \leq \frac{1}{2} \left ( \iint {\ensuremath{\left| u_-(0,x,v)\right|}}^2 \,dx\,dv - \iint {\ensuremath{\left| u_-(t,x,v)\right|}}^2 \,dx\,dv \right ) - {\ensuremath{\left\langle F \cdot \nabla_v u_-, u_- \right\rangle}} - \lambda {\ensuremath{\left\| u_- \right\|}}_2^2$$ By assumption, $ h_0(x,v) \geq 0$ and thus $ u_-(0,x,v) = 0$. The first term above is then nonpositive and $${\ensuremath{\left\langle f, u_- \right\rangle}} \leq - {\ensuremath{\left\langle F \cdot \nabla_v u_-, u_- \right\rangle}} - \lambda {\ensuremath{\left\| u_- \right\|}}_2^2.$$ Lastly, we integrate by parts to find $$\begin{aligned}
-{\ensuremath{\left\langle F \cdot \nabla_v u_-, u_- \right\rangle}} &= -\int_0^T \iint F(t,x,v)\cdot \nabla_v \left ( \frac{1}{2}\vert u_-\vert^2 \right ) ,dv\,dx\,dt\\
& = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^T \iint \nabla_v \cdot F(t,x,v) \vert u_- \vert^2 dv\,dx\,dt\\
& \leq \frac{1}{2} \Vert \nabla_v \cdot F \Vert_\infty \Vert u_- \Vert_2^2 \end{aligned}$$ We finally have $${\ensuremath{\left\langle f, u_- \right\rangle}} \leq \left ( \frac{1}{2}\Vert \nabla_v \cdot F \Vert_\infty - \lambda \right ) {\ensuremath{\left\| u_- \right\|}}_2^2 \leq 0.$$ However, by hypothesis $ f(t,x,v) \geq 0$ and by definition $u_-(t,x,v) \geq 0$, so ${\ensuremath{\left\langle f, u_- \right\rangle}} \geq 0$. Therefore, it must be the case that ${\ensuremath{\left\| u_- \right\|}}_2 = 0$, from which it follows that $ u_- = 0$ and hence $ h(t,x,v) \geq 0$.
Now, we utilize Lemma \[Lnew\] and a very simple argument to finish the proof of Lemma \[L1\]. Let $g \in L^1((0,T); L^\infty(\bfR^{3})), F \in W^{1,\infty}((0,T) \times \bfR^3;\bfR^2)$, and $h_0 \in L^2(\bfR^3) \cap L^\infty(\bfR^3)$ be given. Assume $h \in L^\infty((0,T); L^2(\bfR^3))$ satisfies $\mcL h = g(t,x,v)$ in the weak sense and $ h(0,x,v) = h_0(x,v).$ Define $$w(t,x,v) := {\ensuremath{\left\| h_0 \right\|}}_\infty + \int_0^t {\ensuremath{\left\| g(s) \right\|}}_\infty \, ds \ - \ h(t,x,v).$$ Then, we have $$w(0,x,v) = {\ensuremath{\left\| h_0 \right\|}}_\infty - h_0(x,v) \geq 0$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mcL w & = & {\ensuremath{\left\| g(t) \right\|}}_\infty - \mcL h\\
& = & {\ensuremath{\left\| g(t) \right\|}}_\infty - g(t,x,v)\\
& \geq & 0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by Lemma \[Lnew\], we find $ w(t,x,v) \geq 0$, by which it follows that $$h(t,x,v) \leq {\ensuremath{\left\| h_0 \right\|}}_\infty + \int_0^t {\ensuremath{\left\| g(s) \right\|}}_\infty\,ds$$ for all $t,x,v$. Finally, taking the supremum in $(x,v)$, the conclusion follows.
To prove the cone estimate, we begin by using conservation of mass. Integrating the Vlasov equation over all $(x,v)$ we find $$\frac{d}{dt} \iint f(t,x,v) \ dv \ dx = 0.$$ Thus, using the decay of $f^0$ we find for every $t \in [0,T]$ $$\label{mass}
\iint f(t,x,v) \ dv \ dx = \iint f^0(x,v) \ dv \ dx < \infty.$$
To derive the necessary energy identities, we first rewrite the Fokker-Planck term in the Vlasov equation as $$\nabla_v \cdot ( D \nabla_v f) = v_0^{-1} \biggl ( \partial_{v_1} ( v_1^2 \partial_{v_1} f) + \partial_{v_2} ( v_2^2 \partial_{v_2} f) + 2v_1v_2\partial_{v_1v_2} f + \Delta_v f \biggr ).$$ Then, multiplying the Vlasov equation by $v_0$ and integrating in $v$, the Fokker-Planck term becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\int v_0 \nabla_v \cdot ( D \nabla_v f) \ dv & = & \int \left ( \partial_{v_1} ( v_1^2 \partial_{v_1} f) + \partial_{v_2} ( v_2^2 \partial_{v_2} f) + 2v_1v_2\partial_{v_1v_2} f + \Delta_v f \right )\\
& = & \int 2 v_1 v_2 \partial_{v_1v_2} f \ dv_1 \ dv_2 \\
& = & 2 \int f \ dv\end{aligned}$$ after two integrations by parts. Hence, using the divergence structure of the Vlasov equation, we arrive at the local energy identity $$\label{localenergy}
\partial_t e + \partial_x m =2 \int f(t,x,v) \ dv$$ where $$e(t,x) = \int v_0 f(t,x,v) \ dv + \frac{1}{2} \left ( \vert E(t,x) \vert^2 + \vert B(t,x) \vert^2 \right )$$ and $$m(t,x) = \int v_1 f(t,x,v) \ dv + E_2(t,x) B(t,x).$$ Since $ f^0$ has compact support in $x$ with suitable decay in $v$, we find $v_0f^0 \in L^1(\bfR^3)$. We can then integrate (\[localenergy\]) over all space to deduce the global energy identity $$\frac{d}{dt} \int e(t,x) \ dx = 2\iint f^0(x,v) \ dx \ dv$$ whence we find $$\int e(t,x) \ dx \leq C(1+t)$$ for all $t \in [0,T)$ and $E_1, E_2, B \in L^\infty([0,T]; L^2(\bfR))$.
To derive local estimates, we fix $(t,x)$, integrate (\[localenergy\]) along the backwards cone in space-time $\{ (s,y) \in (0,t) \times \bfR : \vert y - x \vert \leq t - s\}$, and use Green’s Theorem to find $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t \biggl [ (e + m)(s, x + t - s) & + & (e-m)(s, x-t+s) \biggr ] \ ds \\
& & = \int_{x-t}^{x+t} e(0,y) \ dy + 2 \int_0^t \int_{x-t+s}^{x+t-s} \int f(s, y,v) \ dv dy ds.\end{aligned}$$ Using the positivity of the mass and energy, the assumptions on the data, and conservation of mass, the right side satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{x-t}^{x+t} e(0,y) \ dy + 2\int_0^t \int_{x-t+s}^{x+t-s} \int f(s, y, v) \ dv dy ds & \leq & \int e(0,y) \ dy + 2 \int_0^t \iint f(s,y,v) \ dv dy \ ds \\
& = & \int e(0,y) \ dy + 2 \int_0^t \left ( \iint f^0(y,v) \ dv \ dy \right ) \ ds \\
& \leq & C(1+t)\end{aligned}$$ and this yields the first result. The other conclusions of the lemma then follow from the first. More specifically, we find $$\label{vineq}
v_0 \pm v_1 = \frac{v_0^2 - v_1^2}{v_0 \mp v_1} = \frac{1+ v_2^2}{v_0 \mp v_1} \geq \frac{2 \vert v_2 \vert}{v_0 \mp v_1} \geq \frac{2 \vert v_2 \vert}{2 v_0} = \vert \hat{v}_2 \vert$$ and by (\[cone\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t \vert j_2(s, x \pm (t-s)) \vert ds & \leq & \int_0^t \int \vert \hat{v}_2 \vert f(s, x \pm (t-s), v) \ dv \ ds\\
& \leq & \int_0^t \int (v_0 \pm v_1) f(s, x \pm (t-s), v) \ dv \ ds\\
& \leq & C(1 + t).\end{aligned}$$
Next, we represent the fields in terms of the source $j_2$ in the associated transport equations. Either adding or subtracting the equations for $E_2$ and $B$ in (\[RVMFP\]) yields $$\partial_t (E_2 \pm B) \pm \partial_x (E_2 \pm B) = - j_2.$$ Thus, we can write the sum or difference of the fields in terms of initial data and an integral of $j_2$ along one side of the backwards cone, namely $$\label{E2B}
(E_2 \pm B)(t,x) = (E_2 \pm B)(0,x \mp t) - \int_0^t j_2(s,x \mp (t-s)) \ ds.$$ Then, in view of the previous conclusion of the lemma and the assumption on the initial fields, we find $$\Vert (E_2 \pm B)(t) \Vert_\infty \leq C(1+t)$$ and since $$E_2(t,x) = \frac{1}{2} (E_2 + B)(t,x) + \frac{1}{2} (E_2 - B)(t,x),$$ and similarly for $B$, it follows that $\Vert E_2(t) \Vert_\infty$ and $\Vert B(t) \Vert_\infty$ are controlled by this same quantity.
Finally, control of $E_1$ follows from conservation of mass and the assumption on the background density. Integrating the equation for $E_1$ and using the assumption on $E_1(0,x)$ yields $$E_1(t,x) = \int_{-\infty}^x \rho(t,y) \ dy$$ and we find for $x \in \bfR$ $$\vert E_1(t,x) \vert \leq \iint f(t,y,v) \ dv \ dy + \Vert \phi \Vert_1 \leq C.$$ The second conclusion of the theorem then follows by adding the field estimates.
We begin by noting that $v$ is an eigenvector of $D$ since $$\label{D2}
Dv = v_0^{-1} [ \mathbb{I} + v \times v] = v_0^{-1} [ v + (v \cdot v) v ] = v_0^{-1} (1 + \vert v \vert^2) v = v_0 v.$$ Now, let $\gamma \geq 0$ be given. Multiplying the Vlasov equation by $v_0^\gamma$, we find $$\label{Vlasovmoment}
\partial_t(v_0^\gamma f) + \partial_x(\hat{v}_1 v_0^\gamma f) + \nabla_v \cdot [ K v_0^\gamma f] - \nabla_v(v_0^\gamma) \cdot K f = v_0^\gamma \nabla_v \cdot [D \nabla_v f].$$ We first compute the right side of this equation. Using (\[D1\]) and (\[D2\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
v_0^\gamma \nabla_v \cdot [D \nabla_v f] & = & \nabla_v \cdot [v_0^\gamma D\nabla_v f ] - \nabla_v (v_0^\gamma) \cdot D\nabla_v f\\
& = & \nabla_v \cdot [D\nabla_v (v_0^\gamma f) ] - \nabla_v \cdot [D\nabla_v (v_0^\gamma) f ] - \nabla_v (v_0^\gamma) \cdot D\nabla_v f\\
& = & \nabla_v \cdot [D\nabla_v (v_0^\gamma f) ] - \gamma \nabla_v \cdot [ v_0^{\gamma-2}f D v ] - \gamma v_0^{\gamma-2} v \cdot D\nabla_v f\\
& = & \nabla_v \cdot [D\nabla_v (v_0^\gamma f) ] - \gamma \nabla_v \cdot [ v_0^{\gamma-1} f v ] - \gamma v_0^{\gamma-2} Dv \cdot \nabla_v f\\
& = & \nabla_v \cdot [D\nabla_v (v_0^\gamma f) ] - \gamma [(\gamma-1) v_0^{\gamma - 3} \vert v \vert^2 + v_0^{\gamma-1}v \cdot \nabla_v f + 2 v_0^{\gamma-1} f ] - \gamma v_0^{\gamma-1} v \cdot \nabla_v f\\
& = & \nabla_v \cdot [D\nabla_v (v_0^\gamma f) ] - \gamma (\gamma-1) v_0^{\gamma - 3} \vert v \vert^2 - 2\gamma v_0^{\gamma-1}v \cdot \nabla_v f - 2\gamma v_0^{\gamma-1} f.\end{aligned}$$ The next to last term here can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
-2\gamma v_0^{\gamma-1}v \cdot \nabla_v f & = &- 2\gamma v_0^{-1} v \cdot \nabla_v (v_0^\gamma f) + 2\gamma^2 v_0^{\gamma-3} v \cdot v f\\
& = & - 2\gamma \hat{v} \cdot \nabla_v (v_0^\gamma f) + 2\gamma^2 v_0^{\gamma-1} \left ( \frac{\vert v \vert^2}{1 + \vert v \vert^2} \right ) f.\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with (\[Vlasovmoment\]) yields $$\label{Vgamma}
\begin{gathered}
\partial_t(v_0^\gamma f) + \partial_x(\hat{v}_1 v_0^\gamma f) + \nabla_v \cdot [ K v_0^\gamma f] - \nabla_v(v_0^\gamma) \cdot K f\\
= \nabla_v \cdot [D\nabla_v (v_0^\gamma f) ] - \gamma (\gamma-1) v_0^{\gamma - 3} \vert v \vert^2 - 2\gamma \hat{v} \cdot \nabla_v (v_0^\gamma f) + 2\gamma^2 v_0^{\gamma-1} \left ( \frac{\vert v \vert^2}{1 + \vert v \vert^2} \right ) f - 2\gamma v_0^{\gamma-1} f.
\end{gathered}$$ Thus, if we rearrange terms and use the operator $$\mcV h:= \partial_t h + \hat{v}_1 \partial_x h + (K + 2\gamma \hat{v}) \cdot \nabla_v h - \nabla\cdot(D \nabla_v h),$$ we have $$\label{V}
\mcV(v_0^\gamma f) = g(t,x,v)$$ where $$g(t,x,v) = \nabla_v(v_0^\gamma) \cdot K f - \gamma (\gamma-1) v_0^{\gamma - 3} \vert v \vert^2 + 2\gamma^2 v_0^{\gamma-1} \left ( \frac{\vert v \vert^2}{1 + \vert v \vert^2} \right ) f- 2\gamma v_0^{\gamma-1} f.$$ Estimating $g$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\vert g(t,x,v) \vert & \leq & \gamma v_0^{\gamma - 1} \vert \hat{v} \cdot K \vert f + \gamma(\gamma-1) v_0^{\gamma-1} \vert \hat{v} \vert^2 + 2\gamma^2 v_0^{\gamma-1} f + 2\gamma v_0^{\gamma -1} f\\
& \leq & \gamma v_0^{\gamma - 1} ( \Vert E(t) \Vert_\infty + \Vert B(t) \Vert_\infty) f + C v_0^{\gamma-1}f\\
& \leq & C(1+t) \Vert v_0^{\gamma-1}f(t) \Vert_\infty\end{aligned}$$
Since the coefficients of $\mcV$ satisfy the hypotheses of Lemma \[L1\], we use this result with $h = v_0^\gamma f$, $\mcL = \mcV$, and $g$ defined as above. This yields $$\Vert v_0^\gamma f(t) \Vert_\infty \leq \Vert v_0^\gamma f^0 \Vert_\infty +C \int_0^t (1+s) \Vert v_0^{\gamma -1} f(s) \Vert_\infty \ ds.$$ Of course, the same lemma can be invoked with $h = f$ and $g = 0$ using the Vlasov equation in order to find $$\Vert f(t) \Vert_\infty \leq \Vert f^0 \Vert_\infty$$ for all $t \in [0,T]$. With this bound on the particle distribution, which represents the $\gamma = 0$ case above, we use induction to bound $\Vert v_0^\gamma f(t) \Vert_\infty$ for any $\gamma \geq 0$ such that $\Vert v_0^\gamma f^0 \Vert_\infty$ is finite, and the first conclusion follows.
The second conclusion is a straightforward application of the first. Namely, for any $\gamma \in [0,\a-2)$, $$\int v_0^\gamma f(t,x,v) \ dv \leq {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\a f(t) \right\|}}_\infty \left ( \int v_0^{\gamma - \a} \ dv \right ) \leq C(1+ t)^{2\a}$$ since $\gamma - \a < -2$.
We begin by noting that $E_1$ can be handled separately from the other field terms, since by Lemma \[L3\] $$\partial_x E_1 = \int f(t,x,v) \ dv + \phi(x) \leq \left \Vert \int f(t) dv \right \Vert_\infty + \Vert \phi \Vert_\infty \leq C(1 + t)^{2\a}.$$ The same bound holds using this argument for $ \partial_t E_1 = j_1$ since $\vert \hat{v}_1 \vert \leq 1$.
Next, we represent the field equations for $E_2$ and $B$ as in the proof of Lemma \[L2\]. We will consider only $x$-derivatives and the term $(E_2+B)(t,x)$, but note that the same computations below can be done for $(E_2-B)(t,x)$ and time derivatives. Using (\[E2B\]) and differentiating in $x$, we find $$\partial_x (E_2 + B)(t,x) = (E_2 + B)'(0,x-t) - \int_0^t \int \hat{v}_2 \partial_x f(s,x - (t-s),v) \ dv ds.$$ At this point, we wish to project $\partial_x$ onto the directions of “good” derivatives included in the field representation. This idea was used by Glassey and Schaeffer [@GlaSch90] for the collisionless problem and originally developed for the three-dimensional relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system by Glassey and Strauss [@GlStr]. We introduce the operators $$\left \{ \begin{gathered} T_+ = \partial_t + \partial_x \\ S = \partial_t + \hat{v}_1 \partial_x \end{gathered} \right.$$ and transform $x$-derivatives on the density as $$\partial_x = \frac{1}{1-\hat{v}_1} (T_+ - S).$$ Contrastingly, the operator $T_- = \partial_t - \partial_x$ would be needed for an estimate of $E_2 - B$. Using the Vlasov equation, we can write $$Sf = \partial_t f + \hat{v}_1 \partial_x f = -\nabla_v (Kf) + \nabla_v \cdot (D \nabla_v f)$$ so that integrating by parts yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t \int \hat{v}_2 \partial_x f(s,x-t+s,v) \ dv ds & = & \int_0^t \int \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} (T_+f - Sf)(s,x-t+s,v) \ dv ds\\
& = & \int_0^t \int \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} \biggl [ \frac{d}{ds} (f(s,x-t+s,v)) + \nabla_v \cdot (Kf)(s,x-t+s,v) \\
& \ & \quad - \nabla_v \cdot (D\nabla_v f) (s,x-t+s,v) \biggr ] \ dv ds\\
& = & \int \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} [f(t,x,v) - f^0(x-t,v)] \ dv \\
& \ & \quad + \int_0^t \int \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} \nabla_v \cdot (Kf)(s,x-t+s,v) \ dv ds\\
& \ & \quad - \int_0^t \int \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} \nabla_v \cdot (D\nabla_v f) (s,x-t+s,v) \biggr ] \ dv ds\\
& =: & I + I + III\end{aligned}$$
The first term is easily estimated since moments of the density are bounded. We use (\[vineq\]) and $\a > 3$ to find $$\begin{aligned}
I & = & \int \frac{v_2}{v_0-v_1} [ f(t,x,v) - f^0(x-t,v)] \ dv \\
& \leq & \int \frac{\vert v_2 \vert(v_0+v_1)}{1+v_2^2} f(t,x,v) \ dv\\
& \leq & \Vert v_0^\a f(t) \Vert_\infty \int v_0^{1-\a} \ dv \leq C (1 + t)^{2\a}.\end{aligned}$$
To estimate $II$, we first integrate by parts to find $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t \int \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} \nabla_v \cdot (Kf)(s,x-t+s,v) \ dv ds = - \int_0^t \int \nabla_v \left ( \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} \right ) \cdot (Kf)(s,x-t+s,v) \ dv ds\\
+ \lim_{\vert v \vert \to \infty} \int_0^t \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} (Kf)(s,x-t+s,v) \cdot \frac{v_\perp}{\vert v \vert}\ ds \end{aligned}$$ where $v_\perp = \langle v_2, -v_1 \rangle.$ The boundary term vanishes on $(0,T)$ because $K$ and $v_0^\a f$ are bounded in $L^\infty$, and thus moments can be used to introduce sufficient decay in $v$. For the remaining term, we compute the gradient $$\nabla_v \left ( \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} \right ) = \left \langle \frac{\hat{v}_2}{v_0-v_1}, \frac{1}{v_0-v_1} - \frac{\hat{v}_2v_2}{(v_0-v_1)^2} \right \rangle$$ The first term is bounded since (\[vineq\]) implies $\vert \hat{v}_2 \vert \leq v_0 - v_1$. Similarly, one can show the second term is bounded by $3v_0$ using (\[vineq\]). Hence, using $\a > 3$, we have $$II \leq \int_0^t \Vert K(s) \Vert_\infty \Vert v_0^\a f(s) \Vert_\infty \left ( \int v_0^{1-\a} \ dv \right ) \ ds \leq C(1+t)^{2(\a + 1)}$$
Finally, we use the symmetry of $D$ and integrate by parts twice in $III$ to find $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t \int \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} \nabla_v \cdot (D\nabla_v f) \biggr |_{(s,x-t+s,v)} \ dv ds & = & \int_0^t \int \nabla_v \cdot \left [ D\nabla_v \left ( \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} \right ) \right ] f(s,x-t+s,v) \ dv ds\\
& \ & \ + \lim_{\vert v \vert \to \infty} \int_0^t \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} \nabla_v f(s,x-t+s,v) \cdot D v_\perp \frac{1}{\vert v \vert} \ ds \\
& \ & \ - \lim_{\vert v \vert \to \infty} \int_0^t \nabla_v \left (\frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} \right ) \cdot Dv_\perp\frac{1}{\vert v \vert} f(s,x-t+s),v) \ ds \end{aligned}$$ For the boundary terms, we use the property $D v_\perp = v_0^{-1} v_\perp$ so that an extra order of decay appears, and these terms vanish on $(0,T)$. To estimate the remaining term, a long computation yields the bound $$\biggl \vert \nabla_v \cdot \left [ D\nabla_v \left ( \frac{\hat{v}_2}{1-\hat{v}_1} \right ) \right ] \biggr \vert \leq 4.$$ Thus, we find for $\a > 2$ $$III \leq 4 \int_0^t \int f(s,x-t+s,v) \ dv ds \leq \left ( \int _0^t \Vert v_0^\a f(s) \Vert_\infty ds \right ) \left ( \int v_0^{-\a} dv \right )\leq C(1 + t)^{2\a+1}.$$ Combining the estimates and using the regularity of the initial fields, each term is controlled by $C(1+t)^{2(\a +1)}$. Thus, the bound on $\Vert \partial_x(E_2 + B)(t) \Vert_\infty$ follows, as does the conclusion of the lemma.
We proceed by using energy estimates. We calculate: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}{\ensuremath{\left\| f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 &= {\ensuremath{\left\langle -\hat{v}_1{\partial}_x f-K\cdot {\nabla}_v f+{\nabla}_v\cdot D{\nabla}_v f, f \right\rangle}}\\
&= -{\ensuremath{\left\langle \hat{v}_1{\partial}_x f, f \right\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{\left\langle K\cdot {\nabla}_vf, f \right\rangle}}+{\ensuremath{\left\langle {\nabla}_v\cdot D{\nabla}_v f, f \right\rangle}}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the first two terms are pure derivatives in $x$ and $v$, respectively. Thus, $${\ensuremath{\left\langle \hat{v}_1{\partial}_x f, f \right\rangle}}= \frac{1}{2} \iint \partial_x \left ( \hat{v}_1 f^2 \right ) \ dv \ dx = 0$$ and $${\ensuremath{\left\langle K\cdot {\nabla}_v f, f \right\rangle}}= \frac{1}{2} \iint \nabla_v \cdot \left ( K f^2 \right ) \ dv \ dx = 0 .$$ Finally ${\ensuremath{\left\langle {\nabla}_v\cdot D{\nabla}_v
f, f \right\rangle}}=-{\ensuremath{\left\| D^{1/2}{\nabla}_vf(t) \right\|}}_2$. Hence $\frac{d}{dt}{{\ensuremath{\left\| f(t) \right\|}}_2^2}\leq 0$ and the first conclusion follows. Similarly, we may multiply by $v_0^{2\gamma}$ and proceed in the same manner $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 &=
-{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma \hat{v}_1{\partial}_x f, v_0^\gamma f \right\rangle}}
-{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma K\cdot {\nabla}_v f, v_0^\gamma f \right\rangle}}
+{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma {\nabla}_v\cdot D{\nabla}_v f, v_0^\gamma f \right\rangle}}\end{aligned}$$ As in the previous conclusion of the lemma the first term is zero. Integrating by parts in the second term we find $$\begin{aligned}
-{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma K\cdot {\nabla}_v f, v_0^\gamma f \right\rangle}} & = \iint v_0^{2\gamma} K \cdot \nabla_v \left ( \frac{1}{2} f^2 \right ) \ dv \ dx \\
&= - 2\gamma \iint v_0^{2\gamma-1} (\hat{v} \cdot K) \frac{1}{2} f^2 \ dv \ dx
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, this yields $$\left \vert {\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma K\cdot {\nabla}_v f, v_0^\gamma f \right\rangle}} \right \vert \leq
C{\ensuremath{\left\| K(t) \right\|}}_\infty{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma-\frac{1}{2}}f(t) \right\|}}_2.$$ For the last term we integrate by parts and use the symmetry of $D$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma {\nabla}_v\cdot (D{\nabla}_vf), v_0^\gamma f \right\rangle}} &=
-2\gamma{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^{2\gamma-1} \hat{v}\cdot D{\nabla}_vf, f \right\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma D^{1/2}{\nabla}_v f(t) \right\|}}_2^2\\
&= -2\gamma{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^{2\gamma-1}v \cdot {\nabla}_vf, f \right\rangle}} -{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma D^{1/2}{\nabla}_v f(t) \right\|}}_2^2\\
&= -2\gamma \iint v_0^{2\gamma-1} v\cdot {\nabla}_v \left ( \frac{1}{2} f^2 \right) \ dv \ dx -{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma D^{1/2}{\nabla}_v f(t) \right\|}}_2^2
\end{aligned}$$ We may drop the latter term. After integrating by parts again in $v$ we can bound the former term by $C{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma-\frac{1}{2}} f(t) \right\|}}_2^2$. Putting the estimates together and using the field bound of Lemma \[L2\], we find $$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 \leq C(1+t) {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma-\frac{1}{2}} f(t) \right\|}}_2^2.$$ Using the first conclusion of the lemma for the $\gamma = 1/2$ case and proceeding by induction yields $${\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma f(t) \right\|}}_2^2
\leq C(1+t)^{4\gamma}{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma f^0 \right\|}}_2^2 \leq C_T.$$ for every $\gamma \geq 0$ for which the norm of the initial data is finite.
To begin, we estimate derivatives of the density in $x$, and first define some notation. Since density derivatives will depend upon field derivatives, we let $$\mathcal{F}(t) = \Vert E(t) \Vert_\infty + \Vert B(t) \Vert_\infty +\Vert \partial_x E(t) \Vert_\infty + \Vert \partial_x B(t) \Vert_\infty$$ and note that $\Vert \mathcal{F} \Vert_\infty \leq C_T$ by Lemmas \[L2\] and \[L4\]. We differentiate the Vlasov equation in $x$, multiply by $v_0^{2\gamma} \partial_x f$ and integrate to yield $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \left \Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_x f (t)\right \Vert_2^2 & = & - \iint \partial_x \left ( \frac{1}{2} \hat{v}_1 v_0^{2\gamma} \vert \partial_{x} f \vert^2 \right ) dv \ dx - \iint v_0^{2\gamma} \partial_x f \nabla_v \cdot \left ( \partial_x K f + K \partial_x f \right ) \ dx \ dv\\
& \ & + \iint v_0^{2\gamma} \partial_x f \nabla_v \cdot ( D \nabla_v \partial_x f) \ dv \ dx\\
& = & \iint \left [ v_0^{2\gamma-1} \left ( 2\gamma \hat{v} \partial_x f + v_0 \nabla_v \partial_x f \right ) \cdot ( \partial_x K f) + \frac{1}{2}v_0^{2\gamma} K\cdot \nabla_v (\vert \partial_x f \vert^2) \right ] \ dx \ dv \\
& \ & - \iint v_0^{2\gamma-1} \left (2\gamma \hat{v} \partial_x f + v_0 \nabla_v \partial_x f \right ) \cdot ( D \nabla_v \partial_x f) \ dv \ dx\\
& =: & I + II\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have integrated by parts in $v$ and used the divergence-free structure of $K$, as well as, the fact that the transport term above is a pure $x$-derivative along with the compact $x$-support of the particle distribution. Using Cauchy’s inequality with $\eps$ we find for any $\eps > 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
I & \leq &C\iint \left [ \Vert \partial_x K(t) \Vert_\infty\left ( v_0^{2\gamma-1} \vert \partial_x f \vert f + v_0^{2\gamma} \vert \nabla_v \partial_x f \vert f \right ) + \Vert K(t) \Vert_\infty v_0^{2\gamma-1} \vert \partial_x f \vert^2 \right ] dx dv \\
& \leq & C\mathcal{F}(t) \left ( {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \partial_x f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 + {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma-\frac{1}{2}}f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 + {\eps}{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \nabla_v \partial_x f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 + \frac{1}{\eps}{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma+\frac{1}{2}} f (t) \right\|}}_2^2 \right )\\
& \leq & C_T \left ( {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \partial_x f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 + {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma+\frac{1}{2}} f(t) \right\|}}_2^2+ \eps {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \nabla_v \partial_x f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 \right ) \end{aligned}$$
Then, the symmetry of $D$ along with $D \hat{v} = v$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
II & = & - \iint v_0^{2\gamma-1} \left ( 2\gamma \hat{v} \partial_x f + v_0 \nabla_v \partial_x f \right ) \cdot ( D \nabla_v \partial_x f) \ dv \ dx\\
& = & -\gamma \iint v_0^{2\gamma - 1} v \cdot \nabla_v (\vert \partial_x f \vert^2) \ dv \ dx - \Vert v_0^\gamma D^{1/2} \nabla_v \partial_x f \Vert_2^2 \\
& \leq & C {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \partial_x f (t) \right\|}}_2^2 - {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma-\frac{1}{2}} \nabla_v \partial_x f(t) \right\|}}_2^2. \end{aligned}$$ Combining $I$ and $II$, we use Lemma \[L5\] to find for $\eps$ sufficiently small $$\frac{d}{dt} {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma \partial_x f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 \leq C_T \left ( {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \partial_x f (t) \right\|}}_2^2 + {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma+\frac{1}{2}} f(t) \right\|}}_2^2\right ) \leq C_T \left (1 + {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \partial_x f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 \right).$$ If we compute this for $\gamma = 0$ and use the bound on $\mathcal{F}$, the result is just $$\frac{d}{dt} \left \Vert \partial_x f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \Vert f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ which, by Lemma \[L5\], leads to $$\left \Vert \partial_x f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \left ( \left \Vert \partial_x f^0 \right \Vert_2^2 + \left \Vert f^0 \right \Vert_2^2 \right ) \leq C_T$$ for every $t \in [0,T]$. Then, by induction, for every $\gamma \geq 0$ for which $v_0^\gamma \partial_x f \in L^2(\bfR^3)$ we have $$\label{Dxf}
\left \Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_x f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T\left (1 + \left \Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_x f^0 \right \Vert_2^2 \right ) \leq C_T$$ for all $t \in [0,T]$.
To begin, we estimate second derivatives of the density. These involve second derivatives of the fields, which must be estimated in $L^2$ rather than $L^\infty$. As before, denote $$\mathcal{F}(t) = \Vert E(t) \Vert_\infty + \Vert B(t) \Vert_\infty +\Vert \partial_x E(t) \Vert_\infty + \Vert \partial_x B(t) \Vert_\infty$$ and now let $$\mathcal{G}(t) = \Vert \partial_{xx} E(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_{xx} B(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ We differentiate the Vlasov equation twice in $x$, multiply by $v_0^{2\gamma} \partial_{xx} f$ and integrate to yield
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \left \Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 & = & - \iint \partial_x \left ( \frac{1}{2} \hat{v}_1 v_0^{2\gamma} \vert \partial_{xx} f \vert^2 \right ) dv \ dx\\
& \ & - \iint v_0^{2\gamma} \partial_{xx} f \nabla_v \cdot \left ( \partial_{xx} K f + 2\partial_x K \partial_x f + K \partial_{xx} f \right ) \ dx \ dv\\
& \ & + \iint v_0^{2\gamma} \partial_{xx} f \nabla_v \cdot ( D \nabla_v \partial_{xx} f) \ dv \ dx\\
& = & \iint \left [ v_0^{2\gamma-1} ( 2\gamma \hat{v} \partial_{xx} f + v_0 \nabla_v \partial_{xx} f ) \cdot ( \partial_{xx} K f + \partial_x K \partial_x f) + \frac{1}{2}v_0^{2\gamma} K\cdot \nabla_v (\vert \partial_{xx} f \vert^2) \right ] dx dv \\
& \ & - \iint v_0^{2\gamma-1} \left ( 2\gamma \hat{v} \partial_{xx} f + v_0 \nabla_v \partial_{xx} f \right ) \cdot ( D \nabla_v \partial_{xx} f) \ dv \ dx\\
& = & I + II\end{aligned}$$
As before, we have integrated by parts in $v$ and used the compact $x$-support of the particle distribution. With this, bounds for $I$ follow as in Lemma \[L6\] with the exception of terms involving $\partial_{xx} K$. More specifically, we use Lemmas \[L2\], \[L5\], \[L6\], Cauchy-Schwarz, and Cauchy’s inequality to find $$\begin{aligned}
I & \leq &C \mathcal{G}(t)^{1/2} \left [\int \left ( \int (v_0^{2\gamma-1} \vert \partial_{xx} f \vert + v_0^{2\gamma} \vert \nabla_v \partial_{xx} f \vert ) \ f \ dv \right )^2 dx \right ]^{1/2} \\
& \ & + C\mathcal{F}(t) \left ( \Vert v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \eps \Vert v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \nabla_v \partial_{xx} f (t)\Vert_2^2 + \frac{1}{\eps}\Vert v_0^{\gamma+\frac{1}{2}} \partial_x f (t)\Vert_2^2 \right )\\
& \leq & C \mathcal{G}(t)^{1/2} \left [\int \left ( \int v_0^{2\gamma-1} \vert \partial_{xx} f \vert^2 dv \right ) \cdot \left ( \int v_0^{2\gamma-1} f^2 dv \right) dx + \int \left (\int v_0^{2\gamma-1} \vert \nabla_v \partial_{xx} f \vert^2 dv \right ) \cdot \left ( \int v_0^{2\gamma+1} f^2 dv \right) dx \right]^{1/2} \\
& \ & + C_T \left ( 1 + \left \Vert v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 + \frac{\eps}{2} \left \Vert v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \nabla_v \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 \right ) \\
& \leq & C_T \left (1 + \left (1 + \frac{1}{\eps} \right )\mathcal{G}(t) + {\ensuremath{\left\| f^0 \right\|}}_\infty {\ensuremath{\left\| \int v_0^{2\gamma+1} f(t) \right\|}}_\infty \left[ \left \Vert v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 + \eps \left \Vert v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \nabla_v \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 \right ] \right )\\
& \leq & C_T \left (1 + \mathcal{G}(t) + \left \Vert v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 + \eps \left \Vert v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \nabla_v \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 \right ) \end{aligned}$$ for $2\gamma < \a - 3$. We estimate $II$ exactly as before to find $$II \leq C \left \Vert v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 - \left \Vert v_0^{\gamma-\frac{1}{2}} \nabla_v \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2.$$ Hence, combining $I$ and $II$, we find for $\eps$ small enough, $$\frac{d}{dt} \left \Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \left (1 + \mathcal{G}(t) + \left \Vert v_0^{\gamma -\frac{1}{2}} \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 \right ) \leq C_T \left (1 + \mathcal{G}(t) + \left \Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 \right ).$$ By Gronwall’s Lemma we have $$\label{Dxxf}
\left \Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_{xx} f(t) \right \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T\left(1 + \mathcal{G}(t) \right )$$ for all $t \in [0,T]$ and $\gamma < \min \left \{\frac{\a - 3}{2}, \b-1 \right \}$.
Before turning to field derivatives, we will need a way to relate the current density and its derivatives to that of the particle distribution. So, for $k=0, 1, 2$ we estimate $$\label{jf}
\Vert \partial^k_x j_2(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq \int \left ( \int \vert \partial^k_x f \vert dv \right )^2 \ dx \leq \left ( \iint v_0^{2\gamma} \vert \partial^k_x f\vert^2 dv dx \right) \left ( \int v_0^{-2\gamma} dv \right ) \leq C\Vert v_0^\gamma \partial^k_x f (t)\Vert_2^2.$$ for $\gamma > 1$. Additionally, we will need to bound $\partial_t j_2$ in $L^2$, which can be done using (\[Dxf\]). Using the Vlasov equation and integrating by parts in $v$, we see $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t j_2 & = & - \int \hat{v}_1 \hat{v}_2 \partial_x f + \int \nabla_v (\hat{v}_2) \cdot K f \ dv + \int \nabla_v \cdot [D \nabla_v (\hat{v}_2)] f \ dv \\
& \leq & \int \vert \partial_x f \vert dv + \int (1 + \Vert K(t) \Vert_\infty) f \ dv\end{aligned}$$ Thus, it follows by Lemmas \[L2\] and \[L5\] that $$\label{Dtj}
\Vert \partial_t j_2(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \left (1 + \Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) \leq C_T.$$ for every $ t\in [0,T]$ where $\gamma > 1$.
Now, we estimate field derivatives. Since $\partial_x E_1 = \rho$, we find for all $t \in [0,T]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert \partial_x E_1(t) \Vert_2^2 & \leq & C \int \left (\int f(t,x,v) \ dv \right )^2 dx + \Vert \phi \Vert_2^2\\
& \leq & C \left (1 + \Vert v_0^\gamma f(t) \Vert_2^2 \left ( \int v_0^{-2\gamma} \ dv \right ) \right )\\
& \leq & C_T\end{aligned}$$ by Lemma \[L5\] where $\gamma > 1$ to bound the integral. We estimate identically for $\partial_{xx} E_1$ and use $\phi \in C_c^1$ so that by Lemma \[L6\] with $\gamma > 1$ $$\Vert \partial_{xx} E_1(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C \left (\Vert \phi' \Vert_2 + \Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \left ( \int v_0^{-2\gamma} \ dv \right ) \right ) \leq C_T.$$
Using the transport equations of (\[RVMFP\]) for $E_2$ and $B$, it follows that these quantities and their derivatives satisfy wave equations with derivatives of $j_2$ as source terms, namely $$\Box B = \partial_x j_2, \quad \Box E_2 = -\partial_t j_2.$$ Using standard $L^2$ estimates for the wave equation, we multiply the first equation by $\partial_t B$ and integrate in $x$. After integrating by parts and using Cauchy’s inequality, this yields $$\frac{d}{dt} \left ( \Vert \partial_t B(t)\Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_x B(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) \leq \Vert \partial_x j_2(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_t B(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ Using Lemma \[L6\] with (\[jf\]), this becomes $$\frac{d}{dt} \left ( \Vert \partial_t B(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_x B(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) \leq C_T \left( 1+ \Vert \partial_t B(t) \Vert_2^2 \right )$$ which, by Gronwall’s inequality, yields $$\Vert \partial_t B(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_x B(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T.$$ Since $\partial_x E_2 = - \partial_t B$ and $\partial_x E_2 = - \partial_x B - j_2$, the same bounds hold for derivatives of $E_2$.
We may now proceed in a similar fashion for second derivatives of the field. From the field equations, we see $$\Box (\partial_x B) = \partial_{xx} j_2$$ and thus $$\frac{d}{dt} \left ( \Vert \partial_{tx} B(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_{xx} B(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) \leq \Vert \partial_{xx} j_2(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_{tx} B(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ Since $\partial_{tx} B = -\partial_{xx} E_2$, this is equivalent to $$\frac{d}{dt} \left ( \Vert \partial_{xx} E_2(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_{xx} B(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) \leq \Vert \partial_{xx} j_2(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_{xx} E_2(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ Using (\[Dxxf\]) and (\[jf\]), this implies $$\mathcal{G}'(t) \leq C_T(1 + \mathcal{G}(t) ),$$ and using Gronwall’s inequality and the assumption on the initial fields, we find $$\Vert \partial_{xx} E_2(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_{xx} B(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T.$$ With this, (\[Dxxf\]) provides an a priori bound on $\Vert v_0^\gamma \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2^2$ for all $t \in [0,T]$. Since $\Box B = -\partial_x j_2$, we see that $\partial_{tt} B = \partial_{xx}B - \partial_x j_2 \in L^\infty ([0,T]; L^2(\bfR))$ by (\[Dxf\]) and (\[jf\]). Then, $\partial_{tx} E_2 = - \partial_{tt} B \in L^\infty ([0,T]; L^2(\bfR))$ and $\partial_{tx} B = - \partial_{xx} E_2 \in L^\infty ([0,T]; L^2(\bfR))$, and finally $\partial_{tt} E_2 = - \partial_{tx} B - \partial_t j_2 \in L^\infty ([0,T]; L^2(\bfR))$ by (\[Dtj\]).
Throughout, we will use $v_0 \geq 1$ in order to increase moments of the estimates where necessary so as to match the results of the lemma. Additionally, we will use the notation $R^\gamma(v)$ to generically denote a function of $v$ such that $|R^\gamma(v)|\leq C_T v_0^\gamma$, but the specific value of $R^\gamma(v)$ may change from line to line. We first estimate moments of the density. Computing $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2 & = & \iint v_0^4 f \left [-\hat{v}_1 \partial_x f - K \cdot {\nabla}_v f + {\nabla}_v \cdot (D {\nabla}_v f ) \right ] \ dv dx\\
& = & I + II + III.\end{aligned}$$ The first term vanishes as it is a pure $x$-derivative. For $II$, we integrate by parts and use the field bounds of Lemma \[L2\] so that $$\begin{aligned}
II & = & - \iint v_0^4 {\nabla}_v \cdot (K f^2) \ dv dx\\
& = & 4 \iint v_0^3 \hat{v} \cdot K f^2 \ dv dx \\
& \leq & C_T \Vert v_0^{3/2} f(t) \Vert_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ To estimate $III$, we integrate by parts, then use the property $D\hat{v} = v$ and integrate by parts again in the first term. Also, we use (\[D1\]) in the second term to find $$\begin{aligned}
III & = & - \iint {\nabla}_v (v_0^4 f) \cdot D{\nabla}_v f \ dv dx\\
& = & - \iint (4v_0^3 \hat{v}f + v_0^4 {\nabla}_v f) \cdot D{\nabla}_v f \ dv dx\\
& \leq & C \Vert v_0^{3/2} f(t) \Vert_2^2 - \Vert v_0^2 D^{1/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2.\\
& \leq & C \Vert v_0^{3/2} f(t) \Vert_2^2 - \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ Combining the estimates, the first inequality follows.
Next, we let $\partial_v$ be either first-order derivative and compute $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 & = & \iint v_0^3 \partial_v f \left [ - \hat{v}_1 \partial_v \partial_x f - \partial_v \hat{v}_1 \partial_x f \right. \\
& \ & \ - \partial_v K \cdot {\nabla}_v f - K \cdot {\nabla}_v \partial_v f\\
& \ & \left. \ + {\nabla}_v \cdot ( (\partial_v D) {\nabla}_v f ) + {\nabla}_v \cdot (D {\nabla}_v \partial_v f ) \right ] \ dv dx\\
& = & I + II + III.\end{aligned}$$ The first term in $I$ vanishes as before and thus using Cauchy’s inequality $$\begin{aligned}
I & = & - \iint v_0^3 R^{-1}(v) \partial_v f \partial_x f \ dv dx\\
& \leq & C \left ( \Vert v_0 \partial_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert v_0 \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$ For $II$, we use the field bounds of Lemma \[L2\] and integrate by parts in the second term to find $$\begin{aligned}
II & = & - \iint v_0^3 \partial_v f [ R^{-1}(v) {\nabla}_v f + K \cdot {\nabla}_v \partial_v f] \ dv dx\\
& \leq & C_T \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, in $III$ we integrate by parts while using $D\hat{v} = v$ and boundedness of derivatives of $D$ to find $$\begin{aligned}
III & = & - \iint \left [3v_0^2 \hat{v} \partial_v f + v_0^3 {\nabla}_v \partial_v f \right ] [ \partial_v D {\nabla}_v f + D {\nabla}_v \partial_v f] \ dv dx\\
& = & - \iint \left [3v_0^2 R^0(v) \partial_v f {\nabla}_v f + \frac{1}{2} v_0^3 R^0(v) \partial_v \left \vert {\nabla}_v f \right \vert^2+\frac{3}{2}v_0^2 D\hat{v} \cdot {\nabla}_v \vert \partial_v f \vert^2 + v_0^3 {\nabla}_v \partial_v f \cdot D {\nabla}_v \partial_v f \right ] \ dv dx\\
& \leq & C \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 - \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_v f(t) \Vert_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ We collect these estimates, use $\Vert \partial_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq \Vert {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2$, and then sum over first-order $v$-derivatives to arrive at an estimate on $\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2$. With this, the second result follows.
The final two results concern $x$-derivatives of the density, so we first compute $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 & = & \iint v_0^3 \partial_x f \left [-\hat{v}_1 \partial_{xx} f - {\nabla}_v \cdot (\partial_x K f ) - K \cdot {\nabla}_v \partial_x f + {\nabla}_v \cdot (D {\nabla}_v \partial_xf ) \right ] \ dv dx\\
& = & I + II + III + IV.\end{aligned}$$ As in the other estimates, $I$ vanishes. For $II$, we integrate by parts and use the bounds on field derivatives provided by Lemma \[L4\] and Cauchy’s inequality to find $$II \leq C_T \left ( \Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \left (1+ \frac{1}{\eps} \right ) \Vert v_0^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \eps \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ).$$ We note that for $\eps$ sufficiently small, the last term can be controlled by the final term arising in $IV$ below. Next, we integrate by parts in $III$ to find $$III = -\iint v_0^3 {\nabla}_v \cdot (K | \partial_x f |^2 ) \ dv dx = 3\iint v_0^2 \hat{v} \cdot (K | \partial_x f |^2 ) \ dv dx \leq C_T \Vert v_0 \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ In the last term, we again integrate by parts and use $D\hat{v} = v$ along with (\[D1\]) to find $$\begin{aligned}
IV & = & -\iint \left ( 3v_0^2 \hat{v} \partial_x f + v_0^3 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f \right ) \cdot D {\nabla}_v \partial_x f \ dv dx\\
& \leq & \Vert v_0 \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 - \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ Combining the estimates, the third results follows.
To prove the last inequality, we let $\partial_v$ be either first-order derivative and compute $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0 \partial_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 & = & \iint v_0^2 \partial_v \partial_x f
\left [ - \hat{v}_1 \partial_v \partial_{xx} f - \partial_v \hat{v}_1 \partial_{xx} f \right. \\
& \ & \ - \partial_v K \cdot {\nabla}_v \partial_x f - \partial_x K \cdot {\nabla}_v \partial_v f - \partial_v \partial_x K \cdot {\nabla}_v f - K \cdot {\nabla}_v \partial_v \partial_x f\\
& \ & \left. \ + {\nabla}_v \cdot ( (\partial_v D) {\nabla}_v \partial_x f ) + {\nabla}_v \cdot (D {\nabla}_v \partial_v \partial_x f ) \right ] \ dv dx\\
& = & I + II + III.\end{aligned}$$ Because the first term of $I$ vanishes yet again, we use Cauchy’s inequality to find $$I =
-\iint v_0^2 R^{-1}(v) \partial_v \partial_x f \partial_{xx} f \ dv dx
\leq C_T \left ( \Vert v_0 \partial_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ).$$ To estimate $II$, we integrate by parts in the third and fourth terms below and use the bounds on fields and field derivatives (Lemmas \[L2\] and \[L4\]) as well as Cauchy’s inequality so that $$\begin{aligned}
II & = & -\iint v_0^2 \partial_v \partial_x f \left [ \partial_v K \cdot {\nabla}_v \partial_x f + \partial_x K \cdot {\nabla}_v \partial_v f + \partial_v \partial_x K \cdot {\nabla}_v f + K \cdot {\nabla}_v \partial_v \partial_x f \right ] \ dv dx\\
& = & -\iint v_0^2 R^{-1}(v) \partial_v \partial_x f \left [ {\nabla}_v \partial_x f + {\nabla}_v f \right ]\ dv dx -
\iint v_0^2\partial_v \partial_x f {\nabla}_v \cdot \left ( \partial_x K \partial_v f \right ) \ dv dx\\
& \ & \ - \iint v_0^2 {\nabla}_v \cdot \left (K \partial_v \partial_x f \right ) \ dv dx\\
& \leq & C_T \left ( \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \left (1 + \frac{1}{\eps} \right ) \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \eps \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right )\end{aligned}$$ We note that for $\eps$ sufficiently small, the last term can be controlled by the final term arising in $III$ below. Lastly, we estimate $III$ exactly as in the proof of the second inequality, but for $\partial_x f $ instead of $f$, to find $$III \leq C \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 - \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ With this, we combine the estimates, sum over all first-order $v$-derivatives, and proceed as for the second inequality, which yields the final estimate. We note that throughout we have rescaled $\eps > 0$ by a factor of $C_T > 0$ when necessary.
For each result the proof is made more difficult because of the structure of $D$ and its derivatives, while in the case $D = \mathbb{I}$ derivatives commute with the Fokker-Planck operator and the computations are straightforward. Let $k=2,3,4$ be given and $t \in (0,T)$. As in the proof of the previous lemma, we will use the notation $R^\gamma(v)$ for a generic function satisfying $|R^\gamma(v)|\leq C_T v_0^\gamma$.
Now, fix a multi-index $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ where we denote ${\partial}_{v_1}^{\alpha_1}{\partial}_{v_2}^{\alpha_2}$ by ${\partial}_v^\alpha$, and consider $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 & = &
-{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma \hat{v}_1{\partial}_x {\partial}_v^\alpha f, v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}
-{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma K\cdot{\nabla}_v {\partial}_v^\alpha f, v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}
+{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma{\nabla}_v\cdot(D{\nabla}_v {\partial}_v^\alpha f), v_0^\gamma{\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}\\
& \ & + \sum_{\substack{\beta+\alpha'=\alpha\\|\beta|>0}} {\alpha\choose\alpha'~\beta}\Big[
{\ensuremath{\left\langle R^{1-|\beta|+\gamma}(v){\partial}_x{\partial}_v^{\alpha'}f, v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}\\
& \ & +{\ensuremath{\left\langle BR^{1-|\beta|+\gamma}(v){\partial}_{v_1}{\partial}_v^{\alpha'}f, v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}+{\ensuremath{\left\langle BR^{1-|\beta|+\gamma}(v){\partial}_{v_2}{\partial}_v^{\alpha'}f, v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}\\
& \ & +{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma{\nabla}_v\cdot({\partial}_v^{\beta}(D){\nabla}_v{\partial}_v^{\alpha'}f), v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}
\Big]\\
& =: &I+II+III+\sum_{\substack{\beta+\alpha'=\alpha\\|\beta|>0}}{\alpha\choose\alpha'~\beta} \Big[IV^1_{\alpha\beta}+IV^2_{\alpha\beta}+IV^3_{\alpha\beta}+IV^4_{\alpha\beta}\Big]\end{aligned}$$
For $I$, we integrate by parts in $x$ so that ${\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma \hat{v}_1{\partial}_x {\partial}_v^\alpha f, v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}
= -{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f, v_0^\gamma \hat{v}_1 {\partial}_x {\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}$ and hence the first term vanishes. For $II$ we integrate by parts in $v$ to find $$-2{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma K\cdot{\nabla}_v {\partial}_v^\alpha f, v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha
f \right\rangle}}={\ensuremath{\left\langle ({\nabla}_v v_0^{2\gamma})\cdot K {\partial}_v^\alpha f, {\partial}_v^\alpha
f \right\rangle}}+{\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^{\gamma}({\nabla}_v \cdot K) {\partial}_v^\alpha f, v_0^\gamma{\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}$$ The second term vanishes by the divergence-free structure of $K$, while the first term is bounded by field estimates so that $$II \leq C\left ({\ensuremath{\left\| B((t) \right\|}}_\infty+{\ensuremath{\left\| E(t) \right\|}}_\infty \right ){\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma}{\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2.$$ To estimate $III$, we integrate by parts in $v$ to find $${\ensuremath{\left\langle v_0^\gamma{\nabla}_v\cdot(D{\nabla}_v {\partial}_v^\alpha
f), v_0^\gamma{\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}=-{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma D^{1/2}{\nabla}_v{\partial}_v^\alpha
f(t) \right\|}}_2^2-{\ensuremath{\left\langle {\nabla}_v(v_0^{2\gamma})\cdot D{\nabla}_v{\partial}_v^\alpha
f, {\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}.$$ Integrating by parts again in the second of these two terms yields ${\ensuremath{\left\langle R^{\gamma-1}(v){\partial}_v^\alpha f, v_0^\gamma{\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}$. So we have $$III \leq -{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma-1/2}{\nabla}_v{\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 + C{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2$$
Next, we estimate the terms $IV_{\alpha\beta}^1$. If $|\alpha'|=0$ then we may use Cauchy’s inequality and hence $$IV_{\alpha\beta}^1 \leq {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{1-k+\gamma}{\partial}_xf(t) \right\|}}_2^2+{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2.$$ Otherwise we may write ${\partial}_v^{\alpha'}={\partial}_{v_i}{\partial}_v^{\alpha''}$ with $\vert \alpha'' \vert = \vert \alpha \vert - 2$. Then, we integrate by parts in $v_i$ and write this term as $${\ensuremath{\left\langle R^{1-|\beta|+\gamma}(v){\partial}_x{\partial}_v^{\alpha'}f, v_0^\gamma{\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}} =
-{\ensuremath{\left\langle R^{-|\beta|+\gamma}(v){\partial}_x{\partial}_v^{\alpha''}f, v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{\left\langle R^{1-|\beta|+\gamma}(v){\partial}_x{\partial}_v^{\alpha''}f, v_0^\gamma {\partial}_{v_i}{\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}$$ Applying Cauchy’s inequality with $\eps > 0$ to both terms we arrive at $$IV_{\alpha\beta}^1 \leq \frac{C}{\eps}{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma+1/2}{\partial}_v^{\alpha''}{\partial}_xf(t) \right\|}}_2^2+{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma{\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2
+\eps{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma-1/2}{\partial}_{v_i}{\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2$$ and we can choose $\eps$ small enough so that the last term here is absorbed by the first term in the estimate of $III$. Both $IV_{\alpha\beta}^2$ and $IV_{\alpha\beta}^3$ possess the form ${\ensuremath{\left\langle BR^{1-|\beta|+\gamma}(v){\partial}_{v_j}{\partial}_v^{\alpha'}f, v_0^\gamma {\partial}_v^\alpha f \right\rangle}}.$ Hence, after applying Cauchy’s inequality we find $$\begin{aligned}
IV_{\alpha\beta}^2+IV_{\alpha\beta}^3&\leq
{\ensuremath{\left\| B(t) \right\|}}_\infty\left({\ensuremath{\left\| R^{1-|\beta|+\gamma}(v){\partial}_{v_j}{\partial}_v^{\alpha'}f(t) \right\|}}_2^2+{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma{\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2\right)\\
&\leq
{\ensuremath{\left\| B(t) \right\|}}_\infty\left({\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma{\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2+\sum_{1 \leq |\alpha|<k}{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma+|\alpha|-k}{\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 \right)\end{aligned}$$
To estimate $IV_{\alpha\beta}^4$ we must consider cases. If $|\alpha'|<|\alpha|-1$, we use Cauchy’s inequality to find $$\begin{aligned}
IV_{\alpha\beta}^4 & \leq & C \Big({\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma-|\beta|}{\partial}_{v_i}{\partial}_v^{\alpha'}f(t) \right\|}}_2^2+{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma+1-|\beta|}{\partial}_{v_i}{\partial}_{v_j}{\partial}_v^{\alpha'} f(t) \right\|}}_2^2+{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma{\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2\Big)\\ & \leq & C\left({\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma{\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2+\sum_{1 \leq |\alpha|<k}{\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma+|\alpha|-k}{\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2\right)\end{aligned}$$ If $|\alpha'|=|\alpha|-1$, suppose ${\partial}_{v_i}{\partial}_v^{\alpha'}={\partial}_v^\alpha$. Then the terms involving ${\partial}_{v_i}{\partial}_v^{\alpha'}$ can be handled using Cauchy-Schwarz. The terms involving ${\partial}_{v_iv_j}^2{\partial}_v^{\alpha'}f$, after integration by parts, are bounded by ${\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma{\partial}_v^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2$.
Collecting the estimates, summing over all $\alpha$ with $| \alpha | = k$, and writing $$\Vert v_0^\gamma {\nabla}_v^k f(t) \Vert_2^2 = \sum_{|\alpha|=k} {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^\gamma {\partial}^\alpha f(t) \right\|}}_2^2$$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert v_0^\gamma {\nabla}_v^k f(t) \Vert_2^2 & \leq & C \left ( \Vert v_0^\gamma {\nabla}_v^k f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma+j-k}{\nabla}_v^j f(t) \right\|}}_2^2
+ {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma+1/2} {\partial}_x {\nabla}_v^{k+2}f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 \right )\\
& \ & \ - (1-\eps) {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\gamma-1/2}{\nabla}_v^{k+1} f(t) \right\|}}_2^2\end{aligned}$$ which proves the first result.
Next, we turn to the second result. Let $\partial_v^2$ be any second-order $v$-derivative. We compute $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{1/2} \partial_v^2 \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 & = & \iint v_0 \partial_v^2 \partial_x f \left [
- \partial_v^2 \left (\hat{v}_1 \partial_{xx} f \right )
- \partial_v^2 \partial_x \left (K \cdot {\nabla}_v f \right )
+ \partial_v^2 \left ({\nabla}_v \cdot (D {\nabla}_v \partial_xf ) \right ) \right ] \ dv dx\\
& = & I + II + III.\end{aligned}$$ As usual, one of the terms in $I$ vanishes. So, we integrate by parts in the latter term below and use Cauchy’s inequality with $\eps > 0$ to find $$\begin{aligned}
I & = & - \iint v_0 \partial_v^2 \partial_x f \left [ R^{-2}(v) \partial_{xx} f + 2R^{-1}(v) \partial_v \partial_{xx} f\right ] \ dv dx\\
& \leq & C \left ( \Vert \partial^2_v \partial_xf(t) \Vert_2^2 + \left (1 + \frac{1}{\eps} \right ) \Vert \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \eps \Vert \partial^3_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$ We note that for $\eps$ sufficiently small, the last term can be controlled by the final term arising in $III$ below. To estimate $II$, we integrate by parts in the third and last terms below, use the control of field and field derivative terms guaranteed by Lemmas \[L2\] and \[L4\], and utilize Cauchy’s inequality so that $$\begin{aligned}
II & = & - \iint v_0 \partial_v^2 \partial_x f \left [ R^{-2}(v) {\nabla}_v f + 2R^{-1}(v) {\nabla}_v \partial_v f + R^0(v) {\nabla}_v \partial^2_v f \right. \\
& \ & + \left. R^{-2}(v) {\nabla}_v \partial_x f + 2R^{-1}(v) {\nabla}_v \partial_v \partial_x f + K \cdot {\nabla}_v \partial^2_v \partial_x f \right ] \ dv dx\\
& \leq & C_T \biggl( \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_xf(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \nabla_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2\\
& \ & + \left. \left( 1 + \frac{1}{\eps} \right ) \Vert v_0 \nabla_v \partial_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \eps \Vert \nabla_v \partial^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$ Again, for $\eps$ sufficiently small, the last term can be controlled by the final term arising in $III$ below. We integrate by parts, then use aforementioned properties of $D$ and Cauchy’s inequality with $\eps > 0$ in $III$ to find $$\begin{aligned}
III & = & - \iint \left [ \hat{v} \partial^2_v \partial_x f + v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial^2_v \partial_x f \right ] [ \partial^2_v D {\nabla}_v \partial_x f + 2\partial_v D {\nabla}_v \partial_v \partial_x f + D {\nabla}_v \partial^2_v \partial_x f] \ dv dx\\
& = & - \iint \left [ \hat{v} \partial^2_v \partial_x f + v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial^2_v \partial_x f \right ] [ R^{-1}(v) {\nabla}_v \partial_x f + R^0(v) {\nabla}_v \partial_v \partial_x f + D {\nabla}_v \partial^2_v \partial_x f] \ dv dx\\
& \leq & C \left ( \Vert \partial^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \left ( 1 + \frac{1}{\eps} \right ) \Vert {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert {\nabla}_v \partial_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) - (1- \eps) \Vert {\nabla}_v \partial^2 _v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we collect these estimates, so that $$\begin{aligned}
I + II + III & \leq & C_T\left ( \Vert \partial^2_v \partial_xf(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2^2 +
\Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_xf(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \nabla_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert \nabla_v \partial_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right.\\
& \ & \ \left. + \Vert {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 +
\Vert \partial^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right)
- (1- C_T\eps) \Vert {\nabla}_v \partial^2 _v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, we use $\Vert \partial^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq \Vert {\nabla}^2_v \partial_xf(t) \Vert_2^2$, sum over all $v$-derivatives to arrive at an estimate on $\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2$, and the claim then follows. As for Lemma \[dissipative\] we have rescaled $\eps > 0$ by a factor of $C_T > 0$ where necessary.
\[Lemma \[L8\]\] We will prove the result in a hierarchical fashion by building pairs of consecutive terms and adding higher-order derivatives as we go. To begin the proof, we consider $t \in (0,T)$ and define $$M_1(t) = \Vert v_0^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \frac{1}{2}t \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \frac{1}{8} t^2 \Vert v_0 {\nabla}^2_v f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ and differentiate to find $$\begin{aligned}
M_1'(t) & = & \frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \frac{1}{2}t \frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \frac{1}{8} t^2 \frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0 {\nabla}^2_v f(t) \Vert_2^2\\
& \ & \ + \frac{1}{2} \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \frac{1}{4} t \Vert v_0 {\nabla}^2_v f(t) \Vert_2^2\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[dissipative\], we find $$\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \Vert v_0^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2 - \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ and $$\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \left( \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \Vert v_0 \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) - \Vert v_0 {\nabla}^2_v f(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ Additionally, applying the first result of Lemma \[v\_deriv\_lemma\] for $\gamma = 1$, $k=2$ we find for any $\eps > 0$ sufficiently small $$\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0 {\nabla}^2_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \left( \Vert v_0 {\nabla}^2_v f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) - (1-\eps) \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^3_v f(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ We combine these results, use the bounds on $x$-derivatives of the particle distribution (Lemma \[L6\]), and choose $\eps < 1$ to find $$\begin{aligned}
M_1'(t) & \leq & C_T \left ( M_1(t) + \Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) - \frac{1}{2} \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2\\
& \ & \ - \frac{1}{4}t \Vert v_0 {\nabla}^2_v f(t) \Vert_2^2
- \frac{(1-\eps)}{8} t^2 \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^3_v f(t) \Vert_2^2\\
& \leq & C_T \left ( 1+ M_1(t) \right )\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by Gronwall’s inequality, we conclude $$M_1(t) \leq C_T M_1(0) = C_T \Vert v_0^2 f^0 \Vert_2^2$$ Hence, for $t \in (0,T)$ $$\label{M1a}
\Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq \frac{C_T}{t}$$ and $$\label{M1b}
\Vert v_0 {\nabla}^2_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq \frac{C_T}{t^2}.$$
Next, define $$M_2(t) = \Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \frac{1}{2}t \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ and differentiate to find
$$M_2'(t) = \frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2+ \frac{1}{2}t \frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \frac{1}{2} \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ Using Lemma \[dissipative\], we find $$\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \left (\Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert v_0^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right )- (1-\eps) \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ and $$\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \left( \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \Vert \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ) - (1-\eps) \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ Combining these results while using the $L^2$-bounds on second $x$-derivatives of the density (Lemma \[L7\]) and (\[M1a\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
M_2'(t) & \leq & C_T \left ( M_2(t) + \Vert v_0^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ t \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \Vert \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right )\\
& \ & \ - \left (\frac{1}{2}-\eps \right ) \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2
- \frac{1}{2}\left (1-\eps \right ) t \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2\\
& \leq & C_T \left ( 1+ M_2(t) \right )\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for $\eps < 1/2$, we use Gronwall’s inequality to conclude $$M_2(t) \leq C_T M_2(0) = C_T \Vert v_0^{3/2} \partial_x f^0 \Vert_2^2$$ Hence, for $t \in (0,T)$ $$\label{M2}
\Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq \frac{C_T}{t}.$$
Building onto previous terms, we next define $$M_3(t ) = M_1(t) + \frac{1}{48} t^3 \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^3 f(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ Hence, using the estimate of $M_1'(t)$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
M_3'(t) & =& M_1'(t) + \frac{1}{16}t^2\Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^3 f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \frac{1}{48} t^3 \frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^3 f(t) \Vert_2^2\\
& \leq & C_T ( 1 + M_1(t) ) + \left ( \frac{1}{16} - \frac{(1-\eps)}{8} \right ) t^2 \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^3 f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \frac{1}{48} t^3 \frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^3 f(t) \Vert_2^2\\
& \leq & C_T ( 1 + M_1(t) ) + \frac{1}{48} t^3 \frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^3 f(t) \Vert_2^2\end{aligned}$$ for $\eps < 1/2$. By the first result of Lemma \[v\_deriv\_lemma\] with $\gamma = 1/2$ and $k=3$, we find for any $\eps > 0$ sufficiently small $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^3 f(t) \Vert_2^2 & \leq
C_T \left ( \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^3 f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert v_0^{3/2} {\nabla}_v f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v^2 f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right )\\
& \ - (1-\eps) \Vert {\nabla}_v^4 f(t) \Vert_2^2
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, using the previous bounds obtained from (\[M1a\]), (\[M1b\]), and (\[M2\]), we have $$M_3'(t) \leq C_T \left (1 + M_3(t) \right) - \frac{1}{48}(1-\eps)t^3 \Vert {\nabla}_v^4 f(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ Since $\eps < 1/2$ Gronwall’s inequality implies $$\label{M3}
\Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^3 f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq \frac{C_T}{t^3}$$ for $t \in (0,T)$.
Again building onto previous terms, we next define $$M_4(t) = M_2(t) + \frac{1}{8}t^2 \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ so that $$M_4'(t) = M_2'(t) + \frac{1}{4}t \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \frac{1}{8}t^2 \frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ Using the second result of Lemma \[v\_deriv\_lemma\] along with the bound on $\Vert \partial_{xx}f(t) \Vert_2^2$ from Lemma \[L7\] and the previous bounds obtained from (\[M1a\]), (\[M1b\]), and (\[M2\]), we find for $\eps > 0$ sufficiently small $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^2 \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 & \leq & C_T \biggl(\Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^2 \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \Vert v_0 {\nabla}_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2
+ \sum_{j=1}^2 {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{\frac{4-j}{2}} {\nabla}_v^j f (t) \right\|}}_2^2 \\
& \ & \ + \Vert \partial_{xx} f(t) \Vert_2^2 \biggr)- (1- \eps) {\ensuremath{\left\| {\nabla}_v^3 \partial_x f (t) \right\|}}_2^2 \\
&\leq & C_T \Big(\frac{1}{t^2} + \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}_v^2 \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \Big).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we incorporate this and use the estimate of $M_2'(t)$ to find $$\begin{aligned}
M_4'(t) & \leq & C_T (1 + M_4(t) ) - \left (\frac{1}{4} - \frac{1 -\eps}{2} \right ) t \Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \\
& \leq & C_T (1 + M_4(t) ) \end{aligned}$$ and upon choosing $\eps < 1/2$ an application of Gronwall’s inequality yields the bound $$\label{M4}
\Vert v_0^{1/2} {\nabla}^2_v \partial_x f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq \frac{C_T}{t^2}$$ for $t \in (0,T)$. Finally, to obtain bounds on fourth-order $v$-derivatives of the density, we define $$M_5(t) = M_3(t) + \frac{1}{2^4 4!} t^4 \Vert {\nabla}^4_v f(t) \Vert_2^2$$ so that $$M_5'(t) = M_3'(t) + \frac{1}{96} t^3 \Vert {\nabla}^4_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 + \frac{1}{2^4 4!} t^4 \frac{d}{dt}\Vert {\nabla}^4_v f(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ Using Lemma \[v\_deriv\_lemma\] one final time with $\gamma = 0$ and $k=4$ and utilizing the bounds obtained from (\[M1a\])-(\[M4\]), we find $$\frac{d}{dt}\Vert {\nabla}^4_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq C_T \left ( \frac{1}{t^3} + \Vert {\nabla}^4_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \right ).$$ Applying this to $M_5(t)$ and using the estimate of $M_3'(t)$, we see $$M_5'(t) \leq C_T(1 + M_5(t)) + \left ( \frac{1}{96} - \frac{(1-\eps)}{48} \right ) t^3 \Vert {\nabla}_v^4 f(t) \Vert_2^2.$$ and choosing $\eps < 1/2$ this implies $$\Vert {\nabla}^4_v f(t) \Vert_2^2 \leq \frac{C_T}{t^4}$$ for $t \in (0,T)$. Lastly, combining the estimates above, the proof of the lemma is complete.
We remark that this same argument can be applied to the eight term power series expansion $$\sum_{k=0}^4 \frac{t^k}{2^k k!} {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{(4-k)/2} {\nabla}_v^k f(t) \right\|}}_2^2 + \sum_{k=0}^2 \frac{t^k}{2^kk!} {\ensuremath{\left\| v_0^{(3-k)/2} {\nabla}_v^k \partial_x f(t) \right\|}}_2^2$$ in order to arrive at an identical result. However, the above argument is perhaps clearer. Also, estimates of higher derivatives can be obtained if one imposes additional spatial regularity on the density and field terms, as this requires control of second-order field derivatives in $L^\infty$.
Proof of Theorem \[T1\]
=======================
To conclude the paper, we utilize the previous lemmas to sketch the proof of Theorem \[T1\].
As is typical, the proof utilizes a standard iterative argument. We define a sequence of solutions to the corresponding linear equations and show that it must converge to a solution of the nonlinear system (\[RVMFP\]). Define the initial iterates in terms of the given initial data $$\begin{gathered}
f^0(t,x,v) = f^0(x,v),\\
E_2^0(t,x) = E_2^0(x)\\
B^0(t,x) = B^0(x).
\end{gathered}$$ Additionally, for every $n \in \bfN$, given $E_1^n, E_2^n, B \in L^\infty([0,\infty); H^2(\bfR))$ we obtain $f^n \in L^\infty([0,\infty) \times \bfR^3)$ by solving the linear initial value problems $$\label{fnIC}
\left\{
\begin{gathered}
\partial_t f^n + \hat{v}_1 \partial_x f^n + K^{n-1}\cdot \nabla_v f^n = \nabla_v \cdot ( D \nabla_v f^n) \\
f^n(0,x,v) = f^0(x,v),
\end{gathered}
\right.$$ where $$K^n = \langle E^n_1 + \hat{v}_2 B^n, E^n_2 - \hat{v}_1 B^n \rangle$$ and the fields satisfy $$\label{FieldnIC}
\left\{
\begin{gathered}
\partial_t E^n_2 +\partial_x B^n = - j_2, \quad \partial_t B^n + \partial_x E^n_2 = 0\\
E^n_1 = \int_{-\infty}^x \left ( \int f^n(t,y,v) \ dv - \phi(y) \right ) \ dy\\
E_2^n(0,x) = E_2(0,x)\\
B^n(0,x) = B(0,x)
\end{gathered}
\right.$$ respectively. Let $T > 0$ be given and $(f^n, E^n, B^n)$ be a sequence of weak solutions to the above linear system on $[0,T]$. Using the assumptions on initial data, we apply the estimates of Section $2$ and find $E_2^n$ and $B^n$ converge (up to a subsequence) weakly in $L^\infty( [0,T]; H^1(\bfR))$ to functions $E_2$ and $B$, respectively. Then, we proceed by estimating successive differences of iterates (e.g., see [@Lai]). First, we use (\[E2B\]) and the linearity of the transport equation to find $$\Vert K^{n}(t) - K^{n-1}(t) \Vert_\infty \leq Ct \sup_{s\in [0,t]} \Vert v_0^a f^n(s) -v_0^a f^{n-1}(s) \Vert_\infty.$$ Next, we write the Vlasov equation for the difference of consecutive iterates and use (\[V\]) and Lemmas \[L1\], \[L2\], and \[L3\] to conclude $$\Vert v_0^a f^{n+1}(t) - v_0^a f^n(t) \Vert_\infty \leq C_T \int_0^t \left ( \Vert K^{n}(s) - K^{n-1}(s) \Vert_\infty + \Vert v_0^a f^{n+1}(s) - v_0^a f^n(s) \Vert_\infty \right ) \ ds$$ and thus $$\label{successive}
\Vert v_0^a f^{n+1}(t) - v_0^a f^n(t) \Vert_\infty \leq C_T \int_0^t \sup_{\tau \in [0,s] }\Vert v_0^a f^{n}(\tau) - v_0^a f^{n-1}(\tau) \Vert_\infty \ ds.$$ It follows from this estimate that $f^n$ converges strongly to a function $f$ in $L^\infty ( [0,T] \times \bfR^3)$. Similar estimates can be used to show $f \in L^\infty([0,T]; L^1(\bfR^3))$ as in [@Degond]. It can then be shown that these limiting functions satisfy (\[RVMFP\]) in the weak sense. Applying the regularizing estimates, we find $ f \in L^\infty ( (0,T); H_x^2(\bfR; H_v^4(\bfR^2)) )$. By the Sobolev Embedding Theorem, $H^2(\bfR) \subset C_b^1(\bfR)$ and $H^4(\bfR^2) \subset C_b^2(\bfR^2)$. Thus we find $f$, $E_2$, and $B$ possess a continuous partial derivative in $x$, and $f$ possesses two continuous partial derivatives in either $v$ component. Using the Vlasov and transport equations, we see that $\partial_t B$, $\partial_t E_2$, and $\partial_t f$ are all continuous. Hence, we find $f \in C^1( (0,T) \times \bfR; C^2(\bfR^2))$ and $E_2, B \in C^1( (0,T) \times \bfR)$. Finally, from the regularity of $f$ we deduce $E_1 \in C^1((0,T) \times \bfR)$ as well. Of course, with this additional regularity we conclude that the triple $(f,E_2,B)$ is, in fact, a classical solution of (\[RVMFP\]).
The uniqueness of solutions follows from another standard argument. We consider the difference of solutions $$h(t,x,v) = v_0^a (f_1(t,x,v) - f_2(t,x,v))$$ where $f_1$ and $f_2$ are any two solutions of (\[RVMFP\]) which share the same initial data, and we derive the same estimate (\[successive\]) for $h$, namely $$\Vert h(t) \Vert_\infty \leq C_T \int_0^t \sup_{\tau \in [0,s] }\Vert h(\tau) \Vert_\infty \ ds.$$ After an application of Gronwall’s inequality, it follows that $f_1 \equiv f_2$ and solutions are unique.
From the proof of this theorem and the previous lemmas, additional classical regularity of solutions can be obtained by imposing that further spatial derivatives of the initial data $f^0$, $E_2^0$, and $B^0$ belong to $L^2(\bfR^3)$.
[^1]: Department of Mathematical Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003, ([[email protected]]{}).
[^2]: Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado 80401 ([[email protected]]{}).
[^3]: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under the awards DMS-0908413 and DMS-1211667.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Primordial magnetic fields (PMFs) can source gravitational wave background (GWB). In this paper, we investigate the possible constraints on small-scale PMF considering the ongoing and forthcoming direct detection observations of GWB. In contrast to the conventional cosmological probes, e.g., cosmic microwave background anisotropies, which are useful to investigate large-scale PMFs ($>1~{\rm Mpc}$), the direct detection experiments of GWB can explore small-scale PMFs whose scales correspond to the observed frequencies of GWB. We show that future ground-based or space-based interferometric gravitational wave detectors give a strong constraint of about $10^{2}~{\rm nG}$ on much smaller scales of about $k\approx 10^{12}~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. We also demonstrate that pulsar timing arrays have a potential to strongly constrain PMFs. The current limits on GWB from pulsar timing arrays can put the tight constraint on the amplitude of the PMFs of about $30~{\rm nG}$ whose coherent length is of about $k\approx 10^{6}~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. The future experiments for the direct detection of GWB by the Square Kilometre Array could give much tighter constraints on the amplitude of PMFs about $5~{\rm nG}$ on $k\approx 10^{6}~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, on which scales, it is difficult to reach by using the cosmological observations.'
author:
- Shohei Saga
- Hiroyuki Tashiro
- Shuichiro Yokoyama
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Limits on primordial magnetic fields from direct detection experiments of gravitational wave background
---
Introduction
============
Recent direct detections of gravitational waves (GWs) from black hole binary mergers and colliding neutron stars by LIGO/VIRGO collaboration announce the coming of a new gravitational wave astronomy era [@Abbott:2016blz; @Abbott:2016nmj; @Abbott:2017vtc; @Abbott:2017oio; @TheLIGOScientific:2017qsa; @Abbott:2017gyy]. Obviously, GWs from such astrophysical objects give us valuable information about gravity in the strong field regime. On the other hand, GWs from weak and unresolved sources constitute stochastic gravitational wave background (GWB). Although GWB still has not been detected, various experiments provide the upper limits on GWB in a wide range of frequencies [@Arzoumanian:2015liz; @Lentati:2015qwp; @vanHaasteren:2011ni; @Shannon:2013wma; @TheLIGOScientific:2016dpb; @2016PhLB..760..823P]. There are many possible GWB source candidates proposed so far in both the standard cosmology and beyond. Moreover, the evolution of GWB is sensitive to the expansion history of the Universe. Therefore, the constraint on GWB is useful to reveal the physics of the early Universe, particularly, inflation models and the thermal history of the Universe (e.g., review by Refs. [@Maggiore:1999vm; @Romano:2016dpx]).
In the cosmological context, one of the important sources of GWB is the anisotropic stress of an energy component of the Universe. Based on the cosmological perturbation theory in the linear regime, any perturbations of the metric and the stress-energy tensor can be decomposed into the scalar, vector, and tensor modes. In the linear regime, they are decoupled in the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) universe. Since the tensor mode of the anisotropic stress does not arise in the standard cosmology, there is no GWB source after inflation. However, in the nonlinear regime, these modes are coupled with each other, and hence the GWs (corresponding to the tensor modes) can be sourced from the anisotropic stress by the second-order terms of the scalar and vector modes [@Mollerach:2003nq; @Ananda:2006af; @Assadullahi:2009jc; @Baumann:2007zm; @Saga:2014jca]. Therefore, from the limit on the GWB, we can obtain the constraint on the nature of the first-order scalar or vector modes. For example, the current limits on the GWB by pulsar timing arrays (PTAs) put a constraint on the amplitude of the primordial density fluctuations at small scales, and they impose a tight restriction on inflationary scenarios which could produce a number of solar mass primordial black holes [@Saito:2008jc; @Nakama:2016gzw; @Inomata:2016rbd; @Ando:2017veq].
If primordial magnetic fields (PMFs) exist in the expanding Universe, PMFs have an anisotropic stress, in particular, the tensor mode of the anisotropic stress, which can generate GWB. The GWB generated from PMFs can affect the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature and polarization anisotropies at large scales [@Durrer:1999bk; @Mack:2001gc; @Lewis:2004ef; @Paoletti:2008ck; @2010PhRvD..81d3517S]. Therefore, recent CMB observations at large scales provide the upper limit on PMFs, which is in the order of nano-Gauss at Mpc scales. PMFs can also affect CMB anisotropies directly through the magneto-hydro dynamics effects [@2011arXiv1108.2517J; @2013JCAP...10..050J]. In particular, the stringent upper limit has been recently provided by Ref. [@Jedamzik:2018itu]. Using the numerical MHD simulations, they constrain pico-Gauss magnetic fields on Mpc scales through the effect of PMFs on the recombination process.
In addition, the energy density or anisotropic stress of PMFs contribute to the primordial fluctuations as an isocurvature mode called a compensated magnetic mode [@Shaw:2010ea; @2010PhRvD..81d3517S; @Zucca:2016iur]. The effect of the compensated mode on the large-scale structure, i.e., matter power spectrum, appears at small scales. From the observation of the large-scale structure of the Universe, we can obtain the similar limit on PMFs as the upper bound from CMB anisotropies.
Cosmological observations can constrain PMFs on typically Mpc scales. Since observations of small-scale PMFs can provide valuable information for exploring the origin of cosmological magnetic fields, many authors have conducted studies on the upper bound of PMFs at smaller scales than Mpc with various types of observations. The constraint on the spectral distortion of CMB photons can give a limit on PMFs of several tens nano-Gauss at ${\rm kpc}$ scales due to the energy injection of decaying PMFs during the early stage of the Universe [@Jedamzik:1999bm; @Kunze:2013uja]. The success of the big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) can also provide the constraint on the total energy of PMFs [@2012PhRvD..86f3003K]. This constraint does not depend on the scale of PMFs. The entropy production due to the energy dissipation of PMFs in the early Universe can also give the limit on the PMFs at small scales, i.e., $k\gtrsim 10^{4}\; {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ [@Saga:2017wwr]. Note that before the recombination epoch, the nonlinear effect inevitably produces second-order magnetic fields as $10^{-24}$ Gauss in the standard cosmology, and therefore this value can be read as a “theoretical” lower bound on PMFs [@Ichiki:2006cd; @2011MNRAS.414.2354F; @Saga:2015bna; @Fidler:2015kkt].
In this paper, we investigate the limits on the PMFs obtained from the direct observations of GWB, for example, at pulsar timing arrays, (e.g., NANOGrav [@Arzoumanian:2015liz], European PTA [@vanHaasteren:2011ni; @Lentati:2015qwp], and Parkes PTA [@Shannon:2013wma]), at space-based GW observatories, (e.g., LISA [@AmaroSeoane:2012km]), and at ground-based GW observatories (e.g., LIGO [@TheLIGOScientific:2016dpb]). Although there is no report of the direct detection of GWB, nondetection of GWB even in the current status of the observations allows us to obtain a stringent constraint on the PMFs. Since the direct measurements of GWB are sensitive to very high frequency GWB, in other words, very small scales, these observations also give constraints on the PMFs with smaller scales, compared to the CMB measurement.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we briefly review the GWB sourced by the anisotropic stress of the PMFs. In Sec. \[sec: result\], we present our main results and discussion. First, we assume that the spectrum of PMFs is a delta-function type power spectrum, whose amplitude and characteristic scale are tightly constrained. Next, we also explore the power-law type power spectrum, whose origin is assumed to be a cosmological phase transition. In both cases, the direct observation of GWB can tightly constrain the amplitude of PMFs. Finally, in Sec. \[sec: summary\], we summarize this paper.
Gravitational waves sourced from primordial magnetic fields
===========================================================
In this section, we give the power spectrum of GWB sourced from PMFs, based on Refs. [@Caprini:2001nb; @2010PhRvD..81d3517S]. If the PMFs are generated in the early Universe, they must induce an anisotropic stress in the energy-momentum tensor, which would be a source of the gravitational waves on both super- and sub-horizon scales. By following Ref. [@2010PhRvD..81d3517S], the spatial $(i,j)$ components of the energy-momentum tensor for PMFs can be written in terms of background pressure of photons ($\bar{p}_{\gamma}$), the density perturbation ($\Delta_{B}$), and anisotropic stress of PMFs ($\pi^{B}_{ij}$) as $$\begin{aligned}
T^{i}{}_{j}(\eta, \bm{x}) &=& \frac{1}{4\pi a^{4}(\eta)}
\left( \frac{1}{2}B^{2}(\bm{x})\delta^{i}{}_{j} - B^{i}(\bm{x}) B_{j}(\bm{x})\right) ~, \\
&\equiv & \bar{p}_{\gamma}(\eta)\left( \Delta^{B}(\bm{x}) \delta^{i}{}_{j} + \pi^{B\,i}{}_{j} (\bm{x})\right) ~, \label{eq: def Pi}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ and $a(\eta)$ are the conformal time and scale factor, respectively. Moreover, $\bm{B}(\bm{x})$ is the comoving magnetic fields, i.e., $\bm{B}(\bm{x}) \equiv \bm{B}(\eta, \bm{x})/a^{2}$, where a factor $1/a^2$ comes from the adiabatic decay due to the cosmic expansion.
Here we focus on the GWs and the perturbed metric around the FLRW universe can be taken as $${\rm d}s^{2} = a^{2}(\eta)\left[ - {\rm d}\eta^{2} + (\delta_{ij} + 2h_{ij}) {\rm d}x^{i} {\rm d}x^{j}\right] ~,$$ where $h_{ij}$ is a transverse and traceless tensor perturbation. From the Einstein equation with the energy momentum tensor given by Eq. (\[eq: def Pi\]), the evolution equation for the Fourier component of $h_{ij}$ is given by $${h}_{ij}''(\eta, \bm{k}) + \frac{2}{\eta}{h}_{ij}'(\eta, \bm{k}) + k^{2} h_{ij}(\eta, \bm{k}) = \frac{1}{\eta^2} R_{\gamma} \pi^{B}_{ij}(\bm{k}) ~, \label{eq: hij}$$ in the radiation-dominated era. Here, a prime denotes the derivative with respect to the conformal time and $R_{\gamma} \equiv \bar{\rho}_{\gamma}/\bar{\rho}_{\rm r}$, where $\bar{\rho}_{\gamma}$ and $\bar{\rho}_{\rm r}$ are respectively the energy densities of the photons and total radiation components. The solution of Eq. (\[eq: hij\]) can be written as $$h_{ij}(\eta, \bm{k}) = h_{\rm T}(\eta, k)R_{\gamma} \pi^{B}_{ij}(\bm{k}) ~, \label{eq: h and pi}$$ where $h_{\rm T}$ is a transfer function of GWs given by $$h_{\rm T}(\eta, k) = -\frac{i}{2 k\eta}
\left[
e^{i k\eta} \left( {\rm Ei}(-i k\eta) - {\rm Ei}(-i k\eta_{\rm B}) \right)
- e^{-i k\eta} \left( {\rm Ei}(i k\eta) - {\rm Ei}(i k\eta_{\rm B}) \right)
\right] ~. \label{eq: transfer}$$ Here, ${\rm Ei}(x)$ is the exponential integral, and $\eta_{\rm B}$ denotes an initial time which can be considered to be a generation time of PMFs. For the inflationary magnetogenesis scenarios, we assume $\eta_{\rm B}$ to be the beginning of the radiation dominated era, that is, the reheating time.[^1] As an initial condition, we take $h_{ij}(\eta_{\rm B}) = 0$ and $h_{ij}'(\eta_{\rm B}) = 0$. We can find an approximate form of the above transfer function for the case with $k \eta_{\rm B} \ll 1$ as [@2010PhRvD..81d3517S] $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\rm T}(\eta, k) \approx \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\log \left( \frac{\eta}{\eta_{\rm B}} \right) + \frac{\eta_{\rm B}}{\eta} - 1 & ~ (k \eta \ll 1)~, \cr\cr
- \log (k \eta_{\rm B}) \, {\sin k\eta \over k\eta} & ~(k \eta \gg 1) ~.\\
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:approxtransfer}\end{aligned}$$ We show the temporal evolution of the transfer function in Fig. \[fig: evolve\]. The amplitude of GWB has a peak at the horizon crossing time, and after that, the amplitude decays as $h_{\rm T}(\eta,k) \propto \eta^{-1} \propto a^{-1}$ as shown in Eq. (\[eq:approxtransfer\]).
![The transfer function $h_{\rm T}(\eta, k)$ as a function of $\eta / \eta_{\rm B}$. []{data-label="fig: evolve"}](transfer){width="50.00000%"}
The power spectrum of GWs is defined as $$\Braket{h_{ij}(\eta, \bm{k})h^{*}_{ij}(\eta, \bm{k'})} = (2\pi)^{3}\delta^{3}_{\rm D}(\bm{k}-\bm{k'})P_{h}(\eta, k) ~.$$ The explicit form of the anisotropic stress of PMFs, $\pi^{B}_{ij}$, is given by $$\pi^{B}_{ij}(\bm{k}) = -\frac{3}{4\pi a^{4}\bar{\rho}_{\gamma}} \int{\frac{{\rm d}^{3}\bm{k}_{1}}{(2\pi)^{3}}}\; B_{i}(\bm{k}_{1}) B_{j}(\bm{k}-\bm{k}_{1}) ~.$$ Therefore, by using Eq. (\[eq: h and pi\]), we can evaluate the power spectrum of GWs sourced by PMFs as $$\begin{aligned}
P_{h}(\eta, k) & =&
h^{2}_{\rm T}(\eta, k) R^{2}_{\gamma}\frac{3}{64\pi^{2}\rho_{\gamma,0}^{2}}
\int\frac{{\rm d}^{3}\bm{k}_{1}}{(2\pi)^{3}}
\int\frac{{\rm d}^{3}\bm{k}_{2}}{(2\pi)^{3}}
(2\pi)^{3}\delta^{3}_{\rm D}(\bm{k} - \bm{k}_{1} - \bm{k}_{2})
\notag \\
&&\times
P_{B}(k_{1})P_{B}(k_{2})
\left( 1+ \left( \hat{\bm{k}}\cdot\hat{\bm{k}}_{1} \right)^{2} \right)
\left( 1+ \left( \hat{\bm{k}}\cdot\hat{\bm{k}}_{2} \right)^{2} \right) ~, \label{eq: power spectrum GW}\end{aligned}$$ where the hat means the unit vector and $P_B(k)$ is a power spectrum of the PMFs. Assuming that the PMFs are Gaussian and nonhelical, the power spectrum of the PMFs can be written as $$\Braket{B_{i}(\bm{k}) B^{*}_{j}(\bm{k'})} = \frac{(2\pi)^{3}}{2}\delta^{3}_{\rm D}(\bm{k}-\bm{k'}) \left( \delta_{ij} - \hat{k}_{i}\hat{k}_{j}\right)P_{B}(k) ~.$$ Finally, we can calculate the density parameter of GWB from PMFs with the power spectrum in Eq. (\[eq: power spectrum GW\]) by $$\Omega_{\rm GW}(\eta, k) = \frac{1}{12}\left( \frac{k}{aH}\right)^{2} \frac{k^{3}}{2\pi^{2}} P_{h}(\eta, k) ~.$$
Results and Discussions {#sec: result}
=======================
In this section, we discuss the upper bound of PMFs through the measurement in the direct detection experiments of GWB. For the simplicity of analysis, first the power spectrum of PMFs is assumed to be the delta-function type as $$P_{B}(\ln{k}) = \frac{2\pi^{2}}{k^{3}}\mathcal{B}^{2}\delta_{\rm D}\left( \ln{\left(k/k_{\rm p}\right)} \right) ~.
\label{eq: delta power}$$ For this delta-function type of PMFs, the energy density of GWB at the present time ($\eta =
\eta_{0}$) can be represented as $$\Omega_{\rm GW}(\eta_{0}, k) = \frac{R^{2}_{\gamma}}{512\pi^{2}} \left( \frac{\mathcal{B}^{2}}{\bar{\rho}_{\gamma,0}} \right)^{2}
\left( \frac{k}{H_{0}} \right)^{2} a^{2}_{\rm eq} h^{2}_{\rm T}(k,\eta_{\rm eq}) \left( \frac{k}{k_{\rm p}}\right)^{2} \left( 1 + \frac{k^{2}}{4k^{2}_{p}}\right)^{2} \Theta_{\rm H}\left( 1-\frac{k}{2k_{\rm p}} \right) ~, \label{eq: delta OmegaGW}$$ where $\Theta_{\rm H}(x)$ is the Heaviside step function and the subscript “eq” means the value at the epoch of matter-radiation equality. Since we are interested in GWB whose wavelengths are much smaller than the horizon scale at $\eta_{\rm eq}$, we simply adopt the adiabatic evolution after the epoch of matter-radiation equality in order to obtain Eq. . That is, the amplitude of GWB at the present epoch $\eta_0$, $h_{\rm T}(k,\eta_{0})$ can be given by $h_{\rm T}(k,\eta_{0})a_{0} = h_{\rm T}(k,\eta_{\rm
eq})a_{\rm eq}$.
Note that, in the above analysis, we assume that the anisotropic stress of neutrinos can be neglected. This assumption can be justified as follows. After the neutrino decoupling era, neutrinos start to stream freely, and the additional contribution appears in the rhs in Eq. (\[eq: hij\]) as the anisotropic stress of neutrinos. The neutrino anisotropic stress should be described as [@Weinberg:2003ur; @Watanabe:2006qe] $$R_{\nu}\pi^{\nu}_{ij}(\eta, k) = -24R_{\nu}\int^{\eta}_{\eta_{\nu}}{\rm d}\eta_{1}\; \frac{j_{2}\left( k(\eta - \eta_{1})\right)}{k^{2}(\eta -\eta_{1})^{2}} \dot{h}_{ij}(\eta, k) ~,$$ where $j_{2}(x)$ is a spherical Bessel function and $R_{\nu} = \bar{\rho}_{\nu}/\bar{\rho}_{\rm r}$. From the above expression, one can find that the effect of the neutrino anisotropic stress on the evolution of GWs would be negligible on subhorizon scales even after the neutrino decoupling ($k \eta \gg 1$, $\eta > \eta_\nu \approx 7.6\times 10^{-4}~ {\rm Mpc}$). The observations of PTAs, which are the current lowest frequency experiments for direct detection, can be sensitive to GWB with $k_{\rm PTA}\approx 5\times 10^{6}\; {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. Therefore, as long as we consider scales larger than the direct GW observations, e.g., PTAs and GW interferometers, we can safely neglect the effect of neutrino anisotropic stress.
Now we evaluate Eq. numerically. Before we move on, it is helpful to remove the oscillation part from the transfer function of Eq. (\[eq: transfer\]) for numerical evaluation. Therefore, we approximate Eq. (\[eq: transfer\]) to $$h^{2}_{\rm T}(\eta_{\rm eq},k) \approx
\frac{ \left( {\rm Ci}(k\eta_{\rm eq})-{\rm Ci}(k\eta_{B}) \right)^{2} + \left( {\rm Si}(k\eta_{\rm eq})-{\rm Si}(k\eta_{B}) \right)^{2} }{(k\eta_{\rm eq})^{2}} ~, \label{eq: shape}$$ where ${\rm Ci}(x)$ and ${\rm Si}(x)$ are the cosine-integral and sine-integral, respectively. This approximation is valid only for $\eta^{-1}_{\nu} \lesssim k$. In the case of the direct detection of GWB, the condition, $\eta^{-1}_{\nu} \lesssim k$, is well satisfied as we have mentioned.
Plugging Eq. into Eq. , we calculate the energy density of GWB at the present time. Figure \[fig: spectrum\] represents the results, $\Omega_{\rm GW}$, as a function of $k$. Here we set ${\cal B}=1~$nG. In Fig. \[fig: spectrum\], we also show the dependence on $k_{\rm p} \eta_{B}$, taking different $k_{\rm p} \eta_{B}$ from $0.001$ to $100$. In this figure, although we set $\eta_B/\eta_{\nu} = 10^{-12}$, we confirm that the spectra are insensitive to the choice of $\eta_{B}$.
![The spectrum of GWB induced by the anisotropic stress of PMFs at the present time for various $k_{\rm p}$. In this figure, we set $\mathcal{B} = 1\; {\rm nG}$. The amplitude of GWB is scaled proportional to $\mathcal{B}^{4}$. We also show the scale-invariant case defined in Eq. (\[eq: scale-inv\]) with the solid black line. []{data-label="fig: spectrum"}](spectrum){width="50.00000%"}
As can be seen in this figure, the induced GWB has a peak at $k = k_{\rm p}$ and the peak amplitude of GWB is almost saturated for $k_{\rm p} \eta_{\rm B} \ll 1$. This is because the amplitude of GWB at $k = k_{\rm p}$ depends on $k_{\rm p}\eta_B$ logarithmically for the case with $k \eta_{\rm B} \ll 1$, as shown in Eq. . On the other hand, the amplitude of generated GWB is strongly suppressed on $k_{\rm p}\eta_{B} \gg 1$. For this reason, in the case of relatively higher frequency experiments such as LIGO where the observed frequency, $k_{\rm obs}$, can become larger than $1/\eta_{\rm B}$, the constraints would strongly depend on the generation time, $\eta_{\rm B}$. Note that a causal generation can produce only magnetic fields whose scale is less than the horizon scale at the generation epoch. However, causal magnetic fields can have the power even on superhorizon scales in the Fourier space because causal magnetic fields have the tail of the blue power spectrum on scales larger than the horizon scale (see Ref. [@Durrer:2003ja]). Therefore, considering the above power spectrum (\[eq: delta power\]) allow us to obtain the constraint on the small-$k$ tail part of causal magnetic fields.
Here, we consider three types of observations, i.e., PTAs, space-based GW observatories, and ground-based GW observatories. First, PTAs can be sensitive to GWB with $k_{\rm PTA}\approx 5\times 10^{6}\; {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, e.g., [@1979ApJ...234.1100D; @Hellings:1983fr]. We refer to the results for the current running PTAs as NANOGrav [@Arzoumanian:2015liz], European PTA [@vanHaasteren:2011ni; @Lentati:2015qwp], and Parkes PTA [@Shannon:2013wma], and future PTA project as Square Kilometre Array (SKA) [@Janssen:2014dka]. Second, for a space-based GW observatory we consider LISA which is planned now. In the current design of LISA, it is expected that GWB could be strongly constrained [@AmaroSeoane:2012km]. Third, as the upper bound for a ground-based GW observatory, we adopt the recent report by LIGO [@TheLIGOScientific:2016dpb]. We summarize these (expected) upper bounds in Table. \[tab: observations\] with the most sensitive wave numbers and corresponding upper limits.
wave number $k$ \[${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$\] Upper limit on $\Omega_{\rm GW}h^{2}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Current PTAs [@vanHaasteren:2011ni; @Lentati:2015qwp; @Shannon:2013wma; @Arzoumanian:2015liz] $\approx 5\times 10^{6}$ $\lesssim10^{-9}$
LIGO [@TheLIGOScientific:2016dpb] $\approx 10^{17}$ $\lesssim10^{-7}$
SKA [@Janssen:2014dka] $\approx 5\times 10^{6}$ $\lesssim10^{-13}$
LISA [@AmaroSeoane:2012km] $\approx 10^{12}$ $\lesssim10^{-9}$
: Summary of the observations we assumed. Current PTA and LIGO bounds are obtained from the observed results but SKA and LISA are expected upper bounds in the future.[]{data-label="tab: observations"}
We summarize our constraints in Fig. \[fig: limit\]. The upper bounds estimated from the direct detection experiments of GWB are expressed in solid lines. The thickness of lines corresponds to the range of the PMF generation epoch and we take it to be $10^{-17} \leq \eta_{B}/\eta_{\nu} \leq 10^{-12}$. The bottom lines correspond to the upper bound for the case with $\eta_{B}/\eta_{\nu} = 10^{-17}$. As we have mentioned, for the experiments with relatively higher frequency bands such as LIGO, the amplitude of generating GWB strongly depends on the PMF generation epoch, $\eta_B$, and hence the solid line for LIGO seems to be thicker. As a result, current PTAs and LIGO give $\mathcal{B} \lesssim 40~{\rm nG}$ for $k \approx 10^6~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ and $\mathcal{B} \lesssim 300~{\rm nG}$ for $k \approx 10^{17}~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ (for $\eta_B / \eta_\nu = 10^{-17}$), respectively. LISA is expected to give $\mathcal{B} \lesssim 50~{\rm nG}$ for $k
\approx 10^{12}~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. The PTA by SKA will give a tight constraint on the amplitude of PMFs as $\mathcal{B} \lesssim 4~{\rm nG}$ for $k \approx 10^{6}~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.
![ Upper bounds on the amplitude of PMFs obtained from direct detection measurements of GWB; current PTAs (black shaded), SKA PTA (gray shaded), LISA (green shaded), and LIGO (cyan shaded). We also show the previous studies: magnetic reheating (red) [@Saga:2017wwr], BBN (blue) [@2012PhRvD..86f3003K] and CMB distortion (magenta) [@Jedamzik:1999bm]. Upper bounds from the direct detection measurements of GWB are shown by the shaded regions which come from the generation epoch of PMFs within $10^{-17} \leq \eta_{B}/\eta_{\nu} \leq 10^{-12}$. []{data-label="fig: limit"}](limit_data){width="50.00000%"}
So far we have considered the delta-function type of the PMF power spectrum to make it easy to understand the correspondence between the scale of PMFs and the frequency of induced GWB. Let us consider the PMFs with the power-law spectrum as a more general case. First, we consider the scale-invariant spectrum whose form is assumed to be $$P_{B}(k) = \frac{2\pi^{2}}{k^{3}} \mathcal{B}^{2}\times
\begin{cases}
\ln{\left( k_{\rm max}/k_{\rm min}\right)}^{-1} & k_{\rm min}\leq k\leq k_{\rm max}\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}~,
\label{eq: scale-inv}$$ where we introduce IR and UV cutoffs with $k_{\rm min} = \eta^{-1}_{\nu}$ and $k_{\rm max}\eta_{B} =
10^{8}$. Note that we have confirmed that the result does not depend on the choice of these cutoff scales. In Fig. \[fig: spectrum\], we plot $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ due to the scale-invariant spectrum as a solid black line. As seen in the case of the delta-function type, the scale dependence of the energy density of induced GWB becomes weaker at larger scales than the horizon scale at the generation epoch. For the scale-invariant case where the power spectrum is assumed to be Eq. , the current PTAs give an upper bound as $\mathcal{B} \lesssim 2.5 \times 10^{2}\; {\rm nG}$.
Finally, we briefly mention the case where the PMFs are causally generated [@Durrer:2003ja] and generated PMFs have a blue-tilted power spectrum assumed to be [@Ade:2015cva] $$P_{B}(k) = \frac{2\pi^{2}}{k^{3}}
\frac{2 (2\pi)^{n_{B}+3} B^{2}_{\lambda}}{\Gamma\left( \frac{n_{B}+3}{2}\right)}
\left( \frac{k}{k_{\lambda}} \right)^{n_{B}+3} \Theta_{\rm H}( k_{\rm c} - k) ~,$$ where we introduce the Heaviside step function $\Theta_{\rm H}(x)$ which means that the amplitude of PMFs is identical to zero at smaller scales than the cutoff scale $k_{\rm c}$. Here $B_{\lambda}$ is the amplitude of PMFs by smoothing over comoving scale of $\lambda$ and $k_{\lambda} \equiv 2\pi/\lambda$. For such blue-tilted PMFs, the spectrum of the energy density of GWB is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\rm GW}(k,\eta_{0})
&=&
\frac{R^{2}_{\gamma}}{512\pi^{2}}
\left( \frac{2 (2\pi)^{n_{B}+3}}{\Gamma\left( \frac{n_{B}+3}{2}\right)} \right)^{2}
\left( \frac{B_{\lambda}^{2}}{\rho_{\gamma,0}} \right)^{2}
\left( \frac{k}{H_{0}}\right)^{2} h^{2}_{\rm T}(k,\eta_{0})
\left(\frac{k}{k_{\lambda}}\right)^{2}
\int^{\infty}_{0} \frac{{\rm d}k_{1}}{k_{1}}\;
\left( \frac{k_{1}}{k_{\lambda}}\right)^{n_{B}+2}
\Theta_{\rm H}(k_{\rm c}-k_{1})
\notag \\
&&\times
\int^{k+k_{1}}_{|k-k_{1}|} \frac{{\rm d}k_{2}}{k_{2}}\;
\left( \frac{k_{2}}{k_{\lambda}}\right)^{n_{B}+2}
\Theta_{\rm H}(k_{\rm c} - k_{2})
\left( 1+ \left( \hat{\bm{k}}\cdot\hat{\bm{k}}_{1} \right)^{2} \right)
\left( 1+ \left( \hat{\bm{k}}\cdot\hat{\bm{k}}_{2} \right)^{2} \right) ~.\end{aligned}$$ If we assume $k/k_{1} \ll1$ and $2n_{B}+3 > 0$, we can perform the integrations in terms of $k_{2}$ and $k_{1}$ and obtain an approximate expression as $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\rm GW}(k,\eta_{0})
&\approx&
\frac{R^{2}_{\gamma}}{64\pi^{2}}
\frac{(2\pi)^{2n_{B}+6}}{\left[ \Gamma\left( \frac{n_{B}+3}{2}\right) \right]^{2}}
\frac{1}{2n_{B}+3} \left( \frac{k_{\rm c}}{k_{\lambda}}\right)^{2n_{B}+3}
\left( \frac{B_{\lambda}^{2}}{\rho_{\gamma,0}} \right)^{2}
\left( \frac{k}{H_{0}}\right)^{2}
\left(\frac{k}{k_{\lambda}}\right)^{3}
h^{2}_{\rm T}(k,\eta_{0}) ~~~ \mbox{(for $k<k_{\rm c}$)}~,\end{aligned}$$ From the above approximate expression, one can find that the scale dependence of $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ is independent of the spectral index of PMFs $n_{B}$, i.e., proportional to $k^{2}h^{2}_{\rm T}(k,\eta_{0})$, while the amplitude of $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ depends on it [@Durrer:1999bk; @Caprini:2001nb]. As an example, let us assume the PMFs generated at the electroweak phase transition where $\eta_{B}$ is taken to be equal to $\eta_{\rm EW} \sim 10^{-6} \eta_\nu$ and the spectral index of PMFs is expected to be $n_{B} = 2$ [@Durrer:2003ja]. For such a case, the cutoff scale is assigned to the horizon-scale of the electro-weak transition, i.e. $k_{\rm c} = \eta^{-1}_{\rm EW}$. Therefore, since the observed frequency band of LIGO is much larger than the cut-off scale in the spectrum of PMFs, $k_{\rm c}$, the PTA observations can put a strong constraint on the amplitude of PMFs.
The current PTA observations put the constraint on the amplitude of PMFs as $B_{1\,{\rm Mpc}} \lesssim 1.9\times 10^{-18}\; {\rm nG}$. This constraint is comparable to that obtained from the nucleosynthesis bound on GWB [@Caprini:2001nb]. The future PTA observation by SKA is expected to constrain the amplitude of PMFs about $B_{1\,{\rm Mpc}} \lesssim 1.0\times 10^{-19}\; {\rm nG}$. The expected constraint by the future LISA experiments has been investigated in [@Caprini:2001nb; @Caprini:2009yp]. In the above analysis, we focus on PMFs generated in the cosmological phase transition. However, Ref. [@Anand:2018mgf] discusses the upper bound of GWB due to turbulence in the chiral plasma sourced by PMFs. Even in this specific model, GWB induced from PMFs can be also strongly constrained by the PTA. In particular, the future PTA observation such as SKA should be a good probe to explore various models of the PMF generation.
Summary {#sec: summary}
=======
Under the presence of primordial magnetic fields (PMFs), the tensor mode in the anisotropic stress of PMFs can generate gravitational wave background (GWB). Although the PMFs at large scales are well constrained by the cosmological probes such as the CMB anisotropies, small-scale PMFs are less done. In this paper, we establish the upper limit on the PMFs through various experiments on the direct detections of GWB. The sensible scales for the direct detection of GWB are widely broadened from $k \approx 10^{6} \sim 10^{17} \; {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, and therefore the limit on PMFs at similar scales can be obtained. In this sense, the direct detection of GWB is one of the keys to explore the signature at small scales.
The nature of PMFs can be described by the primordial power spectrum of PMFs in which the generation mechanism would be imprinted. First, we assume the delta-function type power spectrum with two PMF parameters, its amplitude and the scale of the peak position. We find that the PTA can strongly constrain the amplitude of PMFs on scales $k\approx 10^{6}\sim10^{9}\; {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. In particular, the future observations of PTAs such as the Square Kilometre Array has a potential to put a limit on PMFs at about $5\;{\rm nG}$ at $k\approx 10^{6} \; {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, which we cannot access by using the conventional cosmological observations. We should note that, although the magnetic reheating or BBN can also constrain similar scales, those upper bounds are weaker than that from the PTAs. We also study the case of the power-law type power spectrum, especially the scale-invariant power spectrum. Even in this case, the direct observations by PTAs such as SKA are also better probes for putting an upper limit on the amplitude of PMFs. In particular, the current PTAs give an upper bound as $2.5\times 10^{2} \; {\rm nG}$. Finally, when the origin of the PMFs is assigned to the cosmological phase transitions, the spectrum of PMFs can be described as a power-law type power spectrum with a blue power tilt. Considering the causal PMF generation, the tilt of the power spectrum of PMFs can be set as $n_{B} = 2$. In this case, the amplitude of PMFs with smoothing over a comoving scale of $\lambda = 1\; {\rm Mpc}$ is bounded at about $10^{-18}\; {\rm nG}$ from current PTA observations. This upper limit will be comparable to the limit from future experiments such as LISA, except for the constrained scales. Moreover, future PTA observations such as SKA can put a stronger constraint on the PMFs of $10^{-19}\; {\rm nG}$.
We can conclude that, in either case, the direct observations of GWB from PTAs work well in order to constrain PMFs. In particular, SKA would be a promising probe for accessing the small-scale PMFs that cosmological observations cannot reach. Note that throughout this paper, we focus only on nonhelical PMFs. However, if we add the helical components of PMFs, the helical GWB emerges, and moreover, nonhelical GWB is also amplified by the helical PMFs [@Durrer:1999bk]. These objects will be presented in a future work.
This work is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) Research Fellow Number 17J10553 (S.S.), JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15K17646 (H.T.), 17H01110 (H.T.) and 15K17659 (S.Y.), and MEXT KAKENHI Grant Number 18H04356 (S.Y.).
[^1]: This assumption neglects the amplification during inflation, which might be strongly model dependent. In that sense, our result shows the conservative upper bounds on PMFs.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study integral ratios of hook products of quotient partitions. This question is motivated by an analogous question in number theory concerning integral factorial ratios. We prove an analogue of a theorem of Landau that already applied in the factorial case. Under the additional condition that the ratio has one more factor on the denominator than the numerator, we provide a complete classification. Ultimately this relies on Kneser’s theorem in additive combinatorics.'
address: 'D-MATH, ETH Zürich, 101 Rämistrasse, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland'
author:
- 'Paul-Olivier Dehaye'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Integrality of hook ratios
---
Introduction
============
Questions
---------
This paper starts with the following (unsolved) question, a classic in number theory:
For which vectors of positive integers $(\gamma_k:1 \le k \le K)$ and $(\delta_l:1 \le l \le L)$ is $$\label{eqn.alt}
v(n;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta}) := \frac{\prod_{k=0}^K {{\left\lfloor {\displaystyle\frac{n}{\gamma_k}} \right\rfloor}}!}{\prod_{l=0}^L{{\left\lfloor {\displaystyle\frac{ n}{\delta_l}} \right\rfloor}}!}$$ an integer for all integers $n$? \[q.alt\]
From now on, we assume $k$ runs between 1 and $K$ and $l$ between 1 and $L$. We call $L-K$ the *height*. Some easy reductions are immediately in order. We will require $\gamma_k \ne \delta_l$ for all $k$ and $l$. We also assume a *balancing* condition: $\sum_k \frac{1}{\gamma_k} = \sum_l \frac{1}{\delta_l}$. This ensures the growth of $v(n;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta})$ is exponential rather than factorial in $n$. Historically, a closely related question is studied more often:
\[q.original\] For which vectors of positive integers $(\alpha_k : 1 \le k \le K)$ and $(\beta_l: 1 \le l \le L)$ is $$\label{eqn.original}
u(n;\vec{\alpha},\vec{\beta}) := \frac{\prod_{k=1}^K (\alpha_k n)!}{\prod_{l=1}^L(\beta_l n)!}$$ an integer for all integers $n$?
We will use footnotes to provide information in the context of Question \[q.original\], but these can be ignored for understanding our results[^1]: they are only there to provide links with existing literature.
Our main goal is to study a generalization of Question \[q.alt\], replacing $n$ with a partition.
Consider a partition $\lambda$, or rather its Young diagram. Let ${{\mathcal{H}}_{}\!\left(\lambda\right)}$ be the multiset of values of its hooks, and ${{{H}}_{}\!\left(\lambda\right)}$ the product of these values, sometimes called the hook product (see Section \[sec.def\] for definitions).
Let $${{\mathcal{H}}_{r}\!\left(\lambda\right)} := \left\{ \frac{h}{r}: h \in {{\mathcal{H}}_{}\!\left(\lambda\right)}| h \!\!\mod r = 0\right\},$$ (with repetitions) and similarly (with repetitions) ${{{H}}_{r}\!\left(\lambda\right)}$ the product of these values. We also set ${{h}_{r}\!\left(\lambda\right)}$ to be the cardinality of ${{\mathcal{H}}_{r}\!\left(\lambda\right)}$. We see that ${{\mathcal{H}}_{}\!\left(\lambda\right)} = {{\mathcal{H}}_{1}\!\left(\lambda\right)}$ and ${{{H}}_{}\!\left(\lambda\right)} = {{{H}}_{1}\!\left(\lambda\right)}$.
We will now use the notation ${\mathbf{n}}$ for the partition $(n)$. To generalize Question \[q.alt\], it is crucial to observe that ${{\mathcal{H}}_{r}\!\left({\mathbf{n}}\right)} = \left\{1,\cdots,\lfloor n/r\rfloor\right\}$, so ${{{H}}_{r}\!\left({\mathbf{n}}\right)} = \lfloor n/r \rfloor! $. In other words, if the partition is one-rowed, its hook product is a factorial that appears in Question \[q.alt\] (and similarly if it has only one column, of course). This suggests the following generalization, which will be primarily considered in this paper.
\[q.hook\] For which vectors of positive integers $\vec{\gamma} = (\gamma_k)$ and $\vec{\delta} = (\delta_l)$ is $$v(\lambda;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta}) := \frac{\prod_k{{{H}}_{\gamma_k}\!\left(\lambda\right)}}{\prod_l{{{H}}_{\delta_l}\!\left(\lambda\right)}}$$ an integer for all partitions $\lambda$?
It is immediately clear that the condition required by Question \[q.hook\] is stronger[^2] than the condition of Question \[q.alt\], since the latter corresponds to $\lambda = \mathbf{n}$ (*i.e.* one-rowed).
This accounts for some of the motivation of Question \[q.hook\]: Question \[q.alt\] admits only a partial answer at the moment, and one could thus hope that additional conditions the pairs $(\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta})$ need to satisfy will slim the set to classify to a more manageable structure.
Motivation
----------
There is additional motivation for this new question, coming from both number theory and the representation theory of symmetric groups.
### Motivation in number theory
The problem posed originally by Question \[q.alt\] is connected to very deep questions in number theory, via the following functions: $$f(x) = f(x;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta}) := \sum_{k=1}^K{{\left\lfloor {\frac{x}{\gamma_k}} \right\rfloor}} -\sum_{l=1}^L{{\left\lfloor {\frac{x}{\delta_l}} \right\rfloor}}.
\label{eqn.function}$$
The bridge between $f(x;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta}) $ and $v(n;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta})$ was uncovered by Landau.
The ratio is integral for all $n$ if and only if the function is nonnegative for all real positive $x$.
Under the balancing condition, the function $f$ is easily seen to be periodic, of period dividing $M(\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta}) := \operatorname{lcm}(\gamma_1,\cdots,\gamma_K,\delta_1,\cdots,\delta_L )$. We will present additional properties[^3] of $f$ in the course of the proof of Theorem \[thm.height1hook\], in Section \[sec.height1hook\].
The importance of functions of type comes from the Beurling-Nyman criterion for the Riemann Hypothesis. This asserts that the Riemann zeta function $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros in the half-plane $\sigma > \frac{p-1}{p}$ if and only if for any $\epsilon >0$ there exists a function $\tilde{f}(x) = \sum_{n=1}^N c_n {{\left\lfloor {\alpha_n x} \right\rfloor}}
$ (with $\sum c_n \alpha_n =0$ and $0 \le \alpha_n \le 1$ for all $n$) such that $$\left(\int_{1}^\infty \left|\frac{1-\tilde{f}(x)}{x}\right|^p {\mathrm{d}}x\right)^{1/p} < \epsilon.$$ In other words, the Riemann Hypothesis is true if and only if linear combinations of similar to can successfully approximate the constant function 1 in the $L^2$-norm ($p=2$ gives $\frac{p-1}{p} = \frac12$).
An example of $\vec{\delta}$ and $\vec{\gamma}$ would be $(30,1)$ and $(2,3,5)$, which lead to the always-integral factorial ratio $$\begin{aligned}
v(n;(30,1),(2,3,5)) = \frac{{{\left\lfloor {\frac{n}{30}} \right\rfloor}}!\,\,\,n!}{{{\left\lfloor {\frac{n}{2}} \right\rfloor}}!{{\left\lfloor {\frac{n}{3}} \right\rfloor}}!{{\left\lfloor {\frac{n}{5}} \right\rfloor}}!},
\label{eqn.Chratio}\end{aligned}$$ thereby providing a positive example for Question \[q.alt\][^4]. Chebyshev used this ratio to prove the bound $$0.92 \frac{x}{\log x} \le \pi(x) \le 1.11 \frac{x}{\log x}$$ on the prime counting function, after careful analysis of the valuation of at all primes, which he knew was positive. Later, Diamond and Erdös [@DE] showed that one can use similar techniques to improve the constant in both of those bounds. It turns out that these improvements lead all the way to values of 1 for both constants, but proving this requires the Prime Number Theorem (which is of course equivalent to $\pi(x) \sim \frac{x}{\log x}$).
Historically, integrality information for ratios such as has been used to deliver elementary proofs of several statements in number theory. It is our hope that generalizations such as Question \[q.hook\] will eventually lead to more powerful techniques, exploiting the fact that partitions extend in 2 dimensions (this would give “more room” to construct interesting ratios).
The paper [@MR1784410] was partly motivated by similar questions: random matrix theory/number theory conjectures (the so-called Keating-Snaith conjectures) had previously led to some unexpectedly-integral “bi-factorial ratios”, *i.e.* ratios of products of factorials at consecutive integers $\prod_{i=a}^b i$!. The authors studied these ratios in details in that paper, and their valuations at primes displayed intriguing fractal-like patterns. In the current paper, we are still interested in integer ratios, but considering a different construction.
In the context of using these integral hook ratios for number theory proofs, it is worth noting that an important component in the elementary proofs is the analytic continuation for $n!$ afforded by the $\Gamma$ function and the asymptotics given by the Stirling formula. Similarly, there exists an extensive theory of hook products, substituting for a discrete product over boxes of the diagram an integral over the shape of the diagram. This can also be replaced by an integral against the outline of the diagram (its graph after rotation of the diagram into the Russian orientation, given by a piecewise linear function of slope either equal to $\pm 1$ or not defined) of the Barnes $G$-function. For partitions of large size, this outline can be approximated by a Lipshitz 1 function (see [@KerovBook] for explanations along those lines). This can then be used to derive asymptotics as well as various expansions for the $G$-function are known.
### Motivation in representation theory
In addition to potential applications in number theory, it is remarkable that the quantities investigated here appear in group theory as well. Given an $n$, recall that the theory of representations of $\mathcal{S}_n$ in characteristic 0 can be fully understood via the action of the group its Specht modules, which form a complete set of irreducible representations, are indexed by partitions of $n$, and actually realized over $\mathbb{Z}$.
One can also define them over a field $k$ of characteristic $p>0$, but things get more complicated as the Specht modules will no longer be simple. Instead, $k\mathcal{S}_n$ will decompose into a sum $\oplus_{i} B_i$ of two-sided ideals, called *$p$-blocks*. One can then decompose $1 = e_1+\cdots + e_r$ in this direct sum (each $e_i$ is central and idempotent). Given a Specht module $V^\lambda$ associated to the partition $\lambda$, we see that only one of the $V^\lambda \cdot e_i$ can be nontrivial. We say that $V^\lambda$ (and by extension the partition $\lambda$) *belongs* to the corresponding block.
Nakayama’s conjecture (now a theorem of Brauer and Robinson) says that two partitions belong to the same $p$-block iff they have the same $p$-cores, which are given by a combinatorial process described in Section \[sec.def\].
In addition, the $p$-valuation of hook products is related to conjectures on Sylow subgroups of symmetric groups. Assume $G$ is a finite group and let $M_i(p,G)$ denote the set of ordinary irreducible characters of $G$ of degree divisible by $p^i$ but not $p^{i+1}$, for $i$ a nonnegative integer. The integers $m_i(p,G) := |M_i(p,G)|$ are called the *McKay numbers of $G$ with respect to $p$*. McKay has conjectured for instance that $m_0(p,G) = m_0(p,N_G(H))$ if $H$ is a $p$-Sylow of $G$. This has been proved for symmetric groups by Olsson [@OlssonMcKay].
We remind the reader of the classical hook formula [@Sagan]. If $\chi^\lambda$ is the ordinary character of $\mathcal{S}_n$ (we have that $\lambda$ partitions $n$), its degree, will satisfy $
\deg \chi^\lambda = {n!}/{H(\lambda)}.
$ This quantity is also sometimes called the dimension of $\lambda$, and counts the number of standard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$.
We thus see that $m_i(p,\mathcal{S}_n)$ is concerned with divisibility by powers of $p$ of the hook product of $\lambda$ (this is perhaps most clearly expressed in the literature in [@Kane]). Question \[q.hook\] is similarly concerned with divisibility by $p$ (for all $p$) of ratios of hook products.
Results
-------
We will actually proceed as for the classification of integral factorial ratios. This requires proving an analogue of Landau’s theorem, with adaptations to our setting.
\[thm.landaugeneral\] Let $(\gamma_k)$ and $(\delta_l)$ be two vectors of integral parameters. Then, the following two statements are equivalent: $$\frac{\prod_k {{{H}}_{\gamma_k}\!\left(\lambda\right)}}{\prod_l {{{H}}_{\delta_l}\!\left(\lambda\right)}} \text{ is integral for any partition $\lambda$;}\label{eqn.ratios}$$ and $$\sum_k {{h}_{\gamma_k}\!\left(\mu\right)} - \sum_l {{h}_{\delta_l}\!\left(\mu\right)} \ge 0 \text{ for any partition $\mu$.}
\label{eqn.counts}$$
If we require both $\lambda $ and $\mu$ to be one-rowed partitions, these two weaker statements are still equivalent and that result is precisely Landau’s original theorem. This theorem will be used to give easy proofs that would be very intricate otherwise, such as for the following theorem.
\[thm.multinomial\] Let $s$ and $t$ be positive integers. Then, $$\frac{{{{H}}_{s}\!\left(\lambda\right)}}{\left( {{{H}}_{st}\!\left(\lambda\right)}\right)^t}$$ is an integer for all partitions $\lambda$.
This theorem, when restricted to one-rowed partitions, of course reduces to the integrality of balanced multinomial coefficients.
Despite this good start, we are unable to give a complete classification of integral hook ratios. It is worth observing that the classification of integral factorial ratios is also incomplete.
For factorial ratios, in the special case of height 1, additional information is available: Bober developed a complete classification in his thesis [@bober1]. We will present part of his work in Section \[sec.height1\]. The final result includes a relatively complex list of parameters, involving 3 infinite families and 52 sporadic cases (see Section \[sec.factorialheight1\]). In contrast, we present here the counterpart of this classification, but this time for hook ratios. The resulting list will reduce to essentially one case.
\[thm.height1hook\] Assume $\vec{\gamma} $ and $\vec{\delta}$ are such that $v(\lambda;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta})$ is integral for all $\lambda$, under the balancing condition that $\sum_k \frac{1}{\gamma_k} = \sum_l \frac{1}{\delta_l}$. Assume further that this hook ratio is of height 1, *i.e.* $L-K = 1$.
Then, we actually have $K=1$ and thus $L=2$, and $2\gamma_1 = \delta_1 = \delta_2$.
Definitions {#sec.def}
===========
A *partition* $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_d)$ is a weakly decreasing, finite sequence of positive integers, called its *parts*. The *size* of the partition $\lambda$, denoted $|\lambda|$, is the sum of its parts. We actually prefer to think of a partition in terms of its *Young diagram*. This allows to consider its *boxes*, and to define a *hook* based at the box $\square$ as the set of boxes exactly to the right, or exactly below $\square$, or $\square$ itself. This associates to each box an integer, the cardinality of the hook of that box, called the *hook length*. We give some illustrations in Figure \[fig.hooks\].
1
[@cc@c@]{} $\young({20}{19}{18}{17}{16}{15}{14}{12}{11}{10}987654321,8765431,654321)$ & $\young({10}98765,987654,876543,765432,654321)$ &
--------------------------------
$\young(65321,21)$
$\young(421,1)$ $\young(31,1)$
--------------------------------
Given a diagram $\lambda$, we can follow its *01-sequence* as the (bidirectional) sequence of steps taken when following the outline of the partition, starting at the bottom and ending to the right (see Figure \[fig.01\] for an example). A vertical step (up) is denoted by a 0, a horizontal step (right) by a 1. The 01-sequence $(x_i)$ of a partition, which is indexed by integers, is thus eventually 0 for negative $i$ and eventually 1 for positive $i$. We have only defined the sequence up to a shift so far, so we follow the additional convention that $|\{x_i =0: i \ge 0\}|= |\{x_i =1: i< 0\} |$. There is then a unique 01-sequence associated to each partition, and conversely this sequence determines the partition. We write $x(\lambda)$ for the 01-sequence of $\lambda$. Figure \[fig.sequence\] gives a particular example.
![The Young diagram of the partition $\lambda = (18,7,6)$ together with its 01-sequence $\cdots{\textcolor{blue}{0}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{blue}{1}}{{\textbf{\Large |}}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{blue}{1}}{\textcolor{red}{0}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{blue}{0}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{blue}{1}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{blue}{1}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{blue}{1}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{blue}{0}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}\cdots$ (the ${{\textbf{\Large |}}}$ indicates the unique location where the number of 1s to the left equals the number of 0s to the right, which is between index -1 and 0 in the 01-sequence; visually this corresponds to the main diagonal in the Young diagram). Notice the mnemonic “RGB” for the colourings, starting after the ${{\textbf{\Large |}}}$ mark. The grey shapes indicate a sequence of 3-hooks that can be removed from $\lambda$, to finally obtain the 3-core $(3,1)$ of $\lambda$. One could start with the yellow shape for instance, and then make various choices for the order of the removals. The process always ends with the same $3$-core, $(3,1)$ (see Figure \[fig.hooks\]). Quotients will be $\cdots{\textcolor{red}{0}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{{\textbf{\Large |}}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{\textcolor{red}{0}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}{\textcolor{red}{1}}\cdots$ (partition $(2)$), $\cdots{\textcolor{darkgreen}{0}}{{\textbf{\Large |}}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}{\textcolor{darkgreen}{1}}\cdots$ (empty partition) and $\cdots{\textcolor{blue}{0}}{\textcolor{blue}{1}}{\textcolor{blue}{1}}{{\textbf{\Large |}}}{\textcolor{blue}{0}}{\textcolor{blue}{1}}{\textcolor{blue}{1}}{\textcolor{blue}{1}}{\textcolor{blue}{0}}{\textcolor{blue}{1}}\cdots$ (partition $(5,2)$). Remark that the yellow shape connects two labels in the 01-sequence that are blue. It thereby corresponds to a specific box of the quotient partition $(5,2)$ (see Figure \[fig.hooks\] and compare with Equation ).\[fig.sequence\][]{data-label="fig.01"}](01sequence.png){width="78.00000%"}
Let $p$ be a positive integer, not necessarily prime. We say that a partition $\lambda$ is a *$p$-core* if it has no hook of length divisible by $p$ (it is actually equivalent to ask for the partition not to have a hook of length exactly $p$). For instance, $(3,1)$ is a 3-core as can be seen from Figure \[fig.hooks\].
In terms of the 01-sequence $(x_i)$, a hook of length $p$ in $\lambda$ corresponds to a pair $x_{i_0} = 1$, $x_{i_0+p} = 0$. Swapping these two entries in the sequence $(x_i)$ gives the 01-sequence of a partition of size decreased by $p$, due to the removal of a hook of length $p$. Starting with one partition $\lambda$, we can swap pairs at distance $p$ and iterate this procedure until no more $p$-hook can be found. The partition associated to this final 01-sequence is actually independent from the ordering of the hook removals (or the ordering of swaps of a $\cdots1\cdots 0\cdots$ into a $\cdots0\cdots 1\cdots$), and called the *$p$-core of $\lambda$*, which we denote $\lambda^{[]}$. We see in Figure \[fig.01\] that the 3-core of the partition $(18,7,6)$ is $(3,1)$.
We now define the $p$-quotients of the partition $\lambda$, for $p$ still not a prime. We start with $ (x_i) := x(\lambda) $, and consider the $p$-tuple of subsequences given by $((x_{p i +j} ): 0\le j \le p-1)$. For each $0\le j\le p-1$, this defines a 01-sequence and thus an associated partition, which we call the $j^{\text{th}}$ *$p$-quotient* of $\lambda$ and denote $\lambda^{(j)}$. We obtain a $p$-tuple of $p$-quotients for $\lambda$. Figure \[fig.01\] presents a computation of quotients.
These quotient partitions have the property, essential for us, that $$\label{eqn.essential}
{{\mathcal{H}}_{p}\!\left(\lambda\right)} = \underset{0 \le j \le p-1}{\cup} {{\mathcal{H}}_{}\!\left(\lambda^{(j)}\right)},$$ with the union taken with multiplicity (Figure \[fig.hooks\] has the hook lengths for the partition that appears in Figure \[fig.01\] and its quotients). In other words, the union of the hook lengths of the $p$-quotients of $\lambda$ give the hook lengths of $\lambda$ that are divisible by $p$, divided by $p$. In particular, this implies ${{h}_{p}\!\left(\lambda\right)} = \sum_{0 \le j \le p-1} {{h}_{}\!\left(\lambda^{(j)}\right)}$ or even ${{h}_{pk}\!\left(\lambda\right)} = \sum_{0 \le j \le p-1} {{h}_{k}\!\left(\lambda^{(j)}\right)}$.
For each positive integer $p$, we have so far defined a map, $
\{\text{partitions} \} \rightarrow \{ p-\text{cores} \} \times \{ \text{partitions} \}^p,
$ called the *Littlewood decomposition at $p$*, and the construction actually shows that this map is a bijection. This can be thought of as a generalization of Euclidian division for integers. We refer the reader to [@Macdonald] for more information. The Littlewood decomposition also satisfies $$\label{eqn.Littlewood_counts}
|\lambda| = |p-\text{core}(\lambda)| + p \sum_{j=0}^{p-1} |\lambda^{(j)}|,$$ which will be useful for us (we repeat that there is no requirement for $p$ to be prime).
Integers admit representations in any base $p$ (assuming $p>1$). Similarly, given a partition $\lambda$, we will iterate the Littlewood decomposition at $p$. We define recursively $\lambda^{(i_1,\cdots,i_d)} = \lambda^{(i_1,\cdots,i_{d-1})(i_{d})}$. For each tuple in $\{0,1,\cdots,p-1\}^d$, this defines a partition. Note that by convention $\lambda^{()} = \lambda$. We also define $\lambda^{[i_1,\cdots,i_d]} = \lambda^{(i_1,\cdots,i_d)[]}$ (*i.e.* the core of that particular quotient).
We see these two definitions as two mappings, from $S= \{\{0,\cdots,p-1\}^d:d \in \mathbb{N}\}$ to either partitions or $p$-cores. We see elements of $S$ as indices for the vertices of the $p$-ary infinite rooted tree[^5]: recursively, the index $(i_1,\cdots,i_d)$ corresponds to the $i_d^\text{th}$ child of the vertex indexed by $(i_1,\cdots,i_{d-1})$, with the index $()$ mapped to the root. This means $\lambda^{(i_1,\cdots,i_d)}$ (resp. $\lambda^{[i_1,\cdots,i_d]}$) provides a labelling of the vertices of the $p$-ary infinite rooted tree by partitions (resp. $p$-cores), called the *$p$-quotient tower of $\lambda$* (resp. *$p$-core tower of $\lambda$*). We can deduce from that all but finitely many labels of the $p$-core tower or the $p$-quotient tower will be trivial partitions. An example is presented in Figure \[fig.tree\].
[Cp[2cm]{}C]{} && [$\phi:=\substack{\Tree [.{{{$\substack{()\\\cdots00{{\textbf{|}}}11\cdots\\()}$}}} {{$\phi$}} {{$\phi$}} {{$\phi$}} ]}$]{}
We can now state the following lemma, where $v_p(n)$ for the largest exponent $\alpha$ such that $p^\alpha$ divides $n$.
\[lemma.tower\] Let $p$ be a prime. Then, $$v_p({{{H}}_{}\!\left(\lambda\right)}) = \sum_{d=1} d \sum_{(q_i) \in \{0,\cdots,p-1\}^d } \left|\lambda^{[q_1,\cdots,d_d]}\right|.
\label{eqn.valuation}$$
The proof of this lemma is an easy consequence of the stronger statement that for $d$ a positive integer $$\left|\left\{\square \in \lambda: v_p(h(\square))=d\right\}\right| = \sum_{(q_i) \in \{0,\cdots,p-1\}^d } \left|\lambda^{[q_1,\cdots,d_d]}\right|,
\label{eqn.stronger}$$ which itself results from the recursive definition of the $p$-core tower and Equation for the base case.
**Remark.** If $p$ is not prime, remains true, but fails to imply . Consider the example of $p=6$ and $\lambda = (6)$. In that case, the $6$-core tower of $(6)$ consists of a single nontrivial label, by the partition of size 1, at a a node adjacent to the root (so the RHS evaluates to 1). Meanwhile, we have ${{{H}}_{}\!\left(\lambda\right)}=720$, so the LHS of evaluates to 2. This extra factor of 6 actually comes from the presence of hooks of length 2 and 3, with no direct consequence on the $6$-core tower.
Proofs of Theorem \[thm.landaugeneral\] and \[thm.multinomial\]
===============================================================
We immediately prove Theorem \[thm.landaugeneral\], the generalization of Landau’s theorem.
**$\Rightarrow$ :** We prove the statement by contraposition. Assume that for some $\mu$ the sum in is negative, *i.e. *$\sum_i {{h}_{r_i}\!\left(\mu\right)} - \sum_j {{h}_{s_j}\!\left(\mu\right)} < 0.$ We will construct a partition $\lambda$ that fails to satisfy Equation .
Take a prime $p$, larger than any hook length in $\mu$. Consider now the partition $\lambda$ whose core is the empty partition and whose quotient consists of $p$ copies of $\mu$ (many other choices are possible). Then the valuation of the LHS of at $p$ is negative (and at least -$p$), our contradiction.
**$\Rightarrow$ :** Pick a prime $p$. Our goal is to prove that the valuation of at $p$ is positive. Because is a quotient, this valuation is given as a linear combination of the counts of hooks of $\lambda$ divisible by the $\gamma_k$ and $\delta_l$. This is thus a linear combination of the valuations at $p$ of the hook product of $\nu$, for $\nu$ running through the various $\gamma_k$ and $\delta_l$ quotients of $\lambda$. Each such valuation can be expressed, thanks to Lemma \[lemma.tower\], as a(n effectively finite) sum over the labels in the $p$-core tower of $\nu$. We now swap this linear combination over $\nu$ and the infinite sum over label positions in a $p$-core tower. We then get a sum over positions in the $p$-core tower of an expression of the form ($\mu$ runs through the $p$-cores appearing in the $p$-core tower of $\nu$). Since each such expression is positive by assumption, the overall sum is also positive.
Once Theorem \[thm.landaugeneral\] is proved, Theorem \[thm.multinomial\] is indeed trivial to prove:
Thanks to Theorem \[thm.landaugeneral\], we know we only need to show $${{h}_{s}\!\left(\lambda\right)} - t \cdot {{h}_{st}\!\left(\lambda\right)} \ge 0$$ for all $\lambda$, $s$ and $t$. This follows immediately from applying to each of the $s$-quotients of $\lambda$.
**Remark.** The same proof works for $v(\lambda;(x),\vec{\delta})$, as long as $x$ divides each of the $\delta_l$s. This case corresponds under $\Phi$ to a multinomial coefficient $u(n;(\sum_l \beta_l),\vec{\beta})$, but not all $u$ of that form map back to $v$ that answer Question \[q.hook\] positively. Consider $\vec{\beta} = (9,6,3,3,3)$, which then gives $v(\lambda;(3),(8,12,24,24,24))$, which is non-integral as soon as $\lambda$ is a 3-core with a hook of length 8 (by Theorem \[thm.landaugeneral\]), for instance $(6,4,2)$.
Explicit construction of non-integral ratios {#sec.nonintegral}
--------------------------------------------
The proof of Theorem \[thm.landaugeneral\] actually constructs example partitions leading to non-integral ratios: it translates a $\mu$ failing Condition into a $\lambda$ failing Condition .
Consider for instance the parameters $(\gamma_k) = (1,30)$ and $(\delta_l) = (2,3,5)$. Take the partition $\mu = (6,6,6,6,6)$ and evaluate Condition (maybe with the help of Figure \[fig.hooks\]). We get $30+0-15-10-6 = -1$ (a one-rowed $\mu$ would have given 0, see Theorem \[thm.bober\], page ). Now that we have found a $\mu$ that fails , we construct a $\lambda$ that fails . The largest hook length in $\mu$ is 10. We thus pick $p= 11$, and compute that the partition with empty core and quotients given by 11 copies of $\mu$ is $(66^{55})$, where evaluates to the *fraction* $$\frac{\substack{2^{60} 3^{53} 5^9 7^{35} 19^{12} 23^23 29^{29} 31^{31} 37^{37} 41^{41} 43^{43} 47^{47} 53^{53} 59^{55} 61^{55} 67^{54} 71^{50} 73^{48} 79^{42}\\ 83^{38} 89^{32} 97^{24} 101^{20} 103^{18} 107^{14} 109^{12} 113^8}}{11^{11}}.$$ In order to show a set of parameters fails at Question \[q.hook\], it is thus efficient to exhibit a $\mu$ that fails Equation . For the classification at height 1, we will produce $\mu$s more systematically, of a very slim shape, and that are actually hooks themselves (*i.e.* their diagrams will not contain a $2\times 2$ rectangle).
Ratios of height 1
==================
To better appreciate Theorem \[thm.height1hook\], we first present the situations for integral factorial ratios. \[sec.height1\]
Classification of integral factorial ratios {#sec.factorialheight1}
-------------------------------------------
Based on an interpretation due to Rodriguez-Villegas of Question \[q.original\] in terms of hypergeometric functions (Question \[q.original\] succeeds if and only if the hypergeometric function $\sum_n u(n;\vec{\alpha},\vec{\beta}) z^n$ is algebraic), Bober [@bober1] was able to fully classify parameters providing a positive answer to Question \[q.original\], if the height $L-K$ is assumed to be 1. For completeness, we now present this classification.
\[thm.bober\] Let $L=K+1$. Assume $\alpha_k \ne \beta_l$ for all $k,l$, that $\sum_k \alpha_k = \sum_l \beta_l$ and that $\gcd(\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_k,\beta_1,\cdots,\beta_l)=1.$ Then, $u(n;\vec{\alpha},\vec{\beta})$ is an integer for all $n$ if and only if
1. $(\vec{\alpha},\vec{\beta})$ takes one of the three forms: $((x+y),(x,y))$ for $gcd(x,y)=1$, $((2x,y),(x,2y,x-y))$ for $gcd(x,y)=1$ and $x>y$ or $((2x,2y),(x,y,x+y))$ for $gcd(x,y)=1$.
2. $(\vec{\alpha},\vec{\beta})$ is one of 52 sporadic parameter sets, for instance $((30,1),(15,10,6))$, which corresponds under $\Phi$ to $(\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta}) = ((30,1),(2,3,5))$.
Integral hook ratios {#sec.height1hook}
--------------------
Since the conditions presented in Question \[q.hook\] are stronger than in Question \[q.alt\], we expect a subset of the (image under $\Phi$ of the) parameter list presented in Theorem \[thm.bober\] to provide a positive answer to Question \[q.hook\]. In fact, we can show that this stronger condition slims down entirely the infinite families and the sporadic cases, with the exception of one lone set of parameters. This is Theorem \[thm.height1hook\], which we now prove.
We start by recalling parts of the theory for integral factorial ratios, based on the functions $f(x;\vec{\lambda},\vec{\gamma})$. In the balanced case, for integral factorial ratios of height $L-K$, Landau’s theorem and Bober’s theory lead to a $f(x;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta})$ with values in $\{0,1,\cdots,L-K\}$ (this is property **(P0)**). In addition, some extra properties are satisfied (these are easy to prove from the definition in ):
(P1)
: $f$ is periodic, of period $P$ dividing $M=M(\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta}) = \operatorname{lcm}(\gamma_1,\cdots,$ $\gamma_K,$ $\delta_1,\cdots,$ $\delta_L) $;
(P2)
: for small enough $\epsilon>0$, we have $f(x) + f(\epsilon+M-1-x) = L-K$ for all real $x$;
(P3)
: $f(M-\epsilon) = f(P-\epsilon) = L-K$, for $\epsilon>0$ small enough.
Property **(P3)** is a direct consequence of **(P2)**, and **(P0)** is derived slightly more streinuously from **(P2)**.
By the discussion in Section \[sec.nonintegral\], for a given pair $(\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta})$ to fail Question \[q.alt\], we need a $\mu$ such that $$\sum_k {{h}_{\gamma_k}\!\left(\mu\right)} - \sum_l {{h}_{\delta_l}\!\left(\mu\right)} < 0.\label{eqn.hookcount}$$ From this $\mu$, one can then construct (much bigger) examples of partitions $\lambda$ failing Question \[q.hook\] outright.
Since $h_i(\mu)$ counts hooks of $\mu$ divisible by $i$, an equivalent condition to is $$\sum_{\square \in \mu} g(h(\square))<0,
\label{eqn.equivalent}$$ if $g(x) = g(x;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta}):= \sum_k \mathbf{1}{(\gamma_k \text{ divides }x)} - \sum_l \mathbf{1}{(\delta_l \text{ divides }x)}$ (and $\mathbf{1}(\text{condition})$ is 1 or 0 depending on whether the condition is true or false). Crucially, we have (for nonnegative integral $x$) $$\sum_{y=1}^x g(y;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta})= f(x;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta}).\label{eqn.integration}$$ We are now only thinking of ratios of height 1. Therefore, by **(P0)**, the values of $f$ are either 0 or 1. Hence, the values of $g$ are either 0,1 or -1. It is clear that $g$ is periodic as well, of period $P$.
Because Question \[q.hook\] is stronger than Question \[q.alt\], we can assume all the properties **(P0)**-**(P3)** for the functions $f$ and $g$. These requirements come from considering partitions with just one row.
We now consider partitions of hook shape only. Take $\mu = (1+a,1,\cdots,1)$, with $l$ repetitions of 1 at the end ($a$ stands for arm, $l$ for leg). This partition has hooks of length $1,2,\cdots,l$, $1,2,\cdots,a$, and $a+l+1$. Therefore, Condition for finding a $\mu$ reduces to $$\sum_{i=1}^a g(i) +\sum_{i=1}^l g(i) +g(a+l+1) = f(a)+f(l)+f(a+l+1)-f(a+l) < 0.
\label{eqn.conditionf}$$ Given the possible values of $f$, we are left with no choice. We must have $$\label{eqn.setup}
f(a)=f(l)=f(a+l+1)=0 \text{ and }f(a+l)=1.$$
We will soon need Kneser’s theorem, a generalization of the Cauchy-Davenport theorem. Let $G$ be an abelian group. If $A \subseteq G$, define the *stabilizer* of $A$ to be $\mathcal{S}(A) = \{ g \in G | A+g = A\}.$ Clearly, $0 \in \mathcal{S}(A) \le G$. Let $A,B \subseteq G$, finite and nonempty sets, with $S= \mathcal{S}(A+B)$. Then, Kneser’s theorem affirms that $|A+B| \ge |A+S| + |B+S| -|S|$.
Let $P$ be the period of $f$, which we know divides $M$. Define $A_i = \{0,\cdots,P-1\} \cap \{x | f(x) = i\}$. We have thanks to **(P2)** that $|A_0| = |A_1| = P/2$. We will now take $G = \mathbb{Z}/P\mathbb{Z}$, with $A=B=A_0$. By the definition of the period, we know that $|S|=1$. We then have that $|A_0+A_0| \ge P-1$.
Set $Y = \{ y : y \in \{0,\cdots,P-1\} | g(y) = 1 \text{ and } g(y+1) = 0\}$. By **(P3)**, we know that $P-1 \ \in Y$. To solve , we thus need to find $a$ and $l$ such that $a+l \in Y \cap (A_0+A_0)$ (this equation is in $\mathbb{Z}/P\mathbb{Z}$, not merely $\mathbb{Z}$). Because of the cardinality bounds $|Y|\ge 1$ and $|A+A|\ge P-1$, this argument can only fail to provide a $\mu$ if both bounds are actually equalities. In that case we would thus have $A_0+A_0 = \{0,\cdots,P-2\}$, with a unique drop for $f$ along one period (this is the definition of $Y$) occurring at $P-1 ,P$ (by **(P3)**) and of height 1 (by **(P0)**). Since $f$ has only one drop, it can also have only one increase (since its values can only be 0 or 1). The location of that unique increase can then be determined to be at $P/2-1,P/2$ (due to **(P0)**), and this gives the whole statement.
**Example.** We provide another $\mu$ than $(6,6,6,6,6)$ for $\vec{\gamma} = (30,1), \vec{\delta} = (2,3,5)$ (see Section \[sec.nonintegral\]). In that case, the values taken by $f(x;(30,1),(2,3,5))$ are $$
[c|p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}p[0.0025]{}]{} x 30&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9&10&11&12&13&14&15&16&17&18&19&20&21&22&23&24&25&26&27&28&29&$\cdots$\
f&0& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1& 0& 1& 1& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1&$\cdots$
$$ We see that $P = 30$, $Y= \left\{ 5,9,11,14,17,19,23,29\right\}$ and $A_0 = \{0, 6, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21,$ $22,$ $24,$ $25,$ $26, 27, 28\}$, with $A_1$ the complement to $A_0$. One can check that $A_0 + A_0 = \{0,\cdots,28\}$ (remember this is in $\mathbb{Z}/30\mathbb{Z}$!), with $29$ missing. Because $Y$ is not a singleton, any element of $Y$ different from 29 leads to a $\mu$. Take $9\in Y$. Then, we solve (non-constructively and $\mod 30$) $9 = 15+24 \in A_0+A_0$. Therefore, we have found an example partition $\mu$ that does not satisfy : it has an arm length $a=15$, and leg length $l=24$, *i.e.* $(16,1,\cdots,1)$, with 24 trailing zeroes. This $\mu$ can be used to construct a $\lambda$ that fails to satisfy , using the technique of Section \[sec.nonintegral\].
Bounds
======
For integral factorial ratios, some bounds are known [@bober2] for $K+L$ given the value of $L-K$. These techniques were improved in [@Schmerling]. The bounds obtained can be stated in different ways: as an explicit bound on $K+L$ as a function of $L-K$, as an asymptotic bound on the growth of that function, or optimized and explicit for specific values of $L-K$.
For the small values of $L-K$, these bounds seem to overestimate the actual value of $L+K$: in the case of $L-K=1$ for instance, the exhaustive classification of Bober (Theorem \[thm.bober\]) gives a maximal value of 9 for $K+L$ (for one of the 52 sporadic cases). Schmerling’s optimized version of the bound when $L-K=1$ gives an upper bound of 43, still far off the truth. For $L-K=2$ or 3, non-exhaustive computer searches point to a similar overshoot of the upper bounds.
As Question \[q.hook\] is stronger than Question \[q.alt\], these bounds will also apply for integral hook ratios. For completeness we state a general version of the bounds here.
Assume $((\gamma_k:1 \le k \le K),(\delta_l:1 \le l \le L))$ are such that $\gamma_k \ne \delta_l$ for all $k,l$, $\sum_k \frac{1}{\gamma_k} = \sum_l \frac{1}{\delta_l}$ and provide a positive answer to Question \[q.hook\]. Then, $
(K+L)\le 287 (L-K)^{3.44},
$ and there exists an absolute constant $C>0$ such that $
(K+L) \le C (L-K)^2 (\log |\log (L-K)|)^2.
$
Related questions
=================
Question \[q.alt\] is equivalent to Question \[q.original\] for factorial ratios. Question \[q.hook\] extends Question \[q.alt\] to hook ratios, but Question \[q.original\] does not extend in the same way. Indeed, quotients of partitions are given by the Littlewood correspondence but there is no suitable operation constructing multiples of partitions (at least not with the correct effect on partition sizes). Still, another question might extend Question \[q.original\] rather than Question \[q.alt\].
A second remark concerns the motivation in number theory. In their paper [@DE], Diamond and Erdös need not have an integral factorial ratio $u(n;\vec{\alpha},\vec{\beta})$ for *all* n, but they are satisfied with a sequence $(n_i)$ going to infinity such that $u({n_i};\vec{\alpha},\vec{\beta})$ is always integral. It would be interesting to consider a similar relaxation to Question \[q.hook\] (for instance by restricting the sizes of the partitions considered to be in some subset of the integers).
Acknowledgements
================
This paper benefited from conversations with J. Bober, Prof. J. Olsson and indirectly Prof. Ch. Bessenrodt.
\[sec:biblio\]
[^1]: In the setting of Question \[q.original\], the *balancing* condition requires $\sum_k \alpha_k = \sum_l\beta_l$.
[^2]: Note the abuse of notation, which is inconsequential as $v({\mathbf{n}};\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta}) = v(n;\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta})$.
[^3]: Yet more properties result from the fact that this condition applies for all *real* $x$: we can perform a linear scaling of $x$ to help on Question \[q.original\] instead of Question \[q.alt\]. In fact, these rescalings show that the sets of parameters $(\vec{\gamma},\vec{\delta})$ providing a positive answer to Question \[q.alt\] and the $(\vec{\alpha},\vec{\delta})$ for Question \[q.original\] are in bijection. Define the bijection $\Phi: (\vec{\mu},\vec{\nu}) \rightarrow ((M/{\mu_k}),(M/{\nu_l}))$ with $M = M(\vec{\mu},\vec{\nu})$. If $(\vec{\alpha}, \vec{\beta})$ satisfies $\gcd(\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_K,\beta_!,\cdots,\beta_L)=1$ and is a solution to Question \[q.original\], then $\Phi(\vec{\mu},\vec{\nu})$ is a solution to Question \[q.alt\]. The converse is also true, and $\Phi$ is involutive if the $\gcd$ condition applies.\[footnote.phi\]
[^4]: Under the bijection $\Phi$ defined in Footnote \[footnote.phi\], this corresponds to the always-integral ratio $
u(n;(30,1),(15,10,6)) = ((30n)!n!) /((15n)!(10n)!(6n)!),
$ which is actually closer to the ratio used by Chebyshev.
[^5]: A *$p$-ary infinite rooted tree* is an infinite connected graph with no cycle such that each vertex is of degree $p+1$, with the exception of a distinguished vertex, called its *root*, which is of degree $p$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a family of diffusively coupled chaotic maps on periodic $d$-dimensional square lattices. Even and odd sub-lattices are updated alternately, introducing an effective [*delay*]{}. As the coupling strength is increased, the system undergoes a first order phase transition from a multi-stable to a synchronized phase. Further increase in coupling strength shows de-synchronization where the phase space splits into two ergodic regions. We argue that the de-synchronization transition is discontinuous for piece-wise linear maps, and is continuous for non-linear maps which are differentiable.'
author:
- 'P. K. Mohanty'
title: 'First-order Synchronization Transition in Locally Coupled Maps'
---
Synchronization is observed in a wide class of complex systems. Typically, it appears when the range of the correlations inside the system is of the same order as the system size. Few examples of mutual synchronization in complex dynamical systems are flashing fireflies[@Buck88], electronic circuits [@Heagy] and chemical reactions [@Kuramoto]. In recent years, synchronization of spatially extended systems has drawn considerable interest. In particular coupled map lattices (CMLs) [@Kaneko], initially introduced as simple models of spatio-temporal chaos, has received a great deal of attention as a model of synchronization. It has been realized that two different replicas of the same CML are coupled directly [@Grassberger] or through a common external random noise [@Livi], can become synchronized for large enough coupling strengths. Recently, Ahlers and Pikovsky [@Ahlers02] pointed out that synchronization transitions in one dimensional (1-$d$) CMLs are generically in the universality class of the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) model, however strongly nonlinear maps could be in the universality class of Directed percolation (DP).
From a point of view of general statistical theory synchronization is a non-equilibrium phase transition where distinct patches of the CMLs oscillate in phase. The phenomenon is similar to the roughening of growing interfaces and can be modeled by multiplicative noise partial differential equation[@Pikovsky]. This picture is further modified by M$\tilde{\rm u}$noz and Pastor-Satorass[@Munoz] to incorporate first order phase transitions (FOPTs). However, it was not clear if the FOPTs observed in these models were just transients of DP. In context of non-equilibrium wetting process FOPTs are found in several (1+1)-dimensional stochastic models with local interactions[@Mukamel], contrary to equilibrium wetting process where phase transitions are not possible [@Zia] in $1-d$ systems having short-range interactions between interfaces and substrates. To the best of our knowledge FOPTs in deterministic, chaotic, extended systems with short range interactions are still lacking, although it is known to exist for globally coupled maps [@Muller].
In this Letter we introduce and study a single parameter family of piece-wise linear chaotic maps which are diffusively coupled on a $d$-dimensional square lattice. A [*delay*]{} is introduced dynamically between sub-lattices by updating them alternately. One of our interests would be to find if, starting from a random initial condition, these sub-lattices synchronize at later times. The answer turns out to be ’no’, for both very high and low diffusion strengths $\epsilon$. However for intermediate $\epsilon$ synchronization occurs with the suppression of spatio-temporal chaos. This synchronized phase is an [*unique absorbing state*]{} of the system and for piece-wise linear maps (PLMs) the phase boundary is identical with the boundary for a stable fixed point.
For $\epsilon=0$, the system visits the whole phase-space in time. The phase-space volume decreases as $\epsilon$ is increased and at a critical strength $\epsilon_A$, the phase-space suddenly shrinks to a point which corresponds to the fixed point of the primitive map. This fixed point is stable until $\epsilon=\epsilon_B>\epsilon_A$. Further increase in $\epsilon$ results in de-synchronization where the phase space splits into [*two*]{} ergodic regions about the [*collective bifurcation points*]{}. It may be argued that for PLMs the width of the bifurcation is independent of $\epsilon$ and thus synchronization error is discontinuous at the critical point. However for non-linear differentiable maps the width of the bifurcation vanishes as $\sqrt{\epsilon-\epsilon_{c}}$ which results in a continuous transition. We argue that this continuous transition is in a different universality class than that of KPZ and DP with critical exponents $\beta=1/2$, $\beta/\nu=0$ and $\gamma=1$ in $1$-dimension.
[*The Model :*]{} Consider a $d$-dimensional hyper-cubic lattice ${\cal L}$ of coupled identical maps $f(m,z_{\vec i })$, where $z_{\vec i }$ is a real variable at site $\vec{i}\equiv (i_1,i_2\dots i_d)$ with $i_k$ varying from $1$ to $L$. We define the [*even*]{} and [*odd*]{} sub-lattices (${\cal L}^e$ and ${\cal L}^o$ respectively) as ${\cal L}^{e,o}= \{\vec i : \sum_k i_k =$ [*even,odd*]{}$\}$, and denote $x_{\vec i}$ ($y_{\vec i}$) as the variable of ${\cal L}^e$ (${\cal L}^o$). Starting from a random initial configuration, $\{x_{\vec i}\}$ and $\{y_{\vec i}\}$ are updated alternately as $$\begin{aligned}
x_ {\vec i}^{t+1} &=& (1-\epsilon) f( x_ {\vec i}^{t})
+\frac{\epsilon}{2d} \sum_{{\vec j}\in {\cal N}_{\vec i} }
f( y_ {\vec j}^{t}),\cr
y_ {\vec i}^{t+1} &=& (1-\epsilon) f( y_ {\vec i}^{t})
+\frac{\epsilon}{2d} \sum_{{\vec j}\in {\cal N}_{\vec i} }
f( x_ {\vec j}^{t+1}),
\label{eq:XY}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal N}_{\vec i}$ is a set of $2d$ nearest neighbors of $\vec i$ and $\epsilon$ is the coupling strength, can be seen as a diffusion constant. Equivalently, in the first half unit of time $\{x_{\vec i}\}$ are updated while $\{y_{\vec i}\}$ are at rest and the reverse happens in second half. We will see later that the [*delay* ]{} which is introduced dynamically between sub-lattices is responsible for a complete synchronization of the system. Note that periodic boundary configuration in all $d$ dimensions are used throughout.
Synchronization occurs when the difference between $z_{\vec i}$ and its neighbors vanish at all sites as $t \to \infty$. Thus, the order parameter can be defined as $\phi=\langle\phi^t \rangle$ where $$\phi^t = \frac{1}{2dL^d} \sum_{\vec i \in {\cal L}}
\sum_{\vec j\in {\cal N}_{\vec i}}
|z_{\vec i}^t-z_{\vec j}^t|,$$ and steady state average is taken over time and realizations. Obviously $\phi$ vanishes in the synchronized phase and in the unsynchronized phase $\phi>0$. A trivial synchronized phase would correspond to the stable fixed point of the CLM, $i~e$, $\{z_{\vec i}= z^*\}$. It is easy to see from Eq. (\[eq:XY\]) that $z^*= f(m, z^*).$ For chaotic CLMs without [*delay*]{} the largest Lyapunov exponent is independent of $\epsilon$ and is the same as the Lyapunov exponent of primitive map which is positive. Hence, a fixed point solution $\{z_{\vec i}= z^*\}$ is unstable for any $\epsilon$. With a [*delay*]{}, however, it can become negative in a region $\epsilon_B \le \epsilon \le \epsilon_A$. For PLMs $\epsilon_{A,B}$ corresponds to the boundary of linearly stable region which can be calculated as follows.
Let us take the initial state to be close to the fixed-point, $i.e.,$ $x_{\vec i}= z^*+\delta x_{\vec i}$ and $y_{\vec i}= z^*+\delta y_{\vec i}.$ In Fourier-space the evolution of $\delta x_{\vec i}$ and $\delta y_{\vec i}$ reads as, $$\left( \begin{array}{c} \delta x_{\vec k} \\
\delta y_{\vec k} \end{array}
\right)^{t+1} =
\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tilde\mu& R_{\vec k}\\
\tilde\mu R_{\vec k} &
\tilde\mu+ R_{\vec k}^2\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c} \delta x_{\vec k} \\ \delta y_{\vec k}
\end{array} \right)^t,\label{eq:mat}$$ $${\rm where~} R_{\vec k} = \frac{\epsilon\mu}{2d}
\sum_{\vec r \in {\cal N}_{\vec 0}}
e^{i{\vec k}.{\vec r}}, ~\mu=f^\prime(m, z^*)$$ and $\tilde\mu=\mu(1-\epsilon).$ Let $E_\pm$ denote the eigenvalues of the matrix defined in Eq. (\[eq:mat\]). From the stability requirements $|Max({\cal R}(E_+), {\cal R}(E_-))| <1$,
we find $\epsilon_A= 1-1/\mu$ and $\epsilon_B= (\mu+1)/(2\mu)$ which are drawn in the inset of Fig. \[fig:phase\] as a phase boundary for the synchronized phase. For simplicity, it is assumed here that primitive maps have only single nonzero fixed point $z^*$. One can further generalize it to maps with more fixed points.
![\[fig:phase\] Numerically obtained $\phi$ is plotted against $\epsilon$ for tent map ($\mu=-2$). The inset shows the phase diagram in $\epsilon$-$\mu$ plane.](fig1.eps){width="7.0"}
To find out the behavior of $\phi$ close to these transitions we first restrict ourselves to one dimension and study a specific single parameter family of maps : $$f(m,z) = \left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
m z/(m-1) & z<a\\
m(1-z) & z \ge a
\end{array}\right. ,
\label{eq:map}$$ where $a = 1-1/m$. This piece-wise linear mapping of $[0,1]$ onto itself is everywhere expanding for $m>1$, and thus chaotic, with an invariant density uniform on $[0,1]$. A particular example of this family with $m=2$ is known as [*tent map*]{}. Note that the fixed point is $z^*=m/(m+1)$.
![\[fig:multi\] This figure shows how the phase space changes in $z_1$-$z_2$ plane as $\epsilon\to \epsilon_A$; equivalently $\delta\to 0$. For large $\delta$, the phase space is identical for two different initial configurations $S_1$ and $S_2$. However, dynamically different shapes are generated as $\delta\to 0$. The symbol ’$*$’ represents the fixed point $z^*=.6$. ](fig2.eps){width="7.0"}
[*Synchronization :*]{} Let us first discuss the transition from the unsynchronized phase $A$ (inset of Fig. \[fig:phase\]) to the synchronized phase. Close to the transition we take $\epsilon= \epsilon_A-\delta$ and find that the system become multi-stable as $\delta \to 0$, $i.e.,$ there are large number steady states and one out of them is chosen by the system depending on the initial configuration. Multi-stability has been discussed earlier in the context of CMLs [@Chate99], and systems of delayed differential equations[@Ikeda]. It may be argued that the multi-stability is extensive, $i.e.,$ the number of attractors grow exponentially with the system size. Thus any statistical average has to be taken over large number of independent realizations, which resticts us to simmulate large systems. We carried out numerical simmulations for $L=1024$ and $m=2$ ([*tent map*]{}) and find that $\phi$ vanishes discontinuously at $\epsilon_A=0.5$ (see Fig. \[fig:phase\]). To confirm that it is a true first order transition, not just a transient effect, we monitor the phase space of every neighboring pair of co-ordinates as $\delta \to 0$. For example in Fig. \[fig:multi\] we demonstrate how the phase space changes in $z_1$-$z_2$ plane. Every other pair of neighboring co-ordinates show similar changes. In practice, no noticable change is observed in the phase space when $\delta<10^{-4}$ and then suddenly the fixed point $z_1=z^*=z_2$ appears at $\delta=0$. In other words, when $\delta\approx 0$, we have $|z_i-z_{i+1}|>0$ for every realization and thus $\phi$ has a jump at the critical point $\epsilon_A$.
[*De-synchronization :*]{} The synchronized state persists up to $\epsilon=\epsilon_B$ where phase space splits into [*two*]{} disconnected ergodic regions. In the new phase $B$ shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:phase\], the system fluctuates about its [*collective bi-bifurcation points*]{} $x_{i}= x^*$ and $y_i= y^*$. Using Eq. (\[eq:XY\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
x^*&=& (1-\epsilon) f(x^*)+\epsilon f(y^*)\cr
y^*&=& (1-\epsilon) f(y^*)+\epsilon f(x^*),
\label{eq:bi}\end{aligned}$$ which can be solved for the family of maps defined in Eq. (\[eq:map\]) as $x^*=\alpha_\pm$ and corresponding $y^*= \alpha_\mp$, with $\alpha_\pm=\frac{m^2(2\delta+1)\pm (2\delta m+1)}{m^2(2\delta+1)
+m(4\delta +1)}$ and $\delta=\epsilon-\epsilon_B$. Depending on the initial configuration, different parts of the sub-lattices are then attracted to $\alpha_+$ or $\alpha_-$ with kink-like interfaces (inset (a) of Fig. \[fig:kink\]) separating them. It will be shown later that the width of such a kink $w$, diverges as $1/\sqrt\delta$ as $\delta\to 0$. Thus, stable kinks can not be generated when $\delta$ is ${\cal O}(L^{-2})$ and we have $\phi= \alpha_+-\alpha_-$. Clearly the jump in $\phi$ at the critical point $\epsilon_B$ is $\Delta=2/(m^2 +m)$. Note that in the other limit, $i.e.$, when $L \to \infty$ before $\delta \to 0$, we have a slightly different $\phi$. In this case the large systems will generate an average density of kinks, say $\rho$. Immediately, we have $\phi= \Delta( 1- \frac{\rho{\cal A}}{w\Delta})$, where ${\cal A}$ is the area bounded by an even and an odd kink. Nevertheless the transition is discontinuous.
The profile of a kink can be calculated as follows. Let us assume that it starts at site $k$ with $z_{k}=\alpha_-$ and $z_{k+1}=\alpha_+$. In steady state $z_{k+2}$ has two solutions : $\alpha_-$ and $\alpha = \frac{m^2(2\delta+1) +(2\delta m-1)}
{m^2(2\delta+1) + m(4\delta +1)}$. It is obvious that the first solution, $z_{k+2}=\alpha_-$, does not generate a kink. Thus the steady state profile of a kink can be obtained as $$\left( \begin{array}{c} z_{k+i+1}\\ z_{k+i+2}\end{array}\right) =
\left( \begin{array}{cc}0&1\\-1 &-2\cos(\theta) \end{array}\right)^i
\left( \begin{array}{c} \alpha_+\\ \alpha\end{array}\right),
\label{eq:kink}$$ where $\theta=2\tan^{-1}(\sqrt{\delta/\epsilon_B})$. Explicit form of $z_{k +i}$ is lengthy to present here, rather we compare numerically obtained $z_{k+i}$ with Eq. (\[eq:kink\]) in the inset (b) of Fig. \[fig:kink\]. When site $i$ is far from $k$ and $\delta\approx 0$ one can write an approximate solution as $z_{k+2i}=\alpha_- + \Delta_i$ and $z_{k+2i+1}=\alpha_- -\Delta_i$, where $\Delta_i=
\frac{i^2 \delta}{2m(m+1)}$. The width of the kink is thus $w=2n$, such that $\Delta_n = \alpha_+ - \alpha_-$. Clearly, $w$ diverges as $1/\sqrt\delta$. In Fig.\[fig:kink\] we have plotted $w$ obtained from numerical simulations versus $\delta$ in $\log$-scale, which confirms this power-law.
![\[fig:kink\] A typical steady state profile of odd (solid-line) and even (dashed line) sub-lattices are shown in inset (a). Inset (b) compares the kink profile obtained from simulations (points) with Eq. (\[eq:kink\]). In the main figure, width of the kink $w$ is plotted against $\delta$ in log scale for $m=2$ and $2.5$. The slope of the solid line is set to $-1/2$.](fig3.eps){width="7.0"}
[*Higher Dimensions :*]{} The phase diagram for coupled PLMs in higher dimension is the same as shown in the inset of Fig.\[fig:phase\]. Close to the transition point $\epsilon_A$, phase $A$ is mutistable and shows sudden shrink in phase space volume. The desynchronization transition occurs at $\epsilon_B$. But unlike one dimension, the kink-type solutions in phase $B$ are no more stable and hence jump in the orderparameter is $\Delta=2/(m^2 +m)$. Numerical simulations in $2$ and $3$ dimensions confirms this finding.
[*Other Maps :*]{} How do non-linear maps behave when a [*delay*]{} is introduced between sub-lattices ? Clearly the phase boundaries for synchronized phase strongly depends on corresponding primitive maps. First let us consider the [*logistic map*]{} : $f(x)=4x(1-x).$ The fixed point of this map $z_i = z^*=3/4$ is linearly stable for $1/2<\epsilon<3/4$. However numerical simulation shows that the synchronization occurs at $\epsilon_A> 1/2$. Close to the transition point phase $A$ is multistable and hence we have a first order transition similar to that of the [*tent map*]{}. The de-synchronization is found to occur exactly at $\epsilon_B$, where the linear-stability of the fixed point breaks down. Unlike the tent maps here we do not have fluctuations about the bifurcation points. But the kinks are unavoidable. Using Eqs. (\[eq:bi\]) and (\[eq:kink\]) one can obtain the bifurcation points as $x_i=\alpha_\pm$ and $y_i= \alpha_\mp$, where $\alpha_\pm= \frac{8\delta+3\pm2\sqrt\delta(8\delta+3)}{4(1+4\delta)}$. Clearly $\Delta = \alpha_+ -\alpha_- $ vanishes as $\sqrt{\delta}$ indicating that the transition is continuous. Critical exponents of this continuous transition can be deduced using following arguments.
First, note that fluctuation of order-parameter comes about from the variation in density of kinks which fluctuates about a mean density, say $\rho $. Density distribution about $\rho$ can be assumed to be [*normal*]{}, which gives $\phi \sim \sqrt\delta (1-\frac{{\cal A}\rho}{w\Delta})$, where ${\cal A}$ is the area bounded by an odd and an even kink, and $w$ is the width of the kink. Since $\phi$ is independent of $L$ and proportional to $\sqrt\delta$, we have critical exponents $\beta=1/2$ and $\beta/\nu =0$. One can further define “susceptibility” as $\chi= (\langle\phi^2\rangle - \langle\phi\rangle^2)/L$. Now $\chi \sim \delta r^2/L$, and hence $\gamma=1$. It is evident that the critical dimension $d_c=1$.
We have also done numerical simulations on [*sine*]{} ($f(x)=\sin(\pi x)$) and [*cubic*]{} ($f(x)=\sqrt{27}x(1-x^2)/2)$ maps in one dimension, which show that the synchronization transition is discontinuous, whereas de-synchronization occurs continuously with the same critical exponents as that of the [*logistic* ]{} map.
To get an insight why de-synchronization is continuous for certain class of maps we investigate coupled [*power-law*]{} maps: $f(z) =
1- |2z-1|^b$, where $b=1$ and $2$ corresponds to the [*tent*]{} and the [*logistic*]{} maps respectively. Thus, by tuning $b$ it is possible to study how the nature of transition changes from being first to second order. Our numerical simulations suggests that for $b>1$ the de-synchronization transition is continuous and belongs to the same universality class as that of the [*logistic* ]{} map, whereas for $1/2<b\le 1$ it is discontinuous. Note that there are [*two*]{} non zero fixed points for $b<1/2$ and present analysis need to be modified for their discussion . Basically, synchronization error is the average difference between bifurcation points $x^*$ and $y^*$, which vanishes at $\epsilon_B$ where $x^*=1/2=y^*$. Just above $\epsilon_B$ this difference is proportional to the difference between the left and right slope of $f(z)$ at $z=1/2$. For $b<1$, since these maps are not differentiable at $z=1/2$ the de-syncronization occurs discontinuously, whereas for $b>1$ the maps are differentiable and thus we have a continuous transition.
![\[fig:log\] Phase diagram of de-synchronization transition is shown in $\epsilon$-$b$ plane. The nature of transition changes from being discontinuous (dashed line) to continuous (solid line) at $b=1$. In the inset, $\phi$ and $\chi$ versus $\delta$ is plotted in log-scale and the solid lines are drawn with slope $\beta=1/2$ and $\gamma=1$ respectively for comparision. ](fig4.eps){width="7.0"}
A few comments are in order. First, the synchronized phase discussed here is different from earlier studies, where CMLs remain chaotic in the synchronized phase for both, when they are coupled directly [@Grassberger] or through noise [@Livi]. In our model the spatio-temporal chaos are suppressed and thus the synchronized phase is a completely ordered phase. The spatial correlations even persist in de-synchronized phase $B$. Second, one can define a different order parameter called “magnetization” $M=\langle m^t\rangle$, where $m^t = \sum_i sign(z_i^t-z^*)$. Then the desynchronyzation transition can be thought as a transition from fully ferromagnetic to fully antiferrmagnetic phase, which can be either first or second order. Note that the continuous transition obtained here is in a different universality class than that of zero temperature Ising transition in one dimension.
[*Conclusion :*]{} In conclusion, we study a single parameter family of coupled chaotic maps by introducing a [*delay*]{} between sub-lattices. We show that these systems undergo a first order transition to a synchronized phase when the coupling parameter is varied. The transition occurs as the system enters from a multiply stable region to a single ‘collective fixed point’ in phase space. A second transition occurs as this fixed point become unstable and the phase space breaks up into two ergodic regions about the collective bifurcation points. Our analytical results show that the de-synchronization transition is discontinuous in one and higher dimensions when the primitive maps are not differentiable. Differentiable maps also show a first-order synchronization transition, whereas the de-synchronization occurs continuously with critical exponents $\beta=1/2$, $\gamma=1$, and $\nu^{-1}=0$. We argue that the de-synchronization transition discussed here can also be thought as a transition from a fully ferromagnetic to a fully anti-ferromagnetic phase. These results establish a true non-equilibrium first order transition in one dimensional dynamical systems with short range interactions.
[*Acknowledgments :*]{} We thank D. Mukamel and E. Levin for fruitful comments and discussions.
[0]{}
J. Buck, Quart. Rev. Biol. [**63**]{}, 265(1988). J. F. Heagy, T. L. Carroll, and L. M. Pecora, 1874 (1994). Y. Kuramoto, [*Chemical oscilations, Waves and Turbulence*]{}, Springer, Berlin (1984). , ed. by K. Kaneko, J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, (1993). J. F. Heagy, T. L. Carroll, and L. M. Pecora, , 1874(1994); P. Grassberger, , R2520. F. Cecconi, R. Livi and A. Politi, , 2703 (1998). L. Baroni, R. Livi, and A. Torcini, , 036226 (2001). V. Ahlers, and A. Pikovsky, , 254101 (2002).
A. S. Pikovsky and J. Kurths, , 898 (1994). M. M$\tilde{\rm u}$noj and R. Pastor-Satorras, , 190403 (2003). H. Hinrichsen, R. Livi, D. Mukamel and A. Politi, , R1032 (2000); L. Giada, and M. Marsili, , 6015 (2000). R. K. P. Zia, R. Lipowsky, and D. M. Kroll, Am. J. Phys. [**56**]{}, 160 1(1998). R. M$\ddot{\rm u}$ller, K. Lippert, A. K$\ddot {\rm u}$hnel, and U. Behn, , 2658 (1997); S. Kim, S. H. Park and C. S. Ryn , [**78**]{}, 1616 (1997).
A. Lema$\hat{\rm i}$tre, and H. Chat${\rm e}^\prime$, , 1140 (1999) and references there in. K. Ikeda, and K. Kondo, , 1467 (1982); J. Foss, A. Longtin, B. Mensour, and J. Milton, [*ibid*]{} [**76**]{}, 708 (1996).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The WDVV equations of associativity arising in twodimensional topological field theory can be represented, in the simplest nontrivial case, by a single third order equation of the Monge-Ampère type. By investigating its Lie point symmetries, we reduce it to various nonlinear ordinary differential equations, and we obtain several new explicit solutions.'
author:
- |
Robert Conte and Maria Luz Gandarias\
\
Service de physique de l’état condensé (URA 2464), CEA–Saclay\
F–91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France\
E-mail: [email protected]\
\
Departamento de Matematicas\
Universidad de Cádiz\
Casa postale 40\
E–11510 Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain\
E-mail: [email protected]
title: 'Symmetry reductions of a particular set of equations of associativity in twodimensional topological field theory[^1] '
---
[-10.0 truemm]{} [-10.0 truemm]{}
*Keywords*: WDVV equations, equations of associativity, twodimensional topological field theory, classical Lie symmetries, reductions.
*MSC 2000* 35Q58, 35Q99 *PACS 1995* 02.20.Qs 11.10.Lm =12truept
Introduction
============
As introduced by Witten, Dijkgraaf, H. Verlinde and E. Verlinde [@W1990; @DVV1991], the equations of associativity involve the following unknowns: a function $\F(t^1,\dots,t^n) \equiv \F(t)$, integer numbers $q_\alpha$ and $r_\alpha$, $\alpha=1,\dots,n$, another integer $d$, a constant symmetric nondegenerate matrix $(\eta^{\alpha \beta})$, other constants $A_{\alpha \beta}, B_\alpha,C$. These unknowns must obey three main sets of equations [@Cargese1996Dubrovin].
1. the equations of associativity properly said (with summation over the repeated indices) $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\partial_\alpha \partial_\beta \partial_\lambda \F(t) \eta^{\lambda \mu}
\partial_\mu \partial_\gamma \partial_\delta \F(t)
=
\partial_\delta \partial_\beta \partial_\lambda \F(t) \eta^{\lambda \mu}
\partial_\mu \partial_\gamma \partial_\alpha \F(t)
{\hskip 23.0 truemm} \hbox{(WDVV1)}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
2. a condition singling out one variable, say, $t^1$, $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\partial_\alpha \partial_\beta \partial_1 \F(t) = \eta^{\alpha\beta},
{\hskip 79.0 truemm} \hbox{(WDVV2)}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ in which the matrix $(\eta_{\alpha\beta})$ is the inverse of $(\eta^{\alpha\beta})$,
3. a condition of quasi-homogeneity, $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\sum_{\alpha=1}^n
\left\lbrack (1-q_\alpha)t^\alpha+r_\alpha \right\rbrack \partial_\alpha \F(t)
=
(3-d) \F(t) + \frac{1}{2} A_{\alpha\beta} t^\alpha t^\beta
+ B_\alpha t^\alpha +C.
{\hskip 17.0 truemm} \hbox{(WDVV3)}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In the simplest nontrivial case $n=3$, there essentially exist two different choices of coordinates [@DubLNM], depending on $\eta^{11}$ being zero or nonzero, each choice resulting in a representation of the generating function $\F$ in terms of the solution of a single third order partial differential equation (PDE) of the Monge-Ampère type, which is either [@DubLNM] [@F2004 Eq. (9)]
1. $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\eta^{11} \not=0\ :\
\F=\frac{1}{6} \left(t^1\right)^3 + t^1 t^2 t^3 + f(t^2,t^3),
\\
& &
f_{xxx} f_{yyy} -f_{xxy} f_{yyx} -1 =0,\
x=t^2,\
y=t^3,
\label{eqPDEFerapontov}\end{aligned}$$
or [@Cargese1996Dubrovin page 304] [@F2004 Eq. (22)]
2. $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\eta^{11} =0\ :\
\F=\frac{1}{2} \left(t^1\right)^2 t^3 + \frac{1}{2} t^1 (t^2)^2+ F(t^2,t^3),
\\
& & \left(F_{tyy}\right)^2 - F_{ttt} -F_{tty} F_{yyy}=0,\
y=t^2,\
t=t^3.
\label{eqPDEDubrovin}\end{aligned}$$
There exists a Legendre transformation [@DubLNM] which exchanges these two solutions $\F$ (this transformation exchanges the coordinates $t^3$ of (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]) and $t^2$ of (\[eqPDEDubrovin\]), whose common value is here denoted $y$), and its action on the functions of two variables $f(x,y)$ and $F(y,t)$ is the hodograph transformation [@FM1996] [@F2004 Eq. (23)] $$\begin{aligned}
& &
t=f_{xx},\
F_{yyy}= \frac{f_{xxy}^2}{f_{xxx}},\
F_{tyy}=-\frac{f_{xxy}}{f_{xxx}},\
F_{tty}= \frac{1}{f_{xxx}},\
F_{ttt}= \frac{f_{xyy}}{f_{xxx}},\
\label{eqHodographFrom_f_to_F}\end{aligned}$$ whose inverse is $$\begin{aligned}
& &
f_{xx}=t,\
f_{xy}=-F_{yy},\
f_{yy}= F_{tt},\
x=F_{ty}.
\label{eqHodographFrom_F_to_f}\end{aligned}$$ A nice way to obtain this hodograph transformation (\[eqHodographFrom\_f\_to\_F\])–(\[eqHodographFrom\_F\_to\_f\]) is to rewrite both PDEs [@FM1996] as integrable systems of the so-called hydrodynamic type, allowing them to be mapped by a chain of standard transformations to integrable three-wave systems.
Both PDEs admit a Lax pair [@DubLNM], e.g. for the PDE (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]) [@F2004 Eq.(10)] $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\psi_x=\lambda \pmatrix {0 & 1 & 0 \cr
0 & f_{xxy} & f_{xxx} \cr
1 & f_{xyy} & f_{xxy} \cr} \psi,\
\psi_y=\lambda \pmatrix {0 & 0 & 1 \cr
1 & f_{xyy} & f_{xxy} \cr
0 & f_{yyy} & f_{xyy} \cr} \psi,
\label{eqLaxFerapontov}\end{aligned}$$ in which $\lambda$ is a nonzero spectral parameter.
The purpose of this paper is to obtain new explicit solutions of either the PDE (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]) or the PDE (\[eqPDEDubrovin\]), and therefore of the equations of associativity in the simplest nontrivial case. Any such solution $f$ is only defined up to an arbitrary additive second degree polynomial. However, the equation (\[eqPDEDubrovin\]) possesses a rather complicated structure of singularities, making uneasy the search for explicit solutions, while the equation (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]) has a simpler such structure, so we will mainly consider this latter equation. In particular, the invariance of this PDE under permutation of $x$ and $y$ has no simple equivalent for the PDE (\[eqPDEDubrovin\]).
To achieve this search for solutions, we perform a systematic investigation, *via* the Lie point symmetries method, of the reductions of the PDE (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]) to ordinary differential equations (ODEs), which *a priori* can be integrated since they inherit the integrability properties of the equations of associativity. In addition to the reductions or particular solutions of either (\[eqPDEDubrovin\]) or (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]) which have already been found [@DubLNM; @F2004], we obtain several new results. The paper is organized as follows. In section (\[sectionClassicalSymmetries\]), we apply the classical Lie method [@OvsiannikovBook; @OlverBook], derive the Lie algebra, compute the commutator table and the adjoint table [@OlverBook], which then allow us to derive the optimal system of generators. In section \[sectionClassicalReductions\], we perform all the associated classical reductions. The last section (\[sectionSummary\]) summarizes the solutions.
Classical Lie symmetries {#sectionClassicalSymmetries}
========================
In order to apply the classical Lie method to the Ferapontov equation (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]), we consider the one-parameter Lie group of infinitesimal transformations in $(x,y,f)$ $$\label{tran}
\begin{tabular}{l}
$x^*=x+\varepsilon \xi(x,y,f)+{\mathcal O}(\varepsilon^2)$,\\[5pt]
$y^*=y+\varepsilon \eta(x,y,f)+{\mathcal O}(\varepsilon^2)$,\\[5pt]
$f^*=f+\varepsilon \phi(x,y,f)+{\mathcal O}(\varepsilon^2)$,\\[5pt]
\end{tabular}$$ where $\varepsilon$ is the group parameter. The associated Lie algebra of infinitesimal symmetries is the set of vector fields of the form
$$\label{vect}
\bfv=\xi \partial_x +\eta \partial_y+\phi \partial_f.$$
One then requires that this transformation leaves invariant the set of solutions of the equation (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]). This yields an overdetermined, linear system of equations for the infinitesimals $\xi(x,y,f)$, $\eta(x,y,f)$ and $\phi(x,y,f)$. Having determined the infinitesimals, the symmetry variables are found by solving the invariant surface condition $$\label{sur}
\Phi \equiv \xi\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}
+ \eta\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}-\phi=0.$$
Applying the classical method to the equation (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]) leads to a ten-parameter Lie group. Associated with this Lie group we have a Lie algebra which can be represented by the following generators: $$\begin{array}{llllll}
\bfv_1= \partial_x,\hspace{0.3mm}&
\bfv_2= \partial_y,\hspace{0.3mm}&
\bfv_3=x \partial_x +\frac{3}{2} f \partial_f, \hspace{0.3mm}&
\bfv_4=y \partial_y +\frac{3}{2} f \partial_f, \hspace{0.3mm}&
\bfv_5=x y \partial_f,\hspace{0.3mm}&
\cr \\[10pt]
\bfv_6=x^2 \partial_f,\hspace{0.3mm}&
\bfv_7=y^2 \partial_f,\hspace{0.3mm}&
\bfv_8=x \partial_f,\hspace{0.3mm}&
\bfv_9=y \partial_f,\hspace{0.3mm}&
\bfv_{10}= \partial_f.&
\cr
\end{array}$$
Optimal system
--------------
In order to construct the optimal system, following Olver[@OlverBook], we first construct the commutator table (Table \[TableCommutator\]) and the adjoint table (Table \[TableAdjoint\]) which shows the separate adjoint actions of each element in $\bfv_i$, $i=1\dots10$, as it acts on all other elements. This construction is done easily by summing the Lie series.
The corresponding generators of the optimal system of subalgebras are $$\begin{aligned}
&& \bfv_3,
\nonumber\\ && \bfv_4,\
\nonumber\\ && -a \bfv_3+b \bfv_4,
\nonumber\\ && \bfv_3- \bfv_4+a \bfv_5 +b \bfv_{10},
\nonumber\\ && 3 \bfv_3+ \bfv_4 +a \bfv_7,
\nonumber\\ && \bfv_3+3 \bfv_4 +a \bfv_6,
\nonumber\\ && -3 \bfv_3+ \bfv_4 +a \bfv_8,
\nonumber\\ && \bfv_3-3 \bfv_4 +a \bfv_9,
\nonumber\\ && a \bfv_2+b \bfv_3,
\nonumber\\ && a \bfv_1 +b \bfv_4,
\nonumber\\ && a \bfv_1+b \bfv_2 +c \bfv_5+d \bfv_6+e \bfv_7,\
\label{eqOptimalSystemGenerators}\end{aligned}$$ where $a,b,c,d,e$ are arbitrary real nonzero constants.
=0.5truemm
--------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------
$\bfv_1$ $\bfv_2$ $\bfv_3$ $\bfv_4$ $\bfv_5$ $\bfv_6$ $\bfv_7$ $\bfv_8$ $\bfv_9$ $\bfv_{10}$
\[10pt\]$\bfv_1$ $0$ $0$ $\bfv_1$ $0$ $\bfv_9$ $2 \bfv_8$ $0$ $\bfv_{10}$ $0$ $0$
\[10pt\] $\bfv_2$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $\bfv_2$ $\bfv_8$ $0$ $2\bfv_9$ $0$ ${\bfv}_{10}$ $0$
\[10pt\] $\bfv_3$ $-\bfv_1$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $-\frac{1}{2}\bfv_5$ $\frac{1}{2}\bfv_6$ $-\frac{3}{2}\bfv_7$ $-\frac{1}{2}\bfv_8$ $-\frac{3}{2}\bfv_9$ $-\frac{3}{2}\bfv_{10}$
\[10pt\] $\bfv_4$ $0$ $-\bfv_2$ $0$ $0$ $-\frac{1}{2}\bfv_5$ $-\frac{3}{2}\bfv_6$ $\frac{1}{2}\bfv_7$ $-\frac{3}{2}\bfv_8$ $-\frac{1}{2}\bfv_9$ $-\frac{3}{2}\bfv_{10}$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_5$ $-\bfv_9$ $-\bfv_8$ $\frac{1}{2}\bfv_5$ $\frac{1}{2}\bfv_5$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_6$ $-2\bfv_8$ $0$ $-\frac{1}{2}\bfv_6$ $\frac{3}{2}\bfv_6$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_7$ $0$ $-2\bfv_{9}$ $\frac{3}{2}\bfv_7$ $-\frac{1}{2}\bfv_7$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_8$ $-\bfv_{10}$ $0$ $\frac{1}{2}\bfv_8$ $\frac{3}{2}\bfv_8$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_9$ $0$ $-\bfv_{10}$ $\frac{3}{2}\bfv_9$ $\frac{1}{2}\bfv_9$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_{10}$ $0$ $0$ $\frac{3}{2}\bfv_{10}$ $\frac{3}{2}\bfv_{10}$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
\[5pt\]
--------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------
: Commutator table for the Lie algebra $\bfv_i$. \[TableCommutator\]
--------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
$Ad$ $\bfv_1$ $\bfv_2$ $\bfv_3$ $\bfv_4$ $\bfv_5$ $\bfv_6$ $\bfv_7$ $\bfv_8$ $\bfv_9$ $\bfv_{10}$
\[10pt\]$\bfv_1$ $\bfv_1$ $\bfv_2$ $\bfv_3-\varepsilon $\bfv_4$ $\bfv_5- \varepsilon \bfv_9$ $\bfv_6-2\varepsilon \bfv_8+\varepsilon^2 \bfv_{10}$ $\bfv_7$ $\bfv_8-\varepsilon \bfv_{10}$ $\bfv_9$ $\bfv_{10}$
\bfv_1$
\[10pt\] $\bfv_2$ $\bfv_1$ $\bfv_2$ $\bfv_3$ $\bfv_4-\varepsilon \bfv_{2}$ $\bfv_5-\varepsilon \bfv_{8}$ $\bfv_6$ $\bfv_7-2\varepsilon \bfv_{9}+\varepsilon^2 \bfv_{10}$ $\bfv_8$ $\bfv_9-\varepsilon \bfv_{10}$ $\bfv_{10}$
\[10pt\] $\bfv_3$ $e^{\varepsilon}\bfv_1$ $\bfv_2$ $\bfv_3$ $\bfv_4$ $e^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_5$ $e^{-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_6$ $e^{\frac{3\varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_7$ $e^{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_8$ $e^{\frac{3\varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_9$ $e^{\frac{3\varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_{10}$
\[10pt\] $\bfv_4$ $\bfv_1 $ $e^{\varepsilon}\bfv_2$ $\bfv_3$ $\bfv_4$ $e^{\frac{ \varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_5$ $e^{\frac{3 \varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_6$ $e^{-\frac{ $e^{\frac{3 \varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_8$ $e^{\frac{ \varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_9$ $e^{\frac{3 \varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_{10}$
\varepsilon}{2}}\bfv_7$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_5$ $\bfv_1+\varepsilon \bfv_9$ $\bfv_2+\varepsilon $\bfv_3-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_5$ $\bfv_4-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_5$ $\bfv_5$ $\bfv_6$ $\bfv_7$ $\bfv_8$ $\bfv_9$ $\bfv_{10}$
\bfv_8$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_6$ $\bfv_1+2\varepsilon \bfv_8$ $\bfv_2$ $\bfv_3+\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_6$ $\bfv_4-\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_6$ $\bfv_5$ $\bfv_6$ $\bfv_7$ $\bfv_8$ $\bfv_9$ $\bfv_{10}$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_7$ $\bfv_1$ $\bfv_2+2\varepsilon \bfv_9$ $\bfv_3-\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_7$ $\bfv_4+\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_7$ $\bfv_5$ $\bfv_6$ $\bfv_7$ $\bfv_8$ $\bfv_9$ $\bfv_{10}$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_8$ $\bfv_1+\varepsilon \bfv_{10}$ $\bfv_2$ $\bfv_3-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_8$ $\bfv_4-\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_8$ $\bfv_5$ $\bfv_6$ $\bfv_7$ $\bfv_8$ $\bfv_9$ $\bfv_{10}$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_9$ $\bfv_1$ $\bfv_2+\varepsilon \bfv_{10}$ $\bfv_3-\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_9$ $\bfv_4-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_9$ $\bfv_5$ $\bfv_6$ $\bfv_7$ $\bfv_8$ $\bfv_9$ $\bfv_{10}$
\[5pt\] $\bfv_{10}$ $\bfv_1$ $\bfv_2$ $\bfv_3-\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_{10}$ $\bfv_4-\frac{3}{2}\varepsilon \bfv_{10}$ $\bfv_5$ $\bfv_6$ $\bfv_7$ $\bfv_8$ $\bfv_9$ $\bfv_{10}$
\[5pt\]
--------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
: Adjoint table for the Lie algebra $\bfv_i$. \[TableAdjoint\]
Classical reductions {#sectionClassicalReductions}
====================
Each generator of the optimal system defines a reduction of the equation (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]) to an ODE. Because of the invariance of (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]) under permutation of $x$ and $y$, these ten generators only define seven different reductions to an ODE, which we now consider.
Although these reductions are probably integrable in some sense, performing their explicit integration is a difficult task. Moreover, since the Lax pair (\[eqLaxFerapontov\]) is not isospectral, its reductions, which are also Lax pairs for the reduced ODEs, cannot generate any first integral, so the Lax pair is unfortunately of no use for integrating the reduced ODEs.
From the scaling invariance of the two considered PDEs, an obvious solution is $$\begin{aligned}
& &
f=2 i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} (x y)^{3/2},\
F=\frac{y^4}{8 t},\
2 t^2 x + y^3=0,\
i^2=-1.
\label{eqScalingSolution}\end{aligned}$$
Reduction with the generator $ \bfv_3$ or $ \bfv_4$
---------------------------------------------------
The generators $ \bfv_3$ and $\bfv_4$ define a reduction to the same autonomous linear ODE [@F2004 Eq. (30) p. 46], $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace \matrix{
\displaystyle{
z=y,\ f=\left[x^3 \Phi(z)\right]^{1/2},
\hbox{ or }
z=x,\ f=\left[y^3 \Phi(z)\right]^{1/2},
}
\hfill \cr \displaystyle{
\Phi''' + 16/3=0.
} \hfill \cr} \right.
\label{eqoptim1or2}\end{aligned}$$ This contains the scaling solution (\[eqScalingSolution\]).
Reduction with the generator $- a \bfv_3 + b \bfv_4$
----------------------------------------------------
With the notation $s=a+b,p=ab$, a symmetric definition of this reduction is, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{
z=x^b y^a,\ f=(x y)^{3/2} \varphi(z),
}
\\
\displaystyle{
\left[
-16 p^2 s z^5 \varphi''
-8 p (4 p +2 p s + s^2) z^4 \varphi'
- 3 s^3 z^3 \varphi
\right] \varphi'''
} \\ \displaystyle{ \phantom{1234}
+ 8 p (2 p - 6 p s - 3 s^2) {\varphi''}^2
- (64 p^2 +72 p s +64 p^2 s +72 p s^2 +9 s^3) z^3 \varphi' \varphi''
} \\ \displaystyle{ \phantom{1234}
- 9 (2 +s) s^2 z^2 \varphi \varphi''
- (40 p +16 p^2 +72 p s +16 p^2 s +18 s^2 +32 p s^2 +9 s^3) z^2 {\varphi'}^2
} \\ \displaystyle{ \phantom{1234}
- (33 +18 s +3 s^2) s z \varphi \varphi'
-9 \varphi^2
-8
=0.
}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqoptim3}\end{aligned}$$
An equivalent, shorter expression is obtained by suppressing the term $\varphi^2$ [@F2004 p. 46], $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{
z=x y^{-\mu},\ f=\left(\frac{x y}{z}\right)^{3/2} \varphi(z),
\hbox{ or }
z=y x^{-\mu},\ f=\left(\frac{x y}{z}\right)^{3/2} \varphi(z),
}
\\
\displaystyle{
\left[
16 \mu^2 (\mu-1) z^2 \varphi''
-8 \mu (3 \mu+1)(\mu+1) z \varphi'
+3 (3 \mu+1) (3 \mu-1) (\mu+1) \varphi
\right] \varphi'''
} \\ \displaystyle{ \phantom{1234}
-8 \mu (\mu-3) z {\varphi''}^2
+(\mu-3)(\mu+3) (\mu+1) \varphi' \varphi''
-8=0.
}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqoptim3bis}\end{aligned}$$ As it results from the scaling solution (\[eqScalingSolution\]), the ODE (\[eqoptim3bis\]) admits the particular zero-parameter solution $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\forall \mu\ :\
\varphi=2 i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} z^{3/2},\
f=2 i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} (x y)^{3/2}.
\label{eqoptim3bisPS}
\label{eqoptim3mu1PS}\end{aligned}$$ For generic values of $(a,b)$, this ODE is unfortunately outside the class $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\varphi''' = \sum_{j=0}^{3} A_j(z,\varphi,\varphi') {\varphi''}^j,\end{aligned}$$ an equation which for some $A_j$ can be linearized by a contact transformation. However, there exist particular values of $\mu$ for which the integration can be performed at least partially. The invariance of (\[eqoptim3\]) under $(a,b) \to (b,a)$ induces an invariance of (\[eqoptim3bis\]) under $\mu \to \mu^{-1}$.
1. For $\mu=0,1,-1,-2,-1/2$, a first integral $K$ is known, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace \matrix{
\displaystyle{
\mu=0,\
K=-8 z -3 \varphi \varphi'' - 3 {\varphi'}^2
%=\left[-4 z^2 -3 \varphi \varphi'\right]'
=\left[-\frac{4}{3} z^3 - \frac{3}{2} \varphi^2\right]'',
}
\hfill \cr
\displaystyle{
\mu=1,\
K=\hbox{any rational function of } a,b,c,
\hbox{ see } (\ref{eqoptim3mu1FirstIntegrals}),
}
\hfill \cr
\displaystyle{
\mu=-1,\
K=z + 2 z^2 {\varphi''}^2,
}
\hfill \cr
\displaystyle{
\mu=-2,\
K=-8 z
- {\varphi'}^2
-105 \varphi \varphi''
+ 112 z \varphi' \varphi''
-96 z^2 {\varphi''}^2,
}
\hfill \cr
\displaystyle{
\mu=-\frac{1}{2},\
K=-8 z^2+\frac{15}{4}
\left(z \varphi \varphi'' + z {\varphi'}^2 - \varphi \varphi'\right)
-10 z^2 \varphi' \varphi'' -6 z^3 {\varphi''}^2.
}
\hfill \cr
} \right.\end{aligned}$$
2. For $\mu=1$, the third order equation [@F2004 Eq. (31) p. 46], $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace \matrix{
\displaystyle{
z=x/y,\ f=y^3 \varphi(z),\
\hbox{ or }
z=y/x,\ f=x^3 \varphi(z),\
}
\hfill \cr
\displaystyle{
2(3 \varphi - 2 z \varphi') \varphi''' + 2 z {\varphi''}^2
- 2 \varphi' \varphi'' -1=0,
} \hfill
\cr} \right.
\label{eqoptim3mu1}\end{aligned}$$ is linearizable since its derivative factorizes into $$\begin{aligned}
& &
2 (3 \varphi - 2 z \varphi') \varphi''''=0,\end{aligned}$$ so its general solution is $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\varphi=\alpha z^3 + 3 \beta z^2 + 3 \gamma z + \delta,\
36 (\alpha \delta - \beta \gamma) -1=0,
(\alpha,\beta,\gamma) \hbox{ arbitrary}.
\label{eqoptim3mu1GS}\end{aligned}$$ It is interesting to notice that, knowing the three first integrals $a,b,c$, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace \matrix{
\displaystyle{
12 a=\frac{1 + 2 \varphi' \varphi'' - 2 z {\varphi''}^2}
{3 \varphi -2 z \varphi'}
= 2 \varphi''',
}
\hfill \cr
\displaystyle{
4 b=\frac{-z + 6 \varphi \varphi'' - 6 z \varphi' \varphi''
+2 z^2 {\varphi''}^2}
{3 \varphi -2 z \varphi'}
=2 \varphi'' - 2 z \varphi''',
}
\hfill \cr
\displaystyle{
4 c=\frac{z^2 + 12 \varphi \varphi' - 8 z {\varphi'}^2
-12 z \varphi \varphi'' + 10 z^2 \varphi' \varphi''
-2 z^3 {\varphi''}^2}
{3 \varphi -2 z \varphi'}
=4 \varphi' - 4 z \varphi'' + 2 z^2 \varphi''',
}
\hfill \cr
} \right.
\label{eqoptim3mu1FirstIntegrals}\end{aligned}$$ there exists no first integral which would be polynomial in $(\varphi,\varphi',\varphi'')$.
3. For $\mu=-1$, the ODE reduces to a linear equation for ${\varphi''}^2$, identical to the particular case $r_1=r_2=s_1=s_2=0$ of the reduction (\[eqoptim4\]) given below.
4. For $\mu=3,\ 1/3$ and $\mu=-3,\ -1/3$ respectively, the ODE is just the subcase $a=0$ of the reductions (\[eqoptim5or6order3\]) and (\[eqoptim7or8\]) given below.
5. For $\mu=2,1/2$, two rational solutions for $\varphi^2$ can be obtained, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace \matrix{
\displaystyle{
\mu=2,\ \varphi=\frac{2}{15 c} (z-c)^{5/2},\
f=\frac{2 y^2}{15 c} \left(\frac{x}{y}-c y \right)^{5/2},
}
\hfill \cr
\displaystyle{
\mu=\frac{1}{2},\ \varphi=\frac{2}{15 c} z^{-1/2} (1-c z^2)^{5/2},\
f=\frac{2 x^2}{15 c} \left(\frac{y}{x}-c x \right)^{5/2},
}
\hfill \cr
} \right.
\label{eqoptim3subcase2and1over2old}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace \matrix{
\displaystyle{
\mu=2,\ \varphi=2 i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} z^{3/2} (1-c z),\
f=\frac{2 i \sqrt{2}}{3} (x y)^{3/2}\left(1-\frac{c x}{y^2}\right)
}
\hfill \cr
\displaystyle{
\mu=\frac{1}{2},\ \varphi=2 i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} z^{-1/2} (z^2-c),\
f=\frac{2 i \sqrt{2}}{3} (x y)^{3/2}\left(1-\frac{c y}{x^2}\right)
}
\hfill \cr
} \right.
\label{eqoptim3subcase2and1over2new}\end{aligned}$$ in which $c$ is arbitrary.
The first solution (\[eqoptim3subcase2and1over2old\]) represents the octahedron solution $B_3$ of Dubrovin, see [@F2004 p. 41]. The second solution $f$ extrapolates the scaling solution (\[eqScalingSolution\]).
6. For $\mu=5/3,\ 3/5$, one rational solution exists, which depends on one arbitrary parameter $c$, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace \matrix{
\displaystyle{
\mu=\frac{5}{3},\ \varphi=\frac{c}{6} z^3 + \frac{1}{24 c},\
}
\hfill \cr
\displaystyle{
\mu=\frac{3}{5},\ \varphi=\frac{c}{6 z} + \frac{z^4}{24 c}.
}
\hfill \cr
} \right.
\label{eqoptim3subcase5over3}\end{aligned}$$ This represents the tetrahedron solution $A_3$ of Dubrovin, see [@F2004 p. 41].
Reduction with the generator $\bfv_3-\bfv_4+a\bfv_5+ b \bfv_{10}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This reduction to a nonautonomous ODE, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left. \matrix{
\displaystyle{
z=xy,\ f=\varphi(z)+(a z + b) \log x,
}
\hfill \cr
}
\right.
\label{eqoptim4bad}\end{aligned}$$ can be defined more symmetrically as [@F2004 p. 45, Example 2] $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{
z=xy,\
f=\varphi(z) + (r_1 z + r_2) \log x + (s_1 z + s_2) \log y,
}
\\
\displaystyle{
z^2 {\varphi''}^2 +(r_1+s_1) z \varphi'' -(r_2+s_2) \varphi''
- \frac{r_1 s_2 + r_2 s_1}{z} + \frac{r_2 s_2}{z^2} + \frac{z}{2}
+ \frac{(r_1+s_1)^2}{4} + k_0 =0,
}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqoptim4}\end{aligned}$$ in which $k_0$ is a constant of integration. Its general solution is obtained by quadratures, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{
\varphi=k_1 z + k_2 - \frac{r_1+s_1}{2} (z \log z -z)
- \frac{r_2+s_2}{2} \log z
}
\\
\displaystyle{
\phantom{1234}
\pm \int \D z \int \D z \frac{\sqrt{
-2 z^3 - 4 k_0 z^2 - 2(r_1-s_1)(r_2-s_2) z+(r_2-s_2)^2}}{2 z^2},
}
\\
\displaystyle{
f=-s_2 \log x - r_2 \log y +\frac{r_1-s_1}{2} x y \log\frac{x}{y}
\pm \int \D z \int \D z \frac{\sqrt{\dots}}{2 z^2},
}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqoptim4GS}\end{aligned}$$ and it generically involves elliptic integrals. A particular solution is $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{
f=2 i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} (x y)^{3/2} + c x y \log \frac{x}{y},
}
\\
\displaystyle{
F= i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{8} x^{-1/2} y^{3/2}
\left(4 c^2 \log\frac{x}{y} - x y \right)
+\frac{c y^2}{4} + \frac{c^3 y}{x}
+\left(\frac{c^3 y}{x}-\frac{c y^2}{2}\right) \log\frac{x}{y},
}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqoptim4PS}\end{aligned}$$ which is another extrapolation of the scaling solution (\[eqScalingSolution\]).
Reduction with the generator $3 \bfv_3 + \bfv_4 + a \bfv_7$ or $\bfv_3 + 3 \bfv_4 + a \bfv_6$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two generators define a reduction to the same nonautonomous ODE, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{
z=x y^{-3},\ f= y^6 \varphi(z) - \frac{a}{4} y^2,
\hbox{ or }
z=y x^{-3},\ f= x^6 \varphi(z) - \frac{a}{4} x^2,
}
\\
\displaystyle{
12(3 z^2 \varphi'' -8 z \varphi' +10 \varphi) \varphi'''-1=0,
}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqoptim5or6order3}\end{aligned}$$ which a linear transformation can make second order in $\varphi'$, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{
z=x y^{-3},\ f= x^2 \varphi(z) - \frac{a}{4} y^2,
\hbox{ or }
z=y x^{-3},\ f= y^2 \varphi(z) - \frac{a}{4} x^2,
}
\\
\displaystyle{
\left[36 z^6 \varphi'' + 48 z^5 \varphi' \right] \varphi'''
+ 216 z^5 {\varphi''}^2
+504 z^4 \varphi' \varphi''
+288 z^3 {\varphi'}^2
-1
=0.
}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqoptim5or6order2}\end{aligned}$$ Since $f$ is defined up to an arbitrary additive second degree polynomial, the reduced ODE does not depend on $a$, and this case is identical to the case $\mu=3,1/3$ of (\[eqoptim3bis\]), in which no solution is known other than (\[eqoptim3bisPS\]).
Reduction with the generator $-3 \bfv_3 + \bfv_4 + a \bfv_8$ or $\bfv_3 - 3 \bfv_4 + a \bfv_9$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two generators define a reduction to the same second order, nonautonomous ODE for $\varphi'$, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{
z=x y^3,\ f= x \varphi(z) - \frac{a}{3} x \log x,
\hbox{ or }
z=y x^3,\ f= y \varphi(z) - \frac{a}{3} y \log y,\
a \not=0,
}
\\
\displaystyle{
\left[-72 z^4 \varphi'' -84 z^3 \varphi' + 9 a z^2 \right] \varphi'''
- 234 z^3 {\varphi''}^2
} \\ \displaystyle{ \phantom{1234}
-324 z^2 \varphi' \varphi''
+ 18 a z \varphi''
- 72 z {\varphi'}^2
+ 2 a \varphi'
-1=0,
}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqoptim7or8}\end{aligned}$$ but, with $a \not=0$, we could not find any solution to this ODE.
Reduction with the generator $a \bfv_2 + b \bfv_3$ or $a \bfv_1 + b \bfv_4$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
They lead to the same autonomous ODE, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{
z=b x - a \log y,\ f=y^{3/2} \varphi(z),
\hbox{ or }
z=a y - b \log x,\ f=x^{3/2} \varphi(z),\
a b \not=0,
}
\\
\displaystyle{
\left[16 a^2 \varphi'' - 8 a \varphi' +3 \varphi \right] \varphi'''
- 24 a {\varphi''}^2 + 9 \varphi' \varphi'' + 8 b^{-3}=0.
}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqoptim9or10}\end{aligned}$$ We could not find a particular solution for this ODE.
Reduction with the generator $-a \bfv_1 + b \bfv_2 + c \bfv_5 + d \bfv_6 + e \bfv_7$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reduced ODE is autonomous and linear [@F2004 p. 44, Example 1], $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{
z=b x + a y,\ f= \varphi(z) + c_3 x^3 + c_2 x^2 y + c_1 x y^2 + c_0 y^3,\
a b \not=0,
}
\\
\displaystyle{
c=-2 a c_2+2 b c_1,d=-3 a c_3+b c_2,e=-a c_1+3 b c_0,
}
\\
\displaystyle{
2 \left(3 a^3 c_3 - a^2 b c_2 - a b^2 c_1 + 3 b^3 c_0\right) \varphi'''
+ 36 c_0 c_3 - 4 c_1 c_2 -1=0.
}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqoptim11}\end{aligned}$$ and the solution $f(x,y)$ (always defined up to an arbitrary polynomial of degree two in $(x,y)$) is identical to that defined by Eq. (\[eqoptim3mu1GS\]), i.e. the third degree polynomial depending on three arbitrary independent constants, $$\begin{aligned}
& &
f(x,y)=\alpha x^3 + 3 \beta x^2 y + 3 \gamma x y^2 + \delta y^3,\
36 (\alpha \delta - \beta \gamma) -1=0.
\label{eqoptim11GS}\end{aligned}$$
Summary of solutions {#sectionSummary}
====================
The explicit solutions to (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]) are summarized in Table \[Table0\]. This table does not include the reductions for which no solution could be found. The too long expression for the “icosa$'$” solution is, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{
F(y,t)=\frac{ \irrec^2 x^6 T}{4}
+ \frac{29 \irrec^3 x^5 T^4}{24}
+\frac{29 \irrec^4 x^4 T^7}{30}
+\frac{ \irrec^5 x^3 T^{10}}{10}
+\frac{ 3 \irrec^6 x^2 T^{13}}{80}
+\frac{ \irrec^8 T^{19}}{3040},
}
\\
\displaystyle{
f(x,y)=
\frac{4 \irrec^4 x^2 T^9}{45}
+ \frac{7 \irrec^3 x^3 T^6}{30}
+ \frac{ \irrec^2 x^4 T^3}{6}
+ \frac{ \irrec x^5 }{60},
}
\\
\displaystyle{
y=\irrec x^2 T + \frac{\irrec^2 x T^4}{2},\
t=\frac{\irrec x^3}{3} + \irrec^2 x^2 T^3 +\frac{\irrec^4 T^9}{36}.
}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqicosaprime}\end{aligned}$$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Label $F(y,t)$ $f(x,y)$ Eq Link $(t,x,y)$
--------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\displaystyle{\frac{y^4}{8 t}}$ $\displaystyle{2 i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}(x y)^{3/2} }$ (\[eqScalingSolution\]) $\displaystyle{x=-\frac{y^3}{2 t^2}}$
F1 $\displaystyle{i \sqrt{2} y^{5/2} x^{-15/2} \lambda^{-5} P_{8}(x)}$ $\displaystyle{2 i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}(x y)^{3/2} \lambda,\ (\[eqoptim1or2\]) $\displaystyle{t=i \sqrt{2} y^{3/2} x^{-9/2} \lambda^{-3} P_{4}(x)}$
\lambda^2=1+\frac{\alpha}{x}+\frac{\beta}{x^2}+\frac{\gamma}{x^3}}$
F1’ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{2 i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}(x y)^{3/2} \lambda,\ (\[eqoptim1or2\]) $\displaystyle{x=-\frac{\lambda^2 y^3}{t^2}}$
\frac{4 \alpha \gamma-\beta^2 +12 \gamma y +6 \beta y^2 +4 \alpha y^3 +3 y^4} \lambda^2=1+\frac{\alpha}{y}+\frac{\beta}{y^2}+\frac{\gamma}{y^3}}$
{24 t}
}$
F2 $\displaystyle{}$ $\displaystyle{ (\[eqoptim4GS\]) $t=f_{xx}$
{\displaystyle{
\frac{r_1-s_1}{2} x y \log\frac{x}{y}
-s_2 \log x - r_2 \log y
}}
\atop
{\displaystyle{\pm \int \D z \int \D z \frac{\sqrt{\dots}}{2 z^2},\ z=xy}}
}$
F3 (\[eqoptim4PS\]) $\displaystyle{2 i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}(x y)^{3/2} + c x y \log\frac{x}{y}}$ (\[eqoptim4PS\]) $\displaystyle{
t=i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \left(\frac{y^3}{x}\right)^{1/2} + c \frac{y}{x}}$
F4 $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{{(\ref{eqoptim3mu1GS})} \atop {(\ref{eqoptim11GS})}}$ $t=6 (\alpha x + \beta y)$
\frac{12 (\beta^2-\alpha \gamma) y^3 -6 \beta y^2 t + y t^2 + 2 \gamma t^3} {\alpha x^3 + 3 \beta x^2 y + 3 \gamma x y^2 + \delta y^3}
{12 \alpha} \atop
}$ {36 (\alpha \delta - \beta \gamma) -1=0}
}$
$\displaystyle{\hbox{octa}\atop\hbox{B3}}$ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{\frac{2 y^2}{15 \irrec} \left(\frac{x}{y}-\irrec y \right)^{5/2} (\[eqoptim3subcase2and1over2old\]) $\displaystyle{x=4 \irrec^2 y t^2 + \irrec y^2}$
\frac{\irrec y^3 t}{3} + \frac{2 \irrec^2 y^2 t^3}{3}+\frac{8 \irrec^4 t^7}{105}}$ % \ \in \mu=2
}$
octa’ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{ (\[eqoptim3subcase2and1over2old\]) $\displaystyle{t=2 \irrec \lambda x^2 + \frac{\lambda^5}{10 \irrec}}$
\displaystyle{ \frac{2 x^2}{15 \irrec} \left(\frac{y}{x}-\irrec x \right)^{5/2},\
\frac{\lambda^{11}}{528 \irrec^3} y=\irrec x^2 + x \lambda^2
+\frac{\lambda^{7} x^2}{6 \irrec} % \ \in \mu=1/2
+\frac{\lambda^{5} x^3}{3} }$
+\frac{7 \irrec \lambda^{3} x^4}{3}
}
\atop
\displaystyle{
+\frac{4 \irrec^2 \lambda x^5}{3}
}}$
N1 $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{ (\[eqoptim3subcase2and1over2new\]) $\displaystyle{t=\frac{i \sqrt{2}}{2 (x y)^{1/2}} (y^2-5 \irrec x)}$
\displaystyle{ 2i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} (x y)^{3/2}\left(1-\frac{\irrec x}{y^2}\right)
\frac{i \sqrt{2}}{24}x^{1/2} y^{-7/2}\times % \ \in \mu=2
} }$
\atop
\displaystyle{
\left(
\frac{25 \irrec^3 x^3}{7}-5 \irrec^2 x^2 y^2 -7 \irrec x y^4 - 3 y^6\right)
}}$
N1’ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{ (\[eqoptim3subcase2and1over2new\]) $\displaystyle{t=\frac{i \sqrt{2}}{2} x^{-5/2} y^{3/2} (x^2-\irrec y)}$
\displaystyle{\frac{i \sqrt{2}}{24}x^{-11/2} y^{5/2}\times 2i \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} (x y)^{3/2}\left(1-\frac{\irrec y}{x^2}\right)
} % \ \in \mu=1/2
\atop }$
\displaystyle{
\left(
\frac{125 \irrec^3 y^3}{11}-25 \irrec^2 x^2 y^2 +5 \irrec x^4 y -3 x^6\right)}
}$
$\displaystyle{\hbox{tetra}\atop\hbox{A3}}$ $\displaystyle{\frac{y^2 t^2}{4 \irrec} + \frac{t^5}{60 \irrec^2}}$ $\displaystyle{\frac{\irrec x^3}{6 y} + \frac{y^4}{24 \irrec}} (\[eqoptim3subcase5over3\]) $x=t y / \irrec$
%\in \mu=5/3
$
tetra’ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{\frac{\irrec y^3}{6 x} + \frac{x^4}{24 \irrec}} (\[eqoptim3subcase5over3\]) $\displaystyle{t=\frac{\irrec y^3}{3 x^3} + \frac{x^2}{2 \irrec}}$
\frac{x^3 y}{3 \irrec} + \frac{3 \irrec y^4}{8 x^2}+\frac{\irrec^3 y^7}{28 x^7} %\in \mu=3/5
}$ $
Dub1 $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{x=y e^{\irrec t}}$
\frac{e^{2 \irrec t}}{8 \irrec^3} \frac{\irrec x y^3}{12} - \frac{x^2}{2 \irrec} \log \frac{x}{y}
+\frac{y^2 e^{\irrec t}}{2 \irrec} -\frac{3 x^2}{4 \irrec}
-\frac{\irrec y^4}{48}}$ %\ \not\in x^2 \varphi(y/x)
}$
Dub1’ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{t=\frac{\irrec x y}{2} + \frac{y^2}{2 \irrec x^2}}$
{\displaystyle{ \frac{\irrec y x^3}{12} - \frac{y^2}{2 \irrec} \log \frac{y}{x}
\frac{y^4}{32 \irrec^3 x^4}(4 \log\frac{y}{x}-3) -\frac{3 y^2}{4 \irrec}
}} %\ \not\in y^2 \varphi(x/y)
\atop }$
{\displaystyle{
+\left(\frac{y^3}{ 8 \irrec x}+\frac{\irrec x^2 y^2}{16}\right)
(2 \log\frac{y}{x}+3)
}}
}$
Dub2 $\displaystyle{-\frac{\irrec y^4}{24} + \frac{y}{\irrec} e^{\irrec t}}$ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{x=e^{\irrec t}}$
\frac{\irrec x y^3}{6} + \frac{x^2}{2 \irrec} \log x -\frac{3 x^2}{4 \irrec}
}$
Dub2’ $\displaystyle{\frac{t^2 \log y}{2 \irrec}}$ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{x=\frac{t}{\irrec y}}$
\frac{\irrec x y^3}{6} + \frac{x^2}{2 \irrec} \log x -\frac{3 x^2}{4 \irrec}
}$
$\displaystyle{\hbox{icosa}\atop\hbox{H3}}$ $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{\frac{\irrec^2 y^4 t^3}{6} + \frac{7 \irrec^3 y^3 t^6}{30} $\displaystyle{x=\irrec y^2 t + \frac{\irrec^2 y t^4}{2}}$
\frac{\irrec y^3 t^2}{6} + \frac{\irrec^2 y^2 t^5}{20} + \frac{4 \irrec^4 y^2 t^9}{45} + \frac{\irrec y^5}{60}
+ \frac{\irrec^4 t^{11}}{3960} }$
}$
icosa’ (\[eqicosaprime\]) $\displaystyle{ $\displaystyle{
\frac{4 \irrec^4 x^2 T^9}{45} \displaystyle{y=\irrec x^2 T + \frac{\irrec^2 x T^4}{2}}
+ \frac{7 \irrec^3 x^3 T^6}{30} \atop
+ \frac{ \irrec^2 x^4 T^3}{6} \displaystyle{
+ \frac{ \irrec x^5 }{60} t=\frac{\irrec x^3}{3} + \irrec^2 x^2 T^3 +\frac{\irrec^4 T^9}{36}}
}$ }$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Summary of solutions $F(y,t),f(x,y)$ of the equations (\[eqPDEDubrovin\]), (\[eqPDEFerapontov\]). A3, B3, H3 label solutions linked to regular polyhedra [@DubLNM], Dubn solutions found by Dubrovin [@DubLNM], Fn additional solutions listed in [@F2004 p. 41], and Nn solutions apparently new. A prime (’) labels the solution deduced by permuting $x$ and $y$ in $f$. A blank field in column “Eq” indicates a solution not arising from a known reduction. The irrelevant constant $\irrec$ reflects the scaling invariance and can be set to $1$. $P_n$ denotes a polynomial of degree $n$.
\[Table0\]
Conclusion
==========
Finding additional solutions to the obtained reductions could generate algebraic solutions of the sixth Painlevé equation $\PVI$ [@DubLNM], in which the four monodromy exponents of $\PVI$ could depend on one arbitrary constant, like in some particular cases (tetrahedron and octahedron solutions) found by Kitaev [@KitaevP6cube]. In particular, the two solutions labeled N1 and N1’ in Table \[Table0\] obey the quasi-homogeneity condition (WDVV3) recalled in the introduction. This question is currently under investigation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We warmly thank Evgueni Ferapontov and Zhang You-jin for enlightening discussions, and one referee for suggestions to greatly improve the introduction.
[99]{}
R. Dijkgraaf, H. Verlinde, E. Verlinde, Topological strings in $d<1$, Nucl. Phys. B [**352**]{} (1991) 59–86.
B. Dubrovin, Geometry of 2D topological field theories, Lecture notes in mathematics [**1620**]{} (1995) 120–348. http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9407018
B. Dubrovin, Painlevé transcendents in two-dimensional topological field theory, [*The Painlevé property, one century later*]{}, 287–412, ed. R. Conte, CRM series in mathematical physics (Springer, New York, 1999).
E. V. Ferapontov, Hypersurfaces with flat centroaffine metric and equations of associativity, Geometriae Dedicata [**103**]{} (2004) 33–49. http://arXiv.org/abs/math.DG/0205248
E. V. Ferapontov, C. A. P. Galvão, O. I. Mokhov, and Y. Nutku, Bi-Hamiltonian structure of equations of associativity in 2-d topological field theory, (1997) 649–669.
E. V. Ferapontov and O. I. Mokhov, Equations of associativity in two-dimensional topological field theory as integrable Hamiltonian nondiagonalizable systems of hydrodynamic type, Funct. Anal. Appl. [**30**]{} (1996) 195–203. http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9505180
A. V. Kitaev, Special functions of the isomonodromy type, rational transformations of spectral parameter, and algebraic solutions of the sixth Painlevé equation, Algebra i Analiz [**14**]{} (2002) 121–139. English translation: St. Petersburg Math. J. [**14**]{} (2003) 453–465. http://arXiv.org/abs/nlin.SI/0102020
P. J. Olver, [*Applications of Lie groups to differential equations*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1986).
L. V. Ovsiannikov, [*Group properties of differential equations*]{}, (Siberian section of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Novosibirsk, 1962) in Russian. Translated by G. W. Bluman (1967), [*Group analysis of differential equations*]{} (Academic press, New York, 1982).
E. Witten, On the structure of the topological phase of two-dimensional gravity, Nucl. Phys. B [**340**]{} (1990) 281–332.
[^1]: Journal of Physics A, to appear. Corresponding author RC. Preprint S2004/045.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have theoretically investigated the influence of interface roughness scattering on the low temperature mobility of electrons in quantum wires when electrons fill one or many subbands. We find the Drude conductance of the wire with length $\mathcal{L}$ first increases with increasing linear concentration of electrons $\eta$ and then decreases at larger concentrations. For small radius $R$ of the wire with length $\mathcal{L}$ the peak of the conductance $G_{max}$ is below $e^2/h$ so that electrons are localized. The height of this peak grows as a large power of $R$, so that at large $R$ the conductance $G_{max}$ exceeds $e^2/h$ and a window of concentrations with delocalized states (which we call the metallic window) opens around the peak. Thus, we predict an insulator-metal-insulator transition with increasing concentration for large enough $R$. Furthermore, we show that the metallic domain can be sub-divided into three smaller domains: 1) single-subband ballistic conductor, 2) many-subband ballistic conductor 3) diffusive metal, and use our results to estimate the conductance in these domains. Finally we estimate the critical value of $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ at which the metallic window opens for a given length $\mathcal{L}$ and find it to be in reasonable agreement with experiment.'
author:
- Han Fu
- 'M. Sammon'
- 'B. I. Shklovskii'
bibliography:
- 'wire.bib'
title: 'Roughness scattering induced insulator-metal-insulator transition in a quantum wire'
---
Introduction
============
Semiconductor nanowires attracted lots of attention due to their potential applications, such as field-effect transistors, elementary logic circuits, resonant tunneling diodes, light-emitting diodes, lasers, and biochemical sensors [@Lieber; @Yang]. Advances in the nanowire growth have also led to the development of novel quantum devices [@Lutchynrev; @Hofstetter; @Doh; @Frolov; @Fadaly]. They allow the exploration of mesoscopic transport in a highly confined system. Recently, hybrid superconductor-semiconductor nanowire devices have been identified [@Lutchyn; @Von_oppen] as a platform to study Majorana end modes [@Majorana], which exhibit topological properties [@Mourik; @Deng_hybrid; @Churchill]. To further improve this topological system, a reduction of the disorder in the nanowire is essential [@Sau; @Onder]. Performance of some of these devices is limited by scattering of electrons on surface roughness [@Scheffler; @Jared; @Ford; @Poli; @Shimizu; @Fengyun]. A theory of roughness scattering limited mobility of nanowires as a function of their radius $R$ and linear electron concentration $\eta$ controlled by a back gate would be helpful. In spite of some attempts to create such a theory [@Ando_2D; @Tingwei; @Sakaki_wire] the full picture of roughness limited transport in nanowires currently is not available. This is not surprising because as we show below even in the case of quantum wells there are big gaps in the roughness limited mobility theory, namely, for wells with many subbands filled. In this paper, we fill the gaps in the theoretical description of roughness limited mobility both for quantum wells and quantum wires.
Much of the focus in nanowire technology is in creating ballistic nanowires that can support the Majorana zero edge modes for quantum computation[@Sau; @Onder]. We show below that the possibility to achieve ballistic transport depends strongly on the radius $R$ and the length $\mathcal{L}$ of the wire. Namely, we show that for a fixed $\mathcal{L}$, there exists a critical value $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ such that electrons in wires with $R < R_c(\mathcal{L})$ are localized, while for $R > R_c(\mathcal{L})$ there is a window of concentrations where a metallic phase exists.
Before addressing why such a window exists, let us describe conventional models of roughness developed for quantum wells. In a quantum well confined by interfaces at $z=0$ and $z=L$, the surface roughness is a random shift of the interface position $\Delta(\vec{r})$ from the average level so that $<\Delta(\vec{r})>=0$, where $\vec{r}=(x,y)$ is the coordinate in $z=0$ (or $z=L$) interface plane. The roughness is described by the height correlator and its Fourier transform $$\label{eq:corre}
\begin{aligned}
<\Delta(\vec{r})\Delta(\vec{r'})>=&W(\vec{r}-\vec{r'}),\\
<|\Delta(q)|^2>=&W(q).
\end{aligned}$$ First theories of surface roughness scattering have assumed the correlator to be Gaussian.[@Ando; @Sakaki; @Gold; @Entin; @Suris]. $$\begin{aligned}
W(\vec{r}-\vec{r'})=&\Delta^2e^{-(\vec{r}-\vec{r'})^2/d^2},\\
W(q)=&\pi\Delta^2d^2e^{-q^2d^2/4}.
\end{aligned}$$ However, experimental observations using TEM and STM measurements of Si/SiO$_2$ interfaces and InAs/GaSb interfaces found that the spacial correlations follow an exponential behavior [@Goodnick; @Feenstra_1994] $$\label{eq:exp}
\begin{aligned}
W(\vec{r}-\vec{r'})=&\Delta^2e^{-\sqrt{2}|\vec{r}-\vec{r'}|/d},\\
W(q)=&\pi\Delta^2d^2(1+q^2d^2/2)^{-3/2}.
\end{aligned}$$ This correlator describes randomly distributed flat islands of typical thickness $\Delta$ and diameter $d$ on the top of the last complete layer of the crystal [@Roughness]. On the other hand, Gaussian roughness can be visualized as randomly positioned stacks of total height $\Delta$ and diameter $d$ made of progressively smaller islands of flat atomic layers on the top of bigger ones [@Roughness] similar to the ancient Mayan pyramids. As we show below, in many cases the two correlators give the same expression for the mobility in terms of $\Delta$ and $d$, and so the difference in parameter values can have serious implications. Only at very large electron densities when $k_Fd\gg1$, ($k_F$ is the Fermi wave number), do the two correlators give different expressions for the mobility. This difference is relatively unimportant for this work, so we give results only for the exponential correlator.
While the above isotropic roughness models were designed for quantum wells with flat interfaces, they are valid for quantum wires of characteristic size $R>d$.[^1] In the most of this paper we deal with such roughness. However TEM images of InAs wires[@Fengyun] suggest that in quantum wires another model of roughness in which the radius of the wire varies along its axis may be more realistic. We discuss this “Variable Radius Model" (VRM) and its implications in Sec. \[sec:FRM\].
In this paper we consider wires with linear electron concentration $\eta$ doped by a relatively distant back gate (we assume that there are no chemical donors in the wire). Then the interplay between the concentration $\eta$, the radius of the wire $R$, and the semiconductor Bohr radius $a_B$ determines the number of filled subbands of radial quantization, what is the Fermi wavenumber $k_F$ of electrons, and whether the confinement is electrostatic or by the surface barriers (referred to as geometric confinement). Here the effective Bohr radius $a_B=\kappa \hbar^2/m^* e^2$, $\kappa$ is the effective dielectric constant, $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck constant, and $m^*$ is the effective electron mass. This means that for quantum wires, there are five lengths $\Delta$, $d$, $\eta^{-1}$, $R$, and $a_B$, or four dimensionless lengths when all are scaled by $a_B$, that determine the Drude mobility.
![The scaling “phase diagram“ of roughness limited electron Drude mobility of a long quantum wire plotted as a function of radius $R$ and linear electron concentration $\eta$ for $d<a_B$ in the log-log scale. Different ”phases" or regions are denoted by capital letters. Drude mobility expressions corresponding to these regions are given in Table \[tab:2\]. Region boundaries are given by the equations next to them. The schematic self-consistent electron potential energy profile along the wire diameter and subbands occupied by electrons are shown for each region. Small arrows show the direction of mobility decrease in each region. The colored areas illustrate where the wire of length $\mathcal{L}$ is metallic. The dark red, light red, and pink regions correspond to the single-subband ballistic conductor, many-subband ballistic conductor, and diffusive metal regions for $R_c(\mathcal{L})< a_B$. Electrons are localized in all the colorless regions. The border between them and colored regions is determined by the length of the wire $\mathcal{L}$. We assumed that $\mathcal{L}\sim 1$ $\mu$m as is used in quantum devices. For shorter wires $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ decreases, and the colored metallic regions expand to cover most of the area of the phase diagram.[]{data-label="fig:wire"}](wireplot3stretched4 "fig:"){width=".47\textwidth"}\
Below we use the scaling theory to calculate the low temperature roughness limited Drude mobility $\mu$ in units $\left(e/\hbar\right)\left(d^4/\Delta^2\right)$ as a function of the dimensionless variables $R/a_B$ and $\eta a_B$. Here the use of Drude’s name signifies that we ignore interference effects and electron-electron correlations. We summarize our results for different regions in Fig. \[fig:wire\] as a “phase diagram" in the plane of $R/a_B$ and $\eta a_B$, the details of which are elaborated in Sec. \[sec:wire\]. For the most interesting case $\Delta\ll d\ll a_B$ we find a total of 9 regions $A-I$ whose mobilities are listed in Table \[tab:2\]. It should be noted that due to the limitations of the scaling theory, the mobility expressions for the different regions of the phase diagram are valid only away from the borders between different regions. In the vicinity of the border between regions, there is a smooth crossover between the two mobilities, the details of which are beyond the scope of this paper. While the scaling approach only gives the dependence of mobility on the different parameters without numerical precision, its simplicity allows for a clear picture of the different physical domains and the approximate limits under which they occur.
Now we are ready to address the origin of the Drude conductance peak which leads to a metallic window for large $R$, illustrated by the colored regions in Fig. \[fig:wire\]. Schematic plots of the Drude conductance (in units $e^2/h$) $G=\eta\mu h/\mathcal{L}e$ of the wire with length $\mathcal{L}$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:conductance\] for two representative values of $R$ by full lines. They are obtained from cross sections of Fig. \[fig:wire\] and the mobilities in Table \[tab:2\]. At low concentrations, we see that the Drude conductance increases with increasing concentration. This corresponds to Region G of Fig. \[fig:wire\], where there is a single radial subband occupied and the electrons are confined geometrically. We know from Fermi’s golden rule that the relaxation time $\tau$ is inversely proportional to the density of states at the Fermi energy, which in the one-dimensional (1D) case goes like $1/k_F\sim1/\eta$. The scattering potential however is independent of concentration in this regime. Therefore, the relaxation time $\tau$, the mobility $\mu$, and conductance $G$ increase with concentration due to the decrease in the density of states. This trend continues until the concentration is large enough that multiple subbands become occupied. Now electrons have more states to scatter into, and the relaxation time quickly decreases with increasing concentration. Thus the conductance peaks at the border concentration $\eta_c$ when electrons begin to populate multiple subbands. The peak of the Drude conductance for the most interesting cases of $R\leq a_B$ is given by $$\label{eq:conductancepeak}
G_{max}=\frac{R^5}{\mathcal{L}\Delta^2d^2}.$$
![The scaling behavior of the dimensionless Drude conductance of a quantum wire with length $\mathcal{L}$ and radius $R$ as a function of the linear electron concentration $\eta$ at different wire radii for $d\ll a_B$ in the log-log scale (full lines). The upper curve corresponds to $R=a_B$ and the lower one is $R=\left(a_Bd\right)^{1/2}$. They are obtained from cross-sections of the “phase diagram" in Fig. \[fig:wire\] and the mobilities in Table \[tab:2\]. The dashed line on the upper curve shows the metal-insulator crossover near $\eta a_B = 0.5$ induced by electron-electron interactions. We see that for $R=a_B$ the metallic window is open, while for $R=(a_Bd)^{1/2}$ the window is closed. $\mathcal{L}=a_B^{7/2}\Delta^{-2}d^{-1/2}$ was chosen. []{data-label="fig:conductance"}](conductance4 "fig:"){width=".47\textwidth"}\
So far we have ignored electron-electron interactions and quantum interference effects. They dramatically change the conductivity of one dimensional systems at low temperatures. For single subband wires (regions D and G) electron-electron interactions result in Wigner-crystal-like correlations and pinning of the electron gas leading to the metal-insulator crossover near $\eta a_B =0.5$[@SRG]. In Fig. \[fig:conductance\] the corresponding collapse of conductance at $\eta a_B < 0.5$ is shown by the dashed lines. According to Luttinger liquid theory [@KF; @FG] similar effects persist at very low temperatures in very long wires. We are interested here in relatively short wires with $\mathcal{L} \sim 1$ $\mu$m, where plasmon quantization does not allow such effects to develop [@FG]. Therefore, for $\eta a_B > 1$ we can ignore electron-electron interactions. However, in this case we should still take into account quantum interference effects. They lead to one-electron localization when Drude $G < 1$. This means that when $G_{max} < 1$ (see lower curve in Fig. \[fig:conductance\]), the wire is an insulator at any concentration $\eta$. On the other hand, for $G_{max} > 1$ (see upper curve in in Fig. \[fig:conductance\]) the wire has a concentration window of metallic behavior. The critical radius $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ in which the metallic window opens is then determined by the condition that $G_{max}=1$. For $G_{max}$ defined by Eq. (\[eq:conductancepeak\]) we find $$\label{eq:Rc}
R_c(\mathcal{L})=(\Delta^2d^2\mathcal{L})^{1/5}.$$ Note that the restriction that $\eta a_B>0.5$ necessary for the single subband wires to be metallic requires $R_c<2 a_B$.
Thus, we predict a zero temperature reentrant insulator-metal-insulator transition with increasing $\eta$ in quantum wires with $R > R_c(\mathcal{L})$. Such a transition was first predicted for a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) in silicon MOSFET[@Sarma]. However it was later shown[@Roughness] that there is no second reentrant metal-insulator transition at large concentrations of a 2DEG as the dimensionless conductance saturates at a value larger than unity. As our paper shows the idea of Ref. is realized in quantum wires. (For more details see our Sec. II below.)
The metallic regimes for a wire with $R_c(\mathcal{L})< a_B $ are shown in different colors in Fig. \[fig:wire\], while regions where the electrons are localized are left blank. The dark red, light red, and pink colored regions of the metallic regime specify a single-subband ballistic conductor, a many-subband ballistic conductor, and a diffusive metal respectively. It should be emphasized that the metal-insulator and ballistic-diffusive borders depend on the wire length. With decreasing $\mathcal{L}$ and $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ the colored regions expand dramatically and for short wires eventually cover most of the phase diagram. In Fig. 1 we used $\mathcal{L}\sim1$ $\mu$m as in Fig. 2, which is typically used in quantum devices (see details in Sec. \[sec:disc\]).
The detailed derivation of all the metallic border equations are given in Sec. \[sec:conductance\] and in Tab. \[tab:border\]. Here we give a brief summary of the derivation. Let us begin with the metal-insulator border. For $\eta a_B>0.5$ this border comes from the condition that the Drude conductance $G_D=e^2/h$, and gives rise to the sequence of border lines between the colored and uncolored regions with minimum at $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ in Fig. \[fig:wire\]. For $\eta a_B<0.5$ there is no metallic regime for the single subband regions (G and H), as illustrated by the vertical line that cuts off the dark red region of Fig. \[fig:wire\] at low concentrations. This line continues vertically to the asymptotic line $\eta a_B\sim C (R/a_B)$, which can be understood as the Wigner crystallization of the 2DEG at $na_B^2=C\ll1$, where $n=\eta/2\pi R$. Finally we address the ballistic-diffusive border which only exists in the regions with many subbands occupied. Typically, a diffusive metal becomes ballistic when the mean free path $l=\mathcal{L}$. However, for the many subband regions there is an ambiguity, as we can have different $l$ for different subbands. Fortunately, the conductance in these cases is determined by a small subset of subbands which have identical $l$ and we define the ballistic-diffusive border by the line where $l=\mathcal{L}$ for these subbands.
Let us discuss the conductance in the different colored regions of Fig. 1. We begin with the ballistic regimes (red regions of Fig. \[fig:wire\]). Here the dimensionless conductance $G\approx2K$, where $K$ is the number of ballistic channels of a wire with finite length $\mathcal{L}$, and the factor of 2 comes from the spin degeneracy. Estimates of $K$ can be found in Sec. \[sec:conductance\]. Within the diffusive regime (pink regions of Fig. \[fig:wire\]) $G=(h/e)\eta\mu/\mathcal{L}$, where the mobility is given in Tab. \[tab:2\]. Finally, in the insulating regions electrons are localized at temperature $T=0$. At finite $T$ wires conduct via phonon assisted hopping. Calculations of the hopping conductivity are relatively straightforward, but are beyond the scope of this paper.
The plan of this paper is as follows. In Secs. \[subsec:result\_well\] and \[subsec:physical\_well\] we study the roughness limited mobility of quantum wells as a function of their width $L$ and two-dimensional concentration of electrons $n$ arriving at the “phase diagram" for $\mu (L,n)$ with nine different regions. In Sec. \[sec:wire\] we use the quantum well “phase diagram" to construct the “phase diagram" $\mu(R,\eta)$ for quantum wires with surface roughness described by Eq. . In Sec. \[sec:conductance\] we use our results for the Drude mobility to estimate the wire conductance in the ballistic and diffusive regions. In Sec. \[sec:FRM\] we discuss quantum wires within the Variable Radius Model (VRM). In Sec. \[sec:disc\] we dwell upon some experimental implications, namely the peak mobility and the value of radius $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ in which the metallic window opens. We conclude with Sec. \[sec:con\].
Roughness limited mobility results for quantum wells {#subsec:result_well}
====================================================
To understand the roughness limited mobility of quantum wires, it is convenient to first make clear of that in quantum wells. We start from a quantum well confined by two high potential barriers at $z=0,\, L$. It has the two-dimensional (2D) electron concentration $n$ created either by two positive donor layers located symmetrically on both sides of the well or by two symmetric metallic gates. In both cases, at $z = 0,\,L$ there is an electric field pointing into the well with $|E|= 2\pi n e$, where $e$ is the electron charge. Interplay of effects of the electric field and barrier confinement creates 5 different types of wells shown in Fig. \[fig:well\] in regions I - IX. In a narrow well the electric field $E$ plays a minor role in level quantization compared to confining barriers so that we assume that all subbands are geometrically confined in the small $L$ regions VI, VII, VIII, and IX in Fig. \[fig:well\]. When the concentration is relatively small, electrons occupy only the first subband. At larger $n$ electrons populate many subbands (see the level schematics in regions VI and VII in Fig. \[fig:well\]). In wider wells shown in regions I, II, III, IV and V the electric field becomes important compared to the surface barriers. In turn this leads to the splitting of the electron density in two peaks. With growing $L$, in the beginning (regions IV and V) this splitting is moderate and affects only the lowest subbands. In regions II and III the splitting results in two separate accumulation layers in response to the electric field each side of the well. Finally at large $L$ and small $n$ we again reach the single subband limit, however the confinement is electrostatic rather than geometric (region I in Fig. \[fig:well\]).
The roughness limited mobility of a single-subband electron gas of a quantum well (regions I, VIII and IX) was thoroughly studied in Refs. more than 30 years ago. On the other hand, the roughness limited mobility of accumulation layers was calculated recently in Ref. , results of which are directly applicable to regions II and III. However, no work has been done in the intermediate regions where many subbands are occupied but the electric field is weak so that some or all of the subbands are confined geometrically (regions IV, V, VI, and VII). In this paper we fill this gap. Below, because of the complexity of the problem, we first present the final results in this section and then give their derivations in next section.
The complete results at $d\ll a_B$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:well\] and Table \[tab:1\]. The single subband results I, VIII, and IX are taken from Refs. and accumulation layer results II and III are from Ref. . For the intermediate regions IV, V, VI, and VII, we obtain their results in this paper.
Let us first look at the physical meaning and corresponding equations of boundary lines in Fig. \[fig:well\]. Across the line between Region I and Region II, the concentration becomes so large that electrons have to occupy multiple subbands (see level schematics in Fig. \[fig:well\]). With $n$ further increased, $k_Fd$ becomes larger than unity in Region III where $k_F$ is the three-dimensional (3D) electron Fermi wavenumber here. Instead of averaging over different islands, the electron hits only a single island now. This leads to the change of the mobility result at the II-III border.
For regions I, II, and III, all subbands are electrostatically confined. For moderately smaller well width $L$, some of the subbands become geometrically confined. This happens when the well width $L$ becomes smaller than the characteristic thickness $D$ of the accumulation layer, where [@Frenkel; @Schecter] $$D\simeq\frac{a_B}{\left(na_B^2\right)^{1/5}}.\label{eq:decay_length}$$ The criterion $L=D$ then gives the line between II, III and IV, V. At the line between IV and V, $k_Fd=1$.
![The scaling “phase diagram” of roughness limited electron mobility of quantum well at different well width $L$ and 2D electron concentration $n$ for $d\ll a_B$ in the log-log scale. Different “phases” or regions are denoted by Roman numerals. Mobility expressions corresponding to these regions are given in Table \[tab:1\]. Region boundaries are given by the equations next to them. The schematic self-consistent electron potential energy profile along the $z$-axis of wells and levels (subbands) occupied by electrons are shown for each region. Small arrows show the direction of mobility decrease in each region. Apparently the maximum mobility is achieved in Region I. The dashed line indicates schematically the border of the metal-insulator transition (MIT) at small enough $n$. At large $n$ there is no reentrant MIT in spite of the decreasing mobility.[]{data-label="fig:well"}](wellplot "fig:"){width=".46\textwidth"}\
I II III
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -----------------------
$a_B^2/n^2d^6$ $a_B^{8/5}/n^{11/5}d^6\quad\quad$ $a_B/nd^3$
IV V VI
$a_B^{1/2}L^{11/6}/n^{11/6}d^6$ $a_B^{1/2}L^{5/6}/n^{5/6}d^3\quad$ $L^{10/3}/n^{4/3}d^6$
VII VIII IX
$L^{7/3}/n^{1/3}d^3$ $L^6/d^6\quad$ $L^6n^{3/2}/d^3$
: \[tab:1\] Mobility $\mu$ in units of $\left(e/\hbar\right)\left(d^4/\Delta^2\right)$ as a function of the 2D electron concentration $n$ at $d<a_B$ for different regions.
With further reduction of $L$, all subbands would be geometrically confined (see the level schematic in Fig. \[fig:well\]). This happens when the electrostatically confined distance of the lowest subband electrons from the surface is equal to the well width $L$. This distance is $D_0 \simeq a_B^{1/3}/n^{1/3}$ (see Refs. ) which is the smallest among all subbands since the lowest subband has the smallest kinetic energy in the $z$ direction. The condition $L=D_0$ gives the line between IV, V and VI, VII. The border between VI and VII corresponding to the critical point of $k_Fd=1$ is a continuation of the line between regions IV and V. Moving to even smaller $L$ from regions VI and VII, we cross over to the single subband (see the level schematic in Fig. \[fig:well\]). This corresponds to the line $k_FL=1$ between VI, VII and VIII, IX. The border of the VIII and IX regions is the line of $k_Fd=1$ where $k_F$ is the 2D electron Fermi wavenumber here. In Fig. \[fig:well\], one can see that there is another border line between I and VIII, which both correspond to a single subband gas. However, Region I corresponds to two electrostatically split electron subbands near the two well interfaces, while Region VIII represents the case that the electron subband is spatially restricted by the well width $L$ (see the level schematic in Fig. \[fig:well\]). Their crossover happens at the point that both electrostatic and geometric confinements give the same thickness of the electron gas. Remember that the electrostatically confined thickness of the first subband is $D_0$. Then the condition $L=D_0$ gives the border. So this line between I and VIII is just an extension of the line between IV, V and VI, VII.
One should note that here in Table \[tab:1\], all results are shown without numerical coefficients, i.e., we present only the scaling behavior. Previous works have already found the exact coefficients in the single subband regions I, VIII, and IX [@Ando; @Sakaki]. Results of many subband regions II, IV, and VI with $k_Fd\ll1$ can also be obtained with the approximate coefficients as seen later in Sec. \[subsec:physical\_well\]. We cannot get coefficients analytically in remaining regions III, V, and VII. Thus we focus only on the scaling behaviors in all tables and derivations.
In Fig. \[fig:well\] the metal-insulator transtition (MIT) is shown schematically by the dashed lines. Let us dwell on the meaning of these lines. The lower line is related to the localization physics of a non-interacting electron gas. Strictly speaking all states are localized in 2D infinite samples, however at $k_Fl\gg1$ the localization length grows exponentially as $\zeta=l\exp ( k_F l)$, where $l$ is the mean free path. In finite square samples of area $A$ we have in mind that $\zeta$ quickly becomes larger than the sample size $A^{1/2}$. This allows one to discuss the metallic conductivity and expect the insulator-metal transition near $\sigma=(e^2/\hbar)\ln(A^{1/2}/l)$. Ignoring the logarithm and using the expressions of mobility $\mu$ for VIII and IX in Table \[tab:1\] as well as $\sigma=ne\mu$, one gets that the low $L$ MIT border of Region VIII obeys $L=\Delta^{1/3} d^{1/3}n^{-1/6}$. We also find the MIT border of Region IX is $L=\Delta^{1/3}d^{-1/6}n^{-5/12}$. We have used $\Delta/d=\left(d/a_B\right)^{8/5}$ in order to draw these lines. The vertical line $na_B^2=C\ll1$ reflects the role of the Coulomb interaction between electrons in a degenerate electron gas. At $na_B^2\ll1$ strong Coulomb repulsion leads to Wigner crystallization. The Wigner crystal is pinned by relatively small disorder and electrons become localized.
Roughness limited mobility derivations for quantum wells {#subsec:physical_well}
========================================================
In the previous section, we have presented the physical picture of all 9 regions and their border lines and summarized the mobility results. In this section, we derive the new expressions of mobility for regions IV, V, VI, and VII. First, let us derive $\mu$ for Region VI. According to Fermi’s golden rule and the Boltzmann equation, the relaxation time $\tau_N$ of a particular state with the wavefunction $\xi(z,\vec{r})$ and with in-plane velocity $\vec{v_k}$ in the $N$-th (counted from the bottom lowest subband) subband is $$\label{eq:scattering_rate}
\frac{1}{\tau_N}=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar} \sum_{N'}\int\frac{d^2k'}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{{\left| V(q) \right|}^2}{\epsilon(q)^2}\delta(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_F)\left(1-\frac{\vec{v_{k'}}\cdot\vec{E}}{\vec{v_k}\cdot\vec{E}}\frac{\tau_N'}{\tau_N}\right),$$ where $\tau_N,\,\tau_N'$ denote the relaxation time for $N,\,N'$-th subbands, $\vec{v}_{k'}$ is the in-plane velocity for the final state with the wavefunction $\xi'$ in the $N'$-subband with in-plane momentum $\vec{k'}$, $\varepsilon$ is the energy of the final state $\xi'$ and $\varepsilon_F$ is the Fermi energy, $q$ is the transferred momentum in the $x-y$ plane between $\xi$ and $\xi'$. Here $V$ is the scattering matrix element arising from the scattering potential. Due to the electronic screening, the Fourier transform of the scattering potential $V(q)$ is reduced by the dielectric function $\epsilon(q)$ [@Ando]. One should note that here the last term inside the parenthesis of Eq. (\[eq:scattering\_rate\]) does not reduce to $\cos\theta$, where $\theta$ is the angle between initial and final total momenta. This is because, due to the 2D nature of the surface roughness and thus of the scattering potential, the multisubband electron gas experiences anisotropic scattering, i.e., different subbands have different relaxation times [^2]. As a result $\cos\theta$ in Eq. (\[eq:scattering\_rate\]) is replaced by the ratio of the out-of-equilibrium part of distribution function of the states $\xi'$ and $\xi$ represented by $\left(\vec{v_{k'}}\cdot\vec{E}/\vec{v_k}\cdot\vec{E}\right)\left(\tau_N'/\tau_N\right)$ (see Ref. ). For brevity, we refer to this term as the distribution function ratio (DFR) from now on.
It is known that the roughness-caused scattering potential $V(\vec{r})$ and corresponding scattering matrix element $V(q)$ satisfy the equation [@Ando; @Roughness] $$\label{eq:scattering_matrix element}
\begin{aligned}
V(r)=\frac{\hbar^2}{m^*}\Delta(\vec{r})\left.\frac{\partial \xi}{\partial z}\frac{\partial \xi'}{\partial z}\right\vert_{z=0, L},\\
<|V(q)|^2>\simeq\left(\frac{\hbar^2}{m^*}\right)^2\frac{k_z^2}{Z}\frac{k_z'^2}{Z'}W(q),
\end{aligned}$$ where $k_z\simeq N/Z,\,k_z'\simeq N'/Z'$ are the $z$-direction momenta of $\xi$ and $\xi'$, $Z$ and $Z'$ are the $z$-direction widths of the $ N$-th and $N'$-th subbands, which are determined by the confinement. For example, when the subband $N$ is electrostatically confined, $Z=\varepsilon_z/eE\simeq\hbar^2k_z^2/m^*e^2n\simeq a_Bk_z^2/n$ ($\varepsilon_z$ is the kinetic energy in $z$-direction), while when geometrically confined, $Z=L$. For Region VI, all subbands are geometrically confined. So $$<|V(q)|^2>\simeq\left(\frac{\hbar^2}{m^*}\right)^2\frac{N^2}{L^3}\frac{N'^2}{L^3}W(q).$$ Since in Region VI $k_Fd\ll 1$, $W(q)\simeq \Delta^2 d^2$ is independent of $q$ according to Eq. . The scattering is isotropic for a given subband $N'$ with respect to different directions of $\vec{v}_{k'}$. The scattering rate is then reduced to $$\label{eq:scattering_rate_small_d}
\frac{1}{\tau_N}=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar} \sum_{N'}\int\frac{d^2k'}{(2\pi)^2} \left(\frac{\hbar^2}{m^*}\right)^2\frac{N^2N'^2\Delta^2d^2}{L^6\epsilon(q)^2}\delta(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_F).$$ The (2D) screening radius is $a_B/k_FL$ where $k_FL$ is the total number of subbands in Region VI. Since $L\ll a_B$ in this region, this screening radius is much larger than the Fermi wavelength $1/k_F$. So $\varepsilon(q)\approx 1$ and the screening can be ignored for the scattering between $N$-th subband and the typical subbands with $k_z'\simeq k_F$ and thus $q\sim k_F$. Eq. then yields $$\label{eq:scattering_rate_VI}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\tau_N}\simeq\frac{\hbar}{m^*}\frac{N^2\Delta^2d^2}{L^6} \sum_{N'}N'^2
\simeq \frac{\hbar}{m^*}\frac{N^2\Delta^2d^2}{L^6}\left(k_FL\right)^3\,\\
\simeq \frac{\hbar}{m^*}\frac{N^2\Delta^2d^2k_F^3}{L^3}\quad \quad,\\
\end{aligned}$$ where the 3D wavenumber $k_F=\left(n/L\right)^{1/3}$, and the scattering rate is mainly determined by scattering between the $N$-th subband and typical subbands with large $N'$. The absence of screening in the scattering rate calculation is then self-consistently justified. Also, from Eq. , one can easily see that $\tau_N\propto 1/N^2$ so the lowest subband with $N=1$ has the largest relaxation time while for typical subbands with $k_z\simeq k_F$ and, thus, $N\simeq k_FL$, the corresponding relaxation time is $\left(k_FL\right)^2$ times smaller. Since there are $\sim k_FL$ subbands in total with each subband having a 2D concentration $n/k_FL$ and the number of typical subbands is close to the total number $k_FL$, the final conductivity is dominated by the lowest subband as $$\label{eq:conductivity_VI}
\sigma=\frac{n}{k_FL}\frac{e^2}{\hbar} \frac{L^3}{\Delta^2d^2k_F^3}=ne\frac{e}{\hbar}\frac{L^2}{\Delta^2d^2k_F^{4}},$$ and the effective mobility is $$\label{eq:mobility_VI}
\mu=\frac{\sigma}{ne}=\frac{e}{\hbar}\frac{L^2}{\Delta^2d^2k_F^{4}}=\frac{e}{\hbar}\left(\frac{d^4}{\Delta^2}\right)\frac{L^{10/3}}{d^6n^{4/3}}.$$ This is the result shown in Table \[tab:1\] in Sec. \[subsec:result\_well\].
Now let us move to Region IV. This region is a crossover between completely geometrically confined Region VI to completely electrostatically confined Region II. The lowest $M$ subbands are electrostatically confined due to their relatively small distances to the surface while the $k_FL-M$ higher subbands are geometrically confined. So for the lowest $M$ subbands, $k_z^2/Z\sim n/a_B$ is a constant independent of the subband index $N$ determined only by the surface electric field $E$ or the 2D electron concentration $n$. As a result, the lowest $M$ subbands have comparable relaxation times. The rest $k_FL-M$ subbands are geometrically confined and their contribution to the conductivity is dominated by the lowest subband of the group, i.e., by the $(M+1)$-th subband. Here the index $M$ is obtained by the condition that its electrostatically confined width is equal to the well width $L$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{a_Bk_z^2}{n}=L,\quad\quad
k_z\simeq\frac{M}{L}.
\end{aligned}$$ As a result, $M=\left(nL^3/a_B\right)^{1/2}$. Now Eq. is modified for subbands from 1 to $M$ as $$\label{eq:scattering_rate_IV}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\tau_{1-M}}\simeq&\frac{\hbar}{m^*}\frac{n\Delta^2d^2}{a_B} \left(\sum_{N'=1,\dots,M}\frac{n}{a_B}
+\sum_{N'=M+1,\dots, k_FL}\frac{N'^2}{L^3}\right)\\
\simeq& \frac{\hbar}{m^*}\frac{n\Delta^2d^2}{a_B}\sum_{N'=M+1,\dots,k_FL}\frac{N'^2}{L^3}
\simeq \frac{\hbar}{m^*}\frac{n\Delta^2d^2k_F^3}{a_B},\quad \quad\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $N'^2/L^3\gg n/a_B$ for $N'>M$ and the total number of subbands is still $k_FL\gg M$ in Region IV. Therefore the scattering rate of each subband is always determined by its scattering into the typical subbands which are geometrically confined to a width $L$ and have the momentum $k_z=k_F$ in the $z$-direction. One can easily check that in Region IV, i.e., at $L<n^{-1/5}a_B^{3/5}$, the conductivity is determined by the lowest $M$ subbands and the effective mobility $$\label{eq:mobility_IV}
\begin{aligned}
\mu=&\frac{\sigma}{ne}=\left(M\times \frac{n}{k_FL} \frac{e^2}{m^*} \frac{m^*}{\hbar}\frac{a_B}{n\Delta^2d^2k_F^3}\right)\frac{1}{ne}\\=&
\frac{e}{\hbar}\left(\frac{d^4}{\Delta^2}\right)\frac{a_B^{1/2}L^{11/6}}{n^{11/6}d^6}
\end{aligned}$$ is obtained in a way similar to that of Region VI discussed before. This is the result given in Table \[tab:1\].
Now let us talk about the $k_Fd\gg 1$ case for regions V and VII. In this case, $W(q)$ is no longer a constant but can be much smaller than $\Delta^2d^2$ for some values of $q$. The scattering is no longer isotropic in the $x-y$ plane and one cannot ignore the DFR term $\vec{v_{k'}}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_N'/\vec{v_k}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_N$ in Eq. . As we show in Appendix \[App:AppendixA\], the scattering is dominated by events with $q\simeq k_F$ instead of small $q\lesssim 1/d$. It can be easily seen quasi-classically that only when an electron hits the sharp edge of an island can the non-specular reflection happen. This is an event on a length scale $k_F^{-1}\ll d$ so that the scattering is dominated by $q\simeq k_F$.
For the dominant large angle scattering, though the term $(1-\vec{v_{k'}}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_N'/\vec{v_k}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_N)$ after averaging over different $\phi$ is not exactly unity like in the $k_Fd\ll 1$ case, it is still of order unity. Thus in the scaling sense, the difference brought by $k_Fd\gg1$ is only in the $(k_Fd)^3$ times reduction of $W(q)$. (One should note that for the large angle scattering, the rate is dominated by scattering into typical subbands of $k_z'\simeq k_F$ similarly to the $k_Fd\ll 1$ case discussed before. The screening here is again ignored since the large angle scattering has $q\simeq k_F$ and the screening radius $a_B/k_FL$ is much larger than the electron Fermi wavelength $k_F^{-1}$, similarly to the case in regions IV and VI.) As a result, from Region IV to V, the scattering rate decreases by $(k_Fd)^3$ for each subband and the effective mobility increases by $(k_Fd)^3$. A similar increase by a factor $(k_Fd)^3$ happens across the border from Region VI to Region VII. So far we have derived all the new results in Fig. \[fig:well\] and Table \[tab:1\].
One can see from Fig. \[fig:well\] and Table \[tab:1\] that the results of mobility in different regions match each other at all borders between the regions. Actually, using the derived result Eq. for Region VI together with the results for regions II, III, and IX, which are already known, one can uniquely identify the mobility expressions in regions IV, V, and VII by matching them with the neighboring mobilities on the borders.
So far, we have been focused on the $d\ll a_B$ case, which is generic for large $a_B$ semiconductors such as InAs and InSb. Now we would like to briefly discuss the $d \gg a_B$ case, which may take place, say, in silicon. Let us start from the case when $d= a_B$. In this case, the phase diagram Fig. \[fig:well\] is dramatically simplified as the middle regions II, IV, and VI vanish and the border line $k_Fd=1$ merges with the vertical axis $na_B^2=1$. Let us now move to the case $d\gg a_B$. Since at $na_B^2 \ll 1$, the electron gas is two-dimensional for all values of $L$, there is only one line $nd^2=1$ for the critical border $k_Fd=1$. We assume that this line is located already in the insulator regime, so that in the whole metallic region $k_Fd \gg 1$. This leads to an additional factor $(k_Fd)^3$ to the mobility result in Region I and gives $\mu=\left(e/\hbar\right)\left(d^4/\Delta^2\right)\left(a_B^2/n^{1/2}d^3\right)$ (see Ref. ). Mobility results for the extended regions III, V, VII, and IX remain the same as in Table \[tab:1\].
roughness limited mobility in quantum wires {#sec:wire}
===========================================
In the previous sections, we described the roughness limited mobility in a quantum well as a function of the 2D electron concentration $n$ and the well width $L$. Here we would like to generalize these results to that of a nanowire with linear electron concentration $\eta$ and radius $R$. We assume that an electric field $E=2e\eta/R$ applied radially inward at surface of the wire. Such a system can be realized by a metallic gate surrounding the nanowire, or a planar gate located a distance larger than the wire radius $R$.
Our results are summarized in Fig. \[fig:wire\] as a “phase diagram" in the plane ($\eta$, $R$), where each “phase" or region marked by a capital letter denotes a different dependence of the mobility on $R$ and $\eta$ as shown in Table \[tab:2\]. Just as for quantum wells, many different regions appear due to the interplay between the electrostatic and geometric confinements. The electronic structure of each region is illustrated with a radial level (subband) schematic similar to those in Fig. \[fig:well\]. One can divide all regions into three groups. In regions D and G the electron gas is strictly one-dimensional (1DEG), i.e. it occupies a single subband in the wire cross-section. In Region A electrons occupy a single radial subband and many azimuthal subbands (2DEG). Finally, in regions B, C, E, F, H, and I, electrons occupy many subbands in both the radial and azimuthal directions and the gas is three-dimensional (3DEG). In order to clarify the meaning of the level schematics, Fig. \[fig:wiresketch\] provides an illustration of the electronic structure in the 3DEG regions. Each top image shows the electron density (shaded regions) in a cross section of the wire while its bottom image shows the corresponding level schematic along the wire diameter.
Let us first concentrate on the 2DEG and 3DEG regions, where the circumference $2\pi R$ is much larger than the typical electron wavelength $k_F^{-1}$. This means that we can generalize our results of the quantum well by treating the wire along the $x$ axis as a stripe-like quantum well whose $y$-direction size is $2\pi R$ and 2D concentration $n=\eta/2\pi R$. As a result each of the regions I-VII of Fig. \[fig:well\] has an analogous region in Fig. \[fig:wire\] in which the electronic structure near the surface and the mobility are the same upon substituting $n=\eta/2\pi R$ and $L\simeq R$ everywhere. For example, in Region B electrons are confined electrostatically near the wire surface and form an accumulation layer (see Fig. \[fig:wiresketch\](a)) whose thickness is given by Eq. (\[eq:decay\_length\]) with $n=\eta/2\pi R$, similar to region II for the quantum well. By using the correspondence between regions A, C, E, F, H, and I of Fig. \[fig:wire\] with regions I, III, IV, V, VI, and VII of Fig. \[fig:well\] we find the wire mobility values for each of these regions as listed in Table \[tab:2\].
So far we have shown that in the 2DEG and 3DEG limits of the nanowire, there is a corresponding region in Fig. \[fig:well\] from which the mobility of the wire may be obtained upon substituting $n=\eta/R$. In regions D and G however, the electron gas in the wire forms a 1DEG for which there is no corresponding region in the quantum well. Let us first concentrate on Region G, where the gas is geometrically confined to a single subband in the plane of its cross-section $(y,z)$ with energy $E_R=\hbar^2/2m^*R^2$ and its wavelength along the wire axis is $k_F^{-1}=\eta^{-1}$. Here $y$ is the azimuthal direction along the wire circumference and $z$ is the radial direction. Due to the roughness, the radius of the wire varies along the wire surface in the $x$ and azimuthal directions by an amount $\delta R=\Delta(k_F^{-1}R/d^2)^{-1/2}$, where $k_F^{-1}R/d^2$ is the typical number of islands over which the electron averages the roughness. These variations lead to a change in the confinement energy that acts as a random scattering potential given by $V=E_R(\delta R/R)$. Using $\hbar/\tau \approx V^2/(\hbar^2k_F^2/2m^*)$ to estimate the scattering rate, we find the mobility in Region G to be $$\label{eq:mobility 1DEG G}
\mu=\frac{e}{\hbar}\frac{\eta R^7}{\Delta^2d^2}.$$ If we increase $R$ so that we enter Region D, the electron gas will instead be confined electrostatically to a single subband of width $D_0=(a_BR/\eta)^{1/3}$. This change amounts to replacing $R$ by $D_0$ in the confinement energy $E_R$. The mobility can thus be obtained by replacing the $R^6$ factor in Eq. (\[eq:mobility 1DEG G\]) by $D_0^6=a_B^2R^2/\eta^2$ and so the mobility in Region D is given by $$\label{eq:mobility 1DEG D}
\mu=\frac{e}{\hbar}\frac{a_B^2R^2}{\eta^2\Delta^2d^2}(\eta R)=\frac{e}{\hbar}\frac{a_B^2R^3}{\eta\Delta^2d^2}.$$ The factor $\eta R$ is unchanged as this came from averaging over an area $k_F^{-1}R$ on the surface and was independent of the confinement in the radial direction. The mobility values given in Eqs. (\[eq:mobility 1DEG G\]) and (\[eq:mobility 1DEG D\]) are shown in Tab. \[tab:2\].
A B C
---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
$\quad a_B^2R^2/\eta^2 d^6\quad$ $a_B^{8/5}R^{11/5}/d^6\eta ^{11/5}\quad$ $a_BR/\eta d^3$
D E F
$a_B^2R^{3}/\eta d^6$ $a_B^{1/2}R^{11/3}/\eta^{11/6}d^6$ $a_B^{1/2}R^{5/3}/\eta^{5/6}d^3$
G H I
$R^7\eta/d^6$ $R^{14/3}/\eta^{4/3}d^6$ $R^{8/3}/\eta^{1/3}d^3$
: \[tab:2\] Mobility $\mu$ in units of $\left(e/\hbar\right)\left(d^4/\Delta^2\right)$ as a function of the linear electron concentration $\eta$ at $d<a_B$ for different regions.
We can make the previous discussion more rigorous by considering the scattering rate using Fermi’s golden rule. In the 1DEG limit there is only one radial or azimuthal subband occupied so that the scattering rate given by Eq. (\[eq:scattering\_rate\]) then simplifies to $$\label{eq:1DEG scattering rate}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\tau}=&\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}\frac{1}{R}\sum_{k_y'}\int \frac{dk_x'}{2\pi}<{\left| V(q) \right|}^2>\delta(\varepsilon_F-\varepsilon')\\ =&\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}\frac{1}{R}\int \frac{dk_x'}{2\pi}<{\left| V(q) \right|}^2>\delta(\varepsilon_F-\varepsilon').
\end{aligned}$$ Here the marginal one-dimensional screening is ignored and $<{\left| V(q) \right|}^2>$ is defined to be $$\label{eq:matrix element single subband}
<|V(q)|^2>\simeq \left(\frac{\hbar^2}{m^*Z^3}\right)^2W(q)$$ for the gas confined to the lowest radial subband where $W(q)=\Delta^2d^2$ at $k_Fd\ll1$. Setting $Z=R$ in region G and $Z=D_0$ in Region D, we arrive at the mobilities given by Eqs. (\[eq:mobility 1DEG G\]) and (\[eq:mobility 1DEG D\]).
We see in Fig. \[fig:wire\] that Region G is located at small $R$ and small $\eta$, and extends until the line $R=d$. Beyond this point, the characteristic size of the islands $d$ becomes larger than the radius of the wire $R$ and the model of isotropically distributed islands on the wire surface breaks down.
So far we have dealt with the mobility of quantum wires that are cylindrically symmetric. A stripe-like wire along the x-axis can be made out of a narrow single subband GaAs/AlGaAs quantum well by the etching or split-gate techniques [@Marcus_scalable]. The mobility of such a modulation-doped stripe of 2DEG was calculated [@Ando_2D] for $k_Fd\ll 1$ under the assumption that all scattering happens on the one-dimensional rough $y=0,\,R$ edges of the stripe and that the stripe has many $y$-direction subbands filled. Although our undoped wires studied in regions H and I are different from wires of Ref. , they share an important feature with them, i.e., the conduction is determined by the lowest subband. This can be easily understood quasiclassically, as the lowest subband electrons have most of its kinetic energy in the $x$-direction and run approximately parallel to the surfaces or edges, and thus get rarely scattered.
Ballistic-Diffusive Boundary and the Conductance of a Wire with Length $\mathcal{L}$ {#sec:conductance}
====================================================================================
In the Introduction we explained that due to the 1D nature of the wire the transport properties differ greatly across the different regions of Fig. \[fig:wire\]. Specifically, in the multisubband regions the wire of characteristic size $R$ undergoes a transition between a ballistic conductor and a diffusive metal as a function of concentration. We will now explain why such a transition occurs, and calculate the conductance $G$ within these regions.
Region $R_{MI}(\eta)$ $R_{BD}(\eta)$ $K_{max}$
-------- -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
G $\eta^{-2/7}R_c(\mathcal{L})^{5/7}$ - 1
H $\eta^{1/14}R_c(\mathcal{L})^{15/14}$ $\eta^{2/13}R_c(\mathcal{L})^{15/13}$ $(\eta R)^{2/3}$
E $a_B^{-3/22}\eta^{5/22}R_c(\mathcal{L})^{15/11}$ $a_B^{-3/7}\eta^{5/7}R_c(\mathcal{L})^{15/7}$ $(\eta R)^{2/3}$
B $a_B^{-8/11}\eta^{6/11}R_c(\mathcal{L})^{25/11}$ $a_B^{-7/9}\eta R_c(\mathcal{L})^{25/9}$ $\eta^{3/5}R^{2/5}a_B^{1/5}$
: \[tab:border\] Metal-insulator border $R_{MI}(\eta)$, ballistic-diffusive border $R_{BD}(\eta)$, and the total number of subbands $K_{max}$ for regions G, H, E, and B of Fig. \[fig:wire\]
Let us first review what we know about the Drude conductance and show where it fails. In Tab. \[tab:2\] we give the Drude mobility for the various regions of Fig. \[fig:wire\]. Using these formulas one can calculate the dimensionless Drude conductance $G_D=(h/e)\eta\mu/\mathcal{L}$ per spin for a wire with length $\mathcal{L}$ and linear concentration $\eta$. One can then define the metal-insulator transition by the condition $G_D=1$. For example, in region H we find that $G_D=R^{14/3}/(\eta^{1/3}R_c(\mathcal{L})^5)$, where $R_c(\mathcal{L})=(\Delta^2d^2\mathcal{L})^{1/5}$ is defined in the Introduction. Using the requirement $G_D=1$, we find the MIT border within Region H to be $R_{MI}(\eta)=\eta^{1/14}R_c(\mathcal{L})^{15/14}$. Similar calculations for regions G, E, and B lead to the $R_{MI}(\eta)$ in Tab. \[tab:border\].
The dimensionless Drude conductance is valid in all regions where $G_D>1$, but the mean free path $l<\mathcal{L}$. In Region G where there is a single subband occupied, $G_D=1$ and $l=\mathcal{L}$ are the same as long as $\eta a_B>0.5$ where we can safely ignore electron-electron interactions. However in the multisubband regions B, H, and E the conditions are different. This can be understood by realizing that the condition $G_D=1$ is equivalent to $\zeta=\mathcal{L}$, where $\zeta$ is the localization length. When multiple subbands are occupied, $\zeta$ grows larger than $l$, so in the multisubband region we can satisfy the conditions $l\ll\mathcal{L}\ll\zeta$ required for diffusive transport.
Let us begin with the simplest Region B where all subbands have the same $l$. We define the mean free path as $l=v_F\tau$, where $\tau$ is the relaxation time and $v_F=\hbar k_F/m^*$ is the Fermi velocity. The relaxation time $\tau$ can be calculated from the mobility in Tab. \[tab:2\] and we find that in Region B $$l=\frac{a_B^{7/5}R^{9/5}}{\Delta^2d^2\eta^{9/5}},$$ The border equation is defined by the condition $l=\mathcal{L}$ and is found to be $$R_{BD}(\eta)=\frac{\eta R_c(\mathcal{L})^{25/9}}{a_B^{7/9}}$$ as shown in Tab. \[tab:border\].
In regions E and H there are radial subbands which are geometrically confined. As we showed in Sec. \[subsec:physical\_well\], subbands that are geometrically confined will have different relaxation times, with higher subbands having smaller relaxation times. As a result $G_D$ in these regions is determined by the lowest radial subbands where $\tau$ and $l$ are largest. In Region E the bottom $M$ radial subbands are confined electrostatically, while the higher subbands are confined geometrically. Similar to Region B the subbands that are electrostatically confined have the same mean free path $$\label{eq:M subbands mfp}
l_{1-M}=\frac{a_BR^{7/3}}{\Delta^2d^2\eta^{5/3}}.$$ These are the lowest subbands that determine $G_D$ and thus setting $l_{1-M}=\mathcal{L}$ leads to $R_{BD}(\eta)$ in Tab. \[tab:border\].
Finally, in Region H all radial subbands are geometrically confined and therefore have different mean free paths. The mean free path of the $Nth$ subband $l_N$ is given by $$\label{eq:Nth subband mfp}
l_N=\frac{R^{13/3}}{\Delta^2d^2\eta^{2/3}N^2}.$$ We see that $l_N\propto N^{-2}$ and the conductance is determined by the lowest radial subband where $N=1$. We can define the diffusive border by the condition that $l_1=\mathcal{L}$, leading to the border equation in Tab. \[tab:border\].
Let us now use these results to determine the number $K$ of ballistic subbands at the border. Recall that in the ballistic regions, the dimensionless conductance of the wire is $G_B=K$. At the border $G_B=G_D$, and so using our results of the Drude conductance we can self consistently find the number of ballistic subbands. In Region H, we find $K=k_FR$, in Region E we find that $K=Mk_FR$, and in Region B we find that $K=k_F^2RD$, where $D$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:decay\_length\]) with $n=\eta/R$. These results can be easily understood. For each radial subband there are $k_FR$ azimuthal subbands that contribute equally to the conductance. Then we can generically set $K=(k_FR)K_r$ where $K_r$ will be the number of ballistic radial subbands at the border. In Region H only one radial subband is ballistic, in Region E there are $M$ ballistic radial subbands, and finally in Region B there are $k_FD$ radial subbands which are ballistic. Beyond the border $K_r$ increases as $(l_1/L)^{1/2}$ until $K$ reaches the total number of subbands given in Tab. \[tab:border\], where $l_1$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:Nth subband mfp\]) for $N=1$. The condition $K_r=k_FR$ defines a final border $$R(\eta)=\eta^{4/11}R_c(\mathcal{L})^{15/11}$$ in regions H and E, beyond which all subbands are ballistic.
Variable Radius Model of a Nanowire {#sec:FRM}
===================================
Previously, we have considered a model of the surface roughness as flat islands of size $d\ll R$ and height $\Delta$ randomly distributed over the surface of the crystal. For the case of the nanowire however, one can imagine another model of roughness in which the radius of the wire varies along its length, but is independent of the azimuthal direction. We may consider these variations as ring like steps of typical length $d$ and thickness $\Delta$. The step-like nature of the roughness means that we can describe this new model from our old one by restricting the spatial correlator given in Eq. (\[eq:exp\]) to variations in the $x$-direction. The corresponding Fourier transform of the correlator is then given by $$\label{eq:1Dcorrelator}
W(q_x,q_y)=2\sqrt{2}\pi\Delta^2d(1+q_x^2d^2/2)^{-1}\delta(q_y)$$ where $q_x$ is the momentum along the wire’s length and $q_y$ is the momentum in the azimuthal direction. We call this model the Variable Radius Model (VRM).
The new phase diagram for the VRM is shown in Fig. \[fig:undulatedwire\]. It should not be surprising that most of the regions and borders are identical to those in Fig. \[fig:wire\], as these are set either by the number of subbands occupied, the type of confinement, or comparison between the island size $d$ and the wavelength $k_F^{-1}$. As none of these properties depend on the details of the correlator, the regions and borders remain the same as Fig. \[fig:undulatedwire\]. However, there is a new region $J'$ that emerges in Fig. \[fig:undulatedwire\] that did not appear in Fig. \[fig:wire\]. This region is the geometrically confined 1DEG under the condition $k_Fd\gg1$. We see that this region occurs in the limit $R\ll d$, which was forbidden for the previous model of roughness. No such restriction is necessary for the VRM, and so the new region emerges.
The mobility of these regions are given in Tab. \[tab:3\]. We notice immediately that the mobility expressions in regions C$'$, F$'$, and I$'$ are identical to the same lettered regions in Fig. \[fig:wire\]. The reason is that in these regions, $k_Fd\gg1$, and the scattering is dominated by large angle scattering at the edge of a single island, rather than an effect averaged over many islands. The lack of averaging eliminates the differences between the two models in this region, and so the mobility expressions are the same. When $k_Fd\ll1$, the electrons feel instead an averaged effect, and so we see differences emerge between the two models. The effect of averaging results in a reduction of the scattering rate by the number of scattering centers which are typically seen. In the model considered previously, the variations are two-dimensional and so the electrons average along both the $x$-direction and the azimuthal direction. This leads to an average number of islands that contribute to scattering given by the factor $1/(k_Fd)^2$ in the 2DEG and 3DEG regions, and $R/(k_Fd^2)$ in the 1DEG limit. In the VRM the variations only occur in the $x$-direction and so we do not average in the azimuthal direction. This reduces the number of islands averaged over to be $1/(k_Fd)$ in all regions. Knowing this, we may easily obtain the new mobilities of most regions by multiplying the expressions in Tab. 2 by the ratio of the new number of islands to the old number of islands. This ratio is $k_Fd$ in the 2DEG and 3DEG and $d/R$ in the 1DEG. The results are shown in Tab. \[tab:3\].
![The scaling “phase diagram” of roughness limited electron mobility of a quantum wire for the Variable Radius Model (VRM) plotted as a function of radius $R$ and linear electron concentration $\eta$ for $d<a_B$ in the log-log scale. Different “phases” or regions are denoted by capital letters. Mobility expressions corresponding to these regions are given in Table \[tab:3\]. Region boundaries are given by the equations next to them. The schematic self-consistent electron potential energy profile along the the wire diameter and subbands occupied by electrons are shown for each region. Small arrows show the direction of mobility decrease in each region. All regions and the borders have the same definitions as Fig. \[fig:wire\], with the exception of a new region J$'$ that was previously forbidden. The dark red, light red, and pink regions correspond to the single-subband ballistic conductor, many-subband ballistic conductor, and diffusive metal defined by the same conditions as the isotropic model for $\mathcal{L}=a_B^{7/2}\Delta^{-2}d^{-1/2}$. We see that for the same $\mathcal{L}$, the metallic window in the VRM is much smaller than the isotropic model. Electrons are localized in all colorless regions at $T=0$. []{data-label="fig:undulatedwire"}](undulatedwire4 "fig:"){width=".47\textwidth"}\
A$'$ B$'$ C$'$
------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
$\quad a_B^2R^{3/2}/\eta^{3/2} d^5\quad$ $a_B^{7/5}R^{9/5}/d^5\eta ^{9/5}\quad$ $a_BR/\eta d^3$
D$'$ E$'$ F$'$
$a_B^2R^{2}/\eta d^5$ $a_B^{1/2}R^{3}/\eta^{3/2}d^5$ $a_B^{1/2}R^{5/3}/\eta^{5/6}d^3$
G$'$ H$'$ I$'$
$R^6\eta/d^5$ $R^{4}/\eta d^5$ $R^{8/3}/\eta^{1/3}d^3$
— — J$'$
— — $\eta^3R^6/d^3$
: \[tab:3\] Mobility $\mu$ in units of $\left(e/\hbar\right)\left(d^4/\Delta^2\right)$ as a function of the linear electron concentration $\eta$ at $d<a_B$ for different regions of Fig. \[fig:undulatedwire\].
While we can understand the changes in mobility in the VRM as due to a difference in averaging, we may also derive these changes from the correlator in Eq. (\[eq:1Dcorrelator\]). All the differences between the two models occur in the regions where $k_Fd\ll1$, where the correlator is simply $\sqrt{2}\Delta^2d\delta(q_y)$. We see that the major difference from Eq. (\[eq:exp\]) is that $d^2\rightarrow d$ $\delta(q_y)$, and so it must be true that this difference is what is responsible for the change in the mobility between the two models. Indeed, when calculating the scattering rate, we integrate the correlator over the possible final states $k'$, so that it appears in the scattering rate as a factor $\int d^2k'W(q)$. In our previous model this provided to the scattering rate an overall factor of $k_F^2\Delta^2d^2$ for the 2DEG and 3DEG regions, and $k_F\Delta^2d^2/R$ in the 1DEG. In the VRM the presence of a delta-function for the azimuthal momentum means that these factors change to $k_F\Delta^2d$ in all regions. From here it is clear that the change in the correlator leads to a difference in the mobility between the two models by a factor of $k_Fd$ in 2DEG and 3DEG regions and $d/R$ in the 1DEG regions as we described above.
We have shown that all regions in Fig. \[fig:undulatedwire\] can be obtained from Fig. \[fig:wire\] except for the region J$'$. In this region $k_Fd\gg1$, where the scattering rate is determined by large angle scattering. As was discussed in Sec. \[subsec:physical\_well\], the large angle scattering reduces the correlator, and thus the scattering rate, by a factor of $(k_Fd)^3$ in the denominator. This allowed us to obtain the mobility for $k_Fd\gg1$ from the corresponding region with $k_Fd\ll1$ by multiplying the expression by the factor $(k_Fd)^3$. The same logic may be applied in the VRM, but with a small change. The correlator for the VRM has a different power in the denominator than the previous model. The large angle scattering then reduces the correlator by a factor of $(k_Fd)^2$ in the denominator, rather than $(k_Fd)^3$. This means that we may obtain the mobility of J$'$ from that of G$'$ by multiplying by the factor $(k_Fd)^2=(\eta d)^2$, and this value is shown in Tab. \[tab:3\].
The results presented in Sec. \[sec:conductance\] about the conductance and ballistic-diffusive border can easily be generalized to the VRM model. As the results are quite similar, we do not repeat the discussion here.
Discussion {#sec:disc}
==========
Here we would like to estimate the critical value $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ in which the metallic window opens for InAs and InSb nanowires. In order to obtain an accurate estimate of $R_c(\mathcal{L})$, we first need the proper numerical coefficient beyond the scaling approach. Fortunately, the simple single subband structure of regions G and G$'$ allows this number to be determined analytically if we ignore electron-electron interactions. We have calculated these coefficients for a cylindrical wire in Appendix A and found that the mobility in Region G of the isotropic model is $$\label{eq:mobilityGnumber}
\mu=0.047\frac{e}{\hbar}\frac{\eta R^7}{\Delta^2d^2},$$ while for Region G$'$ of the VRM we find the mobility to be $$\label{eq:mobilityGnumberFRM}
\mu=0.017\frac{e}{\hbar}\frac{\eta R^6}{\Delta^2d}.$$ $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ is defined to be the radius in which the dimensionless conductance $G=1$. Using Eqs. (\[eq:mobilityGnumber\]) and (\[eq:mobilityGnumberFRM\]), and assuming we are on the border $\eta R=1$ between regions G and H (or G$'$ and H$'$), we find the value of $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ in the isotropic roughness model to be $$\label{eq:Rcisotropic}
R_c(\mathcal{L})=1.8(\Delta^2d^2\mathcal{L})^{1/5},$$ while for the VRM we find $$\label{eq:RcVRM}
R_c(\mathcal{L})=2.8(\Delta^2d\mathcal{L})^{1/4}.$$ Now let us see what our theory predicts for a wire with $\mathcal{L}=$ 1 $\mu$m. If we assume that $\Delta=1$ nm and $d=10$ nm, then using Eq. (\[eq:Rcisotropic\]) we find that $R_c(\mathcal{L})= 18$ nm for the isotropic model, while using Eq. (\[eq:RcVRM\]) for the VRM we find $R_c(\mathcal{L})=28$ nm. We see that $R_c(\mathcal{L})<a_B$ in both InAs ($a_B\approx34$ nm)[@Ford] and in InSb ($a_B=64$ nm)[@Pandaya], so that the ballistic single subband region exists. Recent experiments[@Fadaly] have demonstrated ballistic transport in InSb nanowires with $\mathcal{L}\leq1$ $\mu$m and $R$ in the range of $40-50$ nm. These $R$ satisfy the condition $R_c(\mathcal{L})<R<a_B$ from our estimates, and thus our theory is consistent with their observation of ballistic transport.
In the above estimate we used the condition $G=1$ so that the conductance per spin was $e^2/h$. One could use a different condition in which $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ is defined to be the $R$ such that $l=\mathcal{L}$. This different definition alters $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ by a factor 1.1 in the isotropic model and 1.2 in the VRM, and so our prediction for $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ is only slightly different between the two definitions.
Conclusion {#sec:con}
==========
In this paper, we have studied the surface-roughness limited mobility in quantum wells and wires for single-subband and multisubband cases. In these systems, electrons are either electrostatically confined by the surface electric field $E$ or geometrically confined by the surface barriers. The mobility is found to be a function of the electron concentration and well width $L$ or wire radius $R$. Both quantum wells and wires are studied for the exponential model of roughness. For the wires, another model of variable radius (VRM) where there is exponential roughness only in the direction of the wire axis is also discussed. We have presented “phase diagrams" summarizing the rich collection of mobility scaling regions and found that in quantum wires there exists a critical size $R_c(\mathcal{L})$ so that wires with $R>R_c(\mathcal{L})$ have a window of concentrations where the wire is metallic, while for $R<R_c(\mathcal{L})$ electrons are localized at $T=0$.
So far we have ignored the spin-orbit coupling of electrons. In InAs and InSb nanowires studied for the purpose of quantum computations [@Doh; @Frolov; @Mourik; @Deng_hybrid], the spin-orbit interaction is quite strong. However, the experimentally relevant Rashba spin-orbit interaction [@ilse] just shifts two electron bands of opposite spin polarizations away from each other in the Brillouin zone. Therefore, electrons in each spin polarized band move independently of the other band and the mobility is the same as the case without the spin-orbit coupling.
$\phantom{}$
[*Acknowledgments.*]{}
We are grateful to A. Kamenev, V. Pribiag, X. Ying, and K.V. Reich for helpful discussions. Han Fu was supported by the Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship through the University of Minnesota.
Coefficients of Mobility for Geometrically Confined 1DEG in Cylindrical Nanowires in Region G and G$'$ {#App:AppendixB}
======================================================================================================
In the Discussion, we have used the coefficient of the mobility and thus the mean free path of electrons in narrow nanowires of cylindrical cross-sections at low electron concentrations (Region G of Fig. \[fig:wire\] and G$'$ of Fig. \[fig:undulatedwire\]). In this appendix, we derive this coefficient.
For a narrow nanowire at low electron concentrations, electrons occupy only the first subband in the wire cross-section forming a 1DEG which is geometrically confined. If we ignore correlation effects, the wavefunction of the lowest subband in a cylindrical nanowire of radius $R$ is $$\xi(r,\phi,x)=\frac{J_0(\nu_0r/R)e^{ikx}}{\sqrt{\pi}RJ_1(\nu_0)}$$ where $x$ is directed along the wire axis, $r$ is the distance from the wire center, $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle in the cross section of the wire, $J_0$ and $J_1$ are the zeroth and first order Bessel functions of the first kind, and $\nu_0\approx2.4$ is the first zero of $J_0$.
It can be easily derived that for a 1DEG, the scattering rate is $$\label{eq:tau_cylindrical wire}
\frac{1}{\tau}=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|V|^2\rho(1-\cos\theta)$$ where $|V|$ is the scattering matrix element due to roughness, $\theta=\pi$ is the angle between initial and final electron momenta, $\rho=m^*/2\pi\hbar^2k_F$ is the density of states into which the backscattering can happen, and $k_F$ is the Fermi wavenumber of the 1DEG. For 1D scattering, only backscattering can cause momentum relaxation, and so the angle between the initial and final momenta is $\pi$.
Similar to Eq. \[eq:scattering\_matrix element\], according to Ref. , one can obtain the scattering potential in the cylindrical geometry to be $$V(\phi,z)=\frac{\hbar^2}{2m^*}\Delta(\phi,z)\left.\frac{\partial \xi}{\partial r}\frac{\partial \xi'}{\partial r}\right\vert_{r=R}$$ and the scattering matrix element for $R\gg d$ is $$\label{eq:matrix element cylinder}
<{\left| V(q) \right|}^2>=\frac{\nu_0}{2\pi}\frac{\hbar^4}{m^{*2}R^7}W(q)$$ where $q=2k_F$ is the transferred momentum along the wire axis for backscattering of electrons at the Fermi level.
If we combine Eqs. (\[eq:tau\_cylindrical wire\]) and (\[eq:matrix element cylinder\]), set $k_F=(\pi/2)\eta$ for a 1D gas, and use $k_Fd\ll1$ for the correlator given in Eq. (\[eq:exp\]), we find the mobility $\mu=e\tau/m^*$ to be $$\mu=\frac{\pi}{2\nu_0^4}\frac{e}{\hbar}\frac{\eta R^7}{\Delta^2d^2}.$$
If instead we consider the VRM model described in Sec. \[sec:FRM\], then we use the correlator given in Eq. (\[eq:1Dcorrelator\]) instead. As a result, the mobility in Region G$'$ in the VRM is $$\mu=\frac{\pi}{4\sqrt{2}\nu_0^4}\frac{e}{\hbar}\frac{\eta R^6}{\Delta^2d}.$$
large angle scattering dominance in scattering rate for quantum well {#App:AppendixA}
====================================================================
Here by using Eq. we prove that the scattering rate in $k_Fd\gg1$ regions V and VII is dominated by the large angle scattering, i.e, scattering events with large $q\simeq k_F$. One might expect that because the correlator $W(q)\sim\Delta^2d^/(k_Fd)^3$ for large angle scattering with $q\sim k_F$ is much smaller than that for scattering into small angles with $q\sim 1/d$ by a factor of $(k_Fd)^3$ in the denominator, that the scattering is dominated by the small angle regime. However as we show below, the limited number of final subbands that electrons can scatter into for $q\le 1/d$, the small value of the angular integral $\int d\phi \left(1-\vec{v_{k'}}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_{N'}/\vec{v_k}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_N\right)$, and in certain cases the smaller $z$-direction momentum of final states $k_z'\ll k_F$ act to suppress the small angle scattering rate so that the scattering is determined by the large angle scattering. We show this below for three cases: $L<d$ (in some part of regions V and VII); $L>d$ and $M/L<1/d$ (for the rest of Region V and some part of Region VII); $L>d$ and $M/L>1/d$ (for the rest of Region VII).
First let us consider the case when $L<d$. From energy conservation, the total magnitude of the momentum is fixed, and so any difference in magnitude of the in-plane momenta follows from the difference ${\left| k_z-k_{z'} \right|}\sim 1/L$ of their $z$-momentum. When $L<d$, $q\le1/d\ll1/L$ and the scattering happens only within the same subband. This means that the DFR term $\vec{v_{k'}}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_N'/\vec{v_k}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_N$ reduces to the usual $\cos\phi$ for 2D scattering, where $\phi$ is the angle between $\vec{v_{k'}},\,\vec{v_k}$. The final angular integral for the small angle scattering is $\int(1-\cos\phi)d\phi\sim \phi^3\sim(k_Fd)^{-3}$, while it is of order unity for the large angle one. This cancels the advantage of larger $W(q)$ in the small angle scattering. Moreover, the small angle scattering has only one final subband to scatter into while the large angle scattering covers all $k_FL$ subbands. This combined with the small angular integral means that the small angle scattering rate is $k_FL\gg1$ times smaller than that of the large angle when $L<d$.
Now let us look at the second case where $L>d$ and $M/L<1/d$. For simplicity, we focus on the lowest subbands with $k_z<M/L\ll k_F$ as these dominate the conductivity in regions V and VII. In the limit $L>d$ and $M/L<1/d$, there will always exist $L/d>M$ subbands with $k_z'< 1/d$ so that the scattering now involves intersubband scattering. As a result the DFR term is not reduced to $\cos\phi$ and the term $\left(1-\vec{v_{k'}}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_{N'}/\vec{v_k}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_N\right)$ is of order unity instead of being infinitesimal for small $q$ and thus small $\phi$. The angular integral of this term would just give $1/(k_Fd)$ from the small angle $\int d\phi\simeq 1/dk_F$ and does not compensate the $(k_Fd)^3$ reduction of the correlator. However, we must consider the importance of $k_z'$ in the scattering matrix element according to Eq. . For the small angle scattering $k_z'<1/d$, while for the large angle regime $k_z'\sim k_F$. This gives an extra factor $1/(k_Fd)^2$ to $|V(q)|^2$ in small angle regime relative to the large angle scattering. This additional factor combined with the small angular integral compensates the $1/(k_Fd)^3$ reduction of the correlator. Considering also the accessible number of final subbands $L/d$ in the small angle limit is $k_Fd$ times smaller the $k_FL$ available subbands for large angle scattering, we find that the small angle scattering rate is $k_Fd$ times smaller than that of the large angle.
Finally we must consider the intermediate case when $L>d$ and $M/L>1/d$. For small angle scattering the number of subbands $L/d$ that may be scattered into is small, and so we expect that the DFR term is near the 2D limit $\cos\phi$. Expanding around this value, we find that the DFR term is approximately $$\label{eq:DFR}
\frac{\vec{v_{k'}}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_N'}{\vec{v_k}\cdot\vec{E}\tau_N}=\cos\phi(1-\frac{\delta v_k}{v_k}-\frac{\delta\tau_N}{\tau_N}),$$ where $\delta v_k={\left| v_k-v_k' \right|}$ and $\delta\tau_N-{\left| \tau_N-\tau_N' \right|}$. Let us examine these correction terms, beginning with $\delta v_k/v_k$. The allowed difference in $k$ and $k'$ is $1/d$ for the small angle scattering. Since $k\simeq k_F$ for lowest subbands, the velocity difference ratio $ |v_{k'}-v_k|/v_k=|k'- k|/k$ is then $1/k_Fd$. In considering the other correction term $\delta\tau_N/\tau_N$, let us assume that the scattering rate of each subband is always determined by their large angle scattering into typical subbands and show that this assumption self-consistent. With this assumption the difference in relaxation times $\delta\tau_N$ is solely caused by the different $z$-direction momenta and subband widths as seen from Eq. . Again we focus on the the lowest $M$ subbands as these determine the conductivity. For the bottommost subbands, all subbands within $q\sim 1/d$ are electrostatically confined and $\delta\tau_N=0$ as $k_z'^2/Z'=k_z^2/Z=n/a_B$ (see Eq. ) For the higher subbands with $k_z\sim M/L$, there are bands within $q\sim1/d$ which are instead geometrically confined and the correction is non-vanishing. Indeed, we find that $\delta\tau_N\sim\tau_N\delta k_z/k_z$ and so the correction is given by $(1/d)/(M/L)$. We find then that the leading contribution to the DFR term in Eq. (\[eq:DFR\]) in the small angle regime is approximately $1-(1/d)/(M/L)$, where we have used the fact that $1/(k_Fd)\ll L/Md$ in the limits being considered.
Using the DFR term above, the angular integral now gives a factor $(1/k_Fd)(1/d)/(M/L)$ to the scattering rate, while the integral is of order unity for the large angle limit. Combined with the fact that the final state in the small angle regime has $k_z'^2/Z'\simeq (M/L)^2/L$, we find that these terms give an extra factor $(Md/L)/(k_Fd)^3$ compared to the same terms for the large angle limit. We see then that there is a factor of $1/(k_Fd)^3$ term that compensates the suppression of the correlator in the large angle limit. Adding the fact that the small angle scattering can only scatter into $L/d\ll k_FL$, we find that the ratio of scattering rates in the small and large angle regimes is $M/(k_FL)\ll1$ and indeed the large angle limit dominates.
[^1]: For the case of cylindrical wires, the characteristic size $R$ would be the radius of the wire. However, the results presented are applicable to any cross-section that can be described with a single characteristic length, such as a square wire with side length 2R or a regular hexagonal wire in which R is the distance from the center of the wire to each vertex.
[^2]: One should note here that the definition of relaxation time $\tau$ is still valid according to Ref. , which might be broken in more complicated cases.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Service robots are expected to operate effectively in human-centric environments for long periods of time. In such realistic scenarios, fine-grained object categorization is as important as basic-level object categorization. We tackle this problem by proposing an open-ended object recognition approach which concurrently learns both the object categories and the local features for encoding objects. In this work, each object is represented using a set of *general latent visual topics* and *category-specific dictionaries*. The general topics encode the common patterns of all categories, while the category-specific dictionary describes the content of each category in details. The proposed approach discovers both sets of general and specific representations in an unsupervised fashion and updates them incrementally using new object views. Experimental results show that our approach yields significant improvements over the previous state-of-the-art approaches concerning scalability and object classification performance. Moreover, our approach demonstrates the capability of learning from very few training examples in a real-world setting. Regarding computation time, the best result was obtained with a Bag-of-Words method followed by a variant of the Latent Dirichlet Allocation approach.'
author:
- 'S. Hamidreza Kasaei [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'bibs/refs.bib'
- 'bibs/refs\_IROS18.bib'
title: |
[ ]{}\
Look Further to Recognize Better: Learning Shared Topics and Category-Specific Dictionaries for Open-Ended 3D Object Recognition
---
Introduction
============
Nowadays service robots are leaving the structured and completely known environments and entering human-centric settings. For these robots, object perception is a challenging task due to the high demand for accurate and real-time response under changing and unpredictable environmental conditions. Although many problems have already been understood and solved successfully, many challenges still remain. Open-ended object recognition is one of these challenges waiting for many improvements. Cognitive science revealed that humans learn to recognize object categories ceaselessly over time. This ability allows adapting to new environments, by enhancing their knowledge from the accumulation of experiences and the conceptualization of new object categories. Inspired by this, we approach object category learning and recognition from a long-term perspective and with emphasis on open-endedness. In this paper, *open-ended* implies that the set of object categories to be learned is not known in advance, and the training instances are extracted from online experiences of a robot, and become gradually available over time, rather than being completely available at the beginning of the learning process.
In such a complex, dynamic and realistic setting, no matter how extensive the training data used for batch learning, a robot might always face a new object. Therefore, apart from batch learning, the robot should be able to learn new object categories from very few training examples on-site supported by human-in-the-loop feedback.
Moreover, the robot may frequently face a new object that visually can be either *not similar* (*basic-level*) or *very similar* (*fine-grained*) to the previously learned object categories (see Fig. \[fig:fine-grained\]). This poses a significant challenge in situations when the robot needs to recognize visually similar categories for which only a few examples are available. In such situations, *object representation* plays a central role because the output of this module is used for learning as well as recognition. In this paper, we propose a new method to characterize an object based on a *common set of latent visual topics*, which is used to describe the content of all categories (basic-level), and a set of *category-specific dictionaries* for highlighting the small diversity within the different categories (fine-grained). The representation of the given object is finally obtained by concatenating the generic and specific representations. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other approach that can jointly learn a set of generic and category-specific features for encoding 3D object categories in an open-ended manner.
Related work {#sec:related_work}
============
In the last decade, various research groups have made substantial progress towards the development of learning approaches which support online and incremental object category learning [@Oliveira2016614][@young2017semantic]. In recent studies on object recognition, much attention has been given to deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). It is now clear that if in a scenario, we have *a fixed set of object categories* and *a massive number of examples per category that are sufficiently similar to the test images*, CNN-based approaches yield good results, notable recent works include [@redmon2016you][@hariharan2017low]. In open-ended scenarios, these assumptions are not satisfied, and the robot needs to learn new concepts on-site using very few training examples. While deep learning is a very powerful and useful tool, there are several limitations to apply CNNs in open-ended domains. In general, CNN approaches are incremental by nature but not open-ended, since the inclusion of new categories enforces a restructuring in the topology of the network. Furthermore, training a CNN-based approach requires long training times and training with a few examples per category poses a challenge for these methods. In contrast, *open-ended learning* [@kasaeiNips2016][@kasaei2015interactive] allows for concurrent learning and recognition. Our approach falls into this category.
In the case of object representation, most of the recent approaches use either neural networks [@ullrich2017selecting][@hariharan2017low] or hand-crafted features [@kasaei2018perceivingAAAI]. These approaches may not be the best option for such domains since the object representation procedure is a built-in component of the system. Oliveira et al. [@oliveira2015concurrent] tackle this problem by proposing an approach for concurrent learning of visual codebooks and object categories in open-ended domains. Unlike our approach, they completely discard information related to the co-occurrence of local object features. Moreover, they did not consider fine-grained categorization. Existing approaches for fine-grained categorization heavily rely on accurate object parts/features annotations during the training phase. Such requirements prevent the wide usage of these methods. However, some works only use class labels and do not need exhaustive annotations. Geo et al. [@gao2014learning] proposed a Bag of Words (BoW) approach for fine-grained image categorization. This work is similar to ours since they represent objects using generic and specific representations. However there are some differences: their codebooks are constructed offline; therefore, the representativeness of the training set becomes critical to the performance of the system. Moreover, this approach is impractical for an open-ended domain (i.e., large number of categories) since the size of object representation is linearly dependent on the number of known categories. Zhang et al. [@zhang2016weakly] proposed a novel fine-grained image categorization system. Similar to our work, they only used class labels during the training phase. Unlike our approach, in [@gao2014learning][@zhang2016weakly] the representations of known categories do not change after the training stage. Moreover, they completely discarded co-occurrence (structural) information. This limitation might lead to non-discriminative object representations and, as a consequence, to poor object recognition performance.
Several types of research have been performed to assess the added-value of structural information. Canini et al. [@canini2009online] extended an online version of Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) and proposed an incremental Gibbs sampler for LDA (here referred to as I-LDA). In online-LDA and I-LDA, the number of categories is fixed, while in our approach the number of categories is growing. Kasaei et al. [@kasaeiNips2016] proposed an open-ended object category learning approach just by learning specific topics per category, while our approach does not only learn a set of general topics for basic-level categorization, but also learn a category-specific dictionary for fine-grained categorization.
[Learning generic and category-specific representations ]{} {#sec:object_representation}
===========================================================
We organized our approach in three main phases: (*i*) feature extraction; (*ii*) learning generic representations; and (*iii*) learning category-specific representations. In the following we describe each of these phases in detail.
Feature Extraction
------------------
In this work, we first represent a 3D object by a set of local shape features called spin-image [@Johnson1999]. The reason why we use spin-image rather than other 3D feature descriptors is that the spin-image is a pose-invariant feature, and therefore suitable for 3D perception in autonomous robots. Another advantage of the spin-image is that it only requires a surface normal - rather than a full reference frame - to compute the feature. As depicted in Fig. \[fig:feature\_extraction\], the process of local feature extraction consists of two main phases: extraction of key points and computation of spin-images. For efficiency reasons, the number of key points in an object should be much smaller than the total number of points. Therefore, the object is first voxelized and then, the nearest neighbor point to each voxel center is selected as a key point (Fig. \[fig:feature\_extraction\] *a* and *b*). Afterwards, the spin-image descriptor is used to encode the surrounding shape in each keypoint using the original point cloud. A spin-image is a local shape histogram, which is obtained by spinning a 2D histogram around the key point’s surface normal (see Fig. \[fig:feature\_extraction\] *c* and *d*). Therefore, each object view is described by a set of spin-images, $\textbf{O} = \{\textbf{s}_1,~\dots,~\textbf{s}_N\}$, where N is the number of key points. The obtained representation is then used as input to both generic and category-specific object representation processes.
------- ------- ------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ Local feature extraction: *(a)* point cloud of a juice-box *(b)* key point selection (blue points); *(c)* a schematic of how the spin-image spins a 2D histogram around the key point’s surface normal; *(d)* the computed spin-image for a sample keypoint.[]{data-label="fig:feature_extraction"}](figure/spin_image_feature.pdf "fig:"){width="0.15\linewidth"}
*(a)* *(b)* *(c)* *(d)*
------- ------- ------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Generic Representation
----------------------
Our generic object representation approach requires a dictionary with $V$ visual words. Usually, the dictionary is created via off-line clustering of training data. In this work, we create a pool of objects using 75% of the training data. Previously, we showed how a robot could create a pool of objects by exploring the environment [@kasaeiNips2016]. To construct a pool of features, spin-images are computed for the selected points extracted from the pool of objects. Finally, the dictionary is constructed by clustering the features using the k-means algorithm [@chakraborty2011analysis]. The centers of $V$ computed clusters are defined as the visual words, $\textbf{w}_i : i \in \{1,~\dots,~V \}$.
We then modify the incremental LDA approach [@canini2009online] to be suitable for this study by releasing the batch learning phase. Particularly, we have tried to get structural semantic features from low-level feature co-occurrences by discovering a set of topics using an incremental LDA model. The basic idea is to represent a given object as a histogram of topics (i.e., latent variables), where a distribution over visual words characterizes each topic. In this method, an object is first represented as a set of visual words, $\{\textbf{s}_1,~\dots,~\textbf{s}_N\} \rightarrow \{{w}_1, {w}_2, ..., {w}_N\}$, where each entry represents the index of one of the $V$ words of the dictionary. Next, the object should be described as a set of topics, $\{{w}_1, {w}_2, ..., {w}_N\}\rightarrow\{ {z}_1, {z}_2, ..., {z}_N\}$, where each element of the topic set represents the index of one of the $K$ topics. Towards this goal, the probability of topic $\textbf{z}_j$ being assigned to a word $\textbf{w}_i$, given all other topics assigned to all other words is estimated by the fast collapsed Gibbs sampler. After the sampling procedure, the word-topic matrix can be estimated as follows:
$$\label {phi_estimation}
\phi_{{w}_i,k} = \frac{n_{{w}_i, k} + \beta}{n_{k}+ |\textbf{V}|\times\beta},$$
where $\beta$ is Dirichlet prior hyper-parameter that affect the sparsity of distributions, $n_{\textbf{w}_i,k} $ shows the number of times visual word $\textbf{w}_i$ was assigned to topic $k$ and $n_k$ is the number of times a word was assigned to topic $k$. $\phi$ is a $K \times V$ matrix, which represents words-probability for each topic, $K$ is the number of topics, and $\phi_{{w}_i,k}=p(\textbf{w}_i|\textbf{z}_k)$. As it is shown in Algorithm 1, we also need $n_{o,k}$ counter through the sampling procedure, which shows the number of times topic $k$ is assigned to some visual words of object $\textbf{O}$. After inferring the word-topic matrix, we generate a set of $K$ spin-image like topics: $$\label {topic_estimation}
\textbf{z}_k = \sum_{i=1}^{V} p(\textbf{w}_i|\textbf{z}_k) \times \textbf{w}_i \quad \quad k \in \{1, \dots, K\}.$$ Each topic is then normalized to provide further robustness to depth variations of the object in the scene. In this way, each topic is generated by combining all visual words. It is worth mentioning that the process of topic learning does not require an explicit distance metric. The proposed procedure is summarized in Algorithm 1. At some points, a user may instruct the robot to update topics. In this case, the robot retrieves the representation of all the instances of all categories and updates dictionaries as well as the parameters of the model including $n_k$ and $n_{w, k}$ incrementally (i.e., unsupervised learning) using Gibbs sampling. Figure \[fig:topics\] shows a sample set of learned topics.
For representing a given object using the learned topics, each local feature of the object is approximated by its nearest topic. Then the object is represented as a histogram of occurrences of topics $\textbf{h}^t = [h_1,~ h_2,~\dots ,~h_K]$ where the $i^{th}$ element of $\textbf{h}^t$ is the count of the number of spin-images assigned to a topic, $\textbf{z}_i$.
Category-Specific Representation
--------------------------------
While the generic representation works well for basic-level classification, it does not work for fine-grained categorization. The underlying reason is that most features from fine-grained categories are similar. Therefore, these categories would share lots of similar topics, and the proportion of discriminative topics would be minor. Therefore, it is desirable to develop an approach for learning a set of category-specific features from a few examples. We have tackled this problem by learning a category-specific dictionary for each category independently. This is a challenging task since the robot does not know in advance which object categories it will have to learn, which observations will be available, and when they will be available to support learning. In our current setup, a new instance of a specific category is stored in the robot’s memory in the following situations:
- When the teacher for the first time *teaches* a particular category, through a *teach* action, a new category is created and initialized with the set of object views.
- In the case of *correct* actions, the local features of the target object view are added to the category.
Assume at time $t_0$ (i.e., first teaching action) a dictionary is learned for category $c$, denoted as $V^c_{t_0}$, which represents the distribution of 3D shape features observed up to time $t_0$. Later at time $t_1$, a new training instance, which is represented as a set of spin-images, is taught by a teacher to category $c$ (i.e., supervised learning). The teaching instruction trigs the robot to retrieve the current dictionary of the category as well as the representation of the new object view and updates the relevant dictionary using an incremental K-means algorithm [@chakraborty2011analysis] (i.e. unsupervised learning). Such category-specific dictionary would highlight the differences of objects from different categories, and as a consequence improves the object recognition performance.
Similar to the generic representation, a given object is then represented as a histogram of occurrences of visual words, $\textbf{h}^{c} = [h_1,~ h_2,~\dots ,~h_{V^c}]$, where $V^c$ is the size of category-specific dictionary. The obtained histograms, $\textbf{h}^t$ and $\textbf{h}^{c}$, are then concatenated to form a single representation for the given object. Figure \[fig:visual\_words\] shows ten sample visual words from a *Mug* category-specific dictionary. It is worth mentioning when dictionaries or topics are updated, the representations of known instances must be updated. At the moment, we do this by storing the features of each object view and using them to recompute the representations.
\[table:system\_params\_topic\_words\]
Object category learning and recognition
========================================
Concerning category formation, we use the instance-based learning and recognition (IBL) approach which considers category learning as a process of learning about the instances of the category, i.e., a category is represented simply by a set of known instances. IBL is a baseline approach to evaluate object representations. An advantage of the IBL approaches is that they can recognize objects using a very small number of experiments and the training phase is very fast. As discussed in the previous section, the *teach* and *correct* actions by the teacher lead the robot to create a new category or to modify an existing one (i.e., supervised learning). Whenever a new object is added to a category, the agent retrieves the current model of the category and updates the category model by storing the representation of new object views. In particular, our approach can be seen as a combination of a particular *object representation*, *similarity measure* and *classification rule*. Therefore, the choice of the similarity metric has an impact on the recognition performance.
With regards to the similarity measure, since the proposed object representation describes an object as a histogram, the dissimilarity between two histograms can be computed by different distance functions. We refer the reader to a comprehensive survey on distance/similarity measures provided by Cha [@cha2007comprehensive]. After performing several cross-validation experiments, we concluded that two types of distance functions including Jensen-Shannon (JS) and chi-squared ($\chi^{2}$) distances are suitable to estimate the similarity between two instances. Both functions are in the form of a bin-to-bin distance function. Although the practical results of $\chi^{2}$ and JS are almost identical, $\chi^{2}$ is computationally more efficient. Therefore, we use the $\chi^{2}$ function to estimate the similarity of two instances. Mathematically, let $\operatorname{P}$ and $\operatorname{Q}$ $\in{\rm I\!R^{K+V^c}}$ be the representation of two objects: $$\chi^{2}\operatorname{(P,Q)} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{K+V^c} \frac{(\operatorname{P}_i-\operatorname{Q}_i)^2}{(\operatorname{P}_i+\operatorname{Q}_i)}.$$
To assess the dissimilarity between a target object and stored instances of a certain category **C**, the target object should be first described by the general topics and the learned dictionary of the category **C**. Afterwards, the minimum distance between the target object and all stored instances of the category **C** is considered as the Object-Category-Distance (OCD). The target object is finally classified based on the minimum OCD.
Result and discussion {#sec:results}
=====================
Three types of experiments were carried out to evaluate the proposed approach. In this section, we first explain our experimental setup and then discuss the obtained results.
Datasets and Baselines
----------------------
The experimental evaluations were carried out on two 3D object datasets including the Restaurant Object dataset [@kasaei2015interactive] and the Washington RGB-D Object dataset [@Lai2011]. For the classical evaluation (i.e., 10-fold cross-validation), we mainly use the Restaurant Object Dataset since it has a small number of classes (10 categories) with significant intra-class variation that is suitable for performing extensive sets of experiments. The Washington RGB-D Object dataset [@Lai2011] is used for open-ended evaluation. It consists of 250,000 views of 300 common household objects taken from multiple views and organized into 51 categories. We also report on a real-world demonstration using the Imperial College Domestic Environment Dataset [@doumanoglou2016recovering]. This is a suitable dataset for this test since all scenes were captured under various clutter and contain objects with similar shapes (*lipton* vs. *softkings*) and objects with very different shapes (*oreo* vs. *elite*).
For comparison, we have selected four open-ended 3D object category learning and recognition approaches, including the RACE [@Oliveira2016614], BoW [@kasaei2018towards] based on the nearest neighbour classification rule, and Open-Ended LDA, which is a modified version of the standard smoothed LDA [@blei2003latent] and Local-LDA [@kasaeiNips2016]. Moreover, we add another baseline, which is the proposed method without category-specific representation (here referred to as Generic Rep.).
Classical Evaluation using Restaurant Object Dataset
----------------------------------------------------
The proposed approach has a set of parameters including $\langle\alpha$, $\beta$, G, VS, IW, SL, V, K and V$^c\rangle$, that must be tuned to provide a good balance between recognition performance, memory usage, and processing speed. In this work, we assumed a symmetric Dirichlet prior for both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ parameters. Therefore, a high $\alpha$ value means that each object is likely to contain a mixture of most of the topics, and not a single specific topic. Likewise, a low $\beta$ value means that a topic may contain a mixture of just a few of the words. We carried out several experiments and concluded that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ should be set to 1.0 and 0.1 respectively. The number of Gibbs sampling iterations, G, is set to 50. A set of 900 experiments was performed for different values of the remaining six parameters. The voxel size (VS) parameter is related to the number of keypoints extracted from each object view. IW defines the size of the spin-image descriptor, which will be $(\operatorname{IW} + 1) \times (2 \times \operatorname{IW} + 1)$ float (4 bytes). Support length (SL) determines the amount of space swept out by a spin-image. A summary of the experiments using Restaurant Object dataset [@kasaei2015interactive] is reported in Table \[table:system\_params\_topic\_words\]. The parameter configuration that obtained the best *average accuracy* was selected as the default configuration (i.e., bold numbers). The accuracy of this configuration was 94$\%$. A complete experiment (including both learning and recognition phases) on average took 286.50 seconds.
### Comparative evaluation
Table \[table:compareWithStateOfTheArt\] presents a summary of the obtained results. One important observation is that the overall performance of our approach is promising and the proposed representation is capable of providing a distinctive representation for the objects. Moreover, it was observed that the discriminative power of our approach was better than the other evaluated approaches which was 7 percentage points (p.p.) better than RACE, 5 p.p. better than BoW, 11 p.p. and 3 p.p. better than Open-Ended LDA (shared topics) and Local LDA (category-specific topics) respectively. Furthermore, to show the importance of considering the category-specific representation, we compared our approach with the Only Generic Rep. baseline. It was observed that the accuracy has been boosted by 4 p.p. when we use both generic and category-specific representations. The accuracy of object recognition based on variable size representation (i.e., RACE) was not as good as the other approaches. The Local LDA and BoW obtained an acceptable performance. In the case of experiment times, BoW achieves the best performance and RACE was the most computationally expensive approach. Overall, topic modelling approaches achieve a medium-level
[r]{}[0.5]{}
\[table:compareWithStateOfTheArt\]
experiment time. The underlying reason is that there is a Gibbs sampling procedure in the topic modelling based approaches which takes time to accurately represent the desired distribution.
Open-Ended Evaluation
---------------------
An evaluation protocol for open-ended learning systems was proposed in [@kasaei2018coping]. The idea is to emulate the interactions of a robot with the surrounding environment over large periods of time. This protocol is based on a Test-then-Train scheme.We developed a *simulated teacher* to follow the protocol and autonomously interact with the agen. The idea is that for each newly taught category, the simulated teacher repeatedly picks unseen objects of the currently known categories from a dataset and presents them to the agent. It progressively estimates the recognition accuracy of the agent and, in case this accuracy exceeds a given threshold ($\tau$ = 0.67, meaning accuracy is at least twice the error rate), introduces an additional object category. This way, the agent is trained online, and at the same time, the accuracy of the system is continuously estimated. In case the agent can not reach the classification threshold after a certain number of iterations (i.e., 100 iterations), the simulated teacher can infer that the agent is no longer able to learn more categories and terminates the experiment. We assess our experimental results using the metrics that were recently introduced in [@oliveira2015concurrent], including: (*i*) the average number of learned categories at the end of an experiment (ALC), an indicator of *how much the system is capable of learning*; (*ii*) the number of question/correction iterations (QCI) required to learn those categories and the average number of stored instances per category (AIC), indicators of *how much memory does it take for learning?*; (*iii*) Global Classification Accuracy (GCA), an accuracy computed using all predictions in an experiment, and the Average Protocol Accuracy (APA), indicators of *how well the system learns*.
### Results
A detailed summary of the obtained results is reported in Table \[table\_open\_ended\_evaluation\]. In all approaches, as more categories are learned, the classification accuracy first decreases (performance degradation phase), and then starts going up again as more instances are introduced (recovery phase). Eventually, the agent reaches a break-point where it is no longer able to learn more categories. By comparing all approaches, it is visible that the agent learned (on average) more categories using our approach than with other state-of-the-art approaches. The agent with Local-LDA approach obtained acceptable scalability, while the scalability of the other approaches was very low and their performance drops aggressively when the number of categories increases. In particular, our approach on average learned around $11$ categories more than Local-LDA and $18$, $20$ and $25$ categories more than BoW, RACE and open-ended LDA approaches, respectively. It is also clear that the agent with our approach stored more instances per category (AIC) than the other approaches. This is expected since a higher number of categories known by the system tends to make the classification task more difficult.
\[table\_open\_ended\_evaluation\]
Although on average, BoW and Local-LDA achieved better performance than our approach, the difference is minor, and the discriminative power of those approaches is lower. This is expected since the BoW and Local-LDA learned fewer categories, and it is easier to get better classification performance in fewer categories.
System Demonstration
--------------------
[r]{}[0.5]{}
\[fig:real\_demo\]
In this demonstration, the system initially had no prior knowledge, and all objects are recognized as *Unknown*. Later, a user interacts with the system and teaches all object categories including *amita*, *colgate*, *lipton*, *elite*, *oreo* and *softkings* to the system using the objects extracted from a scene captured from the blue camera pose as shown in Fig. \[fig:real\_demo\] (*left*). The system conceptualizes those categories using the extracted object views. Afterwards, the system is tested by the remaining 12 scenes captured from different viewpoints (i.e., shown by red cameras). The system could recognize all objects properly by using the knowledge learned from the first scene. Some misclassifications also occurred throughout the demonstration. The underlying reason was that, at some points, the object tracking could not track the object properly and the distinctive parts of the object were not included in the object’s point cloud. This evaluation illustrates the process of learning object categories in an open-ended fashion. A video of this demonstration is available online at: [](https://youtu.be/zjucGaAwnTE)
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we have tackled the problem of open-ended object category learning and recognition by proposing a new object representation, which is suitable for both fine-grained and basic-level object categorization. In particular, we described each object based on a set of *general latent visual topics* and a set of *category-specific* dictionaries. An extensive set of experiments was carried out to assess the performance of the proposed approach. Experimental results show that the overall classification performance obtained with the proposed approach is clearly better than the best accomplishments achieved with the state-of-the-art methods. Moreover, the best scalability was obtained with the proposed approach, followed by the Local-LDA [@kasaeiNips2016]. Concerning computational time, the best result was obtained with BoW [@kasaei2018towards], immediately followed by the Open-Ended LDA approach [@blei2003latent]. A real demonstration proved that the agent could learn new categories from very few examples in an incremental and open-ended manner.
[^1]: Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen, PO Box 407, 9700 AK, Groningen, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]
[^2]: We are thankful to Prof. L. Seabra Lopes, Prof. A. Tomé, and Prof. M. Wiering who provided expertise that greatly assisted the research.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study non-paraSasakian paracontact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-spaces with $\kappa=-1$ (equivalent to $h^2=0$ but $h\neq0$). These manifolds, which do not have a contact geometry counterpart, will be classified locally in terms of the rank of $h$. We will also give explicit examples of every possible constant rank of $h$.'
address: |
Centro Universitario de la Defensa, Academia General Militar, Ctra. de Huesca s/n, 50090 Zaragoza, SPAIN\
AND I.U.M.A, Universidad de Zaragoza, SPAIN
author:
- 'Verónica Martín-Molina'
title: Paracontact metric manifolds without a contact metric counterpart
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
A remarkable class of paracontact metric manifolds $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ is that of paracontact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-spaces, which satisfy the nullity condition $$\label{kappamu}
R(X,Y)\xi=\kappa(\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y)+\mu(\eta(Y)hX-\eta(X) hY),$$ for all $X,Y$ vector fields on $M$, where $\kappa$ and $\mu$ are constants and $h=\frac12 L_\xi \varphi$.
This definition, which may appear quite technical, arises from the deep and meaningful relationship between contact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-spaces and paracontact geometry. More precisely, it was proved in [@mino-pacific] that any non-Sasakian contact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-space accepts two paracontact metric $(\widetilde\kappa,\widetilde\mu)$-structures with the same contact form. On the other hand, under certain natural conditions, every non-paraSasakian paracontact $(\widetilde{\kappa},\widetilde{\mu})$-space carries a contact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-structure compatible with the same contact form ([@CKM]). The class of paracontact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-spaces includes the paraSasakian ones (see [@kaneyuki] and [@zamkovoy]) and the ones satisfying $R(X,Y)\xi=0$ for all $X,Y$ (studied in [@zamkovoy-arxiv2]), among others.
There are some notable differences between a contact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-space $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ and a paracontact metric $(\widetilde\kappa,\widetilde \mu)$-space $(\widetilde M,\widetilde\phi, \widetilde\xi, \widetilde\eta, \widetilde{g})$. First of all, while they satisfy $h^2=(\kappa-1)\varphi^2$ and $\widetilde{h}^2=(\widetilde\kappa+1)\widetilde\varphi^2$, respectively, the first condition means that $\kappa \leq 1$ but the second one does not give any type of restriction for $\widetilde\kappa$ because the metric of a paracontact metric manifold is not positive definite (see [@blair95] for the contact metric case and [@CKM] for the paracontact metric one).
Another difference is that, in the contact metric case, $\kappa=1$ (i.e. $h^2=0$) is also equivalent to the manifold being Sasakian (and thus $h=0$). However, there are paracontact metric $(\widetilde\kappa,\widetilde\mu)$-spaces with $\widetilde\kappa=-1$ (and thus $\widetilde{h}^2=0$) but $\widetilde h\neq0$. The first example of paracontact metric $(-1,2)$-space $(M^{2n+1},\widetilde\phi, \widetilde\xi, \widetilde\eta, \widetilde{g})$ with $\widetilde{h}\neq0$ was given in [@mino-kodai] for $n=2$. Later, an example with arbitrary $n$ appeared in [@CKM] (constructed by deforming the contact metric structure defined on the unit tangent sphere bundle) and a numerical example with $n=1$ was shown in [@murathan]. It is worth mentioning that all these spaces have $\widetilde\mu=2$ and $\text{rank} (\widetilde{h})=n$. Lastly, an example of $3$-dimensional paracontact metric $(-1,0)$-space with $\widetilde{h}\neq0$ appeared in [@CP].
To our knowledge, no effort has been made to better understand the general behaviour of the tensor $h$ of a paracontact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-space when $h^2=0$ but $h\neq0$, which we will address in Theorem \[th-h\]. We will study the form of the tensor $h$ in this remarkable situation and we will later construct explicit examples that illustrate all the possible constant values of the rank of $h$ (from $1$ to $n$) when $\mu=2$. Finally, we will discuss the situation when $\mu\neq2$ and show some paracontact metric $(-1,0)$-spaces with $h\neq0$ in Examples \[ex-mu0-h1\]–\[ex-dim7-mu0-rank3\]. These are the first examples of this type with $\mu\neq2$ and dimension greater than $3$.
Preliminaries {#sec-preliminaries}
=============
An *almost paracontact structure* on a $(2n+1)$-dimensional smooth manifold $M$ is given by a $(1,1)$-tensor field $\varphi$, a vector field $\xi$ and a $1$-form $\eta$ satisfying the following conditions [@kaneyuki]:
1. $\eta(\xi)=1$, $\varphi^2=I-\eta\otimes\xi$,
2. the eigendistributions ${\mathcal D}^+$ and ${\mathcal D}^-$ of $\varphi$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $1$ and $-1$, respectively, have equal dimension $n$.
As an immediate consequence, $\varphi\xi=0$, $\eta\circ\varphi=0$ and the tensor $\varphi$ has constant rank $2n$. If an almost paracontact manifold is endowed with a semi-Riemannian metric $ g$ such that $$g(\varphi X,\varphi Y)=- g(X,Y)+\eta(X)\eta(Y),$$ for all $X,Y$ on $M$, then $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta, g)$ is called an *almost paracontact metric manifold*. Note that such a semi-Riemannian metric is necessarily of signature $(n+1,n)$ and the above condition (ii) of the definition of almost paracontact structures is automatically satisfied. Moreover, it follows easily that $\eta=g(\cdot,\xi)$ and ${g}(\cdot,\varphi\cdot)=-{g}(\varphi\cdot,\cdot)$. We can now define the *fundamental $2$-form* of the almost paracontact metric manifold by $\Phi(X,Y)={g}(X,\varphi Y)$. If $d\eta=\Phi$, then $\eta$ becomes a contact form (i.e. $\eta \wedge (d\eta)^n \neq0$) and $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta, g)$ is said to be a *paracontact metric manifold*.
We can also define on a paracontact metric manifold the tensor field ${h}:=\frac{1}{2}L_{\xi}\varphi$, which is a symmetric operator with respect to ${g}$, anti-commutes with $\varphi$ and satisfies $h\xi=\text{tr} h=0$ and the identity $\nabla\xi=-\varphi+\varphi h$ ([@zamkovoy]). Moreover, it vanishes identically if and only if $\xi$ is a Killing vector field, in which case $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta, g)$ is called a *K-paracontact manifold*.
An almost paracontact structure is said to be *normal* if and only if the tensor $N_{\varphi}-2d\eta\otimes\xi$ vanishes identically, where $N_{\varphi}$ is the Nijenhuis tensor of $\varphi$: $N_{\varphi}(X,Y)=[\varphi,\varphi](X,Y)=\varphi^2 [X,Y]+[\varphi X,\varphi Y]-\varphi [\varphi X,Y]-\varphi [X,\varphi Y]$ ([@zamkovoy]). A normal paracontact metric manifold is said to be a *paraSasakian manifold* and satisfies $$\label{parasasakian-r}
R(X,Y)\xi =-(\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y),$$ for every $X,Y$ on $M$. Unlike in the contact metric case, the condition does not imply that the manifold is paraSasakian, as will be seen in Examples \[ex-mu0-h1\]–\[ex-dim7-mu0-rank3\].
It was also proved in [@zamkovoy] that an almost paracontact manifold is paraSasakian if and only if $$\label{parasasakian-phi}
(\nabla_{X}\varphi)Y=- g(X,Y)\xi+\eta(Y)X,$$ so, in particular, every paraSasakian manifold is $K$-paracontact. The converse holds in dimension $3$ ([@calvaruso]) and for $(-1,\mu)$-spaces (which will be proved in Theorem \[th-sasakian\]) but we can construct explicit examples that show that these two concepts are not equivalent in general.
\[ex-k-contact-not-sasaki\] Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be the 5-dimensional Lie algebra with basis $\{\xi,X_1,Y_1,X_2,Y_2 \}$ such that the only non-vanishing Lie brackets are $$[X_1,Y_1]=2\xi, \quad [X_2,Y_2]=2\xi, \quad [X_1,X_2]=Y_1.$$ If we denote by $G$ the Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}$, we can define a left-invariant paracontact metric structure on $G$ the following way: $$\varphi \xi=0, \quad \varphi X_i=X_i, \quad \varphi Y_i=-Y_i, \quad \eta(\xi)=1, \quad \eta(X_i)=\eta(Y_i)=0, \quad i=1,2,$$ $$g(\xi,\xi)=g(X_1,Y_1)=g(X_2,Y_2)=1, \quad g(\xi,X_i)=g(\xi,Y_i)=g(X_i,X_j)=g(Y_i,Y_j)=0, \quad i=1,2.$$ A simple computation gives that $h=0$, so the manifold is $K$-paracontact.
However, although $R(X,\xi)\xi=-X$ for all vector field $X$ orthogonal to $\xi$, straightforward computations give that $R(X_1,X_2)\xi=-2Y_1\neq0$, so the manifold does not satisfy . In particular, it is not paraSasakian.
Finally, we recall that a notion of ${\mathcal D}_c$-homothetic deformation can be introduced in paracontact metric geometry ([@zamkovoy]). Indeed, given a non-zero constant $c$, a *${\mathcal D}_{c}$-homothetic deformation* on a paracontact metric manifold $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ is the following change of the structure tensors: $$\label{deformation}
\varphi':=\varphi, \quad \xi':=\frac{1}{c}\xi, \quad \eta':=c \eta, \quad g':=c g + c(c-1)\eta\otimes\eta.$$ Then $(\varphi',\xi',\eta',g')$ is again a paracontact metric structure on $M$. Moreover, $K$-paracontact and paraSasakian structures are also preserved under ${\mathcal D}_c$-homothetic deformations.
Although $D_c$-homothetic deformations destroy curvature conditions like $R(X,Y)\xi=0$, a $D_c$-homothetically deformed paracontact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-space is another paracontact metric $(\kappa',\mu')$-space with $$\label{kappamu-deformed}
\kappa'=\frac{\kappa+1-c^2}{c^2}, \quad \mu'=\frac{\mu-2+2c}{c}.$$
Paracontact metric $(-1,\mu)$-spaces
====================================
We now present our main results.
\[th-sasakian\] Let $M$ be a paracontact metric manifold such that $R(X,Y)\xi=-(\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y)$, for all $X,Y$ on $M$. Then $M$ is paraSasakian if and only if $\xi$ is a Killing vector field.
If $M$ is paraSasakian, it is in particular a $K$-paracontact manifold, hence $\xi$ is a Killing vector field.
Conversely, if $\xi$ is a Killing vector field, then $h=0$ and $\nabla_X \xi=-\varphi X$ holds for every $X$ on $M$ ([@zamkovoy]). We also know from [@O p.259] that $$R(\xi,X)Y=-\nabla_X\nabla_Y \xi+\nabla_{\nabla_X Y} \xi,$$ thus $R(\xi,X)Y=(\nabla_X \varphi)Y$, for all $X,Y$ on $M$.
Therefore, it follows from the previous formula and from $R(X,Y)\xi=-(\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y)$ that $$g((\nabla_X \varphi)Y,Z)=g(R(\xi,X)Y,Z)=g(R(Y,Z)\xi,X)=g(-g(X,Y)\xi+\eta(Y)X,Z),$$ hence equation holds and the manifold is paraSasakian.
\[th-h\] Let $M$ be a $(2n+1)$-dimensional paracontact metric $(-1,\mu)$-space. Then we have one of the following possibilities:
1. $h=0$ and $M$ is paraSasakian
2. $h\neq 0$ and $\text{rank} (h_p)\in \{1,\ldots,n \}$ at every $p \in M$ where $h_p \neq 0$. Moreover, there exists a basis $\{ \xi, X_1,Y_1,\ldots,X_n,Y_n \}$ of $T_p(M)$ such that
- The only non-vanishing components of $g$ are $$g_p(\xi,\xi)=1, \quad g_p(X_i,Y_i)=\pm 1,$$
- and $$h_{| \langle X_i,Y_i \rangle}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\quad
\text{ or }
\quad
h_{| \langle X_i,Y_i \rangle}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},$$ where obviously there are exactly $\text{rank} (h_p)$ submatrices of the first type.
If $n=1$, such a basis $\{ \xi, X_1,Y_1\}$ also satisfies that $$\varphi X_1 =\pm X_1, \quad \varphi Y_1 =\mp Y_1,$$ and the tensor $h$ can be written as $$\label{h-nonzero-dim3}
h_{| \langle\xi, X_i,Y_i \rangle}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.$$
We know from Lemma 3.2 of [@CKM] that $h^2=0$. We have now two possibilities.
If $h=0$, then $R(X,Y)\xi=-(\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y)$, for all $X,Y$ on $M$ and $\xi$ is a Killing vector field. Therefore, it follows from Theorem \[th-sasakian\] that the manifold is paraSasakian.
Let us now suppose that $h\neq0$. Since $h$ is self-adjoint and $\text{Ker} (\eta)$ is $h$-invariant, we have from [@O p.260] that, at each point $p \in M$, $\text{Ker} (\eta_p)=V_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus V_l$ (for some $1\leq l\leq 2n$), where $V_k$ are mutually orthogonal subspaces that are $h$-invariant and on which $h_{|V_k}$ has a matrix of either type: $$\label{type1}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\lambda & & & &\\
1 & \lambda & &\mathbf{0}&\\
& 1 & \lambda & &\\
& & \ddots &\ddots &\\
&\mathbf{0}& &1 &\lambda
\end{array}
\right)$$ relative to a basis $X_1,\ldots, X_r$ of $V_k$, $r\geq 1$, such that the only non-zero products are $g_p(X_i,X_j)=\pm 1$ if $i+j=r+1$, or of type $$\label{type2}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
a & b & & & & & & & & & \\
-b & a & & & & & & & \mathbf{0} & & \\
1 & 0 & a & b & & & & & & & \\
0 & 1 & -b & a & & & & & & & \\
& & 1 & 0 & a & b & & & & & \\
& & 0 & 1 & -b & a & & & & & \\
\\
& & & & &\ddots& &\ddots& & & \\
& & \mathbf{0} & & & & & & & & \\
& & & & & & & 1 & 0 & a & b\\
& & & & & & & 0 & 1 & -b & a
\end{array}
\right)
(b \neq 0)$$ relative to a basis $X_1,Y_1,\ldots,X_m,Y_m$ of $V_k$, such that the only non-zero products are $g_p(X_i,X_j)=1=-g_p(Y_i,Y_j)$ if $i+j=m+1$.
We will first see that the second case is not possible. Indeed, if there existed a subspace $V_k$ such that $h_{|V_k}$ had a matrix of type , then $h_p^2 X_1=(a^2-b^2)X_1-2ab Y_1+2a X_2-2b Y_2+X_3=0$, which cannot happen for any value of $m$ because $b\neq0$.
If there exists a subspace $V_k$ such that $h_{|V_k}$ has a matrix of type , then $h_p^2 X_1=\lambda^2 X_1+2\lambda X_2+X_3=0$, which is only possible if $\lambda=0$ and $\dim V_k =r\leq2$. Let us distinguish between both subcases:
1. \[Type-Ib\] If $\dim V_i=2$, then $V_i=\langle X_i,Y_i \rangle$, the only non-zero product is $g_p(X_i,Y_i)=\pm 1$ and $$h_{| \langle X_i,Y_i \rangle }=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.$$
2. \[Type-Ia\] If $\dim V_i=1$, then $V_i=\langle X_i \rangle$ and $h_pX_i=0$, with $X_i$ a vector satisfying $g_p(X_i,X_i)=\pm1$. In fact, since $\text{Ker} (\eta_p)$ is of signature $(n,n)$ and the subspaces $V_i$ of the subcase are of dimension two and signature $(1,1)$, then there is an even number of subspaces of this type, half satisfying $g_p(X_i,X_i)=1$ and half satisfying $g_p(X_i,X_i)=-1$. Taking one of each type, for example $V_1=\langle X_1 \rangle$ and $V_2=\langle X_2 \rangle$ with $g_p(X_1,X_1)=1=-g_p(X_2,X_2)$, a simple change of basis like $\widetilde{X_1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(X_1+X_2)$ and $\widetilde{Y_1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt2}(X_1-X_2)$ would give us a basis such that the only non-vanishing component of the metric is $g_p(\widetilde{X}_1,\widetilde{Y}_1)=1$.
Finally, since $h|_{V_i}=0$ in the second subcase, the rank of $h_p$ depends on the number of submatrixes of the first type, which have rank $1$. Therefore, $\text{rank}(h_p) \in \{1,\ldots,n \}$ at every point where $h_p \neq 0$.
In dimension $3$, the conditions over $\varphi$ are the only ones that remain to be proved. First of all, $\varphi \xi=0$ on every paracontact metric structure. Hence $\varphi X_1=aX_1+bY_1$, for some constants $a,b$.
It follows from $g_p(X_1,\varphi X_1)=d\eta_p(X_1,X_1)=0$ that $b=0$, so $\varphi X_1=aX_1$. On the other hand, $\varphi Y_1= \varphi h X_1=-h \varphi X_1=-a h X_1=-aY_1$, hence $\varphi Y_1=-aY_1$. We can then compute: $$\begin{aligned}
g_p(\varphi X_1,\varphi Y_1)&=-g_p(X_1,Y_1)=\mp 1, \\
g_p(\varphi X_1,\varphi Y_1)&=g_p(a X_1,-aY_1)=-a^2 g_p(X_1,Y_1)=\mp a^2,\end{aligned}$$ so $a^2=1$, and thus $$\varphi X_1 =\pm X_1, \quad \varphi Y_1 =\mp Y_1,$$ which ends the proof.
A paracontact metric manifold satisfying $$\label{r-0}
R(X,Y)\xi=-(\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y),$$ for all $X,Y$ on $M$, can be either a $(-1,\mu)$-space with $h=0$ (thus paraSasakian by the previous Theorem and $\mu$ is undetermined) or a paracontact metric $(-1,0)$-space with $h\neq0$ (not $K$-paracontact or paraSasakian). This last case is possible because does not imply $h=0$, as can be seen in Examples \[ex-mu0-h1\]–\[ex-dim7-mu0-rank3\].
Let us now see examples of all the possible constant ranks of $h$ that appear in Theorem \[th-h\]. First of all, if $h=0$, the standard examples of paraSasakian manifolds are the hyperboloids $$\mathbb{H}^{2n+1}_{n+1}(1)=\left\{(x_{0},y_{0},\ldots,x_{n},y_{n})\in\mathbb{R}^{2n+2} \ | \
x_{0}^{2}+\ldots+x_{n}^{2}-y_{0}^{2}-\ldots-y_{n}^{2}=1\right\}$$ and the hyperbolic Heisenberg group ${\mathcal H}^{2n+1}=\mathbb{R}^{2n}\times\mathbb{R}$ with the structures defined in [@ivanov]. Other examples of ($\eta$-Einstein) paraSasakian manifolds can be obtained from contact $(\kappa,\mu)$-spaces with $|1-\frac{\mu}{2}|<\sqrt{1-\kappa}$, as seen in Theorem 3.4 of [@nuestro-mino]. In particular, it was shown that the tangent sphere bundle $T_1N$ of any space form $N(c)$ with $c<0$ admits a canonical $\eta$-Einstein paraSasakian structure.
We can also construct paraSasakian examples by defining a paracontact metric structure on a Lie group:
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be the $(2n+1)$-dimensional Lie algebra with basis $\{\xi,X_1,\ldots,X_{2n} \}$ such that the only non-vanishing Lie brackets are $$[X_{2i-1},X_{2i}]=2\xi, \quad i=1,\ldots,n.$$ If we denote by $G$ the Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}$, we can define a left-invariant paracontact metric structure on $G$ the following way: $$\varphi \xi=0, \quad \varphi X_{2i-1}=X_{2i}, \quad \varphi X_{2i}=X_{2i-1}, \quad i=1,\ldots,n,$$ $$\eta(\xi)=1, \quad \eta(X_i)=0, \quad i=1,\ldots,2n,$$ the only non-vanishing components of the metric are $$g(\xi,\xi)=g(X_{2i},X_{2i})=1, \quad g(X_{2i-1},X_{2i-1})=-1, \quad i=1,\ldots,n.$$ A straightforward computation gives that $h=0$. Moreover, using properties of paracontact metric manifolds and Koszul’s formula, we obtain that $$\nabla_{X_{2i}} \xi=-X_{2i-1}, \quad \nabla_{X_{2i-1}} \xi=-X_{2i}, \quad i=1,\ldots,n,$$ $$\nabla_{X_{2i}} X_{2i}=\nabla_{X_{2i-1}} X_{2i-1}=0, \quad \nabla_{X_{2i-1}} X_{2j}=-\nabla_{X_{2i}} X_{2j-1}=\delta_{ij} \xi, \quad i=1,\ldots,n.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
R(X_i,\xi)\xi &=-X_i, \quad i=1,\ldots,2n,\\
R(X_i,X_j)\xi &=0, \quad i,j=1,\ldots,2n.\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that $R(X,Y)\xi=-(\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y)$ for all $X,Y$ on $M$, thus the manifold is paraSasakian because of Theorem \[th-sasakian\]. Alternatively, we could check the normality condition by proving that $[\varphi, \varphi](X,Y)-2 d \eta (X,Y) \xi=0$ for all vector fields $X,Y$ on $M$.
If we apply a $D_c$-homothetic deformation to any of the previous paraSasakian examples, we obtain again paraSasakian manifolds ([@zamkovoy]).
Let us now construct some examples of paracontact metric $(-1,\mu)$-spaces with $h\neq0$. We will begin by adapting some paracontact metric $(-1,2)$-spaces with $h\neq0$ that appear in the literature and will afterwards construct explicitly $(2n+1)$-dimensional paracontact metric $(-1,2)$-spaces with $h\neq0$ such that rank of $h$ attains all values in $\{1,\ldots,n\}$. Lastly, the case $\mu\neq2$ will be discussed.
\[ex-tangent-mu2\] We will begin with the examples that were presented in [@CKM]. Let us take a flat Riemannian manifold $M$ and construct on it the tangent sphere bundle $T_1M$ with its standard contact metric structure $(\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$, which satisfies $R(X,Y)\xi=0$ for every $X,Y$ on $T_1M$ (see [@blair95]). Then we can define a new structure by taking $$\varphi_2=h, \quad g_2=d\eta(\cdot,h\cdot)+\eta \otimes \eta,$$ which is a paracontact metric $(-1,2)$-space (Theorem 3.4 of [@CKM]). We will now see the form that $h_2$ has on these examples.
Let us first take a $\varphi$-basis $\{ \xi,X_1,\varphi X_1,\ldots,X_n,\varphi X_n \}$ of the contact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-space such that $hX_i=X_i$ and $h \varphi X_i=-\varphi X_i$ (which exists because of [@blair95]). Then $\{ \xi,\widetilde{X}_1, \widetilde{Y}_1,\ldots,\widetilde{X}_n, \widetilde{Y}_n \}$, where $\widetilde{X}_i:=\frac{1}{\sqrt2}X_i$, $\widetilde{Y}_i:=\sqrt2 \varphi X_i$, is a basis for which the only non-vanishing components of the metric $g_2$ are $$g_2(\xi,\xi)=1, \quad g_2(\widetilde{X}_i,\widetilde{Y}_i)= 1,$$ the tensor $\varphi_2$ satisfies $$\varphi_2 \widetilde{X}_i = \widetilde{X}_i, \quad \varphi_2 \widetilde{Y}_i =- \widetilde{Y}_i,$$ and $${h_2}_{| \langle \widetilde{X}_i,\widetilde{Y}_i \rangle }=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix},$$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$.
Therefore, $$h_2=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & & & & &\\
& 0 & 0 & & & & \\
& 1 & 0 & & & & \\
& & & &\ddots^{\scriptstyle{(n)}} & & \\
& & & & & 0 & 0\\
& & & & & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix},$$ so $\text{rank}(h_2)=n$.
In dimension 3, we also have Example 6.2 from [@murathan], which is a $3$-dimensional paracontact metric $(-1,2)$-space with $h\neq0$ satisfying .
On the other hand, we can give examples using left-invariant paracontact metric structures on Lie groups of $(2n+1)$-dimensional paracontact metric $(-1,2)$-spaces with $h\neq0$ and $\text{rank}(h)=m \in \{1,\ldots,n \}$.
\[ex-mu2-hm-n\]
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be the $(2n+1)$-dimensional Lie algebra with basis $\{\xi,X_1,Y_1,\ldots,X_{n},Y_{n} \}$ such that the only non-vanishing components are $$\begin{aligned}
[\xi,X_i]=Y_i, \quad [X_i,Y_j]&=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\delta_{ij} (2\xi +\sqrt2 (1+\delta_{im})Y_m)+(1-\delta_{ij})\sqrt2 (\delta_{im}Y_j+\delta_{jm} Y_i), \quad i,j=1,\ldots,m,\\
\delta_{ij}(2\xi+\sqrt2 Y_i), \quad i,j=m+1, \ldots,n, \\
\sqrt2 Y_i \quad i=1, \ldots,m, \; j=m+1, \ldots,n.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
If we denote by $G$ the Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}$, we can define a left-invariant paracontact metric structure on $G$ the following way: $$\varphi \xi=0, \quad \varphi X_i=X_i, \quad \varphi Y_i=-Y_i, \quad i=1, \ldots,n,$$ $$\eta(\xi)=1, \quad \eta(X_i)=\eta(Y_i)=0, \quad i=1,\ldots,n.$$ The only non-vanishing components of the metric are $$g(\xi,\xi)=g(X_i,Y_i)=1, \quad i=1,\ldots,n.$$ A straightforward computation gives that $h X_i=Y_i$ if $i=1,\ldots,m$, $h X_i=0$ if $i=m+1,\ldots,n$ and $h Y_j=0$ if $j=1, \ldots,n$, so $h^2=0$ and $\text{rank}(h)=m$.
Moreover, by basic paracontact metric properties we obtain that $\nabla_{X_i} \xi=-X_i-Y_i$ if $i=1,\ldots,m$, $\nabla_{X_i} \xi=-X_i$ if $i=m+1,\ldots,n$ and $\nabla_{Y_i} \xi=Y_i$ if $i=1,\ldots,n$, from which we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
R(X_i,\xi)\xi &=-X_i+2Y_i=-X_i+2hX_i, \quad i=1,\ldots,m,\\
R(X_i,\xi)\xi &=-X_i, \quad i=m+1,\ldots,n,\\
R(Y_i,\xi)\xi &=-Y_i, \quad i=1,\ldots,n.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $R(X,\xi)\xi=-X+2hX$ for every $X$ orthogonal to $\xi$.
Using Koszul’s formula, we can compute $\nabla_{X_i} Y_j$ and $\nabla_{Y_i} Y_j$ for any $i,j$: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{X_i} Y_j&=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\delta_{ij} (\xi+\sqrt2 (1+\delta_{im} Y_m))+(1-\delta_{ij})\sqrt2 (\delta_{im} Y_j+\delta_{jm} Y_i), & i,j=1,\ldots,m, \\
\sqrt2 Y_i, & i=1,\ldots,m,\; j=m+1,\ldots,n, \\
0, & i=m+1,\ldots,n,\; j=1,\ldots,m, \\
\delta_{ij} (\xi+\sqrt2 Y_i), & i,j=m+1,\ldots,n,
\end{array}
\right.
\\
\nabla_{Y_i} Y_j&=0, \quad i,j=1,\ldots,n.
\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $R(X_i,X_j)\xi=R(X_i,Y_j)\xi=R(Y_i,Y_j)\xi=0$ for any $i,j=1,\ldots,n$, which is enough to conclude that the manifold is a $(-1,2)$-space.
If we take $m=0$ in the previous example, we will obtain a $(2n+1)$-dimensional paracontact metric $(-1,2)$-space such that $\text{rank}(h)=n$, as in Example \[ex-tangent-mu2\]. However, the construction of our manifold has been considerably different.
We can also change the Lie algebra and paracontact structure of Example \[ex-mu2-hm-n\] to obtain other possibilities. For example, in the particular case $m=1$, we have the following one.
\[ex-mu2-h1\] Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be the $(2n+1)$-dimensional Lie algebra with basis $\{\xi,X_1,Y_1,\ldots,X_n,Y_n \}$ such that the only non-vanishing components are $$\begin{gathered}
[\xi,X_1]=Y_1, \quad [X_1,Y_1]=2 \xi, \\
[X_i,Y_i]=2(\xi+X_i), \quad [X_1,X_i]=Y_1, \quad i=2,\ldots,n.\end{gathered}$$
If we denote by $G$ the Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}$, we can define a left-invariant paracontact metric structure on $G$ the following way: $$\varphi \xi=0, \quad \varphi X_1=X_1, \quad \varphi Y_1=-Y_1, \quad\varphi X_i=-X_i, \quad \varphi Y_i=Y_i, \quad i=2, \ldots,n,$$ $$\eta(\xi)=1, \quad \eta(X_i)=\eta(Y_i)=0, \quad i=1,\ldots,n.$$ The only non-vanishing components of the metric are $$g(\xi,\xi)=g(X_1,Y_1)=1, \quad g(X_i,Y_i)=-1, \quad i=2,\ldots,n.$$ A straightforward computation gives that $h X_1=Y_1$, $h Y_1=0$ and $h X_i=hY_i=0$, $i=2, \ldots,n$, so $h^2=0$ and $\text{rank}(h)=1$.
Moreover, by basic paracontact metric properties and Koszul’s formula we obtain that $$\begin{gathered}
\nabla_\xi X_1=-X_1, \quad \nabla_\xi Y_1=Y_1, \quad \nabla_\xi X_i=X_i, \quad \nabla_\xi Y_i=-Y_i, \quad i=2,\ldots,n,\\
\nabla_{Y_i} Y_j=2\delta_{ij}(1-\delta_{i1})Y_i, \quad \nabla_{X_i} Y_j=\delta_{ij} \xi, \quad \nabla_{Y_i} X_j=\delta_{ij} (-\xi+2(1-\delta_{i1})X_i), \quad i,j=1,\ldots,n,\\
\nabla_{X_i} X_1=0, \quad \nabla_{X_1} X_j=Y_1, \quad i=2,\ldots,n,\end{gathered}$$ which is enough to prove that $$\begin{aligned}
R(X_1,\xi)\xi &=-X_1+2Y_1=-X_1+2hX_1,\\
R(X_i,\xi)\xi &=-X_i, \quad i=2,\ldots,n,\\
R(Y_i,\xi)\xi &=-Y_i, \quad i=1,\ldots,n,\\
R(X_i,X_j)\xi &=R(X_i,Y_j)\xi=R(Y_i,Y_j)\xi=0, \quad i,j=1,\ldots,n.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the manifold is also a $(-1,2)$-space.
Note that all the examples constructed until now and most of the ones appearing in the literature of paracontact metric $(-1,\mu)$-spaces with $h^2=0$ but $h\neq0$ have $\mu=2$. Why is this particular value so important? First of all, given a non-Sasakian contact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-space, we can define two canonical paracontact metric structures on $M$, $(\widetilde{\varphi}_1,\xi,\eta,\widetilde{g}_1)$ and $(\widetilde{\varphi}_2,\xi,\eta,\widetilde{g}_2)$, in the following way ([@mino-kodai] and [@mino-pacific]): $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde\varphi_{1}&:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\kappa}}\varphi h, &\quad
\widetilde{g}_{1}&:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\kappa}}g(\cdot, h \cdot)+\eta\otimes\eta, \\
\widetilde\varphi_{2}&:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\kappa}}h, &\quad
\widetilde{g}_{2}&:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\kappa}}g(\cdot,\varphi h \cdot)+\eta\otimes\eta.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, these new structures are paracontact metric $(\widetilde{\kappa}_i,\widetilde{\mu}_i)$-spaces with $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde\kappa_1&=\left(1-\frac{\mu}{2}\right)^2-1, & \widetilde\mu_1&=2\left(1-\sqrt{1-\kappa}\right), & \widetilde{h}_1&=-\frac{1-\frac{\mu}2}{\sqrt{1-\kappa}} h,\\
\widetilde\kappa_2&=\kappa-2+\left(1-\frac{\mu}{2}\right)^2, & \widetilde\mu_2&=2, & \widetilde{h}_2&=\frac{1-\frac{\mu}2}{\sqrt{1-\kappa}} \varphi h +\sqrt{1-\kappa} \varphi.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\widetilde\kappa_1=-1$ if and only if $\mu=2$, which is equivalent to $(\widetilde{\varphi}_1,\xi,\eta,\widetilde{g}_1)$ being paraSasakian ([@mino-kodai Th. 5.9] or Theorem \[th-h\]). On the other hand, $\widetilde\kappa_2=-1$ if and only if $\sqrt{1-\kappa}=1-\frac{\mu}2$, from which it follows that $h_2=\varphi h+(1-\frac{\mu}{2})\varphi$. This means that the only possibility of constructing a paracontact metric $(\widetilde\kappa,\widetilde\mu)$-space with $\widetilde{h}^2=0$ and $\widetilde{h}\neq0$ using these structures is to take the second one, which has $\widetilde{\mu}=2$.
Another reason for which the value $\mu=2$ is special comes from the fact that applying a $D_c$-homothetic deformation to a paracontact metric $(-1,2)$-space gives us another paracontact metric $(-1,2)$-space for any real $c\neq0$.
What happens when $\mu\neq2$? Are there any examples of paracontact metric $(-1,\mu)$-spaces with $h\neq0$ and $\mu\neq2$? The answer is yes, as was shown in Example 4.6 of [@CP] for the $3$-dimensional case. We will provide proof in dimensions greater than $3$ in Examples \[ex-mu0-h1\]–\[ex-dim7-mu0-rank3\]. Before constructing them, note that, given a $(-1,\mu)$-space with $\mu\neq2$, a $\mathcal{D}_c$-homothetic deformation with $c=1-\frac{\mu}{2}\neq 0$ will give us a paracontact metric $(-1,0)$-space thanks to . Conversely, given a paracontact metric $(-1,0)$-space, if we $\mathcal{D}_c$-homothetically deform it with $c=\frac2{2-\mu}\neq 0$ for some $\mu\neq2$, we will obtain a paracontact metric $(-1,\mu)$-space with $\mu\neq2$.
Lastly, the rank of $h$ and $h'$ coincides because $h'=\frac{1}{c}h$ ([@CKM]) and a simple change of basis will give us another one satisfying all the properties of Theorem \[th-h\]. Therefore, it makes sense to concentrate on the $\mu=0$ case, which is also special because the paracontact metric $(-1,0)$-spaces with $h\neq0$ satisfy but are not paraSasakian manifolds.
We can give examples using left-invariant paracontact metric structures on Lie groups of $(2n+1)$-dimensional paracontact metric $(-1,0)$-spaces with $h\neq0$. We recall that $\text{rank} (h_p) \in \{ 1,\ldots,n \}$ (Theorem \[th-h\]) and we will first see the case $\text{rank} (h)=1$.
\[$(2n+1)$-dimensional paracontact metric $(-1,0)$-space with $\text{rank}(h)=1$\] \[ex-mu0-h1\] Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be the $(2n+1)$-dimensional Lie algebra with basis $\{\xi,X_1,Y_1,\ldots,X_n,Y_n \}$ such that the only non-vanishing components are $$\begin{gathered}
[\xi,X_1]=X_1+Y_1, \quad [\xi,Y_1]=-Y_1, \quad [X_1,Y_1]=2 \xi, \\
[X_i,Y_i]=2(\xi+Y_i), \quad [X_1,Y_i]=X_1+Y_1, \quad [Y_1,Y_i]=-Y_1, \quad i=2,\ldots,n.\end{gathered}$$
If we denote by $G$ the Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}$, we can define a left-invariant paracontact metric structure on $G$ the following way: $$\varphi \xi=0, \quad \varphi X_1=X_1, \quad \varphi Y_1=-Y_1, \quad\varphi X_i=-X_i, \quad \varphi Y_i=Y_i, \quad i=2, \ldots,n,$$ $$\eta(\xi)=1, \quad \eta(X_i)=\eta(Y_i)=0, \quad i=1,\ldots,n.$$ The only non-vanishing components of the metric are $$g(\xi,\xi)=g(X_1,Y_1)=1, \quad g(X_i,Y_i)=-1, \quad i=2,\ldots,n.$$ A straightforward computation gives that $h X_1=Y_1$, $h Y_1=0$ and $h X_i=hY_i=0$, $i=2, \ldots,n$, so $h^2=0$ and $\text{rank}(h)=1$.
Moreover, by basic paracontact metric properties and Koszul’s formula we obtain that $$\begin{gathered}
\nabla_\xi X_1=0, \quad \nabla_\xi Y_1=0, \quad \nabla_\xi X_i=X_i, \quad \nabla_\xi Y_i=-Y_i, \quad i=2,\ldots,n,\\
\nabla_{X_i} Y_1=\delta_{i1}\xi, \quad \nabla_{X_i} Y_j=\delta_{ij} (\xi+2Y_i), \quad \nabla_{Y_1} X_1=-\xi, \quad \nabla_{Y_i} X_j=-\delta_{ij} \xi, \quad i,j=2,\ldots,n,\\
\nabla_{X_1} X_j=0, \nabla_{Y_1} Y_1=\nabla_{Y_1} Y_j=0, \quad \nabla_{Y_j} Y_1=Y_1, \quad i=2,\ldots,n,\end{gathered}$$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
R(X_i,\xi)\xi &=-X_i, \quad i=1,\ldots,n,\\
R(Y_i,\xi)\xi &=-Y_i, \quad i=1,\ldots,n,\\
R(X_i,X_j)\xi &=R(X_i,Y_j)\xi=R(Y_i,Y_j)\xi=0, \quad i,j=1,\ldots,n.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the manifold is also a $(-1,0)$-space.
To our knowledge, the previous example is the first paracontact metric $(-1,\mu)$-space with $h^2=0$, $h\neq0$ and $\mu\neq2$ that has been constructed in dimensions greater than $3$. For dimension $3$, Example 4.6 of [@CP] was already known.
Let us now see some other possibilities. In dimension $3$, $n=1$, so the previous example gives the only possible value of the rank of $h$. In dimension $5$, we can construct an example with $\text{rank}(h)=2$ in the following way:
\[ex-dim5-mu0\] Let us take the $5$-dimensional Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of basis $\{\xi,X_1,Y_1,X_2,Y_2 \}$ and whose Lie brackets are $$\begin{aligned}
[\xi,X_1]&=Y_1+X_1+X_2, & [\xi,Y_1]&=-Y_1+Y_2,\\
[\xi,X_2]&=Y_2+X_1+X_2, & [\xi,Y_2]&=Y_1-Y_2, \\
[X_1,Y_1]&=2\xi+X_2+\frac32 Y_2, & [X_2,Y_2]&=-2\xi+X_1-\frac12 Y_1, \\
[X_1,X_2]&=\frac32 X_1 +\frac12 X_2, & [Y_1,Y_2]&=-Y_1+Y_2,\\
[X_1,Y_2]&=\frac32 Y_1+X_2, & [Y_1,X_2]&=-X_1+\frac12 Y_2.\end{aligned}$$ If we denote by $G$ the Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}$, we can define on it a left-invariant paracontact metric structure with $$\varphi \xi=0, \quad \varphi X_i=X_i, \quad \varphi Y_i=-Y_i, \quad \eta(\xi)=1, \quad \eta(X_i)=\eta(Y_i)=0, \quad i=1,2.$$ and whose only non-vanishing components of the metric are $$g(\xi,\xi)=g(X_1,Y_1)=1, \quad g(X_2,Y_2)=-1.$$ We can check that $h X_i=Y_i$ and $h Y_i=0$, $i=1,2$, so $h^2=0$ and $\text{rank}(h)=2$.
Moreover, long but straightforward computations give us that the manifold is a $(-1,0)$-space.
We show below examples of dimension $7$ with $\text{rank}(h)=2$ and $\text{rank}(h)=3$, respectively. Higher-dimensional examples could be constructed analogously.
\[ex-dim7-mu0-rank2\] Let us define a $7$-dimensional Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of basis $\{\xi,X_1,Y_1,X_2,Y_2,X_3,Y_3 \}$ whose only non-vanishing Lie brackets are $$\begin{aligned}
[\xi,X_1]&=[X_1,X_3]=Y_1+X_1+X_2, & [\xi,Y_1]&=[Y_1,X_3]=-Y_1+Y_2,\\
[\xi,X_2]&=[X_2,X_3]=Y_2+X_1+X_2, & [\xi,Y_2]&=[Y_2,X_3]=Y_1-Y_2, \\
[X_1,Y_1]&=2\xi+\sqrt2(X_2+ Y_2), & [X_2,Y_2]&=-2\xi+\sqrt2X_1, \\
[X_3,Y_3]&=-2\xi-2 X_3, & [X_1,X_2]&=-[Y_1,X_2]=\sqrt{2}X_1,\\
[X_1,Y_2]&=\sqrt2( Y_1+X_2), & [Y_1,Y_2]&=\sqrt2(-Y_1+Y_2).\end{aligned}$$ If we denote by $G$ the Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}$, we can define on it a left-invariant paracontact metric structure with $$\varphi \xi=0, \quad \varphi X_i=X_i, \quad \varphi Y_i=-Y_i, \quad \eta(\xi)=1, \quad \eta(X_i)=\eta(Y_i)=0, \quad i=1,2,3.$$ and whose only non-vanishing components of the metric are $$g(\xi,\xi)=g(X_1,Y_1)=1, \quad g(X_2,Y_2)=g(X_3,Y_3)=-1.$$ A direct computation gives that $h X_i=Y_i$, $i=1,2$, $hX_3=0$ and $h Y_i=0$, $i=1,2,3$, so $h^2=0$ and $\text{rank}(h)=2$.
Moreover, long but straightforward computations give us that the manifold is a $(-1,0)$-space.
\[ex-dim7-mu0-rank3\] Let us define a $7$-dimensional Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of basis $\{\xi,X_1,Y_1,X_2,Y_2,X_3,Y_3 \}$ whose Lie brackets are $$\begin{aligned}
[\xi,X_1]&=Y_1+X_1+X_2, & [\xi,Y_1]&=-Y_1+Y_2,\\
[\xi,X_2]&=Y_2+X_1+X_2, & [\xi,Y_2]&=Y_1-Y_2, \\
[\xi,X_3]&=X_3+Y_3, & [\xi,Y_3]&=-Y_3, \\
[X_1,Y_1]&=2\xi+\sqrt2(X_2+ Y_2), & [X_2,Y_2]&=-2\xi+\sqrt2X_1, \\
[X_3,Y_3]&=-2\xi+\sqrt2 (X_1-X_2-Y_2), & [X_1,X_2]&=-[Y_1,X_2]=\sqrt{2}X_1,\\
[X_1,Y_2]&=\sqrt2( Y_1+X_2), & [Y_1,Y_2]&=\sqrt2(-Y_1+Y_2),\\
[X_1,Y_3]&=-[X_2,X_3]=[X_2,Y_3]=\sqrt2 X_3, & [Y_1,Y_3]&=-[Y_2,X_3]=[Y_2,Y_3]=\sqrt2 Y_3.\\\end{aligned}$$ If we denote by $G$ the Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}$, we can define on it a left-invariant paracontact metric structure with $$\varphi \xi=0, \quad \varphi X_i=X_i, \quad \varphi Y_i=-Y_i, \quad \eta(\xi)=1, \quad \eta(X_i)=\eta(Y_i)=0, \quad i=1,2,3.$$ and whose only non-vanishing components of the metric are $$g(\xi,\xi)=g(X_1,Y_1)=1, \quad g(X_2,Y_2)=g(X_3,Y_3)=-1.$$ Therefore, $h X_i=Y_i$, $i=1,2,3$ and $h Y_i=0$, $i=1,2,3$, thus $h^2=0$ and $\text{rank}(h)=3$. Moreover, direct computations give us that the manifold is a $(-1,0)$-space.
It is worth mentioning that Theorem \[th-h\] is true only pointwise, i.e. $\text{rank}(h_p)$ does not need to be the same for every $p\in M$. However, there are no known examples of paracontact metric $(-1,\mu)$-spaces where $\text{rank}(h)$ is not constant.
Another manifold with $h^2=0$ but $h\neq0$
==========================================
Lastly, we would like to remark that, although the first examples of $h^2=0$ but $h\neq0$ appeared (quite naturally) in the context of paracontact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-spaces, it is not difficult to construct paracontact metric manifolds satisfying these properties which are not $(-1,\mu)$-spaces.
Let us take the $5$-dimensional Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of basis $\{\xi,X_1,Y_1,X_2,Y_2 \}$ such that the only non-vanishing Lie brackets are $$[\xi,X_1]=Y_1, \quad [X_1,Y_1]=2\xi, \quad [X_2,Y_2]=2(\xi+X_2), \quad [X_1,X_2]=Y_1.$$ If we denote by $G$ the Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}$, we can define on it a left-invariant paracontact metric structure: $$\varphi \xi=0, \quad \varphi X_i=X_i, \quad \varphi Y_i=-Y_i, \quad \eta(\xi)=1, \quad \eta(X_i)=\eta(Y_i)=0, \quad i=1,2.$$ The only non-vanishing components of the metric are $$g(\xi,\xi)=g(X_1,Y_1)=g(X_2,Y_2)=1.$$ Therefore, $h X_1=Y_1$ and $h Y_1=hX_2=hY_2=0$, so $h^2=0$ but $h\neq0$.
Although $R(X,\xi)\xi=-X+2hX$ for all vector field $X$ orthogonal to $\xi$, we can check that $R(X_1,X_2)\xi =-2Y_1\neq0$, so the manifold is not a $(-1,2)$-space.
Note that the previous Lie algebra coincides with the one of Example \[ex-mu2-h1\] for $n=2$ (hence the form of $h$ coincides) but that the construction of the paracontact metric structure is not the same, since both $\varphi$ and $g$ are defined differently.
**Acknowledgements.** The author would like to thank Prof. Martín Avendaño for his valuable suggestions and insights.
[99]{} D. E. Blair, *Riemannian geometry of contact and symplectic manifolds*, Second Edition. Progress in Mathematics **203**, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2010.
D. E. Blair, T. Koufogiorgos and B. J. Papantoniou, *Contact metric manifolds satisfyng a nullity condition*, Israel J. Math. **91** (1995), 189–214.
E. Boeckx, *A full classification of contact metric $(\kappa,\mu )$-spaces,* Illinois J. Math. **44** (2000), 212–219.
B. Cappelletti Montano, *Bi-Legendrian structures and paracontact geometry*, Int. J. Geom. Met. Mod. Phys. **6** (2009), 487–504.
B. Cappelletti Montano, *Bi-paracontact structures and Legendre foliations*, Kodai Math. J. **33** (2010), 473–512.
B. Cappelletti Montano, A. Carriazo and V. Martín-Molina, *Sasaki-Einstein and paraSasaki-Einstein metrics from $(\kappa,\mu)$-structures*, J. Geom. Physics. **73** (2013) 20–36.
B. Cappelletti Montano and L. Di Terlizzi, *Geometric structures associated with a contact metric $(\kappa,\mu)$-space*, Pacific J. Math. **246** (2010), 257–292.
B. Cappelletti Montano, I. Küpeli Erken and C. Murathan, *Nullity conditions in paracontact geometry*, [Differential Geom. Appl.,]{} **30** (2012) 665–693.
G. Calvaruso, *Homogeneous paracontact metric three-manifolds*, [Illinois J. Math.,]{} **55** (2011) 697–718.
G. Calvaruso and D. Perrone, *Geometry of $H$-paracontact metric manifolds*, arXiv:1307.7662.
S. Ivanov, D. Vassilev and S. Zamkovoy, *Conformal paracontact curvature and the local flatness theorem*, Geom. Dedicata **144** (2010), 79–100.
S. Kaneyuki and F. L. Williams, *Almost paracontact and parahodge structures on manifolds*, Nagoya Math. J. **99** (1985), 173–187.
C. Murathan and I. Küpeli Erken, *The harmonicity of the Reeb vector dield on paracontact metric $3$-manifolds*, arXiv:1305.1511v2.
B. O’Neill. *Semi-Riemannian Geometry with applications to relativity*. Academic Press, New York, 1983.
S. Zamkovoy, *Canonical connections on paracontact manifolds*, Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom. **36** (2009), 37–60.
S. Zamkovoy and V. Tzanov, *Non-existence of flat paracontact metric structures in dimension greater than or equal to five*, Annuaire Univ. Sofia Fac. Math. Inform. **100** (2011), 27–34.
