text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'The coupling of non-relativistic anyons (called exotic particles) to an electromagnetic field is considered. Anomalous coupling is introduced by adding a spin-orbit term to the Lagrangian. Alternatively, one has two Hamiltonian structures, obtained by either adding the anomalous term to the Hamiltonian, or by redefining the mass and the NC parameter. The model can also be derived from its relativistic counterpart.'
author:
- |
P. A. Horváthy[^1]\
Laboratoire de Mathématiques et de Physique Théorique\
Université de Tours\
Parc de Grandmont\
F-37 200 TOURS (France)\
L. Martina[^2]\
Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università\
and\
Sezione INFN di Lecce. Via Arnesano, CP. 193\
I-73 100 LECCE (Italy).\
and\
P. C. Stichel[^3]\
An der Krebskuhle 21\
D-33 619 BIELEFELD (Germany)
title: 'Comments on spin-orbit interaction of anyons'
---
0.5mm
Introduction
============
Anyons (by which we mean here a particle in the plane which carries fractional spin) [@Anyons; @anyonBMT] with anomalous gyromagnetic ratio have recently been considered [@AnAn; @Rapid] either in Souriau’s [@SSD] symplectic, or in a novel, “enlarged Galilean” framework. Both approaches are somewhat unfamiliar to most physicists. In this Letter we continue our investigations using more conventional methods, close to the spirit of Ref. [@Scripta].
Exotic particles with minimal electromagnetic interaction {#nonrel}
=========================================================
A curious fact known for thirty years but only investigated in more recent times is that the planar Galilei group admits a two-fold “exotic” central extension, labeled with $m$ (the mass) and a second, “exotic” parameter $\kappa$ [@exotic]. Physical realizations of this symmetry have been presented, independently [@LSZ1; @DH]; both can be obtained from their relativistic anyons as “Jackiw-Nair” (JN) limits [@JaNa; @HP1]. The first of these models, referred to as the “extended exotic particle”, uses an acceleration dependent Lagrangian [@LSZ1]. In terms of (external) momenta, $P_{i}$, and suitably defined external and internal coordinates $X_{i}$ and $Q_{i}$ and ($i=1,2$), [@HP1; @LSZ2], the model is conveniently described by the first-order Lagrangian $$L^0=L_{ext}^0+L_{int}^0=
\Big\{
P_{i}\cdot\dot{X}_{i}+\frac{\theta}{2}\epsilon_{ij}P_{i}\dot{P}_{j}
-\frac{\vP^2}{2m}
\Big\}+\Big\{
\frac{1}{2\theta}\epsilon_{ij}Q_{i}\dot{Q}_{j}
+\frac{1}{2m\theta^2}\vQ^2\Big\},
\label{freelag}$$ where we introduced the non-commutative parameter $\theta=\kappa/m^2$. $\vQ^2$ is a constant of the motion. When $\vQ^2=0$, the internal space reduces to a point, and we recover the “minimal” exotic particle in [@DH]. We first consider the extended case. $Q_{i}=0$. The nontrivial Poisson-bracket relations are $$\begin{aligned}
\{X_{i},X_{j}\}=-\{Q_{i},Q_{j}\}=\theta\epsilon_{ij},
\quad
\{X_{i},P_{j}\}=\delta_{ij}.
\label{commrel}\end{aligned}$$
Such a particle can be coupled minimally to an electromagnetic field in various ways.
\(i) One possibility [@HP1; @LSZ2] is to couple to the external part only by adding the usual expression $$L_{ext}^{gauge}=e(A_{i}\dot{X}_{i}+A_{0}),
\label{i}$$ which amounts to gauging the global symmetry associated with the electric charge. This amounts to modifying the symplectic structure which determines the non-commutative geometry of the phase space, cf. (\[NRPB\]) below.
\(ii) In another scheme [@LSZ2] the Hamiltonian is $$H_0=\frac{\vP{}^2}{2m}\to
\frac{1}{2m}\Big(\vP-e\vA\Big)^2-eA_0
\label{ii}$$ while the non-commutative geometry is unchanged. In such a way the interaction changes Abelian gauge transformations [@LSZ2] [^4]. The two schemes are equivalent in the absence of the exotic structure, $\theta=0$, but not for $\theta\neq0$.
Both schemes leave the internal motions uncoupled. They can be also coupled, however, by gauging the additional “internal” global SO$(2)$ symmetry, $
\delta Q_{i}=\varphi\,\epsilon_{ij}Q_{j}
$ $\varphi\in\IR$ [@HP1]. In scheme (i) the interaction of an “extended exotic particle” with an electromagnetic field is described by the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
L=L^0+L_{ext}^{gauge}+L_{int}^{gauge},
\qquad
L_{int}^{gauge}=\frac{\vQ^2}{2\theta}
\big(A_{i}\dot{X}_{i}+A_{0}\big).\label{totlag}\end{aligned}$$ Then easy calculation shows that the Lagrangian (\[totlag\]) is quasi-invariant with respect to [*local*]{} internal rotations supplemented by a gauge transformation, $
\delta Q_{i}=\varphi(\vX,t)\,\epsilon_{ij}Q_{j},
\;
\delta A_{\mu}=\p_{\mu}\varphi.
$ The coefficient in the interaction term (\[totlag\]) is fixed by gauge invariance: it generates internal rotations, $
\left\{\vQ^2,Q_{i}\right\}=2\theta\epsilon_{ij}Q_{j}.
$ The Euler-Lagrange equations are $$\begin{aligned}
m^* \dot{X}_{i}&=&P_{i}-em\theta\epsilon_{ij}E_{j},\label{vitesse}
\\[4pt]
\dot{P}_{i}&=&e B\epsilon_{ij}\dot{X}_{j}+e
E_{i},\label{Lorentz}
\\[4pt]
\dot{Q}_{i}&=&\epsilon_{ij}Q_{j}
\Big(A_{k}\dot{X}_{k}+A_{0}+\frac{1}{m\theta}\Big),\label{partrans}
\label{eqmot}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{i}$ and $B$ are the electric and magnetic field, and $e$ denotes the shifted charge $e+\vQ^2/2\theta$. $
m^*=m(1-e\theta B),
$ is the effective mass introduced in [@DH]. Equation (\[partrans\]) implies at once that the \[squared\] length of the internal vector, $\vQ^2$ (and hence also the shifted charge) are constants of the motion.
In the general case, the “internal” variable is parallel transported, just like for a particle with nonabelian internal structure [@Wong]. This motion is, however, a mere gauge artifact that could be eliminated by a gauge transformation with $\varphi(t)=-t/m\theta$, which would also remove the $(m\theta)^{-1}$ in (\[partrans\]). The only physical quantity is $\vQ^2$. Being unphysical, the motion of the internal variable $\vQ$ will, therefore not be considered in what follows. We only consider the equations (\[vitesse\]-\[Lorentz\]).
When $\vQ=0$, we recover the “minimal” exotic particle of [@DH], coupled to an e.m. field.
In the second scheme (ii), the electromagnetic interaction including the internal motion can be obtained, as described in [@LSZ2], from (\[ii\]) by means of a noncanonical transformation of the phase space variables, supplemented with a classical Seiberg-Witten map between the corresponding gauge potential.
Therefore, in both cases, the additional coupling to internal motion amounts to replacing the original, “bare” charge by the total charge, $e\to e+\vQ{}^2/2\theta$, whose two parts can’t be measured separately.
Anomalous coupling {#anom}
==================
Anomalous coupling to the electromagnetic field has been studied before [@AnAn; @Scripta; @Dixon; @JMS; @Kunzle; @anomany]. The traditional rule of nonrelativistic physics, translated into the plane, says that magnetic moment interactions should be introduced by adding a term $\mu B$ to the Hamiltonian, where $
\mu={egs_{0}}/{2m}
$ is the magnetic moment. Here $g$ is the gyromagnetic ratio and we denoted non-relativistic spin by $s_{0}$. Here we propose to generalise this rule by also including an electric term, namely by adding to (\[totlag\]) $$L_{anom}=\mu B-\frac{g}{2}e\theta
\epsilon_{ij}P_{i}E_{j},
\qquad
\mu=\frac{ge}{2m}s_{0}.
\label{anocoup}$$ The equations of motion look rather complicated, $$\begin{aligned}
m^*\dot{X}_{i}&=&P_{i}-
\Big(1-\frac{g}{2}\Big)em\theta\epsilon_{ij}E_{j}
-\mu m\theta\epsilon_{ij}\p_{j}B+
\frac{emg\theta^2}{2}\left(P_{i}\p_{k}E_{k}-
P_{k}\p_{k}E_{i}\right),
\label{anomvitesse}
\\[4pt]
\dot{P}_{i}&=&e\big(E_{i}+B\epsilon_{ij}\dot{X}_{j}\big)+
\mu\p_{i}B-\frac{eg\theta}{2}\epsilon_{kj}P_{k}\p_{i}E_{j}.
\label{anomLorentz}\end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ for $g=0$ we plainly recover the previous equations of motion (\[vitesse\]-\[Lorentz\]-\[partrans\]).
$\bullet$ By (\[anomvitesse\]) the velocity and the momentum, $\dot{X}_{i}$ and $P_{i}$, respectively, are not parallel in general, except for $g=2$ and for constant magnetic and linear and central electric field.
$\bullet$ When the fields are not only weak but also [ *constant*]{}, eqns. (\[anomvitesse\]-\[anomLorentz\]) reduce to the weak-field, non-relativistic equations, \# (7.1) of [@AnAn], i. e., $$\begin{array}{ll}
m^\star\,\dot{X}_i= P_{i}
-\left(1-\displaystyle\frac{g}{2}\right)m\theta\epsilon_{ij}eE_{j},
\\[12pt]
\dot{P}_{i}= e\big(E^{i}+B\epsilon_{ij}\dot{X}_j\big)
\end{array}
\label{DHeqmot}$$ These equations are Hamiltonian. The commutation relations are those of an “ordinary” exotic particle, [@DH], and the spin-orbit term is added to the Hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned}
\{X_{i},X_{j}\}=\frac{\theta}{1-e\theta B}\,\epsilon_{ij},
\quad
\{X_{i},P_{j}\}=\frac{1}{1-e\theta B}\,\delta_{ij},
\quad
\{P_{i},P_{j}\}=\frac{eB}{1-e\theta B}\,\epsilon_{ij}\label{NRPB}
\\[6pt]
\widetilde{H}=\left(\frac{\vP{}^2}{2m}+A_0+\mu B\right)
+\frac{g}{2}\,e\theta\epsilon_{ij}P_iE_j.\label{NRHam}\end{aligned}$$ ($B\neq B_c$) where $A_0=-eE_iX_i$. The generic solutions of the equations of motion (\[DHeqmot\]) are of the familiar cycloidal form describing the Hall drift of the guiding center combined with uniform rotations with frequency $$\Omega=\frac{eB}{m^*}.
\label{freq}$$ Unlike in [@Rapid], the “corrected" Larmor frequency only depends on the non-commutative parameter $\theta$ but is independent of the gyromagnetic ratio $g$.
Remarkably, the same equations (\[DHeqmot\]) can be derived also from another Hamiltonian structure, namely from $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\{\!\Big\{X_{i},X_{j}\Big\}\!\Big\}&=&
\displaystyle\frac{1-(g/2)}{1-e\theta B}\,
\theta\,\epsilon_{ij},\label{DHXX}
\\[6pt]
\Big\{\!\Big\{X_{i},P_{j}\Big\}\!\Big\}&=&
\displaystyle\frac{1-(g/2)e\theta B}{1-e\theta B}\,\delta_{ij},
\label{DHXP}
\\[8pt]
\Big\{\!\Big\{P_{i},P_{j}\Big\}\!\Big\}&=&
\displaystyle\frac{1-(g/2)e\theta B}
{1-e\theta B}\,eB\,\epsilon_{ij}\label{DHPP}
\\[6pt]
H&=&\displaystyle\frac{\vP{}^2}{2m\big(1-(g/2)e\theta B\big)}
+A_0+\mu B.
\label{DHHam}\end{aligned}$$ These are indeed the usual “exotic” relations, but with redefined NC parameter and mass, $$\theta\to\frac{1-(g/2)}{1-(g/2)e\theta B}\,\theta
\qquad
m\to m\big(1-(g/2)e\theta B\big),$$ respectively. Thus, for constant external fields, the anomalous electric coupling term in (\[anocoup\]) (or (\[NRHam\])) can be suppressed by redefining the parameters, yielding the same equations (\[vitesse\]-\[Lorentz\]) as in the minimal model. The constant term $\mu B$ can actually be dropped from both (\[NRHam\]) and (\[DHHam\]).
Relation to relativistic anyons {#relat}
===============================
The anomalous theory of Ref. [@AnAn] was based on replacing the (relativistic) “bare” mass by a field-dependent expression, $
m\to M=M(e{{F\cdot S}}),
$ where $S_{\alpha\beta}$ is the spin tensor, and ${{F\cdot S}}=-S_{\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\beta}$ [@Dixon; @JMS] [^5]. Now in the plane the usual requirement $S_{\alpha\beta}P^\beta=0$ implies that spin is given by the momentum, $$S_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{s}{M}\,
\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}P^{\gamma}.$$ In [@AnAn] the choice was $${\widetilde{M}}^2=m^2+\frac{ge}{2c^2}{{F\cdot S}}.
\label{m2}$$ It should be stressed, however, that (\[m2\]) is a mere Ansatz, and does [*not*]{} follow from any first principle. In fact, [*any*]{} function $M=M(e{{F\cdot S}})$ would yield a consistent theory [@Scripta; @Dixon; @JMS]. For example, $$M=m+\frac{ge}{4mc^2}{{F\cdot S}}\label{masstilde}$$ could be (and has been [@Kunzle]) used. In the weak-field-limit, (\[masstilde\]) yields the same equations as (\[m2\]), since $\widetilde{M}\approx M$ if $eg{{F\cdot S}}/m^2c^2<<1$. In what follows, we shall use the simpler expression (\[masstilde\]). Then the procedure followed in [@AnAn] is readily seen to be equivalent, in the weak-field limit, to adding to Cartan’s variational 1-form (whose integral is the classical action [@SSD]) the anomalous spin-field term $$\Delta\alpha=-\frac{ges}{4mM}
\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}P^{\alpha}F_{\beta\gamma}
\left(\frac{P_{\sigma}dX^\sigma}{Mc^2}\right).
\label{RSO}$$ But we can parametrize our curves with proper time, $
(P_{\alpha}dX^\alpha)/Mc^2=d\tau
$ [@AnAn]. The extra term has, therefore, the same effect as adding $$\Delta H=\frac{ges}{4mM}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}
P_{\alpha}F_{\beta\gamma}
\label{anoRcoup}$$ to the Hamiltonian, since $\displaystyle\int\!\Delta\alpha=-\displaystyle\!\int\Delta Hd\tau$.
In a local Lorentz frame, putting $
s=\theta m^2c^2+s_{0}
$ allows us to infer that the extra piece added to the Lagrangian is $$+\frac{gem\theta B}{2M}\,P_{0}
+\frac{ges_{0}}{2m}B\left(\frac{P_{0}}{Mc^2}\right)
-\frac{g}{2}\frac{m}{M}e\theta\epsilon_{ij}P_{i}E_{j}
-\frac{1}{c^2}\,\frac{ges_{0}}{2mM}\epsilon_{ij}P_{i}E_{j}.$$ $P_{0}\approx Mc^2$ and $m/M\approx 1$ in the NR limit. Removing the first, divergent term and dropping the last one which goes to zero as $c\to\infty$. In the JN limit, neglecting higher-order terms, we end up with $L_{anom}$ with $Q=0$ in (\[anocoup\]) [^6]. Alternatively, the spin-orbit term $H_{anom}$ in (\[NRHam\]) is the JN limit of (\[anoRcoup\]). The two possibilities i. e., either changing the kinetic term, or adding a spin-orbit piece to the Hamiltonian are the relativistic counterparts of the two Hamiltonian structures we found in the non-relativistic context.
Semiclassical Dirac particle
============================
Returning to the non-relativistic setting, let us illustrate our theory on a related problem. In a recent paper [@BM2], Bérard and Mohrbach consider a $3D$ Dirac particle in a constant electric field and show that, semiclassically, the particle admits, to order $c^{-2}$, the anomalous velocity relation $$m\frac{dX_{i}}{dt}\approx P_{i}-
\frac{1}{2}\,\frac{e}{mc^2}\epsilon_{ijk}\sigma_jE_{k}
\label{BMReqmot}$$ \[supplemented with the Lorentz force law $\dot{P}_{i}=eE_{i}$\], where $\vsigma$ is the spin vector. Assuming cylindrical symmetry and spin-polarized electrons, $\sigma_{i}=-s\delta_{i3}$, the JN limit $s/m^{2}c^{2}\to\theta$ yields $$m\frac{dX_{i}}{dt}\approx P_{i}
-\frac{1}{2}em\theta\epsilon_{ij}E_{j},
\label{BMeqmot}$$ which is the first equation in (\[DHeqmot\]) with $B=0$ and with anomalous gyromagnetic factor $g=1$. This value has already been found before [@BD]. To leading order in $c^{-1}$, the relativistic Hamiltonian behaves as $$\widetilde{H}\approx mc^2+\frac{\vP^2}{2m}-e\vE\cdot\vX
+\frac{e}{2m^2c^2}\vsigma\cdot(\vE\times\vP)
\longrightarrow
\frac{\vP^2}{2m}-e\vE\cdot\vX+\frac{1}{2}e\theta\epsilon_{ij}P_iE_j.
\label{BMHam}$$ cf. (\[NRHam\]). Note that the naive Hamilton equation, $\dot{X}_{i}=\p\widetilde{H}/\p P_{i}$, would contain a factor $(+1/2)$ instead of $(-1/2)$ in front of the anomalous term in (\[BMeqmot\]). The correct coefficient is recovered when the exotic part is taken into account. Either of the Hamiltonian structures $$\begin{aligned}
\{X_{i},X_{j}\}_{\alpha}=(1-\alpha)\theta \epsilon_{ij},
\qquad
\{X_{i},P_{j}\}_{\alpha}=\delta_{ij},
\qquad
\{P_{i},P_{j}\}_{\alpha}=0,
\\[6pt]
H_{\alpha}=
\frac{\vP^2}{2m}-e\vE\cdot\vX+\Big(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha\Big)
e\theta\epsilon_{ij}P_iE_j,\end{aligned}$$ yields indeed the correct equations for any value of the real parameter $\alpha$. (\[NRPB\])-(\[NRHam\]) corresponds to $\alpha=0$, and (\[DHXX\])-(\[DHXP\])-(\[DHPP\])-(\[DHHam\]) corresponds to $\alpha=1/2$, respectively.
Further generalizations
=======================
A slightly modified model is obtained replacing the momentum in (\[anocoup\]), $P_{i}$, by the velocity, $\dot{X}_{i}$ : $$L_{anom}'=\mu B-\frac{g}{2}me\theta\,
\epsilon_{ij}\dot{X}_{i}E_{j},
\label{JSternanocoup}$$ Magnetic moment interaction of such kind has been considered before [@anomany]. Eqn. (\[JSternanocoup\]) is also reminiscent of the interaction of a magnetic moment with an electric charge [@AhaCash].
Adding (\[JSternanocoup\]) to our Lagrangian (\[totlag\]) amounts indeed to changing the potentials in (\[vitesse\])-(\[Lorentz\])-(\[partrans\]) according to $
A_{0}\to A_{0}'=A_{0}+(\mu/e)B,
$ $
A_{i}\to A_{i}'=A_{i}-(mg\theta/2)\epsilon_{ij}E_{j},
$ that yields $
B\to B'=B+mg\theta/2\p_{k}E_{k},
$ $E_{i}\to E_{i}'=E_{i}+{\mu}/{e}\p_{i}B
+{mg\theta}/{2}\epsilon_{ij}\p_{t}E_{j}.
$ Eliminating the momenta in the new equations of motion and dropping terms which contain second derivatives of the field, we obtain $$\frac{\ d}{dt}\Big({m^*}'\dot{X}_{i}\Big)=
e(B\epsilon_{ij}\dot{X}_{j}+E_{i})+\mu\p_{i}B
-me\theta\epsilon_{ij}\frac{dE_{j}}{dt}
+\frac{emg\theta}{2}\epsilon_{ij}(\dot{X}_{j}\p_{k}E_{k}
+\p_{t}E_{j})
\label{modNewton}$$ with the new magnetic field, $B'$, replacing $B$ in the new effective mass, $
m\to{m^*}'=m(1-e\theta B').
$ For the sake of comparision, neglecting terms which are higher-order in the fields, from (\[anomvitesse\]-\[anomLorentz\]), we would get instead $$\frac{\ d}{dt}\Big({m^*}\dot{X}_{i}\Big)=
e(B\epsilon_{ij}\dot{X}_{j}+E_{i})+\mu\p_{i}B
-me\theta\epsilon_{ij}\frac{dE_{j}}{dt}
+\frac{emg\theta}{2}\Big(
\epsilon_{ij}\dot{X}_{k}\p_{k}+\p_{t}
-\epsilon_{kj}\dot{X}_{k}\p_{i}\Big)E_{j}.$$ This is readily transformed into the form (\[modNewton\]). In a weak and slowly varying field, the two models only differ in the form of the effective mass.
It is worth remembering that anomalous velocity relations of the type studied here have been considered in the context of the Anomalous Hall Effect [@AHE] and in the semiclassical theory of the Bloch electron [@Niu]. Equations (\[vitesse\])-(\[Lorentz\]), or their “anomalous" generalization in constant external fields, (\[DHeqmot\]), is indeed a special case of the more general system $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{X}_{i} +
\theta(\vP) \epsilon_{i j}\dot{P}_j&=&\p_{P_{i}}{\cal E},
\label{EMcoupling1}
\\
eB\epsilon_{i j} \dot{X}_j-\dot{P}_{i}&=&-e E_i,
\label{EMcoupling2}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal E}={\cal E}_0(\vP)-B {\cal M}(\vP)$ is the total energy with ${\cal E}_0$ and ${\cal M}$ denoting the Bloch band energy and the magnetization, respectively. These equations can be derived, under quite general assumptions, by semiclassical calculations applied to the dynamics of wave packets in a two-dimensional crystal [@Niu]. Note that the non-commutative parameter has been promoted to a function of the momentum [@BM].
The system (\[EMcoupling1\]-\[EMcoupling2\]) can actually be reduced to first order equations for the $P_i$ alone, $$\left(1-eB\theta(\vP)\right)\dot{P}_{i}
= e B\epsilon_{ij}\p_{P_{j}}{\cal E}+eE_i,
\label{reduced}$$ that can be integrated by solving with respect to $P_1$, say, using the conserved quantity $${\cal C}= {\cal E}-\frac{\epsilon_{ij}P_i E_j}{B}.
\label{conserpspace}$$ Thus the problem is reduced to quadratures. Note that eqn. (\[reduced\]) is actually Hamilton’s equation for ${\cal C}$ as Hamiltonian and Poisson bracket (\[NRPB\]c) in $P$-space alone.
In conclusion, we mention that another way of introducing anomalous coupling for constant e.m. fields has been advocated by us in [@Rapid]. There we introduced an “enlarged” planar Galilei group, which incorporates field variables besides space-time. Interestingly, the square of (\[conserpspace\]) is proportional to a Casimir of the enlarged symmetry algebra in [@Rapid], and anomalous coupling can then be achieved by adding this Casimir to the Hamiltonian.
. PAH and PCS would like to thank for hospitality the University of Lecce.
[99]{}
A (very) incomplete list of references is : B.-S. Skagerstam and A. Stern, [*Int. Journ. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**A**]{}, 1575 (1990); M. S. Plyushchay, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B248**]{}, 107 (1990); R. Jackiw and V. P. Nair, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D43**]{} 1933 (1991); S. Ghosh, [*Phys. Lett*]{}. [**B338**]{}, 235 (1994); P. A. Horváthy and M. S. Plyushchay [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 595**]{} 547 (2004) \[`hep-th/0404137`\], etc.
C. Chou, V. P. Nair and A. Polychronakos, [*Phys. Lett*]{}. [**B304**]{}, 105 (1993); J. L. Cortés, J. Gamboa, and L. Velázquez, [*Int. Journ. Mod. Phys*]{}. [**A9**]{}, 953 (1994); S. Ghosh, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D51**]{}, 5827 (1995); J. L. Cortés, and M. S. Plyushchay, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys*]{}. [**A11**]{}, 3331 (1996), etc.
C. Duval and P. A. Horváthy, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 594**]{} 402 (2004) \[`hep-th/0402191`\];
P. A. Horváthy, L. Martina and P. Stichel \[`hep-th/0412090`\].
J.-M. Souriau, [*Structure des systèmes dynamiques*]{}, Dunod: Paris (1970); [*Structure of Dynamical Systems: a Symplectic View of Physics*]{}. Birkhäuser (1997).
B. S. Skagerstam and A. Stern, [*Physica Scripta*]{} [**24**]{}, 493 (1981).
J.-M. Lévy-Leblond, [*Galilei group and Galilean invariance*]{}. In [*Group Theory and Applications*]{} (Loebl Ed.), [**II**]{}, Acad. Press, New York, p. 222 (1972); Y. Brihaye, C. Gonera, S. Giller and P. Kosiński, `hep-th/9503046` (unpublished); D. R. Grigore, [*Journ. Math. Phys.*]{} [**37**]{}, 240 and [*ibid*]{}. [**37**]{}, 460 (1996).
J. Lukierski, P. C. Stichel, W. J. Zakrzewski, [*Annals of Physics (N. Y.)*]{} [**260**]{}, 224 (1997).
C. Duval and P. A. Horváthy, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 479**]{}, 284 (2000) \[`hep-th/0002233`\]; [*J. Phys.*]{} [**A 34**]{}, 10097 (2001) \[`hep-th/0106089`\].
R. Jackiw and V. P. Nair, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 480**]{}, 237 (2000) \[`hep-th/0003130`\]; C. Duval and P. A. Horváthy, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B547**]{}, 306 (2002) \[`hep-th/0209166`\].
P. A. Horváthy and M. S. Plyushchay, [*JHEP*]{} [**0206**]{} (2002) 033 \[`hep-th/0201228`\]. P. A. Horváthy, [*Acta Phys. Pol*]{}. [**34**]{}, 2611 (2003) \[`hep-th/0303099`\].
J. Lukierski, P. C. Stichel, W. J. Zakrzewski, [*Annals of Physics (N. Y.)*]{} [**306**]{}, 78 (2003) \[`hep-th/0207149`\].
P. A. Horváthy and M. S. Plyushchay [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B** ]{} (2005) (in press) \[`hep-th/0502040`\].
R. Kerner, [*Ann. I. H. Poincaré*]{}, (1968); S. K. Wong, [*Il Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**651**]{}, 689 (1970).
W. G. Dixon, [*Il Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**38**]{}, 1616 (1965).
J.-M. Souriau, [*Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré*]{}, [**20 A**]{}, 315 (1974). Ch. Duval, [*Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré*]{}, [**25 A**]{}, 345 (1976). See also Ch. Duval, Thèse de 3e cycle. Marseille (1972).
H. P. Künzle, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**13**]{}, 739 (1972).
J. Stern, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B265**]{}, 119 (1991); Y. Georgelin and J. C. Wallet, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**7**]{}, 1149 (1992). Adding the anomalous term (\[JSternanocoup\]) leads to anomalous statistics without a Chern-Simons term, see M. E. Carrington and G. Kunstatter, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**51**]{}, 1903 (1995).
M. S. Plyushchay, [*Nucl. Phys*]{}. [**B 362**]{} (1991) 54.
A. Bérard and H. Mohrbach, \[`hep-th/0404165`\]. See also Appendix A of E. N. Adams and E. I. Blount, [*Journ. Phys. Chem. Solids*]{} [**10**]{}, 286 (1959).
J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, [*Relativistic Quantum Mechanics*]{}. Chap. 4. McGraw-Hill, N. Y. (1964).
Y. Aharonov and A. Casher, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**53**]{}, 319 (1984).
R. Karplus and J. M. Luttinger, [*Phys. Rev*]{}. [**95**]{}, 1154 (1954); T. Jungwirth, Q. Niu, and A. H. MacDonald, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**90**]{}, 207208 (2002); D. Culcer, A. H. MacDonald, and Q. Niu, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**B 68**]{}, 045327 (2003).
M. C. Chang and Q. Niu, [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**75**]{}, 1348 (1995); [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**B 53**]{}, 7010 (1996); G. Sundaram and Q. Niu, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**B59**]{}, 14915 (1999). See also A. Bohm, A. Mostafazadeh, H. Koizumi, Q. Niu and J. Zwanziger, [*The Geometric Phase in Quantum Systems*]{}. Chapter 12. Springer Verlag (2003).
A. Bérard and H. Mohrbach, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 69**]{}, 127701 (2004) \[`hep-th/0310167`\].
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^4]: Yet another coupling scheme is put forward in [@HP3].
[^5]: Greek indices refer to $2+1$ dimensional Minkowski space.
[^6]: The $Q\neq0$ case could be studied starting with the “particle with torsion” [@torsion].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give a survey about some recent work on tight closure and Hilbert-Kunz theory from the viewpoint of vector bundles. This work is based in understanding tight closure in terms of forcing algebras and the cohomological dimension of torsors of syzygy bundles. These geometric methods allowed to answer some fundamental questions of tight closure, in particular the equality between tight closure and plus closure in graded dimension two over a finite field and the rationality of the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity in graded dimension two. Moreover, this approach showed that tight closure may behave weirdly under arithmetic and geometric deformations, and provided a negative answer to the localization problem.'
address: 'Fachbereich für Mathematik und Informatik, Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany'
author:
- Holger Brenner
bibliography:
- 'bibliothek.bib'
title: 'Forcing algebras, syzygy bundles, and tight closure'
---
[^1]
Mathematical Subject Classification (2000): 13A35; 14J60
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In this survey article we describe some developments which led to a detailed geometric understanding of tight closure in dimension two in terms of vector bundles and torsors. Tight closure is a technique in positive characteristic introduced by M. Hochster and C. Huneke 20 years ago ([@hochsterhunekebriancon], [@hunekeapplication]). We recall its definition. Let $R$ be a commutative ring of positive characteristic $p$ with $e$th *Frobenius* homomorphism $F^{e}:R \rightarrow R$, $f \mapsto f^q$, $q=p^{e}$. For an ideal $I$ let $I^{[q]}:=F^{e}(I)$ be the extended ideal under the $e$th Frobenius. Then the *tight closure* of $I$ is given by $$I^*=\{f \in R:\, \text{there exists } t, \text{not in any minimal prime},$$ $$\text{ such that } tf^q \in I^{[q]} \text{ for } q \gg 0 \, \}$$ (in the domain case this means just $t \neq 0$, and for all $q$). In this paper we will not deal with the applications of tight closure in commutative algebra, homological algebra and algebraic geometry, but with some of its intrinsic problems. One of them is whether tight closure commutes with localization, that is, whether for a multiplicative system $S \subseteq R$ the equality $$(I^*)R_S =(IR_S)^*$$ holds (the inclusion $\subseteq$ is always true). A directly related question is whether tight closure is the same as plus closure. The *plus closure* of an ideal $I$ in a domain $R$ is defined to be $$I^+ \!=\!\{f \in R\! : \text{there exists } R \subseteq S \text{ finite domain extension such that } f \in IS\} .$$ This question is known as the *tantalizing question* of tight closure theory. The inclusion $I^+ \subseteq I^*$ always holds. Since the plus closure commutes with localization, a positive answer to the tantalizing question for a ring and all its localizations implies a positive answer for the localization problem for this ring. The tantalizing question is a problem already in dimension two, the localization problem starts to get interesting in dimension three.
What makes these problems difficult is that there are no exact criteria for tight closure. There exist many important inclusion criteria for tight closure, and in all these cases the criteria also hold for plus closure (in general, with much more difficult proofs). The situation is that the heartlands of “tight closure country” and of “non tight closure country” have been well exploited, but not much is known about the thin line which separates them. This paper is about approaching this thin line geometrically.
The original definition of tight closure, where one has to check infinitely many conditions, is difficult to apply. The starting point of the work we are going to present here is another description of tight closure due to Hochster as *solid closure* based on the concept of *forcing algebras*. Forcing algebras were introduced by Hochster in [@hochstersolid] in an attempt to build up a characteristic-free closure operation with similar properties as tight closure. This approach rests on the fact that $f \in (f_1, \ldots ,f_n)^*$ holds in $R$ if and only if $H^{\dim R}_{{\mathfrak{m}}} (A) \neq 0$, where $A=R[T_1, \ldots, T_n]/(f_1T_1+ \ldots + f_nT_n -f)$ is the forcing algebra for these data (see Theorem \[solidtight\] for the exact statement). This gives a new interpretation for tight closure, where, at least at first glance, not infinitely many conditions are involved. This cohomological interpretation can be refined geometrically, and the goal of this paper is to describe how this is done and where it leads to. We give an overview.
We will describe the basic properties of forcing algebras in Section \[forcing\]. A special feature of the cohomological condition for tight closure is that it depends only on the open subset $D({\mathfrak{m}}A) \subseteq \operatorname{Spec}A$. This open subset is a “torsor” over $D({\mathfrak{m}}) \subseteq \operatorname{Spec}R$, on which the *syzygy bundle* $\operatorname{Syz}(f_1, \ldots , f_n)$ acts. This allows a more geometric view of the situation (Section \[torsor\]). In general, closure operations for ideals can be expressed with suitable properties of forcing algebras. We mention some examples of this correspondence in Section \[closure\] and come back to tight closure and solid closure in Section \[sectiontightsolid\].
To obtain a detailed understanding, we restrict in Section \[gradedsection\] to the situation of a two-dimensional standard-graded normal domain $R$ over an algebraically closed field and homogeneous $R_+$-primary ideals. In this setting, the question about the cohomological dimension is the question whether a torsor coming from forcing data is an affine scheme. Moreover, to answer this question we can look at the corresponding torsor over the smooth projective curve $\operatorname{Proj}R$. This translates the question into a projective situation. In particular, we can then use concepts from algebraic geometry like *semistable bundles* and the *strong Harder-Narasimhan filtration* to prove results. We obtain an exact numerical criterion for tight closure in this setting (Theorems \[ssinclusion\] and \[ssexclusion\]). The containment in the plus closure translates to a geometric condition for the torsors on the curve, and in the case where the base field is the algebraic closure of a finite field we obtain the same criterion. This implies that under all these assumptions, tight closure and plus closure coincide (Theorem \[tantalizingtheorem\]).
With this geometric approach also some problems in Hilbert-Kunz theory could be solved, in particular it was shown that the *Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity* is a rational number in graded dimension two (Theorem \[hkformula\]). In fact, there is a formula for it in terms of the strong Harder-Narasimhan filtration of the syzygy bundle. In Section \[deformation\], we change the setting and look at families of two-dimensional rings parametrized by a one-dimensional base. Typical bases are $\operatorname{Spec}\mathbb Z$ (*arithmetic deformations*) or $\mathbb A^1_K$ (*geometric deformations*). Natural questions are how tight closure, Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity and strong semistability of bundles vary in such a family. Examples of P. Monsky already showed that the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity behaves “weirdly” in the sense that it is not almost constant. It follows from the geometric interpretation that also strong semistability behaves wildly. Further extra work is needed to show that tight closure also behaves wildly under such a deformation. We present the example of Brenner-Katzman in the arithmetic case and of Brenner-Monsky in the geometric case (Examples \[brennerkatzmanexample\] and \[brennermonskyexample\]). The latter example shows also that tight closure does not commute with localization and that even in the two-dimensional situation, the tantalizing question has a negative answer, if the base field contains a transcendental element. We close the paper with some open problems (Section \[problems\]).
As this is a survey article, we usually omit the proofs and refer to the original research papers and to [@brennerbarcelona]. I thank Helena Fischbacher-Weitz, Almar Kaid and Axel Stäbler for useful comments.
Forcing algebras {#forcing}
================
Let $R$ be a commutative ring, let $M$ be a finitely generated $R$-module and $N \subseteq M$ a finitely generated $R$-submodule. Let $s \in M$ be an element. The *forcing algebra* for these data is constructed as follows: choose generators $y_1
{ , \ldots , }y_m$ for $M$ and generators $x_1 { , \ldots , }x_n$ for $N$. This gives rise to a surjective homomorphism $\varphi: R^m \rightarrow M $, a submodule $N' = \varphi^{-1}(N)$ and a morphism $R^n \rightarrow R^m$ which sends $e_i$ to a preimage $x_i'$ of $x_i$. Altogether we get the commutative diagram with exact rows
$$\xymatrix{ & & R^n &\! \! \!\stackrel{{{\alpha}}}{ \longrightarrow }\!\! \! &
R^m &\! \! \! \longrightarrow \!\! \! & M/N & \!\! \! \longrightarrow \! \! \!& \! \! 0 & \! \! \!\!(*) \cr
& & \downarrow & & \downarrow \varphi & & \downarrow = & & &\cr
0\! \! &\! \! \!\! \longrightarrow\! \! \! \! & N & \! \!\!\longrightarrow\!\! \! &M &\!\! \! \longrightarrow\! \! \! &M/N&\!\! \!\longrightarrow\! & 0 & }$$ (${{\alpha}}$ is a matrix). The element $s $ is represented by $(s_1 { , \ldots , }s_m) \in R^m$, and $s $ belongs to $N$ if and only if the linear equation $${{\alpha}}\begin{pmatrix} t_1 \cr . \cr . \cr . \cr t_n \end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix} s_1 \cr . \cr . \cr . \cr s_m \end{pmatrix}$$ has a solution. An important insight due to Hochster is that this equation can be formulated with new variables $T_1 { , \ldots , }T_n$, and then the “distance of $s$ to $N$” - in particular, whether $s$ belongs to a certain closure of $N$ - is reflected by properties of the resulting (generic) forcing algebra. Explicitly, if ${{\alpha}}$ is the matrix describing the submodule $N$ as above and if $(s_1 { , \ldots , }s_m)$ represents $s$, then the forcing algebra is defined by $${{A}}=R[T_1 { , \ldots , }T_n]/({{\alpha}}T-s) \, ,$$ where ${{\alpha}}T-s$ stands for $${{\alpha}}\begin{pmatrix} T_1 \cr . \cr . \cr . \cr T_n \end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix} s_1 \cr . \cr . \cr . \cr s_m \end{pmatrix}$$ or, in other words, for the system of *inhomogeneous linear equations* $$\begin{matrix}
a_{11}T_1 & +& \ldots &+ & a_{1n}T_n &=& s_1 \cr
a_{21}T_1 & + & \ldots &+ & a_{2n}T_n &=& s_2 \cr
& & & & \cr
a_{m1}T_1 & +& \ldots &+ & a_{mn}T_n &=& s_m
\end{matrix} \,.$$ In the case of an ideal $I=(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)$ and $f \in R$ the forcing algebra is just ${{A}}= R[T_1 { , \ldots , }T_n]/(f_1T_1
{ + \ldots + }f_nT_n -f)$. Forcing algebras are given by the easiest algebraic equations at all, namely linear equations. Yet we will see that forcing algebras already have a rich geometry. Of course, starting from the data $(M,N,s)$ we had to make some choices in order to write down a forcing algebra, hence only properties which are independent of these choices are interesting.
The following lemma expresses the *universal property* of a forcing algebra.
Let the situation be as above, and let $R \rightarrow R'$ be a ring homomorphism. Then there exists an $R$-algebra homomorphism ${{A}}\rightarrow R'$ if and only if $
s \otimes 1 \in \operatorname{im}(N \otimes R' \rightarrow M \otimes R')$.
This follows from the right exactness of tensor products applied to the sequence $(*)$ above.
The lemma implies in particular that for two forcing algebras ${{A}}$ and ${{A}}'$ we have (not uniquely determined) $R$-algebra homomorphisms ${{A}}\rightarrow {{A}}'$ and ${{A}}' \rightarrow {{A}}$. It also implies that $s \in N$ if and only if there exists an $R$-algebra homomorphism ${{A}}\rightarrow R$ (equivalently, $\operatorname{Spec}{{A}}\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}R$ has a section).
We continue with some easy geometric properties of the mapping $\operatorname{Spec}{{A}}\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}R $. The formation of forcing algebras commutes with arbitrary base change $R \rightarrow R'$. Therefore for every point ${{\mathfrak p}}\in \operatorname{Spec}R$ the fiber ring ${{A}}\otimes_R \kappa({{\mathfrak p}})$ is the forcing algebra given by $${{\alpha}}({{\mathfrak p}}) T= s({{\mathfrak p}}) \, ,$$ which is an inhomogeneous linear equation over the field $\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})$. Hence the fiber of $\operatorname{Spec}{{A}}\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}R$ over ${{\mathfrak p}}$ is the *solution set* to a system of linear inhomogenous equations.
We know from linear algebra that the solution set to such a system might be empty, or it is an affine space (in the sense of linear algebra) of dimension $\geq n-m$. Hence one should think of $\operatorname{Spec}{{A}}\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}R $ as a family of affine-linear spaces varying with the base. Also, from linear algebra we know that such a solution set is given by adding to one particular solution a solution of the corresponding system of homogeneous of linear equations. The solution set to ${{\alpha}}({{\mathfrak p}})T =0$ is a vector space over $\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})$, and this solution set is the fiber over ${{\mathfrak p}}$ of the forcing algebra of the zero element, namely $${{B}}= R[T_1
{ , \ldots , }T_n]/({{\alpha}}T) = R[T_1
{ , \ldots , }T_n]/( \sum_{i=1}^n a_{ij} T_i,\, j=1 { , \ldots , }m) \, .$$ As just remarked, the fibers of $V= \operatorname{Spec}{{B}}$ over a point ${{\mathfrak p}}$ are vector spaces of possibly varying dimensions. Therefore $V$ is in general not a vector bundle. It is, however, a commutative *group scheme* over $\operatorname{Spec}R$, where the addition is given by $$V \times V \longrightarrow V,\, (s_1 { , \ldots , }s_n),(s_1' { , \ldots , }s_n')
\longmapsto (s_1 +s_1' { , \ldots , }s_n + s_n')$$ (written on the level of sections) and the coaddition by $$R[T_1
{ , \ldots , }T_n]/({{\alpha}}T) \rightarrow R[T_1
{ , \ldots , }T_n]/({{\alpha}}T) \otimes R[\tilde{T}_1
{ , \ldots , }\tilde{T}_n]/({{\alpha}}\tilde{T}) ,\, T_i \mapsto T_i + \tilde{T}_i .$$ This group scheme is the kernel group scheme of the group scheme homomorphism $${{\alpha}}: \mathbb A_R^n \longrightarrow \mathbb A_R^m \,$$ between the trivial additive group schemes of rank $n$ and $m$. We call it the *syzygy group scheme* for the given generators of $N$.
The syzygy group scheme acts on the spectrum of a forcing algebra $\operatorname{Spec}{{A}}$, ${{A}}= R[T]/({{\alpha}}T - s)$ for every $s \in M$. The action is exactly as in linear algebra, by adding a solution of the system of homogeneous equations to a solution of the system of inhomogeneous equations. An understanding of the syzygy group scheme is necessary before we can understand the forcing algebras.
Although $V$ is not a vector bundle in general, it is not too far away. Let $U \subseteq \operatorname{Spec}R$ be the open subset of points ${{\mathfrak p}}$ where the mapping ${{\alpha}}({{\mathfrak p}})$ is surjective. Then the restricted group scheme $V|_U$ is a vector bundle of rank $n-m$. If $M/N$ has its support in a maximal ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}$, then the syzygy group scheme induces a vector bundle on the *punctured spectrum* $\operatorname{Spec}R - \{{\mathfrak{m}}\}$, which we call the *syzygy bundle*. Hence on $U$ we have a short exact sequence $$0 {\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Syz}{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}_U^n {\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}_U^m {\longrightarrow}0 \, \, \,$$ of vector bundles on $U$.
We will mostly be interested in the situation where the submodule is an ideal $I \subseteq R$ in the ring. We usually fix ideal generators $I=(f_1, \ldots ,f_n)$ and $(*)$ becomes $$R^n \stackrel{f_1, \ldots ,f_n}{\longrightarrow} R \longrightarrow R/I \longrightarrow 0 \, .$$ The ideal generators and an element $f \in R$ defines then the forcing equation $f_1T_1+ \ldots f_nT_n-f =0$. Moreover, if the ideal is primary to a maximal ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}$, then we have a syzygy bundle $\operatorname{Syz}= \operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)$ defined on $D({\mathfrak{m}})$.
Forcing algebras and torsors {#torsor}
============================
Let $Z \subset \operatorname{Spec}R$ be the support of $M/N$ and let $U=\operatorname{Spec}R
-Z$ be the open complement where ${{\alpha}}$ is surjective. Let $s
\in M$ with forcing algebra ${{A}}$. We set ${{T}}= \operatorname{Spec}{{A}}|_U$ and we assume that the fibers are non-empty (in the ideal case this means that $f$ is not a unit). Then the action of the group scheme $V$ on $\operatorname{Spec}{{A}}$ restricts to an action of the syzygy bundle $\operatorname{Syz}=V|_U$ on ${{T}}$, and this action is *simply transitive*. This means that locally the actions looks like the action of $\operatorname{Syz}$ on itself by addition.
In general, if a vector bundle ${\mathcal{S}}$ on a separated scheme $U$ acts simply transitively on a scheme ${{T}}\rightarrow U$ – such a scheme is called a geometric ${\mathcal{S}}$-*torsor* or an *affine-linear bundle* –, then this corresponds to a cohomology class $c \in H^1(U, {\mathcal{S}})$ (where ${\mathcal{S}}$ is now also the sheaf of sections in the vector bundle ${\mathcal{S}}$). This follows from the $\rm \check{C}$ech cohomology by taking an open covering where the action can be trivialized. Hence forcing data define, by restricting the forcing algebra, a torsor ${{T}}$ over $U$.
On the other hand, the forcing data define the short exact sequence $0 {\rightarrow}\operatorname{Syz}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}_U^n {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}_U^m {\rightarrow}0$ and $s$ is represented by an element $s' \in R^m \rightarrow \Gamma(U, {\mathcal{O}}_U^m)$. By the connecting homomorphism $s'$ defines a cohomology class $$c =\delta (s') \in H^1(U, \operatorname{Syz}) \, .$$ An explicit computation of $\rm \check{C}$ech cohomology shows that this class corresponds to the torsor given by the forcing algebra.
Starting from a cohomology class $c \in H^1(U,{\mathcal{S}})$, one may construct a geometric model for the torsor classified by $c$ in the following way: because of $H^1(U,{\mathcal{S}}) \cong
\operatorname{Ext}^1({\mathcal{O}}_U,{\mathcal{S}})$ we have an extension $$0 {\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}' {\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}_U {\longrightarrow}0 \, .$$ This sequence induces projective bundles ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal{S}}^{\vee})
\hookrightarrow {\mathbb P}({\mathcal{S}}'^{\vee})$ and $T(c) \cong {\mathbb P}({\mathcal{S}}'^{\vee}) -
{\mathbb P}({\mathcal{S}}^{\vee})$. If ${\mathcal{S}}=\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)$ is the syzygy bundle for ideal generators, then the extension given by the cohomology class $\delta(f)$ coming from another element $f$ is easy to describe: it is just $$0 {\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n) {\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n,f) {\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}_U {\longrightarrow}0 \,$$ with the natural embedding (extending a syzygy by zero in the last component). This follows again from an explicit computation in $\rm
\check{C}$ech cohomology.
If the base $U$ is projective, a situation in which we will work starting with Section \[gradedsection\], then ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal{S}}'^{\vee})$ is also a projective variety and ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal{S}}^{\vee})$ is a subvariety of codimension one, a divisor. Then properties of the torsor are reflected by properties of the divisor and vice versa.
Forcing algebras and closure operations {#closure}
=======================================
A *closure operation* for ideals or for submodules is an assignment $$N \longmapsto N^c$$ for submodules $N \subseteq M$ of $R$-modules $M$ such that $N \subseteq N^c =(N^c)^c$ holds. One often requires further nice properties of a closure operation, like *monotony* or the *independence of representation* (meaning that $s \in N^c$ if and only if $\bar{s} \in 0^c$ in $M/N$). Forcing algebras are very natural objects to study such closure operations. The underlying philosophy is that $s \in N^c$ holds if and only if the forcing morphism $\operatorname{Spec}{{A}}\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}R$ fulfills a certain property (depending on and characterizing the closure operation). The property is in general not uniquely determined; for the identical closure operation one can take the properties to be faithfully flat, to be (cyclic) pure, or to have a (module- or ring-) section.
Let us consider some easy closure operations to get a feeling for this philosophy. In Section \[sectiontightsolid\] we will see how tight closure can be characterized with forcing algebras.
For the *radical* $\operatorname{rad} (I)$ the corresponding property is that $\operatorname{Spec}{{A}}\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}R$ is surjective. It is not surprising that a rough closure operation corresponds to a rough property of a morphism. An immediate consequence of this viewpoint is that we get at once a hint of what the radical of a submodule should be: namely $s \in
\sqrt{N}
$ if and only if the forcing algebra is $\operatorname{Spec}$-surjective. This is equivalent to the property that $s \otimes 1 \in \operatorname{im}(N \otimes_RK
\rightarrow M \otimes_RK)$ for all homomorphism $R \rightarrow K$ to fields (or just for all $\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})$, $ {{\mathfrak p}}\in \operatorname{Spec}R$).
We now look at the *integral closure* of an ideal, which is defined by $$\bar{I}
= \{f \in R:\, \text{ there exists }
f^k +a_1f^{k-1}+ \ldots +a_{k-1}f + a_k=0,\, a_i \in I^{i}\} \, .$$ The integral closure was first used by Zariski as it describes the normalization of blow-ups. What is the corresponding property of a morphism?
We look at an example. For $R=K[X,Y]$ we have $X^2Y \in
\overline{(X^3,Y^3)}$ and $XY \not\in
\overline{(X^3,Y^3)}$. The inclusion follows from $(X^2Y)^3=X^6Y^3
\in (X^3,Y^3)^3$. The non-inclusion follows from the *valuation criterion* for integral closure: This says for a noetherian domain $R$ that $f
\in
\bar{I}$ if and only if for all mappings to discrete valuation rings $\varphi: R \rightarrow
V$ we have $\varphi(f) \in IV$. In the example the mapping $K[X,Y]
\rightarrow K[X]$, $ Y \mapsto X$, yields $X^2 \not\in (X^3)$, so it can not belong to the integral closure. In both cases the mapping $\operatorname{Spec}{{A}}\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}R$ is surjective. In the second case, the forcing algebra over the line $V(Y-X)$ is given by the equation $T_1X^3+T_2X^3+X^2=X^2((T_1+T_2)X+1)$. The fiber over the zero point is a plane and is an affine line over a hyperbola for every other point of the line. The topologies above and below are not much related: The inverse image of the non-closed punctured line is closed, hence the topology downstairs does not carry the *image topology* from upstairs. In fact, the relationship in general is $$f \in \bar{I} \text{ if and only if } \operatorname{Spec}{{A}}\rightarrow
\operatorname{Spec}R
\text{ is universally a \emph{submersion} }$$ (a submersion in the topological sense). This relies on the fact that both properties can be checked with (in the noetherian case discrete) valuations (for this criterion for submersions, see [@SGA1] and [@blicklebrennerintegral]).
Let us consider the forcing algebras for $(X,Y)$ and $1$ and for $(X^2,Y^2)$ and $XY$ in $K[X,Y]$. The restricted spectra of the forcing algebras over the punctured plane for these two forcing data are isomorphic, because both represent the torsor given by the cohomology class $\frac{1}{XY} = \frac{XY}{X^2Y^2} \in H^1(D(X,Y), {\mathcal{O}})$. However, $XY
\in \overline{(X^2,Y^2)}$, but $1 \not\in \overline{(X,Y)}$ (not even in the radical). Hence integral closure can be characterized by the forcing algebra, but not by the induced torsor. An interesting feature of tight closure is that it only depends on the cohomology class in the syzygy bundle and the torsor induced by the forcing algebra respectively.
In the case of finitely generated algebras over the complex numbers there is another interesting closure operation, called *continuous closure*. An element $s$ belongs to the continuous closure of $N$ if the forcing algebra ${{A}}$ is such that the morphism ${\mathbb C}-\operatorname{Spec}{{A}}\rightarrow {\mathbb C}-\operatorname{Spec}R$ has a continuous section in the *complex topology*. For an ideal $I=(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)$ this is equivalent to the existence of complex-continuous functions $g_1
{ , \ldots , }g_n:{\mathbb C}-\operatorname{Spec}R \rightarrow {\mathbb C}$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n
g_if_i=f$ (as an identity on ${\mathbb C}-\operatorname{Spec}R$).
One can go one step further with the understanding of closure operations in terms of forcing algebras. For this we take the forcing algebras which are allowed by the closure operation (i.e., forcing algebras for $s,N,M$, $s \in N^c$) and declare them to be the defining covers of a (non-flat) *Grothendieck topology*. This works basically for all closure operations fulfilling certain natural conditions. This embeds closure operations into the much broader context of Grothendieck topologies, see [@brennergrothendieck].
Tight closure as solid closure {#sectiontightsolid}
==============================
We come back to tight closure, and its interpretation in terms of forcing algebras and *solid closure*.
\[solidtight\] Let $(R, {\mathfrak{m}})$ be a local excellent normal domain of positive characteristic and let $I$ denote an ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideal. Then $f \in I^*$ if and only if $H^{\dim R}_{\mathfrak{m}}({{A}}) \neq 0$, where $A$ denotes the forcing algebra.
We indicate the proof of the direction that the cohomological property implies the tight closure inclusion. By the assumptions we may assume that $R$ is complete. Because of $H^{\dim R}_{{\mathfrak{m}}} ({{A}}) \neq 0$ there exists by Matlis-duality a non-trivial $R$-module homomorphism $\psi: {{A}}\rightarrow R$ and we may assume $\psi(1)=:c
\neq 0$. In ${{A}}$ we have the equality $f = \sum_{i=1}^n f_iT_i$ and hence $$f^q = \sum_{i=1}^n f_i^qT_i^q \text{ for all } q=p^{e} \, .$$ Applying the $R$-homomorphism $\psi$ to these equations gives $$cf^q = \sum _{i=1}^n f_i^q \psi(T_i^q) \, ,$$ which is exactly the tight closure condition (the $ \psi(T_i^q)$ are the coefficients in $R$). For the other direction see [@hochstersolid].
This theorem provides the bridge between tight closure and cohomological properties of forcing algebras. The first observation is that the property about *local cohomology* on the right hand side does not refer to positive characteristic. The closure operation defined by this property is called *solid closure*, and the theorem says that in positive characteristic and under the given further assumptions solid closure and tight closure coincide. The hope was that this would provide a closure operation in all (even mixed) characteristics with similar properties as tight closure. This hope was however destroyed by the following example of Paul Roberts (see [@robertscomputation])
(Roberts) Let $K$ be a field of characteristic zero and consider $${{A}}=K[X,Y,Z]/(X^3T_1+Y^3T_2+Z^3T_3-X^2Y^2Z^2) \, .$$ Then $H^3_{(X,Y,Z)}({{A}}) \neq 0$. Therefore $X^2Y^2Z^2 \in (X^3,Y^3,Z^3)^{{\rm sc}}$ in the regular ring $K[X,Y,Z]$. This means that in a three-dimensional regular ring an ideal needs not be solidly-closed. It is however an important property of tight closure that every regular ring is *$F$-regular*, namely that every ideal is tightly closed. Hence solid closure is not a good replacement for tight closure (for a variant called *parasolid closure* with all good properties in equal characteristic zero, see [@brennerparasolid]).
Despite this drawback, solid closure provides an important interpretation of tight closure. First of all we have for $d= \dim (R) \geq 2$ (the one-dimensional case is trivial) the identities $$H^d_{\mathfrak{m}}({{A}}) \cong H^d_{{\mathfrak{m}}{{A}}} ({{A}}) \cong H^{d-1} (D({\mathfrak{m}}{{A}}), {\mathcal{O}}) \, .$$ This easy observation is quite important. The open subset $D({\mathfrak{m}}{{A}}) \subseteq \operatorname{Spec}{{A}}$ is exactly the torsor induced by the forcing algebra over the punctured spectrum $D({\mathfrak{m}}) \subset \operatorname{Spec}R$. Hence we derive at an important particularity of tight closure: tight closure of primary ideals in a normal excellent local domain depends only on the torsor (or, what is the same, only on the cohomology class of the syzygy bundle). We recall from the last section that this property does not hold for integral closure.
By Theorem \[solidtight\], tight closure can be understood by studying the global sheaf cohomology of the torsor given by a first cohomology class of the syzygy bundle. The forcing algebra provides a geometric model for this torsor. An element $f$ belongs to the tight closure if and only if the *cohomological dimension* of the torsor $T$ is $d-1$ (which is the cohomological dimension of $D({\mathfrak{m}})$), and $f \not \in I^*$ if and only if the cohomological dimension drops. Recall that the cohomological dimension of a scheme $U$ is the largest number $i$ such that $H^{i}(U, {\mathcal F}) \neq 0$ for some (quasi-)coherent sheaf $\mathcal F$ on $U$. In the quasiaffine case, where $U \subseteq \operatorname{Spec}B$ (as in the case of torsors inside the spectrum of the forcing algebra), one only has to look at the structure sheaf ${\mathcal F}= {\mathcal{O}}$.
In dimension two this means that $f \in I^*$ if and only if the cohomological dimension of the torsor is one, and $f \not\in I^*$ if and only if this is zero. By a theorem of Serre ([@hartshornealgebraic Theorem III.3.7]) cohomological dimension zero means that $U$ is an *affine scheme*, i.e., isomorphic as a scheme to the spectrum of a ring (do not confuse the “affine” in affine scheme with the “affine” in affine-linear bundle).
It is in general a difficult question to decide whether a quasiaffine scheme is an affine scheme. Even in the special case of torsors there is no general machinery to answer it. A necessary condition is that the complement has pure codimension one (which is fulfilled in the case of torsors). So far we have not gained any criterion from our geometric interpretation.
Tight closure in graded dimension two {#gradedsection}
=====================================
From now on we deal with the following situation: $R$ is a two-dimensional normal standard-graded domain over an algebraically closed field of any characteristic, $I=(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)$ is a homogeneous $R_+$-primary ideal with homogeneous generators of degree $d_i=
\deg(f_i)$. Let ${{C}}= \operatorname{Proj}R$ be the corresponding smooth projective curve. The ideal generators define the homogeneous resolution $$0 {\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n) {\longrightarrow}\oplus_{i=1}^n R(-d_i) \stackrel{f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n}{{\longrightarrow}} R {\longrightarrow}R/I {\longrightarrow}0 \, ,$$ and the short exact sequence of vector bundles on ${{C}}$ $$0 {\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Syz}( f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n) {\longrightarrow}\oplus_{i=1}^n {\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}(-d_i)
\stackrel{f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n}{{\longrightarrow}} {\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}{\longrightarrow}0 \, .$$ We also need the $m$-twists of this sequence for every $m \in {\mathbb Z}$, $$0 {\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Syz}( f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)(m) {\longrightarrow}\oplus_{i=1}^n {\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}(m-d_i)
\stackrel{f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n}{{\longrightarrow}} {\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}(m) {\longrightarrow}0 \, .$$ It follows from this *presenting sequence* by the additivity of rank and degree that the vector bundle $\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)(m)$ has rank $n-1$ and degree $$(m(n-1) - \sum_{i=1}^n d_i) \deg {{C}}$$ (where $\deg {{C}}= \deg {\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}(1)$ is the degree of the curve).
A homogeneous element $f \in R_m= \Gamma({{C}}, {\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}(m))$ defines again a cohomology class $c \in H^1({{C}}, {\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}(m))$ as well as a torsor $T(c) \rightarrow {{C}}$. This torsor is a homogeneous version of the torsor induced by the forcing algebra on $D(m) \subset \operatorname{Spec}R$. This can be made more precise by endowing the forcing algebra ${{A}}=R[T_1 { , \ldots , }T_n]/(f_1T_1 { + \ldots + }f_nT_n-f)$ with a (not necessarily positive) ${\mathbb Z}$-grading and taking $T=D_+(R_+) \subseteq \operatorname{Proj}A$. From this it follows that the affineness of this torsor on ${{C}}$ is decisive for tight closure. The translation of the tight closure problem via forcing algebras into torsors over projective curves has the following advantages:
1. We can work over a smooth projective curve, i.e., we have reduced the dimension of the base and we have removed the singularity.
2. We can work in a projective setting and use intersection theory.
3. We can use the theory of vector bundles, in particular the notion of semistable bundles and their moduli spaces.
We will give a criterion when such a torsor is affine and hence when a homogeneous element belongs to the tight closure of a graded $R_+$-primary ideal. For this we need the following definition.
Let ${\mathcal{S}}$ be a locally free sheaf on a smooth projective curve ${{C}}$. Then ${\mathcal{S}}$ is called *semistable*, if $\deg({\mathcal{T}})/{{\operatorname{rk} }}({\mathcal{T}}) \leq \deg({\mathcal{S}})/{{\operatorname{rk} }}({\mathcal{S}}) $ holds for all subbundles ${\mathcal{T}}\neq 0$. In positive characteristic, ${\mathcal{S}}$ is called *strongly semistable*, if all *Frobenius pull-backs* $F^{e*}( {\mathcal{S}})$, $e \geq 0$, are semistable (here $F: C
\rightarrow C$ denotes the *absolute Frobenius* morphism).
Note that for the syzygy bundle we have the natural isomorphism (by pulling back the presenting sequence) $$F^{e*}(\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n )) \cong \operatorname{Syz}(f_1^q { , \ldots , }f_n^q) \, .$$ Therefore the Frobenius pull-back of the cohomology class $\delta(f) \in $ $H^1(C,\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n )(m))$ is $$F^{e*}( \delta(f)) = \delta(f^q) \in H^1(C,\operatorname{Syz}(f_1^q { , \ldots , }f_n^q )(qm)) \, .$$
The following two results establish an exact numerical *degree bound* for tight closure under the condition that the syzygy bundle is strongly semistable.
\[ssinclusion\] Suppose that $\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)$ is strongly semistable. Then we have $R_m \subseteq I^*$ for $m \geq (\sum_{i=1}^n d_i)/(n-1)$.
Note that the degree condition implies that ${\mathcal{S}}:=\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)(m)$ has non-negative degree. Let $c \in H^1({{C}},{\mathcal{S}})$ be any cohomology class (it might be $\delta(f)$ for some $f$ of degree $m$). The pull-back $F^{e*}(c)$ lives in $H^1({{C}},F^{e*}({\mathcal{S}}))$. Let now $k$ be such that ${\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}(-k) \otimes \omega_{{C}}$ has negative degree, where $\omega_{{C}}$ is the canonical sheaf on the curve. Let $z \in \Gamma({{C}}, {\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}(k))=R_k$, $z \neq 0$. Then $zF^{e*}(c) \in H^1({{C}}, F^{e*}({\mathcal{S}}) \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}(k))$. However, by degree considerations, these cohomology groups are zero: by Serre duality they are dual to $H^0( {{C}}, F^{e*}( {\mathcal{S}}^{{\vee}} ) \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}(-k) \otimes \omega_{{C}})$, and this bundle is semistable of negative degree, hence it can not have global sections. Because of $z F^{e*}(c)=0$ it follows that $z
f^q$ is in the image of the mapping given by $f_1^q { , \ldots , }f_n^q$, so $z f^q \in I^{[q]}$ and $f \in I^*$.
\[ssexclusion\] Suppose that $\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)$ is strongly semistable. Let $m < (\sum_{i=1}^n d_i)/(n-1)$ and let $f$ be a homogeneous element of degree $m$. Suppose that $f^{{p^a}} \not\in I^{[p^a]}$ for $a$ such that $p^a > gn(n-1)$ (where $g$ is the genus of $C$). Then $f \not\in I^*$.
Here the proof works with the torsor $T$ defined by $c=\delta(f)$. The syzygy bundle ${\mathcal{S}}=\operatorname{Syz}(f_1{ , \ldots , }f_n)(m)$ has now negative degree, hence its dual bundle ${\mathcal{F}}={\mathcal{S}}^{\vee}$ is an *ample* vector bundle (as it is strongly semistable of positive degree). The class defines a non-trivial dual extension $0 {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}_{{C}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{F}}' {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{F}}{\rightarrow}0$. By the assumption also a certain Frobenius pull-back of this extension is still non-trivial. Hence ${\mathcal{F}}'$ is also ample and therefore ${\mathbb P}({\mathcal{F}}) \subset {\mathbb P}({\mathcal{F}}')$ is an ample divisor and its complement $T={\mathbb P}({\mathcal{F}}') - {\mathbb P}({\mathcal{F}})$ is affine. Hence $f \not\in
I^*$.
It is in general not easy to establish whether a bundle is strongly semistable or not. However, even if we do not know whether the syzygy bundle is strongly semistable, we can work with its *strong Harder-Narasimhan filtration*. The Harder Narasimhan filtration of a vector bundle ${\mathcal{S}}$ on a smooth projective curve is a filtration $$0 = {\mathcal{S}}_0 \subset {\mathcal{S}}_1 \subset {\mathcal{S}}_2 \subset \ldots \subset {\mathcal{S}}_{t-1} \subset {\mathcal{S}}_{t} = {\mathcal{S}}$$ with ${\mathcal{S}}_i/{\mathcal{S}}_{i-1}$ semistable and descending slopes $$\mu
({\mathcal{S}}_1) > \mu ({\mathcal{S}}_2/{\mathcal{S}}_1) > \ldots > \mu ({\mathcal{S}}/{\mathcal{S}}_{t-1}) \, .$$ Since the Frobenius pull-back of a semistable bundle need not be semistable anymore, the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $F^*({\mathcal{S}})$ is quite unrelated to the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of ${\mathcal{S}}$. However, by a result of A. Langer [@langersemistable Theorem 2.7], there exists a certain number $e$ such that the quotients in the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $F^{e*}({\mathcal{S}})$ are strongly semistable. Such a filtration is called *strong*. With a strong Harder-Narasimhan filtration one can now formulate an exact numerical criterion for tight closure inclusion building on Theorems \[ssinclusion\] and \[ssexclusion\].
The criterion basically says that a torsor is affine (equivalently, $f \not \in I^*$), if and only if the cohomology class is non-zero in some strongly semistable quotient of negative degree of the strong Harder-Narasimhan filtration. One should remark here that even if we start with a syzygy bundle, the bundles in the filtration are no syzygy bundles, hence it is important to develop the theory of torsors of vector bundles in full generality. From this numerical criterion one can deduce an answer to the tantalizing question.
\[tantalizingtheorem\] Let $K= \overline{{\mathbb F}_p}$ be the algebraic closure of a finite field and let $R$ be a normal standard-graded $K$-algebra of dimension two. Then $I^*=I^+$ for every $R_+$-primary homogeneous ideal.
This follows from the numerical criterion for the affineness of torsors mentioned above. The point is that the same criterion holds for the non-existence of projective curves inside the torsor. One reduces to the situation of a strongly semistable bundle ${\mathcal{S}}$ of degree $0$. Every cohomology class of such a bundle defines a non-affine torsor and hence we have to show that there exists a projective curve inside, or equivalently, that the cohomology class can be annihilated by a finite cover of the curve. Here is where the finiteness assumption about the field enters. ${\mathcal{S}}$ is defined over a finite subfield ${\mathbb F}_q \subseteq K$, and it is represented (or rather, its $S$-equivalence class) by a point in the moduli space of semistable bundles of that rank and degree $0$. The Frobenius pull-backs $F^{e*}({\mathcal{S}})$ are again semistable (by strong semistability) and they are defined over the same finite field. Because semistable bundles form a bounded family (itself the reason for the existence of the moduli space), there exist only finitely many semistable bundles defined over ${\mathbb F}_q$ of degree zero. Hence there exists a repetition, i.e., there exists $e' > e$ such that we have an isomorphism $F^{e'*}({\mathcal{S}}) \cong F^{e*}({\mathcal{S}})$. By a result of H. Lange and U. Stuhler [@langestuhler] there exists a finite mapping ${{C}}' \stackrel{\varphi}{{\rightarrow}} {{C}}\stackrel{F^{e}}{{\rightarrow}} {{C}}$ (with $\varphi$ étale) such that the pull-back of the bundle is trivial. Then one is left with the problem of annihilating a cohomology class $c
\in H^1({{C}}, {\mathcal{O}}_{{C}})$, which is possible using Artin-Schreier theory (or the graded version of K. Smith’s parameter theorem, [@smithparameter]).
This theorem was extended by G. Dietz for $R_+$-primary ideals which are not necessarily homogeneous [@dietztightclosure]. The above proof shows how important the assumption is that the base field is finite or the algebraic closure of a finite field. Indeed, we will see in the last section that the statement is not true when the base field contains transcendental elements. Also some results on Hilbert-Kunz functions depend on the property that the base field is finite.
Applications to Hilbert-Kunz theory {#hilbertkunz}
===================================
The geometric approach to tight closure was also successful in Hilbert-Kunz theory. This theory originates in the work of E. Kunz ([@kunzcharacterization], [@kunznoetherian]) and was largely extended by P. Monsky ([@monskyhilbertkunz], [@hanmonsky]).
Let $R$ be a commutative ring of positive characteristic and let $I$ be an ideal which is primary to a maximal ideal. Then all $R/I^{[q]}$, $q=p^{e}$, have finite length, and the *Hilbert-Kunz function* of the ideal is defined to be $$e \longmapsto \varphi(e)= \lg (R/ I^{[p^{e}]})\, .$$
Monsky proved the following fundamental theorem of Hilbert-Kunz theory ([@monskyhilbertkunz], [@hunekeapplication Theorem 6.7]).
The limit $$\lim_{e \mapsto \infty} \frac{\varphi(e)}{p^{e \dim (R) }}$$ exists (as a positive real number) and is called the *Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity* of $I$, denoted by $e_{\rm HK}
(I)$.
The Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity of the maximal ideal in a local ring is usually denoted by $e_{\rm HK}(R)$ and is called the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity of $R$. It is an open question whether this number is always rational. Strong numerical evidence suggests that this is probably not true in dimension $\geq 4$, see [@monskylikelycounterexample]. We will deal with the two-dimensional situation in a minute, but first we relate Hilbert-Kunz theory to tight closure (see [@hunekeapplication Theorem 5.4]).
\[hilbertkunztightclosure\] Let $R$ be an analytically unramified and formally equidimensional local ring of positive characteristic and let $I$ be an ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideal. Let $f \in R$. Then $f \in I^*$ if and only if $$e_{\rm HK} (I) = e_{\rm HK} ((I,f)) \, .$$
This theorem means that the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity is related to tight closure in the same way as the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity is related to integral closure.
We restrict now again to the case of an $R_+$-primary homogeneous ideal in a standard-graded normal domain $R$ of dimension two over an algebraically closed field $K$ of positive characteristic $p$. In this situation Hilbert-Kunz theory is directly related to global sections of the Frobenius pull-backs of the syzygy bundle on $\operatorname{Proj}R$ (see Section \[gradedsection\]). We shall see that it is possible to express the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity in terms of the strong Harder-Narasimhan filtration of this bundle.
For homogeneous ideal generators $f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n$ of degrees $d_1,
\ldots , d_n$ we write down again the presenting sequence on $C= \operatorname{Proj}R$, $$0 {\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Syz}(f_1{ , \ldots , }f_n) {\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{i=1}^n {\mathcal{O}}_C(-d_i)
\stackrel{f_1{ , \ldots , }f_n}{{\longrightarrow}} {\mathcal{O}}_C {\longrightarrow}0 \, .$$ The $m$-twists of the Frobenius pull-backs of this sequence are $$0 {\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Syz}(f_1^q{ , \ldots , }f_n^q)(m) {\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{i=1}^n {\mathcal{O}}_C(m-qd_i)
\stackrel{f^q_1{ , \ldots , }f^q_n}{{\longrightarrow}} {\mathcal{O}}_C(m) {\longrightarrow}0 \, .$$ The global evaluation of the last short exact sequence is $$0 {\longrightarrow}\Gamma(C,\operatorname{Syz}(f_1^q{ , \ldots , }f_n^q)(m)) {\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{i=1}^n
R_{m-qd_i}
\stackrel{f^q_1{ , \ldots , }f^q_n}{{\longrightarrow}} R_m \, ,$$ and the cokernel of the map on the right is $$R_m/(f_1^q { , \ldots , }f_n^q) = ( R/I^{[q]})_m \, .$$ Because of $R/I^{[q]} = \bigoplus_m (R/I^{[q]})_m$, the length of $R/I^{[q]}$ is the sum over the degrees $m$ of the $K$-dimensions of these cokernels. The sum is in fact finite because the ideals $I^{[q]}$ are primary (or because $H^1(C, \operatorname{Syz}(f_1^q { , \ldots , }f_n^q)(m))=0$ for $m \gg 0$), but the bound for the summation grows with $q$. Anyway, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\dim (R/I^{[q]})_m &=&
\dim (\Gamma( C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(m))) - \sum_{i=1}^n \dim (\Gamma( C,
{\mathcal{O}}_C(m-qd_i))) \cr
& &+ \dim (\Gamma(C, \operatorname{Syz}(f_1^q { , \ldots , }f_n^q)(m))) \, .\end{aligned}$$ The computation of the dimensions $\dim (\Gamma( C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(\ell)))$ is easy, hence the problem is to control the global sections of $\operatorname{Syz}(f_1^q { , \ldots , }f_n^q)(m)$, more precisely, its behavior for large $q$, and its sum over a suitable range of $m$. This behavior is encoded in the strong Harder-Narasimhan filtration of the syzygy bundle. Let $e$ be fixed and large enough such that the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of the pull-back ${{\mathcal H}}= F^{e*}(\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n) ) =\operatorname{Syz}(f_1^q { , \ldots , }f_n^q)$ is strong. Let ${{\mathcal H}}_j \subseteq {{\mathcal H}}$, $j=1 { , \ldots , }t$, be the subsheaves occurring in the Harder-Narasimhan filtration and set $$\nu_j := \frac{- \mu ( {{\mathcal H}}_j/{{\mathcal H}}_{j-1})}{p^{e} \deg (C)} \, \text{ and } r_j
= {{\operatorname{rk} }}( {{\mathcal H}}_j/{{\mathcal H}}_{j-1}) \, .$$ Because the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of ${{\mathcal H}}$ and of all its pull-backs is strong, these numbers are independent of $e$. The following theorem was shown by Brenner and Trivedi independently ([@brennerhilbertkunzrationality], [@trivedihilbertkunz]).
\[hkformula\] Let $R$ be a normal two-dimensional standard-graded domain over an algebraically closed field and let $I=(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)$ be a homogeneous $R_+$-primary ideal, $d_i = \deg(f_i)$. Then the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity of $I$ is given by the formula $$e_{\rm HK} (I)
= \frac{\deg (C)}{2} \left( \sum_{j=1}^t r_j \nu_j^2 - \sum_{i=1}^n d_i^2 \right)\, .$$ In particular, it is a rational number.
We can also say something about the behavior of the Hilbert-Kunz function under the additional condition that the base field is the algebraic closure of a finite field (see [@brennerhilbertkunzfunction]).
\[hilbertkunzperiodic\] Let $R$ and $I$ be as before and suppose that the base field is the algebraic closure of a finite field. Then the Hilbert-Kunz function has the form $$\varphi(e)= e_{\rm HK}(I) p^{2e} + \gamma(e) \, ,$$ where $\gamma$ is eventually periodic.
This theorem also shows that here the “linear term” in the Hilbert-Kunz function exists and that it is zero. It was proved in [@hunekemcdermottmonsky] that for normal excellent $R$ the Hilbert-Kunz function looks like $$e_{HK} q^{\dim (R)} + \beta q^{\dim
(R)-1} + \text{smaller terms} \, .$$ For possible behavior of the second term in the non-normal case in dimension two see [@monskyirreducible]. See also Remark \[hilbertkunzarithmetic\].
Arithmetic and geometric deformations of tight closure {#deformation}
======================================================
The geometric interpretation of tight closure theory led to a fairly detailed understanding of tight closure in graded dimension two. The next easiest case is to study how tight closure behaves in families of two-dimensional rings, parametrized by a one dimensional ring. Depending on whether the base has mixed characteristic (like $\operatorname{Spec}{\mathbb Z}$) or equal positive characteristic $p$ (like $\operatorname{Spec}K[T]=\mathbb A^1_K$) we talk about *arithmetic* or *geometric deformations*.
More precisely, let $D$ be a one-dimensional domain and let $S$ be a $D$-standard-graded domain of dimension three, such that for every point ${{\mathfrak p}}\in \operatorname{Spec}D$ the fiber rings $S_{\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})} = S \otimes_D \kappa({{\mathfrak p}})$ are normal standard-graded domains over $\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})$ of dimension two. The data $I=(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)$ in $S$ and $f \in S$ determine corresponding data in these fiber rings, and the syzygy bundle $\operatorname{Syz}(f_1 { , \ldots , }f_n)$ on $\operatorname{Proj}S \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}D$ determines syzygy bundles on the curves $ C_{\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})} = \operatorname{Proj}S_{\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})} $. The natural questions here are: how does the property $f \in I^*$ (in $S_{\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})}$) depend on ${{\mathfrak p}}$, how does $e_{\rm HK}(I)$ depend on ${{\mathfrak p}}$, how does strong semistability depend on ${{\mathfrak p}}$, how does the affineness of torsors depend on ${{\mathfrak p}}$?
Semistability itself is an open property and behaves nicely in a family in the sense that if the syzygy bundle is semistable on the curve over the generic point, then it is semistable over almost all closed points. D. Gieseker gave in [@giesekerfrobenius] an example of a collection of bundles such that, depending on the parameter, the $e$th pull-back is semistable, but the $(e+1)$th is not semistable anymore (for every $e$). The problem how strong semistability behaves under arithmetic deformations was explicitly formulated by Y. Miyaoka and by N. Shepherd-Barron ([@miyaokachern], [@shepherdbarronsemistability]).
In the context of Hilbert-Kunz theory, this question has been studied by P. Monsky ([@hanmonsky], [@monskyfamilyquartic]), both in the arithmetic and in the geometric case. Monsky (and Han) gave examples that the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity may vary in a family.
Let $R_p= {\mathbb Z}/(p)[X,Y,Z]/(X^4+Y^4+Z^4)$. Then the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity of the maximal ideal is $$e_{\rm HK}(R_p)= \begin{cases} 3 \text{ for } p
= \pm 1 \mod 8 \cr 3 + 1/p^2 \text{ for } p = \pm 3 \mod 8 \end{cases} \, .$$ Note that by the theorem on prime numbers in arithmetic progressions there exist infinitely many prime numbers of all these congruence types.
\[hilbertkunzarithmetic\] In the previous example there occur infinitely many different values for $e_{\rm HK}(R_p)$ depending on the characteristic, the limit as $p \mapsto \infty$ is however well defined. Trivedi showed [@trivedihilbertkunzreduction] that in the graded two-dimensional situation this limit always exists, and that this limit can be computed by the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of the syzygy bundle in characteristic zero. Brenner showed that one can define, using this Harder-Narasimhan filtration, a Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity directly in characteristic zero, and that this Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity characterizes solid closure [@brennerhilbertkunzcriterion] in the same way as Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity characterizes tight closure in positive characteristic (Theorem \[hilbertkunztightclosure\] above). Combining these results one can say that “solid closure is the limit of tight closure” in graded dimension two, in the sense that $f \in I^{{\rm sc}}$ in characteristic zero if and only if the Hilbert-Kunz difference $e_{\rm HK} ((I,f)) - e_{\rm HK} (I)$ tends to $0$ for $p \mapsto \infty $.
It is an open question whether in all dimensions the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity has always a limit as $p$ goes to infinity, whether this limit, if it exists, has an interpretation in characteristic zero alone (independent of reduction to positive characteristic) and what closure operation it would correspond to. See also [@brennerlimiller].
In the geometric case, Monsky gave the following example ([@monskyfamilyquartic]).
\[monskyquartic\] Let $K={\mathbb Z}/(2)$ and let $$S= {\mathbb Z}/(2)[T][X,Y,Z]/(Z^4+Z^2XY+Z(X^3+Y^3)+(T+T^2)X^2Y^2 ) \, .$$ We consider $S$ as an algebra over ${\mathbb Z}/(2)[T]$ ($T$ has degree $0$). Then the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity of the maximal ideal is $$e_{\rm HK}\! (S_{\kappa ({{\mathfrak p}})})
\! = \! \begin{cases} 3 \text{ if } \kappa ({{\mathfrak p}}) =K(T) \text{ (generic case)}\cr
3 + 1/4^m \text{ if } \kappa({{\mathfrak p}})= {\mathbb Z}/(2)(t) \text{ is finite over
}
{\mathbb Z}/(2)
\text{ of degree } m . \end{cases}$$
By the work of Brenner and Trivedi (see Section \[hilbertkunz\]) these examples can be translated immediately into examples where strong semistability behaves weirdly. From the first example we get an example of a vector bundle of rank two over a projective relative curve over $\operatorname{Spec}{\mathbb Z}$ such that the bundle is semistable on the generic curve (in characteristic zero), and is strongly semistable for infinitely many prime reductions, but also not strongly semistable for infinitely many prime reductions.
From the second example we get an example of a vector bundle of rank two over a projective relative curve over the affine line $\mathbb A^1_{{\mathbb Z}/(2)}$, such that the bundle is strongly semistable on the generic curve (over the function field $
{\mathbb Z}/(2) (T)$), but not strongly semistable for the curve over any finite field (and the degree of the field extension determines which Frobenius pull-back destabilizes).
To get examples where tight closure varies with the base one has to go one step further (in short, weird behavior of Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity is a necessary condition for weird behavior of tight closure). Interesting behavior can only happen for elements of degree $(\sum d_i)/(n-1)$ (the degree bound, see Theorems \[ssinclusion\] and \[ssexclusion\]).
In [@brennerkatzmanarithmetic], Brenner and M. Katzman showed that tight closure does not behave uniformly under an arithmetic deformation, thus answering negatively a question in [@hochstersolid].
\[brennerkatzmanexample\] Let $$R={\mathbb Z}/(p)[X,Y,Z]/(X^7+Y^7+Z^7)$$ and $I=(X^4,Y^4,Z^4)$, $f=X^3Y^3$. Then $f \in I^*$ for $p=3 \mod 7$ and $f \not \in I^*$ for $p=2 \mod 7$ (see [@brennerkatzmanarithmetic Proposition 2.4 and Proposition 3.1]). Hence we have infinitely many prime reductions where the element belongs to the tight closure and infinitely many prime reductions where it does not.
Arithmetic deformations are closely related to the question “what is tight closure over a field of characteristic zero”. The general philosophy is that characteristic zero behavior of tight closure should reflect the behavior of tight closure for almost all primes, after expressing the relevant data over an arithmetic base. By declaring $f \in I^*$, if this holds for almost all primes, one obtains a satisfactory theory of tight closure in characteristic zero with the same impact as in positive characteristic. This is a systematic way to do reduction to positive characteristic (see [@hunekeapplication Appendix 1] and [@hochsterhuneketightclosurezero]). However, the example above shows that there is not always a uniform behavior in positive characteristic. A consequence is also that solid closure in characteristic zero is not the same as tight closure (but see Remark \[hilbertkunzarithmetic\]). From the example we can deduce that $f
\in I^{{\rm sc}}$, but $f \not\in I^*$ in ${\mathbb Q}[X,Y,Z]/(X^7+Y^7+Z^7)$. Hence, the search for a good tight closure operation in characteristic zero remains.
We now look at geometric deformations. They are directly related to the localization problem and to the tantalizing problem which we have mentioned in the introduction.
Let $D$ be a one-dimensional domain of finite type over ${\mathbb Z}/(p)$ and let $S$ be a $D$-domain of finite type. Let $f\in S$ and $I \subseteq S$ be an ideal. Suppose that localization holds for $S$. If then $f \in I^*$ in the generic fiber ring $S_{Q(D)}$, then also $f \in I^*$ in $S_{\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})} = S \otimes_D \kappa({{\mathfrak p}})$ for almost all closed points ${{\mathfrak p}}\in \operatorname{Spec}D$.
The generic fiber ring is the localization of $S$ at the multiplicative system $M =D -\{0\}$ (considered in $S$). So if $f \in I^*$ holds in $S_{Q(D)}=S_M$, and if localization holds, then there exists $h \in M $ such that $hf \in I^*$ in $S$ (the global ring of the deformation). By the persistence of tight closure ([@hunekeapplication Theorem 2.3] applied to $S \rightarrow
S_{\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})}$) it follows that $hf \in I^*$ in $S_{\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})}$ for all closed points ${{\mathfrak p}}\in \operatorname{Spec}D$. But $h$ is a unit in almost all residue class fields $\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})$, so the result follows.
\[brennermonskyexample\] Let $$S={\mathbb Z}/(2)[T][X,Y,Z]/(Z^4+Z^2XY+Z(X^3+Y^3)+(T+T^2)X^2Y^2)$$ as in Example \[monskyquartic\] and let $I=(X^4,Y^4,Z^4)$, $f=Y^3Z^3$ ($X^3Y^3$ would not work). Then $f \in I^*$, as is shown in [@brennermonsky], in the generic fiber ring $S_{{\mathbb Z}/(2)(T)}$, but $f \not\in I^*$ in $S_{\kappa({{\mathfrak p}})}$ for all closed points ${{\mathfrak p}}\in \operatorname{Spec}D$. Hence tight closure does not commute with localization.
Let $K={\mathbb Z}/(2)(T)$ and $R=K[X,Y,Z]/(Z^4+Z^2XY+Z(X^3+Y^3)+(T+T^2)X^2Y^2)$. This is the generic fiber ring of the previous example. It is a normal, standard-graded domain of dimension two and it is defined over the function field. In this ring we have $Y^3Z^3 \in (X^4,Y^4,Z^4)^*$, but $Y^3Z^3 \not\in (X^4,Y^4,Z^4)^+ $. Hence tight closure is not the same as plus closure, not even in dimension two.
Some open problems {#problems}
==================
We collect some open questions and problems, together with some comments of what is known and some guesses. We first list problems which are weaker variants of the localization problem.
Is $F$-regular the same as weakly $F$-regular?
Recall that a ring is called *weakly $F$-regular* if every ideal is tightly closed, and *$F$-regular* if this is true for all localizations. A positive answer would have followed from a positive answer to the localization problem. This path is not possible anymore, but there are many positive results on this: it is true in the Gorenstein case, in the graded case ([@lyubezniksmithstrongweak]), it is true over an uncountable field (proved by Murthy, see [@hunekeapplication Theorem 12.2]). All this shows that a positive result is likely, at least under some additional assumptions.
Does tight closure commute with the localization at one element?
There is no evidence why this should be true. It would be nice to see a counterexample, and it would also be nice to have examples of bad behavior of tight closure under geometric deformations in all characteristics.
Suppose $R$ is of finite type over a finite field. Is tight closure the same as plus closure?
This is known in graded dimension two for $R_+$-primary ideals by Theorem \[tantalizingtheorem\] and the extension for non-homogeneous ideals (but still graded ring) by Dietz (see [@dietztightclosure]). To attack this problem one probably needs first to establish new exact criteria of what tight closure is. Even in dimension two, but not graded, the best way to establish results is probably to develop a theory of strongly semistable modules on a local ring.
Can one characterize the rings where tight closure is plus closure? Are rings, where every ideal coincides with its plus closure, $F$-regular?
For a two-dimensional standard-graded domain and the corresponding projective curve, the following problems remain.
Let $C$ be a smooth projective curve over a field of positive characteristic, and let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be an invertible sheaf of degree zero. Let $c \in H^1(C, {\mathcal{L}})$ be a cohomology class. Does there exist a finite mapping $C' \rightarrow C$, $C'$ another projective curve, such that the pull-back annihilates $c$.
This is known for the structure sheaf ${\mathcal{O}}_C$ and holds in general over (the algebraic closure of) a finite field. It is probably not true over a field with transcendental elements, the heuristic being that otherwise there would be a uniform way to annihilate the class over every finite field (an analogue is that every invertible sheaf of degree zero over a finite field has finite order in $\operatorname{Pic}^0(C)$, but the orders do not have much in common as the field varies, and the order over larger fields might be infinite).
Let $R$ be a two-dimensional normal standard-graded domain and let $I$ be an $R_+$-primary homogeneous ideal. Write $\varphi(e)= e_{HK} p^2 + \gamma(e)$. Is $\gamma(e)$ eventually periodic?
By Theorem \[hilbertkunzperiodic\] this is true if the base field is finite, but this question is open if the base field contains transcendental elements. How does (the lowest term of) the Hilbert-Kunz function behave under a geometric deformation?
Let $C \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}D$ be a relative projective curve over an arithmetic base like $\operatorname{Spec}{\mathbb Z}$, and let ${\mathcal{S}}$ be a vector bundle over $C$. Suppose that the generic bundle ${\mathcal{S}}_0$ over the generic curve of characteristic zero is semistable. Is then ${\mathcal{S}}_p$ over $C_p$ strongly semistable for infinitely many prime numbers $p$?
This question was first asked by Y. Miyaoka ([@miyaokachern]). Corresponding questions for an arithmetic family of two-dimensional rings are: Does there exist always infinitely many prime numbers where the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity coincides with the characteristic zero limit? If an element belongs to the solid closure in characteristic zero, does it belong to the tight closure for infinitely many prime reductions? In [@brennermiyaoka], there is a series of examples where the number of primes with not strongly semistable reduction has an arbitrary small density under the assumption that there exist infinitely many Sophie Germain prime numbers (a prime number $p$ such that also $2p+1$ is prime).
We come back to arbitrary dimension.
Understand tight closure geometrically, say for standard-graded normal domains with an isolated singularity. The same for Hilbert-Kunz theory.
Some progress in this direction has been made in [@brennerlinearfrobenius] and in [@brennerfischbacherweitzgenericbounds], but much more has to be done. What is apparent from this work is that positivity properties of the top-dimensional syzygy bundle coming from a resolution are important. A problem is that strong semistability controls global sections and by Serre duality also top-dimensional cohomology, but one problem is to control the intermediate cohomology.
Find a good closure operation in equal characteristic zero, with tight closure like properties, with no reduction to positive characteristic.
The notion of *parasolid closure* gives a first answer to this [@brennerparasolid]. However, not much is known about it beside that it fulfills the basic properties one expects from tight closure, and many proofs depend on positive characteristic (though the notion itself does not). Is there a more workable notion?
One should definitely try to understand here several candidates with the help of forcing algebras and the corresponding Grothendieck topologies. A promising approach is to allow the forcing algebras as coverings which do not annihilate (top-dimensional) local cohomology unless it is annihilated by a resolution of singularities.
Is there a closure operation which commutes with localization (this is also not known for characteristic zero tight closure, but probably false)?
Find a good closure operation in mixed characteristic and prove the remaining homological conjectures.
In Hilbert-Kunz theory, the following questions are still open.
Is the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity always a rational number? Is it at least an algebraic number?
The answer to the first question is probably no, as the numerical material in [@monskylikelycounterexample] suggests. However, this still has to be established.
Prove or disprove that the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity has always a limit as the characteristic tends to $\infty$.
If it has, or in the cases where it has, one should also find a direct interpretation in characteristic zero and study the corresponding closure operation.
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use a simultaneous flow of ethylene and hydrogen gases to grow single wall carbon nanotubes by chemical vapor deposition. Strong coupling to the gate is inferred from transport measurements for both metallic and semiconducting tubes. At low-temperatures, our samples act as single-electron transistors where the transport mechanism is mainly governed by Coulomb blockade. The measurements reveal very rich quantized energy level spectra spanning from valence to conduction band. The Coulomb diamonds have similar addition energies on both sides of the semiconducting gap. Signatures of subbands population has been observed.'
author:
- 'Bakir. Babić'
- 'Mahdi. Iqbal'
- 'Christian. Sch[ö]{}nenberger'
title: 'Bipolar single-wall carbon nanotube field-effect transistor'
---
Single wall carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) are chemically derived self-assembled solid molecules with fascinating electronic properties [@Dresselhaus]. Their rich variety of band structure (metallic, semiconductor) might revolutionize nano-electronics. Recently, not only an extensive spectrum of quantum phenomena have been demonstrated with SWNTs [@Dekker1; @Dai2; @mcuene1; @Liang], but they have also been used as functional electronic devices in the form of field effect transistors (FETs) [@Tans1; @Martel1]. The as-grown SWNT FETs were found to be unipolar p-type, i.e. no electrical current flows even at large positive gate voltages. The p-type nature of nanotubes (NTs) has been attributed to charge transfer caused by either oxidizing molecules adsorbed to the NTs [@Dai1], or the difference in workfunctions between NTs and metallic contacts (mostly Au) [@Tans1]. The unipolarity, on the other hand, has been attributed to the presence of Schottky barriers at the metal-nanotube contacts [@Park]. Though as-grown SWNTs are p-type, n-type unipolar conductance has been demonstrated by either chemical doping [@Bockrath] or an annealing treatment in an inert environment [@Radosavljevic]. It remains, however, challenging to realize bipolar SWNT FETs which operate without any additional treatment and use conventional back-gating. Bipolar SWNT FETs has been demonstrated on large-diameter SWNTs [@Javey], and recently also on small-diameter SWNTs by using strong-coupling gates [@Bachtold]. Here we report on electronic transport measurements on as grown SWNTs which show bipolar FETs action.
SWNTs are synthesized by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) following the method of Hafner et al. [@Hafner1]. In all our studies we used SWNTs having diameters of or less, as inferred from AFM height measurements. Our devices are prepared on highly doped and thermally oxidized Si wafers. The substrate is used as back gate in electrical measurements of the final devices which are obtained as follows: The substrate is covered with a layer of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) in which windows are patterned by electron beam lithography. Then, a catalyst suspension consisting of iron nitrate seeds (Fe(NO$_3$)$_3$) dissolved in of isopropanol is poured into the predefined trenches. The PMMA is then removed in acetone, leaving isolated catalyst islands on the surface. The CVD growth is performed in a quartz-tube furnace at and atmospheric pressure using a gas mixture of ethylene, hydrogen and argon with respective flow rates of $2$, $400$, and . During heating and cooling of the furnace, the quartz tube is continually flashed with argon to avoid contamination of the tubes. The as-grown SWNTs are then contacted in a conventional lift-off process with two metal electrodes per SWNT, spaced apart. As electrode material Ti/Au bilayer is used, leading to contact resistances of at room temperature. Figure 1a illustrates schematically a SWNT device. An atomic force microscopy (AFM) picture is displayed in figure 1b. The diameter of the nanotubes is determined from the measured height using AFM in tapping mode.
Once the samples are made, semiconducting and metallic tubes are distinguished by the dependence of their electrical conductance $G$ on the gate voltage $V_g$, measured in a wide temperature range of . Figure 2 shows $G(V_g)$ for a semiconducting SWNT at moderate temperatures of and . Starting from , $G$ decreases with increasing $V_g$ indicating p-type behavior, while above $G$ increases indicating n-type behavior. In between these two regions the conductance is low, which suggests carrier depletion. This low conductance region corresponds therefore to the gap. The charge-neutrality point for this sample lies at . Taking the respective capacitances into account (see below), this corresponds to a Fermi energy of . In general, charge-neutrality points vary between and .
Our finding demonstrates that the SWNT devices are bipolar transistors. Taking a linear approximation for $G(V_g)$ (dashed lines in figure 2), we obtain a relatively high average carrier mobility of .
$G(V_g)$ is not strictly linear, but shows several pronounced humps (see arrows in figure 2) which we attribute to van Hove singularities (VHS) in the $1$-dimensional (1D) density-of-states (DOS). Conductance peaks are expected, if the contacts couple weakly to the NTs (tunnelling contacts) and if the band structure of the NT can rigidly move while sweeping $V_g$. The measured low conductance of this device is in favor of tunnelling contacts. The observed humps in $G(V_g)$ are separated by . This relates to an energy interval of . The VHS are smeared and do not appear symmetrically with respect to the semiconducting gap. We attribute this to defects which modify the band structure, resulting in a broadening of the VHS.
We now turn to low-temperature measurements $T \leq 4$ K. Figure 3 shows $G(V_g)$ and a greyscale representation (inset) of the differential conductance $dI/dV$ as a function of $V_g$ and applied transport voltage $V_{sd}$ of a SWNT device at . The large white zone in the middle of the greyscale plot corresponds to a non conducting region related to the semiconducting gap (SG). The drawn thick lines at the edges are guides to the eye. Their vertical extensions intersect around , which is a direct estimate of the gap energy. On both sides of the SG Coulomb blockade diamonds (CBD) of varying size are observed (we refer to the term ‘diamond’, although the blockade region is not composed of a series of neat diamonds). Though the addition energy $E_{add}$ is seen to fluctuate in between and , there is a general trend, indicated by the thin curved lines. Close to the gap $E_{add}$ is large and decays to smaller value for lower (higher) $V_g$ on the p (n) side. As a reference we expect for an undisturbed long SWNT. Because $E_{add}$ is determined by the sum of the single-electron charging energy $U_c$ and the $0$D level spacing $\Delta E$, $U_c$ and $\Delta E$ must depend on $V_g$, at least in the vicinity of the SG. This is not expected for an ideal (defect-free) semiconducting NT for the following reason: At the onset of the conduction or valence band, the $1$D DOS is expected to be very large (VHS), since the band dispersion is parabolic to first approximation. If the nanotube can be considered a single quantum dot extending from one contact to the other, the $0$D level spacing should be very small, i.e. to first approximation. Provided the added charge can spread homogeneously along the whole tube, a constant charging energy $U_c$ is expected. Hence, we would expect a constant addition energy in case of an ideal defect-free tube. The observed discrepancy can be resolved if (weak) disorder is taken into account. Disorder will distribute the states over some energy interval leading to the observed broadening of the VHS. Moreover, this results in a smooth onset of the DOS and consequently in a relatively large $0$D level-spacing. Disorder also (partially) localizes the wavefunctions, leading to both increased $\Delta E$ and $U_c$.
Next we focus on the region far away from the SG where ideally the $0$D wavefunctions are extended, i.e. one quantum dot (QD), and where the constant interaction model should yield a good approximation to single-electron charging effects. The charging energy is then given by the capacitances determined by the geometry of the device. Figure 4 presents three greyscale plots of the differential conductance $dI/dV$, 4a and b for one semiconducting NT and 4c for another metallic NT with identical contact spacing. The latter is shown as reference. Figure 4a and b correspond to conduction in the p and n region, respectively. Both have been measured around corresponding to $\approx 1000$ added carriers.[@us1] If we compare with our metallic reference, the Coulomb blockade (CB) diamonds are less regular in the semiconducting case. Importantly, however, they are similar in all respects on the n and p side. The irregularity of the CB and the fact that the gap most often does not close implies that the NT does not act as a single QD. The low maximum conductance of observed in the linear conductance in figure 3 supports this finding. Based on the maximum $E_{add}$, three QD’s is an upper limit. Hence, even at large gate voltage, defects are still effective in dividing the tube into smaller segments. The CB-pattern on the n-side seems to show a beating pattern repeating after $\approx 6-7$ added charges. A strong beating pattern on the n-side has been observed before [@Park] and has been attributed to the formation of a small quantum dot in the vicinity of one of the contacts. Since the metal contact has a larger workfunction than the NT, p-doping is expected at the contacts. If this charge transfer is large enough a p-type metal-insulator-semiconductor contact arises. As the p-type puddle is well buried below the contacts it possibly cannot be depleted by the gate whose field is screened by the contacts. Then, the p-type puddle remains even if the bulk NT is n-type.
The analysis of CB diamonds permits to extract the factor $\alpha$ [@Beenakker] which measures the effectiveness of the coupling capacitance between the tube and the gate, i.e., $\alpha=C_g/C_\Sigma=U_c/\Delta V_g$. Here, $C_g$ is the gate capacitance, $C_\Sigma$ the total capacitance (gate plus contacts), $U_c = e^2 / C_\Sigma$ the charging energy, and $\Delta
V_g$ the single-electron period in gate voltage. We estimate the charging energy from the averaged value of the addition energy of a set of Coulomb diamonds. This results in within a gate-voltage period of , from which we deduce . Note, that this is a very high coupling effectiveness for a nanotube whose gate-electrode is as much as away! We take this coupling effectiveness to estimate the size of the semiconducting gap $E_g$ using the measurement of figure 2 or figure 3. The SG corresponds to a gate-voltage window of leading to . This value is comparable to the one given above and is in fair agreement with the reported for a diameter SWNT [@Dekker2]. From $\alpha$ and $U_c$ we obtain for the capacitances and . $C_g$ is in reasonable agreement with the estimated geometrical capacitance ($L$ and $d$ are the length and the radius of the nanotube, respectively), yielding . The factor of $2$ difference may originate from the partial screening by the contacts.
The value of $\alpha$ found here is one of the largest values reported so far [@Radosavljevic]. As a reference to our study on semiconducting SWNTs, we have investigated metallic tubes of similar length too. Contrary to semiconducting NTs we observe regular Coulomb blockade diamonds in metallic SWNTs (see figure 4c). At the edges of each diamond, parallel and sharp lines are visible reflecting excited states of the nanotube quantum dots. The charging energy and the single electron level spacing are found to be and , respectively. The latter is in good agreement with the contact separation of . This strongly suggests, that metallic SWNTs behave like single quantum dots, unlike semiconducting SWNTs. In addition, the coupling to the gate shows the same large value of and corroborate the universal aspect of the high gate effectiveness independent of the nature of the tubes. We think that the use of hydrogen during the CVD growth is of crucial importance. It passivates SiO$_2$ dangling bonds and helps to reduce the number of charge traps in the substrate. Consequently, it leads to a better coupling of SWNT to the back-gate and therefore to bipolar action of the devices.
In conclusion, these experiments demonstrate that CVD-grown SWNTs can display a very high coupling efficiencies to a back gate without using any additional post-treatment. Due to the large coupling efficiency semiconducting SWNTs can be continuously gated from p to n-side and therefore act as bipolar FETs. At low-temperature, semiconducting SWNTs are strongly affected by disorder, which (partially) splits the tube in a couple of quantum dots. As the maximum number of dots is smaller than $3$ for our SWNTs with contact separation, it appears that single quantum dots should be feasible for smaller contact separation.
We acknowledge M.R. Buitelaar for fruitful discussions and T. Nussbaumer for technical assistance. This work is supported by COST (BBW), the NCCR on Nanoscience and the Swiss NFS.
[99]{}
See e.g., Dresselhaus M S, Dresselhaus G, Eklund P C 1996: [*Science of Fullerenes and Carbon Nanotubes (New York, Academic Press, 1996)*]{}
Dekker C 1999 [*Physics Today*]{} [**52**]{} (5) 22
Kong J [*et al*]{} 2000 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{} 106801
Bockrath M [*et al*]{} 1999, [*Nature*]{} [**397**]{} 598
Liang W [*et al*]{} 2001 [*Nature*]{} [**411**]{} 665
Tans S J [*et al*]{} 1998 [*Nature*]{} [**393**]{} 49
Martel R, Schmidt T, Hertel T, and Avouris P 1998 [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{} 2447
Zhou C [*et al*]{} 2000 [*Science*]{} [**290**]{} 1552
Park J and McEuen P 2001 [*Appl. Phys. Lett*]{} [**79**]{} 1363
Bockrath M [*et al*]{} 2000 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**61**]{} R10606
Radosavljević M, Feitag M, Thadani K V and Johnson A T 2002 [*Nano Lett.*]{} [**2**]{} No. 7 p 761
Javey A, Shim M and Dai H 2002 [*Appl. Phys. Lett*]{} [**80**]{} 1064
A Bachtold, P Hadley, T Nakanishi and C Dekker 2001 [*Science*]{} [**294**]{} 1317
Hafner J H, Bronikowski M J, Azamian B R, Nikolaey P, Rinzler A G, Rinzler D T, Smith K A and Smalley R E 1998 [*Chem. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**296**]{} 195
From gate period for CB peaks we add approximately $100$ electron per one Volt at the gate.
Beenakker C W J 1991 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**44**]{} 1646
Wildoer J [*et al*]{} 1998 [*Nature*]{} [**391**]{} 59
![\[Figure 1.\] (a) Scheme of a SWNT device contacted by two Ti/Au electrodes. The Si substrate is used as back-gate. (b) Atomic force microscopy (AFM) image of a SWNT bridging between the two electrodes.](Fig1.eps){width="120mm"}
![\[Fig. 2.\] Two-terminal conductance $G$ as a function of gate-voltage $V_g$ for a semiconducting SWNT at moderate temperatures of and , respectively. The peaks in $G$ (arrows) are attributed to van Hove singularities in the DOS.](Fig2.eps){width="120mm"}
![\[Fig. 3.\] Linear conductance $G$ as a function of gate voltage $V_g$ (main plot) and greyscale representation of the differential conductance $dI/dV$ as a function of $V_g$ and applied source-drain voltage $V_{sd}$ (inset) at for a SWNT device. White regions correspond to zero and dark regions to high conductances (maximum . The semiconducting gap (SG) is clearly visible as a large non-conducting region in the inset. Coulomb oscillations peaks are observed on the p (left) and n (right) side of the semiconducting gap.](Fig3.eps){width="120mm"}
![\[Fig. 4.\]Differential conductance ($dI/dV$) plots as a function of $V_g$ and $V_{sd}$. White corresponds to $dI/dV=0$, and black to the maximum conductance of . (a) and (b) have been measured on one semiconducting SWNT in the p region (a) and n region (b) at . As a reference a similar plot of another metallic SWNT measured at is shown in (c). While excited states can clearly been seen in (c), they appear to be absent in (a) and (b). Furthermore, while (c) displays a regular Coulomb blockade (CB), it is irregular in (a) and (b). In all cases strong coupling to the gate is inferred.](Fig4.eps){width="120mm"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the problem of discriminatively learning restricted Boltzmann machines in the presence of relational data. Unlike previous approaches that employ a rule learner (for structure learning) and a weight learner (for parameter learning) sequentially, we develop a gradient-boosted approach that performs both simultaneously. Our approach learns a set of weak relational regression trees, whose paths from root to leaf are conjunctive clauses and represent the structure, and whose leaf values represent the parameters. When the learned relational regression trees are transformed into a lifted RBM, its hidden nodes are precisely the conjunctive clauses derived from the relational regression trees. This leads to a more interpretable and explainable model. Our empirical evaluations clearly demonstrate this aspect, while displaying no loss in effectiveness of the learned models.'
address: The University of Texas at Dallas
author:
- Navdeep Kaur
- Gautam Kunapuli
- Sriraam Natarajan
bibliography:
- 'RRBMBoost.bib'
title: |
Non-Parametric Learning of\
Lifted Restricted Boltzmann Machines
---
Restricted Boltzmann Machines, Learning Lifted Models, Functional Gradient Boosting
Introduction
============
Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs, [@RBMFirstPaper1987]) have emerged as one of the most popular probabilistic learning methods. Coupled with advances in theory of learning RBMs: contrastive divergence (CD, [@ContrastiveDivergence2002]), persistent CD [@PersistentCD2008], and parallel tempering [@paralleltempering2010] to name a few, their applicability has been extended to a variety of tasks [@taylor06]. While successful, most of these models have been typically used with a flat feature representation (vectors, matrices, tensors) and not necessarily in the context of relational data. In problems where data is relational, these approaches typically flatten the data by either propositionalizing them or constructing embeddings that allowed them to employ standard RBMs. This results in the loss of “natural” interpretability that is inherent to relational representations, as well as a possible decline in performance due to imperfect propositionalization/embedding.
Consequently, there has been recent interest in developing neural models that directly operate on relational data. Specifically, significant research has been conducted on developing graph convolutional neural networks [@GraphConvolutionalNetwork2018] that model graph data (a restricted form of relational data). Most traditional truly relational/logical learning methods [@staraiBook; @srlBook] are capable of learning with data of significantly greater complexity, including hypergraphs. Such representations have also been recently adapted to learning neural models [@CollectiveClassificationPham2017; @RelNNKazemi2018; @LRNN2015]. One recent approach in this direction is Lifted RBMs [@KaurEtAl18-RRBM], where relational random walks were learned over data (effectively, randomized compound relational features) and then employed as input layer to an RBM.
While reasonably successful, this method still [*propositionalized*]{} relational features by constructing two forms of data aggregates: counts and existentials. Motivated by this limitation, we propose a full, lifted RBM (LRBM), where the inherent representation is relational. Additionally, the LRBM can be learned without significant feature engineering, that is, a key component of our approach is discovering the structure of lifted RBMs. We propose a gradient-boosting approach for [**learning both the structure and parameters of LRBMs simultaneously**]{}. The resulting hidden nodes are newly discovered features, represented as conjunctions of logical predicates.
These hidden layers are learned using the machinery of functional-gradient boosting [@Friedman2001] on relational data. The idea is to learn a sequence of relational regression trees (RRTs) and then transform them to an LRBM by identifying appropriate transformations. There are a few salient features of our approach: (1) in addition to being well-studied and widely used [@ImitationLearning2011; @icdm11; @rdnmlj11; @TildeCRF2006], RRTs can be parallelized and adapted easily to new, real-world domains; (2) our approach can handle hybrid data easily, which is an issue for many logical learners; (3) perhaps most important, our approach is [**explainable**]{}, unlike other neural models. This is due to the fact that the hidden layers of the LRBM are simple conjunctions (paths in a tree), and can be easily interpreted as opposed to complex embeddings[^1]. Finally, (4) due to the nature of our learning method, we learn sparser LRBMs compared to employing random walks. We make a few key contributions in this work: (1) as far as we are aware, this is the first principled approach to learning truly lifted RBMs from relational data; (2) our representation ensures that the resulting RBM is interpretable and explainable (due to the hidden layer being simple conjunctions of logical predicates). We present (3) a gradient-boosting algorithm for simultaneously learning the structure and parameters of LRBMs as well as (4) a transformation process to construct a sparse LRBM from an ensemble of relational regression trees produced by gradient boosting. Finally, (5) our empirical evaluation clearly demonstrates three aspects: efficacy, efficiency and explainability of our approach compared to the state-of-the-art on several data sets.
Background and Related Work
===========================
Scalars are denoted in lower-case ($y$, $w$), vectors in bold face (${\mathbf{y}}$, ${\mathbf{w}}$), and matrices in upper case ($Y$, $W$). ${\mathbf{u}}^\intercal {\mathbf{v}}$ denotes the dot product between ${\mathbf{u}}$ and ${\mathbf{v}}$.
#### Restricted Boltzmann Machines
RBMs are stochastic neural networks
![A discriminative RBMs has a dense set of connections between the visible and hidden layers. This figure illustrates a discriminative RBM for a binary classification problem, though this model can naturally handle multi-class problems by adding additional output nodes (corresponding to the one-hot vectorization of the label).[]{data-label="fig: RBMFigure"}](Figures/RBMFigure.png){width="67.50000%"}
consisting of a [*hidden layer*]{} of neurons that model the probability distribution of a [*visible layer*]{} of neurons. Specifically, discriminative RBMs [@DiscrRBM2008] (Figure \[fig: RBMFigure\]) have a Bernoulli input layer (also known as the visible layer, ${\mathbf{v}}$), a Bernoulli hidden layer (${\mathbf{h}}$) and a softmax output layer (${\mathbf{y}}$). The joint configuration (${\mathbf{y}}, {\mathbf{v}}, {\mathbf{h}}$) of the model has the following energy:
$$E({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{v}}, {\mathbf{h}}) = -{\mathbf{h}}^\intercal W\mathbf{v} - \mathbf{b}^\intercal \mathbf{v} - \mathbf{c}^\intercal{\mathbf{h}}- {\mathbf{d}}^\intercal {\mathbf{y}}- {\mathbf{h}}^\intercal U{\mathbf{y}},
\label{eq: energyequation}$$
where $W$ are the weights between the visible and hidden layer, $ U$ are the weights between the hidden and the output layer, and ${\mathbf{b}}$, ${\mathbf{c}}$, ${\mathbf{d}}$ are the biases in the visible, hidden and output layers respectively. Given a (multi-class) label $y=\ell$, $\ell \in \{1, \, \hdots, \, C \}$, the output is a one-hot vector ${\mathbf{y}}= (I_{c=\ell})_{c=1}^{C}$. With a slight abuse of notation, we denote the multi-class label of a training example as $y$, with its corresponding vectorization in bold as ${\mathbf{y}}$. The joint probability distribution of the RBM can be written as: $P({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{v}}, {\mathbf{h}}) = \frac{1}{Z} e^{-E({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{v}}, {\mathbf{h}})}$, where $Z$ is normalization constant. While computing $P({\mathbf{y}}, {\mathbf{v}}, {\mathbf{h}})$ is generally intractable, the conditional, $P(y \mid {\mathbf{v}})$, can be computed exactly: $$p(y \mid{\mathbf{v}}) = \frac{\exp \left( d_{y} + \sum_{j} \, \zeta(c_{j} + U_{jy} + \sum_{k} W_{jk} v_{k}) \right) }{\displaystyle{\sum_{y* \in \{1,2,..C \}}} \, \exp \left( d_{y*} + \textstyle{\sum_{j}} \, \zeta(c_{j} + U_{jy*} + \sum_{k} W_{jk} v_{k}) \right)},
\label{eq: discRBM}$$ where $\zeta(a) = \log(1 + e^a)$, the [*softplus function*]{}. Our goal is to extend this formulation to relational domains and learn the resulting [**Lifted Restricted Boltzmann Machines**]{} (LRBMs) using functional gradient boosting.
#### Functional Gradient Boosting
Functional gradient boosting (FGB), introduced by Friedman [@Friedman2001] in 2001, has recently emerged as a state-of-the-art ensemble method. Functional gradient boosting aims to learn a model $f(\cdot)$ by optimizing a loss function $\mathcal{L}[f]$ by emulating gradient descent. At iteration $m$, however, instead of explicitly computing the gradient $\partial L[f_{m-1}]({\mathbf{x}}_i, y_i)$, FGB approximates the gradient using a weak regression tree[^2], $\Delta_m$.
For a probabilistic model, the loss function is replaced by a (log-)likelihood function ($L[\psi]$), which is described in terms of a potential function $\psi(\cdot)$, which FGB aims to learn. FGB begins with an initial potential $\psi_0$; intuitively, $\psi_0$ represents the prior of the probability distribution of target atom. This initial potential can be any function: a constant, a prior probability distribution or any function that incorporates background knowledge available prior to learning.
At iteration $m$, FGB approximates the true gradient by a [*functional gradient*]{} $\Delta_m$. That is, gradient boosting will attempt to identify an approximate gradient $\Delta_m$ that corrects the errors of the current potential, $\psi_{m-1}$. This ensures that the new potential $\psi_m = \psi_{m-1} + \Delta_m$ continues to improve. Like most boosting algorithms, FGB learns $\Delta_m$ as a weak regression tree, and ensembles several such weak trees to learn a final potential function (see Figure \[fig: FGB Explained\]). Thus, the final model is a sum of regression trees $\psi_{m} = \psi_{0} + \Delta_{1} + \hdots + \Delta_{m}$ (Figure \[fig: FGB Explained\]).
![Functional Gradient Boosting, where the loss function is mean squared error.[]{data-label="fig: FGB Explained"}](Figures/FGBExplained.png)
In relational models, regression trees are replaced by [*relational regression trees*]{} (RRTs, [@TildeBlockeel1998]). This allows us to learn relational conditional models such as Relational Dependency Networks [@rdnmlj11], Relational Logistic Regression [@RLRBoost2018], relational policies [@ImitationLearning2011], discriminative training of undirected models [@icdm11] and even temporal models [@Yang2016AAAI]. Inspired by these methods, we propose to learn the hidden layer of an LRBM using gradient boosting.
#### Relational Neural Models
Relational Embeddings [@RESCAL2011; @TransE2013; @NTN2013; @DistMult2015; @HolE2016; @complex2016] have gained popularity recently. A common theme among current approaches is to learn a vector representation, that is, an embedding for each relation and each entity present in the knowledge base. Most of these approaches also assume binary relations, which is a rather restrictive assumption that cannot capture the richness of real-world relational domains. Further, they need a large number of embeddings for training, especially the deep-learning-based approaches. Finally, and possibly most concerning: many embedding approaches cannot easily generalize to new data, and the entire set of embeddings has to be relearned with new data, or for every new task. Approaches closest to our proposed work are relational neural networks [@RelNNKazemi2018; @LRNN2015; @CLIPPLusPlus2014; @DiMaio2004; @DRM2013]; these approaches also represent the structure of a neural network as first-order clauses as we do. The key difference however, is that in all these models, clauses have already been obtained either from an expert or an independent ILP system. That is to say, domain rules that make up its structure and the resulting neural network architectures are manually specified, and these approaches typically only perform parameter learning. Recently, relational neural networks have been proposed for vision tasks [@DeepMindNN2017; @FewShotLearning2018; @RelNNforObjectDetection2018]. While promising, these networks have fixed, manually-specified structures and the nature of the relations captured between objects is also not interpretable or explainable. In contrast, our model learns the structure and parameters of neural network [**simultaneously**]{}. One common theme among all these models is that they learn latent features of relational data in their hidden layers, but our model, being still in its nascent stage, cannot do so yet.
A few approaches for learning neural network on graphs exist. Graph convolutional networks [@NiepertGraphConNet2016] enable graph data to be trained directly on convolutional networks. Another set of popular approaches [@GraphNeuralNetwork2009] train a recurrent neural network on each node of the graph by accepting the input from neighboring nodes until a fixed point is reached. The work of Scarcelli et al. [@GraphNeuralNetwork2009] extends this by learning embeddings for entities and relations in the relational graph.
Recently, Pham et al. [@CollectiveClassificationPham2017] proposed a neural network architecture where connections in the different nodes of network are encoded according to given graph structure. RBMs have also been considered in the context of relational data. For instance, two tensor based models [@GatedCHBM2015; @LRBM2014] proposed to lift RBMs by incorporating a four-order tensor into their architecture that captures interaction between quartet consisting of two objects, relation existing between them and hidden layer. Finally, our recent approach [@KaurEtAl18-RRBM] learns relational random walks and uses the counts of the groundings as observed layer of an RBM.
Boosting of Lifted RBMs
=======================
Recall that our goal is to learn a [*truly lifted RBM*]{}. Consequently, both the hidden and observed layers of the RBM should be lifted (parameterized as against propositional RBMs). This is to say that, the observed layers are the predicates (logical relations describing interactions) in the domain, while the hidden layer consists of conjunctions of predicates (logical rules) learned from data. Instead of a complete network, connections exist only between predicates and hidden nodes that are present in the conjunction. We illustrate RBM lifting with the following example.
Consider a movie domain that contains the entity types (variables) $\fol{Person}(\fol{P})$, $\fol{Movie}(\fol{M})$ and $\fol{Genre}(\fol{G})$. Predicates in this domain describe relationships between the various entities, such as $\fol{DirectedBy(\fol{M},\fol{P})}$, $\fol{ActedIn(\fol{P},\fol{M})}$, $\fol{InGenre(M, G)}$ and entity resolution predicates such as $\fol{SamePerson(P_1,P_2)}$ and $\fol{SameGenre(G_1,G_2)}$. These predicates are the [*atomic domain features*]{}, $f_i$. The task is to predict the nature of the collaboration between two persons $\fol{P_1}$ and $\fol{P_2}$; this task can be represented via the target predicate: $$\fol{Collaborated(P_1,P_2)} \, = \, \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
0, & \fol{P_1}, \fol{P_2} \,\, \textrm{never collaborated}, \\
1, & \fol{P_1} \,\, \textrm{worked under} \,\, \fol{P_2}, \\
2, & \fol{P_2} \,\, \textrm{worked under} \,\, \fol{P_1}, \\
3, & \fol{P_1}, \fol{P_2} \,\, \textrm{collaborated at the same level}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ To perform this $4$-class classification task, we can construct more complex lifted features through conjunctions of the atomic domain features. For example, consider the following lifted feature, $h_1$: $$\left( \begin{array}{r}
\fol{DirectedBy(M_1, P_1) \wedge InGenre(M_1, G_1) \, \wedge } \\
\fol{ActedIn(P_2, M_2) \wedge InGenre(M_2, G_2) \, \wedge }\\
\neg \, \fol{SameGenre(G_1, G_2)} \,\,\,\,\,\,\\
\end{array}\right) \, \Rightarrow \, \fol{\left( \, Collab(P_1, P_2) = 0 \, \right)}.