[^1]: The author is is partially supported by the PAI group FQM-327 (Junta de Andalucía, Spain), the group Geometría E15 (Gobierno de Aragón, Spain), the MINECO grant MTM2011-22621 and the “Centro Universitario de la Defensa de Zaragoza” grant ID2013-15.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this note we determine all numbers $q\in \mathbf R$ such that $|u|^q$ is a subharmonic function, provided that $u$ is a $K-$quasiregular harmonic mappings in an open subset $\Omega$ of the Euclidean space $\mathbf R^n$.'
address:
- 'University of Montenegro, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Cetinjski put b.b. 8100 Podgorica, Montenegro'
- ' University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Jove Ilića 154, Belgrade, Serbia'
author:
- David Kalaj
- 'Vesna Manojlovi'' c'
title: Subharmonicity of the modulus of quasiregular harmonic mappings
---
Introduction
============
By $|\cdot |$ we denote the Euclidean norm in $\mathbf R^n$ and let $\Omega$ be a region in $\mathbf R^n$. In this paper we consider $K$-quasiregular harmonic mappings, where $ K \ge 1$. We recall that a harmonic mapping $u(x)=(u_1(x),\dots, u_n(x)):\Omega\to \mathbf
R^n$ with formal differential matrix $$Du(x)=\{\partial_iu_j(x)\}_{i,j=1}^n$$ is $K$-quasiregular if $$\label{bege}K^{-1}|D u(x)|^n\le J_u(x)\le K l(D u(x))^n,\quad\text{for all $x\in \Omega$,}$$ where $J_u$ is the Jacobian of $u$ at $x$, $$|D u|:=\max\{|Du(x) h|: |h|=1\},$$ and $$l(D u):=\min\{|D u(x) h|: |h|=1\}.$$ See [@vo p. 128] for the definition of quasiregular mappings in more general setting. A quasiregular homeomorphism is called quasiconformal.
Let $0<\lambda_1^2\le \lambda_2^2\le \dots\le \lambda_n^2$ be the eigenvalues of the matrix $D u(x)D u(x)^t$. Here $D u(x)^t$ is the transpose of the matrix $Du(x)$. Then $$\label{jaco}J_u(x) = \prod_{k=1}^n
\lambda_k,$$ $$|D
u|=\lambda_n$$ and $$l(D u)=\lambda_1.$$ For the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the matrix $D u(x)$, defined by $$\|Du(x)\|=\sqrt{\mathrm{Trace}(D u(x)D
u(x)^t)}$$ we have
$$\label{clare}
\|Du(x)\|=\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{\partial u}{\partial
x_k}\bullet\frac{\partial u}{\partial
x_k}}=\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^n\left|\frac{\partial u}{\partial
x_k}\right|^2}$$
and $$\|Du(x)|=\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda_k^2}.$$ Here $\bullet$ denotes the inner product between vectors. From , for a quasiregular mapping we have $$\label{epa}\frac{\lambda_n}{\lambda_k},\frac{\lambda_k}{\lambda_1}\le
K,\ \ k=1,\dots,n.$$ It is well known that if $u=(u_1,\dots,u_n)$ is a harmonic mapping defined in a region $\Omega$ of the Euclidean space $\mathbf R^n$, then $|u |^p$ is subharmonic for $p\ge 1$, and that, in the general case, is not subharmonic for $p < 1$. Let us prove this well-known fact. If $u$ is harmonic, then by a result in [@jmaa Lemma 1.4.] (see also [@k Eq. (4.9)-(4.11)]) $$\Delta|u|=|u|\left\|D\left(\frac{u}{|u|}\right)\right\|^2.$$ So $\Delta|u|\ge 0$ for those points $x$, such that $u(x)\neq
0$. If $u(a)=0$, then we consider the harmonic mapping $u_m(x)=u(x)+(1/m,0,\dots,0)$. Then $u_m(a)\neq 0$, and $\Delta
|u_m(x)|\ge 0$ in some neighborhood of $a$. It follows from the definition of subharmonic functions that the uniform limit of a convergent sequence of subharmonic functions is still subharmonic. Since $|u_m(x)|\to |u(x)|$, it follows that $|u|$ is subharmonic in $a$. Since the function $g(s)=s^p$, is convex for $p\ge 1$, we obtain that $|u|^p$ is subharmonic providing that $u$ is harmonic. (For the above facts we refer to [@hk Chapter 2]).
Recently, several authors have proved the following two propositions, which is the motivation for our study.
\[pav\][@kpa] If f is a $K$-quasiregular harmonic map in a plane domain, then $| f |^q$ is subharmonic for $q \ge 1-K^{-2}$.
\[amb\][@akb] If f is a $K$-quasiregular harmonic map in a space domain, then $| f |^q$ is subharmonic for some $q=q(K,n)\in(0,1)$.
This paper is continuation of [@akb] in which Proposition \[pav\] was extended to the $n$-dimensional setting. In [@akb] the authors prove only the existence of an exponent $q\in (0,1)$ without giving the minimal value of $q.$ Here we improve Proposition \[amb\] by giving the optimal value of $q.$ Our proof is completely different from those given in [@akb] and [@kpa]. Moreover for the first time we consider the case $q<0$.
Our proof is based on the following well-known explicit computation.
\[ste\] [@stein Ch. VII 3, p.217]. Let $u = (u_1, \dots, u_n)
:\Omega\to
\mathbf R^n,$ be harmonic, let $\Omega_0 =\Omega\setminus u^{-1}(0)$, let $q \in
\mathbf R$. Then for $x\in\Omega_0$ $$\Delta |u|^q = q\left[
|u|^{q-2}\sum_{k=1}^n\left|\nabla u_k
\right|^2+(q-2)|u|^{q-4}\sum_{k=1}^n\left(u\bullet \frac{\partial
u}{\partial x_k}\right)\right].$$
Write $v := |u|^q = (u_1^2 + \dots + u_n^2)^p,$ for $p := q /2$ . A direct computation gives $$\begin{split}v_{x_1} &= p(u_1^2 + \dots +
u_n^2)^{p-1} \cdot (2u_1{u_1}_{x_1} + \dots + 2u_n {u_n}_{x1}) \\&=
q(u_1^2 + \dots + u_n^2)^{p-1} \cdot (u_1{u_1}_{x_1} + \dots + u_n
{u_n}_{x1}),\end{split}$$ and further $$\begin{split}v_{x_1x_1} &=
q\{2(p - 1)(u_1^2 + \dots + u_n^2)^{p-2} \cdot (u_1{u_1}_{x_1} +
\dots + {u_n}_{x_1})^2+\\ &+ (u_1^2 + \dots + u_n^2)^{p-1}\cdot
[u_1{u_1}_{x_1x_1} + ({u_1}_{x_1})^2 + \dots + u_n {u_n}_{x_1x_1} +
({u_n}_{x_1})^2]\}.\end{split}$$ Therefore $$\begin{split}\Delta v &= v_{x_1x_1} + \dots + v_{x_nx_n}
\\&= q\{|u|^{q-2}[(u_1\Delta u_1 + \dots + u_n\Delta u_n) +
(\sum_{k=1}^n {u_1}_{x_k}^2 + \dots\\& \ \ \ \ \ + \sum_{k=1}^n
{u_n}_{x_k}^2 )] + (q - 2)|u|^{q-4}\sum_{k=1}^n \left(\sum_{j=1}^n
u_j {u_j}_{x_k}\right)^2\}
\\&= q\{|u|^{q-2}( \sum_{k=1}^n {u_1}_{x_k}^2 + \dots +\sum_{k=1}^n
{u_n}_{x_k}^2) + (q - 2)|u|^{q-4} \sum_{k=1}^n\left(\sum_{j=1}^n u_j
\cdot \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_k}\right)^2\} \\&=
q|u|^{q-4}\{|u|^2 \sum_{j=1}^n\left( \sum_{k=1}^n {u_j}_{x_k}^2
\right) + (q - 2) \sum_{k=1}^n \left(\sum_{j=1}^n u_j \cdot
\frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_k}\right)^2\} \\&= q|u|^{q-4}\{|u|^2
\sum_{j=1}^n |\nabla u_j |^2 + (q - 2) \sum_{k=1}^n \left(u \bullet
\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_k}\right)^2\}.\end{split}$$
Main result
===========
\[mai\] Let $u$ be $K-$quasiregular harmonic in $\Omega\subset \Bbb R^n$. Then the mapping $g(x) =|u(x)|^q$ is subharmonic in
1. $\Omega$ for $q\ge\max\{ 1-\frac{n-1}{K^2},0\}$;
2. $\Omega\setminus u^{-1}(0)$, for $q\le 1-(n-1){K^2}$.
Moreover for $1-(n-1){K^2}<q<1-\frac{n-1}{K^2}$, there exists a $K$-quasiconformal harmonic mapping such that $|u|^q$ is not subharmonic.
If $n=2$ then $1-\frac{n-1}{K^2}=1-K^{-2}.$ Thus Theorem \[mai\] is an extension of Proposition \[pav\].
In the case $1\le K\le \sqrt{n-1}$ the function $|u|^q$ is subharmonic for all $q>0.$
Let us fix such a map $u:\Omega\to \mathbf R^n$ and set $\Omega_0 = \Omega\setminus
u^{-1}\{0\}.$ We have to find all positive real numbers $q$ such that $\Delta |u|^q\ge 0$ on $\Omega_0$. Since $u$ is quasiregular, the set $Z = \{x\in \Omega_0 : \det Du(x) = 0\}$ has measure zero (see [@vo]), it is also closed since $u$ is smooth. In particular, $\Omega_1 = \Omega_0\setminus Z$ is dense in $\Omega_0$ and thus it suffices to prove that $\Delta |u|^q \ge 0$ on $\Omega_1$. From Proposition \[ste\], we obtain $$\label{laplacian} \Delta |u|^q = q\left[ |u|^{q-2}\|D
u\|^2+(q-2)|u|^{q-4}\left|\sum_{j=1}^n u_j \nabla
u_j\right|^2\right].$$ So we find all real $q$ such that
$$q\left(|u|^{q-2}\|D
u\|^2+(q-2)|u|^{q-4}\left|\sum_{j=1}^n u_j \nabla
u_j\right|^2\right)\ge 0.$$ If $q\ge 2$, then $\Delta |u|^q\ge 0$. Assume that $q\ge 0$ and $q<2$ such that $$\left|\sum_{j=1}^n u_j(x) \nabla u_j(x)\right|^2\le \frac{1}{2-q}|u(x)|^2\|D
u(x)\|^2,\ \ \ x\in \Omega_1.$$
After normalization, we see that it suffices to find all constants $q <2$ such that
$$\label{op}\sup_{z\in S^{n-1}} \left|\sum_{j=1}^n z_j \nabla u_j(x)\right|^2\le
\frac{1}{2-q}\|D u(x)\|^2,\ \ \ x\in \Omega_1.$$
Let $0<\lambda_1^2\le \lambda_2^2\le \dots\le \lambda_n^2$ be the eigenvalues of the matrix $D u(x)D u(x)^t$. Then $$\label{po}
\sup_{z\in S^{n-1}} \left|\sum_{j=1}^n z_j \nabla
u_j(x)\right|^2=\lambda_n^2$$ $$\label{jo}
\inf_{z\in S^{n-1}} \left|\sum_{j=1}^n z_j \nabla
u_j(x)\right|^2=\lambda_1^2$$ and $$\label{yes}
\|D u(x)\|^2= \sum_{k=1}^n \lambda_k^2.$$ Because $u$ is $K-$quasiregular from we have $$\label{qe}\frac{\lambda_n}{\lambda_k}\le K,\ \ k=1,\dots, n-1.$$ Thus can be written as $$\label{opo}\lambda_n^2\le \frac{1}{2-q}\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda_k^2.$$ By and we get that, the inequality is satisfied whenever $$\frac{1}{1+\frac{n-1}{K^2}}\le \frac{1}{2-q}$$ i.e. $$\max\left\{0,1-\frac{n-1}{K^2}\right\}\le q<2.$$ If $q<0$, then we should have $$\label{nop}\inf_{z\in
S^{n-1}} \left|\sum_{j=1}^n z_j \nabla u_j(x)\right|^2\ge
\frac{1}{2-q}\|D u(x)\|^2,\ \ \ x\in \Omega_1,$$ i.e. $${2-q}\ge \sum_{k=1}^n
\frac{\lambda_k^2}{\lambda_1^2}.$$ Because $u$ is $K-$quasiregular from $$\label{lew}\frac{\lambda_k}{\lambda_1}\le K,\ \ k=2,\dots, n.$$ Thus if $$\label{roma} q\le 1-(n-1)K^2,$$ then holds. To finish the proof we need the following lemma.
\[le\] For any $1-(n-1){K^2}<q<1-\frac{n-1}{K^2}$ there is a (linear) harmonic $K$-quasiconformal mapping $u$ such that $|u|^q$ is not subharmonic.
Assume first that $q>0$. We will consider linear mapping $u:\mathbf
R^n\longrightarrow\mathbf R^n$ defined by $$\label{defa}u(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1},x_n)=(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}, Kx_n),$$ where $K\ge 1$. It is obviously harmonic and $K-$quasiconformal. If we put this mapping in formula (\[laplacian\]) we get $$[(n-1)+K^2]|u|^2+(q-2)\left|\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}x_je_j+K^2e_nx_n\right|^2\geq
0$$ which is equivalent to $$(n-1+K^2)\left[\sum_{n=1}^{j-1}x_j^2+K^2x_n^2\right]+(q-2)\left|\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}x_je_j+K^2e_nx_n\right|^2\geq
0.$$ By choosing $x_1=\cdots=x_{n-1}=0$ and $x_n=1$, we obtain $$(n-1+K^2)K^2\geq (2-q)K^4$$ which is equivalent to $$q\geq 1-\frac{n-1}{K^2}.$$ For $q<0$ we consider the linear mapping $u:\mathbf
R^n\longrightarrow\mathbf R^n$ defined by $$\label{dela}u(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1},x_n)=(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}, x_n/K).$$
To finish the proof we only need to take $\tilde u=u|_{\Omega}$, where $u$ is defined in respectively in .
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
We thank the referee for providing constructive comments and help in improving the contents of this paper.
[1]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Arsenovi' c, M., Božin, V. and Manojlovi' c, V.</span> : [*Moduli of continuity of harmonic quasiregular mappings in ${B}^n$:*]{} Potential Analysis DOI: 10.1007/s11118-010-9195-8.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hayman, W. K., Kennedy, P. B.</span>: [*Subharmonic functions,*]{} I Academic Press, London-New York, 1976, xvii+284 pp.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kalaj, D.</span>: [*A priori estimate of gradient of a solution to certain differential inequality and quasiconformal mappings.*]{} arXiv:0712.3580v3. 24 pp.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kalaj, D.</span>: [*On the univalent solution of PDE $\Delta
u=f$ between spherical annuli.*]{} J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**327**]{} (2007), no. 1, 1–11.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kojić, V., Pavlović, M.</span>: [*Subharmonicity of $|f|^p$ for quasiregular harmonic functions with applications.*]{} J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**342**]{} (2008), 742–746 .
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Stein, E.M.</span>: [*Singular integrals and differentiability properties of functions.*]{} Princeton Mathematical Series, No. 30 Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 1970 xiv+290 pp. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Vuorinen, M.</span>: [*Conformal geometry and quasiregular mappings.*]{} Lecture Notes in Math., [1319]{}. Springer, Berlin (1988).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Given a minimal surface $S$ equipped with a generically finite map to an Abelian variety and $C\subset S$ a rational or an elliptic curve, we show that the canonical degree of $C$ is bounded by four times the self-intersection of the canonical divisor of $S$. As a corollary, we obtain the finiteness of rational and elliptic curves with an optimal uniform bound on their canonical degrees on any surface of general type with two linearly independent regular one forms. [^1]'
author:
- 'Steven S. Y. Lu [^2]'
title: 'On surfaces of general type with maximal Albanese dimension\'
---
Introduction
============
The object of this paper is to give an effective bound on the canonical degrees of rational and elliptic curves on a minimal surface of general type with generically finite Albanese map linearly in terms of the canonical volume of the surface. Here, the canonical degree is the degree with respect to the canonical polarization of the surface and the self-intersection of this polarization is the canonical volume.
We will work in the complex analytic setting so that all varieties are complex analytic. We will assume the rudiments from the the theory of classification of complex projective surfaces as found for example in [@BPV]. We call a smooth projective surface to be of maximal Albanese dimension if its Albanese map is generically finite (N.B. This terminology is different from that introduced in [@Ueno]). We recall that any smooth projective surface $S$ of maximal Albanese dimension admits a morphism to a minimal one whose canonical divisor pulls back to the positive part $P$ of the Zariski decomposition of the canonical divisor $K$ of $S$ and the canonical volume of $S$ is by definition $vol(K):=P^2$. Our main theorem is as follows.
\[main\] Let $S$ be a smooth projective surface with maximal Albanese dimension and $C$ a rational or an elliptic curve in $S$. Let $P$ be the positive part in the Zariski decomposition of the canonical divisor $K$ of $S$. Then $$PC\leq 4\, vol(K).$$
We remark that Y. Miyaoka has recently given an effective canonical bound for surfaces with positive Segre class [@Miya07] generalizing the same given by him and the author for surfaces with positive topological index [@LM1]. It is easy to construct examples of surfaces with maximal Albanese dimension which do not have positive Segre class. Prior to the present article, all such canonical bounds were obtained via the powerful but highly nontrivial log-orbifold Miyaoka-Yau inequality on surfaces, for which we cite [@Bog; @Miya; @Yau; @Sakai; @LM1; @LM2; @Langer; @Miya07]. But the bounds so obtained are neither simple nor are optimal. In this article, we introduce an elementary approach that relates geometrically the canonical degree of curves directly with the canonical class of the surface. In view of the simplicity and aptitude of the idea, the method introduced and the resulting bound, we expect it to have significance and applicability to arbitrary algebraic curves and even to holomorphic curves as well as to arithmetic objects as it seems to relate to the standard conjectures in these subjects; its generalizations to arbitrary curves would have strong implications, for example, for the abc-conjecture over function field for an abelian variety.
We also remark that a weakened version of our theorem has already been given by Noguchi-Winkelmann-Yamanoi [@NWY07] where the Albanese map is assumed to be finite and surjective, that is they exclude the possibility of exceptional fibers in their hypothesis although they do deal with the quasi-projective case at the same time. In that case, they bound the canonical degree of elliptic curves in terms of the degree of Gauss map of the canonical divisor of the surface, which they do not bound. Our bound gives a sharp effective bound for the degree of this Gauss map and we expect it to be sharp also for the canonical degree of elliptic curves on such a surface, if not extremely close to it, being by its very nature the best bound allowed by this approach.
We finally remark that it is possible to obtain less effective (noneffective) bounds more simply. But as all the details presented here are quite general in nature and has much wider applicability, we believe that they are worth the trouble for the optimal bound given.\
Since a surface of general type cannot support a nontrivial family of rational or elliptic curves and a bound on the canonical degree of such curves puts them in a bounded family, our result implies that that there are only a finite number of rational and elliptic curves on a surface of general type with generically finite Albanese map. In fact, our result is strictly stronger as it implies a global bound on such finiteness, in a smooth family of such surfaces for example. More generally, for a surface with irregularity at least two, if its Albanese map is not generically finite, then it admits a map to a hyperbolic curve by the structure theorem of Kawamata and Ueno [@Kaw]. Hence rational and elliptic curves lie on the fibers of such a map and are thus finite in number if the surface is of general type. It follows that there are only a finite number of rational and elliptic curves on any surface of general type with irregularity at least two. The following is an immediate corollary of this and of the main theorem of Noguchi-Winkelmann-Yamanoi in [@NWY] giving the algebraic degeneracy of holomorphic curves in the remaining case of such surfaces.
Let $S$ be a smooth projective surface of general type with irregularity two or more. Then $S$ admits a proper Zariski subset that contains all nontrivial holomorphic images of $\Bbb C$.
In general we have the following sweeping conjecture concerning the algebraic pseudo-hyperbolicity of varieties of general type. The conjecture is at least well indicated from the works of F. Bogomolov, B. Mazur, M. Green and P. Griffiths in the seventies and that of Y. Kawamata in the early eighties and made explicit by Serge Lang in 1986 [@Lang]:
An algebraic variety of general type admits a proper Zariski subset that contains all subvarieties not of general type.
Aside from Bogomolov’s result validating the conjecture for surfaces of positive Segre class [@Bog], the best general evidence for such a conjecture up till now was given by Kawamata [@Kaw1] validating the conjecture for subvarieties of Abelian varieties in characteristic zero. This result was later generalized to the case of semi-Abelian varieties by Noguchi [@Nog86] and to the case when the field of definition is an algebraically closed field of arbitrary characteristic [@Ab]. However, none of these result is effective and, besides the above mentioned result of Noguchi-Winkelmann-Yamanoi, the conjecture seemed unknown in general for a variety with maximal Albanese dimension. Our method here applies directly to this latter case for its affirmative resolution [@Lu10].\
A short but already quite telling description of the proof of this main theorem is as follows. The theorem reduces easily to the case when $S$ is minimal (so that $P=K$) and admits a surjective morphism $\alpha$ to an abelian surface $A$ and to the case $C$ is neither $\alpha$-exceptional, so that $C_0=\alpha(C)$ is an elliptic curve in $A$, nor contained in the ramification locus of $\alpha$. In this case, $(\det d\alpha)$ is a canonical choice for $K$ and, outside its common divisorial locus with $\hat C=\alpha^*(C_0)$, $K$ intersects properly with $\hat C$ and the relevant local intersection numbers with $C$ are dominated by the local intersection numbers of $\hat C$ with each such component of $K$. These local intersection numbers along a horizontal component of $D=K_{red}$ can be interpreted in terms of the vanishing degree of the natural section of $K+D$ along $D$ given by $(\alpha^*w_0)\wedge ds/s$ where $w_0$ is the nonzero holomorphic one form on $A$ such that $TC_0\in \ker w_0$. Since the intersection number of $\hat C$ with any vertical component of $D$ or with any horizontal component of $D$ in $\hat C$ is zero, finding a decomposition of $K$ into parts having nonnegative intersection number with $K+D$ and summing yield the result.
As for the plan of the paper, section two deals with this decomposition of $K$ while section three gives the key lemmas for the proof of the main theorem in section 4.\
The author is greatful to B. Shiffman, J. Noguchi, J. Winkelmann and A. Fujiki for their interests in this work and for their kind invitation to Japan where this work was presented.
A decomposition of divisors on surfaces
=======================================
We will let $S$ be a smooth projective surface and $K$ a canonical divisor for $S$ throughout. Let $D, D'$ be two divisors in $S$. We will denote $D\leq D'$ to mean that $D'-D$ is effective (possibly zero). By a component of a divisor, we will mean a prime component as opposed to a connected component of a divisor, so that it is reduced and irreducible.
Let $D$ be a reduced divisor in $S$ and $C$ a connected divisor contained in $D$, i.e. $C\leq D$. If $(K+D)C<0$, then either $(K+D)C=-2$ or $(K+D)C=-1$. These two cases, which we will call case 1 and case 2, imply respectively:
1. $(K+C)C=-2$ and $(D-C)C=0$. The latter means that $C$ is isolated in $D$, i.e. $C$ is not connected to the rest of $D$.
2. $(K+C)C=-2$ and $(D-C)C=1$. The latter means that $C$ intersect the rest of $D$ at one point (and transversely).
[**Proof:**]{} Since $C$ is connected, its arithmetic genus $g$ is given by $1-(h^0({\cal O}_C) - h^1({\cal O}_C))=h^1({\cal O}_C)\geq 0.$ Hence by adjunction, $(K+C)C=2g-2$ is an even number that is at least $-2$. The rest follows from $(K+D)C=(K+C)C+(D-C)C$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Recall that a tree of curves is a connected reduced curve $C$ which is disconnected by removing any of its component curves. Any component of such a tree is connected to any other component by a unique path. A rooted tree of curves is a tree with a component curve singled out, called the $root$. Such a tree becomes directed by the partial ordering given by $C_i\leq C_j$ if the unique path from the root to the component $C_j$ passes through $C_i$, in which case we also say that $C_j$ is a descendant of $C_i$. Note in particular that every component curve is a descendant of itself in a directed tree. A component curve $C_k$ without a descendant beside itself is called a $leave$. In a rooted tree of curves, the union of a component curve with all its descendant is call a $branch$. A tree without a root specified is called a free tree and such a tree becomes directed by either choosing a root curve or by choosing the unique transversal intersection of a pair of curves if exists, with the obvious ordering given as before. A disjoint collection of trees is called a forest.
\[L1\] In the previous lemma, a curve $C$ in case 1 consists of an isolated (free) tree of rational curves intersecting transversally and a curve $C$ in case 2 consists of a rooted tree of rational curves intersecting transversally. If we direct the tree of case 1 by choosing a transversal intersection point of two curves if it exists, then every branch of the tree in either case satisfies the conditions of case 2.
[**Proof:**]{} We will only show the lemma in case 2 since case 1 follows similarly. In this case, $(K+D)C=-1$ and $C$ intersects the rest of $D$ at one point $p$. Let $C_0$ be the component of $C$ containing $p$ and let $C_{01},..., C_{0k}$ be the connected components of $C-C_0$. Let $D'=D-\sum_i C_{0i}$. By construction, $(K+D)C_{0i}\geq -1$ and $C_{0i}(C-C_{0i})\geq 1$ for all $i$ and since $C_0$ is a connected nonisolated component of $D'$, we have by the previous lemma that $$\begin{aligned}
-1&\leq& (K+D')C_0= (K+D)C_0-\sum_i C_{0i}C_0\\&=&
(K+D)C-\sum_i[(K+D)C_{0i}+C_{0i}(C-C_{0i})]\leq (K+D)C=-1. \end{aligned}$$ This forces equality everywhere and so $(K+D)C_{0i}= -1$ for all $i$ and $(K+D')C_0=-1$. This means that the $C_{0i}$’s are all curves belonging to case 1 connected to $C_0$ and that $C_0$ is a smooth rational curve as $(K+C_0)C_0=-2$ by the previous lemma. Hence we see that $C$ is a rooted tree of rational curves by induction, with $C_0$ as a root.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
We now set $$F(D)=\{\ C\leq D\ |\ C\ \mbox{is connected and}\ (K+D)C<0\ \}.$$ It follows that the union of the elements in $F(D)$ form a subset of $D$ that is a forest. We will call this forest $F_D$. It is a disjoint union of maximal elements in $F(D)$ and the leaves in this forest are exactly the prime components of $D$ belonging to $F(D)$.\
We apply our result to the case $D=K_{red}$, the reduced canonical divisor, to obtain a positive partial decomposition of $K$. The following lemma is the key to this decomposition.\
Recall that a curve $C$ is called a Hirzebruch-Jung string if it is a rooted tree of curves with exactly one leave so that we have actually a total ordering on $C$. In this case, we may write the prime decomposition of $C$ as $C_0+C_1+\cdots + C_r$ where $C_iC_j$ is one or zero according to whether $j=i+1$ or not and $C_0$, $C_r$ are the root and leave of the string respectively. We will denote the subset of $F(D)$ consisting of elements that are not isolated in $D$ and that are Hirzebruch-Jung strings by $F^{HJ}(D)$.
\[L2\] Let notation be as above but with $D=K_{red}$. Let $C\in F^{HJ}(D)$ with the prime decomposition $C_0+C_1+\cdots + C_r$ as given above. Let $C_{-1}$ be the unique component of $D-C$ connected to $C$. Let $m_i>0$ be the multiplicity of $K$ on $C_i$. If $S$ is minimal, then for $i=-1,0,\dots,r-1$, we have $$m_i\geq 2m_r.$$
[**Proof:**]{} Since each component $C_i$ of $C$ is a rational curve and $S$ is minimal, we have, for each $i\geq 0$, $$C_i^2=-2-KC_i\leq -2.$$ Let $\hat C=C_{-1}+C$. Then $$(m_{r-1}+1)+(m_r+1)C_r^2=(K+D)C_r=-1,$$ and we obtain $m_{r-1}+2=-(m_r+1)C_r^2\geq 2(m_r+1)$. Hence $m_{r-1}\geq 2m_r$ and our lemma is true for $i=r-1$. We now establish the lemma by showing that $m_{i-1}>m_i$ for all $i\geq 0$. This being already established for $i=r$, we assume by induction that $m_i>m_{i+1}$ for an $i$ strictly between $-1$ and $r$. For such an $i$, we have by lemma \[L1\] that $$0=(K+D)C_i=(m_{i-1}+1)+(m_i+1)C_i^2+ (m_{i+1}+1)< m_{i-1}+1 +(m_i+1)(C_i^2+1),$$ and so $m_{i-1}>m_i$ and the result follows by induction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
We remark that if $S$ is not minimal, the lemma would still hold with a weaker inequality.\
\[L3\] With the notations as before and $D=K_{red}$, let $C\in F(D)$ be a maximal element non-isolated in $D$. Let $C=\sum_{i\in I} C_i$ be the prime decomposition of $C$ and let $K_C=\sum_{i\in I} m_iC_i$ where $m_i>0$ is the multiplicity of $K$ on $C_i$. If $S$ is minimal and $C$ is not a Hirzebruch-Jung string, then $(K+D)K_C\geq 0.$
[**Proof:**]{} We first introduce some terminology. Let $C\in F(D)$ be non-isolated in $D$. Let $C_i$ be a component of $C$. Recall that $\bar C_i$ is the union of all the descendant of $C_i$. A component $C_i$ of $C$ is called split if $\bar C_i -C_i$ contains more than one connected components, at least one of which lies in $F^{HJ}(D)$. In this case, we let $K_i= m_iC_i+\sum_j m_{ij}C_{ij}$ where the $C_{ij}$’s are the connected components of $\bar C_i -C_i$ lying in $F^{HJ}(D)$, $m_i$ is the multiplicity of $K$ on $C_i$ and $m_{ij}$ is the multiplicity of $K$ on the leave of $C_{ij}$. Since $(K+D)\bar C_i=-1$, $(K+D)C_{ij}=-1$ for all $j$ and $(K+D)(\bar C_i-C_{i1})\leq -1$ by Lemma \[L1\] in this case, we obtain easily from Lemma \[L2\] that $$(K+D)K_i\geq 0.$$ By assumption, $C$ is not a Hirzebruch-Jung string. So every leave of $C$ is the descendant of a split component of $C$. Let $C_i,\ i\in I'$ be the collection of split components of $C$ and $K_i$ be as above. Now $K'=\sum_{i\in I'}K_i\leq K_C$ by lemma \[L2\] and $K''=K_C-K'$ has zero multiplicity on the leaves by construction. Hence $K''$ has only support on the $C_j$’s which are not leaves and as $(K+D)C_j\geq 0$ for such $C_j$’s, $(K+D)K''\geq 0$. It follows that $$(K+D)K_C=(K+D)K''+\sum_{i\in I'}(K+D)K_i\geq 0.\ {\rule{2mm}{2mm}}$$
The key proposition
===================
Let $G$ be a reduced irreducible divisor on a smooth projective surface $S$ and defined by the section $s\in H^0(S, {\cal O}(G))$, i.e., $(s)=G$. The key point to our approach is that $ds/s$ gives a well defined holomorphic section of $\Omega_S(G)$ over $G$. We will only need this fact in the following situation.
With the data as given above, let $w$ be a holomorphic one-form on $S$. Then $w\wedge ds/s$ gives a well defined holomorphic section of ${\cal O}(K+G)|_G$, i.e., $$u=w\wedge ds\in H^0(G,{\cal O}(K+G)).$$ If $w$ does not pull back to the zero one-form on any component of $G$, then $u$ is nowhere identically vanishing.
[**Proof:**]{} Given two local trivializations for ${\cal O}_G(G)$ on $G\cap U$ where $U$ is a Stein neighborhood of a point $p\in G$, consider two trivializations of ${\cal O}_U(G)$ that extend them. Let $s_1$ and $s_2$ be the respective holomorphic functions on $U$ representing $s$ with respect to the trivializations. Then $t=s_1/s_2$ is a nonvanishing holomorphic function on $U$. Since $ds_1=tds_2+s_2dt$ on $U$, we have $w\wedge ds_1=tw\wedge ds_2$ on $G\cap U$. It follows that $w\wedge ds$ transforms as a holomorphic section of $\Omega_S^2(G)={\cal O}(K+G)$ over $G$ under different local trivializations of ${\cal O}_G(G)$. The last part of the lemma is clear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
An important remark for the application in general is that if $s$ is only required to satisfy $G=(s)_{red}$, then $ds/s$ would give a nowhere-vanishing section of $\Omega_S(G)$ over $G$ thereby effectively reducing the multiplicities of $(s)$ to one.
We now apply this lemma to obtain the key proposition for the proof of our theorem.
\[Pr1\] Let $S$ be a smooth non-Abelian surface, $A$ a complex Abelian surface and $\alpha: S\rightarrow A$ a surjective morphism. We consider the following data on $S$:
- $K=(\det d\alpha)$ the canonical divisor of $S$ determined by $\alpha$
- $D=K_{red}$ the reduced canonical divisor
- $G$ a horizontal component of $D$, i.e., $G$ is not $\alpha$-exceptional
- $C_0$ an elliptic curve in $A$ considered as a reduced divisor
- $\hat C=\alpha^*(C_0)$ the total transform of $C_0$
- $C'$ the sum of non-elliptic horizontal components of $\hat C$ on which $\hat C$ has multiplicity one
- $\bar C=\hat C - C' - C''$ where $C''$ is some vertical part of $\hat C$, i.e., $C''\leq \hat C$ is $\alpha$-exceptional
Assume that $G$ is not a component of $\bar C$. Then we have $$(G,\bar C)\leq 2 (G, P+D) -n_G,$$ where $n_G$ is the intersection number of $D-G$ with the smooth part of $G$.
[**Proof:**]{} Our assumption on $S$ implies easily that $\alpha$ must be ramified somewhere and so $\det d\alpha$ gives a well defined divisor on $S$. We note also that, since $\hat C$ cannot be reduced on any vertical component of the ramification divisor, our assumption on $G$ implies that it is not a component of $\hat C$ so that $G\cap (\hat C)_{red}$ is a finite set containing $Q=G\cap (\bar C)_{red}$ . We first assume that $G$ is smooth for the proof.\
Let $w_0$ be the constant holomorphic one-form that defines the direction of $C_0$, i.e., locally we can write $w_0=df_0$ with $(f_0)=C_0$. By definition, $$(G,\bar C)=\sum_{x\in Q} (G, \bar C)_x \leq
\sum_{x\in Q} (G, \hat C)_x.$$ Let $x\in Q$ and $U$ a Stein neighborhood of $\alpha(x)$. Then $w_0|_U=df_0$ for a holomorphic function $f_0$ on $U$ with $(f_0)=C_0|_U$. Let $V=\alpha^{-1}(U)$ and $f=\alpha^*f_0=f_0\circ\alpha\in {\cal O}_V$. Then $(G, \hat C)_x$ is by definition the vanishing order at $x$ of $f|_G$, i.e., $$(G, \hat C)_x=\mbox{ord}_x (f|_G).$$ Let $w=\alpha^*w_0$ and $\gamma_1=w\wedge ds|_G\in H^0(G, K+G)$. Then $w|_V=df$ and so $$\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma_1)=\mbox{ord}_x(df|_G)=(G, \hat C)_x-1.$$ Let $G'$ be the reduced divisor $D-G$ considered also as a subset of $S$. Let $r$ be a section of ${\cal O}(G')$ with $(r)=G'$ and let $\gamma=\gamma_1\otimes r$. Then $\gamma$ is a section of ${\cal O}(K+D)$ over $G$ and $$\label{ineq2}
\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma)=\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma_1)+(G, G')_x\geq (G,D-G)_x.$$ We observe that if $x\not\in G'$, then $(G,G')_x=0$ and $x$ lies in some horizontal component(s) of $\bar C$ away from any intersection point with vertical components of $\hat C$. In this case, either $\bar C$ is not reduced at $x$, in which case $(G, \hat C)_x\geq (G, \bar C)_x\geq 2$, or the components of $\bar C$ through $x$ are horizontal elliptic curves. In the latter case, since the tangent directions of these elliptic curves cannot lie in the kernel of $d\alpha$ as no elliptic curve can ramify over an elliptic curve, $d\alpha$ has rank one at $x$ and maps the tangent “directions” of $C$ at $x$, and therefore also $T_x S$, to $T_{\alpha(x)} C_0=\ker w_0(\alpha(x))$. Hence, in this case, $w=\alpha^*w_0$ is identically zero on $T_x S$ and so $\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma_1)\geq 1$. It follows that if $x\not\in G'$, then $\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma)=\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma_1)\geq 1$ and so $$(G, \hat C)_x=\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma_1)+1\leq 2\,\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma_1)
=2\,\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma)-(G,D-G)_x.$$ On the other hand, if $x\in G'$, then $1\leq (G,G')_x$, and so we have again $$(G, \hat C)_x=\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma_1)+1\leq \mbox{ord}_x(\gamma)
\leq 2\,\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma)-(G,D-G)_x.$$
Since the inequality (\[ineq2\]) is actually true for all $x\in G$ by the construction of $\gamma$, we have $2\,\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma)-(G,D-G)_x\geq 0$ for all $x\in G$. It follows that $$(G, \bar C)\leq \sum_{x\in G}\big( 2\,\mbox{ord}_x(\gamma)-(G,D-G)_x\big)=
2 (G, K+D) - (G, D-G).$$ This proves the proposition in the case $G$ is smooth.\
In the case $G$ is not smooth, let $\pi:\tilde S{\rightarrow}S$ be a minimal resolution of $G$. By replacing $G$ with its strict transform $\tilde G$, $\bar C$ with its total transform $\pi^*\bar C$, $K$ with the canonical divisor $\tilde K=(\det d (\alpha\circ \pi))$ of $\tilde S$ and $D$ with $(\tilde K)_{red}=(\pi^*D)_{red}$ we find that all the assumptions of the proposition still hold and therefore $$(G, \bar C)=(\tilde G, \pi^*\bar C)\leq
2 (\tilde G, \tilde K +\tilde D) - (\tilde G, \tilde D - \tilde G)
\leq 2 (\tilde G, \tilde K +\tilde D) - n_G,$$ the last inequality owing to the fact that the intersection number $n_G$ of $D-G$ with the smooth part of $G$ is unaffected by $\pi$ and so can be no greater than $(\tilde G, \tilde D - \tilde G)$. The proposition now follows from the claim that $(\tilde G, \tilde K + \tilde D)\leq (G,K+D)$ for which it is sufficient via induction to verify for the case $\pi$ is a single blow-up. But this case follows directly from $\tilde K=\pi^*(K)+E$ and $\tilde D=\pi^*(D)-(m-1)E$ where the multiplicity $m$ of the point of $D$ blown up is necessarily no less than two as $D$ is singular there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proof of the main theorem
=========================
We first reduce the main theorem, Theorem \[main\], to the case when the surface $S$ is minimal of general type admitting a surjective morphism to an Abelian surface.\
Recall that the Albanese map of a smooth projective variety $X$ is a morphism $\alpha_X: X{\rightarrow}A$ where $A$ is an Abelian variety (i.e., $A$ is a projective variety whose universal covering is ${\Bbb C}^n$ for some $n>0$) and where the pair $(\alpha_X, A)$ is characterized by the following universal property: Any morphism $\beta : X{\rightarrow}A'$ where $A'$ is an Abelian variety admits a unique factorization $\beta=j\circ \alpha_X$ where $j: A{\rightarrow}A'$ is a morphism of Abelian varieties. The pair $(\alpha, A)$ exists and is unique up to isomorphism for any smooth projective variety $X$. The Abelian variety $A$ is called the Albanese torus of $X$, denoted by Alb$(X)$. The universal property implies that $\alpha(X)$ generates $A$ in the sense that it is not contained in any subabelian variety and, in particular, $\alpha$ induces an inclusion $H^0(\Omega_A)\subset H^0(\Omega_X)$.
Let $S_0$ be the minimal model of $S$ and $\pi: S{\rightarrow}S_0$ the projection. Since $\pi$ is a composition of blowups, its exceptional fibers consist of rational curves that are necessarily exceptional with respect to $\alpha$. Hence $\alpha=\alpha_0\circ \pi$ where $\alpha_0$ is the Albanese map of $S_0$ and Alb$(S)=$Alb$(S_0)$ by the universal property of the Albanese. Since $P^2=K_{S_0}^2\geq 0$ as $S_0$ is minimal and since the $\pi$-exceptional curves have zero degree with respect to $P=\pi^*K_{S_0}$ and all other irreducible curves in $S$ are strict transforms of those in $S_0$, we see that it suffices to prove the theorem for $S=S_0$. So we may set $K=P=(\det d\alpha)$.
Now let $A$ be an Abelian variety, and $\alpha: S{\rightarrow}A$ a generically finite morphism, i.e., $\dim \alpha(S)=2$. Since $S$ has maximal Albanese dimension, such a morphism exists. Hence, there is a nonvanishing holomorphic two form $v$ on $A$ such that $\alpha(S)$ is not contained in the codimensional two foliation defined by $v$ and we may set the canonical divisor of $S$ to be $K=(\alpha^*v)$. Now $K$ is nef and contains all the exceptional divisors of $\alpha$ by construction. So any exceptional divisor of $\alpha$ satisfies the inequality given in the theorem. So it remains to prove the inequality of the theorem for elliptic curves $C$ that are not $\alpha$-exceptional as rational curves are necessarily $\alpha$-exceptional. If $C$ is such a curve and $\dim A>2$, then $\alpha(C)$ is an elliptic curve in $A$ and hence a translate of a one dimensional subgroup $E$ of $A$. Let $\alpha_1$ be the composition of $\alpha$ with the projection $p_1$ from $A$ to the quotient abelian variety $A_1=A/E$. If $\dim \alpha_1(S)=2$, then $C$ is $\alpha_1$-exceptional and so, as all previous hypothesis on $\alpha$ are satisfied for $\alpha_1$, $C$ satisfies the conclusion of our theorem. Hence we may assume by induction that $\dim \alpha_1(S)=1$. By the Poincaré reducibility theorem, see for example Chap. 6 of [@Deb] or Theorem 5.3.5 of [@BL], there is an étale base change (i.e., an unramified covering map) $z: \tilde A_1{\rightarrow}A_1$ for an Abelian variety such that $z^{-1}(A)=\tilde A_1 \times E$ and $z_1^{-1}(p_1): \tilde A_1 \times E {\rightarrow}A_1$ is the projection $\pi_1$ to the first factor. This means that we have an étale covering $z: \tilde A_1 \times E {\rightarrow}A$ such that $p_1 \circ z=z_1 \circ \pi_1$. As our problem is unchanged by such an étale base change, we may assume that $\tilde A_1=A_1$ and that $A=A_1\times E$ so that $\pi_1$ is the quotient map of $A$ by $E$. Let $\tilde C_1$ be the normalization of $C_1=\alpha_1(S)$. Then the smooth surface $S'=\tilde C_1\times E$ is the normalization of $\alpha(S)$ and, as $S$ is smooth, $\alpha$ factors through $S'$ by the Stein factorization theorem. So replacing $A_1$ by the Albanese torus of $\tilde C_1$, we may assume that $C_1$ is smooth. By construction, $C$ lies in the pre-image of a point $p\in C_1$. Suppose $\dim A_1>1$. Then one can find a nonzero holomorphic one form $u_1$ on $A_1$ such that $T_p C=\ker u_1(p)$. It follows that $\alpha_1^*u_1$ vanishes at every point of $C$ and therefore $C$ lies in the zero locus of the section $s$ of ${\cal O}_S(K)=\Omega^2_S$ defined by the wedge product of $\alpha_1^*u_1$ with the pull back of a one-form $u_2$ on $E$. Now the pull bak of $u_1$ to $C_1$ is not identically vanishing as $C_1$ generates $A_1$ and so $s$ is not identically vanishing. Hence the nef canonical divisor $K=(s)$ contains $C$ giving again $$KC\leq K^2\leq 4K^2$$ and so $C$ satisfies the conclusion of the theorem in this case. We are left with the case $C_1=A_1$ so that $\alpha$ is a surjective morphism to $A$ and so our main theorem reduces to the following proposition.\
With the setup as in proposition \[Pr1\], assume further that $S$ is a minimal surface. If $C$ is a rational or an elliptic curve in $S$, then $$KC\leq 4K^2.$$
[**Proof:**]{} We will classify a curve as being vertical or horizontal according whether it is $\alpha$-exceptional or not and we first note that any element of $F(D)$ for a reduced divisor $D$ in $S$ is vertical, being a tree of rational curves by lemma \[L1\].
If $C$ is vertical, then $C\leq K$ and so $KC\leq K^2\leq 4K^2$ by the nefness of $K$. As rational curves are necessarily vertical, it suffice to consider the case $C$ is a horizontal reduced elliptic curve for our proposition. In this case, $C_0=\alpha(C)$ is an elliptic curve in $A$. We will also consider $C_0$ as a reduced divisor in $A$. Let $C'$ be the sum of the non-elliptic horizontal components of $\hat C=\alpha^*C_0$ on which $\hat C$ has multiplicity one and let $\bar C = \alpha^*C_0 -C'$. Then $C \leq \bar C\leq \alpha^*C_0$ and so $$KC\leq K\bar C$$ as $K$ is nef. Let $\sum_i n_i D_i$ be the prime decomposition of $K$. We are reduced to bounding the intersection number $$K\bar C=\sum_i n_i(D_i, \bar C).$$
Let $D_i$ be a component of $K$ that is either vertical or $D_i\leq \bar C$ is horizontal, then $$(D_i, \bar C)\leq (D_i, \alpha^*C_0)=0$$ by the definition of $\bar C$ (since $C'$ is an effective horizontal divisor not containing $D_i$).\
We now set $D=K_{red}$ in what to follow and decompose $D=\sum_i D_i$ into three parts: $$D=D^0+D'+D'',\ \ \mbox{where}$$
- $D^0$ consists of all the vertical components of $D$ connected via vertical curves to a part of $D$ that belongs to $F(D)\setminus F^{HZ}(D)$ or to a part that is a maximal element of $F^{HJ}(D)$ not attached to any horizontal component of $D$,
- $D'$ consists of horizontal components of $D$ not in $\bar C$ and of any element of $F^{HJ}(D)$ that is attached to them,
- $D''$ consists of horizontal components of $D$ in $\bar C$ and of any element of $F^{HJ}(D)$ that is attached to them.
We first observe that there are no maximal element of $F(D)$ that is isolated as that would lead to an isolated surface singularity $p$ sitting above a smooth surface but away from any ramification divisor, an impossibility by theorem III.5.2 of [@BPV]. We observe also, by our last inequality above, that $K_{D^0}$ and $K_{D''}$ have non-positive intersection with $\bar C$.\
By definition, we can write $D^0=\sum_i C^M_i+\sum_j (C^{HJ}_j+C^+_j)+C'$ where the $C^M_i$’s are the maximal elements in $F(D)$ not in $F^{HJ}(D)$, the $C^{HJ}_j$’s are the maximal elements in $F^{HJ}(D)$ not attached to any horizontal part of $D$, $C^+_j$ the vertical component of $D$ attached to $C^{HJ}_j$ and $C'$ the rest of $D^0$. By construction, $C'$ does not contain any leave of $F_D$ so that any component $D_k$ of $C'$ satisfies $(D_k, K+D)\geq 0$. Hence $(K_{C'}, K+D)\geq 0$, where we recall that $K_{C'}$ is the part of $K$ supported on $C'$. We now note that, for all $j$, $\hat C_j=C^{HJ}_j+C^+_j\not\in F(D)$ so that $(\hat C_j,K+D)\geq 0$. Letting $m_j$ be the multiplicity of $K$ on the leave of $C^{HJ}_j$, we have $m_j\hat C_j\leq K$ by lemma \[L2\]. As $K_{\hat C_j}-m_j\hat C_j$ consists of components not belonging to $F(D)$, we obtain $(K_{\hat C_j}, K+D)\geq 0$ for all $j$. Finally, as $(K_{C^M_i}, K+D)\geq 0$ by lemma \[L3\] and as $K_{D^0}=\sum_i K_{C^M_i} + \sum_j K_{\hat C_j} +K_{C'}$, we get $$(K_{D^0}, \bar C)\leq 0\leq (K_{D^0}. K+D)\leq 2(K_{D^0}. K+D).$$
By the same token, $D''\not\in F(D)$. In fact, by definition, $D''=\sum_l (D_l+\sum_{l'} D_{ll'})$ where the $D_l$’s are the horizontal components of $D$ lying in $\bar C$ and, for each $l$, the $D_{ll'}$’s are the elements of $F^{HJ}(D)$ attached to $D_l$ and $E_l=D_l+\sum_{l'} D_{ll'}\not\in F(D)$. Let $m_l$ be the multiplicity of $K$ on $D_l$. Then $m_l$ is greater than the multiplicity $m_{ll'}$ of $K$ on the leave of $D_{ll'}$ for every $l'$ by lemma \[L2\]. We also have $\hat D_l= m_l D_l +\sum_{l'} m_{ll'}D_{ll'}\leq K_{D''}$ by the same lemma. As $(m_lE_l, K+D)\geq 0$ while $(D_{ll'}, K+D)<0$ for all $l'$, we see that $(\hat D_l, K+D)\geq 0$ for all $l$. Since $K_{D''}-\sum_l \hat D_l$ is an effective divisor not having any component that belongs to $F(D)$, we obtain as before $$(K_{D''}, \bar C)\leq 0\leq (K_{D''}, K+D)\leq 2(K_{D''}, K+D).$$
As for $D'$, let $\{G_n\}_{n\in I}$ be the collection of horizontal components of $D$ not lying in $\bar C$ and, for each $n\in I$, let $H_n=G_n+G_{nn'}$ where the $G_{nn'}$’s are the elements of $F^{HJ}(D)$ attached to $G_n$. Then $D'=\sum_n H_n$ and we are interested in bounding $(K_{H_n},\bar C)$ for each $n$. Fix an $n$. We have by proprosition \[Pr1\] that $$(G_n,\bar C)\leq 2(G_n, K+D) - n_{G_n},$$ where $n_{G_n}$ is the intersection number of the smooth part of $G$ with the rest of $D$. Since $(G_{nn'}, G_n)=1=-(G_{nn'}, K+D)$, we have $n_{G_n}\geq (\sum_{n'} G_{nn'}, G_n)=-(\sum_{n'} G_{nn'}, K+D)$ and so $$(G_n,\bar C)\leq 2(G_n, K+D) - n_{G_n}\leq 2(G_n, K+D) + (\sum_{n'} G_{nn'}, K+D).$$ Let $m_n$ be the multiplicity of $K$ on $G_n$ and $m_{nn'}$ that on the leave of $G_{nn'}$. Then lemma \[L2\] implies that $2m_{nn'}\leq m_n$ for all $n'$ and that $\bar H_n=m_nG_n + \sum_{n'} m_{nn'}G_{nn'}\leq K_{H_n}$. It follows from $(G_{nn'}, \bar C)\leq 0$ and $(G_{nn'}, K+D)<0$ that $$(\bar H_n,\bar C)\leq (m_nG_n,\bar C)\leq
(2m_nG_n + \sum_{n'} m_nG_{nn'}, K+D)
\leq (2\bar H_n, K+D)=2(\bar H_n, K+D).$$ Since any component $D_r$ of $K_{H_n}-\bar H_n$ is a vertical non-leave component of $D$, we have $(D_r, \bar C)\leq 0\leq 2(D_r, K+D)$ and so $ (K_{H_n}, \bar C)\leq 2(K_{H_n}, K+D).$ Summing over $n$ gives $$(K_{D'},\bar C)\leq 2 (K_{D'},K+D).$$
Finally, as $K=K_{D^0}+K_{D'}+K_{D''}$, we obtain $$(K,\bar C)\leq 2 (K,K+D)\leq 4K^2.\ \ {\rule{2mm}{2mm}}$$
[99]{}
D. Abramovich, Subvarieties of semiabelian varieties. Compositio Math. [**90**]{} (1994), no. 1, 37–52.
C. Birkenhake, H. Lange, Complex abelian varieties. Second edition. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\], [**302**]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004. 635 pp.
W. Barth, C. Peters, A. Van de Ven, Compact complex surfaces. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) \[Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (3)\], [**4**]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
F. A. Bogomolov, Holomorphic tensors and vector bundles on projective manifolds. (Russian) Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. [**42**]{} (1978), no. 6, 1227–1287, 1439.
O. Debarre, Tores et variétś abéliennes complexes. \[Complex tori and abelian varieties\] Cours Spécialisés, [**6**]{}. Société Mathématique de France, Paris; EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, 1999. 125 pp.
M. Green, P. Griffiths, Two applications of algebraic geometry to entire holomorphic mappings. The Chern Symposium 1979 (Proc. Internat. Sympos., Berkeley, Calif., 1979), pp. 41–74, Springer, New York-Berlin, 1980.
Y. Kawamata, Characterization of abelian varieties. Compositio Math. [**43**]{} (1981), no. 2, 253–276.
Y. Kawamata, On Bloch’s conjecture. Invent. Math. [**57**]{} (1980), no. 1, 97–100.
J. Kollàr, T. Matsusaka, Riemann-Roch type inequalities. Amer. J. Math. [**105**]{} (1983), no. 1, 229–252.
S. Lang, Hyperbolic and Diophantine analysis. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) [**14**]{} (1986), no. 2, 159–205.
A. Langer, Logarithmic orbifold Euler numbers of surfaces with applications. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) [**86**]{} (2003), no. 2, 358–396.
S. Lu, Y. Miyaoka, Bounding curves in algebraic surfaces by genus and Chern numbers. Math. Res. Lett. [**2**]{} (1995), no. 6, 663–676.
S. Lu, Y. Miyaoka, Bounding codimension-one subvarieties and a general inequality between Chern numbers. Amer. J. Math. [**119**]{} (1997), no. 3, 487–502.
S. Lu, On varieties of general type with maximal Albanese dimension, Preprint.
Y. Miyaoka, On the Chern numbers of surfaces of general type. Invent. Math. [**42**]{} (1977), 225–237.
Y. Miyaoka, The orbifold Miyaoka-Yau Inequality and an effective Bogomolov-McQuillan Theorem. Preprint 2007.
J. Noguchi, Logarithmic jet spaces and extensions of de Franchis’ theorem. Contributions to several complex variables, 227–249, Aspects Math., E9, Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1986.
J. Noguchi, J. Winkelmann, K. Yamanoi, The second main theorem for holomorphic curves into semi-abelian varieties. Acta Math. [**188**]{} (2002), no. 1, 129–161.
J. Noguchi, J. Winkelmann, K. Yamanoi, Degeneracy of holomorphic curves into algebraic varieties. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) [**88**]{} (2007), no. 3, 293–306.
F. Sakai, Semistable curves on algebraic surfaces and logarithmic pluricanonical maps. Math. Ann. [**254**]{} (1980), no. 2, 89–120.
K. Ueno, Classification theory of algebraic varieties and compact complex spaces. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, [**439**]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1975. 278 pp.
S.-T. Yau, On the Ricci curvature of a compact Kähler manifold and the complex Monge-Ampère equation. I. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**31**]{} (1978), no. 3, 339–411.
O. Zariski, The theorem of Riemann-Roch for high multiples of an effective divisor on an algebraic surface. Ann. of Math. (2) [**76**]{} (1962) 560–615.
Steven Shin-Yi Lu\
Départment de Mathématiques\
UQAM\
C.P. 8888 Succursale Centre-ville\
Montréal H3C 3P8\
Canada\
[email protected]\
[^1]: 2000 [*Mathematics Subject Classification*]{}: 14C17, 14E30, 14G25, 14H45, 14J29, 14K12, 32Q45, 32Q57
[^2]: Partially supported by an NSERC grant and UQAM
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Victor Magron, Xavier Allamigeon, Stéphane Gaubert and Benjamin Werner'
title: Formal Proofs for Nonlinear Optimization
---
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s $7^{\text{th}}$ Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 243847 (ForMath). © 2013 Journal of Formal Reasoning
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The main result of this work is a new extension of the well-known inequality by Díaz and Saa which, in our case, involves an anisotropic operator, such as the $p(x)$-Laplacian, $\Delta_{p(x)} u\equiv \mathrm{div} (|\nabla u|^{p(x) - 2} \nabla u)$. Our present extension of this inequality enables us to establish several new results on the uniqueness of solutions and comparison principles for some anisotropic quasilinear elliptic equations. Our proofs take advantage of certain convexity properties of the energy functional associated with the $p(x)$-Laplacian.'
author:
- |
Peter [Takáč]{}\
Institut für Mathematik, Universität Rostock\
Ulmenstra[ß]{}e 69, Haus 3\
D-18055 Rostock, Germany\
[[email protected]]{}\
- |
Jacques [Giacomoni]{}\
LMAP (UMR 5142)\
Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour\
Avenue de l’Université, F-64013 Pau cedex, France\
[[email protected]]{}\
title: |
**A $p(x)$-Laplacian Extension of the Díaz-Saa\
Inequality and Some Applications\
**
---
----------------------- ---------------------------------------------
[**Running head:**]{} Díaz and Saa Inequality for $\Delta_{p(x)}$
----------------------- ---------------------------------------------
------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
[**Keywords:**]{} $p(x)$-Laplacian;
quasilinear Dirichlet problem with variable exponents;
ray-strictly convex energy functional;
uniqueness and comparison principles
------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------- ----------- ---------------
[**2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:**]{} Primary 35J62, 35J92;
Secondary 35B09, 35A02
-------------------------------------------------- ----------- ---------------
Introduction {#s:Intro}
============
This work is concerned with an extension of a well-known inequality due to [J. I. D[í]{}az]{} and [J. E. Saa]{} [@Diaz-Saa] to certain quasilinear elliptic operators that are pointwise $p(x)$-homogeneous, but anisotropic, in general, such as the $p(x)$-Laplacian $ \Delta_{p(x)} u\equiv\hfil\break
\mathrm{div} (|\nabla u|^{p(x) - 2} \nabla u)$ with a variable exponent $p(x)\in (1,\infty)$. Such operators have been studied extensively, e.g., in [L. Diening]{}, [P. Harjulehto]{}, [P. Hästö]{}, and [M. Ržička]{} [@DienHHR], and in [V. Rădulescu]{} and [D. Repovš]{} [@Radu-Rep]. Interesting applications to a model of [*electrorheological fluids*]{} are presented in [@DienHHR [§]{}14.4, pp. 470–481] and the monograph by [M. Ržička]{} [@Ruzicka]. However, to our best knowledge, the [D[í]{}az]{} and [Saa]{} inequality [@Diaz-Saa] still has not been extended from the original case of a constant exponent $p(x)\equiv p = \mathrm{const}\in (1,\infty)$ to a [*variable*]{} exponent $p(x)$. This inequality turns out to be equivalent with the convexity of a $p(x)$-power type energy functional, as suggested in [H. Brézis]{} and [L. Oswald]{} [@Brezis-Osw] for $p(x)\equiv p=2$, and generalized in [J. Fleckinger]{}, [J. Hernández]{}, [P. Takáč]{}, and [F. de Thélin]{} [@FleckHTT] to any constant $p(x)\equiv p\in (1,\infty)$. In applications to quasilinear elliptic operators (with $p$ constant, $1 < p < \infty$), this equivalence played a decisive role in the works by [P. Girg]{} and [P. Takáč]{} [@Girg-Takac [§]{}4.1, pp. 289–292] and [P. Takáč]{}, [L. Tello]{}, and [M. Ulm]{} [@TakacUT Lemma 2.4, p. 79].
To be more specific, the functional in question, $\mathcal{W}{:\,}W\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$, is defined by $$\label{def:W(v)}
\mathcal{W}(v)\equiv \mathcal{W}_{p(x),r}(v){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\int_{\Omega} \frac{r}{p(x)}\,
\left\vert \nabla (|v(x)|^{1/r}) \right\vert^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x$$ for every function $v\in L^{p(x)/r}(\Omega)$ such that $|v|^{1/r}\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$; the set of all such functions $v{:\,}\Omega\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is denoted by $W\equiv W_{p(x),r}$. Here, we assume that $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^N$ is a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ ($N\geq 1$) whose boundary is a compact manifold (with smoothness to be specified later if $N\geq 2$), $r\in [1,\infty)$ is a given constant, and $p\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ is an essentially bounded function satisfying $p(x) > 1$ and $p(x)\geq r$ for almost all $x\in \Omega$ (whose smoothness will be specified later, as well). We will show in the next section (Section \[s:Main\]) that this functional is [*convex*]{} on the cone $$\label{def:V_cone}
{\overset{\bullet}{V}}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\{ v{:\,}\Omega\to (0,\infty){:\,}v\in W\}
\subset W$$ of all positive functions $v\in W$. The convexity of the restriction $\mathcal{W}{:\,}{\overset{\bullet}{V}}\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ to ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ is well-known to be equivalent with the monotonicity of its (set-valued) subdifferential $\partial\mathcal{W}(v)$ at $v\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ that is a nonempty set only for certain elements $v\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ which might not be easy to determine; cf. and [P. Takáč]{} [@Girg-Takac [§]{}4.1, pp. 289–292]. To avoid this problem, we restrict ourselves only to certain directional derivatives of $\mathcal{W}$ which exist in the classical sense.
We consider two functions $v_1, v_2\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ such that $v_1/v_2$, $v_2/v_1\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$. Consequently, also $v{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}(1-\theta) v_1 + \theta v_2\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ is valid for all $\theta\in (-\delta, 1+\delta)$, where $\delta\in (0,1)$ is small enough. The function $$\theta\mapsto \Phi(\theta){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\mathcal{W}(v)
= \mathcal{W}\left( (1-\theta) v_1 + \theta v_2\right)
{:\,}(-\delta, 1+\delta)\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$$ is convex and differentiable with the derivative $$\label{e:dW/d_theta}
\Phi'(\theta) =
\int_{\Omega}
\left\vert \nabla (|v(x)|^{1/r}) \right\vert^{p(x) - 2}
\nabla (|v(x)|^{1/r})\cdot
\nabla \genfrac{(}{)}{}0{v_2-v_1}{ v^{ 1 - \frac{1}{r} } }
\,\mathrm{d}x \,;$$ see Theorem \[thm-ray-convex\] below. The monotonicity of the derivative $ \theta\mapsto \Phi'(\theta)\colon (-\delta, 1+\delta)\to \RR$ yields $\Phi'(1) - \Phi'(0)\geq 0$, i.e., $$\label{ineq:dW/d_theta}
\begin{aligned}
& \left\langle
{}- \frac{ \Delta_{p(x)} (v_1(x)^{1/r}) }{ v_1(x)^{(r-1)/r} }
+ \frac{ \Delta_{p(x)} (v_2(x)^{1/r}) }{ v_2(x)^{(r-1)/r} }
\,,\; v_1 - v_2
\right\rangle
\\
& = \int_{\Omega}
\left(
{}- \frac{ \Delta_{p(x)} (v_1(x)^{1/r}) }{ v_1(x)^{(r-1)/r} }
+ \frac{ \Delta_{p(x)} (v_2(x)^{1/r}) }{ v_2(x)^{(r-1)/r} }
\right)
(v_1 - v_2) \,\mathrm{d}x\geq 0 \,,
\end{aligned}$$ provided the integration by parts in eq. can be justified. In this case we may substitute $w_i = v_i^{1/r} > 0$ in $W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$; $i=1,2$, to derive the following extension of the [***D[í]{}az and Saa inequality***]{} (Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\] below): $$\label{ineq:Diaz-Saa}
\int_{\Omega}
\left(
{}- \frac{ \Delta_{p(x)} w_1(x) }{ w_1(x)^{r-1} }
+ \frac{ \Delta_{p(x)} w_2(x) }{ w_2(x)^{r-1} }
\right)
(w_1^r - w_2^r) \,\mathrm{d}x\geq 0$$ for all pairs $w_1, w_2\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$, such that $w_1 > 0$, $w_2 > 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$ and both $w_1/w_2$, $w_2/w_1\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$. The special case $p(x)\equiv r = \mathrm{const}\in (1,\infty)$ yields the classical [D[í]{}az]{} and [Saa]{} inequality established in [@Diaz-Saa].
To verify ineq. , in Section \[s:Main\] below (Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\]) we slightly modify the method used in [@FleckHTT; @Girg-Takac; @TakacUT]. Our proof of ineq. is based on the convexity of the restriction of the functional $\mathcal{W}$ to the cone ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}\subset W$. Finally, in Section \[s:Appl\] we present a few applications of our main results to some nonlinear boundary value problems with the Dirichlet $p(x)$-Laplacian $\Delta_{p(x)}$ and the power-type nonlinearity $|u(x)|^{q(x)-2} u(x)$, where the following (uniform) [*“subhomogeneity” condition*]{} is assumed: $$\label{e:subhomog}
1 < q(x)\leq r\leq p(x)
\quad\mbox{ for almost every }\, x\in \Omega \,,$$ with a suitable (uniform separation) constant $r\in (1,\infty)$. This condition is related to abstract subhomogeneity conditions introduced in the well-known monograph by [M. A. Krasnosel’skiĭ]{} and [P. P. Zabreĭko]{} [@Krasno-Zabr] in several different abstract settings in ordered Banach spaces.
Main Results and Their Proofs {#s:Main}
=============================
It is easy to see that the set ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ defined in eq. is a [*convex cone*]{}, i.e., [(i)]{}$\;$ $\lambda\in (0,\infty)$, $f\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ $\,\Rightarrow\,$ $\lambda f\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$; and [(ii)]{}$\;$ $f,g\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ $\,\Rightarrow\,$ $f+g\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$.
\[def-ray-convex\]
We assume that $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^N$ is either a bounded open interval in ${\mathbb{R}}^1$ ($N=1$) or else a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ ($N\geq 2$) whose boundary $\partial\Omega$ is a compact manifold of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ for some $\alpha\in (0,1)$. Additional hypotheses on the smoothness of the boundary $\partial\Omega$ (such as interior sphere condition at $\partial\Omega$) will be added later in the applications (Section \[s:Appl\]).
For the sake of simplicity, we assume that $r\in [1,\infty)$ is a given constant and $p{:\,}\Omega\to (1,\infty)$ is a continuous function, such that $$\label{e:p-<p<p+}
1 < p_{-}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\inf_{\Omega} p(x)\leq
p_{+}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\sup_{\Omega} p(x) < \infty
\quad\mbox{ and }\quad 1\leq r\leq p_{-} \,.$$ We assume that the function $A$ of $(x,\xi)\in \Omega\times {\mathbb{R}}^N$ extends to a continuous and nonnegative function $A{:\,}\overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}^N\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$, and it verifies the following hypothesis: For every fixed $x\in \Omega$, the function $A(x,\,\cdot\,){:\,}{\mathbb{R}}^N\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is [*positively $p(x)$-homogeneous*]{}, i.e., $$\label{p-hom:A}
A(x,t\xi) = |t|^{p(x)}\, A(x,\xi) \quad\mbox{ for all }\,
t\in {\mathbb{R}}\,,\ \xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^N \,.$$ It is evident from eq. that $$ A(x,\xi) =
A\left( x,\, \frac{\xi}{|\xi|} \right)\cdot |\xi|^{p(x)} \,,
\quad\mbox{ for all }\, \xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^N\setminus \{\mathbf{0}\} \,,$$ determines the growth of $A(x,\xi)$ with respect to $\xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^N\setminus \{\mathbf{0}\}$, for any fixed $x\in \Omega$. Let ${\mathbb{S}}^{N-1}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\{ \xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^N{:\,}|\xi| = 1\}$ denote the unit sphere in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ centered at the origin $\mathbf{0}\in {\mathbb{R}}^N$. We remark that the “coefficient” $ A\left( x,\, \frac{\xi}{|\xi|} \right)$ in the last equation above is bounded from above by a positive constant, thanks to $A{:\,}\overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{S}}^{N-1}\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ being continuous on the compact set $ \overline{\Omega}\times \SS^{N-1}\subset \RR^N\times \RR^N \,.$ The simpliest example of $A$ is, of course, $A(x,\xi) = |\xi|^{p(x)}$ for $(x,\xi)\in \Omega\times {\mathbb{R}}^N$, in which case $A(x,\xi) = 1$ for all $(x,\xi)\in \Omega\times {\mathbb{S}}^{N-1}$. This case leads to the functional $\mathcal{W}$ defined in eq. .
The next theorem is our main result on the functional $\mathcal{W}_{A}{:\,}W\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:W_A(v)}
\mathcal{W}_A(v)
& \equiv \mathcal{W}_{A,p(x),r}(v){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\int_{\Omega} \frac{r}{p(x)}\,
A\left( x,\, \nabla (|v(x)|^{1/r}) \right) \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
\nonumber
& {}
= \int_{\Omega} \frac{r}{p(x)}\,
A \left( x,\, \frac{ \nabla (|v|^{1/r}) } { \left\vert \nabla (|v|^{1/r}) \right\vert }
\right)\cdot
\left\vert \nabla (|v|^{1/r}) \right\vert^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x\end{aligned}$$ for every function $v\in W$; see eq. in the Introduction (Section \[s:Intro\]).
\[thm-ray-convex\] [(Convexity)]{}$\;$ Let $r\in [1,\infty)$ and $p{:\,}\Omega\to (1,\infty)$ satisfy . Assume that $ A\colon \overline{\Omega}\times \RR^N\to \RR_+$ is continuous and satisfies the $p(x)$-homogeneity hypothesis . In addition, assume that the function $$\label{e:A-conv}
\xi\mapsto \mathfrak{N}(x,\xi){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}A(x,\xi)^{r/p(x)}
{:\,}{\mathbb{R}}^N\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$$ is strictly convex for every $x\in \Omega$. Then the restriction of the functional $\mathcal{W}_A{:\,}W\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ to the convex cone ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ is [**ray-strictly convex**]{} on ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}$.
Furthermore, if $p(x)\not\equiv r$ in $\Omega$, i.e., if $r = p_{-}\equiv p(x)\equiv p_{+}$ does not hold in $\Omega$, then $\mathcal{W}_A$ is even [**strictly convex**]{} on ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}$.
\[rem-ray-convex\]
[*Proof of*]{} Theorem \[thm-ray-convex\]. Recalling [Definition \[def-ray-convex\]]{}, let us consider any $v_1, v_2\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ and $\theta\in (0,1)$. Let us denote $v = (1-\theta) v_1 + \theta v_2$; hence, $v\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$. We obtain easily $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla (v_i(x)^{1/r})
& = \frac{v_i^{1/r}}{r}\, \frac{\nabla v_i}{v_i}
\quad\mbox{ for }\, i=1,2 \,, \quad\mbox{ and }
\\
\nabla (v(x)^{1/r})
& = \frac{1}{r}\,
\frac{ (1-\theta) \nabla v_1 + \theta\nabla v_2 } { [ (1-\theta) v_1 + \theta v_2 ]^{1 - (1/r)} }
\\
= \frac{v^{1/r}}{r}\,
\frac{ (1-\theta) \nabla v_1 + \theta\nabla v_2 }{v}
& = \frac{v^{1/r}}{r}\,
\left[ (1-\theta)\, \frac{v_1}{v}\cdot \frac{ \nabla v_1 }{v_1}
+ \theta\, \frac{v_2}{v}\cdot \frac{ \nabla v_2 }{v_2}
\right] \,,\end{aligned}$$ with the convex combination of positive coefficients $(1-\theta)\, \frac{v_1}{v}$ and $\theta\, \frac{v_2}{v}$, $$(1-\theta)\, \frac{v_1}{v} + \theta\, \frac{v_2}{v} = 1 \,.$$ Now let $x\in \Omega$ be fixed. Since $\xi\mapsto \mathfrak{N}(x,\xi)$ is strictly convex, by our hypothesis, we may apply the identities from above to conclude that $$\label{e:v<v_1+v_2}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathfrak{N}
\left(x, (1-\theta)\, \frac{v_1}{v}\cdot \frac{ \nabla v_1 }{v_1}
+ \theta\, \frac{v_2}{v}\cdot \frac{ \nabla v_2 }{v_2}
\right)
\\
& \leq (1-\theta)\, \frac{v_1}{v}\cdot
\mathfrak{N}
\left(x, \frac{ \nabla v_1 }{v_1} \right)
+ \theta\, \frac{v_2}{v}\cdot
\mathfrak{N}
\left(x, \frac{ \nabla v_2 }{v_2} \right) \,.
\end{aligned}$$ The equality holds if and only if $$\label{e:v_1=v_2}
\frac{ \nabla v_1(x) }{v_1(x)}
= \frac{ \nabla v_2(x) }{v_2(x)} \,,
\quad\mbox{ which is equivalent to }\quad
\nabla\genfrac{(}{)}{}0{v_2(x)}{v_1(x)} = 0 \,.$$ Notice that the homogeneity conditions and yield $$\label{p-hom:N}
\mathfrak{N}(x,t\xi) = |t|^r\, \mathfrak{N}(x,\xi)
\quad\mbox{ for all }\, t\in {\mathbb{R}}\,,\ \xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^N \,.$$ Consequently, we multiply ineq. by $v / r^r$ to obtain the following equivalent inequality, $$\label{eq:v<v_1+v_2}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathfrak{N}
\left( x,\nabla (v(x)^{1/r})\right)
= \frac{v}{r^r}\cdot
\mathfrak{N}
\left( x, (1-\theta)\, \frac{v_1}{v}\cdot \frac{ \nabla v_1 }{v_1}
+ \theta\, \frac{v_2}{v}\cdot \frac{ \nabla v_2 }{v_2}
\right)
\\
& \leq (1-\theta)\, \frac{v_1}{r^r}\cdot
\mathfrak{N}
\left( x, \frac{ \nabla v_1 }{v_1} \right)
+ \theta\, \frac{v_2}{r^r}\cdot
\mathfrak{N}
\left( x, \frac{ \nabla v_2 }{v_2} \right)
\\
& = (1-\theta)\cdot \mathfrak{N}\left( x, \nabla (v_1(x)^{1/r})\right)
+ \theta\cdot \mathfrak{N}\left( x, \nabla (v_2(x)^{1/r})\right) \,.
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by [Remark \[rem-ray-convex\]]{}, we conclude that ineq. entails $$\label{eq:A:v<v_1+v_2}
\begin{aligned}
& A\left( x, \nabla (v(x)^{1/r})\right)
\leq
(1-\theta)\cdot A\left( x, \nabla (v_1(x)^{1/r})\right)
+ \theta\cdot A\left( x, \nabla (v_2(x)^{1/r})\right) \,.
\end{aligned}$$ We multiply the last inequality, , by $r/p(x)$, then integrate the product over $\Omega$ to derive the convexity of the restriction of the functional $\mathcal{W}_A$ to the convex cone ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}\subset W$.
To derive that $\mathcal{W}_A$ is even ray-strictly convex on ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}$, let us consider any pair $v_1, v_2\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ with $v_1\not\equiv v_2$ in $\Omega$. We observe that the equality in the convexity inequality forces both conditions, and $p(x)/r = 1$, to hold simultaneously at almost every point $x\in \Omega$. These conditions are then equivalent with $v_2/v_1\equiv \mathrm{const}$ ($\neq 1$) in $\Omega$ and $p(x)\equiv r$ in $\Omega$. Thus, if $p(x)\not\equiv r$ in $\Omega$, then $\mathcal{W}_A$ is even strictly convex on ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our second theorem is concerned with the extension of the [D[í]{}az]{} and [Saa]{} [*inequality*]{} as formulated in ineq. . Here, we need to assume a more specific form of the function $ A\colon \overline{\Omega}\times \RR^N\to \RR_+ .$ Besides the homogeneity hypothesis , we assume that $A$ and its partial gradient $ \partial_\xi A\equiv
\left( \frac{\partial A}{\partial\xi_i} \right)_{i=1}^N$ with respect to $\xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^N$ satisfy the following structural hypothesis, upon the substitution $ \mathbf{a}(x,\xi) \eqdef \frac{1}{p(x)}\, \partial_\xi A(x,\xi)$ with $ a_i = \frac{1}{p(x)}\, \frac{\partial A}{\partial\xi_i} :$
Owing to the homogeneity hypothesis , it suffices to assume that the inequalities in and hold for all $\xi\in {\mathbb{S}}^{N-1}$ only.
\[thm-Diaz-Saa\] (The [D[í]{}az]{} and [Saa]{} inequality.)$\;$ Let $r\in [1,\infty)$ and $p{:\,}\Omega\to (1,\infty)$ satisfy . Assume that $ A\colon \overline{\Omega}\times \RR^N\to \RR_+$ satisfies [Hypothesis ([**A**]{})]{} and, in addition, the function $ \xi\mapsto \mathfrak{N}(x,\xi) = A(x,\xi)^{r/p(x)}
\colon \RR^N\to \RR_+$ is strictly convex for every $x\in \Omega$. Then the following inequality $$\label{in_A:Diaz-Saa}
\int_{\Omega}
\left(
{}- \frac{ \mathrm{div}\, \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla w_1(x)) }{ w_1(x)^{r-1} }
+ \frac{ \mathrm{div}\, \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla w_2(x)) }{ w_2(x)^{r-1} }
\right)
(w_1^r - w_2^r) \,\mathrm{d}x\geq 0$$ holds (in the sense of distributions) for all pairs $w_1, w_2\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$, such that $w_1 > 0$, $w_2 > 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$ and both $w_1/w_2$, $w_2/w_1\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$. Moreover, if the equality ($=$) in occurs, then we have the following two statements:
- $\;$ $w_2/w_1\equiv \mathrm{const} > 0$ in $\Omega$.
- $\;$ If also $p(x)\not\equiv r$ in $\Omega$, then even $w_1\equiv w_2$ holds in $\Omega$.
\[rem-Diaz-Saa\]
[*Proof of*]{} Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\]. Recalling [Definition \[def-ray-convex\]]{}, let us consider any pair $w_1, w_2\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$, such that $w_1 > 0$, $w_2 > 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$ and both $w_1/w_2$, $w_2/w_1\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$. Consequently, there is a number $\delta\in (0,1)$, sufficiently small, such that $$v{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}(1-\theta) w_1^r + \theta w_2^r\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}\quad\mbox{ and }\quad
v^{1/r}\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)
\;\mbox{ for all }\, \theta\in (-\delta, 1+\delta) \,.$$ The function $$\theta\mapsto \Phi(\theta){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\mathcal{W}(v)
= \mathcal{W}_A\left( (1-\theta) w_1^r + \theta w_2^r\right)
{:\,}(-\delta, 1+\delta)\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$$ is convex and differentiable with the derivative $$\label{e:dW_A/d_theta}
\Phi'(\theta) =
\int_{\Omega} \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla (v(x)^{1/r}))\cdot
\nabla \genfrac{(}{)}{}0{ w_2^r - w_1^r }{ v^{ 1 - \frac{1}{r} } }
\,\mathrm{d}x \,.$$ To provide a rigorous proof of the convexity claim, one has to consider two arbitrary points $\theta_1, \theta_2\in {\mathbb{R}}$, such that $-\delta < \theta_1 < \theta_2 < 1+\delta$, and all their convex combinations $\theta = (1-t)\theta_1 + t\theta_2\in (-\delta, 1+\delta)$ with $t\in [0,1]$. For $0\leq \theta_1 < \theta_2\leq 1$ the convexity is known, by Theorem \[thm-ray-convex\]. However, if at least one of the following inequalities holds, $-\delta < \theta_1 < 0$ and/or $1 < \theta_2 < 1+\delta$, the convexity inequality $ \Phi(\theta)\leq (1-t)\Phi(\theta_1) + t\Phi(\theta_2)$ still remains to be verified. Of course, the number $\delta > 0$ needs to be taken small enough. We leave this easy exercise to the reader.
The monotonicity of the derivative $ \theta\mapsto \Phi'(\theta)\colon (-\delta, 1+\delta)\to \RR$ yields $\Phi'(0)\leq \Phi'(1)$, which is equivalent with ineq. , thanks to $v = w_1^r$ if $\theta = 0$, and $v = w_2^r$ if $\theta = 1$. It is now easy to see that ineq. is a distributional interpretation of after integration by parts.
Finally, let us assume that the equality ($=$) in is valid. This forces $\Phi'(0) = \Phi'(1)$ above; hence, $\Phi'(\theta) = \Phi'(0)$ for all $\theta\in [0,1]$, by the monotonicity of $\Phi'{:\,}[0,1]\to {\mathbb{R}}$. It follows that $\Phi{:\,}[0,1]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ must be linear, i.e., $\Phi(\theta) = (1-\theta) \Phi(0) + \theta \Phi(1)\in {\mathbb{R}}$ for all $\theta\in [0,1]$. Recalling our definition of $\Phi$ above and Theorem \[thm-ray-convex\], we conclude that $w_2/w_1\equiv \mathrm{const} > 0$ in $\Omega$. This proves statement [(a)]{}.
To verify statement [(b)]{}, suppose that the constant above $w_2/w_1\equiv \mathrm{const} \neq 1$ in $\Omega$. Then the equality in both inequalities, and , is possible only if $p(x)\equiv r$ in $\Omega$. Statement [(b)]{} follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our third (and last) theorem is a [*weak comparison principle*]{} for positive solutions $u\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ of the following (uniformly) [*“subhomogeneous”*]{} Dirichlet boundary value problem: $$\label{e:BVP}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{}- \mathrm{div}\, \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla u(x))
& = f(x)\, u(x)^{r-1}
\quad\mbox{ for }\, x\in \Omega \,;\qquad
u > 0 \;\mbox{ a.e. in }\, \Omega \,;
\\
u&= 0 \quad\mbox{ for }\, x\in \partial\Omega \,.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ Here, $f\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ is a given nonnegative function, $f\geq 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$.
\[thm-weak\_comp\] (Weak comparison principle.)$\;$ Let all $r\in [1,\infty)$, $p{:\,}\Omega\to (1,\infty)$, $ A\colon \overline{\Omega}\times \RR^N\to \RR_+ ,$ and the function $ \xi\mapsto \mathfrak{N}(x,\xi) = A(x,\xi)^{r/p(x)}
\colon \RR^N\to \RR_+$ satisfy the same hypotheses as in [Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\]]{} above. In addition, assume that $p(x)\not\equiv r$ in $\Omega$, i.e., $p(x) > r$ on a subset of $\Omega$ with positive Lebesgue measure.
Finally, let $u_i\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ be a positive solution of the Dirichlet boundary value problem (in the sense of distributions) with $f = f_i\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ for $i=1,2$, respectively, where $0\leq f_1\leq f_2$ a.e. in $\Omega$. If $u_1/u_2$, $u_2/u_1\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ then we have also $u_1\leq u_2$ a.e. in $\Omega$.
\[rem-weak\_comp\]
It will be obvious from our proof of Theorem \[thm-weak\_comp\] below that the following simple generalization of this theorem to weak sub- and supersolutions is a direct consequence of the proof. (We leave the details concerning only the last two inequalities of the proof to an interested reader.)
\[thm-sub-super\] (Weak comparison principle for sub- and supersolutions.)$\;$ Let all $r\in [1,\infty)$, $p{:\,}\Omega\to (1,\infty)$, $ A\colon \overline{\Omega}\times \RR^N\to \RR_+ ,$ and the function $ \xi\mapsto \mathfrak{N}(x,\xi) = A(x,\xi)^{r/p(x)}
\colon \RR^N\to \RR_+$ satisfy the same hypotheses as in [Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\]]{} above. In addition, assume that $p(x)\not\equiv r$ in $\Omega$, i.e., $p(x) > r$ on a subset of $\Omega$ with positive Lebesgue measure.
Finally, let $u_i\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ ($i=1,2$) be a pair of positive functions satisfying $u_1/u_2$, $u_2/u_1\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ together with the following inequalities (in the sense of distributions) with $f_i\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ for $i=1,2$, respectively, where $0\leq f_1\leq f_2$ a.e. in $\Omega$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:BVP_1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{}- \mathrm{div}\, \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla u_1(x))
& \leq f_1(x)\, u_1(x)^{r-1}
\quad\mbox{ for }\, x\in \Omega \,;\quad
u_1 > 0 \;\mbox{ a.e. in }\, \Omega \,;
\\
u_1&= 0 \quad\mbox{ for }\, x\in \partial\Omega \,.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\\
\label{e:BVP_2}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{}- \mathrm{div}\, \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla u_2(x))
& \geq f_2(x)\, u_2(x)^{r-1}
\quad\mbox{ for }\, x\in \Omega \,;\quad
u_2 > 0 \;\mbox{ a.e. in }\, \Omega \,;
\\
u_2&= 0 \quad\mbox{ for }\, x\in \partial\Omega \,.
\end{aligned}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Then also $u_1\leq u_2$ a.e. in $\Omega$ holds.
We quote a well-known fact from the theory of distributions that any nonnegative distribution in $\mathcal{D}'(\Omega)$ may be identified with a nonnegative Radon measure on $\Omega$. This result shows that the left-hand side of both inequalities and must be a Radon measure on $\Omega$.
[*Proof of*]{} Theorem \[thm-weak\_comp\]. We proceed in analogy with the proof of [Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\]]{} above. We set $w_i = u_i$; $i=1,2$, and define $$v\equiv v(\theta){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}u_2^r + \theta (u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+}
\;\mbox{ for all }\, \theta\in (-\delta, 1+\delta) \,,$$ where $\delta\in (0,1)$ is a sufficiently small number, such that $v\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ for every $\theta\in (-\delta, 1+\delta)$. As usual, the symbol $\xi^{+} = \max\{ \xi, 0\}\geq 0$ stands for the positive part of a real number $\xi\in {\mathbb{R}}$. Hence, we have also $v^{1/r}\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$. Notice that $$v = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
u_2^r
&\quad\mbox{ if }\, u_1\leq u_2 \,,
\\
u_2^r + \theta (u_1^r - u_2^r)
&\quad\mbox{ if }\, u_1 > u_2 \,.
\end{array}
\right.$$ On the contrary to our claim $u_1\leq u_2$ a.e. in $\Omega$, let us assume that $(u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+} > 0$ holds on a subset $ \Omega_{+} = \{ x\in \Omega\colon u_1(x) > u_2(x) \}\subset \Omega$ of positive Lebesgue measure.
By Theorem \[thm-ray-convex\], thanks to our hypothesis $p(x)\not\equiv r$ in $\Omega$, the function $$\theta\mapsto \Phi(\theta){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\mathcal{W}(v)
= \mathcal{W}_A\left( u_2^r + \theta (u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+} \right)
{:\,}(-\delta, 1+\delta)\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$$ is strictly convex and differentiable with the derivative $$\label{eq:dW_A/d_theta}
\Phi'(\theta) =
\int_{\Omega} \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla (v(x)^{1/r}))\cdot \nabla
\genfrac{(}{)}{}0{ (u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+} }{ v^{ 1 - \frac{1}{r} } }
\,\mathrm{d}x \,.$$ The strict convexity of $ \Phi\colon (-\delta, 1+\delta)\to \RR$ and the monotonicity of its derivative $\Phi'$ yield $\Phi'(0) < \Phi'(1)$, which is equivalent with $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{\Omega} \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla u_2(x))\cdot \nabla
\genfrac{(}{)}{}0{ (u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+} }{ u_2^{r-1} }
\,\mathrm{d}x
<
\\
& \int_{\Omega}
\mathbf{a}
\left( x, \nabla\left[ ( u_2^r + (u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+} )^{1/r} \right]
\right)
\cdot \nabla
\genfrac{(}{)}{}0{ (u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+} } { ( u_2^r + (u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+} )^{ 1 - \frac{1}{r} } }
\,\mathrm{d}x \,.
\end{aligned}$$ By [Remark \[rem-Diaz-Saa\]]{}, the last inequality has the following distributional interpretation, $$\label{ineq:Phi'(0,1)}
\begin{aligned}
& {}
- \int_{\Omega}
\frac{ \mathrm{div}\; \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla u_2(x)) }{ u_2(x)^{r-1} }
\, (u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+} \,\mathrm{d}x
<
\\
& {}
- \int_{\Omega}
\frac{ \mathrm{div}\;
\mathbf{a}
\left( x, \nabla\left[ ( u_2^r + (u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+} )^{1/r} \right]
\right)
}{ ( u_2^r + (u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+} )^{ 1 - \frac{1}{r} } }
\, (u_1^r - u_2^r)^{+} \,\mathrm{d}x \,.
\end{aligned}$$ As it is well-known from the theory of Sobolev spaces of type $W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$, both integrands above vanish almost everywhere in the Lebesgue measurable set $ \Omega_{-} = \{ x\in \Omega\colon
u_1(x)\leq \hfil\break u_2(x) \}\subset \Omega .$ Consequently, ineq. reads $$\label{in_+:Phi'(0,1)}
\int_{\Omega_{+}}
\left(
{}- \frac{ \mathrm{div}\, \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla u_2(x)) }{ u_2(x)^{r-1} }
+ \frac{ \mathrm{div}\, \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla u_1(x)) }{ u_1(x)^{r-1} }
\right)
(u_1^r - u_2^r) \,\mathrm{d}x < 0 \,.$$ By our hypotheses, we have $${}- \frac{ \mathrm{div}\, \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla u_2(x)) }{ u_2(x)^{r-1} }
+ \frac{ \mathrm{div}\, \mathbf{a}(x, \nabla u_1(x)) }{ u_1(x)^{r-1} }
= f_2(x) - f_1(x)\geq 0 \quad\mbox{ for a.e. }\, x\in \Omega \,.$$ Since also $u_1^r - u_2^r > 0$ a.e. in $\Omega_{+}$, ineq. leads to a contradiction.
Thus, we have proved that the set $\Omega_{+}$ must have Lebesgue measure equal to zero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications to Differential Equations {#s:Appl}
======================================
In this section we give two applications of Theorems \[thm-ray-convex\] and \[thm-Diaz-Saa\]. Throughout this section we impose the following hypotheses on $\Omega$ and $p(x)$:
It is clear that for $N\geq 2$, Hypothesis [($\boldsymbol{\Omega}$)]{} is satisfied if, for instance, $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^N$ is a bounded domain with $C^2$ boundary. We write $\overline{\Omega} = \Omega\cup \partial\Omega$ for the closure of $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$.
Our first application is the following nonlinear Dirichlet boundary value problem taken from [L. Diening]{}, [P. Harjulehto]{}, [P. Hästö]{}, and [M. Ržička]{} [@DienHHR Eq. (13.3.2), p. 418], $$\label{e:problem_1}
\left\{
\begin{alignedat}{2}
{}- \Delta_{p(x)} u
& {}= f(x,u)
&& \quad\mbox{ in }\, \Omega \,;
\\
u & {}= 0
&& \quad\mbox{ on }\, \partial\Omega \,,
\quad u > 0 \mbox{ in }\, \Omega \,.
\end{alignedat}
\right.$$
We impose the following hypotheses on the function $f$:
- $\;$ $f{:\,}\overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is a nonnegative continuous function such that $f(x,0) = 0$ for all $x\in \Omega$.
- $\;$ The function $ s\,\longmapsto\, f(x,s) / s^{r-1} \colon (0,\infty)\to \RR_+$ is strictly monotone decreasing for every $x\in \Omega$.
- $\;$ The following two limits are uniform with respect to $x\in \Omega$: $$\frac{ f(x,s) }{ s^{r-1} } \,\longrightarrow\, +\infty
\quad\mbox{ as }\, s\to 0+\,
\quad\mbox{ and }\quad
\frac{ f(x,s) }{ s^{r-1} } \,\longrightarrow\, 0
\quad\mbox{ as }\, s\to +\infty \,.$$ Equivalently, we require $$\begin{alignedat}{2}
& \frac{1}{ s^{r-1} }\cdot\; \inf_{x\in \Omega} f(x,s)
\,\longrightarrow\, +\infty
&&\quad\mbox{ as }\, s\to 0+\,
\quad\mbox{ and }\quad
\\
& \frac{1}{ s^{r-1} }\cdot\; \sup_{x\in \Omega} f(x,s)
\,\longrightarrow\, 0
&&\quad\mbox{ as }\, s\to +\infty \,.
\end{alignedat}$$
A typical example of the function $f$ satisfying all [Hypotheses]{} [**(f1)**]{} – [**(f3)**]{}, with $f(x,s) = h(x)\, s^{q(x)-1}$ for $x\in \overline{\Omega}$ and $s\in {\mathbb{R}}_+$, is given below in Example \[exam-appl\_1\]. Here, $h\in C(\overline{\Omega})$ is a positive function and $q\in C(\overline{\Omega})$ satisfies $ 1\leq q(x)\leq q_{+}\eqdef \sup_{\Omega} q(x) < r = p_-$ for every $x\in \overline{\Omega}$. In fact, we may choose any number $r\in (q_+,p_-]$ while requiring $q_+ < p_-$. As a consequence, in this example we must have $1\leq q_+ < r\leq p_-$ whence $r > 1$.
We remark that Hypothesis [**(f3)**]{} implies the following asymptotic behavior of the function $s\mapsto f(x,s){:\,}(0,\infty)\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ as $s\to 0+$: Given any ${\varepsilon}> 0$, there is a constant $s_{{\varepsilon}}\in (0,\infty)$ such that $$\label{lim:s=0}
f(x,s)\geq \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\, s^{r-1}
\quad\mbox{ holds for all }\,
(x,s)\in \overline{\Omega}\times [0,s_{{\varepsilon}}] \,.$$ In contrast, Hypotheses [**(f1)**]{} and [**(f3)**]{} limit the asymptotic behavior of $f(x,\,\cdot\,)$ as $s\to +\infty$ as follows: Given any ${\varepsilon}> 0$, there is a constant $C_{{\varepsilon}}\in (0,\infty)$ such that $$\label{lim:s=infty}
0\leq f(x,s)\leq {\varepsilon}\, s^{r-1} + C_{{\varepsilon}}
\quad\mbox{ holds for all }\,
(x,s)\in \overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+ \,.$$ We define the notion of a [*nonnegative*]{} weak solution to problem as follows:
\[def-weak\_sol\]
Problem has already been treated in [X.-L. Fan]{} and [Q.-H. Zhang]{} [@Fan-Zhang-1] where the existence of a weak solution in $W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega)$ is proved; see also [L. Diening]{}, [P. Harjulehto]{}, [P. Hästö]{}, and [M. Ržička]{} [@DienHHR Theorem 13.3.3, p. 418]. Of course, the trivial solution $u\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$ is a nonnegative weak solution to problem .
The following theorem describes the solvability of the boundary value problem for positive weak solutions.
\[thm-problem\_1\] Under the [Hypotheses]{} [($\boldsymbol{\Omega}$)]{}, [($\mathbf{p}$)]{}, and [**(f1)**]{} – [**(f3)**]{}, problem possesses a unique nonnegative and nontrivial weak solution $u\in W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$. This solution belongs to the class $C^{1,\beta}(\overline{\Omega})$, for some $\beta\in (0, \alpha)$, and satisfies also the Hopf maximum principle, $$\label{Hopf:problem_1}
u(x) > 0 \;\mbox{ for all }\, x\in \Omega
\quad\mbox{ and }\quad
\frac{\partial u}{\partial\boldsymbol{\nu}} (x) < 0
\;\mbox{ for all }\, x\in \partial\Omega \,.$$ Of course, $u = 0$ on the boundary $\partial\Omega$. Hence, $u$ is also a positive weak solution.
As usual, the symbol $\boldsymbol{\nu}(x)\in {\mathbb{R}}^N$ stands for the [*unit outward normal*]{} to the boundary $\partial\Omega$ at the point $x\in \partial\Omega$.
[[*Proof.* ]{}]{}We extend the domain of $f$ to all of $\overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}$ by setting $f(x,s) = 0$ for $(x,s)\in \overline{\Omega}\times (-\infty,0)$. We define the potential $F$ for the function $f$ as follows: $$\label{e:F'=f-probl_1}
F(x,u){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\int_0^u f(x,s) \,\mathrm{d}s =
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\int_0^u f(x,s) \,\mathrm{d}s &\quad\mbox{ if }\, 0\leq u < \infty \,;
\\
0 &\quad\mbox{ if }\, -\infty < u < 0 \,,
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $(x,u)\in \overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}$. Hence, $ f(x,s) = \frac{\partial F}{\partial u} (x,s)$ for $(x,s)\in \overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}$. Clearly, for each fixed $x\in \overline{\Omega}$, $F(x,\,\cdot\,){:\,}{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is a monotone increasing function, owing to $ \frac{\partial F}{\partial u} (x,s) = f(x,s)\geq 0 \,.$ Next, we obtain a nonnegative weak solution to problem from a global minimizer of the energy functional $\mathcal{E}{:\,}W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ defined by $$\label{def:E(v)}
\mathcal{E}(u)\equiv \mathcal{E}_{p(x)}(u){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\int_{\Omega} \frac{1}{p(x)}\, |\nabla u(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{\Omega} F(x,u(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x$$ for every function $u\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$. This functional is well-defined, by the Sobolev embedding $W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega) \hookrightarrow L^r(\Omega)$, which is even compact, and the estimate in . The reader is referred to the monograph by [L. Diening]{}, [P. Harjulehto]{}, [P. Hästö]{}, and [M. Ržička]{} [@DienHHR [§]{}8.3 and [§]{}8.4] for Sobolev embeddings and their compactness. Furthermore, $\mathcal{E}{:\,}W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is coercive thanks to ineq. and $r\leq p_{-}$, i.e., $$\label{e:E-coerce}
\| u\|_{ W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega) }{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\|\nabla u\|_{ L^{p(x)}(\Omega) } \,\longrightarrow\, +\infty
\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \mathcal{E}(u)\to +\infty \,.$$ It is also weakly lower semicontinuous, by [@DienHHR [§]{}13.2, pp. 412–417]. Thus, by a basic result from the calculus of variations ([M. Struwe]{} [@Struwe Theorem 1.2, p. 4]), $\mathcal{E}$ possesses a global minimizer $u_0\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$. Since also $|u_0|\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ with the Sobolev gradient $\nabla |u_0| = \nabla u_0$ almost everywhere in the set $\Omega^{+} = \{ x\in \Omega{:\,}u_0(x)\geq 0\}$, and $\nabla |u_0| = - \nabla u_0$ almost everywhere in $\Omega^{-} = \{ x\in \Omega{:\,}u_0(x)\leq 0\}$, we have $| \nabla |u_0| | = |\nabla u_0|$ a.e. in $\Omega = \Omega^{+}\cup \Omega^{-}$. From this equality, combined with $F(x,u) > 0$ for $u>0$ and $F(x,u) = 0$ for $u\leq 0$, we deduce that $ \mathcal{E}(|u_0|)\leq \mathcal{E}(u_0)$ which shows that also $|u_0|$ is a a global minimizer for $\mathcal{E}$ on $W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$. This means that $ \mathcal{E}(u_0)\leq \mathcal{E}(|u_0|)\leq \mathcal{E}(u_0)$ which forces $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}(u_0) =
& \int_{\Omega} \frac{1}{p(x)}\, |\nabla u_0(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{\Omega} F(x,u_0(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
= \mathcal{E}(|u_0|) =
& \int_{\Omega} \frac{1}{p(x)}\,
\bigl\vert \nabla |u_0(x)| \bigr\vert^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{\Omega} F(x, |u_0(x)| ) \,\mathrm{d}x \,.\end{aligned}$$ The arguments above yield $$\int_{\Omega^{-}} F(x, |u_0(x)| ) \,\mathrm{d}x
= \int_{\Omega^{-}} F(x,u_0(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x = 0 \,.$$ Hence, we get $u_0(x) = 0$ for a.e. $x\in \Omega^{-}$. We have proved that $u_0\geq 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$.
We now exclude the possibility that $u_0\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$, i.e., $u_0 = 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$. Since $\mathcal{E}(0) = 0$, we only need to find a function $u_1\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ such that $\mathcal{E}(u_1) < 0$. Then $\mathcal{E}(u_0)\leq \mathcal{E}(u_1) < 0$ prevents the case $u_0\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$ with $\mathcal{E}(u_0) = 0$. To this end, choose $\phi\in C^1_{\mathrm{c}}(\Omega)$ to be an arbitrary nonnegative $C^1$-function with compact support in $\Omega$, $\phi\not\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$. For $0 < t\leq 1$ we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:E-zero}
\mathcal{E}(t\phi)
& = \int_{\Omega} \frac{ t^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
|\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{\Omega} F(x, t\phi(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
\nonumber
& \leq \frac{ t^{p_{-}} }{p_{-}}
\int_{\Omega}
|\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{\Omega} F(x, t\phi(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x \,.\end{aligned}$$ In order to estimate the last integral, from ineq. we deduce that, given any ${\varepsilon}> 0$, there is a constant $t_{{\varepsilon}}\in (0,1]$ such that $$\label{lim_F:s=0}
F(x, t\phi(x))\geq \frac{1}{r{\varepsilon}}\, [ t\, \phi(x)]^r
\quad\mbox{ holds for all }\,
(x,t)\in \overline{\Omega}\times [0,t_{{\varepsilon}}] \,.$$ We apply this estimate to ineq. and recall that $1 < r\leq p_{-}$, thus arriving at $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}(t\phi)
& \leq \frac{t^r}{r}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
- \frac{t^r}{r{\varepsilon}}
\int_{\Omega} \phi(x)^r \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
& = {}- \frac{t^r}{r}
\left(
\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} \int_{\Omega} \phi(x)^r \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{\Omega} |\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\right)\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\in [0,t_{{\varepsilon}}]$. Choosing ${\varepsilon}> 0$ small enough, we conclude that $\mathcal{E}(t\phi) < 0$ whenever $0 < t\leq t_{{\varepsilon}}$. In addition to $u_0\geq 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$, we have proved also $u_0\not\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$.
Since $u_0\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ is a global minimizer for the functional $\mathcal{E}{:\,}W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)\to {\mathbb{R}}$, it is also a critical point for $\mathcal{E}$ and, hence, a nonnegative weak solution to problem provided $u_0\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$.
Now let $u\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ be any nonnegative critical point for $\mathcal{E}$, $u\not\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$. This means that $u$ is a weak solution to problem in the sense of [X. Fan]{} and [D. Zhao]{} [@Fan-Zhao Def. 4.1, p. 311]. We may apply their regularity result [@Fan-Zhao Theorem 4.1, p. 312] (and its proof) to conclude that $u\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$. This means that $u$ is a nonnegative weak solution to problem also in the sense of our Definition \[def-weak\_sol\] above. Moreover, we get $u\in C^{0,\beta'}(\Omega)$ for some $\beta'\in (0, \alpha)$, by [@Fan-Zhao Theorem 4.2, p. 315]. Furthermore, thanks to our Hypothesis [($\mathbf{p}$)]{} on $p$, i.e., $p\in C^{0, \alpha_1}(\overline{\Omega})$ for some $\alpha_1\in (0,1)$, we may apply a stronger regularity result due to [X.-L. Fan]{} [@Fan-JDE Theorem 1.2, p. 400] to obtain $u\in C^{1,\beta}(\overline{\Omega})$ for some $\beta\in (0, \alpha)$. Finally, we apply the strong maximum principle and the Hopf boundary point lemma, respectively, from [Q. Zhang]{} [@Zhang Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, p. 26] to conclude that both inequalities claimed in are valid.
Clearly, the global minimizer $u_0\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ for the functional $\mathcal{E}$ obtained above enjoys analogous regularity and positivity properties as does $u$. As a simple consequence, both ratios $u / u_0$ and $u_0 / u$ are continuous positive functions over the domain $\Omega$ and can be extended to positive continuous functions over the closure $\overline{\Omega}$, by l’Hospital’s rule, $$\label{e:l'Hospital}
\lim_{x\to x_0} \frac{u(x)}{u_0(x)}
= \lim_{t\to 0+}
\frac{ u \left( x_0 - t \boldsymbol{\nu} (x_0) \right) } { u_0\left( x_0 - t \boldsymbol{\nu} (x_0) \right) }
= \frac{\partial u }{\partial\boldsymbol{\nu}} (x_0) \bigg\slash
\frac{\partial u_0}{\partial\boldsymbol{\nu}} (x_0)
> 0 \,,$$ where $x_0\in \partial\Omega$ is an arbitrary boundary point and $x\in \Omega$ ranges inside $\Omega$ near $x_0$, e.g., $x = x_0 - t \boldsymbol{\nu} (x_0)$ with $t > 0$ small enough. The last ratio, $ x_0\mapsto
\frac{\partial u }{\partial\boldsymbol{\nu}} (x_0) \Big\slash
\frac{\partial u_0}{\partial\boldsymbol{\nu}} (x_0) \,,$ being positive and continuous over the compact boundary $\partial\Omega$, we conclude that both ratios, $u / u_0$ and $u_0 / u$, can be extended to positive continuous functions over the closure $\overline{\Omega}$. Consequently, both ratios are bounded. We apply our Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\] (the [D[í]{}az]{} and [Saa]{} inequality) to arrive at the uniqueness of a nonnegative and nontrivial weak solution $u\in W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega)\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ to problem , i.e., $u = u_0$, as follows. Setting $w_1 = u$ and $w_2 = u_0$ in Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\], the left-hand side of ineq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
& \int_{\Omega}
\left(
\frac{ {}- \Delta_{p(x)} u }{ u (x)^{r-1} }
- \frac{ {}- \Delta_{p(x)} u_0 }{ u_0(x)^{r-1} }
\right)
(u(x)^r - u_0(x)^r) \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
\label{in_A:Diaz-Saa:u,u_0}
=
& \int_{\Omega}
\left(
\frac{ f(x, u (x)) }{ u (x)^{r-1} }
- \frac{ f(x, u_0(x)) }{ u_0(x)^{r-1} }
\right)
(u(x)^r - u_0(x)^r) \,\mathrm{d}x\leq 0 \,,\end{aligned}$$ since the function $ s\mapsto f(x,s) / s^{r-1} \colon (0,\infty)\to \RR_+$ is strictly monotone decreasing for every $x\in \Omega$, by Hypothesis [**(f2)**]{}. However, by ineq. , precisely the opposite inequality “$\geq$” must be valid. We conclude that the equality in above must hold. That is possible only if $u(x) = u_0(x)$ at almost every point $x\in \Omega$, by Hypothesis [**(f2)**]{}, i.e., $u\equiv u_0$ in $\Omega$, by the regularity derived above.
Our proof of Theorem \[thm-problem\_1\] is now complete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[rem-problem\_1\]
\[exam-appl\_1\]
\[rem-problem\_1-rem\]
Our second example is the following simple generalization of problem : $$\label{e:problem_2}
\left\{
\begin{alignedat}{2}
{}- \Delta_{p(x)} u + g(x,u)
& {}= f(x,u)
&& \quad\mbox{ in }\, \Omega \,;
\\
u & {}= 0
&& \quad\mbox{ on }\, \partial\Omega \,,
\quad u > 0 \mbox{ in }\, \Omega \,.
\end{alignedat}
\right.$$ Here, we have a new monotone nonlinear operator on the left-hand side, ${}- \Delta_{p(x)} u + g(x,u)$, whose homogeneity properties with respect to the function $u$ are similar to those of $ {}- \Delta_{p(x)} u =
{}- \mathrm{div} \left( |\nabla u|^{p(x)-2} \nabla u\right) .$ We recall that $p{:\,}\overline{\Omega}\to (1,\infty)$ is a continuous function, such that it satisfies Hypothesis ($\mathbf{p}$) together with inequalities , where $r\in {\mathbb{R}}$ is a given constant, $1 < r\leq p_{-}$. The function $f{:\,}\overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is assumed to satisfy all Hypotheses [**(f1)**]{} – [**(f3)**]{}.
We impose the following hypotheses on the function $g$:
- $\;$ $g{:\,}\overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is a nonnegative continuous function such that $g(x,0) = 0$ for all $x\in \Omega$ and $g(x,s) > 0$ for all $(x,s)\in \Omega\times (0,\infty)$.
- $\;$ The function $ s\,\longmapsto\, g(x,s) / s^{r-1} \colon (0,\infty)\to \RR_+$ is monotone increasing for every $x\in \Omega$, but [*not*]{} necessarily [*strictly*]{} monotone increasing.
- $\;$ The following limit is uniform with respect to $x\in \Omega$: $$\limsup_{s\to +\infty}
\frac{ g(x,s) }{ s^{m(x)-1} } \leq C\equiv \mathrm{const} < \infty
\quad\mbox{ for all }\, x\in \Omega \,,$$ where $m{:\,}\overline{\Omega}\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is some suitable continuous function that satisfies $1 < m(x) < p^{\ast}(x)$, where $$p^{\ast}(x){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\left\{
\begin{alignedat}{2}
& \genfrac{}{}{}1{N p(x)}{N - p(x)} \quad &&\mbox{ if }\; p(x) < N \,;
\\
& +\infty \quad &&\mbox{ if }\; p(x)\geq N \,.
\end{alignedat}
\right.$$
The authors in [@DienHHR [§]{}8.3, pp. 265–272] call $p^{\ast}(x)\in [1, +\infty]$ the [*Sobolev conjugate exponent*]{} and prove the Sobolev embedding $ W_0^{1,p(\cdot)}(\Omega) \hookrightarrow L^{p^{\ast}(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ for $ p_{+} = \sup_{\Omega} p(x)\break
< N$ ([@DienHHR [§]{}8.3, Theorem 8.3.1, p. 265]) under the additional regularity hypothesis on $p(x)$ requiring $p\in \mathcal{P}^{\log}(\Omega)$, cf.[@DienHHR [§]{}4.1, Def. 4.1.4, p. 101], i.e., $1/p(x)$ is globally log-Hölder-continuous in $\Omega$. This additional hypothesis (log-Hölder continuity) is always satisfied in our situation, provided $p{:\,}\overline{\Omega}\to (1,\infty)$ is a continuous function that obeys our hypotheses above, i.e., $p$ satisfies Hypothesis ($\mathbf{p}$) together with inequalities , where we now assume also $p_{+} < N$, in addition to $1 < r\leq p_{-}$.
It is worth of noticing that Hypotheses [**(g1)**]{} and [**(g2)**]{} imply
- $\;$ Also $ s\,\longmapsto\, g(x,s)\colon \RR_+\to \RR_+$ is a [*strictly*]{} monotone increasing function for every $x\in \Omega$.
Moreover, Hypotheses [**(g1)**]{} and [**(g2)**]{} combined entail $$\label{g-lim:s=0}
g(x,s)\leq C_0\, s^{r-1}
\quad\mbox{ holds for all }\,
(x,s)\in \overline{\Omega}\times [0,s_0] \,.$$ Here, $s_0\in [1,\infty)$ is an arbitrary number and $$C_0 = C_0(s_0) = \frac{ \sup_{x\in \Omega} g(x,s_0) }{s_0^{r-1}}
< \infty$$ is a positive constant depending solely on $s_0$.
We remark that Hypotheses [**(g1)**]{} and [**(g3)**]{} limit the asymptotic behavior of $g(x,\,\cdot\,)$ as $s\to +\infty$ as follows: Given any ${\varepsilon}> 0$, there is a constant $C_{{\varepsilon}}'\in (0,\infty)$ such that $$\label{lim:s=infty2}
0\leq g(x,s)\leq (C+{\varepsilon})\, s^{m(x)-1} + C_{{\varepsilon}}'
\quad\mbox{ holds for all }\,
(x,s)\in \overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+ \,.$$ In analogy with our Definition \[def-weak\_sol\] adapted to problem , we define the notion of a [*nonnegative*]{} weak solution to problem as follows:
\[def-weak\_sol\_2\]
Problem fits into a more general class of variational problems treated in [X. Fan]{} and [D. Zhao]{} [@Fan-Zhao Eq. 4.1, p. 310]. However, the authors are interested only in some standard regularity properties of weak solutions, like (local and global) boundedness and Hölder continuity ([@Fan-Zhao Sect. 4, pp. 310–317]).
We now generalize the existence and uniqueness result in Theorem \[thm-problem\_1\] to the boundary value problem for positive weak solutions.
\[thm-problem\_2\] Under the [Hypotheses]{} [($\boldsymbol{\Omega}$)]{}, [($\mathbf{p}$)]{}, [**(f1)**]{} – [**(f3)**]{}, and [**(g1)**]{} – [**(g3)**]{}, problem possesses a unique nonnegative and nontrivial weak solution $u\in W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$. This solution belongs to the class $C^{1,\beta}(\overline{\Omega})$, for some $\beta\in (0, \alpha)$, and satisfies also the Hopf maximum principle , $$ u(x) > 0 \;\mbox{ for all }\, x\in \Omega
\quad\mbox{ and }\quad
\frac{\partial u}{\partial\boldsymbol{\nu}} (x) < 0
\;\mbox{ for all }\, x\in \partial\Omega \,.$$ Of course, $u = 0$ on the boundary $\partial\Omega$. Hence, $u$ is also a positive weak solution.
[[*Proof.* ]{}]{}First, let us recall that the potential $F$ for the function $f$ has been defined in eq. . We define the potential $G$ for the function $g$ in a similar way: First, we extend the domain of $g$ to all of $\overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}$ by setting $g(x,s) = 0$ for $(x,s)\in \overline{\Omega}\times (-\infty,0)$. Then we define the potential $G$ for the function $g$ by $$\label{e:G'=g-probl_2}
G(x,u){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\int_0^u g(x,s) \,\mathrm{d}s =
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\int_0^u g(x,s) \,\mathrm{d}s &\quad\mbox{ if }\, 0\leq u < \infty \,;
\\
0 &\quad\mbox{ if }\, -\infty < u < 0 \,,
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $(x,u)\in \overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}$. Hence, $ g(x,s) = \frac{\partial G}{\partial u} (x,s)$ for $(x,s)\in \overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}$. Clearly, for each fixed $x\in \overline{\Omega}$, $G(x,\,\cdot\,){:\,}{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is a monotone increasing function, owing to $ \frac{\partial G}{\partial u} (x,s) = g(x,s)\geq 0 \,.$ Again, we obtain a nonnegative weak solution to problem from a global minimizer of the energy functional $\hat{\mathcal{E}}{:\,}W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ defined by $$\label{def:E_2(v)}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{E}}(u)\equiv
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_{p(x)}(u){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}& \int_{\Omega} \frac{1}{p(x)}\, |\nabla u(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
& {}
+ \int_{\Omega} G(x,u(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{\Omega} F(x,u(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
\end{aligned}$$ for every function $u\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$. By our proof of Theorem \[thm-problem\_1\], the first and last summands on the right-hand side of eq. are well-defined. The same is true of the second summand, thanks to inequalities and supplemented by the Sobolev embedding $ W_0^{1,p(\cdot)}(\Omega) \hookrightarrow L^{p^{\ast}(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ for $p_{+} < N$ ([@DienHHR [§]{}8.3, Theorem 8.3.1, p. 265]).
By the standard properties of the “smaller” functional $ \mathcal{E}(u) =
\hat{\mathcal{E}}(u) {}- \hfil\break
\int_{\Omega} G(x,u(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x$ defined in eq. , that have been verified in the proof of Theorem \[thm-problem\_1\] above, also our present functional $\hat{\mathcal{E}}{:\,}W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is coercive thanks to ineq. and $r\leq p_{-}$, i.e., it satisfies an analogue of , $$ \| u\|_{ W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega) }{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\|\nabla u\|_{ L^{p(x)}(\Omega) } \,\longrightarrow\, +\infty
\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \hat{\mathcal{E}}(u)\to +\infty \,.$$ It is also weakly lower semicontinuous, by [@DienHHR [§]{}13.2, pp. 412–417]. Consequently, a basic result from the calculus of variations yields the existence of a global minimizer $u_0\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ for $\mathcal{E}$. We claim that $u_0\geq 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$. Clearly, also its positive part, $u_0^{+}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\max\{ u_0, 0\} \geq 0$, is in $W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ and thus satisfies $\hat{\mathcal{E}}(u_0^{+}) \geq \hat{\mathcal{E}}(u_0)$. Denoting $\Omega^{+} = \{ x\in \Omega{:\,}u_0(x)\geq 0\}$ and $\Omega^{-} = \{ x\in \Omega{:\,}u_0(x)\leq 0\}$, we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{E}}(u_0)
& {}
= \int_{\Omega} \frac{1}{p(x)}\, |\nabla u_0(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
& {}
+ \int_{\Omega} G(x,u_0(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{\Omega} F(x,u_0(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x \,,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{E}}(u_0)
& {}
= \int_{ \Omega^{+} }
\frac{1}{p(x)}\, |\nabla u_0(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
+ \int_{ \Omega^{-} }
\frac{1}{p(x)}\, |\nabla u_0(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
& {}
+ \int_{ \Omega^{+} } G(x,u_0(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{ \Omega^{+} } F(x,u_0(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
& {}
= \hat{\mathcal{E}}(u_0^{+})
+ \int_{ \Omega^{-} }
\frac{1}{p(x)}\, |\nabla u_0(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
& {}
\geq \hat{\mathcal{E}}(u_0)
+ \int_{ \Omega^{-} }
\frac{1}{p(x)}\, |\nabla u_0(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\geq \hat{\mathcal{E}}(u_0) \,.\end{aligned}$$ These inequalities force $\nabla u_0^{-}(x) = {}- \nabla u_0(x)\equiv 0$ a.e. in $\Omega^{-}$, whence $u_0^{-}(x)\equiv 0$ a.e. in $\Omega^{-}$. We have proved $u_0\geq 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$ as claimed.
In order to exclude the possibility that $u_0\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$, we now construct a function $u_1\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ such that $\hat{\mathcal{E}}(u_1) < 0 = \hat{\mathcal{E}}(0)$. First, we take an arbitrary nonnegative $C^1$-function $\phi\in C^1_{\mathrm{c}}(\Omega)$ with compact support in $\Omega$, $\phi\not\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$. For $0 < t\leq 1$ we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e_hat:E-zero}
\hat{\mathcal{E}}(t\phi)
& = \int_{\Omega} \frac{ t^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
|\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
+ \int_{\Omega} G(x, t\phi(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{\Omega} F(x, t\phi(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
\nonumber
& \leq \frac{ t^{p_{-}} }{p_{-}}
\int_{\Omega}
|\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
+ \int_{\Omega} G(x, t\phi(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{\Omega} F(x, t\phi(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x \,.\end{aligned}$$ We estimate the difference of the last two integrals as follows. We combine inequalities and to deduce that, given any ${\varepsilon}> 0$ small enough, ${\varepsilon}< 1/C_0$, there is a constant $t_{{\varepsilon}}'\in (0,1]$ such that $$\label{lim_G:s=0}
\begin{aligned}
& F(x, t\phi(x)) - G(x, t\phi(x))
\geq \frac{1}{r{\varepsilon}}\, [ t\, \phi(x)]^r
- \frac{C_0}{r}\, [ t\, \phi(x)]^r
\\
& {}
= \frac{{\varepsilon}^{-1} - C_0}{r}\, [ t\, \phi(x)]^r
\quad\mbox{ holds for all }\,
(x,t)\in \overline{\Omega}\times [0,t_{{\varepsilon}}'] \,.
\end{aligned}$$ Applying this estimate to ineq. we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{E}}(t\phi)
& \leq \frac{t^r}{r}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
- \frac{t^r}{r}\, ({\varepsilon}^{-1} - C_0)
\int_{\Omega} \phi(x)^r \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
\nonumber
& {}
= {}- \frac{t^r}{r}
\left(
({\varepsilon}^{-1} - C_0) \int_{\Omega} \phi(x)^r \,\mathrm{d}x
- \int_{\Omega} |\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\right)\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\in [0,t_{{\varepsilon}}']$. Choosing ${\varepsilon}> 0$ small enough, we conclude that $\hat{\mathcal{E}}(t\phi) < 0$ whenever $0 < t\leq t_{{\varepsilon}}'$. In addition to $u_0\geq 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$, we have proved also $u_0\not\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$, thanks to $ \hat{\mathcal{E}}(u_0) \leq
\hat{\mathcal{E}}(t\phi) < 0 = \hat{\mathcal{E}}(0) \,.$ Since $u_0\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ is a global minimizer for the functional $\hat{\mathcal{E}}{:\,}W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)\to {\mathbb{R}}$, it is also a critical point for $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$ and, hence, a nonnegative weak solution to problem provided $u_0\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$.
Now let $u\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ be any nonnegative critical point for $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$, $u\not\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$. This means that $u$ is a weak solution to problem in the sense of [X. Fan]{} and [D. Zhao]{} [@Fan-Zhao Def. 4.1, p. 311]. We may apply their regularity result [@Fan-Zhao Theorem 4.1, p. 312] (and its proof) to conclude that $u\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$. This means that $u$ is a nonnegative weak solution to problem also in the sense of our Definition \[def-weak\_sol\] above. By another result in [@Fan-Zhao Theorem 4.4, p. 317], $u$ is even Hölder-continuous in $\overline{\Omega}$, $u\in C^{0,\beta'}(\overline{\Omega})$ for some $\beta'\in (0, \alpha)$.
The regularity property $u\in C^{1,\beta}(\overline{\Omega})$ for some $\beta\in (0, \alpha)$ and l’Hospital’s rule are obtained by the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem \[thm-problem\_1\] above. In particular, the continuity and boundedness of both ratios, $u / u_0$ and $u_0 / u$, in the closure $\overline{\Omega}$ follows. Thus, it remains to apply our Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\] (the [D[í]{}az]{} and [Saa]{} inequality) to arrive at the uniqueness of a nonnegative and nontrivial weak solution $u\in W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega)\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ to problem , i.e., $u = u_0$.
Setting $w_1 = u$ and $w_2 = u_0$ in Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\], the left-hand side of ineq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{\Omega}
\left(
\frac{ {}- \Delta_{p(x)} u }{ u (x)^{r-1} }
- \frac{ {}- \Delta_{p(x)} u_0 }{ u_0(x)^{r-1} }
\right)
(u(x)^r - u_0(x)^r) \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
&
\begin{aligned}
= \int_{\Omega}
& \left[
\left(
\frac{ f(x, u (x)) }{ u (x)^{r-1} }
- \frac{ f(x, u_0(x)) }{ u_0(x)^{r-1} }
\right)
\right.
\\
& \left.
{}-
\left(
\frac{ g(x, u (x)) }{ u (x)^{r-1} }
- \frac{ g(x, u_0(x)) }{ u_0(x)^{r-1} }
\right)
\right]
(u(x)^r - u_0(x)^r) \,\mathrm{d}x\leq 0 \,,
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ as the function $ s\mapsto [ f(x,s) - g(x,s) ] / s^{r-1} \colon (0,\infty)\to \RR_+$ is strictly monotone decreasing for every $x\in \Omega$, by Hypotheses [**(f2)**]{} and [**(g2)**]{}. Since the opposite inequality “$\geq$” must be valid, by ineq. , we conclude that the equality above must hold. This forces $u(x) = u_0(x)$ at almost every point $x\in \Omega$, by Hypotheses [**(f2)**]{} and [**(g2)**]{}, i.e., $u\equiv u_0$ in $\Omega$.
The proof of Theorem \[thm-problem\_2\] is finished.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theorem \[thm-problem\_2\] has the following interesting special case.
\[cor-problem\_2\] Assume that $p\in C^{0,\alpha_1}(\overline{\Omega})$ for some $\alpha_1\in (0,1)$ and the constant $r\in [1,\infty)$ satisfy [Hypothesis ($\mathbf{p}$)]{} together with $r < p_{-}$, i.e., $$ 1\leq r < p_{-}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\inf_{\Omega} p(x)\leq
p_{+}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\sup_{\Omega} p(x) < \infty \,.$$ Let $h, \ell\in C(\overline{\Omega})$ and $q, Q\in C(\overline{\Omega})$ be two pairs of strictly positive functions such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:q_+<r<p-}
&
\left\{
\qquad
\begin{aligned}
1\leq {}
& q_{-}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\inf_{\Omega} q(x)\leq
q_{+}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\sup_{\Omega} q(x)
\\
< r < {}
& p_{-}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\inf_{\Omega} p(x)\leq
p_{+}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\sup_{\Omega} p(x) < \infty \,,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\\
\label{e:r<Q_}
& r\leq Q_{-}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\inf_{\Omega} Q(x)\leq
Q_{+}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\sup_{\Omega} Q(x) < \infty \,.\end{aligned}$$ Let $f,g{:\,}\overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ be defined by $f(x,s) = h(x)\, s^{q(x) - 1}$ and $g(x,s) = \ell(x)\, s^{Q(x) - 1}$ for $(x,s)\in \overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+$. Then the conclusion of [Theorem \[thm-problem\_2\]]{} for problem taking the following special form, $$\label{eq:problem_2}
\left\{
\begin{alignedat}{2}
{}- \Delta_{p(x)} u + \ell(x)\, u^{Q(x) - 1}
& {}= h(x)\, u^{q(x) - 1}
&& \quad\mbox{ in }\, \Omega \,;
\\
u & {}= 0
&& \quad\mbox{ on }\, \partial\Omega \,,
\quad u > 0 \mbox{ in }\, \Omega \,,
\end{alignedat}
\right.$$
[[*Proof.* ]{}]{}It is a matter of easy, direct calculations that functions $f$ and $g$ satisfy all Hypotheses [**(f1)**]{} – [**(f3)**]{} and all Hypotheses [**(g1)**]{} – [**(g3)**]{}, respectively. Notice that $ 1\leq q(x) < r\leq \min\{ p(x) ,\, Q(x)\}$ holds for all $x\in \overline{\Omega}$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our last application concerns a nonlocal boundary value problem of [*Kirchhoff’s type*]{} involving local and nonlocal nonlinearities treated e.g. in [Ch.-Y. Chen]{}, [Y.-Ch. Kuo]{}, and [Ts.-F. Wu]{} [@Chen-Kuo-Wu]. This problem is motivated by the stationary (elliptic) case of an evolutionary hyperbolic equation that arises in the study of string or membrane vibrations, where $u = u(x,t)$ stands for the displacement at $x\in \Omega$ and time $t\in {\mathbb{R}}_+$, cf.[@Chen-Kuo-Wu Eq. (1.2), p. 1877]. The mathematical model for the stationary displacement $u = u(x)$ at $x\in \Omega$ takes the following form, $$\label{e:problem_3}
\left\{
\begin{alignedat}{2}
{}- M
\left( \int_{\Omega}
\frac{ \left\vert \nabla u(x) \right\vert^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
\,\mathrm{d}x
\right)\, \Delta_{p(x)} u
& {}= f(x,u)
&& \quad\mbox{ in }\, \Omega \,;
\\
u & {}= 0
&& \quad\mbox{ on }\, \partial\Omega \,,
\quad u > 0 \mbox{ in }\, \Omega \,.
\end{alignedat}
\right.$$ In the original physics problem, $p(x)\equiv 2$ is constant.
In addition to our Hypotheses [**(f1)**]{} – [**(f3)**]{} imposed on the function $f$ at the beginning of this section, we impose the following hypotheses on the function $M$:
- $\;$ $M{:\,}{\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is a nonnegative continuous function with $M(0) > 0$.
- $\;$ $M{:\,}{\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is monotone increasing, but [*not*]{} necessarily [*strictly*]{} monotone increasing.
- $\;$ $M{:\,}{\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is bounded, that is, the monotone limit $M(s)\nearrow M(+\infty) < \infty$ as $s\nearrow +\infty$ is finite.
As a consequence of Hypothesis [**(M2)**]{} we obtain also $$\label{e:M_hat}
M(0)\, t\leq
\hat{M}(t){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\int_0^t M(s) \mathrm{d}s
\leq M(+\infty)\, t
\quad\mbox{ for every }\, t\in {\mathbb{R}}_+ \,.$$ Clearly, $\hat{M}{:\,}{\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is strictly monotone increasing and convex (possibly [*not*]{} strictly convex). Recalling the potential $F$ introduced in eq. , we observe that problem corresponds to the Euler equation for a critical point $u\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ of the energy functional $\mathcal{J}{:\,}W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ defined by $$\label{def:J(u)}
\mathcal{J}(u)\equiv \mathcal{J}_{p(x),f}(u){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\hat{M}
\left( \int_{\Omega}
\frac{ \left\vert \nabla u(x) \right\vert^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
\,\mathrm{d}x
\right)
- \int_{\Omega} F(x,u(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x$$ for every function $u\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$. This functional is well-defined, by the Sobolev embedding $W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega) \hookrightarrow L^r(\Omega)$, which is even compact, and by the estimate in . The reader is referred to the monograph by [L. Diening]{}, [P. Harjulehto]{}, [P. Hästö]{}, and [M. Ržička]{} [@DienHHR [§]{}8.3 and [§]{}8.4] for Sobolev embeddings and their compactness. It is coercive thanks to inequalities , , and $r\leq p_{-}$, i.e., it satisfies an analogue of , $$ \| u\|_{ W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega) }{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\|\nabla u\|_{ L^{p(x)}(\Omega) } \,\longrightarrow\, +\infty
\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \mathcal{J}(u)\to +\infty \,.$$ Furthermore, it is easy to see that $\mathcal{J}$ is Gâteaux-differentiable on $W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ with the Gâteaux derivative $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:J'(u)}
&
\begin{aligned}
\left[ \mathcal{J}'(u)\right] (x) = {}
& \hat{M}'
\left( \int_{\Omega}
\frac{ \left\vert \nabla u(x) \right\vert^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
\,\mathrm{d}x
\right)\cdot
\left[ {}-
\mathrm{div} \left( |\nabla u|^{p(x)-2} \nabla u\right)
\right]
\\
& {}
- f(x,u)
\end{aligned}
\\
\nonumber
& {}
= M
\left( \int_{\Omega}
\frac{ \left\vert \nabla u(x) \right\vert^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
\,\mathrm{d}x
\right)\cdot (- \Delta_{p(x)} u) - f(x,u) \,,\quad x\in \Omega \,,\end{aligned}$$ which may be interpreted as a distribution over $\Omega$, that is, it belongs to the locally convex space $\mathcal{D}'(\Omega)$ of all distributions over $\Omega$ which is the dual space of $ \mathcal{D}(\Omega) = C^{\infty}_{\mathrm{c}}(\Omega) .$ We have the following analogue of Theorems \[thm-problem\_1\] and \[thm-problem\_2\] for positive weak solutions to the boundary value problem :
\[thm-problem\_3\] Under the [Hypotheses]{} [($\boldsymbol{\Omega}$)]{}, [($\mathbf{p}$)]{}, [**(f1)**]{} – [**(f3)**]{}, and [**(M1)**]{} – [**(M3)**]{}, the nonlocal Kirchhoff problem possesses a unique nonnegative and nontrivial weak solution $u\in W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$. This solution belongs to the class $C^{1,\beta}(\overline{\Omega})$, for some $\beta\in (0, \alpha)$, and satisfies also the Hopf maximum principle , $$ u(x) > 0 \;\mbox{ for all }\, x\in \Omega
\quad\mbox{ and }\quad
\frac{\partial u}{\partial\boldsymbol{\nu}} (x) < 0
\;\mbox{ for all }\, x\in \partial\Omega \,.$$ Of course, $u = 0$ on the boundary $\partial\Omega$. Hence, $u$ is also a positive weak solution.
[[*Proof.* ]{}]{}Although we could generalize the [D[í]{}az]{} and [Saa]{} inequality (proved in Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\]) to the class of nonlocal quasilinear elliptic operators as suggested in the Kirchhoff problem , we prefer to give a direct proof of our theorem which, however, follows very closely the same ideas as does our proof of Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\].
We begin with the following trivial observation; we use the same notation as does our convexity result in Theorem \[thm-Diaz-Saa\]:
The composition functional $\hat{M}\circ \mathcal{W}_{A}{:\,}W\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:M.W_A(v)}
& \left[ \hat{M}\circ \mathcal{W}_A\right] (v)
\equiv \hat{M}\left( \mathcal{W}_{A,p(x),r}(v) \right)
\\
\nonumber
& {}
= \hat{M}\left(
\int_{\Omega} \frac{r}{p(x)}\,
A \left( x,\, \frac{ \nabla (|v|^{1/r}) } { \left\vert \nabla (|v|^{1/r}) \right\vert }
\right)\cdot
\left\vert \nabla (|v|^{1/r}) \right\vert^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\right)\end{aligned}$$ for every function $v\in W$; see eqs. (in the Introduction, Section \[s:Intro\]), , and . In particular, concerning the Kirchhoff problem , we take $A(x,\xi) = |\xi|^{p(x)}$ for $(x,\xi)\in \Omega\times {\mathbb{R}}^N$, in which case $A(x,\xi) = 1$ for all $(x,\xi)\in \Omega\times {\mathbb{S}}^{N-1}$.
By our convexity result in Theorem \[thm-ray-convex\], the restriction of the functional $\mathcal{W}_A{:\,}W\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ to the convex cone ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ is ray-strictly convex on ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}$. Recall from above that $\hat{M}{:\,}{\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is strictly monotone increasing and convex. Consequently, an easy exercise in elementary analysis reveals that also the composition functional $\hat{M}\circ \mathcal{W}_{A}{:\,}W\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ must be ray-strictly convex on ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}$. By our Hypotheses [**(f1)**]{} and [**(f2)**]{} on $f$, for every fixed $x\in \Omega$, also the function $t\mapsto {}- F(x, t^{1/r}){:\,}{\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is strictly convex, owing to the partial derivative $$t\mapsto
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\, F(x, t^{1/r})
= \frac{1}{r}\, t^{-1 + (1/r)}\cdot
\frac{\partial F}{\partial s} (x, t^{1/r})
= \frac{1}{r}\cdot
\frac{ f(x, t^{1/r}) }{ (t^{1/r})^{r-1} }
{:\,}(0,\infty)\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$$ being strictly monotone decreasing on $(0,\infty)$. From these two convexity results we deduce that also the functional $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:M.W_A(v)+F}
v \;\longmapsto\;
& \hat{\mathcal{J}}(v){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\mathcal{J}\left( |v|^{1/r} \right)
= \left[ \hat{M}\circ \mathcal{W}_A\right] (|v|^{1/r})
- \int_{\Omega} F\left( x, |v(x)|^{1/r} \right) \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
\nonumber
& {}
= \hat{M}\left(
\int_{\Omega} \frac{r}{p(x)}\cdot
\left\vert \nabla (|v|^{1/r}) \right\vert^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\right)
- \int_{\Omega} F\left( x, |v(x)|^{1/r} \right) \,\mathrm{d}x\end{aligned}$$ must be strictly convex on ${\overset{\bullet}{V}}$.
Now we are ready to prove the uniqueness claim in our theorem: On the contrary, let us assume that $u_1, u_2\in W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ are two different nonnegative and nontrivial weak solutions to problem that satisfy also the Hopf maximum principle . In particular, we have $\mathcal{J}'(u_1) = \mathcal{J}'(u_2) = 0$ in $\mathcal{D}'(\Omega)$. Setting $v_1 = u_1^r$ and $v_2 = u_2^r$ we get also the Gâteaux derivatives $\hat{\mathcal{J}}'(v_1) = \hat{\mathcal{J}}'(v_2) = 0$ as distributions in $\mathcal{D}'(\Omega)$. Moreover, we have $v_1, v_2\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ and $v_1/v_2$, $v_2/v_1\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$. Consequently, also $v{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}(1-\theta) v_1 + \theta v_2\in {\overset{\bullet}{V}}$ is valid for all $\theta\in (-\delta, 1+\delta)$, where $\delta\in (0,1)$ is small enough. The function $$\theta\mapsto \Phi(\theta){\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\hat{\mathcal{J}}(v)
= \hat{\mathcal{J}}\left( (1-\theta) v_1 + \theta v_2\right)
{:\,}(-\delta, 1+\delta)\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$$ is strictly convex and differentiable with the derivative $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:dJ/d_theta}
\begin{aligned}
\Phi'(\theta)
& {}
= M\left(
\int_{\Omega} \frac{r}{p(x)}\cdot
\left\vert \nabla (|v|^{1/r}) \right\vert^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\right)
\\
& {}
\times \int_{\Omega}
\left\vert \nabla (|v(x)|^{1/r}) \right\vert^{p(x) - 2}
\nabla (|v(x)|^{1/r})\cdot
\nabla \genfrac{(}{)}{}0{v_2-v_1}{ v^{ 1 - \frac{1}{r} } }
\,\mathrm{d}x
\end{aligned}
\\
\nonumber
{}
- \frac{1}{r}
\int_{\Omega} f(x, |v(x)|^{1/r})\cdot
\genfrac{}{}{}0{v_2-v_1}{ v^{ 1 - \frac{1}{r} } }
\,\mathrm{d}x \,.\end{aligned}$$ The monotonicity of the derivative $ \theta\mapsto \Phi'(\theta)\colon (-\delta, 1+\delta)\to \RR$ yields $$0\leq \Phi'(t) - \Phi'(0)\leq \Phi'(1) - \Phi'(0)
\quad\mbox{ for every }\, t\in [0,1] \,.$$ But $\hat{\mathcal{J}}'(v_1) = \hat{\mathcal{J}}'(v_2) = 0$ in $\mathcal{D}'(\Omega)$ forces $\Phi'(0) = \Phi'(1) = 0$ whence $\Phi'(t) = 0$ for every $t\in [0,1]$. We conclude that $\Phi(t) = \Phi(0)$ for every $t\in [0,1]$ which contradicts the strict convexity of $\Phi$ on $[0,1]$.
The uniqueness part of our theorem is proved.
To verify the existence part, we apply analogous arguments as in our proofs of Theorems \[thm-problem\_1\] and \[thm-problem\_2\]. Recalling that the energy functional $\mathcal{J}$ defined in eq. is coercive and weakly lower semicontinuous on $W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega)$, by [@DienHHR [§]{}13.2, pp. 412–417], we conclude that it possesses a global minimizer $u_0\in W^{1,p(x)}_0(\Omega)$, by [@Struwe Theorem 1.2, p. 4]. To verify $u_0\geq 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$, we first observe that also its positive part, $u_0^{+}{\stackrel{{\mathrm {def}}}{=}}\max\{ u_0, 0\} \geq 0$, is in $W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ and thus satisfies $\mathcal{J}(u_0^{+}) \geq \mathcal{J}(u_0)$. Recalling $\Omega^{+} = \{ x\in \Omega{:\,}u_0(x)\geq 0\}$ and $\Omega^{-} = \{ x\in \Omega{:\,}u_0(x)\leq 0\}$, we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
&
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}(u_0)
& {}
= \hat{M} \left( \int_{\Omega}
\frac{ \left\vert \nabla u_0(x) \right\vert^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
\,\mathrm{d}x
\right)
- \int_{\Omega} F(x,u_0(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
\end{aligned}
\\
&
\begin{aligned}
{}= \hat{M}
\left( \int_{ \Omega^{+} }
\frac{ \left\vert \nabla u_0(x) \right\vert^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
\,\mathrm{d}x
+ \int_{ \Omega^{-} }
\frac{ \left\vert \nabla u_0(x) \right\vert^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
\,\mathrm{d}x
\right)
\\
{}- \int_{ \Omega^{+} } F(x,u_0(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
\end{aligned}
\\
&
\begin{aligned}
& {}
\geq \hat{M}
\left( \int_{ \Omega^{+} }
\frac{ \left\vert \nabla u_0(x) \right\vert^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
\,\mathrm{d}x
\right)
- \int_{ \Omega^{+} } F(x,u_0(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
\end{aligned}
\\
&
\begin{aligned}
& {}
= \mathcal{J}(u_0^{+}) \geq \mathcal{J}(u_0) \,.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ In fact, these inequalities must be equalities. Since $\hat{M}{:\,}{\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is strictly monotone increasing with $\hat{M}'= M >0$ in ${\mathbb{R}}_+$, by [Hypothesis]{} [**(M1)**]{}, the equalities above force $\nabla u_0^{-}(x) = {}- \nabla u_0(x)\equiv 0$ a.e. in $\Omega^{-}$, whence $u_0^{-}(x)\equiv 0$ a.e. in $\Omega^{-}$. We have proved $u_0\geq 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$ as claimed.
In order to exclude the possibility that $u_0\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$, we construct a function $u_1\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ such that $\mathcal{J}(u_1) < 0 = \mathcal{J}(0)$. To this end, we take an arbitrary nonnegative $C^1$-function $\phi\in C^1_{\mathrm{c}}(\Omega)$ with compact support in $\Omega$, $\phi\not\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$. In analogy with ineq. , for $0 < t\leq 1$ we invoke [Hypothesis]{} [**(M1)**]{} to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:J-zero}
\mathcal{J}(t\phi)
& {}
= \hat{M}
\left( \int_{\Omega} \frac{ t^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
|\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\right)
- \int_{\Omega} F(x, t\phi(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
\nonumber
& \leq \hat{M}
\left( \frac{ t^{p_{-}} }{p_{-}}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\right)
- \int_{\Omega} F(x, t\phi(x)) \,\mathrm{d}x \,.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $1\leq r\leq p_{-} = \inf_{\Omega} p(x)$, by our [Hypothesis ($\mathbf{p}$)]{}, ineq. . We take advantage of inequalities (for $\hat{M}$) and (for $F$) to estimate the last two terms in ineq. above, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}(t\phi)
& {}
\leq M(+\infty)\, \frac{t^r}{r}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
- \frac{t^r}{r{\varepsilon}}
\int_{\Omega} \phi(x)^r \,\mathrm{d}x
\\
& = {}- \frac{t^r}{r}
\left(
\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} \int_{\Omega} \phi(x)^r \,\mathrm{d}x
- M(+\infty) \int_{\Omega} |\nabla\phi(x)|^{p(x)} \,\mathrm{d}x
\right)\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\in [0,t_{{\varepsilon}}]$. Choosing ${\varepsilon}> 0$ small enough, we conclude that $\mathcal{J}(t\phi) < 0$ whenever $0 < t\leq t_{{\varepsilon}}$. In addition to $u_0\geq 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$, we have proved also $u_0\not\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$.
Since $u_0\in W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ is a global minimizer for the functional $\mathcal{J}{:\,}W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)\to {\mathbb{R}}$, it is also a critical point for $\mathcal{J}$ and, hence, a nonnegative weak solution to problem provided $u_0\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$. As $$M_0 = M\left( \int_{\Omega}
\frac{ \left\vert \nabla u_0(x) \right\vert^{p(x)} }{p(x)}\,
\,\mathrm{d}x
\right)$$ is a positive constant, $0 < M(0)\leq M_0\leq M(+\infty) < \infty$, the Dirichlet problem for $u = u_0$ is identical with that in with $f(x,u_0)$ replaced by $M_0^{-1}\, f(x,u_0)$. The rest of the proof now follows from the conclusion of Theorem \[thm-problem\_1\].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[rem-Motreanu\]
Acknowledgement. {#acknowledgement. .unnumbered}
================
The work of Peter Takáč was partially supported by a grant from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, Germany), Grant no. TA 213/16-1. The work of Jacques Giacomoni was supported in part by C.N.R.S. (France) through “Laboratoire de Mathématiques et de leurs Applications – Pau”, no. $5142$. Both authors would like to express their thanks to an anonymous referee for pointing out several unclear formulations and giving us hints to new pertinent references. His/her careful and detailed comments have helped to improve the manuscript in a significant way.
[99]{}
S. N. Antontsev, M. Chipot, and Y. Xie, *Uniqueness results for equations of the p(x)-Laplacian type*, Adv. Math. Sci. Appl., **17** (2007), 287–304.
S. N. Antontsev and S. I. Shmarev, *Elliptic equations and systems with nonstandard growth conditions: existence, uniqueness and localization properties*, Nonlinear Anal., [**65**]{} (2006), 728–761.
H. Brézis and L. Oswald, [*Remarks on sublinear elliptic equations*]{}, Nonlinear Anal., [**10**]{} (1986), 55–64.
Ching-Yu Chen, Yueh-Cheng Kuo, and Tsung-Fang Wu, [*The Nehari manifold of a Kirchhoff type problem involving sign-changing weight functions*]{}, J. Differential Equations, [**250**]{}(4) (2011), 1876–1908.
J. I. Díaz and J. E. Saa, [*Existence et unicité de solutions positives pour certaines équations elliptiques quasilinéaires*]{}, Comptes Rendus Acad. Sc. Paris, Série I, [**305**]{} (1987), 521–524.
L. Diening, P. Harjulehto, P. Hästö, and M. Ržička, [*“Lebesgue and Sobolev Spaces with Variable Exponents”*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. [**2017**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2011.
X.-L. Fan, [*Existence and uniqueness for the $p(x)$-Laplacian-Dirichlet problems*]{}, Math. Nachr., [**284**]{}(11-12) (2011), 1435–1445.
X.-L. Fan, [*Global $C^{1,\alpha}$ regularity for variable exponent elliptic equations in divergence form*]{}, J. Differential Equations, [**235**]{} (2007), 397–417.
X.-L. Fan and Q.-H. Zhang, [*Existence of solutions for $p(x)$-Laplacian Dirichlet problem*]{}, Nonlinear Anal., [**52**]{} (2003), 1843–1852.
X. Fan, Q. Zhang, and D. Zhao, [*Eigenvalues of $p(x)$-Laplacian Dirichlet problems*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl., [**302**]{} (2005), 306–317.
X. Fan and D. Zhao, [*A class of De Giorgi type and Hölder continuity*]{}, Nonlinear Anal., [**36**]{} (1999), 295–318.
J. Fleckinger, J. Hernández, P. Takáč, and F. de Thélin, [*Uniqueness and positivity for solutions of equations with the $p$-Laplacian*]{}, in G. Caristi and E. Mitidieri; eds., [*“Proceedings of the Conference on Reaction-Diffusion Equations”*]{}, 1995, Trieste, Italy. Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Math., Vol. [**194**]{}, pp. 141–155. Marcel Dekker, New York and Basel, 1998.
P. Girg and P. Takáč, [*Bifurcations of positive and negative continua in quasilinear elliptic eigenvalue problems*]{}, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré, Anal. Non Linéaire, [**9**]{} (2008), 275–327.
M. A. Krasnosel’skiĭ and P. P. Zabreĭko, [*“Geometrical Methods of Nonlinear Analysis”*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York-Tokyo, 1984.
M. Mihăilescu and V. Rădulescu, [*On a nonhomogeneous quasilinear eigenvalue problem in Sobolev spaces with variable exponent*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., [**135**]{}(9) (2007), 2929–2937.
V. V. Motreanu, [*Uniqueness results for a Dirichlet problem with variable exponent*]{}, Comm. Pure. Appl. Analysis, **9**(5) (2010), 1399–1410. : doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2010.9.1399.
M. A. del Pino, M. Elgueta, and R. F. Manásevich, [*A homotopic deformation along $p$ of a Leray-Schauder degree result and existence for $(|u'|^{p-2}u')' + f(t,u) = 0$, $u(0) = u(T) = 0$, $p>1$*]{}, J. Differential Equations, [**80**]{}(1) (1989), 1–13.
V. Rădulescu and D. Repovš, [*“Partial Differential Equations with Variable Exponents: Variational Methods and Qualitative Analysis”*]{}, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2015.
M. Ržicka, [*“Electrorheological Fluids: Modeling and Mathematical Theory”*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. [**1748**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2000.
M. Struwe, [*“Variational Methods”*]{}, $2$-nd ed., in [*A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics*]{}, Vol. **34**. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1996.
P. Takáč, [*Nonlinear spectral problems for degenerate elliptic operators*]{}, in M. Chipot and P. Quittner; eds., [*“Handbook of Differential Equations: Stationary Partial Differential Equations”*]{}, Vol. [**1**]{}, pp. 385–489. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004.
P. Takáč, L. Tello, and M. Ulm, [*Variational problems with a $p$-homogeneous energy*]{}, Positivity, [**6**]{}(1) (2001), 75–94.
Q. Zhang, [*A strong maximum principle for differential equations with nonstandard $p(x)$-growth conditions*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl., [**312**]{} (2005), 24–32.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is shown that current saturation in semiconducting carbon nanotubes is indistinguishable from metallic nanotubes if the carrier density is above a critical value determined by the bandgap and the LO phonon energy. This feature stems from the higher number of current-carrying states in the semiconducting tubes due to the van-Hove singularity at the band-edge. Above this critical carrier density, the ensemble saturation velocity at high-fields is found to be independent of the bandgap, but strongly dependent on the carrier density, explaining recent observations.'
author:
- Debdeep Jena
---
[*Introduction:*]{} Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) exhibit exceptional current carrying capability. For example, Yao et al. in a seminal work on single-wall metallic CNTs (m-CNT) observed that the current carrying capacity, as high as $10^{9}$ A/cm$^2$, was fundamentally limited by the emission of LO phonons by energetic electrons at high electric fields [@prl00dekkerCNTsatCurrent]. The exceptionally high current carrying capacity was attributed by the authors to the fact that each carrier within a energy bandwidth determined by the LO phonon energy $\hbar \omega_{LO} \sim 160$ meV moves with the Fermi velocity ($v_{F} \sim 10^{8}$ cm/s), leading to a fundamental limit of the current determined by $I_{0} =( 4 e/L )\sum_{k} f_{k} v_{F} = 4 e f_{LO}$, where $f_{LO} = \omega_{LO}/2 \pi$, $L$ is the CNT length, the factor $g = g_{s} g_{v} = 4$ is the product of the spin and valley degeneracy, and $f_{k}$ is the occupation probability of state $| k \rangle $. The current evaluates to $\approx 25$ $\mu$A, precisely explaining the experimental saturation current. This result is fundamental for long m-CNTs, where transport is in the diffusive limit; for short m-CNTs, the current can exceed the diffusive limit of 25 $\mu$A due to ultrafast phonon emission leading to non-uniform heating. It has been shown that the increase in the saturation current over this limit can be explained by consideration of non-equilibrium (hot) phonons [@prl05leburtonCNTsatCurrent; @prb06lazzeriCNTsatCurrent].
There have been reports of similar current saturation in semiconducting CNTs (s-CNT) as well [@nature03javeyCNTsatCurrent; @prl04javeyCNTsatCurrent; @prl05fuhrerCNTsatCurrent]. However, the physical mechanism of current saturation is not yet clear. Previous theoretical considerations indicate a velocity saturation [@prl05avourisCNTsatCurrent], and in [@pss06fuhrerCNTsatCurrent], a dependence of the ensemble saturation velocity on the carrier density was established by the solution of the Boltzmann Transport Equation (BTE). The purpose of this letter is fourfold: a) to show that for 1D s-CNTs [*current saturation*]{} is as fundamental as in m-CNTs, b) as opposed to m-CNTs, the saturation current in a s-CNT is sensitive to the location of the Fermi level $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0}$ [*before the application of a bias*]{}, c) the net ensemble velocity (‘saturation velocity’) of carriers in s-CNTs is [*not*]{} universal, but strongly dependent on $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0}$ as well, and can range from $0.1 - 1 \times v_{F}$, and d) the saturation velocity of carriers in s-CNTs becomes independent of the bandgap for large carrier densities. These four facts are proved using analytical arguments based on the bandstructure, and the ultrafast electron-optical phonon interactions in CNTs. They offer a simple explanation for various recent observations made from experiments and numerical simulations [@prl05avourisCNTsatCurrent].
[*CNT bandstructure & saturation current:*]{} For the analysis of transport properties, it suffices to consider expansions of the energy dispersion for small momenta around the $\mathcal{K}, \mathcal{K}^{\prime}$ points of the underlying graphene bandstructure [@rmp07charlierCNTtransport]. Let the bandstructure of the $n^{th}$ subband of a s-CNT be given by the dispersion $\mathcal{E}_{n}(k_{x}) = \hbar v_{F} \sqrt{k_{x}^{2} + k_{n}^{2}}$, where $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck’s constant, $k_{x}$ is the longitudinal wavevector, and $k_{n}$ is the transverse wavevector quantized by the diameter of the CNT. All energies are measured with respect to the Dirac point of the underlying graphene bandstructure. The bandgap of the CNT with this bandstructure is given by $\mathcal{E}_{g} = 2 \hbar v_{F} k_{0}$, where $k_{0}$ is the smallest allowed (nonzero) transverse wavevector, fixed by the size quantization ($\mathcal{E}_{g} \sim 800/d$ meV, where $d$ is the diameter of the s-CNT in nm).
An electric field ${\bf F} = -F_{0} \hat{x}$ is applied across the drain-source contacts to the s-CNT, which are assumed to be perfectly transparent to electron flow. To determine the exact shape of the new Fermi surface, one needs to solve the BTE, as has been done in [@pss06fuhrerCNTsatCurrent] for $T= 300$ K. However, for the $T \rightarrow 0$ limit, various analytical results may be derived to illustrate the physics of current saturation in s-CNTs. The Fermi surface at low temperatures is sharp, and the force due to the electric field $(-e) {\bf F} = \hbar d{\bf k}/dt$ populates $+k_{x}$ states by emptying out $-k_{x}$ states near the Fermi surface. If the contacts do not inject carriers into the wire (no space-charge currents), the equilibrium occupation function $f_{k}^{0} = \Theta( k_{F} - | k_{x} | )$ (where $\Theta (...)$ is the Heaviside unit-step function) shifts to the non-equilibrium position $f_{k} = 1$ for $-k_{L} \leq k_{x} \leq +k_{R}$, while conserving the particle number inside the wire. Here $k_{L}, k_{R}$ are the wavevectors of the highest right-going and the highest left-going electrons in response to the electric field. This is shown schematically in Fig \[sCNT\_kspace\_hidensity\].
The density of states can be split equally into the left-going and right-going states: $\rho_{tot}(\mathcal{E}) = \rho_{L}(\mathcal{E}) + \rho_{R}(\mathcal{E})$, where $$\rho_{R,L}( \mathcal{E} )= \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{ g }{ \pi \hbar v_{F} } \cdot \frac{ \mathcal{E} }{ \sqrt{ \mathcal{E}^{2} - (\frac{ \mathcal{E}_{g} }{ 2 })^{2} } },$$ and the resulting right- and left-going charge carrier densities can be then written in the form $n_{R,L} = \int_{\mathcal{E}_{g}/2}^{\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R,L}} \rho_{R,L}(\mathcal{E}) d\mathcal{E}$ as $$n_{R,L} = \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{ g }{ \pi \hbar v_{F} } \cdot \sqrt{ (\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R,L})^{2} - (\frac{ \mathcal{E}_{g} }{ 2 })^{2} },$$ which defines the quasi-Fermi levels $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{L}$. Before the application of a bias, $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} = \mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} = \mathcal{E}_{F}^{0}$, and the 1D carrier density is given by $$n_{0} = n_{R} + n_{L} = \frac{ g }{ \pi \hbar v_{F} } \cdot \sqrt{ (\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0})^{2} - (\frac{ \mathcal{E}_{g} }{ 2 })^{2} }.$$ If the contacts to the s-CNT do not inject excess carriers into the tube, then to ensure particle number conservation $n_{0} = n_{R} + n_{L}$ requires that at all bias conditions, the relation $$2 \sqrt{ (\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0})^{2} - (\frac{ \mathcal{E}_{g} }{ 2 })^{2} } = \sqrt{ (\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R})^{2} - (\frac{ \mathcal{E}_{g} }{ 2 })^{2} } + \sqrt{ (\mathcal{E}_{F}^{L})^{2} - (\frac{ \mathcal{E}_{g} }{ 2 })^{2} }
\label{chargebalance}$$ must be satisfied for the quasi-Fermi levels.
=3.3in
At a high field, the distribution function reaches a stage when the difference between the highest filled electronic state (HFES) and the lowest empty electronic state (LEES) equals the LO phonon energy to allow for energy relaxation by the emission of optical phonons. Building upon the theory in [@prl00dekkerCNTsatCurrent], we make a [*hypothesis*]{} that if the LO phonon emission process is ultrafast, then the distribution function is locked in this configuration, and is resistant to any further increase in applied bias. Depending on the availability of charge carriers, the LEES may be $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{L}$, or the band edge ($\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{E}_{g}/2$). Before we proceed to calculate the net saturation current, we introduce some critical parameters that serve to highlight this fact.
[*Critical parameters*]{}: A critical Fermi level $\mathcal{E}_{F,cr}^{0}$ is the equilibrium Fermi energy such that at a high bias, $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} - \mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} = \hbar \omega_{LO}$, and $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} = \mathcal{E}_{g}/2$. From Eq. \[chargebalance\] the critical Fermi energy must be $$\mathcal{E}_{F,cr}^{0} = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{ (\hbar \omega_{LO})^{2} + \hbar \omega_{LO} \mathcal{E}_{g} + \mathcal{E}_{g}^{2} },
\label{efcrit}$$ and is dependent only on the bandgap and the LO phonon energy of the s-CNT, which are fixed by the diameter and the lattices structure. The corresponding equilibrium 1D critical carrier density is $$n_{cr} = \frac{g}{2 \pi \hbar v_{F}} \sqrt{\hbar \omega_{LO} ( \hbar \omega_{LO} + \mathcal{E}_{g} ) },
\label{ncrit}$$ which again is a fundamental quantity for the s-CNT. Physically, if the carrier density is above this, the LEES is a [*left*]{}-going state (as depicted in Figure \[sCNT\_kspace\_hidensity\]), and if the carrier density is lower, then the LEES is is a [*right*]{}-going state, as depicted in Figure \[sCNT\_kspace\_lowdensity\].
=2.7in
We define two ratios: $\alpha = \mathcal{E}_{g} / 2 \mathcal{E}_{F}^{0}$ and $\beta =\hbar \omega_{LO} / 2 \mathcal{E}_{F}^{0}$. In addition, we consider only those semiconducting tubes for which $\mathcal{E}_{g} > \hbar \omega_{LO}$ so that no interband optical phonon-assisted transitions are allowed. This condition implies that $\beta < \alpha < 1$ when $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0} > \mathcal{E}_{g}/2$, i.e., when the Fermi level is inside the band and carriers are available for current conduction. If $\mathcal{E}_{F} < \mathcal{E}_{g}/2$, no current flows at $T \rightarrow 0$ K.
[*Case 1: High carrier density*]{}: We first consider the situation when $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0} \geq \mathcal{E}_{F,cr}^{0}$, and $n \geq n_{cr}$. Again, by ensuring particle number conservation and the condition $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} - \mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} = \hbar \omega_{LO}$, the high-bias quasi-Fermi levels for the right and left going states are found to be
$$\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} = \mathcal{E}_{F}^{0}\sqrt{1 + \frac{ \alpha^{2} \beta^{2} }{1 - \alpha^{2} - \beta^{2} }} + \frac{\hbar \omega_{LO}}{2},
\label{hiefr}$$
and $$\mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} = \mathcal{E}_{F}^{0}\sqrt{1 + \frac{ \alpha^{2} \beta^{2} }{1 - \alpha^{2} - \beta^{2} }} - \frac{\hbar \omega_{LO}}{2},
\label{hiefl}$$
[*Case 2: Low carrier density*]{}: If on the other hand the equilibrium Fermi level is such that $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0} < \mathcal{E}_{F,cr}^{0}$, and $n < n_{cr}$, then the condition $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} - \mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} = \hbar \omega_{LO}$ cannot be satisfied due to insufficient carriers in the conduction band. However, since the LEES is now a right-going state, the condition $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} - \mathcal{E}_{g}/2 = \hbar \omega_{LO}$ still allows for the emission of LO phonons. Under this situation, the quasi-Fermi levels are given by
$$\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} = \mathcal{E}_{g}/2 + \hbar \omega_{LO},
\label{loefr}$$
and $$\mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} = \mathcal{E}_{F}^{0}\sqrt{ 4 - 3 \alpha^{2} + 4 \beta^{2} + 4 \alpha \beta - 8 \sqrt{\beta} \sqrt{ 1 - \alpha^{2} } \sqrt{ \alpha - \beta } },
\label{loefl}$$
In this condition, the HFES $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R}$ gets pinned at the energy $\mathcal{E}_{g}/2 + \hbar \omega_{LO}$, and the LEES is at the bottom of the conduction band. This case is depicted schematically in Figure \[sCNT\_kspace\_lowdensity\].
=3.4in
[*Saturation Current*]{}: The current flowing through the s-CNT is given in the $T \rightarrow 0$ K limit by the relation $$I_{sat} = e g \frac{1}{L} \sum_{k} f_{k} v_{k} = e \frac{g}{2 \pi} \int_{k_{L}}^{k_{R}} dk v_{g}(k) ,$$ where $L$ is the length of the CNT, and $v_{g}(k) = \hbar^{-1} \nabla_{k} \mathcal{E}(k) = v_{F} k_{x} / \sqrt{ k_{x}^{2} + k_{n}^{2}}$ is the projection of the group velocity of the carriers in the direction of the electric field (Fig \[sCNT\_kspace\_lowdensity\]). The saturation current for the CNT evaluates to $$I_{sat}(k_{n}, k_{F}) = e \frac{g}{ 2 \pi } v_{F} [ \sqrt{ k_{R}^{2} + k_{n}^{2}} - \sqrt{ k_{L}^{2} + k_{n}^{2}} ] ,$$ which may be reduced the simpler form $$I_{sat} = e \frac{g}{ 2 \pi } \frac{ ( \mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} - \mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} ) }{\hbar}.
\label{Isat}$$
This is no different from what has been shown in [@prl00dekkerCNTsatCurrent] for m-CNTs, but it also holds for s-CNTs. The key point here is that for low fields, corresponding to $e V_{DS} < \hbar \omega_{LO}$, $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} - \mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} = e V_{DS}$, and one recovers the Landauer relation $I = g (e^{2} / h ) V_{DS}$. However, the same relation may be used to understand saturation currents at high bias conditions as well. Since the respective quasi-Fermi levels were shown earlier to depend on the equilibrium Fermi level (or, indirectly, the carrier density), the saturation current in a s-CNT depends on $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0}$. This is in stark contrast to m-CNTs, for which the quasi-Fermi level separation is $\hbar \omega_{LO}$ leading to a saturation current of $I_{sat} = 4 e f_{LO} \sim 25 \mu$A, no matter where the equilibrium Fermi level $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0}$.
In a s-CNT, the group velocity of a fraction of carriers near the band-edge is less than or equal to $v_{F}$, whereas for a m-CNT is it [*always*]{} equal to $v_{F}$. Thus, the single subband saturation current in a s-CNT can [*never exceed*]{} the current in a m-CNT for the same carrier density. For high 1D carrier densities in s-CNTs (corresponding to $n > n_{cr}$ or equivalently $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0} > \mathcal{E}_{F,cr}^{0}$ derived in Eqs \[efcrit\], \[ncrit\]), the saturation current is identical to that in a m-CNT, i.e., $I_{sat} = 4 e f_{LO}$ since the condition $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} - \mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} = \hbar \omega_{LO}$ holds. This similarity can be understood by noting that there is a van-Hove singularity at the band-edge of s-CNTs. This implies that there are many more carriers that contribute to the saturation current in a s-CNT than in a m-CNT, though a fraction of those carriers move with velocities less than the Fermi velocity. Since the DOS for a m-CNT is $\rho_{M}(\mathcal{E}) = g/ \pi \hbar v_{F}$, the number of right-going carriers over a energy bandwidth $\hbar \omega_{LO}$ is $n_{M} = 4 f_{LO} / v_{F}$. The ratio of effective current-carrying states at saturation in a high-density s-CNT to that in a m-CNT is therefore greater than $n_{cr} / n_{M} = \sqrt{ 1 + ( \mathcal{E}_{g} / \hbar \omega_{LO} ) }$.
=3.4in
For carrier densities in s-CNTs less than $n_{cr}$, the saturation current is given by Eq. \[Isat\], with $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R}, \mathcal{E}_{F}^{L}$ from Eqs. \[loefr\] & \[loefl\]. This dependence exemplifies how a s-CNT under a high source-drain bias ‘switches-off’ when the Fermi level is pulled down towards the band-edge and then into the gap, for example, by electrostatic gating. The dependence of the saturation current on $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0}$ is plotted in Fig \[sCNT\_Isat\] for s-CNTs for two representative bandgaps. The insets show the critical Fermi level and the critical 1D carrier concentration above which the saturation properties of the s-CNT become indistinguishable from that of a m-CNT.
=3.4in
[*Saturation velocity and velocity-field curves:*]{} Under the assumption that all carriers in the conducting band contribute to the saturation current equally, the saturation velocity of carriers may be written as $v_{sat} = I_{sat} / e n_{0}$, which evaluates to $$v_{sat} = v_{F} \cdot \frac{ \frac{1}{2} (\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} - \mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} ) }{\sqrt{ (\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0})^{2} - (\frac{\mathcal{E}_{g}}{2})^{2} }} = \frac{g}{2 \pi \hbar n_{0}} \cdot (\mathcal{E}_{F}^{R} - \mathcal{E}_{F}^{L} ),
\label{vsat}$$ and is strongly dependent on the 1D carrier density in the band. Fig \[sCNT\_vsat\_n1d\] shows the dependence of the saturation velocity on the density as well as the corresponding equilibrium Fermi level for s-CNTs of varying bandgaps. For carrier densities $n<n_{cr}$, it increases and approaches $v_{F}$ as $n \rightarrow 0$ and $\mathcal{E}_{g} $ decreases. However, from Eq. \[vsat\], the saturation velocity at carrier densities $n > n_{cr}$ is given by $v_{sat} = 4 f_{LO} / n_{0}$, and is inversely proportional to the 1D carrier density. The theory is able to explain why the saturation velocity becomes [*independent*]{} of the bandgap of the s-CNT, as was found in numerical simulations of the BTE in [@prl05avourisCNTsatCurrent].
If the low-field carrier mobility is $\mu_{0}$, then a critical electric field may be defined as $F_{cr} = v_{sat} / \mu$; the net velocity-field curve may then be approximated by the relation $$v = \frac{ v_{sat} }{ 1 + (v_{sat} / \mu_{0} F) },$$ which is strongly dependent on the carrier density and the bandgap of the s-CNT. Fig \[sCNT\_v\_F\] shows a few velocity-field curves plotted for s-CNTs of bandgaps 0.3 and 0.4 eV, for different carrier densities, as indicated by the energy $\mathcal{E}_{F}^{0} - \mathcal{E}_{C}$. The low-field electron mobility chosen for this calculation is $\mu_{0} = 40,000$ cm$^{2}$/V.s, which is determined primarily by elastic scattering processes (acoustic phonons & impurities). It is emphasized that the often-used concept of saturation velocity is an [*ensemble property*]{}, and care must be exercised in using it to predict carrier transit times, switching speeds, and allied quantities since there are carriers that move at velocities higher as well as lower than this velocity.
[*Deviations from the theory:*]{} Within the limits of the theory presented, the saturation current in a s-CNT due to single subband conduction in the diffusive limit can never exceed $I_{0} = 4 e f_{LO}$. Any experimental observation of higher saturation currents in s-CNTs [*must*]{} be therefore attributed to effects that have not been considered. Five possible factors are listed: a) non-uniform heating due to ultrafast LO phonon emission [@prl05leburtonCNTsatCurrent] and/or hot-phonon effects [@prl05popHotPhCNT], b) ballistic effects (i.e., if the length of the CNT is shorter than the mean-free path for LO-phonon emission $L < \mathcal{L}_{LO}$) [@nl04mcEuenCNTphononBallistic], c) occupation of multiple subbands, d) contribution from band-to-band Zener tunneling [@prl04bachtoldCNTsatCurrent] and/or impact ionization, and e) space-charge injection into the s-CNT by the contacts. These factors can be incorporated into the analytical framework presented here, but is not considered in this letter.
[*Conclusions:*]{} In conclusion, a simple analytical theory is presented that shows that current saturation in s-CNTs and m-CNTs are indistinguishable if the carrier density in the s-CNT is above a critical value determined by the bandgap and the LO phonon energy of the s-CNT. The ensemble saturation velocity is found to be independent of the bandgap of the s-CNT for such carrier densities as well. The author acknowledges support from the NSF CAREER award (DMR-0645698), and useful discussions with Dr. Chagaan Bataar (ONR).
Z. Yao, C. L. Kane, and C. Dekker, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, [**84**]{}, 2941, (2000).
M. A. Kuroda, A. Cangellaris, and J-P. Leburton, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, [**95**]{}, 266803, (2005).
M. Lazzeri and F. Mauri, *Phys. Rev. B*, [**73**]{}, 165419, (2006).
A. Javey, J. Guo, Q. Wang, M. Lundstrom, and H. Dai, *Nature*, [**424**]{}, 654, (2003).
A. Javey, J. Guo, M. Paulsson, Q. Wang, D. Mann, M. Lundstrom, and H. Dai, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, [**92**]{}, 106804, (2004).
Y-F. Chen, and M. S. Fuhrer, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, [**95**]{}, 236803, (2005).
V. Perebeinos, J. Tersoff, and P. Avouris, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, [**94**]{}, 086802, (2005).
Y-F. Chen, and M. S. Fuhrer, *Phys. Stat. Sol. (b)*, [**243**]{}, 3404, (2006).
J-C. Charlier, X. Blase, and S. Roche, *Rev. Mod. Phys.*, [**79**]{}, 677, (2007).
E. Pop, D. Mann, J. Cao, Q. Wang, K. Goodson, and H. Dai, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, [**95**]{}, 155505, (2005).
J-Y. Park, S. Rosenblatt, Y. Yaish, V. Sazonova, H. Ustunel, S. Braig, T. A. Arias, P. W. Brouwer, and P. L. McEuen, *Nano Lett.*, [**4**]{}, 517, (2004).
B. Bourlon, D. C. Glattli, B. Placais, J. M. Berroir, C. Miko, L. Forro, and A. Bachtold, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, [**92**]{}, 026804, (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by recent experiments on the Heisenberg $S=1/2$ quantum spin liquid candidate material kapellasite, we classify all possible chiral (time-reversal symmetry breaking) spin liquids with fermionic spinons on the kagome lattice. We obtain the phase diagram for the physically relevant extended Heisenberg model, comparing the energies of a wide range of microscopic variational wave functions. We propose that, at low temperature, kapellasite exhibits a gapless chiral spin liquid phase with spinon Fermi surfaces. This two-dimensional state inherits many properties of the nearby one-dimensional phase of decoupled antiferromagnetic spin chains, but also shows some remarkable differences. We discuss the spin structure factors and other physical properties.'
author:
- Samuel Bieri
- Laura Messio
- Bernard Bernu
- Claire Lhuillier
bibliography:
- 'claire.bib'
- 'kagome\_chiral\_biblio.bib'
- 'notes.bib'
date: 'November 6, 2014'
title: Gapless chiral spin liquid in a kagome Heisenberg model
---
When low dimensionality, geometric frustration, and antiferromagnetism conspire in quantum magnets, completely novel and exotic physics can emerge at low temperature. In such quantum spin liquid (QSL) phases, the picture of classical magnetic moments breaks down, and fractionalized spinon quasiparticles with unusual statistics and long-range entanglement properties become relevant [@Balents10_Nature_464_199; @*Lee08_Science_321_5894]. After intense theoretical research activity on quantum spin liquids in the late 1980’s and 1990’s due to their intimate relation with high-temperature superconductivity [@Lee_RMP_78_2006], interest in QSL has recently regained momentum because of possible applications in quantum computing [@Kitaev20062]. More strikingly, however, enormous experimental progress in synthetization and characterization of actual spin liquid candidate materials has catapulted the field to an unprecedented stage of maturity in this century (see Refs. [@coldea2001a; @Yamashita2008; @Itou2010; @haidong_cu; @haidong_ni; @Zorko2008; @Zhou2012; @Han2012; @Helton07; @Mendels2007; @Colman2008; @*Colman2010; @Kermarrec14_PRB.90.205103; @Fak12_PRL_109_037208] and references therein).
A highly interesting, recently synthesized QSL candidate material is the so-called kapellasite [@Colman2008; @*Colman2010; @Fak12_PRL_109_037208; @Bernu_PRB_87_155107; @Kermarrec14_PRB.90.205103]: X-ray diffraction on powder samples of this strong Mott insulator indicates geometrically perfect, uncoupled two-dimensional kagome layers of spin $S=1/2$ Cu ions, despite some on-site Cu/Zn dilution. Muon spectroscopy shows the absence of frozen moments, inelastic neutron scattering exhibits a continuum of excitations (mimicking a spinon continuum), and the plateau in $1/T_1$ of NMR measurements confirms a fluctuating behavior down to 20 mK. Experiments on kapellasite therefore provide quite strong evidence in favor of a genuine gapless QSL phase in this material.
In contrast to its polymorph herbertsmithite [@Helton07; @Mendels2007] – one of the best studied QSL candidate to date – kapellasite is known to have important exchange interactions between farther-neighbor sites in the kagome plane [@Janson_2008; @Valenti_PRB.88.075106]. Recent accurate high-temperature series expansions and their fits to susceptibility and specific heat data revealed ferromagnetic interactions on first and second neighbors, while a dominant antiferromagnetic exchange of $J_d\simeq16$ K is present across the hexagons of the lattice [@Bernu_PRB_87_155107; @Fak12_PRL_109_037208]. These results open up exciting new theoretical prospects, because [*classical*]{} spin models on the kagome lattice with such farther-neighbor interactions are known to exhibit [*nonplanar*]{} Néel phases, i.e., a spontaneous breaking of time-reversal symmetry (TRS) [@Messio11_PRB_83_184401]. Whether such chiral symmetry breaking can carry over to the quantum regime in a spin liquid phase is one of the central questions we want to address in this paper. Ideas for chiral spin liquids (CSLs) were presented some time ago [@KalmeyerLaughlin87_PRL_59_2095; @*KalmeyerLaughlin89_PRB.39.11879; @WWZ89_PRB_39_11413; @Yang93_PRL.70.2641], but despite the initial excitement and intense research efforts, the lack of realistic theoretical models and experimental realizations of such exotic phases finally led to a stagnation in activity. Recently, however, density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) computations on a farther-neighbor kagome antiferromagnet found evidence for a gapped CSL state [@Gong2014].
In this paper we present a phase diagram of the extended quantum Heisenberg model on the kagome lattice, $$\label{eq:model}
H = J_1\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} \mathbf{S}_i \cdot \mathbf{S}_j +
J_2 \sum_{\langle\langle i,j\rangle\rangle} {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_j
+ J_d \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle_d} {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_j$$ with ferromagnetic interactions on first and second neighbors ($J_1\leq0$, $J_2\leq0$), and antiferromagnetic interactions $J_d\geq0$ across the diagonals of the hexagons [@JScale]. Testing a wide range of microscopic spin liquid and correlated Néel wave functions, we find the variational phase diagram presented in Fig. \[fig:phase\_diag\]. In the inset, the phase diagram for the corresponding classical spin model is displayed. The phase dubbed $\sqrt3\times\!\sqrt 3$ has a planar order and a nine-site cell, while have nonplanar spins in a twelve-site cell [@Messio11_PRB_83_184401]. For $J_d\gtrsim 0.5$, we find three types of QSL phases: a dimensionally reduced, quasi-one-dimensional (1D), and two TRS breaking phases. We elaborate on these results in the remainder of the paper.
![ (Color online) Quantum phase diagram of model (\[eq:model\]) for $J_d\geq0$ and $J_1, J_2\leq0$, with $|J_1|+|J_2|+J_d = 1$. Horizontal lines are $J_d = $ cst. The blue area represents parameters best describing kapellasite [@Bernu_PRB_87_155107], and the purple dot is the haydeeite kagome ferromagnet [@Boldrin_PRB.91.220408]. Left inset: Classical phase diagram. \[fig:phase\_diag\]](\figdir/phase_diag_pr_ferro_k9.pdf){width=".93\columnwidth"}
[*Néel ordered states.*]{} Due to the presence of ferromagnetic couplings which favor local transient creation of spin $>1/2$, it can be suspected that semi-classical Néel phases can survive in large parts of the phase diagram. Black symbols in Fig. \[fig:phase\_diag\] designate points where long-range ordered states have the lowest energy. We obtain these wave functions by the Huse-Elser construction [@Huse88_PRL_60_2531; @Trumper99_PRL.82.3899], $$\label{eq:neel}
|\text{Neel}\rangle = e^{-\sum_{i,j}{\mathcal J}_{i j} S^z_i S^z_j } \prod_j |{\bm S}\rangle_j\,,$$ i.e., nontrivial quantum fluctuation is introduced in product states of classical spin orders by and diagonal-neighbor Jastrow factors. This class of wave functions is known to give excellent variational estimates of the ground-state energy for ordered quantum spin systems [@Huse88_PRL_60_2531; @Trumper99_PRL.82.3899]. Because of the presence of ferromagnetic interactions on first- and second-neighbor links, we also checked U(1) liquids (see below) with [*spin-triplet*]{} fields on these links. However, these spin-rotation broken phases are never stabilized against the singlet liquids anywhere in our phase diagram [@tripletHopping]. Nevertheless, further studies of a possible competition of Néel states with nematic liquids could be interesting [@Momoi09_PRB.80.064410; @Momoi11_PRB.84.134414; @Bhatta12_PRB.85.224428; @Reuther14_PRB.90.174417].
[*QSL wave functions.*]{} Since the putative spin liquid in kapellasite has gapless excitations, we choose to fractionalize spin into fermionic spinon operators $(f_\alpha) = (f_\uparrow, f_\downarrow)$ as $2 S^a = f_\alpha^\dagger\sigma_a^{\alpha\beta}f_\beta$, where $\sigma_a$ are Pauli matrices. This spin representation introduces a gauge redundancy ${\bm \psi}=(f_\uparrow,f_\downarrow^\dagger)^T\mapsto g {\bm \psi}$, where $g$ is any SU(2) matrix. The state is then constructed via a quadratic spinon Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:Hmf}
H_0 = \sum_{ij}\xi_{ij} f_{i\alpha}^\dagger f_{j\alpha} + \Delta_{ij} [f_{i\uparrow} f_{j\downarrow}-f_{i\downarrow} f_{j\uparrow}] + \text{h.c.}\,,$$and the microscopic wave function is its Gutzwiller-projected ground state $|\text{QSL}\rangle = \prod_j n_j(2-n_j)|\psi_0\rangle$ [@Gros89_AnnPhys_189_53; @Bieri12_PRB_86_224409; @pathIntMF]. Note that for chiral spin liquids, the parameters $\xi_{ij}$ and $\Delta_{ij}$ are complex in general. At the level of the effective mean-field theory, the SU(2) gauge redundancy is generically broken down to U(1) or $\mathbb{Z}_2$. The theoretical challenge is to exhaustively enumerate all possible liquid phases of the form (\[eq:Hmf\]) that follow certain symmetry requirements. For this we use the projective symmetry group (PSG) approach introduced by Wen [@Wen02_PRB.65.165113], and subsequently applied to the kagome lattice in Refs. [@LuRanLee11_PRB.83.224413; @YBK13_PRB.88.224413]. In this paper, we significantly extend previous results by systematically classifying time-reversal symmetry broken fermionic QSL phases on the kagome lattice. We are interested in phases with unbroken translation and spin rotation symmetries. The CPT theorem implies that breaking of time reversal is accompanied by breaking of a reflection symmetry. The kagome lattice has a $\pi/3$ rotation symmetry $R$, and reflection symmetries $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$, related by $R\sigma = \sigma'$. We therefore find three possible ways how TRS can break on this lattice: (a) $R$ is intact, and all reflection symmetries $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$ are broken; (b) $R$ and $\sigma$ are broken, and $\sigma'$ is intact; (c) $R$ and $\sigma'$ are broken, and $\sigma$ is intact [@SupMat]. We label these three types of chiral symmetry breaking by $(\tau_\sigma,\tau_R) = (1,0)$, $(1,1)$, and $(0,1)$, respectively. The fourth case $(\tau_\sigma,\tau_R)=(0,0)$ corresponds to “symmetric” spin liquids, i.e., unbroken TRS [@LuRanLee11_PRB.83.224413]. Classical spin states with these symmetries are (a) octahedral state, (b) , and (c) [@Messio11_PRB_83_184401].
![ (Color online) Variational energy of microscopic wave functions on the lines (a) $J_2=0$ and (b) $J_d=0.5$ of the phase diagram. \[fig:var\_energy\]](\figdir/energiesr8.pdf){width="1.01\columnwidth"}
The algebraic PSG is a projective representation of the lattice symmetries in the SU(2) gauge group [@Wen02_PRB.65.165113]. We find that this representation is not affected by the type of TRS breaking discussed above, and thus there remain 20 gauge inequivalent classes of algebraic PSGs [@LuRanLee11_PRB.83.224413] in the chiral case. However, at the level of mean fields {$\xi_{ij}$, $\Delta_{ij}$} compatible with the symmetries, time-reversal plays a crucial role and introduces strong constraints on their possible values. Here, we focus on phases where nonzero mean fields are allowed on [*at least two*]{} out of first, second, and diagonal links of the kagome lattice. Mean fields on all other links are set to zero. This choice is motivated by the spin model (\[eq:model\]) we want to study. Given these restrictions, we find in total 25 distinct chiral mean-field phases (\[eq:Hmf\]) with a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ gauge structure. We leave a detailed investigation of these Z$_2$ QSLs for future work. Instead, we focus on phases where the mean-field gauge group is U(1). We find 15 such U(1) QSL phases, listed in Table \[tab:U1\].
No. $\tau_{\sigma}$ $\tau_{R}$ $\epsilon_2$ $g_{\sigma}$ $g_R$ $\beta_1$ $\beta_2$ $\beta_d$ Description
----- ----------------- ------------ -------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 0 $+$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $0$ $0$ $0$ large Fermi surface
2 0 0 $-$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $0$ $0$ x Dirac spect. [@Ran07_PRL.98.117205; @*Hermele08_PRB.77.224413]
3 1 1 $+$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $0$ $\pi/2$ x triangular FS
4 1 1 $+$ $i\sigma_2$ $i\sigma_2$ $0$ $\beta_2$ $0$ large FS
5 1 1 $-$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $0$ $\pi/2$ $0$ Dirac spectrum
6 1 1 $-$ $i\sigma_2$ $i\sigma_2$ $0$ $\beta_2$ x FS/Dirac
7 0 1 $+$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $\pi/2$ $0$ $\pi/2$ triangular FS
8 0 1 $+$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $i\sigma_2$ $\beta_1$ $0$ $\beta_d$ large FS
9 0 1 $-$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $\pi/2$ $0$ x kagome FS
10 0 1 $-$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $i\sigma_2$ $\beta_1$ $0$ x FS/Dirac
11 0 1 $-$ $i\sigma_2$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $\beta_1$ x $0$ Dirac spectrum
12 1 0 $+$ $i\sigma_2$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $\beta_1$ $\beta_2$ $0$ large FS
13 1 0 $-$ $i\sigma_2$ $i\sigma_2$ $\pi/2$ $\beta_2$ $\pi/2$ CSL A
14 1 0 $-$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $i\sigma_2$ $\beta_1$ $\pi/2$ $\beta_d$ CSL B
15 1 0 $-$ $i\sigma_2$ $\mathbb{1}_2$ $\beta_1$ $\beta_2$ $\pi/2$ fully gapped [@MarstonZheng91; @Hastings00_PRB.63.014413]
: QSL phases with U(1) gauge structure, including symmetric ($\tau_\sigma,\tau_R=0$) and chiral ($\tau_\sigma=1$ or $\tau_R=1$) liquids [@chiralNote]. $\epsilon_2=-1$ indicates doubling of the spinon unit cell. $\beta_a = \text{arg}(\xi_a)$ are the allowed hopping phases in (\[eq:Hmf\]); “x” means $\xi_a=0$. (FS: Fermi surface) \[tab:U1\]
The first two columns in this table specify the type of TRS breaking. Thus, phases No. 1 and 2 are symmetric liquids with unbroken TRS. Phases No. 3-15 break time reversal. The next three columns specify the algebraic PSG, i.e., the SU(2) representation of lattice translation, reflection, $g_\sigma$, and $\pi/3$ rotation symmetry, $g_R$. We work in a gauge where the representation of $x$ translation is trivial, $g_x = \mathbb{1}_2$; the $y$ translation is staggered according to the sign $\epsilon_2$, $g_y = (\epsilon_2)^x \mathbb{1}_2$. Similar to the U(1) PSG representation for bosonic spinons [@WangVish06_PRB.74.174423; @Messio13_PRB_87_125127; @*Messio12_PRL.108.207204; @Wang_PRB.82.024419; @Li_PRB.76.174406], we can show that there is always a gauge where the point group representations are independent of sublattice site. Furthermore, for U(1) liquids, $\Delta_{ij}=0$ without loss of generality. Finally, columns $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$, and $\beta_d$ in Table \[tab:U1\] contain the allowed complex phases of first, second, and diagonal mean-fields $\xi_a$; “x” indicates that hopping must vanish by symmetry, $\xi_a=0$; $\beta_a$ means the phase is unconstrained. If allowed by symmetry, the relative hopping amplitudes, signs, and complex phases are free and will be used as variational parameters [@SupMat]. In the last column we give some robust properties of these phases [@chiralNote], but more details will be published elsewhere.
[*Quantum phase diagram.*]{} Using large-scale Monte Carlo calculations, we determine the optimal parameters minimizing the energy of (\[eq:model\]) in the correlated Néel (\[eq:neel\]) and in the chiral U(1) QSL wave functions (\[eq:Hmf\]). The resulting phase diagram is shown in Fig. \[fig:phase\_diag\]. The energies of the best variational states on the lines $J_2=0$ and $J_d=0.5$ are given in Fig. \[fig:var\_energy\]. Black symbols in these figures represent long-range ordered phases [@MC]. As expected, when $J_1$ and $J_2$ are dominant, the system is a ferromagnet. When the strength of $J_d$ increases, it exhibits a first-order transition to semi-classical Néel phases, either of nonplanar type or with planar $\sqrt{3}\times\!\sqrt{3}$ order, depending on the relative strengths of $J_1$ and $J_2$. With even larger $J_d$, the ground state moves to true QSL phases (color symbols online). At $J_d=1$, the model consists of decoupled antiferromagnetic (AF) chains. The AF chain is a well-known QSL with gapless Fermi points of deconfined spinons. In our approach, this phase is represented by the so-called “Gutzwiller-RVB” wave function [@Shastry88_PRL.60.639; @*Haldane88_PRL.60.635] – a projected chain of itinerant fermions – which is known to be an extremely good approximation to the true ground state. Surprisingly, as we decrease $J_d$ while keeping $J_1\simeq J_2$, the 1D phase is very robust and it remains the lowest state. This dimensional reduction can be understood if we picture the chains as AF ordered classical spins: Inter-chain couplings induced by nonzero $J_1 = J_2$ exactly cancel, and two-dimensional (2D) correlations do not lower the energy. For $|J_1|\gtrsim 2 |J_2|$ and $|J_1|\lesssim |J_2|/2$, however, we find truly two-dimensional chiral spin liquid phases, No. 13 and 14 in Table \[tab:U1\], respectively. In the classical model, $J_1=J_2$ is a line of first-order transition from the chiral to the phase. In the quantum case, our results indicate the existence of an extended intermediate phase with essentially 1D character. This phase may give birth to two-dimensional spin liquids through second-order phase transitions, and the presence of quantum critical lines seems plausible.
{width="\textwidth"}
[*Chiral spin liquids.*]{} Let us discuss the nature of the found 2D QSL states in more detail. We denote the phase for dominant $J_1$ by CSL A, and the one for dominant $J_2$ by CSL B. Both are gapless with spinon Fermi surfaces, and they break reflection and TRS, while all other model symmetries are intact. For definiteness, we give the optimal variational parameters at $J = (|J_1|,|J_2|,J_d) = (0.4,0.1,0.5)$ for CSL A, and at $J = (0.1,0.3,0.6)$ for CSL B. The hopping amplitudes for CSL A are $\xi = (|\xi_1|, |\xi_2|, |\xi_d|) \simeq (0.2, 2.7, 7.1)$; the complex hopping phases on first-neighbor and diagonal links are fixed to $\pi/2$ by symmetry (see No. 13 in Table \[tab:U1\]), and we find $\beta_2\simeq \pi/5$ for the optimal phase on the second-neighbor link. For CSL B, we find $\xi\simeq (2.4, 0.2, 7.4)$. Here, the complex phases on first and diagonal links are free (see No. 14), and we find the optimal values $\beta_1\simeq \pi/5$ and $\beta_d\simeq -\pi/25$. QSLs are conveniently characterized by gauge invariant fluxes piercing loops of lattice links [@Wen02_PRB.65.165113; @Iqbal11_PRB.83.100404; @Clark13_PRL.111.187205]. Using the PSG in Table \[tab:U1\], CSL A thus has a U(1) flux $\simeq 2\pi/5$ through triangles of second-neighbor links. On the other hand, CSL B exhibits a flux $\simeq 2\pi/5$ through small lattice triangles and no flux pierces the hexagons. Note that the optimal hopping phases (and hence the fluxes) on second and first neighbors are simply exchanged in CSL A and CSL B [@optParameters].
[*Static structure factor.*]{} In Fig. \[fig:projSk\], we display the static spin structure factor $S({\bm q})$ for the three QSL phases calculated on square clusters of $N=3(12)^2$ sites [@SupMat]. In the 1D phase for $J_1\simeq J_2$, the spinon can only propagate along the diagonals of the hexagons, which form arrays of uncoupled chains in three directions $\hat{\bm e}_1$, $\hat{\bm e}_2$, and $\hat{\bm e}_3$. The structure factor for these chains is logarithmically divergent in $N$ at momenta connecting the Fermi points, determined by ${\bm q}\cdot \hat{\bm e}_n=\pi/(2a)$; (nearest-neighbor distance $a = 1$). This explains the lines of intensity in the 1D phase \[Fig. \[fig:projSk\](b)\]. When moving to the 2D CSL phases in Figs. \[fig:projSk\](a) and \[fig:projSk\](c), these general geometric features of $S({\bm q})$ remain. However, the scattering becomes more diffuse, and the passage to 2D is accompanied by a transfer of spectral weight. In CSL A, the intensity is concentrated at the six inner line crossings ($M$ points), while in CSL B, it is dominantly at the outer crossings. This is a fading reminiscence of soft points in the classical partners of these phases [@Messio11_PRB_83_184401].
*Physical properties.* The blue area in Fig. \[fig:phase\_diag\] depicts the confidence region of model parameters describing kapellasite according to recent experimental fits [@Bernu_PRB_87_155107]. The most likely spin exchange couplings for this material, $J \simeq (0.38,0.13,0.49)\times 32$ K, is located in the CSL A phase. This result is in excellent agreement with the neutron scattering data which clearly indicate the absence of Néel or nematic order and of their Goldstone modes. The averaged static spin structure factor of CSL A with its soft maxima at the $M$ points \[Fig. \[fig:projSk\](a)\] gives a good description of the powder signal. These experimental properties are also consistent with a bosonic description of the underlying spinons [@Fak12_PRL_109_037208]. However, the decisive strength of the present explanation is the existence of a continuum of gapless $S=1$ excitations near the spinon Fermi surface of the theory. Constructing these (projected) excitations explicitly [@Hermele08_PRB.77.224413], we estimate a spinon bandwidth of $\sim 2.1~\text{meV}$. These features are lacking in a bosonic approach, and they are crucial in explaining the experimental data.
The found gapless CSLs are expected to exhibit longitudinal spin and heat transport [@Lee10_PRL.104.066403]. Furthermore, spontaneous TRS breaking implies corresponding Hall currents, even in the absence of Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya terms or external magnetic fields. Classical simulations suggested that chiral symmetry breaking can survive up to small but finite temperature [@Domenge_PRB.77.172413; @*Messio08_PRB.78.054435]. A mean-field calculation for our CSL phases predicts a linear temperature scaling of specific heat and conductivities, but strong spinon interaction due to U(1) gauge fluctuation is likely to change this result [@Motrunich05_PRB_72_045105; @*Motrunich06_PRB.73.155115]. Nevertheless, a nonzero Hall angle is robust and would be a strong experimental indication in favor of our theory.
[*Conclusion.*]{} In this paper we studied the zero-temperature phase diagram of the quantum Heisenberg model (\[eq:model\]) on the kagome lattice with ferromagnetic exchanges $J_1$ and $J_2$, and antiferromagnetic $J_d$ across the hexagons. It harbors not only semi-classical phases, but also genuine chiral spin liquids. On this basis, we propose a quantitative explanation for the scattering pattern measured in powder samples of kapellasite, and we predict the structure factor expected for single crystals. From a theoretical perspective, these CSLs appear through frustration of arrays of AF spin chains. It is a rare occurrence of TRS breaking in a pure Heisenberg model without higher-order spin exchange [@Lauchli03_PRB.67.100409; @Mishmash13_PRL.111.157203; @Nielsen2013]. This opens interesting avenues for other approaches (1D bosonization [@Azaria98_PRB.58.R8881], DMRG [@YanHuseWhite_03062011; @JiangWengSheng08_PRL.101.117203; @Depenbrock2012; @He2014; @Balents_PRB.86.024424; @Bauer2014], DMFT [@DMFT_RMP.68.13], fRG [@Thomale14_PRB.89.020408], cluster methods [@FarnellBishopLi_PRB.89.184407; @Auerbach11_PRB.87.161118], refined VMC [@Iqbal11_PRB.84.020407; @Iqbal13_PRB.87.060405; @*Iqbal14_PRB.89.020407; @Imada14_JPSJ.83.093707; @Tay11_PRB.84.020404], etc) exploring this novel type of dimensional crossover from 1D to 2D quantum phases. In fact, compounds with a network of frustrated AF chains are ubiquitous and their neutron diffraction patterns remain *terra incognita*.
We thank P. Mendels, B. F[å]{}k, F. Bert, M. Serbyn, and P. A. Lee for many helpful discussions. The supercomputer “Mesu” of UPMC and the computing cluster of LPTMC were used for the numerical results. UPMC belongs to Sorbonne Universités. This work is supported by ANR-12-BS04-0021.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the 2-degree Field Lensing Survey (2dFLenS), a new galaxy redshift survey performed at the Anglo-Australian Telescope. 2dFLenS is the first wide-area spectroscopic survey specifically targeting the area mapped by deep-imaging gravitational lensing fields, in this case the Kilo-Degree Survey. 2dFLenS obtained $70{,}079$ redshifts in the range $z < 0.9$ over an area of $731$ deg$^2$, and is designed to extend the datasets available for testing gravitational physics and promote the development of relevant algorithms for joint imaging and spectroscopic analysis. The redshift sample consists first of $40{,}531$ Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs), which enable analyses of galaxy-galaxy lensing, redshift-space distortion, and the overlapping source redshift distribution by cross-correlation. An additional $28{,}269$ redshifts form a magnitude-limited ($r < 19.5$) nearly-complete sub-sample, allowing direct source classification and photometric-redshift calibration. In this paper, we describe the motivation, target selection, spectroscopic observations, and clustering analysis of 2dFLenS. We use power spectrum multipole measurements to fit the redshift-space distortion parameter of the LRG sample in two redshift ranges $0.15 < z < 0.43$ and $0.43 < z < 0.7$ as $\beta = 0.49 \pm 0.15$ and $\beta = 0.26 \pm 0.09$, respectively. These values are consistent with those obtained from LRGs in the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey. 2dFLenS data products will be released via our website [http://2dflens.swin.edu.au]{}.'
author:
- |
\
\
$^1$ Centre for Astrophysics & Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, P.O. Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia\
$^2$ Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill,\
Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, U.K.\
$^3$ Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2611, Australia\
$^4$ School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, U.K.\
$^5$ Argelander Institute for Astronomy, University of Bonn, Auf dem Hugel 71, 53121, Bonn, Germany\
$^6$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, 6224 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, V6T 1Z1, B.C., Canada\
$^7$ School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia\
$^8$ Department of Astronomy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 3H4, Canada\
$^9$ Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, Niels Bohrweg 2, 2333 CA Leiden, The Netherlands\
$^{10}$ Australian Astronomical Observatory, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia\
$^{11}$ School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
title: 'The 2-degree Field Lensing Survey: design and clustering measurements'
---
surveys, large-scale structure of Universe, cosmology: observations
Introduction
============
A wide set of cosmological observations suggests that the dynamics of the Universe are currently dominated by some form of ‘dark energy’, which in standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) models is propelling an acceleration in late-time cosmic expansion. However, the physical nature of dark energy is not yet understood, and its effects are subject to intense observational scrutiny.
Efforts in this area to date have focused on mapping out the cosmic expansion history using baryon acoustic oscillations (BAOs) as a standard ruler (e.g. Beutler et al. 2011, Blake et al. 2011b, Anderson et al. 2014, Kazin et al. 2014, Delubac et al. 2015, Aubourg et al. 2015, Alam et al. 2016) and Type Ia supernovae as standard candles (e.g. Conley et al. 2011, Suzuki et al. 2012, Betoule et al. 2014). These probes have yielded important constraints on the ‘homogeneous expanding Universe’, including $\sim
1\%$ distance measurements and a $\sim 5\%$ determination of the value of the equation-of-state of dark energy, $w$. However, measurements of the laws of gravity that describe the ‘clumpy Universe’ are currently less advanced, and only a combination of complementary observations of expansion and gravitational growth will discriminate between the different possible physical manifestations of dark energy. Efforts have focused on establishing whether the laws of General Relativity (GR), well-tested on solar-system scales, are a good description of gravity on cosmological scales 14 orders of magnitude larger.
There are two particularly important observable signatures of gravitational physics that can be used for this purpose, and these two methods gain considerable leverage when combined. The first observable is the peculiar motions of galaxies as they fall toward overdense regions as non-relativistic test particles. These motions produce correlated Doppler shifts in galaxy redshifts that create an overall clustering anisotropy as a function of the angle to the line-of-sight, known as redshift-space distortion (RSD). This pattern has been measured by a number of galaxy redshift surveys (e.g. Blake et al. 2011a, Beutler et al. 2012, de la Torre et al. 2013, Samushia et al. 2014, Beutler et al. 2014, Marin et al. 2016, Alam et al. 2016) and has permitted the growth rate of cosmic structure to be measured with $\sim 10\%$ accuracy at some epochs. The second gravitational probe is the patterns of weak lensing imprinted by the deflections of light rays from distant galaxies as they travel through the intervening large-scale structure as relativistic test particles. This signal may be measured using correlations in the apparent shapes of background galaxies in deep imaging surveys (e.g. Heymans et al. 2012, Huff et al. 2014, Kuijken et al. 2015, Becker et al. 2016, Hildebrandt et al. 2016b). Whilst the cosmological parameter constraints possible from gravitational lensing statistics are still improving, the measurement offers several key advantages such as its insensitivity to galaxy bias.
Velocities and lensing are complementary because only their combination allows general deviations to the Einstein field equations to be constrained (Zhang et al. 2007, Song et al. 2011). Modern theories of gravity may be classified by the manner in which they warp or perturb the spacetime metric (and the way this warping is generated by matter). In general two types of perturbations are possible: spacelike and timelike. In GR these perturbations are equal and opposite, but in ‘modified gravity’ scenarios a difference is predicted. Examples of such frameworks include generalizing the ‘action’ of GR as a function of the Ricci curvature, such as in $f(R)$ gravity models (Sotiriou & Faraoni 2010), or embedding ordinary 3+1 dimensional space into a higher-dimensional manifold such as ‘Cascading gravity’ (de Rham et al. 2008) or ‘Galileon gravity’ (Chow & Khoury 2009). These scenarios make different observable predictions.
Joint cosmological fits to weak gravitational lensing and galaxy redshift-space distortion statistics can be performed using datasets without sky overlap (e.g. Simpson et al. 2013). However, the availablity of overlapping imaging and spectroscopic surveys yields several scientific benefits. First, since the same density fluctuations source both the lensing and galaxy velocity signals, the partially-shared sample variance reduces the uncertainty in the gravity fits (McDonald & Seljak 2009), and the addition of the shape-density correlation statistics (‘galaxy-galaxy lensing’) enables new measurements to be constructed such as the ‘gravitational slip’ (Zhang et al. 2007). A series of authors (Gaztanaga et al. 2012; Cai & Bernstein 2012; de Putter, Dore & Das 2014; Kirk et al. 2015; Eriksen & Gaztanaga 2015) have predicted statistical improvements resulting from overlapping surveys, although the degree of this improvement depends on assumptions and survey configuration (Font-Ribera et al. 2014).
Perhaps more importantly, the actual benefit of overlapping surveys exceeds statistical forecasts because weak lensing measurements are limited by a number of sources of systematic error which may be mitigated using same-sky spectroscopic-redshift observations. One of the most significant systematic errors is the calibration of the source photometric redshifts which are required for cosmic shear tomography (Ma, Hu & Huterer 2006). Overlapping spectroscopic surveys are a powerful means of performing this calibration (Newman et al. 2015), using approaches including both observation of complete spectroscopic sub-samples and analysis of cross-correlation statistics (McQuinn & White 2013, de Putter, Dore & Das 2014). Conversely, the gravitational lensing imprint allows independent calibration of the galaxy bias parameters that are a key systematic limitation to redshift-space distortion analysis (e.g. Buddendiek et al. 2016). Finally, overlapping imaging and spectroscopy enables a wide range of other science including studies of galaxy clusters, strong lensing systems and galaxy evolution.
The first wide-area overlapping spectroscopic and cosmic shear surveys only recently became available[^1] and currently span a shared area of $\sim 500$ deg$^2$, consisting of an overlap between two lensing imaging surveys – the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS; Gwyn 2012, Heymans et al. 2012) and the 2nd Red Sequence Cluster Survey (RCS2; Gilbank et al. 2011, Hildebrandt et al. 2016a) – and two spectroscopic redshift surveys – the WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey (Drinkwater et al. 2010) and the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS; Dawson et al. 2013). This overlap has permitted a number of studies including a new consistency test of GR via a measurement of gravitational slip at $z=0.6$ (Blake et al. 2016), joint constraints on halo occupation distribution and cosmological parameters (More et al. 2015), tests of imaging photometric redshift performance via cross-correlation (Choi et al. 2016) and new measurements of small-scale galaxy bias parameters (Buddendiek et al. 2016).
Wide-area overlap between spectroscopic and imaging surveys requires significant further extension to realize its full scientific potential. Two of the deep imaging surveys currently being performed to measure gravitational lensing – the 1500 deg$^2$ Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS; Kuijken et al. 2015) at the European Southern Observatory VLT Survey Telescope (VST), and the 5000 deg$^2$ Dark Energy Survey (DES; Becker et al. 2016) at the Blanco Telescope – are located largely in the southern hemisphere, whereas the largest existing wide-area spectroscopic surveys have been carried out by the Sloan Telescope in the northern hemisphere.[^2] With this in mind, we have created the 2-degree Field Lensing Survey (2dFLenS)[^3], a new southern-hemisphere spectroscopic redshift survey using the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT). The 2dF-AAOmega multi-fibre spectroscopic system at the AAT has conducted a series of such projects including the 2-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS; Colless et al. 2001), the WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey (Drinkwater et al. 2010), the Galaxy And Mass Assembly survey (GAMA; Driver et al. 2011), and OzDES (Yuan et al. 2015).
This paper describes the design, performance and initial clustering analysis of 2dFLenS. Key initial scientific analyses, some in conjunction with KiDS, are presented by five associate papers (Joudaki et al. 2016b, Johnson et al. 2016, Amon et al. 2016, Wolf et al. 2016, Janssens et al. 2016). Section \[secdesign\] motivates the survey design: the choice of fields and targets. Section \[sectarsel\] describes the process of selecting targets from input photometric imaging catalogues, and Section \[secspecobs\] discusses the spectroscopic observing campaign including AAT data reduction and galaxy redshift determination. Section \[secselfunc\] describes the calculation of the selection function of the spectroscopic observations, which forms the basis of the ensuing galaxy clustering measurements. Section \[secmock\] outlines the construction of the survey mock catalogues which are used to estimate the covariance matrix of the clustering statistics, whose measurement is discussed in Section \[secclus\]. We summarize in Section \[secconc\].
Survey design {#secdesign}
=============
Choice of fields
----------------
The purpose of 2dFLenS is to extend the coverage of spectroscopic-redshift observations that overlap with deep optical imaging surveys performed to measure weak gravitational lensing. The principal focus of our new spectroscopic coverage is the area being imaged by the Kilo-Degree Survey[^4] (KiDS; de Jong et al. 2015, Kuijken et al. 2015), a new lensing dataset in the southern sky. The KiDS footprint is planned to encompass 1500 deg$^2$, divided into two approximately equal areas around the Southern Galactic Cap (SGC) and Northern Galactic Cap (NGC). Approximately 500 deg$^2$ of the KiDS NGC survey region is already covered by deep spectroscopic data provided by the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS; Dawson et al. 2013). The remaining KiDS area lacks deep, wide-area spectroscopic coverage, although two shallower redshift surveys have performed overlapping observations: the Galaxy And Mass Assembly survey (GAMA; Driver et al. 2011) and the 2-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS; Colless et al. 2001). However, neither of these existing datasets has the depth nor coverage to address our scientific aims.
In addition to the KiDS region, 2dFLenS also conducted observations in sky areas covered by two other deep lensing imaging surveys: the Canada France Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS; Gwyn 2012, Heymans et al. 2012) and the 2nd Red Sequence Cluster Survey (RCS2; Gilbank et al. 2011, Hildebrandt et al. 2016a). In particular, we targeted regions of those surveys which possessed either no or partial deep spectroscopic follow-up: CFHTLS regions W1 and W2, and RCS2 regions 0320, 0357 and 1111. The right ascension and declination boundaries of all these fields are listed in Table \[tabregions\].
Region min R.A. max R.A. min Dec. max Dec.
------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
KiDS-S 330.0 52.5 -36.0 -26.0
RCS 0320 44.0 53.2 -24.1 -18.5
RCS 0357 56.3 62.2 -11.7 -6.0
CFHTLS W1 30.1 38.9 -11.3 -3.7
KiDS-N (1) 127.5 142.5 -2.0 3.0
KiDS-N (2) 156.0 238.5 -5.0 4.0
RCS 1111 163.7 172.3 -10.1 -1.7
CFHTLS W2 132.0 136.9 -5.8 -0.9
: Right Ascension and Declination boundaries in degrees of regions targeted for observation by 2dFLenS. The top and bottom halves of the table list SGC and NGC regions, respectively.
\[tabregions\]
Figure \[figoverlaps\] illustrates the location of these regions in more detail. The cross-hatched red shaded area indicates the fields originally planned to be targeted for observation by 2dFLenS, extending existing coverage by BOSS. This area comprised a total of 985 deg$^2$ (731 and 254 deg$^2$ in the SGC and NGC, respectively). Our observations also overlap with the footprint of the Dark Energy Survey (DES). The final status of our spectroscopic campaign is illustrated in Figure \[figprogress\] and discussed in Section \[secstatus\].
We tiled the 2dFLenS observation regions with 2-degree diameter circular pointings of the 2dF+AAOmega spectroscopic system at the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT), using a hexagonal pointing grid with fixed field centres. Usage of a fixed pointing grid, rather than an adaptive, overlapping pointing grid, simplifies the determination of the angular completeness of the observations via a ratio of successful redshifts to intended targets computed in unique sectors. In total we defined 324 AAT pointing centres, 245 in the SGC and 79 in the NGC, which were suitable for observation. The distribution of these field centres is displayed in Figure \[figprogress\]. We excluded a small fraction of intended field centres which lacked appropriate input imaging data as discussed in Section \[sectarsel\].
The 2dFLenS project applied for competitive time allocation at the AAT in March 2014 and was allocated a total of 53 nights spread across the 14B, 15A and 15B semesters, the majority of which occurred in ‘grey time’ with regard to moon phase.
Choice of targets
-----------------
The set of galaxies targeted for spectroscopic observation by 2dFLenS was selected to enable two principal scientific goals:
- Measurement of the gravitational lensing signal imprinted by the spectroscopic targets in the apparent shapes of background sources (‘galaxy-galaxy lensing’), and the comparison of this lensing signal with the amplitude of galaxy peculiar velocities driven by the same density fluctuations, across a wide redshift range.
- Determination of the source redshift distribution in the overlapping imaging survey, using both direct photometric-redshift calibration (enabled by spectroscopy of a complete sub-sample) and cross-correlation techniques (using the clustering between the imaging sources and the spectroscopic sample in narrow redshift slices).
The optimal choice of targets for the first goal, whose correlation with background source shapes will maximize the resulting galaxy-galaxy lensing signal, is Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs), which preferentially trace dense areas of the Universe and hence imprint the strongest gravitational lensing signal. Bright LRGs in the redshift range $z < 1$ can be readily selected using well-understood colour and magnitude cuts developed by previous observational projects such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS, Eisenstein et al. 2001), the 2dF-SDSS LRG And Quasar survey (2SLAQ, Cannon et al. 2006), the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS, Dawson et al. 2013) and the Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (eBOSS, Dawson et al. 2016). We utilized these colour cuts, which are inspired by the evolution with redshift of an early-type galaxy template, in particular the 4000Å spectral break, through the optical filter system. The majority of our survey area overlaps with KiDS, which has a weighted mean redshift of $\sim 0.7$ (Kuijken et al. 2015), where the weights reflect the accuracy of the weak lensing shape measurement for each object. We therefore prioritized spectroscopic targets with $z < 0.7$ to maximise the number of lenses that are in front of our source galaxies.
A disadvantage of targetting an LRG lens sample for our test of gravitational physics is that its high galaxy bias factor, $b \approx
2$, results in a low redshift-space distortion (RSD) signal, whose amplitude is determined by the parameter $\beta = f/b$ where $f$ is the growth rate of cosmic structure. The higher galaxy-galaxy lensing signal, however, compensates for the lower RSD signal, rendering LRGs the optimal choice of target for this scientific goal.
Turning now to the second goal: determination of the source redshift distribution by cross-correlation mandates a spectroscopic sample overlapping the imaging data across the widest possible redshift range, but (unlike direct photometric-redshift calibration) is agnostic regarding the spectroscopic sample’s galaxy type, which is a matter of observational convenience. Given that our available target-selection imaging is insufficiently deep for efficient identification of high-redshift emission-line galaxies, we utilized LRGs for this purpose as well. The practical limitations of our target-selection imaging, together with the integration time available for our observations, restricted the accessible redshift range to $z <
0.9$.
Finally, photometric-redshift determination by direct calibration requires the construction of complete spectroscopic-redshift datasets spanning volumes sufficiently large to minimize the impact of sample variance on this calibration (Cunha et al. 2012). We therefore selected a random sub-sample of galaxies to facilitate this set of investigations, within a magnitude range defined by a faint limit ($r
\approx 19.5$) ensuring highly complete redshift determination in all observing conditions, and a bright limit ($r \approx 17$) minimizing overlap with current and future wide-area complete spectroscopic samples such as 2dFGRS, SDSS and the Taipan Galaxy Survey[^5]. Given that the clustering of this magnitude-limited sample does not need to be measured, it serves as an ideal set of ‘filler’ targets which can be prioritized below the LRGs scheduled for observation in each AAT pointing, ensuring that all spectroscopic fibres are allocated.
In addition to our main target classes, we also included a set of sparsely-distributed ‘spare fibre’ targets within the 2dFLenS observations. These samples are described in Section \[secspareselect\].
Target selection {#sectarsel}
================
Imaging catalogues for target selection
---------------------------------------
2dFLenS targets are selected using a variety of photometric catalogues, depending on the sky area of observation. The majority of 2dFLenS pointings are located within the KiDS survey footprint. However, KiDS imaging observations were still ongoing when 2dFLenS commenced, and therefore it was not possible to employ KiDS data for 2dFLenS target selection. We instead used an overlapping shallower and wider optical imaging survey, VST-ATLAS[^6] (Shanks et al. 2015), for this purpose. ATLAS is sufficiently deep for the selection of the 2dFLenS samples and enabled target selection across the majority of the planned pointings within the KiDS footprint. For convenience, we also used ATLAS data to select targets in the RCS1111 region. We describe our processing of the ATLAS imaging data in the next sub-section, followed by brief summaries of the CFHTLS and RCS2 imaging catalogues that we also employ for 2dFLenS target selection.
### VST-ATLAS imaging {#secatlas}
The KiDS and ATLAS imaging surveys are both performed using the OmegaCAM instrument at the European Southern Observatory (ESO) VLT Survey Telescope (VST) and the same filter system. OmegaCAM is an $8
\times 4$ CCD mosaic whose chips are $4102 \times 2048$-pixel arrays which sample the focal plane at a uniform scale of $0.214$ arcsec. VST-ATLAS is a ‘Sloan-like’ imaging survey in the southern hemisphere observed using five optical filters $ugriz$, with a limiting magnitude $r \approx 22.5$, shallower than the KiDS limit of $r \approx 24$. Relevant ATLAS survey properties are summarized in Table \[tabatlas\].
----- -------------------------- ------------------ -----------------
$u$ $2-4\times 60$ (120-240) $21.97 \pm 0.21$ $1.11 \pm 0.20$
$g$ $2\times 50$ (100) $23.04 \pm 0.12$ $1.00 \pm 0.25$
$r$ $2\times 45$ (90) $22.46 \pm 0.20$ $0.89 \pm 0.19$
$i$ $2\times 45$ (90) $21.79 \pm 0.23$ $0.86 \pm 0.23$
$z$ $2\times 45$ (90) $20.65 \pm 0.23$ $0.87 \pm 0.22$
----- -------------------------- ------------------ -----------------
: Characteristics of the co-added ATLAS imaging data used for 2dFLenS target selection. The columns indicate the exposure time in each of the 5 filters $ugriz$, together with the mean and standard deviation of the limiting AB magnitudes $m_{\rm lim}$ and seeing values across the ATLAS fields. In this Table, the limiting magnitudes are defined as the 5-$\sigma$ detection limit within an annulus of radius 2 arcsec.
\[tabatlas\]
The following is a short description of our ATLAS data processing for 2dFLenS target selection. Our reduction starts with the raw OmegaCAM data available at the ESO archive[^7] at the time of processing (initially 1 Dec 2013, updated 22 Dec 2014). Our processing algorithms are implemented in the publicly-available reduction pipeline [theli]{}[^8] and are described by Erben et al. (2005) and Schirmer (2013). Our [theli]{} processing of ATLAS data consists of the following steps:
- We corrected for the significant cross-talk effects present in the three OmegaCAM CCDs in the left part of the uppermost row of the mosaic.
- We removed the instrumental signature simultaneously for all data obtained in 2-week periods around each new-moon and full-moon phase, which define our processing runs (see Section 4 of Erben et al. 2005). We assume here that the instrument configuration is stable within each processing run. Division of data into these moon phases is convenient as it corresponds to the usage of certain filter combinations ($u$, $g$ and $r$ during new moon; $i$ and $z$ during full moon).
- First-order photometric zeropoints were estimated for each processing run using all images which overlap with SDSS Data Release 10 (Ahn et al. 2014), assuming that photometric conditions were stable within the run. We used between 30 and 150 such images with good airmass coverage for each processing run.
- We subtracted the sky from all individual chips. These data form the basis for image co-addition in the final step.
- We astrometrically calibrated the ATLAS imaging using the 2MASS catalogue (Skrutskie et al. 2006).
- The astrometrically-calibrated data were co-added with a weighted-mean approach (see Erben et al. 2005). The identification of pixels that should not contribute, and the pixel weighting of usable regions, is performed in the same manner as described by Erben et al. (2009, 2013) for CFHTLS data.
- We did not apply an illumination correction to the imaging data, but implemented this correction to the catalogue magnitudes as described below.
We used a total of (680, 295) ATLAS pointings in the (SGC, NGC) 2dFLenS regions for target selection. We generated a source catalogue using the source extraction software [SExtractor]{} (Bertin & Arnouts 1996) to analyze the co-added $r$-band image. The selection of the $r$-band as our detection band was motivated by the more uniform quality of the ATLAS data in this band. The alternative $i$-band data is imaged in bright time and as such is more subject to issues of scattered light during early VST imaging before baffling was installed at the telescope.
Matched aperture photometry and colours were measured for the object catalogue using [SExtractor]{} in dual-extraction mode to analyze PSF Gaussianised $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$ images. PSF Gaussianisation across the 5-bands is achieved by modelling the anisotropic PSF variation across each image followed by a convolution with a spatially-varying kernel. The resulting multi-band data has identical Gaussian PSFs such that aperture magnitudes (defined by the isophotes in our Gaussianised detection band) now measured flux from the same region of the galaxy in each band. The method we employ is detailed in Hildebrandt et al. (2012).
Whilst our PSF Gaussianisation method provides an optimal measurement of galaxy colour, it does not provide a total magnitude or ‘model magnitude’ in each band. Accurate measurements of total magnitudes can only be achieved through galaxy profile fitting. A reasonable approximation, however, is to use the [MAG\_AUTO]{} measurement from [SExtractor]{} which employs a flexible elliptical aperture around each object. When measuring photometry in dual-extraction mode, however, this measurement is only made in the detection band. In order to estimate total magnitudes in other bands we used the difference between [MAG\_AUTO]{} measured in the original detection $r$-band, and the isophotal magnitude [MAG\_ISO]{} measured by [ SExtractor]{} in the PSF Gaussianised $r$-band image, as a proxy for the missed flux during the matched aperture photometry measurement, such that $$m_A = {\tt MAG\_AUTO\_r} + {\tt MAG\_ISO\_cor\_m} - {\tt MAG\_ISO\_r} ,$$ where $m = \lbrace u, g, r, i, z \rbrace$ and [MAG\_ISO\_cor]{} includes a catalogue-based illumination correction. This correction was generated by a 2-dimensional polynomial fit to the zero-point variation across the mosaic in each of the magnitude bands. Dust extinction corrections (Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis 1998) were then applied to the ATLAS magnitudes using $$m_A \rightarrow m_A - {\tt EXTINCTION\_m} .$$ All magnitudes were calibrated to the AB system.
### CFHTLS imaging
CFHTLenS[^9] (Heymans et al. 2012) is a deep multi-colour imaging survey optimized for weak lensing analyses, observed as part of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS) in five optical bands $ugriz$, using the 1 deg$^2$ camera MegaCam. The imaging data, which have limiting 5-$\sigma$ point-source magnitude $i \approx 25.5$, cover 154 deg$^2$ split into four fields, two of which (W1 and W4) already overlap with deep spectroscopic data provided by BOSS. 2dFLenS observations prioritized targetting of a third region, W2, as displayed in Figure \[figoverlaps\]. Target selection in this area was performed using the publicly-available CFHTLenS photometric catalogues (Erben et al. 2013).
### RCS2 imaging
The 2nd Red Sequence Cluster Survey (RCS2; Gilbank et al. 2011) is a $\sim 800$ deg$^2$ imaging survey in three optical bands $grz$ also carried out with the CFHT, with a limiting magnitude $r \approx 24.3$. Around two-thirds of RCS2 has also been imaged in the $i$-band. The survey area is divided into 14 patches on the sky, each with an area ranging from 20 to 100 deg$^2$. Nine of these regions already overlap with deep spectroscopic data provided by the BOSS and WiggleZ surveys (Blake et al. 2016); 2dFLenS observations planned to target three further areas as indicated in Figure \[figoverlaps\]: RCS 0320, 0357 and 1111, although observations were only achieved in the last two of these regions owing to poor weather and the prioritization of fields overlapping KiDS. For convenience we performed target selection using ATLAS data in the RCS 1111 region. Target selection in the other areas was performed using the RCSLenS[^10] photometric catalogues (Hildebrandt et al. 2016a), a lensing re-analysis of the RCS2 imaging data performed by applying the same processing pipeline as developed for CFHTLenS.
### WISE imaging
The availability of infra-red data permits efficient star-galaxy separation for high-redshift LRG selection (Prakash et al. 2015). We therefore matched our optical imaging catalogues with the AllWise catalogue[^11]. We required sources to have a good detection in $W1$ (${\tt w1snr} > 5$), and applied no other selection flags. We transformed the WISE magnitude ([ w1mpro]{}) to an AB magnitude using $W1 = {\tt w1mpro} + 2.683$, and applied a Galactic dust extinction correction using $W1 \rightarrow W1
- 0.231 \, E_{B-V}$.
We matched objects between the optical and infra-red catalogues using a search radius of 1.5 arcsec around each WISE source. This search area is small in comparison to the WISE beam of 6 arcsec, but was found to be optimal through visual inspection of a sample of matched galaxies. Objects were matched when the WISE search radius was contained within the ellipse defined by [SExtractor]{} around the corresponding optical source. In the event that a WISE source was matched to more than one optical source, the WISE photometry was assigned to both optical sources and flagged as a blend.
### Magnitude transformations
Since we aimed to reproduce various SDSS galaxy selections described in Section \[seclrgselect\], and the filter systems used in our input optical imaging surveys were not identical to SDSS filters, we derived magnitude transformations between these surveys and SDSS using an elliptical galaxy template spectrum. These transformations are detailed in Appendix \[secmagtrans\].
### Star-galaxy separation {#secstargalaxy}
One of the main challenges in LRG selection is to separate stars from galaxies, as the colour selection produces more stars than galaxies. The quality of the ATLAS data, in terms of seeing, is significantly better than SDSS, with an average seeing of $0.89$ arcsec in the $r$-band (Table \[tabatlas\]). This high-quality data allows us to separate stars from galaxies based on their size and shape. We performed a preliminary selection of stars based on a high-pass detection threshold [SExtractor]{} analysis of each $r$-band exposure that enters the co-added image. Candidate stars in each exposure were identified on the stellar locus in the size-magnitude plane. Their ellipticity was then measured using the [ksb]{} algorithm (Kaiser, Squires & Broadhurst 1995) and a position-dependent model of the point-spread function (PSF) in each exposure was derived iteratively, rejecting outlying objects with non-PSF-like shapes from the sample. Objects are defined to be stars if they are identified as such in multiple exposures that enter the co-added image. This procedure provides a clean catalogue of unresolved stellar objects which is removed from our LRG sample. However, as our aim was to produce a clean galaxy sample, we also imposed a further selection that the half-light radius of the object [FLUX\_RADIUS]{}, measured by [SExtractor]{}, was greater than 0.9 times the measured seeing in the co-added image.
### Masks
Image defects such as cosmic rays, saturated pixels, satellite tracks, reflections and hot/cold pixels were recorded in a weight map image, as described by Erben et al. (2013). This map was incorporated in the [SExtractor]{} object detection analysis such that these defects did not enter our source catalogue. Additional stellar masks were applied to remove diffraction spikes and ‘ghost’ images around bright stars. These stellar masks were determined with the automated masking algorithm described by Erben et al. (2009) and Kuijken et al. (2015). This uses standard stellar catalogues and knowledge about the magnitude and positional dependence of the ‘ghosting’ angle for OmegaCAM. Further masking of defects and image artefacts such as spurious object detections, asteroids and satellite trails missed in the weight map was performed through visual inspection as described in Section \[seceyeballing\].
### Faint and bright magnitude limits
In order to ensure that the optical magnitudes of ATLAS sources were reliable for use in target selection, we imposed faint magnitude limits $(25.2, 24.7, 24.1)$ in the $(g, r, i)$ bands. These limits where chosen as 1 standard deviation brighter in each band than the mean total magnitude limit of the galaxy number counts in ATLAS fields within the 2dFLenS survey region. The equivalent limits we used for RCSLenS and CFHTLenS data were $(27.1, 26.9, 26.4)$ and $(28.3, 27.7,
27.6)$. Furthermore, due to image saturation we applied bright magnitude limits $(17.4, 18.1, 17.8, 16.8)$ for RCSLenS in the $(g, r,
i, z)$ bands. These limits corresponded to the faintest magnitude that becomes saturated in any of the RCS images that overlap with the 2dFLenS survey region. We therefore lost some brighter targets from our selection, but as the RCS data is a single long-exposure image, there is no alternative for obtaining reliable fluxes for these bright targets in the RCS fields.
### Visual target inspection {#seceyeballing}
We developed a web-based interface for visually inspecting multi-wavelength postage stamp images of all LRGs selected for observation by 2dFLenS. Targets were removed from the sample if there was clear evidence that they were artefacts or stars, or that their apparent colours were influenced by nearby stars. Our multi-wavelength ‘cut-outs’ server code repository is publicly available[^12].
LRG sample selection {#seclrgselect}
--------------------
The LRG target selection for 2dFLenS employed similar colour and magnitude cuts to those utilized by the SDSS, BOSS and eBOSS surveys, in terms of transformed magnitudes in Sloan filters $\lbrace u_S, g_S,
r_S, i_S, z_S \rbrace$ (see Appendix \[secmagtrans\] for the details of the transformations). We followed the evolution with redshift of the LRG spectrum by defining separate colour cuts for selecting low-redshift, mid-redshift and high-redshift 2dFLenS samples, matching the surface density of AAOmega fibres over redshift range $z < 0.9$.
These selections make use of the colour variables $$\begin{aligned}
& & c_\parallel = 0.7 \, (g_S-r_S) + 1.2 \, (r_S-i_S-0.18) , \label{eqcpar} \\
& & c_\perp = (r_S-i_S) - (g_S-r_S)/4 - 0.18 , \label{eqcperp} \\
& & d_\perp = (r_S-i_S) - (g_S-r_S)/8 . \label{eqdperp}\end{aligned}$$ These variables define a convenient co-ordinate system for the locus of early-type galaxies in the $g_S - r_S$ vs. $r_S - i_S$ plane, with $c_\parallel$ increasing parallel to this track, and $c_\perp$ defining the distance perpendicular to the locus (Eisenstein et al. 2001). Cuts above lines of constant $d_\perp$ select early-type galaxies at increasingly high redshift (Cannon et al. 2006).
### Low-redshift sample
First, we included galaxies satisfying ‘Cut I’ or ‘Cut II’ in the SDSS LRG sample (Eisenstein et al. 2001), where ‘Cut I’ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
& & 16.0 < r_S < 19.2 , \\
& & r_S < 13.1 + c_\parallel/0.3 , \\
& & |c_\perp| < 0.2 ,\end{aligned}$$ and ‘Cut II’ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
& & 16.0 < r_S < 19.5 , \\
& & c_\perp > 0.45 - (g_S - r_S)/6 , \\
& & g_S - r_S > 1.3 + 0.25 \, (r_S - i_S) .\end{aligned}$$ We supplemented this sample with additional objects fulfilling the BOSS ‘LOWZ’ selection (Dawson et al. 2013): $$\begin{aligned}
& & 16.0 < r_S < 19.6 , \\
& & r_S < 13.5 + c_\parallel/0.3 , \\
& & |c_\perp| < 0.2 .\end{aligned}$$ These cuts are designed to isolate the locus of early-type galaxies in colour space. Low-$z$ LRG targets must be classified as galaxies by the star-galaxy separation algorithm described in Section \[secstargalaxy\] (the fraction of stars targeted is $\sim 1\%$). Figure \[fignztype\] displays the redshift distribution of targets selected in each 2dFLenS sample. The low-$z$ LRGs span redshift range $0.05 < z < 0.5$; the mean and standard deviation of the redshift distribution is $0.29 \pm 0.12$.
### Mid-redshift sample
The mid-$z$ LRG sample in 2dFLenS was selected using magnitude and colour cuts similar to those employed by the BOSS ‘CMASS’ sample (Dawson et al. 2013): $$\begin{aligned}
& & 17.5 < i_S < 19.9 , \\
& & r_S - i_S < 2 , \\
& & d_\perp > 0.55 , \\
& & i_S < 19.86 + 1.6 \, (d_\perp-0.8) .\end{aligned}$$ A mid-$z$ LRG target must be classified as a galaxy by the star-galaxy separation algorithm, and not already be selected for the low-$z$ LRG sample. The redshift distribution of mid-$z$ LRGs is displayed as the blue dot-dashed line in Figure \[fignztype\]. The majority of the objects are distributed in the redshift range $0.4 < z < 0.8$, with a tail to lower redshifts $z < 0.4$. The mean and standard deviation of the redshift distribution is $0.50 \pm 0.14$. These values are comparable to those obtained by BOSS-CMASS, although the target densities of the two surveys are somewhat different, as discussed below.
### High-redshift sample
The high-$z$ LRG sample in 2dFLenS was selected using joint optical and infra-red magnitude and colour cuts (Prakash et al. 2015) similar to those used to define the eBOSS LRG sample (Dawson et al. 2016): $$\begin{aligned}
& & (r-W1) > 2 \, (r-i) , \label{eqselhiz} \\
& & r-i > 0.98 , \\
& & i-z > 0.6 , \\
& & 19.9 < i < 21.8 , \\
& & z < 19.95 .\end{aligned}$$ A high-$z$ LRG target must not already be in the 2dFLenS low-$z$ or mid-$z$ samples. We do not apply size-based star-galaxy separation to this sample; the optical-infrared colour cut in Equation \[eqselhiz\] is very effective for this purpose (Prakash et al. 2015). The redshift distribution of high-$z$ LRGs is displayed as the magenta dotted line in Figure \[fignztype\]. The high-$z$ LRGs span redshift range $0.5 < z < 0.9$; the mean and standard deviation of the redshift distribution is $0.67 \pm 0.10$.
### Size cut {#secsize}
The resulting catalogue of selected LRG galaxies was larger than the number of available 2dF-AAOmega fibres. Given this, and in order to homogenize the target density in the presence of variable seeing, we applied a size cut to the low-$z$ and mid-$z$ LRG samples such that ${\tt FLUX\_RADIUS} > 4 \, {\rm pixels} = 0.86 \, {\rm arcsec}$. We do not apply this cut to the high-$z$ LRG sample.
### Target densities
The average target densities of the (low-$z$, mid-$z$, high-$z$) LRG samples selected across the 975 ATLAS fields were $(29, 65, 32)$ deg$^{-2}$.[^13] The total density was therefore a good match to the density of AAT fibres on the sky ($\approx 120$ deg$^{-2}$). The target densities in the RCS2 and CFHTLS regions were similar for the low-$z$ and mid-$z$ LRG samples, but approximately twice as high for the high-$z$ sample due to the deeper optical data. For comparison, the target densities in the SDSS (BOSS-LOWZ, BOSS-CMASS, eBOSS-LRG) samples are $(54, 94, 60)$ deg$^{-2}$ (Anderson et al. 2014, Dawson et al. 2016) and therefore our LRG samples are roughly a factor of 2 less dense than SDSS. This difference is driven by a combination of the size cut (Section \[secsize\]), and uncertainties in photometric calibration (Section \[secphotsys\]).
Magnitude-limited sample selection
----------------------------------
### Extended-source sample
The extended-source magnitude-limited sample, designed to facilitate direct source classification and photo-$z$ calibration, was selected by randomly sub-sampling objects in the optical catalogues subject to the following rules:
- Targets are restricted to the magnitude range $17 < r < 19.5$.
- In order to increase the number of bright galaxies in the sample given the steepness of the source counts, the probability of selecting a target was increased by a factor of 2 with every magnitude brighter.
- If the randomly-chosen object was already selected in another target class, this information was stored and the target was also included in the complete sample.
- Objects were classified as galaxies by the star-galaxy separation algorithm described in Section \[secstargalaxy\].
Magnitude-limited targets were assigned lower priority than LRG targets when allocating fibres in each field, such that the number varied in anti-correlation with the angular clustering of the LRG sample.
### Point-source sample
In the 15B semester, a new set of photo-$z$ calibration targets was included in 2dFLenS observations. By checking the star-galaxy separation, we realized that the point-source sample clearly contained unresolved galaxies, which we did not want to miss for the direct photo-$z$ calibration. We further wanted to measure the object class composition of objects with colours which did not clearly correspond to isolated single stars, such as QSOs, hot subdwarfs and white dwarfs, M-dwarf/white-dwarf binaries and objects with apparently unusual colours. We thus added to the target catalogue randomly-selected objects from the point-source sample, whose colours did not clearly indicate a regular FGKM star (see Wolf et al. 2016).
Spare fibre sample selection {#secspareselect}
----------------------------
Wide-area spectroscopic surveys allow efficient follow-up of rare, sparsely-distributed classes of objects whose spectra would be difficult to obtain otherwise. We included several such samples in the 2dFLenS target pool.
### Red nugget sample
The red nugget spare-fibre sample comprised Early-Type Galaxies (ETGs) at $z < 1$ with effective radii $R_e$ and stellar masses $M_*$ similar to compact ETGs at $z \sim 2$ ($\log{M_*} > 11$ and $R_e < 2$ kpc; van Dokkum et al. 2008, Damjanov et al. 2009). We therefore chose targets that satisfied the low-$z$ or mid-$z$ LRG colour cuts but failed the size-based star-galaxy separation described in Section \[secsize\]. Instead, we used the optical-infrared colour for star-galaxy separation (Equation \[eqselhiz\]), supplementing the main 2dFLenS LRG sample with objects that possessed LRG colours but would be classified as stars based on size. Since the high-$z$ LRG sample already used optical-infrared colour, red nugget targets were not added to this sample. All targets were eyeballed to remove objects affected by artefacts or close neighbours which may contaminate the WISE photometry. A total of $631$ unique red nugget spectra were observed.
The abundance of red nuggets at $z < 1$ remains controversial. Using SDSS, Taylor et al. (2010) found zero ETGs in the redshift range $0.066 < z < 0.12$ that had sizes and masses comparable to red nuggets at $z \sim 2$. However, in the WINGS ($0.04 < z < 0.07$; Valentinuzzi et al. 2010) and PM2GC ($0.03 < z < 0.11$; Poggianti et al. 2013) surveys of low-redshift clusters, a couple of hundred red nugget analogues were found with number densities comparable to that of red nuggets at $z \sim 2$. In the COSMOS field, the number density of compact ETGs is also similar to that observed at high redshift and remains constant in the range $0.2 < z < 0.8$ (Damjanov et al. 2015). The 2dFLenS red nugget sample will provide another measurement of the number density and a significant increase in the number of $z < 1$ red nuggets with spectra.
### Other samples
We observed a small number of other spare-fibre targets, drawn from pools of strong gravitational lensing system candidates and Brightest Cluster Galaxies selected from the XMM Cluster Survey (XCS, Mehrtens et al. 2012) and the South Pole Telescope (SPT, Bleem et al. 2015) datasets.
Flux calibrator sample selection
--------------------------------
Where $u$-band optical imaging data was available, three flux calibrators per AAT field were included in the 2dFLenS sample using an F-star selection (Yanny et al. 2009): $$\begin{aligned}
& & -0.7 < 0.91 \, (u_S-g_S) + 0.415 \, (g_S-r_S) - 1.28 \nonumber \\
& & < -0.25 , \\
& & 0.4 < u_S-g_S < 1.4 , \\
& & 0.2 < g_S-r_S < 0.7 , \\
& & 17 < g_S < 18 .\end{aligned}$$ Flux calibrators must also be classified as stars by the star-galaxy separation algorithm described in Section \[secstargalaxy\]. We used the F-star spectra (where available) during the data reduction process to determine a mean sensitivity curve and zero-points for flux calibration of 2dFLenS spectra.
Photometric calibration challenges {#secphotsys}
----------------------------------
When the VST surveys were conceived, ATLAS and KiDS were designed to facilitate precision-level photometry through overlap matching; the tiling strategies include a half-field-of-view shift between the two surveys. KiDS and ATLAS were anticipated to be observed in parallel with matched data acquisition rates such that the surveys could be used in tandem for high-precision photometry. However, in practice ATLAS progress has greatly exceeded that of KiDS. Therefore, given that the overlapping area between ATLAS pointings is insufficient to calibrate the photometric variation between fields, we are left with a significant challenge to improve ATLAS photometric calibration beyond the first-order process described in Section \[secatlas\].
Shanks et al. (2015) advocate using APASS data to improve zeropoint-calibration for ATLAS beyond the ESO nightly standards. We investigated this approach, but found that the low number of objects in the APASS catalogues that were unsaturated in the ATLAS imaging was unlikely to improve our zeropoint-calibration beyond our already improved SDSS-calibration. Shanks et al. (2015) also advocate using stellar locus regression (SLR) in colour-colour space, which we also investigated. Here we compared the colours of Pickles (1998) standard stars to the colours of objects selected in our clean stellar catalogue (described in Section \[secstargalaxy\]). We derived linear shifts in colour to minimise the offset between the two distributions. Whilst this provided accurate colours for all objects in the catalogue, using SLR to improve the accuracy of measured magnitudes requires fixing of the photometry in one ‘pivot’ band. We chose this pivot band in each field by minimizing the variance in the linear offsets applied to the other bands. Whilst on average this is the most optimal method to select a pivot band, on an individual field basis, this could well be the wrong choice.
The choice of an incorrect ‘pivot’ band can have a significant impact on LRG target selection, which depends on both colour and magnitude. We therefore decided only to apply SLR corrections to fields that were significant outliers in terms of the average value of $c_\perp$ (Equation \[eqcperp\]) measured for galaxies with $16<r<19.6$. We selected $2\%$ of the fields that have an average $c_\perp$ more than $2\sigma$ away from the mean $c_\perp$ for the full survey. The application of our SLR magnitude correction resulted in an acceptable average value of $c_\perp$ for all but two of these fields, both of which were found to have a high level of artefacts which required manual masking.
Despite our efforts to achieve a good photometric calibration for ATLAS data, a full solution will require a joint re-analysis with KiDS, which has only recently acquired sufficient areal coverage to facilitate this process. For now, our ATLAS dataset still contains significant photometric systematics which affect our LRG target selection. In Section \[secclussys\] we describe the mitigation of these effects in our clustering analysis, in which we are able to marginalize over these systematics with minimal impact on our scientific results.[^14]
Spectroscopic observations {#secspecobs}
==========================
2dF-AAOmega system and observing set-up
---------------------------------------
The 2dFLenS observational project was performed at the Anglo-Australian Telescope using the 2dF-AAOmega instrumentation. The 2dF system (Lewis et al. 2002) is a multi-fibre positioner consisting of two field plates mounted at the AAT prime focus, whose position may be exchanged using a tumbling mechanism. Whilst observations are performed using one plate, fibres for the subsequent observation may be configured on the other plate using a robot positioner. A maximum of 392 science fibres and 8 guide fibre bundles can be positioned over a circular field-of-view with a diameter of two degrees. The angular diameter of each fibre on the sky is 2 arcsec. The physical size of the magnetic buttons on which fibres are mounted implies that fibres cannot be positioned more closely together than 30 arcsec, and the probability of successfully allocating fibres to each member of a pair of galaxies decreases with pair separations below 2 arcmin.
Optical fibres (of length 38m) carry the light from the telescope prime focus to the AAOmega spectrograph. AAOmega is a bench-mounted spectrograph consisting of blue and red arms split by a dichroic (Saunders et al. 2004, Sharp et al. 2006). 2dFLenS utilizes the 580V and 385R AAOmega volume phase holographic gratings in the blue and red arms respectively, providing a uniform resolving power of $R
\approx 1300$. The total wavelength range of each observation was 3700 to 8800Å, and we used the standard AAOmega dichroic with a wavelength division of 5700Å.
For each observation, target ‘field files’ were prepared consisting of the positions of science targets (with assigned priorities), potential fiducial (guide) stars to align the field accurately, and potential blank sky positions to sample the sky background to be subtracted during data reduction. The 2dF [configure]{} software was used to generate configuration files from these target lists. This software allocates the fibres using a simulated annealing algorithm (Miszalski et al. 2006), such that all targets in each successive priority band are preferentially allocated, and outputs a configuration file which was utilized by the 2dF positioner.
The 2dFLenS field files for each pointing typically consisted of 600 science targets, 100 potential guide stars and 100 blank sky positions, of which a subset of approximately 360, 8 and 25, respectively, are allocated for observation. In the software configuration process we used the following science target priorities (highest to lowest): flux calibrators (${\tt priority}=9$), spare fibre targets (8), low-$z$ LRGs (7), mid-$z$ LRGs (6), high-$z$ LRGs (5), and magnitude-limited sample (4). In practice, the numbers in each priority band imply that all targets with ${\tt priority} \ge 6$ and most targets with ${\tt priority} = 5$ were observed. Flux calibrators and spare fibre targets constitute small samples (typically 3 and 5 objects per field, respectively), and were therefore accorded the highest priority to ensure they were observed.
Fibre placement by the 2dF robot positioner requires $\sim 40$ minutes for each field, for typical 2dFLenS configuration geometries. This duration specifies the minimum integration time for the observations. In order to maximize the areal coverage of the survey we fixed the integration time of each observation close to this limit: 45 minutes split into three 15-minute exposures to assist with cosmic-ray rejection. The observing sequence for each telescope pointing also included a standard fibre flat field (with exposure time 7 seconds) and arc exposure for wavelength calibration (45 seconds). Including field acquistion, CCD read-out and other overheads, observations of each 2dFLenS pointing could be completed in 1 hour. We also acquired ‘dome flat’ fields for calibration purposes, whose use is described in Section \[secdatared\].
Guide star and blank sky positions
----------------------------------
We selected guide stars for 2dFLenS observations from 2MASS (Skrutskie et al. 2006), to which the astrometry of our input imaging catalogues is tied. A cross-match with the UCAC4 catalogue (Zacharias et al. 2013) was used to check that potential guide stars have acceptably low proper motion and magnitudes within an appropriate range. In detail, guide stars satisfied the following criteria:
- UCAC4 $f$-band magnitude in the range $13.55 < m_f < 14.5$
- Error in this magnitude less than $0.3$ mag
- Measured proper motion $< 0.02$ arcsec yr$^{-1}$
- Positional uncertainty $< 0.1$ arcsec
- Offset in 2MASS-UCAC4 match $< 0.5$ arcsec
All guide star candidates were visually inspected using the web-based interface described in Section \[seceyeballing\], and only utilized if there was clear evidence that they were not galaxies, did not have close companions and were located at the expected co-ordinates.
We determined potential blank sky locations by sampling random positions from our optical images where the position satisfied the joint criteria of containing no flux (as defined by an [ SExtractor]{} segmentation image using conservative parameters ${\tt
MINAREA}=2$, ${\tt THRESH}=2$ and ${\tt ANALYSIS\_THRESH}=2$) and being located at least 50 pixels (11 arcsec) from a stellar halo mask or similar flag. The minimum distance between potential sky postions was specified as 5 pixels.
Data reduction {#secdatared}
--------------
The AAOmega data were reduced during each observing run using the [ 2dfdr]{} software developed at the AAO to process the science, flat-field and arc frames. The data from the blue and red spectrograph arms for each field were reduced separately, and then spliced together into a final complete spectrum. We refer the reader to Lidman et al. (2016) for a full description of the standard data reduction process, and restrict our discussion here to one important modification: in addition to the flat-field frames that are taken with the flaps that fold in front of the 2dF corrector, we also acquired flats using a patch on the windscreen that is painted white. We refer to the former as ‘flap flats’ and the latter as ‘dome flats’.
As is standard practice in processing data taken with AAOmega, we used the flap flats to measure the trace of the fibres on the CCDs (the so-called ‘tramline map’) and to determine the profile of the fibres. We did not use the dome flats directly, since the signal-to-noise ratio in the blue is too low, but instead used them to correct the flap flats.
In more detail, we processed the dome flats and the flap flats in an identical manner and then divided the flap flat by the dome flat. The result was smoothed and then multiplied back into the flap flat. This procedure preserved the high signal-to-noise ratio of the flap flat while correcting the wavelength-dependent response of the flap flat. The technique of using one kind of flat to correct another is commonly used to process imaging data, and is often referred to as an illumination correction.
The dome flats were taken once per run for each 2dF plate. We found that acquiring dome flats more often, or for every set-up, did not result in significantly better results, since the dome flats are very stable once the absolute normalisation of fibre throughput is removed.
Using illumination corrections leads to improved data reduction quality. Systematic errors in the sky subtraction are significantly smaller, especially when the background is high, which can occur during nights when the moon is above the horizon (most of the 2dFLenS data were taken during grey time). This then allows one to splice the red and blue halves of the spectrum more accurately. Errors in the splicing can lead to a discontinuity in spectra (the so-called dichroic jump) at this wavelength. While there were several factors that led to this discontinuity, the poor illumination offered by the flap flats was the largest contributing factor.
Whilst further improvements in data reduction are possible (e.g. better modelling of the fibre profile and scattered light), the quality of the reduced data is sufficient for analyses requiring an accurate estimate of the continuum such as equivalent widths, in addition to measuring line fluxes and line centroids.
Redshift determination
----------------------
The redshifts of 2dFLenS spectra may be determined using their characteristic patterns of spectral lines in absorption and emission. The incidence of spectral lines depends on the target type: for the highest-priority LRGs, redshifts are typically derived from absorption lines including Ca H (3935Å) and K (3970Å), H$\delta$ (4103Å), G-band (4304Å), H$\beta$ (4863Å), Mg (5169Å) and Na (5895Å). Figure \[figstackspec\] illustrates 2dFLenS LRG spectra stacked in redshift slices of width $\Delta z = 0.1$.
We used a variety of tools to determine these redshifts. Complete automation of the redshifting process is problematic due to the noisy nature of many of the spectra, and in particular the presence of artefacts such as residuals from imperfect cosmic ray, sky removal and splicing of the blue and red portions of the spectrum. Therefore, all spectra were visually inspected by 2dFLenS team members and assigned a final integer quality flag $Q$ in the range 1-6. These flag values respectively indicate: unknown redshift ($Q=1$), a possible but uncertain redshift ($Q=2$), a probably correct redshift derived from noisy data or fewer spectral features ($Q=3$), a secure redshift confirmed by multiple spectral features ($Q=4$), and a spectrum that is clearly not extragalactic ($Q=6$). The science analyses described in this paper use $Q=3$ and $Q=4$ spectra. The classification $Q=5$ is not used.
Three specific codes were used in the 2dFLenS redshifting process, two of which include a visualization capability which team members used to assign quality flags.
- [runz]{} (Saunders, Cannon & Sutherland 2004) is the AAO redshifting software with long-standing development spanning several AAT surveys such as 2dFGRS and WiggleZ. [runz]{} employs redshift determination from either discrete emission-line fitting or Fourier cross-correlation with a set of galaxy and stellar absorption-line templates (Tonry & Davis 1979). The [runz]{} code may be executed without user interaction, but reliable assignment of redshift quality flags requires subsequent visual inspection of each spectrum.
- [autoz]{} (Baldry et al. 2014) is a fully-automatic cross-correlation redshifting code developed for the Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey. In addition to a best-fitting redshift, [autoz]{} also returns a figure-of-merit ${\rm cc}_{\rm fom}$ which Baldry et al. (2014) relate to a quantitative confidence of redshift assignment.
- [marz]{} (Hinton et al. 2016) is an independent redshifting pipeline recently developed for the OzDES survey (Yuan et al. 2015). [marz]{} extends the matching algorithms of [ autoz]{} to include quasar templates, and offers a web-based visualization interface through which users can assign quality flags and manually redshift spectra as needed.
Two different processes were used by 2dFLenS team members for assigning redshift quality flags to spectra. First, all reduced 2dFLenS fields were passed through the [autoz]{} code, and the results were captured in an input file which may be visually inspected using [runz]{}. The second possible process was to use [marz]{} for redshifting.
Possible redshifting errors and variations between 2dFLenS team members in the optimism of redshift quality-flag assignment were mitigated by subsequent inspection of borderline cases and potential blunders. In detail, all spectra flagged as bad-quality redshifts with ${\rm cc}_{\rm fom} > 5$, or good-quality redshifts with ${\rm
cc}_{\rm fom} < 3.5$, were checked for potential blunders. Figure \[figredcompcc\] illustrates the relation between the fraction of spectra assigned quality flags $Q \ge 3$, and the ${\rm cc}_{\rm fom}$ values assigned by the [autoz]{} code.
In order to check the reliability of assigned redshifts, we compared 2dFLenS redshifts with external surveys (2dFGRS and GAMA) where available, and also with repeat redshifts resulting from multiple observations of a field. Figure \[figredcheck\] illustrates the results of these comparisons. Excluding outliers, the mean and standard deviation of the quantities $z_{\rm 2dFLenS} - z_{\rm
2dFGRS}$, $z_{\rm 2dFLenS} - z_{\rm GAMA}$ and $z_{\rm 2dFLenS, obs
1} - z_{\rm 2dFLenS, obs 2}$ are $(-4.4 \pm 10.0) \times 10^{-4}$, $(-9.8 \pm 8.5) \times 10^{-4}$ and $(0.2 \pm 8.1) \times 10^{-4}$, respectively, consistent with zero difference in each case. The outlier fractions in these cases are $0.9\%$, $1.3\%$ and $3.1\%$, respectively, which are negligible (and mostly consist of $Q=3$ spectra).
Redshifts are initially corrected to the heliocentric frame, and then shifted to the rest-frame of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (Fixsen et al. 1996). Our data catalogues and clustering measurements are hence presented in the CMB frame.
Survey status {#secstatus}
-------------
2dFLenS observations utilized $53.0$ allocated AAT nights and $3.0$ Director’s nights between 17 Sep 2014 and 5 Jan 2016. This corresponded to a total of $465.5$ potential observing hours, of which $293.6$ hrs ($63\%$) was clear, $161.8$ hrs ($35\%$) was lost to bad weather and $10.1$ hrs ($2\%$) was lost to instrumentation fault. During this time we observed 275 out of the 324 defined 2dFLenS AAT pointing centres, with 18 additional re-observations due to poor initial observing conditions. Figure \[figprogress\] illustrates the final status of the survey coverage, mapping a total area of 731 deg$^2$.
These observations yielded a total of $70{,}079$ good-quality redshifts, including $40{,}531$ LRGs and $28{,}269$ in the magnitude-limited sample. Table \[tabstats\] lists the total number of observed redshifts in each target class. Figure \[figconeplot\] presents a projection of the positions of good-quality 2dFLenS redshifts in comparison with earlier 2dFGRS observations in the same field, illustrating the extension of the large-scale structure sample to redshift $z=0.9$.
Target class Spectra Good redshifts Stellar fraction
--------------------------------- -------------- ---------------- ------------------
Complete mag-lim $30{,}931$ $28{,}269$ $9\%$
[*(Including other classes)*]{} $(31{,}864)$ $(29{,}123)$ $(9\%)$
Low-$z$ LRG $15{,}004$ $14{,}252$ $2\%$
Mid-$z$ LRG $32{,}032$ $19{,}376$ $8\%$
High-$z$ LRG $18{,}116$ $6{,}903$ $6\%$
Flux calibrator $819$ $819$ $100\%$
Spare fibre $654$ $460$ $14\%$
Total $97{,}556$ $70{,}079$ $8\%$
$0.15 < z < 0.43$ LRGs KiDS-S $8{,}473$
$0.15 < z < 0.43$ LRGs KiDS-N $3{,}556$
$0.43 < z < 0.7$ LRGs KiDS-S $13{,}402$
$0.43 < z < 0.7$ LRGs KiDS-N $4{,}036$
\[tabstats\]
The redshift completeness of 2dFLenS pointings (i.e., the fraction of spectra with $Q \ge 3$) displays considerable variation between fields driven primarily by the observing conditions (cloud cover and seeing), and secondarily by airmass, with mean and standard deviation $71 \pm
15\%$. Figure \[figredcompmag\] displays the redshift success ($Q
\ge 3$) rate for each 2dFLenS target class, as a function of the magnitude in the primary band for each selection. The average redshift success rate for the magnitude-limited, low-$z$ LRG, mid-$z$ LRG and high-$z$ LRG samples was $91\%$, $95\%$, $61\%$ and $38\%$, respectively, with a gradual decline in the success rate with fainter magnitudes.
Selection function {#secselfunc}
==================
The selection function of a galaxy redshift survey describes the variation in the expected mean number density of galaxies, at 3D co-moving co-ordinate $\vec{r}$, in the absence of clustering. An accurate determination of the selection function is essential for estimating the galaxy clustering statistics, which quantify fluctuations relative to the mean density. Our model for the selection function of the 2dFLenS LRG samples considers angular fluctuations in the density of the parent target catalogue on the sky, the variation of the spectroscopic redshift completeness of each AAOmega pointing with observing conditions, and the redshift distribution of each target class together with its coupling to the completeness.
We derived selection functions and performed clustering measurements for two survey regions whose coverage is illustrated in Figure \[figprogress\]: KiDS-South (KiDS-S) and KiDS-North (KiDS-N). The KiDS-S analysis region is delineated by the boundaries listed in Table \[tabregions\], and the KiDS-N region includes both the stripe of 2dFLenS pointings in the NGC area visible in Figure \[figprogress\] and the RCS1111 region, but excludes CFHTLS W1.
Angular selection function
--------------------------
### Parent target catalogue {#secclussys}
As described in Section \[secphotsys\], field-to-field variations in the photometric accuracy of our ATLAS data reductions, of the order $0.05-0.1$ magnitudes, imprint significant systematic fluctuations in the number of selected LRG targets. The situation is illustrated by Figure \[figntarsys\], which displays the variation in the 1 deg fields of the number density of the three 2dFLenS LRG samples in the KiDS-S region. If left uncorrected, these fluctuations would cause significant systematic errors in the measured clustering. Similar effects are observed in the KiDS-N region.
In order to mitigate this effect we adopted a conservative approach to the clustering analysis in which we marginalized over the unknown mean (unclustered) number density in each field, constrained by the observed number. For each clustering statistic we generated an ensemble of measurements corresponding to different angular selection functions. Each realization of the selection function was produced by sampling the density $\lambda$ in each ATLAS field from a probability distribution determined by the observed number of targets $N$ in that field. Assuming Poisson statistics the probability distribution is given by $$P(\lambda|N) \propto P(N|\lambda) \, P(\lambda) = \lambda^N \,
e^{-\lambda} / N! .$$ For large $N$, this distribution is approximated by a Gaussian with mean and variance equal to $N$. We further increased the variance of $P(\lambda)$ by adding in quadrature the contribution from angular clustering. The variance of galaxy counts-in-cells can be related to an integral of the galaxy angular correlation function $w(\theta)$ over the cell area $A$ through $$\langle (N - \langle N \rangle)^2 \rangle = \langle N \rangle +
\langle N \rangle^2 \frac{\int_{\rm cell} \int_{\rm cell} w(\theta) \,
dA_1 \, dA_2}{A^2} .
\label{eqcountcell}$$ We used the moments of BOSS galaxy counts in 1 deg$^2$ cells to calibrate the final fraction in Equation \[eqcountcell\], which has the value $\approx 0.04$, although varying this value does not significantly affect our results. The clustering contribution agrees with that calculated from our own final $w(\theta)$ measurements (using equations 1 and 2 in Blake & Wall 2002).
With this ensemble of selection functions and derived clustering measurements in place, we used their mean as our final determination of each statistic, and added their covariance as a systematic error contribution. This process is illustrated by Figure \[figxisys\] for the case of the 2-point correlation function $\xi(s)$ in the KiDS-S region. Measurements assuming a uniform selection function, neglecting the systematic variations apparent in Figure \[figntarsys\], contain systematic error on large scales, which may be corrected using the observed number density distribution as the angular selection. Marginalizing over the unknown mean density in each field produces an ensemble of clustering measurements whose variation defines a systematic error contribution. [*Importantly, we note that the magnitude of this systematic error is significantly less than the statistical error – by typically an order of magnitude – for all the clustering measurements considered in this paper.*]{} Therefore, whilst we always perform this marginalization process, it does not have a significant impact on our results.
### Redshift completeness
LRG targets were uniquely assigned to the closest AAT field centre in our pointing grid, producing a set of hexagonal survey sectors[^15]. We modelled the variation in the angular selection function due to incompleteness in redshift determination using the ratio of good-quality redshifts to targets within each of these sectors. These redshift completeness maps are displayed in Figure \[figredcompang\] for the low-$z$, mid-$z$ and high-$z$ LRG samples within the KiDS-S and KiDS-N survey regions. The low-$z$ LRG follow-up is highly complete, but the mid-$z$ and high-$z$ samples are imprinted with significant completeness variations driven by AAT observing conditions. We neglected any variation in the redshift completeness across the 2-degree field-of-view (which may be imprinted by either rotational mis-alignments in acquistion or enhanced chromatic aberrations towards the edges of the field). This variation was lower than $\sim 10\%$ for 2dFLenS observations.
Radial selection function
-------------------------
We determined the redshift dependence of the selection function by fitting parametric models (using Chebyshev polynomials) to the empirical redshift distributions $N(z)$ of each LRG sample. We determined the order of the polynomial via a combination of information criteria considerations and visual inspection.
Our model included the coupling between $N(z)$ and the angular redshift completeness, such that our selection function is not separable into angular and radial pieces. This coupling arises because in poorer observing conditions, corresponding to areas of lower total redshift completeness, successful redshifts are preferentially obtained for sources with brighter magnitudes (see Figure \[figredcompmag\]), which are preferentially located at lower redshifts. In detail, we fitted $N(z)$ functions for LRG samples in bands of apparent magnitude, and constructed the model $N(z)$ within each survey pointing using the magnitude distribution of galaxies with successful redshifts within that pointing. Figure \[fignzmag\] shows example $N(z)$ fits for the mid-$z$ LRG sample.
Redshift bins
-------------
The low-$z$, mid-$z$ and high-$z$ 2dFLenS LRG samples overlap in redshift, as illustrated by Figure \[fignztype\]. We combined the LRG samples into two independent redshift bins: $0.15 < z < 0.43$ and $0.43 < z < 0.7$, weighting the selection function of each sample by the relative target numbers. The choice of these bins was motivated by intended comparisons and combinations with the LOWZ and CMASS samples of BOSS (Dawson et al. 2013), for example, to extend the analysis of $E_G$ presented by Blake et al. (2016) in these redshift bins. Clustering measurements for 2dFLenS LRGs in these two redshift bins will be presented in Section \[secclus\].
We computed the effective redshift of the selection functions in each redshift bin as $$z_{\rm eff} = \sum_{\vec{r}} z \, \left( \frac{n_g(\vec{r}) P_g}{1 +
n_g(\vec{r}) P_g} \right)^2 ,$$ where $n_g(\vec{r})$ is the mean galaxy number density in each grid cell $\vec{r}$ and $P_g$ is the characteristic galaxy power spectrum amplitude, which we evaluated at a scale $k = 0.1 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ using the fiducial matter power spectrum and galaxy bias factors specified in Section \[secclus\]. We obtained effective redshifts $z_{\rm eff} = 0.31$ and $0.56$ in the two bins $0.15 < z < 0.43$ and $0.43 < z < 0.7$.
Fibre collisions
----------------
The minimum separation of the optical fibres of the 2dF spectrograph is 30 arcsec, and there is a diminishing probability of observing in a single pointing both members of a close pair of parent galaxies separated by an angular distance of less than 2 arcmin. This deficit of close angular pairs in the redshift catalogue, known as ‘fibre collisions’, artificially suppresses the measured galaxy correlation function on small scales. We assess the deficit of close angular pairs in Figure \[figfibcol\] by plotting the ratio $(1 + w_z)/(1 +
w_p)$ as a function of angular separation $\theta$, where $w_z$ and $w_p$ are the angular correlation functions of the redshift and parent catalogues, respectively. We measured the angular correlation functions by applying the Landy-Szalay estimator (Landy & Szalay 1993) to the positions of the data sources $D$ and a catalogue of random sources $R$ which sample the survey selection function: $$w(\theta) = \frac{DD(\theta) - 2 \, DR(\theta) + RR(\theta)}{RR(\theta)} .$$ Significant effects are only detectable at the very smallest scales $\theta < 1$ arcmin, and we do not correct for them in our analysis.
Mock catalogues {#secmock}
===============
We determined the covariance of our 2dFLenS clustering statistics, and their joint covariance with overlapping measurements of galaxy-galaxy lensing and cosmic shear, using a set of mock catalogues created from a large suite of N-body simulations which included a self-consistent computation of gravitational lensing.
SLICS catalogues
----------------
Our mocks are built from the SLICS (Scinet LIght Cone Simulations) series (Harnois-Deraps & van Waerbeke 2015). At the time of writing, SLICS consisted of 930 N-body simulations created with the [ CUBEP$^3$M]{} code (Harnois-Deraps et al. 2013) using a WMAP9+BAO+SN cosmological parameter set: matter density $\Omega_m = 0.2905$, baryon density $\Omega_b = 0.0473$, Hubble parameter $h = 0.6898$, spectral index $n_s = 0.969$ and normalization $\sigma_8 = 0.826$. The box-size of the simulations is $L = 505 \, h^{-1}$ Mpc, in which the non-linear evolution of $1536^3$ particles is followed inside a $3072^3$ grid cube.
For each simulation, the density field was output at 18 redshift snapshots in the range $0 < z < 3$. The gravitational lensing shear and convergence is computed at these multiple lens planes using the flat-sky Born approximation, and a survey cone spanning 60 deg$^2$ is constructed by pasting together these snapshots. In this process, the planes were randomly shifted and the direction of the collapsed dimension was changed in order to minimize residual correlations (see Harnois-Deraps & van Waerbeke 2015 for a complete description of the light cone construction). A spherical over-density halo finder was executed on the particle data during the simulation run, producing dark matter halo catalogues containing properties such as the mass, position, center-of-mass velocity and 3-dimensional velocity dispersion. These were then post-processed in order to select only those that belonged to the light-cone geometry, self-consistently reproducing the rotation and random shift imposed on the lens planes.
We used these simulation data products to build self-consistent mock catalogues for overlapping cosmic shear and galaxy redshift surveys, including realistic source and lens number densities, redshift distributions and sampling of the density field. We produced mocks for two distinct cases. First, we neglected the variation of the angular selection function and generated 930 mocks, each of area 60 deg$^2$. Secondly, we tiled together the individual simulations to cover the area of our KiDS-N and KiDS-S regions (in a flat-sky approximation). The resulting tiled datasets could accommodate 65 mock catalogues using no simulated volume twice, which we sub-sampled with the realistic angular selection functions of the cosmic shear and galaxy redshift surveys.
The ensemble of 930 mocks is useful for determining the covariance of a large data vector, such as an observation including cosmic shear tomography, which can be area-scaled to match the true survey area. The 65 larger mocks, which include the full selection function, permit a more accurate determination of the covariance of the 2dFLenS clustering measurements and were used in our analysis described in Section \[secclus\].
Halo occupation distribution
----------------------------
We produced mock galaxy redshift survey catalogues by populating the dark matter haloes of the N-body simulations using a Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD) designed to match the measured large-scale clustering amplitude of 2dFLenS galaxies. For the purposes described here, in which the small-scale ‘1-halo’ clustering features are not important and cannot be accurately measured due to fibre collisions and low signal-to-noise ratio, we adopted a central galaxy HOD such that the probability that a dark matter halo of mass $M$ hosts an LRG transitions from 0 to 1 according to $$P(M) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ 1 + {\rm erf} \left( \frac{\log_{10} M -
\log_{10} M_0}{\sigma_{\log{M}}} \right) \right] ,
\label{eqhod}$$ where $M_0$ and $\sigma_{\log{M}}$ are free parameters, and we neglected satellite galaxies. After populating dark matter haloes in this manner, placing the mock galaxy at the central position of the halo and assigning it the halo’s centre-of-mass velocity, we sub-sampled the mock galaxy distribution to match the 3D selection function of the 2dFLenS galaxies in each survey region, deriving a redshift-space position. We varied the parameters $M_0$ and $\sigma_{\log{M}}$ to reproduce the measured 2dFLenS clustering, finding that an acceptable match was produced by the choices $M_0 =
10^{14.1} \, h^{-1} M_\odot$ and $\sigma_{\log{M}} = 0.2$, i.e. cluster-scale halos. This value of $M_0$ falls at the upper end of the range found in fits to BOSS-CMASS LRGs (Guo et al. 2014), consistent with the lower number density of 2dFLenS LRGs and our neglect of the satellite contribution.
We note that the systematic photometric variations described in Section \[secphotsys\] produced an artificial increase in the survey selection function in some (small) areas, resulting in a target galaxy number density which cannot be matched by haloes selected via Equation \[eqhod\]. In these areas, we supplemented the mock catalogue by randomly sampling haloes with masses $M > 10^{13.8} \, h^{-1}
M_\odot$, until the target number density was matched. A comparison of the spatial correlation functions $\xi_0(s)$ of the data and mock catalogues is shown in Figure \[figxidatamock\], illustrating the agreement produced by our approach.
Joint lensing catalogues
------------------------
For science analyses requiring joint lensing and clustering mocks, we produced the mock lensing catalogues using the approach described by Joudaki et al. (2016a), which we briefly summarize here.
- We populated each simulation cone using a source redshift distribution and an effective source density matching that of the lensing survey, by Monte-Carlo sampling sources from the simulation density field.
- We assigned two-component gravitational shears $(\gamma_1,
\gamma_2)$ to each mock source by linearly interpolating the shear fields at the source positions between the values at adjacent snapshot redshifts.
- We applied shape noise to the mock sources, drawing the noise components from a Gaussian distribution with standard deviation matching that of the lensing survey.
We note that, although sources in the cosmic shear survey dataset have optimal weights determined by the shape measurement process, we produced lensing mocks in which all sources have uniform weight, and the varying weights are absorbed into the effective source density, redshift distribution and shape noise.
Clustering measurements {#secclus}
=======================
In this Section we present clustering measurements of 2dFLenS LRGs using three statistics. First, we determined the projected correlation function $w_p(r_p)$ as a function of transverse separation $r_p$, in which the effect of redshift-space distortion is removed by integrating along the line-of-sight direction (Section \[secprojcorr\]). The projected correlation function is used to estimate the bias of the galaxy sample and is also required for determining the gravitational slip statistic $E_G$ as a test of gravitational physics (Amon et al. 2016). We also computed two statistics which quantify the dependence of the clustering amplitude on the angle to the line-of-sight: the correlation function multipoles $\xi_\ell(s)$ (Section \[secximult\]) and the power spectrum multipoles $P_\ell(k)$ (Section \[secpkmult\]). These statistics are used to fit models for redshift-space distortion, and we also test whether consistent results are produced in Fourier space and configuration space. We converted the galaxy angular positions and redshifts into 3D co-moving space using a flat $\Lambda$CDM fiducial cosmology with matter density $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.3$.
Projected correlation function and galaxy bias {#secprojcorr}
----------------------------------------------
We estimated the projected correlation function of 2dFLenS galaxies by initially measuring the 2D correlation function $\xi(r_p,\Pi)$ as a function of projected pair separation $r_p$ and line-of-sight separation $\Pi$ using the Landy-Szalay estimator: $$\xi(r_p,\Pi) = \frac{DD(r_p,\Pi) - 2 \, DR(r_p,\Pi) +
RR(r_p,\Pi)}{RR(r_p,\Pi)} .
\label{eqxiest}$$ In each 2dFLenS survey region we generated a random catalogue 10 times larger than the data catalogue. In Equation \[eqxiest\], $DD$, $DR$ and $RR$ are the data-data, data-random and random-random pair counts in each separation bin. For a pair of galaxies with position vectors $\vec{r}_1$ and $\vec{r}_2$, mean position $\vec{r} = (\vec{r}_1 +
\vec{r}_2)/2$ and separation vector $\vec{s} = \vec{r_2} - \vec{r_1}$, the separation bin values are defined by $\Pi =
|\vec{s}.\vec{r}|/|\vec{r}|$ and $r_p = \sqrt{|\vec{s}|^2 - \Pi^2}$.
We then determined the projected correlation function using the sum $$w_p(r_p) = 2 \sum_i \xi(r_p, \Pi_i) \, \Delta \Pi_i ,$$ where we summed over 10 logarithmically-spaced bins in $\Pi$ from $0.1$ to $60 \, h^{-1}$ Mpc. The measurements of $w_p(r_p)$ for 2dFLenS galaxies in 20 logarithmically-spaced bins in $r_p$ from $0.5$ to $50 \, h^{-1}$ Mpc are shown in Figure \[figwp\], for the two redshift ranges $0.15 < z < 0.43$ and $0.43 < z < 0.7$. Errors are obtained from the mock catalogues.
For illustrative purposes we show the fit of a single-parameter bias model to the data using a non-linear power spectrum $P_{\rm m}(k)$ computed in a fiducial cosmology. We generated $P_{\rm m}(k)$ using the non-linear corrections calibrated by Takahashi et al. (2012) as implemented by the [camb]{} software package (Lewis, Challinor & Lasenby 2000). For the purposes of this measurement we specified the cosmological parameters used to generate the model power spectrum as the maximum-likelihood (“TT+lowP”) parameters fit to [*Planck*]{} CMB observations and quoted in the 1st column of Table 3 in Planck collaboration (2015): physical baryon density $\Omega_{\rm b} h^2 =
0.02222$, physical cold dark matter density $\Omega_{\rm c} h^2 =
0.1197$, Hubble parameter $H_0 = 67.31$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, spectral index $n_{\rm s} = 0.9655$ and normalization $\sigma_8 =
0.829$.[^16] The best-fitting bias parameters are $b = 1.84 \pm
0.03$ ($0.15 < z < 0.43$) and $b = 2.10 \pm 0.03$ ($0.43 < z < 0.7$).
Multipole correlation functions {#secximult}
-------------------------------
We estimated the redshift-space correlation function $\xi(s,\mu)$ as a function of co-moving separation $s = |\vec{s}|$ and the cosine of the angle of the pair separation vector with respect to the line-of-sight towards the mean position $\vec{r}$, $\mu = |\vec{s}.\vec{r}| /
|\vec{s}| |\vec{r}|$, using a Landy-Szalay estimator equivalent to Equation \[eqxiest\]. For this estimate we assigned each galaxy optimal ‘FKP’ weights (Feldman, Kaiser & Peacock 1994) defined by $$w_{\rm FKP}(\vec{r}) = \frac{1}{1 + n_g(\vec{r}) \, P_g} ,$$ where $n_g(\vec{r})$ is the galaxy number density at position $\vec{r}$ expected in the mean realization of the survey selection function, and $P_g$ is a characteristic value of the power spectrum, which we take as $P_g = 20{,}000 \, h^{-3}$ Mpc$^3$ motivated by the power spectrum measurements presented in Section \[secpkmult\]. This weighting scheme ensures equal weight per volume where the measurement is limited by sample variance ($n_g P_g \gg 1$) and equal weight per galaxy where the measurement is limited by shot noise ($n_g
P_g \ll 1$). We used 9 separation bins of width $\Delta s = 10 \,
h^{-1}$ Mpc in the range $s < 90 \, h^{-1}$ Mpc, and 100 angular bins of width $\Delta \mu = 0.01$.
It is convenient to compress the information encoded in $\xi(s,\mu)$ into correlation function multipoles defined by $$\xi_\ell(s) = \frac{2 \ell + 1}{2} \int_{-1}^1 d\mu \, \xi(s,\mu) \,
L_\ell(\mu) ,
\label{eqximultdef}$$ where $L_\ell$ is the Legendre polynomial of order $\ell$. The linear-theory contribution to the clustering is described by a summation over terms $\ell = \lbrace 0, 2, 4 \rbrace$. The monopole $\xi_0(s)$ represents the total angle-averaged spatial correlation function; the quadrupole $\xi_2(s)$ encodes the leading-order redshift-space distortion signal. We estimated $\xi_\ell(s)$ in Equation \[eqximultdef\] by converting the integral into a sum over $\mu$-bins.
Figure \[figximultdata\] displays our measurement of the multipole correlation functions for 2dFLenS data in the KiDS-S and KiDS-N regions for redshift ranges $0.15 < z < 0.43$ and $0.43 < z < 0.7$. We are able to detect the signature of redshift-space distortion via the non-zero values of the quadrupole $\xi_2(s)$; the hexadecapole $\xi_4(s)$ is consistent with zero. We overplot the best-fitting redshift-space distortion model (see Section \[secrsd\]).
We estimated the correlation function multipoles for each of the mock catalogues, and used the measurements for the ensemble of realizations to construct a covariance matrix $${\rm Cov}_{ij} = \langle \xi_{\rm est}(i) \, \xi_{\rm est}(j) \rangle
- \langle \xi_{\rm est}(i) \rangle \, \langle \xi_{\rm est}(j) \rangle ,$$ where the array $\xi_{\rm est}(i)$ consists of the concatenation $$\lbrace \xi_0(s_1), \xi_0(s_2), ..., \xi_2(s_1), \xi_2(s_2), ...,
\xi_4(s_1), \xi_4(s_2), ... \rbrace .$$ The corresponding correlation matrix, defined by ${\rm
Cov}_{ij}/\sqrt{{\rm Cov}_{ii} \, {\rm Cov}_{jj}}$, is displayed in Figure \[figximultcov\] for the KiDS-S region for the redshift range $0.43 < z < 0.7$ (results for the other region and redshift range are similar). The off-diagonal correlations are typically low, and dominated by neighbouring separation bins. We also plot in Figure \[figximultdata\] the $68\%$ confidence range of the mock correlation function measurements, within which the data points generally lie.
Multipole power spectra {#secpkmult}
-----------------------
The dependence of the galaxy clustering amplitude on the angle to the line-of-sight, including redshift-space distortion, may be quantified in Fourier space using multipole power spectra $P_\ell(k)$: $$P(k,\mu) = \sum_\ell P_\ell(k) \, L_\ell(\mu) .
\label{eqpkmultdef1}$$ The orthogonality of $L_\ell(\mu)$ implies that $$P_\ell(k) = \frac{2 \ell + 1}{2} \int_{-1}^1 d\mu \, P(k, \mu) \,
L_\ell(\mu) .
\label{eqpkmultdef2}$$
### Power spectrum estimation {#secpkmultest}
We estimated the multipole power spectra $\lbrace P_0(k), P_2(k),
P_4(k) \rbrace$ using the direct Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) method presented by Bianchi et al. (2015) and Scoccimarro (2015). The use of FFTs results in a significant speed-up compared to the estimation by direct summation described earlier by Yamamoto et al. (2006), Blake et al. (2011a) and Beutler et al. (2014).
We first enclosed the survey cone within a cuboid of sides $(L_x, L_y,
L_z)$ and gridded the catalogue of $N$ galaxies in cells numbering $(n_x, n_y, n_z)$ using nearest grid point assignment to produce a distribution $n(\vec{r})$, where $\sum_{\vec{r}} n(\vec{r}) = N$. The cell dimensions were chosen such that the Nyquist frequencies in each direction (e.g. $k_{\rm Nyq} = \pi n_x/L_x$) exceeded the maximum frequency of measured power by at least a factor of 3. We then defined the weighted overdensity field $$F(\vec{r}) = w_{\rm FKP}(\vec{r}) \, \left[ n(\vec{r}) - N \,
W(\vec{r}) \right] ,$$ where $W(\vec{r})$ is proportional to the survey selection function determined in Section \[secselfunc\], which describes the number of galaxies expected in each cell $\vec{r}$ in the absence of clustering assuming the normalization $\sum_{\vec{r}} W(\vec{r}) = 1$.
We employed the following estimators for the power spectrum multipoles (Bianchi et al. 2015, equations 6-8): $$\begin{aligned}
& & P_0(\vec{k}) = \frac{1}{I} \, A_0(\vec{k}) \, A_0^*(\vec{k}) - P_{\rm noise} , \\
& & P_2(\vec{k}) = \frac{5}{2I} \, A_0(\vec{k}) \, \left[ 3 A_2^*(\vec{k}) - A_0^*(\vec{k}) \right] , \\
& & P_4(\vec{k}) = \frac{9}{8I} \, A_0(\vec{k}) \, \left[ 35 A_4^*(\vec{k}) - 30 A_2^*(\vec{k}) + 3 A_0^*(\vec{k}) \right] ,\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the variables $$\begin{aligned}
& & A_n(\vec{k}) = \int d^3\vec{r} \, ( \hat{\vec{k}}.\hat{\vec{r}} )^n \, F(\vec{r}) \, \exp{(i \vec{k}.\vec{r})} , \\
& & P_{\rm noise} = \int d^3\vec{r} \, w_{\rm FKP}(\vec{r})^2 \, n(\vec{r}) , \\
& & I = N^2 \int d^3\vec{r} \, w_{\rm FKP}(\vec{r})^2 \, W(\vec{r})^2 .\end{aligned}$$ We determined the functions $A_n(\vec{k})$ by evaluating the following quantities using FFTs: $$\begin{aligned}
& & A_0(\vec{k}) = \int d^3\vec{r} \, F(\vec{r}) \, \exp{(i \vec{k}.\vec{r})} , \\
& & B_{ij}(\vec{k}) = \int d^3\vec{r} \, b_{ij}(\vec{r}) \, F(\vec{r}) \, \exp{(i \vec{k}.\vec{r})} , \\
& & C_{ijk}(\vec{k}) = \int d^3\vec{r} \, c_{ijk}(\vec{r}) \, F(\vec{r}) \, \exp{(i \vec{k}.\vec{r})} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& & b_{ij}(\vec{r}) = \frac{r_i \, r_j}{r^2} , \\
& & c_{ijk}(\vec{r}) = \frac{r_i^2 \, r_j \, r_k}{r^4} .\end{aligned}$$ The indices $(i,j,k)$ range over $\lbrace 1,2,3 \rbrace$, where $(r_1,
r_2, r_3) = (x, y, z)$. In terms of these variables, $$\begin{aligned}
A_2(\vec{k}) &=& \sum_{ij} \beta_{ij}(\vec{k}) \, B_{ij}(\vec{k}) \\
&=& \frac{1}{k^2} \lbrace k_x^2 B_{xx} + k_y^2 B_{yy} + k_z^2 B_{zz} \nonumber \\
& & + 2 \left[ k_x k_y B_{xy} + k_x k_z B_{xz} + k_y k_z B_{yz} \right] \rbrace ,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
A_4(\vec{k}) &=& \sum_{ijk} \gamma_{ijk}(\vec{k}) \, C_{ijk}(\vec{k}) \\
&=& \frac{1}{k^4} \lbrace k_x^4 C_{xxx} + k_y^4 C_{yyy} + k_z^4 C_{zzz} \nonumber \\
& & + 4 \left[ k_x^3 k_y C_{xxy} + k_x^3 k_z C_{zzx} + k_y^3 k_x C_{yyx} \right] \nonumber \\
& & + 4 \left[ k_y^3 k_z C_{yyz} + k_z^3 k_x C_{zzx} + k_z^3 k_y C_{zzy} \right] \nonumber \\
& & + 6 \left[ k_x^2 k_y^2 C_{xyy} + k_x^2 k_z^2 C_{xzz} + k_y^2 k_z^2 C_{yzz} \right] \nonumber \\
& & + 12 \, k_x k_y k_z \left[ k_x C_{xyz} + k_y C_{yxz} + k_z C_{zxy} \right] \rbrace .\end{aligned}$$ We obtained the final power spectrum multipoles $\lbrace P_0(k),
P_2(k), P_4(k) \rbrace$ by angle-averaging $P_\ell(\vec{k})$ in spherical shells in $\vec{k}$-space.
Our measurements of the multipole power spectra $\lbrace P_0, P_2, P_4
\rbrace$ for the 2dFLenS KiDS-S and KiDS-N regions, for the two redshift ranges $0.15 < z < 0.43$ and $0.43 < z < 0.7$, are displayed in Figure \[figpkmultdata\]. We used 10 Fourier bins of width $\Delta k = 0.02 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ in the range $0 < k < 0.2 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$. A clear detection of non-zero quadrupole $P_2(k)$ is again obtained, and the hexadecapole $P_4(k)$ is consistent with zero. We overplot the best-fitting redshift-space distortion model (see Section \[secrsd\]) convolved with the window function using the method described in the following sub-section.
### Convolution by the window function
The expectation value of the power spectrum estimators in Section \[secpkmultest\] is the underlying power spectrum $P(\vec{k})$ convolved with the survey selection function. These convolutions may also be evaluated using FFTs, which we accomplished using the following scheme extending the results of the previous section: $$\begin{aligned}
& & P_{0,{\rm c}}(\vec{k}) = \frac{1}{I} (A_0 A_0^*)_{\rm c} , \\
& & P_{2,{\rm c}}(\vec{k}) = \frac{5}{2I} \left[ 3 (A_0 A_2^*)_{\rm c} - (A_0 A_0^*)_{\rm c} \right] , \\
& & P_{4,{\rm c}}(\vec{k}) = \frac{9}{8I} \left[ 35 (A_0 A_4^*)_{\rm c} - 30 (A_0 A_2^*)_{\rm c} + 3 (A_0 A_0^*)_{\rm c} \right] .\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& & (A_0 A_0^*)_{\rm c} = \int d^3\vec{k}' \, P_{\rm mod}(\vec{k}') \, W_0(\delta \vec{k}) \, W_0^*(\delta \vec{k}) , \\
& & (A_0 A_2^*)_{\rm c} = \int d^3\vec{k}' \, P_{\rm mod}(\vec{k}') \, W_0(\delta \vec{k}) \, \times \nonumber \\
& & \sum_{ij} \beta_{ij}(\delta \vec{k}) \, W_{2,ij}^*(\delta \vec{k}) , \\
& & (A_0 A_4^*)_{\rm c} = \int d^3\vec{k}' \, P_{\rm mod}(\vec{k}') \, W_0(\delta \vec{k}) \, \times \nonumber \\
& & \sum_{ijk} \gamma_{ijk}(\delta \vec{k}) \, W_{4,ijk}^*(\delta \vec{k}) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta \vec{k} = \vec{k} - \vec{k}'$, in terms of $$\begin{aligned}
& & W_0(\vec{r}) = w_{\rm FKP}(\vec{r}) \, W(\vec{r}) , \\
& & W_{2,ij}(\vec{r}) = b_{ij}(\vec{r}) \, w_{\rm FKP}(\vec{r}) \, W(\vec{r}) , \\
& & W_{4,ijk}(\vec{r}) = c_{ijk}(\vec{r}) \, w_{\rm FKP}(\vec{r}) \, W(\vec{r}) .\end{aligned}$$ For reasons of further computing speed when fitting models, we re-cast this convolution as a matrix multiplication in Fourier bins of width $\Delta k = 0.02 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$: $$P_{\rm est}(i) = \sum_j M_{ij} \, P_{\rm mod}(j) ,
\label{eqpkconv}$$ where the arrays $P_{\rm est}(i)$ and $P_{\rm mod}(j)$ consist of the concatenation $$\lbrace P_0(k_1), P_0(k_2), ..., P_2(k_1), P_2(k_2), ..., P_4(k_1),
P_4(k_2), ... \rbrace .
\label{eqpkconcat}$$ We determined the matrix $M_{ij}$ by evaluating the full convolution for a set of unit vectors. For each unit vector the model $P_{\rm
mod}(\vec{k})$ is computed using Equation \[eqpkmultdef1\] setting a single element of Equation \[eqpkconcat\] to unity and the rest of the elements to zero.
### Covariance matrix
We measured the power spectrum multipoles for each 2dFLenS mock catalogue, producing a series of data vectors $P_{\rm est}(i)$. We hence deduced the covariance matrix by averaging over the mocks $${\rm Cov}_{ij} = \langle P_{\rm est}(i) \, P_{\rm est}(j) \rangle -
\langle P_{\rm est}(i) \rangle \, \langle P_{\rm est}(j) \rangle .$$ The corresponding correlation matrix, defined by ${\rm
Cov}_{ij}/\sqrt{{\rm Cov}_{ii} \, {\rm Cov}_{jj}}$, is displayed in Figure \[figpkmultcov\] for the KiDS-S region for the redshift range $0.43 < z < 0.7$ (the other region and redshift range are similar).
Redshift-space distortion {#secrsd}
-------------------------
We fitted the measured 2dFLenS clustering multipoles using a standard model for the redshift-space galaxy power spectrum as a function of the angle of the Fourier wavevector to the line-of-sight: $$P_{\rm g}(k,\mu) = b^2 \, P_{\rm m}(k) \, (1 + \beta \mu^2)^2 \,
\exp{(-k^2 \mu^2 \sigma_v^2/H_0^2)} ,
\label{eqmodrsd}$$ where $b$ is the galaxy bias factor, $P_{\rm m}(k)$ is the fiducial non-linear matter power spectrum defined in Section \[secprojcorr\] and $\beta = f/b$ parameterizes the amplitude of redshift-space distortion in terms of the growth rate of structure $f$.[^17] This model combines the large-scale ‘Kaiser limit’ amplitude correction (Kaiser 1987) with a heuristic damping of power on smaller scales that describes a leading-order perturbation theory correction (Scoccimarro 2004) in terms of a free parameter $\sigma_v$ with units of km s$^{-1}$. Our model is hence characterized by three parameters $(\beta, \sigma_v,
b)$.
We fitted this 3-parameter model to the monopole and quadrupole of both the power spectrum and correlation function in each analysis region. For given values of $(\beta, \sigma_v, b)$ we deduced the unconvolved model power spectrum multipoles $P_\ell(k)$ from $P(k,\mu)$ using Equation \[eqpkmultdef2\], which we convolved with the survey window function using Equation \[eqpkconv\]. The model correlation function multipoles may be determined from $P_\ell(k)$ using $$\xi_\ell(s) = \frac{i^\ell}{2 \pi^2} \int dk \, k^2 \, P_\ell(k) \,
j_\ell(ks) ,$$ where $j_\ell$ is the spherical Bessel function of order $\ell$. We performed the fits by evaluating the $\chi^2$ statistic of each model using the full covariance matrix. For example, for the case of the power spectrum multipoles we determined: $$\chi^2 = \sum_{ij} \left[ P_{\rm est}(i) - P_{\rm mod}(i) \right]
\left[ {\rm Cov}^{-1} \right]_{ij} \left[ P_{\rm est}(j) - P_{\rm
mod}(j) \right]$$ for each analysis region, and summed the $\chi^2$ values. We propagated the errors induced by estimating the inverse of an $N_{\rm
bin} \times N_{\rm bin}$ covariance matrix from a limited number of mock catalogues $N_{\rm mock} = 65$ by computing the correction determined by Sellentin & Heavens (2016), in which the likelihood of each model is given by $${\rm Likelihood} \propto \left( 1 + \frac{\chi^2}{N_{\rm mock}-1}
\right)^{-N_{\rm mock}/2} .$$ Our analyses utilized at most $N_{\rm bin} \sim 18$ data points, such that the number of 65 mocks was adequate.
We generated our baseline model fits using the power spectrum multipole measurements in the range $0.02 < k < 0.2 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Our results are not particularly sensitive to the fitting range: Figure \[figbetakmax\] demonstrates the low sensitivity of the best-fitting measurement of $\beta$ to the maximum wavenumber used in the fit, with the variation being encompassed by the size of the statistical errors. We prefer to demonstrate the robustness of our results in this manner, rather than by fitting to our mocks, because the mock galaxy catalogues lack a satellite population hence may not be reliable for this purpose.
Our marginalized parameter measurements for the $0.15 < z < 0.43$ datasets are: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta &=& 0.49 \pm 0.15 , \\
\sigma_v &=& 470 \pm 110 \; {\rm km/s} , \\
b &=& 1.9 \pm 0.1 .\end{aligned}$$ For $0.43 < z < 0.7$ we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta &=& 0.26 \pm 0.09 , \\
\sigma_v &=& 100 \pm 100 \; {\rm km/s} , \\
b &=& 2.2 \pm 0.1 .\end{aligned}$$ The best-fitting models are overplotted in Figure \[figpkmultdata\]. The corresponding chi-squared values for the two redshift ranges are $37.1$ and $32.6$, for 33 degrees of freedom, indicating that the models are a good fit to the data, and the best-fitting bias parameters are consistent with those obtained from the projected correlation function in Section \[secprojcorr\]. Figure \[figparfits\] displays the 2D posterior probability distribution of $(\beta,\sigma_v)$ for redshift ranges $0.15 < z < 0.43$ and $0.43 < z
< 0.7$.
We can compare our $\beta$ measurements to those determined using BOSS LRGs: Sanchez et al. (2014) report $\beta_{\rm LOWZ} = 0.38 \pm 0.11$ and $\beta_{\rm CMASS} = 0.36 \pm 0.06$. Our measurements are consistent, albeit with a $\sim 50\%$ larger statistical error. However, the weak lensing data overlapping these 2dFLenS measurements permit some unique applications of our results (Joudaki et al. 2016b, Amon et al. 2016). The amplitudes of our measured redshift-space distortion parameters are also consistent, given their statistical errors, with those predicted by the growth rate in the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model and our best-fitting galaxy bias factors.
As a point of comparison, we also fitted the RSD models to our correlation function multipole measurements in the range $10 < s < 90
\, h^{-1}$ Mpc (again, we note that our results are not particularly sensitive to the fitting range). We overplot the parameter constraints in Figure \[figparfits\], illustrating that the power spectrum and correlation function multipoles produce consistent results. The best-fitting correlation function multipole models are overplotted in Figures \[figximultdata\].
Summary {#secconc}
=======
In this paper we have introduced the 2-degree Field Lensing Survey (2dFLenS), a new galaxy redshift survey performed at the Anglo-Australian Telescope which extends the spectroscopic-redshift coverage of gravitational lensing surveys in the southern sky, with a particular focus on the overlapping Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS). 2dFLenS contains $70{,}079$ objects with good-quality redshifts, including $40{,}531$ Luminous Red Galaxies and $28{,}269$ objects which form a magnitude-limited nearly-complete sub-sample. The LRGs may be utilized for analysis of galaxy-galaxy lensing, redshift-space distortion and determination of the imaging source redshift distribution by cross-correlation, and the magnitude-limited sample may be employed for direct source classification and photometric-redshift calibration.
In this paper we have presented the survey selection function and clustering measurements for the LRG sample and corresponding mock catalogues. We fitted redshift-space distortion models to the clustering multipoles, finding RSD parameters $\beta = 0.49 \pm 0.15$ and $0.26 \pm 0.09$ for redshift ranges $0.15 < z < 0.43$ and $0.43 <
z < 0.7$, respectively. These values are consistent with those obtained from LRGs in the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey, and (when combined with the best-fitting galaxy bias factors), consistent with the predictions of the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model.
Five associate science papers are currently in preparation:
- [*Johnson et al. (2016)*]{} present a new quadratic-estimation method for constraining the source redshift distribution of an imaging survey via cross-correlations with a spectroscopic redshift survey, with an application to KiDS and 2dFLenS data.
- [*Joudaki et al. (2016b)*]{} perform self-consistent cosmological model fits to overlapping cosmic shear, galaxy-galaxy lensing and redshift-space distortion data from KiDS and 2dFLenS.
- [*Amon et al. (2016)*]{} determine new measurements of the gravitational slip statistic, $E_G$, to large scales, using data from KiDS and 2dFLenS.
- [*Wolf et al. (2016)*]{} use the magnitude-limited sample of 2dFLenS redshifts to compare various techniques for direct photometric-redshift calibration based on kernel-density estimation, machine learning with neural networks, and template fits.
- [*Janssens et al. (2016)*]{} analyze the ‘red-nugget’ spare-fibre sample to place new constraints on the redshift evolution of compact early-type galaxies.
2dFLenS data products will be released with the publication of these papers via our website [http://2dflens.swin.edu.au]{}.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research made use of Astropy, a community-developed core Python package for Astronomy (Astropy Collaboration, 2013).
This work makes use of the [runz]{} redshifting code developed by Will Sutherland, Will Saunders, Russell Cannon and Scott Croom.
CB acknowledges the support of the Australian Research Council through the award of a Future Fellowship.
JHD acknowledges support from the European Commission under a Marie-Sk[ł]{}odwoska-Curie European Fellowship (EU project 656869) and from the NSERC of Canada.
CH acknowledges funding from the European Research Council under grant number 647112.
HH is supported by an Emmy Noether grant (No. Hi 1495/2-1) of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
SJa acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Government of Ontario.
KK is supported by a grant from the Netherlands Foundation for Scientific Research (NWO).
DP is supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship \[grant number FT130101086\].
We also acknowledge the Aspen Center for Physics (NSF grant 1066293) where some of the target selection work took place.
The 2dFLenS survey is based on data acquired through the Australian Astronomical Observatory, under program A/2014B/008. It would not have been possible without the dedicated work of the staff of the AAO in the development and support of the 2dF-AAOmega system, and the running of the AAT.
Computations for the $N$-body simulations were performed in part on the Orcinus supercomputer at the WestGrid HPC consortium ([ www.westgrid.ca]{}), in part on the GPC supercomputer at the SciNet HPC Consortium. SciNet is funded by: the Canada Foundation for Innovation under the auspices of Compute Canada; the Government of Ontario; Ontario Research Fund - Research Excellence; and the University of Toronto.
[*Author contributions:*]{} All authors contributed to the development and writing of this paper. The authorship list reflects the lead author of this paper (CB) followed by an alphabetical group. This group includes key contributors to the target selection (TE, CH, HH, DK, CW), AAT observing (AA, MC, KG, AJ, SJa, SJo, CL, FM, DP), redshifting (AA, MC, TE, KG, SH, AJ, SJo, KK, CL, FM, DP, GP, CW) and N-body simulations (JHD).
Ahn, C., et al., 2014, ApJS, 211, 17 Alam, S., et al., 2016, submitted Amon, A., et al., 2016, in preparation Anderson, L., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 24 Aubourg, E., et al., 2015, PhRvD, 92, 3516 Baldry, I., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2440 Becker, M., et al., 2016, PhRvD, 94, 2002 Bertin, E., Arnouts, S., 1996, AS, 117, 393 Betoule, M., et al., 2014, A&A, 568, 22 Beutler, F., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 3017 Beutler, F., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3430 Beutler, F., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1065 Bianchi, D., Gil-Marin, H., Ruggeri, R., Percival, W., 2015, MNRAS, 453, 11 Blake, C., Wall, J., 2002, MNRAS, 337, 993 Blake, C., et al., 2011a, MNRAS, 415, 2876 Blake, C., et al., 2011b, MNRAS, 418, 1707 Blake, C., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2806 Bleem, L., et al., 2015, ApJS, 216, 27 Buddendiek, A., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3886 Cai, Y.-C., Bernstein, G., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1045 Cannon, R., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 372, 425 Choi, A., et al., 2016, MNRAS, submitted Chow, N., Khoury, J., PhRvD, 80, 4037 Colless, M., et al., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039 Conley, A., et al., 2011, ApJS, 192, 1 Cunha, C., Huterer, D., Busha, M., Wechsler, R., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 909 Damjanov, I., et al., 2009, ApJ, 695, 101 Damjanov, I., et al., 2015, ApJ, 806, 158 Dawson, K., et al., 2013, AJ, 145, 10 Dawson, K., et al., 2016, AJ, 151, 44 de Jong, J., et al., 2015, A&A, 582, 62 de la Torre, S., et al., 2013, A&A, 557, 54 Delubac, T., et al., 2015, A&A, 574, 59 de Putter, R., Dore, O., Das, S., 2014, ApJ, 780, 185 de Rham, C., et al., 2008, PhRvL, 100, 1603 Drinkwater, M., et al., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1429 Driver, S., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 971 Eisenstein, D., et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 2267 Erben, T., et al., 2005, AN, 326, 432 Erben, T., et al., 2009, A&A, 493, 1197 Erben, T., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2545 Eriksen, M., Gaztanaga, E., 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1553 Feldman, H., Kaiser, N., Peacock, J., 1994, ApJ, 426, 23 Fixsen, D., Cheng, E., Gales, J., Mather, J., Shafer, R., Wright, E., 1996, ApJ, 473, 576 Font-Ribera, A., McDonald, P., Mostek, N., Reid, B., Seo, H.-J., Slosar, A., 2014, JCAP, 5, 23 Gaztanaga, E., Eriksen, M., Crocce, M., Castander, F., Fosalba, P., Marti, P., Miquel, R., Cabre, A., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2904 Gilbank, D., Gladders, M., Yee, H., Hsieh, B., 2011, AJ, 141, 94 Guo, H., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2398 Gwyn, S., 2012, AJ, 143, 38 Harnois-Deraps, J., Pen, U.-L., Iliev, I., Merz, H., Emberson, J., Desjacques, V., 2013, MNRAS, 436, 540 Harnois-Deraps, J., van Waerbeke, L., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2857 Heymans, C., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 427, 146 Hildebrandt, H., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2355 Hildebrandt, H., et al., 2016a, MNRAS, submitted Hildebrandt, H., et al., 2016b, MNRAS, submitted Hinton, S., Davis, T., Lidman, C., Glazebrook, K., Lewis, G., 2016, Astronomy & Computing, 15, 61 Huff, E., Eifler, T., Hirata, C., Mandelbaum, R., Schlegel, D., Seljack, U., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1322 Janssens, S., et al., 2016, in preparation Johnson, A., et al., 2016, in preparation Joudaki, S., et al., 2016a, submitted Joudaki, S., et al., 2016b, in preparation Kaiser, N., 1987, MNRAS, 227, 1 Kaiser, N., Squires, G., Broadhurst, T., 1995, ApJ, 449, 460 Kazin, E., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3524 Kirk, D., Lahav, O., Bridle, S., Jouvel, S., Abdalla, F., Frieman, J., 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4424 Kuijken, K., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3500 Landy S., Szalay A., 1993, ApJ, 412, 64 Lewis, A., Challinor, A., Lasenby, A., 2000, ApJ, 538, 473 Lewis, I., et al., 2002, MNRAS, 333, 279 Lidman, C., et al., 2016, in preparation Ma, Z., Hu, W., Huterer, D., 2006, ApJ, 636, 21 Mandelbaum, R., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1544 Marin, F., Beutler, F., Blake, C., Koda, J., Kazin, E., Schneider, D., 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4046 McDonald, P., Seljak, U., 2009, JCAP, 10, 7 McQuinn, M., White, M., 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2857 Mehrtens, N., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1024 Miszalski, B., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1537 More, S., Miyatake, H., Mandelbaum, R., Takada, M., Spergel, D., Brownstein, J., Schneider, D., 2015, ApJ, 806, 2 Newman, J., et al., 2015, APh, 63, 81 Pickles, A., 1998, PASP, 110, 863 collaboration (2015 results XIII), submitted Poggianti, B., et al., 2013, ApJ, 762, 77 Prakash, A., Licquia, T., Newman, J., Rao, S., 2015, ApJ, 803, 105 Reyes, R., et al., 2010, Nature, 464, 256 Samushia, L., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3504 Sanchez, A., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2692 Saunders, W., et al., 2004, SPIE, 5492, 389 Saunders, W., Cannon, R., Sutherland, W., 2004, Anglo-Australian Observatory Newsletter, 106, 16 Schirmer, M., 2013, ApJS, 209, 21 Schlegel, D., Finkbeiner, D., Davis, M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525 Scoccimarro, R., 2004, PhRvD, 70, 83007 Scoccimarro, R., 2015, PhRvD, 92, 3532 Sellentin, E., Heavens, A., 2016, MNRAS, 456, 132 Shanks, T., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4238 Sharp et al., 2006, SPIE, 6269, 14 Simpson, F., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2249 Skrutskie, M., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 1163 Song, Y.-S., et al., 2011, PhRvD, 84, 3523 Sotiriou, T., Faraoni, V., 2010, RvMP, 82, 451 Suzuki, N., et al., 2012, ApJ, 746, 85 Takahashi, R., Sato, M., Nishimichi, T., Taruya, A., Oguri, M., 2012, ApJ, 761, 152 Taylor, E., et al., 2010, ApJ, 720, 723 Tonry, J., Davis, M., 1979, AJ, 84, 1511 Valentinuzzi, T., et al., 2010, ApJ, 712, 226 van Dokkum, P., et al., 2008, ApJ, 677, 5 Wolf, C., et al., 2016, in preparation Yamamoto, K., Nakamichi, M., Kamino, A., Bassett, B., Nishioka, H., 2006, PASJ, 58, 93 Yanny, B., et al., 2009, ApJ, 700, 1282 Yuan, F., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3047 Zacharias, N., Finch, C., Girard, T., Henden, A., Bartlett, J., Monet, D., Zacharias, M., 2013, AJ, 145, 44 Zhang, P., et al., 2007, PhRvL, 99, 1302
Magnitude transformations {#secmagtrans}
=========================
The 2dFLenS LRG selection criteria are inspired by the SDSS, BOSS and eBOSS surveys. Since the filter systems used by the optical imaging surveys used to select 2dFLenS targets – VST OmegaCAM and CFHT MegaCam – are not identical to SDSS filters, we derived magnitude transformations between the different filter systems using an elliptical galaxy template spectrum.
We refer to ATLAS magnitudes as $(u_A, g_A, r_A, i_A, z_A)$, CFHT magnitudes as $(u_C, g_C, r_C, i_C, z_C)$ or $(u_C, g_C, r_C, y_C,
z_C)$ (depending on which version of the $i$-band filter was used for a pointing, as described by Erben et al. 2013) and SDSS magnitudes as $(u_S, g_S, r_S, i_S, z_S)$. Our template spectrum then yielded transformations [$$\left( \begin{array}{c}
u_S \\
g_S \\
r_S \\
i_S \\
z_S
\end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
1.0121 & -0.0123 & 0.0001 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1.0091 & -0.0103 & 0.0012 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1.1297 & -0.1297 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0.0308 & 0.9692 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -0.0008 & -0.0249 & 1.0256
\end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
u_A \\
g_A \\
r_A \\
i_A \\
z_A
\end{array} \right)$$ $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
u_S \\
g_S \\
r_S \\
i_S \\
z_S
\end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
1.2674 & -0.3095 & 0.0442 & -0.0021 & 0 \\
0 & 1.1574 & -0.1651 & 0.0077 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1.0491 & -0.0491 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0.1057 & 0.8943 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -0.0087 & -0.0736 & 1.0823
\end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
u_C \\
g_C \\
r_C \\
i_C \\
z_C
\end{array} \right)$$ $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
u_S \\
g_S \\
r_S \\
i_S \\
z_S
\end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
1.2674 & -0.3095 & 0.0443 & -0.0022 & 0 \\
0 & 1.1574 & -0.1656 & 0.0082 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1.0520 & -0.0520 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0.0520 & 0.9480 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -0.0043 & -0.0780 & 1.0823
\end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
u_C \\
g_C \\
r_C \\
y_C \\
z_C
\end{array} \right)$$ ]{} The colour coefficients have very little variation with redshift; we use average values in the redshift range $0.15 < z < 0.7$. Using these transformation matrices we obtained the following relations for the LRG colour variables defined by Equations \[eqcpar\], \[eqcperp\] and \[eqdperp\]: $$\begin{aligned}
c_\parallel &=& 0.7064 \, g_A + 0.5207 \, r_A - 1.2271 \, i_A - 0.216 \nonumber \\
&=& 0.8102 \, g_C + 0.2821 \, r_C - 1.0923 \, i_C - 0.216 \nonumber \\
&=& 0.8102 \, g_C + 0.3477 \, r_C - 1.1579 \, y_C - 0.216 ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
c_\perp &=& -0.2523 \, g_A + 1.3839 \, r_A - 1.1316 \, i_A - 0.18 \nonumber \\
&=& -0.2894 \, g_C + 1.2469 \, r_C - 0.9576 \, i_C - 0.18 \nonumber \\
&=& -0.2894 \, g_C + 1.3044 \, r_C - 1.0150 \, y_C - 0.18 ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
d_\perp &=& -0.1261 \, g_A + 1.2414 \, r_A - 1.1153 \, i_A \nonumber \\
&=& -0.1447 \, g_C + 1.0952 \, r_C - 0.9505 \, i_C \nonumber \\
&=& -0.1447 \, g_C + 1.1522 \, r_C - 1.0075 \, y_C .\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey is a shallow lensing-spectroscopy survey that has previously allowed some measurements of this type (e.g. Reyes et al. 2010, Mandelbaum et al. 2013), but it suffers from significant levels of lensing systematics (Huff et al. 2014) such that cosmic shear studies are not permitted outside the Stripe 82 area. Deep, narrow redshift surveys with lensing overlap also exist.
[^2]: A third in-progress deep-imaging lensing survey, using the Hyper-Suprime Camera (HSC) at the Subaru telescope, is mapping an area similar to KiDS with greater depth and will benefit from overlap with BOSS.
[^3]: Our website is [http://2dflens.swin.edu.au]{}
[^4]: http://kids.strw.leidenuniv.nl
[^5]: The Taipan Galaxy Survey [(http://www.taipan-survey.org)]{} is a new, wide-area low-redshift spectroscopic survey scheduled to begin at the U.K. Schmidt Telescope in Australia in 2017.
[^6]: http://astro.dur.ac.uk/Cosmology/vstatlas
[^7]: [ http://archive.eso.org]{}. ESO public source catalogues were not available at the start of our project.
[^8]: http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/theli
[^9]: http://www.cfhtlens.org
[^10]: http://www.rcslens.org
[^11]: http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/Gator/nph-scan? mission=irsa&submit=Select&projshort=WISE
[^12]: https://github.com/dklaes/cutout\_server
[^13]: These figures include sources which were later removed following visual inspection as described in Section \[seceyeballing\].
[^14]: In our direct photo-$z$ calibration study (Wolf et al. 2016) we partially correct for these effects by using WISE W1 photometry as a pivot band. This approach produced improved results suitable for that study, but was not able to remove the clustering systematics completely.
[^15]: At the edges of the observing footprint, the sectors are bounded by circular arcs.
[^16]: There is a minor inconsistency between the inferred value of $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.315$ and that assumed for the fiducial survey geometry, $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.3$, although the two values are statistically consistent given the error in the [*Planck*]{} measurement, and the corresponding Alcock-Paczynski distortion is negligible.
[^17]: We prefer to fit for $\beta$ in this Section, rather than for $f$, because $\beta$ is required as an input for the gravitational slip measurements presented by Amon et al. (2016).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We compute the class of the closure of the locus of hyperelliptic curves in the moduli space of stable genus-3 curves in terms of the tautological class $\lambda$ and the boundary classes $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1$. The expression of this class is known, but here we compute it directly, by means of Porteous Formula, without resorting to blowups or test curves.'
author:
- Eduardo Esteves
title: 'The stable hyperelliptic locus in genus 3: An application of Porteous Formula'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Porteous Formula gives an expression for the class of a degeneracy scheme of a map of vector bundles on a smooth variety in terms of the Chern classes of the bundles, as long as the degeneracy scheme has no excess, that is, has the expected codimension; see [@F], Thm. 14.4, p. 254. In [@HM], Question 3.134, p. 169, Harris and Morrison posed the question of finding a Porteous-type formula for maps between torsion-free sheaves.
Their question was motivated by the following problem. Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic different from 2. Let $M_3$ be the moduli space of genus-3 smooth, projective, connected curves, and ${\overline}M_3$ its compactification by (Deligne–Mumford) stable curves over $k$. The vector space $\text{Pic}(M_3){\otimes}\mathbb Q$ is generated by a certain class $\lambda$. This class is the restriction of one in $\text{Pic}({\overline}M_3){\otimes}\mathbb Q$, which will be denoted by the same symbol. The latter space is generated by $\lambda$, $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1$, the latter two being boundary classes.
Let $H\subseteq M_3$ be the locus parameterizing hyperelliptic curves. It is a closed subvariety of codimension 1. Let ${\overline}H$ be its closure in ${\overline}M_3$. We may ask what are the expressions for the class $[H]$ as a multiple of $\lambda$ and $[{\overline}H]$ as a linear combination of $\lambda$, $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1$. In [@HM], pp. 162–188, it is shown that
\[thm\] $$\begin{aligned}
[H]=&9\lambda,\\
[{\overline}H]=&9\lambda-\delta_0-3\delta_1.\end{aligned}$$
(The first formula above had already appeared as a special case of Mumford’s formula for $[\mathcal H]_Q$ on [@Mum], p. 314.)
The strategy for obtaining the formula for $[H]$, culminating on page 164 of loc. cit., reviewed in Section 2, was to consider a general family of smooth curves, a natural map of vector bundles over its total space whose top degeneracy scheme parameterizes the Weierstrass points of hyperelliptic fibers of $\pi$, apply Porteous Formula to compute the class of this scheme, and then compute the pushforward of this class to the base of the family. However, according to [@HM], p. 169, even though “trying to extend the application of Porteous’ formula” to a general family of stable curves “is the most obvious approach” to obtaining a formula for $[{\overline}H]$, the problem is that a certain bundle of jets, namely , defined on the smooth locus of the family, “cannot be extended to a vector bundle over the nodes of fibers of the family of curves.” This motivated their question, mentioned above. Not disposing of the asked-for Porteous-type formula, they proposed a less direct approach, by means of the so-called test curves, culminating with the formula for $[{\overline}H]$ on page 188 of loc. cit..
In [@Diaz] Diaz proposes a blowup procedure to obtain a Porteous-type formula for maps between torsion-free sheaves. Though no explicit formula is produced, as an example, the procedure is carried out to obtain a different and more direct proof that $[{\overline}H]=9\lambda-\delta_0-c\delta_1$ for a certain $c\in\mathbb Z$, not computable because of excess; see Prop. 1, p. 510 of loc. cit..
In these notes we will see that the bundle of jets which “cannot be extended to a vector bundle” does in fact extend; see Section 3. As observed in [@HM], p. 169, the obvious extension, namely the sheaf of jets, or principal parts, , is not a bundle. However, it becomes so after a pushout construction, . So we do get a map of vector bundles over the total space $C$ of a family of stable curves $C/S$, namely , to which we can consider applying Porteous Formula. In contrast to Diaz’s approach, no blowups are necessary. But, as in [@Diaz], Porteous Formula cannot be directly applied because of excess.
Though the excess could be handled in an [*ad hoc*]{} way, we will see that a simple “twist,” typical of the theory of limit linear series explained in [@HM], Ch. 5, is enough to produce a map of vector bundles over $C$, namely , whose top degeneracy scheme $D$ has the expected codimension by Proposition \[finite\], the class of which can thus be computed by Porteous Formula. Its pushforward to $S$ is given by Proposition \[porteous\].
As in [@Diaz], $D$ comprises more than the Weierstrass points of the (smooth) hyperelliptic fibers of $\pi$. To get the formula for $[{\overline}H]$ of Theorem \[thm\], the excess points must be counted out. To remove them, we need to establish their multiplicities in $D$. This is Proposition \[mult\]. The three Propositions imply the Theorem.
Though sheaves of jets, or principal parts, for a family of stable curves are not vector bundles, there are vector bundle substitutes that agree with them on the smooth locus of the family. These substitutes have appeared, in various degrees of generality, in [@E1], [@E2], [@G1], [@G2], [@LT1] and [@LT2]. It may thus well be that a Porteous-type formula for maps between torsion-free sheaves is not necessary for dealing with stable curves. What would certainly be useful instead, is a way of dealing with excessive degeneracy schemes, a phenomenon typical in enumerative questions.
The layout of these notes is the following: In Section 2 we review the approach in [@HM] for computing $[H]$. In Section 3, we show how to produce a map of vector bundles over the total space $C$ of a general family of stable curves $\pi{\colon}C\to S$, whose top degeneracy scheme $D$ has the expected codimension, and contains the eight Weierstrass points on each (smooth) hyperelliptic fiber, among others on singular fibers; see Proposition \[finite\]. In Section 4, we apply Porteous Formula to compute the pushforward of the class of $D$ to $S$; see Proposition \[porteous\]. To conclude the proof of Theorem \[thm\], in Section 5, we compute the multiplicity with which the points on singular fibers appear in $D$, our Proposition \[mult\], thereby finishing the computation of $[{\overline}H]$.
These notes report on work started during a visiting professorhip of the author to the Università degli Studi di Torino. The author would like to thank Regione Piemonte for financing his position. Also, he would like to thank the Dipartimento di Matematica of the University, specially Prof. Alberto Conte and Prof. Marina Marchisio, for the warm hospitality extended. Finally, he would like to thank Letterio Gatto for many inspiring discussions on the subject.
Smooth curves
=============
The formulas in Theorem \[thm\] can be obtained by considering the Picard group of the functor, or that of the associated stack. Given a flat, projective map $\pi{\colon}C\to S$ with smooth, connected fibers of dimension 1 and genus 3, the class $[H]$ corresponds to a class $h^\pi$ on $S$, and $\lambda$ to a class $\lambda^\pi$, the first Chern class of the rank-3 locally free sheaf $\pi_*\Omega^1_{C/S}$. To show that $[H]=9\lambda$, it is equivalent to show that $h^\pi=9\lambda^\pi$ for every such $\pi$.
Likewise, to show that $[{\overline}H]=9\lambda-\delta_0-\delta_1$, we may consider the corresponding classes ${\overline}h^\pi$, $\lambda^\pi$, $\delta_0^\pi$ and $\delta_1^\pi$ on the target of flat, projective maps $\pi{\colon}C\to S$ whose fibers are stable curves of (arithmetic) genus 3, and show that $$\label{olh}
{\overline}h^\pi=9\lambda^\pi-\delta_0^\pi-3\delta_1^\pi.$$ Since ${\overline}M_3$ is stackwise smooth and complete, we need only consider one-dimensional smooth projective targets $S$, and show the above formula holds for a general such map $\pi$. Alternatively, we may show that the degrees on both sides of the fomula are equal for three special such maps $\pi$, yielding three linearly independent triples $({\mathrm{deg}\,}(\lambda^\pi),{\mathrm{deg}\,}(\delta_0^\pi),{\mathrm{deg}\,}(\delta^1_\pi))$. The latter is known as the method of test curves, employed in [@HM].
The strategy to compute $[H]$ in [@HM] is as follows. Let $\pi{\colon}C\to S$ be a projective, flat map between schemes of finite type over the algebraically closed field $k$. Assume the (geometric) fibers of $\pi$ are smooth, connected curves of genus 3. Given a (closed) point $s\in S$, we will let $C_s:=\pi^{-1}(s)$.
Let $\Omega^1_{C/S}$ be the relative cotangent sheaf. Set ${\mathcal E}:=\pi^*\pi_*\Omega^1_{C/S}$. At a (closed) point $P$ of $C$, letting $s:=\pi(P)$, we have $${\mathcal E}|_P=H^0(C_s,\Omega^1_{C_s/k}).$$ Since the fibers of $\pi$ have genus three, ${\mathcal E}$ is locally free of rank 3.
Let ${\mathcal F}$ be the relative bundle of first-order jets, or principal parts, of $\Omega^1_{C/S}$. In other words, $$\label{FFF}
{\mathcal F}:=p_{1*}\Big(p_2^*\Omega^1_{C/S}{\otimes}\frac{{\mathcal{O}}_{C\times_SC}}
{{\mathcal I}_{\Delta|C\times_S C}^2}\Big),$$ where $p_i{\colon}C\times_SC\to C$ is the projection onto the indicated factor, for $i=1,2$, and $\Delta\subset C\times_SC$ is the diagonal. At a point $P\in C$, letting $s:=\pi(P)$, we have $${\mathcal F}|_P:=H^0(C_s,{\Omega^1_{C_s|k}}_{\Big|{\text{Spec}\Big(\frac{{\mathcal{O}}_{C_s,P}}
{\mathfrak m_{C_s,P}^2}\Big)}}),$$ were $\mathfrak m_{C_s,P}$ is the maximal ideal of the local ring ${\mathcal{O}}_{C_s,P}$. Since $C_s$ is smooth, ${\mathcal F}$ is locally free of rank 2.
Since $\pi^*\pi_*\Omega^1_{C/S}=p_{1*}p_2^*\Omega^1_{C/S}$, there is a natural map $\nu{\colon}{\mathcal E}\to{\mathcal F}$. At a given $P\in C$, the map is an evaluation map: Given a local parameter $t$ of $C_s$ at $P$, where $s:=\pi(P)$, using $dt$ to trivialize $\Omega^1_{C_s|k}$ at $P$, the map $\nu|_P$ assigns to a global differential form, whose germ at $P$ can be written as $fdt$ for $f\in{\mathcal{O}}_{C_s,P}$, the class $(f(0)+f'(0)t)dt\text{ (mod }t^2dt\text{)}$, where $f':=df/dt$. Thus, $\nu|_P$ fails to be surjective if and only if $H^0(C_s,\Omega^1_{C_s|k}(-2P))$ fails to have codimension 2 in $H^0(C_s,\Omega^1_{C_s|k})$, that is, if and only if $C_s$ is hyperelliptic, and $P$ is a Weierstrass point of $C_s$.
Let $D$ be the top degeneracy scheme of the map $\nu$, supported on the set of points $P\in C$ where $\nu|_P$ fails to be surjective. Then, assuming the general fiber of $\pi$ is nonhyperelliptic, $D$ has codimension at least 2. This is however the expected codimension, thus the actual codimension. Then, assuming $S$ is smooth, or at least Cohen–Macaulay, Porteous Formula ([@F], Thm. 14.4, p. 254 or [@HM], Thm. 3.114, p. 161) gives an expression for $[D]$: $$[D]=c_2({\mathcal E}^*-{\mathcal F}^*)\cap [C].$$
There are 8 Weierstrass points on a hyperelliptic curve of genus 3. Thus $$8h^\pi=\pi_*[D]=\pi_*(c_2({\mathcal E}^*-{\mathcal F}^*)\cap [C]).$$ If we compute the right-hand side of the formula above we will get $72\lambda^\pi$. We will not do this here, as in Sections 3, 4 and 5 we will use the same procedure to prove the more general .
Stable curves
=============
In [@HM], the expression for $[{\overline}H]$ is computed by the method of test curves. Instead, we will use a “twist” of the same method used to compute $[H]$.
Let $\pi{\colon}C\to S$ be a projective, flat map between schemes of finite type over the algebraically closed field $k$. Assume the fibers of $\pi$ are stable curves of genus 3.
As pointed out in [@HM], the relative cotangent sheaf $\Omega^1_{C/S}$ is not locally free, but can be replaced by the (invertible) relative dualizing sheaf $\omega_{C/S}$, equal to the cotangent sheaf away from the nodes of the fibers. The restriction ${\omega}_{C_s}$ of ${\omega}_{C/S}$ to a fiber $C_s$ is Rosenlicht’s sheaf of regular differential forms, those being the meromorphic forms regular everywhere, except over a node, where the form must have at most simple pole at each branch with zero residue sum.
Set ${\mathcal E}:=\pi^*\pi_*\omega_{C/S}$. As in Section 2, the sheaf ${\mathcal E}$ is locally free of rank 3. On the other hand, [@HM] asserts that the restriction to the smooth locus of $C/S$ of $$\label{notfree}
p_{1*}\Big(p_2^*\omega_{C/S}{\otimes}\frac{{\mathcal{O}}_{C\times_SC}}
{{\mathcal I}_{\Delta|C\times_S C}^2}\Big),$$ where, as before, $p_i{\colon}C\times_SC\to C$ is the projection onto the indicated factor, for $i=1,2$, and $\Delta\subset C\times_SC$ is the diagonal, does not extend to a locally free sheaf on the whole $C$. This is false.
It is true, as pointed out in [@HM], that , the sheaf of first-order principal parts of $\omega_{C/S}$ is not locally free, but there is a locally free substitute that coincides with that sheaf away from the nodes. In the case at hand, it is easy to produce the substitute, by considering the pushout for the following diagram of maps: $$\begin{CD}
0 @>>> \omega_{C/S}{\otimes}\Omega^1_{C/S} @>>>
p_{1*}\Big(p_2^*\omega_{C/S}{\otimes}\frac{{\mathcal{O}}_{C\times_SC}}
{{\mathcal I}_{\Delta|C\times_S C}^2}\Big) @>>> \omega_{C/S} @>>> 0\\
@. @VVV @. @. @.\\
@. \omega_{C/S}^{{\otimes}2}
\end{CD}$$ where the exact sequence is obtained from the natural exact sequence $$0 {\longrightarrow}\frac{{\mathcal I}_{\Delta|C\times_S C}}{{\mathcal I}_{\Delta|C\times_S C}^2} {\longrightarrow}\frac{{\mathcal{O}}_{C\times_SC}}{{\mathcal I}_{\Delta|C\times_S C}^2} {\longrightarrow}\frac{{\mathcal{O}}_{C\times_SC}}{{\mathcal I}_{\Delta|C\times_S C}} {\longrightarrow}0,$$ and the vertical map is obtained from the “canonical class” $\Omega^1_{C/S}\to\omega_{C/S}$ by tensoring with $\omega_{C/S}$. The pushout construction completes the above diagram to a map of short exact sequences: $$\label{pushout}
\begin{CD}
0 @>>> \omega_{C/S}{\otimes}\Omega^1_{C/S} @>>>
p_{1*}\Big(p_2^*\omega_{C/S}{\otimes}\frac{{\mathcal{O}}_{C\times_SC}}
{{\mathcal I}_{\Delta|C\times_S C}^2}\Big) @>>> \omega_{C/S} @>>> 0\\
@. @VVV @VVV @| @.\\
0 @>>> \omega_{C/S}^{{\otimes}2} @>>> {\mathcal F}@>>> \omega_{C/S} @>>> 0
\end{CD}$$ Of course, ${\mathcal F}$ is locally free of rank 2.
As before, there is a natural homomorphism from ${\mathcal E}$ to , which can be composed to a homomorphism $$\label{nuEF}
\nu{\colon}{\mathcal E}\to{\mathcal F}.$$ It restricts, over the open subset of points of $S$ parameterizing smooth fibers, to the map of locally free sheaves considered in Section 2. In fact, away from the nodes, the description is the same: If $P\in C$ is not a node of $C_s$, where $s:=\pi(P)$, then, considering a local parameter $t$ of $C_s$ at $P$, and using $dt$ to trivialize $\Omega^1_{C_s|k}$ at $P$, the map $\nu|_P$ assigns to a regular differential form, whose germ at $P$ can be written as $fdt$ for $f\in{\mathcal{O}}_{C_s,P}$, the class $(f(0)+f'(0)t)dt\text{ (mod }t^2dt\text{)}$, where $f':=df/dt$.
Assume now that $S$ is one-dimensional and $\pi$ is “general.” More precisely, assume $C$ is nonsingular, the general fiber of $\pi$ is smooth, and the (finitely many) singular fibers have only one singularity. There are thus two types of singular fibers: an irreducible curve $Z$ with a node whose two branches on the normalization ${\widetilde}Z$ are in general position with respect to the canonical system; and the union of a genus-1 curve $X$ with a genus-2 curve $Y$ meeting transversally at a point $N$ which is not a Weierstrass point of $Y$. From the arguments we will use, we may harmlessly assume that there are just two singular fibers, $Z$ and $X\cup Y$.
The top degeneracy scheme of $\nu$ has dimension 1. Indeed, it contains the curve $X$. This is because ${\omega}_{C/S}|_X={\mathcal{O}}_X(N)$, whose space of global sections has dimension 1. Since the dimension of the degeneracy scheme is not the minimum possible, the so-called expected dimension, which in this case is zero, we say that we have excess. To deal with excess in Intersection Theory is generally hard. In our case, the excess could be handled in an *ad hoc* way. We will nonetheless avoid it.
What we will do is replace ${\omega}_{C/S}$ by a “twisted” sheaf: $${\mathcal L}:={\omega}_{C/S}(-X):={\omega}_{C/S}{\otimes}{\mathcal{O}}_C(-X).$$ We will set ${\mathcal E}':=\pi^*\pi_*{\mathcal L}$, and let ${\mathcal F}'$ be the sheaf obtained by the pushout construction, part of the map of short exact sequences: $$\label{pout}
\begin{CD}
0 @>>> {\mathcal L}{\otimes}\Omega^1_{C/S} @>>>
p_{1*}\Big(p_2^*{\mathcal L}{\otimes}\frac{{\mathcal{O}}_{C\times_SC}}
{{\mathcal I}_{\Delta|C\times_S C}^2}\Big) @>>> {\mathcal L}@>>> 0\\
@. @VVV @VVV @| @.\\
0 @>>> {\mathcal L}{\otimes}\omega_{C/S} @>>> {\mathcal F}' @>>> {\mathcal L}@>>> 0
\end{CD}$$ As before, there is a natural map $$\label{nu'EF}
\nu'{\colon}{\mathcal E}'\to{\mathcal F}'.$$
\[finite\] The sheaves ${\mathcal E}'$ and ${\mathcal F}'$ are locally free of ranks $3$ and $2$, respectively. In addition, the top degeneracy scheme of $\nu'$ is zero-dimensional, and consists of the following points:
1. The $8$ Weierstrass points of each smooth hyperelliptic fiber of $\pi$;
2. The node of $Z$;
3. The node $N$ of $X\cup Y$;
4. The $3$ points $A\in X-\{N\}$ such that $2A\equiv 2N$;
5. The $6$ Weierstrass points of $Y$.
That ${\mathcal F}'$ is locally free of rank 2 follows immediately from it being the middle sheaf in the bottom exact sequence of Diagram . On the other hand, to show that ${\mathcal E}'$ is locally free of rank 3, we need to show that 3 is the dimension of the space of global sections of ${\mathcal L}$ restricted to each fiber. This is clear except for ${\mathcal L}|_{X\cup Y}$. Now, there are two exact sequences associated to ${\mathcal L}|_{X\cup Y}$: $$\label{two}
\begin{aligned}
0\to{\mathcal L}|_X(-N)\to&{\mathcal L}|_{X\cup Y}\to{\mathcal L}|_Y\to 0,\\
0\to{\mathcal L}|_Y(-N)\to&{\mathcal L}|_{X\cup Y}\to{\mathcal L}|_X\to 0.
\end{aligned}$$ The first yields the exact sequence $$\label{first}
0\to{\mathcal{O}}_X(N)\to{\mathcal L}|_{X\cup Y}\to{\omega}_Y\to0,$$ where ${\omega}_Y$ is the canonical sheaf of $Y$. It follows from the long exact sequence in cohomology associated to that $h^0(X\cup Y,{\mathcal L}|_{X\cup Y})=3$. So, ${\mathcal E}'$ is locally free of rank 3.
Let $D$ denote the top degeneracy scheme of $\nu'$. Since $h^0(X\cup Y,{\mathcal L}|_{X\cup Y})=3$, it follows from the base-change theorem and the exactness of that the two maps in the composition below are surjective: $$H^0(C,{\mathcal L}) {\longrightarrow}H^0(X\cup Y,{\mathcal L}|_{X\cup Y}) {\longrightarrow}H^0(Y,{\mathcal L}|_Y).$$ Since ${\mathcal L}|_Y\cong{\omega}_Y$, and since $H^0(Y,{\omega}_Y(-2A))\neq 0$ if and only if $A$ is a Weierstrass point of $Y$, it follows that $D\cap Y-\{N\}$ consists of the six Weierstrass points of $Y$.
The second exact sequence in yields the exact sequence: $$0{\longrightarrow}{\omega}_Y(-N){\longrightarrow}{\mathcal L}|_{X\cup Y}{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}_X(2N){\longrightarrow}0.$$ Since $h^0(Y,{\omega}_Y(-N))=1$ and $h^0(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X(2N))=2$, it follows as before that the two maps in the composition below are surjective: $$H^0(C,{\mathcal L}) {\longrightarrow}H^0(X\cup Y,{\mathcal L}|_{X\cup Y}) {\longrightarrow}H^0(X,{\mathcal L}|_X).$$ Thus, since ${\mathcal L}|_X\cong{\mathcal{O}}_X(2N)$, it follows that $D\cap X-\{N\}$ consists of the three points $A\in X-\{N\}$ such that $2A\equiv 2N$.
As explained in Section 2, $D$ does not intersect nonhyperelliptic fibers, and intersects each hyperelliptic fiber in its 8 Weierstrass points.
As for the fiber $Z$, consider the following composition of natural maps: $$H^0(C,{\mathcal L}){\longrightarrow}H^0(Z,{\mathcal L}|_Z){\longrightarrow}H^0({\widetilde}Z,{\mathcal L}|_{{\widetilde}Z}).$$ The first map above is surjective by the base-change theorem. The second is the pullback map to the normalization, which is injective, and so an isomorphism, since both source and target have dimension 3. Here we used the Riemann–Roch Theorem and the fact that ${\mathcal L}|_{{\widetilde}Z}={\omega}_{{\widetilde}Z}(M_1+M_2)$, where ${\omega}_{{\widetilde}Z}$ is the canonical sheaf of ${\widetilde}Z$, and $M_1$ and $M_2$ are the two points over the node $M$ of $Z$. Assuming $M_1$ and $M_2$ are in general position, $M_1+M_2$ does not move, and thus, by the Riemann–Roch Theorem, $h^0({\widetilde}Z,{\omega}_{{\widetilde}Z}(M_1+M_2-2B))=1$ for every $B\in{\widetilde}Z$ distinct from $M_1$ and $M_2$. Hence $D$ intersects $Z$ at most at its node.
It remains only to show that the nodes of $Z$ and of $X\cup Y$ belong to $D$, but this will be done in Proposition \[mult\]. What is important for what follows is that we have already shown $D$ to be finite.
An application of Porteous Formula
==================================
\[porteous\] Let $D$ be the top degeneracy scheme of $\nu'{\colon}{\mathcal E}'\to{\mathcal F}'$. Then $$\pi_*[D]=72\lambda^\pi-7\delta_0^\pi-7\delta_1^\pi.$$
Since, by Proposition \[finite\], $D$ has the right codimension, we may compute its class in $C$ by Porteous Formula ([@F], Thm. 14.4, p. 254 or [@HM], Thm. 3.114, p. 161): $$[D]=c_2({{\mathcal E}'}^*-{{\mathcal F}'}^*)\cap [C].$$ Expanding, $$\label{[D]}
\begin{aligned}
{[D]}=&\Big[\frac{c({{\mathcal E}'}^*)}{c({{\mathcal F}'}^*)}\Big]_2\cap[C]\\
=&\Big[\frac{1-c_1({\mathcal E}')+c_2({\mathcal E}')}{1-c_1({\mathcal F}')+c_2({\mathcal F}')}\Big]_2\cap[C]\\
=&\big[(1-c_1({\mathcal E}')+c_2({\mathcal E}'))(1+c_1({\mathcal F}')-c_2({\mathcal F}')+c_1({\mathcal F}')^2)\big]_2
\cap [C]\\
=&(c_2({\mathcal E}')-c_1({\mathcal E}')c_1({\mathcal F}')+c_1({\mathcal F}')^2-c_2({\mathcal F}'))\cap [C].
\end{aligned}$$
Now, ${\mathcal F}'$ sits in the middle of an exact sequence of the form: $$0{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal L}{\otimes}\omega_{C/S}{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal F}'{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal L}{\longrightarrow}0.$$ By the Whitney Sum Formula ([@F], Thm. 3.2(e), p. 50), letting $K:=c_1(\omega_{C/S})\cap [C]$, $$\label{cF}
\begin{aligned}
c_1({\mathcal F}')\cap [C]=&(2c_1({\mathcal L})+c_1(\omega_{C/S}))\cap [C]=3K-2[X],\\
c_2({\mathcal F}')\cap [C]=&c_1({\mathcal L})c_1({\mathcal L}{\otimes}{\omega}_{C/S})\cap [C]=(K-[X])(2K-[X]).
\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, from the exact sequence $$\begin{CD}
0 @>>> {\omega}_{C/S}(-X) @>\cdot X>> {\omega}_{C/S} @>>> {\omega}_{C/S}|_X @>>> 0,
\end{CD}$$ since ${\omega}_{C/S}|_X={\mathcal{O}}_X(N)$ and $H^1(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X(N))=0$, we get the long exact sequence $$\begin{CD}
0 @>>> \pi_*({\omega}_{C/S}(-X)) @>>> \pi_*{\omega}_{C/S} @>\beta >> \pi_*{\mathcal{O}}_X(N)\\
@>>> R^1\pi_*({\omega}_{C/S}(-X)) @>\gamma >> R^1\pi_*({\omega}_{C/S}) @>>> 0.
\end{CD}$$ As we have seen in the proof of Proposition \[finite\], $\pi_*({\omega}_{C/S}(-X))$ is a locally free sheaf of rank 3 with formation commuting with base change, whence $R^1\pi_*({\omega}_{C/S}(-X))$ is invertible. Since so is $R^1\pi_*({\omega}_{C/S})$, it follows that $\gamma$ is an isomorphism. So $\beta$ is surjective. Since $h^0(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X(N))=1$, it follows that $$c_1(\pi_*({\omega}_{C/S}(-X)))=c_1(\pi_*{\omega}_{C/S})-\delta_1=\lambda^\pi-\delta_1^\pi.$$ Thus $$\label{cE}
\begin{aligned}
c_1({\mathcal E}')\cap [C]=&\pi^*(\lambda^\pi-\delta_1^\pi),\\
c_2({\mathcal E}')\cap [C]=&0.
\end{aligned}$$
Replacing and in , we get $$[D]=\pi^*(\delta_1^\pi-\lambda^\pi)(3K-2[X])+(3K-2[X])^2-(K-[X])(2K-[X])$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_*[D]=&(\delta_1^\pi-\lambda^\pi)\pi_*(3K-2[X])+
\pi_*((3K-2[X])^2)-\pi_*((K-[X])(2K-[X]))\\
=&12(\delta_1^\pi-\lambda^\pi)+\pi_*(9K^2-16[N]+4[X]\pi^*\delta_1^\pi)-
\pi_*(2K^2-4[N]+[X]\pi^*\delta_1^\pi)\\
=&12(\delta_1^\pi-\lambda^\pi)+9\kappa^\pi-16\delta_1^\pi
-2\kappa^\pi+4\delta_1^\pi\\
=&7\kappa^\pi-12\lambda^\pi,\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa^\pi:=\pi_*K^2$. In the first equality above we used the projection formula. In the second, we used that $\pi$ collapses $X$ to a point, that ${\omega}_{C/S}|_X\cong{\mathcal{O}}_X(N)$, that $[X]=\pi^*\delta_1^\pi-[Y]$, that $\pi_*K=4[S]$, and that $[X][Y]=[N]$. In the third, we used again the projection formula and the fact that $\pi$ collapses $X$ to a point.
Finally, using that ([@HM], (3.110), p. 158) $$\kappa^\pi=12\lambda^\pi-\delta_0^\pi-\delta_1^\pi,$$ we get $$\pi_*[D]=7(12\lambda^\pi-\delta_0^\pi-\delta_1^\pi)-12\lambda^\pi,$$ which yields the stated formula.
Multiplicities
==============
Once we remove the contribution of the points of items (2) to (5) of Proposition \[finite\] from the expression of $\pi_*[D]$ in Proposition \[porteous\] we get $8{\overline}h^\pi$, and thus . This means that the node of $Z$ should appear in $D$ with multiplicity 1, and the remaining points, items (3) to (5), should count to 17, with multiplicitites. Indeed:
\[mult\] The scheme $D$ consists of:
1. the $8$ Weierstrass points of each smooth hyperelliptic fiber of $\pi$, each with multiplicity $1$;
2. \[mult2\] the node of $Z$, with multiplicity $1$;
3. \[mult3\] the node $N$ of $X\cup Y$, with multiplicity $2$;
4. \[mult4\] the $3$ points $A\in X-\{N\}$ such that $2A\equiv 2N$, each with multiplicity $1$;
5. \[mult5\] the $6$ Weierstrass points of $Y$, each with multiplicity $2$.
We have seen in Proposition \[finite\] that $D$ consists at most of the points listed above. The multiplicity of a Weierstrass point of a smooth hyperelliptic fiber of $\pi$ has been established in [@HM], Ex. 3.116, p. 164. The multiplicity of the node of $Z$ can be computed in essentially the same way as the multiplicity computation in [@Diaz]; we will do it at the end for the sake of completeness.
We will first establish the multiplicities at smooth points, starting with . Let $A\in X-N$ such that $2A\equiv 2N$. Let $t$ be a local parameter of ${\mathcal{O}}_{S,s}$, where $s:=\pi(A)$. Since $\pi$ is smooth at $A$, there is $u\in{\mathcal{O}}_{C,A}$ such that $t,u$ form a regular system of parameters for ${\mathcal{O}}_{C,A}$. Set ${\mathcal L}':={\mathcal L}(-X)$. The exactness of the natural sequence $$0\to{\mathcal L}'\to{\mathcal L}\to{\mathcal L}|_X\to 0,$$ coupled with the surjectivity of the restriction map $H^0(C,{\mathcal L})\to H^0(X,{\mathcal L}|_X)$ shown in the proof of Proposition \[finite\], yields the exactness of $$0\to H^0(C,{\mathcal L}')\to H^0(C,{\mathcal L})\to H^0(X,{\mathcal L}|_X)\to0.$$ Since ${\mathcal L}|_X\cong{\mathcal{O}}_X(2N)$, we may choose a $k[[t]]$-basis $s_1,s_2,s_3$ of $H^0(C,{\mathcal L})$ such that $\psi:=s_1$ generates ${\mathcal L}_A$ and $$\begin{aligned}
s_2\in& (u^2+(t,u^3))\psi,\\
s_3\in& (t)\psi.
\end{aligned}$$
Now, since ${\mathcal L}'={\mathcal L}(-X)$, it follows that $ts_1,ts_2,s_3\in H^0(C,{\mathcal L}')$. Moreover, as $h^0(X,{\mathcal L}|_X)=2$, they form a $k[[t]]$-basis of $H^0(C,{\mathcal L}')$. But ${\mathcal L}'|_X\cong{\mathcal{O}}_X(3N)$ and, since $H^0(Y,{\omega}_Y(-2N))=0$, the restriction map $H^0(C,{\mathcal L}')\to H^0(X,{\mathcal L}'|_X)$ is an isomorphism. Since $3A\not\equiv 3N$, the vanishing orders of sections of ${\mathcal{O}}_X(3N)$ at $A$ are $0,1,2$. Since ${\mathcal L}'_A={\mathcal{O}}_{C,A}t\psi$, the vanishing orders of $ts_1|_X$ and $ts_2|_X$ at $A$ are 0 and 2, respectively. Thus, replacing $s_3$ by $s_3-(s_3/ts_1)(A)ts_1$, we may assume that the vanishing order of $s_3|_X$ at $A$ is 1. So, we may assume $$\begin{aligned}
s_1\in& \{\psi\},\\
s_2\in& (u^2+(t,u^3))\psi,\\
s_3\in& (u+(t,u^2))t\psi.
\end{aligned}$$
Thus, $D$ is the zero scheme given by the maximal minors of a matrix whose entries are in the corresponding entries of $$\left[\begin{matrix} \{1\} & u^2+(t,u^3) & tu+(t^2,tu^2)\\ \{0\} &
2u+(t,u^2) & t+(t^2,tu)) \end{matrix}\right]$$ Since the characteristic of the ground field $k$ is assumed different from 2, it follows that the multiplicity of $D$ at $A$ is 1.
We will establish the multiplicity in now. Let $A$ be a Weierstrass point of $Y$. Let $t$ be a local parameter of ${\mathcal{O}}_{S,s}$, where $s:=\pi(A)$. Since $\pi$ is smooth at $A$, there is $u\in{\mathcal{O}}_{C,A}$ such that $t,u$ form a regular system of parameters for ${\mathcal{O}}_{C,A}$.
Let ${\mathcal L}':={\mathcal L}(-Y)$ and ${\mathcal L}'':={\mathcal L}(-2Y)$. Then ${\mathcal L}'_A=t{\mathcal L}_A$ and ${\mathcal L}''_A=t^2{\mathcal L}_A$. As we have seen in the proof of Proposition \[finite\], the restriction map $$\label{LLL}
H^0(C,{\mathcal L}){\longrightarrow}H^0(Y,{\mathcal L}|_Y)$$ is surjective. Since ${\mathcal L}|_Y\cong{\omega}_Y$, and $A$ is a Weierstrass point of $Y$, there is a basis $s_1,s_2,s_3$ of $H^0(C,{\mathcal L})$ such that $s_1(A)\neq 0$, $s_2|_Y$ vanishes at $A$ with multiplicity 2, and $s_3|_Y=0$. Let $\psi$ be the germ of $s_1$ at $A$. So, in ${\mathcal L}_A$, we may assume $$\begin{aligned}
s_1\in&\{\psi\},\\
s_2\in&(u^2+(t,u^3))\psi,\\
s_3\in&(t)\psi.\end{aligned}$$
Since is surjective, and since $h^0(Y,{\mathcal L}|_Y)=2$, the sections $ts_1,ts_2,s_3$ of $H^0(C,{\mathcal L}')$ form a basis. Since ${\mathcal L}'|_X\cong{\mathcal{O}}_X(N)$ and ${\mathcal L}'|_Y\cong{\omega}_Y(N)$, and since $h^0(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X(N))=1$ and $h^0(Y,{\omega}_Y(N))=2$, it follows that the restriction map $$H^0(C,{\mathcal L}'){\longrightarrow}H^0(Y,{\mathcal L}'|_Y)$$ is surjective, and $h^0(Y,{\mathcal L}'|_Y)=2$. Thus there is $s'\in H^0(C,{\mathcal L}')$ forming a $k[[t]]$-basis of $H^0(C,{\mathcal L}')$ together with $ts_1,ts_2$ such that $s'|_Y=0$. Up to replacing $s_3$ by $s_3-fts_1-gts_2$ for $f,g\in k[[t]]$, we may assume $s'=s_3$. So $s_3\in (t)^2\psi$.
In addition, it follows that the sections $t^2s_1,t^2s_2,s_3$ of $H^0(C,{\mathcal L}'')$ form a basis. But ${\mathcal L}''|_Y\cong{\omega}_Y(2N)$. Since $A$ is a Weierstrass point of $Y$, and $Y$ has genus 2, $$\begin{aligned}
h^0(Y,{\omega}_Y(2N-3A))&=h^0(Y,{\mathcal{O}}_Y(2N-A))=h^1(Y,{\mathcal{O}}_Y(2N-A))\\
&=h^0(Y,{\omega}_Y(A-2N))=h^0(Y,{\omega}_Y(-2N))=0,\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from the fact that $N$ is not a Weierstrass point of $Y$. Then there must be a section $s''$ of ${\mathcal L}''$, forming a $k[[t]]$-basis with $t^2s_1,t^2s_2$, whose restriction to $Y$ vanishes at $A$ with multiplicity 1. Up to replacing $s_3$ by $s_3-(s_3/t^2s_1)(A)t^2s_1$, we may assume that $s''=s_3$. Thus we may assume $$s_3\in t^2(u+(t,u^2))\psi.$$
It follows that $D$ is given at $A$ by the maximal minors of a matrix whose entries belong to the corresponding entries of the matrix below: $$\left[\begin{matrix}
\{1\} & u^2+(t,u^3) & t^2(u+(t,u^2))\\
\{0\} & 2u+(t,u^2) & t^2+t^2(t,u)
\end{matrix}\right].$$ Then the minors belong to $$2u+(t,u^2),\quad t^2+(t,u)^3,\quad (t,u)^3.$$ Since the characteristic of $k$ is not 2, it follows that $D$ has multiplicity 2 at $A$.
Let us establish the multiplicity in now. Let $t$ be a local parameter of ${\mathcal{O}}_{S,s}$, where $s:=\pi(N)$. Let $x$ (resp. $y$) be a local equation for $Y$ (resp. $X$) at $N$. We may choose them such that $t=xy$ in the local ring ${\mathcal{O}}_{C,N}$. Since the restriction maps $$H^0(C,{\mathcal L})\to H^0(X,{\mathcal L}|_X)\quad\text{and}\quad H^0(C,{\mathcal L})\to H^0(Y,{\mathcal L}|_Y)$$ are surjective, ${\mathcal L}|_X\cong{\mathcal{O}}_X(2N)$ and ${\mathcal L}|_Y\cong{\omega}_Y$, there is a basis $s_1,s_2,s_3$ of $H^0(C,{\mathcal L})$ as a $k[[t]]$-module such that $s_1(N)\neq 0$, that $s_2|_Y=0$ and $s_2|_X$ vanishes at $N$, necessarily to order 2, and $s_3|_X=0$ and $s_3|_Y$ vanishes at $N$ to order 1. Thus, letting $\psi$ be the germ of $s_1$ at $N$, we may assume that $$\begin{aligned}
s_1\in&\{\psi\},\\
s_2\in&x(x+(y,x^2))\psi,\\
s_3\in&y(1+(x,y))\psi.\end{aligned}$$
Now, ${\omega}_{C/S}$ is generated at $N$ by the meromorphic differential $\tau:=dx/x=-dy/y$. This means that the canonical derivation $\partial$ on ${\mathcal L}_N$ induced by the composition of the universal derivation ${\mathcal{O}}_C\to\Omega^1_{C/S}$ with the canonical class $\Omega^1_{C/S}\to{\omega}_{C/S}$ satisfies $\partial(x)=x\tau$ and $\partial(y)=-y\tau$.
Thus, $D$ is given at $N$ by the maximal minors of a matrix whose entries belong to the corresponding entries of the matrix below: $$\left[\begin{matrix}
\{1\} & x(x+(y,x^2)) & y(1+(x,y))\\
\{0\} & 2x^2+x(y,x^2) & -y+y(x,y)
\end{matrix}\right].$$ Then the minors belong to $$2x^2+kxy+(x,y)^3,\quad -y+(x,y)^2,\quad (x,y)^3.$$ Since the characteristic of $k$ is not 2, it follows that $D$ has multiplicity 2 at $N$.
Finally, let us establish the multiplicity in . Let $M$ denote the node of $Z$. Let $t$ be a local parameter of ${\mathcal{O}}_{S,s}$, where $s:=\pi(M)$. Since $Z$ is a node of the special fiber, there are local parameters $x$ and $y$ at $N$ such that $t\equiv xy\mod (x,y)^3$. Let ${\widetilde}Z$ be the normalization of $Z$ and $M_1,M_2\in{\widetilde}Z$ the points above $M$. The normalization map induces a canonical isomorphism $$H^0(Z,{\omega}_Z){\longrightarrow}H^0({\widetilde}Z,{\omega}_{{\widetilde}Z}(M_1+M_2)).$$ Since the restriction map $H^0(C,{\omega}_{C/S})\to H^0(Z,{\omega}_Z)$ is surjective, there is a basis $s_1,s_2,s_3$ of $H^0(C,{\mathcal L})$ as a $k[[t]]$-module such that $s_1(M)\neq 0$ and the pullbacks ${\widetilde}s_2$ and ${\widetilde}s_3$ of $s_2$ and $s_3$ to ${\widetilde}Z$ are such that both vanish at $M_1$ and $M_2$ but ${\widetilde}s_2$ vanishes at $M_1$ to order 2 and ${\widetilde}s_3$ vanishes at $M_2$ to order 2. Thus, letting $\psi$ be the germ of $s_1$ at $M$, we may assume $$\begin{aligned}
s_1\in&\{\psi\},\\
s_2\in&(x+(x,y)^2)\psi,\\
s_3\in&(y+(x,y)^2)\psi.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\tau$ be a generator of ${\omega}_{C/S}$ at $M$, and let $\partial$ be the canonical derivation of ${\omega}_{C/S,M}$, induced by the composition of the universal derivation ${\mathcal{O}}_C\to\Omega^1_{C/S}$ with the canonical class $\Omega^1_{C/S}\to{\omega}_{C/S}$. Choosing $\tau$ appropriately, we have $\partial(x)\equiv x \mod (x,y)^2$ and $\partial(y)\equiv -y \mod (x,y)^2$.
Thus, $D$ is given at $M$ by the maximal minors of a matrix whose entries belong to the corresponding entries of the matrix below: $$\left[\begin{matrix}
\{1\} & x+(x,y)^2 & y+(x,y)^2\\
\{0\} & x+(x,y)^2 & -y+(x,y)^2
\end{matrix}\right].$$ Then the minors belong to $$x+(x,y)^2,\quad -y+(x,y)^2,\quad (x,y)^2,$$ and thus $D$ has multiplicity 1 at $M$.
[9999]{}
S. Diaz, *Porteous’s formula for maps between coherent sheaves.* Michigan Math. J. [**52**]{} (2004), no. 3, 507–514.
E. Esteves, *Wronski algebra systems on families of singular curves.* Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) [**29**]{} (1996), no. 1, 107–134.
E. Esteves, *Jets of singular foliations.* Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0611528.
W. Fulton, *Intersection Theory.* Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge, vol. 2, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
L. Gatto, *$k$-forme wronskiane, successioni di pesi e punti di Weierstrass su curve di Gorenstein.* Tesi di Dottorato, Università di Torino, 1993.
L. Gatto, *Weight sequences versus gap sequences at singular points of Gorenstein curves.* Geom. Dedicata [**54**]{} (1995), no. 3, 267–300.
J. Harris and I. Morrison, *Moduli of curves.* Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 187, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998.
D. Laksov and A. Thorup, *The algebra of jets.* Michigan Math. J. [**48**]{} (2000), 393–416.
D. Laksov and A. Thorup, *Wronski systems for families of local complete intersection curves.* Comm. Algebra [**31**]{} (2003), no. 8, 4007–4035.
D. Mumford, *Towards an enumerative geometry of the moduli space of curves*. In: Arithmetic and geometry, Vol. II, 271–328, Progr. Math., 36, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, 1983.
[Instituto de Matemática Pura e Aplicada, Estrada Dona Castorina 110, 22460-320 Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil]{}
[E-mail address: `[email protected]`]{}
[^1]: Supported by CNPq, Proc. 303797/2007-0 and 473032/2008-2, and FAPERJ, Proc. E-26/102.769/2008 and E-26/110.556/2010.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The heating of carriers in an intrinsic graphene under an abrupt switching off a dc electric field is examined taking into account both the energy relaxation via acoustic and optic phonons and the interband generation-recombination processes. The later are caused by the interband transitions due to optical phonon modes and thermal radiation. Description of the temporal and steady-state responses, including the nonequilibrium concentration and energy as well as the current-voltage characteristics, is performed. At room temperature, a nearly-linear current-voltage characteristic and a slowly-varied concentration take place for fields up to $\sim$20 kV/cm. Since a predominant recombination of high-energy carriers due to optical phonon emission at low temperatures, a depletion of concentration takes place below $\sim$250 K. For lower temperatures the current tends to be saturated and a negative differential conductivity appears below $\sim$170 K in the region of fields $\sim$10 V/cm.'
author:
- 'P.N. Romanets'
- 'F.T. Vasko'
title: |
Depletion of carriers and negative differential conductivity\
in an intrinsic graphene under a dc electric field
---
Introduction
============
In addition to detailed investigation of the linear transport phenomena in graphene, see reviews [@1] and references therein, a high-field transport regime is coming under examination during recent years. Starting from the first experiments on current cleaning of graphene, [@2] a set of measurements on transistor structures, where lateral inhomogeneities of concentration and contact phenomena are essential, were performed, see last results and reviews. [@3; @4] Hot electron transport in short-channel suspended graphene devices was studied in Ref. 5. Recently, a few measurements [@6; @7] were performed on homogeneous structures without contacts contribution. As for theoretical description, the energy relaxation processes in graphene were studied in several papers. [@8] Heating of carriers by a strong dc electric field was considered both analytically [@9; @10] and numerically, with the use of the Monte Carlo method. [@11] Most of these results [@2; @3; @4; @5; @6] and [@8; @10; @11] were obtained for the monopolar graphene, with a fixed concentration of electrons (or holes). For the case of intrinsic graphene, not only the energy (temperature) of carriers increases due to the Joule heating but also [*a carrier concentration changes*]{}. [@9] Thus, the nonequilibrium distribution is determined both the energy relaxation and the interband generation-recombination processes. This regime of heating was analyzed in [@9] for the low-energy carriers, at electric fields $E\leq$10 V/cm and at low temperatures. The modifications of the current-voltage characteristics, $I(V)$ (here $V$ is a drop of voltage along structure), with variation of the gate voltage, $V_g$, from the heavily-doped regime of transport to the intrinsic case (at $V_g=$0), were reported in [@7] for the room temperature. While the mechanism for formation of the second Ohmic law in $I(V)$ under the monopolar regime of transport was considered in [@7], an appearance of the quasilinear characteristic at $V_g=$0, when the generation-recombination processes are essential, remains unclear.
In this paper, we consider a heating of carriers after an abrupt switching off a dc electric field. In addition to the quasielastic relaxation via acoustic phonons and the interband transitions due to thermal radiation considered in Ref. 9, the intra- and interband emission and absorption of optical phonons is taken into account in the high-energy region. The Cauchy problem for the quasiclassical kinetic equation is solved below for the case of a weakly anisotropic distribution under an effective momentum relaxation. The temporal concentration and energy as well as the current-voltage characteristics are analyzed and their dependencies on temperature and field strength are described for the steady-state conditions.
The results obtained can be briefly summarized as follows. At room temperature, [*a nearly-linear*]{} $I(V)$ characteristic and a slowly-increased concentration dependency take place up to fields $E\sim$20 kV/cm in agreement with the experimental data. [@7] This is because an interplay between the emission and absorption of optical phonons (the last process is proportional to the nonzero Planck number of $\Gamma$- and $K$-modes). For lower temperatures, $I(V)$ tends to be saturated (starting $E\sim$20 V/cm at $T<$150 K) and [*a negative differential conductivity*]{} (NDC) appears in the transition region ($E\sim 5$ - 15 V/cm at 77 K). Since a predominant recombination of high-energy carriers due to optical phonon emission at low temperatures, [*a depletion of concentration*]{} takes place below 250 K. The semi-insulating regime of conductivity with a residual concentration about $10^8$ cm$^{-2}$, an energy per particle less 80 meV, and with a low saturated current is realized at 77 K and $E\gg$20 V/cm. Beside of the peculiarities of the steady-state response, [*a two-scale temporal evolution*]{} takes place due to a fast relaxation via optical phonons and a slow relaxation via acoustic phononsand thermal radiation. A scale of transient process is strongly dependent on temperature and on fields applied. At low temperatures a steady-state distribution is established during $\sim$10 ns time scale and the transient response can be measured directly.
The paper is organized as follows. The basic equations governing the heating of carriers under an abrupt switching off a dc electric field are considered in Sec. II. Temporal evolution of nonequilibrium distributions for different temperatures and electric fields is described in Sec. III. Description of the temporal and steady-state responses, including the nonequilibrium concentration and energy as well as the current-voltage characteristics, is presented in Sec. IV. The concluding remarks and discussion of the assumptions used are given in the last section.
Kinetic approach
================
Nonequilibrium electrons and holes in an intrinsic graphene are described by coinciding distributions $f_{{\bf p}t}$ because their energy spectra are symmetric and the scattering mechanisms are identical. [@9] An evolution of these distributions under a homogeneous electric field ${\bf E}_t$ is governed by the quasiclassical kinetic equation $$\frac{\partial f_{{\bf p}t}}{\partial t}+e{\bf E}_t\cdot\frac{\partial
f_{{\bf p}t}}{\partial {\bf p}}=\sum\limits_j J_j (f_t |{\bf p}) .$$ Here the collision integrals $J_j(f_t |{\bf p})$ describe the relaxation of carriers caused by the elastic scattering on structure disorder ($j=d$), the intraband quasielastic scattering on acoustic phonons ($j=qe$), and the intra- and interband emission and absorption of optical phonons ($j=intra,~inter$). In addition, the contribution $J_r(f_t |{\bf p})$ describes the generation-recombination processes due to interband transitions induced by thermal radiation. At $t<0$, we use the equilibrium initial condition $f_{{\bf p}t<0}=f^{(eq)}_p$ at temperature $T$ where $f^{(eq)}_p=\{\exp (p/p_T)+1\}^{-1}$ and $p_T=T/\upsilon$ is written through the characteristic velocity $\upsilon\simeq 10^8$ cm$^{-2}$.
For typical graphene structures, the momentum relaxation dominants over the other processes listed, i.e. $\nu_d\gg\nu_j,~j\neq d$ where $\nu_j$ stands for the relaxation rate of the $j$-th scattering channel. Under the condition $eE\tau_m\ll\overline{p}$, where $\tau_m\sim\nu_d^{-1} $ is the momentum relaxation time and $\upsilon\overline{p}$ is the energy of hot carriers, the anisotropy of distribution is weak, $f_{{\bf p}t}\simeq f_{pt}+\Delta f_{{\bf p}t}$. Here we separated the isotropic part of distribution, $f_{pt}$, and a weak anisotropic contribution, $\Delta f_{{\bf p}t}$. Within the local time approximation, when ${\bf E}_t$ increase slowly over $\tau_m$-scale, we obtain the asymmetric part of distribution at $t>0$ as $$\Delta f_{{\bf p}t}\simeq\frac{e{\bf E}\cdot {\bf p}}{p\nu_p}\left(
-\frac{\partial f_{pt}}{\partial p} \right) , ~~ \nu_p=\frac{v_d p}
{\hbar}\Psi\left(\frac{pl_c}{\hbar}\right) +\frac{v_0 p}{\hbar} .$$ The phenomenological rate $\nu_p$ is written here through the characteristic velocities $v_d$ and $v_0$ for the case of the combined elastic scattering by short- and long-range disorder, see Ref. 12 for details. For the model of the Gaussian disorder with the correlation length $l_c$ we use the dimensionless function $\Psi (z)=e^{-z^{2}}I_{1}(z^{2})/z^{2}$ with the first-order Bessel function of an imaginary argument, $I_{1}(z)$.
Performing the averaging over in-plane angle (such averaging symbolized by overline) in kinetic equation (1) and neglecting the weak contribution of $\Delta f_{{\bf p}t}$ in the right-hand side, one obtains the kinetic equation for symmetric distribution $f_{pt}$ as follows $$\frac{\partial f_{pt}}{\partial t}+ e\overline{{\bf E}\cdot\frac{\partial
\Delta f_{{\bf p}t}}{\partial{\bf p}}} =\sum_{j\neq d}J_j (f_t |p) .$$ Because the elastic scattering does not affect the symmetric distribution due to the energy conservation law, the only non-elastic mechanisms ($j\neq d$) are responsible for relaxation of $f_{pt}$. The Joule heating contribution ($\propto E^2$ term in the left-hand side) is expressed through the asymmetric correction (2) and it can be transformed into $$e\overline{{\bf E}\cdot\frac{\partial \Delta f_{{\bf p}t}}{\partial{\bf p}}}
=\frac{(eE)^2}{2p}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}\left[ \frac{p}{\nu_p}\left(
-\frac{\partial f_{pt}}{\partial p}\right)\right] .$$ Eqs. (3, 4) should be solved at $t>0$ with the initial condition $f_{pt=0}
=f^{(eq)}_p$ and the use of the collision integrals described below.
Within the quasielastic approximation, [@9; @13] the energy relaxation via acoustics phonons is described by the Fokker-Planck collision integral given by $$\begin{aligned}
J_{qe}(f_t|p) = \frac{\nu _p^{(qe)}}{p^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}\left[
p^4\frac{\partial f_{pt}}{\partial p}+\frac{p^4}{p_T}f_{pt}(1-f_{pt}) \right] .\end{aligned}$$ Here the rate $\nu _p^{(qe)}=(s/v)^2v_{ac}p/\hbar$ is written through the sound velocity $s$ ($\upsilon /s\simeq$137) and the characteristic velocity $v_{ac}\simeq$2.4$\times 10^5$ cm/s at the nitrogen temperature, moreover $v_{ac}\propto T$. The interband transitions caused by the thermal radiation are described by the collision integral $$J_{R}(f_t|p) =\nu_p^{(R)}[N_{2p/p_T}(1 - 2f_{pt})-f_{pt}^2] ,$$ where the rate of spontaneous radiative transitions, $\nu_p^{(R)}=v_rp/\hbar$, is written through the characteristic velocity $v_r\simeq$41.6 cm/s for the case of graphene on the SiO$_2$ substrate.
The scattering by optical phonons is described by the collision integral written through the intra- and interband parts, $J_{intra}(f_t|p)+J_{inter}
(f_t|p)$, as follows (see evaluation in Refs. 14 and 15) $$\begin{aligned}
J_{intra}(f_t|p)=\sum\limits_\eta\left[ (N_\eta +1)\nu_{p+p_\eta}^{(\eta )}
(1-f_{pt})f_{p+p_{\eta}t} \right. \nonumber \\
+N_{\eta}\nu_{p-p_\eta}^{(\eta )}(1-f_{pt})f_{p-p_{\eta}t}-(N_\eta +1)
\nu_{p-p_\eta}^{(\eta )} \\
\left.\times(1-f_{p-p_{\eta}t})f_{pt} -N_\eta\nu_{p+p_\eta}^{(\eta )}(1-f_{p+p_{\eta}t})f_{pt} \right] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
J_{inter}(f_t|p)=\sum\limits_\eta\left[ N_\eta\widetilde\nu_{p_\eta -p}^{(\eta )}
(1-f_{pt})(1-f_{p_\eta -pt}) \right. \nonumber \\
\left. -(N_\eta +1)\widetilde\nu_{p_\eta -p}^{(\eta )}
f_{p_\eta -pt} f_{pt} \right] .\end{aligned}$$ Here $N_{\eta}=[\exp (\hbar\omega_{\eta}/T)-1]^{-1}$ is the Planck distribution of $\eta$th phonon mode with the energy $\hbar\omega_{\eta}$ at temperature $T$ and $p_\eta =\hbar\omega_\eta /\upsilon$ is the characteristic momentum. Summation over $\eta$ involves both the intra- and intervalley transitions (marked by $\eta =\Gamma$ and $K$ respectively) taking into account the zone-center and zone-boundary phonon modes. Since the averaging over in-plane angle in the general form of the collision integral, [@14; @15] one obtains the relaxation rates $\nu_p^{(\eta )}\simeq\theta (p)v_\eta p/\hbar$ and $\widetilde\nu_p^{(\eta )}\simeq\theta (p)\widetilde{v}_\eta p/\hbar$, which are proportional to the density of states. The $\theta$-function here allows the interband transitions, if $p<p_\eta$ (in the passive region). Below we suppose the same relaxation rates for the intra- and intervalley transitions, $v_\eta\simeq\widetilde{v}_\eta$ and we use the characteristic velocities $v_\Gamma\simeq 10^6$ cm/s and $v_K\simeq 2\times 10^6$ cm/s which are in agreement of the previous results. [@14; @15] The concentration of electrons (holes), $n_t$, and the energy and current densities, ${\cal E}_t$ and ${\bf I}_t$, are determined through $f_{pt}$ and $\Delta f_{{\bf p}t}$ according to the standard relations: $$\left|\begin{array}{*{20}c} n_t \\ {\cal E}_t \\ {\bf I}_t \end{array} \right|
=4\int\frac{d{\bf p}}{(2\pi\hbar )^2}\left| \begin{array}{*{20}c}
f_{pt} \\ \upsilon pf_{pt} \\ e{\bf v}_{\bf p}\Delta f_{{\bf p}t}\end{array}
\right| .$$ The factor 4 here takes into account the spin and valley degeneracy and ${\bf v}_{\bf p}=\upsilon{\bf p}/p$ is the carrier velocity. Using the local time approach, see Eq. (2), and introducing the nonlinear conductivity $\sigma_t$ according to ${\bf I}_t=\sigma_t{\bf E}_t$, one obtains $$\sigma_t =\frac{e^2\upsilon}{\pi\hbar^2}\int\limits_0^\infty\frac{dpp}{\nu _p}
\left( -\frac{\partial f_{pt}}{\partial p} \right) .$$ For the case of the short-range scattering ($l_c\to$0 and $\overline{v}_d=
v_d+v_0$), when $\nu_p\simeq\overline{v}_dp/\hbar$, this integral is transformed into $\sigma_t\simeq (e^2\upsilon /\pi\hbar^2\overline{v}_d)
f_{p=0t}$, i.e. $\sigma_t\propto f_t$ for the low-energy region \[$\upsilon
p<$60 - 100 meV, see Fig. 1(a) below\].
Transient evolution of distribution
===================================
First, we consider numerical solution of the Cauchy problem for the nonlinear differential equation with the finite-difference terms given by Eqs. (4)-(8). Using the iteration scheme [@16] at $t>0$ and the equilibrium initial condition one obtains the transient distribution $f_{pt}$ for different electric fields and temperatures. Under these calculations we use the momentum relaxation rate given by Eq. (2) at different correlation lengths, $l_c=$5 - 12.5 nm, with the characteristic velocity $v_d\simeq 2.6\times
10^7$ cm/s, which is correspondent to the maximal sheet resistance $\sim$3.3 k$\Omega$ and $v_0/v_d\simeq$0.035. In Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) we plot the relaxation rate $\nu_p$ versus energy $\upsilon p$ and the linear conductivity $\sigma$ versus gate voltage, $V_g$, for $l_c=$5, 7.5 and 12.5 nm. As it is shown in Fig. 1(b), the curve 2 is in agreement with the experimental data of Ref. 7 and below we use these parameters for description of the nonlinear response.
Transient evolution of distribution $f_{pt}$, from equilibrium form $f_p^{(eq)}$ to steady-state function $f_p\equiv f_{pt\to\infty}$, is shown in Figs. 2(a) - 2(f) for different temperatures and electric fields. At room temperature, the transient process takes place during 1 - 10 ps time scale and this process becomes slower for higher fields because an interplay between emission and absorption of optical phonons. At lower temperatures, the evolution times are longer, about 1 ns at 150 K and 50 ns at 77 K, but these time scales become shorter for higher fields in contrast to the room temperature case. It is because $N_\eta\leq 10^{-5}$ at $T<$200 K and the absorption of optical phonons is negligible. The maximal distribution $f_{p=0t}$ decreases during the transient process, moreover this effect is enhanced for higher fields and lower temperatures.
The steady-state distribution functions, $f_p$, which are established after the transient process, are shown in Fig. 3 for different field strengths and $l_c=$7.5 nm at temperatures 300 K, 150 K, and 77 K. In contrast to the exponential decay of the equilibrium distribution at $E=0$ shown as the dotted lines, at $E\neq 0$ one obtains a smeared distribution with a low maximal value $f_{p=0}\leq 10^{-2}$. At room temperature, carriers are distributed over energies $\gg\hbar\overline{\omega}_\eta$, if $E>$ 2 kV/cm \[see Fig. 3(a)\] due to competition between absorption and emission of optical phonons. Here and below, $\hbar\overline{\omega}_\eta$ stands for the lowest optical phonon energy. At low temperatures, the distributions are located in the passive region of energies $\upsilon p<\hbar\overline{\omega}_\eta$ \[see Figs. 3(b) and 3(c)\] due to effective emission of optical phonons.
Results
=======
The nonlinear responses introduced by Eqs. (9, 10) are analyzed below. Both the transient characteristics and the steady-state dependencies of concentration, energy and current densities on temperature and on dc field are described.
Concentration and energy vs $t$ and $E$
---------------------------------------
Transient evolution of concentrations $n_t$, normalized to the equilibrium concentration in an intrinsic graphene \[$n_T\simeq 0.52(T/\hbar\upsilon )^2$ varies between $8.1\times 10^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$ and $5.4\times 10^9$ cm$^{-2}$ for $T=$300 - 77 K\] is shown in Figs. 4(a) - 4(c) for the same temperatures and electric fields as in Fig. 2. At room temperature, $n_t$ increases with $t$ and the saturation regime is realized at longer times for higher fields ($t\geq$0.1 ns for $E=$12 kV/cm). It is because the distribution is moved away from the passive region \[see Figs. (2a) and (2b)\] where the generation-recombination processes take place. At lower temperatures, $n_t$ decreases during temporal evolution and the saturation regime is realized for time intervals $>$0.5 ns or $>$50 ns at $T=$150 K or 77 K, respectively. The depletion of concentration is realized because an effective recombination via the optical phonon emission appears at $\upsilon p>\hbar
\overline{\omega}_\eta /2$. All temporal dependencies appear to be faster during initial stages of evolution at high fields, i. e. a two-stage transient process takes place because an increasing of the relaxation rates with energy.
Variation of the normalized nonequilibrium concentration $n/n_T$ with field applied is shown in Figs. 5(a)-(d) for different temperatures and $l_c$. At room temperature $n$ increases with $E$ due to the thermogeneration process (first term of Eq. (8) with $N_K\sim 1.4\times 10^{-3}$). At lower temperatures, if $T<$250 K when $N_\eta <10^{-4}$, the thermogeneration is negligible and $J_{inter}<0$. As a result, depletion of concentration takes place as $E$ increases. In a high-field region \[at $E\geq$50 V/cm if $T=$77 K, see Fig. 5(d)\], one arrives to the saturation regime with concentrations lower $10^8$ cm$^{-2}$. The generation-recombination processes appears to be more effective if $l_c\geq$10 nm, so that $n$ decreases faster if $E$ increases.
It is convenient to characterize the energy distribution by the averaged energy per carrier, ${\cal E}_t/n_t$, normalized to their equilibrium value ${\cal E}_T/n_T$, i. e. we consider below the ratio $$\xi_t =\frac{{\cal E}_t/n_t}{{\cal E}_T/n_T} ,$$ where ${\cal E}_T/n_T\simeq 0.22T$. Transient evolution of $\xi_t$ is plotted in Figs. 6(a) - 6(c) for the same $T$ and $E$ as in Figs. 2 and 4. Notice, that the energy per carrier saturates faster in comparison to concentration, c. f. Figs. 6 and 4. The steady-state ratio $\xi =
\xi_{t\to\infty}$ is shown in Fig. 7 versus electric field for different $l_c$ and temperatures. After a fast increasing of $\xi$ with $E$ at low fields, one obtains a slow dependency of the energy per carrier versus $E$. The dependencies on $l_c$ are similar to ones shown in Fig. 5.
Current-voltage characteristics
-------------------------------
We turn now to consideration of the current-voltage characteristics, $I_t$ versus $E_t$ normalized to length of sample. Transient evolution of current $I_t$ is shown in Fig. 8 for the same $T$ and $E$ as in Figs. 2, 4, and 6. Once again, one obtains the two-stage evolution over time scales similar to those for the $n_t$ and $\xi_t$ dependencies. At low temperatures (150 K and 77 K) $I_t$ decreases monotonically, similarly to $n_t$. At room temperature, $I_t$ decreases fast during an initial stage of the transient process because energy and momentum relaxation rates increase. For longer times, $I_t$ increases similarly to the $n_t$ dependency at $t\geq$5 ps, c. f. Figs. 4(a) and 8(a).
The steady-state current-voltage characteristics, $I(E)$, are shown in Fig. 9 under the same conditions as in Figs. 5 and 7. For the low-field region (about tens V/cm at $T\geq$200 K and $\sim$V/cm at lower $T$), the $I(E)$ dependencies are in agreement with the results reported in Ref. 9. In the high-field region, the second Ohmic law with the resistance $\sim$3 k$\Omega$ at $T=$300 K takes place, while the saturation of current with $I\leq$10 $\mu$A/cm takes place at low temperatures (a semi-insulating regime of transport). In an intermediate field region ($\sim$10 - 30 V/cm at 150 K or $\sim$5 - 15 V/cm at 77 K), a decreasing $I(E)$ characteristics are realized, i.e. the NDC regime of response takes place. Both the effective conductivity in the second Ohmic law region and the differential conductivity under the NDC regime are increased with $l_c$.
In Fig. 10 we plot the differential conductivity $dI/dE$ versus $E$ for the temperatures 150 and 77 K when the NDC regime takes place. Notice that $dI/dE$ shows a strong dependency on $l_c$ in the low-temperature region \[c. f. Figs. 9(c) and 9(d)\]. The NDC region over ($E$, $T$)-plane, where $(dI/dE)<0$ is shaded in the inset for $l_c=$7.5 nm. A possibility for the development of a spatial instability under NDC regime requires a special investigation similar to the bulk case. [@17] But due to a small values of $|dI/dE|$ ($\leq$100 $\mu$S at $T\geq$20 K) one may expect that an inhomogeneous distribution is not developed for the typical size of samples.
Conclusions
===========
Summarizing the consideration performed, we have examined the heating of high-energy carriers taking into account the effective intra- and interband transitions caused by the optical phonons. The interplay of Joule heating and recombination of electron-hole pairs gives rice to (i) the depletion of carriers’ concentration and to (ii) the negative differential conductivity at low temperatures. The model developed explains the nearly linear current-voltage characteristic at room temperature, in agreement with the experimental data for intrinsic grapnene. [@7] Beside of this, temporal evolution of response under an abrupt switching off a dc field lasts over a nanosecond time scale, so that a direct measurement of transient response open up the way to verify the relaxation and recombination mechanisms.
Further, we compare the consideration presented with the other results published in order to stress that the nonlinear response is sensitive to a relative contribution of different relaxation processes and to a geometry of measurements (size of sample, contacts). The last regime was considered in short structures, [@3; @4; @5] see a recent data in Ref. 18 and a description of the ballistic limit of transport was performed in Refs. 19. In the case of monopolar transport [@6] the concentration is fixed and $I(V)$ characteristics are only determined by the momentum and energy relaxation mechanisms, as it was discussed in Refs. 10 and 11. Last but not least, the Joule heating is determined by the momentum scattering mechanism and it should be verified from the linear conductivity measurements, see Fig. 1 and Refs. 7 and 12. An additional uncertainty appears due to the use of any model of momentum relaxation because a microscopic mechanism remains under debates. [@1; @20]
Next, we discuss the assumptions used. The local time approach and the weak anisotropy of distribution used in (2) are valid under the dominant momentum scattering. We omitted the scattering by surface phonons of the substrate in agreement with the consideration of the experimental data. [@7; @21] If such a contributions essential, it can shift the peculiarities considered (depletion of concentration and negative differential conductivity) to lower temperatures because the optical phonon energy $\sim$55 meV for the SiO$_2$ substrate. The carrier-carrier scattering is unessential here because the distributions obtained are spreaded over a range of energies up to $\hbar\omega_{\Gamma , K}$, so that $f_p\ll 1$. Also one can neglect by the long-range disorder [@22] because there is no low-energy particles if $f_{p=0}\ll 1$. Since $v_d\gg v_{\Gamma , K}$, one can neglect the scattering by optical phonons in comparison by the elastic scattering under consideration of the momentum scattering. In addition, a heating of phonons is neglected under the condition of effective phonon thermalization. [@23] Besides, we are restricted by the quasiclassical approach, neglecting a mix of bands due to a strong field (see [@18] and the quasiclassical condition in Appendix of Ref. 9a), which can be essential in a lateral $pn$-junction. The simplifications listed do not change either the character of the high-field distributions or the numerical estimates for the current-voltage characteristics.
To conclude, both a detail theoretical consideration, including numerical modeling for different scattering and recombination mechanisms, and an experimental study of heating at low temperatures are timely now. An observation of the peculiarities obtained and a verification of relaxation processes can be performed for a homogeneous samples with the four-point geometry of contacts.
[52]{}
N. M. R. Peres, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82**]{}, 2673 (2010); D. S. L. Abergel, V. Apalkov, J. Berashevich, K. Ziegler, and T. Chakraborty, Adv. Phys. [**59**]{}, 261 (2010).
J. Moser, A. Barreiro, and A. Bachtold, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**91**]{}, 163513 (2007).
I. Meric, M. Y. Han, A. F. Yang, B. Ozyilmaz, P. Kim, and K. L. Shepard, Nature Nanotech. [**3**]{}, 654 (2008); M. Freitag, M. Steiner, Y. Martin, V. Perebeinos, Z. Chen, J. C. Tsang and P. Avouris, Nano Lett. [**9**]{}, 1883 (2009).
M. C. Lemme, Solid State Phenomena, [**156-158**]{}, 499 (2010); M.-H. Bae, Z.-Y. Ong, D. Estrada, and E. Pop, Nano Lett., [**10**]{}, 4787 (2010).
S. Lee, N. Wijesinghe, C. Diaz-Pinto, and H. Peng, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 045411 (2010).
A. M. DaSilva, K. Zou, J. K. Jain, and J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 236601 (2010).
A. Barreiro, M. Lazzeri, J. Moser, F. Mauri, and A. Bachtold, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 076601 (2009).
E. H. Hwang, B.Y.-K. Hu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 115434 (2007); W.-K. Tse, S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 235406 (2009); R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 206410 (2009).
O.G. Balev, F.T. Vasko, and V. Ryzhii, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 165432 (2009); O. G. Balev and F. T. Vasko, J. Appl. Phys. [**107**]{}, 124312 (2010).
R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 085109 (2009); V. Perebeinos and P. Avouris, Phys. Rev. B. [**81**]{}, 195442 (2010).
A. Akturk and N. Goldsman, J. Appl. Phys. [**103**]{}, 053702 (2008); R. S. Shishir and D. K. Ferry, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, [**21**]{}, 344201 (2009); T. Fang, A. Konar, H. Xing, and D. Jena, arXiv:1008.1161; X. Li, E. A. Barry, J. M. Zavada, M. B. Nardelli, and K. W. Kim, arXiv: 1010.4772.
F. T. Vasko and V. Ryzhii, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 233404 (2007).
E.M. Lifshitz and L.P. Pitaevskii, [*Physical Kinetics*]{}, (Pergamon, Oxford 1981); F.T. Vasko and O.E. Raichev, [*Quantum Kinetic Theory and Applications*]{} (Springer, N.Y. 2005).
H. Suzuura and T. Ando, J. Phys. Soc. Japan, [**77**]{}, 044703 (2008); F. Rana, P. A. George, J. H. Strait, J. Dawlaty, S. Shivaraman, Mvs Chandrashekhar, and M. G. Spencer, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 115447 (2009); F. T. Vasko, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 245422 (2010).
Z. Sun, T. Hasan, F. Torrisi, D. Popa, G.Privitera, F. Wang, F. Bonaccorso, D. M. Basko, and A. C. Ferrari, ACS Nano [**4**]{}, 803 (2010); S. Piscanec, M. Lazzeri, F. Mauri, A. C. Ferrari, and J. Robertson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 185503 (2004).
D. Potter, [*Computational Physics*]{} (J. Wiley, London, 1973).
P. N. Butcher, Rep. Progr. Phys. [**30**]{}, 97 (1967); E. Scholl, [*Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Semiconductors*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1987).
J. K. Viljas, A. Fay, M. Wiesner, and P. J. Hakonen, arXiv:1102.0658.
B. Rosenstein, M. Lewkowicz, H. C. Kao, and Y. Korniyenko, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 041416 (2010); B. Dora and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{} 165431 (2010); N. Vandecasteele, A. Barreiro, M. Lazzeri, A. Bachtold, and F. Mauri, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 045416 (2010).
L.A. Ponomarenko, R. Yang, T.M. Mohiuddin, M.I. Katsnelson, K.S. Novoselov, S.V. Morozov, A.A. Zhukov, F. Schedin, E.W. Hill, and A. K. Geim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 206603 (2009); S. Adam, P.W. Brouwer, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 201404(R) (2009).
J. H. Chen, C. Jang, S. Xiao, M. Ishigami, and M. S. Fuhrer, Nat. Nanotechnol. [**3**]{}, 206 (2008); S. Fratini and F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 195415 (2008).
J. Martin, N. Akerman, G. Ulbricht, T. Lohmann, J. H. Smet, K. von Klitzing, and A. Yacoby, Nature Phys. [**4**]{}, 144 (2008).
C. H. Lui, K. F. Mak, J. Shan, and T. F. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 127404 (2010); D.-H. Chae, B. Krauss, K. von Klitzing, J. H. Smet, Nano Lett. [**10**]{}, 466 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The fundamental measure approach to classical density functional theory has been shown to be a powerful tool to predict various thermodynamic properties of hard-sphere systems. We employ this approach to determine not only one-particle densities but also two-particle correlations in binary and six-component mixtures of hard spheres in the vicinity of a hard wall. The broken isotropy enables us to carefully test a large variety of theoretically predicted two-particle features by quantitatively comparing them to the results of Brownian dynamics simulations. Specifically, we determine and compare the one-particle density, the total correlation functions, their contact values, and the force distributions acting on a particle. For this purpose, we follow the compressibility route and theoretically calculate the direct correlation functions by taking functional derivatives. We usually observe an excellent agreement between theory and simulations, except for small deviations in cases where local crystal-like order sets in. Our results set the course for further investigations on the consistency of functionals as well as for structural analysis on, e.g., the primitive model. In addition, we demonstrate that due to the suppression of local crystallization, the predictions of six-component mixtures are better than those in bidisperse or monodisperse systems. Finally, we are confident that our results of the structural modulations induced by the wall lead to a deeper understanding of ordering in anisotropic systems in general, the onset of heterogeneous crystallization, caging effects and glassy dynamics close to a wall, as well as structural properties in systems with confinement.'
author:
- 'Andreas Härtel,$^{1,*}$ Matthias Kohl,$^{2,*}$ and Michael Schmiedeberg$^2$'
title: 'Anisotropic pair correlations in binary and multicomponent hard-sphere mixtures in the vicinity of a hard wall: A combined density functional theory and simulation study'
---
Introduction
============
In order to study the structure or dynamics of simple fluids or liquids, usually model systems consisting of particles that interact according to simple pair potentials are considered. A large variety of phenomena can be explored in such model systems, e.g., interfaces between different fluid phases [@tarazona_mph54_1985] or between a liquid and a vapor [@Wertheim1976; @evans_molphys80_1993; @evans_jpcm21_2009; @parry_jpcm26_2014] as well as phase transitions between fluids and solids [@oettel_pre82_2010; @haertel_prl108_2012; @haertel_book_2013]. Furthermore, glassy dynamics or jamming effects can be observed for such systems at large packing fractions or low temperatures [@Liu1998; @liu10; @hunter12; @lu13]. The relation of the slowdown of dynamics and structural properties is the subject of ongoing research (see, e.g., [@Pusey1986; @Scheidler2002; @Mayer2008; @Mittal2008; @Goel2009; @royall_jncs407_2014; @Royall2015a; @dunleavy_nc6_2015]).
One of the most important particulate model systems is the simple hard-sphere (HS) system, where overlaps of two particles are not allowed and spheres do not directly interact if they do not overlap. HS systems not only serve as a simple model system, but also are used as reference systems. For example, the structure of simple fluids with more complex interactions often is compared to the structure of HSs with an effective diameter [@rowlinson64; @barker67; @Andersen1971]. Furthermore, the dynamics of spheres with purely repulsive, finite-ranged interaction can be mapped onto the dynamics of HSs [@Xu2009; @Schmiedeberg2011; @Haxton2011].
In this paper we investigate an HS system in the vicinity of a hard wall. We usually consider a bidisperse system that does not crystallize, but also present some results for monodisperse and six-component dispersions. Since we are especially interested in the anisotropic order induced by the wall, we not only study the one-particle density, but also determine the two-particle correlation functions. The structural modulations and local ordering in the vicinity of a wall is of great interest in order to understand the onset of heterogeneous crystallization [@winter09; @sandomirski14] and in order to obtain deeper insight into the influence of local order on the complex dynamics close to a wall [@heni00; @Scheidler2002; @Scheidler2004; @allahyarov_natcom6_2015] or even in confinement [@kurzidim09; @Lomba2014]. In this paper we also use the broken symmetry of the system in order to quantitatively test the two-particle predictions of the fundamental measure theory (FMT) approach to classical density functional theory (DFT) via the compressibility route as explained in the following.
DFT was originally developed by Hohenberg and Kohn for an electron gas at zero temperature [@hohenberg_prv136_1964] and later extended for nonzero temperatures [@mermin_prv137_1965]. In the meantime, DFT for classical systems has been formulated and it has turned out to be a powerful tool in order to predict thermodynamic properties of classical systems, especially in the field of soft matter, e.g., for fluid many-body systems [@ebner_pra14_1976; @evans_ap28_1979; @wu_aiche52_2006]. DFT even was employed to study crystallization [@baus_jpcm2_1990; @tarazona_prl84_2000; @roth_jpcm14_2002; @hansen-goos_jpcm18_2006; @oettel_pre82_2010; @neuhaus13c; @neuhaus14], interfaces between a crystal and a fluid [@haertel_prl108_2012; @oettel_pre82_2010; @oettel_pre86_2012] and complex ordering of particles due to interactions with multiple length scales [@Mladek2006; @Likos2007; @archer13; @archer15] or external potentials [@haertel_pre81_2010; @neuhaus13; @neuhaus13b], as well as to explore dynamical phenomena [@marconi99; @archer04; @espanol09; @haertel_pre81_2010; @neuhaus13b; @Lichtner14].
A fundamental approach in order to obtain a suitable free energy functional for an HS system was introduced by Rosenfeld with the so-called FMT [@rosenfeld_prl63_1989]. Different versions of FMT have been presented in the meantime [@tarazona_prl84_2000; @roth_jpcm14_2002; @yu_jcp117_2002; @hansen-goos_jpcm18_2006; @santos12; @hansen-goos_pre91_2015], including the functional known as the White Beak mark II (WBII) functional [@hansen-goos_jpcm18_2006], which has been extensively employed and tested in order to predict one-particle densities [@hansen-goos_jpcm18_2006; @oettel_pre82_2010; @lang_prl105_2010; @haertel_prl108_2012; @neuhaus14]. Two-particle correlations are attainable via the test-particle and the compressibility route, which lead to consistent results in the case of the exact (but unknown) free energy functional. Here we use the compressibility route and the WBII functional in order to calculate two-particle correlations in a system that is not isotropic due to the proximity of a wall. The theoretical predictions are compared to the results obtained from Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations. We observe an excellent agreement as long as local crystal-like structures are avoided.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[sec:section2\] the model system is introduced and explained. The simulation details are presented in Sec. \[sec:section3\]. In Sec. \[sec:section4\] we discuss how the one- and two-particle correlations are obtained within our FMT approach. The results are presented and compared to our simulation data in Sec. \[sec:section5\]. Finally, we conclude in Sec. \[sec:section6\]
Model System: Spheres close to a wall {#sec:section2}
=====================================
 Sketch of two hard spheres of different species, $\nu$ and $\nu'$, close to a hard wall. Their respective positions $\vec{r}$ and $\vec{r}{\,}'$ (not shown) define their relative distance $\vec{\Delta}=\vec{r}{\,}'-\vec{r}$. Particle diameters are $\sigma_{\nu}=2R_{\nu}$ and $\sigma_{\nu'}=2R_{\nu'}$. We employ cylindrical coordinates $z$, $r$, $\varphi$ around the left (green) sphere. ](Figure1){width="8.0cm"}
We consider multicomponent mixtures of HS suspended in a homogeneous solvent next to a flat hard wall. The solvent is integrated out and only contributes to the stochastic overdamped Brownian motion of the colloidal particles. We investigate monodisperse, binary, and six-component mixtures in equilibrium, which we access with both classical DFT and BD computer simulations. For the latter, the number of particles of each species $\nu$ is fixed, i.e., at a 50:50 mixture in the case of a binary system. In the grand canonical framework of DFT all species are assumed to have the same averaged number densities in a reference bulk system. In the case of the binary system, the spheres have diameters $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2=1.4\sigma_1$ in order to avoid crystallization effects [@OHern2003].
The wall is located in the $xy$ plane at position $z=0$ (see Fig. \[fig:Figure1\]). To express two-particle correlations, we consider one sphere at position $(x',y',z')$ as the reference particle such that the positions $(x,y,z)$ of all other particles can be expressed in cylindrical coordinates relative to the reference sphere. As a consequence, two-particle correlations depend on the distance $z'$ of the reference sphere to the wall, the distances $z$ of the other particles to the wall, and the distance $r=\left[(x-x')^2+(y-y')^2\right]^{1/2}$ between the particles and the reference sphere measured parallel to the wall. All other coordinates are integrated out due to symmetry. As a consequence, no crystallization or other symmetry-breaking ordering parallel to the wall is resolved.
We compare one- and two-particle statistical averages. For example, the one- and two-particle densities are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\nu}(\vec{r}) &=
\left\langle \sum\limits_i \delta(\vec r-\vec r_{\nu,i})\right\rangle,
\label{eq:one-particle-density} \\
\rho_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}{\,'})
&= \left\langle {\sum_{i,i'}}' \delta\left(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_{\nu,i}\right)
\delta\left(\vec{r}{\,'}-\vec{r}_{\nu',i'}\right) \right\rangle ,
\label{eq:two-particle-density}\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle \ldots \rangle$ denotes the ensemble average (canonical in simulations and grand canonical in DFT). The primed sum $\sum_{i,i'}^{'}$ runs over all species $\nu$ and $\nu'$ and particles $i=1 \ldots N_\nu$ with $i\neq i'$ in the case of $\nu=\nu'$. The packing fraction is given by $\phi=\sum_\nu \phi_\nu= \sum_\nu \tfrac{\pi}{6}\sigma_\nu^3\rho_\nu$.
Simulations {#sec:section3}
===========
Brownian dynamics
-----------------
 Equation of state for a binary and equimolar hard-sphere (HS) system, i.e., $pV/(Nk_{{\rm B}}T)$ as a function of the total packing fraction $\phi$. Triangles are based on calculations within DFT using the WBII approximation (see Sec. \[sec:section4\]) and the solid (red) line is based on predictions from the extended Carnahan-Starling (eCS) equation [@Mansoori1971; @Malijevsky1999]. Filled circles denote the results of Brownian dynamics simulation in the HS limit. Inset: The normalized probability distribution of finding two particles with an overlap $d$ for different temperatures in a double-logarithmic representation. ](Figure2){width="8.0cm"}
To test the theoretical calculations we employ BD simulations (see, e.g., [@Allen1999]) which are based on the overdamped Langevin equation, $$\gamma_\nu \dot{\vec r}_{\nu,i}(t) = {\vec f}_{\nu,i}\big(\left\{\vec r_{\nu',1},\ldots, \vec r_{\nu',N_{\nu'}}\right\}_{\nu'=1,2,...}\big) + \vec \xi_{\nu,i}(t)\, , \label{eq:langevin}$$ where $\gamma_\nu$ is the friction constant that we consider to be proportional to the diameter $\sigma_{\nu}$ of the spheres. The force ${\vec f}_{\nu,i}$ includes all forces due to pair interactions and the external field. In addition, a random Gaussian force $\vec \xi_{\nu,i} (t)$ is acting on the particles. The first moment of the distribution of random forces is $0$, whereas the second moment fulfills the fluctuation dissipation relation, i.e., $\big\langle \vec \xi_{\nu,i}(t) \vec{\xi}_{\nu',i'}^\text{T}(t') \big\rangle = 2 \gamma_\nu k_{\rm B} T \delta_{\nu\nu'}\delta_{ii'}\delta(t-t')\tensor{{\rm I}}$, with $k_{\rm B}T$ being the product of the temperature $T$ and Boltzmann constant $k_{\rm B}$, $\vec{\xi}_{\nu'}^\text{T}$ being the transpose of $\vec{\xi}_{\nu'}$, and $\tensor{{\rm I}}$ the three-dimensional unit matrix. $\delta(t-t')$ and $\delta_{\nu\nu'}\delta_{ii'}$ stand for the Dirac $\delta$ distribution and two Kronecker $\delta$, respectively.
We employ a cubic simulation box with side length $l$, periodic boundary conditions in the $x$ and $y$ direction, and walls at $z=0$ and $z=l$. We use $N=32000$ particles, such that the box is large enough to avoid confinement effects such as nontrivial correlations of particles with both walls.
Hard-sphere limit
-----------------
Molecular dynamics [@Xu2009] and BD studies [@Lopez-Flores2013] have shown that with decreasing temperature all properties of a system with finite-ranged and purely repulsive interactions approaches well-defined limiting values that coincide with the properties of hard-sphere mixtures and therefore is called the HS limit in the following.
In our simulations we apply the soft and purely repulsive pair potential $$u_{\nu\nu'}(\Delta)= \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\left( 1- \frac{\Delta}{\sigma_{\nu\nu'}}\right)^2 & \quad & \Delta\leq \sigma_{\nu\nu'} \\ 0 & & \text{otherwise} ,
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq:pair_potential}$$ where $\sigma_{\nu\nu'}=(\sigma_\nu + \sigma_{\nu'})/2$ is the intermediate diameter and the prefactor $\varepsilon$ sets the energy scale. At sufficiently low temperatures, where $\varepsilon/k_\text{B}T\gg 1$, the particle overlaps become very small and particles interact like HSs. We consider our system to be in the HS limit if the average overlap of two interacting particles is smaller than $5\%$. The double-logarithmic inset in Fig. \[fig:Figure2\] shows how the probability distribution $P(d)$ of overlaps $d$ converges with decreasing temperature against a very narrow $\delta(d)$-like distribution. In the main plot in Fig. \[fig:Figure2\] we show the equation of state of a binary HS mixture, calculated by means of our DFT as well as from the predictions of Boublík [@Boublik1970] and Mansoori *et al.* [@Mansoori1971]; the latter is also known as the extended Carnahan-Starling equation of state [@Malijevsky1999]. We compare these curves with the measured virial pressure from our BD simulations in the HS limit. Due to the small remaining overlaps in our simulations, we usually obtain a very slightly deviating pressure in comparison to the theoretical predictions, while it is known that the structural [@rowlinson64; @barker67; @Andersen1971] as well as the dynamical [@Xu2009; @Schmiedeberg2011; @Haxton2011; @Lopez-Flores2013] properties are even closer to the HS system. The formalism of the theoretical DFT calculations are presented in the next section.
Density Functional Theory {#sec:section4}
=========================
In this section we discuss classical DFT within the framework of FMT [@rosenfeld_prl63_1989; @roth_jpcm22_2010] leading to direct particle correlations [@evans_ap28_1979; @tarazona_inbook_2008; @hansen_book_2013]. The Ornstein-Zernike (OZ) relation links them with the total correlations between particles. We introduce the theory for a multicomponent HS system in a geometry where isotropy is broken due to the wall.
DFT for multi-component systems
-------------------------------
In the framework of (classical) DFT [@evans_ap28_1979; @tarazona_inbook_2008], a functional, $\Omega[\{\rho_\nu\}]\equiv\Omega(T,V,\{\mu_\nu\};[\{\rho_\nu\}])$, of the sets $\{\rho_{\nu}\}$ of one-particle densities $\rho_{\nu}$ and $\{\mu_\nu\}$ of chemical potentials $\mu_\nu$ for species $\nu=1 \ldots n$ can be defined at fixed external potential $V^{\rm ext}=\sum_{\nu} V_{\nu}^{\rm ext}$ such that the grand canonical potential $\Omega\equiv\Omega(T,V,\{\mu_\nu\})$ is obtained when the set $\{\rho_\nu^{\rm (eq)}\}$ of equilibrium one-particle densities is used as an input. The functional can be written as $$\Omega[\{\rho_\nu\}] =
{\cal F}[\{\rho_\nu\}] - \sum_{\nu'=1}^{n} \int_V \rho_{\nu'}(\vec{r}{\,'}) \psi_{\nu'}(\vec{r}{\,'}) d\vec{r}{\,'} ,
\label{eq:gc_functional}$$ where the intrinsic free energy functional ${\cal F}$ and the intrinsic chemical potentials $\psi_{\nu'}$ as unique functionals of the one-particle densities $\rho_{\nu}$ have been introduced.
The grand canonic functional in Eq. (\[eq:gc\_functional\]) has the property to be minimized by the equilibrium one-particle densities, thus, its functional derivative vanishes for each species $\nu'$, i.e., for all $\nu'$, $$\left.\frac{\delta\Omega[\{\rho_\nu\}]}{\delta \rho_{\nu'}(\vec{r}{\,'})}
\right|_{\big\{\rho_\nu\big\}=\big\{\rho_{\nu}^{\rm (eq)}\big\}} = 0 \, .$$ Accordingly, the intrinsic chemical potentials read $$\psi_{\nu'}\left( \vec{r}{\,'}; [\left\{\rho_\nu\right\}] \right)
= \frac{\delta {\cal F}[\{\rho_\nu\}]}{\delta\rho_{\nu'}(\vec{r}{\,'})} .
\label{eq:intrinsic-chemical-potential}$$ Furthermore, the free energy of the system is defined as the sum of the intrinsic free energy ${\cal F}$ and the energy due to the external potential, $$F = {\cal F}\left[\left\{\rho_{\nu}^{\rm (eq)}\right\}\right]
+ \sum_{\nu'=1}^{n} \int_V \rho_{\nu'}^{\rm (eq)}(\vec{r}{\,'}) V_{\nu'}^{\rm ext}(\vec{r}{\,'}) d\vec{r}{\,'} .$$ On the other hand, the free energy also follows from the grand canonical potential via a Legendre transform, $\Omega=F-\sum_{\nu'}\mu_{\nu'} N_{\nu'}$. Together with Eq. (\[eq:intrinsic-chemical-potential\]), this leads to $$\mu_{\nu'} = V_{\nu'}^{\rm ext}(\vec{r}{\,'})
+ \psi_{\nu'}\left( \vec{r}{\,'}; \left[\left\{\rho_\nu^{\rm (eq)}\right\}\right] \right) ,
\label{eq:fundamental_equation}$$ which in [@evans_ap28_1979] is termed “the fundamental equation in the theory of non-uniform liquids”. Together with the representations of the intrinsic chemical potentials in Eq. (\[eq:intrinsic-chemical-potential\]), one can use Eq. (\[eq:fundamental\_equation\]) as an implicit equation to determine the equilibrium densities $\rho_\nu^{\rm (eq)}$, if the intrinsic free energy functional ${\cal F}[\{\rho_\nu\}]$ is known.
The case of the non-interacting particles of an ideal gas is well known: The intrinsic free energy is $${\cal F}^{\rm id}[\{\rho_\nu\}] = k_{\rm B}T \sum_{\nu'=1}^{n} \int_V \rho_{\nu'}(\vec{r}{\,'})
\left[ \ln\left(\rho_{\nu'}(\vec{r}{\,'})\Lambda_{\nu'}^3\right)-1\right] d\vec{r}{\,'} ,
\label{eq:free_energy_ideal}$$ which leads to the equilibrium density profiles $\rho_\nu^{\rm (eq)}(\vec{r})=z_\nu \exp(-\beta V_\nu^{\rm ext}(\vec{r}))$ with the fugacities $z_{\nu}=\exp(\beta\mu_\nu)\Lambda_\nu^{-3}$, the (irrelevant) thermal wavelengths $\Lambda_{\nu}$, and the inverse temperature $\beta=1/k_{\rm B}T$, containing the product of the temperature $T$ and Boltzmann constant $k_{\rm B}$.
In the case of systems with interacting particles, it is common to split the intrinsic free energy functional $${\cal F}[\{\rho_\nu\}] = {\cal F}^{\rm id}[\{\rho_\nu\}] + {\cal F}^{\rm exc}[\{\rho_\nu\}]
\label{eq:F_split_up}$$ into the known ideal-gas part from Eq. (\[eq:free\_energy\_ideal\]) and an overideal excess part ${\cal F}^{\rm exc}$ which includes all particle interactions. Consequently, putting Eqs. (\[eq:intrinsic-chemical-potential\]), (\[eq:free\_energy\_ideal\]), and (\[eq:F\_split\_up\]) together, the dimensionless intrinsic chemical potential becomes $$\beta \psi_{\nu'}\big(\vec{r}{\,'};[\{\rho_\nu\}]\big)=\ln(\rho_{\nu'}\Lambda_{\nu'}^3)-c_{\nu'}^{(1)}\big(\vec{r}{\,'};[\{\rho_\nu\}]\big),
\label{eq:intrinsic_chem_potential}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\nu'}^{(1)}\big(\vec{r}{\,'};[\{\rho_\nu\}]\big) &= -\beta
\frac{\delta {\cal F}^{\rm exc}[\{\rho_\nu\}]}
{\delta\rho_{\nu'}(\vec{r}{\,'})} , \label{eq:direct-correlations1}\end{aligned}$$ is the first member of a hierarchy of direct correlation functions which contain full information on the structural properties of the corresponding system. The next member of the hierarchy reads $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\nu'\nu''}^{(2)}\big(\vec{r}{\,'},\vec{r}{\,''};[\{\rho_\nu\}]\big) &= -\beta
\frac{\delta^2 {\cal F}^{\rm exc}[\{\rho_\nu\}]}
{\delta\rho_{\nu'}(\vec{r}{\,'})\delta\rho_{\nu''}(\vec{r}{\,''})} .
\label{eq:direct-correlations2}\end{aligned}$$
By inserting Eq. (\[eq:intrinsic\_chem\_potential\]) into Eq. (\[eq:fundamental\_equation\]), we get a formal solution for the density profiles which reads $$\rho_{\nu'}^{\rm (eq)}(\vec{r}{\,'})
=z_{\nu'} \exp\left(-\beta V_{\nu'}^{\rm ext}(\vec{r}{\,'})+c_{\nu'}^{(1)}\big(\vec{r}{\,'};[\{\rho_\nu^{\rm (eq)}\}]\big)\right) .
\label{eq:ele-density-profile}$$ This equation provides an iterative procedure for minimizing the grand canonical functional: Starting from random initial density profiles, Eq. (\[eq:ele-density-profile\]) can be applied repeatedly in order to approach the equilibrium density profile numerically (Picard iteration).
 (a) Direct and (b) total correlation functions in bulk for one- and two-component (50:50) hard-sphere systems with volume fraction $\phi=0.5$. In the two-component case, the correlations between possible combinations of species are labeled $11$ (small-small), $21$ (large-small), and $22$ (large-large). All correlations are determined from our DFT calculations in combination with the OZ relation; for comparison we also show the analytically known Percus-Yevick (PY) result for the one-component system [@wertheim_prl10_1963]. Inset in (a): Sketch showing that if a small particle 1 is inside a larger particle 2, its center point can move within the shaded (gray) area without changing the intersection volume of the spheres. As a consequence, there is a plateau in the 21 curve between the two filled (red) circles. ](Figure3){width="8.3cm"}
Ornstein-Zernike relation {#sec:OZ-relation}
-------------------------
The pair-distribution function is given via the one- and two-particle densities as defined in Eqs. (\[eq:one-particle-density\]) and (\[eq:two-particle-density\]) by (see, e.g., [@hansen_book_2013]) $$g_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}{\,'}) =
\frac{\rho_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}{\,'})}{\rho_{\nu}(\vec{r})\rho_{\nu'}(\vec{r}{\,'})} .
\label{eq:pair-distribution-function}$$ The total correlation function $h$ is defined by $$h_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}{\,'}) = g_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}{\,'}) - 1 .$$ It is related to the direct correlation function $c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}{\,'})$ as defined in Eq. (\[eq:direct-correlations2\]) via the OZ relation [@hansen_book_2013], $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}{\,'}) &= c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}{\,'})
\label{eq:ornstein-zernike-equation} \\
+& \sum_{\nu''=1}^{n} \int_V h_{\nu\nu''}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}{\,''})
\rho_{\nu''}(\vec{r}{\,''}) c_{\nu''\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r}{\,''},\vec{r}{\,'}) d\vec{r}{\,''} \notag . \end{aligned}$$
Forestalling results from DFT calculations that are explained later, both kinds of correlation functions are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Figure3\] for a monodisperse and a binary system in bulk. In the binary system, four combinations between small and large particles exist, where the mixed combinations small-large and large-small are identical in bulk. The direct correlations are calculated using FMT as described in the next subsection. We obtain the total correlations via the OZ relation by employing the direct correlations and their corresponding density profiles. This method via the direct correlations is called the compressibility route. Alternatively, total correlations can be obtained from Eq. (\[eq:pair-distribution-function\]) via the test-particle route, where the two-particle density $\rho_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}$ is determined by the additional calculation of the one-particle density profile around the first particle represented by an external field. Both routes would be consistent when the exact free energy functional was used. The compressibility route has advantages over the test-particle route when long-ranged mean-field Coulomb interactions are involved, whose direct correlations can be Fourier transformed analytically.
Fundamental measure theory
--------------------------
To calculate a total correlation function from the OZ relation in Eq. (\[eq:ornstein-zernike-equation\]), it is necessary to close it. A well-known example for such a closure is the Percus-Yevick approximation $$c^{(2)}(\vec{r}) \approx \left(1-\exp(\beta u(\vec{r}))\right)g^{(2)}(\vec{r})\,,$$ where $u(\vec{r})$ is the pair interaction potential. For HSs, this approximation has been solved analytically by Wertheim [@wertheim_prl10_1963]. The results are included in Fig. \[fig:Figure3\].
In DFT, the direct correlations are explicitly given by Eq. (\[eq:direct-correlations2\]) via a second order functional derivative of the excess free energy functional. Thus, the OZ relation could be closed if the excess free energy functional ${\cal F}^{\rm exc}$ were known. Unfortunately, the exact form of the functional is, in general, unknown [@mermin_prv137_1965]. However, many approximations exist. For hard particles and, especially, for HSs, FMT has been established as a quantitative benchmark theory [@oettel_pre86_2012].
In FMT [@rosenfeld_prl63_1989; @roth_jpcm22_2010] the excess free energy is expressed via the local excess free energy density $\Phi$, i.e., $$\beta {\cal F}^{\rm exc}[\{\rho_\nu\}] = \int_V \Phi(\vec{r}) d\vec{r} .$$ The function $\Phi$ is typically constructed to recover the correct Mayer $f$ function in the limit of low density such that the exact excess free energy is recovered in this limit [@rosenfeld_prl63_1989]. Extrapolation to higher densities leads to different versions of the FMT. Besides the original version of Rosenfeld [@rosenfeld_prl63_1989], we mention, in particular, the extended deconvolution FMT for anisotropic convex-shaped hard particles [@hansen-goos_prl102_2009] and the White Bear and WBII versions [@roth_jpcm14_2002; @yu_jcp117_2002; @hansen-goos_jpcm18_2006] for HSs, which should include tensorial corrections to recover the exact zero-dimensional limit [@tarazona_prl84_2000]. Moreover, FMT can be derived from the virial series [@korden_pre85_2012; @marechal_pre90_2014]. For our work we have chosen the WBII version with its tensorial correction, because it has been employed to accurately predict not only the freezing transition in HS [@oettel_pre82_2010] but also phase coexistence and the involved crystal-fluid interface [@haertel_prl108_2012]. Its excess free energy density reads $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(\vec{r}) =& -n_0\ln(1-n_3) \label{eq:local_excess_free_energy}\\
& + \left(1+\frac{1}{9}n_3^2\phi_2(n_3)\right) \frac{n_1n_2-\vec{n}_1\cdot\vec{n}_2}{1-n_3} \notag \\
& + \left(1-\frac{4}{9}n_3\phi_3(n_3)\right) \notag \\ & \times\frac{
n_2^3-3n_2\vec{n}_2\cdot\vec{n}_2
+\tfrac{9}{2}\left(\vec{n}_2^T\cdot\tensor{n}_2\cdot\vec{n}_2
-{\rm tr}(\tensor{n}_{2}^3)\right)}{24\pi(1-n_3)^2} ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm tr}(\tensor{A})$ denotes the trace of the argument $\tensor{A}$ and the two functions $\phi_i(n_3)$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_2(n_3) =& \frac{6n_3-3n_3^2+6(1-n_3)\ln(1-n_3)}{n_3^3} , \\
\phi_3(n_3) =& \frac{6n_3-9n_3^2+6n_3^3+6(1-n_3)^2\ln(1-n_3)}{4n_3^3} \,,\end{aligned}$$ with the so-called weighted densities $n_\alpha$. These weighted densities are given by the convolutions $$n_\alpha(\vec{r})
=\sum_{\nu'=1}^{n} \int_{V} \rho_{\nu'}(\vec{r}{\,'}) w_{\nu'}^{(\alpha)}(\vec{r}-\vec{r}{\,'}) d\vec{r}{\,'} \,.$$ The convolutions weight the one-particle densities $\rho_{\nu'}$ of each species $\nu'$ with so-called weight functions $w_{\nu'}^{(\alpha)}$. The latter represent fundamental geometric measures like volume ($\alpha=3$ for three dimensions), surface area ($\alpha=2$ for two dimensions), mean diameter ($\alpha=1$ for one dimension), and curvature ($\alpha=0$ for zero dimensions) of a single-particle geometry. For HS mixtures the weight functions of each species $\nu$ read [@rosenfeld_prl63_1989; @tarazona_prl84_2000] $$\begin{aligned}
w_\nu^{(3)}(\vec{r}) &= \Theta(R_\nu-|\vec{r}|) \label{eq:weight3} , \\
w_\nu^{(2)}(\vec{r}) &= \delta(R_\nu-|\vec{r}|) , \\
w_\nu^{(1)}(\vec{r}) &= \frac{1}{4\pi R_\nu}\delta(R_\nu-|\vec{r}|) , \\
w_\nu^{(0)}(\vec{r}) &= \frac{1}{4\pi R_\nu^2}\delta(R_\nu-|\vec{r}|) , \\
\vec{w}_\nu^{(2)}(\vec{r}) &= \frac{\vec{r}}{|\vec{r}|}\delta(R_\nu-|\vec{r}|) , \\
\vec{w}_\nu^{(1)}(\vec{r}) &= \frac{\vec{r}}{|\vec{r}|}\frac{1}{4\pi R_\nu}\delta(R_\nu-|\vec{r}|) , \\
\tensor{w}_\nu^{(2)}(\vec{r}) &=
\left( \frac{\vec{r}\cdot\vec{r}^T}{|\vec{r}|^2} - \frac{\tensor{{\rm I}}}{3} \right) \delta(R_\nu-|\vec{r}|) ,
\label{eq:weight2tensor}\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{\nu}=\sigma_\nu/2$ denotes the radius of a sphere with diameter $\sigma_\nu$. Furthermore, the tensor product $\vec{r}\cdot\vec{r}^T$, the unit matrix $\tensor{{\rm I}}$, and the transposed $\vec{r}^T$ of a vector $\vec{r}$ have been used.
Via the framework of DFT the equation of state with pressure $p=-\Omega/V$ can be determined, as already exemplarily presented in Fig. \[fig:Figure2\] for a two-component HS mixture together with simulation results.
As for all FMT functionals with an excess free energy density that depends only on the weighted densities $n_{\alpha}$, the direct pair-correlation functions, as defined in Eq. (\[eq:direct-correlations2\]), are $$\begin{aligned}
& -c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}{\,}') \label{eq:direct_correlation_function} \\
& \quad = \sum_{\alpha,\beta} \int_{V}
\frac{\partial^2\Phi}{\partial n_\alpha\partial n_\beta}(\vec{r}{\,}'')
w_\nu^{(\alpha)}(\vec{r}{\,}''-\vec{r}) w_{\nu'}^{(\beta)}(\vec{r}{\,}''-\vec{r}{\,}') d\vec{r}{\,}'' . \notag\end{aligned}$$ In bulk, the derivative with respect to the weighted densities becomes independent of the spatial coordinate and the direct correlation function can be calculated analytically [@rosenfeld_prl63_1989; @roth_jpcm14_2002; @oettel_pre86_2012]. For our anisotropic system, we report in the next section a semianalytical form for general multicomponent mixtures in the framework of FMT.
Numerical details of FMT and OZ calculations in restricted geometries
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We approach the equilibrium density profiles by repeatedly applying Eq. (\[eq:ele-density-profile\]). During each iteration step $i$, the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:ele-density-profile\]) is applied to the actual set $\Gamma_i\equiv\{\rho_\nu\}_i$ of density profiles to achieve a new set $\Gamma_i^{\rm new}$ from the left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:ele-density-profile\]). The new profiles are mixed with the actual ones to generate a set $\Gamma_{i+1}$ by adding a fraction $\alpha$ from the new ones in $\Gamma_i^{\rm new}$ and a fraction $1-\alpha$ from the recent ones in $\Gamma_i$. This procedure is repeated until the largest local deviation between all the new and the respective recent density profiles becomes smaller than a threshold $\epsilon$. We have started each Picard iteration from the bulk density profiles, where we simply neglect the wall. Typically after around 2500 iteration steps the profiles reached an accuracy of $\epsilon=10^{-6}$, while the mixing parameter changed from an initial value of $\alpha=10^{-8}$ to a final $\alpha=10^{-4}$ during the iteration.
As a flat wall is introduced into the system, due to the symmetry of the structure close to that wall, all density profiles $\rho_\nu$ as well as all derivatives $\partial^2\Phi/(\partial n_\alpha\partial n_\beta)$ in Eq. (\[eq:direct\_correlation\_function\]) depend solely on the spatial coordinate $z$ perpendicular to the wall. Furthermore, the direct correlation functions depend only on three coordinates, i.e., $c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(r,z,z')$, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:section2\].
For numerical reasons, we sample our functions at a distance $L$ between the wall and the bulk fluid and at equidistant discrete points $z_i=i d_\text{z}$, with $d_\text{z}=L/M$ for $i=0, \ldots ,M-1$. When we consider intervals $I_i=[z_i-\tfrac{1}{2}d_\text{z},z_i+\tfrac{1}{2}d_\text{z}]$, we can split the integration volume $V=\mathcal{R}^3$ on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:direct\_correlation\_function\]) into slices $V_i=\mathcal{R}^2\times I_i$ and rewrite the direct correlation functions as $$\begin{aligned}
-c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}{\,}')
\approx & \sum_{i=0}^{M-1} \sum_\alpha \sum_\beta
\frac{\partial^2\Phi(z_i)}{\partial n_\alpha\partial n_\beta} \label{eq:c2:stepwise-constant} \\
& \times \int_{V_i}
w_\nu^{(\alpha)}(\vec{r}{\,}''-\vec{r}) w_{\nu'}^{(\beta)}(\vec{r}{\,}''-\vec{r}{\,}') d\vec{r}{\,}'' .
\notag\end{aligned}$$ In order to calculate the direct correlation functions, it is necessary to compute the integral in Eq. (\[eq:c2:stepwise-constant\]), which, for given combinations of particle species and weight functions, depends solely on the interval $I$ and the distance $\vec{\Delta}=\vec r{\,}' - \vec r$. Thus, we define auxiliary functions $$W_{\nu\nu'}^{(\alpha\beta)}(I, \vec{\Delta})
:= \int_{\mathcal{R}^2\times I}
w_\nu^{(\alpha)}(\vec{r}{\,}'')
w_{\nu'}^{(\beta)}(\vec{r}{\,}''-\vec{\Delta}) d\vec{r}{\,}'' ,
\label{eq:c2:define-WW}$$ which we precompute analytically whenever possible. This reduces the computational cost significantly. For further details about the calculations of Eq. (\[eq:c2:define-WW\]) we refer to Appendix \[sec:appendix2\].
Finally, the knowledge of the density profiles $\rho_\nu$ and of the direct correlations $c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}$ enables us to determine the total correlations $h_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}$ via the OZ relation from Eq. (\[eq:ornstein-zernike-equation\]). It is useful to solve this relation partially in Fourier space to exploit the symmetries of our system. For this purpose, we define an in-plane Fourier or Hankel transform (see Appendix \[sec:appendix1\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm H}_{\rm r}\big\{h_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\cdot,z,z')\big\}(K)
\equiv h_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(K,z,z') \notag \\
& \quad = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{\infty} \int_0^{2\pi}
r h_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(r,z,z') e^{-\imath K r \cos(\vartheta)} d\vartheta dr ,
\label{eq:Hankel-transform}\end{aligned}$$ which only assigns the radial components of a function and usually is employed to obtain structure factors of layers parallel to a symmetry-breaking wall (cf. [@tarazona_mph54_1985]). With such a transform, the OZ relation from Eq. (\[eq:ornstein-zernike-equation\]) can be rewritten in the form $$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm H}_{\rm r}\big\{ h_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\cdot,z,z') \big\}(K)
\label{eq:ornstein-zernike-equation-cylindrical} \\
=& {\rm H}_{\rm r}\big\{ c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\cdot,z,z') \big\}(K) \notag \\
& + 2\pi \sum_{\nu''=1}^{n} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \rho_{\nu''}(z'') \notag \\
& \quad \times \left[ {\rm H}_{\rm r}\big\{ h_{\nu\nu''}^{(2)}(\cdot,z,z'') \big\}{\rm H}_{\rm r}\big\{ c_{\nu''\nu'}^{(2)}(\cdot,z'',z') \big\} \right] (K) dz'' . \notag\end{aligned}$$ For several values $K$, we determined the total correlations from this equation using an iterative numerical scheme (see also Appendix \[sec:appendix1\]). In order to cope with numerical circumstances, we define our discrete lattice for the radial coordinate $r$ in a way that the value $r=0$ is avoided in real space. For this reason, in this work we solely provide data, where the radial component is very close but not equal to $0$.
Results {#sec:section5}
=======
In this section we quantitatively compare the results that we obtain from our multi-component DFT and the BD simulations. First, we focus on one-particle densities. Second, we bear in mind the anisotropy in our system and consider the two-particle correlations. Consequently, all these results are employed in order to quantitatively analyze the contact properties of particles. These contact values are directly related to the anisotropic force distribution acting on a particle. As a result, the net force for a particle can be determined (cf. [@Nygard2014]). The nonuniform distribution of forces leads to the differences between effective diffusion coefficients in different directions. Finally, we demonstrate the impact of polydispersity by a comparison between our findings for a binary and a six-component mixture. In this context we discover a significant improvement in the agreement between the predictions of DFT calculations and the results of BD simulations for an increasing number of particle species.
{width="17.0cm"}
One-particle density profiles
-----------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:Figure4\] we show density profiles of both DFT calculations and BD simulations for small and large particles in the binary (50:50) mixture of HS with diameters $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2=1.4\sigma_1$ as described in Sec. \[sec:section2\]. The bulk densities have been fixed such that the corresponding total packing fractions are deep in the liquid phase ($\phi=0.3$), close to the fluid-crystal transition in monodisperse systems ($\phi=0.48$), and in the regime where glassy dynamics is observed ($\phi=0.54$). The most obvious differences between DFT calculations and BD simulation results occur in the second-layer peak of the density profiles. Especially in the profiles of higher bulk densities, the second-layer peak splits up into two peaks in the case of the simulation results (circles in Fig. \[fig:Figure4\]) or they just contain shoulders in the case of the DFT predictions (solid lines). Each local peak or shoulder can be connected by a particular stacking of particles belonging to different species, as illustrated by the sketches at the bottom of Fig. \[fig:Figure4\]. Note that local crystal-like ordering is not precisely captured in our DFT approach because we assume translational invariance along the wall. As a consequence, as soon as such locally ordered structures are preferred by the system, our DFT predictions become less accurate, even though the overall structure is not yet a crystal. Accordingly, the overall agreement between simulations and theory is very good for low packing fractions.
 Direct correlation functions obtained from DFT using Eqs. (\[eq:c2:stepwise-constant\]) and (\[eq:c2:define-WW\]) for the binary HS mixture as explained in the text. The reference particle is fixed at $z'=1.5\sigma_1$. For a second particle at position $r,z$ we show the direct correlations (a) $c_{11}^{(2)}$, between small and small, (b) $c_{21}^{(2)}$, between large and small, (c) $c_{12}^{(2)}$, between small and large, and (d) $c_{22}^{(2)}$, between large and large particles. Note that the second index always denotes the fixed reference particle. The total volume fraction is $\phi=0.5$. Below the contour plots the profiles along the $z$ axis with $r=0$ are shown \[represented by solid (red) lines in the contour plots\]. ](Figure5){width="8.3cm"}
 Direct correlation profiles along the $z$ axis as shown in Fig. \[fig:Figure5\], but for various positions $z'$ of the reference particle. The profiles from Fig. \[fig:Figure5\] with $z'=1.5\sigma_1$ are shown by solid bold lines. Again, the correlations are between (a) small and small, (b) large and small, (c) small and large, and (d) large and large particles. In addition, the envelopes of all profiles are shown. Dashed horizontal lines show the positions of the minima in (b) and (c), which are equal.](Figure6){width="8.3cm"}
{width="17.0cm"}
Two-particle correlations
-------------------------
In DFT, the two-particle or pair correlations can be obtained via the test-particle or the compressibility route. For the first, density profiles are determined around a fixed test particle which results in an effective two-particle density. We follow the compressibility route, where the direct correlation functions $c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}$ from DFT are used to close the OZ relation from Eq. (\[eq:ornstein-zernike-equation\]). Using the WBII functional, we obtain the density profiles $\rho_\nu$ and direct correlation functions $c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}$, where we calculate the latter directly via Eqs. (\[eq:c2:stepwise-constant\]) and (\[eq:c2:define-WW\]) for our inhomogeneous system. An advantage of the compressibility route over the test-particle route is that no boundary effects in direction $r$ parallel to the wall are involved in the calculation of direct correlations. Moreover, the latter are short-ranged for HSs and can be Fourier transformed numerically for arbitrary sets of vectors $\vec{k}$ in Fourier space. Thus, the full structure factor $S(\vec{k})$ is attainable without restrictions resulting from a finite extension in the $r$ direction.
### Direct correlations
The direct correlations are shown exemplarily in Figs. \[fig:Figure5\]-\[fig:Figure7\] for the binary mixture of HSs. First, in Fig. \[fig:Figure5\], we compare the $c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}$ values for the four combinations between the two species (small-small, large-small, small-large, and large-large). The position of the reference particle is fixed at $z'=1.5\sigma_1$ and the direct correlations are plotted as functions of the position of the other particle, where the position is expressed in the natural cylindrical coordinates $(r,z)$. In addition, we show the profile along the $z$ axis together with each plot. While the correlations between two large or two small particles differ only by a constant factor and by the length scale, the correlations between a small and a large particle depend on which particle is used as the reference particle. In both cases the direct correlation functions do not have one clear minimum. While in the case of a small reference particle there is a plateau with an extent of $0.4\sigma_1$ in the $z$ direction, in the case of a large reference particle there are two distinct minima, at $z\approx 1.3\sigma_1$ and $z\approx 1.7\sigma_1$. Note that in bulk, both correlation functions between large and small particles are identical \[see Fig. \[fig:Figure3\](a)\] and possess a plateau for $r<0.2\sigma_1$ where the direct correlation function is constant. The plateau is due to the fact that the intersection volume of the two spheres does not change as long as the small particle is located completely inside the large one as sketched in the inset in Fig. \[fig:Figure3\](a). Therefore, the value of the integral in Eq. (\[eq:direct\_correlation\_function\]) does not change and the observed plateau develops. Back to the anisotropic case in Fig. \[fig:Figure5\], a similar explanation holds: When the position of a small particle is fixed, as in Fig. \[fig:Figure5\](b), the integration volume $V$ in Eq. (\[eq:direct\_correlation\_function\]) is restricted to the shape of this particle as long as the small particle is completely contained inside the larger one. In contrast, when a large particle is fixed, as in Fig. \[fig:Figure5\](c), the previously mentioned integration volume depends on the position of the small particle. Therefore, the result of the integral in Eq. (\[eq:direct\_correlation\_function\]) depends on the relative positions of the particles via the derivative of the excess free energy density $\Phi$. The resulting direct correlation function is similar to the self-correlations between two small particles, because the relevant combinations of weight functions $w^{(\alpha)}$ that enter Eq. (\[eq:direct\_correlation\_function\]) give the same results in this case (for further details see Appendix \[sec:app-case1\], case 3). \[sec:text-case1\]
In Fig. \[fig:Figure6\] we compare slice cuts of the direct correlation profiles along the $z$ axis for various positions $z'$ of the reference particle. Additionally, we draw the envelope to all shown profiles. Figures \[fig:Figure6\](a) and \[fig:Figure6\](c) demonstrate the similarity between small-small and small-large correlations, mentioned in the previous paragraph.
In Figs. \[fig:Figure5\](c) and \[fig:Figure6\](c), we observe a splitting of the minimum of the direct correlation function into two minima. The splitting occurs for the parameters where the direct correlation functions reach a local maximum in the corresponding envelope of the profiles as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:Figure6\](c). This suggests that there exists a $z$-dependent maximal correlation for a particular combination of species. In Fig. \[fig:Figure7\] we show a series of direct correlation functions with varying position $z'$ of the reference particle. These positions are marked by vertical lines, and obviously, the absolute minimum of the direct correlations is located in the vicinity of these positions. Specifically, the global minimum of the direct correlation functions shown in Fig. \[fig:Figure7\] can be found at $z>z'$ in Figs. \[fig:Figure7\](a), \[fig:Figure7\](b), and \[fig:Figure7\](e) but at $z<z'$ in Figs. \[fig:Figure7\](c) and \[fig:Figure7\](f). In Fig. \[fig:Figure7\](d) the minimum is split into two local minima on both sides of the center of the reference particle. This behavior can again be understood from studying the corresponding profiles in Fig. \[fig:Figure6\](c), where the shape of the region around the minimum of each profile always follows the maximal possible correlation, given by the envelope. The anisotropic arrangement of the direct correlation functions around the center of the reference particle will lead to anisotropic forces as we show later.
### Total correlations
 Total correlation functions $h_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(r,z,z')$ for a reference particle at position $z'=0.5\sigma_{\nu'}$ between (a) small and small, (b) large and small, (c) small and large, and (d) large and large particles, where the second particle denotes the reference particle. The packing fraction is $\phi=0.5$ in the bulk limit and each plot is split up into data from Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations (top) and DFT results (bottom), where the total correlation functions were determined via the OZ relation. Note that in the case of the DFT calculations all numerical artifacts at forbidden positions (inside the wall and inside the reference particle) have been reset to $-1$.](Figure8){width="8.0cm"}
{width="17.0cm"}
 Profiles of the total correlation function $h_{11}^{(2)}$ along the vertical lines drawn in Fig. \[fig:Figure9\] and located at the second layer of particles ($z=1.55\sigma_1$). The packing fraction of the system is $\phi=0.54$ and the slice cuts are shown for three positions $z'$ of the fixed reference particle. Solid lines denote DFT data and circles represent results from the respective Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations. For DFT all total correlations at forbidden positions have been reset to $-1$ and the curves have been shifted by 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 (from bottom to top).](Figure10){width="8.0cm"}
Starting from the direct correlations and one-particle densities determined with DFT, we calculate the total correlations between two particles using the OZ relation from Eq. (\[eq:ornstein-zernike-equation-cylindrical\]). As mentioned in Sec. \[sec:OZ-relation\], this equation is exact, but we have to deal with numerics in order to perform this transformation. Especially, the finite number of Fourier modes in our discretization gives rise to artifacts. As we can see in Fig. \[fig:Figure3\](b) for a bulk fluid, the resulting total correlation functions show unphysical values differing from $-1$ inside the core. Note that this behavior not only originates from numerical inconveniences during solving the OZ relation but also depends on the inconsistency of the approximate excess free energy functional we have used. Such inconsistencies are common for all approximate functionals and can only be resolved by the exact functional, which in general is not known [@mermin_prv137_1965]. In our case the specific artifacts in the forbidden regions could be avoided by employing the earlier-mentioned test-particle route via the two-particle density in Eq. (\[eq:pair-distribution-function\]), which does not show the deviations from $-1$ in forbidden regions, per definition. However, this route is expected to show deviations in other regions of the profiles where the compressibility route might work more precisely, because the forced hard potential of the test particle is not consistent with the properties of the approximate functional, e.g., increased correlations in the particle core.
Similarly to Fig. \[fig:Figure5\], we show the total correlation functions for all possible pairs of particles in Fig. \[fig:Figure8\]. In addition to our results determined with DFT and the OZ relation, we plot the total correlations obtained from BD simulations via the test-particle route, which is natural for simulations. Simulation results are presented at the top of each plot; at the bottom the immediate comparison to the DFT results is shown. In general, both DFT calculations and BD simulations show a good agreement for all total particle correlations. However, as noted in the case of the direct correlation function in the previous subsection, the corresponding local structures are usually underestimated by DFT predictions whenever local ordering occurs. For example, deviations can be seen in Figs. \[fig:Figure8\](a) and \[fig:Figure8\](b), where simulations lead to stronger correlations between the fixed reference particle and a second particle at $(r\approx 1\sigma_1,\,z\approx 2.1\sigma_1)$. In this position, particles in the second layer of a local fcc or bcc structure are located. Such orderings occur more often for higher packing fractions and they are not incorporated in our DFT approach.
In Fig. \[fig:Figure9\] a small reference particle is fixed at different positions $z'$ and the total correlations with another small particle at position $(r,z)$ are shown. Besides the previously discussed small deviations, the comparison between DFT calculations and BD simulations in general reveals a good quantitative agreement.
In order to study possible deviations in more detail, we show the profiles along the vertical lines in the bottom rows in Fig. \[fig:Figure9\] separately in Fig. \[fig:Figure10\]. Note that these data are taken at the rather high packing fraction $\phi=0.54$, where glassy dynamics sets in. Nevertheless, the overall agreement is still good. The most pronounced differences occur close to particle contact. In the simulation data this behavior is affected by two effects: on one side, the slight softness of the repulsive interactions and, on the other side, the uncertainty of the actual position of the reference particle due to the discretization of the $z$ axis. In the next subsection, we study contact values and resulting forces on the test particle in more detail.
Contact values and anisotropic forces
-------------------------------------
{width="16.0cm"}
Anisotropy in structure results in an anisotropic distribution of forces acting on a particle. Obviously, such an anisotropic distribution can result in a nonvanishing net force. The force distribution and the net force depend on the total pair correlations at particle-particle contact. For this reason, we explored the value of the total pair-correlation functions $h_{\nu\nu'}^\text{cont}=g_{\nu\nu'}^\text{cont}-1$ at particle-particle contact. Note that the condition of contact effectively reduces the amount of independent parameters by one, i.e., $(z,z')$ instead of $(r,z,z')$.
In Fig. \[fig:Figure11\] we present the contact values along the surface of a small reference particle in a binary mixture, which is located at several distances from the wall. Starting in Fig. \[fig:Figure11\](a) with wall contact, the reference particle is slowly detached from the first layer at the wall in Figs. \[fig:Figure11\](b) and (c) until it reaches the second layer in Fig. \[fig:Figure11\](d). For these different positions, we compare results obtained from our BD simulations with the results calculated from DFT and the OZ relation. We find reasonable overall agreement. However, aside from statistical noise, some details of the data reveal significant differences: First, in Fig. \[fig:Figure11\](a) the total correlations $h_{\nu\nu'}^\text{cont}(z,z')$ obtained from the simulations exhibit a very pronounced maximum at around $(z-z')/\sigma_1\approx0.71$ in the case of the two systems with higher densities. The contact values obtained from DFT also possess maxima at these positions, but they are less pronounced. Probably, this is again due to the neglect of local structure parallel to the wall in our theory. Indeed, the simulation data show some entropically favored contact correlations which are most obvious by the stronger oscillations in Fig. \[fig:Figure11\](d).
As mentioned before, anisotropies in structure also cause anisotropic force distributions. To determine these forces, we first consider a reduced Helmholtz free energy, which depends only on one so-called [*reaction coordinate*]{}. Typically, such a reduced free energy is achieved from the free energy of a multiparticle ensemble by integrating out all coordinates except for the reaction coordinate [@Trzesniak2007]. Then this coordinate can be used to describe transitions and reactions within a statistical manner [@Hanggi1990]. In our case, we want to disassemble the force on a single particle in the presence of a flat wall, where layers of particles form. In this situation, the natural choice for the reaction coordinate is the $z$ coordinate of a considered test particle of species $\nu$, such that the reduced free energy can be written as [@Trzesniak2007] $$F_\nu^{\rm red}(z) = -k_{\rm B}T \ln\big(\rho_\nu(z)\big) - k_{\rm B}T \ln(\Sigma) .
\label{eq:potential_of_mean_force}$$ The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:potential\_of\_mean\_force\]) incorporates the partition function $\Sigma$ of the thermodynamic system but does not depend on $z$. Typically, Eq. (\[eq:potential\_of\_mean\_force\]) is called the potential of mean force and it can be connected formally to the mean force $f_{\nu,{\rm z}}(z)$ in the $z$ direction by a derivative with respect to the reaction coordinate $z$; i.e., $$f_{\nu,{\rm z}}(z) = - \frac{\partial F_\nu^{\rm red}(z) }{\partial z}
= k_\text{B}T\frac{\partial \ln\big(\rho_\nu(z)\big)}{\partial z} .
\label{eq:mean_force}$$ Now the Lovett-Mou-Buff-Wertheim equations [@Lovett1976; @Wertheim1976] can be used to connect the gradient of the density profile, and therefore the resulting mean force, with the two-particle direct correlations by $$f_{\nu',{\rm z}}(z') = 2\pi k_{\rm B}T \sum_{\nu=1}^{n}\int
r\, c^{(2)}_{\nu\nu'}(r,z,z')\frac{\partial \rho_{\nu}(z)}{\partial z} dz\, dr .
\label{eq:LMBW-from-c}$$ Via an orthogonality relation for the density-density correlations, which is a statement of the OZ relation [@tarazona_mph54_1985; @hansen_book_2013], this mean force can also be connected with the pair-correlation functions, leading to [@Lovett1976] $$f_{\nu',{\rm z}}(z') = 2\pi k_{\rm B}T \sum_{\nu=1}^{n}\sigma_{\nu\nu'}\hspace*{-0.1cm}\int
\rho_{\nu}(z)g^\text{cont}_{\nu\nu'}(z,z')\frac{z'-z}{\sigma_{\nu\nu'}}dz .
\label{eq:LMBW-from-g}$$ Note that Eqs. (\[eq:mean\_force\]) and (\[eq:LMBW-from-g\]) provide an exact relation between a one- and a two-particle correlation, because Eq. (\[eq:LMBW-from-g\]) corresponds to the first member of the Born-Green-Yvon hierarchy [@Kjellander1991; @Nygard2014].
 Normalized force $f_{1,{\rm z}}$ on a small test particle at position $z'$ in the $z$ direction, which originates from the surrounding particles in a binary mixture at packing fractions $\phi=0.5$ (blue line) or $0.3$ (red line). Data from Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations are plotted with circles. For comparison, different methods to predict the force distribution from DFT are shown: Employing the potential of mean force as in Eq. (\[eq:mean\_force\]) leads to the dotted lines, the solid lines in (a) denote the force distribution calculated from the direct correlations as in Eq. (\[eq:LMBW-from-c\]) for both packing fractions ($\phi=0.5$ and $0.3$), and the solid line in (b) corresponds to the distribution determined via the pair correlations as in Eq. (\[eq:LMBW-from-g\]) for the larger packing fraction ($\phi=0.5$) only. Inset in (b): Separated contributions from small ($1\to 1$) and large ($2\to 1$) particles to the mean force at $\phi=0.5$. ](Figure12){width="8.0cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:Figure12\](a), we plot the net forces obtained from our theoretical calculations via Eqs. (\[eq:mean\_force\]) and (\[eq:LMBW-from-c\]); in Fig. \[fig:Figure12\](b), we compare the results of Eqs. (\[eq:mean\_force\]) and (\[eq:LMBW-from-g\]). In both figures, we additionally plot the forces directly obtained from our BD simulations for comparison. Clearly, the net forces that are theoretically obtained via the density profiles as in Eq. (\[eq:mean\_force\]) match the simulation results very well. However, at high densities we observe a significant deviation between the curves at around $z=1.9\sigma_1$, where the small test particle can stack exactly on top of one large particle that is in contact with the wall and where local ordering might have a pronounced influence on the particles structure. Employing Eqs. (\[eq:LMBW-from-c\]) and (\[eq:LMBW-from-g\]) leads to forces that deviate from the simulation results for $z<1.9\sigma_1$. These differences are probably due to the thermodynamic inconsistency of the functional, which, for example, manifests in the differences between the compressibility and the test-particle route. Note that Eq. (\[eq:mean\_force\]) corresponds to the test-particle route, because it solely involves the density profiles, while Eqs. (\[eq:LMBW-from-c\]) and (\[eq:LMBW-from-g\]) involve the direct correlations. The latter seem to capture the behavior around $z=1.9\sigma_1$ better, while the results from Eq. (\[eq:mean\_force\]) have a better agreement close to the wall.
Besides numerical inaccuracies, Eqs. (\[eq:LMBW-from-c\]) and (\[eq:LMBW-from-g\]), in principle, are equivalent. Note, however, that only Eq. (\[eq:LMBW-from-g\]), where the forces are calculated using the pair correlations, offers direct access to the specific contributions of each particle species to the directional distribution of the net force. Such species-resolved contributions are shown in the inset in Fig. (\[fig:Figure12\])(b). In order to obtain this information from Eq. (\[eq:LMBW-from-c\]), where the forces depend on the direct correlation functions, one first has to determine the impact of one particle on another by integrating over all possible amounts of intermediate particles.
The results in the inset in Fig. \[fig:Figure12\](b) show that, close to the wall, the large particles push the small test particle more strongly to the wall than the small particles do. If the test particle is moved away from the wall, first the contribution from the small particles reverses its direction such that they start pushing the particle away from the wall. For the larger particles the reversal of force direction occurs at a larger distance from the wall. Between the positions of these two reversals of directions, the resulting net force is small.
Comparison among one-, two-, and six-component mixtures
-------------------------------------------------------
 Two- and one-particle correlations at a packing fraction of $\phi=0.5$ for (a) a *one*-component, (b) a *two*-component, and (c) a *six*-component mixture, where the distribution of particle diameters is explained in the text. All plots compare data from our BD simulations and DFT. (a1, b1, c1) Total self-correlation functions $h_{11}^{(2)}(r,z,\sigma_1/2)$; (a2, b2, c2) accompanying density profiles $\rho_1(z)$. The latter are shown normalized with the respective bulk density $\bar{\rho}_1$. ](Figure13){width="8.3cm"}
For an increasing number of components in a mixture, local ordering is suppressed even at high densities. As we show in the following the signatures of local structures in one- or two-particle correlations are smeared out with an increasing number of components. As a consequence, DFT calculations that neglect some types of local ordering become more accurate for such an increasing number of components.
In Fig. \[fig:Figure13\] we demonstrate this effect for a packing fraction of $\phi=0.5$, where a one-component \[Fig. \[fig:Figure13\](a)\], a two-component \[Fig. \[fig:Figure13\](b)\], and a six-component \[Fig. \[fig:Figure13\](c)\] system have been used. The binary mixture is the same as discussed throughout this work, with particle diameters $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2=1.4\sigma_1$, while the multicomponent system contains an equimolar mixture with particles of six discrete sizes: $\sigma_1$, $1.1\sigma_1$, $1.2\sigma_1$, $1.3\sigma_1$, $1.4\sigma_1$, and $1.5\sigma_1$. In Figs. \[fig:Figure13\](a1), \[fig:Figure13\](b1), and \[fig:Figure13\](c1) we show the total self-correlation function $h_{11}^{(2)}(r,z,z')$ of the smallest particles, where one particle is in contact with the wall. Obviously, for the monodisperse case the peaks are very pronounced, and due to the high packing fraction of $\phi=0.5$ and the induced anisotropy, crystal-like structures are visible already on the two-particle level. As expected, major differences occur between DFT calculations and simulations in this case, e.g., at the position indicated by the arrow in Fig. \[fig:Figure13\](a1). However, the peaks due to local orderings are less pronounced if more components are considered. Therefore, Figs. \[fig:Figure13\](b1) and \[fig:Figure13\](c1) show a much better agreement between simulations and theory. This result is confirmed by Figs. \[fig:Figure13\](a2), \[fig:Figure13\](b2), and \[fig:Figure13\](c2), where we compare the density profiles obtained from simulations and DFT. The smoothing of these profiles, while increasing the number of components, is the result of the increasing number of possible configurations of different stackings next to the wall. As a consequence, the peaks are smeared out for an increasing number of components and the splitting of a peak can no longer be observed in the case of a more homogeneous spectrum in the polydispersity distribution. Nevertheless, Figs. \[fig:Figure13\](b1) and \[fig:Figure13\](c1) already show the trend that prominent peaks in the pair correlations still occur in the polydisperse situation even for the second shell of surrounding particles. These peaks are retained even if the averaged correlation functions $h_1(r,z,z')=\tfrac{1}{n}\sum_{\nu=1}^{n} h_{\nu1}^{(2)}(r,z,z')$ (not shown here) would be plotted instead of the self-correlations between solely the smallest particles. Obviously, these peaks represent the most probable positions of next-neighboring particles, no matter what size they are.
Conclusions {#sec:section6}
===========
Using comparisons to BD simulations, we have quantitatively explored the strengths and weaknesses of the WBII FMT approach within DFT in predicting one- and two-particle correlations within HS systems. In order to study anisotropic situations, we broke the symmetry and explored the behavior in the vicinity of a hard wall. Especially in the case of our six-component systems, DFT led to excellent predictions even at high packing fractions. However, in the case of mono- or bidisperse systems, DFT did not necessarily resolve the formation of local order. We have demonstrated that the compressibility route of DFT can be employed to calculate two-particle correlations, contact values, and forces acting on a particle, even in the investigated strongly anisotropic situations. Our research sets the course for further investigations of structural properties, e.g., within the primitive model, where long-ranged particle interactions are involved. Furthermore, it demonstrates the interest in further detailed studies on the consistency of functionals.
Our finding that, particularly at packing fractions above $\phi=0.5$, two-particle correlations can be well predicted might turn out to be important to understand the relation of structure and dynamics of such systems. For these large packing fractions the dynamics tends to become very slow. Such a dramatic slowdown of dynamics usually is termed glassy dynamics and its relation to structure is the subject of intensive research [@Kirkpatrick1987; @Fuchs2002; @Schweizer2004; @goetze2008complex; @Mittal2008; @Nygard2012; @Mirigian2013; @Nygard2014; @janssen14; @Royall2015a]. Advanced theories that deal with glassy dynamics, e.g., mode coupling theory [@Fuchs2002; @goetze2008complex], its generalization [@janssen14], and similar approaches [@Kirkpatrick1987; @Schweizer2004; @Mirigian2013], rely on the knowledge of the structure of the system. Our work demonstrates that FMT is a suitable approach to obtain a reliable input for these theories even in the case of anisotropic geometries, e.g., in the vicinity of a wall. Furthermore, a comparison of our results to simulations of soft particles away from the HS limit probably is interesting, especially for large packing fractions, where the softness of the particle might change the behavior significantly [@zhang_nature459_2009; @yang_jcp134_2011].
In principle, our DFT calculations can be extended to describe the orderings of particles in gravity [@loewen13; @Kohl2014] or of particles possessing charges [@haertel_jpcm27_2015], which might be confined by charged surfaces [@Grandner2009]. Such extensions lead to systems with many important applications, e.g., the formation and in-plane structure of electric double layers [@merlet_jpcc118_2014] or interfaces like the liquid-vapor one [@parry_jpcm26_2014]. The knowledge of structural correlations in the so-called (restricted) primitive model might lead to advanced insights into the properties of modern devices like supercapacitors [@simon2008materials; @jiang_jpcl3_2012; @merlet_jpcc118_2014], blue engines [@norman_science186_1974; @janssen_prl113_2014; @haertel_jpcm27_2015], and thermocapacitive heat-to-current converters [@haertel_ees8_2015].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank R. van Roij, H. Löwen, and R. Evans for stimulating discussions. A.H. acknowledges financial support from the D-ITP consortium, a program of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) that is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), from an NWO-VICI grant, and from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the priority program SPP 1726 (Grant No. SP 1382/3-1). M.K. and M.S. were supported within the Emmy Noether program of the DFG (Grant No. Schm 2657/2).
Solving the Ornstein-Zernike relation {#sec:appendix1}
=====================================
Starting with the direct correlation functions $c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}$ determined from FMT, we obtain the total pair-correlation functions $h_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}$ by solving the OZ relation as defined in Eq. (\[eq:ornstein-zernike-equation\]) numerically. If the involved correlation functions are rescaled by a factor $\sqrt{\rho_{\nu}(\vec{r})\rho_{\nu'}(\vec{r}\,')}$, the result is $0$ in all locations that must not be reached by a particle. Therefore, it is sufficient to solve the OZ relation only outside of the wall, even if the original direct correlations might be nonzero inside the wall.
As shown in Eq. (\[eq:ornstein-zernike-equation-cylindrical\]), we solve the OZ relation numerically in Fourier space, where convolutions become simple products. In our case, we consider functions with radial symmetry, i.e., functions $f(x,y)$ with $x=r\cos(\theta)$ and $y=r\sin(\theta)$ that do not depend on $\theta$. Then their Fourier transforms are $$F(f)(k_x,k_y) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathcal{R}^2} f(x,y)
e^{-\imath(x k_x+y k_y)} dx dy,$$ which, in polar coordinates after the integration over $\theta$, lead to $$F(f)\left(s\right) = \int_0^{\infty} r f(r) J_0(s r) dr \,.$$ This result corresponds to a Hankel transform (or Bessel transform) as introduced in Eq. (\[eq:Hankel-transform\]), which in general is defined by [@johnson_CompPhysCom43_1987; @lemoine_jcp101_1994] $$F_\nu(u) = H_\nu\left\{f(t)\right\}
= \int_0^{\infty} f(t) J_\nu(u t) t dt \label{eq:hankel_transform_definition}$$ where $F_\nu(u)$ is called the Hankel transformed function of order $\nu$ of the function $f$ if the integral exists. The function $f$ can be a complex-valued function and $J_\nu$ denote Bessel functions of the first kind, which, for integer $\nu$, are given by [@press_book_1992; @johnson_CompPhysCom43_1987; @lemoine_jcp101_1994] $$\begin{aligned}
J_\nu(x) &= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi e^{-\imath\big(\nu\tau-x\sin(\tau)\big)}d\tau . \end{aligned}$$ The inverse Hankel transform is given by $$f(t) = H_\nu^{-1}\left\{F_\nu(u)\right\}
= \int_0^{\infty} F_\nu(u) J_\nu(u t) u du.
\label{eq:inverse_hankel_transform_definition}$$ We employed the Hankel transform, which, for numerical calculations, is available in the [*Gnu Scientific Library*]{} (GSL) and whose calculation scheme follows the work of H. F. Johnson [@johnson_CompPhysCom43_1987] and D. Lemoine [@lemoine_jcp101_1994].
The weight-correlation functions in FMT {#sec:appendix2}
=======================================
In this Appendix we derive the terms that are used in FMT for a multicomponent system in order to obtain the direct correlation functions.
From Eq. (\[eq:c2:stepwise-constant\]) we know that the direct correlation functions in FMT on a discrete numerical grid read $$-c_{\nu\nu'}^{(2)}(\vec{r},\vec{r}')
\approx \sum_{i=0}^{M-1} \sum_\alpha \sum_\beta
\frac{\partial^2\Phi(z_i)}{\partial n_\alpha\partial n_\beta}
W_{\nu\nu'}^{(\alpha\beta)}(\bar{I}_i, \vec{\Delta}) ,
\label{eq:num-c2}$$ where $\vec{\Delta}=\vec{r}'-\vec{r}$, $z_i$ are the discrete and equidistant sample points along the $z$ axis separated by $d_\text{z}$, the weight-correlation functions $W_{\nu\nu'}^{(\alpha\beta)}(I,\vec{r})$ were defined in Eq. (\[eq:c2:define-WW\]), and $\bar{I}_i$ is a corresponding interval, $\bar{I}_i=[z_L,z_R]$, with $z_L=z_i-(\vec{r})_z-\tfrac{1}{2}d_\text{z}$ and $z_R=z_i-(\vec{r})_z+\tfrac{1}{2}d_\text{z}$, which contains $z_i$. Note that we employ $r_\chi\equiv(\vec{r})_\chi$ as shorthand for the $\chi$ component of the vector $\vec{r}$ in Cartesian coordinates spanned by $\{\hat{e}_x,\hat{e}_y,\hat{e}_z\}$.
The weight-correlation functions $W_{\nu\nu'}^{(\alpha\beta)}(I,\vec{r})$ are representations of convolutions of the translational-invariant weight functions $w_\nu^{(\alpha)}$ and $w_{\nu'}^{(\beta)}$ from Eqs. (\[eq:weight3\])-(\[eq:weight2tensor\]) on the interval $I$. These weight functions have nonvanishing values solely on the volume $S_\nu$ or on the surface $\partial S_\nu$ of a sphere of species $\nu$ with radius $R_\nu$. Thus, we consider two spheres, $A$ and $B$, with centers in the origin and at $\vec{\Delta}$.
In order to calculate a function $W_{\nu\nu'}^{(\alpha\beta)}$ as given in Eq. (\[eq:c2:define-WW\]), its integration interval $I$ must have certain properties. To guarantee these properties, the interval $I$ can be split into parts $I_1$ and $I_2$ with $I_1\cap I_2=\emptyset$ and $I=I_1\cup I_2$, such that $$W_{\nu\nu'}^{(\alpha\beta)}(I, \vec{\Delta}) :=
W_{\nu\nu'}^{(\alpha\beta)}(I_1, \vec{\Delta}) + W_{\nu\nu'}^{(\alpha\beta)}(I_2, \vec{\Delta}) .
\label{eq:splitting}$$ Subsequently, splitting $I$ in an appropriate way into intervals $I_i$ guarantees the following necessary properties after splitting:
- Either the weight-correlation function vanishes in the interval $I_i$ \[$W_{AB}^{(\alpha\beta)}(I_i,\vec{\Delta})=0$\] or both spheres, $S_A$ and $S_B$, contain at least one point with $z$ component $z$ for each point $z$ in the interval $I_i$ ($\forall z\in I_i$, $\mathcal{V}_z:=\mathcal{R}^2\times\{z\}$: $\mathcal{V}_z\cap S_A\neq\emptyset$ and $\mathcal{V}_z\cap S_B\neq\emptyset$).
- Either the intersection $\partial S_A \cap \partial S_B$ of both spheres, $\partial S_A$ and $\partial S_B$, contains, for all $z$ in $I_i$, at least one point $\vec{r}$ with $z$ component $r_z$ or it contains, for all $z$ in the inner kernel $\mathring{I_i}$, no point $\vec{r}$ with $z$ component $r_z$.
Note that the whole intersection line $\partial S_A\cap\partial S_B$ can be contained in one slice, $\mathcal{V}_z:=\mathcal{R}^2\times\{z\}$, when $\vec{\Delta} || \hat{e}_z$ (for visualization see Fig. \[fig:c2\_prep\]). We do not consider the special situation where the spheres touch in a single point, which would contribute only to the point of the direct correlation function at particle contact, whose value is not defined.
As can be seen from its definition in Eq. (\[eq:c2:define-WW\]), the absolute value of the weight-correlation function $W_{AB}^{(\alpha\beta)}$ does not change if the spheres $S_A$ and $S_B$ exchange their positions and the interval $I$ is adapted in an appropriate way; i.e., $I=[z_L,z_R]$ must be adapted to $I'=[(\vec{\Delta})_z-z_R,(\vec{\Delta})_z-z_L]$. However, the sign of the function changes when one of the involved weight functions is antisymmetric and ${\mathrm{sign}}(w_A){\mathrm{sign}}(w_B)<0$; in our FMT approach, only the vectorial weight functions are antisymmetric. Therefore, an exchange of the two spheres leads to $$W_{AB}^{(\alpha\beta)}(I,\vec{\Delta})
= {\mathrm{sign}}(w_A^{(\alpha)}) {\mathrm{sign}}(w_B^{(\beta)}) W_{BA}^{(\beta\alpha)}(I',\vec{\Delta}) .
\label{eq:weight-correlation-function-symmetry}$$ For this reason we calculate only combinations with $\alpha \geq \beta$, according to the order $3>2>1>0>\vec{2}>\vec{1}>\tensor{2}$. Furthermore, from the definition of the weight functions it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
W_{AB}^{(\alpha 1)} &= \tfrac{1}{4\pi R_B}W_{AB}^{(\alpha 2)} ,
\label{eq:weight-correlation-function-31} \\
W_{AB}^{(\alpha 0)} &= \tfrac{1}{4\pi R_B^2}W_{AB}^{(\alpha 2)} , \\
W_{AB}^{(\alpha\vec{1})} &= \tfrac{1}{4\pi R_B}W_{AB}^{(\alpha\vec{2})} .
\label{eq:weight-correlation-function-v1x}\end{aligned}$$ In summary, we have to calculate only the weight-correlation functions for the following combinations: $$\begin{aligned}
(\alpha\beta)\in\big\{&(33),(32),(3\vec{2}),(3\tensor{2}), \notag \\
&(22),(2\vec{2}),(2\tensor{2}),
(\vec{2}\vec{2}),(\vec{2}\tensor{2}),(\tensor{2}\tensor{2})\big\} \,.
\label{eq:remaining-situations}\end{aligned}$$ All other combinations can be obtained by the relations mentioned above.
If the support of $W_{AB}^{(\alpha\beta)}$ and the volume $\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{R}^2\times I$ do overlap (have a nonvanishing intersection), three cases are left for this volume $\mathcal{V}$.
- **Sphere B inside sphere A**\
Sphere B is completely encapsulated by sphere A (or vice versa), i.e., without loss of generality,\
$S_A\cap S_B\cap\mathcal{V}=S_B\cap\mathcal{V}$ and $\partial S_A\cap S_B\cap\mathring{\mathcal{V}}=\emptyset$.
- **Partial intersection**\
Different spheres with only partial intersection, i.e., without loss of generality,\
$\partial S_A\cap\partial S_B\cap\mathring{\mathcal{V}}\neq\emptyset$, but $S_A\neq S_B$.
- **Two equal spheres**\
Equally sized spheres are at the same position,\
$S_A=S_B$.
In the following sections we calculate the weight-correlation functions $W_{AB}^{(\alpha\beta)}$ in this three cases for all combinations of weight functions mentioned in Eq. (\[eq:remaining-situations\]). During this calculation, we use the in-plane radii $r_A$ and $r_B$ of the spheres intersecting with a plane $\mathcal{V}_z$ perpendicular to the $z$ axis, i.e., of the circles $\mathcal{V}_z\cap S_A$ and $\mathcal{V}_z\cap S_B$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:c2\_prep\](a). In our three cases, these radii are well defined for all $z\in I$ with planes $\mathcal{V}_z$ within the volume $\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{R}^2\times I$ of integration and read $$\begin{aligned}
r_A(z) &= \sqrt{R_A^2-z^2} \label{eq:inplane-radius-A} , \\
r_B(z) &= \sqrt{R_B^2-\big((\vec{\Delta})_z-z\big)^2} . \label{eq:inplane-radius-B}\end{aligned}$$ Keep in mind that appropriate splitting must guarantee the earlier-mentioned properties after Eq. (\[eq:splitting\]).
{width="16.0cm"}
Case 1: Sphere B inside sphere A {#sec:c2:partI .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
This case occurs only when A is larger than B and when B is fully encapsulated. In this situation, the unit vectors pointing from the centers of sphere $A$ or $B$ towards their respective surfaces can be parametrized for $z\in I_i$ with cylindrical coordinates $(\gamma,z)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\vec{R}_A(\gamma,z)}{R_A}&=\frac{1}{R_A}
\begin{pmatrix}r_A(z)\cos(\gamma) \\ r_A(z)\sin(\gamma) \\ z\end{pmatrix} , \\
\frac{\vec{R}_B(\gamma,z)}{R_B}&=\frac{1}{R_B}
\begin{pmatrix}-r_B(z)\cos(\gamma) \\ r_B(z)\sin(\gamma) \\ z-(\vec{\Delta})_z\end{pmatrix} , \end{aligned}$$ where $r_A(z)$ and $r_B(z)$ are given by Eqs. (\[eq:inplane-radius-A\]) and (\[eq:inplane-radius-B\]).
For all combinations, where the weight function of the larger encapsulating sphere is not $w_A^{(3)}$, neither weight function intersects and one trivially obtains $W_{AB}^{(\alpha\neq3,\beta)}=0$; we neglect the case where the encapsulated sphere touches the outer one in a single point. For the remaining combinations of weight functions the first two weight-correlation functions read $$\begin{aligned}
W_{AB}^{(33)} &= \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \pi r_B^2(z)dz \notag \\
&= \left[ \pi R_B^2 z + \frac{\pi}{3}\Big((\vec{\Delta})_z-z\Big)^3 \right]_{z=z_L}^{z_R} , \\
W_{AB}^{(32)} &= \int_{\mathcal{V}_i}
\Theta\big(R_A-|\vec{r}|\big) \delta\big(R_B-|\vec{r}-\vec{\Delta}|\big) d\vec{r} . \label{eq:C1-W32-1}\end{aligned}$$ Since sphere $B$ is encapsulated inside of sphere $A$, the $\Theta$ weight in Eq. (\[eq:C1-W32-1\]) is equal to unity for the integration volume of interest. Furthermore, a linear parameter change for the $xy$ integration in this equation and a change to cylindrical coordinates $(r\cos(\gamma),r\sin(\gamma),z)$ lead to $$W_{AB}^{(32)} = \int_{I_i} \int_{0}^{2\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty} r
\delta\Big(R_B-\sqrt{r^2+\big(z-(\vec{\Delta})_z\big)^2}\Big) dr d\gamma dz . \label{eq:C1-W32-2}$$ In order to perform the integrals in Eq. (\[eq:C1-W32-2\]), we use the equality $$\delta\big(g(r)\big) = \sum_{i}\frac{\delta(r-r_i)}{|g'(r_i)|}
\label{eq:delta-arg-change}$$ for a continuously differentiable function $g(r)$ with the finite set $\{r_i\}$ of simple $0$’s and the derivative $g'(r)=\partial g/\partial r$. In Eq. (\[eq:C1-W32-2\]) the argument of the $\delta$ distribution has the simple zero $r_1=r_B(z)$ and $|g'(r_1)|=r/R_B$. Accordingly, the previous result of Eq. (\[eq:C1-W32-2\]) becomes $$W_{AB}^{(32)} =
2\pi R_B (z_R-z_L) . \label{eq:C1-W32-3}$$ Similarly, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
W_{AB}^{(3\vec{2})} =& \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \int_{0}^{2\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty}
R_B\delta\big(r-r_B(z)\big)
\vec{R}_B(\gamma,z) \, dr d\gamma dz \notag \\
=&
2 \pi \hat{e}_z
\left[\frac{1}{2}z^2-(\vec{\Delta})_z z\right]_{z=z_L}^{z_R} , \\
W_{AB}^{(3\tensor{2})}
=& \big( \hat{e}_{\rm x}\otimes\hat{e}_{\rm x} + \hat{e}_y\otimes\hat{e}_y \big) \notag \\
& \quad \times \frac{\pi}{R_B}
\left[R_B^2 z + \frac{1}{3}\big((\vec{\Delta})_z-z\big)^3\right]_{z=z_L}^{z_R} \notag \\
& +
\big(\hat{e}_z\otimes\hat{e}_z\big) \frac{2\pi}{R_B}
\left[-\frac{1}{3}\big((\vec{\Delta})_z-z\big)^3\right]_{z=z_L}^{z_R} \notag \\
& - \frac{\tensor{{\rm I}}}{3}W_{AB}^{(32)} , \end{aligned}$$ where the outer product $\hat{e}_i\otimes\hat{e}_j$ between $\hat{e}_i$ and $\hat{e}_j$ is defined as the matrix product $\hat{e}_i\cdot\hat{e}_j^{T}$ with $T$ indicating a transposed vector.
Case 2: Partial intersection {#case-2-partial-intersection .unnumbered}
----------------------------
In this case, both sphere $A$ and sphere $B$ intersect each other and the intersection occurs at $z$ positions with $z_L\leq z\leq z_R$. In order to calculate the weight-correlation functions $W_{AB}^{(\alpha\beta)}$ we distinguish two cases.
- At least one of the corresponding weight functions incorporates a $\Theta$ weight: $\Leftrightarrow \alpha = 3 \geq \beta$.
- No $\Theta$-weight function is involved: $\Leftrightarrow 3 > \alpha \geq \beta$.
### Case 2a: Partial intersection, $\alpha=3$ {#case-2a-partial-intersection-alpha3 .unnumbered}
In this case, we employed numerical integration in order to determine $W_{AB}^{(\alpha\beta)}$ following some analytical calculations.
According to previous discussions, $\Delta_z:=(\vec{\Delta})_z<|\vec{\Delta}|$ and $\Delta_{xy}:=\sqrt{(\vec{\Delta})_x^2+(\vec{\Delta})_y^2}>0$. Thus, the vectors $\vec{R}_A$ and $\vec{R}_B$, which point from the center of the spheres $S_A$ and $S_B$ to their surface (at position $z$), can be parameterized by (see Fig. \[fig:c2\_prep\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{R}_A(\varphi_A) &= \vec{C}_A
+ r_A(z)\left( \vec{D}_{cA}\cos(\varphi_A) + \vec{D}_{sA}\sin(\varphi_A) \right) , \\
\vec{R}_B(\varphi_B) &= \vec{C}_B
+ r_B(z)\left( \vec{D}_{cB}\cos(\varphi_B) + \vec{D}_{sB}\sin(\varphi_B) \right) ,
\label{eq:C2a-RB}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{C}_A &= z \hat{e}_z
\textrm{ , }
\vec{C}_B = (z-\Delta_z) \hat{e}_z , \\
\vec{D}_{cA} &= \Delta_{xy}^{-1} (\Delta_x\hat{e}_x+\Delta_y\hat{e}_y)
= -\vec{D}_{cB} , \\
\vec{D}_{sA} &= \hat{e}_z \times \vec{D}_{cA}
= -\hat{e}_z \times \vec{D}_{cB} = \vec{D}_{sB}.\end{aligned}$$ The in-plane radii $r_A$ and $r_B$ are used as defined in Eqs. (\[eq:inplane-radius-A\]) and (\[eq:inplane-radius-B\]). From the law of cosines it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
r_A \cos(\varphi_A) &= \frac{r_A^2+\Delta_{xy}^2-r_B^2}{2\Delta_{xy}}\textrm{ , }\varphi_A\in(0,\pi) \\
r_B \cos(\varphi_B) &= \frac{r_B^2+\Delta_{xy}^2-r_A^2}{2\Delta_{xy}}\textrm{ , }\varphi_B\in(0,\pi) , \end{aligned}$$ where the correlated angles $\varphi_A$ and $\varphi_B$ become $\tfrac{\pi}{2}$ for vanishing radii $r_A$ and $r_B$, respectively.
In the case of two $\Theta$ weights, the intersection area of the kernel is given by two caps of the corresponding intersecting circles as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:c2\_prep\](a). The area $D$ of such a cap is given by the fraction $\tfrac{2\varphi}{2\pi}$ of the corresponding circle with a triangle subtracted or added, depending on the opening angle of $\varphi$: if $\varphi\leq\tfrac{\pi}{2}$, the triangle is subtracted; otherwise, it is added. With $h=|\sin(\varphi)|r$, the area follows with $$D = \varphi r^2 - r^2\cos(\varphi)\sin(\varphi) .$$ Thus, the weight-correlation function for two $\Theta$ weights follows with $$\begin{aligned}
W_{AB}^{(33)} = \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \Big(
& r_A^2(z) \big( \varphi_A - \sin(\varphi_A)\cos(\varphi_A) \big) \label{eq:C2-W33} \\
+ & r_B^2(z) \big( \varphi_B - \sin(\varphi_B)\cos(\varphi_B) \big) \notag
\Big) dz . \end{aligned}$$
Referring to calculations from Eqs. (\[eq:C1-W32-2\]) - (\[eq:C1-W32-3\]) in case 1, we, furthermore, get $$W_{AB}^{(32)} = \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \int_{-\varphi_B}^{\varphi_B} R_B d\gamma dz
= 2 \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \varphi_B R_B dz .$$ Using the parametrization of $\vec{R}_B$ from Eq. (\[eq:C2a-RB\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
W_{AB}^{(3\vec{2})} &= \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \int_{-\varphi_B}^{\varphi_B}
\vec{R}_B(\varphi) d\varphi dz \notag \\
&= 2 \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \left[ \varphi_B\vec{C}_B + r_B(z)\vec{D}_{cB}\sin(\varphi_B) \right] dz . \end{aligned}$$ Using, furthermore, the equalities $\int\sin^2(x)dx=\tfrac{x}{2}-\tfrac{1}{4}\sin(2x)$, $\int\cos^2(x)dx=\tfrac{x}{2}+\tfrac{1}{4}\sin(2x)$, and $\int\sin(x)\cos(x)dx=-\tfrac{1}{2}\cos^2(x)$, it follows that
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(W_{AB}^{(3\tensor{2})}\right)_{ij}
=& \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \int_{-\varphi_B}^{\varphi_B}
\frac{R_B}{R_B^2} \left(\vec{R}_B(\varphi)\right)_i\left(\vec{R}_B(\varphi)\right)_j d\varphi dz
- \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \int_{-\varphi_B}^{\varphi_B} R_B \frac{1}{3}\delta_{ij} d\varphi dz \\
=& \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \frac{2}{R_B} \bigg[
\varphi_B \left(\vec{C}_B\right)_i \left(\vec{C}_B\right)_j \notag \\
& +r_B(z)\sin(\varphi_B) \left(\vec{C}_{B}\right)_i \left(\vec{D}_{cB}\right)_j
+r_B(z)\sin(\varphi_B) \left(\vec{D}_{cB}\right)_i \left(\vec{C}_B\right)_j \notag \\
& +\big(r_B(z)\big)^2\left(\frac{\varphi_B}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\sin(2\varphi_B)\right)
\left(\vec{D}_{cB}\right)_i \left(\vec{D}_{cB}\right)_j
+\big(r_B(z)\big)^2\left(\frac{\varphi_B}{2}-\frac{1}{4}\sin(2\varphi_B)\right)
\left(\vec{D}_{sB}\right)_i \left(\vec{D}_{sB}\right)_j \bigg] dz \notag \\
& -\frac{1}{3}\delta_{ij} W_{AB}^{(32)} \, . \label{eq:C2-W3t2-2}\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we calculated the remaining integral over the interval $I_i=[z_L,z_R]$ in Eqs. (\[eq:C2-W33\])-(\[eq:C2-W3t2-2\]) numerically on a discrete grid of 16 points. Keep in mind that $z_R-z_L\leq d_\text{z}$, which is the numeric resolution chosen for the determination of the direct correlation function in Eq. (\[eq:c2:stepwise-constant\]).
### Case 2b: Partial intersection, $\alpha<3$ {#case-2b-partial-intersection-alpha3 .unnumbered}
In the interval $I_i=[z_L,z_R]$ of interest, a unique intersection circle between the surfaces $\partial S_A$ and $\partial S_B$ exists. Note that the whole intersection circle might lie in one plane, $\mathcal{R}^2\times\{z_c\}$, if $\vec{\Delta}\parallel\hat{e}_z$. Otherwise, the distance $\vec{\Delta}$ must have nonvanishing contributions orthogonal to $\hat{e}_z$.
The intersection circle, as sketched in Fig. \[fig:c2\_prep\](b), can be parameterized by the vector $$\vec{r}_{\rm I}(t) = \vec{C} + \vec{D}_{c}r_{\rm I}\cos(t) + \vec{D}_{s}r_{\rm I}\sin(t) ,$$ where the radius $r_{\rm I} = \sqrt{R_A^2-\Delta_A^2}=\sin(\vartheta_A)R_A$ follows from $R_B^2=R_A^2+\Delta^2-2R_A\Delta\cos(\vartheta_A)$ with $\Delta\equiv|\vec{\Delta}|$ and from $\Delta_A=\cos(\vartheta_A)R_A$.
For $\vec{\Delta}\nparallel\hat{e}_z$, the vectors in the parametrization read $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{C} &= \Delta_A\frac{\vec{\Delta}}{|\vec{\Delta}|}
= \frac{R_B^2-R_A^2-\Delta^2}{-2\Delta^2} \begin{pmatrix}\Delta_x\\ \Delta_y\\ \Delta_z\end{pmatrix} , \\
\vec{D}_s &= \frac{\hat{e}_z \times\vec{\Delta}}{|\hat{e}_z \times\vec{\Delta}|}
= \frac{1}{\Delta_{xy}} \begin{pmatrix}-\Delta_y\\ \Delta_x\\ 0\end{pmatrix} , \\
\vec{D}_c &= \frac{\vec{D}_s \times\vec{\Delta}}{|\vec{\Delta}|}
= \frac{1}{\Delta_{xy} \Delta}
\begin{pmatrix}-\Delta_x\Delta_z\\ \Delta_y\Delta_z\\ -\Delta_{xy}^2\end{pmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $|\vec{D}_s\times\vec{\Delta}|=|\vec{\Delta}|$, because $\vec{D}_s\perp\vec{\Delta}$ and $|\vec{D}_s|=1$. By definition, it also follows that $\vec{D}_s\perp\vec{D}_c$. To map the parameter $t$ into the given interval $I_i$ we, furthermore, solve $z=(\vec{r}_{\rm I}(t))_z$ and find $$cos(t) =
\frac{z-\frac{R_B^2-R_A^2-\Delta^2}{-2\Delta^2}\Delta_z}{-2\Delta_{xy}}\Delta .$$ Thus, the interval $I_i=[z_L,z_R]$ corresponds to the intervals $[t_1,t_2]$ and $[-t_2,-t_1]$, due to the symmetry properties of the cosine.
In the case where $\vec{\Delta}\parallel\hat{e}_z$, when the whole intersection circle is located in one $z$ slice at $z=z_c$, we set the vectors in the parametrization to $\vec{C}=z_c\hat{e}_z$, $\vec{D}_s=\hat{e}_y$, and $\vec{D}_c=\hat{e}_x$. Then the whole circle is caught by the above-defined intervals $[t_1,t_2]$ and $[-t_2,-t_1]$ with $t_1=0$ and $t_2=\pi$.
Now, we consider the weight-correlation function, $$W_{AB}^{(22)} = \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \int \int
\delta\big(R_A-|\vec{r}|\big) \delta\big(R_B-|\vec{r}-\vec{\Delta}|\big) d\vec{r} .
\label{eq:C2b-W22-1}$$ Splitting the vector $\vec{r}$ into parallel and orthogonal components $\vec{r}_{\parallel}\parallel\vec{\Delta}$ and $\vec{r}_{\perp}\perp\vec{\Delta}$ and converting to cylindrical coordinates $(r\cos(\gamma),r\sin(\gamma),c\equiv|\vec{C}|)$ on the Euclidean base $(\vec{D}_c,\vec{D}_s,\vec{C}/c)$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
W_{AB}^{(22)} =& \int_{\mathcal{R}} \int_{-t_2}^{-t_1} \int_{0}^{\infty}
r \delta\big(g_A(c)\big) \delta\big(g_B(r)\big) dr d\gamma dc \notag \\
+& \int_{\mathcal{R}} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \int_{0}^{\infty}
r \delta\big(g_A(c)\big) \delta\big(g_B(r)\big) dr d\gamma dc ,
\label{eq:C2b-W22-2}\end{aligned}$$ with the argument functions $g_A(c)=R_A-\sqrt{r^2+c^2}$ and $g_B(r)=R_B-\sqrt{r^2+\big(c-|\vec{\Delta}|\big)^2}$, where the conditions concerning the $z$ integration from Eq. (\[eq:C2b-W22-1\]) have been transferred to conditions of the $\gamma$ integration.
In this tilted geometry, we first apply the identity from Eq. (\[eq:delta-arg-change\]) to the second $\delta$ distribution with argument $g_B(r)$ in Eq. (\[eq:C2b-W22-2\]) and achieve the simple zero $r_0=\sqrt{R_B^2-\big(c-|\vec{\Delta}|\big)^2}$ together with $|g'_B(c_0)|=r/R_B$. Second, we apply the same identity to the first $\delta$ distribution with argument $g_A(c)$, where we already replaced the parameter $r$ with the value which is set by the $r$ integration over the second $\delta$ distribution, leading to $g_A(c)=R_A-\sqrt{c^2+R_B^2-\big(c-|\vec{\Delta}|\big)^2}$, with the simple zero $c_0=\big(R_A^2-R_B^2+|\vec{\Delta}|^2\big)/(2|\vec{\Delta}|)$ and the corresponding $|g'_A(c_0))|=|\vec{\Delta}|/R_A$. Accordingly, we find $$\begin{aligned}
W_{AB}^{(22)} &= \int_{\mathcal{R}} \int_{-t_2}^{-t_1} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{R_A R_B}{\Delta}
\delta(c-c_0) \delta(r-r_{\rm I}) dr d\gamma dc \notag \\
&+ \int_{\mathcal{R}} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{R_A R_B}{\Delta}
\delta(c-c_0) \delta(r-r_{\rm I}) dr d\gamma dc ,
\label{eq:C2b-W22-4}\end{aligned}$$ which leads to the final result, $$W_{AB}^{(22)} = \frac{R_A R_B}{|\vec{\Delta}|} 2 (t_2-t_1) .$$
The vectorial and tensorial weight-correlation functions are calculated in a similar manner. For this purpose, we define vectors $$\vec{R}_A(t)=\vec{r}_{\rm I}(t)
\textrm{ and }
\vec{R}_B(t)=\vec{r}_{\rm I}(t)-\vec{\Delta}$$ which point from the centers of the spheres $A$ and $B$ to a point on the intersection line $\partial S_A \cap\partial S_B$, which is parameterized by t. In combination with Eq. (\[eq:C2b-W22-4\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
W_{AB}^{(2\vec{2})}
&= \frac{R_A R_B}{|\vec{\Delta}|} \int_{-t_2}^{-t_1}
\frac{\vec{R}_B(\gamma)}{R_B} d\gamma
+ \frac{R_A R_B}{|\vec{\Delta}|} \int_{t_1}^{t_2}
\frac{\vec{R}_B(\gamma)}{R_B} d\gamma \notag \\
&= 2\frac{R_A}{|\vec{\Delta}|} \left[
\left(\vec{C}-\vec{\Delta}\right) t + r_0\vec{D}_c \sin(t) \right]_{t=t_1}^{t_2} , \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left(W_{AB}^{(2\tensor{2})}\right)_{ij}
&= \frac{R_A R_B}{|\vec{\Delta}|} \int_{-t_2}^{-t_1}
\left(\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_i}{R_B}\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_j}{R_B}
-\frac{\delta_{ij}}{3}\right) d\gamma \notag \\
&+ \frac{R_A R_B}{|\vec{\Delta}|} \int_{t_1}^{t_2}
\left(\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_i}{R_B}\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_j}{R_B}
-\frac{\delta_{ij}}{3}\right) d\gamma , \label{eq:C2b-W22t} \\
\left(W_{AB}^{(\vec{2}\vec{2})}\right)_{ij}
&= \frac{R_A R_B}{|\vec{\Delta}|} \int_{-t_2}^{-t_1}
\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_A(\gamma)\right)_i}{R_A}
\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_j}{R_B} d\gamma \notag \\
&+ \frac{R_A R_B}{|\vec{\Delta}|} \int_{t_1}^{t_2}
\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_A(\gamma)\right)_i}{R_A}
\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_j}{R_B} d\gamma , \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \left(W_{AB}^{(\vec{2}\tensor{2})}\right)_{ijk} \notag \\
& = \frac{R_A R_B}{|\vec{\Delta}|} \int_{-t_2}^{-t_1}
\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_A(\gamma)\right)_i}{R_A}
\left(
\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_j}{R_B}
\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_k}{R_B}
-\frac{\delta_{jk}}{3} \right) d\gamma \notag \\
& + \frac{R_A R_B}{|\vec{\Delta}|} \int_{t_1}^{t_2}
\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_A(\gamma)\right)_i}{R_A}
\left(
\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_j}{R_B}
\tfrac{\left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_k}{R_B}
-\frac{\delta_{jk}}{3} \right) d\gamma , \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \left(W_{AB}^{(\tensor{2}\tensor{2})}\right)_{ijkl} \notag \\
& = \frac{R_A R_B}{|\vec{\Delta}|} \int_{-t_2}^{-t_1}
\left(\tfrac{\left(\tensor{R}_A(\gamma)\right)_{ij}}{R_A^2}
-\frac{\delta_{ij}}{3} \right)
\left(\tfrac{\left(\tensor{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_{kl}}{R_B^2}
-\frac{\delta_{kl}}{3} \right) d\gamma \notag \\
& + \frac{R_A R_B}{|\vec{\Delta}|} \int_{t_1}^{t_2}
\left(\tfrac{\left(\tensor{R}_A(\gamma)\right)_{ij}}{R_A^2}
-\frac{\delta_{ij}}{3} \right)
\left(\tfrac{\left(\tensor{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_{kl}}{R_B^2}
-\frac{\delta_{kl}}{3} \right) d\gamma \label{eq:C2b-W2t2t} , \end{aligned}$$ where $\tensor{R}_A(\gamma) = \vec{R}_A(\gamma) \otimes \vec{R}_A(\gamma)$ with the tensor product $\otimes$, $\left(\tensor{R}_A(\gamma)\right)_{ij}
= \left(\vec{R}_A(\gamma)\right)_{i} \left(\vec{R}_A(\gamma)\right)_{j}$, and $\left(\tensor{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_{ij}
= \left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_{i} \left(\vec{R}_B(\gamma)\right)_{j}$. The analytical form of Eqs. (\[eq:C2b-W22t\])-(\[eq:C2b-W2t2t\]) follows from straight forward integration.
Case 3: Two equal spheres {#case-3-two-equal-spheres .unnumbered}
-------------------------
In the last case, sphere $B$ is equal to sphere $A$.\[sec:app-case1\] This case of equal spheres corresponds to a limiting case of the first two cases such that we do not need additional calculations. For example, case 1 already covers all situations where $\alpha=3$. These situations are addressed, when, in the discussion in Sec. \[sec:text-case1\], the correlations between a small and a large particle are called similar to the self-correlations of the small particles. In this discussion all cases with $\alpha\leq 2$ were neglected. In cases with $\alpha=2$, we find $$W_{AB}^{(22)} = \int_{z_L}^{z_R} \int \int
\delta\left(R_A-\sqrt{r^2+z^2}\right) \delta(R_B-R_A) d\vec{r} .$$ This result corresponds to Eq. (\[eq:C1-W32-1\]) in case 1, where $\alpha=3$ and $\beta=2$, because the $\Theta$-weight of sphere $A$ completely contains the weight function of sphere $B$ and, as a consequence, is irrelevant. Note that here the naming of spheres $A$ and $B$ was switched.
All remaining situations with $\alpha<2$ can be mapped onto the situation where $\alpha=2$, because all weights with $\alpha<3$ are $\delta$ weights and differ only in a prefactor. This applies even for the vectorial and tensorial weights: for example, when $\alpha=\beta=\vec{2}$, both vectors always point to the same point on the surface of both spheres such that they are parallel. Accordingly, the result is equal to the result obtained for $\alpha=\beta=2$. Similarly, a vectorial and a tensorial weight can be reduced to a scalar and a vectorial one, two tensorial ones can be reduced to two scalar ones, etc. In conclusions, all combinations of $\delta$ weights can be mapped onto the $\alpha=2$ situation.
[99]{}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 10.1080/00268978500101051) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.433352) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/00268979300102621) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0953-8984/21/47/474220) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/0953-8984/26/35/355008) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevE.82.051404) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.226101) [**](\doibase 10.2370/9783844018080) (, , ) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/23819) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/320340a0) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0295-5075/59/i=5/a=701) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nmat2286) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.145901) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1742-5468/2009/i=04/a=P04006) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2014.08.017) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2014.11.004) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms7089) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.4.1597) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.245701) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0295-5075/96/i=3/a=36010) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.83.031503) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/jp036593s) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms8110) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4898713) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B864) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.137.A1441) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.14.2264) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/00018737900101365) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/aic.10713) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0953-8984/2/9/001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.694) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/0953-8984/14/46/313) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0953-8984/18/37/002) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevE.86.021404) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.045701) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2738064) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.051703) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.980) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1520530) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.91.052121) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.125701) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.68.011306) [**](http://books.google.com/books?id=O32VXB9e5P4C) (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.88.042301) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1673824) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1675048) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/A902831E) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0953-8984/22/6/063102) “,” in [**](\doibase
10.1007/978-3-540-78767-9), , Vol. , (, , ) Chap. , pp. @noop [**]{}, ed. (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.321) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.018302) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.85.041150) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.90.042131) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4894137) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/cphc.200600527) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.62.251) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.433110) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/00268979100102501) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3072) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.248304) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/jp047763j) [**](https://books.google.de/books?id=XcdCmAEACAAJ), International Series of Monographs on Physics (, ) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.037802) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/jz4018943) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature07998) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3592563) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1039/c4sm00140k) [****, ()](\doibase
doi:10.1088/0953-8984/27/19/194129) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3246844) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/jp503224w) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/jz3004624) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.186.4161.350) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.268501) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1039/C5EE01192B) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0010-4655(87)90204-9) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.468428) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , )
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the motion of charged Brownian particles in an external magnetic field. It is found that a correlation appears between the components of particle velocity in the case of anisotropic friction, approaching asymptotically zero in the stationary limit. If magnetic field is smaller compared to the critical value, determined by frictional anisotropy, the relaxation of the correlation is non-oscillating in time. However, in a larger magnetic field this relaxation becomes oscillating. The phenomenon is related to the statistical dependence of the components of transformed random force caused by the simultaneous influence of magnetic field and anisotropic dissipation.'
address: |
Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Tartu,\
4 Tähe Str., 51010 Tartu, Estonia
author:
- 'N. Voropajeva'
- 'T. Örd'
title: Correlation in the velocity of a Brownian particle induced by frictional anisotropy and magnetic field
---
and
Charged particle Brownian motion ,Correlations
05.40-a ,05.10.Gg ,02.50.-r
Introduction
============
The problem of Brownian motion in an external magnetic field was first investigated in Refs. [@taylor; @kur1; @kur2] in connection with the diffusive processes in plasma. About forty years later certain developments [@czo; @tan; @holod; @zag; @jim] appeared in this area again. In particular, anisotropic diffusion across an external magnetic field was considered in Refs. [@holod; @zag].
In the present letter we demonstrate the appearance of the correlations in the velocity of charged Brownian particles caused by magnetic field. The effect is possible only in environment characterized by anisotropic friction. In what follows we will use a scheme, where the deterministic parts of the stochastic equations of motion are transformed into independent equations. It simplifies substantially the derivation of Fokker-Planck equation in velocity space as well as makes more easy the understanding of the relevant physical background. The approach is different from the method of Ref. [@jim], where rotating time-dependent basis was used to transform the Langevin equation in an external magnetic field.
Probability distribution in velocity space
==========================================
The equations of motion of a Brownian particle in an external magnetic field $\overrightarrow{B}=(0,0,B_z)$ reads $$\label{1}
\frac{dv_i(t)}{dt}=-\sum_{j=1}^3 \lambda_{ij}v_j+\xi_i(t) \;, \quad i=1,2,3=x,y,z \, ,$$ where $$\label{2}
\lambda_{ij}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\beta_x & -\omega_z & 0 \\
\omega_z & \beta_y & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \beta_z \\
\end{array}
\right) \, ,$$ $\omega_z=eB_z/mc$ is the cyclotron frequency and $\beta_{x,y,z}$ are the friction coefficients for a particle moving in the corresponding direction. Statistical properties of the random force are given by the conditions $$\label{3}
\langle\xi_i(t)\rangle=0\,, \quad \langle\xi_i(t)\xi_j(t')\rangle=
a_i\delta_{ij}\delta(t-t') \,,$$ where $a_i=2k_B T\beta_i/m$ are the components of the intensity of the Langevin source.
The system of equations (\[1\]) can be transformed into new equations of motion $$\label{4}
\frac{du_i(t)}{dt}=-\Lambda_i u_i(t)+\zeta_i (t)\,,$$ where $$\label{5}
\Lambda_{1,2}=
\frac{1}{2}\bigl(\beta_{x}+\beta_y\pm i\,\Omega\bigr), \quad \Lambda_3= \beta_{z} \,,$$ $$\label{6}
\Omega=\sqrt{4\omega^2_z-(\beta_{x}-\beta_{y})^2} \,,$$ $$\label{7}
\zeta_i(t)=
\sum_{j=1}^3 \alpha_{ij}\xi_j(t) \,,$$ by introducing, in general, complex velocities $$\label{8}
u_i=\sum_{j=1}^3 \alpha_{ij}v_j \, .$$ Here the matrix of the velocity transformation (\[8\]) can be chosen as $$\label{9}
\alpha_{ij}= \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
%\begin{pmatrix}
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{1+|b_{1,2}|^{2}}} & \dfrac{-b_{1,2}}{\sqrt{1+|b_{1,2}|^{2}}} & 0 \\
\dfrac{-b_{1,2}}{\sqrt{1+|b_{1,2}|^{2}}} & \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{1+|b_{1,2}|^{2}}} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
%\end{pmatrix}.
\end{array}
\right)\, ,$$ where $$\label{9+}
b_{1,2}=-\frac{\Lambda_{1,2}-\beta_x}{\omega_z} \, .$$ In Eq. (\[9\]) one has to take $b_{1}$ if $\beta_{x}>\beta_{y}$, and $b_{2}$ if $\beta_{x}<\beta_{y}$. Thereby it is guaranteed that the limit $\omega_z\rightarrow0$ leads to the unity transformation, $\alpha_{ij}=\delta_{ij}$. In the case of isotropic friction $\beta_{x,y,z}=\beta$ the matrix (\[9\]) reduces to the following unitary matrix $$\label{9a}
\alpha_{ij}= \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
%\begin{pmatrix}
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \dfrac{\pm i |\omega_z|}{\sqrt{2}\omega_z} & 0 \\
\dfrac{\pm i |\omega_z|}{\sqrt{2}\omega_z} & \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
%\end{pmatrix}.
\end{array}
\right) \, ,$$ being independent of magnetic field strength and friction coefficient $\beta$. The latter transform is in certain sense close to the approach used in Ref. [@lan] in the examination of the deterministic motion of a charged particle in a magnetic field. The choice of sign in Eq. (\[9a\]) is arbitrary.
On the basis of the Langevin equations (\[4\]) one obtains the Fokker-Planck equation $$\label{11}
\frac{dW(\vec u,t|\vec u_0)}{dt}=
\!\!\sum_{i=1}^3 \!\frac{\partial}{\partial u_i}
\left[\Lambda_i u_iW(\vec u,t|\vec u_0)\right]+
\sum_{i,j=1}^3 \frac{A_{ij}}{2} \,
\frac{\partial^2W(\vec u,t|\vec u_0)}{\partial u_i \partial
u_j}$$ with the initial condition $W(\vec u,0|\vec u_0)=\delta(\vec u-\vec u_0)$. In Eq. (\[11\]) $$\label{10}
A_{ij}=\sum_{k=1}^3 \alpha_{ik}\alpha_{jk}a_{k}\,.$$
The solution of Eq. (\[11\]) in terms of the velocity $\overrightarrow{v}$ is $$\label{12}
W(\vec v,t|\vec v_0)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3det[h_{ij}]}}\,
exp\left[-\frac12\sum_{i,j=1}^3
\left(h^{-1}\right)_{ij}(v_i-\langle v_i\rangle)(v_j-\langle v_j\rangle)\right]\,,$$ where $$\label{13}
h_{ij}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\dfrac{K_{22}}{K_{11}K_{22}-K_{12}^{\,2}} & -\dfrac{K_{12}}{K_{11}K_{22}-K_{12}^{\,2}} & 0 \\
-\dfrac{K_{12}}{K_{11}K_{22}-K_{12}^{\,2}} & \dfrac{K_{11}}{K_{11}K_{22}-K_{12}^{\,2}} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \dfrac{1}{K_{33}}
\end{array}
\right) \,,$$ and the averaged values of the components of velocity are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{14}
\quad \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \langle v_x\rangle &=& \frac{K_2K_{12}-K_1K_{22}}{2(K_{11}K_{22}-K_{12}^{\,2})} \; ,\nonumber\\
\langle v_y\rangle &=& \frac{K_1K_{12}-K_2K_{11}}{2(K_{11}K_{22}-K_{12}^{\,2})} \; ,\nonumber\\
\langle v_z\rangle &=& \frac{-K_3}{2K_{33}} \; .\end{aligned}$$ The following notations have been used in Eqs. (\[13\]) and (\[14\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15}
K_{ij}&=&
\frac{1}{g}\biggl[\frac{(\alpha_{21})^{2}a_{1}+(\alpha_{22})^{2}a_{2}}{2\Lambda_2}\,\frac{\alpha_{1i}\,\alpha_{1j}}{\varphi_{11}}+
\frac{(\alpha_{11})^2a_{1}+(\alpha_{12})^{2}a_{2}}{2\Lambda_1}\,\frac{\alpha_{2i}\,\alpha_{2j}}{\varphi_{22}}\nonumber\\
&-\!&\frac{\alpha_{11}\alpha_{21}a_{1}+\alpha_{12}\alpha_{22}a_{2}}{\Lambda_1+\Lambda_2}\,
(\alpha_{1i}\,\alpha_{2j}+\alpha_{1j}\,\alpha_{2i})\frac{\varphi_{12}}{\varphi_{11}\varphi_{22}}\biggr]\:; \quad i,j=1,2 \:, \nonumber\\
K_{33}&=&\frac{2\Lambda_3}{a_{3}}\,\varphi_{33}^{-1}\:,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15a}
K_i&=&\frac{-2}{g}\biggl\{\Bigl[\alpha_{11}f_{11}+\alpha_{12}f_{12}\Bigr]
\biggl[\frac{(\alpha_{21})^2a_{1}+(\alpha_{22})^{2}a_{2}}{2\Lambda_2}\,\frac{\alpha_{1i}}{\varphi_{11}}\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{\alpha_{11}\alpha_{21}a_{1}+\alpha_{12}\alpha_{22}a_{2}}{\Lambda_1+\Lambda_2}\,
\frac{\varphi_{12}}{\varphi_{11}\varphi_{22}}\,\alpha_{2i}\biggr]\nonumber\\
&+&\Bigl[\alpha_{21}f_{21}+\alpha_{22}f_{22}\Bigr]
\biggl[\frac{(\alpha_{11})^2a_{1}+(\alpha_{12})^{2}a_{2}}{2\Lambda_1}\,\frac{\alpha_{2i}}{\varphi_{22}}\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{\alpha_{11}\alpha_{21}a_{1}+\alpha_{12}\alpha_{22}a_{2}}{\Lambda_1+\Lambda_2}\,
\frac{\varphi_{12}}{\varphi_{11}\varphi_{22}}\,\alpha_{1i}\biggr]\biggr\} \:; \quad i=1,2 \:, \nonumber\\
K_3&=&-\frac{4\Lambda_3}{a_{3}}f_{33}\,\varphi_{33}^{-1}\:,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15b}
g&=&\frac{\left({\alpha_{11}}^{2}a_{1}+{\alpha_{12}}^{2}a_{2}\right)
\left({\alpha_{21}}^{2}a_{1}+{\alpha_{22}}^{2}a_{2}\right)}{4\Lambda_1\Lambda_2}\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{(\alpha_{11}\alpha_{21}a_{1}+\alpha_{12}\alpha_{22}a_{2})^2}{(\Lambda_1+\Lambda_2)^2}
\frac{{\varphi_{12}}^2}{\varphi_{11}\varphi_{22}}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15c}
\varphi_{ij}&=&1-e^{-(\Lambda_i+\Lambda_j)t}\:, \quad f_{ij}=v_{0j}e^{-\Lambda_it}\:.\end{aligned}$$
Correlation between the components of velocity
==============================================
Now we concentrate attention to the correlation between the components of the velocity of a particle, perpendicular to a magnetic field, $v_{x}$ and $v_{y}$. The correlation function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{16}
k(t)=\langle v_{x}(t)v_{y}(t)\rangle-\langle v_{x}(t)\rangle \langle v_{y}(t)\rangle\end{aligned}$$ is determined by Eqs. (\[12\]) and (\[13\]), which yield $k(t)=h_{12}$. As a result we have on the basis of Eqs. (\[5\]), (\[9\]), (\[13\]) and (\[15\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{17}
k(t)=\frac{-4k_B T}{m}\omega_z(\beta_x-\beta_y)\left[\frac{
sin\left(\frac{\Omega t}{2}\right)
}{\Omega}\right]^2\,e^{-(\beta_x+\beta_y)t}\,.\end{aligned}$$
{width="0.6\linewidth"}
Consequently, the correlation function (\[16\]) is nonzero only if $\omega_z\neq0$ and $\beta_x\neq\beta_y$, i.e. in the presence of external magnetic field and frictional anisotropy. The correlation approaches asymptotically zero in the stationary limit ($t\rightarrow\infty$). In this relaxation process one can distinguish two regimes. The time dependence of $k(t)$ is non-oscillating (see Fig. 1) if $|\omega_{z}|<\omega_{z}^{cr}$. The oscillating behavior (see Fig. 2) appears if $|\omega_{z}|>\omega_{z}^{cr}$. Here $$\begin{aligned}
\label{18}
\omega_{z}^{cr}=\frac{|\beta_{x}-\beta_{y}|}{2}\end{aligned}$$ is the critical value of the cyclotron frequency separating the regions where $\Omega$ in Eq. (\[17\]) is imaginary or real quantity correspondingly.
{width="0.6\linewidth"}
Discussion
==========
In conclusion, we have found in the short time-scale the correlation between the components of the velocity of a charged Brownian particle caused by external magnetic field and frictional anisotropy. The effect arises[^1] due to the statistical dependence of the components of transformed random force $\zeta_{1,2}(t)$, determined by Eq. (\[7\]). On the basis of Eqs. (\[7\]) and (\[3\]) we have $$\label{19}
\langle\zeta_1(t)\zeta^{*}_2(t')\rangle=\sum_{k} \alpha_{1k}\alpha^{*}_{2k} a_k \delta(t-t')\, .$$ Whereas in the general case of anisotropic friction and non-zero magnetic field the sum $\sum_{k}\alpha_{1k}\alpha^{*}_{2k}a_k$ is not equal to zero, it is impossible to transform the system (\[1\]) into entirely independent equations. Although the deterministic part of the equations of motion (\[1\]) can be decoupled, the channel of correlation appears in Eqs. (\[4\]) for the components of stochastic force in presence of an external magnetic field and anisotropic dissipation. As a result the components of the velocity of a Brownian particle, perpendicular to the magnetic field, turn out to be correlated.
However, in the case of isotropic friction the expression $$\label{20}
\langle\zeta_i(t)\zeta^{*}_j(t')\rangle=\frac{2k_B T\beta}{m}\delta_{ij}\delta(t-t')$$ is valid for the arbitrary components of random force $\zeta_i(t)$ because the condition of unitary transformation, $\sum_{k}\alpha_{ik}\alpha^{*}_{jk}=\delta_{ij}$, holds. In this situation the system of equations (\[1\]) can be entirely decoupled and the correlation between the components of velocity is absent. We obtain the same result for anisotropic friction if magnetic field equals to zero, due to $\alpha_{ij}=\delta_{ij}$ in this case.
The authors acknowledge support by Estonian Science Foundation through Grant No. 6789.
[00]{}
J.B.Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6 (1961) 262. B.Kursunoǧlu, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 17 (1962) 259. B.Kursunoǧlu, Phys. Rev. 132 (1963) 21. R.Czopnik, P.Garbaczewski, Phys. Rev. E 63 (2001) 021105. T.P.Simões, R.E.Lagos, Physica A 355 (2005) 274. I.Holod, A.Zagorodny, J.Weiland, Phys. Rev. E 71 (2005) 046401. A.Zagorodny, I.Holod, Condens. Matter Phys. 3 (2000) 295. J.I.Jiménez-Aquino, M.Romero-Bastida, Phys. Rev. E 74 (2006) 041117. L.D.Landau, E.M.Lifshits, Classical theory of fields, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, 1987.
[^1]: Note also, that the necessary condition for the appearance of the effect is non-zero temperature (see Eq. (\[17\])), which unambiguously indicates to the entirely stochastic nature of the phenomenon.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Bulk $LaBa_2Cu_3O_{(7-y)}$ samples with different $Ag$ additions were investigated. It was shown that $Ag$ does not enter the crystallographic structure of the superconductor and segregates on the grain boundary region. Current path in these samples occurs through the proximity connected grains and this was confirmed from the temperature dependence of the critical current density and mutual inductance. By using the theory developed for the thin film structures we conclude that growing of the $Ag$ content increased the effective cross section and the normal metal thickness. The first one prevails at low concentration increasing the current. The second dominates at higher concentration leading to saturation or even lowering of the critical current.'
author:
- |
E. Nazarova, A. Zahariev, A. Angelow, K. Nenkov\
Institute of Solid State Physics, 72 Trackia Blvd., 1784 Sofia, BG
title: ' PROXIMITY EFFECT IN BULK $LaBa_2Cu_3O_{7-y}$ SAMPLES WITH $Ag$ ADDITIONS'
---
= 16truecm = 23truecm = -1truecm = -2truecm
Introduction
============
Thin film structures prepared from low and high temperature superconducting (HTSC) materials, based on the proximity effect, were widely discussed in literature [@kn:simon], [@kn:gijs],[@kn:deutscher] [@kn:durusoy]. Is it possible a proximity coupling to accur between the grains through normal metal inclusions in bulk HTSC samples? It is difficult to answer to this question having in mind low value and high anysotropy of coherence length ($\xi$) in HTSC. Nevertheless there were found some indications for the existence of the proximity effect in bulk samples [@kn:lubberts], [@kn:pinto], [@kn:jung]. The more frequently used experiments proving the existence of proximity junction like I-V and $dI/dV$ curves, temperature dependence of normal layer coherence length ($\xi_n$) or exponential decay of $I_c$ with increasing of the normal layer thickness, L, are not applicable to the case of bulk samples. The aim of this work is to indicate that the critical current in bulk samples with normal metal inclusions can be governed by the proximity effect. This is very important from practical point of view because similar conditions can exist in Ag-sheathed tapes and wires.
Experimental
============
The investigated samples were prepared by the solid state reaction method described in detail previously [@kn:nazarova]. Five samples with different $Ag$ additions (2 wt%, 5 wt%, 10 wt%, 15 wt% and 20 wt%) and one without $Ag$ additions were examined. The specimens were characterized by X-ray diffraction analysis using DRON 4M powder diffractometer with $Cu_{k\alpha}$ radiation and Scanning Electron Microscope Philips 515 with EDX analysis. Temperature dependence of critical current at zero magnetic field was measured in a specially designed device. The necessary temperature was maintained by thermoregulator within $\pm 0.15$ K with an accuracy of $\pm 0.01$ K. The appearance of $10 \mu v/cm$ voltage is accepted as a critical current criterion. The “screening” method (according to [@kn:claassen]) was used for the mutual inductance determination.
Results and discussions
=======================
$LaBa_2Cu_3O_{7-y}$ samples with starting composition 1:2:3 usually contain a small amount of $BaCuO_2$ impurity phase [@kn:wada], [@kn:song]. X-ray diffraction analysis of our undoped samples also detected the presence of $BaCuO_2$. The impurity phase is not observed for the $Ag$ doped samples. A very small shift (less than 0.05 degree) of the main orthorhombic peaks was observed for the $Ag$ doped samples. This shift corresponds to the change of $"c"$ lattice parameter from 11.8329 A for undoped sample to 11.8256 A for 20 wt% $Ag$ doped sample. Such deviation, however, cannot be due to $Ag$ incorporation in 1:2:3 unit sell because it is shortenning and very small. $Ag$ is melted during the process of sample synthesis and incorporates significant amount of oxygen. It is more reasonable to think that the inclusion of this oxygen in 1:2:3 phase is able to produce the observed reduction in $"c"$ lattice parameter. SEM investigations also support the $Ag$ segregation. EDX analysis in the superconducting grains shows nominal compositions close to 1:2:3 stoihiometry and no $Ag$ within detectable limits has been found. $Ag$ additions are statistically uniformly distributed through the specimen between the grains. Therefore we assume that $Ag$ inclusions do not enter the crystallographic structure of $LaBa_2Cu_3O_{7-y}$. During the synthesis process $Ag$ moves out of growing grains and segregates on the grain boundary regions. Similar results were observed for the $Ag$ doped $YBCO$ samples [@kn:singh], [@kn:lin] and $Bi-2223$ phase [@kn:kawasaki].
For doped and undoped samples different grain boundary conditions exist. The variations of the grain boundary content significantly influences the critical current of the samples. Grain boundaries of undoped samples mainly contain the insulating impurity phase. It is reasonable to expect that current path occurs through the superconductor – insulator – supeconductor (S-I-S) system. In doped samples, with the increasing of the $Ag$ content, the current flows predominantly through the $Ag$ coupled grains. These samples can be considered as a superconductor – normal metal – superconductor (S-N-S) system on the level of individual grains. In case of individual junction the $I_c(T)$ dependence over temperature range below $T_c$ provides a clear inside into the nature of the junction. This dependence can be used to distinguish $S-N-S$ devices from other junction types. In our samples we have normal metal barriers with different thickness and electron mean free path is not limited from the thickness of the normal interlayer as in the thin film structures. The average dimension of the $Ag$ particles determined from the width of the $Ag$ x - ray diffraction pick is of order of 30 nm for the sample with 20 wt%. The normal metal coherent length $\xi_n$ determines the mean size of the Cooper pair in the normal metal barier.
Assuming that the carrier mean free path $l_n$ in the normal metal is determined from the dimensions of the $Ag$ particles both limits: “clean” ($l_n > \xi_n$) and “dirty” ($l_n < \xi_n$) will be present at nitrogen temperatures in our unusual for the proximity studies samples. But only $S-N-S$ junctions in “dirty” limit will support the transport current fascilitating the grains connection in the specimens. In fact normal metal thickness, L, has to be of order of $\xi_n$ for achieving a intergranular current close to intragranular one. By decreasing the temperature, T, normal metal cocherence length will increase according to the relation [@kn:delin]: $$\label{eq:xx}
\xi_n = \left ( {{\hbar v_n l_n} \over {6\pi kT}} \right )^{1 \over 2},$$ where $v_n$ is the Fermi velocity of normal metal and $k$ is the Boltzman constant. At nitrogen temperatures $\xi_n$ will be about 15 nm and will increase up to 66 nm at 4 K for $l_n$ equal to the average partical size of $Ag$. Some of the $S-N-S$ transitions being in “clean” limit at nitrogen temperature will turn to “dirty” limit at lower temperatures. This will increase to some extent the number of $S-N-S$ connections able to support high intergranular current. The systematic theoretical investigation of the behavior of $S-N-S$ thin film structures was carried out first by De Gennes[@kn:degennes]. An expression has been derived for $I_c$ as a function of temperature T and L: $$\label{eq:jctl}
{I_c(T,L)} = {{\pi A|\Delta_i|^2 L} \over {2e R_n kT_c \xi_n}}\exp \left(-L \over \xi_n \right),$$ where $\Delta_i$ is the superconducting gap of the normal interlayer interface, $A$ is the cross section of the individual $S-N-S$ transition, $R_n$ is the normal layer resistance, $T_c$ is the superconductor transition temperature and $e$ is the electron charge. Eq. (\[eq:jctl\]) was derived using dirty limit ($l_n < \xi_n$) boundary conditions. Following Delin at all [@kn:delin] for an $S-N-S$ structure prepared from a high –$T_c$ superconductor and a noble metal as interlayer, $\Delta_i^2$ will have the form: $$\label{eq:delta}
\Delta_i^2 = \Delta^2{2 \over \pi^2 \gamma^2}\ {{T_c - T} \over T},$$ where $\Delta$ is the superconductor energy gap far from the interface region and $\gamma$ is the so called interface parameter. The value of $\gamma$ is given by the ratio $$\label{eq:gamma}
\gamma = \left( {N_n \rho_s} \over {N_s \rho_n} \right)^{1 \over 2},$$ where $N_n$ and $N_s$ are the normal metal and superconductor density of states, respectively, and $\rho_n$ and $\rho_s$ are their resistivities, respectively. For high – $T_c$ superconductor – noble metal ($Ag$) junction $N_n \gg N_s$ ($N_n = 5.85.10^{28} m^{-3}$ and for YBCO $N_s = 5.0.10^{27} m^{-3}$) and $\rho_n \ll \rho_s$ ($\rho_n \approx 0.0084.10^{-6} \Omega .m$ and for YBCO $\rho_s = 0.77.10^{-6} \Omega .m$ at 77K) therefore $\gamma \gg 1$ ($\gamma \approx 1078$). Substituting Eq.(\[eq:xx\]) and Eq.(\[eq:delta\]) in Eq.(\[eq:jctl\]) and assuming a BCS temperature dependence of the energy gap $\Delta (T)$ in the HTSC material: $$\label{eq:delta1}
\Delta (T) \approx 3.2\ k T_c\ \left( 1- {T \over T_c} \right)^{1\over 2},$$ an useful expression for $I_c(T,L)$ is obtained: $$\label{eq:jctl1}
I_c(T,L) =
{{(3.2)^2 \sqrt 6 k^{3 \over 2} A T^{1 \over 2}{(T_c - T)^2}} \over {e \rho_n \gamma^2 (\pi \hbar v_n l_n)^{1 \over 2}}}
\exp \left[ -L \left (6 \pi k T \over \hbar v_n l_n \right)^{1 \over 2} \right].$$ Eq.(\[eq:jctl1\]) present the temperature dependence of the critical current across the $S-N-S$ structure. We will use this equation to explain our experimental results. Dividing both sides of Eq.(\[eq:jctl1\]) by the sample cross section, in the left side we obtain the critical current density through the sample. It is seen that temperature dependence of the critical current density is following: $$\label{eq:jt}
J_c(T) \propto T^{1 \over 2}(T_c-T)^2 \exp (-T^{1 \over 2}).$$ The term $(T_c - T)^2$ will dominate this dependence because the exponential and $T^{1 \over 2}$ terms have a weak influence. This is shown in the Fig.1. It present $J_c(T)$ experimental dependencies for the $Ag$ doped samples. The experimental data for sample with 20 wt% $Ag$ are fitted twice: fit 1 - by the $(T_c - T)^2$ term only, and fit 2 - by the temperature dependence according to (\[eq:jt\]). Both fits show very close results which give us reason to use the simple one ignoring in fact $\xi_n(T)$. It was found also that the quadratic fit (straight lines) gives the least mean square deviation from the data for 5 to 20 wt% $Ag$ doped samples, when the fits of type $(T_c - T)^n$ with $n \leq 2$ were examined. For the sample with 2 wt% $Ag$ experimental results can be fitted better with linear temperature dependence. The quadratic fit is also possible. At this concentration it is difficult to create the current path entirely through the $Ag$ connected grains. More frequently the connection occurs through the insulating phase and this dependence resembles $J_c$ vs. $(T_c - T)$ for undoped samples. For the comparison, on the Fig.2 $J_c$ vs. $(T_c - T)$ is presented for undoped sample. The line gives the best linear fit to the data. The temperature dependence of current across the $S-I-S$ Jousephson junction is described by the Ambegaokar - Baratoff dependence [@kn:ambegaokar]. For values $T < T_c$ but close to $T_c$ a linear temperature dependence occurs. By lowering the temperature the current reachs the saturation. In fact $Ag$ additions change the mechanism of current flow on the basis of the proximity effect and its value increased.
In the Fig.3 $\sqrt{J_c}$ vs. $(T_c -T)$ plots are shown for $Ag$ doped samples. It is seen that with increasing of the $Ag$ content the slopes of the lines increase and a tendency to a saturation can be noticed too. According to Eq.(\[eq:jctl1\]) $A$ and $L$ quantities can be influenced by the $Ag$ amount. For our samples $A$ has a meaning of an effective cross section. With increasing of the $Ag$ amount both quantites $A$ and $L$ could increase too. At small $Ag$ concentrations the firs one prevails raising the value of critical current density in the sample. At higher concentration $A$ goes to a saturation and $L$ – increasing begins to dominate, lowering the probability for the proximity connection between the grains. This leads first to a saturation and then to a current decreasing when $L> (2-3) \xi_n$. This can serve as a basis of explanation of the observed saturation tendency in our case and the lowering of the critical current density reported by some authors [@kn:jung], [@kn:singh], [@kn:itoh] when the $Ag$ additions come nearer to some critical concentration. This concentration is technologically dependent. In the Fig.4 normalyzed mutual inductance is presented as a function of temperature for the non doped sample and sample with 20 wt% $Ag$ additions. It is seen that in wide temperature interval below $T_c$ the sample with $Ag$ has a lower mutual inductance than non doped. As the mutual inductance is proportional to the density of superconducting electrons, $n_s$[@kn:claassen]. it is lowered in the sample with $Ag$ due to the lowering of $n_s$ in normal metal inclusions. $Ag$ particles with different thickness $L$ exsit in the sample. By lowering the temperature below $T_c$, they will be able to connect superconducting grains when their thickness $L$ becomes of order of $\xi_n$ according to Eq.(\[eq:xx\]). These investigations are important from the point of view of practical applications of HTSC materials in wires and tapes. For example the “powder in tube” method, which is widely used for tapes preparation, ensure the existence of HTSC materials/silver interface. During the heat treatment process of the tape preparation, $Ag$ diffusion between the superconducting grains on the interface region is possible. Investigations of transport current distributions in $Ag$ sheathed $Bi-2223$ based tapes showed that high current densities are observed in a thin layer ($(2-3) \mu m$ width) located close to the silver, which is roughly 10 - 15 % of the total superconducting area [@kn:welp]. Therefore, when the preparation technology ensures the formation of $Ag$ particles with dimensions of order of $\xi_n$, the current path through the specimens will be determined by the proximity effect. Grain boundaries containing normal metal with various thickness can exist in doped samples. The current path, however, will be through the boundaries with the thickness of order of $\xi_n$. In conclusion we investigate bulk 1:2:3 HTSC material with normal metal ($Ag$) inclusions with an average dimension of order of $\xi_n$. It was shown that the current path in these samples is based on the proximity coupling between the grains. We establish that $J_c(T)$ dependence below $T_c$ is quadratic which is typical for $S-N-S$ structures. Mutual inductance measurements also support this type of intergranular current. By using the theory developed for thin film structures we analyze the experimental results for the samples with different $Ag$ amount. When the $Ag$ additions increased the number of proximity coupled grains and normal metal thickness increased, too. If the first one dominates the critical current in the sample will increase, while the domination of the second leads to a saturation or current decreasing when $L> (2-3) \xi_n$. The value of the current through connected in series $S-N-S$ transitions is limited by the grains with the smallest cross section, A, and the largest thickness, L.
Acknowledgment
==============
The authors are grateful to Dr. Ram Kossowsky supporting the presentation of the work at the NATO ARW.
This work was partly supported by the National Foundation “Scientific Research” under Grant 421.
[99]{} R. Simon and P. M. Chaikin, Phys. Rev. B, [**23**]{} (9) (1981) 4463. M. A. M. Gijs, D. Scholten, Th van Rooy and A. M. Gerrits Phys. Rev. B, [**41**]{} (16), (1990) 11627. G.Deutscher, R.W.Simon , J. Appl. Phys., [**69**]{} (7), (1991) 4137. H. Z. Durusoy, D. Lew, L. Lombardo, A. Kapitulnik, T. H. Geball, M. R. Beasley, Physica C 226, N3-4 (1996) 253 G. Lubberts, J. Appl. Phys., [**68**]{} (2), (1990) 688. R. Pinto, P. R. Apte and S. P. Pai, Physica C [**207**]{} (1993) 13 J. Jung, M. A-K Mohamed and J. P. Franck, Supercond. Sci Technol., [**4**]{} (1991) S217. E. Nazarova, M. Kostova, A. Zahariev and I. Iordanov, Cond. Matt. and Mater. Comm., [**2**]{} (1995) 31. J. H. Claassen, Magnetic Susceptibility of Superconductors and Other Spin Systems, ed. by R.A.Hein et al., Plenum Press, NY, 1991 pp 405-422 T. Wada, N. Susuki, A. Maeda, T. Yabe, K. Uchinokura, S. Uchida, S. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. B, [**39**]{} (1989) 9126. Y. Song, J. Golben, S. Chittipedi and R. Gaines, Phys. Rev. B, [**28**]{} (1988) 4605. J. P. Singh, H. J. Leu, R. B. Poeppel, E. Van Voortees, G. T. Goudey, K. Winsley, Donglu Shi, J. Appl. Phys., [**66**]{} (1989) 3154. J. J. Lin, T. M. Chen, Y. D. Yao, J. W. Chen, Y. S. Gou, Jap. J. Appl. Phys., [**29**]{} (1990) 497. K. Kawasaki, H. Ikeda, R. Yoshizaki and K. Yoshikawa, ICMC Conf.,Kitakyshu, May 21-24, 1996 K. A. Delin, A. W. Kleinsasser, Supercond. Sci. Technol., v.9, N4 (1996) 227 P. G. De Gennes, Rev. of Mod. Phys. [**36**]{} (1964) 225. V. Ambegaokar, A. Baratoff, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**10**]{} (1963) 486. M. Itoh, H. Ishigaki, T. Ohyama, T. Minemoto, H. Nojiri, M. Motokawa, J. Mater. Res., [**6**]{}, N11 (1991) 2272. U. Welp, D. O. Gunter, G. W. Crabtree, W. Shong, U. Balachandran, P. Haldar, R. S. Sokolowski, V. K. Vlasko-Vlasov, V. I. Nikitenko, Nature, [**376**]{} (1995) 44.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**Remark on the Limit Case of Positive Mass** ]{}
Department of Mathematics, Inha University\
Yonghyoundong 253, 402-751 Inchon, Korea\
e-mail: [email protected]
[**Abstract:**]{} In \[5\] Herzlich proved a new positive mass theorem for Riemannian 3-manifolds $(N, g)$ whose mean curvature of the boundary allows some positivity. In this paper we study what happens to the limit case of the theorem when, at a point of the boundary, the smallest positive eigenvalue of the Dirac operator of the boundary is strictly larger than one-half of the mean curvature (in this case the mass $m(g)$ must be strictly positive). We prove that the mass is bounded from below by a positive constant $c(g), \, m(g) \geq c(g)$, and the equality $m(g) = c(g)$ holds only if, outside a compact set, $(N,
g)$ is conformally flat and the scalar curvature vanishes. The constant $c(g)$ is uniquely determined by the metric $g$ via a Dirac-harmonic spinor.
[**MSC(2000):**]{} 53C27, 83C40\
[**Keywords:**]{} Positive mass theorem, Harmonic spinor, Rigidity\
Introduction
============
Let $(N, g)$ be a complete Riemannian 3-manifold with boundary which is diffeomorphic to the Euclidean space ${\mathbb R}^3$ minus an open 3-ball centered at the origin. Let $ r(y) = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^3 y_i^2}, \, y = (y_1, y_2, y_3 ) \in
{\mathbb R}^3$, be the standard distance function to the origin of ${\mathbb
R}^3$. Then $(N, g)$ is called [*asymptotically flat*]{} of order $\tau > \frac{1} {2}$, if there is a diffeomorphism $ \Phi : N \longrightarrow {\mathbb R}^3 \backslash \mbox{\{an open 3-ball\}}$ such that the coefficients of the metric $g$ in the induced rectangular coordinates satisfy $$g_{ij} = \delta_{ij} + O(r^{-\tau}), \qquad g_{ij,k} =
O(r^{-\tau-1}) , \qquad g_{ij,k,l} = O( r^{-\tau-2})$$ as $r = r(\Phi) \longrightarrow \infty$. Let $S(r) \subset N$ denote the $\Phi$-inverse image of a round 2-sphere in ${\mathbb R}^3$, centered at the origin and of sufficiently large radius $r>0$. Throughout the paper we identify $$N = \bigcup_{r \geq r_o} S(r) \quad \mbox{for some fixed constant} \ r_o > 0 .$$ The [*mass*]{} of $(N, g)$ is usually defined by \[1\] $$m(g) = \frac{1}{16 \pi} \, \lim_{r
\to \infty} \sum_{i,j=1}^3 \int _{S(r)} ( g_{ij,j} - g_{jj,i} ) \nu^i dS,$$ where $\nu$ is the outward unit normal to spheres $S(r)$ and $dS$ is the area form of spheres $S(r) \subset N$. We remark here that one can express this definition in a coordinate-independent way, by considering a flat metric on $N$ as a reference metric. Namely, let $g_{\rm eu}$ be a metric on $N$ which is the pullback of the Euclidean metric on ${\mathbb R}^3 \backslash \mbox{\{an open 3-ball\}}$ via the diffeomorphism $ \Phi : N \longrightarrow {\mathbb R}^3 \backslash \mbox{\{an open 3-ball\}}$. Then the equation (1.1) is in fact equal to $$\begin{aligned}
m(g) & = & \frac{1}{16 \pi} \, \lim_{r \to \infty} \int _{S(r)}
g_{\rm eu} ( {\rm div}_{g_{\rm eu}} (g) - {\rm grad}_{g_{\rm eu}} ( {\rm Tr}_{g_{\rm eu}} (g) ), \, V_{\rm eu} ) \mu_{S(r)}(g_{\rm eu}), \\
& & \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{16 \pi} \, \lim_{r \to \infty} \int _{S(r)}
g ( {\rm div}_{g_{\rm eu}} (g) - {\rm grad}_{g_{\rm eu}} ( {\rm Tr}_{g_{\rm eu}} (g) ), \, V_g ) \mu_{S(r)}(g),\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{\rm eu}$ (resp. $V_g$) is the outward unit normal to spheres $(S(r), g_{\rm eu})$ (resp. $(S(r), g)$) and $\mu_{S(r)}(g_{\rm eu})$ (resp. $\mu_{S(r)}(g)$) is the area form of spheres $(S(r), g_{\rm eu})$ (resp. $(S(r), g)$). When one applies the Witten-type spinor method to prove positivity of the mass, one should use the latter equation (1.3) \[2, 5, 6, 9, 11\]. Note that the equations (1.2)-(1.3) are independent of deformation of the foliation $N = \bigcup_{r \geq r_o} S(r) $ via a diffeomorphism $F : N \longrightarrow N$ , since Stokes’ theorem implies that $$\begin{aligned}
m(g) & = & \frac{1}{16 \pi} \, \lim_{r \to \infty} \int _{S(r)}
g ( {\rm div}_{g_{\rm eu}} (g) - {\rm grad}_{g_{\rm eu}} ( {\rm Tr}_{g_{\rm eu}} (g) ), \, V_g ) \mu_{S(r)}(g) \\
& & \\
& = & \frac{1}{16 \pi} \, \int _{\partial N}
g ( {\rm div}_{g_{\rm eu}} (g) - {\rm grad}_{g_{\rm eu}} ( {\rm Tr}_{g_{\rm eu}} (g) ), \, V_g ) \mu_{S(r)}(g) \\
& & \\
& & + \frac{1}{16 \pi} \, \int _N {\rm div}_g \Big\{
{\rm div}_{g_{\rm eu}} (g) - {\rm grad}_{g_{\rm eu}} ( {\rm Tr}_{g_{\rm eu}} (g) ) \Big\} \mu_{S(r)}(g) \end{aligned}$$ whose right-hand side is independent of a choice of foliation on $N$ by 2-spheres.
The mass is a geometric invariant of Riemannian asymptotically flat manifolds and of importance in Riemannian geometry as well as in general relativity. In \[3, 7\] one finds an excellent exposition of the positive mass conjecture as well as the Penrose conjecture and a full list of related papers. A fundamental problem about the mass is to investigate the relation between the scalar curvature $S_g$ of the manifold $(N, g)$, the mean curvature ${\rm Tr}_g(\Theta)$ of the inner boundary $(\partial N, g \big\vert_{\partial N} )$ and the mass $m(g)$ (Here $\Theta$ indicates the second fundamental form of the boundary). The Riemannian positive mass theorem, proved by Schoen and Yau \[10\], states that, if $(N, g)$ is an asymptotically flat 3-manifold of non-negative scalar curvature $S_g \geq 0$ with minimal boundary ${\rm Tr}_g(\Theta) \equiv 0$, then the mass is non-negative $m(g) \geq 0$. In fact, the limit case of zero mass can not be attained and so the mass must be strictly positive. The Penrose conjecture, recently proved by Huisken and Ilmanen \[7\], improves the positive mass theorem and states that, if the boundary is not only minimal but also outermost (i.e., $N$ contains no other compact minimal hypersurfaces), then $$m(g) \ \geq \ 4 \sqrt{\frac{{\rm Area}(\partial N, g)}{\pi} }$$ with equality if and only if $(N, g)$ is isometric to the spatial Schwarzschild manifold.
In \[5\] Herzlich proved a new positive mass theorem for manifolds with inner boundary (see Theorem 2.1), making use of Dirac-harmonic spinors with well-chosen spectral boundary condition (see the PDE system (2.7) below). A remarkable feature of the theorem is that the mass $m(g)$ is non-negative even if there is some positivity of the mean curvature of the boundary. The limit case of zero mass (the flat space) occurs only if the smallest positive eigenvalue $\lambda$ of the Dirac operator of the boundary is equal to one-half of the mean curvature ${\rm Tr}_g (\Theta)$, i.e., $$\lambda = 2 \, \sqrt{ \frac{\pi}{ {\rm Area} (\partial N, g) } } = \frac{1}{2} \, {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) .$$
The object of this paper is to study what happens to the limit case of the theorem when $$2 \, \sqrt{ \frac{\pi}{ {\rm Area} (\partial N, g) } } \, \geq \, \frac{1}{2} \, \sup_{\partial N} \{ {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) \}
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad 2 \, \sqrt{ \frac{\pi}{ {\rm Area} (\partial N, g) } } \not\equiv \frac{1}{2} \, {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) ,$$ in which case the zero mass $m(g) = 0$ can not be attained. We will prove (see Theorem 3.1) that there exists a positive constant $c(g) >0$, uniquely determined by the metric $g$ via a Dirac-harmonic spinor, such that $m(g) \geq c(g)$ and the equality $m(g) = c(g)$ occurs only if, outside a compact set, $(N, g)$ is conformally flat and the scalar curvature $S_g \equiv 0$ vanishes. It will also be shown that the equality $m(g) = c(g)$ is indeed attained if $(N, g)$ is conformally flat, the conformal factor being constant on the inner boundary $\partial N$, and the scalar curvature is everywhere zero. The idea to prove the rigidity statement is that, near infinity, one can conformally deform the considerd metric as well as the connection, using the length of a harmonic spinor without zeros as the conformal factor.
The Witten-Herzlich method
==========================
In this section we recall some basic facts concerning the Witten-type spinor method used by Herzlich to prove a positive mass theorem for manifolds with inner boundary \[2, 5, 6, 9, 11\]. Let $( \partial_{\theta}, \partial_{\phi}, \partial_r)$ be a frame field on $(N, g)$ determined by spherical coordinates $( \theta, \phi , r)$. Applying the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization process to $( \partial_{\theta}, \partial_{\phi}, \partial_r)$, we obtain a $g$-orthonormal frame $(E_1, E_2, - E_3)$, defined on an open dense subset of $N$, such that $V := - E_3$ is the outward unit normal to hypersurfaces $(S(r), g), \, r \geq r_o$, and each $E_j, \, j=1,2$, is tangent to $S(r)$, where $( S(r), g)$ denotes hypersurface $S(r)$ equipped with the metric induced by $g$. Let $\nabla$ and $\nabla^{\partial}$ be the Levi-Civita connection of $(N, g)$ and $(\partial N, g)$, respectively. Let $D$ be the Dirac operator of $(N, g)$ and $D^{\partial}$ the induced Dirac operator of $( \partial N, g )$, respectively. Let $\Theta := \nabla V$ be the second fundamental form of $(\partial N, g)$. Then we have $$\nabla_X \psi = \nabla^{\partial}_X \psi + \frac{1}{2} \Theta(X) \cdot E_3 \cdot \psi$$ for all vectors $X$ on $\partial N$ and so $$D \psi - E_3 \cdot
\nabla_{E_3} \psi =
\sum_{i=1}^{2} E_i \cdot \nabla^{\partial}_{E_i} \psi
- \frac{1}{2} ( {\rm Tr}_g \Theta ) E_3 \cdot \psi .$$
Let $\Sigma(N)$ and $\Sigma( \partial N )$ be the spinor bundle of $(N, g)$ and $( \partial N, g )$, respectively. Recall that the Clifford bundle ${\rm Cl} (\partial N) $ may be thought of as a subbundle of ${\rm Cl} (N) $, the Clifford multiplication $ {\rm
Cl}(\partial N) \times \Sigma(\partial N) \longrightarrow \Sigma(\partial N) $ being naturally related to the one $ {\rm Cl}(N) \times \Sigma(N)
\longrightarrow \Sigma(N) $ via either $$\pi_{\ast} (E_i \cdot E_3 \cdot \psi) = E_i \cdot ( \pi_{\ast}
\psi ) , \quad i=1,2 ,$$ or $$- \pi_{\ast} (E_i \cdot E_3 \cdot \psi) = E_i \cdot ( \pi_{\ast}
\psi ) ,$$ where $\pi_{\ast} : \Sigma(N) \longrightarrow \Sigma(\partial N)$ is the restriction map. The equation (2.1) is then projected to $\partial N$ as $$\pi_{\ast} ( E_3 \cdot D \psi + \nabla_{E_3} \psi ) = \mp \sum_{i=1}^{2} D^{\partial} (\pi_{\ast} \psi) +
\frac{1}{2} ( {\rm Tr}_g {\rm II} ) (\pi_{\ast} \psi) .$$
Regarding $\nabla^{\partial} \psi, \, \psi \in \Gamma( \Sigma (\partial N) )$, as spinor fields on $N$, not projected to the boundary $\partial N$, one verifies easily that the formula $$\nabla^{\partial}_X ( E_3 \cdot \psi ) = E_3 \cdot \nabla^{\partial}_X \psi$$ makes sense. Therefore $D^{\partial}$ anticommutes with the action of the unit normal $E_3$, and hence the discrete eigenvalue spectrum of $D^{\partial}$ is symmetric with respect to zero. Moreover, we note that, since the smallest absolute value of eigenvalues of $D^{\partial}$ must satisfy $$\lambda \ \geq \ 2 \, \sqrt{ \frac{\pi} {{\rm Area}(\partial N, g) } } ,$$ there is no non-trivial solutions to the equation $D^{\partial} \varphi = 0$.
Let $( \cdot , \cdot )_g = {\rm Re} \langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle_g$ be the real part of the standard Hermitian product $\langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle_g$ on the spinor bundle $\Sigma(N)$ over $(N, g)$. Then, using the scalar product $( \cdot , \cdot ) = ( \cdot , \cdot )_g$, one can describe the asymptotic behaviour of spinor fields as $$\vert \psi \vert = \sqrt{ ( \psi, \psi ) } = O (r^{-\kappa}), \quad \vert \nabla \psi \vert
= O (r^{-1-\kappa}) , \quad \mbox{etc.},
\quad \kappa >0 .$$
[**Remark:**]{} Using the formulas in Proposition 2.1 and Proposition 2.3 of the paper \[8\], one verifies that (2.6) is in fact equivalent to the decay condition $$\vert \psi \vert_{g_{\rm eu}} = \sqrt{ ( \psi, \psi )_{g_{\rm eu} } } = O (r^{-\kappa}) , \quad
\vert \nabla^{g_{\rm eu}} \, \psi \vert_{g_{\rm eu}}
= O (r^{-1-\kappa}) , \quad \mbox{etc.} ,$$ described in terms of the flat metric $g_{\rm eu}$.
Let $P_{\pm}$ be the $L^2$-orthogonal projection onto the subspace of positive (resp. negative) eigenspinors of the induced Dirac operator $D^{\partial}$. Let $W^{1, 2}_{-\tau}$ be the weighted Sobolev space defined in \[2\]. In the rest of the paper, we fix a constant spinor $\psi_o$ with $\vert \psi_o \vert = 1$ (i.e., $\psi_o$ is a parallel spinor with respect to the flat metric $g_{\rm eu}$), all the components of which are constant with respect to a spinor frame field induced by rectangular coordinates, and we use the rule (2.2) for the Clifford multiplication. Now we consider the PDE system : $$D \psi = 0, \quad \mbox{with boundary condition} \quad \lim_{\vert x \vert \rightarrow \infty} \psi (x) = \psi_o , \quad P_- \psi = 0 ,$$ where $\psi $ is a section of $\Sigma (N)$ with $\psi - \psi_o \in W^{1, 2}_{-\tau}, \ \tau > \frac{1}{2} .$ (If one uses the rule (2.3) for the Clifford multiplication, then the spectral boundary condition $P_- \psi = 0$ must be replaced by $P_+ \psi = 0$ to gurantee positivity of the boundary term in the equation (2.8) below for the mass).
[(see \[5\])]{} Let $(N, g)$ be a Riemannian asymptotically flat 3-manifold of order $\tau > \frac{1}{2}$. Let the scalar curvature $S_g$ of $(N, g)$ be non-negative and the mean curvature ${\rm Tr}_g(\Theta)$ of the boundary $(\partial N, g)$ satisfy $$\lambda \ \geq \ \frac{1}{2} \, \sup_{\partial N} \{ {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) \} ,$$ where $\lambda$ is the smallest absolute value of eigenvalues of the induced Dirac operator $D^{\partial}$. Then there exists a unique solution to the PDE system (2.7).
Let $\psi$ be a solution to the system (2.7). Let $\mu_{S(r)}(g), \, \mu_{\partial N}(g), \, \mu_N(g)$ denote the volume form of $(S(r), g), \,
(\partial N, g), \, (N, g)$, respectively. Then, applying Stokes’ theorem, the Schrödinger-Lichnerowicz formula and the spectral boundary condition, we have $$\begin{aligned}
m(g) & = & \frac{1}{8 \pi} \, \lim_{r
\to \infty} \int _{S(r)} g ( {\rm grad}_g (\psi, \psi), \, V ) \mu_{S(r)} (g) \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int _{\partial N} \Big( D^{\partial} (\pi_{\ast} \psi) - \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) ( \pi_{\ast} \psi ) ,
\, \pi_{\ast} \psi \Big) \mu_{\partial N} (g) \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int _N \Big\{ ( \nabla \psi, \nabla \psi ) + \frac{1}{4} S_g (\psi, \psi) \Big\}
\mu_N(g) \nonumber \\
& \geq & \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int _{\partial N} \Big\{ \lambda - \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) \Big\} ( \pi_{\ast} \psi ,
\, \pi_{\ast} \psi ) \mu_{\partial N} (g) ,\end{aligned}$$ which proves the following positive mass theorem.
[(see \[5\])]{} If $(N, g)$ is asymptotically flat of order $\tau > \frac{1}{2}$ with $S_g \geq 0$ and the mean curvature ${\rm Tr}_g(\Theta)$ satisfies $$2 \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{{\rm Area}(\partial N, g)} } \ \geq \ \frac{1}{2} \sup_{\partial N} \{ {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) \} ,$$ then $m(g) \geq 0$, with equality if and only if $(N, g)$ is flat.
Note that, if $$2 \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{{\rm Area}(\partial N, g)} } \ \geq \ \frac{1}{2} \sup_{\partial N} \{ {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) \} \quad
\mbox{and} \quad 2 \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{{\rm Area}(\partial N,
g)} } \ \not\equiv \ \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta)$$ on the boundary $\partial N$, then the equality $m(g) = 0$ of Theorem 2.1 can not be attained, and hence one may find a reasonable positive constant $c(g) > 0$ depending on the metric $g$ with $m(g) \geq c(g)$. In the next section, we investigate the situation (2.9) and improve the rigidity statement of Theorem 2.1.
Conformal change of metric using length of a spinor without zeros as the conformal factor
=========================================================================================
We consider a conformal metric $\overline{g} = e^f g$ on $N$ with $ f \in W^{1, 2}_{- \tau}, \ \tau > \frac{1}{2} $. The scalar curvatures $S_{\overline{g}}$ and $S_g$ are related by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \triangle_g ( e^{k f} ) = - ( {\rm div}_g \circ {\rm grad}_g ) ( e^{k f} ) \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{k}{2} e^{(k +1)f} S_{\overline{g}} - \frac{k}{2} e^{k f} S_g + \frac{k (1 - 4k)}{4} e^{k f} \vert df \vert^2_g ,\end{aligned}$$ where $k \in {\mathbb R}$ is an arbitrary real number, and the mean curvatures ${\rm Tr}_{\overline{g}} (\Theta_{\overline{g}})$ and ${\rm Tr}_g (\Theta_g)$ on the boundary $\partial N$ are related by $${\rm Tr}_{\overline{g}} (\Theta_{\overline{g}}) = e^{- \frac{f}{2} } {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta_g) - e^{- \frac{f}{2} } df(E_3),$$ where $E_3$ is the inward unit normal to $(\partial N, g)$. Moreover, applying (3.1) to (1.3), one verifies that the masses $m(\overline{g})$ and $m(g)$ are related as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& & m(\overline{g}) - m(g) \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{k} \cdot \frac{1}{8 \pi} \, \int_{\partial N} g( {\rm grad}_g ( e^{kf} ), \, E_3 ) \mu_{\partial N} (g)
+ \frac{1}{k} \cdot \frac{1}{8 \pi} \, \int_N \triangle_g ( e^{k f} ) \mu_N (g) \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{8 \pi} \, \int_{\partial N} e^{k f} df (E_3) \mu_{\partial N} (g) \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{1}{16 \pi} \, \int_N e^{k f} \Big( e^f S_{\overline{g}} - S_g + \frac{1- 4k}{2} \vert df \vert^2_g
\Big) \mu_N (g) .\end{aligned}$$
Now let $\Sigma(N)_g$ and $\Sigma(N)_{\overline{g}}$ denote the spinor bundle of $(N, g)$ and $(N, \overline{g})$, respectively. Then there are natural isomorphisms $j : T(N) \longrightarrow T(N)$ and $j : \Sigma(N)_g \longrightarrow \Sigma(N)_{\overline{g}}$ preserving the inner products of vectors and spinors as well as the Clifford multiplication $$\begin{aligned}
& & \overline{g} (jX, jY) = g (X, Y), \quad \langle j \psi_1, j \psi_2 \rangle_{\overline{g}} = \langle \psi_1, \psi_2 \rangle_g , \\
& & \\
& & (jX) \cdot (j \psi) = j( X \cdot \psi ), \quad X, Y \in \Gamma(T(N)), \quad \psi, \psi_1, \psi_2 \in \Gamma( \Sigma(N)_g ).\end{aligned}$$ We fix the notation $\overline{X} := j(X)$ and $\overline{\psi} := j (\psi)$ to denote the corresponding vector fields and spinor fields on $(N, \overline{g})$, respectively. For shortness we also introduce the notation $\psi_p := e^{pf} \psi, \ p \in {\mathbb R} .$ Then, one verifies that the connections $\overline{\nabla}, \, \nabla$ and the Dirac operators $\overline{D}, \, D$ are related as follows.
\(i) $\displaystyle \overline{\rm grad} (e^f) = e^{- \frac{f}{2}} \, \overline{ {\rm grad}(e^f) } ,$
\(ii) $\displaystyle \overline{\nabla}_X \overline{\psi_p}
= e^{pf} \Big\{ \overline{\nabla_X \psi} + \frac{4p-1}{4} e^{-f} \,
\overline{g} ( \overline{\rm grad} (e^f), \, X) \overline{\psi}
- \frac{1}{4} e^{-f} X \cdot \overline{\rm grad} (e^f) \cdot \overline{\psi} \Big\} ,$
\(iii) $\displaystyle \overline{D} \, \overline{\psi_p} = e^{pf} \Big\{ e^{- \frac{f}{2}} \overline{D \psi} +
\frac{2p+1}{2} e^{-f} \, \overline{\rm grad} (e^f ) \cdot \overline{\psi} \Big\} .$
Let $\varphi = \varphi_o + \varphi_1$ be a spinor field on $(N, g)$ with $\vert \varphi_o \vert = 1$ and $\varphi_1 \in W^{1, 2}_{-\tau}, \, \tau > \frac{1}{2} $. Since $\vert \varphi \vert \longrightarrow 1$ as $r \longrightarrow \infty$, there exists a positive constant $r_{\ast} \geq r_o $ such that $\varphi$ has no zeros in $N(r_{\ast}) := \bigcup_{r \geq r_{\ast}} S(r)$. Define a conformal metric $\overline{g}$ on $N(r_{\ast})$ by $$\overline{g} = (\varphi, \varphi)^q g , \quad q \in {\mathbb R} \, .$$ Then the connections $\overline{\nabla}, \, \nabla$ and the Dirac operators $\overline{D}, \, D$ are related by $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\nabla}_X \overline{\varphi_p}
& = & (\varphi, \varphi)^{pq} \Big\{ \overline{\nabla_X \varphi} + \frac{q(4p-1)}{4} (\varphi, \varphi)^{-1}
\overline{g} ( \overline{\rm grad} (\varphi, \varphi), \, X) \overline{\varphi} \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& & \qquad - \frac{q}{4} (\varphi, \varphi)^{-1} X \cdot \overline{\rm grad} (\varphi, \varphi ) \cdot \overline{\varphi} \Big\} , \\
& & \nonumber \\
\overline{D} \overline{\varphi_p} & = & (\varphi, \varphi)^{pq} \Big\{ (\varphi, \varphi)^{-\frac{q}{2}} \overline{D \varphi} +
\frac{q(2p+1)}{2} (\varphi, \varphi)^{-1} \overline{\rm grad} (\varphi, \varphi ) \cdot \overline{\varphi} \Big\} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi_p = (\varphi, \varphi)^{pq} \varphi$. On the other hand, we know (see \[4\]) that, if $\varphi$ is an eigenspinor of $D$ on $(N(r_{\ast}), g)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_X \varphi & = & - \frac{1}{2} (\varphi, \varphi)^{-1}
T_{\varphi} (X) \cdot \varphi + \frac{3}{4} (\varphi,
\varphi)^{-1} g( {\rm grad}(\varphi, \varphi), X) \varphi \nonumber
\\ & & \nonumber \\ & & + \frac{1}{4} (\varphi, \varphi)^{-1} X \cdot {\rm
grad}(\varphi, \varphi) \cdot \varphi ,\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{\varphi}$ is the energy-momentum tensor defined by $$T_{\varphi} (X, Y) = ( X \cdot \nabla_Y \varphi + Y \cdot \nabla_X \varphi, \, \varphi ) .$$
Making use of the equations (3.4)-(3.6), we obtain the following proposition immediately.
In the notations above, we have:
\(i) If $p= - \frac{1}{2}$ and $D \varphi = 0$, then $\overline{D} \overline{\varphi_p} = 0$.
\(ii) If $\overline{\nabla}_X \overline{\varphi_p} = 0$ and $D \varphi = 0$, then $p = - \frac{1}{2} $ and $ q = 1$.
\(iii) If $\overline{\nabla}_X \overline{\varphi_p} = 0$ with $ p = - \frac{1}{2} $ and $ q = 1$, then $D \varphi = 0$.
We now find that, in order to improve the rigidity statement of Theorem 2.1, the optimal parameters $p, q,$ are $$p = - \frac{1}{2} , \quad q = 1 .$$
For this choice of parameters, the equation (3.4) gives $$\begin{aligned}
& & (\varphi, \varphi)^2 ( \overline{\nabla} \, \overline{\varphi_p}, \, \overline{\nabla} \, \overline{\varphi_p} ) \\
& & \\
& = & ( \nabla \varphi, \nabla \varphi) + \frac{1}{2} (\varphi, \varphi)^{-1} ( D \varphi, {\rm grad} (\varphi, \varphi) \cdot \varphi )
- \frac{3}{8}
(\varphi, \varphi)^{-1} \vert {\rm grad} (\varphi, \varphi) \vert^2 .\end{aligned}$$
Applying the Schrödinger-Lichnerowicz formula $$\triangle(\varphi, \varphi) = -2 ( \nabla \varphi, \nabla \varphi ) +2 ( D^2 \varphi, \varphi ) - \frac{1}{2} S_g (\varphi, \varphi) ,$$ where $\triangle = - {\rm div} \circ {\rm grad}$, one proves the following lemma.
For the choice (3.7) of parameters, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac{1}{2} {\rm div} \{ (\varphi, \varphi)^r {\rm grad} (\varphi, \varphi) \} \\
& & \\
& = & (\varphi, \varphi)^r \Big\{ (\varphi, \varphi)^2 ( \overline{\nabla} \, \overline{\varphi_p}, \, \overline{\nabla} \, \overline{\varphi_p} ) + \frac{1}{4} S_g (\varphi, \varphi) - ( D^2 \varphi, \varphi ) - \frac{1}{2} (\varphi, \varphi)^{-1} ( D \varphi, {\rm grad} (\varphi, \varphi) \cdot \varphi ) \\
& & \\
& & \qquad + \frac{3}{8}
(\varphi, \varphi)^{-1} \vert {\rm grad} (\varphi, \varphi) \vert^2 \Big\} + \frac{r}{2} (\varphi, \varphi)^{r-1}
\vert {\rm grad} (\varphi, \varphi) \vert^2 ,\end{aligned}$$ where $r \in {\mathbb R}$ is an arbitrary real number.
Now we can prove the main result of the paper.
Let $(N, g)$ be a Riemannian asymptotically flat 3-manifold of order $\tau > \frac{1}{2}$. If the scalar curvature $S_g$ of $(N, g)$ is non-negative and the mean curvature ${\rm Tr}_g(\Theta)$ of $(\partial N, g)$ satisfies $$2 \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{{\rm Area}(\partial N, g)} } \ \geq \ \frac{1}{2} \sup_{\partial N} \{ {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) \} , \qquad
2 \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{{\rm Area}(\partial N, g)} } \ \not\equiv \ \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) ,$$ then there exists a positive constant $c(g) >0 $ uniquely determined by the metric $g$ (as well as a beforehand fixed constant spinor $\psi_o$) such that\
(i) $m(g) \geq
c(g) $ and\
(ii) the equality $m(g) = c(g)$ occurs only if, outside a compact set, $g$ is conformally flat and the scalar curvature $S_g \equiv 0$ vanishes.
In case that $(N, g= e^{-f} g_{\rm eu})$ is conformally flat, $ f \in W^{1, 2}_{- \tau}, \ \tau > \frac{1}{2}$, and the conformal factor $e^{-f}$ is constant on the boundary $\partial N$, then the equality $m(g) = c(g)$ holds.
[**Proof.**]{} Let $\psi $ be a unique solution to the PDE system (2.7). We choose the parameter $r = - \frac{3}{4}$ in the formula of Lemma 3.1 so as to remove the terms involving $\vert {\rm grad} (\psi, \psi) \vert^2 $. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
m(g) & = & \frac{1}{8 \pi} \, \lim_{r
\to \infty} \int _{S(r)} (\psi, \psi)^{ - \frac{3}{4}} g ( {\rm
grad} (\psi, \psi), \, V ) \mu_{S(r)} (g) \\ & &
\\ & = & \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int _{S(r_{\ast})} (\pi_{\ast} \psi,
\pi_{\ast} \psi)^{ - \frac{3}{4}} \Big( D^{\partial} (\pi_{\ast} \psi) - \frac{1}{2}
{\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) (\pi_{\ast} \psi) , \, \pi_{\ast} \psi \Big) \mu_{S(r_{\ast})}
(g)
\\ & & \\ & & + \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int
_{N(r_{\ast})} (\psi, \psi)^{ - \frac{3}{4}} \Big\{ (\psi,
\psi)^2 ( \overline{\nabla} \, \overline{\psi_p}, \,
\overline{\nabla} \, \overline{\psi_p} ) +
\frac{1}{4} S_g (\psi, \psi) \Big\} \mu_{N(r_{\ast})}(g)\end{aligned}$$ for all sufficiently large constants $r_{\ast} \geq r_o $. On the other hand, we know that $$\begin{aligned}
m(g) & = & \frac{1}{8 \pi} \, \lim_{r
\to \infty} \int _{S(r)} g ( {\rm grad} (\psi, \psi), \, V ) \mu_{S(r)} (g) \\
& & \\
& = & \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int _{\partial N} \Big( D^{\partial} (\pi_{\ast} \psi) - \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) (\pi_{\ast} \psi) ,
\, \pi_{\ast} \psi \Big) \mu_{\partial N} (g) \\
& & \\
& & + \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int _N \Big\{ ( \nabla \psi, \nabla \psi ) + \frac{1}{4} S_g (\psi, \psi) \Big\}
\mu_N(g) \\
& > & \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int _{\partial N} \Big\{ 2 \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{{\rm Area}(\partial N, g)} } - \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) \Big\} ( \pi_{\ast} \psi ,
\, \pi_{\ast} \psi ) \mu_{\partial N} (g) \ > \ 0 ,\end{aligned}$$ since $\int_N ( \nabla \psi, \nabla \psi ) > 0$ is strictly positive. Therefore, there exists a positive constant $r_{\infty} \geq r_o $ satisfying the following two conditions: $\psi$ has no zeros in $N(r_{\infty}) = \bigcup_{r \geq r_{\infty}} S(r)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int _{S(r_{\infty})} (\pi_{\ast} \psi, \pi_{\ast} \psi)^{
- \frac{3}{4}} \Big( D^{\partial} (\pi_{\ast} \psi) - \frac{1}{2} {\rm
Tr}_g (\Theta) (\pi_{\ast} \psi) , \, \pi_{\ast} \psi \Big) \mu_{S(r_{\infty})} (g)
\\ & & \\ & > & \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int _{\partial
N} \Big\{ 2 \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{{\rm Area}(\partial N, g)} } -
\frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) \Big\} ( \pi_{\ast} \psi , \, \pi_{\ast} \psi
) \mu_{\partial N} (g) \ > \ 0 .\end{aligned}$$ Let $r_{\rm glb} $ be the greatest lower bound of the set of all the constants $r_{\infty}$ satisfying these two conditions and define $$c(g) = \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int _{S(r_{\rm glb})} (\pi_{\ast} \psi, \pi_{\ast} \psi)^{ - \frac{3}{4}} \Big( D^{\partial} (\pi_{\ast} \psi ) - \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) (\pi_{\ast} \psi) ,
\, \pi_{\ast} \psi \Big) \mu_{S(r_{\rm glb})} (g) .$$ Then it is clear that the statements (i) and (ii) of the theorem are true. Now it remains to prove the last statement of the theorem. Let $\varphi = e^{\frac{f}{2}} \psi_o$. Then Proposition 3.1 (iii) implies $D \varphi = 0$. Furthermore, $$0 = \overline{\nabla}_{\overline{E}_i} \, \overline{\psi_o} = \overline{\nabla}^{\, \partial}_{\overline{E}_i} \, \overline{\psi_o} + \frac{1}{2} \Theta_{g_{\rm eu}} ( \overline{E_i} ) \cdot \overline{E_3} \cdot \overline{\psi_o} =
\overline{\nabla}^{\, \partial}_{\overline{E}_i} \, \overline{\psi_o} + \frac{1}{2 r_o} \overline{E_i} \cdot \overline{E_3} \cdot \overline{\psi_o} , \qquad i = 1, 2,$$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^{\partial}_{E_i} ( \pi_{\ast} \varphi )
& = & - \frac{1}{2 r_o} \, e^{\frac{f}{2}} \, E_i \cdot (\pi_{\ast} \varphi) + \frac{3}{4} df(E_i) (\pi_{\ast} \varphi) + \frac{1}{4} E_i \cdot ( \sum_{j=1}^2 df(E_j) E_j ) \cdot (\pi_{\ast} \varphi) \\
& & \\
& = & - \frac{1}{2 r_o} \, e^{\frac{f}{2}} \, E_i \cdot (\pi_{\ast} \varphi) ,\end{aligned}$$ since the function $f$ is constant on $\partial N$. Consequently, $\varphi = e^{\frac{f}{2}} \psi_o$ is the unique solution to the system (2.7) and the equality $m(g) = c(g)$ holds indeed.
[**Remark:**]{} Let $(N, g = e^{-f} g_{\rm eu} )$ be conformally flat, $ f \in W^{1, 2}_{- \tau}, \ \tau > \frac{1}{2} ,$ and let the function $f$ be constant on the boundary $\partial N$. Assume that $S_g \geq 0$ and the boundary condition (3.8) is satisfied. Then the scalar curvature $S_g$ is given by (see (3.1)) $$\triangle_g (e^{ \frac{f}{4} }) = - \frac{1}{8} e^{ \frac{f}{4} } S_g$$ and so the mass by (see (3.3)) $$m(g) = - \frac{1}{8 \pi} \int_{\partial N} e^{ \frac{f}{4} } df(E_3) \mu_{\partial N}(g) +
\frac{1}{16 \pi} \int_N e^{ \frac{f}{4} } S_g \, \mu_N (g) .$$ Substituting the equation (3.2) into (3.8), one verifies easily that $- df(E_3) \geq 0, \ df(E_3) \not\equiv 0 $, and the constant $c(g)$ in Theorem 3.1 is in fact equal to $$\begin{aligned}
c(g) & = & - \frac{1}{8 \pi} \int_{\partial N} e^{ \frac{f}{4} } df(E_3) \mu_{\partial N}(g) \\
& & \\
& = & \frac{1}{4 \pi} \, \int _{\partial N} (\pi_{\ast} \psi, \pi_{\ast} \psi)^{ - \frac{3}{4}} \Big( D^{\partial} (\pi_{\ast} \psi) - \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}_g (\Theta) (\pi_{\ast} \psi) ,
\, \pi_{\ast} \psi \Big) \mu_{\partial N} (g) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi = e^{\frac{f}{2}} \psi_o$ is a unique solution to system (2.7). In particular, if $g$ is the spacelike Schwarzschild metric with $$e^{-f} = \Big( 1 + \frac{m}{2r} \Big)^4 , \quad m > 0 ,$$ then a direct computation, on the minimal boundary $\partial N = S(r = \frac{m}{2})$, shows that $c(g) = m$.
[**Remark:**]{} It might be possible to compare the constant $c(g)$ in Theorem 3.1 with the lower bound $$4 \sqrt{\frac{{\rm Area}(\partial N, g)}{\pi} }$$ of the Penrose inequality \[3, 7\], in case that the boundary $(\partial N, g)$ is minimal. It seems that $$4 \sqrt{\frac{{\rm Area}(\partial N, g)}{\pi} } \ \geq \ c(g) ,$$ since the boundary condition (outermost minimal surface) for the constant $4 \sqrt{\frac{{\rm Area}(\partial N, g)}{\pi} } $ is stronger than that (minimal surface) for $c(g)$.
[**Acknowledgement:**]{} The author thanks the referee for useful suggestions. This research was supported by the BK 21 project of Seoul National University and the BK 21 project of Inha University.
[xx]{} R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. Misner, Coordinate invariance and energy expressions in general relativity, Phys. Rev. 122 (1961) 997-1006. R. Bartnik, The mass of an asymptotically flat manifold, comm. pure Appl. Math. 34 (1986) 661-693. H. L. Bray, Proof of the Riemannian Penrose conjecture using the positive mass theorem, J. Diff. Geom. 59 (2001) 177-267. Th. Friedrich and E.C. Kim, Some remarks on the Hijazi inequality and generalizations of the Killing equation for spinors, J. Geom. Phys. 37 (2001) 1-14. M. Herzlich, A Penrose-like inequality for the mass of Riemannian asymptotically flat manifolds, Comm. Math. Phys. 188 (1997) 121-133. M. Herzlich, The positive mass theorem for black holes revisited, J. Geom. Phys. 26 (1998) 97-111. G. Huisken and T. Ilmanen, The inverse mean curvature flow and the Riemannian Penrose Inequality, J. Diff. Geom. 59 (2001) 353-437. E. C. Kim, A local existence theorem for the Einstein-Dirac equation, J. Geom. Phys. 44 (2002) 376-405. T. H. Parker and C. H. Taubes, On Witten’s proof of the positive energy theorem, Comm. Math. Phys. 84 (1982) 223-238. R. Schoen and S.-T.Yau, Proof of the positive mass II, Comm. Math. Phys. 79 (1981) 231-260. E. Witten, A simple proof of the postive energy theorem, Comm. Math. Phys. 80 (1981) 381-402.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Shock waves in molecular clouds should evolve into continuous or C-type structures due to the magnetic field and ion-neutral friction. We here determine whether and how this is achieved through plane-parallel numerical simulations using an extended version of ZEUS. We first describe and test the adapted code against analytical results, laying the necessary foundations for subsequent works on supersonic ambipolar diffusion, including C-type jets and shock instability.
The evolution away from jump shocks toward the numerous steady C-shock sub-types is then investigated. The evolution passes through four stages, which possess distinctive observational properties. The time scales and length scales cover broad ranges. Specific results are included for shock types including switch, absorber, neutralised, oblique, transverse and intermediate. Only intermediate Type II shocks and ‘slow shocks’, including switch-off shocks, remain as J-type under the low ion levels assumed. Other shocks transform via a steadily growing neutral precursor to a diminishing jump. For neutralised shocks, this takes the form of an extended long-lived ramp.
Molecular hydrogen emission signatures are presented. After the jump speed has dropped to under 25kms$^{-1}$, a non-dissociative jump section can dominate the spectra for a long period. This produces a high-excitation spectrum. Once the jump has further weakened, to $<$8kms$^{-1}$, the fully developed ion front is responsible for brisk progress towards a constant C-type excitation. The time scale for emission-line variations is $\sim (6
/n_i$)yr, where n$_i$ is the pre-shock ion number density.
author:
- 'Michael D. Smith$^1$ & Mordecai-Mark Mac Low$^2$'
title: 'The formation of C-shocks: structure and signatures'
---
=3.0cm
Introduction
============
C-type shocks are frequently invoked to interpret the signatures of accelerated and excited gas in molecular clouds. These magnetically-mediated, two-fluid shocks are able to explain the survival of the molecules in shocks with velocities exceeding 20kms$^{-1}$ as well as the low excitation of observed spectra (e.g. the strong atomic fine-structure lines of oxygen and the low values of the 2-1 S(1)/1-0 S(1) ratio of molecular hydrogen). However, several basic questions on the existence of C-shocks remain to be answered. Under what conditions do steady-state C-shocks form? Is there sufficient time for the various C-shock configurations to be realized? Alternatively, how can we recognize an incomplete or proto-C-shock? Here, as part of a wider program to investigate supersonic ambipolar diffusion, we develop a numerical model and apply it to study the time-dependence of planar C-shock configurations.
A theory for steady C-shocks in molecular gas was constructed by Draine (1980) and applied by Draine, Roberge & Dalgarno (1983). The combination of low ion fraction, strong cooling, and significant (but not high) magnetic field results in a shock in which ion-neutral drag provides the viscosity, cooling keeps the gas supersonic and the field via the ions provides an extended cushioning layer which inhibits molecular dissociation (Draine & McKee 1993). Steady solutions for transverse-field C-shocks were further analysed by Chernoff (1987), Roberge & Draine (1990) and Smith & Brand (1990a). Smith, Brand & Moorhouse (1991) looked at the high-field ‘shock absorbers’. Wardle & Draine (1987) & Smith (1993a,b) presented a theory for oblique-field C-shocks, including the parallel-field C-switches. Flower, Pineau des Forêts & Hartquist (1985) considered the chemical aspects of steady C-shocks, work which has developed into a theory for C-shock chemistry (see Flower et al 1996). Predictions for steady, planar C-shocks were presented, in addition, by Smith & Brand (1990b), Smith (1991, 1995) and Kaufman & Neufeld (1996a,b).
Are these steady-state predictions relevant? There are two other possibilities: instability and evolution. Instability has been investigated by Wardle (1990, 1991a,b), Toth (1994,1995) and now by Stone (1997) and Mac Low & Smith (1997a,b). Conditions for stability are either (i) neutral Alfven numbers $M_a$ = v$_s$/v$_a$ $< 5$ ,where v$_s$ and v$_a$ = B /$(4\pi\rho_n)^{1/2}$ are the shock and Alfvén speeds, respectively, or (ii) rapid recombination so that the ion fraction is fixed locally rather than via advection. However, it is not clear that the steady state is approached even in the absence of instability. This evolutionary question, which has not been examined before (Pineau des Forêts 1997), is the focus of this paper. Furthermore, we predict the speed and character of changes in emission line strengths that identify a proto-C-shock, and distinguish these changes from those produced in an unstable C-shock (as evaluated by Neufeld & Stone (1997) and Mac Low & Smith (1997b)).
Our attempt to evolve flow patterns from a sharply discontinuous J-shock to a C-shock under constant ionization conditions may not exactly correspond to a physical situation. Rather, we use these examples to envisage how a flow accomodates to changing conditions such as those caused by the start of a stellar outflow, the impact of a jet on a cloud, or a cloud-cloud collision. Our primary goal here is to obtain a deeper understanding of how molecular shocks behave dynamically. We do use an alternative initial condition, with a smooth transition following a hyperbolic tangent function, to test the dependence of our results on the assumption of an initially sharp discontinuity.
This paper also represents one step in our exploration of supersonic ambipolar diffusion. The original ZEUS ambipolar diffusion code of Mac Low et al (1995) has been extended to cover more general molecular cloud conditions, by including ion mass conservation as opposed to the ealier assumption of a fixed ion number density. Hence it is first necessary to test the behavior of the extended code against standard C-shock solutions (§2). The fluid remains as before isothermal. We thus concentrate on the dynamical aspects. The ‘cool C-shock approximation’ (Smith & Brand 1990a) allows us to extract quantitative predictions for temperature and line emission.
Framework
=========
Numerical Methods
-----------------
For our numerical computations, we use a modified version of the ZEUS code[^1] (Stone & Norman 1992a,b). Ambipolar diffusion was added to ZEUS by Mac Low et al. (1995), who described the basic interface with the ZEUS code. Summarizing, that work made four approximations: isothermality of ions, electrons and neutrals, no electron-ion drift, ion density dependent in power-law fashion on neutral density, and no ion inertia or pressure. This allowed us to neglect, respectively, the energy equation, Ohmic diffusion, and the equations of ion mass and momentum conservation. This approach has proved adequate for modelling protostellar disks in the absence of strong shocks. However, the flow of ions can be important in C-shocks, for example in the Wardle instability, which is driven by the flow of ions along buckling field lines in the shock front.
Neglect of ion inertia and pressure had allowed the replacement of the ion momentum conservation equation by an algebraic equation expressing the balance between Lorentz forces and ion-neutral drag in determining the drift velocity between ions and neutrals. This approach is physically accurate and allows time steps determined by the equivalent of the Courant condition for ambipolar diffusion, $ \Delta t \le \pi
\gamma \rho_i \rho_n (\Delta x)^2 / |{{\bf B}}|^2 $ (Mac Low et al. 1995). Both Tóth (1994) and we have found that this approach can be numerically unstable in the presence of steep velocity gradients as occur in C-shocks. However, in the one-dimensional models shown in this paper, this only occurs for switch shocks, and even there is not deadly to the computation, so we defer addressing this issue to our report on multi-dimensional models (Mac Low & Smith 1997b).
We treat the ions as a separate fluid in the code, using the standard ZEUS algorithms to update them. The equations we solve in the current version of the code are then the neutral and ion continuity equations, the neutral momentum equation, and the induction equation, as well as satisfying the zero-divergence criterion: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial \rho_n/\partial t &=& - \nabla \cdot (\rho_n {{\bf v}}_n) \\
\partial \rho_i / \partial t &=& - \nabla \cdot (\rho_i {{\bf v}}_i) \\
\rho_n (\partial {{\bf v}}_n / \partial t) &=& - \rho_n ({{\bf v}}_n \cdot \nabla)
{{\bf v}}_n - \nabla P_n \nonumber \\
& & +\gamma \rho_i \rho_n ({{\bf v}}_i - {{\bf v}}_n)
\label{mntmn} \\
(\partial {{\bf B}}/ \partial t)&=&\nabla \times ({{\bf v}}_i \times {{\bf B}})
\label{induct} \\
\nabla \cdot {{\bf B}}&=&0\end{aligned}$$ where the subscripts $i$ and $n$ refer to the ions and neutrals, $\rho$, ${{\bf v}}$, and $P$ are density, velocity and pressure for each fluid, ${{\bf B}}$ is the magnetic field, and $\gamma$ is the collisional coupling constant between the ions and neutrals.
We used the analytic jump conditions for a magnetized shock (e.g.Priest 1982) to set the values of the flow variables on both boundaries needed to hold the shock stationary on our grid. These are traditionally called ‘inflow’ boundary conditions, although on the downstream edge of our grid the flow is out rather than in.
Analytical background and parameter definitions
-----------------------------------------------
We begin by setting up a one-dimensional J-shock. We generated this solution from the standard shock jump conditions with magnetic field (e.g. Priest 1982). This is equivalent to assuming that the ion fraction was initially high, forcing the ions and neutrals to move at identical velocity. Given the shock speed, Alfvén speed, temperature and field direction, we can define the downstream values in terms of the upstream values. The supersonic inflow and subsonic outflow boundary conditions are then set so that the shock front remains stationary on the computational grid. Note that the shock front thus begins as a truly discontinuous jump rather than being spread out by numerical viscosity. We also use an initial condition with a smooth transition proportional to tanh(x/L) for a given L to check the importance of the initial discontinuity.
[lllll]{}\
neutral x-velocity & $v_n = rv_s$ & 50 kms$^{-1}$ & 1.434 kms$^{-1}$\
ion x-velocity & $v_i = qv_s$ & 50 kms$^{-1}$ & 1.434 kms$^{-1}$\
neutral y-velocity & $v_{ny} = r_yv_s$ & 0 & 0\
ion y-velocity & $v_{iy} = q_yv_s$ & 0 & 0\
density$^{a}$ & $n_H$ & 1 10$^5$ cm$^{-3}$& 34.9 10$^5$ cm$^{-3}$\
mag. field$^{b}$ & $B_y$ & 0.3430 mG & 11.96 mG\
ion abundance$^{c}$ & $\chi$ & $10^{-6}$ & $10^{-6}$\
\
$^{a}$[This is the total hydrogen nuclei number density.]{}\
$^{b}$[The initial upstream Alfvén speed is 2 kms$^{-1}$.]{}\
$^{c}$[The number of ions relative to $n_H$.]{}
We start with a standard set of initial conditions. This standard set represents a high Alfvén number shock ($M_a = 25$) with a transverse magnetic field. In Table 1 we present all the physical conditions of the models shown in Figures1-4, apart from the sound speed of 100 cm s$^{-1}$, helium abundance of 0.1, ion mass $m_i = 10m_p$, neutral mass $m_n = 7m_p/3$ (assuming a fully molecular gas), and the coupling constant $\gamma$ = $<{\sigma}w>/(m_i+m_n)$ = 9.21 10$^{13}$ cm$^3$s$^{-1}$gm$^{-1}$, corresponding to a fixed momentum transfer rate coefficient of $<{\sigma}w> = 1.9\,10^{-9}$cm$^3$s$^{-1}$ (a rather uncertain parameter).
We then determine the corresponding steady-state C-shock solution. We describe this with the variables $r(x,t) = v_n/v_s$, $q(x,t) = v_i/v_s$ and the fixed temperature $\tau = kT_n/(m_nv_s^2)$. Hence $r = q = 1$ upstream and the neutral and ion compression ratios are $1/r$ and $1/q$, respectively. Assuming ion conservation and isothermality, the steady-state C-shock solution is then fully described by the total momentum equation $$r + \frac{\tau}{r} + \frac{1}{2M_a^2q^2} = 1 + \frac{1}{2M_a^2}
\label{moment}$$ and the drag on the ions $$L_n\frac{dq}{dx} = \frac{q^2(q-r)}{r}M_a
\label{moment1}$$ (Smith & Brand 1990a) where $L_n = v_a/(\gamma\rho_i)$ is the neutral deceleration scale. For the ‘neutralised’ isothermal C-shock, in which the ion abundance is a constant, the momentum conservation condition is unaltered and the drag relation is then $$L_n\frac{dq}{dx} = \frac{q^3(q-r)}{r}M_a.
\label{moment2}$$ Full steady-state solutions are derived by numerically solving these simple differential equations to any desired accuracy.
Scaling
-------
Besides the length scale $L_n$, we define the ion deceleration scale $L_i = L_n/M_a$. A further scale defines the ion-neutral interaction region. In cool shocks, the maximum streaming speed occurs for $q = 1/M_a^{2/3}$ (on putting t = 0 in Equation \[moment\]). The value of the maximum is $(r-q)_{max} = 1 + M_a^{-2} - 3M_a^{-2/3}/2$. It follows that high streaming speeds are maintained over a length scale $L_{str} \sim L_n/M_a^{1/3}$. Finally note that the length scale defined by Wardle (1990, 1991a,b) is $L_{shk} =
\sqrt{2}\,L_n$. We define here what proves to be a better measure of the shock length for transverse shocks: $L_{sm} = L_n/(r-q)_{max}$. This enables low $M_a$ shocks to be also included
The time-dependent shock flow pattern is fully determined by four control parameters: the Alfvén number $M_a$, the Mach number $M$, the ion fraction and the initial field orientation. These are the only parameters which remain after scaling equations (1–5) to the length scale $L_n$ and the time scale $t_{flow} = L_n/v_a$. Therefore only one parameter is necessary to describe the whole class of transverse, low-ionisation, cold flows: a single flow simulation with a fixed Alfvén number is relevant to a wide range of conditions.
One must, however, ensure that the thermal pressure gradients remain small. This is easily achievable when close to the steady state since then the pressure gradient term $\tau/r = c_s^2/(v_nv_s)$ is limited by the maximum compression ($S \sim \sqrt{2}M_a$ for high $M_a$) to the value ($c_s^2/v_a^2)/S$, where $c_s$ is the sound speed. This is expected to be well below unity (and therefore ignorable) in strong shocks in molecular clouds. However, in time-dependent flows in general, depending on the imposed conditions, neutral speeds may approach zero and even an isothermal flow may possess high pressure gradients. The present simulations then require holding both the Mach and Alfvén numbers fixed.
Furthermore, the freedom to scale parameters while holding $M_a$ fixed becomes physically invalid if the ion fraction depends on the other shock parameters. This limits the scaling regime to flows with ion-neutral streaming speeds less than $\sim$ 42 kms$^{-1}$ to avoid runaway ionisation (Draine et al 1983, Smith & Brand 1990a).
The flow patterns presented below can thus be considered quite general provided the above rules are not violated. No scaling was attempted, however, when calculating the emission line properties, in order to avoid possible mis-matching when piecing together the results from separate models for the emission from the J-shock and the continuous section.
Test of accuracy
----------------
In our time-dependent computations, J-shocks indeed evolve to the analytical, steady C-shock solution to within our numerical accuracy. Figure \[p1\_stead\] presents the flow parameters at a time $5\,10^{10}$s. The length scale is $L_n$ = 1.310$^{15}$cm and the flow time scale is $t_{flow}$ = $L_n/v_a$ = $6.5\,10^9$s. We find that it takes several flow time scales before the flow pattern finally settles down to the analytical steady state solution.
Figure \[p1\_error\] demonstrates the dependence of the time-dependent solutions on the grid resolution. Even a grid size of R$_g$ = 50, with the number of zones across the shock R = ${\Delta}x/L_n$ = 13, is sufficient for dynamical purposes with the major error occurring in the final deceleration zone (at about 310$^{15}$ cm). The error functions analysed in Figure \[p1\_error\] are the momentum error (solid lines) given by $$\epsilon_m(x) = \frac{r + 1/(2M_a^2q^2)}{1 + 1/(2M_a^2)}
\label{error1}$$ and the streaming error (dotted lines) given by $$\epsilon_s(x) = \left[r_s-q_s\right] - r + q
\label{error2}$$ where $\left[r_s-q_s\right]$ is the analytical steady streaming solution. The expected second order convergence (Mac Low et al 1995) occurs.
The Evolution from J-shock to C-shock
=====================================
The four stages for transverse shocks
-------------------------------------
We identify four stages in the evolution from a J-shock to a C-shock. Each stage lasts approximately 10 times longer than the previous one.
- Stage 1 involves rapid ion motions. It is characterised by high-speed, ion-magnetosonic wave motions over a short time. During the first $0.002 t_{flow} \sim 10^7$s, the precursor moves upstream at a speed of order 1000 kms$^{-1}$, the ion-magnetosonic speed. As shown in Figure \[p1\_stage1\], the ions move upstream (negative velocities), away from the original shock front, with a speed well above the shock speed. The ion compression wave is separated from the neutral front by an ion expansion wave, as expected in this shock-tube experiment.
- During Stage 2 the ion front and the neutral front separate over a time of $0.03 t_{flow} \sim 2\,10^8$s, at intermediate speeds (Figure \[p1\_stage2\]). The ion precursor develops fully. The neutrals possess a weak precursor but are still hardly altered.
- Stage 3 represents the approach to a C-type structure, as the neutrals evolve towards a fully continuous flow. The changes now occur at the Alfvén speed of 2kms$^{-1}$ over a time of $0.6 t_{flow}
\sim 4\,10^9$s.
- During Stage 4 only small changes to the flow pattern occur. It takes several Alfvén speed crossing times before the steady state solution is finally reached, as described in the previous section (see Fig. \[p1\_stead\]). The final length scale is $\sim 1.6\,10^{15}$cm, approximately equal to $L_{sm}$.
Low Alfvén number shocks
------------------------
Strong magnetic fields cushion a shock by broadening the transition region and reducing the drag heating in the shock front. This is especially important for C-shocks since the cushioning changes the character of the whole transition by reducing the ion-neutral streaming speed whereas for J-shocks it is usually only felt in the downstream compressed gas. Hence we call these C-shocks ‘shock absorbers’ (Smith et al 1991). This cushioning has observational implications: molecules are not so easily destroyed by ion collisions because the ion-neutral streaming speed is a relatively small fraction of the shock speed. In order to model a shock absorber, we simply reduce the shock speed from the standard case by a factor of 10 to simulate a $M_a = 2.5$ shock.
We find that all the transition stages are identifiable but last several times longer (Figure \[p1\_absorber\]). Indeed it takes $\sim 10^4$ years to reach the steady state, comparable to the age of many outflows. Note that the total compression is only about 3 in the example shown. The final total length of the shock is $\sim 4\,10^{15}$cm. It is clear that $L_{sm}$ is indeed an accurate measure of the shock length scale.
Oblique field
-------------
Oblique shocks develop from the initial state to a steady-state, oblique C-shock without any surprises. By oblique shock, we specifically mean that the magnetic field is inclined to the shock velocity, but not so far inclined that intermediate shock solutions become possible (Smith 1993c; see below). In this regime, the ion and neutral speeds along the flow direction, qv$_s$ and rv$_s$, behave as before, as shown in Fig. \[p1\_obl\]. The ion transverse speed q$_y$v$_s$ exceeds the neutral transverse speed r$_y$v$_s$. Note also that the ion transverse speed passes through a maximum, and that the shock is narrower than the transverse solution. Thus the grid size was reduced to preserve approximately the same numerical resolution.
Near-parallel field
-------------------
When the magnetic field is quasi-parallel, the flow does not reduce to the hydrodynamical equivalent, as is often assumed. Even as the transverse field approaches zero, the flow should approach a switch shock solution. This is due to the strong cooling in molecular shocks, or, here, the assumption of isothermality (Smith 1993a,c). Although it is possible that in complex, multi-dimensional, shock configurations a mixture of the three possible shock solutions can be maintained at field angles less than $\sim
1/M_a$ radians, the switch-type solution is the only evolutionary solution in plane-parallel flows (Kennel 1988).
To compute switch shocks we had to solve several problems. First, we had to set up an appropriate grid. If we take a magnetic field angle of 2$^\circ$ to the flow direction, our standard parameters lead to resolution problems: the neutral shock width is reduced to $\sim L_n/M_a$, but, in contrast, the ion precursor extends far upstream. We solve this problem simply by extending the grid upstream using a ratioed grid, and increasing the total number of zones. This problem can still be seen in Fig. \[p1\_switch2\], where we have reduced $M_a$ to 5 ($v_s$ = 10kms$^{-1}$). The whole ion precursor, as evident in the upstream transverse ion speed, is still not shown. This precursor will not significantly warm the gas, however, as the heating occurs where the drag is strong and the neutrals decelerate (see Fig. 4. of Smith (1993b)).
A second problem is inherent to the ion treatment in this code: steep ion velocity gradients generate numerical instabilities (Mac Low & Smith 1997b). Unfortunately, such steep gradients are exactly what occurs in flows set up along the field lines. Hence, at early times, up to $\sim 6\,10^8$s, numerical instability is evident within the ion flow. The instability is damped as the gradients diminish. This instability does not occur when, instead of discontinuous initial conditions, we use a hyperbolic tangent function with a width of 110$^{14}$cm, and we get nearly identical results.
The tranverse ion motions are found to have a maximum, as was shown to be true for shocks with $M_a$ $> 3{\surd}2/2$, in the steady cold solutions of Smith (1993a).
We have also set up the quasi-hydrodynamic, or intermediate Type II boundary and initial jump conditions. In intermediate shocks, the post-shock sound speed is subsonic. As predicted by analytic theory, this flow remained J-type and steady. It is clear that a C-type flow should not occur since the ions, without the inertia of the magnetic field, are now strongly tied to the neutrals. Such Type II J-shocks in multiple dimensions could degenerate into a fast (switch type) and slow shock combination; exactly what is possible depends on the shock configuration and applied conditions (see Smith 1993c). We find, however, that slow shocks (e.g. Smith 1993c) are also restricted to the J-shock variety. In this case, the sub-Alfvénic motions tie together the ions and neutrals.
Type I intermediate shocks are similar to switch shocks except the small transverse field reverses direction within the shock layer. We find the evolutionary behaviour follows that of the switch shock, but at a slower pace (approximately 3 times slower for the standard conditions with the field initially at 1$^\circ$ to the shock normal.)
We conclude that a continuous range, from C-type to J-type occurs, when the boundary conditions are altered from switch, via Type I and Type II intermediate, to hydrodynamic type. This is emphasized through Fig. \[inter3\], which is an example of an intermediate shock close to the I-II transition border. Here the jump shock remains while a partial ion/magnetic precursor develops. Note that here also the transverse ion Alfén waves propagate far upstream (the complete computational grid is not shown).
Neutralisation in transverse shocks
-----------------------------------
A class of physical conditions produce another type of shock structure in which the ions are not conserved. A particularly simple case, in which the ion fraction remains fixed throughout, is considered here. This can occur when the recombination time is short, such as for molecular ions, with rate coefficients $R_n
\sim 10^{-7}~$cm$^3~$s$^{-1}$ rather than atomic ions; and when the shocks are wide enough for neutralisation reactions to occur (Flower et al 1996). Since the shock width is inversely proportional to the ion density, neutralisation is determined solely by the recombination rate coefficient and Alfvén number. The ratio of shock dynamical to recombination times is $\sim 100(R_n/10^{-7}~$cm$^3~$s$^{-1})/M_a$.
We find that neutralised shocks evolve from the imposed J-type initial state directly to C-type. The neutral jump section is preceded by a ramp of growing amplitude, as shown in Figure \[p1\_neutral\]. The final C-shock flow pattern is now the ramp structure in the neutrals, preceded by the rapid ion braking. In this zone of rapid ion braking and compression the recombinations will be hard pressed to suppress a rise in ion density. This may lead to a narrow peak in the ion density in reality.
The time to reach steady state in a neutralised shock is much longer than for the other shock types. Almost 10$^4$ years is required for the conditions chosen, comparable with the duration of the Class 0 stage of a protostar. Shock widths are correspondingly larger. Furthermore, the age and shock width are inversely proportional to the ion density, as we have checked through further simulations. Hence, low-ionisation shocks may never actually reach a steady state.
Observables
===========
Shock waves in a magnetized molecular gas will be continuously changing, both through the C-shock instability (Wardle 1990, Neufeld & Stone 1997, Mac Low & Smith 1997a,b) and through interaction with spatial perturbations in density, ion fraction and magnetic field. So how can we recognise the evolving shocks described in this paper? To calculate the emission properties as a function of time, we must first estimate the temperature distribution through the shock. In the continuous sections this can be done using the ‘cool C-shock’ approximation (Smith & Brand 1990a), provided that the temperature remains low so that the thermodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics are decoupled. Quantitatively, we require that the temperature T $\ll$ m(H$_2$)$v_s^2$/k. The low isothermal temperature adopted ensures this condition in our numerical computations, and strong H$_2$ cooling often ensures it in real molecular clouds.
The jump sections are dealt with separately: the jump parameters are transferred into the J-shock code of Smith (1994a), the column densities of ions in each excited level are calculated, and then added to the column densities derived from the continuous section in the manner described below.
The temperature profile in the continuous section is determined by the local balance of ion-neutral frictional heating with molecular cooling (see Smith 1993b). Simplified cooling functions are adopted consistent with the limitations of the calculations already introduced (in particular the simplified drag formula). Here we restrict the illustrative results to that of H$_2$ cooling, with the H$_2$ molecule in local thermodynamic equilibrium. The cooling function is extracted from Smith (1993b): $$\Lambda(T) =
(4.2\,10^{-31}\mbox{~erg~s}^{-1}\mbox{~cm}^{-3}) n({\rm H}_2)T^{3.3}.$$ It is straightforward to show that the temperature is then given by T = 2.89n$_i$v$_{in}^2$ where v$_{in}$ is the ion-neutral streaming speed.
Column densities of molecules in excited upper levels can be computed from $$N_j = g_jN(H_2) Z(T) \exp(-T_j/T),$$ assuming that the rotational levels are in LTE at the temperature T, where the partition function is $$Z(T) = 0.024\,T\,\left[1 - \exp(-6000/T)\right]^{-1},$$ and g$_j$ are the statistical weights. Although we assumed the rotational levels are in LTE, we allowed the vibrational levels to fall out of LTE using the method described by Suttner et al. (1997). Line strengths $I_j$ are then calculated from the column of gas N$_j$(x) in the transition’s upper energy level: $$I_j = \int (hc/\lambda_j)A_j N_j(x)dx,$$ where A$_j$ is the radiative coefficient and $\lambda_j$ the wavelength of the transition.
[lrrll]{}
Line & $\lambda_j^{a}$ & $T_j^{b}$ & $A_j^{c}$ & $g_j^{d}$\
\
1-0 S(1) & 2.1213 & 6951. & 3.47 & 21.\
3-2 S(3) & 2.2008 & 19086. & 5.63 & 33.\
2-1 S(1) & 2.2471 & 12550. & 4.98 & 21.\
3-2 S(1) & 2.3858 & 17818. & 5.14 & 21.\
0-0 S(7) & 5.5110 & 7199. & 2.00 & 57.\
0-0 S(5) & 6.9100 & 4587. & 0.588 & 45.\
0-0 S(3) & 9.6650 & 2504. & 0.0984 & 33.\
0-0 S(1) & 17.0350 & 1015. & 0.00476 & 21.\
\
$^{a}$[Wavelength in $\mu$m]{}\
$^{b}$[Excitation temperature in K]{}\
$^{c}$[Einstein A-values for radiative deexcitation in 10$^{-7}$s$^{-1}$]{}\
$^{d}$[Statistical weights with ortho/para ratio of 3]{}
The time dependence of eight lines observable either in the K-band or with the SWS of the Infrared Space Observatory are shown in Fig. \[intensity\], and the physical parameters of these lines are given in Table \[linetable\]. The columns of gas are displayed as column density ratios (CDRs) in Fig. \[p1\_cdr\]. A CDR for H$_2$ is the column of gas in the energy level T$_j$ divided by the column of gas in the v = 1, J = 3 level that generates the 1-0 S(1) line, further normalised by the factor exp(T$_j$/2000K) to remove the strong temperature dependence. We thus are comparing column densities to those of a slab of molecular gas at a temperature of 2000 K. These CDR diagrams are an accurate means of displaying the H$_2$ excitation over a broad range of energy levels (see also Mac Low & Smith 1997b). A 30 kms$^{-1}$ model was chosen for display purposes since this produces gas up to a maximum temperature of $\sim 2600\,$K within the final steady C-shock. The CDRs for a hotter 40 kms$^{-1}$ model are also shown. The following stages are recognisable.
- The structure begins as a fast dissociative jump shock with low luminosity in these infrared lines (Fig. \[intensity\]). The ion-magnetic precursor develops rapidly in the early stages, producing a sharp increase in line strengths.
- The jump speed drops below $\sim$ 24 kms$^{-1}$ at $\sim 4\,10^8\,$s. Now the molecules survive the jump. The molecules are strongly heated in the jump shock producing a high-excitation spectrum, as best illustrated by the high CDRs during this stage in the high energy levels. Note that HH91A possesses such a high excitation spectra, as shown in Figure \[p1\_cdr\].
- The jump weakens and is unable to excite the molecules after $\sim 3\, 10^9\,$s. The shock excitation and line intensities are now controlled by the ion-neutral drag and rapidly approach their final values. The final excitation depends strongly on the shock parameters.
We find no significant variations from the above behaviour for the other types of shocks. Switches, oblique shocks and intermediate shocks are of course hotter than the equivalent transverse shocks. Neutralised shocks possess similar excitation signatures as transverse shocks.
Conclusions
===========
We have simulated the evolution of jump shocks into continuous shocks. We set up boundary and initial conditions appropriate to the C-shock, but separated the two flow regimes by a discontinuous diaphragm as in classical shock tube experiments. The questions we hope to answer, however, are more general: how do shocks behave in a non-uniform medium? Do steady-state C-shocks form? We have indeed found that, in all cases, analytic steady-state solutions are approached, given sufficient time. That time can in the most extreme cases, however, be comparable to the lifetimes of embedded protostars.
Four stages were identified for most shock types. First, an ion expansion wave rapidly advances into the upstream region. Next, the ion-magnetic precursor forms and moves gradually upstream, with a high streaming speed capable of heating the molecules. The neutrals develop a weak precursor. Then, the neutral jump weakens and disappears. Finally, the C-shock runs through minor adjustments and reaches the steady state.
In intermediate Type II shocks (which are quasi-hydrodynamic), the full jump shock remains with an ion-precursor in advance. Between Type I and Type II, partial jumps remain. Switch-on shocks develop extremely long ion-magnetic precursors due to forward-moving undamped ionic Alfvén waves. Switch-off shocks, like all slow shocks, are J-shocks.
We have modelled the time-development of molecular hydrogen emission lines in the infrared. If the initial jump shock is fast, the molecules do not survive, and little emission occurs. As the precursor develops, the line intensities rise rapidly. As the jump shock decreases in strength, the molecules begin to survive and emit with the high excitation characteristic of a jump shock (e.g. with a 1-0 S(1)/2-1 S(1) intensity ratio of 3–5). Later, the jump is too weak to excite H$_2$ and the C-shock dominates the spectrum, producing line ratios that are very sensitive to the particular parameters of the shock.
The evolution time scale is inversely dependent on the ion density. For typical molecular cloud parameters, it takes between (10$^9$/n$_i$)s and (210$^{10}$/n$_i$)s to set up the steady-state flow, several times the flow timescale of (710$^8$/n$_i$)s. Neutralised shocks, modelled here by fixing the ion number density, are approximately M$_a$ times wider than the transverse equivalent and take the longest to evolve. It follows that detectable changes to the emission lines occur over periods of at least 60 years for the ion density taken here (n$_i$ = 0.1cm$^{-3}$). However, faster evolving shocks, due to high ion densities (perhaps in the densest cloud regions), will show detectable changes faster. The time scale for emission-line variations is $\sim (2\,10^8$/n$_i$)s where n$_i$ is the pre-shock ion number density.
This study provides the background to investigations of shock interactions, C-type jet flows, and multi-dimensional studies such as simulations of the Wardle instability (Mac Low & Smith 1997a,b). We hope to add additional physics to this version of ZEUS, including chemical reactions, molecular dissociation and streaming ionisation.
[*Acknowledgments:*]{} MDS thanks the DFG for financial support.
Chernoff, D. F. 1987, ApJ, 312, 143 Draine, B. T. 1980, ApJ, 241, 1021 Draine, B. T., Roberge, W. G., & Dalgarno, A. 1983, ApJ, 264, 485 Draine, B. T., & McKee, C. F. 1993, ARA&A 31, 373 Flower, D. R., Pineau des Forets, G., & Hartquist, T.W. 1985, MNRAS, 216, 775 Flower, D. R., Pineau des Forets, G., Field,D., & May, P.W. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 447 Gredel, R., Reipurth, B., & Heathcote, S. 1992, A&A 266, 439 Kaufman, M. J., & Neufeld, D. A. 1996a, ApJ, 456, 250 Kaufman, M. J. & Neufeld, D. A. 1996b, ApJ, 456, 611 Kennel, C.F. 1988, J. Geophys. Res., 93, 8545. Mac Low, M.-M., Norman, M. L., Königl, A., & Wardle, M. 1995, ApJ, 442, 726 Mac Low, M.-M. & Smith, M. D. 1997a, in Low Mass Star Formation—from Infall to Outflow; Poster Proceedings of the IAU Symposium No. 182, eds. F. Malbet and A. Castets (Grenoble, France: Obs. de Grenoble), p. 155 Mac Low, M.-M. & Smith, M. D. 1997b, ApJ, submitted Neufeld, D. A. & Stone, J. M., 1997, ApJ, submitted Pineau des Forets, G.,in Herbig-Haro Flows and the birth of low mass stars, IAU Symp. No. 182, in preparation Priest, E., 1982, Solar Magnetohydrodynamics, Reidel, Dordrecht. Roberge, W. G. & Draine, B. T. 1990, ApJ, 350, 700 Smith, M. D. & Brand, P. W. J. L. 1990a, MNRAS, 242, 495 Smith, M. D. & Brand, P. W. J. L. 1990b, MNRAS, 243, 498 Smith, M. D. & Brand, P. W. J. L., Moorhouse, A. 1991, MNRAS, 248, 730 Smith, M. D. 1991, MNRAS, 253, 175 Smith, M. D. 1993a, ApJ, 390, 447 Smith, M. D. 1993b, ApJ, 406, 520 Smith, M. D. 1993c, A&A, 406, 520 Smith, M. D. 1994a, MNRAS, 266 238 Smith, M. D. 1994b, MNRAS, 289, 256 Smith, M. D. 1995, A&A, 296, 789 Stone, J. M. 1997, ApJ, submitted Stone, J. M. & Norman, M. L. 1992a, ApJS, 80, 753 Stone, J. M. & Norman, M. L. 1992b, ApJS, 80, 791 Stone, J. M. 1992b, ApJs, 80, 791 Suttner, G., Smith, M.D., Yorke, H.W., Zinnecker, H., 1997, A&A, 318, 595 Tóth, G. 1994, ApJ, 425, 171 Tóth, G. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 1002 Wardle, M., Draine, B. T. 1987, ApJ, 321, 321 Wardle, M. 1990, MNRAS, 246, 98 Wardle, M. 1991a, MNRAS, 250, 523 Wardle, M. 1991b, MNRAS, 251, 119
[^1]: Available for community use by registration with the Laboratory for Computational Astrophysics at [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
** **
****
Orientational decomposition of molecular high harmonic emission\
in three dimensions
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*Supplementary Information*</span>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Limor S. Spector$^{1,2*}$, Maxim Artamonov$^{3}$, Shungo Miyabe$^{2,4}$ Todd Martinez$^{2,4}$,\
Tamar Seideman$^{3}$, Markus Guehr,$^{2}$ and Philip H. Bucksbaum$^{1,2}$\
</span>
$^{1}$ *Applied Physics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA*\
$^{2}$ *Stanford PULSE Institute, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA*\
$^{3}$ *Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA*\
$^{4}$ *Chemistry Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA*\
Analyzing the harmonic signal
=============================
To generate HHG, we focused the output of a commercial Ti:Sapphire laser with a pulse duration of about 30 fs, a pulse energy of about 53 $\mu$J and a central wavelength of about 780 nm onto a continuous flow gas jet using a focusing lens with f = 150 mm. The alignment pulse was made from the same laser, but the pulses were chirped to a 130 fs pulse width using 16 mm of BK7 glass, and retained a pulse energy of about 28 $\mu$J. The HHG pulse followed the alignment pulse through the gas jet, and harmonics that were produced in jet and were between 25 and 55 eV passed through an aluminum filter with a thickness of 100 nm onto a spherical grating. The experimental scan was taken in steps of 47.8 fs. The dispersed image was captured by an extreme ultraviolet detector and image intensifier consisting of a bare microchannel plate (MCP) followed by a phosphor screen. This was then imaged using a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera.
Before analyzing the high harmonic signal, we accounted for several effects, as is common in HHG, see, for example Shiner *et al.* [@Shiner]. The spherical grating focuses only in the dispersion direction in the incidence plane of the EUV light (tangential direction) but keeps the natural divergence of the harmonic beam in the orthogonal (sagittal) direction. Since the beam hits the grating under grazing incidence, the finite size of the grating substrate acts like a slit that filters only the center part of the beam in the tangential direction. We accounted for the wavelength transmission function of the apparatus in the data we present. We measured the wavelength-dependent transmission of the aluminum filter in our laboratory in a separate experiment, which takes the real oxidation of the filter into account. The wavelength transmission of the grating is provided by the manufacturer (Hitachi) and we estimated the MCP efficiency from Hemphill and Rogers [@Hemp].
We chose harmonic 19 for this study, because we wanted to concentrate on a harmonic that was intense and thus more immune to statistical noise, but at the same time also in the high harmonic plateau region and far from the cutoff, where the results are strongly dependent on intensity. We also wanted a harmonic that would be far from the lower order harmonics where the standard three-step model is less valid. The fit for neighboring harmonics reveal can reveal additional information about the energy dependence of the harmonic process, and we intend to investigate this more fully in future work.
We estimated the temperature by assuming a supersonic expansion. We calculated the backing density, $2.43\times10^{19}/cm^{3}$, by using the equation of state for an ideal gas with a backing pressure of 1 bar and room temperature. Our uncertainty stems mainly from our lack of precise knowledge of how far exactly the high harmonic jet is from the laser focus, x, and precisely how large our tip diameter, d, is. Our best estimate for this parameter is $.033<x/d<1$. In Scoles *et al.* [@Scoles], the authors show that for a supersonic gas jet, $$\label{eq:Scoles1}
\left({\frac{T}{T_{0}}}\right)^\frac{1}{\gamma-1}=\left(1+\frac{\gamma-1}{2}M^2\right)^{-\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}$$ where $T_0$ represents the initial temperature, $T$ represents the final temperature, $\gamma$ is the heat capacity ratio (1.29 for SO$_{2}$) and $M$ is the Mach number for the supersonic expansion. $M$ is calculated by *et al.* [@Scoles], the authors show that for a supersonic gas jet, $$\label{eq:Scoles2}
M=1.0+A{\left(\frac{x}{d}\right)}^2+B{\left(\frac{x}{d}\right)}^3$$ for $0<x/d<1$. A and B are the Mach number correlation parameters for axisymmetric expansion and are given by A = 3.61 and B = 1.95. From these equations we were able to estimate the temperature of the gas jet at the laser focus as 240 $\pm$ 20$^\circ$K.
Revivals in Asymmetric Tops
===========================
Revival is a standard term of art developed for symmetric tops such as diatomic molecules, which we adopt here for the more complex case of asymmetric tops following rotational Raman excitation by a short polarized laser pulse. The basic model remains the same in that a polarized light pulse impinges on a gas phase sample, which experiences initial alignment and then dephasing and rephrasing. The sample experiences a rephrasing, because the molecules rotate at frequencies that are multiples of the three rotational constants. In other words, the revival refers to a periodic peak in the alignment expectation value, and is a pure quantum feature related to the fact that quantized rotational levels form a non-equidistant progression. This is the reason why 3-dimensional revivals of an asymmetric top have been so elusive. Our method resolves this problem by not trying to relate a principal axis to any particular revival time, but rather relating each axis to a distinct pattern of alignment revivals utilizing the full rotational spectrum.
In a diatomic molecule the rotational revivals occur at the times when the molecular axes are optimally aligned, but the situation in an asymmetric top is more complicated. While linear and symmetric top molecules exhibit complete periodic revivals, asymmetric top molecules undergo classically unstable motion and hence do not exhibit complete reconstruction of the initial state. The three axes of an asymmetric top molecule, namely a, b, and c, arise from the rotational constants A, B and C of the molecule itself. (A, B and C are inversely proportional to the moments of inertia of the molecule.) Since the different types of rotational coherence effects are determined by the superposition of states that caused them, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the axis labels, a, b, and c, and the revival types.
To understand and characterize the alignment of the molecular ensemble as a function of time it is instructive to simultaneously consider the three curves in Fig. 3 in the main text. A peak in a given curve indicates preferential alignment along the corresponding axis. For the maximum at 25.8 ps, for instance, the molecules are preferentially aligned along the axis with the peak. For 25.8 ps, a sketch of an ensemble is shown in Fig. 3d, with the molecules aligned along the a-axis. Other distributions at different times are shown in Fig. 3e-g, showing that the molecules preferentially align along each axis at different times.
The interference of selection rules with J-levels and K-levels characterize each revival type, where J and K refer to the symmetric top quantum numbers. Although K is no longer a good quantum number for an asymmetric top molecule due to the mixing of K-states, in the limit of an oblate-type or prolate-type asymmetric top molecule, we can refer to K as the symmetric top equivalent. The rotational coherence types are shown in Table \[tab:rotationalTypes\].
-------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
J-type P: $t\approx\frac{n}{2(B+C)}$ $|\Delta J|=1,2$, $|\Delta K|=0$
O: $t\approx\frac{n}{2(A+B)}$
K-type P: $t\approx\frac{n}{4A-2B-2C}$ $|\Delta J|=0$, $|\Delta K|=2$
O: $t\approx\frac{n}{|4C-2A-2B|}$
Hybrid P: $t\approx\frac{n}{2A-B-C}$ $|\Delta J|=0$, $|\Delta K|=1$
O: $t\approx\frac{n}{|2C-A-B|}$
C-type $t\approx\frac{n}{4C}$ P: $|\Delta J|=2$, $|\Delta K|=0$
O: $|\Delta J|=2$, $|\Delta K|=2$
A-type $t\approx\frac{n}{4A}$ P: $|\Delta J|=2$, $|\Delta K|=2$
O: $|\Delta J|=2$, $|\Delta K|=0$
-------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
: Rotational coherence types for asymmetric top molecules. P and O refer to prolate-type and oblate-type molecules, respectively, and $n$ refers to the revival order.[]{data-label="tab:rotationalTypes"}
The different types of rotations in SO$_2$ that are responsible for revivals are conveniently characterized using the nomenclature developed in rotational coherence spectroscopy [@Poulsen], although our present strong field, far-off-resonance excitation gives rise to qualitatively different rotational wavepackets. Asymmetric tops are classified as near-oblate or near-prolate in analogy with symmetric top molecules. As a near-prolate asymmetric top molecule, SO$_2$ is expected to exhibit J-type and K-type revivals corresponding to quasi-symmetric-top-like rotations. Since SO$_2$ is, however, an asymmetric top, it can also exhibit A-type, C-type and Hybrid-type revivals.
SO$_2$ is a prolate-type asymmetric top molecule and thus follows the ÒPÓ revival times referred to in Table \[tab:rotationalTypes\]. Table \[tab:expectedRev\] tabulates some of these revivals for SO$_2$. The extensive results of rotational coherence spectroscopy allow us to compute the revival times for SO$_2$ [@Felker]. Looking closely at Fig. 2a in the main text, we can identify partial and full J-type revivals at around 13 and 26 ps, respectively, a C-type revival at 28 ps, and several A-type, K-type, and Hybrid-type revivals at multiples of 4, 5 and 10 ps, respectively, except for where they are masked by the partial revival signature. We also see other partial revivals, of order up to 1/16 revivals. Some of the revivals that can be seen in the data are marked in bold in Table \[tab:expectedRev\].
----- ----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
1/4 1.0 **[7.1]{} & **[6.5]{} & 1.2 & 2.4\
1/2 & **[2.1]{} & **[14.2]{} & **[13.1]{} & **[2.4]{} & 4.9\
3/4 & 3.1 & **[21.3]{} & **[19.6]{} & **[3.7]{} & 7.3\
& & & & &\
Full & **[4.1]{} & **[28.4]{} & **[26.2]{} & **[4.9]{} & **[9.8]{}\
1 1/4 & 5.1 & 35.5 & 32.7 & **[6.1]{} & 12.2\
1 1/2 & **[6.2]{} & 42.6 & 39.2 & **[7.3]{} & 14.6\
1 3/4 & 7.2 & 49.7 & 45.8 & **[8.5]{} & 17.1\
& & & & &\
2nd & **[8.2]{} & 56.8 & 52.3 & **[9.8]{} & **[19.5]{}\
2 1/4 & 9.3 & 63.9 & 58.8 & **[11.0]{} & 22.0\
2 1/2 & **[10.3]{} & 71.0 & 65.4 & 12.2 & 24.4\
2 3/4 & 11.3 & 78.1 & 71.9 & 13.4 & 26.8\
& & & & &\
3rd & **[12.3]{} & 85.2 & 78.5 &**[14.6]{} & **[29.3]{}\
3 1/4 & 13.4 & 92.3 & 85.0 & **[15.9]{} & 31.7\
3 1/2 & 14.4 & 99.4 & 91.5 & **[17.1]{} & 34.2\
3 3/4 & 15.4 & 106.5 & 98.1 & 18.3 & 36.6\
& & & & &\
4th & **[16.5]{} & 113.6 & 104.6 & **[19.5]{} & 39.0\
4 1/4 & 17.5 & 120.7 & 111.1 & **[20.7]{} & 41.5\
4 1/2 & 18.5 & 127.8 & 117.7 & **[22.0]{} & 43.9\
4 3/4 & 19.5 & 134.9 & 124.2 & **[23.2]{} & 46.4\
& & & & &\
5th & **[20.6]{} & 142.0 & 130.8 & 24.4 & 48.8\
& & & & &\
6th & **[24.7]{} & 170.5 & 156.9 & **[29.3]{} & 58.6\
************************************************************************
----- ----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
: Some expected revivals for SO$_2$ (in ps)
. Bold face revival times indicate that they can be seen in the data. \[tab:expectedRev\]
Developing the fit
==================
To preserve the simplicity of the model we chose a straightforward method for fitting. To determine the coefficients used for the fit shown in Fig. 2b, we minimized the $\chi^2$ of a six-parameter Nelder-Mead fit. The six parameters of the fit correspond to the magnitude and phase components of the dipole moment along the three axis directions. The $\chi^2$-based formula used for minimization is:
$$\label{eq:chi2}
\frac{\left(d-|{\sum_{j}c_jf_j|^2}\right)^2}{|d|}$$
where the $c_j$ are the three fit coefficients, the $f_j$ correspond to the three single-axis alignment patterns and $d$ corresponds to high harmonic data. The three coefficients can thus be viewed as corresponding to radiated electric field components. This method allows us to extract separately the electric field magnitude and phase by allowing each $c_j$ to be of the form $|E|e^{i\theta}$. Both d and f are summed over all data points.
The combined theory curve is able to capture the most prominent features of the experiment, like the J-type and C-type revivals. On a more detailed level, since the theory does not capture all of the revival times, combining all three single axis revival curves into one complete theory curve will still not capture all of the revivals. Therefore we do not expect Fig. 2b to ever look entirely like Fig. 2a with this analysis. However, we do not need the theory to capture all of the revivals. Since the main features, namely the J-type and C-type revivals, are captured by the theory, we can successfully use a fit to match the data and find the amount that each axis will contribute to the overall harmonic emission.
$\chi^2$ for the fit is 0.56 for 120 degrees of freedom. The critical $\chi^2$ statistic for a significance level of $\alpha$ = .05 and 120 degrees of freedom is 147. Since $0.56<147$, we must accept the null hypothesis that the fit matches the data. To ensure that this result was not dependent on the number of degrees of freedom used, we calculated $\chi^2$ using different binnings. The results are tabulated in Table \[tab:chi2Table\] below, and are comparable.
We expect harmonic generation to have a nonlinear dependence on geometry since the field-ionization step in the standard semi-classical model of the process is very sensitive to small changes in the charge density at the laser-induced saddle point in the potential. The process is also sensitive to the recombination dipole moment. A more complete model would include in the density matrix vibrational and rotational excitations produced by the impulse. Although this may affect close correspondence of fit to small details in the data, this does not affect the information we extract from the fit, which are the locations and relative amplitudes of revivals.
Our main conclusion from the fit is that most of the fitting weight is in on the single-axis alignment pattern $ÒbÓ$. To this end, we also modeled the data using only the $ÒbÓ$ single-axis alignment pattern. This yields a $\chi^2$ value of 54.4, which is much higher than our initial fit. Although the b-axis alone is sufficient to model harmonic 19, using all three axes is yields a much better than using the b-axis alone.
To test this method and make sure that the b-axis alone does not describe every harmonic, we also examined harmonic 21. For harmonic 21, we were able to make a fit with a $\chi^2$ value of 0.19 for with 120 degrees of freedom. For a fit with the b-axis alone, we obtain a value of 486. This is above the critical $\chi^2$ value of 147 for 120 degrees of freedom, and we must reject the null hypothesis, meaning that for the b-axis alone can not describe harmonic 21 [@Spector].
The errors are produced by using the standard technique of keeping one parameter fixed while allowing the others to minimize $\chi^2$ [@NumericalRecipes]. The errors thus measure the steepness of the minimum of $\chi^2$ along different directions. Since the $\chi^2$ distribution is not symmetric, we obtain different upper and lower bound numbers.
We minimized to $\Delta\chi^2$ = 6.63, which corresponds to 99% degree of confidence assuming standard Gaussian statistics. It is likely that in our experiment, as in others [@Pumplin; @Nadolsky; @Martin], there are unknown nonnormal systematic errors. These may cause the degree of confidence to be lower than stated above [@Amsler]. It is for this reason that we have quoted the 99% degree of confidence rather than $\Delta\chi^2$ = 2.71 (90%) or $\Delta\chi^2$ = 1 (68%).
----- ------- ----- -----
604 3.2 272 662
120 0.6 54 147
54 0.2 25 72
4 0.008 2.2 9.5
----- ------- ----- -----
: $\chi^2$ values using all axes and only the b-axis using different numbers of bins. The critical $\chi^2$ statistic is shown for a significance of $\alpha$ = .05.[]{data-label="tab:chi2Table"}
Theory for Single-Axis Alignment Patterns
=========================================
Our theory and numerical approach for solving the time-dependent Schr[ö]{}dinger equation of an asymmetric top molecule interacting with an aligning field are described in detail in Refs. [@SeidemanAAMOP06] and [@ArtamonovJCP08]. Here we give a brief outline of the procedure. The total Hamiltonian is $H(t)=H_\mathrm{rot}+H_\mathrm{ind}(t)$. The rotational Hamiltonian in the rigid-rotor approximation is $$\label{eq:Hrot}
H_\mathrm{rot}=B_X\hat{J}^2_X+B_Y\hat{J}^2_Y+B_Z\hat{J}^2_Z,$$ where $B_k$ and $J_k$, $k=X,Y,Z$, are the rotational constants components of the angular momentum operator, respectively. The body-fixed frame (BFF) is defined by setting the $X$-, $Y$-, and $Z$-axes parallel to the molecular $c$-, $b$-, and $a$-axes. In the space-fixed frame, the laser field polarization vector defines the $z$-axis. The field-matter interaction Hamiltonian is $$\label{eq:Hind}
H_\mathrm{ind}=-\frac{\varepsilon^2(t)}{4}\left[\frac{\alpha^{ZX}+\alpha^{ZY}}{3}D^2_{00}-\frac{\alpha^{YX}}{\sqrt{6}}\left(D^2_{02}+D^2_{0-2}\right)\right],$$ where $\varepsilon(t)$ is the aligning pulse Gaussian envelope, $D^2_{qs}$ are Wigner rotation matrices [@Zare-book], and $\alpha^{kk'}=\alpha_{kk}-\alpha_{k'k'}$ are the generalized polarizability anisotropies with $\alpha_{kk}$ being the BFF components of the polarizability tensor taken from Ref. [@LukinsJPC85]. The aligning pulse duration and intensity in the calculation are taken to be the same as used in our experiments.
The rotational wavefunction is expanded in a symmetric top basis, $\{|JKM\rangle\}$, $$\label{eq:JKM}
\langle\hat{R}|JKM\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{2J+1}{8\pi^2}}D^{J*}_{MK}(\hat{R}).$$ Here $J$, $K$, and $M$ denote the quantum numbers corresponding to the total angular momentum and its projections onto the body- and space-fixed $z$-axes. The matrix elements of $H_\mathrm{rot}$ in this basis are easily evaluated analytically[@Zare-book]. Likewise, the matrix elements of $H_\mathrm{ind}$ are analytical and given as superpositions of integrals of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3j}
\langle JKM|D^2_{0s}|J'K'M'\rangle&=&\delta_{MM'}(-1)^{K'+M'}\left[(2J+1)(2J'+1)\right]^{1/2}\times\\ \notag
&&\times\begin{pmatrix}J&2&J'\\
M&0&-M\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}J&2&J'\\
K&s&-K'\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ $H_\mathrm{rot}$ conserves $M$ quantum number. Note that $K$ is not a conserved quantum number for an asymmetric top. Because of the cylindrical symmetry of the linearly-polarized field, $M$ is also conserved by $H_\mathrm{ind}$ (see Eq. (\[eq:3j\])). Because $M$ remains a good quantum number, and the wavefunction is effectively two-dimensional with only parametric dependence on $M$, i.e., $$\label{eq:wf}
|\psi^M(t)\rangle=\sum_{JK}C^M_{JK}(t)|JK;M\rangle.$$ The time-dependent Schr[ö]{}dinger equation is, thus, converted into a set of coupled differential equations to be solved numerically, i.e., $$\label{eq:CDE}
i\dot{C}^M_{JK}(t)=\sum_{J'K'}\langle JK;M|H(t)|J'K';M\rangle C^M_{J'K'}(t).$$ After the pulse turn-off, when the envelope tail is truncated as it becomes sufficiently small, the wavefunction is transformed to the basis of eigenstates of the field-free Hamiltonian, $H_\mathrm{rot}$.
The alignment observables are $\langle\cos^2\theta_i\rangle$, $i=a,b,c$, where $\theta_i$ is the angle angle between the laser field polarization direction and molecular axis $i$, $$\label{eq:ta}
\langle\cos^2\theta_{a}\rangle=\langle(\hat{z}\cdot\hat{Z})^2\rangle=\langle\frac{2}{3}D^2_{00}+\frac{1}{3}\rangle,$$ $$\label{eq:tb}
\langle\cos^2\theta_{b}\rangle=\langle(\hat{z}\cdot\hat{Y})^2\rangle=\langle-\frac{1}{3}D^2_{00}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(D^2_{02}+D^2_{0-2}\right)+\frac{1}{3}\rangle,$$ $$\label{eq:tc}
\langle\cos^2\theta_{c}\rangle=\langle(\hat{z}\cdot\hat{X})^2\rangle=1-\langle\cos^2\theta_{a}\rangle-\langle\cos^2\theta_{b}\rangle.$$ The observables are calculated for a thermal ensemble corresponding to the temperature of 180 K, $$\label{eq:thermo}
\langle O\rangle_T(t)=\sum_i\omega_i(T)\langle O\rangle_i(t),$$ where the sum runs over all thermally populated initial states, $\langle O\rangle_i(t)$ is a state-specific observable (Eqs. \[eq:ta\]–\[eq:tc\]), and $\omega_i(T)$ are normalized weight functions consisting of the Boltzmann factor and nuclear spin statistical weight [@RiehnPCCP05].
Computation of recombination cross sections
===========================================
Fixed-nuclei photorecombination amplitudes were computed using the complex Kohn variational method [@rlm95]. Here we give a brief summary. The initial-state wavefunction for the molecule in a specific [cation]{} state $\Gamma_0$ [and with initial angular momentum $l_0 m_0$]{} is written as $${\Psi_{\Gamma_0 l_0 m_0}=\sum_{\Gamma l m} A(\chi_\Gamma F_{\Gamma l m \Gamma_0 l_0 m_0}) +\sum_i d_i^{\Gamma_0 l_0 m_0} \Theta_i}$$ where $\Gamma$ labels the ionic target states $\chi_\Gamma$ included, [$F$]{} are channel functions that describe the incoming electron, $A$ is the antisymmetrization operator and the $\Theta_i$’s are $N$ electron correlation terms. In the present application, only one ionic target state is included in the trial wave function, that being the $8a_1^{-1}$ hole state.
In the Kohn method, the channel functions are further expanded, in the molecular frame, as $$\begin{split}
{F_{\Gamma l m \Gamma_0 l_0 m_0}}(\mathbf{r}) =
& \sum_i {c_i^{\Gamma l m \Gamma_0 l_0 m_0}}\varphi_i(\mathbf{r}) \\
&+
\sum_{lm}
\Big[
f_{lm}(k_\Gamma, {r})\delta_{ll_0}\delta_{mm_0} \delta_{\Gamma\Gamma_0} \\
&+
T_{ll_0mm_0}^{\Gamma\Gamma_0} h_{l m}^+(k_\Gamma, {r})
\Big]
Y_{lm}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})/{k_\Gamma^{\frac{1}{2}}r}\, ,
\end{split}
\label{eq:channelfcn}$$ where the $\varphi_i(\mathbf{r})$ are a set of square-integrable (Cartesian Gaussian) functions, [*Y*]{}$_{lm}$ is a normalized spherical harmonic, k$_{\Gamma}$ are channel momenta, and the $f_{lm}(k_\Gamma, {\mathbf r})$ and $h_{l m}^{+}(k_\Gamma, {\mathbf r})$ are numerical continuum functions that behave asymptotically as regular and outgoing partial-wave Coulomb functions, respectively [@Resc]. The coefficients T$_{ll_0mm_0}^{\Gamma\Gamma_0}$ are the T-matrix elements.
Photorecombination cross sections in the molecular frame can be constructed from the matrix elements $${I^\mu_{\Gamma_0 l_0 m_0}=<\Psi_0|r^\mu|\Psi_{\Gamma_0 l_0 m_0}}>\, ,$$ where $r^\mu$ is a component of the dipole operator, which we evaluate here in the length form, $$r^\mu = \Bigg\{
\begin{array}{ll} z, &
\mu=0\\
\mp \left(x\pm i y\right)/\sqrt{2}, & \mu=\pm 1 \end{array}\,$$ and $\Psi_0$ is the final state wave function of the neutral $N$ electron molecule. In order to construct an amplitude that represents an electron with momentum ${\bf k}_{\Gamma_0}$ recombining with the molecule and ejecting a photon with polarization direction $\hat{\epsilon}$, measured relative to the molecular body-frame, the matrix elements [$I^\mu_{\Gamma_0 l_0 m_0}$]{} must be combined in a partial wave series $$\label{amplitude}
{I_{\hat{k} , \Gamma_0, \hat{\epsilon}}}=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{3}}\sum_{\mu l_0m_0} i^{-{l_0}}e^{i\delta_{l_0}} {I^\mu_{\Gamma_0 l_0 m_0}}
Y_{1\mu}(\hat{\epsilon})Y_{l_0m_0}{(\hat{k})}\, , $$ where $\delta_{l_0}$ is a Coulomb phase shift. The cross section, differential in the angle of incoming electron and photon polarization relative to the fixed body-frame of the molecule, is then given by $$\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\Omega_{\hat{k},{\Gamma_0}} d\Omega_{\hat{\epsilon}}}=
\frac{8\pi \omega}{3c}{|I_{\hat{k},{\Gamma_0},\hat{\epsilon}}|^2}\, ,$$ where $\omega$ is the photon energy and $c$ is the speed of light. Finally the cross section for a particular polarization direction $\mu$ is given by $$\sigma^{\mu,\Gamma_0}=
\frac{8\pi \omega}{3c}\sum_{l_0m_0}|I^\mu_{\Gamma_0l_0m_0}|^2\, .$$
To ensure that our signal was arising only from the HOMO of SO$_2$ and not lower-lying orbitals, we compared the recombination dipole dependence for the HOMO-1 through HOMO-5. The ionization potentials for sulfur dioxide are 12.35 (HOMO), 12.99 (HOMO-1), 13.22 (HOMO-2), 15.90 (HOMO-3), 16.34 (HOMO-4) and 16.45 (HOMO-5) [@Feng]. It is thus feasible that we might see some signal from several of the lower-lying orbitals, which are relatively close to the HOMO in energy. To check this, we plot cross sections for different orbitals and 29.5 eV, the 19th harmonic energy in Fig. S\[fig:RecombCrossSec\_fig\]. We can see that as we add additional molecular orbitals, the b-axis direction remains dominant at this energy.
![Recombination cross section for high harmonic 19 (29.5 eV) at different molecular orbitals.[]{data-label="fig:RecombCrossSec_fig"}](RecombCrossSec.pdf){height="100mm"}
[990]{}
A. D. Shiner, B. E. Shmidt, C. Trallero-Herrero, H. J. Woerner, S. Patchkovskii, P. B. Corkum, J. C. Kieffer, F. Legare, and D. M. Villeneuve, [*Nature Physics*]{} [**7**]{}, 464 (2011).
J. E. R. Hemphill and D. Rogers, [*Applied Optics*]{} [**36**]{}, 1421 (1997).
G. Scoles, D. Bassi, U. Buck, and D. C. Laine eds., [*Atomic and Molecular Beam Methods*]{} (Oxford University Press, USA, 1988).
M. D. Poulsen, E. Peronne, H. Stapelfeldt, C. Z. Bisgaard, S. S. Viftrup, E. Hamilton, and T. Seideman, [*Journal of Chemical Physics*]{} [**121**]{}, 783 (2004).
P. M. Felker, [*Journal of Physical Chemistry*]{} [**96**]{}, 7844 (1992).
L. S. Spector, M. Guehr, and P. H. Bucksbaum, in manuscript (2013).
W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky, and W. T. Vetterling, [*Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing*]{} (Cambridge University Press, USA, 1986).
J. Pumplin. [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**82**]{}, 114020 (2010).
P. M. Nadolsky [*et al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**78**]{}, 013004 (2008).
A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling, and R. S. Thorne. [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**604**]{}, 61 (2004).
C. Amsler [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**667**]{}, 1 (2008).
T. Seideman and E. Hamilton, [*Ad. At. Mol. Opt. Phys.*]{} [**52**]{}, 289 (2006).
M. Artamonov and T. Seideman, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**128**]{}, 154313 (2008).
R. N. Zare, [*Angular Momentum*]{}, Wiley, New York (1998).
P. B. Lukins and G. L. D. Ritchie, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**89**]{}, 3409 (1985).
C. Riehn, M. I. Kunitski, V. V. Matylitsky, M. F. Gelin and B. Brutschy, [*Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**7**]{}, 3955 (2005).
T. N. Rescigno, B. H. Lengsfield, and C. W. McCurdy, in [*Modern Electronic Structure Theory*]{}, edited by D. R. Yarkony (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), Vol. 1.
T. N. Rescigno and A. E. Orel, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**43**]{}, 1625 (1991).
R. Feng, Y. Sakai, Y. Zheng, G. Cooper, and C. E. Brion, [*Chemical Physics*]{} [**260**]{}, 29 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The mechanisms used by the human visual system and artificial convolutional neural networks (CNN) to understand images are vastly different. The two systems have different notions of hardness, meaning the set of images which appear to be ambiguous and hard to classify are different. In this paper, we answer the following question: are there measures we can compute in the trained CNN models that correspond closely to human visual hardness? We found that the CNN model confidence does not correlate well with this human visual hardness, and it is not surprising given that there are calibration issues in the models. Therefore, we propose a novel measure called angular visual hardness (AVH). It is the normalized angular distance between the image feature embedding and the weights of the target category. We demonstrate that AVH is strongly correlated with human visual hardness across a broad range of CNN architectures. We conduct an in-depth scientific study and test multiple hypotheses to draw this conclusion. We observe that CNN models with the highest validation accuracy also have the best AVH scores. This agrees with the earlier finding that the state-of-the-art (SOTA) models are improving classification of harder examples. We also observe that during the training of CNNs, AVH reaches a plateau in early stages even as the training loss keeps improving. Based on the above insights, we empirically show the superiority of AVH serving as model confidence in the task of self-training. Finally, we conjecture the different causes for such plateau of easy and hard examples, which suggests the need to design better loss functions that can target harder examples more effectively and improve SOTA accuracy.'
author:
- |
Beidi Chen^1^, Weiyang Liu^2^, Animesh Garg^3,4^, Zhiding Yu^3^, Anshumali Shrivastava^1^, Anima Anandkumar^3,5^\
^1^Rice University ^2^Georgia Institute of Technology ^3^NVIDIA\
^4^University of Toronto ^5^California Institute of Technology\
bibliography:
- 'avh.bib'
title: Angular Visual Hardness
---
Introduction
============
CNN is important but it has not yet matched human systems. We have limited understanding of both human visual system and CNN.
To make progress on this direction, this paper starts from a special angle of how hard examples differ from these two systems.
Visualization of two cases: 1) Model confidence high but human selection frequency low 2) Model confidence low but human selection frequency high (The first slide for icml workshop). We can observe images that are easy for human to recognize, but hard for CNNs are the ones with relatively rich context, but the salient part is still the object of interest. The images that are hard to recognize for human, but easy for CNNs are the ones with more textures and less objects.
Most current deep learning research focuses on measuring the hardness of an image sample for deep models rather than for a human, although there is a rich history in cognitive and neuroscience communities to understand human visual perception.
Human brain translates visual information to mental representations which are subject to many correspondence differences and errors. They can be affected by the ambiguity of different semantics such as distortion or occlusion. However, these information is not presented in current large-scale benchmarks due to the expensive human efforts.
There have been many attempts made to design human perceptual scores that act as a surrogate for human visual hardness. Examples are like image degradation. Mention that Ben Retch’s group has made great efforts to have human selection frequency information on ImageNet validation set. We make use of it to come up with a new measure which align better with human visual hardness than softmax score.
Definition of AVH score. Show the mnist 10 class visualization example here for the intuition of AVH.
Discuss our Contributions:
1\) We observe that AVH is strongly correlated with human selection frequency across a wide range of CNN models. It is also strongly correlated with image degradation level, which is another proxy to human visual hardness. Hence, it can serve as its proxy on datasets where such information is not available.
2\) We observe that the CNN model confidence and human selection frequency are not strongly correlated. And we propose a new measure AVH, which has strong correlation to human selection frequency. It can serve as a bridge to connect CNN models and human visual systems on visual hardness perspective.
3\) We observed the evolution of AVH score during training of CNN models. It plateaus early in training even as the training (cross-entropy) loss keeps improving. We conjecture the different causes for such plateau of easy and hard examples, which suggests the need to design better loss functions that can improve performance on hard examples. It also validates the argument in [@recht2019imagenet] that improving the hard examples is the key to improve the generalization.
4\) We observe that the state-of-art (SOTA) models have the best average AVH score over all the validation images. Therefore, an AVH score can serve as a good measure to mine such hard examples in any datasets to facilitate the study of better generalization.
5\) Finally, we empirically prove the superiority of AVH score in two applications, sample reweighting and self-training.
Related Work
============
Angular Distance in CNNs
Image Degradation
Deep model calibration
Self-training?
A Discovery of the Bridge: AVH
==============================
Notations and Definitions
-------------------------
AVH, Model Confidence, Human Selection Frequency, Embedding l2 Norm.
Hypothesis on the connection between model and human
----------------------------------------------------
There exists some characteristic in CNN Models strongly correlates with Human Selection Frequency to bridge the gap?
AVH is the bridge
-----------------
Present the AVH and Human Frequency correlation plot. Also provides the correlation testing results.
Correlation of Human Visual Hardness and Model Predictions
----------------------------------------------------------
Present the Model Confidence and Human Frequency correlation plot. Also provides the correlation testing results. Compare it with AVH.
Correlation of Human Visual Hardness and Embedding Norm
-------------------------------------------------------
Present the Embedding Norm and Human Frequency correlation plot. Also provides the correlation testing results. Compare it with AVH.
Experiments
===========
Training Dynamics
-----------------
Present the training Dynamics of AVH, Model Predictions and Embedding Norm and the discoveries.
Self-training
-------------
Task Description: redefining confidence level used in the regularizer for self-training task.
Dataset: visda 2017
Baseline: Zhiding’s paper: Confidence Regularized Self-Training (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.09822.pdf)
Use AVH instead of softmax for the model confidence used in the training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use AVH to decide the frequency of training examples
----------------------------------------------------
Discussion
==========
Conjecture on training dynamics.
More potential applications.
Simialr Results on image degradation
====================================
Present the AVH and Degradation level correlation plot.
Present the training Dynamics of AVH on different level of degraded samples and the discoveries.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report observations of the $b\to d$ penguin-dominated decays $\Bu\to\Kzb\Kp$ and $\Bz\to\Kz\Kzb$ in $316\invfb$ of $e^+e^-$ collision data collected with the detector. We measure the branching fractions $\BR(\Bu\to\Kzb\Kp) = (1.61 \pm 0.44 \pm 0.09)\times 10^{-6}$ and $\BR(\Bz\to\Kz\Kzb) = (1.08 \pm 0.28 \pm 0.11)\times 10^{-6}$, and the -violating charge asymmetry ${\cal A}_{\CP}\,(\Kzb\Kp) = 0.10\pm 0.26\pm 0.03$. Using a vertexing technique previously employed in several analyses of all-neutral final states containing kaons, we report the first measurement of time-dependent -violating asymmetries in $\Bz\to\KS\KS$, obtaining $S = -1.28^{+0.80\;+0.11}_{-0.73\;-0.16}$ and $C = -0.40\pm 0.41\pm 0.06$. We also report improved measurements of the branching fraction $\BR(\Bu\to\Kz\pip) = (23.9\pm 1.1\pm 1.0)\times 10^{-6}$ and -violating charge asymmetry ${\cal A}_{\CP}\,(\Kz\pip) = -0.029\pm 0.039\pm 0.010$.'
title: ' [ **Observation of $\Bu\to\Kzb\Kp$ and $\Bz\to\Kz\Kzb$** ]{}'
---
-PUB-[06]{}/[058]{}\
SLAC-PUB-[12040]{}
pubboard/authors\_jul2006
The decays $\Bu\to\Kzb\Kp$ and $\Bz\to\Kz\Kzb$ are expected to be dominated by the flavor-changing neutral-current process $b\to d\bar{s}s$, which is highly suppressed in the standard model and potentially sensitive to the presence of new particles in a way analogous to $b\to s\bar{s}s$ decays such as $B\to\phi K$ [@LondonQuinn; @phiK]. Assuming top-quark dominance in the virtual loop mediating the $b\to d$ transition [@Fleischer94], the charge asymmetry in $\Bu\to\Kzb\Kp$ and the time-dependent -violating asymmetry parameters in $\Bz\to\KS\KS$ are expected to vanish, while contributions from lighter quarks or supersymmetric particles could induce observable asymmetries [@Giri]. It has been noted [@FleischerRecksiegel] that the branching fraction and asymmetries in $\Bz\to\Kz\Kzb$ are related in a nearly model-independent way, providing a sensitive test of the standard model description of violation.
In this Letter, we report observations of $\Bu\to\Kzb\Kp$ and $\Bz\to\Kz\Kzb$ using a data sample approximately $50\%$ larger than the one used in our previous search [@KsX05]. (The use of charge-conjugate modes is implied throughout this paper unless otherwise stated.) In addition to establishing these decay modes, we present measurements of the time-dependent -violating asymmetries in $\Bz\to\Kz\Kzb$ for the first time. We also report updated measurements of the branching fraction and charge asymmetry in the $SU(3)$-related decay $\Bu\to\Kz\pip$.
The asymmetry in $\Bz\to\Kz\Kzb$ (observed in the $\KS\KS$ final state) is determined from the difference in the time-dependent decay rates for $\Bz$ and $\Bzb$. In the process $\epem\to\Y4S\to\Bz\Bzb$, the decay rate $f_+\,(f_-)$ is given by [@tdcpv] $$\begin{aligned}
\fpm = \frac{e^{-\left|\deltat\right|/\tau}}{4\tau} [1
& \pm & S\sin(\deltamd\deltat) \nonumber \\
& \mp & C\cos(\deltamd\deltat)]
\label{fplusminus}\end{aligned}$$ when the second $B$ meson in the event (denoted $B_{\rm tag}$) is identified as $\Bz\,(\Bzb)$. Here $\Delta t$ is the time difference between the decays of the signal and $B_{\rm tag}$ mesons, $\tau$ is the average $\Bz$ lifetime, and $\Delta m_d$ is the $\Bz-\Bzb$ mixing frequency. The amplitude $S$ describes violation in the interference between mixed and unmixed decays into the same final state, while $C$ describes direct violation in decay.
The data sample used in this analysis contains $(347.5\pm 3.8)\times 10^6$ $\Y4S\to\BB$ decays collected by the detector [@babar] at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center’s (SLAC) 2 asymmetric-energy $\epem$ collider. The primary detector elements used in this analysis are a charged-particle tracking system consisting of a five-layer silicon vertex tracker and a 40-layer drift chamber surrounded by a $1.5$-T solenoidal magnet, and a dedicated particle-identification system consisting of a detector of internally reflected Cherenkov light.
We identify two separate event samples corresponding to the decays $\Bu\to \KS h^+$ and $\Bz\to \KS\KS$, where $h^+$ is either a pion or a kaon. Neutral kaons are reconstructed in the mode $\KS\to\pip\pim$ by combining pairs of oppositely charged tracks originating from a common decay point and satisfying selection requirements on their invariant mass and proper decay time. Candidate $h^+$ tracks are assigned the pion mass and are required to originate from the interaction region and to have a well-measured Cherenkov angle $(\theta_c$) consistent with either the pion or kaon particle hypothesis.
For each $\Bz$ candidate, we require the absolute value of the difference $\de$ between its reconstructed energy in the center-of-mass (CM) frame and the beam energy $(\sqrt s/2)$ to be less than $100\mev$. For $\Bu$ candidates, we require $-115 < \de < 75\mev$, where the lower limit accounts for an average shift in $\de$ of $-45\mev$ in the $\Kzb\Kp$ mode due to the assignment of the pion mass to the $\Kp$ candidate. We also define a beam-energy substituted mass $\mes \equiv \sqrt{(s/2 + {\mathbf {p}}_i\cdot {\mathbf {p}}_B)^2/E_i^2 -
{\mathbf {p}}_B^2}$, where the $B$-candidate momentum ${\mathbf {p}}_B$ and the four-momentum of the initial $\epem$ state $(E_i, {\mathbf {p}}_i)$ are calculated in the laboratory frame. We require $5.20 < \mes < 5.29\gevcc$ for $B$ candidates in both samples. To suppress the dominant background arising from the process $\epem\to\qqbar\,~(q=u,d,s,c)$, we calculate the CM angle $\theta^*_S$ between the sphericity axis [@sphericity] of the $B$ candidate and the sphericity axis of the remaining charged and neutral particles in the event, and require $\left | \cos\theta^*_S \right | < 0.8$.
[lcccccc]{} Mode & $\eps$ (%) & $n$ & $s~(\sigma)$ & ($10^{-6}$) & ${\cal A}_{\CP}$ & ${\cal A}_{\CP}\,(90\% {\rm CL})$\
\
$\Bu\to\Kz\pip$ & $12.9 \pm 0.4$ & $1072\pm 46\,^{+32}_{-37}$ & & $23.9 \pm 1.1 \pm 1.0$ & $-0.029\pm 0.039\pm 0.010$ & $[-0.092,0.036]$\
$\Bu\to\Kzb\Kp$ & $12.6 \pm 0.4$ & $71\pm 19\pm 4$ & $5.3$ & $1.61\pm 0.44\pm 0.09$ & $0.10\pm 0.26\pm 0.03$ & $[-0.31,0.54]$\
$\Bz\to\KzKzb$ & $8.5 \pm 0.3$ & $32\pm 8\pm 3$ & $7.3$ & $1.08\pm 0.28\pm 0.11$ &\
After applying all of the above requirements, we find $2321$ $(30159)$ candidates in the $\Bz\,(\Bu)$ sample. The total detection efficiencies are given in Table \[tab:summary\] and include the branching fraction for $\KS\to\pip\pim$ [@PDG2004] and a probability of $50\%$ for $\Kz\Kzb\to \KS\KS$ [@KsKl]. We use data and simulated Monte Carlo samples [@geant] to verify that backgrounds from other $B$ decays are negligible.
A multivariate technique [@Sin2betaPRD] is employed to determine the flavor of the $B_{\rm tag}$ meson in the $\Bz$ sample. Separate neural networks are trained to identify primary leptons, kaons, low-momentum pions from $D^*$ decays, and high-momentum charged particles from decays. Events are assigned to one of six mutually exclusive “tagging” categories. The quality of tagging is expressed in terms of the effective efficiency $Q = \sum_k \epsilon_k (1-2w_k)^2$, where $\epsilon_k$ and $w_k$ are the efficiencies and mistag probabilities, respectively, for events tagged in category $k$. We measure the tagging performance in a data sample of fully reconstructed neutral $B$ decays ($B_{\rm flav}$) to $D^{(*)-}(\pip,\, \rho^+,\, a_1^+)$, where the flavor of the decaying $B$ meson is known, and find a total effective efficiency of $Q = (30.4\pm 0.3)\%$.
The time difference $\deltat \equiv \Delta z/\beta\gamma c$ is obtained from the known boost of the $\epem$ system ($\beta\gamma = 0.56$) and the measured distance $\Delta z$ along the beam ($z$) axis between the $\Bz\to\KS\KS$ and $B_{\rm tag}$ decay vertices. The position of the $B_{\rm tag}$ vertex is determined from the remaining charged particles in the event after removing the four tracks composing the signal candidate. Despite the relatively long lifetime of the $\KS$ mesons, the $z$ position of the $B$-candidate decay point is obtained reliably by exploiting the precise knowledge of the interaction point using the technique described in Ref. [@KsVertexing]. We compute $\deltat$ and its error from a combined fit to the $\Y4S\to\Bz\Bzb$ decay, including the constraint from the known average lifetime of the $\Bz$ meson. Approximately $82\%$ of signal events contain a $\KS$ reconstructed from pions that each have at least two hits in the silicon vertex tracker, providing sufficiently small $\deltat$ uncertainty ($0.9\,{\rm ps}$) to perform the measurement. We require $\left|\deltat\right|<20\ps$ and $\sigma_{\deltat} < 2.5\ps$, where $\sigma_{\deltat}$ is the uncertainty on $\deltat$ determined separately for each event. The resolution function for signal candidates is a sum of three gaussian distributions with parameters determined from the $B_{\rm flav}$ sample [@Sin2betaPRD]. The background $\deltat$ distribution has the same functional form as the signal resolution function, with parameters determined directly from data.
To obtain the yields and violating asymmetry parameters in each sample, we apply separate unbinned maximum-likelihood fits incorporating discriminating variables that account for differences between $\BB$ and $\qqbar$ events. In addition to the kinematic variables $\mes$ and $\de$, we include a Fisher discriminant ${\cal F}$ [@pipi2002] defined as an optimized linear combination of the event-shape variables $\sum_i p_i^*$ and $\sum_i p_i^*\cos^2\theta_i^*$, where $p_i^*$ is the CM momentum of particle $i$, $\theta_i^*$ is the CM angle between the momentum of particle $i$ and the $B$-candidate thrust axis, and the sum is over all particles in the event excluding the $B$ daughters. For the fit to the $\Bu$ sample we include the Cherenkov angle measurement to separate $\KS\pip$ and $\KS\Kp$ decays. For the $\Bz$ sample we include $\deltat$ to determine the $\CP$-violating asymmetry parameters $S$ and $C$ simultaneously with the signal yield.
The likelihood function to be maximized is defined as ${\cal L} = \exp{\left (-\sum_{i}n_i \right )}
\prod_{j=1}^N\left[\sum_i n_i{\cal P}_i\right]$, where $n_i$ and ${\cal P}_i$ are the yield and probability density function (PDF) for each component $i$ in the fit, and $N$ is the total number of events in the sample. For the $\Bz$ sample there are two components (signal and background), and the total PDF is calculated as the product of the individual PDFs for $\mes$, $\de$, ${\cal F}$, and $\deltat$. The signal $\deltat$ PDF is derived from Eq. \[fplusminus\], modified to take into account the mistag probability and convolved with the resolution function. We combine $\Bu$ and $\Bub$ candidates in a single fit and include the PDF for $\theta_c$ to determine separate yields and charge asymmetries for the two signal components, $\KS\pi$ and $\KS K$, and two corresponding background components. For both signal and background, the $\KS h^{\pm}$ yields are parameterized as $n_{\pm} = n(1 \mp {\cal A}_{\CP})/2$; we fit directly for the total yield $n$ and the charge asymmetry ${\cal A}_{\CP}$. We have found correlations among the PDF variables in the fit to be negligible in both the $\Bz$ and $\Bp$ samples.
The parameterizations of the PDFs are determined from data wherever possible. In both samples, we exploit the large sideband regions in $\mes$ and $\de$ to determine all background PDF parameters simultaneously with the yields and asymmetries in the fits. For the $\Bu$ sample, the large signal $\KS\pip$ component allows for an accurate determination of the peak positions for $\mes$ and $\de$, as well as the parameters describing the shape of the PDF for ${\cal F}$. The remaining shape parameters describing $\mes$ and $\de$ are determined from simulated Monte Carlo samples and are fixed in the fit. We use the $\KS\pip$ parameters to describe signal $\KS\Kp$ PDFs in $\mes$, $\de$, and ${\cal F}$, taking into account the known shift in the mean of $\de$ due to the pion-mass hypothesis. For both signal and background, the $\theta_c$ PDFs are obtained from a sample of $D^{*+}\to \Dz\pip\,(\Dz\to\Km\pip)$ decays reconstructed in data, as described in Ref. [@KpiBaBar]. For the $\Bz$ sample, all shape parameters describing the $\mes$, $\de$, and ${\cal F}$ signal PDFs are fixed to the values determined from Monte Carlo simulation except the peak position for $\de$, which is derived from the results of the fit to the $\Bu$ sample.
Several cross-checks were performed to validate the fitting technique before data in the signal region were examined. We checked for biases by performing pseudo-experiments where simulated Monte Carlo signal events were mixed with background events generated directly from the PDFs according to the expected yields in the data. The resulting small biases on the yields include effects of incorrect particle identification and are accounted for in the systematic uncertainties.
The fit results supersede our previous measurements of these quantities and are summarized in Table \[tab:summary\]. The signal yields for $\Bu\to\KS\Kp$ and $\Bz\to\KS\KS$ correspond to significances of $5.3\sigma$ and $7.3\sigma$ (including systematic uncertainties), respectively, and are consistent with our previous measurements [@KsX05], as well as with recent results by the Belle Collaboration [@BelleKK]. The significances are computed by taking the square root of the change in $2$ln${\cal L}$ when the appropriate yield is fixed to zero. The fit to the $\Bz$ sample yields $S = -1.28^{+0.80\;+0.11}_{-0.73\;-0.16}$ and $C = -0.40\pm 0.41\pm 0.06$, where the first errors are statistical and the second are systematic. The linear correlation coefficient between $S$ and $C$ is $-32\%$.
In Fig. \[fig:sPlots\] we compare data and PDFs using the event-weighting technique described in Ref. [@sPlots]. We perform fits excluding the variable being shown; the covariance matrix and remaining PDFs are used to determine a weight that each event is either signal (main plot) or background (inset). The resulting distributions (points with errors) are normalized to the appropriate yield and can be directly compared with the PDFs (solid curves) used in the fits. We find good agreement between data and the assumed shapes in both $\mes$ and $\de$. In Fig. \[fig:Asym\] we display the $\deltat$ distributions for $\KS\KS$ events tagged as $\Bz$ or $\Bzb$, and the asymmetry ${\cal A} = \left(N_{\Bz} - N_{\Bzb}\right)/\left(N_{\Bz} + N_{\Bzb}\right)$. The projections are enhanced in signal decays by selecting on probability ratios calculated from the signal and background PDFs (excluding $\deltat$). The likelihood function in the $\Bz\to\KS\KS$ fit is used to derive Bayesian confidence-level contours in the $C$ vs. $S$ plane by fixing $(S,C)$ to specific values, refitting the data, and recording the change in $-2\log{\cal L}$. Figure \[fig:Asym\] shows the resulting $n\sigma$ contours in the physical region defined by $S^2+C^2 < 1$.
![Distributions of (left) $\mes$ and (right) $\de$ for signal (main plot) and background (inset) (a),(b) $\KS\pi ^+$, (c),(d) $\KS K^+$, and (e),(f) $\KS\KS$ candidates (points with error bars) in data obtained with the weighting technique described in the text. The solid curves represent the assumed shapes used in the fits.[]{data-label="fig:sPlots"}](./fig1ace.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\linewidth"}![Distributions of (left) $\mes$ and (right) $\de$ for signal (main plot) and background (inset) (a),(b) $\KS\pi ^+$, (c),(d) $\KS K^+$, and (e),(f) $\KS\KS$ candidates (points with error bars) in data obtained with the weighting technique described in the text. The solid curves represent the assumed shapes used in the fits.[]{data-label="fig:sPlots"}](./fig1bdf.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\linewidth"}
![Left: distributions of $\deltat$ for $\Bz\to\KS\KS$ decays in data tagged as $\Bz$ (top) or $\Bzb$ (middle), and the asymmetry (bottom). The data is enhanced in signal decays using requirements on probability ratios. The solid curve represents the PDF projection for the sum of signal and background, while the dotted curve shows the contribution from background only. Right: Likelihood contours in the $S$ vs. $C$ plane, where $n\sigma$ corresponds to a change in $-2\log{\cal L}$ of $2.3$ for $n=1$, $6.2$ for $n=2$, and $11.8$ for $n=3$. The circle indicates the physically allowed region, while the point with error bars denotes the result of the fit to data.[]{data-label="fig:Asym"}](./fig2a.eps "fig:"){height="5.8cm" width="0.50\linewidth"}![Left: distributions of $\deltat$ for $\Bz\to\KS\KS$ decays in data tagged as $\Bz$ (top) or $\Bzb$ (middle), and the asymmetry (bottom). The data is enhanced in signal decays using requirements on probability ratios. The solid curve represents the PDF projection for the sum of signal and background, while the dotted curve shows the contribution from background only. Right: Likelihood contours in the $S$ vs. $C$ plane, where $n\sigma$ corresponds to a change in $-2\log{\cal L}$ of $2.3$ for $n=1$, $6.2$ for $n=2$, and $11.8$ for $n=3$. The circle indicates the physically allowed region, while the point with error bars denotes the result of the fit to data.[]{data-label="fig:Asym"}](./fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="0.50\linewidth"}
Systematic uncertainties on the signal yields are primarily due to the imperfect knowledge of the PDF shapes. We evaluate this uncertainty by varying the PDF parameters that are fixed in the fit within their statistical errors, and by substituting different functional forms for the PDF shapes. For the charged modes, the largest contribution is due to the signal parameterization of $\mes$ and $\de$ ($3\%$ for $\KS\pip$, $4\%$ for $\KS\Kp$), while for the neutral mode it is due to the potential fit bias ($8.6\%$) determined from the pseudo-experiments. We use the larger of the value or uncertainty on the background asymmetries to set the systematic uncertainty on ${\cal A_{\CP}}$ due to potential charge bias [@KpiBaBar]. We measure background asymmetries ${\cal A}_{\CP}(\KS\pip)=-0.010\pm 0.008$ and ${\cal A}_{\CP}(\KS \Kp)=-0.005\pm 0.009$, which are consistent with no bias and lead to a systematic uncertainty of $0.010$. The dominant sources of systematic uncertainty on $S$ and $C$ are due to the positions of the means in $\mes$ and $\de$. The statistical uncertainties of the measured values of the parameters are in good agreement with the expected error values ($0.8\pm 0.3$ for $S$ and $0.6\pm 0.2$ for $C$), while Monte Carlo studies confirm that the fit technique is unbiased for large values of the parameters.
In summary, we have observed the decays $\Bu\to\Kzb\Kp$ and $\Bz\to\Kz\Kzb$ with significances of $5.3\sigma$ and $7.3\sigma$, respectively. The observed branching fractions are consistent with recent theoretical estimates [@FleischerRecksiegel; @BenekeNeubertAndYYKeumAndFleischerRecksiegel2]. The measured values of the time-dependent -violating asymmetry parameters in the $\Bz\to\KS\KS$ mode reported here indicate that large positive values of $S$ are disfavored, although more data will be needed to confirm this result. We have also improved our measurements of the branching fraction and -violating charge asymmetry in $\Bu\to\KS\pip$; both are consistent with previous measurements by other experiments [@BelleAndCleoACP].
We are grateful for the excellent luminosity and machine conditions provided by our 2 colleagues, and for the substantial dedicated effort from the computing organizations that support . The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and kind hospitality. This work is supported by DOE and NSF (USA), NSERC (Canada), IHEP (China), CEA and CNRS-IN2P3 (France), BMBF and DFG (Germany), INFN (Italy), FOM (The Netherlands), NFR (Norway), MIST (Russia), and PPARC (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from CONACyT (Mexico), A. P. Sloan Foundation, Research Corporation, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
[99]{}
D. London and R. D. Peccei, , 257 (1989); H. R. Quinn, , 21 (1994).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, , 091102 (2005); Belle Collaboration, K. Abe [*et al.*]{}, , 261602 (2003).
R. Fleischer, , 205 (1994).
A. K. Giri and R. Mohanta, JHEP [**11**]{}, 084 (2004).
R. Fleischer and S. Recksiegel, , 251 (2004).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, , 221801 (2005).
For a review, see D. Kirkby and Y. Nir in Ref. [@PDG2004].
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, , 1 (2002).
G. Hanson [*et al.*]{}, , 1609 (1975).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, , 071101 (2004).
Particle Data Group, S. Eidelman [*et al.*]{}, , 1 (2004).
The decay $\Bz\to\Kz\Kzb$ proceeds in an $S$-wave, which produces equal fractions of $\KS\KS$ and $\KL\KL$, but no $\KS\KL$, neglecting violation in the kaon system.
The detector simulation is based on 4, S. Agostini [*et al.*]{}, , 250 (2003).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, , 032003 (2002).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, , 111102 (2005).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, , 281802 (2002).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, , 131801 (2004).
Belle Collaboration, Y. Chao [*et al.*]{}, , 231802 (2005).
M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, , 356 (2005).
M. Beneke and M. Neubert, , 333 (2003); Y.-Y. Keum, Pramana [**63**]{}, 1151 (2004); R. Fleischer and S. Recksiegel, , 051501 (2005).
Belle Collaboration, Y. Chao [*et al.*]{}, , 031502 (2005); CLEO Collaboration, S. Chen [*et al.*]{}, , 525 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In competitive adversarial environments, it is often advantageous to obfuscate one’s strategies or capabilities. However, revealing one’s strategic intentions may shift the dynamics of the competition in complex ways. Can it ever be advantageous to reveal strategic intentions to an opponent? In this paper, we consider three-stage Colonel Blotto games in which one player can choose whether or not to pre-commit resources to a single battlefield before play begins. This pre-commitment is public knowledge. In response, the opponent can either secure the battlefield by matching the pre-commitment with its own forces, or withdraw. In a two-player setting, we show that a weaker player never has an incentive to pre-commit any amount of resources to a battlefield regardless of how valuable it is. We then consider a three-player setting in which two players fight against a common adversary on separate fronts. Only one of the two players facing the adversary has the option of pre-committing. We find there are instances where this player benefits from pre-committing. The analysis indicates that under non-cooperative team settings and no possibility of forming alliances, there can be incentives to publicly announce one’s strategic intentions to an adversary.'
author:
- Rahul Chandan
- Keith Paarporn
- 'Jason R. Marden [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'sources.bib'
date: September 2019
title: |
**When showing your hand pays off:\
Announcing strategic intentions in Colonel Blotto games\
[^2]**
---
Conclusion and future work
==========================
In this paper, we investigated whether announcing a strategic intention could ever benefit a player. We modelled a variant of the Colonel Blotto game in which one player can pre-commit a portion of its budget.
In the one-vs-one setting, we proved that there is never an incentive for a weaker player to pre-commit a portion of its budget to any given battlefield. In the three-player setting, wherein the adversary faces two players at once, we demonstrated that situations *do* exist in which one of the players facing the adversary can improve its payoff by pre-committing some of its forces to a battlefield. In effect, such announcements shift the adversary’s allocation of resources towards the other player.
Future directions include an investigation of emergent equilibrium outcomes when multiple players facing a common adversary have the option to announce a pre-commitment. Additionally, exploring how a pre-commitment made by player $1$ can affect the payoffs experienced by the adversary and player $2$ will provide insight into the consequences of self-interested play.
[^1]: R. Chandan, K. Paarporn and J. R. Marden are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and the Center of Control, Dynamical Systems and Computation, UC Santa Barbara, USA. Email: [[email protected]](mail_to:[email protected]), [[email protected]](mail_to:[email protected]), [[email protected]](mail_to:[email protected]).
[^2]: This work is supported by ONR grant \#N00014-17-1-2060, NSF grant \#ECCS-1638214, and UCOP Grant LFR-18-548175.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Existing strategies for finite-armed stochastic bandits mostly depend on a parameter of scale that must be known in advance. Sometimes this is in the form of a bound on the payoffs, or the knowledge of a variance or subgaussian parameter. The notable exceptions are the analysis of Gaussian bandits with unknown mean and variance by [@CK15] and of uniform distributions with unknown support [@CK15b]. The results derived in these specialised cases are generalised here to the non-parametric setup, where the learner knows only a bound on the kurtosis of the noise, which is a scale free measure of the extremity of outliers.'
author:
- Tor Lattimore
bibliography:
- 'all.bib'
title: A Scale Free Algorithm for Stochastic Bandits with Bounded Kurtosis
---
Introduction
============
The purpose of this note is to show that logarithmic regret is possible for finite-armed bandits with no assumptions on the noise of the payoffs except for a known finite bound on the kurtosis, which corresponds to knowing the likelihood/magnitude of outliers [@DeC97]. Importantly, the kurtosis is independent of the location of the mean and *scale* of the central tendency (the variance). This generalises the ideas of [@CK15] beyond the Gaussian case with unknown mean and variance to the non-parametric setting.
The setup is as follows. Let $k \geq 2$ be the number of bandits (or arms). In each round $1 \leq t \leq n$ the player should choose an action $A_t \in {\left\{ 1,\ldots,k\right\}}$ and subsequently receives a reward $X_t \sim \nu_{A_t}$, where $\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_k$ are a set of distributions that are not known in advance. Let $\mu_i$ be the mean payoff of the $i$th arm and $\mu^* = \max_i \mu_i$ and $\Delta_i = \mu^* - \mu_i$. The regret measures the expected deficit of the player relative to the optimal choice of distribution: [$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal R}_n = {\mathbf{E}}\left[\sum_{t=1}^n \Delta_{A_t}\right]\,.
\label{eq:regret}\end{aligned}$$]{} The table below summarises many of the known results on the optimal achievable asymptotic regret under different assumptions on $\{\nu_i\}$. A reference for each of the upper bounds is given in Table \[tab:typical\], while the lower bounds are mostly due to [@LR85] and [@BK96]. An omission from the table is when the distributions are known to lie in a single-parameter exponential family (which does not fit well with the columns). Details are by [@KKM13; @Kau16].
[|cp[4cm]{}lll|]{} & **Assumption** & **Known** & **Unknown** & $\lim_{n\to\infty} {\mathcal R}_n / \log(n)$\
1 & Bernoulli [@LR85] & $\operatorname{Supp}(\nu_i) \subseteq {\left\{ 0,1\right\}}$ & $\mu_i \in [0,1]$ & $\displaystyle \sum_{i:\Delta_i > 0} \frac{1}{d(\mu_i, \mu^*)}$\
2 & Bounded [@HT10] & $\operatorname{Supp}(\nu_i) \subseteq [0,1]$ & distribution &\
3 & Semi-bounded [@HT15] & $\operatorname{Supp}(\nu_i) \subseteq (-\infty,1]$ & distribution &\
4 & Gaussian (known var.) [@KR95] & $\nu_i = \mathcal N(\mu_i,\sigma_i^2)$ & $\mu_i \in {\mathbf{R}}$ & $\displaystyle \sum_{i:\Delta_i > 0} \frac{2\sigma^2_i}{\Delta_i}$\
5 & Uniform [@CK15b] & $\nu_i = \mathcal U(a_i, b_i)$ & $a_i,\, b_i$ & $\displaystyle \sum_{i:\Delta_i > 0} \frac{\Delta_i}{\log\left(1 + \frac{2\Delta_i}{b_i-a_i}\right)}$\
6 & Subgaussian [@BC12] & $\log M_{\nu_i}(\lambda) \leq \frac{\lambda^2 \sigma_i^2}{2}\,\, \forall \lambda$ & distribution & $\displaystyle \sum_{i:\Delta_i > 0} \frac{2\sigma^2_i}{\Delta_i}$\
7 & Known variance [@BCL13] & ${\mathbf{V}}[\nu_i] \leq \sigma^2_i$ & distribution & $\displaystyle O\left(\sum_{i:\Delta_i > 0} \frac{\sigma^2_i}{\Delta_i}\right)$\
8 & Gaussian [@CK15] & $\nu_i = \mathcal N(\mu_i, \sigma^2)$ & $\mu_i \in {\mathbf{R}}$, $\sigma^2_i > 0$ & $\displaystyle \sum_{i:\Delta_i > 0} \frac{2\Delta_i}{\log\left(1 + \Delta_i^2/\sigma^2_i\right)}$\
\
With the exception of rows 5 and 8 in Table \[tab:typical\], all entries depend on some kind of scale parameter. Missing is an entry for a non-parametric assumption that is scale free. This paper fills that gap with the following assumption and regret guarantee.
\[assumption1\] There exists a known $\kappa \in {\mathbf{R}}$ such that for all $1 \leq i \leq k$, the kurtosis of $X \sim \nu_i$ is at most [$$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Kurt}}[X] = \frac{{\mathbf{E}}[(X - {\mathbf{E}}[X])^4]}{{\mathbf{V}}[X]^2} \leq \kappa\,.\end{aligned}$$]{}
\[thm:upper\] If Assumption 1 holds, then the algorithm described in §\[sec:alg\] satisfies [$$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{{\mathcal R}_n}{\log(n)} \leq C\sum_{i:\Delta_i > 0} \Delta_i \left(\kappa - 1 + \frac{\sigma^2_i}{\Delta_i^2}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\sigma^2_i$ is the variance of $\nu_i$ and $C > 0$ is a universal constant.
What are the implications of this result? The first point is that the algorithm in §\[sec:alg\] is scale and translation invariant in the sense that its behaviour does not change if the payoffs are multiplied by a positive constant or shifted. The regret also depends appropriately on the scale so that multiplying the rewards by a positive constant factor also multiplies the regret by this factor. As far as I know, this is the first scale free bandit algorithm with logarithmic regret on a non-parametric class. The assumption on the boundedness of the kurtosis is much less restrictive than assuming an exact Gaussian model (which has kurtosis 3) or uniform (kurtosis 9/5). See Table \[table:kurtosis\] for other examples.
[r]{}[7.8cm]{}
------------------ -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
**Distribution** **Parameters** **Kurtosis**
Gaussian $\mu \in {\mathbf{R}}, \sigma^2 > 0$ 3
Bernoulli $\mu \in [0,1]$ $\frac{1 - 3\mu(1-\mu)}{\mu(1-\mu)}$
Exponential $\lambda > 0$ $9$
Laplace $\mu \in {\mathbf{R}}, b > 0$ $9$
Uniform $a < b \in {\mathbf{R}}$ $9/5$
------------------ -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
As mentioned, the kurtosis is a measure of the likelihood/existence of outliers of a distribution, and it makes intuitive sense that a bandit strategy might depend on some kind of assumption on this quantity. How else to know whether or not to cease exploring an unpromising action? The assumption can also be justified from a mathematical perspective. If the variance of an arm is not assumed known, then calculating confidence intervals requires an estimate of the variance from the data. Let $X, X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_n$ be a sequence of i.i.d. centered random variable with finite-variance $\sigma^2$. A reasonable estimate of $\sigma^2$ is [$$\begin{aligned}
\hat \sigma^2 = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{t=1}^n X_t^2\,.
\label{eq:simple-est}\end{aligned}$$]{} Clearly this estimator is unbiased and has variance [$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{V}}[\hat \sigma^2] = \frac{{\mathbf{E}}[X^4] - {\mathbf{E}}[X^2]^2}{n}
= \frac{\sigma^4 \left(\kappa - 1\right)}{n}\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} Therefore, if we are to expect good estimation of $\sigma^2$, then the kurtosis should be finite. Note that if $\sigma^2$ is estimated by (\[eq:simple-est\]), then the central limit theorem combined with finite kurtosis is enough for an estimation error of $O(\sigma^2 ((\kappa-1) / n)^{1/2})$ *asymptotically*. For bandits, however, finite-time bounds are required, which are not available using (\[eq:simple-est\]) without additional moment assumptions (for example, on the moment generating function). Finite kurtosis alone *is enough* if the classical empirical estimator is replaced by a robust estimator such as the median-of-means estimator [@AMS96] or Catoni’s estimator [@Cat12].
#### Contributions
The main contribution is the new assumption, algorithm, and the proof of Theorem \[thm:upper\] (see §\[sec:alg\]). The upper bound is also complemented by a lower bound (§\[sec:lower\]).
#### Additional notation
Let $T_i(t) = \sum_{t=1}^n {\mathds{1}\left\{A_t = i\right\}}$ be the number of times arm $i$ has been played after round $t$. For measures $P,Q$ on the same probability space, ${\operatorname{KL}}(P, Q)$ is the relative entropy between $P$ and $Q$ and $\chi^2(P,Q)$ is the $\chi^2$ distance. The following lemma is well known.
\[lem:kurtosis\] Let $X_1, X_2$ be independent random variables with $X_i$ having variance $\sigma^2_i$ and kurtosis $\kappa_i < \infty$ and skewness $\gamma_i = {\mathbf{E}}[(X_i - {\mathbf{E}}[X_i])^3 / \sigma_i^3]$, then:
1. $\displaystyle {\operatorname{Kurt}}[X_1 + X_2] = 3 + \frac{\sigma_1^4(\kappa_1 - 3) + \sigma_2^4(\kappa_2 - 3)}{\left(\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2\right)^2}$.
2. $\displaystyle \gamma_1 \leq \sqrt{\kappa_1 - 1}$.
Algorithm and upper bound {#sec:alg}
=========================
Like the robust upper confidence bound algorithm by [@BCL13], the new algorithm makes use of the robust median-of-means estimator.
#### Median-of-means estimator
Let $Y_1,Y_2,\ldots,Y_n$ be a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables. The median-of-means estimator first partitions the data into $m$ blocks of equal size (up to rounding errors). The empirical mean of each block is then computed and the estimate is the median of the means of each of the blocks. The number of blocks depends on the desired confidence level and should be $O(\log(1/\delta))$. The median-of-means estimator at confidence level $\delta \in (0,1)$ is denoted by ${\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}_\delta(\{Y_t\}_{t=1}^n)$.
\[lem:mofm\] Let $Y_1,Y_2,\ldots,Y_n$ be a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables with mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2 < \infty$. [$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{P}\left(\left|{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}_\delta\left({\left\{ Y_t\right\}}_{t=1}^n\right) - \mu\right| \geq C_1 \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2}{n} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta}\right)}\right)} \leq \delta\,,\end{aligned}$$]{} where $C_1 = \sqrt{12\cdot 16}$ and $C_2 = \exp(1/8)$ are universal constants.
#### Upper confidence bounds
The algorithm is an obvious generalisation of UCB, but with optimistic estimates of the mean and variance. Let $\delta \in (0,1)$ and $Y_1,Y_2,\ldots,Y_t$ be a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables with mean $\mu$, variance $\sigma^2$ and kurtosis $\kappa < \infty$. Furthermore, let [$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \mu(\{Y_s\}_{s=1}^t, \delta) = \sup{\left\{ \theta \in {\mathbf{R}}: \theta \leq {\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}\left({\left\{ Y_s\right\}}_{s=1}^t\right) + C_1 \sqrt{\frac{\tilde \sigma^2_t(\{Y_s\}_{s=1}^t, \theta, \delta)}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta}\right)}\right\}}\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\displaystyle \tilde \sigma_t^2(\{Y_s\}_{s=1}^t, \theta, \delta) = \frac{{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}\left({\left\{ (Y_s - \theta)^2\right\}}_{s=1}^t\right)}{\max{\left\{ 0,\, 1 - C_1 \sqrt{\frac{\kappa - 1}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta}\right)}\right\}}}$.
Note that $\tilde \mu(\{Y_s\}_{s=1}^t, \delta)$ may be (positive) infinite if $t$ is insufficiently large. The following two lemmas show that $\tilde \mu$ is indeed optimistic with high probability, and also that it concentrates with reasonable speed around the true mean.
\[lem:conc1\] $\displaystyle {\mathbf{P}\left(\tilde \mu(\{Y_s\}_{s=1}^t, \delta) \leq \mu\right)} \leq 2\delta$.
Apply a union bound and Lemma \[lem:mofm\].
\[lem:conc2\] Let $\delta_t$ be monotone decreasing and $\tilde \mu_t = \tilde \mu(\{Y_s\}_{s=1}^t, \delta_t)$. Then there exists a universal constant $C_3$ such that for any $\epsilon > 0$, [$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{t=1}^n {\mathbf{P}\left(\tilde \mu_t \geq \mu + \epsilon\right)} \leq
C_3 \max{\left\{ \kappa - 1,\, \frac{\sigma^2}{\epsilon^2}\right\}} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_n}\right) + 2\sum_{t=1}^n \delta_t\,.\end{aligned}$$]{}
First, by Lemma \[lem:mofm\] [$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{t=1}^n {\mathbf{P}\left(\left|{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}\left({\left\{ Y_s\right\}}_{s=1}^t\right) - \mu\right| \geq C_1 \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_t}\right)}\right)}
&\leq \sum_{t=1}^n \delta_t\,.
\label{eq:conc2-1}\end{aligned}$$]{} Similarly, [$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{t=1}^n {\mathbf{P}\left(\left|{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}\left({\left\{ (Y_s-\mu)^2\right\}}_{s=1}^t\right) - \sigma^2\right| \geq C_1 \sigma^2 \sqrt{\frac{\kappa - 1}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta}\right)}\right)}
&\leq \sum_{t=1}^n \delta_t\,.
\label{eq:conc2-2}\end{aligned}$$]{} Suppose that $t$ is a round where all of the following hold:
1. $\displaystyle \left|{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}\left({\left\{ Y_s\right\}}_{s=1}^t\right) - \mu\right| < C_1\sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_t}\right)}$.
2. $\displaystyle \left|{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}\left({\left\{ (Y_s - \mu)^2\right\}}_{s=1}^t\right) - \sigma^2\right| < C_1 \sigma^2\sqrt{\frac{\kappa - 1}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_t}\right)}$.
3. $\displaystyle t \geq 16C_1^2 (\kappa-1) \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_t}\right)$.
Abbreviating $\tilde \sigma^2_t = \tilde \sigma^2(\{Y_s\}_{s=1}^t, \tilde \mu_t, \delta_t)$ and $\hat \mu_t = {\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}\left({\left\{ Y_s\right\}}_{s=1}^t\right)$, [$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \sigma^2_t
&= \frac{{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}\left({\left\{ (Y_s - \tilde \mu_s)^2\right\}}_{s=1}^t\right)}{1 - C_1 \sqrt{\frac{\kappa - 1}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_t}\right)}}
\leq 2{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}\left({\left\{ (Y_s - \tilde \mu_t)^2\right\}}_{s=1}^t\right) \\
&\leq 4{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}\left({\left\{ (Y_s - \mu)^2\right\}}_{s=1}^t\right) + 4(\tilde \mu_t - \mu)^2 \\
&\leq 4{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}\left({\left\{ (Y_s - \mu)^2\right\}}_{s=1}^t\right) + 8(\tilde \mu_t - \hat \mu_t)^2 + 8(\hat \mu_t - \mu)^2 \\
&< 4\sigma^2 + 4C_1 \sigma^2 \sqrt{\frac{\kappa-1}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_t}\right)} + \frac{8C_1^2(\sigma^2+\tilde \sigma^2_t)(\kappa - 1)}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_t}\right)
\leq \frac{11}{2} \sigma^2 + \frac{\tilde \sigma^2_t}{2}\,,\end{aligned}$$]{} where the first inequality follows from (c), the second since $(x - y)^2 \leq 2x^2 + 2y^2$ and the fact that [$$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}(\{a Y_s + b\}_{s=1}^t = a{\operatorname{\widehat{MM}}}(\{Y_s\}_{s=1}^t) + b\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} The third inequality again uses $(x - y)^2 \leq 2x^2 + 2y^2$, while the last uses the definition of $\tilde \mu_t$ and (b). Therefore $\tilde \sigma^2_t \leq 11\sigma^2$, which means that if (a–c) and additionally
1. $\displaystyle t \geq \frac{19C_1^2 \sigma^2}{\epsilon^2} \log\left(\frac{1}{\delta_n}\right)$.
Then [$$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde \mu_t - \mu|
&\leq |\tilde \mu_t - \hat \mu_t| + |\hat \mu_t - \mu|
< C_1 \sqrt{\frac{\tilde\sigma_t^2}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_n}\right)} + C_1 \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_n}\right)} \\
&\leq C_1 \sqrt{\frac{11\sigma^2}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_n}\right)} + C_1 \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2}{t} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_n}\right)}
\leq \epsilon\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} Combining this with (\[eq:conc2-1\]) and (\[eq:conc2-2\]) and choosing $C_3 = 19 C_1^2$ completes the result.
#### Algorithm
The new algorithm simply uses the upper confidence bound in the last section. Let $\delta_t = 1/(t^2 \log(1+t))$ and [$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \mu_i(t) = \tilde \mu_i(\{X_s\}_{s\in[t], A_s = i}, \delta_t) \in (-\infty, \infty]\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} In each round the algorithm chooses $A_t = {\operatornamewithlimits{arg\,max}}_{i \in [k]} \tilde \mu_i(t-1)$, where ties are broken arbitrarily.
Assume without loss of generality that $\mu_1 = \mu^*$. The regret is [$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal R}_n = \sum_{i=1}^k \Delta_i {\mathbf{E}}[T_i(n)]\,.
\label{eq:decomp}\end{aligned}$$]{} A bound on ${\mathbf{E}}[T_i(n)]$ follows immediately from Lemmas \[lem:conc1\] and \[lem:conc2\]. [$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{E}}[T_i(n)]
&\leq \sum_{t=1}^n {\mathbf{P}\left(\tilde \mu_1(t-1) \leq \mu_1\right)} + \sum_{t=1}^n {\mathbf{P}\left(\tilde \mu_i(t-1) \geq \mu_1 \text{ and } A_t = i\right)}\end{aligned}$$]{} The first term is bounded using Lemma \[lem:conc1\]. [$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{t=1}^n {\mathbf{P}\left(\tilde \mu_1(t-1) \leq \mu_1\right)}
&\leq \sum_{t=1}^n \sum_{u=1}^t {\mathbf{P}\left(\tilde \mu_1(t-1) \leq \mu_1 \text{ and } T_1(t-1) = u\right)} \\
&\leq 2\sum_{t=1}^n \sum_{u=1}^t \delta_t
= 2\sum_{t=1}^n t \delta_t = o(\log(n))\,. \end{aligned}$$]{} The second term is bound using Lemma \[lem:conc2\]. [$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{t=1}^n {\mathbf{P}\left(\tilde \mu_i(t-1) \geq \mu_1 \text{ and } A_t = i\right)}
&\leq \sum_{t=1}^n {\mathbf{P}\left(\tilde \mu_i(t-1) - \mu_i \geq \Delta_i\right)} \\
&\leq C_3 \max{\left\{ \kappa - 1, \frac{\sigma^2_i}{\Delta_i^2}\right\}} \log\left(\frac{C_2}{\delta_n}\right) + \underbrace{2 \sum_{t=1}^n \delta_t}_{o(\log(n))}\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} Combining the last two displays with (\[eq:decomp\]) completes the proof.
Lower bounds {#sec:lower}
============
I briefly present some lower bounds. For the remainder, assume a fixed bandit strategy. We need two sets of distributions on ${\mathbf{R}}$. [$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal H}_{\sigma} &= {\left\{ \nu : \nu \text{ is $\sigma^2$-subgaussian}\right\}}\,. \\
{\mathcal H}_{\kappa} &= {\left\{ \nu : \nu \text{ has kurtosis less than } \kappa\right\}}\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} Following the nomenclature of [@LR85], a bandit strategy is called consistent over a set of distributions ${\mathcal H}$ if ${\mathcal R}_n = o(n^p)$ for all $p \in (0,1)$ and bandits in ${\mathcal H}^k$. I call a bandit $\{\nu_i\}$ is non-trivial if there exists a suboptimal arm. The first theorem shows that if a strategy is consistent over $\bigcup_{\sigma \geq 0} {\mathcal H}_{\sigma}^k$, then it does not enjoy logarithmic regret on any non-trivial bandit. The proof is quite standard and is simply omitted.
\[thm:lower\] Suppose there exists a $\sigma > 0$ and non-trivial bandit $\{\nu_i\} \in {\mathcal H}_{\sigma}^k$ such that [$$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{{\mathcal R}_n}{\log(n)} < \infty\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} Then the strategy is not consistent over $\bigcup_{\sigma \geq 0} {\mathcal H}_{\sigma}^k$.
There *are* consistent strategy over $\bigcup_{\sigma \geq 0} {\mathcal H}_\sigma^k$. For example, let $f(t)$ be a monotone increasing function with $f(t) = \omega(\log(t))$ and $f(t) = o(t^p)$ for all $p \in (0,1)$ and consider the strategy that maximises the following index. [$$\begin{aligned}
\hat \mu_i(t-1) + \sqrt{\frac{f(t)}{T_i(T-1)}}.\end{aligned}$$]{} By following the analysis in Chapter 2 of the book by [@BC12] and noting that for $t$ sufficiently large $f(t) \geq 2\sigma^2 \log(t)$, it is easy to show that this strategy satisfies [$$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{{\mathcal R}_n}{f(t)} = \sum_{i:\Delta_i > 0} \frac{1}{\Delta_i^2}\end{aligned}$$]{} for any bandit $\{\nu_i\} \in {\mathcal H}_{\sigma}^k$. It is important to emphasise that the asymptotics here hide large constants that depend on $\tau = \min\{t : f(t) \geq 2\sigma^2 \log(t)\}$.
The next theorem shows that the upper bound derived in the previous section is nearly tight up to constant factors. Like most lower bounds, the proof relies on understanding the information geometry of the set of possible distributions. Let ${\mathcal H}$ be a family of distributions and let $\{\nu_i\}$ be a non-trivial bandit and $i$ be a suboptimal arm. [@BK96] showed that for any consistent strategy [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lower}
\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{{\mathbf{E}}[T_i(n)]}{\log(n)} \geq \sup{\left\{ \frac{1}{{\operatorname{KL}}(\nu_i, \nu'_i)} : \nu_i' \in {\mathcal H}\text{ and } {\mathbf{E}}_{X \sim \nu'_i}[X] > \mu^*\right\}}\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} In parameterised families of distributions, the optimisation problem can often be evaluated analytically (eg., Bernoulli, Gaussian with known variance, Gaussian with unknown variance, Exponential). For non-parametric families the calculation is much more challenging. The following theorem takes the first steps towards understanding this problem for the class of distributions ${\mathcal H}_{{\kappa_{\circ}}}$ for ${\kappa_{\circ}}\geq 7/2$.
\[thm:kurtosis\] Let ${\kappa_{\circ}}\geq 7/2$ and $\Delta > 0$ and $\nu \in {\mathcal H}_{{\kappa_{\circ}}}$ with mean $\mu$, variance $\sigma^2 > 0$ and kurtosis $\kappa$. Then [$$\begin{aligned}
&\inf{\left\{
{\operatorname{KL}}(\nu, \nu') : \nu' \in {\mathcal H}_{\kappa} \text{ and } {\mathbf{E}}_{X \sim \nu'}[X] > \mu + \Delta\right\}} \\
&\qquad \qquad \leq
\begin{cases}
\min{\left\{ \log\left(\frac{1}{1 - p}\right),\, \frac{C' \Delta^2}{\sigma^2}\right\}} & \text{if }\, C \kappa^{1/2}(\kappa+1)\frac{\Delta}{\sigma} < {\kappa_{\circ}}\\[0.4cm]
\log\left(\frac{1}{1 - p}\right) & \text{otherwise}\,,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $C, C' > 0$ are universal constants and $p = \min{\left\{ \Delta/\sigma, 1/{\kappa_{\circ}}\right\}}$.
Notice that the result is strongest on the ‘interior’ of ${\mathcal H}_{{\kappa_{\circ}}}$ (that is, when $\kappa \ll {\kappa_{\circ}}$). In fact, this is necessary because ${\mathcal H}_{{\kappa_{\circ}}}$ includes the Bernoulli with kurtosis ${\kappa_{\circ}}$ and in this case there is very little wiggle room available to perturb the mean of the measure without also increasing the kurtosis. Since $\log(1 + x) \leq x$ for all $x$ we have [$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\log\left(\frac{1}{1-p}\right)} \geq \frac{1-p}{p} = \Omega\left({\kappa_{\circ}}+ \frac{\sigma}{\Delta}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} This means that provided $\kappa$ and $\Delta$ are sufficiently small relative to ${\kappa_{\circ}}$, then the lower bound derived from the above theorem and \[eq:lower\] matches the upper bound in the previous section up to constant factors. The proof of Theorem \[thm:kurtosis\] involves explicit alternative distributions $\nu'$ based on $\nu$ and is given in \[app:thm:kurtosis\].
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
The assumption of finite kurtosis generalises the parametric Gaussian assumption to a comparable non-parametric setup with a similar basic structure. Of course there are several open questions.
#### Optimal constants
The leading constants in the main results (Theorem \[thm:upper\] and Theorem \[thm:kurtosis\]) are certainly quite loose. Deriving the optimal form of the regret is an interesting challenge, with both lower and upper bounds appearing quite non-trivial. It may be necessary to resort to an implicit analysis showing that (\[eq:lower\]) is (or is not) achievable when ${\mathcal H}$ is the class of distributions with kurtosis bounded by some ${\kappa_{\circ}}$. Even then, constructing an efficient algorithm would remain a challenge. Certainly what has been presented here is quite far from optimal. At the very least the median-of-means estimator needs to be replaced, or the analysis improved. An excellent candidate is Catoni’s estimator [@Cat12], which is slightly more complicated than the median-of-means, but also comes with smaller constants and could be plugged into the algorithm with very little effort. For the lower bound, there appears to be almost no work on the explicit form of the lower bounds presented by [@BK96] in interesting non-parametric classes beyond rewards with bounded or semi-bounded support [@HT10; @HT15].
#### Non-parametric Thompson sampling
If an appropriate prior is used, then Thompson sampling has recently been shown to achieve the optimal rate when the distributions are Gaussian with unknown means and variances [@HT14]. It is natural to ask if this algorithm can be generalised to the non-parametric setting discussed here. Note that this is possible in the case where the rewards have bounded support [@KKM12].
#### Absorbing other improvements
There has recently been a range of improvements to the confidence level for the classical upper confidence bound algorithms that shave logarithmic terms from the worst-case regret or improve the lower-order terms in the finite-time bounds [@AB09; @Lat17a]. Many of these enhancements can be incorporated into the algorithm presented here, which may lead to practical and theoretical improvements.
#### Replacing median-of-means with self-normalised inequalities
While the median-of-means led to the simple analysis presented here, there is another approach that has the potential to lead to significantly smaller constants, which is to use the theory of self-normalised processes [@PLS08].
#### Comparison to Bernoulli
Table \[table:kurtosis\] shows that the kurtosis for a Bernoulli random variable with mean $\mu$ is $\kappa = O(1/(\mu(1-\mu)))$, which is obviously not bounded as $\mu$ tends towards the boundaries. The optimal asymptotic regret for the Bernoulli case is [$$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{{\mathcal R}_n}{\log(n)} = \sum_{i:\Delta_i > 0} \frac{\Delta_i}{d(\mu_i, \mu^*)}\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} The interesting differences occur near the boundary of the parameter space. Suppose that $\mu_i \approx 0$ for some arm $i$ and $\mu^* > 0$ is close to zero. An easy calculation shows that $d(\mu_i, \mu^*) \approx \log(1/(1 - \Delta_i)) \approx \Delta_i$. Therefore [$$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{{\mathbf{E}}[T_i(n)]}{\log(n)} \approx \frac{1}{\log(1/(1-\Delta_i))} \approx \frac{1}{\Delta_i}\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} Here we see an algorithm is enjoying logarithmic regret on a class with infinite kurtosis! But this is a very special case and is not possible in general, as demonstrated by Theorem \[thm:lower\]. The reason is that the structure of the hypothesis class allows strategies to (essentially) estimate the kurtosis with reasonable accuracy and anticipate outliers more/less depending on the data observed so far.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:kurtosis\] {#app:thm:kurtosis}
=================================
Assume without loss of generality that $\nu$ is centered and has variance $\sigma^2 = 1$, which can always be achieved by shifting and scaling (neither effects the kurtosis or the relative entropy). The result is proved by piecing together two ideas. The first idea is to perturb the distribution by adding a Bernoulli ‘outlier’. The second idea is to perturb the distribution more smoothly. Let $X$ be a random variable sampled from $\nu$ and $B$ be a Bernoulli with parameter $p = \min{\left\{ \Delta, 1/{\kappa_{\circ}}\right\}}$. Let $Z = X + Y$ where $Y = \Delta B / p$. Then ${\mathbf{E}}[Z] = \Delta$ and [$$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Kurt}}[Z]
&= 3 + \frac{\kappa - 3 + {\mathbf{V}}[Y]^2 ({\operatorname{Kurt}}[Z] - 3)}{(1 + {\mathbf{V}}[Y])^2} \\
&= 3 + \frac{\kappa - 3 + \left(\frac{(1-p)^2\Delta^2}{p}\right)^2 \frac{1-6p(1-p)}{p(1-p)}}{\left(1 + \frac{(1-p)^2\Delta^2}{p}\right)^2} \\
&\leq 3 + \frac{{\kappa_{\circ}}- 3 + \left(\frac{(1-p)^2\Delta^2}{p}\right)^2 \frac{1-6p(1-p)}{p(1-p)}}{\left(1 + \frac{(1-p)^2\Delta^2}{p}\right)^2}
\leq {\kappa_{\circ}}\,,\end{aligned}$$]{} where the first inequality used Lemma \[lem:kurtosis\] and the final inequality follows from calculus and the assumption that ${\kappa_{\circ}}\geq 7/2$. Let $\nu' = {\mathcal L}(Y)$ be the law of $Y$. Then [$$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{KL}}(\nu, \nu') \leq \log\left(\frac{1}{1-p}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} Moving onto the second idea, where I use $C$ for a universal positive constant that changes from equation to equation. Let $A = {\left\{ x : |x| \leq \sqrt{a\kappa}\right\}}$ and $\bar A = {\mathbf{R}}- A$. Define alternative measure $\nu'(E) = \int_E (1 + g(x)) d\nu(x)$ where [$$\begin{aligned}
g(x) = (\alpha + \beta x) {\mathds{1}\left\{x \in A\right\}}\end{aligned}$$]{} for some constants $\alpha$ and $\beta$ chosen so that [$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbf{R}}} g(x) d\nu(x) &= \alpha \int_A d\nu(x) + \beta \int_A x d\nu(x) = 0\,. \\
\int_{{\mathbf{R}}} g(x) x d\nu(x) &= \alpha \int_A x d\nu(x) + \beta \int_A x^2 d\nu(x) = \Delta\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} Solving for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ shows that [$$\begin{aligned}
\beta = \frac{\Delta}{\int_{A} x^2 d\nu(x) - \frac{\left(\int_{A} x d\nu(x)\right)^2}{\nu(A)}} \quad \text{ and } \quad
\alpha = -\frac{\Delta \int_A xd\nu(x)}{\nu(A) \int_{A} x^2 d\nu(x) - \left(\int_{A} x d\nu(x)\right)^2}\,. \end{aligned}$$]{} We still need to show that $\nu'$ is a probability measure, which will follow from the positivity of $1 - g(\cdot)$. The first step is to control each of the terms appearing in the definitions of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. By Cauchy-Schwarz and Chebyshev’s inequalities, [$$\begin{aligned}
\nu(\bar A) = \nu(x^2 \geq a \kappa) \leq \frac{1}{\kappa a^2}\end{aligned}$$]{} and [$$\begin{aligned}
\int_A x^2 d\nu(x)
= 1 - \int_{\bar A} x^2 d\nu(x)
\geq 1 - \sqrt{\kappa \nu(\bar A)}
\geq 1 - \frac{1}{a}\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} Similarly, [$$\begin{aligned}
\left|\int_A x d\nu(x)\right|
= \left|\int_{\bar A} x d\nu(x)\right|
\leq \sqrt{\sigma^2 \nu(\bar A)}
\leq \frac{1}{a \sqrt{\kappa}}\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} Therefore by choosing $a = 2$ we have, [$$\begin{aligned}
\left|\alpha\right|
&= \Delta\left|\frac{\int_A x d\nu(x)}{\nu(A) \int_A x^2 d\nu(x) - \left(\int_A x d\nu(x)\right)^2}\right|
\leq \frac{\Delta/\sqrt{\kappa}}{a\left(\left(1 - \frac{1}{\kappa a^2}\right) \left(1 - \frac{1}{a}\right) - \frac{1}{a^2 \kappa}\right)} \leq \frac{4\Delta}{\sqrt{\kappa}} \\
\left|\beta\right|
&= \frac{\Delta}{\int_A x^2 d\nu(x) - \frac{\left(\int_A x d\nu(x)\right)^2}{\nu(A)}}
\leq \frac{\Delta}{1 - \frac{1}{a} - \frac{1}{\kappa a^2\left(1 - \frac{1}{a^2\kappa}\right)}}
\leq 6\Delta\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} Now $g(x)$ is an increasing linear function supported on $A$, so [$$\begin{aligned}
\max_{x \in {\mathbf{R}}} |g(x)|
&= \max{\left\{ |g(\sqrt{a\kappa})|, |g(-\sqrt{a\kappa})|\right\}}
\leq |\alpha| + \sqrt{a\kappa} |\beta|
\leq \frac{4\Delta}{\sqrt{\kappa}} + 6\Delta \sqrt{2\kappa}
\leq \frac{1}{2}\,,\end{aligned}$$]{} where the last inequality by assuming that [$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \leq \frac{\sqrt{\kappa}}{4(2 + 3\sqrt{2}\kappa)} = O(\kappa^{-1/2})\,,\end{aligned}$$]{} which is reasonable without loss of generality, since if $\Delta$ is larger than this quantity, then we would prefer the bound that depends on ${\kappa_{\circ}}$ derived in the first part of the proof. The relative entropy between $\nu$ and $\nu'$ is bounded by [$$\begin{aligned}
&{\operatorname{KL}}(\nu, \nu')
\leq\chi^2(\nu, \nu')
= \int_{\mathbf{R}}\left(\frac{d\nu(x)}{d\nu'(x)} - 1\right)^2 d\nu'(x)
= \int_A \frac{g(x)^2}{1 + g(x)} d\nu(x) \\
&\quad\leq 2 \int_A g(x)^2 d\nu(x)
\leq 4 \int_A \alpha^2 d\nu(x) + 4\int_A \beta^2 x^2 d\nu(x)
\leq 4 \alpha^2 + 4\beta^2 \\
&\leq \frac{4 \cdot 16 \Delta^2}{\kappa} + 4 \cdot 36 \Delta^2 \leq C \Delta^2\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} In order to bound the kurtosis we need to evaluate the moments: [$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbf{R}}x^2 d\nu'
&= \int_{\mathbf{R}}x^2 d\nu + \int_A g(x) x^2 d\nu
= 1 + \alpha \int_A x^2 d\nu(x) + \beta \int_A x^3 d\nu(x) \\
&\leq 1 + C \Delta \sqrt{\kappa}\,. \\
\int_{\mathbf{R}}x^2 d\nu'
&= \int_{\mathbf{R}}x^2 d\nu + \int_A g(x) x^2 d\nu
\geq 1 - C \Delta \sqrt{\kappa}\,. \\
\int_{\mathbf{R}}x^4 d\nu'
&= \int_{\mathbf{R}}x^4 d\nu + \int_A g(x) x^4 d\nu
= \kappa + \alpha \int_A x^4 d\nu(x) + \beta \int_A x^5 d\nu(x) \\
&\leq \kappa\left(1 + C\Delta \sqrt{\kappa}\right)\,. \\
\left|\int_{\mathbf{R}}x^3 d\nu'(x)\right|
&\leq \sqrt{\int_{\mathbf{R}}x^2 d\nu'(x) \int_{\mathbf{R}}x^4 d\nu'(x)}
\leq \sqrt{C\kappa}\,. \end{aligned}$$]{} Therefore if $\kappa'$ is the kurtosis of $\nu'$, then [$$\begin{aligned}
\kappa' = \frac{\int_{\mathbf{R}}(x - \Delta)^4 d\nu'(x)}{\left(\int_{\mathbf{R}}x^2 d\nu'(x) - \Delta^2 \right)^2}
= \frac{\int_{\mathbf{R}}x^4 d\nu'(x) - 3\Delta^4 + 6\Delta^2 \int_{\mathbf{R}}x^2 d\nu'(x) - 4\Delta \int_{\mathbf{R}}x^3 d\nu'(x)}{\left(1 - \Delta^2 + \alpha \int_A x^2 d\nu(x) + \beta \int_A x^3 d\nu(x)\right)^2}\end{aligned}$$]{} As a brief aside, if $\nu$ is symmetric, then the odd moments vanish and $\int_A x^i d\nu(x) = 0$ for odd $i$. Therefore $\alpha = 0$ [$$\begin{aligned}
\kappa' = \frac{\kappa - 3\Delta^4 + 6\Delta^2}{(1 - \Delta^2)^2}
\leq \frac{\kappa + 6\Delta^2}{1 - 2\Delta^2}
= \kappa + \frac{6\Delta^2}{1 - 2\Delta^2} + \frac{2\kappa \Delta^2}{1 - 2\Delta^2}
\leq \kappa + C\kappa \Delta^2\,.\end{aligned}$$]{} On the other hand, if $\nu$ is not symmetric, then the odd moments must be controlled. [$$\begin{aligned}
\kappa'
&= \frac{\int_{\mathbf{R}}x^4 d\nu'(x) - 3\Delta^4 + 6\Delta^2 \int_{\mathbf{R}}x^2 d\nu'(x) - 4\Delta \int_{\mathbf{R}}x^3 d\nu'(x)}{\left(\int_{\mathbf{R}}x^2 d\nu'(x) - \Delta^2\right)^2}\\
&\leq \frac{\kappa\left(1 + C\Delta \kappa^{1/2}\right) + 6\Delta^2(1 + C \Delta \kappa^{1/2}) + C\Delta \kappa^{1/2}}{\left(1 - C\Delta \kappa^{1/2} - \Delta^2\right)^2}\\
&\leq \frac{\kappa + C\Delta \kappa^{1/2}(\kappa+1)}{1 - C\Delta \kappa^{1/2}}
\leq \kappa + C\Delta \kappa^{1/2}(\kappa+1)\,. \end{aligned}$$]{} By patching the two results we obtain that for all $\Delta > 0$ and $\nu \in {\mathcal H}_{{\kappa_{\circ}}}$ with mean $\mu$, variance $\sigma^2 > 0$ and kurtosis $\kappa$, [$$\begin{aligned}
&\inf{\left\{
{\operatorname{KL}}(\nu, \nu') : \nu' \in {\mathcal H}_{\kappa} \text{ and } {\mathbf{E}}_{X \sim \nu'}[X] > \mu + \Delta\right\}} \\
&\qquad \qquad \leq
\begin{cases}
\min{\left\{ \log\left(\frac{1}{1 - p}\right),\, \frac{C' \Delta^2}{\sigma^2}\right\}} & \text{if }\, C \kappa^{1/2}(\kappa+1)\frac{\Delta}{\sigma} < {\kappa_{\circ}}\\[0.4cm]
\log\left(\frac{1}{1 - p}\right) & \text{otherwise}\,,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $C, C' > 0$ are universal constants and $p = \min{\left\{ \Delta/\sigma, 1/{\kappa_{\circ}}\right\}}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[ ]{}
[Kikuo Harigaya]{}
[*Physical Science Division, Electrotechnical Laboratory,\
Umezono 1-1-4, Tsukuba 305-8568, Japan*]{}\
[*National Institute of Materials and Chemical Research,\
Higashi 1-1, Tsukuba 305-8565, Japan*]{}\
[*Kanazawa Institute of Technology,\
Ohgigaoka 7-1, Nonoichi 921-8501, Japan*]{}
[**Abstract**]{}\
Disorder effects on the density of states and electronic conduction in metallic carbon nanotubes are analyzed by a tight binding model with Gaussian bond disorder. Metallic armchair and zigzag nanotubes are considered. We obtain a conductance which becomes smaller by the factor $1/2 \sim 1/3$ from that of the clean nanotube. This decrease mainly comes from lattice fluctuations of the width which is comparable to thermal fluctuations. We also find that suppression of electronic conductance around the Fermi energy due to disorder is smaller than that of the inner valence (and conduction) band states. This is a consequence of the extended nature of electronic states around the Fermi energy between the valence and conduction bands, and is a property typical of the electronic structures of metallic carbon nanotubes.
PACS numbers: 72.80.Rj, 72.15.Eb, 73.61.Wp, 73.23.Ps
Introduction
============
Recently, carbon nanotubes with cylindrical graphite structures have been intensively investigated. Many interesting experimental as well as theoretical researches have been performed (see reviews \[1,2\] for example), and the fundamental metallic and semiconducting behaviors of single wall nanotubes predicted by theories \[3-8\] have been clarified in tunneling spectroscopy experiments \[9,10\].
Measurements of transport properties of single and multi wall nanotubes depend largely on various factors including sample quality, experimental conditions, and so on. Such factors make experimental interpretations difficult. However, several interesting fundamental properties have been found. Magnetoconductance depending on magnetic field has been measured for multi wall nanotubes, and has been interpreted in terms of two dimensional weak localization and universal conductance fluctuations in mesoscopic conductors \[11\]. Single electron tunneling experiments of ropes of single wall carbon nanotubes have been performed, and discrete energy levels of nanotubes between metallic contacts contribute to the single electron tunneling processes \[12\]. Electron correlation effects in the single electron tunneling have also been observed \[13\]. Furthermore, quantized conductance by the multiples of the unit conductance $2e^2/h = (12.9 {\rm k}\Omega)^{-1}$ has been measured for multi wall carbon nanotubes \[14\].
In view of the experimental developments of conduction properties, it is interesting to investigate basic properties of single and multi wall carbon nanotubes theoretically. For conduction properties, interplay between disorder and possibility of long ballistic conduction has been studied \[15\]. The Landauer formula \[16\] has been used to calculate quantum ballistic transport properties of nanotubes for example in \[17,18\]. Quantum tunneling of carbon-nanotube-based quantum dots has been studied in \[19\].
In this paper, we would like to try to apply the Thouless formula \[20,21\] differently from the works in literatures \[17,18\], in order to look at possible decrease of the electronic conductance by a bond disorder potential. The origin of the bond disorder potential is the thermal fluctuations of phonons mainly. This idea has been used in the discussion of disorder effects on the polaron excitations in doped C$_{60}$ systems \[22\]. We use a tight binding model with Gaussian bond disorder, and finite systems with quite large metallic carbon nanotubes are diagonalized numerically in real space. The electronic conductance calculated by the Thouless formula is averaged over random samples of disorder. The strength of bond disorder is changed within the width whose magnitude is typical to thermal fluctuation of phonons as estimated in ${\rm C}_{60}$ and carbon nanotubes \[8,22\].
We will discuss disorder effects on the density of states and electronic conduction in metallic carbon nanotubes, i.e., armchair and metallic zigzag nanotubes \[23\]. The conductance at the Fermi energy becomes smaller by the factor $1/2 \sim 1/3$ from that of the clean nanotube. This decrease mainly comes from lattice fluctuations of phonons. The suppression of electronic conductance around the Fermi energy due to disorder is smaller than that of the main part of the valence (and conduction) band states. This is due to the extended nature of electronic states around the Fermi energy
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, the tight binding model and the numerical calculation method are explained. Sections III and IV are devoted to the results of metallic armchair and zigzag nanotubes, respectively. The average conductance at the Fermi energy is discussed in Sec. V. The paper is summarized in Sec. VI.
Model
=====
Figure 1 shows the way of making general carbon nanotubes and the notations. The lattice points in the honeycomb lattice are labeled by the vector $(m,n) \equiv m {\bf a}
+ n {\bf b}$, where ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ are the unit vectors. Any structure of nanotubes can be produced by contacting the origin $(0,0)$ with one of the $(m,n)$ vectors after rolling up the plane of the honeycomb lattice pattern. This vector is used as a name of each nanotube. The electronic structures of a simple tight binding model with nearest neighbor hopping interactions have been found theoretically. When the origin of the honeycomb lattice pattern is so combined with one of the open circles as to make a nanotube, the metallic properties will be expected because of the presence of the Fermi surface. This case corresponds to the vectors where $m-n$ is a multiple of three. If the origin is combined with the filled circles, there remains a large gap of the order of 1 eV. This type of nanotubes is a semiconductor.
In Fig. 1, the most characteristic pattern in the two dimensional graphite plane, where the coupling between bond alternations and electrons is present, is superposed. We have refered to this pattern as the Kekulé structure \[7,8\]. The short and long bonds are indicated by the thick and normal lines, respectively. This pattern is commensurate with the lattice structure for the metallic $(m,n)$ nanotubes, and this bond alternation pattern is realized in the adiabatic approximation. However, the strength of the bond alternations is of the order smaller than the experimentally accessible magnitude \[8\]. The Kekulé bond alternation pattern will be easily distorted by the fluctuations of the phonons from the classical values. Therefore, we can neglect the bond alternation effects in order to discuss disorder effects on electronic conductance of metallic carbon nanotubes.
Our model Hamiltonian is: H = - t \_[i,j , ]{} (c\_[i,]{}\^c\_[j,]{} + [h.c.]{}) + \_[i,j , ]{} t\_[i,j]{} (c\_[i,]{}\^c\_[j,]{} + [h.c.]{}). The first term is the tight binding model with the nearest neighbor hopping interaction $t$; the sum is taken over neighboring pairs of lattice sites $\langle i,j \rangle$ and spin $\sigma$; $c_{j,\sigma}$ is an annihilation operator of an electron with spin $\sigma$ at the site $i$. The second term is the bond disorder model, and the hopping interaction $\delta t_{i,j}$ obeys the Gaussian distribution function P(t)=\[-()\^2\] with the strength $t_s$.
A finite system with the quite large system size $N$ of metallic carbon nanotubes is diagonalized numerically. In this paper, we take $N=4000$ for (5,5) and (10,10) nanotubes, and $N=3600$ for the (9,0) nanotube. The electronic conductance calculated by the Thouless formula is averaged over 100 samples of disorder. In order to look at dependences on disorder strengths $t_s$, we have not taken a larger number of samples. However, dependences on $t_s$ are fairly smooth. So, we can discuss typical behaviors of disorder effects, even though numerical error bars remain with a certain magnitude. The quantity $t_s$ is changed within $0 \leq t_s \leq 0.3t$ Note that quantities with the dimension of energy $E$ are measured in units of $t$ ($\sim 2$ eV) in this paper. The typical magnitude originating from thermal fluctuation of phonons has been estimated as about $t_s \sim 0.15t$ for ${\rm C}_{60}$ and carbon nanotubes \[8,22\]. Therefore, the above range of variations seems reasonable.
Armchair nanotubes
==================
Two characteristic structures of the armchair nanotubes with (5,5) and (10,10) geometries are investigated. The number of lattice sites in the unit cell is 20 or 40 for each nanotube. Thus, the system with $N=4000$ has 200 or 100 unit cells. The diameter of the (5,5) nanotube is similar to that of C$_{60}$, because this nanotube can be made from C$_{60}$ by iterative addition of 10 carbons between two hemisphere of C$_{60}$ \[7\]. This diameter is the smallest one observed in experiments. The diameter of the (10,10) nanotube is larger than that of the (5,5) nanotube, but most of the observed nanotubes have diameters similar to that of the (10,10) nanotube.
First, we discuss (5,5) armchair nanotubes. Figure 2 shows the density of states (DOS) and electronic conductance of the clean nanotube. Figures 2 (a) and (b) show the entire DOS and the enlarged DOS of the energy region $-1.5 t \leq E
\leq 1.5t$, respectively. Figure 2 (c) shows the electronic conductance of the energy region as in Fig. 2 (b). We find several peaks of the conductance at the energies $\pm 0.6t$, $\pm 1.0t$, and $\pm 1.3t$ in Fig. 2 (c) at the corresponding peaks of the DOS of Fig. 2(b). This is the usual results by the Thouless formula, though the peaks are somewhat less sharp. The conductance at the energies less than $-0.6t$ and larger than $0.6$, i.e. in the inner valence (conduction) band regions, is around 2.0 in the unit of $2e^2/h$. Here, $e$ is the unit charge, $h$ is the Planck constant, and the factor 2 comes from spin degeneracy. And, the conductance is around the value 1.0 ($2e^2/h$) in the energy region $-0.6 t \leq
E \leq 0.6t$.
Figure 3 shows one example of the DOS and electronic conductance of the (5,5) nanotube with the disorder strength $t_s = 0.15t$. In Figs. 3 (a) and (b), the strong one-dimensional peaks in the DOS are broaden and suppressed. However, the flat DOS near the Fermi level does not change so much, because the DOS in these energies is nearly the same. Figure 3 (c) shows the conductance in the energy region $-0.6 t \leq
E \leq 0.6t$. The conductance at the energies less than $-0.6t$ and larger than $0.6t$, i.e. in the inner conduction (valence) band regions, is around 0.1 in the unit of $2e^2/h$. This magnitude is one order smaller than that in the clean system. On the other hand, the conductance is around the value 0.3 ($2e^2/h$) in the energy region $-0.6 t \leq
E \leq 0.6t$. This value is of the same order of magnitude as that of the clean system. Therefore, we find that the conductance in the inner valence (conduction) band regions is easily suppressed by the disorder. However, the conductance near the Fermi level is not suppressed so much, since conduction and valence bands are mutually connected in the metallic carbon nanotube, and therefore the Fermi level is located just at the center of the whole energy bands. Then, the disorder effects are smallest at the center of the entire energy bands, which means the extended nature of electronic states around the Fermi energy.
Next, we look at the results of the (10,10) nanotube, whose diameter is typical for the observed nanotubes. Figures 4 and 5 are for the clean nanotube and the nanotube with the disorder $t_s = 0.15t$, respectively. As the diameter of the nanotube becomes larger, the number of peaks in the one dimensional DOS increases in Figs. 4 (a) and 5 (a) from that of Figs. 2 (a) and 3 (a). As the DOS of the clean system is flat in the clean system of Fig. 4 (b), the DOS of the system with disorder does not change apparently as shown in Fig. 5 (b). The conductance of the inner valence (conduction) band regions is suppressed by one order of magnitudes when disorder is taken into account as shown by Figs. 4 (c) and 5 (c). However, the magnitude of the conductance around the Fermi energy remains with the similar value. Such a qualitative difference gives rise to larger conductance around the Fermi energy than that of the inner valence (conduction) band regions in Fig. 5 (c).
Zigzag nanotubes
================
In this section, we discuss typical behaviors of disorder effects in metallic zigzag nanotubes. As an example, the (9,0) geometry is considered in the calculations. We take the carbon number $N=3600$ here. As the number of carbons in the unit cell is 36, the system is composed of 100 unit cells.
Figs. 6 (a) and (b) shows the entire DOS and the enlarged DOS near the Fermi energy of the clean (9,0) nanotube. Again, several one dimensional peaks are present in both figures. Figure 6 (c) shows the electronic conductance in the units of $2e^2/h$ of the energy region $-1.6 t \leq
E \leq 1.6t$. We observe several broad peaks of the conductance at the energies $E = \pm 0.5t, \pm 0.6t, \pm 1.0t$, and $\pm 1.3t$, for example. This is again typical results of the calculations by the Thouless formula. The conductance in the inner valence (conduction) band regions is around 1.2 $(2e^2/h)$, and that of the energy region around the Fermi energy is about 0.9 $(2e^2/h)$. The discrete peaks are due to the discrete energy meshes, and they are of no importance.
Next, we discuss disorder effects on the DOS and electronic conductance by taking results of one sample data of disorder sets. In Figs. 7 (a) and (b), the one dimensional sharp peaks broaden as well by the disorder of the strength $t_s = 0.15t$. However, the magnitude of the DOS around the Fermi energy $E=0$ does not change its value. Figure 7 (c) shows the electronic conductance of the same disorder sample. The magnitude of the conductance in the inner valence (conduction) band regions is around 0.3 $(2e^2/h)$, and this is apparently decreased from that of the clean system. But, the conductance near the Fermi energy is about 0.5 $(2e^2/h)$, and is of the same order of the magnitudes with that of the clean system. This is due to the relatively extended nature of the wave functions around the Fermi energy.
Therefore, the qualitative properties of disorder effects on the DOS and the electronic conductivity do not depend on whether the carbon nanotubes are armchair or zigzag type.
Disorder strength dependence
============================
In the previous sections, we have looked at the disorder effects by showing the DOS and the conductance data of one disorder sample with $t_s = 0.15t$ for the three geometries of metallic carbon nanotubes. In this section, we concentrate on the conductance at the Fermi energy $E=0$, and look at the dependence on the disorder strength $t_s$. Sample average is taken over 100 disorder samples. We have taken relatively larger system sizes, so we cannot take larger sample numbers. However, the average data seem relatively smooth in order to consider disorder strength dependences.
Figure 8 shows the average conductance at $E=0$ as a function of $t_s$. The squares, circles, and triangles are for (5,5), (10,10), and (9,0) nanotubes, respectively. The conductances at $t_s=0$ are about 0.5, 0.6, and 0.9, in units of $2e^2/h$ for (5,5), (10,10), and (9,0) nanotubes. The magnitude at $t_s = 0.15t$ is at about 0.3 $(2e^2/h)$ for the three plots. Therefore, the conductance of (5,5) nanotube decreases by the factor about $1/1.6$. The conductance of the (10,10) nanotube decreases by the factor about $1/2$. The conductance of the (9,0) nanotube decreases by the factor about $1/3$. Thus, the electronic conductance of the realistic system with thermal fluctuations of phonons might be decreased by the factor $1/2 \sim 1/3$, naturally.
The extended nature of electronic states at the Fermi energy will contribute to several interesting transport properties observed in experiments. The ballistic conduction \[14\] and the quantum single electron tunneling \[12\] are several examples of the recent experiments of carbon nanotubes. We expect further developments of experimental transport studies, which will promote theoretical investigations of carbon nanotubes as well.
Summary
=======
Disorder effects on density of states and electronic conduction in metallic carbon nanotubes have been analyzed by a tight binding model with Gaussian bond disorder. Metallic armchair and zigzag nanotubes have been considered. We have obtained a conductance which becomes smaller by the factor $1/2 \sim 1/3$ from that of the clean nanotube. This decrease mainly comes from lattice fluctuations of the width which is comparable to thermal fluctuations. We have also found that the suppression of electronic conductance around the Fermi energy due to disorder is smaller than that of the inner valence (and conduction) band states. This is due to the extended nature of electronic states around the Fermi energy
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
Useful discussion with the members of Condensed Matter Theory Group\
(`http://www.etl.go.jp/`\~`theory/`), Electrotechnical Laboratory is acknowledged. The author specially thanks Barry Friedman for reading the original manuscript critically. Numerical calculations have been performed on the DEC AlphaServer of Research Information Processing System Center (RIPS), Agency of Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan.
[**References**]{}
$[1]$ M. S. Dresselhaus, G. Dresselhaus, and P. C. Eklund, “Science of Fullerenes and Carbon Nanotubes", (Academic Press, San Diego, 1996).\
$[2]$ R. Saito, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, “Physical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes", (Imperial College Press. London, 1998).\
$[3]$ J. W. Mintmire, B. I. Dunlap, and C. T. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 631 (1992).\
$[4]$ N. Hamada, S. Sawada, and A. Oshiyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1579 (1992).\
$[5]$ R. Saito, M. Fujita, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**60**]{}, 2204 (1992).\
$[6]$ K. Tanaka, K. Okahara, M. Okada, and T. Yamabe, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**193**]{}, 101 (1992).\
$[7]$ K. Harigaya, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 12071 (1992).\
$[8]$ K. Harigaya and M. Fujita, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 16563 (1993).\
$[9]$ J. W. G. Wildöer, L. C. Venema, A. G. Rinzler, R. E. Smalley, and C Dekker. Nature [**391**]{}, 59 (1998).\
$[10]$ T. W. Odom, J. L. Huang, P. Kim, and C. M. Lieber, Nature [**391**]{}, 62 (1998).\
$[11]$ L. Langer et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 479 (1996).\
$[12]$ M. Bockrath et al, Science [**275**]{}, 1922 (1997).\
$[13]$ S. J. Tans et al, Nature [**394**]{}, 761 (1998).\
$[14]$ S. Frank, P. Poncharal, Z. L. Wang, and W. A. de Heer, Science [**280**]{}, 1744 (1998).\
$[15]$ C. T. White and T. N. Todorov, Nature [**393**]{}, 240 (1998).\
$[16]$ R. Landauer, Philos. Mag. [**21**]{}, 863 (1970).\
$[17]$ W. Tian and S. Datta, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 5097 (1994).\
$[18]$ L. Chico, L. X. Benedict, S. G. Louie, and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 2600 (1996).\
$[19]$ L. Chico, M. P. López Sancho, and M. C. Muñoz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1278 (1998).\
$[20]$ J. T. Edwards and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C [**5**]{}, 807 (1972).\
$[21]$ D. C. Licciardello and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C [**11**]{}, 925 (1978).\
$[22]$ K. Harigaya, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 2765 (1993).\
$[23]$ M. S. Dresselhaus, G. Dresselhaus, and R. Saito, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 6234 (1992).\
[**Figure Captions**]{}
Fig. 1. Possible way of making helical and nonhelical tubules. The open and closed circles indicate the metallic and semiconducting behaviors of the tight binding model, respectively. The Kekulé structure is superposed on the honeycomb lattice pattern.
Fig. 2. Density of states (DOS) and electronic conductance of the clean (5,5) nanotube. Figures 2 (a) and (b) show the entire DOS and the enlarged DOS of the energy region $-1.5 t \leq E
\leq 1.5t$, respectively. Figure 2 (c) shows the electronic conductance in units of $2e^2/h$ of the low energy regions.
Fig. 3. Density of states (DOS) and electronic conductance of one sample of the (5,5) nanotube with the disorder strength $t_s = 0.15t$. Figures 3 (a) and (b) show the entire DOS and the enlarged DOS of the energy region $-1.5 t \leq E
\leq 1.5t$, respectively. Figure 3 (c) shows the electronic conductance in units of $2e^2/h$ of the low energy regions.
Fig. 4. Density of states (DOS) and electronic conductance of the clean (10,10) nanotube. Figures 4 (a) and (b) show the entire DOS and the enlarged DOS of the energy region $-1.5 t \leq E
\leq 1.5t$, respectively. Figure 4 (c) shows the electronic conductance in units of $2e^2/h$ of the low energy regions.
Fig. 5. Density of states (DOS) and electronic conductance of one sample of the (10,10) nanotube with the disorder strength $t_s = 0.15t$. Figures 5 (a) and (b) show the entire DOS and the enlarged DOS of the energy region $-1.5 t \leq E
\leq 1.5t$, respectively. Figure 5 (c) shows the electronic conductance in units of $2e^2/h$ of the low energy regions.
Fig. 6. Density of states (DOS) and electronic conductance of the clean (9,0) nanotube. Figures 6 (a) and (b) show the entire DOS and the enlarged DOS of the energy region $-1.5 t \leq E
\leq 1.5t$, respectively. Figure 6 (c) shows the electronic conductance in units of $2e^2/h$ of the low energy regions.
Fig. 7. Density of states (DOS) and electronic conductance of one sample of the (9,0) nanotube with the disorder strength $t_s = 0.15t$. Figures 7 (a) and (b) show the entire DOS and the enlarged DOS of the energy region $-1.5 t \leq E
\leq 1.5t$, respectively. Figure 7 (c) shows the electronic conductance in units of $2e^2/h$ of the low energy regions.
Fig. 8. The average conductance at the Fermi energy $E=0$ as a function of $t_s$. The squares, circles, and triangles show the numerical data of (5,5), (10,10), and (9,0) nanotubes, respectively.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Message sequence charts (MSCs) naturally arise as executions of communicating finite-state machines (CFMs), in which finite-state processes exchange messages through unbounded FIFO channels. We study the first-order logic of MSCs, featuring Lamport’s happened-before relation. We introduce a star-free version of propositional dynamic logic (PDL) with loop and converse. Our main results state that (i) every first-order sentence can be transformed into an equivalent star-free PDL sentence (and conversely), and (ii) every star-free PDL sentence can be translated into an equivalent CFM. This answers an open question and settles the exact relation between CFMs and fragments of monadic second-order logic. As a byproduct, we show that first-order logic over MSCs has the three-variable property.'
author:
- Benedikt Bollig
- Marie Fortin
- Paul Gastin
bibliography:
- 'lit.bib'
title: 'It Is Easy to Be Wise After the Event: Communicating Finite-State Machines Capture First-Order Logic with “Happened Before”'
---
Introduction
============
First-order (FO) logic can be considered, in many ways, a reference specification language. It plays a key role in automated theorem proving and formal verification. In particular, FO logic over finite or infinite words is central in the verification of reactive systems. When a word is understood as a total order that reflects a chronological succession of events, it represents an execution of a sequential system. Apart from being a natural concept in itself, FO logic over words enjoys manifold characterizations. It defines exactly the star-free languages and coincides with recognizability by aperiodic monoids or natural subclasses of finite (B[ü]{}chi, respectively) automata (cf.[@DiGa08Thomas; @Tho97handbook] for overviews). Moreover, linear-time temporal logics are usually measured against their expressive power with respect to FO logic. For example, LTL is considered the yardstick temporal logic not least due to Kamp’s famous theorem, stating that LTL and FO logic are expressively equivalent [@Kamp68].
While FO logic on words is well understood, a lot remains to be said once concurrency enters into the picture. When several processes communicate through, say, unbounded first-in first-out (FIFO) channels, events are only partially ordered and a behavior, which is referred to as a *message sequence chart (MSC)*, reflects Lamport’s happened-before relation: an event $e$ happens before an event $f$ if, and only if, there is a “message flow” path from $e$ to $f$ [@Lamport78]. *Communicating finite-state machines* (CFMs) [@Brand1983] are to MSCs what finite automata are to words: a canonical model of finite-state processes that communicate through unbounded FIFO channels. Therefore, the FO logic of MSCs can be considered a canonical specification language for such systems. Unfortunately, its study turned out to be difficult, since algebraic and automata-theoretic approaches that work for words, trees, or Mazurkiewicz traces do not carry over. In particular, until now, the following central problem remained open:
Partial answers were given for CFMs with bounded channel capacity [@HenriksenJournal; @Kuske01; @GKM06] and for fragments of FO that restrict the logic to bounded-degree predicates [@BolligJournal] or to two variables [@BFG-stacs18].
In this paper, we answer the general question positively. To do so, we make a detour through a variant of propositional dynamic logic (PDL) with loop and converse [@FisL79; @Streett81]. Actually, we introduce *star-free* PDL, which serves as an interface between FO logic and CFMs. That is, there are two main tasks to accomplish:
- Translate every FO sentence into a star-free PDL sentence.
- Translate every star-free PDL sentence into a CFM.
Both parts constitute results of own interest. In particular, step (i) implies that, over MSCs, FO logic has the three-variable property, i.e., every FO sentence over MSCs can be rewritten into one that uses only three different variable names. Note that this is already interesting in the special case of words, where it follows from Kamp’s theorem [@Kamp68]. It is also noteworthy that star-free PDL is a *two-dimensional* temporal logic in the sense of Gabbay et al. [@Gabbay1981; @gabbay1994temporal]. Since every star-free PDL sentence is equivalent to some FO sentence, we actually provide a (higher-dimensional) temporal logic over MSCs that is expressively complete for FO logic.[^1] While step (i) is based on purely logical considerations, step (ii) builds on new automata constructions that allow us to cope with the loop operator of PDL.
Combining (i) and (ii) yields the translation from FO logic to CFMs. It follows that CFMs are expressively equivalent to *existential* MSO logic. Moreover, we can derive self-contained proofs of several results on channel-bounded CFMs whose original proofs refer to involved constructions for Mazurkiewicz traces (cf. Section \[sec:concl\]).
##### Related Work.
Let us give a brief account of what was already known on the relation between logic and CFMs. In the 60s, B[ü]{}chi, Elgot, and Trakhtenbrot proved that finite automata over words are expressively equivalent to monadic second-order logic [@Buechi:60; @Elgot1961; @Trakhtenbrot62]. Note that finite automata correspond to the special case of CFMs with a single process.
This classical result has been generalized to CFMs with bounded channels: Over *universally* bounded MSCs (where all possible linear extensions meet a given channel bound), deterministic CFMs are expressively equivalent to MSO logic [@HenriksenJournal; @Kuske01]. Over *existentially* bounded MSCs (some linear extension meets the channel bound), CFMs are still expressively equivalent to MSO logic [@GKM06], but inherently nondeterministic [@GKM07]. The proofs of these characterizations reduce message-passing systems to finite-state shared-memory systems so that deep results from Mazurkiewicz trace theory [@DiekertRozenberg95] can be applied.
This generic approach is no longer applicable when the restriction on the channel capacity is dropped. Actually, in general, CFMs do not capture MSO logic [@BolligJournal]. On the other hand, they are expressively equivalent to existential MSO logic when we discard the happened-before relation [@BolligJournal] or when restricting to two first-order variables [@BFG-stacs18]. Both results rely on normal forms of FO logic, due to Hanf [@Hanf1965] and Scott [@GradelO99], respectively. However, MSCs with the happened-before relation are structures of *unbounded* degree (while Hanf’s normal form requires structures of bounded degree), and we consider FO logic with *arbitrarily* many variables (while Scott’s normal form only applies to two-variable logic). That is, neither approach is applicable in our case.
Finally, there exists a translation of a loop-free PDL into CFMs [@BKM-lmcs10]. As our star-free PDL has a loop operator, we cannot exploit [@BKM-lmcs10] either.
##### Outline.
In Section \[sec:prel\], we recall basic notions such as MSCs, FO logic, and CFMs. Moreover, we state one of our main results: the translation of FO formulas into CFMs. Section \[sec:pdl\] presents star-free PDL and proves that it captures FO logic. In Section \[sec:pdl-cfm\], we establish the translation of star-free PDL into CFMs. We conclude in Section \[sec:concl\] mentioning applications of our results.
Preliminaries {#sec:prel}
=============
We consider message-passing systems in which processes communicate through unbounded FIFO channels. We fix a nonempty finite set of *processes* ${P}$ and a nonempty finite set of *labels* $\Sigma$. For all $p,q \in {P}$ such that $p \neq q$, there is a channel $(p,q)$ that allows $p$ to send messages to $q$. The set of channels is denoted ${\mathit{Ch}}$.
In the following, we define message sequence charts, which represent executions of a message-passing system, and logics to reason about them. Then, we recall the definition of communicating finite-state machines and state one of our main results.
Message Sequence Charts
-----------------------
A *message sequence chart (MSC)* (over ${P}$ and $\Sigma$) is a graph $M=(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda)$ with nonempty finite set of nodes $E$, edge relations ${{\rightarrow}},{{\lhd}} \subseteq E \times E$, and node-labeling functions ${\mathit{loc}}\colon E \to {P}$ and $\lambda\colon E \to \Sigma$. An example MSC is depicted in Figure \[fig:msc\]. A node $e \in E$ is an *event* that is executed by process ${\mathit{loc}}(e) \in {P}$. In particular, $E_p {:=}\{e \in E \mid {\mathit{loc}}(e) = p\}$ is the set of events located on $p$. The label $\lambda(e) \in \Sigma$ may provide more information about $e$ such as the message that is sent/received at $e$ or “enter critical section” or “output some value”.
Edges describe causal dependencies between events:
- The relation ${\rightarrow}$ contains *process edges*. They connect successive events executed by the same process. That is, we actually have ${\to} \subseteq \bigcup_{p \in {P}} (E_p \times E_p)$. Every process $p$ is sequential so that ${\to} \cap (E_p \times E_p)$ must be the direct-successor relation of some total order on $E_p$. We let ${{\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}} {:=}{\to^\ast}$ and ${{<_{\mathsf{proc}}}} {:=}{\to^+}$.
- The relation ${\lhd}$ contains *message edges*. If $e {\lhd}f$, then $e$ is a *send event* and $f$ is the corresponding *receive event*. In particular, $({\mathit{loc}}(e),{\mathit{loc}}(f)) \in {\mathit{Ch}}$. Each event is part of at most one message edge. An event that is neither a send nor a receive event is called *internal*. Moreover, for all $(p,q) \in {\mathit{Ch}}$ and $(e,f), (e',f') \in {{\lhd}} \cap (E_p
\times E_q)$, we have $e {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}e'$ iff $f {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f'$ (which guarantees a FIFO behavior).
We require that ${{\rightarrow}} \cup {{\lhd}}$ be acyclic (intuitively, messages cannot travel backwards in time). The associated partial order is denoted ${\le} {:=}({{\rightarrow}} \cup {{\lhd}})^*$ with strict part ${<}=({{\rightarrow}} \cup {{\lhd}})^+$. We do not distinguish isomorphic MSCs. Let ${\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)}$ denote the set of MSCs over ${P}$ and $\Sigma$.
Actually, MSCs are very similar to the space-time diagrams from Lamport’s seminal paper [@Lamport78], and $\le$ is commonly referred to as the *happened-before relation*.
It is worth noting that, when ${P}$ is a singleton, an MSC with events $e_1
\to e_2 \to \ldots \to e_n$ can be identified with the word $\lambda(e_1)\lambda(e_2) \ldots \lambda(e_n) \in \Sigma^\ast$.
= \[draw, fill=white, circle, inner sep=0, minimum size=0.25cm, draw=black\] = \[draw, fill=white, rectangle, inner sep=0, minimum size=0.2cm, draw=black\] = \[draw, fill=white, diamond, inner sep=0, minimum size=0.3cm\]
Consider the MSC from Figure \[fig:msc\] over ${P}=\{p_1,p_2,p_3\}$ and $\Sigma = \{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] circle (2.8pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{\resizebox{!}{1.4ex}{$\diamond$}}\}$. We have, for instance, $E_{p_1} =
\{e_0,\ldots,e_7\}$. The process relation is given by $e_i \to e_{i+1}$, $f_i
\to f_{i+1}$, and $g_i \to g_{i+1}$ for all $i \in \{0,\ldots,6\}$. Concerning the message relation, we have $e_1 {\lhd}f_0$, $e_4 {\lhd}g_5$, etc. Moreover, $e_2 \le f_3$, but neither $e_2 \le f_1$ nor $f_1 \le
e_2$.
(e0) at (0.25,2) ; (f0) at (0.25,0) ; (e0) – (f0);
(e1) at (1.125,2) ; (g0) at (1.125,1) ; (e1) – (g0);
(e2) at (2,2) ; (f1) at (2,0) ; (e2) – (f1);
(g1) at (3,1) ; (f2) at (3.75,0) ; (g1) – (f2);
(e3) at (4,2) ; (g2) at (4,1) ; (e3) – (g2);
(g3) at (5,1) ; (f3) at (5.5,0) ; (g3) – (f3);
(e4) at (5,2) ; (f5) at (8.75,0) ; (e4) – (f5);
(e5) at (6,2) ; (g4) at (6,1) ; (e5) – (g4);
(g5) at (7.5,1) ; (f4) at (7.5,0) ; (g5) – (f4);
(e6) at (9,2) ; (f6) at (10.5,0) ; (e6) – (f6);
(e7) at (11,2) ; (g6) at (11,1) ; (e7) – (g6);
(g7) at (12,1) ; (f7) at (12,0) ; (g7) – (f7);
(e0) – (e1); (e1) – (e2); (e2) – (e3); (e3) – (e4); (e4) – (e5); (e5) – (e6); (e6) – (e7);
(f0) – (f1); (f1) – (f2); (f2) – (f3); (f3) – (f4); (f4) – (f5); (f5) – (f6); (f6) – (f7);
(g0) – (g1); (g1) – (g2); (g2) – (g3); (g3) – (g4); (g4) – (g5); (g5) – (g6); (g6) – (g7);
at (-0.5,0) [$p_3$]{}; at (-0.5,1) [$p_2$]{}; at (-0.5,2) [$p_1$]{};
MSO Logic and Its Fragments
---------------------------
Next, we give an account of *monadic second-order* (MSO) logic and its fragments. Note that we restrict our attention to MSO logic interpreted *over MSCs*. We fix an infinite supply ${\mathcal{V}_{\mathsf{event}}}= \{x,y,\ldots\}$ of first-order variables, which range over events of an MSC, and an infinite supply ${\mathcal{V}_{\mathsf{set}}}= \{X,Y,\ldots\}$ of second-order variables, ranging over sets of events. The syntax of ${\textup{MSO}}$ (we consider that ${P}$ and $\Sigma$ are fixed) is given as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\Phi}& ~::=~ p(x) \mid a(x) \mid x = y \mid x {\rightarrow}y \mid x {\lhd}y \mid x \le y \mid x \in X \mid {\Phi}\lor {\Phi}\mid \lnot {\Phi}\mid
\exists x. {\Phi}\mid \exists X. {\Phi}\end{aligned}$$ where $p \in {P}$, $a \in \Sigma$, $x,y \in {\mathcal{V}_{\mathsf{event}}}$, and $X \in {\mathcal{V}_{\mathsf{set}}}$. We use the usual abbreviations to also include implication $\Longrightarrow$, conjunction $\wedge$, and universal quantification $\forall$. Moreover, the relation $x {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}y$ can be defined by $x \le y \wedge \bigvee_{p \in {P}} p(x) \wedge p(y)$. We write ${\mathsf{Free}}(\Phi)$ the set of free variables of $\Phi$.
Let $M = (E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda)$ be an MSC. An *interpretation* (for $M$) is a mapping $\nu\colon {\mathcal{V}_{\mathsf{event}}}\cup {\mathcal{V}_{\mathsf{set}}}\to E \cup 2^E$ assigning to each $x \in {\mathcal{V}_{\mathsf{event}}}$ an event $\nu(x) \in E$, and to each $X \in {\mathcal{V}_{\mathsf{set}}}$ a set of events $\nu(X) \subseteq E$. We write $M,\nu \models {\Phi}$ if $M$ satisfies ${\Phi}$ when the free variables of ${\Phi}$ are interpreted according to $\nu$. Hereby, satisfaction is defined in the usual manner. In fact, whether $M,\nu \models {\Phi}$ holds or not only depends on the interpretation of variables that occur free in ${\Phi}$. Thus, we may restrict $\nu$ to any set of variables that contains at least all free variables. For example, for ${\Phi}(x,y) = (x {\lhd}y)$, we have $M,[x \mapsto e, y \mapsto f] \models {\Phi}(x,y)$ iff $e {\lhd}f$. For a *sentence* ${\Phi}\in {\textup{MSO}}$ (without free variables), we define ${\mathbb{L}}({\Phi}) {:=}\{M \in {\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)} \mid M \models {\Phi}\}$.
We say that two formulas ${\Phi}$ and ${\Phi}'$ are *equivalent*, written ${\Phi}\equiv {\Phi}'$, if, for all MSCs $M = (E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda)$ and interpretations $\nu \colon {\mathcal{V}_{\mathsf{event}}}\cup {\mathcal{V}_{\mathsf{set}}}\to E \cup 2^E$, we have $M,\nu \models {\Phi}$ iff $M,\nu \models {\Phi}'$.
Let us identify two important fragments of MSO logic: *First-order* () formulas do not make use of second-order quantification (however, they may contain formulas $x \in X$). Moreover, *existential* MSO (${\textup{EMSO}}$) formulas are of the form $\exists X_1 \ldots \exists X_n.{\Phi}$ with ${\Phi}\in {\textup{FO}}$.
Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be ${\textup{MSO}}$ or ${\textup{EMSO}}$ or ${\textup{FO}}$ and let $R
\subseteq\{{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le\}$. We obtain the logic ${\mathcal{F}}[{R}]$ by restricting ${\mathcal{F}}$ to formulas that do not make use of $\{{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le\}
\setminus {R}$. Note that ${\mathcal{F}}= {\mathcal{F}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$. Moreover, we let ${\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{F}}[R]) {:=}\{{\mathbb{L}}({\Phi}) \mid {\Phi}\in {\mathcal{F}}[R]$ is a sentence$\}$.
Since the reflexive transitive closure of an MSO-definable binary relation is MSO-definable, ${\textup{MSO}}$ and ${\textup{MSO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd}]$ have the same expressive power: ${\mathcal{L}}({\textup{MSO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\leq])={\mathcal{L}}({\textup{MSO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd}])$. However, ${\textup{MSO}}[\le]$ (without the message relation) is strictly weaker than ${\textup{MSO}}$ [@BolligJournal].
We give an FO formula that allows us to recover, at some event $f$, the most recent event $e$ that happened in the past on, say, process $p$. More precisely, we define the predicate $\mathit{latest}_p(x,y)$ as $x \le y \wedge
p(x) \wedge \forall z\bigl((z \le y \wedge p(z)) \implies z \le x\bigr)$. The “gossip language” says that process $q$ always maintains the latest information that it can have about $p$. Thus, it is defined by ${\Phi}^{\mathsf{gossip}}_{p,q} = \forall x\forall
y.\bigl((\mathit{latest}_p(x,y) \wedge q(y)) \implies \bigvee_{a \in \Sigma}
(a(x) \wedge a(y))\bigr) \in {\textup{FO}}^3[\le]$. For example, for ${P}=\{p_1,p_2,p_3\}$ and $\Sigma = \{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] circle (2.8pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{\resizebox{!}{1.4ex}{$\diamond$}}\}$, the MSC $M$ from Figure \[fig:msc\] is contained in ${\mathbb{L}}({\Phi}^{\mathsf{gossip}}_{p_1,p_3})$. In particular, $M,[x \mapsto e_5, y
\mapsto g_5] \models \mathit{latest}_{p_1}(x,y)$ and $\lambda(e_5) =
\lambda(g_5) = {
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] circle (2.8pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}$.
Communicating Finite-State Machines
-----------------------------------
In a communicating finite-state machine, each process $p \in {P}$ can perform internal actions of the form ${\langlea\rangle}$, where $a \in \Sigma$, or send/receive messages from a finite set of messages ${\mathit{Msg}}$. A send action ${\langlea,!_{q}{m}\rangle}$ of process $p$ writes message ${m}\in {\mathit{Msg}}$ to channel $(p,q)$, and performs $a \in \Sigma$. A receive action ${\langlea,?_{q}{m}\rangle}$ reads message ${m}$ from channel $(q,p)$. Accordingly, we let ${\mathit{Act}_{p}({\mathit{Msg}})} {:=}\{{\langlea\rangle} \mid a \in \Sigma\} \cup
\{{\langlea,!_{q}{m}\rangle} \mid a \in \Sigma$, $m \in {\mathit{Msg}}$, $q \in {P}\setminus\{p\}\} \cup
\{{\langlea,?_{q}{m}\rangle} \mid a \in \Sigma$, $m \in {\mathit{Msg}}$, $q \in {P}\setminus\{p\}\}$ denote the set of possible actions of process $p$.
A *communicating finite-state machine (CFM)* over ${P}$ and $\Sigma$ is a tuple $(({\mathcal{A}}_p)_{p \in {P}},{\mathit{Msg}},{\mathit{Acc}})$ consisting of a finite set of messages ${\mathit{Msg}}$ and a finite-state transition system ${\mathcal{A}}_p=(S_p,{\iota}_p,\Delta_p)$ for each process $p$, with finite set of states $S_p$, initial state ${\iota}_p \in S_p$, and transition relation $\Delta_p \subseteq S_p \times {\mathit{Act}_{p}({\mathit{Msg}})} \times S_p$. Moreover, we have an acceptance condition ${\mathit{Acc}}\subseteq \prod_{p \in {P}} S_p$.
Given a transition $t = (s,{\alpha},s') \in \Delta_p$, we let ${\mathit{source}}(t) = s$ and ${\mathit{target}}(t) = s'$ denote the source and target states of $t$. In addition, if ${\alpha}= {\langlea\rangle}$, then $t$ is an *internal transition* and we let ${\mathit{label}}(t) = a$. If ${\alpha}= {\langlea,!_{q}{m}\rangle}$, then $t$ is a *send transition* and we let ${\mathit{label}}(t) = a$, ${\mathit{msg}}(t) = {m}$, and ${\mathit{receiver}}(t) = q$. Finally, if ${\alpha}= {\langlea,?_{q}{m}\rangle}$, then $t$ is a *receive transition* with ${\mathit{label}}(t) = a$, ${\mathit{msg}}(t) = {m}$, and ${\mathit{sender}}(t) = q$.
A *run* $\rho$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$ on an MSC $M = (E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda) \in {\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)}$ is a mapping associating with each event $e \in E_p$ a transition $\rho(e) \in \Delta_p$, and satisfying the following conditions:
1. for all events $e \in E$, we have ${\mathit{label}}(\rho(e)) = \lambda(e)$,
2. for all ${\rightarrow}$-minimal events $e \in E$, we have ${\mathit{source}}(\rho(e))={\iota}_{p}$, where $p = {\mathit{loc}}(e)$,
3. for all process edges $(e,f) \in {{\rightarrow}}$, we have ${\mathit{target}}(\rho(e)) = {\mathit{source}}(\rho(f))$,
4. for all internal events $e \in E$, $\rho(e)$ is an internal transition, and
5. for all message edges $e{\lhd}f$, $\rho(e)$ and $\rho(f)$ are respectively send and receive transitions such that ${\mathit{msg}}(\rho(e)) = {\mathit{msg}}(\rho(f))$, ${\mathit{receiver}}(\rho(e)) = {\mathit{loc}}(f)$, and ${\mathit{sender}}(\rho(f)) = {\mathit{loc}}(e)$.
To determine whether $\rho$ is accepting, we collect the last state $s_p$ of every process $p$. If $E_p \neq \emptyset$, we let $s_p = {\mathit{target}}(\rho(e))$, where $e$ is the last event of $E_p$. Otherwise, $s_p = {\iota}_p$. We say that $\rho$ is *accepting* if $(s_p)_{p \in {P}} \in {\mathit{Acc}}$.
The *language* ${\mathbb{L}}({\mathcal{A}})$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the set of MSCs $M$ such that there exists an accepting run of ${\mathcal{A}}$ on $M$. Moreover, ${{\mathcal{L}}(\textup{CFM})}{:=}\{{\mathbb{L}}({\mathcal{A}}) \mid {\mathcal{A}}$ is a CFM$\}$. Recall that, for these definitions, we have fixed ${P}$ and $\Sigma$.
One of our main results states that CFMs and ${\textup{EMSO}}$ logic are expressively equivalent. This solves a problem that was stated as open in [@GKM07]:
\[thm:main\] ${\mathcal{L}}({\textup{EMSO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]) = {{\mathcal{L}}(\textup{CFM})}$.
It is standard to prove ${{\mathcal{L}}(\textup{CFM})}\subseteq {\mathcal{L}}({\textup{EMSO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd}])$: The formula guesses an assignment of transitions to events in terms of existentially quantified second-order variables (one for each transition) and then checks, in its first-order kernel, that the assignment is indeed an (accepting) run. As, moreover, the class ${{\mathcal{L}}(\textup{CFM})}$ is closed under projection, the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] comes down to the proposition below (whose proof is spread over Sections \[sec:pdl\] and \[sec:pdl-cfm\]). Note that the translation from ${{\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]}$ to CFMs is inherently non-elementary, already when $|{P}| = 1$ [@phd-stockmeyer].
\[prop:fo-cfm\] ${\mathcal{L}}({\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]) \subseteq {{\mathcal{L}}(\textup{CFM})}$.
Star-Free Propositional Dynamic Logic {#sec:pdl}
=====================================
In this section, we introduce a star-free version of propositional dynamic logic and show that it is expressively equivalent to ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\leq]$. This is the second main result of the paper. Then, in Section \[sec:pdl-cfm\], we show how to translate star-free PDL formulas into CFMs.
Syntax and Semantics
--------------------
Originally, propositional dynamic logic (PDL) has been used to reason about program schemas and transition systems [@FisL79]. Since then, PDL and its extension with intersection and converse have developed a rich theory with applications in artificial intelligence and verification [@HalpernM92; @GiacomoL94; @LangeLutzJSL05; @Lange06; @Goeller2009]. It has also been applied in the context of MSCs [@BKM-lmcs10; @Mennicke13].
Here, we introduce a *star-free* version of PDL, denoted ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}$. It will serve as an “interface” between FO logic and CFMs. The syntax of ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}$ and its fragment ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}$ is given by the following grammar:
where $p,r \in {P}$, $q \in {P}\setminus \{p\}$, and $a \in \Sigma$. We refer to ${\xi}$ as a *sentence*, to $\varphi$ as an *event formula*, and to $\pi$ as a *path formula*. We name the logic star-free because we use the operators $(\cup,\cap,{\mathsf{c}},\cdot)$ of star-free regular expressions instead of the regular-expression operators $(\cup,\cdot,\ast)$ of classical PDL. However, the formula ${\xrightarrow{\varphi}}$, whose semantics is explained below, can be seen as a restricted use of the construct $\pi^\ast$.
A sentence ${\xi}$ is evaluated wrt. an MSC $M =
(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda)$. An event formula $\varphi$ is evaluated wrt. $M$ and an event $e \in E$. Finally, a path formula $\pi$ is evaluated over *two* events. In other words, it defines a binary relation ${\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket_{M}} \subseteq E \times E$. We often write $M,e,f \models \pi$ to denote $(e,f) \in {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket_{M}}$. Moreover, for $e \in E$, we let ${\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket_{M}}(e) {:=}\{f \in E \mid (e,f) \in {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket_{M}}\}$. When $M$ is clear from the context, we may write ${\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket}$ instead of ${\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket_{M}}$. The semantics of sentences, event formulas, and path formulas is given in Table \[table:sem-PDL\].
$\begin{array}{ll}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{l}{
M \models {\mathop{\mathsf{E}\vphantom{a}}\nolimits}\varphi \textup{ if } M,e \models \varphi \text{ for some event } e\in E}
\\
M \models \neg{\xi}\textup{ if } M \not\models {\xi}&
M \models {\xi}_1 \vee {\xi}_2 \textup{ if } M \models {\xi}_1 \textup{ or } M \models {\xi}_2\\[0.5ex]
\hline
M,e \models p \textup{ if } {\mathit{loc}}(e) = p &
M,e \models {\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle} {\varphi}} \textup{ if } \exists f \in {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket_{M}} (e): M,f \models \varphi
\\
M,e \models a \textup{ if } \lambda(e) = a &
M,e \models {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi)} \textup{ if } (e,e) \in {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket_{M}}
\\
M,e \models \neg\varphi \textup{ if } M,e \not\models \varphi &
M,e \models \varphi_1 \vee \varphi_2 \textup{ if } M,e \models \varphi_1 \textup{ or } M,e \models \varphi_2\\[0.5ex]
\hline
{\llbracket {{\rightarrow}} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}\{ (e,f) \in E \times E \mid e \to f \}~~~~ &
{\llbracket {{\lhd}_{p,q}} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}\{ (e,f) \in E_p \times E_q \mid e {\lhd}f \}
\\
{\llbracket {{\leftarrow}} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}\{ (f,e) \in E \times E \mid e {\rightarrow}f \} &
{\llbracket {{\lhd}_{p,q}^{-1}} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}\{ (f,e) \in E_q \times E_p \mid e {\lhd}f \}
\\
{\llbracket {{\mathsf{jump}_{p,r}}} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}E_p \times E_r &
{\llbracket {{\{\varphi\}?}} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}\{ (e,e) \mid e \in E : M,e \models \varphi \}
\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{
{\llbracket {{\xrightarrow{\varphi}}} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}\{ (e,f) \in E \times E \mid e {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f \textup{ and } \forall g \in E\textup{: } e {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}g {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f \implies M,g \models \varphi\}
}
\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{
{\llbracket {{\xleftarrow{\varphi}}} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}\{ (e,f) \in E \times E \mid f {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e \textup{ and } \forall g \in E\textup{: } f {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}g {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e \implies M,g \models \varphi\}
}
\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{
{\llbracket {\pi_1 \cdot \pi_2} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}\{ (e,g) \in E \times E \mid \exists f \in E:
(e,f)\in{\llbracket {\pi_1} \rrbracket_{M}} \land (f,g)\in{\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket_{M}} \}
}
\\
{\llbracket {\pi_1 \cup \pi_2} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}{\llbracket {\pi_1} \rrbracket_{M}} \cup {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket_{M}} &
{\llbracket {{{\pi}^{\mathsf{c}}}} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}(E \times E) \setminus {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket_{M}}\\
{\llbracket {\pi_1 \cap \pi_2} \rrbracket_{M}} {:=}{\llbracket {\pi_1} \rrbracket_{M}} \cap {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket_{M}}\\[0.5ex]
\hline
\end{array}$
The usual temporal logic modalities can be expressed easily. For instance, ${\mathop{\langle {\rightarrow}\rangle} {\varphi}}$ means that the *next* event on the same process satisfies $\varphi$, and ${\mathop{\langle {\xrightarrow{\varphi}} \rangle} {\psi}}$ corresponds to the *strict until* $\mathsf{X}(\varphi\mathbin{\mathsf{U}}\psi$). The corresponding past modalities can be written similarly.
Consider again the MSC $M$ from Figure \[fig:msc\] and the path formula $\pi = {\lhd}^{-1}_{p_1,p_3} {{\rightarrow}} {{\lhd}_{p_1,p_2}} {{\rightarrow}} {{\lhd}_{p_2,p_3}} {{\rightarrow}}$. We have $M,g_5 \models {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi)}$. Moreover, $(e_2,e_5) \in {\llbracket {{\xrightarrow{{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}}}}} \rrbracket_{M}}$ but $(e_2,e_6) \not\in {\llbracket {{\xrightarrow{{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}}}}} \rrbracket_{M}}$.
We use the usual abbreviations for sentences and event formulas such as implication and conjunction. Moreover, ${\mathit{true}}{:=}p \vee \neg p$ (for some arbitrary process $p \in {P}$) and ${\mathit{false}}{:=}\neg{\mathit{true}}$. Finally, we define the event formula ${\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}} {:=}{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle} {{\mathit{true}}}}$, and the path formulas ${{\xrightarrow{+}}} {:=}{{\xrightarrow{{\mathit{true}}}}}$ and ${{\xrightarrow{\ast}}} {:=}{{\xrightarrow{+}}} \cup
{\{{\mathit{true}}\}?}$.
Note that there are some redundancies in the logic. For example (letting $\equiv$ denote logical equivalence), ${{\rightarrow}} \equiv {{\xrightarrow{{\mathit{false}}}}}$, $\pi_1 \cap \pi_2 \equiv {{({{\pi}^{\mathsf{c}}}_1 \cup {{\pi}^{\mathsf{c}}}_2)}^{\mathsf{c}}}$, and ${\mathsf{Loop}(\pi)} \equiv {\mathop{\langle {\{{\mathit{true}}\}?} \cap \pi \rangle}}$. Some of them are necessary to define certain subclasses of ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}$. For every $R \subseteq
\{{\mathsf{Loop}},\cup,\cap,{\mathsf{c}}\}$, we let ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}[R]$ denote the fragment of ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}$ that does not make use of $\{{\mathsf{Loop}},\cup,\cap,{\mathsf{c}}\} \setminus
R$. In particular, ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}= {{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}},\cup,\cap,{\mathsf{c}}]$. Note that, syntactically, ${{\xrightarrow{\ast}}}$ is not contained in ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}$ since union is not permitted.