\tag{$h_1$}$$ This lifted feature is a [*compound domain rule*]{} (essentially a typical conjunction in logic models) made up of several atomic domain features that describes one possible classification condition of the target predicate. Specifically, the lifted feature $h_1$ expresses the situation where two persons $\fol{P_1}$ and $\fol{P_2}$ are unlikely to have collaborated if they work in different genres. Every such compound domain rule becomes lifted feature with a corresponding hidden node. In this example, we introduce two others: $$\begin{array}{lc}
\fol{DirBy(M_1, P_1) \wedge ActedIn(P_3, M_1) \wedge SamePer(P_3, P_2)} \Rightarrow \fol{\left( \, Collab(P_1, P_2) = 1 \, \right), } &
(h_2)\\
\fol{ActedIn(P_1, M) \wedge ActedIn(P_2, M)} \Rightarrow \fol{\left( \, Collab(P_1, P_2) = 3 \, \right)}. &
(h_3)
\end{array}$$
![An example of a lifted RBM. The atomic predicates each have a corresponding node in the visible layer ($f_i$). Atomic predicates can be used to create richer features as conjunctions, which are represented as hidden nodes ($h_j$); the connections between the visible and hidden layers are sparse and only exist when the predicate corresponding to $f_i$ appears in the compound feature $h_j$. The output layer is a one-hot vectorization of a multi-class label ${\mathbf{y}}$, and has one node for each class $y_k$. The connections between the hidden and output layers are dense and allow all features to contribute to reasoning over all the classes.[]{data-label="fig: example lifted RBM"}](Figures/LRBM-Example.png)
The key intuition is that these rules, or lifted features, capture the latent structure of the domain and are a critical component of lifting RBMs. The layers of the lifted RBM are as follows (Figure \[fig: example lifted RBM\]):
- [**Visible layer, atomic domain predicates**]{}: We create a visible node $v_i$ for each lifted atomic domain predicate $f_i$. Thus, we can express any possible structure that can be enumerated as conjunction of these atomic features. In Figure \[fig: example lifted RBM\], the visible layer consists of the five atomic predicates introduced above, $f_1, \, \hdots, \, f_5$.
- [**Hidden layer, compound domain rule**]{}: Each of the compound features can be represented as a node in the hidden layer, $h_i$. In this manner, the lifted RBM is able to construct and use complex structural rules to reason over the domain. This is similar to classical neural networks, propositional RBMs and deep learning, where the hidden layer neurons represent rich and complex feature combinations.
The key difference from existing architectures is that the connections between the visible and hidden layers are [**not dense**]{}; rather, they are extremely sparse and depend only on the atomic predicates that appear in the corresponding lifted compound features. In Figure \[fig: example lifted RBM\], the hidden node $h_1$ is connected to the atomic predicate nodes $f_1$, $f_2$, $f_3$ and $f_5$, while the hidden node $h_3$ is connected to only the atomic predicate node $f_2$. This allows the lifted RBM to represent the domain structure in a compact manner. Furthermore, such “compression” can enable acceleration of weight learning as unnecessary edges are not introduced into the structure.
- [**Output layer, one-hot vectorization**]{}: As mentioned above, the lifted RBM formulation can easily handle multi-class classification. In this example, the target predicate can take $4$ values as it corresponds to a $4$-class classification problem. This can be modelled with four output nodes $y_1, \hdots, \, y_4$ through one-hot vectorization of the labels. Note that the connections between the hidden and output layers [**are dense**]{}. This is to ensure that all features can contribute to the classification of all the labels.
Furthermore, this enables the lifted RBM to reason with uncertainty. For example, consider the compound domain feature $h_1$, which describes a condition for two persons to have never collaborated. By ensuring that the hidden-to-output connections are dense, we allow for the contribution of this rule to the final prediction to be [*soft*]{} rather than [*hard*]{}. This is similar to how Markov logic networks learn different rule weights to quantify the relative importance of the domain rules/lifted features. In a similar manner, the lifted RBM allows for reasoning under uncertainty by learning the network weights to reflect the relative significance of various features to different labels.
Our task now is to learn such lifted RBMs. Specifically, we propose to learn the structure (compound features as hidden nodes) as well as the parameters (weights on all the edges and biases within the nodes). This is a key novelty as our approach uses gradient boosting to learn sparser LRBMs, unlike the fully connected propositional ones. To learn an LRBM, we need to (1) formulate the (lifted) potential definitions, (2) derive the functional gradients, (3) transform the gradients to [**explainable**]{} hidden units of the RBM, and (4) learn the parameters of the RBM. We now present each of these steps in detail.
Functional Gradient Boosting of Lifted RBMs
-------------------------------------------
The conditional equation (\[eq: discRBM\]) which is the basis of an RBM, is formulated for propositional data, where each feature of a training example ${\mathbf{x}}_i$ is modeled as a node in the input layer ${\mathbf{v}}$. We now extend this definition of the RBM to handle logical predicates (i.e., parameterized relations).
Note that these lifted features (conjunctions) can be obtained in several different ways: (i) as with many existing work on neuro-symbolic reasoning, these could be provided by a domain expert, or (ii) can be learned from data similar to the research inside Inductive Logic Programming [@Muggleton94] or, (iii) performing random walks in the domain that result in rule structures [@KaurEtAl18-RRBM], to name a few. Any rule induction technique could be employed in this context. In this work, we adapt a gradient-boosting technique. Given such lifted features (or rules) $f_k({\mathbf{x}})$ on training examples ${\mathbf{x}}$, we can rewrite equation (\[eq: discRBM\]) as $$p(y \mid {\mathbf{x}}) = \frac{\exp \left( d_{y} + \sum_{j} \, \zeta(c_{j} + U_{jy} + \sum_{k} W_{jk} f_{k}({\mathbf{x}})) \right) }{\displaystyle{\sum_{y* \in \{1,2,..C \}}} \, \exp \left( d_{y*} + \textstyle{\sum_{j}} \, \zeta(c_{j} + U_{jy*} + \sum_{k} W_{jk} f_{k} ({\mathbf{x}}) ) \right)}.
\label{eq: RelationaldiscRBM}$$ Contrast this expression to the propositional discriminative RBM (equation \[eq: discRBM\]), which models $p(y \mid {\mathbf{v}})$. The key difference is that the propositional features $\sum_{k} W_{jk} v_{k}$ are replaced with lifted features $\sum_{k} W_{jk} f_{k}({\mathbf{x}})$; while features in a propositional data set are just the data columns/attributes, the features in a relational data set are typically represented in predicate logic (as shown in the example above) and are rich and expressive conjunctions of objects, their attributes and relations between them.
We now introduce some additional functional notation to simplify (equation \[eq: RelationaldiscRBM\]). Without loss of generality, we restrict our discussion to the case of binary targets (with labels $\ell \in \{ 0, \, 1\}$) and note that this exposition can easily be extended to the case of multiple classes. For each label $\ell$, we define functional $$E({\mathbf{x}}_i \mid {\mathbf{c}}, W, {\mathbf{d}}_\ell, U_\ell) \, \coloneqq \, d_\ell \, + \, \sum_{j} \, \zeta \left( c_{j} + U_{j\ell} + \sum_{k} W_{jk} f_{k}({\mathbf{x}}_i) \right).$$ This functional represents the “energy” of the combination $({\mathbf{x}}_i, \, y_i = \ell)$. For binary classification, (equation $\ref{eq: RelationaldiscRBM}$) is further simplified to $$p(y_i=1 \mid {\mathbf{x}}_i) \, = \, \frac{e^{E({\mathbf{x}}_i \mid {\mathbf{c}}, W, d_1, U_1)}}{e^{E({\mathbf{x}}_i \mid {\mathbf{c}}, W, d_0, U_0)} + e^{E({\mathbf{x}}_i \mid {\mathbf{c}}, W, d_1, U_1)}}. \label{eq: DiscriminativeRBM-short}$$ This reformulation is critical for the extension of the discriminative RBM framework to relational domains as it allows us to rewrite the probability $p(y_i=1 \mid {\mathbf{x}}_i)$ in terms of a functional that represents the potential and $\textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i)$, the observed features of the training example ${\mathbf{x}}_i$. One of our goals is to learn lifted features from the set of all possible features. In simpler terms, if ${\mathbf{x}}$ is the set of all predicates in the domain and $x$ is the current target, then the goal is to identify the set of features $\textsf{OF}(x)$ s.t, $P(x \mid {\mathbf{x}}) = P(x \mid \textsf{OF}(x))$. In Markov network terminology, this refers to the Markov blanket of the corresponding variable. In a discriminative MLN framework, $\textsf{OF}(x)$ is the set of weighted clauses in which the predicate $x$ appears. We can now define the probability in (equation \[eq: DiscriminativeRBM-short\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
p_\psi \left( y_i = 1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i) \right) = \frac{e^{\psi(y_i=1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i))}}{1 + e^{\psi(y_i=1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i))}}, \,\,\,\ \textrm{where}\\
\label{eq: ProbEqn}
\psi(y_i = 1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i)) \, = \, E({\mathbf{x}}_i \mid {\mathbf{c}}, W, d_1, U_1) - E({\mathbf{x}}_i \mid {\mathbf{c}}, W, d_0, U_0).
\label{eq: potential as difference}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i)$ does not include [*all*]{} the features in the domain, but only the specific features that are present in the hidden layer. An example of this can be observed in Figure \[fig: example lifted RBM\]. This LRBM consists of three lifted features $\langle h_1,h_2,h_3 \rangle$ that correspond to the three rules mentioned earlier. We can thus explicitly write the potential function for a lifted RBM (equation \[eq: potential as difference\]) in functional form as$$\psi(y_i = 1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i)) = d + \sum_{j} \, \log \left( \frac{1 + \exp{\left(c_{j} + U_{j1} + \sum_{k} W_{jk} f_{k}({\mathbf{x}}_i)\right)}}{1 + \exp{ \left( c_{j} + U_{j0} + \sum_{k} W_{jk} f_{k}({\mathbf{x}}_i) \right)}} \right),
\label{eq: PsiDefinition}$$
[r]{}[0.5]{}
where $d = d_1 - d_0$. This potential functional is parameterized by ${\bm\theta}\, = \, \{ d, {\mathbf{c}}, W, U_0, U_1 \}$, consisting of (see Figure \[fig: LRBM weights\]) edge weights and biases. The edge weights to be learned are $W_{jk}$ (between visible node corresponding to feature $f_k({\mathbf{x}}_i)$ and hidden node $h_j$) and $U_{j\ell}$ (between hidden node $h_j$ and output node $y_\ell$). The biases to be learned are $c_j$ on the hidden nodes and $d_\ell$ on the output nodes. However, instead of learning two biases $d_1$ and $d_0$, we can learn a single bias $d = d_1 - d_0$ as the functional $\psi$ only depends on the difference (see equation \[eq: PsiDefinition\]). Given this functional form, we can now derive a functional gradient that maximizes the overall log-likelihood of the data $$L(\{{\mathbf{x}}_i, \, y_i\}_{i=1}^n \mid \psi) \, = \, \log \prod_{i=1}^n p_\psi \left( y_i = 1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i) \right) \, = \, \sum_{i=1}^n
\, \log p_\psi \left( y_i = 1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i) \right).$$ The (pointwise) functional gradient of $L(\{{\mathbf{x}}_i, \, y_i\}_{i=1}^n \mid \psi)$ with respect to $\psi(y_i = 1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i))$ can be computed as follows, $$\frac{\partial \log p_\psi(y_i = 1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i))}{\partial \psi(y_i = 1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i))} \, = \, {\mathbb{I}}(y_i = 1) - P(y_i = 1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i)) \, \coloneqq \, \Delta_i,$$ where ${\mathbb{I}}(y_i = 1)$ is an indicator function. The pointwise functional gradient has an elegant interpretation. For a positive example (${\mathbb{I}}(y_i = 1) = 1$), the functional gradient $\Delta_i$ aims to improve the model such that $1 - P(y_i = 1)$ is as small as possible, in effect pushing $P(y_i = 1) \rightarrow 1$. For a negative example, (${\mathbb{I}}(y_i = 1) = 0$), the functional gradient $\Delta_i$ aims to improve the model such that $0 - P(y_i = 1)$ is as small as possible, in effect pushing $P(y_i = 1) \rightarrow 0$. Thus, the gradient of each training example ${\mathbf{x}}_i$ is simply the adjustment required for the probabilities to match the true observed labels $y_i$. The functional gradient derived here has a similar form to the functional gradients in other relational tasks such as boosting relational dependency networks [@rdnmlj11] Markov logic networks [@icdm11] and relational policies [@ImitationLearning2011] to specify a few.
Representation of Functional Gradients for LRBMs
------------------------------------------------
Our goal now is to approximate the true functional gradient by fitting a regression function $\hat \psi({\mathbf{x}})$ that minimizes the squared error over the pointwise gradients of all the individual training examples: $$\hat \psi ({\mathbf{x}}) \, = \, \arg\min_{\psi} \, \sum_{i=1}^{n} (\psi({\mathbf{x}}_i \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i)) - \Delta_i)^2.
\label{eq: SSEEquation}$$
We consider learning the representation of $\hat{\psi}$ as a sum of relational regression trees. The key advantage is that a relational tree can be easily interpreted and explained. To learn a tree to model the functional gradients, we need to change the typical tree learner. Specifically, the splitting criteria of the tree at each node is modified; to identify the next literal to add to the tree, $\fol{r(x)}$, we greedily search for the literal that minimizes the squared error (equation \[eq: SSEEquation\]).
![A general relational regression tree for lifted RBMs when learning a target predicate $\fol{t(x)}$. Each path from root to leaf is a compound feature (also a logical clause $\mathtt{Clause}_r$) that enters the RBM as a hidden node $h_r$. The leaf node contains the weights ${\bm\theta}_r \, = \, \{ d^r, {\mathbf{c}}^r, W^r, U^r_0, U^r_1 \}$ of all edges introduced into the lifted RBM when this hidden node/discovered feature is introduced into the RBM structure.[]{data-label="fig: LRBM RRT"}](Figures/LRBM-RRT.png)
For a tree-based representation, we employ a relational regression-tree (RRT) learner [@TildeBlockeel1998] to learn a function to approximately fit the gradients on each example. If we learn an RRT to fit $\psi({\mathbf{x}}_i \mid \mathsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i))$ in equation (\[eq: PsiDefinition\]), each path from the root to a leaf can be viewed as a clause, and the leaf nodes correspond to an RBM that evaluates to the weight of the clause for that training example. Figure \[fig: LRBM RRT\] shows an RRT when learning a lifted RBM via gradient boosting for some target predicate $\fol{t(x)}$. The node $\fol{q(x)}$ can be any subtree that has been learned thusfar, and a new predicate $\fol{r(x)}$ has been identified as a viable candidate for splitting. On splitting, we obtain two new compound features as evidenced by two distinct paths from root to the two new leaf nodes. These clauses (paths) along with their corresponding leaf nodes identify a new structural component of the RBM, along with corresponding parameters $$\begin{array}{cl}
(\fol{Clause_1})& {\bm\theta}_1: \fol{q(x) \wedge r(x) \Rightarrow t(x)}, \\
(\fol{Clause_2})& {\bm\theta}_2: \fol{q(x) \wedge \neg r(x) \Rightarrow t(x)}.
\end{array}$$ Note that the clause $\fol{q(\cdot)}$ and the predicate $\fol{r(\cdot)}$ are expressed generally, and their arguments are denoted broadly as $\fol{x}$. In practice, $\fol{q(\cdot)}$ and $\fol{r(\cdot)}$ can be of different arities and take any possible entity types in the domain.
Learning Relational Regression Trees
------------------------------------
Let us assume that we have learned a relational regression tree till $\fol{q(x)}$ in Figure \[fig: LRBM RRT\]. Now assume that, we are adding a literal $\fol{r(x)}$ to the tree at the left-most node of the subtree $\fol{q(x)}$.
Let the feature corresponding to the left branch ($\fol{Clause_1}$) be $f_1({\mathbf{x}}) = {\mathbb{I}}(\fol{q(x) \wedge r(x)})$, that is, feature $f_1({\mathbf{x}}) = 1$ for all training examples ${\mathbf{x}}$ that end up at the leaf ${\bm\theta}_1$ and zero otherwise. Similarly, let the feature corresponding to the right branch ($\fol{Clause_2}$) be $f_2({\mathbf{x}}) = {\mathbb{I}}(\fol{q(x) \wedge \neg r(x)})$. The potential function $\psi(y_i = 1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i))$ can be written using (equation \[eq: PsiDefinition\]) as: $$\psi(y_i = 1 \mid \textsf{OF}({\mathbf{x}}_i)) \, = \prod_{k=1, 2} \left[ d^k + \log \left( \frac{1 + \exp{\left(c^k + U_1^k + W^k f_k({\mathbf{x}}_i) \right)}}{1 + \exp{ \left( c^k + U_{0}^k + W^k f_k({\mathbf{x}}_i) \right)}} \right) \right]^{f_k({\mathbf{x}}_i)} \hspace{-0.3in}.
\label{eq: SSEeqwithpredicatelevelparameters}$$ In this expression, when a training example ${\mathbf{x}}_i$ satisfies $\fol{Clause_1}$, it reaches leaf node ${\bm\theta}_1$ and consequently, we have $f_1({\mathbf{x}}_i) = 1$ and $f_2({\mathbf{x}}_i) = 0$. When a training example ${\mathbf{x}}_i$ satisfies $\fol{Clause_2}$, the converse is true and we have $f_1({\mathbf{x}}_i) = 0$ and $f_2({\mathbf{x}}_i) = 1$. Thus, only one term is active in the expression above and delivers the potential corresponding to whether the training example ${\mathbf{x}}_i$ is classified to the left leaf ${\bm\theta}_1$ or the right leaf ${\bm\theta}_2$. We can now substitute this expression for the potential in equation (\[eq: SSEeqwithpredicatelevelparameters\]) into the loss function (\[eq: SSEEquation\]).
The loss function is used in two ways to grow the RRTs:
1. First, we identify the next literal to add to the tree, $\fol{r(x)}$, by greedily searching for the atomic domain predicate that minimizes the squared error. This is similar to the splitting criterion used in other lifted gradient boosting models such as MLN-boosting [@icdm11].
2. Next, after splitting, we learn parameters for the newly introduced leaf nodes. That is, for each split of the tree at $\fol{r(x)}$, we learn ${\bm\theta}_1 = [d^1, c^1, W^1,$ $U^1_0, U^1_1]$ for the left subtree and ${\bm\theta}_2 = [d^2, c^2, W^2, U^2_0, U^2_1]$ for the right subtree. We perform parameter learning via coordinate descent [@Wright15-CoordinateDescent].
LRBM-Boost Algorithm:
---------------------
We now describe <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">LRBM-Boost</span> algorithm (Algorithm \[alg: RRBMBoostAlgo\]) to learn structure and parameters of LRBM. The algorithm takes instantiated ground facts ($Data$) and training examples of target $T$ as input and learns $N$ regression trees that fits the example gradients to set of trees. The algorithm starts by considering prior potential value $\psi_{0}$ in $F_{0}$, and in order to learn a new tree, it first generates the regression examples, $S$=$\lbrack$(${\mathbf{x}}_i$,$y_{i}$), $\Delta_{i}\rbrack$, in (line 4) where regression value $\Delta_{i}$ ($I$-$P$) is computed by performing inference of previously learned trees. These regression examples $S$ serve as input to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FitRegressionTree</span> function (line 5) along with the maximum number of leaves ($L$) in the tree. The next tree $F_{n}$ is then added to set of existing tree (line 6). The final probability of LRBM can be computed by performing inference on all $N$ trees in order to obtain $\psi$.
$\textsc{FitRegressionTree}$ function (line 10) generates a relational regression tree with $L$ leaf nodes. It starts with an empty tree and greedily adds one node at a time to the tree. In order to add next node to the tree, it first considers the current node $N$ to expand as the one that has the best score in the beam (line 14). The potential children $C$ of this node $N$ (line 15) are constructed by greedily considering and scoring clauses where the parameters are learned using coordinate descent. Once the $\hat{c}$ is determined, it is added as the leaf to the tree and the process is repeated.
Experimental Section
====================
We aim to answer the following questions in our experiments:
- How does $\mathtt{LRBM}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$[^3] compare to other relational neural models?
- How does $\mathtt{LRBM}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ compare to other relational functional gradient boosting models?
- Is an ensemble of weak relational regression trees more effective than a single strong relational regression tree for constructing Lifted RBMs?
- Can we generate an interpretable lifted RBM from the ensemble of weak relational regression trees learned by [LRBM-Boost]{}?
Experimental setup
------------------
To answer these questions, we employ seven standard SRL data sets:
**UW-CSE** [@mln] contains information about five university domains and the goal is to predict whether a student is $\fol{AdvisedBy}$ a professor.
**IMDB** [@bottomupmln07] is a data set from movies domain that contains information about actors, directors and movies. The goal is to predict whether an actor $\fol{WorkedUnder}$ a director.
**CORA** [@poon07] is a standard data set for citation matching that contains eight predicates about details of papers, their venues, and the authors. The aim is to predict whether two venues represent the $\fol{SameVenue}$.
**SPORTS** is a data set garnered by crawling facts from NELL [@NELL2010] containing details about sports teams and their players. We aim to predict whether a team plays a particular sport (i.e. $\fol{TeamPlaysSport}$) in this domain.
**MUTAGENESIS** [@lodhi2005] is data set that consists of information about molecules, their constituent atoms and their properties. The aim with this data set is to predict whether an atom is constituent in a molecule (i.e. $\fol{MoleculeContainsAtom}$).
**YEAST2** [@pcrw10] contains facts about papers published between 1950 and 2012 about the yeast organism [*Saccharomyces cerevisiae*]{}. The target is whether a paper $\fol{Cites}$ another paper. Since this data is temporal, a recursive rule could potentially use the data from the future to predict the past. This requires restricting the data provided to the learning system from exposing any future data when predicting at the current time-step.
**WEBKB** [@bottomupmln07] contains information about webpages of students, professors, courses etc. from four universities. We aim to predict whether a person is $\fol{CourseTA}$ of a given course.
For all data sets, we generate positive and negative examples in $1:2$ ratio, perform $5$-fold cross validation for every method being compared, and report AUC-ROC and AUC-PR on the resulting folds respectively.
For all baseline methods, we use default settings provided by their respective authors. For our model, we learn $20$ RRTs, each with a maximum number of 4 leaf nodes. The learning rate of online coordinate descent was $0.05$.
Comparison of [LRBM-Boost]{} to other relational neural models
--------------------------------------------------------------
To answer [**Q1**]{}, we compare our model to two recent relational neural models. The first baseline is Relational RBM ($\mathtt{RRBM}$-$\mathtt{C}$) [@KaurEtAl18-RRBM]; this approach uses relational random walks to generate relational features that describe the structure of the domain. In fact, it propositionalizes and aggregates counts on these relational random walks as features to describe each training example. It should be noted that a key limitation of [RRBM-C]{} is that it can only handle binary predicates; our approach [LRBM-Boost]{} on the other hand, can handle any arity. The second baseline is Lifted Relational Neural Networks ($\mathtt{LRNN})$ [@LRNN2015]. $\mathtt{LRNN}$ mainly focuses on parameter optimization; the structure of the network is identified using a clause learner: $\mathtt{PROGOL}$ [@Muggleton1996]. $\mathtt{PROGOL}$ generated four, eight, six, three, ten, five rules for [Cora]{}, [Imdb]{}, [Mutagenesis]{}, [Sports]{}, [Uw-Cse]{} and [WebKB]{} respectively. As [LRNN]{} cannot handle the temporal restrictions of [Yeast2]{}, we do not evaluate [LRNN]{} on it.
![Comparing $\mathtt{LRNN}$, $\mathtt{RRBM}$-$\mathtt{C}$, $\mathtt{MLN}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ and $\mathtt{LRBM}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ on AUC-ROC.[]{data-label="fig: Q1-AUC-ROC"}](Figures/Figure_ROC.png){width="90.00000%"}
![Comparing $\mathtt{LRNN}$, $\mathtt{RRBM}$-$\mathtt{C}$, $\mathtt{MLN}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ and $\mathtt{LRBM}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ on AUC-PR.[]{data-label="fig: Q1-AUC-PR"}](Figures/Figure_PR.png){width="90.00000%"}
Figures \[fig: Q1-AUC-ROC\] and \[fig: Q1-AUC-PR\] present the results of this comparison on AUC-ROC and AUC-PR. $\mathtt{LRBM}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ is significantly better than $\mathtt{LRNN}$ for [Mutagenesis]{} and [Cora]{} on both AUC-ROC and AUC-PR. Further, it also achieves better AUC-ROC and AUC-PR than $\mathtt{LRNN}$ on [Sports]{} and [Uw-Cse]{} data set. Compared to $\mathtt{RRBM}$-$\mathtt{C}$, $\mathtt{LRBM}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ performs better for [Sports]{} and [WebKB]{} on both AUC-ROC and AUC-PR. Also, our proposed model performs better on [Yeast2]{} on AUC-ROC. $\textbf{Q1}$ can be now be answered affirmatively: $\mathtt{LRBM}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ either performs comparably to or outperforms state-of-the-art relational neural networks.
Comparison of [LRBM-Boost]{} to other relational gradient-boosting models
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since [LRBM-Boost]{} is a relational neural network as well as a relational boosting model, we next compare it to two state-of-the-art relational functional gradient-boosting baselines: $\mathtt{MLN}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ [@icdm11] and [RDN-Boost]{} [@staraiBook]. Figures \[fig: Q1-AUC-ROC\] and \[fig: Q1-AUC-PR\] compare [LRBM-Boost]{} to [MLN-Boost]{}. $\mathtt{LRBM}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ performs better than $\mathtt{MLN}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ for [Cora]{} and [WebKB]{} on AUC-ROC metric. Further, it performs better than $\mathtt{MLN}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ for [Imdb]{}, [Uw-Cse]{}, [Sports]{} and [WebKB]{} on AUC-PR. For all the other data sets, both the models have comparable performance.
We compare [LRBM-Boost]{} to [RDN-Boost]{} in a separate experiment, owing to a key difference in experimental setting. We do not convert the arity of predicates to binary; rather, we compare [RDN-Boost]{} and [LRBM-Boost]{} by maintaining the original arity of all the predicates. The results of this experiment on four domains are reported in Table \[tab: RDN vs. RBM\]. [LRBM-Boost]{} outperforms [RDN-Boost]{} in across the board, and substantially so on larger domains such as Cora. These comparisons allow us to answer [**Q2**]{} affirmatively: [LRBM-Boost]{} performs comparably or outperforms state-of-the-art SRL boosting baselines.
---------- -------- --------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Data Set Target Measure $\mathtt{LRBM}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$ $\mathtt{RDN}$-$\mathtt{Boost}$
AUC-ROC 0.9719 0.9731
\[2pt\] AUC-PR 0.9158 0.9049
\[2pt\] AUC-ROC 0.9610 0.9499
\[2pt\] AUC-PR 0.8789 0.8537
\[2pt\] AUC-ROC 0.9469 0.8985
\[2pt\] AUC-PR 0.9207 0.8451
\[2pt\] AUC-ROC 0.6142 0.6057
\[2pt\] AUC-PR 0.4553 0.4490
\[2pt\]
---------- -------- --------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Effectiveness of boosting relational ensembles
----------------------------------------------
To understand the importance of boosting trees to construct an LRBM, we compared the performance of the ensemble of relational trees learned by [LRBM-Boost]{} to a [*single relational tree*]{}, similar to trees produced by the TILDE tree learner [@TildeBlockeel1998; @rpt2003]. For the latter, we learn a large lifted tree (of depth $10$), construct an RBM with the hidden layer being every path from root to leaf of this tree and refer to it as [LRBM-NoBoost]{}.
Table \[tab:tableQ3\] compares the performance of an ensemble (first row) vs. a single large tree (last row). [LRBM-Boost]{} is statistically superior on [Sports]{}, [Yeast2]{} and [Cora]{} on both AUC-ROC and AUC-PR and is comparable on others. This asserts the efficacy of learning ensembles of relational trees by LRBM-Boost rather than learning a single tree, thus affirmatively answering [**Q3**]{}.
Interpretability of [LRBM-Boost]{}
----------------------------------
While [**Q1**]{}–[**Q3**]{} can be answered quantitatively, $\textbf{Q4}$ requires a qualitative analysis. It should be noted that boosted relational models (here, boosted LRBMs) learn and represent the underlying relational model as a sum of relational trees. When performing inference, this ensemble of trees is [*not converted to a large SRL model*]{} as it is far more efficient to aggregate the predictions of the individual relational trees in the ensemble. For [LRBM-Boost]{}, however, it is possible to convert the ensemble-of-trees representation into a single LRBM. This step is typically performed to endow the model with interpretability, explainability or for relationship discovery. For [LRBM-Boost]{}, this procedure is not exact, and the resulting single large LRBM is almost, but not exactly, equivalent to the ensemble of trees representation. The procedure itself is fairly straightforward:
- learn a single RRT from the set of boosted RRTs [@CravenAndShavlik1996] that make up the LRBM, that is, we empirically learn a single RRT by overfitting it to the predictions of the weak RRTs (Figure \[fig: CombinedTree\]).
- transform this single RRT to a lifted RBM (Figure \[fig: RRBM\]); each path from root to leaf is a conjunction of relational features and enters the LRBM as a hidden node, with connections to all the output nodes and to the input nodes corresponding to the predicates that appear in that path.
![[An example of a combined lifted tree learned from ensemble of trees. To construct this tree, we compute the regression value of each training example by traversing through all the boosted trees. Now a single large tree is overfit to this (modified) training set to generate a single tree.]{}[]{data-label="fig: CombinedTree"}](Figures/CombinedTree.png){width="99.00000%"}
![Lifted RBM obtained from the combined tree in Figure \[fig: CombinedTree\]. Each path along the tree in that figure represents the corresponding hidden node of LRBM.[]{data-label="fig: RRBM"}](Figures/LiftedRBM.png){width="99.00000%"}
This construction leads to sparsity as it allows for only one hidden node to be activated for each example. Of course, using clauses instead of trees as with boosting MLNs [@icdm11], could relax this sparsity as needed. For our current domains, this restriction does not significantly affect the performance as seen in Table \[tab:tableQ3\] showing the quantitative results of comparing the [**explainable**]{} LRBM with the original [**ensemble**]{} LRBM. There is no noticeable loss in performance as the AUC values decrease marginally, if at all.
![[Ensemble of trees learned during training of LRBM-Boost. The ensemble of trees is generated in [Sports]{} domain where predicate $\fol{P}$, $\fol{T}$, $\fol{Z}$ represent $\fol{plays(sports,team)}$, $\fol{teamplaysagainstteam(team,team)}$ and $\fol{athleteplaysforteam(athlete,team)}$ respectively and target $R$ represents $\fol{teamplayssport(team,sports)}$.]{}[]{data-label="fig: EnsembleOfTrees"}](Figures/EnsembleTrees.png){width="90.00000%"}
![Demonstration of the conversion of two lifted trees in Figure \[fig: EnsembleOfTrees\] to LRBM. We create one hidden node for each path in each regression tree.[]{data-label="fig: EnsembleToRBMConversion"}](Figures/EnsembleToRBMConversion.png){width="\textwidth"}
A simpler approach to constructing an explainable LRBM to skip aggregating the RRTs into a large tree and directly map [*every path in every tree*]{} to a hidden node in the LRBM. For instance, if the ensemble learned 20 balanced trees with $4$ paths in each of them, the resulting LRBM has $80$ lifted features. An example transformation is shown in Figure \[fig: EnsembleToRBMConversion\] from two trees in Figure \[fig: EnsembleOfTrees\]. Note that corresponding LRBM has $8$ hidden features which are conjunctions of the original trees. While in principle it results in an interpretable LRBM, this can result in a large number of hidden units and thus pruning strategies need to be employed, a direction that we will explore in the near future. In summary, it can be said that our LRBM is effective and explainable allowing when compared to the state-of-the-art approaches in several tasks.
Conclusion
==========
We presented the first learning algorithm for learning the structure of a lifted RBM from data. Motivated by the success of gradient-boosting, our method learns a set of RRTs using boosting and then transforms them to a lifted RBM. The advantage of this approach is that it leads to learning a fully lifted model that is not propositionalized using any standard approaches. We also demonstrated how to induce a single explainable RBM from the ensemble of trees. Experiments on several data sets demonstrated the efficacy and effectiveness along with the explainability of the proposed approach. Combining the different trees in an analytical fashion is an interesting future direction. Enhancing the ability of the model to handle incomplete information is essential to adapt to real problems. Learning other distributions to learn truly hybrid models can lead to several adaptations on real data. Scaling to very large data sets (in the lines of relational embeddings) remains an exciting research direction.
Acknowledgement
===============
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of AFOSR award FA9550-18-1-0462. Any opinions, findings, and conclusion or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the AFOSR or the United States government.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Appendix: Inference in a Lifted RBM {#appendix-inference-in-a-lifted-rbm .unnumbered}
===================================
The lifted RBM is a template that is grounded for each example during inference. We first unify the example with the head of the clause (present at the output layer of LRBM), to obtain a partial grounding of the body of the clause. The full grounding is then obtained by unifying the partially-ground clause with evidence to find at least one instantiation of the body of the clause. We illustrate the inference procedure for a Lifted RBM with three hidden nodes, and each hidden node corresponding to the rules ($h_1$)–($h_3$).
#### Example 1
We are given facts: $\fol{ActedIn(p1, m1)}$, $\fol{ActedIn(p1, m2)}$, $\fol{ActedIn(p2,}$ $\fol{m1)}$, $\fol{ActetdIn(p2, m2) }$. The number of substitutions depends on the query. Let us assume that the query is $\fol{Collab(p1, p2)}$ (did $\fol{p1}$ and $\fol{p2}$ collaborate?), which results in the partial substitution: $\theta = \{ \fol{P_1/p1, P_2/p2} \}$. The inference procedure will proceed as follows:
- The bodies of the clauses ($h_1$)–($h_3$) are partially grounded using $\theta = \{ \fol{P_1/p1, P_2/p2} \}$: $$\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{0.35in}}c}
\left( \begin{array}{r}
\fol{DirectedBy(M_1, p1) \wedge InGenre(M_1, G_1) \, \wedge } \\
\fol{ActedIn(p2, M_2) \wedge InGenre(M_2, G_2) \, \wedge }\\
\neg \, \fol{SameGenre(G_1, G_2)} \,\,\,\,\,\,\\
\end{array}\right) & (h_1) \\
\fol{DirBy(M_1, p1) \wedge ActedIn(P_3, M_1) \wedge SamePerson(P_3, p2)} & (h_2)\\
\fol{ActedIn(p1, M) \wedge ActedIn(p2, M)}. & (h_3)
\end{array}$$
- Next, since the facts do not contain any information about $\fol{DirectedBy}$ or $\fol{SamePerson}$, $h_1$ and $h_2$ will not be satisfied.
- In order to prove the satisfiability of $h_3$, we look at all the available facts as we attempt to unify each fact with the partially-grounded clause. Say we first unify $\fol{ActedIn}$($\fol{p1}$, $\fol{m1}$) with $h_3$ that gives us: $$\fol{ActedIn}(\fol{p1}, \fol{m1}), \fol{ActedIn}(\fol{p2}, \fol{M}), \hspace{0.25in} (h_3)$$ resulting in the grounding: $\theta = \{\fol{P_1/p1, M/m1, P_2/p2}\}$. The second fact $\fol{ActedIn}$($\fol{p1}$, $\fol{m2}$) does not unify with this partially-grounded clause. However, the third fact $\fol{ActedIn}(\fol{p2}$, $\fol{m1})$ unifies with $h_3$ giving us a fully-grounded clause: $$\fol{ActedIn}(\fol{p1}, \fol{m1}), \fol{ActedIn}(\fol{p2}, \fol{m1}). \hspace{0.25in} (h_3)$$ The input nodes corresponding to the unified facts $\fol{ActedIn(p1, m1), Acted}$ $\fol{In(p2, m1) }$ are activated. As soon as this clause is satisfied the search terminates. The main conclusion to be drawn is that as soon as the clause is satisfied once, model does not check for another satisfaction and terminates the search by returning true.
- The inputs are then propagated through the RBM, and the class output probabilities are computed based on the RBM edge parameters/weights. The activation paths for inference given this query and facts are shown in Figure \[fig: lrbm inference ex1\].
![LRBM inference for Example 1.[]{data-label="fig: lrbm inference ex1"}](Figures/LRBM-Review-Example1.png)
#### Example 2
We are given facts: $\fol{DirectedBy(m1, p1)}$, $\fol{InGenre(m1, g1)}$, $\fol{ActedIn}$ $\fol{(p2, m2)}$, $\fol{InGenre(m2, g2)}$, $\fol{DirectedBy(m01, p01)}$, $\fol{ActedIn(p03, m01)}$,\
$\fol{SamePerson(p03, p02)}$. Recall that the number of substitutions depends on the query. Let us assume that the query is $\fol{Collab(p01, p02)}$ (did $\fol{p01}$ and $\fol{p02}$ collaborate?), which results in the partial substitution: $\theta = \{ \fol{P_1/p01, P_2/p02} \}$. The inference procedure will proceed as follows:
- The bodies of the clauses ($h_1$)–($h_3$) are partially grounded using $\theta = \{ \fol{P_1/p01, P_2/p02} \}$: $$\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{0.35in}}c}
\left( \begin{array}{r}
\fol{DirectedBy(M_1, p01) \wedge InGenre(M_1, G_1) \, \wedge } \\
\fol{ActedIn(p02, M_2) \wedge InGenre(M_2, G_2) \, \wedge }\\
\neg \, \fol{SameGenre(G_1, G_2)} \,\,\,\,\,\,\\
\end{array}\right) & (h_1) \\
\fol{DirBy(M_1, p01) \wedge ActedIn(P_3, M_1) \wedge SamePerson(P_3, p02)} &
(h_2)\\
\fol{ActedIn(p01, M) \wedge ActedIn(p02, M)}. &
(h_3)
\end{array}$$
- Unifying the partially-grounded clauses with the facts, we will have that $h_1$ and $h_3$ will not be satisfied. However, unification yields one fully-grounded $h_2$ will: $$\fol{DirBy(m01, p01) \wedge ActedIn(p03, m01) \wedge SamePerson(p03, p02)}, \hspace{0.3in} (h_2)$$ which has the substitution: $\theta = \{\fol{P_1/p01, M/m01, P_2/p02, P_3/p03}\}$. As before, once a satisfied grounding is obtained, the search is terminated.
- The RBM is unrolled as in Example 1, and the appropriate facts that appear in this grounding are activated in the input layer. The prediction is obtained by propagating these inputs through the network.
[^1]: Embedding approaches transform data from the input space to a feature space. A familiar example of this is [*Principal Components Analysis*]{}, which transforms input features to compound features via linear combination; the new features are no longer [*naturally interpretable*]{}. This is also the case with deep learning, which diminish interpretability by chaining increasingly complex feature combinations across successive layers (for example, autoencoders).
[^2]: A weak base estimator is any model that is “simple” and underfits (hence, weak). From a machine-learning standpoint, such weak learners are high bias, low variance and easy to learn. Shallow decision trees are an exceptionally popular choice for weak base estimators for ensemble learning, owing to their algorithmic efficiency and interpretability.
[^3]: <https://github.com/navdeepkjohal/LRBM-Boost>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Relay (or remote) synchronization between two not directly connected oscillators in a network is an important feature allowing distant coordination. In this work, we report a systematic study of this phenomenon in multiplex networks, where inter-layer synchronization occurs between distant layers mediated by a relay layer that acts as a transmitter. We show that this transmission can be extended to higher order relay configurations, provided symmetry conditions are preserved. By first order perturbative analysis, we identify the dynamical and topological dependencies of relay synchronization in a multiplex. We find that the relay synchronization threshold is considerably reduced in a multiplex configuration, and that such synchronous state is mostly supported by the lower degree nodes of the outer layers, while hubs can be de-multiplexed without affecting overall coherence. Finally, we experimentally validated the analytical and numerical findings by means of a multiplex of three layers of electronic circuits.'
author:
- 'I. Leyva'
- 'I. Sendiña-Nadal'
- 'R. Sevilla-Escoboza'
- 'V.P. Vera-Avila'
- 'P. Chholak'
- 'S. Boccaletti'
title: Relay synchronization in multiplex networks
---
Introduction
============
Synchronization is one of the most important collective phenomena in nature. It can be observed in natural, social and technological systems, and it became one of the most active research topics in network science [@Boccaletti2006; @Arenas2008]. The huge amount of new data collected in the last years has permitted a higher resolution network representation of real systems. In particular, the inclusion of new features shaped multi-layer representations, i.e. approaches in which the network units are arranged in several layers, each one accounting for a different kind of interactions among the nodes [@DeDomenico2013; @Boccaletti2014]. Multi-layer structures determine scenarios where novel forms of synchronization are relevant. Despite an analytical approach has been tackled in just a few particular cases [@Sorrentino2012; @Aguirre2014], several synchronization scenarios have been already addressed, as unidirectional coordination between layers [@Gutierrez2012], explosive synchronization emerging from the interactions between dynamical processes in multiplex networks [@Zhang2015; @Nicosia2017], complete synchronization [@delGenio2016; @DSouza2016], cluster synchronization [@Louzada2013; @Jalan2016; @Jalan2017], intra-layer [@Gambuzza2015] or inter-layer [@Sevilla2016; @Leyva2017] synchronization.
Very recently, relay (RS) and remote synchronization (two very well known phenomena in chains, or small motifs, of coupled oscillators) have captured the attention of researchers. This form of synchronization is observed when two units of a network (identical or slightly different) synchronize despite not being directly linked, and due instead to the intermediation of a relay mismatched unit. The phenomenon has been experimentally detected in lasers [@Fischer2006] and circuits [@Bergner2012; @Banerjee2012]. In general, the relay units exhibit generalized or delay synchronization with the units they actually pace to synchrony [@Gutierrez2013].
RS is of outstanding relevance in the brain: the thalamus acts as a relay between distant cortical areas through the thalamo-cortical pathways, playing the role of a coordination hub that maintains the information flow [@Guillery2002; @Sherman2007; @Mitchell2014; @Vlasov2017]. Complex structures and neuronal dynamics are implicated in this process involving not only simple, but higher order relay paths, that transfer the information through multiple-step relay chains [@Sherman2007; @Mitchell2014]. Recently, remote synchronization has been addressed in the context of complex networks [@Gambuzza2016], revealing the extremely important role of network structural and dynamical symmetries in the appearance of distant synchronization [@Nicosia2013; @Pecora2014; @Zhang2017], as it was already suggested by the observation of zero-lag delays between mirror areas of the brain [@Konigqt1997; @Soteropoulos2006]. Nevertheless, the interplay between symmetry, dynamics and multi-layer structure remains still mostly unexplored.
In this work, we perform a systematic study of inter-layer relay synchronization in a multiplex network, where distant layers synchronize their dynamics while their intra-layer motion remains unsynchronized. We consider generic high-order structures where multi-site relay pathways are verified. The dynamical and topological dependencies of the phenomena are studied, using perturbation stability analysis. The robustness of the relay synchronization against de-multiplexing the layers is reported, revealing the key role of low degree nodes in maintaining the layers coordination. Finally, the findings are experimentally validated in a multiplex network of electronic circuits.
Results
=======
Model
-----
We start by considering $2M+1$ layers (or networks), arranged as shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. Each layer $k$, with $k=-M,\dots,0,\dots,M$, is formed by $N$ $m$-dimensional dynamical systems whose states are represented by the column vectors ${\bf U}^{k}=\{{\bf u}_{1}^{k},{\bf u}_{2}^{k},\ldots,{\bf u}_{N}^{k}\}$, and whose intra-layer interactions are encoded through the Laplacian matrices $\mathcal{L}^k=\lbrace\mathcal{L}^{k}_{ij}\rbrace$. The layer stack is symmetric with respect to $k=0$ in such a way that Laplacians $\mathcal{L}^k$ and $\mathcal{L}^{-k}$ have the same structure. The dynamical systems are also paired: nodes belonging to layers ${\bf U}^{+k}$ and ${\bf U}^{-k}$ are identical to each other, and different (in some parameter) from the rest of the layers. Consequently, layer $k=0$ has no counterpart, and acts as a relay between all layers situated above and below it.
![ Schematic representation of a multiplex of $2M+1$ layers (here $M=2$) labeled as $k=-M,\dots,-1,0,1,\dots,M$ where each pair of layers $k$ and $-k$ (painted with the same color) are networks of identical oscillators with the same topology ${\cal L}^k$ and intra-layer coupling $\sigma_k$ and whose dynamical state is described by the variable ${\bf U}^k$ and ${\bf U}^{-k}$, respectively. The multiplex is symmetric with respect to the layer $k=0$ and the nodes are coupled to their replicas in the rest of layers with an inter-layer coupling strength $\lambda$. \[fig1\]](fig1){width="40.00000%"}
Layers are coupled in a multiplex configuration, and the dynamical evolution of the system is described by the following equations:
$$\label{eq:multiplex}
\dot {\bf U}^k = {\bf F}_k({\bf U}^k) - \sigma_k(\mathcal{L}^k \otimes {\bf G}) {\bf U}^k + \lambda ({\bf \mathbb{I}_N \otimes H}) \sum_{q=k-1\geq -M}^{q=k+1\leq M} \left({\bf U}^q-{\bf U}^k\right)$$
where the functions ${\bf F}_k({\bf U}^k)=[{\bf f_k}({\bf u}_1^{k}),{\bf f_k}({\bf u}_2^{k}),\ldots,{\bf f_k}({\bf u}_N^{k})]^T$ (with ${\bf f_k}:\mathbb{R}^{m}\!\to\!\mathbb{R}^{m}$ representing the vectorial functions evolving each dynamical unit), are identical for the same $|k|$. ${\bf G},{\bf H}$ are the $m \times m$ matrices representing respectively the linear intra- (${\bf G}$) and inter- (${\bf H}$) layer coupling schemes. ${\bf \mathbb{I}_N}$ is the $N \times N $ identity matrix, $\sigma_k$ is the intra-layer coupling strength within layers $k$ and $-k$, and $\lambda$ is the inter-layer coupling strength.
Due to the reflection symmetry of the system under study (i.e. as long as the ${\bf U}^{+k}$ and ${\bf U}^{-k}$ layers are identical for all $k$), a synchronous inter-layer evolution (with layers evolving in a pairwise synchronized fashion, i.e. where ${\bf U}^{+k}={\bf U}^{-k}$) at all $k$ without necessarily implying ${\bf U}^{k} = {\bf U}^{k'}$ for $k \neq k'$) is a solution of Eqs. (\[eq:multiplex\]), independently of intra-layer synchronization [@Sevilla2016] (i.e. independently on whether the state of the systems within each layers are synchronized). Let therefore $ {{\delta {\bf U}^k}}(t) = {\bf U}^{+k}(t) - {\bf U}^{-k}(t)$, with $k=1,\dots,M$ be the vector describing the difference between the dynamics of the paired layers.
Considering the smallness of ${\delta{\bf U}^k}=\{{ \delta {\bf u}^k_1},{\delta {\bf u}^k_2},\ldots,{\delta {\bf u}^k_N}\}$ and expanding around the inter-layer solution up to first order, one obtains a set of $M$ linearized vector equations for the perturbations $\delta {\bf U}^k$: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\label{eq:variational_id}
\dot{\delta {\bf U}}^k & = \left[ J{\bf f}(\tilde{\bf U}^k) -\sigma_k (\mathcal{L}^k \otimes J{\bf G}) - \lambda(2-\delta_{kM}) J {\bf H}(\tilde{\bf U}^k)\right] \delta {\bf U}^k \\
& +\lambda \sum_{\substack{q=k-1 \\q\neq k}}^{q=k+1 } J{\bf H}(\tilde{\bf U}^q) \delta{\bf U}^q\end{aligned}$$
where $J$ denotes the Jacobian operator, $\delta_{kM}$ is the Kronecker delta accounting for the boundary condition at $k=M$ (as the stack end layers ${\bm U}^{\pm M}$ are only connected to the previous neighbor layer). The vector $\tilde {\bm U}^k=\left\lbrace {\tilde {\bm u}^{k}_{i}} \right\rbrace$ describes the dynamical state of any of the $k=0,\dots,M$ layers at the synchronous state ${\bf U}^k={\bf U}^{-k}\neq {\bf U}^0$ and, therefore, the whole dynamics is reduced to the dynamics of the $M+1$ layers.
Such evolution at the node level is given by: $$\label{eq:solution_nodes}
{\bf\dot{\tilde{u}}}^{k}_{i} = {\bf f_k}({\bf\tilde{u}}^{k}_{i}) - \sigma_k \sum_j\mathcal{L}^{k}_{ij}\,{\bf g}({\bf\tilde{\bf u}}^{k}_{j}) +\lambda \sum_{q=k-1\geq 0}^{q=k+1\leq M} \left[]{\bf h}({\bf\tilde{u}}^{q}_{i})- {\bf h}({\bf\tilde{u}}^{k}_{i})\right]$$ where $i=1\dots,N$ is the node index, and $k,q=0,\dots,M$. Notice that, since each paired layers $k$ and $-k$ is inter-layer synchronized ($\tilde{\bf U}^k={\bf U}^{k}={\bf U}^{-k}$), each layer acts therefore as a relay to the rest of the stack. The $Mm$ linear equations (\[eq:variational\_id\]), solved in parallel to the $(M+1)m$ nonlinear equations (\[eq:solution\_nodes\]) for ${\bf\dot{\tilde u}}^k_i$, allow for calculating all Lyapunov exponents transverse to the manifold $\tilde{\bf U}^k$. The maximum of those exponents (MLE) as a function of the system parameters actually gives the necessary conditions for the stability of the synchronous solution: whenever $\text{MLE}<0$, perturbations transverse to the manifold will die out, and the multi-relay synchronous solution will be stable.
![Relay synchronization in a triplex ($M=1$) with identical SF layers (SSS configuration). (Main panel) Synchronization error between the outer layers ($k=-1$, and $k=1$) $E_{-11}$ (see Eq. \[eq:Eintra\]) as a function of the inter-layer coupling $\lambda$ for three different values of the intra-layer coupling $\sigma_0=\sigma_1$ (see legend). The inset shows the corresponding synchronization errors between the relay and one of the outer layers. (Bottom panel) Maximum Lyapunov exponent (MLE) of the relay synchronization manifold $U^1=U^{-1}$ as a function of $\lambda$ for the same cases as in the main panel. Vertical lines mark the points where the MLE becomes negative. All points are averages of $10$ network realizations with $N=500$ and $\langle k\rangle=4$. See the main text for the relay and outer layer Rössler oscillators specifications.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2){width="45.00000%"}
In order to monitor the synchronization error between layers, we define the inter-layer synchronization error as, $$\label{eq:Eintra}
E_{qk}=\lim_{T\to \infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left\lVert {\bf u}^{q}_{i}(t)-{\bf u}^{k}_{i}(t)\right\rVert dt,$$ where $\lVert \cdot \rVert$ stands for the Euclidean norm and $q,k$ are the layers’ indexes, such that $E_{-kk}$ denotes the inter-layer synchronization error of mirror layers. Without lack of generality, in our numerical simulations we consider two types of topologies where layers are either (i) Erdös-Renyi [@erdos1959] (ER) or (ii) scale-free [@Barabasi1999] (SF), in all cases with $N=500$. We classify the layer stacks regarding the topology sequence of each layer. For instance, a triplex where the three layers have ER topology will be denoted as EEE, and a system where two identical SF layers are mediated by a center ER will be denoted as SES. The nodes are chaotic Rössler oscillators [@Rossler1976], defined by the $m=3$ state vector ${\bf u}=(x,y,z)$ whose autonomous evolution is given by ${\bf f_k}({\bf u})={\bf f_{-k}}({\bf u})=\left[-y-z,x+a_k y, 0.2+z(x-9)\right]$ and the heterogeneity between the layers is introduced through the parameter $a_k$. In our case study, the intra- and inter- layer coupling functions are set to be $\mathbf{g}({\bf u})={\bf G u}=(0,0,z)^T$ and $\mathbf{{h}}({\bf u})={\bf Hu}=(0,y,0)^T$ respectively. These coupling schemes ensure that intra-layer synchronization is prevented when layers are isolated and not multiplexed (class I layers, according to the standard master stability function (MSF) classification established in Ref. [@Boccaletti2006]) whereas multiplexed nodes along the layers can synchronize for a coupling strength $\lambda$ above a given threshold (class II MSF).
Layers with identical topology {#sub:identical}
------------------------------
With the aim of determining whether relay synchronization can be achieved in a multiplex configuration let us first consider the multiplex structure defined by Eq. (\[eq:multiplex\]) for the case of three identical SF layers ${\cal L}^0={\cal L}^1={\cal L }^{-1}$ and where the parameters $a_1=a_{-1}=0.2$ for the outer layers and $a_0=0.3$ for the relay units of the central layer, although different selections of these parameters and topologies produce a similar behavior.
Results are collected in Fig. \[fig2\], where the synchronization error between the outer layers $E_{-11}$ is plotted versus the inter-layer coupling $\lambda$ for several values of the intra-layer couplings $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_0$ in the outer and relay layers respectively, with $\sigma_1=\sigma_0$. In all cases, there is a critical coupling $\lambda^*$ above which complete synchronization between layers $k=1$ and $k=-1$ occurs, that is, $E_{-11}=0$ is achieved for any generic initial condition and network realization, while the relay layer ($k=0$) remains unsynchronized to any of the two outer layers ($k=1,-1$) as shown in the inset where $E_{01}>0$ for any parameter choice.
![Relay synchronization in a triplex network with identical SF layers as a function of the intra-layer couplings for the relay ($\sigma_0$) and outer ($\sigma_1$) layers. (Left) Color map of the inter-layer coupling threshold $\lambda^*$ for the relay state ($E_{-11}=0$ and $E_{01}\neq 0$) in the $\sigma_0$-$\sigma_1$ parameter space. (Right) Inter-layer coupling threshold $\lambda^*$ for the relay state as a function of the coupling strength in the relay layer $\sigma_0$ for a fixed value of $\sigma_1=1.$ (red dashed line in left panel) and as a function of the coupling strength in the outer layers $\sigma_1$ for a fixed value of $\sigma_0=1.$ (black dashed line in left panel). Each point is an average of 10 SF network realizations with $N=500$ and $\langle k\rangle=8$. \[fig3\]](fig3){width="50.00000%"}
In addition, the calculation of the corresponding MLE given by Eqs. (\[eq:variational\_id\]) (lower panel of Fig. \[fig2\]) confirms that the relay synchronous solution ${\bf U}^{-1}={\bf U}^1$ reaches stability ($\text{MLE}<0$) at the same critical $\lambda^*$ where the error between the relay and the outer layers is zero, as indicated by the vertical dashed lines. Therefore, one can conclude that inter-layer MLE is a useful tool for reducing the system’s dimensionality and use it for evaluation of the critical inter-layer coupling $\lambda^*$ from now on.
In order to better understand the different roles played by external and relay layers, we show in Fig. \[fig3\] the critical inter-layer coupling value in the parameter region $(\sigma_0, \sigma_1)$, that is, when the intra-layer coupling $\sigma_k$ is different for the relay and outer layers. It can be seen that the system’s ability to synchronize is practically unaltered with $\sigma_0$, while increasing $\sigma_1$ makes the value of $\lambda^*$ to drop drastically. This therefore reveals that multiplex relay synchronization is much more sensitive to changes affecting the mirror layers than to those arising in the transmission layer.
Our results can be generalized to any number of layers. As an example, we report also the case $M=2$, which corresponds to two outer layers above ($k=1,2$) and below ($k=-1,-2$) the relay layer ($k=0$). We choose $a_{-1}=a_{1}=0.2$ and $a_{-2}=a_{2}=0.3$, and $a_0=0.25$ for the central layer. The results stand for any other parameter choice. In Fig. \[figpenta\] we plot the inter-layer synchronization errors $E_{-11}$ (void markers) and $E_{-22}$ (full markers), vs. the inter-layer coupling $\lambda$ for several values of the intra-layer coupling $\sigma$. As in the triplex case, the critical $\lambda^*$ at which complete inter-layer synchronization is achieved depends on $\sigma$, but it is the same for both pairs of layers, as $E_{-11}$ and $E_{-22}$ drop to zero simultaneously. In the inset we plot the inter-layer synchronization errors between the non-paired layers, $E_{01}$, $E_{12}$ to check that they remain mutually incoherent. Therefore, we have verified that relay synchronization also occurs in cascade for arbitrarily high-order multiplex systems, provided a structural and dynamical symmetry is conserved.
![Relay synchronization in a pentaplex ($M=2$) with identical $N=500$ ER layers (EEEEE configuration). The synchronization error between the two pair of outer layers $E_{-11}$ (empty symbols) and $E_{-22}$ (full symbols) is shown as a function of $\lambda$ for three different values of the intra-layer coupling $\sigma$, being $\sigma=\sigma_k,$ $\forall k$. The inset shows the synchronization errors between each one of the outer layers and the relay layer. []{data-label="figpenta"}](fig4){width="45.00000%"}
Layers with non-identical topology {#sub:nonidentical}
----------------------------------
So far, we have dealt with multiplexes of pairwise identical layers. However, this condition is too strong a limitation to hope that it would capture and properly represent the case of many real systems. The next step needed for generalization is studying then the relay synchronization scenario in the case in which the topology of the relay layer differs from that of the outer layers. In Fig. \[fig4\] we have reported the critical inter-layer coupling $\lambda^*$ in two heterogeneous triplex cases: (a) a pair of Erdös-Rényi layers mediated by a scale-free relay layer (ESE situation) and (b) the opposite case where SF layers are connected through a ER layer (SES). Each case is compared with the topologically homogeneous EEE and SSS structures, respectively. For the sake of simplification and of better assessment of the role of the topology, we keep $\sigma_0=\sigma_1$.
Figure \[fig4\](a) shows that, for a large range of intra-layer couplings, the mediation of a SF relay facilitates the synchronization between the paired layers, since $\lambda^*$ in the ESE case (void blue circles) is smaller than the one corresponding to the homogeneous case (EEE, full blue circles). On the contrary, a relay ER layer intermediating between two outer SF layers (Fig. \[fig4\](b)) does not determine a significant difference as long as the intra-layer coupling strength is low, but increases the threshold $\lambda^*$ for higher $\sigma$, as compared to the homogeneous SSS case.
![Relay synchronization in a triplex with different layers. Inter-layer coupling threshold $\lambda^*$ vs the intra-layer couplings $\sigma_0=\sigma_1$ for (a) a mixed ER-SF-ER (ESE) and identical (EEE) configurations and (b) a mixed SF-ER-SF (SES) and identical (SSS) configurations. \[fig4\] ](fig5){width="50.00000%"}
Robustness
----------
![Robustness of the network relay synchronization for identical layers. (a) Synchronization error between the outer layers $E_{-11}$ vs the decreasing number of connected relay lines for identical ER (blue empty symbols) and SF (black solid symbols) layers. Relay lines are disconnected following a descending (circle symbols) or ascending (square symbols) node degree ranking of the outer layers (seed legend in (b)). Parameter values are $N=500$, $\langle k\rangle 8$, $\lambda=0.23$ and $\sigma_0=\sigma_1=0.8$. (b) Number of multiplexed relay lines needed to support a relay network state as a function of the intra-layer coupling strength $\sigma_0=\sigma_1$ while keeping constant $\lambda=0.23$. The different curves are explained in the legend.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig6a "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![Robustness of the network relay synchronization for identical layers. (a) Synchronization error between the outer layers $E_{-11}$ vs the decreasing number of connected relay lines for identical ER (blue empty symbols) and SF (black solid symbols) layers. Relay lines are disconnected following a descending (circle symbols) or ascending (square symbols) node degree ranking of the outer layers (seed legend in (b)). Parameter values are $N=500$, $\langle k\rangle 8$, $\lambda=0.23$ and $\sigma_0=\sigma_1=0.8$. (b) Number of multiplexed relay lines needed to support a relay network state as a function of the intra-layer coupling strength $\sigma_0=\sigma_1$ while keeping constant $\lambda=0.23$. The different curves are explained in the legend.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig6b "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}
In the previous Sections we have addressed the dependence of relay synchronization in a multiplex on the dynamical and structural layer heterogeneity, and proved that the phenomenon still holds even when the intermediate layer has a completely different structure and dynamics than the mirrored ones. The present section is devoted instead to assess the robustness of relay synchronization against a de-multiplexing process of the layers, that is, against performing a progressively shutting down of the inter-layer links such that a fraction of nodes in each layer is not linked to their counterparts in the other layers.
To closely check this process, we initially consider a 3-layer multiplex with identical topology (EEE or SSS). We choose the inter- and intra-layer couplings to guarantee a relay synchronous state with the layers fully multiplexed. Then, we proceed to disconnect one by one the inter-layer links according to the nodes degree ranking, both in the ascending and the descending order, and re-evaluate in every step the state of the relay synchronization by measuring the $E_{-11}$ error. An example of such a process is shown in Fig. \[fig5\](a) by reporting the evolution of $E_{-11}$ as a function of the number of multiplexed nodes. It can be seen that, starting from a situation with $E_{-11}=0$, the EEE multiplex configuration (blue void markers) looses the synchronization immediately with just a few of inter-layer links being removed. On the other hand, relay synchronization is resilient in SSS triplex configurations also when more than $30\%$ of the nodes are not multiplexed.
A more detailed view can be obtained from Fig. \[fig5\](b), where the number of multiplexed nodes needed to support the relay synchronization is represented as a function of the intra-layer coupling $\sigma_0=\sigma_1$. As expected, when the coupling is weak, all the $N$ nodes need to be linked to preserve relay synchronization. However, as the interaction within the layers increases, the intra-layer connectivity helps to maintain a synchronous state despite an increasing number of nodes are being de-multiplexed without damaging the coherence between the outer layers. In Fig. \[fig5\](b), we can see that for both the EEE (blue void markers) and the SSS (black full markers) triplex configurations, removing the links between layers connecting nodes with higher degree (descending degree ranking, circle markers) is much more robust than following an ascending degree ranking (square markers). This is indeed a very interesting result: relay synchronization in a multiplex network is supported by the low degree nodes, while the hubs can be safely disconnected without perturbing the transmission. This is notably evidenced in the SSS case (black full squares) where after having removed the $40\%$ of the inter-layer links connecting the highest degree nodes, the relay synchronization is still supported by the multiplex structure connected through the lowest degree nodes.
 are plotted in solid symbols. The red solid (ESE) and empty (SES) triangles show the behavior when the relay lines are disconnected following the degree ranking of the relay layer.[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig7){width="25.00000%"}
Once we have singled out the descending degree ranking as the most convenient way to de-multiplex part of the network without loosing coherence, we proceed our study by evaluating the impact of having a relay layer with different topology from the outer layers, as we did in the previous Section \[sub:nonidentical\]. In this scenario, we have two possible descending degree rankings, the one dictated by the relay layer and the one dictated by the outer layers. The results are summarized in Fig. \[fig6\] where we plot, as in Fig. \[fig5\](b), the number of nodes that need to be linked to maintain synchronization as a function of $\sigma_0=\sigma_1$. For the sake of comparison, we added the curves for the homogeneous EEE and SSS (full markers) multiplex configurations, together with the data for the mixed ESE and SES (void markers) layers. Notice that the chosen inter-layer coupling $\lambda=0.23$ is well above threshold for all the cases, as it can be derived from Fig. \[fig4\]. All the reported evidence indicates that the introduction of a relay layer with a topology different from that of the outer layers has little influence on the minimum number needed to support the relay synchronization, as long as the first removed inter-layer connections correspond to the hubs in the outer layers (blue and back curves). Curiously, the alternative of using the relay layer topology to rank the degree of the nodes, destroys the coherence between the outer layers as soon as a tiny fraction of links is removed (red curves). Therefore, the relay synchronization in a multiplex is very unstable if just a few links connecting nodes which are hubs in the relay layer are removed. Notice that this unlinking criterion is equivalent to randomly disconnect the multiplex. Therefore, the robustness of the relay synchrony relies mainly in the low degree nodes of the external layers. The relevance of the low degree nodes in controlling the dynamics of complex networks has been pointed out in other contexts [@Liu2011; @Skardal2015].
Experimental validation {#sub:experimental}
=======================
Finally, we report experimental evidence of relay synchronization in a multiplex of nonlinear electronic circuits, with the setup sketched in Fig. \[fig:setup\] (left). The array is made of 21 Rössler-like circuits arranged in three layers of 7 nodes, with the relay layer having different topology as the outer layers. Each layer has two different electronic couplers, one for the coupling among nodes in the same layer ($\sigma_e$) and the second for the interaction of each node with its replica in the other layers ($\lambda_e$). The chaotic dynamics of the circuits is well approximated by the three variables $(v_{1},v_{2},v_{3})$ obeying [@Sevilla2016]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:experimentalv}
\dot{v}_{1i}^{k} & = & -\frac{1}{R_{1}C_{1}}\left(v_{1i}^{k} + \frac{R_{1}}{R_{2}}v_{2i}^{k}+\frac{R_{1}}{R_{4}}v_{3i}^{k}\right)\\ \nonumber
&& -\frac{1}{R_{1}C_{1}}\sigma_{e}\frac{R_{1}}{R_{15}}\sum_{j=1}^{N}{a_{ij}^{k}(v_{1j}^{k}-v_{1i}^{k})}\\ \nonumber
\dot{v}_{2i}^{k} & = & -\frac{1}{R_{6}C_{2}}\left(-\frac{R_{6}R_{8}}{R_{9}R_{7}}v_{1i}^{k}+ \left[1- \frac{R_{6}R_{8}}{R_{c}^{k}R_{7}}\right]v_{2i}^{k}\right) \\ \nonumber
&& -\frac{1}{R_{6}C_{2}}\left(\lambda_{e}\frac{R_{6}}{R_{16}} \sum_{q=-1}^{q=1}{v_{2i}^{q}-v_{2i}^{k}} \right)\\ \nonumber
\dot{v}_{3i}^{k} & = &-\frac{1}{R_{10}C_{3}}\left(-\frac{R_{10}}{R_{11}}G\left( v_{1i}^{k}\right)+v_{3i}^{k} \right)\\ \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{v_{1i}}$ is a nonlinear gain funtion given by: $$\begin{aligned}
G(v_{1i})&=& \begin{cases} 0, & \mbox{if } v_{1} \le F(I) \\
\frac{R_{12}}{R_{14}}v_{1i}-Vee\frac{R_{12}}{R_{13}}-Id\left(\frac{R_{12}}{R_{13}}+\frac{R_{12}}{R_{14}} \right), & \mbox{if } v_{1} > F(I) \end{cases} \nonumber \\
F(I) &=& Id(1+\frac{R_{14}}{R_{13}})+Vee\frac{R_{14}}{R_{13}}\end{aligned}$$
where the parameter values are gathered in Table \[paramvalues\]. The reader is referred to Ref. [@DBSevilla2017] for a detailed description of the experimental implementation of the Rössler-like circuit in the networks, and Refs. [@Aguirre2014; @Sevilla2015; @Sevilla2016; @Leyva2017] for previous realizations in different network configurations. Both the intra-layer $\sigma_e$ and the inter-layer $\lambda_e$ are set by means of the digital potenciometers X9C103, that working as voltage divisor for the maximum resitence (10k$\,\Omega$), $\sigma_e$ and $\lambda_e$ is set to zero, this potentiometers are controlled through the digital ports (P0.0, P0.1, P0.2, P0.3) of a DAQ card. First that all we send all the coupling value to zero, after 500ms takes the sample of the time series of each networks, all the variables $v_{2i}$ of each oscillator enter to the DAQ card through the analogue ports (AI0, AI1, $\dots$ , AI20) and saved in the PC for further analysis. Next, the coupling between the inter-layer ($\lambda_{e}$) increases one step $(0.01)$, digital pulses are sent to the potenciometers corresponding to that coupling and decreases the resistance in $100\,\Omega$ each time it passes through this state, until the maximum value of $\lambda_{e}$ is reached ($\,\Omega$ in potenciometers). When the entire run is finished, $\sigma_{e}$ is increased by one step, and another cycle of $\lambda$ is initiated. The whole procedure is repreted until each coupling reached its maximum value. The experiment is controlled from a PC with the LabVIEW software.
C1=1nF C2=1nF C3=1nF $\sigma_{e},\lambda_{e}=[0-0.6]$
---------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------------------
$R_{1}=2\,M\Omega$ $R_{2}=200\,k\Omega$ $R_{3}=10\,k\Omega$ $R_{4}=100\,k\Omega$
$R_{5}=50\,k\Omega$ $R_{6}=\,5M\Omega$ $R_{7}=100\,k\Omega$ $R_{8}=10\,k\Omega$
$R_{9}=10\,k\Omega$ $R_{10}=100\,k\Omega$ $R_{11}=100\,k\Omega$ $R_{12}=150\,k\Omega$
$R_{13}=68\,k\Omega$ $R_{14}=10\,k\Omega$ $R_{15}=75\,k\Omega$ $R_{16}=120\,k\Omega$
$Rc^{0}=50\,k\Omega$ $Rc^{1}= 35\,k\Omega$ $V_{d}=0.7$ $V_{ee}=15$
: Parameter values of the chaotic dynamics of one Rösller like circuit as described in Eqs. (\[eq:experimentalv\]).\[paramvalues\]
{width="74.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"}
![Experimental results of relay synchronization in a triplex network with non-identical layers, as a function of the intra-layer ($\sigma_e$) and inter-layer ($\lambda_e$) couplings. (Top) Colormap of the inter-layer synchronization errors between the outer layers $E_{-11}$ (left) and between one outer layer and the relay layer $E_{01}$ (right) in the $\sigma_e$-$\lambda_e$ parameter space. The white contour line in each panel indicates the isoline for $E_{-11}$ and $E_{01}$ respectively equal to $0.12$, error value taken as a reference. (Bottom) Inter-layer $E_{-11}$, $E_{01}$ synchronization errors as a function of (left) $\lambda_e$ for fixed $\sigma_e=0.5$ (vertical continuous lines in the above panels) and (right) $\sigma_e$ for fixed $\lambda_e=0.5$ (horizontal dashed lines).[]{data-label="fig:experiment"}](fig9.jpg){width="45.00000%"}
The experimental results are summarized in Fig. \[fig:experiment\]. The top panels represent the averaged experimental inter-layer synchronization error for the outer layers $E_{-11}$ (left) and between the relay and one of the outer layers $E_{01}$ (right), for all the experimental range of intra-layer $\sigma_e=[0,0.6]$ and inter-layers $\lambda_e=[0,0.6]$ couplings. Even though the system is unavoidably affected by noise and parameter mismatch in the electronic components, for high enough $\lambda_e$ the value of $E_{-11}$ is well below $E_{01}$ and therefore the inter-layer relay synchronization is verified in our experimental setup. Superimposed to the colormaps, we also have drawn the isoline for $E=0.12$ in both panels (white lines), showing that the threshold $\lambda_e^*$ value for which $E_{-11}$ and $E_{01}$ are below the value of the isoline is always smaller in the $E_{-11}$ case.
For a clearer view, in the bottom left panel we have just plotted $E_{-11}$ and $E_{01}$ as a function of $\lambda_e$ for a fixed intra-layer coupling $\sigma_e=0.5$ (corresponding to the blue and black dashed lines in the respective colormap panels in the upper part of Fig. \[fig:experiment\]), showing that $E_{-11}$ monotonically goes to zero and is always below $E_{01}$.
Finally, in the bottom-right panel of Fig. \[fig:experiment\] we plot both errors, $E_{-11}$ and $E_{01}$, as a function of $\sigma_e$ for a fixed value of the intra-layer coupling $\lambda_e=0.5$ (vertical cuts in red and magenta in the colormap plots). That is done in order to show the effect of increasing the interaction in the intra-layer connectivity. Similarly to what observed in Fig. \[fig4\], promoting the topological difference between layers as $\sigma_e$ increases rises the synchronization threshold.
Discussion
==========
Long distance coherence between complex mirrored structures mediated through non-synchronous differentiated ones plays a key role in the functioning of several real-world systems, as for instance the brain. Zero-lag synchronization has been indeed observed between distant areas of the cortex [@Konigqt1997; @Soteropoulos2006], and the transcendental role of symmetry in its dynamics has been lately pointed out [@Nicosia2013; @Zhang2017].
In our work we have extended the concept of relay synchronization to the case of a multiplex network, showing that the intermediation of a relay layer can lead to inter-layer synchronization of a set of paired layers, both topologically and dynamically different from the transmitter. The phenomenon can be extended to indefinitely higher order relay configurations, provided a mirror symmetry is preserved in the multiplex. The coherent state is very robust to changes in the dynamics, topology, and even to strong multiplex disconnection. In this latter scenario, we proved that the low degree nodes in the synchronized outer layers are responsible for resiilence of the synchronous state, while hubs can be safely de-mutiplexed. Finally, we experimentally validated our results in a multiplex network of three layers of electronic oscillators. Our results provide a new path for starting the study of the role of symmetries in setting long distance coherence in real systems.
Acknowledgements
================
Work partly supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy under project FIS2013-41057-P and by GARECOM, Group of Research Excelence URJC-Banco de Santander. Authors acknowledge the computational resources and assistance provided by CRESCO, the supercomputing center of ENEA in Portici, Italy. R.S.E. acknowledges support from Secretaría de Educación Pública, PRODEP, grant number UDG-PTC-1289-DSA/103.5/16/10313.
[38]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2016.03.097) @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study strong gravitational lensing due to a Schwarzschild black hole. Apart from the primary and the secondary images we find a sequence of images on both sides of the optic axis; we call them [*relativistic images*]{}. These images are formed due to large bending of light near $r = 3M$ (the closest distance of approach $r_o$ is greater than $3M$). The sources of the entire universe are mapped in the vicinity of the black hole by these images. For the case of the Galactic supermassive “black hole” they are formed at about $17$ microarcseconds from the optic axis. The relativistic images are not resolved among themselves, but they are resolved from the primary and secondary images. However the relativistic images are very much demagnified unless the observer, lens and source are very highly aligned. Due to this and some other difficulties the observation of these images does not seem to be feasible in near future. However, it would be a great success of the general theory of relativity in a strong gravitational field if they ever were observed and it would also give an upper bound, $r_o = 3.21 M$, to the compactness of the lens, which would support the black hole interpretation of the lensing object.'
address: 'Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa '
author:
- 'K. S. Virbhadra[^1] and George F. R. Ellis[^2]'
title: Schwarzschild black hole lensing
---
epsf.tex
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The phenomena resulting from the deflection of electromagnetic radiation in a gravitational field are referred to as [*gravitational lensing*]{} (GL) and an object causing a detectable deflection is known as a [*gravitational lens*]{}. The basic theory of GL was developed by Liebes[@Lie64], Refsdal[@Ref64], and Bourossa and Kantowski[@BK75]. For detailed discussions on GL see the monograph by Schneider [*et al.*]{} [@Schetal92] and reviews by Blandford and Narayan[@BN92], Refsdal and Surdej[@RS94], Narayan and Bartelmann[@NB96] and Wambsganss[@Wam98]. The discovery of quasars in 1963 paved the way for observing point source GL. Walsh, Carswell and Weymann[@WCW79] discovered the first example of GL. They observed twin images QSO 0957+561 A,B separated by $5.7$ arcseconds at the same redshift $z_s = 1.405$ and mag $\approx 17$. Following this remarkable discovery more than a dozen convincing multiple-imaged quasars are known. The vision of Zwicky that galaxies can be lensed was crystallized when Lynds and Petrosian[@LP86] and Soucail [*et al.*]{}[@Souetal87] independently observed giant blue luminous [*arcs*]{} of about $20$ arcseconds long in the rich clusters of galaxies. Paczyński[@Pac87] interpreted these giant arcs to be distorted images of distant galaxies located behind the clusters. About $20$ giant arcs have been observed in the rich clusters. Apart from the giant arcs, there have been also observed weakly distorted [*arclets*]{} which are images of other faint background galaxies[@Tys88]. Hewitt [*et al.*]{}[@Hew88] observed the first Einstein ring MG1131+0456 at redshift $z_s = 1.13$. With high resolution radio observations, they found the extended radio source to actually be a ring of diameter about $1.75$ [*arcseconds*]{}. There are about half a dozen observed rings of diameters between $0.33$ to $2$ arcseconds and all of them are found in the radio waveband; some have optical and infrared counterparts as well[@Wam98]. The general theory of relativity has passed experimental tests in a weak gravitational field with flying colors; however, the theory has not been tested in a strong gravitational field. Testing the gravitational field in the vicinity of a compact massive object, such as a black hole or a neutron star, could be a possible avenue for such investigations. Dynamical observations of several galaxies show that their centres contain massive dark objects. Though there is no iron-clad evidence, indirect arguments suggest that these are supermassive black holes; at least, the case for black holes in the Galaxy as well as in NGC4258 appears to be strong [@Ricetal98]. These could be possible observational targets to test the Einstein theory of relativity in a strong gravitational field through GL. Immediately after the advent of the general theory of relativity, Schwarzschild obtained a static spherically symmetric asymptotically flat vacuum solution to the Einstein equations, which was later found to have an event horizon when maximally extended; thus this solution represents the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric black hole (see in Hawking and Ellis[@HE73]). Schwarzschild GL in the weak gravitational field region (for which the deflection angle is small) is well-known[@Schetal92]. Recently Kling [*et al.*]{}[@KNP99] developed an iterative approach to GL theory based on approximate solutions of the null geodesics equations, and to illustrate their method they constructed the iterative lens equations and time of arrival equation for a single Schwarzschild lens. In this paper we obtain a lens equation that allows for the large bending of light near a black hole, model the Galactic supermassive “black hole” as a Schwarzschild lens and study point source lensing in the strong gravitational field region, when the bending angle can be very large. Apart from a primary image and a secondary image (which are observed due to small bending of light in a weak gravitational field) we get a theoretically infinite sequence of images on both sides close to the optic axis; we term them [ *relativistic images*]{}. The relativistic images are formed due to large bending of light in a strong gravitational field in the vicinity of $3M$, and are usually greatly demagnified (the magnification decreases very fast with an increase in the angular position of the source from the optic axis). Though the observation of relativistic images is a very difficult task (it is very unlikely that they will be observed in near future), if it ever were accomplished it would support the general theory of relativity in a strong gravitational field inaccessible to test the theory in any other known way and would also give an upper bound to the compactness of the lens. This is the subject of study in this paper. We use geometrized units (the gravitational constant $G = 1$ and the speed of light in vacuum $c = 1$ so that $ M \equiv M G / c^2$).
Lens equation, magnification and critical curves {#sec:lenseqn}
=================================================
In this section we derive a lens equation that allows for the large bending of light near a black hole. The lens diagram is given in Fig.1. The line joining the observer $O$ and the lens $L$ is taken as the reference (optic) axis. The spacetime under consideration, with the lens (deflector) causing strong curvature, is asymptotically flat; the observer as well as the source are situated in the flat spacetime region (which can be embedded in an expanding Robertson-Walker universe).
$SQ$ and $OI$ are tangents to the null geodesic at the source and image positions, respectively; $C$ is where their point of intersection would be if there were no lensing object present. The angular positions of the source and the image are measured from the optic axis $OL$. $\angle LOI$ (denoted by $\theta$) is the image position and $\angle LOS$ (denoted by $\beta$) is the source position if there were no lensing object. $\hat{\alpha}$ (i.e. $\angle OCQ$) is the Einstein deflection angle. The null geodesic and the background broken geodesic path $OCS$ will be almost identical, except near the lens where most of bending will take place. Given the vast distances from observer to lens and from lens to source, this will be a good approximation, even if the light goes round and round the lens before reaching the observer. We assume that the line joining the point $C$ and the location of the lens $L$ is perpendicular to the optic axis. This is a good approximation for small values of $\beta$. We draw perpendiculars $LT$ and $LN$ from $L$ on the tangents $SQ$ and $OI$ repectively and these represent the impact parameter $J $. $D_s$ and $D_d$ stand for the distances of the source and the lens from the observer, and $D_{ds}$ represents the lens-source distance, as shown in the Fig. 1. Thus, the lens equation may be expressed as = - , \[LensEqn\] where . \[Alpha\] The lens diagram gives = . A gravitational field deflects a light ray and causes a change in the cross-section of a bundle of rays. The magnification of an image is defined as the ratio of the flux of the image to the flux of the unlensed source. According to Liouville’s theorem the surface brightness is preserved in gravitational light deflection. Thus, the magnification of an image turns out to be the ratio of the solid angles of the image and of the unlensed source (at the observer). Therefore, for a circularly symmetric GL, the magnification of an image is given by = ( )\^[-1]{}. \[Mu\] The sign of the magnification of an image gives the parity of the image. The singularities in the magnification in the lens plane are known as [*critical curves*]{} (CCs) and the corresponding values in the source plane are known as [*caustics*]{}. Critical images are defined as images of $0$-parity. The tangential and radial magnifications are expressed by \_t ()\^[-1]{}, \_r ()\^[-1]{} \[MutMur\] and singularities in these give [*tangential critical curves*]{} (TCCs) and [*radial critical curves*]{} (RCCs), respectively; the corresponding values in the source plane are known as [*tangential caustic*]{} (TC) and [*radial caustics*]{} (RCs), respectively. Obviously, $\beta = 0$ gives the TC and the corresponding values of $\theta$ are the TCCs. For small values of angles $\beta$, $\theta$ and $\hat{\alpha}$ equations $(\ref{LensEqn})$ and $(\ref{Mu})$ yield the approximate lens equation and magnification, respectively, which have been widely used in studying lensing in a weak gravitational field [@Schetal92].
Schwarzschild spacetime and the deflection angle {#sec:DefAngle}
================================================
The Schwarzschild spacetime is expressed by the line element ds\^2=(1-)dt\^2- (1-)\^[-1]{} dr\^2 -r\^2(d\^2+\^2 d\^2), \[SchMetric\] where $M$ is the Schwarzschild mass. When this solution is maximally extended it has an event horizon at the Schwarzschild radius $R_s = 2 M$. The deflection angle $\hat{\alpha}$ for a light ray with closest distance of approach $r_o$ is (Chapters $8.4$ and $ 8.5$ in [@Wei72]) (r\_o) = 2 [\_[r\_o]{}]{}\^ - \[AlphaHatR0\] and the impact parameter $J$ is J = r\_o (1-)\^[-]{} . \[ImpParaR0\] A timelike hypersurface $\{r = r_0\}$ in a spacetime is defined as a photon sphere if the Einstein bending angle of a light ray with the closest distance of approach $r_0$ becomes unboundedly large. For the Schwarzschild metric $r_0 = 3M$ is the photon sphere and thus the deflection angle $\hat{\alpha}$ is finite for $r_0 > 3M$.
The Einstein deflection angle for large $r_o$ is[@Viretal98] (r\_o) = + (-1) + . . . . . . \[AlphaHatWkField\] We mentioned the above result only for completeness as it is not much known in the literature. As we are interested to study GL due to light deflection in a strong graviational field we will use Eq. $(\ref{AlphaHatR0})$ for any further calculations. Introducing radial distance defined in terms of the Schwarzschild radius, x = , x\_o = , \[XX0\] the deflection angle $\hat{\alpha}$ and the impact paprameter $J$ take the form (x\_o) = 2 [\_[x\_o]{}]{}\^ - \[AlphaHatX0\] and J = 2M x\_o (1-)\^[-]{}. \[ImpParaX0\] In the computations in the following section we require the first derivative of the deflection angle $\hat{\alpha}$ with respect to $\theta$. This is given by (see in [@Viretal98]) = ’(x\_o) , \[DAlphaByDTheta\] where = \[DX0ByDTheta\] and the first derivative of $\hat{\alpha}$ with respect to $x_o$ is ’(x\_o) = \^ . \[DAlphaHatByX0\]
Lensing with the Galactic supermassive “black hole”
===================================================
It is known that the Schwarzschild GL in a weak gravitational field gives rise to an Einstein ring when the source, lens and observer are aligned, and a pair of images (primary and secondary) of opposite parities when the lens components are misaligned. However, when the lens is a massive compact object a strong gravitational field is “available” for investigation. A light ray can pass close to the photon sphere and go around the lens once, twice, thrice, or many times (depending on the impact parameter $J$ but for $J>3\sqrt{3} M$) before reaching the observer. Thus, a massive compact lens gives rise, in addition to the primary and secondary images, to a large number (indeed, theoretically an infinite sequence) of images on both sides of the optic axis. We call these images (which are formed due to the bending of light through more than $3\pi /2$) [*relativistic images*]{}, as the light rays giving rise to them pass through a strong gravitational field before reaching the observer. We call the rings which are formed by bending of light rays more than $2 \pi$, [*relativistic Einstein rings*]{}. We model the Galactic supermassive “black hole” as a Schwarzschild lens. This has mass $M = 2.8 \times 10^6 M_{\odot}$ and the distance $D_d =
8.5 kpc$[@Ricetal98]; therefore, the ratio of the mass to the distance $M/D_d \approx 1.57 \times 10^{-11}$. We consider a point source, with the lens situated half way between the source and the observer, i.e. $D_{ds}/D_s = 1/2$. We allow the angular position of the source to change keeping $D_{ds}$ fixed. We compute positions and magnifications of two pairs of outermost relativistic images as well as the primary and secondary images for different values of the angular positions of the source. These are shown in figures 2 and 3 and Table 1 (for relativistic images) and in Fig. 4 and Table 2 (for primary and secondary images). The angular positions of the primary and secondary images as well as the critical curves are given in arcseconds; those for relativistic images as well as relativistic critical curves are expressed in microarcseconds. In Fig.2 we show how the positions of outer two relativistic images on each side of the optic axis change as the source position changes. To find the angular positions of images on the same side of the source we plot $\alpha$ (represented by continuous curves on right side of the figure) and $\tan\theta-\tan\beta$ (represented by dashed curves) against $\theta$ for a given value of the source position $\beta$; the points of intersection give the image positions (see the right side of the Fig. $3$).
[ccccc]{} & Source position $\beta$ &\
$\mu^{outer}$&$\mu^{inner}$& $ $ &$\mu^{inner}$&$\mu^{outer}$\
$-3.5 \times 10^{-12}$ & $-6.5 \times 10^{-15}$ &$1$ &$6.5 \times 10^{-15}$ & $3.5 \times 10^{-12}$\
$-3.5 \times 10^{-13}$ & $-6.5 \times 10^{-16}$ &$10$ &$6.5 \times 10^{-16}$ & $3.5 \times 10^{-13}$\
$-3.5 \times 10^{-14}$ & $-6.5 \times 10^{-17}$ &$10^2$ &$6.5 \times 10^{-17}$ & $3.5 \times 10^{-14}$\
$-3.5 \times 10^{-15}$ & $-6.5 \times 10^{-18}$ &$10^3$ &$6.5 \times 10^{-18}$ & $3.5 \times 10^{-15}$\
$-3.5 \times 10^{-16}$ & $-6.5 \times 10^{-19}$ &$10^4$ &$6.5 \times 10^{-19}$ & $3.5 \times 10^{-16}$\
$-3.5 \times 10^{-17}$ & $-6.5 \times 10^{-20}$ &$10^5$ &$6.5 \times 10^{-20}$ & $3.5 \times 10^{-17}$\
$-3.5 \times 10^{-18}$ & $-6.5 \times 10^{-21}$ &$10^6$ &$6.5 \times 10^{-21}$ & $3.5 \times 10^{-18}$\
The lens is the Galactic “black hole” (mass $M= 2.8 \times 10^6
M_{\odot} $ and the distance $D_d = 8.5$ kpc so that $M/D_d
\approx 1.57 \times 10^{-11} $). The ratio of the lens-source distance $D_{ds}$ to the observer-source distance $D_s$ is taken to be $1/2$. Angles are given in microarcseconds.
$\mu$ is the magnification and the sign on this refers to the parity of the image.
For the source positions considered here, the angular positions of two pairs of outermost relativistic images are $\approx \pm 16.898$ and $\approx \pm 16.877$ microarcseconds ( $+$ sign refers to images on the same side of the source and $-$ sign refers to images on opposite side of the source).
Similarly, we plot $- \alpha$ and $-\tan\theta-\tan\beta$ vs. $-\theta$ and points of intersection give the image positions on the opposite side of the source (see left side of the Fig. $2$). We have taken $\beta = \mp
0.075$ radian ($\approx \mp 4.29718\degree$). In fact there are a sequence of theoretically an infinite number of continuous curves which intersect with a given dashed curve giving rise to a sequence of an infinite number of images on both sides of the optic axis. We have plotted only two sets of such curves (note that the third set of continuous curves comes to be very close to the second set and therefore it is not possible to show them in the same figure) demonstrating appearance of two relativistic images on both sides of the optic axis. For $\beta=0$ the points of intersection of the continuous curves with the dashed curve give a sequence of infinite number of relativistic tangential critical curves (relativistic Einstein rings). As $\beta$ increases any image on the same side of source moves away from the optic axis, whereas any image on the opposite side of the source moves towards the optic axis. The displacement of relativistic images with respect to a change in the source position is very small (see Fig. $2$). The two sets of outermost relativistic images are formed at about $17$ microarcseconds from the optic axis. In Fig. 3 we plot the tangential magnification $\mu_t$ as well as the total magnification $\mu$ vs. the image position $\theta$ near the two outermost relativistic tangential critical curves. The singularities in $\mu_t$ give the angular radii of the two relativistic Einstein rings. In Fig. 4 we plot the same for the primary-secondary images; the singularity in $\mu_t$ gives the angular position of the Einstein ring. The magnification for relativistic images falls extremely fast (as compared with the case of primary and secondary images) as the source position increases from perfect alignment. The tangential parity (sign of $\mu_t$) as well as the total parity (sign of $\mu$) are positive for all images on the same side of the source and negative for all images on the opposite side of the source. The radial parity (sign of $\mu_r$) is positive for all the images in Schwarzschild lensing.
------------ ------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------
Source position $\beta$
$\theta$ $\mu$ $$ $\theta$ $\mu$
$1.157494$ $-5787.20 $ $10^{-4}$ $1.157594$ $5788.21 $
$1.157045$ $-578.27 $ $10^{-3}$ $1.158045$ $579.27 $
$1.152555$ $-57.38 $ $10^{-2}$ $1.162555$ $58.38 $
$1.108619$ $-5.30 $ $10^{-1}$ $1.208624$ $6.30 $
$0.760918$ $-0.23 $ $1$ $1.760914$ $1.23 $
$0.529680$ $-0.05 $ $2$ $2.529674$ $1.05 $
$0.394711$ $-0.01 $ $3$ $3.394704$ $1.01$
$0.310831$ $-0.005 $ $4$ $4.310823$ $1.005$
$0.254986$ $-0.002 $ $5$ $5.254977$ $1.002$
------------ ------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------
The same as in Table 1, except angles are given here in arcseconds.
[lllll]{} Rings & $\theta_E$ & $\hat{\alpha}$ &$\frac{r_o}{2M}$\
Einstein ring & $1.157544$ $arcsec$ & $2.315089$ $arcsec$ & $178193$\
Relativistic Einstein ring I & $16.898$ $\mu$$as$ & $2\pi+33.80$ $\mu$$as$ & $1.545115$\
Relativistic Einstein ring II & $16.877$ $\mu$$as$ & $4\pi+33.75$ $\mu$$as$ & $1.501875$\
The same as ([a]{}) of Table 1, except $arcsec$ and $\mu as$ used here refer to arcseconds and microarcseconds, respectively. $\theta_E$ stands for the angular positions of tangential critical curves.
In Table 3 we give the angular radii $\theta_E$ of the Einstein and two relativistic Einstein rings. We also give the corresponding values for the deflection angle $\hat{\alpha}$ and the closest distance of approach $x_o$ for the light rays giving rise to these rings. We define an “effective deflection angle” $\hat{\alpha} - 2 \pi $ times the number of revolution the light ray has made before reaching the observer. Table 3 shows that the effective deflection angle for a ring decreases with the decrease in its angular radius, which is expected from the geometry of the lens diagram. The same is true for images on the same side of the optic axis, i.e. the effective deflection angle is less for images closer to the optic axis.
The supermassive “black holes” at the centres of $NGC3115$ and $NGC4486$ have $M/D_d \approx 1.14 \times 10^{-11}$ and $1.03
\times 10^{-11}$, resepctively[@Ricetal98], which are very close to the case of the Galactic “black hole” we have studied. Therefore, if we study lensing with these “black holes” keeping $D_{ds}/D_s = 1/2$, we will get approximately the same results. The angular radius of the Einstein ring in the Schwarzschild lensing is expressed by $\theta_E = \{4M D_{ds}/(D_d D_s)\}^{1/2}$. For a source with $D_{ds} < D_s$ one has $0 < \left( D_{ds}/D_s\right) <1$. If we consider $D_{ds}/D_s$ different than $1/2$ the magnitude of the Einstein ring can easily be estimated. As relativistic images are formed due to light deflection close to $r_o = 3M$, their angular positions will be very much less sensitive to a change in the value of $D_{ds}/D_s$. We have considered the sources for $D_d < D_s$; however, sources with $D_d > D_s$ will also be lensed and will also give rise to relativistic images. Thus, all the sources of the universe will be mapped as relativistic images in the vicinity of the black hole (albeit as very faint images). Gravitational lensing with stellar-mass black holes will also give rise to relativistic images; however, unlike in the case of supermassive “black hole” lensing, these images will not be resolved from their primary and secondary images with present observational facilities.
Relativistic images as test for general relativity in strong gravitational field
================================================================================
For the Galactic “black hole” lens, Fig. 2 and Table 1 (see caption [(c)]{} ) show the angular positions of the two outermost sets of relativistic images (two images on each side of the optic axis) when a source position is given. In fact, there is a sequence of a large number of relativistic Einstein rings when the source, lens and observer are perfectly aligned, and when the alignment is “broken” there is a sequence of large number of relativistic images on both sides of the optic axis. However, for a given source position their magnifications decrease very fast as the angular position $\theta$ decreases (see Table 1), and therefore the outermost set of images, one on each side of the optic axis, is observationally the most significant. The angular separations among relativistic images are too small to be resolved with presently available instruments and therefore all these images would be at the same position; however, these relativistic images will be resolved from the primary and secondary images and thus resolution is not a problem for observation of relativistic images.
If we observe a full or “broken” Einstein ring near the centre of a massive dark object at the centre of a galaxy with a faint relativistic image of the same source at the centre of the ring, we would expect that the central (relativistic) image would disappear after a short period of time. If seen, this would be a great success of the general theory of relativity in a strong gravitational field.
Observation of relativistic images would also give an upper bound on the compactness of the lens. To get a relativistic image a light ray has to suffer a deflection by an angle $\hat{\alpha} > 3 \pi/2$. For the closest distance of approach $r_o = 3.208532 M$ the deflection angle $\hat{\alpha}
= 269.9999 \degree $ and therefore $r_o/M = 3.208532$ can be considered as an upper bound to the compactness of the lens. The fact that the magnification of a relativistic image decreases very fast as the source position increases from its perfect alignment with the lens and observer can be exploited to give a better estimate of the compactness of the lens. For the lens system considered in section four, the outermost relativistic Einstein ring has angular radius about $16.898$ microarcseconds and this is formed due to light rays bending at the closest distance of approach $r_o \approx 3.09023 M_{\odot}$ (see Table $3$). As a relativistic image can be observed only very close to a relativistic TCC, the above value of the $r_o/M$ gives an estimate of compactness of the massive dark object. There are some serious difficulties hindering the observation of the primary-secondary image pair near a galactic centre; the observation of relativistic images is even much more difficult. The extinction of electromagentic radiation near the line of sight to galactic nuclei would be appreciable; the smaller the wavelength, the larger the extinction. The interstellar scattering and radiation at several frequencies from the material accreting on the “black hole” would make these observations more difficult. Due to these obstacles no lensing event near a galactic centre has been observed till now, but it seems this is a very worthwhile project. There are some additional difficulties for observing relativistic images. First, these images are very much demagnified unless the source, lens and observer are highly aligned. When the source position $\beta$ decreases the magnification increases rapidly and therefore one may possibly get observable relativistic images, but only if the source, lens and observer are highly aligned ($\beta << 1$ microarcsecond) and the source has a large surface brightness. Quasars and supernovae would be ideal sources for observations of relativistic images. The number of observed quasars is low (about $10^4$, see in [@Wam98]) and therefore the probability that a quasar will be highly aligned along the direction of any galactic centre of observed galaxies is extremely small. Similarly, there is a very small probability that a supernova will be strongly aligned with any galactic centre. We considered a normal star in the Galaxy to be a point source (note that we took $D_{ds}/D_s = 1/2$). We cannot use the point source approximation when such a source is very close to the caustic ($\beta = 0$) and therefore studies of extended source lensing are needed. Second, if relativistic images were observed it would be for a short period of time because the magnification decreases very fast with increase in the source position; however, the time scale for observation of relativistic images will be greater for lensing of more distant sources. It is highly improbable that the relativistic images would in fact be observed in a short observing period and a long term project to search for such images would not have reasonable probability of success. Nevertheless the possibility remains that such images might be detected through lucky observations in the vicinity of galactic centers.
Summary
=======
We obtained a lens equation which allows an arbitrary large values of the deflection angle and used the deflection angle expression for the Schwarzschild metric obtained by Weinberg[@Wei72]. This gives the bending angle of a light ray passing through the Schwarzschild gravitational field for a closest distance of approach $r_o$ in the range $3M < r_o < \infty$. Using this we studied GL due to the Galactic “black hole” in a strong gravitational field.
Apart from a pair of images (primary and secondary) which are observed due to light deflection in a weak gravitational field, we find a sequence of large number of relativistic images on both sides of the optic axis due to large deflections of light in a strong gravitational field near the photon sphere $r_o = 3M$. Among these relativistic images, the outermost pair is observationally the most important. Though these relativistic images are resolved from the primary and secondary images, there are serious difficulties in observing them. However, if it were to succeed it would be a great triumph of the general theory of relativity and would also provide valuable information about the nature of massive dark objects. Observations of relativistic images would confirm the Schwarzschild geometry close to the event horizon; therefore these would strongly support the black hole interpretation of the lensing object. In the investigations in this paper we modelled the massive compact objects as Schwarzschild lens. However, it is worth investigating Kerr lensing to see the effect of rotation on lensing in strong gravitational field, especially when the lens has large intrinsic angular momentum to the mass ratio. There have been some studies of Kerr weak field lensing (see Rauch and Blandford[@RB94] and references therein). In passing, it is worth mentioning that any spacetime endowed with a photon sphere (as defined in Section $\ref{sec:DefAngle}$) and acting as a gravitational lens would give rise to relativistic images.
Thanks are due to H. M. Antia, M. Dominik, J. Kormendy, J. Lehar, and D. Narasimha for helpful correspondence, and J. Menzies and P. Whitelock for helpful discussions on the visibility of images. This research was supported by FRD, S. Africa.
Jr. S. Leibes, Phys. Rev. [**133**]{}, B835 (1964).
S. Refsdal, Mon. Not. Roy. Soc. [**128**]{}, 295 (1964).
R. R. Bourassa and R. Kantowski, Astrophys. J. [**195**]{}, 13 (1975).
P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco, [*Gravitational Lenses*]{} (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1992).
R. D. Blandford and R. Narayan, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**30**]{}, 311 (1992).
S. Refsdal and J. Surdej, Rep. Prog. Theor. Phys. [**56**]{}, 117 (1994).
R. Narayan and M. Bartelmann, “Lectures on Gravitational Lensing,” astro-ph/9606001.
J. Wambsganss, “Gravitational Lensing in Astronomy,” astro-ph/9812021.
D. Walsh, R. F. Carswell, and R. J. Weymann, Nature [**279**]{}, 381 (1979).
R. Lynds and V. Petrosian, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. [**18**]{}, 1014 (1986).
G. Soucail, B. Fort, Y. Mellier, and J. P. Picat, Astron. Astrophys. [**172**]{}, L14 (1987).
B. Paczyński, Nature [**325**]{}, 572 (1987).
J. A. Tyson, Astrophys. J. [**96**]{}, 1 (1988).
J. N. Hewitt J. N. [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**333**]{}, 537 (1988).
D. Richstone [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**395**]{}, A14 (1998).
S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, [*The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1973).
T. P. Kling, E. T. Newman, and A. Perez, “Iterative Approach to Gravitational Lensing Theory,” gr-qc/9908082.
S. Weinberg,[*Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity*]{} (Wiely, New York, 1972).
K. S. Virbhadra, D. Narasimha, and S. M. Chitre, Astron. Astrophys. [**337**]{}, 1 (1998).
K. P. Rauch and R. D. Blandford, Astrophys. J. [**421**]{}, 46 (1994).
[^1]: Email address : [email protected]
[^2]: Email address : [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We revisit a problem first introduced by Francis Hama in his 1962 *Physics of Fluids* article Streaklines in a Perturbed Shear Flow." Using a nascent computer, Hama calculated streaklines and pathlines for an inviscid shear flow containing a non-amplifying, sinusoidal, traveling-wave perturbation. He found that this simple flow field and perturbation produced intuitive pathlines, yet, the resulting streaklines were non-obvious and much more complex than the pathlines. He used this work to stress the importance of understanding the difference between flow visualization and measurement techniques, and that different techniques may reveal different information regarding the true character or behavior of the flow. This work revisits the Hama Problem and presents the original findings in a fluid dynamics video prepared for the 2013 Gallery of Fluid Motion.'
author:
- 'V. A. Miller'
- 'M. G. Mungal'
bibliography:
- 'library.bib'
title: 'The Hama Problem revisited: essential mixing in a free shear flow'
---
Introduction
============
A variety of techniques have enabled researchers to study and understand structure, turbulence, mixing, and the nuanced physics of fluid dynamics: hot wire anemometry can be used to sensitively and accurately measure fluctuating velocities; powerful PIV techniques can record time-resolved, 3D velocity fields; smoke wires, streams of dye can reveal fluid particle paths, streaks, and the scalar mixing field; tufts of string and oil slicks can inform us about boundary layer behavior; and sophisticated simulations are used to predict our observations or model the unobservable.
This work revisits a flow configuration raised by Hama [@Hama1962], a free shear flow with a non-amplifying, small amplitude, traveling-wave perturbation in $u$ and $v$. Hama computed the pathlines and streaklines for the flow, and he discovered a striking difference between the two. Neither form of flow visualization (i.e. pathlines and streaklines) is at all informative of the other, which raises questions as to what exactly the relevant nature or character of a flow field is, and how to best go about probing, measuring, or understanding that character. Building on the seminal work, we also compute timelines in addition to pathlines and streaklines, and we present the results in this manuscript as well as a video.
The perturbed shear flow
========================
![\[fig:unpertVel\]Schematic of flow field of interest. This flow field could be found, for example, in a jet exhausting in quiescent fluid.](staticPaper.pdf){width="6.5cm"}
![\[fig:petVel\]Vector field for perturbed vector field.](piv.png){width="9cm"}
The basic, unperturbed flow for this work is described by Eq. 1. $$u_o=1+tanh(y), \qquad v_o=0$$ This velocity field could be found in, for example, a jet flowing into quiescent fluid (Fig. \[fig:unpertVel\]). The perturbations in $u$ and $v$ are given by Eq. 2,
$$\begin{aligned}
u' &= &2a \text{ sech}(y) \tanh(y) \sin(\alpha(x-ct)) \\
v' &= &2a \text{ sech}(y) \cos(\alpha(x-ct)) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha$ and $c$, the wavenumber and wave velocity of the perturbation, are, respectively unity. $a$ is the perturbation amplitude, and we have chosen $a=0.015$ for this work. For reference, in the original work [@Hama1962], $a=$ $0.005$, $0.01$, and $0.02$ were investigated. The perturbation is a traveling-wave, where $v'$ is symmetric about $y=0$ depending on $\text{sech}(y)$, and $u'$ is the product of $\text{sech}(y)$ and $\tanh(y)$. For ease of computation and display of the results, we transform the coordinate frame of the velocity equations via $$\begin{aligned}
X&=&x/\lambda, \qquad Y=y/\lambda, \nonumber \\
T&=&ct/\lambda, \qquad \lambda=2\pi, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, axes in this work are labeled with uppercase variable names. Details of the transformation can be found in [@Hama1962]. Fluid particle paths are solved for using $MATLAB$ and its ordinary differential equation solver, $\texttt{ode45()}$. The perturbed velocity field at an instance in time is presented in Figure \[fig:petVel\].
Pathlines, streaklines, and timelines
=====================================
We first plot the pathlines of the flow (Fig. \[fig:paths\]); the pathlines presented are for fluid particles that are all released at $T=0$. Individual particles travel along sinusoidal-like paths, and the wavelength of each particle’s path depends upon its initial $Y$ location. Particles in the faster flow near the top of the domain travel downstream in less time than those at the bottom. Particle paths for particles near the top of the domain have a longer wavelength, because their convective velocity is larger relative to the perturbation wave velocity $c$, and, as expected, paths of particles near the bottom of the domain have shorter wavelengths. Particles released at other times follow pathlines of similar character to the ones shown here, that is, simple sinusoidal-like paths for which wavelength depends on the starting location of the particle. The pathlines are intuitive, yet, from them, the fluctuations in $u$ and $v$ observable in Figure \[fig:petVel\] are not immediately apparent.
![\[fig:paths\]Pathlines positioned at increments of $\Delta Y=.05$ centered about $Y=0$. Given the perturbed velocity field, pathlines are generally intuitive, suggesting a sinusoidal, traveling-wave perturbation. Pathlines presented are all released at $T=0$.](paths.png){width="9cm"}
For the same particle starting locations, streaklines at $T=20$ are shown in in Figure \[fig:singleStreaks\]. Streaklines are created by tracking individual particles of numerical dye,’ released at a constant rate from $X=0$. The streaklines are starkly different from the pathlines. Initially, near $X=0$, the streaklines are what we expect, i.e., sinusoidal patterns, but only a short distance downstream (i.e., around $X=2$), the streaks begin rolling up into cat’s-eye’ structures. Streaks originating above and below a certain $Y$ value (roughly, between $Y=\pm0.05$ for this case, referred to as the critical layer" in [@Hama1962]) are rolled into these structures. Above $Y\approx0.05$, particles convect downstream, leaving wavy streaklines, and below $Y\approx-.05$, the streaklines form their own, complicated, folded structure. Despite the streaklines rolling up into the cat’s-eye structures, no discrete vortices exist in the flow. Further downstream ($X>3$), we also observe a spreading out of dye particles as the filaments are stretched.
Streaklines generated at intervals of $\Delta Y = 0.005$ are shown in Figure \[fig:FullStreaks\], which highlights the complexity of the scalar mixing field, which has resulted from a simple analytic velocity field.
Lastly, we present timelines in Figure \[fig:timelines\], where a vertical band of dye is released from $X=0$, spanning from $Y$ from $-0.1$ to $0.1$, and timelines are released every $0.225$ units of time. Again, this vertical band of numerical dye is created by tracking individual particles of dye; each timeline contains $2000$ particles of dye, and again, we can see that as each timeline is stretched throughout the domain, the density of dye decreases, especially around the perimeter of the cat’s-eye structures. The first timeline released is stretched from about $X=2$ all the way to $X=8$, circumnavigating nearly an entire cat’s-eye structure. Other timelines indicate that depending upon when the timeline is released, its middle section (the black region) can either get caught inside the cat’s-eye, or it can be stretched out between the rollers.
{width="16cm"}
{width="16cm"}
{width="16cm"}
Conclusion
==========
In this brief manuscript, we revisit the original work of Francis Hama, computing the pathlines, streaklines, and timelines of a simple shear flow with a traveling-wave perturbation. In conclusion...practically no truth can be obtained from the streakline or pathline observations as to the nature of time-dependent phenomena." [@Hama1962]. The vector field, pathlines, streaklines, and timelines all reveal very different information regarding the fluctuating nature of the flow field and scalar mixing field.
V. A. Miller is supported by the William and Claudia Coleman Stanford Graduate Fellowship.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the cosmic web at redshifts $1.0 \leq z \leq 1.8$ using quasar systems based on quasar data from the SDSS DR7 QSO catalogue. Quasar systems were determined with a friend-of-friend (FoF) algorithm at a series of linking lengths. At the linking lengths $l \leq 30$ the diameters of quasar systems are smaller than the diameters of random systems, and are comparable to the sizes of galaxy superclusters in the local Universe. The mean space density of quasar systems is close to the mean space density of local rich superclusters. At larger linking lengths the diameters of quasar systems are comparable with the sizes of supercluster complexes in our cosmic neighbourhood. The richest quasar systems have diameters exceeding $500$ . Very rich systems can be found also in random distribution but the percolating system which penetrate the whole sample volume appears in quasar sample at smaller linking length than in random samples showing that the large-scale distribution of quasar systems differs from random distribution. Quasar system catalogues at our web pages (<http://www.aai.ee/~maret/QSOsystems.html>) serve as a database to search for superclusters of galaxies and to trace the cosmic web at high redshifts.'
---
Introduction
============
According to the contemporary cosmological paradigm the cosmic web formed and evolved from tiny density perturbations in the very early Universe by hierarchical growth driven by gravity ([@2009LNP...665..291V] and references therein). To understand how the cosmic web formed and evolved we need to describe and quantify it at low and high redshifts. Large galaxy redshift surveys like SDSS enable us to describe the cosmic web in our neighbourhood in detail. One source of information about the cosmic structures at high redshifts is the distribution of quasars — energetic nuclei of massive galaxies. Already decades ago several studies described large systems in quasar distribution ([@1982MNRAS.199..683W], [@1991MNRAS.249..218C], [@2012MNRAS.419..556C], [@2013MNRAS.429.2910C]) which are known as Large Quasar Groups (LQGs). LQGs may trace distant galaxy superclusters ([@1996MNRAS.282..713K]). The large-scale distribution of quasar systems gives us information about the cosmic web at high redshifts which are not yet covered by large and wide galaxy surveys.
The aim of our study is to study the high redshift cosmic web using data about quasar systems. We find quasar systems and analyse their properties and large-scale distribution at redshifts $1.0 \leq z \leq 1.8$ using quasar data from [@2010AJ....139.2360S] catalogue of quasars, based on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7.
We select from this catalogue a subsample of quasars in the redshift interval $1.0 \leq z \leq 1.8$, and apply $i$-magnitude limit $i = 19.1$. In order to reduce the edge effects of our analysis, we limit the data in the area of SDSS sky coordinate limits $-55 \leq \lambda \leq 55$ degrees and $-33 \leq \eta \leq 35$ degrees. Our final sample contains data of 22381 quasars. The mean space density of quasars is very low, approximately $1.1 \cdot 10^{-6}\mathrm{(h^{-1}Mpc)}^{-3}$, therefore it is important to understand whether their distribution differs from random distribution. To compare quasar and random distributions we generated random samples with the same number of points, and sky coordinate and redshift limits as quasar samples.
We assume the standard cosmological parameters: the Hubble parameter $H_0=100~
h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, the matter density $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.27$, and the dark energy density $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$.
Results
=======
We determined quasar and random systems with the friend-of-friend (FoF) algorithm at a series of linking lengths and present catalogues of quasar systems. FoF method collects objects into systems if they have at least one common neighbour closer than a linking length. At each linking length we found the number of systems in quasar and random samples with at least two members, calculated multiplicity functions of systems, and analysed the richness and size of systems. For details we refer to .
\
\
Up to the linking lengths approximately $50$ the number of quasar systems is larger than the number of systems in random catalogues (Fig. \[fig:nsysll\]), at larger linking lengths the number of systems becomes similar to that in random catalogue. The number of systems in both quasar and random catalogues reaches maximum at $60$ . At higher values of the linking lengths systems begin to join into larger systems and the number of systems decreases. Multiplicity functions in Fig. \[fig:mf\] show that at the linking length $l = 85$ about half of quasars join the richest quasar system — a percolation occurs. In random catalogues the richest system is much smaller than the richest quasar system. Therefore FoF analysis shows that the distribution of quasars and the properties of quasar systems differ from random at small and large linking lengths.
\
In Fig. \[fig:diam2070\] we compare the distribution of diameters (maximum distance between quasar pairs in a system) of quasar and random systems at the linking lengths $30$ and $70$ . At the linking length $30$ in the whole diameter interval the number of quasar systems with a given diameter is higher than that of random systems, the difference is statistically highly significant. At larger linking lengths ($l \geq 40$ ; we show this for $70$ ) the number of quasar systems with diameters up to $20$ is always larger than the number of random systems at these diameters. From diameters $\approx 30$ the number of systems of different diameter in quasar and random catalogues becomes similar. Among both quasar and random systems there are several very large systems with diameters larger than $500$ .
\
In Fig. \[fig:qso70nsysdmax\] we show the median, and minimum and maximum values of quasar system diameters vs. their richness at the linking lengths $50$ and $70$ . At the linking length $50$ the sizes of the richest quasar systems, $\approx 200$ , are comparable to the sizes of the richest superclusters in the local Universe ([@1994MNRAS.269..301E]). The mean space density of quasar systems of order of $10^{-7}\mathrm{(h^{-1}Mpc)}^{-3}$, this is close to the mean space density of local rich superclusters ().
The sizes of the largest quasar systems at $l = 70$ , $500 - 700$ , are comparable with the sizes of supercluster complexes in the local Universe ([@2011ApJ...736...51E], ). At this linking length we obtain systems of the same size also from the random catalogues.
\
We show in Fig. \[fig:qso70xy\] the distribution of quasars in systems of various richness at linking length $70$ in cartesian coordinates $x$, $y$, and $z$ (see ): $$\begin{array}{l}
x = -d \sin\lambda, \nonumber\\[3pt]
y = d \cos\lambda \cos \eta,\\[3pt]
z = d \cos\lambda \sin \eta,\nonumber
\end{array}
\label{eq:xyz}$$ where $d$ is the comoving distance, and $\lambda$ and $\eta$ are the SDSS survey coordinates. We plot in the figure also quasars from the richest systems at $l = 20$ (quasar triplets).
Visual inspection of Fig. \[fig:qso70xy\] shows that very rich quasar systems form a certain pattern. In some areas of the figure there are underdense regions between rich quasar systems with diameters of about $400$ (e.q. in the upper panel between $-1000 < x < 1000$ ). The size of underdense regions in this figure is much larger than the sizes of typical large voids in the local Universe (see ) but is close to the sizes of the largest voids covered by SDSS survey (, [@2012ApJ...759L...7P]). Very rich systems were found also from random catalogues but the percolation analysis shows that the large-scale distribution of quasar systems differs from random distribution. We shall analyse the large scale distribution of quasar systems in detail in another study.
The richest system at the linking length $l = 70$ at $x \approx 1000$ and $y \approx 2500$ is the Huge-LQG described in [@2013MNRAS.429.2910C]. The presence of very rich systems as supercluster complexes is an essential property of the cosmic web, and do not violate homogeneity of the universe at very large scales, as claimed by [@2013MNRAS.429.2910C].
Summary
=======
We determined quasar systems at a series of linking lengths, and found that at small linking lengths their diameters and space density are similar to those of rich galaxy superclusters in the local Universe. At the linking lengths $l \geq 50$ the diameters of the richest quasar systems are comparable with the sizes of supercluster complexes in our cosmic neighbourhood, exceeding $500$ . Systems of similar richness were determined also in random catalogues but the large-scale distribution of quasar systems differs from random distribution. We may conclude that quasar systems as markers of galaxy superclusters and supercluster complexes give us a snapshot of the high-redshift cosmic web. Quasar system catalogues serve as a database to search for high-redshift superclusters of galaxies and to trace the cosmic web at high redshifts.
I thank my coauthors Erik Tago, Heidi Lietzen, Changbom Park, Pekka Heinämäki, Enn Saar, Hyunmi Song, Lauri Juhan Liivamägi Jaan Einasto for enjoyable and fruitful collaboration.
The present study was supported by ETAG project IUT26-2, and by the European Structural Funds grant for the Centre of Excellence “Dark Matter in (Astro)particle Physics and Cosmology” TK120.
[55]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, R. G. & [Campusano]{}, L. E. 1991, *MNRAS*, 249, 218
, R. G., [Campusano]{}, L. E., [Graham]{}, M. J., & [S[ö]{}chting]{}, I. K. 2012, *MNRAS*, 419, 556
, R. G., [Harris]{}, K. A., [Raghunathan]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2013, *MNRAS*, 429, 2910
, M., [Einasto]{}, J., [Tago]{}, E., [Dalton]{}, G. B., & [Andernach]{}, H. 1994, *MNRAS*, 269, 301
, M., [Tago]{}, E., [Jaaniste]{}, J., [Einasto]{}, J., & [Andernach]{}, H. 1997, *A&AS*, 123, 119
, M., [Liivam[ä]{}gi]{}, L. J., [Tempel]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2011, *ApJ*, 736, 51
, M., [Liivam[ä]{}gi]{}, L. J., [Tago]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2011, *A&A*, 532, A5
, J., [Suhhonenko]{}, I., [H[ü]{}tsi]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2011, *A&A*, 534, A128
, M. and [Tago]{}, E. and [Lietzen]{}, H. [et al.]{} 2014, *A&A*, 568, A46
, B. V., [Kravtsov]{}, A. V., & [Lukash]{}, V. N. 1996, *MNRAS*, 282, 713
, L. J., [Tempel]{}, E., & [Saar]{}, E. 2012, *A&A*, 539, A80
, C., [Choi]{}, Y.-Y., [Kim]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2012, *ApJL*, 759, L7
, D. P., [Richards]{}, G. T., [Hall]{}, P. B., [et al.]{} 2010, *AJ*, 139, 2360
, R. & [Schaap]{}, W. 2009, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 665, Data Analysis in Cosmology, ed. V. J. [Mart[í]{}nez]{}, E. [Saar]{}, E. [Mart[í]{}nez-Gonz[á]{}lez]{}, & M.-J. [Pons-Border[í]{}a]{}, 291–413
, A. 1982, *MNRAS*, 199, 683
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the solvability complexity index (SCI) for unbounded selfadjoint operators on separable Hilbert spaces and perturbations thereof. In particular, we show that if the extended essential spectrum of a selfadjoint operator is convex, then the SCI for computing its spectrum is equal to 1. This result is then extended to relatively compact perturbations of such operators and applied to Schrödinger operators with compactly supported (complex valued) potentials to obtain SCI=1 in this case, as well.'
author:
- 'Frank Rösler[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: On The Solvability Complexity Index for Unbounded Selfadjoint Operators and Schrödinger Operators
---
Introduction
============
The problem of computing spectra of partial differential operators is fundamental to many problems in physics with real world applications. Perhaps one of the most prominent examples of this is quantum mechanics, where the possible bound state energies of a particle subject to a force described by a potential function $V$ are given by the eigenvalues of the corresponding Schrödinger operator $-\Delta+V$. Generically, the spectral problem of such an operator cannot be solved explicitly and one has to resort to numerical methods. By practical constraints, any computer algorithm, which might be used to compute the spectrum, will only be able to handle a finite amount of information about the operator and perform a finite number of arithmetic operations on this information (in practice, this “finite amount of information” is usually given by some sort of discretisation of the domain, which approximates the infinite dimensional spectral problem by a finite dimensional one). In other words, any algorithm will always “ignore” an infinite amount of information about the operator. One might hope that by increasing the dimension of the approximation (or decreasing the step size of the discretisation), one will eventually obtain a reasonable approximation of the spectrum. Hence, it is a legitimate question to ask:
*Given a class of operators $\Om$, does there exist a sequence of algorithms $\Gamma_n$ such that $\Gamma_n(T)\to\sigma(T)$ (in an appropriate sense) for all $T\in\Om$?*
It turns out that the answer to the above question is not always in the affirmative. Indeed, it has been shown in [@AHS] that if $\Om=L(\h)$ (the space of bounded operators on a separable Hilbert space $\h$), then for any sequence of algorithms there exists $T\in\Om$ whose spectrum is not approximated by that sequence. This observation has led to the wider definition of the so-called *Solvability Complexity Index* (SCI), introduced in [@Hansen11], of which we will now give a brief review.
\[def:computational\_problem\] A *computational problem* is a quadruple $(\Om,\Lambda,\Xi,\mathcal M)$, where
$\Om$ is a set, called the *primary set*,
$\Lambda$ is a set of complex valued functions on $\Om$, called the *evaluation set*,
$\mathcal M$ is a metric space,
$\Xi:\Om\to M$ is a map, called the *problem function*.