Note that ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}[\cup]$ over MSCs is analogous to Conditional XPath over trees [@Marx05].[^2] However, while Marx showed that Conditional XPath is expressively complete for FO logic over ordered unranked trees, our expressive completeness result over MSCs crucially relies on the ${\mathsf{Loop}}$ modality.
Main Results
------------
Let ${\textup{FO}}^3[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ be the set of formulas from ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ that use at most three different first-order variables (however, a variable can be quantified and reused several times in a formula). The main result of this section is that, for formulas with zero or one free variable, the logics ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$, ${\textup{FO}}^3[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$, ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}$, and ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ are expressively equivalent.
Consider ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ formulas $\Phi_0$, $\Phi_1(x)$ and $\Phi_2(x,y)$ with respectively zero, one, and two free variables (hence, $\Phi_0$ is a sentence). Consider also some ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}$ sentence ${\xi}$, event formula $\varphi$, and path formula $\pi$. The respective formulas are equivalent, written $\Phi_0\equiv{\xi}$, $\Phi_1(x)\equiv\varphi$, and $\Phi_2(x,y)\equiv\pi$, if, for all MSCs $M$ and all events $e,f$ in $M$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
M &\models \Phi_0 && \text{iff} & M &\models {\xi}\\
M,[x\mapsto e] &\models \Phi_1(x) && \text{iff} & M,e &\models \varphi \\
M,[x \mapsto e, y \mapsto f] &\models \Phi_2(x,y) && \text{iff} & M,e,f &\models \pi\end{aligned}$$
We start with a simple observation, which can be shown easily by induction:
\[prop:pdl-fo3\] Every ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}$ formula is equivalent to some ${\textup{FO}}^3[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ formula. More precisely, for every ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}$ sentence ${\xi}$, event formula $\varphi$, and path formula $\pi$, there exist some ${\textup{FO}}^3[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ sentence $\widetilde{{\xi}}$, formula ${\widetilde{\varphi}}(x)$ with one free variable, and formula ${\widetilde{\pi}}(x,y)$ with two free variables, respectively, such that, ${\xi}\equiv\widetilde{{\xi}}$, $\varphi\equiv{\widetilde{\varphi}}(x)$, and $\pi\equiv{\widetilde{\pi}}(x,y)$.
The main result is a *strong* converse of Proposition \[prop:pdl-fo3\]:
\[thm:FO-to-PDLm-main\] Every ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ formula with at most two free variables is equivalent to some ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}$ formula. More precisely, for every ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ sentence $\Phi_0$, formula $\Phi_1(x)$ with one free variable, and formula $\Phi_2(x,y)$ with two free variables, there exist some ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ sentence ${\xi}$, ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ event formula $\varphi$, and ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ path formulas $\pi_{ij}$, respectively, such that, $\Phi_0\equiv{\xi}$, $\Phi_1(x)\equiv\varphi$, and $\Phi_2(x,y)\equiv\bigcup_i\bigcap_j\pi_{ij}$.
From Theorem \[thm:FO-to-PDLm-main\] and Proposition \[prop:pdl-fo3\], we deduce that ${\textup{FO}}$ has the three variable property:
\[thm:fo3\] ${\mathcal{L}}({\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]) = {\mathcal{L}}({\textup{FO}}^3[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le])$.
From ${\textup{FO}}$ to $\boldsymbol{{{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}}$ {#sec:fo-pdl}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the remainder of this section, we give the translation from ${\textup{FO}}$ to ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}$. We start with some basic properties of ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}$. First, the converse of a ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}$ formula is definable in ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}$ (easy induction on $\pi$).
\[lem:inverse\] Let $R \subseteq \{{\mathsf{Loop}},\cup,\cap,{\mathsf{c}}\}$ and $\pi \in {\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[R]$ be a path formula. There exists $\pi^{-1} \in {\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[R]$ such that, for all MSCs $M$, ${\llbracket {\pi^{-1}} \rrbracket_{M}} = {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket_{M}}^{-1} = \{(f,e) \mid (e,f) \in {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket_{M}}\}$.
Given a ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ path formula $\pi$, we denote by ${\mathsf{Comp}(\pi)}$ the set of pairs $(p,q) \in {P}\times {P}$ such that there may be a $\pi$-path from some event on process $p$ to some event on process $q$. Formally, we let ${\mathsf{Comp}({\rightarrow})}={\mathsf{Comp}({\leftarrow})}={\mathsf{Comp}({\xrightarrow{\varphi}})}={\mathsf{Comp}({\xleftarrow{\varphi}})}={\mathsf{Comp}({\{\varphi\}?})}={\mathsf{id}}$, where ${\mathsf{id}}=\{(p,p)\mid p\in{P}\}$; ${\mathsf{Comp}({\lhd}_{p,q})}={\mathsf{Comp}({\lhd}_{q,p}^{-1})}=\{(p,q)\}$; ${\mathsf{Comp}({\mathsf{jump}_{p,r}})}=\{(p,r)\}$; and ${\mathsf{Comp}(\pi_1\cdot\pi_2)}={\mathsf{Comp}(\pi_2)}\circ{\mathsf{Comp}(\pi_1)}=\{(p,r)\mid \exists q:
(p,q)\in{\mathsf{Comp}(\pi_1)}, (q,r)\in{\mathsf{Comp}(\pi_2)}\}$.
Notice that, for all path formulas $\pi \in {{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$, the relation ${\mathsf{Comp}(\pi)}$ is either empty or a singleton $\{(p,q)\}$ or the identity ${\mathsf{id}}$. Moreover, $M,e,f\models\pi$ implies $({\mathit{loc}}(e),{\mathit{loc}}(f))\in{\mathsf{Comp}(\pi)}$. Therefore, all events in ${\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket}(e)$ are on the same process, and if this set is nonempty (i.e., if $M,e\models{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}$), then ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and ${\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ are well-defined.
Consider the MSC from Figure \[fig:msc\] and $\pi = {{\xrightarrow{+}}}{{\lhd}_{p_1,p_2}}{{\rightarrow}}{{\lhd}_{p_2,p_3}}{{\rightarrow}}$. We have ${\mathsf{Comp}(\pi)} = \{(p_1,p_3)\}$. Moreover, ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e_2)} = g_4$ and ${\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e_2)} = g_5$.
We say that $\pi \in {{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ is *monotone* if, for all MSCs $M$ and events $e,f$ such that $M,e \models {\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}$, $M,f \models {\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}$, and $e {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f$, we have ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (f)}$ and ${\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (f)}$. Lemmas \[lem:min-conc\] and \[lem:monotone\] are shown by simultaneous induction.
\[lem:min-conc\] Let $\pi_1,\pi_2 \in {{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ be path formulas. For all MSCs $M$ and events $e$ such that $M,e\models{\mathop{\langle \pi_1 \cdot \pi_2 \rangle}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\min {\llbracket {\pi_1 \cdot \pi_2} \rrbracket} (e)} & = {\min {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} ({\min {\llbracket {\pi_1 \cdot {\{{\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle}}\}?}} \rrbracket} (e)})} \text{ and }
\\
{\max {\llbracket {\pi_1 \cdot \pi_2} \rrbracket} (e)} & = {\max {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} ({\max {\llbracket {\pi_1 \cdot {\{{\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle}}\}?}} \rrbracket} (e)})} \, .
\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:monotone\] All ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ path formulas are monotone.
We first show that Lemma \[lem:min-conc\] holds when $\pi_2$ is monotone. We then use this to prove by induction that all ${\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}$ formulas are monotone (Lemma \[lem:monotone\]). Therefore, we deduce that Lemma \[lem:min-conc\] is always true.
Let $\pi_1,\pi_2 \in {{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ be path formulas such that $\pi_2$ is monotone. Let $M$ be an MSCs and $e$ be some event in $M$ such that $M,e\models{\mathop{\langle \pi_1\pi_2 \rangle}}$. The proof is illustrated in Figure \[fig:min-conc\]. We let $g = {\min {\llbracket {\pi_1 \pi_2} \rrbracket} (e)}$. Since $M,e,g \models \pi_1\pi_2$, there exists $f$ such that $M,e,f \models \pi_1$, and $M,f,g \models \pi_2$. In particular, $M,e,f \models \pi_1 {\{{\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle}}\}?}$, so $f' =
{\min {\llbracket {\pi_1 {\{{\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle}}\}?}} \rrbracket} (e)}$ is well-defined and $f'
{\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f$. Since $\pi_2$ is monotone, ${\min {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (f')} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\min {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (f)} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}g$. Also, $M,e,{\min {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (f')} \models \pi_1\pi_2$. Hence $g {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\min {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (f')}$. Therefore, $g = {\min {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (f')}$.
The proof that ${\max {\llbracket {\pi_1 \pi_2} \rrbracket} (e)} =
{\max {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} ({\max {\llbracket {\pi_1 {\{{\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle}}\}?}} \rrbracket} (e)})}$ is similar.
\(e) at (0,0) ; (f) at (1,1) ; (fp) at (-1,1) ; (gp) at (-1.1,2) ; (g) at (0,2) ; (leproc) at (0,1) [${\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}$]{}; at (-0.5,1.95) [${\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}$]{};
\(e) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[right\] [$\pi_1$]{} (f) (e) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[left\] [$\pi_1$]{} (fp) (f) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[right\] [$\pi_2$]{} (g) (fp) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[left\] [$\pi_2$]{} (gp);
We turn now to the proof of Lemma \[lem:monotone\]. Actually, we prove a slightly stronger statement. We show by induction on $\pi$ that, for all ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ event formulas $\psi$, the path formula $\pi \cdot {\{\psi\}?}$ is monotone.
Let $e,f$ be events such that $e{\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f$, $M,e\models\pi\cdot{\{\psi\}?}$ and $M,f\models\pi\cdot{\{\psi\}?}$. Let $e' = {\min {\llbracket {\pi\cdot{\{\psi\}?}} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and $f' = {\min {\llbracket {\pi\cdot{\{\psi\}?}} \rrbracket} (f)}$. We show that $e'{\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f'$. The proof that ${\max {\llbracket {\pi\cdot{\{\psi\}?}} \rrbracket} (e)}{\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi\cdot{\{\psi\}?}} \rrbracket} (e)}$ is similar. We start with the base cases.
If $\pi = {\{\varphi\}?}$, we have $e' = e {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f = f'$. The result is also trivial for $\pi={{\rightarrow}}$ or $\pi={{\leftarrow}}$. It follows from the fact that channels are FIFO for $\pi={{\lhd}_{p,q}}$ or $\pi={{\lhd}_{p,q}^{-1}}$. When $\pi={\mathsf{jump}_{p,q}}$ we have $e'=f'$. Suppose that $\pi={{\xrightarrow{\varphi}}}$. It is easy to see that either $e'{\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f{<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f'$ or $e'=f'$. Similarly, when $\pi={{\xleftarrow{\varphi}}}$ we have either $e'{<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e{\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f'$ or $e'=f'$.
The proof for $\pi=\pi_1\cdot\pi_2$ is illustrated in Figure \[fig:monotone\].
\(e) at (0,0) ; (f) at (2,0) ; (leproc) at (1,0) [${\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}$]{};
(epp) at (-0.5,1) ; (fpp) at (1.5,1) ; (leproc) at (0.5,1) [${\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}$]{};
(ep) at (-0.5,2) ; (fp) at (1.5,2) ; (leproc) at (0.5,2) [${\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}$]{};
\(e) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[left\] [$\pi_1$]{} (epp) (f) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[right\] [$\pi_1$]{} (fpp) (epp) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[left\] [$\pi_2$]{} (ep) (fpp) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[right\] [$\pi_2$]{} (fp);
By induction, the path formula $\pi_2\cdot{\{\psi\}?}$ is monotone. So we can apply the special case of Lemma \[lem:min-conc\] proved above to the product $\pi_1\cdot(\pi_2\cdot{\{\psi\}?})$. Let $e''={\min {\llbracket {\pi_1\cdot{\{{\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle} {\psi}}\}?}} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and $f''={\min {\llbracket {\pi_1\cdot{\{{\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle} {\psi}}\}?}} \rrbracket} (f)}$. We have $e'={\min {\llbracket {\pi_2\cdot{\{\psi\}?}} \rrbracket} (e'')}$ and $f'={\min {\llbracket {\pi_2\cdot{\{\psi\}?}} \rrbracket} (f'')}$. Again by induction, the path formula $\pi_1 \cdot {\{{\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle} {\psi}}\}?}$ is monotone and we obtain $e''{\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f''$. We get $e'{\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f'$ since $\pi_2\cdot{\{\psi\}?}$ is monotone.
The following crucial lemma states that, for all path formulas $\pi \in {{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ and events $e$ in some MSC, ${\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)$ contains precisely the events that lie in the interval between ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and ${\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and that satisfy ${\mathop{\langle \pi^{-1} \rangle}}$.
\[lem:image\] Let $\pi$ be a ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ path formula. For all MSCs $M$ and events $e$ such that $M,e\models{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}$, we have $${\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e) = \{ f \in E \mid {\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)} \land M,f \models {\mathop{\langle \pi^{-1} \rangle}} \} \, .$$
The left-to-right inclusion is trivial. We prove the right-to-left inclusion by induction on $\pi$. The base cases are immediate.
Assume that $\pi = \pi_1 \cdot \pi_2$. For illustration, consider Figure \[fig:image\]. We let $f_1 = {\min {\llbracket {\pi_1 {\{{\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle}}\}?}} \rrbracket} (e)}$, $f_2 = {\min {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (f_1)}$, $g_1 = {\max {\llbracket {\pi_1 {\{{\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle}}\}?}} \rrbracket} (e)}$, and $g_2 = {\max {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (g_1)}$. By Lemma \[lem:min-conc\], we have $f_2={\min {\llbracket {\pi_1\pi_2} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and $g_2={\max {\llbracket {\pi_1\pi_2} \rrbracket} (e)}$. Let $h_2 \in E$ such that $f_2 {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}h_2 {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}g_2$ and $M,h_2 \models {\mathop{\langle (\pi_1\pi_2)^{-1} \rangle}}$. If $h_2 {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (f_1)}$, then by induction hypothesis, $M,f_1,h_2 \models \pi_2$, and we obtain $M,e,h_2 \models \pi_1\pi_2$. Similarly, if ${\min {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (g_1)} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}h_2$, then $M,g_1,h_2 \models \pi_2$ and $M,e,h_2 \models \pi_1\pi_2$. So assume ${\max {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (f_1)} {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}h_2 {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\min {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (g_1)}$. Since $M,h_2 \models {\mathop{\langle \pi_2^{-1}\pi_1^{-1} \rangle}}$, there exists $h_1$ such that $M,h_1,h_2 \models \pi_2$ and $M,h_1 \models {\mathop{\langle \pi_1^{-1} \rangle}}$. Moreover, ${\min {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (h_1)} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}h_2 {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\min {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (g_1)}$, hence $h_1 {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}g_1$ by Lemma \[lem:monotone\] (notice that $g_1$ and $h_1$ must be on the same process). Similarly, ${\max {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (f_1)} {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}h_2 {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi_2} \rrbracket} (h_1)}$, hence $f_1 {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}h_1$. We then have $f_1 {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}h_1 {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}g_1$, and $M,h_1 \models {\mathop{\langle \pi_1^{-1} \rangle}}$. By induction hypothesis, $M,e,h_1 \models \pi_1$. Hence, $M,e,h_2 \models \pi_1\pi_2$.
\(e) at (0,0) ; (h1) at (0,2) ; (h2) at (0,4) ; (f1) at (-3,2) ; (g1) at (3,2) ;
(f2) at (-5.5,4) ; (g2) at (5.5,4) ;
(max) at (-2.5,4) ; (min) at (2.5,4) ;
(leproc) at (-1.5,2) [${\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}$]{}; (leproc) at (1.5,2) [${\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}$]{}; (leproc) at (-1,4) [${<_{\mathsf{proc}}}$]{}; (leproc) at (1,4) [${<_{\mathsf{proc}}}$]{}; (leproc) at (-4,4) [${\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}$]{}; (leproc) at (4,4) [${\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}$]{};
\(e) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2,bend left=0\] node\[left\] [$\pi_1$ ]{} (f1) (e) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2,bend left=-0\] node\[right\] [ $\pi_1$]{} (g1) (h1) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2,bend left=0\] node\[right\] [ $\pi_1^{-1}$]{} (e) (h2) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2,bend left=0\] node\[right\] [ $\pi_2^{-1}$]{} (h1) (f1) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2,bend left=0\] node\[right\] [ $\pi_2$]{} (max) (g1) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2,bend left=0\] node\[left\] [$\pi_2$ ]{} (min) (f1) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2,bend left=0\] node\[left\] [$\pi_2$ ]{} (f2) (g1) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2,bend left=0\] node\[right\] [ $\pi_2$]{} (g2);
Using Lemma \[lem:image\], we can give a characterization of ${\llbracket {{{\pi}^{\mathsf{c}}}} \rrbracket} (e)$ (when $\pi \in {{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$) that also relies on intervals delimited by ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and ${\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$. More precisely, ${\llbracket {{{\pi}^{\mathsf{c}}}} \rrbracket} (e)$ is the union of the following sets (see Figure \[fig:charcompl\]): (i) the interval of all events to the left of ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$, (ii) the interval of all events to the right of ${\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$, (iii) the set of events located between ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and ${\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and satisfying $\lnot {\mathop{\langle \pi^{-1} \rangle}}$, (iv) all events located on other processes than ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and ${\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$.
\(e) at (3,-2) ;
iin [0,1,3,6]{} [ (ei) at (1.3\*i,0) ; ]{} (e) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.7mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{}\] node\[below left\] [${{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}}$]{} (e0) (e) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.7mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{}\] node\[below right\] [${{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}$]{} (e6) ;
iin [-1,2,4,5,7,8]{} [ (ei) at (1.3\*i,0) ; ]{} i\[evaluate=ias using int(i+1)\] in [-1,...,7]{} [ (ei) – (e) ; ]{}
[background]{} at (e-1) ;
at (e2) ; ($(e4)+(-0.4,0.4)$) rectangle ($(e5)+(0.4,-0.4)$) ; ;
($(e7)+(-0.4,0.4)$) rectangle ($(e8)+(0.4,-0.4)$) ; ;
This description of ${\llbracket {{{\pi}^{\mathsf{c}}}} \rrbracket} (e)$ can be used to rewrite ${{\pi}^{\mathsf{c}}}$ as a union of ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ formulas. In a first step, we show that, if $\pi$ is a ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ formula, then the relation $\{(e,{\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)})\}$ can also be expressed in ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ (and similarly for $\max$).
Let $R = \emptyset$ or $R = \{{\mathsf{Loop}}\}$. For every path formula $\pi \in {{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}[R]$, there exist ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}[R]$ path formulas ${{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}}$ and ${{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}$ such that $M,e,f \models {{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}}$ iff $f = {\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$, and $M,e,f \models {{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}$ iff $f = {\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$.
We construct, by induction on $\pi$, formulas ${{\mathsf{min}~} {(\pi \cdot{\{\psi\}?})}}$ for all ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}[R]$ event formulas $\psi$. For $\pi \in \{ {{\rightarrow}}, {{\leftarrow}}, {{\lhd}_{p,q}}, {{\lhd}^{-1}_{p,q}},
{\{\varphi\}?}\}$, we let ${{\mathsf{min}~} {(\pi \cdot{\{\psi\}?})}} = \pi \cdot{\{\psi\}?}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathsf{min}~} {({{\xrightarrow{\varphi}}} \cdot{\{\psi\}?})}}
& = {{\xrightarrow{\varphi \land \lnot \psi}}} \cdot{\{\psi\}?} \\
{{\mathsf{min}~} {({{\xleftarrow{\varphi}}} \cdot{\{\psi\}?})}}
& = {{\xleftarrow{\varphi}}}\cdot {\{\psi \land (\lnot \varphi \lor \lnot
{\mathop{\langle {\xleftarrow{\varphi}} \rangle} {\psi}}) \}?} \\
{{\mathsf{min}~} {({\mathsf{jump}_{p,q}} \cdot{\{\psi\}?})}}
& = {\mathsf{jump}_{p,q}} \cdot{\{\psi \land \lnot {\mathop{\langle {\xleftarrow{+}}\rangle} {\psi}}\}?} \\
{{\mathsf{min}~} {(\pi_1\cdot\pi_2 \cdot{\{\psi\}?})}}
& = {{\mathsf{min}~} {(\pi_1 \cdot{\{{\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle} {\psi}}\}?})}}
\cdot {{\mathsf{min}~} {(\pi_2 \cdot{\{\psi\}?})}} \, .
\end{aligned}$$ The construction of ${{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}$ is similar.
We are now ready to prove that any boolean combination of ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ formulas is equivalent to a positive one, i.e., one that does not use complement.
\[lem:closure-complement\] For all path formulas $\pi \in {{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$, there exist ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ path formulas $(\pi_i)_{1 \le i \le |{P}|^2+3}$ such that ${{\pi}^{\mathsf{c}}} \equiv \bigcup_{1 \le i \le |{P}|^2+3} \pi_i$.
We show ${{\pi}^{\mathsf{c}}} \equiv \sigma$, where $$\sigma = ({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}} \cdot {{\xleftarrow{+}}}) \cup ({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}} \cdot {{\xrightarrow{+}}})
\cup ( \pi \cdot {{\xrightarrow{+}}} \cdot {\{\neg{\mathop{\langle \pi^{-1} \rangle}}\}?})
\cup \bigcup_{(p,q) \in {P}^2} {\{\lnot{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle} {q}}\}?} \cdot {\mathsf{jump}_{p,q}} \,.$$
Let $M = (E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda)$ be an MSC and $e,f \in E$. We write $p = {\mathit{loc}}(e)$, $q = {\mathit{loc}}(f)$. Let us show that $M,e,f \models \pi^c$ iff $M,e,f \models \sigma$. If $M,e \models \lnot{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle} {q}}$, then both $M,e,f \models {{\pi}^{\mathsf{c}}}$ and $M,e,f \models \sigma$ hold. In the following, we assume that $M,e \models {\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle} {q}}$, and thus that ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and ${\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ are well-defined and on process $q$. Again, if $f {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ or ${\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)} {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f$, then both $M,e,f \models {{\pi}^{\mathsf{c}}}$ and $M,e,f \models \sigma$ hold. And if ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$, then, by Lemma \[lem:image\], we have $M,e,f \models \pi^c$ iff $M,f \models \lnot{\mathop{\langle \pi^{-1} \rangle}}$, iff $M,e,f \models \sigma$.
The rest of this section is dedicated to the proof of Theorem \[thm:FO-to-PDLm-main\], stating that every ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ formula with at most two free variables can be translated into an equivalent ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}$ formula. As we proceed by induction, we actually need a more general statement, which takes into account arbitrarily many free variables:
\[thm:FO-to-PDLm\] Every formula $\Phi\in {{\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]}$ with at least one free variable is equivalent to a boolean combination of formulas of the form ${\widetilde{\pi}}(x,y)$, where $\pi \in {{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}$ and $x,y \in {\mathsf{Free}}(\Phi)$.
In the following, we will simply write $\pi(x,y)$ for ${\widetilde{\pi}}(x,y)$, where ${\widetilde{\pi}}(x,y)$ is the ${\textup{FO}}$ formula equivalent to $\pi$ as defined in Proposition \[prop:pdl-fo3\]. The proof is by induction. For convenience, we assume that $\Phi$ is in prenex normal form. If $\Phi$ is quantifier free, then it is a boolean combination of atomic formulas. For $x,y \in {\mathcal{V}_{\mathsf{event}}}$, atomic formulas are translated as follows: $$\begin{array}{rclcrclcrcl}
p(x) & \equiv & {\{p\}?} (x,x)
& \qquad\qquad & x {\rightarrow}y & \equiv & {{\rightarrow}}(x,y)
& & x = y & \equiv & {\{{\mathit{true}}\}?}(x,y)\\[1.5ex]
a(x) & \equiv & {\{a\}?} (x,x)
& & x {\lhd}y & \equiv &
\displaystyle \bigvee_{(p,q) \in {\mathit{Ch}}} {{\lhd}_{p,q}}(x,y)
\end{array}$$ Moreover, $x \le y$ is equivalent to the disjunction of the formulas $\bigl(\pi \cdot {{\lhd}_{p_1,p_2}} \cdot {{\xrightarrow{+}}} \cdot {{\lhd}_{p_2,p_3}}
\cdots {{\xrightarrow{+}}} \cdot {{\lhd}_{p_{m-1},p_{m}}} \cdot \pi'\bigr)(x,y)$, where $1 \le m \le |{P}|$, $p_1,\ldots,p_m \in {P}$ are such that $p_i
\neq p_{j}$ for all $1\leq i<j\leq m$, and $\pi,\pi' \in \{{\xrightarrow{+}},{\{{\mathit{true}}\}?}\}$.
#### Universal quantification.
We have $\forall x.\Psi \equiv
\neg\exists x.\neg\Psi$. Since we allow boolean combinations, dealing with negation is trivial. Hence, this case reduces to existential quantification.
#### Existential quantification.
Suppose that $\Phi = \exists x.\Psi$. If $x$ is not free in $\Psi$, then $\Phi\equiv\Psi$ and we are done by induction. Otherwise, assume that ${\mathsf{Free}}(\Psi)=\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$ with $n>1$ and that $x=x_n$. By induction, $\Psi$ is equivalent to a boolean combination of formulas of the form $\pi(y,z)$ with $y,z\in{\mathsf{Free}}(\Psi)$. We transform it into a finite disjunction of formulas of the form $\bigwedge_{j} \pi_{j}(y_{j},z_{j})$, where $y_j = x_{i_1}$ and $z_j =
x_{i_2}$ for some $i_1 \le i_2$. To do so, we first eliminate negation using Lemma \[lem:closure-complement\]. The resulting positive boolean combination is then brought into disjunctive normal form. Note that this latter step may cause an exponential blow-up so that the overall construction is nonelementary (which is unavoidable [@phd-stockmeyer]). Finally, the variable ordering can be guaranteed by replacing $\pi_j$ with $\pi_j^{-1}$ whenever needed.
Now, $\Phi=\exists x_n.\Psi$ is equivalent to a finite disjunction of formulas of the form $$\bigwedge_{j \in I} \pi_{j} (y_{j},z_{j})
~\land~ { \begin{array}[t]{@{}c@{}}
\underbrace{\exists x_n. \Bigl(\bigwedge_{j \in J} \pi_{j} (y_{j},x_n) \land
\bigwedge_{j \in J'} \pi_{j} (x_n,x_n)\Bigr)}\\
=: \Upsilon
\end{array}
}$$ for three finite, pairwise disjoint index sets $I,J,J'$ such that $y_j \in
\{x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}\}$ for all $j \in I \cup J$, and $z_j \in
\{x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}\}$ for all $j \in I$. Notice that ${\mathsf{Free}}(\Upsilon)\subseteq\{x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}\}$. If $J = \emptyset$, then[^3] $$\Upsilon \equiv \bigvee_{p,q \in P}
\Big( {\mathsf{jump}_{p,q}} \cdot {\{\bigwedge_{j \in J'} {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi_{j})}\}?}
\cdot {\mathsf{jump}_{q,p}}\Big) (x_1,x_1) \, .$$ So assume $J \neq \emptyset$. Set $$\Upsilon' {:=}\bigvee_{k,\ell \in J}
\left(\begin{array}{rl}
& \bigwedge_{j \in J} (({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{j}}}) \cdot {{\xrightarrow{\ast}}} \cdot
({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{k}}})^{-1}) (y_{j},y_{k})
\\ \land & \bigwedge_{j \in J} (({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi_{\ell}}}) \cdot {{\xrightarrow{\ast}}}
\cdot ({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi_{j}}})^{-1}) (y_{\ell},y_{j})\\
\land &
(\pi_{k} \cdot {\{\psi\}?} \cdot \pi_{\ell}^{-1}) (y_{k},y_{\ell})
\end{array}\right)$$ where $ \psi = \bigwedge_{j \in J} {\mathop{\langle \pi_{j}^{-1} \rangle}}
\land \bigwedge_{j \in J'} {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi_{j})}$. We have ${\mathsf{Free}}(\Upsilon')={\mathsf{Free}}(\Upsilon)\subseteq\{x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}\}$.
\[claim:fo-pdl\] We have $\Upsilon \equiv \Upsilon'$.
Intuitively, by Lemma \[lem:image\], we know that $\Upsilon$ holds iff the intersection of the intervals $[{\min {\llbracket {\pi_j} \rrbracket} (y_j)}, {\max {\llbracket {\pi_j} \rrbracket} (y_j)}]$ contains some event satisfying $\psi$. The formula $\Upsilon'$ identifies some $\pi_k$ such that ${\min {\llbracket {\pi_k} \rrbracket} (y_k)}$ is maximal (first line), some $\pi_\ell$ such that ${\max {\llbracket {\pi_\ell} \rrbracket} (y_\ell)}$ is minimal (second line), and tests that there exists an event $x_n$ satisfying $\psi$ between the two (third line). This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:fo-pdl\].
(xj) at (0,-1) ; (xj1) at (-1.5,0) ; (xj2) at (1,0) ; (xj) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[left,pos=0.4,xshift=-2pt\] [${{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_j}}$]{} (xj1) (xj) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[right,pos=0.4,xshift=5pt\] [${{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi_j}}$]{} (xj2) ; (xj1) – (xj2);
\(xl) at (-1.5,1) ; (xl1) at (-1,0) ; (xl2) at (0.5,0) ; (xl) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[left,pos=0.5\] [${{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_\ell}}$]{} (xl1) (xl) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[right,pos=0.1,xshift=5pt\] [${{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi_\ell}}$]{} (xl2) ;
(xk) at (1.5,1) ; (xk1) at (-0.5,0) ; (xk2) at (2,0) ; (xk) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[left,pos=0.1,yshift=5pt\] [${{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_k}}$]{} (xk1) (xk) edge\[decorate,decoration=[snake,post length=0.5mm,amplitude=0.4mm]{},->=2\] node\[right\] [${{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi_k}}$]{} (xk2) ;
(xk1) edge\[thick\] node\[below\] [$x_n$]{} (xl2);
We give now the formal proof of Claim \[claim:fo-pdl\]. Assume $M,\nu \models \Upsilon$. There exists $e \in E$ such that for all $j \in J$, $M,\nu(y_{j}),e \models \pi_{j}$, and for all $j \in J'$, $M,e \models {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi_j)}$. In particular, all ${\min {\llbracket {\pi_{j}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{j}))}$ and ${\max {\llbracket {\pi_{j}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{j}))}$ for $j \in J$ are well-defined and on process ${\mathsf{proc}}(e)$. Let $k \in J$ such that ${\min {\llbracket {\pi_{k}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{k}))}$ is maximal, i.e., ${\min {\llbracket {\pi_{j}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{j}))} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\min {\llbracket {\pi_{k}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{k}))}$ for all $j \in J$. Then, for all $j \in J$, we have $M,\nu(y_{j}),\nu(y_{k}) \models
({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{j}}}) \cdot {{\xrightarrow{\ast}}} \cdot ({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{k}}})^{-1}$. Similarly, let $\ell \in J$ such that ${\max {\llbracket {\pi_{\ell}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{\ell}))}$ is minimal. Then, for all $j \in J$, $M,\nu(y_{\ell}),\nu(y_{j})
\models ({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi_{\ell}}}) \cdot {{\xrightarrow{\ast}}} \cdot
({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi_{j}}})^{-1}$. In addition, we have $M,e \models \psi$, $M,\nu(y_{k}),e \models \pi_{k}$, and $M,e,\nu(y_{\ell}), \models \pi_{\ell}^{-1}$, hence $M,\nu(y_{k}),\nu(y_{\ell}) \models
\pi_{k} \cdot {\{\psi\}?} \cdot \pi_{\ell}^{-1}$. So we have $M,\nu \models \Upsilon'$.
Conversely, assume $M,\nu \models \Upsilon'$. Let $k,\ell \in J$ such that the corresponding sub-formula is satisfied. There exists $e \in E$ such that $M,\nu(y_{k}),e \models \pi_{k}$, $M,e \models \psi$, and $M,e,\nu(y_{\ell}) \models \pi_{\ell}^{-1}$. Note that we have ${\min {\llbracket {\pi_{k}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{k}))} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}e {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi_{\ell}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{\ell}))}$. For all $j \in J'$, we have $M,e \models {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi_{j})}$, i.e., $M,\nu[x \mapsto e] \models \pi_{j}(x_{n},x_n)$. Now, let $j \in J$. We have $M,\nu(y_{j}),\nu(y_{k}) \models
({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{j}}}) \cdot {{\xrightarrow{\ast}}} \cdot ({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{k}}})^{-1}$, hence ${\min {\llbracket {\pi_{j}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{j}))} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\min {\llbracket {\pi_{k}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{k}))} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}e$. Similarly, $M,\nu(y_{\ell}),\nu(y_{j}) \models ({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi_{\ell}}}) \cdot
{{\xrightarrow{\ast}}} \cdot ({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi_{j}}})^{-1}$, hence $e {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi_{\ell}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{\ell}))} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi_{j}} \rrbracket} (\nu(y_{j}))}$. In addition, since $M,e \models \psi$, we have $M,e \models {\mathop{\langle \pi_{j}^{-1} \rangle}}$. Applying Lemma \[lem:image\], we get $M,\nu(y_{j}),e \models \pi_{j}$, i.e., $M,\nu[x \mapsto e] \models \pi_j(y_j,x_n)$. Hence, $M,\nu \models \Upsilon$. This concludes the proof of Claim \[claim:fo-pdl\].
Thus, $\Upsilon$ is equivalent to some positive combination of formulas $\pi(x,y)$ with $\pi \in {{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ and $x,y\in\{x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}\}={\mathsf{Free}}(\Phi)$, therefore, so is $\Phi$. Note that the two formulas $\bigl(({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{j}}}) \cdot {{\xrightarrow{\ast}}} \cdot
({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{k}}})^{-1}\bigr) (y_{j},y_{k})$ and $\bigl(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi_{\ell}}}) \cdot {{\xrightarrow{\ast}}}
\cdot ({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi_{j}}})^{-1}\bigr) (y_{\ell},y_{j})$ are not ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ formulas (since ${\xrightarrow{\ast}}$ is not). However, they are disjunctions of ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ formulas, for instance, $\bigl(({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{j}}}) \cdot {{\xrightarrow{\ast}}} \cdot
({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{k}}})^{-1}\bigr) (y_{j},y_{k}) \equiv
\bigl(({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{j}}}) \cdot ({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{k}}})^{-1}\bigr) (y_{j},y_{k})
\lor \bigl(({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{j}}}) \cdot {{\xrightarrow{+}}} \cdot
({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi_{k}}})^{-1}\bigr) (y_{j},y_{k})$.
We are now able to prove the main result relating ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ and ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$.
Let $\Phi_2(x_1,x_2)$ be an ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ formula with two free variables. We apply Proposition \[thm:FO-to-PDLm\] to $\Phi_2(x_1,x_2)$ and obtain a boolean combination of path formulas $\pi(y,z)$ with $y,z\in\{x_1,x_2\}$. First, we bring it into a positive boolean combination using Lemma \[lem:closure-complement\]. Next, we replace formulas $\pi(x_1,x_1)$ with $\bigvee_{p,q} ({\{{\mathsf{Loop}(\pi)}\}?}\cdot{\mathsf{jump}_{p,q}})(x_1,x_2)$. Similarly, $\pi(x_2,x_2)$ is replaced with $\bigvee_{p,q}
({\mathsf{jump}_{p,q}}\cdot{\{{\mathsf{Loop}(\pi)}\}?})(x_1,x_2)$. Also, $\pi(x_2,x_1)$ is replaced with $\pi^{-1}(x_1,x_2)$. Finally, we transform it into disjunctive normal form: we obtain $\Phi_1(x_1,x_2)\equiv\bigvee_{i}\bigwedge_{j}
\pi_{ij}(x_1,x_2)$, which concludes the proof in the case of two free variables.
Next, let $\Phi_1(x)$ be an ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ formula with one free variable. As above, applying Proposition \[thm:FO-to-PDLm\] to $\Phi_1(x)$ and then Lemma \[lem:closure-complement\], we obtain ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ path formulas $\pi_{ij}$ such that $\Phi_1(x) \equiv \bigvee_i \bigwedge_j \pi_{ij}(x,x)$. Now, $M,[x \mapsto e] \models \pi_{ij}(x,x)$ iff $M,e \models {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi_{ij})}$. Hence, $\Phi(x) \equiv \bigvee_i \bigwedge_j {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi_{ij})}$.
Finally, an ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ sentence $\Phi_0$ is a boolean combination of formulas of the form $\exists x.\Phi_1(x)$. Applying the theorem to $\Phi_1(x)$, we obtain an equivalent ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ event formula $\varphi$. Then, we take ${\xi}={\mathop{\mathsf{E}\vphantom{a}}\nolimits}\varphi$, which is trivially equivalent to $\exists x.\Phi_1(x)$.
From $\boldsymbol{{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ to CFMs {#sec:pdl-cfm}
===========================================================================
In the inductive translation of ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}$ formulas into CFMs, *event* formulas will be evaluated by *MSC transducers*. An MSC transducer for a formula $\varphi$ produces a truth value at every event on the given MSC. More precisely, it outputs $1$ when $\varphi$ holds, and $0$ otherwise. We will first introduce MSC transducers formally and then go into the actual translation.
Letter-to-letter MSC Transducers
--------------------------------
Let $\Gamma$ be a nonempty finite output alphabet. A *(nondeterministic) letter-to-letter MSC transducer* (or simply, *transducer*) ${\mathcal{A}}$ over ${P}$ and from $\Sigma$ to $\Gamma$ is a CFM over ${P}$ and $\Sigma \times \Gamma$. The transducer ${\mathcal{A}}$ accepts the relation ${\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}\rrbracket} = \{\bigl((E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda),(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\gamma)\bigr)
\mid {(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda\times\gamma)} \in {\mathbb{L}}({\mathcal{A}})\}$. Transducers are closed under product and composition, using standard constructions:
Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a transducer from $\Sigma$ to $\Gamma$, and ${\mathcal{A}}'$ a transducer from $\Sigma$ to $\Gamma'$. There exists a transducer ${\mathcal{A}}\times {\mathcal{A}}'$ from $\Sigma$ to $\Gamma \times \Gamma'$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}\times {\mathcal{A}}' \rrbracket}
& = \big\{
\big((E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda),
(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\gamma \times \gamma')\big)
\mid {} \\
& \hspace{5em}
\big((E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda),(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\gamma)\big)
\in {\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}\rrbracket}, \\
& \hspace{5em}
\big((E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda),(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\gamma')\big)
\in {\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}' \rrbracket}
\big\} \, .
\end{aligned}$$
Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a transducer from $\Sigma$ to $\Gamma$, and ${\mathcal{A}}'$ a transducer from $\Gamma$ to $\Gamma'$. There exists a transducer ${\mathcal{A}}' \circ {\mathcal{A}}$ from $\Sigma$ to $\Gamma'$ such that $${\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}' \circ {\mathcal{A}}\rrbracket} = {\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}' \rrbracket} \circ {\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}\rrbracket} =
\{ (M,M'') \mid \exists M' \in {\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Gamma)} :
(M,M') \in {\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}\rrbracket}, (M',M'') \in {\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}' \rrbracket} \} \, .$$
Translation of $\boldsymbol{{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ Event Formulas into CFMs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ event formula $\varphi$ and an MSC $M = (E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda)$ over ${P}$ and $\Sigma$, we define an MSC ${{M}_{\varphi}} = (E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\gamma)$ over ${P}$ and $\{0,1\}$, by setting $\gamma(e) = 1$ if $M,e \models \varphi$, and $\gamma(e) = 0$ otherwise. Our goal is to construct a transducer ${{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}}$ such that ${\llbracket {{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}} \rrbracket} = \{(M,{{M}_{\varphi}}) \mid M \in {\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)}\}$.
We start with the case of formulas from ${\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[\emptyset]$, i.e., without ${\mathsf{Loop}}$.
\[lem:trad-loop-free\] Let $\varphi$ be a ${\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[\emptyset]$ event formula. There exists a transducer ${{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}}$ such that ${\llbracket {{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}} \rrbracket} = \{(M,{{M}_{\varphi}}) \mid M \in {\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)}\}$.
Any ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}}[\emptyset]$ event formula is equivalent to some formula $\varphi$ over the syntax $$\varphi ::= p \mid a \mid \varphi \lor \varphi \mid \lnot \varphi \mid
{\mathop{\langle {\lhd}_{p,q} \rangle} {\varphi}} \mid {\mathop{\langle {\lhd}_{p,q}^{-1} \rangle} {\varphi}}
\mid {\mathop{\langle {\xrightarrow{\varphi}} \rangle} {\varphi}}
\mid {\mathop{\langle {\xleftarrow{\varphi}} \rangle} {\varphi}}
\mid {\mathop{\langle {\mathsf{jump}_{p,q}} \rangle} {\varphi}}$$ Indeed, we have ${\mathop{\langle \pi_1 \cdot \pi_2 \rangle} {\varphi}} \equiv
{\mathop{\langle \pi_1 \rangle} {({\mathop{\langle \pi_2 \rangle} {\varphi}})}}$, and ${\mathop{\langle {\{\varphi\}?} \rangle} {\psi}} \equiv \varphi \land \psi$. Notice that ${{\rightarrow}}\equiv{{\xrightarrow{{\mathit{false}}}}}$ and ${{\leftarrow}}\equiv{{\xleftarrow{{\mathit{false}}}}}$.
It is easy to define ${\mathcal{A}}_\varphi$ for formulas $\varphi = p$, with $p \in P$, or $\varphi = a$, with $a \in \Sigma$. We also use below simple transducers over $P$ from $\{0,1\}^2$ or $\{0,1\}$ to $\{0,1\}$. For instance, the transducer ${\mathcal{B}}_{\neg}$ from $\{0,1\}$ to $\{0,1\}$ outputs the negation of the bit read and ${\mathcal{B}}_{\vee}$ from $\{0,1\}^{2}$ to $\{0,1\}$ outputs the disjunction of the two bits read. The transducer ${\mathcal{B}}_{{\lhd}_{p,q}}$ from $\{0,1\}$ to $\{0,1\}$ outputs 1 at an event $e$ iff $e$ is a send event from $p$ to $q$ and the corresponding receive event $f$ is labeled 1. To do so, at each send event $e$ from $p$ to $q$, the transducer guesses whether the corresponding receive event $f$ is labeled $0$ or 1, outputs its guess and sends it on the message from $e$ to $f$. At the receive event $f$ the transducer checks that the guess was correct. The run is accepting if all guesses were correct. The deterministic transducer ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathsf{YS}}$ from $\{0,1\}^{2}$ to $\{0,1\}$ corresponds to the *strict since* modality. On each process, it runs the automaton given in Figure \[fig:YS\]: it outputs 1 at some event $e$ if there is $g{<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e$ where the second bit is 1 and for all $g{<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f{<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e$ the first bit at $f$ is 1. Similarly, we can construct the nondeterministic transducer ${\mathcal{B}}_{\mathsf{XU}}$ for the *strict until*. Finally, it is easy to construct a transducer ${\mathcal{B}}_{{\mathsf{jump}_{p,q}}}$ which outputs 0 on all events of processes $r\neq p$ and outputs 1 (resp. 0) on all events of process $p$ iff some event (resp. no event) of process $q$ is labeled 1.
![Transducer for strict since. In a transition $a/b$, the input is $a$ and the output is $b$. Write and receive actions are omitted.[]{data-label="fig:YS"}](gpicture-pics.pdf)
We then let $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_1 \lor \varphi_2}
& = {\mathcal{B}}_{\lor} \circ ({\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_1} \times {\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_2})
& {\mathcal{A}}_{\lnot \varphi}
& = {\mathcal{B}}_{\neg} \circ {\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi} \\
{\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathop{\langle {\lhd}_{p,q} \rangle} {\varphi}}}
& = {\mathcal{B}}_{{\lhd}_{p,q}} \circ {\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}
& {\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathop{\langle {\lhd}_{p,q}^{-1} \rangle} {\varphi}}}
& = {\mathcal{B}}_{{\lhd}_{p,q}^{-1}} \circ {\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi} \\
{\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathop{\langle {\xrightarrow{\varphi_1}} \rangle} {\varphi_2}}}
& = {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathsf{XU}}
\circ ({\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_1} \times {\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_2})
& {\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathop{\langle {\mathsf{jump}_{p,q}} \rangle} {\varphi}}}
& = {\mathcal{B}}_{{\mathsf{jump}_{p,q}}} \circ {\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}\\
{\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathop{\langle {\xleftarrow{\varphi_1}} \rangle} {\varphi_2}}}
& = {\mathcal{B}}_{\mathsf{YS}}
\circ ({\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_1} \times {\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_2}) \, . && \qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
Next, we look at a single loop where the path $\pi \in {\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[\emptyset]$ is of the form ${{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi'}}$ or ${{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi'}}$. This case will be simpler than general loop formulas, because of the fact that ${\llbracket {{{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi'}}} \rrbracket}(e)$ is always either empty or a singleton. Recall that, in addition, ${{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi'}}$ is monotone.
\[lem:det-loop\] Let $\pi$ be a ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}[\emptyset]$ path formula of the form $\pi = {{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi'}}$ or $\pi = {{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi'}}$, and let $\varphi = {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi)}$. There exists a transducer ${{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}}$ such that ${\llbracket {{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}} \rrbracket} =
\{(M,{{M}_{\varphi}}) \mid M \in {\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)}\}$.
We can assume that ${\mathsf{Comp}(\pi)} \subseteq {\mathsf{id}}$. We define ${{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}}$ as the composition of three transducers that will guess and check the evaluation of $\varphi$. More precisely, ${{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}}$ will be obtained as an inverse projection $\alpha^{-1}$, followed by the intersection with an MSC language $K$, followed by a projection $\beta$.
We first enrich the labeling of the MSC with a color from $\Theta =
\{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] circle (2.8pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] circle (2.8pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$. Intuitively, colors ${
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}$ and ${
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}$ will correspond to a guess that the formula $\varphi$ is satisfied, and colors ${
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] circle (2.8pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}$ and ${
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] circle (2.8pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}$ to a guess that the formula is not satisfied. Consider the projection $\alpha\colon{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma\times\Theta)}\to{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)}$ which erases the color from the labeling. The inverse projection $\alpha^{-1}$ can be realized with a transducer ${\mathcal{A}}$, i.e., ${\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}\rrbracket}=\{(\alpha(M'),M')\mid M'\in{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma\times\Theta)}\}$.
Define the projection $\beta\colon{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma\times\Theta)}\to{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\{0,1\})}$ by $\beta((E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda\times\theta))=(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\gamma)$, where $\gamma(e)=1$ if $\theta(e)\in\{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$, and $\gamma(e)=0$ otherwise. The projection $\beta$ can be realized with a transducer ${\mathcal{A}}''$: we have ${\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}'' \rrbracket}=\{(M',\beta(M'))\mid M'\in{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma\times\Theta)}\}$.
Finally, consider the language $K\subseteq{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma\times\Theta)}$ of MSCs $M'=(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda\times\theta)$ satisfying the following two conditions:
1. Colors ${
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}$ and ${
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}$ alternate on each process $p\in {P}$: if $e_1 < \cdots < e_n$ are the events in $E_p \cap
\theta^{-1}(\{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\})$, then $\theta(e_i) = {
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}$ if $i$ is odd, and $\theta(e_i) = {
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}$ if $i$ is even.
2. For all $e \in E$, $\theta(e)\in\{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$ iff there exists $f \in E$ such that $M,e,f \models \pi$ and $\theta(e) = \theta(f)$.
The first property is trivial to check with a CFM. Using Lemma \[lem:trad-loop-free\], we show that the second property can also be checked with a CFM. First, from $\pi$ we construct a ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}[\emptyset]$ event formula $\psi$ over ${P}$ and $\Sigma \times \Theta$ such that, for all $M'= (E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda\times\theta)\in{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma\times\Theta)}$ and events $e \in E$, we have $M',e \models \psi$ iff the following holds: $\theta(e)\in\{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$ iff there is $f \in E$ such that $\alpha(M'),e,f \models \pi$ and $\theta(e) = \theta(f)$. Namely, we define $$\psi = ({
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\;\vee\; {
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}) \Longleftrightarrow
\Bigl[\bigl( {{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}} \;\wedge {\mathop{\langle \hat\pi \rangle} {{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}}}\bigr) \vee
\bigl( {{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}} \;\wedge {\mathop{\langle \hat\pi \rangle} {{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}}}\bigr)\Bigr]$$ where the state formula ${\mathit{col}}\in \{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$ is an abbreviation for $\bigvee_{a \in \Sigma} (a,{\mathit{col}})$ and $\hat\pi$ is obtained from $\pi$ by replacing state formulas $a$ with $\bigvee_{{\mathit{col}}\in \Theta} (a,{\mathit{col}})$. Now, the language for the second condition is $\{M' \in{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma\times\Theta)} \mid$ every event of $M'_\psi$ is labeled with $1\}$, for which we can easily give a CFM using the transducer ${{\mathcal{A}}_{\psi}}$ from $\Sigma \times \Theta$ to $\{0,1\}$ given by Lemma \[lem:trad-loop-free\].
We deduce that there is a transducer ${\mathcal{A}}'$ such that ${\llbracket {\mathcal{A}}' \rrbracket}=\{(M',M')\mid M'\in K\}$. We let ${{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}} = {\mathcal{A}}''\circ{\mathcal{A}}'\circ{\mathcal{A}}$. Notice that ${\llbracket {{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}} \rrbracket}=\{(\alpha(M'),\beta(M'))\mid M'\in K\}$. From the following two claims, we deduce immediately that ${\llbracket {{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}} \rrbracket}=\{(M,M_\varphi)\mid M\in{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)}\}$.
\[cl:forest\] For all $M\in{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)}$, there exists $M'\in K$ with $\alpha(M')=M$.
Let $M=(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda)\in{\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)}$. Let $E_1=\{e \in E \mid M,e \models \varphi\}$ and $E_0=E\setminus E_1$. Consider the graph $G = (E, \{(e,f) \mid M,e,f \models \pi\})$. Since $\pi = {{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi'}}$ or $\pi = {{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi'}}$, every vertex has outdegree at most 1, and, by Lemma \[lem:monotone\], there are no cycles except for self-loops. So the restriction of $G$ to $E_0$ is a forest, and there exists a $2$-coloring $\chi \colon E_0 \to \{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] circle (2.8pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] circle (2.8pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$ such that, for all $e,f \in E_0$ with $M,e,f \models \pi$, we have $\chi(e) \neq \chi(f)$. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:Gpi\]. Moreover, there exists $\theta \colon E \to \Theta$ such that $\theta(e) = \chi(e)$ for $e \in E_0$, and $\theta(e)\in\{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$ for $e \in E_1$ is such that Condition 1 of the definition of $K$ is satisfied. It is easy to see that Condition 2 is also satisfied. Indeed, if $\theta(e)\in\{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$, then $e\in E_1$ and $M,e,e\models\pi$. Now, if $\theta(e)\notin\{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$, then $e\in E_0$ and either $M,e\not\models{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}$ or, by definition of $\theta$, we have $\theta(e)\neq\theta(f)$ for the unique $f$ such that $M,e,f\models\pi$. (Claim \[cl:forest\])
= \[white, draw=black, line width=0.5pt, fill, circle, inner sep=0, minimum size = 6pt\] = \[gray, draw=black, line width=0.5pt, circle, fill, inner sep=0, minimum size = 6pt\] = \[white, draw=black, line width=0.5pt, fill, rectangle, inner sep=0, minimum size = 6pt\] = \[gray, draw=black, line width=0.5pt, rectangle, fill, inner sep=0, minimum size = 6pt\]
(0.5,0) – (14.5,0); iin [3,4,6,7,13,14]{} [ (ei) at (i,0) ; ]{} iin [2,5,8,9,11,12]{} [ (ei) at (i,0) ; ]{} (e1) at (1,0) ; (e10) at (10,0) ;
(e1) edge\[loop above\] node [$\pi$]{} (e1) (e10) edge\[loop above\] node [$\pi$]{} (e10) (e2) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (e1) (e4) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (e2) (e3) edge\[bend right\] node\[above\] [$\pi$]{} (e2) (e11) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (e10) (e9) edge\[bend right\] node\[below\] [$\pi$]{} (e10) (e7) edge\[bend right\] node\[below\] [$\pi$]{} (e9) (e5) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (e6) (e6) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (e8) (e8) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (e10) (e12) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (e14);
\[cl:beta\] For all $M'\in K$, we have $\beta(M')=M_\varphi$, where $M=\alpha(M')$.
Let $M'=(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda\times\theta)\in K$ and $M=\alpha(M')$. Suppose towards a contradiction that $M_\varphi\neq\beta(M)=(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\gamma)$. By Condition 2, for all $e \in E$ such that $\gamma(e) = 0$, we have $M,e \not\models \varphi$. So there exists $f_0 \in E$ such that $\gamma(f_0) = 1$ and $M,f_0 \not\models
\varphi$. Notice that $\theta(f_0)\in\{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$. For all $i \in
{\mathbb{N}}$, let $f_{i+1}$ be the unique event such that $M,f_i,f_{i+1} \models
\pi$. Such an event exists by Condition 2, and is unique since $\pi = {{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi'}}$ or $\pi = {{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi'}}$. Note that, for all $i$, $\theta(f_{i+1}) =
\theta(f_i) \in \{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$. Suppose $f_0 {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f_1$ (the case $f_1 {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f_0$ is similar). By Condition 1, there exists $g_0$ such that $f_0 {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}g_0 {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f_1$ and $\{\theta(f_0),\theta(g_0)\}=\{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$. For an illustration, see Figure \[fig:beta\]. Again, for all $i \in
{\mathbb{N}}$, let $g_{i+1}$ be the unique event such that $M,g_i,g_{i+1} \models
\pi$. Note that all $f_0,f_1,\ldots$ have the same color, in $\{{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=white,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
},{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\filldraw[fill=gray!90,draw=black] rectangle (5pt,5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
}\}$, and all $g_0,g_1,\ldots$ carry the complementary color. Thus, $f_i \neq g_j$ for all $i,j \in {\mathbb{N}}$. But, by Lemma \[lem:monotone\], this implies $f_0 {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}g_0
{<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f_1 {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}g_1 {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}\cdots$, which contradicts the fact that we deal with finite MSCs. (Claim \[cl:beta\])
(0.5,0) – (14.5,0); iin [1,3,5,7,9,11,13]{} [ (ei) at (i,0) ; ]{} iin [2,4,6,8,10,12,14]{} [ (ei) at (i,0) ; ]{} (inf) at (15,0.8) [$\textcolor{red}\cdots$]{};
(f0) at (1,-0.5) [$f_0$]{}; (f1) at (5,-0.5) [$f_1$]{}; (f2) at (11,-0.5) [$f_2$]{}; (g0) at (2,-0.5) [$g_0$]{}; (g1) at (8,-0.5) [$g_1$]{}; (g2) at (14,-0.5) [$g_2$]{};
(e1) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (e5) (e2) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (e8) (e5) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (e11) (e8) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (e14) (e11) edge\[bend left\] node [$\pi$]{} (inf);
This concludes the proof of Lemma \[lem:det-loop\].
The general case is more complicated. We first show how to rewrite an arbitrary loop formula using loops on paths of the form ${{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}$ or $({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})\cdot{{\xleftarrow{+}}}$. Intuitively, this means that loop formulas will only be used to test, given an event $e$ such that $e' = {\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ is well-defined and on the same process as $e$, whether $e' {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e$, $e' = e$, or $e {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e'$. Indeed, we have $M,e \models {\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})\cdot{{\xleftarrow{+}}})}$ iff $e {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$.
\[lem:loops\] For all ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ path formulas $\pi$, $${\mathsf{Loop}(\pi)}
\equiv {\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})} \lor
\left({{\mathop{\langle \pi^{-1} \rangle}}} \land {{\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}) \cdot {{\xleftarrow{+}}})}}
\land {\lnot {\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}}) \cdot {{\xleftarrow{+}}})}}\right)
\, .$$
The result follows from Lemma \[lem:image\]. Indeed, if we have $M,e \models {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi)}$ and $M,e \not\models {\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})}$, then ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}e {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$ and $M,e \models {\mathop{\langle \pi^{-1} \rangle}}$, hence $M,e \models {{\mathop{\langle \pi^{-1} \rangle}}}
\land {{\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}) \cdot {{\xleftarrow{+}}})}}
\land {\lnot {\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}}) \cdot {{\xleftarrow{+}}})}}$. Conversely, if $M,e \models {\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})}$, then $M,e \models {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi)}$, and if $M,e \models ({{\mathop{\langle \pi^{-1} \rangle}}}
\land {{\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}) \cdot {{\xleftarrow{+}}})}}
\land {\lnot {\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}}) \cdot {{\xleftarrow{+}}})}})$, then $M,e \models {\mathop{\langle \pi^{-1} \rangle}}$ and ${\min {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)} {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}e
{<_{\mathsf{proc}}}{\max {\llbracket {\pi} \rrbracket} (e)}$, hence $M,e,e \models \pi$, i.e., $M,e \models
{\mathsf{Loop}(\pi)}$.
Notice that, since ${{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}} \equiv {{\mathsf{max}~} {({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}})}}$, the formula ${\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}}) \cdot {{\xleftarrow{+}}})}$ can also be seen as a special case of a ${\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi'}}) \cdot {{\xleftarrow{+}}})}$ formula.
\[thm:PDLp-to-CFM\] For all ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ event formulas $\varphi$, there exists a transducer ${{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}}$ such that ${\llbracket {{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}} \rrbracket} = \{(M,{{M}_{\varphi}}) \mid M \in {\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)}\}$.
By Lemma \[lem:loops\], we can assume that all loop subformulas in $\varphi$ are of the form ${\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})\cdot{{\xleftarrow{+}}})}$ or ${\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})}$ (recall that ${{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}} \equiv {{\mathsf{max}~} {({{\mathsf{min}~} {\pi}})}}$). We prove Theorem \[thm:PDLp-to-CFM\] by induction on the number of loop subformulas in $\varphi$. The base case is stated in Lemma \[lem:trad-loop-free\].
Let $\psi = {\mathsf{Loop}(\pi')}$ be a subformula of $\varphi$ such that $\pi'$ contains no loop subformulas and ${\mathsf{Comp}(\pi')} \subseteq {\mathsf{id}}$. Let us show that there exists ${{\mathcal{A}}_{\psi}}$ such that ${\llbracket {{\mathcal{A}}_{\psi}} \rrbracket} = \{(M,{{M}_{\psi}}) \mid M \in {\mathbb{MSC}({P},\Sigma)}\}$. If $\pi'={{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}$, then we apply Lemma \[lem:det-loop\]. Otherwise, $\pi'=({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})\cdot{{\xleftarrow{+}}}$ for some ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}[\emptyset]$ path formula $\pi$. So we assume from now on that $\psi={\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})\cdot{{\xleftarrow{+}}})}$.
We start with some easy remarks. Let $p\in{P}$ be some process and $e\in E_p$. A necessary condition for $M,e\models\psi$ is that $M,e\models{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}\wedge\neg{\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})}$. Also, it is easy to see that $M,e\models{\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{min}~} {({{\xrightarrow{+}}}\cdot\pi^{-1})}})}$ is a sufficient condition for $M,e\models\psi$.
We let $E_p^{\pi}$ be the set of events $e\in E_p$ satisfying ${\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle} {p}}$. For all $e\in
E_p^{\pi}$, we let $e'={\llbracket {{{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}} \rrbracket}(e)\in E_p$. The transducer ${\mathcal{A}}_\psi$ will establish, for each $e\in E_p^{\pi}$, whether $e'{<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e$, $e'=e$, or $e {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e'$, and it will output $1$ if $e {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e'$, and $0$ otherwise. The case $e'=e$ means $M,e\models{\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})}$ and can be checked with the help of Lemma \[lem:det-loop\]. So the difficulty is to distinguish between $e' {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e$ and $e {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e'$ when $M,e\models{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}\wedge\neg{\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})}$.
The following two claims rely on Lemma \[lem:monotone\]. Recall that $\psi={\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})\cdot{{\xleftarrow{+}}})}$.
\[claim:minimal\] Let $f$ be the minimal event in $E_p^{\pi}$ (assuming this set is nonempty). Then, $M,f\models\psi$ iff $M,f\models{\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{min}~} {({{\xrightarrow{+}}}\cdot\pi^{-1})}})}$.
The right to left implication holds without any hypothesis. Conversely, assume $f{\xrightarrow{+}}f'={\llbracket {{{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}} \rrbracket}(f)$. Then, $M,f,f \models {{\xrightarrow{+}}}\cdot\pi^{-1}$, and $g = {\llbracket {{{\mathsf{min}~} {({{\xrightarrow{+}}}\cdot\pi^{-1})}}} \rrbracket}(f) {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f$. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:minimal\]. Moreover, $M,g \models {\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}$ and by minimality of $f$ in $E_p^{\pi}$, we conclude that $g = f$. (Claim \[claim:minimal\])
\(f) at (1,0) [$f$]{}; (fp) at (5,0) [$f'$]{}; (g) at (0,0) [$g$]{}; (eq) at (0.5,0) [$=$]{};
(1.2,-0.1) edge\[purple,thick,font=\] (3,-0.1) (3,-0.1) edge\[bend left,purple,thick,->,font=\] node [${{\mathsf{min}~} {({{\xrightarrow{+}}}\cdot\pi^{-1})}}$]{} (g);
\(f) edge\[->\] node [$+$]{} (fp);
\(f) edge\[bend left\] node [$\max \pi$]{} (fp);
\[claim:consecutive\] Let $e,f$ be consecutive events in $E_p^{\pi}$, i.e., $e,f\in E_p^{\pi}$ and $M,e,f\models{{\xrightarrow{\neg{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}}}}$.
1. If $M,e\not\models\psi$, then $[M,f\models\psi$ iff $M,f\models{\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{min}~} {({{\xrightarrow{+}}}\cdot\pi^{-1})}})}]$.
2. If $M,e\models\psi$, then $[M,f\not\models\psi$ iff $M,f\models{\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})}\vee
{\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})\cdot{{\xrightarrow{\neg{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}}})}}})}]$.
We show the two statements.
1. Assume that $M,e\not\models\psi$. Again, the right to left implication holds without any hypothesis. Conversely, assume that $M,e\not\models\psi$ and $M,f\models\psi$, i.e., $e'={\llbracket {{{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}} \rrbracket}(e){\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}e$ and $f {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f'={\llbracket {{{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}} \rrbracket}(f)$. We have $M,f\models{\mathop{\langle {{\xrightarrow{+}}}\cdot\pi^{-1} \rangle}}$, and $g={\llbracket {{{\mathsf{min}~} {({{\xrightarrow{+}}}\cdot\pi^{-1})}}} \rrbracket}(f) {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f$. Notice that $g\in E_p^{\pi}$, and $f {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}g'={\llbracket {{{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}}} \rrbracket} (g)$. If $g {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f$, we get $g{\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}e$, and using Lemma \[lem:monotone\] (monotonicity), we obtain $g' {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}e' {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}e {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f$, a contradiction. The situation is illustrated in Figure \[fig:consecutive1\]. Therefore, $g=f$ and $M,f\models{\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{min}~} {({{\xrightarrow{+}}}\cdot\pi^{-1})}})}$.
\(f) at (1,0) [$f$]{}; (fp) at (6.5,0) [$f'$]{}; (e) at (-2,0) [$e$]{}; (ep) at (-6,0) [$e'$]{};
(notpsi) at (-2.1,-0.4) [$\neg\psi$]{}; (psi) at (1,-0.4) [$\psi$]{}; (g) at (-7,-0.1) [$g$]{}; (gp) at (5,-0.3) [$g'$]{};
\(f) edge\[->\] node [$+$]{} (fp);
\(e) edge\[->\] node [$\neg{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}$]{} (f);
(ep) edge\[->\] node [$\ast$]{} (e);
\(f) edge\[bend left\] node [$\max \pi$]{} (fp);
\(e) edge\[bend right=25\] node\[above\] [$\max \pi$]{} (ep);
\(g) edge\[bend left=25\] node [$\max \pi$]{} (5,0);
(1.2,-0.1) edge\[purple,thick,font=\] (3,-0.1) (3,-0.1) edge\[bend left=22,purple,thick,->,font=\] node [${{\mathsf{min}~} {({{\xrightarrow{+}}}\cdot\pi^{-1})}}$]{} (g);
2. Assume that $M,e\models\psi$. The right to left implication holds easily: the first disjunct implies that $f'=f$ and the second disjunct implies $f'<f$. Conversely, assume that $M,e\models\psi$, $M,f\not\models\psi$ and $M,f\not\models{\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})}$, i.e., $e{<_{\mathsf{proc}}}e'$ and $f' {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}f$. From Lemma \[lem:monotone\] we get $e'{\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}f'$ and since $e,f$ are consecutive in $E_p^{\pi}$ we obtain $M,f',f\models{{\xrightarrow{\neg{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}}}}$. Therefore, $M,f\models{\mathsf{Loop}(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})\cdot{\xrightarrow{\neg{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}}})}
\equiv{\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})\cdot{\xrightarrow{\neg{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}}})}})}$.
\(e) at (1,0.3) [$e$]{}; (ep) at (4,0.3) [$e'$]{}; (fp) at (7,0.3) [$f'$]{}; (f) at (10,0.3) [$f$]{};
\(a) at (1.1,-0.02) ; (b) at (9.9,-0.02) ;
(notpsi) at (0.8,0.6) [$\psi$]{}; (psi) at (10.2,0.6) [$\neg\psi$]{};
\(a) edge\[->\] node\[below\] [$\neg{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}$]{} (b); (ep) edge\[->\] node [$\ast$]{} (fp); (e) edge\[->\] node [$+$]{} (ep); (fp) edge\[->\] node [$\neg{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}$]{} (f);
\(e) edge\[bend left\] node\[above\] [$\max \pi$]{} (ep);
\(f) edge\[bend right\] node\[above\] [$\max \pi$]{} (fp);
This concludes the proof of the claim. (Claim \[claim:consecutive\]).
To conclude the proof of Theorem \[thm:PDLp-to-CFM\], consider the formulas $\varphi_1={\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}$, $\varphi_2={\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})}$, $\varphi_3={\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{min}~} {({{\xrightarrow{+}}}\cdot\pi^{-1})}})}$, and $\varphi_4={\mathsf{Loop}({{\mathsf{max}~} {(({{\mathsf{max}~} {\pi}})\cdot{\xrightarrow{\neg{\mathop{\langle \pi \rangle}}}})}})}$. By Lemmas \[lem:trad-loop-free\] and \[lem:det-loop\], we already have transducers ${\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_i}$ for $i\in\{1,2,3,4\}$. We let ${\mathcal{A}}_\psi = {\mathcal{A}}\circ ({\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_1} \times{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_2}
\times{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_3}\times{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi_4})$, where, at an event $f$ labeled $(b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4)$, the transducer ${\mathcal{A}}$ outputs $1$ if $b_3=1$ or if $(b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4)=(1,0,0,0)$ and the output was $1$ at the last event $e$ on the same process satisfying $\varphi_1$ (to do so, each process keeps in its state the output at the last event where $b_1$ was $1$), and $0$ otherwise.
Consider the formula $\varphi'$ over $\Sigma \times \{0,1\}$ obtained from $\varphi$ by replacing $\psi$ by $\bigvee_{a \in \Sigma} (a,1)$, and all event formulas $a$, with $a \in \Sigma$, by $(a,0) \lor (a,1)$. It contains fewer ${\mathsf{Loop}}$ operators than $\varphi$, so by induction hypothesis, we have a transducer ${{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi'}}$ for $\varphi'$. We then let ${{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi}} = {{\mathcal{A}}_{\varphi'}} \circ ({\mathcal{A}}_{\mathit{Id}} \times {{\mathcal{A}}_{\psi}})$, where ${\mathcal{A}}_{\mathit{Id}}$ is the transducer for the identity relation.
By Theorem \[thm:FO-to-PDLm-main\], every ${{\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]}$ formula $\Phi(x)$ with a single free variable is equivalent to some ${{{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}}]}}$ state formula, for which we obtain a transducer ${\mathcal{A}}_\Phi$ using Theorem \[thm:PDLp-to-CFM\]. It is easy to build from ${\mathcal{A}}_\Phi$ CFMs for the sentences $\forall x. \Phi(x)$ and $\exists x. \Phi(x)$. Closure of ${{\mathcal{L}}(\textup{CFM})}$ under union and intersection takes care of disjunction and conjunction.
Applications to Existentially Bounded MSCs {#sec:applications}
==========================================
Though the translation of ${\textup{EMSO}}$/${\textup{FO}}$ formulas into CFMs is interesting on its own, it allows us to obtain some difficult results for bounded CFMs as corollaries.
Existentially bounded MSCs
--------------------------
The first logical characterizations of communicating finite-state machines were obtained for classes of *bounded* MSCs. Intuitively, this corresponds to restricting the channel capacity. Bounded MSCs are defined in terms of linearizations. A *linearization* of a given MSC $M=(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda)$ is a total order ${\preceq} \subseteq E \times
E$ such that ${\le} \subseteq {\preceq}$. For $B \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we call $\preceq$ $B$-bounded if, for all $g \in E$ and $(p,q) \in {\mathit{Ch}}$, $|\{(e,f) \in {{\lhd}} \cap (E_p \times E_q) \mid e \preceq g \prec f\}| \le B$. In other words, the number of pending messages in $(p,q)$ never exceeds $B$. There are (at least) two natural definitions of bounded MSCs: We call $M$ $\exists B$-bounded if $M$ has *some* $B$-bounded linearization. Accordingly, it is $\forall B$-bounded if *all* its linearizations are $B$-bounded.
The MSC from Figure \[fig:msc\] is $\exists 1$-bounded and $\forall
4$-bounded. These bounds are tight: the MSC is not $\forall 3$-bounded, because the four send events for, say, channel $(p_1,p_3)$ can be scheduled before the first reception $g_0$.
As another example, consider the set of MSCs over two processes, $p$ and $q$, that consist of an arbitrary number of messages from $p$ to $q$ (and only messages from $p$ to $q$). This language is $\exists 1$-bounded (every message may be received right after it was sent), but it is not $\forall
B$-bounded, no matter what $B$ is.
In the following, we will consider only $\exists B$-bounded MSCs. The set of $\exists B$-bounded MSCs is denoted by ${\mathbb{MSC}_{\exists B}({P},\Sigma)}$.
Below, we show the following results. First, for a given channel bound $B$, the set ${\mathbb{MSC}_{\exists B}({P},\Sigma)}$ is ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$-definable (essentially due to [@LohreyMuscholl04]). By Theorem \[thm:main\], we obtain [@GKM06 Proposition 5.14] stating that this set is recognized by some CFM. Second, we obtain [@GKM06 Proposition 5.3], a Kleene theorem for existentially bounded MSCs, as a corollary of Theorem \[thm:main\] in combination with a linearization normal form from [@ThiagarajanW02].
Let $M=(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda)$ be some MSC, and $e_1 {\prec}e_2 \cdots {\prec}e_n$ a linearization of $M$. Given $e \in E$, we write ${\mathsf{type}}(e) = p$ if $e$ is an internal event on process $p$, ${\mathsf{type}}(e) = p!q$ if $e$ is a write on channel $(p,q)$, and ${\mathsf{type}}(e) = q?p$ if $e$ is a read from channel $(p,q)$. We associate with the linearization ${\preceq}$ a word ${M_{{\preceq}}}$ over the alphabet ${\Sigma_{\mathit{lin}}}= \Sigma \times (P \cup \{q?p, p!q \mid (p,q) \in {\mathit{Ch}}\})$. More precisely, we let ${M_{{\preceq}}} = a_1 \ldots a_n$ where $a_i = (\lambda \times {\mathsf{type}})(e_i)$. Note that $M$ can be retrieved from ${M_{{\preceq}}}$. We let ${\mathit{Lin}^B}(M) = \{{M_{{\preceq}}} \mid \text{${\preceq}$ is a $B$-bounded linearization of $M$}\}$.
\[EB-regular\] Let $B \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $L$ be a set of $\exists B$-bounded MSCs. The following are equivalent:
1. $L = {\mathbb{L}}({\mathcal{A}})$ for some CFM ${\mathcal{A}}$.
2. $L = {\mathbb{L}}(\Phi)$ for some MSO formula $\Phi$.
3. ${\mathit{Lin}^B}(L)$ is a regular language.
The proof given in [@GKM06] relies on the theory of Mazurkiewicz traces. Another major part of the proof is the construction of a CFM recognizing the set ${\mathbb{MSC}_{\exists B}({P},\Sigma)}$ of $\exists B$-bounded MSCs [@GKM06 Proposition 5.14]. We show that this CFM can in fact be obtained as a simple application of Theorem \[thm:main\]. Moreover, we give an alternative proof of $(3) \implies (1)$ (Section 5 in [@GKM06]).
A CFM for Existentially Bounded MSCs
------------------------------------
The set ${\mathbb{MSC}_{\exists B}({P},\Sigma)}$ of $\exists B$-bounded MSCs is in fact ${\textup{FO}}[{\lhd},{\rightarrow},\le]$-definable, and thus, we can apply Theorem \[thm:main\] to construct a CFM ${\mathcal{A}}_{\exists B}$ recognizing ${\mathbb{MSC}_{\exists B}({P},\Sigma)}$. We describe below a formula defining ${\mathbb{MSC}_{\exists B}({P},\Sigma)}$.
Let us first recall a characterization of $\exists B$-bounded MSCs. Let $M=(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda)$ be an MSC. We define a relation ${\mathit{rev}_{B}} \subseteq E \times E$ which consists of the set of pairs $(f,g)$ such that $f$ is a receive event from some channel $(p,q)$ with corresponding send event $e {\lhd}f$, and $g$ is the $B$-th send on channel $(p,q)$ after event $e$. The relation ${\mathit{rev}_{B}}$ is illustrated in Figure \[fig:revb\] (represented by the dashed edges) for $B=1$ and an $\exists 1$-bounded MSC. It can be defined by the ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}[\cup]$ path formula $$\mathsf{rev}_B = \bigcup_{p\neq q}
{{\lhd}_{p,q}^{-1}}\cdot \Big({\xrightarrow{\neg{\mathop{\langle {\lhd}_{p,q} \rangle}}}}\cdot
{\{{\mathop{\langle {\lhd}_{p,q} \rangle}}\}?} \Big)^B\,.$$ For completeness, let us also give a corresponding ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ formula: $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathit{rev}_{B}}(x,y) := \exists z_0, z_1, \ldots, z_B.\
z_0 {\lhd}x \land z_B = y \land
\bigwedge_{1 \le i \le B} \exists x_i.\ z_i {\lhd}x_i \land x {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}x_i
\\
{}\land \bigwedge_{0 \le i < B-1} z_i {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}z_{i+1} \land
\lnot (\exists z',x'.\ z_i {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}z' {<_{\mathsf{proc}}}z_{i+1} \land z' {\lhd}x' \land
x {\leq_{\mathsf{proc}}}x') \, .\end{gathered}$$
$M$ is $\exists B$-bounded iff the relation $({<} \cup {\mathit{rev}_{B}})$ is acyclic.
Note that, if $({<} \cup {\mathit{rev}_{B}})$ contains a cycle, then it contains one of size at most $2|P|$. So $M$ is $\exists B$-bounded iff it satisfies the ${{\textup{PDL}_{\mathsf{sf}}}}[{\mathsf{Loop}},\cup]$ formula ${\xi}_{\exists B} = \neg{\mathop{\mathsf{E}\vphantom{a}}\nolimits}{\mathsf{Loop}(\mathsf{lt}_B)}$ where $$\mathsf{lt}_B = \bigcup_{2\leq n\leq |P|}
\big( ({\lhd}\cup \mathsf{rev}_B)\cdot {{\xrightarrow{+}}} \big)^{n}
\qquad\qquad {\lhd}= \bigcup_{p\neq q}{\lhd}_{p,q}\,.$$ Again, let us determine a corresponding ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ formula: $$\Phi_{\exists B} =
\bigwedge_{2 \le n \le 2|P|} \lnot \Big(
\exists x_0, \ldots, x_{n}.\ x_0 = x_{n} \wedge
\bigwedge_{0 \le i < n}
x_i < x_{i+1} \lor {\mathit{rev}_{B}}(x_i,x_{i+1}) \Big) \, .$$
(p1) at (0,4) ; (p2) at (2,4) ; (p3) at (4,4) ; (p4) at (6,4) ; (p1) – (p2);(p2) – (p3);(p3) – (p4);
(q1) at (0,3) ; (q2) at (2,3) ; (q3) at (3,3) ; (q4) at (4,3) ; (q5) at (5,3) ; (q6) at (6,3) ; (q1) – (q2);(q2) – (q3);(q3) – (q4);(q4) – (q5);(q5) – (q6);
(r1) at (0,2) ; (r2) at (2,2) ; (r3) at (3,2) ; (r4) at (4,2) ; (r5) at (5,2) ; (r1) – (r2);(r2) – (r3);(r3) – (r4);(r4) – (r5); (s1) at (0,1) ; (s2) at (2,1) ; (s3) at (4,1) ; (s1) – (s2);(s2) – (s3);
(p1) – (q1);(p2) – (q2);(p3) – (q4);(p4) – (q6); (s1) – (r1);(s2) – (r2);(s3) – (r4); (q3) – (r3);(q5) – (r5);
(q1) – (p2);(q2) – (p3);(q4) – (p4); (r1) – (s2);(r2) – (s3); (r3) – (q5);
[background]{} [[ \[ create hullcoords/.code=[ in (hullcoord0) at (hullcoord); (hullcoord) at (hullcoord1); ]{}, create hullcoords \] ($(hullcoord1)!3mm!-90:(hullcoord0)$) in [1,...,]{} [ let 1 = ($(hullcoord\currentnode) - (hullcoord\previousnode)$), 1 = [atan2(1,1) + 90]{}, 2 = ($(hullcoord\nextnode) - (hullcoord\currentnode)$), 2 = [atan2(2,2) + 90]{}, = [Mod(2-1,360) - 360]{} in [arc \[start angle=1, delta angle=, radius=3mm\]]{} – ($(hullcoord\nextnode)!3mm!-90:(hullcoord\currentnode)$) ]{} ]{}; ]{}
[background]{} [[ \[ create hullcoords/.code=[ in (hullcoord0) at (hullcoord); (hullcoord) at (hullcoord1); ]{}, create hullcoords \] ($(hullcoord1)!3mm!-90:(hullcoord0)$) in [1,...,]{} [ let 1 = ($(hullcoord\currentnode) - (hullcoord\previousnode)$), 1 = [atan2(1,1) + 90]{}, 2 = ($(hullcoord\nextnode) - (hullcoord\currentnode)$), 2 = [atan2(2,2) + 90]{}, = [Mod(2-1,360) - 360]{} in [arc \[start angle=1, delta angle=, radius=3mm\]]{} – ($(hullcoord\nextnode)!3mm!-90:(hullcoord\currentnode)$) ]{} ]{}; ]{}
at (-1,4) [$p_1$]{}; at (-1,3) [$p_2$]{}; at (-1,2) [$p_3$]{}; at (-1,1) [$p_4$]{};
at (6.6,3.6) [${{\uparrow_B}}{e}$]{}; at (5.1,1.2) [${{\uparrow_B}}{f}$]{};
FO-definable Linearizations for Existentially Bounded MSCs
----------------------------------------------------------
We give a canonical $B$-bounded linearization of $\exists B$-bounded MSCs, adapted from [@ThiagarajanW02 Definition 13] where the definition was given for traces. We fix some total order $\sqsubseteq$ on $P$. Let $M=(E,{\rightarrow},{\lhd},{\mathit{loc}},\lambda)$ be an $\exists B$-bounded MSC, and let ${\le}_B = ({\le} \cup {\mathit{rev}_{B}})^\ast$ which is a partial order on $M$. Note that a linearization of $M$ is $B$-bounded iff it contains $\le_B$.
For $e \in E$, we define ${{\uparrow_B}}e = \{g \in E \mid e \le_B g\}$. Moreover, for $E' \subseteq E$, let ${\mathit{loc}}(E') = \{{\mathit{loc}}(e) \mid e \in E'\}$. Finally, given $e,f \in E$, let $e \parallel_B f$ if $e \not\le_B f$ and $f \not\le_B e$. We then define a relation ${{\prec_B}} \subseteq E \times E$ by $$\begin{array}{rcl}
e {\prec_B}f & \Longleftrightarrow~
\left(
\begin{array}{rl}
& e <_B f\\
\vee & e \parallel_B f ~\wedge~ \min ({{\mathit{loc}}({{\uparrow_B}}e \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}f)}) \sqsubset \min ({{\mathit{loc}}({{\uparrow_B}}f \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}e)})
\end{array}
\right).
\end{array}$$
Consider the MSC $M$ in Figure \[fig:revb\] and suppose $p_1 \sqsubset p_2 \sqsubset p_3 \sqsubset p_4$. We have ${{\mathit{loc}}({{\uparrow_B}}e \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}f)} = \{p_1,p_2\}$ and ${{\mathit{loc}}({{\uparrow_B}}f \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}e)} = \{p_3,p_4\}$. Since $p_1 \sqsubset p_3$, we obtain $e {\prec_B}f$.
The following result is due to [@ThiagarajanW02 Lemma 14]. It is stated there for traces, but the proof can be taken almost verbatim.
\[lem:linord\] The relation ${\prec_B}$ is a strict linear order on $E$.
Notice that, for all $e \neq f$, we have either $e {\prec_B}f$ or $f {\prec_B}e$, but not both. Indeed, for all $e \neq f$, we have ${{\mathit{loc}}({{\uparrow_B}}e \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}f)} \cap {{\mathit{loc}}({{\uparrow_B}}f \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}e)} =\emptyset$, and if $e \parallel f$, then the two sets are nonempty as ${\mathit{loc}}(e) \in {{\mathit{loc}}({{\uparrow_B}}e \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}f)}$ and ${\mathit{loc}}(f) \in {{\mathit{loc}}({{\uparrow_B}}f \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}e)}$.
It remains to show that ${\prec_B}$ is transitive. Let $e_1,e_2,e_3 \in E$ such that $e_1 {\prec_B}e_2 {\prec_B}e_3$. Note that $e_1,e_2,e_3$ are pairwise distinct. For distinct $i,j \in \{1,2,3\}$, fix an event $e_{ij}$ in ${{\uparrow_B}}{e_i} \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}{e_j}$ (if it exists) that is on the $\sqsubset$-minimal process in ${{\uparrow_B}}{e_i} \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}{e_j}$.
To prove $e_1 {\prec_B}e_3$, we distinguish several cases.
Case $e_1 <_B e_2 <_B e_3$:
: As $<_B$ is transitive, we get $e_1 <_B e_3$.
Case $e_1 <_B e_2 \parallel_B e_3$:
: This implies $e_3 \not \le_B e_1$. If $e_1 <_B e_3$, we are done. So suppose $e_1 \parallel_B e_3$. Since $e_2 {\prec_B}e_3$, we have ${{\mathit{loc}}(e_{23}) \sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{32})}$. From ${{\uparrow_B}}{e_2} \subseteq {{\uparrow_B}}{e_1}$, we deduce ${{\mathit{loc}}({{\uparrow_B}}e_2 \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}e_3)} \subseteq {{\mathit{loc}}({{\uparrow_B}}e_1 \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}e_3)}$. Thus, ${{\mathit{loc}}(e_{13}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{23})}$. Similarly, ${{\mathit{loc}}(e_{32}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{31})}$. We obtain ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{13}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{23})
\sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{32}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{31})$.
Case $e_1 \parallel_B e_2 <_B e_3$:
: This case is very similar to the previous one.
Case $e_1 \parallel_B e_2 \parallel_B e_3$:
: Since $e_1 {\prec_B}e_2 {\prec_B}e_3$, we have ${{\mathit{loc}}(e_{12}) \sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{21})}$ and ${{\mathit{loc}}(e_{23}) \sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{32})}$. Suppose $e_1 \not \le_B e_3$ (otherwise, we are done). We have $e_3 \not \le_B e_1$, since $e_3 <_B e_1$ implies ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{32}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{12})
\sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{21}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{23})$, a contradiction.
So we can assume $e_1 \parallel_B e_3$. It remains to show ${{\mathit{loc}}(e_{13}) \sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{31})}$. First, one shows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathit{loc}}(e_{13}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{12})\,.\label{align:e12e13}\end{aligned}$$
If $e_{12} \not\in {{\uparrow_B}}{e_3}$, then (\[align:e12e13\]) is immediate. So suppose $e_{12} \in {{\uparrow_B}}{e_3}$, i.e., $e_{12} \in {{\uparrow_B}}{e_3} \setminus {{\uparrow_B}}{e_2}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathit{loc}}(e_{32}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{12})\,.\label{align:e32e12}\end{aligned}$$ Let us consider two cases: If $e_{23} \in {{\uparrow_B}}{e_1}$, then ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{13}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{23})$. Suppose, on the other hand, $e_{23} \not\in {{\uparrow_B}}{e_1}$. But this implies ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{21}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{23})$. By (\[align:e32e12\]), we obtain ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{21}) \sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{12})$, which contradicts $e_1 {\prec_B}e_2$. We deduce that (\[align:e12e13\]) holds.
To conclude the proof, we distinguish once more two cases:
Case $e_{31} \in {{\uparrow_B}}{e_2}$:
: Then, ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{21}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{31})$. Applying (\[align:e12e13\]), we obtain ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{13}) \sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{31})$.
Case $e_{31} \not\in {{\uparrow_B}}{e_2}$:
: Then, ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{23}) \sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{32}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{31})$. If $e_{23} \in {{\uparrow_B}}{e_1}$, then ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{13}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{23}) \sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{31})$ and we are done. If $e_{23} \not\in {{\uparrow_B}}{e_1}$, then ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{21}) \sqsubseteq {\mathit{loc}}(e_{23})$, which implies ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{12}) \sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{31})$. By (\[align:e12e13\]), we obtain ${\mathit{loc}}(e_{13}) \sqsubset {\mathit{loc}}(e_{31})$.
This concludes the proof of Lemma \[lem:linord\].
Moreover, the reflexive closure ${\preceq_B}$ of ${\prec_B}$ contains $\le_B$, hence it is a $B$-bounded linearization of $M$. Finally, the relation ${\prec_B}$ is ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$-definable. Indeed, the strict partial order $<_B$ is ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$-definable since it can be expressed with the path formula $\mathsf{lt}_B$ given above. From its definition, we deduce that the relation ${\prec_B}$ is also ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$-definable.
We are now ready to give our alternative proof of the direction $(3) \implies (1)$ in Fact \[EB-regular\].
Let $L$ be a set of $\exists B$-bounded MSCs such that ${\mathit{Lin}^B}(L)$ is regular. There exists an EMSO sentence ${\Phi_{\mathit{lin}}}$ over ${\Sigma_{\mathit{lin}}}$-labeled words such that ${\mathit{Lin}^B}(L) = {\mathbb{L}}({\Phi_{\mathit{lin}}})$. Since ${\preceq_B}$ is ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$-definable, it is easy to translate ${\Phi_{\mathit{lin}}}$ into an ${\textup{EMSO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\le]$ formula $\Phi$ such that, for all $\exists B$-bounded MSC $M$, we have $M \models \Phi$ iff ${M_{{\preceq_B}}} \models {\Phi_{\mathit{lin}}}$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a CFM such that ${\mathbb{L}}({\mathcal{A}}) = {\mathbb{L}}(\Phi \land \Phi_{\exists B})$. Then, for all $M \in L$, $M$ is $\exists B$-bounded and ${M_{{\preceq_B}}} \models {\Phi_{\mathit{lin}}}$, hence $M\models\Phi \land \Phi_{\exists B}$, i.e., $M \in {\mathbb{L}}({\mathcal{A}})$. Conversely, if $M \in {\mathbb{L}}({\mathcal{A}})$, then $M$ is $\exists B$-bounded and ${\preceq_B}$ is a linearization of $M$. Moreover, ${M_{{\preceq_B}}} \in {\mathit{Lin}^B}(L)$, hence $M \in L$.
Conclusion {#sec:concl}
==========
In this paper, we showed that every ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\leq]$ formula over MSCs is effectively equivalent to a CFM. As an intermediate step, we used a purely logical transformation of own interest, relating FO logic with a star-free fragment of PDL.
While star-free PDL constitutes a two-dimensional temporal logic over MSCs, we leave open whether there is a one-dimensional one, with a finite set of ${\textup{FO}}$-definable modalities, that is expressively complete for ${\textup{FO}}[{\rightarrow},{\lhd},\leq]$.
It will be worthwhile to see whether our techniques can be applied to other settings such as trees or Mazurkiewicz traces.
[^1]: It is open whether there is an equivalent one-dimensional one.
[^2]: Thanks to Sylvain Schmitz for pointing this out.
[^3]: In this case, $\Upsilon$ is a sentence whereas $x_1$ is free in the right hand side. Notice that $\equiv$ does not require the two formulas to have the same free variables.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Xiang Yan, Syed Zulqarnain Gilani, Hanlin Qin, and Ajmal Mian'
title: 'Unsupervised Deep Multi-focus Image Fusion'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
imaging systems, for instance digital single-lens reflex cameras, have a limited depth-of-field such that the scene content within a limited distance from the imaging plane remains in focus. Specifically, objects closer to or further away from the point of focus appear as blurred (out-of-focus) in the image. Multi-Focus Image Fusion (MFIF) aims at reconstructing a fully focused image from two or more partly focused images of the same scene. MFIF techniques have wide ranging applications in the fields of surveillance, medical imaging, computer vision, remote sensing and digital imaging [@li2008multifocus; @saha2013; @gangapure2015; @phamila2014; @kong2014]. Though interesting and seemingly trivial, multi-focus image fusion is a challenging task [@li2008multifocus].
The advent of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) has seen a revolution in Computer Vision in tasks ranging from object recognition [@simonyan2014very; @he2016deep], semantic segmentation [@long2015fully; @noh2015learning], action recognition [@simonyan2014two; @wang2016temporal], optical flow [@dosovitskiy2015flownet; @lai2017semi] to image super-resolution [@dong2016image; @ledig2016photo; @Lai_2017_CVPR]. Recently, Prabhakar et al. [@prabhakar2017deepfuse] used deep learning to fuse multi-exposure image pairs. This was followed by Liu et al. [@liu2017multi] who proposed a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) as part of their algorithm to fuse multi-focus image pairs. The algorithm learns a classifier to distinguish between “focused” and “unfocused” images and jointly calculates a fusion weight map. Later, Tang et al. [@tang2017pixel] improved the algorithm by proposing a pixel-CNN (p-CNN) for classification of “focused” and “defocused” pixels in a pair of multi-focus images. It is well known that the performance of CNNs depends on the availability of large training data with labels [@gilani2018]. Liu et al. [@liu2017multi] and Tang et al. [@tang2017pixel] addressed this problem by simulating blurred versions of benchmark datasets used for image recognition. Unfocused images were generated by adding Gaussian blur in randomly selected patches making their training dataset unrealistic. Furthermore, since their method is based on calculating weight fusion maps after learning a classifier, it does not provide an end-to-end solution. This necessitates some post-processing steps for improving the results. Finally, in most well known deep networks [@taigman2014; @schroff2015] the input image size is restricted to the training image size. For instance DeepFuse [@prabhakar2017deepfuse] creates fusion maps during training and requires the input image size to match the fusion map dimensions. This problem is circumvented by sliding a window over the image and obtaining patches to match the fusion map size. These patches are then averaged to obtain the final weight fusion map of the same size as corresponding source images, thereby introducing redundancy and errors in the final reconstruction.
To address these issues, we present an end-to-end deep network trained on benchmark multi-focus images. The proposed network takes a pair of multi-focus images and outputs the all-focus image. We train our network in an unsupervised fashion precluding the need for a ground truth all focused image. However, this method of training requires a robust loss function. We approach this problem by proposing a multi-focus Structural Similarity (SSIM) quality metric as our loss function. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first end-to-end unsupervised deep network for predicting all-focus images from their respective multi-focus image pairs.
In a nutshell our contributions are as follows:
1\) [**Training dataset.**]{} Instead of using a simulated dataset, we use the benchmark multi-focus image dataset to train our network. Specifically, we use random crops from pairs of multi-focus images thereby generating a large corpus of training data for our network.
2\) [**An end-to-end network.**]{} Our proposed network has an end-to-end unsupervised architecture which does not need a reference ground truth image, thus, addressing the issue of lack of ground-truth for training. Furthermore, our architecture differs from existing methods [@liu2017multi] which use deep networks for classification only as part of MFIF.
3\) [**Loss function.**]{} We propose a novel loss function tailored for multi-focus image fusion to train our network.
4\) [**Test images.**]{} Our network can feed test images of any size and directly output the fused images leading to a more practical value.
5\) [**Making the network public.**]{} The trained network will be publicly released to encourage replication and verification of our proposed method.
Related work
============
Literature is rich in research on image fusion including multi-focus image fusion. Most of the research work can be classified into transform domain based algorithms and spatial domain based algorithm [@li2017pixel]. The spatial domain based algorithms have become popular owing to the advent of CNNs. However, the spatial domain based algorithms compute the weights for each image either locally or pixel wise. The fused image would then be a weighted sum of the images in the input pair. Here, we present a brief overview of the conventional and CNN based image fusion techniques:
[**Transform domain based multi-focus image fusion.**]{} Image fusion has been extensively studied in the past few years. Earlier methods are mostly based on transform domain, owing to their intuitive approach towards this problem. This research mainly focuses on pyramid decomposition [@mitianoudis2007pixel; @petrovic2004gradient], wavelet transform [@hill2002image; @lewis2007pixel] and multi-scale geometric analysis [@li2008multifocus; @zhang2009multifocus]. Multi-focus image fusion methods mainly include the gradient pyramid (GP) [@petrovic2004gradient], discrete wavelet transform (DWT) [@pajares2004wavelet], non-subsampled contourlet transform (NSCT) [@zhang2009multifocus], shearlet transform (ST) [@miao2011novel], curvelet transform (CVT) [@guo2012multifocus] among others. Transform domain based multi-focus image fusion method first decomposes the source images into a specific multi-scale domain, then integrates all these corresponding decomposed coefficients to generate a series of comprehensive coefficients. Finally it reconstructs them by performing the corresponding inverse multi-scale transform. For this kind of method, the selection of multi-scale transform approach is significant, at the same time, the fusion rules for high-frequency and low-frequency coefficients also cannot be ignored, since they directly affect the fusion results. In the recent past, Independent Component Analysis (ICA), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), higher-order singular-value decomposition (HOSVD) and sparse representation based methods have also been introduced int he field of multi-focus image fusion. The core idea of these fusion methods is to seek a desirable feature space that can efficiently reflect the activity of image patches. The focus measurement plays a crucial role in these methods.
[**Spatial domain based multi-focus image fusion.**]{} Spatial domain based image fusion algorithms have received significant attention resulting in the development of several image fusion algorithms that operate directly on the source images without converting them into alternative representation. These algorithms apply a fusion rule to the source images to generate an all-in-focus image. Generally, these algorithms can be divided into two groups; pixel based and block (or region) based algorithms [@li2017pixel]. Between the two of them, block or region based multi-focus image fusion methods have been widely adopted, however, they usually select more focused blocks or regions as fused parts. In this way, the focus measure plays a vital role in these fusion methods. Furthermore, this method suffers from the blocking effects in the final fused image. In recent years,the pixel based multi-focus fusion methods have drawn increasing attention form the research community, owing to its capability of extracting details from the source images and preserving the spatial consistency of the fused image [@liu2015multi]. The representative methods include image matting based method [@li2013image], guided filtering based method [@li-kang2013image] and dense scale-invariant feature transform based methods [@liu2015multi]. These methods have achieved competing results with high computational efficiency.
[**Deep learning for multi-focus image fusion.**]{} More recently, researchers have turned to learning a focus measure without hand crafting using deep CNNs. Generally, neural network based methods divide the source images into patches and feed them into the CNN model along with the focus measure learned for each patch. This method is more robust compared to its conventional counterpart and is without any artifacts since the CNN model is data-driven. Lately, Liu et al. [@liu2017multi] proposed a deep network as a subset of their multi-focus image fusion algorithm. They sourced their training data from popular image classification databases and simply added Gaussian blur to random patches in the image to simulate multi-focus images. The authors used their CNN to classify focused and unfocused pixels and generated an initial focus map from this information. The final all-focus image was generated after post-processing this initial focus map. This step increases the computational cost and makes this method more suitable for parallel GPU processing. Following Liu et al. [@liu2017multi], Tang et.al [@tang2017pixel] proposed a p-CNN for multi-focus image fusion. The authors leverage the Cifar-10 [@Anu:2013] to generate training image sets for their p-CNN. Specifically, the defocused images are acquired by automatically adding blur to the original images. The output of the model are three probabilities: defocused, focused or unknown for each pixel, which are used to determine the fusion weight map. This step also needs post processing, which is important to obtain a desired fusion weight map.
We propose a deep end-to-end neural network model that does not require post processing. Our model is trained on real multi-focus image pairs and utilizes a no-reference quality metric, multi-focus fusion structural similarity (SSIM), as a loss function to achieve end-to-end unsupervised learning. Our model has three components: feature extraction, fusion and reconstruction and is described in detail in the succeeding paras.
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
Deep Unsupervised Network For MFIF
==================================
Our main goal is to generate a fused image that is all-in-focus. Given an input multi-focus image pair, our model produces an image that is likely to contain all the pixels in focus. Our method excludes the redundant information contained in the input image pair. In this section, we describe the design of our proposed deep unsupervised Multi-Focus image Fusion Network (*MFNet*).
Network Architecture
--------------------
We propose a deep unsupervised model for the generation of multi-focus image fusion. The network architecture is illustrated in Figure \[fig:2\] and comprises of four main sub-networks: three feature extraction sub-network and one feature reconstruction sub-network.
### Feature Extraction Sub-network
As illustrated in Figure \[fig:2\], each input image from the multi-focus image pair is passed through a feature extraction network (shown in purple ) to obtain high-dimensional non-linear feature maps. However, before passing through this network, the images are convolved with a $3\times3$ kernel and $64$ output channels. The output of the feature extraction network is passed through another convolutional layer without an activation function. The features from these networks for the two images are then fused to obtain a feature map. We also take the average of the two multi-focus image pairs and pass this image through a different feature extraction network (shown in orange in Figure \[fig:2\]). The output of this network is then added to the fused output from the fist two feature extraction networks and passed to the feature reconstruction sub-network.
The details of the feature extraction sub-networks are given in Figure \[fig:3\]. Each network consists of a stack of multiple convolutional layers followed by rectification layers without any pooling. We use different architectures for the feature extraction sub-networks. The network which takes in the average of the multi-focus images as input has D2 layers and is deeper than the network (having D1 layers) through which the individual images are passed. We have color coded the networks in Figures \[fig:2\] and \[fig:3\] for ease of cross referencing.
### Feature Reconstruction Sub-network
The goal of this module is to produce the final fused image. It takes as input the output of the third feature extraction sub-network and the convolutional features obtained from the two added input images. As illustrated in Figure \[fig:3\], the feature reconstruction network also consists of a cascade of CNNs and is deeper than the feature extraction sub-networks. It comprises seven layers out of which the first six include the leaky rectified linear units (LReLUs) with a negative slope of 0.2 as the non-linear activation functions. The output fusion image is given by the last convolutional layer with sigmoid nonlinearity. Once again, this network is depicted in the same color in Figures \[fig:2\] and \[fig:3\] for easy cross referencing.
![ [**Structure of our feature extraction and reconstruction sub-networks.**]{} There are D1, D2, D3 convolutional layers in the three networks respectively. The weights of convolutional layers are distinct among these three networks.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](TIP_figure3_1.jpg){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Loss function:
--------------
Our proposed network in trained in an unsupervised fashion in the sense that it does not require ground truth all-in-focus images. Instead, the image structure similarity (SSIM) quality metric is used. The SSIM is often used to evaluate the performance of image fusion algorithms and hence it is natural to use this metric directly as the loss function. Let $ x_{1} $, $ x_{2} $ be the input image pair and $ \theta $ be the set of network parameters to be optimized. Our goal is to learn a mapping function $ g $ for generating an image (fused image) $ \hat{z}=g\left(x_{1},x_{2};\theta\right) $ that is as similar to the desired image (all the pixels in this image are in focus) $ z $ as possible. The network learns the ideal model parameters by optimizing a loss function. We now give details of multi-focus SSIM and the design of our loss function:
[**(1)** ]{} The image structure similarity (SSIM) [@wang2004image] is designed for calculating the structure similarities of different sliding windows in their corresponding positions between two images. Let $ x $ be the reference image and $ y $ be a test image, then the SSIM can be defined as: $${\rm SSIM}\left ( x,y|w \right )=\frac{\left (2\bar{w}_{x}\bar{w}_{y}+C_{1} \right )\left ( 2\sigma _{w_{x}w_{y}}+C_{2}\right )}{\left ( \bar{w}_{x}^{2}+\bar{w}_{y}^{2}+C_{1} \right )\left ( \sigma _{w_{x}}^{2}+ \sigma _{w_{y}}^{2}+C_{2}\right )} ,$$ where $ C_{1} $ and $ C_{2} $ are two small constants, $ w_{x} $ is a sliding window or the region under consideration in $ x $, $ \bar{w}_{x} $ is the mean of $ w_{x} $, $ \sigma_{w_{x}}^{2} $ and $ \sigma_{w_{x}w_{y}} $ are the variance of $ w_{x} $ and covariance of $ w_{x} $ and $ w_{y} $, respectively. The variables $ w_{y} $, $ \bar{w}_{y} $ and $ \sigma_{w_{y}}$ have the same meanings corresponding $ x $. Note that the value of $ {\rm SSIM}\left(x,y|w\right)\in \left[-1,1\right]$ is used to measure the similarity between $ w_{x} $ and $ w_{y} $. When its value is 1, it means that $ w_{x} $ and $ w_{y} $ are the same.
[**(2)** ]{} Image quality measurement in the local windows. First, we calculate the structure similarities $ {\rm SSIM}\left(x_{1},\hat{y} |w\right)$ and $ {\rm SSIM}\left(x_{2},\hat{y}|w\right)$ using Equation (1). The constants $ C_{1} $ and $ C_{2} $ are set as $ 1\times 10^{-4} $ and $ 9\times 10^{-4}$, respectively. The size of sliding window is $ 7 \times 7 $, and it moves pixel by pixel from the top-left to the bottom-right of the image. We use the structural similarity of the input images as matching metric. When the standard deviation std$\left ( x_{1}|w \right )$ of a local window of input $x_{1}$ is equal to larger than the corresponding std$\left ( x_{2}|w \right )$ of input $x_{2}$, it means that the local window image patch of input $ x_{1} $ is more clear. At this time, we can determine the objective function by calculating the image patch similarity. It can be described as follows:
$${\rm Scope } \left(x_{1},x_{2}, \hat{y} |w\right)=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
{\rm SSIM}\left(x_{1},\hat{y}|w\right), \\for\ {{\rm std}\left(x_{1}|w\right)\geq {\rm std}\left(x_{2}|w\right)}\\
{\rm SSIM}\left(x_{2},\hat{y}|w\right), \\for\ {{\rm std}\left(x_{1}|w\right)< {\rm std}\left(x_{2}|w\right)}
\end{array} \right.$$
[**(3)** ]{} Loss function. Based on the value of ${\rm Scope}\left(x_{1},x_{2},\hat{y}|w\right)$ in local window $ w $,we propose a robust loss function to optimize the unsupervised network. The overall loss function is defined as
$$Loss\left(x_{1},x_{2},\hat{y}\right)=1-\frac{1}{\left|N\right|}\sum_{w=1}^{N}{\rm Scope}\left(x_{1},x_{2},\hat{y}|w\right),$$
where, *N* represents the total number of sliding windows in an image. The computed loss is back-propagated to train the network. The better performance of $\rm SSIM_{Y}$ is attributed to its objective function that maximizes structural consistency between the fused image and each of the input images.
Implementation Details
----------------------
All the convolutional layers have 64 filters of size $ 3\times 3 $ in our proposed *MFNet*. We randomly initialize the parameters of convolutional filters and pad zeros around the boundaries before applying convolution to keep the size of all feature maps the same as the input images. We use leaky rectified linear units (LReLUs) [@maas2013rectifier] with a negative slope of 0.2 as the non-linear activation function except for the last convolutional (reconstruction) layer where we choose sigmoid as the activation function. For the feature extraction and reconstruction sub-networks, the number of convolutional layers D1, D2 and D3 are set as 5, 6 and 7 respectively.
We use 60 pairs of multi-focus images from the benchmark Lytro Multi-focus Image dataset [@nejati2015multi] and gray-scale Image dataset as our training data. Since the dataset is too small, we randomly crop $ 64\times 64 $ patches to form our final training dataset. The total number of the cropped patch is $50,000$. An epoch has 400 iterations of back-propagation. We use Tensorflow [@abadi2016tensorflow] to train our model. In addition, we set the weight decay to $10e-4$, initialize the learning rate to $10e-3$ for all layers, set the decay coefficient to $ 10^{3}$ and the decay rate to $0.96$.
--------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------
Methods $ Q_{S} $ $Q_{CV}$ VIFF EN
NSCT [**0.9491**]{} 63.7236 0.9566 7.3278
GF 0.9444 75.0824 0.9319 7.2985
DSIFT 0.9447 71.5299 0.9410 7.3045
BF 0.9442 75.0824 0.9319 7.2985
CNN 0.9459 68.0495 0.7420 7.3077
*MFNet* 0.9362 [**98.3789**]{} [**1.0588**]{} [**7.5030**]{}
--------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------
: The objective assessment of different methods for the fusion of “Clock” source images.[]{data-label="table:1"}
Experimental Results
====================
In this section, we compare the proposed *MFNet* with several state-of-the-art multi-focus image fusion methods on benchmark datasets. We present quantitative evaluation and qualitative comparison.
We compare the proposed method with five state-of-the-art multi-focus image fusion algorithms, including methods based on non-subsampled contournet transform (NSCT) [@zhang2009multifocus], guided filtering (GF) [@li-kang2013image], dense SIFT (DSIFT) [@liu2015multi], boundary finding (BF) [@zhang2017boundary], convolutional neural network (CNN) [@liu2017multi]. We implemented these algorithms using codes acquired from their respective authors. We carry out extensive experiments on $40$ pairs of multi-focus images from two public benchmark datasets: 20 pairs from the multi-focus image fusion dataset [@Liuyucode:2016] and the other 20 pairs from a recently available dataset “Lytro” [@Multi-focus:2016].
Quantitative evaluation of image fusion is not an easy task since it is often impossible to obtain the reference image. Thus, many evaluation metrics are introduced for evaluating image fusion performance. There is no consensus on which metrics can completely describe the fusion performance. We evaluate the multi-focus image fusion results using image structural similarity $Q_{S}$ [@piella2003new], human perception $Q_{CV}$ [@chen2007human], information entropy (EN) [@kumar2015image] and visual information fidelity VIFF [@han2013new]. Among these four evaluation metrics, the $Q_{S}$ and $Q_{CV}$ and VIFF are calculated from the input image pair and the resultant fused image, while the EN is calculated from fused image only. $Q_{S}$ measures how well the structural information of the source images is preserved, $Q_{CV}$ measures how well the human perceive the results, VIFF measures the visual information fidelity while EN estimates the amount of information present in the fused image. For each of these metrics, the largest value indicates the best fusion performance.
--------- ---------------- ------------------- ----------------- ----------------
Methods $ Q_{S} $ $Q_{CV}$ VIFF EN
NSCT 0.9314 27.7074 [**0.9316** ]{} 7.8515
GF 0.9273 24.1802 0.9175 7.8034
DSIFT 0.9210 28.6299 0.9283 7.8531
BF 0.9144 [ **71.2070** ]{} 0.7897 7.8034
CNN 0.9271 24.8961 0.9304 7.8034
*MFNet* [**0.9385**]{} 34.7656 0.9294 [**7.8481**]{}
--------- ---------------- ------------------- ----------------- ----------------
: The objective assessment of different methods for the fusion of “Fence” source images.[]{data-label="table:2"}
Comparison with other methods
-----------------------------
Figure \[fig:4\] compares the results of our proposed *MFNet* with other best performing multi-focus image fusion approaches on “Clock” image set. We can see that our proposed algorithm provides the best fusion result among these methods. For a better comparison, in Figure \[fig:5\] we depict the magnified regions of the fused images taken from Figure \[fig:4\]. The results clearly show that the fused images from *MFNet* contain no obvious artifact in these regions, while the fused results from other methods contain some artifacts around the boundary of focused and defocused clocks (highlighted with green rectangles) and pseudo-edges (highlighted with pink rectangles).
In the second experiment, detailed results of “Fence” image set are shown in Figure \[fig:6\]. The fused result obtained with BF method is distinctly blurred. Once again magnified regions of these results are depicted in Figure \[fig:7\] for ease of comparison. Note that the fused result from the NSCT method contains artifacts (highlighted as pink rectangles) while the results of GF, DSIFT, BF and CNN algorithms suffer from blur artifact around the fence edges (Highlighted as green rectangles). However, the result obtained by our proposed algorithm are free from such artifacts.
Figure \[fig:8\] and Figure \[fig:9\] presents the original and magnified visual comparison of image fusion algorithms on “Model Girl” image set. Although all the algorithms show similar results for the background focused region (first row of Figure \[fig:9\]), we can clearly find blur artifacts in the girl’s shoulder in the results of NSCT, GF, DSIFT, BF and CNN algorithms. The fused results from our method look more aesthetically pleasing.
The objective assessments of different methods for the fusion of the “Clock”, “Fence” and “Model Girl” image sets are listed in Table \[table:1\],Table \[table:2\] and Table \[table:3\], respectively, where the highest values are shown in bold. The results show that our proposed *MFNet* outperforms the state-of-the-art in most cases using the four metrics. In some cases our proposed algorithm shows the second best performance. In general, only one metric can not objectively reflect the fused quality, thus we use these four metric to objectively evaluate different methods.
--------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------
Methods $ Q_{S} $ $Q_{CV}$ VIFF EN
NSCT 0.9357 15.1591 0.9612 7.7133
GF 0.9330 13.6080 0.9564 7.7133
DSIFT 0.9316 13.7120 0.9571 7.7110
BF 0.9298 13.9148 0.9523 7.7102
CNN 0.9329 13.6979 0.9542 7.7099
*MFNet* [**0.9371**]{} [**24.8138**]{} [**1.0011**]{} [**7.7364**]{}
--------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------
: The objective assessment of different methods for the fusion of “Model Girl” source images.[]{data-label="table:3"}
--------- --------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------
Dataset Methods $ Q_{S} $ $Q_{CV}$ VIFF EN
NSCT [**0.9291**]{} 69.9239 0.9200 7.3454
GF 0.9241 73.1916 0.8819 7.3350
DSIFT 0.9218 76.5037 0.8776 7.3330
BF 0.9222 77.1837 0.8740 7.3320
CNN 0.9234 76.6635 0.8783 7.3299
*MFNet* 0.9201 [**87.3684**]{} [**0.9771**]{} [**7.4259**]{}
NSCT [**0.9588**]{} 11.0787 0.9652 7.4332
GF 0.9578 6.2571 0.9574 7.4371
DSIFT 0.9572 6.2545 0.9583 7.4377
BF 0.9567 8.7372 0.9528 7.4358
CNN 0.9575 6.3135 0.9570 7.4369
*MFNet* 0.9502 [**25.4599**]{} [**1.0112**]{} [**7.4869**]{}
--------- --------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------
: The objective assessment of different methods for the fusion of ten pairs of validation multi-focus source images.[]{data-label="table:4"}
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
To further demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed fusion method, ten pairs of popular multi-focus image sets are used, as shown in Figure \[fig:10\]. Among them five pairs are grayscale from [@liu2017multi] (see in the first two rows of Figure \[fig:10\]) while the remaining from Lytro dataset. For convenience, we denote the first five pairs as Data1 and remaining as Data2. Figure \[fig:11\] depicts the results of different methods on the ten pair image set. Visual comparison of *MFNet* with other image fusion methods shows that our proposed algorithm generates better quality fused images. The average scores achieved by the proposed and the compared fusion methods are reported in Table \[table:4\]. Our proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art fusion methods on all metrics except the $ Q_{S} $ metric.
Execution time
--------------
We use a desktop machine with 3.4GHz Intel i7 CPU (32 RAM) and NVIDIA Titan Xp GPU (12 GB Memory) to evaluate our algorithm. We choose multi-focus image pairs with a spatial resolution of $256\times 256$ ,$ 320\times 240$ and $520\times 520$ respectively and evaluate our method as well as the CNN based method [@liu2017multi] using these three pairs of images. The average runtime of our proposed *MFNet* for $256\times 256$ ,$ 320\times 240$ and $520\times 520$ size images is 3.7s, 4.1s and 5.1s respectively. This runtime is significantly lower than that of [@liu2017multi] which takes 54.8s, 46.62s and 115.8s respectively to fuse the same size images.
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
Conclusion
==========
We introduced an end-to-end approach for multi-focus image fusion that learns to directly predict the fusion image from an input pair of images with varied focus. Our model directly predicts the fusion image using a deep unsupervised network (*MFNet*) which employs the structural similarity (SSIM) image quality metric as a loss function. To the best of our knowledge, *MFNet* is the first ever unsupervised end-to-end deep learning method to perform multi-focus image fusion. The proposed model extracts a set of common low-level features from each input image. Feature pairs of the input images are fused and combined with features extracted from the average of the input images to generate the final representation or feature map. Finally, this representation is passed through a feature reconstruction network to get the final fused image. We train our model on a large set of images from multi-focus image sets and perform extensive quantitative and qualitative evaluations to demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed algorithm.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This research was supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC), Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province(2017JM6079), Joint Foundation of the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (614A05033306) and ARC Discovery Grant DP160101458. We thank NVIDIA for the GPU donation.
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[ l@\#1 =l@\#1 \#2]{}]{}
S. Li and B. Yang, “Multifocus image fusion by combining curvelet and wavelet transform,” *Pattern recognition letters*, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1295–1301, 2008.
A. Saha, G. Bhatnagar, and Q. J. Wu, “Mutual spectral residual approach for multifocus image fusion,” *Digital Signal Processing*, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1121–1135, 2013.
V. N. Gangapure, S. Banerjee, and A. S. Chowdhury, “Steerable local frequency based multispectral multifocus image fusion,” *Information fusion*, vol. 23, pp. 99–115, 2015.
Y. A. V. Phamila and R. Amutha, “Discrete cosine transform based fusion of multi-focus images for visual sensor networks,” *Signal Processing*, vol. 95, pp. 161–170, 2014.
W. Kong, Y. Lei, and H. Zhao, “Adaptive fusion method of visible light and infrared images based on non-subsampled shearlet transform and fast non-negative matrix factorization,” *Infrared Physics & Technology*, vol. 67, pp. 161–172, 2014.
K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” *arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556*, 2014.
K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in *Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*, 2016, pp. 770–778.
J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, “Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,” in *Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*, 2015, pp. 3431–3440.
H. Noh, S. Hong, and B. Han, “Learning deconvolution network for semantic segmentation,” in *Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision*, 2015, pp. 1520–1528.
K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Two-stream convolutional networks for action recognition in videos,” in *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 2014, pp. 568–576.
L. Wang, Y. Xiong, Z. Wang, Y. Qiao, D. Lin, X. Tang, and L. Van Gool, “Temporal segment networks: Towards good practices for deep action recognition,” in *European Conference on Computer Vision*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2016, pp. 20–36.
A. Dosovitskiy, P. Fischer, E. Ilg, P. Hausser, C. Hazirbas, V. Golkov, P. van der Smagt, D. Cremers, and T. Brox, “Flownet: Learning optical flow with convolutional networks,” in *Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision*, 2015, pp. 2758–2766.
W.-S. Lai, J.-B. Huang, and M.-H. Yang, “Semi-supervised learning for optical flow with generative adversarial networks,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 2017, pp. 353–363.
C. Dong, C. C. Loy, K. He, and X. Tang, “Image super-resolution using deep convolutional networks,” *IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence*, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 295–307, 2016.
C. Ledig, L. Theis, F. Husz[á]{}r, J. Caballero, A. Cunningham, A. Acosta, A. Aitken, A. Tejani, J. Totz, Z. Wang *et al.*, “Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network,” *arXiv preprint*, 2016.
W.-S. Lai, J.-B. Huang, N. Ahuja, and M.-H. Yang, “Deep laplacian pyramid networks for fast and accurate super-resolution,” in *The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)*, July 2017.
K. R. Prabhakar, V. S. Srikar, and R. V. Babu, “Deepfuse: A deep unsupervised approach for exposure fusion with extreme exposure image pairs,” in *2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)*. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2017, pp. 4724–4732.
Y. Liu, X. Chen, H. Peng, and Z. Wang, “Multi-focus image fusion with a deep convolutional neural network,” *Information Fusion*, vol. 36, pp. 191–207, 2017.
H. Tang, B. Xiao, W. Li, and G. Wang, “Pixel convolutional neural network for multi-focus image fusion,” *Information Sciences*, Vol 433-434, pp 125 – 141, 2017.
S. Z. Gilani and A. Mian, “Learning from millions of 3d scans for large-scale [3D]{} face recognition,” in *Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2018.
Y. Taigman, M. Yang, M. Ranzato, and L. Wolf, “Deepface: Closing the gap to human-level performance in face verification,” in *Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*, 2014, pp. 1701–1708.
F. Schroff, D. Kalenichenko, and J. Philbin, “Facenet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering,” in *Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*, 2015, pp. 815–823.
S. Li, X. Kang, L. Fang, J. Hu, and H. Yin, “Pixel-level image fusion: A survey of the state of the art,” *Information Fusion*, vol. 33, pp. 100–112, 2017.
N. Mitianoudis and T. Stathaki, “Pixel-based and region-based image fusion schemes using ica bases,” *Information Fusion*, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 131–142, 2007.
V. S. Petrovic and C. S. Xydeas, “Gradient-based multiresolution image fusion,” *IEEE Transactions on Image processing*, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 228–237, 2004.
P. R. Hill, C. N. Canagarajah, and D. R. Bull, “Image fusion using complex wavelets.” in *BMVC*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCiteseer, 2002, pp. 1–10.
J. J. Lewis, R. J. O’Callaghan, S. G. Nikolov, D. R. Bull, and N. Canagarajah, “Pixel-and region-based image fusion with complex wavelets,” *Information fusion*, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 119–130, 2007.
Q. Zhang and B.-l. Guo, “Multifocus image fusion using the nonsubsampled contourlet transform,” *Signal processing*, vol. 89, no. 7, pp. 1334–1346, 2009.
G. Pajares and J. M. De La Cruz, “A wavelet-based image fusion tutorial,” *Pattern recognition*, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1855–1872, 2004.
Q.-g. Miao, C. Shi, P.-f. Xu, M. Yang, and Y.-b. Shi, “A novel algorithm of image fusion using shearlets,” *Optics Communications*, vol. 284, no. 6, pp. 1540–1547, 2011.
L. Guo, M. Dai, and M. Zhu, “Multifocus color image fusion based on quaternion curvelet transform,” *Optics express*, vol. 20, no. 17, pp. 18846–18860, 2012.
Y. Liu, S. Liu, and Z. Wang, “Multi-focus image fusion with dense sift,” *Information Fusion*, vol. 23, pp. 139–155, 2015.
S. Li, X. Kang, J. Hu, and B. Yang, “Image matting for fusion of multi-focus images in dynamic scenes,” *Information Fusion*, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 147–162, 2013.
S. Li, X. Kang, and J. Hu, “Image fusion with guided filtering,” *IEEE Transactions on Image Processing*, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 2864–2875, 2013.
[http://www.cs.toronto.edu/∼kriz/cifar.html](http://www.cs.toronto.edu/∼kriz/cifar.html).
Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,” *IEEE transactions on image processing*, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004.
A. L. Maas, A. Y. Hannun, and A. Y. Ng, “Rectifier nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic models,” in *Proc. icml*, vol. 30, no. 1, 2013, p. 3.
M. Nejati, S. Samavi, and S. Shirani, “Multi-focus image fusion using dictionary-based sparse representation,” *Information Fusion*, vol. 25, pp. 72–84, 2015.
M. Abadi, P. Barham, J. Chen, Z. Chen, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat, G. Irving, M. Isard *et al.*, “Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning.” in *OSDI*, vol. 16, 2016, pp. 265–283.
Y. Zhang, X. Bai, and T. Wang, “Boundary finding based multi-focus image fusion through multi-scale morphological focus-measure,” *Information Fusion*, vol. 35, pp. 81–101, 2017.
<http://www.escience.cn/people/liuyu1/Codes.html>.
<http://mansournejati.ece.iut.ac.ir/content/lytro-multi-focus-dataset>.
G. Piella and H. Heijmans, “A new quality metric for image fusion,” in *Image Processing, 2003. ICIP 2003. Proceedings. 2003 International Conference on*, vol. 3.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2003, pp. III–173.
H. Chen and P. K. Varshney, “A human perception inspired quality metric for image fusion based on regional information,” *Information fusion*, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 193–207, 2007.
B. S. Kumar, “Image fusion based on pixel significance using cross bilateral filter,” *Signal, image and video processing*, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1193–1204, 2015.
Y. Han, Y. Cai, Y. Cao, and X. Xu, “A new image fusion performance metric based on visual information fidelity,” *Information fusion*, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 127–135, 2013.
[Xiang Yan]{}(S’17) received his M.S. degree of Electronics Science and Technology from Xidian University. He is currently pursuing doctoral degree in Physical Electronics, Xidian University. He has been a visiting Ph.D. student at the School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, the University of Western Australia. His current research is focused on image fusion, action detection and recognition, deep learning.
[Syed Zulqarnain Gilani]{} received his Phd in 3D facial analysis from the University of Western Australia. Earlier, he completed his B.Sc Engineering from National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan and MS in Electrical Engineering from the same university in 2009, securing the Presidents Gold Medal. He served as an Assistant Professor in NUST before joining UWA. He is currently a post-doc Research Associate in Computer Science and Software Engineering at UWA. His research interests include 3D Morphometric Face Analysis, pattern recognition, machine learning and video description.
[Hanlin Qin]{} received the B.Eng. and Ph.D. degree from Xidian University, Xi’an, China, in 2004 and 2010 respectively. He has authored over 60 papers. He received a Technology Invention Award from the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China in 2106. He is currently an Associate Professor of School of Physics and Optoelectronic Engineering, Xidian University. His current research interests include photoelectric imaging, image processing, visual tracking, target detection and recognition and deep learning.
[Ajmal Mian]{} is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at The University of Western Australia. He completed his PhD from the same institution in 2006 with distinction and received the Australasian Distinguished Doctoral Dissertation Award from Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia. He received the prestigious Australian Postdoctoral and Australian Research Fellowships in 2008 and 2011 respectively. He received the UWA Outstanding Young Investigator Award in 2011, the West Australian Early Career Scientist of the Year award in 2012, the Vice-Chancellors Mid-Career Research Award in 2014 and the Aspire Professional Development Award in 2016. He has secured seven Australian Research Council grants, a National Health and Medical Research Council grant and a DAAD German Australian Cooperation grant. He has published over 150 scientific papers. His research interests include computer vision, machine learning, face recognition, 3D shape analysis and hyperspectral image analysis
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The search for particle electric dipole moments (EDM) is one of the best places to look for physics beyond the Standard Model of electroweak interaction because the size of time reversal violation predicted by the Standard Model is incompatible with present ideas concerning the creation of the Baryon-Antibaryon asymmetry. As the sensitivity of these EDM searches increases more subtle systematic effects become important. We develop a general analytical approach to describe a systematic effect recently observed in an electric dipole moment experiment using stored particles [@JMP]. Our approach is based on the relationship between the systematic frequency shift and the velocity autocorrelation function of the resonating particles. Our results, when applied to well-known limiting forms of the correlation function, are in good agreement with both the limiting cases studied in recent work that employed a numerical/heuristic analysis. Our general approach explains some of the surprising results observed in that work and displays the rich behavior of the shift for intermediate frequencies, which has not been studied previously. In an appendix we give a new derivation of Egelstaf’s theorem which we used in our study of the Diffusion theory (low frequency) limit of the effect.'
author:
- 'S.K. Lamoreaux'
- 'R. Golub'
date: 'January 23, 2005'
title: 'Detailed discussion of a linear electric field frequency shift induced in confined gases by a magnetic field gradient: Implications for neutron electric dipole moment experiments.'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The search for an electric dipole moment (EDM) of the neutron is perhaps unique in modern physics in that experimental work on this subject has been going on more or less continuously for over 50 years. In that period the experimental sensitivity has increased by more than a factor of $10^{6}$ without an EDM ever being observed. The reason for this apparently obsessive behavior by a small group of dedicated physicists is that the observation of a non-zero neutron EDM would be evidence of time reversal violation and for physics beyond the so-called Standard Model of electroweak interactions. An essential point is that the Standard Model predictions of the magnitude of time reversal violation are inconsistent with our ideas of the formation of the universe; namely the production of the presently observed matter - anti-matter asymmetry requires time reversal violation many orders of magnitude greater than that predicted by the Standard Model.
In this type of experiment (null experiment) the control of systematic errors is of great significance. While the switch of experimental technique from beam experiments to experiments using stored Ultra-cold neutrons (UCN) has eliminated many of the sources of systematic error associated with the beam technique, the gain in sensitivity brought by the new UCN technique means that the experiments are sensitive to a new range of systematic errors. One of the most serious of these is associated with the interaction of gradients of the ever-present constant magnetic field with the well known motional magnetic field $\left( \frac{\overrightarrow{v}}{c}\times\overrightarrow{E}\right) $. As the particles move in the apparatus, these fields, as seen by the particles, will be time dependent. This effect was first pointed out by Commins [@commins] and explained in terms of the geometrical phase concept. A more general description is in terms of the Bloch-Siegert shift of magnetic resonance frequencies due to the time dependent fields mentioned above [@JMP],[@Ramsey].
The effect was apparently empirically identified in the ILL Hg comagnetometer EDM experiment and recently Pendlebury et al [@JMP] have given a very detailed discussion of it, including intuitive models and analytical calculations for certain cases, the relation between and regions of applicability of the geometric phase and Bloch-Siegert models, numerical simulations and experimental verification of the most significant features. However this pioneering work has left certain questions unanswered. In particular the understanding of effects of collisions on the systematic frequency shifts remains incomplete.
In this work we attempt to clarify several points concerning the influence of particle collisions. We explain the reason that in contrast to gas collisions, collisions with the walls were observed to have no effect on the magnitude of the systematic frequency shifts and show that this only applies to the limiting cases of high and low frequency. We show that the frequency shift is related to the velocity autocorrelation function of the resonating particles. Our solution, when applied to well known limiting forms of the correlation function, gives results in agreement with those obtained numerically in [@JMP]. McGregor has taken a similar approach to the problem of relaxation due to static field gradients [@McGregor], whereas the approach taken by Cates et al to the problem of static field gradients [@Cates1] and gradients combined with oscillating perturbing fields [@Cates2] is somewhat different than ours.
Brief description of the effect
-------------------------------
Consider a case where, in a storage experiment, there is a radial magnetic field due to a magnetic field gradient in the $z$ direction ( $B_{0}$, the quantization axis, and the electric field $E$ are along $z$). Now consider roughly circular orbits, due to specular reflection around the bottle at a constant angle, in the $x-y$ plane with radius approximately the bottle radius $R$. The wall collisions occur at a frequency $1\//\tau_{c}$ while the orbital frequency is $\omega_{r}=2\alpha/\tau_{c}$ where $\alpha$ is the incidence angle relative to the surface. We can transform into a rotating frame at $\omega_{r}$ (note that this is not the Schwinger rotating frame that eliminates $B_{0}$) so that the problem is quasi-static [@Ramsey].
The radial field, with the barrel gradient plus $v\times E$ field, is $$B_{R}=B_{r}\pm B_{E}=aR\pm{\frac{\omega_{r}RE}{c}}$$ where $B_{r}(r)=\left( r/2\right) \partial B_{z}/\partial z=ar$ is the radial field due to the axial gradient, and $\pm B_{E}=r\omega_{r}E/c$ is the radially directed $v\times E$ field and the $\pm$ refer to the rotation direction.
In the rotating frame, $$B^{2}=(B_{0}-\omega_{r}/\gamma)^{2}+(B_{R})^{2}$$ where $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio. Expanding in the limit where $B_{R}<<B_{0}$ with transformation back to the lab frame we find $$B=B_{0}+{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{(aR-\omega_{r}RE/c)^{2}}{B_{0}-\omega_{r}/\gamma}}=B_{0}-{\frac{(aR^{2}\omega_{r}E/c)}{B_{0}-\omega_{r}/\gamma}}$$ keeping only terms linear in $B_{E}.$ Averaging over rotation direction (e.g., the sign of $\omega_{r}$, the net effect of the gradient field combined with a $v\times E$ yields a systematic (magnetic field) shift of$$\delta\omega=\gamma\delta B=-{\frac{\gamma^{2}av^{2}E}{c\left( \omega_{0}^{2}-\omega_{r}^{2}\right) }} \label{BS}$$ equivalent to Eq. (18) of [@JMP]. Taking the limit $\omega_{r}/\gamma\ll
B_{0}$ we have $$\delta B=-{\frac{aR^{2}\omega_{r}^{2}E}{\gamma cB_{0}^{2}}},\quad\delta
\omega=-{\frac{aR^{2}\omega_{r}^{2}E}{cB_{0}^{2}}} \label{1}$$ where which would seem to set the scale of the effect and is equivalent to Eq. (19) of [@JMP]. In this limit, the frequency shift does not depend on $\gamma$, implying that it is the result of a geometric effect.
In the other limit, where the rotation frequency is much faster than the Larmor frequency, we similarly find that $$\delta B=\gamma aR^{2}E/c,\quad\delta\omega=\gamma^{2}aR^{2}E/c \label{2}$$ which is independent of the motional frequency $\omega_{r}$ of opposite sign from the previous limit and equivalent to Eq. (21) of [@JMP].
Frequency shift due to fluctuating fields in the x-y plane
=============================================================
\[densmatr\]Density matrix approach to the problem
--------------------------------------------------
The issues of the effects of a weak fluctuating potential on the evolution of the density matrix have been well-addressed in the literature. However, these treatments generally assume that the perturbing potential has a short correlation time, and certain assumptions regarding averaging are not applicable to our problem. The effect of a static electric field $E$ by itself was treated in [@lam] where the $E^{2}$ effect was related to the correlation time, and requirements on the field reversal accuracy were discussed.
So we therefore start from the beginning, following [@Abragam] (p. 276).
The radial gradient and $v\times E$ fields can be treated as weak fluctuating perturbing fields $B_{x,y}(t)$ in the $x-y$ plane, with a constant $B_{0}$ applied along $z$. The perturbing fields $B_{x,y}^{\prime}(t)$ can be written as $$B_{x}^{\prime}(t)=B_{x}(t)-\langle B_{x}(t)\rangle;\ \ \ \ \ B_{y}^{\prime
}(t)=B_{y}(t)+\langle B_{y}(t)\rangle$$ where $\langle....\rangle$ represents a time average of $B_{x,y}(t)$. The constant component of the perturbing field are added to $B_{0}$, $$B_{0}^{\prime}=\sqrt{(B_{0})^{2}+\langle B_{x}(t)\rangle^{2}+\langle
B_{y}(t)\rangle^{2}}$$ leaving the perturbing fields with averages of zero. We define $$\omega_{0}=\gamma B_{0}^{\prime};\ \ \ \ \omega_{x,y}(t)=\gamma B_{x,y}^{\prime}(t).$$
The Hamiltonian is thus $$H=-{\frac{\omega_{0}}{2}}\sigma_{z}-{\frac{\omega_{x}}{2}}\sigma
_{x}-{\frac{\omega_{y}}{2}}\sigma_{y}=H_{0}+H_{1}(t).$$
Defining $$2b=\omega_{x}+i\omega_{y};\ \ \ \ 2b^{\ast}=\omega_{x}-i\omega_{y}$$ the perturbing Hamiltonian can be rewritten as $$H_{1}(t)=b^{\ast}\sigma_{+}+b\sigma_{-}$$ where $\sigma_{\pm}$ are defined in the appendix, and it is understood that $b$ is intrinsically time-dependent. Furthermore, the density matrix can be expanded in the spherical Pauli basis, $$\rho=1+\rho_{1,0}\sigma_{z}+\rho_{1,1}\sigma_{+}+\rho_{1,-1}\sigma_{-}
\label{densexpan}$$ where $\rho_{11}=\rho_{1-1}^{\ast}$.
The time evolution of the density matrix is $${\frac{d\rho}{dt}}=-i[H_{0}+H_{1}(t),\rho].$$ The explicit dependence on the constant $H_{0}$ can be eliminated by transforming to the rotating frame (also called the interaction representation), with $$H_{1}(t)\rightarrow e^{iH_{0}t}H_{1}(t)e^{-iH_{0} t};\ \ \ \rho\rightarrow
e^{iH_{0}t}\rho e^{-iH_{0} t}$$ where $$e^{iH_{0}t}= \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}e^{-i\omega_{0}t/2} & 0\\
0 & e^{i\omega_{0} t/2}\end{array}
\right)$$ We henceforth will work in the rotating frame, with $$H_{1}(t)=e^{-i\omega_{0} t} b^{\ast}\sigma_{+} + e^{i\omega_{0} t}\sigma_{-}.$$
The time evolution of the density matrix in the rotating frame is $${\frac{d\rho}{dt}}=-i[H_{1}(t),\rho]$$ which can be integrated by successive approximations to $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(t) & =\rho(0)-i\int_{0}^{t}[H_{1}(t^{\prime}),\rho(0)]dt^{\prime
}\nonumber\\
& -\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime}\int_{0}^{t^{\prime}}dt^{\prime\prime}[H_{1}(t^{\prime}),[H_{1}(t^{\prime\prime}),\rho(0)]].\end{aligned}$$ We are interested in the relaxation rates and frequency shifts due to the perturbing fields, which can be found through the time derivative of $\rho$, which by introducing a new variable $\tau=t-t^{\prime\prime}$, is $${\frac{d\rho}{dt}}=-i[H_{1}(t),\rho(0)]-\int_{0}^{t}d\tau\lbrack
H_{1}(t),[H_{1}(t-\tau),\rho(0)]].$$ The first term on the r.h.s has an ensemble average of zero; furthermore, there is no correlation between $\rho$ and the fluctuating Hamiltonian (e.g., phases of the neutrons have no explicit spatial dependence, and $H_{1}(t)$ is different for every neutron in the system). In addition, if we assume the perturbation is weak, $\rho(0)$ can be replaced by $\rho(t)$ which introduces errors below second order.
We then have $${\frac{d\rho}{dt}}=-\int_{0}^{t}d\tau[{{{{{{H_{1}(t),[H_{1}(t-\tau),\rho(t)]}}}}}}]\equiv\Gamma\rho(t)$$ where $\Gamma$ is the “relaxation matrix”, the real parts of which describe decays of coherence, and the imaginary parts of the off-diagonal elements describe frequency shifts.
Using the relations in Appendix A together with the expansion of the density matrix Eq. (\[densexpan\]), the time-derivative of $\rho$, correct to second-order and neglecting $2\omega_{0}$ terms, is $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}_{1,-1} & =-\rho_{1,-1}\int_{0}^{t}2e^{i\omega_{0}\tau}b^{\ast
}b^{\prime}d\tau\\
\dot{\rho}_{1,1} & =-\rho_{1,1}\int_{0}^{t}2e^{-i\omega_{0}\tau}bb^{\prime
}{}^{\ast}d\tau\\
\dot{\rho}_{1,0} & =-\rho_{1,0}\int_{0}^{t}4\mathrm{Re}\left[
e^{i\omega_{0}t}b^{\prime}{}^{\ast}b\right] d\tau\end{aligned}$$ where $$2b=\omega_{x}(t)+i\omega_{y}(t);\ \ \ \ 2b^{\prime}=\omega_{x}(t-\tau
)+i\omega_{y}(t-\tau).$$ These equations describe both frequency shifts and relaxations of the density matrix. We are at present most interested in frequency shift, which is given by the difference in the off-diagonal components of $\Gamma$. Expanding $b$ and $b^{\prime}$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\delta\omega(t)} & =-{\frac{1}{2}}\int_{0}^{t}\big[ \cos\omega_{0}\tau\left( \omega_{x}(t)\omega_{y}(t-\tau)-\omega_{x}(t-\tau)\omega
_{y}(t)\right) \nonumber\label{devolv}\\
& +\sin\omega_{0}\tau\left( \omega_{x}(t)\omega_{x}(t-\tau)+\omega
_{y}(t)\omega_{y}(t-\tau)\right) \big] d\tau.\end{aligned}$$ This is the general solution for the frequency shift given an arbitrary perturbing field. An ensemble average must be taken.
The identical result is obtained with appropriate $\left( \omega_{x,y},\delta\omega\ll\omega_{o}\right) $ approximations from the Bloch equation in the form given in Eqs. (46) and (47) of [@JMP]. This is quite interesting given the different assumptions made in the two approaches.
Now $\omega_{x}=ax+bv_{y},\omega_{y}=ay-bv_{x}$ where $$\begin{aligned}
a & =\frac{\gamma}{2}\frac{\partial B_{z}}{\partial z}\\
b & =\gamma\frac{E}{c}$$ with $\gamma$ the gyromagnetic ratio and it is clear that only the cross-terms $\omega_{x}\omega_{y}$ will result in a non-zero linear E $\left( \varpropto
b\right) $ shift, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\omega & =-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{t}d\tau\left( \cos\omega_{o}\tau\right) \left\{ \left\langle \omega_{x}\left( t\right) \omega
_{y}\left( t-\tau\right) \right\rangle -\left\langle \omega_{x}\left(
t-\tau\right) \omega_{y}\left( t\right) \right\rangle \right\}
\label{skl22}\\
& =\frac{ab}{2}\int_{0}^{t}d\tau\left( \cos\omega_{o}\tau\right) R\left(
\tau\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$R(\tau)=\Big\langle y(t)v_{y}(t-\tau)+x(t)v_{x}(t-\tau)-y(t-\tau
)v_{y}(t)-x(t-\tau)v_{x}(t)\Big\rangle \label{RT}$$ is the net correlation function, where $\langle...\rangle$ represents an ensemble and time average.
General solution for a radial magnetic field plus vxE
-----------------------------------------------------
According to (\[skl22\]) the frequency shift is proportional to the Fourier transform of the correlation function $R\left( \tau\right) ,$ between $\left( y,v_{y}\right) $ and $\left( x,v_{x}\right) $ evaluated at the Larmor frequency, $\omega_{0}$. However this can be written in terms of the velocity autocorrelation function as follows:$$\begin{aligned}
y(t) & =y_{o}+\int_{0}^{t}v_{y}\left( t^{\prime}\right) dt^{\prime
}\nonumber\\
y(t-\tau) & =y_{o}+\int_{0}^{t-\tau}v_{y}\left( t^{\prime}\right)
dt^{\prime}$$ Since there are no correlations between $y_{o}$ and $v_{y}$ the $y$ terms in (\[RT\]) are$$\begin{aligned}
A & =y(t)v_{y}(t-\tau)=\int_{0}^{t}\left\langle v_{y}\left( t^{\prime
}\right) v_{y}(t-\tau)\right\rangle dt^{\prime}\\
B & =y(t-\tau)v_{y}(t)=\int_{0}^{t-\tau}\left\langle v_{y}\left( t^{\prime
}\right) v_{y}(t)\right\rangle dt^{\prime}\\
R_{y}\left( \tau\right) & =A-B=\nonumber\\
& =\left( \int_{0}^{t}\left\langle v_{y}\left( t^{\prime}\right)
v_{y}(t-\tau)\right\rangle dt^{\prime}-\int_{0}^{t-\tau}\left\langle
v_{y}\left( t^{\prime}\right) v_{y}(t)\right\rangle dt^{\prime}\right)
\left( ab\right) \\
& =\int_{\tau-t}^{\tau}dx\psi\left( x\right) -\int_{\tau}^{t}dx\psi\left(
x\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi\left( x\right) $ is the velocity autocorrelation function and we used the fact that it is an even function of $x$. Repeating the same argument for the $x$ axis we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi\left( \tau\right) & =\left\langle v_{y}\left( t\right) v_{y}(t-\tau)+v_{x}\left( t\right) v_{x}(t-\tau)\right\rangle \\
& =\left\langle \overrightarrow{v}_{xy}\left( t\right) \cdot\overrightarrow
{v}_{xy}(t-\tau)\right\rangle\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}
R\left( \tau\right) & =\int_{\tau-t}^{\tau}dx\psi\left( x\right)
-\int_{\tau}^{t}dx\psi\left( x\right) \\
& =2h\left( \tau\right) -h\left( t-\tau\right) -h\left( t\right)
\label{res2a}\\
& =2h\left( \tau\right)\end{aligned}$$$$h\left( \tau\right) =\int_{0}^{\tau}dx\psi\left( x\right)$$ and we consider only cases where $\psi\left( x\right) \rightarrow0$ as $x\rightarrow\infty$ so that we can take the limit $t\rightarrow\infty$ in Eq. (\[res2a\]) and we note that a constant term in $R$ will not have any effect on (\[skl22\]) contributing only a term $\propto\delta\left( \omega
_{o}\right) =0.$
According to (\[skl22\]) we need the cosine Fourier transform of $R\left(
\tau\right) $. This will involve $1/\omega$ times the FT of $\psi\left(
x\right) $ which in turn is proportional to $\omega^{2}$ times the FT of the position correlation function as we shall see. Substituting (\[res2a\]) into (\[skl22\]) we have
$$\delta\omega=ab\int_{0}^{t}d\tau\left( \cos\omega_{o}\tau\right) h\left(
\tau\right) \label{ab1}$$
$\allowbreak$
Writing the velocity correlation function as $$\psi(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\cos\omega t\psi\left( \omega\right)
d\omega\label{corr}$$ we have$$h\left( \tau\right) =\int_{0}^{\tau}\psi(t)dt=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi(\omega)\left( \frac{\sin\omega\tau-1}{\omega}\right) d\omega
\label{intpsi}$$ so that according to (\[ab1\]) the frequency shift is given by (dropping the time independent term)$$\begin{aligned}
\delta\omega & =ab\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\int_{0}^{t}d\tau\cos\omega_{o}\tau\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi(\omega
)\frac{\sin\omega\tau}{\omega}d\omega
\end{array}
\right] \nonumber\\
\delta\omega & =-ab\begin{array}
[c]{c}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\psi(\omega)}{\left( \omega_{o}^{2}-\omega
^{2}\right) }d\omega
\end{array}
\label{res3}$$ The equation (\[res3\]) represents the general solution to our problem which is simply the single frequency B-S result (Eq. \[BS\], [@JMP] Eq. (18)) summed over the frequency spectrum of the velocity autocorrelation function plus oscillating terms (omitted) that don’t contribute as long as $\psi\left( x\right) \rightarrow0$ as $x\rightarrow\infty$.
### Example: Particle in circular orbit
For a particle in an hypothetical circular orbit with orbital frequency $\omega_{r}\neq\omega_{o}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(\tau) & =v_{xy}^{2}\cos\omega_{r}\tau\nonumber\\
\psi(\omega) & =v_{xy}^{2}\delta\left( \omega-\omega_{r}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and substituting in (\[res3\])$$\begin{aligned}
\delta\omega & =-ab\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}v_{xy}^{2}\delta\left(
\omega-\omega_{r}\right) \frac{1}{\omega_{o}^{2}-\omega^{2}}d\omega
+oscillating\text{ }terms\nonumber\\
& =-\frac{abv_{xy}^{2}}{\omega_{o}^{2}-\omega_{r}^{2}}$$ in agreement with (\[BS\] and Eq. (18) of [@JMP]) and valid for the case when $\left( \omega_{o}-\omega_{r}\right) >\omega_{x,y}$.
Numerical calculations of the frequency shift
=============================================
Numerical estimations of the correlation function {#numerical}
-------------------------------------------------
The problem of the neutron EDM experiment with a $^{199}$Hg comagnetometer subject to a time-varying $v\times E$ field in combination with a spatially-varying magnetic field is described in [@JMP] and in the Introduction. We assume a cylindrical volume with radial field $\overrightarrow{B}(r)=a^{\prime}r\hat{r}$. The electric field is constant everywhere and along the $\hat{z}$ direction. Assuming a constant velocity $v
$, the $v\times E$ field is then fluctuating in direction but of spatially uniform magnitude.
A numerical calculation of the correlation function was performed for the two-dimensional case (UCN or Hg at a fixed $z$, moving only in $x-y$ plane). This problem can be parameterized in terms of the time between collisions $\tau_{c}=\lambda/v$, where the mean free path between collisions is $\lambda$ and the average velocity is $v$. For the numerical calculations, $v$ is assumed constant. Time can be parameterized in dimensionless units, $\tau
/\tau_{c}$. The correlation function was calculated by statistically choosing a propagation distance for a fixed velocity direction, and taking time steps of $0.025$, after which a new random velocity direction was chosen. Various degrees of specularity, parameterized by $\Delta\theta$ for the statistical degree of angular change for reflection from the bottle surface, were considered.
Results of a two-dimensional Monte Carlo calculation are shown in Figure 1. Taking $\lambda=1$ and fixed, we see the effect of wall collisions as the bottle radius approaches $\lambda$. We see in Fig. 1 that in all cases $R(\tau)$ initially increases linearly. The effect of the wall collisions when $R>\lambda$ is to limit the distance that the random walk can take, and this appears as an exponential decay in $R\left( \tau\right) $ at long times. This effect does not depend on the specularity of the wall collisions and is best seen as an effect on the whole ensemble of particles which can be described by classical diffusion theory. In this limit, the correlation function is well-described by $$R(\tau)=(1-e^{-\tau/\tau_{c}})e^{-\tau/T} \label{bigg}$$ where, from analysis of the plots, $$T\approx{\frac{0.6R^{2}}{\lambda v}}. \label{tdiff}$$
In the other limit, $R<\lambda$, $R(\tau)$ oscillates with frequency $$\omega\approx{\frac{2\pi v}{5.2R}} \label{omega}$$ and $$R(\tau)=e^{-\tau/T}\sin\omega\tau\label{small}$$ where $T$ depends on $\Delta\theta$, but is typically of order $2\pi/\omega$.
The frequency shift is determined by Eq. (\[skl22\]) and in the case of large $R$ we find ($\tau_{c}<<T$), using Eq. (\[tdiff\]) $$\delta\omega={\frac{abR^{2}}{T^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}+1}}={\frac{abR^{2}}{1+(0.6R^{2}\omega_{0}/v\lambda)^{2}}}.$$ These results are in good agreement with [@JMP], Fig. 10, for which $4/2\pi\approx0.634$ replaces the factor $0.6$ above and with Eq. (\[oond\]) below.
Additional insight can be gained by considering the effects of varying $\lambda$ keeping $R$ fixed, as shown in Fig. 2 for very small $\lambda$. In this limit, the horizontal axis is multiplied by $\lambda/R$ to define time proportional to $R/v$. The correlation amplitude function is proportional to $\lambda v$ and the decaying exponential time constant is $$T\propto{\frac{R^{2}}{\lambda v}}.$$ The time to reach the peak value is $$\tau_{0}\propto\lambda^{2}/Rv$$ which approaches zero as $R\rightarrow\infty$.
This limit is further discussed in Sec. 4.1, and the frequency shift in this case is in general agreement with Fig. 10 of [@JMP].
The curves for large (relative to $R$) $\lambda$ in figure 1 show damped oscillations whose damping depends on the angular spread of the wall collisions. This is a manifestation of the resonance behavior discussed in ref. [@JMP] for the case of perfectly specular wall collisions. Here we see the damping due to non-specular reflections.
Numerical estimations of the frequency shift for all values of $\omega_{o}/\omega_{r}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Eq. (\[ab1\]), and the results of the previous section, the cosine transform of the numerically-determined correlation function can be calculated numerically. In order to reduce oscillations due to the finite time window, a Hamming window function was applied to the correlation function, and a slight correction due to the frequency dependent gain as imposed by the window function was applied. The results, as a function of mean free path $\lambda$ at fixed radius $R$, for specular and purely diffuse wall reflection, are shown in Fig. 3.
There are a few points worth noting. First, the curves for large $\lambda$ in the specular case are very similar to the Bloch-Siegert result. Second, at small and large frequencies, the results agree with the numerical semi-analytically determined results presented above, and in [@JMP] and the theoretical analysis below. Third, the behavior at intermediate frequencies is seen to be very interesting: The shift goes to zero for $\omega_{o}/\omega_{r}\sim1$ as it must because the effect changes sign between large and small frequencies.
Furthermore, it can be seen immediately that the effects of wall collision specularity is important when $\omega_{o}\approx\omega_{r}$, in contradiction to the statement in [@JMP] that the degree of specularity does not affect the frequency shift. We discuss this point later in more detail (Sec. IV).
Analytical results for the limiting cases of large and small frequencies $(\omega_{o}/\omega_{r}\gg1,\omega_{o}/\omega_{r}\ll1)$
================================================================================================================================
Equation (\[res3\] ) represents the formal solution of the problem in all cases of interest here. Thus the frequency shift is determined entirely by the velocity auto-correlation function of the particles undergoing magnetic resonance. This function has been the subject of intense experimental and theoretical study ([@Egelstaff; @Lovesey; @squires]). In our case, involving macroscopic distances and times, it suffices to treat the motion classically. For relatively short times if the particles undergo collisions which are distributed according to a Poisson distribution with average time between collisions given by $\tau_{c}$, the velocity correlation function is well known to be given by$$\psi\left( t\right) =\left\langle v^{2}\right\rangle e^{-t/\tau_{c}}
\label{exp}$$
This form is known to be valid for relatively short times. According to Eq. (\[ab1\]) the frequency shift depends on the Fourier transform of the integral of the velocity correlation function evaluated at $\omega_{o}$. So the short time behavior of $\psi\left( t\right) $ determines the high frequency behavior of $\psi\left( \omega\right) $, and the result using this form is expected be valid in the case of large $\omega_{o}$, i.e. $\omega
_{o}\gg\omega_{r}$.
For longer times the velocity correlation function is well described by classical diffusion theory. Thus the long time behavior will determine the low frequency region of the velocity spectrum and the result will apply to the case $\omega_{o}\ll\omega_{r}$. In this region the result will depend on the size of the containing vessel as the dynamics of the diffusion process are influenced by the boundary conditions.
Short correlation times ($\omega_{r}\ll\omega_{o} $)
----------------------------------------------------
Using (\[exp\]) we have$$\psi\left( \omega\right) =\frac{1}{\pi}\left\langle v^{2}\right\rangle
\int_{0}^{\infty}\cos\omega te^{-t/\tau}dt=\frac{1}{\pi}\left\langle
v^{2}\right\rangle \frac{1}{\tau\left( \omega^{2}+\frac{1}{\tau^{2}}\right)
}$$ so that according to (\[res3\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\omega & =-ab\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\psi(\omega)}{\left(
\omega_{o}^{2}-\omega^{2}\right) }d\omega\\
& =ab\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\left\langle v^{2}\right\rangle }{\tau}\int_{-\infty
}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\left( \omega^{2}+\frac{1}{\tau^{2}}\right) \left(
\omega^{2}-\omega_{o}^{2}\right) }d\omega\\
& =-ab\frac{\left\langle v^{2}\right\rangle }{\omega_{o}^{2}}\frac{1}{\left(
1+\frac{1}{\omega_{o}^{2}\tau^{2}}\right) } \label{aaa}$$ This is in substantial agreement with the expression given in the caption of [@JMP] Fig. 12 when it is taken with [@JMP] Eq. (19) or (\[2\]) applicable to the case when $\omega_{r}\ll\omega_{o}$. It is quite likely that the small discrepancy ($\sim10\%$) in the 50% suppression point is due to the process of averaging over the velocity distribution in [@JMP] Fig. 12.
$\allowbreak$
\[theorem\]Diffusion theory calculation of the long time behavior of the velocity correlation function. Frequency shifts for ($\omega_{r}\gg\omega_{o}$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas the previous case applies to UCN this case would apply to atoms used as a comagnetometer and is more relevant experimentally as it results in larger shifts [@JMP] and in some cases [@RPPedm] the collision rate can be simply adjusted by changing the experimental conditions.
In the following we review the solution of the diffusion equation in cylindrical geometry, obtain the velocity autocorrelation function from the solution and calculate the frequency shift. In the limit of small collision rate the result agrees with the known results for ($\omega_{r}\gg\omega_{o}$) and the effect of the collisions agrees with that found from numerical simulations ([@JMP] Fig. 10)
### Green’s function for the diffusion equation in cylindrical geometry
In this section we attempt to understand the effects of the vessel boundary on the velocity autocorrelation function, observed in the numerical simulations (section \[numerical\]), by applying classical diffusion theory to the problem. Diffusion theory is expected to be valid for long times so that we expect the results to be valid for small $\omega_{o}$, i.e. $\omega_{o}\ll\omega_{r}$. $$\begin{aligned}
D\nabla^{2}\rho-\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t} & =0\nonumber\\
\rho & =u_{k}(r)e^{-Dk^{2}t}\nonumber\\
\nabla^{2}u+k^{2}u & =0\end{aligned}$$
We consider a two dimensional problem, that is we neglect any $z$ dependence $\left( k_{z}=0\right) .$ For the cases considered in [@JMP] where the height of the bottle is much smaller than the radius higher $z$ modes will decay relatively quickly.
The boundary condition is $j\left( R\right) =-D\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
r}=0$ so the eigenfunctions satisfying the boundary conditions are$$\begin{aligned}
u_{m,n} & =N_{m,n}J_{m}(k_{m,n}r)e^{im\theta}\\
k_{m,n}R & =x_{m,n}^{\prime}\text{ (}n^{th}\text{ zero of }dJ_{m}(z)/dz\text{)}$$ where the normalization constant (which depends on the boundary conditions) is ([@Sommerfeld], p 322)$$N_{m,n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}J_{m}(k_{m,n}R)}\sqrt{\frac{2k_{m,n}^{2}}{\left(
k_{m,n}R\right) ^{2}-m^{2}}} \label{norm}$$
The Greens’ function satisfying the boundary conditions is [@morsefesh]$$G(r,r^{\prime},t)=\sum_{m,n}\left( N_{m,n}\right) ^{2}J_{m}(k_{m,n}r)J_{m}(k_{m,n}r^{\prime})e^{im\left( \theta-\theta^{\prime}\right)
}e^{-Dk_{m,n}^{2}t} \label{green}$$ This is the probability of finding a particle at $\overrightarrow{r}$ at time $t$, given that the particle was at $\overrightarrow{r}^{\prime}$ at time $t=0$. The spectrum of the velocity correlation function is related to $S\left( \overrightarrow{q},\omega\right) $ which in turn is the average over the system of the Fourier transform of this probability with respect to $\rho=\left( r-r^{\prime}\right) $. We use the cosine transform because we want the cosine transform of the velocity correlation function (\[corr\])* *$\psi\left( \omega\right) $. $$\begin{aligned}
S(q,\omega) & =\frac{1}{\pi}\left\langle \int d^{2}\rho e^{i\overrightarrow
{q}\cdot\overrightarrow{\rho}}\int_{0}^{\infty}dt\cos\omega tG(r,r^{\prime
},t)\right\rangle \\
& =\frac{1}{\pi}\int\int\frac{d^{2}r^{\prime}}{\pi R^{2}}d^{2}\rho
e^{i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\overrightarrow{\rho}}\int_{0}^{\infty}dt\cos\omega
tG(r,r^{\prime},t)\\
& =\frac{1}{\pi^{2}R^{2}}\sum_{m,n}\left( N_{m,n}\right) ^{2}\int
d^{2}re^{i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\overrightarrow{r}}J_{m}(k_{m,n}r)e^{im\theta}\times\\
& \int d^{2}r^{\prime}e^{-i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\overrightarrow{r}^{\prime
}}J_{m}(k_{m,n}r^{\prime})e^{-im\theta^{\prime}}\frac{Dk_{m,n}^{2}}{\omega
^{2}+\left( Dk_{m,n}^{2}\right) ^{2}}$$ Now we can evaluate the integrals using $$J_{m}\left( x\right) =\frac{\left( -i\right) ^{m}}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi
}e^{i\left( x\cos\theta+m\theta\right) }d\theta$$ and Bessel function identities $$\begin{aligned}
\int d^{2}re^{i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\overrightarrow{r}}J_{m}(k_{m,n}r)e^{im\theta} & =\frac{2\pi\left( i\right) ^{\pm m}}{\left(
q^{2}-k_{m,n}^{2}\right) }\frac{qR}{2}J_{m}(k_{m,n}R)\times\\
& \left[ J_{m-1}(qR)-J_{m+1}(qR)\right]\end{aligned}$$
thus$$\begin{aligned}
S(q,\omega) & =\frac{2}{\pi^{3}R^{2}}\sum_{m,n}..\\
& \frac{k_{m,n}^{2}}{\left( \left( k_{m,n}R\right) ^{2}-m^{2}\right)
}\left( \frac{2\pi}{\left( q^{2}-k_{m,n}^{2}\right) }\frac{qR}{2}\left[
J_{m-1}(qR)-J_{m+1}(qR)\right] \right) ^{2}\frac{Dk_{m,n}^{2}}{\left(
\omega^{2}+\left( Dk_{m,n}^{2}\right) ^{2}\right) } \label{4b}$$
### Velocity autocorrelation function
The velocity autocorrelation function $$\psi(\tau)=\left\langle \overrightarrow{v}\left( 0\right) \cdot
\overrightarrow{v}\left( \tau\right) \right\rangle$$ has a Fourier transform given by ([@degenn])$$\psi\left( \omega\right) =\lim_{q\rightarrow0}2\left( \frac{\omega}{q}\right) ^{2}S(q,\omega) \label{THeorem}$$ so that the only terms in (\[4b\]) which contribute are those containing $J_{0}\left( qR\right) $, since $\lim_{x\rightarrow0}J_{n}\left( x\right)
\thicksim\left( x\right) ^{n}$, $J_{0}\left( 0\right) =1.$ Thus we only need to keep terms with $m=\pm1$ in (\[4b\]) and we find $$\lim_{q\rightarrow0}S(q,\omega)=\frac{2q^{2}}{\pi\left( \left(
k_{1,n}R\right) ^{2}-1\right) }\frac{D}{\left( \omega^{2}+\left(
Dk_{1,n}^{2}\right) ^{2}\right) }$$
Then$$\psi\left( \omega\right) =\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{n}\frac{4}{\left( x_{1,n}^{2}-1\right) }\frac{D\omega^{2}}{\left( \omega^{2}+\left( Dk_{1,n}^{2}\right) ^{2}\right) } \label{psi(W)}$$
### Frequency shift in the diffusion approximation (cylindrical geometry)
According to (\[res3\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\omega & =-ab\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi(\omega)\frac{1}{\omega_{o}^{2}-\omega^{2}}d\omega\\
& =abR^{2}\sum_{n}\frac{4}{\left( x_{1,n}^{2}-1\right) }\frac{1}{x_{1,n}^{2}\left( \left( \frac{\omega_{o}R^{2}}{Dx_{1,n}^{2}}\right)
^{2}+1\right) } \label{big}$$
The result (\[big\]) is dominated by the first mode $x_{1,1}=1.84$. Figure 3 shows the first term in comparison to the sum of the first 4 terms. For convenience we list the zeroes of $J_{1}^{\prime}(x)$: $x_{1,2}=5.33,x_{1,3}=8.54,x_{1,4}=11.7$. Since we are dealing with a 2 dimensional problem we put$$D=v^{2}\tau/2$$ (instead of $\tau v^{2}/3$ for 3 dimensions) in order to facilitate the comparison with the numerical simulations [@JMP] and obtain for the condition that the frequency shift is reduced to 50% of its value in the absence of collisions$$\eta=\frac{\omega_{o}R^{2}}{Dx_{1,n}^{2}}=\frac{2\omega_{o}R^{2}}{v^{2}\tau
x_{1,n}^{2}}=.59\frac{\omega_{o}R^{2}}{v^{2}\tau}=1 \label{oond}$$ the numerical factor of which is to be compared with $\frac{2}{\pi}=.634$ obtained in \[[@JMP]\], fig. 10 by fitting simulated results, and our numerical result of $0.6$ presented in Sec. \[numerical\]. The magnitude $abR^{2}/2$ of (\[big\]) in the absence of collisions is just that expected from the Bloch-Siegert treatment in the case $\omega_{r}\gg\omega_{o}$ (Eq. (\[2\]), [@JMP] Eq. (21))$,$ averaged over the different trajectories as discussed in [@JMP] after equation (22).
### Frequency shift in the diffusion approximation (rectangular geometry)
For the rectangular case the normalized eigenfunctions are$$u_{m,n}\left( x,y\right) =\sqrt{\frac{2}{L_{x}}}\cos\frac{m\pi}{L_{x}}x\sqrt{\frac{2}{L_{y}}}\cos\frac{m\pi}{L_{y}}y$$ which satisfy the reflection boundary conditions at $x=0,L_{x}$ and $y=0,L_{y}$. For $n$ or $m=0$ the corresponding eigenfunctions are $$u_{0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L_{x,y}}}$$
so that the Green’s function is $$\begin{aligned}
G(x,x^{\prime},y,y^{\prime},t) & =\sum_{m,n=0}^{\infty}\left[
\frac{1}{L_{x}}+\frac{2}{L_{x}}\cos k_{m}x\cos k_{m}x^{\prime}e^{-Dk_{m}^{2}t}\right] \times\nonumber\\
& \left[ \frac{1}{L_{y}}+\frac{2}{L_{y}}\cos k_{n}x\cos k_{n}x^{\prime
}e^{-Dk_{n}^{2}t}\right]\end{aligned}$$ with $k_{m,n}=\left( m,n\right) \pi/L_{x,y}$. To calculate $\lim
_{q\rightarrow0}S\left( q,\omega\right) $ we need integrals of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\int_{0}^{L}e^{iq_{x}x}\cos k_{m}xdx & =\frac{q_{x}}{q_{x}^{2}-k_{m}^{2}}\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}q_{x}L_{x} & m=2,4,6..\\
\frac{-2}{i} & m=1,3,5..
\end{array}
\right\} \label{qqq}\\
& =\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}L_{x} & m=0
\end{array}
\right\}\end{aligned}$$ Since each of these will appear squared because of the contribution from the $x,x^{\prime}$ integrals we can only take the odd values of $m$. The even numbers will yield a higher power of $q$ which will vanish in the limit. Given this, if we take $m=1,3,5$ we must take $n=0$ and vice-versa. We calculate, using (\[qqq\])$$\begin{aligned}
& \lim_{q\rightarrow0}\left[ S\left( q,\omega\right) =\int dx\int
\frac{dx^{\prime}}{L_{x}}\int dy\int\frac{dy^{\prime}}{L_{y}}e^{i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\left( \overrightarrow{x}-\overrightarrow
{x}^{\prime}\right) }\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}dt\cos\omega tG\left(
\overrightarrow{x},\overrightarrow{x}^{\prime},t\right) \right] \\
& =q^{2}\frac{8}{2\pi}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\sum_{m=1,3,5..}\frac{1}{k_{m}^{2}\left( m\pi\right) ^{2}}\frac{Dk_{m}^{2}}{\omega^{2}+\left( Dk_{m}^{2}\right) ^{2}}+\\
\sum_{n=1,3,5..}\frac{1}{k_{n}^{2}\left( n\pi\right) ^{2}}\frac{Dk_{n}^{2}}{\omega^{2}+\left( Dk_{n}^{2}\right) ^{2}}\end{array}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ where we used $\left\langle q_{x}^{2}\right\rangle =\left\langle q_{y}^{2}\right\rangle =q^{2}/2$. Then$$\psi\left( \omega\right) =\frac{8\omega^{2}}{\pi}\left( \sum_{m=1,3,5..}\frac{1}{k_{m}^{2}\left( m\pi\right) ^{2}}\frac{Dk_{m}^{2}}{\omega
^{2}+\left( Dk_{m}^{2}\right) ^{2}}+\sum_{n=1,3,5..}\frac{1}{k_{n}^{2}\left( n\pi\right) ^{2}}\frac{Dk_{n}^{2}}{\omega^{2}+\left( Dk_{n}^{2}\right) ^{2}}\right)$$ and (using \[res3\])$$\begin{aligned}
\delta\omega & =-ab\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi(\omega)\frac{1}{\omega_{o}^{2}-\omega^{2}}d\omega\\
& =8ab\left( \sum_{m=1,3,5..}\frac{L_{x}^{2}}{\left( m\pi\right) ^{4}}\frac{1}{\left( \frac{\omega_{o}L_{x}^{2}}{D\left( m\pi\right) ^{2}}\right) ^{2}+1}+\sum_{n=1,3,5..}\frac{L_{y}^{2}}{\left( n\pi\right) ^{4}}\frac{1}{\left( \frac{\omega_{o}L_{y}^{2}}{D\left( n\pi\right) ^{2}}\right) ^{2}+1}\right)\end{aligned}$$ We thus see that in a rectangular box $L_{x}\neq L_{y}$ it is the longer side which dominates the behavior.
\[notheorem\]Diffusion theory calculation of the long time behavior of the velocity correlation function. Frequency shifts for ($\omega_{r}\gg\omega_{o}$) (Alternate caclulation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we derive the diffusion theory result for cylindrical geometry (\[big\]) using an alternate method based on that of Mcgregor [@McGregor] which avoids the use of the theorem (\[THeorem\]). We start with the Green’s function for cylindrical geometry given above (\[green\]) $$G(r,r^{\prime},t)=\sum_{m,n}\left( N_{m,n}\right) ^{2}J_{m}(k_{m,n}r)J_{m}(k_{m,n}r^{\prime})e^{im\left( \phi-\phi^{\prime}\right)
}e^{-Dk_{m,n}^{2}t}$$ This is the probability of finding a particle at $\overrightarrow{r}$ at time $t$, given that the particle was at $\overrightarrow{r}^{\prime}$ at time $t=0$.
### Position-velocity correlation function $R(\tau)$
From equ. (\[RT\]) we have$$\begin{aligned}
R(\tau) & =\left\langle y(t)v_{y}(t-\tau)+x(t)v_{x}(t-\tau)-y(t-\tau
)v_{y}(t)-x(t-\tau)v_{x}(t)\right\rangle \\
& =\left\langle \overrightarrow{r}(t)\cdot\overrightarrow{v}(t-\tau
)-\overrightarrow{r}(t-\tau)\cdot\overrightarrow{v}(t\right\rangle =\left|
\frac{d}{dt^{\prime}}\left\langle \overrightarrow{r}(t)\cdot\overrightarrow
{r}(t\prime)\right\rangle -\frac{d}{dt}\left\langle \overrightarrow{r}(t\prime)\cdot\overrightarrow{r}(t)\right\rangle \right| _{t^{\prime}=t-\tau}
\label{R=dr/dt}$$
Following McGregor [@McGregor] we write $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \overrightarrow{r}(t)\cdot\overrightarrow{r}(t\prime
)\right\rangle & =\int d^{2}r\int\frac{d^{2}r^{\prime}}{\pi R^{2}}G(r,r^{\prime},t-t^{\prime})\left\langle \overrightarrow{r}\cdot
\overrightarrow{r^{\prime}}\right\rangle \\
& =\frac{1}{\pi R^{2}}\sum_{m,n}\left( N_{m,n}\right) ^{2}\int rdrd\phi
J_{m}(k_{m,n}r)\int r^{\prime}dr^{\prime}d\phi^{\prime}J_{m}(k_{m,n}r^{\prime
})\times\\
& \times rr^{\prime}e^{im\left( \phi-\phi^{\prime}\right) }\left[ \cos
\phi\cos\phi^{\prime}+\sin\phi\sin\phi^{\prime}\right] e^{-Dk_{m,n}^{2}\left( t-t^{\prime}\right) }$$ Since $\left( N_{m,n}\right) ^{2}=\left( N_{-m,n}\right) ^{2}$ and $J_{-m}(z)=(-1)^{m}J_{m}(z),$ (\[norm\]) we can (excluding $m=0$, which will be seen not contribute to the result) combine the terms for $m$ and $-m$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \overrightarrow{r}(t)\cdot\overrightarrow{r}(t\prime
)\right\rangle & =\frac{1}{\pi R^{2}}\sum_{m>0,n}\left( N_{m,n}\right)
^{2}\int r^{2}drJ_{m}(k_{m,n}r)\int r^{\prime^{2}}dr^{\prime}J_{m}(k_{m,n}r^{\prime})\times\\
& \times\int d\phi\int d\phi^{\prime}\Xi(\phi,\phi^{\prime})e^{-Dk_{m,n}^{2}\left( t-t^{\prime}\right) }$$ where$$\begin{aligned}
\Xi(\phi,\phi^{\prime}) & =\left[ \cos\phi\cos\phi^{\prime}+\sin\phi
\sin\phi^{\prime}\right] 2\cos m\left( \phi-\phi^{\prime}\right) \\
& =2\left[ \cos\phi\cos\phi^{\prime}+\sin\phi\sin\phi^{\prime}\right]
\left[ \cos m\phi\cos m\phi^{\prime}+\sin m\phi\sin m\phi^{\prime}\right] \\
& =\frac{1}{2}\left( \cos\phi\cos m\phi\cos\phi^{\prime}\cos m\phi^{\prime
}+\sin\phi\sin m\phi\sin\phi^{\prime}\sin m\phi^{\prime}+\right. \\
& \left. +\sin\phi\cos m\phi\sin\phi^{\prime}\cos m\phi^{\prime}+\cos
\phi\sin m\phi\cos\phi^{\prime}\sin m\phi^{\prime}\right) \\
& =\frac{1}{2}\left[ \left( \cos\left( m-1\right) \phi+\cos\left(
m+1\right) \phi\right) \left( \cos\left( m-1\right) \phi^{\prime}+\cos\left( m+1\right) \phi^{\prime}\right) +\right. \\
& +\left( \cos\left( m-1\right) \phi-\cos\left( m+1\right) \phi\right)
\left( \cos\left( m-1\right) \phi^{\prime}-\cos\left( m+1\right)
\phi^{\prime}\right) +\\
& +\left( \sin\left( m-1\right) \phi-\sin\left( m+1\right) \phi\right)
\left( \sin\left( m-1\right) \phi^{\prime}-\sin\left( m+1\right)
\phi^{\prime}\right) +\\
& +\left( \sin\left( m-1\right) \phi+\sin\left( m+1\right) \phi\right)
\left( \sin\left( m-1\right) \phi^{\prime}+\sin\left( m+1\right)
\phi^{\prime}\right)\end{aligned}$$ using $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\phi\cos(m+1)\phi & =0\quad(m>0),\quad\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\phi\sin(m\pm1)\phi=0\\
\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\phi\cos(m-1)\phi & =2\pi\delta_{m1}$$ we have$$\int d\phi\int d\phi^{\prime}\Xi(\phi,\phi^{\prime})=\frac{\left(
2\pi\right) ^{2}}{2}2\delta_{m1}$$ so that$$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \overrightarrow{r}(t)\cdot\overrightarrow{r}(t\prime
)\right\rangle & =\frac{1}{\pi R^{2}}\left( 2\pi\right) ^{2}\sum
_{m>0,n}\delta_{m1}\left( N_{m,n}\right) ^{2}\int r^{2}drJ_{m}(k_{m,n}r)\int
r^{\prime^{2}}dr^{\prime}J_{m}(k_{m,n}r^{\prime})e^{-Dk_{m,n}^{2}\left(
t-t^{\prime}\right) }\\
& =\frac{4\pi}{R^{2}}\sum_{n}\left( N_{1,n}\right) ^{2}\int_{0}^{R}r^{2}drJ_{1}(k_{1,n}r)\int_{0}^{R}r^{\prime^{2}}dr^{\prime}J_{1}(k_{1,n}r^{\prime})e^{-Dk_{1,n}^{2}\left( t-t^{\prime}\right) }$$ Using$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\alpha}z^{n}dzJ_{n-1}(z) & =\left[ z^{n}J_{n}(z)\right]
_{0}^{\alpha}\\
J_{n}^{\prime}(z) & =\frac{n}{z}J_{n}(z)-J_{n+1}(z)\end{aligned}$$ we have$$\int_{0}^{R}r^{2}drJ_{1}(k_{1,n}r)=\frac{R^{3}}{\left( x_{1,n}^{\prime
}\right) ^{2}}J_{1}(x_{1,n}^{\prime})$$ Thus$$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \overrightarrow{r}(t)\cdot\overrightarrow{r}(t\prime
)\right\rangle & =\frac{4\pi}{R^{2}}\sum_{n}\left( N_{1,n}\right)
^{2}\frac{R^{6}}{\left( x_{1,n}^{\prime}\right) ^{4}}J_{1}^{2}(x_{1,n}^{\prime})e^{-Dk_{1,n}^{2}\left( t-t^{\prime}\right) }\\
& =4R^{2}\sum_{n}\frac{1}{\left( x_{1,n}^{\prime}\right) ^{2}\left(
\left( x_{1,n}^{\prime}\right) ^{2}-1\right) }e^{-Dk_{1,n}^{2}\left(
t-t^{\prime}\right) }\\
& =\sum_{n}\eta_{n}e^{-Dk_{1,n}^{2}\left( t-t^{\prime}\right) }$$ and$$R\left( \tau\right) =2\sum_{n}\eta_{n}Dk_{1,n}^{2}e^{-Dk_{1,n}^{2}\tau}$$ using (\[R=dr/dt\]). Then according to (\[skl22\])$$\begin{aligned}
\delta\omega & =\frac{ab}{2}\int_{0}^{t}d\tau\left( \cos\omega_{o}\tau\right) R\left( \tau\right) \\
& =ab\int_{0}^{t}d\tau\left( \cos\omega_{o}\tau\right) \sum_{n}\eta
_{n}Dk_{1,n}^{2}e^{-Dk_{1,n}^{2}\tau}\\
& =4abR^{2}\sum_{n}\frac{1}{\left( x_{1,n}^{\prime}\right) ^{2}\left[
\left( x_{1,n}^{\prime}\right) ^{2}-1\right] }\frac{1}{\left[ \left(
\frac{\omega_{o}R^{2}}{Dx_{1,n}^{\prime2}}\right) ^{2}+1\right] }
\label{biggie}$$ in complete agreement with equation (\[big\]).
Application: $^{3}$He Comagnetometer
------------------------------------
In [@RPPedm] the use of $^{3}$He as a comagnetometer for a UCN neutron EDM experiment is discussed. This system is rather unique in that an effective background gas (phonons) can be introduced which affects the $^{3}$He significantly while having no substantial interaction with the UCN for temperatures below 0.5 K. Because the $^{3}$He and neutron magnetic moments are equal to within 10%, it is possible to control this systematic by varying the size of the effect for $^{3}$He by changing the diffusion rate of the $^{3}$He.
The UCN upscattering lifetime varies as $100T^{-7}$ s for $T<0.7$ K, while the coefficient of diffusion for $^{3}$He in a superfluid helium bath varies as $D\approx1.6T^{-7}$ cm$^{2}$/s [@diffusion].
In connection with (\[oond\]) this yields $\eta=1$ when the superfluid helium temperature is $T\approx0.25$ K, (R=25cm), which determines the temperature scale where the effect can be varied, and is within the design range of operating temperature for the planned experiment, compatible with a UCN upscattering lifetime in excess of 1000 s.
Discussion
==========
One of the surprising, but unexplained results of [@JMP] was that according to their numerical simulations, wall collisions had no influence on the magnitude of the frequency shifts while gas collisions could eliminate the frequency shifts completely if their rate is high enough. This was apparently only studied in the limits of large and small $\omega_{o}/\omega_{r}.$ We now know that this does not apply to intermediate frequencies, e.g, when $\omega_{o}\sim\omega_{r}$. In Fig. 3 we see that wall collisions have a serious influence at intermediate frequencies when $\lambda\geq R$. Also from Fig. 3 we see that the curves for diffuse wall reflections in the absence of gas collisions is very similar to the specular curves for $\lambda< R/2$. This implies that there is no essential difference between wall and gas collisions. We now show that the reason the wall collisions have no effect at the limiting frequencies, contrary to the case at intermediate frequencies, is that the wall collisions are never fast enough to influence the systematic (proportional to $\overrightarrow{E})$ frequency shifts in the limits of large and small $\omega_{o}$.
For a particles in a cylindrical vessel following a trajectory along a chord subtending an angle $2\alpha$, the time between collisions is$$\tau_{c}=\frac{2R}{v}\sin\alpha$$ and the effective field rotation frequency is given by $$\omega_{r}=2\alpha/\tau_{c}=\frac{\alpha v}{R\sin\alpha}$$ Considering first the case when $\omega_{r}\gg\omega_{o}$ (\[big\],[@JMP] Fig. 10,) the systematic frequency shift was found to be suppressed by the factor $\eta$$$\begin{aligned}
\eta & =\frac{1}{1+\beta^{2}}\\
\beta & =\frac{2R^{2}\omega_{o}}{\pi v^{2}\tau_{c}}$$ For significant suppression we need $\beta\gtrsim1$$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2R^{2}\omega_{o}}{\pi v^{2}\tau_{c}} & =\frac{R\omega_{o}}{\pi
v\sin\alpha}\gtrsim1\\
\sin\alpha & \lesssim\frac{R\omega_{o}}{\pi v}=\frac{25\times2\cdot7}{10^{4}}\sim\frac{1}{30}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for representative conditions in [@JMP], fig. 10. ($R=25,B_{o}=1\mu
T,v=10^{4}cm/\sec$).
The probability of a given value of $\alpha$ is given in Eq. (B1) of [@JMP] as $$\begin{aligned}
P(\alpha)d\alpha & =\frac{4}{\pi}\sin^{2}\alpha d\alpha\\
P(\alpha & \leq\varepsilon)\sim\varepsilon^{3}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ so that the wall collisions would only be expected to be effective for a vanishingly small fraction of the trajectories.
Turning now to the case $\omega_{r}\ll\omega_{o}$ (\[aaa\], Fig. 12 of [@JMP]) we have as the condition that the suppression be effective: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta & =\frac{1}{\omega_{o}\tau_{c}}\geq1\\
\frac{1}{\omega_{o}} & \gtrsim\frac{2R}{v}\sin\alpha\\
\sin\alpha & \leq\frac{v}{2R\omega_{o}}=\frac{200}{2\cdot25\cdot200}=\frac{1}{50}$$ for conditions typical of [@JMP] Fig. 12 ($v=200cm/\sec,B_{o}=1\mu T$).
Thus the wall collisions rate is never high enough to significantly effect the magnitude of the frequency shift at the limits. The wall collisions do, however, broaden and shift the resonances discussed in [@JMP]
Conclusion
==========
We have developed a general technique of analyzing the systematic effects due to a combination of an electric field and magnetic gradients as encountered in EDM experiments that employ gasses of stored particles. Use of the correlation technique, either by numerical calculations for complicated geometries, or by the velocity correlation function for simpler geometries, provides a simplified approach to the problem compared to numerical integration of the Bloch equations. Our analysis has added insight to this new systematic effect and provides a means of rapidly assessing the effects of various geometries and angular distributions for wall and gas collisions.
Acknowledgements
================
We are grateful to Werner Heil and Yuri Sobolev for calling our attention to this problem and to George Jackeli and Boris Toperverg for an enlightening conversation. We also thank J.M. Pendlebury et al. for providing a draft of their manuscript before publication.
Appendix 1: Matrix algebra of spherical Pauli matrices
======================================================
The following relationships among the Pauli matrices have been employed in the calculation in section \[densmatr\]. $$2\sigma_{\pm}=\sigma_{x}\pm i\sigma_{y}$$$$\sigma_{\pm}\sigma_{z}=\mp\sigma_{\pm};\ \ \ \sigma_{z}\sigma_{\pm}=\sigma_{\pm}$$$$\sigma_{\pm}\sigma_{\mp}={\frac{1}{2}}\pm{\frac{1}{2}}\sigma_{z}$$$$\sigma_{z}\sigma_{z}=1;\ \ \ \sigma_{\pm}\sigma_{\pm}=0$$
Appendix 2: Egelstaff’s velocity correlation function theorem; a new look at an old theorem
===========================================================================================
Introduction
------------
The relation between the velocity autocorrelation function (vacf) and $S_{s}\left( q,\omega\right) $ which we used in section \[\[theorem\]\] was first introduced by Egelstaff [@Egelstaff2] and has proven to be a useful tool in the study of liquids. The vacf can be simulated for various models and obtained from neutron scattering data using Egelstaff’s theorem. The theorem has been discussed by several authors [@Egelstaff], [@Lovesey], [@squires] and has been given in slightly different forms depending on the normalization chosen for the functions involved.
Following Squires’ [@squires] derivation would yield $$\psi(\omega)=3\omega^{2}\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\frac{S_{inc}(q,\omega)}{q^{2}}
\label{33}$$ if we were to define $$\psi(\omega)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left\langle \overrightarrow
{v}(0)\cdot\overrightarrow{v}(\tau)\right\rangle e^{-i\omega\tau}d\tau$$
which has a different normalization then used by Squires. Egelstaff gives the theorem as $$\psi(\omega)=\omega^{2}\left[ \frac{S_{inc}(q,\omega)}{q^{2}}\right]
_{q\rightarrow0}$$ where he defines$$\psi(\omega)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left\langle v_{x}(0)\cdot
v_{x}(\tau)\right\rangle e^{-i\omega\tau}d\tau$$ which accounts for the factor of 3 difference. Both authors give the derivation only for the Gaussian approximation where we take $$\begin{aligned}
G(\overrightarrow{r},t) & =\frac{1}{\left( 2\pi w(\tau)\right) ^{3/2}}e^{-\frac{^{r^{2}}}{2w(\tau)}}\nonumber\\
I(q,\tau) & =\int d^{3}rG(\overrightarrow{r},t)e^{i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\overrightarrow{r}}=e^{-q^{2}\frac{w(\tau)}{2}} \label{3a}$$
Boon and Yip [@boyip] derive the theorem for the general case, i.e. without the Gaussian approximation.
The theorem has been used to extract vacf’s from neutron scattering data by many authors. An early example is given by [@Egelstaff2]. See also the work of Carneiro [@carneiro].
The fact that sections \[theorem\] and \[notheorem\] give the same result and section \[theorem\] uses Egelstaff’s theorem while section \[notheorem\] does not, suggests that we have discovered a new way of proving the theorem.
A new derivation of Egelstaff’s theorem
---------------------------------------
In this section we will give a general derivation (not relying on the Gaussian approximation) of Egelstaff’s theorem.
We begin by following the formulation of Squires [@squires] and calculate the velocity autocorrelation function$$\psi(\tau)=\left\langle \overrightarrow{v}(0)\cdot\overrightarrow{v}(\tau)\right\rangle$$ as follows:
Let $\overrightarrow{r}(t)$ be the position of a particle at time $t$, when the particle was at the position $\overrightarrow{r}(0)$ at time $t=0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
r(t) & \triangleq\overrightarrow{r}(t)-\overrightarrow{r}(0)=\int_{0}^{t}\overrightarrow{v}(t^{\prime})dt^{\prime}\\
r^{2}(t) & =\int_{0}^{t}\overrightarrow{v}(t^{\prime})dt^{\prime}\cdot
\int_{0}^{t}\overrightarrow{v}(t^{\prime\prime})dt^{\prime\prime}\\
& =2\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime\prime}\int_{0}^{t^{\prime\prime}}\left\langle
\overrightarrow{v}(t^{\prime})\cdot\overrightarrow{v}(t^{\prime\prime
})\right\rangle dt^{\prime}$$ Now since $\left\langle \overrightarrow{v}(t^{\prime})\cdot\overrightarrow
{v}(t^{\prime\prime})\right\rangle =f(t^{\prime\prime}-t^{\prime})$ (for stationary systems) we can write$$r^{2}(t)=2\int_{0}^{t}\left\langle \overrightarrow{v}(0)\cdot\overrightarrow
{v}(t^{\prime})\right\rangle \left( t-t^{\prime}\right) dt^{\prime}$$ and$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}r^{2}(t) & =2\left\langle \overrightarrow{v}(0)\cdot
\overrightarrow{v}(t)\right\rangle t+2\int_{0}^{t}\left\langle \overrightarrow
{v}(0)\cdot\overrightarrow{v}(t^{\prime})\right\rangle dt^{\prime
}-2\left\langle \overrightarrow{v}(0)\cdot\overrightarrow{v}(t)\right\rangle
t\nonumber\\
& =2\int_{0}^{t}\left\langle \overrightarrow{v}(0)\cdot\overrightarrow
{v}(t^{\prime})\right\rangle dt^{\prime}\nonumber\\
\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}r^{2}(t) & =2\left\langle \overrightarrow{v}(0)\cdot\overrightarrow{v}(t)\right\rangle \label{a}$$ Now, based on the usual definition of the pair distribution function, $G(\overrightarrow{r},t)$, we have (following [@McGregor]) $$\begin{aligned}
r^{2}(t) & =\int r^{2}G(\overrightarrow{r},t)d^{3}r\\
& =\int r^{2}\frac{d^{3}r}{\left( 2\pi\right) ^{3}}\int d^{3}qI(\overrightarrow{q},t)e^{i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\overrightarrow{r}}\\
& =\int d^{3}qI(\overrightarrow{q},t)\int\frac{d^{3}r}{\left( 2\pi\right)
^{3}}r^{2}e^{i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\overrightarrow{r}}\\
& =\int d^{3}qI(\overrightarrow{q},t)\int\frac{d^{3}r}{\left( 2\pi\right)
^{3}}\overrightarrow{r}\cdot\frac{1}{i}\overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}e^{i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\overrightarrow{r}}\\
& =\int d^{3}qI(\overrightarrow{q},t)\int\frac{d^{3}r}{\left( 2\pi\right)
^{3}}\frac{1}{i}\overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}\cdot\frac{1}{i}\overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}e^{i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\overrightarrow
{r}}\\
& =-\int d^{3}qI(\overrightarrow{q},t)\overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}\cdot\left( \overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}\int\frac{d^{3}r}{\left(
2\pi\right) ^{3}}e^{i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\overrightarrow{r}}\right) \\
& =-\int d^{3}qI(\overrightarrow{q},t)\overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}\cdot\left( \overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}\delta^{3}\left(
\overrightarrow{q}\right) \right)\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced the spatial Fourier transform of the pair distribution function, $I(\overrightarrow{q},t).$ (See the first part of equation \[3a\])
Integrating by parts twice we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
r^{2}(t) & =\int d^{3}q\overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}I(q,t)\cdot\left(
\overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}\delta^{3}\left( \overrightarrow{q}\right)
\right) \\
& =-\int d^{3}q\delta^{3}\left( \overrightarrow{q}\right) \overrightarrow
{\triangledown}_{q}\cdot\left( \overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}I(q,t)\right) \\
& =-\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}\cdot\left(
\overrightarrow{\triangledown}_{q}I(q,t)\right) =-\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\left(
\triangledown_{q}^{2}I(q,t)\right)\end{aligned}$$ Then, using (\[a\]) we have$$\psi\left( \tau\right) =\left\langle \overrightarrow{v}(0)\cdot
\overrightarrow{v}(\tau)\right\rangle =-\frac{1}{2}\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\left(
\triangledown_{q}^{2}\frac{d^{2}}{d\tau^{2}}I(q,\tau)\right) \label{b}$$
Writing$$\begin{aligned}
\psi\left( \tau\right) & =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i\omega\tau}\psi\left( \omega\right) d\omega\\
I(q,\tau) & =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i\omega\tau}S\left( q,\omega\right)
d\omega\end{aligned}$$ we find (in general) $$\psi\left( \omega\right) =\frac{\omega^{2}}{2}\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\left(
\triangledown_{q}^{2}S(q,\omega)\right) \label{d}$$
This appears to be different than the usual form of the theorem (\[33\]) but is completely equivalent as can be seen by using $$S_{s}\left( q,\omega\right) =\int dte^{-i\omega t}\left\langle
e^{i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\left( \overrightarrow{R}(t)-\overrightarrow
{R}(0)\right) }\right\rangle$$ and expanding for small $q$.$$S_{s}\left( q,\omega\right) =\int dte^{-i\omega t}\left\langle
1+i\overrightarrow{q}\cdot\left( \overrightarrow{R}(t)-\overrightarrow
{R}(0)\right) -\frac{\left[ \overrightarrow{q}\cdot\left( \overrightarrow
{R}(t)-\overrightarrow{R}(0)\right) \right] }{2}^{2}\right\rangle$$ The first term gives a $\delta\left( \omega\right) $ which does not contribute to the result, the second term averages to zero and the third term gives $$S_{s}\left( q,\omega\right) =\alpha q^{2}$$ (for isotropic media). Then$$\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\left( \triangledown_{q}^{2}S(q,\omega)\right) =6\alpha$$ and equation (\[d\]) is equivalent to (\[33\]) in general.
For the Gaussian approximation$$I(q,\tau)=e^{-q^{2}\frac{w(\tau)}{2}}$$ we have$$\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\frac{d^{2}}{d\tau^{2}}I(q,\tau)=-\frac{q^{2}}{2}\frac{d^{2}w}{d\tau^{2}}$$ and using (\[b\])$$\psi\left( \tau\right) =-\frac{1}{2}\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\left(
\triangledown_{q}^{2}\frac{d^{2}}{d\tau^{2}}I(q,\tau)\right) =\frac{3}{2}\frac{d^{2}w}{d\tau^{2}}=-\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\frac{3}{q^{2}}\frac{d^{2}}{d\tau^{2}}I(q,\tau) \label{c}$$
Finally $$\psi\left( \omega\right) =\lim_{q\rightarrow0}\frac{3}{q^{2}}\omega
^{2}S(q,\omega) \label{e}$$ for the Gaussian approximation.(note that $\nabla_{q}^{2}q^{2}=6$), confirming that our formulation again gives the correct result.
Discussion
----------
For the case of diffusion, at very long times the Gaussian approximation holds $\left( w(\tau\right) =2D\tau)$, but $d^{2}w/d\tau^{2}=0$, so that the calculation in (\[c\]) appears to break down. Nonetheless the more general derivations show that one can apply Egelstaff’s theorem to this case where $$S(q,\omega)=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{Dq^{2}}{\omega^{2}+\left( Dq^{2}\right) ^{2}}.$$ as was done in section \[theorem\].
References
==========
[9]{} Eugene D. Commins, Am. J. Phys. **59**, 1077 (1991).
J.M. Pendlebury et al., Phys Rev. A to be published (2004).
N.F. Ramsey, Phys. Rev. **100**, 1191 (1955).
D.D. McGregor, Phys. Rev. A **41**, 2631 (1990). G.D. Cates, S.R. Schaefer, and W. Happer, Phys. Rev A **37**, 2877 (1988).
G.D. Cates et al., Phys. Rev A **38** (1988).
S.K. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rev. A **53**, R3705 (1996).
A. Abragam, *Principles of Nuclear Magnetism* (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961).
R. Golub and S.K Lamoreaux, Physics Reports **237**, 1-62 (1994).
A. Sommerfeld, *Partial Differential Equations* (New York, Academic Press, 1967).
This theorem, apparently based on work of DeGennes \[12\], was first stated by Egelstaff \[13\], and has been cited by many authors, (e.g. \[13,14,15\]), with slightly different numerical constants. The most complete proof is given in \[15\]. The form we have used is appropriate for our two dimensional problem. In appendix 2 we give a detailed discussion and a new proof of the theorem. P.G. DeGennes, Physica **25**, 825 (1959)
Peter A. Egelstaff, *An introduction to the liquid state, Academic Press, 1967*
Stephen W. Lovesey, *Theory of neutron scattering from condensed matter, vol. 1* (Oxford : Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1984).
G.L. Squires, *Introduction to the theory of Thermal Neutron Scattering.* Cambridge University Press, (1978)
Philip M. Morse and Herman Feshbach, *Methods of Theoretical Physics* (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953), (Chapter 7).
S.K. Lamoreaux et al., Europhys. Lett. **58**, 718 (2002).
Peter A. Egelstaff, Inelastic scattering of neutrons in solids and liquids, IAEA, Vienna, 1961, page 25. See also P.A. Egelstaff, S.J. Cocking and R. Royston *ibid,* page 309.
Jean P. Boon and Sidney Yip, *Molecular Hydrodynamics,* McGraw Hill, 1981 (Dover edition, 1991)
K. Carneiro, Phys. Rev A14, 517 (1976).
Figures
=======
\[h\]
[fig1.eps]{}
\[h\]
[fig2.eps]{}
\[h\]
[fig3.eps]{}
\[h\]
[fig4.eps]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract:
-
- 'We propose a discrete spacetime formulation of quantum electrodynamics in one-dimension (a.k.a the Schwinger model) in terms of quantum cellular automata, i.e. translationally invariant circuits of local quantum gates. These have exact gauge covariance and a maximum speed of information propagation. In this picture, the interacting quantum field theory is defined as a “convergent” sequence of quantum cellular automata, parameterized by the spacetime lattice spacing—encompassing the notions of continuum limit and renormalization, and at the same time providing a quantum simulation algorithm for the dynamics.'
author:
- Pablo Arrighi
- Cédric Bény
- Terry Farrelly
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'A quantum cellular automaton for one-dimensional QED'
---
Introduction
============
In this work, we propose a discrete spacetime formulation of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in one dimension (the Schwinger model), in terms of quantum cellular automata (QCA), which are essentially translationally invariant circuits of local quantum gates.
From a practical point of view, the QCA defines a quantum simulation algorithm for the dynamics of an interacting QFT (leaving aside the problems of state preparation and measurements, however). But, from a theoretical point of view it also constitutes a proof-of-principle showing that natively discrete formulations of an interacting QFT are possible and elegant. In this picture, the QFT is defined as a “convergent” sequence of QCA, parameterized by the spacetime lattice spacing—echoing the notions of continuum limit and renormalization. We discuss why we may hope to circumvent some of the technical issues of standard formulations of QFT this way.
The construction is intuitive and requires little prerequisites. It leads to a simple, explanatory model of QFT based on quantum information concepts. Given that QFT can be rather intricate, we believe this also constitutes an important pedagogical asset.
QFT and their quantum simulation
--------------------------------
Quantum field theory (QFT) is the framework that best describes fundamental particles and their interactions in a relativistic manner [@quigg2013gauge], though without accounting for gravity. QFT encompasses a heterogeneous set of procedures and techniques, but roughly speaking the first step is always to put together a local action, i.e. a way to associate a ‘cost’ to each spacetime history of a classical field. This action is usually derived quite elegantly based on the symmetries of special relativity and the demand that it features local symmetries (e.g., gauge invariance). The result then has to be converted to a quantum theory, through one of several heuristic quantization processes. Regardless of whether the theory is canonically quantized or quantized via path integrals, handling interactions intrinsically requires a form of regularization. This is usually equivalent to a discretization in that it involves neglecting small scale features. When one wants to go beyond perturbation theory, recourse to numerical simulations is typically necessary.
Thus, a number of discrete space—or spacetime—formulations of QFT have been studied, understood as approximations designed for numerical simulations. The main simulation method approximately evaluates the path integral in imaginary time (quantum Monte Carlo [@HastingsMonteCarlo]). But this only works well in limited cases and, like all classical simulations of quantum theory, suffers from a complexity which is exponential in the number of degrees of freedom.
Confronted with the inefficiency of classical computers for simulating interacting quantum particles, Feynman realized that one ought to use quantum computers instead [@FeynmanQC]. What better than a quantum system to simulate another quantum system? In the last decades, several such quantum simulation schemes have been devised [@JLP14; @georgescu2014quantum; @QuantumClassicalSim], some of which were experimentally implemented recently [@InnsbruckLGT]. Generally speaking these are Hamiltonian based [@HamiltonianBasedSchwinger], i.e. they are based on a discrete-space continuous-time version of the QFT, such as the Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian [@kogut1975hamiltonian]. One may then look for quantum systems in nature that mimic this Hamiltonian, or that can be tuned into it [@ErezCiracLGT]. Alternatively, one does a staggered trotterization of it so as to obtain unitaries that may be implemented on a digital quantum computer. In any case, by first discretizing space alone and not time, these Hamiltonian-based schemes are essentially taking things back to the non-relativistic quantum mechanical setting: Lorentz-covariance is broken. The bounded speed of light can only be approximately recovered (e.g., Lieb-Robinson bounds) [@EisertSupersonic; @Osborne19]. Even when the Hamiltonian is trotterized, time steps need remain orders of magnitude smaller than space steps. This also creates more subtle problems such as [*fermion doubling*]{}, where spurious particles are created due to the periodic nature of the momentum space on a lattice.
An essential aspect of QFT simulations is the preparation of the initial state, boundary conditions, and measurements [@PreskillQuantumSim; @JLP14]. This is non-trivial due to the fact that the vacuum of an interacting QFT is not known exactly (or if it is, then we usually also have an exact solution for the evolution). We do not study this question in detail here, except when considering the continuum limit of our QCA in Section \[cont-lim\].
Quantum simulation via QCA
--------------------------
From a relativistic point of view, it would be more natural to discretize space and time simultaneously and with the same scale, thereby producing a network of local quantum gates, homogeneously repeated across space and time. Feynman introduced Quantum Cellular Automata (QCA) together with the idea of quantum simulations of physics [@FeynmanQCA]. A related model to QCAs was also given by Feynman, namely the simple discretized ‘checkerboard model’ of the electron in discrete $(1+1)$-spacetime [@Feynman_chessboard].
The one–particle sector of QCAs became known as Quantum Walks (QW), and was found to provide quantum simulation schemes for non-interacting fundamental particles [@BenziSucci; @Bialynicki-Birula; @meyer1996quantum; @ArrighiDirac], including in $(3+1)$-spacetime, be it curved [@MolfettaDebbasch2014Curved; @ArrighiGRDirac; @DebbaschWaves; @ArrighiGRDirac3D] or not, or in the presence of an electromagnetic field [@CGW18]. The sense in which QW are Lorentz-covariant was made explicit [@arrighi2014discrete; @PaviaLORENTZ; @PaviaLORENTZ2; @DebbaschLORENTZ]. The bounded speed of light is very natural in circuit-based quantum simulation, as it is directly enforced by the wiring between the local quantum gates. Recently, the two–particle sector of QCA was investigated, with the two walkers interacting via a phase (similar to the Thirring model [@DdV87]). This was shown to produce molecular binding between the particles [@ahlbrecht2012molecular; @PaviaMolecular].
In the many-particle sector general theorems exist showing that simple QCA [@ArrighiQGOL] are able to simulate any unitary causal operator [@ArrighiUCAUSAL; @farrelly2014causal], and thus arbitrarily complex behaviours. Still, the problem of defining a concrete QCA that would simulate a specific interacting QFT had remained out of reach. In this paper we give a QCA description of QED in $(1+1)$–spacetime, i.e. the Schwinger model. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work relating the many-particle sector of a QCA to an interacting QFT.
Towards QCA formulations of QFT
-------------------------------
The apparent simplicity of the standard, path-integral formulation of QFT in fact hides a number of serious complications. These issues are often summarized through the fact that the integration measure over “paths” is not mathematically defined, and hence many additional assumptions and techniques have to be used in the process of obtaining actual physical predictions. This implies that the theory is not entirely specified by the action. Other formulations such as canonical quantization (operator formalism) are used in parallel in order to resolve some of these ambiguities. Moreover, whilst Lorentz and gauge invariance are manifest in the path-integral formulation, other fundamental properties are not, i.e. it cannot directly guarantee the unitarity of the dynamics, the existence of a ground state, nor characterize the compatibility of observables.
Another very important source of ambiguities, which cannot be resolved through the canonical operator formalism, comes from the continuity of spacetime. In the classical field theory, this is handled mathematically by the assumption that the fields are adequately differentiable, and formulating the action as an integral of differential quantities. This does not have an equivalent in the quantum setting. Instead, the quantum theory must be first regularized, typically through an energy cutoff, which is essentially equivalent to a discretization of space. Then the continuum limit must be taken on a per-case basis. Different theories, or even different boundary conditions, each require a different highly non-trivial dependence of the parameters on the cutoff (renormalization).
Hence, although the action-based approach has a continuous starting point, it does not actually solve the problem of obtaining a well-defined quantum theory in the continuum: the continuum limit needs be taken again in the quantum setting anyway—under the guise of renormalization. Indeed, by itself the action-based approach only succeeds in yielding genuinely continuous quantum theories for (quasi-)free theories. These serve as the basis for perturbative solutions to the renormalization problem—when a weak interaction gets added.
We propose that a natively quantum and discrete formulation of QFT, à la QCA, could bypass a number of these issues. Since the action-based approach is only apparently continuous anyway, it may be conceptually clearer to start from a natively discrete theory. (This may also eventually facilitate a connection with genuinely discrete quantum gravity proposals [@RovelliLQG; @LollCDT]). Moreover, a genuinely quantum description avoids the ambiguities arising when insisting on developing a quantum theory around a classical action. QCA have some other desirable properties: they are manifestly unitary and they also come with the immediate advantage of having a local formulation, from which an strict limit on the speed of information propagation can be extracted, as in special relativity. Lorentz-covariance can be handled as in [@ArrighiLORENTZ; @PaviaLORENTZ; @PaviaLORENTZ2; @DebbaschLORENTZ]. Gauge-invariance can also be handled as in [@ArrighigaugeRCA], a technique which is inspired by gauge-invariant quantum walks [@di2014quantum; @arnault2016quantum; @di2016quantum]. This technique allows one to construct the interacting theory from the free theory and the gauge symmetry requirement, reminiscent of the way the Hamiltonian of a lattice gauge theory gets constructed [@rico2014tensor; @silvi2014].
The present paper illustrates precisely this point. Our point of departure is the simple and well-known Dirac QCA for free fermions. Based on the demand that it features a local $U(1)$–gauge symmetry, a gauge field gets introduced that ‘counts’ fermions. Interactions then arise by having fermions pick up a local phase when they move left or right. Renormalization comes into play in the way the QCA parameters are made to depend on the lattice spacing, leading to renormalization trajectories.
The Schwinger model
-------------------
The Schwinger model, i.e. $(1+1)$–QED, is a useful playground to understand phenomena in QFT in higher dimensional spaces. Let us give a rapid summary of its main features, based on Ref. [@melnikov2000lattice]. This subsection could be skipped by readers that are only interested in the QCA itself, i.e. not interested in comparing it with standard $(1+1)$–QED.
The Schwinger model can be formulated covariantly in terms of an action, but let us directly write down a Hamiltonian formulation, which will be easier to compare to our QCA. The Hamiltonian formalism requires the local gauge symmetry to be partially fixed, which can be done in many ways. In the temporal gauge (with $A_0(x)=0$, and writing $A(x)=A_1(x)$), the Hamiltonian is $H=$ $$\label{SchwingerHam}
\int \!\mathrm{d}x \bigl(\psi^{\dagger}(x)\left[\left(i\partial_x+i e A(x)\right)\sigma_z+m\sigma_x\right]\psi(x)+\frac{1}{2}E^2(x)\bigr),$$ where $E(x)$ is the electric field observable at $x$, and $A(x)$ is its conjugate momentum, meaning $$[A(x),E(y)]=i\delta(x-y).$$ Here $\psi(x)=(\psi_1(x),\psi_2(x))^T$ is a two component fermion field satisfying $$\{\psi_{\alpha}(x),\psi^{\dagger}_{\beta}(y)\}=\delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta(x-y),$$ The electric charge is denoted by $e$, and the mass of the fermions is $m$.
[Choosing the temporal gauge does not completely fix the gauge freedom. One still needs to prevent that the remaining gauge degrees of freedom be observed. One way of doing this is to demand that physical states commute with Gauge transformations, making them “block-diagonal”. In terms of pure states, this amounts to forbidding superposition across any two distinct eigenspaces of a Gauge transformation. In the present context this leads to Gauss’ law: $$\left[\partial_x E(x)-e\psi^{\dagger}(x)\psi(x)\right]\ket{\phi_{\mathrm{phys}}} = f(x)\ket{\phi_{\mathrm{phys}}}.$$ where the $f(x)$ is fixed. Mathematically it corresponds to the choice of an eigenspace, physically it can be interpreted as an external, fixed electric field. Notice that because the operators implementing Gauss’ law commute with $H$, initial states satisfying Gauss’ law also satisfy it in the future. An alternative is to restrict the set of observables instead, and demand that these commute with Gauge transformations.]{}
The Schwinger model is phenomenologically very different from QED in three dimensions, but it exhibits many interesting phenomena that arise in other QFT in $(3+1)$–dimensions. The phenomena appearing depend on whether the fermion field is massive or massless. (Some authors reserve the name Schwinger model for the massless case.) For example, massless fermions suffer confinement: the effective electric force between particles of opposite charges increases with distance, consequently charges are paired into an effective particle: a massive boson, whose mass is proportional to the electromagnetic coupling strength.
Plan
----
In order to construct the Schwinger QCA we replay the procedure for constructing QED, in a natively discrete manner. In Section \[sec:dirac\] we start with the one-particle sector, namely the Dirac QW, which simulates the Dirac Eq. for a free electron in a simple and elegant manner, only upgraded to the many non-interacting particle sector, yielding a Dirac QCA. In Section \[sec:gaugeinv\] we extend the Dirac QCA minimally, so that it acquires a local $U(1)$ symmetry, thereby introducing the electromagnetic field—this cellular automata version of the gauging procedure was developed in [@ArrighigaugeRCA]. In Section \[sec:interaction\] the QCA is endowed with a simple local phase gate, which implements the interaction. Throughout the paper, we consider both the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures (discussing fermionic creation and annihilation operators, how they evolve, and which are the physical observables). Finally we sketch the continuum limit. Section \[sec:conclusion\] summarizes the results and puts them into perspective.
Dirac QCA {#sec:dirac}
=========
![\[fig:DiracQCA\] Dirac QCA: each space-time point, the intersections of the dotted lines, $(x,t)$ can be occupied by a left and a right-moving fermion. All gates are identical and given by the matrix $W$, which allows the fermions to change direction with an amplitude that depends on its mass. Because this is a qubit description, each crossing of two fermions triggers a $-1$ phase, including within the gate $W$.[]{data-label="figex"}](FigDirac.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Schrödinger picture and qubit representation
--------------------------------------------
We arrange the Dirac QCA as shown in Fig. \[fig:DiracQCA\]. We have two Dirac fermions at each site $x = \varepsilon k$, $k \in \mathbb Z$ of a one-dimensional lattice (where the red and black wires cross), which can be thought of as having orthogonal “chirality”, i.e. that are about to move in opposite directions. There are two ways to describe the QCA: via fermions or via qubits (related by the Jordan-Wigner isomorphism). First, we will give the qubit description, and later we will give the QCA in the fermionic picture.
We encode the occupation number of each fermion as a qubit, yielding two qubits at each site. The red (resp. black) wires denote the qubit corresponding to the occupation number of the left-moving (resp. right-moving) modes.
All gate are identical, with components $$\begin{aligned}
&W= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -\ii s & c & 0\\
0 & c & -\ii s & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1
\end{array}
\right)\\
&=1\oplus \sigma_1 \exp(-\ii m\varepsilon \sigma_1) \oplus -1\label{eq:DiracGate}\end{aligned}$$ with $c=\cos(m \varepsilon)$ and $s=\sin(m \varepsilon)$ accounting for the mass.
The components are ordered so that when the mass is zero, the particles do not change direction, so that a right-moving mode is transferred from $x$ to $x+\varepsilon$, etc.
The minus sign of the bottom-right entry of the matrix is needed in the qubit representation of two fermions crossing past each other, as we shall see. For the same reason, each crossing of a red and black wire also has a gate $$S = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -1
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Single particle dynamics {#subsec:oneparticledyn}
------------------------
To see that this QCA is a discretization of non-interacting Dirac particles, let us consider the “one-particle” sector, by restricting the QCA to the subspace spanned by states with a single fermionic mode occupied. In other words, we consider states with all but one qubit in the zero state. Define $\ket{x+}$ to be the state with the qubit corresponding to a right mover at position $x$ being in the $1$ state and zeroes everywhere else. Similarly $\ket{x-}$ is the state with the left-mover qubit at position $x$ being in the $1$ state with zeroes everywhere else. Then we consider the state at time $t$ given by $$\ket{\psi(t)}=\sum_x\left[\psi^+(t,x)\ket{x+}+\psi^-(t,x)\ket{x-}\right],$$ with $\ket{\psi(t)}$ normalized to one. Then the unitary dynamics gives us the update rule after one timestep to be $$\label{eq:sp}
\begin{split}
\psi^+(t+\varepsilon,x)&=c\psi^+(t,x-\varepsilon)+ -\ii s\psi^-(t,x)\\
\psi^-(t+\varepsilon,x)&=c\psi^-(t,x+\varepsilon)+ -\ii s\psi^+(t,x).
\end{split}$$ A rough justification of the continuum limit, is simply to expand to first order in $\varepsilon$, giving $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon\partial_t \psi^+&=-\varepsilon\partial_x \psi^+-\ii m\varepsilon\psi^-\\
\varepsilon\partial_t \psi^-&=+\varepsilon\partial_x \psi^--\ii m\varepsilon\psi^+.\end{aligned}$$ Dividing across by $\varepsilon$ allows us to write this in terms of Pauli matrices to get $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \psi&=-\sigma_3\partial_x\psi -\ii m\sigma_1\psi,\label{eq:Dirac}\end{aligned}$$ which is the Dirac equation, where $\psi=(\psi^+,\psi^-)^T$. More rigorous treatments of the continuum limits of such single-particle dynamics (i.e., quantum walks) can be found in, e.g., [@arrighi2013dirac].
Heisenberg picture and fermion representation
---------------------------------------------
Let us look at the QCA in terms of fermion operators, which will allow us to show that the evolution is consistent with free Dirac QFT.
The quasi-local algebra of operators for free Dirac QFT is generated by the finite products of the operators $a_x$, $b_x$, $a_x^\dagger$ and $b_x^\dagger$ for all $x$, with $a_x$ (resp. $b_x$) the annihilation operator of a left-moving (resp. right-moving) mode at each point $x$. Since the adjoint evolution of the free Dirac QFT is an automorphism of the $*$-algebra, it is entirely characterized by the way it acts upon $a_x$, $b_x$, over an $\varepsilon$–period of time. It naturally arises as the second quantization of Subsection \[subsec:oneparticledyn\]: $$\label{eq:dirac-heisenberg}
\begin{split}
{f}(a_x^\dagger) &= \cos(m\varepsilon)\, a_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger + \ii \sin(m\varepsilon) \, b_x^\dagger \\
{f}(b_x^\dagger) &= \ii \sin(m\varepsilon) \, a_{x}^\dagger + \cos(m\varepsilon) \, b_{x-\varepsilon}^\dagger. \\
\end{split}$$ This could have been the basis for the definition of a fermionic QCA [@PaviaMolecular] in the Heisenberg picture [@SchumacherWerner]. The relation to the qubit QCA in the previous section can be established as follows. First notice that the $f$ defined by Eqs. is occupation-number-conserving. Now say we had an occupation-number-conserving unitary $U$ such that ${f}(A) = U^\dagger A U$. We would then have $${f}(A)\ket 0 = U^\dagger A U \ket 0 = U^\dagger A \ket 0,\label{eq:qcaspecs}$$ where $\ket{0}$ denotes the vacuum for the modes $a_x$ and $b_x$. This equation would then specify $U$ from $f$. Since $f$ is local, we can directly deduce $W$ instead, again assuming it is occupation-number-conserving. Indeed, let us write the four possible input states of a gate $W$ as $$\ket{m,n} = (b_x^\dagger)^m (a_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger)^n \ket{0}.$$ with $m$ being the number of right-moving fermions at $x$ (zero or one, created by $b_x^\dagger$) and $n$ the number of left-moving fermions at $x+\varepsilon$ (zero or one, created by $a_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger$). Similarly, we write the four output states as $$\ket{n,m}' = (a_x^\dagger)^n (b_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger)^m \ket{0}.$$ Occupation number conservation establishes the first column of the matrix $W^\dagger$. For the second column, the output state $\ket{01}' = b_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger \ket{00}'$ must be mapped by $W^\dagger$ to $${f}(b_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger)\ket{00}
= (\ii s \,a_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger + c\, b_{x}^\dagger)\ket{00}
= \ii s \,\ket{01} + c \,\ket{10},$$ and similarly for the third column. For the last column, the state $\ket{11}'$ must be mapped by $W^\dagger$ to $$\begin{split}
{f}(a_x^\dagger b_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger)\ket{00}
&= (c \,a_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger + \ii s\, b_x^\dagger ) (\ii s \,a_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger + c \,b_x^\dagger )\, \ket{00}\\
&= (c^2 a_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger b_x^\dagger - s^2 b_x^\dagger a_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger)\, \ket{00}\\
&= - (c^2 + s^2)\, b_x^\dagger a_{x+\varepsilon}^\dagger \ket{00}\\
&= - \ket{11},
\end{split}$$ which justifies the $(-1)$ of Eq. .
Fermion doubling {#sec:doubling}
----------------
This subsection is just to discuss well-known technical difficulty that sometimes arises when discretizing relativistic fermions, called the fermion doubling problem. This occurs when the discrete model has more low energy modes than one wants in the continuum [@DGDT06]. An illustrative example of this is so-called naive fermions in lattice quantum field theory. These are described by the Hamiltonian $$H = \sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\psi_k^{\dagger}\left(\frac{\sin(k)}{\varepsilon}\sigma_z+m\sigma_x\right)\psi_k,$$ where $\psi_k=(a_{k},b_{k})$ are the fermion annihilation operators in momentum space and $k$ labels lattice momenta. The dispersion relation is given by $$E(p)=\pm\sqrt{\sin(k)^2/\varepsilon^2+m^2},$$ where $p=k/\varepsilon$ corresponds to the continuum momentum in the continuum limit. This is plotted in Fig. \[fig:spectra\] and we see that, for small $k=p\varepsilon$, $E(p)$ is close to the relativistic dispersion relation $E(p) = \pm \sqrt{p^2+m^2}$. However, looking at momenta $p\varepsilon=\pi+\delta$, the dispersion relation also looks like $\pm\sqrt{\delta^2+m^2}$. So there are extra particles that behave like relativistic particles.
This is not a problem for free theories. If the initial state has only low momentum modes occupied, then this will not change as the system evolves. In contrast, when there are interactions, then high momentum, low energy particles may be created, even if the initial state has only low momentum modes occupied, which would affect, e.g., scattering amplitudes.
That was an example of fermion doubling for massive fermions. In the massless case for local Hamiltonians on lattices, this is unavoidable as a consequence of the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem [@NN81; @DGDT06], without losing local chiral symmetry, or using other complicated tricks, e.g., domain wall fermions [@Kaplan09]. And the naive fermion example here illustrates that the problem can even arise for some discretizations of massive fermions. Let us consider whether this occurs for our model.
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Looking at equations (\[eq:sp\]), we can write the evolution in the single particle picture as $$U=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(m\varepsilon)S & -i\sin(m\varepsilon) \\
-i\sin(m\varepsilon) & \cos(m\varepsilon)S^{\dagger}
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $S$ shifts the particle by one lattice step. In momentum space this is $S=e^{-ik}=e^{-ip\varepsilon}$, so we can find the eigenvalues of $U$ for each value of momentum: $$\Lambda_{\pm}(p)=\cos(m\varepsilon)\cos(p\varepsilon)\pm\sqrt{\cos(m\varepsilon)^2\cos(p\varepsilon)^2-1}.$$ If we define the quasi-energies by $E(p)=i\ln[\Lambda_{\pm}(p)]/\varepsilon$, then we see from the plot in Fig. \[fig:spectra\], that fermion doubling does not occur in the spectra for these models.
Other works have considered similar discrete-time models in the free case [@DdV87; @Farrelly15; @FML17], where they reached the same conclusion, namely that these models do not suffer from the fermion doubling problem. However, a more detailed analysis in the presence of interactions would be extremely useful.
Imposing gauge-invariance {#sec:gaugeinv}
=========================
![\[fig:QEDQCA\] $(1+1)$–QED QCA structure. At $x+\varepsilon/2$ positions lies a wire carrying a state in ${\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ representing the gauge field. Its sole role is to count the fermions passing by, and to undergo a phase accordingly: this phase triggers the interaction. []{data-label="figexg"}](FigQED.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Schrödinger picture
-------------------
We want to enforce a local phase symmetry. The symmetry group’s elements are specified by a field $\varphi:\mathbb{\varepsilon \mathbb Z}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ stating which phase to apply at each point in space, see Fig. \[fig:Gphi\] (black boxes). The induced, [*gauge transformation*]{} acts on a state $\psi$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
G_\varphi \psi&= \big(\bigotimes_x G_\varphi(x)\big)\psi \quad\textrm{with}\quad G_\varphi(x)=R_{\varphi(x)}\otimes R_{\varphi(x)}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
R_\phi : \ket{0} &\mapsto \ket{0}\nonumber\\
\ket{1} &\mapsto e^{i\phi}\ket{1}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In other words, both the red and black qubits at $x$, corresponding to the left and right-moving fermions occupation numbers at this discrete position, get multiplied by the phase $\phi(x)$ when they are in the $\ket{1}$ state.
This is the symmetry we are trying to enforce. We want to extend the Dirac QCA $U$ into a [*gauge-invariant*]{} QCA $U'$, such that for any $\varphi$, there exists a $\varphi'$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\varphi'} U'=U' G_{\varphi} .\label{eq:gaugeinv}\end{aligned}$$ In order to turn this gauge-invariance condition into a local one, we use the fact that $U$ has the quantum circuit structure of Fig. \[fig:DiracQCA\]. This simplification is not specific to our case—every QCA can be made to have that structure, see [@ArrighiPQCA]. The obtained local condition is that for all $\varphi$, there exists $\varphi'$, such that for all $x$, $$\begin{aligned}
\big(R_{\varphi'(x)}\otimes R_{\varphi'(x+\varepsilon)} \big) W' = W' \big(R_{\varphi(x)} \otimes R_{\varphi(x+\varepsilon)}\big).\label{eq:localgaugeinv}\end{aligned}$$
This is not the case for the Dirac QCA as it stands, even when $m=0$. Indeed say our input is $\ket{10}+\ket{01}$, we are asking that there be a $\varphi'$ such that $e^{\ii\varphi'(x)}\ket{10}+e^{\ii\varphi'(x+\varepsilon)}\ket{01}$ be equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&W\big( e^{\ii\varphi(x)}\ket{10} + e^{\ii\varphi(x+\varepsilon)}\ket{01} \big)\\
&= e^{\ii\varphi(x+\varepsilon)}\ket{10}+e^{\ii\varphi(x)}\ket{01},\end{aligned}$$ thereby imposing on $\varphi'$ the contradictory requirements that for all $\varphi$ and $x$, $\varphi'(x)=\varphi(x+\varepsilon)$ and $\varphi'(x+\varepsilon)=\varphi(x)$.
In order to fix this, we follow the prescription of lattice gauge theory as follows: we interleave ancillary cells on the edges of the line graph, i.e. at positions $x+\varepsilon/2$. These cells carry an integer $l\in\mathbb{Z}$, its Hilbert space is ${\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}$. This is the so-called [*gauge field*]{}. Let us extend the gauge transformation to become $$\begin{aligned}
G_\varphi(x)= T_{\varphi(x)}\otimes R_{\varphi(x)}\otimes R_{\varphi(x)}\otimes T_{-\varphi(x)}\end{aligned}$$ with $T_{\varphi(x)}\ket{l}=e^{\ii l\varphi(x)} \ket{l}$ acting on the left and right edges at $x\pm \varepsilon/2$, see Fig. \[fig:Gphi\] (now including gray boxes). These $G_\varphi(x)$ no longer have disjoint supports, but they do commute, because $T_{-\varphi(x)}$ commutes with $T_{\varphi(x+\varepsilon)}$. Thus $G_\phi = \prod_x G_{\phi(x)}$ is well-defined. At $x+\varepsilon/2$, it ends up mapping $\ket{l}$ into $\ket{l}=e^{\ii l(\varphi(x+\varepsilon)-\varphi(x))}\ket{l}$. Let us extend $W$ into a $W'$ that affects the gauge field, namely $$\begin{aligned}
&W'= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
{I} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -\ii s {I} & c {V} & 0\\
0 & c V^\dagger & -\ii s {I}& 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -{I}
\end{array}
\right)\label{eq:IntermGate}\end{aligned}$$ with ${V}\ket{l}=\ket{l-1}$ and ${I}$ the identity.\
This, in turns out, is gauge-invariant with just $\varphi'=\varphi$. In order to prove it let us focus on the input $\ket{mln}$ of a gate. When applying $G_\varphi$, this input state will trigger a phase gain $\vartheta(x,m-l,n+l)$: $$\begin{aligned}
&m\varphi(x)+l(\varphi(x+\varepsilon)-\varphi(x))+n\varphi(x+\varepsilon)\\
&=(m-l)\varphi(x)+(n+l)\varphi(x+\varepsilon).\end{aligned}$$ Now, observe that the numbers $(m-l,n+l)$ are invariants of $W'$, as it takes $\ket{mln}$ into a superposition of the form $$\sum_{i\in\{-1,0,1\}} \alpha_i \ket{m-i,l-i,n+i}.$$ It follows that, when applying $G_{\varphi'}=G_{\varphi}$, the output state will trigger the same phase gain $\vartheta(x,m-l,n+l)$. Thus, we restored gauge-invariance at the price of introducing ancillary cells in ${\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}$. We may wonder whether finite-dimensional alternatives exist, that would be more in line with the QCA tradition. One argument for this will given in Subsec. \[subsec:schrodinteraction\].
Gauge-invariant observables
---------------------------
In a gauge theory, only those observables which are invariant under all gauge transformations are physical. Let us characterize these observables. This is not strictly necessary for constructing the QCA, but it is instructive to see how we could actually define the QCA in the Heisenberg picture in a purely gauge-invariant manner, via an automorphism of the algebra of physical observables.
Let $
A_x = a_x^\dagger a_x $ and $
B_x = b_x^\dagger b_x $ be the number operators for the two fermionic modes at the point $x$.
Remember that the gauge field lies at positions $x \in \varepsilon \mathbb Z + \frac 1 2 \varepsilon$. On the edge $x$ between vertex $x-\varepsilon/2$ and $x+\varepsilon/2$, we define the operator $L_{x}$ by $L_{x} \ket l = l \ket l$. (The “electric field” at site $x$ is $E_x = g L_x$, where $g$ is the charge of our particles). Together with $V_{x}$, it generates the algebra of operators for the gauge field on that edge, which is defined algebraically by $[V_x, L_x] = V_x$.
The operators $$J_x := L_{x+\varepsilon/2} - L_{x-\varepsilon/2} - A_x - B_x$$ for all $x$ generate the group of gauge transformations, at a given time. Specifically, $$G_\varphi = e^{-i \sum_x \varphi(x) J_x}.$$
As in Ref. [@melnikov2000lattice], let us consider the operators $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{a}}_x &= a_x \Pi_{y > x} V_y\\
{\overline{b}}_x &= b_x \Pi_{y > x} V_y\\\end{aligned}$$ whose adjoints create fermions while increasing the electric field to their right. These operators are not local, but we will use them to build physical local observables.
Since the operators $V_x$ commute with each other and with $a_x$ and $b_x$, then ${\overline{a}}_x$ and ${\overline{b}}_x$ satisfy the same anticommutation relations as $a_x$ and $b_x$, namely, $$\begin{split}
\{{\overline{a}}_x, {\overline{a}}_y^\dagger\} &= \{{\overline{b}}_x, {\overline{b}}_y^\dagger\}=\delta_{x,y}I\\
\{{\overline{a}}_x,{\overline{a}}_y\} &= \{{\overline{b}}_x,{\overline{b}}_y\} = \{{\overline{a}}_x,{\overline{b}}_y\}= \{{\overline{a}}_x,{\overline{b}}_y^\dagger\} = \{{\overline{a}}_x^\dagger,{\overline{b}}_y\} = 0
\end{split}$$
Moreover, $$\label{cr}
[\alpha {\overline{a}}_x + \beta {\overline{b}}_x, L_y] =
\begin{cases}
\alpha {\overline{a}}_x + \beta {\overline{b}}_x & \text{if $x < y$}\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ for any $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb C$.
The point of these new fermionic annihilation operators is that they commute with all the generators of gauge transformations $J_x$. Together with the electric field operators $L_x$, they generate the set of operators commuting with the gauge generators $J_x$ for all $x$.
However, we could argue that a much smaller algebra is physical, if we only allow local operators, and only even order polynomials in fermionic creation or annihilation operators. This suggests restricting observables to the quasilocal $C^*$-algebra $\mathfrak A$ generated by the operators $L_x$ together with $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{a}}_x^\dagger {\overline{a}}_x &= a_x^\dagger a_x\label{eq:localg1}\\
{\overline{b}}_x^\dagger {\overline{b}}_x &= b_x^\dagger b_x\\
{\overline{a}}_x^\dagger {\overline{a}}_{x+\varepsilon} &= a_x^\dagger V_{x+\frac 1 2 \varepsilon}^\dagger a_{x+\varepsilon}\\
{\overline{b}}_x^\dagger {\overline{b}}_{x+\varepsilon} &= b_x^\dagger V_{x+ \frac 1 2 \varepsilon}^\dagger b_{x+\varepsilon} \\
{\overline{b}}_x^\dagger {\overline{a}}_x &= b_x^\dagger a_x\label{eq:localg5}\end{aligned}$$ for all $x$. Indeed, observe that all even polynomials are generated by order two polynomials. Moreover, for such terms to be local, they must create and annihilate one fermion. Products of fermionic operators further apart can be obtained by anticommuting the above terms. For instance: $$\{{\overline{a}}_{x}^\dagger {\overline{a}}_{x+\varepsilon}\, ,\, {\overline{a}}^\dagger_{x+\varepsilon} {\overline{a}}_{x+2\varepsilon}\} = {\overline{a}}_x^\dagger {\overline{a}}_{x+2\varepsilon}.$$
Heisenberg dynamics
-------------------
A QCA defined by a map ${f}$ is gauge invariant, as defined in the previous section, if for all $\varphi$ there exists $\varphi'$ such that, for all observable $X$, $${f}(G_{\varphi'}^\dagger X G_{\varphi'}) = G_{\varphi}^\dagger {f}(X) G_{\varphi}.$$ For $X$ gauge-invariant, this reduces to $${f}(X) = G_{\varphi}^\dagger \, {f}(X) \, G_{\varphi}$$ for all $\varphi$, i.e., ${f}(X)$ must be gauge-invariant too. Hence, this implies that ${f}$ must be an automorphism of the gauge-invariant algebra. We can obtain such an automorphism ${f}$ by simply substituting the new fermionic operators in Eq. : $$\label{eq:eoma}
\begin{split}
{f}({\overline{a}}_x) &= c \,\overline a_{x+\varepsilon} - i s \,\overline b_x\\
{f}( {\overline{b}}_x) &= - i s \,\overline a_x + c \,\overline b_{x - \varepsilon}
\end{split}$$ where $c = \cos(\varepsilon m)$ and $s = \sin(\varepsilon m)$.
But we still have to chose how $f$ acts on $L_x$. The QCA defined in the previous section, for instance, is compatible with Eq., and gives us $$\label{eq:eomb}
f(L_x) = L_x + A_{x+ \frac 1 2 \varepsilon } - f(B_{x+\frac 1 2 \varepsilon }).$$
This has the property that it fixes the gauge generators: $$f(J_x) = J_x \quad \text{for all $x$},$$ which is how the gauge choice $\varphi_x' = \varphi_x$ manifests in this picture. To check this equation, it is useful to use the fact that the number of fermions is locally conserved in the sense that $${f}(A_x)+{f}(B_{x+\varepsilon}) = A_{x+\varepsilon} + B_x.$$
One could verify that this map $f$ is local by showing that the image of the local generators are local. However this follows also from the facts that it is implemented by the finite circuit of Fig. \[fig:QEDQCA\].
Interacting QCA {#sec:interaction}
===============
The QCA defined in the previous section is gauge-invariant. However at this stage the addition of the gauge field has no dynamical effect on the electrons. This is best seen in the Heisenberg picture, where the the “dressed” creation operators $\overline a_x^\dagger$ and $\overline b_x^\dagger$ generate the same algebra, and evolve according to the same automorphism as the free Dirac QCA. Hence its continuum limit is also identical to that of the free Dirac QFT, but in terms of dressed creation operators, which, in turn, is identical to the Schwinger model defined by Eq. (17) of Ref [@melnikov2000lattice], with zero charge: $g=0$.
This equivalence with the free Dirac QFT holds also for non-zero mass. Ref. [@ArrighiDirac] rigorously proves that the continuum limit of the Dirac quantum walk, which is the one-particle sector of the QCA, yields the Dirac equation. The same is true for the full QCA [@Farrelly15], and so we can consider that our dressed QCA is a reformulation of the Schwinger model defined by Eq. (17) of Ref [@melnikov2000lattice], with zero charge. What is missing compared to the full Schwinger model is the local Hamiltonian term proportional to the square of the electric field: $E_x^2 = g^2 L_x^2$. It is this term that makes the model effectively interactive.
Schrödinger picture {#subsec:schrodinteraction}
-------------------
Can we guess how to modify our QCA, so that the missing local Hamiltonian term shows up in continuum limit? Inspired by the many time-discretizations of Hamiltonian systems, one may be tempted to use the operator–splitting method and simply interleave an $\varepsilon$–period of evolution under the extra local Hamiltonian term, in-between any two time steps. For this to be justified by the Trotter-Kato formula, however, the free evolution over an $\varepsilon$–period ought to be approximately equal to the identity, too. Let us examine whether this is the case. The gate $W'$ as defined is parameterized by the space/time lattice spacing $\varepsilon$ so as to yield free Dirac QFT in the limit $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$. Observe that $\varepsilon$ only appears in the mass term, so that in the limit, $W'$ simply tends to its massless version, which is the swap. Hence the gate does not tend to the identity in the continuum limit, per se.
Crucially, for the continuum limit to make sense, one must also make [*states*]{} dependent on the space-time spacing $\varepsilon$, in such a way that they are smooth at the scale of the lattice. In the single particle setting, this corresponds to bounds on the derivatives [@ArrighiDirac]. For many-body states, one may require that they be approximately invariant under the permutation of nearby fermions.
Hence, for a given value of $\varepsilon$, we may consider only those states $\ket{\psi}$ which are approximately invariant under the swap gate involved in the free Dirac dynamics, i.e. $W'\ket{\psi} \approx \ket{\psi}$ so that $W'\approx Id$ in the appropriate subspace.
Hence, we do propose to modify the QCA by simply interleaving a step resulting from the integration of the Hamiltonian $ \frac 1 2 \varepsilon \sum_x g^2 L_x^2$ (where $\varepsilon$ comes from the discretizing of the integral in Eq. ), yielding the new gate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:full-qca}
&W''= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
{I} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -\ii s {I} & c {V} & 0\\
0 & c {V}^\dagger& -\ii s {I}& 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -{I}
\end{array}
\right)e^{\frac \ii 2 \varepsilon^2 g^2 {L}^2}\end{aligned}$$ with ${L}\ket{l}=l\ket{l}$. This is clearly still gauge-invariant, since the operators $L_x$ are gauge-invariant observables. It is interesting to note that if ${L}^2=4\pi/g^2\varepsilon^2$ exactly, the phase wraps up around $2\pi$. Since the spectrum of $L$ is in $\mathbb Z$, this can only happen if $\varepsilon^2=(4\pi/g^2)/k$ with $k$ an integer. But, if we restrict ourselves to values of $\varepsilon$ such that this is the case, then we no longer need the whole Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ to represent the gauge field at each point : we can replace it by a $k$-dimensional Hilbert space instead. This, however, still requires that $k \longrightarrow \infty$ as $\varepsilon \longrightarrow 0$. This idea of restricting the gauge field to finite-dimensions labelling roots of unity is not new and has been evaluated in [@MagnificoFiniteEM].
We write $\ket 0$ for the vacuum of the modes $a_x$ and $b_x$, tensored with any fixed joint eigenstate of the field operators $L_x$, for all lattice sites $x \in \varepsilon \mathbb Z$.
It is easy to see that the states created by applying any number of time the “dressed” fermionic creation operators ${\overline a_x}^\dagger$ and ${\overline b_x}^\dagger$ to $\ket 0$, for any $x$, are eigenstates of $e^{\frac \ii 2 \varepsilon^2 g^2 {L}^2}$. Hence, when considering these states, our particles still move as free particles, dragging the associated electric field with them. However, they now take a phase whose dynamics depends on the energy stored in that electric field.
To observe the effect of the interaction, we need to consider wavefunctions that are smooth with respect to the lattice spacing. For instance, consider an external electric field in the shape of a step function, i.e. let $\ket 0$ be such that $L_x \ket 0 = 0$ for all $x<0$, and $L_x \ket 0 = -\ket 0$ for $x \ge 0$, so that if we create a particle at any position $x \ll 0$ with $\overline a_x$, then the electric field is still zero far away on both sides of space.
Let us consider a single particle wavepacket $$\ket{\psi} := \sum_{x \in \varepsilon \mathbb Z} e^{i p x} f(x) \, \overline a_x^\dagger \, \ket 0,$$ for some smoothly varying envelop $f$ satisfying $f(0) \simeq 0$. Then the expectation value of the momentum operator $-i\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ is approximately equal to $p$. A typical choice of envelop is the gaussian amplitude $$f(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi\sigma^2)^{\frac 1 4}}\exp\Bigl(-\frac{(x-x_0)^2}{4\sigma^2}\Bigr)$$ with $x_0\ll 0$ the mean and $\sigma>0$ the standard deviation [chosen so that $1/\sigma\ll p$ and yet $x_0 + \sigma \ll 0$]{}. For this choice of envelop and for an adequate superposition of chiralities, [@ST12] shows that in the non-relativistic limit $p \ll m$, the wavepacket’s expected position will move under the free Dirac equation, with constant velocity $v = p/m$. Because $W'$ implements free Dirac QFT, this should still hold. But now $W''$ will precede each step by $e^{\frac \ii 2 \varepsilon^2 g^2 {L}^2}$, whose effect is to add a phase $$\label{eq:elecaccel}
\begin{split}
\ket{\psi'} &= \sum_{x \in \varepsilon \mathbb Z} e^{i p x - \frac i 2 \varepsilon g^2 x} f(x) \, \overline a_x^\dagger \, \ket 0,\\
&=\sum_{x \in \varepsilon \mathbb Z} e^{i p'x} f(x) \, \overline a_x^\dagger \, \ket 0.
\end{split}$$ Thus, $p'= p - \frac 1 2 \varepsilon g^2$ the new expected momentum after an $\varepsilon$–period of time. This means that the particle is accelerating, according to an external force equal to $g E$, where $E = -\frac 1 2 g$ is the effective electric field that it feels given our boundary conditions.
Continuum limit {#cont-lim}
---------------
In order to prove that we recover the Schwinger model, we need to take a continuum limit of our system. This is a hard problem for any interacting many-body system, as it usually requires one to be able to “solve” the theory. This difficulty also appears at the core of standard quantum field theories, where a finite scale (minimal length or maximal energy, called a regulator) usually has to be introduced in order to obtain finite predictions. Then the parameters of the theory have to be made dependent on this regulator in such a way that the predictions converge as the regulator tends to zero or infinity (whichever corresponds to the continuum limit). This procedure is known as [*renormalization*]{}. But doing this exactly would require being able to fully integrate the theory, so as to find the dependence of the predictions on the regulator.
In the standard QFT formalism, this is done by defining the theory perturbatively, starting from a solvable model (typically a gaussian, i.e., a quasi-free theory defined by a Hamiltonian that is quadratic in the canonical variables). The continuum limit is then taken independently for each order in perturbations.
This means that we first need to establish the continuum limit for a set of parameters where we expect to arrive at an exactly solvable QFT. Thankfully, the Schwinger model can be solved when the fermions are massless, provided that one works with the Hilbert space formed by creating a finite number of fermions over a special “vacuum” state, which is Dirac’s half-filled electron sea.
However, this “solution” takes the form of an entirely different theory: a theory of free bosons with mass equal to $\frac {g} {\sqrt \pi}$. Since that theory is solvable in the sense that we can compute any $n$-point functions, all we need to do is to figure out which operators in the algebra of our QCA are those effective bosonic operators, and to show that they behave that way.
[One may think of the choice of vacuum as a type of boundary condition: since we consider the Hilbert space spanned by acting on the vacuum only with $\mathfrak A$ the quasi-local algebra generated by Eqs. – (i.e. the balanced even polynomials of $\overline a_x$, $\overline b_x$ and $L_x$), it follows that of our states look far away just like the vacuum does.]{} Moreover, the bosonic commutation relations and Klein-Gordon dynamics are true only weakly with respect to this Hilbert space, i.e., the equations hold only in terms of expectation values with respect to these states.
We will not attempt to given a rigorous proof of the continuum limit here. We just sketch the argument. Our approach is inspired by the derivation of the solution in Ref. [@melnikov2000lattice].
Let us therefore consider the massless case: $m=0$, and the QCA with $W''$ as defined in Eq. . At zero coupling (charge) $g=0$, The Heisenberg equations of motions are [*exactly*]{} those of the free Dirac QFT, except for the discrete restrictions of the space and time variables. In the continuum, however, the Hilbert space is usually restricted to the Fock space of the following annihilation operators: $$c_p = \begin{cases}
a_p, & \text{if}\ p \ge 0 \\
b_p, & \text{if}\ p < 0 \\
\end{cases}
\quad \text{and}\quad
d_p = \begin{cases}
b_p^\dagger, & \text{if}\ p \ge 0 \\
a_p^\dagger, & \text{if}\ p < 0 \\
\end{cases}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
a_p &:= \varepsilon \sum_x \frac 1 {\sqrt \varepsilon}\, {\overline{a}}_x e^{i p x}\\
b_p &:= \varepsilon \sum_x \frac{1}{\sqrt \varepsilon}\, {\overline{b}}_x e^{i p x},\end{aligned}$$ and $p$ takes value on the circle $T_\varepsilon$ of circumference $2\pi/\varepsilon$. So that, for instance, $$a_p^\dagger a_q + a_q a_p^\dagger = 2 \pi \delta(p-q) I$$ where $$\delta(p) = \frac{\varepsilon}{2\pi}\sum_x e^{ixp}$$ is the Dirac delta over the circle: $$\int_{T_\varepsilon} dp \, \delta(p) f_p = \int_{-\pi/\varepsilon}^{\pi/\varepsilon} dp\, \delta(p) f_p = f_0.$$ The inverse Fourier transform is $$\frac 1 {\sqrt \varepsilon} \,{\overline{a}}_x = \int_{T_\varepsilon} \frac{dp}{2\pi} \, e^{-ipx} a_p.$$
Also, the Kronecker delta $\delta_{x}$ defined for $x \in \varepsilon \mathbb Z$ is $$\delta_x = \varepsilon \int_{T_\varepsilon} \frac{dk}{2\pi} \, e^{ik(x-y)}.$$
It is easy to check that one step of the QCA defined by $W'$ (or $W''$ with $g=0$) yields the Heisenberg dynamics $$c_p \mapsto e^{-i \varepsilon |p| } c_p \quad\text{\and}\quad d_p \mapsto e^{-i \varepsilon |p| } d_p.$$
Also, we have $$[\alpha {\overline{a}}_x + \beta {\overline{b}}_x, L_y] = \begin{cases}
\alpha {\overline{a}}_x + \beta {\overline{b}}_x, & \text{if}\ y > x \\
0, & \text{else} \\
\end{cases}$$ for any $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb C$.
Let us consider the density of the left-moving fermion modes: $$\begin{split}
A_x
&= \frac 1 \varepsilon a_x^\dagger a_x = \frac 1 \varepsilon {\overline{a}}_x^\dagger {\overline{a}}_x \end{split}$$ Clearly, $[A_x, L_y] = 0$, so that the interaction ($g \neq 0$) has no bearing on its evolution at all. Instead, let us consider a smeared version of it, by cutting off hight momentum modes.
First, consider its Fourier transform $$\begin{split}
A_k &= \varepsilon \sum_x e^{ikx} A_x \\
&= \int_{T_\varepsilon \times T_\varepsilon} \frac{dp\, dq}{2\pi} \, \delta(p+k-q) a_p^\dagger a_{q} \\
&= \int_{T_\varepsilon} \frac{dp}{2\pi} \, a_p^\dagger a_{p+k}
\end{split}$$
We could define a smeared density such as $$\label{eq:cgbad}
\tilde A_x^\Lambda = \int_{-\Lambda}^\Lambda \frac{dk}{2\pi} \, e^{-ikx} A_k$$ for some cutoff $\Lambda < \pi/\varepsilon$. But this clearly still commutes with $L_y$.
Instead, let us first smear the field operators themselves, and then use those to define the charge density. For instance, we could use $$\psi^+_\Lambda(x) := \int_{-\Lambda}^\Lambda \frac{dp}{2\pi} \,a_p \, e^{-ipx},$$ which is meant to tend to an actual Dirac field operator in the continuum. We then define the corresponding fermion density operator $$A_x^\Lambda := (\psi^+_\Lambda(x))^\dagger \psi^+_\Lambda(x).$$ Similarly, we define define $\psi^-_\Lambda(x)$ and $B_x^\Lambda$ from $\overline b_x$.
Let us expand $A_x^\Lambda$ in momentum to see how it differs from $\tilde A_x^\Lambda$. We have $$A_x^\Lambda = \int_{T_\varepsilon} \frac{dk}{2 \pi}\, A_k^\Lambda,$$ with Fourier transform $$A_k^\Lambda = \int_{B_\Lambda} \frac{dp\,dq}{2\pi} \delta(p+k-q)\, a_p^\dagger a_q.$$ where the double momentum integral is over the region $B_\Lambda = [-\Lambda,\Lambda]\times[-\Lambda, \Lambda]$. Observe that this is just $A_x$ if $B_\Lambda = T_{\varepsilon}$. More generally, the region $B_\Lambda$ could be of any shape provided that it is bounded by a ball of radius that is a fixed multiple of $\Lambda$, and is symmetrical with respect an exchange of $p$ and $q$, so as to yield a self-adjoint operator. Proper convergence may also require replacing the sharp region by a smearing function with coefficient decaying rapidly beyond $\Lambda$, such as a Gaussian.
Let us consider the coarse-grained density of both types of fermions: $$\label{eq:cggood}
\rho_q^\Lambda = A_q^\Lambda + B_q^\Lambda.$$ We will also refer to the non-smeared density $$\rho_q = A_q + B_q.$$ If $f$ denotes the Heisenberg automorphism for the QCA with no coupling ($g=0$), then $$\begin{aligned}
f(a_p^\dagger a_q) &= e^{-i \varepsilon (q-p)} a_p^\dagger a_{q} ,\\
f(b_p^\dagger b_q) &= e^{i \varepsilon (q-p)} b_p^\dagger b_{q}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
f(A_k^\Lambda) &= e^{-i \varepsilon k} A_k^\Lambda ,\\
f(B_k^\Lambda) &= e^{i \varepsilon k} B_k^\Lambda.\end{aligned}$$ Using the finite difference $$\Delta^2_t \, \rho_q^\Lambda := \frac 1 {\varepsilon^2}( f^2(\rho_q^\Lambda) + \rho_q^\Lambda - 2 f(\rho_q^\Lambda) ),$$ we obtain $$\Delta_t^2 \rho_q^\Lambda = - q^2 \rho_q^\Lambda + \mathcal O(\varepsilon).$$ To lowest order in $\varepsilon$, this is the massless Klein-Gordon equation.
The error term still has to be appropriately bounded to show convergence, but we will leave this for further work. Instead, let us consider how this equation changes in the presence of an interaction $g \neq 0$. If our system behaves like the Schwinger model, we should see an effective mass term appear in the Klein-Gordon equation.
Let $L_q = \varepsilon \sum_{x} L_{x+\frac 1 2 \varepsilon} e^{ipx}$ (where the sum is over $x \in \varepsilon \mathbb Z$), then, $$\begin{split}
[{}a_p,L_q]
&= \varepsilon^{3/2} \sum_{x} \sum_{y \ge x} e^{iqy} e^{i p x} {}a_x\\
&= \varepsilon^{3/2} \sum_{z\ge 0} e^{iqz} \sum_x e^{i (p+q) x} {}a_x\\
&= \theta_q \,{}a_{p+q},
\end{split}$$ with $\theta_q := \varepsilon \sum_{y\ge 0} e^{iqy}$. It follows that $$[{}a_p, L_q^\dagger L_q] = |\theta_q|^2\,{}a_p + \theta_{-q} \, L_q {}a_{p-q} + \theta_q \, L_{-q} {}a_{p+q},$$ where we used that fact that $L_q^\dagger = L_{-q}$ since $L_x$ is self-adjoint. We obtain the same equation substituting ${}b_p$ for ${}a_p$.
The electric field Hamiltonian is $$H_E := \varepsilon \tfrac 1 2 g^2 \sum_{x} L_x^2 = g^2 \int_{T_\varepsilon} \frac{dk}{2\pi}\, L_k^\dagger L_k.$$ Then $$\begin{split}
[a_p^\dagger a_q, H_E] &= g^2 \int_{T_\varepsilon} \frac{dk}{2\pi} \, \bigl( \theta_k a_p^\dagger L_{-k} a_{q+k} - \theta_{-k} a_{p+k}^\dagger L_{k} a_q \bigr).
\end{split}$$
Let us consider the evolution of the coarse-grained electron density given by Eq. . We have $$\label{eq:almostthere}
\begin{split}
[A_l^\Lambda,H_E] &= g^2 \int_{-\pi/\varepsilon}^{\pi/\varepsilon} \frac{dk}{2\pi} \,\theta_k \int_{B_\Lambda} \frac{dp dq}{2\pi}\,\delta(p+l-q) \\
&\quad \quad \times \bigl( a_p^\dagger L_{-k} a_{q+k} - a_{p-k}^\dagger L_{-k} a_q \bigr) \\
\end{split}$$ (We applied the transformation $k \rightarrow -k$ on the second term, which does not change the value of the expression). If there is no restriction on the integral in $p$ and $q$, this is zero because the first and second term differ only by a symmetry $p \rightarrow p-k$ of the integration domain. However, this argument fails thanks to the limited domain $B_\Lambda$.
We can simplify this expression by carefully choosing the dependence of $\Lambda$ on $\varepsilon$, and constraining the states to be sufficiently “smooth”. For instance, suppose we consider states in the Fock space of ${\overline{a}}_x$, ${\overline{b}}_x$ for all $x$. Moreover, let us consider a state $\ket \psi$ in which only modes $p$ with $|p| < \delta \Lambda$ are occupied, where $0 < \delta < 1$. Then the expectation value of the integrand is zero for all $|k| < (1-\delta) \Lambda$. The terms in the integral with larger $k$ can be made to vanish in expectation if we also impose that the states of the electric field are smooth in that they contain no mode with $k$ above this bound. Consequently, the whole commutator is again zero in expectation value.
That is, as we tend to the continuum by decreasing $\varepsilon$ and increasing $\Lambda$ proportionally to $\pi/\varepsilon$, we also consider fermion wavefunctions and electric field wavefunctions which are progressively smoother. (We leave open for now the question of whether this constraint is preserved by the dynamics).
To have an example where the commutator simplifies without entirely vanishing in this continuum limit, let us instead do this for the Fock space of the electron and positron annihilation operators $c_p$ and $d_p$, as mentioned in the beginning of this section.
To see which terms of the commutator survive, we need to commute operators such that either $c_p$ or $d_p$ are on the right side of monomials (or their adjoint on the left-side), so that they annihilate the state $\ket \psi$ if the modes $p$ are not occupied. In the derivation below, we assume that, as above, the cutoffs $\Lambda$, $\varepsilon$ and $\ket \psi$ are such that this allows such term to be translate by $k$ without affecting their expectation values once integrated.
Let us focus on the first term, and abbreviate the integral over $p$ as a sum for a more compact notation. Below, the symbol $\approx$ indicates that we removed a term using the fact that it can be translated by $k$ and cancelled with the corresponding term stemming from the equivalent manipulations on $a_{p-k}^\dagger L_{-k} a_q$ in the expression above.
We have, where all integrals are over $dp$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int a_p^\dagger & L_{-k} a_{p+l+k} = {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{p+l+k<0} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}a_p^\dagger L_{-k} d^\dagger_{p+l+k} + {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{p+l+k \ge 0} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}a_p^\dagger L_{-k} c_{p+l+k} \\
&\approx {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{p+l+k<0}{\!\!\!\!\!\!}a_p^\dagger L_{-k} d^\dagger_{p+l+k}\\
&= {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{\substack{p+l+k<0\\ p<0}} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}d_p L_{-k} d^\dagger_{p+l+k} + {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{\substack{p+l+k<0\\ p \ge 0}} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}c_p^\dagger L_{-k} d^\dagger_{p+l+k}\\
&\approx {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{\substack{p+l+k<0\\ p<0}} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}d_p L_{-k} d^\dagger_{p+l+k} \tag{\stepcounter{equation}\theequation}\\
&= {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{\substack{p+l+k<0\\ p<0}} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\Bigl( L_{-k} d_p d^\dagger_{p+l+k} - \theta_{k} a_{p+k}^\dagger d^\dagger_{p+l+k} \Bigr) \\
&= {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{\substack{p+l+k<0\\ p<0}} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\Bigl( - L_{-k} d^\dagger_{p+l+k} d_p - \theta_{k} a_{p+k}^\dagger d^\dagger_{p+l+k} \Bigr) \\\end{aligned}$$ If $k + l \neq 0$, we can just anti-commute $d^\dagger_{p+l+k}$ and $d_p$, to get $$\begin{split}
\int\displaylimits & a_p^\dagger L_{-k} a_{p+l+k}
\;\approx\; {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{\substack{p+l+k<0\\p<0}} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\theta_{k} a_{p+k}^\dagger d^\dagger_{p+l+k} \\
&= {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{\substack{p+l+k<0\\ p<0, \,p+k<0}} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\theta_{k} d_{p+k}d^\dagger_{p+l+k}
+ {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{\substack{p+l+k<0\\ p<0, \,p+k\ge 0}} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\theta_{k} c_{p+k}^\dagger d^\dagger_{p+l+k} \\
& \approx {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{\substack{p+l+k<0\\ p<0, \,p+k<0}} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\theta_{k} d_{p+k}d^\dagger_{p+l+k} \\
&= {\!\!\!\!\!\!}\int\displaylimits_{\substack{p+l+k<0\\ p<0, \,p+k<0}} {\!\!\!\!\!\!}- \theta_{k}d^\dagger_{p+l+k} d_{p+k} \;\;\approx\;\; 0,
\end{split}$$ where we also assumed $l \neq 0$.
It is when $k+l = 0$ that a non-trivial term pops up, namely $$\begin{split}
[A_l^\Lambda,H_E] &\;\;\simeq\;\; g^2 \int_{-\pi/\varepsilon}^{\pi/\varepsilon} \frac{dk}{2\pi} \,\theta_k \int_{-1/\Lambda}^0 dp\, \delta(k+l) L_{-k}\\
&\quad \quad - g^2 \int_{-\pi/\varepsilon}^{\pi/\varepsilon} \frac{dk}{2\pi} \,\theta_k \int_{-1/\Lambda}^k dp\, \delta(k+l) L_{-k},\\
&= g^2 \int_{-\pi/\varepsilon}^{\pi/\varepsilon} \frac{dk}{2\pi} \,\theta_k \,k\, \delta(k+l) L_{-k}
\end{split}$$
Hence, with respect the Fock space with cutoff $\Lambda$, we obtain $$[A_q^\Lambda, H_E] \;\;\simeq\;\; \frac{g^2}{2\pi} q\, \theta_{-q} L_{q}$$ for $q \neq 0$. Since $[L_q,H_E] = 0$, then, given $U = e^{i \varepsilon H_E}$, $$U^\dagger A_q^\Lambda U \;\;\simeq\;\; A_q^\Lambda + i \varepsilon \frac{g^2}{2\pi}\, q\, \theta_{-q} L_q.$$ Similarly $$[B_q^\Lambda, H_E] \;\;\simeq\;\; - \frac{g^2}{2\pi} q\, \theta_{-q} L_{q}.$$
We see that, since $\rho_q^\Lambda = A_q^\Lambda + B_q^\Lambda$, $$[\rho_q^\Lambda, H_E] \;\;\simeq\;\; 0.$$ Which is what we expect from the Schwinger model.
In the Heisenberg picture, one step of the QCA defined by $W''$ is $f_g(A) = f(U^\dagger A U)$ with $U$ defined as above, and $f$ is the QCA step defined by $W'$.
One step of the full QCA is $$f_g(\rho_q^\Lambda) \;\;\simeq\;\; e^{- i \varepsilon q} A_q^\Lambda + e^{i \varepsilon q} B_q^\Lambda = f(\rho_q^\Lambda)$$ We can compute a second step easily using the above results, and we obtain $$\begin{split}
f^2_g(\rho_q^\Lambda) &\simeq e^{-i 2 \varepsilon q} A_q^\Lambda + e^{i 2 \varepsilon q} B_q^\Lambda \\
& \quad\quad + i\varepsilon \frac{g^2}{2\pi} q \,\theta_{-q} f(L_{q}) (e^{- i \varepsilon q} - e^{i \varepsilon q}). \\
\end{split}$$
We observe that $$\begin{split}
(e^{- i \varepsilon q} - e^{i \varepsilon q})\, \theta_{-q} &= \varepsilon \sum_{y \ge 0} (e^{i q (y-\varepsilon)} - e^{i q(y+\varepsilon)})\\
&\simeq \varepsilon (1 + e^{-i q \varepsilon}) = 2 \varepsilon + \mathcal O(\varepsilon^2),
\end{split}$$ provided that it multiplies operators which vanish at $x \rightarrow \infty$ when evaluated on states of our Fock space.
Also, $$\begin{split}
f(L_{q})
&= \varepsilon \sum_x e^{i q x} (L_{x- \frac 1 2 \varepsilon} + {\overline{a}}_{x}^\dagger {\overline{a}}_x - {\overline{b}}_{x-\varepsilon}^\dagger {\overline{b}}_{x-\varepsilon})\\
&= L_q + \varepsilon (A_q - B_q).
\end{split}$$
But all states in our Fock space are gauge-invariant, i.e., $J_x \ket \psi = 0$. Hence, $$\begin{split}
L_q &= \varepsilon \sum_x e^{i q x} L_{x+\frac 1 2 \varepsilon} \\
&= \varepsilon \sum_x e^{i q x} (L_{x-\frac 1 2 \varepsilon} + A_x + B_x)\\
&= e^{i q \varepsilon} L_q + \varepsilon( A_q + B_q ).
\end{split}$$ Therefore, $$-i q L_q = A_q + B_q + \mathcal O(\varepsilon).$$ Finally, $$f^2_g(\rho_q^\Lambda) \;\;\simeq\;\; f^2(\rho_q^\Lambda) - \frac{g^2} \pi (A_q + B_q),$$ to lowest order in $\varepsilon$. Moreover, in expectation with respect to our “smooth” states, we expect that $$A_q + B_q = \rho_p \;\simeq\; \rho_p^\Lambda.$$
Since also $f_g(\rho_q^\Lambda) = f(\rho_q^\Lambda)$, then $\rho_q^\Lambda$ approximately satisfies the different equation $$\label{eq:KG}
\Delta^2_t\, \rho_p^\Lambda \;\;\simeq\;\; - p^2 \rho_p^\Lambda - \frac{g^2} \pi \rho_p^\Lambda,$$ which is the Klein Gordon equation with mass $g/\sqrt \pi$, as expected for the (massless) Schwinger model.
[Clearly, this derivation remains informal, but has the virtue of indicating the assumptions that may be required to obtain a rigorous continuum limit. Another step that we will not take here, would be to check that perturbation of this solution for a small mass also carries over to the continuum limit.]{}
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
[*Summary of achievements.*]{} Fig. \[fig:QEDQCA\] describes a quantum circuit made by infinitely repeating the local quantum gate given by . This is a quantum cellular automaton (QCA), or rather a family of QCA, since the lattice spacing and local quantum gates are parameterized by $\varepsilon$. We have argued, in two ways, that this family of QCA constitutes an alternative formulation of Schwinger model, i.e. $(1+1)$–dimensional quantum electrodynamics (QED). We first did this by taking the limit when $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$, and studying perturbations over suitable choices of ‘smooth’ vacuum states, which allowed us to recover the main features of $(1+1)$–QED. Namely, electron acceleration under an electric field in , and the emergence of free bosons of effective mass $g/{\sqrt \pi}$ in over Dirac’s half-filled electron sea. The second argument is based on the fact that the very construction of the QCA was justified on the same grounds that the construction of $(1+1)$–QED is justified on. I.e. we started from an established QCA for the free theory (Fig. \[fig:DiracQCA\] with ), restored $U(1)$–gauge invariance by introducing the gauge field (Fig. \[fig:QEDQCA\] with , which satisfies ), and eventually gave this gauge field a simple gauge-invariant dynamics.
[*QCA formulation of QFT.*]{} The path-integral formulation of QFT suffers from a number of issues related to the quantization of the action, a process which breaks continuity, introduces ambiguities, and jeopardizes unitarity. We hope that the $(1+1)$–QED QCA hereby presented will serve as an illustration that QCA formulations of QFT are feasible and advantageous in these respects. Taking a natively quantum and discrete dynamics as the starting point directly shortcuts all of these issues. Getting back to the continuum is no extra work: renormalization had to be worked out in the path-integral formulation anyway. We showed that gauge-invariance could be handled straightforwardly, at least within the temporal gauge. In principle, Lorentz-covariance could also be verified using the approach form Ref. [@ArrighiLORENTZ; @PaviaLORENTZ; @PaviaLORENTZ2; @DebbaschLORENTZ]. Altogether the construction is therefore simple and pedagogical. The result is more in line with the discrete spacetime formalisms introduced in Quantum Gravity proposals [@RovelliLQG; @LollCDT].
[*Quantum simulation.* ]{} Again, this $(1+1)$–QED QCA is but a quantum circuit, see Fig. \[fig:QEDQCA\]. Each $W''$ can be expressed in terms of standard universal gates such as $\textsc{CNot, Hadamard, Phase}$. Thus, the QCA is directly interpretable as a digital quantum simulation algorithm, to run on a Quantum Computer. Moreover, this quantum simulation algorithm is efficient, in the sense that it requires an $O(st/\varepsilon^2)$ gates in order to simulate a chunk of space of size $s$, over $t$ time steps, with $\varepsilon$ the spacetime resolution—which for free fermions is known to control the precision in $||\cdot||_2$–norm linearly [@ArrighiDirac]. Of course the output produced is a quantum state, and so one may then need to repeat the process several times in order to obtain useful statistics about it. Classically however, just the state space itself is already of size an $O(\exp(s/\varepsilon))$, as it grows exponentially with the number of quantum systems to be simulated—the classical time complexity is therefore at least an $O(\exp(s/\varepsilon)t/\varepsilon)$. Clearly, the exponential gain here is due to the fact that that the $(1+1)$–QED QCA simulates multi-particle systems, just like in Hamiltonian-based multi-particle quantum simulation schemes. QW-based quantum simulation schemes, on the other hand, are by definition in the one-particle sector, and thus can only yield polynomial gains.
[*State preparation and measurement.* ]{} When simulating quantum field theories, the preparation of states, and the identification of observables which match those relevant to a specific experiment, are challenging matters. One central issue is the fact that the nature of the [*vacuum*]{} for the full theory (lowest energy state) is not known a priori. This question of the state preparation for quantum simulation was considered specifically for fermions in [@JLP14]. Although this work uses a continuous-time approach, the same strategy should also work for QCA. The idea is to start from a known “non-interacting vacuum”, and simulate an evolution where an interaction parameter is slowly (adiabatically) turned on with time. This works only if there is a sufficiently large energy gap above the ground state, which needs be unique for every value of the parameter. Typically, this parameter would be the charge, but in the specific example at hand the fermionic mass seems a good candidate. Indeed, in that case an energy gap is suggested by the mass of the effective bosons, in turn controlled by the electric charge. For measurements, the prescription to measure local charge densities via phase estimation ([@JLP14] section 4.5) should carry over to our framework. Electric field operators are also local and again simple to measure.
[*Perspectives.*]{} Regarding the $(1+1)$–QED QCA hereby presented, we hope that more detailed analysis will follow that will anchor the connection with the Schwinger model on firmer ground. Whilst recovering the full path integral formulation theory from the QCA seems out of reach (due to a lack the mathematical techniques for doing so), a more thorough derivation of its phenomenology is at hand. We also leave open the interesting question of determining the vacuum for a QCA, since there is no Hamiltonian. Here we chose it based on knowledge of the target continuum theory. However, given only a QCA, how would one go about arguing for a specific choice of vacuum? Eventually, the work needs to be extended in the obvious directions: Lorentz-covariance, higher spatial dimensions, and Yang-Mills theories. Plenty of fascinating questions lie ahead.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
CB was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018R1D1A1A02048436). PA would like to thank Pablo Arnault, Nathanaël Éon and Giuseppe Di Molfetta for helpful discussions. TCF would like to thank Tony Short and Tobias Osborne for useful discussions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '*This paper builds on altruistic locking which is an extension of 2PL. It allows more relaxed rules as compared to 2PL. But altruistic locking too enforces some rules which disallow some valid schedules (present in VSR and CSR) to be passed by AL. This paper proposes a multiversion variant of AL which solves this problem. The report also discusses the relationship or comparison between different protocols such as MAL and MV2PL, MAL and AL, MAL and 2PL and so on. This paper also discusses the caveats involved in MAL and where it lies in the Venn diagram of multiversion serializable schedule protocols. Finally, the possible use of MAL in hybrid protocols and the parameters involved in making MAL successful are discussed.*'
author:
- |
Chinmay Chandak, Hrishikesh Vaidya, Sathya Peri\
`{cs13b1011,cs13b1035,sathya_p}@iith.ac.in`\
Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad
title: Multiversion Altruistic Locking
---
Motivation
==========
{width="15cm" height="5cm"}
Suppose $T_1$ is a long transaction with data operations on various variables while $T_2$ and $T_3$ are short transactions which just want to read the value of $x$. In 2PL, we saw that the `RO` or likewise transactions (here $T_2$ and $T_3$) suffer from time-lag until $T_1$ starts to unlock locks on $x$. AL resolved this problem to an extent in which once $T_1$ is done with $x$, it donates the lock to $T_2$ and $T_2$ reads the current version of x and similarly for $T_3$. By current, most recent committed version is implied (here $x_0$). Now, if no further writes on $x$ take place, the write of $T_1$ on $x$ is useless since $T_2$ and $T_3$ read from $T_0$. If we know that $T_1$ will not abort, we can read from uncommitted versions as well i.e. $T_2$ and $T_3$ turn by turn can read either from $x_0$ or from $x_1$ if versions are assigned. Hence more usefulness in terms of garbage collection and donation of locks is seen with a multiversion variant.
Multiversion Altruistic Locking
===============================
Definition
----------
The notion of a multiversion variant of altruistic locking can be seen from the motivation provided above. From now on, we’ll abbreviate this protocol as MAL.\
The key point in this protocol like AL would be donation of locks. Like AL, locks would be donated on variables but now since read operations have multiple choices of versions to read from, the field of conflicts (now multiversion) would be less and thus would allow more concurrency than AL; its single-version counterpart protocol.
Rules
-----
The first three rules would be similar to AL of course.\
`MAL1`: Items cannot be read or written by $t_i$ once it has donated them; that is, if $d_i(x)$ and $o_i(x)$ occur in a schedule $s,o \in {r, w}$, then $o_i(x) <_s d_i(x)$.\
`MAL2`: Donated items are eventually unlocked; that is, if $d_i(x)$ occurs in a schedule $s$ following an operation $o_i(x)$, then $ou_i(x)$ is also in $s$ and $d_i(x) <_s ou_i(x)$.\
`MAL3`: Transactions cannot hold conflicting locks simultaneously, unless one has donated the data item in question; that is, if $o_i(x)$ and $p_j(x), i \neq j$, are conflicting operations in a schedule $s$ and $o_i(x) <_s p_j(x)$, then either $ou_i(x) <_s pl_j(x)$, or $d_i(x)$ is also in $s$ and $d_i(x) <_s pl_j(x)$.\
The terminology of wake, completely in wake, indebted also is on similar lines. Intuitively, if transaction $t_j$ locks a data item that has been donated and not yet unlocked by transaction $t_i$ , $i \neq j$, we say that $t_j$ is in the wake of $t_i$ . More formally, we have the following:
1. An operation $p_j(x)$ from transaction $t_j$ is in the wake of transaction $t_i$ , $i = j$, in the context of a schedule $s$ if $d_i(x) \in op(s)$ and $d_i(x) <_s p_j(x) <_s ou_i(x)$ for some operation $o_i(x)$ from $t_i$.
2. A transaction $t_j$ is in the wake of transaction $t_i$ if some operation from $t_j$ is in the wake of $t_i$ . Transaction $t_j$ is completely in the wake of $t_i$ if all of its operations are in the wake of $t_i$.
3. A transaction $t_j$ is indebted to transaction $t_i$ in a schedule $s$ if $o_i(x)$,$d_i(x)$,$p_j(x) \in op(s)$ such that $p_j(x)$ is in the wake of $t_i$ and either $o_i(x)$ and $p_j(x)$ are in conflict or some intervening operation $q_k(x)$ such that $d_i(x) <_s q_k(x) <_s p_j(x)$ is in conflict with both $o_i(x)$ and $p_j(x)$.
Shortcoming in AL
-----------------
$$s_1=wl_1(a)w_1(a)d_1(a)rl_2(a)r_2(a)rl_2(b)r_2(b)ru_2(a)ru_2(b)c_2rl_1(b)r_1(b)wu_1(a)ru_1(b)c_1$$
$s_1$ is conflict serializable. But if $r_1(b)$ would be replaced by $w_1(b)$, $s_1$ would not be in CSR but still would be allowed by AL. So we had introduced AL4.\
`AL4`: When a transaction $t_j$ is indebted to another transaction $t_i$ , $t_j$ must remain completely in the wake of $t_i$ until $t_i$ begins to unlock items. That is, for every operation $p_j(x)$ occurring in a schedule $s$, either $p_j(x)$ is in the wake of $t_i$ or there exists an unlock operation $ou_i(y)$ in $s$ such that $ou_i(y) <_s o_j(x)$.\
So $s_1$ with either $r_1(b)$ or $w_1(b)$ is not passed by AL. $r_1(b)$ schedule is in CSR though. Thus a valid schedule is not passed through AL and hence poses an eminent shortcoming.
Conclusion : AL $\subset$ MAL
-----------------------------
In MAL, the conflicts are only $rw$ since only multiversion conflicts are considered. Thus consider two cases in the above $s_1$:
1. When $r_1(b)$, no problem is faced anyways.
2. When $w_1(b)$, a new version of $b$ is created and no new $rw$ conflict is created. Hence the schedule is still in MVCSR and hence also passed by MAL.
Hence MAL is more flexible and allows more concurrency than AL. Thus MAL4 is a more flexible version of AL4 in which the conflicts are of the form $rw$ instead of all $rw$, $wr$ and $ww$. Therefore it can be concluded that AL $\subset$ MAL.
Need for MAL4
-------------
$$s=r_1(x)r_2(y)w_1(y)w_2(x)c_1c_2$$
In schedule $s$, $rw$ conflicts exist from $t_1$ to $t_2$ and $t_2$ to $t_1$. Hence the schedule is not in MVCSR. However it will get passed using MAL1-3 rules which should be prohibited. Therefore it is required to define another rule MAL4 to handle the problem.\
`MAL4`: When a transaction $t_j$ is indebted ($rw$ conflicts only) to another transaction $t_i$ , $t_j$ must remain completely in the wake of $t_i$ until $t_i$ begins to unlock items. That is, for every operation $p_j(x)$ occurring in a schedule $s$, either $p_j(x)$ is in the wake of $t_i$ or there exists an unlock operation $ou_i(y)$ in $s$ such that $ou_i(y) <_s o_j(x)$.\
We have now completely described the rules of MAL.
Correctness
===========
***Gen(MAL) $\subset$ MVCSR***\
It essentially follows a standard argument, namely, that any MAL-generated history $s$ has an acyclic conflict graph. It can be shown that each edge of the form $t_i \rightarrow t_j$ in such a graph $G(s)$ is either a “wake edge,” indicating that $t_j$ is completely in the wake of $t_i$ , or a “crest edge,” indicating that $t_i$ unlocks some item before $t_j$ locks some item. In addition, for every path $t_1 \rightarrow \dots \rightarrow t_n$ in $G(s)$, there is either a wake edge from $t_1$ or $t_n$, or there exists some $t_k$ on the path such that there is a crest edge from $t_1$ to $t_k$ . These properties suffice to prove the claim.\
Strict inclusion of MAL $\subset$ MVCSR has been shown later with an example.
Extension of MV2PL
==================
We know that AL is an extension of 2PL where donation of locks is permitted. Long transactions hold onto locks until they commit and do not allow other transactions to execute. Similar problem can be observed in case of MV2PL as well. If a secondary small transaction needs to access a subset of data items which are currently locked by the primary transaction, read and write operation will get executed however commit will get delayed due to unavailability of the certify lock (certify lock is a type of lock that a transaction needs to acquire on all data items it has written to at the time of commit). Hence the secondary transaction will have to delay itself until the primary transaction releases all its locks.\
If donation of locks is allowed in MV2PL then lock on certain data item can be donated to the secondary transaction which can commit without delaying itself by acquiring the certify lock. Handling of individual steps remains same as followed by MV2PL. Inclusion of donation of locks into MV2PL inspires the MAL scheduling protocol. In the next section we will infact see that\
MV2PL $\subset$ MAL.
Comparison
==========
AL $\subset$ MAL
----------------
$$s = r_1(x)r_2(z)r_3(z)w_2(x)c_2w_3(y)c_3r_1(y)c_1$$
Either $x$ or $y$ (or both) must be locked by $t_1$ between operations $r_1(x)$ and $r_1(y)$. By rule AL1, either $x$ or $y$ (or both) must be donated by $t_1$ for $w_2(x)$ and $w_3(y)$ to occur, so either $t_2$ or $t_3$ (or both) must be indebted to $t_1$. However, neither $r_2(z)$ nor $r_3(z)$ are allowed to be in the wake of $t_1$ if the latter is well formed, since $t_1$ later reads $z$. Hence either $t_2$ or $t_3$ violate rule AL4.\
However as MAL allows donation of locks $t_1$ can donate lock to $t_2$ for certification and can commit. Hence $t_1$ need not acquire lock read lock on $y$ along with lock on $x$. Lock on $y$ can be obtained at read time.
2PL $\subset$ MAL
-----------------
We know that 2PL$\subset$ AL as AL is a relaxed version of 2PL. Following the previous comparison 2PL$\subset$ MAL. Hence we can also conclude that 2PL$\subset$MAL.
MV2PL $\subset$ MAL
-------------------
$$s = r_1(x)w_2(x)w_2(y)c_2w_3(z)w_3(y)w_1(z)c_3c_1$$
Generating the output as per MV2PL rules, $r_1(x)w_2(x)w_2(y)$ will get executed by acquiring locks on respective data items. However $t_2$ cannot acquire certify lock on $x$ due to conflict with $rl_1(x)$ and will have to wait. $t_3$ will acquire $wl_3(z)$ and execute $w_3(z)$. Following this no transaction would proceed due to deadlock. $t_1$ can’t acquire lock on $z$ due to conflict with $t_3$, $t_2$ cannot acquire certify lock on $x$ due to conflict with $t_1$ and $t_3$ cannot acquire write lock on $y$ due to conflict with $t_2$. Hence the schedule won’t get accepted under MV2PL protocol.\
In case of MAL $t_1$ can donate lock on $x$ to $t_2$ so that $t_2$ can commit using certify lock on $x$ and $y$. Following which $t_3$ can acquire write lock on $y$ and commit as well. At the end $t_1$ will commit by obtaining certify lock on $z$.
2V2PL $\subset$ MAL
-------------------
2V2PL is just a special case of MV2PL where only two versions of a particular data item are allowed. Hence we conclude that 2V2PL $\subset$ MAL.
Gen(MAL) $\subset$ MVCSR
------------------------
$$s= r_1(x)r_1(y)w_2(x)w_2(y)w_1(y)c_1c_2$$
The $rw$ conflicts in schedule $s$ are from $t_1$ to $t_2$. The conflict is acyclic and the schedule is in MVCSR. But the MAL runs into a deadlock while scheduling $s$. $r_1(x)r_1(y)w_2(x)w_2(y)$ get executed by acquiring locks on respective data items. As $t_1$ cannot acquire write lock on $y$ due to conflict with $t_2$ the operation will get delayed. $t_1$ would have to donate its lock to $t_2$ for it certify write on $x$ and $y$. As per rule 1 of MAL, once a lock on a data item has been donated by a transaction, then that transaction cannot carry out any operation on that data item. Hence $w_1(y)$ will not get executed. Therefore the schedule cannot be generated by MAL.
Gen(MAL) $\subset$ MVSR
-----------------------
As MVSR $\subset$ MVCSR, using transitivity we can conclude that MAL $\subset$ MVSR.
{height="9cm" width="15cm"}
Inclusion in Hybrid Protocols
=============================
**MAL + MVTO**\
{width="15cm" height="7cm"}
Due to donations of locks, detection of aborted transactions of late writers can be done quickly saving both storage space and time.\
If we know that a long transaction has only reads after a short span of the transaction time, it won’t abort in MVTO (since aborts happen only due to write operations). In this case, $t_2$ is one such transaction. $t_3$ has a donated lock on $x$ from $t_2$. The altruism is predominant in the fact that a transaction can’t commit until all transactions it has read from have committed. We change this. If we know $t_2$ has only reads after writing $x$, we know it won’t abort. If $t_3$ reading from $t_2$ commits, $t_4$ is aborted since it has a late writer on $z$ ($t_5$ reads $z$ from $t_3$). $t_5$ is able to read $z$ from $t_3$ since it is committed; otherwise it would have to read from $z_0$ and hence $z_3$ and $z_4$ would have gone to waste due to $t_3$ waiting for $t_2$ to complete which would be a waste of space.\
Thus MAL + MVTO is more successful than MVTO in this scenario.
Caveats of MAL
==============
1. Storage space would be required to store all versions of all variables.
2. This could be expensive if there are more `RW` transactions than `RO` transactions.
3. To avoid rollback, which would be very expensive considering the versions assigned, we should be pretty sure that there would not be any or very less number of aborts.
Transactional Information Systems. *Gerhard Weikum, Gottfried Vossen*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce fast algorithms for generalized unnormalized optimal transport. To handle densities with different total mass, we consider a dynamic model, which mixes the $L^p$ optimal transport with $L^p$ distance. For $p=1$, we derive the corresponding $L^1$ generalized unnormalized Kantorovich formula. We further show that the problem becomes a simple $L^1$ minimization which is solved efficiently by a primal-dual algorithm. For $p=2$, we derive the $L^2$ generalized unnormalized Kantorovich formula, a new unnormalized Monge problem and the corresponding Monge-Ampère equation. Furthermore, we introduce a new unconstrained optimization formulation of the problem. The associated gradient flow is essentially related to an elliptic equation which can be solved efficiently. Here the proposed gradient descent procedure together with the Nesterov acceleration involves the Hamilton-Jacobi equation which arises from the KKT conditions. Several numerical examples are presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Los Angeles.'
author:
- Wonjun Lee
- Rongjie Lai
- Wuchen Li
- Stanley Osher
title: Generalized Unnormalized Optimal Transport and its fast algorithms
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Optimal transport describes transport plans and metrics between two densities with equal total mass [@Villani2009_optimal]. It has wide applications in various fields such as physics [@LegerLi2019_hopfcole; @LiSBP], mean field games [@HJD], image processing [@PeyreCuturi2018_computationala], economics [@beck2009fast], inverse problem [@Yang2; @Yang1], Kalman filter [@Garbuno-InigoHoffmannLiStuart2019_interacting] as well as machine learning [@WGAN; @Wproximal]. In practice, it is also natural to consider transport and metrics between two densities with different total mass. For example, in image processing, it is very common that we need to compare and process images with unequal total intensities [@Li2]. Recently, there has been increasing interests in studying the optimal transport between two densities with different total mass. Based on the linear programming formulation, generalized versions for unnormalized optimal transport have been considered in [@PR2; @Thorpe:2017:TLD:3140477.3140524]. In this paper, our discussion is based on the fluid-dynamic formulation following [@BenamouBrenier2000_computational], which has significantly fewer variables than the linear programming formulation. In this work, a source function is considered to provide dynamical behaviors of a source term during transportation. Adding a source term for handling densities with unequal total mass has been considered in [@CL; @chen2019interpolation; @WF; @WF2; @Mielke; @Maas; @PR]. These methods consider density-dependent source terms and lead to a dynamical mixture of Wasserstein-2 distance and Fisher-Rao distance. The corresponding minimization of the source term is weighted with the density. More recently, a spatially independent source function was considered in [@gangbo2019unnormalized] to transport densities with unequal mass. This model results in creating or removing masses in the space uniformly during transportation when moving one density to another. Here, we further extend the model [@gangbo2019unnormalized] using a spatially dependent source function. As a result, the transportation map between two densities with different masses has the flexibility to create or remove masses locally. In all our models, the source term does not depend on the current density. This property keeps the Hamilton-Jacobi equation arising in the original (normalized) optimal transport problem. We further explore the Kantorovich duality and derive the corresponding unnormalized Monge problems and Monge-Ampère equations. Besides these model derivations, the other main contribution of this paper is to propose fast algorithms for all related dynamical optimal transport problems with source terms.
More specifically, the proposed model is a minimal flux problem mixing both $L^p$ metric and Wasserstein-$p$ metric, following Benamou-Brenier formula [@BenamouBrenier2000_computational]. In particular, we focus on the cases $p=1$ and $p=2$, and design corresponding fast algorithms. For the $L^1$ case, we propose a primal-dual algorithm [@CP]. The method updates variables at each iteration with explicit formulas, which only involve low computational cost shrink operators, such as those used in [@LiRyuOsherYinGangbo2018_parallel]. For the $L^2$ case, we formulate the minimal flux problem into an unconstrained minimization problem as follows $$\label{a}
\begin{split}
\inf_{\mu} \Biggl\{ &\int^1_0 \int_\Omega
\partial_t \mu(t,x) (-\nabla\cdot(\mu(t,x)\nabla) + \alpha \textrm{Id})^{-1} \partial_t \mu(t,x) \d x \d t:\\
& \quad\quad \mu(0,x) = \mu_0(x), \mu(1,x) = \mu_1(x), x\in\Omega
\Biggl\},
\end{split}$$ where $\alpha$ is a given positive scalar, Id is the identity operator, and the infimum is taken among all density paths $\mu(t,x)$ with fixed terminal densities $\mu_0$, $\mu_1$. From the associated Euler-Lagrange equation, we derive a Nesterov accelerated gradient descent method to solve the unnormalized optimal transport problem. It turns out that our method only needs to solve an elliptic equation involving the density at each iteration. Thus, fast solvers for elliptic equations can be directly used. Interestingly, the Euler-Lagrange equation of this formulation introduces the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, which characterizes the Lagrange multiplier (see related studies in [@LiG]). We, in fact, construct the gradient descent method in the density path space to solve this equation: $$\partial_\tau\mu(\tau,t,x)=\partial_t\Phi(\tau,t,x)+\frac{1}{2}\|\nabla\Phi(\tau,t,x)\|^2,$$ with $$\Phi(\tau,t,x)=(-\nabla\cdot(\mu(\tau,t,x)\nabla)+\alpha Id)^{-1}\partial_t\mu(\tau,t,x).$$ Here $\tau$ is an artificial time variable in optimization. The minimizer path $\mu^*(t,x)$ is obtained by solving $\mu^*(t,x)=\lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty}\mu(\tau,t,x)$ numerically.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In section \[section:prob-statement\], we propose a formulation for the generalized unnormalized optimal transport. We then derive the Kantorovich duality for both cases. We also formulate the generalized unnormalized Monge problem and the corresponding Monge-Ampère equation. In section \[section:numerical-methods\], we propose a fast algorithm for $L^1$-generalized unnormalized optimal transport using a primal-dual based method. We also propose a new method for $L^2$-generalized unnormalized optimal transport based on the Nesterov accelerated gradient descent method. In addition, we discuss detailed numerical discretization of the two problems. In section \[section:numerical-experiments\], we present several numerical experiments to demonstrate our algorithms. We conclude the paper in section \[sec:con\].
Generalized unnormalized optimal transport {#section:prob-statement}
==========================================
In this section, we study a formulation of generalized unnormalized optimal transport problem as a natural extension of the exploration studied in [@gangbo2019unnormalized]. We specifically discuss the $L^1$ and $L^2$ versions of the generalized unnormalized optimal transport and their associated Kantorovich dualities. Furthermore, we derive a new generalized unnormalized Monge problem and the corresponding Monge-Ampère equation.
Let $\Omega \subset \RR^d$ be a compact convex domain. Denote the space of unnormalized densities $\cm(\Omega)$ by $$\cm(\Omega) := \{ \mu \in L^1(\Omega): \mu(x) \geq 0 \}.$$
Given two densities $\mu_0,\mu_1 \in \cm(\Omega)$, we define the generalized unnormalized optimal transport as follows:
\[def:p\] Define the $L^p$ generalized unnormalized Wasserstein distance $UW_p: \cm(\Omega) \times \cm(\Omega) \rightarrow \RR$ by $$\begin{aligned}
UW_p(\mu_0,\mu_1)^p
= \inf_{\v,\mu,f} \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \|\v(t,x)\|^p \mu (t,x) \d x\d t + \frac{1}{\alpha} \int^1_0\int_\Omega |f(t,x)|^p \d x\d t,
\end{aligned}$$ such that the dynamical constraint, i.e. the unnormalized continuity equation, holds $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \mu(t,x) + \nabla \cdot (\mu(t,x)\v(t,x)) = f(t,x),\quad\mu(0,x) = \mu_0(x),\quad \mu(1,x) = \mu_1(x).
\end{aligned}$$ The infimum is taken over continuous unnormalized density functions $\mu: [0,1] \times \Omega \rightarrow \RR$, and Borel vector fields $v:[0,1] \times \Omega \rightarrow \RR^d$ with zero flux condition on $[0,1]\times \partial \Omega$, and Borel spatially dependent source functions $f:[0,1] \times \Omega \rightarrow \RR$ with a positive constant $\alpha$.
This is a generalized definition of unnormalized optimal transport from [@gangbo2019unnormalized]. Here, we consider a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$. In this paper, we will focus on the cases with $p=1$ and $p=2$.
We note that [@chen2019interpolation] has proposed the model for $p=2$ without any discussion about numerical methods. In this paper, we mainly study Kantorovich duality and design fast algorithms.
In literature, [@WF] studied the other dynamical formulations of unbalanced optimal transport problems. In their approach, the optimal source term is expressed as a product of a density function and a scalar field function. In our approach, the optimal source term only depends on a scalar field function. This fact shows that our approach is different from [@WF] in variational problems and dual (Kantorovich) problems.
$L^1$ Generalized Unnormalized Wasserstein metric.
--------------------------------------------------
When $p=1$, the problem (\[def:p\]) becomes $$\label{def-L1}
\begin{split}
UW_1(\mu_0, \mu_1) = \inf_{\v,\mu,f}\Biggl\{ \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \|\v(t,x)\| \mu (t,x) \d x\d t + \frac{1}{\alpha} \int^1_0\int_\Omega |f(t,x)| \d x\d t:&\\
\partial_t \mu(t,x) + \nabla \cdot (\mu(t,x)\v(t,x)) = f(t,x)& \\
\quad\mu(0,x) = \mu_0(x),\quad\mu(1,x) = \mu_1(x)&
\Biggl\}.
\end{split}$$ Here $\|\cdot\|$ can be any homogeneous of degree one norm, i.e. $l_q$ norm. E.g., $\|u\|_q=(\sum_{i=1}^d|u_i|^q)^{\frac{1}{q}}$. In particular, we consider $q=1,2$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_1 = |u_1| + \cdots + |u_d|\indent \text{ for $ u \in \RR^d$},\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_2 = \sqrt{|u_1|^2 + \cdots + |u_d|^2}\indent \text{ for $ u \in \RR^d$}.\end{aligned}$$
\[prop:l1\] The $L^1$ unnormalized Wasserstein metric is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:prop-l1-m-c}
UW_1(\mu_0,\mu_1) = \inf_{\m,c} \Biggl\{
& \int_\Omega \|\m(x)\| \d x + \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_{\Omega} |c(x)| \d x ~:~ \nonumber\\
&\mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x) + \nabla \cdot \m(x) - c(x) = 0
\Biggl\}.
\end{aligned}$$ There exists $\Phi(x)$, such that the minimizer $(m,c)$ for the problem (\[eq:prop-l1-m-c\]) satisfies $$\nabla\Phi(x) \in \partial \|\m(x)\| \quad \text{and} \quad \alpha \Phi(x) \in \partial |c(x)|$$ where $\partial \|\m(x)\|$ and $\partial |c(x)|$ denote their sub-differentials.
Denote $$\begin{aligned}
\m(x) = \int^1_0 \v(t,x) \mu(t,x) \d t,\end{aligned}$$ Using Jensen’s inequality and integration by parts, we can reformulate (\[def-L1\]). $$\begin{split}
&\int^1_0 \int_\Omega \|\v(t,x)\| \mu(t,x) \d x \d t + \frac{1}{\alpha} \int^1_0 \int_{\Omega} |f(t,x)| \d x \d t
\\
&\geq \int_\Omega \|\m(x)\| \d x + \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_{\Omega} \left|\int^1_0 f(t,x) \d t \right| \d x.
\label{eq:jensen-2}
\end{split}$$
Define $c(x) = \int^1_0 f(t,x) \d t$. Integrating on the constraint of problem with the zero flux condition of $v$ yields, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega c(x) \d x = \int^1_0 \int_\Omega f(t,x) \d x \d t = \int_\Omega \mu_1(x)\d x - \int_\Omega \mu_0(x) \d x.\end{aligned}$$ Plug $c(x)$ into the equation (\[eq:jensen-2\]), we obtain a new formulation. $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{\m,c} \Biggl\{
\int_\Omega \|\m(x)\| \d x + \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_{\Omega} \|c(x)\| \d x ~:~
&\mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x) + \nabla \cdot \m(x) - c(x) = 0
\Biggl\}.\end{aligned}$$
Note that the minimization path can be attained in the inequality by choosing $\mu(t,x) = t \mu_0(x) + (1-t) \mu_1(x)$, $\m(x) = \mu(t,x) \v(t,x)$ and $f(t,x) = c(x)$. Then $\{\mu(t,x), \v(t,x),f(t,x)\}$ is a feasible solution to (\[def-L1\]) and (\[eq:prop-l1-m-c\]) , hence the two minimization problems have the same optimal value.
Consider the Lagrangian of this minimization problem. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prop:l1-lagrangian}
\cl (\m,c,\Phi) &= \int_\Omega \|\m(x)\|\d x + \frac{1}{\alpha}\int_\Omega |c(x)|\d x + \int_\Omega \Phi(x)\biggl( \mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x) + \nabla\cdot \m(x) - c(x) \biggl),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi(x)$ is a Lagrange multiplier. From the KarushKuhnTucker (KKT) conditions, we derive the following properties of the minimizer $$\begin{aligned}
0\in \partial_{\m} \cl &\Rightarrow \nabla \Phi(x)\in \partial \|\m(x)\| \\
0\in \partial_c \cl &\Rightarrow \alpha \Phi(x) \in \partial |c(x)| \\
\delta_{\Phi} \cl =0 &\Rightarrow \mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x) + \nabla\cdot \m(x) - c(x) = 0.\end{aligned}$$
In the case that $L^1$ unnormalized Wasserstein metric with a spatially independent function $f(t)$, $c$ is defined to be $c = \int^1_0 f(t) \d t$, which is a constant. Integrating on a spatial domain for continuity equation, $$c = \frac{1}{|\Omega|}\biggl(\int_\Omega \mu_0(x) \d x - \int_\Omega \mu_0 (x) \d x \biggl).$$ As a result, the minimization problem becomes $$\begin{split}
UW_1(\mu_0,\mu_1) = \inf_{\m} \biggl\{&
\int_\Omega \|\m(x)\|\d x + \frac{1}{\alpha} \biggl| \int_\Omega \mu_1(x)\d x - \int_\Omega \mu_0(x) \d x \biggl|:\\
&\mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x) + \nabla \cdot \m(x) = \frac{1}{|\Omega|}\biggl(\int_\Omega \mu_1(x)\d x - \int_\Omega \mu_0(x) \d x\biggl)
\biggl\}.
\end{split}$$ This is compatible with the result obtained in [@gangbo2019unnormalized]. In this case, we note that $\m(x)$ does not depend on $\alpha$.
\[prop:l1-kantorovich\] The Kantorovich formulation of $L^1$ unnormalized Wasserstein metric is the following: $$\begin{aligned}
UW_1(\mu_0,\mu_1) = \sup_\Phi \biggl\{
\int_\Omega\Phi(x)(\mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x))\d x : \|\nabla \Phi\| \leq 1, |\Phi| \leq \frac{1}{\alpha}
\biggl\}
\end{aligned}$$
The Kantorovich formulation of the generalized unnormalized Wasserstein-1 metric has also been stated in [@chen2017matricialW1] for the $\|\cdot\|_2$ norm.
From the Lagrangian (\[prop:l1-lagrangian\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&\inf_{\m,c} \sup_\Phi \cl(\m,c,\Phi)\\
&\geq \sup_\Phi \inf_{\m,c} \cl(\m,c,\Phi)\\
&= \sup_\Phi \inf_{\m,c} \biggl\{ \int_\Omega \|\m(x)\|\d x + \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_\Omega |c(x)| \d x + \int_\Omega \Phi(x) (\mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x) + \nabla \cdot \m(x) - c(x)) \d x\biggl\}\\
&= \sup_\Phi \inf_{\m,c} \biggl\{ \int_\Omega \|\m(x)\|\d x + \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_\Omega |c(x)| \d x + \int_\Omega \Phi(x) (\mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x) - c(x)) \d x \\
& \qquad - \int_\Omega \nabla \Phi(x) \cdot \m(x) \d x + \int_{\partial \Omega} \Phi(x) \m(x) \cdot n(x) ds(x) \biggl\}\\
&= \sup_\Phi \biggl\{\int_\Omega \Phi(x) (\mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x)) + \inf_{\m,c} \int_\Omega \|\m(x)\| - \nabla \Phi(x) \cdot \m(x) \d x + \int_\Omega \frac{1}{\alpha} |c(x)| - \Phi(x) c(x) \d x \biggl\}\\
&= \sup_\Phi \biggl\{
\int_\Omega\Phi(x)(\mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x))\d x : \|\nabla \Phi\| \leq 1, |\Phi| \leq \frac{1}{\alpha}
\biggl\}.
\end{aligned}$$ From the calculation, the optimizer $\Phi$ satisfies the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \Phi \in\partial \|\m(x)\|, \indent \alpha \Phi \in \partial |c(x)|.
\end{aligned}$$ We show the duality gap is zero using the proposition \[prop:l1\]. $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_\Omega \|\m(x)\|\d x + \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_\Omega |c(x)| \d x + \int_\Omega \Phi(x) (\mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x) + \nabla \cdot \m(x) - c(x)) \d x\\
&=\int_\Omega \|\m(x)\| - \nabla \Phi \cdot \m(x) \d x + \int_\Omega \frac{1}{\alpha} |c(x)| - \Phi(x) c(x) \d x + \int_\Omega \Phi(x) (\mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x)) \d x\\
&=\int_\Omega \Phi(x) (\mu_1(x) - \mu_0(x)) \d x
\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof.
$L^2$ Generalized Unnormalized Wasserstein metric.
--------------------------------------------------
Let $p=2$. From the definition (\[def:p\]), we now consider $$\label{eq:uw2}
\begin{aligned}
UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2
= \inf_{v,\mu,f} \biggl\{ &\int^1_0 \int_\Omega \|\v(t,x)\|^2 \mu (t,x) \d x\d t + \frac{1}{\alpha} \int^1_0\int_\Omega \|f(t,x)\|^2 \d x\d t :\\
&\partial_t \mu(t,x) + \nabla \cdot (\mu(t,x) \v(t,x)) = f(t,x), t\in[0,1], x\in \Omega,\\
&\mu(0,x) = \mu_0(x), \mu(1,x) = \mu_1(x)
\biggl\}.
\end{aligned}$$
\[prop:l2\] The $L^2$ generalized unnormalized Wasserstein metric is a well-defined metric function in $M(\Omega)$. In addition, the minimizer $(\v(t,x),\mu(t,x),f(t,x))$ for (\[eq:uw2\]) satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\v(t,x) = \nabla \Phi(t,x),\indent f(t,x) = \alpha \Phi(t,x),
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& \partial_t \mu(t,x) + \nabla \cdot (\mu(t,x) \nabla \Phi(t,x)) = \alpha \Phi(t,x)\\
& \partial_t \Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2} \|\nabla \Phi(t,x)\|^2 \leq 0.
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if $\mu(t,x) >0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2} \|\nabla \Phi(t,x)\|^2 = 0.
\end{aligned}$$
Denote $\m(t,x) = \mu(t,x)\v(t,x)$. Then the problem becomes $$\label{eq:UW2-m-mu}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{2}UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2 = \inf_{\m,\mu,f} \biggl\{ &\int^1_0 \int_\Omega \frac{\|\m(t,x)\|^2}{2\mu(t,x)} \d x\d t + \frac{1}{2\alpha} \int^1_0 \int_\Omega |f(t,x)|^2 \d x \d t:\\
& \partial_t \mu(t,x) + \nabla\cdot \m(t,x) = f(t,x),\\
&\mu(0,x) = \mu_0(x), \mu(1,x) = \mu_1(x),x\in \Omega, 0\leq t \leq 1 \biggl\}.
\end{split}$$ Denote $\Phi(t,x)$ as a Lagrange multiplier. Consider the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
\cl (\m,\mu,f,\Phi) &= \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \frac{\|\m(t,x)\|^2}{2\mu(t,x)} \d x\d t + \frac{1}{2\alpha} \int^1_0 \int_\Omega |f(t,x)|^2 \d x \d t\\
&+ \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \Phi(t,x) \Big( \partial_t \mu(t,x) + \nabla\cdot \m(t,x) - f(t,x) \Big) \d x \d t.\end{aligned}$$ From KKT condition $\delta_{\m} \cl=0, \delta_\mu \cl \geq 0, \delta_f \cl=0, \delta_\Phi \cl=0$, the minimizer satisfies the following properties: $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\m(t,x)}{\mu(t,x)} = \nabla \Phi(t,x)\label{prop:l2-eq1}\\
&-\frac{\|\m(t,x)\|^2}{2\mu(t,x)^2} - \partial_t \Phi(t,x) \geq 0\label{prop:l2-eq2}\\
&f(t,x) = \alpha \Phi(t,x)\nonumber\\
&\partial_t \mu(t,x) + \nabla \cdot \m(t,x) - f(t,x) = 0\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[prop:l2-eq1\]) and (\[prop:l2-eq2\]) yields: $
\partial_t \Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2} \|\nabla \Phi(t,x)\|^2 \leq 0.
$
We next derive the corresponding Monge problem for unnormalized optimal transport with a spatially dependent source function. We note that the following derivations are formal in Eulerian coordinates of fluid dynamics. The related rigorous proof can be shown in Lagrangian coordinates similar as the one in [@Villani2009_optimal].
$$\begin{split}
&UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2 = \inf_{M, f(t,x)} \int_\Omega \|M(x) - x\|^2 \mu_0(x) \d x + \alpha \int^1_0 \int_\Omega |f(t,x)|^2 \d x \d t\\
& + \int_\Omega \int^1_0 \int^t_0 f\biggl(s,sM(x) + (1-s)x\biggl) \|M(x) - x\|^2 Det\biggl(s\nabla M(x) + (1-s) \II\biggl) \d s \d t \d x
\end{split}$$
where $M:\Omega \rightarrow \Omega$ is an invertible mapping function and $f:\Omega \times [0,1] \rightarrow \RR$ is a spatially dependent source function. The unnormlized push forward relation holds $$\label{eq:monge-push-forward}
\begin{split}
&\mu(1,M(x))Det(\nabla M(x))\\
&= \mu(0,x) + \int^1_0 f\biggl(t,tM(x) + (1-t)\II\biggl) Det\biggl(t\nabla M(x) + (1-t)\II\biggl) \d t.
\end{split}$$
We derive the Lagrange formulation of the unnormalized optimal transport with $p=2$. Consider a mapping function $X_t(x)$ with vector field $\v(t, X_t(x))$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\d}{\d t} X_t(x) = \v(t, X_t(x)), \indent X_0(x) = x.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega \int^1_0 \|\v(t,x)\|^2 \mu(t,x) \d t \d x &=
\int_\Omega \int^1_0 \|\v(t, X_t(x))\|^2 \mu(t,X_t(x)) Det(\nabla X_t(x)) \d x \d t\nonumber\\
&=
\int_\Omega \int^1_0 \| \frac{\d}{\d t} X_t(x)\|^2 \mu(t,X_t(x)) Det(\nabla X_t(x)) \d x \d t.\label{eq:monge}\end{aligned}$$ Define $J(t,x) := \mu(t,X_t(x))Det\bigl(\nabla X_t(x)\bigl)$. Differentiate $J(t,x)$ with respect to $t$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\d}{\d t} J(t,x) &= \frac{\d}{\d t} \biggl\{ \mu(t,X_t(x)) Det(\nabla X_t(x)) \biggl\}\\
&= \partial_t \mu(t,X_t(x))Det(\nabla X_t(x)) + \nabla_X \mu(t,X_t(x))\cdot \frac{\d}{\d t} X_t(x) Det(\nabla X_t(x))\\
&\hspace{1cm}+ \mu(t,X_t(x)) \partial_t Det(\nabla X_t(x))\\
&= \partial_t \mu(t,X_t(x))Det(\nabla X_t(x)) + \nabla_X \mu(t,X_t(x))\cdot \frac{\d}{\d t} X_t(x) Det(\nabla X_t(x))\\
&\hspace{1cm}+ \mu(t,X_t(x)) \nabla \cdot \v(t,X_t(x)) Det(\nabla X_t(x))\\
&= \biggl( \partial_t\mu + \v \cdot \nabla \mu + \mu \nabla \cdot \v \biggl)(t,X_t(x)) Det(\nabla X_t(x))\\
&= \biggl( \partial_t\mu + \nabla \cdot(\mu \v) \biggl)(t,X_t(x)) Det(\nabla X_t(x))\\
&= f\bigl(t,X_t(x)\bigl) Det(\nabla X_t(x)).\end{aligned}$$
Denote $$\begin{aligned}
J(t,x) = J(0,x) + \int^t_0 \frac{\d}{\d s} J(s,x)\d s.\end{aligned}$$ Since $X_0(x) = x$ and $\nabla X_0(x) = \II$, then $J(0,x) = \mu(0,x)$. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(t,X_t(x)) Det(\nabla X_t(x)) = \mu(0,x) + \int^t_0 f\bigl(s,X_s(x)\bigl) Det (\nabla X_s(x)) \d s.\end{aligned}$$ Since the minimizer in Eulerian coordinates satisfies the Hamilton-Jacobi equation: $$\partial_t\Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2}\|\nabla \Phi(t,x)\|^2 = 0,$$ and $\frac{\d}{\d t} X_t(x) = \nabla \Phi(t, X_t(x))$, then we have $ \frac{\d^2}{\d t^2} X_t(x)=0$. This implies $$\frac{\d}{\d t}X_t(x) = \v(t,X_t(x)) = M(x) - x,$$ thus $X_t(x) = (1-t)x + t M(x)$ and $Det(\nabla X_t(x))=Det((1-t)\II + t\nabla M(x)).$ Substitute all the above into (\[eq:monge\]): $$\begin{aligned}
(\ref{eq:monge}) &= \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \|\frac{\d}{\d t}X_t(x)\|^2 J(t,x)\d x \d t\\
&= \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \|M(x) - x \|^2 \biggl( J(0,x) + \int^t_0 \frac{\d}{\d s} J(s,x)ds\biggl) \d x \d t\\
&= \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \|M(x) - x\|^2 \mu(0,x) \d x \d t \\
&+ \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \|M(x) - x \|^2 \int^t_0 f\bigl(s,X_s(x)\bigl) Det(\nabla X_s(x))\d s \d x \d t\\
&= \int_\Omega \|M(x) - x\|^2 \mu(0,x) dx \\
&+ \int^1_0 \int^t_0 \int_\Omega \|M(x) - x\|^2 f\biggl(s,sM(x)+(1-s)x\biggl) Det\biggl((1-s)\II + s\nabla M(x)\biggl) \d x \d s \d t.\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the derivation.
We next find the relation between the spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and the mapping function $M(x)$. For the simplicity of presentation, here we assume the periodic boundary conditions on $\Omega$.
The optimal mapping function $M(x) = \nabla \Psi(x)$ satisfies the following unnormalized Monge-Ampère equation $$\label{NMA}
\begin{split}
&\mu(1,\nabla\Psi(x))Det(\nabla^2 \Psi(x)) - \mu(0,x) \\
&= \alpha \int^1_0 \biggl(\Psi(x) - \frac{\|x\|^2}{2} + \frac{t\|\nabla \Psi(x) - x\|^2}{2}\biggl) Det\Big(t\nabla^2\Psi(x) + (1-t)\II\Big) \d t.
\end{split}$$
From the Hopf-Lax formula for the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, $$\Phi(1,M(x)) = \Phi(0,x) + \frac{\|M(x) - x\|^2}{2}.$$ Thus $\nabla \Phi(0,x) + x - M(x) = 0$. We further denote $\Psi(x) = \Phi(0,x) + \frac{\|x\|^2}{2}$, then $M(x) = \nabla \Psi(x)$. From $X_t(x) = (1-t)x + tM(x)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t,X_t(x)) &= \Phi(0,x) + \frac{\|X_t(x) - x\|^2}{2t}\\
&= \Phi(0,x) + \frac{t\|M(x) - x\|^2}{2}\\
&= \Psi(x) - \frac{\|x\|^2}{2} + \frac{t\|\nabla\Psi(x) - x\|^2}{2}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\nabla X_t(x) = (1-t)\II + t\nabla^2 \Psi(x).$$ Substituting $f(t,x) = \alpha \Phi(t,x)$ and $M(x) = \nabla \Psi(x)$ into (\[eq:monge-push-forward\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu(1,\nabla\Psi(x))Det(\nabla^2\Psi(x)) - \mu(0,x) \\
&= \int^1_0 \alpha \biggl(\Psi(x) - \frac{\|x\|^2}{2} + \frac{t\|\nabla \Psi(x) - x\|^2}{2}\biggl) Det\Big(t\nabla^2\Psi(x) + (1-t)\II\Big) \d t.
\end{aligned}$$
Now, we show the Kantorovich formulation of the problem (\[eq:uw2\]).
The unnormalized Kantorovich formulation with $f(t,x)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}UW_2(\mu_0, \mu_1)^2
= \sup_\Phi \biggl\{
\int_\Omega \biggl( \Phi(1,x) \mu_1(x) - \Phi(0,x) \mu_0(x)\biggl) \d x - \frac{\alpha}{2} \int^1_0 \int_{\Omega}\Phi(t,x)^2 \d x\d t
\biggl\},\end{aligned}$$ where the supremum is taken among all $\Phi:[0,1] \times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2} \|\nabla \Phi(t,x) \|^2 \leq 0.\end{aligned}$$
We introduce a Lagrange multiplier $\Phi(t,x)$ to reformulate the equation (\[eq:UW2-m-mu\]). $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2} UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2\\
&= \inf_{\m,\mu,f} \sup_\Phi
\biggl\{
\int^1_0 \int_\Omega \frac{\|\m(t,x)\|^2}{2\mu(t,x)} + \frac{1}{2\alpha} f(x,t)^2 + \Phi(t,x)\bigl( \partial_t \mu(t,x) + \nabla \cdot \m(t,x) - f(t,x) \bigl) \d x \d t
\biggl\}\\
&\geq \sup_\Phi \inf_{\m,\mu,f}
\biggl\{
\int^1_0 \int_\Omega \frac{\|\m(t,x)\|^2}{2\mu(t,x)} + \frac{1}{2\alpha} f(x,t)^2 + \Phi(t,x)\bigl( \partial_t \mu(t,x) + \nabla \cdot \m(t,x) - f(t,x) \bigl) \d x \d t
\biggl\}\\
&= \sup_\Phi \inf_{\m,\mu,f}
\biggl\{
\int^1_0 \int_\Omega \frac{\|\m(t,x)\|^2}{2\mu(t,x)}
- \nabla \Phi(t,x) \cdot \m(t,x)
+ \frac{1}{2\alpha} f(x,t)^2
+ \Phi(t,x) \cdot \bigl( \partial_t \mu(t,x) - f(t,x) \bigl) \d x \d t
\biggl\}\\
&= \sup_\Phi \inf_{\m,\mu,f}
\biggl\{
\int^1_0 \int_\Omega \frac{1}{2}\biggl\|\frac{\m(t,x)}{\mu(t,x)} - \nabla \Phi(t,x)\biggl\|^2 \mu(t,x) - \frac{1}{2}\|\nabla\Phi(t,x)\|^2 \mu(t,x)\d x\d t\\
& \indent\indent + \int_\Omega \Phi(1,x)\mu_1(x) - \Phi(0,x)\mu_0(x) \d x\\
& \indent\indent + \int^1_0\int_\Omega -\mu(t,x) \partial_t\Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2\alpha} f(t,x)^2 - \Phi(t,x) f(t,x)) \d x\d t
\biggl\}.\end{aligned}$$ By the Proposition \[prop:l2\], the minimizer $\m$ satisfies $\displaystyle \frac{\m(t,x)}{\mu(t,x)} = \nabla \Phi(t,x)$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
&= \sup_\Phi \biggl\{
\int_\Omega \biggl( \Phi(1,x) \mu_1(x) - \Phi(0,x) \mu_0(x)\biggl) \d x\\
&\indent\indent + \inf_\mu \int^1_0 \int_\Omega -\mu(t,x) \biggl( \partial_t \Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2} \|\nabla\Phi(t,x)\|^2 \biggl) \d x\d t\\
&\indent\indent + \inf_f \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \frac{1}{2\alpha} f(t,x)^2 - \Phi(t,x) f(t,x) \d x\d t
\biggl\}\\
&= \sup_\Phi \biggl\{
\int_\Omega \biggl( \Phi(1,x) \mu_1(x) - \Phi(0,x) \mu_0(x)\biggl) \d x\\
&\indent\indent + \inf_\mu \int^1_0 \int_\Omega -\mu(t,x) \biggl( \partial_t \Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2} \|\nabla\Phi(t,x)\|^2 \biggl) \d x\d t\\
&\indent\indent + \inf_f \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \frac{1}{2\alpha}
\biggl(
f(t,x) - \alpha \Phi(t,x)
\biggl)^2
\d x\d t - \frac{\alpha}{2} \int^1_0 \int_{\Omega}\Phi(t,x)^2 \d x\d t \biggl\}.\end{aligned}$$ Again from Proposition \[prop:l2\], the minimizer satisfies $f(t,x) = \alpha \Phi(t,x)$. With the assumption $\mu(t,x) \geq 0$ for all $t\in[0,1]$ and $x\in\Omega$, the problem can be written with a constraint. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2 = \sup_\Phi \biggl\{
\int_\Omega \biggl( \Phi(1,x) \mu_1(x) - \Phi(0,x) \mu_0(x)\biggl) \d x - \frac{\alpha}{2} \int^1_0 \int_{\Omega}\Phi(t,x)^2 \d x\d t: &\\
\partial_t \Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2} \|\nabla \Phi(t,x) \|^2 \leq 0&
\biggl\}.\end{aligned}$$
We next show that the primal-dual gap is zero. $$\begin{aligned}
&\int^1_0\int_\Omega \frac{\m(t,x)^2}{2\mu(t,x)} + \frac{1}{2\alpha} f(t,x)^2 \d x\d t\\
&= \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \frac{1}{2}\|\nabla \Phi\|^2\mu(t,x)\d x\d t + \frac{\alpha}{2} \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \Phi(t,x)^2 \d x\d t\\
&= \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \biggl(
-\frac{1}{2} \|\nabla \Phi(t,x)\|^2 \mu(t,x) + \|\nabla \Phi(t,x)\|^2 \mu(t,x) + \frac{\alpha}{2} \Phi(t,x)^2
\biggl) \d x\d t\\
&= \int^1_0\int_\Omega \partial_t \Phi(t,x) \mu(t,x) + \Phi(t,x) \biggl( - \nabla \cdot \bigl(\mu(t,x)\nabla\Phi(t,x) \bigl)\biggl)
+ \frac{\alpha}{2} \Phi(t,x)^2 \d x\d t\\
&= \int_\Omega \Phi(1,x)\mu_1(x) - \Phi(0,x)\mu_0(x) \d x \\
&\indent\indent -\int^1_0\int_\Omega \Phi(t,x) \biggl( \partial_t \mu(t,x) + \nabla \cdot \bigl(\mu(t,x) \nabla \Phi(t,x)\bigl)\biggl) \d x\d t + \frac{\alpha}{2} \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \Phi(t,x)^2 \d x \d t\\
&= \int_\Omega \Phi(1,x)\mu_1(x) - \Phi(0,x)\mu_0(x) \d x \\
&\indent\indent -\int^1_0\int_\Omega \Phi(t,x)f(t,x) \d x\d t + \frac{\alpha}{2} \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \Phi(t,x)^2 \d x \d t.\end{aligned}$$
Using $f(t,x) = \alpha \Phi(t,x)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2= \int_\Omega \Phi(1,x)\mu(1,x) - \Phi(0,x)\mu(0,x) \d x - \frac{\alpha}{2} \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \Phi(t,x)^2 \d x \d t.\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof.
We note that our results and proofs follow directly from the those used in [@gangbo2019unnormalized]. The major difference between [@gangbo2019unnormalized] and our paper is that in the case of spatial independent source function, $f(t)= \frac{\alpha}{|\Omega|}\int \Phi(t,x)dx$, while in the case of spatial dependent source function, $f(t,x)=\alpha\Phi(t,x)$. This difference remains in the corresponding Monge problem and Kantorvich problem. In particular, we obtain a new spatial dependent unnormalized Monge-Ampère equation .
Numerical methods {#section:numerical-methods}
=================
In this section, we propose a Nesterov accelerated gradient descent method to solve $L^2$ unnormalized OT. In addition, we design a primal-dual hybrid gradient method to solve $L^1$ unnormalized OT.
$L^2$ Generalized Unnormalized Wasserstein metric
-------------------------------------------------
In this section, we present a new numerical implementation for $L^2$ unnormalized Wasserstein metric. We obtain a unconstrained version of the problem by plugging the PDE constraint into the objective function. Then the accelerated Nesterov gradient descent method is applied to solve the problem. We show that each iteration involves a simple elliptic equation where fast solvers can be applied. This novel numerical method can also be used in normalized optimal transport and unnormalized optimal transport with a spatially independent source function $f(t)$.
Using Proposition \[prop:l2\], we can rewrite the equation (\[eq:UW2-m-mu\]) as follows: $$\begin{split}
UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2
= \inf_{\Phi,\mu} \Biggl\{ &\int^1_0 \int_\Omega \|\nabla \Phi(t,x)\|_2^2 \mu (t,x) \d x \d t + \alpha \int^1_0\int_\Omega |\Phi(t,x)|^2 \d x\d t:\\
& \partial_t \mu(t,x) + \nabla \cdot(\mu(t,x) \nabla \Phi(t,x)) = \alpha \Phi(t,x),\\
&\mu(0,x) = \mu_0(x), \mu(1,x) = \mu_1(x)
\Biggl\}.
\end{split}$$
Define an operator $L_\mu = - \nabla \cdot (\mu \nabla)$. The constraint $\partial_t \mu - L_\mu \Phi = \alpha\Phi$ leads to $$\label{formula:L-operator}
\Phi = (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu.$$
With (\[formula:L-operator\]), the minimization problem can be reformulated as $$\label{UW-modified-main-prob}
\begin{split}
UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2
= \inf_{\mu} \Biggl\{ & \int^1_0 \int_\Omega \mu \|\nabla (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu\|_2^2 \d x\d t + \alpha \int^1_0\int_\Omega | (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu |^2 \d x\d t:\\
&\mu(0,x) = \mu_0(x), \mu(1,x) = \mu_1(x)
\Biggl\}.
\end{split}$$ Using integration by parts, $$\begin{aligned}
&\int^1_0 \int_\Omega \mu \|\nabla (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu\|^2 \d x\d t + \alpha \int^1_0\int_\Omega | (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu |^2 \d x\d t\\
&= \int^1_0 \int_\Omega
- \biggl(\nabla \mu \nabla (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu \biggl)\biggl( (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu \biggl) \d x\d t\\
&\indent + \alpha \int^1_0\int_\Omega | (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu |^2 \d x\d t\\
&= \int^1_0 \int_\Omega
\biggl(L_\mu (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu \biggl)\biggl( (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu \biggl) \d x\d t\\
&\indent + \alpha \int^1_0\int_\Omega | (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu |^2 \d x\d t\\
&= \int^1_0 \int_\Omega
\biggl((L_\mu + \alpha Id) (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu \biggl)\biggl( (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu \biggl) \d x\d t\\
&= \int^1_0 \int_\Omega
\partial_t \mu(t,x) (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu(t,x) \d x\d t.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, the unnormalized Wasserstein-2 distance forms $$\label{eq:UW-modified-main-prob}
\begin{split}
UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2
= \inf_{\mu} \Biggl\{ \int^1_0 \int_\Omega
\partial_t \mu(t,x) (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu(t,x) \d x\d t:\\
\mu(0,x) = \mu_0(x), \mu(1,x) = \mu_1(x)
\Biggl\}.
\end{split}$$
\[prop:euler-lagrange-of-rho-lap\] If $\mu(t,x)>0$, then the Euler-Lagrange equation of problem (\[eq:UW-modified-main-prob\]) satisfies the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2} \|\nabla \Phi(t,x)\|^2 = 0,
\indent x\in \Omega, t \in [0,1]\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi(t,x) = (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu(t,x)$.
For unnormalized optimal transport with a spatially independent source function $f(t)$, the formula uses $(L_\mu + \frac{\alpha}{|\Omega|} \int_\Omega)^{-1}$ instead of $(L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1}$, i.e. $$\begin{split}
UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2
= \inf_{\mu} \Biggl\{ \int^1_0 \int_\Omega
\partial_t \mu(t,x) \biggl(L_\mu + \frac{\alpha}{|\Omega|} \int_\Omega\biggl)^{-1} \partial_t \mu(t,x) \d x\d t:\\
\mu(0,x) = \mu_0(x), \mu(1,x) = \mu_1(x)
\Biggl\}.
\end{split}$$ The Euler-Lagrange equation satisfies the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2}\|\nabla \Phi(t,x)\|^2 = 0,\indent x\in \Omega, t \in [0,1]\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi(t,x) = \bigl( L_{\mu} +\frac{\alpha }{|\Omega|}\int_\Omega \bigl)^{-1} \partial_t \mu(t,x)$.
If $\mu(t,x)=0$, one can show that the Euler-Lagrange equation of problem (\[eq:UW-modified-main-prob\]) satisfies $$\partial_t \Phi(t,x) + \frac{1}{2} \|\nabla \Phi(t,x)\|^2 \leq 0.$$
Define $$\ci(\mu) = \int^1_0 \int_\Omega
\partial_t \mu(t,x) (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu(t,x) \d x \d t.$$ We now calculate the first variation of $\cf(\mu)$ with a perturbation $\eta(t,x) \in C^\infty(\Omega \times [0,1])$. $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{\ci(\mu+ h\eta) - \ci(\mu)}{h}&&\\
&= \lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{h}\int^1_0 \int_\Omega \left((\partial_t \mu + h \partial_t \eta) (L_{\mu + h\eta} + \alpha Id)^{-1} (\partial_t \mu + h \partial_t \eta) - \partial_t \mu(t,x) (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu(t,x)\right) \d x \d t\\
&= \lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \Biggl[ \int^1_0\int_\Omega \partial_t \mu \biggl( \frac{(L_{\mu + h\eta} + \alpha Id)^{-1} - (L_{\mu} + \alpha Id)^{-1}}{h} \biggl) \partial_t \mu\\
& \hspace{8cm} + 2 \partial_t \eta (L_{\mu+h\eta} + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu \d x \d t + O(h)
\Biggl]\\
&= \int^1_0\int_\Omega - \partial_t \mu (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} L_{\eta} (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu + 2 \partial_t \eta (L_{\mu} + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu \d x \d t\\
&= \int^1_0 \int_\Omega - \Phi L_\eta \Phi + 2\Phi \partial_t \eta \d x \d t\\
&=\int^1_0 \int_\Omega - \eta \biggl(\|\nabla \Phi\|^2 + 2 \partial_t \Phi \biggl) \d x \d t.
\end{aligned}$$ This has to be true for all $\eta \in C^\infty(\Omega \times [0,1])$. Thus, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \Phi + \frac{1}{2} \|\nabla \Phi\|^2 = 0, \indent x\in \Omega, t\in [0,1].
\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof.
Using Proposition \[prop:euler-lagrange-of-rho-lap\], we can formulate a Nesterov accelerated gradient descent method [@nesterov1983method] to solve the minimization problem (\[eq:UW-modified-main-prob\]).
$\mu^{k+\frac{1}{2}} = \mu^k - \tau \nabla \ci(\mu^k) = \mu^k + \frac{\tau}{2} \bigl( \partial_t \Phi^k + \frac{1}{2}\|\nabla \Phi^k \|^2 \bigl)\indent \text{ where } \Phi^k = (L_{\mu^k} + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t\mu^k$ $\mu^{k+\frac{1}{2}}=\max\{\mu^{k+\frac{1}{2}},0\}$ $\mu^{k+1} = (1-\gamma^k)\mu^{k+\frac{1}{2}} + \gamma^k \mu^k$
Here, $\tau$ and $\gamma^k$ are step sizes of the algorithm. $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^k &= \frac{1-\lambda^k}{\lambda^{k+1}}, \quad\lambda^0 = 0,\quad \lambda^k = \frac{1+\sqrt{1+4(\lambda^{k-1})^2}}{2} .\end{aligned}$$
The Nesterov accelerated gradient descent method can be used for a spatially independent source function $f(t)$. We simply replace the operator $L_\mu + \alpha Id$ with $L_\mu + \alpha \int_\Omega$ from Algorithm \[alg:gradient-descent\].
Here we apply an iterative method, such as conjugate gradient, to solve $(L_{\mu^k} + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t\mu^k$.
We remark that variational problem is convex w.r.t. $\mu(t,x)$. This fact holds following the second variational formula derived in Lemma 2 of [@LiG]. Hence our gradient descent algorithm is applied to a convex optimization problem \[eq:UW-modified-main-prob\].
We next present the discretization of density path in both time and spatial domains, where the spatial domain is given by $1D$ or $2D$. Here we formulate the operator $L_\mu$ and derive its inverse into matrix forms; see similar approaches in [@LiG].
### 1D Discretization
Consider the following one dimensional discretization: $$\begin{aligned}
&\bmu = (\bmu^0,\cdots,\bmu^{N_t}) \in \RR^{(N_t+1) \times N_x}\\
&\bmu^n = (\mu^n_0,\cdots,\mu^n_{N_x-1}) \in \RR^{N_x} \indent (n=0,\cdots,N_t)\\
&\mu^n_i \in \RR \indent (i=0,\cdots,N_x - 1, n=0,\cdots,N_t)\\
&\mu^0_i = \mu_0(i\dx), \indent \mu^{N_t}_i = \mu_1(i\dx), \indent (i=0,\cdots,N_x - 1)\\
&\dx = \frac{|\Omega|}{N_x-1}\indent \dt = \frac{1}{N_t}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the finite volume method, the weighted Laplacian operator $\tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha} := L_{\bmu^n} + \alpha Id$ can be represented as the following matrix: $$ \begin{split}
&\tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}
= \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\mu^n_0 + \mu^n_1}{2\dx^2} & -\frac{\mu^n_0 + \mu^n_1}{2\dx^2} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
-\frac{\mu^n_0 + \mu^n_1}{2\dx^2} & \frac{\mu^n_0 + \mu^n_1}{2\dx^2} + \frac{\mu^n_1 + \mu^n_2}{2\dx^2} & -\frac{\mu^n_1 + \mu^n_2}{2\dx^2} & \cdots & 0\\
0 & - \frac{\mu^n_1 + \mu^n_2}{2\dx^2} & \frac{\mu^n_1 + \mu^n_2}{2\dx^2} + \frac{\mu^n_2 + \mu^n_3}{2\dx^2} & \cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & - \frac{\mu^n_{N_x-2}+\mu^n_{N_x-1}}{2\dx^2}
\end{pmatrix} + \alpha Id
\end{split}$$ Further using the forward Euler method in time, formula (\[eq:UW-modified-main-prob\]) can be discretized as $$\begin{aligned}
&\int^1_0 \int_\Omega
\partial_t \mu(t,x) (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu(t,x) \d x \d t\\
&\approx \dt\dx \sum^{N_t-1}_{n=0}
\left< \frac{\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n}}{\dt}, (L_{\bmu^n} + \alpha Id)^{-1} \frac{\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n}}{\dt}\right>_{L^2}\\
&=\frac{\dx}{\dt} \sum^{N_t-1}_{n=0}
\left<\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n}, (L_{\bmu^n} + \alpha Id)^{-1} (\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n})\right>_{L^2}\end{aligned}$$ with $\bmu^0$ and $\bmu^{N_t}$ are given. $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{L^2}$ is $L^2$ norm in $\RR^{N_x}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \bm{a},\bm{b}\rangle_{L^2} = \sum^{N_x-1}_{i=0} a_i b_i \indent\text{ for } \bm{a},\bm{b} \in \RR^{N_x} .\end{aligned}$$
We are now ready to present the derivative of $E(\bmu)$, and formulate the discrete Hamilton-Jacobi equation as in Algorithm \[alg:gradient-descent\].
\[prop:1d-discretization-EL\] Denote $\tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha} := L_{\bmu^n} + \alpha Id$. Let $$E(\bmu) :=\frac{\dx}{\dt} \sum^{N_t-1}_{n=0}
\left<\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n}, \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1} (\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n})\right>_{L^2}.$$ Suppose $x \in \Omega$. The derivative of $E(\bmu)$ with respect to $\bmu^n$ ($n=1,\cdots, N_t-1$) is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta E(\bmu)}{\delta \bmu^n}
&= \frac{\dx}{\dt}\Biggl(
- 2 \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n})
+ 2 \tilde{L}_{\bmu^{n-1},\alpha}(\bmu^{n} - \bmu^{n-1})\\\nonumber
&- \biggl(\left< \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n), L_{\bm{e}_i} \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n) \right>_{L^2}\biggl)^{N_x-1}_{i=0}
\Biggl)\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{e}_i \in \RR^{N_x}$ is an index vector defined as $$\bm{e}_i =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{$i^{th}$ index}\\
0 & \text{else}.
\end{cases}$$
Differentiating $E(\bmu)$ with respect to $\bmu^n$ for $n=1, \cdots, N_t-1$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta E(\bmu)}{\delta \bmu^n}
&= \frac{\delta}{\delta \bmu^n} \Biggl(
\dt \dx \sum^{N_t-1}_{m=0} (\bmu^{m+1} - \bmu^{m}) \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1}(\bmu^{m+1} - \bmu^{m})
\Biggl)\\
&= \dt \dx \Biggl(
- 2 \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n)
+ 2 \tilde{L}_{\bmu^{n-1},\alpha}^{-1}(\bmu^{n} - \bmu^{n-1})\\
&\hspace{2cm} + (\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n)\frac{\partial \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1}}{\partial \bmu^n}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n)
\Biggl),
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n)\frac{\delta \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1}}{\delta \bmu^n_n}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n)
&= - \left<\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n, \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1} L_{\bm{e_i}} \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n) \right>_{L^2}\\
&= - \left< \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n), L_{\bm{e}_i} \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n) \right>_{L^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof.
Consider $\bm{u} = (u_0, \cdots, u_{N_x-1})^T \in \RR^{N_x}$, then $\left<\bm{u}, L_{\bm{e}_i} \bm{u}\right>_{L_2}$ forms the R.H.S. of the discrete Hamilton-Jacobi equation as follows $$\left< \bm{u}, L_{\bm{e}_i} \bm{u} \right>_{L^2} =
\begin{cases}
&\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_{i+1} - u_{i}}{\dx}\right)^2 + \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_{i} - u_{i-1}}{\dx}\right)^2, \indent i = 1,\cdots,N_x-2\\
&\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_{i+1} - u_{i}}{\dx}\right)^2 , \indent i = 0\\
&\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_{i} - u_{i-1}}{\dx}\right)^2, \indent i = N_x-1.
\end{cases}$$
### 2D Discretization
Now, consider the two dimensional discretization. Assume $\Omega = [0,1] \times [0,1]$ and $t\in[0,1]$. $$\begin{aligned}
&\bmu = (\bmu^0,\cdots,\bmu^{N_t}) \in \RR^{(N_t+1) \times N_x \times N_y}\\
&\bmu^n = (\mu^n_{ij})_{i=0}^{N_x-1}{}_{j=0}^{N_y-1} \in \RR^{N_x \times N_y} \indent (n=0,\cdots,N_t)\\
&\mu^n_{ij} \in \RR \indent (i=0,\cdots,N_x - 1,j=0,\cdots,N_y - 1, n=0,\cdots,N_t)\\
&\mu^0_{ij} = \mu_0(i\dx, j\dy), \indent \mu^{N_t}_{ij} = \mu_1(i\dx, j\dy), \indent (i=0,\cdots,N_x - 1, j =0, \cdots,N_y - 1)\\
&\dx = \frac{1}{N_x-1}, \indent \dy = \frac{1}{N_y-1}, \indent \dt = \frac{1}{N_t}.\end{aligned}$$ Similar to 1D case, using the finite volume method, formula (\[eq:UW-modified-main-prob\]) can be discretized as $$\begin{aligned}
&\int^1_0 \int^1_0 \int^1_0
\partial_t \mu(t,x,y) (L_\mu + \alpha Id)^{-1} \partial_t \mu(t,x,y) \d x \d y \d t\\
&\approx \frac{\dx\dy}{\dt} \sum^{N_t-1}_{n=0}
\left<\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n}, (L_{\bmu^n} + \alpha Id)^{-1} (\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n})\right>_{L^2}\end{aligned}$$ with $\bmu^0$ and $\bmu^{N_t}$ are given and $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{L^2}$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \bm{a},\bm{b}\rangle_{L^2} = \sum^{N_x-1}_{i=0}\sum^{N_y-1}_{j=0} a_{ij} b_{ij} \indent\text{ for } \bm{a},\bm{b} \in \RR^{N_x \times N_y} .\end{aligned}$$
The major difference between 1D discretization and 2D discretization arises from the weighted Laplacian operator $\tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}$. Consider $\bm{w} = (w_{i,j})_{i=0}^{N_x-1}{}_{j=0}^{N_y-1} \in \RR^{N_x \times N_y}$. For $i=0,\cdots,N_x-1$ and $j=0,\cdots,N_y-1$, the operator can be described as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&(\tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha} \bm{w})_{ij}\\
=& - \frac{1}{\dx^2} \Biggl(
\frac{\mu^n_{i+1,j} + \mu^n_{i,j}}{2}w_{i+1,j} - 2 \biggl( \frac{\mu^n_{i+1,j} + \mu^n_{i,j}}{2} + \frac{\mu^n_{i,j} + \mu^n_{i-1,j}}{2}\biggl)w_{i,j} + \frac{\mu^n_{i,j} + \mu^n_{i-1,j}}{2} w_{i-1,j}
\Biggl)\\
&- \frac{1}{\dy^2} \Biggl(
\frac{\mu^n_{i,j+1} + \mu^n_{i,j}}{2}w_{i,j+1} - 2 \biggl( \frac{\mu^n_{i,j+1} + \mu^n_{i,j}}{2} + \frac{\mu^n_{i,j} + \mu^n_{i,j-1}}{2}\biggl)w_{i,j} + \frac{\mu^n_{i,j} + \mu^n_{i,j-1}}{2} w_{i,j-1}
\Biggl)\\
& + \alpha w_{i,j}.
\end{aligned}$$ Here, we assume the Neumann boundary on the spatial domain $\Omega$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
w_{-1,j} = w_{0,j},\indent w_{N_x,j} = w_{N_x-1,j},\indent j=0,\cdots,N_y-1\\
w_{i,-1} = w_{i,0},\indent w_{i,N_y} = w_{i,N_y-1},\indent i=0,\cdots,N_x-1\\
\mu^n_{-1,j} = \mu^n_{0,j},\indent \mu^n_{N_x,j} = \mu^n_{N_x-1,j},\indent j=0,\cdots,N_y-1\\
\mu^n_{i,-1} = \mu^n_{i,0},\indent \mu^n_{i,N_y} = \mu^n_{i,N_y-1},\indent i=0,\cdots,N_x-1.
\end{aligned}$$
Denote $\tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha} := L_{\bmu^n} + \alpha Id$. Let $$E(\bmu) :=\frac{\dx \dy}{\dt} \sum^{N_t-1}_{n=0}
\left<\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n}, \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1} (\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n})\right>_{L^2}.$$ Suppose $x \in \Omega = [0,1] \times[0,1]$. The derivative of $E(\bmu)$ with respect to $\bmu^n$ ($n=1,\cdots, N_t-1$) is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta E(\bmu)}{\delta \bmu^n}
&= \frac{\dx \dy}{\dt}\Biggl(
- 2 \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^{n})
+ 2 \tilde{L}_{\bmu^{n-1},\alpha}(\bmu^{n} - \bmu^{n-1})\\\nonumber
&- \biggl(\left< \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n), L_{\bm{e}_{ij}} \tilde{L}_{\bmu^n,\alpha}^{-1}(\bmu^{n+1} - \bmu^n) \right>_{L^2}\biggl)^{N_x-1, N_y-1}_{i=0, j=0}
\Biggl).\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{e}_{ij}$ is an index vector such that $\bm{e}_{k,l} = 1$ if $k=i$ and $l=j$ and $0$ otherwise.
The proof follows exactly the one in proposition \[prop:1d-discretization-EL\].
Consider a vector $\bm{u} = (u_{ij})^{N_x-1}_{i=0}{}^{N_y-1}_{j=0} \in \RR^{N_x \times N_y}$ that satisfies the Neumann boundary condition. Similar to 1D case, $\left< \bm{u}, L_{\bm{e}_{i,j}} \bm{u} \right>_{L^2}$ can be computed easily based on the operator and it forms the R.H.S. of the discrete Hamilton-Jacobi equation. For $i=0,\cdots,N_x-1$ and $j=0,\cdots,N_y-1$, $$\begin{split}
\left< \bm{u}, L_{\bm{e}_{i,j}} \bm{u} \right>_{L^2} =&
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_{i+1,j} - u_{i,j}}{\dx}\right)^2 + \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_{i,j} - u_{i-1,j}}{\dx}\right)^2\\
+&
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_{i,j+1} - u_{i,j}}{\dy}\right)^2 + \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_{i,j} - u_{i,j-1}}{\dy}\right)^2.
\end{split}$$
$L^1$ Generalized Unnormalized Wasserstein metric
-------------------------------------------------
Our discussion here mainly focuses on $\|u\|_1 = \sum_{i} |u_i|$. The algorithm can be simply extended to $\|u\|_2 = \sqrt{\sum_i u_i^2}$ using the corresponding shrinkage operator. With the Lagrangian (\[prop:l1-lagrangian\]), we consider a saddle point problem. $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{\m,c} \sup_{\Phi} \cl (m,c,\Phi).\end{aligned}$$ We can use PDHG [@CP] to solve the saddle point problem by minimizing $\cl(\m,c,\Phi)$ over $m$ and $c$ and maximizing over $\Phi$. $$\begin{aligned}
\m^{k+1} &= \argmin_{\m} \biggl( \|\m\|_{1} + \frac{\epsilon}{2} \|\m\|^2_2 + \left< \Phi^k, \nabla \cdot \m \right>_{L^2} +\frac{1}{2\lambda} \|\m - \m^k\|^2_2 \biggl)\label{eq:L1-mk_plus_1}\\
c^{k+1} &= \argmin_{c} \biggl( \frac{1}{\alpha} \|c\|_{1} + \frac{\epsilon}{2}\|c\|^2_2 - \left< \Phi^k, c \right>_{L^2} +\frac{1}{2\lambda} \|c -c^k\|^2_2 \biggl)\label{eq:L1-ck_plus_1}\\
\Phi^{k+1} &= \argmax_\Phi \biggl( \big< \Phi, \nabla \cdot ( 2\m^{k+1} - \m^k) - (2 c^{k+1} - c^k) + \mu_1 - \mu_0 \big>_{L^2} - \frac{1}{2 \tau} \|\Phi - \Phi^k\|^2_2 \biggl)\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ and $\tau$ are step sizes of the algorithm. Note that we add a small $\|\cdot\|_2^2$ perturbation in and to strictly convexify the problem. This adjustment can overcome the possible non-uniqueness of the optimal transport problem. This trick is also related to so called the elastic net regularization [@parikh2014proximal], whose proximal operator is essentially the same as the proximal operator of $L^1$ norm shrink operator.
$\m^{k+1} = 1/(1 + \epsilon \lambda) shrink\biggl( \m^k + \lambda \nabla \Phi^k, \lambda \biggl)$\
$c^{k+1} = 1/(1+\epsilon \lambda) shrink\biggl( c^k + \lambda \Phi^k, \frac{\lambda}{\alpha} \biggl)$\
$\Phi^{k+1} = \Phi^k + \tau\biggl( \nabla \cdot(2\m^{k+1} - \m^k) - (2c^{k+1} - c^k) + \mu_1 - \mu_0 \biggl)$
where the $shrink$ operator is defined as following: $$(shrink(u,t))_i =
\begin{cases}
(1 - t/|u_i|)u_i, &\text{for } \|u_i\|_1 \geq t;\\
0, &\text{for } \|u_i\|_1 < t.
\end{cases} \quad i = 1,\cdots, d.$$
This algorithm can also be extended to $\|\cdot\|_2$ by simply replacing the above shrink operator as $$shrink(u,t) =
\begin{cases}
(1 - t/\|u\|_2)u, &\text{for } \|u\|_2 \geq t;\\
0, &\text{for } \|u\|_2 < t.
\end{cases}$$
### Discretization
Consider the following two dimensional discretization on a domain $\Omega = [0,1]\times[0,1]$ based on the finite volume method. $$\begin{aligned}
&\dx = \frac{1}{N_x}, \dy = \frac{1}{N_y}\\
&\mu^0_{ij} = \mu_0(i\dx,j\dy),\indent \mu^1_{ij} = \mu_1(i\dx,j\dy)\\
&V = \{(i,j): i=0,\cdots,N_x, j=0,\cdots,N_y\}\\
&E_x = \{(i \pm \frac{1}{2},j): i=1,\cdots,N_x-1,j=0,\cdots,N_y)\}\\
&E_y = \{(i ,j \pm \frac{1}{2}): i=0,\cdots,N_x,j=1,\cdots,N_y-1)\}\\
&\bm{\Phi} = (\Phi_{ij})_{ij \in V} \in \RR^{(N_x+1)\times (N_y+1)},
\indent \bm{c} = (c_{ij})_{ij \in V} \in \RR^{(N_x+1)\times (N_y+1)}\\
&\bm{mx} = (mx_{e})_{e \in E_x} \in \RR^{N_x \times (N_y+1)},
\indent \bm{my} = (my_{e})_{e \in E_y} \in \RR^{(N_x+1)\times N_y}\\
&mx_{i+\frac{1}{2},j} \approx \int^{(i+1)\dx}_{i\dx} \int^{(j+1/2)\dy}_{(j-1/2)\dy} m_x(x,y) \d y \d x\\
&my_{i,j+\frac{1}{2}} \approx \int^{(i+1/2)\dx}_{(i-1/2)\dx} \int^{(j+1)\dy}_{j\dy} m_y(x,y) \d y \d x.\end{aligned}$$
Here $m$ satisfies the zero flux condition. Thus, $\bm{mx}$ and $\bm{my}$ satisfy the following boundary conditions on $m$: $$\begin{aligned}
&mx_{-\frac{1}{2},j} = mx_{N_x+\frac{1}{2},j} = 0,\indent j=0,\cdots,N_y\\
&my_{i, -\frac{1}{2}} = my_{i, N_y+\frac{1}{2}} = 0,\indent i=0,\cdots,N_x.\end{aligned}$$ The discretization of Algorithm \[alg:L1-pdhg\] can be written as the following: $$\begin{aligned}
mx^{k+\frac{1}{2}}_{i+\frac{1}{2},j} =& \frac{1}{1+\epsilon \lambda} \biggl( mx^k_{i+\frac{1}{2},j} + \frac{\lambda}{\dx}(\Phi_{i+1,j} - \Phi_{i,j}) \biggl)\\
my^{k+\frac{1}{2}}_{i,j+\frac{1}{2}} =& \frac{1}{1+\epsilon \lambda} \biggl( my^k_{i,j+\frac{1}{2}} + \frac{\lambda}{\dy}(\Phi_{i,j+1} - \Phi_{i,j}) \biggl)\\
c^{k+\frac{1}{2}}_{ij} =& \frac{1}{1+\epsilon \lambda} shrink\biggl( c^k + \lambda \Phi^k_{ij}, \frac{\lambda}{\alpha} \biggl)\\
\bm{mx}^{k+1} =& 2\bm{mx}^{k+\frac{1}{2}} - \bm{mx}^{k}\\
\bm{my}^{k+1} =& 2\bm{my}^{k+\frac{1}{2}} - \bm{my}^{k}\\
\bm{c}^{k+1} =& 2\bm{c}^{k+\frac{1}{2}} - \bm{c}^{k}\\
\Phi^{k+1}_{ij} =& \Phi^{k}_{ij} + \tau \biggl(
\frac{1}{\dx} (mx^{k+1}_{i+\frac{1}{2},j}-mx^{k+1}_{i-\frac{1}{2},j})
+ \frac{1}{\dy} (my^{k+1}_{i,j+\frac{1}{2}}-my^{k+1}_{i,j-\frac{1}{2}})
- c^{k+1}_{ij} + \mu^1_{ij} - \mu^0_{ij}
\biggl).\end{aligned}$$
Numerical experiments {#section:numerical-experiments}
=====================
In this section, we show the numerical results with various examples for $L^1$ and $L^2$ unnormalized optimal transport with the spatially dependent source function.
Nesterov Accelerated Gradient Descent for $UW_2$
------------------------------------------------
We present four numerical experiments with different $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$ using Algorithm \[alg:gradient-descent\].
### Experiment 1
Consider a one dimensional problem on $\Omega = [0,1]$ with $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$ in $\cm(\Omega)
$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_0 &= N(x;\frac{1}{5}, 0.0001)\\
\mu_1 &= N(x;\frac{4}{5}, 0.0001) \cdot 1.4\end{aligned}$$ Here we choose $N(x,\mu,\sigma^2) = C \exp\left(-\frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)$ with an appropriate choice of $C$ satisfying $ \int_\Omega N(x;\mu,\sigma^2) \d x = 1$. Note that $\int_\Omega \mu_0 \d x = 1$ and $\int_\Omega \mu_1 \d x = 1.4$. We use the Algorithm \[alg:gradient-descent\] to compute the minimizer $\mu(t,x)$ of $UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)$. The parameters chosen for the experiment are $N_x = 40, N_t = 30, \tau = 0.1$.
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue line shows $\alpha=0.1$, orange line shows $\alpha=10$, and green line shows $\alpha=100$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex"}](UW2-1d-Example-0002.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue line shows $\alpha=0.1$, orange line shows $\alpha=10$, and green line shows $\alpha=100$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex"}](UW2-1d-Example-0003.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue line shows $\alpha=0.1$, orange line shows $\alpha=10$, and green line shows $\alpha=100$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex"}](UW2-1d-Example-0004.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue line shows $\alpha=0.1$, orange line shows $\alpha=10$, and green line shows $\alpha=100$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex"}](UW2-1d-Example-0005.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue line shows $\alpha=0.1$, orange line shows $\alpha=10$, and green line shows $\alpha=100$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex"}](UW2-1d-Example-0006.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue line shows $\alpha=0.1$, orange line shows $\alpha=10$, and green line shows $\alpha=100$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex"}](UW2-1d-Example-0007.png){width="1\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:UW2-1d-ex\] shows the $L^2$ unnormalized optimal transport with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ with different $\alpha$ values. The parameter $\alpha$ determines the ratio between transportation and linear interpolation for $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$. If $\alpha$ is small, the geodesic of generalized unnormalized optimal transport is similar to the normalized (classical) optimal transport geodesics. As the parameter $\alpha$ increases, the generalized unnormalized optimal transport geodesic behaves closer to the Euclidean geodesics.
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue lines show $\alpha=1$, orange lines show $\alpha=100$, and green lines show $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex-ft"}](UW2-1d-ft-0022.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue lines show $\alpha=1$, orange lines show $\alpha=100$, and green lines show $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex-ft"}](UW2-1d-ft-0023.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue lines show $\alpha=1$, orange lines show $\alpha=100$, and green lines show $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex-ft"}](UW2-1d-ft-0024.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue lines show $\alpha=1$, orange lines show $\alpha=100$, and green lines show $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex-ft"}](UW2-1d-ft-0025.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue lines show $\alpha=1$, orange lines show $\alpha=100$, and green lines show $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex-ft"}](UW2-1d-ft-0026.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 1.* $L^2$ Unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t)$ using different $\alpha$ values. Blue lines show $\alpha=1$, orange lines show $\alpha=100$, and green lines show $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-1d-ex-ft"}](UW2-1d-ft-0027.png){width="1\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:UW2-1d-ex-ft\] shows the transportation with a spatially independent source function $f(t)$. It is clear to see that the masses are created or removed locally for the transportation with $f(t,x)$, while they are created or removed globally for the transportation with $f(t)$.
![*Experiment 2.* The size of the domain $|\Omega|$ vs. $L^2$ unnormalized Wasserstein metrics for $f(t,x)$ and $f(t)$. x-axis represents $|\Omega|$ and y-axis represents $UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2$. Both $f(t,x)$ and $f(t)$ use $\alpha=100$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-distance"}](ftx-energy-distance.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 2.* The size of the domain $|\Omega|$ vs. $L^2$ unnormalized Wasserstein metrics for $f(t,x)$ and $f(t)$. x-axis represents $|\Omega|$ and y-axis represents $UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)^2$. Both $f(t,x)$ and $f(t)$ use $\alpha=100$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-distance"}](ft-energy-distance.png){width="1\linewidth"}
### Experiment 2
In this experiment, we can see how the size of the domain affects the unnormalized Wasserstein distances for both a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and a spatially independent source function $f(t)$. Consider a one dimensional problem between two densities with different total masses. Figure \[fig:UW2-distance\] shows plots for the size of the domain $|\Omega|$ vs. the unnormalized Wasserstein distance $UW_2$. As expected, for the spatially independent source function, the distance increases as $|\Omega|$ increases since the source function affects the transportation globally. Thus, more masses are created or removed as $|\Omega|$ increases. However, the unnormalized Wasserstein distance with the spatially dependent source function does not depend on $|\Omega|$. This actually provides an advantage of using the spatially dependent source function over the spatially independent source function when we need a consistent Wasserstein distance for any size of the domain.
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1-0016.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1-0017.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1-0018.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1-0019.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1-0020.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1-0021.png){width="1\linewidth"}
### Experiment 3
Consider a two dimensional problem with the following input values: $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu_0 = N\left((x,y), (\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3}), (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{20},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{20})\right) + N\left((x,y), (\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3}), (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{20},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{20})\right)\\
&\mu_1 = N\left((x,y), (\frac{2}{3},\frac{2}{3}), (\frac{\sqrt{2}}{20},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{20})\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $N\left((x,y); (\mu_x,\mu_y), (\sigma_x^2,\sigma_y^2)\right) = C \exp\left(-\frac{(x-\mu_x)^2}{2\sigma_x^2}-\frac{(y-\mu_y)^2}{2\sigma_y^2}\right)$ and $C$ is a constant such that $\int_\Omega N((x,y);(\mu_x,\mu_y),(\sigma_x^2,\sigma_y^2)) \d x \d y = 1$. Using the Algorithm \[alg:gradient-descent\], we calculate the minimizers of $UW_2(\mu_0,\mu_1)$ with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$. The parameters are chosen as $N_x = 35, N_y = 35, N_t = 15, \tau = 0.1$. Figure \[fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1\] and Figure \[fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1000\] show the transportation with $\alpha=1$ and $\alpha=1000$, respectively. The same phenomena can be observed as in 1D case from *Experiment 1*. In other words, the geodesic with the spatially dependent source function with small $\alpha$ in Figure \[fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1\] behaves closer to the normalized (classical) optimal transport geodesic and the geodesic with large $\alpha$ in Figure \[fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1000\] behaves closer to the Euclidean geodesic.
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1000"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1000-0010.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1000"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1000-0011.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1000"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1000-0012.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1000"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1000-0013.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1000"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1000-0014.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 3.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: 2D example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-2d-ex-alpha-1000"}](UW2-2d-ex2-alpha-1000-0015.png){width="1\linewidth"}
### Experiment 4
In this experiment, we are interested in calculating $L^2$ unnormalized Wasserstein distance between two images. Consider images of two cats with different total masses defined on the domain $\Omega=[0,1]\times [0,1]$. We use Algorithm \[alg:gradient-descent\] with the following parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
N_x = 64, N_y=64, N_t = 15, \tau = 0.05.\end{aligned}$$ Figure \[fig:UW2-two-cats-05\] and Figure \[fig:UW2-two-cats-1000\] show transportation between two cats images with $\alpha=0.5$ and $\alpha=1000$, respectively.
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: Two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-05"}](UN-alpha-05-0001.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: Two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-05"}](UN-alpha-05-0002.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: Two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-05"}](UN-alpha-05-0003.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: Two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-05"}](UN-alpha-05-0004.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: Two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-05"}](UN-alpha-05-0005.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: Two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-05"}](UN-alpha-05-0006.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-1000"}](UN-two-cats-alpha-1000-0.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-1000"}](UN-two-cats-alpha-1000-3.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-1000"}](UN-two-cats-alpha-1000-6.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-1000"}](UN-two-cats-alpha-1000-9.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-1000"}](UN-two-cats-alpha-1000-12.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 4.* $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transportation: two cats example with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ and $\alpha=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:UW2-two-cats-1000"}](UN-two-cats-alpha-1000-15.png){width="1\linewidth"}
Primal dual algorithm for $UW_1$
--------------------------------
We conduct two numerical examples of $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transport using Algorithm \[alg:L1-pdhg\].
### Experiment 5
Assume $\Omega = [0,1] \times [0,1]$. Consider the two dimensional problem with the following initial densities: $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu_0 = N\left((x,y), (\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}), (\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{10})\right)\\
&\mu_1 = N\left((x,y), (\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{2}), (\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{10})\right) \cdot 1.4
$$ $N$ is the same as the one used in Experiment 3. We chose the parameters as: $ N_x = N_y = 40, \epsilon = 0.001, \lambda = 0.0001, \tau = 0.01$. In Figure \[fig:UW1-ex1\], the initial densities $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$ are shown on the top two plots and the minimizers $\bm{m}$’s are plotted for three different $\alpha$ values. Figure \[fig:UW1-ft\] (a) shows the result from $L^1$ transportation with a spatially independent source function $f(t)$. This experiment shows the clear difference between $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transport with $f(t,x)$ and with $f(t)$. While the minimizer $\bm{m}$ from the unnormalized optimal transport with $f(t,x)$ is nonzero only on the area between two densities, the minimizer from the unnormalized optimal transport with $f(t)$ is nonzero everywhere. This is because the spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ affects the minimizer locally but the spatially independent source function $f(t)$ affects the minimizer globally.
![*Experiment 5.* $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ex1"}](UW1-mu0.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 5.* $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ex1"}](UW1-mu1.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 5.* $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ex1"}](UW1-alpha-01.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 5.* $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ex1"}](UW1-alpha-10.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 5.* $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ex1"}](UW1-alpha-100.png){width="1\linewidth"}
### Experiment 6
In this experiment, we are interested in $UW_2$ distance between two images. Consider the same 2D example as in the *Experiment 4*. We use the Algorithm \[alg:L1-pdhg\] with the following parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
N_x = N_y = 256, \epsilon = 0.001, \lambda = 0.0001, \tau = 0.01.\end{aligned}$$ See Figure \[fig:UW1-ex2\] to see the results of $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transport with a spatially dependent source function $f(t,x)$ with different $\alpha$ values $0.1$, $5$, and $10$. Figure \[fig:UW1-ft\] (b) shows the result from $L^1$ transportation with a spatially independent source function $f(t)$. The result is similar to the *Experiment 5*. The minimizer $\bm{m}$ from $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transport with $f(t)$ has nonzero values on the surrounding area of the two densities, but the minimizers from unnormalized optimal transport with $f(t,x)$ are zero on that surrounding area.
![*Experiment 6.* $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ex2"}](UW1-two-cats-mu0.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 6.* $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ex2"}](UW1-two-cats-mu1.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 6.* $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ex2"}](UW1-two-cats-alpha-01.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 6.* $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ex2"}](UW1-two-cats-alpha-5.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![*Experiment 6.* $L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with $f(t,x)$ using different $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ex2"}](UW1-two-cats-alpha-10.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![$L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with a spatially independent source function $f(t)$.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ft"}](experiment1-ft.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![$L^1$ unnormalized optimal transportation with a spatially independent source function $f(t)$.[]{data-label="fig:UW1-ft"}](two-cats-ft.png){width="1\linewidth"}
Discussion {#sec:con}
==========
In this paper, we introduced a new class of $L^p$ generalized unnormalized optimal transport distance with a spatially dependent source function. We presented new fast algorithms for $L^1$ and $L^2$ generalized unnormalized optimal transport. For $L^1$ case, we derived the Kantorovich duality and used a primal-dual algorithm which has explicit formulas with low computational costs. For $L^2$ case, we derived the duality formula, the generalized unnormalized Monge problem and corresponding Monge-Ampère equation. We applied a weighted Laplacian operator $L_\mu$ to formulate the problem into an unconstrained optimization. The gradient operator of this unconstrained optimization is precisely the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. We apply the Nesterov accelerated gradient descent method to solve this minimization problem.
Our algorithm can be applied to general unnormalized/unbalanced optimal transport problems. It is also suitable for considering general variational mean-field games. In future works, we will derive new formulations for all related $L^p$ unbalanced or unnormalized mean-field games and design fast numerical algorithms to solve them.
[10]{}
M. Arjovsky, S. Chintala, and L. Bottou. Wasserstein [[GAN]{}]{}. , 2017.
A. Beck and M. Teboulle. A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems. , 2(1):183–202, 2009.
J.-D. Benamou and Y. Brenier. A computational fluid mechanics solution to the [[Monge]{}]{}-[[Kantorovich]{}]{} mass transfer problem. , 84(3):375–393, 2000.
A. Chambolle and T. Pock. A [[First]{}]{}-[[Order Primal]{}]{}-[[Dual Algorithm]{}]{} for [[Convex Problems]{}]{} with [[Applications]{}]{} to [[Imaging]{}]{}. , 40(1):120–145, 2011.
L. Chayes and H. K. Lei. Transport and equilibrium in non-conservative systems. , 23(1/2):1–64, 2018.
Y. Chen, T. Georgiou, L. Ning, and A. Tannenbaum. . , PP:1–1, 04 2017.
Y. Chen, T. T. Georgiou, and A. Tannenbaum. Interpolation of matrices and matrix-valued densities: The unbalanced case. , 30(3):458–480, 2019.
L. Chizat, G. Peyré, B. Schmitzer, and F.-X. Vialard. Unbalanced [[Optimal Transport]{}]{}: [[Geometry]{}]{} and [[Kantorovich Formulation]{}]{}. , 2015.
L. Chizat, G. Peyré, B. Schmitzer, and F.-X. Vialard. An [[Interpolating Distance Between Optimal Transport]{}]{} and [[Fisher]{}]{}. , 18(1):1–44, 2018.
Y. T. Chow, W. Li, S. Osher, and W. Yin. Algorithm for [[Hamilton]{}]{}-[[Jacobi]{}]{} equations in density space via a generalized [[Hopf]{}]{} formula. , 2018.
B. Engquist and Y. Yang. Seismic [[Inversion]{}]{} and the [[Data Normalization]{}]{} for [[Optimal Transport]{}]{}. , 2018.
W. Gangbo, W. Li, S. Osher, and M. Puthawala. Unnormalized optimal transport. , 2019.
A. [Garbuno-Inigo]{}, F. Hoffmann, W. Li, and A. M. Stuart. Interacting [[Langevin Diffusions]{}]{}: [[Gradient Structure And Ensemble Kalman Sampler]{}]{}. , 2019.
F. L[é]{}ger and W. Li. Hopf-[[Cole]{}]{} transformation via generalized [[Schr]{}]{}\\"odinger bridge problem. , 2019.
W. Li. Geometry of probability simplex via optimal transport. , 2018.
W. Li, E. K. Ryu, S. Osher, W. Yin, and W. Gangbo. A [[Parallel Method]{}]{} for [[Earth Mover]{}]{}’s [[Distance]{}]{}. , 75(1):182–197, 2018.
W. Li, P. Yin, and S. Osher. Computations of [[Optimal Transport Distance]{}]{} with [[Fisher Information Regularization]{}]{}. , 75(3):1581–1595, 2018.
M. Liero, A. Mielke, and G. Savaré. Optimal [[Entropy]{}]{}-[[Transport]{}]{} problems and a new [[Hellinger]{}]{} distance between positive measures. , 211(3):969–1117, 2018.
A. T. Lin, W. Li, S. Osher, and G. Montufar. Wasserstein proximal of [[GANs]{}]{}. 2018.
J. Maas, M. Rumpf, C. Schönlieb, and S. Simon. A generalized model for optimal transport of images including dissipation and density modulation. , 2015.
Y. E. Nesterov. A method for solving the convex programming problem with convergence rate o (1/k\^ 2). In [*Dokl. akad. nauk Sssr*]{}, volume 269, pages 543–547, 1983.
N. Parikh and S. Boyd. Proximal algorithms. , 1(3):127–239, 2014.
G. Peyré and M. Cuturi. Computational [[Optimal Transport]{}]{}. , 2018.
B. Piccoli and F. Rossi. Generalized [[Wasserstein Distance]{}]{} and its [[Application]{}]{} to [[Transport Equations]{}]{} with [[Source]{}]{}. , 211(1):335–358, 2014.
B. Piccoli and F. Rossi. On [[Properties]{}]{} of the [[Generalized Wasserstein Distance]{}]{}. , 222(3):1339–1365, 2016.
E. K. Ryu, W. Li, P. Yin, and S. Osher. Unbalanced and [[Partial L1 Monge]{}]{}: [[A Scalable Parallel First]{}]{}-[[Order Method]{}]{}. , pages 1–18, 2017.
M. Thorpe, S. Park, S. Kolouri, G. K. Rohde, and D. Slepu[a]{}źev. . , 59(2):187–210, Oct. 2017.
C. Villani. . Number 338 in Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. [Springer]{}, Berlin, 2009.
Y. Yang, B. Engquist, J. Sun, and B. F. Hamfeldt. Application of optimal transport and the quadratic [[Wasserstein]{}]{} metric to full-waveform inversion. , 83(1):R43–R62, 2018.
[^1]: W. Lee, W. Li and S. Osher’s research are supported in part by AFOSR MURI FA9550-18-1-0502. R. Lai’s reserach is supported in part by an NSF CAREER Award DMS–1752934.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Mathias Butenschön and\
II. Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Hamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg\
E-mail: ,
title: 'Direct $J/\psi$ photoproduction at next-to-leading-order in nonrelativistic QCD'
---
The factorization formalism of nonrelativistic quantum chromodynamics (NRQCD) [@Bodwin:1994jh] provides a consistent theoretical framework for the description of heavy-quarkonium production and decay. This implies a separation of process-dependent short-distance coefficients, to be calculated perturbatively as expansions in the strong-coupling constant $\alpha_s$, from supposedly universal long-distance matrix elements (LDMEs), to be extracted from experiment. The relative importance of the latter can be estimated by means of velocity scaling rules; [*i.e.*]{}, the LDMEs are predicted to scale with a definite power of the heavy-quark ($Q$) velocity $v$ in the limit $v\ll1$. In this way, the theoretical predictions are organized as double expansions in $\alpha_s$ and $v$. A crucial feature of this formalism is that it takes into account the complete structure of the $Q\overline{Q}$ Fock space, which is spanned by the states $n={}^{2S+1}L_J^{[a]}$ with definite spin $S$, orbital angular momentum $L$, total angular momentum $J$, and color multiplicity $a=1,8$. In particular, this formalism predicts the existence of color-octet (CO) processes in nature. This means that $Q\overline{Q}$ pairs are produced at short distances in CO states and subsequently evolve into physical, color-singlet (CS) quarkonia by the nonperturbative emission of soft gluons. In the limit $v\to0$, the traditional CS model (CSM) is recovered in the case of $S$-wave quarkonia.
Fifteen years after the introduction of the NRQCD factorization formalism [@Bodwin:1994jh], the existence of CO processes and the universality of the LDMEs are still at issue and far from proven, despite an impressive series of experimental and theoretical endeavors. The greatest success of NRQCD was that it was able to explain the $J/\psi$ hadroproduction yield at the Fermilab Tevatron [@Cho:1995vh], while the CSM prediction lies orders of magnitudes below the data, even if the latter is evaluated at next-to-leading order (NLO) or beyond [@Campbell:2007ws]. Also in the case of $J/\psi$ photoproduction at DESY HERA, the CSM cross section significantly falls short of the data, as demonstrated by a recent NLO analysis [@Artoisenet:2009xh] using up-to-date input parameters and standard scale choices, leaving room for CO contributions [@Cacciari:1996dg]. Similarly, the $J/\psi$ yields measured in electroproduction at HERA and in two-photon collisions at CERN LEP2 were shown [@Kniehl:2001tk; @Klasen:2001cu] to favor the presence of CO processes. As for $J/\psi$ polarization in hadroproduction, neither the leading-order (LO) NRQCD prediction [@Braaten:1999qk], nor the NLO CSM one [@Campbell:2007ws] leads to an adequate description of the Tevaton data. The situation is quite similar for the polarization in photoproduction at HERA [@Artoisenet:2009xh].
In order to convincingly establish the CO mechanism and the LDME universality, it is an urgent task to complete the NLO description of $J/\psi$ hadro- [@Campbell:2007ws] and photoproduction [@Artoisenet:2009xh; @Kramer:1994zi], regarding both $J/\psi$ yield and polarization, by including the full CO contributions at NLO. While the NLO contributions due to the $^1\!S_0^{[8]}$ and $^3\!S_1^{[8]}$ CO states may be obtained using standard techniques [@Kramer:1994zi], the NLO treatment of $^3\!P_J^{[8]}$ states in $2\to2$ processes requires a more advanced technology, which has been lacking so far. In fact, the $^3\!P_J^{[8]}$ contributions represent the missing links in all those previous NLO analyses [@Campbell:2007ws; @Artoisenet:2009xh; @Kramer:1994zi], and there is no reason at all to expect them to be insignificant. Specifically, their calculation is far more intricate because the application of the $^3\!P_J^{[8]}$ projection operators to the short-distance scattering amplitudes produce particularly lengthy expressions involving complicated tensor loop integrals and exhibiting an entangled pattern of infrared singularities. This technical bottleneck, which has prevented essential progress in the global test of NRQCD factorization for the past fifteen years, was overcome for the first time in Ref. [@Butenschoen:2009zy], which we review here.
![Sample diagrams contributing at LO (a and d) and to the virtual (b and e) and real (c and f) NLO corrections.[]{data-label="fig:Examples"}](ExampleDiagrams.eps){width="6cm"}
In direct photoproduction, a quasi-real photon $\gamma$ that is radiated off the incoming electron $e$ interacts with a parton $i$ stemming from the incoming proton $p$. Invoking the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation and the factorization theorems of the QCD parton model and NRQCD [@Bodwin:1994jh], the inclusive $J/\psi$ photoproduction cross section is evaluated from $$d\sigma(ep\to J/\psi+X)
=\sum_{i,n} \int dxdy\, f_{\gamma/e}(x)f_{i/p}(y)
\langle{\cal O}^{J/\psi}[n]\rangle
d\sigma(\gamma i\to c\overline{c}[n]+X),
\label{Overview.Cross}$$ where $f_{\gamma/e}(x)$ is the photon flux function, $f_{i/p}(y)$ are the parton distribution functions (PDFs) of the proton, $\langle{\cal O}^{J/\psi}[n]\rangle$ are the LDMEs, and $d\sigma(\gamma i\to c\overline{c}[n]+X)$ are the partonic cross sections. Working in the fixed-flavor-number scheme, $i$ runs over the gluon $g$ and the light quarks $q=u,d,s$ and anti-quarks $\overline q$. The Fock states contributing through the order of our calculation include $n={}^3S_1^{[1]},{}^1S_0^{[8]},{}^3S_1^{[8]},{}^3P_J^{[8]}$. Example Feynman diagrams for partonic LO subprocesses $\gamma i\to c\overline{c}[n]+X$ as well as virtual- and real-correction diagrams are shown in Fig. \[fig:Examples\].
We now describe our theoretical input and the kinematic conditions for our numerical analysis. We set $m_c=m_{J/\psi}/2$, adopt the values of $m_{J/\psi}$, $m_e$, and $\alpha$ from Ref. [@Amsler:2008zzb], and use the one-loop (two-loop) formula for $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$, with $n_f=3$ active quark flavors, at LO (NLO). As for the proton PDFs, we use set CTEQ6L1 (CTEQ6M) [@Pumplin:2002vw] at LO (NLO), which comes with an asymptotic scale parameter of $\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}^{(4)}=215$ MeV (326 MeV), so that $\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}^{(3)}=249$ MeV (389 MeV). We evaluate the photon flux function using Eq. (5) of Ref. [@Kniehl:1996we] with the cut-off $Q_\mathrm{max}^2=2$ GeV$^2$ [@Adloff:2002ex; @H1.prelim] on the photon virtuality. Our default choices for the renormalization, factorization, and NRQCD scales are $\mu_r=\mu_f=m_T$ and $\mu_\Lambda=m_c$, respectively, where $m_T=\sqrt{p_T^2+4m_c^2}$ is the $J/\psi$ transverse mass. We adopt the LDMEs from Ref. [@Kniehl:1998qy], which were fitted to Tevatron I data using the CTEQ4 PDFs, because, besides the usual LO set, they also comprise a [*higher-order-improved*]{} set determined by approximately taking into account dominant higher-order effects due to multiple-gluon radiation in inclusive $J/\psi$ hadroproduction, which had been found to be substantial by a Monte Carlo study [@CanoColoma:1997rn]. We disentangle $\langle {\cal O}^{J/\psi}(^1\!S_0^{[8]}) \rangle$ and $\langle {\cal O}^{J/\psi}(^3\!P_0^{[8]}) \rangle$, a linear combination of which is fixed by the fit only, as in Ref. [@Klasen:2004tz]. The LO CO LDMEs are similar to the those obtained in Ref. [@Kniehl:2006qq] by fitting Tevatron II data using the CTEQ6L1 PDFs [@Pumplin:2002vw]. The higher-order-improved CO LDMEs are likely to undershoot the genuine ones, which are presently unknown.
Recently, the H1 Collaboration presented preliminary data on inclusive $J/\psi$ photoproduction taken in collisions of 27.6 GeV electrons or positrons on 920 GeV protons in the HERA II laboratory frame [@H1.prelim]. They nicely agree with their previous measurement at HERA I [@Adloff:2002ex]. These data come as singly differential cross sections in $p_T^2$, $W=\sqrt{(p_\gamma+p_p)^2}$, and $z=(p_{J/\psi}\cdot p_p)/(p_\gamma\cdot p_p)$, in each case with certain acceptance cuts on the other two variables. Here, $p_\gamma$, $p_p$, and $p_{J/\psi}$ are the photon, proton, and $J/\psi$ four-momenta, respectively. In the comparisons below, we impose the same kinematic conditions on our theoretical predictions.
----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
{width="4.7cm"} {width="4.7cm"} {width="4.7cm"}
----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
The H1 measurements [@Adloff:2002ex; @H1.prelim] of the $p_T^2$, $W$, and $z$ distributions of inclusive $J/\psi$ photoproduction are compared with our new NLO predictions in full NRQCD in Fig. \[fig:results\](a)–(c), respectively. The uncertainty due the LDMEs is indicated by shaded (yellow) bands, whose upper margins (solid lines) refer to the LO set. For comparison, also the default predictions at LO (dashed lines) as well as those of the CSM at NLO (dot-dashed lines) and LO (dotted lines) are shown. Notice that the experimental data are contaminated by the feed-down from heavier charmonia, mainly due to $\psi^\prime\to J/\psi+X$, which yields an estimated enhancement by about 15% [@Kramer:1994zi]. Furthermore, our predictions do not include resolved photoproduction, which contributes appreciably only at $z{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
\hbox {$<$}\,}0.3$ [@Kniehl:1998qy], and diffractive production, which is confined to the quasi-elastic domain at $z\approx1$ and $p_T\approx0$. These contributions are efficiently suppressed by the cut $0.3<z<0.9$ in Figs. \[fig:results\](a) and (b), so that our comparisons are indeed meaningful. We observe that the NLO corrections enhance the NRQCD cross section, by up to 115%, in the kinematic range considered, except for $z{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
\hbox {$<$}\,}0.45$, where they are negative. As may be seen from Fig. \[fig:results\](c), the familiar growth of the LO NRQCD prediction in the upper endpoint region, leading to a breakdown at $z=1$, is further enhanced at NLO. The solution to this problem clearly lies beyond the fixed-order treatment and may be found in soft collinear effective theory [@Fleming:2006cd]. The experimental data are nicely gathered in the central region of the error bands, except for the two low-$z$ points in Fig. \[fig:results\](c), which overshoot the NLO NRQCD prediction. However, this apparent disagreement is expected to fade away once the NLO-corrected NRQCD contribution due to resolved photoproduction is included. In fact, the above considerations concerning the large size of the NLO corrections to hadroproduction directly carry over to resolved photoproduction, which proceeds through the same partonic subprocesses. On the other hand, the default CSM predictions significantly undershoot the experimental data, by typically a factor of 4, which has already been observed in Ref. [@Artoisenet:2009xh]. Except for $p_T^2{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
\hbox {$>$}\,}4$ GeV$^2$, the situation is even deteriorated by the inclusion of the NLO corrections.
Despite the caveat concerning our limited knowledge of the CO LDMEs at NLO, we conclude that the H1 data [@Adloff:2002ex; @H1.prelim] show clear evidence of the existence of CO processes in nature, as predicted by NRQCD, supporting the conclusions previously reached for hadroproduction at the Tevatron [@Cho:1995vh] and two-photon collisions at LEP2 [@Klasen:2001cu]. In order to further substantiate this argument, it is indispensable to complete the NLO analysis of inclusive $J/\psi$ hadroproduction in NRQCD, by treating also the $^3\!P_J^{[8]}$ channels at NLO, so as to permit a genuine NLO fit of the relevant CO LDMEs to Tevatron and CERN LHC data. This goal is greatly facilitated by the technical advancement achieved in the present analysis.
This work was supported in part by BMBF Grant No. 05H09GUE, DFG Grant No. KN 365/6–1, and HGF Grant No. HA 101.
[99]{}
G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and G.P. Lepage, *Phys. Rev.* D [**51**]{} (1995) 1125; [**55**]{} (1997) 5853(E). P.L. Cho and A.K. Leibovich, *Phys. Rev.* D [**53**]{} (1996) 150; [**53**]{} (1996) 6203.
J. Campbell, F. Maltoni and F. Tramontano, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**98**]{} (2007) 252002; P. Artoisenet, J.P. Lansberg and F. Maltoni, *Phys. Lett.* B [**653**]{} (2007) 60; B. Gong and J.-X. Wang, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**100**]{} (2008) 232001; B. Gong, X.Q. Li and J.-X. Wang, *Phys. Lett.* B [**673**]{} (2009) 197. P. Artoisenet, J. Campbell, F. Maltoni and F. Tramontano, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**102**]{} (2009) 142001; C.-H. Chang, R. Li and J.-X. Wang, *Phys. Rev.* D [**80**]{} (2009) 034020. M. Cacciari and M. Krämer, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**76**]{} (1996) 4128; P. Ko, J. Lee and H.S. Song, *Phys. Rev.* D [**54**]{} (1996) 4312; [**60**]{} (1999) 119902(E). B.A. Kniehl and L. Zwirner, *Nucl. Phys.* B [**621**]{} (2002) 337; [**637**]{} (2002) 311; [**678**]{} (2004) 258. M. Klasen, B.A. Kniehl, L.N. Mihaila and M. Steinhauser, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**89**]{} (2002) 032001. E. Braaten, B.A. Kniehl and J. Lee, *Phys. Rev.* D [**62**]{} (2000) 094005; B.A. Kniehl and J. Lee, *ibid.* [**62**]{} (2000) 114027. M. Krämer, J. Zunft, J. Steegborn and P.M. Zerwas, *Phys. Lett.* B [**348**]{} (1995) 657; M. Krämer, *Nucl. Phys.* B [**459**]{} (1996) 3. M. Butenschön and B.A. Kniehl, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**104**]{} (2010) 072001. Particle Data Group, C. Amsler [*et al.*]{}, *Phys. Lett.* B [**667**]{} (2008) 1.
CTEQ Colaboration, J. Pumplin [*et al.*]{}, *JHEP* [**0207**]{} (2002) 012 . B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer and M. Spira, *Z. Phys.* C [**76**]{} (1997) 689. H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff [*et al.*]{}, *Eur. Phys. J.* C [**25**]{} (2002) 25. H1 Collaboration, F.D. Aaron [*et al.*]{}, *DESY Report* 09–225 \[[arXiv:1002.0234 \[hep-ex\]]{}\].
B.A. Kniehl and G. Kramer, *Eur. Phys. J.* C [**6**]{} (1999) 493. B. Cano-Coloma and M.A. Sanchis-Lozano, *Nucl. Phys.* B [**508**]{} (1997) 753. M. Klasen, B.A. Kniehl, L.N. Mihaila and M. Steinhauser, *Nucl. Phys.* B [**713**]{} (2005) 487; *Phys. Rev.* D [**71**]{} (2005) 014016. B.A. Kniehl and C.P. Palisoc, *Eur. Phys. J.* C [**48**]{} (2006) 451. S. Fleming, A.K. Leibovich and T. Mehen, *Phys. Rev.* D [**74**]{} (2006) 114004.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Politecnico di Milano, Italy'
- 'University of Southampton, UK'
author:
- 'Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto Marchesi, Nicola Gatti'
- Stefano Coniglio
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: |
Leadership in Singleton Congestion Games:\
What is Hard and What is Easy
---
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
FTUV-06-0710 .4cm IFIC/06-27\
July 10, 2006\
JHEP 09 (2006) 009
[**On the absence of BPS preonic solutions in IIA and IIB supergravities**]{}
[ Igor A. Bandos$^{1,2}$, José A. de Azcárraga $^1$ and Oscar Varela$^1$]{}
$^1$ [*Department of Theoretical Physics, Valencia University, and IFIC (CSIC-UVEG), 46100-Burjassot (Valencia), Spain*]{}
$^2$[*Institute for Theoretical Physics, NSC KIPT, 61108 Kharkov, Ukraine*]{}
[**Abstract**]{}
[We consider the present absence of $\nu=31/32$ supersymmetric solutions in supergravity [*i.e.*]{}, of solutions describing BPS preons. A recent result indicates that (bosonic) BPS preonic solutions do not exist in type IIB supergravity. We reconsider this analysis by using the $G$-frame method, extend it to the IIA supergravity case, and show that there are no (bosonic) preonic solutions for type IIA either. For the classical $D=11$ supergravity no conclusion can be drawn yet, although the negative IIA results permit establishing the conditions that preonic solutions would have to satisfy. For supergravities with ‘stringy’ $(\alpha^\prime)^3$-corrections, the existence of BPS preonic solutions remains fully open.]{}
Introduction
============
It has been argued in a very recent paper [@GGPR06] that purely bosonic solutions preserving $31$ out of $32$ supersymmetries, hence describing [*BPS preon*]{} states [@BPS01], do not exist for IIB supergravity. Using the moving $G$-frame method of [@BPS03] (Sec. 1.2), we rederive this result here (Sec. 2). Then, we apply the same technique to the IIA case and also show that preonic solutions do not exist in type IIA supergravity (Sec. 3). Nevertheless, the concluded absence of preonic solutions could be modified if the ‘stringy’ $(\alpha^\prime)^3$-corrections to the dilatino transformation rule were made explicit and taken into account (Sec. 5).
For $D=11$ supergravity, the existence of BPS preonic solutions is not ruled out even at the classical level ([*i.e.*]{}, ignoring $(\alpha^\prime)^3$-corrections), although the above negative results for type IIA supergravity already set strong restrictions (Sec. 4) to be satisfied by these solutions.
Basic notions and notation
--------------------------
In eleven-dimensional supergravity [@CJS78] the only fermionic field is the gravitino, $\check{\psi}^{\;\check{\alpha}}=
dx^{\check \mu} \check{\psi}_{\check{\mu}}^{\;\check{\alpha}} =
dx^{\mu}\check{\psi}_{{\mu}}^{\;\check{\alpha}} +
dx^{\#}\check{\psi}_{{\#}}^{\;\check{\alpha}} $ (${\check \mu} =
(\mu;\#), \; \mu=0,1,\dots,9$). In contrast, the ten-dimensional type II supergravities [@IIBsugra; @IIAsugra] contain, in addition to two sixteen-component ‘spin 3/2’ gravitini, two ‘spin 1/2’ dilatini fields $\check{\chi}_{\check{\alpha}}$. We use the czek superscript $\check{\alpha}$ to denote the type II indices of the $32$-component reducible spinors. In the IIB case $\check{\alpha}$ is the double index $\check{\alpha}=(\alpha, I)$, where $I=1,2\,$ labels the two Majorana-Weyl (MW) spinors of the same chirality and $\alpha=1, \ldots 16$. In the IIA case, where both chiralities are present, $\check{\alpha}$ denotes the Majorana spinor index and thus $\check{\alpha}=1,\ldots , 32$.
In particular, for the dilatino of type IIA supergravity we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{IIADIL}
\hbox{IIA} \; :\qquad \qquad \check{\chi}^{\check{\alpha}}:=
({\chi}^{{\alpha}1}\; , \; {\chi}^2_{{\alpha}})\; , \qquad
\check{\alpha}=1, \ldots ,32\; , \quad \alpha=1, \ldots , 16 \; .\end{aligned}$$ while in type IIB supergravity the $32$-component dilatino field decomposes into two MW spinors of the same chirality, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{IIBDIL}
\hbox{IIB} \; : \qquad \check{\chi}_{\check{\alpha}}:=
({\chi}^1_{{\alpha}}\; , \; {\chi}^2_{{\alpha}})\; , \quad
\check{\alpha}=(\alpha\,, I)\; , \quad I=1,2 \; , \quad \alpha=1,
\ldots , 16 \; . \quad\end{aligned}$$ Notice that in the IIB case the position of the index $\check{\alpha}$ cannot be changed since the two MW spinors are of the same chirality and there is no $16\times16$ charge conjugation matrix in the MW spinor representation. In contrast, in type IIA a $32\times 32$ charge conjugation matrix exists; it is anti-diagonal in the Weyl-like realization used here and exchanges the 1 and 2 MW components in (\[IIADIL\]).
In this condensed 32-component notation, the supersymmetry transformation rules for the gravitini and dilatini fermionic fields can be written in compact form for both IIA and IIB cases as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{susyDIL}
\delta_{susy} \check{\psi}_a^{\check{\alpha}}= {\cal
D}_a\check{\varepsilon}{}^{\,\check{\alpha}}:= D_a
\check{\varepsilon}{}^{\,\check{\alpha}}-
\check{\varepsilon}{}^{\check{\beta}} {\check t}_{a\,
\check{\beta}}{}^{\check{\alpha}}\; , \qquad \delta_{susy}
\check{\chi} = \check{\varepsilon} M\; , \qquad\end{aligned}$$ where $D=d-\omega$ is the Lorentz covariant derivative and ${\cal
D}=D-{\check t}$ is the generalized covariant derivative which includes, besides the (suitable) spin connection $\omega:= {1\over
4}\omega^{ab}{\check\Gamma}_{ab}$, the additional tensorial IIA or IIB ${\check t}$ contributions. The transformation rules for the dilatino are algebraic and are characterized by a $32\times 32$ matrix $M_{\check{\beta}}{}^{\check{\alpha}}$. The form that this matrix takes will be crucial for the discussion below.
In the IIA case, and ignoring inessential bilinear fermionic contributions, the terms in $\delta_{susy} \check{\chi}$ (Eq. (\[susyDIL\]), see [*e.g.*]{} [@IIAsugra] and [@MMS03] and refs therein) are determined by the matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M=IIA}
\hbox{IIA} \; : \qquad M_{\check{\beta}}{}^{\check{\alpha}}=
\left(\matrix{ {3\over 8} e^{\Phi} R\!\!\!\!/^{(2)} + {1\over 8}
R\!\!\!\!/^{(4)} & {1\over 2} \partial\!\!\!\!/\Phi- {1\over 4}
H\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} \cr {1\over 2} \tilde{\partial\!\!\!\!/}\Phi +
{1\over 4} \tilde{H}\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} & - {3\over 8} e^{\Phi}
\tilde{R}\!\!\!\!/^{(2)} + {1\over 8} \tilde{R}\!\!\!\!/^{(4)}
}\right) \; . \qquad\end{aligned}$$ in terms of all the possible IIA fluxes (on-shell field strengths), namely[^1], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fluxesIIA}
R_2:=dC_1\; , \qquad R_4:=dC_3-C_1\wedge H_3\; , \qquad H_3:=dB_2 \; \qquad and
\qquad d\Phi \; : \qquad\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fl-NSNS} \cases{ H\!\!\!\!/^{(3)}= {1\over 3!}
H_{abc}\sigma^{abc} \; , \qquad \sigma^{abc}:=
({\sigma}^{[a}\tilde{\sigma}^{b}\sigma^{c]})_{\alpha\beta}\; , \cr
\tilde{H}\!\!\!\!/^{(3)}= {1\over 3!} H_{abc}\tilde{\sigma}^{abc}
\; , \qquad \tilde{\sigma}^{abc}:= (\tilde{\sigma}^{[a}\sigma^
{b}\tilde{\sigma}^{c]})^{\alpha\beta}}
\; , \qquad
\cases{ \partial\!\!\!\!/\Phi := \partial_a\Phi
\sigma^a_{\alpha\beta}\; , \cr \tilde{\partial}\!\!\!\!/\Phi :=
\partial_a\Phi \tilde{\sigma}^{a\, \alpha\beta}\; ,}\qquad
\\ \label{fl-RRIIA} \cases{ R\!\!\!\!/^{(2)}:= {1\over 2!}
R_{ab}(\sigma^{ab})= - \tilde{R}\!\!\!\!/^{(2)}{}^T \; , \qquad
\sigma^{ab}:= (\sigma^{[a}\tilde{\sigma}^{b]}){}_\alpha{}^\beta \;
, \qquad \tilde{\sigma}^{ab}:=
(\tilde{\sigma}^{[a}\sigma^{b]}){}^\beta{}_\alpha \; ,\cr
R\!\!\!\!/^{(4)}= {1\over 4!}
R_{abcd}\sigma^{abcd}{}_\alpha{}^\beta =
(\tilde{R}\!\!\!\!/^{(4)}){}^\beta{}_\alpha\; , \qquad
\sigma^{abcd}:=
(\sigma^{[a}\tilde{\sigma}^{b}{\sigma}^{c}\tilde{\sigma}^{d]}){}_\alpha{}^\beta
\; . \quad }\end{aligned}$$
The type IIB matrix $M$, in contrast, is given by (see [@IIBsugra]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M=IIB}
\hbox{IIB} \; : \qquad M_{\check{\beta}\check{\alpha}}=
\left(\matrix{ {1\over 2} {\partial\!\!\!\!/}\Phi + {1\over 4}
{H}\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} & - {1\over 2} e^{\!^{\Phi}} R\!\!\!\!/^{(1)} +
{1\over 4} e^{^{{1\over 2}\Phi}} R\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} \cr
{1\over 2}
e^{\!^{\Phi}} R\!\!\!\!/^{(1)} + {1\over 4} e^{^{{1\over 2}\Phi}}
R\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} & {1\over 2} {\partial\!\!\!\!/}\Phi - {1\over 4}
{H}\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} }\right) \; , \qquad\end{aligned}$$ and involves the one-form and the three-form fluxes of type IIB supergravity, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fl-1,3IIB}
\;\; R_1:=dC_0\; , \quad R_3:=dC_2-C_0H_3\; , \qquad
H_3:=dB_2 \; \qquad and \qquad d\Phi \; , \qquad\end{aligned}$$ but not the self dual five-form flux $R_5$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fl-5IIB}
R_5:=dC_4-C_2\wedge H_3\; , \qquad R_5=*R_5 \; \Leftrightarrow
\cases{ R\!\!\!\!/^{(5)} =0 \; , \cr
\tilde{R}\!\!\!\!/^{(5)}\not=0 \; . }\end{aligned}$$
When only purely bosonic solutions are considered, $\check{\psi}=0$, $\check{\chi}=0$, the parameter associated with the preserved supersymmetry obeys a differential equation and an algebraic one, namely ${\cal D}\check{\varepsilon}=0$ and $\check{\varepsilon}M=0$. Usually, to describe a solution preserving $k$ supersymmetries (a $\nu=k/32$ state), one uses $k$ independent bosonic Killing spinors $\epsilon_I^{\check\alpha}$ ($I=1,\ldots , k$, $\check{\varepsilon}=\kappa^I\epsilon_I^{\check\alpha}$ with arbitrary constant fermionic $\kappa^I$) that satisfy the following differential (from $\delta_{susy}
\check{\psi}_a^{\check{\alpha}}=0$) and algebraic (from $\delta_{susy} \check{\chi}=0$ ) Killing equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KEqGR}
&& {\cal D}\check{\epsilon}_I := D
\check{\epsilon}_I - \check{\epsilon}_I {\check t}\, = 0\; ,
\qquad
\\ \label{KEqDIL} && \check{\epsilon}_I \, M\;
=0 \qquad (I=1, \ldots , k)\; , \qquad\end{aligned}$$ which guarantee that the solution remains bosonic and hence invariant after a gravitino and dilatino supersymmetry transformation.
The conclusion of [@GGPR06] on the absence of a preonic solution of type IIB supergravity is based on the algebraic equation (\[KEqDIL\]) and uses (\[KEqGR\]) to close the argument. We now recover this result below by using the moving $G$-frame method of [@BPS03].
The moving $G$-frame method and preonic spinors
-----------------------------------------------
A preonic state [@BPS01] preserves all supersymmetries but one; it is a $\nu=31/32$ supersymmetric BPS state. As a result, it can be characterized by one bosonic spinor $\check{\lambda}_{\check{\alpha}}$ orthogonal to all the $31$ bosonic Killing spinors $\check{\epsilon}_I^{\;\check{\alpha}}$ in (\[KEqGR\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PreonL} \check{\epsilon}_I \, \check{\lambda} = \;
\check{\epsilon}_I^{\; \check{\alpha}}
\check{\lambda}_{\check{\alpha}} =0 \; , \qquad I=1, \ldots , 31\;
. \qquad\end{aligned}$$ As it was noticed in [@BPS03], when the generalized holonomy group of supergravity [@Duff+Stelle91; @Duff03] is a subgroup of $SL(32,\mathbb{R})$ (which is the case for both $D=11$ [@Hull03] and type II $D=10$ supergravities [@P+T03]), the spinor characterizing a BPS preonic state obeys the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Dprl} {\cal D} \check{\lambda} := D \check{\lambda} +
\check{t} \check{\lambda} =0 \; , \qquad\end{aligned}$$ where ${\check t}$ is the same tensorial part of the generalized connection in Eqs. (\[KEqGR\]) and (\[susyDIL\]). Notice that if ${\check t}\not= 0$ (the case of non-vanishing fluxes), Eq. (\[Dprl\]) is not equivalent to the Killing equation (\[KEqGR\]) even for the type IIA case where the $32\times 32$ charge conjugation matrix does exist.
Applied to the present problem, the moving $G$-frame method [@BPS03] implies that Eq. (\[KEqDIL\]), looked at as an equation for the matrix $M$, is solved when $k=31$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KEqDIL31} M = \check{\lambda} \otimes \check{s} \qquad i.e.
\qquad \cases{IIA\; : \; M_{\check{\beta}}{}^{\check{\alpha}}=
\check{\lambda}_{\check{\beta}} \; \check{s}^{\check{\alpha}} \; ,
\cr IIB\; : \; M_{\check{\beta}\check{\alpha}}=
\check{\lambda}_{\check{\beta}} \; \check{s}_{\check{\alpha}} \;
,} \qquad\end{aligned}$$ where $\check{s}_{\check{\alpha}}$ is a certain spinor. The algebraic structure of the matrix $M$ implies a series of restrictions on the preonic spinor $\check{\lambda}_{\check{\beta}}$. At the same time, Eq. (\[KEqDIL31\]) imposes a series of restrictions on the fluxes involved in the matrix $M$.
Eq. (\[KEqDIL31\]) will be the basic equation in our analysis of the absence of preons among the bosonic solutions of type II supergravities.
Absence of preons in type IIB supergravity
==========================================
In the type IIB case the matrix $M$ has the form of Eq. (\[M=IIB\]), and Eq. (\[KEqDIL31\]) implies the following relations for the one- and three-form fluxes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq-IIB-pr1}
\begin{matrix}
{ & {1\over 2} \partial\!\!\!\! / \Phi + {1\over
4}H\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} = \; \lambda^1_\alpha s_\beta^1 \; , &
\hbox{(\ref{Eq-IIB-pr1}a)} & \cr & - {1\over 2} e^{\!^{\Phi}}
R\!\!\!\!/^{(1)} + {1\over 4} e^{^{{1\over 2}\Phi}}
R\!\!\!\!/^{(3)}= \lambda^1_\alpha s_\beta^2 \; , &
\hbox{(\ref{Eq-IIB-pr1}b)} & \cr
& + {1\over 2}
e^{\!^{\Phi}} R\!\!\!\!/^{(1)} + {1\over 4} e^{^{{1\over 2}\Phi}}
R\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} = \; \lambda^2_\alpha s_\beta^1 \; , &
\hbox{(\ref{Eq-IIB-pr1}c)} & \cr \qquad & {1\over 2}
{\partial\!\!\!\!/}\Phi - {1\over 4} {H}\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} = \;
\lambda^2_\alpha s_\beta^2 \; . & \hbox{(\ref{Eq-IIB-pr1}d)} &
\qquad } \end{matrix}\end{aligned}$$ These fluxes then can be expressed through the IIB preonic spinor $\check{\lambda}_{\check{\alpha}}:= (\lambda^1_{{\alpha}}\; , \;
{\lambda}^2_{{\alpha}})$ and an arbitrary spinor $\check{s}_{\check{\beta}}:= ({s}^1_{{\beta}}\; , \;
{s}^2_{{\beta}})$. Furthermore, the consistency of Eqs. (\[Eq-IIB-pr1\]) imposes a set of algebraic equations on these two spinors. They follow from the fact that the fluxes enter into Eqs. (\[Eq-IIB-pr1\]) through matrices which possess definite symmetry properties, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{IIBsym-asym}
(\partial\!\!\!\! / \Phi)^T = +\partial\!\!\!\! / \Phi \; , \qquad
(H\!\!\!\!/^{(3)})^T=- H\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} , \qquad
(R\!\!\!\!/^{(3)})^T=- R\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} , \qquad
(R\!\!\!\!/^{(1)})^T=+R\!\!\!\!/^{(1)} . \qquad\end{aligned}$$ These lead to the algebraic constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq-IIBls}
\begin{matrix}
{ \hbox{(a)} \qquad & \lambda^1_{[\alpha} s_{\beta]}^1 +
\lambda^2_{[\alpha} s_{\beta]}^2 =0 \; , \qquad & \qquad
\hbox{(b)} \qquad & - \lambda^1_{[\alpha} s_{\beta]}^2 +
\lambda^2_{[\alpha} s_{\beta]}^1 =0 \; , & \cr
\hbox{(c)} \qquad & \lambda^1_{(\alpha} s_{\beta )}^1 - \lambda^2_{(\alpha} s_{\beta)}^2 =0 \; ,
\qquad & \qquad
\hbox{(d)} \qquad & \lambda^1_{(\alpha} s_{\beta )}^2 +
\lambda^2_{(\alpha} s_{\beta )}^1 =0 \; . & }
\end{matrix}\end{aligned}$$
A straightforward algebra shows that Eqs. (\[Eq-IIBls\]) have only trivial solutions. This means that either the preonic or the auxiliary spinor is zero, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lorS=0IIB}
\hbox{IIB} \; : \qquad \lambda^1_{\alpha}=\lambda^2_{\alpha}=0
\qquad or \qquad
s_{\beta}^1 = s_{\beta}^2=0 \; . \qquad\end{aligned}$$ In both cases the matrix $M=0$ and, hence, all the fluxes except the five-form flux (Eq.(\[fl-5IIB\])) are equal to zero, $R_1=d\Phi=R_1=R_3=0$. Nevertheless, the fact that the solution $s_{\beta}^1=s_{\beta}^2=0$ of (\[Eq-IIBls\]) allows for a non-vanishing preonic spinor $(\lambda^1_{\alpha},\lambda^2_{\alpha})$ might give hope, at this stage, of finding a nontrivial and unique solution ${\check
\lambda}$ to Eq. (\[Dprl\]) and $k=31$ solutions $\check{\epsilon}_I$ for Eq. (\[KEqGR\]). This possibility is ruled out by looking at Eq. (\[KEqGR\]). For simplicity let us begin by discussing Eq. (\[Dprl\]). When only the five-form flux is non-vanishing, Eq. (\[Dprl\]) would acquire the relatively simple form of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KEq-l12-IIB}
\qquad R_1=R_3=H_3=d\Phi=0 \;: \quad \qquad \left\{
\begin{matrix} {D_b\lambda^1_{\alpha}= - {1\over 16} (\sigma_b
R\!\!\!\!/^{(5)})_{\alpha}{}^{\beta}\lambda^2_{\beta} \; , \cr
D_b\lambda^2_{\alpha}= \; \; {1\over 16} (\sigma_b
R\!\!\!\!/^{(5)})_{\alpha}{}^{\beta}\lambda^1_{\beta}\; . }
\end{matrix}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Now one observes that, if $(\lambda^1_{\alpha},
\lambda^2_{\alpha})$ is a solution of Eq.(\[KEq-l12-IIB\]), $(-\lambda^2_{\alpha}, \lambda^1_{\alpha})$ provides another one. As a result, the number of solutions of Eqs. (\[KEq-l12-IIB\]) is always even. The same is true of the Killing equation (\[KEqGR\]) since it has the same structure. Hence with vanishing one- and three-form fluxes one can only have an even number of preserved supersymmetries. These might include two-preonic solutions (preserving $30$ supersymmetries) besides those preserving all $32$ supersymmetries, but not a preonic solution. The authors of [@GGPR06] then concluded that preonic solutions do not exist for type IIB supergravity.
We now apply our $G$-frame approach, used above to rederive the IIB result of [@GGPR06], to show that preonic solutions are also absent in type IIA supergravity.
Absence of preons in type IIA supergravity
==========================================
The crucial point is that in the IIA case the matrix $M$, Eq. (\[M=IIA\]), receives contributions from all IIA fluxes, Eq. (\[fluxesIIA\]). Hence if $M$ is zero, all IIA fluxes are zero, the generalized covariant derivative ${\cal D}$ becomes the Lorentz covariant derivative $D$ and the generalized holonomy group reduces to $SO(1,9)$, for which the number of possible preserved supersymmetries is known (see [@Duff03; @Bry00]).
As we shall see presently, $M$ is indeed zero if we assume the existence of $31$ Killing spinors. In type IIA supergravity the preonic $\check{\lambda}_{\check{\alpha}}$ and auxiliary $\check{s}^{\check{\alpha}}$ spinors are $32$-component $D=10$ Majorana spinors, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{IIAprl}
\hbox{IIA} \; : \qquad \check{\lambda}_{\check{\alpha}}:=
({\lambda}^1_{{\alpha}}\; , \; {\lambda}^{{\alpha}2})\; , \qquad
\check{s}^{\check{\alpha}}:= ({s}^{{\alpha}1}\; , \;
{s}^2_{{\alpha}})\; , \qquad \alpha=1,\ldots, 16\; . \qquad\end{aligned}$$ Eq.(\[KEqDIL31\]) can be split into four equations for the ($16\times16$)-component blocks $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M=lsIIA}
\begin{matrix} { & {3\over
8} e^{\!^{\Phi}} R\!\!\!\!/^{(2)} + {1\over 8} R\!\!\!\! / ^{(4)}=
{\lambda}^1_{{\alpha}} {s}^{{\beta}1}\; , & \quad
\hbox{(\ref{M=lsIIA}a)} \quad &
{1\over 2} \partial\!\!\!\! / \Phi - {1\over 4} H\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} =
{\lambda}^1_{{\alpha}} {s}^2_{\beta}\; , & \quad
\hbox{(\ref{M=lsIIA}b)} & \cr & {1\over 2} \tilde{
\partial\!\!\!\! / } \Phi + {1\over 4}\tilde{ H\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} }=
{\lambda}^{{\alpha}2} {s}^{{\beta}1}\; , & \quad
\hbox{(\ref{M=lsIIA}c)} \quad & -{3\over 8} e^{\!^{\Phi}}
\tilde{ R\!\!\!\!/ }^{(2)} + {1\over 8}
\tilde{R\!\!\!\! / }^{(4)}=
{\lambda}^{{\alpha}2} {s}^2_{{\beta}}\; . & \quad
\hbox{(\ref{M=lsIIA}d)} & }
\end{matrix} \;\end{aligned}$$ We now notice that $\tilde{ R\!\!\!\!/ }^{(2)}= - ({R\!\!\!\!/
}^{(2)})^T$, $\tilde{ R\!\!\!\!/ }^{(4)}= +( {R\!\!\!\!/
}^{(4)})^T$ and that, accordingly, the [*l.h.s.*]{}’s of Eqs. (\[M=lsIIA\]a) and (\[M=lsIIA\]d) are equal among themselves. Hence, the [*r.h.s.*]{}’s of these equations are also equal, ${\lambda}^1_{{\alpha}} {s}^{{\beta}1}= {\lambda}^{{\beta}2}
{s}^2_{{\alpha}}$. This equation identifies the components of $\check{\lambda} $ and $\check{s}$ up to a factor $a$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lbd=as}
{s}^{{\alpha}1} = a {\lambda}^{{\alpha}2}\; , \qquad
{s}^2_{{\alpha}}= a {\lambda}^1_{{\alpha}}\; . \qquad\end{aligned}$$ Then, decomposing Eq. (\[M=lsIIA\]a) or (\[M=lsIIA\]d) into their irreducible parts ([*i.e.*]{}, identifying the coefficients of the matrices $\sigma^{ab}{}_{\alpha}{}^{\beta}$, $\sigma^{abcd}{}_{\alpha}{}^{\beta}$ [*and*]{} $\delta_{\alpha}{}^{\beta}$, one finds the expressions for the RR fluxes in terms of preonic spinors as well as an orthogonality condition between $\lambda^1$ and $\lambda^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{R2=...}
e^\Phi R_{ab}= - {a\over 6} \lambda^2 \sigma_{ab}\lambda^1 \; ,
\qquad
R_{abcd}= {a\over 2} \lambda^2 \sigma_{abcd}\lambda^1 \; , \qquad
{\lambda}^{{\alpha}2}
{\lambda}^1_{{\alpha}}\; =0 . \qquad\end{aligned}$$
Substituting (\[lbd=as\]) for the $s$ spinors in (\[M=lsIIA\]b) and (\[M=lsIIA\]c), these equations can be rewritten in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dP=all}
{1\over 2} \partial\!\!\!\! / \Phi - {1\over 4} H\!\!\!\!/^{(3)}
= a{\lambda}^1_{{\alpha}} {\lambda}^1_{\beta}\; ,
\qquad
\hbox{(\ref{dP=all}a)} \qquad {1\over 2} \tilde{
\partial\!\!\!\! / } \Phi + {1\over 4}\tilde{ H\!\!\!\!/^{(3)} }=
a{\lambda}^{{\alpha}2} {\lambda}^{{\beta}2}\; . \qquad
\hbox{(\ref{dP=all}b)} \qquad\end{aligned}$$ The [*r.h.s.*]{}’s of Eqs. (\[dP=all\]) are symmetric, while the [*l.h.s.*]{}’s contain the antisymmetric matrices $ H\!\!\!\!/ =-
(H\!\!\!\!/ )^T$ and $\tilde{ H\!\!\!\!/ }=-(\tilde{ H\!\!\!\!/
})^T$ which, hence, should be equal to zero. This implies the vanishing of the NS-NS flux $H_3$ for a hypothetical preonic solution of type IIA supergravity, $ H_{abc}=0$. Then one arrives at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dP=allV}
{1\over 2} \sigma^a_{{\alpha}\beta}D_a \Phi =
a{\lambda}^1_{{\alpha}} {\lambda}^1_{\beta}\; ,
\qquad
{1\over 2} \tilde{\sigma
}{}^{a{\alpha}\beta} D_a \Phi = a{\lambda}^{{\alpha}2}
{\lambda}^{{\beta}2}\; . \qquad\end{aligned}$$ Since we are in ten dimensions these equations imply, besides $D_a\Phi \sim \lambda^1 {\tilde \sigma}_a\lambda^1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ls5l=0}
a {\lambda}^1 \tilde{\sigma}^{a_1\ldots a_5} {\lambda}^1=0 \; ,
\qquad
a{\lambda}^{2}{\sigma}^{a_1\ldots a_5} {\lambda}^{2}=0 \; . \qquad\end{aligned}$$
Eqs. (\[dP=allV\]) or (\[ls5l=0\]) imply the [*absence of BPS preons among the bosonic solutions of type IIA supergravity*]{}. Indeed, for non-vanishing $a$ ($a\not=0$) Eqs.(\[ls5l=0\]) have only trivial[^2] solutions, $\lambda^1=0=\lambda^2$. This may correspond to the case of a fully supersymmetric solution of supergravity (preserving the $32$ supersymmetries), but not to a preonic one. The other possibility, $a=0$, also implies the vanishing of the $M$ matrix (\[M=IIA\]) and hence of all type IIA supergravity fluxes, $R_2=0=R_4$, $H_3=0=d\Phi$, and thus the generalized connection in the Killing equation (\[KEqGR\]) reduces to the spin-connection, ${\cal D}=D$. In such a case it is known (see [@Duff03; @Bry00]) that the Killing spinor equation $D\check{\epsilon}=0$ may have either $32$ or up to $16$ solutions. Thus a solution preserving $31$ supersymmetries, a BPS preonic solution, is not allowed.
This completes the proof of the absence of BPS preonic, $\nu=31/32$ supersymmetric bosonic solutions in type II supergravities [*i.e.*]{}, in the [*classical*]{} approximation to the type II string theories.
The case of D=11 supergravity
=============================
It is known that the $D=10$ type IIA supergravity can be obtained by dimensional reduction from $D=11$ supergravity [*i.e.*]{}, its solutions can be identified with solutions of $D=11$ supergravity that are independent of one of the coordinates. In particular, the type IIA dilatino $\check{\chi}^{\check{\alpha}}$, Eq. (\[IIADIL\]), originates from the 11-th component $\check{\psi}_{\#}^{\check{\alpha}}$ of the $D=11$ gravitino $\check{\psi}_{\check{\mu}}^{\check{\alpha}}=(\check{\psi}_{{\mu}}^{\check{\alpha}},
\check{\psi}_{\#}^{\check{\alpha}})$; schematically, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chi=psi11}
\check{\chi}^{\check{\alpha}}=\check{\psi}_{\#}^{\check{\alpha}}\; . \qquad\end{aligned}$$ The type IIA supersymmetry transformations can also be obtained from those of $D=11$ by dimensional reduction . This implies, in particular, that the IIA $M$-matrix (\[M=IIA\]) comes from the eleventh component of the $D=11$ generalized connection; schematically, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M=t11}
M_{\check{\beta}}{}^{\check{\alpha}} = {(\omega+\check{t})}_{\#\;
\check{\beta}}{}^{\check{\alpha}} \; . \qquad\end{aligned}$$
This observation provides a starting point to probe the existence of BPS preonic solutions in $D=11$ supergravity or, more precisely, among the purely bosonic solutions of the classical $D=11$ supergravity [@CJS78]. It was shown in [@JG+SP02] that the existence of $k$ Killing [*spinors*]{} ($k=31$ for preonic solutions) implies the existence of $k(k+1)/2$ Killing [*vectors*]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KillIJ}
K^{\check{a}}_{IJ}:= \check{\epsilon}^{\;\check{\alpha}}_I
\Gamma^{\check{a}}_ {\check{\alpha}\check{\beta}}
\check{\epsilon}^{\;\check{\beta}}_J \; , \qquad\end{aligned}$$ such that both the metric and the field strength $F_4=dA_3$ of the three-form gauge field $A_3$ are invariant under ‘translations’ along the directions of $K^{\check a}_{IJ}$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kill2IJ} \delta_{K_{IJ}}g_{{\check\mu}{\check\nu}}=
2D_{(\check{\mu}} K_{\check{\nu})IJ} =0 \; , \qquad
\delta_{K_{IJ}} F_4:= {\cal L}_{K_{IJ}} F_4=0 \; .\end{aligned}$$
This actually implies that any supersymmetric solution of $D=11$ can be considered (at least locally) as a solution of $D=10$ type IIA supergravity lifted (‘oxidized’) to $D=11$. Thus, because of the above negative result for the existence of preonic solutions in type IIA supergravity, the only remaining possibility to have BPS preonic solutions in the D=11 case requires that they result from the ‘oxidization’ of a less supersymmetric solution of the $D=10$ type IIA supergravity.
If the lifting to $D=11$ has to produce more supersymmetries, we need that one or more Killing spinors $\epsilon^{\check{\alpha}}_{\tilde{I}}$ have non-vanishing derivative in the direction of a Killing vector, schematically, $\partial_{\#}\epsilon^{\check{\alpha}}_I \not=0$. In this way, the set of $D=11$ Killing equations ${\cal D}_{\#}\epsilon^{\check{\alpha}}_I:=
D_{\#}\epsilon^{\check{\alpha}}_I -
\epsilon^{\check{\beta}}_I\check{t}_{\#\check{\beta}}{}^{\check{\alpha}}=0$ will no longer reduce (see Eq. (\[M=t11\])) to the algebraic equation (\[KEqDIL\]). As a result, the arguments from the discussion of the type IIA case would not apply in $D=11$ to exclude the existence of a preonic solution.
A Killing spinor $\epsilon^{\check{\alpha}}_J$ can be characterized [@JG+SP02] by means of three differential forms: a Killing vector one-form $K_{1\; JJ}:=
e_{\check{a}}K^{\check{a}}_{JJ}$, a two-form $\Omega_{2\; JJ}$ and a five-form $\Sigma_{5\; JJ}$. These forms are the diagonal elements of the symmetric bilinear matrix forms with tensorial components defined in Eq. (\[KillIJ\]) and by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2,5-IJ}
\Omega^{\check{a}_1\check{a}_2}_{IJ}:=
\check{\epsilon}^{\;\check{\alpha}}_I
\Gamma^{\check{a}_1\check{a}_2}_ {\check{\alpha}\check{\beta}}
\check{\epsilon}^{\;\check{\beta}}_J \; , \qquad
\Sigma^{\check{a}_1\ldots \check{a}_5}_{IJ}:=
\check{\epsilon}^{\;\check{\alpha}}_I \Gamma^{\check{a}_1\ldots
\check{a}_5}_ {\check{\alpha}\check{\beta}}
\check{\epsilon}^{\;\check{\beta}}_J \; . \qquad\end{aligned}$$
The independence of a Killing spinor on a coordinate $x^{\#}$ in some direction would also imply the independence of its associated Killing vector $K_{JJ}$ (Eq. (\[KillIJ\])), of the two-form $\Omega_{JJ}$ and of the five-form $\Sigma_{JJ}$ (Eq. (\[Kill2IJ\])) on that direction. As the direction $x^{\#}$ should be characterized by one of the Killing vectors, the result of [@JG+SP02], stating that ${\cal L}_K\Omega_2=0$ and ${\cal
L}_K\Sigma_5=0$, implies the independence of the two- and the five-form on $x^{\#}$. However, the Lie derivative of a Killing vector with respect to another Killing vector, ${\cal L}_K
K^\prime_1$, may still be nonzero when there are two or more Killing vectors. Thus, at present we cannot conclude that all Killing spinors $\epsilon^{\check \alpha}_I$ are independent of $x^\#$ so that, albeit rather exotic, the possibility of a $\nu=
31/32$ supersymmetric solution in $D=11$ supergravity remains open.
Could preonic BPS solutions still exist?
========================================
The established absence of preonic solutions in type II supergravities, [*i.e.*]{} for the [*classical*]{} approximations to type II string theories, does not preclude the preonic conjecture of [@BPS01]. At the time it was made, solutions preserving more than $16$ out of the $32$ supersymmetries were not known except for the fully supersymmetric ones (see [@FiPa03]). It was already mentioned in [@BPS01] that a kind of ‘BPS preon conspiracy’ could produce that only composites of some number of preons (but not the preons themselves) could be found (‘observed’) as supergravity solutions.
On account of the fundamental role played by preons in the classification of BPS states [@BPS01], it is tempting to speculate that the fact that type II supergravities do not have preonic solutions rather points out at a need for their modification. The most natural refinement to try is to take into account stringy, $(\alpha^\prime)^3$-corrections to the supergravity equations and to the supersymmetry transformation rules of the supergravity fields. Preonic solutions in a ‘stringy corrected’ type IIA supergravity would be allowed if the corrections modified Eqs.(\[dP=allV\]) by adding some terms $\propto \sigma_{abcdf}$ and $\propto \tilde{\sigma}_{abcdf}$. Schematically, the ‘required’ modification would have to be of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dP=allVq?} a{\lambda}^1_{{\alpha}} {\lambda}^1_{\beta} -
{1\over 2} \sigma^a_{{\alpha}\beta}D_a \Phi =0 \quad &\mapsto&
\qquad a{\lambda}^1_{{\alpha}} {\lambda}^1_{\beta} - {1\over 2}
\sigma^a_{{\alpha}\beta}D_a \Phi = Q^-_{abcde}
\sigma^{abcde}_{{\alpha}\beta} \; , \qquad \nonumber
\\ a{\lambda}^{2{\alpha}} {\lambda}^{2\beta} - {1\over 2}
\tilde{\sigma}^{a\, {\alpha}\beta}D_a \Phi = 0 \quad &\mapsto&
\qquad a{\lambda}^{2{\alpha}} {\lambda}^{2\beta} - {1\over 2}
\tilde{\sigma}^{a\, {\alpha}\beta}D_a \Phi = Q^+_{abcde}
\tilde{\sigma}^{abcde\;{\alpha}\beta} \; \qquad\end{aligned}$$ for some $Q_{abcde}\propto (\alpha^\prime)^3$ (clearly, the $\propto \sigma_a$ contribution could also be changed, but this is not essential for the present schematic discussion). Such a modification (\[dP=allVq?\]) of Eq. (\[dP=allV\]) might result from the associated additions to the dilatino transformation rules (\[susyDIL\]) (of the type $\propto \tilde{\sigma}_{abcdf}$ plus other terms not essential for our discussion). In terms of the $M$ matrix, this modification would imply $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M=IIA+Q} M\; \mapsto \; M + \left(
\matrix{ 0 & Q^-_{abcde} \sigma^{abcde}_{{\alpha}\beta} \cr
{Q}^+_{abcde} \tilde{\sigma}^{abcde\; {\alpha}\beta} & 0}\right)=
M + Q^{\pm}_{abcde} \Gamma^{abcde} {1\over 2}(1\pm\Gamma^{11}) \;
.\end{aligned}$$
Direct calculations of the stringy corrections [@alphaprime; @PVW2000; @GrossWitten86] to the supersymmetry transformation rules have been hampered by the lack of a covariant technique to calculate higher order loop amplitudes in superstring theory[^3]. Nevertheless, bosonic string calculations allowed to find stringy corrections to the Einstein equation [@GrossWitten86]. The influence of these corrections on the supersymmetric vacua and their relevance for their supersymmetric properties [@CFPSS86] was used to find corrections to the gravitino supersymmetry transformation properties. As the discussions of the $\alpha^\prime$ modifications have also been extended to the eleven-dimensional theory [@PVW2000; @M-thQC][^4], one can obtain the ‘corrected’ transformation rules for the type IIA dilatino[^5] by dimensional reduction from those of the $D=11$ gravitino and thus derive the expression of the matrix $M$ in Eq.(\[M=IIA\]) that incorporates the ‘stringy corrected’ counterpart of Eq. (\[M=t11\]).
In this perspective it looks promising that the $D=11$ generalized connection $\check{t}_{\tilde{\mu}} = (\check{t}_{{\mu}},
\check{t}_{10})$ ([*cf.*]{} (\[susyDIL\]); here $\tilde{\mu}=(\mu;\#)$ = $0,\ldots 9; 10$) considered in [@M-thQC], contains the terms $\check{Q}^{{\tilde{\mu}}_1\ldots
\tilde{\mu}_6}\Gamma_{\tilde{\mu}_1\ldots \tilde{\mu}_6}$; their dimensional reduction would produce, among others, the contribution $\check{Q}^{\mu_1\ldots \mu_5\,
10}\Gamma_{{\mu}_1\ldots {\mu}_5} \Gamma^{11}$ which is of the needed type, see Eq. (\[M=IIA+Q\]) (the $\Gamma^{10}\equiv\Gamma^{\#}$ in $D=11$ is the $\Gamma^{11}$ in $D=10$ ).
To summarize, although it has been shown that a $\nu=31/32$ preonic solution is not allowed in the [*classical*]{} type II supergravities (in [@GGPR06] for type IIB and here for type IIA), a conclusive analysis with quantum stringy corrections, providing a more precise description of string/M-theory, remains to be done. If preons were found to exist when quantum corrections are taken into account, it would be only natural on account of their special role as the ‘quarks of M-theory’ [@BPS01] [^6]. Preons would only be ‘seen’ by looking at the ‘quantum solutions’ of string theory, an approximation of which is provided by supergravity with stringy corrections.
As far as the study of ‘classical’ supergravity is concerned, the natural next step is to clarify the level of the mentioned ‘preon conspiracy’ [@BPS01] in the classical $D=10$ supergravity [*i.e.*]{}, whether it is possible to find two-preonic $\nu=30/32$ supersymmetric solutions, preserving all but two supersymmetries, or whether the ‘counterpart’ of the colourless quark states in the case of preons should include no less than four preonic constituents corresponding to the highest non-fully supersymmetric states up to now found, the $\nu=28/32$ states of the IIB case [@BeRo03].
As for $D=11$ supergravity, although we have not been able to reach a definite conclusion on the existence of $\nu=31/32\,$ supersymmetric solutions, we have presented here their characteristic properties: such a $D=11$ BPS preonic solution should have Killing directions, both for the metric $g$ and the gauge field strength $F_4$, such that at least one of its $31$ Killing spinors depends on the coordinates corresponding to these directions.
Finally, we conclude by mentioning that all searches for preonic solutions, including this one, have been concerned with purely bosonic solutions, a restriction that does not follow from [@BPS01].
[**Acknowledgments**]{}. The authors wish to thank J. Gauntlett and D. Sorokin for useful discussions. This work has been partially supported by research grants from the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (FIS2005-02761) and EU FEDER funds, the Generalitat Valenciana (ACOMP06/187, GV05/102), the Ukrainian State Fund for Fundamental Research (N383), the INTAS (2005/2006-7928) and by the EU ‘Forces Universe’ network (MRTN-CT-2004-005104).
[999]{} U. Gran, J. Gutowski, G. Papadopoulos and D. Roest, [*N = 31 is not IIB*]{}, arXiv:hep-th/0606049. I. A. Bandos, J. A. de Azcárraga, J. M. Izquierdo and J. Lukierski, [*BPS states in M-theory and twistorial constituents*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4451-4454 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0101113\].
I. A. Bandos, J. A. de Azcárraga, J. M. Izquierdo, M. Picón and O. Varela, [*On BPS preons, generalized holonomies and D = 11 supergravities*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D69**]{}, 105010 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0312266\]. E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Scherk, [*Supergravity theory in 11 dimensions*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B76**]{}, 409-412 (1978). J. H. Schwarz and P. C. West, [*Symmetries and transformations of chiral N=2 D = 10 supergravity*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B126**]{}, 301-304 (1983);\
J. H. Schwarz, [*Covariant field equations of chiral N=2 D = 10 supergravity*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B226**]{}, 269-298 (1983);\
P. S. Howe and P. C. West, [*The complete N=2, D = 10 supergravity*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B238**]{}, 181-220 (1984). F. Giani and M. Pernici, [*N=2 supergravity in ten dimensions*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D30**]{}, 325-333 (1984);\
I. C. G. Campbell and P. C. West, [*N=2 D = 10 nonchiral supergravity and its spontaneous compactification*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B243**]{}, 112-124 (1984);\
M. Huq and M. A. Namazie, [*Kaluza-Klein supergravity in ten-dimensions*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. [**2**]{}, 293-308 (1985) \[Erratum-ibid. [**2**]{}, 597 (1985)\]. D. Marolf, L. Martucci and P. J. Silva, [*Actions and fermionic symmetries for D-branes in bosonic backgrounds*]{}, JHEP [**0307**]{}, 019 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0306066\]; M. J. Duff and K. S. Stelle, [*Multi-membrane solutions of D = 11 supergravity*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B253**]{}, 113-118 (1991). M. J. Duff and J. T. Liu, [*Hidden spacetime symmetries and generalized holonomy in M-theory*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**674**]{}, 217-230 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0303140\]. C. Hull, [*Holonomy and symmetry in M-theory*]{}, arXiv:hep-th/0305039. G. Papadopoulos and D. Tsimpis, [*The holonomy of IIB supercovariant connection*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. [**20**]{}, L253-L258 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0307127\]. R.L. Bryant, [*Pseudo-Riemannian metrics with parallel spinor fields and vanishing Ricci tensor*]{}, Sémin. Congr., 4, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 2000, 53-94 \[arXiv:math.DG/0004073\].
J. P. Gauntlett and S. Pakis, [*The geometry of D = 11 Killing spinors*]{}, JHEP [**0304**]{}, 039 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0212008\]. J. Figueroa-O’Farrill and G. Papadopoulos, [*Maximally supersymmetric solutions of ten-dimensional and eleven-dimensional supergravities*]{}, JHEP [**0303**]{}, 048 (2003) \[hep-th/0211089\] M. T. Grisaru, A. E. M. van de Ven and D. Zanón, [*Two-dimensional supersymmetric sigma models on Ricci flat Kähler manifolds are not finite*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**277**]{}, 388-408 (1986);\
C. N. Pope, M. F. Sohnius and K. S. Stelle, [*Counterterm counterexamples*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**283**]{}, 192-204 (1987);\
A. Candiello, K. Lechner and M. Tonin, [*$\kappa$ anomalies and space-time supersymmetry in the Green-Schwarz heterotic superstring*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B438**]{}, 67-108 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9409107\]. K. Peeters, P. Vanhove and A. Westerberg, [*Supersymmetric higher-derivative actions in ten and eleven dimensions, the associated superalgebras and their formulation in superspace*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. [**18**]{}, 843-890 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0010167\] and refs. therein and in [@M-thQC]. D. J. Gross and E. Witten, [*Superstring modifications of Einstein’s equations*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**277**]{}, 1-10 (1986). N. Berkovits, [*Multiloop amplitudes and vanishing theorems using the pure spinor formalism for the superstring*]{}, JHEP [**0409**]{}, 047 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0406055\]; [*Super-Poincaré covariant two-loop superstring amplitudes*]{}, JHEP [**0601**]{}, 005 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0503197\]; N. Berkovits and C. R. Mafra, [*Equivalence of two-loop superstring amplitudes in the pure spinor and RNS formalisms*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 011602 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0509234\]. P. Candelas, M. D. Freeman, C. N. Pope, M. F. Sohnius and K. S. Stelle, [*Higher order corrections to supersymmetry and compactifications of the heterotic string*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B177**]{}, 341-346 (1986).
H. Lu, C.N. Pope, K.S. Stelle and P.K. Townsend, [*String and M-theory deformations of manifolds with special holonomy*]{}, JHEP [**0507**]{}, 075 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0410176\];\
H. Lu, C. N. Pope and K. S. Stelle, [*Generalised holonomy for higher-order corrections to supersymmetric backgrounds in string and M-theory*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B741**]{}, 17-33 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0509057\]. I. Bena and R. Roiban, [*Supergravity pp-wave solutions with 28 and 24 supercharges*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 125014 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0206195\].
[^1]: $\sigma^a= \sigma^a_{\alpha\beta}$, ${\tilde \sigma}^a= {\sigma^a}^{\alpha\beta}$, $a=0,1,\dots,9\,$; $\;\sigma^a{\tilde\sigma}^b+\sigma^b{\tilde\sigma}^a= 2 \eta^{ab}
={\tilde\sigma}^a\sigma^b+{\tilde\sigma}^b \sigma^a$. The sigma matrices with one and five (three) vector indices are symmetric (antisymmetric) with respect to the spinor ones. The transposition of untilded sigma matrices with four and two vector indices, respectively, converts them into the corresponding tilded and minus tilded ones.
[^2]: A simple way to prove it from Eq. (\[dP=allV\]) is to notice that this equation implies $D_a\Phi
\propto \lambda^1\tilde{\sigma}_a\lambda^1$ and that, hence, $D_a\Phi$ is a light-like ten-vector, $D_a\Phi D^a\Phi=0$. Then one may choose the Lorentz frame where $D_a\Phi \propto
(1,0,\ldots , 0, \pm 1)$; in it, $D_a\Phi \sigma^a_{\alpha\beta}
\propto (\sigma^0_{\alpha\beta} \pm \sigma^{9}_{\alpha\beta}) =
2\sum_{p}\delta^p_{\alpha}\delta^p_{\beta}$, where $p=1, \ldots ,
8$. In this frame, the first equation in (\[dP=allV\]) reads $D_0 \Phi\sum_{p} \delta^p_{\alpha}\delta^p_{\beta} =
a{\lambda}^1_{{\alpha}} {\lambda}^1_{\beta}\,$, which immediately implies that $a\not=0$ is only possible if half of the sixteen components of ${\lambda}^1_{\beta}$ are zero, ${\lambda}^1_{\beta}={\lambda}_q \delta^q_{\beta}$. Taking this in account, the above equation reduces to $D_0 \Phi \delta_{qp}=
a\lambda_q \, \lambda_p $ with $p,q=1, \ldots ,8 \,$, which for $a\not=0$ only admits the trivial solution $\lambda^1=0=\lambda^2$.
[^3]: Such a technique has been recently proposed in the framework of Berkovits’s pure spinor approach [@NBloops] to the covariant description of the quantum superstring.
[^4]: The contributions to the generalized connection ([*i.e.*]{} to the supersymmetry transformation rules for the gravitino) were calculated for a particular background and, then, conjectured to hold in general [@M-thQC] on grounds of their universal form.
[^5]: For the heterotic string case, the simplest possible corrections to the ($N=1$) dilatino $\chi$ transformation rules (see Eq. (23) in [@CFPSS86]) consist in modifying (‘renormalizing’) the dilaton $\Phi$ appearing in the standard supersymmetry transformations.
[^6]: Let us recall [@BPS01] that the potential relevance of BPS preons derives from their quark-like role in the classification of BPS states according to the number of preserved supersymmetries: all BPS states of M-theory preserving $k$ supersymmetries can be considered as composites of $32-k$ BPS preons (the statement is true for any $D$ with 32 replaced by the corresponding spinor dimension).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that the set of permutations sorted by a stack of depth $t \geq 3$ and an infinite stack in series has infinite basis, by constructing an infinite antichain. This answers an open question on identifying the point at which, in a sorting process with two stacks in series, the basis changes from finite to infinite.'
author:
- Murray Elder
- Yoong Kuan Goh
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: |
Permutations sorted by a finite\
and an infinite stack in series
---
Introduction
============
A permutation is an arrangement of an ordered set of elements. Two permutations with same relative ordering are said to be *order isomorphic*, for example, $132$ and $275$ are order isomorphic as they have relative ordering $ijk$ where $i<k<j$. A subpermutation of a permutation $p_{1} \dots p_{n}$ is a word $p_{i_{1}} \dots p_{i_{s}}$ with $1\leq i_{1}< \dots <i_{s}\leq n$. A permutation $p$ [*contains*]{} $q$ if it has a subpermutation that is order isomorphic to $q$. For example, $512634$ contains $231$ since the subpermutation $563$ is order isomorphic to $231$. A permutation that does not contain $q$ is said to [*avoid*]{} $q$. Let $S_n$ denote the set of permutations of $\{1,\dots, n\}$ and let $S^\infty=\bigcup_{n\in {\mathbb N}_+}
S_n$. The set of all permutations in $S^\infty$ which avoid every permutation in $\mathscr B\subseteq S^\infty$ is denoted $Av(\mathscr B)$. A set of permutations is a [*pattern avoidance class*]{} if it equals $Av(\mathscr B)$ for some $\mathscr B\subseteq S^\infty$. A set $\mathscr B=\{q_{1},q_{2}, \dots\}\subseteq S^\infty$ is an [*antichain*]{} if no $q_{i}$ contains $q_{j}$ for any $i\neq j$. An antichain $\mathscr B$ is a [*basis*]{} for a pattern avoidance class $\mathscr C$ if $\mathscr C=Av(\mathscr B)$.
Sorting mechanisms are natural sources of pattern avoidance classes, since (in general) if a permutation cannot be sorted then neither can any permutation containing it. Knuth characterised the set of permutations that can be sorted by a single pass through an infinite stack as the set of permutations that avoid 231 [@Knuth]. Since then many variants of the problem have been studied, for example [@AlbertStacksDeques; @AB; @AtLTMR1453845; @AtkinsonMR1932896; @Bona2003; @ClaessonMR2601799; @Estacks; @ELRstacks; @AndrewMR3573219; @pushall; @MR3627423; @SmithMR3206158; @RebeccaEnumerationPopStacks; @TarjanMR0298803; @West1993]. The set of permutations sortable by a stack of depth 2 and an infinite stack in series has a basis of 20 permutations [@Estacks], while for two infinite stacks in series there is no finite basis [@MurphyThesis]. For systems of a finite stack of depth $3$ or more and infinite stack in series, it was not known whether the basis was finite or infinite.
Here we show that for depth $3$ or more the basis is infinite. We identify an infinite antichain belonging to the basis of the set of permutations sortable by a stack of depth $3$ and an infinite stack in series. A simple lemma then implies the result for depth $4$ or more. A computer search by the authors ([@GohThesis]) yielded $8194$ basis permutations of lengths up to $13$ (see Table \[table:basis3\]; basis permutations are listed at <https://github.com/gohyoongkuan/stackSorting-3>). The antichain used to prove our theorem was found by examining this data and looking for patterns that could be arbitrarily extended.
-------------------- --------------------------------- -------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Permutation length Number of sortable permutations Number of basis elements
5 120 0
6 711 9
7 4700 83
8 33039 169
9 239800 345
10 1769019 638
11 13160748 1069
12 98371244 1980
13 737463276 3901
-------------------- --------------------------------- -------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
: Number of basis elements for $S(3,\infty)$ of length up to $13$[]{data-label="table:basis3"}
Preliminaries
=============
The notation ${\mathbb N}$ denotes the non-negative integers $\{0,1,2,\dots\}$ and ${\mathbb N}_+$ the positive integers $\{1,2,\dots\}$.
Let $M_t$ denote the machine consisting of a stack, $R$, of depth $t\in{\mathbb N}_+$ and infinite stack, $L$, in series as in Fig. \[fig:M3\]. A [*sorting process*]{} is the process of moving entries of a permutation from right to left from the input to stack $R$, then to stack $L$, then to the output, in some order. Each item must pass through both stacks, and at all times stack $R$ may contain no more than $t$ items (so if at some point stack $R$ holds $t$ items, the next input item cannot enter until an item is moved from $R$ to $L$).
(5,1.8) node [input]{}; (-2,1.8) node [output]{};
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (5,2.4) node [$a_1a_2\dots a_n$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7);
A permutation $\alpha = a_1a_2\dots a_n$ is in $S(t,\infty)$ if it can be sorted to $123\dots n$ using $M_t$. For example, $243651\in S(t,\infty)$ for $t\geq 3$ since it can be sorted using the following process: place $2,4$ into stack $R$, move $4,3,2$ across to stack $L$, place $6,5,1$ into stack $R$, then output $1,2,3,4,5,6$. Note $243651\not\in S(2,\infty)$ by [@Estacks].
The following lemmas will be used to prove our main result.
\[lem:Lrelated\] Let $\alpha = a_1a_2\dots a_n\in S(t,\infty)$ for $t\in{\mathbb N}_+$. If $i<j$ and $a_i<a_j$ then in any sorting process that sorts $\alpha$, if both $a_i$ and $a_j$ appear together in stack $L$ then $a_i$ must be above $a_j$.
If $a_j$ is above $a_i$ in stack $L$ then the permutation will fail to be sorted.
\[lem:sbm\] Let $\alpha = a_1a_2\dots a_n\in S(t,\infty)$ for $t\geq 3$ and suppose $1\leq i<j<k\leq n$ with $a_i a_j a_k$ order-isomorphic to $132$. Then in any sorting process that sorts $\alpha$, $a_i,a_j,a_k$ do not appear together in stack $R$.
If $a_i,a_j,a_k$ appear together in stack $R$, we must move $a_k$ then $a_j$ onto stack $L$ before we can move $a_i$, but this means $a_j,a_k$ violate Lemma \[lem:Lrelated\].
\[lem:67R\] Let $\alpha = a_1a_2\dots a_n\in S(t,\infty)$ for $t\geq 3$ and $1\leq i_1<i_2<\dots <i_6\leq n$ with $a_{i_1}a_{i_2}\dots a_{i_6}$ order isomorphic to $243651$. Then in any sorting process that sorts $\alpha$, at some step of the process $a_{i_4}$ and $a_{i_5}$ appear together in stack $R$.
For simplicity let us write $a_{i_1}=2, a_{i_2}=4, a_{i_3}=3, a_{i_4}=6, a_{i_5}=5, a_{i_6}=1$. Before $6$ is input, $2,3,4$ are in the two stacks in one of the following configurations:
1. $2,4,3$ are all in stack $R$. In this case we violate Lemma \[lem:sbm\].
2. two items are in stack $R$ and one is in stack $L$. In this case by Lemma \[lem:Lrelated\] we cannot move $6$ to stack $L$, so $6$ must placed and kept in stack $R$. If $t=3$ stack $R$ is now full, so $5$ cannot move into the system, and if $t\geq 4$, when $5$ is input we violate Lemma \[lem:sbm\].
3. one item, say $a$, is in stack $R$ and two items are in stack $L$. In this case we cannot move $6,5$ into stack $L$ by Lemma \[lem:Lrelated\] so they remain in stack $R$ on top of $a$, violating Lemma \[lem:sbm\].
4. stack R is empty. In this case, $2, 3,4$ must be placed in stack $L$ in order, else we violate Lemma \[lem:Lrelated\]. We cannot place $6,5$ into stack $L$ until it is empty, so they must both stay in stack $R$ until 4 is output.
In particular, the last case is the only possibility and in this case $a_{i_4}, a_{i_5}$ appear in stack $R$ together.
\[GZigZag32514\] Let $\alpha = a_1a_2\dots a_n\in S(t,\infty)$ for $t\geq 3$ and suppose $1\leq i_1<i_2<\dots<i_5\leq n$ with $a_{i_1}a_{i_2}\dots a_{i_5}$ order-isomorphic to $32514$. Then, in any sorting process that sorts $\alpha$, if $a_{i_1},a_{i_2}$ appear together in stack $R$, then at some step in the process $a_{i_3},a_{i_4}$ appear together in stack $L$.
For simplicity let us write $a_{i_1}=3$, $a_{i_2}=2$, $a_{i_3}=5$, $a_{i_4}=1$, $a_{i_5}=4$. Figure \[fig:lemma4\] indicates the possible ways to sort these entries, and in the case that $2,3$ appear together in stack $R$ we see that $4,5$ must appear in stack $L$ together at some later point.
(root)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (5.0,2.4) node [$2514$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,0.3) node [$3$]{};
;
(root\_2)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (5.0,2.4) node [$2514$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (0.5,-1.7) node [$3$]{}; (2.5,-3.7) node [$2, 3$ never appear together in stack $R$]{};
;
(root\_3)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node [$514$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,0.8) node [$2$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$3$]{};
;
(root\_5)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node [$514$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (0.5,-1.7) node [$2$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$3$]{};
;
(root\_7)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node [$14$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (0.5,-1.7) node [$2$]{}; (2.5,0.8) node [$5$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$3$]{};
; (root\_8)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node [$4$]{}; (-2.0,2.4) node [$12$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (0.5,-1.7) node [$5$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$3$]{}; (2.0,-4.0) node [4, 5 must appear together in stack $L$]{};
;
(root\_6)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node [$14$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,1.3) node [$5$]{}; (2.5,0.8) node [$2$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$3$]{};
; (root\_10)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node [$14$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (0.5,-1.7) node [$5$]{}; (2.5,0.8) node [$2$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$3$]{}; (2.0,-4.0) node [4,5 must appear together in stack $L$]{};
;
(root) – (root\_2); (root) – (root\_3); (root\_3) – (root\_5); (root\_3) – (root\_6); (root\_5) – (root\_7); (root\_7) – (root\_8); (root\_6) – (root\_10);
\[GZigZag32541\] Let $\alpha = a_1a_2\dots a_n\in S(t,\infty)$ for $t\geq 3$ and suppose $1\leq i_1<i_2<\dots<i_5\leq n$ with $a_{i_1}a_{i_2}\dots a_{i_5}$ order-isomorphic to $32541$. Then, in any sorting process that sorts $\alpha$, if $a_{i_1},a_{i_2}$ appear together in stack $L$, then at the step that $a_{i_1}$ is output,
1. $a_{i_3},a_{i_4}$ are both in stack $R$, and
2. if $a_k$ is in stack $L$ then $k<i_2$.
For simplicity let us write $a_{i_1}=3$, $a_{i_2}=2$, $a_{i_3}=5$, $a_{i_4}=4$, $a_{i_5}=1$, and $\alpha=u_03u_12u_25u_34u_41u_5$. Figure \[fig:lemma5\] indicates the possible ways to sort these entries. In the case that $2,3$ appear in stack $R$ together, Lemma \[lem:Lrelated\] ensures $2,3$ do not appear together in stack $L$. In the other case, before $3$ is moved into stack $L$, any tokens in stack $L$ come from $u_0u_1$. Thus when $3$ is output the only tokens in stack $L$ will be $a_k$ with $k<i_2$. Lemma \[lem:Lrelated\] ensures that $4,5$ are not placed on top of 3 in stack $L$, so that the step that $3$ is output they sit together in stack $R$.
(root)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (5.0,2.4) node [$2541$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,0.3) node [$3$]{};
;
(root\_2)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node [$541$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,0.8) node [$2$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$3$]{}; (1.5,-4.0) node [$2,3$ cannot appear together in stack $L$]{};
;
(root\_3)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (5.0,2.4) node [$2541$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (0.5,-1.7) node [$3$]{}; (1.5,-4.0) node [tokens under $3$ must be from $u_0u_1$]{};
; (root\_6)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node [$541$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,0.3) node [$2$]{}; (0.5,-1.7) node [$3$]{};
; (root\_10)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node [$1$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (0.5,-1.7) node [$3$]{}; (2.5,1.3) node [$4$]{}; (2.5,0.8) node [$5$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$2$]{}; (1.5,-4.0) node [violates Lemma \[lem:sbm\]]{};
;
(root\_5)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node [$541$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (0.5,-1.2) node [$2$]{}; (0.5,-1.7) node [$3$]{};
;
(root\_7)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node [$1$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (0.5,-1.2) node [$2$]{}; (0.5,-1.7) node [$3$]{}; (2.5,0.8) node [$4$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$5$]{};
; (root\_8)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.5,2.4) node ; (-2.0,2.4) node [$12$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (0.5,-1.7) node [$3$]{}; (2.5,0.8) node [$4$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$5$]{}; (1.5,-4.0) node [(1) and (2) are satisfied]{};
;
(root) – (root\_2); (root) – (root\_3); (root\_3) – (root\_5); (root\_3) – (root\_6); (root\_5) – (root\_7); (root\_7) – (root\_8); (root\_6) – (root\_10);
An infinite antichain
=====================
We use the following notation. If $\alpha=a_1\dots a_n$ is a permutation of $12\dots n$ and $m\in\mathbb Z$ then let $\alpha_m$ be the permutation obtained by adding $m$ to each entry of $\alpha$. For example $(1\ 2\ 3)_4=5\ 6\ 7$ and $13_6=19$.
We construct a family of permutations $\mathscr G=\{G_{i}\mid i\in{\mathbb N}\}$ as follows. Define $$\begin{array}{rcl}P &=& 2 \ 4 \ 3 \ 7 \ 6 \ 1 \\
x_j &=& (10 \ 5\ 9)_{6j} \\
y_j &=& (13 \ 12\ 8)_{6j}\\
S_i &=& (14 \ 15 \ 11)_{6i} \\
G_i &=& P \ x_0 \ y_ 0 \ x_1\ y_1 \ \dots \ x_i \ y_i \ S_i \end{array}$$ The first three terms are $$\begin{array}{l}G_0= 2 \ 4 \ 3 \ 7 \ 6 \ 1 \ {(10\ 5\ 9)\ (13\ 12\ 8)}\ 14 \ 15 \ 11, \\
G_1= 2 \ 4 \ 3 \ 7 \ 6 \ 1 \ {(10\ 5\ 9)\ (13\ 12\ 8)\ (16\ 11\ 15)\ (19\ 18\ 14)} \ 20 \ 21 \ 17, \\
G_2= P\ {(10\ 5\ 9)\ (13\ 12\ 8)\ (16\ 11\ 15) \ (19 \ 18\ 14)\ (22\ 17\ 21)}
(25\ 24\ 20) \ 26 \ 27 \ 23.\end{array}$$ A diagram of $G_2$ is shown in Figure \[fig:diag\] which shows the general pattern.
(0.5,0.5) – (0.5,7.5) – (6.5,7.5) – (6.5,0.5) – (0.5,0.5);
(6.5,4.5) – (9.5,4.5) – (9.5,10.5) – (6.5,10.5) – (6.5,4.5); (9.5,7.5) – (12.5,7.5) – (12.5,13.5) – (9.5,13.5) – (9.5,7.5);
(9.5,7.5) – (12.5,7.5) – (12.5,13.5) – (9.5,13.5) – (9.5,7.5); (12.5,10.5) – (15.5,10.5) – (15.5,16.5) – (12.5,16.5) – (12.5,10.5);
(12.5,10.5) – (15.5,10.5) – (15.5,16.5) – (12.5,16.5) – (12.5,10.5); (15.5,13.5) – (18.5,13.5) – (18.5,19.5) – (15.5,19.5) – (15.5,13.5);
(15.5,13.5) – (18.5,13.5) – (18.5,19.5) – (15.5,19.5) – (15.5,13.5); (18.5,16.5) – (21.5,16.5) – (21.5,22.5) – (18.5,22.5) – (18.5,16.5);
(18.5,16.5) – (21.5,16.5) – (21.5,22.5) – (18.5,22.5) – (18.5,16.5); (21.5,19.5) – (24.5,19.5) – (24.5,25.5) – (21.5,25.5) – (21.5,19.5);
(24.5,22.5) – (27.5,22.5) – (27.5,27.5) – (24.5,27.5) – (24.5,22.5);
at (1,2) ; at (2,4) ; at (3,3) ; at (4,7) ; at (5,6) ; at (6,1) ;
at (7,10) ; at (8,5) ; at (9,9) ;
at (10,13) ; at (11,12) ; at (12,8) ;
at (13,16) ; at (14,11) ; at (15,15) ;
at (16,19) ; at (17,18) ; at (18,14) ;
at (19,22) ; at (20,17) ; at (21,21) ;
at (22,25) ; at (23,24) ; at (24,20) ;
at (25,26) ; at (26,27) ; at (27,23) ;
We will prove that each $G_i$ is an element of the basis of $S(3,\infty)$ for all $i\in {\mathbb N}$. Note that if we define $x_{-1}, y_{-1}$ to be empty, $G_{-1}=2 4 3 7 6 1 8 9 5$ is also an element of the basis. We noticed this and $G_0$ had a particular pattern which we could extend using $x_jy_j$. However, we exclude $G_{-1}$ from our antichain to make the proofs simpler.
\[prop:Gi\] The permutation $G_i\not\in S(3,\infty)$ for all $i\in \mathbb N$.
Suppose for contradiction that $G_i$ can be sorted by some sorting process. Since $P$ is order isomorphic to $243651$, by Lemma \[lem:67R\] in any sorting process $7,6$ appear together in stack $R$. Next, $7\ 6\ 10 \ 5 \ 9$ is order isomorphic to $32514$ so by Lemma \[GZigZag32514\] since $7,6$ appear together in stack $R$ we must have that $10,9$ appear together in stack $L$ at some point in the process.
Now consider $x_jy_j=(10 \ 5 \ 9 \ 13\ 12 \ 8)_{6j}$, and assume that $10_{6j},9_{6j}$ both appear in stack $L$ together. Since $ (10 \ 9 \ 13\ 12 \ 8)_{6j}$ is order isomorphic to $32541$ by Lemma \[GZigZag32541\] $13_{6j},12_{6j}$ must be placed together in stack $R$ and stay there until $10_{6j}$ is output.
Next consider $y_jx_{j+1}=( 13\ 12 \ 8 \ 16 \ 11 \ 15)_{6j}$, and assume that $13_{6j},12_{6j}$ both appear in stack $R$ together. Then since $ (13\ 12 \ 16 \ 11 \ 15)_{6j}$ is order isomorphic to $32514$ by Lemma \[GZigZag32514\] we have $16_{6j},15_{6j}$ appear together in stack $L$. Note that $16_{6j},15_{6j}=10_{6(j+1)},9_{6(j+1)}$, so putting the above observations together we see that for all $0\leq j\leq i$ we have $10_{6j},9_{6j}$ both appear in stack $L$ together and $13_{6j},12_{6j}$ appear together in stack $R$ and stay there until $10_{6j}$ is output.
Now we consider the suffix $$x_iy_iS_i= (10 \ 5 \ 9 \ 13 \ 12\ 8\ 14 \ 15 \ 11)_{6i}$$ where $10_{6i},9_{6i}$ are together in stack $L$. Lemma \[GZigZag32541\] tells us not only that $13_{6i},12_{6i}$ appear together in stack $R$ and stay there until $10_{6i}$ is output, but that anything sitting underneath $10_{6i}$ in stack $L$ comes [*before*]{} $9_{6i}$ in $G_i$, so in particular $14_{6i}, 15_{6i}$ are not underneath $10_{6i}$. All possible processes to sort $x_iy_iS$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:moment\]. All possible sorting moves fail, which means $G_i$ cannot be sorted.
(root)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (6.0,2.4) node [$14_{6i}$ $15_{6i}$ $11_{6i}$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,0.8) node [$12_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$13_{6i}$]{}; (0.5,-1.7) node [$10_{6i}$]{};
(5.6,1.6) node [$(S_i)$]{};
;
(root\_2)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (5.5,2.4) node [$15_{6i}$ $11_{6i}$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,1.3) node [$14_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.8) node [$12_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$13_{6i}$]{}; (0.5,-1.7) node [$10_{6i}$]{};
;
(root\_3)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (6.0,2.4) node [$14_{6i}$ $15_{6i}$ $11_{6i}$]{}; (-1.8,2.4) node [$10_{6i}$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,0.8) node [$12_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$13_{6i}$]{};
;
(root\_4)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (5.5,2.4) node [$15_{6i}$ $11_{6i}$]{}; (-1.8,2.4) node [$10_{6i}$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,0.8) node [$14_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$13_{6i}$]{}; (0.5,-1.7) node [$12_{6i}$]{};
;
(root\_6)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.8,2.4) node [$11_{6i}$]{}; (-1.8,2.4) node [$10_{6i}$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,1.3) node [$15_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.8) node [$14_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$13_{6i}$]{}; (0.5,-1.7) node [$12_{6i}$]{}; (1.5,-4.0) node [cannot be sorted]{};
;
(root\_5)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (5.0,2.4) node [$15_{6i}$ $11_{6i}$]{}; (-1.8,2.4) node [$10_{6i}$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,1.3) node [$14_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.8) node [$12_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$13_{6i}$]{};
;
(root\_8)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (5.5,2.4) node [$15_{6i}$ $11_{6i}$]{}; (-1.8,2.4) node [$10_{6i}$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,0.8) node [$12_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$13_{6i}$]{}; (0.5,-1.7) node [$14_{6i}$]{};
;
(root\_9)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.8,2.4) node [$11_{6i}$]{}; (-1.8,2.4) node [$10_{6i}$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,1.3) node [$15_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.8) node [$12_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$13_{6i}$]{}; (0.5,-1.7) node [$14_{6i}$]{}; (3.5,-3.0) node [cannot be sorted]{};
;
(root\_10)
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (4.8,2.4) node ; (-1.8,2.4) node [$10_{6i}$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (2.5,1.3) node [$11_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.8) node [$15_{6i}$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$13_{6i}$]{}; (0.5,-1.2) node [$12_{6i}$]{}; (0.5,-1.7) node [$14_{6i}$]{}; (3.5,-3.0) node [cannot be sorted]{};
;
(root) – (root\_2); (root) – (root\_3); (root\_3) – (root\_4); (root\_3) – (root\_5); (root\_2) – (root\_5); (root\_4) – (root\_6); (root\_5) – (root\_8); (root\_8) – (root\_9); (root\_8) – (root\_10);
The idea of the preceding proof can be summarised informally as follows. The prefix $P$ forces $7,6$ to be together in stack $R$, then Lemmas 4 and 5 alternately imply that the $10_{6j},9_{6j}$ terms of $x_j$ must be in stack $L$ and the $13_{6j},12_{6j}$ terms of $y_j$ must be in stack $R$. When we reach the suffix $S_i$ the fact that certain entries are forced to be in a particular stack means we are unable to sort the final terms. We now show that if a single entry is removed from $G_i$, we can choose to place the $10_{6j},9_{6j}$ terms in stack $R$ and $13_{6j},12_{6j}$ terms in stack $L$, which allows the suffix to be sorted.
\[lem:can\_sort1\] Let $0\leq j\leq i$. If stack $R$ contains one or both of $10_{6j}, 9_{6j}$ in ascending order, and $y_j\dots y_iS_i$ is to be input as in Fig. \[fig:Premoved2\], then there is a sorting procedure to output all remaining entries in order.
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7);
(6.5,2.4) node [$13_{6j} \ 12_{6j} \ 8_{6j} \ (x_{j+1}\dots \text{ or } S_i)$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7);
(5.4,1.6) node [$(y_{j})$]{};
(2.5,.8) node [$9_{6j}$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$10_{6j}$]{};
For $j<i$ move $13_{6j}, 12_{6j}$ into stack $L$, output $8_{6j}, 9_{6j},10_{6j}$, move $16_{6j}=10_{6(j+1)}$ into stack $R$, output $11_{6j}=5_{6(j+1)}$, output $13_{6j}, 12_{6j}$ from stack $L$ and input $15_{6j}=9_{6(j+1)}$ so that the configuration has the same form as Fig. \[fig:Premoved2\] with $j$ incremented by 1.
For $j=i$ the remaining input is $(13 \ 12 \ 8 \ 14 \ 15 \ 11)_{6j}$. Put $13_{6i},12_{6i} $ in stack $L$ in order, output $8_{6i}, 9_{6i}, 10_{6i}$, put $ 14_{6i},15_{6i}$ in stack $R$ and output $11_{6i}$, $12_{6i},13_{6i}$, move $15_{6i}$ into stack $L$ and output $14_{6i}$ then $15_{6i}$.
If one of $ 9_{6j},10_{6j}$ is missing, use the same procedure ignoring the missing entry.
\[lem:can\_sort2\] Let $0\leq j\leq i$. If stack $L$ contains one or both of $12_{6j}, 13_{6j}$ in ascending order, and $x_{j+1}\dots S_i$ (or just $S_i$ if $j=i$) is to be input as in Fig. \[fig:67\_2\], then there is a sorting procedure to output all remaining entries in order.
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7);
(5.8,2.4) node [$x_{j+1} \dots \text{ or } S_i$]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7);
(0.5,-1.5) node [$12_{6j}$]{}; (0.5,-2) node [$13_{6j}$]{};
If $j<i$ move $10_{6(j+1)}$ into stack $R$, output $5_{6(j+1)}, 12_{6j},13_{6j}$, move $9_{6(j+1)}$ to stack $R$ to reach the configuration in Fig. \[fig:Premoved2\], which we can sort by Lemma \[lem:can\_sort1\]. If $j=i$ then the remaining input is just $S_i=(14\ 15 \ 11)_{6i}$: move $14_{6i},15_{6i}$ to stack $R$, then output all entries.
If one of $ 12_{6j},13_{6j}$ is missing, use the same procedure ignoring the missing entry.
\[prop:GiBases\] Let $G_i'$ be a permutation obtained by removing a single entry from $G_i$. Then $G'_i\in S(3,\infty)$.
We give a deterministic procedure to sort $G_i'$. There are three cases depending on from where the entry is removed.
*Term removed from $P$.* Let $P'$ be the factor $P$ with one entry removed. We claim that there is a sorting sequence for $P' x_0$ which outputs the smallest six items in order and leaves $10,9$ in stack $R$. To show this we simply consider all cases.
1. If $1$ is removed, $2,4,3$ can be output in order, then $7,6$ placed in stack $L$, $10$ in stack $R$, then $5,6,7$ output, and $9$ placed on top of $10$ in stack $R$.
2. If $2,3$, or $4$ are removed, write $P'=ab761$ with $a,b\in\{2,3,4\}$. Place $a,b$ in stack $R$, move $7,6$ into stack $L$, output $1$, then output $a,b$ in the correct order, then move $10$ into stack $R$, output $5,6,7$ and move $9$ into stack $R$.
3. If $6$ or $7$ is removed, write $P'=243a1$ with $a\in\{7,6\}$. Place $4,3,2$ in stack $L$ in order, move $a$ into stack $R$, output 1 then $2,3,4$, then move $a$ into stack $L$, move $10$ into stack $R$, output $5,a$ and move $9$ into stack $R$.
Thus after inputting $P'x_0$ we have the configuration shown in Fig. \[fig:Premoved2\] with $j=0$, which we can sort by Lemma \[lem:can\_sort1\].
*Term removed from $x_s, 0\leq s\leq i$.*
Input $P$ leaving $6,7$ in stack $R$, which brings us to the configuration in Fig. \[fig:67\] with $j=0$. Now assume we have input $P\dots x_{j-1}y_{j-1}$ with $j\leq s$ (note the convention that $x_{-1},y_{-1}$ are empty) and the configuration is as in Fig. \[fig:67\].
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (1.8,1.7) – (1.8,0) – (3.2,0) – (3.2,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7);
(5.8,2.4) node [$x_j\ y_j\dots \text{ or } x_s'y_s\dots $]{}; (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7);
(2.5,.8) node [$12_{6(j-1)}$]{}; (2.5,0.3) node [$13_{6(j-1)}$]{};
If $j<s$ we can input $x_jy_j$ into the stacks to arrive at the same configuration with $j$ incremented by $1$, as follows: move $10_{6j}$ to stack $L$, output $5_{6j},6_{6j}=12_{6(j-1)},7_{6j}=13_{6(j-1)}$, move $9_{6j}$ to stack $L$, move $13_{6j},12_{6j}$ to stack $R$, output $8_{6j},9_{6j},10_{6j}$.
If $j=s$, we proceed as follows:
1. If $5_{6s}$ removed, output $6_{6s}=12_{6(s-1)},7_{6s}=12_{6(s-1)}$, move $9_{6s},10_{6s}$ to stack $R$, to reach the configuration in Fig. \[fig:Premoved2\] with $j=s$. From here the remaining entries can be sorted by Lemma \[lem:can\_sort1\].
2. If $10_{6s}$ is removed, output $5_{6s}, 6_{6s}, 7_{6s}$ and place $9_{6s}$ in stack $R$, to reach the configuration in Fig. \[fig:Premoved2\] with $j=s$ and $10_{6s}$ missing. From here the remaining entries can be sorted Lemma \[lem:can\_sort1\].
3. If $9_{6s}$ is removed, move $6_{6s}$ to stack $L$, move $10_{6s}$ on top of $7_{6s}$ in stack $R$, output $5_{6s}, 6_{6s}$, move $13_{6s}, 12_{6s}$ into $L$, then output $8_{6s}, 10_{6s}$. This gives the configuration in Fig. \[fig:67\_2\] with $j=s$. From here the remaining entries can be sorted by Lemma \[lem:can\_sort2\].
*Term removed from $y_s, 0\leq s\leq i$ or $S_i$.* Input $Px_0$ to reach the configuration in Fig. \[fig:Si\_removed\] with $j=0$: move $2,3,4$ into stack $L$, $7,6$ to $R$, output $1,2,3,4$, move $10$ into $L$, output $5,6,7$ then move $9$ into $L$.
(0,1.7) – (0,-2.5) – (1,-2.5) – (1,1.7); (2.5,-.5) node [$R$]{}; (2,1.7) – (2,0) – (3,0) – (3,1.7); (0.5,-3) node [$L$]{}; (4,2.4) – node\[above\] (2.66,2.4) – (2.66,1.7); (2.33,1.7) – (2.33,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.66,2.4) – (0.66,1.7); (-1.2,2.4) – node\[above\] (0.33,2.4) – (0.33,1.7); (0.5,-1.8) node [$10_{6j}$]{}; (0.5,-1.3) node [$9_{6j}$]{};
Now suppose we have input $P x_0 y_0\ \dots \ x_{j}$ to reach the configuration in Fig. \[fig:Si\_removed\]. If no entry is removed from $y_j$ and $j<i$ then we can input $y_jx_{j+1}$ to return to the configuration in Fig. \[fig:Si\_removed\] with $j$ incremented by $1$ as follows: move $13_{6j},12_{6j}$ to stack $R$, output $8_{6j},9_{6j},10_{6j}$, move $10_{6(j+1)}$ to $L$, output $5_{6(j+1)}=11_{6j}, 12_{6j}, 13_{6j}$, then move $9_{6(j+1)}$ to stack $L$.
If $j=s$ ($y_s$ is removed):
1. If $8_{6s}$ is removed, output $9_{6s},10_{6s}$, move $13_{6s},12_{6s}$ to stack $L$ to reach the configuration in Fig. \[fig:67\_2\], from which the remaining entries can be sorted by Lemma \[lem:can\_sort2\].
2. If $b\in\{13_{6s},12_{6s}\}$ is removed, place $b$ in stack $R$, output $8_{6s},9_{6s},10_{6s}$, move $b$ to stack $L$ to reach the configuration in Fig. \[fig:67\_2\] with one of $12_{6s},13_{6s}$ removed, from which the remaining entries can be sorted a by Lemma \[lem:can\_sort2\].
If $j=i$ and the entry is removed from $S_i$, sort the remaining entries as follows:
1. If $11_{6i}$ is removed, place $13_{6i},12_{6i}$ into stack $R$, output $8_{6i},9_{6i},10_{6i}$, then $12_{6i},13_{6i},14_{6i},15_{6i}$.
2. If $b\in\{14_{6i}, 15_{6i}\}$ is removed, place $13_{6i},12_{6i}$ into stack $R$, output $8_{6i},9_{6i},10_{6i}$, move $12_{6i}$ into stack $L$, place $b$ on top of $13_{6i}$ in stack $R$, output $11_{6i}$ then $12_{6i}$, move $b$ into stack $L$, output $13_{6i}$ then $b$.
\[thm:GiBases\] The set of permutations that can be sorted by a stack of depth 3 and an infinite stack in series has an infinite basis.
Proposition \[prop:Gi\] shows that each $G_i$ cannot be sorted, and Proposition \[prop:GiBases\] shows that no $G_i$ can contain $G_j$ for $j\neq i$ as a subpermutation since any subpermutation of $G_i$ can be sorted. Thus $\mathscr G=\{G_{i}\mid i\in{\mathbb N}\}$ is an infinite antichain in the basis for $S(3,\infty)$.
From finite to infinitely based
===============================
Let $\mathscr B_t$ be the basis for $S(t,\infty)$ for $t\in {\mathbb N}_+$. Modifying Lemma 1 in [@Estacks] for the sorting case, we have the following:
\[lem:basisk\] If $\sigma\in\mathscr B_t$ has length $n$ then either $\sigma$ or $(213)_n\sigma$ belongs to $\mathscr B_{t+1}$.
If $\sigma\not\in S(t+1,\infty)$ then since $\sigma\in \mathscr B_t$, deleting any entry gives a permutation in $S(t,\infty)\subseteq S(t+1,\infty)$, so $\sigma\in\mathscr B_{t+1}$. Else $\sigma\in S(t+1,\infty)$. In any sorting process for $(213)_n\sigma$ the entries $1_n,2_n,3_n$ cannot appear together in stack $L$, so at least one entry must remain in stack $R$ which means we must sort $\sigma$ with stack $R$ of depth at most $t$, which is not possible, so $(213)_n\sigma$ cannot be sorted. If we remove an entry of the prefix then the two entries $a,b\in \{1_n,2_n,3_n\}$ can be placed in stack $L$ in order, leaving stack $R$ depth $t+1$ so the permutation can be sorted, and if an entry is removed from $\sigma$ then since $\sigma\in \mathscr B_t$ it can be sorted with $R$ having one space occupied.
\[thm:LongestHeightSortingMachine\] The set of permutations that can be sorted using a stack of depth $t\in{\mathbb N}_+$ and an infinite stack in series is finitely based if and only if $t\in\{1,2\}$.
We have $|\mathscr B_1|=1$ and $|\mathscr B_2|=20$ [@Knuth; @Estacks]. Theorem \[thm:GiBases\] shows that $\mathscr B_3$ is infinite. Lemma \[lem:basisk\] implies if $\mathscr B_t$ is infinite then so is $\mathscr B_{t+1}$.
A small modification of Propositions \[prop:Gi\] and \[prop:GiBases\] shows that for $t\geq 4$ the set $\mathscr G_t=\{G_{i,t}\}$, where $G_{i,t}= P(x_0y_0)\dots (x_iy_i) (14 \ 15 \ 16 \ \dots \ 12_t \ 11)_{6i},$ is an explicit antichain in the basis of $S(t,\infty)$. Details can be seen in [@GohThesis].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, a machine learning based simulation framework of general purpose multibody dynamics is introduced. The aim of the framework is to generate a well trained meta-model of multibody dynamics (MBD) systems. To this end, deep neural network (DNN) is employed to the framework so as to construct data based meta model representing multibody systems. Constructing well defined training data set with time variable is essential to get accurate and reliable motion data such as displacement, velocity, acceleration, and forces. As a result of the introduced approach, the meta-model provides motion estimation of system dynamics without solving the analytical equations of motion. The performance of the proposed DNN meta-modeling was evaluated to represent several MBD systems.'
author:
- 'Hee-Sun Choi'
- Junmo An
- 'Jin-Gyun Kim'
- 'Jae-Yoon Jung'
- Juhwan Choi
- Grzegorz Orzechowski
- Aki Mikkola
- Jin Hwan Choi
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: ' Data-driven simulation for general purpose multibody dynamics using deep neural networks '
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Using Machine Learning (ML) with big data is an important subject matter in science and engineering. This is because ML is effective to handle and interpret big data sets for the purpose of finding certain patterns from the data.
In particular, Deep Neural Network (DNN), which is based on an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) with multiple hidden layers between input and output layers allows to handle complex shapes with nonlinear functions with multi-dimensional input data. DNN has been successfully used in a large number of practical applications. Well trained neural network then provides precise pattern recognition based on data sets in real time.
These features, big data recognition and real time estimation of nonlinear functions, of ML approaches are attractive to dynamics and control engineers who are handling nonlinear system dynamics with real world data. There have been several previous studies on applying ML, DNN, or other big-data handling techniques to rigid multibody system problems. For example, Bayesian formulation [@Lanz06; @BlaTorGim15; @TinMisPetSch07] in combination with Markov random field approximation, Kalman filter, or particle filter has been applied to various multibody dynamics (MBD) problems to handle noise data effectively in real-life applications, generate reliable modeling with efficient computational cost, estimate multibody system in probabilistic sense, or identify nonlinear parameters in governing equations. ML approaches [@LiWuTedTenTor19; @TutBroWan12; @AnsTupDatNeg18; @LinHafQueFre10; @HalErdBog09] such as regression methods, reinforcement learning algorithms, and surrogate models have also been employed. Regression methods have many different types that can be performed in ML. In addition to the simple linear regression model, one can select and use techniques such as polynomial regression, support vector regression, decision tree regression, and random forest regression to suit a given problem. Based on the investigated input-label values, surrogate models perform a probabilistic estimate for an unknown objective function. This is an approach that uses an interpretable model to describe complex models. The most commonly used model in surrogate models is the Gaussian process. The proposed method has enhanced accuracy of prediction, especially in the long time scales, and increased computational efficiency in simulating dynamic response of multibody system. Moreover, neural networks [@AnsTupDatNeg18; @KraCauMar18; @FalMalMel11; @MarZaaWhiTaj07; @ByrFox17] have been suggested as effective alternatives to multibody dynamics simulation in comparison with conventional algorithms. The approaches have been proved to be fast and reliable to describe and predict characteristics of multibody systems.
It is important to note that previous studies [@Lanz06; @LinHafQueFre10; @HalErdBog09; @KraCauMar18; @FalMalMel11; @MarZaaWhiTaj07; @ByrFox17] are focused on particular MBD problems, mainly on contact, railways, vehicles, gaits, robotics, or tracking. Accordingly, a general MBD problem has not been introduced and analyzed through DNN technique.
To address these shortcomings, this study introduces a procedure to generate a solver based on [*DNN meta-model*]{} for [*general*]{} purpose multibody system, which allows us to predict MBD with high accuracy in real time. Among the various ML methods, a supervised learning technique is used for the mathematical and/or numerical data set of the MBD model in the training process. Data preparation and training process are called [*off-line*]{} stage, and its trained result is known as [*meta-model*]{}. Using the meta-model, the time varying results can be estimated such as displacement, velocity, and acceleration of the multibody system without directly solving the governing equations of MBD, and then this estimation process is called [*on-line*]{} stage. In particular, [*the feed forward networks*]{} (FFN) with hidden layers and non-linear activation functions are employed among the various DNN methods since it can efficiently represent continuous functions. Three representative MBD problems, single pendulum, double pendulum, and slider crank mechanism, were considered to evaluate the performance of the proposed DNN based meta-modeling framework. To get the reliable meta-model, sufficient and accurate training data set of MBD is prerequisite, and random search is also important to define appropriate hyper-parameters of MBD problems such as the number of hidden layers, the size of batches, the number of epochs, optimizer, etc. In particular, numerical results imply that a position of time variable as input or output data is crucial to get the usable transient response of MBD.
In Section \[sec:mbd formulation\], the governing equations of MBD is briefly reviewed. In Section \[sec:dnn\], the overview of neural networks of MBD and its meta-modeling process is presented. It should be noted that the framework of the proposed meta-modeling provides fundamental ideas of handling experimental or real-world data and exploiting their structures and relations to understand dynamics of general multibody systems. Not depending on complexity of MBD systems, the present meta-modeling helps us to achieve real-time and robust simulations with accurate motion results. In addition, high level of engineering simulations can be employed for not only engineering designs, but also motion related Internet of Things (IoT). Section \[sec:numerical\] describes the case studies of the meta-modeling process using single pendulum, double pendulum, and slider crank mechanism. Conclusions are given in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Brief Review on Common General Purpose MBD Governing Equations {#sec:mbd formulation}
==============================================================
Multibody system dynamics offers a straightforward approach to construct and solve equations of motion for mechanical systems. Multibody system dynamics includes a large number of procedures those can be categorized based on the used coordinates. In topological approaches, such like semi-recursive formulation, relative coordinates between the bodies are used. In the global approaches, in turn, the set of coordinates defines each body of the system. It is important to note that although topological and global approaches both lead to identical dynamic responses, the numerical performance differs. In this section often used global methods are briefly reviewed.
In [*[the augmented formulation]{}*]{}, constraint equations are accounted in the equation of motion by employing Lagrange multipliers. In this approach the equations of motion can be written as $$\label{eq:governing:augmented}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec{M} & ~{\mathbf{C}^T_{{\mathbf{q}}}}\\
{\mathbf{C_q}}& \vec{0}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
{\ddot{{\mathbf{q}}}}\\ \vec{\lambda}
\end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}
\vec{F}_a \\ \vec{F}_c
\end{bmatrix}$$ where $\vec{M}$ is the mass matrix, $\vec{C}$ is the constraint vector, ${\mathbf{C_q}}$ is the the Jacobian matrix of the constraint vector $\vec{C}$, $\vec{F}_a$ is the vector of applied generalized forces, and $\vec{F}_c$ the vector can be obtained by differential constraint twice with respect to time. The equation of motion is solved to obtain the generalized coordinates $\vec{q}$ and the Lagrange multipliers $\vec{\lambda}$.
The other commonly used form of equations of motion for multibody system can be achieved from applying [*[the embedding technique]{}*]{} to global coordinates . The embedding technique reduces the generalized coordinates to be solved from ${\ddot{{\mathbf{q}}}}$ to a set of independent generalized ${\ddot{{\mathbf{q}}}}_{ind}$. In practice, this reduction can be accomplished using a transformation matrix $\vec{T}$: $$\label{eq:transformation}
{\ddot{{\mathbf{q}}}}= \vec{T}\,{\ddot{{\mathbf{q}}}}_{ind} + \vec{r},$$ where $\vec{r}$ is a remainder vector. Substituting into the augmented system yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:augmented:modi}
\begin{cases}
\vec{M} {\mathbf{T}\,}{\ddot{{\mathbf{q}}}}_{ind} + \vec{M}\vec{r} + {\mathbf{C}^T_{{\mathbf{q}}}}\vec{\lambda} = \vec{F}_a,
\\
{\mathbf{C_q}}{\mathbf{T}\,}{\ddot{{\mathbf{q}}}}_{ind} + {\mathbf{C_q}}\vec{r} = \vec{F}_c.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ By applying an identity $ {\mathbf{T}\,}^T{\mathbf{C}^T_{{\mathbf{q}}}}= \vec{0} $, the equation can be simplified into $$\label{eq:governing:embedded}
\tilde{\vec{M}} {\ddot{{\mathbf{q}}}}_{ind}
= \tilde{\vec{F}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde{\vec{M}} := {\mathbf{T}\,}^T \vec{M} {\mathbf{T}\,},
\\
&\tilde{\vec{F}} := {\mathbf{T}\,}^T\vec{F}_a - {\mathbf{T}\,}^T\vec{M}\vec{r}.
\end{aligned}$$
Deep Neural Network for Multibody Dynamics Systems {#sec:dnn}
==================================================
In this section, a brief introduction to DNN that will be used in numerical examples is presented, and training of the DNN for MBD systems is also described.\
Machine Learning (ML) aims to develop technologies and algorithms that enables computers to analyze and predict mechanisms of a system by learning structures of big amount of data. ML allows important tasks to be performed by generalizing from examples [@Dom12]. ML has already powered many aspects of modern society from web searches and item recognition to image classification, speech recognition [@LeBen15], and cyber-physical systems (CPS)."
Being a part of ML, [*[Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)]{}*]{} are clusters of [*[nodes]{}*]{} (or [*[neurons]{}*]{}), which is designed to mimic the decision-making process of human brain, see Fig. \[fig:ann\_dnn\]. Nodes form [*[layers]{}*]{}, i.e. the input layer, the hidden layer, and the output layer. The input and output layers consist input and output parameters, respectively, of a meta-model. Containing information, nodes of each layer interchange the information through [*[weights]{}*]{}. One of the main purposes of ANN is to find the best weights to maximize the performance of a given neural network. Rumelhart et al. [@RumHinWil86] developed an [*[error back-propagation algorithm]{}*]{} to find weights and improve neural networks efficiently.
To describe and represent more complicated and intricate data, more than one hidden layer can be considered. In this case, the ANN is referred to as [*[Deep Neural Networks (DNN)]{}*]{}. The increased number of hidden layers increases the number of nodes and weights, which requires an expensive computational cost and makes it difficult to train a model. Despite the shortcomings, DNN yields better meta-models for solving complex [*[nonlinear]{}*]{} problems.\
Structure of DNN can be specified in more details by the [*[hyper-parameters]{}*]{} such as the number of layers, the number of nodes for each layer, the batch size, the activation functions, the regulatory method, and the optimizers. The performance of DNN highly relies on the proper choice of hyper-parameters. Some important hyper-parameters mentioned in the numerical tests (Section \[sec:numerical\]) are briefly summarized as follows:
1. [*Batch size*]{}\
The batch size is the number of training data samples in one pass for updating weights. Due to memory limitations, it is not recommended to perform training with all available data samples at once. The larger the batch size, the less computational cost a training requires.
2. [*Activation function*]{}\
In DNN, values specified to nodes of a layer are not transferred directly to the next layer, but transformed through a nonlinear function, called [*[activation function]{}*]{}. It helps the values of nodes not to diverge during training and allows to solve complex problems with a small number of nodes. If an unsuitable activation function is chosen, gradients of DNN (in the error back-propagation process) can be vanishing, which makes learning speed severely slow. Activation functions such as [*[tanh]{}*]{}, [*[sigmoid]{}*]{}, and [*[ReLU]{}*]{}, are known to appropriate choices.
3. [*Optimizers*]{}\
Weights of DNN are found by error back-propagation process, which sequentially updates the weights to minimize a [*[loss function]{}*]{} defined by a given error, such as ${\mathcal{E}_{mse}}$ described in . In this process, a local minimum problem needs to be solved and an efficient [*[optimizer]{}*]{} helps to reduce solution time. Representative techniques are stochastic gradient descent, Adam [@KinBa14], RMSprop [@Hin12].
![ Structure of Artifical Neural Networks (ANN). If there are multiple hidden layers, ANN is referred to as Deep Neural Networks (DNN). []{data-label="fig:ann_dnn"}](data/for_diagrams/dnn.png){width="70.00000%"}
Overview of Neural Networks for MBD {#sec:dnn:general}
-----------------------------------
#### Meta-model using Neural Networks
\
ML methods can be categorized in viewpoint of learning styles into three: supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning. Supervised learning trains a meta-model by considering both reference response features called [*[labels]{}*]{} and predictive features, and by gradually improving the model to fit the given training data. There are mainly classification and regression methods in supervised learning. In unsupervised learning, in contrary to supervised learning, label (or reference) features are not designated. It focuses on how training data is structured. Reinforcement learning is an effective algorithm for optimization analysis. It learns data by making decisions to maximize user-specified reward. Users need to design appropriate model conditions such as environments, actions, rewards.
MBD problems can be mainly dealt with supervised or reinforcement learning techniques since many MBD problems aim to seek robust and optimal design considering a set of design parameters.
To apply supervised learning, training data need to be prepared afore-hand for learning the model. The training data for MBD meta-models can be obtained in a few manners, usually by computational methods. In case of reinforcement learning, a multibody systems simulation environment is requisite to train an agent according to cumulated reward for each action. Both learning approaches require time-consuming tasks to learn the meta-models of MBD: data preparation task for supervised learning and simulation task for reinforcement learning. However, once the meta-model is built, it resolves MBD problems in real-time and yields dynamics responses.
In this research, the supervised learning of MBD meta-model based on training data is mainly considered. Supervised learning finds an approximation function ${\mathcal{M}}$ that minimizes a loss $L(x; {\mathcal{M}})$ over samples $x$. An algorithm ${\mathcal{A}}_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$ produces ${\mathcal{M}}$ for a training set $\vec{X}^{train}$ through the optimization of a training criterion with respect to a set of parameters, given hyper-parameters $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ [@BerBen12]. The built function $${\mathcal{M}}= {\mathcal{A}}(\vec{X}^{train}; \boldsymbol{\alpha})$$ is called a [*meta-model*]{} in this research.
A neural network algorithm is one of the powerful machine learning algorithms of minimizing the loss $$L\left(x;\, {\mathcal{A}}(\vec{X}^{train}; \boldsymbol{\alpha})\right).$$
Specifically, the algorithm uses a network structure and optimizes the parameters of the networks, weights and biases, by utilizing the back-propagation algorithms, which is an extension of the gradient descent method for neural network structures.
In this research, neural networks are adopted to build the meta-models of MBD problems, since it is subject to be generalized to fit various shapes of nonlinear functions with multi-dimensional input data. In particular, [*the feed forward networks (FFN)*]{} with hidden layers and nonlinear activation functions are considered, which are the universal approximators that can represent effectively continuous functions. Owing to the characteristics of FFN, it is a powerful candidate of implementing the meta-models of general purposed MBD problems. Moreover, many techniques for DNN including accelerated activation functions such as ReLU, dropout, regularization, and batch normalization have strengthened the potential of FFN with deep layers for modeling general purpose MBD problems.
The flowchart in Fig. \[fig:flowchart\] shows brief outlines of meta-modeling of MBD problems and its benefits.
#### Design of Neural Networks for Meta-models
\
MBD problems rarely have high dimensionality of input or output data, compared to common DNN applications such as image, speech, and text data. Rather than high dimensionality, in general, MBD considers complicated nonlinear functions and requires accurate and robust solutions.
If an MBD problem is given, the design of input and output layers is typically decided. For example, each variable of input (or output) data is mapped to a single node of the input (or output) layer in case that the variable is numeric one, but if the variable is nominal one, it should be mapped to multiple nodes through one-hot encoding. In one-hot encoding, each value of the nominal variable is transformed to one of one-hot vectors, $$\left\{(1,0,\cdots,0), (0,1,\cdots,0), \cdots, (0,0,\cdots,1)\right\}.$$
Different from input and output layers, the design of hidden layers is volatile. The number of hidden layers and the number of nodes are the most critical hyper-parameters, and their best design must be decided along with other hyper-parameters at the step of hyper-parameter tuning. Empirically, it is known that deeper hidden layers are more effective than larger nodes of shallower hidden layers if two FFN models have similar numbers of parameters such as weights and biases.
To build expressive MBD meta-models, FFN models with enough width and depth are necessary. However, proper regularization methods such as $L_1$ and $L_2$ regularization, dropout and batch-normalization are required to achieve the generalized meta-models because FFN models with too many parameters are often overfitted to the given training data [@GodBenCou16].
#### Hyper-parameters Optimization of meta-models
\
Similar to typical ML algorithms, the neural network algorithm does not provide a method to find the optimal hyper-parameters $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$. Hyper-parameters of DNN are critical to the accuracy and robustness of the meta-model. Unfortunately, there is no perfect scheme of building the most accurate and robust DNN model from a given training data. One must search the best set of hyper-parameters such as the number of hidden layers, the number of nodes in each hidden layers, activation function, optimization function, learning rate, and the number of epochs.
Generally, two kinds of search methods are often used for the purpose of hyper-parameter optimization; a given set of candidate values for each hyper-parameter are investigated with the [*grid search*]{} method, or randomly selected values for hyper-parameters are evaluated with the [*random search*]{} method. It is known that random search is more efficient to find optimal hyper-parameters than grid search [@BerBen12]. Recently, AutoML is actively researched in academic and practical fields to find the best design of DNN. When the AutoML techniques are mature, it is expected that the optimal design of the DNN-based meta-models can be found in easier and faster manners [@FeuEggKalLinHut18].
#### Generation of MBD Training Data
\
In this paper, it is assumed that one can obtain as many MBD sample data as is need to train the meta-model and achieve a reliable model. In other words, a case with an insufficient training data set is not considered. Nevertheless, since the process of MBD data collection takes so long time in case of complex multibody systems, a more efficient manners of collecting training data is needed.
First, the amount of training samples can be determined according to some criteria. Incremental learning methods can be applied to learn the meta-models. For instance, a certain level of performance measures such as the root mean squared errors or the mean absolute percentage errors can be adopted for the criteria to stop feeding more samples to the meta-model. In case of the random search method, simply more random samples can be provided to the less trained meta-model, and in case of the grid search method, finer-grained grid samples can be done [@HuaLeeLinHua07].
Second, the range of each design parameter for more training samples can be adjusted after seeking less accurate ranges of design parameters of the meta-model. It is under an assumption that model complexity is often different in many ranges of nonlinear hyperplanes. In such cases, adaptive sampling methods such as focused grid search can be less exhaustive than uniform design of the typical grid search method [@PonAmoBalPaiFer16].
Detailed Assumptions and Conditions for Meta-modeling Process {#sec:dnn:details}
-------------------------------------------------------------
The followings are some assumptions and comments on the meta-modeling that is developed for MBD problems. The same conditions are applied to the numerical tests in Section \[sec:numerical\].
1. [*Training Data*]{}\
$\bullet$ [*Sufficiently many sets of training data*]{}\
As mentioned in Section \[sec:dnn:general\], it is assumed that there are as many sets of data for training and tests as one wants. Since the most important objective of this research is to achieve a highly accurate meta-model, the other issues such as computational efficiency and problems of insufficient training data are not mainly concerned.\
$\bullet$ [*Uniform Meshes*]{}\
Training data for input parameters are uniformly meshed in a given finite range.\
$\bullet$ [*Data without Noise*]{}\
Training data for output responses such as displacements, veloicities, or acclerations are [*[exactly]{}*]{} calculuated from governing equations for MBD problems. In other words, training data are artifically generated without any noise.\
$\bullet$ [*Time Variable and Structurues of Training Data*]{}\
An important question in meta-modeling for dynamic problems is whether time variable $t$ needs to be handled as an input parameter or not.
Table \[tab:train:time\_input\] shows an example of training data set, where time variable $t$ is considered as an input. All the discrete time instants are contained in the set of training data. On the other hand, if time variable is not considered as an input parameter, there are $\#\{t_n\}$ sets of training data, where time is fixed to $t = t_n$, as shown in Table \[tab:train:time\_fixed\]. The two types of training data structures are referred to as [$S_{full}$]{} and [$S_{fixed}$]{}.\
It may seem that [$S_{fixed}$]{} is simpler than [$S_{full}$]{}, in that the former considers a fixed time instant $t = t_n$ and has a much smaller size of training data set compared to [$S_{full}$]{}, especially when the number of discrete time instants is very large. However, handling time variable as a non-input ([$S_{fixed}$]{}) is not adequate for MBD analysis in two following major aspects:\
1. It requires to make as many meta-models as the number of discrete time instants $t_n$, $n = 0, 1, \cdots$. Moreover, if grid search is performed for each meta-model to find out the best hyper-parameters, this approach can be computationally infeasible.
2. Each resulting meta-model provides predictions only for a specific time $t = t_n$, which makes it difficult to figure out time-varying tendency of MBD.\
Thus, in this research, it is concluded that a meta-model for MBD problems need to be generated from training data of form [$S_{full}$]{}, where time variable is considered as an input. More details on training data structure and its results are described in Section \[sec:numerical\].\
2. [*Test Data*]{}\
$\bullet$ [*Unseen Data*]{}\
The performance of a resulting meta-model is evaluated with some sets of test data which are unseen from training process.\
$\bullet$ [*Randomly Distributed Data*]{}\
Unlike training data, input parameters for test are not uniformly meshed. They are randomly distributed in the same given range.\
3. [*Grid Search and Hyper-parameters*]{}\
Grid search is performed to find out appropriate hyper-parameters for each MBD example, which helps to yield a highly accurate meta-model. From grid search, the number of hidden layers, the number of nodes for each layer, the size of batches, the number of epochs, optimizer, and loss functions need to be decided. Still, there can be other sets of hyper-parameters that result in similar or better performance.\
4. [*Evaluation of Performance*]{}\
The performance of a resulting meta-model ${\mathcal{M}}$ is evaluated in terms of two measures: $R$-squared value and absolute mean-squared error (MSE), denoted by ${\mathcal{R}^2}$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{mse}}$, respectively. When an output label ${y}$ is given for a set of test data, and the mata-model ${\mathcal{M}}$ yields a prediction ${\hat{y}}$ for the test set, the performance measures are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{R}^2}({y}, {\hat{y}})
:= 1 - \dfrac{\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left({y}_i - {\hat{y}}_i\right)^2}{\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left({y}_i - \bar{{y}}\right)^2},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MSE}
{\mathcal{E}_{mse}}({y}, {\hat{y}})
:= \dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \left({y}_i - {\hat{y}}_i\right)^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where ${y}= ({y}_1, \cdots, {y}_N)$, ${\hat{y}}= ({\hat{y}}_1, \cdots, {\hat{y}}_N)$, and $\bar{{y}} := \sum_{i=1}^{N}{y}_i/N$. As the solution ${\hat{y}}$ of the meta-model predicts the label ${y}$ more accurately, the value of ${\mathcal{R}^2}$ closes to $1$, and the error ${\mathcal{E}_{mse}}$ closes to $0$.
![ Flows of meta-modeling for MBD. By analyzing and learning data on MBD, a meta-model can be generated. The meta-model is intended to yield [*[real-time]{}*]{} dynamic responses of given MBD problems. Performance of the meta-model can be evaluated by comparing its results with experimental or real-world data. The evaluation helps to reconstruct or improve the off-line learning algorithm. []{data-label="fig:flowchart"}](data/for_diagrams/flowchart){width="95.00000%"}
------ ------ ------ -- ---------- ----------------
$L$ $c$ $t$ $\theta$ $\dot{\theta}$
0.0 0.00 0.00 1.57080 0.00000
0.0 0.00 0.01 1.56589 -0.98100
0.0 0.00 0.02 1.55118 -1.96192
0.10 0.05 0.00 1.57080 0.00000
0.10 0.05 0.01 1.56590 -0.97936
0.10 0.05 0.02 1.55122 -1.95540
0.20 0.10 0.00 1.57080 0.00000
0.20 0.10 0.01 1.56590 -0.97773
0.20 0.10 0.02 1.55126 -1.94890
------ ------ ------ -- ---------- ----------------
: Structure of training data set for DNN, where time variable $t$ is fixed and not considered as an input. This type of training data structure is denoted by [$S_{fixed}$]{}. In this case, $\#\{t_n\}$ numbers of meta-models are generated corresponding to $\#\{t_n\}$ sets of training data. []{data-label="tab:train:time_fixed"}
------------ ------ ------ -- ---------- ----------------
$L$ $c$ $\theta$ $\dot{\theta}$
$t = 0.00$ 0.0 0.00 1.57080 0.00000
0.10 0.05 1.57080 0.00000
0.20 0.10 1.57080 0.00000
------------ ------ ------ -- ---------- ----------------
: Structure of training data set for DNN, where time variable $t$ is fixed and not considered as an input. This type of training data structure is denoted by [$S_{fixed}$]{}. In this case, $\#\{t_n\}$ numbers of meta-models are generated corresponding to $\#\{t_n\}$ sets of training data. []{data-label="tab:train:time_fixed"}
\
------------ ------ ------ -- ---------- ----------------
$L$ $c$ $\theta$ $\dot{\theta}$
$t = 0.01$ 0.0 0.00 1.56589 -0.98100
0.10 0.05 1.57080 0.00000
0.20 0.10 1.56590 -0.97773
------------ ------ ------ -- ---------- ----------------
: Structure of training data set for DNN, where time variable $t$ is fixed and not considered as an input. This type of training data structure is denoted by [$S_{fixed}$]{}. In this case, $\#\{t_n\}$ numbers of meta-models are generated corresponding to $\#\{t_n\}$ sets of training data. []{data-label="tab:train:time_fixed"}
\
------------ ------ ------ -- ---------- ----------------
$L$ $c$ $\theta$ $\dot{\theta}$
$t = 0.02$ 0.0 0.00 1.55118 -1.96192
0.10 0.05 1.55122 -1.95540
0.20 0.10 1.55126 -1.94890
------------ ------ ------ -- ---------- ----------------
: Structure of training data set for DNN, where time variable $t$ is fixed and not considered as an input. This type of training data structure is denoted by [$S_{fixed}$]{}. In this case, $\#\{t_n\}$ numbers of meta-models are generated corresponding to $\#\{t_n\}$ sets of training data. []{data-label="tab:train:time_fixed"}
Case Studies {#sec:numerical}
============
In this section, three fundamental MBD examples, single pendulum, double pendulums, and slider crank mechanisms, are investigated. For each example, a data-driven meta-model is generated through FFN, and its performance is evaluated in various ways, as described in Section \[sec:dnn:details\].
Damped Single Pendulum {#sec:single}
----------------------
A damped single pendulum problem shown in Fig. \[fig:single:diagram\] can be expressed in the following mathematical governing equation: $$\begin{cases}
\label{eq:single:governing}
\ddot{\theta}
+ \cfrac{g}{L} \sin(\theta)
+ \cfrac{c}{mL} \dot{\theta} = 0,
& \text{where}~~ \theta = \theta(t),
\quad t \in [0, t_f],
\\
\theta(t) = \theta^0,
\dot{\theta}(t) = \dot{\theta}^0,
& \text{where}~~ t = 0,
\end{cases}$$ where $g$ is the gravity acceleration, $L$ is the length of the massless rod, $m$ is the mass, and $c$ is the damping coefficient, respectively. The variables $\theta$ and $\dot{\theta}$ are time-varying angle and its velocity, whose initial values are specified as $\theta^0$ and $\dot{\theta}^0$, respectively.
Although all the input parameters $(g, L, m, c, \theta^0, \dot{\theta}^0)$ affect dynamics of the single pendulum in Fig. \[fig:single:diagram\], it is empirically noticed that the parameters $(L, c, \dot{\theta}^0)$ make a major influence on the dynamic response characteristics. Thus, it is assumed that the relatively insignificant parameters $(g, m, \theta^0)$ are fixed to values $(9.81[m/s^2]$, $0.3[kg]$, $\pi/2[rad])$, while the parameters $(L, c, \dot{\theta}^0)$ are not determined specifically. It is the objective of this example to generate a meta-model which yields the dynamics of damped single pendulum as outputs when a particular set of input parameters $(L, c, \dot{\theta}^0)$ are given.
For an efficient learning, it is assumed that $(L, c, \dot{\theta}^0)$ are chosen within finite ranges: $$\begin{aligned}
L[m]
&\in [0.1, 0.2] ~~(\Delta{L} = 0.01)
,
\\
c[kg\cdot m/s]
&\in [0, 0.15] ~~(\Delta{c} = 0.01)
,
\\
\dot{\theta}^0[rad/s]
&\in [0, 5] ~~(\Delta{\dot{\theta}^0} = 0.5).
\end{aligned}$$ Here, $(\Delta{L}, \Delta{c}, \Delta{\dot{\theta}^0})$ denote uniform meshsizes for training data. In evaluating a meta-model, the uniform meshes are not applied, and arbitrarily chosen input values are used.
To describe dynamics of the damped single pendulum, the time-varying solutions $\theta(t)$, $\dot{\theta}(t)$, and $\ddot{\theta}(t)$ are achieved as outputs of a meta-model. For time variable $t$, discrete time instants $\{t_n\}$ with a uniform meshsize $\Delta{t}$ is considered in an interval $[0,t_f]$, where $t_f=2$: $$\begin{aligned}
t_n[s] := n \,\Delta{t} \in [0, 2]
\quad \left(\Delta{t} = 10^{-2}\right), \end{aligned}$$ for $n = 0, 1, \cdots, 200$.\
As described in Section \[sec:dnn:details\], time variable $t$ can be handled as an input ([$S_{full}$]{}) or fixed to a certain instant ([$S_{fixed}$]{}). Results from the two structures are compared. [$S_{full}$]{} case generates only one meta-model, while [$S_{fixed}$]{} case $\#\{t_n\} = 201$ meta-models. Thus, for [$S_{full}$]{}, the input and output of meta-model are four and three dimenional, repectively. The total number of training data is $267,531$. [$S_{fixed}$]{}has three dimensional input and the number of its training data is $1,331$ for each model.\
Hyper-parameters found from grid search are shown in Table \[tab:single:hyper-param\].
Hyper-parameters Choice
----------------------------------- -----------------------
The number of hidden layers 2
The number of nodes in each layer 128
The size of batch 64
The number of epochs 400
Loss function ${\mathcal{E}_{mse}}$
Optimizer Adam
Fig. \[fig:single:scatter\] displays the scatter plots where [*[labels]{}*]{}, i.e. reference solutions, and predictions of outputs $(\theta, \dot{\theta}, \ddot{\theta})$ are compared. The results are achieved from a set of test data, which are unseen from training. The ${\mathcal{R}^2}$ scores are around $0.997$, which implies that the DNN model predicts the outputs with high accuracy.
Fig. \[fig:single:specific\] shows dynamics of angle($\theta$) (Top), angular velocity($\dot{\theta}$) (Middle), and angular acceleration($\ddot{\theta}$) (Bottom), for a specific case: [$L = 0.1911[m]$, $c = 3.78[kg\cdot m/s]$, $\dot{\theta}^0 = 0.055[rad/s]$]{}. Labels (blue dashed, crosses) and predictions (red solid, circles) are shown for each solution. Results of [$S_{fixed}$]{}(Left) and [$S_{full}$]{}(Right) are compared. Although both [$S_{fixed}$]{} and [$S_{full}$]{} yields highly accurate results, some oscillations are observed in case of [$S_{fixed}$]{}(Left). On the other hand, [$S_{full}$]{}(Right) gives relatively smooth solutions.
In Fig. \[fig:single:multiple\], performance comparison of [$S_{fixed}$]{}(Left) and [$S_{full}$]{}(Right) for other input parameters are summarized in Table \[tab:single:multiple\]: Similarly as in Fig. \[fig:single:specific\], oscillatory waves are observed in case of [$S_{fixed}$]{}. Some are more severe than others, which makes prediction error greater. On the other hand, [$S_{full}$]{} yields smooth and accurate predictions for all cases.
$L~[m]$ $c~[kg \cdot m/s]$ $\dot{\theta}^0~[rad/s]$
-------- --------- -------------------- -------------------------- --
Case 1 0.123 2.53 0.055
Case 2 0.1583 0.52 0.055
Case 3 0.1758 0.52 0.109
Case 4 0.1911 4.52 0.109
### Hyper-parameters for [$S_{full}$]{} and [$S_{fixed}$]{} {#sec:single:newgrid}
In the damped single pendulum problem, the same hyper-parameters are used to both types of training data [$S_{full}$]{} and [$S_{fixed}$]{}, where the hyper-parameters are found from a grid search for [$S_{full}$]{}. Since the data structures of [$S_{full}$]{} and [$S_{fixed}$]{} are different, it would be the best to carry out independent grid search for each structure, in comparing results of [$S_{full}$]{} and [$S_{fixed}$]{}. Obviously, the performance of [$S_{fixed}$]{} will be improved if more appropriate hyper-parameters are applied. To clarify positives and negatives of employing better hyper-parameters for [$S_{fixed}$]{}, independent grid searches for [$S_{fixed}$]{} models are performed. Since there are $\#\{t_n\}=201$ models in [$S_{fixed}$]{}, $\#\{t_n\}$ grid searches are required. The hyper-parameters found for [$S_{fixed}$]{} are listed in Table \[tab:single:Sfixed:hyper-parameters\].
Obviously, compared to the hyper-parameters for [$S_{full}$]{} in Table \[tab:single:hyper-param\], those in Table \[tab:single:Sfixed:hyper-parameters\] improves the performance of [$S_{fixed}$]{}. The improved results corresponding to Fig. \[fig:single:specific\] (Left) and \[fig:single:multiple\] (Left) are shown in Fig. \[fig:single:newgridsearch\] (Left) and Fig. \[fig:single:newgridsearch\] (Right), respectively. Compared to the results shown in Fig. \[fig:single:specific\] (Left) and \[fig:single:multiple\] (Left), the accuracies of solutions from independent grid searches are clearly enhanced, which can be confirmed by the orders of ${\mathcal{E}_{mse}}$.
However, the oscillations are still observed, which yield less smooth solutions compared to the results of [$S_{full}$]{}, shown in Fig. \[fig:single:specific\] (Right) and \[fig:single:multiple\] (Right). In addition, $\#\{t_n\}$ numbers of grid searches for [$S_{fixed}$]{} requires a heavy computational burden. The normalized clock time for grid search for [$S_{full}$]{} and [$S_{fixed}$]{} are compared in Table \[tab:single:comp.cost\].
Thus, the usage of the same hyper-parameters to both [$S_{full}$]{} and [$S_{fixed}$]{} is not a serious hindrance to comparing performance of the two types of training data sets. For simplicity and computational feasibility, the hyper-parameters found from [$S_{full}$]{} for both [$S_{full}$]{} and [$S_{fixed}$]{} are employed, in the numerical examples in Sections \[sec:double\] and \[sec:slider\].
[@cccc@]{}
---------------
Model
for $t = t_n$
---------------
&
---------------
The number of
hidden layers
---------------
&
---------------------
The number of nodes
per a hidden layer
---------------------
&
-------------
The size of
batch
-------------
\
$t=0.00$ & 2 & 256 & 128\
$t=0.01$ & 2 & 256 & 64\
$t=0.02$ & 2 & 256 & 128\
$t=0.03$ & 2 & 256 & 64\
$t=0.04$ & 2 & 256 & 128\
$t=0.05$ & 2 & 256 & 128\
$\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$\
$t=1.00$ & 3 & 256 & 128\
$t=1.01$ & 4 & 256 & 128\
$t=1.02$ & 4 & 256 & 64\
$t=1.03$ & 3 & 256 & 128\
$t=1.04$ & 4 & 256 & 128\
$t=1.05$ & 2 & 256 & 128\
$\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$\
$t=1.95$ & 4 & 128 & 128\
$t=1.96$ & 4 & 128 & 128\
$t=1.97$ & 3 & 256 & 64\
$t=1.98$ & 3 & 256 & 128\
$t=1.99$ & 3 & 256 & 128\
$t=2.00$ & 4 & 256 & 128\
[@cccc@]{} Training data &
---------------
The number of
models
---------------
&
-----------------------------
The number of training data
per model
-----------------------------
&
-----------------------
Normalized clock time
for grid searches
-----------------------
\
[$S_{full}$]{}& 1 & 267,531 & 1\
[$S_{fixed}$]{}& 201& 1,331 & 18.3458\
Double Pendulum {#sec:double}
---------------
A double pendulum problem in Fig. \[fig:double:diagram\] follows the given mathematical governing equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:double:governing}
\begin{cases}
(m_1 + m_2)L_1\ddot{\theta}_1
+ m_2 L_2 \ddot{\theta}_2 \cos(\theta_1 - \theta_2)
+ m_2 L_2 \dot{\theta}_2^2 \sin(\theta_1 - \theta_2)
+ (m_1 + m_2)g \sin(\theta_1)
= 0,
\\
m_2 L_2 \ddot{\theta}_2
+ m_2 L_1 \ddot{\theta}_1
\cos(\theta_1 - \theta_2)
- m_2 L_1 \dot{\theta}_1^2 \sin(\theta_1 - \theta_2)
+ m_2 g \sin(\theta_2)
= 0,
\\
\theta_i(t) = \theta_i^0,~
\dot{\theta}_i(t) = \dot{\theta}_i^0,
\quad \text{where}\quad t = 0 ,
\quad i = 1, 2.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_i = \theta_i(t)$ and $t \in [0,t_f]$ $,i = 1, 2,$ represent the time-varying angles of the links as shown in Fig. \[fig:double:diagram\]. Parameters $g$ is the gravity constant, $L_i$ is the length of the massless rod $i$, $m_i$ is the mass, $\theta^0_i$ is the initial angle, $\dot{\theta}^0_i$ is the the initial angular velocity, and $i = 1,2,$ body notation, respectively.
In the meta-modeling, it is assumed that $(L_1, L_2, \dot{\theta}^0_1, \dot{\theta}^0_2)$ are independent input parameters and $(\theta_1, \theta_2, \dot{\theta}_1, \dot{\theta}_2)$ are output parameters. As in the single pendulum problem , inputs are chosen within some ranges. The other parameters are fixed to given constants. More details on ranges and mesh sizes of parameters are summarized in Table \[tab:double:param\].
As in the previous numerical example, two types of training data, i.e. [$S_{fixed}$]{} and [$S_{full}$]{} are compared. For [$S_{fixed}$]{}, there are $\#\{t_n\} = 501$ meta-models, where each model is trained from $14,641$ numbers of data set. For [$S_{full}$]{}, there is only one meta-model trained from $14,641\times 501 = 7,335,141$ numbers of data set. For both [$S_{fixed}$]{} and [$S_{full}$]{} types of training data, hyper-parameters are found as in Table \[tab:double:hyper-param\].
Hyper-parameters Choice
----------------------------------- -----------------------
The number of hidden layers 4
The number of nodes in each layer 64
The size of batch 1024
The number of epochs 400
Loss function ${\mathcal{E}_{mse}}$
Optimizer Adam
The scatter plots in Fig. \[fig:double:scatter\] show that a meta-model from [$S_{full}$]{} predicts output parameters $(\theta_1, \theta_2, \dot{\theta}_1, \dot{\theta}_2)$ with a great accuracy. The ${\mathcal{R}^2}$ values are over $0.997$ in all cases of solutions.\
Performances of meta-models from [$S_{fixed}$]{} and [$S_{full}$]{} types of training data are compared in Fig. \[fig:double:multiple:mass 1\] and \[fig:double:multiple:mass 2\]. It shows dynamic changes of predictions (solid) from meta-models in comparison with their labels (dashed), for multiple cases as shown in Table \[tab:double:multiple\].
$L_1~[m]$ $L_2~[m]$ $\dot{\theta}^0_1~[rad/s]$ $\dot{\theta}^0_2~[rad/s]$
-------- ----------- ----------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- --
Case 1 1.010 2.130 0.00 0.300
Case 2 1.500 2.410 0.03 0.330
Case 3 1.620 2.560 0.044 0.384
Case 4 1.330 2.820 0.062 0.412
Case 5 1.980 2.940 0.087 0.470
As observed in single pendulum cases shown in Fig. \[fig:single:specific\] and \[fig:single:multiple\], the meta-model from [$S_{fixed}$]{} shows lots of oscillations in its dynamic responses. Here the oscillations are quite severe, especially when $t$ is large. Though these results can be improved if more appropriate hyper-parameters are employed for each of $\#\{t_n\}$ number of meta-models, the grid searches are computationally infeasible. On the other hand, meta-model from [$S_{full}$]{} yields more accurate and smooth dynamic responses.\
Difference between two training data set [$S_{fixed}$]{} and [$S_{full}$]{} is shown more clearly in Fig. \[fig:double:traj\], where trajectories of two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ are shown. Labels ($m_1$: black solid, $m_2$: black dashed) and predictions ($m_1$:blue solid,circles, $m_2$:red solid,circles) are given for the results from [$S_{fixed}$]{}(Left) and [$S_{full}$]{}(Right). Each plot is from a particular input parameters: [$L_1 = 1.500[m]$, $L_2 = 2.410[m]$, $\dot{\theta}^0_1 = 0.03[rad/s]$, $\dot{\theta}^0_2 = 0.330[rad/s]$]{} (Top), [$L_1 = 1.980[m]$, $L_2 = 2.940[m]$, $\dot{\theta}^0_1 = 0.087[rad/s]$, $\dot{\theta}^0_2 = 0.470[rad/s]$]{} (Middle), [$L_1 = 1.400[m]$, $L_2 = 2.500[m]$, $\dot{\theta}^0_1 = 0.060[rad/s]$, $\dot{\theta}^0_2 = 0.380[rad/s]$]{} (Bottom).
[@lllll@]{} & Parameters & Ranges &
---------------
Meshsizes for
Training Data
---------------
&
---------------
Meshsizes for
Test Data
---------------
\
Fixed constants & $g~[m/s^2]$ & $9.81$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$\
& $m_1~[kg]$ & $2.0$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$\
& $m_2~[kg]$ & $1.0$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$\
& $\theta^0_1~[rad]$ & $1.6$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$\
& $\theta^0_2~[rad]$ & $1.6$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$\
Inputs & $L_1~[m]$ & $[1, ~2]$ & $\Delta{L_1}=0.1$ & arbitrary(not uniform)\
& $L_2~[m]$ & $[2, ~3]$ & $\Delta{L_2}=0.1$ & arbitrary(not uniform)\
& $\dot{\theta}^0_1~[rad/s]$ & $[0, ~0.1]$ & $\Delta{\dot{\theta}^0_1}=0.01$ & arbitrary(not uniform)\
& $\dot{\theta}^0_2~[rad/s]$ & $[0.3, ~0.5]$ & $\Delta{\dot{\theta}^0_2}=0.02$ & arbitrary(not uniform)\
Time instants & $\{t_n\}~[s]$ & $[0, 5]$ & $\Delta{t}=0.01$$(t_0 = 0)$ & $\Delta{t}=0.01$$(t_0 = 0)$\
\
Slider Crank Mechanism {#sec:slider}
----------------------
Consider a slider crank in Fig. \[fig:slider:diagram\], where parameters $(r, L, \theta(t), \phi(t))$ represent, respectively, the length of the massless crank shaft$[m]$, the length of the massless connecting rod$[m]$, the angle of the crank shaft$[rad]$, and the angle of the connecting rod$[rad]$. The initial angle $\theta^0$$[rad]$ and the initial velocity $\dot{\theta}^0$$[rad/s]$ are assumed as zeros, and the angular acceleration of the crank shaft $\ddot{\theta}(t)$$[rad/s^2]$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(t) &= \theta^0 = 0,
\quad \text{where}~ t = 0,
\\
\dot{\theta}(t) &= \dot{\theta^0} = 0,
\quad \text{where}~ t = 0,
\\
\ddot{\theta}(t) &= \sin(\tau\,t),
\quad \text{where}~ t \in [0, t_f],
\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $\tau \in \mathbb{R}$.
Then the angle of the crank shaft $\theta(t)$ and its temporal derivatives can be rewritten explicitly, for $t \in [0, t_f]$, $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(t)
&= -\frac{1}{\tau^2} \sin(\tau\,t) + \frac{t}{\tau} + \theta^0
= -\frac{1}{\tau^2} \sin(\tau\,t) + \frac{t}{\tau},
\\
\dot{\theta}(t)
&= -\frac{1}{\tau}\cos(\tau\,t) + \frac{1}{\tau} + \dot{\theta}^0
= -\frac{1}{\tau}\cos(\tau\,t) + \frac{1}{\tau},
\end{aligned}$$ In DNN modeling, three independent parameters $(\tau, r, L/r)$ are considered as inputs, while time variable $t$ can be fixed to an instant ([$S_{fixed}$]{}) or considered as an input ([$S_{full}$]{}). More details on ranges and mesh sizes of parameters are summarized in Table \[tab:slider:param\].
Although the slider crank mechanism is not a dynamic problem, this kinematic example is a good example because the kinematics should be treated as a special case of dynamic problems. To describe kinematics of the slider crank, seven kinematic solutions $\theta$, $\phi$, $\dot{\phi}$, $\ddot{\phi}$, $x_B$, $\dot{x}_B$, and $\ddot{x}_B$ are considered as an output parameters, where $x_B$ denotes the $x$-directional translation of the slider. The output solutions other than $(\theta, \dot{\theta}, \ddot{\theta})$ can be found from kinematic equations as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:slider:governing}
\begin{bmatrix}
\phi \\ x_B
\end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}
\sin^{-1}\left(-(r/L) \sin\theta\right)
\\
r\cos\theta + L\cos\phi
\end{bmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
\dot{\phi} \\ \dot{x_B}
\end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}
L\sin\phi && 1 \\ -L\cos\phi && 0
\end{bmatrix}^{-1}
\begin{bmatrix}
-r\dot{\theta} \sin\theta \\ r\dot{\theta}\cos\theta
\end{bmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
\ddot{\phi} \\ \ddot{x_B}
\end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}
L\sin\phi && 1 \\ -L\cos\phi && 0
\end{bmatrix}^{-1}
\left(
\begin{bmatrix}
-L\, \dot{\phi} \cos\phi && 0
\\ -L\, \dot{\phi} \sin\phi && 0
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\dot{\phi} \\ \dot{x_B}
\end{bmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
-r\dot{\theta}^2 \cos\theta \\ -r\dot{\theta}^2\sin\theta
\end{bmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
-r\ddot{\theta}\sin\theta \\ r\ddot{\theta}\cos\theta
\end{bmatrix}
\right).
\end{aligned}$$
Two meta-models are generated from [$S_{fixed}$]{} and [$S_{full}$]{} types of training data, by employing the hyper-parameters found from grid searches for the case of [$S_{full}$]{}shown in Table \[tab:slider:hyper-param\].
Hyper-parameters Choice
----------------------------------- -----------------------
The number of hidden layers 2
The number of nodes in each layer 128
The size of batch 64
The number of epochs 200
Loss function ${\mathcal{E}_{mse}}$
Optimizer Adam
The scatter plots in Fig. \[fig:slider:scatter\] compares labels and predictions of the meta-model from [$S_{full}$]{}, and verifies that the meta-model produces almost accurate results. Its performance is much better than the other meta-models of previous examples, which seems to be caused by a simple form of kinematic equations and a sufficient training data set. The ${\mathcal{R}^2}$ values are over $0.999$ for the kinematic responses $\theta$, $\phi$, $\ddot{\phi}$, $x_B$, and $\dot{x}_B$.
Since the predictions for test data are highly accurate as confirmed in Fig. \[fig:slider:scatter\], Fig. \[fig:slider:specific\], \[fig:slider:traj:phi\], and \[fig:slider:traj:xB\] present results only for a specific case of test data: $\tau=1.780, r=1.360, L/r=3.050$. Fig. \[fig:slider:specific\] shows changes of translation and velocities of the slider mass $B$ in time $t$. As shown in previous Sections \[sec:single\] and \[sec:double\], [$S_{fixed}$]{}(Left) shows oscillatory waves, while [$S_{full}$]{} yields smooth solutions. The error ${\mathcal{E}_{mse}}$ compares the difference of their accuracies more clearly.
Fig. \[fig:slider:traj:phi\] displays time-varying relations between the angle of connecting rod $\phi(t)$ and its temporal derivatives $(\dot{\phi}(t), \ddot{\phi}(t))$. The oscillations from the case of [$S_{fixed}$]{} (Left) are observed. Fig. \[fig:slider:traj:xB\] shows relations between the displacement of slider $x_B$ and its derivatives. Performance of two training data set [$S_{fixed}$]{} (Left) and [$S_{full}$]{} (Right) is more clear than Fig. \[fig:slider:traj:phi\]. [$S_{full}$]{} yields more smooth and accurate results than [$S_{fixed}$]{}.
[@lllll@]{} & Parameters & Ranges &
---------------
Meshsizes for
Training Data
---------------
&
---------------
Meshsizes for
Test Data
---------------
\
Fixed constants & $\theta^0[rad]$ & $0$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$\
Inputs & $\tau$ & $[1, ~2]$ & $\Delta{\tau}=0.1$ & arbitrary(not uniform)\
& $r[m]$ & $[1, ~3]$ & $\Delta{r}=0.2$ & arbitrary(not uniform)\
& $L/r$ & $[2.5, ~3.5]$ & $\Delta{(L/r)}=0.1$ & arbitrary(not uniform)\
Time instants & $\{t_n\}[s]$ & $[0, 5]$ & $\Delta{t}=0.01$$(t_0 = 0)$ & $\Delta{t}=0.01$$(t_0 = 0)$\
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
The present study introduces a procedure to combine a machine learning and solution of general purpose multibody dynamics. The paper contributes to data-driven modeling for multibody systems in two meaningful aspects. The first is that Deep Neural Network learning is applied, not to a specified particular type, but a [*[general]{}*]{} multibody dynamic problem. The generality makes it possible for the proposed DNN algorithm to be employed for other multibody system problems in future research. The second is that the present work analyzes and suggests how training data need to be structured for more effective DNN learning. In particular, it is found out that treating time variable as an input parameter enhances accuracy and smoothness of resulting predictions. The observation is worthwhile to notice, since the smoothness of physical variables in time direction is significant in dynamic problems. The paper demonstrates that the accurate solution of general purpose multibody dynamics can be achieved by DNN procedure. Despite the introduced numerical results, the present data-based learning algorithm can be improved through further studies. For one thing, performing [*[smart sampling]{}*]{} which decides more suitable ranges and non-uniform mesh sizes of data will improve computational efficiency in generating a meta-model. Moreover, to make fundamental progress in data-driven design of MBD, further studies are required on other various subjects, from theories on probability, uncertainties, and physics, to brand-new data-handling techniques.
This research is supported by 2018-2019 KyungHee University Research Support Program.
Kingma, Diederik P., and Ba, Jimmy Lei, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, arXiv:1412.6980v9, (2014)
Rumelhart, David E., Hinton, Geoffrey E., Williams, Ronald J., Learning Representations by Back-propagating Errors, Nature, 323, 533–536, (1986)
Hinton, G. Neural Networks for Machine Learning - Lecture 6a - Overview of mini-batch gradient descent, (2012)
Lanz, O., Approximate Bayesian Multibody Tracking, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE, 28, 9, (2006)
Shabana, A.A., Dynamics of Multibody Systems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)
Pontes, F. J., Amorim, G. F., Balestrassi, P. P., Paiva, A. P., Ferreira, J. R., Design of experiments and focused grid search for neural network parameter optimization, Neurocomputing, 186, 22-34, (2016)
Huang, C. M., Lee, Y. J., Lin, D. K., Huang, S. Y., Model selection for support vector machines via uniform design, Computational Statistics $\&$ Data Analysis, 52(1), 335-346, (2007)
Feurer, M., Eggensperger, K., Falkner, S., Lindauer, M., Hutter, F, Practical automated machine learning for the automl challenge 2018, In International Workshop on Automatic Machine Learning at ICML (pp. 1189-1232), (2018, July)
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., Courville, A, Deep learning, MIT press, (2016)
Bergstra, J., Bengio, Y, Random search for hyper-parameter optimization, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(Feb), 281-305, (2012)
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G, Deep learning, Nature, 521(7553), 436, (2015)
Domingos, P. M., A few useful things to know about machine learning, Commun. acm, 55(10), 78-87, (2012)
Blanco-Claraco, J.L., Torres-Moreno, J.L., Giménez-Fernández, A., Multibody dynamic systems as Bayesian networks: Applications to robust state estimation of mechanisms, Multibody Syst Dyn, 34, 103-128, (2015)
Li, Y., Wu, J., Tedrake, R., Tenenbaum, J.B., Torralba, A., Learning particle dynamics for manipulating rigid bodies, deformable objects, and fluids, ICLR 2019.
Ting, J-A., Mistry, M., Peters, J., Schaal, S., Nakanishi, J., A Bayesian Approach to Nonlinear Parameter Identification for Rigid Body Dynamics, Robotics: Science and Systems II., 247-254, (2007)
Tutsoy, O., Brown, M., Wang, H., Reinforcement learning algorithm application and multi-body system design by using MapleSim and Modelica, International Journal of Advanced Mechatronic Systems, (2012)
Lin, Y-C., Haftka, R.T., Queipo, N.V., Fregly, B.J., Surrogate articular contact models for computationally efficient multibody dynamic simulations, Medical Engineering and Physics, 32, 6, 584-594, (2010)
Halloran, J.P., Erdemir, A., van den Bogert, A.J., Adaptive Surrogate Modeling for Efficient Coupling of Musculoskeletal Control and Tissue Deformation Models, J. Biomech. Eng., 131(1) (2009)
Ansari, H., Tupy, M., Datar, M., Negrut, D., Construction and Use of Surrogate Models for the Dynamic Analysis of Multibody Systems, SAE International by Columbia Univ, (2018)
Kraft,S., Causse, J., Martinez, A., Black-box modelling of nonlinear railway vehicle dynamics for track geometry assessment using neural networks, International Journal of Vehicle Mechanics and Mobility, (2018)
Falomi, S., Malvezzi, M., Meli, E., Multibody modeling of railway vehicles: Innovative algorithms for the detection of wheel-rail contact points, Wear, 271, 453-461, (2011)
Martin, T.P., Zaazaa, K.E., Whitten, B., Tajaddini, A., USING A MULTIBODY DYNAMIC SIMULATION CODE WITH NEURAL NETWORK TECHNOLOGY TO PREDICT RAILROAD VEHICLE-TRACK INTERACTION PERFORMANCE IN REAL TIME, Proceedings of the ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences $\&$ Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, (2007)
Byravan, A., Fox, D., SE3-nets: Learning rigid body motion using deep neural networks, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), (2017)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe an experiment in which cold rubidium atoms, confined in an elongated magnetic trap, are excited by transverse oscillation of the trap centre. The temperature after excitation exhibits resonance as a function of the driving frequency. We measure these resonances at several different trap frequencies. In order to interpret the experiments, we develop a simple model that incorporates both collisions between atoms and the anharmonicity of the real three-dimensional trapping potential. As well as providing a precise connection between the transverse harmonic oscillation frequency and the temperature resonance frequency, this model gives insight into the heating and loss mechanisms, and into the dynamics of driven clouds of cold trapped atoms.'
author:
- 'I. Llorente García'
- 'B. Darquié'
- 'C. D. J. Sinclair'
- 'E. A. Curtis'
- 'M. Tachikawa'
- 'J. J. Hudson'
- 'E. A. Hinds'
bibliography:
- 'BiblioDatabase.bib'
title: 'Shaking-induced dynamics of cold atoms in magnetic traps'
---
\[sec:Intro\] Introduction
==========================
It is common to determine the oscillation frequencies of atoms in a magnetic trap by exciting their motion. A sudden displacement of the trap excites a dipole (centre-of-mass) oscillation of the cloud at the trap frequency, while a sudden compression or de-compression induces quadrupole (width) oscillation of the cloud. In many experiments, the trapped cloud is long and thin, with transverse frequencies of 1kHz or above. The oscillation amplitude is then typically below the resolution of the imaging system and therefore difficult to observe directly. In that case, the oscillation may be driven, and the excitation of the cloud may be detected through the increase in its length, which results from heating. This exhibits a resonant behaviour, with a maximum temperature at a specific driving frequency, related to the natural transverse oscillation frequency.
This paper presents temperature resonances of magnetically trapped atoms, induced by dipole oscillation, with six different trap frequencies. These traps are formed on an atom chip using the field of a permanently magnetised videotape. A full characterisation of the videotape traps is carried out with particular emphasis on the effects of anharmonicity. Our experimental results are compared with a numerical model that provides valuable insight into the dynamics of the cold atoms moving in the real confining potential of the trap under the important influences of collisions and atom loss.
Several references already consider the dipolar excitation of trapped particles by shaking the trap centre [@st1; @st2; @st10; @ions1; @st13]. The first three are theory papers [@st1; @st2; @st10] that describe heating due to laser noise in harmonic optical traps far from resonance. Ref. [@st2] calculates the evolving energy distribution, accounting for atom loss, in a truncated harmonic trap. Ref. [@ions1] describes measurements of the resonant frequencies and laser cooling rates for ions in a shaken Penning trap. In Ref.[@st13] M. Kumakura et al. investigate the excitation of neutral atoms in a shaken cloverleaf magnetic trap. They measure resonances in atom loss and temperature and discuss how different ratios of atomic temperature to effective trap depth result in either heating or cooling after shaking. They use a classical 1D equation of motion, without collisions, to illustrate some features of their experiment.
There have also been discussions of parametric excitation, i.e. modulation of the trap frequency, in various contexts. These include heating and cooling of neutral atoms in optical dipole traps [@st1; @st2; @st10; @st3; @st6; @st5], one-dimensional optical lattices [@st4; @st6; @st10] or magnetic traps [@st17], and measurement of oscillation frequencies for electrons in a Penning trap [@st11; @st12], ions in a quadrupole trap [@st16] or neutral atoms in a MOT [@st14; @st15]. We do not study parametric resonance here because there is no straightforward way to modulate the frequency of our videotape trap without also shaking its position. The same is true of any permanent-magnet atom trap.
The experiments described here determine both the position and the shape of the dipolar temperature resonances. We also investigate these resonances theoretically with the aid of a three-dimensional numerical model that accounts simultaneously for anharmonicity of the trap, atom loss due to finite trap depth, interatomic collisions and evolution of the collision rate during the excitation. All these aspects of our model go beyond what has been done before. Our model yields good quantitative agreement between experiment and theory, even though we use a rather simplified collision model. We anticipate that our simplifying assumption could be exported to a number of ensemble dynamic problems in order to achieve faster simulations.
\[sec:experim\] The experiment
==============================
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
\
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
Our experiment uses the field gradient of a magnetized videotape to trap the atoms. The tape, lying in the $xz$ plane, has magnetisation $M_1\cos(kx)\hat{x}$, where $k=(2\pi/110)\,\mu\mbox{m}^{-1}$. Above the surface, this magnetisation produces a transverse (i.e. in the $xy$ plane) magnetic field of $\{B_{x},B_{y}\}=B_{1}e^{-k y}\{-\cos(kx),\sin(ky)\}$ [@HindsHughesReview] with $B_1\simeq 100\,$G. The addition of a transverse bias field, $B_{b}\{\cos(\theta),\sin(\theta)\}$, produces an array of zeros in the total transverse field located at a height $y=\ln(B_{1}/B_{b})/k$. On Taylor expanding the field around any of these zeros one finds a quadrupole field in the $xy$ plane whose orientation depends on the angle $\theta$ of the bias field. The magnitude of the field grows linearly with the cylindrical radius $r$ according to $|B|=k B_{b} r$, providing a cylindrically symmetrical, linear confining potential $\mu_{B}g_{F}m_{F}|B|$ for weak-field seeking atoms with magnetic quantum number $m_{F}$ and $g$-factor $g_{F}$ ($\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton). With the addition of a further bias field $B_{z}\hat{z}$, the trapping potential for transverse displacements becomes approximately harmonic in the region close to the axis, where $k B_{b} r\ll B_{z}$. In that region, atoms oscillate in the trap with a transverse frequency of $$\label{eqn:radialVideofreq}
f_{r}\approx \frac{k B_b}{2\pi}\sqrt{\frac{\mu_B g_F m_F}{m
B_{z}}}\, ,$$ where $m$ is the mass of the atom. We use $^{87}$Rb atoms in the $(F=2, m_{F}=2)$ ground state, for which $g_{F}m_{F}=1$. The bias field $B_{b}$ is tuneable over the range $6-36$G, which varies the distance from the trap to the videotape between $50$ and $18\,\mu$m. Over this range of positions the axial bias $B_{z}$ drops from $2.58$ to $2.51\,$G. These parameters give transverse harmonic oscillation frequencies in the range $3-20\, \mathrm{kHz}$. The axial bias field has a minimum value near the centre of the videotape and increases roughly quadratically with $z$ to form a weak axial trap with a frequency of $15\,$Hz. In summary, this combination of videotape fields and bias fields produces an array of cigar-shaped 3D traps with strong transverse confinement and weaker trapping along $\hat{z}$. For more details of videotape traps, see [@HindsHughesReview; @myVideoPaper].
The upper graphs in Figure\[fig:howPotChanges\] show how the total magnetic field strength $|B|$ varies along the three Cartesian axes through the centre of the trap. These are calculated using a full numerical model of the apparatus, with $B_b=5.9\,$G, directed along $\hat{x}$. The trap along $x$ repeats every $110\,\mu$m because of the periodic magnetisation of the videotape, but only one of these is shown as only one trap is used in the experiments. Along $y$, we see an asymmetric trap, with a strong repulsive wall as the videotape is approached and an asymptote far from the tape that is equal to the total bias field strength. Along $z$, there is the weak trapping due to the inhomogeneous axial bias field.
We load one such trap using an experimental sequence similar to that described in [@myVideoPaper]. The temperature of the atom cloud depends on the bias field and ranges from $13\,\mu$K at $B_b=5.9\,$G up to $130\,\mu$K at $B_b=35.6\,$G. We then add a modulation field $b \cos(2\pi f t)$ along $\hat{x}+\hat{y}$, to displace the trap by a small distance $-\tfrac{b}{k B_b}\cos(\omega t)$ along $\hat{x}+\hat{y}$. We choose $b=105\,$mG, which gives a shaking amplitude of $50-300\,$nm over the range of transverse bias fields used. Zooming into the centre of the trap, the three lower graphs in Fig.\[fig:howPotChanges\] show the extrema of this modulation. The first two show the (equal) movements along $x$ and $y$ resulting from our particular arrangement of fields. The third shows the absence of movement along $z$ and also illustrates the modulation of the minimum field, due to the variation of $B_z$ with transverse displacement of the trap. Since $B_z$ affects the transverse trap frequency, this could cause parametric heating, but the effect is considered in [@MyThesis] and found to be negligible.
![Temperature of cloud after shaking for $5\,$s, plotted as a function of shaking frequency $f$. (a) Experimental results. The points are measurements taken at six transverse bias fields, $B_b$. Lines are Lorentzian fits to the data. (b) Simulation. Points are calculated and lines are Lorentzian fits.[]{data-label="fig:resonances"}](resonances.eps){width="40.00000%"}
With $B_b$ initially set at $5.9\,$G, the atoms are shaken for $5\,\mathrm{s}$ and held for $1\,$s, after which the temperature of the trapped cloud is determined by measuring its density distribution along the $z$-direction. This is done using a CCD camera to record the absorption of resonant laser light [@myVideoPaper], taking into account the inhomogeneous Zeeman shift of the trapped atoms. The experiment is repeated for a range of shaking frequencies to map out a resonance curve, shown in the leftmost peak of Fig. \[fig:resonances\](a). The next two curves are obtained in the same way with $B_b=8.9\,$G and $B_b=14.8\,$G. At still higher transverse bias fields ($B_b=21.9, 29.6$ and $35.6\,$G), the atoms are too close to the videotape to yield clean absorption images. In these three cases the trap is moved away from the surface by lowering the bias to $3\,$G over $3\,$s before taking the image. This weakens the trap, thereby cooling the cloud, and it is the lower temperature in this final trap that we plot in Fig. \[fig:resonances\](a).
These temperature resonances show that the atoms absorb energy most efficiently near a particular frequency. In the case of a one-dimensional harmonic trap, the physics would be that of a driven, weakly damped harmonic oscillator, whose Lorentzian resonance would be centred on the oscillator frequency with a width given by the collision rate. The actual widths are much greater than the collision rate, but nevertheless, motivated by this thought, we fit a Lorentzian to each resonance curve and plot the centre frequencies (the red squares) as a function of $B_b$ in Fig.\[fig:FreqVsBias\]. For comparison, the line in Fig.\[fig:FreqVsBias\] shows the frequency of small transverse oscillations, given by Eq.\[eqn:radialVideofreq\], with $B_z$ evaluated at the centre of the trap for each value of transverse bias. The data points lie below this line because (i) the most energetic atoms move out of the region of small ${x,y}$ where the harmonic approximation of Eq.(\[eqn:radialVideofreq\]) is valid and (ii) the atoms are also displaced from the centre along $z$, where the increased value of $B_z$ reduces the radial frequency. These effects also produce inhomogeneous broadening of the temperature resonances, making them wider for the hotter clouds at higher bias fields, as seen in Fig.\[fig:resonances\](a).
. Blue circles: centre frequencies of the simulated temperature resonances plotted in Fig.\[fig:resonances\](b).[]{data-label="fig:FreqVsBias"}](FreqVsBias.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Frequency of oscillations along $\hat{x}$ through centre of trap as a function of amplitude. Upper: $B_b=5.9\,\mathrm{G}$. Lower: $B_b=35.6\,\mathrm{G}$. Solid red line: frequency calculated from numerical solution to full equation of motion. Dotted green line: Harmonic approximation. Dashed black line: linear potential approximation. Circles: rms cloud radius at initial temperature. Squares: rms cloud radius after heating at resonance.[]{data-label="fig:FreqsVsAmpliBias2and7"}](FreqVsAmpliBias2.eps){width="75.00000%"}
![Frequency of oscillations along $\hat{x}$ through centre of trap as a function of amplitude. Upper: $B_b=5.9\,\mathrm{G}$. Lower: $B_b=35.6\,\mathrm{G}$. Solid red line: frequency calculated from numerical solution to full equation of motion. Dotted green line: Harmonic approximation. Dashed black line: linear potential approximation. Circles: rms cloud radius at initial temperature. Squares: rms cloud radius after heating at resonance.[]{data-label="fig:FreqsVsAmpliBias2and7"}](FreqvsAmpliBias7.eps){width="75.00000%"}
Numerically integrating the equations of motion in the full trap potential, we have calculated the period of oscillation along the $x$ direction through the centre of the trap. The inverse of this is plotted as a function of amplitude $A_x$ by the solid lines in Fig.\[fig:FreqsVsAmpliBias2and7\], the upper(lower) panel being for the case of $B_b=5.9(35.6)\,$G. At small amplitude, the frequency coincides with the harmonic approximation indicated by the dotted line. At large amplitude, the potential approaches that of linear trap, and the frequency tends correspondingly to $\tfrac{1}{4}\sqrt{\mu_B k B_b/(2 m A_x)}$, indicated by the dashed line. The filled circles(squares) mark the rms radius of the cloud in this direction before(after) resonant heating. These show that the atoms explore the anharmonic region of the transverse trap even before the cloud is heated, and move further into this region after heating. These frequency shifts are larger when the bias field is larger. Figure\[fig:RadialFreqVsZ\] shows how *axial* displacement from the centre of the trap lowers the harmonic frequency for small transverse oscillations. The essence of this effect is already captured in Eq.(\[eqn:radialVideofreq\]) through the dependence of $f_r$ on $B_z$, but here we show the result of the full numerical model of our experiment. Again, the circles(squares) represent the rms size, this time along $z$ before(after) heating. Both of these mechanisms contribute appreciably to the inhomogeneous broadening seen in Fig.\[fig:resonances\](a) and the lowering of the trap frequency seen in Fig.\[fig:FreqVsBias\].
For a more quantitative understanding of the resonances it is necessary to build a dynamical model that allows the atoms to collide. In the next section we develop such a model and use it to simulate the data presented in Fig.\[fig:resonances\](a).
![Frequency of small (harmonic) transverse oscillations as a function of displacement $z$ from the trap centre. **Circles**: rms cloud radius (half-length) at initial temperature. **Squares**: rms cloud radius (half-length) after heating at resonance.[]{data-label="fig:RadialFreqVsZ"}](freqradialVsZ.eps){width="36.00000%"}
\[sec:simul\] Simulation
========================
\[sec:simul:a\] The role of collisions
--------------------------------------
Our goal here is to find a numerical model that is simplified as far as possible, while still reproducing the data of Fig.\[fig:resonances\](a). We use the known currents and videotape magnetisation to determine an accurate 3D potential, $U(x,y,z,t)$, for the shaken magnetic trap. We note that the inclusion of gravity has no significant effect because these traps are so strong vertically. The cloud of approximately $10^5$ atoms is represented by an ensemble of 500-5000 point particles, this being sufficient to represent the average properties of the ensemble. The three initial velocity components for each particle are chosen at random from the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution corresponding to initial temperature $T_i$, which is the baseline temperature in Fig.\[fig:resonances\](a) for that particular trap. Similarly, the initial positions are distributed with a probability density proportional to $\exp [-U(x,y,z,0)/(k_{B}T_{i})]$, where $k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant. The classical equations of motion are then integrated numerically to follow the movement of the particles.
The two curves in Fig.\[fig:peak5\](a) show how the energy of the cloud increases with time when the trap having $B_b = 21.9\,$G is shaken at 7.2kHz. These parameters correspond to the peak of the pale blue resonance curve at $7\,$kHz in Fig.\[fig:resonances\](a). A simple model without collisions produces the green (lower) curve in Fig.\[fig:peak5\](a). Particles are placed in the trap at time $t=0$, which remains static for the first $0.1\,$s. Then the shaking is switched on and the energy rises rapidly, increasing by $20\%$ over the next $0.1\,$s. This is due to the excitation of particles whose transverse oscillation frequency is close to the drive frequency. Once they are sufficiently excited, the anharmonicity moves these particles out of resonance. Because the resonant group has been depleted, there is almost no subsequent energy increase even though the shaking continues until $t=5.1\,$s. The shaking is then switched off leaving the cloud to evolve freely over the last second of the simulation. This behaviour disagrees with the experiment. In reality, the temperature doubles (though not in Fig.\[fig:resonances\](a) because there the trap was relaxed before recording the temperature). The discrepancy is removed when we allow the simulation to redistribute the momentum through collisions.
. This simulation uses 500 particles. Green curves: no collisions. Blue curves: momentum is redistributed through collisions. (a) Increase of total energy with time. (b) Number of atoms remaining within the volume of the trap, with the initial atom number being $N_i=10^5$.[]{data-label="fig:peak5"}](Peak5-1.eps){width="99.00000%"}
\
. This simulation uses 500 particles. Green curves: no collisions. Blue curves: momentum is redistributed through collisions. (a) Increase of total energy with time. (b) Number of atoms remaining within the volume of the trap, with the initial atom number being $N_i=10^5$.[]{data-label="fig:peak5"}](Peak5-2.eps){width="99.00000%"}
\
The following very simple model of momentum redistribution is sufficient for our purpose. The thermally averaged atom-atom scattering cross-section is $\sigma=8 \pi a^{2}/(1+2\pi a^2 m k_{B} T /\hbar^2)$, where $a=5.53\times10^{-9}\,\mathrm{m}$ is the s-wave scattering length [@scatteringLength] and $T$ is the temperature of the cloud. The average relative velocity between particles is $v = \sqrt{16 k_{B} T/(\pi m)}$ [@PhysChem]. Knowing the mean density of trapped atoms, $ n $, we obtain a mean collision rate per atom, $ n \sigma v$. At appropriate time intervals (short compared with the inverse collision rate), the numerical integration is paused and a random number is generated for each particle to determine whether it has had a collision. Ideally, this should account for the local variations of density [@Bird94], which we ignore here in order to keep the model simple. If there is no collision, the atom continues unperturbed. Otherwise, the momentum of the particle is redirected by the collision, according to some angular distribution. For the data presented here, we used that of elastic scattering from an infinitely heavy sphere. However, we find that the results are quite insensitive to the chosen distribution and there is nothing special about this particular one. Given our experimental conditions, the average time between collisions is $30-100\, \mathrm{ms}$ at the start of the excitation, and this becomes longer as the cloud heats up.
With the momentum redistribution thus incorporated, we obtain the dark blue (higher) curve in Fig.\[fig:peak5\](a). Now, the ensemble is able to continue absorbing energy after the initial absorption because the depleted velocity group is steadily replenished through collisions. The refilling rate slows down as the atoms become more energetic, and this is responsible for the saturation of heating, seen in Fig.\[fig:peak5\](a). In this case, the energy doubles over the $5\,$s of shaking and our model approximates well the measured heating of the atom cloud.
Figure \[fig:peak5\](b) plots the number of atoms in the trap as a function of time, with collisions (blue, lower) and without (green, higher). In the collision-free case, few atoms leave the trap because the heating is weak and because the phase space is not efficiently sampled in the absence of collisions. By contrast, when collisions are included, the cloud heats much more strongly and the energetic atoms are more easily able to find an exit route from the trap. There is competition between the heating rate due to resonant excitation and the cooling rate due to evaporation from the trap. In this example, the heating is dominant because the trap is deep in comparison with the mean energy absorbed by each atom.
![Simulated energy spectra of $10^5$ atoms, initially at $71\,\mu \mathrm{K}$ in a trap having $B_b=21.9\,\mathrm{G}$. They are shaken over the time interval $t=0.1-5.1\,$s by a $7.2\,\mathrm{kHz}$ field of amplitude $b=105\,$mG. These are the same parameters used in Fig.\[fig:peak5\] and at the resonant peak of the pale blue curve in Fig.\[fig:resonances\](a). This simulation uses 5000 particles. (a) Without collisions. (b) With collisions. Red curves: Initial thermal distribution just before shaking. Green curves: After $0.1\,$s of shaking. Blue curves: After $5\,$s of shaking.[]{data-label="fig:energySpectra"}](energySpectra.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:energySpectra\](a) shows calculated energy spectra in the absence of collisions. The ordinate is the probability density for a given energy, normalised to unity, while the abscissa shows that energy, normalised to the trap depth $U_0=1.2\,$mK. The red curve ($t=0.1\,$s), showing the initial distribution just before the trap starts to shake, has a single peak just below $E=0.2 U_0$. After only $100\,$ms of shaking (green curve, $t=0.2\,$s) a deep notch appears in the distribution close to the energy of the initial peak. This shows that atoms close to that energy, having an oscillation period close to the period of the drive, are the ones excited by the shaking. Their excitation causes a second peak in the distribution at approximately $E/U_{0}=0.3$. There is no further significant change in the distribution, even after $5\,$s of shaking, as shown by the blue curve. This behaviour is to be compared with Figure \[fig:energySpectra\](b), which shows energy distributions for the same simulated experiment when collisions are included. The initial distribution is the same, as is the notch appearing at $0.2\,$s, but in this case continued shaking does produce additional heating because the collisions refill the velocity group that absorbs energy from the drive. This is clearly seen in the growing probability on the high-energy end of the spectrum.
![Simulated ratio of final atom number $N$ to initial number $N_i$ as a function of the excitation frequency. The colour code corresponds to that of Fig. \[fig:resonances\], with coloured arrows marking the temperature resonance frequencies. For the lowest three bias fields, the lowest barrier to escape is along *y* ($360\, \mu \mathrm{K}$, $520\, \mu \mathrm{K}$ and $880\, \mu \mathrm{K}$ in order of increasing bias field), while for the highest three, it is along *z* ($\sim 1200\, \mu \mathrm{K}$). For comparison, the measured initial cloud temperatures before the excitation take values of $13.4\, \mu \mathrm{K}$, $13.3\, \mu \mathrm{K}$, $16.7\, \mu \mathrm{K}$, $71\, \mu \mathrm{K}$, $98\, \mu \mathrm{K}$ and $132\, \mu \mathrm{K}$, in order of increasing bias field.[]{data-label="fig:simulatedResonAtomLoss"}](simulatedResonAtomLoss.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}\
\[sec:simul:b\] Simulated Resonances
------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:resonances\](b) shows our simulated temperature resonances at each of the six different values of the bias field. After the shaking stops in the experiment, we allow the atoms to thermalise for one second before measuring the temperature. In the simulation, we simply take the final energy as a measure of the temperature that would be reached in equilibrium. The central frequencies of these simulated resonances agree very closely with the experiment, as indicated by the blue circles in Fig.\[fig:FreqVsBias\].
The peak temperature rises are also remarkably well reproduced by the simulations, given the simplicity of the model. In particular, these model collisions redistribute momentum, but do not permit re-thermalisation of the energy distribution because the energy of a given atom is conserved in the collision. Despite that, the energy increase in the model reproduces all the measured temperature rises to well within a factor of two and that remains the case for a variety of model angular distributions.
The widths of the simulated resonant peaks are a little too large - by a factor of $1.5 - 2$. In searching for an explanation we simulated the yellow ($8.9\,$G) resonance with the initial temperature reduced from $13.3\,\mu$K to $7\,\mu$K. This only reduced the width by $10\%$, so we do not think a temperature calibration error can explain the discrepancy between the measured and calculated widths. It could well be that our very simple collision model causes the resonances to be too broad, although we do not see a clear reason why that should be so.
Figure \[fig:simulatedResonAtomLoss\] shows the simulated resonances in atom loss for the same six bias fields used in Fig.\[fig:resonances\]. We see that the dips in atom number are on the low-frequency side of the temperature resonances indicated by arrows. This is because the energetic atoms most likely to be driven out of the trap are also those most able to explore the anharmonic regions and hence to oscillate at lower frequencies. The same behaviour has been reported by several groups for both parametric shaking [@st4; @st5; @st9; @st17; @st19], and for shaking of the trap centre [@st13], in agreement with the results of our simulations.\
\[sec:Conclusions\] Summary and Conclusions
===========================================
We have measured the temperature rise in a cigar-shaped cloud of cold atoms after shaking it sinusoidally in the transverse direction. Unlike most previous measurements, we have modulated the position of the trap, not its curvature. We have recorded temperature resonances as a function of frequency for several values of the bias field that controls the curvature of the transverse trapping potential. Essential to the interpretation of our measurements is the understanding that, at the temperatures involved, atoms oscillate with a wide range of transverse frequencies in the trap and hence that the central frequencies of the observed resonances lie below the calculated harmonic frequencies for small oscillations.
We have developed a simple numerical model that has provided a clear quantitative understanding of the driven dynamics. When compared with other models and simulations in the literature, this provides one of the most detailed and complete attempts to reproduce the observed resonances. No other models include both the collisions between particles and the anharmonicity of the trapping potential, yet both of these are shown to be essential for a full understanding of the behaviour.
The authors thank Robert Nyman and Michael Trupke for useful discussions. We are indebted to the FastNet and AtomChips European networks and to the UK EPSRC and Royal Society for their funding support.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Astronomers use the 1612 MHz OH spectral line emission as a unique window on properties of evolved stars, galactic dynamics, and putative proto-planetary disk systems around young stars. In recent years, experiments using this OH line have become more difficult because radio telescopes are very sensitive to transmissions from the GLONASS satellite system. The weak astronomical signals are often undetectable in the presence of these unwanted human generated signals. In this paper we demonstrate that GLONASS narrow band signals may be removed using digital signal processing in a manner that is robust and non-toxic to the weak astronomy signals, without using a reference antenna. We present results using real astronomy data and outline the steps required to implement useful systems on radio telescopes.'
author:
- |
Steven W. Ellingson, John D. Bunton, Jon F. Bell OSU ElectroScience Laboratory 1320 Kinnear Road, Columbus OH 43212 USA\
CSIRO Telecommunications and Industrial Physics, PO Box 76 Epping NSW 1710, AUSTRALIA\
CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility, PO Box 76 Epping NS W 1710, AUSTRALIA\
title: Cancellation of GLONASS signals from Radio Astronomy Data
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
Many papers in the astronomical literature cite problems with interference from the Russian [*Global’naya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema*]{} (GLONASS) system of navigational satellites when trying to observe 1612 MHz OH spectral line emission. Galt (1991) [@gal91] and Combrinck et al. (1994) [@cwg94] both present data demonstrating the damaging effect of GLONASS signals on astronomy data. Some reports have stated that up to 50% of all observations have had to be discarded [@gal91]. The scientific merits of OH spectral line observations are discussed in detail elsewhere [@coh89; @hh85]; however, there is no question that this is extremely valuable spectrum whose continued use is essential to radio astronomy.
One possible solution to the problem is regulation; this is being addressed within international organisations such as the ITU and URSI. However, regulation cannot be expected to recover the spectrum into which the GLONASS system already transmits. The solution most often employed by radio astronomers in dealing with unwanted signals is to put their telescopes in remote locations. However, when dealing with signals that emanate from Earth-orbiting satellites, that method obviously fails. The next most obvious solution is not to observe when interfering signals are present, or simply throw away affected data [@gal91]. Some “GLONASS aware” tools have been developed that allow dynamic scheduling observations in order to minimise interference [@cwg94]. However, the strategy of avoidance results in the loss of valuable telescope time, which often amounts thousands of dollars per day, a better solution is desired.
Here we present a direct, technical solution to the problem. We have developed and demonstrated a parametric signal processing algorithm which identifies GLONASS signals present in the pre-detection, complex baseband telescope output, and removes them. This algorithm results in a high degree of suppression with negligible distortion of radio astronomical signals. We believe this approach can be applied to interference from the U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS) and possibly other sources as well. This technique is presented in Section 3 of this paper. First (Section 2), we describe the properties of GLONASS that are relevant to the operation of the canceller. In Sections 4–5, we present experimental results demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach. Section 4 describes the procedure used to collect GLONASS-corrupted data; whereas Section 5 shows the results before and after application of the canceller. In section 6 we consider how this approach may be implemented on existing telescope systems.
Properties of GLONASS signals
=============================
GLONASS satellites transmit at frequencies between 1602–1616 MHz and have shared primary user status with radio astronomy for the 1610.6–1613.8 MHz band[@cwg94]. There are 24 carriers spread over the 14 MHz band at intervals of 0.5625 MHz. The carrier is modulated by a pair of noise like, equal power, pseudo noise (PN) codes of 0.511 and 5.11 MHz. Figure 1. of Combrinck et al. (1994)[@cwg94] shows time averaged spectra of these signals. The unfiltered sinc$^{2} $ side lobes of these signals have relative power levels as high as $-25$ dB extending out to 20 MHz either side of the main carrier in some cases[@gal91]. GLONASS satellites launched more recently do have some band-limiting filters.
GLONASS, despite its wide band spectrum, actually has a very simple structure[@GLONASS_ICD]. Consider the narrow band (0.511 MHz) GLONASS modulation. This signal is simply a sinusoidal carrier which experiences a phase shift of $0^{\circ}$ or $180^{\circ}$ every $(0.511~\mbox{MHz})^{-1}$. Each phase shift represents a modulation symbol, or [*chip*]{}. Each group of 511 chips represents a PN code, which is public knowledge, never changes, and is the same for every GLONASS satellite. GLONASS data bits are represented by changing the sign of a block of 10 PN codes, with 10 ms period. Parameters of the signal which are unknown when received are (1) the Doppler shift due to satellite motion, (2) the [*code phase*]{}, that is, the relative position within the 1 ms PN code period, and (3) the carrier phase, which rotates because the satellite is moving and the transmitter’s LO is not perfectly stable. However the carrier phase, the current value of the data bit, and the complex gain due to the antenna pattern can all be combined into a single unknown complex magnitude parameter. Thus three parameters are sufficient to describe the GLONASS signal with high accuracy.
Finally, we note that the modulation used by the course/acquisition (C/A) mode of the U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS) is very similar to modulation used in the GLONASS 0.511 MHz transmission. The main differences are longer code (1023 chips) and higher chip rate (1.023 MHz); also, all GPS satellites transmit on the same centre frequency, but with different (but known) PN codes. Thus, techniques which are effective against 0.511 MHz GLONASS modulation may be effective against GPS C/A transmissions as well.
CANCELLATION ALGORITHM
======================
Theory
------
Our technique for suppressing GLONASS signals in radio astronomy data is based on [*parametric signal modelling*]{}. Recall that the GLONASS signal can be described using a model consisting of just three parameters: Doppler, code phase, and complex magnitude. Given a block of data containing a GLONASS signal, one can then estimate the parameters. Given the parameters, it is possible to synthesise a noise-free copy of the GLONASS signal. This copy is then subtracted from the telescope output to achieve the suppression. This procedure is illustrated in Figure \[fPSM\].
[c]{}
The parametric solution proceeds on two time scales. Doppler frequency and code phase are difficult to estimate, but change slowly. Complex magnitude, on the other hand, is simple to estimate, and changes quickly. Our approach is to first [*acquire*]{} the GLONASS signal. This involves a joint search over the possible Doppler frequencies and the code phases. For each Doppler/code phase pair, a complex baseband (zero-IF) version of the signal is cross-correlated with the PN sequence. The correct Doppler/code phase pair is the one which maximises the magnitude of the cross-correlation. Although tedious, this is a simple procedure, and is essentially the same acquisition procedure used by hand held GPS receivers. Once acquired, the Doppler and code phase can be tracked simply by sensing the drift in the correlation peak and adjusting the Doppler and code phase parameters accordingly. It appears that the Doppler and code phase estimates can be frozen for at least 0.1s between updates without any significant effect on the results.
Once the signal is acquired, we estimate the complex magnitude by cross-correlating the time- and frequency-aligned PN code with the complex zero-IF representation of the GLONASS signal. The magnitude and phase of the cross-correlation then represents the desired complex gain. The complex gain is expected to change quickly, so this procedure must be updated often. In the example presented below, the complex gain update rate is 128 $\mu s$, using 1024 samples at 8 Msamples per second (conversion to a complex baseband signal has halved the sample rate).
Given the Doppler frequency, code phase, and complex magnitude, one can then synthesise a noise-free estimate of the GLONASS signal. However, it has been found by experience that better cancellation is achieved by low-pass filtering the zero-IF version of the synthesised GLONASS signal before subtraction from the telescope output. This models the real-world low-pass effect which smoothes discontinuities in band limited signals. This also has the desirable effect of suppressing the high-order side lobes of the synthesised signal, which may not be accurately represented by the proposed signal model. A suitable filter was found to be a 32-tap finite impulse response (FIR) filter based on the Hamming window, with cutoff frequency equal to $0.05F_{S}$ at $F_{S}=8$ MSPS. Such a filter can be obtained using the MATLAB command [fir1(32,0.1)]{}.
Implementation
--------------
The results presented below were obtained using non-real-time post-processing software, written in MATLAB. On a 400MHz pentium the processing presently runs at 1000 times real time. The MATLAB source code is freely available from the authors. Any practical system would, of course, require real time implementation. The maturity of GPS technology means that the techniques and hardware for the acquisition of GLONASS and GPS signal parameters are well developed. The design of the signal modulators in the satellites is also known. With the knowledge of these two areas a practical real time implementation is within reach and is discussed in Section 6.
DATA COLLECTION
===============
The astronomy data used in testing these algorithms is a single linear polarisation, 4-bit data stream from each antenna of the 6x22m antenna, CSIRO Australia Telescope Compact Array at Narrabri in Australia. The data was 4-bit sampled at 16MHz and recorded on an S2 recorder[@s2ref]. The resulting 8MHz bandpass centred on 1610 MHz was wide enough to include signals from GLONASS-69 at $\sim$1609 MHz, an OH maser source (IRAS 1731-33) at $\sim$1612 MHz and some flat spectrum. The data were then extracted using the S2TCI system[@s2ref] and demultiplexed. More details on this dataset and others that are freely available for conducting these kind of experiments are in reports by Smegal et al.[@sme99] and Bell et al.[@bel99]. The algorithm works on a single polarisation data stream from one antenna only. However, data from a second antenna were also used in cross correlations as a test of how well the GLONASS signals were removed.
RESULTS TO DATE
===============
The results so far are encouraging, with GLONASS narrow band signals being effectively removed in a way that is non toxic to astronomy signals. Figure \[fig:skeptics\] (left plot, top curve) shows a spectrum of the raw data, with test tones added in software. The bottom curve shows the same 0.1s ($1.6 \times 10^6$ samples) of data with cancellation technique applied, with no apparent GLONASS signals left. There is an OH maser source at $\sim$1612 MHz. The top two curves in the right plot of Figure \[fig:skeptics\] show a blow up of this region. The bottom curve in the same plot shows the difference multiplied by a factor of 1000, indicating that no damage has been done in the spectral region of the OH source.
[c]{}
In order to examine the toxicity of this algorithm in the same frequency range as the GLONASS signal we added a test tone to the data before the cancellation was applied and examined how it was affected by the processing. The left plot of Figure \[fig:tt\_xcorr\] shows the result of subtracting the test tone again, after the cancellation. There is no evidence that the test tone has been affected by the cancellation. However, there is a small spike left right under the middle of the GLONASS signal, that is unrelated to the test tones. This seems to be a result of some break through, or leakage of the GLONASS carrier signal from the GLONASS imbalance in the GLONASS phase modulator. It should be possible to model and remove this as well, but we have not addressed that yet.
A more sensitive test of the supression is to cross correlate with signals from another antenna. The Right plot of Figure \[fig:tt\_xcorr\] show some cross correlations. The top curve is the cross correlation of raw data from two antennas. The bottom curve is the cross correlation of raw data from one antenna and data with GLONASS cancelled from data from another antenna. There are some extra ripples here that are not apparent in the other spectra, suggesting that there are some inaccuracies in the algorithm that need further investigation. The majority of the signal seen in this cross correlation is probably due to the GLONASS wide band signal, which we have not tried to suppress yet.
[c]{}
The addition and subtraction of test tones give us some indication of how toxic the algorithm is to astronomy signals. However, astronomy signals are not coherent sine waves, but are more like band limited noise in the case of spectral lines and wide band noise in the case of continuum sources. We replaced the test tones with some synthetic band limited noise, added it before the cancellation and subtracted it again after. As shown in Figure \[fig:blnoise\] the band limited noise is not affected by the cancellation algorithm, down to a part in 1000, in other words, we have achieved 30 dBs of dynamic range in the supression. Processing with and without the presence of an astronomy sources make very little difference to the effectiveness of the cancellation.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
===================================
The carrier break through described earlier needs to be modelled and cancelled. While we have not investigated this carefully yet, we believe this should be possible. We do not know the cause of the ripples in the cross correlation spectra and some more investigation there may lead to an improvement in the algorithm. At present we have modelled the band limiting filters of the GLONASS transmission system by a low-pass filter when the signal is centered on zero-IF. This is limiting the accuracy with which we estimate the GLONASS spectrum and therefore possibly limiting the cancellation. We aim to either obtain details of the band limiting filters used on the GLONASS transmission system, or use the existing data to estimate them.
Note that both GPS and GLONASS have in-band secondary channels that are spread 10 times wider, and therefore have power spectral density about 10 times weaker. This secondary channel for GPS and GLONASS is much harder to deal with, because the PN codes are more complex and may not be completely known. We do need to find a way to mitigate against these signals, because they do still cause substantial problems for radio astronomy.
[c]{}
In addition to GLONASS and GPS, many other satellite systems have well-specified modulation and coding schemes. This opens up the possibility of removing these other classes of signals using digital signal processing. The techniques described here will be useful for some others, but not all. At a recent meeting[@efwhite] a wide range of interference mitigation techniques applicable to many different undesired signals were presented and discussed.
The usefulness of the method presented in this paper must ultimately be shown by conducting astronomy in the presence of GLONASS or GPS. Ideally the astronomy results with and without interference present would be indistinguishable. The use of recorded data and post processing is useful for demonstrating the method. But with processing currently running at one 1/1000 real time the amount of astronomy that can be demonstrated is very limited. It is therefore desirable to explore the use of dedicated hardware to achieve real time processing of the signal.
The most comprehensive approach is to build a complete receiver that incorporates the interference cancellation method described in this paper. This is the approach that must be taken in designing new interference resistant receivers but currently the best option is to build an ’add on’ to existing receivers. The problem with this method is that the quantiser in current receivers is designed for adequate performance when processing noise like signals. Typically a 1 or 2 bit quantiser is used. Techniques like adaptive noise cancellation will cause the number of bits needed to represent the signal to grow when the interference is suppressed. For example, consider an interferer whose peak amplitude is equivalent to one eighth of the least significant bit in the quantiser and assume that 2 bits can accurately represent the interference. To generate an interference free estimate of the signal it is necessary to subtract the estimate of the interferer from the signal. In doing this, the number of bits needed to represent the signal grows by 4 lower order bits. The signal now has too many bits to be processed by receivers normally used for radioastronomy. The solution to this problem is to form auto and cross correlations of the measured signal and the estimate of the interference. If the estimate e(t) and the interference i(t) are related to each other by a linear transfer function then in frequency domain this can be written as I(f) = H(f)E(f) where H(f) is the frequency domain transfer function.
In this context the astronomy signal can be considered to noise. The system can be redrawn as
[c]{}
where o(t) is the wanted astronomy signal plus interference. The cross-spectrum method can now be used to estimate the transfer function H(f) . If the astronomy signal a(t) is uncorrelated with i(t) then H(f)[@bp71; @pap89] equal to the ratio of the cross-spectrum $S_{oe}(f)$ between o(t) and e(t) and the power spectrum $S_{ee}(f)$ of e(t).
$H(f) = S_{oe}(f)/ S_{ee}(f)$
The power spectrum $S_{aa}(f)$ of a(t) is now equal to:
$S_{aa}(f) = S_{oo}(f)-|H(f)|^{2}.S_{ee}(f)$
Thus measurement of the power spectrum of a(t) and e(t) plus the cross spectrum of the two gives enough information to derive the power spectrum of the uncorrupted astronomical signal. These spectra can be obtained from the auto and cross correlations of the two signal. Correlators used for astronomy normally process at most 2-bit data. Straight 2-bit sampling may not be sufficient to accurately represent the estimated GLONASS/GPS signal. The addition of dither and the use of noise shaped oversampling should solve this problem. The hardware itself will internally generate a multi-bit accurate representation of the interferer.
The hardware used to synthesise the baseband GLONASS or GPS is comparatively simple and easy to emulate in an FPGA. The main difficulty is the estimation of and tracking of signal phase and amplitude. This task is best left to software. Data needed to perform this task are correlations between the input and the current estimate of the interferer. If a reasonable initial estimate of the interferer has been found then very few correlations are needed to maintain tracking of carrier phase, carrier Doppler and code phase. The hardware could also be used to generate these correlations. The operations performed by the hardware are:
1. Generate the carrier digitally with adjustable carrier phase and Doppler.
2. Generate the GLONASS/GPS modulation with adjustable code phase
3. Modulate the carrier with the GLONASS code. This gives an unscaled ’noise free’ estimate of the interference.
4. Generate the zero delay and $\pm1/2$ chip correlations between the input signal and the ’noise free’ estimate.
5. Scale the magnitude of the ’noise free’ estimate to match the interference.
6. Optionally delay data and estimate. This allows the magnitude and phase corrections to be applied to the estimate used in generating the corrections. This extra item is needed to fully emulate the current software. In practice it may be unnecessary.
This hardware removes most of the intensive tasks from software and leaves the software to monitor the correlations. From this monitoring the software then needs to generate updates for the carrier phase, carrier Doppler, code phase and amplitude. With these updates the output of the hardware is a ’noise free’ estimate of the interference.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The authors gratefully acknowledge discussions with and help in obtaining data from Ron Ekers, Rick Smegal, Peter Hall, Bob Sault, Matthew Bailes, Willem van Stratten, Frank Briggs, Mike Kesteven, Warwick Wilson, Dick Ferris
[99]{}
J. F. Bell et al. [*Base band data for testing interference mitigation algorithms*]{}, ATNF technical document. http://www.atnf.csiro.au/SKA/
J. S. Bendat, and A. G. Piersol, [*Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures*]{}, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1971. ISBN 0-471-06470-X
R. J. Cohen, “The threat to radio astronomy from radio pollution”, [*Space Policy*]{}, [**5**]{}, pp. 91-93, 1989.
W. L. Combrinck, M. E. West, and M. J. Gaylard, “Coexisting with GLONASS: Observing the 1612 MHz Hydroxyl Line”, [*PASP*]{}, [**10 6**]{}, pp. 807-812, 1994.
R. D. Ekers and J. F. Bell, “Radio Frequency Interference ” to appear in [*The Universe at Low Radio Frequencies*]{}, IAU Symposium 1 99, Pune, Dec. 1999.
“The Elizabeth and Frederick White Conference on Radio
Frequency Interference Mitigation Strategies”, http://www.atnf.csiro.au/SKA/intmit/atnf/conf/, 2000.
J. Galt, “Interference with Astronomical Observations of OH Masers from the Soviet Union’s GLONASS Satellites”, in [*Light Pollution, Radio Interference, and Space Debris*]{}, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 17, IAU Colloquium 112, 1991, D.L. Crawford, Ed., p13, 1991.
J. Herman and H. J. Habing, “Time variations and Shell Si zes of OH Masers in Late-Type Atars”, [*AASS*]{}, [**59**]{}, p. 523, 1985.
, Coordinat ion Scientific Information Center, Moscow, Russia. Available in PDF form from www.nz.dlr.de/gps/glonass7.html.
R. Fisher, NRAO, personal communication, Feb. 21, 2000.
E. Kaplan (ed.), [*Understanding GPS: Principles and Applications*]{}, Artech House, 1996.
A. Papoulis, [*Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes*]{}, international Edition, McGraw-Hill Singapore 1989. ISBN 0-07-Y66465-X
R. Smegal et al. [*Array of Independent Element Observations*]{}, http://www.atnf.csiro.au/SKA/intmit/
Weitfeldt et al. “ The S2 baseband processing system for phase-coherent pulsar applications”, [*AASS*]{}, [**131**]{}, pp. 594-554, 1998.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using lattice effective field theory, we study the ground state binding energy of $N$ distinct particles in two dimensions with equal mass interacting weakly via an attractive $SU(N)$-symmetric short range potential. We find that in the limit of zero range and large $N$, the ratio of binding energies $B_{N}/B_{N-1}$ approaches the value $8.3(6).$'
author:
- Dean Lee
bibliography:
- 'NuclearMatter.bib'
title: 'Large-$N$ droplets in two dimensions'
---
Introduction
============
We consider the ground state of $N$ distinct particles in two dimensions with equal mass interacting weakly via an attractive $SU(N)$-symmetric short range potential. Since the ground state is completely symmetric this is equivalent to the problem of $N$ weakly-bound identical bosons. The self-bound two-dimensional system with a realistic van der Waals potential is relevant to the properties of adatoms on surfaces. In this work, however, we address the question of what happens as the range of the interaction goes to zero,$$V(\vec{x}_{1},\cdots,\vec{x}_{N})\rightarrow C\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq N}\delta^{(2)}(\vec{x}_{i}-\vec{x}_{j}).$$
Let $B_{N}$ be the ground state binding energy of the $N$-particle system in the zero range limit. The first calculation of $B_{3}/B_{2}$ was given in [@Bruch:1979]. The precision of this calculation was improved by [@Nielsen:1999], and most recently a precise value of $B_{3}/B_{2}=16.522688(1)$ was given in [@Hammer:2004x]$.$ There have also been studies of the four- and five-particle systems [@Tjon:1980; @Lim:1980; @Vranjes:2002]. But range corrections for these studies appear to be very large, and the first precise determination of $B_{4}/B_{2}$ in the zero range limit was only recently given in [@Platter:2004x], yielding a value of $B_{4}/B_{2}=197.3(1).$
The behavior of $B_{N}$ in the large-$N$ limit was also recently discussed in [@Hammer:2004x]. They showed that due to the weakening of the attractive coupling at short distance scales, the large-$N$ droplet system could be treated classically. This yielded a prediction for the ratio of the binding energies in the large-$N$ limit,$$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{B_{N}}{B_{N-1}}\simeq8.567\text{.}$$ In [@Blume:2004] the $N$-particle system for $N\leq7$ was investigated using diffusion Monte Carlo with both a Lennard-Jones potential and a more realistic helium-helium potential. However the results showed that range corrections were too large to allow for a determination of $B_{N}/B_{N-1}$ for large $N$.
Although there is no known system of atomic or molecular clusters that displays the physics of the zero range limit for large $N$, the topic is interesting for several reasons. With recent advances in laser trapping techniques it is now possible to produce many-body quantum systems on a two-dimensional optical lattice. Much of the attention has been devoted to the Bose-Hubbard model with repulsive on-site interactions [@Batrouni:2002; @Scarola:2005], but the weakly attractive $N$-boson system can also be studied. In that case computational lattice studies such as this would be of immediate relevance. Our system also raises interesting questions about the convergence of effective field theory and the large-$N$ limit. Results of previous numerical studies suggest that it is surprisingly difficult to reach the zero range and large-$N$ limits at the same time. We explore why this is the case and what can be done to overcome some of the difficulties. Similar issues arise in systems of higher-spin fermions in optical traps and lattices. In these systems the competition between short range interactions and large-$N$ effects can determine properties of the ground state, two-particle pairing versus multi-particle clustering [@Wu:2003a; @Wu:2004a].
In this paper we study the $N$-particle system using lattice effective field theory. The organization of our paper is as follows. We first discuss the renormalization of the interaction coefficient in the two-particle system. We discuss renormalization in the continuum with a sharp momentum cutoff and then on the lattice. After that we address two features of the large-$N$ limit. The first is a rescaling technique that cancels some of the nonzero range corrections from the ratio $B_{N}/B_{N-1}$. The other is an overlapping interaction problem that occurs when many particles lie within a region the size of the range of the potential. We show that this problem can produce large systematic errors that grow with $N$. The strength of the overlapping interaction must be reduced if we wish to probe zero range physics accurately for large $N$. We demonstrate one way of doing this which exploits an unusual feature of the discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation [@Hirsch:1983]. Using lowest-order lattice effective field theory, we compute $B_{N}/B_{N-1}$ for $N\leq10$. Extrapolating to the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$, we find the result$$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{B_{N}}{B_{N-1}}=8.3(6)\text{.}$$
Two-particle system and renormalized coupling
=============================================
We begin by reviewing the two-particle system in the continuum formalism with a sharp cutoff, $\Lambda$, on the magnitude of the momentum. For a zero range potential,$$V(\vec{x}_{1},\cdots,\vec{x}_{N})=C\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq N}\delta^{(2)}(\vec
{x}_{i}-\vec{x}_{j}),$$ the diagrams which contribute to two-particle scattering are shown in Fig. \[scattering\].
\[ptb\]
[scattering.ps]{}
We let $m$ be the particle mass. In order that the bound state pole in the rest frame occurs at energy $E=-B_{\text{2}}$, we get the constraint$$-\frac{1}{C}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\Lambda}\frac{pdp}{B_{\text{2}}+\frac{p^{2}}{m}}=\frac{m}{4\pi}\ln\left( \frac{mB_{2}+\Lambda^{2}}{mB_{2}}\right) ,$$ We can rewrite this as$$\frac{mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}}{1+mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}}=\exp\left[ \frac{4\pi}{Cm}\right] ,$$ and the bound state energy is given by$$mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}=\exp\left[ \frac{4\pi}{Cm}\right] +O\left[ \left(
mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}\right) ^{2}\right] .$$
We now consider the same calculation on the lattice. Let $a$ be the spatial lattice spacing and $a_{t}$ be the temporal lattice spacing. We start with the Hamiltonian lattice formulation where $a_{t}=0$. The standard lattice Hamiltonian with nearest neighbor hopping has the form$$\begin{aligned}
H & =\frac{1}{2ma^{2}}\sum_{\vec{n}}\sum_{1\leq i\leq N}\sum_{l=x,y}\left[
2b_{i}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})b_{i}(\vec{n})-b_{i}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})b_{i}(\vec
{n}+\hat{l})-b_{i}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})b_{i}(\vec{n}-\hat{l})\right] \nonumber\\
& +Ca^{-2}\sum_{\vec{n}}\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq N}b_{i}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})b_{i}(\vec{n})b_{j}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})b_{j}(\vec{n}).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $b_{i}(\vec{n})$ is an annihilation operator for a particle with flavor $i$ at the spatial lattice site $\vec{n}$. The condition on $C$ in the Hamiltonian lattice formalism is$$-\frac{1}{C}=\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{a^{2}L^{2}}\sum_{\vec{k}\text{
}\operatorname{integer}}\frac{1}{B_{\text{2}}+2\Omega_{_{\vec{k}}}},$$ where $\Omega_{_{\vec{k}}}$ is the lattice kinetic energy and $L$ is the length of the periodic lattice cube in lattice units. For the standard lattice action $$\Omega_{_{\vec{k}}}=\frac{1}{ma^{2}}\sum_{s=x,y}\left[ 1-\cos\tfrac{2\pi
k_{s}}{L}\right] . \label{standard}$$ For later reference we define $\omega$ as the momentum independent term inside the summation in (\[standard\]). So for the standard lattice action $\omega=1$. We define the lattice cutoff momentum $\Lambda=\pi a^{-1}$. Then in the limit $\Lambda\rightarrow\infty$,$$mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}=B\exp\left[ \frac{4\pi}{Cm}\right] +O\left[ \left(
mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}\right) ^{2}\right] , \label{asymptotic}$$ where for the standard action $B\simeq3.24$.
In order to test the cutoff dependence of our lattice results, we also consider actions with $O(a^{2})$-improved and $O(a^{4})$-improved kinetic energies. $O(a^{2})$ and $O(a^{4})$ corrections to the interaction are not included since these would entail a significant number of new interactions. Because we are not performing a full $O(a^{2})$ or $O(a^{4})$ improvement, we do not expect the improved kinetic energy actions to give qualitatively better results than the standard action. However a comparison of the different actions provides an additional check that the results reproduce continuum limit behavior rather than lattice-dependent artifacts. For the $O(a^{2})$-improved action the lattice kinetic energy is$$\Omega_{_{\vec{k}}}=\frac{1}{ma^{2}}\sum_{s=x,y}\left[ \tfrac{5}{4}-\tfrac
{4}{3}\cos\tfrac{2\pi k_{s}}{L}+\tfrac{1}{12}\cos\tfrac{4\pi k_{s}}{L}\right]
.$$ In this case $\omega=\tfrac{5}{4}$ and $B\simeq1.79$, where $B$ is defined in the asymptotic expression (\[asymptotic\]). For the $O(a^{4})$-improved action$$\Omega_{_{\vec{k}}}=\frac{1}{ma^{2}}\sum_{s=x,y}\left[ \tfrac{49}{36}-\tfrac{3}{2}\cos\tfrac{2\pi k_{s}}{L}+\tfrac{3}{20}\cos\tfrac{4\pi k_{s}}{L}-\tfrac{1}{90}\cos\tfrac{6\pi k_{s}}{L}\right] ,$$ $\omega=\tfrac{49}{36}$, and $B\simeq1.54$. As we increase the order of improvement, $\Omega_{_{\vec{k}}}$ more closely approximates the continuum kinetic energy and $B$ approaches the continuum sharp cutoff value of $1$.
At nonzero temporal lattice spacing the same diagrams in Fig. \[scattering\] contribute to two-particle scattering. A derivation of the Feynman rules at nonzero temporal lattice spacing for the analogous three-dimensional system can be found in [@Lee:2004qd], as well as a derivation of the bound state pole condition. In two dimensions the strength of the interaction is given by the transfer matrix element$$\left( e^{-a_{t}Ca^{-2}}-1\right) \left( 1-\omega\frac{2a_{t}}{ma^{2}}\right) ^{2},$$ while the free lattice propagator has the form$$\frac{1}{e^{-\tfrac{2\pi i}{L_{t}}k_{0}}-1+a_{t}\Omega_{_{\vec{k}}}}.$$ $L_{t}$ is the total number of temporal lattice units and $k_{0}$ is an integer from $0$ to $L_{t}-1$.
As we take $L_{t}\rightarrow\infty$, the energy in physical units becomes a continuous variable. Requiring that the bound state pole in the rest frame occurs at energy $E=-B_{\text{2}}$, we get the constraint$$\frac{1}{\left( 1-\omega\frac{2a_{t}}{ma^{2}}\right) ^{2}\left(
e^{-a_{t}Ca^{-2}}-1\right) }=\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{L^{2}}\sum_{\vec{k}\text{ integer}}\frac{1}{e^{a_{t}B_{2}}-1+2a_{t}\Omega_{_{\vec
{k}}}-a_{t}^{2}\Omega_{_{\vec{k}}}^{2}}. \label{temporal}$$ At nonzero temporal lattice spacing we therefore have$$mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}=B(a_{t}m^{-1}a^{-2})\exp\left[ \frac{4\pi}{C^{\prime}m}\right] +O\left[ \left( mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}\right) ^{2}\right] ,
\label{temporalasymptotic}$$ where$$C^{\prime}\equiv\frac{a^{2}}{a_{t}}\left( 1-\omega\frac{2a_{t}}{ma^{2}}\right) ^{2}\left( 1-e^{-a_{t}Ca^{-2}}\right) .$$ In this case $B$ is a function of $a_{t}m^{-1}a^{-2}$ and is different for the standard and improved lattice actions. For given values of $B_{2},a$, and $a_{t}$, we determine $C$ in the infinite volume limit $L\rightarrow\infty$. For $mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}$ not too small, roughly $10^{-6}$ or larger, we use the exact expression (\[temporal\]) for sufficiently large values for $L$. For smaller values of $mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}$ it is more convenient to use the asymptotic expression (\[temporalasymptotic\]). But once the interaction coefficient $C$ is determined and we proceed to the $N$-body system, such extremely large lattice volumes are unnecessary. It suffices to consider lattice systems larger than the characteristic size of the $N$-body droplet. For large $N$ this is many orders of magnitude smaller than the characteristic size of the two-body droplet.
Ratios in the large-$N$ limit
=============================
It has been suggested that the large-$N$ ground state wavefunction can be described as a classical distribution [@Hammer:2004x]. If $R_{N}$ is the characteristic size of the droplet, the distribution is proportional to $\psi(r/R_{N})$ for some function $\psi$ independent of $N$, and the binding energy $B_{N}$ is proportional $m^{-1}R_{N}^{-2}$. In order to determine $\psi$, one integrates out high energy modes to determine the effective coupling at energy $B_{N}$. If this picture of the large-$N$ droplet is correct, then errors due to the finite cutoff momentum $\Lambda$ appear only in the combination $mB_{N}\Lambda^{-2}$. Therefore if we measure binding energies while keeping $mB_{N}\Lambda^{-2}$ fixed, much of the error cancels in the ratio $B_{N}/B_{N-1}$. In essence we are using large-$N$ similarity under rescaling to eliminate cutoff errors. If the classical droplet picture is incorrect, then this technique will probably not reduce errors. The issue will be settled when we analyze results of the Monte Carlo simulations.
Let $B_{N}(\Lambda)$ be the measured binding energy of the $N$-particle ground state at cutoff momentum $\Lambda$. Conceptually it is simplest to regard $m$ and $B_{2}$ as fixed quantities while we vary $\Lambda$. In the continuum limit$$\lim_{\Lambda\rightarrow\infty}B_{N}(\Lambda)=B_{N}.$$ Let $z>0$ be a parameter that measures proximity to the continuum limit,$$z=mB_{N}(\Lambda)\cdot\Lambda^{-2}.$$ For a given $z$, we define the cutoff momentum $\Lambda(z,N)$ implicitly so that $$mB_{N}(\Lambda(z,N))\cdot(\Lambda(z,N))^{-2}=z.$$ We define $f(z)$ as$$f(z)=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{N}\ln\left[ B_{N}(\Lambda
(z,N))/B_{N}\right] . \label{fz}$$ $f(z)$ measures the exponential growth of finite cutoff errors with increasing $N$. We have$$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\left\{ \ln\left[ \frac{B_{N}(\Lambda(z,N))}{B_{N}}\right] -\ln\left[ \frac{B_{N-1}(\Lambda(z,N-1))}{B_{N-1}}\right]
\right\} =f(z),$$ and so$$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{B_{N}}{B_{N-1}}=e^{-f(z)}\lim_{N\rightarrow
\infty}\frac{B_{N}(\Lambda(z,N))}{B_{N-1}(\Lambda(z,N-1))}. \label{largeN}$$ Therefore so long as $\left\vert f(z)\right\vert \ll1,$ the large-$N$ ratio of binding energies can be measured reliably. Other cutoff errors which do not grow linearly with $N$ will cancel in the ratio$$\frac{B_{N}(\Lambda(z,N))}{B_{N-1}(\Lambda(z,N-1))}$$ as we take $N\rightarrow\infty$.
In our Monte Carlo lattice simulations it is more convenient to regard $m$ and $\Lambda$ as fixed quantities while varying $B_{2}$. We define $B_{2}(z,N)$ implicitly by$$mB_{N}(B_{2}(z,N))\cdot\Lambda^{-2}=z.$$ We are changing the overall physical scale when we change $B_{2}$, and so we work with ratios $B_{N}/B_{2}$. The analog of the result (\[largeN\]) is$$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{B_{N}}{B_{N-1}}=e^{-f(z)}\lim_{N\rightarrow
\infty}\frac{B_{N}(B_{2}(z,N))/B_{2}(z,N)}{B_{N-1}(B_{2}(z,N-1))/B_{2}(z,N-1)}.$$
Overlapping range and implicit $N$-body interaction
===================================================
Large range corrections can occur when many particles lie within a region the size of the range of the potential, $\Lambda^{-1}$. The problem is most severe when all $N$ particles lie in this localized region, and the potential energy is amplified by a factor of $N(N-1)/2$. For a continuum potential with a repulsive core, the result is a deep hole at the center of the multiparticle wavefunction and a tendency towards underbinding or unbinding. At lowest order in lattice effective field theory the effect goes in the opposite direction. A spike forms at the center of the wavefunction when all particles lie on the same lattice site, and the binding energy is too large.
Consider the state with $N$ particles at the same lattice site in the Hamiltonian lattice formalism, $$\left\vert \Pi^{N}\right\rangle =b_{1}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})b_{2}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})\cdots b_{N}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})\left\vert 0\right\rangle .$$ The expectation value of the potential energy for this localized state is$$\left\langle \Pi^{N}\right\vert V\left\vert \Pi^{N}\right\rangle
=\frac{CN(N-1)}{2a^{2}}.$$ This potential energy can be regarded as an implicit $N$-body contact interaction produced by overlapping two-body interactions. $\ $In the continuum limit we know that the importance of this $N$-body contact interaction is suppressed by many powers of the small parameter $z=mB_{N}\Lambda^{-2}$. However the situation at finite $\Lambda$ can be quite different from the continuum limit if the potential energy per particle for the localized state $\left\vert \Pi^{N}\right\rangle $ is as large as the cutoff energy scale,$$\left\vert \frac{C(N-1)}{2a^{2}}\right\vert \gtrsim\frac{\pi^{2}}{ma^{2}}.$$
To lowest order in $mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}$, the renormalized coupling is$$\begin{aligned}
C & =\frac{4\pi}{m\ln\left( mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}\right) }\nonumber\\
& =\frac{4\pi}{m\ln\left( mB_{N}\Lambda^{-2}\right) -m\ln\left(
B_{N}/B_{2}\right) }.\end{aligned}$$ For large $N$$$C\simeq\frac{4\pi}{m\ln z-mN\ln\beta},$$ where $$\beta=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{B_{N}}{B_{N-1}}.$$ Then$$-\frac{C(N-1)}{2a^{2}}\simeq\frac{\pi^{2}}{ma^{2}}\left[ \frac{2\pi^{-1}}{\ln\beta-\frac{1}{N}\ln z}\right] .$$ In the continuum limit the problem goes away since$$\frac{1}{\ln\beta-\frac{1}{N}\ln z}\rightarrow0.$$ However the convergence is slow and requires $z\ll e^{-N}$. For actual lattice simulations it is therefore necessary to limit the size of the implicit $N$-body contact interaction.
Discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation
============================================
There are several ways to deal with the large implicit $N$-body contact interaction. On the lattice there is one method which is particularly convenient. This is to write the two-body interaction using a discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation [@Hirsch:1983]$.$ The discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich reproduces the two-body contact interaction exactly. Typically it is used for systems with spin-$1/2$ fermions where Pauli exclusion implies that there are no $N$-body contact interactions beyond $N=2$. It seems therefore that the properties of the transformation for $N\geq3$ has not been discussed in the literature. In the following we show that when a discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation is used, the temporal lattice spacing regulates the strength of the implicit $N$-body contact interaction.
For simplicity we show only the interaction part of the Hamiltonian. The exponential of the two-body interaction at site $\vec{n}$ over a Euclidean time step $a_{t}$ is$$e^{-a_{t}H_{\text{int}}}=\exp\left[ -a_{t}Ca^{-2}\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq N}b_{i}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})b_{i}(\vec{n})b_{j}^{\dagger}(\vec{n})b_{j}(\vec
{n})\right] .$$ The discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation amounts to making the replacement$$e^{-a_{t}H_{\text{int}}}\rightarrow\frac{1}{2}\sum_{s(\vec{n})=\pm1}\exp\left[ -\left( \frac{1}{2}a_{t}Ca^{-2}+\lambda s(\vec{n})\right)
\left( \sum_{1\leq i\leq N}b_{i}^{\dag}(\vec{n})b_{i}(\vec{n})-1\right)
\right] ,$$ where$$\cosh\lambda=\exp\left( -\frac{1}{2}a_{t}Ca^{-2}\right) ,\qquad\lambda\geq0.$$
To see that this has all the desired properties, let us define$$A(K)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{s(\vec{n})=\pm1}\exp\left[ -\left( \frac{1}{2}a_{t}Ca^{-2}+\lambda s(\vec{n})\right) (K-1)\right] ,$$ for nonnegative integer $K$. We note that $A(0)=A(1)=1$, and $A(2)=\exp
\left( -a_{t}Ca^{-2}\right) $. These are precisely the expectation values of $e^{-a_{t}H_{\text{int}}}$ for $K=0,1,2$ distinct particles at lattice site $\vec{n}$. When $K\geq3$ but $\lambda(K-1)\ll1$, we find$$A(K)\simeq\exp\left[ -a_{t}Ca^{-2}\frac{K(K-1)}{2}\right] .$$ This is also the expectation value of $e^{-a_{t}H_{\text{int}}}$ for $K$ distinct particles at lattice site $\vec{n}$. However when $K\geq3$ and $\lambda(K-1)$ $\gg1$,$$A(K)\simeq\frac{1}{2}\exp\left[ \left( -\frac{1}{2}a_{t}Ca^{-2}+\lambda\right) (K-1)\right] .$$ The total potential energy of the $K$-particle localized state, $\left\vert
\Pi^{K}\right\rangle $, no longer increases quadratically with $K$. The temporal lattice spacing $a_{t}$ acts as an auxiliary ultraviolet regulator that limits the size of the implicit $K$-body contact interaction. $\ $When $K\leq2$ or the implicit $K$-body contact interaction is smaller than $a_{t}^{-1}$, we have the unaltered result,$$\left\langle \Pi^{K}\right\vert V\left\vert \Pi^{K}\right\rangle \simeq
\frac{CK(K-1)}{2a^{2}}.$$ When $K>2$ and the implicit $K$-body contact interaction exceeds $a_{t}^{-1}$, then the regulator takes effect and we have$$\left\langle \Pi^{K}\right\vert V\left\vert \Pi^{K}\right\rangle \simeq
a_{t}^{-1}\left[ \left( \frac{1}{2}a_{t}Ca^{-2}-\lambda\right)
(K-1)+\ln2\right] .$$
Algorithm
=========
The standard lattice action we use for our simulations is$$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{\vec{n},n_{t},i}\left[ c_{i}^{\ast}(\vec{n},n_{t})c_{i}(\vec
{n},n_{t}+1)-e^{-\tfrac{a_{t}Ca^{-2}}{2}-\lambda s(\vec{n},n_{t})}\left(
1-\frac{2a_{t}}{ma^{2}}\right) c_{i}^{\ast}(\vec{n},n_{t})c_{i}(\vec{n},n_{t})\right] \nonumber\\
& -\frac{a_{t}}{2ma^{2}}\sum_{\vec{n},n_{t},l,i}\left[ c_{i}^{\ast}(\vec
{n},n_{t})c_{i}(\vec{n}+\hat{l},n_{t})+c_{i}^{\ast}(\vec{n},n_{t})c_{i}(\vec{n}-\hat{l},n_{t})\right] -\sum_{\vec{n},n_{t}}\lambda s(\vec{n},n_{t}),\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{t}$ is the temporal lattice coordinate, $c_{i}$ is the path integration field for the particle of type $i$, and $s$ is the discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich field which takes values $\pm1$. We have used the lattice conventions developed in [@Lee:2004si; @Lee:2004qd] for a three-dimensional lattice. The choice of Bose/Fermi statistics for $c_{i}$ is irrelevant since we consider systems with no more than one particle of each type.
In order to compute the ground state binding energy $B_{N}$ we consider the correlation function$$Z_{N}(t)=\left\langle \Psi_{N}^{0}\right\vert e^{-Ht}\left\vert \Psi_{N}^{0}\right\rangle ,$$ where the initial/final state is the state with all $N$ particles at zero momentum,$$\left\vert \Psi_{N}^{0}\right\rangle =\tilde{b}_{1}^{\dag}(0)\tilde{b}_{2}^{\dag}(0)\cdots\tilde{b}_{N}^{\dag}(0)\left\vert 0\right\rangle .$$ $\left\vert \Psi_{N}^{0}\right\rangle $ is also the ground state of the non-interacting system. We refer to $t$ as Euclidean time and define$$E_{N}(t)=-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[ \ln Z_{N}(t)\right] .$$ Then as $t\rightarrow+\infty$, $E_{N}(t)$ converges to $-B_{N}$, the ground state energy of the interacting $N$-particle system. The only assumption is that the ground state has a nonvanishing overlap with the ground state of the non-interacting system.
The conversion of the lattice action to a transfer matrix formalism at fixed particle number has been discussed in [@Borasoy:2005yc]. We use the same transfer matrix derived there, except in this case we keep the discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich field and calculate the sum over configurations,$$Z_{N}(t)\varpropto\sum_{s}e^{-\sum_{\vec{n},n_{t}}\lambda s(\vec{n},n_{t})}\left\langle \Psi_{N}^{0}\right\vert T\left[ e^{-H(s)t}\right] \left\vert
\Psi_{N}^{0}\right\rangle ,$$ $H(s)$ consists of only single-body operators interacting with the background Hubbard-Stratonovich field. We can write the full $N$-particle matrix element as the $N^{\text{th}}$ power of the single-particle matrix element,$$\left\langle \Psi_{N}^{0}\right\vert T\left[ e^{-H(s)t}\right] \left\vert
\Psi_{N}^{0}\right\rangle \propto\left[ M(s,t)\right] ^{N},$$$$M(s,t)=\left\langle \vec{k}=0\right\vert T\left[ e^{-H(s)t}\right]
\left\vert \vec{k}=0\right\rangle ,$$ where $\left\vert \vec{k}=0\right\rangle $ is a single-particle state with zero momentum. Our time-ordered exponential notation, $T\left[
e^{-H(s)t}\right] $, is shorthand for the time-ordered product of single-body transfer matrices at each time step,$$T\left[ e^{-H(s)t}\right] =M_{(L_{t}-1)}\cdot\ldots\cdot M_{(n_{t})}\cdot\ldots\cdot M_{(1)}\cdot M_{(0)},$$ where $L_{t}$ is the total number of lattice time steps and $t=L_{t}a_{t}$. If the particle stays at the same spatial lattice site from time step $n_{t}$ to $n_{t}+1$, then the corresponding matrix element of $M_{(n_{t})}$ is$$e^{-\tfrac{a_{t}Ca^{-2}}{2}-\lambda s(\vec{n},n_{t})}\left( 1-\frac{2a_{t}}{ma^{2}}\right) .$$ If the particle hops to a neighboring lattice site from time step $n_{t}$ to $n_{t}+1$ then the corresponding matrix element of $M_{(n_{t})}$ is $\frac{a_{t}}{2ma^{2}}$. All other elements of $M_{(n_{t})}$ are zero.
We sample configurations according to the weight$$\exp\left\{ \sum_{\vec{n},n_{t}}\lambda s(\vec{n},n_{t})+N\log\left[
M(s,t_{\text{end}})\right] \right\} ,$$ where $t_{\text{end}}$ is the largest Euclidean time at which we wish to measure $Z_{N}(t)$. We use a simple heat bath/Metropolis update procedure. For each configuration the observable that we compute is$$O(s,t)=\frac{\left[ M(s,t)\right] ^{N}}{\left[ M(s,t_{\text{end}})\right]
^{N}},$$ for $t<t_{\text{end}}$. This is the same general technique that was used in [@Lee:2005fk]. By taking the ensemble average of $O(s,t)$ we are able to calculate$$\frac{Z_{N}(t)}{Z_{N}(t_{\text{end}})}.$$
Results
=======
For each simulation we have computed roughly $2\times10^{5}$ successful heat bath/Metropolis updates for each lattice site, split across four processors running completely independent trajectories. Averages and errors were calculated by comparing the results of each processor. The codes were based on existing codes used for light nuclei in three-dimensions and we have kept some of the same input parameters relevant for the light nuclei system. We use a mass of $m=$ $939$ MeV and keep the spatial lattice spacing fixed at $a=(40$ MeV$)^{-1}$. This corresponds with $\Lambda=\pi a^{-1}\simeq126$ MeV and cutoff energy $\Lambda^{2}/m=16.8$ MeV. Clearly these input parameters in raw form are not appropriate for atomic clusters. Therefore we translate of all of the parameters in terms of dimensionless numbers which can then be easily applied to any two-dimensional droplet system.
We have already defined the dimensionless ratio $z,$$$z=\frac{B_{N}}{\Lambda^{2}/m}=B_{N}ma^{2}\pi^{-2}.$$ $z$ measures the ratio of $B_{N}$ to the cutoff energy. In most cases it is clear which $N$ we are referring to and so we use the simple notation $z$. When there is some possibility of confusion we include the $N$ subscript, $z_{N}$.
We also define $\varepsilon$, $$\varepsilon=\frac{\pi a_{t}^{-1}}{\Lambda^{2}/m}=a_{t}^{-1}ma^{2}\pi^{-1}.$$ A small value for $\varepsilon$ indicates that there is a significant amount of high frequency regularization provided by the nonzero temporal lattice spacing $a_{t}$. A large value for $\varepsilon$ means that we are close to the Hamiltonian limit, $a_{t}\rightarrow0$. There is little or no regularization of high frequency modes and most of the regularization is provided by the momentum cutoff $\Lambda$.
We adjust the two-particle binding energy $B_{2}$ in order to study the finite cutoff dependence. Since we keep $\Lambda$ fixed, our value $B_{2}$ will decrease as go to larger values of $N$. For convenience we use the shorthand$$b_{N}=B_{N}/B_{2}$$ for the dimensionless ratio of the binding energies. For each data point we increase the spatial length and temporal extent of the lattice until the finite volume/time errors are clearly smaller than the statistical errors. The largest lattice system we simulate is $9\times9\times260.$
We have computed $b_{N}$ for $N\leq10$ for a wide range of values for $B_{2}$ using the $O(a^{4})$-improved action and $a_{t}=(20$ MeV$)^{-1}$, which corresponds with $\varepsilon=3.7$. The results are shown as a plot of $\ln(b_{N})$ versus $z$ in Fig. \[z\]. We see that there is considerable dependence on $z$. The dependence appears to be roughly linear in $z$ for $0.1<z<0.3$, and we have drawn interpolating lines. We note that since $\ln(b_{N})$ and $\ln(b_{N-1})$ have approximately the same slope, most of the $z$ dependence cancels in the combination $\ln(b_{N})-\ln(b_{N-1})$. This suggests that $f\left( z\right) $ as defined in (\[fz\]) is small. Much of the systematic cutoff errors can be cancelled in the ratio $b_{N}/b_{N-1}$by keeping $z$ the same for $b_{N}$ and $b_{N-1}$. From Fig. \[z\] we see that $b_{N}/b_{N-1}$ is about $10$ for $5\leq N\leq10$. Therefore scaling $B_{2}$ proportional to $10^{-N}$ as we probe the $N$-body droplet should keep $z$ approximately the same for these values of $N$.
\[ptb\]
[z.eps]{}
Next we calculated $b_{N}/b_{N-1}$ for $N\leq10$ using three different actions. We compared the standard action, the $O(a^{2})$-improved action, and the $O(a^{4})$-improved action, using $a_{t}=(20$ MeV$)^{-1}$ and $B_{2}=2\times10^{2-N}$ MeV. This corresponds with $\varepsilon=3.7$ and $z_{2}=1.2\times10^{1-N}$. The results are shown in Fig. \[action\]. We see about a $10\%$ variation among the three different actions, with the $O(a^{2})$- and $O(a^{4})$-improved actions agreeing slightly better with each other than with the standard action.
\[ptb\]
[different\_action.eps]{}
In Fig. \[b\] we plot $b_{N}/b_{N-1}$ using the $O(a^{4})$-improved action, $a_{t}=(20$ MeV$)^{-1}$, and three different sets of values for $B_{2}$: $\ B_{2}=3\times10^{2-N}$ MeV, $2\times10^{2-N}$ MeV, and $1\times10^{2-N}$ MeV. This corresponds with $\varepsilon=3.7$ and $z_{2}=1.8\times10^{1-N}$, $1.2\times10^{1-N}$, and $0.6\times10^{1-N}$ respectively.
\[ptb\]
[different\_B.eps]{}
The discrepancies for the different values of $B_{2}$ are at the $30\%$ level for small $N$, but as expected the errors decrease with increasing $N$.
We also studied the dependence of $b_{N}/b_{N-1}$ on the temporal lattice spacing $a_{t}$. We set $B_{2}=2\times10^{2-N}$ MeV and used the $O(a^{4})$-improved action with $a_{t}=(16$ MeV$)^{-1}$, $(20$ MeV$)^{-1}$, $(30$ MeV$)^{-1}$, and $(40$ MeV$)^{-1}$. This corresponds with $z_{2}=1.2\times10^{1-N}$ and $\varepsilon=3.0$, $3.7$, $5.6$, and $7.5$ respectively. Since $\varepsilon$ is rather large, $a_{t}$ has only a small effect on the ultraviolet regularization of the two-body interaction. Instead the importance of $a_{t}$ is as an auxiliary regulator on the implicit $N$-body contact interaction. The results are shown in Fig. \[at\].
\[ptb\]
[different\_at.eps]{}
The results appear to differ at about the $10-15\%$ level.
In Fig. \[all\] we combine all of the data shown in Figs. \[action\], \[b\], and \[at\]. For comparison we include the known results for $N=3$ [@Hammer:2004x]$,$ $N=4$ [@Platter:2004x]$,$ and $N\rightarrow\infty$ [@Hammer:2004x]. We draw two best fit curves with up to quadratic dependence on $1/N$. The known results were not included in this fit. The best fit curve using $1/N$ and $1/N^{2}$ gives a value$$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{b_{N}}{b_{N-1}}\simeq7.7,$$ while the best fit curve using only $1/N^{2}$ gives a value$$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{b_{N}}{b_{N-1}}\simeq8.8.$$ If we take these two results as approximate lower and upper bounds then we find$$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{b_{N}}{b_{N-1}}\simeq8.3(6).$$
\[ptb\]
[all.eps]{}
Conclusions
===========
We have studied the two-dimensional $N$-particle system with short range attraction using lowest-order lattice effective field theory. We discussed two aspects of the large-$N$ limit. The first is a technique that uses large-$N$ similarity under rescaling to cancel some of the nonzero range corrections from the ratio $B_{N}/B_{N-1}$. The other is the problem of a large implicit $N$-body contact interaction when many particles lie within a region the size of the range of the potential. We regulated this implicit $N$-body contact interaction on the lattice using a discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation. Using a heat bath/Metropolis algorithm we computed $B_{N}/B_{N-1}$ for $N\leq10$. Extrapolating to the large-$N$ limit we found$$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{B_{N}}{B_{N-1}}=8.3(6)\text{.}$$ This appears to be in agreement with the value $8.567$ found by [@Hammer:2004x]$.$
While we have measured the large-$N$ limit of $B_{N}/B_{N-1}$ to within $10\%$, we relied on large-$N$ similarity under rescaling to keep the finite cutoff errors in check. The $z$ dependence in Fig. \[z\] suggests that one needs to go beyond leading order to accurately describe all of the physics at large $N$. This competition between effective field theory expansions and the large-$N$ limit presents an interesting theoretical challenge. Since there are no known physical systems where we can experimentally measure the universal zero range behavior, the coefficients of the higher-dimensional operators must be set by numerical calculations. One technique perhaps is to use numerical renormalization group matching to relate the coefficients of higher-dimensional operators for different values of $mB_{2}\Lambda^{-2}$. However more study would be needed to see if this is a viable technique.
Acknowledgments: The author is grateful to Hans-Werner Hammer and Lucas Platter for discussions and for suggesting the problem. The author also thanks Thomas Schäfer for helpful discussions. This work is supported by the US Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-04ER41335.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
On établit des caractérisations intrinsèques des versions localisées-uniformes des espaces de Besov ${{B_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}}$, avec $p,q\in [1,+\infty]$, et de Lizorkin-Triebel ${{F_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}}$ avec $q\in [1,+\infty]$ et $p\in [1,+\infty[$, quel que soit le nombre réel $s>0$.\
We give intrinsic characterisations for the uniformly localized versions of the Besov spaces ${{B_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}}$, where $p,q\in [1,+\infty]$, and of the Lizorkin-Triebel spaces ${{F_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}}$, where $q\in [1,+\infty]$ and $p\in [1,+\infty[$, whatever be the real number $s>0$.
author:
- Salah Eddine Allaoui et Gérard Bourdaud
title: 'Localisation uniforme des espaces de Besov et de Lizorkin-Triebel'
---
[*Mots-clés:*]{} [Espaces de Besov, Espaces de Lizorkin-Triebel, Localisation uniforme.]{}
[*2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:*]{} [46E35.]{}
Introduction
============
À tout espace normé $E$ de fonctions sur ${{\mathbb{R}}^n}$, il est possible d’associer sa version localisée-uniforme. Il s’agit de l’espace, noté $E_{lu}$, des fonctions $f$ telles que $$\label{deflu} \sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \| (\tau_a\varphi)f\|_E< +\infty\,.$$ Ici $\tau_a$ désigne l’opérateur de translation, défini par $\tau_af(x):= f(x-a)$, et $\varphi$ est une fonction $C^\infty$ à support compact, positive, non nulle. Sous des hypothèses standard, rappelées au paragraphe \[local\], on peut montrer que $E_{lu}$ ne dépend aucunement du choix de la fonction auxiliaire $\varphi$.\
Les espaces localisés-uniformes jouent un rôle dans diverses questions d’analyse mathématique. Par exemple, si $E$ est une algèbre de Banach de fonctions, pour la multiplication usuelle, il est naturel de conjecturer que l’ensemble des multiplicateurs de $E$ est précisément $E_{lu}$ — conjecture confirmée dans le cas des espaces de Sobolev $H^s({{\mathbb{R}}^n})$ pour $s>n/2$, voir [@Bou_95 p. 58] et [@P p. 151]. Ils interviennent aussi dans la caractérisation des fonctions qui opèrent, par composition à gauche, sur certains espaces de fonctions. Ainsi, les fonctions de ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ dans ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ qui opèrent, en ce sens, sur l’espace de Sobolev critique $W^m_p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})$, où l’entier $m$ vérifie $m=n/p>1$, sont précisément celles dont les dérivées appartiennent localement-uniformément à $W^{m-1}_p({{\mathbb{R}}})$ [@BouIn]. L’extension de ce théorème aux espaces de Sobolev fractionnaires est une question ouverte. Cependant on a pu établir un résultat partiel [@GB-SA]: si une fonction opère sur l’espace de Besov $B^s_{p,q}({{\mathbb{R}}^n})$, avec $s=n/p>1$ et $q>1$, alors sa dérivée appartient localement-uniformément à $B^{s-1}_{p,q}({{\mathbb{R}}})$.\
Il semble dès lors pertinent de décrire les localisations uniformes des espaces de Sobolev fractionnaires de façon intrinsèque, c’est-à-dire sans recourir à une fonction auxiliaire telle que la fonction $\varphi$ utilisée dans (\[deflu\]). À cet égard, rappelons que, pour les espaces $L_p({{\mathbb{R}}}^n)_{lu}$, une telle description est bien connue, voir la proposition \[Lplu\]. C’est ce type de description, à l’aide d’intégrales portant sur les translatées d’une boule fixe, que nous mettrons en évidence pour les localisations uniformes des espaces de Sobolev fractionnaires.
Plan {#plan .unnumbered}
----
La section \[local\] sera dévolue à des généralités sur la localisation uniforme. Dans la section \[DBLT\], on rappellera les définitions des espaces Besov et de Lizorkin-Triebel et on énoncera les théorèmes principaux, qui seront établis dans la dernière section.
Notations et rappels {#notations-et-rappels .unnumbered}
--------------------
La norme d’une fonction $f$ dans l’espace de Lebesgue $L_p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})$ est notée $\|f\|_p$. Comme d’habitude $c, c_1,...$ désignera une constante positive pouvant dépendre de $n, s, p, q$ et des fonctions auxiliaires; sa valeur pourra changer d’une occurrence à l’autre. Rappelons une inégalité classique (voir, par exemple, [@Bou_95 II.20, p. 44]):
\[MALPHA\] Pour tout $q\in [1,+\infty[$ et tout réel $\alpha$, il existe $c>0$ tel que $$\sup _{0<t\leq 1/2} t^\alpha u(t)\leq c\left( \int_0^1 \left(t^\alpha u(t)\right)^q \frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}$$ pour toute fonction croissante $u$ sur l’intervalle $]0,1]$.
Généralités sur la localisation uniforme {#local}
========================================
Un espace de Banach de distributions (E.B.D.) sur ${{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ est un sous-espace vectoriel $E$ de $\mathcal{D'}({{\mathbb{R}}^n})$ muni d’une norme complète $\|-\|_E$ telle que l’injection canonique $E\hookrightarrow\mathcal{D'}({{\mathbb{R}}^n})$ soit continue. On dit que l’espace $E$ est un $\mathcal{D}({{\mathbb{R}}^n})$-[*module*]{} si $\phi f\in E$ pour tout $\phi\in\mathcal{D}({{\mathbb{R}}^n})$ et tout $f\in E$. Un E.B.D. $E$ est [*isométriquement invariant par translation*]{} si $\tau_af\in E$ et $\|\tau_af\|_E=\|f\|_E$ pour tout $f\in E$ et tout $a\in{{\mathbb{R}}^n}$.
\[luspace\] Soit $E$ un ${{\mathcal D}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}$-module isométriquement invariant par translation. Pour toute distribution $f$, les deux propriétés suivantes sont équivalentes:
\(i) Il existe une fonction positive non nulle $\varphi\in {{\mathcal D}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}$ vérifiant (\[deflu\]).
\(ii) Pour toute fonction $\varphi\in {{\mathcal D}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}$, on a la propriété (\[deflu\]).
[**Preuve.**]{} Voir [@Bou_95 p. 57].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Si une distribution $f$ satisfait l’une des deux conditions équivalentes de la proposition \[luspace\], on dit que $f$ appartient [*localement uniformément*]{} à $E$; l’ensemble de ces distributions est noté $E_{lu}$. Soit une fonction positive non nulle $\varphi\in {{\mathcal D}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}$. On montre facilement que $E_{lu}$ est un E.B.D. pour la norme $$\|f\|_{E_{lu}}:=\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \|(\tau_a\varphi)\,f\|_E \,.$$ De la preuve de la proposition \[luspace\], il résulte qu’à équivalence près, la norme de $E_{lu}$ ne dépend pas du choix de la fonction $\varphi$.\
Si $E$ est un $E.B.D.$ et $m$ un entier positif, on peut considérer [*l’espace de Sobolev $W^m(E)$ d’ordre $m$*]{} de base $E$, à savoir $$W^m(E):= \{ f\in {{\mathcal D}'({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\,:\, f^{(\alpha)} \in E\,\quad \mathrm{pour\,tout}\quad\, |\alpha|\leq m\}\,.$$ $W^m(E)$ est un E.B.D. pour la norme $$\|f\|_{W^m(E)}:= \sum_{|\alpha|\leq m} \|f^{(\alpha)}\|_E\,.$$
\[Sobolev\_m\] Si $E$ est un ${{\mathcal D}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}$-module, isométriquement invariant par translation, il en est de même pour $W^m(E)$ et on a
$$\left(W^m(E)\right)_{lu} = W^m\left(E_{lu}\right)\,,$$ avec des normes équivalentes.
[**Preuve.**]{} Elle résulte aisément de la formule de Leibniz et de la proposition \[luspace\].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Nous terminerons cette section en rappelant la description de $L_p({{\mathbb{R}}}^n)_{lu}$. La preuve facile est laissée au lecteur.
\[Lplu\] Soit $p\in[1,+\infty[$. Soit ${\mathbb B}$ une boule ouverte (ou un cube ouvert) dans ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$. Alors une fonction mesurable $f$ sur ${{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ appartient à $L_p({{\mathbb{R}}}^n)_{lu}$ si et seulement si
$$\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^n} \left( \int_{{\mathbb B}+a} |f(x)|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} <+\infty\,;$$ de plus l’expression ci-dessus est équivalente à la norme $\left\|f\right\|_{L_p({{\mathbb{R}}}^n)_{lu}}$.
Définitions des espaces fonctionnels et énoncés des théorèmes {#DBLT}
=============================================================
À toute fonction $f$, définie sur ${{\mathbb{R}}^n}$, et tout $h\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}$, on associe la fonction $\Delta_{h}f$, définie par $\Delta_{h}f:=\tau_{-h}f -f$. Pour tout $p\in [1,+\infty]$, tout ensemble borélien $A$ de ${{\mathbb{R}}^n}$, toute fonction mesurable $f$ sur ${{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ et tout $t>0$, on pose $$\omega_{p,A}(f,t):= \sup_{|h|\leq t} \left(\int_A \left|\Delta_{h}f(x)\right|^p {\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}\,,$$ $$\eta_{p,A}(f,t):= \sup_{|h|\leq t} \left(\int_A \left|\Delta^2_{h}f(x)\right|^p {\rm d}x \right)^{1/p}\,.$$ On note simplement $\omega_{p}:=\omega_{p,{{\mathbb{R}}^n}}$, de même pour $\eta.$
Soient $0<s<1$, $p,q\in [1,+\infty]$. L’espace ${B_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}$ est l’ensemble des fonctions $f$ vérifiant $$\|f\|_{{B_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}}:= \|f\|_p+\left(\int_0^{1}(t^{-s}\omega_{p}(f,t))^q \frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q} < + \infty\,.$$
Soient $0<s<1$, $q\in [1,+\infty]$, $1\leq p<\infty$. L’espace de Lizorkin-Triebel ${F_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}$ est l’ensemble des fonctions $f$ vérifiant $$\|f\|_{{F_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}}:= \|f\|_p+\left( \left(\int^1_{0}\left(t^{-s-n}\int_{|h|\leq t} |\Delta_{h}f(x)|^q\,{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{p/q}\,{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} < + \infty\,.$$
Rappelons qu’on obtient les mêmes espaces fonctionnels, avec des normes équivalentes, en remplaçant, dans les définitions précédentes, l’intégrale $\int_0^1$ par l’intégrale $\int_0^r$, où $r$ est n’importe quel réel positif fixé. Quand il n’y a pas lieu de distinguer entre les deux types d’espaces, $B$ ou $F$, nous posons ${E_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)} :={B_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}$ ou ${F_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}$. Les espaces d’ordre $1$, c’est-à-dire les espaces ${E_{{p},{q}}^{1}({\mathbb R}^n)}$, se définissent de la même façon, [*à condition de remplacer*]{} $\Delta_h$ par l’opérateur de différence seconde $\Delta_h^2$ (et donc, dans le cas Besov, $\omega$ par $\eta$). Les espaces d’ordre supérieur à $1$ sont, par définition, les espaces de Sobolev basés sur les espaces d’ordres compris entre $0$ et $1$:
\[ppr4\] Soient $s>1$ et $m$ l’entier tel que $m<s\leq m+1.$ Alors ${E_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}$ est l’ensemble des fonctions $f$ telles que $f^{(\alpha)}\in{E_{{p},{q}}^{s-m}({\mathbb R}^n)}$ pour tout $\left|\alpha\right|\leq m$. Cet espace est muni de la norme $$\sum_{ |\alpha|\leq m} \|f^{(\alpha)}\|_{{E_{{p},{q}}^{s-m}({\mathbb R}^n)}}\,.$$
Venons-en à la description intrinsèque des espaces localisés-uniformes. On se limitera au cas $0<s\leq 1$, puisqu’il suffit d’appliquer la proposition \[Sobolev\_m\] pour obtenir le cas général. Dans les énoncés suivants, ${\mathbb B}$ désignera une boule (ou un cube) fixé de ${{\mathbb{R}}^n}$. On supposera $p,q\in [1,+\infty]$ ($p<\infty$ dans le cas Lizorkin-Triebel).
\[besovlu\] Si $0<s<1$, alors ${B_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$ est l’ensemble des fonctions $f$ telles que $$\label{Besovlu}\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \left(\int_0^1 \left( t^{-s} \omega_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t)\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}+\left\|f\right\|_{L_p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})_{lu}}<+\infty\,.$$ De plus l’expression ci-dessus est une norme équivalente sur ${B_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$.
\[besovlus=1\] ${B_{{p},{q}}^{1}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$ est l’ensemble des fonctions $f$ telles que $$\label{Besovlus=1}\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \left(\int_0^1 \left( t^{-1} \eta_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t)\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}+\left\|f\right\|_{L_p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})_{lu}}<+\infty\,.$$ De plus l’expression ci-dessus est une norme équivalente sur ${B_{{p},{q}}^{1}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$.
\[Lizornlu\] Si $0<s<1$, alors ${F_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$ est l’ensemble des fonctions $f$ telles que $$\label{LLizornlu}\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}}\left\|\left(\int_0^1 \left( t^{-s-n}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|\Delta_{h}f(.)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}\right\|_{L_p({\mathbb B}+a)}+\left\|f\right\|_{L_p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})_{lu}}<+\infty\,.$$ De plus l’expression ci-dessus est une norme équivalente sur ${F_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$.
\[Lizornlus=1\] ${F_{{p},{q}}^{1}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$ est l’ensemble des fonctions $f$ telles que $$\label{LLizornlus=1}\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}}\left\|\left(\int_0^1 \left( t^{-n-1}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|\Delta^2_{h}f(.)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}\right\|_{L_p({\mathbb B}+a)}+\left\|f\right\|_{L_p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})_{lu}}<+\infty\,.$$ De plus l’expression ci-dessus est une norme équivalente sur ${F_{{p},{q}}^{1}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$.
Preuves des théorèmes
=====================
Sans perte de généralité, on peut supposer que ${\mathbb B}$ est la boule unité de ${{\mathbb{R}}^n}$. Dans cette section, on fixe deux fonctions $\varphi_0$ et $\varphi_1$ dans ${{\mathcal D}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}$, telles que:
- $0\leq \varphi_0\leq 1$, $\varphi_0$ est non nulle et portée par ${\mathbb B}/4$,
- $\varphi_1(x)=1$ sur $4{\mathbb B}$.
Preuve du théorème \[besovlu\]
------------------------------
On utilisera la formule suivante, valable pour tout $h\in{{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ et toutes fonctions $f$ et $g$ sur ${{\mathbb{R}}^n}$: $$\label{1diff}
\Delta_h(fg) = (\Delta_hf)(\tau_{-h}g)
+ f(\Delta_hg)\,.$$ Désignons par $A(f)$ le premier terme de l’inégalité (\[Besovlu\]).
### Étape 1
Soit $f$ une fonction telle que $A(f)<\infty$. Par la formule (\[1diff\]), on a, pour tous $a,h\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ et $|h|\leq t\leq 1/2$, $$\left(\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \left| \Delta_{h}( (\tau_a\varphi_0) f) (x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$ $$\leq \left(\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \left| \Delta_{h}f(x)\varphi_0(x+h-a)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}+
\left(\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^n}} |f(x)|^p\left| \Delta_{h} (\tau_a\varphi_0) (x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$ $$\leq \left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a} \left| \Delta_{h}f (x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} +
t\left\|\nabla\varphi_0\right\|_\infty\, \left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a} \left|f (x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$ $$\leq c_1\,\left( \omega_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t) +
\,t\, \|f\|_{L^p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})_{lu}}\right)\,.$$ Par la condition $s<1$, on voit que $$\left(\int_0^{1/2} \left( t^{-s} \omega_{p}((\tau_a\varphi_0)f,t)\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}$$ $$\leq c_1 \left(\left(\int_0^{1/2} \left( t^{-s} \omega_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t)\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}
+ \left(\int_0^{1/2} \left( t^{1-s} \right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q} \|f\|_{L^p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})_{lu}}\right).$$ L’expression ci-dessus étant majorée par $c_2A(f)$, pour une certaine constante $c_2$, il vient $$\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \|(\tau_a\varphi_0)f \|_{ {B_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}}\leq c_3 A(f)\,.$$
### Étape 2
Soit $f\in{B_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$. On voit aussitôt que $ \Delta_{h}((\tau_a\varphi_1)f)(x) = \Delta_{h}f(x)$ pour tout $a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}$, tout $x\in {\mathbb B}+a$, et tout $|h|\leq 1$. On en déduit aisément que $$A(f) \leq c_4 \sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \|(\tau_a\varphi_1)f \|_{ {F_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}}\,.$$
Preuve du théorème \[besovlus=1\]
---------------------------------
On désignera par $A(f)$ le premier terme de l’inégalité (\[Besovlus=1\]) et on posera $$M_{p,a}(f):= \sup_{0<t\leq 1/2} \,\frac{1}{t}\eta_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t)\,.$$
### Résultats préliminaires
On dispose des formules suivantes, où $k\in\mathbb{N^*}$, $h\in{{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ et où $f$ et $g$ sont des fonctions quelconques: $$\label{2diff}
\Delta^2_h(fg) = (\Delta^2_hf)(\tau_{-2h}g) + (\Delta^2_hg)(\tau_{-h}f)
+(\Delta_h f)(\Delta_{2h}g)\,,$$ $$\label{3diff}
\Delta_{h} = 2^{-k} \Delta_{2^kh} - \sum_{l=0}^{k-1} 2^{-l-1} \Delta^2_{2^lh}\, .$$ La première est immédiate, la seconde s’obtient facilement par récurrence sur $k$.
\[Marchaud\] Il existe $c>0$ tel que $$\omega_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t)\leq
ct\left\{ \left(\int_{2{\mathbb B}+a} |f(x)|^p\,{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} + M_{p,a}(f)\,|\ln t|
\right\}\,,$$ pour tout $0<t\leq 1/2,$ tout $a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ et toute fonction localement intégrable $f.$
[**Preuve.**]{} Le lemme est une variante de l’inégalité classique de Marchaud. On définit l’entier $k\geq 1$ par l’encadrement $2^{-k-1}<t\leq 2^{-k}.$ De la formule (\[3diff\]), on déduit, pour $|h|\leq t$, $$\left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a} \left| \Delta_{h}f(x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$ $$\leq 2^{-k}\left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a} \left| \Delta_{2^kh}f(x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}
+ \sum_{l=0}^{k-1} 2^{-l-1} \left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a} \left| \Delta^2_{2^lh}f(x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$ $$\leq 2^{-k+1}\,\left(\int_{2{\mathbb B}+a} |f(x)|^p\,{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} +\sum_{l=0}^{k-1} 2^{-l-1}(2^{l-k}M_{p,a}(f))\,,$$ $$\leq 4t\,\left(\int_{2{\mathbb B}+a} |f(x)|^p\,{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} +\frac{1}{\ln2}t\left|\ln t\right|M_{p,a}(f)\,,$$ ce qui conclut la preuve du lemme \[Marchaud\].
### Étape 1
Soit $f$ une fonction telle que $A(f)<\infty$. Par la formule (\[2diff\]), il vient, pour $\left|h\right|\leq t\leq1/4$,
$$\left(\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \left| \Delta^2_{h}( (\tau_a\varphi_0) f) (x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}\leq \left(\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \left| \Delta^2_{h}f(x)\varphi_0(x+2h-a)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$ $$+
\left(\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^n}} |f(x+h)|^p\left| \Delta^2_{h} (\tau_a\varphi_0) (x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$ $$+ \left(\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \left| \Delta_{h}f(x)(\varphi_0(x+2h-a)- \varphi_0(x-a))\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$$$\leq \left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a} \left| \Delta^2_{h}f (x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} +
c_1t^2 \left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a} \left|f (x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}
+c_2t\left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a} \left| \Delta_{h}f (x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$ $$\leq\,c_3( \eta_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t) +\,t^2\, \|f\|_{L^p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})_{lu}}+\,t\,\omega_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t))\,,$$ et donc $$\left(\int_0^{1/4} \left( t^{-1} \eta_{p}((\tau_a\varphi_0)f,t)\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}$$ $$\leq c_3 \left(\int_0^{1/4} \left( t^{-1} \eta_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t)\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q} + c_3\|f\|_{L^p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})_{lu}}\, \left( \int_0^{1/4} t^{q-1}{\rm d}t\right)^{1/q}$$ $$+c_3\left(\int_0^{1/4} \left(\omega_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t)\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}\,.$$ En conséquence $$\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \|(\tau_a\varphi_0)f \|_{ {B_{{p},{q}}^{1}({\mathbb R}^n)}}\leq c_4\left( A(f) +
\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}}\left(\int_0^{1/4} \left(\omega_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t)\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}\right)\,.$$ Grâce au lemme \[Marchaud\], on a, pour tout $a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}$, $$\left(\int_0^{1/4} \left(\omega_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t)\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}$$$$\leq c_5\|f\|_{L^p({{\mathbb{R}}^n})_{lu}}\, \left( \int_0^{1/4} t^{q-1}{\rm d}t\right)^{1/q}
+ c_6M_{p,a}(f)\, \left( \int_0^{1/4} t^{q-1}\, |\ln t|^q\,{\rm d}t\right)^{1/q}\,.$$ En appliquant le lemme \[MALPHA\] à la fonction croissante $t\mapsto \eta_{p,{\mathbb B}+a}(f,t)$, on conclut que $$\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \|(\tau_a\varphi_0)f \|_{ {B_{{p},{q}}^{1}({\mathbb R}^n)}} \leq c_7A(f)\,.$$
### Étape 2
Soit $f\in{B_{{p},{q}}^{1}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$. En procédant comme dans l’étape 2 de la preuve du théorème \[besovlu\], il vient $$A(f) \leq c_8 \|f\|_{{B_{{p},{q}}^{1}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}}\,.$$
Preuve du théorème \[Lizornlu\]
-------------------------------
On désignera par $A(f)$ le premier terme de l’inégalité (\[LLizornlu\]).
### Étape 1
Soit $f$ une fonction telle que $A(f)<\infty$. Par la formule (\[1diff\]), nous avons $$\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t} \left| \Delta_{h}( (\tau_a\varphi_0) f) (x)\right|{\rm d}h$$ $$\leq\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t} \left| \Delta_{h}f (x)\right| \,\varphi_0(x+h-a)\,{\rm d}h+\left|f(x)\right|\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t} \left| \Delta_{h} (\tau_a\varphi_0)(x)\right|{\rm d}h.$$ On obtient $$\left(\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^n}}\left(\int_0^{1/2} \left( t^{-s-n}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|\Delta_{h}( (\tau_a\varphi_0) f) (x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{p/q}{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} \,$$ $$\leq \left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a}\left(\int_0^{1/2} \left( t^{-s-n}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|\Delta_{h}f (x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{p/q}{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}\,+
c_1\left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a} \left|f (x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p},$$ ce qui nous donne $$\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \|(\tau_a\varphi_0)f \|_{ {F_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}} \leq c_2 A(f)\,.$$
### Étape 2
Supposons que $f\in{F_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$. En procédant comme dans l’étape 2 de la preuve du théorème \[besovlu\], il vient $$A(f)\leq c_3\, \|f \|_{ {F_{{p},{q}}^{s}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}}\,.$$
Preuve du théorème \[Lizornlus=1\]
----------------------------------
On désignera par $A(f)$ le premier terme de l’inégalité (\[LLizornlus=1\]).
### Étape 1
Soit $f$ une fonction telle que $A(f)<\infty$. Soit $$G(x):=\left(\int_0^{1} \left( t^{-n-1}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|\Delta^2_{h}f(x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}\,.$$ Par la formule (\[2diff\]), il vient, pour tous $a,x\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ et $t>0$, $$\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t} \left| \Delta^2_{h}( (\tau_a\varphi_0) f) (x)\right|{\rm d}h$$ $$\leq\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t} \left| \Delta^2_hf(x)\right| \,\varphi_0(x+2h-a)\,{\rm d}h+\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t} |f(x+h)|\left| \Delta^2_h (\tau_a\varphi_0) (x)\right|{\rm d}h$$ $$+ \int_{\left|h\right|\leq t} \left| \Delta_hf(x)\right| \left| \Delta_{2h}\tau_a\varphi_0(x)\right|{\rm d}h.$$ On en déduit, pour tout $a\in{{\mathbb{R}}^n}$, $$\left(\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^n}}\left(\int_0^{1/16} \left( t^{-n-1}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|\Delta^2_{h}( (\tau_a\varphi_0) f) (x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{p/q}{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$ $$\leq\left(\int_{\frac {\mathbb B}2+a}\left(\int_0^{1/16} \left( t^{-n-1}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|\Delta^2_{h}( (\tau_a\varphi_0) f) (x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{p/q}{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$$$\leq c_1(U(a)+V(a)+W(a))\,,$$ où $$U(a):=\left(\int_{\frac {\mathbb B}2+a}\left(\int_0^{1/16} \left( t^{-n-1}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|\Delta^2_{h}f(x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{p/q}{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} \,,$$ $$V(a):=\left(\int_{\frac {\mathbb B}2+a}\left(\int_0^{1/16} \left( t^{-n+1}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|f(x+h)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{p/q}{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} \,,$$ $$W(a):=\left(\int_{\frac {\mathbb B}2+a}\left(\int_0^{1/16} \left( t^{-n}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|\Delta_h f(x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{p/q}{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} \,.$$ On voit facilement que $$\label{U+V} U(a)+V(a)\leq c_2\left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a}G(x)^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p} +c_3\left\|f\right\|_{L_p({\mathbb B}+a) }
\,.$$ [*Estimation de W(a).*]{} Posons $$G_1(x):=\left(\int_0^{1/16} \left( t^{-n}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|\Delta_h f(x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\frac{{\rm d}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}.$$ En décomposant l’intervalle $]0,1/16]$ en intervalles dyadiques et en utilisant des majorations évi-dentes, on obtient $
G_1(x)\leq c_4G_2(x)$, où $$G_2(x):=\left(\sum_{j\geq4}\left(2^{jn}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq2^{-j}}\left|\Delta_h f(x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\right)^{1/q}.$$ Par le changement de variable $h'=2^{j-3}h,$ il vient $$G_2(x)=\left(\sum_{j\geq4}\left(\int_{\left|h\right|\leq1/8}\left|\Delta_{2^{-j+3}h} f(x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\right)^{1/q}.$$ Par (\[3diff\]), on a $$\Delta_{2^{-j+3}h} = 2^{-j+3} \Delta_{h} - \sum_{\ell=0}^{j-4} 2^{-l-1} \Delta^2_{2^{\ell-j+3}h}\,,$$ d’où $
G_2(x)\leq c_5\left(G_3(x)+G_4(x)\right),
$ avec $$G_3(x):=\left(\sum_{j\geq4}\left(2^{-j}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq1/8}\left|\Delta_h f(x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\right)^{1/q},$$ et $$G_4(x):=\left(\sum_{j\geq4}\left(\int_{\left|h\right|\leq1/8}\sum^{j-4}_{\ell=0}2^{-\ell-1}\left|\Delta^2_{2^{\ell-j+3}h} f(x)\right|{\rm d}h\right)^q\right)^{1/q}.$$ [*Estimation de $G_3$.*]{} On a aussitôt $$G_3(x)= c_6\int_{\left|h\right|\leq1/8}\left|\Delta_h f(x)\right|{\rm d}h.$$ L’inégalité de Minkowski nous donne, pour tout $a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}$, $$\left(\int_{\frac{{\mathbb B}}{2}+a}G_3(x)^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}\leq\,c_6\int_{\left|h\right|\leq1/8}\left\{\int_{\frac{{\mathbb B}}{2}+a}\left|\Delta_h f(x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right\}^{1/p}{\rm d}h$$ $$\leq\,c_6\int_{\left|h\right|\leq1/8}\left\{\int_{\frac{{\mathbb B}}{2}+a}\left|f(x+h)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right\}^{1/p}{\rm d}h+c_7\left(\int_{\frac{{\mathbb B}}{2}+a}\left|f(x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$
$$\leq\,c_6\int_{\left|h\right|\leq1/8}\left\{\int_{{\mathbb B}+a}\left|f(x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right\}^{1/p}{\rm d}h+c_7\left(\int_{\frac{{\mathbb B}}{2}+a}\left|f(x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}$$ $$\leq c_8\left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a}\left|f(x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}.$$ [*Estimation de $G_4$.*]{} Par le lemme \[MALPHA\], on a, pour tout $x\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ et $0<t\leq 1/2$, $$\label{G4}
\int_{\left|h\right|\leq t}\left|\Delta^2_{h} f(x)\right|{\rm d}h\leq c_9t^{n+1}G(x)\,.$$ En raison du plongement $\ell_1\hookrightarrow \ell_q$, on a $$G_4(x)\leq \sum_{j\geq4}\int_{\left|h\right|\leq1/8}\sum^{j-4}_{\ell=0}2^{-\ell-1}\left|\Delta^2_{2^{\ell-j+3}h} f(x)\right|{\rm d}h.$$ On vérifie facilement que $$\int_{\left|h\right|\leq1/8}\left|\Delta^2_{2^{\ell-j+3}h} f(x)\right|{\rm d}h=2^{-3n}\,2^{(j-\ell)n} \int_{\left|h\right|\leq2^{\ell-j}}\left|\Delta^2_{h} f(x)\right|{\rm d}h\,.$$ En combinant cette relation avec l’inégalité (\[G4\]), on obtient $$G_4(x)\leq c_{10}G(x)\sum_{j\geq4}\sum^{j-4}_{\ell=0}2^{-\ell-1}2^{\ell-j}=c_{11}G(x).$$ Il vient donc, pour tout $a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}$, $$\left(\int_{\frac{{\mathbb B}}{2}+a}G_4(x)^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}\leq c_{11}\left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a}G(x)^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}.$$ En tenant compte des estimations obtenues pour $G_3$ et $G_4,$ on peut conclure que l’expression $W(a)$ est estimée par $$\left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a}G(x)^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}+\left(\int_{{\mathbb B}+a}\left|f(x)\right|^p{\rm d}x\right)^{1/p}.$$ En combinant avec (\[U+V\]), on conclut que$$\sup_{a\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n}} \|(\tau_a\varphi_0)f \|_{{F_{{p},{q}}^{1}({\mathbb R}^n)}} \leq c_{12} A(f)\,.$$
### Étape 2
Supposons que $f\in{F_{{p},{q}}^{1}({\mathbb R}^n)}_{lu}$. En procédant comme dans l’étape 2 de la preuve du théorème \[besovlu\], il vient $$A(f)\leq c_{13} \|f\|_{ F^1_{p,q}({{\mathbb{R}}^n})_{lu}}\,.$$
[cc]{} S.E. Allaoui, G. Bourdaud. [*Composition dans les espaces de Besov critiques.*]{} Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse, Math. [**25**]{} (2016), 875–893.
G. Bourdaud. [*Localisations des espaces de Besov.*]{} Studia Math. [**90**]{} (1988), 153–163.
G. Bourdaud. [*Le calcul fonctionnel dans les espaces de Sobolev*]{}. Invent. Math. [**104**]{} (1991), 435–446.
G. Bourdaud. [*Analyse fonctionnelle dans l’espace Euclidien,*]{} 2ème édition, Pub. Math. Univ. Paris 7, [**23**]{} (1995).
J. Peetre. [*New thoughts on Besov spaces.*]{} Duke Univ. Math. Series I, Durham, N.C., 1976.
Salah Eddine Allaoui\
Département de Mathématique et Informatique\
Université de Laghouat\
Laghouat 03000\
Algérie\
[email protected]\
Gérard Bourdaud
Université Paris Diderot, I.M.J. - P.R.G (UMR 7586)
Bâtiment Sophie Germain
Case 7012
75205 Paris Cedex 13\
[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article, we give nonexistence and nonuniqueness results for the vacuum Einstein conformal constraint equations in the far from CMC case and also show that in some cases the equations of the conformal method for positive Yamabe metrics and with TT-tensor $\sigma \equiv 0$ have a non-trivial solution, thus answer a question by Maxwell [@MaxwellNonCMC].'
address: |
Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Physique Théorique Université de Tours\
UFR Sciences et Techniques\
Parc de Grandmont\
37200 Tours - FRANCE
author:
- 'The-Cang Nguyen'
date: 'April 27, 2015'
title:
- Nonexistence and Nonuniqueness Results for solutions to the Vacuum Einstein Conformal Constraint Equations
- 'A new point of view on the solutions to the [E]{}instein constraint equations with arbitrary mean curvature and small [TT]{}-tensor'
---
Introduction
============
Background
----------
In general relativity, a space-time is a $(n+1)-$dimensional Lorentzian manifold $(\mathcal{M},h)$ (i.e, $h$ has signature $-~+~+~...~+$), with $n\geq 3$ which satisfies the Einstein equations
$$\label{Eins.eq}
\mathrm{Ric}^h_{\mu\nu}-\frac{R_{h}}{2}h_{\mu\nu}=\frac{8\pi\mathcal{G}}{c^{4}}T_{\mu\nu},$$
where $\mathrm{Ric}^h$ and $R_{h}$ are respectively the Ricci and the scalar curvatures of of $h$, $\mathcal{G}$ is Newton’s constant, $c$ is the speed of light and $T$ is the stress-energy tensor of non-gravitational fields (i.e. matter fields, electromagnetic field...).\
Einstein equations are roughly speaking hyperbolic of order 2. Hence all solutions can be obtained from their initial values at some “time t=0”, the metric $\hat{g}$ induced on a Cauchy hypersurface $M\subset \mathcal{M}$, and its initial velocity, the second fundamental form $\hat{K}$ of the embedding $M\subset \mathcal{M}$. By the Gauss and Codazzi equations, the choice of $(M,\hat{g},\hat{K})$ from must satisfy the so-called Einstein constraint equations. In the vacuum case, i.e. when $T\equiv 0$, these equations are
$$\label{vacuum.ECE}
\begin{aligned}
R_{\hat{g}}-|\hat{K}|_{\hat{g}}^{2}+\left(\text{tr}_{\hat{g}}\hat{K}\right)^{2} &=0,\\
\hat{K}-d_{\hat{g}}~\text{tr}_{\hat{g}}\hat{K} &=0.
\end{aligned}$$
Constructing and classifying solutions of this system is an important issue. For a deeper discussion of , we refer the reader to the excellent review article [@BartnikIsenberg]. One of most efficient methods to find initial data satisfying is the conformal method developed by Lichnerowicz [@Li44] and Y. Choquet-Bruhat-Jr. York [@CBY80]. The idea of this method is to effectively parameterize the solutions to by some reasonable parts and then solve for the rest of the data. More precisely, we assume given some seed data: a Riemannian manifold $(M, g)$ which we will assume compact, a mean curvature $\tau$ (a function), a transverse-traceless tensor $\sigma$ (i.e. a symmetric, trace-free, divergence-free $(0,2)$-tensor). Then we look for a positive function $\varphi$ and a $1-$form $W$ such that $$\hat{g} =\varphi^{N-2}g,\quad
\hat{K}=\frac{\tau}{n}\varphi^{N-2}g + \varphi^{-2} (\sigma+LW)$$ is a solution to the vacuum Einstein constraint equations . Here $N=\frac{2n}{n-2}$ and $L$ is the conformal Killing operator defined by $$LW_{ij}=\nabla_{i} W_{j}+\nabla_{j}W_{i}-\frac{2}{n} \nabla^k W_k g_{ij},$$ where $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection associated to the metric $g$.\
Equations can be reformulated in terms of $\varphi$ and $W$ as follows:
\[CE\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta_{g} \varphi + R_{g} \varphi &=& -\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2} \varphi^{N-1} + |\sigma+LW|_{g}^{2}\varphi^{-N-1} \quad [\text{Lichnerowicz equation}],\\
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}LW &=& \frac{n-1}{n}\varphi^{N} d\tau\qquad\qquad\quad ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[\text{vector equation}],\end{aligned}$$
where $\Delta_{g}$ is the nonnegative Laplace operator and $L^{*}$ is the formal $L^{2}-$adjoint of $L$.
These coupled equations are called *the conformal constraint equations*. During the past decades, many existence and uniqueness results for were proven. They depend on the Yamabe invariant $\mathcal{Y}_{g}$ of the metric $g$ defined by $$\mathcal{Y}_{g}=\inf_{\substack{f\in C^{\infty}(M)\\f\nequiv 0}}\frac{\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\int_{M}{|\nabla f|^{2}dv}+\int_{M}{Rf^{2}}}{||f||^{2}_{L^{N}(M)}}.$$
When $\tau$ is constant, the system becomes uncoupled (since $d\tau\equiv 0$ in the vector equation) and a complete description of the situation was achieved by J. Isenberg [@Isenberg]. The near CMC case (i.e. when $d\tau$ is small) was addressed soon after. Most results can be found in [@BartnikIsenberg]. For arbitrary $\tau$ however, the situation appears much harder and only two methods exist to tackle this case. The first one, obtained by Holst-Nagy-Tsogtgerel [@HNT2] and Maxwell [@MaxwellNonCMC], shows that the system admits a solution, provided $g$ has positive Yamabe invariant and $\sigma\nequiv 0$ is small enough. The second one, introduced by Dahl-Gicquaud-Humbert [@DahlGicquaudHumbert], states that if $\tau$ has constant sign and if *the limit equation* $$\label{limit.eq}
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}LV=\alpha\sqrt{\frac{n-1}{n}}|LV|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}$$ has no non-zero solution $V$, for all values of the parameter $\alpha \in [0, 1]$, then the set of solutions $(\varphi, W)$ to is not empty and compact. This criterion holds true e.g. when $(M, g)$ has $\mathrm{Ric} \leq -(n-1)g$, with $\left\|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right\|_{L^\infty} < \sqrt{n}$ (see also [@GicquaudSakovich] for an extension of this result to asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds). An unifying point of view of theses results is given in [@GicquaudNgo] and [@Nguyen].\
Conversely, nonexistence and nonuniqueness results for are fairly rare. We refer to arguments of Rendall, as presented in [@IsenbergOMurchadha], Holst-Meier [@HolstMeierNonuniqueness], and Dahl-Gicquaud-Humbert [@DahlGicquaudHumbertNonExistence] for attempts to obtain such results. In the vacuum case, the only model of nonuniqueness of solutions is constructed on the $n-$torus by D. Maxwell [@MaxwellConformalParameterization] while the only nonexistence result, achieved by J. Isenberg-Murchadha [@IsenbergOMurchadha] and later strengthened in [@DahlGicquaudHumbert] and [@GicquaudNgo], states that the system with $\sigma\equiv 0$ has no solution when $\mathcal{Y}_{g}\geq 0$ and $d\tau/\tau$ is small enough. This assertion together with experimentations on the torus led D. Maxwell to pose an interesting question whether the non-zero assumption of $\sigma$ is a necessary condition for existence of solution to the conformal equations with positive Yamabe invariant (see [@MaxwellConformalParameterization]).\
In this article based on an idea from [@GicquaudNgo], we give another version of the main theorem in [@DahlGicquaudHumbert] and [@Nguyen], which allows $\alpha$ in the limit equation to be set to $1$. Next we give seed data in the far from CMC case for which the system has no solution. As a direct consequence of this results, we exhibit cases of nonuniqueness of solutions and give an answer to Maxwell’s question .
Statement of results
--------------------
Let $M$ be a compact manifold of dimension $n\geq 3$, our goal is to find solutions to the vacuum Einstein equations using the conformal method. The given data on $M$ consist in $$\label{condintial}
\begin{aligned}
&\bullet~~\mbox{a Riemannian metric $g\in C^{2},$}\\
&\bullet~~\mbox{a function $\tau\in W^{1,p}$,}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\
&\bullet~~\mbox{a symmetric, trace- and divergence-free $(0,2)-$tensor $\sigma\in W^{1,p}$,}
\end{aligned}$$ with $p>n$. And one is required to find $$\begin{aligned}
&\bullet~~\mbox{a positive function $\varphi\in W^{2,p}$,}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\
&\bullet~~\mbox{a $1-$form $W\in W^{2,p}$,}
\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy the conformal constraint equations . We also assume that $$\label{condinitial2}
\begin{aligned}
&\bullet~~\mbox{$\tau>0$,}\\
&\bullet~~\mbox{$(M,g)$ has no conformal Killing vector field,}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\
&\bullet~~\mbox{$\sigma\nequiv 0$}.
\end{aligned}$$
We use standard notations for function spaces, such as $L^{p}$, $C^{k}$, and Sobolev spaces $W^{k,p}$. It will be clear from the context if the notation refers to a space of functions on $M$, or a space of sections of some bundle over $M$. For spaces of functions which embed into $L^{\infty}$, the subscript $+$ is used to indicate the cone of positive functions.\
\
We will sometimes write, for instance, $C(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2})$ to indicate that a constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$.\
After briefly sketching basic facts on the conformal constraint equations , in Section 3 we use the Leray-Schauder fixed point theorem introduced in [@Nguyen] to obtain the main result of this article, which is another version of [@DahlGicquaudHumbert Theorem 1.1] and of [@Nguyen Theorem 3.3]:
\[theoremofDHG\] Let data be given on $M$ as specified in and assume that conditions hold. Then at least one of the following assertions is true
- The conformal constraint equations admit a solution $(\varphi,W)$ with $\varphi>0$. Furthermore, the set of solutions $(\varphi,W)\in W_{+}^{2,p}\times W^{2,p}$ is compact.
- There exists a nontrivial solution $V\in W^{2,p}$ to the limit equation $$\label{limit_non_parameter}
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}LV=\sqrt{\frac{n-1}{n}}|LV|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}.$$
- For any continuous function $f>0$ the (modified) conformal constraint equations
\[modified\_CE\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta \varphi+f\varphi&=&-\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}\varphi^{N-1}+|LW|^{2}\varphi^{-N-1}\\
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}LW&=&\frac{n-1}{n}\varphi^{N}d\tau
\end{aligned}$$
have a (non-trivial) solution $(\varphi,W)\in W^{2,p}_{+}\times W^{2,p}$. Moreover if $\mathcal{Y}_{g}>0$, there exists a sequence $\{t_{i}\}$ converging to $0$ s.t. the conformal constraint equations associated to data $(g,t_{i}\tau,\sigma)$ have at least two solutions.
Comparing with the original version of Dahl-Gicquaud-Humbert, the price to pay to control of the parameter ($\alpha=1$) is the addition of $(iii)$. However, we will see that this assertion is necessary (see Theorem \[Theorem.nonexistence\] below).\
In Section 4 we present several applications of Theorem \[theoremofDHG\]. The basic idea of these applications is to seek initial data such that neither $(i)$ nor $(ii)$ in Theorem \[theoremofDHG\] holds. It follows then that $(iii)$ is satisfied. In this approach, one of our main result is the following:
\[Theorem.nonexistence\](***Nonexistence of solution***) Let data be given on $M$ as specified in and assume that conditions hold. Furthermore, assume that there exists $c>0$ s.t. $\left|L\left(\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right)\right|\leq c\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}$. Let $V$ be a given open neighborhood of the critical set of $\tau$. If $\sigma\nequiv 0$ and $\text{supp}\{\sigma\}\subsetneq M\setminus V$, then both of the conformal constraint equations and the limit equation associated to the seed data $(g,\tau^{a},k\sigma)$ has no (nontrivial) solution, provided $a$ and $k$ are large enough.
We point out that [@DahlGicquaudHumbert Proposition 1.6] provides the existence of such assumptions. In fact, our proof for Theorem \[Theorem.nonexistence\] is an extension of arguments in [@DahlGicquaudHumbert Proposition 1.6].\
As direct consequences of Theorem \[theoremofDHG\] and \[Theorem.nonexistence\], we also obtain the following results.
\[Maxwell’squestion\](***An answer to Maxwell’s question***) Let $(M,g,\tau)$ be given as in Theorem \[Theorem.nonexistence\]. If $\mathcal{Y}_{g}>0$, then the conformal constraint equations associated to $(g,\tau^{a},0)$ have a (nontrivial) solution for all $a>0$ large enough.
\[Theorem.nonunique\](***Nonuniqueness of solutions***) Assume that $(M,g,\tau,\sigma,a,k)$ is given as in Theorem \[Theorem.nonexistence\]. If $\mathcal{Y}_{g}>0$, then there exists a sequence $\{t_{i}\}$ converging to $0$ s.t. the conformal constraint equations associated to initial data $(g,t_{i}\tau^{a},k\sigma)$ have at least two solutions.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The author wishes to express his gratitude to Romain Gicquaud for his help in proving Theorem \[theoremofDHG\] and his great patience and care in the proofreading of preliminary versions of this article. The author would also like to thank Emmanuel Humbert for his advice and helpful discussions.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section, we review some standard facts about the Lichnerowicz equation on a compact $n-$manifold $M$: $$\label{Lichnerowicz}
\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta u+Ru+\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}u^{N-1}=\frac{w^{2}}{u^{N+1}}.$$ Given a function $w$ and $p>n$, we say that $u_{+}\in W_{+}^{2,p}$ is a *supersolution* to if $$\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta u_{+}+Ru_{+}+\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}u_{+}^{N-1}\geq\frac{w^{2}}{u_{+}^{N+1}}.$$ A *subsolution* is defined similarly with the reverse inequality.
\[method sub-super\](see [@MaxwellRoughCompact]) Assume $g\in W^{2,p}$ and $w,\tau\in L^{2p}$ for some $p>n$. If $u_{-},u_{+}\in W_{+}^{2,p}$ are respectively a subsolution and a supersolution to associated with a fixed $w$ such that $u_{-}\leq u_{+}$, then there exists a solution $u\in W_{+}^{2,p}$ to such that $u_{-}\leq u\leq u_{+}$.
\[maxwell1\](see [@Isenberg] or [@MaxwellRoughCompact]) Assume $w,\tau\in L^{2p}$ and $g\in W^{2,p}$ for some $p>n$. Then there exists a positive solution $u\in W^{2,p}_{+}$ to if and only if one of the following assertions is true.
- $\mathcal{Y}_{g}>0$ and $w\nequiv 0$,
- $\mathcal{Y}_{g}=0$ and $w\nequiv 0$, $\tau\nequiv 0$,
- $\mathcal{Y}_{g}<0$ and there exists $\hat{g}$ in the conformal class of $g$ such that $R_{\hat{g}}=-\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}$,
- $\mathcal{Y}_{g}=0$ and $w\equiv 0$, $\tau\equiv 0.$
In Cases $1-3$ the solution is unique. In Case $4$ any two solutions are related by a scaling by a positive constant multiple. Moreover, Case $3$ holds if $\mathcal{Y}_{g}<0$ and the set of zero-points of $\tau$ has zero Lebesgue measure (see [@Rauzy] or [@Aubin Theorem 6.12]). In particular, existence and uniqueness are guaranteed if $\tau>0$ and $w\nequiv 0$ independently of $\mathcal{Y}_{g}$
The main technique used to prove the theorem above is the conformal covariance of .
\[maxwell2\] (see [@MaxwellNonCMC Lemma 1]) Assume $g\in W^{2,p}$ and $w,\tau\in L^{2p}$ for some $p>n$. Assume also that $\psi\in W^{2,p}_{+}$. Define $$\hat{g}=\psi^{\frac{4}{n-2}}g,~~~\hat{w}=\psi^{-N}w,~~~\hat{\tau}=\tau.$$ Then $u$ is a supersolution (resp. subsolution) to if and only if $\hat{u}=\psi^{-1}u$ is a supersolution (resp. subsolution) to the conformally transformed equation $$\label{Lichnerowicz2}
\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta_{\hat{g}} \hat{u}+R_{\hat{g}}\hat{u}+\frac{n-1}{n}\hat{\tau}^{2}\hat{u}^{N-1}=\frac{\hat{w}^{2}}{\hat{u}^{N+1}}.$$ In particular, $u$ is a solution to if and only if $\hat{u}$ is a solution to .
From the techniques in [@GicquaudNgo], we get the following remark.
\[assumptionR\] Theorem \[maxwell1\] guarantees that given any $w\in L^{2p}\setminus \{0\}$, there exists a unique corresponding solution $u\in W^{2,p}_{+}$ to . In addition, by direct calculation, we compute for any $k\geq N$ $$\int_{M}{\hat{u}^{k}dv_{\hat{g}}}=\int_{M}{\psi^{N-k}u^{k}dv_{g}}~~\mbox{and}~~\int_{M}{\hat{w}^{k}dv_{\hat{g}}}=\int_{M}{\psi^{N(1-k)}w^{k}dv_{g}},$$ where $(\hat{g},\hat{u},\hat{w})$ is as in Lemma \[maxwell2\]. It follows that $$(\max\psi)^{\frac{N-k}{k}}||u||_{L^{k}_{g}}\leq||\hat{u}||_{L^{k}_{\hat{g}}}\leq (\min\psi)^{\frac{N-k}{k}}||u||_{L^{k}_{g}}$$ and $$(\max\psi)^{\frac{N(1-k)}{k}}||w||_{L^{k}_{g}}\leq||\hat{w}||_{L^{k}_{\hat{g}}}\leq (\min\psi)^{\frac{N(1-k)}{k}}||w||_{L^{k}_{g}}.$$ Without loss of generality, from now on we may assume moreover that $R>0$, $R\equiv 0$ or $R=-\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}$ depending on the sign of $\mathcal{Y}_{g}$ (in the case $\mathcal{Y}_{g}<0$, we refer to Case $3$ of Lemma \[maxwell1\]).
The following lemma will be used all along the paper.
(see [@Nguyen Lemma 2.6])\[maxpriw\] Assume that $v,~u$ are respectively a supersolution (resp. subsolution) and a positive solution to associated with a fixed $w$, then $$v\geq u~(\mbox{resp. $\leq$}).$$ In particular, assume $u_{0}$ (resp. $u_{1}$) is a positive solution to associated to $w=w_{0}$ (resp. $w_{1}$). Assume moreover $w_{0}\leq w_{1}$, then $u_{0}\leq u_{1}$.
We will prove the supersolution case, the remaining cases are similar. Assume that $v,u$ are a supersolution and a positive solution respectively of associated to a fixed $w$. Since $u$ is a solution, $u$ is also a subsolution, and hence, as easily checked, so is $tu$ for all constant $t\in (0,1]$. Since $\min v>0$, we now take $t$ small enough s.t. $tu\leq v$. By Proposition \[method sub-super\], we then conclude that there exists a solution $u'\in W^{2,p}$ of satisfying $tu\leq u'\leq v$. On the other hand, by uniqueness of positive solutions of given by Theorem \[maxwell1\], we obtain that $u=u'$, and hence get the desired conclusion.
\[link\_f\] In the next section, we will study a modified version of : $$\label{current_equation}
\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta u+\left(tR+(1-t)f\right)u+\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}u^{N-1}=\frac{w^{2}}{u^{N+1}}$$ where $t\in [0,1]$ is a parameter and $f>0$ is a given continuous function. Since $(f,t)\in C^{0}_{+}\times [0,1]$, standard facts stated above are still valid for this equation. For instance, as $f$ is replaced by $\hat{f}=\psi^{-\frac{4}{n-2}}f$, the conformal covariance in Lemma \[maxwell2\] holds in our situation.
As a second example, we will see that existence and uniqueness of solution given in Theorem \[maxwell1\] with $\mathcal{Y}_{g}<0$ (i.e. $R<0$ by Remark \[assumptionR\]) is still true here. In fact, assume that $w\in L^{2p}\setminus\{0\}$. Then let $\psi_{f}>0$ be the unique positive solution to $$\label{subsolution_given}
\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta u+R_{f}u+\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}u^{N-1}=\frac{w^{2}}{u^{N+1}}$$ with $R_{f}=\sup_{t}\left(\max\{tR+(1-t)f\}\right)>0$ (here existence and uniqueness of $\psi_{f}$ is proven similarly to Case 1 of Theorem \[maxwell1\]). It is easy to see that $\psi_{f}$ is a subsolution to . On the other hand, let $\psi$ be the unique positive solution to the corresponding original Lichnerowicz equation . Since $f>0$ and $t\in [0,1]$, $\psi$ is a supersolution to , and then the (modified) Lichnerowicz equation admits a solution by the method of sub-and super-solution (note that $\psi$ is also a supersolution to , then $\psi\geq \psi_{f}$ by Lemma \[maxpriw\]). Uniqueness of solution follows by the same method as in [@MaxwellRoughCompact Proposition 4.4]. Similarly, it is not difficult to show that Lemma \[maxpriw\] remains valid for the (modified) Lichnerowicz equation by the same argument.
Proof of Theorem \[theoremofDHG\]
=================================
In this section, we introduce the Leray-Schauder fixed point theorem used in [@Nguyen] and obtain another version of the main theorem in [@DahlGicquaudHumbert] and [@Nguyen]. We first recall the Leray-Schauder fixed point theorem (see e.g. [@GilbargTrudinger Theorem 11.6]).
(**Leray-Schauder fixed point**)\[schaefer\] Let $X$ be a Banach space and assume that $$T:~X\times [0,1]\rightarrow X$$ is a continuous compact operator, satisfying $T(x,0)=0$ for all $x\in X$. If the set $$K=\left\{x\in X|~~\exists t\in[0,1]~\mbox{such that}~x=T(x,t)\right\}$$ is bounded, then $T(.,1)$ has a fixed point.
Before going further, we make the following remark:
\[change\_variation\] $(\varphi,W)$ is a solution to the conformal constraint equations w.r.t. the seed data $(g,\tau,\sigma)$ if and only if $\left(C^{-1}\varphi,C^{-\frac{N+2}{2}}W\right)$ is a solution to the conformal constraint equation w.r.t. the seed data $\left(g,C^{\frac{N-2}{2}}\tau,C^{-\frac{N+2}{2}}\sigma\right)$ for any constant $C>0$.
We divide the proof into three steps\
***Step 1.** Construction of a continuous compact operator:* Given any continuous function $f>0$, we define the map $T_{f}:~L^{\infty}\times [0,1]\rightarrow L^{\infty}$ as follows. For each $(\varphi,t)\in L^{\infty}\times [0,1]$, there exists a unique $W_{\varphi} \in W^{2,p}$ such that $$\label{vectorequation}
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}LW_{\varphi}=\frac{n-1}{n}\varphi^{N}d\tau,$$ and, by Remark \[link\_f\], there is a unique $\psi_{\varphi, t} \in W^{2,p}_{+}$ satisfying $$\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta \psi_{\varphi, t}+\left[tR+(1-t)f\right]\psi_{\varphi, t} = -\frac{n-1}{n}t^{2N} \tau^{2} \psi_{\varphi, t}^{N-1} + |\sigma+LW_{\varphi}|^{2}\psi_{\varphi, t}^{-N-1}.$$ We define $$T_{f}(\varphi,t):= t \psi_{\varphi, t}.$$
Following [@MaxwellNonCMC] and [@DahlGicquaudHumbert], the mapping $G:~L^{\infty}\rightarrow C^{1}$ defined by $G(\varphi)=W_{\varphi}$, with $W_{\varphi}$ uniquely determined by is continuous and compact. Thus, to show that $T_{f}$ is compact and continuous, it suffices to prove the continuity of $\hat{T}_{f}:~C^{1}\times [0,1]\rightarrow W^{2,p}_{+}$ defined by $\hat{T}_{f}(W,t)=\psi$, where
$$\label{modified.Lichnerowicz}
\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta\psi + \left[tR+(1-t)f\right]\psi=-\frac{n-1}{n}t^{2N}\tau^{2}\psi^{(N-1)}+|\sigma+LW|^{2}\psi^{-N-1}.$$
We combine the techniques from [@DahlGicquaudHumbert Lemma 2.3] and [@Nguyen Proposition 3.6] to prove that $\hat{T}_{f}$ is continuous. Set $u=\ln{\hat{T}_{f}(W,t)}$. We have from the definition of $\hat{T}_{f}$ that $$\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\left(\Delta u-|d u|^{2}\right)+\left[tR+(1-t)f\right]=-\frac{n-1}{n}t^{2N}\tau^{2}e^{(N-2)u}+|\sigma+LW|^{2}e^{-(N+2)u}.$$
Next, we prove that $\ln\circ\hat{T}_{f}$ is a $C^{1}-$map through the implicit function theorem. In fact, define $F:C^{1}\times [0,1]\times W^{2,p}\rightarrow L^{p}$ by $$F(W,t,u)=\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\left(\Delta u-|d u|^{2}\right)+\left[tR+(1-t)f\right]+\frac{n-1}{n}t^{2N}\tau^{2}e^{(N-2)u}-|\sigma+LW|^{2}e^{-(N+2)u}.$$ It is clear that $F$ is $C^1$ and, under our assumptions $u = \ln\left(\hat{T}_{f}(W,t)\right)$ is the unique solution to $F\left(W,t,u\right)=0$. A standard computation shows that the Fréchet derivative of $F$ w.r.t. $u$ is given by $$F_{u}(W,t)(v)=\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\left(\Delta v-\langle du,dv \rangle\right)+\frac{(n-1)(N-2)}{n}t^{2N}\tau^{2}e^{(N-2)u}v+(N+2)|\sigma+LW|^{2}e^{-(N+2)u}v.$$ We first note that $F_{u}\in C\left(C^{1}\times [0,1], L(W^{2,p},L^{2p})\right)$, where $L(W^{2,p}, L^{2p})$ denotes the Banach space of all linear continuous maps from $W^{2,p}$ into $L^{2p}$. In particular, setting $u_{0}=\ln\left(\hat{T}_{f}(W,t)\right)$ we have $$F_{u_{0}}(W,t)(v)=\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\left(\Delta v-\langle du_{0},dv \rangle\right)+\left(\frac{(n-1)(N-2)}{n}t^{2N}\tau^{2}e^{(N-2)u_{0}}+(N+2)|\sigma+LW|^{2}e^{-(N+2)u_{0}}\right)v.$$ Since $$\int_{M}{{|\sigma+LW|}^{2}e^{-(N+2)u_{0}}dv}\geq e^{-(N+2)\max |u_{0}|}\int_{M}{{|\sigma+LW|}^{2}dv}=e^{-(N+2)\max |u_{0}|}\left(\int_{M}{{|\sigma|}^{2}dv}+\int_{M}{{|LW|}^{2}dv}\right)>0,$$ the non-negative term $\left(\frac{(n-1)(N-2)}{n}t^{2N}\tau^{2}e^{(N-2)u_{0}}+(N+2)|\sigma+LW|^{2}e^{-(N+2)u_{0}}\right)$ is not identically $0$. Then we can conclude by the maximum principle that $F_{u_{0}}(W,t):~W^{2,p}\rightarrow L^{2p}$ is an isomorphism (see [@GilbargTrudinger Theorem 8.14]). The implicit function theorem then implies that $\ln\circ\hat{T}_{f}$ is a $C^{1}-$function in a neighborhood of $(W,t)$, which proves our claim.\
***Step 2.** Application of the Leray-Schauder fixed point theorem:* We now set $$K=\left\{\varphi\in L^{\infty}|~~\exists
t\in[0,1]~\mbox{such that}~\varphi=T_{f}(\varphi,t)\right\}.$$ By the Leray-Schauder fixed point theorem, if $K$ is bounded, then the system associated to $(g,\tau,\sigma)$ admits a solution, which is our first assertion.\
Assume from now on that $K$ is unbounded. So there exists a sequence $(\varphi_{i}, W_i, t_{i})$ satisfying
\[modified\_CE\_with\_t\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta \varphi_{i}+\left[t_{i}R+(1-t_{i})f\right]\varphi_{i}&=&-\frac{n-1}{n}t_{i}^{2N}\tau^{2}\varphi_{i}^{N-1}+|\sigma+LW_{i}|^{2}\varphi_{i}^{-N-1}\\
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}LW_{i}&=&\frac{n-1}{n}t^{N}_{i}\varphi_{i}^{N}d\tau,
\end{aligned}$$
with $||\varphi_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}\to +\infty$ (see [@Nguyen Theorem 3.3 or Proposition 3.6]).We need to discuss following four possibilities.
- *Case 1. (after passing to a subsequence) $t_{i}\to t_{0}>0$:* We argue similarly to [@DahlGicquaudHumbert Theorem 1.1] or [@Nguyen Theorem 3.3] to obtain existence of a nontrivial solution $V\in W^{2,p}$ to the limit equation $$-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}LV=\sqrt{\frac{n-1}{n}}|LV|\frac{d\tau}{\tau},$$ which is our second assertion. In fact, we set $\gamma_{i}=||\varphi_{i}||_{\infty}$ and rescale $\varphi_{i},~W_{i}$ and $\sigma$ as follows: $$\widetilde{\varphi}_{i}=\gamma_{i}^{-1}\varphi_{i},~~\widetilde{W}_{i}=\gamma_{i}^{-N}W_{i},~~\widetilde{\sigma}_{i}=\gamma_{i}^{-N}\sigma.$$ Note that by assumption $\gamma_{i}=||\varphi_{i}||_{\infty}\to \infty$ as $i\to\infty$. The system may be rewritten as
\[rescale\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\gamma_{i}^{N-2}}\left[\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta\widetilde{\varphi}_{i}+\left(t_{i}R+(1-t_{i})f\right)\widetilde{\varphi}_{i}\right]&=&-\frac{n-1}{n}t_{i}^{2N}\tau^{2}\widetilde{\varphi}_{i}^{N-1}+|\widetilde{\sigma}+L\widetilde{W}_{i}|^{2}\widetilde{\varphi}_{i}^{-N-1}\\
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}L\widetilde{W}_{i}&=&\frac{n-1}{n}t^{N}_{i}\widetilde{\varphi}^{N}_{i}d\tau.
\end{aligned}$$
Since $||\widetilde{\varphi}_{i}||_{\infty}=1$, we conclude from the vector equation that $\left(\widetilde{W}_{i}\right)_{i}$ is bounded in $W^{2,p}$ and then by the Rellich theorem, (after passing to a subsequence) $\widetilde{W}_{i}$ converges in the $C^{1}$-norm to some $\widetilde{W}_{\infty}$. We now prove that $$\label{converging}
\widetilde{\varphi}_{i}\to\widetilde{\varphi}_{\infty}\coloneqq\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{n-1}}\frac{|L\widetilde{W}_{\infty}|}{t_{0}^{N}\tau}\right)^{\frac{1}{N}} ~~~\mbox{in $L^{\infty}$.}$$ Note that if such a statement is proven, passing to the limit in the vector equation, we see that $\widetilde{W}_{\infty}$ is a solution to the limit equation . On the other hand, since $||\widetilde{\varphi}_{i}||_{\infty}=1$ for all $i$, we have $||\widetilde{\varphi}_{\infty}||_{\infty}=1$ and, in particular, $\widetilde{W}_{\infty}\nequiv 0$ from . Therefore, the non-triviality of $W_{\infty}$ is obtained, which proves the second assertion.\
\
Given $\epsilon>0$, since $\frac{|L\widetilde{W}_{\infty}|}{\tau}\in C^{0}$, we can choose $\widetilde{\omega}\in C_{+}^{2}$ s.t. $$\label{omegaandW}
\biggl|\widetilde{\omega}-\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{n-1}}\frac{|L\widetilde{W}_{\infty}|}{t_{0}^{N}\tau}\right)^{\frac{1}{N}}\biggr|< \frac{\epsilon}{2}.$$ To show , it suffices to show that $$|\widetilde{\varphi}_{i}-\widetilde{\omega}|\leq \frac{\epsilon}{2}$$ for all $i$ large enough. We argue by contradiction. Assume that it is not true. We first consider the case when (after passing to a subsequence) there exists a sequence $(m_{i})\in M$ s.t. $$\label{omegaandpsi}
\widetilde{\varphi}_{i}(m_{i})>\widetilde{\omega}(m_{i})+\frac{\epsilon}{2}.$$ By Lemma \[maxpriw\] and Inequality , $\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ is not a supersolution to the rescaled Lichnerowicz equation. As a consequence, there exists a sequence $(p_{i})\in M$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\Biggl\{\frac{1}{\gamma_{i}^{N-2}}\left(\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)+\left(t_{i}R+(1-t_{i})f\right)\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)\right)+\frac{n-1}{n}t_{i}^{2N}\tau^{2}&\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)^{N-1}\Biggr\}(p_{i})\\
&<
\left\{|\widetilde{\sigma}_{i}+L\widetilde{W}_{i}|^{2}\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)^{-N-1}\right\}(p_{i}).
\end{aligned}$$ By compactness of $M$, we can assume that $(p_i)$ converges to some $p_\infty \in M$. Since $\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)$ and $\tau$ are positive, the previous inequality can be rewritten as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\Biggl\{\frac{n\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)^{N+1}}{(n-1)t_{i}^{2N}\tau^{2}\gamma_{i}^{N-2}}\left(\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)+\left(t_{i}R+(1-t_{i})f\right)\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)\right)+&\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)^{2N}\Biggr\}(p_{i})\\
&<
\left\{\frac{n}{n-1}|\widetilde{\sigma}_{i}+L\widetilde{W}_{i}|^{2}t_{i}^{-2N}\tau^{-2}\right\}(p_{i}).
\end{aligned}$$ Taking $i\to\infty$, due to the facts that $\widetilde{\omega}\in C^{2}_{+}$, $\min\tau>0$, $t_{i}\to t_{0}>0$, $\gamma_{i}\to\infty$ and $\widetilde{W}_{i}\to\widetilde{W}_{\infty}$ in $C^{1}-$norm, we obtain that
$$\left\{\frac{n\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)^{N+1}}{(n-1)t_{i}^{2N}\tau^{2}\gamma_{i}^{N-2}}\left(\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)+\left(t_{i}R+(1-t_{i})f\right)\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)\right)\right\}(p_{i})\to 0,$$
$$\left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)^{2N}(p_{i})\to \left(\widetilde{\omega}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)^{2N}(p_{\infty})$$ and $$\frac{n}{n-1}\left(\frac{|\widetilde{\sigma}_{i}+L\widetilde{W}_{i}|}{t_{i}^{N}\tau}\right)^{2}(p_{i})\to \frac{n}{n-1}\left(\frac{|L\widetilde{W}_{\infty}|}{t_{0}^{N}\tau}\right)^{2}(p_{\infty}),$$
This proves that $$\widetilde{\omega}(p_{\infty})+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\leq \left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{n-1}}\frac{|L\widetilde{W}_{\infty}|}{t_{0}^{N}\tau}\right)^{\frac{1}{N}}(p_{\infty}),$$ which contradicts .\
The argument is similar if there exists a sequence $\left(m_{i}\right)\in M$ s.t. $\widetilde{\omega}(m_{i})-\frac{\epsilon}{2}>\widetilde{\varphi}_{i}(m_{i})$.
- *Case 2. (after passing to a subsequence) $t_{i}\to 0$:* Note that Equations says that the (modified) conformal constraint equations associated to the seed data $(g,t_{i}^{N}\tau,\sigma)$ has a solution $(\varphi_{i},W_{i})$. To derive the last two assertions, we need to free $\tau$ of $t_{i}$ in the seed data. Then, rather than considering $(g,t_{i}^{N}\tau,\sigma)$, by Remark \[change\_variation\], we can equivalently work on another one more suitable, allowing to remove $t_{i}$ from the mean curvature $\tau$, and hence by straightforward calculations as seen below the sequence $\{t^{n}_{i}\varphi_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ will naturally appear and play an important role in characterizing our case. In this context, there are three situations arising depending on whether (after passing to subsequence) $t^{n}_{i}||\varphi_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}$ converges to $+\infty$, $0$ or a positive constant. We will address each of them.\
\
In the first situation, i.e. $ t^{n}_{i}||\varphi_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}\to +\infty$, by Remark \[change\_variation\], the system may be rewritten as
\[modified\_CE\_infty\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{modified_Lich_infty}
\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta \overline{\varphi}_{i}+\left[t_{i}R+(1-t_{i})f\right]\overline{\varphi}_{i}&=&-\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}\overline{\varphi}_{i}^{N-1}+\left|t_{i}^{\frac{n(N+2)}{2}}\sigma+L\overline{W}_{i}\right|^{2}\overline{\varphi}_{i}^{-N-1}\\
\label{modified_Vector_infty}
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}L\overline{W}_{i}&=&\frac{n-1}{n}\overline{\varphi}_{i}^{N}d\tau,
\end{aligned}$$
where $(\overline{\varphi}_{i},\overline{W}_{i})=\left(t_{i}^{n}\varphi_{i},t_{i}^{\frac{n(N+2)}{2}}W_{i}\right)$ and $||\overline{\varphi}_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}=t^{n}_{i}||\varphi_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}\to \infty$. Again, taking $i\to\infty$ we argue similarly to Case 1 and obtain that there exists a nontrivial solution $\overline{W}_{\infty}\in W^{2,p}$ to the limit equation as stated in $(ii)$.\
\
The next situation, i.e. $t_{i}^{n}||\varphi_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}\to 0$, cannot happen. In fact, also by Remark \[change\_variation\] the system may be rewritten as
\[modified\_CE\_0\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{modified_Lich_0}
\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta \widehat{\varphi}_{i}+\left[t_{i}R+(1-t_{i})f\right]\widehat{\varphi}_{i}&=&-\frac{n-1}{n}t^{2N}_{i}\gamma_{i}^{N-2}\tau^{2}\widehat{\varphi}_{i}^{N-1}+\left|\gamma_{i}^{-\frac{N+2}{2}}\sigma+L\widehat{W}_{i}\right|^{2}\widehat{\varphi}_{i}^{-N-1}\\
\label{modified_Vector_0}
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}L\widehat{W}_{i}&=&\frac{n-1}{n}t_{i}^{N}\gamma_{i}^{\frac{N-2}{2}}\widehat{\varphi}_{i}^{N}d\tau,
\end{aligned}$$
where $\gamma_{i}=||\varphi_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}$ and $(\widehat{\varphi}_{i},\widehat{W}_{i})=(\gamma_{i}^{-1}\varphi_{i},\gamma_{i}^{-\frac{N+2}{2}}W_{i})$. At any maximum point $m_{i}$ of $\widehat{\varphi}_{i}$ (i.e. $\widehat{\varphi}_{i}(m_{i})=1$), we have from that $$\left(\left[t_{i}R+(1-t_{i})f\right]+\frac{n-1}{n}t^{2N}_{i}\gamma_{i}^{N-2}\tau^{2}\right)(m_{i})\leq \left|\gamma_{i}^{-\frac{N+2}{2}}\sigma+L\widehat{W}_{i}\right|^{2}(m_{i}).$$ However, since $||\widehat{\varphi}_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}=1$ and $t_{i}^{n}\gamma_{i}\to 0$, we obtain from the vector equation that $||L\widehat{W}_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}\to 0$, and then by the fact that $t_{i}\to 0$ and $\gamma_{i}\to+\infty$, taking $i\to\infty$ we conclude from the previous inequality that $0<\min{f}\leq 0$, which is a contradiction as claimed.\
\
For the last one, i.e. $t^{n}_{i}||\varphi_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}\to c$ for some $c>0$, by Remark \[change\_variation\], we again obtain the system where the condition $||\overline{\varphi}_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}\to+\infty$ is replaced by $||\overline{\varphi}_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}\to c$. It follows from that (after passing to a subsequence) $\overline{W}_{i}$ converges to $\overline{W}_{0}$ in $C^{1}$. If $L\overline{W}_{0}\equiv 0$, at any maximum point $m_{i}$ of $\overline{\varphi}_{i}$ we have by that $$0< \left(\left[t_{i}R+(1-t_{i})f\right]\overline{\varphi}_{i}^{N+2}+\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}\overline{\varphi}_{i}^{2N}\right)(m_{i})\leq \left|t_{i}^{\frac{n(N+2)}{2}}\sigma+L\overline{W}_{i}\right|^{2}(m_{i})\to 0.$$ This is a contradiction since $$\left(\left[t_{i}R+(1-t_{i})f\right]\overline{\varphi}_{i}^{N+2}+\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}\overline{\varphi}_{i}^{2N}\right)(m_{i})\to f(m_{0})c^{N+2}+\frac{n-1}{n}c^{2N}\tau^{2}(m_{0})>0,$$ where by compactness of $M$, (after passing to a subsequence) $m_{i}$ converges to $m_{0}\in M$. Thus, we obtain $L\overline{W}_{0}\nequiv 0$. Now we can let $\overline{\varphi}_{0}$ be the unique positive solution to the equation $$\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta \varphi+ f\varphi=-\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}\varphi^{N-1}+|L\overline{W}_{0}|^{2}\varphi^{-N-1}.$$ (Here since $f>0$, existence and uniqueness of $\overline{\varphi}_{0}$ is proven similarly to Case 1 of Theorem \[maxwell1\]). To show that $(\overline{\varphi}_{0},\overline{W}_{0})$ is a (nontrivial) solution to system , which is the first statement of our last assertion, it suffices to show that $\overline{\varphi}_{i}\to \overline{\varphi}_{0}$ in $L^{\infty}$. In fact, since $L\overline{W}_{0}\nequiv0$, arguing similarly to the continuity of $\hat{T}_{f}$ in Step 1, we obtain that the map $\widetilde{T}_{f}~:~U_{\overline{W}_{0}}\times [0,1]\rightarrow W^{2,p}_{+}$ defined by $\widetilde{T}_{f}(w,t)=\varphi$ is continuous, where $U_{\overline{W}_{0}}$ is given any open neighborhood small enough of $|L\overline{W}_{0}|$ in $L^{\infty}$ and $\varphi$ is the unique positive solution to the equation $$\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta\varphi + \left[tR+(1-t)f\right]\varphi=-\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}\varphi^{N-1}+w^{2}\varphi^{-N-1}.$$ Combining this and the fact that $\left(t_{i},\left|t_{i}^{\frac{n(N+2)}{2}}\sigma+L\overline{W}_{i}\right|\right)\to \left(0,|L\overline{W}_{0}|\right)$ we obtain $\overline{\varphi}_{i}\to \overline{\varphi}_{0}$ as claimed.
To complete our proof, the remaining work is to treat nonuniqueness results for the conformal constraint equations with positive Yamabe invariants.\
***Step 3.** Nonuniqueness of solutions:* Assume that $\mathcal{Y}_{g}>0$. First, we recall that by Remark \[assumptionR\], $R$ is assumed to be positive. If neither $(i)$ nor $(ii)$ are true, taking $f=R>0$, arguments above then tell us that there exists a sequence $\{t_{i}\}$ converging to $0$ s.t. the system associated to $(g,t^{N}_{i}\tau,\sigma)$ has a solution $(\varphi_{i},W_{i})$ satisfying $||\varphi_{i}||_{L^{\infty}}\to \infty$. On the other hand, we know that provided $\delta>0$ is small enough, the system associated to $(g,\delta\tau,\sigma)$ admits a solution $(\varphi_{\delta},W_{\delta})$ such that $||\varphi_{\delta}||_{L^{\infty}}\leq c_{1}$ for some constant $c_{1}>0$ independent of $\delta$ (see [@Nguyen Theorem 4.8 and Remark 4.9] or [@GicquaudNgo Theorem 2.1]). This completes the proof of Theorem \[theoremofDHG\].
If $\mathcal{Y}_{g}<0$, we can omit the assumption $\sigma\nequiv 0$ in Theorem \[theoremofDHG\]. In fact, let $\{\sigma_{i}\}$ be a sequence of non-zero transverse-traceless tensors converging to 0. Applying Theorem \[theoremofDHG\] for $\sigma=\sigma_{i}$, if neither assertion (ii) nor (iii) is satisfied for all $i\in \mathbb{N}$, the system associated to $\sigma=\sigma_{i}$ has a solution $(\varphi_{i},W_{i})$. Moreover, these solutions must be uniformly bounded since we assumed that the assertion (ii) is not satisfied. Note that by Case 3 of Theorem \[maxwell1\] and Lemma \[maxpriw\] we have that $\varphi_{i}\geq \min\varphi_{0}>0$, where $\varphi_{0}$ is the unique positive solution to the Yamabe equation $$\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta \varphi +R\varphi=-\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2}\varphi^{N-1}.$$ Thus, taking $i\to\infty$, we obtain our claim.
Applications of Theorem \[theoremofDHG\]
========================================
In this section, we show a nonexistence and nonuniqueness result and answer a question raised in [@MaxwellNonCMC] (see the middle paragraph but one of page 630) as stated in the beginning of this article. For convenience, we will repeat their statements and give the corresponding proofs. We first construct a class of initial data such that the corresponding equations and have no (non-trivial) solution.
\[Theorem.nonexistence\_2\](***Nonexistence of solution***) Let data be given on $M$ as specified in and assume that conditions hold. Furthermore, assume that there exists $c>0$ s.t. $\left|L\left(\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right)\right|\leq 2c\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}$. Let $V$ be a given open neighborhood of the critical set of $\tau$. If $\sigma\nequiv 0$ and $\text{supp}\{\sigma\}\subsetneq M\setminus V$, then both of the conformal constraint equations and the limit equation associated to the seed data $(g,\tau^{a},\frac{\sigma}{\epsilon a})$ have no solution, provided $a^{-1},\epsilon a>0$ are small enough.
Examples where the assumptions of this theorem hold are given in [@DahlGicquaudHumbert]. Let us sketch briefly their construction. Let $M$ be the unit sphere $\mathbb{S}^n$ lying inside $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. Choose $\tau = \exp(x_1)$ so that $(d\tau/\tau)^\sharp$ is a conformal Killing vector field for the round metric $\Omega$ on $\mathbb{S}^n$. The critical set of $\tau$ then consists in the points $(\pm 1, 0, \ldots, 0)$. Let $V$ be an arbitrary neighborhood of these points such that $\mathbb{S}^n \setminus V$ has non-empty interior. By a result of [@BCS05], we can deform the metric $\Omega$ on $\mathbb{S}^n \setminus V$ to a new metric $g$ so that $g$ has no conformal Killing vector. The condition $\left|L\left(\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right)\right|\leq 2c\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}$ is then readily checked. Non-trivial TT-tensors with arbitrarily small support were constructed in [@Delay]. His construction shows that there exists $\sigma \not\equiv 0$ whose support is contained in $\mathbb{S}^n \setminus V$.
We argue by contradiction. Assume that for each $(a,\epsilon)$ s.t. $a^{-1},\epsilon a>0$ are small enough, there exists $(\varphi_{\epsilon,a},W_{\epsilon,a})$ satisfying the conformal constraint equations
\[CE\_contradiction\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta \varphi_{\epsilon,a}+R\varphi_{\epsilon,a}&=&-\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2a}\varphi_{\epsilon,a}^{N-1}+\left|\frac{\sigma}{\epsilon a}+LW_{\epsilon,a}\right|^{2}\varphi_{\epsilon,a}^{-N-1},\\
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}LW_{\epsilon,a}&=&\frac{n-1}{n}\varphi_{\epsilon,a}^{N}d\tau^{a}.
\end{aligned}$$
We will use the rescaling idea of Dahl-Gicquaud-Humbert [@DahlGicquaudHumbert] to show that such existence yields a contradiction. In fact, we rescale $\varphi_{\epsilon,a}$, $W_{\epsilon,a}$ as follows $$\widetilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}=\epsilon^{\frac{1}{N}}\varphi_{\epsilon,a},~~\widetilde{W}_{\epsilon,a}=\epsilon W_{\epsilon,a}.$$ The system may be written as
\[CE\_contradiction\_scale\] $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{\frac{2}{n}}\widetilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}^{N+1}\left( \frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta \widetilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}+R\widetilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}\right)&=&-\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2a}\widetilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}^{2N}+\left|\frac{\sigma}{ a}+L\widetilde{W}_{\epsilon,a}\right|^{2},\\
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}L\widetilde{W}_{\epsilon,a}&=&\frac{n-1}{n}\widetilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}^{N}d\tau^{a}.
\end{aligned}$$
We divide our proof into two cases.\
***Case 1.** $\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}{\left\|\widetilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}\right\|_{L^{\infty}}<\infty}$:* Arguing as in the proof of Theorem \[theoremofDHG\], taking $\epsilon\to 0$ we obtain that there exists $W_{a}\in W^{2,p}$ satisfying $$\label{limit_non_parameter_contradiction}
\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}LW_{a}&=\sqrt{\frac{n-1}{n}}\left|\frac{\sigma}{a}+LW_{a}\right|\frac{d\tau^{a}}{\tau^{a}}\\
&=\sqrt{\frac{n-1}{n}}\left|\sigma+aLW_{a}\right|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}.
\end{aligned}$$ However, cannot happen for all $a>0$ large enough by [@DahlGicquaudHumbert Proposition 1.6]. In fact, take the scalar product of this equation with $d\tau/\tau$ and integrate. It follows that $$\label{contradiction_assumption}
\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{\frac{n-1}{n}}\int_{M}{|\sigma+aLW_{a}|\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}dv}&=-\frac{1}{2}\int_{M}{\langle LW_{a},L(d\tau/\tau)\rangle dv}\\
&\leq c\int_{M}{\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}|LW_{a}|dv}~~(\mbox{by our assumption}).
\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with the fact that $|\sigma+aLW_{a}|\geq a|LW_{a}|-|\sigma|$, we conclude that for $c_{1}=\sqrt{\frac{n}{n-1}}c$ $$(a-c_{1})\int_{M}{\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}|LW_{a}|dv}\leq \int_{M}{|\sigma|\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}}dv.$$ Since the right-hand side of the inequality above is bounded, we must have $$\label{a.to.infty}
\lim_{a\to\infty}\int_{M}{\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}|LW_{a}|dv}=0.$$ It then follows from that $$\lim_{a\to\infty}{\int_{M}{|\sigma+aLW_{a}|\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}dv}}=0.$$ Since $\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|\geq\delta$ on $M\setminus V$ for some $\delta>0$ independent of $a$, we then have by the previous inequality that $$\label{a.to.infty.2}
\lim_{a\to\infty}{\int_{M\setminus V}{|\sigma+aLW_{a}|dv}}=0.$$ On the other hand, since $\text{supp}\{\sigma\}\subsetneq M\setminus V$, we get that $$\left|\int_{M}{\langle\sigma,\sigma+aLW_{a}\rangle dv}\right|\leq ||\sigma||_{L^{\infty}}\int_{M\setminus V}{|\sigma+aLW_{a}| dv}.$$ Together with , this shows that $$\label{contradiction_fact}
\lim_{a\to\infty}\int_{M}{\langle\sigma,aLW_{a}\rangle dv}=-\int_{M}{|\sigma|^{2}dv}.$$ However, since $\sigma$ is divergence-free, we must have $$\int_{M}{\langle\sigma,aLW_{a}\rangle dv}=0$$ for all $a>0$, which contradicts with .\
***Case 2.** $\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}{\left\|\widetilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}\right\|_{L^{\infty}}}=+\infty$:* Set $\gamma_{\epsilon,a}=\left\|\widetilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}\right\|_{L^{\infty}}$, we rescale $\widetilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}$, $\widetilde{W}_{\epsilon,a}$, $\widetilde{\sigma}_{\epsilon,a}$ again $$\widehat{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}=\gamma_{\epsilon,a}^{-1}\widetilde{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a},~~\widehat{W}_{\epsilon,a}=\gamma_{\epsilon,a}^{-N}\widetilde{W}_{\epsilon,a},~~\mbox{and}~~\widehat{\sigma}_{\epsilon,a}=\gamma_{\epsilon,a}^{-N}\sigma.$$ The system may be rewritten as
\[CE\_contradiction\_scale\_again\] $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{\frac{2}{n}}\gamma_{\epsilon,a}^{-(N-2)}\widehat{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}^{N+1}\left( \frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Delta \widehat{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}+R\widehat{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}\right)&=&-\frac{n-1}{n}\tau^{2a}\widehat{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}^{2N}+\left|\frac{\widehat{\sigma}}{ a}+L\widehat{W}_{\epsilon,a}\right|^{2},\\
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}L\widehat{W}_{\epsilon,a}&=&\frac{n-1}{n}\widehat{\varphi}_{\epsilon,a}^{N}d\tau^{a}.
\end{aligned}$$
Arguing as in the proof of Theorem \[theoremofDHG\], and taking $\epsilon\to 0$ we again obtain that there exists a nontrivial solution $W_{a}\in W^{2,p}$ satisfying the limit equation $$\label{limit_equation_contradiction_2}
-\frac{1}{2}L^{*}LW_{a}=\sqrt{\frac{n-1}{n}}\left|LW_{a}\right|\frac{d\tau^{a}}{\tau^{a}}=a\sqrt{\frac{n-1}{n}}\left |LW_{a}\right|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}.\\$$ Our treatment for such limit equation is also similar to the previous case. In fact, take the scalar product of this equation with $d\tau/\tau$ and integrate. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
a\sqrt{\frac{n-1}{n}}\int_{M}{|LW_{a}|\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}dv}&=-\frac{1}{2}\int_{M}{\langle LW_{a},L(d\tau/\tau)\rangle dv}\\
&\leq c\int_{M}{|LW_{a}|\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}dv}~~(\mbox{by our assumption}).
\end{aligned}$$ Then assuming $a>\sqrt{\frac{n}{n-1}}c$, we obtain that $\int_{M}{|LW_{a}|\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|^{2}dv}=0$, and hence $|LW_{a}|\left|\frac{d\tau}{\tau}\right|\equiv 0$. Thus, we obtain from that $W_{a}\equiv 0$, provided that $(M,g)$ has no conformal Killing vector field. This is a contradiction with the fact that $W_{a}$ is nontrivial.\
\
Since Case 2 coincides with the situation of nonexistence of solution to the limit equation , the proof is completed.
As direct consequences of Theorem \[theoremofDHG\] and \[Theorem.nonexistence\_2\], we have the following results.
\[Maxwell’squestion\_2\] Let $(M,g,\tau)$ be given as in Theorem \[Theorem.nonexistence\_2\]. If $\mathcal{Y}_{g}>0$, then the conformal constraint equations associated to $(g,\tau^{a},0)$ have a (nontrivial) solution for all $a>0$ large enough.
Since $\mathcal{Y}_{g}>0$, we may assume by Remark \[assumptionR\] that $R>0$. Taking $f=R$ in the proof of Theorem \[theoremofDHG\], we have by Theorem \[Theorem.nonexistence\_2\] that for all $a^{-1}, \epsilon a>0$ small enough, initial data $(g,\tau^{a},\frac{\sigma}{\epsilon a})$ satisfies neither $(i)$ nor $(ii)$ in Theorem \[theoremofDHG\], provided $\sigma$ is given as in Theorem \[Theorem.nonexistence\_2\]. Thus, our corollary is proven by the first statement in the assertion $(iii)$ of Theorem \[theoremofDHG\]. The proof is completed.
\[theoremnonuniaueness\] Assume that $(M,g,\tau,\sigma,a,\epsilon)$ is given as in Theorem \[Theorem.nonexistence\_2\]. If $\mathcal{Y}_{g}>0$, then there exists a sequence $\{t_{i}\}$ converging to $0$ s.t. the conformal constraint equations associated to $(g,t_{i}\tau^{a},\frac{\sigma}{\epsilon a})$ have at least two solutions.
The same arguments as in Corollary \[Maxwell’squestion\_2\] works here. More precisely, the only difference from the previous corollary is that we will use the second conclusion in the assertion $(iii)$ of Theorem \[theoremofDHG\] instead of the first, and then the corollary follows.
[99]{} T. Aubin, *Some nonlinear problems in Riemannian geometry*, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, $1998.$
R. Bartnik and J. Isenberg, *The constraint equations*, The Einstein equations and the large scale behavior of gravitational fields, Birkhäuser, Basel, $2004$, pp. $1-38$.
, *K[ID]{}s are non-generic*, [Ann. Henri Poincaré]{}, [6]{}, [2005]{}, [1]{}, [155-194]{}.
Y. Choquet-Bruhat and J.W. York, Jr., *The Cauchy problem*, General relativity and gravitation, Vol. $1$, Plenum, New York, $1980$, pp. $99-172$.
, *A limit equation associated to the solvability of the vacuum [E]{}instein constraint equations by using the conformal method*, [Duke Math. J.]{}, [161]{}, [2012]{}, [14]{}, [2669-2697]{}.
, *A non-existence result for a generalization of the equations of the conformal method in general relativity*, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{}, [30]{}, [2013]{}, [075004, 8]{}.
, *Smooth compactly supported solutions of some underdetermined elliptic [PDE]{}, with gluing applications*, [Comm. Partial Differential Equations]{}, [37]{}, [2012]{}, [10]{}, [1689-1716]{}.
,
, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{}, [31]{}, [2014]{}, [19]{}, [195014 (20pp)]{}.
, *A large class of non-constant mean curvature solutions of the [E]{}instein constraint equations on an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold*, [Comm. Math. Phys.]{}, [310]{}, [2012]{}, [3]{}, [705-763]{}.
, *Elliptic partial differential equations of second order*, [Classics in Mathematics]{}, [Reprint of the 1998 edition]{}, [Springer-Verlag]{}, [Berlin]{}, [2001]{}, [xiv+517]{}.
, *Nonuniqueness of solutions to the conformal formulation*, [to appear in Annales Henri Poincare]{}, [2012]{}, [http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.2156]{}.
, *Rough solutions of the [E]{}instein constraints on closed manifolds without near-[CMC]{} conditions*, [Comm. Math. Phys.]{}, [288]{}, [2009]{}, [2]{}, [547-613]{},
, *Constant mean curvature solutions of the [E]{}instein constraint equations on closed manifolds*, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{}, [12]{}, [1995]{}, [9]{}, [2249-2274]{}.
, *Non-[CMC]{} conformal data sets which do not produce solutions of the [E]{}instein constraint equations*, [A spacetime safari: essays in honour of Vincent Moncrief]{}, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{}, [21]{}, [2004]{}, [3]{}, [S233-S241]{}.
, *L’intégration des équations de la gravitation relativiste et le problème des [$n$]{} corps*, [J. Math. Pures Appl. (9)]{}, [23]{}, [1944]{}, [37-63]{}.
, *The Conformal Method and the Conformal Thin-Sandwich Method Are the Same*, [arXiv:1402.5585]{}.
, *Rough solutions of the [E]{}instein constraint equations on compact manifolds*, [J. Hyperbolic Differ. Equ.]{}, [2]{}, [2005]{}, [2]{}, [521-546]{}.
, *A class of solutions of the vacuum [E]{}instein constraint equations with freely specified mean curvature*, [Math. Res. Lett.]{}, [16]{}, [2009]{}, [4]{}, [627-645]{}.
, *A model problem for conformal parameterizations of the [E]{}instein constraint equations*, [Comm. Math. Phys.]{}, [302]{}, [2011]{}, [3]{}, [697-736]{}, [0010-3616]{}.
, *Applications of fixed point theorems to the vacuum [E]{}instein constraint equations with non-constant mean curvature*, [ arXiv:1405.7731v2 ]{}
, *Courbures scalaires des variétés d’invariant conforme négatif*, [Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.]{}, [347]{}, [1995]{}, [12]{}, [4729-4745]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Suppose one has data from one or more completed vaccine efficacy trials and wishes to estimate the efficacy in a new setting. Often logistical or ethical considerations make running another efficacy trial impossible. Fortunately, if there is a biomarker that is the primary modifier of efficacy, then the biomarker-conditional efficacy may be identical in the completed trials and the new setting, or at least informative enough to meaningfully bound this quantity. Given a sample of this biomarker from the new population, we might hope we can bridge the results of the completed trials to estimate the vaccine efficacy in this new population. Unfortunately, even knowing the true conditional efficacy in the new population fails to identify the marginal efficacy due to the unknown conditional unvaccinated risk. We define a curve that partially identifies (lower bounds) the marginal efficacy in the new population as a function of the population’s marginal unvaccinated risk, under the assumption that one can identify bounds on the conditional unvaccinated risk in the new population. Interpreting the curve only requires identifying plausible regions of the marginal unvaccinated risk in the new population. We present a nonparametric estimator of this curve and develop valid lower confidence bounds that concentrate at a parametric rate. We use vaccine terminology throughout, but the results apply to general binary interventions and bounded outcomes.'
author:
- 'Alexander R. Luedtke'
- 'Peter B. Gilbert'
bibliography:
- 'persrule.bib'
title: Partial Bridging of Vaccine Efficacy to New Populations
---
\#1
[*Keywords:*]{} bridging; external validity; generalizability; partial identification; transportability; vaccine efficacy
Introduction
============
Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluating the effect of a new intervention in a population. However, it is not always possible or appropriate to conduct a Phase 3 efficacy trial. In these cases, it is desirable to “bridge” results from earlier trials to a new setting that may differ in population, treatment version, or exposure levels. Being able to extrapolate efficacy signals to a new population is a special case of generalizability or external validity , and is often referred to as transportability . Following the clinical trials literature, we will instead refer to this extrapolation as “bridging” .
There have been several recent trials establishing the efficacy of the CYD-TDV vaccine in children. In particular, CYD14 found 56% per-protocol efficacy of the vaccine in Asian children aged 2-14 years [@Capedingetal2014], CYD15 found 61% per-protocol efficacy the same vaccine in Latin American children aged 9-16 years [@Villaretal2015], and CYD23 found 30% per-protocol efficacy in Thai children aged 4-11 years [@Sabchareonetal2012]. All trials featured a 2:1 vaccine:placebo randomization scheme, with respective sample sizes of approximately 10,000, 21,000, and 4,000 and respective virologically confirmed dengue event counts of 250, 397, and 134. In each trial, efficacy was shown to increase with age and prior exposure to dengue [@Capedingetal2014; @Villaretal2015; @Sabchareonetal2012]. While several countries have licensed the CYD-TDV vaccine for individuals from 9–45 or 9–60 [@WHO2016], many countries have still not licensed this vaccine due to debates over the appropriate ages of indication. Nonetheless, the high estimated efficacy in the existing trials may make further Phase 3 trials unethical. There is thus compelling motivation to bridge the results of the earlier efficacy trials completed in children to the adult population.
The focus of most existing work on bridging is on bridging the results from a single efficacy trial to a new population. Unsurprisingly, some assumptions must be made to bridge between the two studies. The primary standard assumption is that (i) the two populations have equivalent outcome regressions, i.e. that the mean outcome within each treatment/covariate/immune response biomarkers stratum is constant, and (ii) that the support of the treatment/covariate/immune response biomarker distribution in the population to which the researchers wish to bridge is contained in the corresponding support in the population in which the trial was completed . Recently, an efficient, double robust estimator was established when these assumptions hold . There has also been some work on establishing transportation formulas when there are multiple settings in which full observations are observed in more than one setting, which in our setting means that there is more than one completed efficacy trial .
Assumption (i) is often not plausible in the infectious disease setting unless one adjusts for the level of pathogen exposure, but in most efficacy trials there is only coarse exposure data (e.g., age in dengue trials). Furthermore, adjusting for level of pathogen exposure can violate Condition (ii) in some scenarios. To overcome this problem, posited a bridging assumption on the ratio scale, arguing that the vaccine versus placebo risk ratios in the two populations should be approximately equal within each covariate-specific principal stratum because this ratio reflects the vaccine’s effect on biological susceptibility to pathogen infection or disease. Because knowing the risk ratio does not uniquely determine the outcome regression, there remains an undetermined degree of freedom. One possibility is to estimate the outcome regression among unvaccinated participants in the new population using epidemiological data . There is often severe underreporting of infection or disease incidence in the available epidemiologic surveillance data. For example, recent studies comparing active and passive surveillance (by national surveillance programs) of dengue incidence have seen up to 19-fold underreporting in the passive surveillance [@Nealonetal2016; @Sartietal2016]. Though one could attempt to account for the underreporting by specifying an inflation factor for the passive surveillance data, there will likely be uncertainty around what exactly this inflation factor should be. For this reason, in this work we focus on a less rigid approach to account for the unknown unvaccinated risk allocation. In particular, we derive the worst-case allocation under constraints that we will impose in the next section. These constraints can be estimated via epidemiologic data or existing trial data. This then yields the lower bound on the vaccine efficacy in the new population that we wish to estimate using double robust methods . Identifying a parameter that provides a bound on an unidentifiable parameter is often referred to as partial identification [@Manski2003], and these identification problems have received considerable attention over the last several decades . Because we are specifically focused on bridging a parameter from one or several populations to a new setting, we refer to this exercise as partial bridging, though really our objective is a special case of partial identification.
### Organization of article. {#organization-of-article. .unnumbered}
Section \[sec:setup\] describes the observed data and presents a lower bound on the vaccine efficacy in the new population. Section \[sec:monotone\] derives a first-order approximation to the lower bound of inference that will play a key role in our estimation scheme. Section \[sec:est\] describes our estimation scheme, with Section \[sec:nonconstantVE\] focusing on the case where the conditional vaccine efficacy surface is not known to be constant across completed efficacy trials, and Section \[sec:veconst\] describing how to improve the precision of the lower confidence bound when the conditional efficacy surface is known to be the same across the completed efficacy trials. Section \[sec:sim\] presents a simulation study. Section \[sec:disc\] concludes with some brief remarks.
All of our proofs can be found in Appendix \[app:proofs\]. Appendix \[app:est\] presents technical regularity conditions used to establish the validity of our estimator. Appendix \[app:extensions\] extends our results to two-phase sampling designs and monotonic vaccine efficacy curves. Appendix \[app:nestedccsim\] presents simulation results under a two-phase sampling design.
Problem setup {#sec:setup}
=============
Notation and bridging assumptions
---------------------------------
Before presenting our problem, we introduce a few basic pieces of notation. For functions $f$ and $g$ mapping from some space $\mathcal{X}$ to another space $\mathcal{Z}$, we write $f\equiv g$ to denote equality of $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ for all $x$. We also write $f\equiv 0$ to denote that $f(x)=0$ for all $x$. We use “$\triangleq$” to denote a definition, e.g. $f(x)\triangleq x$ denotes the identity map. When we want to emphasize that $f$ is a function, we refer to $f$ as $w\mapsto f(w)$. As is standard in the empirical process literature, we let $P f$ denote the expectation of $f(X)$ when $X$ is drawn from the distribution $P$ [e.g., @vanderVaartWellner1996].
Consider the data structure $(W,A,Y)$, where $W$ is a (possibly multivariate) baseline (pre-randomization) biomarker, $A$ is a vaccination indicator, and $Y$ is the outcome of interest that occurs subsequent to vaccination. While all of the results in this work hold for general bounded $Y$, we focus on the case that $Y$ is an indicator of infection or disease, since this is our primary case of interest. To avoid introducing additional burdensome notation, we assume that the outcome $Y$ is observed on all individuals, though we note in the Discussion (Section \[sec:disc\]) that the extension to right-censored outcomes is straightforward. Suppose that we have already observed trials in Populations $1,\ldots,S$. Each trial $s$ consists of $n_s$ independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) observations $O_s[1],\ldots,O_s[n_s]$ of the structure $O_s\triangleq (W,A,Y)\sim P_s^0$, where $P_s^0$ is known to belong to the model $\mathcal{M}_s$ that at most places restrictions on the conditional distribution of $A$ given $W$ and such that each $P_s'\in\mathcal{M}_s$ satisfies $\delta<\min_{a\in\{0,1\}}P_s'(A=a|W)$ with $P_s^0$ probability one. Thus, we assume that all efficacy trials tested the same vaccine versus control/placebo and collected the same W and Y following the same protocol. While it is not essential that the data from each $P_s^0$ be drawn from a randomized trial, we refer to data from $P_s^0$ as data from “trial $s$” because that is our primary application of interest.
From each trial $s$ we have an estimate of the vaccine efficacy, given by $1-\frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=1,W]]}{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=0,W]]}$, where $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0$ is the expectation operator under $P_s^0$. If $A$ is independent of $W$, then this reduces to estimating a covariate-unadjusted vaccine efficacy. Our objective is to estimate the vaccine efficacy in a new population $\star$. Were we to run a trial in this population, we would observe i.i.d. copies of $(W,A,Y)\sim P_\star^{0,F}$, and we could then estimate the vaccine efficacy $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})\triangleq 1-\frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}\left[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=1,W]\right]}{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}\left[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]\right]},\end{aligned}$$ where we use $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}$ to denote the expectation operator under $P_\star^{0,F}$. In practice we do not observe a trial from population $\star$, but rather a size $n_\star$ i.i.d. sample of observations $O_\star[1],\ldots,O_\star[n_\star]$ containing only $O_\star\triangleq W\sim P_\star^0$, where $P_\star^0$ is the marginal distribution of $W$ under $P_\star^{0,F}$. We denote the nonparametric model for $P_\star^0$ by $\mathcal{M}_\star$. Our objective is to obtain a lower bound on $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})$ based on assumptions of how $P_\star^{0,F}$ is related to the distributions $P_1,\ldots,P_S$ from the completed trials. We refer to these assumptions as bridging assumptions. Because we only make assumptions that are biologically justifiable in a wide variety of examples, we are often unable to identify $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})$ with any parameter mapping of the collection of distributions $\mathcal{P}^0\triangleq (P_\star^0,P_1^0,\ldots,P_S^0)$. We are, however, able to identify a parameter mapping that lower bounds this quantity under our bridging assumptions. Obtaining such bounds is the objective of the partial identification literature [@Manski2003]. A consequence of our partial bridging is that our estimator of the lower bound does not generally converge to $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})$ even as $n_\star,n_1,\ldots,n_S$ all grow to infinity.
Before proceeding, we introduce some notation. We let $\mathcal{P}^0\triangleq (P_\star^0,P_1^0,\ldots,P_S^0)$ and $n\triangleq n_{\star}+\sum_{s=1}^S n_s$. We treat each of the sample sizes $n_s$ as deterministic. We let $\mathcal{M}\triangleq\mathcal{M}_\star\times\prod_{s=1}^S \mathcal{M}_s$ denote the model for $\mathcal{P}^0$. For members $P_s'$ of the general collection $\mathcal{P}'\triangleq\{P_\star',P_1',\ldots,P_S'\}$, we let $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s'$ denote the expectation under $\mathcal{P}'$. We also let $\mathcal{S}=\{\star,1,\ldots,S\}$. For Trials $s=1,\ldots,S$, we define the conditional vaccine efficacy as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{VE}_s^0(w)\triangleq 1 - \frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=1,w]}{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=0,w]}.\end{aligned}$$ We define the unidentifiable conditional vaccine efficacy in population $\star$ similarly, with the expectations under $P_s^0$ above replaced by expectations under $P_\star^{0,F}$.
We now define a lower bound on the curve $w\mapsto \operatorname{VE}_\star^{0,F}(w)$. This lower bound is defined using data from the completed trials $s=1,\ldots,S$, and also possibly vaccinated/unvaccinated conditional risks from a user-defined pseudo-population, which we denote $s=0$. This pseudo-population can be used to make our vaccine efficacy curve assumption more plausible. Let $\mathbbmss{v}_s : \mathcal{W}\rightarrow [0,1]$, $s=0,1,\ldots,S$, be a collection of functions satisfying the convexity constraint $\sum_{s=0}^S \mathbbmss{v}_s(w)=1$ for all $w$. Let $d : \mathcal{A}\times \mathcal{W}\rightarrow[0,1]$ be a function for which $d(0,w)$ and $d(1,w)$ respectively represent the unvaccinated and vaccinated risk in the user-defined pseudo-trial. Define $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)&\triangleq 1-\frac{\mathbbmss{v}_0(w) d(1,w) + \sum_{s=1}^S \mathbbmss{v}_s(w) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s[Y|A=1,w]}{\mathbbmss{v}_0(w) d(0,w) + \sum_{s=1}^S \mathbbmss{v}_s(w) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s[Y|A=0,w]}.\end{aligned}$$ For each $w$, the above expression gives weight $\mathbbmss{v}_s(w)$ for the pseudo-trial $s=0$ and each completed trial $s=1,\ldots,S$. That is, $\mathbbmss{v}_s(w)$ indicates the hypothetical size of the stratum of $w$ in trial $s$ relative to the stratum of $w$ in the other trials and the pseudo-trial. If $\mathbbmss{v}_0\equiv 0$, then the pseudo-trial gets zero weight, whereas if $\mathbbmss{v}_0(w)$ is large for many $w$, then the vaccinated and unvaccinated risks $d(1,w)$ and $d(0,w)$ in the pseudo-trial play a major role in determining $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$. Our first bridging assumption states that $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ lower bounds $w\mapsto \operatorname{VE}_\star^{0,F}(w)$.
1. \[it:brVEbridge\] $P_\star^0\{\operatorname{VE}_\star^{0,F}(W)\ge {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)\}=1$.
If $\operatorname{VE}_\star^{0,F}\equiv \operatorname{VE}_1^0\equiv \ldots\equiv \operatorname{VE}_S^0$, then the stronger result $P_\star^0\{\operatorname{VE}_\star^{0,F}(W)= {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)\}=1$ holds for any $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ for which the pseudo-trial is given zero weight, i.e. any $\mathbbmss{v}_0,\mathbbmss{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbbmss{v}_S$ satisfying $\mathbbmss{v}_0\equiv 0$. We give a brief derivation of this result in Section \[sec:veconst\].
While the above conditions are helpful for bridging the marginal vaccine efficacy from the completed trials to population $\star$, they do not allow one to uniquely identify this marginal vaccine efficacy, even when the conditional efficacy is point identifiable in the sense that $P_\star^0\{\operatorname{VE}_\star^{0,F}(W)= {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)\}=1$. In particular, we still need to understand the behavior of the conditional risk among unvaccinated individuals in population $\star$. While getting a reasonable estimate of this baseline risk may be difficult in practice, experts may be able to give bounds on how small or large this risk may be. A flexible way of communicating this expert knowledge is as follows. Let $\mathbbmss{u}_0,\mathbbmss{u}_1,\ldots,\mathbbmss{u}_S$ be an expert-specified set of functions mapping from $\mathcal{W}$ to $\mathbb{R}$. Define the upper bound $\upsilon^0\triangleq \Upsilon(\mathcal{P}^0)$ on the unvaccinated risk pointwise by $$\begin{aligned}
\upsilon^0(w)\triangleq \mathbbmss{u}_0(w) + \sum_{s=1}^S \mathbbmss{u}_s(w) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=0,w].\end{aligned}$$ For the lower bound, let $\ell_0,\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_S$ be an expert-specified set of functions mapping from $\mathcal{W}$ to $\mathbb{R}$. The lower bound $\lambda^0\triangleq \Lambda^{\mathcal{P}^0}$ on the unvaccinated risk is defined pointwise by $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^0(w)\triangleq \ell_0(w) + \sum_{s=1}^S \ell_s(w) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=0,w],\end{aligned}$$ where for each $w$ we require that $\lambda^0(w)\le \upsilon^0(w)$. We assume throughout that $\upsilon^0(w)-\lambda^0(w)$ is uniformly bounded below by some $\delta>0$. Forcing $\delta>0$ will not prove to be restrictive because $\Upsilon$ only needs to serve as an upper bound for the conditional baseline risk (known to fall in the closed unit interval). Having $\delta>0$ ensures that point identification of the vaccine efficacy $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})$ is impossible when the vaccine efficacy curve is nonconstant because we cannot identify the baseline risk in population $\star$, i.e. $w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,w]$.
The baseline risk assumption can be written as follows.
1. \[it:brdatadepub\] $\lambda^0(W)\le \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]\le \upsilon^0(W)$ with $P_{\star}^0$ probability one.
Our next bridging assumption essentially states that the support of population $\star$ must be contained in the support of the completed trials, though, as we explain below, is slightly more general than this stated condition.
1. \[it:brcommonsupport\] For each $s=1,\ldots,S$ and each event $E$ on $\mathcal{W}$, $P_s^0(E)=0$ implies that $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\max\{\ell_s(W),\mathbbmss{u}_s(W),\mathbbmss{v}_s(W)\}\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_E] = 0$.
The above is weaker than assuming that the marginal distribution of $W$ under $P_s^0$ dominates $P_\star^0$ for each $s=1,\ldots,S$ since $\ell_s(W)$, $\mathbbmss{u}_s(W)$, and $\mathbbmss{v}_s(W)$ may be selected to be $0$ for populations where there is no support. We also assume that $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ satisfies a boundedness condition.
1. \[it:brvebdd\] $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ is uniformly bounded on the support of $\mathcal{W}$.
The above ensures that integrals involving $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ make sense – while it could be replaced by a moment condition, the boundedness assumptions simplifies our proofs and seems to give up little since it is rare that ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ can be arbitrarily close to $-\infty$.
Partial bridging formula
------------------------
We now present lower bounds on the vaccine efficacy $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})$ in population $\star$. We first present a loose lower bound that is attainable under only the bridging assumptions discussed thus far, and we then add a final bridging assumption that will often yield a tighter bound.
Given the bridging assumptions presented thus far, the tightest obtainable bound on $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})$ is given by the solution to the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
&\textnormal{Minimize }\hspace{0.5em} &&\frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0\left[g(W)\right]}{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0[f(W)]}\textnormal{ in }f,g : \mathcal{W}\rightarrow[0,1] \\
&\textnormal{subject to }\hspace{0.5em} &&\lambda^0(W)\le f(W)\le \upsilon^0(W),\;\,1-\frac{g(W)}{f(W)}\ge {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W),\end{aligned}$$ where we use the convention that $x/0=0$ if $x=0$ and $x/0=+\infty$ if $x>0$. We now argue that the solution to this problem is undesirably loose in general, and that a further restriction will generally yield a tighter bound. For simplicity, we give the argument in the special case where one is unwilling to assume a lower bound on the unvaccinated risk so that $\lambda^0\equiv 0$. We then provide an alternative optimization problem that will typically give a tighter (larger) lower bound, present a closed-form solution to this new optimization problem, and finally we show why the above optimization problem is undesirably loose even in the case that $\lambda^0$ is not the constant function zero. To ease discussion, the remainder of this paragraph supposes that there exists a $w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}\in\mathcal{W}$ such that $P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)={\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}})\}>0$ and $P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)<{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}})\}=0$, i.e. that ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}})$ is equal to the minimal value of ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ on $\mathcal{W}$. In this case one can quickly see that a $w\mapsto f(w)$ optimizing the above is positive at $w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}$ and is zero everywhere else and the corresponding $w\mapsto g(w)$ is equal to $f(w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}){\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}})$ at $w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}$ and $0$ everywhere else, so that at this $f,g$ we have that $1-\frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0\left[g(W)\right]}{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0[f(W)]}={\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}})$.
To overcome this problem, we will add an interpretable constraint to the optimization problem. For each $\mu>0$ in the unit interval, we give a lower bound on $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})$ that is valid if $\mu$ is equal to the marginal unvaccinated risk $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]]$. Each $\mu$-specific lower bound can then be interpreted as valid provided the already stated bridging assumptions hold and $\mu$ is equal to the the marginal unvaccinated risk. We derive our lower bound for $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})$ by finding the worst-case conditional unvaccinated risk, namely by solving the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
&\textnormal{Minimize }\hspace{0.5em} &&\frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0\left[g(W)\right]}{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0[f(W)]}\textnormal{ in }f,g : \mathcal{W}\rightarrow[0,1] \\
&\textnormal{subject to }\hspace{0.5em} &&\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0[f(W)] = \mu,\;\,\lambda^0(W)\le f(W)\le \upsilon^0(W),\;\,1-\frac{g(W)}{f(W)}\ge {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W).\end{aligned}$$ The solution to our earlier problem in the special case where $\lambda^0(w)$ is always zero, namely $f(w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}})>0$ and $f(w)=0$ for $w\not=w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}$, will fail to satisfy the constraint $\mu= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0[f(W)]$ once $\mu$ is large enough.
We now introduce notation to express a solution to our refined optimization problem. We define all of these quantities at $\mathcal{P}^0$, but the definitions at general $\mathcal{P}'\in\mathcal{M}$ are completely analogous. For each $\beta : \mathcal{W}\rightarrow[0,1]$ and $w\in\mathcal{W}$, let $$\begin{aligned}
&\operatorname{UR}^{\beta}(\mathcal{P}^0)(w)\triangleq \lambda^0(w) + \left[\upsilon^0(w)-\lambda^0(w)\right]\beta(w)\triangleq \operatorname{UR}^{\beta,0}(w).\end{aligned}$$ The set of all unvaccinated risk functions allowed by our bounds $\lambda^0,\upsilon^0$ is equal to $\{\operatorname{UR}^{\beta,0} : \beta\}$. For each $\operatorname{UR}^{\beta,0}$, the marginal unvaccinated risk is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\Omega^{\beta}(\mathcal{P}^0)\triangleq \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0\left[\operatorname{UR}^{\beta,0}(W)\right]\triangleq \omega^{\beta,0}.\end{aligned}$$ We also define $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^\beta(\mathcal{P}^0)\triangleq \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0\left[\operatorname{UR}^{\beta,0}{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)\right]\triangleq \gamma^{\beta,0}.\end{aligned}$$ Often $\omega^{\beta,0}-\gamma^{\beta,0}$ can be interpreted as a marginal vaccinated risk, though there is not in general any guarantee that this quantity is bounded in $[0,1]$. We discuss this subtlety further following Lemma \[lem:lb\].
We now define $\beta^0 : \mathcal{W}\rightarrow [0,1]$, which we will shortly show to be a $\beta$ indexing the worst-case unvaccinated risk. The function $\beta^0$ assigns unvaccinated risk according to the upper bound $\upsilon^0$ to as many covariate strata with small ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ as allowed by the marginal unvaccinated risk constraint $\mu$. This threshold is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&\Theta(\mathcal{P}^0)\triangleq \sup\Big\{\theta\in\mathbb{R} : \omega^{w\mapsto\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)<\theta\}},0}\le \mu\Big\}\triangleq \theta^0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sup\emptyset = -\infty$ by convention. Let $\beta_\eta\triangleq w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)<\theta^0\}} + \eta \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)=\theta^0\}}$, and define $\eta^0$ to be the smallest element of the set $\operatorname{argmin}_{\eta\in[0,1]}\left(\omega^{\beta_\eta,0}-\mu\right)^2$. Let $\beta^0\triangleq \beta_{\eta^0}$. One can show that, if $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\lambda^0(W)]\le \mu\le \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)]$, then $\omega^{\beta^0,0}=\mu$.
Finally, we define the bridging parameter that we will aim to estimate at $\mathcal{P}^0$, and note that the definition at general $\mathcal{P}'$ is entirely analogous: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(\mathcal{P}^0)&\triangleq \frac{\Gamma^{\beta^0}(\mathcal{P}^0)}{\Omega^{\beta^0}(\mathcal{P}^0)} = \frac{\gamma^{\beta^0,0}}{\omega^{\beta^0,0}}\triangleq \phi^0,\end{aligned}$$ where we remind the reader of the dependence of $\beta^0$ on $\mathcal{P}^0$. We now establish that $\phi^0$ provides a valid lower bound for $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})$.
\[lem:lb\] Suppose \[it:brVEbridge\], \[it:brdatadepub\], \[it:brcommonsupport\], and \[it:brvebdd\] hold. If $\mu=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]]$, then $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})\ge \phi^0$.
The is given in Appendix \[app:lb\]. Typically the lower bound $\phi^0$ will be attainable, in the sense that there exists a distribution for population $\star$ satisfying \[it:brVEbridge\], \[it:brdatadepub\], and $\mu=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]]$ such that the marginal vaccine efficacy is equal to $\phi^0$. In this case $\phi^0$ is the solution to the refined optimization problem presented earlier in this section. In particular, it will often be the case that a distribution with marginal vaccine efficacy $\phi^0$ is that with unvaccinated risk $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,w] = \operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,0}(w)$ and vaccine efficacy curve $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$. The only time no such distribution exists is when the claimed vaccinated risk $w\mapsto \operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,0}(w)[1-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)]$ fails to obey the bounds of the model, which may be larger than $1$ if (i) $\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,0}(w)$ is large and $1-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)>0$ or (ii) $1-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ is large. In practice it is unlikely that either of these quantities will be large: the unvaccinated risk will generally be small for rare outcomes, and the vaccine efficacy within a biomarker stratum will rarely be extremely negative, as this indicates that the vaccine is extremely harmful within this stratum and represents a situation where the bridging application would likely not be of interest and hence the method would not be applied.
Returning to our first optimization problem in this section, i.e. the optimization problem that did not include the constraint $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[f(W)]=\mu$, we see that the minimum occurs by minimizing the solution to the latter problem over all values of $\mu>0$. We then see that the solution to the first optimization problem is equal to the lowest point on our $\mu$-dependent curve, so that indeed the added restriction will generally improve our bound. For this observation to be true, one might anticipate that the reason that the solution to the first optimization problem is ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}(w_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}})$ in the case where the unvaccinated risk lower bound is the constant function zero, i.e. $\lambda^0\equiv 0$, is that $\phi_{\mu}^0$ is monotonic in $\mu$, where we write $\phi_{\mu}^0$ to emphasize the dependence of $\phi^0$ on $\mu$. Indeed, we show in Lemma \[lem:lbmon\] in Appendix \[app:lb\] that $\phi_\mu^0$ is monotonically nondecreasing in $\mu$ in this case. This observation enriches the interpretation of the lower bound $\phi_{\mu'}^0$ when $\lambda^0\equiv 0$, since in this case $\phi_{\mu'}^0$ can be interpreted as a valid lower bound for the marginal vaccine efficacy provided $\mu'\le \mu=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]]$ and the conditions of Lemma \[lem:lb\] hold at $\mu$: as $\phi_{\mu'}^0\le \phi_{\mu}^0$ and $\phi_{\mu}^0$ lower bounds the vaccine efficacy, $\phi_{\mu'}^0$ must also lower bound the vaccine efficacy. Thus, in this special case, $\phi_{\mu'}^0$ is a valid lower bound whenever $\mu'\le \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]]$.
First-order expansion of lower bound {#sec:monotone}
====================================
In this section, we present a result that we will use to derive a first-order expansion of the parameter $\Phi$. This expansion plays a key role in our estimation procedure. Before presenting this result, we quickly define a gradient for a general parameter $\Pi : \mathcal{M}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ in the $S+1$ sample problem. We only define this and other gradients in this section at $\mathcal{P}^0$, but the extension to a general $\mathcal{P}'$ only requires notational changes. For each $s\in\mathcal{S}$, let $h_s : \mathcal{O}_s\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ satisfy $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s[h_s(O_s)]=0$ and $\sup_{o_s} |h_s(o_s)|\le 1$. For $\epsilon\in(-1,1)$, define $\frac{dP_s^\epsilon}{dP_s^0}(o_s) = 1+\epsilon h_s(o_s)$, $s\in\mathcal{S}$. Let $\mathcal{P}^\epsilon\triangleq \left(P_{\star}^\epsilon,P_1^\epsilon,\ldots,P_S^\epsilon\right)$. We call $\Pi$ pathwise differentiable if, for $s\in\mathcal{S}$, there exist functions $\nabla \Pi_s^0\in L^2(P_s^0)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\Pi(\mathcal{P}^\epsilon)\right|_{\epsilon=0}&= \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} \int \nabla \Pi_s^0(o_s) h_s(o_s) dP_s^0(o_s).\end{aligned}$$
Our pathwise differentiability result will require one of the following three regularity conditions on the marginal distribution of $W$ in population $\star$. The first is given below.
1. \[it:omegacontnotflat\] $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\lambda^0(W)]< \mu < \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)]$ and, for all $\theta$ in a neighborhood of $\theta^0$, $$\begin{aligned}
0&<\liminf_{t\rightarrow 0} \frac{P_{\star}^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)< \theta+t\}-P_{\star}^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)< \theta\}}{t} \\
&\le \limsup_{t\rightarrow 0} \frac{P_{\star}^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)< \theta+t\}-P_{\star}^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)< \theta\}}{t} <\infty.
\end{aligned}$$
The above implies both that $\theta^0$ is finite and that $\omega^{\beta^0,0}=\mu$.
For the choice of $\mu$ to be feasible, i.e. for it to be possible that $P_\star^{0,F}\in\mathcal{M}_\star$ satisfies both \[it:brdatadepub\] and $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]]=\mu$, we generally need that $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\lambda^0(W)]\le \mu\le \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)]$: one cannot otherwise have both $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]]=\mu$ and $\lambda^0(w)\le \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,w]\le \upsilon^0(w)$ for all $w$. Nonetheless, it is useful to understand the first-order behavior of the parameter $\Phi$ for all values of $\mu$ since the marginal distribution of $W\sim P_\star^0$ must be estimated in practice. Thus, we offer conditions for both the case that $\mu$ is so large that it violates the upper bound on $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,w]$, i.e. $\mu > \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)]$, and then for the case that $\mu$ is so small that it violates the lower bound on $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,w]$, i.e. $\mu < \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\lambda^0(W)]$.
1. \[it:mubig\] The upper bound is too small: $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)]<\mu$.
<!-- -->
1. \[it:musmall\] The lower bound is too large: $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\lambda^0(W)]>\mu$.
None of these three conditions (\[it:omegacontnotflat\], \[it:mubig\], \[it:musmall\]) allow $P_\star^0({\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\theta^0)>0$. This is closely related to the non-pathwise differentiability of many parameters of interest in personalized medicine under so-called exceptional laws , i.e. distributions for which the conditional average treatment effect is zero in some positive probability stratum of measured covariates. The condition that $P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}(W)=\theta^0\}=0$ may be unlikely to hold in settings where $\theta^0$ is below the lower limit of quantification of $W$, namely because small values of $W$ indicate a true value of zero for the biomarker and any deviation from zero is due to noise. If $\theta^0$ falls below the lower limit if quantification, then we expect that $P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\theta^0\}>0$ and indeed we will have no guarantee that $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})\ge \phi^0$. In Appendix \[app:mono\], we describe an alternative bridging parameter that requires that $W$ is univariate and ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0$ is monotonic rather than that $P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\theta^0\}>0$.
Finally, we note that, while the conditions of Theorem \[thm:pd\] are sufficient for the pathwise differentiability of $\Phi$, they are not necessary. For example, if $W$ is discrete and takes on a finite number of values, then one can give conditions under which $\Phi$ is pathwise differentiable even if $P_\star^0({\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\theta^0)>0$, though these conditions still appear to require that only one $w\in\mathcal{W}$ satisfies ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)=\theta^0$. We do not consider this subtle case further in this work.
The following objects, defined for each $s=1,\ldots,S$, will be useful for establishing the gradient of $\Phi$: $$\begin{aligned}
&D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\beta,\mathcal{P}^0}(o_s)\triangleq \left[\ell_s(w) + \beta(w)\{\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)-\ell_s(w)\}\right]\frac{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{a=0\}}}{P_s^0(a|w)}\left(y - \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|a,w]\right),\;\beta : \mathcal{W}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}, \nonumber \\
&D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^{\mathcal{P}^0}(o_s)\triangleq \frac{\mathbbmss{v}_s(w)\left[\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{a=0\}}{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)-\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{a=1\}}\right]}{P_s^0(a|w)\left[\mathbbmss{v}_0(w)d(0,w) + \sum_{s'=1}^S \mathbbmss{v}_{s'}(w) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{s'}^0[Y|A=0,w]\right]}(y-\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|a,w]). \label{eq:DVEdef}\end{aligned}$$ For ease of notation, we let $D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\beta,0}\triangleq D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\beta,\mathcal{P}^0}$ and $D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^0\triangleq D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^{\mathcal{P}^0}$. For any $\beta : \mathcal{W}\rightarrow[0,1]$, define $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
&\nabla \Omega_\star^{\beta,0}(o_\star)= \operatorname{UR}^{\beta,0}(w) - \omega^{\beta,0},& \\
&\nabla \Omega_s^{\beta,0}(o_s)= \frac{dP_{\star}^0}{dP_s^0}(w)D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\beta,0}(o_s),\;&s=1,\ldots,S, \\
&\nabla \Gamma_\star^{\beta,0}(w)\triangleq \operatorname{UR}^{\beta,0}(w){\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)-\Gamma^{\beta}(\mathcal{P}^0),& \\
&\nabla \Gamma_s^{\beta,0}(o_s)\triangleq \frac{dP_{\star}^0}{dP_s^0}(w)\left[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\beta,0}(o_s){\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)+\operatorname{UR}^{\beta,0}(w)D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^0(o_s)\right],\;&s=1,\ldots,S.\end{aligned}$$ We now give a theorem establishing that the parameter $\Phi$ is pathwise differentiable at $\mathcal{P}^0$.
\[thm:pd\] If \[it:brcommonsupport\] and \[it:brvebdd\] hold and either \[it:omegacontnotflat\], \[it:mubig\], or \[it:musmall\] holds, then $\Phi$ is pathwise differentiable and, for each $s\in\mathcal{S}$, the $P_s^0$ gradient is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \Phi_s^0(o_s)=& \begin{cases}
\dfrac{\nabla \Gamma_s^{\beta^0,0}(o_s)}{\omega^{\beta^0,0}} - \theta^0\dfrac{\nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,0}(o_s)}{\omega^{\beta^0,0}},&\mbox{ if }\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\lambda^0(W)]<\mu<\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)], \\[1.3em]
\dfrac{\nabla \Gamma_s^{\beta^0,0}(o_s)}{\omega^{\beta^0,0}} - \gamma^{\beta^0,0}\dfrac{\nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,0}(o_s)}{[\omega^{\beta^0,0}]^2},&\mbox{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$
The is given in Appendix \[app:pd\].
Though we have assumed that $\upsilon^0(w)-\lambda^0(w)$ is bounded away from zero, we will now briefly remark on a violation of this assumption, namely the case that $\ell_s\equiv \mathbbmss{u}_s$ so that $\upsilon^0\equiv \lambda^0$. In this case the gradients of $\Phi$ are given by the same expression as in Theorem \[thm:pd\] for the case where $\theta^0=+\infty$ so that $P_\star^0({\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)<\theta^0)=1$. The estimation scheme that we present in the next section will remain valid even when $\upsilon^0\equiv \lambda^0$ provided one uses the appropriate gradients, namely the gradients from Theorem \[thm:pd\] when $\theta^0=+\infty$, when constructing the confidence lower bound. If $\operatorname{VE}_\star^{0,F}={\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0$, then the marginal vaccine efficacy in population $\star$ is point identified, and so our procedure is analogous to the earlier work by , with the slight distinction that we focus on a multiplicative rather than additive parameter.
Estimation {#sec:est}
==========
Conditional vaccine efficacy not necessarily constant across $s=1,\ldots,S$ {#sec:nonconstantVE}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We first consider the case where we do not assume that $\operatorname{VE}_1^0\equiv \ldots\equiv \operatorname{VE}_S^0$, but rather make the weaker assumption \[it:brVEbridge\] for a prespecified set of functions $\mathbbmss{v}_0,\mathbbmss{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbbmss{v}_S$.
### Estimator. {#sec:eststeps}
Below and throughout, we let $Q_s^n$ denote the empirical distribution of the observations $O_s[1],\ldots,O_s[n_s]$ for each $s\in\mathcal{S}$. We also denote the expectation operator under $\mathcal{P}^n$ by $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^n$. We also refer to parameters evaluated at the collection of distributions $\mathcal{P}^n$ rather than parameters evaluated at $\mathcal{P}^0$ by replacing the superscript zero by superscript $n$, e.g. we write $\upsilon^n\triangleq \Upsilon(\mathcal{P}^n)$ rather than $\upsilon^0\triangleq \Upsilon(\mathcal{P}^0)$. We do the same for gradients, e.g. $\nabla \Phi_s^n$ rather than $\nabla \Phi_s^0$. When we define objects that may be confused with parameter mappings applied directly to $\mathcal{P}^n$, we add a hat: in particular, we will define $\widehat{\beta}^n$, $\widehat{\eta}^n$, $\widehat{\theta}^n$, $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$, $\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$, and $\widehat{\phi}^n$.
Below we present an estimation scheme to be used when either (i) the chosen $\ell_s(w)$ is a constant multiple of the chosen $\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)$, where the multiple is independent of $s$ and $w$, or (ii) the chosen $\ell_s\equiv 0$ for all $s$ so that $\lambda^0\equiv 0$. In Appendix \[app:altalg\], we present alternatives to the targeted minimum loss-based (TMLE) steps \[it:tmle1\], \[it:tmle2\], and \[it:tmle3\] that replace the univariate logistic regression by a bivariate logistic regression. The bivariate regression is inappropriate when (i) holds because the two predictors in the proposed logistic regression will be perfectly correlated, and so, while analytically correct, the method may encounter numerical challenges in practice. When (ii) holds running the bivariate regression presented in the appendix is simply unnecessary because the latter covariate is always zero. The proof of asymptotic linearity of our estimation scheme assumes that the user runs the appropriate estimation scheme, either the below or that in Appendix \[app:altalg\].
1. \[it:initests\] Let $(a,w)\mapsto \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}[Y|a,w]$, $w\mapsto P_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}(A=1|w)$, and $w\mapsto \frac{dP_\star^{n,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}}(w)$ represent estimates of $(a,w)\mapsto \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|a,w]$, $w\mapsto P_s^0(A=1|w)$, and $w\mapsto \frac{dP_\star^0}{dP_s^0}(w)$, respectively.
2. \[it:tmle1\] Fit a univariate logistic regression with outcome $\left(y_s[i] : s=1,\ldots,S;\,i=1,\ldots,n_s\right)$, covariate $\left(\frac{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{a_s[i]=0\}}\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)}{n_s P_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}(A=0|w_s[i])}\frac{dP_\star^{n,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}}(w_s[i]) : s=1,\ldots,S;\,i=1,\ldots,n_s\right)$, and fixed, subject-level intercept $\left({\operatorname{logit}}\left(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}[Y|A=0,w_s[i]]\right) : s=1,\ldots,S;\,i=1,\ldots,n_s\right)$. Denote the fitted coefficient in front of the covariate by $\epsilon_n$.
3. \[it:tmle2\] For each $s=1,\ldots,S$, let $(a,w)\mapsto \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,\epsilon_n}[Y|a,w]$ denote the function $$\begin{aligned}
(a,w)\mapsto {\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}\left[{\operatorname{logit}}\left(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}[Y|a,w]\right) + \epsilon_n\frac{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{a=0\}}\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)}{n_s P_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}(A=0|w)}\frac{dP_\star^{n,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}}(w)\right].
\end{aligned}$$
4. \[it:tmle3\] Let $\mathcal{P}^n=(P_\star^n,P_1^n,\ldots,P_s^n)$ denote any collection of distributions satisfying that, for all $(a,w)$, $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^n[Y|a,w] = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,\epsilon_n}[Y|a,w]$, $P_s^n(A=1|w) = P_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}(A=1|w)$, and $\frac{dP_\star^n}{dP_s^n}(w) = \frac{dP_\star^{n,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}}(w)$.
5. \[it:omegan\] For each $\beta : \mathcal{W}\rightarrow[0,1]$, let $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta,n}\triangleq \omega^{\beta,n} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} Q_s^n \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta,n}$, and note that $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta,n}$ rewrites as $Q_\star^n \operatorname{UR}^{\beta,n} + \sum_{s=1}^S Q_s^n \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta,n}$.
6. \[it:thetan\] Let $\widehat{\theta}^n\triangleq\sup\{\theta : \widehat{\omega}^{w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w)<\theta\}},n} \le \mu\}$, where $\sup\emptyset=-\infty$.
7. \[it:etan\] Let $\widehat{\eta}^n$ be the smallest element of the set $\operatorname{argmin}_{\eta\in[0,1]}\left(\widehat{\omega}^{\beta_\eta,n}-\mu\right)^2$, where $\beta_\eta\triangleq w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w)<\widehat{\theta}^n\}} + \eta \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w)=\widehat{\theta}^n\}}$.
8. \[it:betan\] Let $\widehat{\beta}^n\triangleq \beta_{\widehat{\eta}^n}$.
9. \[it:onestep\] Estimate $\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}&\triangleq \gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} Q_s^n \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} \\
&= n_\star^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n_\star} \operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(w_\star[i])\operatorname{VE}^n(w_\star[i]) + \sum_{s=1}^S Q_s^n \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}.
\end{aligned}$$
10. \[it:phin\] Estimate $\phi^0$ with $\widehat{\phi}^n\triangleq \frac{\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}}{\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}}$.
The initial estimates in Step \[it:initests\] can be obtained by any methods deemed appropriate by the investigators. We encourage the use of data adaptive regression and machine learning techniques to estimate these features of $\mathcal{P}^0$, since the study of our estimator in the next section relies on consistency conditions given in Appendix \[app:est\] that are most plausible when one does not restrict the estimates in Step \[it:initests\] to those obtained by classical parametric models.
The above represents a hybrid between a TMLE and a one-step estimator. When $\theta^0=\pm \infty$, it uses a TMLE to estimate $\omega^{\beta^0,0}$ (Steps \[it:tmle1\], \[it:tmle2\], \[it:tmle3\]). It uses a one-step estimator for $\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}$ (Step \[it:onestep\]) and to correct the bias of $\omega^{\beta,n}$ for $\omega^{\beta,0}$ when defining $\widehat{\beta}^n$ (Step \[it:omegan\]). For Step \[it:onestep\], one could specify a fluctuation of the initial estimate of $\mathcal{P}^0$ with score given by the sum of the empirical means of the $S+1$ gradients to replace the one-step estimator by a TMLE to have a full-fledged TMLE. One could analyze this estimator similarly to that of our hybrid estimator . The TMLE is preferred to a one-step estimator in many problems because it yields a plug-in estimator of the form $\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$ for some distribution $\mathcal{P}^n$, and is thus guaranteed to respect the known bounds on $\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}$. Most fluctuation submodels indexing the TMLE appear to require iterating the fluctuation step until convergence. Alternatively, one could use the newly developed universal least favorable submodel, which has the advantage of always being fit in one step . We leave the development of full-fledged (non-hybrid) TMLEs for this problem to future work.
The upper and lower bounds $\upsilon^0$ and $\lambda^0$ on the conditional unvaccinated risk imply bounds on the plausible range of values of $\mu$. These bounds can be estimated using $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta,n}$, where $\beta$ is taken to be the constant function returning one and zero, respectively. Under the same conditions as those given in the upcoming Theorem \[thm:al\], one can show that, for each of these choices of $\beta$, $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta,n}-\omega^{\beta,0}\approx \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta,0}$, so that confidence intervals for $\upsilon^0$ and $\lambda^0$ can be developed using the analogous asymptotic normality results to those to be used to develop a confidence lower bound for $\phi^0$ in Section \[sec:conflb\].
### Asymptotic linearity of our estimator.
In the appendix we give several additional assumptions used to establish that the estimator $\widehat{\phi}^n$ satisfies a multiple sample version of asymptotic linearity, namely that $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\phi}^n-\phi^0&= \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Phi_s^0 + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}), \label{eq:multisampleal}\end{aligned}$$ where, for ${n_{\textnormal{min}}}\triangleq \min\{n_s : s\in\mathcal{S}\}$, we use $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ to denote a random variable $X_n$ that is a function of all of the $n$ observations from Populations $\star,1,\ldots,S$ with the property that, for each $\delta>0$, the event $\{{n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{1/2}X_n>\delta\}$ has probability converging to zero whenever ${n_{\textnormal{min}}}$ grows to infinity. We discuss those conditions below the theorem.
The following theorem establishes that our estimator minus the truth behaves as a sum of empirical means across the $S+1$ data sets.
\[thm:al\] If \[it:brcommonsupport\], \[it:brvebdd\], \[it:CSconsistency\], \[it:thetaDonsker\], \[it:thetaempproc\], and \[it:VEnbdd\] hold and either \[it:omegacontnotflat\], \[it:goodquantile\], and \[it:betangood\] hold, \[it:mubig\] holds, or \[it:musmall\] holds, then $\widehat{\phi}^n$ satisfies (\[eq:multisampleal\]).
The is given in Appendix \[app:thmalproof\]. We now summarize the additional conditions used in the theorem. Condition \[it:CSconsistency\] requires that the initial estimate of $\mathcal{P}^0$ is consistent and that certain remainder terms converge at a sufficient rate, namely $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$. Only requiring remainder terms to behave like $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ makes our conditions on estimates of parameters from a full efficacy trial $s$ more plausible if $n_s\gg {n_{\textnormal{min}}}$, since we typically expect these parameters to converge at an $n_s^{-1/2}$ rate in a parametric model and a slower rate in a nonparametric model, but the slower rate may still be much faster than ${n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}$. Furthermore, the fact that $W$ is univariate leads us to believe that, under some smoothness, we expect the nonparametric rate for estimating the needed functionals of $\mathcal{P}^n$ to be only slightly slower than the parametric rate. Conditions \[it:thetaDonsker\] and \[it:thetaempproc\] represent an empirical process condition and mild consistency condition on the initial estimate $\mathcal{P}^n$. Condition \[it:goodquantile\] ensures that the estimate $\widehat{\beta}^n$ of $\beta^0$ satisfies $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}\approx \mu$, where $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$ is a one-step estimate of $\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}$. This is to be expected under \[it:omegacontnotflat\] given that $\omega^{\beta^0,0}=\mu$ in this case, much as we expect the empirical cumulative distribution function evaluated at the sample median to be equal to $1/2 + o_P(n^{-1/2})$. In fact, we often expect $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$ to be exactly equal to $\mu$, and this can be formally checked in any given application by looking at $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$. Condition \[it:betangood\] requires that ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n$ estimates ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0$ sufficiently well so that $\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}$ is approximately equal to the worst-case unvaccinated risk function $\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,0}$. Appendix \[app:moreinterpretablebetangood\] relates this condition to the margin conditions appearing in the classification literature. Condition \[it:VEnbdd\] simply states that the estimate of the vaccine efficacy curve $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ is bounded away from negative infinity, which is plausible given that $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ is bounded under \[it:brvebdd\].
### Constructing a lower confidence bound. {#sec:conflb}
We now describe how Theorem \[thm:al\] allows the construction of a lower confidence bound for the vaccine efficacy lower bound $\phi^0$. For all $s\in\mathcal{S}$, let $\sigma_s^2\triangleq \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[\nabla \Phi_s^0(O)^2]$, i.e. the variance of $\nabla \Phi_s^0(O)$ when $O\sim P_s^0$. Accepting slight notational overload, we define $\sigma_n^2\triangleq \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} \frac{{n_{\textnormal{min}}}}{n_s} \sigma_s^2$. We propose using $\widehat{\phi}^n - 1.64 {n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}\hat{\sigma}_n$ as a lower confidence bound for $\phi^0$, where $\hat{\sigma}_n\triangleq \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} \frac{{n_{\textnormal{min}}}}{n_s} \hat{\sigma}_s^2$ for empirical estimates $\hat{\sigma}_s^2\triangleq Q_s^n [\nabla \Phi_s^n-Q_s^n \nabla \Phi_s^n]^2$ of $\sigma_s^2$. Our lower confidence bound on $\phi^0$ deviates from $\widehat{\phi}^n$ by the order ${n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}\sigma_n$. As $\sigma_n<\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} \sigma_s^2<\infty$ and $\widehat{\phi}^n$ deviates from $\phi^0$ on the order $O({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ by our asymptotic linearity result, the deviation of our lower confidence bound from $\phi^0$ is of the order of the inverse square root of the smallest trial. Given that the trials in Populations $1,\ldots,S$ will often have been efficacy studies, we will often expect the smallest sample to be of subjects drawn from population $\star$.
We can repeat the above procedure for a range of plausible $\mu$ values and report a graph of how the lower bound varies with the choice of $\mu$. We remind the reader that the estimate $\widehat{\phi}^n$ and each $\hat{\sigma}_s^2$ rely on $\mu$, and so these values must be recalculated for each choice of $\mu$. Figure \[fig:avglb\] from our simulation study suggests an informative way to display the vaccine efficacy lower bound, with the “average lower bound” $y$-axis (averaged across Monte Carlo replications of our simulation) replaced by the estimated lower bound. Given a range $\mathcal{U}$ of plausible values for $\mu$, one can read a lower uncertainty interval [@Vansteelandtetal2006] for the marginal vaccine efficacy $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})$ in population $\star$ by looking at the smallest $\mu$-specific confidence lower bound across all $\mu\in\mathcal{U}$.
We now justify our lower confidence bound. Note that (\[eq:multisampleal\]) rewrites as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\sqrt{{n_{\textnormal{min}}}}[\widehat{\phi}^n-\phi^0]}{\sigma_n}&= \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} \sum_{i=1}^{n_s} \frac{\sqrt{{n_{\textnormal{min}}}}}{n_{s} \sigma_n} \nabla \Phi_s^0(O_s[i]) + o_P(1). \label{eq:normalizedal}\end{aligned}$$ For each $s$, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Var}_{s}^0\left[\frac{\sqrt{{n_{\textnormal{min}}}}}{n_{s} \sigma_n} \nabla \Phi_s(O_s[i])\right]&= \frac{1}{n_s} \frac{n_{s}^{-1}\sigma_{s}^2}{[n_\star^{-1}\sigma_\star^2 + \sum_{s'=1}^S n_{s'}^{-1} \sigma_{s'}^2]}.\end{aligned}$$ The latter fraction on the right-hand side is bounded between $0$ and $1$. Thus the variance on the left shrinks at rate $O(n_s^{-1})$. The above and the independence of all of the observations also shows that the double sum on the right-hand side of (\[eq:normalizedal\]) has variance $1$.
These two facts readily allow one to show that the conditions of the Lindeberg central limit theorem hold, thereby establishing that $\frac{\sqrt{{n_{\textnormal{min}}}}[\widehat{\phi}^n-\phi^0]}{\sigma_n}$ converges to a standard normal distribution [@Billingsley1999]. It follows that a valid 95% level lower confidence bound for $\phi^0$ is given by $\widehat{\phi}^n - 1.64 {n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}\sigma_n$. In practice, $\sigma_n$ is not known, but we can estimate it with $\hat{\sigma}_n$. Glivenko-Cantelli conditions on the functions $\nabla \Phi_s^n$ ensure that $\hat{\sigma}_n^2\rightarrow \sigma_n^2$ in probability, and under this convergence Slutsky’s theorem then ensures that a 95% lower bound for $\phi^0$ is given by $\widehat{\phi}^n - 1.64 {n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}\hat{\sigma}_n$.
### Intuition for the estimator’s construction and sketch of asymptotic linearity proof.
Our estimator is a hybrid of a TMLE and a one-step estimator. Before discussing our specific estimator, we give some intuition by discussing one-step estimation of a general pathwise differentiable parameter $\Pi : \mathcal{M}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Suppose that $\mathcal{P}^n$ is an initial estimate of $\mathcal{P}^0$ and we wish to estimate $\pi^0\triangleq \Pi(\mathcal{P}^0)$. One possible estimate is obtained via plug-in estimation: $\pi^n\triangleq \Pi(\mathcal{P}^n)$. If $\mathcal{P}^n$ is a good estimate of $\mathcal{P}^0$, often in the sense that certain regression functions under $\mathcal{P}^n$ are close to the corresponding regressions under $\mathcal{P}^0$, then we generally expect that $\pi^n - \pi^0\approx -\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} P_s^0 \nabla \Pi_s^n$, where $\nabla \Pi_s^n$ are gradients of $\Pi$ evaluated at $\mathcal{P}^n$. It will often be the case that the right-hand side of this approximation is not $O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$, and thus that $\pi^n$ converges to $\pi^0$ at a slower than ${n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}$ rate. In an effort to improve the initial estimate $\pi^n$, a one-step estimator adds the empirical version of $\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} P_s^0 \nabla \Pi_s^n$ to the initial estimate $\pi^n$, i.e. one uses as estimate $\widehat{\pi}^n\triangleq \pi^n + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} Q_s^n \nabla \Pi_s^n$, so that $\widehat{\pi}^n - \pi^0\approx \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Pi_s^n$. Under empirical process conditions, one can replace the gradients $\nabla \Pi_s^n$ under $\mathcal{P}^n$ by the gradients $\nabla \Pi_s^0$ under $\mathcal{P}^0$ so that $\widehat{\pi}^n - \pi^0\approx \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Pi_s^0$ and it is possible to apply a central limit theorem to understand the behavior of a scaled version of the one-step estimator minus the truth. Typically TMLEs follow a similar derivation, but the initial estimate $\mathcal{P}^n$ of $\mathcal{P}^0$ is carefully selected so that the bias correction $\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} Q_s^n \nabla \Pi_s^0$ is small or zero.
The remainder of the discussion is focused on our proposed estimator. Steps \[it:tmle1\], \[it:tmle2\], and \[it:tmle3\] are designed to ensure that the score $\sum_{s=1}^S Q_s^n \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta,n}$ is equal to zero when $\beta\equiv 1$, which is an important score equation to solve if $\widehat{\theta}^n=+\infty$. If each $\ell_s(w)$ is a constant multiple of $\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)$ or if each $\ell_s\equiv 0$, then the same score equation is equal to zero when $\beta\equiv 0$, which is an important score equation to solve when $\widehat{\theta}^n=-\infty$. Otherwise, Steps , , and in Appendix \[app:altalg\] ensure that the score equation is solved at both $\beta\equiv 0$ and $\beta\equiv 1$. If $\widehat{\theta}=+\infty$, then $\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w_\star[i])<\widehat{\theta}^n\}}=1$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n_\star$ so that the preceding argument implies that $\sum_{s=1}^S Q_s^n \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} = 0$ and Step \[it:omegan\] trivially yields that $Q_{\star}^n \nabla \Omega_{\star}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}=0$. Similarly, $\widehat{\theta}^n=-\infty$ implies that $\sum_{s=1}^S Q_s^n \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} = 0$.
We now discuss the choice of $\widehat{\beta}^n$. For each $\beta$, $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta,n}$ is a one-step estimator for $\omega^{\beta,0}$. It is therefore not surprising that, under the conditions given in Appendix \[app:est\], $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta,n} = \omega^{\beta,0} + O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$. If $\theta^0$ is finite, then one can show $\widehat{\theta}^n\approx \theta^0$ (see Lemma \[lem:thetancons\] in Appendix \[app:moreinterpretablebetangood\]). Furthermore, if $\mu$ is too large so that $\theta^0=+\infty$, then our conditions imply that $\widehat{\theta}^n=\infty$ with probability approaching one (see Lemma \[lem:QstarnWeq1\] in the Appendix \[app:thmalproof\]), and an analogous result holds if $\mu$ is too small.