In the above definition, $\Om$ is the set of objects that give rise to the computational problem, $\Lambda$ plays the role of providing the information accessible to the algorithm, and $\Xi:\Om\to \mathcal M$ gives the quantity that one wishes to compute numerically.
An example of a computational problem in the sense of Definition \[def:computational\_problem\] is given by the spectral problem discussed above. Indeed, given a separable Hilbert space $\h$ with orthonormal basis $\{e_i\}$, one can choose $\Om=L(\h)$, $\mathcal M = \{\text{compact subsets of }\C\}$, equipped with the Hausdorff metric, and $\Xi(T)=\sigma(T)$. For the evaluation set one could choose $\Lambda:=\{f_{ij}\,|\,i,j\in\N\}$, where $f_{ij}(T) = \langle Te_i,e_j\rangle$ give the matrix elements of an operator with respect to the basis $\{e_i\}$.
\[def:Algorithm\] Let $(\Om,\Lambda,\Xi,\mathcal M)$ be a computational problem. An *arithmetic algorithm* is a map $\Gamma:\Om\to\mathcal M$ such that for each $T\in\Om$ there exists a finite subset $\Lambda_\Gamma(T)\subset\Lambda$ such that
the action of $\Gamma$ on $T$ depends only on $\{f(T)\}_{f\in\Lambda_\Gamma(T)}$,
for every $S\in\Om$ with $f(T)=f(S)$ for all $f\in\Lambda_\Gamma(T)$ one has $\Lambda_\Gamma(S)=\Lambda_\Gamma(T)$,
the action of $\Gamma$ on $T$ consists of performing only finitely many arithmetic operations on $\{f(T)\}_{f\in\Lambda_\Gamma(T)}$.
We will refer to any arithmetic algorithm simply as an *algorithm* from now on. For more general concepts the reader may consult [@AHS].
In [@AHS] it has been shown that if $\Om$ is the set of compact operators on a separable Hilbert space $\h$, then there exists a sequence of algorithms $\Gamma_n:\Om\to\C$ such that $\Gamma_n(T)\to\sigma(T)$ (in Hausdorff sense) for all $T\in\Om$, while for the set of bounded selfadjoint operators $\Om=\{T\in L(\h)\,|\,T^*=T\}$ this is not possible.
However, it turns out that there exists a family $\Gamma_{mn}$ of algorithms such that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\lim_{m\to\infty}\Gamma_{mn}(T) = \sigma(T)$$ for all bounded selfadjoint operators. Hence, it *is* possible to compute the spectrum of non-compact operators using algorithms, but the number of limits required may increase (this general phenomenon has first been observed by Doyle and McMullen in the context of finding zeros of polynomials, cf. [@DM]). In order to capture this phenomenon, the following definition has been made
\[def:Tower\] Let $(\Om,\Lambda,\Xi,\mathcal M)$ be a computational problem. A *tower of algorithms* of height $k$ is a family $\Gamma_{n_1,n_2,\dots,n_k}:\Om\to\mathcal M$ of arithmetic algorithms such that for all $T\in\Om$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi(T) = \lim_{n_k\to\infty}\cdots\lim_{n_1\to\infty}\Gamma_{n_1,n_2,\dots,n_k}(T).
\end{aligned}$$
The examples above show that the number of limits required to compute the problem function $\Xi$ is a measure for the numerical complexity of the underlying computational problem. This motivates the
A computational problem $(\Om,\Lambda,\Xi,\mathcal M)$ is said to have *Solvability Complexity Index* $k$ if $k$ is the smallest integer for which there exists a tower of algorithms of height $k$ that computes $\Xi$.
If a computational problem has solvability complexity index $k$, we write ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om,\Lambda,\Xi,\mathcal M)=k$.
In this article we are mainly interested in the spectral problem and will therefore write ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om,\Lambda)$ instead of ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om,\Lambda,\Xi,\mathcal M)$, where it is understood that $\Xi(T)=\sigma(T)$ and $\mathcal M$ is the set of closed subsets of $\C$ equipped with the Attouch-Wets metric $d_{\text{AW}}$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
d_{\text{AW}}(A,B) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty 2^{-i}\min\left\{ 1\,,\,\sup_{|x|<i}\left| \dist(x,A) - \dist(x,B) \right| \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ (Note that if $A,B\subset\C$ are bounded, then $d_{\text{AW}}$ coincides with the Hausdorff distance.)
In practice it is often important to have explicit estimates on the error $d\big(\Gamma_{n_1,\dots,n_k}(T),\Xi(T)\big)$ for all $T\in\Om$. It is straightforward to show, however, that such an estimate is impossible to obtain as soon as ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om,\Lambda,\Xi,\mathcal M)>1$ (cf. [@AHS Thm. 6.1]). Indeed, it is easy to see that if for a tower of algorithms $\Gamma_{n_1,\dots,n_k}$ there exist subsequences $n_1(m),\dots,n_k(m)$ such that $\Gamma_{n_1(m),\dots,n_k(m)}(T)<\f1m$ for all $T\in\Om$, then $\tilde\Gamma_m:=\Gamma_{n_1(m),\dots,n_k(m)}$ is in fact a tower of height 1 for $\Om$ and hence ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om)=1$.
For this reason, it is of particular interest to find classes $\Om$ of operators for which ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om,\Lambda,\sigma(\cdot))=1$ (with appropriately chosen $\Lambda$). The present article addresses precisely this question. In fact, we will show that for selfadjoint operators whose *extended essential spectrum* (see ) is convex, we have ${\operatorname{SCI}}=1$. This is done by explicitly constructing a sequence of arithmetic algorithms which computes the spectrum of any such operator. The result is then extended to certain relatively compact perturbations of such operators. We stress that the new aspect of our work is to consider the *shape of the essential spectrum* as a relevant criterion for reducing the numerical complexity of the spectral problem. As an application of this approach, we will show that our results apply to non-selfadjoint Schrödinger operators with certain well behaved potentials.
The problem of determining the SCI for spectral problems has previously been studied in [@Hansen11; @AHS] for operator in abstract Hilbert spaces, as well as for partial differential operators. Previous results include
#### Bounded operators:
Let $\h,\,\Lambda$ be as in the example above Definition \[def:Algorithm\]. It was shown in [@AHS Th. 3.3, Th. 3.7] that then $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om,\sigma(\cdot)) &= 3\quad\text{ if } \Om = L(\h) \\
{\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om,\sigma(\cdot)) &= 2\quad\text{ if } \Om = \{T\in L(\h)\,|\,T\text{ selfadjoint}\} \\
{\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om,\sigma(\cdot)) &= 1\quad\text{ if } \Om = \mathcal K(\h),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal K(\h)$ denotes the set of compact operators. The last bound ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\mathcal K(\h),\sigma(\cdot)) = 1$ is related to the fact that compact operators can be approximated in operator norm by finite range operators.
#### Schrödinger operators:
In [@AHS], the SCI for the spectral problem of Schrödinger operators with complex valued potentials $V$ has been studied. It has been shown that if $$\label{eq:AHS_Schroedinger}
\Om = \left\{-\Delta+V\,|\,V \text{ is sectorial and }|V(x)|\to\infty\text{ as }|x|\to\infty\right\},$$ then ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om,\sigma(\cdot))=1$. The proof relies on the fact that operators as in have compact resolvent.
In the case of *bounded* potentials, one lacks compact resolvent and the situation is somewhat more difficult. It has been shown in [@AHS Th. 4.2] that if $\Om$ denotes the set of Schrödinegr operators on $\R^d$ with $V$ bounded and of bounded variation, then ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om,\sigma(\cdot))\leq 2$. It has since then been an open problem, whether without any additional information the SCI of this problem is equal to one or two.
The SCI of certain unbounded operators in separable Hilbert spaces, whose matrix representation is banded, has been studied in [@Hansen11].
In this article, we will take a step towards closing this gap. We will prove that if $M>0$ and $\Om$ denotes the set of all Schrödinger operators $-\Delta+V$ with $\supp(V)\subset B_M(0)$ and $|\nabla V|\leq M$, then ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om,\sigma(\cdot))=1$ (for the precise statement, see Section \[sec:Schroedinger\]). This is done by first proving two abstract theorems about the SCI of selfadjoint operators which are of independent interest. The main theorems of this article are Theorems \[th:mainth\], \[th:perturbation\] and \[th:Schroedinger\].
The question as to wether the assumption on the support of $V$ is essential for having ${\operatorname{SCI}}=1$ remains an interesting open problem and will be addressed in future work.
Selfadjoint Operators {#sec:selfadjoint}
=====================
Let $\h$ be a separable Hilbert space and $\h_n\subset\h$ be a sequence of finite dimensional subspaces such that $\h_n\subset\h_{n+1}$ for all $n\in\N$ and $P_n\xrightarrow{s}I$, where $P_n$ denotes the orthogonal projection onto $\h_n$. Define
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Omega}
\Omega_1:=\Bigg\{T:\dom(T)\to\h \;\Bigg|\; \parbox{4.4cm}{$T \text{ selfadjoint, }\widehat\sigma_{e}(T)\text{ convex}\\[1mm]
\text{and }\bigcup_{n\in\N}\h_n\text{ is a core of }T$} \Bigg\},\end{aligned}$$
where $$\label{eq:extended_essential_spectrum}
\widehat\sigma_e(T)=\sigma_{e2}(T)\cup\begin{cases}
\{+\infty\}, &\text{if }T\text{ unbounded above}\\
\{-\infty\}, &\text{if }T\text{ unbounded below}
\end{cases}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{e2}(T)=\{\lambda\in \C\,|\, \exists (x_k)\subset\dom(T) : \|x_k\|=1\,\forall k,\, x_k\rightharpoonup 0,\, \|(T-\lambda)x_k\|\to 0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, for each $n\in\N$, let $\{e_1^{(n)},\dots,e_{k_n}^{(n)}\}$ be an orthonormal basis of $\h_n$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def_Lambda_1}
\Lambda_1 := \big\{ f_{i,j,n} \,|\, 1\leq i,j\leq k_n,\,n\in\N \big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{i,j,n}:T\mapsto \big\langle Te_i^{(n)},e_j^{(n)}\big\rangle$ are the evaluation functions producing the $(i,j)$th matrix elements. This is the set of information accessible to the algorithm.
\[th:mainth\] We have ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om_1,\Lambda_1,\sigma(\cdot))=1$.
Note that Theorem \[th:mainth\] in particular applies to bounded selfadjoint operators with convex essential spectrum. In this sense, Theorem \[th:mainth\] can be viewed as an extension of [@AHS Th. 3.7], where it was shown that ${\operatorname{SCI}}=1$ for the set of all *compact* operators (which naturally satisfy $\sigma_e(T)\subset\{0\}$).
Proof of Theorem \[th:mainth\]
------------------------------
Define the truncated operator $$\label{eq:Tndef}
T_n:=P_nT|_{\h_n}.$$ This operator can be represented by a finite dimensional (square) matrix with elements $(T_n)_{ij}=\big\langle Te_i^{(n)},e_j^{(n)}\big\rangle$. Moreover, let $G_n:=\f1n(\mathbb Z+i\mathbb Z)\cap B_n(0)\subset\C.$
\[lemma:finite\_testing\] Let $\lambda\in G_n$ and denote by $s(\cdot)$ the smallest singular value of a matrix. Then
For all $n$ and $\lambda$, we have $s(T_n-\lambda)=\|(T_n-\lambda)^{-1}\|^{-1}_{L(\h_n)}$.
For any $q>0$, testing whether $s(T_n-\lambda)>q$ requires only finitely many arithmetic operations on the matrix elements of $T_n$.
with the convention that $\|(T_n-\lambda)^{-1}\|^{-1}=0$ for $\lambda\in\sigma(T_n)$.
Part (i) was proved in [@Hansen11], while part (ii) follows by noting that $s(T_n-\lambda)>q$ is equivalent to $(T_n-\lambda)^*(T_n-\lambda)-q^2I$ being positive definite; see [@AHS Prop. 10.1] for a full proof.
For $n\in\N$ we define a map $\Gamma_n^{(1)}:\Om_1\to\{\text{closed subsets of }\C\}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T):=\left\{\lambda\in G_n\,\Big|\,s(T_n-\lambda)\leq\f1n\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, by the above lemma, each $\Gamma_n^{(1)}$ is an arithmetic tower of height one in the sense of Definition \[def:Tower\]. Clearly, $\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)\subset \sigma_{\f1n}(T_n)$ for all $n$ (where $\sigma_{\f1n}(\cdot)$ denotes the $\f1n$-pseudospectrum).
Next we prove a version of the second resolvent identity for our operator approximation.
\[lemma:strong\_on\_domain\] Let $T:\dom(T)\to\h$ be selfadjoint and $T_n$ be defined as in . Then each $T_n$ is selfadjoint on $\h_n$ and for any $u\in\h$ the implication (ii)$\Rightarrow$(i) holds, where
$(T_n-i)^{-1}P_nu\to (T-i)^{-1}u$,
$\big(P_nT-T_nP_n\big)(T-i)^{-1}u\to 0$.
We start by showing that each $T_n$ is selfadjoint. First note that each $T_n$ is automatically bounded, since the $\h_n$ are finite dimensional. Now let $x,y\in\h_n$. Then we have $$\label{eq:T_n_selfadjoint}
\begin{split}
\langle T_n x,y\rangle &= \langle P_n T x,y\rangle
= \langle Tx,P_n y\rangle
= \langle Tx , y\rangle\\
&= \langle x , Ty\rangle
= \langle P_nx,Ty\rangle
= \langle x,P_nTy\rangle
= \langle x,T_ny\rangle.
\end{split}$$ and hence $T_n$ is selfadjoint. To prove strong resolvent convergence, we proceed as follows. Since each $T_n$ is selfadjoint, $T_n-i$ is invertible with $\|(T_n-i)^{-1}\|=1$ for all $n$. Now note that on $\h$ $$\begin{aligned}
(T_n-i)^{-1}P_n - (T-i)^{-1} &= (T_n-i)^{-1}P_n(T-i)(T-i)^{-1}\\
&\qquad- (T_n-i)^{-1}(T_n-i)P_n(T-i)^{-1} \\
&\qquad\qquad- (I-P_n)(T-i)^{-1}\\[2mm]
&= (T_n-i)^{-1}\big(P_n(T-i)-(T_n-i)P_n\big)(T-i)^{-1} \\
&\qquad- (I-P_n)(T-i)^{-1}\\[2mm]
&= (T_n-i)^{-1}\big(P_nT-T_nP_n\big)(T-i)^{-1} \\
&\qquad- (I-P_n)(T-i)^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we have for $u\in\h$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\left((T_n-i)^{-1}P_n - (T-i)^{-1}\right)u\right\| &\leq \left\|(T_n-i)^{-1}\right\| \left\|(P_nT-T_nP_n)(T-i)^{-1}u\right\| \\
&\qquad+ \left\|(I-P_n)(T-i)^{-1}u\right\|\\[2mm]
&= \left\|(P_nT-T_nP_n)(T-i)^{-1}u\right\| \\
&\qquad+ \left\|(I-P_n)(T-i)^{-1}u\right\|
\end{aligned}$$ The second term on the right hand side converges to 0 since $P_n\to I$ strongly, while the first term converges to 0 by assumption.
\[lemma:strong\_if\_T\^2\] If $T$ is selfadjoint, $\bigcup_n\h_n$ form a core of $T$, and $T_n$ is defined as in , then $T_n\to T$ in strong resolvent sense.
First note that the condition $(P_nT-T_nP_n)(T-i)^{-1}u\to 0$ from Lemma \[lemma:strong\_on\_domain\] is equivalent to $P_nT(I-P_n)(T-i)^{-1}u\to 0$. Now, let $u\in (T-i)\big(\bigcup_n\h_n\big)$ (the image of $\bigcup_n\h_n$ under $T-i$). Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
P_nT(I-P_n)(T-i)^{-1}u\to 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, since $(T-i)^{-1}u\in\bigcup_n\h_n$, we have $(I-P_n)(T-i)^{-1}u=0$ for $n$ large enough, and hence the sequence is identically zero for almost all $n$.
Now from Lemma \[lemma:strong\_on\_domain\] we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ (T_n-i)^{-1}P_n - (T-i)^{-1} \right]u\to 0
\end{aligned}$$ for all $u\in (T-i)(\bigcup_n\h_n)$. But since $\bigcup_n\h_n$ is a core for $T$, the set $(T-i)\big(\bigcup_n\h_n\big)$ is dense in $\operatorname{ran}(T-i)=\h$. So if $w\in\h$ is arbitrary and $\eps>0$, we can choose $u\in (T-i)(\bigcup_n\h_n)$ such that $\|w-u\|<\eps$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\left[ (T_n-i)^{-1}P_n - (T-i)^{-1} \right]w\right\| &\leq \left\|\left[ (T_n-i)^{-1}P_n - (T-i)^{-1} \right](w-u)\right\|\\
&\qquad +\left\|\left[ (T_n-i)^{-1}P_n - (T-i)^{-1} \right]u\right\|\\
&\leq \left(\left\| (T_n-i)^{-1}\right\|+\left\| (T-i)^{-1} \right\|\right) \|w-u\|\\
&\qquad +\left\|\left[ (T_n-i)^{-1}P_n - (T-i)^{-1} \right]u\right\|\\
&\leq 2\eps +\left\|\left[ (T_n-i)^{-1}P_n - (T-i)^{-1} \right]u\right\|\\
&\to 2\eps
\end{aligned}$$ from which we conclude that $ (T_n-i)^{-1}P_n \to (T-i)^{-1}$ strongly on $\h$.
The following definitions from [@BMC], which are related to the essential spectrum, will be used frequently in the sequel. The *limiting essential spectrum:* $$\begin{aligned}
{\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}&:= \{\lambda\in \C\,|\, \exists x_k\in\dom(T_{n_k}) : \|x_k\|=1\,\forall k,\, x_k\rightharpoonup 0,\, \|(T_{n_k}-\lambda)x_k\|\to 0\},\end{aligned}$$ the limiting $\eps$-near spectrum: $$\begin{aligned}
{\Lambda_{e,\eps}\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)} &:= \{\lambda\in \C\,|\, \exists x_k\in\dom(T_{n_k}) : \|x_k\|=1\,\forall k,\, x_k\rightharpoonup 0,\, \|(T_{n_k}-\lambda)x_k\|\to \eps\},\end{aligned}$$ the essential numerical range $$\begin{aligned}
W_e(T) &:= \{\lambda\in \C\,|\, \exists x_k\in\dom(T) : \|x_k\|=1\,\forall k,\, x_k\rightharpoonup 0,\, \langle Tx_k,x_k\rangle \to \lambda \}\end{aligned}$$ and the limiting essential numerical range $$\begin{aligned}
W_e{\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}&:= \{\lambda\in \C\,|\, \exists x_k\in\dom(T_{n_k}) : \|x_k\|=1\,\forall k,\, x_k\rightharpoonup 0,\, \langle T_{n_k}x_k,x_k\rangle \to \lambda \}.\end{aligned}$$ The essential limiting spectrum was originally introduced in [@BBL] in the context of Galerkin approximation and later adapted to a more general framework in [@B18], where the set ${\Lambda_{e,\eps}\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}$ was introduced. The essential numerical range was originally introduced by Stampfli and Williams in [@SW] for bounded operators and recently extended to unbounded operators in [@BMC]. It was shown there that the essential numerical range is a convenient tool when studying spectral and pseudospectral pollution of operator approximations. This fact will prove very useful to our purpose as we shall see in the following.
\[lem:LambdaSigma\]
For any closed, densely defined operator $T$ on $\h$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\bigcap_{\eps>0} \bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps]} {\Lambda_{e,\delta}\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}\;\subset\; {\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}.
\end{aligned}$$
The above inclusion holds, if $\bigcap_{\eps>0} \bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps]}$ is replaced by $\bigcap_{k} \bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps_k]}$ for any sequence $(\eps_k)$ with $\eps_k\to 0$.
We first prove (i). Let $\lambda\in \bigcap_{\eps>0}\bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps]} {\Lambda_{e,\delta}\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}$. Then for all $\eps>0$ there exists $\delta\in(0,\eps]$ and a sequence $(x_k)$ with $x_k\in\dom(T_{n_k})$ (for some subsequence $(n_k)$) such that
- $\|x_k\|=1$ for all $k$
- $x_k\rightharpoonup 0$ as $k\to\infty$
- $\|(T_{n_k}-\lambda)x_k\|\to\delta$.
Hence, for every $m\in\N$ there exists a sequence $(x_k^{(m)})_{k\in\N}$ with $\bigl\|x_k^{(m)}\bigr\|=1$, $x_k^{(m)}\xrightharpoonup{k\to\infty}~0$ and $$\lim_{k\to\infty} \left\|(T_{n_k(m)}-\lambda)x_k^{(m)}\right\| <\f1m.$$ The notation $n_k(m)$ indicates that the corresponding subsequence of $(T_n)$ depends on $m$. Now, construct a diagonal sequence as follows. Since $\h$ is separable, the weak topology is metrisable on the unit ball. Let $d$ denote a corresponding metric. Now, for any given $m\in\N$, choose $k_m\in\N$ large enough such that $$\begin{aligned}
d\big(x_{k_m}^{(m)},0\big)&<\f1m\\
\left\|(T_{n_{k_m}(m)}-\lambda)x_{k_m}^{(m)}\right\| &<\f1m.
\end{aligned}$$ Then for the sequence $y_m:=x^{(m)}_{k_m}$, one has $\|y_m\|=1$ for all $m$, $d(y,0)\to 0$ and $\|(T_{n_{k_m}(m)}-\lambda)y_m\|\to 0$ as $m\to\infty$. Hence $\lambda\in{\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}$.
The proof of (ii) is now trivial, since the sequence of sets $\bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps]} {\Lambda_{e,\delta}\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}$ is shrinking with $\eps$.
Next, we prove convergence of the algorithm $\Gamma_n^{(1)}$. By the conditions in and Lemma \[lemma:strong\_on\_domain\] and Proposition \[lemma:strong\_if\_T\^2\], we have $T_n\xrightarrow{s}T$ for all $T\in\Om$. Let $\eps>0$. Then for large enough $n\in\N$ one has $\f1n<\eps$ and thus $$\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)\subset\sigma_{\f1n}(T_n)\subset\sigma_\eps(T_n).$$ According to [@B18 Th. 3.6 ii)], pseudospectral pollution of the approximation $T_n\to T$ is confined to $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_e{\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}\cup\bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps]}{\Lambda_{e,\delta}\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, if $\lambda_n\in\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)$ and $\lambda_n\to\lambda\in\C$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda &\in \sigma_\eps(T)\cup {\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}\cup\bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps]}{\Lambda_{e,\delta}\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}.\end{aligned}$$ Since this holds for any $\eps>0$, we immediately obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:liminc}
\lambda\in \bigcap_{\eps>0}\left[ \sigma_\eps(T)\cup {\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}\cup\bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps]}{\Lambda_{e,\delta}\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}\right].
\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:followsfrom4\] It follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda\in \sigma(T)\cup{\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}.
\end{aligned}$$
Let hold. Then
- Either there exists $\eps_0>0$ such that $\lambda\in \sigma_\eps(T)\cup{\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}$ for all $\eps\in(0,\eps_0)$, or
- there exists a sequence $\eps_k$ with $\eps_k\searrow0$ and $\lambda\in \bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps_k]}{\Lambda_{e,\delta}\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}$ for all $k$.
In the first case, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda &\in \bigcap_{\eps>0}\Big(\sigma_\eps(T)\cup{\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}\Big) \\
&= \left(\bigcap_{\eps>0}\sigma_\eps(T)\right)\cup{\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}\\
&= \sigma(T)\cup{\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}.
\end{aligned}$$ In the second case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda &\in \bigcap_{k\in\N}\bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps_k]}{\Lambda_{e,\delta}\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}\\
&\subset {\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)},
\end{aligned}$$ by Lemma \[lem:LambdaSigma\] (ii).
To conclude, we apply [@BMC Th. 6.1] to show that spectral pollution is in fact absent for $T\in\Omega_1$. Indeed, let $\lambda_n\in\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)$ with $\lambda_n\to\lambda$. Then by Lemma \[lem:followsfrom4\] and [@BMC Prop. 5.6, Th. 6.1], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda &\in \sigma(T)\cup{\sigma_e\big((T_n)_{n\in\N}\big)}\\
&\subset\sigma(T)\cup W_e(T)\\
&= \sigma(T)\cup\operatorname{conv}(\widehat\sigma_e(T))\setminus\{\pm\infty\}\\
&= \sigma(T)\cup \sigma_e(T)\\
&= \sigma(T).\end{aligned}$$ It remains to prove spectral inclusion, i.e. nothing is missed by $\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)$.
For every $\lambda\in\sigma(T)$ there exist $\lambda_n\in\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)$ such that $\lambda_n\to\lambda$.
Let $\lambda\in\sigma(T)$. A simple adaption of the proof of [@RS Th. VIII.24] shows that there exists a sequence $(\mu_n)$ with $\mu_n\in\sigma(T_n)$ and $\mu_n\to\lambda$.
For each $n$, there exists $\lambda_n\in G_n$ such that $|\mu_n-\lambda_n|<\f{1}{n}$ and hence $\|(T_n-\lambda_n)^{-1}\|_{L(\h_n)}\geq n$ which implies $\lambda_n\in\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)$. Since $|\mu_n-\lambda_n|\to 0$ and $\mu_n\to\lambda$, it follows that $\lambda_n\to\lambda$.
#### Conclusion.
We have shown that
If $\lambda_n\in\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)$ and $\lambda_n\to\lambda$, then $\lambda\in\sigma(T)$.
If $\lambda\in\sigma(T)$, then there exist $\lambda_n\in\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)$ with $\lambda_n\to\lambda$.
It only remains to show that this implies Attouch-Wets convergence. We recall that $d_{\mathrm{AW}}(X_n,X)\to 0$ if and only if $d_K(X_n,X)\to 0$ for all $K\subset \C$ compact, where $$\begin{aligned}
d_K(X,Y) := \max\left\{ \sup_{x\in X\cap K}\dist(x,Y)\,,\,\sup_{y\in Y\cap K}\dist(y,X) \right\}.\end{aligned}$$
\[prop:AW\_convergence\] If (a), (b) above hold, then $d_{\mathrm{AW}}(\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T),\sigma(T))\to 0$.
Let $K\subset\C$ be compact. We will show that if (a), (b) hold, then both distances $\sup_{z\in \Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)\cap K}\dist(z,\sigma(T))$ and $\sup_{w\in \sigma(T)\cap K}\dist\big(w,\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)\big)$ converge to zero. We begin with the latter.
Let $\eps>0$. For all $w\in\sigma(T)\cap K$, the ball $B_\eps(w)$ contains infinitely many elements $z_n\in\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)$, by (b). The collection $\{B_\eps(w)\,|\,w\in \sigma(T)\cap K\}$ forms an open cover of the compact set $\sigma(T)\cap K$. Hence, there exist finitely many $w_1,\dots ,w_k\in \sigma(T)\cap K$ such that $B_\eps(w_1),\dots,B_\eps(w_k)$ cover $\sigma(T)\cap K$. Now, any $w\in \sigma(T)\cap K$ is contained in some $B_\eps(w_i)$ and hence $\dist(w,\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T))<\eps$ for any $w\in\sigma(T)\cap K$, as soon as $n=n(i)$ is large enough. But since there are only finitely many $B_\eps(w_i)$, one will have $\dist(w,\Gamma_{n_0}^{(1)}(T))<2\eps$ for all $w\in\sigma(T)\cap K$ for $n_0 = \max\{n_i\,|\,i=1,\dots,k\}$.
To show that $\sup_{z\in \Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)\cap K}\dist(z,\sigma(T))\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, note that since all sets $\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)\cap K$ are compact, we can choose a sequence $z_n\in\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)\cap K$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{z\in \Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)\cap K}\dist(z,\sigma(T)) = \dist(z_n,\sigma(T)).
\end{aligned}$$ Since the sequence $(z_n)$ is obviously bounded, we can extract a convergent subsequence $z_{n_j}\to z_0\in K$. Now use assertion (a) from above to conclude that in fact $z_0\in\sigma(T)\cap K$. This readily implies $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{z\in \Gamma_{n_j}^{(1)}(T)\cap K}\dist(z,\sigma(T)) &= \dist(z_{n_j},\sigma(T))\to 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Since the same reasoning can be applied to every subsequence of the sequence $$\left(\sup_{z\in \Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)\cap K}\dist(z,\sigma(T))\right)_{n\in\N},$$ we conclude that the whole sequence converges to zero.
Relatively Compact Perturbations {#sec:Perturbations}
================================
In this section we show that Theorem \[th:mainth\] remains true for certain relatively compact, bounded perturbations of selfadjoint operators. More precisely, we have
\[th:perturbation\] Define a computational problem by $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_2&:=\left\{H=T+V:\dom(T)\to\h \;\Bigg|\; \parbox{7.7cm}{$T \text{ \rm selfadjoint, semibounded, }\bigcup_{n\in\N}\h_n\text{ \rm core for } T,\\
\sigma(T)=\sigma_{e5}(T), \;\;\widehat\sigma_e(T)\text{ \rm convex, }\\
V\in L(\h)\text{ \rm and } V,V^*\text{ \rm are } $T$\text{\rm-compact.}
$} \right\}
\end{aligned}$$ (where $\sigma_{e5}(T)$ will be defined below). For every $H\in\Om_2$, choose a decomposition $H=T+V$ as in the definition of $\Om_2$ and define the maps $s_T(H):=T$ and $s_V(H):=V$. Then let $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_2 &:= \left\{ f_{i,j,n}\circ s_T\,|\,1\leq i,j\leq n,\;n\in\N \right\}\cup \left\{ f_{i,j,n}\circ s_V\,|\,1\leq i,j\leq n,\;n\in\N \right\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{i,j,n}$ are the evaluation functions producing the $(i,j)$th matrix elements (see ). Then one has ${\operatorname{SCI}}(\Om_2,\Lambda_2,\sigma(\cdot))=1$.
Note that the information provided to the algorithm in $\Lambda_2$ includes the decomposition of $H\in\Om_2$ into a selfadjoint part $T$ and a perturbation $V$. This means, that the algorithm *does not have to compute this decomposition*. It gets it for free. This is a reasonable assumption in many applications as we will see in Section \[sec:Schroedinger\].
Note the additional assumption $\sigma(T)=\sigma_{e5}(T)$ in the selfadjoint part $T$. This will be needed later in order to exclude spectral pollution of the algorithm.
Proof of Theorem \[th:perturbation\]
------------------------------------
#### Specrtum of $\boldsymbol H$.
The proof of Theorem \[th:perturbation\] is via perturbation theory. We first focus on the spectrum of an operator $H\in\Om_2$ and recall some of the varying definitions of essential spectra. In Section \[sec:selfadjoint\], we introduced the set $\sigma_{e2}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{e2}(H):=\{\lambda\in \C\,|\, \exists x_k\in\dom(H) : \|x_k\|=1\,\forall k,\, x_k\rightharpoonup 0,\, \|(T-\lambda)x_k\|\to 0\}.\end{aligned}$$ We will need another version of the essential spectrum, which is sometimes denoted $\sigma_{e5}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{e5}(H):=\C\setminus\Delta_5(H),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_5(H)$ denotes the union of all components of the set $\{\lambda\in\C\,|\,H-\lambda\text{ is semi-Fredholm}\}$ which intersect $\rho(H)$. For more details, cf. [@EE Ch. IX]. The following results are classical.
\[th:EE\] For any closed, densely defined operator $H$ on $\h$, one has $\lambda\notin\sigma_{e5}(H)$ if and only if $T-\lambda$ is Fredholm with $\operatorname{ind}(T-\lambda)=0$ and a deleted neighbourhood of of $\lambda$ lies in $\rho(H)$.
In other words, if $\lambda\notin\sigma_{e5}(H)$, then $\lambda$ is an isolated eigenvalue of finite multiplicity. Furthermore, the following perturbation result is known.
\[th:RS\] Let $T$ be a selfadjoint operator on $\h$ and $V$ relatively compact w.r.t. $T$. Then
$H:=T+V$ is closed on $\dom(T)$ and
$\sigma_{e5}(H)=\sigma_{e5}(T)$.
From Theorems \[th:EE\] and \[th:RS\] we immediately conclude that for all $H\in\Om_2$ the spectrum of $\h$ is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(H) = \sigma(T)\cup\{\lambda_1, \lambda_2,\dots\},\end{aligned}$$ with isolated eigenvalues $\lambda_i\in\C$.
#### Strong resolvent convergence.
Let $P_n:\h\to\h_n$ be defined as in Section \[sec:selfadjoint\] and set $V_n:=P_nV|_{\h_n}$.
\[lemma:V\_n\_convergence\] For $V_n$ defined as above, we have the following
$(V_n)^* = (V^*)_n$ (i.e. compression to $\h_n$ commutes with taking the adjoint) and
$V_nP_n\to V$ strongly in $\h$.
$V_n^*P_n\to V^*$ strongly in $\h$.
Assertion (i) is easily shown by an analogous calculation to .
To see assertion (ii), let $u\in\h$ and note that then $P_nu\to u$ strongly. By continuity of $V$, it immediately follows that $VP_nu\to Vu$ in $\h$. Hence, from the definition of $V_n$ we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
V_nP_nu &= P_nV|_{\h_n}P_nu = \underbrace{P_n}_{\to I\text{ strongly}}\underbrace{VP_nu}_{\to Vu} \,\to\, Vu.
\end{aligned}$$ Assertion (iii) now immediately follows by combining (i) and (ii).
The next lemma shows that even the perturbed operators $H_n$ converge in strong resolvent sense.
\[lemma:H\_conv\_strongly\] For $H\in\Om_2$ and $H_n=P_nH|_{\h_n}$, one has $H_n\to H$ and $H_n^*\to H^*$ in strong resolvent sense.
Let us first note that for $H=T+V$ as in the definition of $\Om_2$ and $z\in\rho(H_n)\cap\rho(H)$ we have the following decomposition of the resolvents $$\begin{aligned}
(H\!-\!z)^{-1}\!\! -\! (H_n\!-\!z)^{-1}\!P_n &= (T\!-\!z)^{-1}\!\left[ I\!+\!V(T\!-\!z)^{-1} \right]^{-1}\!\!\! -\! (T_n\!-\!z)\!\left[ I\!+\!V_n(T_n\!-\!z)^{-1} \right]^{-1}\!\!P_n \nonumber \\[1mm]\nonumber
&= (T_n\!-\!z)^{-1}\!\Big[ P_n\!\left( I\!+\!V(T\!-\!z)^{-1} \right)^{-1} \!\!\! -\!\left( I\!+\!V_n(T_n\!-\!z)^{-1} \right)^{-1}\!P_n \Big]\\
& \quad + \Big[ (T_n-z)^{-1}P_n - (T-z)^{-1} \Big]\!\left(I+V(T-z)^{-1}\right)^{-1}\,. \label{eq:H_decomposition}
\end{aligned}$$ Note that since $V$ is bounded and $T$ is selfadjoint, it is easy to find $z\in\rho(H)$ such that $z\in\rho(H_n)$ for all $n$ by choosing $\im(z)$ large enough. In fact, a standard Neumann series argument shows that for $|\im(z)|>1+\|V\|$ one has $$\label{eq:uniform_resolvent_bound}
\begin{split}
\left\|(H_n-z)^{-1}\right\| &\leq \left\|(T_n-z)^{-1}\left(I+V_n(T_n-z)^{-1}\right)^{-1}\right\|\\
&\leq \left(\left\|(T_n-z)^{-1}\right\|^{-1}-\|V_n\|\right)^{-1}\\
&\leq \left(|\im(z)|-\|V\|\right)^{-1}\\
&\leq 1
\end{split}$$
For such $z$, in order to estimate $(H-z)^{-1} - (H_n-z)^{-1}P_n$, we will estimate each term on the right hand side of in turn. We start with the second term. For arbitrary $u\in\h$ the term $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\Big[ (T_n-z)^{-1}P_n - (T-z)^{-1} \Big]\!\left(I+V(T-z)^{-1}\right)^{-1}u\right\|
\end{aligned}$$ goes to 0 as $n\to\infty$, since $(T_n-z)^{-1}P_n \to (T-z)^{-1}$ strongly by Proposition \[lemma:strong\_if\_T\^2\].
In order to treat the first term on the right hand side of , we use the second resolvent identity. In fact, the term $(T_n-z)^{-1}\big[P_n(I+V(T-z)^{-1})^{-1}-(I+V_n(T_n-z)^{-1} )^{-1}P_n\big]$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
(T_n\!-\!z)^{-1}\!\left(I+V_n(T_n\!-\!z)^{-1}\right)^{-1}\!\left[V_n(T_n\!-\!z)^{-1}P_n - P_nV(T\!-\!z)^{-1}\right]\!\left(I+V(T\!-\!z)^{-1}\right)^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ The norm of this operator, applied to $u\in\h$ is controlled by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|(T_n\!-\!z)^{-1}\!\left(I+V_n(T_n\!-\!z)^{-1}\right)^{-1}\right\|\left\|\left[V_n(T_n\!-\!z)^{-1}P_n - P_nV(T\!-\!z)^{-1}\right]\!\left(I+V(T\!-\!z)^{-1}\right)^{-1}u\right\|.
\end{aligned}$$ By our choice of $z$, the first factor is less than 1 (see eq. ). Setting $v:=\left(I+V(T-z)^{-1}\right)^{-1}u$ to simplify notation, it remains to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\left[V_n(T_n-z)^{-1}P_n - P_nV(T-z)^{-1}\right]v\right\|.
\end{aligned}$$ But this clearly converges to 0 as $n\to\infty$, since $V_nP_n\to V$ and $(T_n-z)^{-1}P_n \to (T-z)^{-1}$ strongly by Proposition \[lemma:strong\_if\_T\^2\] and Lemma \[lemma:V\_n\_convergence\] (ii).
Finally, we note that the strong convergence of $H_n^*$ follows immediately from the above calculations and Lemma \[lemma:V\_n\_convergence\].
#### The algorithm.
The algorithm for $\Om_2,\Lambda_2$ is defined almost identically to that in Section \[sec:selfadjoint\]. Namely, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Gamma2}
\Gamma_n^{(2)}(H):=\left\{ \lambda\in G_n\,\bigg|\, \min\left\{s(H_n-\lambda),s(H_n^*-\overline\lambda)\right\}\leq\f1n \right\}\cup\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T).\end{aligned}$$ Note that we have $\min\{s(M-\lambda),s(M^*-\overline\lambda)\}=\|(M-\lambda)^{-1}\|^{-1}$ for any $n\times n$ matrix $M$ (cf. [@Hansen11]). Since we have already shown that $\Gamma_n^{(1)}$ approximates $\sigma(T)$ correctly and that $\sigma(T)=\sigma_{e5}(T)=\sigma_{e5}(H)$, we know that $\Gamma_n^{(2)}$ will not miss anything in $\sigma_{e5}(H)$. Thus, it only remains to prove absence of spectral pollution and spectral inclusion for the discrete set $\sigma(H)\setminus\sigma_{e5}(H)$ for the algorithm $$\tilde\Gamma_n(H):=\left\{ \lambda\in G_n\,\bigg|\, \min\left\{s(H_n-\lambda),s(H_n^*-\overline\lambda)\right\}\leq\f1n \right\}$$ This will be done in the remainder of this section.
However, let us first take a moment to assure that $\Gamma_n^{(2)}$ defines a reasonable algorithm. Clearly, each $\Gamma_n^{(2)}$ depends only on $\big\langle Te_i^{(n)},e_j^{(n)}\big\rangle$ and $\big\langle Ve_i^{(n)},e_j^{(n)}\big\rangle$, $1\leq i,j\leq k_n$. Moreover, by Lemma \[lemma:finite\_testing\] it only requires finitely many algebraic operations on these numbers to determine whether $\lambda\in G_n$ belongs to the set $\left\{ \lambda\,|\, \min\left\{s(H_n-\lambda),s(H_n^*-\overline\lambda)\right\}\leq\f1n \right\}$. Finally, since $\Lambda_2$ contains all matrix elements $\big\langle Te_i^{(n)},e_j^{(n)}\big\rangle$, it follows from the comments made in Section \[sec:selfadjoint\] that $\Gamma_n^{(1)}$ is an admissible algorithm as well.
\[Remark\] We note that the choice $\f1n$ as an upper bound for $s(H_n-\lambda)$ in is arbitrary. The proof below will show that one could equally well have chosen $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi_n(H)&:=\left\{ \lambda\in G_n\,\bigg|\, \min\left\{s(H_n-\lambda),s(H_n^*-\overline\lambda)\right\}\leq\f3n \right\}\cup\Gamma_n^{(1)}(T)
\end{aligned}$$ instead of $\Gamma^{(2)}_n(H)$. This fact will be used in Section \[sec:Schroedinger\].
#### Spectral pollution.
Let us prove that the approximation $\Gamma_n^{(2)}(H)$ does not have spectral pollution for $H\in\Om_2$. To this end, note that again $\tilde \Gamma_n(H)\subset\sigma_\eps(H_n)$ for $\eps>0$ fixed and $n$ large enough. According to [@B18 Th. 3.6 ii)], $\eps$-pseudospectral pollution of the approximation $H_n\to H$ is confined to $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_e\big( (H_n)_{n\in\N} \big)\cup\sigma_e\big( (H_n^*)_{n\in\N} \big)^*\cup\bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps]}\Lambda_{e,\delta}\big( (H_n)_{n\in\N} \big).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, for any sequence $\lambda_n\in\tilde\Gamma_n(H)$ with $\lambda_n\to\lambda\in\C$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda\in \bigcap_{\eps>0}\left(\sigma_\eps(H)\cup\sigma_e(H_n)_{n\in\N}\cup\sigma_e\big( (H_n^*)_{n\in\N} \big)^*\cup\bigcup_{\delta\in(0,\eps]}\Lambda_{e,\delta}\big( (H_n)_{n\in\N} \big)\right).\end{aligned}$$ We conclude from Lemmas \[lem:LambdaSigma\] and \[lem:followsfrom4\] that in fact $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda\in \sigma(H)\cup\sigma_e\big( (H_n)_{n\in\N} \big)\cup\sigma_e\big( (H_n^*)_{n\in\N} \big)^*.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by [@BMC Th. 6.1] we have $\sigma_e\big( (H_n)_{n\in\N} \big)\cup\sigma_e\big( (H_n^*)_{n\in\N} \big)^*\subset W_e(H)$ and hence $\lambda\in \sigma(H)\cup W_e(H)$. In order to exclude spectral pollution it only remains to prove $W_e(H)\subset \sigma(H)$.
\[lemms:W\_in\_sigma\] For $H=T+V\in\Om_2$ one has $W_e(H)\subset\sigma_e(H)$.
Let $H=T+V$ with $T$ selfadjoint, semibounded and $V\in L(\h)$ such that $V,\,V^*$ are $T$-compact. Then denoting $\re(V):=\f12(V+V^*)$ and $\im(V):=\f{1}{2i}(V-V^*)$ we have that $V=\re(V)+i\im(V)$ with $\re(V),\,\im(V)$ relatively compact w.r.t. $T$. Applying [@BMC Th. 4.5] we conclude that $W_e(H)=W_e(T)$.
But now by our assumptions on $T$, we can see from [@BMC Th. 3.8] that $$W_e(T)=\operatorname{conv}\big(\widehat\sigma_e(T)\big)\setminus\{\pm\infty\}\subset\sigma_e(T) = \sigma_e(H).$$
Overall we have shown that for any sequence $\lambda_n\in\tilde\Gamma_n(H)$ which converges to some $\lambda\in\C$ we necessarily have $\lambda\in\sigma(H)$, in other words, spectral pollution does not exist.
#### Spectral inclusion.
It remains to show that the approximation $(\Gamma_n^{(2)}(H))$ is spectrally inclusive, i.e. that for any $\lambda\in\sigma(H)$ there exists a sequence $\lambda_n\in\Gamma_n^{(2)}(H)$ such that $\lambda_n\to\lambda$. As explained above, the existence of such a sequence is already guaranteed for all $\lambda\in\sigma_{e5}(H)$.
For every $\lambda\in\sigma(H)\setminus\sigma_{e5}(H)$ there exists a sequence $\lambda_n\in\tilde\Gamma(H)$ with $\lambda_n\to\lambda$.
First note that by Theorem \[th:EE\] $\lambda$ is an isolated point. Moreover, we have seen in the proof of Lemma \[lemms:W\_in\_sigma\] that $\sigma_e\big( (H_n)_{n\in\N} \big)\cup\sigma_e\big( (H_n^*)_{n\in\N} \big)^*\subset\sigma_e(H)$ and hence $\lambda$ does not belong to this set either. From Lemma \[lemma:H\_conv\_strongly\] and [@B18 Th. 2.3 i)] we conclude that there exists a sequence $\mu_n\in\sigma(H_n)$ with $\mu_n\to\lambda$.
Now, by definition of $G_n$, for each $n$ there exists $\lambda_n\in G_n$ such that $|\mu_n-\lambda_n|<\f1n$ and hence $\|(H_n-\lambda_n)^{-1}\|_{L(\h_n)}\geq n$ which implies $\lambda_n\in\tilde\Gamma_n(H)$. Since $|\mu_n-\lambda_n|\to 0$ and $\mu_n\to\lambda$, it follows that $\lambda_n\to\lambda$.
#### Conclusion.
Overall we have shown that
- If $\lambda_n\in\Gamma_n^{(2)}(H)$ and $\lambda_n\to\lambda$, then $\lambda\in\sigma(H)$.
- If $\lambda\in\sigma(H)$, then there exist $\lambda_n\in\Gamma_n^{(2)}(H)$ with $\lambda_n\to\lambda$.
As in Proposition \[prop:AW\_convergence\] this implies $d_{\mathrm{AW}}\big(\Gamma_n^{(2)}(H),\sigma(H)\big)\to 0$.
Application to Schrödinger Operators {#sec:Schroedinger}
====================================
In this section we will apply the results of Sections \[sec:selfadjoint\] and \[sec:Perturbations\] to Schrödinger operators on $L^2(\R^d)$. More specifically, for fixed $M>0$ and $C\subset\R^d$ compact we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def_Omega3}
\Om_3 &:= \left\{ -\Delta+V\,\big|\,V\in \mathcal C^1(\R,\C),\, \supp(V)\subset C,\, \|V\|_{\mathcal C^1}\leq M\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\|V\|_{\mathcal C^1} = \|V\|_\infty+\|\nabla V\|_\infty$. Since in the above definition the potential functions $V$ are compactly supported and bounded by $M$, every $H\in\Om_3$ is a relatively compact perturbation of the free Laplacian with domain $H^2(\R^d)$. In fact, our assumptions on $V$ have been chosen such that every $H\in\Om_3$ even satisfies all conditions formulated in the set $\Om_2$ in Theorem \[th:perturbation\].
In order to define the computational problem, we choose a finite lattice in $\R^d$ $$\begin{aligned}
L_n := \left\{\f in \;\Big|\;i\in \mathbb Z^d, |i|<n \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, let $\h_n$ denote the subspace of $L^2(\R^d)$ spanned by all characteristic functions of cubes of edge length $\f1n$ with centres inside a ball of radius $n$: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat\h_n:=\operatorname{span}\left\{ \chi_{i+[0,\f1n)^d}\,\Big|\,i\in L_n \right\}\end{aligned}$$ It is easily seen by smooth approximation that $P_{\widehat\h_n}\to I$ strongly in $L^2(\R^d)$. However, none of the basis functions $\chi_{i+[0,\f1n)^d}$ are contained in the domain of $-\Delta$. In order to circumvent this, the space we will actually work with will be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hn_Def}
\h_n &:=\operatorname{span}\left\{ \widehat\chi_{i+[0,\f1n)^d}\,\Big|\, i\in L_n \right\},\end{aligned}$$ where the hat denotes the Fourier transform in $L^2(\R^d)$. For any enumeration $i_k$ of the set $L_n$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
e_k^{(n)}:=n^{\f d2}\cdot\widehat\chi_{i_k+[0,\f1n)^d},\end{aligned}$$ where the normalisation constant $n^{\f d2}$ is chosen such that $\big\|e_k^{(n)}\big\|_{L^2(\R^d)}=1$ for all $n\in\N$. These are smooth functions in $L^2(\R^d)$ and it is easily checked that their first and second derivatives are again in $L^2(\R^d)$. We note that the functions $e_k^{(n)}$ can be calculated explicitly. Indeed, one has $$\begin{aligned}
e_k^{(n)}(\xi) = \left(\f{n}{2\pi}\right)^{\f d2}\prod_{j=1}^d\f{e^{\text{i}\xi_j((i_k)_j+\f1n)} - e^{\text{i}\xi_j (i_k)_j}}{\xi_j},\end{aligned}$$ where $(i_k)_j$ denotes the $j$’th component of the vector $i_j$ and $\xi=(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_d)\in\R^d$. Using this explicit representation, it can be easily seen that we have the following.
\[lemma:e\_k-Bound\] For each $n\in\N$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\big\|e_k^{(n)}\big\|_\infty, \,\big\|\nabla e_k^{(n)}\big\|_\infty\leq (2\pi)^{-\f d2}dn^{3-\f{d}{2}}
\end{aligned}$$ for all $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$.
From the definition of $e_k^{(n)}$ it follows by direct calculation that $$\begin{aligned}
\big\|e_k^{(n)}\big\|_\infty &< (2\pi n)^{-\f d2},\\
\big\|\del_j e_k^{(n)}\big\|_\infty &< (2\pi)^{-\f d2}\f{n^{-\f d2+1}}{2}\left( \left((i_k)_j+\tfrac1n\right)^2 - (i_k)_j^2 \right)
\end{aligned}$$ from which the assertion follows. Note that the bound in the second equation can be made independent of $k$, because $i_k\in L_n\subset B_n(0)$ for all $k$.
The information accessible to the algorithm will be the set $$\label{eq:def_Lambda_3}
\begin{split}
\Lambda_3 &:= \left\{ \rho_x \,|\,x\in\R^d\right\}\cup \left\{e_k^{(n)}(i)\,\Big|\,i\in l^{-1}\mathbb Z^d,\, l\in\N,\;k\in\{1,\dots,n\},\;n\in\N\right\}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \cup \bigg\{\tfrac{n\delta_{mk}}{3}\sum_{j=1}^d\left( \left((i)_j+\tfrac1n\right)^3 - (i)_j^3 \right)\,\Big|\, i\in L_n,\; n\in\N \bigg\}
\end{split}$$ where $\rho_x(V)=V(x)$ are the evaluation functionals and $e_k^{(n)}(i)$ denote constant functions that map $V$ to the number $e_k^{(n)}(i)$. The meaning of the constants $\tfrac{n\delta_{mk}}{3}\sum_{j=1}^d\big(\big((i)_j+\tfrac1n\big)^3 - (i)_j^3 \big)$ will become clear later on.
Together, $\Om_3$ and $\Lambda_3$ define a computational problem $(\Om_3,\Lambda_3,\sigma(\cdot))$. The main result of this section is the following.
\[th:Schroedinger\] For $\Om_3$ and $\Lambda_3$ defined as above, we have ${\operatorname{SCI}}\big(\Om_3,\Lambda_3,\sigma(\cdot)\big)=1$.
The proof of Theorem \[th:Schroedinger\] will be by reduction to Theorem \[th:perturbation\]. In order to accomplish this, we need to be able to compute the matrix elements $\left\langle (-\Delta+V)e_i,e_j \right\rangle$ *by performing only a finite number of algebraic operations on a finite number of values of $V$*. This will be the main difficulty.
Proof of Theorem \[th:Schroedinger\]
------------------------------------
We first note that by the unitarity of the Fourier transform, the $e_k^{(n)}$ still form an orthonormal basis of $\h_n$ and we still have $P_{\h_n}\to I$ strongly in $L^2(\R^d)$. The last claim follows immediately from the equality $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\sum_k\left\langle f, n^{\f d2}\chi_{i_k+[0,\f1n)^d}\right\rangle n^{\f d2}\chi_{i_k+[0,\f1n)^d} - f\right\|_{L^2(\R^d)} = \left\|\sum_k\left\langle \hat f, e_k\right\rangle e_k - \hat f\right\|_{L^2(\R^d)}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we show that the spaces $\h_n$ defined in are indeed a reasonable choice for the problem at hand. More precisely, we have
\[lemma:H\_n\_is\_core\] The union $\bigcup_{n\in\N}\h_n$ is a core for $-\Delta$.
By means of the Fourier transform the assertion is equivalent to the space $\bigcup_{n\in\N}\widehat\h_n$ being a core for the multiplication operator $u\mapsto |\xi|^2 u$ in $L^2(\R^d)$. To verify this, we have to show that for every $u\in\dom(|\xi^2|)$ there exists a sequence $u_n\in\h_n$ such that
$\|u_n-u\|_{L^2(\R^d)}\to 0,$
$\left\||\xi|^2(u_n-u)\right\|_{L^2(\R^d)}\to 0$
Point (i) is easily shown by choosing $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:u_n_def}
u_n:=\sum_{i\in L_n}\left\langle u , n^{\f d2}\chi_{i+[0,\f1n)^d}\right\rangle n^{\f d2}\chi_{i+[0,\f1n)^d}.
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, for smooth $u$ the $L^2$-convergence of $u_n$ to $u$ is standard, while the general case follows by a density argument. We omit the technical details. To show point (ii), let $R>0$ and decompose the norm in (ii) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:B_R-decomposition}
\left\||\xi|^2(u_n-u)\right\|_{L^2(\R^d)}^2 &= \int_{B_R} \left||\xi|^2(u_n-u)\right|^2\,d\xi
+
\int_{\R^d\setminus B_R} \left||\xi|^2(u_n-u)\right|^2\,d\xi,
\end{aligned}$$ where $B_R$ denotes the ball of radius $R$ centered at 0. We first estimate the second term on the right hand side. To this end, we let $u_n$ be defined by and employ the shorthand notation $\chi_i:=n^{\f d2}\chi_{i+[0,\f1n)^d}$. On the whole space we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| |\xi|^2u_n \right\|_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_R)}^2 &= \left\| |\xi|^2\sum_{i\in L_n}\langle u,\chi_i\rangle\chi_i \right\|_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_R)}^2\\
&\leq \sum_{i\in L_n\setminus B_R} |\langle u,\chi_i\rangle|^2 \left\||\xi|^2\chi_i\right\|_{L^2(\R^d)}^2\\
&\leq \sum_{i\in L_n\setminus B_R}\|u\|_{L^2(i+[0,\f1n)^d)}^2\left\|n^{\f d2}|\xi|^2\right\|_{L^2(i+[0,\f1n)^d)}^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that $\supp(\chi_i)\cap\supp(\chi_j)=\emptyset$ for $i\neq j$. The factor $\big\|n^{\f d2}|\xi|^2\big\|_{L^2(i+[0,\f1n)^d)}$ on the right hand side is clearly bounded by $\sup_{\xi\in i+[0,\f1n)^d}|\xi|^2$. Thus, if we define a function $F_n$ by $$\begin{aligned}
F_n(\xi):=\sum_{i\in\f1n\mathbb Z^d}\left(\sup_{\eta\in i+[0,\f1n)^d}|\eta|^2\right)\chi_{i},
\end{aligned}$$ then we will have (note that $F_n$ is constant on each of the cubes $i+[0,\f1n)^d$) $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| |\xi|^2u_n \right\|_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_R)}^2
&\leq \sum_{i\in L_n\setminus B_R}\|u\|_{L^2(i+[0,\f1n)^d)}^2 F_n(\xi)^2\\
&= \sum_{i\in L_n\setminus B_R}\left\|F_n(\xi)u\right\|_{L^2(i+[0,\f1n)^d)}^2\\
&\leq \left\|F_n(\xi)u\right\|_{L^2\big(\R^d\setminus B_{R-\f{\sqrt{d}}{n}}\big)}^2
\end{aligned}$$ Next, we note that it is easy to see that there exist constants $a,b>0$ such that $F_n(\xi)\leq a|\xi|^2+b$ uniformly in $n$ (see Figure \[fig:xi\^2\]).
(-2,-1) rectangle (5.1,5.1);
(-2,0) – (5,0); (0,-1) – (0,5);
plot (,0.2\*); plot (,0.2\*+0.4\*+0.2);
in [1,2,3,4,5]{}[ (,\^2/5) – (-1,\^2/5); (-1,0.2\*\^2) – (-1,0.2\*\^2-0.2\*2\*+0.2); ]{}
(4,2.5) node[${\color{blue}|\xi|^2}$]{}; (2.7,4) node[${\color{red}a|\xi|^2+b}$]{}; (2.6,2) node[${\color{black}F_n}$]{};
(1,-0.2) – (2,-0.2); (1.5,-0.5) node[$\tfrac 1 n$]{};
Overall we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| |\xi|^2u_n \right\|_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_R)}^2
&\leq \left\|F_n(\xi)u\right\|_{L^2\big(\R^d\setminus B_{R-\f{\sqrt{d}}{n}}\big)}^2\\
&\leq \left\|(a|\xi|^2+b)u\right\|_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_{R-1})}^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where the last term on the right hand side is finite because by assumption $u\in\dom(|\xi|^2)$. In fact, from this last inequality we can see immediately that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| |\xi|^2u_n \right\|_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_R)}^2\to 0
\end{aligned}$$ as $R\to\infty$ uniformly in $n$. Estimating the second term on the right hand side of eq. is now straightforward. We get $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\R^d\setminus B_R} \left||\xi|^2(u_n-u)\right|^2\,d\xi &\leq
\left\| |\xi|^2u_n\right\|^2_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_R)} + \left\| |\xi|^2u\right\|^2_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_R)}\\
&\leq \left\|(a|\xi|^2+b)u\right\|_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_{R-1})}^2 + \left\| |\xi|^2u\right\|^2_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_R)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now let $\eps>0$ and choose $R$ so large that $\big\|(a|\xi|^2+b)u\big\|_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_{R-1})}^2 + \big\| |\xi|^2u\big\|^2_{L^2(\R^d\setminus B_R)}<\eps$. From eq. we then see that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\left\||\xi|^2(u_n-u)\right\|_{L^2(\R^d)}^2 &\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty}\int_{B_R} \left||\xi|^2(u_n-u)\right|^2\,d\xi+\eps\\
&\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty}R^2\int_{B_R} \left|u_n-u\right|^2\,d\xi+\eps\\
&= \eps,
\end{aligned}$$ because $u_n\to u$ in $L^2(\R^d)$. Since $\eps$ was arbitrary, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\left\||\xi|^2(u_n-u)\right\|_{L^2(\R^d)}^2=0,
\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the proof.
Our strategy for proving Theorem \[th:Schroedinger\] is as follows. By the assumptions on $V$ stated in the definition of $\Om_3$ and Lemma \[lemma:H\_n\_is\_core\] we know that we have $\Om_3\subset\Om_2$, if we choose $\h=L^2(\R^d)$ and $\h_n$ as in . Hence, we already know from Theorem \[th:perturbation\] that $\Gamma^{(2)}_n(H)\to\sigma(H)$ for all $H\in\Om_3$. However, $\Gamma^{(2)}_n$ uses the matrix elements $\big\langle H e_k^{(n)}, e_j^{(n)}\big\rangle$, which we are not allowed to access in Theorem \[th:Schroedinger\]. Therefore, we will define a new algorithm $\Gamma^{(3)}_n$ which only accesses the information provided in $\Lambda_3$ and which satisfies $\Gamma^{(3)}_n(H)\approx\Gamma^{(2)}_n(H)$ for $H\in\Om_3$ in an appropriate sense.
#### The algorithm.
As described above, we need to approximate the matrix elements $\langle-\Delta e_k^{(n)},e_m^{(n)}\rangle$ and $\langle Ve_k^{(n)},e_m^{(n)}\rangle$ using only a finite amount of information provided in the set $\Lambda_3$. We start with the Laplacian, which is the simpler case. Indeed, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle-\Delta e_k^{(n)},e_m^{(n)}\right\rangle &= \left\langle |\xi|^2n^{\f d2}\chi_{i_k+[0,\f1n)^d} \,,\, n^{\f d2}\chi_{i_m+[0,\f1n)^d}\right\rangle\\
&= n^d\delta_{mk}\int_{i_k+[0,\f1n)^d} |\xi|^2\,d\xi\\
&= \f{n\delta_{mk}}{3}\sum_{j=1}^d\left( \left((i_k)_j+\f1n\right)^3 - (i_k)_j^3 \right).\end{aligned}$$ Note that these are precisely the terms in the third factor in eq. .
Next, we will compute the matrix elements $\langle Ve_k^{(n)},e_m^{(n)}\rangle$. Since any algorithm can only use finitely many values of $V$, we will have to perform an approximation procedure. To this end, let $l\in\N$ and define a lattice $P_l\subset \R^d$ by $$\begin{aligned}
P_l:= \f1l\mathbb Z^d\cap Q_l(0),\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_l$ denotes the cube of edge length $l$ centered at 0. Next, let $$\begin{aligned}
V_l(x) := \sum_{i\in P_l} V(i)\chi_{i+[0,\f1l)^d}.\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:V-Vk\] For any function $f\in C^1(\R^d)$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|f-\sum_{i\in P_l} f(i)\chi_{i+[0,\f1l)^d}\right\|_{\infty}\leq \f{\|\nabla f\|_\infty}{l},
\end{aligned}$$
This follows immediately from the identity $$\begin{aligned}
f(x)-f(i) = \int_{[i,x]}\nabla f(t)\cdot dt,
\end{aligned}$$ where $i\in P_l$ and $[i,x]$ denotes a line segment connecting $i$ to $x\in i+[0,\f1l)^d$.
In order to define our approximation of $\langle Ve_k^{(n)},e_m^{(n)}\rangle$, we additionally introduce the step function approximation $$\begin{aligned}
E_{k,l}(x) := \sum_{i\in P_l} e_k^{(n)}(l)\chi_{i+[0,\f1l)^d}.\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:V\_ij-Vl\_ij\] For $-\Delta+V\in\Om_3$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\left\langle Ve_k^{(n)},e_m^{(n)}\right\rangle - \left\langle V_l E_{k,l},E_{m,l}\right\rangle\right|\leq \f{3|C|}{l}M(2\pi)^{-\f d2}n^{3-\f{d}{2}}d,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $l>2{\operatorname{diam}}(C)$, where $M$ and $C$ are as in eq. .
By assumption $l$ is large enough such that $C\subset Q_l(0)$ (with $C$ from eq. ). We calculate the error $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\left\langle Ve_k^{(n)},e_m^{(n)}\right\rangle - \left\langle V_l E_{k,l},E_{m,l}\right\rangle\right| &= \left|\sum_{i\in P_l}\int_{i+[0,\f1l)}Ve_k^{(n)}e_m^{(n)}\,dx - \sum_{i\in P_l}\int_{i+[0,\f1l)}V_lE_{k,l}E_{m,l}\,dx\right|\\
&\leq \sum_{i\in P_l}\int_{i+[0,\f1l)}\left|Ve_k^{(n)}e_m^{(n)} - V_lE_{k,l}E_{m,l}\right|dx\\
&\leq \sum_{i\in P_l}\int_{i+[0,\f1l)} l^{-1}\left\|\nabla\big(Ve_k^{(n)}e_m^{(n)}\big)\right\|_\infty\chi_C\, dx\\
&= l^{-1} |C| \left\|\nabla\big(Ve_k^{(n)}e_m^{(n)}\big)\right\|_\infty\\
&\leq \f{|C|}{l} \left(\left\|\nabla Ve_k^{(n)}e_m^{(n)}\right\|_\infty\! +\left\|V\nabla\big(e_k^{(n)}\big)e_m^{(n)}\right\|_\infty\! + \left\|Ve_k^{(n)}\nabla\big(e_m^{(n)}\big)\right\|_\infty\right)\\
&\leq \f{3|C|}{l}M(2\pi)^{-\f d2}n^{3-\f{d}{2}}d,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Lemma \[lemma:V-Vk\] in the third line and Lemma \[lemma:e\_k-Bound\] and the fact that $\|V\|_{\mathcal C^1}\leq M$ in the last line.
If we denote $H_n:=P_n(-\Delta+V)|_{\h_n}$ and $H_n^l:= P_n(-\Delta+V_l)|_{\h_n}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| H_n - H_n^l \right\|_{L(\h_n)} \leq \f{3|C|}{l}M(2\pi)^{-\f d2}n^{4-\f{d}{2}}d.
\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[lemma:V\_ij-Vl\_ij\] the matrix elements of $H_n$ and $H_n^l$ satisfy $\big|(H_n)_{km} - (H_n^l)_{km}\big|\leq \f{3|C|}{l}M(2\pi)^{-\f d2}n^{3-\f{d}{2}}d$. Now note that for any two matrices $A=(A_{km})$ and $B=(B_{km})$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|(A-B)x\right\|^2_{\h_n} &= \sum_{k=1}^n\left|\sum_{m=1}^n (A_{km}-B_{km})x_m\right|^2\\
&\leq \left(\sup_{k,m}|A_{km}-B_{km}|\right)\sum_{k,m=1}^n|x_m|^2\\
&= n\left(\sup_{k,m}|A_{km}-B_{km}|\right)\|x\|_{\h_n}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ This immediately implies the assertion.
We are finally ready to define our algorithm. Let $n\in\N$ and choose $l(n)\in\N$ large enough such that $\f{3|C|}{l(n)}M(2\pi)^{-\f d2}n^{4-\f{d}{2}}d<\f{1}{2n}$. Define for $H=-\Delta+V\in\Om_3$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_{\Gamma_n^{(3)}}(H) &:= \left\{ \rho_i \,|\,i\in P_{l(n)}\right\}\cup \left\{e_k^{(n)}(i)\,\Big|\,i\in P_{l(n)},\;k\in\{1,\dots,n\}\right\}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \cup \bigg\{\tfrac{n\delta_{mk}}{3}\sum_{j=1}^d\left( \left((i)_j+\tfrac1n\right)^3 - (i)_j^3 \right)\,\Big|\, i\in L_n \bigg\}\\
\Gamma_n^{(3)}(H) &:= \left\{ \lambda\in G_n\,\bigg|\, \left\|(H_n^{l(n)}-\lambda)^{-1}\right\|^{-1} \leq \f2n \right\}\cup\Gamma_n^{(1)}(-\Delta)\end{aligned}$$ with the convention that $\|(H_n^{l(n)}-\lambda)^{-1}\|^{-1}=0$ when $\lambda\in\sigma(H_n^{l(n)})$. Note that $\Lambda_{\Gamma_n^{(3)}}(H)$ is a finite set for each $H\in\Om_3$ and by Lemma \[lemma:finite\_testing\] determining whether $\left\|(H_n^{l(n)}-\lambda)^{-1}\right\|^{-1} \leq \f2n$ requires only finitely many algebraic operations. Moreover, since $\Lambda_3$ contains all matrix elements of the Laplacian, we conclude that computing $\Gamma_n^{(1)}(-\Delta)$ can also be done by performing a finite amount of algebraic operations on the information provided. Overall, we conclude that each $\Gamma_n^{(3)}$ is an arithmetic algorithm in the sense of Definition \[def:Algorithm\].
#### Convergence.
It remains to prove that $\Gamma_n^{(3)}(H)\to\sigma(H)$ in the Attouch-Wets metric. To this end, let $\lambda\in G_n$ and note that by the second resolvent identity we have $$\begin{aligned}
(H_n^{l(n)}-\lambda)^{-1} - (H_n-\lambda)^{-1} = (H_n^{l(n)}-\lambda)^{-1}(H_n-H_n^{l(n)})(H_n-\lambda)^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ Taking norms on both sides and using the reverse triangle inequality we obtain[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\|(H_n^{l(n)}-\lambda)^{-1}\|^{-1} - \|(H_n-\lambda)^{-1}\|^{-1}\right| &\leq \|H_n-H_n^{l(n)}\|\\
&\leq \f{3|C|}{l(n)}M(2\pi)^{-\f d2}n^{4-\f{d}{2}}d\\
&\leq \f{1}{2n},\end{aligned}$$ where the last line follows from our choice of $l(n)$. Now, if $\lambda\in\Gamma_n^{(3)}(H)$ the above inequality implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\|(H_n-\lambda)^{-1}\|^{-1} &\leq \|(H_n^{l(n)}-\lambda)^{-1}\|^{-1}+\f{1}{2n}\\
&\leq \f 2n +\f{1}{2n}\\
&\leq \f{3}{n}\end{aligned}$$ and hence $\lambda\in\Xi_n(H)$ (cf. Remark \[Remark\]). Similarly, if $\lambda\in\Gamma^{(2)}_n(H)$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\|(H_n^{l(n)}-\lambda)^{-1}\|^{-1}&\leq \|(H_n-\lambda)^{-1}\|^{-1} + \f{1}{n}\\
&\leq \f {1}{n} +\f{1}{2n}\\
&\leq \f{2}{n}\end{aligned}$$ and hence $\lambda\in\Gamma_n^{(3)}(H)$. Thus, we have the inclusions $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{(2)}_n(H) \subset \Gamma_n^{(3)}(H) \subset \Xi_n(H).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\Gamma^{(2)}_n(H)\to\sigma(H)$ and $\Xi_n(H)\to\sigma(H)$ by Theorem \[th:perturbation\] and Remark \[Remark\], we conclude that $ \Gamma_n^{(3)}(H)\to\sigma(H)$ as well. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[th:Schroedinger\].
[^1]: School of Mathematics Cardiff University, Senghennydd Road, Cardiff, CF24 4AG, United KingdomEmail: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
[^2]: For $\lambda\in\rho(H_n)\cap\rho\big(H_n^{l(n)}\big)$ this inequality follows directly from the second resolvent identity, while for $\lambda\in\sigma(H_n)\cup\sigma\big(H_n^{l(n)}\big)$ it is shown by a Neumann series argument.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the field of gestural action recognition, many studies have focused on dimensionality reduction along the spatial axis, to reduce both the variability of gestural sequences expressed in the reduced space, and the computational complexity of their processing. It is noticeable that very few of these methods have explicitly addressed the dimensionality reduction along the time axis. This is however a major issue with regard to the use of elastic distances characterized by a quadratic complexity. To partially fill this apparent gap, we present in this paper an approach based on temporal down-sampling associated to elastic kernel machine learning. We experimentally show, on two data sets that are widely referenced in the domain of human gesture recognition, and very different in terms of quality of motion capture, that it is possible to significantly reduce the number of skeleton frames while maintaining a good recognition rate. The method proves to give satisfactory results at a level currently reached by state-of-the-art methods on these data sets. The computational complexity reduction makes this approach eligible for *real-time* applications.'
author:
-
title: 'Down-Sampling coupled to Elastic Kernel Machines for Efficient Recognition of Isolated Gestures'
---
Introduction
============
During the past decade, gesture recognition has been a very active research field that has evolved in terms of improving motion capture technology and recognition methods, mostly based on machine learning techniques. Recently, the availability of low-cost consumer technology, often associated with game consoles, has helped to democratize the use of motion sensors, not only in the context of interactive video game, but also in various frameworks using gestural interaction. Hence high quality databases, built from expensive motion capture (*mocap*) devices requiring specific expertise, exist today alongside lower quality databases, i.e. containing noisier and less accurate data provided by new inexpensive sensors that require very little expertise. Therefore, heterogeneous databases of captured motion of various qualities are available to the scientific community, and comparing the robustness and generalization of recognition algorithms on these diverse motion databases is highly challenging. Beyond the quality of the recognition, the complexity of the algorithms and their response time is also a major issue, especially for real-time interaction.
In the context of the recognition of isolated gestures from motion captured data, we present in this paper a novel method that improves the performance of classical support vector machines when used with regularized elastic kernels. We also show how the temporal dimensionality reduction, associated with such elastic kernels significantly improves the efficiency of the algorithm and the recognition scores.
Motion captured data and sequence of skeletal poses
===================================================
We focus on human motion data captured by various camera-based sensors (infrared marker-tracking system with high resolution, or webcam-style system). The data is uniformly preprocessed so that the captured data is finally reconstructed as a set of 3D-trajectories of the skeleton joints determined from the positions of markers captured on a real actor underlying more or less accurately the skeleton of the actor who produced the movement. The identification of the skeleton model from captured data is achieved through a mapping-optimization process such as the ones described in [@AguiarTS06], [@Obrien:2000], or [@Shotton:2011]. The techniques based on a skeleton model hence convert 3D sensor data into Cartesian or angular coordinates that define with various accuracies the state of the joints over time.
----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
{width="70mm"} {width="50mm"}
----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:skels\] presents two skeletons reconstructed from two very distinct capture systems. On the right, the skeleton is reconstructed from data acquired via the Microsoft Kinect, on the left from the Vicon-MX device used by the Max Planck Institute to produce the HDM05 datasets.
This sort of data is inherently noisy, mainly due to the data acquisition process (drifts, imprecision and shading, etc.) and sensor noise. Furthermore, due to the nature of the capture devices and in particular to the number of sensors that are operated, the nature of the reconstructed skeletons is also subject to some variation for two main reasons: in the one hand the morphology of the actor (segment lengths) is the main source of variability for a given capture device, and in the second hand, the number of joints (the number of degree of freedom) vary according to the capture device, leading to some additional noise due to the reconstruction of the skeletal data from sensor outputs.
Thus, any movement can be defined as a multivariate state vector describing a trajectory over time, i.e. a time series $\{Y_t \in\mathbf{R}^{k}\}^{T}_{1} = [Y_1 , . . . , Y_T]$, where the $k$ spatial dimension ($k=3\cdot N$, with N the number of joints) typically varies between $20$ and $100$ according to the capture devices and the considered task. As this state vector is obviously not composed of independent scalar dimensions, the spatio-temporal encoded redundancies open new prospects for dimension reduction as well as noise reduction approaches, which is particularly relevant when considering motion recognition as one can targets gains both in terms of computation time and error rate.
Related works
=============
Gesture analysis and recognition is very broad and recently very active area due to the democratization of low cost motion capture systems by camera. It covers aspects of signal and image processing, dynamic modeling, statistical and machine learning approaches. We hereinafter give a brief non-exhaustive overview of the main methods proposed for gesture analysis and recognition. These methods primarily focus on the extraction of features that significantly represent the kinematics and dynamics of the skeleton data characterized as a whole, or portions of it. Among them, some approaches, based on linear dynamic models [@Veeraraghavan2004], have exploited autoregressive (AR) models and autoregressive moving-average (ARMA) models to characterize the kinematics of movements, while other approaches, based on nonlinear dynamic models [@Bissacco2007], have developed movement analysis and recognition scheme based on dynamical models controlled by Gaussian processes. [@Mitra:2007] propose a synthesis of the major gesture recognition approaches relying on Hidden Markov Models (HMM). [@Wang2006] have exploited conditional random fields to model joint dependencies and thus increase the discrimination of HMM-like models. Recurrent neural network models have also been used [@Martens2011]; among them, conditional restricted Boltzman’s machines [@Larochelle2012] have been studied in the context of motion captured data modeling and classification.
Some methods address more specifically the problem of dimensionality reduction with an objective for reducing the variability while seeking an efficiency gain. In particular, the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) has been widely exploited for gesture analysis and recognition with the objective of reducing the dimensionality of motion data [@Masoud2003]. Other methods such as linear projections preserving locally neighborhoods (Locality Preserving Projection) [@He2003LPP], or their non-linear counter-parts such as ISOMAP [@Tenenbaum2000], have been implemented to embed postures in low dimensional spaces in which a more efficient time warp (DTW, see section \[sec:DTW\]) algorithm, associated with the Hausdorff distance, can be used to classify movements. Other ad hoc methods for dimension reduction are also proving their efficiency: we can mention for example the recent work of [@YuAggarwal2009] that proposes to only consider the trajectories of the 5 end-extremities of the skeleton (2 feet, 2 hands and the head). Models based on Gaussian processes with latent variables are also largely used, for instance a hierarchical version has been recently exploited for gesture recognition [@Han:2010].
The identification of significant variables maximizing the discrimination of motion classes has also been widely explored. [@Fothergill:2012] and [@Zhao2012] have in particular applied random forests to recognize actions, using a Kinect sensor, while [@OfliF2013] recently proposed to automatically select the most informative skeletal joints to explain the current action. In the same line, [@Hussein2013] consider covariance matrices evaluated on some skeletal joints as discriminative descriptors to characterize a movement sequence. The use of sliding windows can be view as a dimension reduction along the time axis. In [@Li2010] a simple bag of 3D points is used to represent and recognize gestural action. Similarly, in [@Wang2012], *actionlets* are defined from Fourrier’s coefficients to characterize the most discriminative joints. Histograms of oriented 4D normals have been also proposed in [@Oreifej2013] for the recognition of gestural actions and movements from sequences of depth images.
Finally, it can be mentioned, among many existing applications that address the use of elastic distances into a recognition process, the recent work described in [@Sempena2011], as well as the hardware acceleration proposed in [@Hussain2012]. However, to our knowledge, no work exploiting this type of distance has directly studied the question of data reduction along the time axis.
Downsampling movement sequences coupled to elastic kernel machines
==================================================================
When considering the use of elastic distances or kernels to benefit from their ability to deal with some form of temporal variability, we are rapidly confronted with their computational cost, in general quadratic with the length of the time series that are processed and linear with the *spatial* dimension (number of degrees-of-freedom). This high computational complexity is somehow limiting their use, especially when large amounts of data has to be processed, or when so-called *real-time* constraint is required. It is therefore *a priori* particularly relevant to consider a dual dimensionality reduction, firstly on the time axis, and secondly on the spatial axis. Hence, in the context of *mocap* data processing, it seems useful to determine if a spatio-temporal redundancy of motion paths can be exploited, especially in the perspective of using elastic distances.
Dimension reduction along the time axis
---------------------------------------
Considering the quite rich literature on gesture recognition, it is significant to note that while some studies have shown success with dimensionality reduction on the spatial axis, very few have directly addressed a reduction in dimensionality along the time axis *per se* to reduce the complexity of elastic matching. [@Keogh:2000] explicitly mentioned a temporal sub-sampling associated with a dynamic time warping in the context of time series mining, followed later by [@MarteauTWED09]. In order to explicitly reduce dimensionality along the time axis, our straightforward approach here consists in sub-sampling the motion data so that each motion trajectory takes the form of a fixed-size sequence of $L$ skeletal postures, evenly distributed along the time axis. It becomes then easy to perform a classification or recognition task by using elastic kernel machines on such fixed-size sequences to assess performance rates depending on the degree of sub-sampling that is considered. Indeed, this approach is quite raw, as long sequences can be characterized with the same number of skeletal poses than short sequences. For very short sequences, whose length is shorter than $L$, if any, we over-sample the sequence in order to meet the fixed-size requirement. But we consider this case as very marginal here since we seek a sub-sampling rate much lower than the average length of the motion sequence.
Elastic kernels and their regularization {#sec:DTW}
----------------------------------------
**Dynamic Time Warping** (DTW), [@TWED:Velichko70], [@TWED:Sakoe71], by far the most used elastic measure, is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq.2}
d_{dtw}(X_p,Y_q)&= &d_{E}^{2}(x(p),y(q)) \\
&+&\text{Min}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
d_{dtw}(X_{p-1},Y_{q}) & sup \nonumber\\
d_{dtw}(X_{p-1},Y_{q-1}) & sub \nonumber \\
d_{dtw}(X_{p},Y_{q-1}) & ins \nonumber \\
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $d_{E}(x(p),y(q)$ is the Euclidean distance (possibly the square of the Euclidean distance) defined on $\mathbb{R}^k$ between the two postures in sequences $X$ and $Y$ taken at times $p$ and $q$ respectively. Besides the fact that this measure does not respect the triangle inequality, it does not directly define a positive definite kernel. When performed by a support vector machine (SVM) model, the optimization problem inherent to this type of learning algorithm is no longer quadratic. Moreover, the convergence towards the optimorum is no longer guaranteed, which, depending on the complexity of the task may be considered as detrimental. Besides the fact that the DTW measure does not respect the triangle inequality, it is furthermore not possible to directly define a positive definite kernel from it. Hence, the optimization problem, inherent to the learning of a kernel machine, is no longer quadratic which could, at least on some tasks, be a source of limitation.\
**Regularized DTW**: recent works [@Cuturi07], [@Marteau2014] allowed to propose new guidelines to regularize kernels constructed from elastic measures such as DTW. A simple instance of such regularized kernel, derived from [@Marteau2014] for time series of equal length, takes the following form, which relies on two recursive terms :
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq.MEREDK}
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{K}_{rdtw}(X_{p},Y_{q})=K^{xy}_{rdtw}(X_{p}, Y_{q})+K^{xx}_{rdtw}(X_{p},Y_{q}) \\
\\
K^{xy}_{rdtw}(X_{p},Y_{q}) = \frac{1}{3}e^{-\nu d_{E}^{2}(x(p),y(q))} \\
\sum \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
h(p-1,q)K^{xy}_{rdtw}(X_{p-1},Y_{q}) \\
h(p-1,q-1) K^{xy}_{rdtw}(X_{p-1},Y_{q-1}) \\
h(p,q-1)K^{xy}_{rdtw}(X_{p},Y_{q-1}) \\
\end{array}
\right.\\
\\
K^{xx}_{rdtw}(X_{p},Y_{q}) = \frac{1}{3} \\
\sum \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
h(p-1,q) K^{xx}_{rdtw}(X_{p-1},Y_{q})e^{-\nu d_{E}^{2}(x(p),y(p))} \\
\Delta_{p,q} h(p,q)K^{xx}_{rdtw}(X_{p-1},Y_{q-1})e^{-\nu d_{E}^{2}(x(p),y(q))} \\
h(p,q-1)K^{xx}_{rdtw}(X_{p},Y_{q-1})e^{-\nu d_{E}^{2}(x(q),y(q))} \\
\end{array}
\right.\\
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Delta_{p,q}$ is the Kronecker’s symbol, $\nu \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ is a *stiffness* parameter which weights the local contributions, i.e. the distances between locally aligned positions, and $d_E(.,.)$ is a distance defined on $\mathbb{R}^{k}$.
The initialization is simply $K^{xy}_{rdtw}(X_{0},Y_{0}) = K^{xx}_{rdtw} (X_{0},Y_{0}) = 1$.\
The main idea behind this line of regularization is to replace the operators $\min$ and $\max$ (which prevent the symmetrization of the kernel) by a summation operator ($\sum$). This leads to consider, not only the best possible alignment, but also all the best (or nearly the best) paths by summing up their overall cost. The parameter $\nu$ is used to control what we call nearly-the-best alignment, thus penalizing more or less alignments too far from the optimal ones. This parameter can be easily optimized through a cross-validation.\
**Elastic kernels**: we consider in this paper only the exponential kernel (Gaussian or RBF-type) constructed from the two previous elastic measures $d_{dtw}$ and $K_{rdtw}$, and the non-elastic kernel obtained from the Euclidean distance [^1], i.e. $K_{dtw}(.,.)= e^{- d_{dtw}(.,.)/\sigma}$, and $K_{E}(.,.)= e^{- d_{E}^2(.,.)/\sigma}$. For the regularized DTW kernel, a data dependent normalization heuristic is required and the final kernel takes the form:\
$K_{rdtw}(.,.)= e^{\beta\mathcal{K}_{rdtw}^\alpha(.,.)/\sigma}$, with\
- $\alpha=1/log(max(\mathcal{K}_{rdtw}(.,.))/min(\mathcal{K}_{rdtw}(.,.)))$ and
- $\beta=exp(-\alpha \cdot log(min(\mathcal{K}_{rdtw}(.,.))))$,
where $min$ and $max$ are taken over all the training data pairs.
Experimentation
===============
To estimate the robustness of the proposed approach, we evaluate it on two motion capture databases of opposite quality, the first one developed at the Max Planck Institute, the other at Microsoft research laboratories.\
**HDM05 data set** [@HDM05] consists of data captured at 120hz by a Vicon MX system composed of a set of reflective optical markers followed by six high-definition cameras and configured to record data at 120hz. The movement sequences are segmented and transformed into sequences of skeletal poses consisting of N = $31$ joints, each associated to a 3D position $(x, y, z)$. In practice the position of the root of the skeleton (located near its center of mass) and its orientation serving as referential coordinates, only the relative positions of the remaining 30 joints are used, which leads to represent each position by a vector $Y_T \in \mathbb{ R}^{k}$ , with $k=90$. We consider two recognition/classification tasks: HDM05-1 and HDM05-2 that are respectively those proposed in [@OfliF2012] (also exploited in the work of [@Hussein2013]) and [@OfliF2013]. For both tasks, three subjects are involved during learning and two separate subjects are involved during testing. For task HDM05-1, 11 gestural actions are processed: *{deposit floor, elbow to knee, grab high, hop both legs, jog, kick forward, lie down floor, rotate both arms backward, sneak, squat, and throw basketball}*. This constitutes 249 motion sequences. For task HDM05-2 , the subjects are the same, but five additional gestural actions are considered in addition to the previous 11: *{jump, jumping jacks, throw, sit down, and stand up}*. For this task, the data set includes 393 movement sequences in total. For both tests, the lengths of the gestural sequences are between 56 and 901 postures (corresponding to a movement duration between 0.5-7.5 sec.) .\
**MSR-Action3D data set**: This database [@Li2010] has recently been developed to provide a Kinect data *benchmark*. It consists of 3D depth image sequences (*depth map*) captured by the Microsoft Kinect sensor. It contains 20 typical interaction gestures with a game console that are labeled as follows *high arm wave, horizontal arm wave, hammer, hand catch, forward punch, high throw, draw x, draw tick, draw circle, hand clap, two hand wave, side-boxing, bend, forward kick, side kick, jogging, tennis swing, tennis serve, golf swing, pickup & throw* . Each action was carried out by 10 subjects facing the camera, 2 or 3 times. This data set includes 567 motion sequences whose lengths vary from 14 to 76 skeletal poses. The 3D images of size $640 \times 480$ were captured at a frequency of 15hz. From each 3D image a skeletal posture has been extracted with $N=20$ joints, each one being characterized by three coordinates. As for the previous data set, we characterize postures relatively to the referential coordinates located at the root of the skeleton, which leads to represent each posture by a vector $Y_t \in \mathbb{R}^{k}$, with $k=3 \times 19 = 57$. The task is to provide a cross-validation on the subjects, i.e. 5 subjects participating in learning and 5 subjects participating in testing, considering all possible configurations which represent 252 learning/testing pairs in total.
Results and analysis
--------------------
For the two considered tasks, we present the results obtained using a SVM classifier built from the LIBSVM library [@Libsvm01], the elastic kernels $K_ {dtw}$ and $K_{rdtw}$, and as a baseline the Euclidean distance kernel, $K_ {E}$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![Classification accuracies for HDM05-1 task (top), and HDM05-2 task (bottom), when the number of skeletal poses varies: $K_{E}$ (red, circle, dash), $K_{dtw}$ (black, square, plain), $K_{rdtw}$ (blue, star, dotted). []{data-label="fig:hdm05"}](HDM05Ofli2012.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
![Classification accuracies for HDM05-1 task (top), and HDM05-2 task (bottom), when the number of skeletal poses varies: $K_{E}$ (red, circle, dash), $K_{dtw}$ (black, square, plain), $K_{rdtw}$ (blue, star, dotted). []{data-label="fig:hdm05"}](HDM05Ofli2013.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![Classification accuracies for the MSRAction3D data set, on the learning data (top) and testing data (bottom) when the number of skeletal poses varies: $K_{E}$ (red, circle, dash), $K_{dtw}$ (black, square, plain), $K_{rdtw}$ (blue, star, dotted). []{data-label="fig:MSR"}](MSRAction3DTrain_nbFrames.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
![Classification accuracies for the MSRAction3D data set, on the learning data (top) and testing data (bottom) when the number of skeletal poses varies: $K_{E}$ (red, circle, dash), $K_{dtw}$ (black, square, plain), $K_{rdtw}$ (blue, star, dotted). []{data-label="fig:MSR"}](MSRAction3DTest_nbFrames.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Figure \[fig:hdm05\] presents the classification accuracies when the number of skeletal postures selected after downsampling varies between 5 and 30. Results for HDM05-1 task is presented in the top sub-figure, while results for HDM05-2 task is given in the bottom sub-figure. Figure \[fig:MSR\] shows also the classification accuracies obtained on the MSRAction3D data set when the number of skeletal postures varies between 10 and 30: the accuracies obtained for a 10-fold cross validation on the training data is given in the top sub-figure. accuracies for the testing data is given in the bottom sub-figure.
On both figures, we observe that the sub-sampling does not catastrophically degrade the accuracies. High levels of down-sampling (e.g. 10 to 15 postures retained by movement, which represents an average compression ratio of 97 % for HDM05 and 70 % on MSRAction3D) lead to very satisfactory results (96-98 % for the two HDM05 tasks and 95 to 97 % for the MSRAction3D task on the learning data). The SVM classifier constructed on the basis of the regularized kernel $K_{rdtw }$ produces the best recognition rate. We note that the MSRAction3D task is more difficult: much lower performance are obtained for the SVM built on the basis of the Euclidean distance; in addition, if very good classification rate (96 %) is obtained on the training data, due to the noisy nature of Kinect data and the inter subject variability, the recognition rate on the test data drop down to 82 % .
= 2
$K_{E}$ A $K_{E}$ T $K_{dtw}$ A $K_{dtw}$ T $K_{rdtw}$ A $K_{rdtw}$ T
------------- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------- -------------- --------------
Mean 87,71 69,73 96,04 81,41 96,65 82,50
Stand. dev. 2,34 5,73 1,36 5,04 1,13 3,22
Table \[tab:resMSRAction3D\] gives for the MSRAction3D data set and for the SVM based on $K_{E}, K_{dtw}$ and $K_{rdtw}$ kernels, means and standard deviations, obtained on the training data (A) and testing data (T), of recognition rates (classification accuracies) when performing the cross-validation over the 10 subjects (252 configurations). For this test, movements are represented as sequences of 15 skeletal postures. The drop of accuracies between Learning and testing is due, on this dataset, to the large inter subjects variability of movement realizations.
For comparison, table \[tab:resComp\] gives results obtained by different methods of the state-of-the-art and compare them with the performance of our SVM constructed from the Regularized DTW associated with a down-sampling of 15 postures. To that end, we have reimplemented the Cov3DJ approach [@Hussein2013] to get, for the MSRAction3D data set, the average result given by a 5-5 cross-validation on the subjects (252 tests). This comparative analysis shows that the SVM constructed from regularized DTW kernel provides results slightly above the current state-of-the-art for the considered data sets and tasks.
= 2
HDM05-1 Accuracy (%)
------------------------------ ----------------------
SMIJ [@OfliF2012] 84.40
Cov3DJ, L = 3 [@Hussein2013] 95.41
$SVM K_{rdtw}$, 15 poses **96.33**
HDM05-2 Accuracy (%)
SMIJ [@OfliF2013], 1-NN 91.53
SMIJ [@OfliF2013], SVM 89.27
$SVM K_{rdtw}$, 15 poses **96.05**
MSR-Action3D Accuracy (%)
Cov3DJ, L=3 [@Hussein2013] $72.33 \pm 3.69$
HON4D, [@Oreifej2013], $82.15 \pm 4.18$
$SVM K_{rdtw}$ 15 poses, **83.10 $\pm$ 3.46**
: Comparative study.[]{data-label="tab:resComp"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![Elapsed time as a function of the number of skeletal poses (10 to 30 poses): i) Euclidean Kernel, Red/round/dotted line, ii) Elastic kernel (RDTW), Black/square/plain line. []{data-label="fig:elapsedTime"}](elapsedTime.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Finally, in Figure \[fig:elapsedTime\], we give the average CPU elapsed time for the processing of a single gestural MSRAction3D action when varying the number of retained skeletal poses. The test has been performed on an Intel Core i7-4800MQ CPU, 2.70GHz. Although the computational cost for the elastic kernel is quadratic, the latency for the classification of a single gestural action is less than 25 milliseconds when 15 poses are considered, which effectively meets easily *real-time* requirements.
Conclusion and perspectives
===========================
In the context of isolated gesture recognition, where few studies explicitly consider dimension reduction along the time axis, we have presented a simple approach based on sub-sampling motion sequences coupled to the exploitation of elastic kernel machines. On the data sets and tasks that we have addressed, we have shown that, even when quite important down-sampling is considered, the recognition accuracy only slightly degrades. The temporal redundancy is therefore high and apparently not critical for the discrimination of the selected movements and tasks. In return, the down-sampling benefits in terms of computational complexity is quadratic with the reduction of the number of skeletal postures kept along the time axis.
Furthermore, the elasticity of the kernel provides a performance gain (compared to kernel based on the Euclidean distance) which is important when the data are characterized by high variability. Our results show that a SVM based on a regularized DTW kernel is very competitive comparatively to the state-of-the-art methods applied on the two tested data sets, even when the dimension reduction on the time axis is important. This study opens perspectives to the use of more sophisticated elastic kernels [@MarteauTWED09] associated to adaptive sampling techniques [@Marteau05] [@MarteauPAA09] capable of extracting the most significant and discriminant skeletal poses in movement sequences.
[1]{}
E. de Aguiar, C. Theobalt, and H.-P. Seidel, “Automatic learning of articulated skeletons from 3d marker trajectories.” in *ISVC*, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, B. et al., Ed., vol. 4291.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2006, pp. 485–494.
J. F. O’Brien, R. E. Bodenheimer, G. J. Brostow, and J. K. Hodgins, “Automatic joint parameter estimation from magnetic motion capture data,” in *Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000*, May 2000, pp. 53–60.
J. Shotton, A. Fitzgibbon, M. Cook, T. Sharp, M. Finocchio, R. Moore, A. Kipman, and A. Blake, “Real-time human pose recognition in parts from single depth images,” in *Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, ser. CVPR ’11.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2011, pp. 1297–1304.
A. Veeraraghavan, A. K. R. Chowdhury, and R. Chellappa, “Role of shape and kinematics in human movement analysis.” in *CVPR (1)*, 2004, pp. 730–737.
A. Bissacco, A. Chiuso, and S. Soatto, “Classification and recognition of dynamical models: The role of phase, independent components, kernels and optimal transport,” *Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on*, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1958–1972, 2007.
S. Mitra and T. Acharya, “Gesture recognition: A survey,” *Trans. Sys. Man Cyber Part C*, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 311–324, May 2007.
S. B. Wang, A. Quattoni, L. Morency, D. Demirdjian, and T. Darrell, “Hidden conditional random fields for gesture recognition,” in *IEEE int. conf. CVPR*, vol. 2, 2006, pp. 1521–1527.
J. Martens and I. Sutskever, “Learning recurrent neural networks with hessian-free optimization,” in *ICML*, 2011, pp. 1033–1040.
H. Larochelle, M. Mandel, R. Pascanu, and Y. Bengio, “Learning algorithms for the classification restricted boltzmann machine,” *J. of Machine Learning Research*, vol. 13, pp. 643–669, Mar. 2012.
O. Masoud and N. Papanikolopoulos, “A method for human action recognition,” *Image Vision Comput.*, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 729–743, 2003.
X. He and P. Niyogi, “Locality preserving projections,” in *In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 16*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emMIT Press, 2003.
J. B. Tenenbaum, V. de Silva, and J. C. Langford, “A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction,” *Science*, vol. 290, no. 5500, p. 2319, 2000.
E. Yu and J. Aggarwal, “Human action recognition with extremities as semantic posture representation,” *2012 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops*, vol. 0, pp. 1–8, 2009.
L. Han, X. Wu, W. Liang, G. Hou, and Y. Jia, “Discriminative human action recognition in the learned hierarchical manifold space,” *Image Vision Comput.*, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 836–849, May 2010.
S. Fothergill, H. Mentis, P. Kohli, and S. Nowozin, “Instructing people for training gestural interactive systems,” in *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, ser. CHI ’12.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emNew York, NY, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 1737–1746.
X. Zhao, Z. Song, J. Guo, Y. Zhao, and F. Zheng, “Real-time hand gesture detection and recognition by random forest,” in *Communications and Information Processing*, M. Zhao and J. Sha, Eds.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, vol. 289, pp. 747–755.
F. Ofli, R. Chaudhry, G. Kurillo, R. Vidal, and R. Bajcsy, “Sequence of the most informative joints (smij): A new representation for human skeletal action recognition,” *Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation*, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–20, 2013.
M. E. Hussein, M. Torki, M. A. Gowayyed, and M. El-Saban, “Human action recognition using a temporal hierarchy of covariance descriptors on 3d joint locations,” in *IJCAI*, 2013.
W. Li, Z. Zhang, and Z. Liu, “Action recognition based on a bag of 3d points,” in *Proc. IEEE Int’l Workshop on CVPR for Hum. Comm. Behav. Analysis*, I. C. Press, Ed., 2010, pp. 9–14.
J. Wang, Z. Liu, Y. Wu, and J. Yuan, “Mining actionlet ensemble for action recognition with depth cameras,” in *IEEE int. conf. CVPR*, 2012, pp. 1290–1297.
O. Oreifej and Z. Liu, “Hon4d: Histogram of oriented 4d normals for activity recognition from depth sequences,” *2013 IEEE CVPR*, pp. 716–723, 2013.
S. Sempena, N. Maulidevi, and P. Aryan, “Human action recognition using dynamic time warping,” in *Int. Conf. on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI)*, 2011, pp. 1–5.
S. Hussain and A. Rashid, “User independent hand gesture recognition by accelerated dtw,” in *Int. Conf. on Informatics, Electronics Vision (ICIEV)*, 2012, pp. 1033–1037.
E. J. Keogh and M. J. Pazzani, “Scaling up dynamic time warping for datamining applications,” in *Proc. of the Sixth ACM SIGKDD*, ser. KDD ’00, New York, NY, USA, 2000, pp. 285–289.
P. F. Marteau, “Time warp edit distance with stiffness adjustment for time series matching,” *IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.*, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 306–318, 2009.
V. M. Velichko and N. G. Zagoruyko, “Automatic recognition of 200 words,” *International Journal of Man-Machine Studies*, vol. 2, pp. 223–234, 1970.
H. Sakoe and S. Chiba, “A dynamic programming approach to continuous speech recognition,” in *Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Acoustic*, 1971, pp. 65–68.
M. Cuturi, J.-P. Vert, O. Birkenes, and T. Matsui, “[A Kernel for Time Series Based on Global Alignments]{},” in *Proceedings of ICASSP’07*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emHonolulu, HI: IEEE, April 2007, pp. II–413 – II–416.
P.-F. Marteau and S. Gibet, “On constructing positive elastic kernels with application to time series classification,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, June 2014
D. Haussler, “Convolution kernels on discrete structures,” University of California, Santa Cruz, Tech. Rep., 1999, technical Report.
M. Müller, T. Röder, M. Clausen, B. Eberhardt, B. Krüger, and A. Weber, “Documentation mocap database hdm05,” Universität Bonn, Tech. Rep. CG-2007-2, June 2007.
F. Ofli, R. Chaudhry, G. Kurillo, R. Vidal, and R. Bajcsy, “Sequence of the most informative joints (smij): A new representation for human skeletal action recognition.” in *CVPR Workshops*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2012, pp. 8–13.
C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin, “[LIBSVM]{}: A library for support vector machines,” *ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology*, vol. 2, pp. 27:1–27:27, 2011.
P. F. Marteau and S. Gibet, “Adaptive sampling of motion trajectories for discrete task-based analysis and synthesis of gesture,” in *LNAI Proc. of Int. Gesture Workshop*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2005, pp. 224–235.
P.-F. Marteau and G. Ménier, “Speeding up simplification of polygonal curves using nested approximations.” *Pattern Anal. Appl.*, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 367–375, 2009.
[^1]: The Euclidean distance is usable only because a fixed number of skeletal positions is considered to characterize each movement, and this, irrespectively of their initial length
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study two computational problems, parameterised by a fixed tree $H$. $\nHom{H}$ is the problem of counting homomorphisms from an input graph $G$ to $H$. $\wHom{H}$ is the problem of counting weighted homomorphisms to $H$, given an input graph $G$ and a weight function for each vertex $v$ of $G$. Even though $H$ is a tree, these problems turn out to be sufficiently rich to capture all of the known approximation behaviour in $\numP$. We give a complete trichotomy for $\wHom{H}$. If $H$ is a star then $\wHom{H}$ is in $\FP$. If $H$ is not a star but it does not contain a certain induced subgraph $J_3$ then $\wHom{H}$ is equivalent under approximation-preserving (AP) reductions to $\BIS$, the problem of counting independent sets in a bipartite graph. This problem is complete for the class $\RHPi$ under AP-reductions. Finally, if $H$ contains an induced $J_3$ then $\wHom{H}$ is equivalent under AP-reductions to $\SAT$, the problem of counting satisfying assignments to a CNF Boolean formula. Thus, $\wHom{H}$ is complete for $\numP$ under AP-reductions. The results are similar for $\nHom{H}$ except that a rich structure emerges if $H$ contains an induced $J_3$. We show that there are trees $H$ for which $\nHom{H}$ is $\SAT$-equivalent (disproving a plausible conjecture of Kelk). However, it is still not known whether $\nHom{H}$ is $\SAT$-hard for *every* tree $H$ which contains an induced $J_3$. It turns out that there is an interesting connection between these homomorphism-counting problems and the problem of approximating the partition function of the *ferromagnetic Potts model*. In particular, we show that for a family of graphs $J_q$, parameterised by a positive integer $q$, the problem $\nHom{J_q}$ is AP-interreducible with the problem of approximating the partition function of the $q$-state Potts model. It was not previously known that the Potts model had a homomorphism-counting interpretation. We use this connection to obtain some additional upper bounds for the approximation complexity of $\nHom{J_q}$.'
address:
- 'Leslie Ann Goldberg, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Wolfson Bldg, Parks Rd., Oxford OX1 3QD, United Kingdom.'
- |
Mark Jerrum, School of Mathematical Sciences\
Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom.
author:
- Leslie Ann Goldberg
- Mark Jerrum
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: The Complexity of Approximately Counting Tree Homomorphisms
---
Introduction
============
A *homomorphism* from a graph $G$ to a graph $H$ is a mapping $\sigma:V(G)\rightarrow V(H)$ such that the image $(\sigma(u),\sigma(v))$ of every edge $(u,v) \in E(G)$ is in $E(H)$. Let $\Hom GH$ denote the set of homomorphisms from $G$ to $H$ and let $Z_H(G)=|\Hom GH|$. For each fixed $H$, we consider the following computational problem.
Problem
: $\nHom{H}$.
Instance
: Graph $G$.
Output
: $Z_H(G)$.
The vertices of $H$ are often referred to as “colours” and a homomorphism from $G$ to $H$ can be thought of as an assignment of colours to the vertices of $G$ which satisfies certain constraints along each edge of $G$. The constraints guarantee that adjacent vertices in $G$ are assigned colours which are adjacent in $H$. A homomorphism in $\Hom GH$ is therefore often called an “$H$-colouring” of $G$. When $H=K_q$, the complete graph with $q$ vertices, the elements of $\Hom G{K_q}$ are proper $q$-colourings of $G$.
There has been much work on determining the complexity of the $H$-colouring decision problem, which is the problem of determining whether $Z_H(G)=0$, given input $G$. This work will be described in Section \[sec:prev\], but at this point it is worth mentioning the dichotomy result of Hell and [@HN], which shows that the decision problem is solvable in polynomial time if $H$ is bipartite and that it is NP-hard otherwise. There has also been work [@DG; @Kelk] on determining the complexity of exactly or approximately solving the related counting problem $\nHom{H}$. This paper is concerned with the computational difficulty of $\nHom{H}$ when $H$ is bipartite, and particularly when $H$ is a tree.
As an example, consider the case where $H$ is the four-vertex path $P_4$ (of length three). Label the vertices (or colours) $1,2,3,4$, in sequence. If $G$ is not bipartite then $\Hom GH=\emptyset$, so the interesting case is when $G$ is bipartite. Suppose for simplicity that $G$ is connected. Then one side of the vertex bipartition of $G$ must be assigned even colours and the other side must be assigned odd colours. It is easy to see that the vertices assigned colours $1$ and $4$ form an independent set of $G$, and that every independent set arises in exactly two ways as a homomorphism. Thus, $Z_{P_4}(G)$ is equal to twice the number of independent sets in the bipartite graph $G$. We will return to this example presently.
It will sometimes be useful to consider a weighted generalisation of the homomorphism-counting problem. Suppose, for each $v\in V(G)$, that $w_v:V(H)\rightarrow \nonnegQ$ is a weight function, assigning a non-negative rational weight to each colour. Let $W(G,H)$ be an indexed set of weight functions, containing one weight function for each vertex $v\in V(G)$, Thus, $$W(G,H)
=\{ w_v \mid v\in V(G)\}.$$ Our goal is to compute the weighted sum of homomorphisms from $G$ to $H$, which is expressed as the partition function $$Z_{H}(G, W(G,H)) = \sum_{\sigma\in \Hom GH}
\prod_{v\in V(G)} w_v(\sigma(v)).$$
Given a fixed $H$, each weight function $w_v\in W(G,H)$ can be represented succinctly as a list of $|V(H)|$ rational numbers. This representation is used in the following computational problem.
Problem
: $\wHom{H}$.
Instance
: A graph $G$ and an indexed set of weight functions $W(G,H)$.
Output
: $Z_{H}(G,W(G,H))$.
The complexity of *exactly* solving $\nHom{H}$ and $\wHom{H}$ is already understood. Dyer and Greenhill have observed [@DG Lemma 4.1] that $\nHom{H}$ is in $\FP$ if $H$ is a complete bipartite graph. It is easy to see (see Observation \[obs:star\]) that the same is true of $\wHom{H}$. On the other hand, Dyer and Greenhill showed that $\nHom{H}$ is $\numP$-complete for every bipartite graph $H$ that is not complete. Since $\nHom{H}$ is a special case of the more general problem $\wHom{H}$, we conclude that both problems are in $\FP$ if $H$ is a star (a tree in which some “centre” vertex is an endpoint of every edge), and that both problems are $\numP$-complete for every other tree $H$.
This paper maps the complexity of *approximately* solving $\nHom{H}$ and $\wHom{H}$ when $H$ is a tree. Dyer, Goldberg, Greenhill and Jerrum [@APred] introduced the concept of “AP-reduction” for studying the complexity of approximate counting problems. Informally, an AP-reduction is an efficient reduction from one counting problem to another, which preserves closeness of approximation; two counting problems that are interreducible using this kind of reduction have the same complexity when it comes to finding good approximate solutions. We have already encountered an extremely simple example of two AP-interreducible problems, namely $\nHom{P_4}$ and $\BIS$, the problem of counting independent sets in a bipartite graph. Using less trivial reductions, Dyer et al. showed ([@APred Theorem 5]) that several natural counting problems in addition to $\nHom{P_4}$ are interreducible with $\BIS$, and moreover that they are all complete for the complexity class $\RHPi$ with respect to AP-reductions. The class $\RHPi$ is conjectured to contain problems that do not have an FPRAS; however it is not believed to contain $\SAT$, the classical hard problem of computing the number of satisfying assignments to a CNF Boolean formula. Refer to Section \[sec:prelim\] for more detail on the technical concepts mentioned here and elsewhere in the introduction.
Steven Kelk’s PhD thesis [@Kelk] examined the approximation complexity of the problem $\nHom{H}$ for general $H$. He identified certain families of graphs $H$ for which $\nHom{H}$ is AP-interreducible with $\BIS$ and other large families for which $\nHom{H}$ is AP-interreducible with $\SAT$. He noted [@Kelk Section 5.7.1] that, during the study, he did not encounter *any* bipartite graphs $H$ for which $\SAT \APred \nHom{H}$, and that he suspected [@Kelk Section 7.3] that there were “structural barriers” which would prevent homomorphism-counting problems to bipartite graphs from being $\SAT$-hard. An interesting test case is the tree $J_3$ which is depicted in Figure \[fig:J3\]. Kelk referred to this tree [@Kelk Section 7.4] as “the junction”, and conjectured that $\nHom{J_3}$ is neither $\BIS$-easy nor $\SAT$-hard. Thus, he conjectured that unlike the setting of Boolean constraint satisfaction, where every parameter leads to a computational problem which is FPRASable, $\BIS$-equivalent, or $\SAT$-equivalent [@trichotomy], the complexity landscape for approximate $H$-colouring may be more nuanced, in the sense that there might be graphs $H$ for which none of these hold.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the interesting complexity landscape of the approximation problems $\nHom{H}$ and $\wHom{H}$ when $H$ is a tree. It turns out that even the case in which $H$ is a tree is sufficiently rich to include all of the known approximation complexity behaviour in $\numP$.
First, consider the weighted problem $\wHom{H}$. For this problem, we show that there is a complexity trichotomy, and the trichotomy depends upon the induced subgraphs of $H$. We say that $H$ [*contains an induced $H'$*]{} if $H$ has an induced subgraph that is isomorphic to $H'$. Here is the result. If $H$ contains no induced $P_4$ then it is a star, so $\wHom{H}$ is in $\FP$ (Observation \[obs:star\]). If $H$ contains an induced $P_4$ but it does not contain an induced $J_3$ then it turns out that $\wHom{H}$ is AP-interreducible with $\BIS$ (Lemma \[lem:intermediate\]). Finally, if $H$ contains an induced $J_3$, then $\SAT \APred \wHom{H}$ (Lemma \[lem:hardweighted\].) Thus, the complexity of $\wHom{H}$ is completely determined by the induced subgraphs of the tree $H$, and there are no possibilities other than those that arise in the Boolean constraint satisfaction trichotomy [@trichotomy].
Now consider the problem $\nHom{H}$. Like its weighted counterpart, the unweighted problem $\nHom{H}$ is in $\FP$ if $H$ is a star, and it is $\BIS$-equivalent if $H$ contains an induced $P_4$ but it does not contain an induced $J_3$. However, it is not known whether $\nHom{H}$ is $\SAT$-hard for every $H$ which contains an induced $J_3$. The structure that has emerged is already quite rich. First, we have discovered (Theorem \[thm:hardH\]) that there are trees $H$ for which $\nHom{H}$ is $\SAT$-hard. This result is surprising — it disproves the plausible conjecture of Kelk that $\nHom{H}$ is not $\SAT$-hard for any bipartite graph $H$. We don’t know whether $\nHom{H}$ is $\SAT$-hard for *every* tree $H$ which contains an induced $J_3$. In fact, we have discovered an interesting connection between these homomorphism-counting problems and the problem of approximating the partition function of the *ferromagnetic Potts model*. In particular, Theorem \[thm:junction\] shows that for a family of graphs $J_q$, parameterised by a positive integer $q$, the problem $\nHom{J_q}$ is AP-interreducible with the problem of approximating the partition function of the $q$-state Potts model. This is surprising because it was not known that the Potts model had a homomorphism-counting interpretation.
The Potts-model connection allows us to give a non-trivial upper bound for the complexity of $\nHom{J_q}$. In particular, Corollary \[cor:bqcol\] shows that this problem is AP-reducible to the problem of counting proper $q$-colourings of bipartite graphs.
We are not aware of any complexity relationships between the problems $\nHom{J_q}$, for $q>2$. At one extreme, they might all be AP-interreducible; at the other, they might all be incomparable. Another conceivable situation is that is AP-reducible to $\nHom{J_{q'}}$ exactly when $q\leq q'$. There is no real evidence for or against any of these or other possibilities. However, in the final section we exhibit a natural problem that provides an upper bound on the complexity of infinite families of problems of the form $\nHom{J_q}$ where $q$ is a prime power. Specifically, we show (Corollary \[newcor\]) that $\nHom{J_{p^k}}$ is AP-reducible to the weight enumerator of a linear code over the field $\Fp$.
Previous Work {#sec:prev}
-------------
We have already mentioned Hell and ’s classic work [@HN] on the complexity of the $H$-colouring decision problem. They showed that this problem is solvable in polynomial time if $H$ is bipartite, and that it is NP-complete otherwise. Our paper is concerned with the situation in which $H$ is an undirected graph (specifically, an undirected tree) but it is worth noting that the decision problem becomes much more complicated if $H$ is allowed to be a *directed* graph. Indeed, Feder and Vardi showed [@FV] that every constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) is equivalent to some digraph homomorphism problem. Despite much research, a complete dichotomy theorem for the digraph homomorphism decision problem is not known. Bang-Jensen and Hell [@BJH] had conjectured a dichotomy for the special case in which the digraph $H$ has no sources and no sinks. This conjecture was proved in important recent work of Barto, Kozik and Niven [@BKN]. Given the conjecture, Hell, , and Zhu [@HNZ] stated that “digraphs with sources and sinks, and in particular oriented trees, seem to be the hard part of the problem.” Gutjahr, Woeginger and Welzl [@GWW] constructed a directed tree $H$ such that determining whether a digraph $G$ has a homomorphism to $H$ is NP-complete. Of course, for some other trees, this problem is solvable in polynomial time. For example, they showed that it is solvable in polynomial time whenever $H$ is an oriented path (a path in which edges may go in either direction). Hell, and Zhu [@HNZ] construct a whole family of directed trees for which the homomorphism decision problem is NP-hard, and study the problem of characterising NP-hard trees by forbidden subtrees. The reader is referred to Hell and ’s book [@HNbook] and to their survey paper [@HNsurvey] for more details about these decision problems.
As mentioned in the introduction, there is already some existing work [@DG; @Kelk] on determining the complexity of exactly or approximately counting homomorphisms. This work is discussed in more detail elsewhere in this paper. The problem of sampling homomorphisms uniformly at random (or, in the weighed case, of sampling homomorphisms with probability proportional to their contributions to the partition function) is closely related to the approximate counting problem. We will later discuss some existing work [@GKP] on the complexity of the homomorphism-sampling problem. First, we describe some related results on a particular approach to this problem - namely, the application of the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. Here the idea is to simulate a Markov chain whose states correspond to homomorphisms from $G$ to $H$. The chain will be constructed so that the probability of a particular homomorphism $\sigma$ in the stationary distribution of the chain is proportional to the contribution of $\sigma$ to the partition function. If the Markov chain is *rapidly mixing* then it is possible to efficiently sample homomorphisms from a distribution that is very close to the appropriate distribution. This, in turn, leads to a good approximate counting algorithm [@HColSampleCount]. First, Cooper, Dyer and Frieze [@CDF] considered the unweighted problem. They showed that, for any non-trivial $H$, any Markov chain on $H$-colourings that changes the colours of up to some constant fraction of the vertices of $G$ in a single step will have exponential mixing time (so will not lead to an efficient approximate counting algorithm). When $H$ is a tree with a self-loop on every vertex, they construct a weight function $w_H\colon V(H) \to \nonnegQ$ so that rapid mixing does occur for the special case of the weighted homomorphism problem in which every vertex $v$ of $G$ has weight function $w_v=w_H$. Thus, their result gives an FPRAS for this special case of $\wHom{H}$. The slow-mixing results of [@CDF] have been extended in [@BS] and in [@BCDT]. In particular, Borgs et al. [@BCDT] considered the case in which $H$ is a rectangular subset of the hypercubic lattice, and constructed a weight function $w_H$ for which quasi-local Markov chains (which change the colours of up to some constant fraction of the vertices in a small sublattice at each step) have slow mixing.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
This section brings together the main complexity-theoretic notions that are specific to the study of approximate counting problems. A more detailed account can be found in [@APred].
A *randomised approximation scheme* is an algorithm for approximately computing the value of a function $f:\Sigma^*\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$. The approximation scheme has a parameter $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ which specifies the error tolerance. A *randomised approximation scheme* for $f$ is a randomised algorithm that takes as input an instance $ x\in
\alphabet^{\ast }$ (e.g., in the case of $\nHom{H}$, the input would be an encoding of a graph $G$) and a rational error tolerance $\varepsilon \in(0,1)$, and outputs a rational number $z$ (a random variable depending on the “coin tosses” made by the algorithm) such that, for every instance $x$, $\Pr \big[e^{-\epsilon} f(x)\leq z \leq e^\epsilon f(x)\big]\geq \tfrac{3}{4}$. We adopt the convention that $z$ is represented as a pair of integers representing the numerator and the denominator. The randomised approximation scheme is said to be a *fully polynomial randomised approximation scheme*, or *FPRAS*, if it runs in time bounded by a polynomial in $ |x| $ and $ \epsilon^{-1} $. As in [@FerroPotts], we say that a real number $z$ is *efficiently approximable* if there is an FPRAS for the constant function $f(x)=z$.
Our main tool for understanding the relative difficulty of approximation counting problems is *approximation-preserving reductions*. We use the notion of approximation-preserving reduction from Dyer et al. [@APred]. Suppose that $f$ and $g$ are functions from $\alphabet^{\ast }$ to $\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$. An AP-reduction from $f$ to $g$ gives a way to turn an FPRAS for $g$ into an FPRAS for $f$. The actual definition in [@APred] applies to functions whose outputs are natural numbers. The generalisation that we use here follows McQuillan [@McQuillan]. An [*approximation-preserving reduction*]{} (AP-reduction) from $f$ to $g$ is a randomised algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ for computing $f$ using an oracle for $g$. The algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ takes as input a pair $(x,\varepsilon)\in\alphabet^*\times(0,1)$, and satisfies the following three conditions: (i) every oracle call made by $\mathcal{A}$ is of the form $(w,\delta)$, where $w\in\alphabet^*$ is an instance of $g$, and $\delta \in (0,1)$ is an error bound satisfying $\delta^{-1}\leq\poly(|x|,
\varepsilon^{-1})$; (ii) the algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ meets the specification for being a randomised approximation scheme for $f$ (as described above) whenever the oracle meets the specification for being a randomised approximation scheme for $g$; and (iii) the run-time of $\mathcal{A}$ is polynomial in $|x|$ and $\varepsilon^{-1}$ and the bit-size of the values returned by the oracle.
If an approximation-preserving reduction from $f$ to $g$ exists we write $f\APred g$, and say that [*$f$ is AP-reducible to $g$*]{}. Note that if $f\APred g$ and $g$ has an FPRAS then $f$ has an FPRAS. (The definition of AP-reduction was chosen to make this true.) If $f\APred g$ and $g\APred f$ then we say that [*$f$ and $g$ are AP-interreducible*]{}, and write $f\APeq g$. A word of warning about terminology: the notation $\APred$ has been used (see, e.g., [@CrescenziGuide]) to denote a different type of approximation-preserving reduction which applies to optimisation problems. We will not study optimisation problems in this paper, so hopefully this will not cause confusion.
Dyer et al. [@APred] studied counting problems in \#P and identified three classes of counting problems that are interreducible under approximation-preserving reductions. The first class, containing the problems that have an FPRAS, are trivially AP-interreducible since all the work can be embedded into the reduction (which declines to use the oracle). The second class is the set of problems that are AP-interreducible with , the problem of counting satisfying assignments to a Boolean formula in CNF. Zuckerman [@zuckerman] has shown that cannot have an FPRAS unless $\mathrm{RP}=\mathrm{NP}$. The same is obviously true of any problem to which is AP-reducible.
The third class appears to be of intermediate complexity. It contains all of the counting problems expressible in a certain logically-defined complexity class, $\RHPi$. Typical complete problems include counting the downsets in a partially ordered set [@APred], computing the partition function of the ferromagnetic Ising model with local external magnetic fields [@Ising], and counting the independent sets in a bipartite graph, which is defined as follows.
Problem
: $\BIS$.
Instance
: A bipartite graph $G$.
Output
: The number of independent sets in $G$.
In [@APred] it was shown that $\BIS$ is complete for the logically-defined complexity class $\mathrm{\#RH}\Pi_1$ with respect to approximation-preserving reductions. We conjecture [@FerroPotts] that there is no FPRAS for $\BIS$.
A problem that is closely related to approximate counting is the problem of sampling configurations almost uniformly at random. The analogue of an FPRAS in the context of sampling problems is the PAUS, or *Polynomial Almost Uniform Sampler*.
Goldberg, Kelk, and Paterson [@GKP] have studied the problem of sampling $H$-colourings almost uniformly at random. They gave a hardness result for every fixed tree $H$ that is not a star. In particular, their theorem [@GKP Theorem 2] shows that there is no PAUS for sampling $H$-colourings unless $\BIS$ has an FPRAS.
In general, there is a close connection between approximate counting and almost-uniform sampling. Indeed, in the presence of a technical condition called “self-reducibility”, the counting and sampling variants of two problems are interreducible [@JVV]. The weighted problem $\wHom{H}$ is self-reducible, so the result of [@GKP] immediately gives an AP-reduction from $\BIS$ to $\wHom{H}$ for every tree $H$ that is not a star. However, it is not known whether the unweighted problem $\nHom{H}$ is self-reducible.
As mentioned in Section \[sec:prev\] the paper [@HColSampleCount] shows how to turn a PAUS for $H$-colourings into an FPRAS for $\nHom{H}$, but it is not known whether there is a reduction in the other direction. Thus, we cannot directly apply the hardness result of [@GKP] to reduce $\BIS$ to $\nHom{H}$. However, we will see in the next section that the complexity gap between problems with an FPRAS and those that are $\BIS$-equivalent still holds for $\nHom{H}$ in the special case when $H$ is a tree, which is the focus of this paper.
Weighted tree homomorphisms {#sec:weighted}
===========================
First, we introduce some notation and a few graphs that are of special interest.
In this paper, the graphs that we consider are undirected and simple — they do not have self-loops or multiple edges between vertices. For every positive integer $n$, let $[n]$ denote $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$. We use $\Gamma_H(v)$ to denote the set of neighbours of vertex $v$ in graph $H$ and we use $d_H(v)$ to denote the degree of $v$, which is $|\Gamma_H(v)|$.
Let $P_n$ be the $n$-vertex path (with $n-1$ edges). An $n$-leaf *star* is the complete bipartite graph $K_{1,n}$. Let $J_q$ be the graph with vertex set $$V(J_q) = \{w\} \cup \{c_i\mid i\in[q]\} \cup \{c'_i\mid i\in[q]\},$$ and edge set $$E(J_q) = \{(c_i,c'_i) \mid i\in[q]\} \cup \{(c'_i,w)\mid i\in[q]\}.$$ $J_3$ is depicted in Figure \[fig:J3\].
Stars
-----
As Dyer and Greenhill observed [@DG Lemma 4.1], $\nHom{H}$ is in $\FP$ if $H$ is a complete bipartite graph. We now show that $\wHom{H}$ is also in $\FP$ in this case. Suppose that $H$ is a complete bipartite graph with bipartition $(U,U')$ where $U=\{u_1,\ldots,u_h\}$ and $U'=\{u'_1,\ldots,u'_{h'}\}$. Let $G$ be an input to $\wHom{H}$ with connected components $G^1,\ldots,G^\kappa$. Clearly, $Z_H(G)=\prod_{i=1}^\kappa Z_{H}(G^i)$. Also, if $G^i$ is non-bipartite then $Z_{H}(G^i)=0$. Suppose that $G^i$ is a connected bipartite graph with bipartition $(V,V')$ where $V=\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ and $V'=\{v'_1,\ldots,v'_{n'}\}$. Then $$Z_{H}(G^i) =
\prod_{j=1}^n\sum_{c=1}^{h} w_{v_j}(u_c)
\prod_{j'=1}^{n'}\sum_{c'=1}^{h'} w_{v'_{j'}}(u'_{c'})
+
\prod_{j=1}^{n'}\sum_{c=1}^{h} w_{v'_{j}}(u_c)
\prod_{j'=1}^{n}\sum_{c'=1}^{h'} w_{v_{j'}}(u'_{c'})
.$$
In the context of this paper, where $H$ is a tree, we can draw the following concluson.
\[obs:star\]\[obs:triv\] Suppose that $H$ is a star. Then $\wHom{H}$ is in $\FP$.
Trees with intermediate complexity
----------------------------------
The purpose of this section is to prove Lemma \[lem:intermediate\], which says that if $H$ is a tree that is not a star and has no induced $J_3$ then $\BIS \APeq\nHom{H}$ and $\BIS\APeq \wHom{H}$. The main work of the section is in the proof of Lemma \[lem:intermediate\], but first we need some existing results. In particular, Lemma \[lem:kelk\] below is due to Kelk, and Lemma \[lem:CSP\] is an easy consequence of earlier work by the authors and their coauthors on counting CSPs. We have chosen to include a proof sketch of the former because the work of Kelk is unpublished [@Kelk] and a proof of the latter because we did not state or prove it explicitly in earlier work, and it might be rather difficult for the reader to see why it is implied by that work.
If $H$ is a tree with no induced $P_4$ then it is a star, so, by Observation \[obs:triv\], $\wHom{H}$ is in $\FP$. On the other hand, the following lemma shows that if $H$ contains an induced $P_4$ then even the unweighted problem $\nHom{H}$ is $\BIS$-hard. To motivate the lemma, suppose that $H$ contains an induced $P_4$. Then it is a bipartite graph which is not complete, so by Goldberg at al. [@GKP Theorem 2] the (uniform) sampling problem for $H$-colourings of a graph is as hard as the sampling problem for independent sets in a bipartite graph. This is not quite the result we are seeking, but it is close in spirit, given the close connection between sampling and approximate counting. The following lemma, which is a special case of [@Kelk Lemma 2.19], is exactly what we need.
\[Kelk\] \[lem:kelk\] Let $H$ be a tree containing an induced $P_4$. Then $$\BIS \APred \nHom{H}.$$
(Proof sketch) We will not give a complete proof of Lemma \[lem:kelk\] since it is a special case of a lemma of Kelk, but here is a sketch to give the reader a high-level idea of the construction. Let $\Delta$ be the maximum degree of vertices of $H$ and let $\Delta'\leq \Delta$ be the maximum degree taken by a neighbour of a degree-$\Delta$ vertex in $H$. Note that $\Delta'\geq2$ since $H$ cannot be a star. Let $(c,c')$ be any edge in $H$ with $d_H(c)=\Delta$ and $d_H(c')=\Delta'$. Let $N_c$ be the set $\Gamma_H(c)-\{c'\}$ and let $N_{c'} = \Gamma_H(c')-\{c\}$. Since $H$ is a tree, there are no edges in $H$ between $N_c$ and $N_{c'}$. Now consider a connected instance $G$ of $\BIS$ with bipartition $V(G)=(V,V')$. Let $G'$ be the bipartite graph with vertex set $V(G)\cup \{C,C'\}$ (where $C$ and $C'$ are new vertices that are not in $V(G)$) and edge set $E(G) \cup \{(C,C')\} \cup \{C\}\times V' \cup \{C'\} \times V$. Consider an $H$-colouring $\sigma$ of $G$ with $\sigma(C)=c$ and $\sigma(C')=c'$. (Standard constructions can be used to augment $G'$ so that almost all homomorphisms to $H$ have this property.) For every vertex $v\in V$, $\sigma(v) \in N_{c'} \cup \{c\}$ and for every vertex $v'\in V'$, $\sigma(v') \in N_c \cup \{c\}$. Also, $\{v \in V \mid \sigma(v)\in N_{c'} \} \cup \{ v'\in V' \mid \sigma(v')\in N_c\}$ is an independent set of $G$. Thus, there is an injection from independent sets of $G$ into these $H$-colourings of $G'$. Standard tricks can be used to adjust the construction so that almost all of the homomorphisms correspond to *maximum* independent sets of $G$ and so that all maximum independent sets correspond to approximately the same number of homomorphisms. The proof follows from the fact that counting maximum independent sets in a bipartite graph is equivalent to $\BIS$ [@APred].
As mentioned above, the main result of this section is Lemma \[lem:intermediate\], which will be presented below. Its proof relies on earlier work on counting *constraint satisfaction problems* (CSPs). Suppose that $x$ and $x'$ are Boolean variables. An assignment $\sigma: \{x,x'\}\to \{0,1\}$ is said to satisfy the implication constraint $\IMP(x,x')$ if $(\sigma(x),\sigma(x'))$ is in $\{ (0,0),(0,1),(1,1)\}$. The idea is that “$\sigma(x)=1$” implies “$\sigma(x')=1$”. The assignment $\sigma$ is said to satisfy the “pinning” constraint $\delta_0(x)$ if $\sigma(x)=0$ and the pinning constraint $\delta_1(x)$ if $\sigma(x)=1$. If $X$ is a set of Boolean variables then a set $C$ of $\{\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1\}$ constraints on $X$ is a set of constraints of the form $\delta_0(x)$, $\delta_1(x)$ and $\IMP(x,x')$ for $x$ and $x'$ in $X$. The set $S(X,C)$ of *satisfying assignments* is the set of all assignments $\sigma: X \to \{0,1\}$ which simultaneously satisfy all of the constraints in $C$. We will consider the following computational problem.
Problem
: $\nCSP(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$.
Instance
: A set $X$ of Boolean variables and a set $C$ of $\{\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1\}$ constraints on $X$.
Output
: $|S(X,C)|$.
We will also consider the following weighted version of $\nCSP(\IMP)$. Suppose, for each $x\in X$, that $\gamma_x:\{0,1\} \rightarrow \posQ$ is a weight function. For an indexed set $\gamma(X) = \{\gamma_x \mid x\in X\}$ of weight functions, let $$Z(X,C,\gamma) = \sum_{\sigma\in S(X,C)} \prod_{x\in X} \gamma_x(\sigma(x)).$$
Problem
: $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$.
Instance
: A set $X$ of Boolean variables, a set $C$ of $\{\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1\}$ constraints on $X$, and an indexed set $\gamma(X)$ of weight functions.
Output
: $Z(X,C,\gamma)$.
We will use the following lemma, which follows from earlier work on counting CSPs.
\[lem:CSP\] $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1) \APeq \BIS$.
Dyer, Goldberg, and Jerrum [@trichotomy Theorem 3] shows that $\nCSP(\IMP,\delta_0,
\delta_1)
\APeq \BIS$. $\nCSP(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$ trivially reduces to $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$ since it is a special case. Thus, it suffices to give an AP-reduction from $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$ to $\nCSP(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$. The idea behind the construction that we use comes from Bulatov et al. [@LSM Lemma 36, Item (i)]. We give the details in order to translate the construction into the current context.
Let $(X,C,\gamma)$ be an instance of $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$. We can assume without loss of generality that all of the weights $\gamma_x(b)$ are positive integers by multiplying all of the weights by the product of the denominators. The construction that follows is not difficult but the details are a little bit complicated, so we use the following running example to illustrate. Let $X=\{y,z\}$, $C = \IMP(y,z)$, $\gamma_y(0)=5$, $\gamma_y(1) = 2$, $\gamma_z(0)=1$ and $\gamma_z(1)=1$.
For every variable $x\in X$, consider the weight function $\gamma_x$. Let $k_x = \max(\lceil \lg \gamma_x(0) \rceil ,\lceil \lg \gamma_x(1) \rceil)$. For every $b\in \{0,1\}$, write the bit-expansion of $\gamma_x(1\oplus b)$ as $$\gamma_x(1\oplus b)
= a_{x,b,0} + a_{x,b,1} 2^1 + \cdots + a_{x,b,k_{x}} 2^{k_{x}},$$ where each $a_{x,b,i}\in \{0,1\}$. Note that $\gamma_x(1\oplus b)>0$ so there is at least one $i$ with $a_{x,b,i}=1$. Let $\min_{x,b} = \min\{i \mid a_{x,b,i}=1\}$ and $\max_{x,b} = \max \{ i \mid a_{x,b,i} = 1\}$. If $i<\max_{x,b}$ and $a_{x,b,i}=1$ then let $\text{next}_{x,b,i} = \min\{j>i \mid a_{x,b,j}=1\}$. If $i>\min_{x,b}$ and $a_{x,b,i}=1$ then let $\text{prev}_{x,b,i} = \max\{j<i \mid a_{x,b,j}=1\}$. For the running example,
- $k_y= \lceil \lg 5 \rceil = 3$ and $k_z = \lceil \lg 1 \rceil =0$.
- For the variable $y$, taking $b=0$ we have $\gamma_y(1\oplus 0) = 2^1$ so $a_{y,0,0}=0$, $a_{y,0,1}=1$, and $a_{y,0,2}= a_{y,0,3}=0$. Also, $\min_{y,0}=1=\max_{y,0}$.
- Similarly, taking $b=1$ gives $\gamma_y(1\oplus 1) = 2^0+2^2$ so $a_{y,1,0}=1$, $a_{y,1,1}=0$, $a_{y,1,2}=1$ and $a_{y,1,3}=0$. Thus $\min_{y,1}=0$ and $\max_{y,1}=2$. Then $\text{next}_{y,1,0}=2$ and $\text{prev}_{y,1,2}=0$.
- Finally, for the variable $z$ and $b\in \{0,1\}$, we have $\gamma_z(1\oplus b)=2^0$ so $a_{z,b,0}=1$ and $\min_{z,b}=0=\max_{z,b}$.
Now for every $x\in X$, for every $ i \in \{1,\ldots,k_x\}$ and every $b\in\{0,1\}$ with $a_{x,b,i}=1$ let $A_{x,b,i}$ be the set of $i+2$ variables $\{x_{b,i,1},\ldots,x_{b,i,i}\} \cup \{ L_{x,b,i},R_{x,b,i}\}$. Let $C_{x,b,i}$ be the set of implication constraints $\bigcup_{j\in[i]} \{\IMP(L_{x,b,i},x_{b,i,j}),\IMP(x_{b,i,j},R_{x,b,i})\}$. Note that there are $2^i+2$ satisfying assignments to the $\nCSP$ instance $(A_{x,b,i},C_{x,b,i})$: one with $\sigma(L_{x,b,i})=\sigma(R_{x,b,i})=0$, one with $\sigma(L_{x,b,i})=\sigma(R_{x,b,i})=1$, and $2^i$ with $\sigma(L_{x,b,i})=0$ and $\sigma(R_{x,b,i})=1$. The point here is that the sets $A_{x,b,i}$ will be combined for different values of $i$. The satisfying assignments with $\sigma(L_{x,b,i})=\sigma(R_{x,b,i})=0$ will correspond to contributions from a different index $i'>i$ and the satisfying assignments with $\sigma(L_{x,b,i})=\sigma(R_{x,b,i})=1$ will correspond to contributions from a different index $i'<i$. There are exactly $2^i$ satisfying assignments with $\sigma(L_{x,b,i})=0$ and $\sigma(R_{x,b,i})=1$ and these will correspond to the $a_{x,b,i} 2^i$ summand in the bit-expansion of $\gamma_x(1\oplus b)$. For the running example,
- for the variable $y$ and for $b=0$ and $i=1$ we have $A_{y,0,1} = \{y_{0,1,1} \} \cup \{ L_{y,0,1},R_{y,0,1}\}$. Then $C_{y,0,1}$ contains $ \{\IMP(L_{y,0,1},y_{0,1,1}),\IMP(y_{0,1,1},R_{y,0,1})\}$ and there are $2+2^1=4$ solutions.
- For the variable $y$ and for $b=1$ and $i=2$ we have $A_{y,1,2} = \{y_{1,2,1}, y_{1,2,2}\} \cup \{ L_{y,1,2},R_{y,1,2}\}$. Then $C_{y,1,2}$ contains the constraints $\IMP(L_{y,1,2},y_{1,2,1})$, $\IMP(y_{1,2,1},R_{y,1,2})$, $\IMP(L_{y,1,2},y_{1,2,2})$, and $\IMP(y_{1,2,2},R_{y,1,2})$ and there are $2+2^2=6$ solutions.
We now add some constraints corresponding to the $i=0$ case above. For every $x\in X$ and every $b\in \{0,1\}$ with $a_{x,b,0}=1$ let $A_{x,b,0}$ be the set of variables $\{ L_{x,b,0},R_{x,b,0}\}$. Let $C_{x,b,0}$ be the set containing the constraint $\IMP(L_{x,b,0},R_{x,b,0})$. Note that there are $2^0+2=3$ satisfying assignments to the $\nCSP$ instance $(A_{x,b,0},C_{x,b,0})$: one with $\sigma(L_{x,b,0})=\sigma(R_{x,b,0})=0$, one with $\sigma(L_{x,b,0})=\sigma(R_{x,b,0})=1$, and $2^0=1$ with $\sigma(L_{x,b,0})=0$ and $\sigma(R_{x,b,0})=1$. For the running example,
- $A_{y,1,0} = \{ L_{y,1,0},R_{y,1,0}\}$ and $C_{y,1,0} = \{ \IMP(L_{y,1,0},R_{y,1,0})\}$.
- For $b\in \{0,1\}$, $A_{z,b,0} = \{ L_{z,b,0},R_{z,b,0}\}$ and $C_{z,b,0} = \{ \IMP(L_{z,b,0},R_{z,b,0})\}$.
Now for every $x\in X$ and $b\in\{0,1\}$ let $C'_{x,b}$ be the set of constraints forcing equality of $\sigma(R_{x,b,i})$ and $\sigma(L_{x,b,j})$ when $i$ and $j$ are adjacent one-bits in the bit-expansion of $\gamma_x(1\oplus b)$. In particular, $$C'_{x,b} = \bigcup_{\text{next}_{x,b,i}=j, \text{prev}_{x,b,j}=i}
\{ \IMP(R_{x,b,i},L_{x,b,j}), \IMP(L_{x,b,j},R_{x,b,i}) \}$$ For the running example,
- $C'_{y,0} = C'_{z,0} = C'_{z,1} = \emptyset$ since these variables have only one positive coefficient in the bit expansion.
- For the variable $y$ and $b=1$ the relevant non-zero coefficients are $i=0$ and $j=2$ so we get $$C'_{y,1} =
\{
\IMP(R_{y,1,0},L_{y,1,2}), \IMP(L_{y,1,2},R_{y,1,0}) \}.$$
Now consider $x\in X$. Let $C''_{x,0}=C'_{x,0} \cup \{\delta_0(L_{x,0,\min_{x,0}})\}$ and let $C''_{x,1} = C'_{x,1} \cup \{\delta_1(R_{x,1,\max_{x,1}})\}$. For $x\in X$ and $b\in \{0,1\}$ let $$A_{x,b} = \bigcup_{i\in
\{0,\ldots,k_x\},
a_{x,b,i}=1} A_{x,b,i}$$ and let $$C_{x,b} =
C''_{x,b}
\cup
\bigcup_{i\in\{0,\ldots,k_x\},
a_{x,b,i}=1} C_{x,b,i}.$$ Now will show that there are $\gamma_x(1)$ satisfying assignments to the $\nCSP$ instance $(A_{x,0},C_{x,0})$ which have the property that $\sigma(R_{x,0,\max_{x,0}})=1$ and one satisfying assignment in which $\sigma(R_{x,0,\max_{x,0}})=0.$ To see this, note that the constraint $\delta_0(L_{x,0,\min_{x,0}})$ forces $\sigma(L_{x,0,\min_{x,0}})=0$. If $\sigma(R_{x,0,\max_{x,0}})=0$ then all of the variables in $A_{x,0}$ are assigned spin $0$ by $\sigma$. Otherwise, there is exactly one $i$ with $a_{x,0,i}=1$ and $\sigma(L_{x,0,i})=0$ and $\sigma(R_{x,0,i})=1$. As we noted above, there are $2^i$ assignments to the variables in $A_{x,b,i}$. But $\sum_{i: a_{x,0,1}=i} 2^i = \gamma_x(1)$, as required. Similarly, there are $\gamma_x(0)$ satisfying assignments to the $\nCSP$ instance $(A_{x,1},C_{x,1})$ in which $\sigma(L_{x,1,\min_{x,1}})=0$ and there is one satisfying assignment in which $\sigma(L_{x,1,\min_{x,1}})=1.$ Let us quickly apply this to the running example.
- Taking variable $y$ and $b=0$ we have $A_{y,0} = A_{y,0,1}$ and $C''_{y,0} = \{\delta_0(L_{y,0,1})\} \cup C_{y,0,1}$. Then $\max_{y,0}=1$. From above, there is one solution $\sigma$ with $\sigma(R_{y,0,\max_{y,0}})=0$ and there are $2^1=\gamma_y(1)$ solutions $\sigma$ with $\sigma(R_{y,0,\max_{y,0}})=1$.
- Taking variable $y$ and $b=1$ we have $$A_{y,1} = A_{y,1,0} \cup A_{y,1,2}$$ and $$C''_{y,1} = \{ \delta_1(R_{y,1,2}),
\IMP(R_{y,1,0},L_{y,1,2}), \IMP(L_{y,1,2},R_{y,1,0})
\} \cup C_{y,1,0} \cup C_{y,1,2} .$$ There is one solution $\sigma$ with $\sigma(L_{y,1,0})=1$. There are $2^0+2^2=\gamma_y(0)$ solutions $\sigma$ with $\sigma(L_{y,1,0})=0$.
- Taking variable $z$ we have $A_{z,b} = A_{z,b,0} = \{L_{z,b,0},R_{z,b,0}\}$. Then, taking $b=0$, $C_{z,0} = \{ \delta_0(L_{z,0,0}),\IMP(L_{z,0,0},R_{z,0,0})\}$. so there is $2^0=1=\gamma_z(1)$ assignment with $\sigma(R_{z,0,0})=1$ and one with $\sigma(R_{z,0,0})=0$. Taking $b=1$, $C_{z,1} = \{\delta_1(R_{z,1,0}),\IMP(L_{z,1,0},R_{z,1,0})\}$ so there is $2^0=1=\gamma_z(0)$ assignment with $\sigma(L_{z,1,0})=0$ and one with $\sigma(L_{z,1,0})=1$.
Finally, consider $x\in X$. Let $C_x$ be the set of constraints containing the four implications $\IMP(x,R_{x,0,\max_{x,0}})$, $\IMP(R_{x,0,\max_{x,0}},x)$, $\IMP(x,L_{x,1,\min_{x,1}})$, and $\IMP(L_{x,1,\min_{x,1}},x)$. Now there are $\gamma_x(1)$ solutions to $(A_{x,0} \cup A_{x,1} \cup \{x\},C_{x,0} \cup C_{x,1} \cup C_x)$ with $\sigma(x)=1$ and $\gamma_x(0)$ solutions with $\sigma(x)=0$. Thus, we have simulated the weight function $w_x$ with $\{\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1\}$ constraints. For the running example,
- first consider the variable $y$.
- With $\sigma(y)=1$ the constraints in $C_y$ force $\sigma(R_{y,0,\max_{y,0}})=1$ which, from above, gives $\gamma_y(1)$ solutions to $(A_{y,0},C_{y,0})$. The constraints in $C_y$ also force $\sigma(L_{y,1,\min(y,1)})=1$, which, from above, gives one solution to $(A_{y,1},C_{y,1})$.
- With $\sigma(y)=0$ the constraints in $C_y$ force $\sigma(R_{y,0,\max_{y,0}})=0$ so there is only one solution to $(A_{y,0},C_{y,0})$. The constraints in $C_y$ also force $\sigma(L_{y,1,\min(y,1)})=0$ so there are $\gamma_y(0)$ solutions to $(A_{y,1},C_{y,1})$.
- The argument for variable $z$ is similar.
Thus, the correct output for the $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$ instance $(X,C,\gamma)$ is same as the correct output for the $\nCSP(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$ instance obtained from $(X,C,\gamma)$ by adding new variables and constraints to simulate each weight function $\gamma_x$.
We can now prove the main lemma of this section.
\[lem:intermediate\] Suppose that $H$ is a tree which is not a star and which has no induced $J_3$. Then $$\BIS \APeq\nHom{H} \mbox{ and } \BIS\APeq \wHom{H}.$$
$\nHom{H}$ is a special case of $\wHom{H}$ so it is certainly AP-reducible to $\wHom{H}$. By Lemma \[lem:kelk\], $\BIS$ is AP-reducible to $\nHom{H}$ and therefore it is AP-reducible to $\wHom{H}$. So it suffices to give an AP-reduction from $\wHom{H}$ to $\BIS$. Applying Lemma \[lem:CSP\], it suffices to give an AP-reduction from $\wHom{H}$ to $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$.
In order to do the reduction, we will order the vertices of $H$ using the fact that it has no induced $J_3$. (This ordering is similar the one arising from the “crossing property” of the authors that is mentioned in [@Kelk Section 7.3.3].) A “convex ordering” of a connected bipartite graph with bipartition $(U,U')$ with $|U|=h$ and $|U'|=h'$ and edge set $E\subseteq U\times U'$ is a pair of bijections $\pi:U \rightarrow [h]$ and $\pi':U' \rightarrow [h']$ such that there are monotonically non-decreasing functions functions $m:[h]\to[h']$, $M:[h]\to[h']$, $m':[h']\to[h]$ and $M':[h']\to[h]$ satisfying the following conditions.
- If $\pi(u)=i$ then $\{\pi'(u') \mid (u,u')\in E \} = \{ \ell \in [h'] \mid m(i) \leq \ell \leq M(i)\}$.
- If $\pi'(u')=i$ then $\{\pi(u) \mid (u,u')\in E \} = \{ \ell \in [h] \mid m'(i) \leq \ell \leq M'(i)\}$.
The purpose of $\pi$ and $\pi'$ is just to put the vertices in the correct order. For example, in Figure \[fig:referee\],
$\pi$ is the identity map on the set $U=\{1,2,3,4\}$ and $\pi'$ is the identity map on the set $U'=\{1,2,3\}$. Vertex $3$ in $U$ is connected to the sequence containing vertices $1$, $2$ and $3$ in $U'$, so $m(3)=1$ and $M(3)=3$. Every other vertex in $U$ has degree $1$ and in particular $m(1)=M(1)=1$, $m(2)=M(2)=1$ and $m(4)=M(4)=3$. Similarly, vertex $1$ in $U'$ is attached to the sequence containing vertices $1$, $2$ and $3$ in $U$ so $m'(1)=1$ and $M'(1)=3$ but $m'(2)=M'(2)=3$ and $m'(3)=M'(3)=4$.
To see that a convex ordering of $H$ always exists, consider the following algorithm. The input is a tree $H$ with no induced $J_3$, a bipartition $(U,U')$ of the vertices of $H$, and a distinguished leaf $u\in U$ whose parent $u'$ is adjacent to at most one non-leaf. (Note that such a leaf $u$ always exists since $H$ is a tree.) The output is a convex ordering of $H$ in which $\pi(u)=h$ and $\pi'(u')=h'$. Here is what the algorithm does. If all of the neighbours of $u'$ are leaves, then $h'=1$ so take any bijection $\pi$ from $U-\{u\}$ to $[h-1]$ and set $\pi(u)=h$ and $\pi'(u')=h'$. Return this output. Otherwise, let $u''$ be the neighbour of $u'$ that is not a leaf. Let $H'$ be the graph formed from $H$ by removing all of the $d_H(u')-1$ neighbours of $u'$ other than $u''$. Since $H$ has no induced $J_3$, the graph $H'$ has the following property: $u'$ is a leaf whose parent, $u''$, is adjacent to at most one non-leaf. Recursively, construct a convex ordering for $H'$ in which $\pi(u')=h'$ and $\pi(u'')=h-(d_H(u')-1)$. Extend $\pi$ by assigning values to the leaf-neighbours of $u'$, ensuring that $\pi(u)=h$.
We will now show how to reduce $\wHom{H}$ to $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$. Let $G$ be a connected bipartite graph with bipartition $(V,V')$ and let $W(G,H)$ be an indexed set of weight functions. Let $$Z'_{H}(G,W(G,H)) = \sum_{\sigma\in \Hom GH\text{ with $\sigma(V)\subseteq U$}}\,
\prod_{v\in V(G)} w_v(\sigma(v))$$ and let $$Z''_{H}(G,W(G,H)) = \sum_{\sigma\in \Hom GH\text{ with $\sigma(V)\subseteq U'$}}\,
\prod_{v\in V(G)} w_v(\sigma(v)).$$ Clearly, $Z_{H}(G,W(G,H)) = Z'_{H}(G,W(G,H))+Z''_{H}(G,W(G,H))$. We will show how to reduce the computation of $Z'_{H}(G,W(G,H))$, given the input $(G,W(G,H))$, to the problem $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$. In the same way, we can reduce the computation of $Z''_{H}(G,W(G,H))$ to $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$.
Since we are considering assignments which map $V$ to $U$ and $V'$ to $U'$, the vertices in $U$ will not get mixed up with the vertices in $U'$. We can simplify the notation by relabelling the vertices so that $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are the identity permutations. Then, given the convex ordering property, we can assume that $U=[h]$ and that $U'=[h']$ and that we have monotonically non-decreasing functions functions $m:[h]\to[h']$, $M:[h]\to[h']$, $m':[h']\to[h]$ and $M':[h']\to[h]$ such that
- for $i\in U$, $\Gamma_H(i) = \{ \ell \in [h'] \mid m(i) \leq \ell \leq M(i)\}$, and
- for $i\in U'$, $\Gamma_H(i) = \{ \ell \in [h] \mid m'(i) \leq \ell \leq M'(i)\}$.
A configuration $\sigma$ contributing to $Z'_{H}(G,W(G,H))$ is a map from $V$ to $[h]$ together with a map from $V'$ to $[h']$ such that the following is true for every edge $(v,v')\in V\times V'$.
(1) \[one\] $m({\sigma(v)}) \leq \sigma(v') \leq M({\sigma(v)})$, and
(2) \[two\] $m'({\sigma(v')}) \leq \sigma(v) \leq M'({\sigma(v')})$.
Since $m$, $M$, $m'$ and $M'$ are monotonically non-decreasing, we can re-write the conditions in a less natural way which will be straightforward to apply below.
1. \[onep\] $\sigma(v) \leq i$ implies $\sigma(v') \leq M(i)$,
2. \[twop\] $\sigma(v') \leq i'$ implies $\sigma(v) \leq M'(i')$,
3. \[threep\] $\sigma(v') \leq m(i)-1$ implies $\sigma(v) \leq i-1$, and
4. \[fourp\] $\sigma(v) \leq m'(i')-1$ implies $\sigma(v') \leq i'-1$.
Using monotonicity, (\[onep\]$'$) and (\[twop\]$'$) follow from the right-hand side of (\[one\]) and (\[two\]). Suppose that $\sigma(v') < m(i)$. Then the left-hand side of (\[one\]) gives $m(\sigma(v))< m(i)$, so by monotonicity, $\sigma(v)< i$. Equation (\[threep\]$'$) follows. In the same way, Equation (\[fourp\]$'$) follows from the left-hand side of (\[two\]). Going the other direction, the right-hand sides of (\[one\]) and (\[two\]) follow from (\[onep\]$'$) and (\[twop\]$'$).To derive the left-hand side of (\[one\]), take the contrapositive of (\[threep\]$'$), which says $\sigma(v) \geq i$ implies $\sigma(v') \geq m(i)$ then plug in $i=\sigma(v)$. The derivation of the left-hand side of (\[two\]) is similar.
We now construct an instance of $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$. For each vertex $v\in V$ introduce Boolean variables $v_0,\ldots,v_{h}$. Introduce constraints $\delta_0(v_0)$ and $\delta_1(v_{h})$ and, for every $i\in[h]$, $\IMP(v_{i-1},v_i)$. For each vertex $v'\in V'$ introduces Boolean variables $v'_0,\ldots,v'_{h'}$. Introduce constraints $\delta_0(v'_0)$ and $\delta_1(v'_{h'})$ and, for every $i'\in[h']$, $\IMP(v'_{i'-1},v'_{i'})$.
Now there is a one-to-one correspondence between assignments $\sigma$ mapping $V$ to $U$ and $V'$ to $U'$, and assignments $\tau$ to the Boolean variables that satisfy the above constraints. In particular, $\sigma(v)=\min\{i \mid \tau(v_i)=1\}$. Similarly, $\sigma(v')=\min\{i' \mid \tau(v'_i)=1\}$.
Now, $\sigma(v) \leq i$ is exactly equivalent to $\tau(v_i) =1$. Thus, we can add the following further constraints to rule out assignments $\sigma$ that do not satisfy (\[onep\]$'$), (\[twop\]$'$), (\[threep\]$'$) and (\[fourp\]$'$). Add all of the following constraints where $v\in V$, $v'\in V'$, $i\in [h]$ and $i'\in [h']$: $\IMP(v_{i},v'_{M(i)})$, $\IMP(v'_{i'}, v_{M'(i')})$, $\IMP(v'_{m(i)-1},v_{i-1})$, and $\IMP(v_{m'(i')-1},v'_{i'-1})$. Now the assignments $\tau$ of Boolean values to the variables satisfy all of the constraints if and only if they correspond to assignments $\sigma$ which satisfy (\[onep\]$'$), (\[twop\]$'$), (\[threep\]$'$) (\[fourp\]$'$), and so should contribute to $$Z'_{H}(G,W(G,H)) = \sum_{\sigma\in \Hom GH\text{ with $\sigma(V)\subseteq U$}} \,
\prod_{v\in V(G)} w_v(\sigma(v)).$$
We will next construct weight functions for the instance of $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$ in order to reproduce the effect of the weight functions in $W(G,H)$.
In order to avoid division by $0$, we first modify the construction. Suppose that for some variable $v\in V$ and some $i\in [h]$, $w_v(i)=0$. Configurations $\sigma$ with $\sigma(v)=i$ make no contribution to $Z'_{H}(G,W(G,H))$. Thus, it does no harm to rule out such configurations by modifying the $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$ instance to ensure that $\tau(v_i)=1$ implies $\tau(v_{i-1})=1$. We do this by adding the constraint $\IMP(v_i,v_{i-1})$. Similarly, if $w_{v'}(i')=0$ for $v'\in V$ and $i'\in[h']$ then we add the constraint $\IMP(v'_{i'},v'_{i'-1})$.
Once we’ve made this change, we can replace $W(G,H)$ with an equivalent indexed set of weight functions $W'(G,H)$ where $w'_v(i)=w_v(i)$ if $w_v(i)>0$ and $w'_v(i)=1$, otherwise.
The weight functions for the $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$ instance are then constructed as follows, for each $v\in V$. For each $i\in[h]$, let $\gamma_{v_{i-1}}(0)=1$. Let $\gamma_{v_h}(1)=w'_v(h)$. For each $i\in [h-1]$, let $\gamma_{v_i}(1)=w'_v(i)/w'_v(i+1)$. Note that $\gamma_{v_h}(0)$ and $\gamma_{v_0}(1)$ have not yet been defined — these values can be chosen arbitrarily. They will not be relevant given the constraints $\delta_0(v_0)$ and $\delta_1(v_h)$.
Now if $\sigma(v)=i$ we have $\tau(v_0)=\cdots = \tau(v_{i-1})=0$ and $\tau(v_i)=\cdots = \tau(v_h)=1$ so $\prod_j \gamma_{v_j}(\tau(v_j)) = w'_v(i)$, as required. Similarly, for each $v'\in V'$, define the weight functions as follows. For each $i\in[h']$, let $\gamma_{v'_{i-1}}(0)=1$. Let $\gamma_{v'_{h'}}(1)=w'_{v'}(h')$. For each $i\in [h'-1]$, let $\gamma_{v'_i}(1)=w'_{v'}(i)/w'_{v'}(i+1)$. Using these weight functions, we obtain the desired reduction from the computation of $Z'_{H}(G,W(G,H))$ to $\nCSP^*(\IMP,\delta_0,\delta_1)$.
Intractable trees
-----------------
Lemma \[lem:intermediate\] shows that if $H$ has no induced $J_3$ then $\wHom{H}$ is AP-reducible to $\BIS$. The purpose of this section is to prove Lemma \[lem:hardweighted\], below, which shows, by contrast, that if $H$ does have an induced $J_3$, then $\wHom{H}$ is $\SAT$-hard.
In order to prepare for the proof of Lemma \[lem:hardweighted\], we introduce the notion of a multiterminal cut. Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ with distinguished vertices $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$, which we refer to as “terminals”, a [*multiterminal cut*]{} is a set $E'\subseteq E$ whose removal disconnects the terminals in the sense that the graph $(V,E\setminus E')$ does not contain a path between any two distinct terminals. The size of the multiterminal cut is the number of edges in $E'$. Consider the following computational problem.
Problem
: .
Instance
: A positive integer $b$, a connected graph $G=(V,E)$ and $3$ distinct vertices $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ from $V$. The input has the property that every multiterminal cut has size at least $b$.
Output
: The number of size-$b$ multiterminal cuts for $G$ with terminals $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$.
We will use the following technical lemma, which we used before in [@Ising] (without stating it formally).
\[lem:cut\] $\APeq \SAT$.
This follows essentially from the proof of Dalhaus et al. [@Dalhaus] that the decision version of is NP-hard and from the fact [@APred Theorem 1] that the NP-hardness of a decision problem implies that the corresponding counting problem is AP-interreducible with $\SAT$. The details are given in [@Ising Section 4].
\[lem:hardweighted\] Suppose that $H$ is a tree with an induced $J_3$. Then $$\SAT \APred\wHom{H}.$$
We will prove the lemma by giving an AP-reduction from to $\wHom{H}$. The lemma will then follow from Lemma \[lem:cut\].
Suppose that $H$ has an induced subgraph which is isomorphic to $J_3$. To simplify the notation, label the vertices and edges of $H$ in such a way that the induced subgraph is (identically) the graph $J$ depicted in Figure \[fig:J\].
Let $b$, $G=(V,E)$, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ be an input to . Let $s= 2 + |E(G)|+2|V(G)|$. (The exact size of $s$ is not important, but it has to be at least this big to make the calculation work, and it has to be at most a polynomial in the size of $G$.) Let $G'$ be the graph defined as follows. First, let $V'(G)= \{(e,i) \mid e\in E,i\in[s]\}$. Thus, $V'(G)$ contains $s$ vertices for each edge $e$ of $G$. Then let $G'$ be the graph with vertex set $V(G') = V(G) \cup V'(G)$ and edge set $$E(G') = \{(u,(e,i)) \mid u\in V(G), (e,i)\in V'(G),
\mbox{and $u$ is an endpoint of~$e$} \}.$$
We will define weight functions $w_v$ for $v\in V(G')$ so that an approximation to the number of size-$b$ multi-terminal cuts for $G$ with terminals $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ can be obtained from an approximation to $Z_H(G',W(G',H))$. We start by defining the set of pairs $(v,c)\in V(G')\times V(H)$ for which we will specify $w_v(c)>0$. In particular, define the set $\Omega$ as follows. $$\Omega =
\{(\alpha,x_0),(\beta,y_0),(\gamma,z_0)\}
\cup
\big((V(G)-\{\alpha,\beta,\gamma\}) \times \{x_0,y_0,z_0\} \big)
\cup
\left(V'(G) \times \{w,x_1,y_1,z_1\}\right).$$ Let $w_v(c)=1$ if $(v,c)\in \Omega$. Otherwise, let $w_v(c)=0$.
Thus, $Z_H(G',W(G',H))$ is the number of homomorphisms $\sigma$ from $G'$ to $H$ with $\sigma(V(G)) = \{x_0,y_0,z_0\}$, $\sigma(V'(G)) \subseteq \{w,x_1,y_1,z_1\}$, $\sigma(\alpha)=x_0$, $\sigma(\beta)=y_0$ and $\sigma(\gamma)=z_0$. We will refer to these as “valid” homomorphisms.
If $\sigma$ is a valid homomorphism, then let $$\begin{aligned}
\bichrom{\sigma} =
\{ e \in E(G) \mid \quad &
\mbox{the vertices of~$V(G)$ corresponding to } \\
& \mbox{the endpoints of~$e$ are mapped to different colours by~$\sigma$}
\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, for every valid homomorphism $\sigma$, $\bichrom{\sigma}$ is a multiterminal cut for the graph $G$ with terminals $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$.
For every multiterminal cut $E'$, let $\components{E'}$ denote the number of components in the graph $(V,E\setminus E')$. For each multiterminal cut $E'$, let $Z_{E'}$ denote the number of valid homomorphisms $\sigma$ from $G'$ to $H$ such that $\bichrom{\sigma} = E'$. From the definition of multiterminal cut, $\components{E'}\geq 3$. If $\components{E'}=3$ then $$Z_{E'} = 2^{s(E(G)-E')}$$ since there are two choices for the colours of each vertex $(e,i)$ with $e\in E(G)-E'$. (Since the endpoints of each such edge $e$ are assigned the same colour by $\sigma$, the vertex $(e,i)$ can either be coloured $w$, or it can be coloured with one other colour.) Also, $$Z_{E'} \leq 2^{s(E(G)-E')} 3^{\components{E'}-3},$$ since the component of $\alpha$ is mapped to $x_0$ by $\sigma$, the component of $\beta$ is mapped to $y_0$, the component of $\gamma$ is mapped to $z_0$, and each remaining component is mapped to a colour in $\{x_0,y_0,z_0\}$.
Let $Z^*= 2^{s(E(G)-b)} $. If $E'$ has size $b$ then $\components{E'}=3$. (Otherwise, there would be a smaller multiterminal cut, contrary to the definition of .) So, in this case, $$Z_{E'} = Z^*.
\label{eq:smgoodcuts}$$
If $E'$ has size $b'>b$ then $$Z_{E'} \leq 2^{s(E(G)-b')} 3^{\components{E'}-3}
= 2^{-s(b'-b)} 3^{\components{E'}-3} Z^*
\leq 2^{-s} 3^{|V(G)|} Z^*.$$ Clearly, there are at most $2^{|E(G)|}$ multiterminal cuts $E'$. So, using the definition of $s$, $$\label{eq:smbigcuts}
\sum_{E' : |E'|>b} Z_{E'} \leq \frac{Z^*}{4}$$
From Equation (\[eq:smgoodcuts\]), we find that, if there are $N$ size-$b$ multiterminal cuts then $$Z_H(G',W(G',H)) = N Z^* + \sum_{E' : |E'|>b} Z_{E'} .$$ So applying Equation (\[eq:smbigcuts\]) , we get $$N \leq \frac{Z_H(G',W(G',H))}{Z^*} \leq N + \frac{1}{4}.$$
Thus, we have an AP-reduction from to $\nHom{H}$. To determine the accuracy with which $Z(G)$ should be approximated in order to achieve a given accuracy in the approximation to $N$, see the proof of Theorem 3 of [@APred].
Tree homomorphisms capture the ferromagnetic Potts model. {#sec:potts}
=========================================================
The problem $\nHom{H}$ counts colourings of a graph satisfying “hard” constraints: two colours (corresponding to vertices of $H$) are either allowed on adjacent vertices of the instance or disallowed. By contrast, the Potts model (to be described presently) is “permissive”: every pair of colours is allowed on adjacent vertices, but some pairs are favoured relative to others. The strength of interactions between colours is controlled by a real parameter $\gamma$. In this section, we will show that approximating the number of homomorphisms to $J_q$ is equivalent in difficulty to the problem of approximating the partition function of the ferromagnetic $q$-state Potts model. Since the latter problem is not known to be -easy for any $q>2$, we might speculate that approximating $\nHom{J_q}$ is not -easy for any $q>2$. If so, $J_3$ would be the smallest tree with this property.
It is interesting that, for fixed $q$, a continuously parameterised class of permissive problems can be shown to be computationally equivalent to a single counting problem with hard constraints. Suppose, for example, that we wanted to investigate the possibility that computing the partition function of the $q$-state ferromagnetic Potts model formed a hierarchy of problems of increasing complexity with increasing $q$. We could equivalently investigate the sequence of problems $\nHom{J_q}$, which seems intuitively to be an easier proposition.
We start with some definitions. Let $q$ be a positive integer. The $q$-state Potts model is a statistical mechanical model of Potts [@Potts] which generalises the classical Ising model from two to $q$ spins. In this model, spins interact along edges of a graph $G=(V,E)$. The strength of each interaction is governed by a parameter $\gamma$ (a real number which is always at least $-1$, and is greater than $0$ in the *ferromagnetic* case which we study, where like spins attract each other). The $q$-state Potts partition function is defined as follows. $$\label{eq:PottsGph}
\ZPotts(G;q,\gamma) =
\sum_{\sigma:V\rightarrow [q]}
\prod_{e=\{u,v\}\in E}
\big(1+\gamma\,\delta(\sigma(u) ,\sigma(v))\big),$$ where $\delta(s,s')$ is $1$ if $s=s'$, and is $0$ otherwise.
The Potts partition function is well-studied. In addition to the complexity-theory literature mentioned below, we refer the reader to Sokal’s survey [@Sokal05].
In order to state our results in the strongest possible form, we use the notion of “efficiently approximable real number” from Section \[sec:prelim\]. Recall that a real number $\gamma$ is efficiently approximable if there is an FPRAS for the problem of computing it. The notion of “efficiently approximable” is not important to the constructions below — the reader who prefers to assume that the parameters are rational will still appreciate the essence of the reductions.
Let $q$ be a positive integer and let $\gamma$ be a positive efficiently approximable real. Consider the following computational problem, which is parameterised by $q$ and $\gamma$.
Problem
: $\Potts(q,\gamma)$.
Instance
: Graph $\graph=(\graphvertices,\graphedges)$.
Output
: $\ZPotts(\graph;q,\gamma)$.
This problem may be defined more generally for non-integers $q$ via the Tutte polynomial. We will use some results from [@FerroPotts] which are more general, but we do not need the generality here.
In an important paper, Jaeger, Vertigan and Welsh [@JVW90] examined the problem of evaluating the Tutte polynomial. Their result gave a complete classification of the computational complexity of $\Potts(q,\gamma)$. For every fixed positive integer $q$, apart from the trivial $q=1$, and for every fixed $\gamma$, they showed that this computational problem is \#P-hard. When $q=1$ and $\gamma$ is rational, $\ZPotts(\graph;q,\gamma)$ can easily be exactly evaluated in polynomial time. The complexity of the approximation problem has also been partially resolved. In the positive direction, Jerrum and Sinclair [@JS93] gave an FPRAS for the case $q=2$. In the negative direction, Goldberg and Jerrum [@FerroPotts] showed that approximation is $\BIS$-hard for every fixed $q>2$. They left open the question of whether approximating $\ZPotts(G;q,\gamma)$ is as easy as $\BIS$ (or whether it might be even harder).
In this paper, we show that the approximation problem is equivalent in complexity to a tree homomorphism problem. In particular, we show that $\Potts(q,\gamma)$ is AP-equivalent to the problem of approximately counting homomorphisms to the tree $J_q$.
We first give an AP-reduction from $\Potts(q,1)$ to $\nHom{J_q}$.
\[lem:tocol\] Let $q>2$ be a positive integer. $$\Potts(q,1) \APred \nHom{J_q}.$$
Let $G$ be an instance of $\Potts(q,1)$. We can assume without loss of generality that $G$ is connected, since it is clear from (\[eq:PottsGph\]) that a graph $G$ with connected components $G_1,\ldots,G_\kappa$ satisfies $\ZPotts(G;q,\gamma)=\prod_{i=1}^{\kappa} \ZPotts(G_i;q,\gamma)$.
Let $G'$ be the graph with $$V(G') = V(G) \cup E(G)$$ and $$E(G') = \{(u,e) \mid u\in V(G), e \in E(G),
\mbox{and $u$ is an endpoint of~$e$} \}.$$ $G'$ is sometimes referred to as the “$2$-stretch” of $G$. For clarity, when we consider an element $e\in E(G)$ as a vertex of $G'$ (rather than an edge of $G$), we shall refer to it as the “midpoint vertex corresponding to edge $e$”.
Let $s$ be an integer satisfying $$\label{eq:firsts}
8 q {(q+1)}^{|V(G)|+|E(G)|} \leq {\left(\frac{q}{2}\right)}^s .$$ For concreteness, take $s$ to be the smallest integer satisfying (\[eq:firsts\]). The exact size of $s$ is not so important. The calculation below relies on the fact that $s$ is large enough to satisfy (\[eq:firsts\]). On the other hand, $s$ must be at most a polynomial in the size of $G$, to make the reduction feasible.
We will construct an instance $G''$ of $\nHom{J_q}$ by adding some gadgets to $G'$. Fix a vertex $v\in V(G)$. Let $G''$ be the graph with $V(G'')=V(G) \cup E(G) \cup \{v_0,\ldots,v_s\}$ and $E(G'') = E(G') \cup \{(v,v_0)\} \cup
\{(v_0,v_i) \mid i\in [s]\}$. See Figure \[fig:firstinstance\].
We say that a homomorphism $\sigma$ from $G''$ to $J_q$ is *typical* if $\sigma(v_0)=w$. Note that, in a typical homomorphism, every vertex in $V(G)$ is mapped by $\sigma$ to one of the colours from $\{c'_1,\ldots,c'_q\}$. Let $Z_{J_q}^t(G'')$ denote the number of typical homomorphisms from $G''$ to $J_q$.
Given a mapping $\sigma: V(G) \rightarrow \{c'_1,\ldots,c'_q\}$, the number of typical homomorphisms which induce this mapping is $2^{\mathrm{mono}(\sigma)} q^s$, where $\mathrm{mono}(\sigma)$ is the number of edges $e\in E(G)$ whose endpoints in $V(G)$ are mapped to the same colour by $\sigma$. (To see this, note that there are two possible colours for the midpoint vertices corresponding to such edges, whereas the other midpoint vertices have to be mapped to $w$ by $\sigma$. Also, there are $q$ possible colours for each vertex in $\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}$.) Thus, using the definition (\[eq:PottsGph\]), we conclude that $$Z_{J_q}^t(G'') = \sum_{\sigma: V(G) \rightarrow \{c'_1,\ldots,c'_q\}} 2^{\mathrm{mono}(\sigma)} q^s
= q^s \ZPotts(G;q,1).$$
The number of atypical homomorphisms from $G''$ to $J_q$, which we denote by $Z_{J_q}^a(G'')$, is at most $2q 2^s {(q+1)}^{|V(G)|+|E(G)|}$. (To see this, note, that there are $2q$ alternative colours for $v_0$. For each of these, there are at most $2$ colours for each vertex in $\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}$ and at most $q+1$ colours for each vertex in $V(G)\cup E(G)$.) Using Equation (\[eq:firsts\]), we conclude that $Z_{J_q}^a(G'') \leq q^s/4$. Since $Z_{J_q}(G'') = Z_{J_q}^t(G'') + Z_{J_q}^a(G'')$, we have
$$\label{done}
\ZPotts(G;q,1) \leq \frac{Z_{J_q}(G'')}{q^s} \leq \ZPotts(G;q,1) + \frac{1}{4}.$$
Equation (\[done\]) guarantees that the construction is an AP-reduction from $\Potts(q,1)$ to the problem $\nHom{J_q}$. To determine the accuracy with which $Z_{J_q}(G'')$ should be approximated in order to achieve a given desired accuracy in the approximation to $\ZPotts(G;q,1)$, see the proof of Theorem 3 of [@APred].
In order to get a reduction going the other direction, we need to generalise the Potts partition function to a hypergraph version. Let $\hypergraph=(\hypervertices,\hyperedges)$ be a hypergraph with vertex set $\hypervertices$ and hyperedge (multi)set $\hyperedges$. Let $q$ be a positive integer. The $q$-state Potts partition function of $\hypergraph$ is defined as follows: $$\ZPotts(\hypergraph;q,\gamma) =
\sum_{\sigma:\hypervertices\rightarrow [q]}
\prod_{\hyperedge\in\hyperedges}
\big(1+\gamma \delta(\{\sigma(\hypervertex) \mid \hypervertex\in \hyperedge\})\big),$$ where $\delta(S)$ is $1$ if its argument is a singleton and 0 otherwise. Let $q$ be a positive integer and let $\gamma$ be a positive efficiently approximable real. We consider the following computational problem, which is parameterised by $q$ and $\gamma$.
Problem
: $\hPotts(q,\gamma)$.
Instance
: A hypergraph $\hypergraph=(\hypervertices,\hyperedges)$.
Output
: $\ZPotts(\hypergraph;q,\gamma)$.
We start by reducing $\nHom{J_q}$ to the problem of approximating the Potts partition function of a hypergraph with parameters $q$ and $1$.
\[lem:fromcol\] Let $q$ be a positive integer. $$\nHom{J_q} \APred \hPotts(q,1).$$
We can assume without loss of generality that the instance to $\nHom{J_q}$ is bipartite, since otherwise the output is zero. We can also assume that it is connected since a graph $G$ with connected components $G_1,\ldots,G_\kappa$ satisfies $Z_{J_q}(G) = \prod_{i=1}^\kappa Z_{J_q}(G_i)$. Finally, it is easy to find a bipartition of a connected bipartite graph in polynomial time, so we can assume without loss of generality that this is provided as part of the input.
Let $B=(U,V,E)$ be a connected instance of $\nHom{J_q}$ consisting of vertex sets $U$ and $V$ and edge set $E$ (a subset of $U\times V$). Let $Z_{J_q}^U(B)$ be the number of homomorphisms from $B$ to $J_q$ in which vertices in $U$ are coloured with colours in $\{c'_1,\ldots,c'_q\}$. Similarly, let $Z_{J_q}^V(B)$ be the number of homomorphisms from $B$ to $J_q$ in which vertices in $V$ are coloured with colours in $\{c'_1,\ldots,c'_q\}$. Clearly, $Z_{J_q}(B) = Z_{J_q}^U(B) + Z_{J_q}^V(B)$. We will show how to approximate $Z_{J_q}^U(B)$ using an approximation oracle for $\hPotts(q,1)$. The approximation of $Z_{J_q}^V(B)$ is similar.
The construction is straightforward. For every $v\in V$, let $\Gamma(v)$ denote the set of neighbours of vertex $v$ in $B$. Let $F = \{\Gamma(v), \mid v\in V\}$. Let $H=(U,F)$ be an instance of $\hPotts(q,1)$.
The reduction is immediate, because $Z_{J_q}^U(B) = \ZPotts(H;q,1)$. To see this, note that every configuration $\sigma: U \rightarrow \{c'_1,\ldots,c'_q\}$ contributes weight $2^{\mathrm{mono}(\sigma)}$ to $\ZPotts(H;q,1)$, where ${\mathrm{mono}(\sigma)}$ is the number of hyperedges in $F$ that are monochromatic in $\sigma$. Also, the configuration $\sigma$ can be extended in exactly $2^{\mathrm{mono}(\sigma)}$ ways to homomorphisms from $B$ to $J_q$.
The next step is to reduce the problem of approximating the Potts partition function of a hypergraph to the problem of approximating the Potts partition function of a *uniform* hypergraph, which is a hypergraph in which all hyperedges have the same size. The reason for this step is that the paper [@FerroPotts] shows how to reduce the latter to the approximation of the Potts partition function of a *graph*, which is the desired target of our reduction.
Let $q$ be a positive integer and let $\gamma$ be a positive efficiently approximable real. We consider the following computational problem, which, like $\hPotts(q,\gamma)$, is parameterised by $q$ and $\gamma$.
Problem
: $\uhPotts(q,\gamma)$.
Instance
: A uniform hypergraph $\hypergraph=(\hypervertices,\hyperedges)$.
Output
: $\ZPotts(\hypergraph;q,\gamma)$.
We will actually only use the following lemma with $\gamma=1$ but we state, and prove, the more general lemma, since it is no more difficult to prove.
\[lem:touniform\] Let $q$ be a positive integer and let $\gamma$ be a positive efficiently approximable real. Then $$\hPotts(q,\gamma) \APred \uhPotts(q,\gamma).$$
Let $\hypergraph=(\hypervertices,\hyperedges)$ be an instance to $\hPotts(q,\gamma)$ with $|\hypervertices|=n$ and $|\hyperedges|=m$ and $\max(|\hyperedge| \mid \hyperedge \in \hyperedges)=t$. Let $s$ be any positive integer that is at least $$\frac{\log(4 q^{n+m(t-1)}{(1+\gamma)}^m)}
{\log(1+\gamma)}.$$ As with our other reductions, the exact value of $s$ is not important, as long as it satisfies the above inequality, it is bounded from above by a polynomial in $n$ and $m$, and its can be computed in polynomial time (as a function of $n$ and $m$). An appropriate $s$ can be readily computed by computing crude upper and lower bounds for $\gamma$ and evaluating different values of $s$ one-by-one to find one that is sufficiently large, in terms of these bounds.
For every hyperedge $\hyperedge\in\hyperedges$, fix some vertex $v_\hyperedge\in\hyperedge$. Introduce new vertices $\{u_{\hyperedge,i}\mid \hyperedge\in\hyperedges,i\in[t-1]\}$, and let $\hypervertices' = \hypervertices \cup
\{u_{\hyperedge,i}\mid \hyperedge\in\hyperedges, i\in[t-1]\}$. Let $$\hyperedges' =
\Big\{
\hyperedge \cup \big\{u_{\hyperedge,i}\bigm| i\in[\, t-|\hyperedge|\, ]\big\} \Bigm|
\hyperedge\in\hyperedges
\Big\}
\cup
\Big\{
\{v_\hyperedge,u_{\hyperedge,1},\ldots,u_{\hyperedge,t-1}\} \times [s] \Bigm|
\hyperedge \in \hyperedges
\Big\}.$$ That is, the multi-set $\hyperedges' $ has $s$ copies of the edge $\{v_\hyperedge,u_{\hyperedge,1},\ldots,u_{\hyperedge,t-1}\} $ and one copy of the edge $\hyperedge \cup \{u_{\hyperedge,i}\mid i\in[t-|\hyperedge|\,]\}$ for each hyperedge $\hyperedge\in \hyperedges$. Let $\hypergraph' = (\hypervertices', \hyperedges')$. Note that $\hypergraph'$ is $t$-uniform.
Now, the total contribution to $\ZPotts(\hypergraph';q,\gamma)$ from configurations $\sigma$ which are monochromatic on every edge $\{v_\hyperedge,u_{\hyperedge,1},\ldots,u_{\hyperedge,t-1}\}$ is exactly $\ZPotts(\hypergraph;q,\gamma) {(1+\gamma)}^{s m}$. Also, the total contribution to $\ZPotts(\hypergraph';q,\gamma)$ from any other configurations $\sigma$ is at most $q^{n+m(t-1)} {(1+\gamma)}^{m} {(1+\gamma)}^{s(m-1)}$ since there are at most $q^{n+m(t-1)}$ such configurations and $\gamma>0$.
So $$\begin{aligned}
\ZPotts(\hypergraph;q,\gamma) \leq
\frac{\ZPotts(\hypergraph';q,\gamma)}{{(1+\gamma)}^{s m}}
&\leq
\ZPotts(\hypergraph;q,\gamma) +
\frac{q^{n+m(t-1)} {(1+\gamma)}^{m}}
{ {(1+\gamma)}^s}\\
&\leq
\ZPotts(\hypergraph;q,\gamma) + \frac14\end{aligned}$$ which completes the reduction.
Finally, we are ready to put together the pieces to show that, for every integer $q>2$, the problem of approximating the Potts partition function is equivalent to a tree homomorphism problem.
Let $q>2$ be a positive integer and let $\gamma$ be a positive efficiently approximable real. Then $\Potts(q,\gamma)\APeq \nHom{J_q}$. \[thm:junction\]
We start by establishing the reduction from $\nHom{J_q}$ to $\Potts(q,\gamma)$. By Lemmas \[lem:fromcol\] and \[lem:touniform\]. $$\nHom{J_q}\APred\hPotts(q,1)\APred\uhPotts(q,1).$$ To complete the sequence of reductions we need to know that the last problem is reducible to $\Potts(q,\gamma)$. Fortunately, this step already appears in the literature in a slightly different guise, so we just need to explain how to translate the terminology from the earlier result to the current setting. For every positive integer $q$, the partition function $\ZPotts(\hypergraph;q,\gamma)$ of the Potts model on hypergraphs is equal to the *Tutte polynomial* $\ZTutte(\hypergraph;q,\gamma)$ (whose definition we will not need here). This equality is proved in [@FerroPotts Observation 2.1], using the same basic line of argument that Fortuin and Kasteleyn [@FK] used in the graph case. Furthermore, for $q>2$, Lemmas 9.1 and 10.1 of [@FerroPotts] reduce the problem of approximating the Tutte partition function $\ZTutte(\hypergraph;q,1)$, where $\hypergraph$ is a *uniform hypergraph*, to that of approximating the Tutte partition function $\ZTutte(G;q,\gamma)$, where $G$ is a *graph*. Given the equivalence between $\ZTutte(G;q,\gamma)$ and $\ZPotts(G;q,\gamma)$ mentioned earlier, we see that $$\uhPotts(q,1)\APred\Potts(q,\gamma),$$ completing the chain of reductions.
For the other direction, we will establish an AP-reduction from $\Potts(q,\gamma)$ to the problem $\nHom{J_q}$. To start, we note that since a graph is a special case of a uniform hypergraph, Lemmas 9.1 and 10.1 of [@FerroPotts] give an AP-reduction from $\Potts(q,\gamma)$ to $\Potts(q,1)$. (It is definitely not necessary to go via hypergraphs for this reduction, but here it is easier to use the stated result than to repeat the work.) Finally, Lemma \[lem:tocol\] shows that $\Potts(q,1) \APred \nHom{J_q}$.
Inapproximability of counting tree homomorphisms {#sec:hard}
================================================
Until now, it was not known whether or not a bipartite graph $H$ exists for which approximating $\nHom H$ is -hard. It is perhaps surprising, then, to discover that $\nHom H$ may be -hard even when $H$ is a tree. However, the hardness result from Section \[sec:weighted\] provides a clue. There it was shown that the weighted version $\wHom{H}$ is -hard whenever $H$ is a tree containing $J_3$ as an induced subgraph. If we were able to construct a tree $H$, containing $J_3$, that is able, at least in some limited sense, to simulate vertex weights, then we might obtain a reduction from $\wHom{J_3}$ to $\nHom{H}$. That is roughly how we proceed in this section. We will obtain our hard tree $H$ by “decorating” the leaves of $J_3$. These decorations will match certain structures in the instance $G$, so that particular distinguished vertices in $G$ will preferentially be coloured with particular colours. Carrying through this idea requires $H$ to have a certain level of complexity, and the tree $\JS$ that we actually use (see Figure \[fig:JS\]) is about the smallest for which this approach works. Presumably the same approach could also be applied starting at $J_q$, for $q>3$. It is possible that there are trees $H$ that are much smaller than $\JS$ for which $\nHom{H}$ is -hard. It is even possible that $\nHom{J_3}$ is -hard. But demonstrating this would require new ideas.
Define vertex sets $$\begin{aligned}
X &=\{x_0,x_1\} \cup \{x_{2,i}\mid i\in[5]\} ,\\
Y &= \{y_0,y_1\} \cup \{y_{2,i}\mid i\in[4]\} \cup \{y_{3,i,j}\mid i\in[4],j\in[3]\}, \\
Z &= \{z_0,z_1\} \cup \{z_{2,i}\mid i\in[3]\}
\cup \{z_{3,i,j}\mid i\in[3],j\in[3]\}
\cup \{z_{4,i,j,k}\mid i\in[3],j\in[3],k\in[2]\},\end{aligned}$$ and edge sets $$\begin{aligned}
E_X &=\{(x_0,x_1)\} \cup \{(x_1,x_{2,i})\mid i\in[5]\} ,\\
E_Y &= \{(y_0,y_1)\} \cup \{(y_1,y_{2,i})\mid i\in[4]\} \cup \{(y_{2,i},y_{3,i,j})\mid i\in[4],j\in[3]\} ,\\
E_Z &= \{(z_0,z_1)\} \cup \{(z_1,z_{2,i})\mid i\in[3]\}
\cup \{(z_{2,i},z_{3,i,j})\mid i\in[3],j\in[3]\} \\
&\qquad\null\cup \{ (
z_{3,i,j},z_{4,i,j,k})\mid i\in[3],j\in[3],k\in[2]\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\JS$ be the tree with vertex set $V(\JS)=\{w\} \cup X \cup Y \cup Z$ and edge set $$E(\JS)=\{(w,x_0),(w,y_0),(w,z_0)\} \cup E_X \cup E_Y \cup E_Z.$$ See Figure \[fig:JS\]. Consider the equivalence relation on $V(\JS)$ defined by graph isomorphism — two vertices of $\JS$ are in the same equivalence class if there is an isomorphism of $\JS$ mapping one to the other. The canonical representatives of the equivalence classes are the vertices $w$, $x_0$, $x_1$, $x_{2,1}$, $y_0$, $y_1$, $y_{2,1}$, $y_{3,1,1}$, $z_0$, $z_1$, $z_{2,1}$, $z_{3,1,1}$ and $z_{4,1,1,1}$. These are shown in the figure.
In this section, we will show that $\SAT$ is AP-reducible to $\nHom{\JS}$. We start by identifying relevant structure in $\JS$.
A simple path in a graph is a path in which no vertices are repeated. For every vertex $h$ of $\JS$, and every positive integer $k$, let $d_k(h)$ be the number of simple length-$k$ paths from $h$. The values $d_1(h)$, $d_2(h)$ and $d_3(h)$ can be calculated for each canonical representative $h\in V(\JS)$ by inspecting the definition of $\JS$ (or its drawing in Figure \[fig:JS\]). These values are recorded in the first four columns of the table in Figure \[JStable\].
$$\begin{array}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
h & d_1(h) & d_2(h) & d_3(h)&w_1(h)&w_2(h)&w_3(h)\\
\hline
w & 3 & 3 & 12&3&6&24\\
x_0 & 2 & 7 & 2&2&9&13\\
x_1 & 6 & 1 & 2&{\bf 6}&7&39\\
x_{2,1} & 1 & 5 & 1&1&6&7\\
y_0 & 2 & 6 & 14&2&8&24\\
y_1 & 5 & 13 & 2&5&{\bf 18}&40\\
y_{2,1} & 4 & 4 & 10&4&8&30\\
y_{3,1,1} & 1 & 3 & 4&1&4&8\\
z_0 & 2 & 5 & 11&2&7&20\\
z_1 & 4 & 10 & 20&4&14&{\bf 46}\\
z_{2,1} & 4 & 9 & 7&4&13&32\\
z_{3,1,1} & 3 & 3 & 7&3&6&19\\
z_{4,1,1,1} & 1 & 2 & 3&1&3&6\\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Now let $w_k(h)$ denote the number of length-$k$ walks from $h$ in $\JS$. Clearly, $w_1(h)=d_1(h)$ since $\JS$ has no self-loops, so all length-$1$ walks are simple paths. Next, note that $w_2(h)=d_1(h) + d_2(h)$. To see this, note that every length-$2$ walk from $h$ is either a simple length-$2$ path from $\JS$, or it is a walk obtained by taking an edge from $h$, and then going back to $h$. Finally, $w_3(h) = d_1(h)^2 + d_2(h)+d_3(h)$ since every length-$3$ walk from $h$ is one of the following:
- a simple length-$3$ path from $h$,
- a simple length-$2$ path from $h$, with the last edge repeated in reverse, or
- a simple length-$1$ path from $h$ with the last edge repeated in reverse, followed by another simple length-$1$ path from $h$.
These values are recorded, for each canonical representative $h\in V(\JS)$, in the last three columns of the table in Figure \[JStable\]. The important fact that we will use is that $w_1(h)$ is uniquely maximised at $h=x_1$, $w_2(h)$ is uniquely maximised at $h=y_1$, and $w_3(h)$ is uniquely maximised at $h=z_1$. (These are shown in boldface in the table.)
We are now ready to prove the following theorem.
\[thm:hardH\] $\SAT \APred \nHom{\JS}$.
By Lemma \[lem:cut\], it suffices to give an AP-reduction from to $\nHom{\JS}$. The basic construction follows the outline of the reduction developed in the proof of Lemma \[lem:hardweighted\]. However, unlike the situation of Lemma \[lem:hardweighted\], the target problem $\nHom{\JS}$ does not include weights, so we must develop gadgetry to simulate the role of these.
Let $b$, $G=(V,E)$, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ be an input to . Let $s= 3 + |E(G)|+2|V(G)|$. (As before, the exact size of $s$ is not important, but it has to be at least this big to make the calculation work, and it has to be at most a polynomial in the size of $G$.)
Let $G'$ be the graph defined in the proof of Lemma \[lem:hardweighted\]. In particular, let $V'(G)= \{(e,i) \mid e\in E(G),i\in[s]\}$. Then let $G'$ be the graph with vertex set $V(G') = V(G) \cup V'(G)$ and edge set $$E(G') = \{(u,(e,i)) \mid u\in V(G), (e,i)\in V'(G),
\mbox{and $u$ is an endpoint of~$e$} \}.$$
Now let $r$ be any positive integer such that $$\label{eq:r}
{\left(
\frac{46}{40}
\right)}^r \geq 8 {|V(\JS)|}^{|V(G)|+ s |E(G)| + 7}.$$ For concreteness, take $r$ to be the smallest integer satisfying (\[eq:r\]). Once again, the exact value of $r$ is not so important. Any $r$ would work as long as it is at most a polynomial in the size of $G$, and it satisfies (\[eq:r\]).
We will construct an instance $G''$ of $\nHom{\JS}$ by adding some gadgets to $G'$. First, we define the gadgets.
- Let $\Gamma_{x}$ be a graph with vertex set $V(\Gamma_{x}) =
\{ v_{x_1} \} \cup \bigcup_{i\in[r]} \{v_{x,i}\}$ and edge set $E(\Gamma_x) =
\bigcup_{i\in [r]} \{(v_{x_1},v_{x,i})\}$.
- Let $\Gamma_y$ be a graph with vertex set $V(\Gamma_y) = \{v_{y_1}\} \cup
\bigcup_{i\in[r]}
\{v_{y,i},v'_{y,i}\} $ and edge set $E(\Gamma_y) = \bigcup_{i\in [r]} \{(v_{y_1},v_{y,i}),(v_{y,i},v'_{y,i})
\}$.
- Let $\Gamma_z$ be a graph with vertex set $V(\Gamma_z) = \{v_{z_1}\} \cup
\bigcup_{i\in[r]}
\{ v_{z,i}, v'_{z,i}, v''_{z,i} \} $ and edge set $E(\Gamma_x) = \bigcup_{i\in [r]} \{ (v_{z_1},v_{z,i}),(v_{z,i},v'_{z,i}),(v'_{z,i},v''_{z,i})
\}$.
Finally, let $$V(G'') = V(G') \cup \{v_w,v_{x_0},v_{y_0},v_{z_0}\} \cup V(\Gamma_x) \cup
V(\Gamma_y) \cup V(\Gamma_z),$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
E(G'') &=
\{
(v_w,v_{x_0}),(v_w,v_{y_0}),(v_w,v_{z_0}),
(v_{x_0},v_{x_1}),(v_{y_0},v_{y_1}),(v_{z_0},v_{z_1}),
(v_{x_1},\alpha),(v_{y_1},\beta),(v_{z_1},\gamma)
\} \\
& \cup
E(G') \cup
\{(v_w,v) \mid v\in V(G)\}
\cup
E(\Gamma_x) \cup E(\Gamma_y) \cup E(\Gamma_z).\end{aligned}$$ A picture of the instance $G''$ is shown in Figure \[fig:GInstance\].
We say that a homomorphism $\sigma$ from $G''$ to $\JS$ is *typical* if $\sigma(v_{x_1})=x_1$, $\sigma(v_{y_1})=y_1$, and $\sigma(v_{z_1})=z_1$. Note that, in a typical homomorphism, $\sigma(v_w)=w$, so $\sigma(V(G))=\{x_0,y_0,z_0\}$ and $\sigma(V'(G)) \subseteq \{w,x_1,y_1,z_1\}$. Also, $\sigma(\alpha)=x_0$, $\sigma(\beta)=y_0$, and $\sigma(\gamma)=z_0$.
If $\sigma$ is a typical homomorphism, then let $$\begin{aligned}
\bichrom{\sigma} =
\{ e \in E(G) \mid \quad &
\mbox{the vertices of~$V(G)$ corresponding to } \\
& \mbox{the endpoints of~$e$ are mapped to different colours by~$\sigma$}
\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, for every typical homomorphism $\sigma$, $\bichrom{\sigma}$ is a multiterminal cut for the graph $G$ with terminals $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$.
For every multiterminal cut $E'$ of $G$, let $\components{E'}$ denote the number of components in the graph $(V,E\setminus E')$. For each multiterminal cut $E'$, let $Z_{E'}$ denote the number of typical homomorphisms $\sigma$ from $G''$ to $\JS$ such that $\bichrom{\sigma} = E'$.
As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:hardweighted\], $\components{E'}\geq 3$. If $\components{E'}=3$ then $$Z_{E'} = 2^{s|E(G)-E'|} 6^r 18^r 46^r
= 2^{s|E(G)-E'|} 4968^r.$$ The $2^{s|E(G)-E'|}$ comes from the two choices for the colour of each vertex $(e,i)$ with $e\in E(G)-E'$, as before. The $6^r$ comes from the choices for the vertices in $V(\Gamma_x)\setminus \{x_1\}$ according to column 5 of the table in Figure \[JStable\]. The $18^r$ comes from the choices for the vertices in $
V(\Gamma_y)\setminus \{y_1\}$ (in column 6) and the $46^r$ comes from the choices for the vertices in $
V(\Gamma_z)\setminus \{z_1\}$ (in column 7).
Also, for any multiterminal cut $E'$ of $G$, $$Z_{E'} \leq 2^{s|E(G)-E'|} 3^{\components{E'}-3} 4968^r,$$ since in any typical homomorphism $\sigma$, the component of $\alpha$ is mapped to $x_0$ by $\sigma$, the component of $\beta$ is mapped to $y_0$, the component of $\gamma$ is mapped to $z_0$, and each remaining component is mapped to a colour in $\{x_0,y_0,z_0\}$.
Let $Z^*= 2^{s|E(G)-b|} 4968^r$. If $E'$ has size $b$ then $\components{E'}=3$. (Otherwise, there would be a smaller multiterminal cut, contrary to the definition of .) So, in this case, $$Z_{E'} = Z^*.
\label{eq:goodcuts}$$
If $E'$ has size $b'>b$ then $$Z_{E'} \leq 2^{s|E(G)-b'|} 3^{\components{E'}-3} 4968^r
= 2^{-s(b'-b)} 3^{\components{E'}-3} Z^*
\leq 2^{-s} 3^{|V(G)|} Z^*.$$ Clearly, there are at most $2^{|E(G)|}$ multiterminal cuts $E'$. So, using the definition of $s$, $$\label{eq:bigcuts}
\sum_{E' : |E'|>b} Z_{E'} \leq \frac{Z^*}{8}.$$
Now let $Z^-$ denote the number of homomorphisms from $G''$ to $\JS$ that are not typical. Now $$Z^- \leq |V(\JS)|^{|V(G)|+|V'(G)|+7 } {(40/46)}^r 4968^r,$$ since there are at most $|V(\JS)|$ colours for each of the vertices in $$V(G)\cup V'(G) \cup \{v_w,v_{x_0},v_{y_0},v_{z_0},v_{x_1},v_{y_1},v_{z_1}\}.$$ Also, given that the assignment to $v_{x_1}$, $v_{y_1}$ and $v_{z_1}$ is not precisely $x_1$, $y_1$ and $z_1$, respectively, it can be seen from the table in Figure \[JStable\] that the number of possibilities for the remaining vertices is at most $(40/46)^r$ times as large as it would otherwise have been. (For example, from the last column of the table, colouring $v_{z_1}$ with $y_1$ instead of with $z_1$ would give exactly $40^r$ choices for the colours of the vertices in $
\Gamma_z \setminus \{v_{z_1}\}$ instead of $46^r$ choices. The differences in the other columns are more substantial than this.) Since $|V'(G)|=s |E(G)|$, $$Z^- \leq
{|V(\JS)|}^{|V(G)|+s|E(G)|+7} {(40/46)}^r 4968^r.$$ We can assume that $b\leq |E(G)|$ (otherwise, the number of size-$b$ multiterminal cuts is trivially $0$) so from the definition of $Z^*$, $$Z^- \leq
{|V(\JS)|}^{|V(G)|+s|E(G)|+7} {(40/46)}^r Z^*.$$ Using Equation (\[eq:r\]), we get $$\label{eq:nocut}
Z^- \leq \frac{Z^*}{8}.$$
From Equation (\[eq:goodcuts\]), we find that, if there are $N$ size-$b$ multiterminal cuts then $$Z_{\JS}(G) = N Z^* + \sum_{E' : |E'|>b} Z_{E'} + Z^-.$$ So applying Equations (\[eq:bigcuts\]) and (\[eq:nocut\]), we get $$N \leq \frac{Z_{\JS}(G)}{Z^*} \leq N + \frac{1}{4}.$$
Thus, we have an AP-reduction from to $\nHom{\JS}$. To determine the accuracy with which $Z(G)$ should be approximated in order to achieve a given accuracy in the approximation to $N$, see the proof of Theorem 3 of [@APred].
The Potts partition function and proper colourings of bipartite graphs {#sec:bqcol}
======================================================================
Let $q$ be any integer greater than $2$. Consider the following computational problem.
Problem
: $\bqcol q$.
Instance
: A bipartite graph $G$.
Output
: The number of proper $q$-colourings of $G$.
Dyer et al. [@APred Theorem 13] showed that $\BIS \APred \bqcol q$. However, it may be the case that $\bqcol q$ is easier to approximate than $\SAT$. Certainly, no AP-reduction from $\SAT$ to $\bqcol q$ has been discovered (despite some effort!). Therefore, it seems worth recording the following upper bound on the complexity of $\nHom{J_q}$, which is an easy consequence of Theorem \[thm:junction\].
\[cor:bqcol\] Let $q>2$ be a positive integer. Then $\nHom{J_q} \APred \bqcol q$.
Corollary \[cor:bqcol\] follows immediately from Lemma \[lem:bqcol\] below by applying Theorem \[thm:junction\] with $\gamma=1/(q-2)$.
\[lem:bqcol\] Let $q>2$ be a positive integer. Then $\Potts(q,1/(q-2)) \APred \bqcol q$.
Let $\graph=(\graphvertices,\graphedges)$ be an input to $\Potts(q,1/(q-2))$. Let $\graph'$ be the two-stretch of $\graph$ constructed as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:tocol\]. In particular, $G'$ is the bipartite graph with $$V(G') = V(G) \cup E(G)$$ and $$E(G') = \{(u,e) \mid u\in V(G), e \in E(G),
\mbox{and $u$ is an endpoint of~$e$} \}.$$
Consider an assignment $\sigma\colon V(G) \to [q]$ and an edge $e=(u,v)$ of $\graph$. If $\sigma(u)\neq \sigma(v)$ then there are $q-2$ ways to colour the midpoint vertex corresponding to $e$ so that it receives a different colour from $\sigma(u)$ and $\sigma(v)$. However, if $\sigma(u)=\sigma(v)$ then there are $q-1$ possible colours for the midpoint vertex.
Let $N$ denote the number of proper $q$-colourings of $G'$. Then since $(q-1)/(q-2)-1=1/(q-2)$, we have $$N = {(q-2)}^{|\graphedges|}
\sum_{\sigma:\graphvertices\rightarrow[q]}
{\left(\frac{q-1}{q-2}\right)}^{\mathrm{mono}(\sigma)}
= {(q-2)}^{|\graphedges|}
\ZPotts(\graph;q, 1/(q-2)),$$ where $\mathrm{mono}(\sigma)$ is the number of edges $e\in E(G)$ whose endpoints in $V(G)$ are mapped to the same colour by $\sigma$.
The Potts partition function and the weight enumerator of a code {#sec:we}
================================================================
A [*linear code*]{} $C$ of length $N$ over a finite field $\Fq$ is a linear subspace of $\Fq^N$. If the subspace has dimension $r$ then the code may be specified by an $r\times N$ [*generating matrix*]{} $M$ over $\Fq$ whose rows form a basis for the code. For any real number $\lambda$, the weight enumerator of the code is given by $W_M(\lambda)=\sum_{w\in C}\lambda^{\|w\|}$ where $\|w\|$ is the number of non-zero entries in $w$. ($\|w\|$ is usually called the [*Hamming weight*]{} of $w$.) We consider the following computational problem, parameterised by $q$ and $\lambda$.
Problem
: $\WE q\lambda$.
Instance
: A generating matrix $M$ over $\Fq$.
Output
: $W_M(\lambda)$.
In [@WeightEnum], the authors considered the special case $q=2$ and obtained various results on the complexity of $\WE 2\lambda$, depending on $\lambda$. Here we show that, for any prime $p$, $\WE p\lambda$ provides an upper bound on the complexity of $\Potts(p^k,\gamma)$.
\[thm:PottsToWE\] Suppose that $p$ is a prime, $k$ is a positive integer satisfying $p^k>2$ and $\lambda\in(0,1)$ is an efficiently computable real. Then $$\Potts(p^k,1)\APred\WE p\lambda.$$
The following corollary follows immediately from Theorem \[thm:PottsToWE\] and Theorem \[thm:junction\].
\[newcor\] Suppose that $p$ is a prime, $k$ is a positive integer satisfying $p^k>2$ and $\lambda\in(0,1)$ is an efficiently computable real. Then $\nHom{J_{p^k}} \APred
\WE p\lambda$.
The condition $p^k>2$ can in fact be removed from Corollary \[newcor\], even though the result does not follow from Theorem \[thm:PottsToWE\] in this situation. For the missing case where $p=2$ and $k=1$, Lemma \[lem:intermediate\] gives $\nHom{J_{2}} \APred \BIS$ and [@WeightEnum Cor. 7, Part (4)] show $\BIS \APred \WE {2}{\lambda}$. A striking feature of Corollary \[newcor\] is that it provides a uniform upper bound on the complexity of the infinite sequence of problems $\nHom{J_{p^k}}$, with $p$ fixed and $k$ varying. This uniform upper bound is interesting if (as we suspect) $\WE p\lambda$ is not itself equivalent to via AP-reducibility.
Let $q=p^k$ and let $\gamma=\lambda^{-q(p-1)/p}-1>0$. Since Theorem \[thm:junction\] shows $\Potts(p^k,1)\APeq \nHom{J_{p^k}}\APeq\Potts(p^k,\gamma)$, it is enough to given an AP-reduction from $\Potts(p^k,\gamma)$ to $\WE p\lambda$. So suppose $G=(V,E)$ is a graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges. We wish to evaluate $$\label{eq:PottsDef}
\ZPotts(G;q,\gamma)=\sum_{\sigma:V\to[q]}(1+\gamma)^{\mono(\sigma)}.$$ Our aim is to construct an instance of the weight enumerator problem whose solution is the above expression, modulo an easily computable factor. Introduce a collection of variables $X=\{x^v_i\mid v\in V \text{ and }i\in[k]\}$. To each assignment $\sigma:V\to[q]$ we define an associated assignment $\sigmahat:X\to\Fp$ as follows: for all $v\in V$, $$\big(\sigmahat(x_1^v),\sigmahat(x_2^v), \ldots,\sigmahat(x_k^v)\big)=\phi(\sigma(v)),$$ where $\phi$ is any fixed bijection $[q]\to
\Fp^k$. Note that $\sigma\mapsto\sigmahat$ is a bijection from assignments $V\to[q]$ to assignments $X\to\Fp$. (Informally, we have coded the spin at each vertex as a $k$-tuple of variables taking values in $\Fp$.)
Let $\ell_1(z_1,\ldots,z_k),\ldots,\ell_q(z_1,\ldots,z_k)$ be an enumeration of all linear forms $\alpha_1z_1+\alpha_2z_2+\cdots+\alpha_kz_k$ over $\Fp$, where $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_k)$ ranges over $\Fp^k$. This collection of linear forms has the following property: $$\label{eq:prop}
\begin{split}
&\text{If $z_1=z_2=\cdots z_k=0$, then all of
$\ell_1(z_1,\ldots,z_k),\ldots,\ell_q(z_1,\ldots,z_k)$ are zero;}\\
&\text{otherwise, precisely $q/p=p^{k-1}$ of
$\ell_1(z_1,\ldots,z_k),\ldots,\ell_q(z_1,\ldots,z_k)$ are zero.}
\end{split}$$ The first claim in (\[eq:prop\]) is trivial. To see the second, assume without loss of generality that $z_1\not=0$. Then, for any choice of $(\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_k)\in\Fp^{k-1}$, there is precisely one choice for $\alpha_1\in\Fp$ that makes $\alpha_1z_1+\cdots+\alpha_kz_k=0$.
Now give an arbitrary direction to each edge $(u,v)\in E$ and consider the system $\Lambda$ of linear equations $$\Big\{
\ell_j
\big(\sigmahat(x^v_1)-\sigmahat(x^u_1),\,\sigmahat(x^v_2)-\sigmahat(x^u_2),\,
\ldots,\,\sigmahat(x^v_k)-\sigmahat(x^u_k)\big)=0:
j\in[q]
\text{ and }
(u,v)
\in E\Big\}.$$ (We view $\Lambda$ as a multiset, so the trivial equation $0=0$ arising from the linear form $\ell_j$ with $\alpha_1=\alpha_2 = \cdots = \alpha_k=0$ occurs $m$ times, a convention that makes the following calculation simpler.) Denote by $\sat(\sigmahat)$ the number of satisfied equations in $\Lambda$. Then, from (\[eq:prop\]), $$\sat(\sigmahat)=q\mono(\sigma)+\frac qp(m-\mono(\sigma)),$$ and hence $$\mono(\sigma)=\frac p{(p-1)q}\sat(\sigmahat)-\frac m{p-1}.$$ Noting that $1+\gamma=\lambda^{-q(p-1)/p}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\sigma:V\to[q]}(1+\gamma)^{\mono(\sigma)}
&=\sum_{\sigmahat:
X
\to\Fp}(1+\gamma)^{(p/(p-1)q)\sat(\sigmahat)-m/(p-1)}\notag\\
&=
\lambda^{qm/p}
\sum_{\sigmahat:
X
\to\Fp}\lambda^{-\sat(\sigmahat)}\notag\\
&=
\lambda^{-(1-1/p)qm}
\sum_{\sigmahat:
X
\to\Fp}\lambda^{\unsat(\sigmahat)},\label{eq:unsat}\end{aligned}$$ where $\unsat(\sigmahat)=qm-\sat(\sigmahat)$ is the number of unsatisfied equations in $\Lambda$.
The system $\Lambda$ has $qm$ equations in $kn$ variables, so we may write it in matrix form $A\bsigma=\mathbf0$, where $A$ is a $(qm\times kn)$-matrix, and $\bsigma$ is a $kn$-vector over $\Fp$. The columns of $A$ and the components of $\bsigma$ are indexed by pairs $(i,v)\in[k]\times V$, and the $(i,v)$-component of $\bsigma$ is $\sigmahat(x_i^v)$. Enumerating the columns of $A$ as $\bfa_i^v\in\Fp^{qm}$ for $(i,v)\in[k]\times V$, we may re-express $\Lambda$ in the form $$\sum_{i\in[k],v\in V}\sigmahat(x_i^v)\,\bfa_i^v=\mathbf0,$$ where $\mathbf0$ is the length-$qm$ zero vector. Then $\unsat(\sigmahat)$ is the Hamming weight of the length-$qm$ vector $\bfb(\sigmahat)=\sum_{i,v}\sigmahat(x_i^v)\,\bfa_i^v$. As $\sigmahat$ ranges over all assignments $X\to\Fp$, so $\bfb(\sigmahat)$ ranges over the vector space (or code) $$C=\Big\{\sum_{i,v}\sigmahat(x_i^v)\,\bfa_i^v\Bigm| \sigmahat:
X\to\Fp\Big\}
=\langle \bfa_i^v\mid i\in[k],v\in V\rangle$$ generated by the vectors $\{\bfa_i^v\}$.
We will argue that the mapping sending $\sigmahat$ to $\bfb(\sigmahat)$ is $q$ to 1, from which it follows that $\sum_{\sigmahat}\lambda^{\unsat(\sigmahat)}$ is $q$ times the weight enumerator of the code $C$. Then, from (\[eq:PottsDef\]) and (\[eq:unsat\]), letting $M$ be any generating matrix for $C$, $$\ZPotts(G;q,\gamma)=q\lambda^{-(1-1/p)qm}
\,W_M(\lambda).$$ To see where the factor $q$ comes from, consider the assignments $\sigmahat$ satisfying $$\label{eq:qto1}
\sum_{i\in[k],v\in V}\sigmahat(x_i^v)\,\bfa_i^v=\bfb,$$ for some $\bfb\in\Fp^{qm}$. For every $i\in [k]$ and every edge $(u,v)\in E$, there is an equation in $\Lambda$ specifying the value of $\sigmahat(x_i^v)-\sigmahat(x_i^u)$. Thus, since $G$ is connected, the vector $\bfb$ determines $\sigmahat$ once the partial assigment $(\sigmahat(x_1^r),\ldots,\sigmahat(x_k^r))$ is specified for some distinguished vertex $r\in V$. Conversely, each of the $q$ partial assignments $(\sigmahat(x_1^r),\ldots,\sigmahat(x_k^r))$ extends to a total assignment satisfying (\[eq:qto1\]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The outbreak of [[*COVID-19 *]{}]{}has resulted in many different policies being enacted across the world to reduce the spread of the virus. These efforts range from increased social awareness and social distancing (Sweden) to full country-wide lockdowns (Singapore, most of Europe, many states in the US). The effectiveness of various policies in containing the spread of the disease is still being studied by researchers. In this paper, using WiFi data collected directly from the infrastructure, we present a detailed analysis of the impact of [[*COVID-19 *]{}]{}related policies on the staff and students of three different college campuses. Two of these campuses are in Singapore, while the third is in the Northeastern United States. Our study focuses on two different key metrics, 1) [*Occupancy*]{}, defined as the number of people in a building, on average, in a specific hour, and 2) [*Mobility*]{}, defined as the number of places visited by an individual, on average, in a specific hour. We use these two metrics since they provide a strong indicator of how likely it is for [[*COVID-19 *]{}]{}to spread if there is an outbreak. Our results show that online learning, split-team, and other space management policies are effective at lowering [*Occupancy*]{}. However, they do not change the [*Mobility*]{} patterns for individuals who are still moving around. Reducing [*Mobility*]{} requires introducing strict stay-at-home or lockdown orders, but doing so increases [*Occupancy*]{} in residential spaces. We present our results and then discuss the implications of the findings for policymakers.'
author:
- Camellia Zakaria
- Amee Trivedi
- Michael Chee
- Prashant Shenoy
- Rajesh Balan
- 'G.K.M. Tobin'
- 'Lars Th[ø]{}rv[ä]{}ld'
- Valerie Béranger
- Aparna Patel
bibliography:
- 'imwut2020\_occupancy.bib'
title: 'Analyzing the Impact of Covid-19 Control Policies on Campus Occupancy and Mobility via Passive WiFi Sensing'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'B. Aringer'
- 'L. Girardi'
- 'W. Nowotny'
- 'P. Marigo'
- 'M.T. Lederer'
date: 'Received; accepted'
subtitle: 'I. Hydrostatic dust-free models'
title: Synthetic photometry for carbon rich giants
---
Introduction
============
During the evolution of low to intermediate mass stars along the TP-AGB (Thermal Pulsing Asymptotic Giant Branch), material processed by the nuclear reactions in the He burning shell may be dredged up to the surface, changing the chemical abundances in the atmosphere. Especially, the amount of carbon will be increased significantly by this mechanism. If the particle density exceeds that of oxygen (the ratio of the particle densities $\rm C/O > 1$), the spectral appearance of the object becomes completely different. Instead of O-bearing molecules like TiO, VO, SiO, OH and H$_2$O the opacities in the cool outer layers and the observed energy distributions are dominated by C$_2$, CN, C$_3$, HCN and C$_2$H$_2$ (e.g.Querci et al. [@cphotque74], J[ø]{}rgensen et al. [@cphotjor00], Loidl et al. [@cphotloi01]). This characterizes a classical carbon star.
Carbon stars are among the brightest stellar objects in resolved galaxies containing young and intermediate-age populations, especially in the near infrared. Moreover, they contribute significantly to the integrated spectra of such systems. These two facts become obvious in the Magellanic Clouds: in the LMC for instance, among the approximately 31000 AGB stars brighter than the tip of the RGB (Cioni & Habing [@cphotcio03]), there are about 11000 carbon rich objects (Blanco & McCarthy [@cphotbla83]). These sources alone contribute to roughly 20 percent of the integrated bolometric luminosity of LMC clusters with intermediate ages (Frogel et al. [@cphotfro90], Fig. 16). Thus, the influence of C-type giants on the total flux emitted by galaxies is noticeable.
It is therefore very important that carbon stars are properly taken into account in models of galaxies. For this, two major ingredients are necessary. First, evolutionary tracks providing the distributions of luminosities, effective temperatures and surface compositions of the red giants as a function of age, initial mass and metallicity have to be available. Such calculations were presented for example in the work of Marigo & Girardi ([@cphotmar07]). Secondly, one needs synthetic spectra including the circumstellar reddening by dust, which allow the conversion of the model quantities into observable properties of stars. The implementation of this can be found in Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]).
The main goal of this work is to present a set of photometric data and low resolution energy distributions allowing such a conversion from stellar fundamental parameters into measurable quantities. Based on observational material, libraries of overall carbon star spectra have been published by Lançon & Wood ([@cphotlan00]) and Lançon & Mouhcine ([@cphotlan02]). However, they extend only up to 2.5 $\mu$m, neglecting the mid and far infrared. In addition, their coverage of stellar parameters is very limited. This applies also to the input data used by Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]) which are based on the hydrostatic model atmospheres and synthetic spectra of Loidl et al. ([@cphotloi01]). As an example, they only have included calculations for solar metallicity.
Loidl et al. ([@cphotloi01]) and J[ø]{}rgensen et al. ([@cphotjor00]) have computed synthetic low and medium resolution spectra based on hydrostatic carbon star models and compared them to observations in the optical as well as in the near and mid infrared range. Their results were obtained using previous versions of COMA and the MARCS code (see Sect. 2.1). One of the most important differences to the work presented here is that they have completely neglected atomic line opacities, which causes flux deviations mainly at shorter wavelengths. In addition, there are also changes concerning the molecular input data. A comparison of the results based on our calculations to convert the isochrones of Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]) to the 2MASS $\rm M_{K_s}$ versus $\rm (J-K_s)$ diagram and the original ones obtained with the spectra from Loidl et al. ([@cphotloi01]) is shown in Sect. 4.2.2 (Fig. \[aricphot19\]).
It was demonstrated for example by Gautschy-Loidl et al. ([@cphotgau04]), Loidl et al. ([@cphotloi99]) or Nowotny et al. ([@cphotnoa05], [@cphotnob05]) that hydrostatic models do not reproduce the atmospheric structure and spectra of cool carbon stars with intense variations and mass loss. Such objects are dominated by their pulsation creating shock waves, the formation of dust and a strong wind giving rise to a circumstellar shell. Since all of these phenomena are time-dependent and coupled, they have to be described by comprehensive dynamical calculations, such as presented by Höfner et al. ([@cphothof03]) or Mattsson et al. ([@cphotmat08]). The photometric properties of the corresponding models will be discussed in the next paper of this series. In the current work we focus on warmer objects with small pulsation amplitudes. Nevertheless, the reddening due to circumstellar dust, which causes the most important differences between the presented hydrostatic and dynamical atmospheres for the cool mass-losing carbon stars, may be simulated in connection with our data by using approximative approaches such as in Bressan et al. ([@cphotbre98]) and Groenewegen ([@cphotgro06]).
Model atmospheres and spectral synthesis
========================================
Hydrostatic models and opacities
--------------------------------
In order to study the spectra and photometric properties of carbon stars, we have produced a grid of 746 spherically symmetric hydrostatic model atmospheres. They were computed with the COMARCS program which is based on the version of the MARCS code (Gustafsson et al. [@cphotgus75], Gustafsson et al. [@cphotgus08]) used in J[ø]{}rgensen et al. ([@cphotjor92]) and Aringer et al. ([@cphotari97]). In contrast to the previous approaches, COMARCS works with external opacity tables including the coefficients for a two-dimensional spline interpolation in pressure and temperature at the desired wavelengths. The applied method is an algorithm developed by Hardy ([@cphothar71]) with the implementation found in the book of Späth ([@cphotspa91]). The frequency grid adopted for the opacity sampling in our calculations corresponds to the one used by Aringer et al. ([@cphotari97]). It consists of 5364 points. Such tables with spline coefficients for the different wavelengths are produced for each combination of microturbulence and chemical abundances to be investigated. This was done using the opacity generation code COMA (Copenhagen Opacities for Model Atmospheres).
The COMA program was originally developed to compute wavelength dependent absorption coefficients for dynamical model atmospheres of cool giants as they are used for example in the work of Höfner et al. ([@cphothof03]). In addition, it was adapted to determine weighted mean opacities for different applications like stellar evolution calculations (e.g. Cristallo et al. [@cphotcri07], Lederer & Aringer [@cphotled08]). Starting from a given temperature-pressure or temperature-density structure (table with values) the abundances of many important species are evaluated based on the equilibrium for ionisation and molecule formation. Thus, we assume chemical equilibrium except for the treatment of dust (and also some tests with results from non-equilibrium calculations). As a next step, the computed partial pressures of the neutral atoms, ions and molecules can be used to determine the continuous and line opacity at each selected frequency point (in LTE). Since the first version of COMA described by Aringer ([@cphotari00]), a considerable number of updates have been made including a more complete treatment of ionisation (Gorfer [@cphotgor05]), additional chemistry routines (Gibbs energy minimisation, Falkesgaard [@cphotfal01]), the addition of atomic transitions from the VALD database (Kupka et al. [@cphotkup00]) or the possibility to take the effect and opacity of dust into account (Nowotny et al. [@cphotnow07]). And, of course the number of incorporated molecules contributing to the total absorption has been increased significantly. The calculations presented here cover the following species: CO, CH, C$_2$, SiO, CN, TiO, H$_2$O, C$_2$H$_2$, HCN, C$_3$, OH, VO, CO$_2$, SO$_2$, HF, HCl, FeH, CrH, ZrO and YO.
A table containing most of the line lists used and the corresponding references can be found in Cristallo et al. ([@cphotcri07]). Four of the molecules included in our work do not appear in the mentioned collection of data: ZrO from Plez et al. ([@cphotple03]), YO from John Littleton (priv. comm.), FeH from Dulick et al. ([@cphotdul03]) and CrH from Bauschlicher et al. ([@cphotbau01]). The abundance of FeH originally was not computed in any of the chemical routines of COMA. Thus, we had to add the corresponding equilibrium constants to the program. They were determined using the partition function for FeH given by Dulick et al. ([@cphotdul03]) and for the atomic contributors Fe and H by Irwin ([@cphotirw81]). For some of the molecules already appearing in Cristallo et al. ([@cphotcri07]) the line data changed: In the case of SO$_2$ and HCl they have been updated from HITRAN 1996 to HITRAN 2004 (Rothman et al. [@cphotrot05]) which is here now also used for OH. The opacity of CO$_2$ is calculated from HITEMP (Rothman et al. [@cphotrot95]) instead of HITRAN which results in a much larger number of transitions (1032269). Finally, the lines of HF are taken from the list of R.H. Tipping (priv. comm.) discussed in Uttenthaler et al. ([@cphotutt08]). However, all of these changes do not have a significant effect on the atmospheric structures, since the molecules involved are only of minor importance for the overall absorption in the temperature range covered by the hydrostatic models. Also the uncertainties of the opacities from TiO and H$_2$O, where the existing line lists show considerable differences in some spectral regions (see e.g. Aringer et al. [@cphotari08]), do not influence our results. The partial pressures of these species always remain very low in a carbon rich environment – at least as long as one assumes chemical equilibrium.
{width="12cm"}
{width="12cm"}
The dominating molecules in our models of carbon stars are CO, C$_2$, CN, C$_2$H$_2$, HCN and C$_3$. Their contribution to the spectral absorption is shown in Sect. 3.2 (Fig. \[aricphot04\]). Following the work of Loidl et al. ([@cphotloi01]) and the suggestions in the SCAN database (J[ø]{}rgensen [@cphotjor97]) we have scaled down the [*gf*]{}-values of the C$_2$ lines taken from the original list of Querci et al. ([@cphotque74]) at wavelengths longer than 1.15 $\mu$m by a factor of up to 10 in most of the calculations. This has only a minor influence on the model structures, but it causes moderate changes of the spectral appearance in the region between 1.3 and 2.1 $\mu$m. Thus, we have also produced some reference spectra with unscaled C$_2$ data. The corresponding effects on the photometric results will be discussed in more detail later in this work.
As in the original version of COMA, Doppler profiles including the thermal and the microturbulent contribution are assumed for the molecules. First, there exists almost no information on the damping constants of molecular transitions. In addition, especially for those species which dominate the overall opacity like C$_2$H$_2$ or HCN, and in all regions close to bandheads the wings of even the strongest lines will be much weaker than the Doppler cores of the many overlapping neighboring ones. The absorption of all atoms except for hydrogen where we interpolate in tabulated profiles is computed with full Voigt functions, adopting the damping constants listed in the VALD database.
Model parameters
----------------
The parameter range of the COMARCS atmospheres was chosen to include the typical effective temperatures, surface gravities and C/O ratios expected for carbon stars from synthetic evolution calculations as they are presented by Marigo & Girardi ([@cphotmar07]) or Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]). Sub-grids of models have been produced for the three metallicities $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$, $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.33$ and $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.1$ which covers the major populations in the Milky Way as well as in the Magellanic Clouds. All elements heavier than He were scaled with Z in the same way. Thus, we did not take into account any possible individual variations of the different species except for the carbon abundance. However, due to the combination of the fact that the opacities in cool giant atmospheres are dominated by a small number of molecules with the preferred formation of CO, the studied model structures and photometric indices will mainly depend on \[C\] and the ratio C/O. For the solar composition we adopted the values from Anders & Grevesse ([@cphotand89]) except for C, N and O where we took the data from Grevesse & Sauval ([@cphotgre94]). This is in agreement with our previous work (e.g.Aringer et al. [@cphotari99]) and results in a $\rm Z_{\odot}$ of approximately 0.02.
All sub-grids were computed completely for objects with a mass of $\rm M = 2.0~M_{\odot}$, which can be regarded as typical for many carbon stars. At constant effective temperature and surface gravity, this value determines the ratio of the atmospheric extension to the stellar radius and thus the overall spherical geometry. In order to investigate the influence of the mass we also produced a large number of models with $\rm M = 1.0~M_{\odot}$. For solar metallicity, almost the complete grid of 2.0 M$_{\odot}$ stars is covered by calculations for 1.0 M$_{\odot}$. Exceptions are some of the most extended atmospheres where it was more difficult to obtain converging hydrostatic solutions for 1.0 M$_{\odot}$ in several cases, as well as objects hotter than 3400 K which are not on the AGB (see later in this section). For the lower values of $\rm Z/Z_{\odot}$, only a very small number of 1.0 M$_{\odot}$ models restricted to an effective temperature of 2600 K exists. This is not a big problem, since the sphericity corrections of the photometric indices in the near infrared always remain relatively small, as it can be concluded from Fig. \[aricphot08\] and the corresponding discussion of the results (Sect. 3.3.1). Uncertainties due to pulsation and mass loss or unknown abundances are much larger. In addition, some of the basic trends of the metal-poor models as a function of mass may also be deduced from the solar metallicity atmospheres, although one should keep in mind that the behaviour can sometimes be quite complex. Finally, for $\rm T_{eff} = 2800~K$, $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = -0.70$, $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$ and C/O = 1.1 we have computed objects with 3.0, 5.0, 10.0 and 99.0 M$_{\odot}$ in order to follow the convergence towards the plane parallel solution.
For solar metallicity, our grid contains C/O ratios of 1.05, 1.10, 1.40 and 2.00. Due to the much lower amount of oxygen, the situation is quite different for $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.33$ and $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.1$. In such stars, C/O values around 1.0 are expected to appear rarely, since they may already increase to much higher quantities after one ’third dredge up’ event. On the other hand, for the more evolved carbon giants, ratios considerably larger than 2.0 can be reached (see Marigo & Girardi [@cphotmar07]). Thus, for $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.33$ and $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.1$ our grid includes models with C/O = 1.4, 2.0 and 5.0.
The temperatures covered by the sub-grid for solar metallicity range from 2400 to 4000 K with steps of 100 K. For $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.33$ and $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.1$ the lower limit was increased to 2600 K, as expected from stellar evolution calculations (e.g. Marigo et al. [@cphotmar08]). The region of AGB carbon stars extends only up to between 3200 and 3500 K, depending on the initial mass and chemical composition. Nevertheless, we also included hotter atmospheres, because the computations predict some objects with C/O $> 1$ having a higher temperature during their post-AGB phase. A typical sequence of models with different values of $\rm T_{eff}$ at constant surface gravity, mass and element abundances is shown in Fig. \[aricphot01\]. In addition, the effect of changing log(g) is demonstrated in Fig. \[aricphot02\].
Models with $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$ have been calculated for all combinations of effective temperature, metallicity and C/O ratio, except for some of the hotter atmospheres between 3500 and 3800 K with a high total carbon abundance ($\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.33$ with C/O = 5.0 as well as $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$ with C/O = 2.0) where we could not obtain a converging hydrostatic solution. This value of the surface gravity is also the general upper limit of our grid. It is obvious that for the cooler objects it corresponds to luminosities much lower than those expected for AGB stars. For example, at $\rm T_{eff} = 2600~K$ and one solar mass, $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$ results in only 1122 L$_{\odot}$, which is by a factor of 5 to 10 less than predicted for a typical carbon giant. However, since it was much easier to get converging solutions for the higher surface gravities, we always used this value of log(g) in order to iterate from one grid temperature to the next.
$\rm T_{eff}$ range \[K\] $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])_{min}$
--------------------------- -----------------------------
2400 — 2700 $-1.0$
2800 — 2900 $-0.9$
3000 $-0.8$
3100 — 3200 $-0.6$
3300 — 3400 $-0.2$
3500 — 4000 $+0.0$
: Lower limits of log(g) in the grid of atmospheric models for carbon stars. The upper limit is always $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$.
\[aricphott1\]
The lower limit for the surface gravity of our models depends on the effective temperature. It was chosen to cover the region of AGB carbon stars predicted by Marigo & Girardi ([@cphotmar07]) and Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]) and it is listed in Table \[aricphott1\]. The smallest values of $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = -1.0$ appear for the coolest giants with $\rm T_{eff} \le 2700~K$, while they increase continuously, when the objects become warmer. In the range between 3500 and 4000 K we have only computed atmospheres with $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$ and 2.0 M$_{\odot}$. As already mentioned before, most or all of these stars will not be on the AGB. The standard (maximum) step width in $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$ is 0.2 above and 0.1 below $-0.6$. However, due to difficulties concerning the convergence of the more extended models it had to be decreased in many cases by a factor of two to 0.1 or 0.05. These problems are also the reason why the lower limits given in Table \[aricphott1\] could by far not be reached with all combinations of metallicity, C/O ratio and mass. Especially in situations with a high carbon abundance ($\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.33$ with C/O = 5.0, $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$ with C/O = 2.0) and around 3000 K, it became harder (large number of iterations, highly dependent on initial conditions) or impossible to obtain hydrostatic solutions at decreased surface gravities. In addition, it turned out to be more difficult to calculate models with a lower mass (1.0 M$_{\odot}$).
A list of all computed COMARCS models and synthetic spectra including their parameters can be found in the bolometric correction tables which are available at [http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/synphot/Cstars]{} or also at the CDS[^1].
For the microturbulent velocity we adopted a value of $\xi = 2.5$ km/s, which is in agreement with our previous work (Aringer et al. [@cphotari97]) and with high resolution observations of AGB stars (e.g. Smith & Lambert [@cphotsmi90], Lebzelter et al. [@cphotleb08]). Due to the fact that a large fraction of the opacity in cool carbon giants is generated by many weak overlapping lines, a change of $\xi$ does only have a small effect on the atmospheres and photometric results as long as it remains moderate (e.g. between 2.0 and 3.5 km/s). The models were calculated in the range from $\rm \tau_{Rosseland} = 10^2$ to $10^{-5}$ with a constant logarithmic step size of 0.1. Thus, each of the structures consists of 71 depth points. For a considerable number of atmospheres we had to exclude a few of the outermost layers in order to obtain converging solutions. The missing data were added subsequently by extrapolation. It was shown with several test computations that the structures produced by this method are usually close to the ones determined considering the full depth range. However, we never excluded more than 10 points (outer boundary of the calculation at $\rm \tau_{Rosseland} = 10^{-4}$), since this may easily result in larger errors, already visible in the calculated spectra ($>1\%$).
Synthetic spectra
-----------------
The described hydrostatic COMARCS atmospheres were used to compute synthetic opacity sampling spectra covering the range between 400 and 22500 cm$^{-1}$ (0.444 to 25.0 $\mu$m) with a resolution of R = 10000. Based on the corresponding radial temperature-pressure structures we derived the necessary opacities in the different layers again with the COMA code. Except for the denser wavelength grid, this was done with the same settings as for the generation of the input data produced for the atmospheric models, ensuring a consistent treatment of the absorption, which is very important for obtaining realistic spectra (see Aringer [@cphotari05]). The results of these opacity calculations are then processed by a spherical radiative transfer program developed for the work of Windsteig et al. ([@cphotwin97]) that computes the desired stellar fluxes. This approach is not completely consistent with the models, since COMARCS uses a different set of routines. Nevertheless, for the atmospheric parameters and wavelength ranges studied here, the deviations between the low resolution opacity sampling spectra generated directly by COMARCS and the code from Windsteig et al. ([@cphotwin97]) are negligible.
![Three spectra based on COMARCS models with $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$, $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 1.0$ and different values of $\rm T_{eff}$, C/O and $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$. The resolution is R = 200.[]{data-label="aricphot03"}](aricphot03.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Due to the statistical nature of the opacity sampling approach, only the average over a larger number of wavelength points (usually 20 to 100) gives a realistic representation of the observed stellar spectra. As a consequence, we reduced the resolution of our results to R = 200 by convolving them with a Gaussian function defined by the corresponding half width. No additional broadening caused for example by a macroturbulent velocity was assumed. Some of the emerging spectra are shown in Fig. \[aricphot03\] where the change of the overall shape as well as of individual features with effective temperature, surface gravity and C/O ratio can be seen. It should be noted that the actual sampling of the wavelength grid is with R = 2000 significantly higher than the real resolution, resulting in a relatively smooth appearance of the plotted energy distributions. These R = 200 data are electronically available as described in Sect. 3.2.
Synthetic photometry
--------------------
Based on our theoretical results we have calculated synthetic bolometric corrections following the same formalism as described in Girardi et al. ([@cphotgir02], eq. 7 and 8). For each of the different filters we first convolved the total transmission curve with the original opacity sampling spectra, integrating either the photon energy or the number of detected photons. The latter selection depends on the definition of the investigated photometric system, if amplifiers or counting devices are used. Then, the obtained magnitudes were scaled with respect to values corresponding to a reference intensity in order to assess the zero points. This quantity was determined from a convolution with the filter curve applied to a constant flux per unit wavelength (frequency) in the case of STmag (ABmag) systems or to a Vega ($\alpha$ Lyr) spectrum for Vegamag systems. The standard star data were taken from the work of Bohlin ([@cphotboh07]). They are expected to be accurate to within about 2% in the optical and near infrared range. Most of the photometric systems are defined in a way that Vega has magnitudes close to zero in all filters with just small corrections representing the offsets found during observational campaigns such as, for example, the 2MASS survey.
We deal with about 25 photometric systems, most of which are listed in Table 2 of Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]) together with their sources of transmission curves and reference magnitudes. In addition, we recently inserted information on the HST/WFC3 camera (Girardi et al. [@cphotgir08]), CFHT/Megacam (McLeod et al. [@cphotmcl00], Coupon et al. [@cphotcou08]), UT/DMC (Kuncarayakti et al. [@cphotkun08]) and the Washington+DDO51 (KPNO Mosaic, Geisler [@cphotgei84], see also [http://www.noao.edu/kpno/mosaic/filters]{}) filters. Since the number of entries in our database is continuously growing, an updated overview may always be found at [http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/cmd]{}. Regarding the specific case of carbon star spectra, we already include most of the photometric systems in which these cool objects are more interesting for observation, such as Bessell JHK, 2MASS, UKIDSS, HST/NICMOS, OGLE, SDSS, AKARI and Spitzer.
Results of the modelling
========================
Model structures
----------------
In Figs. \[aricphot01\] and \[aricphot02\] some typical examples for the hydrostatic models computed with COMARCS are presented. One can see how the temperature-pressure structure, which is of great importance for the spectral appearance, changes as a function of $\rm T_{eff}$ and log(g). It is obvious that the variation of these two parameters produces clear and uniform trends concerning the position and shape of the corresponding curves. For example, a decreased surface gravity will always result in an atmosphere extending to lower densities at the outer boundary, or with a growing value of $\rm T_{eff}$ the whole structure is shifted to warmer temperatures. Such a regular behaviour usually also appears for the other parameters, which are mass, metallicity and C/O ratio. Thus, in many situations it will be possible to determine atmospheres not included in the current grid by interpolation or even extrapolation. However, this has to be done with care, since uniform clear trends do not occur in all cases (see the discussion on the effect of mass in the spectra in the following section, Sect. 3.2).
Spectra
-------
The complete grid of our final spectra with R = 200 can be obtained from [http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/synphot/Cstars]{}. The corresponding tables consist of three columns: wavelength \[[Å]{}\], continuum normalized flux and specific luminosity times frequency ($\rm \nu \cdot L_{\nu}$ \[erg/s\]). The second quantity is determined from the division of the result of a full radiative transfer calculation including all opacities by one where the atomic and molecular line absorption is completely neglected (only continuum opacities). This allows us to evaluate the apparent intensity of the different features. As an example for the data we present in Fig. \[aricphot03\] three spectra generated from models with similar luminosity, but varying effective temperature, surface gravity and C/O ratio. They cover the interval from 0.5 to 10 $\mu$m, which is only a part of the whole computed frequency range extending between 0.444 and 25 $\mu$m. As it has been mentioned in the previous section, the resolution is R = 200, while the sampling of the wavelength grid was chosen to be ten times higher.
{width="12cm"}
In Fig. \[aricphot04\] we show spectra demonstrating the contribution of the most important molecules, which have been derived by including only the opacity of the corresponding species into the radiative transfer. Subsequently, the results were normalized to the continuum in the same way as described above. We divided them by the output of a calculation where the absorption generated by lines was completely neglected. All spectra are based on the same atmospheric model with $\rm T_{eff} = 2600~K$, $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = -0.2$, $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$, $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 1.0$ and C/O = 1.10. It is obvious that molecular transitions block a large fraction of the radiation in the shown frequency interval. The opacity around and below 1 $\mu$m is dominated by the bands of C$_2$ and CN, while at longer wavelengths C$_2$H$_2$ and HCN are the most important species. However, the intensity of the features generated by the latter polyatomic molecules decreases significantly for higher effective temperatures. On the other hand, the variation of the absorption produced by C$_2$ and CN as a function of the stellar parameters is much less pronounced. In addition, the bands of C$_3$ may become considerably stronger with growing C/O ratios.
{width="12cm"}
The behaviour of the molecular features depending on the stellar properties of carbon stars has already been used to determine parameters like effective temperature or C/O ratio by a comparison of calculated and observed results (e.g. Aoki et al. [@cphotaok98], Aoki et al. [@cphotaok99], J[ø]{}rgensen et al. [@cphotjor00], Loidl et al. [@cphotloi01]). Since this work focuses mainly on the photometric characteristics, we will only discuss two selected examples of the spectroscopic changes, which are interesting for a possible interpolation or extrapolation based on our grid. More detailed studies involving the low resolution energy distributions will follow in the future.
The change of the line absorption with surface gravity is displayed in Fig. \[aricphot05\] where we show continuum normalized spectra for different values of log(g) emerging from cooler atmospheres with $\rm T_{eff} = 2600~K$ and hotter ones with $\rm T_{eff} = 3100~K$. The models have solar metallicity and their C/O ratio is 1.10. As one would expect, the warmer object produces much weaker molecular features. Even at the low resolution of the final spectra the flux level of the continuum is almost reached at some places around 4 and 6 $\mu$m. This is not the case for the cooler atmosphere where the line absorption blocks in most regions more than 50% of the radiation. There exists also a general trend that the molecular features become slightly weaker at lower surface gravity, if the other parameters are not altered. This behaviour is expected for extended giants and caused by the larger dimensions of the corresponding objects creating stronger sphericity effects[^2] at constant mass (Aringer et al. [@cphotari99]). For both of the presented sequences the changes as a function of log(g) are reasonably linear. Since the variation with temperature is usually also quite regular, an interpolation concerning these two parameters should work well.
{width="12cm"}
However, in some cases the situation can be more complex. This is demonstrated in Fig. \[aricphot06\] where we investigate the combined effects of mass and surface gravity at 2600 and 3100 K. The spectra shown are again normalized with respect to the continuum and the corresponding models have solar metallicity and a C/O ratio of 1.40. At 2600 K we find a quite regular behaviour which also complies with the expectations concerning sphericity. As was discussed before (see Fig. \[aricphot05\]) the intensity of the line absorption decreases for lower values of log(g). On the other hand, there is a shift due to mass which grows for declining surface gravities. The molecular features are in general deeper, if the objects become more massive. Both trends are in agreement with the predicted weakening of the line absorption due to sphericity effects. But at 3100 K the behaviour is rather different. It is obvious that for this temperature not all parts of the spectrum react in the same way to changes of surface gravity and mass. Especially the deep feature at 3 $\mu$m, produced mainly by HCN and C$_2$H$_2$, does not really follow the trends expected from spericity, since the intensity decreases a lot for more massive stars. A similar behaviour can be found for the wings of the broad 14 $\mu$m band, not shown in the plot. The absorption in the corresponding region is also caused by the two species HCN and C$_2$H$_2$. This demonstrates that due to the complex interaction of atmospheric structure, opacities and chemical equilibrium, simple predictions deduced from a single mechanism are not always possible. On the other hand, there are spectral ranges where we see also at 3100 K variations as a function of log(g) and mass, which agree very well with the expectations from sphericity (e.g. around 4 or 6 $\mu$m).