Given an estimate of $\widehat{\beta}^n$, it remains to estimate $\phi^0$. We show in Appendix \[app:thmalproof\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\phi}^n-\phi^0&\approx \frac{\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}}{\omega^{\beta^0,0}} - \frac{\gamma^{\beta^0,0}}{[\omega^{\beta^0,0}]^2}\left[\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}\right] + \frac{\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \gamma^{\beta^0,0}}{\omega^{\beta^0,0}}.\end{aligned}$$ For the first term on the right, we note that, $\widehat{\gamma}^{\beta,n}$ is a one-step estimator for $\gamma^{\beta,0}$ for each $\beta$, and so it is not surprising that this estimator is asymptotically linear for each $\beta$. Furthermore, the fact that $\widehat{\beta}^n$ converges to the fixed quantity $\beta^0$ suggests that these same asymptotic linearity statements should hold with $\beta$ replaced by $\widehat{\beta}^n$ (can be formally shown via empirical process arguments). Under \[it:omegacontnotflat\] and \[it:goodquantile\], $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}\approx \mu = \omega^{\beta^0,0}$ so that the second term above is negligible. Under \[it:mubig\] or \[it:musmall\], the $\widehat{\beta}^n$ is correctly specified with probability approaching one so that analyzing the second term is like analyzing the one-step estimator $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta^0,n}$ of $\omega^{\beta^0,0}$, which is asymptotically linear under reasonable conditions. Additionally, \[it:mubig\] or \[it:musmall\] implies that the final term above is equal to zero with probability approaching one. For the final term above under \[it:omegacontnotflat\], we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \gamma^{\beta^0,0}&= \beta^0\left[\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}\right] + \left\{\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \gamma^{\beta^0,0} - \beta^0\left[\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}\right]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where the latter term is negligible by assumption \[it:betangood\] (though a more interpretable sufficient condition is given in Appendix \[app:moreinterpretablebetangood\]). We establish the behavior of $\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}$ by using that $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta},n}\approx \mu = \omega^{\beta^0,0}$, and so it suffices to study the behavior of $-[\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}-\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}]$. The study of this term is standard since $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta,0}$ is a one-step estimator of the $\beta$-specific parameter $\omega^{\beta,0}$.
Conditional vaccine efficacy constant across $s=1,\ldots,S$ {#sec:veconst}
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lower bound in the above section relies on the validity of the bridging assumption \[it:brVEbridge\], which is indexed by $d$ and $\mathbbmss{v}_0,\mathbbmss{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbbmss{v}_S$. Suppose that the following condition holds:
1. \[it:VEconst\] The vaccine efficacy curve $w\mapsto \operatorname{VE}_s(w)$ is constant across trials $s=1,\ldots,S$ and the chosen $\mathbbmss{v}_0\equiv 0$.
Choosing $\mathbbmss{v}_0\equiv 0$ indicates that the user believes that the vaccine efficacy curves in the completed trials lower bound the vaccine efficacy curve in population $\star$. We now show that the above condition allows one to choose $\mathbbmss{v}\triangleq (\mathbbmss{v}_s : s=1,\ldots,S)$ to maximize statistical efficiency for estimating our lower bound. In what follows we make the dependence of $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ on $\mathbbmss{v}$ explicit by writing $\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}^{\mathbbmss{v},0}$. The result relies on the fact that $\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}^{\mathbbmss{v},0}$ is invariant in $\mathbbmss{v}$. In particular, for each $w$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}^{\mathbbmss{v},0}(w)&= \frac{\sum_{s=1}^S \mathbbmss{v}_s(w) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s[Y|A=0,w]\operatorname{VE}_s^0(w)}{\sum_{s=1}^S \mathbbmss{v}_s(w) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s[Y|A=0,w]} \\
&= \operatorname{VE}_1^0(w)\frac{\sum_{s=1}^S \mathbbmss{v}_s(w) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s[Y|A=0,w]}{\sum_{s=1}^S \mathbbmss{v}_s(w) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s[Y|A=0,w]},
$$ which is equal to $\operatorname{VE}_1^0(w)$. Thus, under \[it:VEconst\], if \[it:brVEbridge\] holds for some set of functions $\mathbbmss{v}$, then it holds for all $\mathbbmss{v}$. While the above derivation implies that the lower bound parameter $\Phi$ is also invariant to $\mathbbmss{v}$, the same is not true of the gradients presented in Theorem \[thm:pd\]. As the gradient determines the efficiency of our estimator, and therefore the width of our confidence interval, it follows that one can choose $\mathbbmss{v}$ to (approximately) maximize the efficiency of our procedure provided \[it:VEconst\] holds. Let $\hat{\sigma}_n^2(v)$ and $\sigma_n^2(v)$ respectively denote the values of $\hat{\sigma}_n^2$ and $\sigma_n^2$ defined in Section \[sec:conflb\], but now making the dependence on $\mathbbmss{v}$ explicit in the notation. If the consistency conditions of Theorem \[thm:al\] hold uniformly over all $\mathbbmss{v}$ in some class $\mathcal{V}$, then one expects that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{v\in\mathcal{V}}|\hat{\sigma}_n^2(v) - \sigma_n^2(v)|\rightarrow 0. \label{eq:GC}\end{aligned}$$ As $\hat{\sigma}_n^2(v)$ can be written as an empirical mean of random functions, the primary condition that one needs to add to Theorem \[thm:al\] for this convergence to be valid is that $\mathcal{V}$ is not too large, namely that functions in the sets in $\mathcal{V}$ belong to a Glivenko-Cantelli class. We will return to this requirement shortly. For now, suppose that we have selected a class $\mathcal{V}$ small enough so that (\[eq:GC\]) is plausible. One can then select $\mathbbmss{v}_n$ as the minimizer of $\hat{\sigma}_n^2(v)$ over $v\in\mathcal{V}$. If $\mathcal{V}$ satisfies a more restrictive condition, namely that the functions in the sets it contains are Donsker, then we expect that we can run the estimator described in Section \[sec:eststeps\] at the selected $\mathbbmss{v}_n$ and report the lower confidence bound as defined in Section \[sec:conflb\]. A simple suggestion for a class $\mathcal{V}$ that satisfies the conditions of the previous theorem is that $\mathcal{V}$ consists of constant functions, namely each $\mathbbmss{v}_s(w)\in[0,1]$ does not depend on $w$. One could alternatively parameterize $\mathbbmss{v}_s$ using, e.g., a linear logistic regression formulation so that $\mathbbmss{v}_s(w)\propto {\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}(\beta_0 + \beta_1 w)$ to further improve efficiency.
The arguments that we have provided here are only a sketch: more work would be needed to make them precise, though these arguments are fairly standard when studying M-estimators [@vanderVaartWellner1996], and a detailed study specific to an estimator with a nuisance parameter selected to minimize the variance were given in . A careful analysis would show that, when \[it:VEconst\] holds and $\mathcal{V}$ is not too large, the conditions needed to ensure the validity of the procedure discussed in this section are not much stronger than the conditions needed to establish the validity of a procedure at fixed $\mathbbmss{v}$. Indeed, in Section \[sec:sim\] we show via simulation that this procedure yields less conservative lower bounds while still maintaining nominal coverage.
Simulation {#sec:sim}
==========
Simulation settings
-------------------
We evaluated the performance of our method via simulation in `R` [@R2014]. We have $S=2$ completed efficacy trials in our simulation. We first run our simulation without missingness in the biomarker $W$, and then we simulate data from a two-phase sampling scheme.
Let $Z$ be a standard normal random variable. The marginal distribution of $W$ has the same distribution as ${\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}(Z-2)$ when $s=1$, ${\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}(5[Z-1])$ when $s=2$, and ${\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}(2[Z-1/2])$ when $s=\star$. All trials assign treatment with probability $1/2$, regardless of the value of baseline covariates. The vaccine efficacy is the same across Populations 1 and 2. In particular, both have vaccine efficacy $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{VE}(w)&= 1-\frac{{\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}\left(-1-w-3[0.3 + (w-0.2)^+]\right)}{{\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}\left(-1-w\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where $x^+$ denotes the positive part of $x$. As $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=1,w]$ equals $[1-\operatorname{VE}(w)]\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=0,w]$, it suffices to define $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=0,w]$ for each of the three trials. We let $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_1^0[Y|A=0,w] = {\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}\left(-1-w\right)$ and $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_2^0[Y|A=0,w] = {\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}\left(-1\right)\approx 0.27$.
We consider two sample size settings, namely $(n_\star,n_1,n_2)$ equal to $(100,2000,2000)$ and $(200,4000,4000)$. We respectively refer to these sample sizes as the “Smaller Sample Size” and “Larger Sample Size” in our figures. We use three choices for the coefficients indexing our unvaccinated risk lower and upper bounds. The first setting, labeled “Loosest” in our figures, sets $\ell_s\equiv\mathbbmss{u}_s\equiv 0$, $s=1,2$, and $\ell_0\equiv 0$, $\mathbbmss{u}_0\equiv 1$. The second, labeled “Moderate” in our figures, sets $\ell_s\equiv 0.25$ and $\mathbbmss{u}_s\equiv 0.75$, $s=1,2$, and $\ell_0\equiv \mathbbmss{u}_0\equiv 0$. The third, labeled “Tight” in our figures, sets $\ell_s(w)=0.4$ and $\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)=0.6$, $s=1,2$, and $\ell_0\equiv \mathbbmss{u}_0\equiv 0$.
We suppose that the user *a priori* believes that $\operatorname{VE}_\star^{0,F}(w)\ge \operatorname{VE}_1(w)$ and that $\operatorname{VE}_s(w)$ is invariant in $s$. In this case $\mathbbmss{v}_0(w)=0$, while $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ is invariant in the choice of $\mathbbmss{v}$. We implement the version of our estimator presented in the main text since $\ell_s(w)$ is a multiple of $\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)$ for all simulation settings, both for fixed $\mathbbmss{v}_1(w)=\mathbbmss{v}_2(w)=1/2$, all $w$, indexing $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ and also for the procedure described in Section \[sec:veconst\] that adaptively selects a $w$-invariant convex combination $\mathbbmss{v}_1(w),\mathbbmss{v}_2(2)$ to maximize the estimator’s precision. We respectively refer to these estimation schemes as “Fixed” and “Adaptive” in our figures. The marginal distributions of the biomarker within each population are estimated using a ratio of kernel density estimates as provided by the `ks` package [@kspackage], with the option `unit.interval` set to `TRUE` so that the estimator respects the bounds on the biomarker $W$ and the bandwidth selected according to the univariate plug-in selector presented in . The ratio is then standardized so that the empirical mean of each $s$-specific estimate of $\frac{dP_\star^0}{dP_s^0}$ has empirical mean $1$ within the sample of observations from Trial $s$. Although the probability of treatment given covariates is known in each trial, we estimate these quantities because of the known efficiency gains resulting from doing so [@vdL02]. In particular, we regress $A$ against $W$ using the ensemble algorithm found in the `SuperLearner` package , and provide the algorithm with a candidate library containing $\texttt{SL.glm}$ and $\texttt{SL.glm.interaction}$. We estimate the outcome regressions by regressing $Y$ against $A$ and $W$ using the `SuperLearner` package, using a candidate library containing $\texttt{SL.mean}$, $\texttt{SL.glm}$, $\texttt{SL.glm.interaction}$, $\texttt{SL.step.interaction}$, $\texttt{SL.gam}$, and $\texttt{SL.nnet}$.
We then repeat our simulation with missingness in the biomarker in the completed efficacy trials via a 1:1 nested case:control sampling design. In particular, we suppose that biomarker values are observed on all $m$ cases (participants with $Y=1$), and, within each trial $s$, on a random sample of controls of size $m$. We run the method described in Appendix \[app:extensions\], first using the known observation weights, and then estimating these weights by using the known unity weights among cases and, among controls, running a logistic regression of observation status against a linear interaction model of observation status against an indicator for belonging to Trial $s=1,2$ and an observed covariate $X={\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}[{\operatorname{logit}}(W) + Z]$, where $Z$ is a standard normal. The covariate $X$ is meant to represent a biomarker that is inexpensive to measure on all participants, but that is highly predictive of the biomarker $W$ needed for the bridging exercise.
The function ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0$ used in our simulation is monotonic, and therefore the results in Appendix \[app:mono\] may be used to weaken the assumptions for our method’s applicability. The results were nearly identical for this data generating distribution and so are omitted.
Simulation results
------------------
Figure \[fig:covg\] demonstrates that our lower confidence bounds achieve approximately 95% or better coverage for the lower bound on the vaccine efficacy across simulation settings and values of $\mu$. The bound is generally conservative for the Moderate and Tight settings. For a given data generating distribution, there is one true value of the marginal unvaccinated risk $\mu_0$, and the interpretation of our curve as a 95% lower confidence bound is valid if the lower bound coverage is approximately 95% when $\mu=\mu_0$. The methods that choose the convex combination in the $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ bridging parameter to minimize the standard error had comparable coverage than the methods that used a fixed convex combination.
![Coverage of our lower confidence bound for $\phi^0$, i.e. the lower bound on the vaccine efficacy, in our simulation. Conducted at both smaller and larger sample sizes, respectively with $(n_\star,n_1,n_2)$ equal to $(100,2000,2000)$ and $(200,4000,4000)$, and for different choices of $\ell_s$ and $\mathbbmss{u}_s$, determining the tightness of the unvaccinated risk bounds. Horizontal dashed lines drawn at 95% coverage.[]{data-label="fig:covg"}](coverage_nonmonotone){width="\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:avglb\] demonstrates that the adaptive methods tend to have a slightly higher average lower bound than the fixed methods that use a convex combination of $(1/2,1/2)$ for the $\operatorname{VE}$ bridging assumption. Given the approximately appropriate coverage of both methods for the (typically conservative) lower bound on the true vaccine efficacy, it seems prudent in practice to use the less conservative adaptive approach.
![Average estimates (solid lines) and lower confidence bounds (dashed lines) for $\phi^0$, i.e. the lower bound on the vaccine efficacy, in our simulation. Conducted at both smaller and larger sample sizes, respectively with $(n_\star,n_1,n_2)$ equal to $(100,2000,2000)$ and $(200,4000,4000)$, and for different choices of $\ell_s$ and $\mathbbmss{u}_s$, determining the tightness of the unvaccinated risk bounds. Black trend lines denote true $(\ell_s,\mathbbmss{u}_s,\mu)$-specific lower bound.[]{data-label="fig:avglb"}](avglb_nonmonotone){width="\linewidth"}
In Appendix \[app:nestedccsim\], we display analogous plots for the fixed two-phase sampling method. Results were similar for the adaptive method. These plots show that the two-phase sampling procedure still maintains the desired coverage level, with a moderate loss in precision in our setting. This is not surprising given that the user has less data for the two-phase methods.
Discussion {#sec:disc}
==========
We have presented a method for using data from completed efficacy trials to partially bridge the vaccine efficacy to a new population. We first developed conditions that identify a population level parameter representing a lower bound on the vaccine efficacy in the new population. We then provided a nonparametric estimator of this quantity that respects the fact that this is a multiple sample problem and enables the use of modern data adaptive regression and density estimation techniques to estimate the underlying baseline biomarker distribution, worst-case unvaccinated risk, and vaccine efficacy lower bound.
The validity of our population level lower bound on the vaccine efficacy in the new population relies on three main conditions. One of these conditions essentially states that the support of the key biomarker in the new setting is contained in that of the old efficacy trials so that it is possible to learn about the new setting from these trials. Another states that the results from the earlier trials can be used to derive a lower bound of the conditional vaccine efficacy curve in the new setting. A special case of this condition is that the conditional vaccine efficacy curve is constant across trials. While these two conditions alone allow one to get a lower bound on the marginal vaccine efficacy, this lower bound can be very loose when the biomarker is truly a modifier of vaccine efficacy because it involves finding the worst case distribution for the conditional unvaccinated risk among the class of all such possible conditional risk distributions. We thus add a third condition, namely that the marginal unvaccinated risk is equal to a user-specified constant $\mu$. Adding this constraint can greatly tighten the lower bound. The user can then report lower confidence bounds resulting from our procedure at a range of plausible values of $\mu$.
In this work, we have assumed that one is able to define a lower bound on the vaccine efficacy conditional only on baseline covariates and not on (counterfactual) post-vaccination immune responses. There are advantages and disadvantages to this problem setup. The advantage is that, if the lower bound assumption is valid, investigators can partially bridge the vaccine efficacy to a new setting without vaccinating any individuals in the new population and subsequently waiting to measure the immune response. Avoiding running a phase I immunogenicity trial can save significant financial resources and can also accelerate the introduction of a potentially life-saving vaccine into the new population. The disadvantage of bridging using only using baseline covariates is that the post-vaccination immune response is often more strongly associated with vaccine efficacy, and so a partial bridging assumption that accounts for these responses may be more plausible or less conservative. consider bridging within a principal stratification framework, thereby allowing for conditioning on counterfactual immune responses. In a future work, we will present a doubly robust partial bridging procedure that allows for conditioning on post-vaccination biomarkers.
Our vaccine efficacy lower bound depends on the marginal unvaccinated risk level $\mu$. While in many settings subject-matter experts may be able to suggest a plausible range of values for $\mu$, in other cases there may not be sufficient knowledge of the marginal risk for this to be possible. To deal with this issue, one could follow the suggestion of to formally incorporate epidemiologic surveillance data to learn such a range. While there may not be biomarker and baseline risk information jointly available, one may at times have reasonably accurate active surveillance data available to estimate the marginal unvaccinated risk in the new population. In this case, one could estimate our $\mu$ parameter rather than report a range of plausible values. One could then either treat this estimate as the truth, or modify our inferential procedure to incorporate the added uncertainty. While active surveillance data should be incorporated when it exists, often only data from national surveillance systems is available. These data may not be sufficiently accurate to inform plausible values of $\mu$. For example, recent studies of national surveillance of dengue incidence have shown up to 19-fold underreporting compared to active surveillance [@Nealonetal2016; @Sartietal2016].
The results in this paper readily extend to a large class of contrasts $f(\mu_1,\mu_0)$ between the marginal vaccinated risk $\mu_1$ and unvaccinated risk $\mu_0$. We have studied the multiplicative efficacy $f(\mu_1,\mu_0)=1-\mu_1/\mu_0$. If one is willing to make the three bridging assumptions made in this paper, namely a support condition, lower bounded conditional *multiplicative* vaccine efficacy, and specified unvaccinated risk, then obtaining a lower bound for more general $f(\mu_1,\mu_0)$ is straightforward. Suppose that, for each $\mu_0$, $f(\mu_1,\mu_0)$ is sufficiently smooth and monotonically decreasing in $\mu_1$ (the higher the risk among vaccinated individuals, the lower the efficacy). For a user-defined $\mu$, one can then conservatively estimate $f(\mu_1,\mu)$ by upper bounding $\mu_1$, which is indeed what we do in Section \[sec:setup\]. When $\mu=\mu_0$, one then gets a lower bound for the efficacy parameter of interest. All typical contrasts, including additive and odds-ratio type contrasts, appear to satisfy this monotonicity condition.
Finally, we note that, while we have focused our discussion on the intervention $A$ being a vaccination indicator, the results given in this paper apply immediately to any binary intervention $A$ and multiplicative efficacy parameter.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was partially supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R37AI054165 and UM1 AI068635. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors thank Ying Huang, Kara Rudolph, Ying Chen, Holly Janes, Dobromir Dimitrov, Jonathan Sugimoto, Laura Matrajt and Paul Edlefsen for their thoughtful comments on the early stages of this project.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Additional regularity conditions for Theorem \[thm:al\] {#app:est}
=======================================================
For general $\mathcal{P}'\in\mathcal{M}$, below we write ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}'$ and $D_{\operatorname{VE},s}'$ for the analogues of $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ and $D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^0$ under $\mathcal{P}'$ rather than $\mathcal{P}^0$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
&{\operatorname{Rem}}_1(\mathcal{P}',\mathcal{P}^0)(w) \\
&\;\triangleq \sum_{s=1}^S \left|\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s'[Y|A=0,w]-\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=0,w]+\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[\frac{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{A=0\}}}{P_s'(A|w)}\left(Y - \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A,w]\right)\middle|w\right]\right| \\
&\;= \sum_{s=1}^S \left|\left(1-\frac{P_s^0(A=0|w)}{P_s'(A=0|w)}\right)\left(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s'[Y|A=0,w] - \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=0,w]\right)\right|, \\
&{\operatorname{Rem}}_2(\mathcal{P}',\mathcal{P}^0)(w) \\
&\;\triangleq c(w) - {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w) + \sum_{s=1}^S \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[D_{\operatorname{VE},s}'(O)\middle|w\right] \\
&\;= \left[{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}'(w)-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)\right]\left[1-\frac{\mathbbmss{v}_0(w)d(0,w) + \sum_{s=1}^S \mathbbmss{v}_s(w)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[Y|A=0,w\right]}{\mathbbmss{v}_0(w)d(0,w) + \sum_{s=1}^S \mathbbmss{v}_s(w)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s'\left[Y|A=0,w\right]}\right] \\
&\hspace{2em}- \frac{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}'(w)\sum_s \mathbbmss{v}_s(w) \left[1-\frac{P_s^0(A=0|w)}{P_s'(A=0|w)}\right]\left(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s'[Y|A=0,w] - \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[Y|A=0,w]\right)}{\mathbbmss{v}_0(w)d(0,w) + \sum_{s=1}^S \mathbbmss{v}_s(w)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[Y|A=0,w\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ We now state the additional regularity conditions needed for Theorem \[thm:al\].
1. \[it:CSconsistency\] $\mathcal{P}^n$ is consistent in the sense that all of the following terms are $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\left\lVert{\operatorname{Rem}}_1(\mathcal{P}^n,\mathcal{P}^0)\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}, \\
&{\left\lVert{\operatorname{Rem}}_2(\mathcal{P}^n,\mathcal{P}^0)\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}.
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, for each $s=1,\ldots,S$, all of the following terms are also $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{\beta : \mathcal{W}\rightarrow[0,1]}{\left\lVertw\mapsto \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\beta,n}|w]-\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\beta,0}|w]\right\rVert}_{2,P_s^0} {\left\lVert\frac{dP_{\star}^n}{dP_s^n}-\frac{dP_{\star}^0}{dP_s^0}\right\rVert}_{2,P_s^0}, \\
&{\left\lVert\frac{dP_{\star}^n}{dP_s^n}-\frac{dP_{\star}^0}{dP_s^0}\right\rVert}_{2,P_s^0} \sup_{\beta : \mathcal{W}\rightarrow[0,1]} {\left\lVertw\mapsto \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\beta,n}(O)|w]-\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\beta,0}(O)|w]\right\rVert}_{2,P_s^0}, \\
&{\left\lVert\frac{dP_{\star}^n}{dP_s^n}-\frac{dP_{\star}^0}{dP_s^0}\right\rVert}_{2,P_s^0} {\left\lVertw\mapsto \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^n(O)|w]-\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^0(O)|w]\right\rVert}_{2,P_s^0}, \\
&{\left\lVert\upsilon^n-\upsilon^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_s^0} {\left\lVert\operatorname{VE}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_s^0}.
\end{aligned}$$
Like Donsker conditions used in one-sample problems, \[it:thetaDonsker\] requires certain centered and scaled empirical means to be tight random elements. The next assumption makes this requirement formal.
1. \[it:thetaDonsker\] $(Q_s^n-P_s^0)\nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,n}=O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$, $(Q_s^n-P_s^0)\nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}=O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ for each $s\in\mathcal{S}$.
In our multiple sample problem, one can analyze $(Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta,n}$ for $\beta$ fixed ($\beta=\beta^0$) or random ($\beta=\widehat{\beta}^n$) for each $s$ by conditioning on all observations not belonging to trial $s$, and then applying a maximal inequality [which relies on the bracketing or uniform entropy integral of the class to which $\nabla \Omega_s^{\beta,n}$ belongs, see @vanderVaartWellner1996] to bound the randomness in this term resulting from observations in trial $s$.
We also require a condition that is similar to asymptotic equicontinuity conditions implied by the use of Donsker classes in one-sample problems.
1. \[it:thetaempproc\] $(Q_s^n-P_s^0)[\nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,0}]$, $(Q_s^n-P_s^0)[\nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\nabla \Gamma_s^{\beta^0,0}]$ for each $s\in\mathcal{S}$.
Using the same arguments outlined following \[it:thetaDonsker\], one can show that, if $\nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$ and $\nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$ respectively converge to $\nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,0}$ and $\nabla \Gamma_s^{\beta^0,0}$ in $P_s^0$ mean-square, we will allow be able to establish \[it:thetaempproc\]. While we do not formally give conditions under which this mean-square convergence occurs, the primary assumption needed in addition to the consistency conditions used in \[it:CSconsistency\] is that $\widehat{\theta}^n$ is consistent for $\theta^0$. We give sufficient conditions for this convergence in Lemma \[lem:thetancons\].
The next assumption is made for simplicity, though it is very mild, especially under \[it:brvebdd\], which states that $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ is bounded away from $-\infty$.
1. \[it:VEnbdd\] $\inf_w \operatorname{VE}^n(w)>-c>-\infty$ with probability approaching one, where the constant $c<\infty$ does not depend on sample size.
We make two additional assumptions when \[it:omegacontnotflat\] holds. We first assume that the empirical version of $\omega^{\beta^0,0}$ is also close to $\mu$, which seems reasonable given that $\omega^{\beta^0,0}=\mu$ under \[it:omegacontnotflat\].
1. \[it:goodquantile\] $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \mu=o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$.
This condition can formally be supported in practice by looking at the size of $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \mu$. The next regularity condition ensures that $\widehat{\beta}^n$ is a sufficiently good estimate of $\beta^0$ so that $\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}$ can be interpreted as being approximately equal to the the worst-case conditional unvaccinated risk.
1. \[it:betangood\] ${\operatorname{Rem}}_3^n\triangleq \gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \gamma^{\beta^0,0} - \theta^0[\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}]=o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$.
We give more interpretable sufficient conditions for \[it:betangood\] in Appendix \[app:moreinterpretablebetangood\]. These conditions are a variant of the margin assumptions used in the classification literature.
Proofs {#app:proofs}
======
Proof of lower bound {#app:lb}
--------------------
Because $\mu=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]]$ and \[it:brdatadepub\] holds, $\omega^{\beta^0,0}=\mu$. By \[it:brVEbridge\], $\omega^{\beta^0,0}\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})\ge \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)]$. Below we respectively use $\mathcal{E}_1$, $\mathcal{E}_2$, and $\mathcal{E}_3$ to denote the events $\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)<\theta^0\}$, $\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\theta^0\}$, and $\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)>\theta^0\}$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^{\beta^0,0}&\Psi(P_\star^{0,F}) - \gamma^{\beta^0,0}\ge \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)] - \gamma^{\beta^0,0} \\
=&\, \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[(\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{E}_1} + \eta^0 \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{E}_2})\left\{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]-\upsilon^0(W)\right\}{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)\right] \\
&+ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[(\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{E}_3} + [1-\eta^0] \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{E}_2})\left\{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]-\lambda^0(W)\right\}{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)\right].\end{aligned}$$ By \[it:brdatadepub\] and the fact that $\eta^0\in [0,1]$, replacing each instance of ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)$ on the right-hand side by $\theta^0$ yields a lower bound of the form $\theta^0\left[\mu - \omega^{\beta^0,0}\right]$. As $\omega^{\beta^0,0}=\mu$, this lower bound is equal to zero. Dividing both sides by $\omega^{\beta^0,0}>0$ gives the result.
\[lem:lbmon\] If $\lambda^0\equiv 0$, \[it:brcommonsupport\], and \[it:brvebdd\], then $\phi_\mu^0$ is monotonically nondecreasing in $\mu$.
Fix $\theta_1\le \theta_2$ and $x_1,x_2\in[0,1]$. If $\theta_1=\theta_2$, then suppose also that $x_1\le x_2$. For $k=1,2$, define $\beta_k\triangleq w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)<\theta_k\}} + x_k \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)=\theta_k\}}$. Note that $\beta_2(w)-\beta_1(w)\ge 0$ and is strictly positive only if ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)\ge \theta_1$. Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\gamma^{\beta_1,0}}{\omega^{\beta_1,0}}-\frac{\gamma^{\beta_2,0}}{\omega^{\beta_2,0}}&= \frac{\left[\omega^{\beta_2,0}-\omega^{\beta_1,0}\right]\gamma^{\beta_1,0} - \omega^{\beta_1,0}\left[\gamma^{\beta_2,0}-\gamma^{\beta_1,0}\right]}{\omega^{\beta_1,0}\omega^{\beta_2,0}} \\
&= \frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\{\beta_2(W)-\beta_1(W)\}\upsilon^0(W)\{\gamma^{\beta_1,0}-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)\omega^{\beta_1,0}\}\right]}{\omega^{\beta_1,0}\omega^{\beta_2,0}} \\
&\le \frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\{\beta_2(W)-\beta_1(W)\}\upsilon^0(W)\right]\left[\gamma^{\beta_1,0}-\theta_1\omega^{\beta_1,0}\right]}{\omega^{\beta_1,0}\omega^{\beta_2,0}}.\end{aligned}$$ Noting that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\beta_1,0}&= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)\{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)<\theta_1\}} + x_1 \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)=\theta_1\}}\}{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)] \\
&\le \theta_1 \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)\{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)<\theta_1\}} + x_1 \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)=\theta_1\}}\}] = \theta_1\omega^{\beta_1,0},\end{aligned}$$ we see that $\frac{\gamma^{\beta_1,0}}{\omega^{\beta_1,0}}\le \frac{\gamma^{\beta_2,0}}{\omega^{\beta_2,0}}$.
We now write $\theta_\mu^0$ and $x_\mu^0$ to make the dependence of $\theta^0$, $\eta^0$ on $\mu$ explicit. As $\upsilon^0(w)>0$ for all $w$, clearly $\mu_1<\mu_2$ implies that $\theta_{\mu_1}^0\le \theta_{\mu_2}^0$ and, if $\theta_{\mu_1}^0= \theta_{\mu_2}^0$, then also that $x_{\mu_1}^0\le x_{\mu_2}^0$. This completes the proof.
Pathwise derivative of $\Phi$ (Theorem \[thm:pd\]) {#app:pd}
--------------------------------------------------
Throughout this section, we refer to parameters evaluated at the collection of distributions $\mathcal{P}^\epsilon$ rather than parameters evaluated at $\mathcal{P}^0$ by replacing the superscript zero by superscript $\epsilon$, e.g. we write $\upsilon^\epsilon\triangleq \Upsilon(\mathcal{P}^\epsilon)$ rather than $\upsilon^0\triangleq \Upsilon(\mathcal{P}^0)$.
We now prove Theorem \[thm:pd\]. The proof references results that we prove later in this section.
We consider the cases that \[it:omegacontnotflat\] holds and that \[it:mubig\] holds separately. The proof in the case where \[it:musmall\] holds is nearly identical that under \[it:mubig\], and so the proof is omitted.*Case 1:* \[it:omegacontnotflat\] holds. By \[it:omegacontnotflat\] and the fact that $\upsilon^0$ is bounded away from zero, $\omega^{\beta^0,0} = \mu$ and $\theta^0$ is finite. By Lemma \[lem:thetacons\], $\theta^\epsilon$ is finite for all $\epsilon$ small enough so that $\omega^{\beta^\epsilon,\epsilon} = \mu$ for these $\epsilon$. Hence, $\phi^\epsilon - \phi^0 = \frac{\gamma^{\beta^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\gamma^{\beta^0,0}}{\mu}$ for all $\epsilon$ sufficiently small. Dividing both sides by $\epsilon$, taking the limit as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, and applying Theorem \[thm:pdLambda\] (Section \[sec:pdLambda\]) shows that the gradients of $\Phi$ at $\mathcal{P}^0$ are given by the desired expressions.*Case 2:* \[it:mubig\] holds. The key to proving Theorem \[thm:pd\] under \[it:mubig\] is proving that $P_\star^\epsilon\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(W)<\theta^\epsilon\}=P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)<\theta^0\}=1$ for all $\epsilon$ small enough. We formally prove this in Lemma \[lem:thetaepsatbdry\] (Section \[sec:thetaepsatbdry\]). It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(\mathcal{P}^\epsilon) - \Phi(\mathcal{P}^0)&= \frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^\epsilon\left[\upsilon^\epsilon(W)\operatorname{VE}^\epsilon(W)\right]}{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^\epsilon\left[\upsilon^\epsilon(W)\right]} - \frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\upsilon^0(W){\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)\right]}{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\upsilon^0(W)\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ Dividing both sides by $\epsilon$ and taking the limit as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ yields the same expression that would be used to evaluate the gradients of the parameter $\mathcal{P}'\rightarrow \frac{\int \Upsilon(\mathcal{P}')(w){\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}'(w) dP_\star'(w)}{\int \Upsilon(\mathcal{P}')(w) dP_\star'(w)}$. It is straightforward to derive expressions for the gradients of this parameter via the delta method.
### Lemma used to Prove Theorem \[thm:pd\] under \[it:mubig\]. {#sec:thetaepsatbdry}
\[lem:thetaepsatbdry\] If \[it:brcommonsupport\], \[it:brvebdd\], and \[it:mubig\], then $P_\star^\epsilon\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(W)<\theta^\epsilon\}=1$ for all $\epsilon$ small enough.
Standard pathwise differentiability calculations show that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^\epsilon[\upsilon^\epsilon(W)]-\omega^{\beta^0,0}}{\epsilon}&= \frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^\epsilon[\upsilon^\epsilon(W)]-\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)]}{\epsilon} \\
&= \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} P_s^\epsilon \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,0} + o(1),\end{aligned}$$ and the fact that each $\nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,0}(O_s)$ has mean zero for $O_s\sim P_s^0$ implies that the right-hand side is $O(1)$. By \[it:mubig\], $\omega^{\beta^0,0}<\mu$. Hence, $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^\epsilon[\upsilon^\epsilon(W)] < \mu + O(\epsilon)$. It follows that, for all $\epsilon$ sufficiently small, $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^\epsilon[\operatorname{UR}^{w\mapsto\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(w)<\theta\}},\epsilon}(W)]<\mu$ for all $\theta$. Hence, $\theta^\epsilon=+\infty$ for all $\epsilon$ sufficiently small, completing the proof.
### Theorem used to prove Theorem \[thm:pd\] under \[it:omegacontnotflat\]. {#sec:pdLambda}
The following theorem establishes the pathwise differentiability of the parameter $\mathcal{P}'\mapsto \Gamma^{\beta'}(\mathcal{P}')$, where the $\beta'$ in the subscript is the analogue of $\beta^0$ but defined at parameter input $\mathcal{P}'$ rather than at $\mathcal{P}^0$.
\[thm:pdLambda\] If \[it:brcommonsupport\], \[it:brvebdd\], and \[it:omegacontnotflat\], then $\mathcal{P}'\mapsto \Gamma^{\beta'}(\mathcal{P}')$ is pathwise differentiable at $\mathcal{P}^0$ with $P_s^0$ gradients $o_s\mapsto \nabla \Gamma_s^{\beta^0,0}(o_s) - \theta^0 \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,0}(o_s)$, $s\in\mathcal{S}$.
Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\gamma^{\beta^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\gamma^{\beta^0,0}}{\epsilon}&= \frac{\gamma^{\beta^0,\epsilon}-\gamma^{\beta^0,0}}{\epsilon}+\frac{\gamma^{\beta^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\gamma^{\beta^0,\epsilon}}{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ We wish to obtain an expression for the limit on the left as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$. If the limits exist for both terms on the right, then the limit on the left is given by their sum. A standard delta method argument shows that the limit as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ on the right is given by $\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} P_s^0 \nabla \Gamma_s^{\beta^0,0} h_s$. Lemma \[lem:quantilederiv\] shows that the limit exists for the latter term and provides its closed form expression.
\[lem:quantilederiv\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:pdLambda\], $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\frac{\gamma^{\beta^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\gamma^{\beta^0,\epsilon}}{\epsilon}&= -\theta^0\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} \int \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,0}(o_s) h_s(o_s) dP_s^0(o_s).\end{aligned}$$
Telescoping yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\beta^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\gamma^{\beta^0,\epsilon}=&\, \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^\epsilon\left[\left\{\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^\epsilon,\epsilon}(W)-\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,\epsilon}(W)\right\}\operatorname{VE}^\epsilon(W)\right] \\
=&\, \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^\epsilon\left[\left\{\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^\epsilon,\epsilon}(W)-\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,\epsilon}(W)\right\}\left\{\operatorname{VE}^\epsilon(W)-\theta^0\right\}\right] \\
&+ \theta^0\int \left\{\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^\epsilon,\epsilon}(w) dP_\star^\epsilon(w)-\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,0}(w) dP_\star^0(w)\right\} \\
&- \theta^0\int \left\{\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,\epsilon}(w) dP_\star^\epsilon(w)-\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,0}(w) dP_\star^0(w)\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ We denote the first and second terms in the final equality by $T_1^\epsilon$ and $T_2^\epsilon$. If we can show that $T_1^\epsilon$ and $T_2^\epsilon$ are $o(\epsilon)$, then the result is immediate by dividing both sides by $\epsilon$ and applying the chain rule to the third term.
The remainder of this proof uses a positive constant $c$ that may vary line by line. We first establish that $T_1^\epsilon=o(\epsilon)$. Straightforward calculations show that $$\begin{aligned}
|T_1^\epsilon|\le (1+c|\epsilon|)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0\Bigg[&\left\{\left|\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^\epsilon,0}(W)-\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,0}(W)\right| + c|\epsilon|\right\} \\
&\times\left\{\left|{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\theta^0\right| + c|\epsilon|\right\}\Bigg].\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity we suppose that $\eta^\epsilon=0$ for the remainder of the proof, but the proof with $\eta^\epsilon\not=0$ is nearly identical. For each $w$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^\epsilon,0}(w)-\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,0}(w)\right| = \left|\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(w)<\theta^\epsilon\}}-\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)<\theta^0\}}\right|[\upsilon^0(w)-\lambda^0(w)].\end{aligned}$$ Using that $\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(w)<\theta^\epsilon\}}\not=\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)<\theta^0\}}$ implies that $0\le |{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)-\theta^0|<|{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(w)-\theta^\epsilon-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)+\theta^0|$ then shows that $$\begin{aligned}
|T_1^\epsilon|\le (1+c|\epsilon|)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0\Bigg|&\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{0\le |{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)-\theta^0|<|{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(w)-\theta^\epsilon-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)+\theta^0|\}} \\
&\times\left\{[\upsilon^0(W)-\lambda^0(W)]|{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\theta^0| + c|\epsilon|\right\}\Bigg|.\end{aligned}$$ The indicator above can be replaced by $\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{0< |{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)-\theta^0|<|{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(w)-\theta^\epsilon-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)+\theta^0|\}}$ because \[it:omegacontnotflat\] implies that $P_\star^0({\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\theta^0)=0$. Combining this with the fact that $\upsilon^0(W)-\lambda^0(W)\le 1$ and $|{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(w)-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)|\le c|\epsilon|$ shows that $$\begin{aligned}
|T_1^\epsilon|&\le (1+c|\epsilon|)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0\left[\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{0< |{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)-\theta^0|<|{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(w)-\theta^\epsilon-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)+\theta^0|\}}\left\{|\theta^\epsilon-\theta^0| + c|\epsilon|\right\}\right].\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lem:thetacons\], $\theta^\epsilon-\theta^0=O(\epsilon)$ so that, for all $\epsilon$ large enough, $$\begin{aligned}
|T_1^\epsilon|\le c|\epsilon|P_\star^0\left\{0< |{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)-\theta^0|<c|\epsilon|\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ The probability statement is $o(1)$. Thus, $T_1^\epsilon=o(\epsilon)$.
Lemma \[lem:thetacons\] establishes that $\theta^\epsilon$ is finite for all $\epsilon$ small enough, and
The assumption that \[it:omegacontnotflat\] establishes that $\theta^0$ is finite, and thus Lemma \[lem:thetacons\] establishes that $\theta^\epsilon$ is finite for all $\epsilon$ small enough. It follows that $\omega^{\beta^\epsilon,\epsilon}=\mu$ for all $\epsilon$ small enough, and thus $T_2^\epsilon=\omega^{\beta^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\omega^{\beta^0,0}=0$ for these $\epsilon$.
\[lem:F0notflat\] For each $t$, let $\tilde{\beta}_t\triangleq w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)<t\}}$. If \[it:omegacontnotflat\] holds, then, for all $\theta$ in a neighborhood of $\theta^0$, $$\begin{aligned}
0&<\liminf_{t\rightarrow 0}\frac{\omega^{\tilde{\beta}_{\theta+t},0}-\omega^{\tilde{\beta}_{\theta},0}}{t}\le \limsup_{t\rightarrow 0}\frac{\omega^{\tilde{\beta}_{\theta+t},0}-\omega^{\tilde{\beta}_{\theta},0}}{t} <\infty,\end{aligned}$$
As $\upsilon^0(w)-\lambda^0(w)\ge \delta$ for all $w$, the facts that $t\mapsto P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)<\theta^0+t\}$ is monotonically non-decreasing and that \[it:omegacontnotflat\] holds yield that $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{t\rightarrow 0}\frac{\omega^{\tilde{\beta}_{\theta+t},0}-\omega^{\tilde{\beta}_{\theta},0}}{t}&= \liminf_{t\rightarrow 0}\frac{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\{\upsilon^0(W)-\lambda^0(W)\}I\{\theta^0\le {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)< \theta^0+t\}]}{t} \\
&\ge\delta\liminf_{t\rightarrow 0}\frac{P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)<\theta^0+t\}-P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)<\theta^0\}}{t}>0.\end{aligned}$$ The limit supremum result is proven similarly.
\[lem:thetacons\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:pdLambda\], $\theta^\epsilon= \theta^0 + O(\epsilon)$.
In what follows we abuse notation and write $\omega^{\theta,\epsilon}$ for $\omega^{w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(w)<\theta\}},\epsilon}$ for all $\theta,\epsilon$. Note that, by \[it:omegacontnotflat\], $\eta^0=0$ so that $\omega^{\beta^0,0}=\omega^{\theta^0,0}$. We similarly abuse notation by letting $\operatorname{UR}^{\theta,\epsilon}\triangleq \operatorname{UR}^{w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(w)<\theta\}},\epsilon}$ and $D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\theta,\epsilon}\triangleq D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(w)<\theta\}},\epsilon}$.
We first establish that $\theta^\epsilon\rightarrow\theta^0$. For $t>0$, the definition of $\theta^\epsilon$ yields that $|\theta^\epsilon-\theta^0|>t$ implies that either $\omega^{\theta^0-t,\epsilon}>\mu$ or $\omega^{\theta^0+t,\epsilon}\le \mu$. We will establish that $\theta^\epsilon\rightarrow\theta^0$ by showing that, for any $t>0$, both (i) $\omega^{\theta^0-t,\epsilon}\le\mu$ and (ii) $\omega^{\theta^0+t,\epsilon}> \mu$, and therefore $|\theta^\epsilon-\theta^0|\le t$.
For a constant $c>0$ that may vary line by line, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^{\theta^0-t,\epsilon}&\le (1+c|\epsilon|)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0\left[\operatorname{UR}^{\theta^0-t,\epsilon}(W)\right] \\
&= (1+c|\epsilon|)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0\left[\lambda^\epsilon(W) + \{\upsilon^\epsilon(W)-\lambda^\epsilon(W)\}\operatorname{\mathds{1}}\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(W)<\theta^0-t\}\right] \\
&\le (1+c|\epsilon|)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\star}^0\left[\lambda^\epsilon(W) + \{\upsilon^\epsilon(W)-\lambda^\epsilon(W)\}\operatorname{\mathds{1}}\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)<\theta^0-t+c|\epsilon|\}\right] \\
&= (1+c|\epsilon|)\omega^{\theta^0-t+c|\epsilon|,0} + c|\epsilon|.\end{aligned}$$ Now, we know that $\omega^{\theta^0-t+c|\epsilon|,0}\le \mu$ by the definition of the supremum, and by \[it:omegacontnotflat\] the inequality is strict. It follows that $\omega^{\theta^0-t,\epsilon}< \mu + c|\epsilon|(1+\mu)$, and so $\omega^{\theta^0-t,\epsilon}< \mu$ for all $|\epsilon|$ sufficiently small. Thus (i) holds. We now establish (ii). Similarly to the above, we have that $\omega^{\theta^0+t,\epsilon}\ge (1-c|\epsilon|)\omega^{\theta^0+t-c|\epsilon|,0}-c|\epsilon|$ for a constant $c>0$. By the definition of the supremum, $\omega^{\theta^0+t-c|\epsilon|,0}>\mu$ for all $|\epsilon|$ sufficiently small. Thus, (ii) holds for all $|\epsilon|$ sufficiently small. From the observation at the beginning of the proof, the fact that (i) and (ii) hold for all $|\epsilon|$ sufficiently small implies that $\limsup_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}|\theta^\epsilon-\theta^0|\le t$, and as $t$ was arbitrary this implies that $\theta^\epsilon-\theta^0 = o(1)$.
We now establish that $\theta^\epsilon-\theta^0 = O(\epsilon)$. Using similar techniques to those used above, one can show that there exists a $c>0$ such that, for all $\theta$, $$\begin{aligned}
(1-c|\epsilon|)\omega^{\theta-c|\epsilon|,0}-c|\epsilon|\le \omega^{\theta,\epsilon}\le (1+c|\epsilon|)\omega^{\theta+c|\epsilon|,0}+c|\epsilon|. \label{eq:F0bd}\end{aligned}$$ Noting that $\mu\ge \omega^{\theta^\epsilon,\epsilon}$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
0&\ge \omega^{\theta^\epsilon,\epsilon} - \omega^{\theta^0,0}\ge (1-c|\epsilon|)\omega^{\theta^\epsilon-c|\epsilon|,0}-c|\epsilon| - \omega^{\theta^0,0} \\
&= (1-c|\epsilon|)\left[\omega^{\theta^\epsilon-c|\epsilon|,0} - \omega^{\theta^0,0}\right] - c|\epsilon|(1+\omega^{\theta^0,0}).\end{aligned}$$ As \[it:omegacontnotflat\] implies $\liminf_{t\rightarrow 0}\frac{\omega^{\theta^0+t,0}-\omega^{\theta^0,0}}{t}>0$ by Lemma \[lem:F0notflat\], $B\triangleq \liminf_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} B^\epsilon\triangleq \liminf_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\frac{\omega^{\theta^\epsilon-c|\epsilon|,0} - \omega^{\theta^0,0}}{\theta^\epsilon-\theta^0-c|\epsilon|}$ is greater than zero. The above implies that, for all $\epsilon$ small enough, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{c|\epsilon|(1+\omega^{\theta^0,0})}{1-c|\epsilon|}\ge \omega^{\theta^\epsilon-c|\epsilon|,0} - \omega^{\theta^0,0}= (\theta^\epsilon-\theta^0-c|\epsilon|)B^\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Dividing both sides by $B^\epsilon$ and taking the limit supremum of the left-hand side as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ shows that $\theta^\epsilon-\theta^0\le O(\epsilon)$.
The proof of the fact that $\theta^\epsilon-\theta^0\ge O(\epsilon)$ is analogous, making use of the upper bound in (\[eq:F0bd\]) and the fact that $\mu< \omega^{\theta^\epsilon+c|\epsilon|,\epsilon}$ if $\theta^\epsilon$ is finite (guaranteed for all $\epsilon$ small enough).
Asymptotic linearity (Theorem \[thm:al\]) {#app:thmalproof}
-----------------------------------------
In what follows, we write \[it:omegacontnotflat\]/\[it:goodquantile\]/\[it:betangood\] to mean that \[it:omegacontnotflat\], \[it:goodquantile\], and \[it:betangood\] hold. The proof under \[it:musmall\] is essentially equivalent to that under \[it:mubig\], so for simplicity we only give the proof under \[it:mubig\] and \[it:omegacontnotflat\]/\[it:goodquantile\]/\[it:betangood\]. Outside of formal theorem statements, when we write that \[it:omegacontnotflat\]/\[it:goodquantile\]/\[it:betangood\] holds or that \[it:mubig\] holds, we mean that the stated condition(s) and the other conditions of Theorem \[thm:al\], namely \[it:brcommonsupport\], \[it:brvebdd\], \[it:CSconsistency\], \[it:thetaDonsker\], \[it:thetaempproc\], and \[it:VEnbdd\], hold.
We prove Theorem \[thm:al\] by analyzing the terms on the right-hand side of the following decomposition, whose derivation is straightforward: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\phi}^n-\phi^0=& \frac{\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}}{\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}} - \frac{\gamma^{\beta^0,0}}{\omega^{\beta^0,0}} \nonumber \\=&\, \frac{\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}}{\omega^{\beta^0,0}} - \frac{\gamma^{\beta^0,0}}{[\omega^{\beta^0,0}]^2}\left[\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}\right] + \frac{\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \gamma^{\beta^0,0}}{\omega^{\beta^0,0}} \nonumber \\
&+ \left[\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\gamma^{\beta^0,0}\right]\left[\frac{1}{\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}}-\frac{1}{\omega^{\beta^0,0}}\right] + \frac{\gamma^{\beta^0,0}}{\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}[\omega^{\beta^0,0}]^2}\left[\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}\right]^2 \nonumber \\
\triangleq&\, \textnormal{Term 1} - \textnormal{Term 2} + \textnormal{Term 3} + \textnormal{Term 4} + \textnormal{Term 5}. \label{eq:term1to5def}\end{aligned}$$ We will show that Term 1 is non-negligible, i.e. contributes to the dominant $O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ term in the asymptotically linear expansion, under both \[it:omegacontnotflat\]/\[it:goodquantile\]/\[it:betangood\] and \[it:mubig\], Term 2 is negligible, i.e. $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$, under \[it:omegacontnotflat\]/\[it:goodquantile\]/\[it:betangood\] and non-negligible under \[it:mubig\], and Term 3 is non-negligible under \[it:omegacontnotflat\]/\[it:goodquantile\]/\[it:betangood\] and negligible under \[it:mubig\]. Terms 4 and 5 are remainder terms that one can ignore if they invoke the delta method. Indeed, if we show that $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}$ and $\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\gamma^{\beta^0,0}$ are $O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$, then Terms 4 and 5 are negligible. As this is what we will show under both \[it:omegacontnotflat\]/\[it:goodquantile\]/\[it:betangood\] and \[it:mubig\], Terms 4 and 5 can be shown to be negligible by our analysis of the first three terms.
The following theorem establishes the behavior of Term 1 by studying $\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}$.
\[thm:daparamal\] If \[it:brvebdd\], \[it:CSconsistency\], \[it:thetaempproc\], and \[it:VEnbdd\], then $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}&= \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Gamma_s^{\beta^0,0} + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$
The is given in Appendix \[app:term1\].
The fact that Term 2 is negligible under \[it:omegacontnotflat\]/\[it:goodquantile\]/\[it:betangood\] is an immediate consequence of \[it:goodquantile\]. We now present a theorem that establishes the behavior of Term 3 under \[it:omegacontnotflat\]/\[it:goodquantile\]/\[it:betangood\].
\[thm:phitheta\] If \[it:brvebdd\], \[it:omegacontnotflat\], \[it:CSconsistency\], \[it:thetaempproc\], \[it:goodquantile\], and \[it:betangood\], then $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \gamma^{\beta^0,0}&= - \theta^0\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,0} + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$
The is given in Appendix \[app:Terms23munotbig\]. We now present a lemma and a theorem that respectively establish the behavior of Terms 3 and 2 under \[it:mubig\]. Both results are proven in Appendix \[app:Terms23mubig\].
\[lem:QstarnWeq1\] If \[it:brvebdd\], \[it:mubig\], \[it:CSconsistency\], and \[it:thetaDonsker\], then $\widehat{\theta}^n=+\infty$, and consequently $Q_\star^n\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(W)<\widehat{\theta}^n\}=1$, with probability approaching one.
The is given in Appendix \[app:Terms23mubig\]. By \[it:mubig\], $\theta^0=+\infty$, so that the above shows that $\widehat{\theta}^n=\theta^0$, and thus that Term 2 is zero, with probability approaching one.
\[thm:term2mubig\] If \[it:brvebdd\], \[it:mubig\], \[it:CSconsistency\], and \[it:thetaempproc\], then $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}&= \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n - P_s^0)\nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,0} + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$
The is given in Appendix \[app:Terms23mubig\].
### Term 1 under \[it:omegacontnotflat\]/\[it:goodquantile\]/\[it:betangood\] and \[it:mubig\]. {#app:term1}
We give a lemma before proving Theorem \[thm:daparamal\].
\[lem:daremsmall\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:daparamal\], $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} P_s^0 \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} = o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$
Note that $$\begin{aligned}
&\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} P_s^0 \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} \nonumber \\
&= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0 \left[\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W)\operatorname{VE}^n(W)\right] - \gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} + \sum_{s=1}^S P_s^0 \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}. \label{eq:phidaremdecomp}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{s=1}^S &P_s^0 \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} \nonumber \\
=&\, \sum_{s=1}^S \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[\frac{dP_{\star}^n}{dP_s^n}(W)\left\{D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(O)\operatorname{VE}^n(W)+\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W)D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^n(O)\right]\right] \nonumber \\
=&\, \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\sum_{s=1}^S\left\{D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(O)\operatorname{VE}^n(W)+\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W)D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^n(O)\right\}\right] \label{eq:dPstartrue} \\
&+ \sum_{s=1}^S \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[\left\{\frac{dP_{\star}^n}{dP_s^n}(W)-\frac{dP_{\star}^0}{dP_s^0}(W)\right\}\left\{D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(O)\operatorname{VE}^n(W)+\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W)D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^n(O)\right\}\right]. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The law of total expectation and the fact that $D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}$ and $D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^0$ are mean zero when applied to a random variable $O_s$ drawn from the conditional distribution $O_s|W$ under $P_s^0$ yield that the latter line is bounded above by $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{s=1}^S \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\Bigg[&\left\{\frac{dP_{\star}^n}{dP_s^n}(W)-\frac{dP_{\star}^0}{dP_s^0}(W)\right\} \\
&\times\Big\{\left(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(O)|W]-\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}(O)|W]\right)\operatorname{VE}^n(W) \\
&\hspace{2em}+\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W)\left(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^n(O)|W]-\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^0(O)|W]\right)\Big\}\Bigg].\end{aligned}$$ The above is $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ by Cauchy-Schwarz, \[it:CSconsistency\], \[it:VEnbdd\], and the fact that $\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$, $\operatorname{VE}^n$ have bounded range. Furthermore, (\[eq:dPstartrue\]) simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0&\left[\sum_{s=1}^S\left\{D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(O)\operatorname{VE}^n(W)+\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W)D_{\operatorname{VE},s}^n(O)\right\}\right] \\
=&\, \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\left\{[\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}(W)-\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W)]\operatorname{VE}^n(W)+\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W)[{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\operatorname{VE}^n(W)]\right\}\right] \\
&+\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\left\{\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W)-\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}(W) + \sum_{s=1}^S D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(O)\right\}\operatorname{VE}^n(W)\right] \\
&+\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W){\operatorname{Rem}}_2(\mathcal{P}^n,\mathcal{P}^0)\right].\end{aligned}$$ The final line is $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ by \[it:CSconsistency\]. The magnitude of the second line is upper bounded by $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[{\operatorname{Rem}}_1(\mathcal{P}^n,\mathcal{P}^0)(W)|\operatorname{VE}^n(W)|\right]$, which is also $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ by \[it:CSconsistency\]. We have thus established that (\[eq:phidaremdecomp\]) rewrites as $$\begin{aligned}
&\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} -\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} P_s^0 \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} \\
=&\, \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\{\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W)-\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}(W)\}\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\operatorname{VE}^n(W)\}\right] + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ By Cauchy-Schwarz and \[it:CSconsistency\], the leading term on the right is $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$, so that indeed the entire right-hand side is $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$.
We now prove Theorem \[thm:daparamal\].
Rearranging the result of Lemma \[lem:daremsmall\] yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}&= - \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} P_s^0 \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ Adding $\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} Q_s^n \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$ to both sides shows that the one-step estimator $\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$ satisfies the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}&= \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ Applying \[it:thetaempproc\] allows one to replace each instance of $\nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$ above by $\nabla \Gamma_s^{\beta^0,0}$, $s\in\mathcal{S}$.
### Term 3 under \[it:omegacontnotflat\]/\[it:goodquantile\]/\[it:betangood\]. {#app:Terms23munotbig}
We first give two lemmas, and then we establish control of Term 3 by proving Theorem \[thm:phitheta\].
\[lem:thetaee\] If \[it:brvebdd\] and \[it:CSconsistency\], then $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}\right|&= o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$
Note that $$\begin{aligned}
&\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} P_s^0 \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} \\
=&\, \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W)\right] + \sum_{s=1}^S \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[\frac{dP_{\star}^n}{dP_s^n}(W)D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(O)\right] \\
=&\, \omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} + \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W) - \operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}(W) + \sum_{s=1}^S \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(O)\middle|W\right]\right] \\
&+ \sum_{s=1}^S \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[\left\{\frac{dP_{\star}^n}{dP_s^n}(W)-\frac{dP_{\star}^0}{dP_s^0}(W)\right\}\left\{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(O)\middle|W\right] - \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}(O)\middle|W\right]\right\}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the final equality uses that $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}(O)\middle|W\right] = 0$. The second line is $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ by \[it:CSconsistency\] and Cauchy-Schwarz. The triangle inequality readily yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left|\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(W) - \operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}(W) + \sum_{s=1}^S \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0\left[D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}(O)\middle|W\right]\right|&\le \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left|{\operatorname{Rem}}_1(\mathcal{P}^n,\mathcal{P}^0)(W)\right|,\end{aligned}$$ and the right-hand side is $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ by \[it:CSconsistency\]. The fact that $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}\triangleq \omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} Q_s^n \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$ completes the proof.
Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \gamma^{\beta^0,0}=& \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\left\{\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}(W)-\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,0}(W)\right\}{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)\right] \\
=& \theta^0\left[\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}\right] + \left\{\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \gamma^{\beta^0,0}-\theta^0\left[\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}\right]\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ By \[it:betangood\], the latter term above is $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$. By Lemma \[lem:thetaee\] and \[it:goodquantile\], $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}&= \omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} Q_s^n \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}) \\
&= \mu - \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ By \[it:omegacontnotflat\], $\omega^{\beta^0,0}=\mu$, and so $$\begin{aligned}
\theta^0\left[\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}\right]
&= - \theta^0\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n-P_s^0) \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ By \[it:thetaempproc\], we can replace each $\Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}$ above by $\Omega_s^{\beta^0,0}$.
### Terms 2 and 3 under \[it:mubig\]. {#app:Terms23mubig}
We first prove Lemma \[lem:QstarnWeq1\], thereby showing that Term 3 is equal to zero with probability approaching $1$. We then establish control over Term 2 by proving Theorem \[thm:term2mubig\].
By \[it:mubig\], $\theta^0=+\infty$. We show that $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta^0,n} \le \mu$, and consequently $\widehat{\beta}^n=+\infty$, with probability approaching one. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\omega}^{\beta^0,n} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}&= \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^n - P_s^0) \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,n} + \left\{\widehat{\omega}^{\beta^0,n} - \omega^{\beta^0,0} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} P_s^0 \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,n}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ The first term on the right is $O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ by \[it:thetaDonsker\], and the latter term is $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ by \[it:CSconsistency\]. Hence, $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta^0,n} = \omega^{\beta^0,0} + O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$. By \[it:mubig\], $\omega^{\beta^0,0}<\mu$, and thus $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta^0,n}< \mu$ with probability approaching one. As $\beta^0\equiv 1$, it must be the case that $\widehat{\theta}^n=+\infty$.
By Lemma \[lem:QstarnWeq1\], $\widehat{\theta}^n=+\infty$ with probability approaching $1$. Suppose this holds. In this case the TMLE step ensures that $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}=Q_\star^n \upsilon^n$. Furthermore, \[it:mubig\] implies that $\omega^{\beta^0,0}=P_\star^0 \upsilon^0$. By the definition of ${\operatorname{Rem}}_1$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}&= (Q_\star^n-P_\star^0) \upsilon^n + P_\star^0 (\upsilon^n-\upsilon^0) \\
&= (Q_\star^n-P_\star^0) \nabla \Omega_\star^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \sum_{s=1}^S P_\star^0 D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} + P_\star^0 {\operatorname{Rem}}_1(\mathcal{P}^n,\mathcal{P}^0).\end{aligned}$$ By \[it:CSconsistency\], $P_\star^0 {\operatorname{Rem}}_1(\mathcal{P}^n,\mathcal{P}^0)=o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{s=1}^S P_\star^0 D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}&= \sum_{s=1}^S P_s^0 \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} + \sum_{s=1}^S P_s^0 \left[\frac{dP_\star^0}{dP_s^0}-\frac{dP_\star^n}{dP_s^n}\right] D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}.\end{aligned}$$ Using that each $D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\beta^0}(O)$ is mean zero for $O\sim P_s^0$ (conditionally on $w$), the $D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}$ on the right-hand side above can be replaced by $D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}-D_{\operatorname{UR},s}^{\beta^0}$, thereby showing that the latter term above is $o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ by \[it:CSconsistency\]. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}&= (Q_\star^n-P_\star^0) \nabla \Omega_\star^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \sum_{s=1}^S P_s^0 \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ By Steps \[it:tmle1\], \[it:tmle2\], and \[it:tmle3\] of our estimation procedure and the fact that $\widehat{\theta}^n=+\infty$, $\sum_{s=1}^S Q_s^n \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n}=0$ . This shows that $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}=\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^0-P_s^0) \nabla \Omega_s^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$. By \[it:thetaempproc\], it follows that $\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \omega^{\beta^0,0}=\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} (Q_s^0-P_s^0) \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta^0,0} + o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$.
More interpretable condition for \[it:betangood\] {#app:moreinterpretablebetangood}
=================================================
We now provide a more interpretable sufficient condition for \[it:betangood\]. First note that ${\operatorname{Rem}}_3^n$ rewrites as $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Rem}}_3^n = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\left\{\operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}(W)-\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,0}(W)\right\}\left\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\theta^0\right\}\right].\end{aligned}$$ The expression in the expectation above is small when either $\widehat{\beta}^n(W)=\beta^0(W)$ or ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)$ is close to $\theta^0$. This observation gives some hope that the above expectation will be small when ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n$ and $\widehat{\theta}^n$ are good estimates of $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ and $\theta^0$, because it will likely only be most difficult to correctly specify $\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(W)\ge\widehat{\theta}^n\}}$ when ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\theta^0$ is small.
We now make this claim precise. The following margin condition is analogous to that used by in the classification context. In particular, for each $\alpha>0$ we define Condition $\alpha$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
P_0^\star\left\{0<|{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\theta^0|\le t\right\}&\lesssim t^{\alpha}\textnormal{ for all }t>0.\end{aligned}$$ The above states that ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)$ does not place too much mass in the neighborhood of the decision boundary $\theta^0$ that appears in the worst-case unvaccinated risk $\operatorname{UR}^{\beta^0,0}$. The following theorem is an adaptation of Lemma 5.2 in . A similar adaptation was given in .
If \[it:omegacontnotflat\] and Condition $\alpha$ holds for a given $\alpha>0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
&|{\operatorname{Rem}}_3^n|\lesssim {\left\lVert({\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(W)-\widehat{\theta}^n)-({\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\theta^0)\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}^{2(1+\alpha)/(2+\alpha)} \\
&|{\operatorname{Rem}}_3^n|\lesssim {\left\lVert({\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(W)-\widehat{\theta}^n)-({\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\theta^0)\right\rVert}_{\infty,P_\star^0}^{1+\alpha}.\end{aligned}$$
Shortly we will show that we will show that we can get a faster rate of estimation on the univariate parameter $\widehat{\theta}^n$ than on the infinite-dimensional parameter $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ when $\alpha\ge 1$. Hence, in this case the above allows us to map our rate of convergence of $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ into a rate of decay for the remainder term ${\operatorname{Rem}}_3^n$. Suppose that $\alpha=1$, which holds if $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ has bounded Lebesgue density in a neighborhood of $\theta^0$. The supremum norm result in the above lemma suggests that ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-\widehat{\theta}^n$ converging to ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0-\theta^0$ at a rate faster than ${n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/4}$ will suffice to make ${\operatorname{Rem}}_3^n$ negligible.
We close this section by showing the rate of estimation that we can obtain on $\theta^0$ provided the following additional regularity condition is satisfied:
1. \[it:VEmL2\] ${\left\lVert{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}=o_P(1)$.
The above is very mild if \[it:CSconsistency\] holds.
\[lem:thetancons\] If \[it:brvebdd\], \[it:omegacontnotflat\], \[it:CSconsistency\], \[it:thetaDonsker\], \[it:goodquantile\], and \[it:VEmL2\], then $\widehat{\theta}^n=\theta^0 + o_P(1)$. If Condition $\alpha$ also holds, then we have the stronger result that $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\theta}^n - \theta^0&= O_P\left({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}+{\left\lVert{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}^{\frac{2\alpha}{\alpha+1}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Suppose, as is typical, that ${\left\lVert{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}$ shrinks slower than ${n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}$. In this case, if $\alpha\ge 1$, then the above gives conditions under which $\widehat{\theta}^n=\theta^0 + O_P({\left\lVert{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0})$, where the big-oh can be replaced by a little-oh if $\alpha>1$.
By \[it:goodquantile\], Lemma \[lem:thetaee\], and \[it:thetaDonsker\], $$\begin{aligned}
o_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})=\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^n,n} - \mu= \omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}-\omega^{\beta^0,0} + O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\beta^{n,0}$ denote the function $w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)<\widehat{\theta}^n\}}$. The above shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^{\beta^{n,0},0}-\omega^{\beta^0,0}&= -[\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}-\omega^{\beta^{n,0},0}] + O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})\end{aligned}$$ At the end of this proof, we show that $\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \omega^{\beta^{n,0},0} = o_P(1)$ without using Condition $\alpha$. For now suppose we have established this. By \[it:omegacontnotflat\], $\theta\mapsto\omega^{w\mapsto\operatorname{\mathds{1}}\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)<\theta\},0}$ is continuous and increasing at $\theta^0$ so that $\omega^{\beta^{n,0},0}-\omega^{\beta^0,0} = o_P(1)$ is only possible if $\widehat{\theta}^n-\theta^0=o_P(1)$. If Condition $\alpha$ also holds, then we will show at the end of this proof that $\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} - \omega^{\beta^{n,0},0} = O_P({\left\lVert{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}^{\frac{2\alpha}{\alpha+1}})$. Noting that $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^{\beta^{n,0},0}-\omega^{\beta^0,0}&= \frac{\omega^{\beta^{n,0},0}-\omega^{\beta^0,0}}{\widehat{\theta}^n-\theta^0}[\widehat{\theta}^n-\theta^0],\end{aligned}$$ we see that \[it:omegacontnotflat\] and $\widehat{\theta}^n-\theta^0=o_P(1)$ imply that $\widehat{\theta}^n-\theta^0=O_P(\omega^{\beta^{n,0},0}-\omega^{\beta^0,0})$, which we have shown to be $O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2}+{\left\lVert{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}^{\frac{2\alpha}{\alpha+1}})$ under Condition $\alpha$.
We now establish that $\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} = \omega^{\beta^{n,0},0} + o_P(1)$ regardless of the validity of Condition $\alpha$, and that $\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0} = \omega^{\beta^{n,0},0} + O_P({\left\lVert{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}^{\frac{2\alpha}{\alpha+1}})$ under Condition $\alpha$. For simplicity we give the proof when $\widehat{\eta}^n=0$, though the proof for general $\widehat{\eta}^n\in[0,1]$ only differs slightly. Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}-\omega^{\beta^{n,0},0}\right| \\
&= \left|\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\{\upsilon^0(W)-\lambda^0(W)\}\left\{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(W)<\widehat{\theta}^n\}}-\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)<\widehat{\theta}^n\}}\right\}\right]\right| \\
&\le \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\left|\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(W)<\widehat{\theta}^n\}}-\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)<\widehat{\theta}^n\}}\right|\right] \\
&\le P_\star^0\left\{0\le |{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\widehat{\theta}^n|\le |{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(W)-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)|\right\}.
\intertext{For any $t>0$, the inequality continues as}
&\le P_\star^0\left\{0\le |{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\widehat{\theta}^n|\le t\right\} + P_\star^0\left\{|{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(W)-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)|\ge t\right\} \\
&\le P_\star^0\left\{0\le |{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\widehat{\theta}^n|\le t\right\} + \frac{{\left\lVert{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}^2}{t^2}.\end{aligned}$$ By \[it:omegacontnotflat\], $P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\widehat{\theta}^n\}=0$, so that the former term satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{t\downarrow 0} P_\star^0\left\{0\le |{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-\widehat{\theta}^n|\le t\right\} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ As ${\left\lVert{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}=o_P(1)$ by \[it:VEmL2\], one can choose a sequence $\{t_n\}$ and plug it in for $t$ in the preceding inequality for $\left|\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}-\omega^{\beta^{n,0},0}\right|$ to see that this quantity is $o_P(1)$. If Condition $\alpha$ holds, then one can choose $t_n={\left\lVert{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}^{2/(\alpha+1)}$, yielding the stronger result $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\omega^{\widehat{\beta}^n,0}-\omega^{\beta^{n,0},0}\right|&\lesssim {\left\lVert{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0\right\rVert}_{2,P_\star^0}^{\frac{2\alpha}{\alpha+1}}.\end{aligned}$$
Alternative to Steps \[it:tmle1\], \[it:tmle2\], and \[it:tmle3\] in our estimation scheme {#app:altalg}
==========================================================================================
We now present alternatives to Steps \[it:tmle1\], \[it:tmle2\], and \[it:tmle3\], to be used when neither (i) $\ell_s(w)$ is a constant multiple of $\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)$ nor (ii) $\ell_s\equiv 0$ for all $s$ holds. The estimation scheme is identical to that presented in the main text besides the modification of these three steps.
1. Fit a bivariate logistic regression with outcome $\left(y_s[i] : s=1,\ldots,S;\,i=1,\ldots,n_s\right)$, covariates $\left(\frac{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{a_s[i]=0\}}\ell_s(w)}{n_s P_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}(A=0|w_s[i])}\frac{dP_\star^{n,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}}(w_s[i]) : s=1,\ldots,S;\,i=1,\ldots,n_s\right)$ and $\left(\frac{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{a_s[i]=0\}}\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)}{n_s P_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}(A=0|w_s[i])}\frac{dP_\star^{n,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}}(w_s[i]) : s=1,\ldots,S;\,i=1,\ldots,n_s\right)$, and fixed, subject-level intercept $\left({\operatorname{logit}}\left(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}[Y|A=0,w_s[i]]\right) : s=1,\ldots,S;\,i=1,\ldots,n_s\right)$. Denote the fitted coefficient in front of the respective covariates by $\epsilon_n^\ell$ and $\epsilon_n^u$.
2. For each $s=1,\ldots,S$, let $(a,w)\mapsto \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,\epsilon_n}[Y|a,w]$ denote the function $$\begin{aligned}
(a,w)\mapsto {\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}\Bigg[&{\operatorname{logit}}\left(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}[Y|a,w]\right) \\
&+ \epsilon_n^\ell\frac{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{a=0\}}\ell_s(w)}{n_s P_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}(A=0|w)}\frac{dP_\star^{n,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}}(w) \\
&+ \epsilon_n^u\frac{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{a=0\}}\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)}{n_s P_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}(A=0|w)}\frac{dP_\star^{n,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}}(w)\Bigg].
\end{aligned}$$
3. Let $\mathcal{P}^n=(P_\star^n,P_1^n,\ldots,P_s^n)$ denote any collection of distribution satisfying that, for all $(a,w)$, $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^n[Y|a,w] = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,\epsilon_n}[Y|a,w]$, $P_s^n(A=1|w) = P_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}(A=1|w)$, and $\frac{dP_\star^n}{dP_s^n}(w) = \frac{dP_\star^{n,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,\textnormal{init}}}(w)$.
Extensions {#app:extensions}
==========
Two-phase sampling {#app:twophase}
------------------
Suppose now that the data is collected via a two-phase sampling scheme in a given trial $s\in\{1,\ldots,S\}$. In particular, suppose that $W$ is collected on only a subset of participants, whereas $(L,A,Y)$ is collected on all participants, where $L$ is a biomarker or collection of biomarkers that may be predictive of $W$. It is not essential that $L$ happens temporally before $A$ and $Y$. If no biomarker $L$ is observed, then one can set $L=0$ for all participants. Let $\Delta$ be an indicator of the missingness of $W$. In this setting, the full data distribution for trial $s$ is $(W,L,A,Y)\sim P_s^{0,F}$, and the observed data structure for trial $s$ is given by $O_s\triangleq (\Delta W,\Delta,L,A,Y)\sim P_s^{0,F}$. We suppose that $W$ is missing at random, in the sense that $\Delta{\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}W | (L,A,Y)$ for each trial $s$, and further that censoring mechanism, i.e. the probability that $\Delta=1$ given each realization of $(L,A,Y)$, is known. This ensures that $P_s^{0,F}$ can be identified with $P_s^0$ by the G-computation formula [@Robins1986]. In particular, for any event $E$ on $O_s$, we have that $P_s^{0,F}\{E\}= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^0[P_s^0\{E|\Delta=1,L\}]$.
A common sampling scheme that generates such data in vaccine efficacy trials is a nested case-control sampling scheme [@Breslow1996], where the outcome $W$ is observed on all cases (participants with $Y=1$), and the outcome $W$ is only observed on a subset of controls ($Y=0$). Often these sampling schemes will take the form of an $m$:1 scheme, such that, for each case with $W$ observed, $W$ is observed for $m$ controls. While technically the indicator $\Delta$ is drawn without replacement for these $m$ individuals, one can typically ignore this dependence in the data with little impact on precision or coverage.
A simple modification of our procedure via inverse probability weighting allows estimation of our efficacy lower bound $\phi^0$. For efficiency gains, we recommend estimating the censoring mechanism even though it is known [see Theorem 2.3 in @vdL02]. While estimating the censoring mechanism improves the precision of our estimator, it does not reduce the width of our confidence intervals. This thus leads to a conservative inferential procedure. The proof of correctness of this approach is beyond the scope of this work, though closely follows the arguments given in [@Rose2011], with minor tweaks to account for the multiple sample nature of the problem. Indeed, Steps \[it:tmle1twophase\], \[it:tmle2twophase\], and \[it:tmle3twophase\] constitute an IPCW-TMLE, as presented in [@Rose2011]. For simplicity we only give the algorithm for the case presented in Section \[sec:eststeps\] in the main text, namely where either (i) the chosen $\ell_s(w)$ is a constant multiple of the chosen $\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)$, where the multiple is independent of $s$ and $w$, or (ii) the chosen $\ell_s\equiv 0$ for all $s$ so that $\lambda^0\equiv 0$. The modification of Steps \[it:tmle1twophase\], \[it:tmle2twophase\], and \[it:tmle3twophase\] is analogous to the modifications made to the algorithm in the main text given in Appendix \[app:altalg\]. We start at Step \[it:censmechtwophase\] so that the other steps parallel those given for the algorithm in the main text.
To emphasize the fact that many of the parameters below depend on the full data structure $(W,L,A,Y)$ rather than the (censored) observed data structure $(\Delta W,\Delta,L,A,Y)$, we replace the “$0$” in the superscript by “$0,F$” when the parameter is defined for the full data distribution, e.g. we write $\lambda^{0,F}$ rather than $\lambda^0$. Similarly, we write $\lambda^{n,F}$ rather than $\lambda^n$ when denoting estimates of parameters of the full data distribution. Finally, we note that below we denote the observed value of $L$ and $\Delta$ for participant $i$ from trial $s$ by $l_s[i]$ and $\delta_s[i]$, respectively.
1. \[it:censmechtwophase\] Estimate each $(l,a,y)\mapsto P_s^0\{\Delta=1|l,a,y\}$ using a completed trial $s$-specific correctly specified parametric model. Standardize these estimates by an appropriate constant so that, for each $s=1,\ldots,S$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n_s} \frac{\delta_s[i]}{P_s^n\{\Delta=1|l_s[i],a_s[i],y_s[i]\}} = n_s.
\end{aligned}$$ Note: correct parametric model specification is possible in this context due to the presumed knowledge (by experimental design) of the censoring mechanism $P_s^0\{\Delta=1|l,a,y\}$.
2. \[it:initeststwophase\] Let $(a,w)\mapsto \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}[Y|a,w]$, $w\mapsto P_s^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}(A=1|w)$, and $w\mapsto \frac{dP_\star^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}}(w)$ represent estimates of $(a,w)\mapsto \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{0,F}[Y|a,w]$, $w\mapsto P_s^{0,F}(A=1|w)$, and $w\mapsto \frac{dP_\star^0}{dP_s^{0,F}}(w)$, respectively.\
Note: [@Rose2011] describe a weighted loss-based estimation scheme that leverages the information in the biomarker $L$ when estimating these quantities. This procedure makes use of the estimate of the censoring mechanism from Step \[it:censmechtwophase\]. [@Rose2011] also extend the super-learner of to two-phase sampling designs.
3. \[it:tmle1twophase\] Fit a weighted univariate logistic regression with weights\
$\left(\frac{\Delta}{P_s^n\{\delta_s[i]=1|l_s[i],a_s[i],y_s[i]\}} : s=1,\ldots,S;\,i=1,\ldots,n_s\right)$, outcome\
$\left(y_s[i] : s=1,\ldots,S;\,i=1,\ldots,n_s\right)$, covariate\
$\left(\frac{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{a_s[i]=0\}}\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)}{n_s P_s^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}(A=0|w_s[i])}\frac{dP_\star^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}}(w_s[i]) : s=1,\ldots,S;\,i=1,\ldots,n_s\right)$, fixed, subject-level intercept $\left({\operatorname{logit}}\left(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}[Y|A=0,w_s[i]]\right) : s=1,\ldots,S;\,i=1,\ldots,n_s\right)$. Denote the fitted coefficient in front of the covariate by $\epsilon_n$.
4. \[it:tmle2twophase\] For each $s=1,\ldots,S$, let $(a,w)\mapsto \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,F,\epsilon_n}[Y|a,w]$ denote the function $$\begin{aligned}
(a,w)\mapsto {\operatorname{logit}}^{-1}\left[{\operatorname{logit}}\left(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}[Y|a,w]\right) + \epsilon_n\frac{\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{a=0\}}\mathbbmss{u}_s(w)}{n_s P_s^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}(A=0|w)}\frac{dP_\star^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}}(w)\right].
\end{aligned}$$
5. \[it:tmle3twophase\] Let $\mathcal{P}^{n,F}=(P_\star^n,P_1^{n,F},\ldots,P_s^{n,F})$ denote any collection of distribution satisfying that, for all $(a,w)$, $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,F}[Y|a,w] = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{n,F,\epsilon_n}[Y|a,w]$, $P_s^{n,F}(A=1|w) = P_s^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}(A=1|w)$, and $\frac{dP_\star^n}{dP_s^{n,F}}(w) = \frac{dP_\star^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}}{dP_s^{n,F,\textnormal{init}}}(w)$. Furthermore, for each completed trial $s$, let $Q_s^{n,F}$ denote the distribution that puts mass proportional to $\delta_s[i]/(n_s P_s^n\{\Delta=1|l_s[i],a_s[i],y_s[i]\})$ at each observation $i=1,\ldots,n_s$, and zero mass elsewhere.
6. \[it:omegantwophase\] For each $\beta : \mathcal{W}\rightarrow[0,1]$, let $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta,n,F}\triangleq \omega^{\beta,n,F} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} Q_s^{n,F} \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta,n,F}$, and note that $\widehat{\omega}^{\beta,n,F}$ rewrites as $Q_\star^{n,F} \operatorname{UR}^{\beta,n,F} + \sum_{s=1}^S Q_s^{n,F} \nabla \Omega_s^{\beta,n,F}$.
7. \[it:thetantwophase\] Let $\widehat{\theta}^{n,F}\triangleq\sup\{\theta : \widehat{\omega}^{w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^{n,F}(w)<\theta\}},n,F} \le \mu\}$, where $\sup\emptyset=-\infty$.
8. \[it:etantwophase\] Let $\widehat{\eta}^{n,F}$ be any element of the set $\operatorname{argmin}_{\eta\in[0,1]}\left(\widehat{\omega}^{\beta_\eta,n,F}-\mu\right)^2$, where $\beta_\eta\triangleq w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^{n,F}(w)<\widehat{\theta}^{n,F}\}} + \eta \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^{n,F}(w)=\widehat{\theta}^{n,F}\}}$.
9. \[it:betantwophase\] Let $\widehat{\beta}^{n,F}\triangleq \beta_{\widehat{\eta}^{n,F}}$.
10. \[it:onesteptwophase\] Estimate $\gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^{n,F},0}$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^{n,F},n,F}&\triangleq \gamma^{\widehat{\beta}^{n,F},n,F} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} Q_s^{n,F} \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^{n,F},n,F} \\
&= n_\star^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n_\star} \operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\beta}^{n,F},n,F}(w_\star[i])\operatorname{VE}^{n,F}(w_\star[i]) + \sum_{s=1}^S Q_s^{n,F} \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\beta}^{n,F},n,F}.
\end{aligned}$$
11. \[it:phintwophase\] Estimate $\phi^0$ with $\widehat{\phi}^{n,F}\triangleq \frac{\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\beta}^{n,F},n,F}}{\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\beta}^{n,F},n,F}}$.
For confidence interval construction, we note that similar conditions to those used in \[thm:al\] yield that our estimator is asymptotically linear, with the same $P_\star^0$ gradient as in the main text (though with the observed data parameters for the completed trial distributions replaced by full data parameters) and, for $s=1,\ldots,S$, $P_s^0$ gradients $o_s\mapsto \frac{\delta}{P_s^0\{\Delta=1|l,a,y\}}\nabla \Phi_s^0(o_s)$, again replacing the observed data parameters by the full data parameters in the definition of $\nabla \Phi_s^0(o_s)$.
Consider a randomized trial where $L$ precedes randomization and $A$ is independent of $L$ conditional on $W$. In this case, it is straightforward to improve the efficiency of the above procedure if $L$ is predictive of $Y$ after accounting for $A$ and $W$ in at least one of the trials. In particular, efficiency could be improved by leveraging this biomarker when estimating both the (known) propensity score $P_s^{0,F}\{A|W\}$ and the outcome regression $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_s^{0,F}[Y|A,W]$, namely by adding $L$ to the both of the corresponding conditioning statements. The same efficiency gain of course holds for the algorithm in the main text, since setting $\Delta=1$ with probability one shows that $W$ being observed on all individuals is a special case of the results in this appendix.
Monotonic vaccine efficacy curve {#app:mono}
--------------------------------
In this section, we describe a situation in which one can replace the condition that $P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\theta^0\}=0$ with the following new condition:
1. \[it:monotonic\] $W$ is real-valued and $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ is monotonic.
We break this section into three parts. First, we present a new partial bridging formula specific to the monotonic ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0$ case. Then, we give formal conditions that will allow one to establish the pathwise derivative of the parameter specified by this formula. Finally, we describe how to modify our estimator from the main text so that the validity of the confidence intervals neither relies on $P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\theta^0\}=0$ nor on \[it:betangood\].
### Partial bridging formula.
We will use the notation from the main text to express our partial bridging formula. We will define alternatives to $\theta^0$, $\eta^0$, $\beta^0$, and $\phi^0$, which we will respectively denote by $\underline{\theta}^0$, $\underline{\eta}^0$, $\underline{\beta}^0$, and $\underline{\phi}^0$.
Define $$\begin{aligned}
&\underline{\theta}^0\triangleq \sup\Big\{\theta\in\mathbb{R} : \omega^{w\mapsto\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{w<\theta\}},0}\le \mu\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sup\emptyset = -\infty$ by convention. Let $\underline{\beta}_{\eta}\triangleq w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{w<\underline{\theta}^0\}} + \eta \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{w=\underline{\theta}^0\}}$, and define $\underline{\eta}^0$ to be the smallest element of the set $\operatorname{argmin}_{\eta\in[0,1]}\left(\omega^{\underline{\beta}_{\eta},0}-\mu\right)^2$. Let $\underline{\beta}^0\triangleq \underline{\beta}_{\underline{\eta}^0}$. One can show that, if $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\lambda^0(W)]\le \mu\le \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)]$, then $\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}=\mu$. Our partial bridging parameter is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{\Phi}(\mathcal{P}^0)\triangleq \frac{\gamma^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}}{\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}}\triangleq\underline{\phi}^0.\end{aligned}$$ The proof of the following lemma is nearly identical to the proof of Lemma \[lem:lb\] and so is omitted.
Suppose \[it:monotonic\], \[it:brVEbridge\], \[it:brdatadepub\], \[it:brcommonsupport\], and \[it:brvebdd\] hold. If $\mu=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^{0,F}[Y|A=0,W]]$, then $\Psi(P_\star^{0,F})\ge \underline{\phi}^0$.
### First-order expansion of $\underline{\phi}^0$.
Our first-order expansion also replaces \[it:omegacontnotflat\] in the main text with two alternative assumptions, the first of which is given below.
1. \[it:Wcdfcontnotflat\] $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\lambda^0(W)]<\mu<\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)]$ and either (i) $P_\star^0\{W=\theta^0\}>0$ or (ii) $P_\star^0\{W=\theta^0\}=0$, $w\mapsto {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)$ is Lipschitz at $\theta^0$, and $$\begin{aligned}
0&<\liminf_{t\rightarrow 0} \frac{P_{\star}^0\{W< \theta+t\}-P_{\star}^0\{W< \theta\}}{t}. \end{aligned}$$
Note that $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\lambda^0(W)]<\mu<\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)]$ implies that $\theta^0$ is finite. We give a theorem presenting the gradients of our parameter. For brevity, we only sketch the proof.
\[thm:pdmono\] If \[it:brcommonsupport\] and \[it:brvebdd\] hold and either \[it:Wcdfcontnotflat\], \[it:mubig\], or \[it:musmall\] holds, then $\underline{\Phi}$ is pathwise differentiable and, for each $s\in\mathcal{S}$, the $P_s^0$ gradient is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \underline{\Phi}_s^0(o_s)=& \begin{cases}
\dfrac{\nabla \Gamma_s^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}(o_s)}{\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}} - {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(\underline{\theta}^0)\dfrac{\nabla \Omega_s^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}(o_s)}{\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}},&\mbox{ if }\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\lambda^0(W)]<\mu<\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0[\upsilon^0(W)], \\[1.3em]
\dfrac{\nabla \Gamma_s^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}(o_s)}{\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}} - \gamma^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}\dfrac{\nabla \Omega_s^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}(o_s)}{[\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}]^2},&\mbox{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$
The proof under \[it:mubig\] or \[it:musmall\] is essentially identical to that of Theorem \[thm:pd\] under the same conditions, we suppose \[it:Wcdfcontnotflat\] in the remainder.
We first outline the convergence result of $\underline{\beta}^\epsilon$ to $\underline{\beta}^0$. If (i), then we can instead show that $\underline{\theta}^\epsilon=\underline{\theta}^0$ for all $\epsilon$ small enough and $\underline{\eta}^\epsilon=\underline{\eta}^0+O(\epsilon)$. If (ii), then \[it:Wcdfcontnotflat\] yields that $\underline{\theta}^\epsilon=\underline{\theta}^0+O(\epsilon)$. In either case, $\underline{\theta}^0$ is finite for all $\epsilon$ small enough so that $\omega^{\underline{\beta}^\epsilon,\epsilon}=\mu$ for all $\epsilon$ small enough. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\phi^\epsilon-\phi^0}{\epsilon} = \mu^{-1}\frac{\gamma^{\underline{\beta}^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\gamma^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}}{\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ so it is enough to study the right-hand side multiplied by $\mu\epsilon$. We will use that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\underline{\beta}^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\gamma^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}=&\, \left\{\gamma^{\underline{\beta}^0,\epsilon}-\gamma^{\underline{\beta}^0,0} - {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(\underline{\theta}^0)[\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,\epsilon}-\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}]\right\} \\
&+ {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(\underline{\theta}^0)\left[\omega^{\underline{\beta}^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}\right] \\
&+ \left\{\gamma^{\underline{\beta}^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\gamma^{\underline{\beta}^0,\epsilon} - {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(\underline{\theta}^0)[\omega^{\underline{\beta}^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,\epsilon}]\right\}\end{aligned}$$ A delta method argument shows that dividing the leading term by $\epsilon$ and taking the limit as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ yields $\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} P_s^0 h_s [\nabla \Gamma_s^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}(o_s) + {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(\underline{\theta}^0)\nabla \Omega_s^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}]$. As we established earlier in this proof, $\omega^{\underline{\beta}^\epsilon,\epsilon}=\mu=\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,0}$ for all $\epsilon$ small enough, so that the second term above is zero for all $\epsilon$ small enough . The remainder of this proof aims to show that the final term is $o(\epsilon)$. We will use a constant $c$ that may vary line by line. We now study the final term above, whose numerator bounds as $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\gamma^{\underline{\beta}^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\gamma^{\underline{\beta}^0,\epsilon} - {\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(\underline{\theta}^0)[\omega^{\underline{\beta}^\epsilon,\epsilon}-\omega^{\underline{\beta}^0,\epsilon}]\right| \\
&= (1+c|\epsilon|)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left|\{\upsilon^\epsilon(W)-\lambda^\epsilon(W)\}\{\underline{\beta}^\epsilon(W)-\underline{\beta}^0(W)\}\left\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^\epsilon(W)-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(\underline{\theta}^0)\right\}\right| \\
&\le (1+c|\epsilon|)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[|\underline{\beta}^\epsilon(W)-\underline{\beta}^0(W)|\left\{\left|{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(\underline{\theta}^0)\right| + c|\epsilon|\right\}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Call the right-hand side $\underline{T}_1^\epsilon$. If (i) holds, then the fact that $\underline{\theta}^\epsilon=\underline{\theta}^0$ for all $\epsilon$ small enough shows that, for all such $\epsilon,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{T}_1^\epsilon&\le c|\epsilon|(1+c|\epsilon|)|\underline{\eta}^\epsilon-\underline{\eta}^0|P_\star^0\{W=\underline{\theta}^0\}.\end{aligned}$$ As $\underline{\eta}^\epsilon-\underline{\eta}^0=O(\epsilon)$, the right-hand side must be $o(\epsilon)$. If, instead, (ii) holds, then similar techniques to those used to control $T_1^\epsilon$ in Theorem \[thm:pdLambda\] show that $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{T}_1^\epsilon&\le (1+c|\epsilon|)\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\star^0\left[\operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{0<|W-\underline{\theta}^0|<|\underline{\theta}^\epsilon-\underline{\theta}^0|\}}\left\{\left|{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)-{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(\underline{\theta}^0)\right| + c|\epsilon|\right\}\right].\end{aligned}$$ By the fact that ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0$ is Lipschitz at $\underline{\theta}^0$ and the bound on $|W-\underline{\theta}^0|$ given in the indicator, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{T}_1^\epsilon&\le (1+c|\epsilon|)\left\{c\left|\underline{\theta}^\epsilon-\underline{\theta}^0\right| + c|\epsilon|\right\}P_\star^0\left\{0<|W-\underline{\theta}^0|<|\underline{\theta}^\epsilon-\underline{\theta}^0|\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ As $\underline{\theta}^\epsilon-\underline{\theta}^0=O(\epsilon)$ and the probability statement is $o(1)$, the right-hand side is $o(\epsilon)$.
### Modification to our estimator.
We now present the modification to the estimator presented in the main text that allows us to replace the condition that ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)$, $W\sim P_\star^0$, does not concentrate mass at a decision boundary with the condition that $W\sim P_\star^0$ does not concentrate mass at a decision boundary and the monotonicity condition \[it:monotonic\].
The first \[it:omegan\] steps of our estimation procedure are identical to that in the main text, and the modification of the remaining steps is given below.
1. \[it:thetanmono\] Let $\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n\triangleq\sup\{\theta : \widehat{\omega}^{w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{w<\theta\}},n} \le \mu\}$, where $\sup\emptyset=-\infty$.
2. \[it:etanmono\] Let $\widehat{\underline{\eta}}^n$ be any element of the set $\operatorname{argmin}_{\eta\in[0,1]}\left(\widehat{\omega}^{\beta_\eta,n}-\mu\right)^2$, where $\beta_\eta\triangleq w\mapsto \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{w<\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n\}} + \eta \operatorname{\mathds{1}}_{\{w=\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n\}}$.
3. \[it:betanmono\] Let $\widehat{\underline{\beta}}^n\triangleq \beta_{\widehat{\underline{\eta}}^n}$.
4. \[it:onestepmono\] Estimate $\gamma^{\widehat{\underline{\beta}}^n,0}$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\underline{\beta}}^n,n}&\triangleq \gamma^{\widehat{\underline{\beta}}^n,n} + \sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}} Q_s^n \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\underline{\beta}}^n,n} \\
&= n_\star^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n_\star} \operatorname{UR}^{\widehat{\underline{\beta}}^n,n}(w_\star[i])\operatorname{VE}^n(w_\star[i]) + \sum_{s=1}^S Q_s^n \nabla \Gamma_s^{\widehat{\underline{\beta}}^n,n}.
\end{aligned}$$
5. \[it:phinmono\] Estimate $\underline{\phi}^0$ with $\widehat{\underline{\phi}}^n\triangleq \frac{\widehat{\gamma}^{\widehat{\underline{\beta}}^n,n}}{\widehat{\omega}^{\widehat{\underline{\beta}}^n,n}}$.
The conditions for the asymptotic linearity of this approach are similar to those of Theorem \[thm:al\], but weaker because they do not rely on the condition that $P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\theta^0\}=0$ (nor any analogue thereof). To start, we consider why, at least for $W$ continuous, $P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\theta^0\}=0$ was essentially necessary for it to be plausible that the procedure in the main text was asymptotically linear. For asymptotic linearity to hold, the indicators that ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w)<\widehat{\theta}^n$ and ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w)=\widehat{\theta}^n$ that appear in the empirical gradients must converge to a fixed limit. The fact that ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n$ is only an estimate of ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0$ suggests that it is not plausible that the indicators of the events ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w)<\widehat{\theta}^n$ or ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w)=\widehat{\theta}^n$ converge to a fixed limit for any $w$ for which ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(w)=\theta^0$. Thus, if $W$ is continuous and $P_\star^0\{{\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^0(W)=\theta^0\}>0$, then it is not plausible that these indicators converge to any fixed limit.
Consider now the procedure above. The procedure above replaces the indicators that ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w)<\widehat{\theta}^n$ and ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w)=\widehat{\theta}^n$ with indicators that $w<\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n$ and $w=\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n$: in particular, it is expected to be valid regardless of the value of $P_\star^0\{W=\underline{\theta}^0\}$. The conditions needed to ensure that these new indicators converge to a fixed limit are weaker than those needed for the convergence of ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w)<\widehat{\theta}^n$ or ${\operatorname{VE}_{{\scalebox{0.5}[1.0]{$-$}}}}^n(w)=\widehat{\theta}^n$. If $P_\star^0$ concentrates mass at $\underline{\theta}^0$, then we expect that $\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n$ will equal $\underline{\theta}^0$ with probability approaching one, so that clearly the indicators that $w<\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n$ and $w=\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n$ are fixed with probability approaching one. If, on the other hand, $P_\star^0$ does not concentrate mass at $\underline{\theta}^0$, then indicators that $w<\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n$ and $w=\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n$ will generally converge to a fixed limit if $\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n\rightarrow \underline{\theta}^0$. For some intuition on why $\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n\rightarrow \underline{\theta}^0$ is to be expected, note that $\widehat{\underline{\theta}^n}$ is essentially an empirical quantile for an $(\upsilon^0-\lambda^0)$-weighted version of $P_\star^0$. We say “essentially” because conditions can be given under which we can replace the estimated weights $\upsilon^n-\lambda^n$ by the true weights $\upsilon^0-\lambda^0$ at the expense of an $O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$ term. Given this replacement, we can show that \[it:Wcdfcontnotflat\] yields that $\widehat{\underline{\theta}}^n=\theta^0 + O_P({n_{\textnormal{min}}}^{-1/2})$. Note that this is stronger than the slower than root-$n$ rate of convergence of $\widehat{\theta}^n$ to $\theta^0$ in the nonmonotonic case given in Lemma \[lem:thetancons\].
Nested case-control simulation results {#app:nestedccsim}
======================================
Figure \[fig:twophasecovg\] shows that our the coverage of our estimation scheme decreased under the 1:1 nested case-control design, though also that this coverage improves with sample size. At the Moderate and Tight settings, Figure \[fig:twophaseavglb\] shows that our estimate of the partially bridged lower bound has positive bias for the nested case-control design, though that this bias reduces with sample size.
Figure \[fig:twophasetruevar\] compares the Monte Carlo variance of the estimator that uses the known censoring mechanism versus the estimator that estimates the censoring mechanism. The two procedures appear to have similar variance in this particular simulation setting.
![Comparison of the coverage of our lower confidence bound for $\phi^0$, i.e. the lower bound on the vaccine efficacy, when there is and is not data missing due to a nested case-control sampling design. Conducted at both smaller and larger sample sizes, respectively with $(n_\star,n_1,n_2)$ equal to $(100,2000,2000)$ and $(200,4000,4000)$, and for different choices of $\ell_s$ and $\mathbbmss{u}_s$, determining the tightness of the unvaccinated risk bounds. Horizontal dashed lines drawn at 95% coverage, vertical dashed lines drawn at the true baseline risk value $\mu$.[]{data-label="fig:twophasecovg"}](coverage_twophase_nonmonotone){width="\linewidth"}
![Comparison of average estimates (solid lines) and lower confidence bounds (dashed lines) for $\phi^0$, i.e. the lower bound on the vaccine efficacy, when there is and is not data missing due to a nested case-control sampling design. Conducted at both smaller and larger sample sizes, respectively with $(n_\star,n_1,n_2)$ equal to $(100,2000,2000)$ and $(200,4000,4000)$, and for different choices of $\ell_s$ and $\mathbbmss{u}_s$, determining the tightness of the unvaccinated risk bounds. Black trend lines denote true $(\ell_s,\mathbbmss{u}_s,\mu)$-specific lower bound.[]{data-label="fig:twophaseavglb"}](avglb_twophase_nonmonotone){width="\linewidth"}
![Comparison of estimator’s Monte Carlo variance in the presence of two-phase sampling (standardized by Monte Carlo variance of estimator that observed $W$ for all individuals). Conducted at both smaller and larger sample sizes, respectively with $(n_\star,n_1,n_2)$ equal to $(100,2000,2000)$ and $(200,4000,4000)$, and for different choices of $\ell_s$ and $\mathbbmss{u}_s$, determining the tightness of the unvaccinated risk bounds.[]{data-label="fig:twophasetruevar"}](truevar_twophase_nonmonotone){width="\linewidth"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'E. Moraux[^1]'
- 'J. Bouvier'
- 'J.R. Stauffer'
- 'D. Barrado y Navascués'
- 'J-C. Cuillandre'
date: 'Received 14/09/2006; Accepted '
title: 'The lower mass function of the young open cluster Blanco 1: from $30 M_{Jup}$ to $3 {M_{\odot}}$'
---
[We performed a deep wide field optical survey of the young ($\sim
100-150$ Myr) open cluster Blanco 1 to study its low mass population well down into the brown dwarf regime and estimate its mass function over the whole cluster mass range.]{} [The survey covers 2.3 square degrees in the $I$ and $z$-bands down to $I\simeq z\simeq 24$ with the CFH12K camera. Considering two different cluster ages (100 and 150 Myr), we selected cluster member candidates on the basis of their location in the ($I,I-z$) CMD relative to the isochrones, and estimated the contamination by foreground late-type field dwarfs using statistical arguments, infrared photometry and low-resolution optical spectroscopy.]{} [We find that our survey should contain about 57% of the cluster members in the $0.03-0.6{M_{\odot}}$ mass range, including 30-40 brown dwarfs. The candidate’s radial distribution presents evidence that mass segregation has already occured in the cluster. We took it into account to estimate the cluster mass function across the stellar/substellar boundary. We find that, between $0.03{M_{\odot}}$ and $0.6{M_{\odot}}$, the cluster mass distribution does not depend much on its exact age, and is well represented by a single power-law, with an index $\alpha=0.69\pm 0.15$. Over the whole mass domain, from 0.03${M_{\odot}}$ to 3${M_{\odot}}$, the mass function is better fitted by a log-normal function with $m_{0}=0.36\pm 0.07{M_{\odot}}$ and $\sigma=0.58\pm0.06$.]{} [Comparison between the Blanco 1 mass function, other young open clusters’ MF, and the galactic disc MF suggests that the IMF, from the substellar domain to the higher mass part, does not depend much on initial conditions. We discuss the implications of this result on theories developed to date to explain the origin of the mass distribution.]{}
Introduction
============
Since the first brown dwarf discovery and confirmation in 1995 (Nakajima et al. 1995; Rebolo et al. 1995), new perspectives have opened regarding the formation of condensed objects in molecular clouds. Today more than a thousand brown dwarfs (BDs) are known but their mode of formation is still controversial and the theoretical framework describing the stellar and substellar formation process(es) is far from being satisfactory. How do brown dwarfs form ? Is there a lower mass limit for an object to be formed ? A way to tackle these questions is to determine the mass spectrum resulting from the stellar formation process, i.e. the initial mass function (IMF), down to the substellar regime.
Young nearby open clusters are ideal environments for such a purpose. Their members constitute a uniform population in terms of distance and age, the extinction is usually low and uniform, and their youth ensures that brown dwarfs are still bright enough to be easily detected and followed-up. Moreover, the well-known stellar population of the nearest open clusters complements the discoveries of brown dwarf members to yield a complete mass function from substellar objects up to massive stars.
In this contribution we present a study of Blanco 1, sometimes referred to by the name of its brightest member $\zeta$ Sculptoris. It is a young southern open cluster ($\alpha_{J2000}=0^{\rm h}04^{\rm
m}24^{\rm s}$, $\delta_{J2000}=-29\degr56.4\arcmin$; Lyngå1987) located at an Hipparcos distance of $260^{+50}_{-40}$ pc (Robichon et al. 1999) at a high galactic latitude (some 240 pc below the galactic plane, $b=-79.3\degr$), and has a low extinction ($E(B-V)=0.010$). It has a low stellar density with $\sim 200$ known stellar members spread over a $1.5\degr$ diameter surface (Hawkins & Favata 1998) and its age is not very well constrained, around 100-150 Myr. Panagi & O’Dell (1997) found it is similar to or slighty older than that of the well-studied Pleiades cluster of 120 Myr, while other authors used an age of 100 Myr (e.g. Pillitteri et al. 2003).
The cluster’s youth combined with its large distance from the galactic disc point to an unusual formation history. Ford, Jeffries & Smalley (2005) found also that the abundance pattern in Blanco 1 is quite exceptional with an average \[Fe/H\] close to solar ($=+0.04\pm0.04$) but a subsolar \[Ni/Fe\], \[Si/Fe\], \[Mg/Fe\] and \[Ca/Fe\]. This lead the authors to suggest that the material from which the cluster formed was different from the local galactic disc ISM. It may have travelled some distance without having the chance to homogenize with the ISM and may also have been polluted by one or two unusual supernova events. All these peculiarities make [Blanco 1 ]{}a very interesting target to test the dependence of the IMF on environmental conditions when comparing its present day mass function (MF) to those of similar age open clusters.
[Blanco 1 ]{}was discovered by Blanco (1949) who noticed a small concentration of A0 stars having the same galactic latitude in this region. Since then several photometric studies have been performed, e.g. by Westerlund (1963), Epstein (1968), Eggen (1972), Perry et al. (1978), Lyng[å]{} & Wramdemark (1984), Abraham de Epstein & Epstein (1985) and Westerlund et al. (1988). Abraham de Epstein & Epstein (1985) published a relatively complete list of 260 F, G, and K stellar candidates. Kinematic studies based on radial velocities (Jeffries and James 1999) and proper motions (Pillitteri et al 2003) indicate that the contamination level of this photometric sample is about 35 to 40%. X-ray observations performed by Micela et al. (1999) yielded the detection of a few lower mass sources – M dwarfs – confirmed by proper motion. However, the [Blanco 1 ]{}population at very low masses and in the substellar domain is still unexplored.
We performed a deep wide-field optical survey and follow-up observations to look for [Blanco 1 ]{}brown dwarfs (BD) and very low mass stars (VLM) in order to estimate its mass function (MF) down to the substellar domain. The observations and data reduction are described in Section 2 and our results are given in Section 3. In Section 4 we compare our MF estimate to the Pleiades, other young clusters and the galactic disc MF to investigate the IMF universality. We discuss the implications for recently developed IMF theories.
Observations and data reduction
===============================
Optical survey
--------------
[Blanco 1 ]{}has been observed using CFHT’s 12k$\times$8k optical CCD mosaic camera (Cuillandre et al. 2001) during two separate runs in September 1999 and December 2000. Over the two runs, a total of 7 non overlapping fields, each of size $28\arcmin\times42\arcmin$ on the sky, were obtained in the $I$ and $z$ filters (central wavelengths $\sim850$ and 950 nm respectively). The covered fields are graphically shown in Fig. \[bl\_survey\] and their coordinates are listed in Table \[fields\]. For each pointing and each filter, the observing sequence included one 10s and two 600s exposures. A total area of 2.3 sq.deg. was thus surveyed down to a detection limit of $I\sim z\sim24$ on and around the cluster’s nominal center. The seeing measured on images obtained in both filters spanned a range from 0.5 to 0.8 arcsec FWHM.
\[fields\]
![Area of the sky covered by the CFHT 1999 and 2000 Blanco 1 surveys. Each rectangle corresponds to one CFH12K field (the coordinates are given in Table \[fields\]). The small cross in the middle represents the nominal cluster center and the dashed circles have a radius of 0.5, 1 and 1.5 degrees respectively. Small dots show the location of low mass star candidates selected from the short exposures. Very low mass star and brown dwarf candidates selected from the long exposures are shown as large dots if confirmed by infrared photometry and/or optical spectroscopy (open circles if ruled out).[]{data-label="bl_survey"}](6308fig1.ps){width="0.9\hsize"}
These observations have been performed with the same instrument and partly during the same nights as the Pleiades cluster survey described by Moraux et al. (2003). The reduction of the CFH12K mosaic images has been done likewise, chip by chip. Briefly, they were first overscan and bias subtracted and a dark map correction was applied. Supersky flats were computed combining all images obtained in each band during the whole course of the observing run, and they were normalized to a reference CCD in order to obtain a uniform gain over the whole mosaic. The same photometric zero-point can thus be used for all the CCDs. Images were then flat-field corrected and fringes were removed (see Magnier & Cuillandre 2004 for details of the reduction procedure). Then the pre-reduced pairs of 600s exposures of each field were finally combined to yield the final long exposure images in the $I$ and $z$ filters.
The photometric analysis was done using the SExtractor package (Bertin & Arnouts 1996). To detect the maximum number of sources we first added all pairs of $I$ and $z$ reduced images together and we used the automatic object-finding algorithm on these frames. We then computed the photometry of each detected object by PSF-fitting on the individual (i.e. $I$ or $z$) images. Spurious detections (cosmic rays, bad columns) and extended sources were rejected on the basis of their FWHM. For both runs, 1999 and 2000, the zero point of the instrument in the $I$-band was derived using Landolt photometric standard fields (SA98 and SA113) observed in the same conditions and reduced in the same way as [Blanco 1 ]{}fields. Several exposures of SA98 were obtained with an incremental offset of several arcminutes in RA so that common sets of standard stars were observed on every CCD of the mosaic. We thus checked that the photometric zero-point in the $I$-band was the same for each CCD of the mosaic. For the $z$ filter we used unreddened A0 standard stars covered by the Landolt fields assuming their $I$ and $z$ magnitudes were the same. For $I<20$, the resulting photometric rms ranges from 0.03 to 0.05 mag for both $I$ and $z$ filters, which corresponds to a colour accuracy between 0.04 and 0.07 mag in $I-z$. For fainter objects the accuracy is slighty worse but remains better than 0.07 mag in $I$ and $z$, or 0.10 mag in $I-z$, down to $I\sim22.5$.
The astrometric solution of each image was calculated with the Elixir software (Magnier & Cuillandre 2002). We first computed it for the short exposures using the USNO2 catalog as reference and we used this solution as a first approximation for the long exposures. Since most of the USNO2 stars were saturated in the 600s images we could not use this catalog and we used the stars detected in both short and long exposures as astrometric references instead. The same technique was used by Moraux et al. (2003) and the resulting astrometric accuracy is about 0.3 arcsec which is good considering the CFH12K plate scale of 0.206 arcsec/pixel.
Infrared follow-up photometry
-----------------------------
We observed in the near-infrared 90 of the 124 brown dwarf and very low mass star candidates selected from the long exposures of the optical survey (see section \[bdselect\]) to confirm their status.
We obtained $K_{s}$-band images for 77 of them using the SOFI camera (1024$^2$ pixels, 0.288 arcsec/pixel) at ESO/NTT in August 2003. The total exposure time per object was in the range from 10 to 20 min, from the brightest ($K_{s}\sim16$) to the faintest source ($K_{s}\sim20$). The seeing was typically around 0.8 arcsec during the entire run and the conditions were most of the time photometric.
Thirteen other candidates have been observed with the near-infrared camera CFHT-IR (1024$^2$ pixels, 0.211 arcec/pixel) in November 2004. The observing conditions were very good, photometric with a seeing of about 0.6 arcsec.
In both cases, individual infrared images obtained for each object at 7 or 9 dithered positions were first median combined in order to obtain a sky image which was subtracted from the original images. Sky subtracted images were then flat field corrected using dome flats and averaged to yield the final $K_{s}$ image of the object. Aperture photometry was performed on the object using the IRAF/APPHOT package. Several photometric standards from Persson et al. (1998) were observed each night throughout the run and reduced in the same way as the [Blanco 1 ]{}candidates. They were used to derive the $K_{s}$-band extinction coefficient as well as the zero-point of the instrument (ZP $=22.46\pm 0.02$ mag for SOFI and ZP$=22.73\pm 0.01$ for CFHT-IR) and the final photometry is given in the $K$-band Las Campanas system. The resulting internal photometric precision on the $K$-band measurements of [Blanco 1 ]{}candidates is typically 0.02-0.03 mag for $K\le 18$ and 0.05-0.1 mag for fainter objects. While most of [Blanco 1 ]{}targets were observed during photometric conditions, a few (BL-6, -70, -85, -102, -111) were affected by thin cirrus at the end of the 4th and 5th nights of the SOFI run. In order to calibrate the images taken in such conditions, we re-obtained shorter exposure time images of these fields during the following photometric nights. For those few candidates, the photometric accuracy is not as good, of order of 0.10 mag.
Optical spectroscopy
--------------------
In addition to the photometric data we obtained low resolution optical spectroscopy for the brightest [Blanco 1 ]{}[brown dwarf ]{}candidates. The observations were performed using FORS2 ($R\sim1500$) at the VLT in November 2001 and LRIS ($R\sim1000$) at Keck in December 2001 and October 2002. For the three runs the data reduction was done in the same way using the IRAF package. Briefly, the CCD images were overscan, bias and flat-field corrected, the sky background was subtracted, and the spectra were extracted using the command APALL. The spectra were then wavelength calibrated using HgNeAr spectra and corrected from the instrument response computed by dividing observed standard star spectra by their reference spectra.
Results
=======
In the following we present the results we obtained from the analysis of the short (Sect. 3.1) and long (Sect. 3.2) optical exposure images. The corresponding detection limits are $I\sim13-21$ for $t_{int}=10$s and $I\sim17.5-24$ for $t_{int}=600$s which allow our study to be complete from $I=14$ to $I=22.2$. For both integration times, we constructed the ($I$, $I-z$) colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) from which we selected low mass star and brown dwarf candidates. In order to take into account the uncertainty on the cluster age we made two selections, one for an age of 100 Myr and the other for 150 Myr. For each sample, we estimate the contamination by field dwarfs using either statistical arguments or additional near-infrared photometry and optical spectroscopy when available. We then investigate the cluster member spatial distribution and determine the cluster core radius for different mass ranges (Sect. 3.3). We finally use these results to derive the Blanco1 mass function from 30 Jupiter masses to $3{M_{\odot}}$ (Sect. 3.4).
Low-mass candidate selection ($0.09{M_{\odot}}\le m\le0.6{M_{\odot}}$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The ($I$, $I-z$) CMD corresponding to the short exposures of the optical survey is presented Fig. \[cmdshort\]. The 100 Myr and 150 Myr isochrones given by the NEXTGEN models from Baraffe et al. (1998)[^2] (see Moraux et al. 2003). shifted to the cluster distance ($(m-M)_{o}= 7.1\pm 0.4$; Robichon et al. 1999) are shown as a dashed and dot-dashed line. In order to avoid incompleteness due to detection bias (either saturation on the bright side or too low signal to noise ratio on the faint objects) we restricted our study to the magnitude range from $I=14$ to 18.5. We then made a rather conservative photometric selection for each age (100 Myr and 150 Myr) by shifting the corresponding NEXTGEN isochrone to the maximum cluster distance given by Hipparcos ($(m-M)_{o}=7.5$), and on the blue side by the colour photometric error given by: $$\sigma_{I-z}=0.014+2.10^{-8}\exp(0.8\times I)
\label{sigmaIz}$$ All the objects redder than this line are [Blanco 1 ]{}candidate members. The 150 Myr isochrone is slightly bluer than the 100 Myr one, which means that the second selection will pick up a few more sources. The objects selected by both the 100 Myr and 150 Myr isochrones (by only the 150 Myr isochrone) are shown as triangles (resp. large dots) on Fig. \[cmdshort\]. An electronic list of all the candidates is available from the CDS website. According to the NEXTGEN model, the magnitude range $I=14-18.5$ corresponds to a mass $m$ between 0.09${M_{\odot}}$ and 0.6${M_{\odot}}$ at 100 Myr ($0.10-0.6{M_{\odot}}$ at 150 Myr) for $(m-M)_{o}=7.1$.
![($I,I-z$) colour-magnitude diagram for the short exposures of the optical survey. The dashed (dot-dashed) line is the 100 Myr (resp. 150 Myr) isochrone from the NEXTGEN models of Baraffe et al. (1998) shifted to the [Blanco 1 ]{}distance. The triangles and large dots correspond to our photometric selection of cluster member candidates for both ages (see text). Typical error bars are shown on the right side.[]{data-label="cmdshort"}](6308fig2.ps){width="0.9\hsize"}
One of the major shortcomings of this photometric selection is the contamination by sources unrelated to the cluster which may lie in the same region of the CMD. While a fraction of the selected objects must be true cluster members, others are merely field objects (galaxies, red giants or older field stars) on the line of sight. We do not expect to find many galaxies as contaminants because we rejected all the extended objects through the photometric analysis. The number of red giants in our sample is also expected to be small because they would have to be at greater than 6 kpc above the galactic plane to overlap in the CMD with Blanco1 members, and the density of giants at that height is small. Instead most of the contaminants are expected to be foreground field M-dwarfs.
We cross-correlated the whole list of 534 candidates with the 2MASS catalogue for $K{\mbox{$\,\mathrel{\mathpalette{\protect{\mbox{\lower0.5ex\vbox{ \baselineskip=0pt\lineskip=0.2ex
\ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt <\hfil##\hfil$\crcr}\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}}\,$}}15.5$. About 490 of them have a 2MASS counterpart, the others are too faint. The corresponding ($I$, $I-K$) CMD and ($J-H$, $H-K$) colour-colour diagram are shown in Fig. \[cmdshort\_ir\] and Fig. \[jhhk\] respectively. Most of the candidates lie on or close to the 100 Myr or 150 Myr NEXTGEN isochrone in both diagrams. This indicates that there is little extinction towards Blanco 1 and that all the candidates have infrared colours compatible with being M dwarfs. This supports our contention that there are few giants or galaxies in our candidate sample. It shows also that infrared colours fail to distinguish between field dwarfs and cluster members in this mass range as expected from the models.
![($I$, $I-K$) colour-magnitude diagram for all the optically selected candidates which have a 2MASS counterpart. The dashed and dot-dashed line are the 100 Myr and 150 Myr isochrones from the NEXTGEN models of Baraffe et al. (1998) shifted to the [Blanco 1 ]{} distance. The symbols are the same as in Figure \[cmdshort\].[]{data-label="cmdshort_ir"}](6308fig3.ps){width="0.9\hsize"}
![($J-H$, $H-K$) colour-colour diagram of all the low mass star candidates with a 2MASS counterpart. The different symbols correspond to different flags in the 2MASS catalog, i.e. different photometric accuracy (dots = flag A, open circles = flag B, crosses = flag C). A typical error bar is represented for each symbol. The 100 Myr, 150 Myr and 5 Gyr (corresponding to the field dwarf locus) isochrones are shown as a dashed, dot-dashed and a dotted line respectively and are labelled with mass. The reddening vector is also shown. All candidates are located on or close to the isochrones – within the error bars – indicating that there is little extinction and that they all have near-infrared colours consistent with M-dwarf spectral type.[]{data-label="jhhk"}](6308fig4.ps){width="0.9\hsize"}
To estimate the number of contaminants in our sample, we use instead statistical arguments. For each ($I,I-z$) position in the CMD, we first estimate the absolute $M_I$ magnitude of a field dwarf having the same $I-z$ colour using the 5 Gyr NEXTGEN isochrone, and we derive its distance from the difference $I-M_I$. An apparent magnitude range $I,I+\Delta I$ yields a distance range and we compute the corresponding volume containing the contaminants from the surface of the sky covered by our survey. Using the M-dwarf $M_I$-band luminosity function from Zheng et al. (2004) as well as their scale height[^3] we calculate the number of expected contaminants per $M_I$ bin in the magnitude range $I,I+\Delta I$. Taking into account a gaussian photometric error of width $\sigma_{I-z}$ given by equation \[sigmaIz\], we then derive the number of objects per $I-z$. Finally, to obtain the total number of field M dwarfs per magnitude bin in our sample, we integrate over $I-z$, for $I-z$ redder than our selection limit. The results are summarized Table \[contam\]. Out of the 479 (534) candidates detected in our survey for an assumed age of 100 Myr (150 Myr), we estimate about 211 (292) contaminants, which corresponds to a contamination level of $\sim45\%$ ($\sim 55\%$).
\[contam\]
Brown dwarf and very low mass star selection ($0.03{M_{\odot}}\le
m\le0.09{M_{\odot}}$) {#bdselect}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
{width="0.9\hsize"}
-0.5cm
\[candcoo\]
The optical ($I$,$I-z$) CMD corresponding to the long exposures of the survey is shown on the left panel of Figure \[cmdlong\], as well as the 100 Myr and 150 Myr isochrones. These isochrones follow the NEXTGEN models (Baraffe et al. 1998) down to $T_{eff}\simeq2500$ K, i.e. down to $I\simeq 20.5$ for Blanco 1. Then dust starts to appear in the [brown dwarf ]{}atmosphere and the NEXTGEN models are not valid any more. When $T_{eff}\le 2000$ K ($I\simeq 21.5$), all the dust is formed and the isochrones follow the DUSTY models (Chabrier et al. 2000). In between there is a transition and we simply draw a line from the NEXTGEN to the DUSTY models to ensure the continuity of the isochrones.
To select the candidates we proceed in the same way as for the short exposures. For each age, we shifted the isochrones vertically to the largest cluster distance ($(m-M)_0=7.5$) and horizontally on the blue side by the colour photometric error. All the objects redder than this line are then considered as [Blanco 1 ]{}VLM and BD candidates. This gives us two samples depending on which age we use. The line corresponding to the bluest selection (based on the 150 Myr isochrone) maximizes the number of candidates and is shown on Figure \[cmdlong\]. We identified 110 objects with $17.7\le I\le23$ for 100 Myr, and 14 more for 150 Myr, i.e. 124 in total. They are listed in Table \[candcoo\]. Their mass spans a range between $\sim0.03{M_{\odot}}$ and $0.1{M_{\odot}}$ and depends on the age of the cluster. Taking into account the distance of the cluster, the stellar/substellar boundary is around $I\simeq19.1$ at 100 Myr and 19.6 at 150 Myr according to the NEXTGEN models, which means that about 75-80 of the selected objects are [brown dwarf ]{}candidates.
![$(I-z,I-K)$ colour-colour diagram of the very low mass star and brown dwarf candidates. The symbols are the same as in Fig. \[cmdlong\]. The 100 Myr, 150 Myr and 5 Gyr isochrones are shown as a dashed line, dot-dashed line and solid line respectively. The asterisks (resp. open squares) represent Pleiades candidates confirmed (resp. rejected) by proper motion (Moraux et al. 2003, Casewell et al. 2007). Only a few error bars are drawn for clarity.[]{data-label="Iz_IK"}](6308fig6.ps){width="0.9\hsize"}
As explained in the previous section, this optical photometric sample is contaminated by late M-type field dwarfs and we therefore conducted follow-up observations of the candidates to confirm their membership. We obtained near-infrared photometry with SOFI at ESO/NTT for 77 of them, and with CFHT-IR for 13 others. The measured $K$-band photometry is given in Table \[candcoo\]. The candidate location in the ($I,I-K$) CMD (Fig. \[cmdlong\], right panel) compared to the isochrones shifted to $(m-M)_0=7.5$ allowed us to weed out 18 objects, too blue for being Blanco 1 members. They are indicated as open circles in Fig. \[cmdlong\]. The $I-K$ colour is a good diagnostic of membership in the DUSTY regime, for $I\gtrsim21$, but not as much for the brightest objects because field dwarfs and cluster members have similar infrared colours for $I-z\lesssim1.0$ (see Fig. \[Iz\_IK\]). A statistical estimate using the Zheng et al. (2004) luminosity function (LF) and calculated in the same manner as for the short exposures but with $$\sigma_{I-z}=4.47.10^{-6}\exp(0.465\times I)$$ indicates that there should be 10-15 contaminants between $I=17.7$ and 18.5. Assuming that we are about 40% complete in this magnitude range (because of saturation), this yields a contamination level of $\sim30\%$. Below $I=18.5$, we estimate the survey is complete and we find a contamination level of about 30% for $I=18.5-20$. Between $I=20$ and 21, we cannot use the same method because we reach the end of the field M-dwarf LF but we do not expect the contamination to be very high as the cluster sequence is well detached from the bunch of field objects in the ($I,I-z$) CMD. The fact that we do not identify any contaminant (except maybe CFHT-BL-57) in the ($I,I-K$) CMD in this magnitude range confirms that the contamination level is indeed very low. For $I\gtrsim21$ and $I-z>1.0$ infrared colour is sufficient to assess membership. The $I-K$ colour of a 5 Gyr field dwarf starts indeed to differ from that of a $\sim100$ Myr cluster member in this domain (see Fig. \[Iz\_IK\]). Even though the models may be too blue in $I-z$, empirical data from Pleiades studies (Moraux et al. 2003, Casewell et al. 2007) indicate that the $I-K$ colour difference is real. Pleiades members confirmed by proper motion are redder in $I-K$ than older field dwarfs with the same $I-z>1.1$.
Additional spectroscopic data are thus especially needed for candidates brighter than $I\sim20$. We obtained optical low resolution spectroscopy for 17 of them with FORS2 on VLT and/or LRIS on Keck. The spectra are shown Fig. \[fors\] and \[keck\].
{width="0.9\hsize"}
{width="0.9\hsize"}
From these data, we estimate the spectral type of each object using different methods. We first use the PC3 index defined as the ratio of the flux between 8230[Å]{} and 8270[Å]{} to the flux between 7540[Å]{} and 7580[Å]{} in order to derive an estimate of the spectral type via the relationship $$SpT = -6.685 + 11.715 \times (PC3) - 2.024 \times (PC3)^2$$ given by Martin et al. (1999). We also compare our spectra to those of spectroscopic standard stars obtained in the same conditions which allows us to estimate the spectral type with a precision of one sub-class. By fitting the data with synthetic spectra from the DUSTY models by Allard et al. (2001), we also estimate the effective temperature of our candidates with an accuracy of 100K corresponding to the grid step. An example of such a fit is given in Fig. \[fitTeff\] for BL-50. All these methods are in agreement with each other and the results are given in Table \[bl\_spectro\].
![Spectrum of BL-50 (solid line) fitted by a synthetic spectrum (dashed line) from the DUSTY models of Allard et al. (2001). The best fit gives $T_{eff}=2700$K, which is in agreement with the M7-M7.5 spectral type we find using the PC3 index or the comparison to spectroscopic standards.[]{data-label="fitTeff"}](6308fig9.ps){width="0.9\hsize"}
-0.7cm
\[bl\_spectro\]
Knowing the effective temperature of the candidates, we then compare the gravity sensitive Na I doublet (8183[Å]{}, 8195[Å]{}) profile to synthetic spectra of similar $T_{eff}$ given by Allard et al. (2001) for various $\log g$. The best fit allows us to estimate the surface gravity of the objects with an accuracy of 0.5 in $\log g$ corresponding to the grid step. Since the expected value of $\log g$ for $\sim100$ Myr [brown dwarfs ]{}($\log g\simeq 4.8$) is lower than the one for older field dwarfs ($\log g\simeq 5.3$), we can use this estimate as a membership criterion. Figure \[fitNa\] shows the comparison of the Na I doublet profile of a very low mass candidate (BL-29) and a similar spectral type (M6) standard field dwarf GJ-866 with two synthetic spectra of similar $T_{eff}$ for $\log g=4.5$ and 5.0. The older field object is better fitted by the spectrum of larger gravity as expected, while the best fit of BL-29 profile is obtained for $\log
g=4.5$. This indicates that this object is likely a cluster member. We did this analysis for all the candidates for which we have a spectrum with a good enough signal to noise ratio to estimate their surface gravity. When possible we also measure the equivalent width of the $H_{\alpha}$ emission line (6563[Å]{}), indicative of chromospheric activity. All the results are indicated in Table \[bl\_spectro\].
![Upper panel: Comparison of the Na I doublet profile of BL-29 (solid line) with two synthetic spectra of similar $T_{eff}$ for $\log g=4.5$ (dashed line) and 5.0 (dot-dashed line). Lower panel: Same as before but for GJ-866 which is an older field dwarf having the same spectral type than BL-29 (M6).[]{data-label="fitNa"}](6308fig10a.ps "fig:"){width="0.9\hsize"} ![Upper panel: Comparison of the Na I doublet profile of BL-29 (solid line) with two synthetic spectra of similar $T_{eff}$ for $\log g=4.5$ (dashed line) and 5.0 (dot-dashed line). Lower panel: Same as before but for GJ-866 which is an older field dwarf having the same spectral type than BL-29 (M6).[]{data-label="fitNa"}](6308fig10b.ps "fig:"){width="0.9\hsize"}
All the candidates observed spectroscopically are late M dwarfs which confirms that the contamination by galaxies or red giants is indeed very low. CFHT-BL-44 has an earlier PC3 spectral type and a hotter effective temperature than the other candidates of similar $I$-magnitude. Moreover its surface gravity is too large to be a cluster member. It is most likely a foreground field dwarf. We suspect CFHT-BL-28 is also a field dwarf for the same reasons (slighty earlier PC3 spectral type and hotter temperature) even though the analysis of the Na profile did not provide a definitive result. CFHT-BL-34 and -41 have a later spectral type and a lower temperature than expected from their $I$-magnitude and both $I-z$ and $I-K$ colours redder than the NEXTGEN isochrone. Their surface gravity is low and consistent with cluster membership and we therefore believe these two objects are cluster binaries. Note that three other objects (CFHT-BL-52, -53, -54) are also suspected to be cluster binaries from their location above the isochrone in the infrared CMD but we could not get any spectra as they are too faint.
Between $I=18.5$ and 20, three objects out of 34 photometric candidates have been identified as non-members, either because of their infrared colour (CFHT-BL-47) or because of their spectroscopic properties (CFHT-BL-28 and 44). Eight objects do not have any follow-up observation, neither $K$ photometry nor spectroscopy, and we cannot conclude on their nature. This yields a contamination level between 10 and 30%, in agreement with the statistical estimate given above. We can refine this analysis if we note that all the objects without any follow-up have about the same $I-z\simeq 0.74$ and form a small group in the CMD (see Fig. \[cmdlong\]), slighty bluer than the candidates that are confirmed spectroscopically. Three other objects that have infrared follow-up lie also in this group. All of them are bluer than the 100 Myr (and sometimes also than the 150 Myr) isochrone in $I-K$, and one is a non-member (CFHT-BL-28) based on its spectroscopy. Therefore the contamination level in this subgroup is probably high, larger than 50%, which gives a total contamination level around 20-30% for $I=18.5\le I\le20$.
We can use the same argument to estimate the number of contaminants in the magnitude range $I=21-22.2$ corresponding to our sample completeness limit. We do not have any $K$-band photometry for nine objects that are amongst the bluest ($I-z\simeq1.0$) candidates in this region of the ($I,I-z$) CMD. Considering that about half of the objects with $I-z=1.05-1.10$ have been identified as non-members (CFHT-BL-73, -79, -84, -95, -96) and that there is no contaminant amongst the redder objects, we expect that about five or more of these blue candidates are field dwarfs.
As for the short exposures, we did the full analysis for both selections based on the 100 Myr and 150 Myr isochrones respectively. The number of estimated contaminants and of probable cluster members per magnitude bin in the long-exposures images is summarized in Table \[lf\_bd\] for each age.
\[lf\_bd\]
Spatial distribution
--------------------
Now that we have identified the cluster member candidates with $0.03{M_{\odot}}\le m \le 0.6{M_{\odot}}$ in the survey, we need to study their spatial distribution. It is necessary to check whether mass segregation has occured in the cluster in order to take it into account when determining the mass function.
![Spatial distribution of all the cluster member candidates detected in the short exposures and selected from the 150 Myr isochrone. Contours of isodensity are drawn. The cross represents the peak of density and is taken as the cluster center whose coordinates are (0.87,-30.2) in degrees.[]{data-label="distrib"}](6308fig11.eps){width="0.9\hsize"}
Figure \[distrib\] shows the spatial distribution of the low mass star candidates selected in the short exposures when assuming a cluster age of 150 Myr. Using the kernel method described by Silverman (1986) we estimated the isodensity contours. The peak of the distribution allows us to determine the coordinates of the cluster center: $\alpha_{0}=0^{\rm h}04^{\rm m}1.2^{\rm s}$, $\delta_{0}=-30\degr 12'$. This is about $0.3\degr$ away from the nominal center given by Lyngå (1987) but close to the recent estimate given by Kharchenko et al. (2005) who used the maximum of the projected stellar density as the definition of the cluster center.
We then calculate the number of candidates per square degree located within each annulus $R, R+dR$ centered on the new center ($\alpha_{0},
\delta_{0}$). The radial profiles obtained for the low mass star candidates ($0.09{M_{\odot}}\le m\le0.6{M_{\odot}}$, short exposures) and for the very low mass star and brown dwarf candidates ($0.03{M_{\odot}}\le
m\le0.09{M_{\odot}}$, long exposures) are shown Figure \[hist\].
![Radial distribution of the low mass star candidates (upper panel) and the VLM & BD probable cluster members (lower panel). The cluster center has been estimated using the isodensity contours (Fig. \[distrib\]). In both cases, the filled dots and solid histogram represent the 100 Myr sample while the empty dots and dashed line histogram correspond to the 150 Myr sample. The best $\chi^2$ fit of a King profile is given for each histogram.[]{data-label="hist"}](6308fig12.ps){width="0.9\hsize"}
We assume that the distribution of the low mass sample contaminants is uniform and we note their spatial density $n_{cont}$. The low mass star distribution is then fitted by a King profile (King 1962) plus $n_{cont}$ $$\label{eq:1}
n(x) = k\,\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+x}} -
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+x_{t}}}\right]^2 + n_{cont}$$ where $k$ is a normalisation constant, $x=(r/r_{c})^2$ and $x_{t}=(r_{t}/r_{c})^2$. The distance from the cluster center ($\alpha_{0}, \delta_{0}$) is $r$, $r_{c}$ the core radius and $r_{t}$ the tidal radius.
According to Pinfield et al. (1998), the tidal radius $r_{t}$ of a cluster close to the Sun in a circular orbit is given by $$r_{t} = \left( \frac{GM_{c}}{2(A-B)^2} \right)^{1/3}
= 1.46 \, M_{c}^{1/3}$$ where $M_{c}$ is the cluster mass and $A$ and $B$ are the Oort constants. Blanco 1 contains about 180 F, G and K stars (Abraham de Epstein & Epstein 1985, Jeffries & James 1999, Pillitteri et al. 2003), i.e. about half as many as the Pleiades. If we assume that both clusters have the same mass distribution, then we expect Blanco 1 is about half as massive as the Pleiades and $r_{t}({\rm
Blanco1})=0.794\times r_{t}(\rm Pleiades)$. The Pleiades tidal radius being 13.1 pc (Pinfield et al. 1998), we derive $r_{t}({\rm Blanco1})=
10.4$ pc or $2.3\degr$ for a distance of 260 pc.
Using this value, the best fit minimizing $\chi^2$ gives $n_{cont}=112\pm10$, $k=430\pm40$ per square degrees and $r_{c}=0.61^{+0.16}_{-0.11}$ degrees, i.e $2.8^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$ pc, for the 100 Myr sample. For 150 Myr, we find $n_{cont}=125\pm10$, $k=479\pm43$ and $r_c=0.79^{+0.15}_{-0.16}$ degrees or $3.6\pm0.7$ pc. Note that the values obtained for $n_{cont}$ are consistent with the number of contaminants given in Table \[contam\] divided by the surveyed area (2.3 sq.deg.). We find $n_{cont}=92\pm13$ sq.deg$^{-1}$ for the 100 Myr selection and $n_{cont}=127\pm17$ sq.deg$^{-1}$ for the 150 Myr one. This validates [*a posteriori*]{} our statistical contamination estimate. We then compute the total number $N$ of cluster members in the mass range 0.09-0.6${M_{\odot}}$ by integrating equation \[eq:1\] for both ages and by adopting the mean value. We find $N=380\pm50$ stars ($N_{\rm 100 Myr}=343^{+30}_{-35}$ and $N_{\rm
150 Myr}=416\pm37$). According to table\[contam\], about $255\pm60$ of them are present in our survey, i.e. $\sim67\%$.
The radial distributions of the 49 (for the 100 Myr selection) and 51 (150 Myr selection) probable VLM & BD members remaining after analysis of the follow-up observations are also fitted by a King profile (see Fig. \[hist\]). Note that no constant is added to the King distributions as the samples used to plot the histograms have been corrected from the contamination (the candidates without any NIR photometry or optical spectroscopy are not taken into account here). The fit parameters corresponding to the 100 Myr selection are $r_{c}=1.56^{+0.16}_{-0.15}$ degrees ($7.1\pm0.7$ pc) and $k=160\pm23$ sq.deg.$^{-1}$. For the 150 Myr sample, we obtain $r_{c}=1.70^{+0.16}_{-0.14}$ degrees and $k=190\pm27$ sq.deg.$^{-1}$. The integration of both fits yields $104\pm15$ and $112\pm15$ objects respectively, indicating that we identified about 47% of them in the CFH12K images. Among the 17 candidates without any follow-up observations, we estimate that $\sim9$ are probable members (see previous section). Assuming that they follow the same radial distribution, this yields a total number of $125\pm20$ VLM & BDs in the cluster.
About 47% of the Blanco 1 very low mass stars and brown dwarfs have been covered by the survey whereas $\sim$67% of the low mass star members are present in our study. This difference has to be taken into account when estimating the cluster mass function. It also suggests that mass segregation due to two body interactions has already occured and that Blanco 1 is dynamically relaxed. The relaxation time $t_{r}$ is $$t_{r}=0.8 \frac{\sqrt{N_c}\, r_h^{3/2}}{\sqrt{\bar{m_c}}\,(\log N_c -
0.3)} \,\, {\rm Myr}
\label{tr}$$ (Spitzer 1940), where $N_c$ is the total number of cluster members, $r_h$ the half mass radius in pc and $\bar{m_c}$ the average stellar mass. The crossing time $t_{cr}$ is then given by King (1980) by $$t_{cr}= t_{r} \,\frac{31\,\ln \frac{N_c}{2}}{N_c}.
\label{tcr}$$ As $N_c({\rm Blanco~1})<N_c(\rm{Pleiades})$, $r_{h}({\rm
Blanco~1})\lesssim3$ pc while $r_{h}({\rm Pleiades})=3.66$ pc (Pinfield et al. 1998), and $\bar{m_c}({\rm Blanco~1})\sim
\bar{m_c}({\rm Pleiades})$, we find that these two dynamical times are smaller for Blanco 1 than for the Pleiades. In particular, this yields $t_r(\rm{Blanco~1})\le 90$ Myr which is smaller than its age around 100-150 Myr. This suggests that Blanco 1 is indeed dynamically relaxed. Moreover, when complete equipartition of energy is reached, the cluster core radius varies with stellar mass as $m^{-0.5}$, and we find that this is roughly the case here. For both ages, we find $r_{c}=(1.6\pm0.2)\, \bar{m}^{-0.5}$ in pc where $\bar{m}$ is the mean mass of the sample ($\sim0.3$ for low mass stars and $0.05{M_{\odot}}$ for VLMs & BDs).
Mass function
-------------
The number of probable [Blanco 1 ]{}members per $I$-magnitude bin is given in Tables \[contam\] and \[lf\_bd\], last column. In order to estimate the cluster [*system*]{} mass function – multiple systems are not resolved at the distance of the cluster – we first convert the magnitude bin to a mass bin using the 100 Myr or 150 Myr mass-magnitude relationship from the NEXTGEN models (Baraffe et al. 1998) for $I\le 20.0$ and DUSTY models (Chabrier et al. 2000) for $I\ge 21.0$. The obtained mass ranges are indicated in Table \[contam\] and \[lf\_bd\], second column. Then we divide the number of probable members by a correction factor corresponding to the percentage of low mass stars and brown dwarfs covered by our survey (i.e. respectively 0.65 and 0.48).
The total number of cluster systems per unit mass is thus derived over a continuous mass range from 0.03 to 0.60${M_{\odot}}$ and is shown in Fig. \[imf\]. In this mass domain, the mass function can be fitted by a single power-law $dn/dm \propto m^{-\alpha}$. A linear regression through the data points yields $\alpha=0.67\pm 0.14$ for the 100 Myr sample and $\alpha=0.71\pm 0.13$ for the 150 Myr sample where the uncertainty is the $1\sigma$ fit error. (In this representation, Salpeter’s IMF corresponds to $\alpha=2.35$.)
![The Blanco 1 system mass function across the stellar/substellar boundary. Note that all the data points are derived from the same survey, using short exposures for the stellar domain and long exposures for the substellar regime. This provides a consistent determination of the slope of the cluster’s mass function in the mass range from 0.030 to $0.6{M_{\odot}}$. The data points are fitted by a power law $dn/dm \propto m^{-\alpha}$ with an index $\alpha=0.67\pm 0.14$ for the 100 Myr sample (solid line) and $\alpha=0.71\pm 0.13$ for the 150 Myr sample (dashed line).[]{data-label="imf"}](6308fig13.ps){width="0.9\hsize"}
At larger masses, we completed our study with data from the literature. Pillitteri et al. (2003) established a list of reliable cluster members based on proper motion measurements. Their sample contains objects with mass ranging from 3${M_{\odot}}$ down to $\sim0.2{M_{\odot}}$ but is not complete below $\sim0.4{M_{\odot}}$. Using the mass estimate given in their paper (table A1)[^4], we compute the number of objects per unit mass and multiply it by a constant, so that the number of stars in the range 0.4-0.6${M_{\odot}}$ is the same as the one we derive from our survey. On the whole mass range, from about 30 Jupiter masses to 3${M_{\odot}}$, the Blanco 1 system mass function corrected for contamination is reasonably well fitted by a Scalo-like log-normal distribution $$\xi_{\rm L}(m) = \frac{dn}{d\log m} \propto \exp\left[ -
\frac{(\log m - \log m_{0})^2}{2\sigma^{2}}\right]$$ where $m_{0}$ corresponds to the peak of the distribution and $\sigma$ represents its width (see Fig. \[imflog\]). A $\chi^{2}$ fit gives $m_{0}=0.34\pm0.05{M_{\odot}}$, $\sigma=0.58\pm0.06$ for the 100 Myr sample, and $m_{0}=0.38\pm0.05{M_{\odot}}$, $\sigma=0.58\pm0.06$ for the 150 Myr sample.
By integration of the log-normal fit, we find a total number of brown dwarf systems ($m=0.01-0.072 M_{\odot}$) in the cluster of about 95 (85), for $\sim660$ (690) stars in the mass range $0.072-3
M_{\odot}$[^5], which yields a ratio of about 15% (12%) for the 100 Myr (resp. 150 Myr) sample. The cluster total mass is $\sim 410{M_{\odot}}$ for an age of 100 Myr ($\sim 450{M_{\odot}}$ for 150 Myr) with a substellar contribution corresponding to only $\sim1\%$. The stellar mass of the Pleiades is $735{M_{\odot}}$ (Pinfield et al. 1998), which confirms [*a posteriori*]{} our initial assumption of Blanco 1 being about half as massive as the Pleiades. From equations \[tr\] and \[tcr\], we find $t_{r}\lesssim60$ Myr and $t_{cr}\lesssim15$ Myr, which indicates that the cluster is dynamically relaxed indeed.
![The mass function of Blanco 1, from low mass brown dwarfs to the most massive stars, fitted by a log-normal distribution (solid line and dashed line for the 100 Myr and 150 Myr sample respectively). The large filled (100 Myr sample) and open (150 Myr sample) dots are our data points completed in the more massive star domain by Pillitteri et al. (2003) data (open squares). The Pleiades mass function (data points and log-normal fit from Moraux et al. 2003) is shown for comparison (see Section 4).[]{data-label="imflog"}](6308fig14.ps){width="0.9\hsize"}
Discussion
==========
Blanco 1 has an age similar to, or a little older (Panagi et al. 1997) than, the Pleiades but it is less dense (about 30 stars/pc$^2$ against $\sim65$ stars/pc$^2$), about half as massive and has a different abundance pattern (Ford, Jeffries & Smalley 2005). Comparing the mass functions of these two clusters thus allows us to test the dependence of the IMF on environmental conditions, especially as they have been obtained from similar data sets and analysed in the same way. Both mass functions are plotted on Figure \[imflog\]. The Pleiades MF is from Moraux et al. (2003), their data points are between $0.03{M_{\odot}}$ and $0.5{M_{\odot}}$ and the log-normal fit goes from $0.03{M_{\odot}}$ to $3{M_{\odot}}$.
As seen from both Figures \[imf\] and \[imflog\], the Blanco 1 mass function does not depend much on its exact age. The results are similar within the uncertainties. In the following we will do the comparison with the Pleiades MF for the 100 Myr Blanco 1 MF only but the conclusions remain valid for 150 Myr.
A quick look at Figure \[imflog\] is sufficient to note that the overall shapes of the Pleiades and Blanco 1 MF are very similar. Both mass functions can be fitted by a log-normal distribution with a characteristic [*system*]{} mass around $m_{0}\simeq0.3 M_{\odot}$ and $\sigma\simeq0.5$. It is interesting to add that this is also the case for a large number of star forming regions and other open clusters, as well as for the system galactic disk mass function down to $0.1{M_{\odot}}$ at least (see Chabrier 2003). This suggests either that the IMF does not depend much on environmental conditions or that star formation occurs only for a narrow range of local parameters as discussed in section \[cond\].
The M7/8 gap {#M78}
------------
By looking at the Blanco 1 and Pleiades data points, we also notice that for both clusters the point around $0.035{M_{\odot}}$ is much above the log-normal fit. This cannot only be due to an underestimate of the contamination in this mass range as it is taken into account in the error bar. It is as if the IMF rises again below $0.04{M_{\odot}}$. Similarly, Muench et al. (2002) found a significant secondary peak close to the deuterium limit in the Trapezium IMF. However, the fact that this feature does not occur around the same mass but the same spectral type (later than M8) brought Dobbie et al. (2002) to suggest that this is not real. They argue instead that this structure reflects a sharp local drop in the luminosity-mass (L-M) relationship due to the onset of dust formation in the atmosphere around $T_{eff}=2700$ K. A change in the slope of the L-M relationship implies that the mass of objects with spectral type later than M7-M8 may be significantly underestimated by the current NextGen and Dusty models. Thus, the number of objects in the lower mass bin may be overestimated, resulting in an artificial secondary peak in the IMF.
By applying the empirical magnitude-mass relation given by Dobbie et al. (2002; their Fig.3) to the Blanco 1 and Pleiades luminosity function, we find that the lowest mass point goes down for both MFs whereas higher mass points go slightly up (see Fig. \[mfM78\]), following nicely the log-normal fit. Even if this dust effect has still to be investigated, we consider the log-normal distribution is a good approximation to the observed MF, including in the substellar domain down to 30 Jupiter masses.
![The Blanco 1 and Pleiades mass function obtained after applying the empirical magnitude-mass relation given by Dobbie et al. (2002). The open squares are the data points which have been modified while the filled circles are the data points which did not change. The log-normal fit for each cluster is shown as a solid line.[]{data-label="mfM78"}](6308fig15.ps){width="0.9\hsize"}
Dependency of the IMF on environmental conditions {#cond}
-------------------------------------------------
With an age of about 100 Myr, the Blanco 1 and Pleiades clusters are already dynamically evolved in the sense that they are well relaxed and that mass segregation has occured. However they are still young enough as not to have lost many objects. Adams et al. (2002) estimated that only $\sim10$% of the primordial low mass star population has been lost in the Pleiades, which has been confirmed by other studies combining numerical simulations with observations (e.g. Moraux, Kroupa & Bouvier, 2004). Therefore we can assume that the present day mass functions discussed here represent well the IMF for both clusters.
We have already mentioned that, despite the different local parameters (stellar density, abundance pattern), these 2 IMFs are similar within the uncertainties over 2 decades in mass. This seems also to be the case for other young open clusters such as Alpha-Per ($\sim80$ Myr, Barrado et al. 2002), IC2391 ($\sim50$ Myr, Barrado et al. 2004a), NGC2547 ($\sim30$ Myr, Jeffries et al. 2004) or IC4665 ($\sim30$ Myr, De Wit et al. 2006). One could argue that only one “type” of clusters, rich and compact enough, can survive several tens of Myr. Therefore they cannot be very different initially and it is not very surprising to find a similar IMF. However most of the studied star forming regions ($\lambda$-Ori, Barrado et al. 2004b; IC348, Luhman et al. 2003a; Trapezium, Muench et al. 2002; $\sigma$-Ori, Béjar et al. 2004) also present similar IMF’s within the uncertainties. Again, it is true that they are all fairly rich but even in Taurus, a much sparser region, recent results from Guieu et al. (2006) seem to indicate that the IMF is not very different (but see also Luhman et al. 2003b and Briceno et al. 2002 for a differing view). Probably even more remarkable is the similarity with the galactic disk mass function (Chabrier 2003) – although uncertainties remain in the substellar domain – as field stars come from a large variety of environments, from small groups with $N_{star}<10$ to rich clusters (e.g. Allen et al. 2006). All these results suggest that the IMF, from the substellar regime to the high mass domain, is similar in all studied regions. The fact that the IMF does not seem to depend much on the environment brings strong constraints on star formation theories. To date, two main models (turbulent fragmentation and accretion/ejection) are proposed to explain the origin of the IMF; they are discussed below.
### Turbulent fragmentation
Turbulent fragmentation can generate a distribution of density structures in molecular clouds due to supersonic shocks that compress the gas. Multiple compressions result in the formation of sheets and then filaments, whose density and width are due to the MHD shock conditions. High velocity shocks produce high density but thin filaments resulting in low-mass clumps, whereas low velocity shocks produce low-density but large clumps which account for high mass objects. Using the power spectrum of velocities from numerical simulations of turbulence, Padoan & Nordlund (2002) derive a clump mass distribution resulting in a IMF slope which closely matches Salpeter’s. At lower masses however, only a fraction of these clumps are sufficiently dense to be unstable which results in a flattening and a log-normal shape in the substellar regime.
A major success of this model is that it is able to reproduce directly the observed prestellar core distribution (Motte & André 2001) which resembles effectively the stellar IMF at least down to $0.1{M_{\odot}}$. However, how the clump spectrum translates into the stellar mass distribution is not fully understood. In particular, it is very likely that the higher mass clumps will sub-fragment into smaller clumps and form several stars. Moreover, SPH simulations find that most of the small cores are unbound and do not collapse to form stars (Klessen et al. 2005).
An important result of the turbulent fragmentation model is that the shape of the IMF depends on the turbulence via the Mach number or the power spectrum (Ballesteros-Paredes et al. 2006, Goodwin et al. 2006) but also on the molecular cloud density (see Padoan & Nordlund 2002, their fig. 2). This is easy to understand using simple considerations. Typically, a denser cloud forms denser but smaller clumps yielding a larger number of low mass cores. Conversely, at lower density, the mass function peaks at higher mass. This result concerns the core mass function and it is not completely clear yet how this will affect the stellar IMF. However it is reasonable to think that the trend will be the same, which is in contradiction with the observed invariance of the IMF.
### Accretion/ejection paradigm
Another model which has been developed to explain the origin of the IMF origin of the IMF gives less importance to turbulence and more to gravity. According to Bate & Bonnell (2005), the role for turbulence is to generate structure in molecular clouds which provides the seeds for gravitational fragmentation to occur down to the opacity limit. Stellar masses are then set by a combination of accretion and dynamical ejections which terminate the accretion. In their model based on the results of hydrodynamical SPH calculations, all the objects begin with a mass corresponding to the opacity limit ($\sim
0.003{M_{\odot}}$) and grow by accretion until they are ejected from the dense core by dynamical interactions in unstable multiple systems. The objects that end up as brown dwarfs stop accreting before they reach stellar masses because their are ejected soon after their formation. In contrast the higher mass stars are the objects that remain in the dense gas and accrete for longer. The accretion rates of individual objects are drawn from a lognormal distribution and the dynamical ejection of protostars from a multiple system is described using a characteristic time-scale. Taking values for these parameters from the hydrodynamical simulations, the model is able to reproduce a reasonable IMF in the tellar domain but produces more brown dwarfs than are actually observed.
In the accretion/ejection model the characteristic (median) mass of the IMF is approximatively given by the product of the typical accretion rate and the typical time-scale for dynamical ejection. Bate & Bonnell (2005) and Bate (2005) found that that the characteristic mass varies linearly with the mean thermal Jeans mass $M_{Jeans}$ and depends therefore on both density $\rho$ and temperature $T$. As $M_{Jeans}$ is smaller at higher density, the mass function is expected to peak at smaller mass. Indeed in a denser cloud dynamical ejections are more likely to occur, yielding the formation of a larger number of low mass stars. Variations of the IMF in different environments should then occur in the location of the peak and in the substellar regime, which is not supported by observations.
### Thermal physics
The two main models developed to explain the origin of the IMF predict a dependence of the IMF on the environment, in particular on the density and temperature of the molecular cloud via the thermal Jeans mass and/or turbulence.
Observational results however indicate that the IMF is similar in many regions from the substellar regime up to the massive star domain. This suggests that either the global properties of all the molecular clouds in which cluster and field stars form are very similar – which seems very unlikely – or that the physical process for fragmentation by itself imposes specific local conditions. Larson (2005) has suggested that thermal physics in molecular clouds may play this role as it can yield a Jeans mass of order $\sim1{M_{\odot}}$ at the point of fragmentation independently of the exact initial conditions. This results from how the cooling rate changes with density. At lower densities the gas cooling is dominated by atomic and molecular line emission whereas at higher densities the gas is coupled to the dust and dust cooling dominates. This results in a barotropic equation of state involving a cooling term at low densities followed by a gently heating term once dust cooling prevails. When used in numerical calculations, this equation of state can set the characteristic mass scale for fragmentation and produce a realistic IMF (Jappsen et al. 2005, Bonnell et al. 2006a).
A prediction of thermal physics is that a different metallicity may yield a different IMF as the cooling equation of state is modified. If a molecular cloud is more metal rich, the cooling is more efficient and the temperature is smaller. Therefore $M_{Jeans}$ is smaller and the characteristic mass is shifted towards the lower mass. However, the thermal physics invoked by Larson (2005) links density and temperature. Thus for a higher metallicity, the Jeans mass occurs at lower $T$ but also lower $\rho$ and whether it should be larger or smaller is not clear yet. It is therefore premature to give any trend for the dependency of the IMF on metallicity but it could be a good observational test to measure and compare the mass function of stellar clusters with different metallicity.
### An hybrid model ?
Bonnell et al. (2006b) have suggested an “hybrid” model to explain the origin of the mass distribution. Turbulence is necessary to generates the filamentary structure in the molecular clouds which facilitates fragmentation. Thermal physics sets the mean Jeans mass for gravitational fragmentation which corresponds to the characteristic stellar mass of the IMF. The broad peak can then be understood as being due to the dispersion in gas densities and temperature at the point where fragmentation occurs. The higher mass part is due to the continued competitive accretion in dense cores while the lower mass IMF is ascribed to fragmentation and then ejection. Some of the collapsing regions, especially in filaments and circumstellar discs, sub-fragment due to the increase of gas density. The lower mass clumps are ejected soon after they form from their natal environment by dynamical interactions, stop accreting and remain low mass objects (very low mass stars and brown dwarfs).
This model seems to work at reproducing a realistic stellar IMF as the location of the peak and the higher mass part do not vary with initial conditions as shown by Bonnell et al. (2006a). However some issues remain in the [*substellar*]{} domain. In particular, the lower mass part of the IMF is still expected to depend on the initial density – denser clouds enhance dynamical ejections and thus form more brown dwarfs – which is in contradiction with the current observations.
Conclusion
==========
We performed a deep large-scale photometric survey of the young open cluster Blanco 1 to study its low mass population, from about 30 Jupiter masses to $0.6{M_{\odot}}$. We selected cluster candidates on the basis of their location in CMDs compared to theoretical isochrones and we estimated the contamination using statistical arguments, infrared photometry and optical low-resolution spectroscopy when possible. We did this analysis for two cluster ages (100 and 150 Myr) and we find similar results in both cases. We estimate that about 300 cluster members have been covered by our survey, amongst which 30-40 may be brown dwarfs. The study of the candidate radial distribution indicates that this corresponds to $\sim 57\%$ of the cluster low mass population.
It also suggests that mass segregation has already occured in the cluster and we took it into account when estimating the mass function. We find that a single power-law $dN/dM \propto M^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha=0.69\pm0.15$ provides a good match to the cluster MF accross the stellar/substellar boundary, in the $0.03-0.6{M_{\odot}}$ mass range for both ages. When complementing our survey with literature data from Pillitteri et al. (2003) in the higher mass range, we find that the whole cluster mass function, from $0.03{M_{\odot}}$ to $3{M_{\odot}}$, is well fitted by a log-normal distribution $$\xi_{\rm L}(m) = \frac{dn}{d\log m} \propto \exp\left[ -
\frac{(\log m - \log m_{0})^2}{2\sigma^{2}}\right]$$ with $m_{0}=0.36\pm0.07{M_{\odot}}$ and $\sigma=0.58\pm0.06$.
This result is very similar to the Pleiades MF given by Moraux et al. (2003), the two clusters having about the same age but different richness. Similar MF shapes are found for other young open clusters, star forming regions and also for the galactic disc population. This suggests that the IMF, from the substellar regime up to the higher mass domain, is fairly insensitive to initial conditions and that there is a characteristic system mass around $0.3{M_{\odot}}$ for star formation. Theories developed to explain the origin of the mass distribution, such as turbulent fragmentation (Padoan & Nordlund 2002) or the accretion/ejection paradigm (Bate & Bonnell 2005), predict however a dependence of the IMF on density and temperature via the thermal Jeans mass. This seems to be in contradiction with the observational results unless thermal physics as invoked by Larson (2005) sets the characteristic mass for fragmentation independently of the initial conditions.
A clue to this problem may be found in studying the global properties of collapsing clouds. The fact that all known embedded clusters, with $N_{star}=10$ to more than 1000, have a stellar surface density which varies by a factor of only a few (Allen et al. 2006) suggests that the initial conditions may not be very different. Investigation of the mass distribution of very low-mass pre-stellar cores should clarify this issue (e.g. Li al. 2007, Nutter & Ward-Thompson 2007).
The authors thank Isabelle Baraffe who calculated the NEXTGEN and DUSTY models for the CFH12K filter set, as well as Sylvain Guieu for computing the isodensity contours.
The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain.
Abraham de Epstein, A.E & Epstein, I., 1985, AJ, 90, 1211 Adams, T., Davies, M. B., Jameson, R. F., & Scally, A. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 547 Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., Tamanai, A., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, ApJ, 556, 357 Allen, L., Megeath, S.T., Gutermuth, R., Myers, P.C., Wolk, S., Adams, F.C., Muzerolle, J., Young, E., Pipher, J.L., 2006, to appear in “Protostars and Planets V”, astro-ph/0603096 Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Klessen, R.S., Mac Low, M.-M., Vazquez-Semadeni, E., 2006, to appear in “Protostars and Planets V”, astro-ph/0603357 Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., Hauschildt, P.H. 1998, A&A, 337, 403 Barrado y Navascués, D., Bouvier, J., Stauffer, J.R., Lodieu, N., McCaughrean, M.J. 2002, A&A, 395, 813 Barrado y Navascu[é]{}s, D., Stauffer, J. R., & Jayawardhana, R. 2004a, , 614, 386 Barrado y Navascu[é]{}s, D., Stauffer, J. R., Bouvier, J., Jayawardhana, R., & Cuillandre, J.-C. 2004b, , 610, 1064 Bate, M. R. 2005, , 363, 363 Bate, M. R., & Bonnell, I. A. 2005, , 356, 1201 Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393 B[é]{}jar, V. J. S., Caballero, J. A., Rebolo, R., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., & Y Navascu[é]{}s, D. B. 2004, , 292, 339 Blanco, V.M., 1949, PASP, 61, 183 Bonnell, I.A., Larson, R.B., Zinnecker, H., 2006a, to appear in “Protostars and Planets V”, astro-ph/0603447 Bonnell, I. A., Clarke, C. J., & Bate, M. R. 2006b, , 368, 1296 Brice[ñ]{}o, C., Luhman, K. L., Hartmann, L., Stauffer, J. R., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2002, , 580, 317 Chabrier, G. 2003, , 115, 763 Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Allard, F., Hauschildt, P.H. 2000, ApJ, 542, 464 Cuillandre, J.-C., Starr, B., Isani, S., Lupino, G. 2001, Experimental Astronomy, v. 11, Issue 3, p. 223-235 de Wit, W. J., et al. 2006, , 448, 189 Dobbie, P.D., Pinfield, D.J., Jameson, R.F., & Hodgkin, S.T. 2002, MNRAS, 335, L79 Eggen, O.J., 1972, ApJ, 173, 63 Epstein, I., 1968, AJ, 73, 556 Ford, A., Jeffries, R. D., & Smalley, B. 2005, , 364, 272 Goodwin, S. P., Whitworth, A. P., & Ward-Thompson, D. 2006, , 452, 487 Guieu, S., Dougados, C., Monin, J.-L., Magnier, E., & Mart[í]{}n, E. L. 2006, , 446, 485 Hawkins, G. W., & Favata, F. 1998, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 30, 1346 Jappsen, A.-K., Klessen, R. S., Larson, R. B., Li, Y., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2005, , 435, 611 Jeffries, R. D. & James, D. J. 1999, ApJ, 511, 218 Jeffries, R. D., Naylor, T., Devey, C. R., & Totten, E. J. 2004, , 351, 1401 Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., R[ö]{}ser, S., Schilbach, E., & Scholz, R.-D. 2005, , 438, 1163 King, I. 1962, AJ, 67, 471 King, I. R. 1980, IAU Symp. 85: Star Formation, 85, 139 Klessen, R. S., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., V[á]{}zquez-Semadeni, E., & Dur[á]{}n-Rojas, C. 2005, , 620, 786 Larson, R. B. 2005, , 359, 211 Li, D., Velusamy, T., Goldsmith, P. F., & Langer, W. D. 2007, , 655, 351 Luhman, K. L., Stauffer, J. R., Muench, A. A., Rieke, G. H., Lada, E. A., Bouvier, J., & Lada, C. J. 2003a, , 593, 1093 Luhman, K. L., Brice[ñ]{}o, C., Stauffer, J. R., Hartmann, L., Barrado y Navascu[é]{}s, D., & Caldwell, N. 2003b, , 590, 348 Lyngå, G. & Wramdemark, S., 1984, A&A, 132, 54 Lyngå, G. 1987, Catalogue of open cluster data. Computer based catalogue available through CDS, Strasbourg, France and through NASA Data Center, Greenbell, Maryland, USA. Magnier, E., & Cuillandre, J.-C. 2002, SPIE, 4844, 343 Magnier, E. A., & Cuillandre, J.-C. 2004, , 116, 449 Mart[í]{}n, E. L., Delfosse, X., Basri, G., Goldman, B., Forveille, T., & Zapatero Osorio, M. R. 1999, AJ, 118, 2466 Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Favata, F., Pallavicini, R., & Pye, J., 1999, A&A, 344, 83 Moraux, E., Bouvier, J., Stauffer, J.R. 2001, A&A, 367, 211 Moraux, E., Bouvier, J., Stauffer, J.R., Cuillandre, J.-C. 2003, A&A, 400, 891 Moraux, E., Kroupa, P., & Bouvier, J. 2004, , 426, 75 Motte, F., & Andr[é]{}, P. 2001, , 365, 440 Muench, A. A., Lada, E. A., Lada, C. J., & Alves, J. 2002, , 573, 366 Nakajima, T., Oppenheimer, B. R., Kulkarni, S. R., Golimowski, D. A., Matthews, K., & Durrance, S. T. 1995, Nature, 378, 463 Nutter, D., & Ward-Thompson, D. 2007, , 374, 1413 Padoan, P., & Nordlund, Å., 2002, ApJ, 576, 870 Panagi, P. M., & O’dell, M. A. 1997, , 121, 213 Perry, C.L., Walter, D.K., Crawford, D.L., 1978, PASP, 90, 81 Persson, S. E., Murphy, D. C., Krzeminski, W., Roth, M., & Rieke, M. J. 1998, , 116, 2475 Pillitteri, I., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., & Favata, F. 2003, A&A, 399, 919 Pinfield, D.J., Jameson, R.F., & Hodgkin, S.T. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 955 Rebolo, R., Zapatero-Osorio, M. R., & Martin, E. L. 1995, , 377, 129 Robichon, N., Arenou, F., Mermilliod, J.-C., & Turon, C. 1999, , 345, 471 Silverman, B. W. 1986, Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, London: Chapman and Hall, 1986 Spitzer, L. J. 1940, , 100, 396 Westerlund, B.E., 1963, MNRAS, 127, 183 Westerlund, B.E., Garnier, R., Lundgren, K., Petterson, B., Breysacher, J., 1988, A&AS, 76, 101 Zheng, Z., Flynn, C., Gould, A., Bahcall, J. N., & Salim, S. 2004, , 601, 500
[^1]: Based on observations obtained at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council of Canada, the Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique of France, and the University of Hawaii. Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile (ESO programmes 68.C-0233 and 71.C-0446). Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[^2]: The NEXTGEN and DUSTY isochrones have been calculated especially for the CFH12K filter set by I.Baraffe using the transmission curves and the CCD quantum efficiency. Their reliability is ensured by the fact that they work well at reproducing the Pleiades single star sequence for an age of 120 Myr and a distance of 125 pc in agreement with the cluster properties
[^3]: Blanco 1 being at 240 pc below the galactic plane it is indeed necessary to take the scale height into account.
[^4]: Note that the authors used an age of 100 Myr to estimate masses but using 150 Myr instead would not change the results in this mass range. This is not the case however at lower mass where the 100 Myr and 150 Myr mass-magnitude relationships differ.
[^5]: Note that the upper mass limit is imposed by the highest mass cluster member with $m\sim 3{M_{\odot}}$ ($M_{(bol)}=-0.74$; Westerlund et al. 1988).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We continue the development of a linear algebraic framework for the shape-from-shading problem, exploiting the manner in which tensors arise when scalar (e.g. image) and vector (e.g. surface normal) fields are differentiated multiple times. In this paper we apply that framework to develop Taylor expansions of the normal field and build a boot-strapping algorithm to find these polynomial surface solutions (under any light source) consistent with a given patch to arbitrary order. A generic constraint on the image derivatives restricts these solutions to a 2-D subspace, plus an unknown rotation matrix. The parameters for the subspace and rotation matrix encapsulate the ambiguity in the shading problem.'
author:
- |
Benjamin S. Kunsberg\
Department of Applied Mathematics\
Brown University\
- |
Daniel Niels Holtmann-Rice\
Department of Computer Science\
Yale University
- |
Steven W. Zucker\
Depts. of Computer Science and Biomedical Engineering\
Yale University
bibliography:
- 'Thesis.bib'
title: |
What’s In A Patch, II:\
Visualizing generic surfaces
---
Introduction
============
We have been developing a linear-algebraic approach to the shape-from-shading problem [@tensors-arxiv-1], and this paper is a continuation of that effort.[^1] The key intuition underlying the research effort is that, if one were to ‘drill down’ in derivatives for the surface, then this should correspond to analagous derivatives for the image (Fig. \[fig:taylor1\]). We earlier considered which image (derivatives) are most likely given certain shape (normal) derivatives, for similiar levels of differentiation. We now combine the derivatives in the Taylor sense, to calculate a representation of the full space of possible surface patches that could correspond to a given image patch, up to some order of differentiation. The algorithmic formulation allows us to ‘bootstrap’ the next-order structure from the previously calculated structure, similar to the use of recursion in series solutions to ordinary differential equations. It is important because, as shown in Fig. \[fig:tradeoffs\], the differential order of the image and of the surface must somehow be coupled. For convenience, we work in ambient Euclidean space; for a related abstract treatment using covariant derivatives, see [@lang:dg].
In general there are infinite surfaces that can correspond to a given image patch, given the ill-posedness of the problem. The contribution here is that we are able to ’control’ it with linear algebraic machinery [@tensors-arxiv-1] plus a generic lighting constraint [@Freeman:1994br]. Importantly, the notion of control that emerges is algorithmic, and indicates that, while the generic assumptions can structure solutions, even when they are linked to a particular (differential) level ambiguities remain. In particular, for a smooth Lambertian image patch (with no additional information regarding the light source or boundary), we develop a characterization of the set of possible underlying surface patches. Unlike previous approaches, we do not restrict the underlying surface patch to be a polynomial of a fixed degree, but rather allow the surface patch to account for all intensity variation in the image patch. Working with Taylor approximations, we let the order be dependent on each image patch and introduce an algorithm that realizes the set of generic surface patches corresponding to that image patch. In effect this provides a visualization of the ambiguity in the problem well beyond bas-relief [@Belhumeur:1999hd]; see Fig. \[fig:taylor1\].
An illustration of the family of solutions is shown in Fig. \[fig:cyl-soln\], for a Lambertian image patch of a cylinder. This is, of course, a very special object in which the surface normal variation is restricted to the radial direction and the curvature forms are low rank; see discussion in [@tensors-arxiv-1]. But it is also an important object in shape-from-shading research. Algorithmically it has been invoked to motivate a mean-curvature prior [@Barron:2012tt] and used to estimate human ‘reflectance functions’ [@Seyama19983805]. Importantly, even in this special case, there is enormous variation in the perceived shape [@Todd:1983vv; @Mingolla:1986td; @MAMASSIAN19962351] and it plays a key role in light-source identification algorithms (e.g., [@pentland:light]). Nevertheless, even among these many possibilities, neither the the bas-relief nor the generic lighting parameters, are invoked, so the variation is truly impressive. These concepts are developed in the course of this paper; we end with the algorithm that was used to compute these surfaces.
a\) b)
Background
==========
A background review on shape-from-shading algorithms is provided in [@Zhang:1999wm] and in the companion paper [@tensors-arxiv-1]. Here we concentrate on the few papers that are explicitly based on a patch model. For this approach the idea is to solve for local patches individually and then “stitch" them together [@Breton:1992; @Xiong:2015hj; @Kunsberg:2014gua].
In [@Ecker:2010uh], the authors formulate the problem as solving a (large) system of polynomials using modern homotopy solvers over a triangulation. This is feasible for small images, involves (up to) quartic interactions, and leads to exact recovery of all possible solutions. For general patches, one can model the associated pixel values with various degrees of underlying surface complexity, represented as a Taylor polynomial in either heights or normals. [@Xiong:2015hj] assume the image patch derives from a second-order surface and, therefore seek a quadratic solution; in [@Kunsberg:2014gua] the image patch is modeled from a third-order surface. Assuming a local surface patch is exactly modeled by a quadratic, there are in general only four solutions to the local image formation model, i.e., the coefficients of the quadratic and the light source. If the image patch is large enough (i.e., number of pixels) relative to the number of coefficients of the Taylor polynomial, then the local patch can be determined up to a four-fold ambiguity [@Xiong:2015hj; @Kunsberg:2014gua]. Clearly over-fitting can be a problem if the image patch is taken to be too large; e.g., errors will arise in fitting a quadratic surface to an image patch that arose from a quartic surface. In general, fixing the underlying surface complexity while considering successively larger image patches creates overfitting, whereas fixing the constraints (image patch size) while increasing the degree of the Taylor polynomial leads to increasing ambiguity. See Figure \[fig:tradeoffs\]. The variability in possible solutions is also biologically relevant [@Connor08], where researchers have attempted to identify the response to an image for a given surface. The variability that we describe must be kept in mind when attempting to assess the uniqueness (or lack thereof) in such neural responses.
Conditions on Generic Normal Fields Associated with a Lambertian Image Patch {#sec:gtaylor}
============================================================================
Branching off from the companion paper [@tensors-arxiv-1], we now want to determine the set of possible underlying generic surface patches corresponding to a given image patch. We assume orthogonal projection, so the surface $S$ can be thought of as height field over the image plane. For more background on the setup and relevant notation, see [@tensors-arxiv-1].
The image patch $I(x, y)$ centered at the origin is modeled by a Taylor approximation $\bar{I}(x, y)$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{I}(x, y) & = I(0, 0) + x \, {\mathcal{D}}^1_p I ({\bm{e_1}}) + y \, {\mathcal{D}}^1_p I ({\bm{e_2}}) + \\
& + \frac{1}{2} \left( x^2 \, {\mathcal{D}}^2_p I ({\bm{e_1}}, {\bm{e_1}}) + x y \, {\mathcal{D}}^2_p I ({\bm{e_1}}, {\bm{e_2}}) + y^2 \, {\mathcal{D}}^2_p I ({\bm{e_2}}, {\bm{e_2}}) \right) \nonumber \\
& + \text{third and higher order terms} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The $e_i$ represent the standard basis vectors. As in [@tensors-arxiv-1], we use the notation ${\mathcal{D}}^j_p I ( \cdot, \cdot, \ldots, \cdot)$ to represent the $j^{\mathrm{th}}$ derivative of the function $I(x, y)$ at the point $p$. It is a multilinear $j-$form that requires $j$ vector inputs to return a scalar value in $\mathbb{R}$ (See Appendix A in [@tensors-arxiv-1]). Thus, ${\mathcal{D}}^j_p I: \mathbb{R}^{2^j} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ for each $j$. Our goal is to understand the under-determined map from $\bar{I}(x,
y)$ to a Taylor approximation of the surface normal field, $\bar{\bm{N}}(x, y)$. $\bar{\bm{N}}(x, y)$ is a multivariate polynomial with coefficients ${\mathcal{D}}^j_p \bm{N} ( \cdot, \cdot, \ldots, \cdot): \mathbb{R}^{2^j} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$.
Relating the two Taylor approximations can be understood by relating the coefficients. Thus, we seek an algorithm that takes the known values $\{ {\mathcal{D}}^j_p I \}_{j = 1}^n$ as inputs and and outputs the $\{ {\mathcal{D}}^j_p \bm{N} \}_{j = 1}^n$. Building on the earlier results, this one to many map carries the ambiguity when going from the Taylor approximation of the image to the Taylor approximation of the surface. For notational simplicity, we will drop the $p$ subscript for the rest of the analysis.
A subtlety arises because the normal vector is unit length. First, represent the surface as a height function over the image plane: $F(x, y) = \{ x, y, f(x, y)\} $. Using subscripts to denote partial differentation, the associated normal field is $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{N}(x, y) & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + f_x^2 + f_y^2}} \{-f_x, -f_y, 1\}\end{aligned}$$
Image intensity gives a projection of the normal field
------------------------------------------------------
A Lambertian image intensity is given by $ I(x, y) = \alpha {\bm{L}} \cdot \bm{N}(x, y)$. Assuming constant albedo, we set $\alpha = 1$. We apply derivative operators $j$ times to both sides to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:proj_onto_L}
{\mathcal{D}}^j I ( \cdot, \cdot, \ldots, \cdot) & = {\bm{L}}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} ( \cdot, \cdot, \ldots, \cdot)\end{aligned}$$
To appreciate ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$, think of e.g., ${\mathcal{D}}^2 \bm{N}$: this requires two $\mathbb{R}^2$ vectors $\{{\bm{v_1}}, {\bm{v_2}} \}$ as input and outputs a vector in $\mathbb{R}^3$. This output is the “change in the change in the normal field" as we differentiate first in the ${\bm{v_1}}$ direction and then in the ${\bm{v_2}}$ direction. Note that, due to the symmetry of the derivative, the order of the inputs does not matter.
The square root term in the denominator creates difficulties in relating the $\{ {\mathcal{D}}^j I \} _{j =1}^n$ to the parameters $\{ f_x, f_y, f_{xx}, \ldots \}$ (or other surface parameters). According to the above equation \[eqn:proj\_onto\_L\], we see that the relationships between $\{ {\mathcal{D}}^j I \} _{j =1}^n$ and $\{ {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} \} _{j =1}^n$ is a projection along the (unknown) light source vector ${\bm{L}}$. We will need two more linearly independent projections in order to uniquely define the remainder of $\{ {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} \} _{j =1}^n$ and thus recover the normal field $\bar{\bm{N}}(x, y)$. As we now show, one of these additional projections will be set by the unit length condition of $\bar{\bm{N}}(x, y)$. The final projection can be freely set and represents the ambiguity in the problem.
Normalization constraints yield another projection of the normal field
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The normalization constraint can be expanded as a system of linear constraints in the Taylor series. By enforcing this linear system of constraints, we can ensure an approximately unit length normal field (up to error $O(x^{n+1})$) in the following manner.
The normalization constraint is: $$\begin{aligned}
1 & = \langle \bm{N}(x, y), \bm{N}(x, y) \rangle\end{aligned}$$
Here, we write $\langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle$ as the standard dot product in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and we write $\bm{N}_0 = \bm{N}(p)$ as the normal vector at the center of our patch. The above equation can be differentiated in an arbitrary image vector direction $\mathbf{u}$ and evaluated at $p$: $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = \langle {\mathcal{D}}^1_{\mathbf{u}} \bm{N}, \bm{N}_0 \rangle
\label{eqn:D1N}\end{aligned}$$
Differentiate in another direction $\mathbf{v}$: $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = \langle {\mathcal{D}}^2_{\mathbf{v} \mathbf{u}} \bm{N}, \bm{N}_0 \rangle + \langle {\mathcal{D}}^1_{\mathbf{v}} \bm{N}, {\mathcal{D}}^1_{\mathbf{u}} \bm{N} \rangle
\label{eqn:D2N}\end{aligned}$$
We do not choose $ \{ \mathbf{u}, \mathbf{v} \}$ before we differentiate; we could keep these directions unknown and general. That is, we consider the ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ as a $(1, j)$ tensor – a linear machine seeking $j$ vectors and outputting a vector in $\mathbb{R}^3$. We create $\langle {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}, {\mathcal{D}}^k \bm{N} \rangle$ as a new $(0, j + k)$ tensor in the following way:
- Construct ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} \otimes {\mathcal{D}}^k \bm{N}$ as a $(2, j + k)$ tensor. The two contravariant parts correspond to the $\mathbb{R}^3$ vectors ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}, {\mathcal{D}}^k \bm{N}$ once $j + k$ inputs have been chosen.
- Lower an index associated with the unique contravariant part (in $\mathbb{R}^3$) of ${\mathcal{D}}^k \bm{N}$ to get a $(1, j + k + 1)$ tensor.
- Contract the two indices associated with the $\mathbb{R}^3$ parts (we now have one covariant and one contravariant) to perform the dot product.
Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}, {\mathcal{D}}^k \bm{N} \rangle = C(\flat({\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} \otimes {\mathcal{D}}^k \bm{N}))\end{aligned}$$
where $C$ is the contraction operator and $\flat$ lowers the appropriate index.
Examining the Equations \[eqn:D1N\], \[eqn:D2N\], a pattern emerges: if $\{ {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} \}_{j < m}$ were known, then we could calculate $\langle {\mathcal{D}}^m \bm{N}, \bm{N}_0 \rangle$. This key point will allow us to solve for $\langle {\mathcal{D}}^m \bm{N}, \bm{N}_0 \rangle$ for each $m$ inductively and thereby gain knowledge of the projection of the ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ coefficients onto the central normal $\bm{N}_0$. Continuing to take derivatives and rearranging, we get the following proposition.
The constraint $\langle \bm{N}, \bm{N} \rangle = 1$ can be Taylor approximated up to order $k$ by enforcing series of linear constraints, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}, \bm{N}_0 \rangle & = - \sum_{1 \leq a \leq \floor*{\frac{j}{2}}} \sum_{\pi_a \in \Pi} \langle {\mathcal{D}}^a \bm{N} (\pi_a (V)), {\mathcal{D}}^{j - a} \bm{N} (\pi_a (V)^C) \rangle \label{eqn:norms}\end{aligned}$$
for every $j \leq k$.
Here $\Pi$ is the set of combinations of $a$ objects chosen from $j$ objects. These combinations arise from the application of the product rule multiple times. We let $V$ represent the space $\mathbb{R}^{2^j}$ of $j$ 2D image vector inputs into the tensor ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ and then $\pi_a (V)$ represents a subset of $a$ inputs out of the $j$ possible ones. Thus, $\pi_a (V)^C$ represents the remaining $j-a$ inputs. Note that since the order of the inputs doesn’t matter (but whether they get fed to ${\mathcal{D}}^a \bm{N}$ or ${\mathcal{D}}^{j-a} \bm{N}$ does), we use combinations.
In conclusion, if $\{ {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} \}_{j < m}$ were known, we could acquire the projections of ${\mathcal{D}}^m \bm{N}$ onto the vector $\bm{N}_0$. As ${\mathcal{D}}^m \bm{N}$ is fully defined when its projection onto three linearly independent vectors is known, it remains to search for one more projection. Unfortunately, there is no other information in the shape from shading problem that allows us to directly set a third projection of the ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ coefficients. This inherent ambiguity in the problem is due to the normal field being a higher dimensional entity (taking values on $\mathbb{S}^2$) than the intensity function (taking values on $\mathbb{R}$).
Using generic lighting to obtain a third projection
---------------------------------------------------
We now introduce a device that will allow us to calculate a third projection of $ {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ . Let $G(x, y): \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be any smooth function and let $\mathbf{b}$ be any direction in $\mathbb{R}^3$ not in the span of $\{{\bm{L}}, {\bm{N_0}} \}$. Suppose we choose to set $\mathbf{b}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j N = {\mathcal{D}}^j G, \forall j \in \{1, \ldots, n \}$. Provided we ensure $\mathbf{L}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j N = {\mathcal{D}}^j I, \forall j \in \{1, \ldots, n \}$ and equation \[eqn:norms\] holds for each $j$, we will construct a Taylor series $\bar{N}(x, y)$ that is approximately unit length and approximately matches the image. (For a discussion of these Taylor remainder errors, please see the Appendix.) Integrating this normal field would provide a surface patch matching the original image patch for any $G$; however, some choices of $G$ may be better (i.e. more robust and probable) than others.
A natural choice for $G$ comes from the generic framework and notation developed in [@Freeman:1994br; @Freeman:1996jc], which we now develop for our case. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{\beta} & = \begin{bmatrix} {\mathcal{D}}^0 \bm{N} & {\mathcal{D}}^1 \bm{N} & \ldots \, {\mathcal{D}}^n \bm{N} \end{bmatrix} \\
\bm{Y} & = \begin{bmatrix} {\mathcal{D}}^0 I & {\mathcal{D}}^1 I & \ldots \, {\mathcal{D}}^n I \end{bmatrix} \end{aligned}$$
Here, we have unfolded (see Appendix in [@tensors-arxiv-1]) the various tensors ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ into $3 \times 2^j$ matrices and then appended them together. Let $m = {\sum_{i = 1}^n 2^i}$. Then, $\beta$ is a linear map from $\mathbb{R}^{m}$ to $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $Y$ is a linear map from $\mathbb{R}^{m}$ to $\mathbb{R}$ . Now, consider the following rendering function: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{L}, \bm{\beta} ) & = \bm{Y} \\
& = \mathbf{L}^T \bm{\beta}\end{aligned}$$
Following [@Freeman:1994br; @Freeman:1996jc], we call $\mathbf{L}$ the *generic variable*, $\beta$ the *scene parameters*, and $Y$ the *observations*. $\mathbf{L}$ is an unknown vector in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Following [@Freeman:1994br; @Freeman:1996jc], we assume a Gaussian noise model on the observations $\bm{Y}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{Y} = \hat{\bm{Y}} + \bm{T}\end{aligned}$$
where $\hat{\bm{Y}}$ is the ideal rendered observation and $T \sim N(0, \bm{\Sigma})$ with $\bm{\Sigma} = \text{diag}(\sigma^2)$ for some $\sigma \in \mathbb{R}^+$. For the noise model, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
P(\bm{Y} | \bm{\beta}, \mathbf{L}) & = \frac{1}{(\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2})^m} e^{- \frac{ || \bm{Y} - \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{L}, \bm{\beta}) ||^2}{2 \sigma^2}}\end{aligned}$$
Appling Bayes’ theorem and integrating over the generic variable $\mathbf{L}$ yields the posterior distribution:
$$\begin{aligned}
P(\bm{\beta} | \bm{Y}) & = k \exp \left( \frac{ - ||\bm{Y} - \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{L}_0 , \bm{\beta}) ||^2}{2 \sigma^2} \right) [ P_{\bm{\beta}} (\bm{\beta}) P_\mathbf{L} (\mathbf{L}_0)] \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\operatorname{det}}(\bm{A})}} \label{eqn:posterior}\\
& = k \hspace{15mm} \text{(fidelity)} \hspace{10mm} \text{(prior probability)} \hspace{7mm} \text{(genericity)}\end{aligned}$$
where $P_{\bm{\beta}} (\bm{\beta}), P_\mathbf{L} (\mathbf{L}_0)$ are prior distributions on the surface and light source parameters, $\mathbf{L}_0$ is the light source that can best account for the observations given a chosen $\bm{\beta}$ and $\bm{A}$ is a matrix with the following elements:
$$\begin{aligned}
A_{ij} = \mathbf{f}'_i \cdot \mathbf{f}'_j - (\bm{Y} - \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{L}_0, \bm{\beta})) \cdot \mathbf{f}''_{ij}\end{aligned}$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{f}'_i & = \frac{\partial \mathbf{f} (\mathbf{L}, \bm{\beta})}{\partial l_i} \Big|_{\mathbf{L} = \mathbf{L}_0} \\
\mathbf{f}''_{ij} & = \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{f} (\mathbf{L}, \bm{\beta})}{\partial l_i \partial l_j} \Big|_{\mathbf{L} = \mathbf{L}_0}\end{aligned}$$
We now seek the solutions that maximize the posterior probability $P(\bm{\beta} | \bm{Y})$. From equation \[eqn:posterior\], we maximize by choosing $\bm{\beta}$ and $\mathbf{L}_0$ so that $||\bm{Y} - \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{L}_0 , \bm{\beta}) || = 0$ while at the same time setting ${\operatorname{det}}(\bm{A}) = 0$.
Where, $||\bm{Y} - \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{L}_0 , \bm{\beta}) || = 0$, the condition that ${\operatorname{det}}(\bm{A}) = 0$ is equivalent to the constraint that $\bm{\beta}$ is a low rank $3 \times m$ matrix. Under this condition, $\bm{\beta}$ is determined (up to two constants $c_1, c_2$) by its projection onto two linearly independent vectors. (We ignore the rank 1 case, as it’s infinitesimally unlikely compared to the rank 2 case.) $\bm{\beta}$’s projection onto two linearly independent vectors can already be obtained, as the components of $\bm{\beta}$ are each ${\mathcal{D}}^j N$. Thus, if we restrict $\bar{\bm{N}} (x, y)$ to the generic solutions, we can solve for it unambiguously up to the unknowns $\{c_1, c_2, \mathbf{L}_0, \bm{N}_0 \}$. We now show this.
Representing unknown lighting and tangent plane orientation via change of basis
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the projections of ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ are onto the vectors $\{ \mathbf{L}, \bm{N}_0 \}$, we will work in a basis defined by those vectors. Define $\mathbf{l_t}$ to be the unit length projection of $\mathbf{L}_0$ onto the tangent plane perpendicular to $\bm{N}_0$. That is, $\bm{l}_t = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - I^2}} (\bm{L} - (\bm{L} \cdot \bm{N}) \bm{N})$. Let $\mathbf{b} = \bm{N}_0 \times \bm{l}_t$. Then, define $\bm{P} \in SO_3 (\mathbb{R})$:
$$\begin{aligned}
P & =
\begin{pmatrix}
\rule[.5ex]{3em}{0.4pt} \hspace{2mm} {\bm{N_0}} \hspace{2mm} \rule[.5ex]{3em}{0.4pt} \\
\rule[.5ex]{3.2em}{0.4pt} \hspace{2mm} {\bm{l}}_t \hspace{2mm} \rule[.5ex]{3.2em}{0.4pt} \\
\rule[.5ex]{3.2em}{0.4pt} \hspace{2mm} \mathbf{b} \hspace{2mm} \rule[.5ex]{3.2em}{0.4pt} \\
\end{pmatrix}^T\end{aligned}$$
Note that $\bm{P}$ is an unknown orthogonal matrix, since we don’t know either the normal or the direction of the light source. However, rather than computing the Taylor surface $\bar{\bm{N}}(x, y)$ in the standard $\mathbb{R}^3$ basis, we will instead compute the modified Taylor surface $\bm{P}^T \bar{\bm{N}}(x, y)$. This is merely considering the output of $\bar{\bm{N}}(x, y)$ in a different frame. In this fashion, we solve for a family of surfaces that will all match the Taylor image polynomial. To obtain a single member of that family, we choose an element $\bm{Q} \in SO_3 (\mathbb{R})$ and multiply to get $\bm{Q} (\bm{P}^T \bar{\bm{N}}(x, y))$. This is equivalent to choosing a normal and light source for the scene.
Thus our new goal is to solve for $\bm{P}^T \bar{\bm{N}}(x, y)$ by solving for the coefficients of the Taylor series $\bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}, 1 \leq j \leq n$; see Fig. \[fig:PT\]. We do this in an inductive manner, as we will need the $\{ \bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} \}_{j < k}$ in order to solve for $\bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^k \bm{N}$.
Algorithm
=========
In this section, we will put the pieces described in the above sections together in order to create an inductive algorithm that can solve for all generic surfaces corresponding to a single image patch. To do this efficiently, we use an *unfolding* of the tensors ${\mathcal{D}}^j I$ and ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$.
We recall that ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ is a $(1, j)$ tensor, that is, a multilinear map from $\mathbb{R}^{2^j}$ to $\mathbb{R}^3$. It has a matrix representation – a rank 1 unfolding – whose dimensions are is $3 \times 2^j$. To calculate the action of this tensor on our inputs $\{\bm{v_1}, \bm{v_2}, \ldots, \bm{v_j}\}, \bm{v_i} \in \mathbb{R}^2$, we apply its matrix representation to the Kronecker product of the inputs $\bm{w} = \bm{v_1} \otimes \bm{v_2} \ldots \otimes \bm{v_j}$. We seek these matrix representations. Let $\bm{r}_i^j$ stand for row $i$ of $\bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\rule[.5ex]{3em}{0.4pt} \hspace{2mm} \bm{r}^j_1 \hspace{2mm} \rule[.5ex]{3em}{0.4pt} \\
\rule[.5ex]{3em}{0.4pt} \hspace{2mm} \bm{r}^j_2 \hspace{2mm} \rule[.5ex]{3em}{0.4pt} \\
\rule[.5ex]{3em}{0.4pt} \hspace{2mm} \bm{r}^j_3 \hspace{2mm} \rule[.5ex]{3em}{0.4pt} \\
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$
Suppose $\{ \bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} \}_{j < k}$ were known and the linear combination constants $\{c_1, c_2 \}$ were chosen. We will use an inductive algorithm to define the matrices $\bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ consecutively in $j$.
By equation \[eqn:norms\], we can calculate $\bm{r}_1^{j+1}$ by noting that an orthogonal transformation does not change inner products. Thus, the RHS of equation \[eqn:norms\] can be calculated and $\bm{r}_1^{j+1}$ can be set equal to it. Next, we define $\bm{r}_2 = \mathbf{l}_t^T {\mathcal{D}}^{j +1} N$ in the following manner:
$$\begin{aligned}
\bm{r}_2^j & = \mathbf{l_t}^t {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} \\
& = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - I^2}} (\bm{L} - (\bm{L} \cdot \bm{N}) \bm{N})^T {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} \\
& = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - I^2}} \left( \bm{L}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} - I \bm{N}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N} \right) \\
& = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - I^2}} \left( {\mathcal{D}}^j I - I \bm{r}_1^j \right) \label{eqn:r2}\end{aligned}$$
Thus, given $\bm{r}_1^j$ from the normalization constraints and ${\mathcal{D}}^j I$ from the image information, we can find the next row $\bm{r}_2^j$ uniquely. Note that we are assuming that ${\bm{l}}_t$ exists, which it will at every regular point. It remains to define $\bm{r}_3^j$ as the linear combination of the previous two rows $\bm{r}^j_3 = c_1 \bm{r}^j_1 + c_2 \bm{r}^j_2$. Now, we have defined $\bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ by its rows $\{\bm{r}_1^j, \bm{r}_2^j, \bm{r}_3^j\}$ and we continue on to $\bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^{j+1} \bm{N}$.
It remains to define the base case: $\bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^1 \bm{N}$. From equation \[eqn:D1N\], we know its first row $\bm{r}^1_1$ must be the 0 vector. From equation \[eqn:r2\], we find that $\bm{r}_2^1$ is just the weighted brightness gradient $\bm{r}_2^1 = \frac{{\mathcal{D}}^1 I}{\sqrt{1 - I^2}}$. Finally, due to the generic assumption, we set $\bm{r}_3^1 = c_2 \bm{r}_2^1$.
Following the algorithm described above (and summarized in Algorithm 1) yields coefficients $\{{\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}\}_{1}^{m}$ defining a multivariate Taylor polynomial $\bar{\bm{N}}(x, y)$ that is generic according to [@Freeman:1996jc], matches exactly the image Taylor approximation $\bar{I}(x, y)$, and is unit length (up to error $O(h^m)$).
See the Appendix for precise details regarding the unit length error.
Input: $\{{\mathcal{D}}^m I \}_{m = 0}^k$, $c_1, c_2$ *For $0 \leq j \leq k-1$* *If* $j = 0$ $\bm{r}^1_1 = \{0, 0\}$ *Else* $\bm{r}_1^{j+1} \gets \ \text{ calculated from } \{\bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^k \bm{N}\}_{k < j} \text{ via Eqn (8)}$ $\bm{r}_2^{j+1} \gets \ \text{ calculated from } \{\bm{r}_1^{j+1}, {\mathcal{D}}^{j + 1} I\} \text{ via Eqn (25)}$ $\bm{r}_3^{j+1} \gets \ c_1 \bm{r}_1^{j+1} + c_2 \bm{r}_2^{j + 1} \text{ using generic constants $c_1, c_2$}$ $\bm{P}^T {\mathcal{D}}^{j+1} \bm{N} \gets \ \{\bm{r}_1^{j+1}, \bm{r}_2^{j+1}, \bm{r}_3^{j + 1} \}$ *End*
Discussion
==========
There have been many attempts to relate local image derivatives to local surface derivatives in Lambertian shading, but due to the $\sqrt{1 + f_x^2 + f_y^2}$ in the denominator, the derivatives become more and more complex and the analysis soon becomes intractable. There have also been approaches towards representing the surface in a different way (principal directions basis, covariant derivatives, stereographic projections) but all tend to gain complexity as more derivatives are considered. In this work, we have described a method of representation that does not increase in analytic complexity as more derivatives are considered – this allows us to calculate all generic Taylor expansions (of any order) of a surface for a given image.
Essentially, we project each set of Taylor coefficients ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ onto an unknown plane (the “visible attribute plane") defined by some unknown rotation matrix $\bm{P}$. This is a plane in $\mathbb{R}^3$ that is spanned by the light source ${\bm{l}}_t$ and the central normal ${\bm{N}}_0$. We know the projections as the $\langle
{\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}, {\bm{N}}_0 \rangle$ is determined by the unit normal constraint. The $\langle {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}, {\bm{l}}_t \rangle$ is a function of the image and $\langle {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}, {\bm{N}}_0 \rangle$. We do not know this visible attribute plane but we can calculate these projections onto it from the image. Thus, any two normal fields with the same Taylor coefficients ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ will have equivalent projections onto this plane at each differential level $j$. The ambiguity stems from the fact that we cannot know the heights of these tensors above the plane (the projection of ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$ along ${\bm{b}}$).
Two final remarks: First, it is possible to make the problem more well posed (less ambiguous) if information from the boundaries is included. Second, our algorithm can be modified to generate all Taylor polynomial normal fields $\bar{\bm{N}}(x, y)$ (instead of only the generic ones) for a given image patch by modifying the above algorithm: simply select $\bm{r}_3^j$ arbitrarily for each $j$. That is, rather than selecting $\bm{r}_3^j$ as a linear combination of $\bm{r}_1^j$ and $\bm{r}_2^j$, $\bm{r}_3^j$ can be set equal to any $\mathbf{v} \in \mathbb{R}^{2^j}$ (satisfying the appropriate symmetry according to differentiation, e.g. $\bm{N}_{xy} = \bm{N}_{yx}$). Thus, we see that the generic assumption significantly reduces the ambiguity of our Taylor expansion: we either must choose 2 generic constants or $\sum_{j=1}^m j+1$ other values.
In summary, image patches are related to surface patches by some rendering function. Lambertian models with orthographic projection are the simplest such functions, and amount to projection of surface normals against a light source vector. This suggests a linear algebraic approach. We here take this one step further, for the inverse problem, by asking which surface patches could be consistent with a given image patch up to some number of derivatives. This allows identification of stucture at different levels, although these ‘Taylor tensors’ can only be determined up to unknown generic constants $c_1, c_2$ and unknown pose $\bm{P} \in SO_3$. Nevertheless, it leads to an algorithm for calculating every possible consistent normal field, even with a generic lighting assumption. Perhaps not surprisingly, such visualizations go well beyond the bas-relief ambiguity, even with generic constraints.
Discussion of Taylor remainder errors
=====================================
This paper documents an algorithm taking Taylor approximations to the image $\bar{I}$ to Taylor approximations to the normal field $\bar{N}$. Here we discuss the potential errors from using the Taylor approximations rather than the true values.
Recall the multivariate Taylor remainder formula with multi-index notation: $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\bm{a}, k}(\bm{h}) = \sum_{| \alpha | = k + 1} \partial^\alpha f(\bm{a} + c \bm{h}) \frac{\bm{h}^\alpha}{\alpha!} \quad \text{for some} \, c \in (0, 1)\end{aligned}$$
where $\bm{a}$ is the point of expansion, $\bm{h}$ is a vector in $\mathbb{R}^2$, $k$ is the order of the Taylor expansion, and $\alpha$ is a multi-index. We can use this equation to calculate errors for the two Taylor approximations used in the paper. We apply it to an image patch $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$, where we normalize so that $\Omega = \{\bm{a} + \bm{h} \big| \, || \bm{h} || \leq 1 \}$. The error $\delta = I - \bar{I}$ will be bounded proportional to the largest value of the $(k+1)$th derivative of the image $I$ in the image patch centered at $a$: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\bm{a}, k}(\bm{h}) & = \sum_{| \alpha | = k + 1} \partial^\alpha \delta (\bm{a} + c \bm{h}) \frac{\bm{h}^\alpha}{\alpha!} \quad \text{for some} \, c \in (0, 1) \\
& \leq \max_{\bm{v} \in S^1, \, c \in (0, 1)} 2^k \left| \left| {\mathcal{D}}^j I_{\bm{a} + c \bm{h}} \left(\bm{v}^{\bigotimes 2^j} \right) \right| \right|^2\end{aligned}$$
where we have bounded each term in the sum by the largest value and bounded $\bm{h}^\alpha$ by 1.
Similarly, from Section 3.2, we enforce the unit length condition for the Taylor approximation $\bar{\bm{N}}$ via a sequence of linear constraints on the derivatives ${\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}$. This will result in an error corresponding to a deviation from unit length of the Taylor approximation $\bar{\bm{N}}$. To analyze this error, let $\epsilon = \langle \bar{\bm{N}}, \bar{\bm{N}} \rangle - 1$ and apply the above remainder formula. We see that, for a fixed Taylor order $k$, the error $\epsilon$ is bounded: $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{\bm{a}, k}(\bm{h}) & = \sum_{| \alpha | = k + 1} \partial^\alpha \epsilon (\bm{a} + c \bm{h}) \frac{\bm{h}^\alpha}{\alpha!} \quad \text{for some} \, c \in (0, 1) \\
& \leq \max_{\bm{v} \in S^1, \, c \in (0, 1)} 2^k \left| \left| {\mathcal{D}}^j \bm{N}_{\bm{a} + c \bm{h}} \left(\bm{v}^{\bigotimes 2^j} \right) \right| \right|^2\end{aligned}$$
Note: Although the error $\delta = I - \bar{I}$ can be calculated before applying the algorithm, the error $\epsilon = \langle \bar{\bm{N}}, \bar{\bm{N}} \rangle - 1$ can only be calculated exactly from ground truth as it requires $\bar{\bm{N}}$. One must (using the described algorithm) first solve for $\bar{\bm{N}}$ and then verify that it is nearly norm 1. For the examples shown in the paper, errors $\epsilon(\bm{h}), \delta(\bm{h})$ were about $1 \%$.
[^1]: We exploit the tensor structure relevant to relate image derivatives to normal field derivatives. The companion paper [@tensors-arxiv-1] contains two Appendices with appropriate background material.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It has been very recently reported (McKeen, Pospelov, arXive:1011.3046) that the parameter region suggested for an explanation of the neutrino oscillation results from the LSND, KARMEN and MiniBooNE experiments in terms of the production and radiative decay of a heavy neutrino ($\nu_h$) can be ruled out based on the measurements of the radiative muon capture (RMC) on hydrogen. We calculate limits on mixing strength between the $\nu_h$ and $\nu_\mu$ by using results of this experiment, and find out that they essentially disagree with the reported bounds. For the $\nu_h$ with mass 60 MeV our limit is worse by a factor of 5, while for 90 MeV it is worse by about two orders of magnitude. We also noticed the wrong behavior of the reported limit curve in the low mass region. The importance of accurate Monte Carlo simulations of the $\nu_h$ signal in the RMC experiment is stressed. Our conclusion is that the whole LSND-MiniBooNE parameter region cannot be ruled out by the RMC measurements.'
author:
- 'S.N. Gninenko'
title: 'Comments on arXiv:1011.3046 “Muon Capture Constraints on Sterile Neutrino Properties”'
---
In the recent work [@sng1], see also [@sng2], it has been shown that the neutrino oscillation results from the LSND, KARMEN and MiniBooNE experiments could be explained by the existence of a heavy sterile neutrino ($\nu_h$), assuming that it is created by mixing in $\nu_\mu$ neutral-current interactions and decays radiatively into a photon and a light neutrino. The $\nu_h$’s could be Dirac or Majorana type and decay dominantly into ${\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}$ in the detector target if, for example, there is a non-zero transition magnetic moment between the $\nu_h$ and the $\nu$. Combined analysis of the energy and angular distributions of the LSND and MiniBooNe excess events suggests that the $\nu_h$ mass $m_{\nu_h}$, the mixing strength $|U_{\mu h}|^2$ and the lifetime $\tau_{\nu_h}$, are in the ranges: $$\begin{aligned}
40 \lesssim m_{\nu_h} \lesssim 80~ {\rm MeV},~ 10^{-3}\lesssim |U_{\mu h}|^2 \lesssim 10^{-2}, \nonumber\\
10^{-11}\lesssim \tau_{\nu_h} \lesssim 10^{-9}~s,
\label{param} \end{aligned}$$ respectively.
The mixing $|U_{\mu h}|^2$ for the mass range of would result in the $\nu_h$ emission in the ordinary muon capture (OMC) on nuclei $\mu^- A \to \nu_\mu A'$ [@deu]. The OMC rate of the heavy neutrino production can be estimated as $$\Gamma_{\nu_h} = \Gamma_{OMC} {|U_{\mu h}|^2}\rho(m_{\nu_h})/\rho(0)$$ where $\Gamma_{OMC} $ is the OMC rate and $\rho(m_{\nu_h}),~\rho(0)$ are the phase space factors for emission of heavy neutrino and massless, unmixed neutrinos, respectively.\
Recently, it has been noticed by McKeen and Pospelov [@pospel] that the parameter space of can be probed by using the results of the experiment on the radiative muon capture (RMC) rate on hydrogen [@rmc]. In this experiment muons were stopped in a liquid hydrogen target. Photons from the reaction $\mu p \to \nu_\mu \gamma n$ were converted in a Pb layer surrounding the target into ${e^+ e^-}$ pairs , whose momenta were measured by a magnetic spectrometer. If the $\nu_h$ exists, it would be produced through mixing in the OMC process and after the prompt ${\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}$ decay in the target and subsequent decay photon conversion result in a final state identical to the one from the RMC reaction.
The number of RMC photons observed in the experiment is calculated by using Eq.(38) from [@rmc]: $$n_{\gamma} = n_{stop} R_{\gamma} K A_a
\label{rmc}$$ where $n_{stop} (\simeq 3.4 \cdot 10^{12})$ is the total number of muons stopped in the target, $R_\gamma = (2.1\pm 0.21)\cdot 10^{-8}$ is the RMC branching fraction, K = 0.6 is an effciency factor, and $A_a$ is the absolute photon spectrometer acceptance which include geometrical acceptance, conversion probability, ${e^+ e^-}$ reconstruction efficiency etc.. Using $n_{\gamma} = 279 \pm 26$ events found in the experiment, gives averaged over the RMS photon spectrum value $A_a = 6.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$. We will use these numbers for the cross-check, but immediately note that the $A_a$ value is about two times bigger than that estimated for the ${\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}$ spectrum. To be conservative we will keep this “safety” factor just in mind.\
The energy distribution of photons from the ${\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}$ decay calculated for different masses of the $\nu_h$ with the total energy of 100 MeV, which is expected from the OMC on hydrogen, is shown in Fig.\[spectrum\] The upper limit on the excess number of photons from the ${\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}$ decay in the RMC experiment can be estimated at 2$\sigma$ level for $E_\gamma> 60 $ MeV as: $$\Delta n_{\gamma} = n_{\gamma}-n_{0} \lesssim 140~š{\rm events}
\label{events}$$ where $n_{0} \simeq 180$ is the number of events that are expected from the theory for the ratio of the pseudoscalar and axial-vector form factors $g_p/g_a=0.69 $ and ortho to para transition rate of the ($\mu p$) atom equal $\lambda= 4.1\times 10^4$ s$^{-1}$ [@rmc].\
The excess $n_s$ of events from the ${\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}$ decays can be calculated as $$n_{s} = n_{stop} R_{OMC} {|U_{\mu h}|^2}f_{phs} B({\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}) P_{{\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}} f_\gamma K A_a
\label{excess}$$ where $n_{stop},~K,~ A_a$ are as in , $R_{OMC} (1.5\cdot 10^{-3})$ is the OMC branchning fraction, $B({\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu})(\simeq 1)$ is the branching fraction of the ${\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}$ decay, $f_{phs} = \rho(m_{\nu_h})/\rho(0)$ is the ratio of phase space factors, $P_{{\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}} (0.15)$ is the probability to decay in the target for heavy neutrino lifetime $\tau = 10^{-9}$ s as in [@pospel], $f_\gamma$ is the fraction of photons with energy $E_{\gamma} > 60$ MeV (0.074 and 0.05 for 60 and 80 MeV $\nu_h$, respectively) . Taking into account above values results in the 2$\sigma$ limit ${|U_{\mu h}|^2}< 1.4\times 10^{-3}$ for the $\nu_h$ mass of 60 MeV, which is worse than the limit of [@pospel] by a factor of 5, see Fig. 3 in [@pospel]. For the mass of 80 MeV the limit is ${|U_{\mu h}|^2}< 4\times 10^{-3}$ and the disagreement is about factor 10, but for 90 MeV it is two orders of magnitude, ${|U_{\mu h}|^2}< 5.1\times 10^{-2}$ vs ${|U_{\mu h}|^2}\lesssim 5\times 10^{-4}$ reported in [@pospel]. For the mass range $m_{\nu_h} \lesssim 20$ MeV the behavior of the limit curve shown in Fig.3 [@pospel] and its extrapolation to zero mass is incorrect , because the probability $P_{{\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}} \to 0$ with $m_{\nu_h}\to 0$.\
Let us note that work of Ref.[@sng1] has been attempted to explain an excess of events observed by the LSND in the energy range $20 < E_\gamma < 60 $ MeV. The idea is to introduce a new particle with such decay properties that would allow to keep the number of events with the energy deposition above 60 MeV close to zero, in agreement with the LSND observations. This is achieved by suggesting that the $\nu_h$ decays radiatively as a Dirac particle with the photon asymmetry parameter equal to $a= -1$. The emission of photons preferably backward with respect to the $\nu_h$ direction of move makes their energy spectrum much softer compare e.g. to the one form the isotropic distribution (probably used in the analysis of Ref.[@pospel]). In contrary the limits of Ref.[@pospel] are extracted from the data of the RMC experiment for the energy region $E_\gamma > 60$ MeV and even for the lower $\nu_h$ energy than in the LSND case. The fraction of expected ${\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}$ events in this energy range is small, and hence the limits obtained are quite sensitive to the details of the experimental analysis, in particular for the $\nu_h$ masses above 60 MeV. Let us give an example of such sensitivity related to the photon response function in the RMC experiment. It is determined by generating Monte Carlo photons sampled from the known $\pi^- p$ reaction spectrum, whose origins in the target are identical with the pion stopping distribution. The shape of this function is important to extract correct number of RMC events. The function is essentially asymmetric ( see Fig. 10), and shifts the whole energy spectrum to the low energy region. The peak value of 129 MeV is shifted by 5-7 MeV but the low energy tail has energies up to 50% of the initial photon energy. If we shift spectra shown in Fig.1 just by, say 4 MeV, the decrease in the number of observed ${\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}$ events would result in limits ${|U_{\mu h}|^2}<2.1\cdot 10^{-3}$ and ${|U_{\mu h}|^2}< 0.01$ for the 60 and 80 MeV $\nu_h$, respectively, instead of given above. Therefore, accurate Monte Carlo simulations of the $\nu_h$ production and decay sequence events in the experiment [@rmc] and propagation of theses events through the spectrometer taking into account the response function is important to extract reliable limits on ${|U_{\mu h}|^2}$.\
The Primakoff mechanism of the $\nu_h$ production $\nu A \to \nu_h A$ followed by the decay $\nu_h \to \gamma \nu$ through the transition magnetic moment $\mu_{tr}$ between the $\nu_h$ and light $\nu$ with the subsequent ${\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}$ decay has been originally considered in [@gk] and has been used to extract limits on $\mu_{tr}$ from the NOMAD data [@nomad]. In order to use this mechanism for interpretation of the LSND $\nu_\mu$ data [@pospel], one has to make an additional assumption that the light $\nu$ is a component of the $\nu_\mu$. Although this is possible, it requires introduction of additional unknown parameters.
In summary, we do not find arguments of McKeen and Pospelov [@pospel] convincing enough to exclude the whole LSND-MiniBooNE parameter region, at least for Dirac scenario of [@sng1]. In contrary, their work enhances motivation for a more sensitive direct search for the ${\nu_h \rightarrow \gamma \nu}$ decay in a dedicated experiment.\
I would like to thank D.S. Gorbunov for discussion and pointing out Ref. [@pospel] to me.
[99]{}
S.N. Gninenko, arXiv:1009.5536.
S.N. Gninenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 241802 (2009).
J.P. Deutsch at el., Phys. Rev. [**D 27**]{}, 1644 (1983).
D. McKeen and M. Pospelov, arXive:1011.3046.
D.H. Wright at el., Phys. Rev. [**C 57**]{}, 373 (1998).
S.N. Gninenko and N.V. Krasnikov, Phys. Lett. [**B 450**]{}, 165 (1999).
J. Altegoer et al., Phys. Lett. [**B 428**]{}, 197 (1998).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose an electron-phonon parameterization which reliably reproduces the geometry and harmonic frequencies of a real system. With respect to standard electron-phonon models, it adds a “double-counting” correction, which takes into account the lattice deformation as the system is dressed by low-energy electron-phonon processes. We show the importance of this correction by studying potassium-doped picene (K$_3$Picene), recently claimed to be a superconductor with a $T_c$ of up to 18 K. The Hamiltonian parameters are derived from ab-initio density functional theory, and the lattice model is solved by dynamical mean-field theory. Our calculations include the effects of electron-electron interactions and local electron-phonon couplings. Even with the inclusion of a strongly coupled molecular phonon, the Hubbard repulsion prevails and the system is an insulator with a small Mott gap of $\approx$ 0.2 eV.'
address: |
$^1$CNR-IOM-Democritos National Simulation Centre and International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Via Bonomea 265, I-34136, Trieste, Italy\
$^2$CNRS and Institut de Minéralogie et de Physique des Milieux condensés, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris, France\
$^3$Department of Physics, University of Fribourg, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland
author:
- 'Gianluca Giovannetti$^{1}$, Michele Casula,$^{2}$ Philipp Werner$^{3}$, Francesco Mauri$^{2}$, and Massimo Capone$^{1}$'
title: 'Downfolding electron-phonon Hamiltonians from ab-initio calculations: application to K$_3$Picene'
---
[*Introduction*]{} In recent years, a significant effort has been made to derive low-energy Hamiltonians from ab-initio electronic structure calculations in order to model the effect of strong electron correlations in a predictive fashion [@kotliar-review; @casula_screening]. Despite remarkable progress in the field, little attention has been paid on how to include lattice vibrations coupled to electrons in those Hamiltonians, with coupling strengths taken from experiments or from first principles. The major difficulties are to correctly estimate the “bare” couplings, i.e. the ones undressed from electron-electron (EE) or electron-phonon (EP) scattering processes explicitly treated in the low-energy manifold [@crpa; @arita_gRPA], and to avoid “double counting (DC)”, i.e. summing up effects already treated in the model Hamiltonians.
Dealing with both EE and EP interactions is particularly important in molecular crystals, which are characterized by a tight competition between interactions. Phonons are thought to drive superconductivity close to the Mott regime, with unconventional features [@CaponeRMP; @CaponeScience]. Superconductivity has indeed been found in the fullerides [@GunnarssonRMP], and later in the family of so-called “aromatic superconductors”, such as picene (K$_3$picene) [@Mitsuhashi2010], coronene [@KubozonoCoronene], and 1,2:8,9-dibenzopentacene [@Xue2011], with $T_c$ up to 33 K by intercalation with alkali atoms. These compounds are appealing from the viewpoint of potential applications, but their physics is poorly understood. Indeed, the metallicity and superconductivity are highly debated [@lannoo; @picene_prl_casula; @Subedi; @Giovannetti; @Kim; @Valenti]. One difficulty is to intercalate large enough crystals, and some experimental groups have found an insulating behavior of K$_3$picene at low temperature [@Valenti; @Goldoni].
A common theoretical framework to study these systems is based on the Hubbard-Holstein Hamiltonian, where the electrons experience local interactions and are coupled to local vibrations. We use a generalized Holstein model where the local molecular mode does not simply couple with the charge density, and off-diagonal couplings in the orbital basis are included. We show that a proper derivation of the EP matrix elements must include a DC correction to counteract the effect of the lattice relaxation already included in the low-energy Hamiltonian. We provide a prescription to compute the EP-DC correction from experimental or ab-initio estimates of the geometry and phonon frequencies. We demonstrate the importance of this term, applying our theory to build a low-energy Hamiltonian for K$_3$Picene with intramolecular Hubbard interactions and EP couplings whose amplitudes have been determined by density functional theory (DFT) calculations. We show that despite the strength of the EP coupling, the Coulomb repulsion prevails and the system is an insulator with a small gap of 0.2 eV.
[*Theory*]{} Let us start from the tight-binding Hamiltonian $H_\textrm{tb}$, which gives the low-energy band structure: $$H_\textrm{tb}=\sum_{\alpha\beta\sigma ij} t^{\alpha \beta}_{ij} c^\dagger_{\alpha
\sigma i}
c_{\beta \sigma j} - \mu \sum_{\alpha\sigma i} n_{\alpha \sigma i} ,
\label{tight-binding}$$ where $c^\dagger_{\alpha \sigma i}$ ($c_{\alpha \sigma i}$) creates (annihilates) an electron on the lattice site $i$ with spin $\sigma$ in the orbital $\alpha$, and $n_{\alpha \sigma i} = c^\dagger_{\alpha \sigma
i} c_{\alpha \sigma i}$. The model in Eq. (\[tight-binding\]) is usually derived from a DFT electronic structure computed for the lattice geometry *relaxed* at a given chemical potential $\mu$ (system at rest).
In the first step, let us consider classical phonons. We are going to quantize them later. We parameterize the EP coupling in the system as a single-mode Holstein phonon of frequency $\omega_\textrm{bare}$, locally coupled to the electronic manifold of Eq. (\[tight-binding\]) via the $\delta V^\textrm{bare}_{\alpha \beta}$ [@vdef] matrix elements: $$H_\textrm{el-ph} = H_\textrm{tb} + \sum_{\alpha \beta \sigma i} r_i
\delta V_{\alpha
\beta}^\textrm{bare} c^\dagger_{\alpha \sigma i} c_{\beta \sigma i} +
\frac{\omega^2_\textrm{bare}}{2} \sum_i \left ( r_i - r^0 \right )^2,
\label{el-phon_classical}$$ with $r_i$ classical phonon displacements and the shift corresponding to the structural minimum parametrized by $r^0$ , which is in general non-zero and gives rise to non-trivial effects, as we show below. The bare couplings are such that the model solution at the given filling yields the equilibrium geometry ($r_i=0$) and the phonon frequency ($\omega_\textrm{dressed}$) of the physical system at the same filling. In other words: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left. \frac{\partial \langle H_\textrm{el-ph} \rangle}{\partial r_i} \right|_{r_i=0} = 0
\label{geometry}, \quad \left. \frac{\partial^2 \langle H_\textrm{el-ph} \rangle}{\partial r_i^2} \right|_{r_i=0} = \omega^2_\textrm{dressed},
\label{frequency}\end{aligned}$$ which states that the force vanishes at the equilibrium position and the harmonic contribution to the ion displacement is given by $\omega_\textrm{dressed}$.
By quantizing the phonon in Eq. (\[el-phon\_classical\]) we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
H_\textrm{el-ph} & = & H_\textrm{tb} + \sum_{\alpha \beta \sigma i} \sqrt{2} x^0
g_{\alpha \beta}^\textrm{bare} c^\dagger_{\alpha \sigma i} c_{\beta
\sigma i} \nonumber \\
& + &
\sum_{\alpha \beta \sigma i} (a_i + a^\dagger_i) g_{\alpha \beta}^\textrm{bare} c^\dagger_{
\alpha \sigma i} c_{\beta \sigma i} + \omega_\textrm{bare} \sum_i a^\dagger_i a_i,
\label{el-phon}\end{aligned}$$ where now $g^\textrm{bare}_{\alpha \beta} = \delta V^\textrm{bare}
_{\alpha\beta} / \sqrt{2 \omega_\textrm{bare}}$, $x_i =
\sqrt{\omega_\textrm{bare}} (r_i - r^0) = \langle
a_i + a^\dagger_i \rangle/\sqrt{2} $ is the dimensionless displacement, and $x^0=\sqrt{\omega_\textrm{bare}} r^0$. In Eq. (\[el-phon\]), the $\sum_{\alpha \beta \sigma i} \sqrt{2} x^0 g_{\alpha \beta}^\textrm{bare}
c^\dagger_{\alpha \sigma i} c_{\beta \sigma i} $ term appears as a correction to the usual EP Hamiltonian. A closer inspection reveals that this term yields a band deformation related to the modified geometry before filling the low-energy bands. This correction is necessary as the tight-binding model is defined at the given filling, while the bare quantities are computed by undressing the system from the low-energy electrons. Analogously, the renormalization of the phonon frequency from $\omega_\textrm{bare}$ to $\omega_\textrm{dressed}$ is due to the EP interaction acting on the low-energy manifold.
Note that the spirit of including the EP-DC correction provided by $x^0$ is the same as for the DC correction of the electronic part, necessary whenever an EE interaction is explicitly added in Eq. (\[tight-binding\]). Usually, we require the EE-DC correction to provide the original DFT band structure when the many-body system is solved at the mean-field level. Analogously, if we take the bare $\delta V_{\alpha \beta}$ as the *variation* of the interaction due to the phonon displacement, we adjust the EP-DC term such that the mean-field solution of the model corresponds to the ab-initio band structure, geometry and phonon frequency. This gives a prescription on how to evaluate the EP term. Once $\delta V^\textrm{bare}_{\alpha \beta}$ is computed from ab-initio calculations, $\omega_\textrm{bare}$ and $x^0$ are set by solving Eqs. (\[geometry\]) self-consistently at the mean-field level. This is also doable in the presence of EE interactions. We now apply our theory to K$_3$picene and show the importance of including the EP-DC term to get meaningful results.
[*Model*]{} To study and reproduce the properties of K$_3$Picene, we choose the following low-energy Hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& H_\textrm{el-ph} + \epsilon_\textrm{EE-DC} \sum_{\alpha \sigma i} n_{\alpha \sigma i}
+ U \sum_{\alpha \sigma i} n_{\alpha \sigma i} n_{\alpha -\sigma i}
\nonumber \\
& + & U^\prime \sum_{\substack{ \alpha \beta \sigma i \\ \alpha \ne \beta}} n_{\alpha \sigma i} n_{\beta -\sigma i} +
(U^\prime - J)\sum_{\substack{\alpha \beta \sigma i \\ \alpha \ne \beta}} n_{\alpha \sigma i} n_{\beta \sigma i},
\label{hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ where we add the EE part to the $H_\textrm{el-ph}$ in Eq. (\[el-phon\]), parameterized through $U$, $U^\prime$, and $J$ Hubbard and Hund parameters. In this case, the EE-DC correction $\epsilon_\textrm{EE-DC}$ is just a redefinition of the chemical potential shift $\mu$.
The parameters in Eq. (\[hamiltonian\]) are obtained by ab-initio DFT calculations within the local density approximation (LDA) carried out with the Quantum Espresso [@QE] package. The lattice unit cell has been taken from powder diffraction data [@Mitsuhashi2010], and the internal molecular coordinates relaxed by energy minimization [@picene_prl_casula]. The hoppings $t_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}$ of the tight binding model are derived from the Wannier construction [@wannier90], in order to reproduce the LDA low-energy bands $\epsilon_{m \sigma}(\textbf{k})$. The maximally localized Wannier functions (MLWFs) are built by choosing an energy window which includes bands originating from the three lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals (LUMO, LUMO+1 and LUMO+2) of the neutral molecule [@notaWFS]. The localized orbital set of Eq. (\[hamiltonian\]) is defined by a rotation of the MLWF basis such that the local $H_\textrm{tb}=-t_{ii}^{\alpha\beta}$ is *diagonal*. This corresponds to working with molecular orbitals (MOs) which are very close to the actual MOs of an isolated picene molecule, as explained in Ref. .
The local EE interaction in Eq. (\[hamiltonian\]) is justified by the molecular nature of the crystal, with the on-site (molecular) repulsion larger than the other energy scales of the system. According to constrained-random phase approximation (c-RPA) estimates [@Nomura], the nearest-neighbor repulsion is around 1/3 of the local $U$. The values of the full local interaction matrix have been computed in Ref. by the c-RPA method in the two-orbital MLWF basis. We obtain the corresponding interaction in the MO basis by rotation, which gives $U$=0.68 eV, $U^\prime$=0.63 eV, $J$=0.10 eV. We extend these values to the three-MO model of Eq. (\[hamiltonian\]), by assuming that they are insensitive to the MO type, and by neglecting de-screening due to the LUMO+2 channel. However, this is a minor effect compared to the large screening coming from the full frequency dependence of $U(\omega)$, which goes up to 4.4 eV in the unscreened ($\omega \rightarrow \infty$) limit ($U_\textrm{bare}$). In Ref. , we have proven that the correct low-energy model which includes the high-energy screening processes is the Hamiltonian with the $U(\omega=0)$ static interaction and the bandwidth $t$ renormalized by the factor $Z_B = \exp \left( 1/\pi \int_0^\infty \!\!\! {\mathrm{d}}\omega ~ \textrm{Im} U(\omega) /\omega^2 \right).$ We estimate $Z_B$ from the experimental loss function ($\textrm{Im}[-1/\epsilon(\omega)]$) of K$_3$Picene, which has been measured up to 40 eV by electron energy-loss spectroscopy [@Roth]. By neglecting the crystal momentum dependence of the full dielectric function (much smaller than its energy dependence in a molecular crystal), we can obtain a rough estimate of the imaginary part of the retarded $U$ as $\textrm{Im}U(\omega) \approx U_\textrm{bare}
\textrm{Im}[-1/\epsilon(\omega)]$. Using a low-energy cutoff corresponding to the MOs included in the model we obtain a renormalization $Z_B$ = 0.76 for all the hoppings in Eq. (\[hamiltonian\]).
To make the many-body calculations feasible, we parameterize the phonon branches $\omega_{\textbf{q}\nu}$ ($\textbf{q}$ is the phonon momentum and $\nu$ is the phonon mode) by a single monochromatic local (molecular) phonon. We take the molecular phonon with the largest $|g^\textrm{bare}|$ as the representative of the total EP coupling. The $g$ matrix is screened by both EE and EP processes within the low-energy manifold. To undress the system from screening involving LUMO+$n$ states and obtain the *bare* couplings, we perform a density functional perturbation theory (DFPT) calculation [@dfpt; @QE] of a neutral isolated molecule, instead of undressing $g$ by c-RPA as recently suggested in Ref. . Therefore $\delta V^\textrm{bare}_{\alpha\beta} \approx \delta
V^\textrm{mol}_{\alpha\beta}$, and the local bare matrix elements are the molecular ones. The molecular phonon frequency of the most coupled mode is 0.193 eV, and its corresponding phonon frequency in the crystal is $\omega_\textrm{dressed}=0.173$ eV (from DFPT calculations of the crystal). From $\delta V^\textrm{mol}_{\alpha\beta}$ computed by DFTP and from $\omega_\textrm{bare}=0.277$ eV evaluated through Eqs. (\[geometry\]) (Fig. \[elph\_corr\]), we get $g^\textrm{bare}_{\alpha\beta}$ (in eV): $$\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
~~~0.066 & -0.010 & -0.002 \\
-0.010 & -0.038 & -0.051 \\
-0.002 & -0.051 & -0.018 \end{array} \right).$$ Note that $g$ has sizable inter-orbital matrix elements, of the same magnitude as the diagonal ones. In the following, we are going to study the dependence of the solution on the EP coupling strength by taking into account 3 sets of $g^\textrm{bare}_{\alpha\beta}$, based on $\delta
V^\text{mol}_{\alpha \beta}$, $2~\delta V^\text{mol}_{\alpha \beta}$, and $3~\delta
V^\text{mol}_{\alpha \beta}$.
[*Methods*]{} In order to solve the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[hamiltonian\]) with the above parameters, we use dynamical mean field theory (DMFT) [@antoine_rmp]. The DMFT equations are solved with an exact-diagonalization (ED) impurity solver [@Caffarel], and some of the results are cross-checked using a continuous time quantum Monte Carlo (CTQMC) solver [@Werner2006]. DMFT maps the Hubbard-Holstein lattice problem (\[hamiltonian\]) onto an Anderson-Holstein impurity model (AHIM) [@Hewson] with a self-consistently defined bath. In order to solve this impurity problem using the Lanczos method we have to truncate the Hilbert space by limiting the number of bath levels $N_\text{bath}$ (here 9) and the maximum number of excited phonons (here we use 20). We have therefore a three-orbital impurity whose local non-interacting Hamiltonian contains the EP-DC correction $h_{\alpha\beta} = (E^{\alpha}-\mu)\delta_{\alpha\beta}+
\sqrt{2} x^0g_{\alpha \beta}^\textrm{bare} $. The impurity is hybridized with $N_\text{bath}$ bath levels with energy ${\epsilon}_l$, and coupled to an on-site harmonic oscillator. $c_{\alpha\sigma}$ denotes the annihilation operator for the impurity level $\alpha$ with spin $\sigma$, $b_{l\sigma}$ the operator for the $l$th level in the bath and $a$ the operator for a local phonon of frequency $\omega_0$: $$\begin{aligned}
H_\text{AHIM}=& \sum_{{\alpha\beta}{\sigma}} h_{\alpha\beta} c^{\dagger}_{\alpha\sigma}c_{\beta\sigma} + U\sum_{{\alpha}{\sigma}}n_{{\alpha}{\sigma}} n_{{\alpha}-{\sigma}} \nonumber\\
&+ U'\sum_{{\alpha} {\beta}{\sigma}\atop \alpha\ne\beta}n_{{\alpha}{\sigma}} n_{{\beta}-{\sigma}} + (U'-J)\sum_{{\alpha}{\beta}{\sigma}\atop \alpha\ne \beta}n_{{\alpha}{\sigma}} n_{{\beta}{\sigma}} \nonumber\\
& + \sum_{l{\sigma}} {\epsilon}_l b^\dagger_{l{\sigma}}b_{l{\sigma}} + \sum_{l{\alpha}{\sigma}} V_{l{\alpha}} ( c^\dagger_{{\alpha}{\sigma}} b_{l{\sigma}} + h.c.) \nonumber\\
& + \sum_{\alpha\beta\sigma} g_{\alpha\beta} c^\dagger_{{\alpha}{\sigma}}c_{{\beta}{\sigma}} (a^\dagger + a) + \omega_0 a^\dagger a.
\label{hahim}\end{aligned}$$ Then the dynamical Weiss field ${{\mathcal{G}}_0}^{-1}_{{\alpha}{\beta}}$ can be defined as $${{\mathcal{G}}_0}^{-1}_{{\alpha}{\beta}} (i {\omega}_n)=i {\omega}_n -h_{\alpha\beta}
- \sum_{l=1}^{N_\text{bath}} \frac{ V^*_{l\alpha} {V}_{l\beta} }{i {\omega}_n - {\epsilon}_l }.
\label{weiss}$$
![Mean-field solution of Eqs. (\[geometry\]) as a function of the deformation potential $\delta
V$, taken with respect to the ab-initio molecular value $\delta
V_\textrm{mol}$. The geometry is constrained to the crystal relaxed DFT solution $x_\textrm{min}=0$, and the dressed frequency is set to the crystal ab-initio DFT value of $\omega_\textrm{dressed}=0.173$ eV, yielding $\omega_\textrm{bare}$ and $x^0$ reported in panel (a) and (b), respectively. []{data-label="elph_corr"}](fig1.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) Paramagnetic spectral functions obtained by ED (a) and CTQMC (b) considering c-RPA EE interactions and a bandwidth reduction $Z_B$ at $T=0$K (ED) and $\beta = 1/(k_BT)$=100 eV$^{-1}$ (CTQMC).[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig2.eps){width=".75\columnwidth"}
Note that the bath function in Eq. (\[weiss\]) has off-diagonal components. Correspondingly, we have to compute all elements of the impurity Green’s function matrix G$_{{\alpha}{\beta}}$, and the self-energy $\Sigma_{{\alpha}{\beta}}$ will also have off-diagonal components. The local lattice Green’s function is $G_\text{loc}^{{\alpha}{\beta}} (i {\omega}_n) = \sum_{k} (i {\omega}_n + \mu -H^\text{DFT}_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(k)-{\Sigma}_{{\alpha}{\beta}} )^{-1}$, where the sum runs over the Brillouin zone and $H^\text{DFT}_{{\alpha}{\beta}}(k)$ is the Fourier transform of the DFT-LDA non-interacting Hamiltonian. By equating $G_{{\alpha}{\beta}}$ to $G_\text{loc}^{{\alpha}{\beta}}$ we can obtain a [*new*]{} Weiss field which is then fitted to Eq. (\[weiss\]) and determines the new set of parameters ${V}_{l\alpha}$ and ${\epsilon}_l$. The above procedure is iterated until convergence is reached.
Since non-diagonal EP terms cannot be treated with the Monte Carlo technique of Ref. [@Werner2007], we restrict the CTQMC calculations to the model without EP coupling. In the MO basis it turns out that the sign problem is negligible, even though the off-diagonal hybridizations are relatively large.
[*Results*]{} By taking the electronic part of our Hamiltonian (\[hamiltonian\]) only, we find K$_3$Picene to be a Mott insulator: the LUMO (LUMO+2) orbital is completely filled (empty) while the orbital LUMO+1 is half-filled and has well pronounced Hubbard bands hybridized with the LUMO and LUMO+2 orbitals (see Fig. \[fig1\]). This insulating state is consistent with the result of previous DMFT calculations (in which a much larger $U$ was used) [@Valenti]. However, in our case the Mott gap is significantly smaller (gap half-width of $\approx$ 0.2 eV) and the system is quite close to the Mott transition. We note that the results obtained using the ED and CTQMC solvers are consistent, so this finding is not affected by truncations in the ED treatment.
The discrepancy between the Mott insulating behavior of K$_3$Picene found here and the recent reports of superconducting signatures suggests an important role of EP interactions in stabilizing the superconducting phase. We thus add in our ED/DMFT scheme the Holstein-type $g_{\alpha\beta}$ terms. We first discuss the results without EP-DC correction. In this case the effect of the EP interaction on the electronic structure is remarkable. Table \[occupation\_table\] lists the MO occupations found in the ED/DMFT solution of Eq. (\[hamiltonian\]) with EP coupling strengths of different magnitude. The coupling with phonons moves the LUMO+1 orbital away from half-filling, and induces a strong hybridization between the LUMO and LUMO+2 orbitals, which increases as we increase the EP coupling.
[ l | d | d | d | d]{} & & & &\
& 1.00 & 0.50 & 0.00 & -\
\
& 1.00 & 0.45 & 0.05 & 1\
& 1.00 & 0.29 & 0.21 & 3\
& 1.00 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 9\
\
& 0.99 & 0.50 & 0.01 & 0\
& 0.98 & 0.50 & 0.02 & 0\
& 0.94 & 0.53 & 0.03 & 0\
![(Color online) Panel (a): spectral functions obtained by ED/DMFT considering c-RPA electron interactions, a bandwidth reduction $Z_B = 0.76$ and Holstein-type couplings at $T=0$ without EP-DC correction. Panel (b): same as panel (a), but with the EP-DC correction term included in the Hamiltonian.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3){width="1.1\columnwidth"}
For $\delta V = 3\delta V_\textrm{mol}$ both LUMO+1 and LUMO+2 are 1/4 filled, and the system is prone to metallicity (although still on the insulating side). To understand the origin of this effect, we analyze the phonon population distribution. It features a broad peak centered around the $n=9$ phonon level, a Frank-Condon behavior related to the molecular deformation. The system geometry changes as the EP coupling increases, by pulling the minimum away from the original center of the phonon oscillators. This is clear from the last column of Tab. \[occupation\_table\], where the phonon peak shifts to higher levels as the coupling gets stronger. This has several consequences: it mixes the unperturbed MO’s states already at the molecular (on-site) level and drifts the bands leading to a more asymmetric structure and to the observed occupations (see Fig. \[fig3\](a)). These effects are related to the off-diagonal EP couplings which transfer electrons between orbitals. These terms are resilient to the Hubbard interaction as opposed to the density terms which are quenched by strong correlations[@Sangiovanni].
The result changes both qualitatively and quantitatively when the EP-DC correction is added. The deformation driven by the bare EP coupling is counterbalanced by the EP-DC correction, which constrains the model to have the correct ab-initio DFT geometry when it is solved at the mean-field level. The $\omega_\textrm{bare}$ and $x^0$ fixed by that constraint are plotted in Fig. \[elph\_corr\], as a function of $\delta V$. We find that $\omega_\textrm{bare}$ increases linearly with $\delta V$, while $x^0$ saturates after a first linear growth. The ED/DMFT spectrum of the model with EP-DC correction is shown in Fig. \[fig3\](b). The effect of phonons is much less dramatic. The spectrum and electron populations remain close to the results in the absence of EP coupling, while the phonon population stays peaked at the lowest phonon state (Tab. \[occupation\_table\]), signaling that with the EP-DC correction the EE correlation alone is not able to deform the DFT geometry. The system remains a small gap insulator, as in the case without phonons.
In conclusion, we have shown the importance of including the EP double-counting correction to model the EP coupling from ab-initio DFT results or experimental data. K$_3$Picene is an ideal test-case for our theory, as in molecular crystals the bandwidth, the local EP coupling and the local EE repulsions live on the same energy scale, and the properties result from a subtle competition between them. Therefore, theoretical predictions are extremely sensitive to the quality of the model. Using the LDA+DMFT approach, we found that K$_3$Picene is a Mott insulator. The local Hubbard repulsion opens a small gap of $\approx$ 0.2 eV, while local Holstein phonons, whose coupling has been estimated from ab-initio molecular calculations, do not modify qualitatively the electronic structure when the EP-DC correction is added. The results are qualitatively modified by the EP-DC correction, which calls for a critical reanalysis of the theoretical work done so far on EP models for molecular crystals, whenever the EP-DC correction has been disregarded. Our EP parameterization goes well beyond the specific case of K$_3$Picene, and can be applied also to more general EP Hamiltonians.
We thank A. Amaricci, H. Aoki, R. Arita and T. Kariyado for fruitful and stimulating discussions. Massimo Capone and GG acknowledge financial support by the European Union through FP7/ERC Starting Independent Research Grant “SUPERBAD" (Grant Agreement n. 240524) and of FP7-NMP- 2011-EU-Japan project LEMSUPER (Grant Agreement no. 283214). Computing Time has been provided by CINECA through project CONDMAG (lsB04). Michele Casula thanks the IDRIS-GENCI for computing time under project 96493. PW acknowledges support from SNF Grant 200021\_140648 and computing time on the Brutus cluster at ETH Zurich.
[00]{} G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V. S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 865 (2006).
M. Casula, Ph. Werner, L. Vaugier, F. Aryasetiawan, T. Miyake, A. J. Millis, and S. Biermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 126408 (2012).
F. Aryasetiawan, M. Imada, A. Georges, G. Kotliar, S. Biermann, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Phys. Rev. B[**70**]{}, 195104 (2004).
Y. Nomura, K. Nakamura, and R. Arita, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 027002 (2014).
M. Capone, M. Fabrizio, C. Castellani, and E. Tosatti Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 943 (2009).
M. Capone, M. Fabrizio, C. Castellani, and E. Tosatti, Science [**296**]{}, 2364 (2002).
O. Gunnarsson, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**69**]{}, 575 (1997).
R. Mitsuhashi, [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**464**]{}, 76 (2010).
Y. Kubozono [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. [**13**]{}, 16476 (2011).
M. Xue, T. Cao, D. Wang, Y. Wu, H. Yang, X. Dong, J. He, F. Li and G.F. Chen, Sci. Rep. 2, 389 (2012).
M. Lannoo, G. A. Baraff, M. Schlüter, and D. Tomanek Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 12106 (1991).
M. Casula, M. Calandra, G. Profeta, and F. Mauri, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 137006 (2011).
A. Subedi and L. Boeri, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 020508(R) (2011).
G. Giovannetti and M. Capone, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 134508 (2011).
Minjae Kim and B. I. Min, New J. Phys. [**15**]{}, 113030 (2013).
A. Ruff, M. Sing, R. Claessen, H. Lee, M. Tomic, H. O. Jeschke, R. Valenti, Phys. Rev. Lett [**110**]{}, 216403 (2013).
M. Caputo, [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. Chem. C, [**116**]{}, 19902 (2012).
$\delta V_{\alpha\beta}$ has the following microscopic definition: $\sum_s \langle \alpha | \frac{\delta v}{\delta {\bf u}_s} | \beta
\rangle \cdot \textbf{e}^s /\sqrt{M_s} $, where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are local orbitals (centered on the same site), ${\bf u}_s$ is the three-dimensional phonon displacement of atom $s$ with mass $M_{s}$, ${\bf e}^s$ is the $s$-atomic component of the phonon eigenvector, and $\delta v/ \delta {\bf u}$ is the deformation potential. The sum runs all over the atomic degrees of freedom of a given “site”.
P. Giannozzi [*et al.*]{}, J.Phys.:Condens.Matter, [ **21**]{}, 395502 (2009).
A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, Y.-S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt and N. Marzari, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**178**]{}, 685 (2008).
Wannierization has been performed on a $4\times4\times4$ electron-momentum mesh in a window of 0.7 eV around the Fermi level with Wannierized bands in a perfect agreement with those computed in DFT.
M. Casula, M. Calandra, and F. Mauri Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 075445 (2012).
Y. Nomura, K. Nakamura, R. Arita, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 155452 (2012).
F. Roth, B. Mahns, B. Buchner, and M. Knupfer, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 144501 (2011).
S. Baroni, S. de Gironcoli, A. Dal Corso, and P. Giannozzi, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 515 (2001).
A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 13 (1996).
M. Caffarel and W. Krauth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1545 (1994).
P. Werner and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 155107 (2006).
A.C. Hewson and D. Meyer, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**14**]{}, 427 (2002).
P. Werner and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 146404 (2007).
G. Sangiovanni, M. Capone, C. Castellani, M. Grilli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 026401 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The magnetic properties of arrays of nanowires (NWs) and nanotubes (NTs), 150 nm in diameter, electrodeposited inside nanoporous polycarbonate membranes are investigated. The comparison of the nanoscopic magnetic force microscopy (MFM) imaging and the macroscopic behavior as measured by alternating gradient force magnetometry (AGFM) is made. It is shown that MFM is a complementary technique that provides an understanding of the magnetization reversal characteristics at the microscopic scale of individual nanostructures. The local hysteresis loops have been extracted by MFM measurements. The influence of the shape of such elongated nanostructures on the dipolar coupling and consequently on the squareness of the hysteresis curves is demonstrated. It is shown that the nanowires exhibit stronger magnetic interactions than nanotubes. The non-uniformity of the magnetization states is also revealed by combining the MFM and AGFM measurements.'
author:
- 'M. R. Tabasum$^{1}$, F. Zighem$^{2}$, J. De La Torre Medina$^{3}$, A. Encinas$^{4}$, L. Piraux$^{1}$ and B. Nysten$^{1}$'
title: Magnetic force microscopy investigation of arrays of nickel nanowires and nanotubes
---
Introduction
============
The manufacturing of nanostructures such as nanowires (NWs) and nanotubes (NTs) is a quite rousing area in the domain of materials engineering because of their possible applications in diverse fields such as magnetism, catalysis, nanomedicine, information processing and magnetic recording [\[]{}1,2[\]]{}. The development of ultra-high density recording medium requires nanostructures with magnetically isolated grains. The studies have been done to exploit the magnetic anisotropy of super paramagnetic nanoparticles, using MFM, by aligning their magnetic moment with an external applied field [\[]{}3[\]]{}. Another approach to overcome the super-paramagnetic limit consists in using magnetic nanostructures with enhanced anisotropy. This can be achieved by using nanocylinders instead of nanodots [\[]{}4[\]]{}. Out of the numerous techniques available for manufacturing ferromagnetic NWs and NTs, the template based growth has triggered a lot of attention given that it is inexpensive and quite versatile [\[]{}5,6[\]]{}. The magnetic characteristics of NWs have been studied from various viewpoints such as magnetization reversal, magnetostatic interactions, microwave properties and calculations of their intrinsic switching field distributions (SFD) [\[]{}7,8,9,10,11[\]]{}.
On the other hand manufacturing magnetic NTs is more difficult compared with NWs. It is the reason why their magnetic properties, magnetization reversal for instance, have not been so extensively explored despite their potential advantages over NWs, such as tunable geometry and reduced magnetic material volume. In particular, interwire interactions have proven to affect the magnetic properties of arrays of NWs, specifically their magnetization reversal process and switching field distribution (SFD) [\[]{}11,12[\]]{}. It has been shown theoretically that NTs exhibit core-free magnetic configuration resulting in uniform switching fields leading to controllable magnetization reversal process [\[]{}13[\]]{}. Recently, experimental researches on magnetic NTs have become an attractive field to be investigated [\[]{}15,16,17,18,31[\]]{}. The knack to tune NWs/NTs geometries and interwire distance permit to control the magnetostatic energies in order to get the desired magnetic properties. However, their integration into novel devices necessitates to fully understand their properties, in particular magnetostatic interactions. Major hysteresis loops of M(H) curves provide basic understanding of the magnetic properties. However, this technique alone is not sufficient for in depth quantitative determination of the magnetic interactions of the nanoscopic materials entities and needs complementary measurements to assess and to gain more understanding of the magnetic properties [\[]{}19[\]]{}. Magnetic force microscopy (MFM) has proven to be suitable for the determination of the magnetization hysteresis curves at a local scale and to gain insight into the interwire dipolar interactions [\[]{}10,11,20[\]]{}.
MFM is a complementary technique to perform magnetic characterization at a local scale and has been widely employed to study densely packed nanoparticle assemblies and patterned media, which are of considerable interest for applications in magnetic recording [\[]{}11,12[\]]{}. Yet a more basic understanding of magnetic processes in such assemblies requires a more clear and precise comprehension of intrinsic particle properties and how they differ from the collective ones of densely packed ensembles. Moreover, in very dense magnetic assemblies the dipolar interaction is strong and local (or intrinsic) properties of the particles are sensibly modified by this field. Therefore, low and medium density assemblies are also very interesting from a fundamental point of view in order to gain a better understanding of the information that can be obtained by MFM regarding local versus collective properties, as done for example in artificial spin ice nanomagnet assemblies[\[]{}14[\]]{}.
In this study, a comparative MFM study of the magnetization reversal process of arrays of Ni NWs and NTs fabricated by electrodeposition in nanoporous polycarbonate (PC) membranes is presented. This study aims at presenting the MFM as a complementary technique to the bulk magnetometry technique AGFM, for the in-depth investigation of elongated magnetic nanostructures embedded into dielectric matrices. Considering the same nanoporous template, the dipolar interactions is found to be stronger in NWs arrays than in NTs arrays and hence the SFD of the NWs is broader than for NTs.
Materials and methods
=====================
Manufacturing of magnetic nanotubes and nanowires
-------------------------------------------------
Arrays of Ni NWs and NTs have been fabricated by electrodeposition in the same track-etched 21 $\mu$m thick PC membranes with pore diameter ($D$) of $150\pm5$ nm and packing density ($P$) of 6$\%$. Before the electrodeposition, one side of the membranes was covered with a metallic layer (Au), by e-beam evaporation that acts as a cathode. A Cr layer 10 nm thick was first evaporated to serve as adherent layer between the template and the Au layer. Ni NWs were grown at a constant potential of $-1.1$ V from an electrolyte containing 1 M NiSO$_{4}$$\cdot$6H$_{2}$O and 0.5 M H$_{3}$BO$_{3}$. Ni NTs were fabricated using a two-step procedure as depicted in Figure 1a. The process started by growing Ni/Cu core/shell NWs at a constant potential of $-1.0$ V using a 0.4 M Ni(H$_{2}$NSO$_{3}$)$\cdot$4H$_{2}$O, 0.05 M CuSO$_{4}$$\cdot$5H$_{2}$O and 0.1 M H3BO3 electrolyte. The Cu core was later etched by the electrochemical etching at a potential of $+0.2$ V [\[]{}21[\]]{}.
SEM Imaging
-----------
{width="8.5cm"}
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of the NTs in the PC template as well as of free NTs were performed using a field emission scanning electron microscope (Leo-982 Gemini). A smooth surface where all the nanowire tips are close to the surface on one side, allowing the microscopy analyzes, has been obtained by removing the Au and Cr layers using a chemical etching procedure (Fig. 1b). The Au layer was first etched using a KI (100 g/l) + I$_{2}$ (25 g/l) solution and then the Cr layer was removed using a Cr etching solution containing KMnO$_{4}$ (52 g/l) + 5 M NaOH (600 ml/l). Moreover, in order to show the entire shape of the NTs by SEM, pieces of the PC membrane has been dissolved (Fig. 1c). In the first step, about 20 to 25 dichloromethane droplets were spread on the substrate to well dissolve the PC membrane, leaving only the exposed NTs.
In-field MFM experiments
------------------------
In-field MFM experiments have been performed under ambient conditions using an Agilent 5500 microscope (Agilent Technologies) equipped with a 100 $\mu$m closed-loop scanner, for high-precision control of the scanner position in $x$ and $y$ by attenuating the non-linear and hysteretic behavior of the piezo-positioners. So, in practice, we could scan the same area during all the measurements. The MFM probes, Asylum ASYMFMHC high coercivity ($H_{C}=5000$ Oe) (Asylum) with a force constant around 2 N.m$^{-1}$ and a resonance frequency of about 70 kHz were used for this study. The analyzes were realized in amplitude-modulation (AM-AFM) using a double pass procedure. First, the topography of one line was recorded in standard intermittent-contact mode. Then, the probe was lifted up a few tens of nanometers (typically 60 nm) and the same line was scanned at constant probe-surface distance; the phase signal proportional to the magnetic interaction gradient was simultaneously recorded.
A custom-built electromagnet has been used to modify the setup of the instrument for performing in-field MFM experiments. Before launching the experiments, the NWs/NTs arrays were magnetically saturated along their axis ($+Oz$) under a magnetic field of $H=+3$ kOe while the MFM probe tip was saturated in the opposite direction ($-Oz$). This resulted in attractive bright contrast for the NW (or NT) on the MFM phase images. Then, for the in-field measurements, the magnetic field was applied in the direction of the magnetization of the probes ($-Oz$) to switch the magnetization of the NW/NT leading to the progressive observation of dark spots. It is worth noting that, contrary to the in-situ measurements [\[]{}7[\]]{}, during these in-field measurements, the applied magnetic field was not switched off during the measurements. This procedure was continued with incremental magnetic field until the field was sufficient to saturate all the NWs/NTs. Moreover, the use of high-coercivity probes allowed to avoid the magnetization reversal of the tip in the applied field range [\[]{}-500 Oe; +500 Oe[\]]{}. The MFM-based magnetic hysteresis curves were obtained by counting at each increment of field the number of switched and unswitched NWs/NTs.
AGFM measurements
-----------------
Finally, bulk magnetization curves were also obtained, using an alternating gradient field magnetometer (AGFM, Lakeshore) and were compared to the MFM-magnetization curves. The basic difference between these two measuring techniques, i.e AGFM and MFM, is that AGFM senses the magnetization of the whole sample which can include magnetization inhomogeneities, partially switched magnetizations, domains, etc. while MFM gathers local information by counting the occurrence of switching events as a function of the applied field. The sample size was $2\times2$ mm$^{2}$ which contains a larger number of NTs and NWs. The AGFM measurements were performed on the same samples as for MFM characterization, after the chemical etching of the Cr and Au layers which guarantees the same conditions for the arrays of NTs and NWs.
Results and discussion
======================
{width="8.5cm"}
First, it is important to note that due to their different surface area, the effective packing density ($P$) for the NTs array is less than for the NWs array considering the same template. The effective packing density $P$ is defined as the total area of the top end of the NW ($S_{NW}$) (or of the NT ($S_{NT}$)) divided by the total surface area of membrane under consideration. By combining MFM and SEM images, the effective packing density in the NWs array is found to be $P_{NW}\sim6\%$ Whereas, the effective packing density in NTs array was $P_{NT}\sim5\%$ calculated using following equation. $$P_{NT}=P_{NW}\left(1-\beta^{2}\right)$$
where $\beta=\frac{r_{1}}{r_{2}}$ is the ratio of internal and external radii.
After etching the cathode metals (Au and Cr), the NTs embedded in the PC membrane have been revealed as shown in Figure 1b. This surface corresponds to the one probed by MFM. Free NTs were also analyzed by SEM (see Figure 1c and 1d). Figure 1d has been obtained from NTs electrodeposited in a PC membrane with a larger pore density ($P=10\%$). From these images, the lengths of the studied NTs and NWs were found to be around 5 $\mu$m.
Figure 2a present typical $10\times10$ $\mu$m$^{2}$ MFM images obtained at the top surface of the NWs array while in Figures 2b, images of the NTs array are presented. The corresponding topography images NWs and NTs samples are presented on top left of the Figures 2a and 2b. The spot sizes (black or white) are larger than the nominal diameters (150 nm) of the NWs/NTs because the MFM tip measures their dispersive stray fields from the top and not their exact dimensions. One would expect NTs to have a non-uniform MFM signal because of its hollow inner core. Nevertheless, from all the images, only uniform white or black spots are distinguishable as a function of the applied magnetic field. It has been demonstrated experimentally that the Ni NWs of 250 nm diameter show single domain structure whereas of 2 $\mu$m diameter exhibit core-shell cylindrical domains [\[]{}34[\]]{}. Subsequently, the arrays of NTs and NWs have been treated as apparent bistable systems (uniform magnetization either parallel or antiparallel to the probe magnetization) to analyze the MFM images even if the magnetic moments distribution could be more complex. This behavior is discussed at the end of this section.
The second image (first rows) in Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b correspond to a state where all the NW/NT appear uniformly magnetized in a field $H_{0}=+300$ Oe along $+Oz$ while the tip is magnetized along $-Oz$. Then, a series of magnetic fields along $-Oz$ were applied. The successive switching of the NWs and NTs started around +200 Oe and 70 Oe until the application of around 300 Oe and 250 Oe respectively. In contrast to the NTs, the switching of the NWs started even before reaching remanent state which results in some reversed NWs (dark spots) at zero applied field (pointed with black arrows). In Fig. 2b the black spots with horizontal straps from +300 Oe till 0 Oe (pointed with white arrows) are not due to the magnetic signals but to artifacts due to Van der Waals interactions acting on the tip that briefly touches the sample surface. These spots do not persist once the applied field and the tip stray field were in the same direction, Fig 2b from -70 Oe till -250 Oe.
Because only two contrasts (black or white spots) were identifiable from the MFM images, we made the assumptions that only two states are possible: up or down. Thus, the local- or MFM-hysteresis cycle has been calculated by counting the number of NWs (or NTs) with up states and down states. The normalized magnetization could be written as: $$\frac{M^{MFM}(H)}{M_{S}^{MFM}}=\frac{n_{up}-n_{down}}{n_{up}+n_{down}}$$
Where $n_{up}$ and $n_{down}$ are the number of NTs (NWs) with up and down states, respectively. $M_{S}^{MFM}$ is the effective saturation magnetization (total number of NTs (NWs) in the image while $M^{MFM}(H)$ is the effective magnetization at an applied magnetic field $H$. The remanence was extracted from the image recorded at zero applied field. It is thus the following quantity: $$\frac{M^{MFM}(0)}{M_{S}^{MFM}}$$
The (MFM)-coercive field was extracted from the image where the number of NWs/NTs with up and down states is same ($n_{up}=n_{down}$).
Bulk magnetization curves with longitudinal applied magnetic field were also obtained by AGFM on a piece of the same sample used for MFM measurements. Figure 3 presents a comparison between the bulk magnetization curves for the NTs array (red continuous line) and for the NWs array (blue dashed line). These magnetization curves clearly reveal that the NTs curve is less tilted (more square) compared with the NWs curve. The remanence of the NTs array is about 0.8 while it is around 0.5 for the NWs array. Moreover, the saturation field for the NWs is about two times higher (\~ 2000 Oe) than for NTs (\~ 1000 Oe). These observations are, in first approximation, coherent with the observations made by MFM where the NWs reversal magnetization begins before and ends after the reversal of the NTs.
{width="8.5cm"}
The difference of the two bulk magnetization curves could be understood solely in terms of the dipolar interactions and shape anisotropy contributions, since the magnetocrystalline anisotropy contribution, in NWs and NTs, may be neglected [\[]{}21,22,23[\]]{}. Considering that the magnetization inside each NW and NT is uniform and because both NW and NT have the same symmetry with a large aspect ratio, the same mean field model used for NWs can be used for NTs, where the effective field $H_{eff}$ in the saturated state is [\[]{}31[\]]{}: $$H_{eff}=2\pi M_{S}-6\pi M_{S}P_{NW}\left(1-\beta^{2}\right)$$
where $M_{S}$ is the saturation magnetization for Ni and $P_{NW}$ is the effective packing density of the considered array. The first term of this equation corresponds to the shape anisotropy contribution which is same for both high aspect ratio NWs and NTs and the second term is the dipolar interactions contribution characterized by the effective packing density $P_{NW}$ [\[]{}32,33[\]]{}. It has already been discussed that due to their different volume, the packing fractions for NT ($P_{NT}$) is less than the NW ($P_{NW}$) which results in a weaker interaction field and thus a higher effective field and a strong uniaxial anisotropy for NTs. So, the key differences observed in their hysteresis loops arise from their respective effective fields and particularly from the dipolar interaction field. Moreover, the high packing value of the template results in strong dipolar interaction and broader switching field distribution (SFD) [\[]{}24,25[\]]{}. The shearing of hysteresis loops depends on the value of the dipolar interaction field so the hysteresis loops of NWs are more sheared than NTs.
{width="8.5cm"}
Magnetometry and MFM hysteresis curves differ significantly, as presented in Figure 4 for the array of NWs (a) and for the array of NTs (b). The MFM hysteresis curves were obtained by analyzing the MFM images presented in Fig. 2. From the MFM images, a remanence of $100\%$ was found in the case of NTs and around $80\%$ for the NWs while it reaches $80\%$ and $50\%$ from the AGFM curves, respectively. Moreover, a saturation field of 300 Oe is deduced in both investigations for NTs while it was found to be around 1000 Oe and 2000 Oe for NWs arrays. In contrast, the coercive field values obtained from MFM and AGFM curves are the same.
These comparisons suggest that the NWs and NTs have non uniform magnetization states. It has recently been shown [\[]{}10[\]]{} that a very good agreement between MFM and AGFM curves is found for arrays of ferromagnetic NWs in a state of uniform magnetization, i.e. single domain regime. It is worth mentioning that different series of MFM images were taken at different areas of the samples and no significant changes were noticed on the resulting hysteresis loops. Hence, the antagonism between the local probing technique of the MFM approach compared with the bulk probing technique of AGFM can be excluded. In addition to being a local technique, MFM is a surface technique where the in-depth magnetic configuration cannot be probed whereas AGFM probe the whole volume of the NTs and NWs arrays.
Indeed, the diameter of the studied NWs is around 150 nm which is far from the critical diameter below which a coherent rotation of the magnetization is expected for infinite Ni NW ( $D_{coh}=7.3\ell_{ex}\sim54$ nm [\[]{}22[\]]{}) and non-uniform micromagnetic configurations could be present. Interestingly, from Figure 4, it can be seen that the mismatch between bulk and MFM measurements is less pronounced in the curves for the NTs array. This finding could be explained by the specific shape of the NTs compared to the NWs where the shell width is about 20 nm which prevents the presence of radial domains. Therefore, from these comparisons, one can notice that in both cases, the micromagnetic configuration is certainly non uniform. To reinforce this argument, micromagnetic simulations on an isolated NT and an isolated NW have been performed. The calculations have been performed by using the NMAG package [\[]{}33[\]]{} and the results are presented in Figure 5.
The dimensions used during simulations for the NW are: length $L=5$ $\mu$m and diameter $D=150$ nm while for the NT $L=5$ $\mu$m, outside diameter $D_{out}=150$ nm and inside diameter $D_{in}=130$ nm. Note that these geometrical dimensions are close to the experimental ones. The magnetic parameters: magnetization saturation $M_{S}=0.48\times10^{3}$emu.cm$^{-3}$ and exchange stiffness $A=1\times10^{-6}$erg.cm$^{-1}$ correspond to bulk values for Ni material. Indeed, it has been shown that the electrodeposition method seems not to modify the intrinsic magnetic parameters [\[]{}35,36[\]]{}. The magnetic moments distributions at remanence (after saturating the NW and the NT along the revolution axis) are presented in Figure 5. It clearly depicts that the distribution at zero applied field is non uniform in both cases.
It is worth noting that contrary to the experimental hysteresis cycles (Figure 3), the calculated hysteresis cycles (Fig. 5) are close one to each other (the coercive field of the NT is slightly weaker than the NW one) which strongly endorses that the main difference appearing between the experimental cycles is due to the higher dipolar interaction in NWs array. A quick overview of the already reported theoretical results further support these observations that the magnetic domains and magnetization reversal inside an infinite NW and a NT of larger diameters is not homogeneous [\[]{}27,28,29,30[\]]{}. In this work, this is indirectly shown experimentally by combining the MFM and AGFM measurements.
{width="8.5cm"}
The reasons why nanostructures of smaller dimensions are used to achieve the high density storage media are two folds: first, to obtain a larger density and,second, to avoid the inhomogeneous magnetic domains. The nanostructures used here have negligible intrinsic switching field distribution due to diameter distribution since they have larger diameters [\[]{}10[\]]{}. The objective of using these dimensions here was to study the difference of reversal mechanisms and magnetic interactions in NWs and NTs. It is shown that even if the intrinsic SFD is not significantly modified, it is still slightly broader compared to lower packing density systems, especially for the NWs. This is the result of stronger dipolar interactions and inhomogeneity of domains. For high density systems, with smaller NT or NW diameter and low pitch, it is of prime importance to have a deep insight into not only magnetic interactions but also their intrinsic switching field which is strongly dependent upon the diameter distribution. The next step would be the study of systems with smaller diameters and reduced pitch where the present work will serve as a reference.
Conclusion
==========
The magnetization reversal process of Ni NWs and NTs arrays in PC template have been investigated using MFM and AGFM. By comparing the magnetization curves obtained from both techniques, it has been demonstrated that they are complementary if one wants to get an insight of the dipolar coupling and the magnetization reversal process. The presented results helped us understanding their magnetization reversal. For instance the mismatch of the magnetization curves in both the cases reveals that the micromagnetic configurations inside the NWs and NTs are not coherent. NWs array demonstrated stronger magnetic interactions than the NTs arrays. These results may serve as a benchmark for comparing the behavior of NWs and NTs and their use in various applications accordingly.
M.R. Tabasum is an Assistant Professor on leave from UET-RCET industrial and manufacturing engineering (IME) department. Financial support was provided by the Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles (ARC 13/18-052 Supracryst) and by the Belgian Federal Science Policy (IAP-PAI 7/05).
[References]{} D.H Reich, M.Tanase, A Hultgren, L.A Bauer, C.S Chen, G.J.Meyer, J. Appl. Phys., 93, 7275 (2003)
I.Safarik, M.Safarikova, J Appl.Bacteriol.,78, 575 (1995)
T.M Nocera, J.Chen,C.B Murray and G.Agarwal, Nanotechnology, 23, 495704 (2012)
X. F. Han, S. Shamaila, R. Sharif, J.Y Chen, H.R Liu, and D.P Liu, Adv. Mater., 21, 4619 (2009)
C. R Martin, Science, 266, 1961 (1994)
J.Hu, T.W. Odom, C.M. Lieber, Acc.Chem.Res,32, 435 (1999)
S.Da Col, M Darques, O Fruchart and L. Cagnon, App. Phys. Letters 98, 112501 (2011)
R.Ferré, K. Ounadjela, J.M George,L.Piraux, and S.Dubois, Phys. Rev. B 56, 014066 (1997)
A. Encinas-Oropesa, M. Demand, L.Vila, L. Piraux and I. Huynen, App. Phys. Letters 81, 2032(2002)
M. R. Tabasum, F. Zighem, J. De La Torre Medina, A. Encinas, L. Piraux and B. Nysten, J. Appl. Phys., 113, 183908 (2013)
T. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Fu, T. Hasegawa, H. Oshima, K. Itoh, K. Nishio, H. Masuda, F. S. Li, H. Saito, S. Ishio, Nanotechnology, 19, 455703 (2008)
J.Yuan, W.Pei, T Hasagawa, T. Washiya, H. Saito, S.Ishio, H. Oshima and K. Itoh, J. Mag. Mag. Mat. 320, 736 (2008)
J Escrig, P.Landeros, D. Altbir, E. E Vogel and P. Vargas, J. Mag. Mag. Mat. 308, 233 (2007)
C. Nisoli, R. Moesner, P. Schiffer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1473 (2013)
Q. Wang, B. Geng, S. Wang, Y. Ye, B. Tao, Chemical Communications 46, 1899 (2010)
X. W. Wang, Z. H. Yuan, B. C. Fang, J. Mat. Chem. Phys. 125, 1 (2011)
A. L. Gonzalez, P. Landeros, A. S. Nunez, J. Mag. Mag. Mat. 322, 530 (2010)
M. Yang, C. Andreas, A. Kakay, F. Garcia-Sanchez, R. Hertel, App. Phys. Letters 99, 122505 (2011)
M.P Proenca, C.T Sousa, J.Escrig, J.Ventura, M. Vazques and J.P Araujo, J. Appl. Phys. 113, 093907 (2013)
T. G. Sorop, C. Untiedt, F.Luis, M. Kröll, M. Rasa and L.J de Jongh, Phys. Rev. B 67, 014402 (2003)
Q. Wang, G. Wang, X. Han, X. Wang and J. G. Hou, J. Phys. Chem. B 109, 23326 (2005)
A. Encinas-Oropesa, M. Demand, L. Piraux, I. Huynen, U. Ebels, Phys. Rev. B 63, 104415 (2001)
X. W. Wang, G. T. Frei, L. Chen, X. J. Xu, and L. D. Zhang, Electrochem. Solid State Lett. 10, E1-E3 (2007)
D. Navas, A. Asenjo, M. Jaafar, K. R. Pirota, M. Hernández-Vélez, R. Sanza, W. Leeb, K. Nielsch, F. Batallána, M. Vázqueza, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 290, 191(2005)
K. Nielsch, R.B. Wehrspohn, J. Barthel, J. Kirschner, U. Gosele, S. F. Fischer and H. Kronmukller, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 1360 (2001)
R. Skomski, H. Zeng, M. Zheng and D. J. Sellmyer, Phys. Rev. B 62, 3900 (2000)
P. Landeros, S.Allende,J Escrig, E.Salcedo, and D. Altbir, App. Phys. Lett. 90, 102501 (2007)
J. A. Lopez, D. Cortés-Ortuno, P.Landeros, J. Mag. Mag. Mat. 324, 2024 (2012)
K. Z. Rozman, D.Pecko, L. Suhdolcan, P.J McGuiness, and S. Kobe, J.Alloys and Compounds.509, 551(2011)
A. P. Chen, J. Gonzalez, K. Y. Guslienko, J. Mag. Mag. Mat. 324, 3912 (2012)
Y. Velazquez-Galvan,J. M. Martinez-Huerta , J. De La Torre Medina,Y. Danlee , L. Piraux and A Encinas, J.Phys.Condens. Matter ,26, 026001(2014)
B.Nam, J.Kim and J.J Hyeon, J. Appl. Phys., 111, 07E347(2012)
T. Fischbacher, M. Franchin, G. Bordignon and H. Fangohr, IEEE Trans. Mag. 43, 2896 (2007)
L.Sun, Q. Chen, J. Phys.Chem. C 113, 2710 (2009)
A. A. Stashkevich, Y. Roussigné, P. Djemia, S. M. Chérif, P. R. Evans, A. P. Murphy, W. R. Hendren, R. Atkinson, R. J. Pollard, A. V. Zayats, G. Chaboussant, and F. Ott., Phys. Rev. B 80, 144406 (2009)
R Ferré, K Ounadjela, J.M George, L Piraux and S Dubois Phys. Rev. B 56, 14066 (1997)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Simon Kaltenbacher$^{1}$, Nicholas H. Kirk$^{2}$ and Dongheui Lee$^{2}$[^1][^2]'
bibliography:
- 'hfr.bib'
title: '**A Preliminary Study on the Learning Informativeness of Data Subsets** '
---
Estimating the internal state of a robotic system is complex: this is performed from multiple heterogeneous sensor inputs and knowledge sources. Discretization of such inputs is done to capture saliences, represented as *symbolic* information, which often presents structure and recurrence. As these sequences are used to reason over complex scenarios [@kirk15predicting], a more compact representation would aid exactness of technical cognitive reasoning capabilities, which are today constrained by computational complexity issues and fallback to representational heuristics or human intervention [@kirk15predicting; @kirk2014controlled]. Such problems need to be addressed to ensure timely and meaningful human-robot interaction.
Our work is towards understanding the variability of learning informativeness when training on subsets of a given input dataset. This is in view of reducing the training size while retaining the majority of the symbolic learning potential. We prove the concept on human-written texts, and conjecture this work will reduce training data size of sequential instructions, while preserving semantic relations, when gathering information from large remote sources [@tenorth2010understanding].
Posterior Evaluation Distribution of Subsets {#posterior-evaluation-distribution-of-subsets .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------
We computed multiple random subsets of sentences from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">UMBC Webbase corpus</span> ($\sim 17.13$GB) via a custom implementation using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Spark</span> distributed framework. We evaluated the learning informativess of such sets in terms of semantic word-sense classification accuracy (with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Word2Vec</span> [@mikolov2013distributed]), and of n-gram perplexity. Previous literature inform us that corpus size and posterior quality do not follow linear correlation for some learning tasks (e.g. semantic measures) [@banko2001scaling]. In our semantic tests, on average $85\%$ of the quality can be obtained by training on a random $\sim 4\%$ subset of the original corpus (e.g. as in Fig. \[fig:normality\], 5 random million lines yield $64.14\%$ instead of $75.14\%$).
Our claims are that i) such evaluation posteriors are Normally distributed (Tab. \[tab:nonuniform\]), and that ii) the variance is inversely proportional to the subset size (Tab. \[tab:variance\]).
It is therefore possible to select the best random subset for a given size, if an information criterion is known. Such metric is currently under investigation. Within the robotics domain, in order to reduce computational complexity of the training phase, cardinality reduction of human-written instructions is particularly important for non-recursive online training algorithms, such as current symbol-based probabilistic reasoning systems [@kirk15predicting; @tenorth2010understanding; @kirk2014towards].
[^1]: $^{1}$S.K. is with Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: $^{2}$N.H.K. and D.L. are with the Technical University of Munich, Germany [{nicholas.kirk,dhlee}@tum.de]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We measure the temperature and frequency dependence of the complex Hall angle for normal state YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_7$ films from dc to far-infrared frequencies (20-250 cm$^{-1}$) using a new modulated polarization technique. We determine that the functional dependence of the Hall angle on scattering does not fit the expected Lorentzian response. We find spectral evidence supporting models of the Hall effect where the scattering $\Gamma_H$ is linear in T, suggesting that a single relaxation rate, linear in temperature, governs transport in the cuprates.'
address: |
$^1$Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742\
$^2$Walter Schottky Institut, Technische Universität München, D-85748 Garching, Germany\
$^3$Center for Superconductivity Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742\
$^4$Advanced Fuel Research, Inc., East Hartford, CT
author:
- 'M. Grayson$^{1,2,*}$, L. B. Rigal$^{1,\dag}$, D. C. Schmadel$^1$, H. D. Drew$^{1,3}$, P.-J. Kung$^4$'
date: 29 May 2002
title: Spectral measurement of the Hall angle response in normal state cuprate superconductors
---
The normal state Hall effect in cuprate superconductors exhibits an anomalous temperature dependence that cannot be explained using conventional transport theory for metals. According to the simple Drude model, the resistivity of a metal and the cotangent of its Hall angle $cot(\theta_H)=\frac{\sigma_{xx}}{\sigma_{xy}}$, should share the same temperature dependence, both proportional to the scattering rate of the charge carriers. However, the normal state resistance of cuprate superconductors is linear with temperature, $\rho \sim T$, while the Hall angle has a robust $cot(\theta_H) \sim T^2$ behavior [@Chien1] over a wide range of oxygen doping [@Harris], and with substitutional doping [@Chien2] in a variety of the cuprates [@Kendziora]. This apparent duality of scattering rates characterizes the anomalous Hall transport in the cuprates. Several theories approached the problem assuming that two scattering rates were in fact involved, beginning with the spin-charge separation model of Anderson wherein the two species of quasiparticles each relaxed at the different observed rates.[@Anderson] Subsequent explanations focused either on alternative non-Fermi liquid mechanisms [@Coleman; @Lee] or on the effects of $k$-space scattering anisotropies [@Ioffe; @Zheleznyak; @Stojkovic; @Kotliar]. The common feature of all the above theories is a dominant term that is linear in the scattering rate, $cot(\theta_H) \sim \gamma_H$. In contrast, a recent theory by Varma and Abrahams [@Varma] treats anisotropic scattering in a marginal Fermi-liquid and predicts a [*square*]{}-scattering response, $cot(\theta_H) \sim \gamma_H^2$.
These different models can be distinguished at finite frequency. The linear- and square-scattering models correspond to Lorentzian and square-Lorentzian spectral responses respectively, and although Hall experiments have been performed at finite frequencies [@Kaplan; @Parks; @Cerne], this paper is the first to study both temperature [*and*]{} frequency dependence of the Hall response in a frequency range that discerns a lineshape and extrapolates to the dc limit.
We begin by reviewing the concept of a frequency dependent Hall angle [@Drew] using the Drude model as an example of a Lorentzian response. All parameters are implicitly spectral, i.e. $\theta_H =
\theta_H(\omega)$, and in the present case of strong scattering, $tan(\theta) \simeq \theta << 1$. Quasiparticles circling at the cyclotron frequency $\omega_H^*=eB/mc$ traverse a fraction $\omega_H^*\tau_H^*$ of a cyclotron orbit during the time $\tau_H^*$ between scattering events. The dc longitudinal current $j_x$ is thereby deflected into $j_y$ by this small arc angle $\theta_H \simeq
\frac{j_y}{j_x} = \omega_H^* \tau_H^* = \omega_H^*/\gamma_H^*$, where $\gamma_H^*$ is defined as the Hall scattering rate. For the ac response, we substitute $\gamma_H^* \rightarrow \gamma_H^* - i \omega$ yielding a Lorentzian:
$$\theta_H(\omega) = \frac{\omega_H^*} {\gamma_H^* - i \omega}
\label{linscat}$$
Linear scattering models of the anomalous Hall transport predict this same Lorentzian form for the frequency response near the dc limit.
For the experiment at infrared frequencies, the Hall angle $\theta_H$ cannot be measured directly but must be deduced from transmission studies of polarized light [@Kaplan; @Parks; @Cerne]. The measurable quantity, the Faraday angle $\theta_F$, is the angle of rotation of polarized light induced after passing through a thin conducting film in the presence of a normal magnetic field $B$. In the thin film limit ($d << \lambda,
\delta$) with $d$ the film thickness, $\lambda$ the wavelength, and $\delta$ the penetration depth, $\theta_H$ follows from $\theta_F$ according to Maxwell’s equations:
$$\theta_H = \left( \frac{1+n}{Z_o \sigma_{xx}} + 1 \right) \theta_F
\label{theta_H}$$
$\sigma_{xx}$ is the experimentally determined complex sheet conductivity, $Z_o$ the free space impedance, and $n=3.4$ the refractive index of the Si substrate. With our highly conductive films the term in parenthesis is near unity, so the functional dependence on $\sigma_{xx}$ is minimal. $\theta_F$ and $\theta_H$ are both causal response functions, so their Re and Im parts obey Kramers-Kronig relations and correspond to real space rotation and ellipticity, respectively [@Drew].
The cuprate sample investigated was a pulsed-laser deposited, twinned film of 500 Å YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_7$ on a 1$\times$1 cm$^2$ $\times$ 350 $\mu$m insulating silicon substrate, with an intermediate strain relieving layer of 100 Å yttrium stabilized zirconate [@Kaplan]. Partial data on a second sample confirmed the results reported here. The sample was mounted in an 8 T Oxford Spectromag cryostat with the $B$-field oriented along the optical axis, normal to the sample surface. Two 8 cm diameter Kapton cryostat windows on either side of the sample allowed direct optical access. Sourced by a broadband quartz Hg arc lamp, the spectra were measured using a step-scan Fourier transform interferometer with wire-grid polarized beam-splitters having a density of 40 wires per mm. The novel technique consisted of a mechanically rotating optical element which modulated the polarization of light incident on the sample, and the transmitted signal was measured with a bolometer detector using standard lockin techniques at harmonics of the rotator frequency. Measurements of cyclotron resonance in GaAs verified the experimental technique.
Schematics for measuring Re($\theta_F$) and Im$(\theta_F)$ are shown in the insets of Fig. \[Fig1\]. To measure the Faraday angle Re($\theta_F$), polarized light was projected through a mechanically rotating linear polarizer with rotation angle $\phi(t) = 2\pi f_{rot} t$, ($f_{rot} = $70 Hz). The light then passed through the sample, striking a stationary polarizer before reaching the bolometer detector. The phase shift in the second harmonic of the bolometer signal is identically the Faraday rotation, Re($\theta_F$) =Re ($t_{xy}/t_{xx}$), where $t_{ij}$ is the transmittance tensor relating the transmitted field in the $j$ direction to the incident field in the $i$ direction [@Cerne].
Im($\theta_F$) is measured analogously (inset Fig. \[Fig1\]), with the light modulated into right and left elliptical polarizations by a mechanically rotating wave plate and by omitting the polarizer previously in front of the detector. The waveplate shifts the optical phase of the field component along its extraordinary axis by the retardance $\beta(\omega)$. In this case the in-phase second harmonic response is
$$P = 2 |E_i|^2 sin(\beta)Im(t_{xx}^*t_{xy})
\label{PIm_theta_F}$$
Calibrating separately $\beta(\omega)$ and the transmitted spectral intensity, $S \simeq \frac{|E_i|^2}{2}(t_{xx}^*t_{xx})$, we find,
$$Im(\theta_F) = Im \left( \frac{t_{xy}}{t_{xx}} \right)=
\left[
\frac{P}{4 S \times sin(\beta)}
\right]
\label{Im_theta_F}$$
Fig. \[Fig1\] plots the directly measured Re($\theta_F$) and Im($\theta_F$) parts of the Faraday angle. The agreement of Im($\theta_F$) with the Kramers-Kronig (K-K) transform of Re($\theta_F$) confirms the consistency of our measurements, and justifies the use of the lower noise, wider bandwidth K-K transform to represent Im($\theta_F$) in the following calculations.
Combining this complex $\theta_F$ with the complex longitudinal conductivity determined from extended-Drude fits to the transmission data [@Allen; @Puchkov] (inset, Fig. \[Fig2\]), the Hall angle is determined over the full 20-250 cm$^{-1}$ range using Eq. \[theta\_H\] (Fig. \[Fig2\]). At low frequencies, we see that Re($\theta_H^{-1}$) extrapolates to the dc transport values measured on a separate sample using the Van der Pauw geometry, and the dc points exhibit the $T^2$ law universally observed in the cuprates.
We first check consistency with the linear-scattering (Lorentzian) form of Refs. [@Anderson; @Coleman; @Lee; @Ioffe; @Zheleznyak; @Stojkovic; @Kotliar] by solving Eq. \[linscat\] for the Lorentzian parameters $\omega_H^*(\omega) = -\omega / Im[\theta_H^{-1}(\omega)]$ and $\gamma_H^*(\omega) = \omega_H(\omega) Re[ \theta_H^{-1}(\omega)]$ in Fig. \[Fig3\]. This parametrization demonstrates that $\theta_H$ is [*not*]{} Lorenztian over the full frequency range since $\gamma_H(\omega)$ shows additional frequency dependence, decreasing significantly above 100 cm$^{-1}$ particularly at low temperatures. This result is puzzling, because ac conductivity [@Puchkov] and angle resolved photoemission (ARPES) [@Valla] both show the generally expected [*increase*]{} in scattering at higher frequencies.
For the moment, we assume this behavior may result from other energy scales in the problem not treated by the references above. (The $\pi$-$\pi$ resonance, superconducting gap energy, and $\omega \sim T$ all occur around $300-500$ cm$^{-1}$.) Accordingly, we will focus on the low-frequency limit to critically evaluate the Lorentzian theories. We plot the dc limit values ${\gamma_H^*}^{dc}= \lim_{\omega\to 0}
\gamma_H^*(\omega)$ and ${\omega_H^*}^{dc} = \lim_{\omega\to 0}
\omega_H^*(\omega)$ in the inset of Fig. \[Fig3\] as averaged from 20 to 80 cm$^{-1}$. At 95 K the data demonstrate consistency with previous experiments plotted as open squares [@Kaplan]. Looking at the temperature dependence, we immediately see that ${\gamma_H^*}^{dc}(T)
\sim T$ and ${\omega_H^*}^{dc}(T) \sim 1/T$. This confirms the Lorentzian behavior proposed in one spinon-holon model [@Lee] and in a skew-scattering model [@Kotliar]. However, this data does not support the other Lorentzian theories which posit a temperature [*independent*]{} numerator and a scattering rate quadratic in temperature [@Anderson; @Coleman; @Ioffe; @Zheleznyak; @Stojkovic]. We reemphasize, however, that all of the Lorentzian theories break down at moderate frequecies above 100 cm$^{-1}$.
As an alternative to the linear-scattering Lorentzian model we consider a square-scattering form for the Hall angle, which corresponds to a Lorentzian-squared ac response. This form was predicted by Varma and Abrahams in their marginal Fermi liquid treatment of Hall scattering in the cuprates [@Varma; @Yakovenko]. Extending their result to finite frequencies, we get the square-Lorentzian form:
$$\theta_H(\omega) = \frac{\omega_H^*\Omega_p^*}
{(\Gamma_H^* - i \omega)^2}
\label{sqrscat}$$
$\omega_H^*$ is still the cyclotron frequency, linear in $B$, and $\Omega_p^*$ is indicative of a new energy scale in the problem, interpreted as a Fermi surface average of the scattering derivative [@Varma]. Solving for the square-scattering rate $\Gamma_H^*$ and weighting parameter $\omega_H^*\Omega_p^*$, one sees at once the independence of $\omega_H^*\Omega_p^*$ from both temperature and frequency in Fig. \[Fig4\]. The existence of such a robust parameter that is constant over 20-250 cm$^{-1}$ in infrared energy and 95-190 K in temperature is remarkable, and provides convincing evidence that the square-Lorentzian analysis may elucidate the dominant physics. In the dc limit, the scattering rate, ${\Gamma_H^*}^{dc}$, is again linear in temperature, but with twice the value as in the Lorentzian analysis. At higher frequencies ${\Gamma_H^*}(\omega)$ now shows a moderate [*increase*]{}, qualitatively consistent with scattering rates observed in ac conductivity [@Puchkov] and ARPES [@Valla].
Although the square-Lorentzian functional form for the Hall angle is a valid causal response function, it cannot be correct at all frequencies since it leads to a Hall sum of zero [@Drew]: $\omega_H =
\frac{2}{\pi}\int^\infty_0 Re(tan [\theta_H(\omega)]) d\omega = 0$, inconsistent with the finite $\omega_H$ implied by ARPES measurements of the Fermi surface [@Valla] and band theory. The positive Hall angle measured at 1000 cm$^{-1}$ by Cerne et al. [@Cerne] is an indication that the functional form is already changing. The exact behavior of this crossover is therefore an interesting topic for further investigation.
It is interesting to consider not only $\Gamma_H^*$, the renormalized ac observable deduced from the square-Lorentzian analysis, but also the [*bare*]{} scattering $\Gamma_H$. At dc, the bare and renormalized values satisfy $\omega_H\Omega_p/{\Gamma_H}^2 = \omega_H^*\Omega_p^* /
{\Gamma_H^*}^2$. This bare Hall scattering $\Gamma_H$ is linear in temperature just as the bare longitudinal scattering $\gamma_o$ is linear in temperature as seen in the famous $\rho \sim T$ relation. The renormalizations enter differently, however, between longitudinal and Hall transport since $\Gamma_H^*$ stays linear in temperature, but $\gamma_o^*$ increases superlinearly due to a decreasing renormalized transport mass $m_o^*$ [@Puchkov]. This difference might be accounted for with vertex corrections in the Kubo formula which enter differently in $\sigma_{xx}$ and $\sigma_{xy}$. The $cot(\theta_H) \sim {\Gamma_H^*}^2$ form of the Hall angle obtained by ref. [@Varma] is itself a consequence of vertex corrections in $\sigma_{xy}$. Therefore, the relation between $\gamma_o^*$ and $\Gamma_H^*$ presents an interesting subject for future theoretical and experimental work.
In summary, we have measured the complex Hall response at infrared frequencies. The observed $\theta_H(\omega)$ does not fit the Lorentzian lineshape predicted by many models of transport in the cuprates or conventional transport theory; only at low frequencies is the data consistent with a subset of linear-scattering models [@Lee; @Kotliar] that predict the observed behavior: $\gamma^*_H(T) \sim T, \omega^*_H(T)
\sim 1/T$. Alternately, the data show a good fit to a square-Lorentzian form, over the [*entire*]{} frequency range, with the temperature dependence of the response function coming again from a relaxation rate linear in temperature, $\Gamma_H^*(T) \sim T$. In all cases, the experiments suggest that transport in the cuprates is governed throughout by a relaxation rate that is linear in temperature.
[*Acknowledgement –*]{} The authors are grateful to E. Abrahams, J. Cerne, A. Millis, N. P. Ong, C. M. Varma and V. Yakovenko for insightful discussions.
This work was supported in part by the NSF (Grant No. DMR0070959). M.G. thanks the A.v. Humboldt Foundation for support during the writing of this paper.
$*$ Current address: [*Walter Schottky Institut, Technische Universität München, D-85748 Garching, Germany; email: [email protected]*]{}
$\dag$ Current address: [*Laboratoire National des Champs Magnétiques Pulsés, 143 Avenue de Rangueil, 31432 Toulouse, France*]{}
T. R. Chien, D. A. Brawner, Z. Z. Wang and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. [**B 43**]{}, 6242 (1991); J. P. Rice, J. Giapintzakis, D. M. Ginsberg and J. M. Mochel, Phys. Rev. [**B 44**]{}, 10158 (1991). J. M. Harris, Y. F. Yan and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. [**B 46**]{}, 14293 (1992); K. Semba and A. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 496 (2001). T. R. Chien, Z. Z. Wang and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2088 (1991); Wu Jiang, J. L. Peng, S. J. Hagen and R. L. Greene, Phys. Rev. [**B 46**]{}, 8694 (1992); P. Xiong, G. Xiao and X. D. Wu, Phys. Rev. [**B 47**]{}, 5516 (1993); M. D. Lan, J. Z. Liu, Y. X. Jia, Lu Zhang and R. N. Shelton, Phys. Rev. [**B 49**]{}, 580 (1994); A. Carrington, A. P. Mackenzie, C. T. Lin and J. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. Lett [**69**]{}, 2855 (1992). C. Kendziora, D. Mandrus, L. Mihaly and L. Forro, Phys. Rev. [**B 46**]{}, 14297 (1992); G. Xiao, P. Xiong and M. Z. Cieplak, Phys. Rev. [**B 46**]{}, 8687 (1992). P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2092 (1991).
P. Coleman, A. J. Schofield, A. M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 1324 (1996).
D. K. K. Lee, P. A. Lee, cond-mat/9610075 (1996).
L. B. Ioffe and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. [**B 58**]{}, 11631 (1998); D. van der Marel, Phys. Rev. [**B 60**]{}, R765 (1999); A. T. Zheleznyak, V. M. Yakovenko, H. D. Drew and I. I. Mazin, Phys. Rev. [**B 57**]{}, 3089 (1998); A. T. Zheleznyak, V. M. Yakovenko, and H. D. Drew, Phys. Rev. [**B 59**]{}, 207 (1999).
B. P. Stojkovic and D. Pines, Phys. Rev. [**B 55**]{}, 8576 (1997).
G. Kotliar, A. Sengupta, and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. [**B 53**]{}, 3573 (1996).
C. M. Varma and E. Abrahams, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4652 (2001); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 139903 (2002).
S. G. Kaplan, S. Wu, H.-T. S. Lihn and H. D. Drew, Q. Li, D. B. Fenner, J. M. Phillips, S. Y. Hou, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 696 (1996).
B. Parks, S. Spielman, J. Orenstein, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 115 (1997).
J. Cerne, M. Grayson, D. C. Schmadel, G. S. Jenkins, H. D. Drew, R. Hughes, A. Dabkowski, J. S. Preston and P.-J. Kung, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 3418 (2000).
H. D. Drew and P. Coleman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1572 (1997).
J. W. Allen, and J. C. Mikkelsen, Phys. Rev. [**B 15**]{}, 2952 (1977).
Z. Schlesinger, R. T. Collins, F. Holtzberg, C. Feild, S. H. Blanton, U. Welp, G. W. Crabtree, Y. Fang, and J. Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. [**65**]{}, 801 (1990); A. V. Puchkov, D. N. Basov, and T. Timusk, J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. [**8**]{}, 10049 (1996).
T. Valla, et al., Science [**285**]{}, 2110 (1999); A. Kaminski, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 1788 (2000).
R. Hlubina (Phys. Rev. [**64**]{}, 132508 (2001)) and V. Yakovenko (private communication) have also analyzed this model and have concluded that the square scattering term cannot be greater than the linear-scattering term. Lineshape fits to the data can accomodate an additional linear-scattering component that is as large as the square-Lorentzian term so none of the above analyses are clearly ruled out by experiment.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we present a new feature selection method that is suitable for both unsupervised and supervised problems. We build upon the recently proposed Infinite Feature Selection (IFS) method where feature subsets of all sizes (including infinity) are considered. We extend IFS in two ways. First, we propose a supervised version of it. Second, we propose new ways of forming the feature adjacency matrix that perform better for unsupervised problems. We extensively evaluate our methods on many benchmark datasets, including large image-classification datasets (PASCAL VOC), and show that our methods outperform both the IFS and the widely used “minimum-redundancy maximum-relevancy (mRMR)” feature selection algorithm.'
author:
- 'Sadegh Eskandari A[^1]'
- 'Emre Akbas B[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'References2.bib'
title: Supervised Infinite Feature Selection
---
Introduction and Related Work {#Intro}
=============================
In many practical machine learning and classification tasks, we encounter a very large feature space with thousands of irrelevant and/or redundant features. Presence of such features causes high computational complexity, poor generalization performance and decreased learning accuracy [@Eskandari16a; @Guyon03]. The task of feature selection is to identify a small subset of most important, i.e. representative and discriminative, features. Many feature selection algorithms have been proposed in the last three decades (e.g. [@Guyon03; @Kohavi97; @Saeys07; @Canedo13]). Among them, *filters* have generated much interest, because they are simple, fast and not biased to any special learner. In these methods, each candidate feature subset is evaluated independent of the final learner, based on a diverse set of evaluation measures including mutual information [@Peng05; @Brown12], consistency [@Dash03], significance [@Koller96; @Wu13], etc.
Most filter methods rely on the concept of feature relevance [@Brown12; @Koller96; @Yu04]. For a given learning task, a feature can be in one of the following three disjoint categories: strongly relevant, weakly relevant and irrelevant. Strongly relevant features contain information that is not present in any subset of other features and therefore they are always necessary for the underlying task. Weakly relevant features contains information which is already present in a subset of strongly or irrelevant features. These features can be unnecessary (redundant) or necessary (non-redundant) with certain conditions. Irrelevant features contain no useful information and are not necessary at all. An ideal feature selection algorithm should eliminate all the irrelevant features and weakly redundant features. However, constructing such an algorithm is computationally infeasible, as it requires to check exponentially many combinations of features to ascertain weak relevancy. Therefore, several heuristics are proposed in the literature, which consider limited combination sizes [@Lewis92; @Battiti94; @Peng05; @Fleuret04; @Yu04; @Meyer06; @Wu13].
Recently, an interesting filter method called “infinite feature selection" (IFS) was proposed by [@Roffo15]. This method ranks features based on path integrals and the centrality concept on a feature adjacency graph. The most appealing characteristics of this approach are 1) all possible subsets of features are considered in evaluating the rank of a given feature and 2) it is extremely efficient, as it converts the feature ranking problem to simply calculating the geometric series of an adjacency matrix. Although it outperforms most of the state-of-the-art feature selection methods in image classification and gene expression problems, the algorithm suffers from two important deficiencies. Firstly, it is an unsupervised feature selection algorithm, i.e. it does not use the provided labels in a supervised learning problem. Secondly, its feature redundancy measure is not able to capture complex non-linear dependencies.
In this paper, we improve the IFS method in two ways. First, we propose a method to form the feature adjacency matrix for supervised problems. Second, we propose alternative ways of forming the adjacency matrix for unsupervised scenarios. In our experiments, we extensively compare our new methods with IFS and other popular feature selection methods. We show that our proposed methods outperform IFS on many different benchmark datasets and large image-classification datasets (PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012) as well[^3]. Source code of our methods will be released upon acceptance of the paper.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section \[section:inf-FS\] presents the general idea behind IFS. Section \[section:AM\] discusses the feature adjacency matrix along with our proposals for proper construction of this matrix in supervised and unsupervised feature selection. Section \[section:ER\] reports experimental results and Section \[section:Conclusions\] concludes the paper.
Infinite Feature Selection {#section:inf-FS}
==========================
In this section, we review the general idea behind the IFS algorithm as proposed by [@Roffo15], for completeness. Given a dataset with $m$ features $\{f_1,f_2,\dots, f_m\}$, an undirected complete weighted graph $G=\left(V,E,e\right)$ can be constructed such that $V=\{f_i|f_i \in F \}$ represents the vertices, $E=\{\{f_i,f_j\}|f_i,f_j \in F \wedge i\neq j\}$ represents the edges and $e: E \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a function calculating the pairwise energies between features. $G$ can be represented using an adjacency matrix $A$, such that $a_{ij}=e(\{f_if_j\})$. Let $P^{l}_{i,j}$ be the set of all paths of length $l$ (including paths with cycles) between nodes $i$ and $j$, and let $A^l$ denote the power iteration of matrix $A$. An initial idea for feature selection could be choosing an appropriate length $l$, then calculating energy scores, $s_l(i)$, for each feature $f_i$ as: $$\label{eq:energy_score}
s_l\left(i\right)=\sum_{j\in V}\sum_{p\in P^{l}_{i,j}} \prod_{k=0}^{l-1}a_{v_k,v_{k+1}}=\sum_{j\in V}A^l \left(i,j\right),$$ and finally taking a subset of features with maximum energy value. However, this idea has two major drawbacks; first, cycles can have high impact in calculating the scores and second, computation of $A^l$ is of order $O\left(n^4\right)$, which is impractical when the number of features is large. The main contribution by [@Roffo15] is to address the deficiencies by expanding the path length to infinity and summing over all path lengths. By extending the path length to infinity, the probability of being part of a cycle is uniform for all the features so the cycle effect is somewhat normalized. Therefore, a new energy score for each feature $f_i$, considering all path lengths including infinity, can be calculated as:
$$s\left(i\right)=\left[ \left( \left(\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}A^l
\right)-\mathrm{I}\right) \overline{\textbf{1}} \right]_i$$
where I is the identity matrix and $\overline{\textbf{1}}$ is a column vector of ones.
In matrix algebra, $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}X^l$ is called the geometric series of matrix $X$. This series converges to $\left(\mathrm{I}-X\right)^{-1}$ if and only if $\rho(X)<1$, where $\rho(X)$ is the maximum magnitude of the eigenvalues of $X$. For any matrix $X$, it can be shown that $\rho(rX)<1$ if and only if $0<r<\frac{1}{\rho(X)}$. Using this property, the regularized energy score for each feature $f_i$ can be defined as $$\begin{split}
s'(i) & = \left[ \left( \left(\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}r^l A^l
\right)-\mathrm{I}\right) \overline{\textbf{1}} \right]_i \\
& = \left[ \left( \left( \mathrm{I}-rA\right)^{-1}-\mathrm{I}\right)
\overline{\textbf{1}} \right]_i.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, the computation of power iterations of matrix $A$ in Eq.\[eq:energy\_score\], is reduced to computing $\left( \left(
\mathrm{I}-rA\right)^{-1}-\mathrm{I}\right)$, with a complexity of $O\left(n^{2.37}\right)$.
Forming the Adjacency Matrix {#section:AM}
============================
As explained in Section \[section:inf-FS\], the IFS algorithm uses the adjacency matrix $A$ to compute ranking scores for given feature distributions. Therefore, the formation of the matrix can be considered as the most important task in the approach. In this section, we propose new ways of constructing the matrix $A$ both for supervised and unsupervised feature selection scenarios.
Unsupervised Feature Selection (mIFS) {#section:unsupervised_feature_selection}
-------------------------------------
Defining feature relevance in unsupervised learning is a big challenge, because we do not know a-priori what type of patterns to look for or which error metric to use. Furthermore, these two aspects often depend on the dataset used. However, one can analyse the features in terms of redundancy and dispersion.
If a certain feature has zero dispersion (i.e. variance) over the examples in the dataset, then that feature does not have any information and can be discarded. For a feature with non-zero dispersion, although we can not definitively relate its relevance to its dispersion magnitude, it has been shown that using dispersion measures improves the performance [@Roffo15; @Guyon03]. Let $STD_f$ be the standard deviation of feature $f$. Our experiments also show that keeping features that have large standard deviation, i.e. $STD_f$, improves the classification accuracy.
The other measure we use in unsupervised feature selection is redundancy. Unlike relevance, redundancy is a well-defined problem in unsupervised learning and can be expressed in terms of dependency. For example, when the dependency among two disjoint feature subsets is large, one of them could be considered as redundant. [@Roffo15] used the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient as a measure of redundancy of a feature. However, this measure is not able to individuate complex non-linear dependencies between features (e.g. non-monotonic non-linear dependencies). Our experiments show that using a mutual information-based measure for redundancy yields better results in terms of classification accuracy. This is probably due to the fact that mutual information takes into account any kind of dependency (both linear and non-linear) between random variables [@Dionisio04]. For a given feature set $F$ and a feature $f\in F$, we define this measure as: $$RDN_f=\frac{1}{|F|-1}\sum_{f'\in F-\{f\}}\mathrm{MI}(f',f)$$ where, $\mathrm{MI}(X,Y)$ is the mutual information between two random variables $X$ and $Y$, and is defined as $$\mathrm{MI}(X,Y)=\int_{\mathcal{X}} \int_{\mathcal{Y}}p\left(X=x,Y=y\right)
\log \left( \frac{p\left(
X=x,Y=y\right)}{p\left(X=x\right)p\left(Y=y\right)} \right).$$
Overall, we propose the following adjacency matrix to be used in unsupervised feature selection scenarios:
$$\label{eq:unsupervised_matrix}
\begin{split}
a_{ij} &= \alpha \left(\max \left(STD_{f_i},STD_{f_j}\right)\right) \\
&+ (1-\alpha)\left( 1-\min\left(RDN_{f_i},RDN_{f_j} \right) \right),
\end{split}$$
where $\alpha \in [0,1]$ is a loading coefficient that controls the relative importance of relevance vs. redundancy. We name this way of constructing $A$ as the modified infinite feature selection or mIFS, for short.
Supervised Feature Selection (SIFS) {#section:supervised_feature_selection}
-----------------------------------
In supervised machine learning, the goal is to learn a general form of an unknown mapping from a feature vector $f$ to a target variable $Y$. Therefore, the relevance of features can be expressed in terms of the $Y$-related information they have. Mutual information would be a proper measure to capture this relevance.
We augment the supervised relevancy measure with an unsupervised redundancy measure. Although mutual information based redundancy yields good accuracy for unsupervised scenarios, our experiments show that when it is combined with the same measure for relevance analysis, the accuracy deteriorates significantly. Therefore, for supervised feature selection, we propose to use Spearman’s rank correlation based redundancy. Specifically, we propose the following adjacency matrix: $$\label{eq:supervised_matrix}
\begin{split}
a_{ij} &= \alpha \left(\max \left(\mathrm{MI}(f_i,Y),\mathrm{MI}(f_j,Y)\right)\right)\\
&+ (1-\alpha)\left( 1- |SPR \left(f_i,f_j\right)|\right),
\end{split}$$ where $SPR(X,Y)$ is the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. We name this method as supervised infinite feature selection or SIFS, for short.
Experimental Results {#section:ER}
====================
We conducted three sets of experiments. First, as preliminary experiments, we explored the effects of different ways of constructing the adjacency matrix on the classification performance of IFS and SIFS. Next, we compared the classification performances of the IFS with original settings, IFS with the adjacency matrix proposed in Eq.\[eq:unsupervised\_matrix\] (i.e. mIFS), SIFS with the adjacency matrix proposed in Eq.\[eq:supervised\_matrix\] and the well-known minimum-redundancy maximum-relevancy (mRMR) algorithm proposed by [@Peng05]. Finally, we focused on the image classification problem where we used SIFS to select features from the state-of-the-art convolutional neural networks (CNN).
**dataset** **\#feat.** **\#classes** **\#samples** **few train** **noise** **SoA**
----------------------------- ----------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ----------- --------------------------
USPS [@Chapelle06] 241 2 1.5K 96.6% [@Maji09]
GINA [@WCCI06] 970 2 3153 99.7% [@Guyon08]
Gissete [@Nips03] 5K 2 7K 99.9% [@Guyon07]
Colon [@Alon99] 2K 2 62 89.6% [@Lovato12] \*
Lung181 [@Gordon02] 12533 2 181 99.8% [@Roffo15] \*
DLBCL [@Shipp02] 7129 2 77 98.3% [@Roffo15] \*
Prostate [@Singh02] 6033 2 102 99.94% [@Diaz06]
Arcene [@Nips03] 10K 2 200 99.93% [@Neal06]
REGED0 [@WCCI08] 999 2 20.5K 100% [@Chang08]
MARTI0 [@WCCI08] 999 2 20.5K 99.94% [@Cawley08]
Madelon [@Nips03] 500 2 2.6K 98.0% [@Guyon07]
Sido0 [@WCCI08] 4932 2 22678 94.7% [@Guyon08b]
VOC 2007 [@pascal-voc-2007] *not specified* 20 9963 83.5% [@Roffo15]
VOC 2012 [@pascal-voc-2012] *not specified* 20 22531 85.4% [@pascal-voc-2012]
Table \[table:benchmark-datasets\] summarizes the 14 high-dimensional benchmark datasets that we used in our experiments. These benchmarks include handwritten character recognition (USPS, GINA and Gisette), cancer classification and prediction on genetic data (Colon, Lung181, DLBCL, Prostate, Arcene, REGED0 and MARTI0), generic feature selection (Madelon), pharmacology (Sido0), and image classification (PASCAL VOC 2007-2012). We have chosen these datasets in order to present a diverse set of challenges to the feature selection algorithms. This table also reports – to the best of our knowledge – the state-of-the-art (SoA) for each dataset.
We use linear SVM to asses the classification performance of the feature selection algorithms. To set the parameters in our models, namely the tradeoff parameter $\alpha$ and the $C$ parameter of the linear SVM, we used 5-fold cross validation on training data.
---------------------------------------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
(r)[2-7]{}
(r)[2-3]{}(r)[4-5]{}(r)[6-7]{} Dataset avg max avg max avg max
Colon 79.79 82.68 87.12 90.51 79.85 89.98
USPS 90.81 95.66 90.66 95.65 87.70 91.83
Madelon 60.84 61.89 61.84 63.99 55.86 60.67
GINA 71.90 79.93 79.07 86.53 81.83 91.03
Prostate 93.39 96.46 87.51 95.87 87.10 93.84
Mean 79.34 83.32 **81.24** **86.51** 78.46 85.47
---------------------------------------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Preliminary Experiments {#sec:preliminary_exps}
-----------------------
Here, we study the effects of different ways of constructing the adjacency matrix and different data pre-processing schemes on the classification performances of IFS and SIFS algorithms. We report the results on five smaller datasets USPS, GINA, Colon, Prostate and Madelon.
We consider three pre-processing schemes: 1) no pre-processing (i.e. original data), 2) standardization where each feature is transformed to zero mean and unit variance, and 3) normalization where each feature is transformed into the interval $[0,1]$. The standard deviation constitutes an important part of the pairwise energy term in generating the adjacency matrix in IFS algorithm [@Roffo15]. Table \[table:standardized\_data\_on\_ifs\] reports the effects of the three data pre-processing schemes on the classification accuracy of IFS.
The classification accuracy is reported in two ways: avg and max. First, the feature selector ranks all the features. Then, a linear SVM is trained and tested using the top $N$ features, yielding classification accuracy (percent correct). Considering all such accuracies obtained for $N \in
\{10,50,100,150,200 \}$, “avg” refers to the average of them and “max” refers to the maximum. “avg” has been used by [@Roffo15], so do we in order to be compatible, however, we also report “max” in all our experiments.
Considering the pre-processing methods, “normalization" yields better classification performance (than “no-preprocessing”) for IFS \[table:standardized\_data\_on\_ifs\]. However, standardization has a reverse effect, except for GINA. When using standardized data, all the features have the same standard deviation 1, and therefore, we expect smaller (near 0) $\alpha$ values, representing more importance of the Spearman’s correlation coefficient part. However, our experimental results are incompatible with this expectation. For all the five datasets, the returned best $\alpha$ value is 1. This means that the IFS algorithm does not really use SPR and ranks the features based on their order in the dataset. Moreover, these results show that the Spearman’s correlation coefficient alone is not a good feature ranking method and it should be used in combination with other measures.
[width=1]{}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- -----------
(r)[2-13]{}
(r)[2-5]{}(r)[6-9]{}(r)[10-13]{}
(r)[2-3]{}(r)[4-5]{}(r)[6-7]{}(r)[8-9]{}(r)[10-11]{}(r)[12-13]{} Dataset avg max avg max avg max avg max avg max avg max
Colon 59.92 75.90 79.91 87.16 65.46 80.48 81.34 86.21 58.06 67.22 80.48 84.14
USPS 84.89 93.74 86.75 95.69 85.11 94.84 88.84 95.91 83.31 91.44 83.42 91.05
Madelon 50.06 51.19 51.89 55.94 50.48 52.28 57.04 60.37 49.74 50.70 50.61 51.14
GINA 62.31 75.99 63.30 71.45 66.45 80.79 64.47 76.96 66.50 79.69 73.92 85.90
Prostate 77.99 88.95 89.42 97.76 80.41 91.32 94.13 96.25 80.39 92.51 92.06 97.50
Mean 67.03 77.15 **74.25** **81.60** 69.58 79.94 **77.16** **83.14** 67.60 76.31 **76.09** **81.94**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- -----------
[width=1]{}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- -----------
(r)[2-13]{}
(r)[2-5]{}(r)[6-9]{}(r)[10-13]{}
(r)[2-3]{}(r)[4-5]{}(r)[6-7]{}(r)[8-9]{}(r)[10-11]{}(r)[12-13]{} Dataset avg max avg max avg max avg max avg max avg max
Colon 79.79 82.68 85.54 91.97 87.12 90.51 88.51 89.88 79.85 89.98 88.86 91.46
USPS 90.81 95.66 90.60 95.64 90.66 95.65 90.86 95.89 87.70 91.83 87.87 92.78
Madelon 60.84 61.89 61.46 62.46 61.84 63.99 62.16 63.91 55.86 60.67 53.50 57.94
GINA 71.90 79.93 70.40 80.39 79.07 86.53 79.58 87.09 81.83 91.03 79.56 89.50
Prostate 93.39 96.46 94.28 98.16 87.51 95.87 94.67 98.02 87.10 93.84 93.11 97.51
Mean 79.34 83.32 **80.45** **85.72** 81.24 86.51 **83.15** **86.95** 78.46 85.47 **80.58** **85.83**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- -----------
Table \[table:rdn\_vs\_spr\] reports the effects of using SPR or RDN – which are two different choices to measure redundancy – alone in the construction of the adjacency matrix. As it can be seen, RDN is superior in most of the cases and shows increases of up to $8\%$ for all the three data formats. SPR is not able to individuate non-monotonic dependencies between features and therefore more complex functional dependencies between features are not measured. On the other hand, RDN uses mutual information, which is able to individuate any kind of dependency (linear and non-linear) between features. Table \[table:rdn\_vs\_spr\_on\_ifs\] reports the effects of using SPR/RDN when they are used in combination with standard deviation (STD) based relevance. As it can be seen, RDN is superior again for this adjacency matrix setting. When we use the mutual information based relevance (Table \[table:rdn\_vs\_spr\_on\_sifs\]), the results are slightly different and the SPR shows better classification performance. Moreover, we get the best classification performance for standardized data format, which is in contrast with the unsupervised matrix settings.
In summary, the following two important results can be derived from all these preliminary experiments:
1. For *unsupervised* feature selection, *normalizing* the data and then using *STD based relevance* in combination with *RDN based redundancy* yield the best classification performance. This corresponds to our ‘modified infinite feature selection’ method , mIFS.
2. For *supervised* feature selection, *standardizing* the data and then using *mutual information based relevance* in combination with *SPR based redundancy* gives the best classification performance. This corresponds to our ‘supervised infinite feature selection’ method, SIFS.
[width=1]{}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- -------
(r)[2-13]{}
(r)[2-5]{}(r)[6-9]{}(r)[10-13]{}
(r)[2-3]{}(r)[4-5]{}(r)[6-7]{}(r)[8-9]{}(r)[10-11]{}(r)[12-13]{} Dataset avg max avg max avg max avg max avg max avg max
Colon 93.31 97.00 93.07 97.85 90.46 92.14 91.98 95.66 94.67 97.71 93.06 95.79
USPS 92.18 95.64 92.28 96.06 90.06 95.71 91.39 95.89 89.42 93.21 89.33 93.05
Madelon 60.93 62.78 62.00 62.41 61.63 62.65 59.16 60.89 63.83 64.46 63.55 63.97
GINA 86.17 89.22 82.08 88.80 91.30 93.08 91.01 92.93 93.09 92.74 90.94 93.09
Prostate 97.85 98.39 97.71 98.80 96.24 98.57 93.12 96.38 98.31 98.84 98.09 98.78
Mean **86.08** **88.60** 85.42 88.78 **85.93** **88.43** 85.33 88.35 **87.86** **89.39** 86.99 88.93
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- ------- -------
[width=1]{}
[lcccc||cccc]{}
& & & &\
(r)[2-3]{}(r)[4-5]{}(r)[6-7]{}(r)[8-9]{} Dataset & avg & max & avg & max & avg & max & avg & max\
USPS & 90.66 & 95.65 & **90.86** & **95.89** & 91.11 & 93.28 & 89.42 & 93.21\
GINA & 79.07 & 86.53 & **79.58** & **87.09** & 91.98 & 92.86 & **92.74** & 93.09\
Gissete & 95.94 & 97.62 & 95.93 & 97.62 & 97.75 & 99.06 & 96.66 & 98.64\
Colon & 87.12 & 90.51 & **88.51**& 89.88 & 89.03 & 91.32 & **94.67** & **97.71**\
Lung181 & 99.14 & 100.00 & **99.51** & 100.00 & 99.87 & 100.00 & **100.00** & **100.00**\
DLBCL & 99.50 & 100.00 & **99.63** & 100.00 & 96.90 & 99.23 & **99.10** & **100.00**\
Prostate & 87.51 & 95.87 & **94.67** & **98.02** & 97.25 & 97.84 & **98.31** & **98.84**\
Arcene & 74.09 & 82.18 & **86.23** & **88.55** & 76.35 & 83.28 & **80.12** & 82.67\
REGED0 & 81.98 & 95.57 & **83.86** & **95.92** & 99.13 & 99.79 & **99.70** & **99.87**\
MARTI0 & 65.98 & 73.16 & 59.34 & 72.87 & 79.31 & 90.41 & **83.70** & **91.23**\
Madelon & 59.54 & 61.79 & **61.00** & **62.55** & 58.82 & 61.13 & **60.70** & **63.03**\
Sido0 & **87.07** & **91.98** & 86.96 & 91.88 & 87.20 & 91.13 & **92.26** & **92.80**\
\
Average & 83.97 & 89.23 & **85.75** & **90.02** & 88.72 & 91.13 & **90.61** & **92.59**\
Comparison with IFS and mRMR
----------------------------
Here, we compare the performances of the proposed infinite feature selection algorithms with the state-of-the-art algorithms. For unsupervised feature selection, we compare the original IFS method [@Roffo15] with mIFS, our proposed method for unsupervised problems. All features are normalized before feature selection. On 9 out of 12 datasets mIFS outperforms IFS (Table \[table:feature\_selection\]. Specifically, we report 12% improvement on *Arcene* and 7% on *Prostate* datasets.
For supervised feature selection, we compare mRMR [@Peng05] – arguably, the most well known information theoretic feature selection algorithm – with SIFS, our proposed method for supervised problems. All features are standardized before feature selection. On 10 out of 12 datasets, SIFS outperforms mRMR (Table \[table:feature\_selection\]) with an average improvement of 1.89% in classification accuracy.
Finally, we compare IFS [@Roffo15] with our SIFS. On average (over 12 datasets), SIFS outperforms IFS with a margin of about 6% in classification accuracy, which shows the impact of using supervision for feature selection.
Image classification experiments on PASCAL VOC datasets
--------------------------------------------------------
The experiments here considers a combination of feature selection and linear SVM applied to convolutional neural network (CNN) based features. We extracted CNN features from the penultimate layers of the ResNet [@He15] (1000 features), GoogleNet [@Szegedy15] (1000 features), and VGG-VD [@simonyan14] (4096 features) deep networks. We used the models, pre-trained on ILSVRC, from the MatConvNet distribution [@vedaldi15]. On each of the three feature sets, we applied normalization and our supervised infinite feature selection. Then, we trained a linear SVM per set and averaged the three SVM scores to obtain final classification scores. Table \[table:voc\_results\] shows the mean average-precision (mAP) results for the PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 datasets, using different feature selectors. Our method, SIFS, outperforms both IFS and mRMR on both datasets[^4].
Dataset SoA No feature selection mRMR SIFS
---------- ------- ---------------------- ------------ ------------
VOC 2007 83.5% 84.63% 84.95% **85.90**%
(60,70,70) (40,60,60)
VOC 2012 85.4% 85.78% 85.88% **86.50**%
(50,70,70) (40,60,60)
Conclusions {#section:Conclusions}
============
In this paper we present two new ways of constructing the feature adjacency matrix for the infinite feature selection method. For unsupervised feature selection, we propose the mIFS method which uses a combination of standard-deviation based relevance and mutual information based redundancy. For supervised feature selection, we propose the SIFS method which uses a combination of mutual information based relevance and spearman’s rank correlation based redundancy. We tested the accuracy of the proposed methods on $14$ high dimensional benchmark datasets using linear SVM. Our proposed methods, mIFS and SIFS, gave top performances on most of the benchmark datasets beating both IFS [@Roffo15] and mRMR [@Peng05]. Our source code is available at GitHub[^5] for the sake of reproducibility of our results.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: Leaderboard snapshot taken in December 2016:\
<http://user.ceng.metu.edu.tr/~emre/resources/SIFS_PASCAL_result.png>.\
Our submission is named “SE.” Anonymous results link: <http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk:8080/anonymous/MV5IFE.html>. Live leaderboard: <http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk:8080/leaderboard/displaylb.php?challengeid=11&compid=1>
[^4]: Leaderboard snapshot taken in December 2016:\
<http://user.ceng.metu.edu.tr/~emre/resources/SIFS_PASCAL_result.png>. Our submission is named “SE.” Anonymous results link: <http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk:8080/anonymous/MV5IFE.html>. Live leaderboard: <http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk:8080/leaderboard/displaylb.php?challengeid=11&compid=1>
[^5]: <https://github.com/Sadegh28/SIFS>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Puzzled by the indication of a new critical theory for the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model with a spatially staggered anisotropy on the square lattice as suggested in [@Wenzel08], we re-investigate the phase transition of this model induced by dimerization using first principle Monte Carlo simulations. We focus on studying the finite-size scaling of $\rho_{s1} L$ and $\rho_{s2} L$, where $L$ stands for the spatial box size used in the simulations and $\rho_{si}$ with $i \in \{1,2\}$ is the spin-stiffness in $i$-direction. From our Monte Carlo data, we find that $\rho_{s2} L$ suffers a much less severe correction compared to that of $\rho_{s1} L$. Therefore $\rho_{s2} L$ is a better quantity than $\rho_{s1} L$ for finite-size scaling analysis concerning the limitation of the availability of large volumes data in our study. Further, motivated by the so-called cubical regime in magnon chiral perturbation theory, we additionally perform a finite-size scaling analysis on our Monte Carlo data with the assumption that the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared is fixed through all simulations. As a result, the physical shape of the system remains fixed in our calculations. The validity of this new idea is confirmed by studying the phase transition driven by spatial anisotropy for the ladder anisotropic Heisenberg model. With this new strategy, even from $\rho_{s1} L$ which receives the most serious correction among the observables considered in this study, we arrive at a value for the critical exponent $\nu$ which is consistent with the expected $O(3)$ value by using only up to $L = 64$ data points.'
author:
- 'F.-J. Jiang'
title: 'Revisiting the Phase Transition of Spin-1/2 Heisenberg Model with a Spatially Staggered Anisotropy on the Square Lattice'
---
Introduction
============
-0.2cm Heisenberg-type models have been studied in great detail during the last twenty years because of their phenomenological importance. For example, it is believed that the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model on the square lattice is the correct model for understanding the undoped precursors of high $T_c$ cuprates (undoped antiferromagnets). Further, due to the availability of efficient Monte Carlo algorithms as well as the increasing power of computing resources, properties of undoped antiferromagnets on geometrically non-frustrated lattices have been determined to unprecedented accuracy [@Sandvik97; @Sandvik99; @Kim00; @Wang05; @Jiang08; @Alb08; @Wenzel09]. For instance, using a loop algorithm, the low-energy parameters of the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model on the square lattice are calculated very precisely and are in quantitative agreement with the experimental results [@Wie94]. Despite being well studied, several recent numerical investigation of anisotropic Heisenberg models have led to unexpected results [@Wenzel08; @Pardini08; @Jiang09.1]. In particular, Monte Carlo evidence indicates that the anisotropic Heisenberg model with staggered arrangement of the antiferromagnetic couplings may belong to a new universality class, in contradiction to the theoretical $O(3)$ universality prediction [@Wenzel08]. For example, while the most accurate Monte Carlo value for the critical exponent $\nu$ in the $O(3)$ universality class is given by $\nu=0.7112(5)$ [@Cam02], the corresponding $\nu$ determined in [@Wenzel08] is shown to be $\nu=0.689(5)$. Although subtlety of calculating the critical exponent $\nu$ from performing finite-size scaling analysis is demonstrated for a similar anisotropic Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice [@Jiang09.2], the discrepancy between $\nu = 0.689(5)$ and $\nu=0.7112(5)$ observed in [@Wenzel08; @Cam02] remains to be understood.
In order to clarify this issue further, we have simulated the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model with a spatially staggered anisotropy on the square lattice. Further, we choose to analyze the finite-size scaling of the observables $\rho_{s1} L$ and $\rho_{s2} L$, where $L$ refers to the box size used in the simulations and $\rho_{si}$ with $i \in \{1,2\}$ is the spin stiffness in $i$-direction. The reason for choosing $\rho_{s1} L$ and $\rho_{s2} L$ is twofold. First of all, these two observables can be calculated to a very high accuracy using loop algorithms. Secondly, one can measure $\rho_{s1}$ and $\rho_{s2}$ separately. In practice, one would naturally use $\rho_s $ which is the average of $\rho_{s1}$ and $\rho_{s2}$ for the data analysis. However for the model considered here, we find it is useful to analyze both the data of $\rho_{s1}$ and $\rho_{s2}$ because studying $\rho_{s1}$ and $\rho_{s2}$ individually might reveal the impact of anisotropy on the system. Surprisingly, as we will show later, the observable $\rho_{s2} L$ receives a much less severe correction than $\rho_{s1} L$ does. Hence $\rho_{s2} L$ is a better observable than $\rho_{s1} L$ (or $\rho_{s} L$) for finite-size scaling analysis concerning the limitation of the availability of large volumes data in this study. Further, motivated by the so-called cubical regime in magnon chiral perturbation theory, we have performed an additional finite-size scaling analysis on $\rho_{s1} L$ with the assumption that the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared is fixed in all our Monte-Carlo simulations. In other word, we keep the physical shape of the system fixed in the additional analysis of finite-size scaling. The validity of this new idea is confirmed by studying the phase transition driven by spatial anisotropy for the ladder anisotropic Heisenberg model, namely the critical point and critical exponent $\nu$ for this phase transition we obtain by fixing the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared are consistent with the known results in the literature. Remarkably, combining the idea of fixing the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared in the simulations and finite-size scaling analysis, unlike the unconventional value for $\nu$ observed in [@Wenzel08], even from $\rho_{s1} L$ which suffers a very serious correction, we arrive at a value for $\nu$ which is consistent with that of $O(3)$ by using only up to $L=64$ data points.
This paper is organized as follows. In section \[model\], the anisotropic Heisenberg model and the relevant observables studied in this work are briefly described. Section \[results\] contains our numerical results. In particular, the corresponding critical point as well as the critical exponent $\nu$ are determined by fitting the numerical data to their predicted critical behavior near the transition. Finally, we conclude our study in section \[discussion\].
![The anisotropic Heisenberg model considered in this study.[]{data-label="fig0"}](staggered_square.eps){width="33.00000%"}
-0.5cm
-0.2cm
Microscopic Model and Corresponding Observables {#model}
===============================================
-0.2cm The Heisenberg model considered in this study is defined by the Hamilton operator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hamilton}
H = \sum_{\langle xy \rangle}J\,\vec S_x \cdot \vec S_{y}
+\sum_{\langle x'y' \rangle}J'\,\vec S_{x'} \cdot \vec S_{y'},\end{aligned}$$ where $J$ and $J'$ are antiferromagnetic exchange couplings connecting nearest neighbor spins $\langle xy \rangle$ and $\langle x'y' \rangle$, respectively. Figure 1 illustrates the Heisenberg model described by Eq. (\[hamilton\]). To study the critical behavior of this anisotropic Heisenberg model near the transition driven by spatial anisotropy, in particular to determine the critical point as well as the critical exponent $\nu$, the spin stiffnesses in $1$- and $2$-directions which are defined by-0.5cm $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{si} = \frac{1}{\beta L^2}\langle W^2_{i}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ are measured in our simulations. Here $\beta$ is the inverse temperature and $L$ refers to the spatial box size. Further $\langle W^2_{i} \rangle$ with $i \in \{1,2\}$ is the winding number squared in $i$-direction. By carefully investigating the spatial volumes and the $J'/J$ dependence of $\rho_{s i}L$, one can determine the critical point as well as the critical exponent $\nu$ with high precision.
-0.5cm
-0.5cm
-0.2cm
Determination of the Critical Point and the Critical Exponent $\nu$ {#results}
===================================================================
-0.2cm To calculate the relevant critical exponent $\nu$ and to determine the location of the critical point in the parameter space $J'/J$, one useful technique is to study the finite-size scaling of certain observables. For example, if the transition is second order, then near the transition, the observable $\rho_{si} L^p$ for $i\in \{1,2\}$ should be described well by the following finite-size scaling ansatz $$\label{FSS}
{\cal O}_{L^p}(t) = ( 1 - b(L^p)^{-\omega} )g_{{\cal O}}(t(L^p)^{1/\nu}),$$ where ${\cal O}_{L^p}$ stands for $\rho_{si}L^p$, $L^p$ is the physical linear length of the system, $t = (j_c-j)/j_c$ with $j = (J'/J)$, $b$ is some constant, $\nu$ is the critical exponent corresponding to the correlation length $\xi$ and $\omega$ is the confluent correction exponent. Finally $g_{{\cal O}}$ appearing above is a smooth function of the variable $t(L^p)^{1/\nu}$. In practice, the $L^p$ appearing in Eq. (\[FSS\]) is conventionally replaced by the box size $L$ used in the simulations when performing finite-size scaling analysis. We will adopt this conventional strategy in the first part of our analysis as well. From Eq. (\[FSS\]), one concludes that the curves of different $L$ for ${\cal O}_{L}$, as functions of $J'/J$, should have the tendency to intersect at critical point $(J'/J)_c$ for large $L$. To calculate the critical exponent $\nu$ and the critical point $(J'/J)_c$, in the following we will apply the finite-size scaling formula, Eq. (\[FSS\]), to both $\rho_{s1} L$ and $\rho_{s2} L$. Without losing the generality, in our simulations we have fixed $J$ to be $1.0$ and have varied $J'$. Further, the box size used in the simulations ranges from $L = 6$ to $L = 64$. We also use large enough $\beta$ so that the observables studied here take their zero-temperature values. Figure \[fig1\] shows the Monte Carlo data of $\rho_{s} L$ and $\rho_{s2} L$ as functions of the parameter $J'/J$. The figure clearly indicates the phase transition is likely second order since different $L$ curves for both $\rho_{s} L$ and $\rho_{s2} L$ tend to intersect at a particular point in the parameter space $J'/J$. What is the most striking observation from our results is that the observable $\rho_{s} L$ receives a much severe correction than $\rho_{s2} L$ does. This can be understood from the trend of the crossing among these curves of different $L$ in figure \[fig1\]. Therefore one expects a better determination of $\nu$ can be obtained by applying finite-size scaling analysis to $\rho_{s2} L$. Before presenting our results, we would like to point out that since data from large volumes might be essential in order to determine the critical exponent $\nu$ accurately as suggested in [@Jiang09.2], we will use the strategy employed in [@Jiang09.2] for our data analysis as well. A Taylor expansion of Eq. (\[FSS\]) up to fourth order in $tL^{1/\nu}$ is used to fit the data of $\rho_{s2} L$. The critical exponent $\nu$ and critical point $(J'/J)_c$ calculated from the fit using all the available data of $\rho_{s2} L $ are given by $0.6934(13)$ and $2.51962(4)$, respectively. The upper panel of figure \[fig2\] demonstrates the result of the fit. Notice both $\nu$ and $(J'/J)_c$ we obtain are consistent with the corresponding results found in [@Wenzel08]. By eliminating some data points of small $L$, we can reach a value of $0.700(3)$ for $\nu$ by fitting $\rho_{s2} L$ with $L \ge 26$ to Eq. (\[FSS\]). On the other hand, with the same range of $L$ ($L \ge 26$), a fit of $\rho_{s} L$ to Eq. (\[FSS\]) leads to $\nu = 0.688(2)$ and $(J'/J)_c = 2.5193(2)$, both of which are consistent with those obtained in [@Wenzel08] as well (lower panel in figure \[fig2\]). By eliminating more data points of $\rho_{s} L $ with small $L$, the values for $\nu$ and $(J'/J)_c$ calculated from the fits are always consistent with those quoted above. What we have shown clearly indicates that one would suffer the least correction by considering the finite-size scaling of the observable $\rho_{s2}L$. As a result, it is likely one can reach a value for $\nu$ consistent with the $O(3)$ prediction, namely $\nu=0.7112(5)$ if large volume data points for $\rho_{s2}$ are available. Here we do not attempt to carry out such task of obtaining data for $L > 64$. Instead, we employ the technique of fixing the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared in the simulations. Surprisingly, combining this new idea and finite-size scaling analysis, even from the observable $\rho_{s1} L$ which is found to receive the most severe correction among the observables considered here, we reach a value for the critical exponent $\nu$ consistent with $\nu=0.7112(5)$ without additionally obtaining data points for $L > 64$. The motivation behind the idea of fixing the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared in the simulations is as follows. First of all, as we already mentioned earlier that the box size $L$ used in the simulations is conventionally used as the $L^p$ in Eq. (\[FSS\]) when carrying out finite-size scaling analysis. For isotropic systems, such strategy is no problem. However, for anisotropic cases, the validity of this common wisdom of treating $L$ as $L^p$ is not clear. In particular, the same $L$ does not stand for the same $L^p$ of the system for two different anisotropies $J'/J$. Hence one needs to find a physical quantity which can really characterize the physical linear length of the system. Secondly, in magnon chiral perturbation theory which is the low-energy effective field theory for spin-1/2 antiferromagnets with $O(N)$ symmetry, an exactly cubical space-time box is met when the condition $\beta c = L$ is satisfied, here $c$ is the spin-wave velocity and $\beta$, $L$ are the inverse temperature and box size as before. For spin-1/2 XY model on the square lattice, for large box size $L$, the numerical value of c determined by $L/\beta$ using the $\beta$ with which one obtains $\langle W^2 \rangle = 1/2(\langle W_1^2 \rangle + \langle W_2^2 \rangle) = \langle W_t^2 \rangle$ in the Monte Carlo simulations agrees quantitatively with the known results in the literature [@Jiang10.1]. This result implies that the squares of winding numbers are more physical than the box sizes since an exactly cubical space-time box is reached when the squares of spatial and temporal winding numbers are tuned to be the same in the Monte Carlo simulations. Consequently the physical linear lengths of the system should be characterized by the squares of winding numbers, not the box sizes used in the simulations. Based on what we have argued, it is $\langle W^2_{1}\rangle/\langle W^2_{2}\rangle$, not $(L_2/L_1)^{2}$, plays the role of the quantity $(L^p_2/L^p_1)^{2}$ for the system, here again we refer $L^p_{i}$ with $i \in \{1,2\}$ as the physical linear length of the system in $i$-direction. As a result, fixing the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared in the simulations corresponds to the situation that the physical shape of the system remains fixed in all calculations. Indeed it is demonstrated in [@Sandvik99] that rectangular lattice is more suitable than square lattice for studying the spatially anisotropic Heisenberg model with different antiferromagnetic couplings $J_1$, $J_2$ in 1- and 2-directions. The idea of fixing the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared quantifies the method used in [@Sandvik99].
The method of fixing the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared is employed as follows. First of all, we perform a trial simulation to determine a fixed value for the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared which we denote by $w_f$ and will be used later in all calculations. Secondly, instead of fixing the aspect ratio of box sizes $L_1$ and $L_2$ in the simulations as in conventional finite-size scaling studies, we vary the variables $L_1$, $L_2$ and $J'/J$ in order to satisfy the condition of a fixed ratio of spatial winding numbers squared. This step involves a controlled interpolation on the raw data points. In practice, for a fixed $L_2$ one performs simulations for a sequence $L_1 = L_2, L_2\pm2, L_2\pm4, \dots$. The criterion of a fixed ratio of spatial winding numbers squared is reached by tuning the parameter $J_2/J_1$ and then carrying out a linear interpolation based on $(w/w_f)^{(-1/2)}$ for the desired observables, here $w$ refers to the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared of the data points other than the trial one. Notice since only the ratio of the physical linear lengths squared is fixed, it is natural to use $L_2$ in the finite-size scaling ansatz Eq. (\[FSS\]) both for the analysis of $\rho_{s1}$ and $\rho_{s2}$. The validity of this unconventional finite-size scaling method can be verified by considering the transition induced by dimerization for the Heisenberg model with a ladder pattern anisotropic couplings (figure \[fig0.5\]). For $b \sim 0.95(22)$ in Eq. (\[FSS\]), we obtain a good data collapse for the observable $(\rho_{s1})_{\text{in}} L^p_1 (= (\rho_{s1})_{\text{in}}L_2)$. Above the subscript “in” means the data points are the interpolated one. To make sure that the step of interpolation leads to accurate results, we have carried out several trial simulations and have confirmed that the interpolated data points are reliable as long as the ratio is kept small (table 1). On the other hand, for $b=1.30(18)$ in Eq. (\[FSS\]), a good data collapse is also obtained for the observable $\rho_{s1}L_1$, here $\rho_{s1}$ are the raw data determined from the simulations directly. Figure \[fig3\] shows a comparison between the data collapse obtained by using the new unconventional method introduced above (upper panel) and by the conventional method (lower panel). For obtaining figure \[fig3\], we have fixed $\nu=0.7112$, $\omega = 0.78$, and $(J/J')_c = 0.52367$, which are the established values for these quantities. As one sees in figure \[fig3\], the quality of the data collapse obtained with the new method is better than the one obtained with the conventional method, thus confirming the validity of the idea to fix the ratio of winding numbers squared in order to studying the critical theory of a second order phase transition.
\[tab1\]
$J'/J$ $L_1$ $L_2$ $w_f/w$ $(\rho_{s1})_{{\text{in}}}$ $\rho_{s1}$
-------- ------- ------- ------------ ----------------------------- ---------------- --
0.53 96 96 0.9558(33) 0.008188(22) 0.008198(7)
0.53 96 94 0.9549(32) 0.008391(21) 0.0084098(74)
0.545 90 94 0.9594(35) 0.016862(33) 0.016835(15)
0.545 90 90 0.9539(36) 0.017651(35) 0.017676(17)
0.535 98 98 0.9591(28) 0.011707(28) 0.0117297(124)
0.54 96 96 0.9592(29) 0.014838(37) 0.014846(13)
0.525 96 96 0.9503(41) 0.0072255(225) 0.0072579(66)
: Comparison between interpolated and original values of $\rho_{s1}$ for several data points. The data points which are used for interpolation are obtained from the simulations with $L_1 \times (L_2+2)$ (except the last row which is obtained from a simulation with $(L_1+2)\times L_2$). The inverse temperature $\beta$ for these data points are fixed to $\beta J = 800$.
![Heisenberg model with a ladder pattern of anisotropy.[]{data-label="fig0.5"}](ladder_square.eps){width="36.00000%"}
-0.5cm
-0.5cm
As demonstrated above, in general for a fixed $L_2$, one can vary $L_1$ and $J'/J$ in order to reach the criterion of a fixed aspect-ratio of spatial winding numbers squared in the simulations. For our study here, without obtaining additional data, we proceed as follows. First of all, we calculate the ratio $\langle W^2_{1}\rangle/\langle W^2_{2}\rangle$ for the data point at $J'/J = 2.5196$ and $L = 40$ which we denote by $w_f$. We further choose $L^p_1 = L$ in our data analysis. After obtaining this number, a linear interpolation for $\rho_{s1}$ of other data points based on $(w/w_{f})^{(-1/2)}$ is performed in order to reach the criterion of a fixed ratio of spatial winding numbers squared in the simulations. The $w$ appearing above is again the corresponding $\langle W^2_{1}\rangle/\langle W^2_{2}\rangle$ of other data points. Here a controlled interpolation similar to what we have done in studying the ladder anisotropic Heisenberg model is performed as well. Further, since large volumes data is essential for a quick convergence of $\nu$ as suggested in [@Jiang09.2], we make sure the set of interpolated data chosen for finite-size scaling analysis contains sufficiently many points from large volumes as long as the interpolated results are reliable. A fit of the interpolated $(\rho_{s1})_{\text{in}} L$ data to Eq. (\[FSS\]) with $\omega$ being fixed to its $O(3)$ value ($\omega = 0.78$) leads to $\nu = 0.706(7)$ and $(J/J)_c = 2.5196(1)$ for $36 \le L \le 64$ (figure \[fig3\]). Letting $\omega$ be a fit parameter results in consistent $\nu = 0.707(8)$ and $(J'/J)_c = 2.5196(7)$. Further, we always arrive at consistent results with $\nu = 0.706(7)$ and $(J'/J)_c = 2.5196(1)$ from the fits using $L > 36$ data. The value of $\nu$ we calculate from the fit is in good agreement with the expected $O(3)$ value $\nu=0.7112(5)$. The critical point $(J'/J)_c = 2.5196(1)$ is consistent with that found in [@Wenzel08] as well. To avoid any bias, we perform another analysis for the raw $\rho_{s1}L$ data with the same range of $L$ and $J'/J$ as we did for the interpolated data. By fitting this set of original data points to Eq. (\[FSS\]) with a fixed $\omega = 0.78$, we arrive at $\nu=0.688(7)$ and $(J'/J)_c = 2.5197(1)$ (figure \[fig4\]), both of which again agree quantitatively with those determined in [@Wenzel08]. Similarly, applying this unconventional finite-size scaling to $\rho_{s2}$ would lead to a numerical value of $\nu$ consistent with $\nu = 0.7112(5)$. For instance, the $\nu$ determined by fitting $(\rho_{s2})_{\text{in}}L$ to Eq. (\[FSS\]) is found to be $\nu = 0.706(7)$, which agrees quantitatively with the predicted $O(3)$ value (figure \[fig6\]). Finally we would like to make a comment regarding the choice of $w_f$. In principle one can use $w_f$ determined from any $L$ and from any $J'/J$ close to $(J'/J)_c$. However it will be desirable to choose $w_f$ such that the set of interpolated data used for analysis includes as many data points from large volumes as possible. Using the $w_f$ obtained at $J'/J = 2.5191$ ($J'/J = 2.5196$) with $L = 40$ ($L = 44$), we reach the results of $\nu=0.704(7)$ and $(J'/J)_c = 2.5196(1)$ ($\nu=0.705(7)$ and $(J'/J)_c = 2.5196(1)$) from the fit with a fixed $\omega = 0.78$. These values for $\nu$ and $(J'/J)_c$ agree with what we have obtained earlier. Indeed as we will demonstrate in another investigation, the critical exponent $\nu$ determined by the idea of fixing the ratio of spatial winding number squared in the simulations is independence of the chosen reference point.
Discussion and Conclusion {#discussion}
=========================
-0.2cm In this paper, we revisit the phase transition driven by dimerization for the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model with a spatially staggered anisotropy on the square lattice. We find that the observable $\rho_{s2} L$ suffers a much less severe correction compared to that of $\rho_{s1} L$, hence is a better quantity for finite-size scaling analysis. Further, we propose an unconventional finite-size scaling method, namely we fix the ratio of spatial winding numbers squared. As a result, the physical shape of the system remains fixed in all simulations and analysis. With this new strategy, we arrive at $\nu=0.706(7)$ for the critical exponent $\nu$ which is consistent with the most accurate Monte Carlo $O(3)$ result $\nu = 0.7112(5)$ by using only up to $L = 64$ data points derived from both $\rho_{s1} L$ and $\rho_{s2}L$. Interestingly, the $\chi^2/{\text{d.o.f.}}$ obtained from the fits using the interpolated data are better than those resulted from the fits using the raw data (figures \[fig4\], \[fig5\] and \[fig6\]). This observation provides another evidence to support the quantitative correctness of the new unconventional finite-size scaling we proposed here.
It seems that when carrying out the finite-size scaling analysis for the observables considered here, the use of physical linear lengths of the system, which are charaterized by the spatial winding numbers squared, would lead to a faster convergence of $\nu$. It will be interesting to apply a similar technique to other observables such as Binder cumulants as well. However, for Binder cumulants, the correction from interpolation will cancel out because of the definition of these observables. Therefore to further test the philosophy behind the unconventional finite-size scaling method proposed here might require some new ideas. Nevertheless, with this new unconventional finite-size scaling method, we have successfully solved the puzzle raised in [@Wenzel08] by showing that the anisotropy driven phase transition for the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model with a staggered spatial anisotropy indeed belongs to the $O(3)$ universality class. Of course, the conventional finite-size scaling analysis is more convenient since one does not need to carry out interpolation on the raw data. However for the subtle phase transition considered in this study, without obtaining data of gigantic lattices, a new idea which is more physical oriented such as the one presented here is necessary. Still, to clarify the puzzle of an unconventional phase transition for the model studied here as observed in [@Wenzel08] by simulating larger lattices and using the conventional finite-size scaling method is desirable. However, such investigation is beyond the scope of our study.
![Fit of interpolated $(\rho_{s1})_{{\text{in}}}L$ data to Eq. (\[FSS\]). While the circles are the numerical Monte Carlo data from the simulations, the solid curves are obtained by using the results from the fit. []{data-label="fig4"}](interpolation.eps){width="36.50000%"}
-0.5cm
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
-0.25cm The simulations in this study are based on the loop algorithms available in ALPS library [@Troyer08] and were carried out on personal desktops. Part of the results presented in this study has appeared in arXiv:0911.0653 and was done at “Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA “. Partial support from DOE and NCTS (North) as well as useful discussion with U. J. Wiese are acknowledged.
![Fit of original $\rho_{s1}L$ data to Eq. (\[FSS\]). While the circles are the numerical Monte Carlo data from the simulations, the solid curves are obtained by using the results from the fit. []{data-label="fig5"}](nointer.eps){width="36.50000%"}
-0.5cm
-0.5cm
![Fit of interpolated $(\rho_{s2})_{{\text{in}}}L$ data to Eq. (\[FSS\]). While the circles are the numerical Monte Carlo data from the simulations, the solid curves are obtained by using the results from the fit. []{data-label="fig6"}](interrhos2L2.eps){width="36.50000%"}
-0.5cm
[99]{} S. Wenzel, L. Bogacz, and W. Janke, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 127202 (2008).
A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 11678 (1997).
A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3069 (1999).
Y. J. Kim and R. Birgeneau, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 6378 (2000).
L. Wang, K. S. D. Beach, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 014431 (2006).
F.-J. Jiang, F. Kämpfer, M. Nyfeler, and W.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 214406 (2008).
A. F. Albuquerque, M. Troyer, and J. Oitmaa, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 132402 (2008).
S. Wenzel and W. Janke, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 014410 (2009).
U.-J. Wiese and H.-P. Ying, Z. Phys. B [**93**]{}, 147 (1994).
T. Pardini, R. R. P. Singh, A. Katanin and O. P. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 024439 (2008).
F.-J. Jiang, F. Kämpfer, and M. Nyfeler, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 033104 (2009).
M. Campostrini, M. Hasenbusch, A. Pelissetto, P. Rossi, and E. Vicari, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 144520 (2002).
F.-J. Jiang and U. Gerber, J. Stat. Mech. P09016 (2009).
F.-J. Jiang, arXiv:1009.6122.
A. F. Albuquerque et. al, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Material 310, 1187 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Protik Das
- Mohammad Mohammadi
- Timur Bazhirov
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Accessible computational materials design with high fidelity and high throughput
---
[^1]
[^2]
\
\
[^1]: mail-to: [email protected];\
PD was a student at the University of California, Riverside, California 92507, USA, at the moment of this writing
[^2]: PD and TB contributed equally to this work
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{}
[Planting Kurepa Trees And Killing Jech–Kunen Trees\
In a Model By Using One Inaccessible Cardinal]{} [^1]
Saharon Shelah[^2] and Renling Jin
> Abstract
>
> By an $\omega_{1}$–tree we mean a tree of power $\omega_{1}$ and height $\omega_{1}\:$. Under $C\!H$ and $2^{\omega_{1}}>\omega_{2}$ we call an $\omega_{1}$–tree a Jech–Kunen tree if it has $\kappa$ many branches for some $\kappa$ strictly between $\omega_{1}$ and $2^{\omega_{1}}\:$. In this paper we prove that, assuming the existence of one inaccessible cardinal, (1) it is consistent with $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}>\omega_{2}$ that there exist Kurepa trees and there are no Jech–Kunen trees, which answers a question of \[Ji2\], (2) it is consistent with $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}=\omega_{4}$ that only Kurepa trees with $\omega_{3}$ many branches exist, which answers another question of \[Ji2\].
An partially ordered set, or poset for short, $\langle T,<_{T}\rangle$ is called a tree if for every $t\in T$ the set $\{s\in T:s<_{T}t\}$ is well–ordered under $<_{T}$. The order type of that set is called the height of $t$ in $T$, denoted by $ht(t)$. We will not distinguish a tree from its base set. For every ordinal $\alpha$, let $T_{\alpha}$, the $\alpha$–th level of $T$, $=\{t\in T:ht(t)=\alpha\}$ and $T\!{\upharpoonright}\!\alpha =\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha}T_{\beta}$. Let $ht(T)$, the height of $T$, is the smallest ordinal $\alpha$ such that $T_{\alpha}=\emptyset$. By a branch of $T$ we mean a linearly ordered subset of $T$ which intersects every nonempty level of $T$. Let ${\cal B}(T)$ be the set of all branches of $T$. $T'$ is called a subtree of $T$ if $T'\subseteq T$, $<_{T'}=<_{T}\bigcap T'\times T'$ ($T'$ inherits the order of $T$) and for every $\alpha<ht(T')$, $T'_{\alpha}\subseteq T_{\alpha}$.
$T$ is called an $\omega_{1}$–tree if $|T|=\omega_{1}$ and $ht(T)=\omega_{1}$. An $\omega_{1}$–tree $T$ is called a Kurepa tree if $|{\cal B}(T)|>\omega_{1}$ and for every $\alpha\in\omega_{1}$, $|T_{\alpha}|<\omega_{1}$. An $\omega_{1}$–tree is called a Jech–Kunen tree if $\omega_{1}<
|{\cal B}(T)|<2^{\omega_{1}}$.
T. Jech in \[Je1\] constructed by forcing a model of $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}>\omega_{2}$, in which there is a Jech–Kunen tree. In fact, it is a Kurepa tree with fewer than $2^{\omega_{1}}$–many branches. Later, K. Kunen \[K1\] found a model of $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}>\omega_{2}$, in which there are neither Kurepa trees nor Jech–Kunen trees. In his paper he gave an equivalent form of Jech–Kunen trees in terms of compact Hausdorff spaces. The detailed proof can be found in \[Ju, Theorem 4.8\].
The second author in \[Ji1\] started discussing the differences between the existence of Kurepa trees and the existence of Jech–Kunen trees. He showed that it is independent of $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}>\omega_{2}$ that there exists a Kurepa tree which has no Jech–Kunen subtrees. He also showed that it is independent of $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}>\omega_{2}$ that there exists a Jech–Kunen tree which has no Kurepa subtrees. In his proofs some strongly inaccessible cardinals were assumed and later, Kunen eliminated the large cardinal assumption for one of the proofs.
In \[SJ\], the both authors answered a question of \[Ji2\] by proving that, assuming the existence of one inaccessible cardinal, it is consistent with $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}>\omega_{2}$ that there exist Jech–Kunen trees and there are no Kurepa trees.
In \[Ji2\], the second author proved that, assuming the existence of two inaccessible cardinals, it is consistent with $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}>\omega_{2}$ that there exist Kurepa trees and there are no Jech–Kunen trees.
Since the consistency of the nonexistence of Jech–Kunen trees implies the consistency of the existence of an inaccessible cardinal \[Ju, Theorem 4.10\], we have to use at least one inaccessible cardinal to build a model of $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}>\omega_{2}$, in which there are Kurepa trees but there are no Jech–Kunen trees. The question whether one inaccessible cardinal is enough was asked in \[Ji2\]. In this paper, we will give a positive answer to the question. We also discover that the same techniques can be used to answer another question in \[Ji2\] by constructing a model of $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}=\omega_{4}$, in which only the Kurepa trees with $\omega_{3}$–many branches exist.
First let’s look at the second author’s original idea in \[Ji2\] to construct a model of $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}>\omega_{2}$, in which there are Kurepa trees and there are no Jech–Kunen trees, by using two inaccessible cardinals. Let $\kappa_{1} <\kappa_{2}$ be two strongly inaccessible cardinals in a model $M$. First, Jin collapses $\kappa_{2}$ down to $\kappa_{1}^{+}$ by forcing with a $<\kappa_{1}$–support Lévy collapsing order. Next, he collapses $\kappa_{1}$ down to $\omega_{1}$ by forcing with a finite support Lévy collapsing order. This step will create a very homogeneous Kurepa tree. Then he force with that Kurepa tree $\lambda$–many times for some regular cardinal $\lambda$ which is greater than $\kappa_{2}$. In the resulting model, that Kurepa tree has $\lambda$–many branches and $\lambda =2^{\omega_{1}}$. In that model there are no Jech–Kunen trees.
If we want to obtain the same result by using only one inaccessible cardinal, we may have to find a way to create a homogeneous $\omega_{1}$–tree with every level countable, without the assistance of large cardinals. Then the questions arise. First, how can we create the desired tree? Second, can we force with that tree for multiple times (with countable supports) without collapsing $\omega_{1}$. (Note that a normal $\omega_{1}$–tree with every level countable is never $\omega_{1}$–closed.)
In this paper, we construct a homogeneous generic $\omega_{1}$–tree with every level countable by forcing with an $\omega_{1}$–closed poset, whose elements are countable homogeneous normal subtrees of $\langle 2^{<\omega_{1}},\subseteq\rangle$. The generic tree is, in fact, a Suslin tree. Then we force with that generic tree $\lambda$–many times with countable supports. We will prove that this two–step forcing adds no new countable sequences of ordinals, hence it will not collapse $\omega_{1}$. We will also prove that if the ground model is Silver’s model (see \[K2, pp. 259\]), then in the final model there are no Jech–Kunen trees.
Before proving our results we need more notations and definitions.
A tree $T$ is called normal if,
\(1) every $t\in T$, which is not in the top level of $T$, has at least two immediate successors,
\(2) for every limit ordinal $\alpha<ht(T)$ and every $B\in {\cal B}(T\!{\upharpoonright}\!\alpha)$, there exist at most one least upper bound of $B$ in $T$,
\(3) for every $t\in T$ and $\alpha$ such that $ht(t)<\alpha <ht(T)$, there exists $t'\in T_{\alpha}$ such that $t<_{T} t'$.
Without loss of generality, we consider only the trees which are subtrees of $\langle 2^{<\omega_{1}},\subseteq\rangle$ with the unique root $\emptyset$. Let $T$ be a tree and $B\subseteq T$ be a totally ordered subset of $T$. Then $\bigcup B$ is the only candidate for the least upper bound of $B$ in $T$.
Let $\alpha\in\omega_{1}$ and $s,t\in 2^{\alpha}$. We define a map $F_{s,t}$ from $2^{<\omega_{1}}$ to $2^{<\omega_{1}}$. Let $u\in 2^{\beta}$ for some $\beta <\omega_{1}$. The domain of $F_{s,t}(u)$ is $\beta$ and for every $\gamma<\beta$, if $\gamma<\alpha$, then let$$F_{s,t}(u)(\gamma)
=u(\gamma)+t(\gamma)-s(\gamma)\;\;(\mbox{mod 2}),$$ otherwise let $F_{s,t}(u)
(\gamma)=u(\gamma)$.
$F_{s,t}(s)=t$, $F_{s,t}(t)=s$ and $F_{s,t}$ is an isomorphism from $\langle 2^{<\beta},\subseteq\rangle$ to $\langle 2^{<\beta},\subseteq\rangle$ for any $\beta\leq\omega_{1}$.
[**Proof:**]{}Trivial. $\Box$
A normal tree $T$ is called homogeneous if for any $\alpha <ht(T)$, for any $s,t\in T_{\alpha}$, $F_{s,t}\!{\upharpoonright}\! T$ is an isomorphism from $T$ to $T$.
Let $${\Bbb P}_{hom}=\{T:T\mbox{ is a countable homogeneous normal subtree
of }\langle 2^{<\omega_{1}},\subseteq\rangle\}$$ be a poset ordered by letting $T<T'$ iff $ht(T')<ht(T)$ and $T'=T\!{\upharpoonright}\!
ht(T')$.
Let ${\cal T}$ be a totally ordered subset of ${\Bbb P}_{hom}$. Then $\bigcup {\cal T}$ is a homogeneous tree. Moreover, if ${\cal T}$ is countable, then $\bigcup {\cal T}\in {\Bbb P}_{hom}$.
[**Proof:**]{}Trivial. $\Box$
[**Remark:**]{}Above lemma says that ${\Bbb P}_{hom}$ is $\omega_{1}$–closed, which means that every countable decreasing sequence in ${\Bbb P}_{hom}$ has a lower bound in ${\Bbb P}_{hom}$.
Let $T\in {\Bbb P}_{hom}$ and $ht(T)=\alpha$ for some limit ordinal $\alpha<\omega_{1}$. Let ${\cal C}$ be a countable subset of ${\cal B}(T)$. Then there exists $\overline{T}\in {\Bbb P}_{hom}$ such that $\overline{T}<T$ and for every $C\in {\cal C}$, $\bigcup C\in\overline{T}_{\alpha}$.
[**Proof:**]{}Without loss of generality, we can assume that for every $t\in T$, there exists $C\in {\cal C}$ such that $t\in C$. (This will guarantee the normality of the resulting tree.) We now construct inductively a sequence of countable trees $\langle T_{n}:n\in\omega\rangle$ such that:
\(1) $T_{0}=T\bigcup\{\bigcup C: C\in {\cal C}\}$,
\(2) for every $n\in\omega$, $ht(T_{n})=\alpha +1$ and
\(3) for every $n\in\omega$, $$T_{n+1}=T_{n}\bigcup\{F_{s,t}(u):
s,t\in T_{n}, \; ht(s)=ht(t)\mbox{ and }u\in (T_{n})_{\alpha}\}.$$
Note that if $I$ is an isomorphism from $T$ to $T$, then for every $B\in {\cal B}(T)$, $I[B]\in {\cal B}(T)$.
Let $\overline{T}=\bigcup_{n\in\omega}T_{n}$. It is obvious that $\overline{T}$ is countable and for any $s,t\in \overline{T}$ such that $ht(s)=ht(t)$, $F_{s,t}$ is an isomorphism from $\overline{T}$ to $\overline{T}$. Hence $\overline{T}\in {\Bbb P}_{hom}$, $\overline{T}
<T$ and for every $C\in {\cal C}$, $\bigcup C\in T_{0}\subseteq
\overline{T}$. $\Box$
Next we discuss forcing method. For the terminology and basic facts of forcing, see \[K2\] and \[Je2\]. We always assume the consistency of $Z\!F\!C$ and let $M$ be always a countable transitive model of $Z\!F\!C$. In the forcing arguments, we always let $\dot{a}$ be a name of $a$. For every element $a$ in the ground model, we may use $a$ itself as its name. Let $\Bbb P$ be a poset in a model $M$, $\dot{a}$ be a $\Bbb P$–name for $a$ and $G$ be a $\Bbb P$–generic filter over $M$. Then $\dot{a}_{G}$ is the value of $\dot{a}$ in $M[G]$ (see \[K2, pp. 189\] for the definition of $\dot{a}_{G}$).
Let $I,J$ be two sets. Let $$Fn(I,J,\omega_{1})=\{p:p\subseteq I\times J
\mbox{ is a function and }|p|<\omega_{1}\}$$ be a poset ordered by reverse inclusion. Let $I$ be a subset of a cardinal $\kappa$. Let $$Lv(I,\omega_{1})=$$ $$\{p:p\subseteq (I\times\omega_{1})\times\kappa
\mbox{ is a function, }|p|<\omega_{1}\mbox{ and }
\forall\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle\in\mbox{dom}(p)
(p(\alpha,\beta)\in\alpha)\}$$ be a poset ordered by reverse inclusion. The poset $Lv(\kappa,\mu)$ for some regular cardinals $\kappa>\mu$ is usually called a $<\mu$–support Lévy collapsing order. Let $T$ be a tree and $I$ be an index set. For a function $p$ from $I$ to $T$, let $supt(p)$, the support of $p$, be the set $\{i\in I:p(i)\neq\emptyset\}$. Let $${\Bbb P}(T,I,\omega_{1})
=\{p:p\in T^{I},\;|supt(F)|<\omega_{1}\}.$$ For any $p,p'\in {\Bbb P}
(T,I,\omega_{1})$, define $p\leq p'$ iff for every $i\in I$, $p'(i)\leq_{T} p(i)$. Let $\Bbb R$ be a poset and $\dot{T}$ be an $\Bbb R$–name for a tree $T$. Let $${\Bbb P}(\dot{T},I,\omega_{1})=\{\dot{q}:\dot{q}\in (\dot{T})^{I},\;
|supt(\dot{q})|<\omega_{1}\}.$$ Then ${\Bbb P}(\dot{T},I,\omega_{1})$ is an $\Bbb R$–name for the poset ${\Bbb P}(T,I,\omega_{1})$. Let ${\Bbb Q}={\Bbb P}(T,I,\omega_{1})$ (or ${\Bbb P}(\dot{T},I,\omega_{1})$) and $J\subseteq I$. We denote ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J$ for the set $\{p\!{\upharpoonright}\! J:p\in {\Bbb Q}\}$. If $H$ is a $\Bbb Q$–generic filter, then let $H_{J}=\{p\!{\upharpoonright}\! J:p\in H\}$.
Let $T$ be an $\omega_{1}$–tree and ${\Bbb P}$ be an $\omega_{1}$–closed poset in a model $M$. Let $G$ be a $\Bbb P$–generic filter over $M$. Assume that there exists a branch of $T$ in $M[G]\smallsetminus M$. Then $T$ is neither a Kurepa tree nor a Jech–Kunen tree in $M$. Moreover, there exists an isomorphic embedding from $\langle 2^{<\omega_{1}},\subseteq
\rangle$ into $T$.
[**Proof:**]{}See \[K2, pp. 260\] and \[Ju, Theorem 4.9\].$\Box$
Let $M$ be a model, ${\Bbb P}=({\Bbb P}_{hom})^{M}$ and $G$ be a $\Bbb P$–generic filter over $M$. Let $T_{G}=\bigcup G$. Then the generic tree $T_{G}$ is a homogeneous normal $\omega_{1}$–tree with every level countable. In fact, $T_{G}$ is a Suslin tree.
[**Proof:**]{}See \[Je2, Theorem 48\] for the proof. The homogeneity of $T_{G}$ follows from Lemma 2. $\Box$
Let $M$ be a model, $I$ be an index set in $M$, ${\Bbb P}=
({\Bbb P}_{hom})^{M}$, $T_{\dot{G}}$ be $\Bbb P$–name for the $\Bbb P$–generic tree $T_{G}$, and $\dot{\Bbb Q}=
{\Bbb P}(T_{\dot{G}},I,\omega_{1})$, which is a $\Bbb P$–name for ${\Bbb P}(T_{G},I,\omega_{1})$. Let $G*H$ be a ${\Bbb P}*\dot{\Bbb Q}$–generic filter over $M$. Then $M^{\omega}\bigcap M[G*H]\subseteq M$.
[**Proof:**]{}Suppose that there is an $f\in M^{\omega}\bigcap M[G*H]$ such that $f\not\in M$. Let $\langle p,\dot{q}\rangle\in {\Bbb P}*\dot{\Bbb Q}$ such that $$\langle p,\dot{q}\rangle{\Vdash}\dot{f}\in A^{\omega}
\smallsetminus M$$ for some $A\in M$.
We now want to construct a sequence $\langle\langle p_{n},
\dot{q}_{n}\rangle\in {\Bbb P}*\dot{\Bbb Q}: n\in\omega\rangle$ in $M$ such that for every $n\in \omega$,
\(1) $\langle p_{n+1},\dot{q}_{n+1}\rangle\leq
\langle p_{n},\dot{q}_{n}\rangle\leq\langle p,\dot{q}\rangle$,
\(2) $\exists a_{n}\in A\;(\langle p_{n},\dot{q}_{n}\rangle
{\Vdash}\dot{f}(n)=a_{n})$,
\(3) $\forall i\in supt(\dot{q}_{n})\;\exists t_{n}(i)\in
p_{n}\smallsetminus p_{n-1}\;(p_{n}{\Vdash}\dot{q}_{n}(i)
=t_{n}(i))$.
The contradiction follows from the construction. Let $\overline{p}_
{\omega}=\bigcup_{n\in\omega}p_{n}$. For every $i\in\bigcup_{n\in\omega}supt(\dot{q}_{n})$, let $$C_{i}=\{t\in\overline{p}_
{\omega}:\exists n\in\omega,\;t<t_{n}(i)\}.$$ By (3), $C_{i}\in {\cal B}(\overline{p}_{\omega})$. By Lemma 3, there is $p_{\omega}
\in {\Bbb P},\; p_{\omega}
\leq\overline{p}_{\omega}$ such that $\bigcup C_{i}\in p_{\omega}$. Define $\dot{q}_{\omega}$ from $I$ to $T_{\dot{G}}$ such that $\dot{q}_{\omega}(i)=\bigcup C_{i}$ if $i\in\bigcup_{n\in\omega}
supt(\dot{q}_{n})$ and $\dot{q}_{\omega}(i)=\emptyset$ otherwise. (In fact, $q$ is in $M$.) Then $\langle p_{\omega},\dot{q}_{\omega}\rangle\leq \langle p_{n},
\dot{q}_{n}\rangle$ for every $n\in\omega$. Hence, for every $n\in\omega$, $$\langle p_{\omega},\dot{q}_{\omega}\rangle{\Vdash}\dot{f}(n)=a_{n}.$$ This contradicts $f\not\in M$.
Assume that we have already had $\langle p_{n},\dot{q}_{n}\rangle$ for every $n\leq m$.
First, let $\langle r,\dot{s}\rangle\leq\langle p_{m},\dot{q}_{m}\rangle$ and $a_{m+1}\in A$ such that $$\langle r,\dot{s}\rangle{\Vdash}\dot{f}(m+1)=a_{m+1}.$$ For every $i\in supt(\dot{s})$, $$r{\Vdash}\exists\alpha\in\omega_{1}\;
(\dot{s}(i)\in 2^{\alpha}).$$ Then there exist $\alpha\in\omega_{1}$ and $r'\leq r$ such that $$r'{\Vdash}\dot{s}(i)\in 2^{\alpha}.$$ Since $\Bbb P$ is $\omega_{1}$–closed and $$r'{\Vdash}\mbox{ The domain of }\dot{s}(i)\mbox{ is }\alpha,\mbox{ a countable
ordinal.}$$ then there exist $t(i)\in 2^{\alpha}$ and $r''\leq r'$ such that $$r''{\Vdash}\dot{s}(i)=t(i).$$ Let $r'''\leq r''$ such that $ht(r''')>\max\{\alpha,ht(p_{m})\}$. Then $$r'''{\Vdash}\dot{s}(i)=t(i)\in r'''$$ because ${\Vdash}\dot{s}(i)\in T_{\dot{G}}$.
Since $supt(\dot{s})$ is countable and $\Bbb P$ is $\omega_{1}$–closed, then we can find $p_{m+1}\leq r'''$ such that $$\forall i\in supt(\dot{s})\;\exists\alpha<ht(p_{m+1})\;\exists t(i)\in
(p_{m+1})_{\alpha}\;(p_{m+1}{\Vdash}\dot{s}(i)=t(i)).$$ Let $t_{m+1}(i)\in p_{m+1}\smallsetminus p_{m}$ such that $t(i)\leq
t_{m+1}(i)$ and define $\dot{q}_{m+1}(i)=t_{m+1}(i)$ if $i\in supt(\dot{s})$ and $\dot{q}_{m+1}(i)=\emptyset$ otherwise. This ends the construction and the sequence we have constructed does obviously satisfy (1), (2) and (3). $\Box$
[**Remark:**]{}The poset ${\Bbb P}*\dot{\Bbb Q}$ in Lemma 6 is, in fact, strategically complete. Let $\Bbb R$ be any poset. Two players, $I$ and $I\!I$, choose from $\Bbb R$ successively the members of a decreasing sequence $$a_{0}\geq b_{0}\geq a_{1}\geq b_{1}\geq\cdots
\geq a_{n}\geq b_{n}\geq\cdots.$$ $I$ chooses the $a_{n}$’s and $I\!I$ chooses the $b_{n}$’s. $I\!I$ wins the game if and only if the sequence has a lower bound in $\Bbb R$. We call $\Bbb R$ strategically complete if $I\!I$ has a winning strategy. It has been shown that $\Bbb R$ is strategically complete if and only if there exists a poset $\Bbb S$ such that ${\Bbb R}\times {\Bbb S}$ has a dense subset which is $\omega_{1}$–closed (see \[Je3, pp. 90\]).
Assuming the existence of an inaccessible cardinal, it is consistent with $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}>\omega_{2}$ that there exist Kurepa tree but there are no Jech–Kunen trees.
[**Proof:**]{}Let $M$ be a model of $G\!C\!H$, $\kappa$ be an inaccessible cardinal and $\lambda>\kappa$ be a regular cardinal in $M$. In $M$, let ${\Bbb P}_{1}=Lv(\kappa,\omega_{1})$, ${\Bbb P}_{2}=
{\Bbb P}_{hom}$, $T_{\dot{G_{2}}}$ be a ${\Bbb P}_{2}$–name for the ${\Bbb P}_{2}$–generic tree $T_{G_{2}}=\bigcup G_{2}$, where $G_{2}$ is a ${\Bbb P}_{2}$–generic filter, and $\dot{\Bbb Q}=
{\Bbb P}(T_{\dot{G}_{2}},\lambda,\omega_{1})$. Let $G_{1}\times (G_{2}*H)$ be a ${\Bbb P}_{1}\times
({\Bbb P}_{2}*\dot{\Bbb Q})$–generic filter over $M$. We will show that $M[G_{1}\times (G_{2}*H)]=M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$ is the model we are looking for.
[**Claim 7.1**]{}$M^{\omega}\bigcap M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]
\subseteq M$.
[**Proof of Claim 7.1 :**]{}By Lemma 6, $M^{\omega}\bigcap M[G_{2}*H]\subseteq M$. This implies that ${\Bbb P}_{1}$ is still $\omega_{1}$–closed in $M[G_{2}*H]$. Hence $(M[G_{2}*H])^{\omega}\bigcap M[G_{2}*H][G_{1}]\subseteq
M[G_{2}*H]$. So for every $f\in M^{\omega}\bigcap M[G_{2}*H][G_{1}]$, $f$ is in $M[G_{2}*H]$ and hence, $f$ is in $M$. The claim is true because $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]=M[G_{2}*H][G_{1}]$.
[**Claim 7.2**]{}${\Bbb P}_{1}\times ({\Bbb P}_{2}*\dot{\Bbb Q})$ has the $\kappa$–c.c..
[**Proof of Claim 7.2 :**]{}A poset $\Bbb R$ is called $\lambda$–centered for some regular cardinal $\lambda$ if for any subset $S\subseteq
{\Bbb R}$ and $|S|\geq\lambda$, there exists $S'\subseteq S$, $|S'|\geq\lambda$, such that any two elements in $S'$ are compatible. By a simple $\Delta$–system lemma argument, we can show that ${\Bbb P}_{1}$ is $\kappa$–centered. Since $|{\Bbb P}_{2}|=\omega_{1}$, then $|T_{\dot{G}_{2}}|\leq (|{\Bbb P}_{2}|^{\omega_{1}})^{\omega_{1}}=\omega_{2}$. Again by a simple $\Delta$–system lemma argument, we can show that ${\Bbb P}_{2}*\dot{Q}$ is $\kappa$–centered. In fact, it is also $\omega_{3}$–centered. Hence ${\Bbb P}_{1}\times ({\Bbb P}_{2}*\dot{Q})$ is $\kappa$–centered, which implies the $\kappa$–c.c..
[**Remark:**]{}By Claim 1 and Claim 2 and the fact that $M[G_{1}]\models [C\!H + 2^{\omega_{1}}=\omega_{2}=\kappa]$, we know that $\omega_{1}$ and all the cardinals greater than or equal to $\kappa$ in $M$ is preserved in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$. We also know that $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]\models [C\!H + 2^{\omega_{1}}=\lambda >\kappa]$.
[**Claim 7.3**]{}$T_{G_{2}}$ is a Kurepa tree with $\lambda$–many branches in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$.
[**Proof of Claim 7.3 :**]{}It is obvious that $T_{G_{2}}$ is an $\omega_{1}$–tree with every level countable (in fact, it is a Suslin tree in $M[G_{2}]$). In $M[G_{1}][G_{2}]$, $\dot{Q}_{G_{2}}={\Bbb P}(T_{G_{2}},\lambda,\omega_{1})$ is a countable support (note that no new countable sequences of ordinals are added) product of $\lambda$–many copies of $T_{G_{2}}$. Then forcing with $\Bbb Q$ will add at least $\lambda$–many new branches to $T_{G_{2}}$. Hence $\lambda\leq |{\cal B}(T_{G_{2}})|\leq 2^{\omega_{1}}=\lambda$.
[**Claim 7.4**]{}There are no Jech–Kunen trees in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$.
[**Proof of Claim 7.4 :**]{}Suppose that $T$ is a Jech–Kunen tree in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$.
Since $|T|=\omega_{1}$, then there exists a cardinal $\theta<\kappa$ and a subset $I$ of $\lambda$ with $|I|\leq\omega_{2}$ such that $T\in M[G'_{1}][G_{2}*H_{I}]$, where $G'_{1}=G_{1}\bigcap
Lv(\theta,\omega_{1})$ and $H_{I}=H\bigcap {\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! I$. This is true because ${\Bbb P}_{1}$ has the $\kappa$–c.c. and ${\Bbb P}_{2}*\dot{\Bbb Q}$ has the $\omega_{3}$–c.c.. In $M[G'_{1}][G_{2}*H_{I}]$, $2^{\omega_{1}}<\kappa$, so that there exists a branch $b$ of $T$ in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]\smallsetminus
M[G'_{1}][G_{2}*H_{I}]$. Since $Lv(\kappa\smallsetminus\theta,\omega_{1})$ in $M$ is still $\omega_{1}$–closed in $M[G'_{1}][G_{2}*H_{I}]$ and $T$ is a Jech–Kunen tree in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$, then by Lemma 4, $b\not\in M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H_{I}]$.