As will be discussed in the next section, the stellar mass has in general only a rather small influence on the investigated photometric properties. For the warmer stars with $\rm T_{eff} \ge 3000~K$ the spectra below 2.5 $\mu$m also change only marginally as a function of log(g). Thus, the mentioned irregularities will usually not hamper a proper prediction and interpolation of the colours. The possible uncertainties due to circumstellar reddening by dust and structural variations caused by atmospheric dynamics, which are not considered in the presented models, are much larger, even in objects with relatively weak pulsations. The special behaviour of the 3 $\mu$m feature might affect the L band, since it partly overlaps with the corresponding filter curve.
Photometry
----------
The synthetic photometry computed for the complete grid of our hydrostatic COMARCS models is available at [http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/synphot/Cstars]{} or also at the CDS[^3]. A detailed description of the corresponding data can be found in Sect. 2.4. The tables list the bolometric corrections (BC) as a function of the stellar parameters $\rm T_{eff}$, $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$, $\rm M/M_{\odot}$, $\rm Z/Z_{\odot}$ and C/O ratio for the different included filter magnitudes. We have prepared a separate file for each of the studied photometric systems.
The complete set of tables covers 36 photometric systems, each of them including several filters. This wealth of information may be exploited by the users of the database. Here, we restrict ourselves to certain typical examples. We have chosen some of the standard visual and near infrared filters as defined by Bessell ([@cphotbes90]) and Bessell & Brett ([@cphotbes88]), since they were applied for a large number of observations. The V, J, H and K magnitudes and colours appearing in the following discussions and figures are based on this photometric system (called the Bessell system in our work).
The observed colours of many carbon stars are severely affected by circumstellar (see the discussion in Sect. 4) and interstellar reddening. Since our results do not include these processes, they have to be applied a posteriori to the data.
![Predicted (J$-$H) colours as a function of effective temperature calculated from COMARCS models with $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$, $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$, C/O = 1.10 and different values of $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$[]{data-label="aricphot07"}](aricphot07.eps){width="8.5cm"}
### The (J$-$H) colour
In Figs. \[aricphot07\], \[aricphot08\] and \[aricphot09\] we investigate the behaviour of the (J$-$H) colour as a function of the effective temperature. In the first of the plots we do this for the different values of log(g), selecting objects with solar metallicity and C/O = 1.10 as an example. As described in Sect. 2.2 (see Table \[aricphott1\]), the range of available surface gravities decreases towards warmer atmospheres and above 3400 K only models with $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$ have been included in our grid. It is obvious that the spread of the (J$-$H) colours has a significant minimum around 2900 K, where it becomes practically negligible. It grows quite rapidly, if the stars get cooler. As a consequence, the largest differences appear at the lowest temperature of 2400 K where the dispersion reaches more than 0.1 mag. Above 2900 K the spread also increases, but it remains always moderate or small, which is partly due to the limited log(g) range for the warmer atmospheres. Below 2900 K the more extended models are redder, while beyond this value they have bluer colours.
The value of 2900 K also corresponds to the point of reversion for the general trend as a function of temperature where (J$-$H) reaches a maximum. Towards warmer and cooler atmospheres the colours become bluer. This turnaround is caused by the behaviour of different molecular features situated in the region of the filters. In the J band the flux is affected mainly by C$_2$ and CN, while the H band covers a considerable depression due to a mixture of C$_2$, CN, CO, C$_2$H$_2$ and HCN. The temperature dependent intensity of the polyatomic species especially plays a key role for the colour reversion, which makes a determination of the stellar parameters difficult and ambiguous. However, the turnaround will usually not be visible in observations of real stars, since all cooler objects are severely reddened by dust.
The circumstellar reddening, which is discussed in more detail in the next section (4.1) and in the second paper of this series, affects all photometric indices. It induces changes much larger than those caused by the molecular features. Thus, the ambiguity mentioned above plays only a minor role and for the coolest stars the determination of the parameters without a proper modelling of mass loss and dust opacities is impossible.
![Predicted differences in the (J$-$H) colours between objects with 1.0 and 2.0 M$_{\odot}$ as a function of effective temperature calculated from COMARCS models with $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$, C/O = 1.10 and various values of $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$[]{data-label="aricphot08"}](aricphot08.eps){width="8.5cm"}
In Fig. \[aricphot08\] we study the influence of the stellar mass on the (J$-$H) colour at various values of the surface gravity. The differences between 1.0 and 2.0 M$_{\odot}$ are shown taking again solar metallicity and C/O = 1.10 as an example. As one would expect, the shifts grow in general for smaller values of log(g). In addition, they reach a maximum around 2700 K. Their behaviour as a function of temperature and surface gravity is not always completely regular, which is in agreement with the results from the synthetic spectra discussed in the previous section (see Fig. \[aricphot06\]). A very good example is the differences at $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = -1.0$. Nevertheless, the spread in (J$-$H) due to mass remains in most cases rather small ($\le$ 0.04 mag). Other effects, like changing the elemental abundances or adding a dust opacity, are much more important. The same is also true for the other colour indices investigated here.
![Predicted (J$-$H) colours as a function of effective temperature calculated from COMARCS models with $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$, $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$ and different values of $\rm Z/Z_{\odot}$ (denoted as $\rm Z/Z_{sol}$ in the plot) and C/O[]{data-label="aricphot09"}](aricphot09.eps){width="8.5cm"}
The temperature-dependent behaviour of (J$-$H) for different chemical compositions is shown in Fig. \[aricphot09\]. The sequences of models in the plot represent various metallicities and C/O ratios assuming $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$ and $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$. The latter two values have been chosen, since the corresponding COMARCS atmospheres exist for most of the possible combinations of the remaining parameters ($\rm T_{eff}$, C/O, Z). It was already mentioned in the preceding discussion that the trend of (J$-$H) with temperature reverses at a certain point where the maximum of the index is reached. Towards cooler and warmer models the colours become bluer. In Fig. \[aricphot09\] one can see that this applies to all investigated chemical compositions. However, the maximum is shifted to higher temperatures, if the metallicity becomes lower. At $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.33$ it is situated around 3000 K and at $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.1$ around 3100 K.
There exists a clear trend that in all atmospheres cooler than about 3300 to 3400 K the (J$-$H) index becomes bluer towards larger C/O ratios, if the metallicity and the other stellar parameters are kept constant. The corresponding spread in the colour temperature relation for our grid reaches between 0.1 and 0.2 mag. The situation is quite different for models that are warmer than 3400 K. In those objects the value of C/O plays only a minor role. On the other hand, one can see in Fig. \[aricphot09\] that at higher temperatures the colours become redder, if the metallicity decreases. A multiplication of $\rm Z/Z_{\odot}$ by a factor of one third gives a positive shift of 0.04 to 0.05 mag in (J$-$H). At a constant C/O ratio, which introduces significant deviations below 3300 to 3400 K, this rule applies down to about 3000 K. Around 2700 to 2800 K the colour differences due to metallicity almost disappear. And for the cooler temperatures we find a reversion of the trend, because (J$-$H) slightly increases with growing $\rm Z/Z_{\odot}$.
![Predicted (J$-$K) colours as a function of effective temperature calculated from COMARCS models with $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$, $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$, C/O = 1.10 and different values of $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$[]{data-label="aricphot10"}](aricphot10.eps){width="8.5cm"}
### The (J$-$K) colour
The behaviour of (J$-$K) as a function of the effective temperature is very interesting, since the corresponding relation has often been used to determine that stellar parameter from photometric observations. This may work quite well for the warmer objects, as one can see in Fig. \[aricphot10\] where we plot the colours of models with different values of log(g). Following the previous discussion on (J$-$H), we have taken COMARCS atmospheres with $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$, $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$ and C/O = 1.1 as an example. Above 2800 K the (J$-$K) index clearly decreases towards higher temperatures. The scatter in the almost linear relation, which is produced by the variation of the surface gravity in our grid, remains negligible. From Fig. \[aricphot11\], where we study the effect of different chemical compositions for $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$ and $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$, it is evident that down to 3000 K also changes of metallicity and C/O ratio do not create too large deviations. Nevertheless, similar to the case of (J$-$H), the trend with temperature reverses for the coolest models. As one can see in Figs. \[aricphot10\] and \[aricphot11\] the turnaround with the reddest (J$-$K) appears at 2800 K for $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$ and a value of C/O below 1.4. It shifts to 2900 or even further to 3000 K, if the metallicity decreases and the relative abundance of carbon becomes higher. The explanation for this reversion is similar to the one for the behaviour of (J$-$H) in the coolest atmospheres. The suppression of the flux in the K band due to molecular absorption of polyatomic species grows at lower temperatures much more than in the wavelength region where the J magnitude is determined. The K filter covers mainly features of CN and C$_2$H$_2$. However, the turnaround will usually also not become visible in populations of real stars, since the coolest objects show a severe reddening caused by circumstellar dust.
![Predicted (J$-$K) colours as a function of effective temperature calculated from COMARCS models with $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$, $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$ and different values of $\rm Z/Z_{\odot}$ (denoted as $\rm Z/Z_{sol}$ in the plot) and C/O[]{data-label="aricphot11"}](aricphot11.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Looking at Fig. \[aricphot10\] it becomes obvious that significant shifts introduced by the variation of the surface gravity in our grid appear only below 2900 K. The corresponding spread in the colour temperature relation grows rapidly towards cooler models. At 2400 K the difference between atmospheres with $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = -1.0$ and 0.0 reaches almost 0.2 mag. In general, the more extended objects are redder in (J$-$K). Fig. \[aricphot11\] shows that below 3000 K the colour also depends on the chemical composition. It gets bluer if the metallicity decreases. For the coolest models a multiplication of $\rm Z/Z_{\odot}$ by a factor of one third reduces the index by approximately 0.05 to 0.06 mag. The C/O value also plays a role below 3000 K. As long as the ratio remains small, (J$-$K) decreases with higher relative carbon abundance. However, this trend saturates, and above C/O = 1.4 there are no noticeable differences. As already mentioned, we find that the shifts due to the chemical composition, which almost disappear between 3000 and 3200 K, never become large in the warmer models. In general, at the higher temperatures (J$-$K) turns slightly redder with an increasing C/O ratio, while the behaviour as a function of metallicity is not so regular and causes only minor deviations.
![Predicted (V$-$K) colours as a function of effective temperature calculated from COMARCS models with $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$, $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$, C/O = 1.10 and different values of $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$[]{data-label="aricphot12"}](aricphot12.eps){width="8.5cm"}
### The (V$-$K) colour
As one can see in Figs. \[aricphot12\] and \[aricphot13\] the (V$-$K) index could be a quite good indicator of the effective temperature. The relative scatter due to variations of surface gravity and chemical abundances remains in most cases reasonably small ($\rm < 0.2~mag \sim 100~K$). Furthermore, in contrast to (J$-$H) or (J$-$K), the overall relation that the colour becomes redder for cooler atmospheres is never reversed. It only saturates at the lowest temperatures where the application of hydrostatic dust-free models is not useful (see Sect. 4.1). Unfortunately, there are almost no simultaneous measurements of V and K magnitudes for individual carbon stars. In addition, this index will be severely affected by interstellar as well as circumstellar reddening.
![Predicted (V$-$K) colours as a function of effective temperature calculated from COMARCS models with $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$, $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$ and different values of $\rm Z/Z_{\odot}$ (denoted as $\rm Z/Z_{sol}$ in the plot) and C/O[]{data-label="aricphot13"}](aricphot13.eps){width="8.5cm"}
In general, atmospheres with a smaller surface gravity have redder (V$-$K) colours. In Fig. \[aricphot12\] we demonstrate this for the carbon stars from our grid with $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$, $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$ and C/O = 1.10. One can see that significant shifts due to the different values of log(g) appear only below 2900 to 3000 K, and they increase towards the coolest temperatures where up to 0.5 mag may be reached. This applies also to the variations caused by changes of the chemical abundances. The behaviour of objects with $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$ and $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$ is shown in Fig. \[aricphot13\]. The plot reveals that at lower temperatures, models with a higher C/O ratio and a decreased metallicity tend to produce bluer colours. Above 3000 K this trend reverses, but the corresponding relative differences do not become considerable.
Discussion
==========
Comparison with observations
----------------------------
In the previous section we showed some examples representative of the results of our computations. Now, we compare them to observational data. We will restrict ourselves again to the Bessell photometric system (Bessell [@cphotbes90] and Bessell & Brett [@cphotbes88]). We start with the work of Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]), who established a calibration scheme for the effective temperature of galactic carbon stars by relating interferometric results to colours like (J$-$K), (H$-$K) or (V$-$K). The conversion of measured angular diameters into stellar parameters depends on estimates for the distance and functions describing the limb darkening of the investigated objects. Especially if one studies cooler AGB giants, both of these tasks may become quite problematic. The difficulties are mainly caused by the large extensions of the atmospheres, the diameters of which change considerably with wavelength due to molecular absorption and with time due to pulsation. These variations are often accompanied by complicated radial density structures and the formation of dust shells (e.g. Hofmann et al. [@cphothof98], Jacob & Scholz [@cphotjac02], Aringer et al. [@cphotari08]). Thus, the result will depend very much on the model applied to interpret the intensity profile of the observed star and the corresponding uncertainties. For such objects, even the theoretical choice of a diameter to define the effective temperature is rather arbitrary, since the range with an optical depth around one may become quite broad.
![The (J$-$K) colour as a function of the effective temperature is shown for COMARCS models with $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$ and $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$. Several typical sequences characterized by different values of $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$ and C/O are included. The theoretical results are compared to the data from Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01], Table 4) which have been derived from observations (stars).[]{data-label="aricphot14"}](aricphot14.eps){width="8.5cm"}
### (J$-$K) versus effective temperature
In Fig. \[aricphot14\], where we show (J$-$K) as a function of the effective temperature, COMARCS models with solar metallicity are compared to the results of Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]). The sequences of atmospheres with different values of log(g) and C/O, which are included in the plot, were selected in order to represent approximately the spread introduced by the variation of these parameters (see Figs. \[aricphot10\] and \[aricphot11\]). As one can see, the agreement between calculated and observed colours is quite good in the range from 3200 down to 2800 K. The only distinction is that the measured data show a much larger scatter than the synthetic ones. However, this may very well be due to uncertainties concerning the variability, the correction of the interstellar reddening or the determination of the linear diameters. Below 2800 K the colours predicted by the COMARCS models are systematically bluer than those taken from the observations. While the (J$-$K) value in the results of Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]) continues to increase towards the coolest stars, this trend reverses for our hydrostatic calculations. As a consequence, the difference between measured and synthetic data grows considerably at lower temperatures. Nevertheless, this behaviour is not completely unexpected. We have already mentioned that the cooler AGB giants are severely affected by pulsation, dust formation and mass loss, which cannot be described within the framework of hydrostatic models (e.g. Höfner et al. [@cphothof03]). Due to circumstellar reddening and the development of very extended and complicated temperature density structures, these processes show a strong influence on the spectra and filter magnitudes of the stars (Gautschy-Loidl et al. [@cphotgau04]). The problem will be discussed in more detail in the second paper of this series where we present synthetic colours based on dynamical calculations taking the corresponding time dependent phenomena into account. It is mainly the opacity of amorphous carbon dust which changes the overall energy distribution of the objects. It causes the high (J$-$K) values appearing for the observed data in Fig. \[aricphot14\] and is not included in our COMARCS models[^4] which seem to be appropriate down to about 2800 K. We want to emphasize again that below this point the conversion of measured angular diameters into effective temperatures also will be problematic.
In Fig. \[aricphot14\] one can see two of the observed stars situated at rather high temperatures above 3600 K (BL Ori, V4378 Sgr) which are far away from our COMARCS sequences. However, as Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]) already have noted they also do not fit into the relation defined by the other measured objects. It is possible that an error concerning the determination of the interferometric data or their interpretation occured. In reality the stars may be much cooler.
![The (H$-$K) colour as a function of the effective temperature is shown for COMARCS models with $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$ and $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$. Several typical sequences characterized by different values of $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$ and C/O are included. Results from calculations with a scaled C$_2$ line list (dashed lines, open symbols) and with the unscaled original one (full lines, filled symbols) are compared to each other and to the data from Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01], Table 4) which have been derived from observations (stars).[]{data-label="aricphot15"}](aricphot15.eps){width="8.5cm"}
### (H$-$K) versus effective temperature
In Fig. \[aricphot15\] we present a comparison of the observed colour temperature relation for carbon stars with COMARCS models, which is similar to the one in Fig. \[aricphot14\], but shows (H$-$K) instead of (J$-$K). The plot again includes sequences from our grid of hydrostatic atmospheres with solar metallicity and different values of log(g) and C/O (dashed lines, open symbols). It is obvious that the (H$-$K) indices produced by the calculations are systematically bluer than the measured ones. Apart from the deviations below 2800 K growing towards cooler temperatures, which already appeared for (J$-$K) and have been explained by the contribution of circumstellar dust and dynamical changes of the structures, there exists a shift of around 0.1 mag for all of the hotter objects. This problem is not restricted to the data of Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]), but occurs also in the two colour diagrams based on other observations (not shown here).
In order to find possible explanations for the differences between measured and predicted (H$-$K) values of the warmer stars, we investigated the influence of the scaling applied to the C$_2$ absorption in our calculations. This has been proposed by Loidl et al. ([@cphotloi01]) and is described in the section about model atmospheres and opacities (Sect. 2.1). We produced a few series of synthetic spectra and filter magnitudes using the original C$_2$ list without any changes (full lines and filled symbols in Fig. \[aricphot15\]). The relative effect of the scaling on (H$-$K) is much stronger than on the other Bessell colours discussed in our work. This can be explained by the fact that the corresponding variations reach a maximum in the H band and the comparatively small flux difference between H and K. From looking at Fig. \[aricphot15\] it becomes clear that the calculated (H$-$K) indices based on the original linelist are by 0.08 to 0.1 mag higher, if the temperature is kept constant. The consequence of the shift to redder colours is a much better agreement with the observations in the region above 2800 K, while below this limit we still see considerable deviations, growing towards cooler stars. Thus, the results for (H$-$K) with the unscaled C$_2$ opacity would confirm the ones derived from (J$-$K). This may be interpreted as an indication that it is preferable to use the original C$_2$ data without any correction of the [*gf*]{}-values and to add approximately 0.1 mag to the (H$-$K) indices from our standard grid. However, since there is not much effect on the other colours, one should be careful drawing conclusions concerning the molecular absorption. Future work on the C$_2$ opacities and spectral investigations can solve this problem.
![The (V$-$K) colour as a function of the effective temperature is shown for COMARCS models with $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$ and $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$. Several typical sequences characterized by different values of $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$ and C/O are included. The theoretical results are compared to the data from Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]) which have been derived from observations. In the upper panel we present the original (V$-$K) indices given by the authors (stars), while in the lower one we take the V variability of the objects into account. The ranges between the corresponding maxima and minima are shown as error bars. The V and K magnitudes used for the second plot were taken from various sources listed in the text. They do not include the values from Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]).[]{data-label="aricphot16"}](aricphot16b.eps "fig:"){width="8.5cm"} ![The (V$-$K) colour as a function of the effective temperature is shown for COMARCS models with $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 1.0$ and $\rm M/M_{\odot} = 2.0$. Several typical sequences characterized by different values of $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$ and C/O are included. The theoretical results are compared to the data from Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]) which have been derived from observations. In the upper panel we present the original (V$-$K) indices given by the authors (stars), while in the lower one we take the V variability of the objects into account. The ranges between the corresponding maxima and minima are shown as error bars. The V and K magnitudes used for the second plot were taken from various sources listed in the text. They do not include the values from Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]).[]{data-label="aricphot16"}](aricphot16a.eps "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}
### (V$-$K) versus effective temperature
The last comparison of our solar metallicity COMARCS sequences with the results of Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]) is displayed in Fig. \[aricphot16\], where we show (V$-$K) as a function of the effective temperature. A plot based on the original photometric data as they were published by the authors can be seen in the upper panel. The obvious agreement between predicted and observed colours in all regions of the diagram is rather surprising, because from the preceding discussion one would expect deviations for the cooler stars, which are due to circumstellar reddening and dynamical changes of the atmospheric structures. The influence of dust on (V$-$K) should be much more pronounced than on the infrared indices like (H$-$K) or (J$-$K). However, Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]) have neglected the pulsation of the objects producing the strongest variability at shorter wavelengths, as in the V range. Since the measurements of the interferometric radii as well as of the V and K magnitudes have not all been done simultaneously, this may create some bias in the diagram.
In order to consider at least the V amplitude of the objects studied by Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]), we have determined the (V$-$K) values corresponding to the maxima and minima of the visual flux. The K magnitudes were assumed to remain constant. The colour ranges obtained with this approach are displayed in the lower panel of Fig. \[aricphot16\] (bars). In most cases we could take the necessary photometric data from the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (GCVS4, Samus et al. [@cphotgcv06], Samus et al. [@cphotgcv07]). If the GCVS did not include the needed information, we estimated the interval covered by the V magnitudes using the AAVSO Light Curve Generator ([http://www.aavso.org/data/lcg/]{}). For a few of the objects we were not able to find any published measurements revealing the temporal behaviour of the fluxes in the V band (AB Gem, V4378 Sgr, DR Ser). Since all of them are Lb (irregular) variables, which normally show rather moderate photometric changes, we assumed the brightness listed in the General Catalog of Cool Galactic Carbon Stars (GCCCS, Stephenson [@cphotgcc89]) as the mean value and an amplitude of 0.5 mag. The K magnitudes were taken from the $\rm 5^{th}$ edition (Gezari et al. [@cphotgez00]) of the Catalog of Infrared Observations (Gezari et al. [@cphotgez93]), the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS, Skrutskie et al. [@cphot2mss06]), Whitelock et al. ([@cphotwhi06]) and Menzies et al. ([@cphotmen06]). For the correction of the interstellar reddening we used the coefficients given by Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]).
If one compares the upper and the lower panel of Fig. \[aricphot16\], it becomes obvious that the original (V$-$K) data from Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber01]) are in most cases situated within the range of variability, but not in its centre. They are systematically shifted to bluer colours. The same is true for the values predicted from our COMARCS models, which cover the same regions of the diagram, as was mentioned before. All of this may be explained by the fact that the authors have used V measurements biased towards higher fluxes corresponding to phases of the pulsation where the circumstellar extinction caused by dust remains weak. However, also in the bottom panel of Fig. \[aricphot16\], a clear increase in the differences between synthetic and observed colours at lower temperatures is not visible. Such a behaviour contradicts the trend found for (J$-$K) and (H$-$K) as well as the expectations of stronger dynamical effects and higher mass loss rates in cooler objects. Nevertheless, since there are severe uncertainties concerning this diagram, one should be rather careful with any definite conclusions. First, we have neglected the variation of the K magnitudes and the angular diameters, which is most likely less pronounced than the change of the visual flux, but still quite considerable. In principle it would be desirable to use simultaneous measurements or at least temporal mean values of all involved quantities. Unfortunately, such data are not available at the moment. Secondly, the applied corrections of the interstellar reddening (Knapik & Bergeat [@cphotkna97]) may be problematic in the case of stars with intense pulsations, because they are based on assumptions concerning a characteristic energy distribution for the objects.
![The bolometric corrections for the K magnitude ($\rm BC_K$) are shown as a function of the (J$-$K) colour. Several representative sequences of COMARCS atmospheres characterized by different values of $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$, $\rm Z/Z_{\odot}$ (denoted as $\rm Z/Z_{sol}$ in the plot) and C/O are displayed. The models, which cover the effective temperature ranges given in the legend, have two solar masses. The minima of $\rm BC_K$ correspond always to the warmest object in each series. In addition, we have included the observed mean relations for galactic carbon stars from Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber02], dashed line), Costa & Frogel ([@cphotcos96], full line) and Whitelock et al. ([@cphotwhi06], dotdashed line).[]{data-label="aricphot17"}](aricphot17.eps){width="8.5cm"}
### Bolometric correction $\rm BC_K$
In Fig. \[aricphot17\] we study the behaviour of the bolometric corrections for the K magnitude ($\rm BC_K$) as a function of the (J$-$K) colour. We compare several effective temperature sequences of COMARCS atmospheres with observed mean relations for galactic carbon stars taken from the work of Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber02]), Costa & Frogel ([@cphotcos96]) and Whitelock et al. ([@cphotwhi06]). The included model series correspond to different values of metallicity, C/O ratio and surface gravity. Since Costa & Frogel ([@cphotcos96]) claim that their results may be used for LMC objects, we have also considered a set of calculations assuming $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.33$.
From the hottest COMARCS atmospheres producing the smallest (J$-$K) indices and bolometric corrections down to about 2800 K, the agreement between predictions and observations is very good. In this range we see a clear relation that with decreasing effective temperature (J$-$K) becomes redder and $\rm BC_K$ larger. Nevertheless, at the cooler hydrostatic models the trend reverses for both quantities and there are deviations between the calculated positions in the diagram and the measured mean sequences, which grow progressively. As was discussed in the beginning of this section, the observed carbon stars also extend to much higher (J$-$K) values than the COMARCS atmospheres. The results of Whitelock et al. ([@cphotwhi06]), which are obviously focused on objects with considerable mass loss rates, have almost no overlap with the computed colours, since they only cover the interval down to (J$-$K) $\sim$ 1.5. In agreement with the work of Bergeat et al. ([@cphotber02]), they reveal that for the very red sources the bolometric corrections decrease again. In the relation published by Costa & Frogel ([@cphotcos96]) such a behaviour does not appear. However, their results were mainly determined for bluer carbon stars and are only extrapolated towards larger (J$-$K) indices.
The most important conclusion from our plot of the bolometric corrections versus (J$-$K) colour in Fig. \[aricphot17\] is the confirmation of the scenario described in the beginning of this section. Down to about 2800 K the COMARCS models reproduce the observations quite well, while at cooler temperatures the spectral flux distributions of the real stars are dominated by circumstellar dust shells and dynamical changes of the atmospheric structure.
![Two colour diagram (I$-$K) versus (J$-$K) for several representative sequences of COMARCS atmospheres characterized by different values of $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2])$, $\rm Z/Z_{\odot}$ (denoted as $\rm Z/Z_{sol}$ in the plot) and C/O. All models have two solar masses. The series start at $\rm T_{eff} = 2600~K$ and range up to 4000 K for $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$, up to 3200 K for $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = -0.4$ and up to 2900 K for $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = -0.8$. The warmest objects correspond to the bluest colours. The data are compared to observations of LMC carbon stars published by Costa & Frogel ([@cphotcos96]).[]{data-label="aricphot18"}](aricphot18.eps){width="8.5cm"}
### Near infrared two colour diagram
Another confirmation of this scenario can be found in Fig. \[aricphot18\], where we show a two colour diagram with (I$-$K) versus (J$-$K). Several representative temperature sequences of subsolar metallicity COMARCS atmospheres are compared to the observations of LMC carbon stars published by Costa & Frogel ([@cphotcos96]). Again, the included model series correspond to different values of log(g), $\rm Z/Z_{\odot}$ and C/O. It is obvious that for the warmer objects having bluer colours the agreement between predicted and measured positions in the diagram can be regarded as good. On the other hand, as in Fig. \[aricphot17\], the observed data extend to much larger (I$-$K) or (J$-$K) indices than the calculations. They also do not show any signs of the reversion of the trend with temperature appearing for the COMARCS atmospheres below 2800 K. A similar behaviour confirming the discussed scenario can also be found in most of the other two colour diagrams combining different Bessell filters (not shown here).
Samples of distant carbon stars are often selected due to the red colours of these objects. A good example is the criterion of $\rm (J - K) > 1.4$ (e.g. Cioni & Habing [@cphotcio03]). However, from the predicted and observed values in Fig. \[aricphot18\] it becomes clear that such a photometric choice will neglect many of the bluer sources with low mass loss rates.
Application of the data to stellar evolution
--------------------------------------------
### Defining an interpolation scheme
The models presented in this paper define a 5-dimensional grid in metallicity, effective temperature, surface gravity, C/O ratio and mass. Nevertheless, the latter has a quite small influence on the synthetic colours and bolometric corrections, as it is shown in Fig. \[aricphot08\]. In addition, the atmospheres for many combinations of the other parameters have only been calculated with 2.0 M$_{\odot}$. A more extensive grid involving 1.0 M$_{\odot}$ computations exists only for solar metallicity. As a consequence, the effect of stellar mass may be treated as a correction to be applied a posteriori to the results, and we remain with a 4-dimensional interpolation to determine the desired photometric quantities.
For an object with a given value of Z, $\rm T_{eff}$, log(g) and C/O we first identify the metallicity interval $\rm (Z_1,Z_2)$ of the grid where it is located and compute the weighting factors for a linear interpolation in log(Z). Subsequently, we look for the proper temperature intervals $\rm (T_{eff,1},T_{eff,2})$ at Z$_1$ and Z$_2$. These are not necessarily equal, since due to problems with the convergence of the more extended models and the different expected properties of carbon stars (see Sect. 2.2), the spacing and range of coverage with respect to a certain parameter may change as a function of the other stellar quantities. For example, at solar metallicity our calculations go down to 2400 K, while for $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.33$ and $\rm Z/Z_{\odot} = 0.1$ the lower limit was increased to 2600 K following the predictions from synthetic AGB evolution. From each $\rm T_{eff,1}$ and $\rm T_{eff,2}$ we are then able to determine the weighting factors for a linear interpolation in $\rm log(T_{eff})$. As a next step we use the same method for log(g) where the interval (log(g)$_1$, log(g)$_2$) has to be defined for all combinations of Z$_1$ and Z$_2$ with $\rm T_{eff,1}$ and $\rm T_{eff,2}$. Finally, we include also the C/O ratio into this scheme. In the ideal case, when the investigated object is situated completely inside all limits, we remain with 16 final weighting factors computed from the product of the four individual contributions of the mentioned parameters which may then be applied to the colours or bolometric corrections of the corresponding grid points. Extrapolations are in general avoided by selecting the available maximum or minimum values. They were only allowed for the effective temperature with an amount of up to 100 K.
![Selected isochrones from Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]), focusing on the part of the 2MASS $\rm M_{K_s}$ versus $\rm (J-K_s)$ diagram that corresponds to the upper RGB (black lines) and TP-AGB phases. To avoid confusion in the figure the TP-AGB part covers only the quiescent stages, neglecting the thermal pulse cycle variations, and we do not show the final points in which stars cross back to the blue during their evolution to the post-AGB. The TP-AGB is marked either as oxygen rich (blue lines in the electronic version) or as carbon rich (red lines). Full lines are results obtained using the present database of transformations for carbon stars, whereas dashed lines are the ones from Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]) based on spectra from Loidl et al. ([@cphotloi01]). The effect of circumstellar dust is not considered. The ages ($\rm log(t~[yr])$) and metallicities of the isochrones are indicated in the plot.[]{data-label="aricphot19"}](aricphot19.ps){width="8.5cm"}
### Theoretical isochrones
Interpolated bolometric corrections computed in this way can then be applied to theoretical TP-AGB models. Fig. \[aricphot19\] illustrates the difference between the results based on our data to convert the isochrones of Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]) to the 2MASS $\rm M_{K_s}$ versus $\rm (J-K_s)$ diagram and the original ones obtained with the spectra taken from Loidl et al. ([@cphotloi01]). The latter were only available for a few selected stellar parameters (mainly temperatures) and solar metallicity. We have chosen curves with $\rm log(t~[yr]) = 8.5$ for $\rm Z = Z_{\odot} = 0.019$, $\rm log(t~[yr]) = 9.0$ for $\rm Z = 0.42~Z_{\odot} = 0.008$ and $\rm log(t~[yr]) = 9.5$ for $\rm Z = 0.053~Z_{\odot} = 0.001$, because the typical age range for the appearance of the carbon star branch changes with the chemical abundances. The effect of circumstellar dust has been neglected in the plot. As it was already mentioned it would shift the objects with mass loss to much redder colours.
The figure shows that at all metallicities the AGB C-stars are predicted to be distributed along a sort of tail redward of the location of the oxygen rich giants. This behaviour is largely due to lower effective temperatures caused by the opacity of carbonic molecules as has been described in Marigo ([@cphotmar02]), Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar03]) and Marigo & Girardi ([@cphotmar07]). Applying the atmospheric models presented here to the determination of photometric properties results in some changes in the discussed colour magnitude diagram. Compared to the calculations based on the spectra of Loidl et al. ([@cphotloi01]) the objects become bluer and in most cases brighter. As a consequence, especially at the two higher metallicities, the maximum $\rm (J-K_s)$ value decreases by up to 0.15 mag. A part of the flux differences can be attributed to a variation of the photometric zero points caused by the more limited wavelength coverage of the data from Loidl et al. ([@cphotloi01]). The bulk of the change is due to revised opacities and the much larger parameter range included in the current grid. As an example, Loidl et al. ([@cphotloi01]) did not consider any atomic lines and only solar metallicity spectra were available for the conversion of the isochrones.
Observed carbon star red tails in systems like the Magellanic Clouds present the majority of giants extending more or less uniformly in the interval $\rm 1.2 \la (J-K_s) \la 2.0$. The results shown in Fig. \[aricphot19\] do not reproduce the redder part of this distribution. As it has been discussed, this is mainly due to the neglect of the circumstellar dusty envelopes. Also, the effect of the pulsation on the atmospheric structure and colour excursions caused by thermal pulse cycles may play a role. Evaluating the impact of such phenomena remains beyond the scope of the present paper. Work is in progress to create a complete simulation of the Magellanic Cloud TP-AGB stars considering all the processes affecting their photometric properties.
The present database of bolometric corrections has already been incorporated into the interactive web interface [http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/cmd]{} which can be used to generate interpolated Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]) isochrones and their derivatives in many photometric systems. The tables containing the BC values as well as the synthetic spectra are provided in the repository [http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/synphot/Cstars]{}. The reddening caused by circumstellar dust may currently be simulated in connection with our data by applying the approximative approaches from Bressan et al. ([@cphotbre98]) and Groenewegen ([@cphotgro06]). This is the same procedure as used for the results of Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]).
Conclusions
===========
We have produced a grid of hydrostatic COMARCS atmospheres covering effective temperatures between 2400 and 4000 K, surface gravities from $\rm log(g~[cm/s^2]) = 0.0$ to $-1.0$, metallicities ranging from the solar value down to one tenth of it and C/O ratios in the interval between 1.05 and 5.0. Based on these models we calculated synthetic low resolution spectra and bolometric corrections for a considerable number of standard photometric systems, which are publicly available on the web. As an example we have shown some of the Bessell colours as a function of the stellar parameters. It turned out that the mass, which represents in principle the sphericity of the atmospheres, usually has only a quite small effect on the overall energy distribution. On the other hand, as one would expect, the effective temperature is the most important quantity. Especially for the warmer carbon stars its determination based on photometric measurements may reveal rather reliable results, if one chooses the right colour indices and has at least a rough estimate of the other parameters. In addition, the effect of the interstellar reddening has to be taken into account, which represents the main source of uncertainties, at least for individual stars.
However, we have also demonstrated that our hydrostatic dust-free atmospheres fail to reproduce the redder and cooler carbon stars. The photometric properties based on the models from our grid were compared to several observed data sets involving effective temperatures obtained from interferometry, bolometric corrections and two colour diagrams. Most of these investigations confirm the same scenario. Down to about 2800 K the agreement between predicted and measured energy distributions is quite good, while below this limit the COMARCS atmospheres are much too blue. In some cases the photometric indices of the coolest models even decrease again due to the influence of molecular features. Such a behaviour definitely does not appear for the observed carbon stars, which always extend to considerably redder colours than any of the calculations. The main explanation for these differences is the neglect of the dusty circumstellar envelopes in the presented COMARCS atmospheres. But dynamical changes of the radial pressure temperature structure connected to pulsation and mass loss also play an important role.
Many time-dependent phenomena appearing in AGB stars, like the intense pulsation creating shock waves or dust formation driving heavy stellar winds, cannot be described within the framework of hydrostatic atmospheres in chemical equilibrium, as it has been demonstrated by a large number of models and observations (e.g. Aringer et al. [@cphotari99], Alvarez & Plez [@cphotalv98], Loidl et al. [@cphotloi99], Höfner et al. [@cphothof03]). Thus, a forthcoming paper of this series will focus on the effect of dynamics and mass loss on the photometric properties of carbon rich giants. There we demonstrate that these processes offer a natural explanation for the very red colours seen in a large number of objects. The calculations will be based on models including pulsation and time-dependent dust formation as have been published by Höfner et al. ([@cphothof03]) or Mattsson et al. ([@cphotmat08]).
For the warmer COMARCS models, which are in agreement with the observations, we found that the photometric changes as a function of the stellar parameters show in most cases clear and predictable trends. An exception is the dependence on mass, which corresponds to the effect of sphericity. However, as we have demonstrated, the latter plays only a minor role for the different colours. Thus, it is possible to interpolate between the photometric fluxes based on our grid, which allows us to connect the results to stellar evolution calculations. The effect of applying our bolometric corrections to the isochrones from Marigo et al. ([@cphotmar08]) has been shown in this paper as a first test. For the moment we have neglected the influence of dynamical processes and the reddening caused by the dusty envelopes of the stars. The latter will be included in a more systematic study involving stellar evolution and population synthesis computations that will be presented in a forthcoming publication. It can already be taken into account in combination with our data by using approximative descriptions like the ones from Bressan et al. ([@cphotbre98]) and Groenewegen ([@cphotgro06]).
We acknowledge financial support from the University of Padova (Progetto di Ricerca di Ateneo CPDA052212). LG acknowledges support from PRIN INAF07 1.06.10.03. The work presented here was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) projects P19503-N16 and P18939-N16. BA acknowledges funding by the contract ASI-INAF I/016/07/0. MTL has been supported by the Austrian Academy of Sciences (DOC programme) and acknowledges funding by the Austrian Sience Fund (FWF) project P-18171. We thank U.G. J[ø]{}rgensen and R. Gautschy-Loidl for their support concerning the opacity data of C$_3$ and C$_2$H$_2$. We acknowledge with thanks the variable star observations from the AAVSO International Database contributed by observers worldwide and used in this research. We thank A. Bressan and M. Groenewegen for their early interest in this work and for many useful suggestions.
Alvarez, R., Plez, B. 1998, A&A 330, 1109 Anders, E., Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 53, 197 Aoki, W., Tsuji, T., Ohnaka, K. 1998, A&A 340, 222 Aoki, W., Tsuji, T., Ohnaka, K. 1999, A&A 350, 945 Aringer, B. 2000, The SiO Molecule in the Atmospheres and Circumstellar Envelopes of AGB Stars, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Vienna Aringer, B. 2005, in High Resolution Infrared Spectroscopy in Astronomy, Käufl, H.U., Siebenmorgen, R., Moorwood, A. (eds.), Proc. of an ESO Workshop at Garching, Germany, p. 303 Aringer, B., Höfner, S., Wiedemann, G., et al.1999, A&A 342, 799 Aringer, B., J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G., Langhoff, S.R. 1997, A&A 323, 202 Aringer, B., Nowotny, W., Höfner, S. 2008, in Perspectives in Radiative Transfer and Interferometry, Wolf, S., Allard, F., Stee, P. (eds), EAS Publications Series 28, 67 Bauschlicher, C.W.Jr., Ram, R.S., Bernath, P.F., et al.2001, J. Chem.Phys. 115, 1312 Bergeat, J., Knapik, A., Rutily, B., 2001, A&A 369, 178 Bergeat, J., Knapik, A., Rutily, B., 2002, A&A 390, 967 Bessell, M.S. 1990, PASP 102, 1181 Bessell, M.S., Brett, J.M. 1988, PASP 100, 1134 Blanco, V.M., McCarthy, M.F. 1983, AJ 88, 1442 Bohlin, R.C., 2007, ASPC 364, 315 Bressan, A., Granato, G.L., Silva, L. 1998, A&A 332, 135 Cioni, M.-R.L., Habing, H.J. 2003, A&A 402, 133 Costa, E., Frogel, J.A. 1996, AJ 112, 2607 Coupon, J., et al. 2008, arXiv:0811.3326 Cristallo, S., Straniero, O., Lederer, M.T., Aringer, B. 2007, ApJ 667, 489 Dulick, M., Bauschlicher, C.W.Jr., Burrows, A., et al.2003, ApJ 594, 651 Falkesgaard, J.F. 2001, Chemical equilibrium in cool astrophysical media, Master Thesis, Univ. Copenhagen Frogel, J.A., Mould, J., Blanco, V.M. 1990, ApJ 352, 96 Gautschy-Loidl, R., Höfner, S., J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G., Hron, J., 2004, A&A 422, 289 Geisler, D. 1984, PASP 96, 723 Gezari, D.Y., Schmitz, M., Pitts, P.S., Mead, J.M. 1993, The Catalog of Infrared Observations (ed3), NASA Reference Publ. 1294 Gezari, D.Y., Pitts, P.S., Schmitz, M. 2000, The Catalog of Infrared Observations (ed5), [http://ircatalog.gsfc.nasa.gov/]{} Girardi, L., Bertelli, G., Bressan, A., et al.2002, A&A 391, 195 Girardi, L., Dalcanton, J., Williams, B., et al.2008, PASP 120, 583 Gorfer, M. 2005, Metal Lines in Cool Stars, Master Thesis, Univ. of Vienna Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J. 1994, Proc.IAU Colloq. 146: Molecules in the Stellar Environment, ed.U.G. J[ø]{}rgensen, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Physics 428, p. 196 Groenewegen, M.A.T. 2006, A&A 448, 181 Gustafsson, B., Bell, R.A., Eriksson, K., Nordlund, [Å]{}. 1975, A&A 42, 407 Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al.2008, A&A 486, 951 Hardy, R.L. 1971, J. Geophys.Res. 76, 1905 Höfner, S., Gautschy-Loidl, R., Aringer, B., J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G. 2003, A&A 399, 589 Hofmann, K.H., Scholz, M., Wood, P.R., 1998, A&A 339, 846 Irwin, A.W. 1981, ApJS 45, 621 Jacob, A.P., Scholz, M., 2002, MNRAS 336, 1377 J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G. 1997, in Molecules in Astrophysics: Probes and Processes, van Dishoek, E.F. (ed), Proc. IAU Symp. 178, 441 (Kluwer) J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G., Hron, J., Loidl, R. 2000, A&A 356, 253 J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G., Johnson, H.R., Nordlund, [Å]{}. 1992, A&A 261, 263 Knapik, A., Bergeat, J. 1997, A&A 321, 236 Kuncarayakti, H., Doi, M., Malasan, H.L., et al. 2008, Proc. of 10th Asian-Pacific Regional IAU Meeting 2008, in press (arXiv:0810.5607) Kupka, F.G., Ryabchikova, T.A., Piskunov, N.E., et al.2000, Baltic Ast. 9, 590 Lançon, A., Mouhcine, M. 2002, A&A 393, 167 Lançon, A., Wood, P.R. 2000, A&AS 146, 217 Lebzelter, T., Lederer, M.T., Cristallo, S., et al.2008, A&A 486, 511 Lederer, M.T., Aringer, B. 2008, A&A in press Loidl, R., Höfner, S., J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G., Aringer, B. 1999, A&A 342, 531 Loidl, R., Lançon, A., J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G. 2001, A&A 371, 1065 Marigo, P. 2002, A&A 387, 507 Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Chiosi, C. 2003, A&A 403, 225 Marigo, P., Girardi, L. 2007, A&A 469, 239 Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al.2008, A&A 482, 883 Mattsson, L., Wahlin, R., Höfner, S., Eriksson, K. 2008, A&A 484, L5 McLeod, B.A., Conroy, M., Gauron, T.M., et al.2000, Further Developments in Scientific Optical Imaging, Proc. of the International Conference on Scientific Optical Imaging held in Georgetown, Grand Cayman, 1998, ed. M.B. Denton, Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, p. 11 Menzies, J.W., Feast, M.W., Whitelock, P.A. 2006, MNRAS 369, 783 Nowotny, W., Aringer, B., Höfner, S., et al.2007, AN 328, 650 Nowotny, W., Aringer, B., Höfner, S., et al.2005, A&A 437, 273 Nowotny, W., Lebzelter, T., Hron, J., Höfner, S. 2005, A&A 437, 285 Plez, B., van Eck, S., Jorissen, A., et al.2003, in Piskunov, N., Weiss, W.W., Gray, D.F. (eds), Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, IAU Symp. 210, p. 2P Querci, F., Querci, M., Tsuji, T. 1974, A&A 31, 265 Rothman, L.S., Jacquemart, D., Barbe, A., et al.2005, JQSRT 96, 139\
(HITRAN 2004) Rothman, L.S., Wattson, R.B., Gamache, R., et al.1995, in Dainty, C. (ed), Atmospheric Propagation and Remote Sensing IV, Proc. SPIE, 2471, p. 105 (HITEMP) Samus, N.N., Durlevich, O.V., Zharova, A.V., et al.2006, Astronomy Letters 32(4), 263 Samus, N.N., Pastukhova, E.N., Durlevich, O.V. 2007, Peremennye Zvezdy (Variable Stars) 27, No.6 Skrutskie, M.F., Cutri, R.M., Stiening, R., et al.2006, AJ 131, 1163 Smith, V.V., Lambert, D.L. 1990, ApJS 72, 387 Späth, H. 1991, Zweidimensionale Spline-Interpolations-Algorithmen, R. Oldenburg-Verlag, München Stephenson, C.B. 1989, A General Catalog of Cool Galactic Carbon Stars, ed. 2, Publ. Warner & Swasey Obs. 3, No.2 Uttenthaler, S., Aringer, B., Lebzelter, T., et al.2008, ApJ 682, 509 Whitelock, P.A., Feast, M.W., Marang, F., Groenewegen, M.A.T. 2006, MNRAS 369, 751 Windsteig, W., Dorfi, E.A., Höfner, S., et al.1997, A&A 324, 617
[^1]: Data can be obtained via\
http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/???/???
[^2]: In extended giants absorption lines or bands will become weaker in a spherical atmosphere, since they are filled with emission components originating from the optically thin outer parts of the stellar disk (e.g. Aringer [@cphotari05]).
[^3]: Data can be obtained via\
http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/???/???
[^4]: An equilibrium description of the dust in a hydrostatic atmosphere results in much too high condensation degrees and opacities.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is shown that if $\gamma$ is a path of finite $p$ variation ($1\leq p< 2$) in a euclidean vector space and $f,g,h$ are Lipschitz functions on the trace of $\gamma$ then $s\mapsto F(s)=\int_\gamma f^sg dh$ defines an entire holomorphic function provided the convex hull of the image of $f$ does not contain zero. If in addition $|\log z|\leq \log 2$ on the convex hull of the image of $f$ then for any $s\in {\mathbf{C}}$, $F(s)$ can be computed from the nonnegative integer values $\{F(k)\}_{k\in {\mathbf{N}}}$. If in addition to these hypotheses each of $f,g,h$ is a polynomial, then the values $F(k)$ are computable directly from the signature of $\gamma$ thus all values of $F(s)$ are computable from the signature. As a special case the winding number of a closed path $\gamma$ around an affine submanifold of codimension two is computed from finitely many terms of the signature provided certain estimates are satisfied.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Purdue University'
author:
- Andrew Ursitti
title: computation of some transcendental integrals from path signatures
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In this note we will show how certain transcendental integrals of the form $\int_\gamma f^sg dh$ can be algorithmically recovered from the signature of the path $\gamma$. As a special case we will give an alternate proof of a result due originally to P. Yam [@YAM] concerning the recovery of the winding number of a path around a codimension two affine submanifold from the signature of the path provided certain estimates are satisfied. The signature of $\gamma$ is the infinite tensor (i.e. formal series) $X_\gamma\in \widehat{\bigoplus}_{k\geq 0}V^{\otimes k}$ defined in degree zero to be $1$ and in degree $k>0$ by the iterated integral of tensors $$\int_{0<t_1<\cdots<t_k<T}d\gamma_{t_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes d\gamma_{t_k}.$$ The signature is a homomorphism from the collection of all paths beginning at zero of finite $p$ variation ($1\leq p< 2$), viewed as a group under concatenation, into the group of infinite tensors with $1$ in degree zero. An orientation preserving change of parameter does not change the signature, and an orientation reversing change of parameter inverts the signature, as was proved by K.T. Chen [@MR0073174] for piecewise $\mathscr{C}^1$ paths (the corresponding results are easily proved for paths of finite $p$ variation with $1\leq p <2$ using the Young-Lóeve integration theory [@MR1555421; @MR2604669]). Choosing a specific path and contatenating it with its inverse therefore produces a path with trivial signature, and Chen later proved [@MR0106258] that concatenations of such paths are essentially the only paths with trivial signature. Specifically, Chen defined a path to be *irreducible* if it doesn’t contain any segments which consist of a path and its inverse concatenated in succession, and then proved that two irreducible paths have the same signature if and only if they differ by a translation and an orientation preserving change of parameter. This was later generalized to paths of bounded variation by Hambly and Lyons [@MR2630037], who defined the notion of *tree-like* paths and proved that two paths of bounded variation have the same signature if and only if the concatenation of one with the inverse of the other is a lipschitz tree-like path. Boedihardjo, Ni and Qian [@MR3237773] proved that two simple paths of finite $p$ variation ($1\leq p< 2$) in the plane have the same signature if and only if they differ by translation and orientation preserving change of parameter. These uniqueness results show that one should expect topological data such as the winding number to be contained in the signature.
It should be mentioned that in [@MR3237773] the authors also proved that for a closed path in the plane with variation less than two, the moments of the winding number when viewed as a function on the plane can be recovered by evaluating the signature on Lyndon words (up to some simple constant multiples). Thus, [@MR3237773] essentially contains a proof that the winding number about any specific point can be recovered from the signature by first evaluating the signature on Lyndon words to find the moments, then computing the winding number at a specific point by either computing its convolution with a gaussian approximate identity from the moments and taking a limit, or computing the fourier transform from the moments, then inverting the fourier transform to find the winding number at a specific point.
Here the winding number will be recovered from the signature by a different method which we now describe. The standing hypotheses are these:
1. $V$ is a finite dimensional euclidean vector space over ${\mathbf{R}}$.
2. $\gamma:[0,T]\rightarrow V$ is a continuous path with finite $p$ variation, $1\leq p<2$.
3. $f:\gamma([0,T])\rightarrow {\mathbf{C}}$ is a lipschitz function from $\gamma([0,T])\subset V$ (as a metric space with metric inherited from $V$) such that the convex hull of the image $f(\gamma([0,T]))$ does not contain zero.
4. $g,h:\gamma([0,T])\rightarrow {\mathbf{C}}$ are arbitrary Lipschitz functions.
5. $E\in {\mathscr{O}}({\mathbf{C}})$ is an arbitrary entire function.
6. $x_1,x_2\in V^\ast$ are independent, $\xi_1,\xi_2\in {\mathbf{R}}$ and $$1/2<(x_1\circ\gamma-\xi_1)^2+(x_2\circ\gamma-\xi_2)^2<2$$ on $[0,T]$.
To condense notation denote by $S_\gamma$ the image $S_\gamma=\gamma([0,T])\subset V$ and let $\log(\cdot)$ be a continuous branch of the logarithm on $f(S_\gamma)$. Under these hypotheses we shall prove in section 2 that $(E,g,h)\mapsto I^f_\gamma(E,g,h)=\int_\gamma (E\circ \log \circ f)gdh$ defines a ${\mathbf{C}}$-trilinear map ${\mathscr{O}}({\mathbf{C}})\times {\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)\times {\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)\to{\mathbf{C}}$ and give an explicit bound on its absolute value (Corollary \[asdfjkl;6\]). Choosing $E=E_{k,s}\in {\mathscr{O}}({\mathbf{C}})$ given by $E_{k,s}(z)=z^ke^{sz}$ defines the integral $I^f_\gamma(E_{k,s},g,h)=\int_\gamma (\log f)^k f^sgdh$ and naturally one expects that varying the parameter $s\in {\mathbf{C}}$ should produce an entire function with derivative $I^f_\gamma(E_{k+1,s},g,h)$, this is indeed the case and is also proved in section 2 (Theorem \[asdfjkl;11\]).
The entire function $s\mapsto F(s)=I^f_\gamma(E_{0,s},g,h)=\int_\gamma f^sgdh$ interpolates the values $\{F(k)\}_{k\in {\mathbf{N}}}$.[^2] In section 3 we use a general procedure developed by Boas and Buck [@MR0162914; @MR0022601; @MR0029985] to recover any value $F(s)$ from the nonnegative integer values $\{F(k)\}_{k\in{\mathbf{N}}}$, provided certain estimates are satisfied. Specifically, we shall prove:
\[asdfjkl;1\] If $|\log z|<\log 2$ for all $z\in {\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))$, then the series $$\sum_{0\leq n}(-1)^n\binom{s}{n}\sum_{0\leq k\leq n}(-1)^k\binom{n}{k}\int_\gamma f^kg dh$$ converges to $\int_\gamma f^s g dh$.
Here ${\operatorname{h}}(\cdot)$ denotes the convex hull. It should be noted that this is an iterated sum, and the order of summation should not be changed (however, the sum in $n$ is absolutely convergent once the inner sums in the paramter $k$ are computed). The inequality $|\log z|<\log 2$ is satisfied by at most one branch of the logarithm on ${\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))$, since $\log 2$ is less than $2\pi$, and this is a crucial observation since superficially Theorem \[asdfjkl;1\] implies that $F(s)$, which depends on the chosen branch of the logarithm, can be computed from the integer-exponent values $\{F(k)\}_{k\in {\mathbf{N}}}$, which do not depend on this choice.
If $f,g$ and $h$ are polynomials then $F(k)=\int_\gamma f^kgdh$ can be extracted directly from the signature of $\gamma$. Specifically, if $\gamma(0)=0$ and if $x_1,\ldots, x_d$ is a basis for $V^\ast$ and $\alpha,\beta\in {\mathbf{N}}^d$ are multi-indices, then $$\label{asdfjkl;200}
\int_\gamma x^\alpha d(x^\beta)=\sum_{i\leq d}\beta_i\sum_{\sigma\in\mathfrak{S}_{|\alpha|+|\beta|-1}}{\left< \sigma[(x_1^{\otimes (\alpha_1+\beta_1)}\otimes\cdots \otimes x_d^{\otimes (\alpha_d+\beta_d)})/x_i]\otimes x_i,X_\gamma \right>}.$$
In this expression, $(x_1^{\otimes (\alpha_1+\beta_1)}\otimes\cdots \otimes x_d^{\otimes (\alpha_d+\beta_d)})/x_i$ indicates the tensor $x_1^{\otimes (\alpha_1+\beta_1)}\otimes\cdots \otimes x_d^{\otimes (\alpha_d+\beta_d)}$ with exactly *one* factor $x_i$ removed. If $\beta_i>0$ (which is the only case that matters) at least one factor of $x_i$ appears inside of a consecutive list of such factors in $x_1^{\otimes (\alpha_1+\beta_1)}\otimes\cdots \otimes x_d^{\otimes (\alpha_d+\beta_d)}$, so this “division" operation is well defined. The entire argument $\sigma[(x_1^{\otimes (\alpha_1+\beta_1)}\otimes\cdots \otimes x_d^{\otimes (\alpha_d+\beta_d)})/x_i]\otimes x_i$ can be interpreted as follows: from $x_1^{\otimes (\alpha_1+\beta_1)}\cdots \otimes x_d^{\otimes (\alpha_d+\beta_d)}$, remove one factor $x_i$, let the permutation $\sigma$ permute the remaining $|\alpha|+|\beta|-1$ factors, then replace the factor $x_i$ on the right. Integrals of the form $\int_\gamma PdQ$ where $P$ and $Q$ are polynomials can then be computed by splitting $P$ and $Q$ into monomials and using (\[asdfjkl;200\]). With minor adjustments one can do away with the requirement $\gamma(0)=0$.
In particular, if $f,g$ and $h$ are polynomials then the values $\{F(k)\}_{k\in{\mathbf{N}}}$ can be extracted directly from $X_\gamma$ so evidently Theorem \[asdfjkl;1\] shows that if $|\log z|<\log 2$ on the convex hull of the trace of $f\circ \gamma$, then every value of the entire function $F(s)=\int_\gamma f^sgdh$ can be recovered from the signature of $\gamma$. In particular, if in addition we assume that $\gamma$ is a closed path then we can use this method to recover the winding number of $\gamma$ around the codimension two affine submanifold $\{x_1=\xi_1,x_2=\xi_2\}$ provided the standing hypothesis $1/2<(x_1\circ\gamma-\xi_1)^2+(x_2\circ\gamma-\xi_2)^2<2$ is satisfied. The $x_1\wedge x_2$-oriented winding number of $\gamma$ around $\{x_1=\xi_1,x_2=\xi_2\}$ is given by $$W_\gamma(x_1\wedge x_2;\xi_1,\xi_2)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\gamma\frac{(x_1-\xi_1) dx_2-(x_2-\xi_2) dx_1}{(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2}$$ Thus, further specifying the parameters to $f=(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2$, $g=x_1-\xi_1$, $h=x_2-\xi_2$, and then switching $g$ and $h$ for the second summand, we find that $$F(s)=\int_\gamma [(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2]^s ((x_1-\xi_1) dx_2-(x_2-\xi_2) dx_1)$$ can be recovered from the signature by Theorem \[asdfjkl;1\], provided that $1/2<(x_1\circ\gamma-\xi_1)^2+(x_2\circ\gamma-\xi_2)^2<2$. In particular the winding number $\frac{1}{2\pi}F(-1)= W_\gamma(x_1\wedge x_2;\xi_1,\xi_2)$ can be found in this manner. Specifically, we prove:
\[asdfjkl;101\] If in addition to the standing hypotheses $\gamma$ is a closed path, then $$\begin{aligned}
W_\gamma&(x_1\wedge x_2;\xi_1,\xi_2) \\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{0\leq n\leq N}\sum_{0\leq k\leq n}(-1)^{k}\binom{n}{k}\sum_{k_1+k_2=k}\frac{k!}{k_1!k_2!} \sum_{\begin{subarray}{c} j_1^1+j_1^2=2k_1 \\ j_2^1+j_2^2=2k_2\end{subarray}}
\frac{(2k_1)!}{j_1^1!j_1^2!}\frac{(2k_2)!}{j_2^1!j_2^2!} {\left< T^{j_1^1,j_1^2}_{j_2^1,j_2^2},X_\gamma \right>}\end{aligned}$$ where $T^{j_1^1,j_1^2}_{j_2^1,j_2^2}\in V^{\ast\otimes(j_1^1+j_2^2+1)}\bigoplus V^{\ast\otimes(j_1^1+j_2^2+2)}$ is defined in (\[asdfjkl;300\]).
In addition to this it is shown that $W_\gamma(x_1\wedge x_2;\xi_1,\xi_2)$ can be computed from only finitely many terms in the signature, and an estimate on how many terms are necessary is given. All of this is detailed in section 4.
Regularity of $I^{f}_\gamma$
============================
To condense notation, define $$\begin{aligned}
M(E,f,g)&=
\|g\|_{{\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)}\max_{f(S_\gamma)}|E\circ \log |\\
&\hspace{1cm}
+\frac{\|f\|_{{\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)}\max_{S_\gamma}|g|\max_{{\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))}|E'\circ \log|}{{\operatorname{dist}}(0,{\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma)))}\end{aligned}$$ Regarding ${\operatorname{dist}}(0,{\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma)))$, we note that $f(S_\gamma)$ is compact so ${\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))$ is closed and since zero is not in ${\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))$ by hypothesis, ${\operatorname{dist}}(0,{\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma)))$ is positive.
\[asdfjkl;7\] The map $(E\circ \log \circ f)g:S_\gamma\rightarrow {\mathbf{C}}$ is Lipschitz on $S_\gamma$ and satisfies $\|(E\circ \log \circ f)g\|_{{\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)}\leq M(E,f,g)$.
Let $w_1,w_2\in {\mathbf{C}}$, $z_1,z_2\in {\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))$ and let $l_{z_1}^{z_2}\subset {\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))$ denote the oriented line segment connecting $z_1$ to $z_2$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
|E(\log z_2)w_2&-E(\log z_1)w_1|\\
&=|w_2(E(\log z_2)-E(\log z_1))+E(\log z_1)(w_2-w_1)|\\
&\leq |w_2||E(\log z_2)-E(\log z_1)|+|E(\log z_1)||w_2-w_1|\\
&= |w_2|\left|\int_{l_{z_1}^{z_2}}E'(\log z)z^{-1}dz\right|+|E(\log z_1)||w_2-w_1|\\
&\leq |w_2|{\left( \max_{z\in l_{z_1}^{z_2}}|E'(\log z)z^{-1}| \right)}|z_2-z_1|+|E(\log z_1)||w_2-w_1|\end{aligned}$$ For any $t_1,t_2\in [0,T]$, we can use this estimate with $w_1=g(\gamma(t_1))$, $w_2=g(\gamma(t_2))$, $z_1=f(\gamma(t_1))$ and $z_2=f(\gamma(t_2))$ to write $$\begin{aligned}
|E&(\log f(\gamma(t_2)))g(\gamma(t_2))-E(\log f(\gamma(t_1)))g(\gamma(t_1))|\\
&\leq |g(\gamma(t_2))|{\left( \max_{z\in l_{f(\gamma(t_1))}^{f(\gamma(t_2))}}|E'(\log z)z^{-1}| \right)}|f(\gamma(t_2))-f(\gamma(t_1))|\\
&\hspace{2cm}+|E(\log f(\gamma(t_1)))||g(\gamma(t_2))-g(\gamma(t_1))|\\
&\leq \max_{S_\gamma}|g|\max_{{\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))}|(E'\circ \log (\cdot))(\cdot)^{-1}|\|f\|_{{\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)}|\gamma(t_2)-\gamma(t_1)|\\
&\hspace{2cm}+\max_{f(S_\gamma)}|E\circ \log |\|g\|_{{\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)}|\gamma(t_2)-\gamma(t_1)|\\
&\leq \max_{S_\gamma}|g|\max_{{\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))}|E'\circ \log |\|f\|_{{\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)} \\
&\hspace{1cm}\times{\operatorname{dist}}(0,{\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma)))^{-1}|\gamma(t_2)-\gamma(t_1)|\\
&\hspace{2cm}+\max_{f(S_\gamma)}|E\circ \log |\|g\|_{{\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)}|\gamma(t_2)-\gamma(t_1)|\\
&=M(E,f,g)|\gamma(t_2)-\gamma(t_1)|.\end{aligned}$$
Combining Lemma \[asdfjkl;7\] with the Young-Lóeve integration theory [@MR1555421; @MR2604669], we have the following corollary:
\[asdfjkl;6\]The expression $$I^f_\gamma(E,g,h)=\int_\gamma (E\circ \log \circ f)gdh$$ defines a ${\mathbf{C}}$-trilinear map $I^f_\gamma(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot):{\mathscr{O}}({\mathbf{C}})\times {\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)\times {\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)\rightarrow {\mathbf{C}}$ which satisfies the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
|I^f_\gamma (E,g,h)| &\leq \frac{1}{1-2^{1-2/p}} M(E,f,g)\|h\|_{{\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)}\|\gamma\|_{p;[0,T]}^2 \\
&\hspace{.5cm} +|E\circ\log\circ f\circ \gamma(0)||g\circ \gamma(0)||h\circ\gamma(T)-h\circ\gamma(0)|.\end{aligned}$$
From Young’s estimate (or rather a variation thereof presented in [@MR2604669], e.g.), $$\begin{aligned}
|I^f_\gamma (E,g,h)| &\leq \frac{1}{1-2^{1-2/p}} \|(E\circ \log \circ f\circ \gamma)(g\circ \gamma)\|_{p;[0,T]}\|h\circ\gamma\|_{p;[0,T]} \\
&\hspace{.5cm} +|E\circ\log\circ f\circ \gamma(0)||g\circ \gamma(0)||h\circ\gamma(T)-h\circ\gamma(0)|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{1-2^{1-2/p}} M(E,f,g)\|h\|_{{\operatorname{Lip}}(S_\gamma)}\|\gamma\|_{p;[0,T]}^2 \\
&\hspace{.5cm} +|E\circ\log\circ f\circ \gamma(0)||g\circ \gamma(0)||h\circ\gamma(T)-h\circ\gamma(0)|.\end{aligned}$$
Now we would like to consider simultaneously the family of entire functions $\{E_{k,s}:k\in {\mathbf{N}},s\in{\mathbf{C}}\}$ given by $E_{k,s}(z)=z^ke^{sz}$, thus producing the integrals $$I^f_\gamma(E_{k,s},g,h)=\int_\gamma (E_{k,s}\circ \log \circ f)gdh=
\int_\gamma (\log f)^ke^{s\log f}gdh=
\int_\gamma (\log f)^kf^s gdh.$$
\[asdfjkl;11\] For any $k\in{\mathbf{N}}$, $s\mapsto I^f_\gamma(E_{k,s},g,h)$ defines an entire function.
First, it must be proved that $I^f_\gamma(E_{k,(\cdot)},g,h)$ is differentiable. The natural guess for the derivative is of course $I^f_\gamma(E_{k+1,(\cdot)},g,h)$ so we attempt to verify the asymptotic equality $$I^f_\gamma(E_{k,s},g,h)=I^f_\gamma(E_{k,s_o},g,h)+(s-s_o)I^f_\gamma(E_{k+1,s_o},g,h)
+o(|s-s_o|)$$ for every $s_o\in{\mathbf{C}}$. However, since $E\mapsto I^f_\gamma(E,g,h)$ is ${\mathbf{C}}$-linear this is implied by $|I^f_\gamma(\widetilde{E}_{k,s,s_o},g,h)|=o(|s-s_o|)$ for every $s_o\in{\mathbf{C}}$ where $\widetilde{E}_{k,s,s_o}\in{\mathscr{O}}({\mathbf{C}})$ is given by $$\widetilde{E}_{k,s,s_o}(z)=z^ke^{sz}-z^ke^{s_oz}-(s-s_o)z^{k+1}e^{s_oz}=z^ke^{s_oz}(e^{(s-s_o)z}-1-(s-s_o)z).$$ The rightmost expression shows that $|\widetilde{E}_{k,s,s_o}(z)|=O(|s-s_o|^2)$ pointwise for every $z$ and uniformly for $z$ in any bounded subset of ${\mathbf{C}}$. In particular $$\label{asdfjkl;10}
|\widetilde{E}_{k,s,s_o}\circ \log \circ f(\gamma(0))|=o(|s-s_o|)$$ and since $\log$ must map the compact set $f(S_\gamma)$ into another compact set, $$\label{asdfjkl;8}
\max_{z\in f(S_\gamma)}|\widetilde{E}_{k,s,s_o}(\log z)|=o(|s-s_o|).$$ Also, $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{E}'_{k,s,s_o}(z)&=kz^{k-1}e^{s_oz}(e^{(s-s_o)z}-1-(s-s_o)z)\\
&\hspace{.5cm}+z^ks_oe^{s_oz}(e^{(s-s_o)z}-1-(s-s_o)z)
+z^ke^{s_oz}(s-s_o)(e^{(s-s_o)z}-1)\end{aligned}$$ thus $|\widetilde{E}'_{k,s,s_o}(z)|=O(|s-s_o|^2)$ pointwise and uniformly in bounded subsets. In particular $$\label{asdfjkl;9}
\max_{z\in {\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))}|\widetilde{E}'_{k,s,s_o}(\log z)|=o(|s-s_o|).$$ On combining (\[asdfjkl;10\]), (\[asdfjkl;8\]) and (\[asdfjkl;9\]), $|I^f_\gamma(\widetilde{E}_{k,s,s_o}, g,h)|=o(|s-s_o|)$ by the estimate given in Corollary \[asdfjkl;6\]. This proves that $I^f_\gamma(E_{k,(\cdot)},g,h)\in {\mathscr{O}}({\mathbf{C}})$ with derivative $I^f_\gamma(E_{k+1,(\cdot)},g,h)$.
Proof of theorem \[asdfjkl;1\]
==============================
Recall from the introduction that $\gamma:[0,T]\to V$ is a path of $p$ variation $(1\leq p<2)$ taking values in the euclidean vector space $V$, with signature $X_\gamma\in \widehat{\bigoplus}_{k\geq 0} V^{\otimes k}$, as described in the introduction. The functions $f,g,h:S_\gamma\to {\mathbf{C}}$ are Lipschitz and the convex hull of the image of $f$ does not contain zero. Our task in this section is to prove Theorem \[asdfjkl;1\], so we will herein assume that $\log:{\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))\to {\mathbf{C}}$, if it exists, is the unique branch of the logarithm such that $|\log z|<\log 2$ on ${\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))$. Such a unique logarithm exists, for instance, if $f$ is positive and satisfies $1/2<f<2$ on $S_\gamma$, for then ${\operatorname{h}}(f(S_\gamma))=f(S_\gamma)$ is a compact subinterval of $(1/2,2)$ whence $|\log f|<\log 2$.
Thus, with $F(s)=I^f_\gamma(E_{0,s},g,h)=\int_\gamma f^sgdh$ as in the introduction, we are tasked with computing the value $F(s)$ from the known values $\{F(k)\}_{k\in{\mathbf{N}}}$ which come directly from the signature. There is a general procedure developed by Boas and Buck [@MR0162914; @MR0022601; @MR0029985] which can accomplish this task, provided that $F$ satisfies certain growth conditions at infinity. It seems appropriate to briefly describe the procedure rather than simply quoting the relevant results. If $H\in{\mathscr{O}}({\mathbf{C}})$ is a generic entire function which satisfies an estimate of the form $|H(z)|\leq Ae^{B|z|}$ for $z\in (1,\infty)$ then its Laplace transform ${\mathscr{L}}H(w)=\int_0^\infty H(z)e^{-wz}dz$ defines a holomorphic function in the region $\{{\operatorname{Re}}w>B\}$, and it is natural to ask if ${\mathscr{L}}H$ extends to a holomorphic function in the neighborhood of infinity defined by $\{|w|>B\}$. If this is the case then it is easy to deduce what the Taylor coefficients at infinity must be since if $w\in (B,\infty)$ then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathscr{L}}H(w)&=\int_0^\infty H(z)e^{-wz}dz\\
&=\sum_{n\geq 0}\frac{H^{(n)}(0)}{n!}\int_0^m z^ne^{-wz}dz+\int_m^\infty H(z)e^{-wz}dz\\
&=\sum_{n\geq 0}\frac{H^{(n)}(0)}{n!}\frac{1}{w^{n+1}}\int_0^m (wz)^{(n+1)-1}e^{-wz}d(wz)+\int_m^\infty H(z)e^{-wz}dz.\end{aligned}$$ By letting $m\rightarrow \infty$ the remainder tends to zero and we recognize $\Gamma(n+1)=n!$ in each term so that ${\mathscr{L}}H(w)=\sum_{n\geq 0}H^{(n)}(0)/w^{n+1}$ on $(B,\infty)$. Therefore, ${\mathscr{L}}H $ will extend to the region $\{|w|>B\}$ provided that $\limsup_{n\to\infty} |H^{(n)}(0)|^{1/n}< B$ for then $$\limsup_{n\to \infty}{\left| H^{(n)}(0)/w^{n+1} \right|}^{1/n}
=
\frac{1}{|w|}\limsup_{n\to \infty} \frac{|H^{(n)}(0)|^{1/n}}{|w|^{1/n}}
<1$$ This will be the case if the estimate $|H(z)|< Ae^{B|z|}$ holds for all $z$ and not only for $z\in (1,\infty)$, for then by Cauchy’s estimate $|H^{(n)}(0)|< n!Ae^{Br}/r^n$ for all $r>0$ and this is minimized at $r=n/B$ so that $|H^{(n)}(0)|< n!AB^ne^{n}/n^n$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
|H^{(n)}(0)|^{1/n}&< A^{1/n}B\frac{e(n!)^{1/n}}{n}=(2\pi n)^{1/2n}A^{1/n}B\frac{e(n!)^{1/n}}{n(2\pi n)^{1/2n}}\end{aligned}$$ so that $\limsup_{n\to\infty}|H^{(n)}(0)|^{1/n}< B$, by Stirling’s estimate. Thus, the power series ${\mathscr{B}}H(w)=\sum_{n\geq 0}H^{(n)}(0)/w^{n+1}$ converges absolutely to an analytic function, uniformly on compact subsets of the region $\{|w|>B\}$, and therefore defines a holomorphic function in a neighborhood of $\infty \in {\mathbf{P}}^1_{\mathbf{C}}$, taking the value $0$ at $\infty$ and extending ${\mathscr{L}}H$. The extension ${\mathscr{B}}H$ of ${\mathscr{L}}H$ is usually referred to as the Borel transform of $H$.
We can invert this procedure as follows. If $r>B$ then for fixed $z$ both power series ${\mathscr{B}}H(w)=\sum_{n\geq 0}H^{(n)}(0)/w^{n+1}$ and $e^{zw}=\sum_{n\geq 0}z^nw^n/n!$ converge absolutely and uniformly on the circle $\{|w|=r\}$ and therefore $$\int_{|w|=r}{\mathscr{B}}H(w)e^{zw}dw=\sum_{n\geq 0}{\left( \sum_{k\geq0}\frac{H^{(k)}(0)}{n!}\int_{|w|=r}w^{n-k-1}dw \right)}z^n,$$ but $\int_{|w|=r}w^{n-k-1}dw$ is nonzero only if $n=k$ so evidently $$H(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|w|=r}{\mathscr{B}}H(w)e^{zw}dw.$$ This is called the Pólya representation of $H$, it is valid not only for the contour $\{|w|=r\}$ but any simple closed contour contained in $\{|w|>B\}$ and it suggests a generalization, due to Buck [@MR0022601; @MR0029985], which will allow us to compute any value $H(s)$ from $\{H(k)\}_{k\in {\mathbf{N}}}$ and thus prove Theorem \[asdfjkl;1\] by substituting $F(s)=\int_\gamma f^sgdh$ for $H$. The essence of Buck’s method is that rather than settling only for the series expansion $e^{zw}=\sum_{n\geq 0}z^nw^n/n!$, we can choose to write $e^{zw}$ in any of a number of different ways. In particular we will be interested in the binomial series expansion: $$e^{zw}=(e^w)^z=(e^w-1+1)^z
=\sum_{n\geq 0}\binom{z}{n}(e^{w}-1)^n,$$ which is valid in the region defined by $|e^w-1|<1$.
\[asdfjkl;20\] The inclusion $\{|w|=r\}\subset \{|e^w-1|<1\}$ holds if and only if $r<\log 2$.
If $w=x+iy$ then $|e^w-1|^2=e^{2x}-2e^x\cos y+1$, so the first observation to be made is that if $|w|=r$ and $|e^w-1|<1$ then $r<\pi/2$ necessarily, for otherwise the circle $\{|x+iy|=r\}$ contains points with $\cos y<0$ which would imply $|e^w-1|^2=e^{2x}-2e^x\cos y+1>1$. Having reduced consideration to $r<\pi/2$, we observe that $(x,y)\mapsto e^{2x}-2e^x\cos y+1$ can achieve a maximum at a point $(x,y)$ in the circle $x^2+y^2=r^2$ only if its gradient is orthogonal to $(y,-x)$, or in other words only if $ye^x-y\cos y-x\sin y=0$. Since $(\pm r, 0)$ can be checked individually we only care about the case $0<|y|<\pi/2$ and the necessary condition in this case reduces to $e^x-\cos y-(\sin y/y) x=0$ with $\cos y,\sin y/y>0$ so that the minimum value of $x\mapsto e^x-\cos y-(\sin y/y) x$ is $(\sin y/y)-\cos y -(\sin y/y)\log (\sin y/y)$, but this is positive for $y\in (-\pi/2,0)\cup (0,\pi/2)$ and so $ye^x-y\cos y-x\sin y=0$ and $|y|<\pi/2$ imply $y=0$. Thus, the extremal values of $(x,y)\mapsto e^{2x}-2e^x\cos y+1$ on the circle $\{|x+iy|=r\}$ must occur at $(\pm r, 0)$. The maximum and minimum values are therefore $e^{ 2r}-2e^{ r}+1$ and $e^{-2r}-2e^{-r}+1$ respectively and one finds $r=\log 2$ as the threshold value for the inclusion of sets stated in the lemma.
So, if $H$ is such that $|H(z)|\leq Ae^{B|z|}$ with $B<\log 2$ then $r$ can be chosen such that $\{|w|=r\}$ lies in both the region of absolute convergence of the Borel transform ${\mathscr{B}}H$ *and* the region of absolute convergence of the series $e^{zw}=\sum_{n\geq 0}\binom{z}{n}(e^w-1)^n$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
H(z)&=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|w|=r}{\mathscr{B}}H(w)e^{zw}dw \\
&=\sum_{n\geq 0}\binom{z}{n}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|w|=r}{\mathscr{B}}H(w)(e^w-1)^ndw \\
&=\sum_{n\geq 0}\binom{z}{n}\sum_{0\leq k\leq n}\binom{n}{k}(-1)^{n-k}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|w|=r}{\mathscr{B}}H(w)e^{kw}dw \\
&=\sum_{n\geq 0}\binom{z}{n}\sum_{0\leq k\leq n}\binom{n}{k}(-1)^{n-k}H(k) \\\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\label{asdfjkl;14}
H(z)=\sum_{0\leq n}(-1)^n\binom{z}{n}\sum_{0\leq k\leq n}(-1)^{k}\binom{n}{k}H(k).$$
To finish the proof of Theorem \[asdfjkl;1\] we need only to observe that the estimate $|\log f|<\log 2$ implies the required growth condition $|F(s)|\leq Ae^{B|s|}$ with $B<\log 2$. This is a simple consequence of the results of section 2, specifically Corollary \[asdfjkl;6\].
The winding number
==================
Recall from the introduction that if in addition to the standing hypotheses we assume that $\gamma$ is a closed path, then $$W_\gamma(x_1\wedge x_2;\xi_1,\xi_2)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\gamma\frac{(x_1-\xi_1) dx_2-(x_2-\xi_2) dx_1}{(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2}$$ is the $x_1\wedge x_2$-oriented winding number around the codimension two affine submanifold $\{x_1=\xi_1,x_2=\xi_2\}$ and it can be computed using Theorem \[asdfjkl;1\] and the signature $X_\gamma$ since $W_\gamma(x_1\wedge x_2;\xi_1,\xi_2)=\frac{1}{2\pi} F(-1)$ where $F$ is the entire function defined by $$F(s)=\int_\gamma[(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2]^s ((x_1-\xi_1)dx_2-(x_2-\xi_2) dx_1).$$ Our first task in this section is to prove Theorem \[asdfjkl;101\]. By (\[asdfjkl;14\]), $$2\pi W_\gamma(x_1\wedge x_2;\xi_1,\xi_2)
=\sum_{0\leq n}\sum_{0\leq k\leq n}(-1)^k\binom{n}{k}F(k)$$ provided the standing hypothesis $1/2<(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2<2$ is satisfied. Now the values $F(k)$ for $k\in{\mathbf{N}}$ can be computed from the signature in a rather explicit fashion using (\[asdfjkl;200\]):
$$\begin{aligned}
F(k)&=\int_\gamma[(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2]^k((x_1-\xi_1)dx_2-(x_2-\xi_2) dx_1) \notag \\
&=\sum_{k_1+k_2=k}\frac{k!}{k_1!k_2!}\int_\gamma(x_1-\xi_1)^{2k_1}(x_2-\xi_2)^{2k_2}((x_1-\xi_1)dx_2-(x_2-\xi_2) dx_1)\notag \\
&=\sum_{k_1+k_2=k}\frac{k!}{k_1!k_2!} \sum_{\begin{subarray}{c} j_1^1+j_1^2=2k_1 \\ j_2^1+j_2^2=2k_2\end{subarray}}
\frac{(2k_1)!}{j_1^1!j_1^2!}\frac{(2k_2)!}{j_2^1!j_2^2!} {\left< T^{j_1^1,j_1^2}_{j_2^1,j_2^2},X_\gamma \right>}\notag\end{aligned}$$
where $T^{j_1^1,j_1^2}_{j_2^1,j_2^2}\in V^{\ast\otimes(j_1^1+j_2^2+1)}\bigoplus V^{\ast\otimes(j_1^1+j_2^2+2)}$ is the dual tensor $$\begin{aligned}
T^{j_1^1,j_1^2}_{j_2^1,j_2^2}
&=(x_1\circ\gamma(0)-\xi_1)^{j_1^2}(x_2\circ\gamma(0)-\xi_2)^{j_2^1} \label{asdfjkl;300}\\
&\hspace{.5cm}\times
\left( \sum_{\sigma\in\mathfrak{S}_{j_1^1+j_2^2+1}}
\sigma[x_1^{\otimes(j_1^1+1)}\otimes x_2^{\otimes j_2^2}]\otimes x_2-\sigma[x_1^{\otimes j_1^1}\otimes x_2^{\otimes (j_2^2+1)}]\otimes x_1\right. \notag \\
&\hspace{2.5cm}+
(x_1\circ\gamma(0)-\xi_1)\sum_{\sigma\in\mathfrak{S}_{j_1^1+j_2^2}}
\sigma[x_1^{\otimes j_1^1}\otimes x_2^{\otimes j_2^2}]\otimes x_2 \notag \\
&\hspace{2.5cm}-
\left. (x_2\circ\gamma(0)-\xi_2)\sum_{\sigma\in\mathfrak{S}_{j_1^1+j_2^2}}
\sigma[x_1^{\otimes j_1^1}\otimes x_2^{\otimes j_2^2}]\otimes x_1\right) \notag \end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of Theorem \[asdfjkl;101\].
For computational purposes one should exploit the fact that the winding number is an integer, and as such it is known once it is known within an error strictly less than $1/2$. Specifically, if $-\log 2 < -r < \log[(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2] < r <\log 2$ then for any $N$, $$\begin{aligned}
&{\left| 2\pi W_\gamma(x_1\wedge x_2;\xi_1,\xi_2) -\sum_{0\leq n\leq N}\sum_{0\leq k\leq n}(-1)^{k}\binom{n}{k}F(k) \right|} \\
&\hspace{3cm}={\left| \sum_{N+1\leq n}\sum_{0\leq k\leq n}(-1)^{k}\binom{n}{k}F(k) \right|} \\
&\hspace{3cm}={\left| \sum_{N+1\leq n}\frac{(-1)^{n}}{2\pi i}\int_{|w|=r}{\mathscr{B}}F(w)(e^w-1)^ndw \right|} \\
&\hspace{3cm}\leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\|{\mathscr{B}}F\|_{L^1(\{|w|=r\})}\sum_{N+1\leq n}\|e^{(\cdot)}-1\|_{L^\infty(\{|w|=r\})}^n \\
&\hspace{3cm}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\|{\mathscr{B}}F\|_{L^1(\{|w|=r\})}\frac{(e^{2r}-2e^{r}+1)^{N+1}}{2e^{r}-e^{2r}}\end{aligned}$$
by Lemma \[asdfjkl;20\]. We have proved:
\[asdfjkl;100\] If $N\in{\mathbf{N}}$, $-\log 2<-r< \log[(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2] < r<\log 2$ and $$\|{\mathscr{B}}F\|_{L^1(\{|w|=r\})}\frac{(e^{2r}-2e^{r}+1)^{N+1}}{2e^{r}-e^{2r}}<2\pi^2$$ then $W_\gamma(x_1\wedge x_2;\xi_1,\xi_2)$ is equal to the integer nearest the finite sum $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{0\leq n\leq N}\sum_{0\leq k\leq n}(-1)^{k}\binom{n}{k}\sum_{k_1+k_2=k}\frac{k!}{k_1!k_2!} \sum_{\begin{subarray}{c} j_1^1+j_1^2=2k_1 \\ j_2^1+j_2^2=2k_2\end{subarray}}
\frac{(2k_1)!}{j_1^1!j_1^2!}\frac{(2k_2)!}{j_2^1!j_2^2!} {\left< T^{j_1^1,j_1^2}_{j_2^1,j_2^2},X_\gamma \right>}$$ where $T^{j_1^1,j_1^2}_{j_2^1,j_2^2}\in V^{\ast\otimes(j_1^1+j_2^2+1)}\bigoplus V^{\ast\otimes(j_1^1+j_2^2+2)}$ is defined in (\[asdfjkl;300\]).
The winding number is therefore computable from only finitely many terms in the signature, and an estimate on the number of terms needed can be computed directly from an estimate of $\|{\mathscr{B}}F\|_{L^1(\{|w|=r\})}$. Such an estimate can be obtained in the general case $1\leq p<2$ from Corollary \[asdfjkl;6\], but we will only state the result precisely for the bounded variation case.
If $\log[(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2] \leq \rho$ then uniformly on $\gamma([0,T])$, $$|x_1-\xi_1|\leq \sqrt{(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2}\leq e^{\rho/2}$$ and likewise $|x_2-\xi_2|\leq e^{\rho/2}$. Therefore, if in addition to the standing hypotheses we also assume that $\gamma$ is of bounded variation then $$\begin{aligned}
|F^{(n)}(0)|&={\left| \int_\gamma(\log [(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2])^n((x_1-\xi_1) dx_2-(x_2-\xi_2)dx_1) \right|} \\
&\leq \rho^ne^{\rho/2}({\operatorname{len}}(x_2 \circ \gamma)+{\operatorname{len}}(x_1 \circ \gamma))\end{aligned}$$ provided that the lower bound $-\rho\leq \log[(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2]$ holds as well (so that $\log[(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2]$ is bounded in absolute value by $\rho$). Thus, if $\rho<|w|$ then $$\begin{aligned}
|{\mathscr{B}}F(w)|&={\left| \sum_{n\geq 0}F^{(n)}(0)/w^{n+1} \right|} \\
&\leq \sum_{n\geq 0}\frac{\rho^ne^{\rho/2}({\operatorname{len}}(x_2 \circ \gamma)+{\operatorname{len}}(x_1 \circ \gamma))}{|w|^{n+1}} \\
&=\frac{e^{\rho/2}({\operatorname{len}}(x_2 \circ \gamma)+{\operatorname{len}}(x_1 \circ \gamma))}{|w|-\rho} \end{aligned}$$ and therefore if $-\log 2<-r<\rho \leq \log[(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2] \leq \rho < r<\log 2$ then $$\begin{aligned}
&{\left| 2\pi W_\gamma(x_1\wedge x_2;\xi_1,\xi_2) -\sum_{0\leq n\leq N}\sum_{0\leq k\leq n}(-1)^{k}\binom{n}{k}F(k) \right|} \\
&\hspace{3cm}\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \|{\mathscr{B}}F\|_{L^1(\{|w|=r\})}\frac{(e^{2r}-2e^{r}+1)^{N+1}}{2e^{r}-e^{2r}}\\
&\hspace{3cm}\leq r\frac{e^{\rho/2}({\operatorname{len}}(x_2 \circ \gamma)+{\operatorname{len}}(x_1 \circ \gamma))}{r-\rho}\frac{(e^{2r}-2e^{r}+1)^{N+1}}{2e^{r}-e^{2r}}.\end{aligned}$$
We have proved:
\[asdfjkl;30\] If in addition to the standing hypotheses, we also assume that $\gamma$ is of bounded variation, and if $N\in{\mathbf{N}}$ and $\rho,r>0$ are chosen so that $$-\log 2<-r <-\rho\leq \log[(x_1-\xi_1)^2+(x_2-\xi_2)^2] \leq \rho < r<\log 2$$ and $$r\frac{e^{\rho/2}({\operatorname{len}}(x_2 \circ \gamma)+{\operatorname{len}}(x_1 \circ \gamma))}{r-\rho}\frac{(e^{2r}-2e^{r}+1)^{N+1}}{2e^{r}-e^{2r}}<\pi$$ then $W_\gamma(x_1\wedge x_2;\xi_1,\xi_2)$ is equal to the integer nearest the finite sum $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{0\leq n\leq N}\sum_{0\leq k\leq n}(-1)^{k}\binom{n}{k}\sum_{k_1+k_2=k}\frac{k!}{k_1!k_2!} \sum_{\begin{subarray}{c} j_1^1+j_1^2=2k_1 \\ j_2^1+j_2^2=2k_2\end{subarray}}
\frac{(2k_1)!}{j_1^1!j_1^2!}\frac{(2k_2)!}{j_2^1!j_2^2!} {\left< T^{j_1^1,j_1^2}_{j_2^1,j_2^2},X_\gamma \right>}$$ where $T^{j_1^1,j_1^2}_{j_2^1,j_2^2}\in V^{\ast\otimes(j_1^1+j_2^2+1)}\bigoplus V^{\ast\otimes(j_1^1+j_2^2+2)}$ is defined in (\[asdfjkl;300\]).
[^1]:
[^2]: Here ${\mathbf{N}}=\{0,1,2,3,\ldots \}$, i.e. $0\in{\mathbf{N}}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the problem of inferring a causality structure from multiple binary time series by using the Kinetic Ising Model in datasets where a fraction of observations is missing. We take our steps from a recent work on Mean Field methods for the inference of the model with hidden spins and develop a pseudo-Expectation-Maximization algorithm that is able to work even in conditions of severe data sparsity. The methodology relies on the Martin-Siggia-Rose path integral method with second order saddle-point solution to make it possible to calculate the log-likelihood in polynomial time, giving as output a maximum likelihood estimate of the couplings matrix and of the missing observations. We also propose a recursive version of the algorithm, where at every iteration some missing values are substituted by their maximum likelihood estimate, showing that the method can be used together with sparsification schemes like LASSO regularization or decimation. We test the performance of the algorithm on synthetic data and find interesting properties when it comes to the dependency on heterogeneity of the observation frequency of spins and when some of the hypotheses that are necessary to the saddle-point approximation are violated, such as the small couplings limit and the assumption of statistical independence between couplings.'
author:
- Carlo Campajola
- Fabrizio Lillo
- Daniele Tantari
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Inference of the Kinetic Ising Model with heterogeneous missing data
---
Introduction
============
Ising-like models and their countless variations have been used throughout the last decades to describe data or model systems with the most diverse nature [@bury2013market; @Bouchaud2013; @tanaka1977model; @cocco2017functional; @kadirvelu2017inferring] and to increase our understanding of how natural, artificial, social and economic systems work.\
On the one hand these models, studied in their original physical formulation, can be manipulated to generate a wide range of behaviours mimicking the features of these systems [@Bouchaud2013; @bornholdt2001expectation], and use a deductive approach to explain the stylized properties of data we observe in the real world. On the other hand one can use these models in the fashion of descriptive and forecasting models [@bury2013market; @cocco2017functional; @ibuki2013statistical; @kadirvelu2017inferring], by using Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) techniques to fit the model to the data, inductively working towards an explanation of the observations. This is typically regarded to as the inverse formulation of the model, while the former is the direct formulation.\
A model of this family has recently been revamped for time-series data, the non-equilibrium or Kinetic Ising Model [@derrida1987exactly; @crisanti1988dynamics], describing a set of binary units - named “spins" in the physics literature - that influence each other through time. The simplicity of the model makes it extremely flexible in the kinds of systems it can represent, ranging from networks of neurons in the brain [@capone2015inferring] all the way to traders in a financial market [@bornholdt2001expectation; @SornetteReview]. Recent work on the inverse Kinetic Ising Model has led to the development of exact [@sakellariou2013inverse] and Mean Field (MF) [@roudi2011dynamical] techniques for the inference of the parameters, and the latter have been used to work with partially observed systems linking to the realm of (Semi-) Restricted Boltzmann Machines [@dunn2013learning].\
This latest stream of literature sparked our interest for the model applied to time series of financial data at high frequency, where we typically encounter problems related to the lack of homogeneously frequent and synchronized observations [@ait2010high; @buccheri2017score; @Corsi2012]. The literature on Kinetic Ising Model has previously considered mainly the inference problem in the presence of hidden nodes [@dunn2013learning], i.e. part of the spins are [*never*]{} observed, but it is known that they exist and interact with the visible nodes (i.e. spins). This setting is of particular interest in neuroscience where an experiment typically monitors the firing activity of a subset of neurons. In other domains, such as in economics, finance, and social sciences, another type of missing data is often present, namely the case where even for the visible agents (nodes), observations are missing a significant fraction of the times. Moreover in these cases there is a strong heterogeneity of the frequency of observations, i.e. some nodes are frequently observed while other are rarely observed. There are different sources for this lack of data: in some cases, it might be due to the fact the observation is costly for the experimenter, whereas in other cases it is intrinsic to the given problem. Consider, for example, the problem of inferring the opinion of investors from their trading activity. When an investor buys (sells) it is reasonable to assume that she believes the price will increase (decrease), but in many circumstances the investor will not trade leading to missing observations for her belief. Using a suitable inference model, as the one proposed in this paper, it is possible to estimate her belief from the inferred structure of interaction among investors and the observed state of the set of visible ones. We will also include external fields (for example the market price in the previous example) that can influence spins (investors’ opinion).
Moving our steps from the work by Dunn et al. [@dunn2013learning], we extend the formulation of the inference procedure to cases where the missing observations are unevenly cross-sectionally distributed, meaning that time series are sampled at a constant rate and whenever no observations are found between two timestamps a missing value is recorded. The result is an algorithm closely related to an Expectation-Maximization (EM) method [@expmax1977], iteratively alternating a step of log-likelihood gradient ascent [@Nesterov2008] and the self-consistent resolution of TAP equations [@roudi2011dynamical], that gives as output both a coupling matrix and a maximum-likelihood estimate of the missing values.\
To evaluate the algorithm performance we devise a series of tests stressing on different characteristics of the input, simulating synthetic datasets with several regimes of intrinsic noise, observation frequency, heterogeneity of variables and model misspecification. We thus define some performance standards that can be expected given the quality of data fed to the method, giving an overview of how flexible the approach is.\
The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we define the considered Kinetic Ising Model, we explain the inference method in detail and describe the approximations needed to make the algorithm converge in feasible time; in Section 3 we present results on synthetic data and give an overview of the performance that can be expected with different data specifications; Section 4 concludes the article.
Solving the Inverse Problem with missing values
===============================================
The Kinetic Ising Model (or non-equilibrium Ising Model) [@derrida1987exactly] is defined on a set of spins $y \in \lbrace -1, +1 \rbrace^N$, whose dynamics is described by the transition probability mass function $$\begin{gathered}
p[y(t+1) \vert y(t) ] = Z^{-1}(t) \exp \Bigg[\sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} y_i (t+1) J_{ij}y_j(t) +\\
+ \sum_i y_i(t+1) h_i\Bigg]\end{gathered}$$ where $\langle i,j \rangle$ is a sum over neighbouring pairs on an underlying network, $J_{ij}$ are independent and identically distributed couplings, $h$ is the vector of spin-specific fields and $Z(t)$ is a normalizing constant also known as the partition function.\
In our treatment of the problem we will adopt a Mean Field (MF) approximation, which relies on the assumption that the dynamics of a spin $i$ depends only on an effective field locally “sensed" by the spin rather than on the sum of the single specific interactions with others. The result of this picture is that the topology of the underlying network is considered irrelevant and assumed fully connected - although the goal of the inference would be the reconstruction of the network nonetheless - thus the sum on neighbours is substituted by a sum on all the other spins. This recasts the transition probability into the following form $$p[y(t+1) \vert y(t) ] = Z^{-1}(t) \exp \left[\sum_{i=1}^N y_i (t+1) \tilde{g_i}(t)\right]$$ where $\tilde{g_i}(t) = \sum_{j=1}^N J_{ij}y_j(t) + h_i$ is the local effective field of spin $i$ and $J$ is now a square and fully asymmetric matrix with normally distributed entries $J_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N}(0, J_1^2/N)$, where the assumption on the distribution and the scaling of the variance with $N^{-1}$ will be necessary in the forthcoming calculations.\
Consider observing only a fraction $M(t)/N$ of spins at each time step, and define $G(t)$ as the $M(t) \times N$ matrix mapping the configuration $y(t)$ into the observed vector $s(t) \in \lbrace -1,1 \rbrace^{M(t)}$. Also define $F(t)$ as the $(N-M(t)) \times N$ matrix mapping $y(t)$ into the unobserved spins vector $\sigma(t) \in \lbrace -1,1 \rbrace^{N-M(t)}$. We require that both matrices are right-invertible at all $t$, thus they must have full rank, that implies that observations are not linear combinations of the underlying variables as our interest is in a partially observed system rather than a low-dimensional observation of a high-dimensional system. For the sake of simplicity we assume that the entries are either $0$ or $1$, meaning observation is not noisy or distorted and the right-inverse matrices will coincide with the transpose.\
In the upcoming calculations we will use some simplifying custom notation in order to reduce what can be some cumbersome equations. We will thus denote $\sideset{}{^\prime}\sum_i$ the sum over indices $i$ at time $t+1$, while the regular $\sideset{}{}\sum_i$ indicates a sum over indices $i$ at time $t$ and $\sideset{}{^-}\sum_i$ a sum at time $t-1$. Accordingly, we will indicate with $s_i$ spin $i$ at time $t$, with $s^-_i$ at time $t-1$ and with $s_i^\prime$ at time $t+1$, and the same applies for $g$, $\sigma$ and any other variable. Also indices $i,j,k,l$ are used for observed variables, whereas indices $a,b,c,d$ will identify unobserved variables.\
In this notation, the probability mass function is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
p[\lbrace s^\prime, \sigma^\prime \rbrace \vert \lbrace s, \sigma \rbrace ] = Z^{-1} \exp \left[ \sideset{}{^\prime}\sum_{i} s_i^\prime g_i^\prime + \sideset{}{^\prime}\sum_{a} \sigma_a^\prime g_a^\prime \right] \label{eq:pmf}\end{aligned}$$ Defining the matrices $J^{oo}(t+1) = G(t+1)JG^T(t)$, $J^{oh}(t+1) = G(t+1)JF^T(t)$, $J^{ho}(t+1) = F(t+1)JG^T(t)$ and $J^{hh}(t+1) = F(t+1)JF^T(t)$ the local fields are $$\begin{aligned}
g_i = \sum_{j} J_{ij}^{oo} s_j^- + \sum_{b}J^{oh}_{ib} \sigma_b^- +h_i \nonumber \\
g_a = \sum_{j} J_{aj}^{ho} s_j^- + \sum_{b}J^{hh}_{ab} \sigma_b^- +h_a \label{eq:fielddef}\end{aligned}$$ and the partition function or normalization constant is $$Z = \sideset{}{^\prime}\prod_{i,a} 2 \cosh (g_i^\prime) 2 \cosh (g_a^\prime)$$ The ultimate purpose of this work is to devise a method to obtain Maximum Likelihood Estimates (MLE) for the parameters $J,h$ and the unobserved spins $\sigma$. The likelihood function is just the product through time of the independent transition probabilities expressed in Eq. \[eq:pmf\], taking the trace over the missing values $$p[\lbrace s \rbrace ] = \mathrm{Tr}_{\sigma} \prod_t p[\lbrace s^\prime, \sigma^\prime \rbrace \vert \lbrace s, \sigma \rbrace ] \label{eq:likelihood}$$ To solve the problem, our approach is closely related to the one developed by Dunn et al. [@dunn2013learning], where the authors investigate on a system where only a subset of spins is observable. The extension to our case is presented below.
The trace of Eq. \[eq:likelihood\] is non-trivial to be done. However the Martin-Siggia-Rose path integral formulation [@msr1973] allows to decouple spins and perform the trace at the cost of computing a high dimensional integral. Define the functional $$\mathcal{L}[\psi] = \log \mathrm{Tr}_{\sigma} \prod_t \exp \left[ \sum_a \psi_a \sigma_a \right] p[\lbrace s^\prime, \sigma^\prime \rbrace \vert \lbrace s, \sigma \rbrace ]$$ Notice that this is equivalent to the log-likelihood if $\psi_a(t) = 0$ $\forall a,t$, thus the goal of the calculation will be to efficiently maximise $\mathcal{L}[\psi]$ in the $J, h$ coordinates considering the limit when $\psi \rightarrow 0$. As will become clear in the next steps, the introduction of these so-called “auxiliary fields" is necessary to switch from the unknown values $\sigma$ to their posterior expectations $m$, thus smoothing the log-likelihood function eliminating unknown binary variables from its formula. Call $$\begin{aligned}
Q[s, \sigma] = \sum_t \sum_{i}&s_i g_i + \sum_t \sum_{a} \sigma_a g_a + \\
- \sum_t \sum_{i}&\log 2\cosh(g_i) - \sum_t \sum_{a} \log 2 \cosh(g_a) \\
\Delta = \sum_t \sum_{i}& i \hat{g}_i \left[ g_i - \sum_{j} J^{oo}_{ij}s_j^- - \sum_{b} J^{oh}_{ib} \sigma_b^- - h_i \right] + \\
+ \sum_t \sum_{a}& i \hat{g}_a \left[ g_a - \sum_{j} J^{ho}_{aj} s_j^- - \sum_{b} J^{hh}_{ab} \sigma_b^- - h_a \right]\end{aligned}$$ where $e^\Delta$, integrated over the $\hat{g}$s is the integral representation of the Dirac delta function. Then one obtains $$\label{lagrangian}
\mathcal{L}[\psi] = \log \int \mathcal{DG} \exp [\Phi]$$ where $\mathcal{G} = \lbrace g_i, g_a, \hat{g}_i, \hat{g}_a \rbrace_t$ and $$\Phi = \log \mathrm{Tr}_{\sigma} \exp \left[Q + \Delta + \sum_t \sum_{a} \psi_a \sigma_a \right]$$ Now the trace can be easily computed since the introduction of the delta function has decoupled the $\sigma$s by fixing the value of the local fields $g$.
As mentioned, the cost is computing the integral of Eq. \[lagrangian\], which can be solved via the saddle-point approximation, where the saddle-point is obtained by the extremization of $\Phi$ with respect to the coordinates in $\mathcal{G}$.\
The missing part of the puzzle is the posterior mean $\mathbb{E}\left[\sigma_a (t) \right]$, for which $\mathcal{L}$ acts as the generating functional $$\mathbb{E}\left[\sigma_a (t)\right]= m_a(t) = \lim_{\psi_a(t) \rightarrow 0} \mu_a(t) = \lim_{\psi_a(t) \rightarrow 0}\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \psi_a(t)}$$ where the expectation is performed under the posterior measure $p[\lbrace \sigma \rbrace \vert \lbrace s, J, h \rbrace]$.\
This zero-order approximation is rather rough, nonetheless the saddle-point method can be solved at higher orders of approximation.\
The second-order (*i.e.* Gaussian) correction to the saddle point solution of the integral in Eq. \[lagrangian\] is $$\delta \mathcal{L} = - \frac{1}{2}\log \det [\nabla^2_{\mathcal{G}} \mathcal{L}]$$ where $\nabla^2_{\mathcal{G}} \mathcal{L}$ is the Hessian matrix in the $\mathcal{G}$ space of $\mathcal{L}$ evaluated at the saddle point. The resulting structure of the matrix, shown in the Supplementary Material for the sake of space, is sparse and almost block-diagonal.
We are interested in the determinant, and in particular its logarithm. Dividing the Hessian in the matrices $\alpha$ containing block-diagonal elements and $\beta$ containing the rest, we find $$\begin{gathered}
\log\det(\alpha+\beta)=\log\det(\alpha) + \log\det[\mathbb{I}+\alpha^{-1}\beta] =\\
= \log\det(\alpha) + \mathrm{Tr}\log[\mathbb{I} + \alpha^{-1}\beta] \approx \\
\approx \log\det(\alpha) + \mathrm{Tr}[\alpha^{-1}\beta] + \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{Tr}\lbrace [\alpha^{-1} \beta]^2 \rbrace + ... \label{eq:approx}\end{gathered}$$ Given that $\alpha$ is block-diagonal, so will be $\alpha^{-1}$, then $\mathrm{Tr}[\alpha^{-1}\beta]=0$ and we ignore higher order terms assuming the off-diagonal part of the Hessian matrix is small compared to the diagonal one. In our initial assumption, the couplings $J_{ij}$ are Gaussian random variables with mean of order $1/N$ and variance of order $J^2_1/N$, which means $\log \det (\alpha)$ is quadratic in $J_1$ (see Supplementary Material). The determinant now can be computed and a weak couplings expansion (i.e. $J_1 \rightarrow 0$) can be made to eliminate the logarithm, leading to the final approximate form of the correction $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \mathcal{L} \approx & -\frac{1}{2} \sum_t \sideset{}{'}\sum_{i} \left[ \left(1-\tanh^2(g_i^\prime) \right) \sum_{b} \left[J^{oh \prime}_{ib}\right]^2(1-\mu_b^2)\right] + \\
&- \frac{1}{2} \sum_t \sideset{}{'}\sum_{a} \left[ \left(\mu_a^{\prime \, 2} - \tanh^2(g_a^\prime) \right) \sum_{b} \left[ J^{hh \prime}_{ab} \right]^2 (1-\mu_b^2)\right] \end{aligned}$$
Given the new form of $\mathcal{L}_1 = \mathcal{L}_0 + \delta \mathcal{L}$, we need to recalculate the self-consistency relation for $m_a(t)$ and the learning rule for $J$. As for $m_a(t)$, we can easily see that it is going to coincide with $m_a(t) = \lim_{\psi_a(t) \rightarrow 0} \mu_a(t) + l_a(t)$, where
$$l_a(t) = \frac{\partial( \delta \mathcal{L})}{ \partial \psi_a(t)}
\label{eq:corrselfcon}$$
Implementing the MSR method has introduced an explicit dependence of the $\mathcal{L}$ functional from the auxiliary fields $\hat{g}$ and $\psi$, which however make little sense in terms of the model itself. Now that we have solved the integral at the saddle-point and in its immediate neighbourhood the auxiliary fields can be absorbed back into the original variables by performing a Legendre transform of $\mathcal{L}$, exploiting the fact that $\mathcal{L}$ is convex and that we would rather have it depend on the conjugate field of $\psi$, that is $\mu$. The transform is $$\Gamma [\mu] = \mathcal{L} - \sum_t \sum_{a} \psi_a(t) \mu_a(t) \; s.t. \; -\psi_a(t) = \frac{\partial \Gamma[\mu]}{\partial \mu_a(t)}$$
and so we can adopt $\Gamma$ as the functional to be maximised in the learning process instead. At zero-order, this is easily found to be $$\begin{gathered}
\Gamma_0 [\mu] = \sum_t \Bigg[ \sideset{}{'}\sum_{i} \left[ s_i^\prime g_i^{0 \, \prime} - \log 2\cosh (g_i^{0 \, \prime}) \right] + \\ + \sideset{}{'}\sum_{a} \left[ \mu_a^\prime g_a^{0 \, \prime} - \log 2 \cosh(g_a^{0 \, \prime}) \right] + \sum_{a} S[\mu_a] \Bigg]\end{gathered}$$
where $S[x] = -\frac{1+x}{2} \log (\frac{1+x}{2}) - \frac{1-x}{2} \log(\frac{1-x}{2})$ is the entropy of an uncoupled spin with magnetization $x$. It is relevant to mention that so far the functional is expressed in terms of $\mu$, while we have already highlighted that after the Gaussian correction a new term $l$ is introduced in the formula for $m$. However, since we are restricting to second order in $J$, the terms containing $l$ in $\Gamma$ are all of superior order and are thus negligible in this approximation, then $\Gamma_0[m] \approx \Gamma_0[\mu]\vert_{\mu = m}$. Performing the exact same steps on the correction term $\delta \mathcal{L}$ one finds the corrected functional $$\Gamma_1[m] = \Gamma_0 [m] + \delta \mathcal{L}[m]$$ $\Gamma_1$ is the functional to be optimized through an Expectation-Maximization-like algorithm, recursively computing the self-consistent magnetizations $m$ given $J,h$ and then climbing the gradient $\nabla_{J,h} \Gamma_1$ to obtain a new $J$ matrix and $h$ vector.\
Once the log-likelihood is maximized and the final iteration of the expectation part of the algorithm is finished, the result is a Maximum Likelihood Estimate of the couplings as well as a Maximum A Posteriori estimate of the hidden spins $\sigma$, given by $\hat{\sigma} (t) = \mathrm{sign} (m_t)$.\
Summarizing, the procedure is the following:
- Initialize $J$, $h$, $m(t)$
- Until convergence is reached
- compute the self-consistent magnetizations $m(t)$
- compute the gradient $\nabla_{J,h} \Gamma_1$
- apply Gradient Ascent step, in our case Nesterov’s II method proximal gradient ascent with backtracking line search
- Possibly involve LASSO $\ell_1$-norm regularization or pruning techniques to obtain a sparse model.
Tests on synthetic data
=======================
We perform a series of tests on the algorithm in order to assess its performance in several diverse conditions of data availability. We particularly focus on how we select the observed spins and on the structure of the coupling matrix $J$ in the data generating model. To construct the $G(t)$ and $F(t)$ matrices, we assign to each spin a probability $p_i$ of being observed, meaning that $y_i(t)$ is observed with probability $p_i$ for all $t$.\
We explore how the performance of the inference depends on the following model specifications:
1. The average observation frequency, taking the Bernoulli probabilities $p_i = p$, $\forall i=1,\ldots, N$;
2. The heterogeneity of the Bernoulli probabilities $p_i$, which we choose to be distributed according to a Beta distribution $B(a(K), b(K))$ with given mean $K$ and shape parameters $a$ and $b$;
3. The scale $J_1$ of the $J$ entries, which are distributed as $J_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,J_1^2/N)$;
4. The structure of the $J$ matrix, specifically whether the underlying network is fully connected or an Erdős-Rényi random network of varying density, adopting either the LASSO $\ell_1$ regularization [@tibshirani1996regression] or the decimation procedure [@decelle2015inference] to select the links;
5. The asymmetry of the $J$ matrix. One of the key assumptions in the calculation is that $J_{ij} \neq J_{ji}$ and that they are independent and identically distributed, and we investigate how far one can violate it up to the case of a symmetric $J$ matrix;
6. The dependency on the length of the time series relative to the number of units involved, $T/N$, to check the estimate asymptotic efficiency.
In Test 0 we study the performance of the algorithm in a very simple setting of missing information, where each variable has the same probability of being observed and the generating model is a fully-connected Kinetic Ising model. This is intended to study the effect the average amount of missing information in the sample has on the inference, without considering the possibility of having heterogeneous types of nodes. In this setting we also introduce a procedure we call Recursive E-M: by properly iterating the algorithm multiple times it allows to boost data artificially thus achieving good performances even when the fraction of missing values is particularly high.\
In Test 1 we explore the possibility that spins have heterogeneous observational properties. We sample the $\lbrace p_i\rbrace$ from a Beta distribution varying parameters to probe different levels of heterogeneity. The Beta distribution allows to range from a sharply peaked unimodal distribution to a sharply peaked bimodal distribution tuning the shape parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$, while keeping the mean $K$ constant: the former case is a situation of perfect homogeneity in the frequency of observations calling back to Test 0, while the latter is the extreme heterogeneity of having some units that are (almost) always hidden while the others are (almost) always observed. We select some intermediate cases to characterize how heterogeneity in observation frequency affects the identification of the model parameters.\
Test 2 aims at assessing whether there is a minimal interaction strength to have the inferential process converging and how the approximations necessary to develop the method impact the accuracy of the inference. Indeed while $J_1$ in the physical model is proportional to the ratio between the strength of the magnetic coupling interaction and the temperature at which the system is observed, from a modelling perspective it is inversely proportional to the impact of the noise on the dynamics. Given the approximation of Eq. \[eq:approx\], if $J_1$ gets too large, the precision with which the parameters are identified should get worse. We thus expect to find an optimal region for the inference to be accurate, bounded from below by an identifiability threshold and from above by the limit of validity of the expansion.\
In Test 3 we pursue the goal of making the methodology useful for real world scenarios, where it is highly unlikely that all spins interact among themselves and the underlying network is probably sparse. We compare the performance of two well established techniques, the LASSO $\ell_1$ regularization and the decimation procedure, and explore how these two methods perform paired with our algorithm by simulating data on a set of Erdős-Rényi random networks with different densities.\
In a similar spirit, in Test 4 we study how the i.i.d. assumption made in Eq. \[eq:approx\] affects the performance in situations where coupling coefficients are pairwise correlated or even symmetric, a condition we envision to be more realistic in social and economic environments [@squartini2013reciprocity]. We vary the correlation parameter $\mathrm{Cor}(J_{ij}, J_{ji})=\rho$ for $i\neq j$ between 0 and 1, with the symmetric case being also of special interest because the model transforms into a dynamical form of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model, thus connecting to the extensive literature on the topic.\
Finally, a sanity check is made in Test 5 by looking at the dependency of performance metrics on the ratio $T/N$, that is the ratio between the number of observations and the number of spins, to characterize the convergence rate of the estimator towards the true value and its consistency.\
We will test the algorithm and evaluate the performance using mainly two metrics, one relative to the reconstruction of the couplings and one to the reconstruction of missing values:
1. The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) on the elements of the matrix $J$, $\mathrm{RMSE} = \sqrt{\langle (\hat{J}_{ij} - J_{ij})^2 \rangle_{ij}}$, suitably rescaled when comparing experiments with different $J_1$;
2. The “Reconstruction Efficiency" (RE), namely the fraction of spins that are correctly guessed among the hidden ones averaged throughout the time series, or $\mathrm{RE} = \langle \frac{1}{N-M(t)}\sum_a\delta_{\hat{\sigma}_a (t), \sigma_a (t)} \rangle_t $
Test 0: dependency on a homogeneous $p_i$
-----------------------------------------
![(top) Angular coefficient of the linear fit $\hat{J}_{ij} = a J_{ij} + c$ before and after R-EM varying the average observation density $p$; (middle) Root Mean Squared Error on the couplings; (bottom) Reconstruction Efficiency.[]{data-label="fig:test0"}](figure/Recursive/Jbias_wide.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"} ![(top) Angular coefficient of the linear fit $\hat{J}_{ij} = a J_{ij} + c$ before and after R-EM varying the average observation density $p$; (middle) Root Mean Squared Error on the couplings; (bottom) Reconstruction Efficiency.[]{data-label="fig:test0"}](figure/Recursive/JMSEvP_rec_wide.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"} ![(top) Angular coefficient of the linear fit $\hat{J}_{ij} = a J_{ij} + c$ before and after R-EM varying the average observation density $p$; (middle) Root Mean Squared Error on the couplings; (bottom) Reconstruction Efficiency.[]{data-label="fig:test0"}](figure/Recursive/CSvP_rec_wide.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
The algorithm is outstandingly resilient to cases with few observations available. We simulate a system of $N=100$ spins, for $T=10000$ time steps, with $J_{ij} \overset{iid}{\sim} \mathcal{N}(0,1/N)$ lying on a fully connected network and we give a probability of observation to each variable $p_i=p$, with $p$ ranging from $0.1$ to $0.9$. As can be seen from the top panel of Figure \[fig:test0\], showing the linear regression coefficient $a$ of $\hat{J}_{ij} = a J_{ij} + c$, with one iteration of the method we get a very reliable result for the couplings for $p \geq 0.8$, although below this value the lack of data reduces the quality of the estimation and moves the estimates towards $0$. To overcome this issue, we propose the aforementioned R-EM procedure as a further enhancement of our algorithm: once a maximum of the likelihood has been reached, a fraction of hidden spins is substituted with their maximum likelihood estimates $\hat{\sigma}_a = \mathrm{sign} (m_a)$ and the inference is run again on the new, artificially boosted data. Since $m$ is proportional to the probability of the spin being up, we choose the missing values to be substituted at every $t$ as the ones with the most polarized magnetization, *i.e.* for which $m$ is closer to $\pm 1$. This artificial boosting on the data shows promising results since with a few recursions the performance is noticeably better even in cases with severe lack of observations, as is also reflected in the middle and bottom panels of Figure \[fig:test0\]. We defer a more rigorous treatment of this recursive method to future work, while still proposing it here as we find it surprisingly accurate.\
The bottom panel of Figure \[fig:test0\] shows the Reconstruction Efficiency, which gets worse almost linearly as the number of observations decreases and on which the R-EM has a smaller effect, albeit still being a clear improvement. It is evident from all panels that when a large fraction of data is missing ($p \leq 0.2$) the inference fails to identify any of the parameters and the model is no better than a coin flip at reconstructing configurations.
Test 1: heterogeneous $p_i$
---------------------------
In Test 1 we want to highlight how our model is a generalization of the one studied extensively by Dunn et al. [@dunn2013learning] and to characterize the impact of heterogeneity on the inference performance. To give a better comparison with the aforementioned paper, we realize simulations morphing from our initial specification of $p_i = p \; \forall i$, studied in Test 0, to a case very close to the one of Dunn et al. where $p_i \in \lbrace 0, 1 \rbrace$, that is some variables are always observed and some are always hidden. We choose to take the probabilities distributed according to a Beta distribution, $p_i \sim B(a(K),b(K))$, giving us the possibility of leaving the average number of observations constant while skewing the distribution between a fully bimodal (small $b(K)$) and a sharp quasi-delta function (large $b(K)$). We choose the parameters $a$ and $b$ such that the mean $\mathbb{E}[p_i] = K$ is constant, so that different tests can be compared and the role of heterogeneity is highlighted. This binds the values of $a$ and $b$ through $a = \frac{K b}{1-K}$.
![(left) Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $K$ with different Beta parameters. Inset: the pdf of the adopted Beta distributions with $K=0.5$ (color coding is the same as in the main panel) (right) Root Mean Square Error on the couplings as a function of $K$ with different Beta parameters.[]{data-label="betadep"}](figure/Beta/betaCS_nomarg.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"} ![(left) Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $K$ with different Beta parameters. Inset: the pdf of the adopted Beta distributions with $K=0.5$ (color coding is the same as in the main panel) (right) Root Mean Square Error on the couplings as a function of $K$ with different Beta parameters.[]{data-label="betadep"}](figure/Beta/betaMSE_nomarg.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"}
The results of Figure \[betadep\] clearly show that when the distribution is bimodal, that is when some variables are very rarely observed, the performance of the algorithm is worse. With a sample size of $T=10^4$ and $N=40$, the Dunn et al. model approximated by $B(a(K), 0.1)$ is identified with reasonable performance only when $K\geq 0.8$. This is extremely mitigated when the observations are more homogeneously distributed, particularly in the case of the coupling coefficients whose estimation seem to require a rather homogeneous distribution of observations among variables to be reliable. On the other hand, the reconstruction efficiency is far less demanding in terms of data quality and a reasonable performance is achieved even with sparse data and heterogeneous observations.
![Quality of inference varying the probability of observing the end nodes at subsequent times. (top) RMSE for different values of the Beta $b$ parameter with mean $K=0.7$; (bottom) Linear fit coefficient for different values of the $b$ parameter, $K=0.7$.[]{data-label="fig:test1b"}](figure/Beta/betaRMSE_vPlink_bpar_K7.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"} ![Quality of inference varying the probability of observing the end nodes at subsequent times. (top) RMSE for different values of the Beta $b$ parameter with mean $K=0.7$; (bottom) Linear fit coefficient for different values of the $b$ parameter, $K=0.7$.[]{data-label="fig:test1b"}](figure/Beta/betaFit_vPlink_bpar_K7.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
In Figure \[fig:test1b\] we plot the Root Mean Square Error on couplings conditional on the probability of observing subsequently the spins at their ends. This probability is simply given by $p_{ij} = p_i p_j$ since observations are independently sampled, and the RMSE is $$\mathrm{RMSE}(p) = \sqrt{\langle (\hat{J}_{ij} - J_{ij})^2 \rangle_{p_{ij} = p}}$$
where the mean is taken on links that have (close to) the same joint observation probability. The plots highlight how the least observed the pair, the worse the precision of the fit, however it is also clear that the error grows for the more frequently observed couplings too. This is partially mitigated when one looks at the linear fit between the inferred $J$s and the true ones, meaning that the error is mostly affected by the variance component rather than the bias one.\
The overall effect of heterogeneity is thus a decrease in the quality of the inference, with a stronger effect on couplings that are between the least observed pairs of spins and an important loss in accuracy, but with a bias component that is mitigated for the most frequently observed pairs.