Let $M'=M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H_{I}]$. We now work in $M'$. In $M'$, ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\!(\lambda
\smallsetminus I)$ has the $\omega_{1}$–c.c.. Then there exists $J\subseteq
\lambda\smallsetminus I$ with $|J|=\omega_{1}$ in $M'$ such that $b\in M'[H_{J}]$. Let $r\in H_{J}$ be such that $$r{\Vdash}_{{\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J}\exists b\in {\cal B}(T)\smallsetminus M'.$$ Since $T_{G_{2}}$ is homogeneous (here we use the homogeneity of the tree), then we can assume that $${\Vdash}_{{\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J}\exists b\in
{\cal B}(T)\smallsetminus M'.$$ By the maximal principle we can find a ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J$–name $\dot{b}$ for $b$ in $M'$ such that $${\Vdash}_{{\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J}\dot{b}\in {\cal B}(T)
\smallsetminus M'.$$ Since $b\not\in M'$, then in $M'$, the sentence $\Phi ({\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J,
T,\dot{b})$ is true, where $\Phi (X,Y,Z)$ is $$\forall s\in X\;
\exists s_{0},s_{1}\leq s\;\exists\alpha\in\omega_{1}\;\exists t_{0},t_{1}
\in Y_{\alpha},\; t_{0}\neq t_{1},\;(s_{i}{\Vdash}t_{i}\in Z)\mbox{ for }
i=0,1.$$ In $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$ $T$ has less than $\lambda$–many branches, so there exists $\mu<\lambda$ such that $I\bigcup J\subseteq\mu$ and every branch of $T$ in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$ is already in $M'[H_{\mu\smallsetminus I}]$. Let $J'\subseteq\lambda\smallsetminus\mu$ be such that $|J'|=|J|$ and let $\pi$ be the natural isomorphism from ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J$ to ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J'$. Then in $M'$ $${\Vdash}_{{\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J'}\pi_{*}(\dot{b})\in {\cal B}(T)$$ is true and $$M'\models\Phi ({\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J',T,\pi_{*}(\dot{b})),$$ where $\pi_{*}$ is the map from ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J$–names to ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J'$–names induced by $\pi$ (see \[K2, pp. 222\] for the definition of $\pi_{*}$).
[**Subclaim 7.4.1**]{}$M'[H_{\mu\smallsetminus I}]\models
[\Phi ({\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J',T,\pi_{*}(\dot{b}))$ and ${\Vdash}_
{{\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J'}\pi_{*}(\dot{b})\in {\cal B}(T)]$.
[**Proof of Subclaim 7.4.1 :**]{}Let $H_{J'}$ be a ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J'$–generic filter over $M'[H_{\mu\smallsetminus I}]$. Then $H_{J'}$ is also a ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J'$–generic filter over $M'$. Hence in $M'[H_{J'}]$, $(\pi_{*}(\dot{b}))_{H_{J'}}\in {\cal B}(T)$. If $s_{i}\in H_{J'}$, then $t_{i}\in (\pi_{*}(\dot{b}))_{H_{J'}}$ is also true in $M'[H_{J'}]$.
In $M'[H_{J'}]$, forcing with ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\!(\mu\smallsetminus I)$ will not change the truth of the above sentences. Hence in $M'[H_{J'}][H_
{\mu\smallsetminus I}]=M'[H_{\mu\smallsetminus I}][H_{J'}]$, $(\pi_{*}(\dot{b}))_{H_{J'}}\in {\cal B}(T)$ and $t_{i}\in (\pi_{*}(\dot{b}))_{H_{J'}}$ are also true. This implies that $$M'[H_{\mu\smallsetminus I}]\models
[\Phi ({\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J',T,\pi_{*}(\dot{b}))\mbox{ and }
{\Vdash}_{{\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J'}\pi_{*}(\dot{b})\in {\cal B}(T)].$$ This ends the proof of Subclaim 7.4.1.
Since forcing with ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J'$ will not add any new branches of $T$, then $B=(\pi_{*}(\dot{b}))_{H_{J'}}$ is already in $M'[H_{\mu\smallsetminus I}]$. In $M'[H_{\mu\smallsetminus I}]$, let $$D=\{r\in {\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J':
\exists t\not\in B\;(r{\Vdash}_{{\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J'}
t\in\pi_{*}(\dot{b}))\}.$$ Then $D$ is dense in ${\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J'$ because $\Phi ({\Bbb Q}\!{\upharpoonright}\! J',
T,\pi_{*}(\dot{b}))$ is true in $M'[H_{\mu\smallsetminus I}]$. If $r_{0}\in D\bigcap H_{J'}$, then $r_{0}{\Vdash}\pi_{*}(\dot{b})\neq B$. This contradicts $(\pi_{*}(\dot{b}))_{H_{J'}}=B$. $\Box$
Assuming the existence of an inaccessible cardinal, it is consistent with $C\!H$ plus $2^{\omega_{1}}=\omega_{4}$ that only the Kurepa trees with $\omega_{3}$–many branches exist.
[**Proof:**]{}Let’s follow the notation of the proof of Theorem 7. Let $\lambda=\kappa^{+}$ in $M$. Let $${\Bbb P}_{3}=
Fn(\kappa^{++},2,\omega_{1})=Fn(\omega_{4},2,\omega_{1})$$ in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$ (note that ${\Bbb P}_{3}$ is absolute with respect to $M$ and $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$). Let $G_{3}$ be a ${\Bbb P}_{3}$–generic filter over $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$. In $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H][G_{3}]$, the number of the branches of $T_{G_{2}}$ is $\lambda=\kappa_{+}=\omega_{3}$ by Lemma 4.
Let $T$ be any $\omega_{1}$–tree in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H][G_{3}]$. Then there exists $K\subseteq \kappa^{++}$ with $|K|=\omega_{1}$ such that $T\in M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H][G'_{3}]$, where $G'_{3}=G_{3}\bigcap
Fn(K,2,\omega_{1})$.
If $|{\cal B}(T)|=\omega_{4}$ in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H][G_{3}]$, then forcing with $Fn(\kappa^{++}\smallsetminus K,2,\omega_{1})$ will add new branches to $T$. This implies $T$ is not a Kurepa tree by Lemma 4.
If $|{\cal B}(T)|=\omega_{2}$ in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H][G_{3}]$, then by Lemma 4, $T$ is already a Jech–Kunen tree with $\omega_{2}$–many branches in $M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H][G'_{3}]$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $K=\omega_{1}$. So $$M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H][G'_{3}]\models
\mbox{ ``There exists
a Jech--Kunen tree with }\omega_{2}\mbox{--many branches''}.$$ But $$M[G_{1}][G_{2}*H][G'_{3}]=M[G'_{3}][G_{1}][G_{2}*H]=
\overline{M}[G_{1}][G_{2}*H],$$ where $\overline{M}=M[G'_{3}]$. By the same proof of Theorem 7, we can also show that there are no Jeck–Kunen trees in $\overline{M}[G_{1}][G_{2}*H]$, a contradiction. $\Box$
[99]{}
. T. Jech, “Trees”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, [**36**]{} (1971), pp. 1—14.
. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, “[**Set Theory**]{}, Academic Press, New York, 1978.
. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. “[**Multiple Forcing**]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
. R. Jin, “Some independence results related to the Kurepa tree”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, [**32**]{}, No 3 (1991), pp. 448—457.
. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, “A model in which every Kurepa tree is thick”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, [**33**]{}, No 1 (1992), pp. 120—125.
. I. Juhász, “Cardinal functions $I\!I$”, pp. 63—110 in [**Handbook of Set Theoretic Topology**]{}, ed. by K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, North–Holland, Amsterdam, 1984.
. K. Kunen, “On the cardinality of compact spaces”, Notices of The American Mathematical Society, [**22**]{} (1975), 212.
. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, “[**Set Theory**]{}, an introduction to independence proofs”, North–Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.
. S. Shelah, “[**Proper Forcing**]{}”, Springer–Verlag, 1982.
. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, New version of “[**Proper Forcing**]{}”, to appear.
. S. Shelah and R. Jin, “A model in which there are Jech–Kunen trees but there are no Kurepa trees”, preprint.
. S. Todorčević, “Trees and linearly ordered sets”, pp. 235—293 in [**Handbook of Set Theoretic Topology**]{}, ed. by K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, North–Holland, Amsterdam, 1984.
Institute of Mathematics,
The Hebrew University,
Jerusalem, Israel.
Department of Mathematics,
Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, NJ, 08903, USA.
Department of Mathematics,
University of Wisconsin,
Madison, WI 53706, USA.
[*Sorting:*]{} The first two addresses are the first author’s; the last one is the second author’s.
[^1]: 1980 Mathematics Subject Classification (1985 Revision). Primary 03E35.
[^2]: The research of the first author was partially supported by the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation, publ. 469.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
\(b) at (10,7)[This is a preprint of the following article, accepted to the Journal of Systems and Software:\
Rebekka Wohlrab, Eric Knauss, Patrizio Pelliccione, Why and How to Balance Alignment and Diversity of Requirements\
Engineering Practices in Automotive, Journal of Systems and Software, 2019, 110516, ISSN 0164-1212,\
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110516>.]{};
In large-scale automotive companies, various requirements engineering (RE) practices are used across teams. RE practices manifest in Requirements Information Models (RIM) that define what concepts and information should be captured for requirements. Collaboration of practitioners from different parts of an organization is required to define a suitable RIM that balances support for diverse practices in individual teams with the alignment needed for a shared view and team support on system level. There exists no guidance for this challenging task. This paper presents a mixed methods study to examine the role of RIMs in balancing alignment and diversity of RE practices in four automotive companies. Our analysis is based on data from systems engineering tools, 11 semi-structured interviews, and a survey to validate findings and suggestions. We found that balancing alignment and diversity of RE practices is important to consider when defining RIMs. We further investigated enablers for this balance and actions that practitioners take to achieve it. From these factors, we derived and evaluated recommendations for managing RIMs in practice that take into account the lifecycle of requirements and allow for diverse practices across sub-disciplines in early development, while enforcing alignment of requirements that are close to release.
author:
- Rebekka Wohlrab
- Eric Knauss
- Patrizio Pelliccione
title: Why and How to Balance Alignment and Diversity of Requirements Engineering Practices in Automotive
---
requirements information models , aligning software engineering practices , automotive software engineering , large-scale software development , mixed methods research
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
Scale has become an important research hotspot in requirements engineering, as the systems’ size and complexity increase, [and]{} requirements originate from an increasing number of stakeholders and disciplines and need to be combined into a “single coherent story” [@Cheng2009]. However, while efforts exist to create common and company-wide requirements engineering methods [@Weber2002], the need to acknowledge diversity and tailor requirements engineering methods to specific contexts has been acknowledged [@Davis2013]. In the automotive domain in particular, practitioners need to find a balance between the diversity and alignment of requirements engineering practices [@Wohlrab2018REFSQ]. Diversity and alignment can be observed based on how requirements-related knowledge is created, changed, and maintained in artifacts (e.g., models or documents) by several different groups in an organization. A common [*Requirements Information Model*]{} (RIM) can help to “develop a common view about requirements” and to create tool support [@John1999]. Practitioners see a benefit in standardizing artifact models for requirements engineering, but also the need to tailor models to individual projects [@Mendez2015].
To the best of our knowledge, there exists no study that sheds light on the underlying reasons to balance alignment and diversity of RE practices in automotive. We focus on this aspect in our first research question.
**RQ1**: *[ What factors motivate the need to support alignment and diversity in RIMs in large-scale automotive companies?]{}*
As mentioned before, RIMs can be used to standardize RE practices, but can also be tailored to individual projects [@Mendez2015]. Our second research question is concerned with how RIMs enable the balance of alignment and diversity in practice.
**RQ2**: *[How do RIMs enable the balance of alignment and diversity of RE practices in large-scale automotive companies?]{}*
As any artifact and model, RIMs have lifecycles and are evolved over time. While related work has explored how RIMs can be created, there exists a knowledge gap with respect to how RIMs are changed to achieve a balance of alignment and diversity of RE practices.
**RQ3**: *[What actions can be observed when large-scale automotive companies balance alignment and diversity using their RIMs?]{}*
Finally, to give actionable guidance to practitioners, we focus on suggestions to manage RIMs to achieve a balance of alignment and diversity in large-scale automotive requirements engineering:
**RQ4**: *[What are suggestions for managing RIMs to balance alignment and diversity of RE practices?]{}*
\[b\] ![Excerpt of a requirements information model, adapted from [@Leffingwell2011][]{data-label="fig:leffingwell"}](leffingwell "fig:"){width=".7\linewidth"}
We performed a study using a mixed methods approach together with four automotive companies, including data analysis of a systems engineering tool, document analysis, 11 semi-structured interviews, and a survey with 19 responses. We contribute insights into how both alignment and diversity of RE practices are needed and supported by RIMs in practice. Alignment is crucial in certain phases of the lifecycle of requirements, e.g., when the product is released. Concrete requirements influence how much alignment and diversity is desired over time. The RIM undergoes periods of change and stability, until elements of the RIM can become deprecated. Our suggestions are to include key stakeholders, evaluate changes with few users, and focus on aligning high-level aspects. We recommend to create new entity types only if special procedures, attributes, or relationships exist, support the creation of concrete requirements with minimal information, and favor training and flexibility over strong restrictions. Section \[sec:Background\] presents background information and Section \[sec:RelatedWork\] presents related work. In Section \[sec:ResearchMethod\], we describe the research method. In Section \[sec:why\]–\[sec:suggestions\], we present our research findings. Section \[sec:Discussion\] concludes this paper with a discussion.
Background {#sec:Background}
==========
This paper relates to diversity and alignment in large-scale automotive RE and information models in RE.
Diversity vs Alignment in Automotive RE {#sec:RelatedWork:DiversityAlignment}
---------------------------------------
A requirements engineering practice is “the use of a principle, tool, notation, and/or method in order to perform any or all of the \[...\] activities” related to eliciting, analyzing, documenting, verifying, and changing requirements [@Davis2005]. Diversity of requirements engineering practices refers to the heterogeneity of principles, tools, notations, and methods used in different groups in an organization. Alignment refers to how similarly and consistently principles, tools, notations, and methods are used in different organizational groups.
In the automotive domain in particular, the heterogeneity of functions and quality attributes is a prevalent challenge for software and systems engineers [@Pretschner2007]. Especially in such a diverse domain, mechanisms are needed to consolidate requirements engineering practices of several teams and create sufficient alignment [@Wohlrab2018REFSQ]. Multiple technical domains are involved (e.g., entertainment or power train) that come with particular domain-specific issues [@Weber2002]. Thousands of engineers collaborate in large-scale distributed setups and need to fulfill a large variety of quality attributes (e.g., safety, performance, security, and usability) [@Ebert2017]. The identified challenges raise the need to create novel development approaches and tools that allow practitioners to develop cost-efficient products in a highly complex domain [@Broy2007]. The variety of disciplines and the lack of common interdisciplinary understanding was found to be a complicating issue in automotive RE [@Liebel2018]. A rather rigorous RE approach is needed to create high-quality products and support OEM-supplier relationships [@Ebert2017].
Classification and Information Models in RE {#sec:RelatedWork:InfModels}
-------------------------------------------
Humans like to categorize and classify things, as it allows them to create structures for their lives and work [@Bowker1999]. The need to create a classification scheme [@ISO11179] for requirements that is both generic and adaptable has been identified more than 20 years ago [@Hochmuller1997]. Several approaches to classifying or modeling requirements have been created since then (e.g., @Gorschek2006 [@Mendez2010]). For instance, viewpoints can be used to classify requirements, considering perspectives of different stakeholders [@Finkelstein1992; @Sommerville1997].
In this paper, we consider Requirements Information Models (RIMs) as artifacts that describe (1) *entity types* of information and concepts related to requirements engineering, (2) their *relationships*, and (3) *constraints* to create requirements-related knowledge. Often, only one standardized model is used within a company [@Mendez2011], but with increased scale different organizational groups start to adapt the RIM or even to create a new one. Figure \[fig:leffingwell\] shows an excerpt of a RIM [@Leffingwell2011]. It includes *Backlog Item* as a main entity type that can be *constrained by* *Non-Functional Requirements*. *Epics*, *Features*, and *Stories* are more specialized entity types of *Backlog Item*. Other terms for RIM are requirements metamodel, reference model, or artifact model [@Mendez2011; @Mendez2010]. A RIM for agile enterprises focuses on backlog items to organize teams’ tasks [@Leffingwell2011]. Even though related work indicated that backlogs are “informal models of work to be done” rather than requirements specifications [@Sedano2019], a backlog does relate to requirements and this relationship should be covered by the RIM. In this paper, we are interested in how a RIM is changed throughout its lifecycle. As any artifact or software, RIMs have a lifecycle, i.e., a “chain of activities, transformations, events, and artifacts to guide the full process” that encapsulates all activities needed to “conceive, develop, deploy, and maintain a software product” [@Rodriguez2009].
The concept of *boundary objects* has recently been receiving increasing attention in software engineering (e.g., @Sedano2019 [@Wohlrab2019JSME]). Boundary objects establish a common understanding between groups without compromising each group’s identity [@Star1989] and can become apparent when social groups establish standards and categories and manifest them in information artifacts [@Bowker1999]. Examples of boundary objects include forms and standards [@Star1989a]. “Boundary objects arise directly from the problematics created when two or more differently naturalized classification systems collide” [@Bowker1999]. For instance, boundary objects emerge when residual categories emerge in a categorization: as more and more stakeholders choose the “Other” category, the need to group these things in subgroups emerges and new categories arise as boundary objects. Bowker and Star identified the need to understand how boundary objects are established and maintained, and what role classification schemes play as artifacts [@Bowker1999]. While boundary objects can be on the concrete artifact level, we focus on the meta level and how RIMs can be leveraged as boundary objects. Moreover, this paper focuses on how concrete requirements adhere to RIMs and how both are changed in practice.
Related Work {#sec:RelatedWork}
============
A broad spectrum of methods and practices exist for RE activities and representations of requirements [@Laplante2017]. The need to support diverse practices has been reported in globalized RE contexts with various tools [@Bhat2006], and in situations where both domain-specific and generalized solutions are needed [@Cheng2009]. Processes in requirements engineering cannot be standardized for all situations, but need to follow certain conventions [@Serna2017]. There exist different potential levels of rigor in RE: no or heavy process, no or strict standards, no or heavy documentation, no or rigorous reviews. Neither of the two extremes is right “for all companies, or even for all projects within any one company” [@Davis2013]. RIMs are promising to look at when examining the trade-off between diversity and alignment of teams, as they have been used to standardize RE practices, but also to allow individual adjustments according to a project’s needs [@Mendez2015]. Moreover, RIMs have been found useful to support communication between the members of multiple projects when discussing RE processes [@Doerr2004]. This study sheds light on how RIMs can be established and evolved over time and what the motivating factors of alignment and diversity are.
So far, the topic of requirements-related boundary objects is rather unexplored. A field study [@Hertzum2004] has examined the use of boundary objects in requirements engineering and their use to coordinate and align organizational groups. Apart from this initial study, there exists limited empirical knowledge on requirements-related boundary objects and their use to achieve an alignment-diversity balance in large-scale RE practices.
In recent years, RE research has focused on agile development and continuous deployment (e.g., [@Niu2018; @Schon2017]), that can facilitate collaboration and communication in large-scale agile development [@Inayat2015]. Kassab found that various RE practices are used for agile development contexts and that it is common to create and manage RE-related information in several tools (e.g., application lifecycle management tools) [@Kassab2014]. One of the conclusions of a systematic literature review in the area was that also in agile requirements engineering, a variety of artifact types are used, that heterogeneous agile RE approaches are common, and that better ways to create “a shared understanding \[...\] among project members and stakeholders” are needed [@Schon2017]. Our study contributes towards these goals as it analyzes how heterogeneous approaches can be supported, while creating a shared understanding across sites. The need to centrally consolidate RE-related information in large-scale development and using a platform to make it accessible to a heterogeneous group of stakeholders has been identified [@Fucci2018]. This paper contributes to an understanding of the required level of diversity and alignment and can influence future development of tools and solutions for large-scale RE.
In automotive, several model-based solutions have been suggested to conduct requirements engineering [@Boulanger2008; @Pretschner2007; @Braun2014]. The automotive domain is similar to the domain of avionics systems engineering. Also in the domain of avionics systems engineering, an information model has been designed that allows requirements to be linked to justification, constraints, designs, and acceptance tests [@Pearson1997]. Weber and Weisbrod [@Weber2002] described how an RE team in an automotive OEM introduced a company-wide modular RIM that allowed projects to adapt and tailor the model to their needs. They identified and stressed the need to support diverse needs of teams with user- and situation-specific views on requirements. We analyze not only how RIMs can be introduced, but how they can be leveraged and evolved to balance alignment and diversity.
To be able to trace requirements, an upfront strategy is required that should ideally be tailored to individual projects [@Rempel2013]. In practice, however, needs change over time and upfront strategies should be evolved. In this paper, we contribute to an understanding how RIMs, also including traceability-related information, changes over time and should be adapted throughout their lifecycles.
In recent years, the need to engage a growing number of people in requirements engineering activities has been identified, which led to the rise of the field of crowd-based requirements engineering [@Groen2017]. While our study focuses on different heterogeneous teams in an organization, instead of a diverse user base, the insights into alignment and diversity can also be useful when trying to establish boundary objects for crowd-based RE and consolidating the needs of different user groups.
Research Method {#sec:ResearchMethod}
===============
We answer our research questions based on a *mixed methods approach* [@Easterbrook2008]. We follow a design in which qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data from the systems engineering tool are analyzed together. The survey data was used as an additional source after the data from other sources had been analyzed, in a sequential design.
Selected Participants
---------------------
We selected three automotive companies to shed light on the topic from different angles. The automotive industry is chosen as the need for the balance of alignment and diversity is a particularly challenging issue in this domain. As described in Section \[sec:RelatedWork:DiversityAlignment\], a variety of disciplines are involved that come with particular issues and need to be consolidated to facilitate the creation of one integrated product. Two companies (OEM1 and OEM2) are automotive Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). As the supplier-OEM relationship is a particular characteristic of the automotive domain, another company is an automotive supplier (SUP). Parts of all companies use agile practices, with the SAFe framework being the most commonly used framework [@Leffingwell2007]. They all consist of at least 10 teams, which makes them “very large-scale” development contexts [@Dingsøyr2014a]. Counting suppliers and all involved departments, hundreds of thousands stakeholders participate in the development process. Moreover, we collaborated with a tool supplier (TOOL) developing a systems engineering tool used in automotive companies, and selected participants involved in the customization of RIMs at different customers. The employees of the tool supplier are often main stakeholders when creating and managing RIMs and understanding the balance of alignment and diversity. Table \[tab:interviewees\] shows characteristics of the interviewees.
Systems Engineering Tool Data and Documentation
-----------------------------------------------
We analyzed the data of a systems engineering tool from two of the automotive companies, focusing both on the RIM and concrete requirements. The systems engineering tool allowed us to analyze, among other aspects, what entity types and relationships exist in the RIMs, and how often these are used to describe requirements. We include descriptive statistics in this paper based on the data analysis.
To analyze further requirements-related documents, we leveraged data presented on the companies’ intranets, powerpoint presentations related to RE processes, user guides, and manuals. These documents are typically used for internal training purposes or to explain processes and methods.
Systems engineering tool data and documentation was most beneficial to answer RQ2 (how do RIMs enable the balance of alignment and diversity of RE practices). Also the actions of balancing alignment and diversity (RQ3) can be partially observed using the data. However, we did not do a longitudinal study in which we actually studied changes and actions in-depth over a longer period of time.
Semi-structured Interviews
--------------------------
Semi-structured interviews allowed us to collect rich qualitative data and explore connections between relevant factors influencing the topic under study. In our companies, we selected key stakeholders that work with RIMs and/or initiatives to align RE practices in an organization. There is only a limited number of potential interviewees who are knowledgeable and experienced in these areas. Besides selecting representatives from all companies, we also interviewed specialists working at a tool supplier that supported the companies in configuring their RIMs.
To conduct the interviews, we created an interview guide[^1], including both open- and closed-ended questions. The interview questions include references to the related research questions. The interviews’ lengths were between 45 and 105 minutes, with an average of 62 minutes. 9 of 11 interviewees agreed with recording the interview and we created transcripts afterwards to allow for thorough data analysis. For 2 of 11 interviews, we relied on detailed hand-written notes that we turned into a transcript immediately after the interviews with a fresh memory of what had been said.
To analyze the data, we carefully read through the transcripts several times to get familiar with the data. Afterwards, we performed *coding*, which is concerned with categorizing text chunks from an interview and labeling them with suitable terms [@Creswell2008]. We created a priori codes based on our research questions. Examples of the a priori codes are “*Why Alignment*”, “*Alignment Enablers*”, “*Diversity Enablers*”, and “*Suggestions*.”
We used NVivo 12 [@NVivo2019] for the analysis, which allowed us to manage the large amount of collected data and search it more easily. An *editing approach* was used for the analysis [@Runeson2009]. We started with the initial set of a priori codes and created new codes, revised them, split, and merged codes. 77 codes were created in total, also capturing aspects that were not part of the initial a priori codes. We describe the coding approach with the following example:
[[a tools architect]{}]{} There are some rules \[to support alignment\]. For the more complicated rules, I want to skip them during the typing phase and then delay it to a post processing work, after everything is done.
The statement deals with rules and consistency checks that support alignment in certain phases. We connected this statement to the code “Consistency checks” under “Alignment Enablers”, as well as to “Dynamic levels of alignment during development” under the top-level code “Suggestions.”
After having coded several interviews, we checked whether each code reflected only one central idea or whether new codes should be established [@Tesch1990]. During the analysis, we made sure that a *chain of evidence* was established [@Runeson2009]. We organized a coding workshop to discuss the codes with their relations. We printed the codes on paper, together with the number of interviews in which the code was applied. This allowed us to discuss the meanings of all codes and understand how commonly used they were. We grouped the sheets of paper on a table, discussed relations, and identified themes. We created a story to report on the findings for each research question. We provide summaries of our main findings in boxes in the respective sections.
[>p[0.015]{}>p[0.11]{}>p[0.55]{}>p[0.13]{}]{} & Company & Interviewee & Experience 1 & SUP & Tool and process analyst & 5 years 2 & SUP & Methods and tools expert & 31 years 3 & TOOL & Technical expert & 34 years 4 & TOOL & Solution architect & 23 years 5 & OEM1 & Tool and methods specialist & 34 years 6 & OEM1 & Requirements manager & 20 years 7 & OEM1 & Functional architect & 13 years 8 & OEM2 & Solution architect & 33 years 9 & OEM2 & Concept leader & 20 years 10 & OEM2 & Product owner for customized tool solution & 24 years 11 & OEM2 & Tools architect & 31 years
Survey
------
Based on the findings of the interviews, we collected preliminary answers to all research questions. We created a survey[^2] to validate the research findings (member checking) and gather additional data from other experts. To strengthen the focus of our survey questions to our research goals, we did not include general questions on our participants’ daily work, but rather included findings from the questions in the interview guide that were directly linked to research questions (14 of 17 questions). For all questions, the relation to our RQs was indicated. We did a pilot run with a tool expert, and sent it to all interviewees plus 13 additional experts in the area. These experts worked at the companies, plus one additional automotive OEM and an automotive supplier. They were suggested by other participants based on their experience with RIMs. Of our respondents, 6 worked at automotive suppliers, 8 at OEMs, and 5 at tooling companies. The respondents could choose multiple roles, 12 selected tools and methods expert, 5 selected architect, and 4 developer. The survey included Likert-scale questions [@Likert1932] and open-ended questions to be answered in a text field. We used an online survey and received 19 out of 24 responses. For the analysis, we used R [@RProject2019], as well as NVivo [@NVivo2019] for the qualitative analysis of comments.
Threats to Validity
-------------------
We discuss threats to validity for mixed methods research by presenting threats to the qualitative and quantitative methods used, as well as threats arising from the combination of the two [@Wohlin2012; @Ihantola2011].
*Construct validity* is concerned with the appropriateness of our measurement tools for the topic being studied. It is potentially compromised by different interpretations of terms and constructs that our study focused on. An example of a term that could be interpreted differently was “requirements engineering practice”. We clarified the term by referring to the definition of requirements engineering practices that was also mentioned in Section \[sec:Background\] [@Davis2005]. Moreover, the term “requirements information models” might have been misunderstood by participants. To mitigate misunderstandings in the interviews, we also mentioned alternative terms (e.g., metamodel, artifact model) and gave concrete examples to clarify the concept. Also the survey started with an initial definition of RIMs using a concrete example. We made sure that the definition and examples were in line with the RIMs used in the systems engineering tool under study, so that also the systems engineering tool data and documentation could be analyzed based on the same constructs. The consistent use of constructs and theories in all used methods contributed to the overall construct validity of our research design.
*Internal validity* is concerned with confounding factors influencing the relationship between variables, treatment, and results obtained. We do not aim to arrive at conclusions about the impact of a treatment on certain variables, but explore the topic more openly. We focused on giving contextual information in the description of the participating companies and authentically reporting on the findings [@Ihantola2011]. Internal validity has been compromised, for instance, by incompletely identified aspects that motivate alignment and diversity. To capture initially unconsidered factors, we used data triangulation, using data from various quantitative and qualitative sources. Especially the interviews and use of systems engineering tool data allowed us to explore the topic without being restricted to variables from the start. To improve internal validity, we explicitly asked for additional relevant factors in the interviews and survey. Moreover, we aimed to reduce researcher bias by involving several researchers in the study and discussing findings throughout the process.
*Conclusion validity* is concerned with wrong conclusions about relationships in our findings—either finding relationships that do not actually exist or missing relationships. For instance, it might have happened that there exist unconsidered relationships between factors and the balance of alignment and diversity. The variety of research methods in our mixed methods design helped to improve conclusion validity and allowed us to triangulate findings related to existing or missing relationships. However, conclusion validity could be compromised by inaccurate measurement instruments. For the questionnaire, potential threats to reliability are that questions might not have been presented in the right order or that the questionnaire took too long [@Ihantola2011], which might have influenced conclusion validity. We started with a general explication of RIMs, followed by questions in the order of our research questions, and final demographic questions. Throughout the questionnaire, 13 text fields were used for comments and further suggestions. The questionnaire took 27 minutes on average, with a minimum of 9 minutes and a maximum of 60 minutes. We expect that constructing a questionnaire with an understandable structure and tolerable length helped us arrive at correct conclusions about relationships related to the phenomenon under study. When conducting systems engineering tool data analysis, we aimed to explore data in various ways (e.g., how often different entity types are instantiated) in parallel to conducting interviews, but could have missed relevant findings and relationships between factors. For interviews, threats involve issues prohibiting us from accurately investigating relevant relationships (e.g., a too strict interview guide or a lack of asking subsequent questions to understand underlying objectives and motivations of interviewees). To create an accurate interview guide, we created traceability between the interview questions and the research questions. The interview transcripts helped us to conduct systematic analysis of data and trace findings to evidence from the data.
*Reliability* is concerned with the consistency of our research method and whether researchers repeating the study would arrive at the same conclusions. We aimed to improve reliability by aiming for transparency about our research method and deduction of findings by providing our instruments for data collection as separate documents. We describe our analysis approach and use quotes for our findings to establish a clear chain of evidence.
*External validity* is concerned with generalizing research findings to other contexts. In this mixed methods study, we involved a limited number of participants that all operate in their specific environments and points in time in the development processes. There do not exist many practitioners who are knowledgeable in the area of RIMs and how to use them to balance the alignment and diversity of RE practices. For the systems engineering tool data, we only analyzed data from two companies. To mitigate the threat when performing semi-structured interviews, we collaborated with four companies and participants with different roles to consider several perspectives of the topic. The survey allowed us to collect data from further companies. We described the contexts of the companies so that other practitioners can compare characteristics and see what findings might be transferable. In Section \[sec:Discussion\], we discuss how transferable the findings might be to other contexts and domains.
RQ1: Reasons for Alignment and Diversity {#sec:why}
========================================
This section answers RQ1: *[ What factors motivate the need to support alignment and diversity in RIMs in large-scale automotive companies?]{}*
We found that when analyzing motivating factors for the alignment-diversity balance, there exist several factors supporting the importance of alignment, as well as of diversity. Alignment and diversity can be combined and are not necessarily opposites. We answer the following two sub-research questions, before summarizing our answers to RQ1 on a more general level:
**RQ1.1**: What factors motivate the need to support alignment in RIMs in large-scale automotive companies?
**RQ1.2**: What factors motivate the need to support diversity in RIMs in large-scale automotive companies?
We first describe our findings based on interviews, systems engineering tool data, and documentation. In Section \[sec:RQ1:reasons\], we summarize the findings and present the results of the survey regarding RQ1.
RQ1.1: Motivating the Need for Alignment
----------------------------------------
In the following, we present reasons for alignment in RIMs:
Alignment is mostly motivated by the need to facilitate integration, establish a common language, increase the quality of requirements, and adhere to standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Facilitated Integration
Six interviewees from all companies stated that an aligned RIM is needed to facilitate the integration of different functions and components, both internally and with suppliers. Basing the specification of requirements on a common ground helps creating a recognizable structure to facilitate the integration of the work of different teams. [A solution architect]{}stated that “a big stakeholder is the continuous integration machine” that requires users to follow the RIM and create prescriptive information understandable by a machine. [A concept leader]{}stressed that also when exchanging data with other tools and suppliers, it is crucial to align RIMs and facilitate the integration of the work products of different teams. [A tool and process analyst]{}explained that this is especially useful when different components are created by different teams:
[[a tool and process analyst]{}]{} We also have contracts on a requirements level, that both state what a component guarantees and what it requires.
If these contracts are captured in a formal model, they have to be adhered to in order to facilitate (continuous) integration.
### Common Language
RIMs help with the coordination between teams, [mitigate]{} misunderstandings, and [support]{} the efficiency and effectiveness of an automotive company. These aspects were explicitly mentioned by seven interviewees.
[[a concept leader]{}]{} The important thing is one information model, so that everyone speaks the same language. Electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and so on. When you talk about requirements, then you know what you talk about.
[A functional architect]{}pointed out that “it is necessary to have some common \[elements\], that we have a fairly common understanding of what they represent”, to make it easier to communicate between different teams and use common terms.
### Better Quality
Five of 11 interviewees stressed that creating requirements that follow a common RIM increases their quality. For this purpose, many large-scale companies support initiatives for common RE practices—not only with respect to the RIM, but, in general, by defining guidelines and styles. [A tools architect]{}stated that “standardized ways do not lead to quality on their own.” Three interviewees from OEMs pointed out that especially the testability of requirements raises the need to establish common practices. For instance, a RIM can support practitioners to create requirements on the right levels of granularity and establish consistent relationships to test cases. Our interviewees considered it beneficial to follow these practices in a consistent way throughout the organization, which can be encouraged by RIMs as boundary objects. Several interviewees also pointed out that better quality could be supported by tooling:
[[a requirements manager]{}]{} \[Better tool features\] would help, suggesting that you follow certain rules. \[...\] Sometimes we give a lot of freedom and the requirements are not so good.
### Standards {#sec:why:alignment:standards}
As safety is a prevalent concern in the automotive domain, common methods are followed to ensure compliance with ISO 26262 [@ISO26262]. This point was explicitly stressed by three interviewees, both from the tool supplier, the supplier, and OEM1. [A technical expert]{}explained that it was necessary to “formalize a lot of information.” Dedicated parts of the RIM were created to support the analysis of hazardous operational situations and the derivation of safety goals and requirements. [A tools and methods specialist]{}described the need to follow strict processes for these parts and work in aligned ways throughout the company. In a supplier company, safety documentation should also be aligned to “communicate it to customers” ([a methods and tools expert]{}).
RQ1.2: Motivating the Need for Diversity
----------------------------------------
Diversity is mostly motivated by the variety of disciplines involved in automotive engineering, the methods, natures of functions, and different techniques for elicitation. This section presents reasons for diversity in RIMs:
Diversity is mostly motivated by the variety of disciplines involved in automotive engineering, the methods, natures of functions, and different methods for elicitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Variety of Disciplines
Five of 11 interviewees named that different disciplines have different needs when it comes to RE practices. [A product owner]{}elaborated on the differences between mechanical engineering and other disciplines and that the general RIM has to be adapted to fit to the needs of mechanical engineers: “This way of thinking does not make sense for mechanical engineers.” Also, [a concept leader]{}saw challenges with consolidating the needs of different disciplines and supporting different methods used in these fields.
[[a concept leader]{}]{} Interfaces can be electrical, digital, analog, ... It’s not easy to do that when you work with people from all areas. Some have never seen hardware, some have never seen software.
The company decided to support diverse means of describing interfaces in the RIM, capturing the needs of all disciplines. [A product owner]{}explained how interfaces in mechanical engineering describe, for instance, to how “a seat is connected to the floor” and are modeled in computer-aided design (CAD) models. In electrical engineering, interfaces between ECUs (Electronic Control Units) are captured in signal databases, indicating what signals with data types and initial values are used. OEM1 uses a dedicated change management system to keep track of requests to change signals in these databases and their requirements. Interfaces in the software engineering domain can refer to abstract entity types defining method signatures that can be implemented by classes. Using the RIM as a boundary object, practitioners can create artifacts of the entity type Interface, with a common understanding across sites, but also select precise subtypes of Interface to meet the specific interpretations of teams.
### Different Methods
Three interviewees stated that RIMs should support both plan-driven and agile ways of working. In fact, all of the participating companies are transitioning to agile methods. Different methods are also used in different disciplines, as mentioned by five interviewees. For instance, mechanical engineers at OEM2 create CAD models and describe product-related information in a specialized product lifecycle management (PLM) tool, whereas software development teams at SUP write source code in an integrated development environment, version the source code in the version control system Git[^3], and use the issue and project tracking software JIRA to keep track of changes[^4]. [A product owner]{}explained that, for instance, the start of production is less relevant for software developers working with continuous deployment than for other roles.
[A functional architect]{}elaborated that requirements are used for several purposes: In the traditional way of working in automotive, projects are concerned with evolving sets of requirements to address a defined purpose of a project. In scenarios where suppliers and OEMs collaborate, the concrete methods change depending on the tools, individuals, functionality, legal contracts, and business relationships. Furthermore, product documentation needs to be created and maintained, defining what requirements the product fulfills and serving as a reference for maintenance and aftermarket purposes. When adopting agile methods, a backlog with epics, features, and stories is typically used to specify what software or systems aspects should be changed or added in a certain time interval. A RIM should support these different ways of working with projects, products, and backlogs.
### Different Nature of Functions {#sec:sec:differentNature}
The different characteristics of functions are also reflected in the RIM and the entity types that should be specified. This aspect came up in three interviews. At OEM1, there exist functions for which the contexts in which a vehicle is situated is absolutely crucial for the requirements (e.g., the way headlamps should work depend on the road conditions, time of the day, weather, and location). For other functions, these contexts are not important to specify, but user interface requirements should be described and modeled (e.g., for the central display). Some functions require detailed descriptions of the scenarios, i.e., every step involved in the execution of a function.
At OEM2, use cases can consist of high-level descriptions of a function’s purpose or formal description of a course of events:
[[a tools architect]{}]{} For a phone, use cases might be enough, but for control \[systems engineering\], you need scenarios to describe the expected behavior.
Moreover, it matters whether a function is a customer-specific or a generic function. [A tool and process analyst]{}saw “a difference between customer-specific and generic functions and how we find a way to implement the customer-specific functions.” For customer-specific functions, the RIM should allow for the inclusion of particular details that facilitate the integration in the customer’s end product. A RIM needs to support ways of capturing contexts, user interface requirements, scenarios, or customer-specific details for some functions, but not necessarily in the same way for all functions.
### Creative Tasks and Elicitation
When it comes to elicitation, different RE practices are supported, that also require diverse tool and modeling support. Six interviewees gave examples of how use cases can be modeled with different styles: the more formal description with basic course of events, but also high-level use case summaries. At OEM1, it is also possible to create state charts to describe high-level behavior as a part of a use case. [A requirements manager]{}stated that “tons of different methods” for requirements elicitation have been described over the years.
![Survey responses w.r.t. reasons for alignment and diversity: “We need alignment/diversity in our RIM to support...” (n = 19)[]{data-label="fig:why"}](div_alignment_why){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Reasons for the Alignment-Diversity Balance {#sec:RQ1:reasons}
-------------------------------------------
This section has presented factors supporting the need for alignment, as well as factors for diversity in RIMs. We found that alignment is needed to facilitate integration, establish a common language, create requirements of better quality, and support the compliance with standards. At the same time, different disciplines, methods, functions of different nature, and elicitation practices require diversity in RIMs and practices. All factors are relevant and co-exist in large-scale automotive organizations. [A solution architect]{}stated that finding the alignment-diversity balance “is about finding the right, common \[aligned parts of RIMs\] and still some freedom, how to work within some boundaries.”
Figure \[fig:why\] shows the survey results regarding the need to support both alignment and diversity. It can be seen that our respondents agree with the motivators for alignment, and gave more mixed answers on reasons for diversity. A developer working at a supplier stated in the comments that “*diversity is good, but can also lead to too many styles and technical debt. Ideally the structure of different levels of requirements can be set early on, allowing not too much customizing.*” We observed a difference in the roles: 75% of the respondents who stated that they were tools and methods experts agreed or strongly agreed that different disciplines (e.g., mechanical engineering, software engineering) raise the need for diversity, whereas 100% of the respondents that were no tools and methods experts agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Depending on the position in the company, diversity and alignment appear to be more or less observable. 20% of the respondents working at the automotive supplier agreed with the statement that diversity is needed to support different development methods, whereas 56% of the OEM employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. As fewer disciplines are involved in the development at the supplier company SUP and more homogeneous development groups exist, the need to support different methods is not observed as much as in other types of companies. However, supplier employees are more concerned with functions having different characteristics, e.g., generic functions vs. customer-specific ones (see Section \[sec:sec:differentNature\]). Respondents working at a supplier agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that diversity is needed because functions have different characteristics (67%), whereas of the respondents employed at OEMs 44% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
In the comments, also the need for aligning RE practices to support reuse was stressed. A tools and methods expert from a supplier stated that alignment leads to a “better dialogue and framework for the engineers to understand and get inspired by each other.”
RQ2: How to Enable Alignment and Diversity {#sec:enablers}
==========================================
This section answers RQ2: *[How do RIMs enable the balance of alignment and diversity of RE practices in large-scale automotive companies?]{}*
We understood that to enable the balance, mechanisms are needed to enable alignment, as well as diversity. We answer the following sub-research questions in the following:
**RQ2.1**: How do RIMs enable alignment of RE practices in large-scale automotive organizations?
**RQ2.2**: How do RIMs enable diversity of RE practices in large-scale automotive organizations?
We leveraged systems engineering tool data and documentation to analyze how alignment and diversity are enabled. To better understand rationales and motivations, we complemented this data with findings from interviews. In Section \[sec:survey:RQ2\], we summarize the findings and present the results of the survey regarding RQ2.
RQ2.1: Enablers for Alignment
-----------------------------
With respect to aspects enabling alignment in RIMs, we arrived at the following finding:
RIMs support alignment by allowing to specify entity types and relationships, establishing common attributes, consistency checks, maturity levels, and Definition of Done criteria.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[t\] ![Excerpt of a minimal RIM at OEM2 with aligned aspects[]{data-label="fig:alignedmm"}](aligned_mm "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
Figures \[fig:alignedmm\] and \[fig:sup\] show minimal excerpts of RIMs. Each box represents an entity type in the model. Attributes of an entity type are shown under the name of the entity type and are indicated with a plus sign (+). There exist several subtypes of *Requirement*. Moreover, a relationship exists between *Test Case* and *Requirement*.
### Specification of Entity Types and Relationships
Traditionally, automotive companies have worked based on documents with requirements specifications that were exchanged between different teams. According to the experience of stakeholders of all companies, with the establishment of a common tool, aligned concepts need to be established and the semantics of pieces of information are described more precisely. Seven interviewees mentioned this point explicitly and 89% of the survey respondents agreed that alignment is supported by the specification of entity types and relationships. [A solution architect]{}phrased this as follows:
[[a solution architect]{}]{} \[The systems engineering tool\] is like a model of an organization. It is like a map of how things work. \[...\] In an organization based on documents, \[...\] you have more freedom and can just interpret things differently. But if you have this formal model with connections, and something is not connected, \[...\] then it needs to be fixed.
*Specifying entity types in a RIM* enables the [alignment of RE practices]{}, because it establishes [common concepts with clear semantics to reflect the ways of working in the organization]{}. Also the relationships are of crucial importance, to see how artifacts of different types are connected. *Specifying the relationships of entity types* has an [enabling]{} impact on [alignment of RE practices]{}, because [they establish ways to connect artifacts of different entity types based on their context and ensure traceability]{}. According to [a concept leader]{}, a common, but limited set of requirements entity types helped to align how stakeholders view requirements and work with them. Concretely, the common subtypes of OEM2 are *Behavioral*, *Structural*, *Way of Working*, *Non-Functional Requirement*, and *Use Case*. Behavioral requirements specify the behavior of a part of the vehicle, whereas structural requirements are concerned with the relation of different parts and their compositions. Way of working requirements specify related working procedures that engineers should follow.
![Excerpt of a minimal RIM at SUP with aligned aspects[]{data-label="fig:sup"}](ExampleSup){width="\linewidth"}
These requirement types are used in different phases in the development lifecycle, starting from early phases in which new functionality is described, to high-level design, and the concrete development of systems and components. At OEM1 and SUP, entity types for each of these phases are defined, e.g., *Functional Requirement*, *Design Requirement*, or *Software Requirement*. At SUP, there exists a dedicated entity type for *Customer Requirement*. Table \[tab:instanceSUP\] gives an overview of the entity types from the example excerpt, the number of times they have been instantiated, and the number of relationships to instances of the entity types.
[>p[0.39]{}>p[0.15]{}>p[0.32]{}]{} Entity Type & No. ofinstances & No. of relationships to instances Test Case & 161,499 & 69,700 Customer Requirements & 2262 & 4911 Functional Requirements & 29,255 & 127,694 Software Requirements & 4995 & 12,682 Use Case & 7986 & 2316 Non-Functional Requirements & 5231 & 1613
In OEM2, the idea is that the level of abstraction or role for the development process can be understood from artifacts of other entity types pointing to the requirements (e.g., Function, System, or Component).
### Mandatory Attributes
Requirement IDs and mandatory attributes, e.g., asking stakeholders to set the priority of a requirement, are ways to align RE practices. Attributes should especially be standardized when the goal is to collaborate with suppliers or other companies. Six interviewees mentioned that an identifier for a requirement is absolutely necessary for this purpose. However, it was stressed as important that there should not be too many mandatory attributes.
[[a product owner]{}]{} We don’t want too many default compulsory attributes because people won’t fill it in. And attributes should be self-explanatory. If it is compulsory you should get an error message.
### Active Management through Consistency Checks and DoD Criteria
Six interviewees stated that consistency checks, Definition of Done criteria, and maturity levels are mechanisms connected to the RIM that enable alignment. They are most commonly used at SUP. Consistency checks are especially used if the information is used in a prescriptive way, to create code or other artifacts.
[[a solution architect]{}]{} If you compile it, it is more crucial. And then the awareness of the need to keep things connected and consistent becomes much stronger in the organization.
Another solution architect stressed that maturity levels could help ensuring consistency at an appropriate point in time:
[[a solution architect]{}]{} We could also add maturity levels and a workflow to check it. To reach status released, some condition should be fulfilled. \[...\] In an early stage, you can release items with a low maturity level, but then \[...\] a lot more checks will be done.
Also Definition of Done criteria enable alignment. Typical criteria are to ensure that all entity types of the safety-related parts of the information model have been instantiated or that all software requirements have a relation to test cases.
RQ2.2: Enablers for Diversity
-----------------------------
Diversity is enabled by supporting generic relationships, creating new subtypes with time, providing free text fields, and supporting several ways of organizing backlogs and projects.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Generic Relationships
Systems engineering tools typically support generic relationships between information of arbitrary entity types, either as a special relationship (“refers to”) or as hyperlinks. Three interviewees explicitly reported that generic relationships are used to support diverse ways of modeling and following RE practices. It is a powerful means to flexibly relate information.
According to [a methods and tools expert]{}and [a solution architect]{}, issues arise when circular references are created using these generic relationships or when information should be released. The amount of control over information connected with relationships is limited.
### Creation of New Entity Types and Attributes
In one of the used systems engineering tools, the metamodel can be extended at run-time, for instance, to add new entity types and attributes. This feature was stressed by three interviewees. [A product owner]{}explained that the entity type Interface got split into Mechanical, Electrical, and Software Interface to better capture diverse needs. Also, both mandatory and optional attributes can be added and removed easily. [A tools architect]{}from OEM2 suggested that the company should teach that mandatory attributes have to be filled in, but it should teach also how to add optional attributes whenever needed.
### Free Text Fields
Four interviewees reported that descriptions in plain text enable diverse RE practices, as there do not exist any limitations with respect to the content, structure, or style of the texts. Free text fields bring the advantage that people can add information in different ways, with varying levels of detail. At the same time, it is not always followed as intended:
[[a solution architect]{}]{} People often express more than one requirement in one item. \[...\] We want single, clear requirements. There are also different use case styles.
### Flexible Use of Backlogs
In six interviews, the flexible use of backlogs was mentioned as an enabler for diversity. In all companies, the systems engineering tools under study are complemented by tools to manage backlogs, issues, and projects. The scope of the aligned RIMs is limited to the systems engineering tools, while backlogs are typically managed in separate tools focusing on the “delta” ([a requirements manager]{}, OEM2). While the information captured in the systems engineering tools should describe the product characteristics as a common reference, backlogs are rather used to organize what should be changed and for prioritization.
[[a concept leader]{}]{} The backlog describes what should be prioritized. And there the agile release trains should have the freedom. But \[with the RIM\] you have a well-defined interface that you should act towards.
[A methods and tools expert]{}mentioned that in some cases, items exist in the backlog that point to the need of updating the requirements in the systems engineering tool.
Enablers for the Alignment and Diversity {#sec:survey:RQ2}
----------------------------------------
In this section, we discussed several ways in which alignment and diversity are enabled. Enablers for alignment are the formal specification of entity types and relationships in a RIM, mandatory attributes, consistency checks, and DoD criteria. Diversity of RE practices is enabled by generic relationships, the extension of the RIM with new entity types and attributes, free text fields, and the flexible creation of backlog items. The practices do not exclude each other and are used in different phases, as we will describe in the next section.
Figure \[fig:how\] shows the survey results regarding enablers for the alignment and diversity. The respondents working at a supplier company gave slightly different answers than the remaining respondents: 100% of the supplier employees stated that diversity is enabled by managing tasks and backlogs in other tools, by defining subtypes (100% agreed or strongly agreed), and alignment is achieved by providing templates (100% agreed or strongly agreed). Of the respondents not employed at a supplier, 67% agreed or strongly agreed with each of these statements. The supplier company under study was the only one with a tool to manage backlogs which was used in all teams in the company (albeit with different tailored flavors in the concrete methods), and also templates were introduced with a company-wide strategy in this case. For the other companies, tools and templates are introduced and recommended, but not with fixed company-wide rules. These aspects influence what respondents regard as enablers for the alignment-diversity balance. In the comments, the participants referred to how strongly they used the enablers so far. A tools and methods experts from an OEM stated that “we shall implement consistency checks but right now they are not in place.”
![Survey responses about enabling alignment and diversity: “We enable alignment/diversity using...” (n = 19)[]{data-label="fig:how"}](div_alignment_how){width="\linewidth"}
RQ3: Balancing Alignment and Diversity {#sec:actions}
======================================
This section answers RQ3: *[What actions can be observed when large-scale automotive companies balance alignment and diversity using their RIMs?]{}* To answer this research question, we analyzed what actions our participants described in the development lifecycle of their RIMs. We found that they relate to different phases, from the RIMs’ initial creation until the deprecation of elements. We describe our findings based on interviews, survey responses, systems engineering tool data, and documentation. Figure \[fig:changes\] shows the survey responses regarding RQ3.
![Survey responses regarding change of RIMs (n = 19)[]{data-label="fig:changes"}](changes){width="\linewidth"}
When balancing alignment and diversity, we observe that practitioners carefully relate the lifecycle of the RIM and the lifecycle of concrete requirements instantiations. The lifecycle of concrete requirements requires diversity in early phases, but alignment especially as the product is released. Alignment can be ensured by consistency checks, whereas practitioners support diversity by evolving the RIM based on needs observed with concrete requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[h\] ![Lifecycles of RIMs and concrete requirements (letters refer to the subsections below)[]{data-label="fig:actions"}](actions "fig:"){width="0.85\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:actions\] gives an overview of the lifecycles of RIMs and concrete requirements. The RIM is initially defined and then instantiated for the creation of concrete requirements and product releases. Based on the lifecycle of concrete requirements, periods of change and stability are triggered in the RIM, and eventually the deprecation of RIM elements. Each phase in the figure is marked with the letter of the subsection describing it. The following subsections will elaborate on the phases.
Initial Definition of RIM
-------------------------
The initial definition of the RIM sets up entity types and their relationships, as well as attributes. For instance, at SUP, the early definition took between 6 to 12 months. It was driven by tool experts within the company and support by a tool supplier. All interviewees elaborated on their experiences with the initial definition of the RIM. For tool suppliers, situations exist in which it is difficult to get good input for the early definition of the RIM:
[[a technical expert]{}]{} We come with proposals, don’t get much feedback and then we launch the solutions and people start using it. But we don’t get many definitions or needs or processes or anything.
[A tools architect]{}suggested to minimize the time between the early definition and the adoption by users. According to this interviewee’s experience, it is problematic if you “want to measure and evaluate things exactly, rather than collecting feedback from users.” Our respondents stated that early on entity types and relationships (89%) and attributes (83%) should be defined. 64% of our participants stated that consistency checks are not enforced in this early stage.
Creation of Concrete Requirements
---------------------------------
Once an initial definition of the RIM has been set up, users start adopting practices and instantiating it. Three interviewees reported on the observed change as more and more users create requirements based on the RIM. During the creation of concrete requirements, our companies use trainings to communicate new practices. All of our survey respondents agree or strongly agree that entity types and attributes should be stable in this phase. Consistency checks become more strongly enforced with time, as stated by 81%. However, as [a requirements manager]{}stated, in the beginning of the instantiation phase alignment is not strongly enforced and the goal is to be pragmatic:
[[a requirements manager]{}]{} We sometimes need to be quick and pragmatic and write requirements that are not so good right now, just to have something we can work with. And then we have to catch up in the end.
Release of Concrete Requirements
--------------------------------
94% of our participants agreed that alignment is more important in certain phases, e.g., when releasing the product. Four interviewees explicitly stated that releases are planned as part of a start of production, but sometimes also as part of every sprint.
[[a tools architect]{}]{} If you have a very early prototype of something, you only want to get the principles right. If you are at the start of production, you need to have all details there. \[...\] More things should be enforced when you are closer to the start of production.
In the comments, an architect from an OEM pointed out that after a bigger release, when new development of a new platform is planned, the conceptual solution for requirements can be changed. Otherwise, it should be stable.
Initiating Change in a RIM {#sec:actions:initiatingChange}
--------------------------
With an overlap to the cycle in which a RIM is used to create concrete requirements, it also is changed by itself. There are different ways to support change/refinement, as mentioned by 7 interviewees. [A tools and methods specialist]{}stressed that changes can happen due to the introduction of new technology, new standards, new methods, or a new organization. An example of a change in the RIM of the systems engineering tool at OEM2 was when support for functional safety analysis was extended, which meant that new entity types (e.g., “Hazardous Event”, and “Safety Goal”) and their relationships were added to the RIM. With changing technologies for vehicle messaging protocols (e.g., CAN, FlexRay, MOST), the metamodel is adjusted as well, for instance, to represent new or remove deprecated entity types. A change with a greater impact was initiated as agile methods were introduced and organizations were restructured. OEM2 created a dedicated team working with the RIM, analyzing the needs of different disciplines, and establishing a solution that also considered continuous integration. In these situations, the ways of structuring functional requirements on a high level, keeping track of variability, and ensuring a traceable tool chain are revisited. For instance, OEM2 changed the variability-related parts of the RIM. Different ways of modeling are possible: Creating relationships from each requirement to the variants it is valid for, or managing variability models that link to the functions and requirements included in a certain variant. Design decisions in the RIM are frequently rethought and can be implemented quickly, as the tool in use allows flexible changes to the RIM.
[A tool and process analyst]{}pointed out that the company tries to minimize change and avoid confusing the end users:
[[a tool and process analyst]{}]{} The \[RIM\] was changed because new areas were added, for example, risk analysis. We have not changed the \[RIM\] all the time to not increase the confusion.
There are different approaches to initiating change. At SUP, the tendency was rather to conduct ad-hoc changes and focused initiatives. Committees have been used at OEM1 and OEM2, sometimes involving stakeholders from TOOL.
### Ad-hoc changes
Three interviewees gave examples of ad-hoc changes that they faced. [A tools architect]{}from OEM2 stated that previously, metamodel changes were performed in an ad-hoc way, changes were done to see how they affected the usage, and then potentially reversed. In small communities with 200–250 users, it is also easier to select whom to involve in decisions.
[[a tools architect]{}]{} If you have such a small community, you understand who is just picking on everything, and who is an expert in the subject.
### Committees
These groups evaluate a potential change and implement it when they are convinced of its quality. Four interviewees reported on their experiences in committees. [A technical expert]{}mentioned that “committees work more like a waterfall. It takes a long time to get decisions.” At SUP, a community has been established to control change in a lightweight way: “We have a community, put in the need to change \[...\], then people can comment and vote” ([a methods and tools expert]{}).
### Focused Initiatives
Initiatives are conducted for a limited period of time and focus on particular aspects of a RIM (e.g., variability). Six interviewees had been actively involved in such initiatives. [A requirements manager]{}mentioned that their initiative “involved people from different departments”, but that it also has been “a decision on management level” to change the RIM in a certain way. At OEM1, the involved participants worked with a test database to evaluate changes in a separate environment. [A technical expert]{}stated that key stakeholders are needed for successful initiatives: “You need the ‘right’ stakeholders, who understand alternative ways of working and can understand advantages and drawbacks of ideas.”
Period of Change {#sec:actions:periodChange}
----------------
Periods of change happen as part of ad-hoc changes, work in committees, or focused initiatives. Three interviewees explicitly mentioned that periods with series of changes exist. This point was especially reported by interviewees from TOOL, having been involved in several endeavors to conduct change at several companies over the years. 71% of our survey respondents stated that a change typically triggers a series of changes. [A solution architect]{}explained how different people change the RIM in parallel, which is why they tried to modularize it.
[[a solution architect]{}]{} We know that our types and relationships will touch each other. We want to modularize the RIM. \[...\] And as long as we don’t touch the interfaces, we can change things inside our modules.
Another task in periods of change is to refactor instantiated data. [A tools and methods specialist]{}stated that “it is easy in the early phases of a project, but harder with more products.”
Period of Stability {#sec:actions:periodStability}
-------------------
69% of the survey participants stated that a state of stability is reached after a series of changes. [A tool and process analyst]{}stressed that “there are different actors that perform changes until we come to a stable place. And that stable place might go through another iteration.” The periods of stability are also related to the cycle of the instantiated data. [A tool and process analyst]{}stated that “after changing, usually the team that has requested the change is happy and reaches some stability in their work”, but that new changes arise to improve the alignment with the rest of the organization. [A tools and methods specialist]{}stated that periods of change are followed by periods of stability. Initially, “people are free, don’t think formally, they try things out. And later on there is a shift in mentalities. Then version management gets more important.” This implies that the desired characteristics of the RIM differ, depending on the position of requirements in the requirements lifecycle. [A methods and tools expert]{}mentioned that currently, the company is in a rather stable phase.
[[a methods and tools expert]{}]{} The \[RIM\] should be stable, we can maybe update 1-2 things, but not everything at once. We have most of the things in place now. We are in the phase that the changes are a handful, and the difficult thing is to make architects agree.
Deprecation of Elements in RIM
------------------------------
Three interviewees pointed to the need of deprecating unused elements in the RIM. Rather than removing them, the companies prohibit the new creation of instances of the entity types:
[[a solution architect]{}]{} Deprecating things means that you cannot create them anymore. Old release data should be kept in the systems engineering tool, because sometimes you maybe have to touch it.
[A tool and process analyst]{}mentioned that one should understand how the RIM is instantiated and used, so that only unused elements are deprecated. At SUP, for instance, 30 entity types are deprecated, whereas at OEM2, 27 deprecated types related to requirements exist. Deprecated types often arise when stakeholders try out ways of modeling parts of the RIM and see the need to adjust it, while keeping the already instantiated data for maintenance purposes.
Balancing Alignment and Diversity with RIMs
-------------------------------------------
The survey responses in Figure \[fig:changes\] indicate that our participants agree or strongly agree that types and attributes should be stable when the RIM is instantiated and concrete requirements are created (100%) and that consistency checks should be more strongly enforced at that point in time (81%). Also the fact that alignment is more important in certain phases was agreed with (94%). We found a discrepancy in the answers related to consistency checks not being enforced in early phases: 83% of the tools and methods experts agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, while 25% of those who are no tools and methods expert agreed or strongly agreed with it. Those who are not tools and methods experts are not involved in the early definition of the RIM and therefore potentially interpret “early phases” differently.
RQ4: Suggestions for Managing RIMs {#sec:suggestions}
==================================
This sections answers RQ4: *[What are suggestions for managing RIMs to balance alignment and diversity of RE practices?]{}* Figure \[fig:guidelines\] shows an overview of the suggestions with the participants’ ranking. In this section, we report on the suggestions based on our data from interviews and the survey.
![Survey responses regarding suggestions to manage RIMs (n = 19)[]{data-label="fig:guidelines"}](guidelines){width="\linewidth"}
Include Key Stakeholders
------------------------
One of the reported concerns when initiating change is to find suitable participants. Six participants stated that it is good to involve end users, especially when changing the RIM. Finding people who are not “just picking on everything” ([a tools architect]{}from OEM2), but understand trade-offs, is important for a successful balance of alignment and diversity. We capture this advice in the first suggestion:
Make sure you know the key stakeholders and include them to understand early what parts need to be aligned.
89% of our survey respondents ranked this suggestion as very or extremely valuable. In the comments, a tools and methods expert stated that “with more than 3 stakeholders, early development slows down.”
Aim for Alignment Mainly on High-Level Aspects
----------------------------------------------
A RIM can include entity types on different levels of abstraction. For instance, Functional Requirements are on a higher level than Software Requirements. An interviewee argued that “it is important to keep alignment on the top levels but allow variability on the lower levels” ([a functional architect]{}). We reflect this in the following suggestion:
Establish a common (aligned) structure to organize high-level functionality and requirements of your product, but allow different modeling styles on a lower level.
67% of our survey respondents ranked this suggestion as very or extremely valuable. An expert from a tooling company ranked the suggestion as not at all valuable and stated that “for the lower levels \[alignment is\] even more important since it is required to be able to generate machine readable output.” We see the benefit in using information to generate other artifacts and the need to have this prescriptive information in a suitable, aligned form. However, for the aligned understanding of RIMs across team borders as a boundary object, high-level information was reported to be more relevant.
Evaluate RIM Changes with Few Users
-----------------------------------
During the initial definition of the RIM, stakeholders are more flexible than when data has already been instantiated based on the RIM. Our interviewees stated that periods of stability make change more difficult (Section \[sec:actions:periodStability\]). For this reason, three interviewees suggested to evaluate changes with a few users to avoid unnecessary changes in the future.
Evaluate changes in the RIM in a small group of users, because changes will become more difficult with time.
72% of our respondents ranked this suggestion as very or extremely valuable. In the comments, it was stressed that the group of involved users should be diverse.
Provide Entity Types for Artifacts with Special Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------
When discussing the need for alignment based on standards (see Section \[sec:why:alignment:standards\]), our interviewees stressed that information with special procedures should be specifically classified in the RIM. For instance, artifacts produced during safety analyses are created and reviewed with particular processes and should be easily identifiable in the tool. Also, the classification of non-functional requirements can be used to derive the need for additional tests.
Consider creating a separate requirement type or attribute for requirements that need special testing/safety/release procedures.
This suggestion was ranked as very or extremely valuable by 61% of the respondents. In the comments, examples were given for procedures depending on whether a requirement is a safety requirement or not. Of the respondents employed at a supplier, 17% ranked this guideline as very or extremely valuable, whereas 67% of the OEM employees ranked the guideline as very or extremely valuable. The created procedures and methods within the companies differ and OEMs have a wider spectrum of methods, e.g., for integration tests on several levels.
Create a Path with Minimal Information
--------------------------------------
[A tool and process analyst]{}stated that depending on the complexity of a function, more or less information is needed, e.g., with respect to the detail of the specification of alternative scenarios. [A tools architect]{}phrased this point as “a short path” to make people fill in relevant information in an easy way.
The interviewee gave an example of interfaces to other teams’ artifacts that need to be defined as part of the short path. However, other relationships might be optional and not used by every team in an organization.
In the RIM, define a minimal amount of information that needs to be filled in (e.g., attributes of requirements), but allow users to add more details later if needed.
This suggestion was found to be at least moderately valuable by 83% of the respondents. In the comments, two participants warned that if the minimal amount of information is too limited, too large differences between practices could arise.
Aim for High Genericity
-----------------------
We found that in some cases as a consequence of changes, new subtypes are created that have the same relationships and attributes as the super-types. Three interviewees regarded that as a suboptimal solution. [A methods and tools expert]{}suggested “to only create subtypes if you have different attributes, otherwise use the higher-level type.”
Keep the RIM as general as possible. Create subtypes only if they possess special attributes or relationships.
This suggestion was considered very or extremely valuable by 78% of the respondents. A tools and methods expert stated that this suggestion is risky if an entity type is used “for various purposes.”
Favor Training and Flexibility over Strong Restrictions
-------------------------------------------------------
Generic relationships are problematic when they are used extensively and it would be wiser to use typed relationships instead. At SUP, one idea was to prohibit generic relationships. [A methods and tools expert]{}“cannot see how to force people to do it right” by disabling tool features. The interviewee saw the need to “have a better discussion of what is good.” Four interviewees suggested to focus on training and communication.
Align practices via training and communication instead of restricting the RIM too strongly.
56% of our survey respondents ranked this suggestion as very or extremely valuable. Of those who were tools and methods experts, 62% considered this guideline very or extremely valuable. On the other hand, of those who were no tools and methods experts, 43% considered this guideline very or extremely valuable. A developer stressed that tool users should be educated as early as possible.
Discussion {#sec:Discussion}
==========
This paper extends the body of knowledge on how requirements information models are evolved in practice to balance alignment and diversity of requirements engineering practices in automotive companies.
Reasons for Alignment and Diversity
-----------------------------------
We explored reasons to support alignment and diversity of RE practices to answer *RQ1* (Section \[sec:why\]):
**Summary (RQ1):** Alignment is mostly motivated by the need to facilitate integration, establish a common language, increase the quality of requirements, and adhere to standards. Diversity is mostly motivated by the variety of disciplines involved in automotive engineering, the methods, natures of functions, and different techniques for elicitation.
There exist only few approaches in the related literature that consider and support diverse or tailored practices in the context of RIMs (e.g., @Weber2002). Generally, the assumption is that one common RIM can be created and used within an organization—and our findings confirm that there are indeed good reasons for it. While our survey respondents generally agreed with the reasons for alignment, there were more mixed answers on reasons for diversity. We found differences in the survey responses of OEM employees and respondents working at a supplier: For instance, different development methods were considered a reason for diversity by more OEM employees, while supplier employees more commonly regarded functions with different characteristics as a reason. Clearly, the context and the organizational setting influence what the exact underlying reasons for diversity and alignment are.
Enablers of Alignment and Diversity
-----------------------------------
To our knowledge, consolidation of these concerns in a RIM has not received attention of research so far (our *RQ2*). We found that RIMs can enable the balance of alignment and diversity of RE practices (Section \[sec:enablers\]).
**Summary (RQ2):** RIMs support alignment by allowing to specify entity types and relationships, establishing common attributes, consistency checks, maturity levels, and Definition of Done criteria. Diversity is enabled by supporting generic relationships, creating new subtypes with time, providing free text fields, and supporting several ways of organizing backlogs and projects. While many of these enabling mechanisms were known before, our study sheds light on how they can be leveraged for the purpose of balancing alignment and diversity. Related work on information models proclaims the need to capture concerns of various stakeholders using specialized entity types and relationships (e.g., [@Braun2005]). The lack of DoD criteria was found to be problematic and compromising a shared understanding, which stresses their importance for alignment [@Moe2012]. Moreover, related work confirms the need to create traceability for artifacts of diverse types with meaningful link types [@Gotel1994].
Actions to Balance Alignment and Diversity
------------------------------------------
Even though this trade-off is difficult to manage, we found a set of actions *(RQ3)* for systematic balancing between the two extremes.
**Summary (RQ3):** The lifecycle of concrete requirements influences the lifecycle of RIMs and how they are changed (Section \[sec:actions\]). Existing requirements engineering approaches are (at least implicitly) based on the assumption that their forms do not change. Our findings examine how RIMs are created, extended, and evolved over time at three companies in automotive, supported by a tool supplier. Concrete actions include the initial definition of the RIM during several months, ad-hoc changes, changes in committees or in focused initiatives, releases, and the deprecation of elements in the RIM.
Our findings suggest that, in practice, alignment is actually more enforced at later stages of the requirements lifecycle, when all requirements should be of consistently high quality. After an initial definition of the RIM, as requirements are created and products released, the RIM undergoes periods of change and stability, and elements are potentially deprecated. The phases relate to some of the process activities described by John et al. [@John1999], but are not only based on concrete requirements, but also on how the RIM evolves. While several RIMs have been proposed by related work, there is a lack of focus on how RIMs are changed and refined throughout their lifecycles. To support agile methods and organizational change in practice, the need to evolve tool support and processes has been identified [@Shahrokni2016], in particular, when adopting model-driven engineering [@Hutchinson2011]. When evolving RIMs and managing change, *model merging* can support the alignment of models created and changed by distributed teams [@Brunet2006]. In the future, longitudinal studies can be conducted to investigate in-depth what actions practitioners take and how they manifest in RIMs and systems engineering tool data.
Suggestions for Balancing Alignment and Diversity
-------------------------------------------------
**Summary (RQ4):** Our suggestions (Section \[sec:suggestions\]) are to include key stakeholders, evaluate changes with few users, and focus on the alignment of high-level aspects. The importance of connecting requirements to the product level has been raised before [@Gorschek2006]. New entity types should only be created with good reasons (e.g., if special procedures, attributes, or relationships exist) and training and flexibility appear more beneficial than strong restrictions. Moreover, we suggest to create a path with minimal information—allowing stakeholders to establish the core requirements early on and to extend them when more knowledge has been gathered. This suggestion relates to Waterman’s suggestions of keeping designs simple and delaying decision making, but planning for options in the area of agile architecture [@Waterman2018]. Such a path of minimal information in the RIM can also support agile development in large-scale automotive companies.
Impact on Practice and Research
-------------------------------
*Impact for practitioners:* The provided insights from four companies show how mechanisms in RIMs can help to address practical needs, what underlying reasons for alignment and diversity need to be balanced, and how diversity and alignment can be enabled by RIMs. Our study helps stakeholders to see RIMs not as a rigid structure, but understand their RIMs’ lifecycles and what actions can be taken to achieve a balance between diversity and alignment. Moreover, practitioners can leverage the suggestions and use them to manage the balance of alignment and diversity in their organizations.
*Impact for researchers:* Our study provides a better understanding of the practical trade-off of alignment and diversity. We contributed to the knowledge base by investigating the evolution of RIMs over time and how they can be used to support diverse and aligned RE practices. The concrete motivations, practices, and causalities raised here can facilitate future research. As agile methods with their focus on reflection and continuous improvement become more common, also the need to evolve tool support and information models arises. We hope to inspire research on creating methods and techniques to support the evolution and analyze the instantiation of RIMs.
While our findings are based on data that we collected within the automotive domain, we expect several of the findings to also be transferable to other large-scale systems and software engineering contexts. Due to the large variety of disciplines in automotive [@Weber2002; @Ebert2017; @Broy2007], the heterogeneity of functions, and the supplier-OEM relationships, the need for diversity appears to be even more pronounced than in other industries. Future studies will examine the applicability of our findings and suggestions in other domains.
Conclusions and Outlook
=======================
As organizations scale up and multiple teams conduct software and systems engineering in distributed setups, alignment and diversity of RE practices becomes an important topic. The trade-off of alignment and diversity is directly observable in requirements information models (RIMs), as they manifest the common or diverse view of requirements and serve as boundary objects. This paper explored the phenomenon of alignment and diversity in RIMs, including underlying reasons, enabling factors, actions that practitioners take, and suggestions for managing RIMs to balance alignment and diversity in large-scale automotive contexts. A key observation relates to the role of the lifecycle of the requirements information model, and of the concrete requirements (instantiating concepts of the RIM). A suitable RIM should not overspecify and limit RE practices where it is not necessary. The necessity for diversity appears to be strongest early in the requirements lifecycle, while the necessity for alignment becomes strongest close to the release. Moreover, practitioners struggle with balancing need for stability of the metamodel to enable RE practices and the need to keep the RIM up to date with changing needs. With a slow release cycle, periods of stability and change can be aligned with the concrete requirements lifecycle. We foresee a future with more rapid release cycles that will also have stronger demands on the evolution of the RIM. Our findings indicate that such a future would benefit from better support for such evolution.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We are very grateful for the support of the participants involved in this study.
This work was partially supported by the Software Center Project 27 on RE for Large-Scale Agile System Development and by the Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP) funded by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation.
[59]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{} \[1\][`#1`]{} \[2\][\#2]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\][[](http://dx.doi.org/#1)]{} \[1\][[](pmid:#1)]{} \[2\][\#2]{} , , , . . , . . , , . , in: , . pp. . . , , . . , , , . , in: , (Eds.), , . pp. . , , , , , , , , . . , . . , , , , . . , . . , , , , , , . , in: , , . pp. . <http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1138304.1138307>, . , , . , in: . , pp. . , . . ed., , . . . , , . . , . , , , . , in: , , , , , (Eds.), , , . pp. . , , , . . , . , , , , . . , . , , . . , . . , , , , , . . , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , in: , , . pp. . . , , . . , . . , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , , , , , , , , , . . , . . , . . , . , . . , . , , , . , in: , . pp. . , , . . , . , , , , , . . , . . , . . . , . . . [International Organization for Standardization]{}. , , , , , . . , . . , . , in: , . pp. . . , . . . , . . . , . . Agile Software Development Series, . , , , , , . . , . . , . . , . , , , , . . , . , , , , . . , . , , . . , . . , , , . . , . , , , , , . . , . , , . . . , , , , . , in: , pp. . . , . . . , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , , , . , in: . , pp. . , , . . , . , , , . . , . . , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , . . , . . , , , , , , . , in: , pp. . , , . . , . . , . , in: , (Eds.), . , , pp. . , , . . , . . , . . , . <https://books.google.se/books?id=pBqrngEACAAJ>. , . . . , . . , . . , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , , , , . . volume . . . , , , , . , in: , . pp. . , , , , . . , . <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/smr.2166>, , [[ arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/smr.2166]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/smr.2166).
[^1]: <https://rebrand.ly/intv_guide>
[^2]: <https://rebrand.ly/survey-que>
[^3]: <https://git-scm.com/>
[^4]: <https://www.atlassian.com/software/jira>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article we will study the nondegeneracy properties of positive finite energy solutions of the equation $-{\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} u - {\lambda}u = |u|^{p-1}u $ in the Hyperbolic space. We will show that the degeneracy occurs only in an $N$ dimensional subspace. We will prove that the positive solutions are nondegenerate in the case of geodesic balls.'
address:
- ' Centre for Applicable Mathematics, Tata Instiute of Fundamental Research, P.O. Box 6503, GKVK Post Office, Bangalore 560065, India'
- ' Centre for Applicable Mathematics, Tata Instiute of Fundamental Research, P.O. Box 6503, GKVK Post Office, Bangalore 560065, India'
author:
- K Sandeep
- Debdip Ganguly
title: Nondegeneracy of Positive solutions of a Semilinear elliptic problem in the Hyperbolic space
---
Introduction
============
In this article we will study the degeneracy properties of positive solutions of the problem $$\label{E:1.1}
-{\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} u - {\lambda}u = |u|^{p-1}u , u \in H^{1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$$ where ${\lambda}< (\frac{N-1}{2})^{2}$ , $1 <p \leq \frac{N+2}{N-2}$ if $N\geq 3$ , $1<p < \infty $ if $N = 2 $ and ${H^{1}}({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ denotes the Sobolev space on the disc model of the Hyperbolic space ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ and ${\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}$ denotes the Laplace Beltrami operator on ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$. Apart from its own mathematical interest, this equation arises in the study of Grushin operators([@B]), Hardy-Sobolev-Mazy’a equations([@HS],[@MS]) and in some fluid dynamics models ([@MT]). This equation is also the hyperbolic version of the well known Brezis Nirenberg problem ([@BN]).\
\
Existence and uniqueness of positive solutions of has been studied in [@MS]. In the subcritical case (i.e., $p> 1$ if $N =2$ and $1<p < 2^{*} -1 $ if $N \geq 3$) the equation has a positive solution iff ${\lambda}<\left(\frac{N-1}{2}\right)^2$. In the critical case $N\ge 4, p = 2^{*} -1 $, has a positive solution iff $\frac{N(N-2)}{4}<{\lambda}<\left(\frac{N-1}{2}\right)^2$ while for $N=3$, positive solutions does not exist for any ${\lambda}$. These positive solutions are also shown to be unique up to Hyperbolic isometries except $N=2$ and ${\lambda}> \frac{2(p+1)}{(p+3)^{2}}$. Exitence of infinitely many sign changing radial solutions in higher dimensions has been obtained in [@PS] and [@DS].\
\
Our main aim in this paper is to study the degeneracy properties of positive solutions obtained in [@MS]. It is well known that the degeneracy properties are crucial in studying the stability of the solution and also to obtain various existence results, bifurcation results, etc using tools like finite dimensional reduction. In the case of bounded domains in Euclidean space degeneracy of solution is used to study the uniqueness and other qualitative properties of solutions (see [@P],[@DGP],[@S]).\
\
For some special values of ${\lambda}$ and $p$, the degeneracy of the solution has been studied in [@HS]. In this special case the solution of is explicitly known and this plays a major role in the proof as one can use informations on the solution of a hyper geometric ODE arising in the analysis. However in general we do not have explicit expression for the solution of and the proof presented in the special case in [@HS] does not carry over.\
\
In view of the existence and non-existence results obtained in [@MS] we assume: $$\label{conditions}
\left.
\begin{array}{lll}
{\lambda}<(\frac{N-1}{2})^{2} & {\rm when} &1 <p < \frac{N+2}{N-2},N\ge 3 \\
\frac{N(N-2)}{4}<{\lambda}<(\frac{N-1}{2})^{2} & {\rm when} &p = \frac{N+2}{N-2}, N\ge 4\\
{\lambda}< \frac{2(p+1)}{(p+3)^{2}} & {\rm when} & N = 2 .
\end{array} \right\}$$ Let $U$ be the unique positive radial solution of under the assumption . Consider the linearized operator $L$ given by $$\label{E:2.4}
L (\Phi) = - {\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} \Phi - {\lambda}\Phi - p U^{p-1} \Phi ,\;\; \Phi \in {H^{1}}({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$$ We are interested in knowing whether $0$ is in the spectrum of $L$ and more generally to find the kernel of $L$.\
Degeneracy properties of similar equations in the Euclidean space ${\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ are well known. In fact if $u$ is a solution then a differentiation of the equation will tell us that $\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_i}$ is a solution of the linearized equation. We show that in the hyperbolic case a different vector field will do the job $\frac{\partial }{\partial x_i}$ does in ${\mathbb{R}^{N}}$. Observe that the equation is invariant under hyperbolic isometries, i.e, if $u$ solves and $\tau$ is an isometry of ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ then $u\circ \tau$ also solves . This fact indicates that the solutions has to be degenerate. However we see that the degeneracy happens only along an $N$ dimensional subspace.
\[T:3.1\] Let $V_i,\;i=1,...,N$ be the vector fields in ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ given by $$V_i(x) = (1+|x|^2)\frac{\partial}{\partial{x_i}} - 2x_i\sum\limits_{j=1}^N x_j\frac{\partial}{\partial{x_j}},\;\;i=1,...,N$$ and $\Phi_{i}(x) = V_i\left( U \right)$, then $L (\Phi_i)=0$ for all $i=1,...,N.$ Moreover $\{\Phi_{i}\;:\;i=1,...,N\}$ is a basis for the kernel of $L.$
Now consider the problem in geodesic balls. Let $B$ be a geodesic ball in ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$, consider the problem $$\label{eqn-ball}
\left.
\begin{array}{rlll}
-{\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} u - {\lambda}u &= &|u|^{p-1}u &{\rm in} \; B\\
u &>& 0 &{\rm in} \; B\\
u &=& 0 &{\rm on} \; \partial B
\end{array} \right\}$$ We know from [@ST] that this problem has a solution under the assumptions . Using moving plane method (see [@ADG],[@MS] and the references therein) we know that any solution of is radial and the uniqueness of radial solution has been established in [@MS]. Let us denote by $u$ the unique positive radial solution of and $\tilde L$ the linearized operator $$\label{lin-ball}
\tilde L (\Phi) = - {\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} \Phi - {\lambda}\Phi - p u^{p-1} \Phi ,\;\; \Phi \in H^1_0(B)$$ In the case of Euclidean ball, the nondegeneracy of the unique positive solution of semilinear elliptic equations has been studied by various authors (see [@DGP],[@P] and the references therein ). In the hyperbolic case we prove :\
\[nondegeneracy-b\] Under the assumptions , the unique solution of is nondegenerate.
Both Theorem \[T:3.1\] and Theorem \[nondegeneracy-b\] extends to the case ${\lambda}= \left(\frac{N-1}{2}\right)^2$, but in the first case we have to work with the energy space introduced in [@MS] instead of $H^1({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$.\
\
Notations and Preliminaries
===========================
In this section we will introduce some of the notations and definitions used in this paper and also recall some of the embeddings related to the Sobolev space in the hyperbolic space.\
\
We will denote by ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ the disc model of the hyperbolic space, i.e., the unit disc equipped with the Riemannian metric $g = \sum\limits_{i=1}^N(\frac{2}{1-|x|^2})^2dx_i^2$.\
The corresponding volume element is given by $dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} = (\frac{2}{1-|x|^2})^Ndx $. The hyperbolic gradient $\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}$ and the hyperbolic Laplacian ${\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}$ are given by $$\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}=(\frac{1-|x|^2}{2})^2\nabla,\ \ \ {\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}=(\frac{1-|x|^2}{2})^2{\Delta}+(N-2)\frac{1-|x|^2}{2}<x,\nabla>$$\
[**Sobolev Space.**]{} We will denote by ${H^{1}}({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ the Sobolev space on the disc model of the Hyperbolic space ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ and $H^{1}_r({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ denotes the subspace of $H^{1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ consisting of radial functions. For a geodesic ball $B$ in ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ we will denote by $H^1_0(B)$ the completion of $C_c^\infty(B)$ with the norm $||u||^2 = \int\limits_{B} |\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} u|^2$ and $H^1_{0,r}(B)$ its subspace consisting of radial functions.\
\
Let us recall the following Sobolev embedding theorem (see [@MS] for a proof):\
\
[**Poincaré-Sobolev inequality:**]{} For every $N \geq 3$ and every $p\in (1, \frac{N+2}{N-2}] $ there is a constant $S_{N,p}>0$ such that $$\label{PS2}
S_{N,p} \left(\int\limits_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} |u|^{p+1} dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} \right)^{\frac{2}{p+1}} \leq
\int\limits_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} \left[ |\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} u|^2 - {\frac{(N-1)^2 }{4}} u^2 \right] dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} \quad$$ for every $ u\in H^{1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}}). \: \: $ If $N=2$ any $p> 1$ is allowed.\
\
In general the embedding $H^{1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}}) \hookrightarrow L^{p+1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ is not compact, however for radial functions, using the point wise estimate we have the following compactness lemma (see [@PS] for a proof):\
\[cpt-embedding\]The embedding $H^{1}_r({\mathbb{B}^{N}}) \hookrightarrow L^{p+1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ is compact if $1<p< \frac{N+2}{N-2}$ and $N\ge 3$ or $1<p<\infty$ and $N=2$.
For a positive function $V$ on ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ define: $$L^{2}({\mathbb{B}^{N}}, V dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}})= \left\{ u : \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}u^2\;Vdv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}<\infty \right\}$$ then we have the following compact embedding in the general case:\
\[P:3.2\] The Embedding $H^{1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}}) \hookrightarrow L^{2}({\mathbb{B}^{N}}, V dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}})$ is compact if $V(x)\rightarrow 0$ as $x\rightarrow \infty$.
Let $\{u_{n}\}_{n} \in H^{1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ be such that $||u_{n}||_{H^{1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}})} \leq C$ for some $C>0$. Then upto a subsequence $u_{n}\rightharpoonup u$ in $H^{1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ and pointwise. To complete the proof we need to show $u_{n} \longrightarrow u$ in $L^{2}({\mathbb{B}^{N}}, V dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}})$. Let $\epsilon >0$, since $V(x) \rightarrow 0$ as $|x| \rightarrow \infty$ there exists $R_{\epsilon} < 1$ such that $V(x) < \epsilon$ for all $|x| \geq R_{\epsilon}$ . Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} u_{n}^{2} V dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} - \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} u^{2} V dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}\right| &&\leq \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} |u_{n}^{2} - u^{2}| V dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} \\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&& = \int_{|x|\leq R_{\epsilon}} |u_{n}^{2} - u^{2}| V dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} + \int_{|x|\geq R_{\epsilon}} |u_{n}^{2} - u^{2}| V dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}\end{aligned}$$ The first integral converges to zero as $n\rightarrow \infty$ thanks to Rellich’s compactness theorem. Using Poincaré-Sobolev inequality the second integral can be estimated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|x| \geq R_{\epsilon}} |u_{n}^{2} - u^{2}| V dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} && < \epsilon \int_{|x|\geq R_{\epsilon}} |u_{n}^{2} - u^{2}| dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}\\
&& \leq \epsilon\left[\int_{|x|\geq R_{\epsilon}} u_{n}^{2} dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} + \int_{|x|\geq R_{\epsilon}} u^{2} dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}\right]
< C \epsilon \end{aligned}$$ Since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary, this implies $u_{n} \rightarrow u$ strongly in $L^{2}({{\mathbb{B}^{N}}, V dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}}).$
We also need some information on the isometries of ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$. Below we recall the definition of a special type of isometries namely the hyperbolic translations. For more details on the isometry group of ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ we refer to [@JR].\
[**Hyperbolic translations**]{} For $b\in {\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ define $$\tau_{b}(x) = \frac{(1 - |b|^{2})x + (|x|^{2} + 2 x.b + 1)b}{|b|^{2}|x|^{2} + 2x.b +1}$$ then $\tau_{b}$ is an isometry of ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ with $\tau_{b}(0) = b$. The map $\tau_{b}$ is called the hyperbolic translation of ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ by $b$ .
Radial Nondegeneracy
====================
In this section we prove the radial nondegeneracy of the linearized operators. First consider the case of :
\[nondegeneracy-r\] Let $\Phi \in H^{1}_r({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ satisfies $L(\Phi)=0$ then $\Phi =0.$
Similarly for we have:
\[nondegeneracy-r-b\] Let $\Phi \in H^1_{0,r}(B)$ satisfies $\tilde L(\Phi)=0$ then $\Phi =0.$
We will prove Theorem \[nondegeneracy-r\], the proof of Theorem \[nondegeneracy-r-b\] follows similarly with obvious modifications. As in [@US] we use the information on the Morse index of a perturbed problem to establish the result.\
\[morseindex\] Let $U$ be the unique positive radial solution of , and consider for $\epsilon >0, I_{\epsilon}$ defined on $H^{1}_r({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ by $$I_{\epsilon}(u) = \frac{1}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} \left[|\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} u|^{2} - ({\lambda}-\epsilon U^{p-1}) u^2\right] -
\frac{1+\epsilon}{p+1} \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} |u^+|^{p+1}$$ then there exists an $\epsilon >0$ such that $u=U$ is the unique critical point of $I_{\epsilon}, U$ is a mountain pass critical point and hence of radial Morse index one.
We postponed the proof of this theorem to Section 5.\
[**Proof of Theorem \[nondegeneracy-r\]**]{}. Assume that there exists a $\Phi \not= 0$ such that $L(\Phi) =0.$ We will show that this will contradict the fact that $U$ is a critical point of $I_{\epsilon}$ with radial Morse index of one.\
Recall the Morse Index of $U$ denoted $i (I_{\epsilon}, U)$ is defined as $$i (I_{\epsilon}, U) = \mbox{max} \{\mbox{dim} H : H \subset H^{1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}}) \mbox{is a subspace such that} I_{\epsilon}^{\prime\prime}[U](h, h) < 0\ \forall h \in H \backslash \{0\}\}$$ We have $$I_{\epsilon}^{\prime\prime}[U](v,v) = \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} [|\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} v|^{2} - ({\lambda}-\epsilon U^{p-1}) v^2]- (1+\epsilon)p \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}U^{p-1} v^2$$ Then $$I_{\epsilon}^{\prime\prime}[U](U,U) = (1+\epsilon)(1-p)\int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}U^{p+1} <0 \;{\rm and}\;
I_{\epsilon}^{\prime\prime}[U](\Phi,\Phi) =\epsilon(1-p)\int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}U^{p-1}\Phi^2 <0.$$\
Since $$\int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}[\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}U \cdot \nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}\Phi- {\lambda}U \Phi] = \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}U^{p}\Phi =0$$ we get for real numbers $ \alpha,\beta$ $$I_{\epsilon}^{\prime\prime}[U](\alpha U+\beta \Phi,\alpha U+\beta \Phi) = \alpha^2I_{\epsilon}^{\prime\prime}[U](U,U) +
\beta^2I_{\epsilon}^{\prime\prime}[U](\Phi,\Phi) <0$$ Moreover $U$ and $\Phi$ are linearly independent and hence the radial Morse index of $U$ is at least $2$, which is a contradiction.
Proof of Theorems
=================
In this section we will prove our main theorems.\
[**Proof of Theorem \[T:3.1\]**]{} We divide the proof in to several steps.\
\
[**Step 1**]{} Let $\Phi_{i}$ be as define in Theorem \[T:3.1\], then $L(\Phi_{i})=0$ for all $i.$\
\
[*Proof of Step 1.*]{} Let $x \in {\mathbb{B}^{N}}$ then $V_i(x) =\gamma^\prime(0)$ where $\gamma(t) = \tau_{t e_{i}}(x),\;|t|<1$, where $\{e_{i}\}$ is the standard basis of ${\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ and $\tau_{t e_{i}}$ is the hyperbolic translation. Thus $\Phi_{i}(x) = \left[ \frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0} U\circ \tau_{t e_{i}}(x)\right]$. Recall that if $U$ is a solution of \[E:1.1\], then so is $V = U\circ \tau$ for any isometry $\tau$ of ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}$. In particular $$\label{E:2.6}
-{\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} (U\circ \tau_{te_i}) - {\lambda}U\circ\tau_{te_i} = (U\circ\tau_{te_i})^{p}$$ Differentiating with respect to $t$ and evaluating at $t=0$ we see that $L(\Phi_{i})=0$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:2.7}
\Phi_{i} &&= \left[ \frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0} U(\tau_{t e_{i}})\right]=<\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} U(x) , e_{i}>_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} (|x|^{2} + 1)
- 2 <\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} U(x) , x>_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} x_{i} \nonumber \\
&& = \frac{\partial U}{\partial x_{i}} (|x|^{2} + 1) - 2 <\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} U(x) , x>_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} x_{i} \nonumber\\
&& = \frac{x_{i}}{|x|} [1 - |x|^{2}] U^{\prime}(|x|)\end{aligned}$$ From the estimates on $U$ (established in [@MS]) we get $\Phi_{i} \in H^{1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}}),\;i = 1,\ldots, N$ and are linearly independent.\
\
[**Step 2.**]{} Let ${\mathbb{B}^{N}}_{+} = \{ x\in {\mathbb{B}^{N}}: x_1>0\}$ and $\psi \in H^1_0({\mathbb{B}^{N}}_{+})$ satisfies $$\label{halfball}
-{\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}\psi - {\lambda}\psi = p U^{p-1} \psi \;\mbox{in} \; {\mathbb{B}^{N}}_{+}$$ then there exists a constant $c\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $\psi = c\Phi_1.$\
[*Proof of Step 2.*]{}We know from Lemma \[P:3.2\] that the embedding $H^{1}_0({\mathbb{B}^{N}}_{+}) \hookrightarrow L^{2}({\mathbb{B}^{N}}_{+}, U^{p-1} dv_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}})$ is compact.Thus by standard compact operator theory and maximum principle the weighted eigenvalue problem $$-{\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}\psi - {\lambda}\psi = \mu U^{p-1} \psi \;\mbox{in} \; {\mathbb{B}^{N}}_{+},\;\; \psi \in H^1_0({\mathbb{B}^{N}}_{+})$$ has a discrete set of eigenvalues $\mu_1<\mu_2<... \rightarrow \infty$, with $\mu_1$ is simple. Moreover any eigenfunction corresponding to $\mu_i,\;i>1$ change sign. Since $ \Phi_{1}|_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}_{+}}$ is an eigenfunction with $\mu=p$ and it has a constant sign (since $U^{\prime}<0$) we conclude that $\mu_1=p$ and hence Step 2 follows from the simplicity of $\mu_1=p.$\
\
[**Step 3.**]{} Let $\Phi\in H^1({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ and satisfies $L(\Phi)=0$, then for any unit vector $\nu \in {\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ there exists a constant $c \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\Phi (x) - \Phi(R_{\nu}(x)) = c \Phi_{1} (O_{\nu}(x)) \hspace{.5 cm} \forall \hspace{.25 cm} x \in {\mathbb{B}^{N}}$$ where $R_{\nu}$ and $O_{\nu}$ denote the reflection with respect to the hyperplane $\{(\xi,\nu) = 0\}$ and an orthogonal transformation satisfying $O_{\nu} (\nu) = e_{1}$ respectively.\
[*Proof of Step 3.*]{} Let us first consider the case when $\nu = e_{1}= (1, \ldots, 0) \in {\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ then $\psi(x) = \Phi(x) - \Phi(R_{e_{1}}x)$ satisfies and hence from Step 2 we get the existence of $c\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\psi(x) = c \Phi_{1}(x)$$ Also note that $\Phi_{1}(x) = \Phi_{1}(O_{e_1}x)$, hence we have $$\Phi(x) - \Phi(R_{e_1} x) = c \Phi_{1} (O_{e_1}x)$$ Similar argument will give for any $\nu$ unit vector $\in {\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ and $O_{\nu}$ denote the orthogonal transformation such that $O_{\nu}\nu =e_{1}$ $$\Phi(x) - \Phi(R_{\nu} x) = c \Phi_{1} (O_{\nu} x)$$ This completes the proof of Step 3.\
[**Step 4.**]{} Let $\Phi$ be in the kernel of $L$, then there exist $c_{1}, \ldots , c_{N}\in\mathbb{R}$ such that the function $\Phi^{r}$ defined by $$\Phi^{r} := \Phi - \sum_{i=1}^{N} c_{i} \Phi_{i}$$ is radial.\
[*Proof of Step 4*]{} We have from Step 3 , given any unit vector $\nu\in {\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ , there exist $c \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\label{E:3.2}
\Phi(x) - \Phi(R_{\nu}x) = c \Phi_1(O_{\nu} x)$$ We earlier remark that for the orthogonal transformation $O_{e_{1}}$ we have $\Phi_{1}(x) = \Phi_{1}(O_{1}x)$.
Let $R_{i} := R_{e_{i}}$ , $O_{i} = O_{e_{i}}$ then have from \[E:3.2\] $$\Phi(x) - \frac{1}{2} [\Phi(x) + \Phi(R_{1}x)] = c_{1} \Phi_{1} (O_{1}x) = c_{1} \Phi_{1}(x)$$ This imply
$$\Phi(x) - c_{1}\Phi_{1}(x) = \frac{1}{2} [\Phi(x) + \Phi (R_{1} x)]$$ Hence $\Phi(x) - c_{1}\Phi_{1}(x)$ is even in $x_{1}$.
Let $\Phi^{1} = \Phi - c_{1}\Phi_{1}$ and apply \[E:3.2\] we have $$\Phi^{1}(x) - \frac{1}{2}[\Phi^{1}(x) + \Phi^{1}(R_{2} x)] = c_{2} \Phi_{1} (O_{2}x)$$ From we get $\Phi_{1}(O_{2}x)= \Phi_{2} (x)$ :
This imply $$\Phi^{1} - c_{2} \Phi_{2}(x) = \frac{1}{2}[\Phi^{1}(x) + \Phi^{1}(R_{2}x)]$$ Hence $\Phi - c_{1}\Phi_{1}(x) - c_{2}\Phi_{2}(x)$ is even in $x_{2}$ and of course, in $x_{1}$ as well.
By iterating, we conclude that, for some $c_{1}, \ldots , c_{N}$ , $\Phi^{r} : = \Phi - \sum_{i=1}^{N} c_{i}\Phi_{i}$ is even all the $x_{i}$ and hence $\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} \Phi^{r}(0) = 0$.
By \[E:3.2\], $ \Phi^{r}(x) - \Phi^{r} (R_{\nu}x) = c\Phi_{1}(O_{\nu}x)$ for some $c$. Since by Hopf lemma $$\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}\Phi_{1}(O_{\nu}x)|_{x= 0} \neq 0$$ then we must have $c = 0$, i.e. $\Phi^{r}(x) = \Phi^{r}(R_{\nu}x)$ for all $x$ and for all $\nu$. Hence $\Phi^{r}$ is radial.\
[**Step 5.**]{} It follows from Theorem \[nondegeneracy-r\] that $\Phi^{r}=0$ and hence $\Phi = \sum_{i=1}^{N} c_{i} \Phi_{i}.$ This completes the proof of Theorem \[T:3.1\]\
\
[**Proof of Theorem \[nondegeneracy-b\].**]{} Thanks to Theorem \[nondegeneracy-r-b\], we only have to show that if $\tilde L(\Phi)=0$ then $\Phi$ is radial.\
\
Let $u(x) =\tilde u(|x|)$ be the unique radial solution of , define $v(x)= \frac{x_{i}}{|x|} [1-|x|^{2}]{\tilde u}^{\prime}(|x|)$, then we see that $\tilde L(v) = 0\;\;{\rm in}\; B^+$ where $B^+ = \{ x\in B : x_1>0 \}$. Moreover $v<0$ in $B^+$ and $v<0$ on $\partial B^+ \cap \partial B$, hence the first eigenvalue of $\tilde L$ in $B^+$ is positive (see [@DGP]).\
\
Let $\Phi \in H^1_0(B)$ be such that $\tilde L(\Phi)=0$, then from standard elliptic theory we know that $\Phi$ is smooth in $\overline B.$ Let $\psi(x) = \Phi(x)-\Phi(\tilde x)$ where $\tilde x =(-x_1,x_2,...,x_n)$ then $\psi$ solves $$\tilde L (\psi) =0 \;\;{\rm in}\; B^+,\; \psi \in H^1_0(B^+)$$ Since the first eigen value of $\tilde L$ is positive we get $\psi =0$ and hence $\phi$ is symmetric in the $x_1$ direction. Since the equation is invariant under rotation we get $\Phi$ is symmetric in all the directions and hence radial. This completes the proof of Theorem \[nondegeneracy-b\].
Perturbed problems
==================
In this section we will prove Theorem \[morseindex\]. Let $U$ be the unique solution of , define for $u\in H^1_r({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ $$\label{energy-pert}
I_{\epsilon}(u) = \frac{1}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} \left[|\nabla_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} u|^{2} - ({\lambda}-\epsilon U^{p-1}) u^2\right] -
\frac{1+\epsilon}{p+1} \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} |u^+|^{p+1}$$ Then we know that $I_{\epsilon}^{\prime}(u) = 0$ iff $u$ solves the PDE $$\label{perturbed}
\left.
\begin{array}{rll}
-{\Delta}_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} u - ({\lambda}-\epsilon U^{p-1} )u &= &(1+\epsilon)|u|^{p-1}u\\
u &> &0\\
u &\in &H^{1}_r({\mathbb{B}^{N}})
\end{array}\right\}$$ Observe that for any $\epsilon >0$, $u=U$ itself is a solution of . Our aim in this section is to prove that $U$ is the only positive radial solution of this equation for small $\epsilon$ and $U$ is a mountain pass critical point.\
\[exis-per\] Let ${\lambda}$ satisfy , then there exists an $\epsilon_0>0$ such that for all $0<\epsilon <\epsilon_0$, $I_{\epsilon}$ on $H^{1}_r({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ has a mountain pass critical point.
The inequality easily establishes that $I_{\epsilon}$ has the mountain pass geometry. Also for $1<p<\frac{N+2}{N-2}$ $I_{\epsilon}$ satisfies the Palais Smale condition thanks to Lemma . Thus the theorem follows in the subcritical case.\
In the critical case, in general $I_{\epsilon}$ does not satisfy the P.S. condition. However it follows from Theorem 3.3 of [@PS] that $I_{\epsilon}$ does not satisfy the Palais Smale condition at level $\beta$ if $0<\beta<\frac{S^{\frac{N}{2}}}{N}$ where $S$ is the best constant in the Euclidean Sobolev inequality given by $$S= \inf\left\{\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^{N}}}|\nabla \phi|^2\;:\; \phi \in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{R}^{N}}),\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^{N}}}|\phi|^{2^\ast}=1\right\}.$$ Thus in the critical case it remains to find a function $u_1 \in H^{1}_r({\mathbb{B}^{N}}) $ such that $I_{\epsilon}(u_1) \le 0$ and $\sup\limits_{0\le t\le 1}I_{\epsilon}(tu_1)<\frac{S^{\frac{N}{2}}}{N}.$ Let us assume that $\epsilon$ is small enough and ${\lambda}-\epsilon U^{p-1} \ge \tilde {\lambda}> \frac{N(N-2)}{4}.$ Then for $u\in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$, after a conformal change of metric, i.e., putting $v(x) = \left(\frac{2}{1-|x|^2}\right)^{\frac{N-2}{2}}u(x)$ we get $$I_{\epsilon}(u) = \frac{1}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} \left[|\nabla v|^{2} - a(x) v^2\right]dx-
\frac{1+\epsilon}{p+1} \int_{{\mathbb{B}^{N}}} |v^+|^{2^{\ast}}dx :=J_{\epsilon}(v)$$ where $a(x)= \left({\lambda}-\frac{N(N-2)}{4}-\epsilon U^{p-1}\right)\frac{4}{(1-|x|^2)^2}$. Since $ a(x)>0$ from the well studied Brezis Nirenberg problem ([@BN]) we know the existence of $v_1 \in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ such that $J_{\epsilon}(v_1) \le 0$ and $\sup\limits_{0\le t\le 1}J_{\epsilon}(tv_1)<\frac{S^{\frac{N}{2}}}{N}.$ Thus $u_1(x) = \left(\frac{1-|x|^2}{2}\right)^{\frac{N-2}{2}}v_1(x)$ satisfies all the required properties. Thus $I_{\epsilon}$ has a radial mountain pass critical point.
\[uni-per\] Let ${\lambda}$ satisfy , then there exists an $\epsilon_0>0$ such that for all $0<\epsilon <\epsilon_0$, has a unique positive radial solution.
First note that any positive radial solution of is radially decreasing. Denote the solution by $u(|x|).$ Normalizing the constant on the RHS to one and writing the equation in hyperbolic polar co-ordinates, i.e., $|x|= \tanh \frac t2$ we have to prove the uniqueness of solutions of the ODE $$\label{E:3.4}
u^{\prime\prime} + \frac{N-1}{\tanh t} u^{\prime} + {\lambda}_{\epsilon} u + u^{p} =0, \hspace{.5cm} u^{\prime}(0) = 0,$$ satisfying $$\label{finite-energy}
\int\limits_0^\infty[u^2 +|u^{\prime}|^2](\sinh t)^{N-1}\;dt < \infty$$ where ${\lambda}_{\epsilon}={\lambda}-\epsilon U^{p-1}.$ The term on the LHS of is the $H^{1}({\mathbb{B}^{N}})$ norm of $u.$ As mentioned before, when $\epsilon=0$ uniqueness of solutions of - has been established in [@MS]. For $\epsilon >0$ also the proof follows in the same lines as in [@MS] with some modifications. So we will only outline the proof, modifying the details which are likely to differ in the case of $\epsilon >0$, and refer to [@MS] for details.\
\
The main ingredient in the uniqueness proof is the following auxiliary energy $E_{\hat{u}}$ (see [@MS],[@UR])defined by : $$E_{\hat{u}}(t) : = \frac{1}{2} (\sinh^{\beta} t)\hat{u}'^{2} + \frac{|\hat{u}|^{p+1}}{p+1} + \frac{1}{2} G_{\epsilon}\hat{u}^{2}$$ where $\hat{u} = (\sinh^{\alpha} t) u ,\; \alpha = \frac{2(N-1)}{p+3},\; \beta:= \alpha(p -1)$ and $ G_{\epsilon}(t) := A_{\epsilon}(t) \sinh^{\beta} t + B \sinh^{\beta -2} t $ $$A_{\epsilon} : = A - \epsilon U^{p-1}, \hspace{.5 cm} A : ={\lambda}- \frac{\alpha^{2}(p+1)}{2}, \hspace{.25 cm}
B := \frac{\alpha}{2}[2- \alpha (p+1)].$$ Proceeding exactly as in the proof of Lemma 3.4 of [@MS] we get:\
\
[*Let $N \geq 2$, $p> 1$, ${\lambda}< \left(\frac{N-1}{2}\right)^{2}$ and $u > 0$ be a solution of \[E:3.4\]. Then $$\label{est}
\left.
\begin{array}{c}
\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log u^{2}}{t} = \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\log {u^{\prime}}^{2}}{t} =
\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\log [u^{2} + {u^{\prime}}^{2}]}{t} = -[N-1 + \sqrt{(N-1)^{2} - 4 {\lambda}}] \\
\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{u^\prime(t)}{u(t)} = -\frac{[N-1 + \sqrt{(N-1)^{2} - 4 {\lambda}}]}{2}
\end{array}\right\}$$*]{}\
Using the estimates in we have the following estimates on the auxiliary energy :\
$$\label{energy0}
E_{\hat{u}}(t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{\alpha^2+B}{2}\sinh ^{\alpha(p+1)-2}t u^2(t) +o(1) &{\rm if} &N=2 \\
o(1) &{\rm if} & N\ge 3
\end{array}\right.$$ as $t\rightarrow 0$, and $$\label{energyinf}
E_{\hat{u}}(t) = o(1) \;{\rm as} \;t\rightarrow \infty \;{\rm if} \; N\ge 2$$ Since $\hat{u}$ satisfies $$(\sinh^{\beta} t) \hat{u}^{\prime\prime} + \frac{1}{2} [\sinh^{\beta} t]^{\prime} \hat{u}^{\prime} + G_{\epsilon}(t) \hat{u}^{p} =0$$ we get $$\frac{d}{dt} E_{\hat{u}} (t) = \frac{1}{2} G_{\epsilon}^{\prime} \hat{u}^{2}$$ Next we claim:\
[*Claim.*]{} There exists $\epsilon_0>0$ and $t_{1}>0$ such that for all $0\le\epsilon < \epsilon_0$ $$\label{mono}
\left.
\begin{array}{lll}
G^{\prime}_{\epsilon}(t) < 0 &\forall t > 0 &{\rm if} N=2 \;{\rm and}\;{\lambda}< \frac{2(p+1)}{(p+3)^{2}}\\
G^{'}_{\epsilon}(t) (t_{1} - t) > 0 &\forall t \neq t_{1} &{\rm if}\; N \geq 3,p < 2^* -1, {\lambda}< \frac{2(N-1)^{2}(p+1)}{(p+3)^{2}}\\
G^{'}_{\epsilon}(t) > 0 &\forall t > 0 &{\rm if} N \geq 3,p < 2^* -1,{\lambda}\geq \frac{2(N-1)^{2}(p+1)}{(p+3)^{2}} \\
G^{'}_{\epsilon}(t) > 0 &\forall t > 0 &{\rm if} N \geq 3,p = 2^* -1,{\lambda}> \frac{N(N-2)}{4}
\end{array}\right\}$$ [*Proof of Claim :*]{} By direct calculation we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:3.9}
G_{\epsilon}^{\prime}(t) &&= A \beta (\sinh t)^{\beta - 1} \cosh t + B (\beta -2) (\sinh t)^{\beta -3}
\cosh t
- \epsilon (p-1) U^{p-2} U^{\prime}(t) (\sinh t)^{\beta} \\
&&- \epsilon \beta U^{p-1} (\sinh t)^{\beta -1} \cosh t \\
&&= \beta (\sinh t)^{\beta -3} \cosh t \left\{ \left(A - \epsilon U^{p-1} - \frac{\epsilon(p-1)}{\beta} U^{p-2}U^{\prime}(t)\tanh t\right)
(\sinh t)^{2}
+ \frac{B(\beta -2)}{\beta} \right\}\end{aligned}$$ To analyze the sign of $G_{\epsilon}^{\prime}$, first recall that we have estimates on $U$ given in \[est\]. In the first case in we have both $A<0$ and $\frac{B(\beta -2)}{\beta}<0$. Since $U$ and $U^{\prime}$ are bounded we get for $\epsilon$ small enough $G_{\epsilon}^{\prime}(t)<0$ for all $t$. In the fourth case, $\beta=2$ and $A={\lambda}- \frac{N(N-2)}{4} >0$ so for $\epsilon$ small enough $G_{\epsilon}^{\prime}(t)>0$ for all $t$. In the third case $\beta<2, B<2$ and $A\ge 0$, again the conclusion follows. It remains to establish the claim in the second case in . In this case we have $A<0$ and $\beta<2, B<2$. Hence $G_{\epsilon}^{\prime}(t 0$ for large enough $t$ and $G_{\epsilon}^{\prime}(t)>0$ for $t$ close to $0$. Thus it remains to show that $\left[ \frac{G_{\epsilon}^{\prime}(t)}{\beta (\sinh t)^{\beta -3} \cosh t} \right]^{\prime} <0$ for all $t$ if $\epsilon$ is small enough. $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \frac{G_{\epsilon}^{\prime}(t)}{\beta (\sinh t)^{\beta -3} \cosh t} \right]^{\prime} && =
\left[A - {\epsilon} U^{p-1}\right]
2 \sinh t \cosh t - \frac{\epsilon}{\beta}(p-1)U^{p-2}U^{\prime}(t) (\sinh t)^{2} \\
&& - \frac{\epsilon(p-1)}{\beta}\left[ (p-2)U^{p-3}{U^{\prime}}^2 (\sinh t)^{2} \tanh t + U^{p-2}U^{\prime\prime}(t)(\sinh t)^{2} \tanh t \right.\\
&& + 2 \left. U^{p-2} U^{\prime}(t) (\sinh t \cosh t) \tanh t + U^{p-2} U^{\prime} (\sinh t)^{2} (\operatorname{sech}t)^{2} \right]\end{aligned}$$ From and the equation $U$ satisfies, we get $$\left[ \frac{G_{\epsilon}^{\prime}(t)}{\beta (\sinh t)^{\beta -3}\cosh t} \right]^{\prime}
=\left[A + O(\epsilon)\right]2 \sinh t \cosh t < 0 \;{\rm for}\; \epsilon \;{\rm small \; enough}.$$ This completes the proof of claim.\
\
Next we have the following comparison lemma for solutions of , we again refer to [@MS], Lemma 4.1 for its proof.\
[*Comparison Lemma.*]{} Let $u,v$ be distinct positive solutions of then\
(i) given $R,M >0$ there exists $\delta= \delta(u,R)$ such that if $u(0),v(0) \le M$ then $$u(t_i) =v(t_i),\;0<t_1<t_2\le R, \Longrightarrow t_2-t_1 \ge \delta.$$ In addition if $u$ satisfies the finite energy condition and $v(0)<u(0)$ then there is $t_v$ such that $ u(t_v) =v(t_v)$ and there is $\tilde t =\tilde{t}(u)$ such that $$u(t_1) =v(t_1),\;0<\tilde{t}<t_1 ,\Longrightarrow v(t)>u(t) \;\forall t >\tilde{t}$$\
Having established, the estimates on the energy -, the monotonicity properties of the energy and the above comparison lemma, we get the following uniqueness result in geodesic balls:\
\
Let ${\lambda}$ satisfy then for every $T>0$ the Dirichlet problem $$\begin{aligned}
&&u^{\prime\prime} + \frac{N-1}{\tanh t} u^{\prime} + {\lambda}_{\epsilon} u + u^{p} =0 \\
&&u^{\prime}(0) = 0,\; u(T)=0,\;u(t)>0 \;\forall t\in [0,T).
\end{aligned}$$ has at most one solution.\
\
The proof follows exactly like the case of $\epsilon =0$ and so we refer to [@MS]. Using this uniqueness result of geodesic balls, the rest of the uniqueness proof follows exactly as in [@MS].
[**Proof of Theorem \[morseindex\]**]{}. From Theorem \[exis-per\] and Theorem \[uni-per\] we know that $I_{\epsilon}$ has a unique critical point and it is a mountain pass critical point. On the other hand $U$ is a critical point of $I_{\epsilon}$, and hence it is the unique critical point and of mountain pass type and hence the radial Morse index is one (See [@MP]).
[99]{} L. Almeida , L. Damascelli , Y. Ge ; *A few symmetry results for nonlinear elliptic PDE on noncompact manifolds*, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré - Anal. non lin. Vol. 19 no 3 (2002), 313-342.
W. Beckner ; *On the Grushin operator and hyperbolic symmetry*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. Vol 129 (2001), 1233-1246 Mousomi Bhakta , K. Sandeep ; *Poincar$\acute{e}$- Sobolev equations in the hyperbolic space*, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 44 (2012), no. 1-2, 247-269 .
H. Brezis , L. Nirenberg ; *Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponents*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 36 (1983), no. 4, 437-477.
D. Castorina , I. Fabbri , G. Mancini , K. Sandeep ; *Hardy- Sobolev extremals,hyperbolic symmetry and scalar curvature equations*, Journal of Differential Equations 246 (2009), 1187-1206.
L. Damascelli , M. Grossi M , F. Pacella ; *Qualitative properties of positive solutions of semilinear elliptic equations in symmetric domains via the maximum principle*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar$\acute{e}$ Anal. Non Lin$\acute{e}$aire 16 (1999), no.5, 631-652.
Debdip Ganguly , K. Sandeep ; *Sign changing solutions of the Brezis-Nirenberg problem in the Hyperbolic space*, preprint 2012, arXiv:1209.5674 \[math.AP\]
H. Hofer ; *A note on the topological degree at a critical point of mountain pass type*, Proc. A.M. S 90 (1984), 309-315
Gianni Mancini , Kunnath Sandeep ; *On a semilinear elliptic equation in $H^n$*, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5), [**7**]{}, no. 4, (2008), pag. 635-671.
Mugelli Francesco , Talenti Giorgio ; *Sobolev inequalities in 2-D hyperbolic space: a borderline case*, J. Inequal. Appl. 2 (1998), no. 3, 195-228.
Kwong , M. Kam-Li and Yi ; *Uniqueness of radial solutions of semilinear elliptic equations*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 333 (1992), 339-363
F. Pacella ; *Uniqueness of positive solutions of semilinear elliptic equations and related eigenvalue problems*, Milan J. Math. 73 (2005), 221-236.
John G. Ratcliffe ; *Foundations of Hyperbolic Manifolds*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol-149, Springer.
P.N. Srikanth ; *Uniqueness of solutions of nonlinear Dirichlet problems*, Differential Integral Equations 6 (1993), no.3, 663-670.
S. Stapelkamp ; *The Brézis-Nirenberg problem on [$\mathbb{H}\sp n$]{},Existence and uniqueness of solutions*, Elliptic and parabolic problems, (Rolduc/Gaeta, 2001), 283–290,World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 2002.
Yoshitsugu Kabeya , Kazunaga Tanaka ; *Uniqueness of positive radial solutions of semilinear elliptic equations in ${\mathbb{R}^{N}}$ and $s \acute{e} r \acute{e} 's$ non - degeneracy condition*, Commun. in Partial Differential Equations, 24 (3 and 4), 563-598 (1999)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'bibtex/references.bib'
---
Introduction
============
The ability to find black holes, if they exist, in numerically generated spacetimes is an important and difficult problem in numerical relativity. Many algorithms have been developed over the years, but few have been tested extensively on numerically computed spacetimes, and even fewer have been applied to full three-dimensional (3D) spacetime constructions in Cartesian coordinates, which is the most common choice for 3D numerical relativity. As we review below, black holes may exist through topological construction or high concentrations of mass-energy in the initial data, may form through collapse of matter or pure gravitational waves, and may move through the spacetime. The dynamical and numerical properties of black holes in numerical relativity make this a very challenging problem, yet one that must be solved if we are to understand the physics of such simulations, or even if we are to evolve the systems for long periods of time. In this paper we investigate and compare the properties of several algorithms developed to find black holes on an extensive series of analytic and numerically generated spacetimes. We show that due to the sensitive nature of this problem, some previously published results on the existence of apparent horizons in numerically generated spacetimes are incorrect. We also show examples where finders could pass certain test-beds, but failed on more complex cases, revealing coding errors, and also how in some cases existing algorithms had to be modified in order to locate difficult-to-find horizons. Finally, we use these newly developed horizon finders to map out the parameter space of a series of black hole and gravitational wave data sets not yet studied in preparation for future numerical evolutions.
Black holes are defined by the existence of an event horizon (EH), the surface of no return from which nothing, not even light, can escape. The event horizon is the boundary that separates those null geodesics that reach infinity from those that do not. The global character of such a definition implies that the position of an EH can only be found if the whole history of the spacetime is known. For numerical simulations of black hole spacetimes in particular, this implies that in order to locate an EH one needs to evolve sufficiently far into the future, up to a time where the spacetime has basically settled down to a stationary solution. Recently, methods have been developed to locate an analyze event horizons in numerically generated spacetimes, with a number of interesting results obtained [@Anninos94f; @Libson94a; @Hughes94a; @Matzner95a; @Masso95a; @Shapiro95a].
In contrast, an apparent horizon (AH) is defined locally as the outer-most marginally trapped surface [@Hawking73a], i.e. a surface such that the expansion of out-going null geodesics is zero. An AH can therefore be defined on a given spatial hypersurface. A well known result [@Hawking73a] guarantees that if cosmic censorship holds and an AH is found, then an EH must exist somewhere outside of it and hence a black hole has formed.
Being able to find an AH has become a very important issue in the numerical studies of black hole spacetimes. An important reason for this is the development of the so-called apparent horizon boundary condition (AHBC), which excises singularity containing regions interior to the AH in order to extend the evolution. The basic idea behind this is the fact that since the interior of a black hole is causally disconnected from the rest of the spacetime, one can in principle safely ignore it in a numerical evolution, thus avoiding the problem of having to deal with the singularity through the use of a pathological time slicing. Several schemes are being currently implemented to deal with such AHBC [@Seidel92a; @Cook97a; @Gundlach98a]. The AH can also be used to determine important information about the spacetime itself; its topology (e.g., multiple disconnected 2–spheres) and its geometry (e.g., its area and local curvature) provide important details of the dynamics of the black holes present in the spacetime [@Anninos94f; @Anninos93a; @Anninos95c; @Anninos93d]. Here we will not deal with such issues, but rather with the problem of finding the AH in a reliable way in the first place.
Many different methods for locating AHs have been developed in the past years, both for axisymmetric (2D) and fully 3D spacetimes [@Cadez74; @Eppley77; @Bishop82; @Nakamura84; @Cook90a; @Kemball91a; @Libson94b; @Libson95a; @Thornburg95; @Baumgarte96; @Gundlach97a; @Shibata97a]. Since even in exact black hole solutions the position of an AH usually has to be determined numerically (with the exception of trivial cases like a Schwarzschild or Kerr black hole), we have found it very useful to develop several independent apparent horizon finders (AHF), using different algorithms and even written by different people. Comparing the results of these AHFs has allowed us both to make careful studies of the horizon structures of a series of spacetimes, and also to compare the performance of the different algorithms. Our tests include simple toy spacetimes, single and multiple black hole spacetimes, and pure gravitational wave spacetimes. With respect to the latter, we have in fact been able to show that some previously published results are not correct.
When comparing the different AHFs we have concentrated both on the reliability with which they can locate an AH and also on the speed at which they can do this. While speed is not such a fundamental consideration when looking for AHs on one given spatial geometry (it only needs to be done once, so one can afford to wait), it becomes of crucial importance when trying to locate them on an evolving spacetime, as will be required in any successful implementation of an AHBC. An AHF that takes much longer than an evolution step to locate an AH can not be used very often without having a disastrous impact on the performance of an evolution code.
A final word on our terminology: Since in this paper we will not deal with the problem of finding event horizons, from now on we will use the term ‘horizon’ to mean always a marginally trapped surface. As we will see in the examples below, there can often be more than one such surface. The AH will be by definition the outermost and we will refer to those marginally trapped surfaces that lie inside it as ‘inner horizons’.
Finding Apparent Horizons
=========================
Basic Equations
---------------
An AH is defined as the outer-most marginally trapped surface [@Hawking73a], that is, a surface where the expansion of out-going null geodesics vanishes. In order to find a mathematical expression for this definition, let us start by considering a smooth spacelike hypersurface $\Sigma$ embedded in a spacetime $(M,g_{\mu\nu})$ (in the following we will use the Greek alphabet to denote spacetime indices on $M$, and the Latin alphabet to denote spatial indices on $\Sigma$). Let $\gamma_{ij}$ and $K_{ij}$ be the induced 3-metric and extrinsic curvature of $\Sigma$, respectively. Let now $S$ be a closed smooth two-dimensional surface embedded in $\Sigma$, with unit outward pointing normal vector $s^{\mu}$. The expansion $H$ of a congruence of null rays moving in the outward normal direction to $S$ can then be shown to be [@York89] $$H = \nabla_i s^i + K_{ij} s^i s^j - {\rm tr} K ,
\label{eqn:expansion}$$ where $\nabla_i$ is the covariant derivative associated with the 3-metric $\gamma_{ij}$. An AH is then the outer-most surface such that $H=0$ is everywhere on the surface (and the surface is smooth).
Let us now rewrite Eq. (\[eqn:expansion\]) by assuming that our surface has been parameterized as a level set $$F(x^i) = 0 .$$
It is now straightforward to rewrite H in terms of the function $F$ and its derivatives. First, we write the unit normal vector $s^i$ as $$s^i = \frac{\nabla^i F}{|\nabla F|} .$$
Substituting this in Eq. (\[eqn:expansion\]) gives us $$H = \left( \gamma^{ij} - \frac{\nabla^i F \; \nabla^j F}{|\nabla F|^2} \right)
\left( \frac{\nabla_i \nabla_j F}{|\nabla F|} - K_{ij} \right) = 0 .
\label{eqn:horizon1}$$ Equation (\[eqn:horizon1\]) is the basic equation to be solved when looking for an AH. That is, one must find the outermost closed 2-surface defined by $F(x^{i}) = 0$ such that Eq. (\[eqn:horizon1\]) is satisfied.
Axisymmetric finder
-------------------
In axisymmetry, we find the surface by assuming that we have a 2-sphere enclosing the origin. We implement this by taking $$F = r - R(\theta) ,$$ and searching for the function $R(\theta)$ such that Eq. (\[eqn:expansion\]) is zero when evaluated at $r=R(\theta)$.
Because our grid is symmetric across the axis, and because we know that $F$ must be smooth across the axis in axisymmetry, we can easily test whether an AH which intersects the axis at a particular value of $z$ exists. We simply substitute $F$ given above into Eq. (\[eqn:horizon1\]) and integrate the resulting equation for $R$ from the axis using $R(\theta=0)=z$ and $\partial_\theta
R(\theta=0)=0$ as boundary conditions. When we reach $\theta_{max}$ we calculate how closely we have come to satisfying the condition $\partial_\theta R(\theta=\theta_{max})=0$ ($\theta_{max}$ is either $\pi/2$ or $\pi$ depending on whether we have chosen equatorial plane symmetry or not). We integrate $R$ using many different starting values (i.e. values of $z$), and search for two neighboring values which bracket the condition at $\theta_{max}$. Finally, we bisect until we reach the desired precision.
This reduces the process of searching for the AH to a one parameter search, namely the search for the proper $z$ value at which to start the integration. Because the search space has been so greatly reduced, we can have a high degree of confidence that we have found [*the*]{} AH and not merely a trapped surface.
3D minimization algorithm
-------------------------
Minimization algorithms for finding AH were among the first methods ever tried. They were in fact the original methods used by Brill and Lindquist [@Brill63] and by Eppley [@Eppley77]. More recently, a 3D minimization algorithm was developed and implemented by the NCSA/WashU group, applied to a variety of black hole initial data and 3D numerically evolved black hole spacetimes [@Libson94b; @Libson95a; @Libson93a; @Camarda97a; @Camarda97c]. Essentially the same algorithm was also implemented independently by Baumgarte [*et al.*]{} [@Baumgarte96].
The basic idea behind a minimization algorithm is to expand the parameterization function $F(x^i)$ in terms of some set of basis functions, and then minimize the integral of the square of the expansion $H^2$ over the surface. At an AH this integral should vanish, and we will have a global minimum. Of course, since numerically we will never find a surface for which the integral vanishes exactly, one must set a given tolerance level below which a horizon is assumed to have been found. The only way to be certain that this is a true horizon is to check if the value of the integral keeps diminishing when we increase either the resolution of the numerical grid, or the number of terms in the spectral decomposition.
Minimization algorithms for finding AHs have a few drawbacks: First, the algorithm can easily settle down on a local minimum for which the expansion is not zero, so a good initial guess is often required. Moreover, when more than one marginally trapped surface is present (as will be the case in several of the spacetimes considered here) it is very difficult to predict which of these surfaces will be found by the algorithm: The algorithm can often settle on an inner horizon instead of the true AH. Again, a good initial guess can help point the finder towards the AH. Notice that for time-symmetric data one can usually overcome this problem by looking for a minimum of the area instead, since for vanishing extrinsic curvature the AH will be an extremal, and generically a minimal, surface (of course, one can always think of cases where there is more than one minimal surface, so we would still need a good initial guess). Finally, minimization algorithms tend to be very slow when compared with ‘flow’ algorithms of the type described in the next section. Typically, if $N$ is the total number of terms in the spectral decomposition, a minimization algorithm requires of the order of a few times $N^2$ evaluations of the surface integrals (where in our experience ‘a few’ can sometimes be as high as 10). Since the number of terms in the decomposition is $(l_{max}+1)^2$, the total time required grows as ${l_{max}}^4$ (so eliminating as many terms as possible making use of whatever symmetries there might be in our data can have an enormous impact on the speed of the algorithm).
For the specific minimization algorithm that we have used for this work we start by parameterizing the surface in the following way: $$F(r,\theta,\phi) = r - h(\theta,\phi) .
\label{eqn:F}$$ The surface under consideration will be taken to correspond to the zero level of $F$. The function $h(\theta,\phi)$ is then expanded in terms of spherical harmonics: $$h(\theta,\phi) = \sum_{l=0}^{l_{\rm max}} \sum_{m=-l}^{l}
\sqrt{4\pi} \, a_{lm} Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi) .
\label{eqn:harmonics}$$ The overall factor of $\sqrt{4\pi}$ has been inserted so that $a_{00}$ is the average (coordinate) radius of the surface, $a_{10}$ is its average displacement in the $z$-direction, and so on. We also use a real basis of spherical harmonics, such that $m$ and $-m$ stand for an angular dependence $\cos(m\phi)$ and $\sin(m\phi)$ instead of $\exp(im\phi)$ and $\exp(-im\phi)$.
Given a trial function $h$, we construct $F$ using Eq. (\[eqn:F\]) and calculate the expansion $H$ as a 3D function from Eq. (\[eqn:horizon1\]) using finite differences. We interpolate $H$ onto a two-dimensional grid in $\{\theta,\phi\}$ at those points where $r = h(\theta,\phi)$. Finally, we calculate the surface integral of $H^2$. We then use a standard minimization algorithm (Powell’s method in multi-dimensions [@Press86]) to find the values of the coefficients $a_{lm}$ for which the integral reaches its minimum.
Once we find a candidate horizon (that is, a surface for which the integral of $H^2$ is below a certain threshold), we typically increase the number of terms in the spherical harmonics expansion, and the 3D spatial resolution of our numerical grid to see if the integral keeps diminishing. If it does, the surface is a real horizon, but if it reaches a limiting value different from zero, it is just a local minimum of $H^2$. In our experience this procedure usually works very well except when we are in a situation where we are close to a critical value of some parameter for which an AH first forms. In such a case, the exact critical value can not be determined very accurately because of the inability of the algorithm to distinguish between a real horizon and a very low local minimum.
This algorithm has been implemented in the Cactus code for 3D numerical relativity [@Bona98b], which is used to compute the 3D results for the present paper. For more details on the application of this algorithm see Refs. [@Libson94b; @Libson95a; @Baumgarte96; @Libson93a].
3D fast flow algorithm
----------------------
A second method that has been implemented in the Cactus code is the “fast flow” method proposed by Gundlach [@Gundlach97a]. The fast flow algorithm describes the horizon using the same function (\[eqn:F\]) and the same decomposition in spherical harmonics (\[eqn:harmonics\]) as described above. Here we do not discuss why this method is expected to work, but limit ourselves to a brief definition of the algorithm, followed by a few comments.
Starting from an initial guess for the $a_{lm}$, typically one representing a large sphere inscribed into the numerical domain, the algorithm approaches the AH through the iteration procedure defined by $$\label{SpectralAHF}
a_{lm}^{(n+1)}
= a_{lm}^{(n)}
-{A\over 1 + B l(l+1)}
\left(\rho H\right)_{lm}^{(n)}.$$ where $(n)$ labels the iteration step, $\rho$ is some positive definite function (“a weight”), and $(\rho H)_{lm}$ are the Fourier components of the function $\rho H$. Various choices for the weight function $\rho$ and the constant coefficients $A$ and $B$ parameterize a family of such methods. Here we use the specific weight $$\label{rho}
\rho = 2 \; r^2 |\nabla F| \left[ \left(g^{ij}-s^i s^j \right)
\left( \bar g_{ij}-\nabla_i r \nabla_j r \right) \right]^{-1} ,$$ where $\bar g_{ij}$ is the flat background metric associated with the coordinates $(r,\theta,\phi)$, or $(x,y,z)$. We use values of $A$ and $B$ that depend on $l_{\rm max}$ through $$\label{alphabeta}
A = {\alpha\over l_{\text{max}}(l_{\text{max}}+1)} + \beta,
\quad
B = {\beta\over \alpha}.$$ Here, we have used $\alpha=c$ and $\beta=c/2$, where $c$ is a variable step size, with a typical value of $c\sim 1$. The iteration procedure can clearly be seen as a finite difference approximation to a parabolic flow, and the adaptive step size is chosen to keep the finite difference approximation roughly close to the flow limit to prevent overshooting of the true apparent horizon. The adaptive step size is determined by a standard method used in ODE integrators: we take one full step and two half steps and compare the resulting $a_{lm}$. If the two results differ too much one from another, the step size is reduced.
The motivation for and history of this ansatz is discussed in [@Gundlach97a]. Here we limit ourselves to a few isolated comments to indicate how the method relates to other methods. The method is clearly related to Jacobi’s method for solving an elliptic equation, here the elliptic equation $H=0$, by transforming it into a related parabolic equation. Going from the discrete equation (\[SpectralAHF\]) to the continuum limit defined by $c\to 0$, $nc\to
\lambda$ and $l_{\text{max}}\to\infty$, with the continuous parameter $\lambda$ replacing the discrete iteration number $n$, we obtain $${\partial h(\theta,\phi,\lambda) \over \partial \lambda} =
- \left( 1 + {\beta\over \alpha} L^2\right)^{-1} \rho[h] \, H[h].$$ The method is called a “fast” flow for $\beta > 0$ because the division by $l(l+1)$, corresponding to the inverse of the Laplace operator $L^2$ on the sphere, allows us to take very large steps in $\lambda$ even using an explicit difference method. Very large here means that the number of iteration steps to convergence is between 10 and 100, many fewer than the number of grid points on the horizon. A method that would be called “slow flow” in our terminology, defined by $\beta = 0$ and $\rho = |\nabla F|$, was proposed by Tod [@Tod91]. It reduces to curvature flow for $K_{ab}=0$. It should finally be mentioned that the particular choice of $\rho$ used here is motivated by the AHF algorithm of Nakamura et al. [@Nakamura84], but that $\rho=1$ and $\rho = |\nabla F|$ are workable choices, too.
Toy “bowl” spacetimes
=====================
As a first test of our AHFs we consider a set of “toy” spacetimes which do not satisfy the Einstein equations, but which contain horizons. We chose spacetimes that have the classical “bag of gold” geometry, [*i.e.*]{} they have a maximal and a minimal surface with an essentially flat interior, and an asymptotically flat exterior. We will refer to these spacetimes as the “bowl spacetimes”. Here we will only consider static versions of these spacetimes but we should mention that time dependent generalizations where the geometry starts from flat space and “collapses” smoothly to a bag of gold are easy to construct.
Our ansatz for the spacetime metric is $$ds^2 = - dt^2 + dr^2 + \left[ r - \lambda f(r) \right]^2
d\Omega^2 , \quad 0 \leq \lambda f < r,
\label{eqn:gaussbowl}$$ where $\lambda$ is the bowl strength parameter, and $d\Omega$ is the standard flat space differential solid angle. We consider two classes of static bowl metrics, the Gaussian bowl, $$f(r) = f_{\rm G} = e^{-(r-r_0)^2/\sigma^2},$$ and the Fermi bowl, $$f(r) = f_{\rm F} = \frac{1}{1 + e^{-\sigma (r-r_0)}}.$$ Notice that the bowl spacetimes defined above are not completely regular at the origin. This could of course be fixed by choosing instead of the Gaussian and Fermi functions some other functions that satisfied the appropriate boundary conditions at the origin. We feel, however, that this is not really necessary as long as we use values of $\sigma$ and $r_0$ such that $f_{\rm G}$ and $f_{\rm F}$ have very small values at $r=0$.
Each of these metrics has an extremal surface when the following condition is satisfied $$\frac{dg_{\theta\theta}}{dr} = 0 .
\label{eqn:horizon2}$$ Since we have imposed $K_{ij}=0$, it is easy to see that this is equivalent to the condition for the existence of a horizon Eq. (\[eqn:horizon1\]).
The Fermi bowl has an advantage over the Gaussian bowl in that it is embeddable in a fictitious Euclidean flat space for a wide range of $\lambda$, $\sigma$ and $r_0$, while the Gaussian bowl is not. The reason for this is that for large $r$, the angular metric of the Gaussian bowl approaches $r^2$ too quickly. Since $r$ always measures proper radial distance, we find ourselves in a situation where, far away, areal radius coincides with distance to the origin. As we come in from infinity, the deviations in $g_{\theta\theta}$ from its flat values try to force the embedding away from a flat slice, but this can not happen because our distance to the origin would then be significantly affected, so the geometry is not embeddable. The Fermi bowl, on the other hand, avoids this problem by instead having an asymptotic angular metric of the form $(r-\lambda)^2$, which means that far away the distance to the origin is larger than the areal radius. This “extra” distance gives the embedding the room it needs to accommodate the changes in $g_{\theta \theta}$ in the region $r
\simeq r_0$. In Fig. \[fig:fermibowl\] we show the embeddings of the Fermi bowl metric for the parameters $r_0 = 1.5$ and $\sigma =
5.0$, for a range of $\lambda$ between $0$ and $1.6$. From this figure it is intuitively clear why larger $\lambda$ bowl spacetimes have minimal surfaces at the “neck” of the bag of gold.
For our purposes here, we rewrite the bowl metrics in Cartesian coordinates as $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 &=& \left[ x^2 + \left( 1 - \lambda f / r
\right)^2 \left( y^2 + z^2 \right) \right] \frac{dx^2}{r^2} \nonumber \\
&+& \left[ y^2 + \left( 1 - \lambda f / r
\right)^2 \left( x^2 + z^2 \right) \right] \frac{dy^2}{r^2} \nonumber \\
&+& \left[ z^2 + \left( 1 - \lambda f / r
\right)^2 \left( x^2 + y^2 \right) \right] \frac{dz^2}{r^2} \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{\lambda f}{r^3} \left( 2 - \lambda f / r \right)
\left( x y dx dy + x z dx dz + y z dy dz \right) .
\label{eqn:bowlcartesian}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that even though the bowl spacetimes are spherically symmetric by construction, we can hide this symmetry from the AHF by a simple rescaling of the coordinates $$x' = d_x x , \quad y' = d_y y , \quad z' = d_z z .$$ (The $d_{i}$ are scaling constants, not differential operators.) Let us now return to the condition for the existence of a horizon Eq. (\[eqn:horizon2\]). From the form of the metric it is clear that this condition takes the simple form $$\lambda f'(r) = 1 .
\label{eqn:horizon3}$$ For the Fermi bowl, this equation can in fact be solved in closed form to find $$r = r_0 - \frac{1}{\sigma} \; \ln \left\{ \left( \lambda \sigma / 2
- 1 \right) \pm \left( \lambda^2 \sigma^2 / 4 - \lambda \sigma
\right)^{1/2} \right\} .$$ Notice that from this we can easily see that a horizon will first appear for $$\lambda = 4 / \sigma , \qquad r = r_0 .$$
For the Gaussian bowl condition (\[eqn:horizon3\]) can not be solved in closed form but it can be solved numerically to arbitrary high accuracy by simple bisection. Doing this we find that if we take for example $r_0 = 2.5$ and $\sigma = 1$, for the Gaussian bowl an AH first appears for , while for the Fermi bowl it appears for . For larger values of $\lambda$, we can also tabulate the positions of the horizons. Table \[tab:bowl\] shows the coordinate radius of the AH and the inner horizon for different values of $\lambda$ for the Gaussian and Fermi bowls.
[c|c|c]{}\
$\lambda$ & $r$ inner horizon & $r$ apparent horizon\
1.165 & no & 1.79\
1.250 & 1.60 & 1.97\
1.500 & 1.41 & 2.11\
1.750 & 1.30 & 2.18\
2.000 & 1.22 & 2.23\
2.250 & 1.16 & 2.26\
2.393 & 1.13 & 2.28 (pinch-off)\
\
$\lambda$ & $r$ inner horizon & $r$ apparent horizon\
4.000 & no & 2.50\
4.250 & 2.00 & 2.99\
4.500 & 1.81 & 3.19\
4.750 & 1.66 & 3.34\
4.782 & 1.64 & 3.35 (pinch-off)
Our first test was to see how well our AHFs could reproduce the results found by solving Eq. (\[eqn:horizon3\]) in the spherically symmetric case. This might seem like a very trivial test, but it was while studying this case that we discovered a weakness of the original implementation of the fast flow algorithm. This weakness was not a programming error, but rather an unexpected consequence of the speed at which this algorithm can proceed. We discovered that for spherically symmetric bowl spacetimes that had a narrow (but still very evident) region of trapped surfaces, the algorithm would just jump over the whole trapped region and conclude that there was no AH. The reason for this was that the step-size used by the algorithm was just too big. Our first attempt at a cure was to reduce the step-size by hand, but this made the finder very slow and defeated the whole idea of a “fast flow”. A much better solution in the end was to implement an adaptive step-size routine as part of the algorithm. We should stress the point that this type of situation, where we have a narrow shell of trapped surfaces with essentially flat space both inside and out, can in fact occur in real physical systems such as the Brill wave spacetimes that will be discussed below. Although the constant step size code had passed various other test-beds involving black holes, this simple case led to important modifications of the algorithm that make the crucial difference between success and failure of the method.
Apart from the problem we just mentioned, all three AHFs performed very well in the spherically symmetric case, finding the horizons in the correct positions, and finding also the correct critical values of $\lambda$ for which an AH first forms. For example, for the Gaussian bowl with and , the 2D finder determined the value of $\lambda$ for which a horizon first appears to be $\lambda_*=1.166$ (working on a $200\times100$ $\{r,\theta\}$ grid), while the 3D finders determined it to be in the interval $\lambda_*\in[1.16,1.17]$.
In order to have a more interesting test, we will now rescale the $z$ axis to have what in coordinate space will appear to be an axisymmetric spacetime. This will still allow us to compare all three AHFs. Later we will rescale both the $y$ and $z$ axis (with different scaling factors) to compare the minimization and fast flow algorithm in a fully 3D situation. For the axisymmetric case we have considered both oblate and prolate configurations. In all cases we have studied the AHFs still find the correct critical values of $\lambda$ with about the same precision as in the spherical case.
In Fig. \[fig:gauss1\] we show a visual test of the accuracy of the position of the AH (found in this case with the minimization algorithm with $l_{max}=8$) on the $x-z$ plane for a prolate Gaussian bowl with $\lambda=1.5$, $r_0=2.5$, $\sigma=1$ and $d_z=1.2$. To check if the candidate surface is really a horizon, we can evaluate the residual value of the expansion $H$ on the numerically found horizon, but we also found the following more detailed test helpful in distinguishing spurious from real apparent horizons. Consider [*all*]{} the level sets of the function $F(x)$. The level set $F=0$ corresponds to our candidate horizon, and must have $H=0$ everywhere up to numerical error (i.e., the actual horizon surface must have [*both*]{} $F(x)=0$ [*and*]{} $H=0$). On each of the other level sets, we should generically still be able to find lines on which $H=0$, separating regions with $H>0$ and $H<0$. Linking up these lines on different level sets, we obtain a set of surfaces that we call “zeroes of the expansion”. Note that these surfaces have no geometric meaning, but depend both on the coordinate system and the candidate AH. A true AH must coincide with one of these surfaces (numerically it should follow one closely), while spurious AHs tend to be intersected by them. In our 2D plots, the solid line corresponds to the position of the AH $F(x^i)=0$, while the dotted lines correspond to the zeroes of the expansion $H$ on the level surfaces of $F$, as just described. The tick marks point in the direction of decreasing expansion, that is, towards the trapped regions. For this particular run we used a grid with $80^3$ points and a resolution of .
To quantify more the agreement between our two 3D finders, in Table \[tab:gauss1\] we compare the spectral coefficients found which each finder for two different resolutions. From the table we can see how the coefficients found with the different algorithms are closer for the higher resolution. The only exception is the coefficient of the $l=8$ term for which the difference almost doubled (while still being only off about 3%). A small difference is not surprising, though, since this is the last coefficient in the spectral decomposition, and there is no reason why the errors associated with the truncation of the infinite series should be the same for both algorithms (they have very different termination criteria). In fact, if we increase $l_{max}$ to 12 we find that the agreement in the $l=8$ coefficient improves dramatically.
$l$
----- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
fast flow minim. fast flow minim.
0 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24
2 $1.20 \times 10^{-1}$ $1.20 \times 10^{-1}$ $1.20 \times 10^{-1}$ $1.20 \times 10^{-1}$
4 $8.37 \times 10^{-3}$ $8.40 \times 10^{-3}$ $8.37 \times 10^{-3}$ $8.38 \times 10^{-3}$
6 $6.40 \times 10^{-4}$ $6.50 \times 10^{-4}$ $6.40 \times 10^{-4}$ $6.41 \times 10^{-4}$
8 $5.07 \times 10^{-5}$ $4.97 \times 10^{-5}$ $5.12 \times 10^{-5}$ $4.94 \times 10^{-5}$
: Spectral coefficients defining the apparent horizon for a prolate Gaussian bowl with $\lambda=1.5$, $r_0=2.5$, $\sigma=1$ and $d_z=1.2$, using $l_{max} = 8$.[]{data-label="tab:gauss1"}
Fig. \[fig:gauss2\] shows a comparison of the horizons found with our different finders for the same Gaussian bowl as above. Notice how all three finders have found the same surface. We have also studied many more axisymmetric configurations, with both prolate and oblate horizons, and had found similar results.
Up until now we have only discussed the reliability of the different AHFs in locating the horizons. As was mentioned in the introduction, another important question is how fast can horizons be located. For the particular example considered above the 2D finder is very fast. For example, for a solution of the initial data on an $800^2$ $(\rho,z)$ grid, and an initial search of $100$ different starting points along the $z-$axis (which are then bisected to a precision of $10^{-8}$ for the exact $z$ value) the code took about 1 minute on a single processor on an SGI Origin 2000 parallel computer. The 3D finders, not surprisingly, are much slower. The minimization algorithm was in fact somewhat faster than the fast flow method, taking $\sim400$ seconds against the $\sim600$ seconds of the fast flow algorithm when running on 8 processors on the same machine as above. This is somewhat deceptive, however, since the minimization algorithm was running in axisymmetric mode, that is, even though it worked on a full 3D grid it did not consider any $m\neq0$ terms in the expansion, while the fast flow algorithm considered all the terms.
As a final test, we have considered several non-axisymmetric configurations. Here we report results for the particular case of a Fermi bowl with $\lambda=4.25$, $r_0=2.5$, $\sigma=1$, $d_y=1.2$ and $d_z=0.8$. For this run we used a grid with $80^3$ points and a resolution of . This example illustrates clearly the two main drawbacks of the minimization algorithm: in the first place it is considerably slower than the fast flow algorithm, taking $\sim2000$ seconds against the $\sim300$ seconds of the fast flow (running again in the same machine and with the same configuration as above), and in the second place the minimization algorithm had a strong tendency to lock onto the inner horizon instead of the AH. Since the bowl metrics are static, we could overcome this problem by minimizing the area instead of the expansion, which allowed us to lock onto the real AH (in general one could presumably also have more that one minimal surface but this is not the case in this example). Notice that if after minimizing the area one gives the final $a_{lm}$ coefficients as initial guess and tries to minimize the expansion $H$ instead, the algorithm will not wander anymore to the inner horizon but will instead stay in the AH, so the problem is just one of having a good initial guess. In an actual evolution the horizon location of the previous find can be used as an initial guess [@Anninos94c], but if the horizon spontaneously jumps out or changes topology, as can happen when black holes are highly distorted or merge, this will be of little value.
One might wonder why the fast flow algorithm is faster in this case than in the axisymmetric configuration studied above. The reason is that for this configuration, the AH is closer to the edge of the computational domain (and therefore closer to the initial trial sphere) and the finder converges to it sooner.
Fig. \[fig:fermi1\] shows again a visual test of the accuracy of the position of the AH, as found with the minimization algorithm with $l_{max}=8$, on the $x-y$, $x-z$ and $y-z$ planes. Again, the solid lines correspond to the position of the horizon and the dotted lines to the zeroes of the expansion $H$. The fact that the solid lines coincide with a dotted line indicates that we have a true marginally trapped surface. In Fig. \[fig:fermi2\] we compare the two different 3D AHFs. The solid lines correspond to the exact position of the horizon, the dashed lines to the position found using the fast flow finder, and the dotted lines to that found with the minimization finder. Again, we have a very good agreement, though not as impressive as the one found in the axisymmetric case. The minimization finder has found the correct horizon to high accuracy, but the fast flow finds a surface somewhat outside. This seems to be a general property of our implementation of the fast flow algorithm: it has a tendency to stop slightly outside the real horizon if $l_{max}$ is not large enough. If we use $l_{max}=12$ instead, keeping the same spatial resolution, the three lines become indistinguishable.
=3.4in
=3.4in
Black hole data
===============
We now turn to Cauchy data that contain a black hole by construction. These initial data have throats that either connect two asymptotically flat sheets identified by an isometry operator (Misner type data), or that connect one asymptotically flat region to as many asymptotically flat sheets as there are black holes (Brill-Lindquist type data). More important than the difference in the topology of the initial data slice is whether the initial data is time symmetric or not, and we discuss both cases below. Some of these data sets are known analytically, while others can be computed only by solving the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints. In either case, the question is not whether a black hole exists, but rather where is the apparent horizon, and how many components does it have. We apply the apparent horizon finders described above to several of these spacetimes and compare their ability to find the correct AH surfaces.
Time symmetric black hole data
------------------------------
### Two black hole data
There are a number of two black hole initial data sets of interest, and here we will consider the two must commonly used in numerical relativity known respectively as the Misner and the Brill-Lindquist data sets.
The classic two black hole spacetime considered over several generations of numerical relativists is provided by the Misner data for time-symmetric, axisymmetric, equal mass black holes [@Cadez74; @Misner60; @Hahn64; @Smarr76; @Anninos93b; @Anninos94b]. The black holes in the Misner data are connected via throats to a single asymptotically flat universe. The horizon structure of this initial data system has been well studied, and provides important tests of a horizon finder’s ability to distinguish between spacetimes with with a single distorted black hole horizon or one with two disjoint apparent horizons.
The Misner initial data are parameterized by a distance parameter $\mu$, related to the proper distance between two throats.
Misner’s 3-metric takes the conformally-flat form [@Misner60] $$d\ell^2 = \psi^4 \left( dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 \right),
\label{confla}$$ with the conformal factor $\psi$ given by $$\psi = 1 + \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} \frac{1}{\sinh \left( n\mu \right)}
\left( \frac{1}{{}^+r_n} + \frac{1}{{}^-r_n} \right),$$ where $$\label{eq:rn}
{}^{\pm}r_n = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + \left( z \pm \coth \left( n\mu \right)
\right)^2}.$$
The black holes are on the $z$-axis, with their centers at $z=\pm\coth\mu$ and with throat radii $a=1/\sinh\mu$. As $\mu$ is increased, the centers of the holes approach each other in coordinate space, and their throat radii decrease. The net effect is that larger values of $\mu$ correspond to the throats being farther away from each other in proper distance, scaled by the ADM mass $M$. Studies have shown that beyond a certain critical value $\mu_*=1.36$ the system goes from a single horizon to two disjoint horizons [@Cadez74]. Both the 3D finders, working with a grid spacing of $\Delta x = \Delta
y = \Delta z = 0.06$ and $l_{\rm max}=4$, find a common AH in the Misner data at $\mu=1.3$, but not at $\mu=1.4$ even after doubling $l_{\rm max}$ and halving $\Delta x$. The axisymmetric finder, using a grid spacing of $\Delta r=0.00375$ and 400 angular zones, finds a much more precise critical value of $\mu_*=1.364$. Fig. \[fig:misner1\] shows our standard visual test for the position of the horizon for the case $\mu=1.3$ (as found with the minimization algorithm with $l_{\rm
max}=8)$. Notice how the horizon does coincide with a zero of the expansion. We have also calculated the horizon area as a coordinate-independent quantity. For the case $\mu=1.3$ we find an area of $A \sim 5.0\times 10^2$.
The Brill-Lindquist [@Brill63] initial data describe a time-symmetric slice in which each black hole is connected via a throat to its own asymptotically flat region. In contrast, both black holes in Misner data are connected to the [*same*]{} opposite asymptotically flat region, so that the slice is multiply connected. Misner data therefore have an additional reflection-type isometry that is absent in Brill-Lindquist data. Mathematically, Brill-Lindquist data can be described as taking only the first term in the infinite sum leading to Misner data. Brill-Lindquist data for two black holes form a one-parameter family, but instead of by $\mu$ they are more commonly parameterized by keeping the naked masses of the two black holes fixed (the naked masses are the ADM masses of the disconnected asymptotic regions) and varying their coordinate distance $d$. In terms of this coordinate distance, the critical distance for two black holes of naked mass one each is given as $d_*=1.56$ by Brill and Lindquist [@Brill63], and $d_*=1.53$ by Bishop [*et al.*]{} [@Bishop82]. Both our 3D finders, working with a grid spacing of $\Delta x = 0.04$ and $l_{\rm max}=4$, find a common AH in the Brill-Lindquist data at $d=1.5$, but not at $d=1.6$ even after doubling $l_{\rm max}$ and halving $\Delta x$. Again, the axisymmetric finder can determine the critical value to much higher accuracy. Running with the same resolution as that used for the Misner data it finds a critical value of $d_*=1.532$ (consistent with the value of Bishop [*et al.*]{}). In Fig. \[fig:brilin1\] we show our standard visual test for the position of the horizon for $d=1.5$ (as found with the minimization algorithm with $l_{\rm
max}=8$). For this horizon we find an area of $A \sim 2.0\times 10^2$.
### 3 Black Hole data
Both the Brill-Lindquist and Misner data generalize to an arbitrary number of black holes with arbitrary masses. This allows us to test the apparent horizon finders on data that is not axisymmetric but is still time-symmetric. The line element $dl^2$ is given by (\[confla\]) as before, and the Brill-Lindquist conformal factor for $N$ black holes is $$\psi=1 + \sum_{a=1}^N {m_a\over 2|\vec r - \vec r_a|}.
\label{brlipsi}$$ The Misner conformal factor is obtained by adding an infinite sum of “mirror charges” [@Anninos89].
Nakamura [*et al.*]{} [@Nakamura84] have tested a three-dimensional AHF on a constellation of three equal mass black holes of the Misner type – two asymptotically flat regions joined by three wormholes – arranged in an equilateral triangle. They parameterize the family by $x=$ (coordinate side length of the triangle) / (coordinate radius of the throats), and find a common horizon for all three black holes for . We parameterize the same family by $\mu$, which for this setup is related to $x$ as , with $x=6.2$ corresponding to $\mu=1.9483$. Both our 3D finders, working with a resolution of $\Delta x = 0.05$ and using $l_{max}=6$, clearly find a common horizon for $\mu=1.9$, and clearly do not find one for $\mu=2.0$, so that we estimate , corresponding to . Fig. \[fig:3misner1\] shows a comparison of the AHs found with our two 3D finders for the case $\mu=1.9$, using in both cases $l_{max}=6$ and a resolution of $\Delta x = \Delta y = \Delta z = 0.1$. Both finders find the same surface to high accuracy. Fig. \[fig:3misner2\] shows a 3D representation of the coordinate location of this horizon. The area of this horizon was found to be $A\sim3.8\times10^2$.
=3.4in
Because Brill-Lindquist initial data are more easily obtained, we have also looked for the maximal separation for Brill-Lindquist data for the same setup. The three black holes are at coordinate locations $(d,0,0)$, $(0,d,0)$ and $(0,0,d)$ in Cartesian coordinates, each with a mass of one. This means that they are in an equilateral triangle of side length $\sqrt{2}d$. The fast flow AHF, working in three dimensions with a grid spacing of $\Delta x = \Delta y = \Delta z =
0.1$ and $l_{max}=12$, finds a common AH in the Brill-Lindquist data at $d=1.4$, but not at $d=1.5$ even after doubling $l_{max}$ and turning off the matrix inversion step described in [@Gundlach97a]. We therefore estimate , by criteria which did give a correct bracketing for the 2 BH Misner and Brill-Lindquist data, and the 3 BH Misner data. The minimization algorithm, working with the same resolution and with $l_{max}=6$, finds the same results but is now painfully slow, taking about $25$ times longer than the fast flow on exactly the same data. This is because the black holes have been placed in such a way that there are no reflection symmetries on the coordinate planes, and this forces us to work with all $\{l,m\}$ terms in the expansion. In contrast, the 3 Misner black holes above were set up on the $x-y$ plane and had reflection symmetries both on the $x-y$ and $x-z$ planes, which allowed us to eliminate many terms from the expansion, resulting in making the minimization algorithm only $3$ times slower than the fast flow. Of course, we could have used the same configuration for the Brill-Lindquist case, but we wanted to test our finders in a situation with no special symmetries. Fig. \[fig:3brilin1\] shows a comparison of the AHs found with our two 3D finders for the case $d=1.9$ using $l_{max}=6$. Again, both finders find the same surface, except close to the origin where there is a clear mismatch. This mismatch is a consequence of a lack of resolution in the spectral decomposition, and disappears if we increase $l_{max}$ to $9$ (the fast flow ‘horizon’ moves in to lie on top of the original horizon found with the minimization algorithm). Fig. \[fig:3brilin2\] shows a 3D representation of the coordinate location of the same horizon. For this horizon we have found the area to be $A\sim4.5\times10^2$.
=3.4in
Non time-symmetric black hole data
----------------------------------
All the data sets considered so far are time-symmetric, $K_{ij} = 0$. In this case, Eq. (\[eqn:horizon1\]) defining marginally trapped surfaces reduces to a minimal surface equation that involves only the three-metric. Allowing $K_{ij} \neq 0$ introduces a completely new qualitative feature. While minimal surface equations have been studied a great deal in many different contexts, and while this is to a lesser extent also true in the case of non-flat metrics, general relativity with non-vanishing $K_{ij}$ introduces particular velocity and potential terms about which little appears to be known. For example, see [@Tod91] where it is pointed out that the natural generalization of the mean curvature flow method does not define a gradient flow and the area does not necessarily decrease. Nevertheless, as stated in [@Tod91], there is good reason to hope that such a flow algorithm will still converge. Here we present examples that demonstrate that all three finders are able to locate apparent horizons in black hole space times with $K_{ij} \neq 0$. Of course, $K_{ij} \neq 0$ naturally arises during [*evolution*]{} of the time-symmetric black hole data presented above, but we will not study evolutions in this paper.
Analytically known black hole initial data which are not time-symmetric include of course those obtained from slicing a single Kerr black hole. These data are still axisymmetric, and the horizon is a coordinate sphere. One can break the axisymmetry (of the data on a slice, not the spacetime!) by boosting the Kerr black hole in a direction not parallel to its angular momentum. This is done by writing the Kerr metric in Kerr-Schild form $$g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + l_\mu l_\nu,$$ where $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is flat and $l_\mu$ is null (with respect to both $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ and $g_{\mu\nu}$). In Cartesian coordinates $(t,x,y,z)$, one applies a Lorentz transformation to $g_{\mu\nu}$, and carries out a 3+1 split on the surface $t=0$. Explicit formulae are given in [@Matzner98a]. We have found the apparent horizon, and have obtained good agreement between the minimization and fast flow finders, for values for the dimensionless angular momentum of $0$, $0.5$ and $0.8$, and for the same values of the boost speed, with all combinations of these two parameters. Nevertheless, we felt that these initial data still carried too much symmetry.
In the remainder of this section we will consider conformally flat initial data for moving and spinning black holes that generalizes Brill-Lindquist data [@Brandt97b]. Similar tests could be carried out for a generalization of Misner type data [@Cook93]. The conformally flat line element is given by (\[confla\]). The extrinsic curvature is trace free, and therefore the momentum constraint does not depend on the conformal factor. An explicit solution to the momentum constraint that characterize a single black hole with given momentum $P^i$, and spin $S^i$ is $$\begin{aligned}
K^{ij}_{PS} &=&
\frac{3}{2r^2} (P^i n^j + P^j n^i - (g^{ij} - n^i n^j) P^k n_k)
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{3}{r^3} (\epsilon^{ikl} S_k n_l n^b
+\epsilon^{jkl} S_k n_l n^i),
\label{KPJ}\end{aligned}$$ where $n^i$ is the unit radial vector. Since the momentum constraint is linear in $K_{ij}$, for $N$ black holes we can solve the momentum constraint by $$K^{ij} = \sum_{a = 1}^{N} K_{PS(a)}^{ij},
\label{Ksol}$$ where each term is defined by (\[KPJ\]) with its own origin $\vec{r}_{a}$, momentum $\vec{P}_{a}$, and spin $\vec{S}_{a}$. These parameters correspond to the ADM quantities in the limit that the separation of the holes is very large.
The Hamiltonian constraint is solved by splitting a regular function, $u$, from the conformal factor, compare (\[brlipsi\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&& \psi = u +
\sum_{i=1}^{N}
\frac{m_{a}}{2 \left|\vec{r}-\vec{r}_{a}\right|},
\label{brbrpsi}
\\
&& \Delta_\delta u + \beta (1 + \alpha u)^{-7} = 0, \end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha = (\sum {m_{a}}/(2 \left|\vec{r}-\vec{r}_{a}\right|))^{-1}$, $\beta = \alpha^7 K^{ij}K_{ij}/8$, and $u\rightarrow1$ at infinity. A key feature of the “puncture method” is that the resulting elliptic equation for $u$ can be implemented on $R^3$ despite the apparent singularities at the $\vec{r}_{a}$ [@Brandt97b].
### One black hole data
First we consider a single black hole at the origin with mass $m=1$ and momentum aligned with the $z$-axis. For non-vanishing net momentum the fall-off as one approaches infinity is rather slow, and one has to place the outer boundary of the grid sufficiently far away to obtain, e.g., mass estimates close to the ADM mass (even though a Robin boundary modeling a $1/r$ fall-off in the conformal factor was used). In Fig. \[fig:brbr0\] we show the dependence of the regular piece of the conformal factor, $u$, on the location of the outer boundary for the 2D solver, $\Delta z=0.05$. Note that $u = 1$ for $\vec{P} = 0$. Even though $\psi$ has a pole at $r = 0$, the location of the outer boundary affects the location of the apparent horizon, which in this case intersects the $z$-axis at 0.433 for the boundary at 4.0 and at 0.436 for the boundary at 32.0.
In Fig. \[fig:brbrm\] we show how two different mass indicators depend on radius for the 3D solver (we will discuss how we calculate the masses in section \[sec:brill\] below). In 3D, some sort of adaptivity is crucial for numerical efficiency. While the approach to the mass at infinity is slow, perhaps surprisingly so considering that the apparent horizon is at about $r = 0.5$, note that in general there does not exist a concept of local mass that would allow one to compute the mass at infinity at finite $r$.
In Fig. \[fig:brbr1\] we show results for the 3D apparent horizon finders for a sequence of linear momenta aligned with the $z$-axis. Here we put the outer boundary at $r = 16$ which appears reasonable according to Fig. \[fig:brbr0\]. In order to achieve sufficient resolution near the apparent horizon, the 3D data is computed on five nested boxes with a refinement factor of 2, $[-16,16]^3$ to $[-1,1]^3$, $64^3$ points each, with smallest grid spacing of $2/64 =
0.03125$. To quantify the agreement between the two 3D finders, we give various spectral coefficients for two resolutions in Table \[tab:brbr2\].
Note that with increasing momentum the apparent horizon shrinks in these coordinates. However, the surface area computed from the metric increases: for $P^z = 0$, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the surface areas divided by $16\pi$ as found by the minimization algorithm at $\Delta =
0.0625$ are 1.000102, 1.19, 1.52, 1.85, 2.16, and 2.46, respectively.
Furthermore, the apparent horizon is offset from the origin in such a way that it trails the “motion” of the center (see also [@Bruegmann97]). This, of course, is a coordinate dependent notion. For the event horizon, as opposed to the apparent horizon, one would expect that it is displaced in the direction of the momentum because an observer would find it harder to avoid falling into a black hole that is moving towards her.
The trailing of the apparent horizon seems plausible by the following argument. Note that the extrinsic curvature is odd under reversal of momentum, $K_{ij}(-P) = - K_{ij}(P)$, while the conformal factor is even, $\psi(-P) = \psi(P)$, since the extrinsic curvature enters into the Hamiltonian constraint as $K_{ij}K^{ij}$. The expansion formula (\[eqn:horizon1\]) contains therefore an even term, $\nabla_i s^i$, where the change in $\psi$ amounts to a symmetric deformation. The remaining term $K_{ij}s^is^j$ (since $trK = 0$), is odd in $P^i$ [ *and*]{} $n^i$. Since for $P^i=0$ and for concentric spheres of radius $r$, the expansion $H(r)$ has a zero at $r=1/2$ with positive slope, we expect to see the location of the horizon on the positive $z$-axis to move to smaller $z$ with increasing $P^z > 0$. For a rigorous argument one would have to take the non-locality of the minimal surface equation into account.
The 2D results agree with the 3D results to within less than $1\%$, which would not be visible in Fig. \[fig:brbr1\]. In this case the initial data is obtained from an independent numerical code in 2D and 3D. A simple test case which is independent of numerical error in the initial data can be obtained by setting $u = 1$ for non-vanishing $K_{ij}$. For the 2D data one can read off that for $u=1$ the apparent horizon is almost exactly an ellipse with radius $0.495$ in the $y$-direction, $0.499$ in the $z$-direction, and an offset in the $z$-direction of $-0.061$.
=3.4in
$m=0$
------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
$l$ fast flow minim. fast flow minim.
0 4.616$\times10^{-1}$ 4.616$\times10^{-1}$ 4.622$\times10^{-1}$ 4.623$\times10^{-1}$
1 -2.601$\times10^{-2}$ -2.602$\times10^{-2}$ -2.624$\times10^{-2}$ -2.615$\times10^{-2}$
2 1.561$\times10^{-3}$ 1.560$\times10^{-3}$ 1.562$\times10^{-3}$ 1.574$\times10^{-3}$
3 -9.020$\times10^{-5}$ -8.749$\times10^{-5}$ -1.251$\times10^{-4}$ -8.437$\times10^{-5}$
4 6.396$\times10^{-7}$ 1.571$\times10^{-5}$ 4.636$\times10^{-5}$ 4.991$\times10^{-5}$
: Spectral coefficients defining the apparent horizon for a single black hole with $m = 1$ and $\vec{P}=(0,0,1)$ for $l_{max} = 8$.[]{data-label="tab:brbr2"}
### Two black hole data
We consider one particular example for non-time-symmetric and non-axisymmetric black hole binary initial data. Such data was for the first time evolved through a brief merger phase as indicated by the location of the apparent horizon in [@Bruegmann97]. Here we compare the 3D finders for the example of [@Bruegmann97] but with a separation such that there is one common outermost marginally trapped surface already at $t=0$, Fig. \[fig:brbr3\]: $m_1=1.5$, $m_2=1$, $\vec{c}_{1,2}=(0,0,\pm 0.5)$, $\vec{P}_{1,2}=(\pm 2,0,0)$, $\vec{S}_1=(-0.5,0.5,0)$, $\vec{S}_2=(0,1,1)$. There are three grids $[-12.8,12.8]^3$ to $[-3.2,3.2]$ with either $64^3$ or $128^3$ points each, so that the central resolution is $\Delta = 0.1$ or $0.05$, respectively. Clearly, there is a very large parameter space to study, and even more interestingly, one can also study how various black hole data sets evolve through a merger, an issue that we hope to address in a future publication.
=3.4in
Brill wave spacetimes {#sec:brill}
=====================
We finally turn to a rather difficult problem: determining whether or not a horizon exists, and if so, determining its location, in a numerically generated initial data set. This will be a common situation in simulations involving gravitational collapse of matter or gravitational waves. For this test, we turn to a sequence of pure wave spacetimes, of a family originally considered by Brill [@Brill59], that must be obtained numerically through solutions to the constraint equations. If the waves are strong enough, an apparent horizon must be present [@Beig91], but at what point it appears as one increases the wave strength, or where it will be located, is unknown [*a priori*]{}.
Initial data
------------
Brill’s construction starts by considering an axisymmetric metric of the form: $$ds^2 = \Psi^4 \left[ e^{2q} \left( d\rho^2 + dz^2 \right)
+ \rho^2 d\phi^2 \right] .
\label{eqn:brillmetric}$$
Where both $q$ and $\Psi$ are functions of $\{\rho,z\}$. In order to solve for $\Psi$, we first impose the condition of time symmetry, which implies that the momentum constraints are identically satisfied. We then chose a function $q$ and solve the Hamiltonian constraint, which for the metric (\[eqn:brillmetric\]) becomes $$\Delta_{\delta} \Psi + \frac{1}{4} \, (q_{,\rho\rho}
+ q_{,zz})\, \Psi = 0 ,
\label{eqn:brillham}$$ where $\Delta_{\delta}$ is the flat space Laplacian.
The function $q$ is almost completely arbitrary, apart from the fact that it must satisfy the following boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
q \left|_{\rho=0} \right. &=& 0 ,\\
\partial^n_\rho q \left|_{\rho=0} \right. &=& 0 \qquad \mbox{for odd $n$},\\
q \left|_{r\rightarrow\infty} \right. &=& O \left( r^{-2} \right) .\end{aligned}$$
Once a function $q$ has been chosen, all that is left for one to do is solve the elliptic equation (\[eqn:brillham\]) numerically. This can be done in a variety of ways. Here we use two independent elliptic solvers: an axisymmetric solver based on a semi-coarsening multi-grid solver, and a multi-grid fully 3D solver (Bernd Brügmann’s BAM) hooked up to the Cactus [@Bona98a] code recently developed at the Albert-Einstein-Institut. Having two independent solvers with different methods, in different coordinate systems, and in different dimensions has allowed us to cross check our results and has increased our confidence in our solution of the elliptic problem.
Different forms of the function $q$ have been used by different authors [@Eppley77; @Eppley79; @Holz93; @Shibata97b]. Here we will consider two such forms, the first one introduced by Eppley in his pioneering work on Brill waves in the seventies [@Eppley77; @Eppley79], and the second one introduced by Holz [*et al.*]{} in the early nineties [@Holz93].
Before moving on to horizon finding in pure wave spacetimes, we first comment on how to calculate the gravitational mass of a given initial data set. Finding the gravitational mass is a very useful tool in testing the accuracy of our initial data. It provides us with a single number that can be easily compared for different initial data solvers and is a good indicator of the strength of a gravitational wave. For strong wave spacetimes that collapse to a black hole, the difference between the initial mass of the wave and the mass of the final black hole is a good indicator of the percentage of energy that was radiated out to infinity. We have several ways of calculating the initial mass of our spacetimes. The first method is to use the ADM mass [@Wald84] $$M = \frac{1}{16 \pi} \lim_{r\rightarrow\infty} \oint g^{ij} g^{mn}
\left( g_{in,j} - g_{ij,n} \right) \sqrt{g} \; dS_m
\label{eq:ADMmass1}$$ in appropriate coordinates.
Of course, our numerical grid does not extend all the way to infinity, so in practice we evaluate the integral at a series of different finite radii and look at its behavior as $r$ increases. As it turns out, the mass calculated using Eq. (\[eq:ADMmass1\]) converges only very slowly with $r$ even for a simple Schwarzschild black hole. A better way of calculating the mass uses the fact that for large $r$ (but still small enough to be inside the computational grid) the function $q$ becomes essentially zero and the metric is conformally flat. For conformally flat metrics the ADM mass can be rewritten as [@Omurchadha74] $$M = - \frac{1}{2 \pi} \lim_{r\rightarrow\infty} \oint \vec{\nabla}
\Psi \cdot d \vec{S} .
\label{eq:ADMmass2}$$
Equations (\[eq:ADMmass1\]) and (\[eq:ADMmass2\]) are only equivalent in the limit of infinite radius, but it turns out that for a Schwarzschild black hole in isotropic coordinates, Eq. (\[eq:ADMmass2\]) gives in fact the correct mass at [*any finite radius*]{}. Since once we are in the region where $q$ is very small the metric of our Brill wave solutions approaches the Schwarzschild metric rapidly, one finds that the masses obtained by using (\[eq:ADMmass2\]) converge very fast as $r$ increases.
A final way of calculating the mass is what we call the ‘pseudo Schwarzschild mass’. This mass estimate is obtained by first finding the areal (Schwarzschild) radius $R$ of a series of coordinate spheres, finding the correspondent metric component $g_{RR}$ (averaged over the coordinate sphere) and then defining: $$M = \frac{R}{2} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{g_{RR}} \right) .
\label{eq:ADMmass3}$$
In practice we find that for the spacetimes studied below, the mass indicator (\[eq:ADMmass3\]) also converges very rapidly with $r$.
Eppley data
-----------
Eppley considered a function $q$ of the general form [@Eppley77] $$q = a \; \frac{\rho^2}{1 + (r/\lambda)^n},
\label{eqn:eppleyq}$$ where $a,\lambda$ are constants, $r^2 = \rho^2 + z^2$ and $n \geq 4$. Notice here that, for odd $n$ the function $q$ is not completely smooth at the origin. Nevertheless, Eppley considered mainly the particular case $\lambda=1$, $n=5$, and in order to compare with his results we will do the same here.
Before looking for horizons, we must first convince ourselves that we can solve for the conformal factor $\Psi$ correctly, that is, that we can construct good initial data. Our approach here is to solve the initial value problem independently in axisymmetry and in full 3D and compare both results with those of Eppley. In particular, we will look at the extracted masses for a sequence of solutions with increasing amplitudes $a$. For our axisymmetric initial data we have used a grid of $800^2$ points with a resolution of $\Delta \rho =
\Delta z = 0.03125$, and for the 3D data a grid of $131^3$ points with a resolution of $\Delta x = \Delta y = \Delta z =0.08$. In Table \[tab:epp\_mass\] we tabulate the values of the masses that we find for different wave amplitudes. The masses that we report here as those obtained by Eppley were read off (by us) from Fig. 1 in Ref. [@Eppley77] (modulo a conventional factor of 2 in the amplitude $a$) and are thus not very accurate. The error estimates for the 2D calculations were determined from the difference of the masses obtained by looking at the falloff of the conformal factor along the $z$ and $\rho$ axis.
From Table \[tab:epp\_mass\] we can see that the masses obtained with our axisymmetric and 3D elliptic solvers agree remarkably well between themselves, but are generally different from those reported by Eppley. For low amplitudes, Eppley’s masses are lower than those that we find. For an amplitude $a\simeq5$, Eppley’s mass and ours coincide, but for larger amplitudes Eppley’s masses grow much faster. In fact, Eppley reports that for $a\simeq8$, the geometry pinches off (the conformal factor has a zero) and the mass becomes infinite but we see no evidence of such behavior. Since our two [*independent*]{} initial data solvers agree so well with each other, we are forced to conclude that there must have been something wrong in Eppley’s calculations. It must be pointed out here that Eppley makes a very strong point of trying to calculate the masses correctly, so we must conclude that the error must have been in his solution for the conformal factor. As an example of our initial data, in Fig. \[fig:epp\_psi\] we show the conformal factor $\Psi(\rho,z)$ for the case $a=10$.
$a$ M (2D) M (3D) M (Eppley)
----- -------------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------------
1 $(4.8\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-2}$ $5.0\times10^{-2}$ $(3.6\pm 0.2)\times10^{-2}$
2 $(1.74\pm 0.02)\times 10^{-1}$ $1.8\times10^{-1}$ $(1.1\pm.1)\times10^{-1}$
5 $(8.83\pm 0.07)\times 10^{-1}$ $8.9\times10^{-1}$ $(9\pm 0.5)\times10^{-1}$
10 $3.22\pm 0.02$ 3.2 -
12 $4.85\pm 0.02$ 4.9 -
: Masses for Brill wave initial data with a source function $q$ of the Eppley [*et al.*]{} type. Notice how our 2D and 3D solvers agree remarkably well between each other, but disagree with Eppley’s results.[]{data-label="tab:epp_mass"}
\#1\#2[0.5\#1]{}
Having constructed the initial data, we will now look for the presence of AHs. We have studied a series of solutions with increasing amplitudes with all three of our AHFs. Both our 3D finders find that an AH first appears for a critical amplitude $a_*\in[10.8,10.9]$. For amplitudes above $a_*$ we can find two horizons using the minimization algorithm (the fast flow algorithm is not designed to look for inner horizons). The 2D AHF can pin-point the value of $a*$ more precisely to $a_*\in[10.86,10.87]$. As we can see, the agreement in the value of $a_*$ is remarkable.
It is of course not enough to agree on the value of the critical amplitude above which AHs appear. We also need to compare the positions of the horizons found by the different AHFs. We have done this for many different amplitudes and found good agreement between our three AHFs. In Fig. \[fig:eppley1\] we show our standard visual test for the position of both the inner horizon and the AH for the particular case of $a=12$. Notice how in both cases the horizons coincide with zeroes of the expansion. Fig. \[fig:eppley2\] shows a comparison of the position of the AH found with the different algorithms. Again, all three finders locate the same surface. In this case we find that the area of the AH is $A\sim1.1\times 10^3$. It is interesting to see whether this result agrees with the Penrose inequality [@Penrose73] $16 \pi M^2/A \geq 1$. From Table \[tab:epp\_mass\] we see that the ADM mass in this case in $M
\sim 4.85$, which implies $16 \pi M^2/A \sim 1.07$, so the inequality is comfortably satisfied.
=2.2in
Holz data
---------
Holz [*et al.*]{} considered a Brill wave source function $q$ of the form $$q = a \; \rho^2 \; e^{-r^2} .
\label{eqn:holzq}$$ This form of the function $q$ is perfectly regular at the origin. An almost identical form of the function $q$ was also recently considered by Shibata [@Shibata97b] $$q_{\rm Sh} = {a\over 2} \; \rho^2 \; e^{-r^2/2} .
\label{eqn:shibataq}$$ (Note that Shibata has a different convention for $q$; this is our convention.) One can see that Shibata’s results can in fact be compared directly with those of Holz [*et al.*]{} because the two metrics differ only by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$ in the coordinates (and therefore also in the ADM mass), which on rescaling can be absorbed into the conformal factor (notice that multiplying the conformal factor by a constant does not affect the equation for a horizon (\[eqn:horizon1\]) for vanishing extrinsic curvature). The strength parameter $a$ is the same in both cases.
Again, before looking for horizons, we will first test our initial data solvers by comparing the solutions of our 2D and 3D elliptic solvers with the results of Holz [*et al.*]{} [@Holz93; @Holz98x]. As before, the 2D initial data was calculated using $800\times800$ grid points and a resolution of $\Delta z = \Delta \rho = 0.03125$ and the 3D data using $131^3$ grid points with a resolution of $\Delta x =
\Delta y = \Delta z = 0.06$. The values of the masses we find for different wave amplitudes can be seen in Table \[tab:holz\_mass\]. Notice how the values extracted from the 2D and 3D data agree remarkably well both between themselves and with the masses of Holz [*et al.*]{} This gives us great confidence in the accuracy of our initial data. Fig. \[fig:holz\_psi\] shows in particular the conformal factor $\Psi(\rho,z)$ for the case $a=10$.
$a$ M (2D) M (3D) M (Holz [*et al.*]{})
----- --------------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
1 $(3.38 \pm .04)\times10^{-2}$ $3.4\times10^{-2}$ $3.40\times10^{-2}$
2 $(1.262 \pm .009)\times10^{-1}$ $1.3\times10^{-1}$ $1.27\times10^{-1}$
5 $(6.96 \pm .03)\times10^{-1}$ $7.0\times10^{-1}$ $7.00\times10^{-1}$
10 $2.912 \pm .008$ 2.9 2.91
12 $4.67 \pm 0.01$ 4.7 4.68
: Masses for Brill wave initial data with a source function $q$ of the Holz [*et al.*]{} type.[]{data-label="tab:holz_mass"}
\#1\#2[0.5\#1]{}
Although we agree with Holz [*et al.*]{} on the initial data, we disagree on the AHs. Our three AHF agree among themselves, but disagree with the results reported in Ref. [@Holz93]. Holz [*et al.*]{} claim that an AH first appears for a critical amplitude $a_*=7.5$, and for larger amplitudes they can find two horizons. Our own results are qualitatively similar: a horizon first appears for a given critical amplitude, and above that we can always find two horizons. However, the value for that critical amplitude is different. Both our 3D finders indicate that $a_*\in[11.8,11.85]$, while the our 2D finder limits the interval to $a_*\in[11.81,11.82]$. Shibata, on the other hand, finds that the first AH appears for $a\sim12$, in complete agreement with our results. The mass of the solution corresponding to the critical amplitude turns out to be $M\simeq4.5$.
In Fig. \[fig:holz1\] we show again our standard visual test for the position the inner and apparent horizons for the particular case of $a=12$. Fig. \[fig:holz2\] shows a comparison of the position of the AH found with our three different finders. The area of the horizon in this case turns out to be . From Table \[tab:holz\_mass\] we see that in this case the ADM mass is $M
\sim 4.67$, from which we find that $16 \pi M^2/A \sim 0.997$. The Penrose inequality appears to be slightly violated, but this small violation could easily be caused by the inaccuracies in the determination of both the mass and the area.
=2.2in
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have developed a large number of test-beds for apparent horizon finding algorithms in numerical relativity, and have applied them to three algorithms of ours. There were several goals of this study. First, in preparation for studies of a wide variety of datasets it was important to verify that our algorithms are robust and that their coding is correct. As a result of this extensive testing we are now very confident that our algorithms, which had to be refined in several cases to find difficult but known horizons, are correct and robust. Second, through this study we have developed an extensive series of quantitative tests for both developing and validating future algorithms, that should be useful to the community. Third, we used these refined horizon finding algorithms to study a series of interesting black hole and gravitational wave initial data sets in preparation for numerical evolutions.
For the purpose of validating our own algorithms, we have repeated virtually all [*quantitative*]{} test-beds in the literature that have come to our attention. Here it was important to have some simple numbers that can be compared directly. For two of these test-beds (Brill wave data), our results disagree with the published results. We are confident that our results are the correct ones both because our three finders agree with each other, and because they agree with the literature for the other published test-beds.
At our disposal we had three apparent horizon finders, two independent ones in three space dimensions without symmetries, and one limited to axisymmetry. Both 3D finders are an integral part of the Cactus numerical relativity framework [@Bona98b], so that all the test-bed data can be calculated, examined for horizons with either of the two finders, and evolved forward in time within the same code, just by changing parameters. The 2D finder was also linked up with a 2D initial data solver. While the fast flow 3D AH finder is generally much faster than the minimization routine, it was crucial for the validation process to have all three available to work on the same data. We stress that Powell’s method, which was used in the minimization algorithm, is probably not the best for the minimization, but it is common and readily available for testing the basic AH finding strategy; more sophisticated minimization algorithms could accelerate the minimization-based AH finder. The speed of the finders will be crucial in determining whether full scale numerical evolutions can be practically carried out or not, and even the present generation finders can be taxing in terms of computational time. The 2D initial data solver and apparent horizon finder, although limited to axisymmetric data, had the advantage of allowing for much higher numerical precision, thus giving us more confidence yet in our results.
We want to emphasize the importance of proper validation through test-beds, of any new algorithm, especially for analysis tools such as horizon finders for which standard techniques such as convergence tests will generally not reveal algorithm deficiencies or coding errors. Validation on simple examples with lower symmetry, or with analytically known horizons, is important but simply not sufficient. One could almost establish a variant of Murphy’s law stating that every new test-bed calculation that is in some way more generic than previous ones will reveal a new deficiency in a given finder. As AHs are not known for completely general data sets, being able to test two or three totally independent finders on the same initial data was crucial to our development process, right down to the process of eliminating typos in this paper. On the one hand, we have included some physically interesting data sets (black holes and Brill waves), on the other hand we would like to stress that for the sole purpose of testing an AHF, one can run it on data that do not obey the constraints (“bowl” spacetimes).
Finding AHs in data without symmetries remains a very difficult problem. For generic data, which are not time-symmetric, no algorithm is known to always work. Essentially, the problem is highly nonlinear, and can be made arbitrarily difficult with sufficiently “bad” data (a typical example of such behavior was discussed for the “bowl” spacetimes). In fact there may not be any “best” algorithm that is both fast and robust at the same time. Further, in different cases one algorithm may work better than another, or vice versa. For these reasons we continue to use our various AH finders to confirm results.
As an aid to future development and validation efforts, in this paper we have given simple numbers (critical separations, horizon areas and ADM masses) for families of initial data that should provide useful and quantitative testbed for other groups. However, in our opinion, validation must also include detailed comparison of the entire shape of the candidate AH with other algorithms, for data which have no symmetries at all.
The horizon finders developed and refined on these spacetimes are presently being applied to evolutions of some of these datasets. These results will be presented in future publications.
We are indebted to many colleagues for numerous discussions and email exchanges during the course of this work. In particular, Gabrielle Allen, Daniel Holz, Sascha Husa, Niall O’Murchadha and Wai-Mo Suen provided valuable input and insights into the results at preliminary stages of this work. We also want to thank Werner Benger for helping us with the visualization of our 3D data. This work was supported by the Albert-Einstein-Institut, by NCSA, and by UIB.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A well-known and difficult problem in computational number theory and algebraic geometry is to write down equations for branched covers of algebraic curves with specified monodromy type. In this article, we present a technique for computing such covers in the case of covers of elliptic curves with unique, totally ramified branch points.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755'
author:
- 'Simon Rubinstein-Salzedo'
title: 'Covers of Elliptic Curves with Unique, Totally Ramified Branch Points'
---
Introduction
============
In this article, we present a technique, based on a degeneration idea that Couveignes in [@Couv99] used in a slightly different context, to construct covers of elliptic curves with unique, totally ramified branch points. In particular, given an elliptic curve $E$ and an integer $g\ge 2$, we construct a genus-$g$ curve $C$ and a map $f:C\to E$ of degree $2g-1$, so that $f$ is ramified above exactly one point of $E$, and so that the local monodromy above that point is of type a $(2g-1)$-cycle.
The study of branched covers of curves goes back to Riemann, who determined necessary and sufficient conditions on the local monodromies for such covers to exist. However, interest in writing down explicit equations for such covers is more recent, and it was only after Belyĭ in [@Belyi79] proved his celebrated theorem and Grothendieck laid out his Esquisse d’un Programme [@Groth97] for using such covers to understand the absolute Galois group of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ that interest in this subject took off. More recently, based on work of Beckmann [@Beck89], Roberts in [@Rob04] has demonstrated that Belyĭ maps ${\mathbb{P}}^1\to{\mathbb{P}}^1$ can be used in practice to construct number fields with limited ramification.
While the theory in Beckmann’s work and Roberts’s work applies to more general covers of curves, computations of covers of other curves has been too difficult for practical use for constructing number fields of limited ramification.
On the other hand, inspired by the analogy with Belyĭ maps, work has been done from a mostly topological perspective on branched covers of elliptic curves. This work began with Lochak in [@Lochak05] and has continued with work of Möller in [@Moller05] and of Herrlich and Schmithüsen (for example, in [@HS09]) and their Karlsruhe school.
In Section \[origamis\], we present some background on branched covers of elliptic curves ramified at one point (also known as origamis). In Section \[family\], we present our result. Finally, in Section \[degen\], we present the degeneration technique used to construct the family of covers for the first time. While the technique presented does not guarantee a solution, we suspect that this section will be the most interesting part of this article.
Origamis
========
By the Riemann-Hurwitz formula, an unramified cover of a genus-1 curve must again be a genus-1 curve, which means that such a map is simply a composition of an isogeny of elliptic curves and a translation.
However, if we allow one branched point on our elliptic curve, then there are covers by higher-genus curves. These will be our objects of study.
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve. An origami is a pair $(C,f)$, where $C$ is a curve and $f:C\to E$ is a map, branched only above one point.
Origamis are so-called because they admit a pictorial interpretation vaguely reminiscent of the eponymous Japanese art form, analogous to that of dessins for Belyĭ maps.
Over ${\mathbb{C}}$, any elliptic curve $E$ can be written as ${\mathbb{C}}/\Lambda$, for some lattice $\Lambda\subset{\mathbb{C}}$. We will find it most helpful to think of $E$ as a fundamental parallelogram for $\Lambda$. The choice of lattice $\Lambda$ or fundamental parallelogram determines the complex structure on $E$. Many of our arguments do not depend on the choice of complex structure; when this happens, we choose to work with the square lattice $\Lambda={\mathbb{Z}}[i]$, and our fundamental parallelogram of choice will be the square $S$ with vertices 0, 1, $1+i$, and $i$. (The only reason we prefer this parallelogram is that it is easier to draw than are other parallelograms. It should not generally be assumed that we are interested in the special properties of the elliptic curve ${\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}[i]$ not enjoyed by other elliptic curves.) Our elliptic curve will then be the square, with opposite edges identified.
Now, consider a disjoint union of $n$ translates of $S$, and identify various edges to form an orientable surface $X$ subject to the following requirements:
1. $X$ is connected.
2. Every left edge is identified with a unique right edge, and vice versa.
3. Every top edge is identified with a unique bottom edge, and vice versa.
If we remove all the vertices of the $n$ squares, the resulting figure carries the structure of a Riemann surface, obtaining a complex structure whose charts are (slightly enlarged versions of) the original $n$ squares minus the vertices. The resulting Riemann surface $\widetilde{X}$ is then a compact Riemann surface with several punctures. There is a unique way of compactifying $\widetilde{X}$ so that its compactification is a compact Riemann surface; we call this Riemann surface $X$. Furthermore, $X$ admits a degree $n$ map to the elliptic curve ${\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}[i]$ by mapping a point in any translate of $S$ to the corresponding point in $S$. This map is branched only above the vertex of $S$. An example can be seen in Figure \[Lorigami\]. In this diagram, we have explained the edge identification; in the future, if there are no markings on the edges, we take this to mean that opposite edges are identified. (This will be the case in all origami diagrams in this article.) The map is shown in Figure \[origmap\].
![This diagram represents a genus-2 curve with a degree-3 map to the elliptic curve $y^2=x^3-x$. Here we identify opposite edges, meaning that edge $a$ is identified with edge $b$, edge $c$ with edge $d$, edge $e$ with edge $f$, and edge $g$ with edge $h$.[]{data-label="Lorigami"}](L-origami.png){height="1in"}
![Shown are all the preimages under $f$ in $C$ of the marked point in $E$.[]{data-label="origmap"}](origmap.png){height="1in"}
Had we chosen to distinguish a different elliptic curve with a different fundamental parallelogram $P$, the corresponding origami would simply consist of a disjoint union of $n$ translates of $P$ with similar edge identifications.
The origami diagram, though apparently extremely simple, turns out to carry a wealth of combinatorial information in readily available form. For example, we can compute the local monodromy about the branch point. To do this, number the squares of $C$ from 1 to the degree $n$ of the map, in any way. We now define two permutations $g,h\in S_n$, which will be the monodromies around two loops generating $H_1(E)$. Let $g$ be the permutation obtained by moving one square to the right, and let $h$ be the permutation obtained by moving one square up. For example, if we label the square in Figure \[Lorigami\] with a “1” in the top left corner, a “2” in the bottom left, and a “3” in the bottom right, then $g=(23)$ and $h=(12)$. The local monodromy above the branch point is the commutator $[g,h]=g^{-1}h^{-1}gh$, which in this case is the 3-cycle $(132)$. If we relabel the squares, we obtain different permutations $g'$ and $h'$ and a different commutator; however, there is some $\sigma\in S_n$ so that $g'=\sigma^{-1}g\sigma$ and $h'=\sigma^{-1}h\sigma$, so the cycle type of the local monodromy is well-defined.
It is also possible to determine the genus of $C$ from the origami diagram. To do this, we use Euler’s formula $V-E+F=2-2g$. The number of faces $F$ is equal to $n$, and the number of edges is $2n$. To determine the number of vertices, we can either check directly which vertices in the diagram are glued to which other vertices, or we can note that the number of vertices is equal to the number of cycles in the cycle decomposition of the local monodromy. Hence, in this case, there is one vertex, so $V-E+F=-2$, and so the genus is 2. In this article, we will only be interested in origamis for which $V=1$.
A family of algebraic origamis {#family}
==============================
In this section, we construct a family of examples of explicit origamis, one for each genus $g$.
We say that an origami is totally ramified if the preimage of the branch point is a single point.
The origamis we construct here will all be totally ramified.
\[totramorigami\] For each $g\ge 1$ and $t\neq 0,-1$, the genus-$g$ curve $$C_t:y^2=x(x+1)(x^{2g-1}+tj(x)^2),$$ where $$j(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{g-1} \binom{2g-1}{2i}(x+1)^i,$$ admits a degree $2g-1$ map to the elliptic curve $$E_t:y^2=x(x+1)(x+t),$$ totally ramified above $(0,0)$ and unramified everywhere else. The map is given by $(x,y)\mapsto(f_1(x),f_2(x)y)$, where $$f_1(x)=\frac{x^{2g-1}}{j(x)^2}$$ and $$f_2(x)=\frac{x^{g-1}\sum_{i=0}^{g-1}\binom{2g-1}{2i+1}(x+1)^i}{j(x)^3}.$$
We first check that $(f_1(x),f_2(x)y)$ actually gives a map from $C_t$ to $E_t$. This amounts to checking that $$f_2(x)^2(x (x+1) (x^{2g-1}+tj(x)^2)) = f_1(x)(f_1(x)+1)(f_1(x)+t)$$ is a formal identity. This does happen to be the case; hence $(f_1(x),f_2(x)y)$ does define a map from $C_t$ to $E_t$.
Now, we check that the ramification type is as claimed. To do this, we observe that if $f(x,y)=(f_1(x),f_2(x)y)$ is the map above, and $\omega=\frac{dx}{y}\in\Omega^1_{E_t}$ is an invariant differential on $E_t$, then $$f^\ast\omega=(2g-1)\frac{x^{g-1}\; dx}{y}.$$ So, $f^\ast\omega$ vanishes to order $2g-2$ at $(0,0)$ and has no other zeros or poles. Hence, $f$ is totally ramified at $(0,0)$ and unramified everywhere else.
It is worth noting that the map $(f_1(x),f_2(x)y)$ is independent of $t$ and hence defines a map $F:{\mathbb{P}}^2_{{\mathbb{C}}}\to{\mathbb{P}}^2_{{\mathbb{C}}}$. If we fix an elliptic curve $E_t$ in the target ${\mathbb{P}}^2$, then $F^{-1}(E_t)$ is a union of several irreducible components, one of which is $C_t$. If we take $t=0$ or $t=-1$, then $E_t$ is a nodal cubic, and $C_t$ is a singular quintic of arithmetic genus 0. This will be relevant in the next section.
Degeneration techniques {#degen}
=======================
The proof given in the previous section thoroughly fails to capture the motivation that went into the discovery of this result. In fact, the story of finding these examples is much more interesting than is the proof. Therefore, we now discuss how the reader could (and the author did) discover such an example. To do this, we carefully work with the lowest-degree example: that of a degree-3 origami from a genus-2 curve to an elliptic curve. Such an origami must necessarily be totally ramified.
In the remainder of this section, we perform some educated guesswork; it will not be clear whether our guesses will turn out to be successful until we present a proof in the style of that of Theorem \[totramorigami\].
We will construct a family of genus-2 curves mapping to a family of elliptic curves, parametrized (essentially) by their Legendre form. Hence, for any $j$-invariant other than 0 or 1728, we will actually construct six genus-2 curves mapping to an elliptic curve with this $j$-invariant. These six genus-2 curves come in three pairs of isomorphic curves; hence, we generically obtain three pairwise nonisomorphic covers in this way.
![Here, we shrink the dotted edges to a point. The resulting surface has geometric genus 0.[]{data-label="Lorigamidegen"}](L-origami-degen.png){height="1in"}
![A three-dimensional version of Figure \[Lorigamidegen\].[]{data-label="threepinches"}](threepinches.png){height="1in"}
To do this, we start by constructing a cover $C'$ of the nodal cubic $$E':y^2=x^3+x^2,$$ which we expect to arise as a degeneration of covers of elliptic curves which limit to $E'$. One possibility is that the degenerate origami diagram will look like Figure \[Lorigamidegen\], with the dotted edges collapsed to a point. The curve represented by this origami has geometric genus 0, since it is a double torus with three pinched loops, as in Figure \[threepinches\]. Furthermore, since the origamis are totally ramified, the family of covers must degenerate to a curve with only one preimage of the branch point in $E'$. Finally, a map $C'\to E'$ can be described as a map from the normalization of $C'$ to the normalization of $E'$.
The next thing to do is to construct an explicit equation for $C'$, as well as its normalization map. While in general this is a notoriously difficult problem, it is easy in this case. By the picture, we can see that $C'$ has one nodal point and has geometric genus 0; hence it has a Weierstraß equation of the form $y^2=(x-a)^4(x-b)$. We choose to take $a=0$ and $b=-1$ so that we obtain the curve $$C':y^2=x^5+x^4.$$
To compute the normalization of $E'$, we note that the map $E'\to{\mathbb{P}}^1$ given by $(x,y)\mapsto x+1$ has a square root $y/x$ in ${\mathbb{C}}(E')$. Letting $u=y/x$, we have $x=u^2-1$ and $y=u^3-u$, so ${\mathbb{C}}(E')={\mathbb{C}}(u)$, and the normalization map is ${\mathbb{P}}^1\to E'$, given by $u\mapsto(u^2-1,u^3-u)$. A similar computation shows that the normalization of $C'$ is ${\mathbb{P}}^1\to C'$, given by $t\mapsto (t^2-1,t(t^2-1)^2)$. Note that, in the normalizations of both $C'$ and $E'$, the preimage of the nodal point is $\{\pm 1\}\subset{\mathbb{P}}^1$.
The map on normalizations must have the same degree as the map $C'\to E'$, and it can only be branched at the preimages of the node of $E'$ and the branch point of the map $C'\to E'$. In this case, the only possibilities are $\{\pm 1\}$, so by the Riemann-Hurwitz formula it must be branched at both points. Fortunately, there are very few maps ${\mathbb{P}}^1\to{\mathbb{P}}^1$ with only two branch points: they are simply conjugates of $z\mapsto z^n$, where $n$ is the degree of the map. In this case, the map on normalizations is $$z\mapsto\frac{z^3+3z}{3z^2+1}.$$
Now, in order to compute the map $f:C'\to E'$, note that we have the following commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{{\mathbb{P}}^1\ar[r]\ar[d] & {\mathbb{P}}^1\ar[d] \\ C'\ar[r]^f & E'}$$ Furthermore, the vertical maps have near-inverses; the inverse of the vertical arrow on the left is given by $(x,y)\mapsto y/x^2$. Hence, $f$ is the composition of the other three arrows; putting this together, we have $$f(x,y)=\left(\frac{x^3}{(3x+4)^2},\frac{xy(x+4)}{(3x+4)^3}\right).$$
We now proceed to prolong $f$ to a map from a family of genus-2 curves to the Legendre family of elliptic curves by means of deformations.
In order to figure out the map from a family of nonsingular genus-2 curves to a family of elliptic curves, we deform the defining equations for the nodal quintic and for the map. We let the defining equation of the genus-2 curve be $$C_t:y^2=x^5+(1+at)x^4+btx^3+ctx^2+dtx,$$ where $a,b,c,d\in{\mathbb{C}}[\![t]\!]$. The defining equation of the elliptic curve will be $$E_t:y^2=x(x+1)(x+t).$$ The map will be $$(x,y)\mapsto\left(\frac{x^3}{((3+et)x+(4+ft))^2},\frac{(x^2+(4+gt)x)y}{((3+et)x+(4+ft))^3}\right).$$ A priori, $a,b,c,d,e,f,g$ are power series in $t$; for now, we are only interested in their constant terms. Expanding everything out and equating the $tx^i$ terms for various values of $i$ gives us a system of linear equations; we then find that $$\begin{aligned}
a&= 9 \\ b&= 33 \\ c&= 40 \\ d&=16 \\ e=f=g&= 0 \end{aligned}$$ is a solution. In fact, these values of $a,b,c,d,e,f,g$ are not merely the constant terms of power series; they are in fact the entire power series. Hence, if we let $$C_t:y^2=x^5+(1+9t)x^4+33tx^3+40tx^2+16tx$$ and $$E_t:y^2=x(x+1)(x+t),$$ then $$f(x,y)=\left(\frac{x^3}{(3x+4)^2},\frac{xy(x+4)}{(3x+4)^3}\right)$$ is a map $f:C_t\to E_t$. Indeed, this map is only branched over $(0,0)$, with its preimage being $(0,0)$; we can check this directly, or we can verify that the pullback of the invariant differential $\omega=\frac{dx}{y}\in\Omega^1_{E_t}$ (which has no zeros or poles) is $3x\frac{dx}{y}\in\Omega^1_{C_t}$, which has a double zero at $(0,0)$ and no other zeros or poles.
The same method allows us to construct totally ramified origamis in every genus. For instance, in genus 3, the degenerate curve has the form $y^2=x^6(x+1)$, and the origami diagram is shown in Figure \[orig3\]. In general, the origami diagrams we use for the constructions here are staircase-shaped.
![A genus-3 origami. Here, opposite sides are glued together.[]{data-label="orig3"}](orig3.png){height="1.5in"}
When we perform a degeneration procedure as we did in the genus-2 case, we find that $$C_t:y^2=x^7+(1+25t)x^6+225tx^5+760tx^4+1200tx^3+896tx^2+256tx$$ and $$E_t:y^2=x(x+1)(x+t).$$ Then $$f(x,y)=\left(\frac{x^5}{(5x^2+20x+16)^2},\frac{x^3(x^2+12x+16)y}{(5x^2+20x+16)^3}\right)$$ is a totally ramified origami $f:C_t\to E_t$.
It is worth noticing that, in these cases, we need only change the equation of the genus-$g$ curve as $t$ varies; in particular, the map does not change. Hence, we have a map $f:{\mathbb{P}}^2\to{\mathbb{P}}^2$ so that the inverse images of elliptic curves in a certain family are all genus-$g$ curves, so that the map is an origami. The proof above explains this phenomenon.
It would be interesting to see this method generalize to cases where the base need not be an elliptic curve. In particular, we would like to know to what extent is it possible to construct branched covers of a curve $C$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^2$ by constructing a suitable map $f:{\mathbb{P}}^2\to{\mathbb{P}}^2$, chosen so that its branch locus is consistent with the desired branching properties of the cover of $C$, and restricting to the map $f\mid_D:D\to C$, where $D$ is some irreducible component inside $f^{-1}(C)$ for which $f\mid_D:D\to C$ is flat. The author has used this method to construct several examples of branched and unbranched covers of higher-genus curves, but a detailed study of this method may be the topic of future work.
It is not so easy to use the techniques in this article to write down curves $C$ and maps $f$ for other ramification types. One challenge is that it is unclear how the degenerate pictures ought to look. Another challenge is that, even if it were clear, sometimes the normalizations of the covering degenerate curve may have positive genus, and we would then need to write down explicit equations for maps from a positive-genus curve to a genus-1 curve, and there is no known good procedure for doing so. The author has developed different techniques one can use to write down equations with other branching types and some of these techniques are presented in [@RS12].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author would like to thank Akshay Venkatesh for suggesting this problem and for many helpful discussions and comments.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span> \[1\][\#1]{}
[\[1\]]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.M. Couveignes</span>, Tools for the computation of families of coverings, in: Aspects of [G]{}alois theory ([G]{}ainesville, [FL]{}, 1996), , London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., Vol.256 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1999), pp.38–65.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G.V. Bely[ĭ]{}</span>, Galois extensions of a maximal cyclotomic field, **43**(2), 267–276, 479 (1979).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Grothendieck</span>, Esquisse d’un programme, in: Geometric [G]{}alois actions, 1, , London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., Vol.242 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997), pp.5–48, With an English translation on pp. 243–283.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S. Beckmann</span>, Ramified primes in the field of moduli of branched coverings of curves, **125**(1), 236–255 (1989).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D.P. Roberts</span>, An [$ABC$]{} construction of number fields, in: Number theory, , CRM Proc. Lecture Notes, Vol.36 (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004), pp.237–267.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P. Lochak</span>, On arithmetic curves in the moduli spaces of curves, **4**(3), 443–508 (2005).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. M[ö]{}ller</span>, Teichmüller curves, [G]{}alois actions and [$\widehat{GT}$]{}-relations, **278**(9), 1061–1077 (2005).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">F. Herrlich</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G. Schmith[ü]{}sen</span>, Dessins d’enfants and origami curves, in: Handbook of [T]{}eichmüller theory. [V]{}ol. [II]{}, , IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys., Vol.13 (Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2009), pp.767–809.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S. Rubinstein-Salzedo</span>, Period computations for covers of elliptic curves, To appear in (2013).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study the synchronisation of three identical oscillators, i.e., clocks, hanging from the same hard support. We consider the case where each clock interacts with the other two clocks. The synchronisation is attained through the exchange of small impacts between each pair of oscillators. The fundamental result of this article is that the final locked state is at phase difference of $\frac{2\pi}{3}$ from successive clocks (clockwise or counter-clockwise). Moreover, the locked states attract a set whose closure is the global set of initial conditions. The methodology of our analysis consists in the construction a model, which is a non-linear discrete dynamical system, i.e. a non-linear difference equation. The results are extendable to any set of three oscillators under mutual symmetric interaction, despite the particular models of the oscillators.'
author:
- 'Emma D’Aniello and Henrique M. Oliveira'
- Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica
- Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli
- 'Viale Lincoln n. 5 - 81100 Caserta, Italia'
- |
[email protected]\
Department of Mathematics\
Center for Mathematical Analysis, Geometry and Dynamical Systems,\
Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon,\
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisboa, Portugal.\
[email protected]
title: Huygens synchronisation of three clocks equidistant from each other
---
Introduction
============
Synchronisation among oscillators with some form of coupling has been called universal [@strogatz2004] and is prevalent concept in Nature [@Pit].
In 1665 Huygens, the inventor of the pendulum clock, observed synchronisation between two pendulum clocks [@Huy] hanging from the same support. The first observation of Huygens was about the two clocks hanging in the same wall beam of his house when he was lying in bed with some indisposition. He observed both phase and phase opposition as a final state of the coupled system. The second observation was made later, when Huygens hung the two clocks on a board sitting on two chairs.
The two systems observed by Huygens are quite different, therefore originating two lines of research completely separated. The later case has been studied in many papers [@Benn; @Col; @Frad; @Jova; @Col2; @Martens; @Oud; @Sen] by considering momentum conservation in the clocks-beam system, since the plank supporting the clocks is able to move. The system in that case is non-perturbative, there are three bodies that can move, i.e., three degrees of freedom: the pendula and the wood beam. The model is a classical mechanics paradigm, and in most of the works cited above the friction is considered viscous and not dry.
The first case, when the pendulum clocks are suspended at a very rigid house beam, therefore not able to move, has been approached in the works [@Abr2; @Abr; @Vass]. In this model the interaction is considered perturbative. When one of the pendulums suffers the internal impact from the clock escape mechanism, a small travelling wave perturbs the second one and vice-versa.
Recently, in [@OlMe] a theoretical model for this interaction was developed. In the same work, simulation and some experimental studies were carried on, that confirmed the validity of the proposed model when the support wall has infinite mass and, therefore, not moving. Naturally, the center of mass of the wall is not, in this case, a degree of freedom of the system and the coupling is, via very weak travelling waves, propagated in the rigid structure of the wall.
In this article, we use as a conceptual starting point [@OlMe] presenting a mathematical model where the coupling is assumed to be attained through the exchange of impacts between three identical oscillators, where each one of the clocks interacts with the two other clocks. The model presents the advantage of being independent of the physical nature of the oscillators, and thus it can be used in other oscillator systems where synchronisation and phase locking has been observed [@Pit].
The ideas for the model presented here originated from the Andronov [@And; @OlMe] model of the phase-space limit cycle of isolated clocks, and assumes the exchange of single impacts (travelling solitons, for this system) between the oscillators at a specific point of the limit cycle.
The fundamental hypotheses in this article are the existence of an asymptotically stable limit cycle for each oscillator and one very small interaction between each pair of clocks per cycle.
We point out that in [@OlMe] the authors obtained phase opposition, which is in line with the original Huygens observations [@Huy]. In this paper we obtain a particularly symmetric asymptotic state at which all the clocks remain at a phase difference of $\frac{2\pi}{3}$ between each other.
A natural step forward is to generalise the results obtained here to a larger set of oscillators and apply these results to bidimensional and tridimensional swarms of oscillators. The results of the present work can be used, namely, to study interacting insects or neuronal networks, that have been studied using the over-simplified integrate and fire models of Kuramoto [@Campbell1997; @Campbell1999; @Kuramoto1975; @Mirollo1990; @Strogatz2000].
The paper is organised in $5$ sections. In section $2$, we discuss the original model of the pendulum clock and we briefly recall the model for two identical clocks. In section $3$, we deduce the model for three identical clocks hanging at the same wall with mutual interactions. In section$\ 4$, we analyse the model, computing its symmetries and stabilities. In section $5 $, we draw conclusions and point out directions for future work.
Model for the synchronisation of two oscillators
================================================
Some background
---------------
For the sake of completeness we present here a very short theory of synchronisation for two oscillators exchanging small perturbations at each cycle. We consider identical oscillators. This theory can be applied to networks of identical oscillators, electronic oscillators and many other real world systems. We intend to consider, in future work, the case of slighly different oscillators, which give rise to regions of stability versus instability in the parameter space of these systems, i.e., Arnold Tongues [@boyland1986; @gilmore2011].
For basic, classical definitions and notions related to synchronisation, like phase and frequence, we follow and refer to [@Pit], and for concepts concerning general theory of dynamical systems like, for instance, limit cycle, we refer to [@arrowsmith1990]. In this paper, we always assume that an oscillator is a dynamical system having a limit cycle. We use the word clock when referring to a special type of oscillator described by the Andronov model [@OlMe].
Given a point $p_{0}$ in the limit cycle $\gamma$, the necessary time to return to $p_{0}$, after one round on the limit cycle, is the period $T_{0}$. A phase $\varphi$ is a real coordinate that describes the position of the representative point of the system on the limit cycle [@Nakao; @Pit].
Let $B_{\gamma}$ be the basin of attraction of the limit cycle. Consider the points outside the limit-cycle $\gamma$ but in $B_{\gamma}$. We extend the definition of phase to $B_{\gamma}$ as follows. We assign the same phase $\varphi$ to all points $p$ in $B_{\gamma}$ that converge to the same $p_{0}$ on the limit cycle $\gamma$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$, being the phase of $p_{0}$ precisely $\varphi$ [@gu1975]. The set of points $p$ that share the same phase is an *isochron curve*. If the oscillator’s states are on the same isochron at a given point in time, they continue to be on the same isochron in time [@gu1975; @Nakao]. When each clock suffers a perturbation, its state can go slightly off the limit cycle and generically jump to another isochron. Moreover, we assume that the limit cycles are structurally stable under small perturbations.
When we consider two oscillators, $1$ and $2$, with orbits on the limit-cycle or sufficiently near the limit cycle, each one has a particular phase, respectively $\varphi$ and $\psi$.
The study of the synchronisation of these two oscillators consists in establishing a dynamical system for the phase difference of the two oscillators.
We have two possible lines of research [@Pit]. The first is to consider the phase difference along continuous time, i.e., to look at the function $\phi\left( t\right) =\psi\left( t\right) -\varphi\left( t\right) $ for $t\in\left[ 0,+\infty\right[ $. The second line of research, that we adopt in this paper, is to consider the phase difference $\phi_{n}=\psi_{n}%
-\varphi_{n}$ taken at discrete instants $n=0,1,2,\ldots$. In this paper, we consider exclusively this last approach.
There is phase synchronisation when the phase differences between the oscillators tend to a specific attractor. When this attractor is an isolated point, then there is phase locking. Naturally, richer coupled states can occur [@Martens]. The main goal for any theory of synchronisation is to obtain this phase difference dynamics and to establish the existence and nature of the attractor. In the case of Huygens observations, the attractor was the point $0$ or the point $\pi$ and the phase dynamics was unidimensional.
The Andronov model for an isolated clock
----------------------------------------
We recall here the model for the sake of completeness of this article. Assuming that dry friction predominates in the internal metal pieces of the clock and the viscous damping is not predominant, using the angular coordinate $q$, the differential equation governing the isolated pendulum clock is$$\ddot{q}+\mu\text{ }\operatorname*{sign}\dot{q}+q=0,$$ where $\mu>0$ is the dry friction coefficient and $\operatorname*{sign}\left(
x\right) $ is the classical function taking the value $-1$ at $x<0$ and $1$ at $x>0$. In [@And] it was considered that, in each cycle, the escape mechanism gives to the pendulum a fixed amount of normalized kinetic energy $\frac{h^{2}}{2}$ so to compensate the loss of kinetic energy occurred because of the dry friction in each complete cycle. This transfer of kinetic energy is called a *kick*. The origin is fixed so that the kick is given precisely when $q=-\mu$. The phase portrait is shown in Fig. $1$.
\[h\]
[limitcycle.eps]{}
As in [@OlMe], with initial conditions $q\left( t=0\right) =-\mu$ and $\dot{q}\left( t=0\right) =v_{0}$, a Poincaré section [@Bir] is represented vol. II, page 268) as the half line $q=-\mu^{+}$ and $\dot{q}>0$ [@And]. The symbol $+$ means that we are considering that the section is taken immediately after the kick. Due to friction during a complete cycle, a loss of velocity $-4\mu$ occurs. By considering the velocity, $v_{n}=\dot
{q}\left( 2n\pi^{+}\right) $, at the Poincaré section in each cycle, the non-linear discrete dynamical system [@And] is obtained $$v_{n+1}=\sqrt{\left( v_{n}-4\mu\right) ^{2}+h^{2}}\text{.} \label{recu}%$$ This equation has the asymptotically stable fixed point $$v_{f}=\frac{h^{2}}{8\mu}+2\mu\text{.}%$$ Any initial condition $v_{0}\in\left( 4\mu,+\infty\right) $ is attracted to $v_{f}$. Each cycle corresponds to a phase increment of $2\pi$ and the phase $\varphi$ is linear with respect to $t$, precisely $$\varphi=2\pi t.$$ As already mentioned, the nature of limit cycle is not of fundamental importance when we consider the interaction of three identical clocks, as we shall see in the sequel. We have presented here the basis of our reasonings in the non-usual case when the computations of the limit cycle are explicit and the usual angular phase is a linear function of $t$.
Two interacting oscillators
---------------------------
We present briefly the conclusions of considering two pendulum clocks suspended at the same wall, in a simplified version of [@OlMe], where the clocks are assumed to have natural angular frequencies near each other but different. Here, we assume that the two clocks have the same angular frequency. When one clock receives the kick, the impact propagates in the wall slightly perturbing the second clock. The perturbation is assumed to be instantaneous since the time of travel of sound in the wall between the clocks is assumed very small compared to the period.
Consider two oscillators and index them by $i=1,2$. Each oscillator satisfies the differential equation $$\ddot{q}_{i}+\mu_{i}\text{ sign\ }\dot{q}_{i}+q_{i}=-\alpha_{i}\digamma\left(
q_{j}\right) ,\text{ for }i,j=1,2\text{, }i\not =j\text{.}
\label{coupledandro}%$$ As in the *Andronov model*, the kinetic energy of each oscillator increases of the fixed amount $h_{i}$ when $q_{i}=-\mu_{i}$. The coupling term is the normalised force $-\alpha_{i}\digamma\left( q_{j}\right) $, where $\digamma$ is the interaction function and $\alpha_{i}$ a constant with acceleration dimension. Following [@OlMe], the effect of the interaction function $\digamma$ is considered to produce an increment $-\alpha$ in the velocity of each clock, leaving the position invariant when the other is struck by the energy kick. The reader finds the detailed treatment in [@OlMe]. Here we only recall some ideas from that article, for the sake of completeness and to make our three clocks model more simple and natural to deal with.
To describe and investigate the effect of the kicks, we construct a discrete dynamical system for the phase difference between the two clocks. We compute each cycle using as reference one of the clocks (the choice is irrelevant, since the model is symmetric). We choose, to fix ideas, clock 1 as the reference: whenever its phase reaches $0$ $\left( \operatorname{mod}%
2\pi\right) $, the number of cycles increases one unit from $n$ to $n+1$.
If there exists an attracting fixed point for that dynamical system, the phase locking occurs. As in [@OlMe], the assumptions are the following.
1. Dry friction.
2. The pendulums have the same natural angular frequency $\omega=1$.
3. The perturbation in the momentum is always in the same vertical direction in the phase space [@Abr2; @Abr].
4. Since the clocks have the same construction, the energy dissipated at each cycle of the two clocks is the same, $h_{1}=h_{2}=h$. The friction coefficient is the same for both clocks, $\mu_{1}=\mu_{2}=\mu$.
5. The perturbative interaction is instantaneous. This is a reasonable assumption, since in general the perturbation propagation time between the two clocks is several orders of magnitude lower than the periods.
6. The interaction is symmetric, the coupling has the same, very small, constant $\alpha$ when the clock $1$ acts on clock $2$, and conversely.
We compute at this point the phase difference when clock $1$ returns to the initial position. The secular repetition of perturbations leads the system with the two clocks in phase opposition as Huygens observed in 1665 [@Huy]. The discrete dynamical model that we deduce from [@OlMe] for the phase difference between the two clocks $\phi_{n}=\psi_{n}-\varphi_{n}$ is the Adler equation [@adler1946study; @Pit]$$\phi_{n+1}=\phi_{n}+\varepsilon\sin\phi_{n}, \label{Perturb}%$$ with a very small constant $\varepsilon=\frac{16\mu\alpha}{h^{2}}$. In the interval $\left[ 0,2\pi\right[ $, there are two fixed points which are $\pi$ and $0$ respectively attracting and reppeling.
Equation (\[Perturb\]) is the starting point from where we begin, in the present paper, the study the three symmetric clocks in mutual interaction.
In any model with a perturbation of phase given by equation (\[Perturb\]) per cycle, i.e., Adler’s perturbation [@adler1946study; @Pit], despite being a physical clock (with Andronov model or any different model) or other type of oscillator, electric, quantic, electronic or biological, the theory presented here for three oscillators interacting by small impacts will be exactly the same, with the same conclusions.
Model for three pendulum clocks placed in the three vertices of an equilateral triangle
=======================================================================================
Hypotheses
----------
We consider three pendulum clocks suspended at the same wall, placed in the three vertices of an equilateral triangle, say the vertices are $A$, $B$, and $C$ and $B$ are the extreme points of the basis of the triangles.
\[ptb\]
[triangle.eps]{}
This geometric setting is purely conceptual. Any set of three dynamical systems receiving symmetric impacts from the other two will have the same type of response of the clocks depicted in the three vertices of an equilateral triangle.
Call the clocks placed in the three vertices $A$, $B$ and $C$, respectively, $O_{1}$, $O_{2}$ and $O_{3}$. When the clock $A$ receives the kick from the escape mechanism, the impact propagates in the wall slightly perturbing the other two clocks. As in [@OlMe], the perturbation is assumed to be instantaneous, since the time of travel of sound in the wall between the clocks is assumed very small compared to the period. As for the two clocks model discussed in [@OlMe], we make the following assumptions, now formulated for three clocks.
1. The system has [dry friction ]{}[@And].
2. \[work3\][The pendulums of clocks ]{}$O_{1},$ $O_{2}$ and $O_{3}$ [have respectively natural angular frequencies ${\omega}_{1}={\omega}%
_{2}={\omega}_{3}=1$.]{}
3. [The perturbation in the momentum is always in the same vertical direction in the phase space ]{} [@Abr2; @Abr].
4. [The friction coefficient is the same for all the three clocks, ${\mu
}_{1}={\mu}_{2}={\mu}_{3}={\mu}$. The energy dissipated at each cycle of the three clocks is the same, and the energy furnished by the escape mechanism to compensate the loss of energy to friction in each cycle is $h_{1}=h_{2}%
=h_{3}=h$. ]{}
5. [The perturbative interaction is instantaneous. This is a reasonable assumption, since in general the perturbation propagation time between two clocks is several orders of magnitude lower than the periods [@OlMe].]{}
6. \[hyp6\][The interaction is symmetric. The couplings have the same constant $\alpha$ when one clock acts on another and conversely. In this model $\alpha$ is assumed to be very small.]{}
7. \[hyp67\][Each perturbation from clock $i$ to clock $j$ (where $i,j\in\{1,2,3\}$ with $i\not =j$), when clock $i$ suffers its internal impact of kinetic energy $h^{2}$, gives rise to a small perturbative change of phase which is in first order a $2\pi$-periodic differentiable odd function $P$ of the real variable $\phi$$$P\left( \phi\right) =\varepsilon\sin\phi\text{,} \label{Perturb1}%$$ where $\phi={\phi}_{ij}$ is the phase difference between clock $i$ and clock $j$.]{}
The value of $\varepsilon$ is the above mentioned $\varepsilon=\frac
{8\mu\alpha}{h^{2}}$ from [[@OlMe] where $\mu$ is the dry friction coefficient, $\frac{h^{2}}{2}$ is the kinetic energy furnished by the internal escape mechanism of each clock once per cycle and $\alpha$ the interaction coefficient between the clocks. The greater the $\alpha$ is, the greater the mutual influence among the clocks. In this paper, we do not need to particularize ]{}$\varepsilon$, since we are not interested in doing experimental computations. Therefore, we are interested in the fundamental result of symmetry between three oscillators subject to very weak mutual symmetric interaction.
Most of the reasonings are independent on the form of the function $P\left(
\phi\right) $, therefore we consider a general differentiable odd function of the real variable $\phi$, $P(\phi)$, for the development of the model, and consider it of the form (\[Perturb1\]) when we analyze the model in section 4.
Observe that $|\sin(x+\varepsilon\sin y)-\sin x|<{\varepsilon}$ when $\varepsilon$[ is assumed to be sufficiently small. Therefore, we restrict our model to first order. ]{}We consider all the values of variables and constants in IS units.
Construction of the model
-------------------------
We now construct a dynamical system using as reference the phase of the clock in the vertex A (= clock $O_{1}$). This reference is arbitrary: any of the clocks can be used as the reference clock with the same results at the end, since the system is symmetric. We compute the effects of all phase differences and perturbations when the clock at A makes a complete cycle returning to the initial position. Without loss of generality, we consider the next working hypotheses.
1. \[work1\]The initial phase of clock at A at $t=0^{-}$ is zero, i.e., $\psi_{1}(0^{-})=0^{-}$, the minus ($-$) superscript means that at the instant $0^{-}$ clock $1$ is just about to receive the internal energy kick from its escape mechanism.
2. \[work2\]We consider that the initial phases of the three clocks are: $\psi_{3}(0^{-})=\psi_{3}^{0}>\psi_{2}(0^{-})=\psi_{2}^{0}>0^{-}=\psi
_{1}(0^{-})=\psi_{1}^{0}$.
3. \[work4\]The perturbation satisfies the relation $P\left(
x+Px\right) \simeq Px$ in first order.
To obtain the desired model, we need to proceed through 6 steps, starting from the following initial conditions, that is the phase differences of all pairs of clocks.
In the sequel ${\psi}_{i}^{j}$ denotes the phase of clock $O_{i}$ at the $j-th$ step.
**INITIAL CONDITIONS**
The phase difference between $O_{3}$ and $O_{1}$ is $$(CA)_{0}={\psi}_{3}^{0}-{\psi}_{1}^{0}={\psi}_{3}^{0},$$ and the phase difference between $O_{1}$ and $O_{3}$ is symmetric, in the sense that $$(AC)_{0}={\psi}_{1}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}=-{\psi}_{3}^{0}=-(CA)_{0}.$$ The phase difference between $O_{2}$ and $O_{1}$ is $$(BA)_{0}={\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{1}^{0}={\psi}_{2}^{0}$$ and the phase difference between $O_{1}$ and $O_{2}$ is $$(AB)_{0}={\psi}_{1}^{0}-{\psi}_{2}^{0}=-{\psi}_{2}^{0}=-(BA)_{0}.$$ The phase difference between $O_{3}$ and $O_{2}$ is $$(CB)_{0}={\psi}_{3}^{0}-{\psi}_{2}^{0}$$ and the phase difference between $O_{2}$ and $O_{3}$ is $$(BC)_{0}={\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}=-(CB)_{0}.$$
**STEPS LEADING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MODEL**
**STEP 1:** first impact. Interactions of $O_{1}$ on $O_{2}$ and of $O_{1}$ on $O_{3}$, at $t=0$.
When the system in position A attains phase $0$ $(\operatorname{mod}2\pi)$ it receives a sudden supply of energy, for short a kick, from its escape mechanism, this kick propagates in the common support of the three clocks and reaches the other two clocks.
Now, the phase difference between $O_{3}$ and $O_{1}$ is corrected by the perturbative value $P$: $$\left( CA\right) _{I}=\left( CA\right) _{0}+P\left( \left( CA\right)
_{0}\right) ={\psi}_{3}^{0}+P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) .$$ The phase difference between $O_{1}$ and $O_{3}$ is $$\left( AC\right) _{I}=\left( AC\right) _{0}+P\left( \left( AC\right)
_{0}\right) =-{\psi}_{3}^{0}+P\left( -{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) =-(CA)_{I},$$ since $P$ must be an odd function of the mutual phase difference.
The phase difference between $O_{2}$ and $O_{1}$ is $$\left( BA\right) _{I}=\left( BA\right) _{0}+P\left( \left( BA\right)
_{0}\right) ={\psi}_{2}^{0}+P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right) ,$$ and the symmetric phase difference between $O_{1}$ and $O_{2}$ is $$\left( AB\right) _{I}=\left( AB\right) _{0}+P\left( \left( AB\right)
_{0}\right) =-{\psi}_{2}^{0}+P\left( -{\psi}_{2}^{0}\right) )=-\left(
BA\right) _{I}.$$
The phase difference between $O_{3}$ and $O_{2}$ depends on $\left(
CA\right) _{I}$ and $\left( BA\right) _{I}$ and it is $$\left( CB\right) _{I}=\left( CA\right) _{I}-\left( BA\right) _{I}={\psi
}_{3}^{0}-{\psi}_{2}^{0}+P({\psi}_{3}^{0})-P({\psi}_{2}^{0})=-(CA)_{I},$$
**STEP 2**: first natural time shift. The next clock to arrive at $2\pi^{-}$, from working hypothesis 3.2 (\[work2\]), is the clock ${O}_{3}$ at vertex $C$. The situation right before $O_{3}$ receives its kick of energy is when the phase of this clock is $2\pi^{-}$.
At this point we have$$%
\begin{cases}
\psi_{3}^{2} & ={2\pi}^{-}\\
\psi_{1}^{2} & =2\pi-(CA)_{I}=2\pi+(AC)_{I}=2\pi-\left( {\psi}_{3}%
^{0}+P({\psi}_{3}^{0})\right) \\
\psi_{2}^{2} & =2\pi-\left( CB\right) _{I}=2\pi+\left( BC\right) _{I}%
=2\pi+{\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{2}^{0})-P({\psi}_{3}^{0}).
\end{cases}$$
**STEP 3**: second impact. Clock $O_{3}$ receives its internal kick, at the position $2\pi$.
Now, we have$$%
\begin{cases}
\psi_{3}^{3} & ={2\pi}\\
\psi_{1}^{3} & =\psi_{1}^{2}+P(\psi_{1}^{2})\\
& =2\pi-\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{3}^{0})\right) +P\left(
2\pi-\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{3}^{0})\right) \right) \\
& =2\pi-\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{3}^{0})\right) -P\left( {\psi}%
_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{3}^{0})\right) \\
& \simeq2\pi-{\psi}_{3}^{0}-2P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) \\
\psi_{2}^{3} & =\psi_{2}^{2}+P(\psi_{2}^{2})\\
& =2\pi+{\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{2}^{0})-P({\psi}_{3}^{0})\\
& +P(2\pi+{\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{2}^{0})-P({\psi}_{3}^{0}))\\
& =2\pi+{\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{2}^{0})-P({\psi}_{3}^{0})\\
& +P({\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{2}^{0})-P({\psi}_{3}^{0}))\\
& \simeq2\pi+{\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}+P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right)
-P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) +P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}%
^{0}\right) \\
&
\end{cases}$$
**STEP 4**: second natural time shift. The next clock to arrive at $2\pi^{-}$, from working hypothesis3.2 (\[work2\]), is the clock $O_{2}$ at vertex $B$. The situation right before $O_{2}$ receives its kick of energy is when the phase of this clock is $2\pi^{-}$.
Then we have $$%
\begin{cases}
\psi_{2}^{4} & =2\pi^{-}\\
\psi_{1}^{4} & =\psi_{1}^{3}+2\pi-\psi_{2}^{3}\\
& \simeq2\pi-{\psi}_{3}^{0}-2P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) +2\pi\\
& -\left( 2\pi+{\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}+P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right)
-P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) +P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}%
^{0}\right) \right) \\
& =2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}-P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}%
_{3}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) \\
\psi_{3}^{4} & =\psi_{3}^{3}+2\pi-\psi_{2}^{3}\\
& \simeq2\pi+{2\pi}-\left( 2\pi+{\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}+P\left( {\psi
}_{2}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) +P\left( {\psi}_{2}%
^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) \right) \\
& \simeq2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}+{\psi}_{3}^{0}-P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right)
+P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}%
^{0}\right) .
\end{cases}$$
**STEP 5**: third impact. Clock $O_{2}$ receives its internal energy kick. It reaches the position $2\pi$.
Then we have $$%
\begin{cases}
\psi_{2}^{5} & ={2\pi}\\
\psi_{3}^{5} & =\psi_{3}^{4} +P(\psi_{3}^{4})\\
& \simeq2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}+{\psi}_{3}^{0}-P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right)
+P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}%
^{0}\right) \\
& +P(2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}+{\psi}_{3}^{0}-P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right)
+P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}%
^{0}\right) )\\
& \simeq2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}+{\psi}_{3}^{0}-P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right)
+P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}%
^{0}\right) -P({\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0})\\
& =2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}+{\psi}_{3}^{0}-P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right)
+P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) -2P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}%
^{0}\right) \\
\psi_{1}^{5} & =\psi_{1}^{4}+P\left( \psi_{1}^{4} \right) \\
& \simeq2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}-P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi
}_{3}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) +\\
& P\left( 2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}-P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right) -P\left(
{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) \right)
\\
& \simeq2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}-P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi
}_{3}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) -P({\psi
}_{2}^{0})\\
& =2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}-2P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}%
_{3}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) .
\end{cases}$$
**STEP 6 (the final)**: third natural time shift. The next clock to arrive at $2\pi^{-}$, from working hypothesis 3.2 (\[work2\]), is the clock $O_{1}$ at vertex $A$. The situation before $O_{1}$ receives its kick of energy is when the phase of this clock is $2\pi^{-}$, i.e., the cycles is complete.
At this point we are able to describe what happens to the phases after a complete cycle of the reference clock.
We have $$%
\begin{cases}
\psi_{1}^{6} & ={2\pi}^{-}\\
\psi_{2}^{6} & =\psi_{2}^{5}+2\pi-\psi_{1}^{5}\\
& \simeq2\pi+2\pi-\left( 2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}-2P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right)
-P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}%
^{0}\right) \right) \\
& =2\pi+{\psi}_{2}^{0}+2P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right) +P\left( {\psi}%
_{3}^{0}\right) +P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) ;\\
\psi_{3}^{6} & =\psi_{3}^{5}+2\pi-\psi_{1}^{5}\\
& \simeq2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}+{\psi}_{3}^{0}-P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right)
+P\left( {\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) -2P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}%
^{0}\right) +2\pi\\
& -\left( 2\pi-{\psi}_{2}^{0}-2P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right) -P\left(
{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) -P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) \right)
\\
& =2\pi+{\psi}_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{2}^{0})+2P({\psi}_{3}^{0})-P({\psi}_{2}%
^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}).
\end{cases}$$
Now, we compute the phase differences after the first cycle of $O_{1}$.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
(BA)_{I} & =-(AB)_{I}=\psi_{2}^{6}-\psi_{1}^{6}\\
& \simeq2\pi+{\psi}_{2}^{0}+2P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right) +P\left( {\psi
}_{3}^{0}\right) +P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) -2\pi\\
& ={\psi}_{2}^{0}+2P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}\right) +P\left( {\psi}_{3}%
^{0}\right) +P\left( {\psi}_{2}^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0}\right) \\
& =(BA)_{0}+2P((BA)_{0})+P((CA)_{0})+P((BA)_{0}-(CA)_{0})\\
&\end{aligned}$$ and$$\begin{aligned}
& (CA)_{I}\\
& =-(AC)_{I}=\psi_{3}^{6}-\psi_{1}^{6}\\
& =2\pi+{\psi}_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{2}^{0})+2P({\psi}_{3}^{0})-P({\psi}_{2}%
^{0}-{\psi}_{3}^{0})-2\pi\\
& ={\psi}_{3}^{0}+P({\psi}_{2}^{0})+2P({\psi}_{3}^{0})-P({\psi}_{2}^{0}%
-{\psi}_{3}^{0})\\
& =({(CA)}_{0})+P({(BA)}_{0})+2P({(CA)}_{0})-P((BA)_{0}-(CA)_{0})\\
&\end{aligned}$$ Hence, if we set $x=BA$ and $y=CA$, we obtain the system $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
x_{1}=x_{0}+2P(x_{0})+P(y_{0})+P(x_{0}-y_{0})\\
y_{1}=x_{0}+P(x_{0})+2P({y}_{0})-P(x_{0}-y_{0}).
\end{array}
\right.$$
**THE MODEL**
By iterating the argument above, we get, for $n$ equal to the number of cycles described by $O_{1}$, the discrete dynamical system:$$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
x_{n+1}=x_{n}+2P(x_{n})+P(y_{n})+P(x_{n}-y_{n})\\
y_{n+1}=y_{n}+P(x_{n})+2P({y}_{n})-P(x_{n}-y_{n}).
\end{array}
\right.$$ If we write $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\varepsilon\varphi\left( x,y\right) =2P(x)+P(y)+P(x-y)\\
\varepsilon\gamma\left( x,y\right) =P(x)+2P({y})+P(y-x),
\end{array}
\right.$$ then we have $$\varphi\left( x,y\right) =\gamma\left( y,x\right) \text{,}%$$ and the iteration is a perturbation of the identity as $$\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
x_{n+1}\\
y_{n+1}%
\end{array}
\right] =\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right] \left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
x_{n}\\
y_{n}%
\end{array}
\right] +\varepsilon\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\varphi(x_{n},y_{n})\\
\varphi(y_{n},x_{n})
\end{array}
\right] ,$$ that we can also write as $$X_{n+1}=F(X_{n})=X_{n}+\varepsilon\Omega(X_{n}), \label{Model}%$$ where $$X_{n+1}=\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
x_{n+1}\\
y_{n+1}%
\end{array}
\right] ,$$ $$%
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
F(X_{n})
\end{array}
=\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right] \left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
x_{n}\\
y_{n},
\end{array}
\right]$$ and $$%
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\Omega(X_{n})
\end{array}
=\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\varphi(x_{n},y_{n})\\
\varphi(y_{n},x_{n})
\end{array}
\right] .$$
We now consider $P\left( x\right) =\varepsilon\sin x$, where $\varepsilon
=\frac{\alpha\mu}{8h^{2}}$ from hypothesis \[Perturb1\], explicitly,$$\begin{aligned}
\varphi\left( x,y\right) & =2\sin x+\sin y+\sin\left( x-y\right) \\
\gamma\left( x,y\right) & =\sin x+2\sin y+\sin\left( y-x\right) .\\
&\end{aligned}$$
Analysis of the model
=====================
Fixed points and local stability
--------------------------------
In this section, we analyze the model (\[Model\]) obtained in the previous section. In a nutshell, in this section, we see that the system is differentiable and invertible in $S=\left[ 0,2\pi\right] \times\left[
0,2\pi\right] $ when $\varepsilon>0$ is small. The perturbation map $\Omega\left( x,y\right) $ is periodic in $%
\mathbb{R}
^{2}$. This implies that the solution of the problem in the set $S$ is a dynamical system and not the usual semi-dynamical system associated with discrete time. That will provide a reasonable simple structure to the problem of the stability of fixed points and will enable to derive global properties. Moreover, we prove that for small $\varepsilon$ the set $S$ is invariant for the dynamics of $F$, meaning that the two phase differences of oscillators $O_{2}$ and $O_{3}$ relative to oscillator $O_{1}$ stay in the interval $\left[ 0,2\pi\right[ $.
In particular, the map $\Omega$ has the zeros $\left( \pi,\pi\right) $, $\left( \frac{2}{3} \pi,\frac{4}{3} \pi\right) $ and $\left( \frac{4}{3}
\pi,\frac{2}{3} \pi\right) $ in the interior of the set $S=\left[
0,2\pi\right] \times\left[ 0,2\pi\right] $, which are fixed points of the model $F$. There are also four trivial fixed points, $\left( 0,0\right) $, $\left( 0,2\pi\right) $, $\left( 2\pi,0\right) $ and $\left( 2\pi
,2\pi\right) $ at the corners of $S$, and the four fixed points $\left(
0,\pi\right) $, $\left( \pi,2\pi\right) $, $\left( 2\pi,\pi\right) $ and $\left( \pi,0\right) $ on the edges of $S$.
We now compute the Jacobian matrix $J\left( x,y\right) $ to establish the dynamical nature of the fixed points in the usual way.
We have $$J\left( x,y\right) =\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right] + \varepsilon\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
2\cos x+\cos\left( x-y\right) & -\cos\left( x-y\right) +\ \cos y\\
\cos x-\cos\left( x-y\right) & \cos\left( x-y\right) +2\cos y
\end{array}
\right] . \label{Jacobmatrix}%$$
We first consider the fixed points of $F$ in the interior of $S$. We start with $\left( \frac{2}{3} \pi,\frac{4}{3} \pi\right) $ and $\left( \frac
{4}{3} \pi,\frac{2}{3} \pi\right) $. The Jacobian is exactly the same $$\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
1-3\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\varepsilon & 0\\
0 & 1-3\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\varepsilon
\end{array}
\right] ,$$ meaning that those two points are locally asymptotically stable for $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small.
The Jacobian matrix of $F$ at $\left( \pi\text{,}\pi\right) $ is $$\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
1-\varepsilon & -2\varepsilon\\
-2\varepsilon & 1-\varepsilon
\end{array}
\right] ,$$ with eigenvalues $1-3\varepsilon$ and $1+\varepsilon$, which qualifies $\left( \pi\text{,}\pi\right) $ as a saddle point. The stable manifold has direction $\left( 1,1\right) $, and the unstable manifold is tangent at $\left( \pi\text{,}\pi\right) $ to the vector $\left( -1,1\right) $.
We now consider now the points placed at the vertexes of $S$. The Jacobian matrix of $F$ at $\left( 0\text{,}0\right) $, $\left( 0,2\pi\right) $, $\left( 2\pi,0\right) $ and $\left( 2\pi,2\pi\right) $ is, for all of them, the following $$\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
1+3\varepsilon & 0\\
0 & 1+3\varepsilon
\end{array}
\right] ,$$ which qualifies all the vertexes of $S$ as a repellers.
On the vertical edges of $S$ we have the fixed points $\left( 0,\pi\right)
$, and $\left( 2\pi,\pi\right) $, at which the Jacobian matrix of $F$ is $$\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
1+\varepsilon & 0\\
2 \varepsilon & 1-3 \varepsilon
\end{array}
\right] ,$$ which qualifies $\left( 0,\pi\right) $, and $\left( 2\pi,\pi\right) $ as saddle points. The stable manifold has the direction of the $y$ axis and the unstable manifold is tangent at $\left( 0\text{,}\pi\right) $ and $\left(
2\pi,\pi\right) $ to the vector $\left( 2,1\right) $.
Finally, at the horizontal edges of $S$ we have the Jacobian matrix of $F$ at $\left( \pi,0\right) $, and $\left( \pi,2\pi\right) $ $$\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
1-3 \varepsilon & 2 \varepsilon\\
0 & 1+ \varepsilon
\end{array}
\right] ,$$ which qualifies $\left( \pi,0\right) $ and $\left( \pi,2\pi\right) $ again as saddle points. The stable manifold is the direction of the $x$ axis and the unstable manifold is tangent at $\left( \pi,0\right) $ and $\left( \pi
,2\pi\right) $ to the vector $\left( 1,2\right) $.
The local analysis of the fixed points of $F$ reveals a very symmetric picture. When $\varepsilon>0$ is small ($0<\varepsilon<{\varepsilon}_{0}%
=\frac{1}{9}$ is good enough), $F$ is a small perturbation of the identity, $F(\partial{S})=\partial{S}$, the restriction of $F$ to the boundary of $S$, $\partial{S}$, is a bijection (see section 4 for more details), and the Jacobian determinant of $F$ is never null in the interior of $S$. Therefore, $F$ is invertible on S.
Heteroclinic connections and invariant sets
-------------------------------------------
We focus our attention on the existence of invariant subsets of $S$ for the dynamics of $F$. Additionally, we below prove that $S$ is itself an invariant set for the dynamics of $F$.
Recall that an *heteroclinic* (sometimes called a heteroclinic connection, or heteroclinic orbit) is a path in phase space which joins two different equilibrium points. In the sequel, by *sa-heteroclinic*, *rs-heteroclinic*, and *ra-heteroclinic*, we mean an heteroclinic orbit connecting a saddle point to an attractor, an heteroclinic orbit connecting a repeller to a saddle point, and an heteroclinic orbit connecting a repeller to an attractor, respectively.
Let $F$ be our model map in some set $T$ with two fixed points $p$ and $q$. Let $M_{u}\left( F,p\right) $ and $M_{s}\left( F,q\right) $ be the stable manifold and the unstable manifold ([@AlSaYo]: pages 78, 403) of the fixed points $p$ and $q$, respectively. Then, if by $M$ we denote the heteroclinic connecting $p$ and $q$, we have $$M\subseteq M_{s}\left( F,p\right) \cap M_{u}\left( F,q\right) .$$ In particular, $M$ is invariant, the $\alpha$-limit and $\omega$-limit sets of the points of $M$ is respectively $p$ and $q$ ([@AlSaYo]: page 331).
The other orbits, i.e., with initial conditions not in $M$, cannot cross the heteroclinic connections when the map $F$ is invertible. In that case, it would be violated the injectivity of the map. In the sequel, we study the heteroclinics that connect saddle points to the attractors. Those heteroclinics determine the nature of all the flow of the dynamical system in the plane, due to the invertible nature of $F$.
### Vertical heteroclinics
Consider the two vertical lateral edges of $S$, $s_{0}$ and $s_{1}$ that are the sets $s_{k}=\left\{ \left( x,y\right) \in S:\left( x=2k\pi\right)
\wedge0\leq y\leq2\pi\right\} $, $k=0,1$. Consider the image of these segments under $F$. If we write $F=(F_{1},F_{2})$, then $$%
\begin{cases}
F_{1}\left( 2k\pi,y\right) & =2k\pi+\varepsilon\sin y+\varepsilon\sin\left(
-y\right) =2k\pi\\
F_{2}\left( 2k\pi,y\right) & =y+2\varepsilon\sin y+\varepsilon\sin
y=y+3\varepsilon\sin y,
\end{cases}$$ meaning that for $\varepsilon$ small enough the edges $s_{k}$, $k=0,1$, are invariant, as already mentioned in section 2. Because of the initial conditions, on each of the edges $s_{k}$, $k=0,1$, the dynamics is given by$$%
\begin{cases}
x_{n+1} & =2k\pi,\\
y_{n+1} & =y_{n}+3\varepsilon\sin y_{n}\text{,}%
\end{cases}
.$$
For $\varepsilon<\frac{1}{9}$, the map $g:\left[ 0,2\pi\right]
\rightarrow\left[ 0,2\pi\right] $ defined by $g(t)=t+3\varepsilon\sin t$ is a homeomorphism from the interval $\left[ 0,2\pi\right] $ into itself, as we can see in figure \[homeo\]. Moreover, since there is an attracting fixed point of this map at $\pi$, the dynamics in the sets $s_{0}$ and $s_{1}$ can be splitted in two subsets where the dynamics is again invariant, which is not very important for our global discussion but establishes that the stable manifolds of the saddle points $\left( 0,\pi\right) $ and $\left( 2\pi
,\pi\right) $ are, exactly and respectively, the sets $s_{0}$ and $s_{1}$
\[ptb\]
[Fig3.eps]{}
We have just shown that both $s_{0}$ and $s_{1}$ contain two heteroclinic connections: in $s_{0}$, the line segment $s_{0}^{-}$ from $\left(
0,0\right) $ to $\left( 0,\pi\right) $ and $s_{0}^{+}$ from $\left(
0,2\pi\right) $ to $\left( 0,\pi\right) $; and in $s_{1}$, the line segment $s_{0}^{-}$ from $\left( 2\pi,0\right) $ to $\left( 2\pi,\pi\right) $ and $s_{0}^{+}$ from $\left( 2\pi,2\pi\right) $ to $\left( 2\pi,\pi\right) $. The total number of vertical $rs$-heteroclines is $4.$
### Horizontal heteroclinics
Consider the two horizontal top and bottom edges of $S$, $r_{0}$ and $r_{1}$, that are the sets $r_{k}=\left\{ \left( x,y\right) \in S:0\leq x\leq
2\pi\wedge\left( y=2k\pi\right) \right\} $, $k=0,1$. Consider the image of these segments under $F$. As before, if we write $F=(F_{1},F_{2})$, then $$%
\begin{cases}
F_{1}\left( x,2k\pi\right) & =x+3\varepsilon\sin x\\
F_{2}\left( x,2k\pi\right) & =2k\pi,
\end{cases}$$ meaning that, for $\varepsilon$ small enough, the edges $r_{k}$, $k=0,1$, are invariant. Because of the initial conditions, on each of the edges $s_{k}$, $k=0,1$, the dynamics is given by$$%
\begin{cases}
x_{n+1} & =x_{n}+3\varepsilon\sin x_{n}\\
y_{n+1} & =2k\pi\text{.}%
\end{cases}$$ For $\varepsilon<\frac{1}{9}$, the map $g:\left[ 0,2\pi\right]
\rightarrow\left[ 0,2\pi\right] $, defined by $g(t)=t+3\varepsilon\sin t$, is the same occurred before, now involved in the dynamics in the invariant edges $r_{0}$ and $r_{1}$. The stable manifolds of $\left( \pi,0\right) $ and $\left( \pi,2\pi\right) $ are again, respectively, the edges $r_{0}$ and $r_{1}$.
Arguing as for $s_{0}$ and $s_{1}$, we have that both, $r_{0}$ and $r_{1}$, contain two analogous heteroclinic connections.
We have just proved, in detail, that the boundary of $S$ is an invariant set. More is true: each edge of $S$ is an invariant set.
Since the map $F$ is invertible, the initial conditions in the interior of $S
$, $S^{0}$, cannot cross the invariant boundary $\partial S=s_{0}\cup
s_{1}\cup r_{0}\cup r_{1}$, meaning that ${S}^{0}$ is an invariant set. This means, in particular, that for equal clocks there will be no secular drift of phase differences of the three clocks, the delays and advances are contained in the set $S=\left[ 0,2\pi\right] \times\left[ 0,2\pi\right] $.
The total number of horizontal $rs$-heteroclines is $4$. The total number of $rs$-heteroclinics in the boundary of $S$ is $8$.
### Diagonal heteroclinics
Finally, we now show that, $S^{o}$, the interior set of $S$, can be splitted in two subsets, $S_{U}$ and $S_{D}$, $U$ for up and $D$ for down, where the dynamics is again invariant. Consider now the set $$\Delta=\left\{ \left( x,y\right) \in S:y=x\text{, }x\in\left[
0,2\pi\right] \right\} ,$$ the diagonal of $S$ connecting $\left( 0,0\right) $ to $\left( 2\pi
,2\pi\right) $. The image of a point of $\Delta$ by $F$ is now $$%
\begin{cases}
F_{1}\left( x,x\right) & =x+3\varepsilon\sin x,\\
F_{2}\left( x,x\right) & =x+3\varepsilon\sin x.
\end{cases}$$ Hence, the same homeomorphism $g$ as before appears again. We repeat the same reasonings as before and deduce that $\Delta$ is invariant under $F$, and it splits $S^{o}$ in two open sets: the triangle above it and the triangle below it. Moreover, the stable manifold of the saddle point $\left( \pi,\pi\right)
$ is the set $\Delta$.
This also proves the existence of two heteroclinics in $\Delta$, connecting $\left( 0,0\right) $ to $\left( \pi,\pi\right) $ and $\left( 2\pi
,2\pi\right) $ to $\left( \pi,\pi\right) $, respectively. The total number of $rs$-heteroclines is now $10$, respectively $8$ on the edges and $2$ on the main diagonal $\Delta$, all of them connecting repellers to saddles.
Consider now the other diagonal of $S$, i.e., the set $$\tilde{\Delta}=\left\{ \left( x,y\right) \in S:y=2\pi-x\text{, }x\in\left[
0,2\pi\right] \right\} .$$ The image of a point of $\tilde{\Delta}$ under $F$ now is $$%
\begin{cases}
F_{1}\left( x,y\left( x\right) \right) & =x+\varepsilon\sin x+\varepsilon
\sin2x,\\
F_{2}\left( x,y\left( x\right) \right) & =2\pi-\left( x+\varepsilon\sin
x+\varepsilon\sin2x\right) .
\end{cases}$$ Hence, $\tilde{\Delta}$ is invariant.
The map $h_{1}:\left[ 0,2\pi\right] \rightarrow\left[ 0,2\pi\right] $, defined as $h_{1}(t)=t+\varepsilon\sin t+\varepsilon\sin2t$, is a homeomorphism with $5$ fixed points from $\left[ 0,2\pi\right] $ to itself (see figure \[homeo2\]).
We repeat the same reasonings as before and deduce that the set $\tilde
{\Delta}$ splits the interior set $S^{o}$ again in two open sets: the triangle above and the triangle below. So, now we have splitted $S^{0}$ in four small triangles.
There are four heteroclinic connections in $\tilde{\Delta}$, one connecting the repeller $\left( 0,2\pi\right) $ to the attractor $\left( \frac{2\pi
}{3},\frac{4\pi}{3}\right) $ (ra-heteroclinic), two $sa$-heteroclinics connecting the saddle point $\left( \pi,\pi\right) $ to the attractors $\left( \frac{2\pi}{3},\frac{4\pi}{3}\right) $ and $\left( \frac{4\pi}%
{3},\frac{2\pi}{3}\right) $, and, finally, the last heteroclinic on this diagonal set is the one that connects the repeller $\left( 2\pi,0\right) $ to the attractor $\left( \frac{4\pi}{3},\frac{2\pi}{3}\right) $ (ra-heteroclinic). The total number of sa-heteroclinics is now $2$.\[ptb\]
[Fig4.eps]{}
We proceed with the same line of reasoning for the other $sa$-heteroclinics.
Consider now the set $$d_{1}=\left\{ \left( x,y\right) \in S:y=\pi+\frac{x}{2}\text{, }x\in\left[
0,\frac{2\pi}{3}\right] \right\}$$ and the map $F$ applied to the points of $d_{1}$:$$%
\begin{cases}
F_{1}\left( x,y\left( x\right) \right) & =x+2\varepsilon\sin
x-2\varepsilon\sin\left( \frac{x}{2}\right) ,\\
F_{2}\left( x,y\left( x\right) \right) & =\pi+\frac{1}{2}\left(
x+2\varepsilon\sin x-2\varepsilon\sin\left( \frac{x}{2}\right) \right) .
\end{cases}$$ The points of $d_{1}$ stay in $d_{1}$ under the action of $F$, proving that this set also is invariant. The function $h_{2}:[0,2\frac{\pi}{3}%
]\rightarrow\lbrack0,2\frac{\pi}{3}]$, defined as $h_{2}(t)=t+2\varepsilon\sin
t-2\varepsilon\sin\left( \frac{t}{2}\right) $, is a homeomorphism, from which we can readily see that the dynamics in $d_{1}$ is quite simple. The graph of this homeomorphism can be seen in figure \[homeo3\]. There is one $sa$-heteroclinic from the saddle at $\left( 0,\pi\right) $ to the attractor $\left( \frac{2\pi}{3},\frac{4\pi}{3}\right) $. Actually, there is another heteroclinic in the segment connecting the repeller $\left( 2\pi,2\pi\right)
$ to the attractor $\left( \frac{2\pi}{3},\frac{4\pi}{3}\right) $, but this is not an sa-heteroclinic. Up to now, we have $3$ $sa$-heteroclinic connections.
\[ptb\]
[Fig5.eps]{}
Consider now the set $c_{1}=\left\{ \left( x,y\right) \in S:y=2x\text{,
}x\in\left[ \frac{2\pi}{3},\pi\right] \right\} $ and the map $F$ applied to the points of $c_{1}$$$\begin{aligned}
F_{1}\left( x,y\right) & =x+\varepsilon\sin x+\varepsilon\sin2x,\\
F_{2}\left( x,y\right) & =y+2\varepsilon\sin x+2\varepsilon\sin2x,\end{aligned}$$ the points of $c_{1}$ stay in $c_{1}$ under $F$, proving that this set is invariant. Actually, the segment would be invariant if we extended $x$ to the interval $\left[ 0,\pi\right] $, but we are not interested in heteroclinics from repellers to attractors. Moreover, the dynamics is given by a restriction of $h_{1}$ to the interval $\left[ \frac{2\pi}{3},\pi\right] $. In this interval there are only two fixed points, the attractor $\frac{2\pi}{3}$ and the repeller $\pi$. This procedure adds one more $sa$-heteroclinic to the global picture. So, we have found, up to now, $4$ $sa$-heteroclinics.
In $S_{D}$, we consider $$c_{2}=\left\{ \left( x,y\right) \in S:y=2\left( x-\pi\right) \text{,
}x\in\left[ \pi,\frac{4\pi}{3}\right] \right\}$$ and $$d_{2}=\left\{ \left( x,y\right) \in S:y=\frac{x}{2}\text{, }x\in\left[
\frac{4\pi}{3},2\pi\right] \right\} .$$ Following exactly the same reasonings as before, we obtain two more $sa$-heteroclinics, one connecting $\left( \pi,0\right) $ to the attractor $\left( \frac{4\pi}{3},\frac{2\pi}{3}\right) $ and the other connecting $\left( 2\pi,\pi\right) $ to the same attractor.
Phase portrait
--------------
The total number of $sa$-heteroclinics is $6$. All of them are straight segments. The other $8$ $sa$-heteroclinics split the set $S$ in six invariant sets as can be seen in Figure \[Portrait\], where the red curves represent saddle-node heteroclines. The flow curves represented in the phase portrait. Since the map $F$ is invertible, no orbit can cross either the red curves, blue curves or black flow curves. There are only two attractors and the dynamics, due to the invertible nature of the map $F$ and its large symmetry, is relatively simple: in every invariant set in the plane, the restriction maps are again homeomorphisms and the flow curves must follow, by continuity, the heteroclinic connections on the outer boundaries of each invariant set.
Consequently, only the orbits on the outer edges and main diagonal, i.e., in the set $s_{0}\cup s_{1}\cup r_{0}\cup r_{1}\cup d$ are not attracted to the two attractors $\left( \frac{2\pi}{3},\frac{4\pi}{3}\right) $ and $\left(
\frac{4\pi}{3},\frac{2\pi}{3}\right) $. The upper attractor $\left(
\frac{2\pi}{3},\frac{4\pi}{3}\right) $ attracts the points in the open upper triangle $S_{U}$ with converse results for the lower attractor $\left(
\frac{4\pi}{3},\frac{2\pi}{3}\right) $ in $S_{D}$. The full picture can be seen in figure \[Portrait\].
Conclusions and future work
===========================
In this paper we have proved that three oscillators, mutually interacting with symmetric coupling, converge to a final symmetric locked state with mutual phase differences of $\frac{2\pi}{3}$, this can happen in two different settings, clockwise or counterclockwise, depending on the initial conditions.
This very symmetrical final locked state induces us to consider the conjecture that $n$ oscillators weakly interacting with all the others $n-1$ oscillators will reach a final state with mutual phase differences of $\frac{2\pi}{n}$ clockwise or counterclockwise distributed.
In future work, already in preparation, we shall discuss the same phenomenon with slightly different natural angular frequencies $\omega_{1}$, $\ \omega_{2}$ and $\omega_{3}$ and, in particular, the existence and form of Arnold Tongues [@boyland1986; @gilmore2011].
As done for [@OlMe], it would be interesting to check experimentally our model, to see if the real world matches the theoretical predictions.
#### Aknowledgements {#aknowledgements .unnumbered}
The author ED was partially supported by the program Erasmus+. The author HMO was partially supported by FCT/Portugal through the project UID/MAT/04459/2013.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
In this Appendix, as another way to determine the nature of the two attractors, that is their global asymptotical stability, we point out the existence, in the sets $S_{U}$ and $S_{D}$, of two Liapounov functions, $V_{U}$ and $V_{D}$, respectively [@lasalle1976stability].
Consider, first, the invariant set $S_{U}$. Define $V_{U}: S_{U}
\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ as follows: $$V_{U}\left( x,y\right) =\left( x-\frac{2\pi}{3}\right) ^{2}+\left(
y-\frac{4\pi}{3}\right) ^{2}-\left( x-\frac{2\pi}{3}\right) \left(
y-\frac{4\pi}{3}\right) \text{.}$$ The *discrete orbital derivative* inside the invariant set $S_{U}$ is $$DF\left( x,y\right) =V_{U}\left( F\left( x,y\right) \right) -V_{U}
\left( x,y\right) .$$
We have $$\begin{aligned}
{DF\left( x,y\right) } & =V_{U}\left( F\left( x,y\right) \right)
-V_{U} \left( x,y\right) \\
& =V_{U}(x+\varepsilon\phi(x,y),y+\varepsilon\gamma(x,y))-V_{U}(x,y)\\
& ={\varepsilon}^{2}[{\phi}^{2}(x,y)+{\gamma}^{2}(x,y)-{\phi}(x,y)\cdot
{\gamma}(x,y)]\\
& +\epsilon\lbrack(x-\frac{2}{3}\pi)(2\phi(x,y)-\gamma(x,y))+(y-\frac{4}%
{3}\pi)(2\gamma(x,y)-\phi(x,y)],\\
&\end{aligned}$$ where, recall that $$%
\begin{cases}
\varphi\left( x,y\right) & =2\sin x+\sin y+\sin\left( x-y\right) \\
\gamma\left( x,y\right) & =\sin x+2\sin y+\sin\left( y-x\right)
=\phi(y,x).
\end{cases}$$ An easy computation shows that $$%
\begin{cases}
2\varphi\left( x,y\right) -\gamma(x,y) & =3(\sin x+\sin\left( x-y\right)
)\\
2\gamma\left( x,y\right) -\phi(x,y) & =3(\sin y-\sin\left( x-y\right) \\
\phi(x,y)+\gamma(x,y) & =3(\sin x+\sin y).
\end{cases}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{DF(x,y)}{\varepsilon} & =\varepsilon\lbrack{(\phi(x,y)+\gamma
(x,y))}^{2}-3\phi(x,y)\cdot\gamma(x,y)]\\
& =3\varepsilon\lbrack3{(\sin x+\sin y)}^{2}-\phi(x,y)\cdot\gamma(x,y)]\\
& +(x-\frac{2}{3}\pi)\cdot(\sin x+\sin(x-y))+(y-\frac{4}{3}\pi)\cdot(\sin
y-\sin(x-y))\\
&\end{aligned}$$
By using numerical analysis, we conclude that this discrete orbital derivative, $DF$, is non-positive in $S_{U}$ for small $\varepsilon$, more precisely, zero for the fixed points and negative elsewhere.
Analogously, by the same method, the function $V_{D}:S_{D}\rightarrow R$ defined as
**$$V_{D}\left( x,y\right) =\left( x-\frac{4\pi}{3}\right) ^{2}+\left(
y-\frac{2\pi}{3}\right) ^{2}-\left( x-\frac{4\pi}{3}\right) \left(
y-\frac{2\pi}{3}\right) \text{,}%$$**
is a Liapounov function on $S_{D}$.
[99]{}
R. Abraham. , pages 49–78. World Scientific, Singapore, 1991.
R. Abraham and A. Garfinkel. The dynamics of synchronization and phase regulation. 2003. http://www.ralph-abraham.org/articles/Blurbs/blurb111.shtml.
R. Adler. A study of locking phenomena in oscillators. , 34(6):351–357, 1946.
K. T. Alligood, T. D. Sauer, and J. A. Yorke. . Springer, 1997.
A. A. Andronov, A. A. Vitt, and S. E. Khaikin. . Pergammon Press, Oxford, New York, 1959/1963/1966.
D. K. Arrowsmith, C. M. Place, C. Place, et al. . Cambridge university press, 1990.
M. Bennett, M. Schatz, H. Rockwood, and K. Wiesenfeld. Huygen’s clocks. , 458(2019):563–579, 2002.
G. D. Birkhoff. . American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1950.
P. L. Boyland. Bifurcations of circle maps: Arnol’d tongues, bistability and rotation intervals. , 106(3):353–381, 1986.
S. R. Campbell. . PhD thesis, The Ohio State University, 1997.
S. R. Campbell, D. L. Wang, and C. Jayaprakash. Synchrony and desynchrony in integrate-and-fire oscillators. , 11(7):1595–1619, 1999.
K. Czolczynski, P. Perlikowski, A. Stefanski, and T. Kapitaniak. Huygen’s odd sympathy experiment revisited. , 07(21):2047–2056, 2011.
A. Fradkov and B. Andrievsky. Synchronization and phase relations in the motion of two-pendulum system. , 6(42):895–901, 2007.
R. Gilmore and M. Lefranc. . WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH [&]{} Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, 2 edition, 2011.
J. Guckenheimer. Isochrons and phaseless sets. , 1(3):259–273, 1975.
C. Huygens. . Societe Hollandaise Des Sciences, Martinus Nijho, La Haye, 1895.
V. Jovanovic and S. Koshkin. Synchronization of huygens’ clocks and the poincare method. , 12(331):2887–2900, 2012.
M. Kapitaniak, K. Czolczynski, P. Perlikowski, A. Stefanski, and T. Kapitaniak. Synchronization of clocks. , 1(517):1–69, 2012.
Y. Kuramoto. Self-entrainment of a population of coupled non-linear oscillators. In *International symposium on mathematical problems in theoretical physics*, pages 420–422. Springer, 1975.
J. P. LaSalle. , volume 25. Siam, 1976.
E. A. Martens, S. Thutupalli, A. Fourrièrec, and O. Hallatschek. Chimera states in mechanical oscillator networks. , 26(110):10563–10567, 2013.
R. E. Mirollo and S. H. Strogatz. Synchronization of pulse-coupled biological oscillators. , 50(6):1645–1662, 1990.
H. Nakao. Phase reduction approach to synchronisation of nonlinear oscillators. , 57(2):188–214, 2016.
H. M. Oliveira and L. V. Melo. Huygens synchronization of two clocks. , 5(11548):1–12, 2015. doi: 10.1038/srep11548.
W. T. Oud, H. Nijmeijer, and A. Y. Pogromsky. , volume 336 of *Lecture Notes in Control and Information Science*, pages 191–203. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2006.
A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths. , volume 12 of *Cambridge Nonlinear Science Series*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1 edition, 5 2003.
M. Senator. Synchronization of two coupled escapement-driven pendulum clocks. , 3–5(291):566–603, 2006.
S. Strogatz. . Penguin UK, 2004.
S. H. Strogatz. From kuramoto to crawford: exploring the onset of synchronization in populations of coupled oscillators. , 143(1-4):1–20, 2000.
J. Vassalo-Pereira. A theorem on phase-locking in two interacting clocks (the [H]{}uygens effect). In A. Avez, A. Blaquiere, and A. Marzollo, editors, *Dynamical Systems and Microphysics: Geometry and Mechanics*, pages 343–352, New York, London, 1982. Academic Press.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We obtain the constraints on scalar leptoquarks coming from radiative corrections to $Z$ physics. We perform a global fitting to the LEP data including the contributions of the most general effective Lagrangian for scalar leptoquarks, which exhibits the $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ gauge invariance. Our bounds on leptoquarks that couple to the top quark are much stronger than the ones obtained from low energy experiments.'
author:
- |
Oscar J. P. Éboli [^1]\
[*Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo,\
Caixa Postal 20516, 01452-990 São Paulo, Brazil.*]{}
title: Bounds on Scalar Leptoquarks from the LEP Data
---
[=cmssbx10 scaled 2 ]{}
Introduction
============
A large number of extensions of the SM predict the existence of color triplet particles carrying simultaneously leptonic and baryonic number, the so-called leptoquarks. Leptoquarks are present in models that treat quarks and leptons on the same footing, such as composite models [@comp], grand unified theories [@gut], technicolor models [@tech], and superstring-inspired models [@rizzo].
Since leptoquarks are an undeniable signal for physics beyond the SM, there have been several direct searches for them in accelerators. At the CERN Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP), the experiments established a lower bound $M_{LQ} \gtrsim 45$–$73$ GeV for scalar leptoquarks [@lep]. On the other hand, the search for scalar leptoquarks decaying into an electron-jet pair in $p\bar{p}$ colliders constrained their masses to be $M_{LQ} \gtrsim 113$ GeV [@ppbar]. Furthermore, the experiments at the DESY $ep$ collider HERA [@hera] place limits on their masses and couplings, leading to $M_{LQ} \gtrsim 92-184$ GeV depending on the leptoquark type and couplings. There have also been many studies of the possibility of observing leptoquarks in the future $pp$ [@fut:pp], $ep$ [@buch; @fut:ep], $e^+e^-$ [@fut:ee], $e\gamma$ [@fut:eg], and $\gamma\gamma$ [@fut:gg] colliders.
In this work we study the constraints on scalar leptoquarks that can be obtained from their contributions to the radiative corrections to the $Z$ physics. We evaluated the one-loop contribution due to leptoquarks to all LEP observables and made a global fit in order to extract the 95% confidence level limits on the leptoquarks masses and couplings [@nois]. The most stringent limits are for leptoquarks that couple to the top quark. Therefore, our results turn out to be complementary to the low energy bounds [@leurer; @davi] since these constrain more strongly first and second generation leptoquarks.
The masses and couplings of leptoquarks are constrained by low-energy experiments, since the leptoquarks induce two-lepton–two-quark effective interactions, for energies much smaller than their masses [@leurer; @davi]. The processes that lead to strong limits are:
$\bullet$ Leptoquarks can give rise to flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) processes if they couple to more than one family of quarks or leptons [@shanker; @fcnc]. In order to avoid strong bounds from FCNC, we assumed that the leptoquarks couple to a single generation of quarks and a single one of leptons. However, due to mixing effects on the quark sector, there is still some amount of FCNC [@leurer] and, therefore, leptoquarks that couple to the first two generations of quarks must comply with some low-energy bounds [@leurer].
$\bullet$ The analyses of the decays of pseudoscalar mesons, like the pions, put stringent bounds on leptoquarks unless their coupling is chiral – that is, it is either left-handed or right-handed [@shanker].
$\bullet$ Leptoquarks that couple to the first family of quarks and leptons are strongly constrained by atomic parity violation [@apv]. In this case, there is no choice of couplings that avoids the strong limits.
It is interesting to keep in mind that the low-energy data constrain the masses of the first generation leptoquarks to be bigger than $0.5$–$1$ TeV when the coupling constants are equal to the electromagnetic coupling $e$ [@leurer].
The bounds on scalars leptoquarks coming from low-energy and $Z$ physics exclude large regions of the parameter space where the new collider experiments could search for these particles, however, not all of it [@fut:pp; @fut:ep; @fut:ee; @fut:eg; @fut:gg]. Notwithstanding, we should keep in mind that nothing substitutes the direct observation.
Effective Interactions and Analytical Expressions {#l:eff}
=================================================
A natural hypothesis for theories beyond the SM is that they exhibit the gauge symmetry $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ above the symmetry breaking scale $v$. Therefore, we imposed this symmetry on the leptoquark interactions. In order to avoid strong bounds coming from the proton lifetime experiments, we required baryon ($B$) and lepton ($L$) number conservation. The most general effective Lagrangian for leptoquarks satisfying the above requirements and electric charge and color conservation is [@buch] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{{eff}} & & = {\cal L}_{F=2} ~+~ {\cal L}_{F=0}
\; ,
\nonumber \\
{\cal L}_{F=2} & & = \left ( g_{{1L}}~ \bar{q}^c_L~ i \tau_2~ \ell_L +
g_{{1R}}~ \bar{u}^c_R~ e_R \right )~ S_1
+ \tilde{g}_{{1R}}~ \bar{d}^c_R ~ e_R ~ \tilde{S}_1
+ g_{3L}~ \bar{q}^c_L~ i \tau_2~\vec{\tau}~ \ell_L \cdot \vec{S}_3
~ ,
\label{lag:fer}
\label{eff} \\
{\cal L}_{F=0} & & = h_{{2L}}~ R_2^T~ \bar{u}_R~ i \tau_2 ~ \ell_L
+ h_{{2R}}~ \bar{q}_L ~ e_R ~ R_2
+ \tilde{h}_{{2L}}~ \tilde{R}^T_2~ \bar{d}_R~ i \tau_2~ \ell_L
\; ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $F=3B+L$, $q$ ($\ell$) stands for the left-handed quark (lepton) doublet, and $u_R$, $d_R$, and $e_R$ are the singlet components of the fermions. We denote the charge conjugated fermion fields by $\psi^c=C\bar\psi^T$ and we omitted in (\[lag:fer\]) the flavor indices of the couplings to fermions and leptoquarks. The leptoquarks $S_1$ and $\tilde{S}_1$ are singlets under $SU(2)_L$ while $R_2$ and $\tilde{R}_2$ are doublets, and $S_3$ is a triplet. Furthermore, we assumed in this work that the leptoquarks belonging to a given $SU(2)_L$ multiplet are degenerate in mass, with their mass denoted by $M$.
Local invariance under $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ implies that leptoquarks also couple to the electroweak gauge bosons. To obtain the couplings to $W^\pm$, $Z$, and $\gamma$, we substituted $\partial_\mu$ by the electroweak covariant derivative ($D_\mu$) in the leptoquark kinetic Lagrangian: $$D_\mu \Phi = \left [ \partial_\mu -
i \frac{e}{\sqrt{2} s_W} \left ( W_\mu^+ T^+ + W_\mu^- T^- \right ) -
i e Q_Z Z_\mu
+ i e Q^\gamma A_\mu \right ] \Phi \; ,$$ where $\Phi$ stands for the leptoquarks fields, $Q^\gamma$ is the electric charge matrix of the leptoquarks, $s_W$ is the sine of the weak mixing angle, and the $T$’s are the generators of $SU(2)_L$ for the representation of the leptoquarks. The weak neutral charge is $Q_Z
= (T_3 - s_W^2 Q^\gamma)/s_W c_W$.
We employed the on-shell-renormalization scheme, adopting the conventions of Ref. \[20\]. We used as inputs the fermion masses, $G_F$, $\alpha_{{em}}$, and the $Z$ mass, and the electroweak mixing angle being a derived quantity that is defined through $\sin^2 \theta_W = s_W^2 \equiv 1 - M^2_W / M^2_Z$. We evaluated the loops integrals using dimensional regularization and we adopted the Feynman gauge to perform the calculations.
Close to the $Z$ resonance, the physics can be summarized by the effective neutral current $$J_\mu = \left ( \sqrt{2} G_\mu M_Z^2 \rho_f
\right )^{1/2} \left [ \left ( I_3^f - 2 Q^f s_W^2 \kappa_f \right )
\gamma_\mu - I_3^f \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \right ] \; ,
\label{form:nc}$$ where $Q^f$ ($I_3^f$) is the fermion electric charge (third component of weak isospin). The form factors $\rho_f$ and $\kappa_f$ have universal contributions, [*i.e.*]{} independent of the fermion species, as well as non-universal parts: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_f & = & 1 + \Delta \rho_{{univ}} +
\Delta \rho_{{non}} \; , \\
\kappa_f & = & 1 + \Delta \kappa_{{univ}} +
\Delta \kappa_{{non}} \; .\end{aligned}$$
Leptoquarks can affect the physics at the $Z$ pole through their contributions to both universal and non-universal corrections. The universal contributions can be expressed in terms of the unrenormalized vector boson self-energy ($\Sigma$) as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \rho^{LQ}_{{univ}}(s) &=&
-\frac{\Sigma^Z_{LQ}(s)-\Sigma^Z_{LQ}(M_Z^2)}{s-M_Z^2}
+\frac{\Sigma^Z_{LQ}(M_Z^2)}{M_Z^2}
-\frac{\Sigma^W_{LQ}(0)}{M_W^2} - 2 \frac{s_W}{c_W}
\frac{\Sigma^{\gamma Z}_{LQ}(0)}
{M_Z^2} - \chi_e - \chi_\mu
\; ,\\
\Delta \kappa^{LQ}_{{univ}} &=& - \frac{c_W}{s_W}~
\frac{\Sigma^{\gamma Z}_{LQ}(M_Z^2)}{M_Z^2}
- \frac{c_W}{s_W}~
\frac{\Sigma^{\gamma Z}_{LQ}(0)}{M_Z^2}
+\frac{c_W^2}{s_W^2} \left[ \frac{\Sigma_{LQ}^Z(M_Z^2)}{M_Z^2}-
\frac{\Sigma_{LQ}^W(M_W^2)}{M_W^2}\right]
\; ,\end{aligned}$$ where the factors $\chi_\ell$ are defined below. The leptoquark contributions to the self-energies can be easily evaluated, yielding $${\Sigma}^{V}_{{LQ}}(k^2) = - \frac{\alpha_{{em}}}{4\pi} N_c
\sum_{j} {\cal F}^V_j~
{\cal H} \left ( k^2, M^2\right )
\; , \label{sig:g}$$ where $N_c = 3$ is the number of colors and the sum is over all members of the leptoquark multiplet. The coefficient ${\cal F}^V_j$ is given by $(Q^\gamma_{j})^2$, $\left ( Q_Z^{j} \right) ^2$, $
-Q^\gamma_{j} Q_Z^{j}$, and $ \left ( T_3^{j} \right )^2/s_W^2$ for $V
= \gamma$, $Z$, $\gamma Z$, and $ W$ respectively. The function ${\cal H}$ is defined according to: $${\cal H}(k^2, M^2) = - \frac{k^2}{3} \Delta_M - \frac{2}{9}k^2
- \frac{4 M^2 - k^2}{3} \int^1_0 dx~ \ln \left [
\frac{{ x^2 k^2 - x k^2 + M^2 - i \epsilon}}
{M^2} \right ] \; ,$$ with $$\Delta_M = \frac{2}{4-d} - \gamma_E + \ln(4\pi) - \ln \left (
\frac{M^2}{\mu^2} \right ) \; ,
\label{delta}$$ and $d$ being the number of dimensions.
The factors $\chi_\ell$ ($\ell = e$, $\mu$) stem from corrections to the effective coupling between the $W$ and fermions at low energy. Leptoquarks modify this coupling, inducing a contribution that we parametrize as $$i \frac{e}{\sqrt{2} s_W}~ \chi_\ell~ \gamma_\mu P_L \; ,$$ where $P_L$ ($P_R$) is the left-handed (right-handed) projector and $\ell$ stands for the lepton flavor. Since this correction modifies the muon decay, it contributes to $\Delta r$, and consequently, to $\Delta \rho_{{univ}}$. Leptoquarks with right-handed couplings, as well as the $F=0$ ones, do not contribute to $\chi_\ell$. The analytical for $\chi_\ell$ due to left-handed leptoquarks in the $F=2$ sector can be found in Ref. \[14\].
Corrections to the vertex $Z f \bar{f}$ give rise to non-universal contributions to $\rho_f$ and $\kappa_f$. We parametrize the effect of leptoquarks to these couplings by $$i \frac{e}{2 s_W c_W} \left [ \gamma_\mu F_{VLQ}^{Zf} - \gamma_\mu \gamma_5
F_{ALQ}^{Zf} + I_3^f \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma_5) \frac{c_W}{s_W} ~
\frac{\Sigma^{\gamma Z}_{LQ}(0)}{M_Z^2} \right ] \; ,$$ where for leptons ($\ell$) and leptoquarks with $F=2$ $$\begin{array}{ll}
F^\ell_{VLQ}= & \pm F^\ell_{ALQ}= \frac{g_{LQ,X}^2}{32 \pi^2} N_c
{\displaystyle \sum_{j, q} }
{M^{j}_{\ell q}}^\dagger M^{j}_{q\ell} \\
& \left\{ \frac{g^q_X}{2}
- s_W c_W Q_Z^{j}- \left (g_X^q + 2 s_W c_W Q_Z^{j} \right )~
\frac{M^2 - m_q^2}{M_Z^2}
\left [ - \frac{1}{2} \ln \left ( \frac{M^2}{m_q^2} \right )
+ \bar{B_0} ( 0, m_q^2,M^2 ) \right ] \right. \\
& + 2 s_W c_W Q_Z^{j} \frac{M^2 - m_q^2 - \frac{1}{2} M_Z^2}{M_Z^2}
\left [ - \ln \left ( \frac{M^2}{m_q^2} \right ) + \bar{B_0}
( M_Z^2, M^2, M^2) \right ] \\
& + g_X^q \frac{M^2-m_q^2 - \frac{1}{2} M_Z^2}{M_Z^2} \bar{B_0}
(M_Z^2, m_q^2, m_q^2 ) + g^{\ell}_X \bar{B_1} (0, m_q^2, M^2) \\
& + \left [ g_{-X}^q m_q^2 + g_X^q \frac{(M^2-m_q^2)^2}{M_Z^2}
\right ] C_0 (0, M_Z^2, 0, M^2, m_q^2, m_q^2 ) \\
& \left. - 2 s_W c_W Q_Z^{j} \frac{(M^2-m_q^2)^2 + m_q^2 M_Z^2}{M_Z^2}
C_0 (0, M_Z^2, 0, m_q^2, M^2, M^2) \right\} \; ,
\end{array}
\label{z:ll}$$ where the $+$ $(-)$ corresponds to left- (right-) handed leptoquarks and $g_{L/R}^f = v^f \mp a^f$ with the neutral current couplings being $a_f = I_3^f$ and $v_f = I_3^f - 2 Q^f s_W^2$. $M^{j}_{q \ell}$ summarizes the couplings between leptoquarks and fermions. The functions $B_1$, $C_0$, $C_{00}$, and $C_{12}$ are the Passarino-Veltman functions [@passa]. We used the convention $X=L,R$ and $-L=R$ ($-R=L$). We also defined $$\begin{aligned}
B_0 (k^2, M^2, {M^\prime}^2) & \equiv & \frac{1}{2}\Delta_M+
\frac{1}{2} \Delta_{M'} + \bar{B_0}
(k^2, M^2, {M^\prime}^2 )
\; , \\
B_1 (k^2, M^2, {M^\prime}^2) & \equiv & - \frac{1}{2} \Delta_M + \bar{B_1}
(k^2, M^2, {M^\prime}^2)
\; ,\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta_M$ given by Eq. (\[delta\]). From this last expression we can obtain the effect of $F=2$ leptoquarks on the vertex $Z q
\bar{q}$ simply by the change $\ell \Leftrightarrow q$. Moreover, we can also employ the expression (\[z:ll\]) to $F=0$ leptoquarks provided we substitute $g_{LQ,X} \Rightarrow h_{LQ,X}$ and $g^q_{\pm
X} \Rightarrow - g^q_{\mp X}$.
With all this we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \rho^{LQ}_{{non}} & = & \frac{F_{ALQ}^{Zf}}{a_f}(M_Z^2)
\; , \\
\Delta \kappa^{LQ}_{{non}} & = & - \frac{1}{2 s_W^2 Q^f} \left [
F_{VLQ}^{Zf}(M_Z^2) - \frac{v_f}{a_f}~ F_{ALQ}^{Zf}(M_Z^2)
\right ]
\; .\end{aligned}$$
One very interesting property of the general leptoquark interactions that we are analyzing is that all the physical observables are rendered finite by using the same counter-terms as appear in the SM calculations [@hollik]. For instance, starting from the unrenormalized self-energies (\[sig:g\]) and the mass and wave-function counter-terms we obtain finite expression for the two-point functions of vector bosons. Moreover, the contributions to the vertex functions $Z f \bar{f}$ and $W f \bar{f^\prime}$ are finite.
In order to check the consistency of our calculations, we analyzed the effect of leptoquarks to the $\gamma f \bar{f}$ vertex at zero momentum. It turns out that the leptoquark contribution to this vertex function not only is finite but also vanishes at $k^2=0$ for all fermion species. Therefore, our expressions for the different leptoquark contributions satisfy the appropriate QED Ward identities, and leave the fermion electric charges unchanged. Moreover, we also verified explicitly that the leptoquarks decouple in the limit of large $M$.
Results and Discussion {#res}
======================
In our analyses, we assumed that the leptoquarks couple to leptons and quarks of the same family. In order to gain some insight on which corrections are the most relevant, let us begin our analyses by studying just the oblique corrections [@obli], which we parametrized in terms of the variables $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\epsilon_3$. These variables depend only upon the interaction of leptoquarks with the gauge bosons and it is easy to see that leptoquarks contribute only to $\epsilon_2$. Imposing that this contribution must be within the limits allowed by the LEP data, we find out that the constraints coming from oblique corrections are less restrictive than the available experimental limits [@lep; @ppbar; @hera].
We then performed a global fit to all LEP data including both universal and non-universal contributions. In Table \[LEPdata\] we show the the combined results of the four LEP experiments [@sm] that were used in our analysis. In order to perform the global fit we constructed the $\chi^2$ function associated to these data and we minimized it using the package MINUIT. We expressed the theoretical predictions to these observables in terms of $\kappa^f$, $\rho^f$, and $\Delta r$, with the SM contributions being obtained from the program ZFITTER [@zfit]. In our fit we used five parameters, three from the SM: $m_{{top}}$, $M_H$, and $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$, and two new ones: $M$, and the leptoquark coupling denoted by $g_{LQ}$. Furthermore, we have also studied the dependence upon the SM inputs $M_Z$, $\alpha_{{em}}$, and $G_F$.
$$\begin{array}{|l|l|}
\hline
\hline
\mbox{Quantity} & \mbox{Experimental value} \\ \hline
M_Z \mbox{[GeV]} & 91.1888 \pm 0.0044 \\
\Gamma_Z \mbox{[GeV]} & 2.4974 \pm 0.0038 \\
\sigma_{\rm had}^0 \mbox{[nb]} & 41.49 \pm 0.12\\
R_e = \frac{\Gamma({\rm had})}{\Gamma(e^+ e^-)} & 20.850 \pm 0.067 \\
R_\mu = \frac{\Gamma({\rm had})}{\Gamma(\mu^+ \mu^-)} & 20.824 \pm 0.059 \\
R_\tau = \frac{\Gamma({\rm had})}
{\Gamma(\mu^+ \mu^-)} & 20.749 \pm 0.070 \\
A_{FB}^{0e} & 0.0156 \pm 0.0034 \\
A_{FB}^{0\mu} & 0.041 \pm 0.0021 \\
A_{FB}^{0\tau} & 0.0228 \pm 0.0026 \\
A_{\tau}^0 & 0.143 \pm 0.010 \\
A_e^0 & 0.135 \pm 0.011 \\
R_b = \frac{\Gamma(b \bar{b})}{ \Gamma({\rm had})} & 0.2202 \pm 0.0020\\
R_c = \frac{\Gamma(c\bar{c}) }{\Gamma({\rm had})} & 0.1583 \pm 0.0098\\
A_{FB}^{0b} & 0.0967 \pm 0.0038 \\
A_{FB}^{0c} & 0.0760 \pm 0.0091 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{array}$$
The first part of our analysis consisted of the study of the constraints on the leptoquark masses and couplings. In order to determine the allowed region in the $M_{LQ}$–$ g_{LQ}$ plane, shown in Fig.\[contours\] for the different models, we obtained the minimum $\chi^2_{{min}}$ of the $\chi^2$ function with respect to the parameters above for each leptoquark model, and we then required that $\chi^2
\leq \chi^2_{{min}} +\Delta \chi^2(2,90\% \hbox{CL})$, with $\Delta\chi^2(2,90\% \hbox{CL})=4.61$. In this procedure, the parameters $m_{{top}}$, $M_H$, and $\alpha_s$, as well as the SM inputs $M_Z$, $\alpha_{{em}}$, and $G_F$ were varied so as to minimize $\chi^2$. We must comment here that the dependence on $\alpha_{{em}}$ and $G_F$ is negligible when they are allowed to vary in their $90\%$ CL range. On the other hand, the variation of $M_Z$ in the interval $91.18\leq M_Z\le 91.196$ leads to a change on the allowed values of leptoquarks parameters of at most 1%.
The contour plots exhibited in Fig. \[contours\] were obtained for third generation leptoquarks. From this figure we can see that the bounds are much more stringent for the leptoquarks that couple to the top quark, [*i.e.*]{} for $S_{1L(R)}$, $S_3$, and $R_{2L(R)}$, since their contributions are enhanced by powers of the top quark mass. Moreover, the limits are slightly better for left-handed leptoquarks than for right-handed ones, given a leptoquark type, and the curve is symmetric around $g_{LQ}=0$ since the leptoquark contributions are quadratic functions of $g_{LQ}$.
The contributions from $\tilde R_2$ and $\tilde S_1$ are not enhanced by powers of the top quark mass since these leptoquarks do not couple directly to up-type quarks. Therefore, their limits are much weaker, depending on $m_{{top}}$ only through the SM contribution, and the bounds for these leptoquarks are worse than the present discovery limits unless they are strongly coupled ($g_{LQ}^2 = 4 \pi$). Moreover, the limits on first and second generation leptoquarks are also uninteresting for the same reason. Nevertheless, if we allow leptoquarks to mix the third generation of quarks with leptons of another generation the bounds obtained are basically the same as the ones discussed above[^2], since the main contribution to the constraints comes from the $Z$ widths.
We next present our results as 95% CL lower limits in the leptoquark mass and study the dependence of these limits upon all other parameters. For this, we minimized the $\chi^2$ function for fixed values of $\alpha_s$, $M_H$, and $m_{{top}}$ and then required $\chi^2 (\alpha_s, M_H, m_{{top}})\le \chi^2_{{min}}
(\alpha_s, M_H, m_{{top}})+ \Delta\chi^2 (1,90\% \hbox{CL})$, with $ \Delta\chi^2(1,90\% \hbox{CL})=2.71$. Our results are shown in Table \[res:top\] where we give the 95% CL limits obtained for a third generation leptoquark for several values of the coupling constants $g_{LQ}$ ($=\sqrt{4\pi}$, $1$, and $e/s_W$). The values given correspond to $m_{top}=175$ GeV and variation of $M_H=60-1000$ GeV and $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)=0.126\pm 0.005$, which is the range associated to the best values obtained from a fit in the framework of the SM [@sm]. For a fixed value of $m_{{top}}$ and leptoquark coupling constant, the dependence on $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ and $M_H$ is such that the limits are more stringent as $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ increases and $M_H$ decreases. The SM parameters $M_Z$, $\alpha_{{em}}$, and $G_F$ have been also varied in their allowed range. However, this did not affect the results in a noticeable way.
$g_{LQ}$ $S_1^R$ $S_1^L$ $S_3$ $R_2^R$ $R_2^L$ $\tilde{S}_1^R$ $\tilde{R}_2^L$
--------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------------- -----------------
$\protect\sqrt{4\pi}$ 5800–3200 6000–3500 8000–3700 6000–3300 6800–3400 300–100 550–120
1 1200–550 1200–600 1700–700 1250–600 1400–600 — —
${\displaystyle \frac{e}{s_W}}$ 550–200 600–225 900–325 600-250 700-250 — —
: Lower limits (95% CL) for the mass of third generation leptoquarks in GeV for different values of the couplings, assuming $m_{{top}} = 175$ GeV, $\alpha_s(M_Z^2) = 0.126\pm 0.005$, and $M_H = 60-1000$ GeV.[]{data-label="res:top"}
We would like to stress that the large apparent uncertainty associated with the value of $\alpha_s$ and $M_H$ can be considered somehow fictitious as the value of $\chi^2_{{min}}$ grows very fast when we move from the central value $\alpha_s=0.126$, $M_H=300$ GeV what means that the quality of the fit for the extreme values of these parameters is rather bad. For instance, $\alpha_s=0.117$, results in a too high $\chi^2$, even in the context of the SM ($\chi^2_{{min}}>26/12$).
Acknowledgements
================
I would like to thank Alan Sommerer for his hospitality. This work was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP).
[99]{}
See, for instance, W. Buchmüller, Acta Phys. Austriaca Suppl. [**XXVII**]{} (1985) 517.
See, for instance, P. Langacker, Phys. Rep. [**72**]{} (1981) 185.
See, for instance, E. Farhi and L. Susskind, Phys. Rep. [**74**]{} (1981) 277.
See, for instance, J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rep. [**183**]{} (1989) 193.
L3 Collaboration, B. Adeva [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B261**]{} (1992) 169; OPAL Collaboration, G. Alexander [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B263**]{} (1992) 123; DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B316**]{} (1993) 620.
CDF Collaboration, F. Abe [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. (1993) 3939; D0 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **72**]{} (1994) 965.
ZEUS Collaboration, M. Derrick [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B306**]{} (1993) 173; H1 Collaboration, I. Abt [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B396**]{} (1993) 3.
O. J. P. Éboli and A. V. Olinto, Phys. Rev. [**D38**]{} (1988) 3461; J. L. Hewett and S. Pakvasa, [*ibid.*]{} [**D37**]{} (1988) 3165; J. Ohnemus Phys. Lett. [**B334**]{} (1994) 203.
W. Buchmüller, R. Rückl, and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. [**B191**]{} (1987) 442.
J. Wudka, Phys. Lett. [**B167**]{} (1986) 337; M. A. Doncheski and J. L. Hewett, Z. Phys. [**C56**]{} (1992) 209; J. Blümlein, E. Boos, and A. Pukhov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A9**]{} (1994) 3007.
J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. [ **D36**]{} (1987) 3367; J. L. Hewett and S. Pakvasa Phys. Lett. [**B227**]{} (1987) 178; J. E. Cieza and O. J. P. Éboli, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{} (1993) 837; J. Blümein and R. Rückl, Phys. Lett. [**B304**]{} (1993) 337; J. Blümlein and E. Boos, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) (1994) 181.
O. J. P. Éboli [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [ **B311**]{} (1993) 147; H. Nadeau and D. London, Phys. Rev. [ **D47**]{}, (1993) 3742; M. A. Doncheski and S. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. [**D51**]{} (1995) 1040.
G. Bélanger, D. London, and H. Nadeau, Phys. Rev. [**D49**]{} (1994) 3140.
J. K. Mizukoshi, O. J. P. Éboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Nucl. Phys. [**B444**]{} (1995) 20; G. Bhattacharyya, J. Ellis, and K. Sridhar, Phys. Lett. [**B336**]{} (1994) 100; (E) [**B338**]{} (1994) 522.
M. Leurer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} (1993) 1324; Phys. Rev. [**D49**]{} (1994) 333.
S. Davidson, D. Bailey, and A. Campbell, Z. Phys. [**C61**]{} (1994) 613.
O. Shanker, Nucl. Phys. [**B204**]{} (1982) 375.
W. Buchmüller and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. [ **B177**]{} (1986) 377; J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. [ **D10**]{} (1974) 275.
P. Langacker, M. Luo, and A. K. Mann, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**64**]{} (1992) 87.
See, for example, W. Hollik, in the Proceedings of the VII Swieca Summer School, editors O. J. P. Éboli and V. O. Rivelles (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994).
G. Passarino and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. [**B160**]{} (1979) 151.
G. Altarelli, R. Barbieri, and F. Caravaglios, Nucl. Phys. [**B405**]{} (1993) 3.
“Combined Preliminary data on $Z^0$ Parameters from the LEP experiments and Constraints on the Standard Model”, The LEP Collaborations and The LEP Electroweak Working Group, report in preparation.
D. Bardin [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. [**C44**]{} (1989) 493; Comput. Phys. Commun. [**59**]{} (1990) 303; Nucl. Phys. [ **B351**]{} (1991) 1; Phys. Lett. [**B255**]{} (1991) 290.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected] (internet) or 47602::EBOLI (decnet).
[^2]: In the case of first generation leptons, we must also add a tree level $t$-channel leptoquark exchange to some observables.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The hamiltonian formulation of Supersymmetric Yang-Mills quantum mechanics (SYMQM) is discussed. We focus on the Fock space formulation of the models since it is convenient for the numerical analysis, however some novel analytical results are also pointed out.'
address: |
M. Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University,\
Reymonta 4, 30-059 Cracow, Poland\
author:
- 'M. Trzetrzelewski [^1]'
title: 'The hamiltonian study of supersymmetric Yang-Mills quantum mechanics'
---
A brief history of SYMQM
========================
Supersymmetric Yang-Mills quantum mechanics by definition are $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills field theories reduced from $D=d+1$ spacetime dimensions to $0+1$ dimensions.
Almost thirty years ago the purely bosonic part of SYMQM was conceived by Bjorken [@Bjorken] in the zero volume limit of YM theories. The subject was then pushed forward by Lüsher [@Lusher] resulting in small volume expansion of glueball masses for the $SU(2)$ gauge group. At the same time the model was considered by Hoppe in his Phd. thesis as the regularized description of relativistic membrane [@Hoppe]. The supersymmetric formulation of YMQM was first discussed by Cloudson and Halpern [@Claudson]. Later on the supermembrane was formulated [@Polchinski; @Sezgin] as well as its regularized description [@deWitt] resulting precisely in SYMQM. The interest in quantum formulation of (super)membranes was originally motivated by particle physics i.e. membranes were believed to describe elementary particles, the idea first put forward by Dirac [@Dirac]. However, it turns out that the spectrum of the hamiltonian of SYMQM is continuous hence the supermembrane is unstable [@Nicolai]. Almost a decade later this set back was interpreted as good news since this time SYMQM were conjectured [@BFSS] to describe M-theory. The continuous spectrum corresponds now to the scattering states on M-theory side and there is no contradiction since M-theory is a second quantized theory.
The Fock space approach
=======================
Supersymmetry imposes some constraints on dimensionality of SYM theories ( hence SYMQM ) namely $D=2,3,4,6,10$. SYMQM consists of real bosonic variables $x^i_a$ and complex fermionic variables $\psi^{\alpha}_a$ ( for $D=10$ the 16 Majorana-Weyl fermions can be composed into the 8 complex ones ). Here $a=1,\ldots, N^2-1$ is a color index i.e $x^i_a$ and $\psi^{\alpha}_a$ are in the adjoint representation of $SU(N)$ while $i=1,\ldots,D-1$ and $\alpha=1,\ldots,D-2$ are spatial and spinor indices respectively. It seems that there is a mismatch between bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom however, while performing the dimensional reduction the Gauss law becomes a global $SU(N)$ invariance. In the subspace of $SU(N)$ singlets the degrees of freedom match. The hamiltonian of SYMQM is then [@Claudson] $$H=\frac{1}{2}\pi^i_a\pi^i_a+\frac{1}{4}g^2(f_{abc}x_b^ix_c^j)^2+H_F,$$ where $f_{abc}$ are $SU(N)$ structure constants, $\pi^i_a$ are conjugate to $x^i_a$, $[x^i_a,\pi^j_b]=i\delta_{ab}\delta^{ij}$ and $H_F$ is the fermionic part which schematically is $H_F=igx\bar{\psi}\Gamma \psi$, where $\Gamma$ are Dirac gamma matrices in corresponding dimension.
We now introduce, in the standard fashion, the bosonic creation and annihilation operators ${a^{\dagger}}^i_a$, ${a}^i_a$ and analogously fermionic operators ${f^{\dagger}}^{\alpha}_a$, $f^{\alpha}_a$ although in this last case the construction depends on the dimensionality ( see [@D4; @D10] for conventions ). Any state $\mid s \rangle$ in Fock space is now a linear combination of products of creation operators acting on the Fock vacuum $\mid 0 \rangle $, so that the resulting state $\mid s \rangle$ is gauge invariant. For numerical analysis we now introduce a cutoff $n_{B_{max}}$ and truncate the Hilbert space so that the states have no more then $n_{B_{max}}$ number of bosonic quanta. Then we compute the matrix elements of (1) and diagonalize the truncated matrix $H^{(n_{B_{max}})}$. The resulting eigenvalues converge very fast to the exact eigenvalues of the hamiltonian provided the spectrum is discrete. In the case of continuous spectrum the situation is more subtle. We refer to [@Wosiek33] where it is discussed in details.
The method just described was applied to $D=4$, $SU(2)$ SYMQM resulting in very precise evaluation of the spectrum and the Witten index [@D4]. The analogous calculation for $D=10$ SYMQM is difficult to perform since in this case the number of states from Fock space grows extremely fast with $n_{B_{max}}$ [@D10]. The remedy at this point could be the additional $SO(9)$ invariance. It is then possible that the numerical analysis of these models is within reach once we work in sectors with given $SO(9)$ angular momentum.
Exact results and large N
=========================
While for SYMQM with $D>2$ there are no exact solutions the $D=2$ case is different. The system is much simpler then the higher dimensional relatives since it is where the quartic potential term in the hamiltonian, vanishes. The hamiltonian is simply $H=\frac{1}{2}\pi_a\pi_a$ however, the model is not free due to the Gauss law. The exact solutions in the bosonic sector are known for $SU(2)$ [@Claudson] and arbitrary $SU(N)$ [@Samuel] groups. The disadvantage of these solutions is the absence of explicit $N$ dependence hence the $N
\to \infty$ limit is difficult. Moreover, the existing solutions are not general ones except for the $D=2$, $SU(2)$ SYMQM. It is possible to overcome these difficulties. In [@33] we have found a class of solutions which differ from the existing ones. Moreover, their large $N$ limit is possible although it turns out that one has to be very careful in performing the limit due to the distinguished role of the bilinear operators $x_ax_a$. The result reads $$\mid p \rangle = e^{-p^2r^2/2N^2}\mid v \rangle, \ \ \ \ r=\sqrt{x_ax_a}, \ \ \ \ N>>1,$$ where $\mid v \rangle$ is the vacuum state and $p$ is the momentum. We see that all the $1/N^k$ terms are present in the Taylor expansion of the large $N$ solutions. It can be argued that they are all of equal importance hence the “ordinary” large $N$ techniques may fail when the hamiltonian considered has continuous spectrum. However, this is precisely the case for all SYMQM. Moreover, if we put $g=0$ in (1) we obtain the class of large $N$ solutions, having the form of products of (2), for SYMQM in arbitrary dimensions.
Conclusions
===========
The numerical approach to SYMQM presented here is very encouraging. Although so far applied only to $D=4$ case we believe that it will finally give us the nonperturbative results also in the $D=10$ system.
A careful large $N$ analysis indicates that the $1/N^k$ terms may play an important role which is in contrast with the majority of large $N$ computations.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was supported by the the grant of Polish Ministry of Science and Education no. P03B 024 27 ( 2004 - 2007 ) and N202 044 31/2444 ( 2006-2007 ) and the Jagiellonian University Estreicher foundation.
[9]{} J.D. Bjorken, *Elements of quantum chromodynamics*, SLAC-PUB-2372, 1979. 139pp. M. Lüscher, Nucl. Phys. [**B219**]{}, (1983), 233; J. Hoppe, PhD Thesis MIT, (1982), unpublished; M. Claudson and M. B. Halpern, Nucl. Phys. [**250**]{} (1985), 689, 6189; J. Hughes, J. Liu, J. Plochinski, Phys. Lett, [**B180**]{}, (1986), 370; E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin, P. K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. [**B189**]{}, (1987), 75; D. de Wit, J. Hoppe, H. Nicilai, Nucl. Phys. [**B305**]{}\[FS23\], (1988), 545-581; P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. [**A268**]{}, (1962), 57; B. de Wit, M. Lüscher and H. Nicolai, Nucl. Phys. [**B320**]{}, (1989), 135; T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. Shenker and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. [**D55**]{}, (1997), 6189; M. Trzetrzelewski, J. Wosiek, Acta Phys. Polon. [**B35** ]{}, (2004), 1615-1624; M. Campostrini, J. Wosiek, Nucl.Phys. [**B703**]{}, (2004), 454-498; J. Wosiek, Phys. Lett. [**B619**]{}, (2005), 171-176; S. Samuel, Phys. Lett [**B411**]{}, (1997), 268; M. Trzetrzelewski, J. Math. Phys. [**48** ]{}, 012302, (2007);
[^1]: I thank the organizers of the Cargèse Summer School, May 22-June 3, 2006 for their kind invitation and support.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
For a scalar elliptic self-adjoint operator on a compact manifold without boundary we have two-term asymptotics for the number of eigenvalues between $0$ and $\lambda $ when $\lambda \to\infty $, under an additional dynamical condition. (See [@DuGu75 Theorem 3.5] for an early result in this direction.)
In the case of an elliptic system of first order, the existence of two-term asymptotics was also established quite early and as in the scalar case Fourier integral operators have been the crucial tool. The complete computation of the coefficient of the second term was obtained only in the 2013 paper [@jst_part_a]. In the present paper we simplify that calculation. The main observation is that with the existence of two-term asymptotics already established, it suffices to study the resolvent as a pseudodifferential operator in order to identify and compute the second coefficient.
[**Keywords:**]{} spectral theory, asymptotic distribution of eigenvalues.
primary 35P20; secondary 35J46, 35R01.
author:
- 'Zhirayr Avetisyan [^1]'
- 'Johannes Sjöstrand[^2]'
- 'Dmitri Vassiliev[^3]'
title: The second Weyl coefficient for a first order system
---
Statement of the problem {#Statement of the problem}
========================
Let $A$ be a first order linear psedodifferential operator acting on $m$-columns of complex-valued half-densities over a connected closed (i.e. compact and without boundary) $n$-dimensional manifold $M$. Throughout this paper we assume that $m,n\ge2$.
Let $A_1(x,\xi)$ and $A_\mathrm{sub}(x,\xi)$ be the principal and subprincipal symbols of $A$. Here $x=(x^1,\ldots,x^n)$ denotes local coordinates and $\xi=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n)$ denotes the dual variable (momentum). The principal and subprincipal symbols are $m\times m$ matrix-functions on $T^*M\setminus\{\xi=0\}$.
Recall that the concept of subprincipal symbol originates from the classical paper [@DuiHor] of J. J. Duistermaat and L. Hörmander: see formula (5.2.8) in that paper. Unlike [@DuiHor], we work with matrix-valued symbols, but this does not affect the formal definition of the subprincipal symbol.
We assume our operator $A$ to be formally self-adjoint (symmetric) with respect to the standard inner product on $m$-columns of complex-valued half-densities, which implies that the principal and subprincipal symbols are Hermitian. We also assume that our operator $A$ is elliptic: $$\label{definition of ellipticity}
\det A_1(x,\xi)\ne0,\qquad\forall(x,\xi)\in T^*M\setminus\{0\}.$$
Let $h^{(j)}(x,\xi)$ be the eigenvalues of the matrix-function $A_1(x,\xi)$. Throughout this paper we assume that these are simple for all $(x,\xi)\in T^*M\setminus\{0\}$. The ellipticity condition ensures that all our $h^{(j)}(x,\xi)$ are nonzero.
We enumerate the eigenvalues of the principal symbol $h^{(j)}(x,\xi)$ in increasing order, using a positive index $j=1,\ldots,m^+$ for positive $h^{(j)}(x,\xi)$ and a negative index $j=-1,\ldots,-m^-$ for negative $h^{(j)}(x,\xi)$. Here $m^+$ is the number of positive eigenvalues of the principal symbol and $m^-$ is the number of negative ones. Of course, $m^++m^-=m$.
Let $\lambda_k$ and $v_k(x)$ be the eigenvalues and the orthonormal eigenfunctions of the operator $A$; the particular enumeration of these eigenvalues (accounting for multiplicities) is irrelevant for our purposes. Each $v_k(x)$ is, of course, an $m$-column of half-densities.
Let us define the two local counting functions $$\label{definition of local counting functions}
N_\pm(x,\lambda):=
\begin{cases}
0\quad\text{if}\quad\lambda\le0,\\
\sum_{0<\pm\lambda_k<\lambda}\|v_k(x)\|^2\quad\text{if}\quad\lambda>0.
\end{cases}$$ The function $N_+(x,\lambda)$ counts the eigenvalues $\lambda_k$ between zero and $\lambda$, whereas the function $N_-(x,\lambda)$ counts the eigenvalues $\lambda_k$ between $-\lambda$ and zero. In both cases counting eigenvalues involves assigning them weights $\|v_k(x)\|^2$. The quantities $\|v_k(x)\|^2$ are densities on $M$ and so are the local counting functions $N_\pm(x,\lambda)$.
Let $\hat\rho:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}$ be a smooth function such that $\hat\rho(t)=1$ in some neighbourhood of 0 and the support of $\hat\rho$ is sufficiently small. Here ‘sufficiently small’ means that $\operatorname{supp}\hat\rho\subset(-\mathbf{T},\mathbf{T})$, where $\mathbf{T}$ is the infimum of the lengths of all possible loops. A loop is defined as follows. For a given $j$, let $(x^{(j)}(t;y,\eta),\xi^{(j)}(t;y,\eta))$ denote the Hamiltonian trajectory originating from the point $(y,\eta)$, i.e. solution of the system of ordinary differential equations (the dot denotes differentiation in time $t$) $$\label{Hamiltonian system of equations}
\dot x^{(j)}=h^{(j)}_\xi(x^{(j)},\xi^{(j)}),
\qquad
\dot \xi^{(j)}=-h^{(j)}_x(x^{(j)},\xi^{(j)})$$ subject to the initial condition $\left.(x^{(j)},\xi^{(j)})\right|_{t=0}=(y,\eta)$. Suppose that we have a Hamiltonian trajectory $(x^{(j)}(t;y,\eta),\xi^{(j)}(t;y,\eta))$ and a real number $T>0$ such that $x^{(j)}(T;y,\eta)=y$. We say in this case that we have a loop of length $T$ originating from the point $y\in M$.
We denote $\rho(\lambda):=\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{t\to\lambda}[\hat\rho(t)]$, where $\mathcal{F}^{-1}$ is the inverse Fourier transform. See [@jst_part_a Section 6] for details.
Further on we will deal with the mollified counting functions $(N_\pm*\rho)(x,\lambda)$ rather than the original discontinuous counting functions $N_\pm(x,\lambda)$. Here the star stands for convolution in the variable $\lambda$. More specifically, we will deal with the derivative, in the variable $\lambda$, of the mollified counting functions. The derivative will be indicated by a prime.
It is known [@jst_review; @jst_part_a; @IvriiDoklady1980; @IvriiFuncAn1982; @ivrii_springer_lecture_notes; @ivrii_book; @kamotski; @grisha; @SafarovDSc] that the functions $(N_\pm'*\rho)(x,\lambda)$ admit asymptotic expansions in integer powers of $\lambda\,$: $$\label{expansion for mollified derivative of counting function}
(N_\pm'*\rho)(x,\lambda)=
a_{n-1}^\pm(x)\,\lambda^{n-1}
+
a_{n-2}^\pm(x)\,\lambda^{n-2}
+
a_{n-3}^\pm(x)\,\lambda^{n-3}
+\dots
\quad
\text{as}
\quad
\lambda\to+\infty.$$
\[definition of Weyl coefficients\] We call the coefficients $a_k^\pm(x)$ appearing in formula local Weyl coefficients.
Note that our definition of Weyl coefficients does not depend on the choice of mollifier $\rho$.
It is also known [@jst_review; @jst_part_a; @IvriiDoklady1980; @IvriiFuncAn1982; @ivrii_springer_lecture_notes; @ivrii_book; @kamotski; @grisha; @SafarovDSc] that under appropriate geometric conditions we have $$\label{expansion for counting function}
N_\pm(x,\lambda)
=
\frac{a_{n-1}^\pm(x)}{n}\lambda^n
+
\frac{a_{n-2}^\pm(x)}{n-1}\lambda^{n-1}
+
o(\lambda^{n-1})
\quad
\text{as}
\quad
\lambda\to+\infty.$$
Our Definition \[definition of Weyl coefficients\] is somewhat nonstandard. It is customary to call the coefficients appearing in the asymptotic expansion Weyl coefficients rather than those in . However, for the purposes of this paper we will stick with Definition \[definition of Weyl coefficients\].
Further on we deal with the coefficients $a_k^+(x)$. It is sufficient to derive formulae for the coefficients $a_k^+(x)$ because one can get formulae for $a_k^-(x)$ by replacing the operator $A$ by the operator $-A$.
If the principal symbol of our operator $A$ is negative definite, then the operator has a finite number of positive eigenvalues and all the coefficients $a_k^+(x)$ vanish. So further on we assume that the principal symbol has at least one positive eigenvalue. In other words, we assume that $m^+\ge1$.
The task at hand is to write down explicit formulae for the coefficients $a_{n-1}^+(x)$ and $a_{n-2}^+(x)$ in terms of the principal and subprincipal symbols of the operator $A$.
The explicit formula for the coefficient $a_{n-1}^+(x)$ has been known since at least 1980, see, for example, [@IvriiDoklady1980; @IvriiFuncAn1982; @ivrii_springer_lecture_notes; @ivrii_book; @kamotski; @grisha; @SafarovDSc]. It reads $$\label{formula for a plus}
a_{n-1}^+(x)=\frac{n}{(2\pi)^n}\,\sum_{j=1}^{m^+}
\ \int\limits_{h^{(j)}(x,\xi)<1}d\xi\,,$$ where $d\xi=d\xi_1\ldots d\xi_n$.
The explicit formula for the coefficient $a_{n-2}^+(x)$ was derived only in 2013, see [@jst_part_a formula (1.24)]. This formula reads $$\begin{gathered}
\label{formula for b plus}
a_{n-2}^+(x)=-\frac{n(n-1)}{(2\pi)^n}\,\sum_{j=1}^{m^+}
\ \int\limits_{h^{(j)}(x,\xi)<1}
\Bigl(
[v^{(j)}]^*A_\mathrm{sub}v^{(j)}
\\
-\frac i2
\{
[v^{(j)}]^*,A_1-h^{(j)},v^{(j)}
\}
+\frac i{n-1}h^{(j)}\{[v^{(j)}]^*,v^{(j)}\}
\Bigr)(x,\xi)\,
d\xi\,.\end{gathered}$$ Here curly brackets denote the Poisson bracket on matrix-functions $\{P,R\}:=P_{x^\alpha}R_{\xi_\alpha}-P_{\xi_\alpha}R_{x^\alpha}$ and its further generalisation $$\label{definition of generalised Poisson bracket}
\{F,G,H\}:=F_{x^\alpha}GH_{\xi_\alpha}-F_{\xi_\alpha}GH_{x^\alpha}\,,$$ where the subscripts $x^\alpha$ and $\xi_\alpha$ indicate partial derivatives and the repeated index $\alpha$ indicates summation over $\alpha=1,\ldots,n$.
Note that if $q(x,\xi)$ is a function on $T^*M\setminus\{0\}$ positively homogeneous in $\xi$ of degree 0, then $$\int\limits_{h^{(j)}(x,\xi)<1}q(x,\xi)\,d\xi$$ is a density on $M$. Hence, the quantities and are densities.
The problem with the derivation of formula given in [@jst_part_a] was that it was very complicated. The aim of the current paper is to provide an alternative, much simpler, derivation of formula .
It may be that the approach outlined in the current paper would allow one, in the future, to calculate further coefficients in the asymptotic expansion . Note that for an operator that is not semibounded this is a nontrivial task.
Strategy for the evaluation of the second Weyl coefficient {#Strategy for the evaluation of the second Weyl coefficient}
==========================================================
Let $z\in\mathbb{C}$, $\operatorname{Im}z>0$. Our basic idea is to consider the resolvent $(A-zI)^{-1}$ and, by studying it, recover the second Weyl coefficient $a_{n-2}^+(x)$. Unfortunately, the operator $(A-zI)^{-1}$ is not of trace class, therefore one has to modify our basic idea so as to reduce our analysis to that of trace class operators.
Let us consider the self-adjoint operator $$\label{Strategy formula 1}
i\left[
2(A-zI)^{1-n}-(A-2zI)^{1-n}
-2(A-\bar zI)^{1-n}+(A-2\bar zI)^{1-n}
\right].$$ We claim that the operator is of trace class. In order to justify this claim we calculate below, for fixed $z$, the principal symbol of the operator and show that it has degree of homogeneity $-n-1$.
Let $B$ be the parametrix (approximate inverse) of $A$, see [@shubin Section 5] for details. Then, modulo $L^{-\infty}(M)$ (integral operators with infinitely smooth integral kernels), we have $$A-zI\equiv A-zAB=A(I-zB),$$ $$(A-zI)^{n-1}\equiv A^{n-1}(I-zB)^{n-1},$$ $$\label{expansion 1}
(A-zI)^{1-n}\equiv (I-zB)^{1-n}A^{1-n}\equiv (I-zB)^{1-n}B^{n-1}.$$ But $$\label{expansion 2}
(I-zB)^{1-n}\equiv I+(n-1)zB-\frac{n(n-1)}2(zB)^2+\ldots,$$ where the expansion is understood as an asymptotic expansion in smoothness (each subsequent term is a pseudodifferential operator of lower order). Substituting into , we get $$\label{expansion 3}
(A-zI)^{1-n}
\equiv B^{n-1}
+(n-1)zB^n-\frac{n(n-1)}2z^2B^{n+1}
+\ldots.$$ Replacing $z$ by $2z$, we get $$\label{expansion 4}
(A-2zI)^{1-n}
\equiv B^{n-1}
+2(n-1)zB^n-2n(n-1)z^2B^{n+1}
+\ldots.$$ Formulae and imply $$\label{expansion 5}
2(A-zI)^{1-n}
-
(A-2zI)^{1-n}
\equiv B^{n-1}
+
n(n-1)z^2B^{n+1}
+\ldots.$$ Replacing $z$ by $\bar z$, we get $$\label{expansion 6}
2(A-\bar zI)^{1-n}
-
(A-2\bar zI)^{1-n}
\equiv B^{n-1}
+
n(n-1)\bar z^2B^{n+1}
+\ldots.$$ Formulae and imply that the operator is a pseudodifferential operator of order $-n-1$ with principal symbol $-4n(n-1)(\operatorname{Re}z)(\operatorname{Im}z)A_1^{-n-1}$.
It might seem more natural to consider the operator $$\label{Strategy formula 1a}
(A-zI)^{-n-1}$$ instead of . The operator is also of order $-n-1$, hence, trace class. Unfortunately, the algorithm presented in the remainder of this section won’t work for the operator . The reason is that if we start with , we end up with the integral $$\label{Strategy formula 1b}
\int_0^{+\infty}\frac{\mu^{n-2}}{(\mu-z)^{n+1}}\,d\mu\,,$$ where the exponent in the numerator is lower that the exponent in the denominator by more than one. The integral is a polynomial in $\,\frac1z\,$ (no logarithm!) and it does not experience a jump when $z$ crosses the positive real axis. Starting with one can recover $a_{n-2}^+-(-1)^na_{n-2}^-\,$, but it appears to be impossible to recover $a_{n-2}^+$ itself. We need a logarithm in order to separate contributions from positive and negative eigenvalues.
The operator is a pseudodifferential operator of order $\,-n-1\,$, hence it has a continuous integral kernel. This observation allows us to introduce the following definition.
\[definition of density f\] By $f(x,z)$ we denote the real-valued continuous density obtained by restricting the integral kernel of the operator to the diagonal $x=y$ and taking the matrix trace $\,\operatorname{tr}\,$.
The explicit formula for our density is $$\label{Strategy formula 2}
f(x,z)=
i
\sum_{\lambda_k}
\left[
\frac{2}{(\lambda_k-z)^{n-1}}
-
\frac{1}{(\lambda_k-2z)^{n-1}}
-
\frac{2}{(\lambda_k-\bar z)^{n-1}}
+
\frac{1}{(\lambda_k-2\bar z)^{n-1}}
\right]
\|v_k(x)\|^2\,.$$ This formula can be equivalently rewritten as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Strategy formula 3}
f(x,z)
=
i
\int_0^{+\infty}
\left[
\frac{2}{(\mu-z)^{n-1}}
-
\frac{1}{(\mu-2z)^{n-1}}
-
\frac{2}{(\mu-\bar z)^{n-1}}
+
\frac{1}{(\mu-2\bar z)^{n-1}}
\right]
N_+'(x,\mu)\,d\mu
\\
-
(-1)^n
\frac{2^n-1}{2^{n-1}}
i
\left[
\frac1{z^{n-1}}
-
\frac1{\bar z^{n-1}}
\right]
\sum_{\lambda_k=0}
\|v_k(x)\|^2
\\
-
(-1)^n
\,i
\int_0^{+\infty}
\left[
\frac{2}{(\mu+z)^{n-1}}
-
\frac{1}{(\mu+2z)^{n-1}}
-
\frac{2}{(\mu+\bar z)^{n-1}}
+
\frac{1}{(\mu+2\bar z)^{n-1}}
\right]
N_-'(x,\mu)\,d\mu\,.\end{gathered}$$ The expression in the second line of is the contribution from the kernel (eigenspace corresponding to the eigenvalue zero) of the operator $A$.
Let us also introduce another density $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Strategy formula 4}
f^\rho(x,z):=
i
\int_0^{+\infty}
\left[
\frac{2}{(\mu-z)^{n-1}}
-
\frac{1}{(\mu-2z)^{n-1}}
-
\frac{2}{(\mu-\bar z)^{n-1}}
+
\frac{1}{(\mu-2\bar z)^{n-1}}
\right]
(N_+'*\rho)(x,\mu)\,d\mu
\\
-
(-1)^n
\,i
\int_0^{+\infty}
\left[
\frac{2}{(\mu+z)^{n-1}}
-
\frac{1}{(\mu+2z)^{n-1}}
-
\frac{2}{(\mu+\bar z)^{n-1}}
+
\frac{1}{(\mu+2\bar z)^{n-1}}
\right]
(N_-'*\rho)(x,\mu)\,d\mu\,.\end{gathered}$$
Put $z=\lambda e^{i\varphi}$, where $\lambda>0$ and $0<\varphi<\pi$. We will now fix the angle $\varphi$ and examine what happens when $\lambda\to+\infty$.
\[Strategy lemma 1\] The density $f^\rho(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})-f(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})$ tends to zero as $\lambda\to+\infty$.
**Proof ** See Appendix \[Proof of Lemma Strategy lemma 1\].
\[Strategy lemma 2\] The density $f^\rho(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})$ admits the asymptotic expansion $$\label{Strategy formula 5}
f^\rho(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})
=
b_1(x,\varphi)
\lambda
+
b_0(x,\varphi)
+o(1)
\quad\text{as}\quad
\lambda\to+\infty,$$ where $$\label{Strategy formula 6}
b_1(x,\varphi)=
-4(\ln 2)(n-1)(\sin\varphi)
\left[
a_{n-1}^+(x)+(-1)^n\,a_{n-1}^-(x)
\right],$$ $$\label{Strategy formula 7}
b_0(x,\varphi)=
-2
\left[
(\pi-\varphi)\,a_{n-2}^+(x)+(-1)^n\,\varphi\,a_{n-2}^-(x)
\right].$$
**Proof ** See Appendices \[Some integrals involving the functions\] and \[Proof of Lemma Strategy lemma 2\].
Lemmata \[Strategy lemma 1\] and \[Strategy lemma 2\] imply the following corollary.
The density $f(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})$ admits the asymptotic expansion $$\label{Strategy formula 8}
f(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})
=
b_1(x,\varphi)
\lambda
+
b_0(x,\varphi)
+o(1)
\quad\text{as}\quad
\lambda\to+\infty,$$ where the coefficients $b_1(x,\varphi)$ and $b_0(x,\varphi)$ are given by formulae and respectively.
Suppose that we know the coefficient $b_0(x,\varphi)$ for all $\varphi\in(0,\pi)$. It is easy to see that formula allows us to recover the second Weyl coefficient $a_{n-2}^+(x)$. Namely, if we take an arbitrary pair of distinct $\varphi_1,\varphi_2\in(0,\pi)$ then $$\label{Strategy formula 9}
a_{n-2}^+(x)=
\frac{\varphi_1\,b_0(x,\varphi_2)-\varphi_2\,b_0(x,\varphi_1)}{2\pi(\varphi_2-\varphi_1)}\,.$$ Alternatively, the second Weyl coefficient $a_{n-2}^+(x)$ can be recovered by means of the identity $$\label{Strategy formula 10}
a_{n-2}^+(x)=
-\frac1{2\pi}
\lim_{\varphi\to0^+}
b_0(x,\varphi)\,.$$
Formulae – tell us that the problem of evaluating the second Weyl coefficient has been reduced to evaluating the second coefficient in the asymptotic expansion of the density $f(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})$ as $\lambda\to+\infty$. Recall that the latter is defined in accordance with Definition \[definition of density f\].
The Weyl symbol of the resolvent {#The Weyl symbol of the resolvent}
================================
Let $z=\lambda e^{i\varphi}$, where $\lambda>0$ and $0<\varphi<\pi$. We formally assign to $z$ a ‘weight’, as if it were positively homogeneous in $\xi$ of degree 1. Our argument goes along the lines of [@shubin Section 9].
We performed formal calculations evaluating the symbol of the operator $(A-zI)^{-1}$ in local coordinates and then switched to the Weyl symbol. (One could have worked with Weyl symbols from the very start.) Further on we denote the Weyl symbol of the operator $(A-zI)^{-1}$ by $[(A-zI)^{-1}]_W$. We calculated $[(A-zI)^{-1}]_W$ in the two leading terms: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{12 December 2016 equation 1}
[(A-zI)^{-1}]_W
=
(A_1-zI)^{-1}
-
(A_1-zI)^{-1}A_\mathrm{sub}(A_1-zI)^{-1}
\\
+\frac i2
\{
(A_1-zI)^{-1},A_1-zI,(A_1-zI)^{-1}
\}
+O[(1+|\xi|+|z|)^{-2}(1+|\xi|)^{-1}].\end{gathered}$$ Here the curly brackets denote the generalised Poisson bracket on matrix functions . The concept of a Weyl symbol was initially introduced for pseudodifferential operators in $\mathbb{R}^n$, see [@shubin subsection 23.3]. In the case of pseudodifferential operators acting on half-densities over a manifold it turns out that the Weyl symbol depends on the choice of local coordinates. However, in the two leading terms the Weyl symbol does not depend on the choice of local coordinates, see Appendix \[Weyl quantization on manifolds\]. Note that a consistent definition of the full Weyl symbol for a pseudodifferential operator acting on half-densities over a manifold requires the introduction of an affine connection, see [@mckeag]. In the current paper we do not assume that we have a connection. See Appendix \[Symbolic approximation for the resolvent and its powers\] for a discussion of symbol classes and an explanation of the origins of the particular structure of the remainder term in formula , as well as remainder term estimates in subsequent formulae. In (\[E.21.5\]) we obtain (\[12 December 2016 equation 1\]) in the appropriate symbol classes.
Note that the expression in the second line of can be equivalently rewritten as $$\label{12 December 2016 equation 2}
\{
(A_1-zI)^{-1},A_1-zI,(A_1-zI)^{-1}
\}
=
(A_1-zI)^{-1}
\{
A_1,(A_1-zI)^{-1},A_1
\}
(A_1-zI)^{-1},$$ which is the representation used by V. Ivrii, see second displayed formula on page 226 of [@ivrii_springer_lecture_notes]. We mention in order to put our analysis within the context of previous research in the subject.
Let us now express the principal symbol $A_1$ in terms of its eigenvalues $h^{(j)}$ and eigenprojections $P^{(j)}$: $$\label{12 December 2016 equation 3}
A_1=\sum_jh^{(j)}P^{(j)}.$$ In what follows we will be substituting into our previous formulae. But before proceeding with the calculations let us discuss which expression, the one in the RHS of or the one in the LHS of , is better suited for practical purposes. Substitution of into the RHS of gives a sum over five indices, whereas substitution of into the LHS of gives a sum over only three indices. Hence, we will stick with the representation from the LHS of .
Substituting into we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Weyl symbol of resolvent decomposed 1}
[(A-zI)^{-1}]_W=
\sum_j\frac{P^{(j)}}{h^{(j)}-z}
-
\sum_{k,l}\frac{P^{(k)}A_\mathrm{sub}P^{(l)}}{(h^{(k)}-z)(h^{(l)}-z)}
\\
+\frac i2
\sum_{j,k,l}
(h^{(j)}-z)
\left\{
\frac{P^{(k)}}{h^{(k)}-z}
\,,
P^{(j)}
,
\frac{P^{(l)}}{h^{(l)}-z}
\right\}
+O[(1+|\xi|+|z|)^{-2}(1+|\xi|)^{-1}].\end{gathered}$$ Our eigenprojections satisfy the identity $$\label{basic identity for eigenprojections}
P^{(k)}P^{(j)}=\delta^{kj}P^{(k)}.$$ The identity allows us to rewrite formula as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Weyl symbol of resolvent decomposed 2}
[(A-zI)^{-1}]_W=
\sum_j\frac{P^{(j)}}{h^{(j)}-z}
-
\sum_{k,l}\frac{P^{(k)}A_\mathrm{sub}P^{(l)}}{(h^{(k)}-z)(h^{(l)}-z)}
\\
+\frac i2
\sum_{j,k,l}
\frac{h^{(j)}-z}
{(h^{(k)}-z)(h^{(l)}-z)}
\{
P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(l)}
\}
\\
-\frac i2
\sum_{k,l}
\frac
{
P^{(k)}
\bigl(
h^{(k)}_{x^\alpha}
P^{(l)}_{\xi_\alpha}
-
h^{(k)}_{\xi_\alpha}
P^{(l)}_{x^\alpha}
\bigr)
+
\bigl(
h^{(l)}_{\xi_\alpha}
P^{(k)}_{x^\alpha}
-
h^{(l)}_{x^\alpha}
P^{(k)}_{\xi_\alpha}
\bigr)
P^{(l)}
}
{(h^{(k)}-z)(h^{(l)}-z)}
\\
+O[(1+|\xi|+|z|)^{-2}(1+|\xi|)^{-1}].\end{gathered}$$
The matrix trace of the resolvent {#The matrix trace of the resolvent}
=================================
Let $B$ be a matrix pseudodifferential operator acting on $m$-columns of half-densities, $v\mapsto Bv$. The action of such an operator can be written in more detailed form as $$\label{The matrix trace of the resolvent equation 1}
\begin{pmatrix}
v_1\\
v_2\\
\vdots\\
v_m
\end{pmatrix}
\mapsto
\begin{pmatrix}
B_1{}^1&B_1{}^2&\dots&B_1{}^m\\
B_2{}^1&B_2{}^2&\dots&B_2{}^m\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
B_m{}^1&B_m{}^2&\dots&B_m{}^m
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
v_1\\
v_2\\
\vdots\\
v_m
\end{pmatrix},$$ where the $B_j{}^k$ are scalar pseudodifferential operators acting on half-densities.
The matrix trace of the operator is the scalar operator $$\label{The matrix trace of the resolvent equation 2}
\operatorname{tr}B:=
B_1{}^1+B_2{}^2+\dots+B_m{}^m.$$
Obviously, the Weyl symbol of the matrix trace of an operator is the matrix trace of the Weyl symbol of the operator. Hence, formula implies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{The matrix trace of the resolvent equation 3}
[\operatorname{tr}(A-zI)^{-1}]_W=
\sum_j\frac{1}{h^{(j)}-z}
-
\sum_j\frac{\operatorname{tr}[A_\mathrm{sub}P^{(j)}]}{(h^{(j)}-z)^2}
\\
+\frac i2
\sum_{j,k,l}
\frac{h^{(j)}-z}
{(h^{(k)}-z)(h^{(l)}-z)}
\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(l)}
\}
+O[(1+|\xi|+|z|)^{-2}(1+|\xi|)^{-1}].\end{gathered}$$ Note that formula does not contain terms with derivatives of the Hamiltonians $h^{(j)}$ because all such terms cancelled out after we took the matrix trace.
Formula implies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{20 December 2016 equation 1}
\operatorname{tr}\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(l)}\}
=2\delta^{kj}\delta^{jl}\operatorname{tr}\{P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}\}
\\
-\delta^{kj}\operatorname{tr}\{P^{(l)},P^{(j)},P^{(l)}\}
-\delta^{jl}\operatorname{tr}\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(k)}\}
+\delta^{kl}\operatorname{tr}\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(k)}\}.\end{gathered}$$ Substituting into and using we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{20 December 2016 equation 2}
[\operatorname{tr}(A-zI)^{-1}]_W=
\sum_j\frac1{h^{(j)}-z}
-
\sum_j\frac{\operatorname{tr}[A_\mathrm{sub}P^{(j)}]}{(h^{(j)}-z)^2}
\\
+\frac i2
\sum_j
\frac{
\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},A_1-h^{(j)}I,P^{(j)}
\}
}
{(h^{(j)}-z)^2}
+i
\sum_j
\frac{
\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}
\}
}
{h^{(j)}-z}
\\
+O[(1+|\xi|+|z|)^{-2}(1+|\xi|)^{-1}].\end{gathered}$$ Detailed calculations leading up to formulae and are presented in Appendix \[Proof of formulae (4.4) and (4.5)\].
Formula provides a compact representation for the Weyl symbol of the matrix trace of the resolvent. Even though our intermediate calculations involved summation over several (up to three) indices, summation in our final formula is carried out over a single index.
The matrix trace of a power of the resolvent {#The matrix trace of a power of the resolvent}
============================================
In order to implement the strategy outlined in Section \[Strategy for the evaluation of the second Weyl coefficient\] we need to write down the Weyl symbol of the operator $\,\operatorname{tr}(A-zI)^{1-n}\,$.
We have the operator identity $$\label{The matrix trace of a power of the resolvent equation 1}
(A-zI)^{1-n}=
\frac1{(n-2)!}
\,
\frac{d^{n-2}}{dz^{n-2}}
\,
(A-zI)^{-1}
\,.$$ The operations of taking the matrix trace and differentiation with respect to a parameter commute, so formula implies $$\label{The matrix trace of a power of the resolvent equation 2}
\operatorname{tr}
(A-zI)^{1-n}=
\frac1{(n-2)!}
\,
\frac{d^{n-2}}{dz^{n-2}}
\,
\operatorname{tr}(A-zI)^{-1}
\,.$$ The latter formula, in turn, implies $$\label{The matrix trace of a power of the resolvent equation 3}
[\operatorname{tr}
(A-zI)^{1-n}]_W=
\frac1{(n-2)!}
\,
\frac{d^{n-2}}{dz^{n-2}}
\,
[\operatorname{tr}(A-zI)^{-1}]_W
\,.$$
Substituting into we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{The matrix trace of a power of the resolvent equation 4}
[\operatorname{tr}(A-zI)^{1-n}]_W=
\sum_j\frac1{(h^{(j)}-z)^{n-1}}
-
(n-1)
\sum_j\frac{\operatorname{tr}[A_\mathrm{sub}P^{(j)}]}{(h^{(j)}-z)^n}
\\
+\frac i2
(n-1)
\sum_j
\frac{
\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},A_1-h^{(j)}I,P^{(j)}
\}
}
{(h^{(j)}-z)^n}
+i
\sum_j
\frac{
\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}
\}
}
{(h^{(j)}-z)^{n-1}}
\\
+O[(1+|\xi|+|z|)^{-n}(1+|\xi|)^{-1}].\end{gathered}$$ We can view this as an explicit version of the result of applying $(d/dz)^{n-2}$ to the trace of (\[E.21.5\]) (cf. (\[E.37\])).
Asymptotic expansion for the density $f$ {#Asymptotic expansion for the density}
========================================
We have previously defined the density $f(x,z)$, see Definition \[definition of density f\]. In this section we shall derive the asymptotic expansion for the density $f(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})$ as $\lambda\to+\infty$. The angle $0<\varphi<\pi$ will be assumed to be fixed.
Put $$\label{Asymptotic expansion for the density equation 1}
s_{1-n}^{(j)}(x,\xi,z):=
\frac1{(h^{(j)}-z)^{n-1}}\,,$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Asymptotic expansion for the density equation 2}
s_{-n}^{(j)}(x,\xi,z):=
-
(n-1)
\frac{\operatorname{tr}[A_\mathrm{sub}P^{(j)}]}{(h^{(j)}-z)^n}
+\frac i2
(n-1)
\frac{
\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},A_1-h^{(j)}I,P^{(j)}
\}
}
{(h^{(j)}-z)^n}
\\
+i
\frac{
\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}
\}
}
{(h^{(j)}-z)^{n-1}}\,,\end{gathered}$$ where the subscripts indicate the degree of homogeneity in $\xi$. Recall, yet again, that our convention is ‘$z$ and $\xi$ are of the same order’. Comparing with and we see that $\sum_js_{1-n}^{(j)}$ is the leading (principal) component of the Weyl symbol of the operator $\operatorname{tr}(A-zI)^{1-n}$, whereas $\sum_js_{-n}^{(j)}$ is the next (subprincipal) component.
The structure of formula is very simple, whereas the structure of formula is nontrivial. This warrants a discussion.
The first term in the RHS of contains the expression $\operatorname{tr}[A_\mathrm{sub}P^{(j)}]$. It gives the ‘obvious’ contribution to the second Weyl coefficient. The expression $\operatorname{tr}[A_\mathrm{sub}P^{(j)}]$ appears in the early papers of V. Ivrii and G. V. Rozenblyum.
The second term in the RHS of contains the expression $\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},A_1-h^{(j)}I,P^{(j)}
\}
$. It gives a contribution to the second Weyl coefficient which is not so obvious. The expression $\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},A_1-h^{(j)}I,P^{(j)}
\}
$ first appeared in [@SafarovDSc].
Finally, the third term in the RHS of contains the expression $\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}
\}
$. It gives a $\mathrm{U}(1)$ curvature contribution to the second Weyl coefficient. This contribution to the second Weyl coefficient was identified in [@jst_part_a] and did not appear in previous publications.
The density $f(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})$ is the value of the integral kernel of the operator $$\label{Asymptotic expansion for the density equation 3}
i\operatorname{tr}
\left[
2(A-zI)^{1-n}-(A-2zI)^{1-n}
-2(A-\bar zI)^{1-n}+(A-2\bar zI)^{1-n}
\right]$$ on the diagonal. We obtain the asymptotic expansion for $f(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})$ by replacing the operator with its Weyl symbol and integrating in $\xi$. This gives the following formulae for the asymptotic coefficients: $$\label{Asymptotic expansion for the density equation 4}
b_1(x,\varphi)
=\frac1{(2\pi)^n}
\sum_j b_1^{(j)}(x,\varphi),$$ $$\label{Asymptotic expansion for the density equation 5}
b_0(x,\varphi)
=\frac1{(2\pi)^n}
\sum_j b_0^{(j)}(x,\varphi),$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Asymptotic expansion for the density equation 6}
b_1^{(j)}(x,\varphi)
=
\\
i\int\left[
2s_{1-n}^{(j)}(x,\xi,e^{i\varphi})
-
s_{1-n}^{(j)}(x,\xi,2e^{i\varphi})
-
2s_{1-n}^{(j)}(x,\xi,e^{-i\varphi})
+
s_{1-n}^{(j)}(x,\xi,2e^{-i\varphi})
\right]
d\xi,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Asymptotic expansion for the density equation 7}
b_0^{(j)}(x,\varphi)
=
\\
i\int\left[
2s_{-n}^{(j)}(x,\xi,e^{i\varphi})
-
s_{-n}^{(j)}(x,\xi,2e^{i\varphi})
-
2s_{-n}^{(j)}(x,\xi,e^{-i\varphi})
+
s_{-n}^{(j)}(x,\xi,2e^{-i\varphi})
\right]
d\xi.\end{gathered}$$ The integrands in and decay as $|\xi|^{-n-1}$ as $|\xi|\to+\infty$, so these integrals converge.
Strictly speaking, we also have to consider the contributions from the terms $K^{(n)}$ in (\[E.33\]). However, it follows from the remark after (\[E.35\]) that they are $o(1)$ as $\lambda \to+\infty$.
The second Weyl coefficient {#The second Weyl coefficient}
===========================
Let us us examine what happens to the integral when $\varphi\to0^+$. It is easy to see that if $j$ is such that $h^{(j)}<0$ then the integral tends to zero as $\varphi\to0^+$: one can simply set $\varphi=0$ in the integrand. This means that only those $j$ for which $h^{(j)}>0$ contribute to the limit of the expression when $\varphi\to0^+$. Therefore, formulae and give us the following expression for the second Weyl coefficient: $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 1}
a_{n-2}^+(x)=
-\frac1{(2\pi)^{n+1}}
\sum_{j=1}^{m^+}
\lim_{\varphi\to0^+}
b_0^{(j)}(x,\varphi)\,.$$ Here the enumeration of eigenvalues of the principal symbol $A_1$ is assumed to be chosen in such a way that $j=1,\dots,m^+$ correspond to positive eigenvalues $h^{(j)}$.
It remains only to evaluate $\,\lim_{\varphi\to0^+}
b_0^{(j)}(x,\varphi)\,$ explicitly. Here $b_0^{(j)}(x,\varphi)$ is defined by formula , where the integrand is defined in accordance with .
Let us rewrite formula as $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 2}
s_{-n}^{(j)}(x,\xi,z)=s_{-n}^{(j;1)}(x,\xi,z)+s_{-n}^{(j;2)}(x,\xi,z),$$ where $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 3}
s_{-n}^{(j;1)}(x,\xi,z):=
-
(n-1)
\frac{
\operatorname{tr}
\left(
A_\mathrm{sub}P^{(j)}
-\frac i2
\{
P^{(j)},A_1-h^{(j)}I,P^{(j)}
\}
\right)}
{(h^{(j)}-z)^n}
\,,$$ $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 4}
s_{-n}^{(j;2)}(x,\xi,z):=
i
\frac{
h^{(j)}
\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}
\}
}
{h^{(j)}(h^{(j)}-z)^{n-1}}\,.$$ Note that the numerators in and are positively homogeneous in $\xi$ of degree zero.
Formula now reads $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 5}
b_0^{(j)}(x,\varphi)
=
b_0^{(j;1)}(x,\varphi)
+
b_0^{(j;2)}(x,\varphi),$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 6}
b_0^{(j;k)}(x,\varphi)
=
\\
i\int\left[
2s_{-n}^{(j;k)}(x,\xi,e^{i\varphi})
-
s_{-n}^{(j;k)}(x,\xi,2e^{i\varphi})
-
2s_{-n}^{(j;k)}(x,\xi,e^{-i\varphi})
+
s_{-n}^{(j;k)}(x,\xi,2e^{-i\varphi})
\right]
d\xi\,,\end{gathered}$$ $k=1,2$.
Denote by $(S^*_xM)^{(j)}$ the $(n-1)$-dimensional unit cosphere in the cotangent fibre defined by the equation $h^{(j)}(x,\xi)=1$ and denote by $d(S^*_xM)^{(j)}$ the surface area element on $(S^*_xM)^{(j)}$ defined by the condition $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 7}
\left[
\frac{d}{d\mu}
\int_{h^{(j)}(x,\xi)<\mu}g(\xi)\,d\xi
\right]_{\mu=1}
=
\int_{(S^*_xM)^{(j)}}
g(\xi)
\,
d(S^*_xM)^{(j)}\,,$$ where $g:\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}$ is an arbitrary smooth function. This means that we introduce spherical coordinates in the cotangent fibre with the Hamiltonian $h^{(j)}$ playing the role of the radial coordinate, see also [@mybook subsection 1.1.10].
Switching to spherical coordinates, we see that each integral is a product of two integrals, an $(n-1)$-dimensional surface integral over the unit cosphere and a 1-dimensional integral over the radial coordinate. Namely, we have $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 8}
b_0^{(j;k)}(x,\varphi)
=
c^{(j;k)}(x)\,
d^{(j;k)}(\varphi)\,,$$ where $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 9}
c^{(j;1)}(x):=
-(n-1)
\int_{(S^*_xM)^{(j)}}
\operatorname{tr}
\left(
A_\mathrm{sub}P^{(j)}
-\frac i2
\{
P^{(j)},A_1-h^{(j)}I,P^{(j)}
\}
\right)
d(S^*_xM)^{(j)}\,,$$ $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 10}
c^{(j;2)}(x):=
i
\int_{(S^*_xM)^{(j)}}
h^{(j)}
\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}
\}
\,
d(S^*_xM)^{(j)}\,,$$ $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 11}
d^{(j;1)}(\varphi):=
i
\int_0^{+\infty}
\left[
\frac{2}{(\mu-e^{i\varphi})^n}
-
\frac{1}{(\mu-2e^{i\varphi})^n}
-
\frac{2}{(\mu-e^{-i\varphi})^n}
+
\frac{1}{(\mu-2e^{-i\varphi})^n}
\right]
\mu^{n-1}\,d\mu
\,,$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 12}
d^{(j;2)}(\varphi):=
\\
i
\int_0^{+\infty}
\left[
\frac{2}{(\mu-e^{i\varphi})^{n-1}}
-
\frac{1}{(\mu-2e^{i\varphi})^{n-1}}
-
\frac{2}{(\mu-e^{-i\varphi})^{n-1}}
+
\frac{1}{(\mu-2e^{-i\varphi})^{n-1}}
\right]
\mu^{n-2}\,d\mu
\,.\end{gathered}$$
Integrating by parts we see that the integrals in the right–hand-sides of and have the same values, i.e. they do not depend on $n$. Hence, it is sufficient to evaluate the integral for $n=2$. We have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 13}
d^{(j;1)}(\varphi)=
d^{(j;2)}(\varphi)
=
i
\int_0^{+\infty}
\left[
\frac{2}{\mu-e^{i\varphi}}
-
\frac{1}{\mu-2e^{i\varphi}}
-
\frac{2}{\mu-e^{-i\varphi}}
+
\frac{1}{\mu-2e^{-i\varphi}}
\right]
d\mu
\\
=-2(\pi-\varphi)
\,,\end{gathered}$$ so substituting , and into we get $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 14}
a_{n-2}^+(x)=
\frac1{(2\pi)^n}
\sum_{j=1}^{m^+}
\bigl[
c^{(j;1)}(x)
+
c^{(j;2)}(x)
\bigr]\,.$$
Formulae , and give us the required explicit representation of the second Weyl coefficient. However, integrating over a unit cosphere is not very convenient, so we rewrite formulae and as $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 15}
c^{(j;1)}(x)=
-n(n-1)
\int_{h^{(j)}(x,\xi)<1}
\operatorname{tr}
\left(
A_\mathrm{sub}P^{(j)}
-\frac i2
\{
P^{(j)},A_1-h^{(j)}I,P^{(j)}
\}
\right)
(x,\xi)\,
d\xi\,,$$ $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 16}
c^{(j;2)}(x)=
n\,i
\int_{h^{(j)}(x,\xi)<1}
\left(
h^{(j)}\,
\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}
\}
\right)
(x,\xi)\,
d\xi\,.$$
Working with eigenprojections $P^{(j)}$ is also not very convenient, so we express them via the normalised eigenvectors $v^{(j)}$ of the principal symbol $A_1$ as $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 17}
P^{(j)}=v^{(j)}[v^{(j)}]^*.$$ Substituting into and we get $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 18}
c^{(j;1)}(x)=
-n(n-1)
\int_{h^{(j)}(x,\xi)<1}
\left(
[v^{(j)}]^*A_\mathrm{sub}v^{(j)}
-\frac i2
\{
[v^{(j)}]^*,A_1-h^{(j)}I,v^{(j)}
\}
\right)
(x,\xi)\,
d\xi\,,$$ $$\label{The second Weyl coefficient equation 19}
c^{(j;2)}(x)=
-n\,i
\int_{h^{(j)}(x,\xi)<1}
\left(
h^{(j)}\,
\{
[v^{(j)}]^*,v^{(j)}
\}
\right)
(x,\xi)\,
d\xi\,.$$ The transition from to is quite straightforward, but the transition from to warrants an explanation. Here we have $\operatorname{tr}
\{
P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}
\}
=
-
\operatorname{tr}
(
P^{(j)}
\{
P^{(j)},P^{(j)}
\}
)
=
-
\{
[v^{(j)}]^*,v^{(j)}
\}
$, where at the last step we made use of [@jst_part_a formula (4.17)].
The advantage of formulae and is that they do not involve the matrix trace.
Combining formulae , and we arrive at .
Acknowledgements
================
The authors are grateful to Yan-Long Fang for valuable suggestions.
Proof of Lemma \[Strategy lemma 1\] {#Proof of Lemma Strategy lemma 1}
===================================
Let us introduce the functions $$\label{definition of g}
g_n(\mu,z):=\frac2{(\mu-z)^n}-\frac1{(\mu-2z)^n}-\mbox{c.c.},\quad n\in\mathbb{N},
\quad\mu\in\mathbb{R},
\quad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\mathbb{R}.$$ Here and further on ‘$\mbox{c.c.}$’ stands for ‘complex conjugate terms’.
The functions possess the following properties: $$\label{BPartDerivProp}
\partial_1 g_n(\mu,z):=\partial_\mu g_n(\mu,z)=-ng_{n+1}(\mu,z),$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BBound}
|g_n(\mu,z)|\le\frac4{|\mu-z|^n}+\frac2{|\mu-2z|^n}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Formula can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{frhodef}
f^\rho(x,z)=i\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,z)\,(N_+'*\rho)(x,\mu)\,d\mu\nonumber\\
-(-1)^ni\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,-z)\,(N_-'*\rho)(x,\mu)\,d\mu,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{NpmDef}
N_\pm'(x,\nu)=\sum_{\pm\lambda_k>0}\delta(\nu\mp\lambda_k)\|v_k(x)\|^2$$ is a tempered distribution in $\nu$ supported on $\mathbb{R}_+$ and taking values in densities. The convolution $$\label{dima1}
(N_\pm'*\rho)(x,\mu)=\int_0^{+\infty}N_\pm'(x,\nu)\,\rho(\mu-\nu)\,d\nu$$ is a continuous function of $\mu$ taking values in densities. It is known that $$|(N_\pm'*\rho)(x,\mu)|\le c(x)(1+|\mu|^{n-1}),$$ where $c(x)$ is a fixed positive density. Arguing as in –, it is easy to see that, for fixed $z$, the function $g_{n-1}(\mu,z)$ decays as $|\mu|^{-n-1}$ when $\mu\to\pm\infty$, so the integrals in (\[frhodef\]) converge.
We have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dima2}
\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,z)\,(N_\pm'*\rho)(x,\mu)\,d\mu
\\
=
\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,z)
\left(
\int_0^{+\infty}N_\pm'(x,\nu)\,\rho(\mu-\nu)\,d\nu
\right)
d\mu
\\
=
\int_0^{+\infty}
N_\pm'(x,\nu)
\left(
\int_0^{+\infty}
g_{n-1}(\mu,z)\,\rho(\mu-\nu)\,d\mu
\right)
d\nu
\\
=\int_0^{+\infty}N_\pm'(x,\mu)
\left(
\int_0^{+\infty}
g_{n-1}(\nu,z)\,\rho(\nu-\mu)\,d\nu
\right)
d\mu.\end{gathered}$$ In going from the second line of to the third we changed the order of integration. This can be justified, for example, by replacing the infinite series by a finite partial sum and going to the limit.
Substituting into (\[frhodef\]) and using formula , we find that $$\begin{gathered}
f^\rho(x,z)-f(x,z)
=i\int_0^{+\infty}
N_+'(x,\mu)\left(
\int_0^{+\infty}
g_{n-1}(\nu,z)\,\rho(\nu-\mu)\,d\nu-g_{n-1}(\mu,z)\right)d\mu
\\
-(-1)^ni\int_0^{+\infty}
N_-'(x,\mu)\left(
\int_0^{+\infty}
g_{n-1}(\nu,-z)\,\rho(\nu-\mu)\,d\nu-g_{n-1}(\mu,-z)\right)d\mu
\\
+(-1)^n\frac{2^n-1}{2^{n-1}}i\left[\frac1{z^{n-1}}-\frac1{\bar z^{n-1}}\right]
\sum_{\lambda_k=0}\|v_k(x)\|^2.\end{gathered}$$
Now, let $z=\lambda e^{i\varphi}$ with $\lambda>0$ and fixed $\varphi\in(0,\pi)$. In view of the fact that $N_\pm(x,\lambda)=O(\lambda^n)$, in order to show that $f^\rho(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})-f(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\to0$ as $\lambda\to+\infty$ it is sufficient to prove that $$\label{ToProveThat}
\left|\int_0^{+\infty}
g_{n-1}(\nu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\,\rho(\nu-\mu)\,d\nu
-g_{n-1}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\right|
\le\frac{\operatorname{const}_\varphi}{\lambda(1+\mu^{n+1})}\,,
\quad\forall\lambda\ge1,\quad\forall\mu\ge0.$$
Recall that according to our definition of the mollifier $\rho$ we have $$\label{rhoSchwartz}
|\rho(\nu)|\le\frac{c_p}{(1+|\nu|)^p}\,,\quad\forall p\in\mathbb{N},$$ $$\label{rhoProp}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\rho(\nu)d\nu=1,\quad\mbox{and}\quad\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\rho(\nu)\nu^m d\nu=0,\quad\forall m\in\mathbb{N}.$$
Formula (\[rhoProp\]) implies that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Estimand}
\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\nu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\rho(\nu-\mu)d\nu-g_{n-1}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\\
=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left[g_{n-1}(\nu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})
-g_{n-1}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\right]\rho(\nu-\mu)d\nu-\int_{-\infty}^0g_{n-1}(\nu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\rho(\nu-\mu)d\nu.\end{gathered}$$ Using (\[BBound\]) and (\[rhoSchwartz\]) with $p=n+3$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Est1}
\left|\int_{-\infty}^0g_{n-1}(\nu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\rho(\nu-\mu)d\nu\right|\le\int_{-\infty}^0\frac6{\lambda^{n-1}|\sin\varphi|^{n-1}}\frac{c_{n+3}}{(1+|\nu|+\mu)^{n+3}}d\nu\nonumber\\
\le\frac{6c_{n+3}}{\lambda^{n-1}|\sin\varphi|^{n-1}(1+\mu^{n+1})}\int_{-\infty}^0\frac{d\nu}{1+\nu^2}\le\frac{\operatorname{const}_\varphi}{\lambda(1+\mu^{n+1})}\,,\quad\forall\lambda\ge1.\end{aligned}$$ In order to estimate the first integral in the RHS of (\[Estimand\]) let us perform a change of variable $\nu\mapsto\mu+\nu$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dima111}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left[g_{n-1}(\nu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})
-g_{n-1}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\right]\rho(\nu-\mu)\,d\nu\\
=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left[g_{n-1}(\mu+\nu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})
-g_{n-1}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\right]\rho(\nu)\,d\nu.\end{gathered}$$ Writing Taylor’s formula with remainder in Lagrange’s form and using , we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{BTaylor}
g_{n-1}(\mu+\nu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})-g_{n-1}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})=
-(n-1)g_{n}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\,\nu
\\
+\frac{n(n-1)}2g_{n+1}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\,\nu^2
-\frac{(n+1)n(n-1)}6R(\mu,\nu,\lambda,\varphi)\,\nu^3,\end{gathered}$$ where $$\label{formula for remainder}
R(\mu,\nu,\lambda,\varphi)
=g_{n+2}(\xi_{\mu,\mu+\nu},\lambda e^{i\varphi})$$ and $\xi_{\mu,\mu+\nu}$ is some real number strictly between $\mu$ and $\mu+\nu$. From (\[rhoProp\]), (\[BTaylor\]) and (\[BPartDerivProp\]) we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dima222}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left[g_{n-1}(\mu+\nu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})-g_{n-1}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\right]
\rho(\nu)\,d\nu
\\
=-\frac{(n+1)n(n-1)}6\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}R(\mu,\nu,\lambda,\varphi)\,\nu^3\rho(\nu)\,d\nu.\end{gathered}$$
Comparing formula with – and we see that the proof of Lemma \[Strategy lemma 1\] has been reduced to proving that $$\label{dima333}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\left|
R(\mu,\nu,\lambda,\varphi)\,\nu^3\rho(\nu)\right|\,d\nu
\le\frac{\operatorname{const}_\varphi}{\lambda(1+\mu^{n+1})}\,,
\quad\forall\lambda\ge1,\quad\forall\mu\ge0.$$
In order to prove it is sufficient to prove the following two estimates: $$\label{dima444}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\left|
R(\mu,\nu,\lambda,\varphi)\,\nu^3\rho(\nu)\right|\,d\nu
\le\frac{\operatorname{const}_\varphi}{\lambda^{n+2}}\,,
\quad\forall\lambda\ge1,\quad\forall\mu\in[0,\lambda],$$ $$\label{dima555}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\left|
R(\mu,\nu,\lambda,\varphi)\,\nu^3\rho(\nu)\right|\,d\nu
\le\frac{\operatorname{const}_\varphi}{\lambda\mu^{n+1}}\,,
\quad\forall\lambda\ge1,\quad\forall\mu\ge\lambda.$$
Observe that formulae and give us the rough estimate $$\label{dima123}
|R(\mu,\nu,\lambda,\varphi)|
\le\frac{6}{|\sin\varphi|^{n+2}\lambda^{n+2}}\,,
\quad\forall\lambda>0,\quad\forall\mu,\nu\in\mathbb{R}.$$ Formulae and with $p=5$ imply .
Formulae and also tell us that $$|R(\mu,\nu,\lambda,\varphi)|
\le\frac{\operatorname{const}_\varphi}{\mu^{n+2}}
\le\frac{\operatorname{const}_\varphi}{\lambda\mu^{n+1}}$$ uniformly over all $\mu\ge\lambda>0$ and $\nu\ge-\mu/2$. Using this estimate and formula with $p=5$ we get $$\label{dima666}
\int_{-\mu/2}^{+\infty}
\left|
R(\mu,\nu,\lambda,\varphi)\,\nu^3\rho(\nu)\right|\,d\nu
\le\frac{\operatorname{const}_\varphi}{\lambda\mu^{n+1}}\,,
\quad\forall\lambda\ge1,\quad\forall\mu\ge\lambda.$$
Comparing formulae and we see that the proof of Lemma \[Strategy lemma 1\] has been reduced to proving that $$\label{dima777}
\int_{-\infty}^{-\mu/2}
\left|
R(\mu,\nu,\lambda,\varphi)\,\nu^3\rho(\nu)\right|\,d\nu
\le\frac{\operatorname{const}_\varphi}{\lambda\mu^{n+1}}\,,
\quad\forall\lambda\ge1,\quad\forall\mu\ge\lambda.$$
Using and with $p=n+5$ we get $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{-\infty}^{-\mu/2}\,
\left|
R(\mu,\nu,\lambda,\varphi)\,\nu^3\rho(\nu)
\right|\,d\nu
\le
\frac{6c_{n+5}}{|\sin\varphi|^{n+2}\lambda^{n+2}}
\int_{\mu/2}^{+\infty}\frac{d\nu}{\nu^{n+2}}
\\
=
\frac{6\cdot2^{n+1}c_{n+5}}{(n+1)|\sin\varphi|^{n+2}\lambda^{n+2}\mu^{n+1}}
\,,
\quad\forall\lambda\ge1,\quad\forall\mu\ge\lambda,\end{gathered}$$ which implies .
Some integrals involving the functions $g_n$ {#Some integrals involving the functions}
============================================
In this appendix we evaluate some integrals involving the functions . These results will be used later in Appendix \[Proof of Lemma Strategy lemma 2\].
Let us evaluate the following indefinite integral: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{some1}
\int\frac{\mu^nd\mu}{(\mu-z)^n}=\int\left(1+\frac{z}\nu\right)^nd\nu
=\int\left[1+\frac{nz}\nu+\sum_{k=2}^n\binom{n}{k}\frac{z^k}{\nu^k}\right]d\nu
\\
=\nu+nz\log\nu+\sum_{k=2}^n\binom{n}{k}\frac1{1-k}z^k\nu^{1-k}
\\
=\mu+nz\log(\mu-z)+\sum_{k=2}^n\binom{n}{k}\frac1{1-k}z^k(\mu-z)^{1-k}.\end{gathered}$$ Here in performing intermediate calculations we used the change of variable $\nu=\mu-z$.
Similarly, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{some2}
\int\frac{\mu^{n-1}d\mu}{(\mu-z)^n}=\int\left(1+\frac{z}\nu\right)^{n-1}\frac{d\nu}\nu
=\int\left[1+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\binom{n-1}{k}\frac{z^k}{\nu^k}\right]\frac{d\nu}\nu
\\
=\log\nu-\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\binom{n-1}{k}\frac1kz^k\nu^{-k}
=\log(\mu-z)-\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\binom{n-1}{k}\frac1kz^k(\mu-z)^{-k}.\end{gathered}$$
Formulae , and imply $$\begin{gathered}
\label{some3}
\int g_n(\mu,z)\,\mu^n\,d\mu=2nz\log(\mu-z)-2nz\log(\mu-2z)
\\
+2\sum_{k=2}^n\binom{n}{k}\frac1{1-k}z^k(\mu-z)^{1-k}-\sum_{k=2}^n\binom{n}{k}\frac1{1-k}2^kz^k(\mu-2z)^{1-k}
-\mbox{c.c.},\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{some4}
\int g_n(\mu,z)\,\mu^{n-1}\,d\mu=2\log(\mu-z)-\log(\mu-2z)
\\
-2\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\binom{n-1}{k}\frac1kz^k(\mu-z)^{-k}+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\binom{n-1}{k}\frac1k2^kz^k(\mu-2z)^{-k}
-\mbox{c.c.}.\end{gathered}$$
Using and we can finally evaluate definite integrals: $$\label{some5}
\int_0^{+\infty}
g_n(\mu,z)\,\mu^n\,d\mu
=
\left.\left[
2nz\log\left(\frac{\mu-z}{\mu-2z}\right)
-
2n\bar z\log\left(\frac{\mu-\bar z}{\mu-2\bar z}\right)
\right]\right\rvert_0^{+\infty},$$ $$\label{some6}
\int_0^{+\infty}
g_n(\mu,z)\,\mu^{n-1}\,d\mu
=
\left.\left[
\log\left(\frac{\mu-z}{\mu-2z}\right)
+
\log\left(\frac{\mu-z}{\mu-\bar z}\right)
-
\log\left(\frac{\mu-\bar z}{\mu-2\bar z}\right)
\right]\right\rvert_0^{+\infty}.$$ Here the complex logarithms $\,\log\,$ are continuous multivalued functions which have to be handled carefully.
Note that for any $z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\mathbb{R}$ and any real positive $\mu$ we have $$\operatorname{Im}\frac{\mu-z}{\mu-2z}=\frac{\mu\operatorname{Im}z}{|\mu-2z|^2}\neq0,$$ $$\operatorname{Im}\frac{\mu-z}{\mu-\bar z}=\frac{2\operatorname{Im}z(\operatorname{Re}z-\mu)}{|\mu-z|^2}=0
\quad\Rightarrow\quad
\operatorname{Re}\frac{\mu-z}{\mu-\bar z}=\frac{(\operatorname{Re}z-\mu)^2-(\operatorname{Im}z)^2}{|\mu-z|^2}<0,$$ so neither of the two arguments of our $\,\log\,$ crosses the positive real axis $\mathbb{R}_+\,$. Hence, we are free to switch from $\,\log\,$ to the single-valued $\,\operatorname{Log}:\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}\to\mathbb{R}+i[0,2\pi)\,$ branch-cut along $\mathbb{R}_+$. Formulae and become $$\begin{gathered}
\label{IntBnmu^n}
\int_0^{+\infty}
g_n(\mu,z)\,\mu^n\,d\mu
=
\left.\left[
2nz\operatorname{Log}\left(\frac{\mu-z}{\mu-2z}\right)
-
2n\bar z\operatorname{Log}\left(\frac{\mu-\bar z}{\mu-2\bar z}\right)
\right]\right\rvert_0^{+\infty}
\\
=2n(z-\bar z)\ln2
=4ni(\ln 2)\operatorname{Im}z,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{IntBnmu^n-1}
\int_0^{+\infty} g_n(\mu,z)\,\mu^{n-1}\,d\mu
=
\left.\left[
\operatorname{Log}\left(\frac{\mu-z}{\mu-2z}\right)
+
\operatorname{Log}\left(\frac{\mu-z}{\mu-\bar z}\right)
-
\operatorname{Log}\left(\frac{\mu-\bar z}{\mu-2\bar z}
\right)\right]\right\rvert_0^{+\infty}
\\
=
\left.\operatorname{Log}\left(\frac{\mu-z}{\mu-\bar z}\right)\right\rvert_0^{+\infty}
=
i\pi(1+\operatorname{sgn}\operatorname{Im}z)-i\operatorname{Arg}z^2,\end{gathered}$$ where $\operatorname{Arg}:\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}\to[0,2\pi)$ is also branch-cut along $\mathbb{R}_+\,$.
Proof of Lemma \[Strategy lemma 2\] {#Proof of Lemma Strategy lemma 2}
===================================
Formula tells us that $$(N_\pm'*\rho)(x,\mu)=a_{n-1}^\pm(x)\mu^{n-1}+a_{n-2}^\pm(x)\mu^{n-2}+(1+\mu)^{n-3}r^\pm(x,\mu),$$ where $r^\pm(x,\mu)$ is bounded uniformly in $\mu\ge0$.
Let $g_n(\mu,z)$ be defined in accordance with . We have $$\label{BHomogenProp}
g_n(\lambda\mu,\lambda z)=\lambda^{-n}g_n(\mu,z),\quad\forall\lambda>0.$$ Using (\[BHomogenProp\]) we get $$\label{b3}
\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\,\mu^{n-1}\,d\mu
=\lambda\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,e^{i\varphi})\,\mu^{n-1}\,d\mu\,,$$ $$\label{b4}
\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\,\mu^{n-2}\,d\mu
=\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,e^{i\varphi})\,\mu^{n-2}\,d\mu,$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{b5}
\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,\lambda e^{i\varphi})\,(1+\mu)^{n-3}\,r^\pm(x,\mu)\,d\mu
\\
=\frac1\lambda\int_0^{+\infty} g_{n-1}(\mu,e^{i\varphi})
\left(\frac1{\lambda}+\mu\right)^{n-3}
r^\pm(x,\lambda\mu)\,d\mu=o(1)
\quad
\text{as}
\quad
\lambda\to+\infty.\end{gathered}$$ Recall (see Appendix \[Proof of Lemma Strategy lemma 1\]) that the function $g_{n-1}(\mu,z)$ decays as $\mu^{-n-1}$ when $\mu\to+\infty$, so the integrals in – converge.
Substituting – into (\[frhodef\]) we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{extralabel1}
f^\rho(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})
\\
=\lambda i
\left[
a_{n-1}^+(x)\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,e^{i\varphi})\,\mu^{n-1}\,d\mu
\,-\,
(-1)^na_{n-1}^-(x)\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,e^{i(\varphi+\pi)})\,\mu^{n-1}\,d\mu
\right]
\\
+i
\left[
a_{n-2}^+(x)\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,e^{i\varphi})\,\mu^{n-2}\,d\mu
\,-\,
(-1)^na_{n-2}^-(x)\int_0^{+\infty}g_{n-1}(\mu,e^{i(\varphi+\pi)})\,\mu^{n-2}\,d\mu
\right]
\\
+o(1)
\quad
\text{as}
\quad
\lambda\to+\infty.\end{gathered}$$ Formulae (\[IntBnmu\^n\]) and (\[IntBnmu\^n-1\]) give us the values of the integrals appearing in , so becomes $$\begin{gathered}
f^\rho(x,\lambda e^{i\varphi})
=
-4(n-1)(\ln2)(\sin\varphi)\left[a_{n-1}^+(x)+(-1)^na_{n-1}^{-}(x)\right]\lambda
\\
-2\left[a_{n+2}^+(x)(\pi-\varphi)+(-1)^na_{n-1}^-(x)\varphi\right]
+o(1)
\quad
\text{as}
\quad
\lambda\to+\infty,\end{gathered}$$ thus proving the lemma.
Weyl quantization on manifolds {#Weyl quantization on manifolds}
==============================
[^4]\[avantpropos\] Let $M$ be a compact manifold. A pseudodifferential operator of order $m\in \mathbb{R}$ is a continuous operator $A:C^\infty (M)\to C^\infty
(M)$ which has a weakly continuous extension ${\cal D}'(M)\to {\cal
D}'(M)$ such that, with $K_A$ denoting the distribution kernel,
- $\mathrm{sing\, supp}K_A\subset \mathrm{diag\,}(M\times
M)$,
- For every system of local coordinates $\gamma :\Omega \ni
\rho \mapsto
x\in \Omega '\subset \mathbb{R}^n
$ where $\Omega \subset M$, $\Omega '\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ are open and $\gamma
$ a diffeomorphism, we have (identifying $\Omega $ and $\gamma (\Omega)$) $$\label{D.1}
Au(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^n}\iint e^{i(x-y)\cdot \theta } a(x,\theta
)u(y)dyd\theta +Ru,\ \ u\in C_0^\infty (\Omega ),\ x\in \Omega ,$$ where $R$ is smoothing ($K_R\in C^\infty (\Omega \times \Omega ) $) and $a$ is a symbol of order $m$; $a\in S^m(\Omega)$, which means that $a\in C^\infty (\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^n)$ and that for every $\widehat{K}\Subset
\Omega $ and all $\alpha ,\beta \in \mathbb{N}^n$, $\exists C=C_{\widehat{K},\alpha
,\beta }$ such that $$\label{D.2}
|\partial _x^\alpha \partial _\theta ^\beta a(x,\theta )|\le C\langle
\theta \rangle^{m-|\beta |},\ \forall\, (x,\theta )\in
\widehat{K}\times \mathbb{R}^n , \hbox{ where }\langle \theta \rangle=
(1+|\theta |^2)^{1/2}.$$
If $\widetilde{\gamma }:\widetilde{\Omega }\ni \rho \mapsto
\widetilde{x}\in \widetilde{\Omega }'$ is another local coordinate chart, then over the intersection $\Omega
\cap \widetilde{\Omega }$ we can express $x=\kappa
(\widetilde{x})$, where $\kappa =\gamma \circ
\widetilde{\gamma }^{-1}$ and we have $$\label{D.3}
a(\kappa (\widetilde{x}),\theta )\equiv
\widetilde{a}(\widetilde{x},(\kappa '(\widetilde{x}))^\mathrm{t}\theta
)\ \mathrm{mod\,}S^{m-1}.$$ This allows us to define the symbol $\sigma _A$ of $A$ on $T^*M$ up to symbols of order 1 lower. More precisely, we have a bijection $$\label{D.4}
L^m(M)/L^{m-1}(M)\ni A\mapsto \sigma _A\in S^m(T^*M)/S^{m-1}(T^*M),$$ with the natural definition of the symbol classes $S^m(T^*M)$, and with $L^m(M)$ denoting the space of pseudodifferential operators on $M$ of order $m$.
It is well known that we can replace $a(x,\theta )$ in (\[D.1\]) with $a((x+y)/2,\theta )$ and this leads to the same definition of $\sigma _A$ in $S^m/S^{m-1}(T^*M)$. Thus, working with $$\label{D.5}
Au(x)=\mathrm{Op\,}(a)u(x)+Ru, \ \ a\in S^m(\Omega \times {\bf
R}^{n}),\ K_R\in C^\infty ,$$ leads to the same principal symbol map. Here we write[^5] $$\label{D.6}
\mathrm{Op\,}(a)u(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^n}\iint e^{i(x-y)\cdot \theta
}a\left(\frac{x+y}{2},\theta \right) u(y)dyd\theta .$$
It seems to be a well-known result (though we did not find a precise reference) that if we fix a positive smooth density $\omega $ on $M$, restrict our attention to local coordinates for which $\omega
=dx_1...dx_n$ and work with the Weyl quantization as in (\[D.5\]), (\[D.6\]), then (\[D.4\]) improves to a bijection $$\label{D.7}
L^m/L^{m-2}(M)\ni A\mapsto \sigma _A\in S^m/S^{m-2}(T^*M).$$
A natural generalization of this is to consider pseudodifferential operators acting on $1/2$-densities; $A:C^\infty (M;\Omega ^{1/2})\to
C^\infty (M;\Omega ^{1/2}) $. When using the Weyl quantization, we get the local representation analogous to \[D.5\]: $$\label{D.8}
A(u(y)dy^{1/2})=(\mathrm{Op\,}(a)u)(x)dx^{1/2}+(Ru)dx^{1/2},$$ where $dx=dx_1...dx_n$. Recall that Duistermaat and Hörmander [@DuiHor] have defined invariantly the notion of subpincipal symbol of such operators when the symbols are sums of a leading positively homogeneous term of order $m$ in $\xi $ and a symbol of order $m-1$. This result, as well as the fixed density invariance mentioned above, follow from the next more or less well-known proposition (cf. the footnote on page ).
\[D1\] Let $L^m(M)$ denote the space of pseudodifferential operators on $M$ of order $m$, acting on half densities. Then if $(x_1,...,x_n)$ and $(\widetilde{x}_1,...,\widetilde{x}_n)$ are two local coordinate charts and we use the representation (\[D.8\]), so that $$A(udx^{1/2})\equiv (\mathrm{Op\,}(a)u)dx^{1/2}\equiv
(\mathrm{Op\,}(\widetilde{a})\widetilde{u})d\widetilde{x}^{1/2},$$ modulo the action of smoothing operators, for $udx^{1/2}=\widetilde{u}d\widetilde{x}^{1/2}$ supported in the intersection of the two coordinate charts, then we have $$\label{D.9}
a(\kappa (\widetilde{x}),\theta ) \equiv
\widetilde{a}(\widetilde{x},\kappa '(\widetilde{x})^\mathrm{t}\theta
)\ \mathrm{mod}\ S^{m-2},$$ implying that we have a natural bijective symbol map $$\label{D.10}
L^m/L^{m-2}(M)\to S^m/S^{m-2}(T^*M).$$
[**Proof.** ]{} We only verify (\[D.9\]) and omit the (even more) standard arguments for (\[D.10\]). Our proof will be a straightforward adaptation of the proof of the invariance of pseudodifferential operators under composition with diffeomorphisms by means of the Kuranishi trick (cf. [@GrSj94]).
In the intersection of the two coordinate charts $\Omega $ and $\widetilde{\Omega }$, we have $u(y)dy^{1/2}=\widetilde{u}(\widetilde{y})d\widetilde{y}^{1/2}$. Here $y=\kappa (\widetilde{y})$, where $\kappa $ is a diffeomorphism: $\widetilde{\gamma }(\Omega \cap \widetilde{\Omega })\to \gamma
(\Omega \cap \widetilde{\Omega })$, $\kappa =\gamma \circ
\widetilde{\gamma }^{-1}$). Thus $u(y)=\widetilde{u}(\widetilde{y})(\det \kappa
'(\widetilde{y}))^{-1/2}$, assuming that $\det \kappa '>0$ for simplicity. Thus, modulo the action of smoothing operators $$A(udy^{1/2})\equiv (\mathrm{Op\,}(a)u)dx^{1/2}=(\det \kappa '(\widetilde{x}))^{1/2}(\mathrm{Op\,}(a)u)d\widetilde{x}^{1/2},$$ so up to a smoothing operator $\mathrm{Op\,}(\widetilde{a})$ coincides with $$B:\, \widetilde{u}\mapsto (\det \kappa
'(\widetilde{x}))^{1/2}\mathrm{Op\,}(a)u,\ \
u(y)=\widetilde{u}(\widetilde{y})(\det \kappa '(\widetilde{y}))^{-1/2}.$$ We have $$\begin{gathered}
B\widetilde{u}(\widetilde{x})=(\det \kappa
'(\widetilde{x}))^{1/2}\iint e^{i(x-y)\cdot \theta
}a\left(\frac{x+y}{2},\theta \right) u(y)dy\frac{d\theta}{(2\pi )^n}\\
=(\det \kappa '(\widetilde{x}))^{1/2}\iint e^{i(\kappa
(\widetilde{x})-y)\cdot \theta }a\left(\frac{\kappa (\widetilde{x})+y}{2},\theta
\right) \widetilde{u}(\widetilde{y})(\det \kappa
'(\widetilde{y}))^{-1/2}dy\frac{d\theta }{(2\pi )^n}\\
=\iint e^{i(\kappa (\widetilde{x})-\kappa (\widetilde{y}))\cdot \theta
}a\left(\frac{\kappa (\widetilde{x})+\kappa (\widetilde{y})}{2},\theta
\right)\widetilde{u}(\widetilde{y})(\det \kappa '(\widetilde{x})
\det \kappa '(\widetilde{y}))^{1/2}
d\widetilde{y}\frac{d\theta}{(2\pi )^n}\,.\end{gathered}$$
By Taylor’s formula (and restricting to a suitably thin neighborhood of the diagonal by means of a smooth cutoff, equal to one near the diagonal), we get $$\kappa (\widetilde{x})-\kappa (\widetilde{y})=K(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})(\widetilde{x}-\widetilde{y}),$$ where $\widetilde{K}(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})$ depends smoothly on $(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})$ and $$K(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})=\kappa '
\left(\frac{\widetilde{x}+\widetilde{y}}{2} \right) +{O}((\widetilde{x}-\widetilde{y})^2).$$ It follows that $$\begin{gathered}
B\widetilde{u}(\widetilde{x})=\iint
e^{i(\widetilde{x}-\widetilde{y})\cdot
K^{\mathrm{t}}(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})\theta
}a\left(\frac{\kappa (\widetilde{x})+\kappa (\widetilde{y})}{2},\theta
\right) \widetilde{u}(\widetilde{y})(\det \kappa '(\widetilde{x}) \det
\kappa '(\widetilde{y}))^{1/2}d\widetilde{y}\frac{d\theta}{(2\pi
)^n}\\
= \iint
e^{i(\widetilde{x}-\widetilde{y})\cdot
\widetilde{\theta }
}a\left(\frac{\kappa (\widetilde{x})+\kappa
(\widetilde{y})}{2},K^{\mathrm{t}}(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})^{-1}\widetilde{\theta }
\right) \widetilde{u}(\widetilde{y})\frac{(\det \kappa '(\widetilde{x}) \det
\kappa '(\widetilde{y}))^{1/2}}{\det K(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})} d\widetilde{y}\frac{d\widetilde{\theta }}{(2\pi
)^n}.\end{gathered}$$ Here $$\begin{split}
\frac{\kappa (\widetilde{x})+\kappa (\widetilde{y})}{2}&=\kappa
\left(\frac{\widetilde{x}+\widetilde{y}}{2} \right)
+{O}((\widetilde{x}-\widetilde{y})^2),\\
K^{\mathrm{t}}(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})^{-1}&=\left((\kappa ')^{\mathrm{t}}\left(\frac{\widetilde{x}+\widetilde{y}}{2} \right) \right)^{-1}
+{O}((\widetilde{x}-\widetilde{y})^2),\\
\det K(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})&=\det \kappa '\left(\frac{\widetilde{x}+\widetilde{y}}{2} \right)
+{O}((\widetilde{x}-\widetilde{y})^2),\\
(\det \kappa '(\widetilde{x}) \det
\kappa '(\widetilde{y}))^{1/2}
&=\det \kappa '\left(\frac{\widetilde{x}+\widetilde{y}}{2} \right)
+{O}((\widetilde{x}-\widetilde{y})^2).
\end{split}$$ Thus, $$B\widetilde{u}=\mathrm{Op\,}(\widetilde{a})\widetilde{u}+\iint
e^{i(\widetilde{x}-\widetilde{y})\cdot \widetilde{\theta
}}b(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y},\widetilde{\theta
})u(\widetilde{y})d\widetilde{y}\frac{d\widetilde{\theta }}{(2\pi )^n},$$ where $\widetilde{a}\in S^m$ is related to $a$ as in (\[D.9\]) and $b\in S^m(\widetilde{\gamma }(\Omega \cap \widetilde{\Omega
})^2\times \mathbb{R}^n)$ (in the sense that $\partial
_{\widetilde{x}}^\alpha \partial _{\widetilde{y}}^\beta \partial
_{\widetilde{\theta }}^{|\delta|} b={O}(\langle \widetilde{\theta }
\rangle^{m-\delta })$ uniformly in $\widetilde{\theta }$ and locally uniformly in $(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})$) and $b$ vanishes to the second order on the diagonal, $\widetilde{x}=\widetilde{y}$. By standard arguments we have $B\equiv \mathrm{Op}(r)$, where $r\in
S^{m-2}$ and the proposition follows.
The resolvent and its powers as pseudodifferential operators {#Symbolic approximation for the resolvent and its powers}
============================================================
Let $\gamma :M\supset \Omega \to \Omega '\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a chart of local coordinates and let us identify $\Omega '$ with $\Omega $ in the natural way. Let $a(x,\xi )\in S^1(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^n)$ (defined modulo $S^{-\infty }(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^n)$) be the Weyl symbol of $$\label{E.1}{{A}_\vert}_{C_0^\infty (\Omega )}:C_0^\infty (\Omega )\to C^\infty
(\Omega ),$$ so that $$\label{E.2}
Au(x)=\mathrm{Op\,}(a)u(x)+Ru(x),\ x\in \Omega$$ for every $u\in C_0^\infty (\Omega )$, where $R\in L^{-\infty }(\Omega
)$ in the sense that $K_R\in C^\infty (\Omega \times \Omega )$. Here we identify 1/2 densities and scalar functions on $\Omega $ by means of the fixed factor $dx^{1/2}$. We first work in this fixed local coordinate chart and write simply $A$ for the operator in (\[E.1\]). We notice that $$\label{E.3}
a-z\in S(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^n,\langle \xi ,z\rangle )=S(\langle \xi
,z\rangle),$$ in the sense that $a-z\in C^\infty (\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^n)$ and that for all $K\Subset \Omega $, $\alpha ,\beta \in \mathbb{N}^n$, $$\label{E.4}
|\partial _x^\alpha \partial _\xi ^\beta (a-z)|\le C_{K,\alpha ,\beta
}\langle \xi ,z\rangle \langle \xi \rangle^{-|\beta |},$$ uniformly when $z\in \mathbb{C}$, $|z|>1$, $x\in K$, $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^n
$. Here, we write $\langle \xi \rangle = (1+|\xi |^2)^{1/2}$, $\langle
\xi ,z\rangle =(1+|z|^2+|\xi |^2)^{1/2}$.
Similarly, if $\Gamma \subset \dot{\mathbb{C}}$ is a closed conic neighborhood of $\dot{\mathbb{R}}$ and until further notice we restrict our attention to $z\in\dot{\mathbb{C}}\setminus (\Gamma \cup D(0,1)) $, we have $$\label{E.5}
(a-z)^{-1}\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-1})$$ with the natural generalization of the definition (\[E.4\]).
Sometimes, we shall exploit the fact that $a-z$ and $(a-z)^{-1}$ belong to narrower symbol classes, used in [@GrSe95]. We say that $b(x,\xi,
z) $, defined for $(x,\xi ,z)$ as in (\[E.5\]), belongs to $S_1(\langle \xi ,z\rangle ^m)$, $m\in \mathbb{R}$, if $$\label{E.6}
|\partial _x^\alpha \partial _\xi ^\beta b(x,\xi ,z)|\le C_{K,\alpha
,\beta }\begin{cases}
\langle \xi ,z\rangle ^m, \hbox{ when }\alpha =\beta =0,\\
\langle \xi ,z\rangle ^m\frac{\langle \xi \rangle}{\langle \xi
,z\rangle}\langle \xi \rangle^{-|\beta |},\hbox{ when }(\alpha
,\beta )\ne (0,0),
\end{cases}$$ uniformly for $x\in K\Subset \Omega $, $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^n$, $z\in
\dot{\mathbb{C}}\setminus (\Gamma \cup D(0,1))$.
If $b_j\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{m_j})$, $j=1,2$, the asymptotic Weyl composition $$\begin{gathered}
\label{E.7}
b_1\# b_2=\left(e^{(i/2)\sigma (D_{x,\xi };D_{y,\eta })}b_1(x,\xi
)b_2(y,\eta )\right)_{y=x\atop \eta =\xi }\\
\sim \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{k!}\left(\left(\frac{i}{2}\sigma (D_{x,\xi
};D_{y,\eta }) \right)^kb_1(x,\xi )b_2(y,\eta )\right)_{y=x\atop \eta =\xi }\end{gathered}$$ is well defined in $S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{m_1+m_2})/S(\langle \xi
,z\rangle^{m_1+m_2}\langle \xi \rangle^{-\infty })$, where $$S(\langle \xi
,z\rangle^{m_1+m_2}\langle \xi \rangle^{-\infty })=\bigcap_{N\ge 0}S(\langle \xi
,z\rangle^{m_1+m_2}\langle \xi \rangle^{-N})$$ and with the natural definition of the symbol spaces to the right. Here $\sigma (D_{x,\xi};D_{y,\eta })=D_\xi \cdot D_y-D_x\cdot D_\eta $. Notice that $$\label{E.8}
\frac{1}{k!}\left(\left(\frac{i}{2}\sigma (D_{x,\xi
};D_{y,\eta }) \right)^kb_1(x,\xi )b_2(y,\eta )\right)_{y=x\atop
\eta =\xi }
\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{m_1+m_2}\langle \xi \rangle^{-k}).$$
When $b_j\in S_1(m_j)$ this improves to $$\label{E.9}
\frac{1}{k!}\left(\left(\frac{i}{2}\sigma (D_{x,\xi
};D_{y,\eta }) \right)^kb_1(x,\xi )b_2(y,\eta )\right)_{y=x\atop
\eta =\xi }
\in\begin{cases}
S_1(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{m_1+m_2}),\hbox{ when }k=0,\\
S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{m_1+m_2-2}\langle \xi \rangle^{2-k}),\hbox{
when }k\ge 1.
\end{cases}$$ In particular, $$b_1\# b_2\equiv b_1b_2\hbox{ mod }S(\langle \xi
,z\rangle^{m_1+m_2-2}\langle \xi \rangle ).$$ In the special case $b_1=a-z$, $b_2=(a-z)^{-1}$ we get $$\label{E.10}
(a-z)\# (a-z)^{-1}=1+r,$$ $$\label{E.11}\begin{split}
r\sim & \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k!}\left(\frac{i}{2}\sigma (D_{x,\xi
};D_{y,\eta }) \right)^k\left( a(x,\xi )(a(y,\eta )-z)^{-1}
\right)_{y=x\atop \eta =\xi }\\ & \in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-2}\langle
\xi \rangle)/S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-2}\langle
\xi \rangle^{-\infty }),\\
r\equiv & \frac{i}{2}\sigma (D_{x,\xi };D_{y,\eta })\left(a(x,\xi)(a(y,\eta )-z)^{-1} \right)_{y=x\atop \eta =\xi }\ \\
\equiv &\frac{i}{2}\{ a,(a-z)^{-1} \}\ \mathrm{mod}\
S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-2}),
\end{split}$$ with the Poisson bracket as defined in Section \[Statement of the problem\].
The symbolic inverse of $A-z$ is now $$\label{E.12}
b(x,\xi ,z)\sim (a-z)^{-1}\# (1-r+r\#r...\pm r^{\# k}+...),$$ where $$r^{\#k}=\underbrace{r\#r\#...\#r}_{k\ \mathrm{ factors}}\in S\left((\langle \xi \rangle/\langle \xi
,z\rangle^2)^k\right)\subset S\left(\langle \xi ,z\rangle ^{-k}\right).$$ We see that $b(x,\xi ,z)\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-1})$ and that $$b\equiv (a-z)^{-1}\ \mathrm{mod}\ S\left(\frac{\langle \xi
\rangle}{\langle \xi ,z\rangle^3} \right).$$ More precisely, $$b\equiv (a-z)^{-1}-(a-z)^{-1}\# r\ \mathrm{mod}\
S\left(\frac{1}{\langle \xi ,z\rangle^3} \right) .$$ Here $$\begin{gathered}
(a-z)^{-1}\# r\sim (a-z)^{-1}r+\sum_{k\ge
1}\frac{1}{k!}\left(\left(\frac{i}{2}\sigma (D_{x,\xi };D_{y,\eta })
\right)^k\left((a-z)^{-1}(x,\xi )r(y,\eta ) \right)
\right)_{y=x\atop \eta =\xi }\\
\equiv (a-z)^{-1}r\ \mathrm{mod}\ S\left( \frac{1}{\langle \xi ,z\rangle^3} \right),\end{gathered}$$ so $$\label{E.13}\begin{split}
b(x,\xi ,z)&\equiv (a-z)^{-1}-(a-z)^{-1}r \\
&\equiv (a-z)^{-1}-\frac{i}{2}(a-z)^{-1}\{ a, (a-z)^{-1} \}\ \mathrm{mod}\ S\left(
\frac{1}{\langle \xi ,z\rangle^3} \right),
\end{split}$$ where we also used (\[E.11\]).
If $b_j\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^m\langle \xi \rangle ^{k-j})$ for $j=0,1,...$, we can apply a standard procedure to construct a symbol $b\in S((\langle \xi ,z\rangle ^m\langle \xi \rangle^k)$ such that $$b-\sum_0^{N-1}b_j\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^m \langle \xi \rangle^{k-N})$$ for every $N\ge 1$ and we still write $b\sim \sum_0^\infty b_j$ where $b$ is a concrete symbol (uniquely determined up to $S(\langle \xi
,z\rangle^m\langle \xi \rangle^{-\infty })$). If $b_j$ are holomorphic for $z\in \dot{\mathbb{C}}\setminus (\Gamma \cup D(0,1))$, then the standard construction produces a symbol $b$ which is also holomorphic.
If $b\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^m\langle \xi \rangle^k)$ is such a holomorphic symbol then by the Cauchy inequalities we get[^6] $$\partial _z^\ell b\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^m\langle \xi
\rangle^k\langle z\rangle^{-\ell})$$ in the sense that $$|\partial _x^{\alpha }\partial _\xi ^{\beta }\partial _z^\ell b|
\le
C_{K,\alpha ,\beta ,\ell}\langle \xi ,z\rangle^m\langle \xi
\rangle^{k-|\beta |}\langle z\rangle^{-\ell}$$ for $x\in K\Subset \Omega $, $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and omitting the slight increase of $\Gamma \cup D(0,1)$, mentioned in the last footnote.
With the holomorphic $z$-dependence in mind we return to (\[E.11\]) and write $$\label{E.14}
r\sim \sum_{k=1}^\infty r_k(x,\xi ,z)$$ and get a concrete symbol $r\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-2}\langle
\xi \rangle^{2-1})$ which is holomorphic in $z$, so that for every $N\ge 1$, $$\label{E.15}
r-\sum_1^{N-1}r_k\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-2}\langle \xi \rangle^{2-N})$$ and by the Cauchy inequalities $$\label{E.16}
\partial _z^\ell \left(r-\sum_1^{N-1}r_k \right) \in S(\langle \xi
,z\rangle^{-2}\langle \xi \rangle^{2-N}\langle z\rangle^{-\ell}).$$
From the explicit expression of the $r_k$ (or from observing that they are defined for $z$ in $(\dot{\mathbb{C}}\setminus \Gamma )\cup
D(0,\langle \xi \rangle/C)$ when $\xi $ is large), we see that $$\label{E.17}
\partial _z^\ell r_k\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-2-\ell}\langle \xi \rangle^{2-k}),$$ $$\label{E.18}
\partial _z^\ell\left(\sum_1^{N-1} r_k \right) \in S(\langle \xi
,z\rangle^{-2-\ell}\langle \xi \rangle^{2-1}).$$ Choosing $N=\ell +1$ in (\[E.16\]), (\[E.18\]), we get $$\label{E.19}
\partial _z^\ell r\in S(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-2-\ell}\langle \xi \rangle^{1}).$$
This argument shows that (\[E.14\]) is valid in the symbol space $\widetilde{S}(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-2}\langle \xi \rangle^{2-1})$, where we say that $c\in \widetilde{S}(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{m}\langle
\xi \rangle^k)$ if $c(x,\xi ,z)$ is a smooth, holomorphic in $z$ and $$\partial _z^\ell c\in \widetilde{S}(\langle \xi
,z\rangle^{m-\ell}\langle \xi \rangle ^k),\hbox{ for all }\ell\ge 0.$$
In (\[E.12\]) we can choose $r^{\# k}$ and the asymptotic sums so that $b\in \widetilde{S}(\langle \xi,z\rangle^{-1})$ and so that (\[E.13\]) improves to $$\label{E.20}\begin{split}
b(x,\xi ,z)&\equiv (a-z)^{-1}-(a-z)^{-1}r \\
&\equiv (a-z)^{-1}-\frac{i}{2}(a-z)^{-1}\{ a, (a-z)^{-1} \}\
\mathrm{mod}\ \widetilde{S}\left( \frac{1}{\langle \xi
,z\rangle^3} \right),
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{E.21}
r\in \widetilde{S}(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-2}\langle \xi \rangle),\
(a-z)^{-1}\in \widetilde{S}(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-1}).$$
In the main text we have $$A=A_1+A_0+A_{-1},\ A_0=A_{\mathrm{sub}},$$ where $A_j\in S(\langle \xi \rangle ^j)$ and $A_1$, $A_0$ are positively homogeneous in $\xi $ of degree 1 and 0 respectively, in the region $|\xi |\ge 1$. From the resolvent identity $$\begin{gathered}
(a-z)^{-1}=(A_1-z)^{-1}-(A_1-z)^{-1}(a-A_1)(A_1-z)^{-1}\\
+(A_1-z)^{-1}(a-A_1)(a-z)^{-1}(a-A_1) (A_1-z)^{-1}\end{gathered}$$ we infer that $$(a-z)^{-1}\equiv (A_1-z)^{-1}-(A_1-z)^{-1}(A_0+A_{-1})(A_1-z)^{-1}\
\mathrm{mod}\ \widetilde{S}(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-3}),$$ hence, $$(a-z)^{-1}\equiv (A_1-z)^{-1}-(A_1-z)^{-1}A_0(A_1-z)^{-1}\
\mathrm{mod}\ \widetilde{S}(\langle \xi \rangle^{-1}\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-2}).$$ In particular, $$(a-z)^{-1}\equiv (A_1-z)^{-1}\ \mathrm{mod}\ \widetilde{S}(\langle \xi
,z\rangle^{-2})$$ and from (\[E.20\]) we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{E.21.5}
b\equiv
(A_1-z)^{-1}-(A_1-z)^{-1}A_0(A_1-z)^{-1}\\-\frac{i}{2}(A_1-z)^{-1}\{
A_1, (A_1-z)^{-1} \}\ \mathrm{mod}\
\widetilde{S}\left(\frac{1}{\langle \xi \rangle\langle \xi
,z\rangle^2} \right) ,\end{gathered}$$ which implies (\[12 December 2016 equation 1\]) (cf. (\[12 December 2016 equation 2\])).
By construction, $b$ is a realization of the symbolic inverse of $a-z$: $$(a-z)\# b\equiv 1\ \mathrm{mod}\ \widetilde{S}(\langle \xi
,z\rangle^{-2}\langle \xi \rangle^{-\infty }).$$ Let $B=\mathrm{Op\,}(b):\, C_0^\infty (\Omega )\to C^\infty (\Omega )$ (where we also insert a suitable cutoff $\in C^\infty (\Omega
\times \Omega )$, equal to 1 near $\mathrm{diag\,}(\Omega \times
\Omega )$). Then $$\label{E.22}
\partial _z^kB(z)={O}(\langle z\rangle^{-k_1}):\,
H_\mathrm{comp}^s(\Omega )\to H_{\mathrm{loc}}^{s+k_2}(\Omega ) \hbox{
uniformly for }z\in \dot{\mathbb{C}}\setminus (\Gamma \cup D(0,1)),$$ when $1+k=k_1+k_2$, $k_j\ge 0$, $s\in \mathbb{R}$.
Let $\chi ,\Phi \in C_0^\infty (\Omega )$, with $\Phi =1$ near $\mathrm{supp\,}(\chi )$. Then, $$\label{E.22.5}
(A-z)\Phi B\chi =\chi +R,$$ where $R=R(z)$ is a smoothing operator: ${\cal D}'(\Omega )\to
C^\infty (\Omega )$, depending holomorphically on $z$, such that $Ru=0$ when $\mathrm{supp\,}(u)\cap \mathrm{supp\,}(\chi
)=\emptyset $ and $$\label{E.23}
\partial _z^kR={O}(\langle z\rangle^{-2-k}): H^{-s}(\Omega )\to
H_{\mathrm{loc}}^s(\Omega ),\ z\in \dot{\mathbb{C}}\setminus (\Gamma \cup D(0,1)),$$ for all $s\in \mathbb{R}$, $k\ge 0$. We omit the standard proof of this, based on the symbolic results above, starting with the identity $$(A-z)\Phi B\chi =[A,\Phi ]B\chi +\Phi (A-z)B\chi .$$
Let $M\subset \bigcup_1^N\Omega _j$ be a finite covering of $M$ with coordinate charts as above. Recall that $A$ is a globally defined pseudodifferential operator acting on 1/2 densities so we can now view $A-z$ as acting: $C_0^\infty (\Omega _j;\Omega ^{1/2})\to C^\infty
(M;\Omega ^{1/2})$ for each $j$. We have a corresponding operator $B_j$ (as “$B$” above), now acting on 1/2-densities, so that $$\label{E.24}
B_j(udx^{1/2})=(\mathrm{Op\,}(b_j)u)dx^{1/2},\ u\in C_0^\infty (\Omega _j)$$ where $dx^{1/2}$ is the canonical (and $j$-dependent) 1/2-density on $\Omega _j$. Let $\chi _j\in C_0^\infty (\Omega _j)$ form a partition of unity on $M$. (\[E.22.5\]) becomes $$\label{E.25}
(A-z)\Phi _jB_j\chi _j=\chi _j+R_j(z),$$ where $R_j$ has the properties of “$R$” in (\[E.22\]), (\[E.23\]) except for the fact that $R_j$ acts on 1/2-densities and that we can actually define $R_j$ as an operator on $M$ such that $$\label{E.26}
\| \partial _z^kR_j\|_{{\cal L}(H^{-s},H^s(M))}\le C_s\langle
z\rangle^{-2-k},\ z\in \dot{\mathbb{C}}\setminus (\Gamma \cup D(0,1)).$$ Here $H^s(M)$ denotes the Sobolev space of 1/2-densities of order $s\in \mathbb{R}$.
Let $$\label{E.27}
B:=\sum \Phi _jB_j\chi _j:\ C^\infty (M;\Omega ^{1/2})\to C^\infty (M;\Omega ^{1/2}).$$ Then $$\label{E.28}
(A-z)B(z)=1+R(z),$$ $$\label{E.29}
R(z)=\sum R_j(z),$$ $$\label{E.30}
\partial _z^kB(z)={O}(\langle z\rangle^{-k_1}):\ H^s\to
H^{s+k_2},\hbox{ when }k+1=k_1+k_2,\ k_j\ge 0,$$ $$\label{E.31}\partial _z^k R(z)={O}_s(\langle
z\rangle^{-2-k}):\, H^{-s}\to H^s,$$ for all $s\in \mathbb{R}$.
On the other hand, by direct arguments, we know that $(A-z)^{-1}$ also enjoys the properties (\[E.30\]). Applying this operator to the left in (\[E.28\]), we get $$\label{E.32}
(A-z)^{-1}=B(z)-K(z),\ K(z)=(A-z)^{-1}R(z).$$ Clearly, $K(z)$ also satisfies (\[E.31\]).
Using the operator identity (\[The matrix trace of a power of the resolvent equation 1\]) in (\[E.32\]), we get $$\label{E.33}
(A-z)^{1-n}=B^{(n)}(z)-K^{(n)}(z),$$ $$\label{E.34}
B^{(n)}=\frac{1}{(n-2)!}\partial _z^{n-2}B(z),$$ $$\label{E.35}
K^{(n)}=\frac{1}{(n-2)!}\partial _z^{n-2}K(z)={O}_s(\langle
z\rangle^{-n}):\, H^{-s}\to H^s.$$ From the last estimate it follows that $K^{(n)}$ is of trace class with a continuous distribution kernel which is uniformly $={O}(\langle z\rangle^{-n})$.
Let $x_0$ be a point in a coordinate chart $\Omega =\Omega _j$ and assume for simplicity that $\chi =\chi _j$ is equal to 1 near that point. Then near $(x_0,x_0)$ the distribution kernel of $B$ (identified locally with an operator acting on scalar functions) coincides with that of $\mathrm{Op\,}(b)$, where $b$ satisfies (\[E.20\]). Consequently, $$\label{E.36}
B^{(n)}=\mathrm{Op\,}(b^{(n)}),$$ $$\label{E.37}
b^{(n)}\equiv (a-z)^{-n}-\frac{1}{(n-2)!}\partial _z^{n-2}\left(
(a-z)^{-1}r \right)
\ \mathrm{mod}\ \widetilde{S}\left(\langle \xi ,z\rangle^{-n-1}\right).$$
Proof of formulae and {#Proof of formulae (4.4) and (4.5)}
======================
Formula implies $$\label{dPP}
(\partial P^{(k)})P^{(j)}+P^{(k)}\partial P^{(j)}
=\delta^{kj}\partial P^{(k)},
$$ where $\partial$ is any partial derivative. We have $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{tr}}
\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(l)}\}
={\operatorname{tr}}
\bigl[(\partial_{x^\alpha}P^{(k)})P^{(j)}\partial_{\xi_\alpha}P^{(l)}
-
(\partial_{\xi_\alpha}P^{(k)})P^{(j)}\partial_{x^\alpha}P^{(l)}\bigr]
\\
=
{\operatorname{tr}}
\bigl[
\bigl((\partial_{x^\alpha}P^{(k)})P^{(j)}\bigr)\bigl(P^{(j)}\partial_{\xi_\alpha}P^{(l)}\bigr)
-
\bigl((\partial_{\xi_\alpha}P^{(k)})P^{(j)}\bigr)\bigl(P^{(j)}\partial_{x^\alpha}P^{(l)}\bigr)
\bigr].\end{gathered}$$ Using , we can rewrite the above formula as $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{tr}}
\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(l)}\}
={\operatorname{tr}}
\bigl[
\bigl(
\delta^{kj}\partial_{x^\alpha}P^{(j)}-P^{(k)}\partial_{x^\alpha}P^{(j)}
\bigr)
\bigl(
\delta^{jl}\partial_{\xi_\alpha}P^{(j)}-(\partial_{\xi_\alpha}P^{(j)})P^{(l)}
\bigr)
\\
-\bigl(
\delta^{kj}\partial_{\xi_\alpha}P^{(j)}-P^{(k)}\partial_{\xi_\alpha}P^{(j)}
\bigr)
\bigl(
\delta^{jl}\partial_{x^\alpha}P^{(j)}-(\partial_{x^\alpha}P^{(j)})P^{(l)}
\bigr)
\bigr].\end{gathered}$$ Expanding the parentheses in the above formula and rearranging terms, we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{trPkjl1}
{\operatorname{tr}}
\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(l)}\}
=\delta^{kj}{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},P^{(l)},P^{(j)}\}
+\delta^{jl}{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},P^{(k)},P^{(j)}\}
\\
-\delta^{kl}{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},P^{(k)},P^{(j)}\}.\end{gathered}$$ In the special case $l=k$ the above formula becomes $$\label{trPkjk}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(k)}\}
=2\delta^{kj}{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}\}
-{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},P^{(k)},P^{(j)}\}.$$ Each of the three terms in the RHS of can now be rewritten using the identity with appropriate choice of indices, which gives us .
Let us now substitute into the triple sum in the RHS of : $$\begin{gathered}
\label{very long formula}
\sum_{j,k,l}
\frac{h^{(j)}-z}{(h^{(k)}-z)(h^{(l)}-z)}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(l)}\}
\\
=2\sum_{j}
\frac{1}{h^{(j)}-z}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}\}
\\
-
\sum_{j,l}
\frac{1}{h^{(l)}-z}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(l)},P^{(j)},P^{(l)}\}
-
\sum_{j,k}
\frac{1}{h^{(k)}-z}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(k)}\}
\\
+
\sum_{j,k}
\frac{h^{(j)}-z}{(h^{(k)}-z)^2}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(k)}\}
\\
=2\sum_{j}
\frac{1}{h^{(j)}-z}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}\}
-
2
\sum_{j,k}
\frac{1}{h^{(k)}-z}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(k)}\}
\\
+
\sum_{j,k}
\frac{h^{(j)}-z}{(h^{(k)}-z)^2}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(k)},P^{(j)},P^{(k)}\}
\\
=2\sum_{j}
\frac{1}{h^{(j)}-z}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}\}
-
2
\sum_{k}
\frac{1}{h^{(k)}-z}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(k)},P^{(k)}\}
\\
+
\sum_{j,k}
\frac{1}{(h^{(k)}-z)^2}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(k)},h^{(j)}P^{(j)},P^{(k)}\}
-z
\sum_{k}
\frac{1}{(h^{(k)}-z)^2}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(k)},P^{(k)}\}
\\
=2\sum_{j}
\frac{1}{h^{(j)}-z}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}\}
+
\sum_{k}
\frac{1}{(h^{(k)}-z)^2}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(k)},A_1,P^{(k)}\}
\\
=2\sum_{j}
\frac{1}{h^{(j)}-z}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}\}
+
\sum_{j}
\frac{1}{(h^{(j)}-z)^2}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},A_1,P^{(j)}\}
\\
=2\sum_{j}
\frac{1}{h^{(j)}-z}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},P^{(j)},P^{(j)}\}
+
\sum_{j}
\frac{1}{(h^{(j)}-z)^2}
{\operatorname{tr}}\{P^{(j)},A_1-h^{(j)}I,P^{(j)}\},\end{gathered}$$ where we used the identities $\sum_jP^{(j)}=I$, $\{P^{(k)},P^{(k)}\}=0$ and . Substituting into we arrive at .
[19]{}
Z. Avetisyan, Y.-L. Fang and D. Vassiliev, Spectral asymptotics for first order systems. [*Journal of Spectral Theory*]{} **6** (2016), 695–715.
O. Chervova, R. J. Downes and D. Vassiliev, The spectral function of a first order elliptic system. [*Journal of Spectral Theory*]{} **3** (2013), 317–360.
J. J. Duistermaat and V. W. Guillemin, The spectrum of positive elliptic operators and periodic bicharacteristics. [*Invent. Math.*]{} **29** (1975), 39–79.
J. J. Duistermaat and L. Hörmander, Fourier integral operators II. [*Acta Math.*]{} **128** (1972), 183–269.
A. Grigis and J. Sjöstrand, [*Microlocal analysis for differential operators, an introduction.*]{} London Math. Soc. Lect. Notes ser. 196, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
G. Grubb and R. Seeley, Weakly parametric pseudodifferential operators and Atiyah-Patodi-Singer boundary problems. [*Invent. Math.*]{} **121** (1995), 481–529.
B. Helffer and J. Sjöstrand, Semiclassical analysis for Harper’s equation. III: Cantor structure of the spectrum. [*Bull. de la SMF*]{} **117**(4)(1989), m[é]{}moire no 39.
L. Hörmander, [*The analysis of linear partial differential operators III. Pseudo-differential operators.*]{} Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften **274**. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.
V. Ivrii, On the second term of the spectral asymptotics for the Laplace–Beltrami operator on manifolds with boundary and for elliptic operators acting in fiberings. [*Soviet Mathematics Doklady*]{} **21** (1980), 300–302.
V. Ivrii, Accurate spectral asymptotics for elliptic operators that act in vector bundles. [*Functional Analysis and Its Applications*]{} **16** (1982), 101–108.
V. Ivrii, [*Precise spectral asymptotics for elliptic operators acting in fiberings over manifolds with boundary.*]{} Lecture Notes in Mathematics **1100**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
V. Ivrii, [*Microlocal analysis and precise spectral asymptotics.*]{} Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
I. Kamotski and M. Ruzhansky, Regularity properties, representation of solutions, and spectral asymptotics of systems with multiplicities. [*Comm. Partial Differential Equations*]{} **32** (2007), 1–35.
P. McKeag and Yu. Safarov, Pseudodifferential operators on manifolds: a coordinate-free approach. In Partial Differential Equations and Spectral Theory, part of the Operator Theory: Advances and Applications book series, volume **211**, Springer, Basel, 2011, 321–341.
G. V. Rozenblyum, Spectral asymptotic behavior of elliptic systems. [*Journal of Mathematical Sciences*]{} **21** (1983), 837–850.
Yu. Safarov, Non-classical two-term spectral asymptotics for self-adjoint elliptic operators. DSc thesis, Leningrad Branch of the Steklov Mathematical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1989. In Russian.
Yu. Safarov and D. Vassiliev, [*The asymptotic distribution of eigenvalues of partial differential operators.*]{} Amer. Math. Soc., Providence (RI), 1997.
M. A. Shubin, [*Pseudodifferential operators and spectral theory.*]{} Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 2001.
J. Sjöstrand and M. Zworski, Quantum monodromy and semi-classical trace formulae. [*Journal de Math[é]{}matiques Pures et Appliqu[é]{}es*]{} **81**(2002), 1–33.
[^1]: ZA: Department of Mathematics, University of California, Santa Barbara, South Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA; [email protected], <http://www.z-avetisyan.com/>; this paper was written when ZA was employed by University College London, funded by EPSRC grant EP/M000079/1.
[^2]: JS: IMB, Université de Bourgogne, 9, Av. A. Savary, BP 47870, FR-21780 Dijon cedex, France; [email protected], <http://sjostrand.perso.math.cnrs.fr/>; JS was supported by EPSRC grant EP/M000079/1 and CNRS grant PRC No 1556 CNRS-RFBR 2017-2019.
[^3]: DV: Department of Mathematics, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK; [email protected], <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucahdva/>; DV was supported by EPSRC grant EP/M000079/1.
[^4]: The content of this appendix can be found in a slightly more concentrated form in the appendix of [@SjZw02]. The main ideas and related results appeared earlier in Appendix a.3 in [@HeSj89]. We recovered these precise references only after completing the section and decided to keep it for the convenience of the reader. See also Section 18.5 in [@Ho85].
[^5]: Strictly speaking, when $\Omega $ is not convex we need here to insert a suitable smooth cutoff $\chi (x,y)\in C^\infty
(\Omega \times \Omega )$ which is equal to one near the diagonal, the choice of which can affect the operator only by a smoothing one.
[^6]: After replacing $\Gamma $ with any closed conic set containing $\Gamma $ in its interior and $D(0,1)$ with $D(0,1+\epsilon )$ for any $\epsilon >0$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We investigate spatial random graphs defined on the points of a Poisson process in $d$-dimensional space, which combine scale-free degree distributions and long-range effects. Every Poisson point is assigned an independent weight. Given the weight and position of the points, we form an edge between any pair of points independently with a probability depending on the two weights of the points and their distance. Preference is given to short edges and connections to vertices with large weights. We characterize the parameter regime where there is a nontrivial percolation phase transition and show that it depends not only on the power-law exponent of the degree distribution but also on a geometric model parameter. We apply this result to characterize robustness of age-based spatial preferential attachment networks.\
\
author:
- |
Peter Gracar[^1]\
[email protected]\
- |
Lukas Lüchtrath\
[email protected]\
- |
Peter Mörters\
[email protected]\
bibliography:
- 'agedependent.bib'
date: March 9th 2020
title: 'Percolation phase transition in weight-dependent random connection models'
---
[0.9]{}
[1]{}
Introduction and statement of results {#SecIntro}
=====================================
Motivation {#motivation .unnumbered}
----------
In classical continuum percolation theory a graph is built with a Poisson point process in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ as the vertex set. Two points are connected by an edge if their euclidean distance is below a fixed or variable threshold. Assuming the resulting graph has an infinite component, one asks whether there exists an infinite component in the percolated graph where every edge is independently removed with probability $1-p$, respectively retained with probability $p$. We say that the graph has a *percolation phase transition* if there is a critical probability $p_c>0$ such that, almost surely, if $p<p_c$ there is no infinite component, and if $p>p_c$ there exists an infinite component in the percolated graph. It is known that there exists a percolation phase transition for the fixed threshold model in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, often called the Boolean model, and for variable threshold models where the threshold is the sum of independent radii with finite $d$th moment associated with the points [@gouere2008; @gouere2009]. The result also extends to long-range percolation models, where the probability that two points are connected is a decreasing function of their distance, see [@penrose91; @Meester96].
By contrast, the continuous version of the scale-free percolation model of van der Hofstad, Hooghiemstra and Deijfen [@DeijfenHofstadHooghiemstra2013] does not have a percolation phase transition if the power-law exponent satisfies $\tau<2$, see for example [@heydenreich2017; @Deprez2018]. In fact, for many graphs combining scale-free degree distributions and long-range effects the problem of existence of a percolation phase transition is open. This includes, for example, models where the connection probability of two points is a decreasing function of the ratio of their distance and the sum or maximum of their radii. In this paper we look at a broad class of such graphs, the *weight-dependent random connection models*, and characterize the parameter regimes where there is a percolation phase transition. Other than in the scale-free percolation model, in this class a subcritical phase can only fail to exist if there is sufficiently small power-law exponent combined with a strong long-range effect. The weight-dependent random connection models include the weak local limits of the age-based preferential attachment model introduced in [@GracarEtAl2019]. We use this result to characterize the regimes when these network models are robust under random removal of edges offering new insight into the notoriously difficult topic of spatial preferential attachment networks, see [@JacobMoerters2017].
Framework {#framework .unnumbered}
---------
We introduce the weight-dependent random connection model as in [@gracar2019recurrence]. The vertex set of the graph ${\mathscr{G}}$ is a Poisson point process of unit intensity on $\mathbb{R}^d\times (0,1]$. We think of a Poisson point $\mathbf{x}=(x, t)$ as a *vertex* at *position* $x$ with *weight* $t^{-1}$. Two vertices ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$ are connected by an edge in ${\mathscr{G}}$ independently of any other (possible) edge with probability $\varphi({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})$. Here, $\varphi$ is a connectivity function $$\varphi: (\mathbb{R}^d\times (0,1])\times(\mathbb{R}^d\times(0,1])\to [0,1],$$ of the form $$\varphi({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})=\varphi((x,t),(y,s))=\rho(g(t,s)|x-y|^d)$$ for a non-increasing, integrable *profile function* $\rho:\mathbb{R}_+\to[0,1]$ and a function $g\colon[0,1]\times[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}_+$, which is symmetric and non-decreasing in both arguments. Hence, we give preference to short edges or edges that are connected to vertices with large weights. We also assume (without loss of generality) that $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\ \rho(|x|^d) \, {\mathrm{d}}x =1. \label{IntegrabilityCond}$$ Then, the degree distribution of a vertex only depends on the function $g$. However, the profile function controls the intensity of long edges in the graph.
We next give explicit examples for the function $g$ we will focus on throughout the paper. We define the functions in terms of two parameters $\gamma\in(0,1)$ and $\beta\in(0,\infty)$. The parameter $\gamma$ describes the strength of the influence of the vertices’ weights on the connection probability; the larger $\gamma$, the stronger the preference of connecting to vertices with large weight. In particular, all kernel functions we consider lead to models that are *scale-free* with power law exponent $$\tau = 1+\frac{1}{\gamma},$$ see [@gracar2019recurrence; @GracarEtAl2019]. Especially, all graphs are locally finite, i.e. every vertex has finite degree. The parameter $\beta$ is used to control the edge density, i.e. increasing $\beta$ increases the expected number of edges connected to a typical vertex [@GracarEtAl2019]. Our focus is on the following three functions, for further examples, see [@gracar2019recurrence].
- The *sum kernel*, defined as $$g^\text{sum}(s,t)=\beta^{-1} (s^{-\gamma}+t^{-\gamma})^{-1}.$$ The interpretation of $(\beta a s^{-\gamma})^{1/d}, (\beta a t^{-\gamma})^{1/d}$ as random radii together with $\rho(r)=\mathbbm{1}_{[0,a]}(r)$ leads to the Boolean model in which two vertices are connected by an edge when their associated balls intersect.
- The *min kernel*, defined as $$g^\text{min}(s,t)=\beta^{-1}(s\wedge t)^\gamma.$$ Here, in the case of an indicator profile function as above, two vertices are connected by an edge when one of them lies inside the ball associated with the other one. As $\frac12 g^{\text{min}}\leq g^\text{sum}\leq g^\text{min}$ the min kernel and the sum kernel show qualitatively similar behaviour.
- The *preferential attachment kernel*, defined as $$g^\text{pa}(s,t) = \beta^{-1}(s\vee t)^{1-\gamma}(s\wedge t)^\gamma. \label{PAKernel}$$ It gives rise to the *age-dependent random connection model* introduced by Gracar et al. [@GracarEtAl2019]. This model is the weak local limit of the age-based spatial preferential attachment model which is an approximation of the spatial preferential attachment model introduced by Jacob and Mörters [@JacobMoerters2015].
As we want to study the influence of long-range effects on the percolation problem, we focus primarily on profile functions that are *regulary varying* with index $-\delta$ for some $\delta>1$, that is $$\lim_{r\uparrow\infty} \frac{\rho(cr)}{\rho(r)} = c^{-\delta} \quad\mbox{ for all } c\geq 1. \label{RegularVarying}$$ A comparison argument can be used to derive the behaviour of profile functions with lighter tails (including those with bounded support) from a limit $\delta\uparrow \infty$.
We fix one of the kernels above, as well as $\gamma$, $\beta$ and $\delta$. Let $p\in[0,1]$ and perform Bernoulli bond percolation with retention parameter $p$ on the graph ${\mathscr{G}}$, i.e., every edge of ${\mathscr{G}}$ remains intact independently with probability $p$, or is removed with probability $1-p$. We denote the graph we obtain by ${\mathscr{G}}^p$ and ask whether there exists an infinite cluster, or equivalently an infinite self-avoiding path, in ${\mathscr{G}}^p$. If so, we say that the graph *percolates*. We define the *critical percolation parameter* $p_c$ as the infimum of all parameters $p\in[0,1]$ such that the percolation probability is positive. By the Kolmogorov 0-1–law, for all $1\geq p>p_c$ the graph percolates and for all $0\leq p<p_c$ the graph does not percolate, almost surely. We call the parameter range $(p_c,1]$ the *percolative* or *supercritical* phase and $[0,p_c)$ the *non-percolative* or *subcritical phase*.
Main result: Percolation phase transition {#main-result-percolation-phase-transition .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
Our main result characterizes the parameter regime where there is a percolation phase transition in the weight-dependent random connection model.
\[ThmPercolationPhase\] Suppose $\rho$ satisfies for some $\delta>1$. Then, for the weight-dependent random connection model with preferential attachment kernel, sum kernel or min kernel and parameters $\beta>0$, $0<\gamma<1$, we have that
(a) if $\gamma<\frac{\delta}{\delta+1}$, then $p_c>0$.
(b) If $\gamma >\frac{\delta}{\delta+1}$, then $p_c=0$.
**Remarks:**
(i) We obtain the following estimates for $p_c$ from our proof.
- if $\gamma<\frac{1}{2}$, then $p_c\geq \frac{1-2\gamma}{4\beta}$.
- if $\rho(x)\leq Ax^{-{\delta}}$ for $A>1$, and $\frac{1}{2}\leq \gamma <\frac{\delta}{\delta+1}$, then $$p_c>\frac{1}{A}\Big(\frac{d(\delta(1-\gamma)-\gamma)(\delta-1)}{2^{d\delta+3}J(d)\beta\delta }\Big)^{\delta},$$ where $J(d)=\prod_{j=0}^{d-2}\int_0^\pi \sin^j(\alpha_j){\mathrm{d}}\alpha_j$ is the Jacobian of the $d$-dimensional sphere coordinates.
(ii) If $\gamma<\frac{\delta}{\delta+1}$ one can follow the argument for long-range percolation, see [@newman1986], and check that if $d\geq 2$ or if $d=1$ and $\delta<2$ there exists $\beta_c<\infty$ such that the graph percolates for all $\beta>\beta_c$ and fixing such a $\beta$ we then get $p_c<1$.
(iii) If $\gamma =\frac{\delta}{\delta+1}$, there is no universal result, i.e. it depends on the exact form of the kernel $g$ and the profile $\rho$ whether $p_c=0$ or not.
(iv) Variants of our arguments show that if $\gamma<\frac{\delta}{\delta+1}$ and either $d\geq 2$ or $d=1$ and $\delta<2$, there exists $0<\beta_c<\infty$ such that there does not exist an infinite component in ${\mathscr{G}}$ if $\beta<\beta_c$ but it does exist if $\beta>\beta_c$. Similarly, if $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are as above, $\beta>0$ is fixed and the intensity of the Poisson process is variable, say $\lambda>0$, there exists $0<\lambda_c<\infty$ such that there does not exist an infinite component in ${\mathscr{G}}$ if $\lambda<\lambda_c$ but it does exist if $\lambda>\lambda_c$. If however $\gamma>\frac{\delta}{\delta+1}$ there exists an infinite component in ${\mathscr{G}}$ regardless of the values of $\lambda, \beta>0$.
(v) A continuum version of the *scale-free percolation* model introduced by Deijfen et al. [@DeijfenHofstadHooghiemstra2013; @heydenreich2017], is given by the *product kernel* $$g^{\text{prod}}(s,t)=\beta^{-1}s^\gamma t^\gamma,$$ see [@Deprez2015; @Deprez2018] for more details. For this model it is known that there is no percolation phase transition if $\gamma> \frac12$, but there is one if $\gamma<\frac12$. As the product kernel and the preferential attachment kernel coincide for $\gamma=\frac12$, it follows that the scale-free percolation model has $p_c>0$ at the critical parameter $\gamma=\frac12$ for a general class of profile functions $\rho$. For more information how to translate the parameters of that model to our setting see [@gracar2019recurrence Table 2].
(vi) Our result also shows that for profile functions $\rho$ that decay faster than any polynomial, there always exists a non-percolative phase. This applies in particular to the Boolean model mentioned above where $\rho$ is the indicator function, see also [@gouere2008].
Robustness of age-based preferential attachment networks {#robustness-of-age-based-preferential-attachment-networks .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------
Let ${\mathscr{G}}_0$ be the age-dependent random connection model with a vertex at the origin. That is, ${\mathscr{G}}_0$ is the graph with
- vertex set obtained from a standard Poisson point process in ${\mathbb{R}}^d\times (0,1]$ with an additional point ${\mathbf{0}}=(0,U)$ placed at the origin with inverse weight, resp. birth time $U$, sampled independently from everything else from the uniform distribution on $(0,1]$,
- edges laid down independently with connection probabilities given by the preferential attachment kernel, i.e. $$\varphi((x,t)(y,s))=\rho(\beta^{-1}(s\wedge t)^\gamma(s\vee t)^{1-\gamma}|x-y|^d).$$
Theorem \[ThmPercolationPhase\] applies to the graph ${\mathscr{G}}_0$, which plays a special role as weak local limit in the sense of Benjamini and Schramm [@benjamini2001] of the age-based spatial preferential attachment model, which we now describe.
Let $\mathbb{T}^d_a=(-a^{1/d}/2, a^{1/d}/2]^d$ be the $d$-dimensional torus of volume $a$, endowed with the torus metric $d$ defined by $$d(x,y)=\min\big\{|x-y+u|: u\in\{-a^{1/d},0,a^{1/d}\}^d\big\}, \text{ for } x,y\in\mathbb{T}_a^d.$$ The *age-based (spatial) preferential attachment model* is a growing sequence of graphs $({\mathscr{G}}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ on $\mathbb{T}^d_1$ defined as follows:
- The graph ${\mathscr{G}}_t$ at time $t=0$ has neither vertices nor edges.
- Vertices arrive successively after exponential waiting times with parameter one and are placed uniformly on $\mathbb{T}^d_1$. We denote a vertex created at time $s$ and placed in $y\in\mathbb{T}^d_1$ by ${\mathbf{y}}=(y,s)$.
- Given the graph ${\mathscr{G}}_{t-}$, a vertex ${\mathbf{x}}=(x,t)$, born at time $t$ and placed at $x$ is connected by an edge to each existing vertex ${\mathbf{y}}=(y,s)$ independently with conditional probability $$\rho\left(\mbox{$\frac{t \, d(x,y)^d}{\beta\left(\frac{t}{s}\right)^\gamma}$}\right). \label{PAProb}$$
Note that the connection probability has the same form as the previously defined connection function $\varphi$, where the euclidean distance is replaced by the torus distance. We say that such a network $({\mathscr{G}}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ has a *giant component* if its largest connected component is asymptotically of linear size. More precisley, let $|{\mathscr{C}}_t|$ be the size of the largest component in ${\mathscr{G}}_t$ . Then, $({\mathscr{G}}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ has a giant component if $$\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\limsup_{t\to\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\big\{\tfrac1t {|{\mathscr{C}}_t|}<\varepsilon\big\}=0.$$ We say $({\mathscr{G}}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is *robust* if the percolated sequence $({\mathscr{G}}^p_t)_{t \geq0}$ has a giant component for every retention parameter $p>0$. Otherwise we say the network is *non-robust*. The idea of this definition is that a random attack cannot significantly affect the connectivity of a robust network.
\[ThmRobustness\] Suppose $\rho$ satisfies for some $\delta>1$ and $({\mathscr{G}}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is the age-based preferential attachment network with parameters $\beta>0$ and $0<\gamma<1$. Then the network $({\mathscr{G}}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is robust if $\gamma>\frac{\delta}{\delta+1}$, but non-robust if $\gamma<\frac{\delta}{\delta+1}$.
**Remarks:**
(i) As $\tau=1+\frac1\gamma$ the condition $\gamma<\frac{\delta}{\delta+1}$ is equivalent to $\tau>2+\frac1{\delta}$. Hence the qualitative change in the behaviour does not occur when $\tau$ passes the critical value $3$ as in the classical scale-free network models without spatial correlations, but when it passes a strictly smaller value. This shows the significant effect of clustering on the network topology.
(ii) Replacing $(t/s)^\gamma$ in by $f(\text{indegree of } (y,s) \text{ in }{\mathscr{G}}_{t-})$, for some increasing function $f$, we obtain the spatial preferential attachment model of [@JacobMoerters2015]. If $f$ is a function of asymptotic linear slope $\gamma$, then $(t/s)^\gamma$ is the asymptotic expected degree at time $t$ of a vertex born at time $s$. The age-based preferential attachment model is therefore a simplification and approximation of the spatial preferential attachment model showing very similar behaviour. In [@JacobMoerters2017] Jacob and Mörters show that the spatial preferential attachment model is robust for but it remains an open problem to show non-robustness for for this model. Theorem \[ThmRobustness\] is a strong indication that this is the case.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In Section \[SecPhaseTrans\] we prove existence of a percolation phase transition claimed in Theorem \[ThmPercolationPhase\](a). This proof is based on a novel path decomposition argument and constitutes the main new contribution of this paper. The remaining proofs are similar to the corresponding arguments for spatial preferential attachment in [@JacobMoerters2015; @JacobMoerters2017], namely the absence of a phase transition in Theorem \[ThmPercolationPhase\](b) in Section \[SecSupercrit\] and the proof of Theorem \[ThmRobustness\], in Section \[SecRobustness\], and will only be sketched. Some technical calculations are deferred to the appendix.
Existence of a non-percolative phase {#SecPhaseTrans}
====================================
In this section, we prove Theorem 1.1(a). This proof works for all kernels $g$ which are bounded from below by a constant multiple of the preferential attachment kernel $g^{\rm pa}$, similarly the proof of Theorem 1.1 (b) given in Section 3 works for all kernels bounded from above by a multiple of the min kernel $g^{\rm min}$.
Graphical construction of the model {#graphical-construction-of-the-model .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------
We explicitly construct the weight-dependent random connection model on a given countable set $\mathcal{Y}\subset \mathbb{R}^d\times (0,1]$. Let $E(\mathcal{Y})=\set{\set{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}:{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}\in\mathcal{Y}}$ be the set of potential edges and $\mathcal{V}=(\mathcal{V}(e))_{e\in E(\mathcal{Y})}$ a sequence in $[0,1]$ indexed by the potential edges. We then construct the graph $\mathcal{G}_{\varphi}(\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V})$ through its vertex set $\mathcal{Y}$ and edge set $$\set[\big]{\set{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}: \mathcal{V}(\{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}\})\leq\varphi({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})}.$$ Let ${\mathcal{X}}$ be a Poisson point process on $\mathbb{R}^d\times (0,1]$ and $\mathcal{U}=(\mathcal{U}(e))_{e\in E({\mathcal{X}})}$ an independent sequence of in $(0,1)$ uniformly distributed random variables, then ${\mathscr{G}}=\mathcal{G}_{\varphi}({\mathcal{X}},\mathcal{U})$ is the weight-dependent random connection model with connectivity function $\varphi$. If $p\in(0,1]$ then ${\mathscr{G}}^p=\mathcal{G}_{p\varphi}({\mathcal{X}},\mathcal{U})$ is the percolated model with retention parameter $p$. Add to ${\mathcal{X}}$ a vertex $\mathbf{0}=(0,U)$, placed at the origin with inverse weight $U$ distributed uniformly on $(0,1)$, independent of everything else, and denote the resulting point process by ${\mathcal{X}}_0$. Insert further independent uniformly distributed random variables $(U_{\{{\mathbf{0}},{\mathbf{x}}\}})_{{\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathcal{X}}}$ into the family $\mathcal{U}$ and denote the result by $\mathcal{U}_0$ and the underlying probability measure by ${\mathbb{P}}_0$. The graph ${\mathscr{G}}_0^p=\mathcal G_{p \varphi}({\mathcal{X}}_0,\mathcal{U}_0)$ is the Palm version of ${\mathscr{G}}^p$, we denote its law by ${\mathbb{P}}^p_0$ and expectation by ${\mathbb{E}}_0^p$. Writing ${\mathbb{P}}_{(x,t)}^p$ for the law of ${\mathscr{G}}^p$ conditioned on the event that $(x,t)$ is a vertex of ${\mathscr{G}}^p$, we have . Roughly speaking, this construction ensures that ${\mathbf{0}}$ is a typical vertex in ${\mathscr{G}}_0^p$.
Percolation {#percolation .unnumbered}
-----------
For two given points ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$, we denote by $\{{\mathbf{x}}\sim{\mathbf{y}}\}$ the event that ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$ are connected by an edge in ${\mathscr{G}}_0^p$. We define $\set{{\mathbf{0}}\leftrightarrow\infty}$ as the event that ${\mathbf{0}}={\mathbf{x}}_0$ is starting point of an *infinite self-avoiding path* $({\mathbf{x}}_0, {\mathbf{x}}_1,{\mathbf{x}}_2,\dots)$ in ${\mathscr{G}}_0^p$. That is, ${\mathbf{x}}_i\in{\mathcal{X}}$ for all $i$, ${\mathbf{x}}_i\neq{\mathbf{x}}_j $ for all $i\neq j$, and ${\mathbf{x}}_i\sim{\mathbf{x}}_{i+1}$ for all $i\geq 0$. If $\{{\mathbf{0}}\leftrightarrow\infty\}$ occurs, we say that ${\mathscr{G}}_0^p$ percolates. We denote the percolation probability by $$\theta(p)={\mathbb{P}}_0^p\left\{{\mathbf{0}}\leftrightarrow\infty\right\} = \int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}u \ {\mathbb{P}}^p_{(0,u)}\{(0,u)\leftrightarrow\infty\},\label{percolationProb}$$ which can be interpreted as the probability that a typical vertex belongs to the infinite cluster. We define the critical percolation parameter as $$p_c:=\inf\left\{p\in(0,1]: \theta(p)>0\right\}.$$
Existence of a non-percolative phase: Case $\gamma<\frac12$. {#SecNonPercolativeLeq .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------------
We fix $\delta>1,\beta>0$ and $\gamma<\frac\delta{\delta+1}$. Since $g^\text{pa}\leq g^\text{min}\leq 2g^\text{sum}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}_0\{{\mathbf{0}}\leftrightarrow\infty \text{ in }{\mathscr{G}}^p_0(\rho\circ g^\text{pa})\} & \geq {\mathbb{P}}_0\{{\mathbf{0}}\leftrightarrow\infty \text{ in }{\mathscr{G}}^p_0(\rho\circ g^\text{min})\}
\\ & \geq {\mathbb{P}}_0\{{\mathbf{0}}\leftrightarrow\infty \text{ in }{\mathscr{G}}^{2p}_0(\tilde\rho\circ g^\text{sum})\} \label{eqCoupling}
\end{aligned}$$ for $\tilde\rho(x)= \frac12 \rho(2x)$ by a simple coupling argument. Thus, we focus on the preferential attachment kernel and show that we can choose a $p>0$ such that $\theta(p)=0$. Consequently, we work in the following exclusively in the age-dependent random connection model, and we therefore use the corresponding terminology. For a vertex ${\mathbf{x}}=(x,t)$ we refer to $t$ as the *birth time* of ${\mathbf{x}}$ and, for another vertex ${\mathbf{y}}=(y,s)$ with $s<t$, we say ${\mathbf{y}}$ is *older* than ${\mathbf{x}}$. We also say ${\mathbf{y}}$ is born before ${\mathbf{x}}$, or before $t$.
We use a *first moment method* approach for the number of paths of length $n$. We start with $\gamma<\frac12$ and explicitly calculate the expected number of such paths. This turns out to be independent of the spatial geometry of the model and therefore cannot be used to prove the the statement for We denote by $\mathbf{E}$ the expectation of a Poisson point process on ${\mathbb{R}}^d\times(0,1]$ of unit intensity, by ${\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathcal{X}}}$ the law of ${\mathscr{G}}^p$ conditioned on the whole vertex set ${\mathcal{X}}$ and by ${\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_n}$ the law of ${\mathscr{G}}^p$ conditioned on the event that ${\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_n$ are points of the vertex set.
\[LemPercolationLeq\] Let $0<\gamma<1/2$. Then $\theta(p)=0$ for all $p<\frac{1-2\gamma}{4\beta}$.
We set ${\mathbf{0}}={\mathbf{x}}_0=(0, t_0)$ and get $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(p) & =\lim_{n\to\infty} {\mathbb{P}}^p_0\{\exists \text{ a path of length }n\text{ starting in }{\mathbf{x}}_0\}\\
&\leq \lim_{n\to\infty}\int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_0 \ \mathbf{E}\bigg[\underset{x_i\neq x_j\forall i\neq j}{\sum_{{\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_n\in{\mathcal{X}}}}{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathcal{X}}\cup\{(0,t_0)\}}\Big(\bigcap_{j=1}^n\{{\mathbf{x}}_j\sim{\mathbf{x}}_{j-1}\}\Big)\bigg].
\end{aligned}$$ The inner probability is a measurable function of the Poisson process and the points ${\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_n$ and by Mecke’s equation [@LastPenrose2017 Theorem 4.4] we get, with $\eta$ denoting an independent copy of ${\mathcal{X}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_0 \ \int\limits_{(\mathbb{R}^d\times(0,1])^n}\bigotimes_{j=1}^n{\mathrm{d}}{\mathbf{x}}_j \ \mathbf{E}\left[{\mathbb{P}}^p_{\eta\cup\{(0,t_0),{\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_n\}}\left(\bigcap_{j=1}^n\{{\mathbf{x}}_{j-1}\sim{\mathbf{x}}_j\}\right)\right] \\
&\quad= \int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_0 \ \int\limits_{(\mathbb{R}^d\times(0,1])^n}\bigotimes_{j=1}^n{\mathrm{d}}{\mathbf{x}}_j \
{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_0,\ldots,{\mathbf{x}}_n}\left(\bigcap_{j=1}^n\{{\mathbf{x}}_{j-1}\sim{\mathbf{x}}_j\}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Given the vertices, edges are drawn independently so we get by writing ${\mathbf{x}}_j=(x_j,t_j)$ for all $j\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ that the previous expression equals $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_0 \ \int\limits_{(\mathbb{R}^d\times(0,1])^n}\bigotimes_{j=1}^n{\mathrm{d}}(x_j,t_j) \left(\prod_{j=1}^n p\rho\left(\beta^{-1}(t_j\wedge t_{j-1})^\gamma(t_j\vee t_{j-1})^{1-\gamma}|x_j-x_{j-1}|^d\right)\right) \\
&\quad= p^n\beta^n\int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_0 \int_0^1{\mathrm{d}}t_1 \dots\int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_n \left(\prod_{j=1}^n (t_j\wedge t_{j-1})^{-\gamma}(t_j\vee t_{j-1})^{\gamma-1}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where we used the normalization condition . Since $\gamma <\frac12$, Lemma 17 of [@JacobMoerters2017] states that $$\int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_0 \int_0^1{\mathrm{d}}t_1 \dots\int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_n \left(\prod_{j=1}^n (t_j\wedge t_{j-1})^{-\gamma}(t_j\vee t_{j-1})^{\gamma-1}\right)\leq \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha-\gamma}-\frac{1}{\alpha+\gamma}\right)^n,$$ for $\alpha\in(\gamma-1,-\gamma)$. The minimum of the right-hand side over this nonempty interval equals $\frac4{1-2\gamma}$ and thus, setting $p<\frac{1-2\gamma}{4\beta}$ we achieve $$\theta(p)\leq \lim_{n\to\infty}\big(\tfrac{4p\beta}{1-2\gamma}\big)^n=0.$$ \
Existence of a non-percolative phase: Case $\gamma\geq\frac12$. {#SecNonPercolativGeq .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------------------
We now turn to the more interesting case when $\gamma\in[\frac12,\frac\delta{\delta+1})$ where we have to use the spatial properties of our model in order to prove our claim. Intuitively, as “powerful” vertices are typically far apart from each other, in order to create an infinite path in this spatial network one has to use long edges often enough to reach them. Therefore, where the long edges are used is the crucial and most interesting part of a path. On the other hand ${\mathscr{G}}$ is locally dense. Therefore, considering paths that stay for a long time in a neighbourhood of a vertex before using long edges greatly increases the number of possible paths we can construct. For $\gamma<\frac12$, the degrees of typical vertices are small enough so that the number of possible paths does not increase too much. This is not true anymore for $\gamma\geq \frac12$ where the degree distribution has an infinite second moment. Thus, it becomes difficult to bound the probability of the existence of an arbitrary path of length $n$. In order to prove the existence of a non-percolative phase, we start by explaining how to limit our counting to paths that are not stuck in local clusters. Then, we define what we call the *skeleton* of a path, which will help with counting the valid paths. As we will see, the skeleton is a collection of key vertices from a path ordered in a specific birth-time structure. In the end, we will use these paths to complete the proof Theorem \[ThmPercolationPhase\](a).
#### Shortcut-free paths {#SubsubShortCut}
Let $P=(v_0,v_1,v_2,\dots)$ be a path in some graph $G$. We say $(v_i,v_j)$ is a *shortcut* in P if $j>i+1$ and $v_i$ and $v_j$ are connected by an edge in $G$. If $P$ does not contain any shortcut, we say $P$ is *shortcut-free*. If $G$ is locally finite, i.e. all vertices of $G$ are of finite degree, then there exists an infinite path if and only if there exists one that is also shortcut-free. To see how an infinite path $P=(v_0,v_1,v_2\dots)$ in $G$ can be made shortcut-free define $i_0=\max\{i\geq 1: v_i\sim v_0\}$. If $i_0=1$, then $v_1$ is the only neighbour $v_0$ has in $P$. If $i_0\geq 2$, then $(v_0,v_{i_0})$ is a shortcut in $P$ so we remove the vertices $v_1,\dots,v_{i_0-1}$ from $P$. We have thus removed all shortcuts starting from $v_0$ and since $v_0\sim v_{i_0}$ the new $P$ is still a path. We define analogously $i_k=\max\{i>i_{k-1}: v_i\sim v_{i_{k-1}}\}$ for every $k\geq 1$ and remove the intermediate vertices as needed. The resulting path $(v_0,v_{i_0},v_{i_1},\dots)$ is then still infinite but also shortcut-free.
#### Skeleton of a path {#SubSubSkeleton}
Let $P=((v_0,t_0),(v_1,t_1),\dots,(v_n,t_n))$ be a path of length $n$ in some graph $G$ where every vertex $v_i$ carries a distinct birth time $t_i$. Then, precisely one of the vertices in $P$ is the oldest; let $k_\text{min}=\{k\in\{0,\dots,n\}:t_k<t_j, \ \forall j\neq k\}$ be its index. Starting from $(v_0,t_0)$, we now choose the first vertex of the path that has birth time smaller than $t_0$ and call it $(v_{i_1},t_{i_1})$. Continuing from this vertex, we choose the next vertex of the path that is older still, call it $(v_{i_2},t_{i_2})$ and continue analogously until we reach the oldest vertex $(v_{k_\text{min}},t_{k_{\text{min}}})$. We then repeat the same procedure starting from the end vertex $(v_n,t_n)$ and going backwards across the indices. The union of the two subset of vertices is what we call the *skeleton* of the path $P$. More precisely, for every path $P=((v_0,t_0),\dots,(v_n,t_n))$, there exists unique $0\leq k\leq n$ and $k\leq m\leq n$ as well as a set of indices $\{i_0,i_1,\dots,i_{k-1}, i_k, i_{k+1},\dots, i_{m}\}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& i_0=0, i_k=k_{\text{min}}, \text { and } i_m=n \text{ as well as } \\
& t_{i_{\ell-1}}>t_{i_\ell} \text{ and } t_{i}>t_{i_{\ell-1}}, \ \forall i_{\ell-1}<i<i_\ell, \text{ for } \ell=1,\dots, k \text{ and } \\
& t_{i_{\ell-1}}<t_{i_\ell} \text{ and }t_i>t_{i_\ell}, \ \forall i_{\ell-1}<i<i_\ell, \text{ for } \ell=k+1,\dots m.\end{aligned}$$ The *skeleton of $P$* is then given by $((v_{i_j},t_{i_j}))_{j=0,\dots,m}$. We say it is of length $m$ and has its minimum or tip at $k$.
\(Z) at (-2.5,8.5)\[circle, draw,scale=1.5\][1]{}; (-1,-0.5) – (-1, 8) node\[left,scale=2\] [$t$]{}; (A) at (0,5)\[circle, fill=black, label =\]; (B) at (2.5,3)\[circle, fill = black, label=\] ; (D) at (7.5,7)\[circle, draw, label = \] ; (E) at (10, 6)\[circle, draw, label=\] ; (F) at (12.5,1) \[circle, fill= black, label= \] ; (G) at (15,4.5) \[circle, draw, label=\]; (H) at (17.5,2.5)\[circle, fill=black, label=\]; (A) to (B); (B) to (D); (D) to (E); (E) to (F); (F) to (G); (G) to (H);
\(Z) at (-2.5,8.5)\[circle, draw,scale=1.5\][2]{}; (-1,-0.5) – (-1, 8) node\[left,scale=2\] [$t$]{}; (A) at (0,5)\[circle, fill=black, label =\]; (B) at (2.5,3)\[circle, fill = black, label=\] ; (D) at (7.5,7)\[circle, draw, label = , dotted\] ; (E) at (10, 6)\[circle, draw, label=\] ; (F) at (12.5,1) \[circle, fill= black, label= \] ; (G) at (15,4.5) \[circle, draw, label=\]; (H) at (17.5,2.5)\[circle, fill=black, label=\]; (A) to (B); (B) to (D); (D) to (E); (B) to (E); (E) to (F); (F) to (G); (G) to (H);
\(Z) at (-2.5,8.5)\[circle, draw,scale=1.5\][3]{}; (-1,-0.5) – (-1, 8) node\[left,scale=2\] [$t$]{}; (A) at (0,5)\[circle, fill=black, label =\]; (B) at (2.5,3)\[circle, fill = black, label=\] ; (D) at (7.5,7)\[label = \] ; (E) at (10, 6)\[circle, draw, label=, dotted\] ; (F) at (12.5,1) \[circle, fill= black, label= \] ; (G) at (15,4.5) \[circle, draw, label =\]; (H) at (17.5,2.5)\[circle, fill=black, label=\]; (A) to (B); (B) to (F); (B) to (E); (E) to (F); (B) to (F); (F) to (G); (G) to (H);
\(Z) at (-2.5,8.5)\[circle, draw,scale=1.5\][4]{}; (-1,-0.5) – (-1, 8) node\[left,scale=2\] [$t$]{}; (A) at (0,5)\[circle, fill=black, label =\]; (B) at (2.5,3)\[circle, fill = black, label=\] ; (D) at (7.5,7)\[label = \] ; (E) at (10, 6)\[label=\] ; (F) at (12.5,1) \[circle, fill= black, label= \] ; (G) at (15,4.5) \[circle, draw, dotted, label=\]; (H) at (17.5,2.5)\[circle, fill=black, label=\]; (A) to (B); (F) to (G); (G) to (H); (B) to (F); (F) to (H);
We now give an alternative construction of the skeleton of $P$, which we call the *local maxima construction*. A vertex $(v_i,t_i)\in P\backslash\{(v_0,t_0),(v_n,t_n)\}$ is called a *local maximum* if $t_i>t_{i-1}$ and $t_i>t_{i+1}$. We successively remove all local maxima from $P$ as follows: First, take the local maximum in $P$ with the greatest birth time, remove it from $P$ and connect its former neighbours by a direct edge. In the resulting path, we take the local maximum of greatest birth time and remove it, repating until there is no local maximum left, see Figure \[FigSkeleton\]. Therefore, the final path is decreasing in birth times of its vertices until the oldest vertex is reached, and only increasing in birth times afterwards. Hence, it is the uniquely determined skeleton of the path. Note that the skeleton is not necessarily an actual path of the graph. In particular, the skeleton of a shortcut-free path never forms a path itself unless the path is its own skeleton.
#### Graph surgery
In order to bound the probability of existence of an infinite self-avoiding path in ${\mathscr{G}}^p_0$ starting in the origin we increase the number of short edges in ${\mathscr{G}}^p_0$, which then allows us to make better use of the shortcut-free condition. We choose $\varepsilon>0$ such that $$\tilde{\delta}:=\delta-\varepsilon>\frac\gamma{1-\gamma}.$$ This is equivalent to $\gamma<\frac{\tilde{\delta}}{\tilde{\delta}+1}$. As $\rho$ is regulary varying and bounded there exists $A>1$ such that $$\rho(x)\leq A x^{-\tilde{\delta}} \quad \mbox{ for all $x>0$,}$$ by the Potter bound [@Bingham1987 Theorem 1.5.6]. We define $$\tilde{\rho}(x)=\mathbbm{1}_{[0,(pA)^{1/{\tilde\delta}}]}(x)+pA x^{-\tilde{\delta}}\mathbbm{1}_{((pA)^{1/{\tilde\delta}},\infty)}(x).$$ We now choose $\tilde{\rho}$ as a profile function together with the preferential attachment kernel and construct $\mathcal{G}_{\tilde{\varphi}}({\mathcal{X}}_0,\mathcal{U}_0)$ where $$\tilde{\varphi}((x,t),(y,s))=
\tilde{\rho}\big(\beta^{-1}(s\wedge t)^\gamma(s\vee t)^{1-\gamma}|x-y|^d\big).$$ In other words, we connect two given vertices $(x,t)$ and $(y,s)$ with probability $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{ if }|x-y|^d\leq (pA)^{\frac1{\tilde\delta}}\beta \, (s\wedge t)^{-\gamma}(s\vee t)^{\gamma-1} \\
p A\, \big(\beta^{-1}\, (s\wedge t)^\gamma(s\vee t)^{1-\gamma}|x-y|^d\big)^{-\tilde{\delta}}, & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ Note that in general $\tilde\rho$ does not satisfy the normalization condition . However, $\tilde{\rho}$ is still integrable and therefore the resulting graph $\mathcal{G}_{\tilde{\varphi}}({\mathcal{X}}_0,\mathcal{U}_0)$ is still locally finite with unchanged power law and shows qualitatively the same behaviour. Since $p\rho\leq \tilde{\rho}$, it follows by a simple coupling argument that $$\theta(p)\leq {\mathbb{P}}_0\{{\mathbf{0}}\leftrightarrow\infty \text{ in }\mathcal{G}_{\tilde{\varphi}}({\mathcal{X}}_0, \mathcal{U}_0)\}.$$ Due to the above it is no loss of generality to consider the unpercolated graph ${\mathscr{G}}$, resp. ${\mathscr{G}}_0$, where the profile function $\rho$ is of the form $$\rho(x) = 1 \wedge (pAx^{-\delta}),\label{defRho}$$ which is what we will do from now on. Note that we can no longer assume that holds, instead we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def_irho}
I_{\rho} & :=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \rho(|x|^d) \, {\mathrm{d}}x = (pA)^{1/\delta} \big(J(d)\tfrac{\delta}{d(\delta-1)}\big)
\end{aligned}$$ where $J(d)=\prod_{j=0}^{d-2}\int_0^\pi \sin^j(\alpha_j){\mathrm{d}}\alpha_j$ is the Jacobian of the $d$-dimensional sphere coordinates. We look at the probability that a shortcut-free path $P=((x_1,t_1),(x_2,t_2),\dots)$ exists in ${\mathscr{G}}$. By choice of $\rho$, such a path satisfies $$|x_i-x_j|^d>\beta (pA)^{\frac1{\delta}} (t_i\wedge t_j)^{-\gamma}(t_i\vee t_j)^{\gamma-1},
\quad \mbox{ for all $|i-j|\geq 2$.}$$
#### Strategy of the proof
We now explain how to use skeletons to identify paths. To build a long path, one needs to use sufficiently many old vertices. Loosely speaking, these vertices form the path’s skeleton. The subpath between two vertices of the skeleton can be interpreted as sequence of young connectors used to connect the two old vertices. In the following, we show that the probability of a shortcut-free path of length $n$ starting at the origin existing can be bounded from above by an exponential factor times the expected number of skeletons starting at the origin that are paths themselves. We then bound this expectation and derive that the probability of existence of a shortcut-free path of length $n$ starting in ${\mathbf{0}}$ is bounded from above by $(KI_\rho)^n$ for some constant $K$. Hence, we infer $$\theta(p)\leq\lim_{n\to\infty} (KI_\rho)^n=0$$ for $p>0$ small enough that $I_\rho<1/K$.
The strategy we follow is the following: First, given a skeleton $S$, we split a path that has skeleton $S$ into the subpaths between any two consecutive vertices in the skeleton and use the BK-inequality to show that the probability of a path existing is bounded from above by the product of the probabilities that such subpaths exist. Second, we show that given two vertices, it is a better strategy to connect them directly instead of using such subpaths. Afterwards, we combine both to reduce the problem to one of calculating the expected number of skeletons that form a path and to show that this number is bounded by an exponential of the correct order.
#### BK-inequality
We use a version of the famous van den Berg-Kesten (BK) inequality [@vdBerg1996] where the application to our setting is described in detail in [@Heydenreich2019LaceEx pp. 10-13]. For given Poisson points ${\mathbf{x}}_0,{\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots, {\mathbf{x}}_m$, we write $$\big\{{\mathbf{x}}_0\xleftrightarrow[{\mathbf{x}}_0,{\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_m]{k}{\mathbf{x}}_m\big\}$$ for the event that ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ and ${\mathbf{x}}_m$ are connected by a path of length $k$, that has skeleton ${\mathbf{x}}_0,{\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_m$. Recall that the length of a path is the number of edges on the path. We write for the event that ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ and ${\mathbf{x}}_m$ are connected by a path of length $k$ where all vertices are younger than ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ and ${\mathbf{x}}_m$ themselves (note that this is consistent with the preceding notation). When the length or choice of skeleton does not play any role, we simply write $\{{\mathbf{x}}_0\leftrightarrow{\mathbf{x}}_m\}$.
Conditioned on the event that the three distinct points ${\mathbf{x}}_1,{\mathbf{x}}_2,{\mathbf{x}}_3$ are vertices of ${\mathscr{G}}$, define $E$ to be the event that ${\mathbf{x}}_1$ is connected by a path to ${\mathbf{x}}_2$ and ${\mathbf{x}}_2$ is connected by a path to ${\mathbf{x}}_3$, where both paths only share ${\mathbf{x}}_2$ as a common vertex; we say that both paths *occur disjointly*. We denote this disjoint occurrence by $\circ$ and write $E=\{{\mathbf{x}}_1\leftrightarrow{\mathbf{x}}_2\}\circ\{{\mathbf{x}}_2\leftrightarrow{\mathbf{x}}_3\}$. Further, both events are *increasing* in the following sense. Given any realization of the Poisson point process such that there is a path between, say, ${\mathbf{x}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{x}}_2$, then there also exists such path in any realization with additional vertices. Recall that ${\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_1,\ldots,{\mathbf{x}}_n}$ denotes the law of ${\mathscr{G}}$ conditioned on ${\mathbf{x}}_1,\ldots,{\mathbf{x}}_n$ being vertices in ${\mathcal{X}}$. Then the BK-inequality from [@Heydenreich2019LaceEx Theorem 2.1] yields $${\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_1,{\mathbf{x}}_2,{\mathbf{x}}_3}\left(\{{\mathbf{x}}_1\leftrightarrow{\mathbf{x}}_2\}\circ\{{\mathbf{x}}_2\leftrightarrow{\mathbf{x}}_3\}\right)\leq {\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_1,{\mathbf{x}}_2}\{{\mathbf{x}}_1\leftrightarrow{\mathbf{x}}_2\}{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_2,{\mathbf{x}}_3}\{{\mathbf{x}}_2\leftrightarrow{\mathbf{x}}_3\}. \label{BKineq}$$ Next, let $S=({\mathbf{x}}_0,{\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_m)$ be a given skeleton and recall that all paths we consider are self-avoiding. Then the event that the root ${\mathbf{0}}={\mathbf{x}}_0$ starts a path of length $n$ that has skeleton $S$ can be written as $$\{{\mathbf{x}}_0\xleftrightarrow[{\mathbf{x}}_0,{\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_m]{n}{\mathbf{x}}_m\}=\bigcup_{\substack{n_1,\dots,n_m\in\{1,\dots,n-m\} \\ n_1+\dots+n_m=n}}\{{\mathbf{x}}_0\xleftrightarrow[]{n_1}{\mathbf{x}}_1\}\circ\dots\circ\{{\mathbf{x}}_{m-1}\xleftrightarrow[]{n_m}{\mathbf{x}}_m\}.$$ Inductively, we derive from that $${\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_0,{\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_m}\{{\mathbf{x}}_0\xleftrightarrow[{\mathbf{x}}_0,{\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_m]{n}{\mathbf{x}}_m\}\leq \sum_{\substack{n_1,\dots,n_m\in\{1,\dots,n-m\} \\ n_1+\dots+n_m=n}}\prod_{j=1}^m{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_{j-1},{\mathbf{x}}_j}\{{\mathbf{x}}_{j-1}\xleftrightarrow[]{n_j}{\mathbf{x}}_j\}. \label{BK}$$
#### Connecting two old vertices
From here on, we refer to each vertex used to connect two older vertices as a *connector*. If we use more than one young vertex to connect two old ones, we refer to all of them as *connectors*. We will see in Section \[SecSupercrit\] that in the supercritical phase with high probability two sufficiently old vertices are connected by a single connector, i.e., these vertices are connected by a path of length two. The following lemma shows that this is not the case in the subcritical phase.
\[LemTwoConnection\] Let $\gamma\in(0,\frac{\delta}{\delta+1})$. Let ${\mathbf{x}}=(x,t)$ and ${\mathbf{y}}=(y,s)$ be two given vertices satisfying $|x-y|^d\geq (pA)^{1/\delta} \beta (t\wedge s)^{-\gamma}(t\vee s)^{\gamma-1}$. Then $${\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\{{\mathbf{x}}\overset{2}{\leftrightarrow}{\mathbf{y}}\}\leq \int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}}^d\times ((t\vee s),1]}{\mathrm{d}}\mathbf{z} \ {\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{z}}}\{{\mathbf{x}}\sim\mathbf{z}\}{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{z}}}\{\mathbf{z}\sim{\mathbf{y}}\}\leq I_{\rho} \, C_1{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\{{\mathbf{x}}\sim{\mathbf{y}}\},$$ where $C_1= \frac{\beta 2^{d\delta+1}}{\delta(1-\gamma)-\gamma}$.
Without loss of generality let $t>s$. Observe that $\{\overset{2}{{\mathbf{x}}\leftrightarrow{\mathbf{y}}}\}$ is the event that ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$ share a common neighbour that is born after both of them. Such neighbours form a Poisson point process on ${\mathbb{R}}^d\times(t,1]$ with intensity measure $$\rho(\beta^{-1}t^{\gamma}u^{1-\gamma}|x-z|^d)\rho(\beta^{-1}s^\gamma u^{1-\gamma}|z-y|^d)\, {\mathrm{d}}z \, {\mathrm{d}}u,$$ see [@GracarEtAl2019], from which the first inequality follows. For the second inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_t^1 {\mathrm{d}}u\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}{\mathrm{d}}z \ \rho(\beta^{-1}t^\gamma u^{1-\gamma}|x-z|^d)\rho(\beta^{-1}s^{\gamma}u^{1-\gamma}|z-y|^d) \\
& \leq \int_t^1{\mathrm{d}}u \Big[\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}{\mathrm{d}}z \ \rho(\beta^{-1}t^\gamma u^{1-\gamma}|x-z|^d)\rho\left((2^d\beta)^{-1}s^{\gamma}u^{1-\gamma}|x-y|^d\right) \\
& \qquad + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}{\mathrm{d}}z \ \rho\left((2^d\beta)^{-1}t^\gamma u^{1-\gamma}|x-y|^d\right)\rho(\beta^{-1}s^{\gamma}u^{1-\gamma}|z-y|^d)\Big].
\end{aligned}$$Here, the inequality holds as for all $z\in\mathbb{R}^d$ either $|x-z|\geq \frac{1}{2}|x-y|$ or $|y-z|\geq \frac{1}{2}|x-y|$, and $\rho$ is non-increasing. For the first integral, a change of variables leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\int_t^1{\mathrm{d}}u \ \beta t^{-\gamma}u^{\gamma-1}\rho\left((2^d\beta)^{-1}s^{\gamma}u^{1-\gamma}|x-y|^d\right)I_{\rho}.
\end{aligned}$$ As $\rho(x)=1\wedge (pAx^{-\delta})$ this can be further bound by $$\begin{aligned}
pA 2^{d\delta}\beta^{1+\delta}I_{\rho} \int_t^1{\mathrm{d}}u\ s^{-\gamma\delta}t^{-\gamma}
& |x-y|^{-d\delta}u^{-\delta(1-\gamma)+\gamma-1}\\
& \leq pA 2^{d\delta} I_{\rho} \frac{\beta^{\delta+1}}{\delta(1-\gamma)-\gamma}(s^\gamma t^{1-\gamma}|x-y|^d)^{-\delta}
\end{aligned}$$ using that $\gamma<\delta/(\delta+1)$. A similar calculation for the second integral yields the same bound and as $|x-y|^d>(pA)^{1/\delta}\beta s^{-\gamma}t^{\gamma-1}$ implies $pA(\beta^{-1}s^\gamma t^{1-\gamma}|x-y|^d)^{-\delta}\leq 1,$ and therefore $${\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\{{\mathbf{x}}\sim{\mathbf{y}}\}=pA\big(\beta^{-1}s^\gamma t^{1-\gamma}|x-y|^d\big)^{-\delta},$$ which proves the claim.
(-1,-0.5) – (-1, 8) node\[left\] [$t$]{}; (A) at (0,1)\[circle, fill=gray, label=[${\mathbf{y}}_1$]{}\] ; (B) at (2,3)\[circle, draw, label=[${\mathbf{y}}_3$]{}\] ; (C) at (7,2) \[circle, draw, label=[${\mathbf{y}}_2$]{}\] ; (D) at (8.5,0)\[circle, fill=gray, label = ${\mathbf{y}}_0$\] ; (E) at (3,4.5)\[circle, draw, label=[${\mathbf{y}}_4$]{}\]; (F) at (5.5, 7)\[circle, fill=black, label=${\mathbf{y}}_{6}$\]; (G) at (1,6)\[circle, draw, label=[${\mathbf{y}}_5$]{}\]; (A) to (G); (G) to (B); (B) to (E); (C) to (D); (E) to (F); (F) to (C);
\(C) at (0,0)\[circle, draw, label=[${\mathbf{y}}_{2}$]{}\]; (B) at (-4,2)\[circle, draw, label=[${\mathbf{y}}_{3}$]{}\]; (E) at (-2,4)\[circle, draw, label=[${\mathbf{y}}_{4}$]{}\]; (F) at (0,6)\[circle, fill=black, label=${\mathbf{y}}_{6}$\]; (G) at (-6,4)\[circle, draw, label=[${\mathbf{y}}_{5}$]{}\]; (C) to (B); (B) to (E); (E) to (F); (B) to (G); (G) to (-7,5); (G) to (-5,5); (E) to (-3,5); (C) to (1,1);
Let $P$ be a path of length $k$ that can be reduced to a skeleton with two vertices ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$. Let ${\mathbf{y}}_0,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_k$ be the vertices of $P$, ordered by age from oldest to youngest. We assume without loss of generality that ${\mathbf{x}}$ is younger than ${\mathbf{y}}$ and therefore ${\mathbf{x}}={\mathbf{y}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{y}}={\mathbf{y}}_0$. We denote by $\mathscr{T}_{k-1}$ the set of all binary trees[^2] with fixed vertex set $\{{\mathbf{y}}_2,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_k\}$ such that every child has birth time greater than its parent. With the path $P$ we associate a tree in $\mathscr{T}_{k-1}$ as follows, see Figure \[FigPathToTree\].
Step one:
: ${\mathbf{y}}_2$ is the root of the tree.
Step two:
: Suppose the tree with vertices ${\mathbf{y}}_2,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_{i-1}$ is constructed. Attach ${\mathbf{y}}_i$ at the end of a branch in the tree. To find this branch we start at the root and branch at every vertex to the left if the path $P$ visits ${\mathbf{y}}_i$ before the vertex and to the right otherwise. If this means going to a place where there is no vertex, we attach ${\mathbf{y}}_i$ there. We continue like this until all ${\mathbf{y}}_2,\ldots,{\mathbf{y}}_k$ are attached.
\(A) at (0,0)\[circle, fill = gray, label=\]; (B) at (-3,1)\[circle, fill = gray, label=\]; (C) at (-2,2)\[circle, fill = gray, label=\]; (D) at (-1,3)\[circle, fill = gray, label=\]; (E) at (-4,2)\[circle, fill= gray, label=\]; (F) at (2,1)\[circle, fill =gray , label = ${\mathbf{w}}$\]; (G)at (3, 2)\[circle, fill=black, label=${\mathbf{v}}$\]; (H)at (2,3)\[circle, draw\]; (I)at (4,3)\[circle, draw\]; (A) to (B); (B) to (E); (B) to (C); (C) to (D); (A) to (F); (F) to (G); (G) to (H); (G) to (I);
(-1,-1.5) – (-1, 8) node\[left,scale=1.2\] [$t$]{}; (X) at (0,0)\[circle, fill = gray, label=[right:${\mathbf{x}}$]{}\]; (Y) at (8.5,-1)\[circle, fill = gray, label=[right:${\mathbf{y}}$]{}\]; (E) at (1, 6)\[circle, fill=gray, label=\]; (B) at (2,2)\[circle, fill=gray, label =\]; (C) at (3,4)\[circle, fill=gray, label =\]; (D) at (4,5)\[circle, fill=gray, label=\]; (A) at (5,1)\[circle, fill=gray, label=\]; (F) at (6,3)\[circle, fill= gray, label=[left:${\mathbf{w}}$]{}\]; (G) at (7.5,7)\[circle, fill=black, label=${\mathbf{v}}$\]; (X) to (E); (E) to (B); (B) to (C); (C) to (D); (D) to (A); (A) to (F); (F) to (Y); (F) to (G); (G) to (Y);
Next, we explain how to construct a path $P$ connecting ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$ when $T\in\mathscr{T}_{k-1}$ is given, see Figure \[FigTreeToPath\]. Here, given a path $(v_i)_{i=1}^n$ and any subpath $(v_{j-1},v_j,v_{j+1})$, we call $v_{j-1}$ the preceding vertex of $v_j$ and $v_{j+1}$ the subsequent vertex of $v_j$. We explore $T$ using depth-first search and add the vertex currently being explored to the path. Let $P=({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})$ and let ${\mathbf{u}}$ be the root of $T$. We define $L=({\mathbf{u}})$ to be the list of vertices to be explored next (in the order as they are in $L$). We proceed as follows.
Step one:
: We insert ${\mathbf{u}}$ into into $P$ as a local maximum between ${\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}$. As a result $P=({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{u}},{\mathbf{y}})$. We remove ${\mathbf{u}}$ from $L$ and if ${\mathbf{u}}$ has children in $T$, we add them to $L$, ordered from left to right.
Step two:
: While $L$ is not empty, we do the following:
1. We take the first vertex in $L$, denote it by ${\mathbf{v}}$ and remove it from $L$.\
2. If ${\mathbf{v}}$ has children in $T$, we insert them at the beginning of $L$, ordered from left to right. Having done that, we consider ${\mathbf{v}}$ explored.
3. Let ${\mathbf{w}}$ be the parent of ${\mathbf{v}}$ in $T$ and $\{{\mathbf{z}}_1,{\mathbf{w}}\}$, $\{{\mathbf{w}},{\mathbf{z}}_2\}$ its incident edges in $P$, where ${\mathbf{z}}_1$ is the preceding vertex of ${\mathbf{w}}$ in $P$ and ${\mathbf{z}}_2$ the subsequent one. If ${\mathbf{v}}$ is the left child of ${\mathbf{w}}$, we insert ${\mathbf{v}}$ as a local maximum between ${\mathbf{z}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{w}}$ in $P$ by adding it to the path and replacing the edge $\{{\mathbf{z}}_1,{\mathbf{w}}\}$ in $P$ by the two edges $\{{\mathbf{z}}_1,{\mathbf{v}}\}$ and $\{{\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{w}}\}$. If ${\mathbf{v}}$ is a right child, we insert ${\mathbf{v}}$ as a local maximum between ${\mathbf{w}}$ and ${\mathbf{z}}_2$ in an analogous way.
It is clear that for given ${\mathbf{y}}_0,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_k$ the two procedures establish a bijection between the paths with vertices ${\mathbf{y}}_0,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_k$ that can be reduced to a skeleton with two vertices ${\mathbf{y}}_0$ and ${\mathbf{y}}_1$ on the one hand, and the trees $T\in\mathscr{T}_{k-1}$ on the other hand.
\[LemkConnection\] Let $\gamma\in(0,\frac{\delta}{\delta+1})$ and ${\mathbf{x}}=(x,t), {\mathbf{y}}=(y,s)$ two Poisson points satisfying $|x-y|^d>(pA)^{1/\delta}\beta (t\wedge s)^{-\gamma}(t\vee s)^{\gamma-1}$. Then, for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, we have $${\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\{{\mathbf{x}}\xleftrightarrow[]{k}{\mathbf{y}}\} \leq (I_\rho C_2)^{k-1}{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\{{\mathbf{x}}\sim{\mathbf{y}}\}, \label{EqkConnection}$$ where $C_2=\frac{2^{d\delta+3}\beta}{\delta(1-\gamma)-\gamma}$.
For $k=1$, there is nothing to show, while $k=2$ is Lemma \[LemTwoConnection\]. Therefore, we assume $k\geq 3$. *Fix an unlabelled binary tree $T$ with $k-1$ vertices.* We start with the right-hand side of and insert $k-1$ vertices. Without loss of generality, let $t>s$. We consider $$(C_1 I_\rho)^{k-1}{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\{{\mathbf{x}}\sim{\mathbf{y}}\}\text{, where }C_1= \frac{2^{d\delta+1}\beta}{\delta(1-\gamma)-\gamma}$$ is the constant from Lemma \[LemTwoConnection\]. We now explore $T$ using the depth-first search construction described above (recall Figure \[FigTreeToPath\]). As above, define $L$ to be the list of vertices to be explored, starting with the root of $T$.
*Step one:* We add the root ${\mathbf{u}}=(y_u,t_u)$ of $T$ as a local maximum to the path connecting ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$. As $|y-x|^d>(pA)^{1/\delta}\beta t^{\gamma-1}s^{-\gamma}$, we derive from Lemma \[LemTwoConnection\] that $$\begin{aligned}
(C_1 & I_\rho)^{k-1}{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\{{\mathbf{x}}\sim{\mathbf{y}}\} \notag\\ & \geq (C_1I_\rho)^{k-2}\int_{t}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_u\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}{\mathrm{d}}y_u \ \varphi((x,t),(y_u,t_u))\varphi((y_u,t_u),(y,s)). \label{eqStepOne}
\end{aligned}$$ We add the children of ${\mathbf{u}}$ in $T$ to $L$ ordered from left to right.
*Step two:* To keep notation light, we explain the typical step of the procedure for a child of the root. A general step in this procedure works analogously. Assume that ${\mathbf{u}}$ has a left child in $T$. We remove this child from $L$ and add its children (if there are any) to the beginning of $L$ ordered from left to right. We insert into the path whose probability is described by the integral a vertex ${\mathbf{v}}=(y_v,t_v)$ as a local maximum between ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{u}}$. Since we only allow shortcut-free paths, we must ensure that inserting ${\mathbf{v}}$ does not violate this assumption. In order to do so, inserting ${\mathbf{v}}$ as a local maximum between ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{u}}$, it is necessary that $|x-y_u|^d>(pA)^{1/\delta}\beta t^{-\gamma}t_u^{\gamma-1}$. As ${\mathbf{v}}$ cannot share an edge with ${\mathbf{y}}$, the vertex $y_v$ has to be inserted at a certain distance from $y$. Hence, the right-hand side integral of can be bounded from below by $$\begin{aligned}
(C_1I_\rho)^{k-3}\int_{t}^1 {\mathrm{d}}& t_u\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}{\mathrm{d}}y_u\int_{t_u}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_v\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}{\mathrm{d}}y_v \big[ \mathbbm{1}_{\{|x-y_u|^d>(pA)^{1/\delta}\beta t^{-\gamma}t_u^{\gamma-1}\}}\mathbbm{1}_{\{|y_v-y|^d>(pA)^{1/\delta}\beta s^{-\gamma}t_v^{\gamma-1}\}} \\
&\times \varphi((x,t),(y_v,t_v))\varphi((y_v,t_v),(y_u,t_u))\varphi((y_u,t_u),(y,s))\big],
\end{aligned}$$ again using Lemma \[LemTwoConnection\]. Here the first indicator allows us to insert ${\mathbf{v}}$ as a local maximum between and ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{u}}$. The second one ensures that we have not accidentally added a shortcut edge from ${\mathbf{v}}$ to ${\mathbf{y}}$.
We continue as such until the whole tree $T$ has been explored and all $k-1$ vertices have been added to the integral. Here, it is important to note that we only consider the ordering of the vertices’ birth times and not their actual values. Namely, when adding a new vertex to the integral, we only make sure that this vertex is younger than its parent vertex in $T$. Due to this relaxation of the integration bounds of the vertices’ birth times (only being younger than its parent in $T$), the final integral covers all possible labellings for which the labelled tree is in $\mathscr{T}_{k-1}$. More precisely, let $\ell$ be a labelling of $T$ with the given labels ${\mathbf{y}}_2,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_k$ and denote by $T_\ell$ the tree $T$ equipped with labelling $\ell$. For $T_\ell\in\mathscr{T}_{k-1}$, there exists a permutation $\sigma_{T_\ell}$ such that the path corresponding to $T_\ell$ is given by $({\mathbf{y}}_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(0)},\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(k)})$. Additionally, adding the necessary indicator functions at every step to ensure that all vertices are far enough apart from each other for the path to stay shortcut-free, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& (C_1I_\rho)^{k-1}{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\{{\mathbf{x}}\sim{\mathbf{y}}\} \label{kConnIntegral} \\
&\geq \int\limits_{({\mathbb{R}}^d\times(0,1])^{k-1}} \bigotimes_{j=2}^{k} {\mathrm{d}}(y_j,t_j) \sum_{\ell: T_\ell\in\mathscr{T}_{k-1}}\Big[\prod_{j=1}^k \varphi((y_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(j-1)}, t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(j-1)}),(y_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(j)},t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(j)})) \notag\\
&
\mathbbm{1}_{\{t_1<\dots<t_k\}}
\mathbbm{1}_{\{|y_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(h)}-y_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(i)}|^d>(pA)^{1/\delta}\beta(t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(h)}\wedge t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(i)})^{-\gamma}(t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(h)}\vee t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(i)})^{\gamma-1}: |\sigma_{T_\ell}(i)-\sigma_{T_\ell}(j)|\geq 2\}}\Big] \notag.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the sum is over all labellings of $T$ with labels ${\mathbf{y}}_2,\dots,{\mathbf{y}}_k$. In the product, we multiply the probabilities that any two neighbours in the path corresponding to $T_\ell$ are connected by an edge. The first indicator is to ensure that the added vertices are ordered by birth times from oldest to youngest as required. The second indicator is the necessary condition that allows the resulting path to be shortcut-free. Recall that $\mathbf{E}$ denotes the expectation of a unit intensity Poisson point process on ${\mathbb{R}}^d\times(0,1]$ and also recall the Mecke equation and independent edges arguments from the proof of Lemma \[LemPercolationLeq\]. We hence obtain that integral can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\Big[\sum_{\substack{(y_2,t_2),\dots,(y_k,t_k)\in{\mathcal{X}}\\ t_1<t_2<\dots <t_k
}} \sum_{\ell:T_\ell\in\mathscr{T}_{k-1}}{\mathbb{P}}_{{\mathcal{X}}\cup\{{\mathbf{y}}_0,{\mathbf{y}}_1\}}^p\big(\bigcap_{j=1}^k \big\{(y_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(j-1)}, t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(j-1)})\sim(y_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(j)},t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(j)})\big\} \big) \\
& \hspace{1cm} \times \mathbbm{1}_{\{|y_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(h)}-y_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(i)}|^d>(pA)^{1/\delta}\beta(t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(h)}\wedge t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(i)})^{-\gamma}(t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(h)}\vee t_{\sigma_{T_\ell}(i)})^{\gamma-1}: |\sigma_{T_\ell}(i)-\sigma_{T_\ell}(j)|\geq 2\}}\Big].
\end{aligned}$$ Since the necessary distance condition for a shortcut-free path is fulfilled and ${\mathbf{y}}_1={\mathbf{x}}$, ${\mathbf{y}}_0={\mathbf{y}}$, this is bounded from below by $${\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\big\{{\mathbf{x}}\xleftrightarrow[]{k}{\mathbf{y}}\text{ by a path associated with a labelling of }T \big\}.$$ Let us denote the event above by $E(T)$. Then, taking the union over all (unlabelled) binary trees on $k-1$ vertices, the previous probability and yield $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\Big(\bigcup_{T \text{ unlabelled tree }}
E(T) \Big) & \leq \sum_{T \text{ unlabelled tree}} (C_1I_\rho)^{k-1}{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\sim{\mathbf{y}}\right\} \\
& \leq (C_2I_\rho)^{k-1}{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\sim{\mathbf{y}}\right\},
\end{aligned}$$ as the number of unlabelled trees on $k-1$ vertices is bounded from above by[^3] $4^{k-1}$. The proof finishes with the observation that the event inside the probability on the left-hand side equals
#### Proof of non-percolative phase
We now use the results of the previous paragraphs to bound the probability of a path of length $n$ existing by some exponential, thus showing Theorem \[ThmPercolationPhase\](a). To this end, we have to distinguish between regular and irregular paths. Let $S=({\mathbf{x}}_0,{\mathbf{x}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_m)$ be a skeleton of length $m$. We say $S$ is *regular* if its oldest vertex is born after time $2^{-m}$. We say $S$ is *irregular* if its oldest vertex is born before time $2^{-m}$. Similarly, we say a path $P$ of finite length is regular if its underlying skeleton is regular and conversely, $P$ is irregular if its skeleton is irregular. Finally, let $P=({\mathbf{v}}_0,{\mathbf{v}}_1,\dots)$ be an infinite path. We say $P$ is *irregular* if for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ there exists $n\geq k$ such that the path (of length $n$) $({\mathbf{v}}_0,\dots,{\mathbf{v}}_n)$ is irregular. An infinite path $P$ is *regular* if it is not irregular. In other words, an infinite path is irregular if it has irregular subpaths of arbitrarily large lengths. We will first show that almost surely any path is regular on a large enough scale, that is any irregular path becomes regular if it is extended by enough additional vertices. Therefore, $\{{\mathbf{0}}\leftrightarrow\infty\}$ equals the event that the root ${\mathbf{0}}$ starts an infinite path that is regular and we will show that no such path exists.
Observe that if an irregular path of length $n$ exists, then an irregular path of length $k\leq n$, whose end vertex is the oldest vertex of the path also exists. Let $A_\text{irreg}(k)$ be the event that ${\mathbf{0}}$ starts an irregular path of length $k$ where the end vertex is the oldest one. We will prove in the following lemma that ${\mathbb{P}}_0^p(A_\text{irreg}(k))\leq (C_3I_\rho)^k$ for some constant $C_3$. We then choose $p$ such that $I_\rho<C_3^{-1}$ and achieve $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty{\mathbb{P}}_0^p(A_\text{irreg}(k))<\infty.$$ Hence, Borel-Cantelli yields that almost surely any long enough path is regular.
\[LemIrregPath\] Let $\gamma\in[0,\frac{\delta}{\delta+1})$ and let $\varepsilon>0$. Then, there exists $N\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that, for $k\geq N$, $${\mathbb{P}}_0^p(A_{\text{irreg}}(k))\leq (C_3I_\rho)^k,$$ where $C_3=(1+\varepsilon)\frac{\beta 2^{d\delta+3}}{\delta(1-\gamma)-\gamma}$.
A path of length $k$ whose oldest vertex is also the end vertex has a skeleton whose vertices’ birth times are decreasing. Thus, we again write ${\mathbf{0}}={\mathbf{x}}_0=(x_0,t_0)$ and have by the Mecke equation as in the proof of Lemma \[LemPercolationLeq\] that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}_0^p & (A_\text{irreg}(k))
\leq \sum_{m=1}^k\mathbf{E}\bigg[\sum_{\substack{(x_1,t_1),\dots,(x_m,t_m)\in{\mathcal{X}}\\ t_0>t_1>\cdots> t_m \\ t_m<2^{-m}}}{\mathbb{P}}_{{\mathcal{X}}_0}^p\Big\{(x_0,t_0)\xleftrightarrow[(x_0,t_0),\dots,(x_m,t_m)]{k}(x_m,t_m)\Big\}\bigg] \\
&= \sum_{m=1}^k \, \int\limits_{0}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_0 \int\limits_{\substack{({\mathbb{R}}^d\times(0,1])^m \\ t_0>t_1>\cdots> t_m \\ t_m<2^{-m}}}\bigotimes_{j=1}^m {\mathrm{d}}(x_j,t_j){\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_0,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_m}\Big\{(x_0,t_0)\xleftrightarrow[(x_0,t_0),\dots,(x_m,t_m)]{k}(x_m,t_m)\Big\},
\end{aligned}$$ where we have written ${\mathbf{x}}_j=(x_j,t_j)$ for $j=1,\dots,m$ as usual. Using the BK-Inequality and Lemma \[LemkConnection\], we get for the last probability, $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_0,\dots,{\mathbf{x}}_m}\Big\{(x_0,t_0)\xleftrightarrow[(x_0,t_0),\dots,(x_m,t_m)]{k}(x_m,t_m)\Big\} \\
&\quad \leq \sum_{\substack{k_1,\dots,k_m\in\{1,\dots,k-m\} \\ k_1+\dots+k_m=k}} \prod_{i=1}^m {\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_{i-1},{\mathbf{x}}_i}\{(x_{i-1},t_{i-1})\xleftrightarrow[]{k_i}(x_i,t_i)\} \\
&\quad \leq \sum_{\substack{k_1,\dots,k_m\in\{1,\dots,k-m\} \\ k_1+\dots+k_m=k}} (C_2 I_\rho)^{k-m}\prod_{i=1}^m{\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_{i-1},{\mathbf{x}}_i}\{(x_{i-1},t_{i-1})\sim(x_i,t_i)\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Here, we used that either the consecutive skeleton vertices ${\mathbf{x}}_{i-1}$ and ${\mathbf{x}}_i$ fullfil the minimum distance for shortchut-free paths or $k_i=1$. In any other case, the probability of the path existing and beeing shortcut-free equals zero which is trivially bounded by the right-hand side. Now, the number of integer partitions of $k$ is of subexponential order [@AndrewsEriksson2004]. Therefore, for large enough $k$, we can bound this number by $(1+\varepsilon)^k/k$, and get $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathbb{P}}_0^p(A_\text{irreg}(k)) \label{hier} \\
&\leq \sum_{m=1}^k\frac{(1+\varepsilon)^k(C_2I_\rho)^{k-m}}{k} \notag \\
& \qquad\times \int_{0}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_0\int_{0}^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}{\mathrm{d}}x_1\dots\int_{0}^{2^{-m}\wedge t_{m-1}} {\mathrm{d}}t_m\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}{\mathrm{d}}x_m \Big(\prod_{i=1}^m\rho(\beta^{-1}t_{i-1}^{1-\gamma}t_i^{\gamma}|x_{i-1}-x_i|^d)\Big) \notag \\
&\leq \sum_{m=1}^k \frac{C_2^{k-m}(1+\varepsilon)^k I_\rho^k}{k} \beta^{m}\int_{0}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_0\int_{0}^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1\dots \int_{0}^{2^{-m}\wedge t_{m-1}}{\mathrm{d}}t_m \ t_0^{\gamma-1}t_m^{-\gamma}\prod_{i=1}^{m-1} t_i^{-1} \notag\\
&\leq \left((1+\varepsilon)I_\rho \right)^k\frac{1}{k}\sum_{m=1}^k \beta ^m C_2^{k-m} (1-\gamma)^{-m} \leq (C_3I_\rho)^k,\notag\end{aligned}$$ where the second to last inequality follows from Lemma \[IntOutdegree\].
The previous lemma shows that for $I_\rho<C_3^{-1}$, it suffices to show that ${\mathbf{0}}$ does not start an infinite path that is regular in order to obtain that $\theta(p)=0$. Let $A_\text{reg}(n)$ be the event that ${\mathbf{0}}$ starts a regular path of length $n$.
\[LemRegPath\] Let $\gamma\in[\frac{1}{2},\frac{\delta}{\delta+1})$ and $\varepsilon>0$. Then, there exists $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that, for all $n\geq N$, we have $${\mathbb{P}}_0^p(A_{\text{reg}}(n))\leq K(C_3 I_\rho)^n,$$ where $C_3=(1+\varepsilon)\frac{\beta 2^{d\delta+3}}{\delta(1-\gamma)-\gamma}$ and $K$ is some constant.
Writing ${\mathbf{0}}={\mathbf{x}}_0=(x_0,t_0)$ and following the same arguments of Mecke equation, BK-Inequality and Lemma \[LemkConnection\] as done in the previous proof of Lemma \[LemIrregPath\], we get for large enough $n$ that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}^p_0(A_\text{reg}(n))\leq & \sum_{m=1}^n \sum_{k=0}^m \int_{2^{-m}}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_0 \ \frac{(1+\varepsilon)^n(C_2 I_\rho)^{n-m}}{n} \notag \\
& \times\int\limits_{\substack{(x_1,t_1),\dots(x_m,t_m)\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\times(0,1] \\ t_0>t_1>\dots >t_k>2^{-m} \\ t_k<t_{k+1}<\dots <t_m}} \bigotimes_{j=1}^m {\mathrm{d}}(x_j,t_j) \ \prod_{j=1}^m \varphi((x_{j-1},t_{j-1}),(x_j,t_j)). \label{eqRegPath}
\end{aligned}$$ Here, the two sums and integrals describe all regular skeletons a regular path of length $n$ can have. For the calculation, we focus on $\gamma>1/2$. For $\gamma=1/2$ minor changes are needed; we comment on this below. Recall that $$\varphi((x_{j-1},t_{j-1}),(x_j,t_j))=\rho(\beta^{-1}(t_{j-1}\wedge t_j)^{\gamma}(t_{j-1}\vee t_j)^{1-\gamma}|x_{j-1}-x_j|^d).$$ Therefore, the right-hand side of reads $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{m=1}^n \frac{(1+\varepsilon)^n(C_2 I_\rho)^{n-m}}{n} \notag \\
& \qquad \times\sum_{k=0}^m (\beta I_\rho)^m \int\limits_{\substack{1>t_0>t_1>\dots >t_k>2^{-m} \\ t_k<t_{k+1}<\dots <t_m}} \bigotimes_{j=0}^m{\mathrm{d}}t_j \ \prod_{j=1}^m(t_{j-1}\wedge t_j)^{-\gamma}(t_{j-1}\vee t_j)^{\gamma-1}. \label{eqRegPath2}
\end{aligned}$$ For $k=0$ the integral from can be written as $$\int_{2^{-m}}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_0\int_{t_0}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_1 \dots\int_{t_{m-1}}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_m t_0^{-\gamma}t_m^{\gamma-1}\prod_{j=1}^{m-1} t_j^{-1}\leq \left(\frac{1}{1-\gamma}\right)^m,$$ by Lemma \[IntIndegree\]. For $k=m$, we obtain for the integral from $$\int_{2^{-m}}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_0\int_{2^{-m}}^{t_0} {\mathrm{d}}t_1\dots \int_{2^{-m}}^{t_{m-1}}d t_m t_0^{\gamma-1}t_m^{-\gamma}\prod_{j=1}^{m-1}t_j^{-1}\leq \left(\frac{1}{1-\gamma}\right)^m,$$ by Lemma \[IntOutdegree\]. For $1\leq k\leq m-1$, we infer for the integral from , using Lemma \[IntSkeleton\], $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{k=1}^{m-1} \int_{2^{-m}}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_0\int_{2^{-m}}^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1\dots \int_{2^{-m}}^{t_{k-1}}{\mathrm{d}}t_k \Bigg[t_0^{\gamma-1}\left(\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}t_j^{-1}\right)t_k^{-\gamma} \\
& \hspace{5cm}\times\int_{t_k}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_{k+1}\dots\int_{t_{m-1}}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_m \left[t_k^{-\gamma}\left(\prod_{j=k+1}^{m-1} t_j^{-1}\right)t_m^{\gamma-1}\right]\Bigg] \\
& \qquad \leq \frac{2^{-m(1-2\gamma)}(m\log(2))^{m-2}}{\gamma^2(2\gamma-1)(m-2)!}\sum_{k=1}^{m-1} {{m-2}\choose {k-1}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $m^{m-2}/(m-2)!$ asymptotically equals $2^{\log_2(e)(m-2)}/\sqrt{2\pi(m-2)}$ by Stirling’s formula, and , we infer from and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}_0^p (A_\text{reg}(n)) & \leq ((1+\varepsilon)I_\rho)^n \tfrac{K}{n}\sum_{m=1}^n \beta^m C_2^{n-m}\left((1-\gamma)^{-m}+(2^{2\gamma+\log_2(e)}\log(2))^m\right),
\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $K\geq 2$. As $C_2>(1-\gamma)^{-1}$ and $C_2\geq 2^{2\gamma+\log_2(e)}\log(2)$ we infer that $${\mathbb{P}}_0^p(A_\text{reg}(n))\leq K(I_\rho C_3)^n.$$ For $\gamma=\frac12$, Lemma \[IntTwoGamma\] and Lemma \[IntSkeleton\] have to be modified slightly. The changes in the calculations only influence the value of $K$ and not the constant $C_3$.
Absence of a subcritical phase {#SecSupercrit}
==============================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[ThmPercolationPhase\](b) using a strategy of Jacob and Mörters [@JacobMoerters2017]. Starting from a sufficiently old vertex, we use a young connector to connect the old vertex with a much older one; we repeat this indefinitely, moving to older and older vertices as we go along. To ensure that this procedure generates an infinite path with positive probability, we have to show that the failure probabilites of connecting the pairs of increasingly old vertices sum to a probability strictly less than one.
To this end, we show that an old vertex is *with extreme probability* connected to a much older one by a single connector. Here, if $(A(t))_{t>0}$ is a family of events, we say an event $A(t)$ holds with extreme probability, or $wep(t)$, if it holds with probability at least $1-\exp(-\Omega(\log^2(t)))$, as $t\to\infty$, where $\Omega(t)$ is the standard Landau symbol. Observe, if $(A(t)_n)_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ is a sequence of events, holding simultaneously $wep(t)$ in the sense that $\inf_n {\mathbb{P}}(A(t)_n)\geq 1-\exp(\Omega(\log^2(t)))$, as $t \to \infty$, then $\bigcap_{k\leq \lfloor t\rfloor}A(t)_k$ holds $wep(t)$.
Because $g^{\text{pa}}, g^\text{sum}\leq g^\text{min}$ we can fix the kernel $g$ to be the min kernel $g^\text{min}$ throughout this section. Hence, for two given vertices ${\mathbf{x}}=(x,t)$ and ${\mathbf{y}}=(y,s)$, the connection probability is given by $$\varphi({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})=p \rho(\beta^{-1}(s\wedge t)^{-\gamma}|x-y|^d).$$ Recall that $\rho$ is regulary varying with index $-\delta$ for $\delta>1$. Further, $\gamma>\delta/(\delta+1)$. Thus, we can choose $$\alpha_1\in\left(1,\tfrac{\gamma}{\delta(1-\gamma)}\right) \text{ and then fix }\alpha_2\in\left(\alpha_1,\tfrac{\gamma}{\delta}(1+\alpha_1\delta)\right).$$ The following lemma shows that the outlined strategy for an infinite paths works and thus proves Theorem \[ThmPercolationPhase\](b).
\[LemRobustness\] Let $\gamma>\frac{\delta}{\delta+1}$ and $\rho$ be regularly varying with index $-\delta$ for $\delta>1$. Let $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ be as defined as above. Let ${\mathbf{x}}_0=(x_0, s_0)$ be a given Poisson point with $s_0<\frac{1}{2}$. Then, for any retention parameter $p>0$, $wep(1/s_0)$, there exists a sequence $({\mathbf{x}}_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ of vertices ${\mathbf{x}}_k=(x_k,s_k)\in {\mathcal{X}}$ such that
(i) $s_k<s_{k-1}^{\alpha_1}$ and $|x_k-x_{k-1}|^d<\frac{\beta}{2} s_{k-1}^{-\alpha_2}$ and
(ii) ${\mathbf{x}}_{k-1}\xleftrightarrow[]{2}{\mathbf{x}}_k$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
It suffices to show that, $wep(1/s_0)$, there exists a vertex ${\mathbf{x}}_1=(x_1,s_1)$ satisfying (i) and (ii). The result then follows by induction. The number of vertices, born before time $s_0^{\alpha_1}$ and within distance $((\beta/2) s_0^{-\alpha_2})^{1/d}$ from $x_0$ is Poisson distributed with parameter $$\text{Vol}\big(\{|x_1-x_0|^d<\tfrac{\beta}{2} s_0^{-\alpha_2}\}\times (0,s_0^{\alpha_1})\big)=O(s_0^{\alpha_1-\alpha_2}),$$ where $O(\cdot)$ again is the standard Landau symbol. Since $\alpha_2>\alpha_1$, there exists such vertex ${\mathbf{x}}_1$, $wep(1/s_0)$. To connect ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ to ${\mathbf{x}}_1$ via a young vertex, we focus on connectors $(y,t)$, born after time $1/2$ and within distance $((\beta/2) s_0^{-\gamma})^{1/d}$ from ${\mathbf{x}}_0$. Since, for such choices of $(y,t)$, we have $$|x_1-y|^d\leq\big((\tfrac{\beta s_0^{-\alpha_2}}{2})^{1/d}+(\tfrac{\beta s_0^{-\gamma}}{2})^{1/d}\big)^d\leq \beta s_0^{-\alpha_2},$$ the number of such connectors is Poisson distributed with its parameter bounded from below by $$\begin{aligned}
& p^2\int_{1/2}^1 {\mathrm{d}}t\int\limits_{\{|y-x_0|^d\leq \frac{\beta}{2}s_0^{-\gamma}\}} {\mathrm{d}}y \ \rho(\beta^{-1}s_0^{\gamma}|y-x_0|^{-d})\rho(s_0^{\alpha_1\gamma-\alpha_2}) \notag \\
&\quad= p^2\tfrac{1}{2} \beta s_0^{-\gamma} \rho(s_0^{\alpha_1\gamma-\alpha_2}) \int\limits_{\{|y-x_0|^d\leq 1/2\}} {\mathrm{d}}y \ \rho(|y-x_0|^d). \label{eqIntRobustness}
\end{aligned}$$ Now, we choose $\varepsilon>0$ such that $\tilde{\delta}:=\delta+\varepsilon<\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}$, or equivalentely $\gamma>\tilde{\delta}/(\tilde{\delta}+1)$, and infer by the Potter bound [@Bingham1987 Theorem 1.5.6], $$\rho(s_0^{\alpha_1\gamma-\alpha_2})\geq A s_0^{-\tilde{\delta}(\alpha_1\gamma-\alpha_2)},$$ for some $A<1$ and $s_0$ small enough. Aditionally, $\rho(|x|^d)\geq\rho(1/2)>0$ for all $|x|^d<1/2$. Hence, is bounded from below by $$\Omega\left(s_0^{-\tilde{\delta}(\alpha_1\gamma-\alpha_2)-\gamma}\right).$$ Therefore, $wep(1/s_0)$, ${\mathbf{x}}_1$ satysfies (ii) as $${\mathbb{P}}^p_{{\mathbf{x}}_1,{\mathbf{x}}_2}\{{\mathbf{x}}_0\xleftrightarrow[]{2}{\mathbf{x}}_1\}\geq 1-\exp(-\Omega(s_0^{-\tilde{\delta}(\alpha_1\gamma-\alpha_2)-\gamma}))$$ and $-\tilde{\delta}(\alpha_1\gamma-\alpha_2)-\gamma<0$.
Proof of Theorem 1.2 {#SecRobustness}
====================
We first introduce for finite $t>0$ the rescaling map
-------- ----------------------------- ------------------- -------------------------------
$h_t:$ $\mathbb{T}_1^d\times(0,t]$ $\longrightarrow$ $\mathbb{T}_t^d\times (0,1]$,
$(x,s)$ $\longmapsto$ $\left(t^{1/d}x, s/t\right)$.
-------- ----------------------------- ------------------- -------------------------------
It gives rise to a new graph $h_t({\mathscr{G}}_t^p)$ whose vertices live on $\mathbb{T}_t^d\times(0,1]$ and where two rescaled vertices are connected in $h_t({\mathscr{G}}_t^p)$ if they were originally connected in ${\mathscr{G}}_t^p$. It is easy to see that $h_t({\mathscr{G}}_t^p)$ is the graph with vertex set given by a standard Poisson process on $\mathbb{T}_t^d\times (0,1]$ and independent edges with the same connection probability as in , see [@GracarEtAl2019]. The process $t\mapsto h_t({\mathscr{G}}_t^p)$ converges almost surely to the graph ${\mathscr{G}}^p$ in the sense that if a randomly selected point in $h_t({\mathscr{G}}_t^p)$ is shifted to the origin, the embedded graph in any ball around the origin converges in distribution as $t\to\infty$, to the same ball centred in the origin of ${\mathscr{G}}_0^p$, see [@GracarEtAl2019 Theorem 3.1]. To obtain the weak local limit structure for the age-based preferential attachment network, let $h_t^0({\mathscr{G}}_t^p)$ be the graph $h_t({\mathscr{G}}_t^p)$ with a root vertex ${\mathbf{0}}$ added at the origin. If $G$ is a locally finite graph equipped with a root ${\mathbf{x}}\in G$ and $\xi_t({\mathbf{x}}, G)$ is a non-negative functional acting on rooted graphs that satisfy
(A) $\xi_t({\mathbf{0}}, h_t^0({\mathscr{G}}_t^p))\rightarrow \xi_\infty({\mathbf{0}}, {\mathscr{G}}_0^p)$ in probability as $t\to\infty$ and
(B) $\sup_{t>0}{\mathbb{E}}[(\xi_t({\mathbf{0}}, h_t^0({\mathscr{G}}_t^p)))^q]<\infty$ for some $q>1$,
then we get from Theorem 7 of [@JacobMoerters2015], $$\lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{1}{t} \sum_{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathscr{G}}_t^p} \xi_t(\theta_{\mathbf{x}}({\mathbf{x}}),\theta_{\mathbf{x}}({\mathscr{G}}_t^p))={\mathbb{E}}[\xi_\infty({\mathbf{0}}, {\mathscr{G}}_0^p)] \label{WLLN}$$ in probability, where $\theta_{\mathbf{x}}$ acts on points ${\mathbf{y}}=(y,s)$ as $\theta_{\mathbf{x}}({\mathbf{y}})=(y-x,s)$ and on graphs accordingly. This weak law of large numbers is an adaption of a general weak law of large numbers for point processes of Penrose and Yukich [@PenroseYukich2003].
For the proof of non-robustness in Theorem \[ThmRobustness\] define $\xi^k({\mathbf{x}},G)$ as indicator that the component of the root vertex ${\mathbf{x}}$ is of size at most $k$. By the weak law of large numbers $$\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\sum_{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathscr{G}}_t^p}\xi^k(\theta_{\mathbf{x}}({\mathbf{x}}),\theta_{\mathbf{x}}({\mathscr{G}}_t^p))={\mathbb{E}}[\xi^k({\mathbf{0}},{\mathscr{G}}^p)].$$ \
The left hand side is asymptotically the proportion of vertices that are in components no bigger than $k$. As $k\to\infty$, the right hand side converges to $1-\theta(p)$ and if we choose a $p>0$ such that $\theta(p)=0$, there is no giant component in $({\mathscr{G}}_t^p)_{t>0}$.
For the proof of robustness in Theorem \[ThmRobustness\] define $\xi_t({\mathbf{x}}, G)$ as indicator that the root ${\mathbf{x}}$ of $G$ belongs to the connected component of the oldest vertex in the finite graph $G$, and $\xi_\infty({\mathbf{0}}, G)$ as the indicator that the root ${\mathbf{0}}$ of $G$ belongs to an infinite component in the infinite graph $G$. Then one has to show that $$\xi_t({\mathbf{0}}, h_t^0({\mathscr{G}}_t^p))\to \xi_\infty({\mathbf{0}}, {\mathscr{G}}_0^p) \mbox{ in probability as $t\to\infty$. }$$ This is done in detail in [@JacobMoerters2017] for the spatial preferential attachment model and can be easily adapted to the simpler age-based preferential attachment model. The weak law of large numbers then yields $$\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\sum_{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathscr{G}}_t^p}\xi_t(\theta_{\mathbf{x}}({\mathbf{x}}),\theta_{\mathbf{x}}({\mathscr{G}}_t^p))={\mathbb{E}}[\xi_\infty({\mathbf{0}},{\mathscr{G}}^p)]=\theta(p)$$ in probability. Again, we see from this that if $\theta(p)>0$ there is a giant component and the result follows from Theorem \[ThmPercolationPhase\], further details are exactly as in [@JacobMoerters2017].
Integration results {#appendix}
===================
\[IntIndegree\] Let $\gamma\in(0,1)$ and $t_0\in(0,1)$. Then,
(a) for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, we have $$\int_{t_0}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_1\int_{t_1}^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_2\dots \int_{t_{k-1}}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_k \bigg[ t_0^{-\gamma}\Big(\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}t_j^{-1}\Big)t_k^{\gamma-1}\bigg]\leq \frac{t_0^{-\gamma}\log^{k-1}(1/t_0)}{\gamma(k-1)!}.$$
(b) for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, we have $$\int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}t\frac{t^{-\gamma}\log^k(1/t)}{k!}=\left(\frac{1}{1-\gamma}\right)^{k+1}.$$
We prove (a) by induction. For $k=1$, we have $$t_0^{-\gamma}\int_{t_0}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_1 t_1^{\gamma-1}\leq \frac{t_0^{-\gamma}}{\gamma}.$$ For $k+1$ we get using the induction hypothesis $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{t_0}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_1\int_{t_1}^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_2\dots \int_{t_{k}}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_{k+1} \bigg[ t_0^{-\gamma}\Big(\prod_{j=1}^{k}t_j^{-1}\Big)t_{k+1}^{\gamma-1}\bigg]
\leq t_0^{-\gamma}\int_{t_0}^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_1 \frac{t_1^{-1}\log^{k-1}(1/t_0)}{\gamma(k-1)!)} \\
& \quad= \frac{t_0^{-\gamma}(-1)^{k-1}}{\gamma(k-1)!}\int_{t_0}^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_1\log(t_1)'\log^{k-1}(t_1)
= \frac{t_0^{-\gamma}\log^k(1/t_0)}{\gamma k!}.
\end{aligned}$$ We prove (b) by induction as well. As $\gamma<1$, we get, for $k=1$ using integration by parts $$\int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}t \frac{t^{-\gamma}\log(1/t)}{1!}=\int_0^1{\mathrm{d}}t \frac{t^{-\gamma}}{1-\gamma}=\frac{1}{(1-\gamma)^2}.$$ Analogously for $k+1$, $$\int_0^1{\mathrm{d}}t \frac{t^{-\gamma}\log^{k+1}(1/t)}{(k+1)!}=\int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}t\frac{t^{-\gamma}\log^k(1/t)}{(1-\gamma)k!}=\frac{1}{(1-\gamma)^{k+2}}$$ by the induction hypothesis.
\[IntTwoGamma\] Let $\gamma\in(1/2,1)$ and $x\in(0,1)$. Then, for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, it holds $$\int_x^1 {\mathrm{d}}t \ \frac{t^{-2\gamma}\log^k(1/t)}{k!}\leq \frac{x^{1-2\gamma}\log^k(1/x)}{(2\gamma-1)k!}.$$
Integration by parts yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_x^1 {\mathrm{d}}t \ \frac{t^{-2\gamma}\log^k(1/t)}{k!} =\frac{x^{1-2\gamma}\log^k(1/x)}{(2\gamma-1)k!} -\int_x^1{\mathrm{d}}t\frac{t^{-2\gamma}\log^{k-1}(1/t)}{(2\gamma-1)(k-1)!}\leq \frac{x^{1-2\gamma}\log^k(1/x)}{(2\gamma-1)k!},
\end{aligned}$$ as the second integral is bounded from below by $0$.
\[IntDecreasing\] Let $\gamma\in(0,1)$, $x\in(0,1)$ and $t_0\in(x,1)$. Then, for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, it holds $$\int_x^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1\int_x^{t_1}{\mathrm{d}}t_2\dots\int_x^{t_{k-1}}{\mathrm{d}}t_k \Big( t_0^{\gamma-1}\prod_{j=1}^k t_j^{-1}\Big)=\frac{t_0^{\gamma-1}\log^k(t_0/x)}{k!}.$$
For $k=1$, we get $$\int_x^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1 \ t_0^{\gamma-1}t_1^{-1}=t_0^{\gamma-1}\log(t_0/x).$$ For $k+1$, using induction hypothesis, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\int_x^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1\int_x^{t_1}{\mathrm{d}}t_2\dots\int_x^{t_{k}}{\mathrm{d}}t_{k+1}& \Big( t_0^{\gamma-1}\prod_{j=1}^{k+1} t_j^{-1}\Big)
= t_0^{\gamma-1}\int_x^{t_0} {\mathrm{d}}t_1 \frac{t_1^{-1}\log^k(t_1/x)}{k!} \\
& =t_0^{\gamma-1}\int_0^{\log(t_0/x)}{\mathrm{d}}y \frac{y^k}{k!} = \frac{t_0^{\gamma-1}\log^{k+1}(t_0/x)}{(k+1)!}.
\end{aligned}$$
\[IntSkeleton\] Let $\gamma\in(1/2,1)$ and $m,k\in\mathbb{N}$, such that $m\geq 2$ and $1\leq k\leq m-1$. Further, let $x\in(0,1)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
&\int\limits_x^1{\mathrm{d}}t_0\int\limits_x^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1\dots \int\limits_x^{t_{k-1}}{\mathrm{d}}t_k \left[t_0^{\gamma-1}\Big(\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}t_j^{-1}\Big)t_k^{-\gamma}\int\limits_{t_k}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_{k+1}\dots\int\limits_{t_{m-1}}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_m \bigg[t_k^{-\gamma}\Big(\prod_{j=k+1}^{m-1} t_j^{-1}\Big)t_m^{\gamma-1}\bigg]\right] \notag \\
& \ \leq {{m-2}\choose {k-1}}\frac{x^{1-2\gamma}\log^{m-2}(1/x)}{\gamma^2(2\gamma-1)(m-2)!}. \label{intAppendix}
\end{aligned}$$
We apply the previous lemmas. By Lemma \[IntIndegree\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{t_k}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_{k+1}\dots\int_{t_{m-1}}^1{\mathrm{d}}t_m \bigg[t_k^{-\gamma}\Big(\prod_{j=k+1}^{m-1} t_j^{-1}\Big)t_m^{\gamma-1}\bigg] \leq \frac{t_k^{-\gamma}\log^{m-k-1}(1/t_k)}{\gamma(m-k-1)!}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the integral in can be bound by $$\begin{aligned}
\int_x^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_0\int_x^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1\dots \int_x^{t_{k-2}}{\mathrm{d}}t_{k-1} \bigg[t_0^{\gamma-1}\Big(\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}t_j^{-1}\Big)\int_{x}^{t_{k-1}} {\mathrm{d}}t_k \frac{t_k^{-2\gamma}\log^{m-k-1}(1/{t_k})}{\gamma(m-k-1)!}\bigg].
\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[IntTwoGamma\] $$\int_x^{t_{k-1}}{\mathrm{d}}t_k \frac{t_k^{-2\gamma}\log^{m-k-1}(1/{t_k})}{\gamma(m-k-1)!} \leq \frac{x^{1-2\gamma}\log^{m-k-1}(1/x)}{\gamma(2\gamma-1)(m-k-1)!}$$ and by Lemma \[IntDecreasing\] $$\int_x^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1\dots \int_x^{t_{k-2}}{\mathrm{d}}t_{k-1} \ t_0^{\gamma-1}\Big(\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}t_j^{-1}\Big)= \frac{t_0^{\gamma-1}\log^{k-1}(t_0/x)}{(k-1)!}.$$ Therefore, the integral in can be further bound by $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_x^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_0\frac{t_0^{\gamma-1}\log^{k-1}(t_0/x)}{(k-1)!}\frac{x^{1-2\gamma}\log^{m-k-1}(1/x)}{\gamma(2\gamma-1)(m-k-1)!} \\
& \qquad \leq {{m-2}\choose {k-1}}\frac{x^{1-2\gamma}\log^{m-2}(1/x)}{\gamma(2\gamma-1)(m-2)!}\int_x^1 {\mathrm{d}}t_0 \ t_0^{\gamma-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ The result follows by integrating with respect to $t_0$.
\[IntOutdegree\] Let $\gamma\in(0,1)$ and $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Then $$\int_0^1{\mathrm{d}}t_0\int_0^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1\dots\int_0^{t_{k-1}}{\mathrm{d}}t_k \ t_0^{\gamma-1}\bigg(\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}t_j^{-1}\bigg)t_k^{-\gamma}\leq \bigg(\frac{1}{1-\gamma}\bigg)^k.$$
It holds $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1{\mathrm{d}}t_0 & \int_0^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1\dots\int_0^{t_{k-2}}{\mathrm{d}}t_{k-1}\bigg[t_0^{\gamma-1}\Big(\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}t_j^{-1}\Big)\int_0^{t_{k-1}}{\mathrm{d}}t_{k} \ t_k^{-\gamma}\bigg] \\
& = \frac{1}{1-\gamma}\int_0^1{\mathrm{d}}t_0\int_0^{t_0}{\mathrm{d}}t_1\dots\int_0^{t_{k-2}}{\mathrm{d}}t_{k-1} \ t_0^{\gamma-1}\Big(\prod_{j=1}^{k-2}t_j^{-1}\Big)t_{k-1}^{-\gamma}
\end{aligned}$$ and the result follows by repeating this across all integrals.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} This research was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Project 425842117 and forms part of the second author’s PhD thesis.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, University of Cologne, Weyertal 86-90, 50931 Köln, Germany.
[^2]: Here, a binary tree is a rooted tree in which every vertex can have either (i) no child, (ii) a left child (iii) a right child, or (iv) a left and a right child.
[^3]: The number of binary rooted trees of size $n$ is given by the Catalan numbers $(2n)!/ (n! (n+1)!)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We derive a new set of field equations within the framework of the Palatini formalism.These equations are a natural generalization of the Einstein-Maxwell equations which arise by adding a function $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{Q})$, with $\mathcal{Q}\equiv F^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}$ to the Palatini Lagrangian $f(R,Q)$.The result we obtain can be viewed as the coupling of gravity with a nonlinear extension of the electromagnetic field.In addition,a new method is introduced to solve the algebraic equation associated to the Ricci tensor.'
author:
- 'Ginés R.Pérez Teruel$^1$'
date: today
title: 'Generalized Einstein-Maxwell field equations in the Palatini formalism'
---
Introduction.Palatini $f(R,Q)$theories revisited {#sec:a}
================================================
In the last few years,different versions of modified theories of gravity have experimented wide interest in the literature. In particular, $f(R)$ Palatini theories have been regarded among the most promising attemps to generalize Einstein’s theory of gravity [@Ol05],[@CaLa],[@Ol11],[@FeTs],[@Lo].This is because of several reasons. First of all, this formalism provides a very elegant way to derive a cosmological constant and therefore a possibility to explain the observed cosmic speedup. On the other hand, it exists an intrinsic theoretical interest in the extensions of general relativity (GR),when it comes to incorporate quantum mechanics to a theory of gravity.
However,not only to fully capture the phenomenology of GR, but also for being able to describe a richer variety of physical effects, we should go beyond $f(R)$ theories.We can obtain this within the Palatini approach by just enlarging the class of Lagrangians from $f(R)$ to $f(R,Q)$,where $Q\equiv R_{\mu\nu} R^{\mu\nu}$.\
The field equations for these class of Lagrangians are, for the metric and the connection respectively [@OlAl],[@Ol1],[@Ol2]
$$\label{Ricci}
f_R R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}fg_{\mu\nu}+2f_QR_{\mu\alpha}R^{\alpha}_{\nu}=k^2T_{\mu\nu}
\,$$
$$\label{Connection}
\nabla_\alpha[\sqrt{-g}(f_Rg^{\beta\gamma}+2f_QR^{\beta\gamma})]=0
\,$$
with $f_R\equiv \partial_R f $, and $f_Q\equiv\partial_Qf$.
The general algorithm to attack these equations was described in[@OlAl], and consists in several steps. First, we need to find a relation between $R_{\mu\nu}$ and the matter sources. Rewritting (\[Ricci\]), using $P^{\nu}_{\mu}=R_{\mu\alpha}g^{\alpha\nu}$ we find,
$$\label{Ricci_Contracted}
2f_QP^{\alpha}_{\mu}P^{\nu}_{\alpha}+f_RP^{\nu}_{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}f\delta^{\nu}_{\mu}=k^2T^{\nu}_{\mu}
\,$$
This can be seen as a matrix equation, which establishes an algebraic relation $P^{\nu}_{\mu}=P^{\nu}_{\mu}(T^{\beta}_{\alpha})$. Once the solution of (\[Ricci\_Contracted\]) is known, (\[Connection\]) can be written is terms of $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the matter, which allows to find a solution for the connection by means of algebraic manipulations.The connection can thus be expressed as the Levi-Civita connection of an auxiliary metric $h_{\mu\nu}$ which is related with $g_{\mu\nu}$ by a non-conformal relation [@OlAl]
The solution of (\[Ricci\_Contracted\]) is only known in some particular cases, like the perfect fluid or the scalar field, but we point out here for theoretical purposes that a general solution exists and can be found explicitly. In order to prove this point, let us rewrite (\[Ricci\_Contracted\]) in matrix notation
$$\label{matrix_Ricci}
2f_Q\hat{P^2}+f_R\hat{P}-\frac{1}{2}f\hat{I}=k^2\hat{T}
\,$$
wich has the structure of a quadratic matrix equation, $\hat{A}\hat{X^2}+\hat{B}\hat{X}+\hat{C}=0$.
We can make the following identification,\
$\hat{A}\equiv 2f_Q\hat{I}$, $\hat{B}\equiv f_R\hat{I}$, $\hat{C}\equiv -(\frac{f}{2}\hat{I}+k^2\hat{T})$\
It is straightforward to show that the quadratic matrix equation (4),satisfies all the conditions required [@HiKi].This allow us to complete the square in the usual way to find the following solution for $f_Q\neq 0$
$$\label{The Solution}
\hat{P}(\hat{T})=-\frac{f_R}{4f_Q}\hat{I}+\frac{1}{2f_Q}\sqrt{\alpha\hat{I}+\beta\hat{T}}
\,$$
where we have defined $$\label{Coefficient_alpha}
\alpha=\frac{1}{4}(f_R^2+4f\cdot f_Q)
\,$$
$$\label{Coefficient_beta}
\beta=2k^2f_Q
\,$$
Therefore, if the matrix $\alpha\hat{I}+\beta\hat{T}$, has a square root, an explicit solution $\hat{P}(\hat{T})$ will always exist, but the mathematical tools required to compute the square root of this matrix will depend on the particular problem chosen.
Solving for a diagonal matrix
-----------------------------
When $\alpha\hat{I}+\beta\hat{T}$ is diagonal the solution will be automatic. We are going to see now an example of this type, and in the next subsection we will present a general algorithm to proceed in other, more general, situations.\
The energy momentum tensor of a perfect fluid can be written as
$$\label{perfectfluid}
\displaystyle T_{\alpha\beta}=(p+\rho)u_{\alpha}u_{\beta}+pg_{\alpha\beta}
\,$$
where $p$ is the pressure of the fluid and $\rho$ its density.Writing the last equation in matrix notation, after a bit of algebra we find the following result
$$\label{Diagonal_one}
\displaystyle\alpha\hat{I}+\beta\hat{T} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha-\beta\rho & \overrightarrow{0} \\
\overrightarrow{0} & (\alpha+\beta p)\hat{I}_{3x3}\\
\end{pmatrix}
\,$$
\
which is a diagonal matrix, and therefore computing its square root will be straightforward:
$$\label{Squareroot}
\displaystyle\sqrt{\alpha\hat{I}+\beta\hat{T}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{\alpha-\beta\rho} & \overrightarrow{0} \\
\overrightarrow{0} & (\sqrt{\alpha+\beta p})\hat{I}_{3x3}\\
\end{pmatrix}
\,$$
In the last expression, it was selected the positive sign of the square roots of the coefficients in order to be consistent with the limit $f_{Q}\rightarrow{0}$. These results allow us to write (5) for a perfect fluid as
$$\label{The Solution for Diagonal}
\displaystyle \hat{P}(\hat{T})=
\begin{pmatrix}
\Omega & \overrightarrow{0} \\
\overrightarrow{0} & \omega\hat{I}_{3x3} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\,$$
where $$\label{Final_Coefficient1}
\Omega=\frac{2\sqrt{\alpha-\beta\rho}-f_R}{4f_Q}
\,$$
$$\label{Final_Coefficient2}
\omega=\frac{2\sqrt{\alpha+\beta p}-f_R}{4f_Q}
\,$$
We should point out that all these results are consistent with the formalism developed in [@OlAl],[@BaOl],[@Ol12]for the perfect fluid, but the method described here provides a powerful and direct computation of the matrix $\hat{P}(\hat{T})$, a calculation that in some particular cases may be almost automatic.
A method based in the Schur descomposition for the general case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Here, we will attempt to provide an algorithm to compute the square root of (5) in the general case.Let us assume that the matrix $\hat{S}\equiv \alpha\hat{I}+\beta\hat{T}$ is nonsingular,which means that its determinant does not vanish.
If $S \in \mathbf{R}^{4x4}$, then there exists a real orthogonal matrix $\hat{U}$, such that
$$\label{Schur1}
\displaystyle\ \hat{U}^{T}\hat{S}\hat{U}=\hat{W}
\,$$
where $\hat{W}$ is an upper diagonal matrix, known in linear algebra as the **Schur form**[@Hi87],of the matrix $\hat{S}$.If we can find a matrix $\hat{L}$ which is a square root of $\hat{W}$ ($\hat{L}^2\equiv\hat{W}$), then it can be proved that the matrix
$$\label{Schur2}
\displaystyle \hat{J}=\hat{U}\hat{L}\hat{U}^T
\,$$
satisfies the identity $\hat{J}^2\equiv \hat{S}$, and therefore is a square root of $\alpha \hat{I}+\beta \hat{T} $. In order to describe the several steps needed to complete the algorithm, we have to make some clarifications.Schur’s theorem guarantees that given any square,real matrix $\hat{S}$, the descomposition (14) exists. We first need to compute the eigenvalues and eigenstates of $\hat{S}$, and then we can construct the matrix $\hat{U}$, builded by eigenvectors of $\hat{S}$. The next step requires to compute a square root $\hat{L}$ of the upper diagonal matrix $\hat{W}$. To achieve this goal, we can make use of the relation $\hat{L}^2=\hat{W}$, to write for $j\geq i$,
$$\label{Schur3}
\sum_{k=1}^{j}L_{ik}L_{kj}=W_{ij}
\,$$
This equation can be descomposed into two other equations.First we have
$$\label{Schur4}
L_{ii}^{2}=W_{ii}
\,$$
and for $j>i$, $$\label{Schur5}
L_{ii}L_{ij}+L_{ij}L_{jj}=W_{ij}-\sum_{k=i+1}^{j-1}L_{ik}L_{jk}
\,$$
Therefore, equation (18) provides an algorithm for computing the remaining blocks $L_{ij}$ once known the diagonal blocks $L_{ii}$. The final step will be the computation of the square root of $\hat{S}$ by means of the transformation, $\hat{J}=\hat{U}\hat{L}\hat{U}^T$.
$f(R,Q)$ Lagrangians with a function of the scalar $F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}$
=========================================================================
The Palatini action that leads to the field equations (\[Ricci\]) and (\[Connection\]) for the metric and the connection is $$\label{action}
S[g,\Gamma,\psi_m]=\frac{1}{2k^2}\int{d^4x\sqrt{-g}f(R,Q)+S[g,\psi_m]}
\,$$
where $g_{\alpha\beta}$ is the space-time metric, $\Gamma^{\mu}_{\alpha\beta}$ is the connection, which is indepentent of the metric, $\psi_m$ represents the matter fields, and finally, the scalars $R\equiv g_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}$, $Q\equiv R_{\alpha\beta}R^{\alpha\beta}$. We want to consider here the possibility of replacing in the same action the term $S[g,\psi_m]$ by a function of scalars of the field strength $F^{\mu\nu}$.Taking into account the identity $g_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}= 0$, due to the fact that $F^{\mu\nu}$ is skewsymmetric, the most natural choice is consider a function $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{Q})$, with $\mathcal{Q}\equiv F^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}$
With this replacement,we find convenient to write the action as follows: $$\label{action2}
S[g,\Gamma,A]=\frac{1}{2k^2}\int{d^4x\sqrt{-g}[f(R,Q)-k^\prime\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{Q})]}
\,$$
where $A_{\mu}$ is a second independent connection, defined by means of $F_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\nabla_{\nu}A_{\mu}$, and $k^\prime$ is a constant with the appropiate dimensions.In general, the field strength $F_{\mu\nu}$ in terms of $\Gamma$ and the potential vector $A$ will be
$$\label{potentialvector} \nabla_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\nabla_{\nu}A_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}-(\Gamma^{\rho}_{\mu\nu}-\Gamma^{\rho}_{\nu\mu})A_{\rho}
\,$$
In the following we will assume $\Gamma^{\rho}_{\mu\nu}=\Gamma^{\rho}_{\nu\mu}$ which means that we set the torsion to zero.\
In these conditions the last term of (21) vanishes and therefore, $\nabla_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\nabla_{\nu}A_{\mu}\equiv \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$.\
We must point out that (20) represents a particular case of Nonlinear Electrodynamics (NED) coupled to gravity.A family of $f(R)$ Palatini Lagrangians coupled to NED have been studied recently in [@OlRu] The variation of the part of the action which contains the term $f(R,Q)$ can be found elsewhere [@OlAl],and therefore our task will be restricted to compute the variation of the second part which we will denote as follows
$$\label{action3}
\mathcal{S_{\mathcal{Q}}}=\frac{-k^\prime}{2k^2}\int{d^4x\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{Q})}
\,$$
This variation gives the following result $$\label{action4}
\delta S_{\mathcal{Q}}=-\frac{k^\prime}{2k^2}\int{d^4x\left[\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{Q})\delta\sqrt{-g}+\sqrt{-g}\frac{\partial{\mathcal{F}}}{\partial{\mathcal{Q}}}\delta\mathcal{Q}\right]}
\,$$
Since $\mathcal{Q}=g^{\mu\alpha}g^{\nu\beta}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\alpha\beta}$, it is easy to see that
$$\label{action5}
\delta{\mathcal{Q}}=2F_{\mu\alpha}F^{\alpha}_{\nu}\delta g^{\mu\nu}+2F^{\mu\nu}\delta F_{\mu\nu}
\,$$
Inserting this last result together with the variation of the determinant of the metric in (23) we get
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta S_{\mathcal{Q}}&=& -\frac{k^\prime}{2k^2}\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\Big[-\frac{\mathcal{F}}{2}g_{\mu\nu}\delta g^{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\& &+
\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{Q}}\Big(2F^{\mu\nu}\delta F_{\mu\nu}+2F_{\mu\alpha}F^{\alpha}_{\nu}\delta g^{\mu\nu}\big)\big]
\,\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{Q}}\equiv \frac{\partial{\mathcal{F}}}{\partial{\mathcal{Q}}}$.
The next step requires to express $\delta F_{\mu\nu}$ in terms of $\delta A_{\mu}$ which can be done using the definition of $F_{\mu\nu}$,
$$\label{variation_potentialvector}
\delta F_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{\mu}(\delta A_{\nu})-\nabla_{\nu}(\delta A_{\mu})
\,$$
Using the last identity in (25), we obtain after grouping terms:
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta S_\mathcal{Q}&=&-C\int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\Big[\Big(-\frac{\mathcal{F}}{2}g_{\mu\nu} + 2\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{Q}F_{\mu\alpha}F^\alpha_\nu\big)\delta g^{\mu\nu} \nonumber\\& &+ 2\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{Q} F^{\mu\nu}\left(\nabla_{\mu}(\delta A_{\nu})-\nabla_{\nu}(\delta A_{\mu})\right)\big]\end{aligned}$$
with $\displaystyle C\equiv\frac{k^\prime}{2k^2}$.It is convenient now to split the action into two parts in order to compute properly the last contribution
$$M=-2C\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{Q}}F^{\mu\nu}\left[\nabla_{\mu}(\delta A_{\nu})-\nabla_{\nu}(\delta A_{\mu})\right]$$
Using integration by parts and removing the total derivatives we find $$\begin{aligned}
M&=&-2C\int d^4x\Big[-\nabla_{\mu}(\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{Q}}F^{\mu\nu})\delta A_{\nu}\nonumber\\& &+
\nabla_{\nu}(\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{Q}}F^{\mu\nu})\delta A_{\mu}\big]\end{aligned}$$ We have succeeded in expressing the variation of the action $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{Q}}$ in terms of variations of $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $A_{\mu}$. This is equivalent to the algorithm used in [@OlAl] to express the variation of the action (19) which contains the $f(R,Q)$ Lagrangian, purely in terms of varations of $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the independent connection $\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}$.
It is possible to write (29) in a more compact form rearranging indices
$$\label{action9}
M=-2C\int d^4x \nabla_{\nu}\Big[\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{Q}\left(F^{\mu\nu}\delta^{\lambda}_{\mu}-\delta^{\nu}_{\mu}F^{\mu\lambda}\right)\big]\delta A_{\lambda}
\,$$
With this result, the final expression for $\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{Q}}$ in (27) will be:
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta S_\mathcal{Q}&=&-C\int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\Big[\Big(-\frac{\mathcal{F}}{2}g_{\mu\nu} + 2\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{Q}F_{\mu\alpha}F^\alpha_\nu\big)\delta g^{\mu\nu} \nonumber\\& &+
\nabla_{\nu}\Big[\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{Q}\left(F^{\mu\nu}\delta^{\lambda}_{\mu}-\delta^{\nu}_{\mu}F^{\mu\lambda}\right)\big]\delta A_{\lambda}\big]\end{aligned}$$
To obtain our field equations we need to compute the variation of the other contribution to the action in (20).But as we said before, this task has already been done elsewhere [@OlAl],[@Ol1],and the details will be omitted here.The variation gives:
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta S[g,\Gamma]&=&\frac{1}{2k^2}\int d^4x\Big[\delta g^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{-g}(f_{R}R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{f}{2}g_{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\& &+
2f_{Q}R_{\mu\alpha}R^{\alpha}_{\nu})+\nabla_{\beta}[\sqrt{-g}\Lambda^{\lambda\nu}]\delta\Gamma^{\beta}_{\lambda\nu}\big]
\,\end{aligned}$$
where $\Lambda^{\mu\nu}\equiv f_{R}g^{\mu\nu}+2f_{Q}R^{\mu\nu}$. Let us define now the following tensor $$\label{Generalized_T}
\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu}\equiv \mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{Q}}F_{\mu\alpha}F^{\alpha}_{\nu}-\frac{\mathcal{F}}{4}g_{\mu\nu}
\,$$ Note that when $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{Q}\equiv F^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}$ it would imply that $\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{Q}}=1$, and in this case (\[Generalized\_T\]),reduces to the usual definition of the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field.It is also important to note that in general this tensor is not traceless:
$$\label{Trace}
\displaystyle g^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu}=\mathcal{Q}\mathcal{F}_\mathcal{Q}-\mathcal{F}
\,$$
In the context of $f(R)$ theories[@OlRu],this fact is directly related with the existence of additional matter terms yielding modified dynamics. Finally,combining (32) with all our results, we get:
$$f_R R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}fg_{\mu\nu}+2f_QR_{\mu\alpha}R^{\alpha}_{\nu}=\frac{k^2}{4\pi}\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu}
\,$$
$$\nabla_\alpha[\sqrt{-g}(f_Rg^{\beta\gamma}+2f_QR^{\beta\gamma})]=0
\,$$
$$\nabla_{\beta}[\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{Q}}F^{\lambda\beta}]=0
\,$$
This is a system which reduces to the usual Einstein-Maxwell field equations of GR when $f(R,Q)=R$, and $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{Q})=\mathcal{Q}$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank Gonzalo J.Olmo for useful comments and discussions about the Palatini approach.
[99]{} G. J. Olmo,H. S. Alepuz,S. Tripathi,“Dynamical aspects of generalized Palatini theories of gravity”, Phys.Review D.80, 024013(2009).
G. J. Olmo,“Palatini Actions and Quantum Gravity Phenomenology”, JCAP [**1110**]{}, 018 (2011) \[\[arXiv:1101.2841 \[gr-qc\]\].
G. J. Olmo,“Cosmology in Palatini theories of gravity”,AIP Conf. Proc. 1458, 222–237 (2011).
N. H. Highman,Hyun-Min Kim,“Solving a quadratic matrix equation by Newton´s method with exact line searches”,Siam.J Matrix Anal Appl.23(2),303–316 (2001).
Y. CH. Bruhat,P. T. Crusciel,J. Loizelet,“Global solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations in higher dimensions”,Class.Quant.Grav. 23, 7383–7394, (2006).
G. J. Olmo,“The Gravity Lagrangian According to Solar System Experiments”,Phys.Rev. 95, 261102,(2005).
G. J. Olmo, Phys.Rev.[**D72**]{},083505,(2005).
M. Ferraris and J. Kijowski,Gen. Relativ. Gravit.14, 37 (1982).
R .M. Wald,“General Relativity”, published by The University of Chicago Press(1984).
N. J. Poplawski,arXiv:1111.4595\[gr–qc\].
N. J. Highman,“Computing real square roots of a real matrix”,Linear Algebra and Applications,88-89,405–430,(1987).
S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, “Extended Theories of Gravity”,Phys.Rept.[**509**]{}, 167(2011)\[arXiv:1108.6266 \[gr-qc\]\].
G. J. Olmo,“Palatini Approach to modified Gravity.f(R)Theories and Beyond”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.[**D20**]{},413–462(2011).
A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa.“f(R) theories,"*Living Rev.Rel.* [**13**]{}, 3 (2010).
F. S. N. Lobo,“The Dark side of gravity:Modified theories of gravity”, arXiv:0807.1640 \[gr-qc\].
G. J. Olmo,D. Rubiera-Garcia “Palatini f(R) Black Holes in Nonlinear Electrodynamics”,Phys.Rev.D [**D84**]{} (2011).
C. Barragan and G. J. Olmo, “Isotropic and Anisotropic Bouncing Cosmologies in Palatini Gravity”,Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 084015 (2010)\[arXiv:1005.4136 \[gr-qc\]\].
G. J. Olmo, [*Open Questions in Cosmology*]{}, chapter 7, InTech Publishing, (Rijeka, Croatia,2012), ISBN 978-953-51-0880-1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The question of whether a split tensor product of quaternion algebras with involution over a field of characteristic two can be expressed as a tensor product of split quaternion algebras with involution, is shown to have an affirmative answer.\
author:
- 'M. G. Mahmoudi, A.-H. Nokhodkar'
title: On split products of quaternion algebras with involution in characteristic two
---
[ 16W10, 16K20, 11E88, 11E04.]{}\
Introduction
============
In [@shapiro Ch. 9], D. B. Shapiro formulates the following conjecture:\
In the category of $F$-algebras with involution of the first kind, suppose $(A,\sigma)\simeq
(Q_1,\sigma_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes(Q_n,\sigma_n)$ where each $(Q_k,\sigma_k)$ is a quaternion algebra with involution. If the algebra $A$ is split, then there is a decomposition $$(A,\sigma)\simeq
(Q'_1,\sigma'_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes(Q'_n,\sigma'_n)$$ where each $(Q'_k,\sigma'_k)$ is a split quaternion algebra with involution.\
For the case where the characteristic of $F$ is different from $2$, many authors have studied this conjecture either in its current formulation or in its equivalent variations, including the Pfister factor conjecture in the theory of spaces of similarities (developed by Shapiro), Hurwitz problem of composition of quadratic forms and Pfister involutions (see [@wads-shap], [@yuzvinsky], [@shapiro], [@fluckiger], [@serhir], [@sivatski], [@grenier], [@garibaldi], [@karpenko]). Finally in [@becher], Becher proved this conjecture in the case of characteristic different from $2$.
Although, Shapiro formulates this conjecture only for the case of characteristic different from $2$, but he asks if there is some sort of Pfister factor conjecture in characteristic $2$ (see [@shapiro p. 371]) and cites a work by Baeza’s student Junker in this direction. See also [@elduque]. Thus it would be interesting to investigate the above conjecture in the case of characteristic $2$. This is the purpose of our work.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $F$ be a field of characteristic $2$ and let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional vector space over $F$. A bilinear form $b:V\times V\rightarrow F$ is called [*alternating*]{} if $b(v,v)=0$ for every $v\in V$. Otherwise $b$ is called [*nonalternating*]{}. It is known that a symmetric bilinear form $b$ is nonalternating if and only if it is diagonalizable (see [@elman (1.17)]), i.e., there exists a basis $\{v_1,\cdots,v_n\}$ of $V$ such that $b(v_i,v_j)=0$ for every $i\neq j$. Such a basis is called an [*orthogonal basis*]{} of $(V,b)$. In this case if $b(v_i,v_i)=c_i$, $1\leqslant i\leqslant n$, the bilinear form $b$ is denoted by $\langle c_1,\cdots,c_n\rangle$.
A [*quadratic form*]{} over $V$ is a map $q:V\rightarrow F$ such that $q(\alpha u+\beta v)=\alpha^2q(u)+\beta^2q(v)+\alpha\beta b(u,v)$ for every $\alpha,\beta\in F$ and $u,v\in V$, where $b:V\times V\rightarrow F$ is a symmetric bilinear form. The quadratic form $q$ is called [*regular*]{} if the bilinear form $b$ is nondegenerate. By a [*quadratic space*]{} $(V,q)$ we mean a vector space $V$ over $F$ together with a regular quadratic form $q$ over $V$. Every quadratic space $(V,q)$ has a [*symplectic basis*]{}, i.e., a basis $\mathcal{B}=\{u_1,v_1,\cdots,u_n,v_n\}$ such that $b(u_i,v_i)=1$, $i=1,\cdots,n$, and $b(x,y)=0$ for every other pairs of vectors $x,y\in\mathcal{B}$. A two dimensional quadratic space is called a [*quadratic plane*]{} and is denoted by $(\mathbb{E},{\varphi})$.
The group of all isometries of a quadratic space $(V,q)$, i.e., the [*orthogonal group*]{} of $(V,q)$, is denoted by $O(V,q)$. For an isometry $\tau\in O(V,q)$ we use the notation ${\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)=\{v\in V|\tau(v)=v\}$. An isometry $\tau\in O(V,q)$ is called an [*involution*]{} if $\tau^2={\mathop{\mathrm{id}}}$. If $u\in V$ is an anisotropic vector, the involution $\tau_u\in O(V,q)$ defined by $\tau_u(v)=v+\frac{b(v,u)}{q(u)}u$ for every $v\in V$, is called the [*(orthogonal) reflection*]{} along $u$. For an isometry $\tau\in O(V,q)$, the [*spinor norm*]{} of $\tau$ is denoted by $\theta(\tau)$.
Let $(\mathbb{A},q)$ be a quadratic space of dimension $4$ over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$. An involution $\tau\in O(\mathbb{A},q)$ is called an [*interchange isometry*]{} if ${\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(\mathbb{A},\tau)$ is a two dimensional totally isotropic space. If $(V,q)$ is a quadratic space over $F$, then for every involution $\tau$ in $O(V,q)$, there exists an orthogonal decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
V=W\perp\mathbb{E}_1\perp\cdots\perp\mathbb{E}_r\perp\mathbb{A}_1\perp\cdots\perp\mathbb{A}_s,\end{aligned}$$ with the following properties:
\(i) $\tau|_W={\mathop{\mathrm{id}}}_W$;
\(ii) each $\mathbb{E}_i$ is a quadratic subplane of $V$ and $\tau|_{\mathbb{E}_i}$ is a reflection;
\(iii) each $\mathbb{A}_i$ is a $4$-dimensional subspace of $V$ and $\tau|_{\mathbb{A}_i}$ is an interchange isometry (see [@wiitala Thm. 1]).
The decomposition $(1)$ is called a [*Wiitala decomposition*]{} of $(V,\tau)$ and the subspace $W$ is called a [*maximal fixed orthogonal summand*]{} of $V$. Also for every involution ${\mathop{\mathrm{id}}}\neq\tau\in O(V,q)$, there exists a Wiitala decomposition of $(V,\tau)$ with exactly one of the following additional properties:
\(a) There is no interchange isometry in this decomposition, i.e., $s=0$.
\(b) There is no reflection in this decomposition, i.e., $r=0$ (see [@wiitala Thm. 2]).
We say that $\tau$ is of [*reflectional*]{} (resp. [*interchanging*]{}) kind if $V$ has a decomposition of the form (a) (resp. (b)).
Throughout this paper when we say $A$ is a [*central simple $F$-algebra*]{}, we implicitly suppose that $F$ is the center of $A$. For an [*involution*]{} $\sigma$ (i.e., an anti-automorphism with $\sigma^2={\mathop{\mathrm{id}}}$) on a central simple $F$-algebra $A$, the set of [ *symmetric*]{} and [*alternating*]{} elements of $A$ are defined as follows: $${{\rm Sym}}(A,\sigma)=\{a\in A | \sigma(a)=a\},\
{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)=\{a-\sigma(a) | a\in A\}.$$ If ${\mathop{\mathrm{char}}}F=2$, an involution $\sigma$ on $A$ is of symplectic type if and only if $1\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)$ (see [@knus (2.6)]). If $\sigma$ is of orthogonal type and $A$ is of even degree $n=2m$ over $F$, then the [*discriminant*]{} of $\sigma$ is defined as follows: $${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}\sigma=(-1)^m{{\mathop{\mathrm{Nrd}}}}_A(a)F^{\times2}\in F^\times/F^{\times2} \hspace{.3 cm} \textrm{for}~ a\in {\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)\cap A^*,$$ where ${\mathop{\mathrm{Nrd}}}_A(a)$ is the reduced norm of $a$ and $A^*$ is the unit group of $A$.
The Clifford algebra of a quadratic space $(V,q)$ is denoted by $C(V)$. It is easy to see that every involution $\tau\in O(V,q)$, induces an involution $J_\tau$ of the first kind on $C(V)$ such that $J_\tau(v)=\tau(v)$ for every $v\in V$.
If $b:V\times V\rightarrow F$ is a nondegenerate bilinear form, the [*adjoint involution*]{} of ${\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_F(V)$ with respect to $b$ is the unique involution ${\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_b$ on ${\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_F(V)$ characterized by the property $b(x,f(y))=b({\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_b(f)(x),y)$ for every $x,y\in V$ and $f\in {\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_F(V)$.
The transpose involution on $M_n(F)$, i.e., the algebra of all $n\times n$ matrices over a field $F$, is denoted by $t$. The [*canonical involution*]{} $\gamma$ on $M_2(F)$ is defined by [ $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma\left(\begin{array}{cc}a & b \\c & d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}d & -b \\-c & a\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$]{} for $a,b,c,d\in F$. It is known that the involution $\gamma$ is the unique symplectic involution on $M_2(F)$ and it is characterized by the property $\gamma(x)x\in F$ for every $x\in M_2(F)$ (see [@knus Ch. I]).
We need the following results:
\[clif\][([@mahmoudi (6.1) and (4.11)])]{} Let $(Q,\sigma)$ be a quaternion algebra with an involution of the first kind over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$. Then there is a quadratic plane $(\mathbb{E},{\varphi})$ over $F$ and an involution $\tau$ in $O(\mathbb{E},{\varphi})$ such that $(Q,\sigma)\simeq (C(\mathbb{E}),J_\tau)$. Furthermore if $\sigma$ is of symplectic type then $\tau$ is necessarily equal to identity and if $\sigma$ is of orthogonal type then $\tau$ is necessarily a reflection. In the latter case we have ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}J_\tau=\theta(\tau)$.
\[cint\][([@mahmoudi (6.10)])]{} Let $(\mathbb{A},q)$ be a $4$-dimensional quadratic space over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$ and let $\tau$ be an interchange isometry of $(\mathbb{A},q)$. Then $(C(\mathbb{A}),J_\tau)\simeq(C(\mathbb{E}_1),J_{\tau_1})\otimes(C(\mathbb{E}_2),J_{\tau_2})$ where $(\mathbb{E}_i,{\varphi}_i)$ is a suitable quadratic plane over $F$, $\tau_i$ is a reflection of $(\mathbb{E}_i,{\varphi}_i)$ and $\theta(\tau_i)=1\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$, $i=1,2$.
\[orthog\][([@mahmoudi (4.7)])]{} Let $(V,q)$ be a quadratic space over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$ and let $\tau$ be an involution in $O(V,q)$. Then the involution $J_\tau$ on $C(V)$ is of orthogonal type if and only if $(V,\tau)$ has trivial maximal fixed orthogonal summand if and only if $\dim {\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)=\frac{1}{2}\dim V$.
Involutions on split Clifford algebra in low dimensions {#sec-clif}
=======================================================
Let $F$ be a field of characteristic $2$ and let $\alpha\in F^\times$. Consider the involution $T_\alpha:M_2(F)\rightarrow M_2(F)$ defined by [ $$\begin{aligned}
T_\alpha\left(\begin{array}{cc}a & b \\c & d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a & c\alpha^{-1} \\b\alpha & d\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$]{} In particular $T_1=t$. Note that $T_\alpha$ is, up to isomorphism, the unique involution of orthogonal type on $M_2(F)$ such that ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}T_\alpha=\alpha F^{\times2}\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$ ([@knus (7.4)]).
\[sp\] Let $(\mathbb{E},{\varphi})$ be a quadratic plane over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$. Then $C(\mathbb{E})$ splits if and only if ${\varphi}$ represents $1$, see [@elman (9.6 (2))], [@elman (11.2 (4))] and [@elman (12.5)]. It follows that $(C(\mathbb{E}),J_\tau)\simeq(M_2(F),t)$ if and only if $\tau$ is a reflection and $\theta(\tau)=1\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$. More generally, if $C(\mathbb{E})$ splits then $(C(\mathbb{E}),J_\tau)\simeq(M_2(F),T_\alpha)$ if and only if $\tau$ is a reflection and $\theta(\tau)=\alpha F^{\times2}$, also $(C(\mathbb{E}),J_{{\mathop{\mathrm{id}}}})\simeq(M_2(F),\gamma)$.
The proof of the following simple observation is left to the reader.
\[totimes\] Let $F$ be a field of characteristic $2$ and let $A\in M_n(F)$ such that $A^t=A$ and $A^2\in F$. Then $A^2\in F^2$.
\[trans\] Let $(V,q)$ be a quadratic space over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$ and let $\tau\in O(V,q)$ be an involution. Then $(C(V),J_\tau)\simeq(M_{2^n}(F),t)$ if and only if $\dim{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)=\frac{1}{2}\dim V$ and $q(x)\in F^2$ for every $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)$.
Since the involution $t$ is of orthogonal type, if $f:(C(V),J_\tau)\simeq(M_{2^n}(F),t)$ is an isomorphism, then by (\[orthog\]), we have $\dim{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)=\frac{1}{2}\dim V$. Let $x\in {\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)$, i.e., $\tau(x)=x$ and set $A=f(x)\in M_{2^n}(F)$. Then $A^2=f(x)^2=q(x)\in F$ and $A^t=A$, so by (\[totimes\]), $A^2\in F^2$, i.e., $q(x)=x^2\in F^2$.
Conversely suppose that $\dim{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)=\frac{1}{2}\dim V$ and $q(x)\in F^2$ for every $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)$. Then by (\[orthog\]), $(V,\tau)$ has trivial maximal fixed orthogonal summand, so $(V,\tau)$ has a Wiitala decomposition as $V=\mathbb{E}_1\perp\cdots\perp\mathbb{E}_r\perp \mathbb{A}_1\perp\cdots\perp \mathbb{A}_s$. By (\[cint\]) and (\[sp\]), we have $(C(\mathbb{A}_i),J_{\tau|_{\mathbb{A}_i}})\simeq(M_4(F),t)$, $i=1,\cdots,s$. Also since $q(x)\in F^2$ for every $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)$, we obtain $\theta(\tau|_{\mathbb{E}_i})=1\in F^{\times}/F^{\times2}$, $i=1,\cdots,r$. So by (\[sp\]) we have $(C(\mathbb{E}_i),J_{\tau|_{\mathbb{E}_i}})\simeq(M_2(F),t)$, $i=1,\cdots,r$. This completes the proof.
\[int4\] Let $(\mathbb{A},q)$ be a four dimensional quadratic space over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$ and let $\tau$ be an involution in $O(\mathbb{A},q)$. Then by (\[orthog\]), we have $\dim{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(\mathbb{A},\tau)=2$ if and only if either $\tau$ is an interchange isometry or $\tau=\tau_1\perp\tau_2$ is an orthogonal sum of two reflections.
\[theta\] For $i=1,\cdots,n$, let $(\mathbb{E}_i,{\varphi}_i)$ be a quadratic plane over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$ and let $\tau_i$ be a reflection of $(\mathbb{E}_i,{\varphi}_i)$. Set $(V,q)=(\mathbb{E}_1,{\varphi}_1)\perp\cdots\perp(\mathbb{E}_n,{\varphi}_n)$ and $\tau=\tau_1\perp\cdots\perp\tau_n$. Then we have $\theta(\tau_i)=1\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$ for every $i=1,\cdots,n$, if and only if $q(x)\in F^2$ for every $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)$.
Choose an anisotropic vector $u_i\in\mathbb{E}_i$, $i=1,\cdots,n$, such that $\tau_i=\tau_{u_i}$. Then $\{u_1,\cdots,u_n\}$ is an orthogonal basis of ${\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,q)$. We have $q(x)\in F^2$ for every $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)$ if and only if $q(u_i)\in F^2$ for every $i=1,\cdots,n$. As $\theta(\tau_i)=q(u_i)F^{\times2}\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$, this is equivalent to the condition that $\theta(\tau_i)=1\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$ for every $i=1,\cdots,n$.
\[tint\] Let $(\mathbb{A},q)$ be a $4$-dimensional quadratic space over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$ and let $\tau$ be an involution in $O(\mathbb{A},q)$. Then $(C(\mathbb{A}),J_\tau)\simeq(M_4(F),t)$ if and only if either $\tau$ is an interchange isometry or $\tau=\tau_1\perp\tau_2$ is an orthogonal sum of two reflections $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ with $\theta(\tau_1)=\theta(\tau_2)=1\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$.
If $(C(\mathbb{A}),J_\tau)\simeq(M_4(F),t)$, then by (\[trans\]) we have $\dim{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(\mathbb{A},\tau)=2$ and $q(x)\in F^2$ for every $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(\mathbb{A},\tau)$. So by (\[int4\]) either $\tau$ is an interchange isometry or $\tau=\tau_1\perp\tau_2$ is an orthogonal sum of two reflections. In the latter case by (\[theta\]) we have $\theta(\tau_1)=\theta(\tau_2)=1\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$.
Conversely if $\tau$ is an interchange isometry then $\dim{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(\mathbb{A},\tau)=2$ and for every $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(\mathbb{A},\tau)$ we have $q(x)=0\in F^2$, so (\[trans\]) implies that $(C(\mathbb{A}),J_{\tau})\simeq(M_4(F),t)$. Finally, if $\tau=\tau_1\perp\tau_2$ is an orthogonal sum of two reflections, then $\dim{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(\mathbb{A},\tau)=2$. Also since $\theta(\tau_1)=\theta(\tau_2)=1\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$, by (\[theta\]) we have $q(x)\in F^2$ for every $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(\mathbb{A},\tau)$. Therefore (\[trans\]) implies that $(C(\mathbb{A}),J_{\tau})\simeq(M_4(F),t)$.
Split products of quaternion algebras with involution {#sec-pfister}
=====================================================
\[alt\] Let $(\mathbb{E},{\varphi})$ be a quadratic plane over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$ and let $u\in\mathbb{E}$ be an anisotropic vector. Extend $\{u\}$ to a symplectic basis $\{u,v\}$ of $\mathbb{E}$ and set $\tau=\tau_u$. Then $J_\tau(v)=v+\frac{1}{{\varphi}(u)}u$. So ${\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(C(\mathbb{E}),J_\tau)=Fu$. We also have $u^2=q(u)\in F^\times$. In particular by (\[clif\]), if $(Q,\sigma)$ is a quaternion algebra with involution of orthogonal type over $F$ and $r\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(Q,\sigma)$, then $r^2\in F^\times$. Note that we also have ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}\sigma=\alpha F^{\times2}\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$ where $\alpha=r^2\in F^\times$.
\[b\] Let $K/F$ be an extension of fields of characteristic $2$ and let $\sigma$ be an involution of orthogonal type on $M_2(K)$ with ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}\sigma=\alpha K^{\times2}$, $\alpha\in F^\times$. Then there is a nonalternating symmetric bilinear form $(W,b)$ over $K$ with an orthogonal basis $\{u,v\}$ such that $(M_2(K),\sigma)\simeq({\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_K(W),{\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_b)$, $b(u,u)=1\in F^\times$ and $b(v,v)=\alpha\in F^\times$.
Let $(W,b)$ be the nonalternating bilinear form $\langle1,\alpha\rangle$ over $K$ with an orthogonal basis $\{u,v\}$. Then $({\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_K(W),{\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_b)$ is an algebra with involution of orthogonal type. Since the involution $\sigma$ is of orthogonal type and ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}\sigma=\alpha K^{\times2}={\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}b={\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}{\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_b$, by ([@knus (7.4)]) we have $(M_2(K),\sigma)\simeq({\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_K(W),{\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_b)$. Moreover we have $b(u,u)=1$ and $b(v,v)=\alpha$.
Let $K/F$ be a field extension and let $W$ be a vector space over $K$. Let $\{w_1,\cdots,w_n\}$ be a basis of $W$ and set $V=Fw_1+\cdots+Fw_n$. Using the $F$-algebra monomorphism ${\varphi}:{\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_F(V)\hookrightarrow{\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_{K\otimes F}(K\otimes V)$ defined by ${\varphi}(f)={\mathop{\mathrm{id}}}_K\otimes f$, we may consider ${\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_F(V)$ as an $F$-subalgebra of ${\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_K(W)$.
The following result is implicitly contained in the proof of [@bayer (3.4 (2))]:
\[ad\] Let $K/F$ be a field extension and let $(W,b)$ be a nondegenerate nonalternating symmetric bilinear space over $K$. Let $\{w_1,\cdots,w_n\}$ be an orthogonal basis of $W$ and $V=Fw_1+\cdots+Fw_n$. If $b(w_i,w_i)\in F$ for every $i=1,\cdots,n$, then ${\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_b({\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_F(V))={\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_F(V)$.
Let $f\in {\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_F(V)$. We want to show that ${\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_b(f)\in {\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_F(V)$. It is enough to show that ${\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_b(f)(w_i)\in V$ for every $i=1,\cdots,n$. Write $f(w_i)=\alpha_{1i}w_1+\cdots+\alpha_{ni}w_n$ where $\alpha_{1i},\cdots,\alpha_{ni}\in F$ and write ${\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_b(f)(w_i)=\beta_{1i}w_1+\cdots+\beta_{ni}w_n$ where $\beta_{1i},\cdots,\beta_{ni}\in K$. We claim that for every $i, j=1,\cdots,n$, $\beta_{ji}\in F$. Since $b(w_i,f(w_j))=b({\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_b(f)(w_i),w_j)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
\alpha_{ij}b(w_i,w_i)=\beta_{ji}b(w_j,w_j).\end{aligned}$$ The left side of (\[1\]) belongs to $F$. Also since $b$ is nondegenerate and $\{w_1,\cdots,w_n\}$ is an orthogonal basis of $W$, we have $b(w_k,w_k)\neq0$ for every $k=1,\cdots,n$. So $\beta_{ji}\in F$ for every $i, j=1,\cdots,n$. This completes the proof.
\[discQ\] Let $(A,\sigma)$ be a central simple $F$-algebra with involution of the first kind where $F$ is a field of arbitrary characteristic. Let $B$ be a central simple $F$-subalgebra of $A$ such that $\sigma(B)=B$ and let $C=C_A(B)$ be the centralizer of $B$ in $A$. Then ${\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)\cap B={\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(B,\sigma|_B)$ except for the case where ${\mathop{\mathrm{char}}}F=2$ and $(C,\sigma|_C)$ is symplectic. In this exceptional case, this property does not hold.
It is enough to prove that if $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)\cap B$, then $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(B,\sigma|_B)$. Since $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)$, we have $\sigma(x)=-x$. If ${\mathop{\mathrm{char}}}F\neq2$, then $x=\frac{1}{2}(x-\sigma(x))\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(B,\sigma|_B)$ and we are done. So suppose that ${\mathop{\mathrm{char}}}F=2$ and $(C,\sigma|_C)$ is orthogonal. Suppose that $\dim_F C=n^2$. Set $r=\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$ and $s=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ (note that $r+s=n^2$). By [@knus (2.6 (2))] we have $\dim_F{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(C,\sigma|_C)=r$ and $\dim_F{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}}(C,\sigma|_C)=s$. Let $\{e_1,\cdots,e_r\}$ be a basis of ${\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(C,\sigma|_C)$ and extend it to a basis $\{e_1,\cdots,e_s\}$ of ${\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}}(C,\sigma|_C)$. As $1\notin{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(C,\sigma|_C)$, we may assume that $e_{r+1}=1$. Since $e_i\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(C,\sigma|_C)$, $i=1,\cdots,r$, there exists $e_{i+s}\in C$ such that $e_{i+s}-\sigma(e_{i+s})=e_i$. We claim that $\{e_1,\cdots,e_{n^2}\}$ is a basis of $C$. Suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1}
\lambda_1e_1+\cdots+\lambda_{n^2}e_{n^2}=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_{n^2}\in F$. As $\sigma(e_i)=e_i$ for $i=1,\cdots,s$, and $\sigma(e_i)=e_i-e_{i-s}$ for $i=s+1,\cdots,n^2$, we obtain $$\sigma(\lambda_1e_1+\cdots+\lambda_{n^2}e_{n^2})=\lambda_1e_1+\cdots+\lambda_{n^2}e_{n^2}-\lambda_{s+1}e_1-\cdots-\lambda_{n^2}e_{n^2-s}=0.$$ This, together with (\[eq1\]) implies that $\lambda_{s+1}e_1+\cdots+\lambda_{n^2}e_{n^2-s}=0$. Note that $n^2-s=r$ and $\{e_1,\cdots,e_r\}$ is a basis of ${\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(C,\sigma|_C)$, so $\lambda_{s+1}=\cdots=\lambda_{n^2}=0$ and we obtain $\lambda_1e_1+\cdots+\lambda_{s}e_{s}=0$. Now since $\{e_1,\cdots,e_s\}$ is a basis of ${\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}}(C,\sigma|_C)$, it follows that $\lambda_1=\cdots=\lambda_s=0$. So the claim is proved.
As $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)$, there exists $y\in A$ such that $x=y-\sigma(y)$. Since $(A,\sigma)\simeq (B,\sigma|_B)\otimes(C,\sigma|_C)$, one can write $y=y_1\otimes e_1+\cdots+y_{n^2}\otimes e_{n^2}$, where $y_1,\cdots,y_{n^2}\in B$. We have [ $$\begin{aligned}
x&=&y-\sigma(y)\\
&=&y_1\otimes e_1+\cdots+y_{n^2}\otimes e_{n^2}-(\sigma(y_1)\otimes e_1+\cdots+\sigma(y_s)\otimes e_s)\\
&&-(\sigma(y_{s+1})\otimes(e_{s+1}-e_1)+\cdots+\sigma(y_{n^2})\otimes(e_{n^2}-e_{n^2-s}))\\
&=&(y_1-\sigma(y_1)+\sigma(y_{s+1}))\otimes e_1+\cdots+(y_r-\sigma(y_r)+\sigma(y_{s+r}))\otimes e_r\\
&&+(y_{r+1}-\sigma(y_{r+1}))\otimes e_{r+1}+\cdots+(y_{n^2}-\sigma(y_{n^2}))\otimes e_{n^2}.\end{aligned}$$]{} Since $x\in B$ and $e_{r+1}=1$, we obtain $x=(y_{r+1}-\sigma(y_{r+1}))\otimes1$, i.e., $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(B,\sigma|_B)$.
Finally note that in the exceptional case we have $1\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(C,\sigma|_C)$, so if $x\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}}(B,\sigma|_B)\setminus{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(B,\sigma|_B)$, then $x\otimes1\in({\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)\cap B)\setminus{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(B,\sigma|_B)$.
\[pfister\] Let $(Q_i,\sigma_i)$, $i=1,\cdots,n$, be a quaternion algebra with involution of the first kind over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$ and let $(A,\sigma)=(Q_1,\sigma_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes(Q_n,\sigma_n)$. Suppose that $A$ splits.
- If $\sigma$ is of symplectic type, then $(A,\sigma)\simeq(M_2(F),\gamma)\otimes\cdots\otimes(M_2(F),\gamma)$.
- If $\sigma$ is of orthogonal type, then $(A,\sigma)\simeq(M_2(F),T_{\alpha_1})\otimes\cdots\otimes(M_2(F),T_{\alpha_n})$, where $\alpha_i$, $i=1,\cdots,n$, is a representative of the class ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}\sigma_i\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$.
If $\sigma$ is of symplectic type, the same argument as the case where ${\mathop{\mathrm{char}}}F\neq2$ works, see [@becher p. 2]. So suppose that $\sigma$ is of orthogonal type. We use induction on $n$. If $n=1$, the result is trivial. Suppose that $n\geqslant2$. By [@knus (2.23)], each involution $\sigma_i$ on $Q_i$, $i=1,\cdots,n$, is of orthogonal type. If $Q_1$ splits then $Q_2\otimes\cdots\otimes Q_n$ splits and the result follows from induction hypothesis. So suppose that $Q_1$ is a division algebra. Let $\alpha_i\in F^\times$, $i=1,\cdots,n$, be a representative of the class ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}\sigma_i\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$. By (\[alt\]), there exists $u_1\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(Q_1,\sigma_1)$ such that $\alpha_1=u_1^2\in F^\times$. Set $u=u_1\otimes1\otimes\cdots\otimes1\in A$. Then $u^2=\alpha_1$, $\sigma(u)=u$ and $u\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)$. Let $C=C_A(u)$ be the centralizer of $u$ in $A$ and let $K=F(u)$. Then $K/F$ is a quadratic field extension, $Z(C)=K$ and $C\simeq Q_2\otimes\cdots\otimes Q_n\otimes K$ is a central simple $K$-algebra. Since $\sigma|_K={\mathop{\mathrm{id}}}$, we have $(C,\sigma|_C)\simeq_K(Q_2,\sigma_2)\otimes\cdots\otimes(Q_n,\sigma_n)\otimes(K,{\mathop{\mathrm{id}}})$. So $$(C,\sigma|_C)\simeq_K({Q_2}\otimes K,{\sigma_2}\otimes {{\mathop{\mathrm{id}}}}_K)\otimes\cdots\otimes({Q_n}\otimes K,{\sigma_n}\otimes {{\mathop{\mathrm{id}}}}_K).$$ Since $Q_1\otimes K$ splits, $C$ splits. Also every $({Q_i}\otimes K,{\sigma_i}\otimes {{\mathop{\mathrm{id}}}}_K)$, $2\leqslant i\leqslant n$, is a quaternion algebra with involution of orthogonal type over $K$ and ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}({\sigma_i}\otimes {{\mathop{\mathrm{id}}}}_K)=\alpha_i K^{\times2}$. So by induction hypothesis we have $(C,\sigma|_C)\simeq(M_2(K),T_{\alpha_2})\otimes\cdots\otimes(M_2(K),T_{\alpha_n})$. Since $\alpha_i\in F$, by (\[b\]), there exists a nonalternating symmetric bilinear space $(W_i,b_i)$, $i=2,\cdots,n$, over $K$ with an orthogonal basis $\{u_i,w_i\}$ such that $(M_2(K),T_{\alpha_i})\simeq({\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_K(W_i),{\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_{b_i})$, $b_i(u_i,u_i)=1\in F^\times$ and $b_i(w_i,w_i)=\alpha_i\in F^\times$. Let $V_i=Fu_i+Fw_i$, $M_i={\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_F(V_i)\subseteq {\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_K(W_i)$ and $\rho_i={\mathop{\mathrm{Ad}}}_{b_i}$, $i=2,\cdots,n$. Since $b_i(x,x)\in F$ for every $x\in V_i$, the restriction of $b_i$ to $V_i\times V_i$ is a bilinear form on $V_i$. In particular by (\[ad\]), we have $\rho_i(M_i)=M_i$. We also have ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}\rho_i|_{M_i}={\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}b_i|_{V_i\times V_i}=\alpha_i F^{\times2}$. So $(M_i,\rho_i|_{M_i})\simeq(M_2(F),T_{\alpha_i})$. Set $\rho=\rho_2\otimes\cdots\otimes\rho_n$ and $M=M_2\otimes\cdots\otimes M_n\subseteq {\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_K(W_2)\otimes\cdots\otimes {\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}_K(W_n)$. Then $M$ is a central simple $F$-algebra. Let $B\subseteq A$ be the image of $M$ under the injection [ $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}}_K(W_2)\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathop{\mathrm{End}}}}_K(W_n)\simeq M_2(K)\otimes\cdots\otimes M_2(K)\simeq C\hookrightarrow A,\end{aligned}$$]{} where the last map is the inclusion $i:C\hookrightarrow A$. Note that we have $B\subseteq C\subseteq A$ and $B$ is a simple $F$-subalgebra of $A$ with $Z(B)=F$. Set $Q=C_A(B)$. Then $Q$ is an $F$-algebra. Also since $\rho(M)=M$, we have $\sigma(B)=B$ and therefore $\sigma(Q)=Q$. So $$\begin{aligned}
(A,\sigma)&\simeq&(Q,\sigma|_Q)\otimes(B,\sigma|_B)\simeq(Q,\sigma|_Q)\otimes(M,\rho|_M)\\
&\simeq&(Q,\sigma|_Q)\otimes(M_2(F),T_{\alpha_2})\otimes\cdots\otimes(M_2(F),T_{\alpha_n}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $A$ splits, $Q$ splits. So $(Q,\sigma|_Q)\simeq(M_2(F),T_{\alpha})$, where $\alpha\in F^\times$ is a representative of the class ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}\sigma|_Q\in F^\times/F^{\times2}$. Finally note that $u\in Z(C)=K$ and $B\subseteq C$, so $u$ commutes with every element of $B$, i.e., $u\in Q$. As $u\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)$, we obtain $u\in Q\cap{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)$. It follows from (\[discQ\]) that $u\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(Q,\sigma|_Q)$. Also as $u^2=\alpha_1\in F$, we have ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}\sigma|_Q=\alpha_1F^{\times2}={\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}\sigma_1$ which completes the proof.
\[proof\] The idea of the proof of (\[pfister\] (b)) does not work if ${\mathop{\mathrm{char}}}F\neq2$. In fact if ${\mathop{\mathrm{char}}}F\neq2$, then for every $u\in{\mathop{\mathrm{Alt}}}(A,\sigma)$ we have $\sigma(u)=-u$. So the restriction of $\sigma$ to $C=C_A(u)$ is an involution of the second kind and the induction hypothesis cannot be used for $(C,\sigma|_C)$.
Let $F$ be a field. An $F$-algebra with involution $(A,\sigma)$ is called [*isotropic*]{} if there exists $0\neq a\in A$ such that $\sigma(a)a=0$. Otherwise $(A,\sigma)$ is called [*anisotropic*]{}. An idempotent $e\in A$ is called [*metabolic*]{} with respect to $\sigma$ if $\sigma(e)e = 0$ and $\dim_FeA = \frac{1}{2}\dim_FA$. An algebra with involution $(A,\sigma)$ is called [*metabolic*]{} if $A$ contains a metabolic idempotent with respect to $\sigma$. This notion was first introduced in [@berhuy]. It can be shown that metabolic involutions are adjoint to metabolic hermitian forms (i.e., hermitian spaces in which there exists a self orthogonal subspace), see [@dolphin (4.8)]. It is known that bilinear Pfister forms, i.e., the forms of the shape $\langle1,\alpha_1\rangle\otimes\cdots\otimes\langle1,\alpha_n\rangle$, are either anisotropic or metabolic, see [@elman (6.3)]. These, together with (\[pfister\]) imply that:
Let $(A,\sigma)\simeq(Q_1,\sigma_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes(Q_n,\sigma_n)$ be a tensor product of quaternion algebras with involution of the first kind over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$. If $K$ is a splitting field for $A$, then $(A,\sigma)_K$ is either anisotropic or metabolic.
Finally, using (\[tint\]), (\[pfister\]) can be reformulated as follows:
Let $(V,q)$ be a $2n$-dimensional quadratic space over a field $F$ of characteristic $2$ and let $\tau$ be an involution in $O(V,q)$. Let $m=\dim{\mathop{\mathrm{Fix}}}(V,\tau)-\frac{1}{2}\dim V$. If $C(V)$ splits, then $(C(V),J_\tau)\simeq(M_2(F),\sigma_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes(M_2(F),$ $\sigma_n)$, where the involution $\sigma_i$, $i=1,\cdots,n$, on $M_2(F)$ can be chosen as follows:
- [If $m=0$ and $\tau$ is of reflectional kind, i.e., $\tau=\tau_1\perp\cdots\perp\tau_n$ is an orthogonal sum of $n$ reflections, then $\sigma_i=T_{\alpha_i}$, where $\alpha_i\in F$ is a representative of the class $\theta(\tau_i)\in F^{\times}/F^{\times2}$, $i=1,\cdots,n$.]{}
- [If $m=0$ and $\tau$ is of interchanging kind, i.e., $\tau$ is an orthogonal sum of interchange isometries, then $\sigma_i=t$, $i=1,\cdots,n$.]{}
- [If $m\neq0$, then $\sigma_i=\gamma$, $i=1,\cdots,n$.]{}
[MM]{}
E. Bayer-Fluckiger, R. Parimala, A. Quéguiner-Mathieu, Pfister Involutions. [*Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci.*]{} [**113**]{} (2003), no. 4, 365–377.
E. Bayer-Fluckiger, D. B. Shapiro, J.-P. Tignol, Hyperbolic involutions. [*Math. Z.*]{} [**214**]{} (1993), no. 3, 461–476.
K. J. Becher, A proof of the Pfister factor conjecture. [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**173**]{} (2008), no. 1, 1–6.
G. Berhuy, C. Frings, J.-P. Tignol, Galois cohomology of the classical groups over imperfect fields. [*J. Pure Appl. Algebra*]{} [**211**]{} (2007), no. 2, 307–341.
A. Dolphin, Metabolic involutions. [*J. Algebra*]{} [**336**]{} (2011), 286–300.
A. Elduque, Composition of quadratic forms and the Hurwitz-Radon function in characteristic 2. [*Linear Algebra Appl.*]{} [**348**]{} (2002), 87–103.
R. Elman, N. Karpenko, A. Merkurjev, [*The algebraic and geometric theory of quadratic forms.*]{} American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, 56. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008.
S. Garibaldi, R. Parimala, J.-P. Tignol, Discriminant of symplectic involutions, [*Pure Appl. Math. Q.*]{} [**5**]{} (2009), no. 1, 349–374.
N. Grenier-Boley, E. Lequeu, M. G. Mahmoudi, On Hermitian Pfister forms. [*J. Algebra Appl.*]{} [**7**]{} (2008), no. 5, 629–645.
N. A. Karpenko, Hyperbolicity of orthogonal involutions, With an appendix by Jean-Pierre Tignol. [*Doc. Math.*]{} Extra volume: Andrei A. Suslin sixtieth birthday, (2010) 371–392.
M.-A. Knus, A. S. Merkurjev, M. Rost, J.-P. Tignol, [*The book of involutions*]{}. American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, 44. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998.
M. G. Mahmoudi, A.-H. Nokhodkar, Involutions of a Clifford algebra induced by involutions of orthogonal group in characteristic $2$. LAG preprint server, http://www.math.uni-bielefeld.de/LAG/man/479.html.
A. Serhir, J.-P. Tignol, The discriminant of a decomposable symplectic involution. [*J. Algebra*]{} [**273**]{} (2004), no. 2, 601–607.
D. B. Shapiro, [*Compositions of quadratic forms*]{}. de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, 33. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 2000.
A. S. Sivatski, Applications of Clifford algebras to involutions and quadratic forms. [*Comm. Algebra*]{} [**33**]{} (2005), no. 3, 937–951.
A. R. Wadsworth, D. B. Shapiro, Spaces of similarities. III. Function fields. [*J. Algebra*]{} [**46**]{} (1977), no. 1, 182–188.
S. A. Wiitala, Factorization of involutions in characteristic two orthogonal groups: an application of the Jordan form to group theory. [*Linear Algebra Appl.*]{} [**21**]{} (1978), no. 1, 59–64.
S. Yuzvinsky, Composition of quadratic forms and tensor product of quaternion algebras. [*J. Algebra*]{} [**96**]{} (1985), no. 2, 347–367.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider double plumbings of two disk bundles over spheres. We calculate the Heegaard–Floer homology with its absolute grading of the boundary of such a plumbing. Given a closed smooth 4–manifold $X$ and a suitable pair of classes in $H_{2}(X)$, we investigate when this pair of classes may be represented by a configuration of surfaces in $X$ whose regular neighborhood is a double plumbing of disk bundles over spheres. Using similar methods we study single plumbings of two disk bundles over spheres inside $X$.'
address: |
Faculty of Education\
University of Ljubljana\
Kardeljeva ploščad 16\
1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
author:
- Eva Horvat
bibliography:
- 'lit1.bib'
date: 'July 18, 2013'
title: Double plumbings of disk bundles over spheres
---
[Introduction]{} Given a smooth closed connected 4–manifold $X$ and a finite set of classes $C\subset H_{2}(X)$, an important question is what is the simplest configuration of surfaces in $X$ representing $C$. By simple we mean that each class should be represented by a surface of low genus and that the surfaces should have a low number of geometric intersections. Since it is always possible to remove cancelling pairs of intersection points by increasing the genus of a surface, both properties should be taken into account. Considerable work has been done to investigate the minimal genus of a given class in $H_{2}(X)$, first by proving the Thom conjecture (Kronheimer–Mrowka [@KM]) and then its generalizations by Morgan–Szabó–Taubes [@MST] and Ozsváth–Szabó [@OS6]. When considering a configuration of surfaces, the sum of their genera is closely related to the number of their geometric intersections, as shown by Gilmer [@GILMER]. He showed that the the minimal number of such intersections can be estimated using the Casson–Gordon invariant. This estimate has been improved by Strle [@SASO] for configurations of $n=b_{2}^{+}(X)$ algebraically disjoint surfaces of positive self-intersection by an application of the Seiberg–Witten equations on a cylindrical end manifold.
Multiple plumbings of two trivial disk bundles over spheres have been investigated by Sunukjian in his thesis [@NS]. He calculated the Heegaard-Floer homology of the boundary of such plumbings in cases where the two spheres are plumbed either once or zero times algebraically and $n$ times geometrically.
We investigate the double plumbing ${N_{m,n}}$ of two disk bundles with Euler classes $m$ and $n$ over spheres, which represents the simplest case of a configuration of two surfaces with algebraic (and geometric) intersection 2. We calculate the $d_{b}$–invariants of the Heegaard–Floer homology of $\partial {N_{m,n}}$ [@OS2] and use an obstruction theorem [@OS4 Theorem 9.15] to see when ${N_{m,n}}$ can indeed be realized inside a given 4–manifold $X$ with $b_{2}^{+}(X)=2$.
Denote by ${Y_{m,n}}$ the boundary of ${N_{m,n}}$. For two integers $i$ and $j$, denote by $\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}$ the unique $\sp $ structure on ${N_{m,n}}$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqsp}
\langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}),s_{1}\rangle +m=2i\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqsp1}
\langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}),s_{2}\rangle +n=2j\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $s_{1},s_{2}\in H_{2}({N_{m,n}})$ are the homology classes of the base spheres in the double plumbing. Let $\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}=\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}|_{{Y_{m,n}}}$.
Throughout the paper, we denote by ${\mathbb{F}}$ the field ${\mathbb {Z}}_{2}$ and by $\mathcal{T}^{+}$ the quotient module ${\mathbb{F}}[U,U^{-1}]/U{\mathbb{F}}[U]$. Our main result is the following:
\[th1\] Let $Y={Y_{m,n}}$ be the boundary of a double plumbing of two disk bundles over spheres with Euler numbers $m$ and $n$, where $m,n\geq 4$. The Heegaard–Floer homology $HF^{+}(Y,\mathfrak{s})$ with ${\mathbb{F}}$ coefficients is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& HF^{+}(Y,\mathfrak{s}_{m-1,1})={\mathcal{T}^{+}}_{(d(m-1,1))}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}_{(d(m-1,1)-1)}\oplus {\mathbb{F}}_{(d(m-1,1)-1)}\\
& HF^{+}(Y,\mathfrak{s}_{i,j})={\mathcal{T}^{+}}_{(d(i,j))}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}_{(d(i,j)-1)}\\
& HF^{+}(Y,\mathfrak{s}_{0,k})={\mathcal{T}^{+}}_{(d_{1}(m,k+1))}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}_{(d_{1}(m,k+1)-1)}\\
& HF^{+}(Y,\mathfrak{s}_{l,0})={\mathcal{T}^{+}}_{(d_{1}(n,l+1))}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}_{(d_{1}(n,l+1)-1)}\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leq i\leq m-1$, $1\leq j\leq n-1$, $0\leq k\leq n-2$, $0\leq l\leq m-2$ and $(i,j)\notin \{(m-1,1),(1,n-1)\}$, where the subscripts denote the absolute gradings of the bottom elements and
[1]{} & d(i,j)=,\
& d\_[1]{}(t,i)=.
The action of the exterior algebra $\Lambda ^{*}(H_{1}(Y,{\mathbb {Z}})/\operatorname{Tors})$ on $HF^{+}(Y,\mathfrak{s})$ maps the first copy of ${\mathcal{T}^{+}}$ isomorphically to the second copy in each torsion $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}$, dropping the absolute grading of the generator by one.
We use this result to determine whether the double plumbing ${N_{m,n}}$ can occur inside some 4–manifolds $X$ with $H_{2}^{+}(X)=2$. If it can, the complement $W=X\backslash \operatorname{Int}({N_{m,n}})$ is a negative semi-definite 4–manifold and [@OS4 Theorem 9.15] gives an obstruction depending on the correction terms of ${Y_{m,n}}=\partial W$.
In the manifold $X={\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$, every homology class $(x_{1},x_{2})\in H_{2}(X)$ with $(x_{1},x_{2})\in \{0,\pm 1,\pm 2\}^{2}\backslash \{(0,0)\}$ has a smooth representative of genus 0. Choosing two such representatives with algebraic intersection number 2, we check if they can have only 2 geometric intersections.
Next we consider the manifold $X=S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2}$. According to Wall [@WALL], every primitive homology class $(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})\in H_{2}(X)$ can be represented by an embedded sphere. We choose two such representatives with algebraic intersection number 2 and determine when the number of their geometric intersections has to be strictly greater than 2, thus not allowing the chosen homology classes to be represented by a double plumbing. We obtain the following estimates.
\[app\]\
a) Any two spheres representing classes $(2,2),(2,-1)\in H_{2}({\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2})$ intersect with at least $4$ geometric intersections, and there exist representatives with exactly $4$ intersections.\
b) Let $t\in \mathbb{N}\backslash \{1\}$ and let $a$ be an odd positive integer. Any two spheres representing classes $(a,2,0,0),(1,0,t,1)\in H_{2}(S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2})$ intersect with at least $4$ geometric intersections for all $a\geq 5$.
By a similar method we study single plumbings of disk bundles over spheres inside a closed 4–manifold. An obstruction to embedding such configurations is based on the $d$–invariants of lens spaces.
\[app1\] Let $k$ be a positive integer. Any two spheres representing classes $(2k+1,2,0,0),(-k,1,2k,1)\in H_{2}(S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2})$ intersect with at least 3 geometric intersections for all $k>1$.
This paper is organized as follows. In Subsection \[HD\] we describe a Heegaard diagram for ${Y_{m,n}}=\partial {N_{m,n}}$. In \[CF\] we present the corresponding chain complex $\widehat{CF}({Y_{m,n}})$ along with its decomposition into equivalence classes of $\sp $ structures and calculate the homology $HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$ in all torsion $\sp $ structures on ${Y_{m,n}}$. In Subsection \[absolute\] we compute the absolute gradings ${\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}$ of the generators of these groups which in turn determine the correction term invariants $d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$ for all torsion $\sp $ structures $\mathfrak{s}$ on ${Y_{m,n}}$. The first part of Section \[App\] describes the general homological setting in which the double plumbing ${N_{m,n}}$ arises as a submanifold in a closed 4–manifold $X$. In Subsection \[CP\] we consider the case $X={\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$ and in Subsection \[S2\] the case $X=S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2}$. In Section \[One\] we investigate single plumbings of two disk bundles over spheres. We consider such configurations inside the manifold ${\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$ in Subsection \[CP1\] and inside the manifold $S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2}$ in Subsection \[S21\].
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} I would like to thank my advisor Sašo Strle for all his help and support during our numerous discussions. I am also very grateful to the referees for a careful reading, many helpful comments and suggestions.
[Heegaard–Floer homology of the boundary of a double plumbing]{} Let $N_{m,n}$ be the double plumbing of two disk bundles over spheres, where $m$ and $n$ denote the Euler numbers of the disk bundles contained in the plumbing. The base spheres of the bundles intersect twice inside the plumbing and we assume both intersections carry the same sign. Denote by $Y_{m,n}$ the boundary of $N_{m,n}$. Throughout this paper we assume $m,n\geq 4$. In this section we calculate $HF^{+}(Y_{m,n})$ with ${\mathbb{F}}$ coefficients and prove Theorem \[th1\].
[Heegaard diagram]{} \[HD\] Considering a Kirby diagram of the plumbing $N_{m,n}$ as a surgery diagram for $Y_{m,n}$, we derive the Heegaard diagram of its boundary. A disk bundle over a sphere is given by a single framed circle, and a double plumbing of two such bundles is represented by the Kirby diagram in Figure \[fig:kirby\]. The second plumbing contributes a 1-handle. Instead of adding the 1-handle one can remove its complementary 2-handle with framing zero. The boundary of the resulting manifold remains unchanged if we replace the 1-handle by its complementary 2-handle with framing zero and obtain a Kirby diagram which is a link of three framed unknots $K_{1},K_{2}$ and $K_{3}$ in $S^{3}$.
$K_{1}$ at 120 440 $K_{2}$ at 700 440 $K_{3}$ at 400 320 $S^{2}$ at 800 190 $m$ \[b\] at 310 460 $n$ \[b\] at 530 460
![The Kirby diagram of a double plumbing[]{data-label="fig:kirby"}](dvakratnipp)
To obtain the Heegaard diagram of the boundary, we split the 3-sphere into two balls along the sphere $S^{2}$ shown in Figure \[fig:kirby\]. Surgery along the three framed circles $K_{i}$ gives us two handlebodies of genus 3. The Heegaard diagram is drawn on the plane with three 1-handles added. The lower handlebody is a boundary connected sum of regular neighborhoods of the three circles $K_{1}$, $K_{2}$ and $K_{3}$. We denote by $\mu _{i}$ and $\lambda _{i}$ the meridian and longitude of the regular neighborhood of $K_{i}$ respectively. Each of the curves $\alpha _{i}$ is homologous to $\lambda _{i}$, and the curve $\beta _{i}$ corresponds to the framing of $K_{i}$ for $i=1,2,3$ (see Figure \[fig:heeg\]).
Thus, the first homology group $H_{1}({Y_{m,n}})$ is given by $$H_{1}({Y_{m,n}})=\left \langle \mu _{1},\mu _{2},\mu _{3}|\, m\mu _{1}+2\mu _{2}=0,\,2\mu _{1}+n\mu _{2}=0\right \rangle ={\mathbb {Z}}\langle \mu _{3}\rangle \oplus T\langle \mu _{1},\mu _{2}\rangle \;.$$ If at least one of the numbers $m,n$ is odd, the torsion group $T$ is cyclic and we get $T\langle \mu _{1},\mu _{2}\rangle ={\mathbb {Z}}_{mn-4}\langle \mu _{i}\rangle $ (if $m$ is odd and $n$ is even then $i=1$, if $n$ is odd and $m$ is even then $i=2$, if both $m$ and $n$ are odd then $i$ could either be $1$ or $2$). If both $m$ and $n$ are even numbers, then $T\langle \mu _{1},\mu _{2}\rangle ={\mathbb {Z}}_{\frac{mn-4}{2}}\langle \mu _{1}\rangle \oplus {\mathbb {Z}}_{2}\langle \frac{m}{2}\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}\rangle $.
[The chain complex]{} \[CF\] We denote the intersections between the $\alpha $ and $\beta $ curves as follows (see Figure \[fig:heeg\]):\
$\alpha _{1}\cap \beta _{1}=\{x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{m}\}$, $\alpha _{1}\cap \beta _{2}=\{y_{1},y_{2}\}$, $\alpha _{1}\cap \beta _{3}=\{u_{1},u_{2}\}$, $\alpha _{2}\cap \beta _{1}=\{a_{1},a_{2}\}$, $\alpha _{2}\cap \beta _{2}=\{b_{1},b_{2},\ldots ,b_{n}\}$, $\alpha _{2}\cap \beta _{3}=\{c_{1},c_{2}\}$, $\alpha _{3}\cap \beta _{1}=\{d_{1},d_{2}\}$, $\alpha _{3}\cap \beta _{2}=\{e_{1},e_{2}\}$, $\alpha _{3}\cap \beta _{3}=\{f_{1},f_{2}\}$.\
The chain complex $\widehat{CF}(Y)$ is generated by unordered triples $${\mathbb {T}}_{\alpha }\cap {\mathbb {T}}_{\beta }=\{\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{k}\},\{x_{i},c_{k},e_{l}\},\{y_{k},a_{l},f_{r}\},\{y_{k},c_{l},d_{r}\},\{u_{k},a_{l},e_{r}\},\{u_{k},b_{j},d_{l}\}\}$$ for $k,l,r\in \{1,2\}$ and $i=1,\ldots ,m$ and $j=1,\ldots n$.
The complement of the $\alpha $ and $\beta $ curves in the Heegaard diagram is a disjoint union of elementary domains. There are two regions in the diagram where a curve $\beta _{i}$ winds around a hole in the direction of $\mu _{i}$; we denote the elementary domains in the winding region of $\beta _{1}$ by $A_{1},\ldots ,A_{m-3}$ and the elementary domains in the winding region of $\beta _{2}$ by $B_{1},\ldots ,B_{n-3}$. The remaining elementary domains of the Heegaard diagram are denoted by $D_{1},\ldots ,D_{16}$. They consist of five hexagons $D_{1},D_{4},D_{8},D_{9}$ and $D_{16}$, one dodecagon $D_{5}$ and one bigon $D_{13}$; all the remaining elementary domains are rectangles. We put the basepoint $z$ of the Heegaard diagram into the elementary domain $D_{5}$. There is a single periodic domain in our diagram, bounded by the difference $\alpha _{3}-\beta _{3}$ of the two homologous curves, which is given by the sum $$\mathcal {P}=D_{3}+D_{4}+D_{6}+D_{9}+D_{11}+D_{12}-D_{13}+D_{14}+D_{16}+B_{1}+B_{2}+\ldots +B_{n-3}\;.$$ Applying the first Chern class formula [@OS2 Proposition 7.5] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\mathbf{x})),\mathcal {P}\right \rangle & =\chi (\mathcal{P})+2\sum _{x_{i}\in \mathbf{x}}\overline{n}_{x_{i}}(\mathcal{P})=3(1-\frac {6}{4})+(-1)(1-\frac {2}{4})+2\sum _{x_{i}\in \mathbf{x}}\overline{n}_{x_{i}}(\mathcal{P})=\\
&=2\left (\sum _{x_{i}\in \mathbf{x}}\overline{n}_{x_{i}}(\mathcal{P})-1\right )\;,\end{aligned}$$
\[t\] at 365 316 \[b\] at 290 470 \[t\] at 338 606 at 125 400 at 170 450 at 216 440 \[b\] at 283 316 \[b\] at 300 316 \[b\] at 318 316 \[b\] at 333 316 \[b\] at 372 316 \[b\] at 350 316 \[b\] at 395 316 \[b\] at 385 316 \[t\] at 400 314 \[b\] at 312 470 \[b\] at 342 470 \[b\] at 362 470 \[b\] at 375 470 \[b\] at 326 470 \[t\] at 358 468 \[b\] at 340 610 \[b\] at 382 610 \[b\] at 366 610 \[b\] at 402 610 \[b\] at 280 610 \[b\] at 296 610 \[b\] at 320 610 \[b\] at 354 610 at 470 470 at 420 260 at 296 725 at 387 250 at 296 711 at 250 500 at 296 690 at 373 252 at 230 424 at 363 260 at 374 424 at 200 612 at 345 270 at 320 390 at 315 530 at 352 380 at 352 560 at 368 552 at 372 460 at 430 470 at 420 520 at 441 520 at 294 335 at 290 628 at 320 295 at 320 596 at 253 318 at 252 606 at 256 472 at 270 443
 \[fig:heeg\]
based on which we can determine the torsion $\sp $ structures. A generator $\mathbf{x}\in {\mathbb {T}}_{\alpha }\cap {\mathbb {T}}_{\beta }$ belongs to a torsion $\sp $ structure if and only if $\left \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\mathbf{x})),\mathcal {P}\right \rangle =0$, which happens exactly when $\sum _{x_{i}\in \mathbf{x}}\overline{n}_{x_{i}}(\mathcal{P})=1$. Thus, the torsion $\sp $ structures of our chain complex contain the following generators: $$\{\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{k}\},\{x_{i},c_{k},e_{r}\},\{y_{k},a_{k},f_{r}\},\{y_{1},c_{k},d_{r}\},\{u_{k},a_{2},e_{r}\}\}$$ for $k,r\in \{1,2\}$ and $i=1,\ldots ,m$ and $j=1,\ldots n$. There are $2(mn+2m+6)$ generators of the torsion $\sp $ structures on ${Y_{m,n}}$.
[Notation for $\sp $ structures]{} \[notspin\] There is a one-to-one correspondence $$\delta ^{\tau }\colon \sp ({Y_{m,n}})\to H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})$$ [@OS1 Subsection 2.6]. Thus, we may identify the $\sp $ structures on ${Y_{m,n}}$ with cohomology classes, or even with their Poincaré dual homology classes in $H_{1}({Y_{m,n}})$. Then the natural map $c_{1}\colon \sp ({Y_{m,n}})\to H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})$ assigning to any $\sp $ structure its first Chern class is connected to $\delta ^{\tau }$ by $c_{1}(\mathfrak{s})=2\delta ^{\tau }(\mathfrak{s})$.
Similarly, a $\sp $ structure on a 4–manifold $W$ has a determinant line bundle whose first Chern class is a characteristic element in $H^{2}(W)$. For every characteristic element $c\in H^{2}(W)$ there exists a $\sp $ structure on $W$ with determinant line bundle whose first Chern class is equal to $c$ [@kirby Proposition 2.4.16]. If $H^{2}(W)$ contains no 2-torsion, then such a $\sp $ structure is unique. If $W$ is a 4–manifold with boundary ${Y_{m,n}}$, we will identify the restriction $\sp (W)\to \sp ({Y_{m,n}})$ with the corresponding restriction map on cohomology $H^{2}(W)\to H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})$ after making an appropriate choice of origins in the sets of $\sp $ structures.
Let $s_{1},s_{2}\in H_{2}({N_{m,n}})$ be the homology classes of the base spheres in the double plumbing. As we will see in Section \[App\], all the torsion $\sp $ structures on ${Y_{m,n}}$ extend to $\sp $ structures on ${N_{m,n}}$. For two integers $i$ and $j$, denote by $\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}$ the unique $\sp $ structure on ${N_{m,n}}$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
\langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}),s_{1}\rangle +m=2i\\
\langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}),s_{2}\rangle +n=2j\end{aligned}$$ and let $\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}=\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}|_{{Y_{m,n}}}$.
\[unique\] All the torsion $\sp $ structures on ${Y_{m,n}}$ are uniquely determined by
[1]{} & \_[i,j]{} 1im-1, 1jn-1\
& \_[0,j]{} 0jn-2\
& \_[i,0]{} 0im-2
with identifications $\mathfrak{s}_{m-2,0}=\mathfrak{s}_{0,n-2}$ and $\mathfrak{s}_{m-1,1}=\mathfrak{s}_{1,n-1}$.
Denote by $s_{1}^{*},s_{2}^{*}$ the basis for $H^{2}({N_{m,n}})$ which is Hom-dual to the basis $s_{1},s_{2}$. Then the restriction map $H^{2}({N_{m,n}})\to H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})$ maps $s_{i}^{*}\mapsto PD(\mu _{i})$ for $i=1,2$. Remember the presentation of the first homology group $$H_{1}({Y_{m,n}})=\left \langle \mu _{1},\mu _{2},\mu _{3}|\, m\mu _{1}+2\mu _{2}=0,\,2\mu _{1}+n\mu _{2}=0\right \rangle \;.$$ Its torsion subgroup is uniquely determined by the classes $i\mu _{1}+j\mu _{2}$ for $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$, $i\mu _{1}$ for $0\leq i\leq m-2$ and $j\mu _{2}$ for $0\leq j\leq n-2$ with identifications $(m-2)\mu _{1}=(n-2)\mu _{2}$ and $(m-1)\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}=\mu _{1}+(n-1)\mu _{2}$.
The set ${\mathbb {T}}_{\alpha }\cap {\mathbb {T}}_{\beta }$ is decomposed into equivalence classes according to the $\epsilon $-relation [@OS1 Definition 2.11]. Furthermore, by the map $\mathfrak{s}_{z}\colon {\mathbb {T}}_{\alpha }\cap {\mathbb {T}}_{\beta }\to H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})$, every equivalence class of generators together with a fixed basepoint $z$ determines a $\sp $ structure and its corresponding cohomology class. By [@OS1 Lemma 2.19] for any two generators $\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}\in {\mathbb {T}}_{\alpha }\cap {\mathbb {T}}_{\beta }$ the following holds: $$\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\mathbf{y})-\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\mathbf{x})=PD[\epsilon (\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})]\;.$$
From the Heegaard diagram we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
& \epsilon (\{x_{i+1},-\},\{x_{i},-\})=\mu _{1} \textrm { for $1\leq i\leq m-2$}\\
& \epsilon (\{x_{m},-\},\{x_{m-1},-\})=\epsilon (\{b_{n},-\},\{b_{n-1},-\})=\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}\\
& \epsilon (\{x_{m},-\},\{x_{1},-\})=(m-1)\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}=-\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}\\
& \epsilon (\{b_{i+1},-\},\{b_{i},-\})=\mu _{2}\textrm { for $1\leq i\leq n-2$}\\
& \epsilon (\{b_{n},-\},\{b_{1},-\})=(n-1)\mu _{2}+\mu _{1}=-\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}\\
& \epsilon (\{a_{2},-\},\{a_{1},-\})=\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}-\mu _{3}\\
& \epsilon (\{y_{2},-\},\{y_{1},-\})=\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}+\mu _{3}\\
& \epsilon (\{c_{2},-\},\{c_{1},-\})=\epsilon (\{e_{2},-\},\{e_{1},-\})=\mu _{1}\\
& \epsilon (\{d_{1},-\},\{d_{2},-\})=\epsilon (\{u_{2},-\},\{u_{1},-\})=\mu _{2}\end{aligned}$$
Suppose that $m,n\geq 4$. The equivalence classes of generators in the torsion $\sp $ structures, given by the $\epsilon $-relations above, are given below. For now, we will choose the origin for the $\sp $ structures arbitrarily and call it $\mathfrak{s}_{0}$. We will show later that $\mathfrak{s}_{0}$ is in fact the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{1,n-1}=\mathfrak{s}_{m-1,1}$ (see Lemma \[lemmasp\]).
[1]{} & \_[0]{}+\_[1]{}+\_[2]{} {x\_[m-1]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[2]{}}\~{x\_[m-1]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[m-2]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}\~{x\_[m-1]{},b\_[n]{},f\_[1]{}}\~\
& \~{x\_[m-1]{},b\_[n]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{x\_[m]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[m]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{y\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},d\_[2]{}}\~{y\_[1]{},a\_[1]{},f\_[1]{}}\~\
& \~{y\_[1]{},a\_[1]{},f\_[2]{}}\
&\
& \_[0]{}+\_[1]{} {x\_[m-2]{},b\_[1]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[m-2]{},b\_[1]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{y\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},d\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[m]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}\
&\
& \_[0]{}+\_[2]{} {x\_[m-1]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}\~{x\_[1]{},b\_[n-2]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[1]{},b\_[n-2]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{y\_[1]{},c\_[2]{},d\_[2]{}}\
&\
&\_[0]{} {x\_[m]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[2]{}}\~{x\_[m]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[m]{},b\_[n]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[m]{},b\_[n]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{x\_[m-1]{},b\_[1]{},f\_[1]{}}\~\
& \~{x\_[m-1]{},b\_[1]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{x\_[1]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[1]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{y\_[1]{},c\_[2]{},d\_[1]{}}\~{u\_[1]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[1]{}}\
&\
& \_[0]{}-\_[2]{} {x\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[m-1]{},b\_[2]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[m-1]{},b\_[2]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{u\_[2]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[1]{}}\
&\
& \_[0]{}-\_[1]{} {x\_[m]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}\~{x\_[2]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[2]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{u\_[1]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}\
&\
& \_[0]{}-\_[1]{}-\_[2]{} {x\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[2]{}}\~{x\_[2]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[1]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[1]{},b\_[n]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[1]{},b\_[n]{},f\_[2]{}}\
& \~{x\_[m]{},b\_[1]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[m]{},b\_[1]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{y\_[2]{},a\_[2]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{y\_[2]{},a\_[2]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{u\_[2]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}\
&\
& \_[0]{}-i\_[1]{}-\_[2]{} {x\_[i]{},b\_[n]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[i]{},b\_[n]{},f\_[2]{}}\~{x\_[i]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[2]{}}\~{x\_[i]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[1]{}}\~\
& \~{x\_[i+1]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[i-1]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}\
&\
& {x\_[r]{},b\_[j]{},f\_[1]{}}\~{x\_[r]{},b\_[j]{},f\_[2]{}}
for $(r,j)\in \{1,\ldots ,m\}\times \{1,\ldots ,n-1\}\backslash \\ \{(m,n-1),(m-2,1),(1,n-2),(m-1,1),(1,n-1),(m-1,2),(2,n-1),(m,1)\}$.
We require $m,n\geq 4$ so that the $\sp $ equivalence classes listed above are all distinct. This is still true if $m\geq 4$ and $n=3$ or vice versa. By this requirement we also make sure that the intersection form of the double plumbing ${N_{m,n}}$ is positive definite, which will be important in Section \[App\].
Now we consider the differentials of the chain complex $CF^{+}({Y_{m,n}})$. For every torsion $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}\in \sp ({Y_{m,n}})$, we draw a schematic depicting the generators of $\widehat{CF}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$ vertically according to their relative Maslov grading. Then we list the nonnegative domains of Whitney disks with Maslov index 1 between the generators. If between two generators there is only one such domain of a disk which has a unique holomorphic representative, we denote it by an arrow in the schematic. When neccessary, we also list some domains of Whitney disks with negative coefficients. We denote the action of $\Lambda ^{*}(H_{1}({Y_{m,n}},{\mathbb {Z}})/\operatorname{Tors})$ by a dotted arrow in each schematic. Using this information we calculate the homology $HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$.
When the first Betti number of a 3–manifold $Y$ is at most 2, the homology $HF^{\infty }(Y,\mathfrak{s})$ in a torsion $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}$ is determined by the integral homology of $Y$ [@OS2 Theorem 10.1]. Since $H^{1}({Y_{m,n}};{\mathbb {Z}})\cong {\mathbb {Z}}$, it follows that for every torsion $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}$, the homology $HF^{\infty }$ of our manifold is given by $$HF^{\infty }({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})\cong {\mathbb{F}}[U,U^{-1}]\otimes _{{\mathbb {Z}}}\Lambda ^{*}{\mathbb{F}}$$ and has two ${\mathbb{F}}[U,U^{-1}]$ summands.
**Classes with two generators** $$\xymatrix{ \{x_{r},b_{j},f_{2}\} \ar@{.>}[d]\\
\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\}}$$
[1]{} & {-,-,f\_[2]{}}{-,-,f\_[1]{}}D\_[13]{}D\_[13]{}+\
& {-,-,f\_[1]{}}{-,-,f\_[2]{}}=D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[8]{}+D\_[10]{}+D\_[13]{}+D\_[15]{}+\
& A\_ [1]{}+A\_[2]{}+…+ A\_[m-3]{} +
As observed above, $HF^{\infty }({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$ has two ${\mathbb{F}}[U,U^{-1}]$ summands, so the differential $\partial ^{\infty }$ in this class has to be trivial. This means there is an even number of holomorphic disks from $[\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{2}\},i]$ to $[\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\},i]$. There is a disk from $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{2}\}$ to $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\}$ with a bigonal domain $D_{13}$. By the Riemann mapping theorem, this disk has a unique holomorphic representative. The domain of any disk $\phi $ from $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{2}\}$ to $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\}$ is given by $\mathcal{D}(\phi )=D_{13}+a\mathcal{P}+b\Sigma $ for two integers $a$ and $b$. Such a disk has Maslov index $\mu (\phi )=1+2b$ and $n_{z}(\phi )=b$. It follows that the Maslov index equals 1 if and only if $n_{z}(\phi )=b=0$, which implies that the domain $D_{13}+a\mathcal{P}$ has only non-negative multiplicities when $a\in \{0,1\}$. Thus the domain of the second holomorphic disk from $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{2}\}$ to $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\}$ is $D_{13}+\mathcal{P}$. This disk has an odd number of holomorphic representatives. The differential of the chain complex $CF^{+}({Y_{m,n}})$ in this class is trivial: $\partial ^{+}[\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{2}\},i]=\partial ^{+}[\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\},i]=0$ and it follows that $$HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})={\mathcal{T}^{+}}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}$$ is freely generated by the elements $[\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{2}\},i]$ and $[\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\},i]$ for $i\geq 0$.
**Class $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}$** $$\xymatrix{ \{x_{m},c_{1},e_{1}\} \ar@{->}[d] & \quad \\
\{y_{1},c_{1},d_{1}\} & \{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\} \ar@{.>}[d]\\
\quad & \{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{1}\}}$$
[1]{} & {x\_[m]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}{x\_[m-2]{},b\_[1]{},f\_[2]{}}D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[3]{}+D\_[6]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[9]{}-D\_[10]{}+D\_[12]{}-\
& -D\_[13]{}+D\_[16]{}+A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}+B\_[1]{}+…+B\_[n-3]{},\
& {x\_[m]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}{y\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},d\_[1]{}}D\_[7]{} ,\
& {y\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},d\_[1]{}} {x\_[m-2]{},b\_[1]{},f\_[1]{}}D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[3]{}+D\_[6]{}+D\_[9]{}-D\_[10]{}+D\_[12]{}+D\_[16]{}+\
& +A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}+B\_[1]{}+…+B\_[n-3]{} ,\
& {y\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},d\_[1]{}}{x\_[m]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[8]{}+D\_[10]{}+2D\_[13]{}+D\_[15]{}+A\_[1]{}+\
& +…+A\_[m-3]{}, ++2\
& {-,-,f\_[2]{}}{-,-,f\_[1]{}}D\_[13]{}D\_[13]{}+\
& {x\_[m-2]{},b\_[1]{},f\_[2]{}}{x\_[m]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}=D\_[4]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[8]{}+2D\_[10]{}+D\_[11]{}+2D\_[13]{}+D\_[14]{}+\
& +D\_[15]{}, ++2\
& {-,-,f\_[1]{}}{-,-,f\_[2]{}}=D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[8]{}+D\_[10]{}+D\_[13]{}+D\_[15]{}+\
& +A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}+\
& {x\_[m-2]{},b\_[1]{},f\_[1]{}}{y\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},d\_[1]{}}=D\_[4]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[8]{}+2D\_[10]{}+D\_[11]{}+D\_[13]{}+\
& +D\_[14]{}+D\_[15]{}+
There is a disk from $\{x_{m},c_{1},e_{1},\}$ to $\{y_{1},c_{1},d_{1}\}$ with a rectangular domain and a unique holomorphic representative. There is no disk from $\{x_{m},c_{1},e_{1}\}$ to $\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\}$ whose domain would be non-negative, so these disks have no holomorphic representatives. Thus $\partial ^{+}[\{x_{m},c_{1},e_{1}\},i]=[\{y_{1},c_{1},d_{1}\},i]$ and $\partial ^{+}[\{y_{1},c_{1},d_{1}\},i]=0$. Similarly we have $\partial ^{\infty }[\{x_{m},c_{1},e_{1}\},i]=[\{y_{1},c_{1},d_{1}\},i]$ and $\partial ^{\infty }[\{y_{1},c_{1},d_{1}\},i]=0$, so $HF^{\infty }({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1})$ is generated by $[\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\},i]$ and $[\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{1}\},i]$. We already know there is an even number of holomorphic disks from $\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\}$ to $\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{1}\}$, so $\partial ^{+}[\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\},i]=\partial ^{+}[\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{1}\},i]=0$. It follows that $$HF^{+}(Y,\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1})\cong {\mathcal{T}^{+}}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}$$ is freely generated by the elements $[\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\},i]$ and $[\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{1}\},i]$ for $i\geq 0$.
**Class $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{2}$** $$\xymatrix {\{x_{m-1},c_{2},e_{2}\} \ar@{->}[d] & \quad \\
\{y_{1},c_{2},d_{2}\} & \{x_{1},b_{n-2},f_{2}\} \ar@{.>}[d]\\
\quad & \{x_{1},b_{n-2},f_{1}\}}$$
[1]{} & {x\_[m-1]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}{x\_[1]{},b\_[n-2]{},f\_[2]{}}-D\_[2]{}-D\_[6]{}-D\_[7]{}+D\_[10]{}+D\_[11]{}+D\_[12]{}-D\_[13]{}+\
& +D\_[14]{}+D\_[15]{}+D\_[16]{}+B\_[1]{}+…+B\_[n-3]{} ,\
& {x\_[m-1]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}{y\_[1]{},c\_[2]{},d\_[2]{}}D\_[10]{} ,\
& {y\_[1]{},c\_[2]{},d\_[2]{}}{x\_[1]{},b\_[n-2]{},f\_[1]{}}-D\_[2]{}-D\_[6]{}-D\_[7]{}+D\_[11]{}+D\_[12]{}+D\_[14]{}+D\_[15]{}+\
& +D\_[16]{}+B\_[1]{}+…+B\_[n-3]{} ,\
& {y\_[1]{},c\_[2]{},d\_[2]{}}{x\_[m-1]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}=D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[8]{}+2D\_[13]{}+D\_[15]{}+\
& +A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}, + +2\
& {x\_[1]{},b\_[n-2]{},f\_[2]{}}{x\_[m-1]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}=D\_[1]{}+2D\_[2]{}+D\_[3]{}+D\_[4]{}+D\_[5]{}+2D\_[6]{}+2D\_[7]{}+\
& +D\_[8]{}+D\_[9]{}+2D\_[13]{}+A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}, + +2\
& {-,-,f\_[2]{}}{-,-,f\_[1]{}}D\_[13]{}D\_[13]{}+\
& {x\_[1]{},b\_[n-2]{},f\_[1]{}}{y\_[1]{},c\_[2]{},d\_[2]{}}=D\_[1]{}+2D\_[2]{}+D\_[3]{}+D\_[4]{}+D\_[5]{}+2D\_[6]{}+2D\_[7]{}+D\_[8]{}+\
& +D\_[9]{}+D\_[10]{}+D\_[13]{}+A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}+\
& {x\_[1]{},b\_[n-2]{},f\_[1]{}}{x\_[1]{},b\_[n-2]{},f\_[2]{}}=D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[8]{}+D\_[10]{}+D\_[13]{}+\
& +D\_[15]{}+A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}+
Using analogous reasoning as above gives the homology $HF^{+}(Y,\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{2})\cong {\mathcal{T}^{+}}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}$, freely generated by the elements $[\{x_{1},b_{n-2},f_{2}\},i]$ and $[\{x_{1},b_{n-2},f_{1}\},i]$ for $i\geq 0$.
**Class $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{2}$** $$\xymatrix{ \{x_{1},c_{1},e_{1}\} \ar@{->}[d]& \quad \\
\{u_{2},a_{2},e_{1}\} & \{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{2}\} \ar@{.>}[d]\\
\quad & \{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{1}\}}$$
[1]{} & {x\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}{u\_[2]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[1]{}}D\_[2]{} ,\
& {x\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}{x\_[m-1]{},b\_[2]{},f\_[2]{}}D\_[2]{}+D\_[3]{}+D\_[6]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[9]{}-D\_[10]{}+D\_[12]{}-\
& -D\_[13]{}-D\_[14]{}-D\_[15]{}+B\_[1]{}+…+B\_[n-3]{} ,\
& {u\_[2]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[1]{}}{x\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}=D\_[1]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[8]{}+D\_[10]{}+2D\_[13]{}+D\_[15]{}+\
& +A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}, ++2\
& {u\_[2]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[1]{}}{x\_[m-1]{},b\_[2]{},f\_[1]{}}D\_[3]{}+D\_[6]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[9]{}-D\_[10]{}+D\_[12]{}-D\_[14]{}-\
& -D\_[15]{}+B\_[1]{}+…+B\_[n-3]{} ,\
& {x\_[m-1]{},b\_[2]{},f\_[2]{}}{x\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}}=D\_[1]{}+D\_[4]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[8]{}+2D\_[10]{}+D\_[11]{}+2D\_[13]{}+\
& +2D\_[14]{}+2D\_[15]{}+D\_[16]{}+A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}, ++2\
& {x\_[m-1]{},b\_[2]{},f\_[2]{}}{x\_[m-1]{},b\_[2]{},f\_[1]{}}D\_[13]{}D\_[13]{}+\
& {x\_[m-1]{},b\_[2]{},f\_[1]{}}{u\_[2]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[1]{}}=D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[4]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[8]{}+2D\_[10]{}+D\_[11]{}+\
& +D\_[13]{}+2D\_[14]{}+2D\_[15]{}+D\_[16]{}+A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}+\
& {x\_[m-1]{},b\_[2]{},f\_[1]{}}{x\_[m-1]{},b\_[2]{},f\_[2]{}}=D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[8]{}+D\_[10]{}+D\_[13]{}+\
& +D\_[15]{}+A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}+
By an analogous reasoning as in the class $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}$ we conclude that $HF^{+}(Y,\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{2})\cong {\mathcal{T}^{+}}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}$ is freely generated by the elements $[\{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{2}\},i]$ and $[\{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{1}\},i]$ for $i\geq 0$.
**Class $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{1}$** $$\xymatrix{\{x_{m},c_{2},e_{2}\} \ar@{->}[d] & \quad \\
\{u_{1},a_{2},e_{2}\} & \{x_{2},b_{n-1},f_{2}\} \ar@{.>}[d]\\
\quad & \{x_{2},b_{n-1},f_{1}\}}$$
[1]{} & {x\_[m]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}{u\_[1]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}D\_[15]{} ,\
& {x\_[m]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}{x\_[2]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[2]{}}-D\_[2]{}-D\_[3]{}-D\_[4]{}-D\_[6]{}+D\_[8]{}+D\_[10]{}+D\_[15]{}+A\_[1]{}+\
& +A\_[2]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{} ,\
& {u\_[1]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}{x\_[m]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}=D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[8]{}+D\_[10]{}+2D\_[13]{}+A\_[1]{}+\
& +A\_[2]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}, ++2\
& {u\_[1]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}{x\_[2]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[1]{}}-D\_[2]{}-D\_[3]{}-D\_[4]{}-D\_[6]{}+D\_[8]{}+D\_[10]{}+D\_[13]{}+A\_[1]{}+\
& +A\_[2]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{} ,\
& {x\_[2]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[2]{}}{x\_[m]{},c\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}=D\_[1]{}+2D\_[2]{}+D\_[3]{}+D\_[4]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[6]{}+D\_[7]{}+2D\_[13]{},\
& ++2\
& {x\_[2]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[2]{}}{x\_[2]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[1]{}}D\_[13]{}D\_[13]{}+\
& {x\_[2]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[1]{}}{u\_[1]{},a\_[2]{},e\_[2]{}}D\_[1]{}+2D\_[2]{}+2D\_[3]{}+2D\_[4]{}+D\_[5]{}+2D\_[6]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[9]{}+\
& +D\_[11]{}+D\_[12]{}+D\_[14]{}+D\_[15]{}+D\_[16]{}+B\_[1]{}+…+B\_[n-3]{}\
& {x\_[2]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[1]{}}{x\_[2]{},b\_[n-1]{},f\_[2]{}}=D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[7]{}+D\_[8]{}+D\_[10]{}+D\_[13]{}+\
& +D\_[15]{}+A\_[1]{}+…+A\_[m-3]{}+
Again we use an analogous reasoning as in the class $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}$ to obtain $$HF^{+}(Y,\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{1})\cong {\mathcal{T}^{+}}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}\;,$$ freely generated by the elements $[\{x_{2},b_{n-1},f_{2}\},i]$ and $[\{x_{2},b_{n-1},f_{1}\},i]$ for $i\geq 0$.
In the following calculations, we apply the change of basepoint formula using [@OS1 Lemma 2.19]:
\[lemaz\] Let $(\Sigma ,(\alpha _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{g}),(\beta _{1},\ldots ,\beta _{g}),z_{1})$ be a Heegaard diagram. Denote by $z_{2}\in \Sigma -\alpha _{1}-\ldots -\alpha _{g}-\beta _{1}-\ldots -\beta _{g}$ a new basepoint, for which the following holds: there is an arc $z_{t}$ from $z_{1}$ to $z_{2}$ on the surface $\Sigma $, which is disjoint from all curves $\beta _{i}$ and from all curves $\alpha _{i}$ appart from $\alpha _{j}$. Then for any generator $\mathbf{x}\in {\mathbb {T}}_{\alpha }\cap {\mathbb {T}}_{\beta }$ we have $$\mathfrak{s}_{z_{2}}(\mathbf{x})-\mathfrak{s}_{z_{1}}(\mathbf{x})=\alpha _{j}^{*}\;,$$ where $\alpha _{j}^{*}\in H^{2}(Y;{\mathbb {Z}})$ is the Poincaré dual of the homology class in ${Y_{m,n}}$ induced by the curve $\gamma $ in $\Sigma $, for which $\alpha _{j}\cdot \gamma =1$ and whose intersection number with any other curve $\alpha _{i}$ for $j\neq i$ equals $0$.
**Class $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}$**\
We change the basepoint $z_{1}\in D_{5}$ for a new basepoint $z_{2}\in D_{2}$. By Lemma \[lemaz\] the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}=\mathfrak{s}_{z_{1}}(\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{1}\})$ changes to $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}=\mathfrak{s}_{z_{2}}(\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{1}\})$. In the new $\sp $ structure we have the same generators as in the class $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}$, but with a new relative grading, induced by the basepoint $z_{2}$: $$\xymatrix{\quad & \{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\}\ar@{.>}[d]\\
\{x_{m},c_{1},e_{1}\} \ar@{->}[d] & \{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{1}\}\\
\{y_{1},c_{1},d_{1}\} & \quad }$$ We already know from the class $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}$ that the only nontrivial differential of $HF^{\infty }$ in this class is $\partial ^{\infty }[\{x_{m},c_{1},e_{1}\},i]=[\{y_{1},c_{1},d_{1}\},i]$. It follows that $\partial ^{+}[\{x_{m},c_{1},e_{1}\},i]=[\{y_{1},c_{1},d_{1}\},i]$ and also $\partial ^{+}[\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\},i]=\partial ^{+}[\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{1}\},i]=0$. The resulting homology $$HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}+\mu _{2})={\mathcal{T}^{+}}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}$$ is freely generated by the elements $[\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\},i]$ and $[\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{1}\},i]$ for $i\geq 0$.
**Class $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}$**\
We change the basepoint $z_{1}\in D_{5}$ for a new basepoint $z_{2}\in D_{2}$. By Lemma \[lemaz\], the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{1}-2\mu _{2}=\mathfrak{s}_{z_{1}}(\{x_{m},b_{2},f_{1}\})$ changes to $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}=\mathfrak{s}_{z_{2}}(\{x_{m},b_{2},f_{1}\})$. In the new $\sp $ structure we have the same generators as in the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{1}-2\mu _{2}$, but the relative grading is now induced by the basepoint $z_{2}$: $$\xymatrix{
\{x_{m},b_{2},f_{2}\} \ar@{.>}[d]\\
\{x_{m},b_{2},f_{1}\}}$$ We already know that in the classes containing only two generators, the differential $\partial ^{\infty }$ is trivial. Therefore the resulting homology is $$HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{1}-\mu _{2})={\mathcal{T}^{+}}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}\;,$$ freely generated by the elements $[\{x_{m},b_{2},f_{2}\},i]$ and $[\{x_{m},b_{2},f_{1}\},i]$ for $i\geq 0$.
**Classes $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-i\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}$ for $2\leq i\leq m-2$**\
We change the basepoint $z_{1}\in D_{5}$ for a new basepoint $z_{2}\in D_{2}$. By Lemma \[lemaz\], the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-i\mu _{1}-2\mu _{2}=\mathfrak{s}_{z_{1}}(\{x_{i-1},b_{1},f_{1}\})$ changes to $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-i\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}=\mathfrak{s}_{z_{2}}(\{x_{i-1},b_{1},f_{1}\})$. In the new $\sp $ structure we have the same generators as in the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-i\mu _{1}-2\mu _{2}$, but the relative grading is now induced by the basepoint $z_{2}$: $$\xymatrix{
\{x_{i-1},b_{1},f_{2}\} \ar@{.>}[d]\\
\{x_{i-1},b_{1},f_{1}\}}$$ We already know that in the classes containing only two generators, the differential $\partial ^{\infty }$ is trivial. Therefore the resulting homology is $$HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{0}-i\mu _{1}-\mu _{2})={\mathcal{T}^{+}}\oplus {\mathcal{T}^{+}}\;,$$ freely generated by the elements $[\{x_{i-1},b_{1},f_{2}\},j]$ and $[\{x_{i-1},b_{1},f_{1}\},j]$ for $j\geq 0$.
**Class $\mathfrak{s}_{0}$**\
We change the basepoint $z_{1}\in D_{5}$ for a new basepoint $z_{2}\in D_{2}$. By Lemma \[lemaz\], the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{2}=\mathfrak{s}_{z_{1}}(\{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{1}\})$ changes to $\mathfrak{s}_{0}=\mathfrak{s}_{z_{2}}(\{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{1}\})$. In the new $\sp $ structure we have the same generators as in the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{2}$, but with a new relative grading, induced by the basepoint $z_{2}$: $$\xymatrix{ \{u_{2},a_{2},e_{1}\} & \{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{2}\} \ar@{.>}[d]\\
\{x_{1},c_{1},e_{1}\} \ar@{->}[u] & \{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{1}\}}$$ From our calculation in the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{2}$ we deduce that the only nontrivial differential of $CF^{\infty }$ in this class is $\partial ^{\infty }[\{x_{1},c_{1},e_{1}\},i]=[\{u_{2},a_{2},e_{1}\},i-1]$. In the complex $CF^{+}$ we have $\partial ^{+}[\{x_{1},c_{1},e_{1}\},i]=[\{u_{2},a_{2},e_{1}\},i-1]$ for $i\geq 1$ and $\partial ^{+}[\{x_{1},c_{1},e_{1}\},0]=0$. It follows that
[1]{} & HF\^[+]{}([Y\_[m,n]{}]{},\_[0]{})[\^[+]{}]{}[\^[+]{}]{}\[{x\_[1]{},c\_[1]{},e\_[1]{}},0\],
where the first two summands are freely generated by the elements $[\{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{2}\},i]$ and $[\{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{1}\},i]$ for $i\geq 0$. The homology group $HF^{\infty }({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{0})$ however equals $$HF^{\infty }({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{0})\cong {\mathbb{F}}[U,U^{-1}]\oplus {\mathbb{F}}[U,U^{-1}]\,.$$
We have thus calculated the Heegaard–Floer homology $HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$ for all torsion $\sp $ structures $\mathfrak{s}$ on the manifold ${Y_{m,n}}$. In the following Subsection, we calculate the absolute gradings of the generators and finish the proof of Theorem \[th1\].
If $b_{1}(Y)>0$ then there is an action of the exterior algebra $\Lambda ^{*}(H_{1}(Y;{\mathbb {Z}})/\operatorname{Tors})$ on the groups $HF^{\infty }(Y,\mathfrak{s})$ and $\widehat{HF}(Y,\mathfrak{s})$ for every torsion $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}$ on $Y$ [@OS1 Proposition 4.17, Remark 4.20]. Let $\gamma $ be a simple closed curve on the Heegaard surface $\Sigma $ in general position with respect to the $\alpha $ curves and let $[\gamma ]$ be its induced homology class in $H_{1}(Y,{\mathbb {Z}})$. Then the action is given by $$A_{[\gamma ]}([\mathbf{x},i])=\sum _{\mathbf{y}}\sum _{\{\phi \in \pi _{2}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})|\, \mu (\phi )=1\}}a(\gamma ,\phi )\cdot [\mathbf{y},i-n_{z}(\phi )]\;,$$ where $$a(\gamma ,\phi )=\# \{u\in \mathcal{M}(\phi )|\, u(1\times 0)\in (\gamma \times \textrm{Sym}^{g-1}(\Sigma ))\cap \mathbb{T}_{\alpha }\}\;.$$ The value $d_{b}(Y,\mathfrak{s})$ is the least grading of an element of $HF^{\infty }(Y,\mathfrak{s})$ that is in the kernel of the action of $\Lambda ^{*}(H_{1}(Y;{\mathbb {Z}})/\operatorname{Tors})$ and whose image in $HF^{+}(Y,\mathfrak{s})$ is nonzero.
In the case of $Y={Y_{m,n}}$ and $\mathfrak{s}$ any torsion $\sp $ structure on ${Y_{m,n}}$, the image of $HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$ in $d\widehat{HF}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$ is generated by two elements of the form $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{2}\}$ and $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\}$. As we have shown in the beginning of this subsection, there are two homotopy classes of disks $\phi _{1}$ and $\phi _{2}$ from $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{2}\}$ to $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\}$ (represented by the domains $D_{13}$ and $D_{13}+\mathcal{P}$) and they both have an odd number of holomorphic representatives. Thus, we have $\# \widehat{\mathcal{M}}(\phi _{1})=\# \widehat{\mathcal{M}}(\phi _{2})=1$. The group $H_{1}({Y_{m,n}};{\mathbb {Z}})/\operatorname{Tors}={\mathbb {Z}}$ is generated by the simple closed curve $\mu _{3}$ on the Heegaard diagram (see Figure \[fig:heeg\]), so $a(\gamma ,\phi _{1})=0$ and $a(\gamma ,\phi _{2})=1$. It follows that $$A_{[\gamma ]}([\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{2}\},i])=[\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\},i]$$ and the action on $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\}$ is trivial. So $d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$ is given as the absolute grading of the generator $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{1}\}$ and $d_{t}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$ is the absolute grading of the generator $\{x_{r},b_{j},f_{2}\}$. For the definitions of the bottom and top correction terms, see [@LRS Definition 3.3].
[Absolute gradings]{} \[absolute\]
The absolute grading of the generators of $\widehat{HF}({Y_{m,n}})$ can be calculated using the cobordism $W$ from ${Y_{m,n}}$ to the simpler 3–manifold $-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}$ whose absolute grading is known. To construct the cobordism, we use a pointed Heegaard triple $(\Sigma ,\vec{\alpha },\vec{\beta },\vec{\gamma },z)$. Here the first two sets of the curves $\vec{\alpha },\vec{\beta }$ stay the same as before, so $Y_{\alpha ,\beta }={Y_{m,n}}$. The curves $\gamma _{1}$ and $\gamma _{3}$ are parallel copies of the curves $\beta _{1}$ and $\beta _{3}$ respectively, and the curve $\gamma _{2}$ is homologous to the meridian $\mu _{2}$ (see Figure \[fig:triple\]). This means $Y_{\beta ,\gamma }=\# ^{2}S^{1}\times S^{2}$ and $Y_{\alpha ,\gamma }=-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}$.
Filling the second boundary component $\# ^{2}S^{1}\times S^{2}$ by $\# ^{2}S^{1}\times B^{3}$ we get the surgery cobordism $W$ from ${Y_{m,n}}$ to $ -L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}$. The cobordism $W$ equipped with a $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}$ induces a map $$F_{W,\mathfrak{s}}\colon \widehat{HF}({Y_{m,n}})\to \widehat{HF}(-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2})\;.$$ Under this map, the absolute grading of a generator $\zeta \in \widehat{HF}({Y_{m,n}})$ is changed by [@OS4 Formula (4)]:
[1]{} \[grading\] & (F\_[W,]{}())-()=.
at 365 295 at 376 657 at 350 484 at 488 265 at 324 520 at 183 402 at 520 265 at 336 585 at 152 402 \[b\] at 288 286 \[b\] at 304 286 \[b\] at 332 286 \[t\] at 355 283 \[b\] at 395 286 at 362 310 at 363 342 at 400 442 at 374 450 \[b\] at 370 475 \[b\] at 402 475 \[b\] at 382 475 \[b\] at 390 475 \[b\] at 335 652 \[b\] at 280 652 \[b\] at 298 652 \[b\] at 324 652 \[b\] at 364 652 at 208 708 at 500 324 at 473 370 at 457 360 at 468 530 at 456 460 at 422 360 at 430 432 at 396 396 at 204 414 at 370 214 at 370 360 at 353 380 at 352 576 at 369 576 at 381 576 at 397 576 at 324 380 at 406 692 at 490 214 at 394 692 at 456 214 at 265 788 at 429 200 at 372 684 at 411 191 at 224 512 at 396 194 at 310 490 at 175 624 at 240 711 at 216 684 at 320 548 at 260 399 at 295 455 at 200 455 at 380 200 at 386 445 at 404 461 at 390 467 at 375 468 at 282 303 at 294 672 at 350 307 at 365 324 at 246 280 at 240 648 at 275 490 at 250 440
 \[fig:triple\]
The intersections between the $\alpha $ and $\beta $ curves are denoted in the same way as before. New intersections between the $\alpha $, $\beta $ and $\gamma $ curves we will need are denoted by: $\alpha _{1}\cap \gamma _{1}=\{x_{1}',x_{2}',\ldots ,x_{m}'\}$, $\alpha _{2}\cap \gamma _{2}=\{s\}$, $\alpha _{3}\cap \gamma _{3}=\{f_{1}',f_{2}'\}$, $\beta _{1}\cap \gamma _{1}=\{t_{1}^{+},t_{1}^{-}\}$, $\beta _{2}\cap \gamma _{2}=\{r\}$, $\beta _{3}\cap \gamma _{3}=\{t_{2}^{+},t_{2}^{-}\}$ (see Figure \[fig:triple\]).
We express the $\alpha $, $\beta $ and $\gamma $ curves of the Heegaard triple in the standard basis of the surface $\Sigma $ as:
[1]{} & \_[i]{}\~\_[i]{}i=1,2,3\
& \_[1]{}\~\_[1]{}\~m\_[1]{}+2\_[2]{}-\_[1]{}\
& \_[2]{}\~2\_[1]{}+n\_[2]{}-\_[2]{}\
& \_[3]{}\~\_[3]{}\~\_[3]{}\
& \_[2]{}\~\_[2]{}
The elementary domains in the winding region of the curve $\beta _{1}$ are denoted by $A_{i}$ for $i=1,\ldots ,2m-5$, the elementary domains in the winding region of the curve $\beta _{2}$ are denoted by $B_{j}$ for $j=1,\ldots ,n-3$ and the other elementary domains of the Heegaard triple are denoted by $D_{i}$ for $i=1,\ldots ,34$. There are four hexagons $D_{1},D_{3},D_{9}$ and $D_{20}$, three pentagons $D_{22}$, $D_{24}$ and $D_{25}$, five triangles $D_{10}$, $D_{23}$, $D_{30}$, $D_{32}$ and $D_{33}$, two bigons $D_{29}$ and $D_{34}$, one octagon $D_{15}$ and a domain $D_{8}$ with 14 sides. All the other elementary domains are rectangles. We put the basepoint into the elementary domain $D_{8}$, which corresponds to the basepoint $z\in D_{5}$ of the Heegaard diagram \[fig:heeg\].
We have a triply-periodic domain
[1]{} & =(m-2)(D\_[1]{}+D\_[2]{}+D\_[3]{})-2(D\_[4]{}+D\_[5]{}+D\_[6]{}+D\_[7]{})-m(D\_[9]{}+D\_[10]{}+D\_[11]{}+D\_[12]{})+\
& +(2-m)D\_[15]{}+(m-2)D\_[16]{}+m(D\_[17]{}+D\_[18]{}+D\_[19]{})+2D\_[22]{}+(mn-2)D\_[23]{}+\
& +(m(n-1)-2)D\_[24]{}+(2-m)D\_[25]{}+2D\_[26]{}-mD\_[33]{}+(2-m)D\_[34]{}+\
& +\_[i=1]{}\^[m-3]{}(m-2(i+1))(A\_[2i-1]{}+A\_[2i]{})+\_[j=1]{}\^[n-3]{}((j+1)m-2)B\_[j]{}
The orientation of the curves in the Heegaard triple is denoted on the diagram. The boundary of the triply-periodic domain is equal to $$\partial \mathcal{Q}=2\alpha _{1}+2\beta _{1}-m\alpha _ {2}-m\beta _{2}+(mn-4)\gamma _{2}\;.$$ We calculate the Euler measure of the triply-periodic domain [@OS5 Lemma 6.2]:
[1]{} & ()=2(m-2)(1-)-m(1-+1-)+(2-m)(1-)+2(1-)+\
& +(mn-2)(1-)+(m(n-1)-2)(1-)+(2-m)(1-)-m(1-)+\
& +(2-m)(1-)=0.
We have $n_{z}(\mathcal{Q})=0$ and $\# (\partial \mathcal{Q})=m(n+2)$. The self-intersection number $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{Q})^{2}$ is calculated by counting the intersections of $\alpha $ and $\beta $ curves in the boundary of the triply-periodic domain (according to the chosen orientation of the boundary). We get $\alpha _{1}\cdot \beta _{1}=-m$, $\alpha _{1}\cdot \beta _{2}=-2$, $\alpha _{2}\cdot \beta _{1}=-2$ and $\alpha _{2}\cdot \beta _{2}=-n$, which gives us
[1]{} &()\^[2]{}=\_\_=4\_[1]{}\_[1]{}-2m\_[1]{}\_[2]{}-2m\_[2]{}\_[1]{}+m\^[2]{}\_[2]{}\_[2]{}=-m(mn-4)
Since the self-intersection number is negative for $mn-4>0$, the signature of the associated cobordism equals $\sigma (W)=-1$. $W$ is the surgery cobordism from ${Y_{m,n}}$ to $Y_{\alpha ,\gamma }=L(m,1)\#S^{1}\times S^{2}$, thus $\chi (W)=1$.
Next we investigate the domains of Whitney triangles on the Heegaard surface. A Whitney triangle connecting $\mathbf{x}$, $\mathbf{y}$ and $\mathbf{w}$ is given by a map $u\colon \Delta \to \operatorname{Sym}^{g}\Sigma $ for which $u(v_{\gamma })=\mathbf{x}$, $u(v_{\alpha })=\mathbf{y}$, $u(v_{\beta })=\mathbf{w}$ and $u(e_{\alpha })\subset T_{\alpha }$, $u(e_{\beta })\subset T_{\beta }$ in $u(e_{\gamma })\subset T_{\gamma }$. The dual spider number of a triangle $u$ and a triply-periodic domain $\mathcal{Q}$ is defined in [@OS5] by $$\sigma (u,\mathcal{Q})=n_{u(x)}(\mathcal{Q})+\# (a\cap \partial _{\alpha }'\mathcal{Q})+\# (b\cap \partial _{\beta }'\mathcal{Q})+\# (c\cap \partial _{\gamma }'\mathcal{Q})\;,$$ where $x\in \Delta $ is a chosen point in general position and $a$, $b$, $c$ are chosen paths from $x$ to the respective edges $e_{0}$, $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$ of the triangle $\Delta $. We show the following:
\[triangle\] Let the basepoint of the Heegaard diagram \[fig:heeg\] lie in the elementary domain $D_{5}$. For $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$, there is a Whitney triangle $$u\colon \{x_{i},b_{j},f_{2}\}\to \{t_{1}^{+},r,t_{2}^{+}\}\to \{x_{i}',s,f_{2}'\}$$ with $\sigma (u,Q)=-mn+jm-2i$.
For a Whitney triangle $u\colon \Delta \to \operatorname{Sym}^{3}(\Sigma )$, the image $u(\Delta )$ is a triple branched cover over a triangle. In some cases this is a trivial disconnected cover consisting of three triangles $u_{1}$, $u_{2}$ and $u_{3}$ on the surface $\Sigma $. For $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$ we can find a triangle with the following components.
The first component is a triangle between the points $x_{i},t_{1}^{+}$ and $x_{i}'$ (for $1\leq i\leq m-1$) with domain $D_{33}+A_{2m-5}+A_{2m-7}+\ldots +A_{2i-1}$ (see Figure \[fig:trikot1\]). The dual spider number of this component is equal to $\sigma _{1}(u_{i},\mathcal{Q})=m-2(i+1)$. There is also a triangle between the points $x_{m},t_{1}^{+}$ and $x_{m}'$ with the dual spider number $\sigma _{1}(u,\mathcal{Q})=-2$.
The second component of the Whitney triangle (Figure \[fig:trikot3\]) is a triangle between the points $b_{j}$, $r$ and $s$ (for $1\leq j\leq n-1$) with domain $$(n-j)D_{23}+(n-j-1)D_{24}+(n-j-2)B_{n-3}+(n-j-3)B_{n-4}+\ldots +B_{j}\;,$$ where all the coefficients of the domain have to be positive. The dual spider number of this component is equal to $\sigma _{2}(u_{j},\mathcal{Q})=2-mn+(j-1)m$.
The third component of the Whitney triangle is a triangle between the points $f_{2},t_{2}^{+}$ and $f_{2}'$ with domain $D_{30}$ (Figure \[fig:trikot2\]). The dual spider number of this component is equal to $\sigma _{3}(u,\mathcal{Q})=0$.
Combining the above we obtain $$\sigma (u,\mathcal{Q})=\sigma _{1}(u,\mathcal{Q})+\sigma _{2}(u,\mathcal{Q})+\sigma _{3}(u,\mathcal{Q})=-mn+jm-2i\;.$$
$x_{m-1}$ \[r\] at 255 725 $\alpha _{1}$ \[r\] at 255 670 $\beta _{1}$ at 320 730 $\gamma _{1}$ at 320 630 $x_{m-1}'$ \[r\] at 255 625 $t_{1}'$ at 428 674 $\alpha _{1}$ \[r\] at 388 370 $\beta _{1}$ at 184 400 $\gamma _{1}$ at 95 216 $x_{m-2}$ \[r\] at 388 429 $x_{m-2}'$ \[r\] at 388 314 $t_{1}'$ \[l\] at 542 216 $-m$ at 432 213 $2-m$ at 132 460 $-m$ \[l\] at 265 673
![The first component of a Whitney triangle; two versions[]{data-label="fig:trikot1"}](trikot1)
$mn-2$ \[l\] at 230 680 $m(n-1)-2$ at 210 270 $b_{n-1}$ \[r\] at 210 726 $r$ at 412 800 $\beta _{2}$ at 280 738 $\alpha _{2}$ \[r\] at 210 672 $\gamma _{2}$ at 390 648 $s$ \[r\] at 210 622 $\beta _{2}$ at 220 428 $b_{n-2}$ \[r\] at 324 368 $\alpha _{2}$ \[l\] at 336 338 $r$ at 536 390 $s$ \[r\] at 324 204 $\gamma _{2}$ at 440 218
![The second component of a Whitney triangle; two versions[]{data-label="fig:trikot3"}](trikot3)
$\alpha _{3}$ \[l\] at 680 310 $\beta _{3}$ at 420 460 $\gamma _{3}$ at 400 280 $t_{2}^{+}$ at 160 425 $f_{2}$ \[l\] at 680 440 $f_{2}'$ \[l\] at 680 180 $0$ at 560 330
 \[fig:trikot2\]
We are now prepared to compute the absolute gradings of the generators of $\widehat{HF}({Y_{m,n}})$.
\[calc\] If the basepoint of the Heegaard diagram \[fig:heeg\] lies in the elementary domain $D_{5}$, then the absolute grading of the generator $\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{2}\}$ is given by $${\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}(\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{2}\})=\frac{m^{2}n+mn^{2}-4mn(i+j+1)+4n(i^{2}+2i)+4m(j^{2}+2j)-16ij}{4(mn-4)}$$ for $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$.
By Lemma \[triangle\], the generator $\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{2}\}$ is connected to a generator of $\widehat{HF}(-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2})$ by a Whitney triangle $$u\colon \{x_{i},b_{j},f_{2}\}\to \{t_{1}^{+},r,t_{2}^{+}\}\to \{x_{i}',s,f_{2}'\}$$ with $\sigma (u,Q)=-mn+jm-2i$. Now we apply the grading shift formula . The absolute grading of the generators of $\widehat{HF}(-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2})$ can be calculated from [@OS4 Proposition 4.8]. The $i$-th torsion $\sp $ structure on $-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}$ contains two generators: $\{x_{i}',s,f_{2}'\}$ with absolute grading $${\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}(\{x_{i}',s,f_{2}'\})=\frac{(2i-m)^{2}-m}{4m}+\frac{1}{2}$$ and $\{x_{i}',s,f_{1}'\}$ with grading $${\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}(\{x_{i}',s,f_{1}'\})= \frac{(2i-m)^{2}-m}{4m}-\frac{1}{2}$$ where $i=1,\ldots ,m$. We calculate
[1]{} \[c1\] & c\_[1]{}(\_[z]{}(u)),()=m(n+2)+2(u,)=-mn+2(j+1)m-4i
[1]{} & c\_[1]{}(\_[z]{}(u))\^[2]{}=\
& ({x\_[i]{}’,s,f\_[2]{}’})=+=+\
& ({x\_[i]{},b\_[j]{},f\_[2]{}})=({x\_[i]{}’,s,f\_[2]{}’})-=\
& =
Observe the symmetry ${\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}(\{x_{m-i},b_{n-j},f_{2}\})={\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}(\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{2}\})$. The above formula calculates the absolute grading ${\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}(\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{2}\})$ for $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$.
To calculate the absolute grading of the generators $\{x_{m},b_{j},f_{2}\}$ and $\{x_{i},b_{n},f_{2}\}$ of $\widehat{HF}({Y_{m,n}})$, we use the method of Lee and Lipshitz [@LELI]. Their idea is as follows. If two generators $\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}\in \widehat{HF}(Y)$ represent different torsion $\sp $ structures $\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\mathbf{x})$ and $\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\mathbf{y})$ on a 3-manifold $Y$, then there exists a covering projection $\pi \colon \widetilde{Y}\to Y$ such that $\pi ^{*}\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\mathbf{x})=\pi ^{*}\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\mathbf{y})$ on $\widetilde{Y}$. Thus, there exist lifts $\tilde {\mathbf{x}}$ of $\mathbf{x}$ and $\tilde {\mathbf{y}}$ of $\mathbf{y}$ whose relative grading difference is given by the domain bounded by a closed curve representing $\epsilon (\tilde {\mathbf{x}},\tilde{\mathbf{y}})$. The projection of this domain onto the Heegaard diagram for $Y$ is bounded by some multiple of a closed curve representing $\epsilon (\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$. We can reconstruct the relative grading difference between $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ from this projection, as described in [@LELI Subsection 2.3].
\[calc1\] If the basepoint of the Heegaard diagram \[fig:heeg\] lies in the elementary domain $D_{5}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{grmn}
& {\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}\{x_{m},b_{j},f_{2}\}=\frac{m^{2}n+mn^{2}-4mnj+4mj^{2}-4m}{4(mn-4)}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{grmn1}
& {\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}\{x_{i},b_{n},f_{2}\}=\frac{m^{2}n+mn^{2}-4mni+4ni^{2}-4n}{4(mn-4)}\textrm{ and }{\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}\{x_{m},b_{n},f_{2}\}=\frac{m+n-4}{4} \end{aligned}$$ for $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$.
In the Heegaard diagram \[fig:heeg\] we find a domain $$\begin{aligned}
& S=(m+n-4)(D_{1}+D_{16})+(m-2)(D_{2}+D_{3})+(n-2)(-D_{6}-D_{7}+D_{14}+D_{15})+\\
& +(mn-m-n)(D_{8}+D_{9})+(mn-m-2)(D_{10}+D_{11})+\\
& +\sum _{i=1}^{m-3}\left (m+(i+1)n-2(i+2)\right )A_{i}+\sum _{i=1}^{n-3}\left (n+(i+1)m-2(i+2)\right )B_{i}\end{aligned}$$ for which $\partial \partial _{\alpha }S=(mn-4)(b_{n-1}-b_{n})$. Thus we can compute $$\begin{aligned}
& {\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}\{x_{i},b_{n},f_{k}\}-{\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}\{x_{i},b_{n-1},f_{k}\}=\frac{1}{mn-4}\left (e(S)+n_{\{x_{i},b_{n-1},f_{k}\}}(S)+n_{\{x_{i},b_{n},f_{k}\}}(S)\right )=\\
& =\frac{(-mn+4)+(mn-m-n)+2(m+ni-2(i+1))}{mn-4}=\frac{m+(2i-1)n-4i}{mn-4}\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and ${\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}\{x_{m},b_{n},f_{k}\}-{\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}\{x_{m},b_{n-1},f_{k}\}=\frac{4-m-n}{mn-4}$.
Similarly, the domain $$\begin{aligned}
& T=(m+n-4)(D_{1}+D_{16})+(m-2)(D_{2}+D_{3}-D_{10}-D_{11})+\\
& +(mn-n-2)(D_{6}+D_{7})+(mn-m-n)(D_{8}+D_{9})+(n-2)(D_{14}+D_{15})+\\
& +\sum _{i=1}^{m-3}\left (m+(i+1)n-2(i+2)\right )A_{i}+\sum _{i=1}^{n-3}\left (n+(i+1)m-2(i+2)\right )B_{i}\end{aligned}$$ has $\partial \partial _{\alpha }T=(mn-4)(x_{m-1}-x_{m})$. A calculation gives us $$\begin{aligned}
& {\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}\{x_{m},b_{j},f_{k}\}-{\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}\{x_{m-1},b_{j},f_{k}\}=\frac{n+(2j-1)m-4j}{mn-4}\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leq j\leq n-1$. Combining this with Proposition \[calc\], we get formulas and .
In some torsion $\sp $ structures on ${Y_{m,n}}$ we calculated the homology $HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}})$ by moving the basepoint $z$ into another elementary domain. In those $\sp $ structures we need to perform the calculation of the absolute gradings using the moved basepoint.
\[special\] Let the basepoint of the Heegaard diagram \[fig:heeg\] lie in the elementary domain $D_{2}$. Then
[1]{} & ({x\_[i]{},b\_[j]{},f\_[2]{}})=
for $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$, and
[1]{} & ({x\_[m]{},b\_[j]{},f\_[2]{}})=
for $1\leq j\leq n-1$.
When calculating $HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}})$ in the $\sp $ structures $\mathfrak{s}_{0}$, $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}$, $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}$ and $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-i\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}$, we moved the basepoint $z\in D_{5}$ of the basic Heegaard diagram \[fig:heeg\] over the curve $\alpha _{2}$ into the elementary domain $D_{2}$. Doing the same thing on the triple Heegaard diagram, the basepoint $z\in D_{8}$ moves to $z_{2}\in D_{17}$. The triply-periodic domain $\mathcal{Q}$ now changes to the triply periodic domain $\mathcal{Q}_{2}=\mathcal{Q}-m\Sigma $, for which we have $\partial \mathcal{Q}_{2}=\partial \mathcal{Q}$. As in the previous calculation, we obtain $\# \partial \mathcal{Q}_{2}=m(n+2)$, $n_{{z}_{2}}(\mathcal{Q}_{2})=0$ and $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{Q}_{2})^{2}=-m(mn-4)$. The Euler measure of the new triply periodic domain is equal to $\widehat{\chi }(\mathcal{Q}_{2})=4m$. We can apply the same Whitney triangles as described in Lemma \[triangle\], but now their spider number changes due to the different multiplicities of the elementary domains in $\mathcal{Q}_{2}$. For $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$, the Whitney triangle $$u\colon \{x_{i},b_{j},f_{2}\}\to \{t_{1}^{+},r,t_{2}^{+}\}\to \{x_{i}',s,f_{2}'\}$$ has the spider number
[1]{} & (u,\_[2]{})=\_[1]{}(u,\_[2]{})+\_[2]{}(u,\_[2]{})+\_[3]{}(u,\_[2]{})=-2(i+1)+2-(n-j+2)m-m=\
& =-mn+(j-3)m-2i,
while for $i=m$ we have $\sigma _(u,\mathcal{Q}_{2})=-mn+(j-4)m$. Since the basepoint of the triple Heegaard diagram was only moved over the curve $\alpha _{2}$ and not over $\alpha _{1}$, the torsion $\sp $ structures of $-L(m,1)\#S^{1}\times S^{2}$ (and their gradings) remain unchanged. We calculate
[1]{} & c\_[1]{}(\_[z]{}(u)),(\_[2]{})=m(n+2)+4m-2mn+2(j-3)m-4i=-mn+2mj-4i\
& ({x\_[i]{}’,s,f\_[2]{}’})=+=+\
& ({x\_[i]{},b\_[j]{},f\_[2]{}})=({x\_[i]{}’,s,f\_[2]{}’})-=\
& =
for $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$, and
[1]{} & ({x\_[m]{},b\_[j]{},f\_[2]{}})=
for $1\leq j\leq n-1$.
\[specialc\] The absolute grading of the generator $\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\}$ in the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& {\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}(\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\},z_{2})=\frac{mn(m+n-4)}{4(mn-4)}\end{aligned}$$ The absolute grading of the generator $\{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{2}\}$ in the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}(\{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{2}\},z_{2})=\frac{mn(m+n-4)-4(m+n)+16}{4(mn-4)}\end{aligned}$$ The absolute grading of the generator $\{x_{m},b_{2},f_{2}\}$ in the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}(\{x_{m},b_{2},f_{2}\},z_{2})=\frac{mn(m+n-4)}{4(mn-4)}\end{aligned}$$ The absolute grading of the generator $\{x_{i-1},b_{1},f_{2}\}$ in the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-i\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& {\widetilde{\operatorname{gr}}}(\{x_{i-1},b_{1},f_{2}\},z_{2})=\frac{n(m^{2}+mn-4mi+4i^{2}-4)}{4(mn-4)}\end{aligned}$$
We use the formulas from Proposition \[special\] for the generators $\{x_{m-2},b_{1},f_{2}\}$, $\{x_{m-1},b_{2},f_{2}\}$, $\{x_{m},b_{2},f_{2}\}$ and $\{x_{i-1},b_{1},f_{2}\}$ to obtain the desired gradings.
We have calculated the absolute gradings of the homology generators in the torsion $\sp $ structures on ${Y_{m,n}}$. Now we identify the $\sp $ structure corresponding to a given generator with a $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}$, defined by -.
\[lemmasp\] Let the basepoint of the Heegaard diagram \[fig:heeg\] lie in the elementary domain $D_{5}$. Then $$\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{k}\})$$ for $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$, where $k\in \{1,2\}$.
We will show that the two $\sp $ structures are both restrictions of the same $\sp $ structure on the cobordism $W$ from ${Y_{m,n}}$ to $-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}$. In Lemma \[triangle\] we described a Whitney triangle $$u\colon \{x_{i},b_{j},f_{2}\}\to \{t_{1}^{+},r,t_{2}^{+}\}\to \{x_{i}',s,f_{2}'\}$$ defining a $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{z}(u)$ on $W$ for which $\mathfrak{s}_{z}(u)|_{-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}}=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i}',s',f_{k}'\})$ represents the $i$-th $\sp $ structure on $-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}$ as defined by Ozsváth-Szabó in [@OS4 Subsection 4.1]. On the other hand, $\mathfrak{s}_{z}(u)|_{{Y_{m,n}}}=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{k}\})$.
Recall that $\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}=\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}|_{{Y_{m,n}}}$, where $\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}$ is the $\sp $ structure on the manifold ${N_{m,n}}$ defined by the Equations -. Since the homology group $H_{2}({N_{m,n}})={\mathbb {Z}}^{2}$ is generated by the base spheres $s_{1}$ and $s_{2}$ of the plumbing ${N_{m,n}}$, the $\sp $ structures $\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}$ are well defined. The Kirby diagram of ${N_{m,n}}$ on the Figure \[fig:kirby\] describes the surgery cobordism from $S^{3}$ to the 3-manifold ${Y_{m,n}}$. In the first step of the surgery cobordism, we add a 1-handle and a 2-handle along the unknot $K_{1}$ to $S^{3}$, obtaining the 3-manifold $-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}$. The core of the 2-handle union the disk spanned by $K_{1}$ in $B^{4}$ represent the base sphere $s_{1}$. Since by definition $$\langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}),s_{1}\rangle =2i-m\;,$$ the restriction $\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}|_{-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}}$ is exactly the $i$-th $\sp $ structure on $-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}$ as defined by Ozsváth-Szabó in [@OS4 Subsection 4.1]. Thus, $$\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}|_{-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}}=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i}',s',f_{k}'\})=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(u)|_{-L(m,1)\# S {1}\times S^{2}}\;.$$
The second step of the surgery is given by the cobordism $-W$ from $-L(m,1)\# S^{1}\times S^{2}$ to ${Y_{m,n}}$. The cobordism $-W$ is given by adding a 2-handle to the boundary of the previously constructed manifold. Let us find a generator of the homology group $H_{2}(-W)={\mathbb {Z}}$. Writing down the intersection form $$Q_{{N_{m,n}}}=\left (\begin{array}{cc}
m & 2\\
2 & n \\
\end{array}\right )$$ for ${N_{m,n}}$ and denoting by $F=as_{1}+bs_{2}$ the generator of $H_{2}(-W)$, we use the fact that $F$ has to be orthogonal to the sphere $s_{1}$. Thus, $\langle as_{1}+bs_{2},s_{1}\rangle =ma+2b=0$ and we can take $F=2s_{1}-ms_{2}$. We calculate $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}),F\rangle =2(2i-m)-m(2j-n)=mn-2(j+1)m+4i\\
& F^{2}=4s_{1}^{2}-4ms_{1}s_{2}+m^{2}s_{2}^{2}=m(mn-4)\end{aligned}$$ The first Chern class $c_{1}(\mathfrak{s}_{z}(u))$ of the triangle $$u\colon \{x_{i},b_{j},f_{2}\}\to \{t_{1}^{+},r,t_{2}^{+}\}\to \{x_{i}',s,f_{2}'\}$$ from the Heegaard triple diagram had the same evaluation on the generator $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{Q})$ of $H_{2}(W)$ (with the opposite sign because of the opposite orientation of the cobordism), see Equation . Since also $F^{2}=\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{Q})^{2}$, it follows that the $\sp $ structures coincide on $W$: $\mathfrak{s}_{z}(u)=\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}|_{W}$. Now we have $\mathfrak{s}_{z}(u)|_{{Y_{m,n}}}=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{k}\})$ and $\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}|_{{Y_{m,n}}}=\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}$, which gives us the desired equality.
\[cor1\] Let the basepoint of the Heegaard diagram \[fig:heeg\] lie in the elementary domain $D_{5}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathfrak{s}_{0,j}=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{m},b_{j+1},f_{k}\})\\
& \mathfrak{s}_{i,0}=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i+1},b_{n},f_{k}\})\end{aligned}$$ for $0\leq i\leq m-2$, $0\leq j\leq n-2$ and $k\in \{1,2\}$.
We use [@OS1 Lemma 2.19] to evaluate the cohomology class in $H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})$ corresponding to the difference of two $\sp $ structures. We calculate $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathfrak{s}_{i,j}-\mathfrak{s}_{i+1,j}=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{k}\})-\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i+1},b_{j},f_{k}\})=PD[\mu _{1}]\\
& \mathfrak{s}_{i,j}-\mathfrak{s}_{i,j+1}=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{k}\})-\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i},b_{j+1},f_{k}\})=PD[\mu _{2}]\end{aligned}$$ and by linearity it follows that $\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}+aPD[\mu _{1}]+bPD[\mu _{2}]=\mathfrak{s}_{i-a,j-b}$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{m},b_{j+1},f_{k}\})=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{1},b_{j+1},f_{k}\})+PD[\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}]=\mathfrak{s}_{0,j}\\
& \mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i+1},b_{n},f_{k}\})=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i+1},b_{1},f_{k}\})+PD[\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}]=\mathfrak{s}_{i,0}\end{aligned}$$ for $0\leq i\leq m-2$, $0\leq j\leq n-2$ and $k\in \{1,2\}$.
We have thus obtained:
In Subsection \[CF\] we have shown that $HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$ has two ${\mathcal{T}^{+}}$ summands in each torsion $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}$ on ${Y_{m,n}}$. In one torsion $\sp $ structure, $HF^{+}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s})$ has an additional ${\mathbb{F}}$ sumand. We have also shown that the action of $\Lambda ^{*}(H_{1}(Y,{\mathbb {Z}})/\operatorname{Tors})$ maps the generator of ${\mathcal{T}^{+}}$ with the higher absolute grading to the generator with the lower absolute grading. In Proposition \[calc\] we have calculated that
[1]{} & ({x\_[i]{},b\_[j]{},f\_[2]{}})=\
& ==d(i,j)
for $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$. By Lemma \[lemmasp\], for those indices we have $\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}=\mathfrak{s}_{z}(\{x_{i},b_{j},f_{k}\})$.
The $\sp $ structures $\mathfrak{s}_{0,j}$ for $0\leq j\leq n-2$ and $\mathfrak{s}_{i,0}$ for $0\leq i\leq m-2$ are identified with the generators of $\widehat{HF}({Y_{m,n}})$ in the Corollary \[cor1\], and the absolute grading of those generators has been calculated in Proposition \[calc1\].
The absolute gradings of the generators in the $\sp $ structures $\mathfrak{s}_{0}$, $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}$, $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}$ and $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-i\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}$ are given in Corollary \[specialc\]. By Lemma \[lemmasp\], Corollary \[cor1\] and Corollary \[unique\] we have $\mathfrak{s}_{0}=\mathfrak{s}_{1,n-1}=\mathfrak{s}_{m-1,1}$, $\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\mu _{1}+\mu _{2}=\mathfrak{s}_{0,n-2}=\mathfrak{s}_{m-2,0}$, $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}=\mathfrak{s}_{0,0}$ and $\mathfrak{s}_{0}-i\mu _{1}-\mu _{2}=\mathfrak{s}_{i-1,0}$. By Corollary \[specialc\] we can ascertain that the top correction terms in those $\sp $ structures are given by
[1]{} & d\_[t]{}([Y\_[m,n]{}]{},\_[1,n-1]{})=d(1,n-1)\
& d\_[t]{}([Y\_[m,n]{}]{},\_[0,n-2]{})=d\_[1]{}(m,n-1)\
& d\_[t]{}([Y\_[m,n]{}]{},\_[0,0]{})=d\_[1]{}(m,1)\
& d\_[t]{}([Y\_[m,n]{}]{},\_[i-1,0]{})=d\_[1]{}(n,i)
It follows that $d_{t}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{i,j})=d(i,j)$ for $1\leq i\leq m-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$. Moreover, $d_{t}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{0,j})=d_{1}(m,j+1)$ for $0\leq j\leq n-2$ and $d_{t}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{i,0})=d_{1}(n,i+1)$ for $0\leq i\leq m-2$.
[An application]{} \[App\] Let $X$ be a closed smooth 4–manifold with $H_{1}(X)=0$ and $b_{2}^{+}(X)=2$. Consider two classes $\alpha ,\beta \in H_{2}(X;{\mathbb {Z}})$ for which the following holds:
[1]{} & =2\
& \^[2]{}=m>0\
& \^[2]{}=n>0\
& mn-4>0
Thus the restriction $Q_{X}|_{{\mathbb {Z}}\alpha +{\mathbb {Z}}\beta }$ of the intersection form $Q_{X}$ to the sublattice spanned by $\alpha $ and $\beta $ is positive definite.
The classes $\alpha $ and $\beta $ can be represented by embedded surfaces $\Sigma _{1},\Sigma _{2}\subset X$ meeting transversally. Suppose that it is possible to choose $\Sigma _{1}$ and $\Sigma _{2}$ to be spheres whose geometric intersection number is 2. Then the regular neighborhood of the union $\Sigma _{1}\cup \Sigma _{2}$ is a double plumbing of disk bundles over spheres ${N_{m,n}}$ with boundary ${Y_{m,n}}$ that has been the object of our investigation in the previous section. The submanifold ${N_{m,n}}\subset X$ carries the positive part of the intersection form $Q_{X}$. Denote by $W=X\backslash \operatorname{Int}({N_{m,n}})$ its complement in $X$. Thus $W$ is a 4–manifold with boundary $-{Y_{m,n}}$ which carries the negative part of the intersection form $Q_{X}$. The following result [@OS4 Theorem 9.15] describes the constraints given by the $\sp $ structures on $W$ which restrict to a given $\sp $ structure on $-{Y_{m,n}}$.
\[inequality\] Let $Y$ be a three-manifold with standard $HF^{\infty }$, equipped with a torsion $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{t}$, and let $d_{b}(Y, \mathfrak{t})$ denote its bottom-most correction term, i.e. the one corresponding to the generator of $HF^{\infty }(Y, t)$ which is in the kernel of the action by $H_{1}(Y)$. Then, for each negative semi-definite four-manifold $W$ which bounds $Y$ so that the restriction map $H^{1}(W;{\mathbb {Z}}) \rightarrow H^{1}(Y;{\mathbb {Z}})$ is trivial, we have the inequality:
[1]{} \[ineq\] & c\_[1]{}()\^[2]{} + b\_[2]{}\^[-]{}(W) 4d\_[b]{}(Y,) + 2b\_[1]{}(Y)
for all $\sp $ structures $\mathfrak{s}$ over $W$ whose restriction to $Y$ is $\mathfrak{t}$.
According to [@OS2 Theorem 10.1], every 3–manifold $Y$ with $b_{1}(Y)=1$ has standard $HF^{\infty }$. Theorem \[inequality\] can thus be applied in our case for the pair $(W,-{Y_{m,n}})$. Correction terms of the manifold ${Y_{m,n}}$ have been calculated in the previous section. In order to apply inequality , we have to identify the restriction map $H^{2}(W)\to H^{2}(-{Y_{m,n}})$ and see how $\sp $ structures on $W$ restrict to $\sp $ structures on $-{Y_{m,n}}$. Before considering particular cases we establish the following:
\[prop1\] With notation as above, $H^{1}(W)=0$, $H^{2}({N_{m,n}})\cong {\mathbb {Z}}^{2}$, $H^{2}(W)\cong {\mathbb {Z}}^{b_{2}^{-}(X)+1}\oplus \tau $ and $H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})\cong {\mathbb {Z}}\oplus T$, where $\tau $ and $T$ are torsion groups and $T$ has order $mn-4$. In the special case when $b_{2}^{-}(X)=0$, we have $T/\tau \cong \tau $.
Consider the Mayer–Vietoris sequence in cohomology of the triple $(X,{N_{m,n}},W)$ (all coefficients will be ${\mathbb {Z}}$ unless stated otherwise): $$\begin{aligned}
& 0\rightarrow H^{1}(W)\oplus H^{1}({N_{m,n}})\stackrel{f_{1}}\rightarrow H^{1}({Y_{m,n}}) \stackrel{f_{2}}\rightarrow H^{2}(X)\stackrel{f_{3}}\rightarrow H^{2}(W)\oplus H^{2}({N_{m,n}}) \stackrel{f_{4}}\rightarrow H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})\rightarrow 0\\
& 0\rightarrow H^{1}(W)\oplus {\mathbb {Z}}\stackrel{f_{1}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}\stackrel{f_{2}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}^{b_{2}^{-}(X)+2}\stackrel{f_{3}}\rightarrow H^{2}(W)\oplus {\mathbb {Z}}^{2} \stackrel{f_{4}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}\oplus T\rightarrow 0\end{aligned}$$ At the beginning and the end of the sequence we have zeros since $H_{1}(X)=0$. Since $H_{1}({Y_{m,n}})\cong {\mathbb {Z}}[\mu _{3}]\oplus T[\mu _{1},\mu _{2}]$, it follows from Poincaré duality and the universal coefficient theorem that $H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})\cong {\mathbb {Z}}\oplus T$ and $H^{1}({Y_{m,n}})\cong {\mathbb {Z}}$. The torsion elements $\mu _{1}$ and $\mu _{2}$ are the boundary circles of the fibre disks in the plumbing ${N_{m,n}}$. The generator $\mu _{3}$ of the free part comes from the 1-handle of the plumbing, which means that $f_{1}|_{H^{1}({N_{m,n}})}\colon H^{1}({N_{m,n}})\to H^{1}({Y_{m,n}})$ is an isomorphism. Thus $H^{1}(W)=0$ and the restriction map $f_{1}|_{H^{1}(W)}\colon H^{1}(W) \rightarrow H^{1}({Y_{m,n}})$ is always trivial, satisfying the assumption in Theorem \[inequality\]. Since $f_{1}$ is an isomorphism, by exactness $f_{2}$ is a trivial map. It follows that $f_{3}$ is injective. To understand the homomorphism $f_{4}$, recall the long exact sequence in homology of the pair $({N_{m,n}},{Y_{m,n}})$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NY}
& \ldots \rightarrow H_{2}({N_{m,n}})\stackrel{A}\rightarrow H_{2}({N_{m,n}},{Y_{m,n}})\stackrel{B}\rightarrow H_{1}({Y_{m,n}})\stackrel{C}\rightarrow H_{1}({N_{m,n}})\rightarrow H_{1}({N_{m,n}},{Y_{m,n}}) \\
& \ldots \longrightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}^{2}\stackrel{A}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}^{2}\stackrel{B}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}\oplus T\stackrel{C}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}\longrightarrow 0\end{aligned}$$ As described above, the restriction $C|_{{\mathbb {Z}}}\colon {\mathbb {Z}}[\mu _{3}]\to H_{1}({N_{m,n}})$ is an isomorphism. It follows that the image of the map $B\colon H_{2}({N_{m,n}},{Y_{m,n}})\to H_{1}({Y_{m,n}})$ is equal to $T$. The same is true for the Poincaré dual map $f_{4}|_{H^{2}({N_{m,n}})}\colon H^{2}({N_{m,n}})\to H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})$ in the Mayer–Vietoris sequence above. So there must be a free sumand ${\mathbb {Z}}\subseteq H^{2}(W)$ which is mapped by $f_{4}$ isomorphically onto the free sumand of $H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})$ (this is the part dual to the part of $H_{2}(W)$ which comes from the boundary). Now since $f_{3}$ is injective, the free subgroup ${\mathbb {Z}}^{b_{2}^{-}(X)}\subseteq H^{2}(X)$ maps into $H^{2}(W)$ and it follows that the free part of $H^{2}(W)$ has dimension $b_{2}^{-}(X)+1$. Since $H^{1}(W)=0$, it follows from the universal coefficient theorem that $H_{1}(W)=\tau $ is torsion and consequently $$H^{2}(W)\cong {\mathbb {Z}}^{b_{2}^{-}(X)+1}\oplus \tau \;.$$ Based on our conclusions above, a part of the cohomology Mayer–Vietoris sequence of the triple $(X,{N_{m,n}},W)$ looks like
[1]{} \[MV\] …H\^[2]{}(X)H\^[2]{}(W)H\^[2]{}([N\_[m,n]{}]{})H\^[2]{}([Y\_[m,n]{}]{})0\
…\^[b\_[2]{}\^[-]{}(X)+2]{}(\^[b\_[2]{}\^[-]{}(X)+1]{})\^[2]{}T0
The restriction $f_{4}|_{H^{2}({N_{m,n}})}$ can be described by its Poincaré dual $B\colon H_{2}({N_{m,n}},{Y_{m,n}})\to H_{1}({N_{m,n}})$ in the long exact sequence . Consider now the restriction $f_{4}|_{H^{2}(W)}$ in . The sumand $\tau \subseteq H^{2}(W)$ maps by $f_{4}$ injectively into the torsion group $T\subseteq H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})$. We can observe the Poincaré dual of the restriction $f_{4}|_{H^{2}(W)}$ in the long exact sequence of the pair $(W,{Y_{m,n}})$: $$\begin{aligned}
& H_{3}(W,{Y_{m,n}})\rightarrow H_{2}({Y_{m,n}})\stackrel{g_{1}}\longrightarrow H_{2}(W)\stackrel{g_{2}}\longrightarrow H_{2}(W,{Y_{m,n}})\stackrel{g_{3}}\longrightarrow H_{1}({Y_{m,n}})\stackrel{g_{4}}\longrightarrow H_{1}(W)\rightarrow \ldots \\
& 0\rightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}\stackrel{g_{1}}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}^{b_{2}^{-}(X)+1}\stackrel{g_{2}}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}^{b_{2}^{-}(X)+1}\oplus \tau \stackrel{g_{3}}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}\oplus T\stackrel{g_{4}}\longrightarrow \tau \stackrel{0}\rightarrow \ldots \end{aligned}$$ Since $H_{3}(W,{Y_{m,n}})\cong H^{1}(W)=0$, the map $g_{1}$ is injective. The homomorphism $g_{2}\colon H_{2}(W)\to H_{2}(W,{Y_{m,n}})$ is given by the intersection form $Q_{W}$ of the manifold $W$. $Q_{W}$ is trivial on the sumand ${\mathbb {Z}}\subseteq H_{2}(W)$ which corresponds to the image of $g_{1}$. The restriction $Q_{W}|_{{\mathbb {Z}}^{b_{2}^{-}(X)}}$ is negative definite. The map $g_{3}$ maps the free sumand of $H_{2}(W,{Y_{m,n}})$ which comes from the boundary isomorphically onto the free sumand of $H_{1}({Y_{m,n}})$. In the special case when $b_{2}^{-}(X)=0$, the intersection form $Q_{W}$ is trivial and from the exact sequence above it follows that
[1]{} \[b20\] & T/.
We have described the map $f_{4}$ in the Mayer–Vietoris sequence which tells us how cohomology classes on $W$ and ${N_{m,n}}$ restrict to cohomology classes on the boundary ${Y_{m,n}}$. As remarked in Subsubsection \[notspin\], $\sp $ structures on 3– and 4–manifolds may be identified by cohomology classes. Using this identification we may study the restrictions of $\sp $ structures on $W$ and ${N_{m,n}}$ to $\sp $ structures on the boundary ${Y_{m,n}}$.
When the 4-manifold $X$ has $b_{2}^{-}(X)=0$, the obstruction Theorem \[inequality\] implies the following result.
\[prop2\] Let $X$ be a closed smooth 4-manifold with $H_{1}(X)=0$, $b_{2}^{+}(X)=2$ and $b_{2}^{-}(X)=0$. Suppose there are two spheres $\Sigma _{1},\Sigma _{2}\subset X$ with $\Sigma _{1} ^{2}=m$, $\Sigma _{2}^{2}=n$ and $\Sigma _{1}\cdot \Sigma _{2}=2$. Denote by ${Y_{m,n}}$ the boundary of a regular neighbourhood of $\Sigma _{1}\cup \Sigma _{2}$ and let $T=H_{1}({Y_{m,n}})$. Then for some subgroup $\tau \subset T$ with $|\tau |^{2}=|T|$ and some $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}$ on ${Y_{m,n}}$, we have $d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\phi )=-\frac{1}{2}$ for every $\phi \in \tau$.
Denote as usual by ${N_{m,n}}\subset X$ the regular neighbourhood of $\Sigma _{1}\cup \Sigma _{2}$ and by $W=X\backslash \operatorname{Int}({N_{m,n}})$ its complement. It follows from Proposition \[prop1\] that $H^{2}(W)\cong {\mathbb {Z}}\oplus \tau $ for some torsion group $\tau \subset T$ and that $T/\tau \cong \tau $, thus $|T|=|\tau |^{2}$. Recall the Mayer–Vietoris sequence of the triple $(X,{N_{m,n}},W)$ we discussed in Proposition \[prop1\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\ldots \stackrel{0}\longrightarrow H^{2}(X)\stackrel{f_{3}}\longrightarrow H^{2}(W)\oplus H^{2}({N_{m,n}})\stackrel{f_{4}}\longrightarrow H^{2}({Y_{m,n}})\longrightarrow 0\\
\ldots \stackrel{0}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}^{2}\stackrel{f_{3}}\longrightarrow ({\mathbb {Z}}\oplus \tau )\oplus {\mathbb {Z}}^{2}\stackrel{f_{4}}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}\oplus T\longrightarrow 0\end{aligned}$$ The $\sp $ structures on $W$ which restrict to the $\sp $ structures on $-{Y_{m,n}}$ correspond to the image $f_{4}(\tau )\subset T$. Since $b_{2}^{-}(X)=0$, the intersection form $Q_{W}$ of the manifold $W$ is trivial and thus $c_{1}(\mathfrak{s})^{2}=0$ for any $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}$ on the manifold $W$. From Theorem \[inequality\] it follows that if indeed $-{Y_{m,n}}$ bounds a negative semi-definite submanifold $W$ inside $X$, then the inequality $d_{b}(-{Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})\geq -\frac{1}{2}$ holds for any torsion $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{t}$ on $-{Y_{m,n}}$ which is a restriction of a $\sp $ structure on $W$. The bottom and top correction terms are defined in [@LRS Definition 3.3], where also the duality $d_{b}(-{Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})=-d_{t}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})$ is shown [@LRS Proposition 3.7]. By Theorem \[th1\] we have $d_{t}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})=d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})+1$. So for any such $\sp $ structure we have $d_{b}(-{Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})=-d_{t}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})=-d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})-1$, and consequently $$d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})=-d_{b}(-{Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})-1\leq -\frac{1}{2}\;.$$
Since the intersection form on $W$ is trivial, Theorem \[inequality\] can also be applied for the pair $(-W,{Y_{m,n}})$ to give the inequality $d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})\geq -\frac{1}{2}$. Both inequalities amount to the equality $$d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{t})=-\frac{1}{2}$$ for any torsion $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{t}$ on ${Y_{m,n}}$ which is a restriction of a $\sp $ structure on $W$.
[Double plumbings inside ${\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$]{} \[CP\] We consider double plumbings inside $X={\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$. Our question is whether a chosen pair of classes $\alpha ,\beta \in H_{2}({\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2})$ with $\alpha \cdot \beta =2$ can be represented by a configuration of two spheres with only two geometric intersections. We will find suitable classes $\alpha ,\beta $ and apply Proposition \[prop2\].
Now $H_{2}({\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2})\cong {\mathbb {Z}}^{2}$ has a standard basis $(e_{1},e_{2})$ with $e_{i}$ representing the class of the cycle ${\mathbb {C}}P^{1}\subset {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$. The intersection form $Q_{X}$ of the manifold $X$ is given by $\left( \begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array} \right )$ and $b_{2}^{-}(X)=0$. We need to choose homologically independent classes $\alpha ,\beta \in H_{2}(X)$ that are both representable by spheres and for which $\alpha \cdot \beta =2$. A class $\zeta =(a,b)\in H_{2}(X)$ has a smooth representative $\Sigma $ of genus $$g(\Sigma )=\frac{(|a|-1)(|a|-2)}{2}+\frac{(|b|-1)(|b|-2)}{2}\;.$$ This representative is obtained by the connected sum of minimal genus representatives for classes of divisibility $a$ and $b$ in ${\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$. Thus, nontrivial classes with smooth representatives of genus 0 are given by $ae_{1}+be_{2}\in H_{2}(X)$ where $(|a|,|b|)\in \{0,1,2\}^{2}\backslash \{(0,0)\}$. Up to isomorphism, there are three possible cases for $\alpha $ and $\beta $:
[1]{} & 2e\_[1]{}+2e\_[2]{}2e\_[1]{}-e\_[2]{}\
& 2e\_[1]{}e\_[1]{}+2e\_[2]{}\
& e\_[1]{}2e\_[1]{}+e\_[2]{}
We will investigate two cases: $\alpha =2e_{1}+2e_{2}, \beta =2e_{1}-e_{2}$ and $\alpha =2e_{1}, \beta =e_{1}+2e_{2}$. For the final case $\alpha =e_{1}$ and $\beta =2e_{1}\pm e_{2}$, the two classes can be represented by a pair of spheres intersecting in two points.
[First case: $\alpha =2e_{1}+2e_{2}, \beta =2e_{1}-e_{2}$]{} \[FirstCP\] We have $m=\alpha ^{2}=8, n=\beta ^{2}=5$ and $$H_{1}({Y_{m,n}})={\mathbb {Z}}\oplus {\mathbb {Z}}_{36}\;.$$ We will prove here the first part of Theorem \[app\], which says that any two spheres representing the classes $\alpha $ and $\beta $ intersect with at least 4 geometric intersections, and that there exist representatives with exactly 4 intersections.
Suppose there are spheres representing $\alpha $ and $\beta $ which have only two geometric intersections. Then the regular neighbourhood of their union is the double plumbing $N_{8,5}$ with boundary $Y_{8,5}$. Applying Theorem \[th1\] we calculate the bottom-most correction terms $d_{b}$ in all torsion $\sp $ structures on $Y_{8,5}$:
$\sp $ $d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{i,j})$
---------------------- ---------------------------------------
$\mathfrak{s}_{4,3}$ $-17/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{3,3}$ $-3/4$
$\mathfrak{s}_{2,3}$ $-5/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{1,3}$ $17/36$
$\mathfrak{s}_{6,0}$ $3/2$
$\mathfrak{s}_{5,0}$ $29/36$
$\mathfrak{s}_{4,0}$ $7/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{3,0}$ $1/4$
$\mathfrak{s}_{2,0}$ $7/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{1,0}$ $29/36$
$\mathfrak{s}_{0,0}$ $3/2$
$\mathfrak{s}_{7,2}$ $17/36$
$\mathfrak{s}_{6,2}$ $-5/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{5,2}$ $-3/4$
$\mathfrak{s}_{4,2}$ $-17/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{3,2}$ $-31/36$
$\mathfrak{s}_{2,2}$ $-1/2$
$\mathfrak{s}_{1,2}$ $5/36$
$\sp $ $d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{i,j})$
---------------------- ---------------------------------------
$\mathfrak{s}_{0,2}$ $19/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{7,4}$ $1/4$
$\mathfrak{s}_{6,4}$ $-5/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{5,4}$ $-19/36$
$\mathfrak{s}_{4,4}$ $-1/2$
$\mathfrak{s}_{3,4}$ $-7/36$
$\mathfrak{s}_{2,4}$ $7/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{1,4}$ $5/4$
$\mathfrak{s}_{6,1}$ $7/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{5,1}$ $-7/36$
$\mathfrak{s}_{4,1}$ $-1/2$
$\mathfrak{s}_{3,1}$ $-19/36$
$\mathfrak{s}_{2,1}$ $-5/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{1,1}$ $1/4$
$\mathfrak{s}_{0,1}$ $19/18$
$\mathfrak{s}_{7,3}$ $5/36$
$\mathfrak{s}_{6,3}$ $-1/2$
$\mathfrak{s}_{5,3}$ $-31/36$
There are only four $\sp $ structures on $Y_{8,5}$ for which the equality $d_{b}(Y_{8,5},\mathfrak{t})=-\frac{1}{2}$ is valid, namely $\mathfrak{s}_{2,2}$, $\mathfrak{s}_{4,4}$, $\mathfrak{s}_{4,1}$ and $\mathfrak{s}_{6,3}$. It follows from Proposition \[prop2\] that the two spheres which represent the classes $\alpha ,\beta \in H_{2}({\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2})$ have to intersect with a geometric intersection number greater than 2.
$2e_{1}+2e_{2}$ at 420 358 $2e_{1}-e_{2}$ at 422 164
![Attaching circles of the 2-handles representing classes $2e_{1}+2e_{2}, 2e_{1}-e_{2}\in {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$ with four geometric intersections[]{data-label="fig:CP2"}](CP2)
It is possible to construct genus zero representatives for $\alpha $ and $\beta $ with 4 geometric intersections. We use the following construction of Ruberman [@DR]: we represent ${\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$ as a handlebody with two 2-handles with framing 1 and denote by $h_{1}$ and $h_{2}$ the cores of the 2-handles. By adding to $h_{i}$ a disk its boundary spans in $B^{4}$, we obtain a sphere representing $e_{i}$. Now let us represent the class $\alpha =2e_{1}+2e_{2}$: first we take two copies of $h_{i}$ and resolve their double point to get a single disk for $i=1,2$. Then we make a boundary connected sum of both disks (with coherent orientations) and add a disk in $B^{4}$ to the resulting surface. Similarly, we represent the class $\beta =2e_{1}-e_{2}$: first we take two copies of $h_{1}$ and resolve their double point, then we boundary connect sum the obtained disk and $h_{2}$ with the reversed orientation (this means the connected sum is made via a band with a half-twist) and add a disk in $B^{4}$ in the end. In this way we get the two spheres representing classes $\alpha $ and $\beta $ in ${\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$. Figure \[fig:CP2\] shows the two representatives in ${\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$. The right loop of the dark curve can be slightly pulled left by an isotopy so that it intersects the light curve only twice, thus there remain only four intersections between the two spheres. It follows that 4 is the minimal number of geometric intersections.
[Second case: $\alpha =2e_{1}, \beta =e_{1}+2e_{2}$]{}
$2e_{1}$ at 180 420 $e_{1}+2e_{2}$ at 438 420
 \[fig:CP3\]
The squares $m=\alpha ^{2}=4$ and $n=\beta ^{2}=5$ imply that $H_{1}(Y_{4,5})={\mathbb {Z}}\oplus {\mathbb {Z}}_{16}$. The bottom-most correction terms $d_{b}$ of $Y_{4,5}$ are given by
$\sp $ $d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{i,j})$
---------------------- ---------------------------------------
$\mathfrak{s}_{2,3}$ $-15/16$
$\mathfrak{s}_{1,3}$ $-1/2$
$\mathfrak{s}_{2,0}$ $9/16$
$\mathfrak{s}_{1,0}$ $1/4$
$\mathfrak{s}_{0,0}$ $9/16$
$\mathfrak{s}_{3,2}$ $-1/2$
$\mathfrak{s}_{2,2}$ $-15/16$
$\mathfrak{s}_{1,2}$ $-3/4$
$\sp $ $d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{i,j})$
---------------------- ---------------------------------------
$\mathfrak{s}_{0,2}$ $1/16$
$\mathfrak{s}_{3,4}$ $-1/2$
$\mathfrak{s}_{2,4}$ $-7/16$
$\mathfrak{s}_{1,4}$ $1/4$
$\mathfrak{s}_{2,1}$ $-7/16$
$\mathfrak{s}_{1,1}$ $-1/2$
$\mathfrak{s}_{0,1}$ $1/16$
$\mathfrak{s}_{3,3}$ $-3/4$
There are the requisite four $\sp $ structures on $Y_{4,5}$ for which $d_{b}$ is equal to $-\frac{1}{2}$: $$d_{b}(Y_{4,5},\mathfrak{s}_{1,3})=d_{b}(Y_{4,5},\mathfrak{s}_{3,2})=d_{b}(Y_{4,5},\mathfrak{s}_{3,4})=d_{b}(Y_{4,5},\mathfrak{s}_{1,1})=-\frac{1}{2}\;.$$ Indeed, one can choose the two spheres representing classes $\alpha $ and $\beta $ so that their geometric intersection consists of two points, see Figure \[fig:CP3\].
[Double plumbings inside $S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2}$]{} \[S2\] Let us investigate double plumbings inside the 4–manifold $X=S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2}$. Since $X$ is simply connected and its intersection form $Q_{X}=\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
\end{array} \right )$ is even, it follows that $X$ is a spin 4–manifold. According to [@WALL Theorem 3], if $M$ is a simply connected closed oriented 4–manifold with an indefinite intersection form, then every primitive noncharacteristic class of $H_{2}(M\# (S^{2}\times S^{2}))$ is represented by an embedded sphere. More specifically, Hirai showed that every primitive element of $H_{2}(S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2})$ can be represented by a smoothly embedded sphere [@HI Theorem 1]. A class $\mathbf{r}\in H_{2}(X)$ is primitive if it cannot be written as $d\mathbf{t}$ for any class $\mathbf{t}\in H_{2}(X)$ and any $d\in {\mathbb {Z}}\backslash \{-1,1\}$.
Denote by $(e_{1},e_{2},e_{3},e_{4})$ the standard basis of $H_{2}(S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2})$ and consider the classes $$\alpha =ae_{1}+2e_{2},\qquad \beta =e_{1}+te_{3}+e_{4}$$ where $a,t\in \mathbb{N}$ and $a$ is an odd number. We have $m=\alpha ^{2}=4a$, $n=\beta ^{2}=2t$ and $\alpha \cdot \beta =2$. Since $a$ is odd, the classes $\alpha $ and $\beta $ can be represented by spheres. We will prove the second part of Theorem \[app\], which says that if $a\geq 5$, then the spheres representing $\alpha $ and $\beta $ intersect with at least 4 geometric intersections.
Suppose these two spheres have exactly two geometric intersections. We denote by ${N_{m,n}}$ the regular neighborhood of the union of the spheres and by $W$ its complementary submanifold $W=X\backslash \operatorname{Int}({N_{m,n}})$ in $X$. While ${N_{m,n}}$ is the double plumbing of two disk bundles over spheres whose intersection form is positive definite, the submanifold $W\subset X$ carries the negative part of the intersection form. We have defined $\sp $ structures $\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}$ on ${N_{m,n}}$ and denoted by $\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}=\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}|_{{Y_{m,n}}}$ the restriction of each $\sp $ structure to the boundary 3-manifold. Now we would like to define a $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}\in \operatorname{Spin}^{c}(X)$ for which $\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{{N_{m,n}}}=\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}$. Then we will find the restriction $\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{W}$ and use Theorem \[inequality\] for the pair $(W,-{Y_{m,n}})$, equipped with the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{W}$ for some $i$ and $j$. By definition of $\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}\in \operatorname{Spin}^{c}({N_{m,n}})$, we have $\langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}),\alpha \rangle =2i-m$ and $\langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}),\beta \rangle =2j-n$. For an odd $i$, define a $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}$ on $X$ by $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}),e_{1}\rangle = \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}),e_{3} \rangle=-2\\
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}),e_{2} \rangle =i-a\\
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}),e_{4} \rangle =2j+2\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $\langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}),\alpha \rangle =2i-m$ and $\langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}),\beta \rangle =2j-n$, which means that $\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{{N_{m,n}}}=\mathfrak{t}_{i,j}$ and consequently $\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{{Y_{m,n}}}=\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}$. We can calculate that the orthogonal complement of $H_{2}({N_{m,n}})$ in $H_{2}(X)$ is spanned by the vectors $\gamma =-ae_{1}+2e_{2}-2e_{3}$ and $\delta =-te_{3}+e_{4}$, for which we have $\gamma ^{2}=-m$, $\delta ^{2}=-n$ and $\gamma \cdot \delta =-2$. Thus, $\gamma $ and $\delta $ are generators of $H_{2}(W)$ and its intersection form is given by the matrix $Q_{W}=\left( \begin{array}{cc}
-m & -2 \\
-2 & -n \\
\end{array} \right )$. We calculate $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{W}),\gamma \rangle =2i+4\\
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{W}),\delta \rangle =n+2j+2\end{aligned}$$ It follows that the square of the first Chern class $c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{W})$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{W})^{2}=-\frac{1}{mn-4}\left (n(2i+4)^{2}+m(n+2j+2)^{2}-4(2i+4)(n+2j+2)\right )\;.\end{aligned}$$ Now the restriction of $\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{W}$ to the boundary $-{Y_{m,n}}$ is the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}$ and Theorem \[inequality\] implies $4d_{b}(-{Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{i,j})\geq c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{W})^{2}$. Recall from Theorem \[th1\] the correction terms $d_{b}({Y_{m,n}})$ and compare $$\begin{aligned}
& -d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{i,j})-1=d_{b}(-{Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{i,j})\geq \frac{c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{W})^{2}}{4}\\
& -\frac{c_{1}(\mathfrak{u}_{i,j}|_{W})^{2}}{4}\geq d_{b}({Y_{m,n}},\mathfrak{s}_{i,j})+1\\
& \frac{n(2i+4)^{2}+m(n+2j+2)^{2}-4(2i+4)(n+2j+2)}{4(mn-4)}\geq \\
& \geq \frac{m^{2}n+mn^{2}-4mn(i+j)+4n(i^{2}+2i)+4m(j^{2}+2j)-16ij-16}{4(mn-4)}\end{aligned}$$ By simplifying this expression we get the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
& 4(mn-4)(i+2j+1-a)\geq 0\\
& i+2j+1\geq a\end{aligned}$$ where $1\leq i\leq 4a-1$ and $1\leq j\leq 2t-1$ and $i$ is odd. If $a\geq 5$, this inequality does not hold for the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{1,1}$. The higher the value of $a$, the more $\sp $ structures $\mathfrak{s}_{i,j}$ do not satisfy the above inequality. Therefore the two spheres representing $\alpha $ and $\beta $ must have at least 4 geometric intersections for all $a\geq 5$.
It might be interesting to compare our result with [@ASKI Proposition 3.6]. According to the Proposition in the case $n=2$, the classes $(p_{1},q_{1},0,0)$ and $(0,0,p_{2},q_{2})$ (where $p_{i},q_{i}\geq 2$ and $(p_{i},q_{i})=1$ for $i=1,2$) are not disjointly, smoothly, $S^{2}$-representable inside the manifold $S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2}$.
The application of $d_{b}$-invariants in the Section \[App\] is similar to the $d$-invariant obstruction that is used for concordance applications, e.g. in [@JANA] and many other papers.
[Geometric intersections of spheres with algebraic intersection one]{} \[One\] Now we investigate a configuration of two spheres which intersect only once inside a closed smooth 4–manifold $X$ with $H_{1}(X)=0$ and $b_{2}^{+}(X)=2$. Such a configuration is a (single) plumbing ${M_{m,n}}$ of disk bundles over spheres with Euler numbers $m$ and $n$. The Kirby diagram for ${M_{m,n}}$ is a Hopf link of two framed unknoted circles, which can be changed by the operation called slam-dunk [@kirby page 163] into a single unknoted circle with framing $\frac{mn-1}{n}$. The boundary of ${M_{m,n}}$ is thus the lens space $L(mn-1,n)$ with $H_{1}(L(mn-1,n))={\mathbb {Z}}_{mn-1}$. For labeling lens spaces, we use notation from [@OS4]. By the results of [@OS2 Proposition 3.1], the Heegaard–Floer homology of $\widehat{HF}(L(p,q))$ has one generator in every torsion $\sp $ structure and its absolute grading is given by a recursive formula from [@OS4 Proposition 4.8]: $$d(-L(p,q),i)=\left (\frac{pq-(2i+1-p-q)^{2}}{4pq}\right )-d(-L(q,r),j)$$ where $r$ and $j$ are the reductions of $p$ and $i$ modulo $q$ respectively. In our case $p=mn-1$ and $q=n$, so $r=n-1$. In the special case when $n=1$, we need only one application of the recursive formula to obtain
[1]{} \[lensD1\] & d(-L(m-1,1),i)=-+.
In another special case when $n=2$, we need two applications of the recursive formula to obtain
[1]{} \[lensD2\] & d(-L(2m-1,2),i)=-+\
& d(-L(2m-1,2),i)=-
When $n>2$, starting with $d(-L(n-1,1),j)$ we apply the recursive formula three times to obtain
[1]{} & d(-L(mn-1,n),i)=-+-
where $j$ is the reduction of $i\textrm{ mod $n$}$ and $t$ is the reduction of $j\textrm{ mod ($n-1$)}$. In the special case when $0\leq i<n-1$ and thus $i=j=t$ we get a simplification
[1]{} \[lensD\] & d(-L(mn-1,n),i)=-(nm\^[2]{}+m(n-2i)\^[2]{}-2m(n-2i))+
Denote $L=-L(mn-1,n)$. Let us derive the formula in another way: by defining a $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{i}$ on the plumbing $-{M_{m,n}}$ and using the Formula from [@OS4 Formula (4)] to compute $d(L,\mathfrak{s}_{i}|_{L})$. By removing a 4-ball from $-{M_{m,n}}$ we get a cobordism $\mathcal{C}$ from $S^{3}$ to $L$. Since the intersection form of $-{M_{m,n}}$ is given by the matrix $Q_{-{M_{m,n}}}=\left( \begin{array}{cc}
-m & -1 \\
-1 & -n \\
\end{array} \right )$, we have $\chi (\mathcal{C})=2$ and $\sigma (\mathcal{C})=-2$. Define a $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{i}$ on $-{M_{m,n}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defs}
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{s}_{i}),s_{1}\rangle =m,\quad \quad \quad \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{s}_{i}),s_{2}\rangle =n-2i\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $s_{1},s_{2}\in H_{2}(-{M_{m,n}})$ are the classes of the base spheres in the plumbing $-{M_{m,n}}$. It follows that $$c_{1}(\mathfrak{s}_{i})^{2}=-\frac{nm^{2}+m(n-2i)^{2}-2m(n-2i)}{mn-1}$$ and the formula gives us $$\begin{aligned}
& d(L,\mathfrak{s}_{i}|_{L})=-\frac{nm^{2}+m(n-2i)^{2}-2m(n-2i)}{4(mn-1)}+\frac{2}{4}\;,\end{aligned}$$ which coincides with Formula .
From Theorem \[inequality\] we obtain the following obstruction for the $d$-invariants:
\[prop4\] Let $X$ be a closed smooth 4-manifold with $H_{1}(X)=0$, $b_{2}^{+}(X)=2$ and $b_{2}^{-}(X)=0$. Suppose there are two spheres $\Sigma _{1},\Sigma _{2}\subset X$ with $\Sigma _{1} ^{2}=m>0$, $\Sigma _{2}^{2}=n>0$ and $\Sigma _{1}\cdot \Sigma _{2}=1$. Denote by $L$ the boundary of a regular neighbourhood of $\Sigma _{1}\cup \Sigma _{2}$. Then for some subgroup $\tau \subset H_{1}(L)$ with $|\tau |^{2}=mn-1$ and some $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{0}$ on $L$, we have $d(L,\mathfrak{s}_{0}+\phi )=0$ for every $\phi \in \tau$.
Denote by ${M_{m,n}}$ the regular neighbourhood of $\Sigma _{1}\cup \Sigma _{2}$ and let $V=X\backslash \operatorname{Int}({M_{m,n}})$. We study the Mayer–Vietoris sequence in cohomology of the triple $(X,V,{M_{m,n}})$: $$\begin{aligned}
& 0\rightarrow H^{1}(V)\oplus H^{1}({M_{m,n}})\stackrel{f_{1}}\rightarrow H^{1}(L) \stackrel{f_{2}}\rightarrow H^{2}(X)\stackrel{f_{3}}\rightarrow H^{2}(V)\oplus H^{2}({M_{m,n}}) \stackrel{f_{4}}\rightarrow H^{2}(L)\rightarrow 0\\
& 0\rightarrow H^{1}(V)\oplus H^{1}({M_{m,n}})\stackrel{f_{1}}\rightarrow 0 \stackrel{f_{2}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}^{2}\stackrel{f_{3}}\rightarrow H^{2}(V)\oplus H^{2}({M_{m,n}})\stackrel{f_{4}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}_{mn-1}\rightarrow 0\end{aligned}$$ At the beginning and at the end of the sequence we have zeroes since $H_{1}(X)=0$. Since $L$ is the lens space $L(mn-1,n)$, we have $H^{2}(L)={\mathbb {Z}}_{mn-1}$ and $H^{1}(L)=0$. It follows from the sequence that $H^{1}(V)=H^{1}({M_{m,n}})=0$, so $H_{1}(V)=\tau $ is a torsion group by the universal coefficient theorem. The group $H_{2}({M_{m,n}})={\mathbb {Z}}^{2}$ is spanned by the homology classes of the spheres $\Sigma _{1}$ and $\Sigma _{2}$, so the cohomology group $H^{2}({M_{m,n}})$ has rank two. It follows that $H^{2}(V)\cong \tau $ and $H_{2}(V)=0$. Now we can write down the homology long exact sequence of the pair $(V,-L)$: $$\begin{aligned}
& \rightarrow H_{2}(-L)\stackrel{g_{1}}\longrightarrow H_{2}(V)\stackrel{g_{2}}\longrightarrow H_{2}(V,-L)\stackrel{g_{3}}\longrightarrow H_{1}(-L)\stackrel{g_{4}}\longrightarrow H_{1}(V)\rightarrow \ldots \\
& \rightarrow 0 \stackrel{g_{1}}\longrightarrow 0\stackrel{g_{2}}\longrightarrow \tau \stackrel{g_{3}}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {Z}}_{mn-1}\stackrel{g_{4}}\longrightarrow \tau \stackrel{0}\rightarrow \ldots \end{aligned}$$ It follows from this sequence that $\tau $ is a subgroup of ${\mathbb {Z}}_{mn-1}$ with quotient group ${\mathbb {Z}}_{mn-1}/\tau \cong \tau $, thus $|\tau |^{2}=mn-1$. Those $\sp $ structures on $-L$ which are restrictions of $\sp $ structures on $V$ correspond to the image of the map $H^{2}(V)\to H^{2}(-L)$, which is the monomorphism $\tau \to {\mathbb {Z}}_{mn-1}$. For every $\sp $ structure on $-L$ which is the restriction of a $\sp $ structure on $V$ we can apply Theorem \[inequality\] to obtain the estimate $d(-L,\mathfrak{s})\geq 0$ and consequently $d(L,\mathfrak{s})\leq 0$ . Since $V$ has a trivial intersection form, we can also apply the same theorem for the pair $(-V,L)$ to obtain $d(L,\mathfrak{s})\geq 0$, from which the equality follows.
[Single plumbings inside ${\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$]{} \[CP1\] Let $X={\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$ and denote by $(e_{1},e_{2})$ the standard basis for $H_{2}(X)$. As remarked in Subsection \[CP\], the classes in $H_{2}(X)$ which are representable by spheres have the form $x_{1}e_{1}+x_{2}e_{2}$ with $(x_{1},x_{2})\in \{0,\pm 1,\pm 2\}^{2}\backslash \{(0,0)\}$. Consider a pair of such classes with algebraic intersection 1: $\alpha =2e_{1}+e_{2}$ and $\beta =e_{1}-e_{2}$. We have $m=\alpha ^{2}=5$ and $n=\beta ^{2}=2$ so $L=L(9,2)$ and the $d$–invariants are given by
[1]{} & d(L(9,2),i)=-
for $0\leq i\leq 8$, where $j$ is the reduction of $i$ (mod $2$). We calculate
[1]{} & d(L,0)=d(L,1)=d(L,2)=d(L,5)=d(L,8)=0\
& d(L,3)=d(L,7)=d(L,4)=d(L,6)=-
$2e_{1}+e_{2}$ at 420 346 $e_{1}-e_{2}$ at 423 163
![Attaching circles of the 2-handles representing classes $2e_{1}+e_{2},e_{1}-e_{2}\in {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$[]{data-label="fig:CP1"}](CP1)
We can see that there are three $\sp $ structures with $d$-invariant equal to 0, in accordance with Proposition \[prop4\]. Thus, the spheres representing classes $\alpha $ and $\beta $ can have only one geometric intersection inside ${\mathbb {C}}P^{2}\# {\mathbb {C}}P^{2}$. Indeed, the two spheres can be chosen in such a way, following the construction of Ruberman [@DR] described in Subsubsection \[FirstCP\]. We represent the class $\alpha =2e_{1}+e_{2}$ by taking two copies of $h_{1}$, resolve their double point to get a single disk, then make a boundary connected sum with $h_{2}$ (with coherent orientations) and add a disk in $B^{4}$ to the resulting surface. Similarly, we represent the class $\beta =e_{1}-e_{2}$ by taking a boundary connected sum of $h_{1}$ and $h_{2}$ with reversed orientations and adding a disk in $B^{4}$, see Figure \[fig:CP1\]. The attaching circles of the 2-handles thus achieved can be moved by an isotopy to form the Hopf link, which shows that the two representatives have only one geometric intersection.
[Single plumbings inside $S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2}$]{} \[S21\]
Consider the 4–manifold $X=S^{2}\times S^{2}\# S^{2}\times S^{2}$ and two classes $\alpha =(2k+1)e_{1}+2e_{2}$ and $\beta =-ke_{1}+e_{2}+2ke_{3}+e_{4}$ in $H_{2}(X)$, where $k$ is a positive integer. We have $\alpha ^{2}=4(2k+1)=m$, $\beta ^{2}=2k=n$ and $\alpha \cdot \beta =1$. Since $\alpha $ and $\beta $ are primitive noncharacteristic classes, they are represented by embedded spheres in $X$ by [@WALL Theorem 3]. We will prove here Theorem \[app1\] which says: Any two spheres representing the classes $\alpha $ and $\beta $ intersect with at least 3 geometric intersections for all $k>1$.
Suppose the two spheres intersect with only one geometric intersection; then a regular neighborhood of their configuration forms the plumbing ${M_{m,n}}$ inside $X$. Denote by $V=X\backslash \operatorname{Int}({M_{m,n}})$ its complementary submanifold and let $L=\partial V$.
We would like to define a $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{t}_{i}$ on $X$, for which the restriction $\mathfrak{t}_{i}|_{{M_{m,n}}}=\mathfrak{s}_{i}$. Then we will find the restriction $\mathfrak{t}_{i}|_{V}$ to the complementary submanifold and apply Theorem \[inequality\]. Let $\mathfrak{t}_{i}\in \operatorname{Spin}^{c}(X)$ be the unique $\sp $ structure for which the following holds: $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i}),e_{1}\rangle =0\\
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i}),e_{2}\rangle =2(2k+1)\\
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i}),e_{3}\rangle =-2\\
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i}),e_{4}\rangle =2(k-i-1)\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $\langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i}),\alpha \rangle =4(2k+1)=m$ and $\langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i}),\beta \rangle =2k-2i=n-2i$, which means that $\mathfrak{t}_{i}|_{{M_{m,n}}}$ concides with the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{i}$ defined in . As we have shown, the correction term $d(L,\mathfrak{s}_{i}|_{L})$ is given by the Formula . Now let us find the restriction $\mathfrak{t}_{i}|_{V}$. The image of the inclusion homomorphism $H_{2}(V)\to H_{2}(X)$ is spanned by the two classes $\gamma =-(2k+1)e_{1}+2e_{2}+(4k+1)e_{3}$ and $\delta =-2ke_{3}+e_{4}$ which are both orthogonal to $\alpha $ and $\beta $. We calculate $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i}),\gamma \rangle =2\\
& \langle c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i}),\delta \rangle =6k-2i-2=3n-2i-2\end{aligned}$$ Since $\gamma ^{2}=-m$, $\delta ^{2}=-2n$ and $\gamma \cdot \delta =4k+1=\frac{m-2}{2}$, the intersection form on $V$ is given by the matrix $Q_{V}=\left( \begin{array}{cc}
-m & \frac{m-2}{2} \\
\frac{m-2}{2} & -2n \\
\end{array} \right )$ with $\operatorname{det}Q_{V}=mn-1$. The square of $c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i}|_{V})$ is then calculated by
[1]{} & c\_[1]{}(\_[i]{}|\_[V]{})\^[2]{}=-.
Now Theorem \[inequality\] gives us the inequality $c_{1}(\mathfrak{t}_{i}|_{V})^{2}+2\leq 4d(L,i)$. Using the Equation , we compare $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{8n+m(3n-2i-2)^{2}+2(m-2)(3n-2i-2)}{mn-1}\leq -\frac{nm^{2}+m(n-2i)^{2}-2m(n-2i)}{mn-1}\end{aligned}$$ and by simplifying we get the inequality $$(mn-1)(k-i-1)\geq 0\;,$$ which is not valid for $i\geq k$. When applying the Formula we assumed that $0\leq i<n-1=2k-1$. Thus, the $\sp $ structure $\mathfrak{s}_{k}|_{L}$ does not satisfy the inequality in Theorem \[inequality\] whenever $k>1$. Therefore, the two spheres representing the classes $\alpha $ and $\beta $ have at least three geometric intersections for all $k>1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
\
European Space Research and Technology Centre, Keplerlaan 1, 2200 Noordwijk, Netherlands\
E-mail:
- |
Nino Panagia\
Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Dr., Baltimore, MD 21218, USA\
INAF–NA, Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Salita Moiariello 16, 80131 Naples, Italy\
Supernova Ltd, OYV \#131, Northsound Rd., Virgin Gorda VG1150, Virgin Islands, UK\
E-mail:
title: 'Star formation in the Local Group as seen by low-mass stars'
---
Introduction
============
In the currently accepted star formation scenario (e.g. Lynden-Bell & Pringle 1974; Bertout 1989), low-mass stars grow over time through accretion of matter from a circumstellar disc. A reliable measurement of the rate at which mass is accreted onto PMS stars is of paramount importance for understanding the evolution of both the stars and their discs (Calvet et al. 2000). The formation of planetary systems is intimately connected with the properties of the circumstellar discs in which they are born (Wolf et al. 2012). In particular, the timescale of disc survival sets an upper limit on the timescale of planet formation, becoming a stringent constraint for planet formation theories (e.g. Haisch, Lada & Lada 2001). Therefore, it is particularly important to determine how the mass accretion rate varies with time as a star approaches the MS, how it depends on the mass of the forming star and how it is affected by the chemical composition and density of the parent molecular clouds or by the proximity of massive stars.
Observations of nearby star forming regions have reported that direct and indirect indicators of inner discs seem to disappear rapidly in the first few Myr of PMS evolution: both the fraction of young stars with infrared excess and those with evidence of disc accretion have been found to drop exponentially with the age of the stellar populations, with an e-folding time of $2-3$Myr (Hernandez et al. 2007; Williams & Cieza 2011; Fedele et al. 2010). Concerning mass accretion, ground-based spectroscopic studies of nearby young star-forming regions (e.g. Taurus, Auriga, Ophiuchus; e.g. Sicilia–Aguilar et al. 2006) show that the mass accretion rate appears to decrease steadily with time, from about $10^{-8}$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ at ages of $\sim 1$Myr for stars of about $0.5$M$_\odot$ to less than $10^{-9}$M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ for the same stars at ages of $\sim 10$Myr (e.g. Muzerolle et al. 2000; Sicilia–Aguilar et al. 2005; 2006; 2010). At face value this is in line with the expected evolution of viscous discs (Hartmann et al. 1998), even though the scatter of the data exceeds 2 dex at any given age (see also Figure\[fig3\]), also because the observations cover a wide and sparsely populated mass range.
Extrapolating from these nearby results, one would be tempted to conclude that circumstellar discs are rather short lived and star formation is a rather quick process. Unfortunately, all the studies mentioned above address a very limited sample of star formation properties. All regions studied so far are nearby; they contain few stars, typically with masses of a few tenths of M$_\odot$; they are not in dense environments; they do not contain massive stars, except for Orion; and they all have solar metallicity. Thus, these environments are not representative of massive starburst clusters, where possibly most stars form in galaxies. Nor are they characteristic of the conditions in place when most stars formed in the universe, at redshift $z \gtrsim 2$ (e.g. Madau et al. 1996; Lilly et al. 1996), when metallicity was about $1/3$Z$_\odot$. For this reason, it is important to study star formation in other places in our Galaxy, not only around the Sun but also in massive clusters, and also in nearby Galaxies, for instance the Magellanic Clouds (MCs). With a metallicity between $1/3$Z$_\odot$ and $1/10$Z$_\odot$, the MCs offer us an environment with the prevailing conditions at $z \simeq 2$.
Of course, observing star-forming regions farther away than the solar neighbourhood introduces some practical problems, mostly due to angular resolution. For instance, while multi-object spectrographs at large ground based observatories are sensitive enough to give us good spectra of PMS stars in the MCs, atmospheric seeing makes these studies extremely difficult for all but the most massive PMS objects (e.g. Kalari et al. 2014). Alternatively, the the properties of circumstellar discs around PMS stars in the MCs can be studied with infrared space observatories such as [*Spitzer*]{} and [*Herschel*]{} (e.g. Seale et al. 2009; Carlson et al. 2011; Carlson et al. 2012; Meixner et al. 2013). However, also in this case angular resolution remains a problem and all sources detected in this way and classified as young stellar objects (YSOs) are in fact groups of YSOs or even small clusters and the properties of individual stars cannot be derived.
This investigation will benefit tremendously from the [*James Webb Space Telescope*]{} (JWST; Gardner et al. 2006) and in particular from NIRSpec, the multi-object spectrograph provided by the European Space Agency (Birkmann et al. 2014). NIRSpec will deliver simultaneous near-infrared spectra ($0.6 - 5.0$$\mu$m) of up to $\sim 100$ PMS stars wherever located inside its $3^\prime \times 3^\prime$ field of view, with a spatial resolution equivalent to that of the HST at optical wavelengths ($< 0.1"$). The strength of the accretion process and mass accretion rates can be readily derived from the analysis of prominent recombination lines in the Paschen and Brackett series (e.g. Natta, Testi & Randich 2006).
Already now, however, there is a very efficient and powerful way to obtain this information, for hundreds of stars simultaneously, from photometry alone. Using the HST and VLT, in collaboration with a group of European colleagues (see Acknowledgments) we have started a study of the PMS phase in a number of star forming regions in the local group. These include NGC3603 and Trumpler14 in the Milky Way, 30Doradus and surrounding regions in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), and NGC346 and NGC602 in the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC). In the following sections we describe the method and its application and present the most important results of this investigation so far.
The method
==========
The method hinges on the fact that the spectra of PMS stars undergoing mass accretion have distinctive emission features, in particular strong emission in the $H\alpha$ line (equivalent width $W_{\rm eq} > 10$Å), due to the recombination of the gas that is shocked and ionised in the accretion process. Thanks to these features, we have shown that it is possible to efficiently and reliably identify all objects of this type in a stellar field, regardless of their age and of their position in the colour–magnitude diagram (CMD). Building on the work of Romaniello (1998), of Panagia et al. (2000), and of Romaniello et al. (2004), in De Marchi, Panagia & Romaniello (2010) and De Marchi et al. (2011a), we showed that a suitable combination of broad- and narrow-band photometry provides an accurate determination of the $H\alpha$ luminosity of these objects. From it, the accretion luminosity and mass accretion rate can easily be derived.
{width="32.00000%" height="5cm"} {width="32.00000%" height="5cm"} {width="32.00000%" height="5cm"}
We look for the presence of an excess in the $H\alpha$ emission line by using a combination of broad-band ($V$, $I$) and narrow-band ($H\alpha$) photometry. This way of identifying PMS stars is more reliable than the simple classification based on the position of the objects in the CMD or Hertzsprung–Russell (H–R) diagram and provides a secure detection of relatively old PMS stars, already close to the MS.
The virtue of this new method is that it derives the luminosity of the photospheric continuum of a star inside the specific $H\alpha$ band simply by interpolation from the average $V-H\alpha$ colour of stars with the same $V-I$ index (see Figure\[fig1\]). As shown in De Marchi et al. (2010), the majority of stars in a typical stellar field have no excess $H\alpha$ emission. Therefore, the [*median*]{} value of the $V - H\alpha$ colour index at a given effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$ defines a spectral reference template for all stars with that $T_{\rm eff}$ and can be used to identify objects with $H\alpha$ excess. Equipped with the knowledge of the continuum level in the $H\alpha$ band, we can easily determine the $H\alpha$ luminosity, $L(H\alpha)$, of each star.
The method and its applications are fully explained in a series of papers (De Marchi et al. 2010, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2013a; Beccari et al. 2010; Spezzi et al. 2012; Beccari et al. 2015) and the accuracy of the $H\alpha$ continuum and $L(H\alpha)$ derived in this way has been independently confirmed with spectroscopic measurements by Barentsen et al. (2011).
Some examples of how the method works are presented in Figure\[fig1\], where we show the run of the $V-H\alpha$ colour as a function of $V-I$ in three fields. From left to right, CMDs correspond to stars in the field around SN1987A in the LMC, in the cluster NGC346 in the SMC, and in NGC3603 in the Galaxy. Stars with small photometric uncertainties (grey dots) define the reference template for normal stars (i.e. with no $H\alpha$ emission), shown as a dashed line (the lines are not the same in the three panels due to differences between the different HST cameras used for the observations). When $H\alpha$ emission is present in PMS stars, this results in a greater than average value of the $V-H\alpha$ colour. We conservatively take as PMS objects all stars with $V-H\alpha$ colour departing from the template line more than four times their photometric uncertainty (thick red dots). We have identified in this way more than 3400 bona-fide PMS stars, in the three galaxies, still undergoing mass accretion. We are currently extending the sample with the addition of about 10000 PMS objects (De Marchi, Panagia, Sabbi 2015, in preparation) revealed with our method in a region of $\sim 14^\prime \times
12^\prime$ centered on 30Dor, observed as part of the Hubble Treasury Tarantula Survey (Sabbi et al. 2013).
{width="49.00000%" height="7cm"} {width="49.00000%" height="7cm"}
Multiple generations
====================
The method that we have developed to detect PMS stars in a stellar field allows us to identify [*all*]{} objects with an excess emission. This means that we are able to detect not only the most recent generation of T Tauri stars, whose colours are still dominated by the circumstellar discs, but also relatively “mature” PMS stars, already close to the MS. An example is shown in Figure\[fig2\], where all objects indicated by red dots are stars currently displaying $H\alpha$ excess emission due to the ongoing active mass accretion. Broad-band photometry alone could not distinguish the bluer objects (i.e. those near the MS) from normal MS stars, but the $H\alpha$ photometry allows us to securely identify them as still intrinsically young.
Comparison of the CMDs of Figure\[fig2\] with theoretical isochrones immediately suggests an older age for the bluer objects, typically older than $\sim
10$Myr. There are, of course, some uncertainties on the ages derived through isochrone comparison: besides photometric errors and uncertainties in the input physics affecting the models, there are other physical effects that could cause an incorrect determination of the age (or mass) of individual objects. These include for instance unresolved binaries, differential reddening, stellar variability, veiling resulting from accretion, and scattering due to a disc seen at high inclination. All these effects can combine to produce a broadening in the CMD, which could be misinterpreted as an age spread (see e.g. Hennekemper et al. 2007 and Da Rio et al. 2010).
In fact, even though all the effects mentioned above could mimic an age spread, none of them can produce the clearly bimodal distribution that we observe in the CMDs. We show this in a quantitative way in Figure\[fig3\], containing in the left panel the H–R diagram of NGC602 (De Marchi, Beccari & Panagia 2013). The remarkable paucity of PMS stars with age comprised between the 4Myr and 16Myr isochrones is quantified in the right panel, where we show the distribution of PMS stars as a function of the difference in their $\log T_{\rm eff}$ values. The distribution is obtained by counting the number of PMS stars in strips parallel to the zero-age MS, starting from the dot-dashed line, and it is clearly bimodal, with two peaks separated by several times their width. A Gaussian fit to the two peaks (dot-dashed lines in Figure\[fig3\]b) gives $\sigma_1 =
0.020$dex for older PMS stars and $\sigma_2 = 0.025$dex for younger PMS stars. The separation between the two peaks ($0.1$dex) corresponds to respectively 5 and 4 times these widths and confirms that the two distributions are clearly distinct.
Physically, it is hard to imagine a mechanism that would affect the temperatures and luminosities of stars in such a way that they are selectively displaced from the region occupied by young PMS objects in the H–R diagram and moved towards the MS, while leaving only a handful of them in the region in between. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the two groups of stars with $H\alpha$ excess seen in the CMDs must belong to different generations, with ages that differ by much more than a factor of two and likely up to an order of magnitude.
{width="49.00000%" height="6.5cm"} {width="49.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
Besides very different ages, the two populations of younger and older PMS stars shown in Figures\[fig2\] and \[fig3\] also have considerably different spatial density distributions. As an example, for NGC602 we compare these distributions to one another in Figure4 by means of contour lines of stellar density with logarithmic steps, overlaid on a true-colour image of the region. We have selected all stars younger than 5 Myr (cyan) and those older than 20 Myr (orange). The lowest contour level corresponds to a local density of PMS stars three times as high as the average PMS stars density over the entire field. The steps between contour levels are constant and corresponds to 0.3dex. We also show with yellow dots the positions of the few stars (34 in total) with ages between 5 and 20 Myr.
{width="80.00000%" height="11.5cm"}
The spatial distribution of younger and older PMS stars are remarkably different: older objects are much more widely distributed and, except for the centre, they do not always overlap with the younger generation. This confirms that episodic accretion (e.g. Baraffe et al. 2009, 2010) is not at the origin of the bimodal distribution of PMS stars as seen in Figure\[fig3\], because the effects of episodic accretion could move stars from one side to the other of the CMD, but they cannot possibly move the stars across the sky! Hence we must conclude that there is a fundamental difference between the properties of bluer and redder PMS stars in the CMD, and their age is the difference. This finding is not limited to NGC602, but is a common feature of all the star-forming regions that we have investigated so far in the three galaxies.
In summary, all regions that we studied in the Milky Way, LMC and SMC exhibit multiple recent episodes of star formation, indicating that star formation has proceeded over a long time, even though our age resolution cannot discriminate between an extended episode or short and frequent bursts. We also find that there is no correlation between the projected spatial distribution of young and old PMS stars and that the younger population is systematically more concentrated.
![The left panel shows the mass accretion rate as a function of stellar age for PMS stars in NGC346 (diamonds) compared with that of Galactic T Tauri stars (see legend) from the work of Sicilia–Aguilar et al. (2006; the large cross indicates the uncertainties as quoted in that paper). The solid line shows the current models of viscous disc evolution from Hartmann et al. (1998). Our measurements are systematically higher than the models, and the effect remains when we consider separately stars of different masses (right panel, see legends for mass values). The right panel shows that all four mass groups have the same decline of $\dot M_{\rm acc}$ with age ($\alpha \simeq -0.5$, thick dashed lines), but $\dot M_{\rm acc}$ is higher for more massive stars (see value of intercept $Q$ at 1Myr).[]{data-label="fig5"}](demarchi_fig5a.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%" height="6.5cm"} ![The left panel shows the mass accretion rate as a function of stellar age for PMS stars in NGC346 (diamonds) compared with that of Galactic T Tauri stars (see legend) from the work of Sicilia–Aguilar et al. (2006; the large cross indicates the uncertainties as quoted in that paper). The solid line shows the current models of viscous disc evolution from Hartmann et al. (1998). Our measurements are systematically higher than the models, and the effect remains when we consider separately stars of different masses (right panel, see legends for mass values). The right panel shows that all four mass groups have the same decline of $\dot M_{\rm acc}$ with age ($\alpha \simeq -0.5$, thick dashed lines), but $\dot M_{\rm acc}$ is higher for more massive stars (see value of intercept $Q$ at 1Myr).[]{data-label="fig5"}](demarchi_fig5b.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
Evolution of the mass accretion rate
====================================
Using the complete set of multi-band HST photometry available for these objects, and through comparison with evolutionary tracks for the appropriate metallicities, we have determined their physical parameters, including temperature, luminosity, age, mass and mass accretion rate. This is presently the largest and most homogeneous sample of PMS objects with known physical properties.
A fundamental parameter that we can derive with this method is the mass accretion rate, $\dot M_{acc}$. Since the energy released by the accretion process goes towards ionising and heating the circumstellar gas, the accretion luminosity $L_{acc}$ can be derived from $L_{H\alpha}$. With the mass and radius of each PMS star determined from the evolutionary tracks, the value of $\dot M_{acc}$ can be obtained from the free-fall equation, linking the luminosity released by the impact of the accretion flow with the rate of mass accretion, according to the relationship:
$$L_{\rm acc} \simeq \frac{G\,M_*\,\dot M_{\rm acc}}{R_*} \left(1 -
\frac{R_*}{R_{\rm in}}\right)
\label{eq1}$$
where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M_*$ the mass of the star determined above, $R_*$ its photospheric radius coming from its luminosity and effective temperature, and $R_{\rm in}$ the inner radius of the accretion disc. The value of $R_{\rm in}$ is rather uncertain and depends on how exactly the accretion disc is coupled with the magnetic field of the star. Following Gullbring et al. (1998), we adopt $R_{\rm
in} = 5\,R_*$ for all PMS objects and with this assumption we have all the parameters needed to determine $\dot M_{\rm acc}$.
We find that older PMS stars have typically lower mass accretion rates, as shown for instance in the left panel of Figure\[fig5\] relative to the region of NGC346 in the SMC. The long dashed line represents the best fit to the observed distribution of mass accretion rates and its slope ($\alpha=-0.55$) is rather similar to the one measured for stars of similar masses and ages in NGC602 ($\alpha=-0.7$; De Marchi et al. 2013).
On the other hand, both slopes are considerably shallower than the $\sim t^{-1.5}$ decline predicted by the models of Hartmann et al. (1998; see also Calvet et al. 2000; Muzerolle et al. 2000) for viscous disc evolution, represented here by the solid line. The latter appears to reproduce rather well the trend of decreasing $\dot
M_{\rm acc}$ with stellar age for low-mass Galactic T-Tauri stars as compiled by Sicilia–Aguilar et al. (2006). At first glance, this discrepancy could seem to imply a different evolution of the mass accretion rate for PMS stars in the Galaxy and in the SMC. However, before any meaningful comparison can be made the masses of the individual objects must be taken explicitly into account. In fact, there is a marked difference in the mass ranges covered by our observations and those in the compilation of Sicilia–Aguilar et al. (2006). The latter includes very-low mass nearby objects, typically a few tenths of M$_\odot$, while our much more distant objects are typically more massive than $0.5$M$_\odot$.
The large size of our sample of PMS stars allows us to study the mass dependence of $\dot M_{\rm acc}$ in a robust way. We show this graphically for NGC346 in the right-hand panel of Figure\[fig5\], where we have split our sample in four roughly equally populated mass groups, namely $0.4 - 0.8$M$_\odot$, $0.8 - 1.1$M$_\odot$, $1.1 - 1.5$M$_\odot$, and $1.5 - 3.0$M$_\odot$, and show for each one separately the run of $\dot
M_{\rm acc}$ as a function of age. Each panel gives the slope $\alpha$ and intercept $Q$ (at 1Myr) of the best linear fit to the data (thick long-dashed lines), according to the relationship $\log \dot M_{\rm acc} =
\alpha \times \log({\rm age}) + Q$ with the age in Myr. These values are in excellent agreement with those found in NGC602 (De Marchi et al. 2013) in the same galaxy, as mentioned above.
The figure shows that all four mass groups have the same decline of $\dot M_{\rm acc}$ with age ($\alpha \simeq -0.5$, thick dashed lines), but $\dot M_{\rm acc}$ is higher for more massive stars (see value of intercept $Q$ at 1Myr). Although our method will inevitably miss some stars with weak $H\alpha$ excess emission, the upper envelopes of the distribution (thin dashed lines) appear to be fully consistent with the slope of the best fit.
Since our sample is quite rich, we can go a step further and perform a multivariate least-square fit to the observations to derive the simultaneous dependence of $\dot M_{\rm acc}$ on both the stellar mass and age. We assume a relationship of the type:
$$\log \dot M_{\rm acc} = a \times \log t + b \times \log m + c,
\label{eq2}$$
where $t$ is the age in Myr, $m$ the mass in solar units and $c$ a constant, corresponding to the intercept at 1Myr and 1M$_\odot$, (note that $c$ is similar to the parameter $Q$ defined above, but it characterises the simultaneous fit on mass and age). The resulting best fit gives $a=-0.59
\pm 0.02$ and $b=0.82 \pm 0.09$, while for NGC602 the same parameters are $a=-0.72 \pm 0.02$ and $b=0.94 \pm 0.14$, confirming a rather similar dependence on mass and age for SMC stars.
Our observations have already shown that, at a given mass or age, the mass accretion rate appears to be higher in the SMC than in the LMC, and in turn higher in the LMC than in the Galaxy, suggesting that the mass accretion rate could also depend on the metallicity of the star-forming regions. To explore the nature of this trend, it is necessary to understand whether a relationship exists between the parameter $c$ and metallicity. Indeed, $c$ is in practice an ”effective” mass accretion rate: inverting Equation\[eq2\] one sees that, as mentioned above, $c$ is the mass accretion rate of a star with mass 1M$_\odot$ and age 1Myr.
A preliminary comparison of NGC346 and NGC602 with the results that we obtain in the SN1987A field (De Marchi et al. 2010; Spezzi et al. 2012), in 30Dor (De Marchi et al. 2011c, and in preparation), of NGC3603 (Beccari et al. 2010, and in preparation), and of Trumpler14 (Beccari et al. 2015) shows that using approximate values of $a=-0.5$ and $b=1.5$ still results in a satisfactory multivariate least-square fit. In other words, while the best-fitting relationship between mass accretion rate, stellar age and stellar mass for each individual region has different values of $a$ and $b$, we can constrain these parameters to take on the values of $a=-0.5$ and $b=1.5$ with still acceptably small residuals for all regions simultaneously. In this case, we can then look at the values of $c$ to explore the dependence of the mass accretion rate on the environment.
The resulting values of $c$ are shown in Figure\[fig6\] as a function of the metallicity $Z$ of each region, showing a rather remarkable correlation. A simple linear fit suggests that $c \propto Z^{-1/3}$. We can, therefore, rewrite Equation\[eq2\] in an approximate form as:
$$\log \dot M_{\rm acc} \simeq -\frac{1}{2} \times \log t +
\frac{3}{2} \times \log m - \frac{1}{3} \times \log Z - 7.9.
\label{eq3}$$
These results are necessarily still preliminary, since they are based primarily on observations obtained in dense regions of intense star formation. We have already secured HST observations of other more quiet and diffuse regions of star formation in all three these galaxies, in order to investigate how the properties of the environment affect the mass accretion process.
![Run of the “effective” mass accretion $c$ as a function of the metallicity for the regions that we have studied so far (as indicated), having assumed $a=-0.5$ and $b=1.5$ for all of them. Although the uncertainties on the individual $c$ are not negligible, the indication is rather clear that the mass accretion rate is higher in environments of lower metallicity. The simple fit shown by the dashed line corresponds to $c \propto Z^{-1/3}$.[]{data-label="fig6"}](demarchi_fig6.eps){width="50.00000%" height="6cm"}
In fact, we have already traced the effects that nearby massive stars can have on the photoevaporation of circumstellar discs, even in the MCs. For instance, in the field of SN1987A we find a clear anti-correlation between the frequency of $\sim 14$Myr old PMS stars and their distance from the massive $\sim 2$Myr old ionising objects in the field. This effect is not seen for non-PMS objects of similar brightness, confirming that the trend is not due to problems in detecting faint objects near the brightest stars. In Figure\[fig7\] we show a map of the distribution of all PMS objects with respect to the 15 ionising stars. An inspection to Figure7 immediately reveals two important facts: (i) there are very few PMS stars near the barycentre of the massive objects and (ii) their $H\alpha$ luminosity is systematically lower than that of PMS stars farther away. This means that the discs of the stars near the barycentre of the ionising radiation are being eroded and the accretion process dwindles. This is a clear example of how the younger generation of massive stars can affect the late PMS evolution phases of somewhat older stars, right at the time when planets should start to form around them.
![Map of the distribution of all bona-fide PMS objects with respect to the ionising stars (blue star symbols), whose barycentre is indicated by the large yellow square. For reference, a red ellipse marks the position of SN1987A. Red squares correspond to stars with $L(H\alpha) >
2 \times 10^{-2}$L$_\odot$, white squares indicate objects with $L(H\alpha) <
8 \times 10^{-3}$L$_\odot$, and green diamonds are used for intermediate values. Note the paucity of PMS stars with high $L(H\alpha)$ near the ionising stars.[]{data-label="fig7"}](demarchi_fig7.eps){width="55.00000%" height="8cm"}
Conclusions
===========
In summary, even though our analysis is still in progress, we can already draw some firm conclusions thanks to the very rich and homogeneous sample of PMS stars that we have put together.
It is clear that star formation is an ongoing process, since we see multiple generations of stars in all the fields that we have studied, separated by some 10Myr. Interestingly, the younger generations are systematically more concentrated towards the center and the older generations are located farther out. No clear signs of “triggering” are present, although in most cases, the spatial density distribution of the older generations is consistent with an expansion velocity of some kms$^{-1}$ (a typical value in Galactic star forming regions) for a period of the order of 10-15Myr. Thus it is conceivable, although not necessary, that also the older generations formed in the same place as the more recent ones, some 10-15Myr ago.
We find that the mass accretion rate scales roughly with the square root of the age and with the mass of the star to the power of $1.5$. The physical conditions of the environment appear to have an effect on the extent and duration of the star formation process, since the mass accretion rate for stars of the same mass and age is systematically higher in the Magellanic Clouds than in the Milky Way, and in the SMC than in the LMC. The preliminary analysis that we have conducted so far to quantify this dependence indicates that metallicity has an important effect on the rate of mass accretion and that the mass accretion rate scales roughly with the inverse of the cube root of the metallicity. One possible explanation for the role of metallicity in the intensity and duration of the accretion process is that the lower radiation pressure exercised by the forming star on low-metallicity disc material is less efficient at dispersing the disc and thus the accretion process remains active for a longer time in lower-metallicity environments. If this finding is confirmed when we extend this study to a wider range of environments, also including regions of less active star formation, it could have profound implications for the formation of stars and planets in environments of low low-metallicity, such as those in place in the early Universe.
[**Acknowledgments**]{} We are indebted to our collaborators Martino Romaniello, Giacomo Beccari, Loredana Spezzi, Elena Sabbi, Pier Prada Moroni, Scilla Degl’Innocenti, Francesco Paresce, and Morten Andersen for participating in this study in the course of the years.
[20]{}
Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Gallardo, J. 2009, ApJ, 702, L27
Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G. 2010, A&A, 521, A44
Barentsen, G., Vink, J., Drew, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 103
Beccari, G., Spezzi, L., De Marchi, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1108
Beccari, G., De Marchi, G., Panagia, N., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, 44
Bertout, C. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 351
Birkmann, S., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2014, SPIE, 9143, 914308
Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., Strom, E. 2000, in “Protostars and Planets”, eds V. Mannings, A. Boss, S. Russell (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 377
Carlson, L., Sewilo, M., Meixner, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 78
Carlson, L., Sewilo, M., Meixner, M., Romita, K., Lawton, B. 2012, A&A, 542, A66
Da Rio, N., Robberto, M. 2012, AJ, 144, 176
De Marchi, G., Beccari, G, Panagia, N. 2013, ApJ, 775, 68
De Marchi, G., Panagia, N., Romaniello, M. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1
De Marchi, G., Panagia, N., Romaniello, M., et al. 2011a, ApJ, 740, 11
De Marchi, G., Panagia, N., Sabbi, E. 2011b, ApJ, 740, 10
De Marchi, G., Paresce, F., Panagia, N., et al. 2011c, ApJ, 739, 27
Fedele, D., van den Ancker, M., Henning, T., Jayawardhana, R., Oliveira, J. M. 2010, A&A, 510, A72
Gardner, J., Mather, J., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 485
Gullbring, E., Hartmann, L., Briceño, C., Calvet, N. 1998, ApJ, 492, 323
Haisch, K., Lada, E., Lada, C. 2001, ApJ, 553, L153
Hartmann, L., Calvet, P., Gullbring, E., D’Alessio, P. 1998, ApJ, 495, 385
Hennekemper, E., Gouliermis, D., Henning, T., Brandner, W., Dolphin, A. 2008, ApJ, 672, 914
Hernandez, J., Hartmann, L., Megeath, T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1067
Kalari, V., Vink, L., Dufton, P., Evans, C., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, L7
Lilly, S., Le Fevre, O., Hammer, F., Crampton, D. 1996, ApJ, 460, L1
Madau, P., Ferguson, H., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388
Meixner, M., Panuzzo, P., Roman-Duval, J., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 62
Muzerolle, J., Calvet, N., Briceño, C., Hartmann, L., Hillenbrand, L. 2000, ApJ, 535, L47
Natta, A., Testi, L., Randich, S. 2006, A&A, 452, 245
Panagia, N., Romaniello, M., Scuderi, S., Kirshner, R. 2000, ApJ, 539, 197
Romaniello, M. 1998, PhD thesis, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy
Romaniello, M., Robberto, M., Panagia, N. 2004, ApJ, 608, 220
Sabbi, E., Anderson, J., Lennon, D., van der Marel, R., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 53
Seale, J., Looney, L., Chu, Y.-H., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 150
Sicilia-Aguilar, A., Hartmann, L., Hernandez, J., Briceño, C., Calvet, N. 2005, AJ, 130, 188
Sicilia–Aguilar, A., Hartmann, L., Furesz, G., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 2135
Sicilia-Aguilar, A., Henning, T., Hartmann, L. 2010, ApJ, 710, 597
Spezzi, L., De Marchi, G., Panagia, N., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 67
Williams, J., Cieza, L. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 67
Wolf, S., Malbet, F., Alexander, R., et al. 2012, A&ARv, 20, 52
[**DISCUSSION**]{}
[**BORIS SHUSTOV:**]{} Evaporation is an important factor limiting the final mass of stars not only at the stage of the circumstellar disc. It works earlier even in a more dramatic mode. When a dense protostellar (starless) core is starting to be exposed to UV radiation from nearby stars, or just to interstellar fields of UV photons, its outer layer will evaporate, while the inner part will be stimulated to form a young star by radiatively driven collapse. So the final mass of the star or even its existence is the result of the competition between these two processes.
[**GUIDO DE MARCHI:**]{} Our observations at optical and near infrared wavelengths do not probe the earliest stages of star formation, since for those you would need the wavelength range offered by Herschel and particularly by Alma, which has the resolution needed to study in detail nearby star-forming regions. However, we clearly see the effects of the discs disruption due to photoevaporation at various stages of the PMS phase. Besides the example in the SN1987A field that I showed before (see Figure\[fig7\]), we also see the effects of photoevaporation at play in the massive cluster 30Dor (as illustrated in Figure 12 of De Marchi et al. 2011c). Also there we have a conspicuous population of older PMS stars, with ages of about 15 – 20 Myr, but the situation is much more complex than in the field of SN1987A: not only are there also other generations of PMS stars, but there is also a lot of gas in this region, much more than around SN1987A, some of which is cold molecular Hydrogen. What our observations show is that the stars with lowest $L(H\alpha)$ are preferentially in regions of lower gas density, while the stars with higher $L(H\alpha)$, are in denser regions. This suggests that the densest clouds are shielding these objects from the ionising radiation of the stars at the centre, while the discs of objects in less dense regions are at higher risk of evaporation. Thus, precisely as you said, the final mass of these stars is the result of the competition between many different processes that are at play simultaneously.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The AdS/CFT correspondence suggests that there is a point in the phase diagram of strongly interacting gauge-theory matter where the viscosity approaches zero. This paper analyses the possibility that this point represents a superfluid and that the the system near this point in the phase diagram can be described by a Landau fluid. Superfluid vortices are constructed and the AdS analogue of vorticity quantisation is described. The production of vortices in the quark-gluon plasma during heavy ion collisions is discussed.'
author:
- 'Ian G. Moss'
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: ' Superfluidity in Super-Yang-Mills Theory'
---
introduction
============
Experiments with heavy ion collisions at RHIC [@Muller:2006ee] have shown that the quark gluon plasma close to deconfinement can be successfully modelled using relativistic hydrodynamics. The properties of the quark gluon plasma should be described by quantum chromodynamics, but this theory is notoriously difficult to apply in the strong coupling regime. The AdS/CFT correspondence, developed from superstring theory, gives a much simpler theoretical framework for certain strongly coupled gauge theories [@Maldacena:1997re; @Gubser:1998bc; @Witten:1998qj]. The prime example is the ${\cal N}=4$ superconformal Yang-Mills theory. In the AdS/CFT correspondence, the thermal properties of the gauge-theory matter are related to black hole thermodynamics in 5 dimensions [@Witten:1998qj; @Hawking:1998kw; @Chamblin:1999tk; @chamblin-1999-60; @Caldarelli:1999xj; @Gibbons:2004ai].
Although ${\cal N}=4$ superconformal Yang-Mills theory can only be a toy model of quantum chromodynamics, it has has been suggested that it might share some of the features of real quark physics close to the deconfinement phase transition [@Nastase:2005rp; @Shuryak:2005ia; @Janik:2005zt; @Gubser:2007zz]. One influential result which arose in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence was the ratio of shear viscosity $\eta$ to entropy density $s$ in superconformal ${\cal N}=4$ Yang-Mills theory, [@Kovtun:2004de], $$\frac{\eta}{s}={1\over 4\pi}$$ in natural units ($\hbar=c=k=1$). The results from heavy ion collisions suggest that the viscosity of the quark gluon plasma might be close to the AdS/CFT prediction [@Nouicer:2007fk; @Romatschke:2007mq].
We shall be interested here in what happens to gauge theory matter in the limit $s\to 0$ with non-zero number density, when the viscosity vanishes. The known mechanism for vanishing viscosity is superfluidity, which is due to the Bose-Einstein condensation of a composite operator [@Feynman:1955]. We shall consider the possibility that this is what happens here, i.e. that as $s\to 0$ the system becomes a superfluid and can be described by a condensate.
When the phase of the system lies close to $s=0$, then only part of the system would be in the condensate and the remainder would be in thermal excitations. In the superfluid context, this type of fluid is called a Landau fluid. Under the AdS/CFT correspondence, we would expect that two different black holes states should correspond to a single set of quark gas phase parameters. This is exactly the situation which one often finds when dealing with black holes in Anti de Sitter space (e.g. [@Hawking:1983]). The smaller black hole is usually discarded, but we now look on this hole as representing one of the two components of the binary fluid.
In order to fix our ideas, consider the thermodynamics of a charged black hole in Anti-de Sitter space. The black hole corresponds to an equilibrium thermal field theory on a 3-sphere of radius $l$ [@Witten:1998qj]. The electric charge of the black hole is related to a conserved quantity in the thermal system which is similar to baryon number [@Chamblin:1999tk] and the thermodynamic state can be described by a chemical potential $\mu$ and the temperature $T$. There is a phase transition in the black hole thermodynamics [@Hawking:1983] which corresponds to a quark deconfinement transition [@Witten:1998zw].
The phase diagram is shown in figure \[figph\], where the deconfined phase has been split into two regions $Ia$ and $Ib$ with $\mu<\mu_c$ and $\mu\ge\mu_c$ respectively. There are two black hole solutions for each point in region $Ia$, and one black hole solution for each point in region $Ib$. If $\mu\to\mu_c$ in region $Ia$, the black hole area of the smaller hole approaches zero, and according to our hypothesis it represents the superfluid component of a Landau fluid. The superfluid fraction is suppressed by its Gibbs free energy. At the end of the phase transition line lies a point $(T,\mu)=(0,\mu_c)$ where $s\to0$ and the fluid would become a pure superfluid.
The effective equation for a stationary condensate $\Psi$ takes the form of a relativistic Gross-Pitaevskii equation (e.g. see [@roberts2000; @Kapusta:1989tk]). For simplicity we shall assume local interaction terms, $$-\nabla^2\Psi+g^2|\Psi|^2\Psi+m_B^2\Psi=\mu^2\Psi,$$ for some the constants $g$ and $m_B$. The conserved charge $N_B$ is given by $$N_B=2\mu\int\Psi^*\Psi\,d\Omega_3\label{nb},$$ where $d\Omega_3$ is the volume element on $S_3$.
The AdS/CFT correspondence can lead to some useful information about the couplings in the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. Consider the ground state with wave function $\Psi_0=(\mu^2-m_B^2)^{1/2}/g$. When combined with the formula for the conserved charge (\[nb\]), this gives an upper bound on the coupling constant $g^2<4\pi^2\mu^3l^3/N_B$. If the quark theory has gauge group $SU(N)$, then the radius of the anti de Sitter space is determined by the formula $4\pi^2 l^3=N^2$ [@Maldacena:1997re]. We can also identify $\mu$ with the value $\mu_c$ obtained through black hole thermodynamics. The upper bound on the coupling becomes $$g^2\le N^2\mu_c^3/N_B.$$ Both large and small coupling regimes are possible depending on the rank of the gauge group and the conserved charge.
Now consider what happens when the fluid rotates. The corresponding charged rotating black hole solutions where found by Chong et al [@Chong:2005hr]. The black holes rotate, but the geometry of the $S_3$ on which the fluid lives remains unaffected by the rotation [@Gibbons:2004ai]. There are two independent axes of rotation on $S_3$ which lie on two disconnected circles at $\theta=0$ and $\theta=\pi$ in the Euler angle parameterisation $(\theta,\psi,\phi)$. The $S_3$ metric in these coordinates is, $$ds^2={l^2\over 4}\left(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2\right)+
{l^2\over 4}\left(d\psi^2+\cos\theta d\phi^2\right).$$ A simple class of vortex solutions to the Gross-Pitaevskii equation can be constructed by taking an anzatz $$\Psi=R(\theta)\,e^{in_a(\phi+\psi)/2+in_B(\phi-\psi)/2}
\label{anz}$$ where $n_a$ and $n_B$ are integers. This reduces the Gross-Pitaevskii equation to an ordinary differential equation in $z=-\cos\theta$, $$(1-z^2){d^2 R\over dz^2}-2z{dR\over dz}-{n_a^2\over 2(1-z)}R
-{n_b^2\over 2(1+z)}R+\nu(\nu+1)R-
\frac{g^2l^2}{4}R^3=0.$$ where $\nu(\nu+1)=(\mu^2-m_b^2)l^2/4$. The boundary conditions are $R=0$ at $z=-1$ if $n_B\ne 0$ and $R=0$ at $z=1$ if $n_a\ne 0$.
The vortex solutions represent one or two disconnected vortices at $z=\pm1$. The two-vortex solutions only exist when $\nu>1$. The vortices are thin compared to the radius of the three sphere $l$ for large values of $N$. At more moderate values of $N$, the vortices have a size comparable to the three sphere and the modulus of the wave function is always smaller than the ground state value.
Solutions of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation can also be described in tems of relativistic fluid dynamics [@roberts2000]. The fluid-flux covector $(n_B,n_B{\bf u})$ is related to the wave function by $$n_B=2\mu\Psi^*\Psi,\hbox{ }n_B{\bf u}=
-i(\Psi^*d\Psi-\Psi d\Psi^*).$$ The fluid propery of most interest in the case of vortex solutions is the circulation around curves $\Gamma$, defined by $$C=\int_\Gamma {\bf u}.$$ For the solution anzatz (\[anz\]), the circulation is constant outside the vortex cores, and given by $C_a=2\pi n_a/\mu$ or $C_b=2\pi n_b/\mu$ for curves around one or the other axis of rotation. In the non-relativistic limit, $\mu\approx m_B$ and these reduce to the familiar quantisation of circulation.
The quantised quantities are really the angular momenta of the vortex solutions, $$J_a=n_a\hbox{ and } J_b=n_b.$$ These carry accross to the black hole solutions related to the gauge theory matter through the AdS/CFT correspondence. Quantum gravity is involved because the angular momenta of the classical black hole solutions are not quantised. In fact, only the $N\to\infty$ limit corresponds to classical gravity, and in this limit the Gross-Pitaevskii equation breaks down as the thickness of the vortex solutions tends to zero.
There is strong evidence to support the quantisation of black hole angular momentum. AdS black holes in 3 dimensions, for example, can be described by a conformal algebra which implies states of quatised mass and angular momentum [@Birmingham:1998jt]. These play an important role in the statistical approach to black hole entropy for near-extremal rotating black holes in 5 dimensions [@Cvetic:1998xh]. The idea here is that the mass, angular momentum and area can be discussed entirely in terms if the geometry close to the horizon, which takes the limiting form of a black hole in 3 dimensions. Again, there is a conformal algebra which implies that the angular momenta along the two axes of rotation are quantised.
The above ideas are closely related to approaches to black hole entropy which are based on string duality. These relate the properties of the black hole to an ensemble of $D-$brane states [@Strominger:1996sh]. When applied to extremal rotating black holes in 5 dimensions, one finds that the black hole angular momenta are given by quantised $D-$brane charges [@Breckenridge:1996is].
The points in the phase diagram which are associated with zero viscosity are dense, low temperature states. This seems to be related more to neutron stars than to heavy ion collisions. The situation when transformed to Minkowki space is, in fact, rather more interesting. There is a conformal transformation $f$ which maps $S_3\times R$ to Minkowski space $R^4$ which takes the time coordinate $t$ and the azimuthal polar coordinate $\chi$ to the Minkowski light cone coordinates $u$ and $v$, $$\begin{aligned}
u&=&l\,\tan\left({t\over 2l}-{\chi\over 2}\right)\label{um}\\
v&=&l\,\tan\left({t\over 2l}+{\chi\over 2}\right)\label{vm}.\end{aligned}$$ This transformation reduces to steriographic projection at $t=0$, but in general surfaces of constant time $t$ do not map to surfaces of constant Minkowski time. The timelike killing vector is mapped to $$f_*\partial_t=\frac12\left(P+K\right)$$ where $P$ and $K$ are the generators of time translation and timelike conformal transformations respectively [@Horowitz:1998xk]. The conformal symmetry can be used to relate operator traces, but thermal states on $S_3$ are related to non-thermal and non-stationary states in Minkowski space.
Consider operators $\varphi$ and $\varphi'$ with conformal weight 1. The conformal symmetry relates ensemble averages on $S_3\times R$ to ensemble averages on Minkowski space, $${\rm tr}\left(\rho\,\varphi(x)\varphi(x')\right)
=\Omega(x)\Omega(x'){\rm tr}\left(\rho'\,f^*\varphi'(x)f^*\varphi'(x')\right),$$ where $\Omega$ is the conformal factor. The thermal states with $\rho=e^{-\beta H}$ are related to ensemble averages in Minkowski space with a density matrix $$\rho'=e^{-\beta(H'+K')/2}$$ where $H'$ and $K'$ are the Minkowski space Hamiltonian and generator of conformal transformations respectively. The new density matrix does not commute with the Hamiltonian, or with any other Poincaré group generator.
The conformal symmetry allows the energy density of the gauge-theory matter in Minkowski space to be expressed in terms of the conformal factor $\Omega$ and its derivatives. The result is shown in figure \[figsp\]. The Minkowski space ensemble represents a ball of fluid which starts from rest and then expands and dissipates away.
Even though the Minkowski system is non-thermal, it is possible to define a local temperature by examining the KMS condition of periodicity in imaginary time when the points $x$ and $x'$ lie close to the centre of the ball of fluid. The effective inverse temperature $\beta'$ at the centre is given in an elementary way by substituting $t=i\beta$ in eq. (\[um\]), $$\beta'=l\,\tanh\left({\beta\over 2l}\right)$$ The $T\to0$ limit which we associated with the superfluid state corresponds to a temperature $T'\to l^{-1}$ at the centre of the ball of fluid. The image of the Landau fluid in Minkowski space is therefore effectively at or above the temperature which we associated with a deconfinement phase transition.
The vortex solutions can also be mapped to flat space by the conformal transformation (\[um\]) and (\[vm\]). The images of the solutions are circular ring vortices or line vortices. Double vortex solutions are mapped to interlinked vortices which lie in two orthogonal planes. Figure \[figri\] shows a section through a ring vortex and a line vortex at the initial Minkowski time.
We turn finally to the question of whether these superfluid concepts can tell us anything about the quark-gluon plasma. In particular, can we produce superfluid vortices in heavy ion collisions? In relativistic heavy ion collisions, Lorentz contraction of the nuclei results is a planar collision geometry. After a short time has elapsed, thermal behaviour sets in and the energy becomes spread over an increasingly spherical region [@Shuryak:2003xe]. The baryon chemical potential in ultrarelativistic collisions [@Arsene:2004fa; @Adcox:2004mh; @Back:2004je; @Adams:2005dq] $\mu\approx 10\hbox{MeV}$, appears to be far smaller compared to the temperature of the quark-gluon plasma $T\approx 170\hbox{MeV}$ than we would need for a Landau fluid description.
The picture of gauge matter obtained from spherical black holes differs from those models in which gauge-theory matter is modelled by an evolving black brane [@Janik:2005zt; @Shuryak:2005ia; @Nastase:2005rp]. These are based on planar geometry, but it would be interesting to extend these ideas to base the evolution on spherical background geometry using conformal mappings of the type discussed here.
I would like to thank Paul Mackay for assistance with the vortex equations.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.