Test 2: dependency on $J_1$
---------------------------
So far we have dealt with elements of $J$ drawn i.i.d. from a $\mathcal{N}(0,1/N)$ distribution. We want to relax this hypothesis and, while changing the mean value of the distribution would not be particularly meaningful in that it would just shift the correlation patterns between variables, it makes sense to investigate the behaviour as one changes the variance and thus the strength of the interactions. While there is no phase transition in the underlying model as long as the $J_{ij}$ are i.i.d., we want to check how weak can the couplings be in order to be correctly inferred and give a reliable reconstruction of the data. In other words, we are trying to identify a threshold in the interaction strength below which the algorithm is unable to converge.\
We report results for an experiment with $N=100$, $T=10000$, $p_i=p=0.8$ and $J_1$ ranging from $0.05$ to $13$. We see from Figure \[fig:jdep\] that increasing the typical size of couplings positively affects the quality of the inference, as should be expected since the dynamics is less affected by randomness. In the top panel we plot the reconstruction efficiency which has a steady increase and saturates towards $1$ after $J_1 \simeq 5$. The bottom panel shows the relative RMSE, that is $\mathrm{RMSE}/J_1$, and we see that it drops below $5\%$ for $J_1 > 0.5$. It is rather surprising to see how, regardless of the small couplings expansion we utilize in Eq. \[eq:approx\], the algorithm seems to work efficiently even in cases where the variance of the couplings $J_1^2/N$ is of order $1$, albeit a region of optimality for the inference of the couplings seems to lie within $0.5 \leq J_1 \leq 7$.
![(top) Reconstruction Efficiency as a function of $J_1$. (bottom) Rescaled RMSE (by $J_1$) on the couplings as a function of $J_1$.[]{data-label="fig:jdep"}](figure/Jdep/CSvJ_wide.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"} ![(top) Reconstruction Efficiency as a function of $J_1$. (bottom) Rescaled RMSE (by $J_1$) on the couplings as a function of $J_1$.[]{data-label="fig:jdep"}](figure/Jdep/JMSEvJnorm_wide.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
Test 3: impact of network structure
-----------------------------------
![(top) Results from the LASSO with 80% observations: (left) RMSE on couplings as a function of the LASSO parameter; (right) ROC curves. (bottom) Results from the decimation procedure with 80% observations: (left) Tilted likelihood evolution through the decimation process, vertical lines show the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves through the decimation process with different network densities. The circle identifies the point at which the Tilted Likelihood is maximized.[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](figure/Lasso/JMSEvlasso.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"} ![(top) Results from the LASSO with 80% observations: (left) RMSE on couplings as a function of the LASSO parameter; (right) ROC curves. (bottom) Results from the decimation procedure with 80% observations: (left) Tilted likelihood evolution through the decimation process, vertical lines show the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves through the decimation process with different network densities. The circle identifies the point at which the Tilted Likelihood is maximized.[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](figure/Lasso/Lasso_ROC.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"} ![(top) Results from the LASSO with 80% observations: (left) RMSE on couplings as a function of the LASSO parameter; (right) ROC curves. (bottom) Results from the decimation procedure with 80% observations: (left) Tilted likelihood evolution through the decimation process, vertical lines show the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves through the decimation process with different network densities. The circle identifies the point at which the Tilted Likelihood is maximized.[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](figure/Deciall/tiltlik_nomarg_fix.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"} ![(top) Results from the LASSO with 80% observations: (left) RMSE on couplings as a function of the LASSO parameter; (right) ROC curves. (bottom) Results from the decimation procedure with 80% observations: (left) Tilted likelihood evolution through the decimation process, vertical lines show the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves through the decimation process with different network densities. The circle identifies the point at which the Tilted Likelihood is maximized.[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](figure/Deciall/Deci_ROC_nomarg_fix.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"}
We test the algorithm performance on some more realistic network structure than the fully connected one. It is indeed known that real networks, and particularly social networks, are typically sparse and thus network models have to implement some pruning mechanism permitting to discriminate between noise, spurious correlations and actual causal relations. We generate our data simulating the Kinetic Ising model on one of the simplest random network models, the Erdős-Rényi model, with edges that have weights $J_{ij}$ normally distributed with variance $1/N$, $N=100$ and $T=10000$ and with a probability of observing the variables of $p \in \lbrace 0.8, 0.6, 0.4 \rbrace$. One then needs to adjust the algorithm to give sparse solutions, as the mean field approximation will tend to return fully connected $J$ matrices. The adjustments we make are the LASSO regularization and the decimation procedure of Decelle et al. [@decelle2015inference]. The first is the well known $\ell_1$ norm regularization of the objective function, which projects the maximum likelihood fully connected solution on a symplex of dimensions determined by a free parameter $\lambda$ (which has to be validated out of sample).\
The second is a recently proposed technique that selects parameters starting to decimate them from the least significant ones and repeating the process until a so-called Tilted log-Likelihood function shows a discontinuity in the first derivative.\
To briefly describe the procedure, call $\mathcal{L}_{max}$ the value of the log-likelihood provided by the maximum likelihood algorithm without any constraint and then call $x$ the fraction of parameters $J_{ij}$ that are being set to $0$. Finally call $\mathcal{L}(x)$ the log-likelihood of the model with the fraction $x$ of decimated parameters and $\mathcal{L}_1$ the log-likelihood of a model with no couplings that is, in case $h_i =0 \, \forall \, i$, $\mathcal{L}_1 = - \sum_t M(t) \log 2$. The Tilted log-Likelihood takes the form
$$\mathcal{L}^{tilted}(x) = \mathcal{L}(x) - \left((1-x) \mathcal{L}_{max} + x \mathcal{L}_1 \right)$$
that is, the difference between a convex combination of the original log-likelihood with the log-likelihood of a system with no parameters and the log-likelihood of the decimated model. This function is strictly positive and is $0$ only for $x=0,1$, since $\mathcal{L}(0)=\mathcal{L}_{max}$ and $\mathcal{L}(1) = \mathcal{L}_1$, thus there has to be a maximum. The decimation process thus consists in gradually increasing the fraction of pruned parameters $x$ until the maximum of the Tilted log-Likelihood is found, giving the optimal set of parameters of the model.\
We show in Figure \[fig:test3\] and \[fig:test3b\] the results of the test. We observe how the ROC curves seem to lean strongly in favor of the decimation approach, which tends to score perfectly on the False Positives Ratio (FPR) - True Negatives Ratio (TNR) plane. However the maximum of the Tilted Likelihood does not always correspond to the optimal score in the ROC diagram, both in the case of a non-sparse network and when the data has a large number of missing values. While the former case is not particularly interesting in that a dense network model fitted on real data would be prone to overfitting and of disputable use, the latter is much more of a concern, albeit the process is still surprisingly efficient even when data is extremely sparse.\
![(top) Results from the decimation procedure with 80%, 60% and 40% observations available and a network density of $0.05$: (left) Tilted Likelihood evolution through the decimation, vertical line shows the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves through the decimation process with different observation densities. (bottom) Results from the decimation introducing local fields $h$: (left) Tilted likelihood, vertical lines show the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves. The introduction of local fields makes the tilted likelihood non-convex and seriously affects the performance.[]{data-label="fig:test3b"}](figure/Deciall/tiltlik_vPobs.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"} ![(top) Results from the decimation procedure with 80%, 60% and 40% observations available and a network density of $0.05$: (left) Tilted Likelihood evolution through the decimation, vertical line shows the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves through the decimation process with different observation densities. (bottom) Results from the decimation introducing local fields $h$: (left) Tilted likelihood, vertical lines show the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves. The introduction of local fields makes the tilted likelihood non-convex and seriously affects the performance.[]{data-label="fig:test3b"}](figure/Deciall/Deci_ROC_vPobs.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"} ![(top) Results from the decimation procedure with 80%, 60% and 40% observations available and a network density of $0.05$: (left) Tilted Likelihood evolution through the decimation, vertical line shows the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves through the decimation process with different observation densities. (bottom) Results from the decimation introducing local fields $h$: (left) Tilted likelihood, vertical lines show the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves. The introduction of local fields makes the tilted likelihood non-convex and seriously affects the performance.[]{data-label="fig:test3b"}](figure/Deciall/tiltlik_nomarg_cut.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"} ![(top) Results from the decimation procedure with 80%, 60% and 40% observations available and a network density of $0.05$: (left) Tilted Likelihood evolution through the decimation, vertical line shows the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves through the decimation process with different observation densities. (bottom) Results from the decimation introducing local fields $h$: (left) Tilted likelihood, vertical lines show the correct number of null elements; (right) ROC curves. The introduction of local fields makes the tilted likelihood non-convex and seriously affects the performance.[]{data-label="fig:test3b"}](figure/Deciall/Deci_ROC_nomarg.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"}
Even if the decimation procedure is consistently outperforming the LASSO, there is reason to still hold the $\ell_1$ regularization as a viable option. Indeed when one introduces local fields $h$ of non-negligible entity, the decimation procedure is not anymore reliable in that the Tilted Likelihood becomes non-convex as shown in Figure \[fig:test3b\] and the maximum is not in the correct position. This is due to the underestimation of the $h$ parameters during the log-likelihood maximization of the fully connected model, where part of the role of the local fields is absorbed in couplings that should be pruned. However these couplings are still relevant to the model since they compensate for the underestimated $h$ parameters, giving the Tilted likelihood a non-convex form and shifting its maximum towards a more dense network model. This situation does not occur with the LASSO regularization as the pruning is performed at the same time as the maximization, giving the LASSO the advantage of a much more reliable fit of the local fields albeit with an overall worse performance in the inference of the nonzero couplings.
Test 4: Impact of asymmetricity assumption
------------------------------------------
Another assumption we made to perform the calculations in Equation \[eq:approx\] was that the $J_{ij}$ are iid Gaussian random variables. In the case of social networks and trade networks reciprocity, that is the correlation between $J_{ij}$ and $J_{ji}$, is often found to be much higher than what would be expected in an iid setting [@squartini2013reciprocity]. We ask ourselves how impactful is this assumption on the outcome of the inference and we test the algorithm on data generated from a model with $N=100$, $T=10000$, $p_i=p=0.8$, $J_1=1$ and such that $\mathrm{Cor}(J_{ij}, J_{ji}) = \rho, \; i \neq j$. We show the results for this series of tests in Figure \[fig:rho\]. What we find is that the $\rho$ parameter barely affects the performance and even makes it easier to infer the hidden variables, albeit marginally. Indeed we only used the assumption to approximate the determinant of the Hessian in the second order correction to the saddle-point solution, and letting the couplings not be reciprocally independent should affect the approximation slightly by having some elements of $J^2$ that vanish slower than others in the sums. It is possible that having a large enough $N$ facilitates the inference then, since the amount of those slowly vanishing terms grows with $N$ while the number of entries of $J$ grows with $N^2$.\
![(top) Reconstruction Efficiency varying the correlation between symmetric elements of $J$; (bottom) RMSE on the couplings.[]{data-label="fig:rho"}](figure/Asymm/CSvRho_wide.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"} ![(top) Reconstruction Efficiency varying the correlation between symmetric elements of $J$; (bottom) RMSE on the couplings.[]{data-label="fig:rho"}](figure/Asymm/JMSEvRho_wide.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
We then turn our attention to the extreme case of $\rho=1$, corresponding to the well known Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model [@kirkpatrick1978infinite], one of the first and most studied spin glass models in the literature. The SK model has the peculiarity of undergoing a phase transition at $J_1=2$ in our notation for the Hamiltonian (since we have not included a factor $1/2$ to remove double counting), where for $J_1>2$ the spin glass phase arises and multiple equilibrium states appear such that the model is not easy to infer anymore. It is thus interesting to see whether this affects the inference from dynamical configurations and how the identifiability transition is reached. We perform the experiment of varying $J_1$ in this framework and show the results in Fig. \[fig:SK\]. We find the expected increase in rescaled error (that is, $\mathrm{RMSE}/J_1$) marking the transition, surrounded by a finite-size scaling noisy region, while the reconstruction efficiency of the configurations remains very good. This fits in the narrative of the phase transition of the SK model, since in the spin glass phase an equilibrium configuration of the model can be generated by multiple - and in principle undistinguishable - choices of parameters which we indeed struggle to identify with our methodology.
![(top) Reconstruction Efficiency as a function of $J_1$ in the SK model; (bottom) Rescaled RMSE on couplings as a function of $J_1$.[]{data-label="fig:SK"}](figure/Asymm/SGCSvJext_wide.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"} ![(top) Reconstruction Efficiency as a function of $J_1$ in the SK model; (bottom) Rescaled RMSE on couplings as a function of $J_1$.[]{data-label="fig:SK"}](figure/Asymm/SGJMSEvJnorm_wide.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
Test 5: sample size and convergence
-----------------------------------
We finally devolve our attention to the convergence properties of our estimator and how they are affected by finite sample sizes. The relevant parameter to be varied is the ratio between the length of the time series $T$ and the number of units that are modelled, $N$. We run simulations with $N=100$, $J_1 = 1$, $p_i = p = 0.8$ and varying $T$ between $100$ and $25000$, and report the results in Figure \[fig:tdep\]. It can be seen that the RMSE on $J_{ij}$ diminishes, after $T/N=20$, with what might look like a power law behaviour with exponent close to $0.5$, although we do not provide an exact law for the convergence. The RMSE is below $5\%$ of $J_1$ when $T/N$ is larger than $20$ and is steadily converging towards $0$. Regarding the reconstruction efficiency we see that it saturates quickly towards $90\%$ and then it keeps increasing towards $100\%$. This evidence is an heuristic proof that the estimator is converging and is important to estimate how reliable a result might be given the $T/N$ ratio of the data. Although a more rigorous law would be much more appealing for the task, it would require being able to write the posterior of $J,\sigma$ given $s$, which to the best of our knowledge is not a feasible calculation in this setting.
![(top) Reconstruction Efficiency as a function of the T/N ratio; (bottom) RMSE as a function of the T/N ratio. Area in green is 1 standard deviation from the mean over 30 repetitions.[]{data-label="fig:tdep"}](figure/Tdep/CSvTmax_wide.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"} ![(top) Reconstruction Efficiency as a function of the T/N ratio; (bottom) RMSE as a function of the T/N ratio. Area in green is 1 standard deviation from the mean over 30 repetitions.[]{data-label="fig:tdep"}](figure/Tdep/MSEJvTmax_wide.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
Additional parameters: exogenous drivers
----------------------------------------
The model can be easily extended to a version in which an exogenous driver (or multiple ones), observed at all times, affects the dynamics of the variables. In a financial setting the first external driver would be given by the log-returns $r_t$ and the associated parameter would be the typical reaction of a trader to price changes, typically categorized between contrarians and chartists whether they go “against" the flow (i.e. sell when the price rises and viceversa) or follow the trend. In the model, this is introduced by adding a set of linear parameters $\beta$ in the local fields that couple the variables to the driver $$g_k(t) = \sum_l y_l (t) + h_k + \beta_k r_t$$
The introduction of the parameter does not complicate the inference process at all and is particularly important if one wants to use the model to describe and possibly forecast order flows in financial markets. We omit the results for this section for the sake of space and because no significant dependency on the size of the $\beta_k$ parameters is found for our performance metrics.
Conclusions
===========
In this article we develop a methodology to perform inference of Kinetic Ising Models on datasets with missing observations. We successfully adapt a known approximation from the Mean Field literature to the presence of missing values in the sample and devise several performance tests to characterize the algorithm and show its potential. We also propose a recursive methodology, R-EM, that gradually reconstructs the dataset with inferred quantities and tries to refine the inference, and show its efficacy on synthetic data.\
The main results are that it is indeed possible to infer Kinetic Ising Models from incomplete datasets and that our procedure is resilient to noise, heterogeneity in the nature of data and in the frequency of missing values, and overall quantity of missing data. We make the algorithm ready for real-world applications by implementing pruning techniques in the form of LASSO and decimation, and give a brief overview of what we think are the better uses for each.\
The methodology lends itself to applications on many diverse datasets, but our main focus for future research will be on opinion spreading in financial markets where transactions occur at high frequency, such as the FX or the cryptocurrency markets. We indeed envision our algorithm can identify significant structures of lagged correlations between traders, that in turn can be mapped to a network of lead-lag relations. Such a network would be particularly useful to get a quantitative picture of how possible speculative or irrational price movements can occur due to voluntary or involuntary coordination between traders and to devise appropriate strategies to counteract them.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are grateful to prof. Matteo Marsili and to the participants of the 2018 Spring College on the Physics of Complex Systems (Trieste) for insightful comments and discussions. DT acknowledges GNFM-Indam and SNS for financial support of the project SNS18\_A\_TANTARI.
Zero-order saddle-point approximation
=====================================
We start from Eq.8 in the main text, where we have introduced the Dirac delta function to obtain a functional form of $\mathcal{L}$ for which the trace can be calculated. The result is the functional $\Phi$ of Eq.8, which once the trace is done reads $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi &= \sum_t \Bigg[ \sum_{i} \left[ s_i g_i - \log 2\cosh (g_i) \right] - \sum_{a} \log 2 \cosh (g_a) + \\
&+ \sum_{i} i \hat{g}_i \left[ g_i - \sum_{j} J^{oo}_{ij} s_j^- - h_i \right] + \\
&+ \sum_{a} i \hat{g}_a \left[g_a - \sum_{j} J^{ho}_{aj} s_j^- - h_a \right] + \\
&+ \sum_{a} \log 2 \cosh \left[g_a^- - \sum_{i}i \hat{g}_i J^{oh}_{ia} - \sum_{b} i \hat{g}_b J^{hh}_{ba} + \psi_a^- \right] \Bigg]\end{aligned}$$ This is the function to be extremized to find the saddle-point around which the integral is to be computed. Setting $\nabla_{\mathcal{G}} \Phi = 0$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
&g_i^0 = h_i + \sideset{}{^-}\sum_{j} J^{oo}_{ij}s_j^- + \sideset{}{^-}\sum_{a} J^{oh}_{ia} m_a^- \\
&g_a^0 = h_a + \sideset{}{^-}\sum_{j} J^{ho}_{aj}s_j^- + \sideset{}{^-}\sum_{b} J^{hh}_{ab} m_a^- \\
&i\hat{g}_i^0 = \tanh (g_i) - s_i \\
&i\hat{g}_a^0 = \tanh (g_a) - m_a \\\end{aligned}$$ which, substituted in $\Phi$, give the zero-order solution to the saddle-point integral. The other ingredient is the vector of magnetizations $m$ which, as stated in the main text, is obtained exploiting the property of $\mathcal{L}$ being the moment generating functional for $\sigma$. Thus we find $$\lim_{\psi_a \rightarrow 0}\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \psi_a} = m_a = \tanh \left[ g_a^0 - \sideset{}{^\prime}\sum_{i} i \hat{g}_i^{0\prime} J^{oh}_{ia} - \sideset{}{^\prime}\sum_{b} i \hat{g}_b^{0\prime} J^{hh}_{ba} \right]$$
Second order saddle-point approximation
=======================================
The second order approximation requires the calculation of the determinant of the Hessian of the log-likelihood, $\nabla^2_{\mathcal{G}} \mathcal{L}$, taken at the saddle point coordinates. This is a forbidding task to tackle numerically, since the matrix has $(4NT)^2$ elements, but with a few algebraic manipulations the computations become feasible.
The Hessian matrix elements can be summarized in the following sub-matrices $A^{tt'}, ..., G^{tt'}$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial g_i(t) \partial g_j(t')} = A_{ij}^{tt'} = - \delta_{ij} \delta_{tt'} (1 - \tanh^2 [g_i^0(t)])\\
&\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial \hat{g}_i(t) \partial \hat{g}_j(t')} = B_{ij}^{tt'} = - \delta_{tt'} \sideset{}{^-}\sum_{a} J_{ia}^{oh}(t) J_{ja}^{oh}(t) [1 - \mu_a^2 (t-1)] \\
&\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial g_a(t) \partial g_b(t')} = C_{ab}^{tt'} = -\delta_{ab}\delta_{tt'}\left[\mu_a^2(t) - \tanh^2[g_a^0(t)] \right] \\
&\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial \hat{g}_a(t) \partial \hat{g}_b(t')} = D_{ab}^{tt'} = - \delta_{tt'} \sideset{}{^-}\sum_{c} J_{ac}^{hh}(t) J_{bc}^{hh} (t) \left[ 1 - \mu_c^2(t-1) \right] \\
&\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial \hat{g}_i(t) \partial \hat{g}_b(t')} = E_{ib}^{tt'} = - \delta_{tt'} \sideset{}{^-}\sum_{a} J_{ia}^{oh}(t) J_{ba}^{hh}(t) \left[ 1 - \mu_a^2(t-1) \right] \\
&\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial \hat{g}_i(t) \partial g_b(t')} = F_{ib}^{tt'} = -i \delta_{t-1, t'} J_{ib}^{oh}(t) \left[ 1 - \mu_b^2(t-1) \right] \\
&\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial g_a(t) \partial \hat{g}_b(t')} = \delta_{ab} \delta_{tt'} + G_{ab}^{tt'} = \delta_{ab} \delta_{tt'} - i \delta_{t+1, t'} J_{ba}^{hh}(t+1) \left[ 1 - \mu_a^2 (t) \right] \\
&\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial g_i(t) \partial \hat{g}_j (t')} = \delta_{ij} \delta_{tt'} \\
&\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial g_i(t) \partial g_b(t')} = \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial g_i(t) \partial \hat{g}_b(t')} = 0 \qquad \forall \: t, t', i, b\end{aligned}$$
and in matrix form it has the following almost block-diagonal form (we show the sub-matrix for times $t,t+1$) $$\left[
\begin{array}{cccc|cccc}
A^{tt} & i \mathbb{I} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
i \mathbb{I} & B^{tt} & 0 & E^{tt} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & C^{tt} & i \mathbb{I} & 0 & \left[ F^{t+1,t} \right]^T & 0 & G^{t,t+1} \\
0 & \left[ E^{tt} \right]^T & i \mathbb{I} & D^{tt} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & A^{t+1,t+1} & i \mathbb{I} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & F^{t+1,t} & 0 & i \mathbb{I} & B^{t+1, t+1} & 0 & E^{t+1,t+1} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & C^{t+1,t+1} & i \mathbb{I} \\
0 & 0 & \left[ G^{t,t+1} \right]^T & 0 & 0 & \left[E^{t+1,t+1} \right]^T & i \mathbb{I} & D^{t+1,t+1}
\end{array}
\right]$$
It is thus clear that the determinant of this matrix, under the approximation in Eq.9 of the main text, is $$\det\left[ \nabla^2_\mathcal{G} \mathcal{L} \right] \approx \prod_t (\det A^{tt} \det B^{tt} + \mathbb{I} ) (\det C^{tt} \det D^{tt} + \mathbb{I})$$ which leads to the form of the correction reported in the main text.\
As mentioned in Eq. \[eq:corrselfcon\] in the main text, introducing the Gaussian correction shifts the magnetizations by a quantity $$\begin{aligned}
l_a(t) = &\frac{\partial( \delta \mathcal{L})}{ \partial \psi_a(t)} =\\
= \mu_a (1-&\mu_a^2) \left[ \sideset{}{'}\sum_{i} \left[ \left(1 - \tanh^2(g_i^\prime) \right) \left[J^{oh \prime}_{ia} \right]^2 \right] \right] \\
+ \mu_a (1-&\mu_a^2) \Bigg[ \sideset{}{^-}\sum_{b} \left[ J^{hh}_{ab} \right]^2 (1-\mu_b^{- \, 2}) + \\
&+ \sideset{}{'}\sum_{b} \left(\mu_b^{\prime \, 2} - \tanh^2(g_b^\prime) \right) \left[ J^{hh \prime}_{ba} \right]^2 \Bigg]\end{aligned}$$
Thus we rewrite both $\Gamma_0$ and $\delta \mathcal{L}$ substituting $\mu_a(t)\vert_{\psi_a(t)=0} = m_a(t) - l_a(t)\vert_{\psi_a(t) = 0}$ in the functional and in the saddle-point solutions for $g$ and obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_0[m] = \sum_t \Bigg[& \sideset{}{'}\sum_{i} \left[ s_i^\prime g_i^\prime - \log 2 \cosh(g_i^\prime) \right] + \\
+ &\sideset{}{'}\sum_{a} \left[ m_a^\prime g_a^\prime - \log 2 \cosh(g_a^\prime) \right] + \sum_{a} S[m_a] + \\
- &\sideset{}{'}\sum_{i} \left[ s_i^\prime - \tanh (g_i^\prime) \right] \sum_{a} J^{oh \, \prime}_{ia} l_a + \\
- &\sideset{}{'}\sum_{a} \left[m_a^\prime - \tanh(g_a^\prime) \right] \sum_{b} J^{hh \, \prime}_{ab} l_{b} + \\
- &\sideset{}{'}\sum_{a} l_a^\prime \left[ g_a^\prime - \sum_{b} J^{hh \, \prime}_{ab} l_b \right] +\\
+ &\sum_{a} l_a \tanh^{-1} (m_a) \Bigg]\end{aligned}$$
Where in this last formula $g(t)$ have become the fields of Eq.4 in the main text with $m$ in place of $\sigma$. Given this last expression it can be seen that, since $l_a(t)$ is already quadratic in $J$ and always multiplies an object of order one, all terms involving $l_a(t)$ are higher order and can be neglected in the current approximation.\
Skipping to Eq.12 in the main text and adding the Gaussian correction to the $\Gamma_0$ functional we obtain the final form of the approximated log-likelihood to be maximized $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_1[m] &= \Gamma_0[m] +\\
&- \frac{1}{2} \sum_t \sideset{}{'}\sum_{i} \left[ \left(1 - \tanh^2(g_i^\prime)\right) \sum_{b} \left[J^{oh \, \prime}_{ib}\right]^2 (1 - m_b^2) \right] + \\
&- \frac{1}{2} \sum_t \sideset{}{'}\sum_{a} \left[ \left(m_a^{2 \, \prime} - \tanh^2(g_a^\prime)\right) \sum_{b} \left[ J^{hh \, \prime}_{ab} \right]^2 (1-m_b^2) \right]\end{aligned}$$
The final result are the formulas necessary to the EM-like algorithm, namely the log-likelihood gradient and the self-consistent relations for the magnetizations. The first takes the form
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\frac{\partial \Gamma_1}{\partial J_{kl}} & = \sum_t \Bigg[ \sideset{}{'}\sum_{i} \left[ \frac{\partial g_i^\prime}{\partial J_{kl}} \left(s_i^\prime - \tanh(g_i^\prime)\right) \right] + \\
& + \sideset{}{'}\sum_{a} \left[ \frac{\partial g_a^\prime}{\partial J_{kl}} \left(m_a^\prime - \tanh(g_a^\prime)\right) \right] + \\
& + \sideset{}{'}\sum_{i} \left[ \frac{\tanh (g_i^\prime)}{\cosh^2 (g_i^\prime)} \frac{\partial g_i^\prime}{\partial J_{kl}} \sum_{bmn} G_{im}^\prime J_{mn}^2 F^T_{nb} (1-m_b^2) \right] + \\
& + \sideset{}{'}\sum_{i} \left[ - \left(1-\tanh^2(g_i^\prime) \right)\sum_{b} G_{ik}^\prime J_{kl} F^T_{lb} (1-m_b^2) \right] + \\
& + \sideset{}{'}\sum_{a} \left[ \frac{\tanh (g_a^\prime)}{\cosh^2 (g_a^\prime)} \frac{\partial g_a^\prime}{\partial J_{kl}} \sum_{bmn} F_{am}^\prime J^2_{mn} F^T_{nb} (1-m_b^2) \right] + \\
& + \sideset{}{'}\sum_{a} \left[ - \left(m_a^{2 \, \prime} - \tanh^2(g_a^\prime) \right) \sum_{b} F_{ak}^\prime J_{kl} F^T_{lb}(1-m_b^2) \right] \Bigg] $$
where the fields $g$ and their derivatives are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&g_i^\prime = \sum_{j} \sum_{kl} G_{ik}^\prime J_{kl} G^T_{lj} s_j + \sum_{b} \sum_{kl} G_{ik}^\prime J_{kl} F^T_{lb} m_b + h_i \\
&g_a^\prime = \sum_{j} \sum_{kl} F_{ak}^\prime J_{kl} G^T_{lj} s_j + \sum_{b} \sum_{kl} F_{ak}^\prime J_{kl} F^T_{lb} m_b + h_a \\
&\frac{\partial g_i^\prime}{\partial J_{kl}} = \sum_{j} G_{ik}^\prime G^T_{lj} s_j + \sum_{b} G_{ik}^\prime F^T_{lb} m_b \\
&\frac{\partial g_a^\prime}{\partial J_{kl}} = \sum_{j} F_{ak}^\prime G^T_{lj} s_j + \sum_{b} F_{ak}^\prime F^T_{lb} m_b \end{aligned}$$
The self consistency equations for the magnetizations $m$ are then obtained by imposing $\partial\Gamma_1 / \partial m_a(t) = 0$, finding
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
m_a = \tanh \Bigg[g_a &+ m_a \bigg[ &&\sideset{}{'}\sum_{i} \left(1-\tanh^2(g_i^\prime) \right) \sum_{kl} G_{ik}^\prime J_{kl}^2 F^T_{la} + \nonumber \\
& &&+ \sideset{}{'}\sum_{b} \left(m_b^{2 \, \prime} - \tanh^2 (g_b^\prime) \right) \sum_{kl} F_{bk}^\prime J_{kl}^2 F^T_{la} + \nonumber \\
& &&- \sideset{}{^-}\sum_{c}\sum_{kl} F_{ak} J_{kl}^2 F^{T \, -}_{lc} (1-m_c^{2 \, -}) \bigg] + \nonumber \\
&+ \sideset{}{'}\sum_{i} &&\left(s_i^\prime - \tanh (g_i^\prime) \right) \sum_{kl} G_{ik}^\prime J_{kl} F^T_{la} + \nonumber \\
&+ \sideset{}{'}\sum_{b} &&\left(m_b^\prime - \tanh (g_b^\prime) \right) \sum_{kl} F_{bk}^\prime J_{kl} F^T_{la} + \nonumber \\
&+ \sideset{}{'}\sum_i &&\frac{\tanh (g_i^\prime)}{\cosh^2 (g_i^\prime)} \sum_{oqb} G_{io}^\prime J_{oq} F^T_{qb} (1 - m_b^{2 \, \prime}) \sum_{kl} G_{ik}^\prime J_{kl} F^T_{la} + \nonumber \\
&+ \sideset{}{'}\sum_c &&\frac{\tanh (g_c^\prime)}{\cosh^2 (g_c^\prime)} \sum_{oqb} F_{co}^\prime J_{oq} F^T_{qb} \left(1-m_b^{2 \, \prime} \right) \sum_{kl} F_{ck}^\prime J_{kl} F^T_{la} \Bigg] \label{selfcon::3}\end{aligned}$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ has drawn much attention as the leading candidate to be the first topological superconductor and the realization of coveted Majorana particles in a condensed matter system. However, there has been increasing controversy about the nature of its superconducting phase. This study sheds light on present ambiguity in the normal state electronic state, by providing a complete look at the quantum oscillations in magnetization in Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ at intense high fields up to 31T. Our study focuses on the angular dependence of the quantum oscillation pattern in a low carrier concentration. As magnetic field tilts from along the crystalline c-axis to ab-plane, the change of the oscillation period follows the prediction of the ellipsoidal Fermi surface. As the doping level changes, the 3D Fermi surface is found to transform into quasi-cylindrical at high carrier density. Such a transition is potentially a Lifshitz transition of the electronic state in Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$.'
author:
- 'B. J. Lawson$^1$, G. Li$^1$, F. Yu$^1$, T. Asaba$^1$, C. Tinsman$^1$, T. Gao$^1$, W. Wang$^1$, Y. S. Hor$^2$, and Lu Li$^1$'
title: 'Quantum Oscillations in Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ in High Magnetic Fields '
---
Introduction
============
Topological superconductor is a novel phase of matter that has been theoretically predicted but yet to be experimentally verified. Among topological materials, topological superconductivity is especially interesting because it is a platform to realize Majorana particles - an elusive particle that is its own antiparticle. Furthermore, topological superconductors have been proposed as a platform for topological quantum computation. [@FuKane; @WilczekNat; @MooreNature] The robustness of the topological surface states makes this avenue an attractive alternative to traditional methods for realizing quantum computation. [@Kitaev]
A topological superconductor must have a full superconducting gap in the bulk with odd parity pairing, and the Fermi surface must enclose an odd number of time reversal invariant momenta in the Brillouin zone, i.e. the Fermi surface must contain an odd number of high symmetry points such as $\Gamma$, Z, X, etc. It also has a topologically protected gapless surface state with Majorana fermions. [@FuKane] Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ has been proposed as a leading candidate for topological superconductivity [@FuBerg] and has sparked a lot of interest. Experiments have shown that by intercalating Cu between Se layers in known topological insulator Bi$_2$Se$_3$ the compound becomes superconducting at 3.8 K. [@Hor104]
Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ has been confirmed to be a bulk superconductor with a full pairing gap by specific heat measurement. [@Kriener] There are some reports of surface Andreev bound states through the observation of Zero Bias Conductance Peak (ZBCP) [@Sasaki], but other reports that the ZBCP can be removed with gating. [@HPeng] Recent works using scanning tunneling spectroscopy also did not observed the ZBCP. [@Levy] ARPES measurements have argued against the topological superconducting mechanism in Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ by reporting an even number of time reversal invariant momenta in the Brillouin zone. [@Lahoud] Both ARPES and quantum oscillation experiments show a Dirac dispersion in Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ - a characteristic feature of topological systems. [@Wray; @Lawson] The continual interest in Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ and surmounting controversy of its exotic phase motivates this study for a more complete look at quantum oscillations in magnetization. This work is a continuation and expansion on our previous study of the de Haas-van Alphen effect in Cu$_{0.25}$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ [@Lawson] and now includes several samples at a variety of doping levels and complete angular dependence.
From mapping out the Fermi surface, we reveal a closed ellipsoidal Fermi surface that becomes increasingly elongated with increased carrier density. At high carrier concentration, the Fermi Surface crosses the Brillouin Zone boundary and becomes open and quasi-cylindrical. Amplitude damping analysis reveals a strongly anisotropic effective mass. The slope of the energy-momentum dispersion is unchanged with increased Fermi momentum confirming a linear, Dirac-like band structure in Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$. The manuscript will first introduce torque magnetometry which we use to resolve quantum oscillations, second it will discuss the results of the angular dependence of the quantum oscillation frequencies, then it will cover the various damping mechanisms of the quantum oscillation amplitude and the parameters extracted from that analysis.
Experiment
==========
Single crystals of Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ were grown by melting stoichiometric mixtures of high purity elements Bi (99.999%), Cu (99.99%), and Se (99.999%) in a sealed evacuated quartz tube then slowly cooling the mixture from 850$^{\circ}$C down to 620$^{\circ}$C at which point the crystal was quenched in cold water. The doping level was determined according to the mole ratio of the reactants used in the crystal growth, but the nominal doping did not end up corresponding with the measured carrier concentration leaving the precise number under suspicion. Therefore, in this study, we look at how parameters evolve with increased carrier concentration rather than the unreliable nominal doping. The samples used in the study were cut out of large boule of crystals. They are generally black, and the typical size is about 5 mm $\times$ 2 mm $\times$ 0.5 mm.
Quantum oscillations are used to resolve Fermi Surface geometry and to discover electronic properties of topological materials. Oscillations in magnetization, the de Haas-van Alphen effect (dHvA effect), arise from the quantization of the Fermi Surface into Landau Levels.
To measure quantum oscillations in magnetization, $M$, we employed a highly sensitive torque magnetometry method. Torque mangetometry measures the magnetic susceptibility anisotropy of the sample by putting the sample in a tilted magnetic field, $H$, where both $H$ and $M$ are confined to the x-z plane. The torque is then given by $\mathbf{\tau}=\mathbf{M}\times\mathbf{H}=(M_{z}H_{x}-M_{x}H_{z})\mathbf{j}$ and $|\tau|=\chi_{z}H_{z}H_{x}-\chi_{x}H_{x}H_{z}=\Delta\chi H^{2}\sin\phi \cos\phi$, where $\phi$ is the tilt angle of the magnetic field $\mathbf{H}$ away from the crystalline $\hat{c}$ axis and $\Delta\chi=\chi_{z}-\chi_{x}$.
We glue the sample to the head of a thin film cantilever. Both brass cantilevers and Kapton cantilevers with a metalized surface were used. The thinner 0.001 inch brass cantilevers with a higher Young’s modulus and the thicker 0.003 inch Katpon thin films with a lower Young’s modulus offer different spring constants that can provide a balance between strength for heavier samples and sensitivity. The magnetic torque was tracked by measuring the capacitance between the metal surface of the cantilever and a thin gold film underneath. An example of oscillations in the torque data after background subtraction is shown in Fig. \[figTorque\] with a schematic of the experimental setup in the upper right corner. Oscillations arise from Landau Level quantization. The frequency of this oscillation is proportional to the cross section of the Fermi Surface, $A$, by the Onsager relation: $$F_{s} = \frac{\hbar}{2\pi e} A.$$
To further analyze the oscillation torque pattern, a polynomial background is subtracted from the $\tau - H$ curve to get the oscillatory torque $\tau_{osc}$. A Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the oscillatory $\tau_{osc}$ vs. $1/\mu_0H$ is given in the lower left inset of Fig. \[figTorque\] revealing a single Fermi pocket.
Results
=======
The dHvA effect was observed in all of our Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ crystals. A typical example of our torque data as a function of $1/\mu_{0}H$ with the polynomial background subtracted is shown in Fig. \[figTorque\]. A single frequency of oscillations in magnetization reveal a single Fermi pocket. At 300 mK the oscillation frequency was measured as a function of angle up to 90$^{\circ}$. We further measured the temperature dependence of the oscillation amplitude at two different angles up to 25 K. A detailed analysis of the temperature and angular dependence of the quantum oscillations revealed the following features: 1) resolved quantum oscillations up to 90$^{\circ}$ at low carrier concentration shows a closed ellipsoidal Fermi surface, 2) the Fermi surface gets progressively elongated in the z-direction as carrier concentration increases and becomes open at high carrier density, 3) there is a strong effective mass anisotropy, and 4) the Fermi velocity is unchanged with increased carrier concentration supporting previous reports of a linear, Dirac-like dispersion in Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$.
Figure \[figangtorq\] shows the torque signal from Sample 4. In Panel a, oscillations are clearly seen up to 90$^{\circ}$ in raw data indicating a closed Fermi surface. Panel b shows the FFT of the raw signal from panel a. Clear angular dependence can be tracked up to 90$^{\circ}$, where $H$ is parallel to the plane. Previous studies [@Lawson]of the dHvA effect measured quantum oscillations up to 35$^{\circ}$. The observation of quantum oscillations up to 90$^{\circ}$ is important confirmation of the previous result that the Fermi Surface is an ellipsoid [@Lawson]. We note the sample with this 3D Fermi surface is superconducting, and the Meissner effect of Sample 4 is shown in Fig. \[figsupercon\] and discussed in detail there.
Figure \[figAng\] shows the angular dependence of the oscillation frequency for the various samples. The dashed lines are ellipsoidal fits given by $F(\phi)=F_{0}(\cos^{2}[\phi]+(\frac{k_{F}^{x}}{k_{F}^{z}})^{2}\sin^{2}[\phi])^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ where $F(\phi)$ is the frequency of the quantum oscillations at a particular $\phi$, and the fitted parameters are $F_{0}$ (the quantum oscillation frequency at $\phi$ = 0$^{\circ}$) and $\frac{k_{F}^{x}}{k_{F}^{z}}$ (a measure of the eccentricity of the Fermi surface). Most of the samples are fit well by a closed, ellipsoidal Fermi Surface; however, for the highest carrier concentration sample, a closed Fermi Surface fitting yields $k_{F}^{z}$ = 4.69 nm$^{-1}$, which is longer than the Brillouin Zone height [@Kohler] of 3.28 nm$^{-1}$. Thus, it is clear that the Fermi Surface becomes open at high carrier concentration - which was not seen in previous dHvA studies where there was only one sample of lower doping. [@Lawson]
The angular dependence of the quantum oscillation frequency provides the size of the Fermi pocket. From the Onsager relation, the frequency of the quantum oscillation is proportional to the cross-section area given by $A=\pi$$k_{F}^{x}$$k_{F}(\phi)$, with $k_F(\phi)$ and $k_x$ two semi-axes of the elliptical Fermi surface. Thus $F_{0}$ yields $k_{F}^{x}$ = $k_{F}^{y}$ and the eccentricity gives $k_{F}^{z}$. For Sample 4a, $k_{F}^{x}$ = $k_{F}^{y}$ = 0.95nm$^{-1}$ and $\frac{k_{F}^{z}}{k_{F}^{x}}$ = 2.06. For a closed Fermi pocket, the bulk carrier concentration, $n$, is given by $n=\frac{1}{3\pi^{2}}k_{F}^{x}k_{F}^{y}k_{F}^{z}$. For the sample with the open Fermi surface, we calculated the bulk carrier concentration from finding the volume of the Fermi surface. This volume is arrived by integrating the ellipsoidal fit up to the Brillouin Zone boundary. We assume that the deviation from the ellipsoidal fit around the Brillouin Zone boundary due to bending is small. In this case the carrier concentration is given by $n=\frac{1}{2\pi^{2}}k_{F}^{x}k_{F}^{y}(k_{BZ}-\frac{k_{BZ}^{3}}{k_{F}^{z2}})$ where $k_{BZ}$ is the $\Gamma-Z$ distance. This yields a carrier concentration for Sample 5. The inferred carrier densities $n$ are listed with other electronic parameters in Table \[density\].
$n (10^{19}cm^{-3})$ $F_{0} (T)$ $k_{fx} (nm^{-1})$ $k_{fz}/k_{fx}$
------ ---------------------- ------------- -------------------- --------------------
$4a$ 5.93$\pm $0.24 297$\pm $1 0.95$\pm $0.01 2.06$\pm $0.05
$4b$ 6.31$\pm $0.20 306$\pm $1 0.96$\pm $0.01 2.09$\pm $0.02
$1$ 6.78$\pm $0.73 292$\pm $1 0.94$\pm $0.01 2.41$\pm $0.25
$3$ 7.65$\pm $0.35 284$\pm $1 0.93$\pm $0.01 2.83$\pm $0.09
$2$ 10.05$\pm $1.18 317$\pm $1 0.98$\pm $0.01 3.16$\pm $0.36
$5$ 13.91$\pm $2.71 327$\pm $1 1.00$\pm $0.01 (4.69$\pm $0.79)\*
: \[density\] Summary of results in order of increasing carrier concentration. \*The value of $k_{fz}/k_{fx}$ for sample 5 is ill-defined since $k_{fz}$ is taller than the Brillouin Zone. This is the value extracted from the ellipsoidal fit.
\[parameter\]
The value of $k_{z}/k_{x}$ goes from 2.06 to 3.10 as the carrier concentration increases from 5.9x$10^{19}cm^{-3}$ to 10.1x$10^{19}cm^{-3}$ revealing that the Fermi Surface gets increasingly elongated in the z-direction as carriers are added. Then the Fermi Surface opens up and becomes quasi-cylindrical at high carrier concentration consistent with quantum oscillation measurements in magnetoresistence. [@Lahoud]
The effective mass was extracted from the temperature dependence of the oscillation amplitudes. The amplitude of the dHvA oscillation is damped by the thermal damping factor [@Shoenberg], $$R_{T}=\frac{\alpha Tm^{*}}{B\sinh(\alpha Tm^{*}/B)}$$ where the effective mass $m = m^*m_e$ and the Dingle temperature $T_D = \hbar/2\pi k_B \tau_S$. $\tau_S$ is the scattering rate, $m_e$ is the bare electron mass, $B = \mu_0H$ is the magnetic flux density, and $\alpha = 2\pi^2 k_B m_e/e \hbar \sim $14.69 T/K. Panel a of Fig. \[figTemp\] shows dHvA oscillations at temperatures ranging from 300 mK to 25 K. Panel b plots the normalized amplitudes of the peaks and the fitting is of the thermal damping factor from equation (2). For Sample 4, the effective mass increases from $0.16\pm0.01m_{e}$ to $0.32\pm0.01m_{e}$ as the angle increases from 15 to 65 degrees. Effective mass anisotropy was seen in very early studies of infrared reflection on Cu-doped Bi$_2$Se$_3$ measuring $m_{\parallel}/m_{\perp}$ to be 4.35. [@Tichy]
The Fermi velocity, $v_{F}$, was determined from the Fermi momentum, $k_{F}$, and the effective mass by $v_{f}= \hbar k_{F}/m$. The Fermi velocity is the slope of the energy momentum dispersion. For a quadratic dispersion, $v_{F}$ increases as $k_{F}$ gets larger. In contrast, for a linear dispersion, it should remain unchanged. In our results of a series of Cu doped Bi$_2$Se$_3$, the carrier density varies by an order of magnitude, yet the value of $v_F$ varies less than 16%, as shown in Table \[parameters\]. Even though with copper doping the Fermi momentum increases from 0.69nm$^{-1}$ to 1.00nm$^{-1}$, the Fermi velocity remains relatively unchanged. The consistency of the Fermi velocity, is evidence for a linear, Dirac-like band in Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$. This confirms this critical result observed in previous studies. [@Wray; @Lawson] Samples 3 and 4b are omitted from table \[parameters\] since we only studied their temperature dependence at high angle and thus did not measure their in-plane effective mass.
$n (10^{19}cm^{-3})$ $k_{fx} (nm^{-1})$ $v_{f} (10^{5}m/s)$
------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------- ---------------------
$1$ 6.78 0.94 6.4
$4a$ 5.93 0.95 6.9
$2$ 10.05 0.98 6.0
$5$ 13.91 1.00 6.8
Cu$_{0.25}$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ 4.3 0.97 5.8
Bi$_2$Se$_3$ 1.8 0.69 5.7
: \[parameters\] List of measured Fermi velocities of different samples in order of increasing Fermi momentum. The Fermi velocity remains unchanged indicating a linear dispersion. Last two samples are from Ref. [@Lawson]. Sample 4b and 3 are not listed here since the temperature dependence for those two samples were taken at high angle.
\[parameter\]
Further analysis of the quantum oscillation amplitude damping yields the mean free path and scattering rate of the samples. Figure \[figDingle\] shows the Dingle plot of Sample 4. The fit of the Dingle damping factor, $R_{D}=exp[-\alpha T_{D}m/B]$, to this plot give a Dingle temperature [@Shoenberg] of 57.1 K. $\alpha=2\pi^{2}k_{B}m_{e}/e\hbar\sim14.69\, T/K$. From the Dingle temperature, the scattering rate, $\tau$, can be extracted $T_{D}=\frac{\hbar}{2\pi k_{B}\tau}$. For this sample the scattering rate is 2.1x10$^{-14}$s. The mean free path is also determined from the scattering rate and the Fermi velocity by $l = v_{f} \tau$.
![\[figDingle\] (color online) Dingle plot of Sample 4a. Fitting is of the Dingle damping factor and it yields a Dingle temperature of 57.1K. ](LawsonFigure5.pdf){width="3.5"}
The results of the Dingle analysis including the scattering rate and mean free path of the various samples are given in Table \[Dingle\]. Samples 3 and 4b are not shown in Table \[Dingle\] since we only studied their temperature dependence at high angle and thus could not isolate the Dingle damping from the thermal damping at 0$^{\circ}$. Table \[Dingle\] also shows the effective mass of the various samples for which temperature dependence was measured at low angle. Sample 4b and 3, for which temperature dependence was measured at high angle, have effective masses of 0.32m$_e$ and 0.29m$_e$ at 65$^{\circ}$ and 57$^{\circ}$ respectively.
With the exception of Sample 4, scattering rate and mean free path is relatively constant with added carriers varying by 25% in a random fashion. This is consistent with what was reported in the previous dHvA study. [@Lawson] The average scattering rate, excluding the outlier, is 5.1x10$^{-14}$s and the average mean free path is 31nm. The variance in these parameters is based on sample quality. In the literature for clean samples, the Dingle temperature can be as low as 4 K [@Analytis], and for disordered samples, as high as 9.5 K. [@Eto] This suggests a high level of disorder in our Cu$_{x}$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ samples - especially in Sample 4.
$n (10^{19}cm^{-3})$ $m^{*}/m_e$ $T_{D} (K)$ $\tau_{s} (10^{-14}sec)$ $l (nm)$
------------------------- ---------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------------------- ----------
$4a$ 5.93 0.16 57.1 2.1 15
$1$ 6.78 0.17 20.7 5.9 38
$2$ 10.05 0.19 25.8 4.7 28
$5$ 13.91 0.17 27.7 4.4 30
Cu$_{0.25}$Bi$_2$Se$_3$ 4.3 0.19 23.5 5.2 30
Bi$_2$Se$_3$ 1.8 0.14 23.9 5.1 29
: \[Dingle\] Summary of results from effective mass and the Dingle analysis. Last two samples are from Ref. [@Lawson]. Sample 4b and 3 are not listed here since the temperature dependence for those two samples were taken at high angle.
\[parameter\]
In addition to determining the electronic state, we further measured the the superconducting fraction of Cu doped Bi$_2$Se$_3$. The magnetic susceptibility was measured in an Quantum Design Magnetic Property Measurement System 2 weeks after the high field torque experiments. The sample with the lowest carrier concentration shows a superconducting transition with a 16% superconducting volume as seen in Fig. \[figsupercon\]. Two of the higher carrier concentration samples showed no superconducting transition suggesting either that the sample quality deteriorates with time and exposure or the superconducting phase is killed in the over-doped regime.
At high carrier concentration, the Fermi Surface becomes quasi-cylindrical and contains both the $\Gamma$ and Z points. This indicates that a topological superconducting state does not exist at high carrier concentration since the Fermi surface must enclose an odd number of time reversal invariant momenta in the Brillouin zone for a topological superconductor. However, since superconductivity coexists with the closed Fermi Surface (which can only contain the $\Gamma$ point) in the low carrier density sample, a topological superconducting state can still exist in the lower carrier density samples of Cu$_x$Bi$_2$Se$_3$.
![\[figsupercon\] (color online) Volume susceptibility measurements of 3 different samples. Sample 4, the sample with lowest carrier concentration, shows a superconducting transition at 3 K and a 16% superconducting volume. Samples 3 and 5 do not show any superconducting property most likely due to sample quality degradation over time. ](LawsonFigure6.pdf){width="3.5"}
We note that Sample 4, though having the highest level of disorder, is the only sample to show a superconducting transition. The sample from the previous dHvA study had a Dingle temperature of 23.5 K much like the other samples and it also exhibited superconductivity. [@Lawson] Therefore, it is not the case that superconductivity only occurs in the extreme case of highly disordered samples, rather we suggest that Sample 4 had undergone the least amount of degradation and just happened to be the sample with the highest disorder.
Conclusion and Discussion
=========================
Quantum oscillations in magnetization were resolved using highly sensitive torque magnetometry up to 31 T. A single Fermi pocket was observed to be increasingly elongated with added carriers. The effective mass has strong anisotropy, and the Fermi velocity remains unchanged with increasing Fermi momentum suggesting a linear, Dirac-like dispersion.
The nature of the transition of the Fermi surface topology is an interesting question. At higher concentration, the elongated 3D ellipsoidal Fermi surface touches the Fermi surface in the neighboring Brillouin Zone, mandating the transition from the 3D Fermi surface to a 2D quasi-cylindrical one. Such an dramatic change of the Fermi surface topology suggests a Lifshitz transition as the Cu brings it extra carriers. Two experimental consequences are essential to confirm the dimensionality change and probe the nature of the transition. First, at higher $n$, the quasi-2D Fermi surface shall have two quantum oscillation frequencies, a large one from the belly, and a small one from the neck. The large frequency is what we observed in our dHvA measurement, [@Lawson] and confirmed by the SdH measurements. [@Lahoud] In contrast, the small neck frequency was not observed either in our dHvA measurements, nor in the SdH results. [@Lahoud] This point is in particular puzzling, though Ref. [@Lahoud] reports that the signal arising from the small neck may be too small do to large effective mass effects. Therefore, the quantum oscillation measurements at dilution refrigerator temperature range is called to resolve the second oscillation frequency to confirm the 2D to 3D transition.
Another interesting experiment would be to the enhancement of thermopower near the 3D to 2D transition. A topology change in the electronic state usually leads to a large thermopower, a typical signature of Lifshitz transition. [@Abrikosov; @LiMg] Further thermoelectric measurements are essential to confirm this nature. If the dimensionality changes indeed occur and enhance the thermopower greatly, the Cu doping might lead to another interesting application of topological materials in thermoelectrics.
[**Acknowledgement**]{} We are grateful to discussion with Liang Fu, Kai Sun, and A. Kanigel,. The work is supported by the National Science Foundation under Award number ECCS-1307744 (low field torque magnetometry), the Department of Energy under Award number DE-SC0008110 (high field torque magnetometry), by the start up fund and the Mcubed project at the University of Michigan (low field magnetic susceptibility characterization), and by the National Science Foundation under Award number DMR-1255607 (sample growth). The high-field experiments were performed at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, which is supported by NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DMR-084173, by the State of Florida, and by the DOE. We thank the assistance of Tim Murphy and Ju-Hyun Park of NHMFL. B. J. Lawson acknowledges the support by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. F031543. T. Asaba thanks the support from the Nakajima Foundation.
[99]{}
L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 096407 (2008).
F. Wilczek, Nat. Phys. [**5**]{}, 614 (2009).
J. E. Moore, Nature (London) [**464**]{}, 194 (2010).
A. Y. Kitaev. Physics-Uspekhi, 44:131 (2001).
L. Fu and E. Berg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 097001 (2010).
Y. S. Hor, A. J. Williams, J. G. Checkelsky, P. Roushan, J. Seo, Q. Xu, H. W. Zandbergen, A. Yazdani, N. P. Ong, and R. J. Cava, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 057001 (2010).
M. Kriener, K. Segawa, Z. Ren, S. Sasaki, and Y. Ando, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 127004 (2011).
S. Sasaki, M. Kriener, K. Segawa, K. Yada, Y. Tanaka, M. Sato, and Y. Ando, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 217001 (2011).
H. Peng, D. De, B. Lv, F. Wei, and C. W. Chu, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 024515 (2013).
N. Levy, T. Zhang, J. Ha, F. Sharifi, A. A. Talin, Y. Kuk, and J. A. Stroscio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 117001 (2013).
E. Lahoud, E. Maniv, M. S. Petrushevsky, M. Naamneh, A. Ribak, S. Wiedmann, L. Petaccia, Z. Salman, K.B. Chashka, Y. Dagan, and A. Kanigel, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 195107 (2013).
L. A. Wray, S.-Y. Xu, Y. Xia, Y. S. Hor, D. Qian, A. V. Fedorov, H. Lin, A. Bansil, R. J. Cava, and M. Z. Hasan, Nat. Phys. 6, [**855**]{} (2010).
B. J. Lawson, Y.S. Hor, Lu Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 226406 (2012).
H. Kohler and H. Fischer, Phys. Stat. Sol. B [**69**]{}, 349 (1975).
L. Tichy and J. Horak, Phys. Rev. B [**19**]{}, 1126 (1979).
D. Shoenberg, Magnetic Oscillations in Metals (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984).
J. G. Analytis, J. H. Chu, Y. Chen, F. Corredor, R. D. McDonald, Z.X. Shen, and I.R. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 205407 (2010).
K. Eto, Z. Ren, A. A. Taskin, K. Segawa, and Y. Ando, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 195309 (2010).
A. A. Abrikosov, Fundamentals of the theory of metals (North-Holland 1988).
V. S. Egorov and A. N. Fedorov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**85**]{}, 1647 (1983).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The overarching goal of this paper is to derive excess risk bounds for learning from exp-concave loss functions in passive and sequential learning settings. Exp-concave loss functions encompass several fundamental problems in machine learning such as squared loss in linear regression, logistic loss in classification, and negative logarithm loss in portfolio management. In batch setting, we obtain sharp bounds on the performance of empirical risk minimization performed in a linear hypothesis space and with respect to the exp-concave loss functions. We also extend the results to the online setting where the learner receives the training examples in a sequential manner. We propose an online learning algorithm that is a properly modified version of online Newton method to obtain sharp risk bounds. Under an additional mild assumption on the loss function, we show that in both settings we are able to achieve an excess risk bound of $O(d\log n/n)$ that holds with a *high probability*.'
author:
- |
Mehrdad Mahdavi\
\
- |
Rong Jin\
\
bibliography:
- 'exponential-concave.bib'
title: Excess Risk Bounds for Exponentially Concave Losses
---
Introduction
============
We investigate the excess risk bounds for learning a linear classifier using a exponentially concave (abbr. as exp-concave) loss function (see e.g., [@hazan-2007-logarithm] and [@Cesa-Bianchi:2006:PLG]). More specifically, let $\mathcal{S} = \{(\x_1,y_1), (\x_2,y_2), \cdots, (\x_n,y_n)\} \in \Xi^n$ be a set of i.i.d. training examples sampled from an unknown distribution $\D$ over instance space $\Xi = \X \times \Y$, where $\x_i \in \X \subseteq \R^d$ with $\|\x_i\| \leq 1$ and $\y_i \in \Y := \{-1, +1\}$ and $\y_i \in \Y := [-1, +1]$ in classification and regression problems, respectively. Let $\W = \{\w \in \R^d: \|\w\| \leq R\}$ be our domain of linear classifiers with bounded norm, where $R > 0$ determines the size of the domain. We aim at finding a learner $\w \in \W$ with the assist of training samples $\S$ that generalizes well on unseen instances.
Let $\ell(z): \R \mapsto \R_{+}$ be the convex surrogate loss function used to measure the classification error. In this work, we are interested in learning problems where the loss function $\ell(z)$ is a one-dimensional exponentially concave function with constant $\alpha > 0$ (i.e., $\exp(-\alpha z)$ is concave for any $|z| \leq R$). Examples of such loss functions are the squared loss used in regression, logistic loss used in classification, and negative logarithm loss used in portfolio management [@korenopen; @hazan-2007-logarithm; @brenden-open; @agarwal-2006-newton]. Similar to most analysis of generalization performance, we assume $\ell(z)$ to be Lipschitz continuous with constant $G$, i.e. $|\ell'(z)| \leq G$. Define $\le(\w)$ as the expected loss function for an arbitrary classifier $\w \in \W$, i.e. $$\le(\w) = \E_{(\x, y) \sim \D}\left[ \ell(y\w^{\top}\x) \right].$$ Let $\w_* \in \W$ be the optimal solution that minimizes $\le(\w)$ over the domain $\W$, i.e. $\w_* = \mathop{\arg\min}_{\w \in \W} \le(\w)$. We note that the exp-concavity of individual loss functions $\ell(\cdot)$ also implies the exp-concavity of the expected function $\le(\w)$ (a straightforward proof can be found in [@korenopen Lemma 1]). Our goal is to efficiently learn a classifier $\wh$ with the help of training set $\mathcal{S}$ with small excess risk defined by: $$\mathscr{E}_P(\wh) := \le(\wh) - \min_{\w \in\W} \le(\w) = \le(\wh) - \le(\w_*).$$
While the main focus of statistical learning theory was on understanding learnability and sample complexity by investigating the complexity of hypothesis class in terms of known combinatorial measures, recent advances in online learning and optimization theory opened a new trend in understanding the generalization ability of learning algorithms in terms of the characteristics of loss functions being used in convex learning problems. In particular, a staggering number of results have focused on strong convexity of loss function (that is a stronger condition than exp-concavity) and obtained better generalization bounds which are referred to as *fast* rates [@kakade2008generalization; @sridharan2008fast]. In terms of smoothness of loss function, a recent result [@srebro2010smoothness] has shown that under smoothness assumption, it is possible to obtain *optimistic* rates (in the sense that smooth losses yield better generalization bounds when the problem is easier and the expected loss of optimal classifier is small), which are more appealing than Lipschitz continuous cases. This work extends the results to exp-concave loss functions and investigates how to obtain sharper excess risk bounds for learning from such functions. We note that although the online Newton method [@hazan-2007-logarithm] yields $O(d\log n)$ regret bound, it is only able to achieve an $O(d\log n/n)$ bound for excess risk in expectation. In contrast, the excess risk bounds analyzed in this work are all in high probability sense.
We consider two settings to learn a classifier from the provided training set $\S$. In *statistical setting* (also called batch learning) [@bousquet2004introduction], we assume that the learner has access to all training examples in advance, and in *online setting* the examples are assumed to become available to the learner one at a time. We show that with an additional assumption regarding the exponential concave loss function, we will be able to achieve an excess risk bound of $O(d\log n/n)$, which is significantly faster than $O(1/\sqrt{n})$ rate for general convex Lipschitz loss functions. The proof of batch setting utilizes the notion of local Radamacher complexities and involves novel ingredients tailored to exp-concave functions in order to obtain sharp convergence rates. In online setting, the results follows from Bernstein inequality for martingales and peeling process. We note that fast rates are possible and well known in sequential prediction via the notion of mixable losses [@vovk1995game], and in batch setting under Tsybakov’s margin condition with $\kappa = 1$ [@tsybakov2004optimal], where the relation between these two settings has been recently investigated via the notion of stochastic mixability [@van2012mixability]. However, our analysis and conditions are different and only focuses on the exp-concavity property of the loss to derive an $O(\log n/n)$ risk bound.
The Algorithms
==============
We study two algorithms for learning with exp-concave loss functions. The first algorithm that is devised for batch setting is simply based on empirical risk minimization. More specifically, it learns a classifier from the space of linear classifiers $\W$ by solving the following optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\min\limits_{\w \in \W} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \ell(y_i\w^{\top}\x_i). \label{eqn:opt}\end{aligned}$$ The optimal solution to (\[eqn:opt\]) is denoted by $\wh_*$. Here, we are not concerned with the optimization procedure to find $\wh_*$ and only investigate the access risk of obtained classifier $\wh_*$ with respect to the optimal classifier $\w_*$.
step size $\eta_1 >0$ and smoothing parameter $a > 0$
$\w_1 = \mathbf{0}$ and $\M_0 = a \I$
Receive training example $(\x_i, y_i)$ Compute $\M_i = \M_{i-1} + \x_i\x_i^{\top}$ and the covariance matrix $\Z_i = \M_i/i$ Compute the gradient $\v_i = \ell'(y_i\w_i^{\top}\x_i)\x_i$ and step size $\eta_i = \eta_1/i$ Update the solution $\w_i$ by solving the following optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\w_{i+1} = \mathop{\arg\min}\limits_{\w \in \W} \eta_i\langle \w, \v_i \rangle + \frac{1}{2}\|\w - \w_i\|_{\Z_i}^2 \label{eqn:update-1}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\|\w\|_{\Z_i} = \w^{\top} \Z_i \w$. $\wh_* = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \w_i$.
\[alg:2\]
Our second algorithm is a modified online Newton method [@hazan-2007-logarithm]. Algorithm \[alg:2\] gives the detailed steps. The key difference between Algorithm \[alg:2\] and the online Newton algorithm [@hazan-2007-logarithm] is that at each iteration, it estimates a smoothed version of the covariance matrix $\Z$ using the training examples received in the past. In contrast, the online Newton method takes into account the gradient $\ell'(y_i\w_i^{\top}\x_i)$ when updating $\Z_i$. It is this difference that allows us to derive an $O(d\log n /n)$ excess risk bound for the learned classifier. The classifier learned from the online algorithm $\wh_*$ is simply the average of solutions obtained over all iterations. We also note that the idea of using an estimated covariance matrix for online learning and optimization has been examined by several studies [@crammer2010learning; @crammer2009adaptive; @duchi2011adaptive; @orabona2010new]. It is also closely related to the technique of time varying potential discussed in [@cesa2002second; @Cesa-Bianchi:2006:PLG] for regression. Unlike these studies that are mostly focused on obtaining regret bound, we aim to study the excess risk bound for the learned classifier.
Main Results
============
We first state the result of batch learning problem in (\[eqn:opt\]), and then the result of online learning algorithm that is detailed in Algorithm \[alg:2\]. In order to achieve an excess risk bound better than $O(1/\sqrt{n})$, we introduce following key assumption for the analysis of the empirical error minimization problem in (\[eqn:opt\]) $$\begin{aligned}
& \mbox{\bf Assumption I} & \mbox{there exists a constant $\theta > 0$ s. t. } \E\left[[\ell'(y\w_*^{\top}\x)]^2\x\x^{\top} \right] \succeq \theta \E\left[\x\x^{\top}\right].\end{aligned}$$ For the online learning method in Algorithm \[alg:2\], we strengthen Assumption (I) as: $$\begin{aligned}
& \mbox{\bf Assumption II} & \mbox{there exists a constant $\theta > 0$ s. t. } \E\left[[\ell'(y\w^{\top}\x)]^2\x\x^{\top} \right] \succeq \theta \E[\x\x^{\top}], \forall \w \in \W.\end{aligned}$$ Note that unlike Assumption (I) that only requires the property to hold with respect to the optimal solution $\w_*$, Assumption (II) requires the property to hold for any $\w \in \W$, making a stronger assumption than Assumption (I). We also note that Assumption (II) is closely related to strong convexity assumption. In particular, it is easy to verify that when $\E[\x\x^{\top}]$ is strictly positive definite, the expected loss $\L(\w)$ will be strongly convex in $\w$ by using the property of exponential concave function.
The following lemma shows a general scenario when both Assumptions (I) and (II) hold.
\[lem:0\] Suppose (i) $\Pr(y=1|\x) \geq q$ and $\Pr(y=-1|\x) \geq q$ for any $\x \in \mathcal{X}$, where $q > 0$, and (ii) $\ell'(0) >0$. Then Assumption (I) and (II) hold with $\theta \geq q[\ell'(0)]^2$
We first bound $\E\left[[\ell'(y\w^{\top}\x)]^2|\x\right]$ for any given $\x \in \X$ by $$\E\left[[\ell'(y\w^{\top}\x)]^2|\x\right] \geq q\left([\ell'(\w^{\top}\x)]^2 + [\ell'(-\w^{\top}\x)]^2\right)$$ Since $\ell'(z)$ is monotonically increasing function, we have $$|\ell'(0)| \leq \max(|\ell'(\w^{\top}\x)|, |\ell'(-\w^{\top}\x)|)$$ and therefore $$\E\left[[\ell'(y\w^{\top}\x)]^2|\x\right] \geq q[\ell'(0)]^2$$ implying that $\E\left[[\ell'(y\w^{\top}\x)]^2 \x\x^{\top} \right] \geq q[\ell'(0)]^2\E[\x\x^{\top}]$ as desired.
We note that $\ell'(0) > 0$ is the necessary and sufficient condition that the convex surrogate loss function for 0-1 loss function to be classification-calibrated [@bartlett-2003-convexity], and therefore is almost unavoidable if our final goal is to minimize the binary classification error.
The excess risk bound for the batch learning algorithm is given in the following theorem.
\[thm:excess-risk\] Suppose Assumption (I) holds. Let $\wh_*$ be the solution to the convex optimization problem in (\[eqn:opt\]). Define $$\gamma = \max\left(1, \frac{G^2}{\theta}, \frac{G}{\alpha \theta R}\right), \quad \rho_0 = \max\left(32\gamma, \sqrt{\gamma\left(28 + \frac{3}{GR}\right)}\right).$$ Then with a probability $1 - 2me^{-t}$, where $m = \lceil \log_2 n\rceil$, we have $$\lb(\wh_*) - \lb(\w_*) \leq \left(GR\left[32 \rho_0 + 28\right] + 3\right)\frac{t + 2 + d\log n}{n} = \tilde{O}\left( \frac{d\log n}{n} \right).$$
The following theorem provides the excess risk bound for Algorithm \[alg:2\] where training examples ae received in an online fashion and the final solution is reported as the average of all the intermediate solution.
\[thm:1\] Suppose Assumption (II) holds. Let $\wh_*$ be the average solution returned by Algorithm \[alg:2\], with $\eta_1 = \max(1, 3/[\theta\beta])$ and $a= \eta_1^2G^2d/[4R^2]$. With a probability $1 - 2me^{-t}$, where $m = \lceil \log_2 n \rceil$, we have $$\lb(\wh_*) - \lb(\w_*) \leq \rho_0GR\frac{d}{n}\log\left( 1 + \frac{4 n}{\gamma^2 d^2}\right) + 3GR(2\gamma + 1)t = \tilde{O}\left( \frac{d\log n}{n} \right).$$
As indicated in Theorems \[thm:excess-risk\] and \[thm:1\], the excess risk for both batch learning and online learning is reduced at the rate of $O(d\log n/n)$, which is consistent with the regret bound for online optimizing the exponentially concave loss functions [@hazan-2007-logarithm]. We note that the linear dependence on $d$ is in general unavoidable. This is because when $\E[\x\x^{\top}]$ is strictly positive definite, the function $\L(\w)$ will be strongly convex with modulus proportion to $\lambda_{\min}\left(\E[\x\x^{\top}]\right)$. Since $\lambda_{\min}\left(\E[\x\x^{\top}]\right) \propto 1/d$, we would expect a linear dependence on $d$ based on the minimax convergence rate of stochastic optimization for strongly convex function. Finally, we note that for strongly convex loss functions, it is known that an $O(1/n)$ excess risk bound can be achieved without the $\log n$ factor. It is however unclear if the $\log n$ factor can be removed from the excess risk bounds for exponential concave functions, a question to be investigated in the future.
Comparing the result of online learning with that of batch learning, we observe that, although both achieve similar excess risk bounds, batch learning algorithm is advantageous in two aspects. First, the batch learning algorithm has to make a weaker assumption about the data (i.e. Assumption (I) vs. Assumption (II)). Second, the batch learning algorithm does not have to know the parameter $\alpha$ and $\theta$ in advance, which is important for online learning method to determine the step size $\eta_1$.
Analysis
========
We now turn to the proofs of our main results. The main steps in each proof are provided in the main text, with some of the more technical results deferred to the appendix.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:excess-risk\]
------------------------------------
Our analysis for batch setting is based on the Talagrand’s inequality and in particular its variant (Klein-Rio bound) with improved constants derived in [@klein2005concentration] (see also [@vladimir-2011-oracle Chapter 2]). To do so, we define $$\|P_n - P\|_{\W} = \sup\limits_{\w \in \W} \left|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \left [ \ell(y_i\w^{\top}\x_i) - \ell(y_i\w_*^{\top}\x_i)\right] - \E_{(\x, y)}\left[\ell(y\w^{\top}\x) - \ell(y\w_*^{\top}\x)\right] \right|$$ and $$U(\W) = \max\limits_{\w \in \W, \|\x\| \leq 1} \ell(y\w^{\top}\x) - \ell(y\w_*^{\top}\x), \; \sigma_P(\W) = \sup\limits_{\w \in \W} \E_{(\x, y)}\left[(\ell(y\w^{\top}\x) - \ell(y\w_*^{\top}\x))^2 \right].$$ The analysis is rooted in the following concentration inequality:
\[thm:Talagrand\] We have $$\Pr\left\{\|P_n - P\|_{\W} \geq 2\E\|P_n - P\|_{\W} + \sigma_P(\W)\sqrt{\frac{2t}{n}} + \frac{(U(\W) +3)t}{3n} \right\} \leq e^{-t}.$$
The following property of exponential concave loss function from [@hazan-2007-logarithm] will be used throughout the paper.
\[thm:exponential-concave\] If a function $f:\W \mapsto \R$ is such that $exp(-\alpha f(\w))$ is concave, and has gradient bounded by $\|\nabla f\| \leq G$, then there exists $\beta \leq \frac{1}{2}\min(\alpha, 1/[4GR])$ such that the following holds $$f(\w) \geq f(\w') + (\w - \w')^{\top}\nabla f(\w') + \frac{\beta}{2}\left[ \nabla f(\w')^{\top} (\w - \w') \right]^2, \forall \w, \w' \in \W.$$
The key quantity for our analysis is the following random variable: $$\rho(\w) = \frac{1}{2R}\sqrt{\E[|\x^{\top}(\w - \w_*)|]^2}.$$ Evidently, $\rho(\w) \leq 1, \forall \w \in \W$. The following lemma deals with the concentration of $\rho(\w)$.
\[lem:1\] Define $\Delta = \left\{\w \in \W: \rho(\w) \leq \rho \right\}$. Then, with a probability $1 - e^{-t}$, we have, $$\frac{1}{n}\sup\limits_{\w \in \Delta} \sum_{i=1}^n \left[\x_i^{\top}(\w - \w_*)\right]^2 \leq 10R^2\left(\rho^2 + \frac{t + 1 + d\log n}{n} \right)$$
Fix a $\w \in \Delta := \left\{\w \in \W: \rho(\w) \leq \rho \right\}$. Using the standard Bernstein’s inequality [@boucheron2004concentration], we have, with a probability $1 - e^{-t}$, $$\left|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n [\x_i^{\top}(\w - \w_*)]^2 - \E[((\w - \w_*)^{\top}\x)^2]\right| \leq \frac{16R^2 t}{3n} + 2R\sqrt{\frac{2\E[((\w - \w_*)^{\top}\x)^2]t}{n}}$$ By definition of the domain $\Delta$, i.e., $\rho(\w) = \frac{1}{2R}\sqrt{\E[|\x^{\top}(\w - \w_*)|]^2} \leq \rho$ and above concentration result we obtain: $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n [\x_i^{\top}(\w - \w_*)]^2 \leq 4R^2\left(\rho^2 + \frac{4t}{3n} + \rho\sqrt{\frac{2 t}{n}}\right) \leq 10R^2\left(\rho^2 + \frac{t}{n}\right)$$ Next, we consider a discrete version of the space $\Delta$. Let $\N(\Delta, \epsilon)$ be the proper $\epsilon$-net of $\Delta$. Since $\Delta \subseteq \W$, we have $$|\N(\Delta, \epsilon)| \leq |\N(\W, \epsilon)| \leq \left(\frac{3R}{\epsilon}\right)^d$$ Using the union bound, we have, with a probability $1 - e^{-t}$, for any $\w \in \N(\Delta, 3R/\sqrt{n})$, $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n [\x_i^{\top}(\w - \w_*)]^2 \leq 10R^2\left(\rho^2 + \frac{t + d \log n}{n}\right)$$ Since for any $\w \in \Delta$, there exists $\w' \in \N(\Delta, 3R/\sqrt{n})$, such that $\|\w - \w'\|_2 \leq 3R/\sqrt{n}$, we have, with a probability $1 - e^{-t}$, for any $\w \in \Delta$, $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n [\x_i^{\top}(\w - \w_*)]^2 \leq 10R^2\left(\rho^2 + \frac{t + 1 + d \log n}{n} \right),$$ as desired.
Define $\rh = \rho(\wh_*)$. The next theorem allows us to bound the excess risk using the random variable $\rh$.
\[thm:rho\] With a probability $1 - 2me^{-t}$, where $m = \lceil \log n \rceil$, we have $$\lb(\wh_*) - \lb(\w_*) \leq GR\left(26\left[\rh \sqrt{\frac{\tt}{n}} + \frac{\tt}{n} \right] + 6\rh\sqrt{\frac{\tt}{n}} + \frac{2\tt}{n}\right) + \frac{3 \tt}{n}$$ where $\tt = t + 2 + d\log n$.
Taking this statement as given for the moment, we proceed with the proof of Theorem \[thm:excess-risk\], returning later to establish the claim stated in Theorem \[thm:rho\]. Our overall strategy of proving Theorem \[thm:excess-risk\] is to first bound $\rh$ by using the property of exp-concave function and the result from Theorem \[thm:rho\], and then bound the excess risk. More specifically, using the result from Theorem \[thm:rho\], we have, with a probability at least $1 - 2me^{-t}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lb(\wh_*) - \lb(\w_*) \leq GR\left(26\left[\rh \sqrt{\frac{\tt}{n}} + \frac{\tt}{n} \right] + 6\rh\sqrt{\frac{\tt}{n}} + \frac{2\tt}{n}\right) + \frac{3 \tt}{n} \label{eqn:bound-2-1}\end{aligned}$$ Using the property of exp-concave loss functions stated in Theorem \[thm:exponential-concave\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lb(\wh_*) - \lb(\w_*) & \geq & (\wh_* - \w_*)^{\top}\nabla \lb(\w_*) + \frac{\beta}{2}\E\left[[\ell'(y\w_*^{\top}\x)(\wh_* - \w_*)^{\top}\x]^2 \right] \\
& \geq & \frac{\beta}{2}\E\left[[\ell'(y\w_*^{\top}\x)(\wh_* - \w_*)^{\top}\x]^2 \right]\end{aligned}$$ where the second step follows from the fact that $\w_*$ minimizes $\lb(\w)$ over the domain $\W$ and as a result $(\wh_* - \w_*)^{\top}\nabla \lb(\w_*) \geq 0$. We then use Assumption (I) to get $$\E\left[[\ell'(y\w_*^{\top}\x)(\wh_* - \w_*)^{\top}\x]^2 \right] \geq \theta \E\left[((\wh_* - \w_*)^{\top}\x)^2\right] = 4\theta R^2\rh^2$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\lb(\wh_*) - \lb(\w_*) \geq 2\beta\theta R^2 \rh^2. \label{eqn:bound-2-2}\end{aligned}$$ Combining the bounds in (\[eqn:bound-2-1\]) and (\[eqn:bound-2-2\]), we have, with a probability $1 - 2me^{-t}$, $$\rh^2 \leq \frac{G}{2\beta \theta R}\left(32\rh\sqrt{\frac{\tt}{n}} + 28\frac{\tt}{n}\right) + \frac{3\tt}{2\beta\theta R^2 n}$$ implying that $$\rh \leq \max\left(\frac{32 G}{\beta\theta R} , \sqrt{\frac{G}{\beta\theta R}\left(28 + \frac{3}{GR}\right)} \right)\sqrt{\frac{\tt}{n}}.$$ We derive the final bound for $\rh$ by plugging the bound for $\beta$. The excess risk bound is completed by plugging the above bound for $\rh$.
We now turn to proving the result stated in Theorem \[thm:rho\].\
Our analysis will be based on the technique of local Rademacher complexity [@bartlett2005local; @koltchinskii2006local; @vladimir-2011-oracle]. The notion of local Rademacher complexity works by considering Rademacher averages of smaller subsets of the hypothesis set. It generally leads to sharper learning bounds which, under certain general conditions, guarantee a faster convergence rate. Define $\rho_0 = 1/n$. We divide the range $[\rho_0, 1]$ into $m = \lceil\log_2 n\rceil$ segments, with $[\rho_0, \rho_1]$, $[\rho_1, \rho_2]$, ..., $[\rho_{m-1}, \rho_{m}]$, where $\rho_k = \rho_0 2^k$. Let $\rh = \rho(\wh_*)$. Note that $\rh$ is a random variable depending on the sampled training examples.
As the first step, we assume that $\rh \in [\rho_k, \rho_{k+1}]$ for some fixed $k$. Define domain $\Delta$ as $$\Delta = \left\{ \w \in \W: \rho(\w) \leq \rho_{k+1} \right\}$$ Using the Telegrand inequality, with a probability at least $1 - e^{-t}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lb(\wh_*) - \lb(\w_*) \leq 2\E\|P_n - P\|_{\Delta} + \sigma_P(\Delta)\sqrt{\frac{2t}{n}} + \frac{\left(U(\Delta) + 3\right)t}{n} \label{eqn:bound-1-1}\end{aligned}$$ We now bound each item on the right hand side of (\[eqn:bound-1-1\]). First, we bound $\E\|P_n - P\|_{\Delta}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\E\|P_n - P\|_{\Delta} & = & \frac{2}{n}\E\left[\sup\limits_{\w \in \Delta} \sum_{i=1}^n \sigma_i\left(\ell(y_i\w^{\top}\x_i) - \ell(y_i\w_*^{\top}\x_i)\right) \right] \\
& \leq & \frac{4G}{n}\E\left[\sup\limits_{\w \in \Delta} \sum_{i=1}^n y_i\sigma_i\x_i^{\top}(\w - \w_*)\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_n$ are Rademacher random variables and the second step utilizes the contraction property of Rademacher complexity.
To bound $\E\|P_n - P\|_{\Delta}$, we need to bound $\sup_{\w\in \Delta} \sum_{i=1}^n [\x_i^{\top}(\w - \w_*)]^2$. Using Lemma \[lem:1\], we have, with a probability $1 - e^{-t}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\E\|P_n - P\|_{\Delta} & \leq & \frac{4G}{\sqrt{n}}\sqrt{\sup\limits_{\w \in \Delta} \sum_{i=1}^n [\x_i^{\top}(\w - \w_*)]^2} \leq \frac{13GR}{\sqrt{n}}\sqrt{\rho_{k+1}^2 + \frac{t + 1 + d\log n}{n}} \\
& \leq & 13GR\left(\frac{\sqrt{t + 1 + d\log n}}{n} + \frac{\rho_{k+1}}{\sqrt{n}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ Next, we bound $\sigma_P(\Delta)$ and $U(\Delta)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\sigma^2_P(\Delta)} \\
& \leq& \sup_{\w \in \Delta} \E\left[(\ell(y\w^{\top}\x) - \ell(y\w_*^{\top}\x))^2 \right] \\
& \leq& \sup_{\w \in \Delta}G^2\E[((\w - \w_*)^{\top}\x)^2] = 4R^2G^2\rho_{k+1}^2\end{aligned}$$ and $U(\Delta) \leq 2GR$. By putting the above results together, under the assumption $\rh \in [\rho_k, \rho_{k+1}]$, we have, with a probability $1 - 2 e^{-t}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lb(\wh_*) - \lb(\w_*) \leq 26GR\left[\frac{\rho_{k+1}}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sqrt{t+1+d\log n}}{n} \right] + 2GR\rho_{k+1}\sqrt{\frac{2t}{n}} + \frac{(2GR + 3)t}{n} \label{eqn:bound-1-2}\end{aligned}$$ Define $\tt = t + 2 + d\log n$. Using the fact that $\rho_{k+1} \leq 2\rh$, we can rewrite the bound in (\[eqn:bound-1-2\]) as $$\lb(\wh_*) - \lb(\w_*) \leq 26GR\left[\frac{\rh \tt}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sqrt{\tt}}{n} \right] + 6GR\rh\sqrt{\frac{\tt}{n}} + \frac{(2GR + 3)\tt}{n}$$ By taking the union bound over all the segments, with probability $1 - 2me^{-t}$, for any $\rh \in [\rho_0, 1]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lb(\wh_*) - \lb(\w_*) \leq 26GR\left[\rh\sqrt{\frac{\tt}{n}} + \frac{\sqrt{\tt}}{n} \right] + 6GR\rh\sqrt{\frac{\tt}{n}} + \frac{(2GR + 3)\tt}{n} \label{eqn:bound-1-3}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, when $\rh \leq \rho_0 = 1/n$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lb(\wh_*) - \lb(\w_*) \leq 2R\rho_0G \leq \frac{2RG}{n} \label{eqn:bound-1-4}\end{aligned}$$ We complete the proof by combining the bounds in (\[eqn:bound-1-3\]) and (\[eqn:bound-1-4\]).
Proof of Theorem \[thm:1\] {#sec:stochastic}
--------------------------
We now turn to proving the main result on the excess risk for online setting. Define the covariance matrix $\H$ as $\H = \E_{\x}[\x\x^{\top}]$. The following theorem bounds $\lb(\w_i) - \lb(\w_*)$ by exploiting the property of exponentially concave functions (i.e., Theorem \[thm:exponential-concave\]) and Assumption (II). Define $\delta_i$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_i = \nabla \lb(\w_i) - \ell'(y_i \x_i^{\top}\w_i) \x_i. \label{eqn:delta}\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:bound-1\] Suppose Assumption (II) holds. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\lb(\w_i) - \lb(\w_*) + \frac{\theta \beta}{3}\|\w_i - \w_*\|_\H^2} \nonumber \\
& \leq & \frac{\|\w_i - \w_*\|_{\M_{i-1}}^2}{2\eta_1} - \frac{\|\w_{i+1} - \w_*\|_{\M_{i}}^2}{2\eta_1} + \frac{\eta_1 G^2}{2}\x_i^{\top}\M^{-1}_i\x_i + (\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\delta_i \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{\theta\beta}{6}\left( \left[(\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\x_i\right]^2- \|\w_i - \w_*\|_\H^2\right), \label{eqn:bound-iter}\end{aligned}$$ where $\|\w\|_{\H}^2 = \langle \w, \H\w \rangle$.
We have \[lemma:trace\] $$\x_i^{\top}\M_i^{-1}\x_i \leq \ln \det(\M_i) - \ln \det(\M_{i-1})$$
By using Lemma \[lemma:trace\] and adding the inequalities in (\[eqn:bound-iter\]) over all the iterations, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lb(\w_i) - \lb(\w_*) + \frac{\theta\beta}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\|\w_i - \w_*\|^2_{\H}} \nonumber \\
& \leq & \frac{\|\w_1 - \w_*\|_{\M_0}^2}{2\eta_1} + \frac{\eta_1 G^2}{2}\underbrace{\left(\log\det(\M_n) - \log \det(\M_0)\right)}_{\equiv \Delta_1} + \underbrace{\sum_{i=1}^{n} (\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\delta_i}_{\equiv \Delta_2} \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{\theta\beta}{6}\underbrace{\sum_{i=1}^n \left[(\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\x_i\right]^2- \|\w_i - \w_*\|_\H^2}_{\equiv \Delta_3}. \label{eqn:comb-bound}\end{aligned}$$ We will bound $\Delta_1$, $\Delta_2$, and $\Delta_3$, separately. We start by bounding $\Delta_1$ as indicated by the following lemma.
\[lem:logdet\] $$\Delta_1 \leq d\log\left(1 + \frac{n}{ad}\right)$$
To bound $\Delta_2$, we define $A = \sum_{i=1}^n \|\w_i - \w_*\|_{\H}^2$. Using the Berstein inequality for martingale [@boucheron2004concentration] and peeling process [@vladimir-2011-oracle], we have the following lemmas for bounding $\Delta_2$ and $\Delta_3$.
We have\[lem:Delta2\] $$\Pr\left(A \leq \frac{4R^2}{n}\right) + \Pr\left(\Delta_2 \leq \left[\frac{6G^2}{\theta\beta} + G R\right] t + \frac{\theta\beta}{6}A\right) \geq 1 - me^{-t}$$ where $ m = \lceil 2 \log_2 n \rceil$.
We have\[lem:Delta3\] $$\Pr\left(A \leq \frac{4R^2}{n}\right) + \Pr\left(\Delta_3 \leq 8R^2 t + A\right) \geq 1 - me^{-t}$$ where $m = \lceil 2 \log_2 n \rceil$.
First, we consider the case when $A \leq 4R^2/n$ and show the following bound.
\[lemma:bound-3\] Assume that the condition $A \leq 4R^2/n$ holds. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \lb(\w_i) - \lb(\w_*) + \frac{\theta\beta}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \|\w_i - \w_*\|_{\H}^2 \leq 2RG. \label{eqn:bound-15}\end{aligned}$$
Second, we assume that the following two conditions hold $$\Delta_2 \leq \left[\frac{6G^2}{\theta\beta} + G R\right] t + \frac{\theta\beta}{6}A, \; \Delta_3 \leq 8R^2 t + A$$ Combining the above conditions with Lemma \[lem:logdet\] and using the inequality in (\[eqn:comb-bound\]), we have $$\sum_{i=1}^{n} \lb(\w_i) - \lb(\w_*) \leq \frac{2aR^2}{\eta_1} + \frac{\eta_1 G^2}{2}d\log\left(1 + \frac{n}{ad}\right) + \left[\frac{6G^2}{\theta\beta} + G R + \frac{4\theta\beta}{3}R^2\right] t.$$ Using the fact that $\eta_1 \geq 3/[\theta\beta]$, we set $a = \eta_1^2 G^2 d/[4R^2]$, we have $$\sum_{i=1}^{n} \lb(\w_i) - \lb(\w_*) \leq \frac{3G^2}{\theta\beta} d\log\left(1 + \frac{4 R^2 \theta \beta^2 n}{G^2 d^2}\right) + \left[\frac{6G^2}{\theta\beta} + G R + \frac{4\theta\beta}{3}R^2\right] t.$$ We complete the proof by combining the two cases.
Conclusions and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
===========================
In this work, we addressed the generalization ability of learning from exp-concave loss functions in batch and online settings. For both cases we show that the excess risk bound can be bounded by $O(d\log n/n)$ when the learning is performed in a linear hypothesis space with dimension $d$ and with the help of $n$ training examples.
One open question to be addressed in the future is if $\log n$ factor can be removed from the excess risk bound for exponentially concave loss functions by a more careful analysis. Another open question that needs to be investigated in the future is to improve the dependence on $d$ if we are after a sparse solution. According to the literature of sparse recovery [@koltchinskii2011oracle] and optimization [@AgarwalNW12], we should be able to replace $d$ with $s\log d$ in the excess risk bound if we restrict the optimal solution to a sparse one. In the future, we plan to explore the technique of sparse recovery in analyzing the generalization performance of exponential concave function to reduce the dependence on $d$.
Appendix A. Proof of Lemma \[lem:bound-1\] {#appendix-a.-proof-of-lemmalembound-1 .unnumbered}
==========================================
From the exp-concavity of expected loss function we have $$\lb(\w_*) \geq \lb(\w_i) + (\w_* - \w_i)^{\top}\nabla \lb(\w_i) + \frac{\beta}{2}(\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\E\left[[\ell'(y\w_i^{\top}\x)]^2\x\x^{\top} \right] (\w_i - \w_*).$$ Combining the above inequality with our assumption $$\E\left[[\ell'(y\w_i^{\top}\x)]^2\x\x^{\top} \right] \succeq \theta \E[\x\x^{\top}],$$ and rearranging the terms results in the following inequality $$\lb(\w_i) - \lb(\w_*) + \frac{\theta \beta}{2}\|\w_i - \w_*\|_\H^2 \leq (\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\nabla \lb(\w_i).$$ Applying the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
& & (\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\nabla \lb(\w_i) \\
&=& \ell'(y\w_i^{\top}\x)(\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\x + (\w_i - \w_*)\left(\nabla \lb(\w_i) - \ell'(y\w_i^{\top}\x)\x\right) \\
&=& \frac{\|\w_i - \w_*\|_{\Z_i}^2}{2\eta_i} - \frac{\|\w_{i+1} - \w_*\|_{\Z^{-1}_i}^2}{2\eta_i} + \frac{\eta G^2}{2}\x_i^{\top}\Z_i\x_i + (\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\delta_i\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\lb(\w_i) - \lb(\w_*) + \frac{\theta \beta}{2}\|\w_i - \w_*\|_\H^2} \\
& \leq & \frac{\|\w_i - \w_*\|_{\Z_i}^2}{2\eta_i} - \frac{\|\w_{i+1} - \w_*\|_{\Z_i}^2}{2\eta_i} + \frac{\eta G^2}{2}\x_i^{\top}\Z_i\x_i + (\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\delta_i.\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $\eta_1 \geq 3/[\theta\beta]$, $$\frac{\|\w_i - \w_*\|_{\Z_i}^2}{2\eta_i} = \frac{\|\w_i - \w_*\|_{\M_i}^2}{\eta_1}$$ and $$\frac{\|\w_{i+1} - \w_*\|_{\Z_i}^2}{2\eta_i} = \frac{\|\w_{i+1} - \w_*\|_{\M_i}^2}{\eta_1} = \frac{\|\w_{i+1} - \w_*\|_{\M_i}^2}{\eta_1} - \frac{1}{2\eta_1}\left[(\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\x_i\right]^2,$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\lb(\w_i) - \lb(\w_*) + \frac{\theta \beta}{3}\|\w_i - \w_*\|_\H^2} \\
& \leq & \frac{\|\w_i - \w_*\|_{\M_i}^2}{2\eta_1} - \frac{\|\w_{i+1} - \w_*\|_{\M_{i+1}}^2}{2\eta_1} + \frac{\eta_1 G^2}{2}\x_i^{\top}\M^{-1}_i\x_i + (\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\delta_i \\
& & + \frac{\theta\beta}{3}\left( \left[(\w_i - \w_*)^{\top}\x_i\right]^2- \|\w_i - \w_*\|_\H^2\right).\end{aligned}$$
Appendix B. Proof of Lemma \[lemma:trace\] {#appendix-b.-proof-of-lemmalemmatrace .unnumbered}
==========================================
Since $\M_i = \M_{i-1} + \x_i\x_i^{\top}$, we have $$\x_i^{\top} \M_i^{-1} \x_i^{\top} = \tr(\M_i^{-1}(\M_i - \M_{i-1}) = \tr(\I - \M_i^{-1} \M_{i-1}).$$ Let $\gamma_j \geq 0, j=1,\ldots, \ldots,d$ be the eigenvalues of $\M_i^{-1/2}\M_{i-1}\M_i^{-1/2}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\tr\left(\I - \M_i^{-1}\M_{i-1}\right) & = & \tr\left(\I - \M_i^{-1/2}\M_{i-1}\M_i^{-1/2}\right) \\
& = & \sum_{j=1}^d (1 - \gamma_j) \\
&\leq& \sum_{j=1}^d \ln\frac{1}{\gamma_j} \\
&= & - \ln\det\left(\M_i^{-1/2}\M_{i-1}\M_i^{-1/2}\right) = \ln\det(\M_i) - \ln\det(\M_{i-1}),\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the proof.
Appendix C. Proof of Lema \[lem:logdet\] {#appendix-c.-proof-of-lemalemlogdet .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------
Define $\V = \M_n - \M_0 = \sum_{i=1}^n \x_i\x_i^{\top}$. Let $\lambda_j, j=1, \ldots, d$ be the eigenvalues of $\V$. It is easy to verify that $$\log\det(\M_n) - \log\det(\M_0) = \sum_{j=1}^d \log\left(1 + \frac{\lambda_j}{a}\right)$$ Since $\sum_{j=1}^d \lambda_j = n$, we have $$\log\det(\M_n) - \log\det(\M_0) \leq \max\limits_{\lambda_j \geq 0, \sum_{j=1}^d \lambda_j \leq n} \sum_{j=1}^d \log\left(1 + \frac{\lambda_j}{a}\right).$$ It is easy to verify that the above optimization takes its optimal at $\lambda_j = n/d, j=1, \ldots, d$.
Appendix D. Proof of Lemma \[lem:Delta2\] {#appendix-d.-proof-of-lemmalemdelta2 .unnumbered}
=========================================
The proof is based on the Bernstein inequality for martingales (see e.g., [@boucheron2004concentration]).
\[thm:bernstein\] (Bernstein’s inequality for martingales). Let $X_1, \ldots , X_n$ be a bounded martingale difference sequence with respect to the filtration $\F = (\F_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}$ and with $\|X_i\| \leq K$. Let $$S_i = \sum_{j=1}^i X_j$$ be the associated martingale. Denote the sum of the conditional variances by $$\Sigma_n^2 = \sum_{t=1}^n \E\left[X_t^2|\F_{t-1}\right]$$ Then for all constants $t$, $\nu > 0$, $$\Pr\left[ \max\limits_{i=1, \ldots, n} S_i > t \mbox{ and } \Sigma_n^2 \leq \nu \right] \leq \exp\left(-\frac{t^2}{2(\nu + Kt/3)} \right)$$ and therefore, $$\Pr\left[ \max\limits_{i=1,\ldots, n} S_i > \sqrt{2\nu t} + \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}Kt \mbox{ and } \Sigma_n^2 \leq \nu \right] \leq e^{-t}$$
Define martingale difference $$X_i = \langle \w_i - \w_*, \nabla \lb(\w_i) - \ell'\left(y_i \x^{\top}_i \w_i \right)\x_i \rangle$$ and martingale $\Lambda = \sum_{i=1}^{n} X_i$. Define the conditional variance $\Sigma_n^2$ as $$\Sigma_n^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \E_{i}\left[X_i^2 \right] \leq G^2 \sum_{i=1}^n \|\w_i - \w_*\|_{\H}^2 = G^2 A$$ Define $$K = \max\limits_{i} |X_i| \leq 2RG .$$ Since $A \leq 4R^2 n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\Pr\left(\Lambda \geq 2G\sqrt{A t} + \sqrt{2}Kt/3\right)} \\
& = & \Pr\left(\Lambda \geq 2G\sqrt{A t} + \sqrt{2}Kt/3, A \leq 4R^2 n\right) \\
& = & \Pr\left(\Lambda \geq 2G\sqrt{A t} + \sqrt{2}Kt/3, \Sigma_n^2 \leq G^2 A, A \leq 4R^2 n \right) \\
& \leq & \Pr\left(\Lambda \geq 2G\sqrt{A t} + \sqrt{2}Kt/3, \Sigma_n^2 \leq G^2 A, A \leq \frac{4R^2}{n} \right) \\
& & + \sum_{i=1}^m \Pr\left(\Lambda \geq 2G\sqrt{At} + \sqrt{2}Kt/3, \Sigma_n^2 \leq G^2 A, \frac{2^{i+1}R^2}{n} < A \leq \frac{2^{i+2}R^2}{n} \right) \\
& \leq & \Pr\left(A \leq \frac{4R^2}{n}\right) + \sum_{i=1}^m \Pr\left(\Lambda \geq 4GR\sqrt{\frac{2^{i}}{n} t} + \sqrt{2}Kt/3, \Sigma_n^2 \leq \frac{4R^2G^2}{n} 2^i\right) \\
& \leq & \Pr\left(A \leq \frac{1}{n}\right) + me^{-t}\end{aligned}$$ where $m = \lceil 2\log_2 n \rceil$. The last step follows the Bernstein inequality for martingales. We complete the proof by setting $t= \ln(m/\delta)$ and using the fact $$2G\sqrt{A} = \frac{6G^2}{\theta\beta} + \frac{\theta\beta}{6}A.$$
Appendix E. Proof of Lemma \[lemma:bound-3\] {#appendix-e.-proof-of-lemmalemmabound-3 .unnumbered}
============================================
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \lb(\w_i) - \lb(\w_*) \leq \sum_{i=1}^{n} \E_{(\x, y)}\left[\langle \w_i - \w_*, \ell'(y, \x^{\top}\w_i) \x \rangle \right] - \frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\langle \w_i - \w_*, \H(\w_i - \w_*) \rangle\end{aligned}$$
Since $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \E_{(\x, y)}\left[\langle \w_i - \w_*, \ell'(y, \x^{\top}\w_i) \x \rangle \right]} \\
& \leq & \sqrt{n}\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \left(\E_{(\x, y)}\left[\langle \w_i - \w_*, \ell'(y, \x^{\top}\w_i) \x \rangle \right] \right)^2} \\
& \leq & G \sqrt{n} \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \langle \w_i - \w_*, \H (\w_i - \w_*)\rangle} \\
& = & G\sqrt{n A} \leq 2RG,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the desired inequality as $$\sum_{i=1}^{n} \lb(\w_i) - \lb(\w_*) + \frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\langle \w_i - \w_*, \H(\w_i - \w_*) \rangle \leq 2RG.$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give a polynomial-time algorithm for detecting very long cycles in dense regular graphs. Specifically, we show that, given $\alpha\in (0,1)$, there exists a $c=c(\alpha)$ such that the following holds: there is a polynomial-time algorithm that, given a $D$-regular graph $G$ on $n$ vertices with $D\geq \alpha n$, determines whether $G$ contains a cycle on at least $n - c$ vertices. The problem becomes NP-complete if we drop either the density or the regularity condition. The algorithm combines tools from extremal graph theory and spectral partitioning as well as some further algorithmic ingredients.'
address: 'University of Amsterdam, Korteweg-de Vries Institute (KdVI), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.'
author:
- Viresh Patel and Fabian Stroh
bibliography:
- 'writeup.bib'
title: 'A polynomial-time algorithm to determine (almost) Hamiltonicity of dense regular graphs'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The study of Hamilton cycles in graphs is a classical part of graph theory. It has been studied intensely from structural, extremal and algorithmic perspectives and is especially relevant due to its connection with the travelling salesman problem. A Hamilton cycle in a graph is a spanning cycle, i.e. a cycle that contains every vertex of a graph. This paper is concerned with the algorithmic question of determining whether a graph contains an (almost) Hamilton cycle. The Hamiltonicity problem is NP-hard in general [@Garey], and so there is a lot of interest in understanding the problem for restricted graph classes. In this paper, we will focus on dense graphs, that is graphs in which the minimum degree is linear in the number of vertices.
Dirac’s theorem [@dirac1952some] guarantees the existence of a Hamilton cycle in any $n$-vertex graph of minimum degree at least $n/2$, so this immediately gives a (trivial) algorithm to determine existence in such graphs (and its proof also gives a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a Hamilton cycle). On the other hand, for each $\varepsilon>0$, the problem of determining Hamiltonicity in $n$-vertex graphs of minimum degree $(\frac{1}{2} - \varepsilon)n$ is NP-complete [@de1999approximation] (see also Proposition \[pr:hard\]). Our main result, given below, shows that the situation is quite different if we also insist the graphs are regular: we show that determining almost Hamiltonicity in dense regular graphs is polynomial-time solvable.
\[thm:main\] For every $\alpha\in(0,1]$, there exists $c = c(\alpha) = 100 \alpha^{-2}$ and a (deterministic) polynomial-time algorithm that, given an $n$-vertex $D$-regular graph $G$ with $D\geq \alpha n$ as input, determines whether $G$ contains a cycle on at least $n - c$ vertices. Furthermore there is a (randomised) polynomial-time algorithm to find such a cycle if it exists.
Note that the problem of determining the existence of a very long cycle (as in the result above) becomes NP-complete if we drop either the density or the regularity condition on $G$; see Proposition \[pr:hard\]. The question of whether Theorem \[thm:main\] holds for $c= c(\alpha) = 0$ (i.e. the Hamilton cycle problem) remains open and is discussed in Section \[sec:conc\]. Also, see Remark \[rem:runtime\] for a discussion of the explicit running time of the algorithm.
Arora, Karger, and Karpinski [@AroraSTOC; @Arora] initiated the systematic study of NP-hard problems on dense graphs and this continues to be an active area of research. The closest result to ours (to the best of our knowledge) is an approximation algorithm for the longest cycle problem in dense (not necessarily regular) graphs that is due to Csaba, Karpinski and Krysta [@Csaba2002Approx]. For each $\alpha \in (0, 1/2)$, they give a polynomial-time algorithm which, given an $n$-vertex graph $G$ of minimum degree $\alpha n$, finds a cycle of length at least $(\frac{\alpha}{1 - \alpha}) \ell$, where $\ell$ is the length of the longest cycle in $G$.[^1] They also show one cannot replace $(\frac{\alpha}{1 - \alpha})$ with $(1 - \varepsilon_0(1-2\alpha))$ where $\varepsilon_0 = 1/742$ unless $P = NP$. The two algorithms are not directly comparable: while theirs works on all dense graphs, ours achieves a much better approximation ratio for dense regular Hamiltonian graphs. In Section \[sec:conc\], we discuss how our methods can be used for the longest cycle problem to achieve an approximation ratio very close to one for general dense regular graphs.
Our algorithm is inspired by questions and results about Hamiltonicity in extremal graph theory; here one is interested in various types of conditions that guarantee Hamiltonicity such as in Dirac’s theorem. There are two extremal examples that show $n/2$ is tight in Dirac’s theorem: a slightly imbalanced complete bipartite graph and a graph consisting of two disjoint cliques. One might hope to eliminate these barriers to Hamiltonicity by imposing some connectivity and regularity conditions. In this direction, Bollobás [@bollobasconj] and H[ä]{}ggkvist (see [@jackson1980hamilton]) independently conjectured that a $t$-connected regular graph with degree at least $n/(t+1)$ is Hamiltonian. Jackson [@jackson1980hamilton] proved the conjecture for $t=2$, while Jung [@Jung] and Jackson, Li, and Zhu [@JacksonLiZhu] gave an example showing the conjecture does not hold for $t \geq 4$. Finally, Kühn, Lo, Osthus, and Staden [@kuhn2014robust; @kuhn2016solution] resolved the conjecture by proving the case $t=3$ asymptotically. Although the conjecture does not hold in general, it suggests that questions of Hamiltonicity (and long cycles) might be easier in some sense for (dense) regular graphs, and our result seems to confirm this.
Our algorithm relies heavily on the notion of robust expansion, a notion of expansion for dense (directed) graphs introduced and applied by Kühn and Osthus together with several co-authors to resolve and make progress on a number of long-standing conjectures in extremal graph theory; see for example [@Rob0; @Rob2; @Rob4; @Robb2]. In particular, Kühn, Lo, Osthus and Staden [@kuhn2014robust; @kuhn2016solution], in their proof of the $t=3$ case of the Bollob[á]{}s-H[ä]{}ggkvist conjecture showed that all dense regular graphs have a vertex partition into a small number of parts where each part induces a (bipartite) robust expander. This decomposition is central to our algorithm, and by combining their argument with some spectral partitioning techniques, we are able to construct such a partition algorithmically in polynomial time; this may be of independent interest. A further by-product of this is that we can partially answer a question of K[ü]{}hn and Osthus [@Robb2] about algorithms to check whether a graph is a robust expander in polynomial time; this result and its background are presented in Section \[sec:digression\] after robust expansion has been formally defined.
Once we have the algorithm for constructing the robust expander partition, we will also require a result of Letzter and Gruslys [@CyclePartitions] for finding certain structures between the parts in this partition. Combining all of this with some further algorithmic ingredients will yield the desired algorithm.
Below we give a more detailed account of our algorithm as well as the proof of the hardness results (Proposition \[pr:hard\]) mentioned above. In Section \[sec:notation\] we give some general notation and we formally define robust expansion, as well stating some of the results from spectral graph theory that we will need in later sections. In Section \[sec:robustparts\], we give the algorithm for finding the robust expander partition mentioned above, and Section \[sec:findingcycles\] is about utilizing the structure of a robust partition to find a long cycle. This is where the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] is given.
Proof outline
-------------
We now go into more detail about our algorithm. The first step of the algorithm, given in Section \[sec:robustparts\], is to obtain a so-called robust partition of our graph. This is a vertex partition in which each part induces a robust expander or a bipartite robust expander and where there are few edges between parts. We give the precise definitions below, but informally we can think of (bipartite) robust expanders as dense (bipartite) graphs with good connectivity properties that are resilient to small alterations. In [@kuhn2014robust], it was shown that such a robust partition exists for dense regular graphs, and crucially, the number of parts is independent of the number of vertices and depends only on the density. The idea of the proof in [@kuhn2014robust] is to iteratively refine the vertex partition as follows. Given a vertex partition $\mathcal{P} = \{U_1, \ldots, U_k\}$, if some $U_i$ is not a (bipartite) robust expander, then they show there exists a partition $U_i = A \cup B$ of $U_i$ where there are few edges between $A$ and $B$; $U_i$ is then replaced with $A,B$ in $\mathcal{P}$ and this is repeated with the new partition. This process must end after a finite number of steps since the density inside parts increases at each step (since there were not many edges between $A$ and $B$). We follow this argument closely, except that the existence of $A,B$ is not enough for us: we need a polynomial-time algorithm to find $A$ and $B$. We make use of spectral algorithms to achieve this.
In the second step, given in Section \[sec:findingcycles\], we make use of the robust partition to decide whether a very long cycle exists. Using further results from [@kuhn2014robust], it turns out that a very long cycle exists if and only if a certain type of structure exists between the parts of our robust partition. With the help of a result from [@CyclePartitions], we give a fast algorithm to determine whether such a structure is present in our graph and to find it if it is. We will give a more detailed sketch of this at the start of Section \[sec:findingcycles\].
We end this subsection by proving the simple hardness results mentioned earlier in the introduction.
\[pr:hard\] For each fixed integer $C \geq 0$ and each real $\alpha \in (0, 1/2)$ the following holds.
- The problem of deciding whether a regular $n$-vertex graph has a cycle of length at least $n - C$ is NP-complete.
- The problem of deciding whether an $n$-vertex graph of minimum degree at least $\alpha n$ has a cycle of length at least $n - C$ is NP-complete.
For part (i), it is known that the problem of determining Hamiltonicity of $3$-regular graphs is NP-complete [@garey1976planar]. Fix $C$ even with $C \geq 4$. Given a $3$-regular graph $G$, let $H$ be the disjoint union of $G$ with an arbitrary $3$-regular graph on $C$ vertices and assume $H$ has $n$ vertices. Then $G$ has a Hamilton cycle if and only if $H$ has a cycle of length at least $n-C$ and so a polynomial-time algorithm for the problem in part (i), for $C$ even and at least $4$, would give a polynomial-time algorithm for deciding Hamiltonicity in $3$-regular graphs.
For the remaining cases of $C$, given a $3$-regular graph $G$, consider the $3$-regular graph $G'$ on $3|V(G)|$ vertices obtained from $G$ by replacing each vertex of $G$ with a triangle in such a way that we recover $G$ by contracting each triangle to a vertex. It is not hard to see that the following are equivalent:
- $G$ has a Hamilton cycle;
- $G'$ has a Hamilton cycle;
- $G'$ has a cycle of length $|V(G')| - 1$;
- $G'$ has a cycle of length $|V(G')| - 2$.
For $C =1$ and $C \geq 4$ odd, let $H$ be the disjoint union of $G'$ with an arbitrary $3$-regular graph on $C-1$ (even) vertices and for $C=2$ let $H = G'$. Then $H$ has a cycle of length at least $n - C$ if and only if $G$ has a Hamilton cycle.
\(ii) We reduce to the problem of deciding the existence of a Hamilton path in general graphs, which is known to be NP-complete [@Garey]. Given a graph $G$ on $k$ vertices, construct the graph $H$ as follows. Start by taking a complete bipartite graph with bipartition $V(H) = A \cup B$ where $|A| = 1 + r$ and $|B| = (C+1)k + r$ and $r$ is chosen so that $|A| / (|A| + |B|) > \alpha$. Now we insert $C+1$ disjoint copies of $G$ into $B$ to form $H$. Note that $\delta(H) \geq \alpha |V(H)|$ and it is easy to see that $H$ has a cycle of length $|V(H)| - C$ if and only if $G$ has a Hamilton path. This gives the desired reduction since $|V(H)|$ is linear in $|V(G)|$.
Preliminaries {#sec:notation}
=============
We follow general graph theory notation found e.g. in [@diestel].
Given a graph $G$, we denote its vertex and edge sets by $V(G)$ and $E(G)$ respectively. For a vertex $v \in V(G)$, we write $N(v)$ for the neighbours of $v$ in $G$ and write $d(v):=|N(v)|$ for the degree of $v$. Given $S \subseteq V(G)$, we also write $d_S(v):= |N(v) \cap S|$ for the degree of $v$ in $S$. We denote with $\delta(G)$ the smallest degree among vertices in $G$.
We write $H \subseteq G$ to mean that $H$ is a subgraph of $G$, i.e. $V(H) \subseteq V(G)$ and $E(H) \subseteq E(G)$. We define $E_G(S):=\{ab \in E(G) \mid a,b \in S \}$ and we write $G[S]$ for the graph induced by $G$ on $S$, i.e. the graph with vertex set $S$ and edge set $E_G(S)$. For $S,T\subseteq V(G)$, we define $E_G(S,T):=\{xy\in E(G)\mid x\in S, y\in T\}$ and $e_G(S,T):=|E_G(S,T)|$. We will sometimes omit the subscript if it is clear. For $S,T\subseteq V(G)$ disjoint, we write $G[S,T] := (S \cup T, E_G(S,T))$ for the bipartite graph induced by $G$ between $S$ and $T$. We often denote the complement of $S \subseteq V(G)$ by $\overline{S}$ i.e. $\overline{S}:= V(G) \setminus S$.
We write $a \ll b$ to mean that $a \leq f(b)$ for some implicitly given non-decreasing function $f: (0,1] \rightarrow (0,1]$. Informally, this is understood to mean that $a$ is small enough in relation to $b$. We sometimes also write $a \ll_f b$ when we wish to be specific about the function $f$.
Spectral partitioning
---------------------
Given a graph $G$ and $S \subseteq V(G)$, the *conductance* of $S$, written $\Phi(S) = \Phi_G(S)$, is given by $$\Phi(S) := \frac{e_G(S,\overline{S})}{\min({\text{vol}}_G(S),{\text{vol}}_G(\overline{S}))},$$ where ${\text{vol}}_G(S) = {\text{vol}}(S):=\sum_{i\in S}d(i)$ refers to the volume of $S$. The *edge expansion* $\Phi(G)$ of $G$ is defined by $\Phi(G) := \min_{S\subseteq V(G)}\Phi(S)$.
We write $A_G \in \mathbb{R}^{V(G) \times V(G)}$ for the adjacency matrix of $G$, where $A_G$ is the matrix whose rows and columns are indexed by vertices of $G$ and is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
(A_G)_{uv} :=
\begin{cases}
1 &\text{if } uv \in E(G); \\
0 &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ We write $$L_G := I-D^{-\frac{1}{2}}A_GD^{-\frac{1}{2}}$$ for the normalized Laplacian of $G$, where $I \in \mathbb{R}^{V(G) \times V(G)}$ is the identity matrix and $D$ is the diagonal matrix of degrees (where $D_{uu} = d(u)$ for each $u \in V(G)$ and $D_{uv}=0$ for $u \not= v$).
Suppose the eigenvalues of $L_G$ are ordered $\lambda_1 \leq \lambda_2 \leq \ldots \leq \lambda_n$. The following gives an algorithm for approximating the expansion of $G$ and giving a corresponding partition of the vertices.
\[th:cheeger\] For any graph $G$, we have $\frac{\lambda_2}{2}\leq \Phi(G) \leq \sqrt{2 \lambda_2}$ and there is an algorithm that finds $S\subseteq V$ such that $\Phi(S) \leq \sqrt{2 \lambda_2}$ in time polynomial in $n=|V(G)|$. In particular, $\Phi(G) \geq \Phi(S)^2/4$.
The inequality $\frac{\lambda_2}{2}\leq \Phi(G) \leq \sqrt{2 \lambda_2}$ is often referred to as Cheeger’s inequality. There is an analogue of Cheeger’s inequality for the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_n$ and the *bipartiteness ratio* $\beta(G)$. For $y\in \{-1,0,1\}^{V(G)}\setminus \{\textbf{0}\}$ we define $$\beta(y):= \frac{\sum_{uv\in E(G)} |y_u+y_v|}{\sum_{v\in V(G)} d_G(v) |y_v|}$$ and $\beta(G):= \min_{y\in \{-1,0,1\}^V\setminus \{\textbf{0}\}} \beta(y)$. We can think of a small value $\beta(G)$ to mean that $G$ is close to bipartite. In particular, if we set $A = \{v \in V(G): y_v = 1\}$ and $B = \{v \in V(G): y_v = -1\}$ then $$\label{eq:beta}
\beta(y)= \frac{2e_G(A) + 2e_G(B) + e_G(A\cup B, V(G) \setminus (A \cup B))} {{\text{vol}}_G(A \cup B)}.$$
\[th:trevisan\] For any graph $G$, we have $\frac{2-\lambda_n}{2}\leq\beta(G)\leq\sqrt{2(2-\lambda_n)}$ and there is an algorithm that finds $y\in \{-1,0,1\}^{V(G)}$ such that $\beta(y)\leq\sqrt{2(2-\lambda_n)}$ in time polynomial in $n=|V(G)|$. In particular, $\beta(G) \geq \beta(y)^2 /4$
The algorithms from both Theorem \[th:cheeger\] and \[th:trevisan\] run in time $O(|E(G)|+|V(G)|\log|V(G)|).$
Robust expanders
----------------
The following definitions follow closely those in [@kuhn2014robust]. Throughout, assume $G$ is an $n$-vertex graph. [**Robust expanders and bipartite robust expanders**]{} - Given an $n$-vertex graph $G$, and $S \subseteq V(G)$ and parameters $0<\nu\leq \tau<1$, we define the *$\nu$-robust neighbourhood* of $S$ to be ${\text{RN}}_{\nu,G}(S):=\{v\in G\mid d_S(v)\geq \nu n\}$. We say $G$ is a *robust $(\nu,\tau)$-expander* if for all $S\subseteq V(G)$ with $\tau n\leq |S| \leq (1-\tau)n$ we have $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu, G}(S)|\geq |S|+\nu n$. We say $G$ is a *bipartite robust $(\nu,\tau)$-expander* with bipartition $A,B$ if $A,B$ is a partition of $V(G)$ and for every $S\subseteq A$ with $\tau|A|\leq |S|\leq (1-\tau)|A|$ we have $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu,G}(S)|\geq|S|+\nu n$. Note that the order of $A$ and $B$ matters here.
[**Robust expander components and bipartite robust expander components**]{} - Given $0<\rho<1$ and an $n$-vertex graph $G$, we say that $U\subseteq V(G)$ is a *$\rho$-component* if $|U|\geq \sqrt{\rho}n$ and $e_G(U,\overline{U})\leq \rho n^2$, where as usual $\overline{U}:=V(G)\setminus U$. We say that $U$ is *$\rho$-close to bipartite* with bipartition $A,B$ if $A,B$ is a partition of $U$, $|A|,|B|\geq \sqrt{\rho}n$, $||A|-|B||\leq \rho n$, and $e_G(A,\overline{B})+e_G(B,\overline{A})\leq \rho n^2$. We will sometimes call a graph a $\rho$-component or $\rho$-close to bipartite if this holds for its vertex set. We say that $G[U]$ is a *$(\rho,\nu,\tau)$-robust expander component* of $G$ if $U$ is a $\rho$-component and $G[U]$ is a robust $(\nu,\tau)$-expander. We say that $G[U]$ is a *bipartite $(\rho,\nu,\tau)$-robust expander component* with bipartition $A,B$ if $U$ is $\rho$-close to bipartite with bipartition $A,B$ and $G[U]$ is a bipartite robust $(\nu,\tau)$-expander with bipartition $A,B$.
We now introduce the concept of a robust partition, which is central to our result.
[**Robust partitions**]{} - Let $k,\ell, D \in \mathbb{N}$ and $0<\rho\leq \nu\leq \tau<1$. Given an $n$-vertex, $D$-regular graph $G$, we say that $\mathcal{V}$ is a *robust partition of $G$ with parameters $\rho,\nu,\tau,k,\ell$* if the following hold:
1. $\mathcal{V} = \{V_1,\dots,V_k,W_1,\dots,W_\ell\}$ is a partition of $V(G)$;
2. for all $1 \leq i \leq k$, $G[V_i]$ is a $(\rho,\nu,\tau)$-robust expander component of $G$;
3. for all $1 \leq j \leq \ell$, there exists a partition $A_j,B_j$ of $W_j$ such that $G[W_j]$ is a bipartite $(\rho,\nu,\tau)$-robust expander component with bipartition $A_j,B_j$;
4. for all $X,X'\in \mathcal{V}$ and all $x\in X$, we have $d_X(x)\geq d_{X'}(x)$; in particular, $d_X(x)\geq D/m$, where $m:= k+\ell$;
5. for all $1\leq j \leq \ell$, we have $d_{B_j}(u)\geq d_{A_j}(u)$ for all $u\in A_j$ and $d_{A_j}(v)\geq d_{B_j}(v)$ for all $v\in B_j$; in particular, $\delta(G[A_j,B_j])\geq D/2m$;
6. $k+2\ell \leq \lfloor (1+\rho^{1/3})n/D\rfloor$;
7. for all $X\in \mathcal{V}$, all but at most $\rho n$ vertices $x\in X$ satisfy $d_X(x)\geq D-\rho n$.
For technical reasons, we also introduce weak robust subpartitions. We will use this definition and the following result only in Section \[sec:findingcycles\]. A weak robust subpartition differs from a robust partition mainly in that the disjoint subsets need not be a partition of the vertices. Let $k,\ell\in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $0<\rho\leq\nu\leq\tau\leq \eta <1$. Given a graph $G$ on $n$ vertices, we say that $\mathcal{U}$ is a *weak robust subpartition* of $G$ with parameters $\rho,\nu,\tau,\eta,k,\ell$ if the following conditions hold:
1. $\mathcal{U}= \{U_1,\dots,U_k,Z_1,\dots,Z_\ell\}$ is a collection of disjoint subsets of $V(G)$;
2. for all $1\leq i \leq k$, $G[U_i]$ is a $(\rho,\nu,\tau)$-robust expander component of $G$;
3. for all $1\leq j \leq \ell$, there exists a partition $A_j,B_j$ of $Z_j$ such that $G[Z_j]$ is a bipartite $(\rho,\nu,\tau)$-robust expander component with bipartition $A_j,B_j$;
4. $\delta(G[X])\geq \eta n$ for all $X\in \mathcal{U}$;
5. for all $1\leq j\leq \ell$, we have $\delta(G[A_j,B_j])\geq \eta n/2$.
\[lem:weakrobustsubp\] Let $k,\ell,D\in \mathbb{N}_0$ and suppose that $0< 1/n \ll \rho \leq \nu\leq \tau\leq \eta \leq \alpha^2/2 < 1$. Suppose that $G$ is a $D$-regular graph on $n$ vertices where $D\geq \alpha n$. Let $\mathcal{V}$ be a robust partition of $G$ with parameters $\rho,\nu,\tau,k ,\ell$. Then $\mathcal{V}$ is a weak robust subpartition of $G$ with parameters $\rho,\nu,\tau,\eta,k,\ell$.
Robust partitions {#sec:robustparts}
=================
Statements of algorithms
------------------------
In this section we present an algorithm (Theorem \[th:decompose\]) that we use to find robust partitions (see previous section for the definition) of regular graphs. As mentioned earlier, the main algorithm and its analysis are obtained by combining the robust expander decomposition of regular graphs from [@kuhn2014robust] together with spectral algorithms for graph partitioning from [@trevisan2012max; @trevisanLectureNotes].
We begin by presenting four algorithms in the following lemmas that will eventually be used together to obtain the main algorithm. The proofs appear in the following subsection.
\[th:alg1\] For each fixed choice of parameters $1/n_0 \ll \rho \ll \nu \ll \rho' \ll \tau \ll \alpha < 1$ there exists a polynomial-time algorithm that does the following. Given a $D$-regular $n$-vertex graph $G=(V,E)$ and $U \subseteq V$ as input, where $D \geq \alpha n$, $n \geq n_0$ and $G[U]$ is a $\rho$-component of $G$ that is not $\rho'$-close to bipartite, the algorithm determines that either
1. $G[U]$ is a robust $(\nu,\tau)$-expander, or
2. $U$ has a partition $U_1$, $U_2$ such that $U_1$, $U_2$ are $\rho'$-components,
and in the case of (ii) identifies the partition $U_1, U_2$. We call this Algorithm 1.
\[th:alg2\] For each fixed choice of parameters $1/n_0 \ll \rho \ll \rho'\ll\alpha <1$ there is a polynomial time algorithm that does the following. Given a $D$-regular, $n$-vertex graph $G=(V,E)$ and $U \subseteq V$ as input, where $D \geq \alpha n$, $n \geq n_0$, and $G[U]$ is a $\rho$-component of $G$, the algorithm determines that either
1. $G[U]$ is not $\rho$-close to bipartite, or
2. $G[U]$ is $\rho'$-close to bipartite,
and in the case of (ii) identifies the corresponding bipartition. We call this Algorithm 2.
\[th:alg3\] For each fixed choice of parameters $1/n_0 \ll \rho \ll \nu \ll \rho'\ll \tau \ll \alpha < 1$ there is a polynomial-time algorithm that does the following. Given a a $D$-regular, $n$-vertex graph $G=(V,E)$ and $U \subseteq V$ as input, where $D \geq \alpha n$, $n \geq n_0$, and $G[U]$ is $\rho$-close to bipartite with bipartition $A,B$, the algorithm determines that either
1. $G[U]$ is a bipartite robust $(\nu,\tau)$-expander with bipartition $A,B$, or
2. $U$ has a partition $U_1$, $U_2$ such that $G[U_1]$, $G[U_2]$ are $\rho'$-components,
and in the case of (ii) identifies the partition $U_1,U_2$ of $U$. We call this Algorithm 3.
\[th:alg6\] For each fixed choice of parameters $1/n_0 \ll \rho \ll \nu \ll \rho'\ll \tau \ll \alpha < 1$ there exists a polynomial-time algorithm that does the following. Given a $D$-regular $n$-vertex graph $G=(V,E)$ and $U \subseteq V$ as input, where $D \geq \alpha n$, $n \geq n_0$, and $G[U]$ is a $\rho$-component, the algorithm determines that either
1. $G[U]$ is a robust $(\nu,\tau)$-expander, or
2. $G[U]$ is a bipartite robust $(\nu,\tau)$-expander, or
3. $U$ has a partition $U_1$, $U_2$ such that $G[U_1]$, $G[U_2]$ are $\rho'$-components,
and in the case of (ii) and (iii) identifies the corresponding partition. We call this Algorithm 4.
In each of the four lemmas above, the algorithm distinguishes between various cases. It may be that more than one of these cases hold for the given input graph; if so then the algorithm will output any one case that holds for the given graph.
The running time of each of the algorithms is $O(n^3)$, where $n$ is the number of vertices of the input graph. The running time does not depend at all on the fixed parameters (not even as hidden constants in the ‘Big O’ notation). However in each lemma, the hierarchy is necessary for the fixed parameters in order to guarantee that at least one of the outcomes occurs in the conclusion of the lemma.
Proofs of correctness of algorithms
-----------------------------------
We now give the proofs of the preceding lemmas. We begin with a simple proposition.
\[Claim1\] Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex $D$ regular graph with $D \geq \alpha n$ and let $U$ be a $\rho$-component of $G$. Then
- $|U| \geq D - \sqrt{\rho}n \geq (\alpha - \sqrt{\rho})n$
- There are at most $\frac{2\rho}{\alpha(\alpha-\sqrt{\rho})}|U|$ vertices of degree at most $\frac{1}{2}\alpha n$ in $G[U]$.
\(i) Since $G$ is $D$-regular and $U$ is a $\rho$-component, we have $ \frac{1}{2}|U|^2 \geq e_G(U) \geq \frac{1}{2}D |U| - \rho n^2,$ from which we obtain $ |U| \geq D - \frac{\rho n^2}{|U|}\geq D - \sqrt{\rho}n,$ where the second inequality uses that $|U|\geq \sqrt{\rho}n$ since it is a $\rho$-component.
\(ii) If the number of vertices of degree at most $\frac{1}{2} \alpha n$ is $\gamma |U|$, then we have $$(D/2)\gamma|U| + D(1-\gamma)|U| \geq 2e_G(U) \geq D|U|- \rho n^2,$$ from which we get $\gamma \leq \frac{2\rho n^2}{ D |U|} \leq \frac{2\rho}{\alpha(\alpha-\sqrt{\rho})}$ using part (i) and $D \geq \alpha n$ for the final inequality.
\[rem1\] A similar calculation shows that if $U$ is $\sigma$-close to bipartite with bipartition $A,B$, we have $|A|,|B|\geq D - 2\sqrt{\sigma}n \geq (\alpha -2\sqrt{\sigma})n$.
We will use the algorithm in Theorem \[th:cheeger\] to iteratively find subgraphs of $G[U]$ that are not well connected to the rest of $U$ and remove them until this is no longer possible. If this process continues to a point where the removed parts are large enough then we can show both the removed part and the remaining part each form a $\rho'$-component. If the process stops before the removed part becomes large then we can show $G[U]$ is a robust expander.
Let $G=(V,E)$ and, in this proof, for any subset $S \subseteq U$ we will use $\overline{S}$ to denote $U \setminus S$ rather than our usual convention where it denotes $V \setminus S$.
Let $n'=|U|$ so that $n' \geq (\alpha - \sqrt{\rho})n \geq \frac{1}{2} \alpha n$ (by the previous proposition). Let $U_0$ be the vertices of degree at most $\frac{1}{2}\alpha n$ in $G[U]$ so that $|U_0| \leq \frac{2\rho}{\alpha(\alpha-\sqrt{\rho})} n' \leq \alpha \nu n'/2$ also by the previous proposition. Note for later that $$\label{eq:volU0}
{\text{vol}}_G(U_0) \leq n |U_0| \leq (2n' / \alpha) (\alpha \nu n'/2) \leq \nu n'^2.$$
Set $U':=U\setminus U_0$ and choose $\phi$ such that $\nu\ll \phi \ll \rho'$. We apply Theorem \[th:cheeger\] to $G[U']$ as follows to construct $U_1, U_2, \ldots$. Given $U_i$, set $\overline{U_i}:=U\setminus U_i$ and $G_i:= G[\overline{U_i}]$ apply the algorithm of Theorem \[th:cheeger\] to $G_i$ to output some $S_i \subseteq \overline{U_i}$. By replacing $S_i$ with $U_i \setminus S_i$ if necessary, assume $|S_i| \leq |U_i \setminus S_i|$. If
1. $\phi_i := \Phi_{G_i}(S_i)> \phi$ or $|U_i|\geq \frac{1}{3}|U|$
then stop. Otherwise set $U_{i+1}=U_i \cup S_i $ and repeat. In this way we obtain sets $S_0, \ldots, S_{t-1}$ and $U_0, \ldots, U_t$ in polynomial time. Note that $|U_{t-1}| < \frac{1}{3} |U|$, so $$\label{eq:Ut}
|U_t| = |U_{t-1}|+|S_{t-1}| \leq |U_{t-1}| + \frac{1}{2} (|U| -|U_{t-1}|) \leq \frac{2}{3} |U|.$$ There are two cases to consider:
1. $|U_t| > \frac{1}{4} \rho'n'$ and
2. $|U_t| \leq \frac{1}{4} \rho'n'$.
\[Claim3\] In case (a), $U_t$, $\overline{U_t}$ are $\rho'$-components.
\[Claim4\] In case (b), $G[U]$ is a robust $(\nu, \tau)$-expander.
Since we can output $U_t,\overline{U_t}$ in polynomial time, these two claims prove Lemma \[th:alg1\].
Since we are in case (a), note that $\Phi_{G_i}(S_i) \leq \phi$ for all $i=1, \ldots, t$ and so $$\label{eq:vol2}
e_G(S_i, U_i \setminus S_i) \leq \phi {\text{vol}}_{G_i}(S_i) \leq {\text{vol}}_G(S_i).$$ Recall also that $U_t = U_0 \cup (\bigcup_{i=0}^{t-1}S_i)$. Using that volume is additive, i.e. ${\text{vol}}_{G}(U_t) = {\text{vol}}_G(U_0) + \sum_{i=0}^{t-1}{\text{vol}}_{G}(S_i)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
e_G(U_t,\overline{U_t})
= e_G(U_0, \overline{U_t}) + \sum_{i=0}^{t-1}e_G&(S_i,\overline{U_t})
\leq {\text{vol}}_G(U_0) + \sum_{i=0}^{t-1}e_G(S_i, U_i \setminus S_i) \\
&\overset{\eqref{eq:volU0}, \eqref{eq:vol2}}{\leq} \nu n'^2 + \sum_{i=0}^{t-1}\phi \; {\text{vol}}_{G}(S_i) \\
&\leq \nu n'^2 + \phi \; {\text{vol}}_G(U_t) \leq \nu n'^2 + \phi |U_t| n.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
e_G(U_t,\overline{U_t}) \leq \nu n'^2 + \phi |U_t| n \overset{\eqref{eq:Ut}}{\leq} \nu n'^2 + \frac{2}{3}\phi |U| n
&\overset{{\rm Prop}\, \ref{Claim1}}{\leq} \nu n'^2 + \frac{\phi }{\alpha-\sqrt{\rho}}n'^2 \\
&\overset{\nu, \phi \ll \rho'}{\leq} \frac{1}{2}\rho'n'^2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $e_G(U_t,V\setminus U_t)\leq \frac{1}{2} \rho' n'^2+\rho n^2\leq \rho' n^2$ since $U_t \subseteq U$ and $U$ is a $\rho$-component. Similarly $e_G(\overline{U_t},V\setminus\overline{U_t})\leq \rho' n^2$. Also, $|U_t|$, $|\overline{U_t}| \geq \frac{1}{4}\rho'n$ by (a) and . However, by Proposition \[Claim1\], we in fact have $|U_t|$, $|\overline{U_t}| \geq (\alpha-\rho'^2)n \geq \sqrt{\rho'}n$, so $U_t$ and $\overline{U_t}$ are $\rho'$-components.
First some observations. Since case (b) holds, $|U_t|\leq \frac{1}{4}\rho'n'\leq \frac{1}{2}\tau n'\leq \frac{1}{3}|U|$ and $\phi_t = \Phi_{G_t}(S_t)>\phi$.
Also, $\delta(G_t) = \delta(G[\overline{U_t}])
\geq \min_{x \in \overline{U_t}} d_U(x) - |U_t| \geq \frac{1}{2}\alpha n - \frac{1}{2}\tau n' \geq \frac{1}{3} \alpha n$, where the penultimate inequality follows from our choice of $U_0$. By Theorem \[th:cheeger\], for all $R \subseteq V(G_t)=U\setminus U_t$ we have $\Phi_{G_t}(R) \geq \Phi(G_t) \geq \phi_t^2/4 \geq \phi^2/4$, i.e. $$e_{G_t}(R,R')\geq \frac{\phi^2}{4} \min({\text{vol}}(R),{\text{vol}}(R') )\geq \frac{1}{12}\phi^2 \alpha n \min(|R|,|R'|)$$ where $R' = \overline{U_t}\setminus R = U\setminus (U_t \cup R)$. Furthermore, for $R\subseteq U$ and $\overline{R}:=U\setminus R$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
e_{G[U]}(R,\overline{R}) \geq e_{G[U]}(R\setminus U_t,\overline{R}\setminus U_t)
&\geq \frac{1}{12}\phi^2 \alpha n \min(|R\setminus U_t|,|\overline{R}\setminus U_t|) \notag \\
&\geq\frac{1}{12} \phi^2 \alpha n \left( \min(|R|,|\overline{R}|) - \frac{1}{4} \rho'n' \right).
\label{Star}
\end{aligned}$$ We will now show that $G[U]$ is a $(\nu,\tau)$-expander by assuming that $G[U]$ does not expand and deducing that $G[U]$ is $\rho'$-close to bipartite, contradicting the premise of the lemma.
Suppose there exists $ S\subseteq U$ with $\tau n' \leq |S| \leq (1-\tau)n'$ such that $N={\text{RN}}_{\nu,G[U]}(S)\text{ satisfies } |N|<|S|+\nu n. $ Since $\tau n' \leq |S| \leq (1-\tau)n'$, we have $\frac{1}{4}\rho'n'\leq \frac{1}{2}\tau n' \leq \frac{1}{2}\min(|S|,|\overline{S}|)$ so by , we have $$\label{StarStar}
e_{G[U]}(S,\overline{S})\geq \frac{1}{24}\phi^2 \alpha n\min(|S|,|\overline{S}|).$$
We may assume $\frac{1}{4}\alpha n\leq |S| \leq |U|-\frac{1}{4}\alpha n$.
If $|S|<\frac{1}{4}\alpha n$ then $e_G(S,\overline{S})\geq |S|(\alpha n - |S|)-\rho n^2$ and $e_G(S,\overline{S})\leq |N||S|+|U\setminus N| \nu n \leq |N||S| + \nu n^2$, so combining these inequalities and rearranging, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|N| \geq \alpha n - &|S| - (\rho + \nu )\frac{n^2}{|S|}\geq \alpha n - |S| - (\rho + \nu )\frac{n^2}{\tau n'} \\
&\overset{{\rm Prop}\,\ref{Claim1}}{\geq} \alpha n - \frac{1}{4}\alpha n - (\rho + \nu )\frac{n'}{\tau (\alpha -\sqrt{\rho})^2} \geq \frac{1}{2}\alpha n' \geq |S|+\nu n,
\end{aligned}$$ contradicting our choice of $S$.
Similarly if $|S| > |U| - \frac{1}{4}\alpha n$ recall that by Proposition \[Claim1\] that all but the $\gamma n'$ vertices in $U_0$ have degree at least $\frac{1}{2}\alpha n$ in $U$ and so for all $x \in U \setminus U_0$, we have $$d_S(x) \geq \frac{1}{2}\alpha n - |U\setminus S| \geq \frac{1}{4}\alpha n \geq \nu n.$$ Hence $N\supseteq U\setminus U_0$ and so $|N|\geq |U| - |U_0| \geq (1- \nu)n' \geq |S|+\nu n'$, a contradiction. This proves the claim.
![Overview of subsets mentioned in the coming section.[]{data-label="fig"}](pic1.pdf){width="30.00000%"}
We continue with the proof of Claim \[Claim4\]. We define $Y = S\setminus N$, $X = S \cap N$, $Z = N\setminus S$, $W = U\setminus (S\cup N)$; see Figure \[fig\]. Since each vertex in $Y$ has at most $ \nu n$ neighbours in $S$ and since $G$ is $D$-regular and $U$ is a $\rho$-component we have $e_G(Y,\overline{S}) \geq D |Y| - \rho n^2 - \nu n^2$. Using this, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{(eYZ)}
e_G(Y,Z) = e_G(Y,\overline{S})-e_G(Y,W)
&\geq D |Y|- \rho n^2 - \nu n^2 - |W|\nu n \notag \\ &\geq D |Y| - 3\nu n^2.
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand $e_G(Z,Y) \leq D|Z|$, which together with implies after rearranging that $|Z| \geq |Y| - \frac{3\nu}{\alpha}n$. Also $|Z| \leq |Y|+\nu n$; otherwise $S$ does not violate $(\nu,\tau)$-expansion. Hence we have shown $$\label{(1)}
|Y| - \frac{3\nu}{\alpha}n\leq |Z| \leq |Y|+\nu n.$$ Considering $W$ (and taking $\overline{W}:= U \setminus W$), we see $$e_G(W,\overline{W})= e_G(W,S)+e_G(Z,W) \leq e_G(W,S)+(D|Z| - e_G(Z,Y))$$ $$\label{(eWW)}
\hspace*{0.71em} \overset{\eqref{(1)},\eqref{(eYZ)}}{\leq} \nu n^2 + D(|Y|+\nu n)- (D|Y| - 3\nu n^2)\leq 5 \nu n^2,$$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{12}\phi^2\alpha n \min(|W|,|\overline{W}|)&-\frac{1}{48}\phi^2\alpha\rho'nn'\overset{\eqref{Star}}{\leq} e_G(W,\overline{W})\overset{\eqref{(eWW)}}{\leq}5\nu
n^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $|\overline{W}|\geq |S|\geq \tau n'>2\rho'n'$, we must have $$\label{(sizeW)}
|W| \leq \frac{60\nu n}{\phi^2 \alpha}+ \frac{1}{4}\rho'n'\leq \frac{1}{2}\rho'n'.$$ Now consider $Y\cup Z$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
e_G(Y\cup Z, \overline{Y\cup Z}&) \leq D |Y\cup Z| - 2e_G(Y,Z) \notag \\
&\overset{\eqref{(1)},\eqref{(eYZ)}}{\leq}D (2|Y|+\nu n) - 2 (D|Y| - 3\nu n^2)
\leq 7\nu n^2.
\label{(eYZYZ)}
\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with an application of $$\frac{1}{12}\phi^2 \alpha n(\min(|Y\cup Z|,|\overline{Y\cup Z}|)- \frac{1}{4}\rho'n')\overset{\eqref{Star}}{\leq}e_G(Y\cup Z,\overline{Y\cup Z})\overset{\eqref{(eYZYZ)}}{\leq} 7\nu n^2,$$ and hence $$\min(|Y\cup Z|,|\overline{Y\cup Z}|)\leq 84\frac{\nu n}{\phi^2\alpha}+ \frac{1}{4}\rho'n' \leq \frac{1}{2}\rho'n'.$$ If $|Y\cup Z|\leq \frac{1}{2}\rho'n'$, then $$\begin{aligned}
|S| &= |U|-|W|-|Z| \geq |U|-|W|-|Y\cup Z| \\ &\overset{\eqref{(sizeW)}}{\geq} n'-\frac{1}{2}\rho'n'-\frac{1}{2}\rho'n' \geq (1-\tau)n',
\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction. So we have $$\label{(sizeYZ)}
|\overline{Y\cup Z}| \leq \frac{1}{2}\rho'n'.$$ Finally we show that $Y$,$\overline{Y}$ gives a partition that shows $G[U]$ is $\rho'$-close to bipartite, giving a contradiction. Note that $|\overline{Y}| = |Z| + |\overline{Y\cup Z}|$, so
$$\begin{aligned}
|Y| - \frac{3\nu}{\alpha}n \overset{\eqref{(1)}}{\leq}|Z|\leq |\overline{Y}|= |Z| +
|\overline{Y\cup Z}|\overset{\eqref{(1)}, \eqref{(sizeYZ)}}{\leq}& |Y|+\nu n + \frac{1}{2}\rho'n' \\
&\leq |Y| + \frac{3}{4}\rho'n'.
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, $$\label{(sizeYY)}
||Y|-|\overline{Y}||\leq \frac{3}{4}\rho'n'.$$
If $\rho'$ is small enough, e.g. $\rho' \leq \frac{1}{10}$, this also gives us $|Y|$, $|\overline{Y}|\geq \sqrt{\rho'}n'.$ Also
$$e_G(Y,V\setminus\overline{Y})+e_G(\overline{Y},V\setminus Y)\leq D |Y\cup \overline{Y}|-2e_G(Y,\overline{Y})$$ $$\leq D |U| - 2e_G(Y,Z) \overset{\eqref{(eYZ)}}{\leq} D n' -2(D|Y|-3\nu n^2)$$ $$\overset{\eqref{(sizeYY)}}{\leq} Dn' - D |Y| - D \left( |\overline{Y}|-\frac{3}{4}\rho'n' \right) +6\nu n^2 \leq \frac{4}{5} D\rho'n' \leq \rho'n'^2.$$ So $Y$,$\overline{Y}$ is a partition of $U$ showing $G[U]$ is $\rho'$-close to bipartite, a contradiction, completing the proof of the claim and the lemma.
The idea is to repeatedly apply the algorithm in Theorem \[th:trevisan\] and iteratively remove vertices that are assigned to bipartite parts until the remaining induced graph is either small or far from bipartite.
We choose $\beta$ such that $\rho \ll \beta \ll \rho'$. Set $U_0=\emptyset$, and given $U_i$, let $G_i=G[U\setminus U_i]$. Let $y$ be obtained from running the algorithm in Theorem \[th:trevisan\] on $G_i$. We set $U_{i+1}=U_i\cup A_i \cup B_i$, where $A_i:=\{v\mid y_v=1\}$ and $B_i:=\{v\mid y_v=-1\}$ and we set $\beta_i = \beta(y)$. Note that $G_{i+1}\subset G_i$. We continue until either
1. $|G_i|\leq \rho'n$ or
2. $\beta_i \geq \beta$.
Let $t$ be the first index where (a) or (b) occurs.
\[cl:closebip\] If $|G_t|\leq \rho'n$, then $G[U]$ is $\rho'$-close to bipartite.
\[cl:notclosebip\] If $\beta_t > \beta$ and $|G_t|\geq \rho'n$, then $G[U]$ is not $\rho$-close to bipartite.
Note that these two claims together prove the lemma since we can compute the $\beta_i$ and the $G_i$ in polynomial time (and for the first claim, the proof will show how to compute the corresponding partition).
Let $R = U \setminus U_t$, i.e. the set of vertices that are not part of some $A_j$ or $B_j$ for $j \leq t$. Note that $|R| \leq \rho'n$. For each $j \leq t$, using the definition of $A_j, B_j$ and , we have $$E_j := 2e_{G_j}(A_j)+2e_{G_j}(B_j)+e_{G_j}(A_j\cup B_j,U\setminus U_{j+1}) \leq \beta \text{ }{\text{vol}}_{G_j}(A_j\cup B_j).$$
First we note that for each $j \leq t$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
e_G(U_j, U \setminus U_j)
\leq \sum_{i=0}^{j-1}e_G(A_i \cup B_i, U \setminus U_{i+1})
&\leq \beta \sum_{i=0}^{j-1} {\text{vol}}_{G_i}(A_i \cup B_i)\notag \\
&\leq \beta {\text{vol}}_G(U_j) \leq \frac{1}{10} \rho'Dn, \label{eq:Uj}\end{aligned}$$ where the final inequality follows by our choice of $\beta \ll \rho'$ and ${\text{vol}}_G(U_j) \leq D n$. In particular, for each $j<t$, we have $$e_G(A_j, U_j) \leq e_G(U_j, U \setminus U_j) \leq \frac{1}{10} \rho' Dn.$$ Next, we claim that for each $j$, $||A_j|-|B_j||\leq \rho'n$. Assume for a contradiction that $|A_j|-|B_j|\geq \rho'n$ for some $j$. First we note that $$\begin{aligned}
e_{G_j}(A_j,\overline{B_j})
&\geq (|A_j| - |B_j|)D - e_G(U,\overline{U})-e_G(A_j,U_{j}) \\
&\geq \rho' D n - \rho n^2 - \frac{1}{10} \rho' Dn
\geq \frac{1}{2}\rho'D n, \end{aligned}$$ using $\rho \ll \rho'$ for the last inequality. On the other hand we have $e_{G_j}(A_j,\overline{B_j}) \leq e_G(A_j, U_j) \leq \frac{1}{10}\rho' D n$ a contradiction.
By the preceding claim, we can form a partition $A,B$ of $U$ such that (i) for each $j < t$, either $A_j \subseteq A \wedge B_j \subseteq B$ or $A_j \subseteq B \wedge B_j \subseteq A$ and (ii) $||A| - |B|| \leq \rho'n$. Indeed we can start with an arbitrary partition satisfying (i) and then iteratively swap suitable $A_j$ and $B_j$ if this reduces the value of $||A| - |B||$.(Note that $A$ and $B$ also contain vertices of $R$ (i.e. vertices not belonging to any $A_j$ or $B_j$) that can be freely moved to reduce $||A| - |B||$). It is easy to see $A,B$ can be computed in polynomial time and we shall see below that this partition demonstrates that $G[U]$ is $\rho'$-close to bipartite.
To see this, we count edges not in $E_G(A,B)$. We have $$e_G(A)+e_G(B) +e_G(A\cup B, \overline{U}) \leq \sum_{j=0}^{i-1}E_j +{\text{vol}}_{G[R]}(R)+e_G(U, \overline{U})$$ $$\leq \underbrace{\beta}_{\ll \rho'}\text{ }\underbrace{{\text{vol}}_{G[U]}(U\setminus R)}_{\leq n^2}+ (\rho'n)^2 + \rho n^2 \leq \rho'n^2.$$
Define $$\begin{aligned}
\beta'(G):=&\min_{y\in \{-1,1\}^{V(G)}}\frac{\sum_{uv\in E(G)} |y_u+y_v|}{\sum_{v\in V(G)} d_G(v) |y_v|} \geq \beta(G),\\
\overline{\beta}(G):=&\min_{A,B \text{ bipartition of }G}e_G(A)+e_G(B).
\end{aligned}$$
Then we have $\overline{\beta}(G[U])\geq \overline{\beta}(G_t)$ and recalling that $V(G_t) = U \setminus U_t$, we have $$\label{eq:4.1}
2\frac{\overline{\beta}(G_t)}{{\text{vol}}_{G_t}(U \setminus U_t)}= \beta'(G_t)\geq \beta(G_t)
\geq \frac{\beta_t^2}{4}\geq \frac{\beta^2}{4},$$ where we use the definition of $\beta_i$ and Theorem \[th:trevisan\]. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{vol}}_{G_t}(U \setminus U_t) &\geq D|U \setminus U_t|-\rho n^2 -e_G(U_t,U\setminus U_t) \\
&\geq \rho' D n -\rho n^2 - \frac{1}{10} \rho' Dn \geq \frac{1}{2} \rho' Dn,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $U$ is a $\rho$-component, , and $\rho \ll \rho'$. Combining with we see $$\overline{\beta}(G)\geq \frac{\beta^2}{8}\text{ }{\text{vol}}_{G_t}(U \setminus U_t) \geq \frac{\beta^2}{16} \rho' Dn>\rho n^2.$$
This completes the proof of the lemma.
Fix $\phi$ such that $\nu \ll \phi \ll \rho'$. As in Lemma \[th:alg1\], we use algorithm in Theorem \[th:cheeger\] to iteratively find poorly connected subgraphs of $G[U]$ and remove them.
In polynomial time, we can find $S_0, \ldots, S_{t-1}$, $U_0, \ldots, U_t$, and $\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_t$, which are defined and found in exactly the same way as in the proof of Lemma \[th:alg1\], so again, we have $\phi_t > \phi$ or $|U_t|\geq \frac{1}{3}|U|$. There are two cases:
1. $|U_t|> \frac{1}{4}\rho'n'$ and
2. $|U_t|\leq \frac{1}{4}\rho'n'$.
In case (a), $U_t$, $\overline{U_t}$ are $\rho'$-components.
Noting that $G[U]$ is a $\rho$-component, the proof of Claim \[Claim3\] holds here as well.
In case (b), $G[U]$ is a robust bipartite $(\nu,\tau)$-expander with bipartition $A,B$.
Once again, the two claims together prove the lemma since we can compute $U_t, \overline{U}_t$ (which give the partition $U_1, U_2$ in the statement of the lemma) in polynomial time.
As in in the proof of Claim \[Claim4\], for $S\subseteq U$ and $\overline{S}=U\setminus S$ we have $$\label{thm2:eq1}
e_{G[U]}(S,\overline{S})
\geq \frac{1}{12} \phi^2 \alpha n \left( \min(|S|,|\overline{S}|) - \frac{1}{4} \rho'n' \right)$$ We will show that $G[U]$ is a bipartite robust expander by assuming the existence of a non-expanding set and finding a contradiction.
Suppose $A^*\subseteq A$ with $\tau|A|\leq |A^*|\leq (1-\tau)|A|$, let $B^*:= {\text{RN}}_{G[U]}(A^*)\cap B$ and assume $|B^*|< |A^*|+\nu n$. Define $\hat{A}:=A\setminus A^*$ and $\hat{B}:= B \setminus B^*$. We will give an upper bound on $e_G(A^*\cup B^*,\hat{A}\cup \hat{B})$ that contradicts . Indeed, we have (suppressing the subscript $G$) $$\begin{aligned}
e(A^*\cup B^*,\hat{A}\cup \hat{B})
&\leq e(A^*,\hat{A}) + e(B^*,\hat{B}) + e(A^*,\hat{B}) + e(B^*, \hat{A}) \\
&\leq \rho n^2 + \nu n^2 + e(B^*, \hat{A}), \end{aligned}$$ where we used that $e(A^*,\hat{A}) + e(B^*,\hat{B}) \leq \rho n^2$ (since $G$ is $\rho$-close to bipartite) and $e(A^*,\hat{B}) < \nu n^2$ (since every vertex in $\hat{B}$ has at most $\nu n$ neighbours in $A^*$). In order to bound $e(B^*, \hat{A})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
e(B^* \hat{A})
&\leq |B^*|D - e(B^*, A^*) \\
&\leq (|A^*| + \nu n)D - [|A^*|D - e(A^*, \hat{A}) - e(A^* \hat{B}) - e(A^*, \overline{U})] \\
&\leq \nu n|D| + \rho n^2 + \nu n^2
\leq \rho n^2 + 2 \nu n^2,\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $e(A^*, \hat{B}) \leq \nu n^2$ (as above) and $e(A^*, \hat{A}) + e(A^*, \overline{U}) \leq \rho n^2$ (since $U$ is $\rho$-close to bipartite). Combining, we obtain $$\label{eq:eAB}
e_G(A^*\cup B^*,\hat{A}\cup\hat{B})
\leq 2\rho n^2+ 3\nu n^2 \leq 5 \nu n^2.$$ However, as $\min(|A^*\cup B^*|,|\hat{A}\cup\hat{B}|)\geq \tau |A| \geq \tau \frac{1}{3}|U|$ (using Remark \[rem1\]), with we have $$e_{G}(A^*\cup B^*,\hat{A}\cup\hat{B})\geq \frac{1}{12}\phi^2 \alpha n \left( \frac{1}{3}\tau |U|-\frac{1}{4}\rho'|U| \right)> 5\nu n^2,$$ using $|U| \geq \frac{1}{2}\alpha n$ by Proposition \[Claim1\] and our choice of parameters, which contradicts .
This completes the proof of the lemma.
Fix $\rho_1, \rho_2, \nu_2 $ such that $\rho \ll \nu \ll \rho_1 \ll \rho_2 \ll \nu_2 \ll \rho'$. We run Algorithm 2 on $U$ with $(\rho_1, \rho_2)$ playing the roles of $(\rho, \rho')$. The algorithm determines either that
- $G[U]$ is not $\rho_1$-close to bipartite, or
- $G[U]$ is $\rho_2$-close to bipartite (and outputs a bipartition $A,B$ of $U$ that demonstrates this).
In the first case, we apply Algorithm 1 with $(\rho, \nu, \rho_1)$ playing the roles of $(\rho, \nu, \rho')$ and the algorithm either concludes that $G[U]$ is a robust $(\nu, \tau)$-expander, or it outputs a partition $U_1, U_2$ of $U$ such that $U_1$ and $U_2$ are $\rho_1$-components and hence are also $\rho'$-components.
In the second case, we apply Algorithm 3 with $(\rho_2, \nu_2, \rho')$ playing the roles of $(\rho, \nu, \rho')$ and the algorithm either concludes that $G[U]$ is a bipartite robust $(\nu_2, \tau)$-expander and hence also a bipartite robust $(\nu, \tau)$-expander (and it outputs a bipartition $A,B$ of $U$ to demonstrate this) or it outputs a partition $U_1, U_2$ of $U$ such that $U_1$ and $U_2$ are $\rho'$-components.
Recognising robust expanders {#sec:digression}
----------------------------
In this subsection, we make a small digression to partially address a question of K[ü]{}hn and Osthus from [@Robb2]; the result of this subsection will not be needed in the remainder of the paper. Using the Szemer[é]{}di Regularity Lemma, K[ü]{}hn and Othus [@Robb2] give a polynomial time algorithm for deciding whether a graph[^2] is a robust $(\nu, \tau)$-expander or whether it is not a $(\nu', \tau)$-expander (provided $\nu \ll \nu'$, which is what one is interested in all applications). They asked whether the use of the Szemer[é]{}di Regularity Lemma can be avoided, and we answer this affirmatively for regular graphs.
For each fixed choice of parameters $0 \leq \nu \ll \nu' \ll \tau \ll \alpha < 1$ there exists a polynomial-time algorithm that does the following. Given a $D$-regular $n$-vertex graph $G=(V,E)$, where $D \geq \alpha n$, the algorithm determines that either
1. $G$ is a robust $(\nu,\tau)$-expander, or
2. $G$ is not robust $(\nu',\tau)$-expander,
and in case (ii) the algorithm finds a set $S \subseteq V$ such that $\tau n \leq |S| \leq (1- \tau)n$ and $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu', G}(S)| \leq |S| + \nu' n$.
The proof is a variation of the previous lemma. First choose parameters $1/n_0 \ll \rho \ll \nu \ll \rho_1 \ll \rho_2 \ll \nu' \ll \tau \ll \alpha \ll 1$. If $n \leq n_0$ then we check whether (i) or (ii) holds by exhaustive search in constant time.
If $n \geq n_0$, we apply Algorithm 2 to $G$ with $(\rho_1, \rho_2, V)$ playing the roles of $(\rho, \rho', U)$ (and thinking of $G = G[V]$ as a $\rho_1$-component of $G$). The algorithm determines that either
1. $G$ is $\rho_2$-close to bipartite (and gives a partition $A,B$ of $V$ showing this), or
2. $G$ is not $\rho_1$-close to bipartite.
In case (b) we apply Algorithm 1 with $(\rho, \nu, \rho_1, V)$ playing the roles of $(\rho, \nu, \rho', U)$ (and thinking of $G = G[V]$ as a $\rho$-component of $G$), and the algorithm determines that either
1. $G=G[V]$ is a robust $(\nu, \tau)$-expander;
2. $U=V$ has a partition $U_1, U_2$ such that $U_1$, $U_2$ are $\rho_1$-components.
In case (bi), we are done. In case (a) and (bii), we show $G$ is not a robust $(\nu', \tau)$-expander. Indeed, in case (a), assume that $|A| \leq |B|$. We have $|A|,|B| \geq \frac{1}{2} \alpha n \geq 2 \tau n$ by Remark \[rem1\], so $\tau n \leq |B| \leq (1-\tau)n$. We cannot have that $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu',G}(B)| \geq |B| + \nu' n$, for otherwise $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu',G}(B) \cap B| \geq \nu' n$ and therefore $e_G(B,\overline{A}) = e_G(B) \geq \frac{1}{2}\nu'^2 n^2 > \rho_2 n^2$, contradicting that $G$ is $\rho_2$-close to bipartite. So $G$ is not a robust $(\nu', \tau)$-expander in this case and the algorithm outputs $S = B$.
Similarly in case (bii) we know that $|U_1|, |U_2| \geq \frac{1}{2}\alpha n \geq 2 \tau n$ by Proposition \[Claim1\] and so $\tau n \leq |U_1| \leq (1- \tau)n$. Also, we cannot have that $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu',G}(U_1)| \geq |U_1| + \nu' n$, for otherwise $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu',G}(U_1) \cap U_2| \geq \nu' n$ and therefore $e_G(U_1,U_2) \geq \nu'^2 n^2 > \rho_1 n^2$, contradicting that $U_1$ is a $\rho_1$-component. So $G$ is not a robust $(\nu', \tau)$-expander in this case and the algorithm outputs $S = U_1$.
Assembling the robust partition
-------------------------------
We begin with several basic facts from [@kuhn2014robust]. The first three are basic facts about (bipartite) robust expanders, which are taken from [@kuhn2014robust] unchanged and their proofs are included for completeness.
\[lem:stillrobustexp\] Let $0<\nu\ll\tau<1$. Suppose that $G$ is a graph and $U$, $U' \subseteq V(G)$ are such that $G[U]$ is a robust $(\nu,\tau)$-expander and $|U \triangle U'|\leq \nu |U|/2$. Then $G[U']$ is a robust $(\nu/2,2\tau)$-expander
The statement immediately follows by considering a set $S\subseteq U'$ with $2\tau|U'|\leq |S|\leq (1-2\tau)|U'|$ and considering its robust neighbourhood. As $\tau|U|\leq |S\cap U|\leq(1-\tau)|U|$, we have $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu,U}(S\cap U)|\geq |S\cap U|+\nu|U|\geq |S|-|U\setminus U'|+\nu|U|$. With $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu,U}(S\cap U)\cap U'|\geq |{\text{RN}}_{\nu,U}(S\cap U)|-|U'\setminus U|$ it follows that $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu/2,U'}(S)|\geq |S|+\nu/2|U'|$.
\[lem:stillRobustExpComp\] Let $0<\rho\leq\gamma\ll\nu\ll\tau<1$. Suppose that $G$ is a graph and $T\subseteq U \subseteq V(G)$ are such that $G[U]$ is a robust $(\rho,\nu,\tau)$-expander component, $|T|\leq \rho n$. Then $G[U\setminus T]$ is a robust $(3\gamma,\nu/2,2\tau)$-expander component.
We have that $|U\setminus T| = |U|-|T| \geq \alpha n - \sqrt{\rho}n - \rho n \geq \sqrt{3\gamma} n$, where we use Proposition \[Claim1\](i) for the first inequality. Next we see $e_G(U\setminus T, \overline{U\setminus T})\leq e_G(U,\overline{U})+D\rho n\leq\rho n^2+ \rho n^2 \leq 3\gamma n^2$, showing that $G[U\setminus T]$ is a $3\gamma$-component. Finally, $G[U\setminus T]$ is a $(\nu/2,2\tau)$-expander by Lemma \[lem:stillrobustexp\].
\[lem:stillbiprobustexp\] Let $0<1/n\ll\rho\leq\gamma\ll\nu\ll\tau\ll\alpha<1$ and suppose that $G$ is a $D$-regular graph on $n$ vertices where $D\geq \alpha n$.
\(i) Suppose that $G[A\cup B]$ is a bipartite $(\rho,\nu,\tau)$-robust expander component of $G$ with bipartition $A,B$. Let $A',B'\subseteq V(G)$ be such that $|A\triangle A'| + |B\triangle B'|\leq \gamma n$. Then $G[A'\cup B']$ is a bipartite $(3\gamma, \nu/2, 2\tau)$-robust expander component of $G$ with bipartition $A',B'$.
\(ii) Suppose that $G[U]$ is a bipartite $(\rho,\nu,\tau)$-robust expander component of $G$. Let $U'\subseteq V(G)$ be such that $|U\triangle U'|\leq \gamma n$. Then $G[U']$ is a bipartite $(3\gamma, \nu/2, 2\tau)$-robust expander component of $G$.
We start with (i). To see that $G[A'\cup B']$ is $3\gamma$-close to bipartite, we see that $|A'|,|B'|\geq D-2\sqrt{\rho}\geq \sqrt{3\gamma}n$ by Remark \[rem1\]. We have that $||A'|-|B'||\leq ||A|-|B||+\gamma n\leq 3\gamma n$ and $e(A',\overline{B'})+e(B',\overline{A'})\leq e(A,\overline{B})+e(B,\overline{A})+2(|A'\triangle A|+|B'\triangle B|)n \leq 3\gamma n$. $G[A'\cup B']$ is a bipartite $(\nu/2,2\tau)$-robust expander by a straightforward calculation as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:stillrobustexp\]. It is easy to see that part (ii) follows from (i).
The non-algorithmic versions of the next two lemmas can be found in [@kuhn2014robust]; we use a simple greedy procedure to make them algorithmic. These lemmas will be used later to ensure conditions (D4), (D5), and (D7) when constructing our robust partition.
\[lem:modifycomp\] Let $m,n,D\in \mathbb{N}$ and $0<1/n_0 \ll\rho\ll\alpha, 1/m\leq 1$. Let $G$ be a $D$-regular graph on $n$ vertices where $n \geq n_0$ and $D\geq \alpha n$. Suppose that $\mathcal{U}:=\{U_1,\dots,U_m\}$ is a partition of $V(G)$ such that $U_i$ is a $\rho$-component for each $1\leq i\leq m$. Then $G$ has a vertex partition $\mathcal{V}:=\{V_1,\dots,V_m\}$ such that
1. $|U_i\triangle V_i| \leq \rho^{1/3}n$;
2. $V_i$ is a $\rho^{1/3}$-component for each $1\leq i\leq m$;
3. if $x\in V_i$, then $d_{V_i}(x) \geq d_{V_j}(x)$ for all $1\leq i,j \leq m$. In particular, $d_V(x)\geq D/m$ for all $x\in V$ and all $V\in \mathcal{V}$;
4. for all but at most $\rho^{1/3}n$ vertices $x\in V_i$ we have $d_{V_i}(x)\geq D-2\sqrt{\rho}n$.
Furthermore, (for fixed $n_0, \rho, \alpha, m$ satisfying the hierarchy above) there is an algorithm that finds such a vertex partition $\mathcal{V}$ in time polynomial in $n$.
For each $1\leq i\leq m$, let $X_i$ be the collection of vertices $y\in U_i$ with $d_{\overline{U_i}}(x)\geq \sqrt{\rho}n$. Since $U_i$ is a $\rho$-component, we have $|X_i|\leq \sqrt{\rho}n$ (otherwise $e(U_i,\overline{U_i})\geq \rho n^2$). Let $W_i:=U_i\setminus X_i$. Then each $x\in W_i$ satisfies $$\label{eq:modcomp}
d_{W_i}(x)=D-d_{\overline{U_i}\cup X_i}(x)\geq D-\sqrt{\rho}n - |X_i|\geq D-2\sqrt{\rho}n.$$ We now redistribute the vertices of $X:=\cup_{1\leq i\leq m}X_i$ as follows: Iteratively move any $x\in X\cap U_i$ to $U_j$ where $j=\arg\max_i d_{U_i}(x)$ until this is no longer possible. This process terminates, as the number of edges crossing the partition is reduced with each step. It is easy to see that this redistribution can be done in time polynomial in $n$. Call the resulting partition $\mathcal{V}:=\{V_1,\dots,V_m\}$, (so $V_i=W_i\cup X_i'$ for some $X_i'\subseteq X$ and $X=\sqcup X'_i$.)
We show that $\mathcal{V}$ fulfils (i)-(iv). It is easy to see that (iii) holds by our choice of $\mathcal{V}$ for all $x\in X$. For $x\in W_i$, implies $d_{V_i}(x)\geq d_{W_i}(x)\geq D-2\sqrt{\rho}n\geq D/2$, so (iii) holds. Next, since each step of our procedure reduces the number of edges crossing the partition, we have $$\sum_{1\leq i\leq m}e(V_i,\overline{V_i})\leq \sum_{1\leq i \leq m} e(U_i,\overline{U_i})\leq \rho mn^2 \leq \rho^{1/3}n^2$$ and therefore each $V_i$ is a $\rho^{1/3}$-component, so (ii) holds. We have $|U_i\triangle V_i| \leq |X|\leq m \sqrt{\rho}n\leq \rho^{1/3}n$ for all $i$, so (i) holds as well. To see (iv), note that for all $x\in W_i$ we have $d_{V_i}(x)\geq D-2\sqrt{\rho}n$ by and $|V(G) \setminus \cup_{i=1}^m W_i| = |X|\leq \rho^{1/3}n$.
\[lem:modifybip\] Let $0<1/n_0 \ll\rho\ll\nu\ll\tau\ll\alpha < 1$ and let $G$ be a $D$-regular graph on $n$ vertices where $n \geq n_0$ and $D\geq \alpha n$. Suppose that $U$ is a bipartite $(\rho,\nu,\tau)$-robust expander component of $G$ with bipartition $A$, $B$. Then there exists a bipartition $A'$, $B'$ of $U$ such that
1. $U$ is a bipartite $(3\sqrt{\rho},\nu/2,2\tau)$-robust expander component with partition $A'$ ,$B'$;
2. $d_{B'}(u)\geq d_{A'}(u)$ for all $u\in A'$, and $d_{A'}(v)\geq d_{B'}(v)$ for all $v\in B'$.
Furthermore, (for fixed $n_0, \rho, \nu, \tau, \alpha$ satisfying the hierarchy above) there is an algorithm that finds such a partition in time polynomial in $n$.
This proof is similar to that of Lemma \[lem:modifycomp\]. Let $A_0:=\{x\in A\mid d_{\overline{B}}(x)\geq 2\sqrt{\rho}n\}$ and define $B_0$ similarly. The fact that $U$ is a $\rho$-component implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho n^2\geq& e(A,\overline{B})+e(B,\overline{A})\geq \frac{1}{2} \left(\sum_{x\in A}d_{\overline{B}}(x)+ \sum_{x\in B}d_{\overline{A}}(x)\right) \\
\geq& \frac{1}{2} \left(\sum_{x\in A_0}d_{\overline{B}}(x)+ \sum_{x\in B_0}d_{\overline{A}}(x)\right)\geq (|A_0|+|B_0|)\sqrt{\rho}n
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $|A_0|+|B_0|\leq \sqrt{\rho}n$. Define $\hat{A}:=A\setminus A_0$ and $\hat{B}:= B\setminus B_0$. For all $x\in \hat{A}$ we have $d_{\hat{B}}(x)\geq D-d_{\overline{B}}(x)-|B_0|\geq D-3\sqrt{\rho}n$ and an analogous statement holds for $x\in \hat{B}$. We iteratively move vertices between $A_0$ and $B_0$ as follows: for $x\in A_0$ if $d_A(x)>d_B(x)$ then move $x$ from $A_0$ to $B_0$ and for $y\in B_0$ if $d_B(y)>d_A(y)$ then move $y$ from $B_0$ to $A_0$ (and update $A,B, A_0, B_0$ accordingly). Continue this until it is no longer possible. This process terminates, as the number of edges not crossing the partition is reduced at each step. It is easy to see that this redistribution can be done in time polynomial in $n$. Call the resulting parts $A'$, $B'$. We show that $A'$, $B'$ fulfil (i) and (ii).
The choice of $A'$, $B'$ implies that all $x\in (A_0\cup B_0)$ fulfil (ii). For $x\in \hat{A}$ we have $D_{B'}(x)\geq d_{\hat{B}}(x)\geq D-3\sqrt{\rho}n\geq d_U(x)/2$. A similar statement holds for all $x\in \hat{B}$, by our choice of vertex redistribution, completing the proof of (ii). For (i), note that $|A\triangle A'|+|B\triangle B'|\leq |A_0|+|B_0|\leq \sqrt{\rho}n$. Now Lemma \[lem:stillbiprobustexp\](i) with $\rho,\sqrt{\rho},\nu,\tau,A,B,A',B'$ playing the roles of $\rho,\gamma,\nu,\tau,A,B,A',B'$ shows that $U$ is a bipartite $(3\sqrt{\rho},\nu/2,2\tau)$-robust expander component with bipartition $A'$, $B'$, which completes the proof of (i).
Finally, we can prove the existence of a polynomial-time algorithm to find a robust partition in regular graphs. Again, we follow the proof of [@kuhn2014robust] closely, but must suitably apply the algorithms developed in the previous section.
\[th:decompose\] For every $0< \tau <\alpha<1$ and every non-decreasing function $f:(0,1) \rightarrow (0,1)$ there is a $n_0$ and a polynomial-time algorithm that does the following. Given an $n$-vertex $D$-regular graph $G$ as input with $n\geq n_0$ and $D\geq \alpha n$, the algorithm finds a robust partition $\mathcal{V}$ with parameters $\rho,\nu,\tau,k,\ell$ with $1/n_0 < \rho < \nu < \tau$; $\rho<f(\nu)$, and $1/n_0 < f(\rho)$.
Set $t=\lceil 2/\alpha\rceil$. Define constants satisfying $$0 <1/n_0 \ll \rho_1 \ll \nu_1 \ll \rho_2 \ll \nu_2 \ll \dots \ll \rho_t \ll \nu_t \ll \tau' \ll\tau\leq \alpha.$$ We start with the following claim:
\[cl:partition\] There is some $1\leq h<t$ and a partition $\mathcal{U}$ of $V(G)$ such that, for each $U\in \mathcal{U}$, $U$ is a $(\rho_h, \nu_h, \tau')$-robust expander component or a bipartite $(\rho_h, \nu_h, \tau')$-robust expander component. Furthermore, we can find $\mathcal{U}$ in polynomial time (and we can determine those $U \in \mathcal{U}$ that are bipartite robust expander components together with a corresponding bipartition).
We will iteratively construct (in polynomial time) a partition $\mathcal{U}_i$ of $V(G)$ such that $U$ is a $\rho_i$-component for all $U\in \mathcal{U}_i$.
We know $V(G)$ is a $\rho_1$-component for any choice of $\rho_1 > 0$ and we set $\mathcal{U}_1= \{V(G)\}$.
Assume that for some $1\leq i\leq t$ we have constructed such a partition $\mathcal{U}_i$ of $V(G)$. We apply Algorithm 4 to each $U \in \mathcal{U}_i$ with $\rho_i, \nu_i, \rho_{i+1}, \tau'$ playing the roles of $\rho, \nu, \rho', \tau$. If the algorithm finds some $U \in \mathcal{U}_i$ for which it returns $U_1, U_2$, a partition of $U$ in which $U_1$ and $U_2$ are $\rho_{i+1}$- components, then we set $\mathcal{U}_{i+1}:=(\mathcal{U}_i\setminus \{U\})\cup\{U_1,U_2\}$ and we continue. Otherwise the algorithm determines that $G[U]$ is a robust $(\nu_i, \tau')$-expander or a bipartite robust $(\nu_i, \tau')$-expander for all $U \in \mathcal{U}_i$ and so each $U \in \mathcal{U}_i$ is a $(\rho_i, \nu_i, \tau')$-robust expander component or a bipartite $(\rho_i, \nu_i, \tau')$-robust expander component (and Algorithm 4 is able to determine which $U \in \mathcal{U}_i$ are bipartite robust expander components and to determine a corresponding bipartition $A,B$ of any such $U$). In this case we are done with the claim provided $i<t$, which we now show.
By induction $|\mathcal{U}_{i+1}| = i+1$ and all $U\in \mathcal{U}_{i+1}$ are $\rho_{i+1}$-components whenever $\mathcal{U}_{i+1}$ is defined. To see that the process terminates before $\mathcal{U}_t$, assume for the sake of contradiction that $\mathcal{U}_t$ is defined. Since every $U\in \mathcal{U}_t$ is a $\rho_t$-component, $|U|\geq (\alpha-\sqrt{\rho_t})n$ for all $U\in\mathcal{U}_t$ by Proposition \[Claim1\], and so $$n = |V(G)|\geq t(\alpha-\sqrt{\rho_t})n\geq \frac{2}{\alpha}(\alpha-\sqrt{\rho_t})n>n ,$$ a contradiction, proving the claim.
So in polynomial time, we can find $\mathcal{U}=\{U_1,\dots,U_k,Z_1,\dots,Z_\ell\}$ for some $k, \ell \in \mathbb{N}$, where $U_i$ is a $(\rho',\nu',\tau')$-robust expander component for all $1\leq i\leq k$ and $Z_j$ is a bipartite $(\rho',\nu',\tau')$-robust expander component for all $1\leq j\leq \ell$, where $\rho'=\rho_h,\nu'=\nu_h$ for some $h < t$. Furthermore our algorithm determines which $U \in\mathcal{U}$ are bipartite robust expander components and gives corresponding bipartitions for them.
From Proposition \[Claim1\] and Remark \[rem1\] we know that $|U_i|\geq (D-\sqrt{\rho' }n
)$ for $1\leq i\leq k$ and $|Z_j| \geq 2(D-2\sqrt{\rho'}n)$ for $1\leq j\leq \ell$. Therefore $$n=\sum_{1\leq i\leq k} |U_i| + \sum_{1\leq j \leq l} |W_j|\geq (D-2\sqrt{\rho'}n)(k+2\ell)$$ and so $$\label{eq:D6}
k+2\ell \leq \left\lfloor \frac{n}{D-2\sqrt{\rho'}n}\right\rfloor \leq \left\lfloor (1+\rho'^{1/3})\frac{n}{D}\right\rfloor.$$ In particular $m:= k+ \ell \leq (k + 2 \ell) \leq 2n/D \leq 2\alpha^{-1}$. Now we apply the algorithm of Lemma \[lem:modifycomp\] (with $\rho'$ playing the role of $\rho$) to $\mathcal{U}$ to obtain (in polynomial time) the partition $\mathcal{V}=\{V_1,\dots,V_k,W_1,\dots,W_\ell\}$ of $V(G)$ satisfying (i)-(iv) so that in particular $$|U_i \triangle V_i|, |Z_i \triangle W_i| \leq \rho'^{1/3}n \leq \nu' n$$ for all applicable $i$ and $j$. We now show that $\mathcal{V}$ is a $(\rho,\nu,\tau)$-robust partition of $G$, where $\rho = 3^{3/2}\rho'^{1/6}$, $\nu=\nu'/4$. Note that $\rho \leq f(\nu)$ by making a suitable choice of $\rho_i \ll \nu_i$ for each $i$ at the start. Similarly, a suitable choice of $\rho_1$ guarantees that $1/n_0 \leq f(\rho)$.
Obviously (D1) holds. For (D2), note that $V_i$ is a $\rho'^{1/3}$-component by Lemma \[lem:modifycomp\](ii). As $\rho'^{1/3}\leq \rho$ and $|V_i| \geq D/2 \geq \sqrt{\rho}n$ (by Proposition \[Claim1\]), $V_i$ is a $\rho$-component. By Lemma \[lem:modifycomp\](i) and Lemma \[lem:stillrobustexp\] with $\nu',\tau',U_i,V_i$ playing the roles of $\nu,\tau,U,U'$, we have that $G[V_i]$ is a robust $(\nu'/2,2\tau')$-expander and thus also a robust $(\nu,\tau)$-expander. This shows (D2). To show (D3), recall that $G[Z_j]$ is a bipartite $(\rho',\nu',\tau')$-robust expander component and our algorithm gives us a partition $A_j', B_j'$ of $Z_j$ demonstrating this. We obtain a partition $A_j'',B_j''$ of $W_j$ by taking $A_j'' = A_j' \cap W_j$ and $B_j'' = W_j \setminus A_j''$ so that $|A_j'' \triangle A_j'| + |B_j'' \triangle B_j'| \leq |Z_j \triangle W_j| \leq \rho'^{1/3}n $. Then Lemma \[lem:modifycomp\](ii) together with Lemma \[lem:stillbiprobustexp\](i) where $\rho',\rho'^{1/3},\nu',\tau',Z_j,W_j$ play the roles of $\rho,\gamma,\nu,\tau,U,U'$ imply that $G[W_j]$ is a bipartite $(3\rho'^{1/3},\nu'/2,2 \tau')$-robust expander component. Next we apply (the algorithm of) Lemma \[lem:modifybip\] with $(3\rho'^{1/3},$ $\nu'/2,2\tau',W_j, A_j'', B_j'')$ playing the roles of $(\rho,\nu,\tau, U, A, B)$ to obtain a bipartition $A_j,B_j$ of $W_j$ (in polynomial time). Now (D3) follows from Lemma \[lem:modifybip\](i). We find that (D4) follows from Lemma \[lem:modifycomp\](iii) and (D5) follows from Lemma \[lem:modifybip\](ii). Lastly, (D6) follows from and (D7) follows from Lemma \[lem:modifycomp\](iv).
The running time of the algorithm of Theorem \[th:decompose\] is bounded by $O(n^4\alpha^{-2})$ where $n=|V(G)|$. Indeed, examining the proof of Theorem \[th:decompose\], the algorithm in Claim \[cl:partition\] makes $O(t^2) = O(\alpha^{-2})$ calls to algorithm 4. Algorithm 4 makes a single call to each of Algorithms 1,2,3, and each of these algorithms requires at most $n$ applications of either Theorem \[th:cheeger\] or Theorem \[th:trevisan\], i.e. a total running time of $O(\alpha^{-2}) \cdot n \cdot O(n^2) = O(\alpha^{-2}n^3)$. This dominates the running time as the application of the (greedy) algorithms in Lemma \[lem:modifycomp\] and Lemma \[lem:modifybip\] runs in time $O(n^3)$.
Finding almost-Hamilton cycles {#sec:findingcycles}
==============================
In this section we show how to algorithmically determine whether a dense, regular graph $G$ has a very long cycle (missing at most a constant number of vertices) and how to construct such a cycle if it exists. The idea is that we first use the algorithm of the previous section to find a robust partition $\mathcal{U} = \{U_1, \ldots, U_m\}$ of our input dense regular graph. Then we try to find a *path system* $\mathcal{P}$ (defined below) that supplies all the edges of our desired cycle between the $U_i$.[^3] What properties should the edges in such a path system have? For any (almost) Hamilton cycle $H$ of $G$, the edges of $H$ between the $U_i$ should connect up the $U_i$ in some sense; thus the path system $\mathcal{P}$ should be *connecting*, which we define precisely below. The path system should also be balancing in some sense: if $U_i$ is a bipartite component with parts $A_i$ and $B_i$ then the edges of $H \cap G[A_i,B_i]$ hit an equal number of vertices from $A_i$ and $B_i$, so the remaining edges of $H$ (namely those of $\mathcal{P}$) should counter any imbalance in the sizes of $A_i$ and $B_i$. It turns out that $G$ has a Hamilton cycle if and only if there is a connecting, balancing path system (with respect to $\mathcal{U}$). This was established in [@kuhn2014robust]; see Lemma \[lem:pathsystemtocycle\] below, which uses robust expansion to connect a connecting, balancing path system into a Hamilton cycle. Furthermore, it was shown in [@CyclePartitions] that a balancing path system always exists for dense, regular graphs.
Thus the problem of deciding (almost) Hamiltonicity reduces to the problem of deciding the existence of a connecting path system. We show how to determine this in polynomial time, which relies on the fact that the number of parts in $\mathcal{U}$ is finite.
The constant number of vertices that our cycle might miss owes to the fact that it is not always possible to combine balancing and connecting path systems perfectly. Nonetheless, we shall see that a very long cycle exists if and only if there is a connecting path system.
Preliminaries {#preliminaries}
-------------
In this subsection, we recall some definitions and results that will be used later. We begin by defining the structure required between the parts of our robust partition that ensures a Hamilton cycle.
A *path system* $\mathcal{P} = \{P_1, \ldots, P_k \}$ in a graph $G$ is a collection of vertex-disjoint paths $P_1, \ldots, P_k$ in $G$. We also think of $\mathcal{P}$ as a subgraph $\mathcal{P} = \cup P_i \subseteq G$, so that $V(\mathcal{P})$ and $E(\mathcal{P})$ make sense.
[**Reduced graphs**]{} - Let $G$ be a graph and $\mathcal{U}$ a partition of $V(G)$. For a path system $\mathcal{P}\subseteq E(G)$ we define the *reduced multigraph* $R_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{P})$ of $\mathcal{P}$ with respect to $\mathcal{U}$ to be the multigraph with vertex set $\mathcal{U}$ and where there is an edge between $U,U'\in \mathcal{U}$ for each path in $\mathcal{P}$ whose endpoints are in $U$ and $U'$. We also define the *reduced edge multigraph* $R'_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{P})$ of $\mathcal{P}$ with respect to $\mathcal{U}$ as the multigraph with vertex set $\mathcal{U}$ and where there is an edge between $U,U'\in \mathcal{U}$ for each *edge* in $\mathcal{P}$ with endpoints in $U,U'$. Note that both $R_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{P})$ and $R'_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{P})$ may contain loops and multiedges. We will often identify edges in $R_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{P})$ (resp. $R'_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{P})$) with their corresponding paths (resp. edges) in $\mathcal{P}$. We sometimes write $R(\mathcal{P})$ or $R'(\mathcal{P})$ if $\mathcal{U}$ is clear form the context.
[**Connecting and balancing path systems**]{} - Let $G$ be a graph and $\mathcal{U}$ a partition of $V(G)$. A path system $\mathcal{P}\subseteq G$ is called *$\mathcal{U}$-connecting* if $R_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{P})$ is Eulerian, that is if $R_\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{P})$ is connected and all vertices have even degree. Let $A,B\subseteq V(G)$ be two disjoint sets. We say $\mathcal{P}$ is *$k$-almost $(A,B)$-balancing* if $$\left|(|A|-e_\mathcal{P}(A,\overline{A\cup B})-2e_\mathcal{P}(A))-(|B|-e_\mathcal{P}(B,\overline{A\cup B})-2e_\mathcal{P}(B))\right|\leq k$$ and we say $\mathcal{P}$ is *$(A,B)$-balancing* if it is $0$-almost $(A,B)$-balancing. The significance of this is that, given any cycle $C$ of $G$ that covers all vertices of $A \cup B$, if we delete from $C$ all edges of $E_G(A,B)$, the resulting path system will be $(A,B)$-balancing.
For a robust partition $\mathcal{V}=\{V_1,\dots,V_k,W_1,\dots,W_\ell\}$ of $G$ where $A_j,B_j$ is the corresponding bipartition of $W_j$ for $1\leq j\leq \ell$, we say $\mathcal{P}$ is $\mathcal{V}$-balancing if it is $(A_i,B_i)$-balancing for $1\leq i \leq \ell$, and we say $\mathcal{P}$ is $k$-almost $\mathcal{V}$-balancing if it is $k_i$-almost $(A_i,B_i)$-balancing for $1\leq i\leq \ell$ and $\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}k_i\leq k$. The *$\mathcal{V}$-imbalance* of $\mathcal{P}$ is the smallest $k$ for which $\mathcal{P}$ is $k$-almost $\mathcal{V}$-balancing. We will omit $\mathcal{V}$ if it is clear from context.
The definitions introduced so far have been for $\mathcal{U}$ a partition of $V(G)$, but they extend in the obvious way when $\mathcal{U}$ is a subpartition of $V(G)$, i.e. where $\mathcal{U}$ consists of disjoint subsets of vertices that do not necessarily cover all of $V(G)$ (and where it is implicitly assumed that $V(\mathcal{P}) \subseteq \cup_{U \in \mathcal{U}}U$).
\[lem:pathsystemtocycle\]
Let $n,k,\ell\in \mathbb{N}_0$ and $0<1/n\ll\rho\ll\nu\ll\tau\ll\eta<1$. Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and suppose that $\mathcal{V}:=\{V_1,\dots,V_k,W_1,\dots,W_\ell\}$ is a weak robust subpartition of $G$ with parameters $\rho,\nu,\tau,\eta,k,\ell$. For each $1\leq j\leq \ell$, let $A_j,B_j$ be the bipartition of $W_j$. If $\mathcal{P}$ is a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting, $\mathcal{V}$-balancing path system such that $|V(\mathcal{P})\cap X| \leq \rho n$ for all $X\in \mathcal{V}$ then there is a cycle $C$ in $G$ that contains every vertex in $\cup_{U \in \mathcal{V}}U$. Furthermore there is a polynomial-time algorithm for constructing such a cycle.
\[rem:cyclequickenough\] Lemma \[lem:pathsystemtocycle\] follows directly from Lemmas 7.8 and 6.2 in [@kuhn2014robust]. We do not state these results because their statements involve extraneous definitions not required for our purposes. Instead we briefly discuss the relevant results informally and how to make them algorithmic.
In this paper, our definition of $\mathcal{V}$-balancing is different from that used in [@kuhn2014robust]. Lemma 7.8 from [@kuhn2014robust] is used to show that a path system $\mathcal{P}$ satisfying the conditions of Lemma \[lem:pathsystemtocycle\] can be used to construct a so-called $\mathcal{V}$-tour, which satisfies their stronger definition of balance. The proof is constructive and easily gives a polynomial-time algorithm for constructing such a $\mathcal{V}$-tour. Lemma 6.2 then shows how, given a $\mathcal{V}$-tour, one can construct a cycle $C$ as in Lemma \[lem:pathsystemtocycle\]. The proof shows explicitly how to reduce this problem to that of finding a Hamilton cycle in a robust $(\nu, \tau)$-expander. While they appeal to their Theorem 6.7, we can do this in polynomial time by appealing to Theorem 5 in [@christofides2012finding].
Next we will state the results from [@CyclePartitions] that allow one to find balancing path systems in dense regular graphs. Their setup is different from [@kuhn2014robust], so we now introduce the necessary definitions.
[**$\alpha$-sparse and $\alpha$-far from bipartite**]{} - Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices. A *cut* of a set $A\subseteq V(G)$ is a partition $X,Y$ of $A$, where $X$ and $Y$ are both non-empty. We say that a cut $X,Y$ is *$\alpha$-sparse* if $e_G(X,Y)\leq \alpha |X||Y|$. We say that a set $A\subseteq V(G)$ is *$\alpha$-almost-bipartite* if there exists a partition $X,Y$ of $A$ such that $G[A]$ has at most $\alpha n^2$ edges that are not in $E_G(X,Y)$. Otherwise, we say that $A$ is *$\alpha$-far-from-bipartite*.
[**Clustering**]{} - Let $c_{min}\in (0,1)$ and let $G$ be a $D$-regular graph on $n$ vertices with $D\geq c_{min}n$. A *clustering of $G$* with parameters $\zeta,\delta,\gamma,\beta,\eta$ is a partition $\{A_1,\dots,A_r\}$ of $V(G)$ into non-empty sets satisfying the following properties:
1. $G$ has at most $\eta n^2$ edges with ends in different $A_i$’s;
2. for each $i\in[r]$, the minimum degree of $G[A_i]$ is at least $\delta n$;
3. for each $i\in [r]$, $A_i$ has no $\zeta$-sparse cuts;
4. for each $i\in[r]$, $A_i$ is either $\beta$-almost bipartite or $\gamma$-far from bipartite. If $A_i$ is $\beta$-almost-bipartite, we also give an appropriate partition $X_i,Y_i$.
We will always choose the parameters such that $1/n\ll \eta \ll \beta \ll \gamma\ll\zeta\ll \delta$.
The following theorem says that a clustering always has a balancing path system. Here we think of a path system as a subgraph of $G$.
\[th:balance\]
Let $1/n \ll \eta \ll \beta \ll \xi,\gamma \ll \zeta \ll \delta < 1$. Suppose $G$ is an $n$-vertex, $D$-regular graph with $D \geq c_{min}n$ and $\mathcal{A} = \{A_1,\dots,A_r\}$ is a clustering of $G$ with parameters $\zeta,\delta,\gamma,\beta,\eta$, and assume that whenever $A_i$ is $\beta$-almost-bipartite the corresponding partition of $A_i$ is $X_i,Y_i$. Then there exists a path system $H\subseteq G$ with the following properties:
1. For each $i\in[r]$ such that $A_i$ is $\beta$-almost-bipartite, we have $$2e_H(X_i)-2e_H(Y_i)+e_H(X_i,\overline{A_i})-e_H(Y_i,\overline{A_i})=2(||A_j|-|B_j||);$$
2. The number of leaves (i.e. vertices of degree $1$) of $H$ in $A_i$ is even for all $1\leq i\leq r$;
3. $|V(H)|\leq \xi n$.
Furthermore, there is a randomized algorithm that finds $H$ with probability $p>\frac{3}{4}$ and runs in time polynomial in $n$.
\[rem:balsmall\] Note firstly that (a) says that $H$ is an $\mathcal{A}$-balancing path system. We shall see in the next lemma that a robust partition is a clustering, so this gives us a way of obtaining balancing path systems for robust partitions.
The lemma above is not stated to be algorithmic in [@CyclePartitions], but in fact their probabilistic proof essentially gives a (randomised) polynomial-time algorithm. Also, their proof requires that the probability $p$ of success be positive, but the analysis can easily be modified to show a lower bound of e.g. $p>\frac{3}{4}$.
As Theorem \[th:balance\] uses the concept of a clustering, we use the following lemma to show that a robust partition is also a clustering. This allows us to apply Theorem \[th:balance\] to a robust partition.
\[lem:cluster\] For every non-decreasing function $f: (0,1) \to (0,1)$ there is a non-decreasing function $f': (0,1) \to (0,1)$ satisfying $f'(x)<f(x)$ for all $x \in (0,1)$ such that the following holds. For any choice of parameters $\rho, \nu, \tau, \alpha, n, k, \ell$ satisfying $1/n \leq \rho \ll_{f'} \nu \leq \tau \ll_{f'} \alpha$ and $n, k, \ell \in \mathbb{N}$ there exist parameters $\zeta,\delta,\gamma,\beta,\eta$ satisfying $\rho \ll_f \eta \ll_f \beta \ll_f \gamma \ll_f \zeta \ll_f \nu $ and $\tau < \delta < \alpha$ such that if $G$ is an $n$-vertex $D$-regular graph with $D\geq \alpha n$ and $\mathcal{V}$ is a robust partition of $G$ with parameters $\rho, \nu,\tau,k,\ell$ then $\mathcal{V}$ is also clustering with parameters $\zeta,\delta,\gamma,\beta,\eta$.
A proof of the above lemma is provided in the appendix for completeness.
Path systems and long cycles
----------------------------
The first lemmas in this subsection, \[le:redCsystem\] to \[lem:connect\] show how to find connecting path systems. The rest of the chapter shows how to combine all the elements. Lemma \[lem:combine\] allows us to combine balancing and connecting path systems into a single path system that is connecting and almost balancing, and Lemma \[lem:cycle\] allows us to extend this path system into a very long cycle (by applying Lemma \[lem:pathsystemtocycle\]). At the end of the section comes the proof of Theorem \[th:result\], which describes the whole algorithm.
\[le:redCsystem\] Let $G$ be a graph, let $\mathcal{U}=\{U_1,\dots,U_m\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$, and let $\mathcal{C}$ be a $\mathcal{U}$-connecting path system in $G$. Then there exists a $\mathcal{U}$-connecting path system $\mathcal{C}'$ such that
- $E(\mathcal{C}') \cap E(G[V_i]) = \emptyset$ for all $i = 1, \ldots, m$ and
- $|E(\mathcal{C}') \cap E_G(V_i,V_j)| \leq 2$ for all $1 \leq i < j \leq m$.
For any path $P=v_1v_2\cdots v_j$ in $\mathcal{C}$, if two vertices of $P$ belong to the same component $U \in \mathcal{U}$, let $v_a$ and $v_b$ be the first and last vertices of $P$ that belong to $U$ and replace $P$ with the paths $v_1Pv_a$ and $v_bPv_j$; it is easy to see that the resulting path system is $\mathcal{U}$-connecting (see Figure \[fig:breakpaths\]). We make replacements as described above until no paths contain multiple vertices from the same component and we call the resulting $\mathcal{U}$-connecting path system $\mathcal{C}^*$.
![Example: The path $v_1\dots v_7$ from $U_1$ to $U_5$ has the edges between $v_2$ and $v_6$ pruned, resulting in two paths (thick lines), one from $U_1$ to $U_2$ and one from $U_2$ to $U_5$. Note that this ensures that $\mathcal{C}'$ contains no edges inside components.[]{data-label="fig:breakpaths"}](breakpaths.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Next we show how to reduce the number of edges between components.
Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a $\mathcal{U}$-connecting path system (i.e. $R_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{D})$ is Eulerian). For $X,Y\in \mathcal{U}$ such that $E_{\mathcal{D}}(X,Y)>2$, it is possible to find two edges $e,f \in E_{\mathcal{D}}(X,Y)$ such that $\mathcal{D}' = \mathcal{D} \setminus \{e,f \}$ is a $\mathcal{U}$-connecting path system. (Here deleting $e, f$ from $\mathcal{D}$ may create isolated vertices which we remove to form $\mathcal{D} \setminus \{e,f \}$.)
We first note that if $e \in E_{\mathcal{D}}(X,Y)$, then the effect of deleting $e$ from $\mathcal{D}$ is to keep all degrees of $R(\mathcal{D})$ unchanged except that the degrees of $X$ and $Y$ will increase or decrease by $1$. (Note that we only get a decrease by $1$ if $e$ is the first or last edge of a path in $\mathcal{D}$.) Therefore removing two edges of $E_{\mathcal{D}}(X,Y)$ from $\mathcal{D}$ preserves the parity of all vertices of $R(\mathcal{D})$.
Next suppose that $R(\mathcal{D})$ is Eulerian (and hence connected). Hence $R(\mathcal{D})$ is in fact $2$-edge connected (since an Eulerian graph can be decomposed into cycles but a cut edge cannot belong to a cycle). Therefore by Menger’s theorem there are two edge-disjoint paths $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ between $X$ and $Y$ in $R(\mathcal{D})$. Given any three edges of $E_{\mathcal{D}}(X,Y)$, we can find two, say $e,f$, that miss either $Q_1$ or $Q_2$, say $Q_1$.
Let $P_e$ be the path of $\mathcal{D}$ containing $e$. The effect on $R(\mathcal{D})$ of removing $e$ from $\mathcal{D}$ is to replace some edge $AB$ with two edges $AX, BY$.[^4] Therefore $A$ and $B$ are still connected in $R(\mathcal{D} \setminus \{e\})$ via the path $AXQ_1YB$. Similarly, deleting $f$ keeps the reduced graph connected. Therefore $R( \mathcal{D} \setminus \{e,f\})$ is connected with all degree parities preserved, so is Eulerian, i.e. $\mathcal{D}'= \mathcal{D} \setminus \{e,f\}$ is a connecting path system.
We construct $\mathcal{C}'$ from $\mathcal{C}^*$ by iteratively applying the previous claim whenever possible. By construction $\mathcal{D}$ is a $\mathcal{U}$-connecting path system satisfying (a) and (b).
The next lemma will be useful in our algorithm for detecting graphs that do not have very long cycles. It essentially says that the absence of a $\mathcal{U}$-connecting path system implies the absence of a very long cycle.
\[lem:shortConnecting\] Let $G$ be a graph and $\mathcal{U}=\{U_1,\dots,U_m\}$ be a partition of $V(G)$. If there exists a cycle $K$ in $G$ that contains at least $r>2m$ vertices from each $U\in \mathcal{U}$, then there also exists a $\mathcal{U}$-connecting path system $\mathcal{C}$ with at most $m^2-m$ edges. Further, $\mathcal{C}$ contains at most two edges between any two $U_i,U_j\subseteq \mathcal{U}$.
We start by deleting edges from $K$ to form a path system $\mathcal{C}^*$ such that $R_{\mathcal{U}}(\mathcal{C}^*)$ is a Hamilton cycle on $\mathcal{U}$.
There exist vertex-disjoint paths $P_1, \ldots, P_m \subseteq K$ such that the endpoints of $P_i$ are in $U_i$.
Suppose, by induction, we have found vertex-disjoint paths $P_1, \ldots, P_{k-1}$ (with $k \leq m$) such that
- each $P_i$ (with $i\leq k-1$) has its endpoints in $U_i$ (after relabelling of indices);
- $K \setminus (\cup_{i=1}^{k-1}V(P_i))$ is a union of paths that visits $U_i$ at least $r - (k-1)>m$ times for each $i \geq k$.
Any vertex of $\cup_{i=k}^m U_i$ is called *untreated*. We know that since $K$ is a cycle, $K \setminus (\cup_{i=1}^{k-1}V(P_i))$ is a disjoint union of $k-1$ paths, which we denote by $Q_1, \ldots, Q_{k-1}$. At least one of these paths, say $Q_1$ must contain at least $(r-k+1)(m-k+1)/(k-1) > m-k+1$ untreated vertices. Pick two untreated vertices $a, b \in V(Q_1)$ that are as close together as possible and belong to the same $U_j$ for some $j \geq k$. In particular, no two internal untreated vertices of $aQ_1b$ belong to the same $U_i$ and so $aQ_1b$ contains at most $ m-k+1 $ untreated vertices. Then we swap the indices of $U_j$ and $U_k$ and set $P_k = aQ_1b$. It is clear that (a) holds with $k-1$ replaced by $k$. Since, for each $i \geq k+1$, the path $P_k$ visits each $U_i$ at most once, part (b) also holds. (It is easy to see that a slight variant of the above argument allows us to pick the first path.)
Let $\mathcal{C}^*$ be the set of non-trivial paths of $K \setminus \cup_{i=1}^m E(P_i)$; it is easy to see that $\mathcal{C}^*$ is a Hamilton cycle on $\mathcal{U}$ and so is a $\mathcal{U}$-connecting path system. Then, by the previous lemma applied to $\mathcal{C}^*$, there exists a $\mathcal{U}$-connecting path system $\mathcal{C}$ that has no edges inside any $U \in \mathcal{U}$ and that has at most $2$ edges between any distinct $U_i, U_j \in \mathcal{U}$ (and therefore has at most $m(m-1)$ edges).
The following lemma gives an algorithm for deciding whether a graph with vertex partition $\mathcal{V}$ has a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system.
\[lem:connect\] Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and $\mathcal{V}$ a partition of $V(G)$ with $|\mathcal{V}|=m$. There exists an algorithm that determines whether there exists a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system in $G$, and if one does, then the algorithm finds one with at most $m^2-m$ edges. This algorithm runs in time $m^{O(m^2)}+O(m^2 n^{5/2})$.
The algorithm proceeds by first preselecting a small number of plausible edges and then using brute force to find a connecting path system as a subset of these edges. The preselected edges are chosen such that if a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system exists, then one exists amongst the preselected edges.
Assume $\mathcal{V} = \{V_1, \ldots, V_m\}$. For each $1 \leq i < j \leq m$, let $E_{i,j} \subseteq E_G(V_i,V_j)$ be defined as follows. If the bipartite graph $G[V_i,V_j]$ contains a matching of size $4m$, let $E_{i,j}$ be the edges in any such matching. If not then $G[V_i,V_j]$ has a dominating set $F_{i,j}$ of size at most $8m$ (taking the vertices incident to a maximum matching). For each vertex $v$ in $F_{i,j}$, select any set $E_{i,j}^v$ of $\min(d_{G[V_i,V_j]}(v),2m)$ edges incident to $v$ in $G[V_i,V_j]$ and take $E_{i,j} = \cup_{v \in F_{i,j}}E_{i,j}^v$. Finally our preselected edge set is defined to be $E' := \cup_{i<j}E_{i,j}$. Next we show that if a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system $\mathcal{C}$ exists, then also a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system $\mathcal{D}\subseteq E'$ exists. By Lemma \[le:redCsystem\] we may assume that $\mathcal{C}$ has no edges inside any $V_i$ and has at most two edges between each pair $V_i, V_j$ (so in particular there are at most $2(m-1)$ edges of $E(\mathcal{C})$ incident with $V_i$ (and $V_j$)).
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be any $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system as described above, i.e. $\mathcal{C}$ has no edges inside any $V_i$ and has at most two edges between each pair $V_i, V_j$. Then for any $e \in E(\mathcal{C})$, we can find $r(e) \in E'$ such that
- if $e$ has its endpoints in $V_i$ and $V_j$, then so does $r(e)$;
- for all $f \in E(\mathcal{C}) \setminus \{ e \}$, if $e \cap f = \emptyset$, then $r(e) \cap f = \emptyset$.
We will repeatedly apply this claim to replace edges $e \in \mathcal{C}$ with edges $r(e) \in E'$ to obtain $\mathcal{D}$.
In order to find $r(e)$ satisfying (R1) and (R2), assume $e$ has endpoints in $V_i$ and $V_j$. If $e \in E'$ then set $R(e) = e$ and note that (R1) and (R2) clearly hold. If not, then we have two cases to consider.
If $E_{i,j}$ is a matching of size $4m$ then at least one edge of $E_{i,j}$ is not incident with any edge in $E(\mathcal{C})$ (since there are at most $2(m-1)$ edges of $\mathcal{C}$ incident with any $V_i$) and this is the edge we choose as $r(e)$; clearly (R1) and (R2) hold in this case.
If $E_{i,j}$ is not a matching of size $4m$, then $e$ is incident to some vertex $v \in F_{i,j}$, so assume $e = vv'$ and that $v \in V_i$ and $v' \in V_j$. Since $e \not\in E_{i,j}$, then $E_{i,j}$ has $2m$ edges incident to $v$, and so there is at least one edge $vv^* \in E_{i,j}$ such that $v^*$ is not incident to any edge in $E(\mathcal{C})$ (again since there are at most $2(m-1)$ edges of $\mathcal{C}$ incident to $V_j$), and we choose $r(e) = vv^*$. Again (R1) and (R2) follow by construction.
We now apply the above claim to $\mathcal{C}$, replacing each edge $e \in E(\mathcal{C})$ with $r(e)$ one at a time (each time updating $\mathcal{C}$ before the next application of the claim). Denote the resulting set of edges by $\mathcal{D}$. Note that $E(\mathcal{D}) \subseteq E'$ and
- if $e \in E(\mathcal{C})$ has its endpoints in $V_i$ and $V_j$, then so does $r(e) \in \mathcal{D}$;
- if $e,f \in \mathcal{C}$ are independent (i.e. $e \cap f = \emptyset$) then so are $r(e)$ and $r(f)$.
Here (b) holds because (R2) guarantees we never introduce any new incidences during the process of replacing edges.
It is easy to see from (b) that $\mathcal{D}$ is a path system, and we now check that $\mathcal{D}$ is $\mathcal{V}$-connecting. By (a) and (b), for any path $P \in \mathcal{C}$, the set of edges $\{r(e): e \in E(P)\}$ is a union of vertex-disjoint paths $P_1, \ldots, P_t$ with $P_i = a_iP_ib_i$ and $a_{i+1}$ and $b_i$ belong to the same $V \in \mathcal{V}$. Therefore each edge $e = VV' \in R(\mathcal{C})$ corresponds to a path from $V$ to $V'$ in $R(\mathcal{D})$ (with edges $e_1, \ldots, e_t$ corresponding to the paths $P_1, \ldots, P_t$). This shows that $R(\mathcal{D})$ can be obtained from $R(\mathcal{C})$ by replacing each edge with a path having the same endpoints as the edge: it is now clear that if $R(\mathcal{C})$ is Eulerian then so is $R(\mathcal{D})$ and so $\mathcal{D}$ is $\mathcal{V}$-connecting.
We have now shown that if a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system exists, then one exists inside $E'$ (and we have seen that it uses at most $2$ edges between each $V_i,V_j$, so at most $m^2 - m$ edges in total). For the algorithm to find such a path system, we first construct each $E_{i,j}$; the running time here is dominated in searching for a maximum matching in each $G[V_i,V_j]$, which takes total time $\binom{m}{2}n^{2.5}$ (using e.g. the Hopcroft-Karp algorithm [@hopcroft2karp]). We then check every possible way of selecting at most two edges from each $E_{i,j}$; since $E_{i,j}$ has size at most $(8m)(2m) = 16m^2$, there are $\left(\binom{16m^2}{2} +16m^2+1\right)^{\binom{m}{2}} = m^{O(m^2)}$ possibilities. If a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system exists, then one of these possibilities will give us one and it takes time $m^{O(m^2)}+O(m^2 n^{2.5})$-time to determine this.
The next lemma allows us to combine a connecting path system with a balancing path system into a path system that is connecting and almost-balancing.
\[lem:combine\] Given a graph $G$ on $n$ vertices with a robust partition $\mathcal{V}=\{V_1,\dots,V_k,W_1,\dots,W_\ell\}$, a $\mathcal{V}$-balancing path system $\mathcal{B}$ and a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system $\mathcal{C}$, there exists a connecting, $(5|E(\mathcal{C})| + m-1)$-almost balancing path system $\mathcal{P}$, where $m:=k+\ell$ is the number of components in $\mathcal{V}$, and $\mathcal{P} \subseteq \mathcal{B} \cup \mathcal{C}$ (when thought of as sets of edges). Furthermore, $\mathcal{P}$ can be constructed in time polynomial in $n$. (Note that we suppress the parameters of the robust partition as they are irrelevant for this lemma.)
We begin by constructing $\mathcal{B}'\subseteq\mathcal{B}$ as follows: First delete any edge from $\mathcal{B}$ that shares a vertex with an edge from $\mathcal{C}$ to obtain $\mathcal{B}^*$. As each edge in $\mathcal{C}$ is incident to at most four edges in $\mathcal{B}$, we delete at most $4|E(\mathcal{C})|$ edges here.
There exists $\mathcal{B}'\subseteq\mathcal{B}^*$ such that $|E(\mathcal{B}^*) \setminus E(\mathcal{B}')|\leq m-1$ and every vertex of $R_{\mathcal{V}}(\mathcal{B}')$ has even degree.
Consider a connected component $X$ of the multigraph $\mathcal{R}'_\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{B}^*)$. As in any graph, there are an even number of vertices with odd degree in $X$. For each component of $\mathcal{R}'_\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{B}^*)$, pair up these vertices arbitrarily and find paths (not necessarily disjoint) between each pair within $ \mathcal{R}'_\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{B}^*)$ (which is possible since each pair belongs to the same connected component of $\mathcal{R}'_\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{B}^*)$); call these paths $P_1, \ldots, P_t$. Set $Q=\triangle_{i=1}^tP_i$ as the symmetric difference of the edge sets of $P_1,\dots, P_t$. Note that removing all edges in $Q$ from $\mathcal{R}'_\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{B}^*)$ will result in a graph with even degree in each vertex. Next, construct $Q'$ from $Q$ by iteratively removing edges that form cycles, where we count a double edge as a cycle. Do this until no cycles remain, i.e. $Q'$ is a forest so has at most $m-1$ edges. Again, removing the edges in $Q'$ from $\mathcal{R}'_\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{B}^*)$ results in a graph with even degree in each vertex. The edges in $Q'$ correspond to edges in $\mathcal{B}^*$ that we delete to construct $\mathcal{B}'$, and so $\mathcal{R}'(\mathcal{B}')$ has even degree in every vertex. As the parity of each degree in $\mathcal{R}_\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{B}')$ and $\mathcal{R}'_\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{B}')$ are the same, $\mathcal{R}_\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{B}')$ has even degree in each vertex.
We construct $\mathcal{P}$ as the union of $\mathcal{B}'$ and $\mathcal{C}$. Both $R_{\mathcal{V}}(\mathcal{B'})$ and $R_{\mathcal{V}}(\mathcal{C})$ have even degree for every vertex and so this also holds for $R_{\mathcal{V}}(\mathcal{P})$. Since $R_{\mathcal{V}}(\mathcal{C})$ is connected so is $R_{\mathcal{V}}(\mathcal{P})$ and so $\mathcal{R}_\mathcal{V}(\mathcal{P})$ is Eulerian, i.e. $\mathcal{P}$ is $\mathcal{V}$-connecting. By construction $\mathcal{P}$ arises from $\mathcal{B}$ by at most $5|E(\mathcal{C})|+m-1$ additions or deletions of edges, each of which contributes at most 1 to the $\mathcal{V}$-imbalance of $\mathcal{P}$. It is straightforward to see that $\mathcal{P}$ can be constructed in time polynomial in $n$ given $G,\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{C}$.
If we have a connecting, almost balancing path system (as provided by the previous lemma) with respect to a robust partition, then we can use Lemma \[lem:pathsystemtocycle\] to construct a very long cycle, as described below.
\[lem:cycle\] Let $0<1/n_0 \ll \rho\leq \gamma \ll \nu\ll \tau \leq \alpha<1$ and $t\leq \rho n$. There is an algorithm that, given an $n$-vertex, $D$-regular graph $G$ with $n \geq n_0$ and $D \geq \alpha n$ and a robust partition $\mathcal{V}=\{V_1,\dots,V_k,W_1,\dots,W_\ell\}$ of $G$ with parameters $\rho,\nu,\tau,k,\ell$ and a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting $t$-almost balancing path system $\mathcal{P}$ with $|V(\mathcal{P})\cap V|\leq \gamma n$ for all $V\in\mathcal{V}$, constructs a cycle through all but at most $t$ vertices of $G$. It does this in time polynomial in $n$.
We use Lemma \[lem:weakrobustsubp\] to see that $\mathcal{V}$ is also a weak robust subpartition with parameters $\rho,\nu,\tau,\eta,k,\ell$ where we set $\eta=\alpha^2/2$.
For $1\leq j\leq \ell$, let $t_j$ be such that $\sum t_j =t$ and such that $\mathcal{P}$ is $t_j$-almost $(A_j,B_j)$-balancing, where $A_j,B_j$ is the bipartition corresponding to $W_j$. By selecting $t_j$ vertices $T_j$ from either $A_j\setminus V(\mathcal{P})$ or $B_j\setminus V(\mathcal{P})$, we can ensure that $\mathcal{P}$ is $(A_j\setminus T_j,B_j\setminus T_j)$-balancing. Set $T = \cup\, T_j$ so that $|T|=t\leq \rho n$ and define $\mathcal{V}'=\{V'_1,\dots,V'_k,W'_1,\dots,W'_\ell\}$ with $V'_i=V_i\setminus T = V_i$ and $W'_j=W_j\setminus T$ with $A_j\setminus T,B_j\setminus T$ as the bipartition of $W'_j$.
Next we show that $\mathcal{V}'$ is a weak robust subpartition of $G$ with parameters $3\gamma,\nu/2,2\tau,\alpha^2/4,k,\ell$.
First we apply Lemma \[lem:stillbiprobustexp\](ii) to each $W_j$ with $W_j\setminus T$ playing the role of $U'$. As $|W_j\triangle W'_j|\leq \rho n \leq \gamma n$, we see that each $W_j$ is a bipartite $(3\gamma, \nu/2, 2\tau)$-robust expander component of $G$ (with bipartition $A_j\setminus T, B_j \setminus T$ by Lemma \[lem:stillbiprobustexp\](i)). Clearly each $V_i' = V_i$ remains a $(\rho, \nu, \tau)$-robust expander component and so is a $(3 \gamma, \nu/2,2 \tau)$-robust expander component as well. This shows that (D2$'$) and (D3$'$) hold. (D1$'$) obviously holds, and as $|T|\leq \rho n$, it is easy to see that (D4$'$) and (D5$'$) also hold.
To construct the desired cycle (i.e. one that contains every vertex of $V(G) \setminus T$), we apply Lemma \[lem:pathsystemtocycle\] with $G,3\gamma,\nu/2,2\tau,\alpha^2/4,n,k,\ell,\mathcal{V}',\mathcal{P}$ playing the roles of $G,\rho,\nu,\tau,\eta,n,k,\ell,\mathcal{V},\mathcal{P}$. We obtain a cycle $C$ that contains all vertices in $\cup_{X \in \mathcal{V}'}X = V(G) \setminus T$. Moreover, this cycle can be found in time polynomial in $n$ since we can find $T$ in polynomial time and apply Lemma \[lem:pathsystemtocycle\] in polynomial time.
Finally, we prove the main result, which we repeat here for convenience.
\[th:result\] For every $\alpha\in(0,1]$, there exists $c = c(\alpha) = 100 \alpha^{-2}$ and a (deterministic) polynomial-time algorithm that, given an $n$-vertex $D$-regular graph $G$ with $D\geq \alpha n$ as input, determines whether $G$ contains a cycle on at least $n - c$ vertices. Furthermore there is a (randomised) polynomial-time algorithm to find such a cycle if it exists.
We are given $\alpha$ in the statement of the theorem. We will choose non-decreasing functions $f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4: (0,1) \to (0,1)$ with $f_i(x)\leq x$ for all $x\in (0,1),i\in[4]$ as follows. Let $f_1$ be the function governing the hierarchy in the statement of Lemma \[lem:cycle\] and let $f_2$ be the function governing the hierarchy of Theorem \[th:balance\] Define $f_3: (0,1) \to (0,1)$ as $f_3(x)=\min\{f_1(x),f_2(x), \alpha^2 x^2/100\}$. Applying Lemma \[lem:cluster\] with $f_3$ playing the role of $f$, let $f_4$ be the function we obtain (i.e. $f_4:=f'$) and note that $f_4(x) \leq f_3(x)$ for all $x \in (0,1)$.
We define $\tau = f_4(\alpha)$ and apply Theorem \[th:decompose\] with $\tau,\alpha, f_4$ playing the roles of $\tau,\alpha,f$ to obtain a number $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$. Define $c := 100\alpha^{-2}$. So far we have defined $f_1, \ldots, f_4, \tau, \alpha, n_0, c$.
Given an $n$-vertex $D$-regular graph $G$ with $D \geq \alpha n$, if $n \leq \max(n_0, 1000\alpha^{-3})$ we can use brute force to determine in polynomial time if there exists a cycle in $G$ on at least $n - c$ vertices. So we assume that $n \geq \max(n_0, 1000\alpha^{-3})$.
By applying Theorem \[th:decompose\] to $G$ (with $\tau, \alpha, n_0$ as above and $f=f_4$), we obtain a robust partition $\mathcal{V}$ of $G$ with parameters $\rho, \nu, \tau, k, \ell$ satisfying $$\label{eq:hier1}
1/n_0 \ll_{f_4} \rho \ll_{f_4} \nu \leq \tau \ll_{f_4} \alpha.$$ Set $m:= k+ \ell = |\mathcal{V}|$ and note that $m \leq (1 + \rho^{1/3})/ \alpha \leq 2 \alpha^{-1}$.
We claim that $G$ contains a cycle with at least $n - c$ vertices if and only if $G$ has a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system. The claim proves the first part of the Theorem because, by applying the algorithm of Lemma \[lem:connect\], we can determine in time polynomial in $n$ whether $G$ has a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system (and if it does, we can find one in time polynomial in $n$ with at most $m^2$ edges).
So let us prove the claim. First assume $G$ has no $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system. Then by Lemma \[lem:shortConnecting\], for every cycle $K$ of $G$, there is some $U \in \mathcal{V}$ such that $K$ contains at most $2m$ vertices of $U$; in particular $K$ misses at least $$|U| - 2m \geq (\alpha - \sqrt{\rho})n - 2m \geq (\alpha/2)n - 2m \geq c$$ vertices, where the first inequality is by Proposition \[Claim1\], the second since $\rho \ll_{f_4} \alpha$ with $f_4(x) \leq f_3(x) \leq x^2/4$, and the third by our choice of $n$ large and $c$.
Now suppose $G$ contains a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system. Then we know there exists a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting path system $\mathcal{P}$ with at most $m^2$ edges. By Lemma \[lem:cluster\] with $f_3, f_4$ playing the roles of $f, f'$ and using , we see that $\mathcal{V}$ is a clustering with parameters $\zeta,\delta,\gamma,\beta,\eta$ where $$\label{eq:hier2}
1/n \ll_{f_3} \rho \ll_{f_3} \eta \ll_{f_3} \beta \ll_{f_3} \gamma \ll_{f_3} \zeta \ll_{f_3} \nu \leq \tau \leq \delta \leq \alpha.$$ Set $\xi:=\gamma$. In particular $n, \eta, \beta, \gamma, \xi, \zeta, \delta$ satisfy the hierarchy needed to apply Theorem \[th:balance\] to $G$ (with $\mathcal{V}, \alpha$ playing the roles of $\mathcal{A}, c_{\min}$). Thus there exists $H \subseteq G$ that is $\mathcal{V}$-balancing (by part (a)) and such that $|V(H)| \leq \xi n = \gamma n$ (by part (c)). Now applying Lemma \[lem:combine\] with $G, \mathcal{V}, H, \mathcal{P}$ playing the roles of $G, \mathcal{V}, \mathcal{B}, \mathcal{C}$, there exists a $\mathcal{V}$-connecting, $r$-almost balancing path system $\mathcal{P}' \subseteq \mathcal{P} \cup H$ where $r \leq 5|E(\mathcal{P})| +m -1 \leq 5m^2 + m \leq c$ (hence $\mathcal{P}'$ is also $c$-almost balancing). Note that for each $U \in \mathcal{V}$, we have $|V(\mathcal{P}') \cap U| \leq |V(H) \cap U| + |V(\mathcal{P})| \leq \xi n + 2m^2 \leq 2 \xi n$. By Lemma \[lem:cycle\] with $G, \mathcal{V}, \mathcal{P}', \rho, 2\xi, \nu, \tau, \alpha, c $ playing the role of $G, \mathcal{V}, \mathcal{P}, \rho, \gamma, \nu, \tau, \alpha, t $, we see there exists a cycle $C$ in $G$ with at least $n - c$ vertices. We note that the required hierarchy for applying Lemma \[lem:cycle\] follows from and our choice of $f_3$ and it is also easy to see that $c \leq \rho n$ (since $1/n \ll_{f_3} \rho$ and our choice of $f_3$). This proves the claim.
Finally, if our algorithm determines that there exists a cycle in $G$ with at least $n - c$ vertices then there is also a polynomial-time algorithm to construct such a cycle. Indeed repeating the argument above with the corresponding algorithms, in polynomial time we can construct $\mathcal{P}$ (Lemma \[lem:connect\]) and $H$ (Theorem \[th:balance\] and Remark \[rem:balsmall\]) and therefore also $\mathcal{P}'$ (Lemma \[lem:combine\]) and hence also $C$ (Lemma \[lem:cycle\]).
\[rem:runtime\] The algorithm in Theorem \[th:result\] (for determining the existence of the cycle) has a crude running time upper bound of $O(\alpha^{-2}n^3) + O(\alpha^{-4}n^{5/2}) + g(\alpha)$, for some function $g$. Indeed $O(\alpha^{-2}n^3)$ comes from the application of Theorem \[th:decompose\] and Lemma \[lem:connect\]. The contribution of $g(\alpha)$ comes from using brute force when $n \leq \max(n_0, 100\alpha^{-3})$ and the application of Lemma \[lem:connect\].
We do not give an explicit running time for finding the desired cycle (when it exists) because this algorithm is based on other polynomial-time algorithms in the literature where no explicit running time bound was given.
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
The most obvious question that arises from this work is whether we can take $c=0$ in Theorem \[th:result\], i.e. whether the Hamilton cycle problem is polynomial-time solvable for dense, regular graphs. Our work shows that to answer this affirmatively, it is enough to give a polynomial-time algorithm to decide whether there exists a path system that is both $\mathcal{V}$-connecting and $\mathcal{V}$-balancing when given a dense regular graph together with a robust partition $\mathcal{V}$.
One important aspect of Theorem \[th:result\] is that it shows that the circumference (the length of a longest cycle) of an $n$-vertex, $D$-regular graph $G$ with $D \geq \alpha n$ cannot take values between roughly $(1-\alpha)n$ and $n-c$, where $c=c(\alpha) = 100\alpha^{-2}$. For our algorithm, this gives some slack to play with. On the other hand, for the Hamiltonicity problem, there is no such slack: by an easy generalisation of the example of Jung [@Jung] and Jackson-Li-Zhu [@JacksonLiZhu] (see Figure \[fig:ex2\]) there are regular graphs of degree roughly $n/k$ whose circumference is $n-(k-3)$.
![The graph $G$ above has $n = kD + k -3$ vertices (and we assume $k$ divides $D$ for simplicity). $A$ and $B$ are independent sets with all edges between them present. There are $D/k$ independent edges from $A$ to each $C_i$ so that these edges together form a matching. Then we delete a matching from each $C_i$ so that the resulting graph is $D$-regular. The graph has no cycle on $n- (k -4)$ vertices because deleting $D$ vertices from $G$ would then yield at most $D+ (k-4)$ components in $G$ (at most $D$ from the cycle and at most $k-4$ from the missed vertices), but deleting $A$ from $G$ yields $D + k -3$ components.[]{data-label="fig:ex2"}](examples2.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
If Hamiltonicity turns out to be NP-complete for dense, regular graphs then the question remains as to the smallest value of $c$ for which Theorem \[th:result\] holds. This may turn out to be closely related to the smallest $c$ for which the the circumference cannot take values between roughly $(1 - \alpha)n$ and $n-c$. It is also worth noting that the example in Figure \[fig:ex2\] has a large independent set (roughly of size $\alpha n$) and one can in fact show that any non-Hamiltonian dense regular graph with long cycles (say of length at least $(1 - (\alpha/2))n$) must have a large independent set (of size at least $(\alpha - \varepsilon )n$). Finally, we expect that the algorithm given in Theorem \[th:result\] can be modified to give an approximation algorithm for the longest path/cycle problems in dense regular graphs. The idea would be to search for (similarly to Lemma \[lem:connect\]) a connecting path system that maximises the number of vertices in the parts it connects together; write $S$ for this union of parts. We would then combine it with a balancing path system (guaranteed by Theorem \[th:balance\]) and use the resulting path system together with (a variant of) Lemma \[lem:cycle\] to produce a cycle passing through all but a fixed number $c$ of vertices in $S$. We should not expect any paths/cycles of length bigger than $|S|$ so this would give a $(1 - \frac{c}{n})$-approximation for the longest path/cycle.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Allan Lo for helpful discussions.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
We define $f^*,f':(0,1)\to(0,1)$ as $f^*(x) = \min\{x^2/4, f(x)\}$, and $f'(x) = f^*_{5}(x)$, where $f^{*}_5(x)$ denotes composing $f^*$ with itself five times. Note that $f^*(x)<x$ and $f^*(x) \leq f(x)$ for all $x \in (0,1)$, so (by induction) $f^*_{5}(x)<f(x)$ for all $x \in (0,1)$. We choose $\zeta,\delta,\gamma,\beta,\eta$ such that $\delta=f^*(\alpha), \zeta=f^*(\nu), \gamma=f^*(\zeta),\beta=f^*(\gamma),\eta=f^*(\beta)$. Note that this also implies $\tau\leq f^*(\delta)$ and $\rho\leq f^*(\eta)$. Writing $x \ll_{f^*} y$ to mean that $x \leq f^*(y)$, one easily checks that $$\rho \ll_{f^*} \eta \ll_{f^*} \beta \ll_{f^*} \gamma \ll_{f^*} \zeta \ll_{f^*} \nu \leq \tau \ll_{f^*} \delta \ll_{f^*} \alpha.$$ Furthermore (D6) implies $m := k+\ell \leq 2n/D \leq 2 \alpha^{-1}$ and so $D/m \geq \alpha n / m \geq \alpha^2 n / 2 \geq \delta n$.
Property (a) follows from (D2), (D3) and $\rho\ll\eta$. Property (b) follows from (D4) and $\alpha/m \geq 2\alpha^2 \geq \delta$.
For property (c), let $X,Y$ be a non-trivial partition of $A_i$. We will show $e_G(X,Y)> \zeta |X||Y|$.
First we consider the case that $A_i$ is a robust expander component. Assume without loss of generality that $|X| \leq |Y|$. If $|X|<\tau|A_i|$, each vertex in $|X|$ sends at least $D/m-|X|$ edges to $|Y|$ by (D4). Then $\frac{D}{m} -|X| \geq \delta n - \tau|A_i| \geq \zeta n \geq \zeta |Y|$, so $e_G(X,Y) \geq \zeta|X||Y|$. If $|X|\geq \tau|A_i|$, then since $|X|\leq|Y|$, we have $|X|\leq |A_i|/2\leq (1-\tau)|A_i|$. Therefore $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu,A_i}(X)|\geq |X|+\nu|A_i|$, so $|{\text{RN}}_{\nu,A_i}(X)\cap Y|\geq \nu|A_i|$, and so $e_G(X,Y)\geq \nu^2|A_i|^2 \geq \zeta |X||Y|$.
Now consider the case that $A_i$ is a bipartite robust expander component with parts $U_1$, $U_2$. Let $X$ be such that $|X\cap U_1| \leq |Y\cap U_1|$, so we also have $|X\cap U_1|\leq |U_1|/2$.
If $|X\cap U_1|<\tau|U_1|$ and $|X\cap U_2|<\tau|U_1|$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
e_G(X\cap U_1,Y\cap U_2)\geq& |X\cap U_1|(D/2m - |X\cap U_2|)\\ \geq& |X\cap U_1|(\delta n/2-\tau|U_1|)\geq \zeta n|X\cap U_1|.
\end{aligned}$$ By the same argument $e_G(Y\cap U_1,X\cap U_2)\geq \zeta n|X\cap U_2|$, and together they sum up to $e_G(X,Y)\geq \zeta |X||Y|$.
If $|X\cap U_1|<\tau|U_1|$ and $|X\cap U_2|\geq\tau|U_1|$, we have $e_G(Y\cap U_1,X\cap U_2)\geq (D/2m - |X\cap U_1|)|X\cap U_2|\geq 2\zeta n|X\cap U_2|\geq \zeta n|X|\geq \zeta |X||Y|$.
If $|X\cap U_1|\geq \tau|U_1|$, then since $|X \cap U_1| \leq |Y \cap U_1|$, we have that $$\tau|U_1| \leq |X \cap U_1|, |Y \cap U_1| \leq (1 - \tau)|U_1|.$$ Therefore (dropping subscripts in ${\text{RN}}$), $$\begin{aligned}
|{\text{RN}}(X\cap U_1)\cap U_2|+|{\text{RN}}(Y\cap U_1)\cap U_2|
&\geq |U_1|+2\nu |A_i| \notag \\
&\geq |U_2| +2 \nu |A_i| - \rho n \notag \\
&\geq |U_2| + \nu|A_i|, \label{eq:UX}
\end{aligned}$$ using Proposition \[Claim1\](i) and $\rho \ll \nu$ for the last inequality. This implies that $|{\text{RN}}(X\cap U_1)\cap (Y\cap U_2)| > \nu |A_i|/2$ or $|{\text{RN}}(Y\cap U_1)\cap (X\cap U_2)| > \nu |A_i|/2$ since if both fail then we have $$|{\text{RN}}(X\cap U_1) \cap U_2| < (\nu/2) |A_i| +|X \cap U_2|
\text{ and }
|{\text{RN}}(Y\cap U_1) \cap U_2| < (\nu/2) |A_i| +|Y \cap U_2|,$$ which when summed contradict . Without loss of generality, we assume $|{\text{RN}}(X\cap U_1)\cap (Y\cap U_2)| > (\nu/2) |A_i|$, so that $e_G(X,Y)\geq e_G(X\cap U_1,Y\cap U_2) \geq \nu^2|A_i|^2/4\geq \zeta |X||Y|$.
For property (d), if $A_i$ is a bipartite robust expander component with bipartition $U_1$, $U_2$ then the number of non-$U_1$-$U_2$ edges is at most $e_G(U_1,\overline{U_2}) + e_G(U_2,\overline{U_1}) \leq \rho n^2 \leq \beta n^2$, showing that $A_i$ is $\beta$-almost-bipartite with partition $U_1$, $U_2$. If instead $A_i$ is a robust expander component, we claim that $A_i$ is $\gamma$-far from bipartite. Let $X,Y$ be a non-trivial partition with $|X| \leq |Y|$, so $|X|\leq |A_i|/2\leq (1-\tau)|A_i|$. If $|X|<\tau|A_i|$, then $e_G(X,Y)\leq |X|D$, so $$\begin{aligned}
e(X)+e(Y)\geq (D/2m)|A_i| - D|X| \geq
\alpha n |A_i| ( (2m)^{-1} - \tau)
&\geq\ (\alpha^3 / 16) n^2 \\
&\geq \gamma |X||Y|,
\end{aligned}$$ where the penultimate inequality follows since $|A_i| \geq \alpha n/2$ by (D3) and Remark \[rem1\], and $m \leq k + 2\ell \leq 2\alpha^{-1}$ by (D6). If $|X|\geq \tau|A_i|$, then recalling $|X| \leq (1- \tau)|A_i|$, we also have $\tau |A_i| \leq |Y| \leq (1-\tau)|A_i|$ so ${\text{RN}}_{\nu,A_i}(Y) \geq |Y| + \nu |A_i|$. Therefore, since $|Y|\geq |A_i|/2$, we have $|{\text{RN}}(Y)\cap Y|\geq |Y| + \nu|A_i|$, so $e(Y)\geq \nu^2|A_i|^2/2\geq \gamma |X||Y|$.
[^1]: The actual approximation ratio here is $(\frac{\alpha}{1 - \alpha}) - \varepsilon$ for arbitrarily small $\varepsilon$. As mentioned, for $\alpha \geq 1/2$, Dirac’s theorem gives a trivial algorithm for the longest cycle problem.
[^2]: In fact their algorithm works more generally for digraphs
[^3]: If $U_i$ is a bipartite robust component with bipartition $A_i, B_i$ then $\mathcal{P}$ may contain edges from $G[A_i]$ and $G[B_i]$ but not from $G[A_i,B_i]$
[^4]: It does not affect what follows, but strictly speaking, if $e$ is the first (resp. last) edge of $P_e$ then $AX$ (resp. $BY$) is a loop and is not present in $R(\mathcal{D} \setminus \{e\})$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Stories can have tremendous power – not only useful for entertainment, they can activate our interests and mobilize our actions. The degree to which a story resonates with its audience may be in part reflected in the emotional journey it takes the audience upon. In this paper, we use machine learning methods to construct emotional arcs in movies, calculate families of arcs, and demonstrate the ability for certain arcs to predict audience engagement. The system is applied to Hollywood films and high quality shorts found on the web. We begin by using deep convolutional neural networks for audio and visual sentiment analysis. These models are trained on both new and existing large-scale datasets, after which they can be used to compute separate audio and visual emotional arcs. We then crowdsource annotations for 30-second video clips extracted from highs and lows in the arcs in order to assess the micro-level precision of the system, with precision measured in terms of agreement in polarity between the system’s predictions and annotators’ ratings. These annotations are also used to combine the audio and visual predictions. Next, we look at macro-level characterizations of movies by investigating whether there exist ‘universal shapes’ of emotional arcs. In particular, we develop a clustering approach to discover distinct classes of emotional arcs. Finally, we show on a sample corpus of short web videos that certain emotional arcs are statistically significant predictors of the number of comments a video receives. These results suggest that the emotional arcs learned by our approach successfully represent macroscopic aspects of a video story that drive audience engagement. Such machine understanding could be used to predict audience reactions to video stories, ultimately improving our ability as storytellers to communicate with each other.\
Keywords – visual sentiment analysis, audio sentiment analysis, multimodal, emotions, emotional arcs, stories, video.
author:
-
title: '**Audio-Visual Sentiment Analysis for Learning Emotional Arcs in Movies** '
---
Introduction
============
Theories of the origin and purpose of stories are numerous, ranging from story as “social glue”, escapist pleasure, practice for social life, and cognitive play [@boyd2009origin; @gottschall2012storytelling]. However, not all stories produce the same emotional response. Can we understand these differences in part through the lens of *emotional arcs*? Kurt Vonnegut, among others, once proposed the concept of “universal shapes” of stories, defined by the “Beginning–End” and “Ill Fortune–Great Fortune” axes. He argued nearly all stories could fit a core arc such as the classic “Cinderella” (rise-fall-rise) pattern [@vonnegut_video]. It is well known that emotions play no small part in people’s lives. We have seen emotional narratives as a convincing medium for explaining the world we inhabit, enforcing societal norms, and giving meaning to our existence [@massey2002brief]. It has even been shown that emotions are the most important factor in how we make meaningful decisions [@lerner2015emotion].
There is also evidence that a story’s emotional content can explain the degree of audience engagement. The authors of [@berger2012makes] and [@milkman2014science] examined whether the valence and emotionality was predictive of New York Times articles making the Times’ most e-mailed list. Ultimately, they found that emotional and positive media were more likely to be shared. Motivated by the surge of video as a means of communication [@index2011cisco], the opportunities for machine modeling, and the lack of existing research in this area, we makes steps towards tackling these questions by viewing movies through emotional arcs. We deliver the following contributions:
- **Datasets.** We introduce a Spotify dataset containing over 600,000 audio samples and features that can be used for audio classification. We also collect annotation data regarding the sentiment of approximately 1000 30-second movie clips. Both datasets will be made publicly available[^1].
- **Modeling emotional arcs.** We train sentiment classifiers that can be used to compute audio and visual arcs. We also motivate a) the use of dynamic time warping with the Keogh lower bound to compare the shapes of arcs, and b) k-medoids as the algorithm for clustering.
- **Engagement analysis.** We provide an example in which a movie’s arc can be a statistically significant predictor of the number of comments an online video receives.
Related work
============
The work is most closely paralleled by [@reagan2016emotional], which analyzed books to state that “the emotional arcs of stories are dominated by six basic shapes.” Using text-based sentiment analysis, they use a singular value decomposition analysis to find a basis for arcs. The bases that explain the greatest amount of variance then form the basic shapes of stories.
In contrast to our computational approach, writers at Dramatica [@dramatica] have manually analyzed a number of books and films under the Dramatica theory of story, which has since been used to create software that can guide writers.
Research in sentiment analysis has primarily been text-based, with work ranging from short, sentence-length statements to long form articles [@thelwall2010sentiment; @pang2008opinion]. There has been comparatively little work on images, with the Sentibank visual sentiment concept dataset [@borth2013large] being a prominent example.
Neural networks have been used in earlier research for tasks such as document recognition [@lecun1998gradient]. In recent years, deep neural networks have been successful in both the visual and audio domain, being used for image classification [@krizhevsky2012imagenet], speech recognition [@hannun2014deep], and many other tasks. Outside of emotional arcs, there exists other research that applies computational methods to understanding story. For instsance, the M-VAD [@torabi2015using] and MovieQA [@tapaswi2016movieqa] datasets include a combination of subtitles, scripts, and Described Video Service narrations for movies, enabling research on visual question-answering of plot.
Overview
========
Figure \[overview\_figure\] outlines the major pieces of this work. We note that modeling occurs at two scales – micro-level sentiment, performed on a slice of video such a frame or snippet of audio, and macro-level emotional arcs.
![Overview[]{data-label="overview_figure"}](overview_ICDM){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Reflecting this distinction, we first evaluate the ability to accurately extract micro-level emotional highs and lows, which we refer to as *emotionally charged moments* or emotional *peaks and valleys*. Specifically, we measure precision as the amount of agreement in polarity between the models’ sentiment predictions and annotators’ ratings. Second, at the macro-level, we evaluate arcs by a) clustering, and b) using the arcs for the engagement analysis. We note that the final engagement analysis uses only the visual arcs, as we are currently limited by the amount of ground truth data that allows us to combine audio and visual predictions.
Datasets {#sec_datasets}
========
Videos – Films and Shorts Corpora
---------------------------------
The system operates on two datasets collected for this work – a corpora of Hollywood films and a corpora of hiqh quality short films. We selected films because they are created to tell a story. That there exist common film-making techniques to convey plot and elicit emotional responses also suggests the possibility of finding families of arcs. Including Vimeo shorts allows us to 1) find differences in storytelling that may exist between films and newer, emergent formats, 2) possibly serve as a gateway to modeling, more generally, the short form videos that commonly spread on social networks, and 3) conduct an engagement analysis using the online comments left on Vimeo.
The first dataset, the *Films Corpora*, consists of 509 Hollywood films. Notably, there is considerable overlap with the MovieQA [@tapaswi2016movieqa] and M-VAD [@torabi2015using] datasets. The *Shorts Corpora* is a dataset of 1,326 shorts from the Vimeo channel ‘Short of the Week’. These shorts are collected by filmmakers and writers. A short can be 30 seconds to over 30 minutes long, with the median length being 8 minutes and 25 seconds.
Image sentiment – Sentibank dataset
-----------------------------------
We use the Sentibank dataset [@borth2013large] of nearly half a million images, each labeled with one of 1,533 adjective-noun pairs. These pairs, such as “charming house” and “ugly fish”, are termed *emotional biconcepts*. Each biconcept is mapped to a sentiment value using the SentiWordnet lexicon.
Audio sentiment – Spotify dataset
---------------------------------
We started with the Million Song Dataset [@bertin2011million], in which certain metadata, such as tempo or major/minor key, could in theory be used as a proxy for valence and other relevant target features. We also considered the Last.FM dataset of user-provided labels such as “happy" or “sad". Unfortunately, this dataset is significantly smaller.
To address our needs, we turned to the Spotify API. The API provides not only 30-second samples for songs, but also audio features used by the company. These include *valence*, which measures the “musical positiveness conveyed by a track.” Other features include speechiness, liveness, etc.
Methodology
===========
Constructing emotional arcs
---------------------------
Once the visual and audio models are trained for sentiment prediction (to be explained in Sections \[sec\_image\_model\] and \[sec\_audio\_model\]), each is applied separately across the length of the movie. To construct the visual arc, we extract a frame per second in the movie, resize and center crop it to size $256 \times 256$, and then pass it through the sentiment classifier. To construct the audio arc, we extract sliding 20-second windows.
![Effect of smoothing values for arcs: no smoothing versus $w = 0.1 * n$[]{data-label="arc_smooth"}](emo_arc_smoothing_values){width="0.99\linewidth" height="0.25\linewidth"}
While the left plot in Figure \[arc\_smooth\] shows that the macro-level shape is visible from the raw predictions, it is helpful to smooth these signals to produce clearer arcs by convolving each time series with a Hann window of size $w$. In downstream tasks, commonly used window sizes are 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 \* $n$, where $n$ is the length of the video. Example arcs are shown in Figure \[arc\_audio\_visual\], with the audio arc bounded by the confidence intervals to be described in Section \[sec\_audio\_model\].
![Audio (yellow) and visual (blue) arcs for *Her*[]{data-label="arc_audio_visual"}](example_for_combined_cropped){width="0.55\linewidth"}
Image modeling {#sec_image_model}
--------------
The various effects of the visual medium has been well studied, ranging from the positive psychological effects of nature scenes [@ulrich1979visual] to the primacy of color, an effect so powerful that some filmmakers explicitly map color to target emotions in pre-production colorscripts [@amidi2015art]. We thus built models take a frame as input.
### Model
We use a deep convolutional neural network based on the AlexNet architecture [@krizhevsky2012imagenet] to classify images. While a more state-of-the-art architecture would have higher accuracy, our focus was on building higher order arcs, for which this relatively simple model sufficed. However, we did use the PReLU activation unit, batch normalization, and ADAM for optimization to reflect recent advancements.
### Sentiment prediction
The network was trained using images with a sentiment greater than 0.5 as ‘positive’, and those less than -0.5 as ‘negative’. We used a learning rate of 0.01, a batch size of 128, and a batch normalization decay of 0.9. The performance is shown in Table \[sent\_perf\].
### Emotional biconcept prediction
Using only the sentiment value is useful for creating emotional arcs, but it also discards information. Thus, we trained a second network that treats the biconcepts as labels. This network proves useful in creating *movie embeddings* that broadly capture a movie’s emotional content. Details are discussed in section \[sec\_cf\_combined\_model\].
Only biconcepts with at least 125 images were used, leaving 880 biconcepts. The accuracy is shown in Table \[bc\_perf\]. Top-$k$ accuracy is defined as the percent of images for which the true label was found in the top-$k$ predicted labels. We also show the top-$k$ accuracy defined by whether the true adj / noun was found in the top-$k$ predicted labels.
Audio modeling {#sec_audio_model}
--------------
Imagine ‘watching’ a movie with your eyes closed – you would likely still be able to pinpoint moments of suspense or sadness. While often secondary to the more obvious visual stimuli, sound and music can be played with or in contrast to the visual scene. With the idea that just a few seconds is enough to set the mood, we created a model for sentiment classification that operates on 20-second snippets of audio.
### Model
We represent each audio sample as a 96-bin mel-spectrogram. We adopt the architecture used for music tagging in [@choi2016automatic], which uses five conv layers with ELU and batch normalization, followed by a fully connected layer.
### Sentiment prediction
We used all samples that have a valence either greater than 0.75 or less than 0.25, leaving $\sim$200,000 samples. The performance is shown in Table \[audio\_sent\_perf\].
### Uncertainty estimates
Unfortunately, we face the problem of covariate shift, where the audio found in movies will often contain sound not found in the song-based training set. For example, there may be significant sections of background noise, conversation, or silence.
To handle ‘unfamiliar’ inputs, we aim to produce confidence intervals for every prediction. While the softmaxed activations can be interpreted as probabilities, and hence a reflection of confidence, these probabilities can often be biased and require calibration [@niculescu2005predicting]. We thus follow a method introduced in [@gal2016dropout], which produces approximate uncertainty estimates for any dropout network by passing the input $m$ times through the network with dropout *at test time*, and using the standard deviation of the predictions to define a confidence interval around the mean of the predictions.
Finding families of emotional arcs {#sec_cluster}
----------------------------------
### Approach: k-medoids and dynamic time warping
A naive approach to clustering arcs could be to use a popular algorithm such as k-means [@macqueen1967some] with an Euclidean metric to measure the distance between two arcs. However, this is a poor approach for our problem for two reasons:
- Taking the *mean* of arcs can fail to find centroids that accurately represent the shapes in that cluster. Figure \[dtw\_pathological\] shows a pathological example of when this occurs. The mean of the left two arcs has two peaks instead of one.
- The Euclidean distance between two arcs doesn’t necessarily reflect the similarity of their shapes. While the left two arcs in Figure \[dtw\_pathological\] are similar in shape (one large peak), their Euclidean distance may be quite large.
With these limitations in mind, we turn to k-medoids [@kaufman1987clustering] with dynamic time warping (DTW) [@ding2008querying] as the distance function. K-medoids updates a medoid as the point that is the *median* distance to all other points in the cluster, while DTW is an effective measures the distance between two time series that may operate at different time scales.
![Pathological example of how k-means and Euclidean distance fails for clustering emotional arcs[]{data-label="dtw_pathological"}](DTW_pathological_2){width="0.5\linewidth"}
Given two time series $A$ and $B$ of length $n$, we construct a $n$x$n$ matrix $M$, where $M[i][j]$ contains the squared difference between $A_i$ and $B_j$. The DTW distance is the shortest path through this matrix. In Figure \[dtw\_pathological\], for example, the DTW distance between the left two time series is 0.
### LB-Keogh for speed-up and better modeling
Several techniques to speed up DTW center around creating a ‘warping window’ that limits the available paths through the matrix $M$. The Keogh lower bound creates upper and lower bounds that envelop the original time series $A$, defined as:
$$\begin{aligned}
U_i = max(A_{i-r} : A_{i+r}) \\
L_i = min(A_{i-r} : A_{i+r})\end{aligned}$$ where $r$ is a parameter *reach* that controls the size of the window. Intuitively, this controls how much a time series is allowed to warp. The lower-bounded $LB_{Keogh}$ distance between $A$ and $B$ is then given as:
$$\begin{aligned}
LB_{Keogh}(A,B) = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n
\begin{cases}
(B_i - U_i)^2 & \text{if $B_i > U_i$} \\
(B_i - L_i)^2 & \text{if $B_i < L_i$} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
}\end{aligned}$$ If $B$ lies inside the envelope of $A$, then the distance is 0.
Importantly, this approach has ramifications beyond increased speed up. Consider again the left two arcs in Figure \[dtw\_pathological\]. While both characterized by a large peak, it’s possible that the second, *ending* on a emotional moment, has greater impact. Consequently, we would like to only allow warping to a certain extent. The window does exactly that.
### Practical notes
First, we exclude movies longer than $m$ seconds (10000 and 1800 for the Films and Shorts Corpora). After all, a 60 minute movie is hardly a ‘short’. Second, since we are interested in the overall *shape* of the arc, we z-normalize each emotional arc. Finally, we settled on $r = 0.025 * n$. This is close to $0.03 * n$, found to be optimal for a number of different tasks [@ratanamahatana2004everything].
Evaluation – Micro-level Moments {#sec_cf}
================================
We evaluated the system’s micro-level accuracy by its *precision* in extracting emotionally charged moments from the emotional arcs. Notably, collecting ground truth data also allows us combine the audio and visual predictions. Annotating an entire film, let alone multiple films, would be too costly and time intensive. We thus extracted video clips at peaks and valleys in the audio and visual arcs, hoping that these clips would lead to more interesting and informative annotations. Workers were asked to watch a clip and answer four questions regarding its emotional content. Each clip was annotated by three workers.
Crowdsourcing experiment
------------------------
We chose the CrowdFlower platform for its simplicity and ease of use. Answers to Question 1 (How positive or negative is this video clip? 1 being most negative, 7 being most positive) are referred to as *valence ratings*. We define a *positive rating* as a valence rating greater than 4, and a *positive clip* as those with a mean rating greater than 4. Negative ratings and clips are similarly defined.
Precision of system
-------------------
### Defining precision
We define the precision as:
$$\frac{\text{$|$peak \& positive$|$ + $|$valley \& negative$|$}}{\text{number of clips}}$$
In other words, a clip was accurately extracted if a) it was extracted from a peak in either arc, and it was labeled as a positive clip, or b) it was extracted from a valley in either arc, and it was labeled as a negative clip.
### Overall precision
Table \[cf\_prec\_all\] lists the precision on both the full dataset and the full dataset with ambiguous clips (receiving both a positive and a negative rating) removed. We note that random chance would be 3/7 = 0.429. We argue that ambiguous clips should not be included, as it is unclear what their valence might be without more annotations. Further numbers are calculated with ambiguous clips removed.
### Precision of audio
Next, we look at the precision of clips extracted from the audio arc, examining our hypothesis that predictions with smaller confidence intervals would be more accurate. This would help affirm our uncertainty estimates approach. Table \[cf\_audio\_prec\] shows that smaller confidence intervals do indeed correspond with greater precision.
### Precision of various cuts {#sec_prec_cuts}
The precision on various subsets is shown in Table \[cf\_prec\_cuts\_genre\] (a). We highlight that the visual-peaks have low precision. This is explored in the next section and used to motivate feature engineering for the combined model in Section \[sec\_cf\_combined\_model\].
### Precision by genre {#sec_genre_prec}
Finally, we use [@bamman2014learning] to tag each movie with genres. A subset of the results is shown in Table \[cf\_prec\_cuts\_genre\] (b). The relatively poor precision of visual-peaks, as noted in the previous section, appears to be a product of poor precision on a number of genres. We also find a natural grouping of the genres when listed in this order. Genres with high visual-peak precision appear to be lighter films falling in the romance and family film genres.
Manual inspection of ‘incorrect’ visual-peak clips from the action-thriller genres shows many scenes with gore and death, images unlikely to be found in the Sentibank dataset, which was culled from publicly available images on Flickr.
Combined audio-visual model {#sec_cf_combined_model}
---------------------------
We create a linear regression model to predict the mean valence rating assigned by the annotators. In addition to standard features related to the clip’s audio / visual valence (relative to the movie’s mean, relative to the movie’s max, etc.), we create two key features detailed below.
**Peakiness.** The function $p(a, i, r)$ approximates the slope and mean around a given point $i$ for arc $a$ (audio or visual), where $r$ is the window size around $a_i$. $p$ returns 4 values: $a_{i-1} - a_{i-r}$ (proportional to the slope left of the $i$), $a_{i+r} - a_{i+1}$ , $mean(a_{i-r:i-1})$ (the mean value left of $i$), and $mean(a_{i+1:i+r})$. This covers peaks, valleys, and inflection points. We use $r=0.025$ for our analyses.
**Movie embedding.** Motivated by the impact of genre in Section \[sec\_genre\_prec\], we sought to loosely summarize a movie’s emotional content. We represent each frame by the penultimate activation of the biconcept classifier described in Section \[sec\_image\_model\]. Next, we average these activations across 10% chunks of the movie, resulting in a $10 \times 2048$ matrix. To translate these *movie embeddings* to features, we take the mean of each 2048-sized vector, ending with a final $10 \times 1$ feature vector. While not shown in the interest of space, clustering these movie embeddings shows correspondence between clusters and genres, with romance, adventure, fantasy, and animated films being clearly visible.
Precision of combined audio-visual model
----------------------------------------
The performance of the final combined model is shown in Table \[cf\_combined\_prec\], along with various ablations of important features. Using all features, we achieve a precision of 0.894.
Evaluation – Macro-level
========================
Results shown here are based on the *visual* arcs, which we consider to be the primary medium. We could in theory use arcs constructed from the *combined* audio-visual model described in Section \[sec\_cf\_combined\_model\]. Experiments clustering the combined arcs, however, produce largely indistinct clusters. This is a result of a) the sparsity of ground truth data covering the entire audio-visual space found in movies (e.g. no clips were extracted from moments that were neutral in both the audio and visual arcs), and b) simply the small size of the dataset, leading to inaccurate combining of audio and visual.
Cluster results
---------------
Figure \[kmedoids\_error\] shows the results of the elbow method, which plots the number of clusters $k$ against the within cluster distance (WCD). We can see possible ‘elbows’ at $k$=5 and $k$=9. We briefly note that a k-means approach produced indistinct clusters and no discernible decrease in the WCD.
[0.4]{} ![Elbow plots for k-medoid clustering[]{data-label="kmedoids_error"}](kmedoids-error_dirfilms-n509-w02-ds1-maxnf10000-fnsent_biclass_5-k2to30-it100-r250 "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.4]{} ![Elbow plots for k-medoid clustering[]{data-label="kmedoids_error"}](kmedoids-error_dirshorts-n1326-w02-ds1-maxnf1800-fnsent_biclass_5-k2to30-it100-r45 "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
Figure \[kmedoids\_shorts\_k5\] shows one example clustering, representing five typical emotional arcs. Note that the steep inclines and declines at the start and end are artifacts of opening scenes and credits. Compared to the Films Corpora, typical arcs in the Shorts Copora tend to be less complex, but also more extreme (e.g. the yellow arc that ends on a steady decline).
![Clustering on Shorts Corpora with $k$ = 5, $w$ = 0.1[]{data-label="kmedoids_shorts_k5"}](kmedoids_shorts_k5){width="0.55\linewidth"}
Engagement analysis {#sec_engagement}
-------------------
We can now return to the question of whether a video’s emotional arcs affects the degree of viewer engagement.We performed a small experiment on our Shorts Corpora by using a) metadata features, and b) categorical cluster assignment features (which family of visual arcs does this movie belong to) as inputs to a regression model that predicts the number of comments a video received on Vimeo. Nine models are created – one for each value of $k$ in \[2,10\]. Not surprisingly, the duration and year are often stat-sig predictors. However, three arcs are also stat-sig, each positively correlated with the number of comments. The first stat-sig arc, the yellow arc shown in Figure \[kmedoids\_shorts\_k5\], fits the “Icarus” shape (rise-fall). The second ($k$ = 8) and third ($k$ = 10) arcs are characterized by a large peak near the end, with the former having some incline before the peak and the latter flat before the peak. In other words, they end with a bang. The results for $k$ = 8 are shown in Figure \[consumption\_k8\] and Table IX.
![TABLE IX. Engagement analysis for $k=8$ clustering. P-values less than 0.05 are bolded; less than 0.1 are italicized. Statistically significant predictive arc is shown.[]{data-label="consumption_k8"}](consumption_k8_manually_combined){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Concluding Remarks
==================
We first developed methods for constructing and finding families of arcs. The crowdsourced annotation data prompts a number of possibilities for future work, such as dialogue-based arcs and plot-based sentiment modeling.
We were also able to show the predictive power of emotional arcs on a small subset of online Vimeo shorts. While intriguing, this was performed a) using only the visual arcs, and b) against a relatively simple metric. More data for the combined audio-visual model should generate more accurate arcs. It would also be interesting to see how, if at all, emotional features affect how videos propagate through social media sites like Twitter and Reddit.
[10]{}
Kurt Vonnegut on the Shapes of Stories. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ> Accessed: 2017-04-27.
Dramatica: the next chapter in story development. <http://dramatica.com>. Accessed: 2017-04-27.
Katherine L Milkman and Jonah Berger. The science of sharing and the sharing of science. , 111(Supplement 4):13642–13649, 2014.
Jonah Berger and Katherine L Milkman. What makes online content viral? , 49(2):192–205, 2012.
Amid Amidi. . Chronicle Books, 2015.
Thierry Bertin-Mahieux, Daniel PW Ellis, Brian Whitman, and Paul Lamere. The million song dataset. In [*ISMIR*]{}, volume 2, page 10, 2011.
Damian Borth, Rongrong Ji, Tao Chen, Thomas Breuel, and Shih-Fu Chang. Large-scale visual sentiment ontology and detectors using adjective noun pairs. In [*Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Multimedia*]{}, pages 223–232. ACM, 2013.
Brian Boyd. . Harvard University Press, 2009.
Keunwoo Choi, George Fazekas, and Mark Sandler. Automatic tagging using deep convolutional neural networks. , 2016.
Hui Ding, Goce Trajcevski, Peter Scheuermann, Xiaoyue Wang, and Eamonn Keogh. Querying and mining of time series data: experimental comparison of representations and distance measures. , 1(2):1542–1552, 2008.
Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In [*International Conference on Machine Learning*]{}, pages 1050–1059, 2016.
Jonathan Gottschall. . Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012.
Awni Hannun, Carl Case, Jared Casper, Bryan Catanzaro, Greg Diamos, Erich Elsen, Ryan Prenger, Sanjeev Satheesh, Shubho Sengupta, Adam Coates, et al. Deep speech: Scaling up end-to-end speech recognition. , 2014.
Cisco Visual Networking Index. Cisco visual networking index: Forecast and methodology, 2010-2015. , 9, 2011.
Leonard Kaufman. Clustering by means of medoids. , 1987.
Eamonn Keogh. Exact indexing of dynamic time warping. In [*Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Very Large Data Bases*]{}, pages 406–417. VLDB Endowment, 2002.
Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In [*Advances in neural information processing systems*]{}, pages 1097–1105, 2012.
Yann LeCun, L[é]{}on Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. , 86(11):2278–2324, 1998.
Jennifer S Lerner, Ye Li, Piercarlo Valdesolo, and Karim S Kassam. Emotion and decision making. , 66:799–823, 2015.
James MacQueen et al. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In [*Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability*]{}, volume 1, pages 281–297. Oakland, CA, USA., 1967.
Douglas S Massey. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. , 67(1):1, 2002.
David Bamman, Brendan O’Connor, and Noah A Smith. Learning latent personas of film characters. In [*Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)*]{}, page 352, 2014.
Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil and Rich Caruana. Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning. In [*Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning*]{}, pages 625–632. ACM, 2005.
Bo Pang, Lillian Lee, et al. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. , 2(1–2):1–135, 2008.
Chotirat Ann Ratanamahatana and Eamonn Keogh. Everything you know about dynamic time warping is wrong. In [*Third Workshop on Mining Temporal and Sequential Data*]{}. Citeseer, 2004.
Andrew J Reagan, Lewis Mitchell, Dilan Kiley, Christopher M Danforth, and Peter Sheridan Dodds. The emotional arcs of stories are dominated by six basic shapes. , 5(1):31, 2016.
Makarand Tapaswi, Yukun Zhu, Rainer Stiefelhagen, Antonio Torralba, Raquel Urtasun, and Sanja Fidler. Movieqa: Understanding stories in movies through question-answering. In [*Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*]{}, pages 4631–4640, 2016.
Mike Thelwall, Kevan Buckley, Georgios Paltoglou, Di Cai, and Arvid Kappas. Sentiment strength detection in short informal text. , 61(12):2544–2558, 2010.
Atousa Torabi, Christopher Pal, Hugo Larochelle, and Aaron Courville. Using descriptive video services to create a large data source for video annotation research. , 2015.
Roger S Ulrich. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. , 4(1):17–23, 1979.
[^1]: https://sosuperic.github.io/a-darn-good-yarn-website
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '00\_abstract'
author:
- |
Jonathan Herzig$^{1}$ Jonathan Berant$^{1,2}$\
\
$^1$School of Computer Science, Tel-Aviv University\
$^2$Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence\
[`{jonathan.herzig,joberant}@cs.tau.ac.il`]{}
bibliography:
- 'all.bib'
title: '*Don’t paraphrase, detect!* Rapid and Effective Data Collection for Semantic Parsing'
---
01\_introduction 02\_background 03\_mismatch\_analysis 04\_grammar\_driven\_annotation 05\_experiments 06\_related 07\_conclusion
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. This work was completed in partial fulfillment for the PhD degree of the first author, which was also supported by a Google PhD fellowship. This research was partially supported by The Israel Science Foundation grant 942/16, The Blavatnik Computer Science Research Fund and The Yandex Initiative for Machine Learning.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $M$ be a compact oriented three-manifold whose interior is hyperbolic of finite volume. We prove a variation formula for the volume on the variety of representations of $M$ in $\operatorname{SL}_n(\mathbb C)$. Our proof follows the strategy of Reznikov’s rigidity when $M$ is closed, in particular we use Fuks’ approach to variations by means of Lie algebra cohomology. When $n=2$, we get back Hodgson’s formula for variation of volume on the space of hyperbolic Dehn fillings. Our formula also yields the variation of volume on the space of decorated triangulations obtained by [@BFG] and [@DGG].'
address:
- |
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona\
Departament de Matemàtiques\
E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain\
and BGSMATH
- |
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona\
Departament de Matemàtiques\
E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain\
and BGSMATH
author:
- Wolfgang Pitsch
- Joan Porti
title: 'Volumes of $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$-representations of hyperbolic 3-manifolds'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Let $M$ be a compact oriented three-manifold whose interior admits a complete hyperbolic metric of finite volume. There is a well defined notion of volume of a representation of its fundamental group $\pi_1 {M}$ in $ \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb C) $, see Definition \[def:volrepborl\] for instance, and here we view the volume as a function defined on the variety of representations ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\pi_1 M, \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb C) )$. Bucher-Burger-Iozzi [@BBIarXiv14] have shown that the volume is maximal precisely at the composition of the lifts of the holonomy with the irreducible representation $ \mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb C)\to \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb C) $. If $M$ is furthermore closed, then this volume function is constant on connected components of ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\pi_1 M, \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb C) )$ (see [@MR1412681]) but in the non-compact case the volume can vary locally. When $n=2$ this variety of representations (up to conjugation) contains the space of hyperbolic structures on the manifold, and the volume has been intensively studied in this case, starting with the seminal work of Neumann and Zagier [@NZ]; in particular, a variation formula was obtained in Hodgson’s thesis [@Hodgson Chapter 5], by means of Schläfli’s variation formula for polyhedra in hyperbolic space. The variation of the volume was also discussed in [@BFG] when $n=3$, and in [@DGG] for general $n$, through the study of decorated ideal triangulations of manifolds.
The purpose of this paper is to produce an infinitesimal formula for the variation of the volume in ${\operatorname{Hom}}( \pi_1 {M}, \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb C) )$ for arbitrary $n$ and for differentiable deformations of any representation, independently of the existence of decorated triangulations. The variety of representations has deformations that are nontrivial up to conjugation; more precisely the component of ${\operatorname{Hom}}( \pi_1 {M}, \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb C) )/ \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})$ that contains the representation of maximal volume has dimension $(n-1)k$ [@MR2993065], where $k$ is the number of components of $ \partial M$. Our results are proved in ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\pi_1 M,\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb C))$, but they apply with no change to ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\pi_1 M,\mathrm{PSL}_n(\mathbb C))$.
The boundary $\partial M$ of ${M}$ consists of $k\geq 1$ tori, $T^2_1,\ldots, T^2_ k$. Fix the orientation of $\partial {M}$ corresponding to the outer normal, as in Stokes theorem, and choose $l_i,m_i$ ordered generators of $\pi_1(T^2_i)$, so that if we view them as oriented curves, they generate the induced orientation. For instance, for the exterior of an oriented knot in $S^3$, we can take $l_1$ as a longitude and $m_1$ as a meridian, with $l_1$ following the orientation of the knot and $m_1$ as describing the positive sense of rotation. For a complex number $z \in
\mathbb{C}$, denote by $\Re(z)$ and $\Im(z)$ its real and imaginary parts respectively. Assume now $\rho_t$ is a differentiable path of representations in ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\pi_1
{M}, \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb C) )$ parametrized by $t\in I\subset {\mathbb{R}}$. As a consequence of the Lie-Kolchin theorem, there exist $1$-parameter families of matrices $A_i(t)\in \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})$ and of upper triangular matrices $a_i(t), b_i(t)\in\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbb{C} ) $ so that $$\label{eqn:LieKolchin}
\rho_t(l_i)= A_i(t) \exp( a_i(t))A_i(t)^{-1}\qquad\textrm{ and }\qquad \rho_t(m_i)= A_i(t) \exp( b_i(t))A_i(t)^{-1}.$$
Our main result states:
\[Theorem:main\] Assume that $A_i(t)$, $a_i(t)$, and $b_i(t)$ as in are differentiable. Then the volume is differentiable and $$\frac{d\phantom{t}}{dt}\operatorname{vol} ({M},\rho_t)= \sum_{i=1}^k {\operatorname{tr}}( \Re( b_i)\, \Im (\dot a_i) - \Re (a_i) \, \Im (\dot b_i) ).$$
For $n=2$ this formula is precisely Hodgson’s formula in the Dehn filling space, and for $n=3$ it is equivalent to the variation on the space of decorated triangulations by Bergeron, Falbel and Guillloux [@BFG; @Guilloux], for $n=3$, and by Dimofte, Gabela and Goncharov for general $n$ [@DGG]. See Section \[subsection:n=2\] below.
The hypothesis on differentiability of $A_i(t)$, $a_i(t)$, and $b_i(t)$ in Theorem \[Theorem:main\] is necessary, as the volume form is not differentiable on ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\pi_1 M, \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb C) )$, see Lemma \[lem:volnondiff\] below. Notice that the volume formulas of [@NZ; @BFG; @DGG] are defined in spaces of decorated triangulations, these are not open subsets of ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\pi_1 M, \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb C) )/ \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb C) ) $ but rather branched coverings of it. A decoration yields a choice of Borel subgroup containing the representation of the peripheral subgroup, thus a differential path of decorated triangulations implies differentiability of the terms in . In the appropiate context, the choice of Borel subgroups amounts to work in the so called augmented variety of representations [@MR3355211].
Our argument is a generalization of Reznikov’s proof of the rigidity of the volume for closed manifolds [@MR1412681]. At the heart of Reznikov’s argument is the fact that the volume of a representation $\rho$ can be seen as a characteristic class of the horizontal foliation on the total space of the flat principal bundle on ${M}$ induced by $\rho$. This characteristic class comes from a cohomology class of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbb{C})$, i.e. it is induced by a class in $\operatorname{H}^3(\mathfrak{g})$. The study of the variation of this characteristic class then relies on results by Fuks in [@MR874337], he shows in particular that the variation of volume itself can be interpreted as a characteristic class of a foliation and this class stems from a cohomology class in $\operatorname{H}^2(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{g}^\vee)$, where $\mathfrak{g}^\vee$ is the dual Lie algebra, viewed as a $\mathfrak{g}$-module. But since $\mathfrak{g}$ is semi-simple, this cohomology group is trivial, as follows by a classical result of Cartier [@cartier], see Corollary \[cor annulcohoslsldual\], hence the volume for $M$ compact is locally constant. We aim to follow the same outline in the non-closed case, which technically amounts to extend the homological tools used by Reznikov to a relative setting. Next we explain the plan of this work.
Firstly, in Section \[sec:relcoho\] we develop the homological tools needed for our construction: we give a definition of cohomology groups of an object relative to a family of subobjects. As it is difficult to find a single place in the literature where all the relative versions of the maps we need are explained, we start by defining in a unified way the relative cohomology constructions we will use, this is inspired by the work of Bieri-Eckmann [@MR509165] on relative cohomology of groups, but with a stronger emphasis on the pair object-subobject. The relative cohomology groups are devised in such a way that, by definition, if $G$ is an object and $\{A\}$ is a family of subobjects, then the cohomology of $G$ relative to $\{A\} $ fits into a long exact sequence: $$\xymatrix{
\cdots \ar[r]& \operatorname{H}^n(G;\{A\}) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^n(G) \ar[r] & \prod \operatorname{H}^n(A) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n+1}(G;\{A\}) \ar[r] & \cdots
}$$ We also discuss the relations between our definitions and previous existing notions of relative cohomology groups.
Secondly, in Section \[sec:relcharvar\] we use the relative cohomological tools of the previous section to give relative versions of the constructions of Fuks [@MR874337] on characteristic classes of foliations and variations of those. This gives the conceptual framework in which we can state and prove our formula. Up to this point we work in a general context so as to pave the way for future applications.
In the compact case the volume of a representation $\rho: \pi_1(M)
\rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ is defined as a pull-back of a universal hyperbolic volume class in the continuous cohomology group $\operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}))$; since the peripheral subgroups of a non-compact finite volume hyperbolic manifold are all abelian, the cohomology group where we want to look for a universal relative volume class is $\operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}});\{B\})$: the continuous cohomology groups of $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ relative to the family $\{B\} $ consisting of its Borel subgroups. This program for constructing the volume is carried out and explained in Section \[sec:volrelatif\] where we also show that the definition through relative cohomology corresponds to the common definitions in literature, for instance the one given in [@BBIarXiv14] via the use of the transfer map in continuous-bounded cohomology. The key point for our construction is the crucial fact that continuous-bounded cohomology of an amenable group is trivial, hence we have a canonical isomorphism $\operatorname{H}^{3}_{cb}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}});\{B\}) \rightarrow
\operatorname{H}^3_{cb}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}))$ that allows to interpret the classical universal hyperbolic volume cohomology class as a relative cohomology class.
The study of the variation of the volume requires us then to find explicit cocycle representatives for the relative volume cohomology class. This is the object of Section \[sec:varvol\]. The main ingredient in this part of our work is the fact, underlying the van Est isomorphism connecting the continuous cohomology of a real connected Lie group $G$ with maximal compact subgroup $K$ and the cohomology of its Lie algebra, that $\Omega^\ast_{dR}(G/K)^G$, the equivariant de Rham complex of the symmetric space $G/K$, computes the continuous cohomology of $G$; our cocycle will then appear as a bounded differential $3$-form on $G/K$ with a specific choice of trivialization on each Borel subgroup. Here we also show how to express the volume and its variation as a characteristic class on the total space of the flat bundle induced by a representation.
Finally in Section \[sec:varformula\] we collect our efforts and prove our variation formula and give some consequences.
[**Acknowledgements :**]{} We would like to thank Julien Marché for helpful conversations on this subject. We also would like to thank the anonymous referee for suggesting many improvements to the present work.
Relative cohomology {#sec:relcoho}
===================
Our approach to define relative cohomology relies on the following three crucial points:
1. The existence of functorial cochain complexes that compute the cohomology groups we want to relativize.
2. The fact that given a family of objects $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ and coefficients $V_i$ and functorial cochain complexes $C^\ast(A_i;V_i)$, the product chain complex $\prod_{ i \in I}
C^\ast(A_i;V_i)$ has as $n$-cohomology the product of cohomologies $\prod_{i \in
I} \operatorname{H}^n(A_i;V_i)$.
3. The fact that the cone of a cochain map between chain complexes is functorial in the homotopy category of complexes of $\mathbb{R}$-vector spaces.
The cone construction
---------------------
Consider two cochain complexes of $\mathbb{R}$-vector spaces, i.e. differentials rise degree by one, and a chain map $f: K^\ast \rightarrow L^\ast$. By definition $\operatorname{Cone}(f)^\ast$, the cone of $f$, is the cochain complex given by: $$\operatorname{Cone}(f)^n = L^{n-1}\oplus K^{n} \textrm{ and } d_{\operatorname{Cone}(f)} = \left( \begin{matrix}
-d_L & f \\ 0 & d_K \end{matrix}\right).$$ where $d_{\operatorname{Cone}(f)}$ acts on column vectors.
One checks that, as expected in any reasonable definition of a *relative* cocycle, an element $\left( \begin{matrix}
l \\ k
\end{matrix}
\right) \in L^{n-1} \oplus K^n $ is an $n$-cocycle if and only if $k$ is a cocycle in $K^n$ and $d_L(l)= f^n(k)$. For such a pair we will call $k$ the *absolute* part and $l$ the *relative* part.
This construction is functorial in the following sense. If we have a commutative square of maps of chain complexes: $$\xymatrix{
K \ar[r]^f \ar[d]_r & L \ar[d]^s \\
A \ar[r]_g & B
}$$ then we have an induced chain map: $\operatorname{Cone}(r,s)\colon \operatorname{Cone}(f)^\ast \rightarrow \operatorname{Cone}(g)^\ast$, given by $$\operatorname{Cone}(r,s) = \begin{pmatrix}
s & 0 \\
0 & r
\end{pmatrix}$$ The main use of $\operatorname{Cone}(f)^\ast$ is that its homology interpolates between that of $L$ and that of $K$; indeed by construction there is a short exact sequence of complexes: $$0 \rightarrow L[-1] \rightarrow \operatorname{Cone}(f) \rightarrow K \rightarrow 0,$$ where $L[-1]$ is the shifted complex $L[-1]^n =L^{n-1}, d_{L[-1]} = -d_L$. This sequence splits in each degree and by standard techniques gives rise to a long exact sequence in cohomology. $$\xymatrix@R=10pt@C-6pt{
\cdots \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n-1}(L) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n}(\operatorname{Cone}(f)) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n}(K) \ar[r]^\delta & \operatorname{H}^n(L) \ar[r] & \cdots
}$$
One checks directly by unwinding the definitions that the connecting homomorphism $\delta: \operatorname{H}^{\ast}(K) \rightarrow \operatorname{H}^\ast(L)$ coincides with $\operatorname{H}^\ast(f)$. As expected, if we are given a morphism $(r,s)$ between maps of cochain complexes, then we will have an induced commuting ladder in cohomology: $$\xymatrix@R=10pt@C-6pt{
\cdots \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n-1}(L) \ar[r] \ar[dd]^{\operatorname{H}^{n-1}(s)} & \operatorname{H}^{n}(\operatorname{Cone}(f)) \ar[r] \ar[dd]^{\operatorname{H}^{n}(\operatorname{Cone}(r,s))} & \operatorname{H}^{n}(K) \ar[r]^\delta \ar[dd]^{\operatorname{H}^{n}(r)} & \operatorname{H}^n(L) \ar[dd]^{\operatorname{H}^{n}(s)} \ar[r] & \cdots \\
& & & & & \\
\cdots \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n-1}(B) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n}(\operatorname{Cone}(g)) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n}(A) \ar[r]^\delta & \operatorname{H}^n(B) \ar[r] & \cdots
}$$
Relative cohomology {#relative-cohomology}
-------------------
\[def relhomology\] Let $\operatorname{H}^\ast$ be our cohomology theory, possibly with coefficients (e.g. discrete group cohomology). If the cohomology theory admits coefficients we assume that the functorial cochain complexes computing the cohomology with coefficients are functorial in both variables.
Let $G$ be an object (Lie algebra, Lie group, manifold etc.) and $(A_i)_{i \in I}$ a family of subobjects, possibly with repetitions. If the theory admits coefficients we consider also a coefficient $V$ for the object $G$, coefficients $W_i$ for each object $A_i$ and maps between coefficients compatible with the inclusions $A_i \hookrightarrow G$, so that we have an induced map for each $i \in I$: $C^\ast(G;V) \rightarrow C^\ast(A_i;W_i).$
Then we define the relative cohomology of $G$ with coefficients in $V$ with respect to $\{A_i\},\{W_i\}$ and we denote by $\operatorname{H}^\ast(G,\{A_i\};V,\{W_i\})$, the cohomology of the cone of the canonical map $C^\ast(G,V) \rightarrow
\prod_{i\in I}C^\ast(A_i,W_i)$.
As usual, if both coefficients $V$ and the $W_i$’s are the ground field $\mathbb{R}$, then we simply write $\operatorname{H}^\ast(G,\{A_i\})$ for the relative cohomology group. Concretely, a relative $n$-cocycle in $C^n(G,\{A_i\}; V, \{W_i\})$ is a pair $(c,\{a_i\}_{i \in I})$ where $c$ is an ordinary $n$-cocycle for $G$ with coefficients in $V$ which is a coboundary (i.e. trivial) on each subobject $A_i$ when the coefficients are restricted to $W_i$, together with a specific trivialization $a_i$ on each subobject $A_i$.
The following properties of the relative cohomology groups are immediate from the functoriality of the cochain complexes $C^\ast(G;V)$ and $C^\ast(A_i;W_i)$ and that of the cone construction:
\[prop:proprelcohogrp\]
1. The relative cohomology groups $\operatorname{H}^\ast(G,\{A_i\};V,\{W_i\})$ are functorial in both pairs $(G, ( A_i)_{i \in I})$ and $(V,\{W_i\})$.
2. The relative cohomology groups fit into a long exact sequence: $$\begin{gathered}
\cdots\longrightarrow \prod_{i \in I} \operatorname{H}^{n-1}(A_i;W_i) \overset\delta\longrightarrow \operatorname{H}^{n}(G,\{A_i\};V,\{W_i\}) \longrightarrow \operatorname{H}^{n}(G;V) \\
\longrightarrow \prod_{i \in I} \operatorname{H}^{n}(A_i,W_i) \longrightarrow\cdots\end{gathered}$$
3. If $J \subset I$ is a subset of the indexing family for the subobjects $A_i$, then we have an induced natural transformation in relative cohomology $$\operatorname{H}^\ast(G,\{A_i\}_{i \in I};V,\{W_i\}_{i \in I}) \rightarrow \operatorname{H}^\ast(G,\{A_i \}_{i \in J};V,\{W_i\}_{i \in J}).$$
Examples
--------
The different objects and cohomologies we have in mind are:
1. Continuous or smooth cohomology of a Lie group. Here $G$ is a Lie group, for our purposes $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$, and each $A_i$ is a closed subgroup, for us a Borel subgroup of $G$. We take for $C^\ast(G;{\mathbb{R}})$ the continuous or smooth *normalized* bar resolution $C^\ast_c(G;{\mathbb{R}})$ or $C^\ast_\infty(G;{\mathbb{R}})$ [@MR554917 Chap. IX]. In this case, by a classical result of Hoschild-Mostow, the canonical inclusion map $C^\ast_\infty(G;{\mathbb{R}}) \rightarrow C^\ast_c(G;{\mathbb{R}})$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
Another functorial way to compute the cohomology underlies van Est theorem (see Section \[subsec volascharac\]). Given a semi-simple Lie group with associated symmetric space $G/K$, then the subcomplex of the de Rham complex of $G$-invariant differential forms computes the continuous cohomology of $G$: $\operatorname{H}^\ast(\Omega_{dR}(G/K)^K) \simeq \operatorname{H}^\ast_c(G;\mathbb{R})$. This resolution is functorial in the category of pairs semi-simple Lie group – maximal compact subgroup.
2. Continuous-bounded cohomology. Since the only case we are interested in is for Lie groups with trivial coefficients we may use the cochain complex of continuous-bounded functions $C_{cb}^\ast(G;{\mathbb{R}})$.
3. Cohomology of discrete groups. Here $G$ is a discrete group, $A_i$ a family of subgroups and $C^\ast(G;{\mathbb{R}})$ stands for the usual bar resolution. This can of course be viewed as a particular case of continuous cohomology.
4. De Rham cohomology of manifolds. In this case $G$ is a smooth manifold, $A_i$ a family of smooth submanifolds, typically the connected components of the boundary, and $C^\ast(G;{\mathbb{R}})= \Omega^\ast_{dR}(G)$ is the de Rham complex of smooth differential forms on $M$.
5. Lie group cohomology [@MR1269324 Chap. 7]. Here $G$ and $A$ are respectively a real Lie algebra and a family of Lie subalgebras. For $C^\ast(G;\mathbb{R})$ we use the so-called *standard resolution* of Chevalley-Eilenberg. It is only in this case that we will need to consider non trivial coefficients.
For some of these theories one can find in the literature other relative cohomology theories, and the one here presented coincides with these except for one important case: Lie algebra cohomology. Let us review briefly this.
[**Relative cohomology for discrete groups:**]{} This has been defined by Bieri-Eckmann in [@MR509165]. Their construction defines the relative cohomology $\operatorname{H}^\ast(G,\{A_i\})$ as the absolute cohomology of the group $G$ with coefficients in a specific non-trivial $G$-module. As they explain in [@MR509165 p. 282], their construction is isomorphic to ours, up to a sign in the long exact sequence of the pair $(G;\{A_i\}_{i \in I})$. Fortunately for us this gives in our case a reformulation of their geometric interpretation of relative group cohomology without sign problems:
[@MR509165 Thm 1.3]\[thm:comgpsdeRham\] Let $(X,Y)$ be an Eilenberg-MacLane pair $K(G,\{A_i\};1)$. Then the relative cohomology sequences of $X$ modulo $Y$ and of $G$ modulo $\{A_i\}_{i \in I}$ are isomorphic. More precisely one has a commuting ladder with vertical isomorphisms: $$\xymatrix{
\cdots \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^n(G,\{A_i\}) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \operatorname{H}_{dR}^n(G) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \Pi_i \operatorname{H}^{n}(A_i) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \operatorname{H}^{n+1}(G,\{A_i\}) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \cdots \\
\cdots \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^n(X,Y) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^n(X) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n}(Y) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n+1}(X,Y) \ar[r] & \cdots
}$$ Where the cohomology in the bottom is the usual long exact sequence in singular cohomology.
We will be particularly interested in the case where $X =M$ is a manifold whose interior is hyperbolic of finite volume, and $Y =\partial M$ is its boundary, in which case $Y$ is a finite disjoint union of tori, i.e. $K(\mathbb{Z}^2,1)$’s.
[**De Rham cohomology:**]{} Given a manifold $M$ and a smooth submanifold $A$, a usual way to define relative cohomology groups $\operatorname{H}_{dR}^\ast(M,A)$ is to consider the kernel $\Omega_{dR}^\ast(M,A)$ of the canonical map between de Rham complexes induced by the inclusion: $\Omega_{dR}^\ast(M) \rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^\ast(A)$. This gives rise to a level-wise split short exact sequence of complexes: $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & \Omega_{dR}^\ast(M,A) \ar[r] & \Omega_{dR}^\ast(M) \ar[r] &
\Omega_{dR}^\ast(A) \ar[r] & 0
}$$ where the surjectivity uses the tubular neighborhood to extend any differential form on $A$ to a form on $M$. As these are chain complexes of $\mathbb{R}$-vector spaces, the usual argument based on the snake lemma gives rise to a long exact sequence: $$\xymatrix{
\cdots \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}_{dR}^n(M,A) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}_{dR}^n(M) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}_{dR}^{n}(A)
\ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n+1}_{dR}(M,A) \ar[r] & \cdots
}$$
The relative de Rham cohomology can also be defined using the cone construction, cf. [@BottTu]. There is a canonical map $$\Omega_{dR}^\ast(M,A) \rightarrow \operatorname{Cone}(\Omega_{dR}^\ast(M)
\rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^\ast(A)),$$ it maps a differential form $\omega$ of degree $n$ that is zero on $A$ to $(0,\omega) \in \Omega_{dR}^{n-1}(A) \oplus \Omega_{dR}^n(M)=
\Omega_{dR}(M,\{A\})$. It is immediate to check that this is a map of chain complexes, compatible with the restriction map and the connecting homomorphisms, and hence gives a commutative ladder; $$\xymatrix{
\cdots \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}_{dR}^n(M,A) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \operatorname{H}_{dR}^n(M) \ar[r] \ar@{=}[d] &
\operatorname{H}_{dR}^{n}(A) \ar[r] \ar@{=}[d] & \operatorname{H}^{n+1}_{dR}(M,A) \ar[r] \ar[d]& \cdots \\
\cdots \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}_{dR}^n(M,\{A\}) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}_{dR}^n(M) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}_{dR}^{n}(A)
\ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^{n+1}_{dR}(M,\{A\}) \ar[r] & \cdots
}$$ where in the bottom we denote by $\operatorname{H}^\ast_{dR}(M,\{A\})$ “our” relative cohomology groups. Applying the five lemma we conclude that this canonical map is a quasi-isomorphism.
[**Lie algebra cohomology:**]{} This is an important case where our relative groups do not coincide with the usual ones. Given a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ and a subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$, Chevalley-Eilenberg [@MR1269324] define the relative Lie algebra cohomology via the (now known as) relative Chevalley-Eilenberg complex: $$\textstyle{
\operatorname{H}^\ast(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h})=
\operatorname{H}^\ast(\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathfrak{h}-mod}( {\bigwedge}^\ast\mathfrak{g}
/\mathfrak{h},\mathbb{R})).}$$
If $\mathfrak{g}$ and $\mathfrak{h}$ are Lie algebras of a Lie group $G$ and a closed subgroup $H$, the relationship between the cohomologies $\operatorname{H}^\ast(\mathfrak{g})$, $\operatorname{H}^\ast(\mathfrak{h})$ and $\operatorname{H}^\ast(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h})$ parallels the relationship between the cohomologies of the spaces in the fibration sequence: $$H \rightarrow G \rightarrow G/H.$$
In particular there is a Hochshild-Serre spectral sequence relating these cohomologies, in contrast with the long exact sequence in our case.
To distinguish our definition and to avoid an unnecessary clash with standard notations, even in case we have a family of subobjects consisting of a single element, we will denote our relative version as $\operatorname{H}^\ast(\mathfrak{g},\{\mathfrak{h}\})$ and keep the usual notation $\operatorname{H}^\ast(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h})$ for the cohomology of the complex $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathfrak{h}-mod}(\bigwedge^\ast\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h},\mathbb{R})$.
The case of continuous-bounded cohomology:
------------------------------------------
Continuous-bounded cohomology produces cohomology groups that are naturally Banach spaces, and this is an important feature of the theory. As we will have to consider non-countable families of subgroups, there is no hope that we could give some metric to our relative cohomology groups $\operatorname{H}^\ast_{cb}(G,\{A_i\})$ in any way compatible with the metrics on the absolute cohomology groups, for the space $\prod_{i \in I}\operatorname{H}^\ast_{cb}(A_i)$ will not usually be metrizable. However we are only interested in these relative cohomology groups as tools interpolating between the cohomology of a group and the cohomologies of subgroups in a given family and we will not enter the subtler point of the metric.
As a general rule we will write cohomology with coefficients separated by semicolons, eg. $\operatorname{H}^3(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}});{\mathbb{C}}^n)$, unless we are dealing with the ground field $\mathbb{R}$ as coefficients, in which case we will usually omit them, and write $\operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}))$ instead of $\operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}});{\mathbb{R}})$. For cochain complexes we will however keep the reference to the coefficients in all cases.
Relative characteristic and variation maps {#sec:relcharvar}
==========================================
In this section we explain how one can“relativize" Fuks construction [@MR874337 Chap. 3, Par. 1] of a characteristic class of a foliation, and more generally of a manifold with $\mathfrak{g}$-structure, and the way he handles their variation.
Relative characteristic classes
-------------------------------
Given a smooth principal $G$-bundle $E$ and a flat connection $\nabla\in \Omega^1_{dR}(E,{\mathfrak{g}})$ on $E$ with values in a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, the absolute characteristic class map is given on the cochain level by: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\operatorname{Char}_\nabla : C^\ast(\mathfrak{g};{\mathbb{R}}) & \longrightarrow & \Omega^\ast_{dR}(E) \\
\alpha & \longmapsto & (X_1,\cdots,X_n) \leadsto \alpha(\nabla X_1, \dots, \nabla X_n).
\end{array}$$ This construction is contravariantly functorial in both variables $\mathfrak{g}$ and $E$; flatness of $\nabla$ implies this is in fact a chain map, i.e. it commutes with the differentials.
Fix a family of Lie subalgebras $\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}$ of $\mathfrak{g}$ and a family of smooth closed submanifolds $\{A\} \subset E$, for instance the family of connected components of the boundary of $E$. Assume that the flat connection $\nabla$ on $A$ restricts to a flat connection with values in ${\mathfrak{b}}^A$, an element in the chosen family of Lie subalgebras. Then by functoriality of the map $\operatorname{Char}_\nabla$ we have for each $A \subset E$ a commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{
C^\ast(\mathfrak{g};{\mathbb{R}}) \ar[rr]^{\operatorname{Char}_\nabla} \ar[d] & & \Omega^\ast_{dR}(E) \ar[d] \\
C^\ast(\mathfrak{b}_A;{\mathbb{R}}) \ar[rr]^{\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla\vert_A}} & & \Omega^\ast_{dR}(A)
}$$ By functoriality of the cone construction we get a *relative* characteristic classe cochain map: $$\xymatrix{
C^\ast(\mathfrak{g},\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}) \ar[rr]^{\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla,\{\nabla \vert_A\}}} & & \Omega^\ast_{dR}(E,\{A\}).
}$$
Variation of characteristic classes {#subsec varchaclass}
-----------------------------------
Let us again briefly recall Fuks framework in the absolute case [@MR874337 Chap. 3, pp. 241-246]. We consider a $1$-parameter family of flat connections $\nabla_t$ on a manifold $E$ with values in a *fixed* Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$. Given a Lie algebra cohomology class $[\omega] \in \operatorname{H}^\ast(\mathfrak{g};\mathbb{R})$, we want to understand the variation of the cohomology class $\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t}(\omega) \in \operatorname{H}^\ast_{dR}(E)$ as $t$ varies.
Assume that the connection $\nabla_t$ depends differentiably on $t$, then its derivative in $t=0$, denoted by $\dot{\nabla}_{0}$, is again a connection with values in $\mathfrak{g}$. The characteristic class $\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t}(\alpha)$ depends then also differentiably on the parameter $t$ and, assuming $\alpha$ is of degree $n$, its derivative at $t=0$ is directly computed to be the de Rham cohomology class of the form obtained by the Leibniz derivative rule: $$\operatorname{Var}_{\nabla_t}(\alpha)\colon (X_1,\dots,X_n) \mapsto \sum_{i=1}^n
\alpha(\nabla_0X_1,\dots,\nabla_0X_{i-1},
\dot{\nabla}_0X_i,\nabla_0X_{i+1},\dots \nabla_0X_n).$$ From this we get a cochain map: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\operatorname{Var}_{\nabla_t} \colon C^\ast(\mathfrak{g};{\mathbb{R}}) & \longrightarrow & \Omega^\ast_{dR}(E) \\
\alpha & \longmapsto & \operatorname{Var}_{\nabla_t}(\alpha).
\end{array}$$
The family of connections $\nabla_t$ can also be seen as a single connection on $E$ but with values in the algebra of currents $${\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}}=\mathcal{C}^{1}(
\mathbb{R},\mathfrak{g}).$$ The associated characteristic class map $$\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t}: \operatorname{H}^\ast({\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}})\rightarrow
\operatorname{H}^\ast_{dR}(E)$$ factors the variation map in a very nice way. Consider the following two cochain maps:
1. The map $\operatorname{var}$: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\operatorname{var} \colon C^n(\mathfrak{g};{\mathbb{R}}) & \longrightarrow & C^{n-1}(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{g}^\vee)\\
\alpha & \longmapsto & (g_1,\dots,g_{n-1}) \leadsto \big( h \mapsto \alpha(g_1,\dots,g_{n-1},h)\big)
\end{array}$$ where by $\mathfrak{g}^\vee$ denotes the dual vector space $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathfrak{g},\mathbb{R})$, this is canonically a left $\mathfrak{g}$-module by setting $(g\phi)(h)= -\phi([g,h])$.
2. Fuks map [@MR874337 Chap. 3 p. 244] is a cochain map, in fact a split monomorphism: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
{\operatorname{F}}\colon C^{n-1}(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{g}^\vee) & \longrightarrow & C^n(\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}})
\end{array}$$ that sends a cochain $\alpha \in C^{n-1}(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{g}^\vee)$ to the cochain $$(\phi_1,\dots,\phi_n) \mapsto \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^{n-i} \Big[\alpha(\phi_1(0),\dots,\phi_{i-1}(0), \widehat{\phi_i(0)},\phi_{i+1}(0),\dots,\phi_n(0))\Big]\big(\dot{\phi_i}(0)\big)\, .$$
By direct computation one shows that the following diagram of cochain maps commutes: $$\xymatrix{
C^n(\mathfrak{g};{\mathbb{R}}) \ar[r]^{\operatorname{var}} \ar@/_1.0pc/[drr]_{\operatorname{Var}_{\nabla_t}}
& C^{n-1}(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{g}^\vee) \ar[r]^{{\operatorname{F}}} & C^{n}({\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}};{\mathbb{R}}) \ar[d]^{\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t}} \\
& & \Omega_{dR}^n(E)
}$$
Let us now relativize the construction above. We have fixed a relative cocycle $(\omega,\{\beta\}) \in C^n({\mathfrak{g}},\{{\mathfrak{b}}\})$, a $1$-parameter family of connections $\nabla_t$ on a manifold $E$, and a family of closed submanifolds $\{A\}$ in $E$. Assume that for each value of $t$ the restriction of $\nabla_t$ to $A$ takes values in the Lie subalgebra ${\mathfrak{b}}^A_t \in \{{\mathfrak{b}}\}$. Then for each value of the parameter $t$ we have as data a relative de Rham cocycle with absolute part: $$(X_1,\dots X_n) \longmapsto \omega(\nabla_tX_1,\dots,\nabla_t X_n),$$ and relative part given on each submanifold $A$ by: $$(Y_1,\dots,Y_{n-1}) \longmapsto \beta_t^A(\nabla_tY_1,\dots,\nabla_tY_{n-1}).$$ The instant variation of this class is given by computing the usual limit. For the absolute part $\omega$ we get the same result as in the non-relative case: $$\operatorname{Var}_{\nabla_t}(\omega)$$ For the relative part we have to compute the limit as $t\rightarrow 0$ of: $$\label{eqn:nabla}
\Delta(\beta,t)= \frac{1}{t}\big( \beta_t^A(\nabla_tY_1,\dots,\nabla_tY_{n-1}) - \beta_0^A(\nabla_0Y_1,\dots,\nabla_0Y_{n-1}) \big) \quad (\ast)$$ Here we are stuck as the usual tricks that lead to a Leibniz type derivation formula in this case do not work: the problem lies in the fact that the class $\beta^A_t$ also depends on the time $t$. To overcome this difficulty we will impose the following coherence condition on the connection with respect to the family of Lie subalgebras ${\mathfrak{b}}^A_t$:
\[def coherencecond\] Assume $\mathfrak{g}$ is the Lie algebra of a connected Lie group $G$. Consider on a manifold $E$ with a family of submanifolds $A$ a one parameter family of connections $\nabla_t$. Assume that for each $A$, the restriction $\nabla_0\vert_A$ lies in the Lie subalgebra ${\mathfrak{b}}^A$. We say that the connection varies *coherently* along the submanifolds $A$ with respect to the family $\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}$ if and only if the following holds:
1. There is a subgroup $H \subset G$ such that for each subspace $A$ there exists a differentiable $1$-parameter family of elements of $H$, $h_t$ with $h_0 = \operatorname{Id}$, such that for each value of the parameter $t$ the connection $\widetilde{\nabla}^A_t = \operatorname{Ad}_{h_t}\nabla_t\vert_A$ takes values in the Lie subalgebra at the origin ${\mathfrak{b}}^A$.
This condition will force us to restrict our treatment of the variation of a relative characteristic class in two ways:
1. Firstly we will only consider classes whose global part is an $H$-invariant cocycle, where $H$ is the group defined above.
2. Secondly, given a connection that varies coherently along the submanifolds $A$ with respect to the family $\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}$, we will ask for the relative part of the cocycle to satisfy the coherence condition: $$\forall (Y_1,\dots, Y_{n-1}) \quad \beta_t^A(\nabla_tY_1,\dots,\nabla_tY_{n-1}) = \beta_0^A(\widetilde{\nabla}_t^AY_1,\dots,\widetilde{\nabla}_t^AY_{n-1}) .$$
\[def coherenceconnection\] We say that the characteristic class *varies coherently* with the connection if the previous two conditions are satisfied.
Under this assumption we can pursue the computation in above: $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{t \to 0} \Delta(\beta,t) & = & \lim_{t \to 0}\frac{1}{t}\big( \beta_t^A(\nabla_tY_1,\dots,\nabla_tY_{n-1}) - \beta_0^A(\nabla_0Y_1,\dots,\nabla_0Y_{n-1}) \\
& = &\lim_{t \to 0} \frac{1}{t} \big( \beta_0^A(\widetilde{\nabla}_t^AY_1,\dots,\widetilde{\nabla}_t^AY_{n-1})- \beta_0^A(\widetilde{\nabla}_0^AY_1,\dots,\widetilde{\nabla}_0^AY_{n-1}) \big)
\\
& =& \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \beta_0^A(\widetilde{\nabla}_0^AY_1,\dots,\widetilde{\nabla}_0^AY_{j-1},\dot{\widetilde{\nabla}^A_0}Y_j,\widetilde{\nabla}_0^AY_{j+1}, \dots\widetilde{\nabla}_t^AY_{n-1}) \\
&=& \operatorname{Var}_{\widetilde{\nabla}_t}(\beta^A_0)\end{aligned}$$ Observe that, since $\omega$ is $H$-invariant, for any vector fields $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ on $E$ we have $$\omega(\nabla_t X_1,\dots,\nabla_t X_n) = \omega(\widetilde{\nabla}_tX_1,\dots,\widetilde{\nabla}_tX_n),$$ and in particular as differential forms $$d\operatorname{Var}_{\widetilde{\nabla}_t}(\beta^A_t) =j^*_A (\operatorname{Var}_{\nabla_t}(\omega)) = j^*_A (\operatorname{Var}_{\widetilde{\nabla}_t}(\omega)),$$ where $j_A: A \hookrightarrow E$ is the inclusion. Hence the data $$(\operatorname{Var}_{\nabla_t}(\omega),\{ \operatorname{Var}_{\widetilde{\nabla}_t}(\beta^A)\}) = \operatorname{Var}_{\nabla_t,\{\widetilde{\nabla}\}}(\omega,\{\beta\})$$ is indeed a relative differential form on $(E,\{A\})$.
We will now relativize the maps $\operatorname{var}$ and $F$ involved in Fuks factorization of the map $\operatorname{Var}_{\nabla_t}$.
\[lem cochareHmodules\] Let $G$ be a connected Lie group, $\mathfrak{g}$ its Lie algebra and $H \subset
G$ a subgroup. Then the cochain complexes $C^\ast({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathbb{R}})$, $C^\ast({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee)$ and $C^\ast(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}};{\mathbb{R}})$ are cochain complexes of $H$-modules, where the action of $H$ is induced by its adjoint action on ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Moreover the maps $\operatorname{var}$ and ${\operatorname{F}}$ are compatible with the action of $H$.
This is an immediate consequence of the fact that the above chain complexes are functorial in the variable $\mathfrak{g}$ and the adjoint action is by automorphisms of Lie algebras.
\[not:relcochcoplx\] Denote by $C^\ast_H({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathbb{R}})$, $C^\ast_H({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee)$ and $C^\ast_H(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}})$ the subspace of fixed points under the action of $H$ of the vector spaces $C^\ast({\mathfrak{g}})$, $C^\ast({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee)$ and $C^\ast(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}};\mathbb{R})$ respectively.
\[def relcohcoxes\] Denote by $$C^\ast_H({\mathfrak{g}};\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}) = \operatorname{Cone}\big(C^\ast_H({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathbb{R}}) \rightarrow \prod C^\ast({\mathfrak{b}};{\mathbb{R}})\big)$$ $$C^{\ast}_H({\mathfrak{g}},\{{\mathfrak{b}}\};{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee,\{{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee\})= \operatorname{Cone}\big(C^\ast_H({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee) \rightarrow \prod C^\ast({\mathfrak{b}};{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee)\big)$$ the cones taken along the maps induced by the inclusions ${\mathfrak{b}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{g}}$.
Notice that in the above definition we do not ask a priori the chains on the Lie algebras ${\mathfrak{b}}$ to be invariant of any sort.
\[prop:relvarandemb\] Via the cone construction the chain maps $\operatorname{var}$ and ${\operatorname{F}}$ induce relative chain maps: $$\operatorname{var}\colon C^\ast_H({\mathfrak{g}},\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}) \longrightarrow C^{\ast-1}_H({\mathfrak{g}},\{{\mathfrak{b}}\};{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee,\{{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee\})$$ and $${\operatorname{F}}\colon C^{\ast-1}_H({\mathfrak{g}},\{{\mathfrak{b}}\};{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee,\{{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee\}) \longrightarrow C^\ast_H(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}},\{\widetilde{{\mathfrak{b}}}\})$$
This follows from the functoriality of the cone construction and the commutativity, for any Lie subalgebra ${\mathfrak{b}}\subset {\mathfrak{g}}$, of the following two squares: $$\xymatrix{
C^\ast_H({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathbb{R}}) \ar[r] \ar[d] & C^{\ast-1}_H({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee) \ar[d] \\
C^\ast({\mathfrak{b}};{\mathbb{R}}) \ar[r] & C^{\ast-1}({\mathfrak{b}};{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee)
}$$ and $$\xymatrix{
C^{\ast-1}_H({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathfrak{g}}^\vee) \ar[r] \ar[d] & C^{\ast}_H(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}};{\mathbb{R}}) \ar[d] \\
C^{\ast-1}({\mathfrak{b}};{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee) \ar[r] & C^{\ast}(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{b}}};{\mathbb{R}})
}$$
\[prop:relcaahrnabla\] With the notations of Definition \[def coherencecond\], the map $\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t}: C_H^\ast(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}};{\mathbb{R}}) \rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^\ast(E)$ and $\operatorname{Char}_{\widetilde{\nabla}_t^A}: C_H^\ast(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{b}}^A};{\mathbb{R}}) \rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^\ast(A)$ induce a map in relative cohomology $$\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t,\{\widetilde{\nabla}_t^A\}} : C^\ast_H(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}},\{\widetilde{{\mathfrak{b}}}^A\}) \rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^\ast(E,\{A\})$$ which is compatible with the restrictions and inflation maps, where $$C^\ast_H(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}},\{\widetilde{{\mathfrak{b}}}^A\}) = \operatorname{Cone}\big( C^\ast_H(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}};{\mathbb{R}}) \hookrightarrow C^\ast(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}};{\mathbb{R}}) \stackrel{rest.}{\longrightarrow} \prod_A C^\ast(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{b}}}^A;{\mathbb{R}}) \big)$$
By functoriality of the cone construction, it is enough to show that for each $A$ the following diagram where the vertical maps are the restriction maps commutes: $$\xymatrix{
C^\ast_H(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}};{\mathbb{R}}) \ar[d] \ar[rr]^-{\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t}}& & \Omega_{dR}^\ast(E) \ar[d] \\
C^\ast(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{b}}}^A;{\mathbb{R}}) \ar[rr]_-{\operatorname{Char}_{\widetilde{\nabla}_t^A}} & & \Omega_{dR}^\ast(A)
}$$ which is achieved by a trivial diagram chasing.
Summing up the results in this section we have shown that:
\[them relVarmap\] Let $(\omega,\{\beta\}) \in C^\ast_H({\mathfrak{g}},\{{\mathfrak{b}}\})$ vary coherently along a connection $\nabla_t$ on $E$. The variation chain map $\operatorname{Var}:C^\ast({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathbb{R}}) \rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^\ast(E)$ induces via the cone construction a relative variation chain map $$\operatorname{Var}_{\nabla_t,\{\widetilde{\nabla}_t\}}: C^\ast_H({\mathfrak{g}},\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}) \rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^\ast(E,\{A\})$$ whose induced map in cohomology computes the derivative at $t=0$ of the cohomology classes $\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t}(\omega,\{\beta\}) \in \operatorname{H}^\ast_{dR}(E,\{A\})$.
We also have a Fuks type factorization of the variation map:
\[them factVarmap\] The relative variation map factors as: $$\xymatrix{
C^\ast_H({\mathfrak{g}},\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}) \ar[r]^-{\operatorname{var}} \ar@/_{1pc}/[drr]_{\operatorname{Var}}& C^{\ast-1}_H({\mathfrak{g}},\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}; {\mathfrak{g}}^\vee,\{{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee\})\ar[r]^-{{\operatorname{F}}} & C^\ast_H(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{g}}},\{\widetilde{{\mathfrak{b}}}\})\ar[d]^{\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t,\{\widetilde{\nabla}_t\}}} \\
& & \Omega^\ast_{dR}(E,\{A\})
}$$ and this factorization is compatible with the restriction and connecting homomorphisms.
The volume of a representation {#sec:volrelatif}
==============================
Set-up and notations {#subsec:notvolrep}
--------------------
Let us start with some definitions and notations involving the structure of the groups $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$. We will regard this groups as real Lie groups. Recall then that for each $n\geq 2$, the group $\mathrm{SU}(n) \subset
\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ is a maximal compact subgroup. Let $D_n \subset
\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ denote the subgroup of diagonal matrices, then $D_n \cap
\mathrm{SU}(n) = T$ is a maximal real torus isomorphic to $(\mathbb{S}^1)^{n-1}$. By definition a Borel subgroup of $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ is a maximal solvable subgroup; the Borel subgroups are also the stabilizers of complete flags in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$, the Gram-Schmidt process then shows that the subgroup $\mathrm{SU}(n)$ acts transitively on complete flags, and hence that all Borel subgroups are pairwise conjugated in $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}) $ by elements in $\mathrm{SU}(n)$.
We fix as our model Borel subgroup $B \subset \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ the subgroup of upper-triangular matrices. In particular the transitive action by conjugation of $\mathrm{SU}(n)$ on the set of all Borel subgroups provides each of these with a specified choice of a maximal compact subgroup. Denote by $U_n \subset B$ the subgroup of unipotent matrices; this is a normal subgroup and gives $B$ the structure of a semi-direct product $B = U_n \rtimes
D_n$.
Again by the Gram-Schmidt process, the inclusion $B \hookrightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ induces an homeomorphism of homogeneous manifolds $B/ T \simeq \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})/\mathrm{SU}(n)$. For $n=2$, this symmetric space is hyperbolic space. For normalization purposes, let us recall that $$\label {eqn:normalization}
\begin{pmatrix} e^{(l+i\theta)/2} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-(l+i\theta)/2} \end{pmatrix}= \exp \begin{pmatrix} (l+i\theta)/2 & 0 \\ 0 & {-(l+i\theta)/2} \end{pmatrix}$$ acts on $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{C})/\mathrm{SU}(2) \simeq {\mathcal{H}}^3$ as the composition of a loxodromic isometry of translation length $l$ composed with a rotation of angle $\theta$ along the same axis, cf. [@MR1937957 §12.1].
Let $\pi$ denote the fundamental group of $M$, the compact three-manifold with nonempty boundary, whose interior is hyperbolic of finite volume. The $k\geq 1$ boundary components are tori, $\partial {M} = T^2_1 \sqcup T^2_2 \cdots \sqcup
T_k^2$. For each boundary component of ${M}$ fix a path from the basepoint of $M$ to the boundary, this gives us a definite choice of a peripheral system $P_1, \cdots,P_k$ in $\pi$, where $P_i \simeq \pi_1( T^2_ i)$.
Let’s now fix a representation $\rho: \pi \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})$ for some $n \geq 2$. Since each peripheral subgroup $P_i$ is abelian and the Borel subgroups of $\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})$ are maximal solvable subgroups, the image of the restriction of $\rho$ to $P_i$ lies in a Borel subgroup. Fix for each peripheral subgroup $P_i$ such a Borel subgroup $B_i$.
Some known results in bounded and continuous cohomology {#subsec:rappelcontcoho}
-------------------------------------------------------
The continuous cohomology of the groups $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ has a rather simple structure:
[@MR0051508]\[prop:cohoconSL\] Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer, then $\operatorname{H}^\ast_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}))$ is an exterior algebra: $$\operatorname{H}^\ast_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})) = \bigwedge \langle x_{n,j} \ | \ 1 \leq j \leq n \rangle$$ over so-called Borel classes $x_{n,j}$ of degree $2j+1$. These classes are stable, if $j_n : \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}) \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_{n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ denotes the inclusion in the upper left corner, then for $j \leq n$, $j_n^\ast(x_{n+1,j}) = x_{n,j}$.
For $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{C})$ the Borel class $x_1$ is also known as the hyperbolic volume class and we denote it by $\operatorname{vol}_{{\mathcal{H}}^3}$. It is completely determined by stability and the requirement that on $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{C})$ it is represented by the cocycle $$(A,B,C,D) \mapsto \int_{(A\ast,B\ast,C\ast,D\ast)} d\operatorname{vol}_{ {\mathcal{H}}^3}$$ where $(A\ast,B\ast,C\ast,D\ast)$ denotes the hyperbolic oriented tetrahedron with geodesic faces spanned by the four images of the base point $\ast \in
{\mathcal{H}}^3$ by $A,B,C$ and $D$ respectively and $d\operatorname{vol}_{ {\mathcal{H}}^3}$ is the hyperbolic volume form. Notice that this cocycle is bounded by the maximal volume of an ideal tetrahedron. See for instance [@MR1649192 Section 3] for a thorough discussion of volumes of hyperbolic manifolds and continuous cocycles.
Compared to the relatively simple structure of the continuous cohomology, the continuous-bounded cohomology of $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ is considerably more complicated and largely unknown, see Monod [@MR1840942]. Nevertheless, fitting well our purposes we have the following:
[@MR2077038]\[prop:compcohoconSL\] The canonical comparison map $\operatorname{H}^3_{cb}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})) \rightarrow \operatorname{H}^3_{c}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}))$ is surjective.
For continuous bounded we have also the following crucial feature, which applies in particular to the Borel and unipotent subgroups of $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$:
\[prop:contcohoamen\] Let $G$ denote an amenable Lie group, e.g. abelian or solvable, then $\operatorname{H}^\ast_{cb}(G) = 0$ for $\ast >0$.
We are now ready to define the the volume of our representation $\rho: \pi \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})$. The long exact sequence in continuous cohomology for the pair $(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}), \{B_i\})$, where $\{B_i\}$ stands for the family of Borel subgroups we have fixed together with Proposition \[prop:contcohoamen\] gives immediately:
\[prop:isorelcoho\] For $\ast \geq 2$, the map induced by forgetting the relative part induces an isomorphism: $$\operatorname{H}^\ast_{cb}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}), \{B_i\}) \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} \operatorname{H}^\ast_{cb}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})).$$
\[rem:nonisoencont\] Under the hypothesis of Proposition \[prop:isorelcoho\] above, and since the groups $B_i$ are the Borel subgroups of $SL_n({\mathbb{C}})$, by Corollary 3 in [@MR2900175] the long exact sequence in continuous cohomology of Proposition \[prop:proprelcohogrp\] splits into short exact sequences: $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & \prod_i\operatorname{H}^{\ast-1}_c(B_i) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^\ast_{c}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}), \{B_i\}) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^\ast_{c}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})) \ar[r] & 0 \\
}$$ Moreover, since all Borel subgroups are conjugated, all groups $\operatorname{H}^\ast_c(B_i)$ are isomorphic one to each other. However since $\operatorname{H}^\ast_c(B_i) \neq 0$, for instance for $\ast=1$, we do not have in general an isomorphism as for continuous *bounded* cohomology.
Comparing continuous cohomology and bounded continuous cohomology for the pair $(\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C}), \{B_i\})$ gives us a commutative diagram:
$$\xymatrix{
\operatorname{H}^3_{cb}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}), \{B_i\}) \ar[r]^-\sim \ar[d] & \operatorname{H}^3_{cb}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})) \ar@{>>}[d] \\
\operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}),\{B_i\}) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}))
}$$ This shows that the continuous-bounded cohomology class $\operatorname{vol}_{{\mathcal{H}}}$ has a canonical representative as a continuous bounded relative class $\operatorname{vol}_{{\mathcal{H}},\partial} \in \operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}),\{B_i\})$.
By construction the representation $\rho$ induces a map of pairs $\rho\colon (\pi, \{ P_i \}) \rightarrow (\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}), \{B_i\})$, hence by functoriality we have an induced map in continuous cohomology $$\operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}), \{B_i\}) \stackrel{\rho^\ast}{\longrightarrow} \operatorname{H}^3_c(\pi, \{ P_i \}).$$ But for discrete groups continuous cohomology and ordinary group cohomology coincide, so we have a well-defined class, up to a possible ambiguity given by the choice of the Borel subgroups $B_i$, $$\rho^\ast(\operatorname{vol}_{{\mathcal{H}},\partial}) \in \operatorname{H}^3(\pi, \{ P_i \}).$$
\[prop:volindepBorelchoice\] The class $\rho^\ast(\operatorname{vol}_{{\mathcal{H}},\partial}) \in \operatorname{H}^3_c(\pi, \{ P_i \})$ is independent of the possible choice of a different family of Borel subgroups $\{B_i\}$.
Let us assume for clarity that we have two possible choices $B_j$ and $B_j'$ for the Borel subgroup that contains $\rho(P_j)$, and that we make a unique choice for the rest of the peripheral subgroups. We denote the two families of subgroups by $\{B_{i \neq j}, B_j\}$ and $\{B_{i\neq j}, B'_j\}$. Because Borel subgroups are closed in $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$, their intersection, as $B_i \cap B_i'$, is also amenable. The restriction of $\rho$ to the peripheral subgroup $P_j$ factors in both cases through this intersection, so we have a commutative diagram of group homomorphisms: $$\xymatrix{
& & (\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}),\{B_{i \neq j}, B_j\}) \\
(\pi,\{P_{i\neq j},P_j\}) \ar@/^1pc/[urr] \ar@/_1pc/[drr] \ar[r] & (\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C}),\{B_{i \neq j}, B_j \cap B'_j\}) \ar[ur] \ar[dr]& \\
& & (\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}),\{B_{i \neq j}, B'_j\})
}$$ Together with the forgetful isomorphisms to the absolute cohomology of $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$, and given the fact that the subgroups involved are all amenable, we have a commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{
& & \operatorname{H}^3_{cb}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}),\{B_{i \neq j}, B_j\}) \ar@/_1pc/[dll] \ar[dl] \ar[d]^{\wr} \\
\operatorname{H}^3_{cb}(\pi,\{P_{i \neq j}, P_i\} ) & \operatorname{H}^3_{cb}(\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C}),\{B_{i \neq j}, B_j \cap B'_j\} ) \ar[l] \ar[r]^-\sim & \operatorname{H}^3_{cb}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})) \\
& & \operatorname{H}^3_{cb}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}),\{B_{i \neq j}, B'_j\}) \ar[ul] \ar@/^1pc/[ull] \ar[u]_{\wr}
}$$
and this finishes the proof.
Now $M$ is a $K(\pi,1)$ and each boundary component is a $K(P_i,1)$ for the corresponding peripheral subgroup, in particular $\operatorname{H}^3(\pi, \{ P_i \}) \simeq
\operatorname{H}^3({M};\partial {M}) \simeq {\mathbb{R}}$ by Theorem \[thm:comgpsdeRham\], due to Bieri and Eckmann, and this leads to our compact definition of the volume of a representation (for a more precise statement see Definition \[def:defvolplusprecis\]):
\[def:volrepborl\] Let $\rho\colon \pi \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ be a representation of the fundamental group of a finite volume hyperbolic $3$-manifold. Then, evaluating on our fixed fundamental class $[M,\partial M] \in \operatorname{H}_3(M,\partial M)$ we set: $$\operatorname{Vol}(\rho) = \langle \rho^\ast(\operatorname{vol}_{{\mathcal{H}},\partial}),[{M},\partial {M}]\rangle .$$
In [@MR3026348] Bucher, Burger and Iozzi prove that the volume of a representation $\pi \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ is maximal at the composition of the irreducible representation $\mathrm{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})\to\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ with a lift of the holonomy. Their definition, as ours, relies on continuous bounded cohomology and are clearly equivalent: their transfer argument is replaced here by an isomorphism through a relative cohomology group. The passage through continuous cohomology seems for the moment rather useless, it will however be crucial in our next set: the study of the variation of the volume.
Variation of the volume class {#sec:varvol}
=============================
We follow Reznikov’s idea [@MR1412681] to prove rigidity of the volume in the compact case. We will first show that the volume class can be viewed as a characteristic class on the total space of the flat bundle defined by the representation, then find explicit relative cocycles representing $\operatorname{vol}_{{\mathcal{H}},\partial}$ and finally apply the machinery of Section \[sec:relcharvar\].
Let us start with some more notations. In the previous section we defined a series of Lie subgroups of $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$, we now pass to their Lie algebras, all viewed as real Lie algebras.
Lie group Lie algebra Description as subgroup
------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ ${\mathfrak{sl}}_n$
$\mathrm{SU}(n)$ ${\mathfrak{su}}_n$ Fixed maximal compact subgroup
$B$ ${\mathfrak{b}}_n$ Fixed Borel subgroup of upper triangular matrices
$D_n$ ${\mathfrak{h}}_n+i{\mathfrak{h}}_n$ Subgroup of diagonal matrices in $B$
$T= D_n\cap \mathrm{SU}(n)$ ${\mathfrak{h}}_n$ Maximal torus in $\mathrm{SU}(n)$ (and in $B$ and $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$)
$U_n$ ${\mathfrak{ut}}_n$ Subgroup of unipotent elements in $B$.
For explicit formulas, we will need a concrete basis for the real Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{su}}_n$. Recall that ${\mathfrak{su}}_n = \{ X \in M_n(\mathbb{C}) \ | \ X+
{}^t\overline{X} =0 \textrm{ and } {\operatorname{tr}}(X)=0 \}$.
There is a standard $\mathbb{R}$-basis of ${\mathfrak{su}}_2$, orthogonal with respect to the Killing form: $$h = \left(
\begin{matrix}
i/2& 0 \\
0 & -i/2
\end{matrix}
\right)
, \quad
e = \left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & 1/2 \\
-1/2 & 0
\end{matrix}
\right)
, \quad
f = \left(
\begin{matrix}
0 &i/2 \\
i/2 & 0
\end{matrix}
\right).$$
From this we can construct an analogous basis for ${\mathfrak{su}}_n$; we only give here the non-zero entries of the matrices.
1. For an integer $1 \leq s \leq n-1$ let $h_s$ denote the matrix with a coefficient $i/2$ in diagonal position $s$ and a coefficient $-i/2$ in diagonal position $n$. It will be convenient to denote $h_{st}=h_s-h_t$.
2. For any pair of integers $1 \leq s < t \leq n$ let $e_{st}$ have coefficient row $s$ and column $t$ equal to $1/2$ and coefficient row $t$ and column $s$ equal to $-1/2$.
3. For any pair of integers $1 \leq s < t \leq n$ let $f_{st}$ denote the matrix which has coefficient row $s$ and column $t$ equal to $i/2$ and coefficient row $t$ and column $s$ equal to $i/2$.
Notice that the matrices $h_s$ generate the Lie subalgebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$, the Lie algebra of the real torus $T$. The dual basis will be denoted by $h^\vee_s,e^\vee_{st},h^\vee_{st}$. With these conventions, for $n=2$, $h=h_1, e=e_{12}$ and $f=f_{12}$.
Analogously, for ${\mathfrak{b}}$, the Lie algebra of upper triangular matrices with zero trace, we have a basis made of the matrices $h_s$, $ih_s$, $1 \leq s \leq n-1$, and for $1 \leq k < l \leq n$, the matrices $ur_{kl}$ (upper real) which are equal to $1$ in row $k$ and column $l$ and $ui_{kl} = i ur_{kl}$ (upper imaginary matrices). We have $ur_{kl}= e_{kl}-i\, f_{kl}$ and $ui_{kl}=i\, e_{kl}+f_{kl}$.
The following result provides us with the right cochain complex in which to find our cocycle representatives; beware that the relative cohomology of Lie algebras in the statement is not the one we defined in Section \[sec:relcoho\], but the classical one as defined for instance in Weibel [@MR1269324 Chap. 7].
Let $G$ be a connected real Lie group. Denote by $\mathfrak{g}$ its Lie algebra and $\mathfrak{k}$ the Lie algebra of a maximal compact subgroup $K \subset G$. Then for all $m$ there is a canonical isomorphism $\operatorname{H}^m_c(G;{\mathbb{R}}) \simeq \operatorname{H}^m(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{k};{\mathbb{R}})$. More precisely the de Rham cochain complex of left-invariant differential forms $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & \Omega^0_{dR}(G/K)^G \ar[r] & \cdots \ar[r] & \Omega^n_{dR}(G/K)^G \ar[r] & \cdots
}$$ computes both cohomologies.
Functoriality of the cone construction allows to extend van Est isomorphism to relative cohomology as follows. Fix a connected Lie group $G$ and a family of connected closed subgroups $\{B_i\}$. Pick for each index $i$ a maximal compact subgroup $K_i \subset B_i$ and fix a maximal compact subgroup $K \subset G$. Then, by maximality, for each index $i$ there is an element $g_i \in G$ such that $K_i \subset g_i Kg_i^{-1}$. Then the composite $$j_{g_i} : B_i/K_i \longrightarrow G/g_iKg_{i}^{-1} \stackrel{c_{g_i}}{\longrightarrow} G/K,$$ where the second map is induced by conjugation by $g_i$, induces a cochain map: $$\Omega_{dR}^\ast(G/K)^G \rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^\ast(B_i/K_i)^{B_i}$$ which in, lets say, continuous cohomology is the map induced by the inclusion $B_i \rightarrow G$. Indeed it is clear for the first map using van Est isomorphism with the maximal subgroups $g_iKg_i^{-1}$ in $G$ and $K_i$ in $B_i$, and as for the second map, by construction it induces in cohomology the map that is induced by conjugation by $g_i$ and this is well-known to be the identity. Let us denote the first composite by $j_{g_i}: B_i/K_i \longrightarrow G/K$. Denote respectively by $\mathfrak{g}$, $\mathfrak{k}$, $\mathfrak{b}_i$, $\mathfrak{k}_i$ the Lie algebras of $G$, $K$, $B_i$, $K_i$. The an immediate application of the five lemma and van Est isomorphism gives us:
\[cor:relvanEst\] With the above notations and conventions the cone on the map $$\xymatrix{
\Omega_{dR}^G(G/K) \ar[rr]^-{\Pi j_{g_i}^\ast}& & \Pi \Omega(B_i/K_i)^{B_i}
}$$ computes both the relative continuous cohomology groups $\operatorname{H}^\ast_c(G,\{B_i\};\mathbb{R})$ and the unaesthetic relative Lie cohomology groups $\operatorname{H}^\ast(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{k}, \{\mathfrak{b}_i,\mathfrak{k}_i\};\mathbb{R})$. In particular both these relative cohomology groups are canonically isomorphic.
Recall that the volume class comes from a bounded cohomology class, so its de Rham representative will be rather special and can be explicitly detected thanks to the following result of Burger and Iozzi (Prop. 3.1 in [@MR2322535])
[@MR2322535]\[prop:boundeddeRham\] Let $G$ be a connected semi-simple Lie group with finite center, let $K$ be a maximal compact subgroup, let $G/K$ the associated symmetric space and let $L \subset G$ be any closed subgroup. Then there exists a map $$\delta_{\infty,L}^\ast: \operatorname{H}^\ast_{cb}(L;\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow \operatorname{H}^\ast(\Omega_{dR, \infty}(G/K)^L)$$ such that the diagram: $$\xymatrix{
\operatorname{H}^\ast_{cb}(L;\mathbb{R}) \ar[r]^{c^\ast_L} \ar[dr]_{\delta_{\infty,L}} & \operatorname{H}^\ast_c(L;\mathbb{R}) & \operatorname{H}^\ast(\Omega_{dR}(G/K)^L) \ar_{\sim}[l] \\
& \operatorname{H}^\ast(\Omega_{dR,\infty}(G/K)^L) \ar[ur]_{i_{\infty,L}} &
}$$ commutes, where $\Omega_{dR,\infty}(G/K)$ is the de Rham complex of bounded differential forms with bounded differential and $i_{\infty,L} $ is the map induced in cohomology by the inclusion of complexes $\Omega_{dR,\infty}(G/K) \hookrightarrow \Omega_{dR}(G/K)$.
A relative cocycle representing $\operatorname{vol}_{{\mathcal{H}},\partial }$ {#subsec:relcoc}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will apply the relative van Est isomorphism in the particular case where $G= SL_n({\mathbb{C}})$, $K= SU(n)$ and $\{B\}$ is the family of all Borel subgroups and in cohomological degree $3$. Here the situation is simpler, as for any Borel subgroup $B \cap SU(n)$ is a maximal torus and in our case this is also a maximal compact subgroup of $B$ so the “conjugation” part of the statement can be avoided and simply use as maximal compact subgroup of $B$ the intersection $B \cap SU(n)$.
In particular, to represent the class $\operatorname{vol}_{{\mathcal{H}},\partial }$, we look for a relative cocycle whose absolute part lies in $\Omega_{dR}^3(\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})/\mathrm{SU}(n))^{SL_{n}({\mathbb{C}})}$ and whose relative part lies in the groups $\Omega^2_{dR}(B/(B \cap SU(n)))^B$.
We take now advantage of the fact that all pairs $(B,T)$ where $B$ is a Borel subgroup and $T$ a maximal torus in $B$ are conjugated in $SL_n({\mathbb{C}})$, so in fact we only need to determine the relative part for our standard Borel $B$ of upper triangular matrices; if $\beta$ is a relative part for this particular subgroup and $B'$ is another Borel, there exists an element $g \in SL_n(\mathbb{C})$ that conjugates $(B,T) $ and $(B',SU(n)\cap B')$, then conjugation by $g$ induces a homeomorphism $c_g: B/T \rightarrow B'/(B' \cap SU(n))$, hence the relative part for $B'$ is given by $c_{g^{-1}}^\ast(\beta)$.
### The absolute part {#subsub:absolpart}
Denote by $K^\mathbb{R}_{{\mathfrak{sl}}_n}$ the real Killing form of the real Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{sl}}_n$. With respect to this form we have an orthogonal decomposition ${\mathfrak{sl}}_n = {\mathfrak{su}}_n \oplus i{\mathfrak{su}}_n$. We denote by: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n} : {\mathfrak{sl}}_n & \longrightarrow & {\mathfrak{su}}_n \\
A & \longmapsto & \frac{1}{2}(A - {}^t\overline{A})
\end{array}
\quad \textrm{ and } \quad
\begin{array}{rcl}
pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} : {\mathfrak{sl}}_n & \longrightarrow & i{\mathfrak{su}}_n \\
A & \longmapsto & \frac{1}{2}(A + {}^t\overline{A})
\end{array}$$ the canonical projections.
The behavior of these projections with respect to the Lie bracket is given by: $$\label{eq:brackreel}
pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}}([a,b]) = [pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}}a,pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}}b] + [pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}a,pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}b],$$ $$\label{eq:brackim}
pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}([a,b]) = [pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}}a,pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}b] + [pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}a,pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}}b].$$ The tangent space at the class of $\operatorname{Id}$ of the symmetric space $\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})/\mathrm{SU}(n)$ is canonically identified with $i{\mathfrak{su}}_n$, and the induced action of $\mathrm{SU}(n)$ on this tangent space is easily checked to be the adjoint action. Let us now consider the following rescaling of the *complex* Killing form on ${\mathfrak{sl}}_n$, $A,B \leadsto
{\operatorname{tr}}(AB)$. This gives rise to a complex valued alternating $3$ form, sometimes known as the (here rescaled) Cartan-Killing form: $CK^\mathbb{C}_{{\mathfrak{sl}}_n} \colon (A,B,C) \mapsto {\operatorname{tr}}(A[B,C])$. It is folklore knowledge that “the hyperbolic volume is the imaginary part of this Cartan-Killing form" (see Yoshida [@Yoshida] for a precise statement when $n=2$ or Reznikov [@MR1412681]); let us turn this into a precise statement. We fix our attention in the following part of the de Rham complex:
$$\Omega_{dR}^2(\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})/\mathrm{SU}(n))^{ \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})} \rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^3(\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})/\mathrm{SU}(n))^{ \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})} \rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^4(\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})/\mathrm{SU}(n))^{ \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})}.$$
\[lem:2formesslninvtriv\] The vector space $\Omega^2_{dR}(\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})/\mathrm{SU}(n))^{ \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})}$ is trivial.
By transitivity of the action, an alternating $2$-form on the homogeneous space $\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})/\mathrm{SU}(n)$ is completely determined by what happens at the class of the identity, i.e. by a unique element in $ (\bigwedge^2(i{\mathfrak{su}}_n)^\vee)^{\mathrm{SU}(n)}$. As $\mathrm{SU}(n)$-modules $i{\mathfrak{su}}^\vee$ and ${\mathfrak{su}}^\vee$ are isomorphic, and via the real Killing form on $\mathrm{SU}(n)$, a symmetric non-degenerate form, the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{su}}$ and its dual are also isomorphic $\mathrm{SU}(n)$-modules. So to prove the statement it is enough to show that $(\bigwedge^2 {\mathfrak{su}}_n)^{\mathrm{SU}(n)} = 0$. Let $\phi\colon \mathfrak{su}(n)\wedge \mathfrak{su}(n)\to \mathbb R$ be a skew-symmetric invariant form. Invariance by the adjoint action of $\mathrm{SU}(n)$ is equivalent to: $$\phi([X,Y],Z)+ \phi(Y, [X,Z])=0 \qquad \forall X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak{su}(n)\, .$$ Combined with skew-symmetry of both $\phi$ and the Lie bracket, this equality yields $$\phi([X,Y],Z)= \phi( [X,Z],Y)= - \phi( [Z,X],Y) \qquad \forall X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak{su}(n)\, .$$ Namely, $\phi([X,Y],Z) $ changes the sign when the entries $X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak{su}(n)$ are cyclically permuted, therefore it vanishes. Then $\phi=0$ because $\mathfrak{su}(n)$ is simple.
For a manifold $X$, denote by $Z_{dR}^n(X) \subset \Omega_{dR}^n(X)$ the subspace of closed forms.
\[cor:3exactarecohomology\] The canonical quotient map $Z^3_{dR}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})/\mathrm{SU}(n))^{ \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})} \rightarrow \operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})) \simeq {\mathbb{R}}$ is an isomorphism.
Since $\operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})) \simeq {\mathbb{R}}$ by Borel’s computations, there is a unique closed form on $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})/\mathrm{SU}(n)$ that represents the class $\operatorname{vol}_{{\mathcal{H}}}$. There is an obvious candidate for such a form, it is given on the tangent space at $\operatorname{Id}$ by: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\bigwedge^3 i{\mathfrak{su}}_n & \longrightarrow & \mathbb{R} \\
(A,B,C) & \longmapsto & 2i\operatorname{tr}(A[B,C])= -2\Im \operatorname{tr}(A[B,C]).
\end{array}$$ Then $\varpi_n\colon {\mathfrak{sl}}_n\to\mathbb{R}$ is the composition of the projection $pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}\colon {\mathfrak{sl}}_n\to i{\mathfrak{su}}_n$ with this form: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\varpi\colon \bigwedge^3 {\mathfrak{sl}}_n \quad & \longrightarrow & \mathbb{R} \\
(A,B,C) & \longmapsto & 2i\operatorname{tr}( pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}(A)[pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}(B),pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}(C)]).
\end{array}$$ That this form is alternating and invariant under the adjoint action of $\mathrm{SU}(n)$ is an immediate consequence of the fact that the Cartan-Killing form $
(A,B,C)\mapsto {\operatorname{tr}}(A[B,C])={\operatorname{tr}}( ABC-ACB)
$ is alternating and $\mathrm{SU}(n)$-invariant, and that the adjoint action of $\mathrm{SU}(n)$ respects the decomposition of ${\mathfrak{sl}}_n = {\mathfrak{su}}_n \oplus i{\mathfrak{su}}_n$. Observe that by construction this form is compatible with the inclusions ${\mathfrak{sl}}_n \rightarrow {\mathfrak{sl}}_{n+1}$: if we denote the form defined by ${\mathfrak{sl}}_n$ by $\varpi_n$ then $\varpi_{n+1}|_{{\mathfrak{sl}}_n}=\varpi_n$, in line of the stability result of Borel in degree $3$. We only have to check that this is a cocycle when viewed as a classical relative cocycle in Lie algebra cohomology of ${\mathfrak{sl}}_n/{\mathfrak{su}}_n =i{\mathfrak{su}}_n$ (i.e. gives rise to a closed form), that it is not trivial and fix the normalization constant; this will done by comparing it with the hyperbolic volume form for $n=2$.
\[lem:omegaisclosed\] The alternating $3$-form $\varpi \in \operatorname{Hom}(\bigwedge^3 {\mathfrak{sl}}_n,{\mathbb{R}})$ is a cocycle.
By definition of the differential in the Cartan-Chevalley complex see Weibel [@MR1269324 Chap. 7], and since $[i{\mathfrak{su}}_n,i{\mathfrak{su}}_n] \subset {\mathfrak{su}}_n$, the differential in this cochain complex is in fact trivial, so any element in $ \operatorname{Hom}(\bigwedge^3 i{\mathfrak{su}}_n;{\mathbb{R}})$ is a cocycle.
\[lem:varpiishypform\] Via the canonical isomorphism $\mathrm{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})/\mathrm{SU}(2) \simeq \mathcal{H}^3$, the form $\varpi_2$ is mapped to the hyperbolic volume form $d\operatorname{vol}_{\mathcal{H}^3}$.
We use the half-space model ${\mathcal{H}}^3=\{ z+t j\mid z\in{\mathbb{C}}, t\in{\mathbb{R}}, t>0\}$, so that the action of $\mathrm{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})$ on $\mathbb{P}^1({\mathbb{C}})\cong{\mathbb{C}}\cup\{\infty\}$ extends conformally by isometries. In particular $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ is the stabilizer of the point $j$, and we use the natural map from ${\mathfrak{sl}}_2$ to the tangent space $T_j{\mathcal{H}}^3$ that maps $a\in {\mathfrak{sl}}_2$ to the vector $\frac{d\phantom{t}}{dt}\exp(t a) j\vert_{t=0} $. From this construction, ${\mathfrak{su}}_2$ is mapped to zero and $i\mathfrak{su}_2$ is naturally identified to tangent space to ${\mathcal{H}}^3$ at $j$. Thus the form induced by the volume form is the result of composing a form on $i\mathfrak{su}_2$ with the projection $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\mathbb{C})\to i\mathfrak{su}_2$. By $\mathrm{SU}(2)$-invariance, it suffices to check that its evaluation at an orthonormal basis is 1. The ordered basis $$\label{eqn:basis}
\left\{
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1/2 \\
1/2 & 0
\end{pmatrix} , \begin{pmatrix} 0 & i/2 \\
-i/2 & 0
\end{pmatrix} , \begin{pmatrix} 1/2 & 0 \\
0 & 1/2
\end{pmatrix}
\right\}$$ of $i\mathfrak{su}_2$ is mapped to $\{1, i, j\}$ via the isomorphism $i\mathfrak{su}_2\cong T_j{\mathcal{H}}^3 $, which is a positively oriented orthonormal basis, and $\varpi$ evaluated at the basis is $1$.
\[rem FormeCocylce\] The cocycle has the following precise form: $$\varpi = - {\sum_{j<k}} (ih_{jk})^\vee\wedge (ie_{jk})^\vee \wedge (if_{jk})^\vee.$$ Fixing a pair of indices $1 \leq j<k \leq n$ fixes a Lie subalgebra in ${\mathfrak{su}}_n$ isomorphic to ${\mathfrak{su}}_2$. The restriction of $\varpi$ to each of these $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$ copies of ${\mathfrak{su}}_2$ is exactly the corresponding hyperbolic volume form.
\[rem:CartanKilling\] The imaginary part of the Cartan-Killing form, $(x,y,z)\mapsto \Im{\operatorname{tr}}([x,y]z)$ $\forall x,y,z\in{\mathfrak{sl}}_n$, is cohomologous to $-2\varpi_n$, but it does not come from a bounded cocycle in $\mathrm{SL}_n{\mathbb{C}}$ (cf. [@Yoshida Lemma 3.1] for $n=2$).
### The relative part {#subsubsec:relpart}
We now turn to the relative part of our cocycle. For this we have to understand the restriction of the form $\varpi \in \Omega^3_{dR}(\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})/\mathrm{SU}(n))$ along the canonical map $B/T_n \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})/\mathrm{SU}(n)$ induced by the inclusion of an arbitrary Borel subgroup $B$. As all Borel subgroups are conjugated in $\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})$ by an element of $\mathrm{SU}(n)$, provided by the Gram-Schmidt process, and the form $\varpi$ is $\mathrm{SU}(n)$-invariant, it is enough to treat the case of our fixed Borel $B$ of upper-triangular matrices. As we will see, because we require our trivializations to come from a bounded class there will be only one choice, and this uniqueness will then provide the coherence condition we need for computing the variation.
\[lem:firstcohoinvB/T\] The vector space $\Omega^1_{dR}(B/T)^B$ is generated by the closed $1$-forms $ih_s^{\vee}$. In particular, the differential $\Omega^1_{dR}(B/T)^B \rightarrow \Omega^2_{dR}(B/T)^B$ is trivial and $\operatorname{H}^1_c(B;\mathbb{R}) = \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.
As before, by transitivity an element in $\Omega^1_{dR}(B/T)^B$ is determined by its restriction to the tangent space to the identity, ${\mathfrak{b}}_n/{\mathfrak{h}}_n$; i.e by a form on this tangent space invariant under the induced action by the torus $T$. The Borel Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{b}}_n$, the Lie algebra of the torus $\mathfrak{h}_n$, and the Lie algebra of strictly upper triangular matrices ${\mathfrak{ut}}_n$ fit into a commutative diagram with exact row of $T$-modules: $$\xymatrix{
& & {\mathfrak{ut}}_n \ar@{_{(}->}[d] \ar@{_{(}->}[dr] & \\
0 \ar[r] & \mathfrak{h}_n \ar[r] & \mathfrak{b}_n \ar[r] & \mathfrak{b}_n /\mathfrak{h}_n \ar[r] & 0.
}$$ We view a $T$-invariant form on $\mathfrak{b}_n /\mathfrak{h}_n $ as a $T$-invariant form $\psi\colon \mathfrak{b}_n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ which is trivial on $\mathfrak{h}_n$. The action of $T$ is readily checked to be induced by the conjugation action of $T$ on $B$, hence invariance is equivalent to: $$\forall t \in \mathfrak{h}_n, \ \forall b \in \mathfrak{b}_n, \quad \psi([t,b])= 0 .$$ But $[\mathfrak{h}_n,\mathfrak{b}_n] = {\mathfrak{ut}}_n$, hence $\psi$ is in fact a form on ${\mathfrak{b}}_n/{\mathfrak{ut}}_n$. It is finally straightforward to check that indeed the $n-1$ forms $h_s^\vee$ are both closed and linearly independent.
\[lem:trivsurborel\] The space $\Omega^2_{dR}(B/T)^B$ has a basis given by
1. the $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$ forms $ur_{kl}^\vee \wedge ui_{kl}^\vee$ for all $1 \leq k < l \leq n$;
2. the $\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2}$ closed forms $ih_s^\vee \wedge ih_r^\vee$ for all $1\leq s < r \leq n-1$.
Such a form, say $\phi$, is exactly a $T$-invariant and alternating $2$-form on ${\mathfrak{b}}_n/{\mathfrak{h}}_n$. As a $T$-module, ${\mathfrak{b}}_n/{\mathfrak{h}}_n = i{\mathfrak{h}}_n \oplus {\mathfrak{ut}}_n$, hence $\bigwedge^2{\mathfrak{b}}_n/{\mathfrak{h}}_n = \bigwedge^2i{\mathfrak{h}}_n \oplus i{\mathfrak{h}}_n\wedge {\mathfrak{ut}}_n \oplus {\mathfrak{ut}}_n \wedge {\mathfrak{ut}}_n$. Moreover we have that $[{\mathfrak{h}}_n,i{\mathfrak{h}}_n] = 0$ and $[{\mathfrak{h}}_n,{\mathfrak{ut}}_n]= {\mathfrak{ut}}_n$. By derivation of the invariance condition: $$\forall a \in {\mathfrak{h}}_n, \forall X,Y \in {\mathfrak{ut}}_n, \quad \phi([a,X],Y) + \phi(X,[a,Y])=0.$$ From this equation one gets immediately that all forms in $i{\mathfrak{h}}_n\wedge i{\mathfrak{h}}_n$ are invariant, and by further close inspection, that $\phi$ on $i{\mathfrak{h}}_n\wedge {\mathfrak{ut}}_n$ is $0$.
A direct and straightforward computation shows that on ${\mathfrak{ut}}_n\wedge {\mathfrak{ut}}_n$ the forms appearing in point (1) are the unique invariant $2$-forms on this space.
Linear independence is immediate by checking on suitable elements of ${\mathfrak{b}}_n/{\mathfrak{h}}_n$.
As a corollary, the trivialization we are looking for is a linear combination of the forms in Lemma \[lem:trivsurborel\]. Let us find first a suitable candidate. Given matrices $x, y\in\mathfrak b$, write them as $x=x_d+x_u$ and $y=y_d+y_u$ with $x_d, y_d\in\mathfrak{h}_n+i\mathfrak{h}_n$ diagonal and $x_u,y_u\in \mathfrak{ut}_n$ unipotent (strictly upper triangular). Define $$\label{eqn:beta}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\beta\colon \mathfrak{b}_n\times \mathfrak{b}_n & \to & \mathbb R \\
(x,y)\ & \mapsto & \Im {\operatorname{tr}}(x_u {}^t\overline{y_u}- {}^t\overline {x_u} y_u)/4= {i} {\operatorname{tr}}({}^t\overline {x_u} y_u-x_u {}^t\overline {y_u})/{4}.
\end{array}$$ For $(a_{kl}), (b_{kl}) \in\mathfrak{b}_n$ (i.e. $a_{kl}=b_{kl}=0$ for $k>l$), is equivalent to: $$\beta((a_{kl}), (b_{kl})) = \frac{i}{4}\sum_{k<l} (\overline a_{kl} b_{kl}-a_{kl}\overline b_{kl})= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k<l} \Im ( a_{kl} \overline b_{kl} ),$$ so $$\beta = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k<l} ur_{kl} \wedge ui_{kl}.$$ In particular, in this formula coefficients in the diagonal do not occur. A straightforward computation yields:
The following equality holds true: $\delta(\beta)=\varpi\vert_{\mathfrak{b}_n}$.
\[prop:trivsurB\] The form $\beta$ above is the unique *bounded* $2$-form $\beta \in
\Omega^2_{dR}(B/T)^B$ such that $d\beta = \varpi\vert_B$. It is characterized by the fact that it is the unique trivialization that is $0$ on the intersection $B \cap
B^{-}$, where $B^{-}$ is the opposite Borel subgroup of lower triangular matrices.
Since Lemma \[lem:trivsurborel\] gives a basis for $\Omega^2_{dR}(B/T)^B$, any other invariant trivialization of $\varpi$ restricted to ${\mathfrak{b}}_n$ differs from $\beta$ by a term of the form: $$\sum_{s,r} \gamma_{sr}ih_s^\vee \wedge ih_r^\vee.$$
To show that the coefficients $\gamma_{sr}$ are all $0$ observe that fixing a pair of indices $s,r$, the exponential of the elements $ih_s$, $ih_r$ give us a flat $\mathbb{R}^2 \subset B/T$. On this flat the volume form is trivial by direct inspection, and so are the forms $ur_{kl}^\vee \wedge ui_{kl}^\vee$ and $ih_p^\vee \wedge ih_q^\vee$ if $\{p,q\} \neq \{s,r\}$. So our invariant form on this flat restricts to the multiple $\gamma_{sr} ih_s^\vee \wedge ih_r^\vee$ of the euclidean volume form; this is bounded if and only if $\gamma_{sr}=0$.
So the unique candidate for a bounded trivialization is $\beta$, and since we know that there has to be one bounded trivialization, this is it.
As a form in $\Omega^2_{dR}(B/T)^B$, $\beta$ corresponds to the construction of Weinhard in [@MR2900175 Corollary 2.4], by means of a Poincaré lemma with respect an ideal point.
Summarizing, the class $\operatorname{vol}_{\mathcal{H}^3,\partial} \in
\operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}});\{B_i\})$ is represented in the relative de Rham complex $\Omega_{dR}^*(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})/B)^{ \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})}\oplus \bigoplus_i
\Omega_{dR}^{\ast-1}(B_i/B_i \cap \mathrm{SU}(n))^{B_i}$, by a relative cocycle where:
1. The absolute part is given by the invariant $3$-from: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\varpi : \bigwedge^3 {\mathfrak{sl}}_n : & \longrightarrow & \mathbb{R} \\
(A,B,C) & \longmapsto & -2i{\operatorname{tr}}(pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}A[pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}B,pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}C]).
\end{array}$$
2. The relative part is given on the copy $\Omega^2_{dR}(B_i/B_i\cap
\mathrm{SU}(n))^{B_i}$ determined by the Borel subgroup $B_i$, by choosing an arbitrary element $h_i \in \mathrm{SU}(n)$ such that $h_i^{-1}Bh_i = B_i$, then and extending by invariance the $2$-form on $T_{\operatorname{Id}}(B_i/B_i \cap
\mathrm{SU}(n))$ defined by $\beta_i= \operatorname{Ad}_{H}^\ast(\beta)$, where: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\beta\colon {\mathfrak{b}}_n\times {\mathfrak{b}}_n & \to & \mathbb{R} \\
(x,y) & \mapsto & {i} {\operatorname{tr}}({}^t\overline {x_u} y_u-x_u {}^t\overline {y_u})/{4}.
\end{array}$$ here $x_u, y_u\in\mathfrak{ut}_n$ are the respective unipotent parts of $x$ and $y$.
By construction the data $(\varpi,\{\beta_i\})$ forms a relative $2$-cocycle on ${\mathfrak{sl}}_n$ relative to the family of Borel Lie subalgebras $\{{\mathfrak{b}}_i\}$.
### Volume and the Veronese embedding
As an application let us show a formula relating the volume of a finite volume hyperbolic $3$-manifold and the volume of its defining representation composed with the unique irreducible rank $n$ representation of $\mathrm{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})$ induced by the Veronese embedding. This formula is proved in [@BBIarXiv14 Proposition 21], with different techniques (see also [@GTZ Thm. 1.15]).
Let $\sigma_n\colon \operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})\to\operatorname{SL}_{n}({\mathbb{C}}) $, denote the $n$-dimensional irreducible representation. Namely $\sigma_n$ is the $(n-1)$-th symmetric product, induced by the Veronese embedding $\mathbb{CP}^1\to \mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$.
[@BBIarXiv14]\[prop:volandVeronese\] \[prop:volsigman\] For $\rho\colon\pi_1(M)\to \operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})$, $\operatorname{vol}(\sigma_n\circ\rho)= {n+1 \choose 3} \operatorname{vol}(\rho)$.
Recall that given *any* family of Borel subgroups $\{B\}$, the map that forgets the relative part induces a natural isomorphism in continuous cohomology: $$\xymatrix{
\operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}),\{B\}) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})).
}$$ Therefore to prove Proposition \[prop:volandVeronese\], by the van Est isomorphism we only need to understand the effect of the induced map $\sigma_n: {\mathfrak{sl}}_2 \rightarrow {\mathfrak{sl}}_n$ on the absolute part $\varpi$ of the volume cocycle. Denote by $\varpi_n$ this absolute part, seen as a cocycle on ${\mathfrak{sl}}_n$, to emphasize its dependence on the index $n$.
\[lem:effectonabspart\] Let $\sigma_n\colon \mathfrak{sl}_2\to \mathfrak{sl}_n$ denote the representation of Lie algebras induced by the irreducible representation that comes from the Veronese embedding. Then: $$\sigma_n^*(\varpi_n)= {n+1 \choose 3} \varpi_2 .
$$
The result is a consequence of the fact that $\sigma_n(i\mathfrak{su}_2 )\subset i\mathfrak{su(n)}$ and the equalities, for $a,b\in \mathfrak{sl}_2({\mathbb{C}}) $: $$\begin{aligned}
[\sigma_n(a),\sigma_n(b)]&=&\sigma_n([a,b])\, , \\
\operatorname{tr}(\sigma_n(a) \sigma_n(b)) &=& {n+1 \choose 3} \operatorname{tr}(a\, b) \, .
\end{aligned}$$ The first equality is just a property of Lie algebra representations. For the second one, compute the image of a basis of $ \mathfrak{sl}_2({\mathbb{C}})$: $$\sigma_n\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
n-1 &&& 0 \\
& n-3 && \\
&&\ddots & \\
0 &&& 1-n
\end{pmatrix} ,
\
\sigma_n\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & n-1&&& 0 \\
& 0 & n-2 &&\\
&&0 &\ddots& \\
&& & \ddots & 1 \\
0 &&&& 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ $$\textrm{ and }
\qquad
\sigma_n\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & &&& 0 \\
1 & 0 & &&\\
&2& 0 && \\
&& \ddots & \ddots & \\
0 &&& n-1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \, .$$ By bilinearity, we just need to check the formula on the basis, which is straightforward from the sums $$\begin{aligned}
(n-1)^2+(n-3)^2+\cdots +(1-n)^2 &=& 2 {n+1 \choose 3}\, ,\\
(n-1) 1+(n-2)2+\cdots + 1 (n-1) & = & {n+1 \choose 3}\, .
\end{aligned}$$
The volume as a characteristic class {#subsec volascharac}
------------------------------------
In this section we recall briefly how a differentiable deformation of a representation translates into a differentiable deformation of a connection on the associated flat principal bundle. We will also recall how integration on ${M}$ of pull-backs of invariant cocycles on $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ by using a developing map give the interpretation of the volume form as a characteristic class.
Recall that $\pi=\pi_1(M)$ is the fundamental group of a compact manifold $M$ whose interior caries a hyperbolic metric of finite volume. In particular the boundary $\partial M$, if not empty, is a disjoint union of finitely many tori $T_1 \sqcup \cdots \sqcup T_k$. Since $\pi$ is a discrete group, associated to our fixed representation $\rho: \pi \longrightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ there is a flat principal fibration: $$\xymatrix{
\mathrm{SL}_n( {\mathbb{C}})\ar@{^{(}->}[r] & E_\rho \ar@{->>}[r] & M
}$$ The total space $E_\rho$ is constructed as $$E_\rho=\widetilde M\times \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})/\pi$$ where $\widetilde{M}$ is the universal covering space of $M$, $\gamma\cdot
(x,g)=(\gamma x,\rho(\gamma) g)$, for $\gamma\in\pi$, $x\in \widetilde M$, and $g\in \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C})$. The natural flat connection $$\nabla\colon T E_\rho \to\mathfrak{sl}_n$$ is induced by the composition of the projection to the second factor of $T
(\widetilde M\times \mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb{C}))\cong T\widetilde M\times T
\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ and the identification $T_g \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})\cong
\mathfrak{sl}_n$ via $l_{g\ast}$ where $l_g$ denotes left multiplication by $g\in \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$.
Notice that $E_\rho$ is a non-compact manifold with boundary $\partial E_\rho$ that fibres over $\partial M$. Recall that in Subsection \[subsec:notvolrep\] we have fixed a path from our base point in $M$ to a base point on each boundary component. Fix a base point on each covering space of each boundary component $\partial M_i$, this induces commutative diagrams by sending the base point to the chosen path to $\partial M_i$: $$\xymatrix{
\widetilde{\partial M_i} \ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar[d] & \widetilde{M} \ar[d] \\
\partial M_i \ar@{^{(}->}[r] & M
}$$
Since the restriction of $\rho$ to each parabolic subgroup $P_i \simeq
\pi_1(\partial M_i)$ takes values in a Borel subgroup $B_i$, over the component $\partial M_i$, this restricted fibration $$\xymatrix{
\operatorname{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})\ar@{^{(}->}[r] & \partial E_\rho \ar@{->>}[r] & \partial
M_i
}$$ is obtained by extending the fibre from the flat fibration $$\xymatrix{
B_i \ar@{^{(}->}[r] & \partial \widetilde{M_i} \times_{\rho} B_i \ar@{->>}[r] & \partial M_i
}$$ along the inclusion $B_i \hookrightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n ({\mathbb{C}})$. In particular the flat connection $\nabla$ restricted to a component $\partial M_i$ takes values in the lie algebra ${\mathfrak{b}}_i$ of the chosen Borel $B_i$.
As $M$ is aspherical, $\dim M\leq 3$, and $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ is $2$-connected, by Whitehead’s theorem there exists a $\rho$-equivariant map that sends the base point in $\widetilde{M}$ to $\operatorname{Id}$: $$D\colon\widetilde M\to \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})\, .$$
By precomposing this map with our fixed inclusions of the universal covering spaces of the boundary components, we get for each of those a compatible developing map: $$\xymatrix{
\widetilde{M} \ar[r]^D & \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}) \\
\widetilde{\partial M_i} \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar[r]_{D_i} & B_i \ar@{^{(}->}[u]
}$$
On the one hand the developing map induces a trivialization $\Theta_\rho$ of the flat bundle or equivalently, a section $s_\rho$ to the fibration map: $$\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes,row sep=3em,column sep=3em,minimum width=2em]
{
\widetilde{M} \times \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}) & \widetilde{M} \times \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}) \\[-35pt]
(x,g) &(x,D(x)g) \\
M\times \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}) &E_{\rho} \\};
\path[-stealth]
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2)
(m-2-1) edge [|->] (m-2-2)
(m-3-1) edge node [above] {$\Theta_\rho$} (m-3-2)
(m-2-1) edge (m-3-1)
(m-2-2) edge (m-3-2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes,row sep=3em,column sep=3em,minimum width=2em]
{
\widetilde{M} & \widetilde{M} \times \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}) \\[-35pt]
x &(x,D(x)) \\
M &E_{\rho} \\};
\path[-stealth]
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2)
(m-2-1) edge [|->] (m-2-2)
(m-3-1) edge node [above] {$s_\rho$} (m-3-2)
(m-2-1) edge (m-3-1)
(m-2-2) edge (m-3-2);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ Both maps are of course related: $$s_\rho=\Theta_\rho \circ s\, ,$$ where $s\colon M\to M\times \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ is the constant section of the trivial bundle, given by fixing $\operatorname{Id} \in \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ as second coordinate. The composition of the section with the flat connection $$\nabla\circ (s_\rho)_\ast\colon TM\to\mathfrak{sl}_n$$ is used to evaluate characteristic classes of $ \mathfrak{sl}_n $.
The trivialization $\Theta_\rho$ is used to pull back the connection on $E_\rho$ to the trivial bundle: $$\nabla_\rho\overset{\textrm{def}}=\nabla\circ (\Theta_\rho)_\ast\colon T (M\times \mathrm{SL}_n {\mathbb{C}})\to \mathfrak{sl}_n$$ In this way, when we deform $\rho$, we deform $\nabla_\rho$ on the trivial bundle, because $$\nabla_\rho\circ s_*= \nabla\circ (s_\rho)_*\, .$$ On the other hand, the developing map models the map induced in continuous cohomology by the representation $\rho$ in the following way. Recall from [@MR554917 Prop. 5.4 and Cor 5.6] that if $N$ is a smooth manifold on which $G$ acts properly smoothly then the complex $\Omega_{dR}^\ast(N)^G$ computes the continuous cohomology of $G$. Moreover the map in continuous cohomology induced by a continuous homomorphism $\rho: G \rightarrow H$ can be computed by considering a $\rho$-equivariant map $R: N \rightarrow M$ where $N$ is a $G$-manifold as above and $M$ an $H$-manifold. By definition this is exactly what the developing map $D$ is with respect to the continuous map $\rho: \pi \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$. Indeed, by the above cited result, we have the known fact that the canonical inclusion $\Omega_{dR}^\ast(\widetilde{M})^{\pi_1(M) }\rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^\ast(M)$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
The same discussion holds true for each boundary component since each of these is a $K(\mathbb{Z}^2,1)$, and the compatibility of the developing maps on $M$ and on its boundary components imply that they induce via the cone construction the map: $$\rho\ast: \operatorname{H}^\ast_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}),\{B\}) \rightarrow \operatorname{H}^3(M,\partial M).$$
Let us be slightly more precise and let us revisit our previous Definition \[def:volrepborl\] of the volume. At the level of de Rahm cochains, the volume class $\operatorname{vol}_{\mathcal{H},\partial}$ is represented by the relative cocycle $(\varpi,{\beta})$ constructed in Section \[subsec:relcoc\]. Since evaluation on the fundamental class translates in de Rahm cohomology into integrating, by Stoke’s formula and the above discussion:
\[def:defvolplusprecis\] Let $\rho\colon \pi \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ be a representation of the fundamental a $3$-manifold $M$ whose interior is an hyperbolic manifold of finite volume. Denote the boundary components of $M$ by $ T_1\sqcup \cdots\sqcup T_k$. Fix a system of peripheral subgroups $P_i$ in $\pi$ and for each such group fix a Borel subgroup $B_i
\subset \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ such that $\rho(P_i) \subset B_i$. Denote by $D$ the developing map associated to $\rho$ and by $D_r$ its restriction to the universal cover of the boundary component $T_r$. Then $$\label{eqn:Stokes}
\operatorname{Vol}(\rho)
= \int_{M}^{}D^\ast(\varpi) - \sum_{r=1}^k\int_{T_r}^{}D_r^\ast(\beta_r).$$ Where the differential forms $D^\ast(\varpi)$ and $D_r^\ast(\beta_r)$ descend from the universal covers to differential forms on the manifolds by equivariance.
Now, since $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ is $2$-connected, the Leray-Serre spectral sequence in relative cohomology gives us a short exact sequence $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^3(M,\partial M) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^3(E_\rho,\partial E_\rho) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^3(\mathrm{SL}_n {\mathbb{C}}) \ar[r] & 0
}$$
In particular, the volume class $\rho^\ast(\operatorname{vol}_{\mathcal{H},\partial})$ defined in Section \[sec:volrelatif\] can be seen as a class in $\operatorname{H}^3(E_\rho,\partial E_\rho$). The key observation of Reznikov in [@MR1412681] is that in this larger group the volume class can be interpreted as a characteristic class associated to the foliation of $E_\rho$ induced by the flat connection.
\[prop:volischarclas\] Denote by $j^*:\operatorname{H}^3(M,\partial M) \rightarrow \operatorname{H}^3(E_\rho,\partial E_\rho)$ the morphism induced by the projection $E_\rho \rightarrow M$ in de Rham cohomology. Then $$j^\ast(\rho^\ast(\operatorname{vol}_{\mathcal{H},\partial})) = \operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_\rho,{\nabla\vert_{\partial M_i}}}(\varpi,\{\beta_i\}).$$
First observe that $\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_\rho,{\nabla\vert_{\partial M_i}}}(\varpi,\{\beta_i\}) \in \ker( \operatorname{H}^3(E_\rho,\partial E_\rho) \rightarrow \operatorname{H}^3(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}))= \textrm{Im}j^\ast$. Indeed, by construction, the restriction of this characteristic class to the fibre $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ is given by the form $\varpi$. But the inclusion $\mathrm{SU}(n) \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n(C)$ is a weak equivalence, hence induces an isomorphism in cohomology, and since $\omega$ only depends on the projection on $i{\mathfrak{su}}_n$, the restriction of $\varpi$ to $\mathrm{SU}(n)$ is the trivial form. So to check the equality we only need to show that after composing with the map induced by the section $s_\rho$ both sides of the equation agree. Recall that by construction $(\omega, \{\beta_i\})$ is a relative cocycle that represents the hyperbolic form in $\operatorname{H}^3_c(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}),\{B\})$. Hence by the discussion on the map $D$ the class $\rho^\ast(\operatorname{vol}_{\mathcal{H},\partial}) $ is represented by the cocycle $D^\ast((\omega,\{\beta_i\}))$.
To finish the proof it is enough to show that we have a commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{
C^3({\mathfrak{sl}}_n,\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}) \ar[r]^{\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_\rho,{\nabla\vert_{\partial M_i}}}} \ar[d] & \Omega^3_{dR}(E_\rho,\partial E_\rho) \ar[r]^-{\Theta_\rho^\ast} \ar[dr]_{s_\rho^\ast}& \Omega^3_{dR}( M \times \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}), \{\partial M_i \times B_i\}) \ar[d]^ {s^\ast} \\
\Omega^3_{dR}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})/\mathrm{SU}(n), \{B_i/T_i\}) \ar[rr] & & \Omega^3_{dR}(M,\partial M)
}$$ where the bottom row is induced by $D$ and the quasi-isomorphisms $\Omega_{dR}^\ast(\widetilde{M}) ^\pi \rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^\ast(M)$ and $\Omega_{dR}^\ast(\widetilde{\partial M_i})^{\pi_1(\partial M_i)} \rightarrow \Omega_{dR}^\ast(\partial M_i)$.
As this is a diagram on the chain level in relative cohomology, it is enough to check that the corresponding absolute maps yield commutative diagrams and are compatible, i.e. for the absolute part,
$$\xymatrix{
C^3({\mathfrak{sl}}_n) \ar[r]^{\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_\rho}} \ar[d] & \Omega^3_{dR}(E_\rho) \ar[r]^-{\Theta_\rho^\ast} \ar[dr]_{s_\rho^\ast}& \Omega^3_{dR}( M \times \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})) \ar[d]^ {s^\ast} \\
\Omega^3_{dR}(\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})/\mathrm{SU}(n)) \ar[r]^-{D^\ast} & \Omega^3_{dR}(\widetilde{M})^{\pi} \ar[r] & \Omega_{dR}^3(M)
}$$ and analogously for the relative part: $$\xymatrix{
C^2({\mathfrak{b}}_i) \ar[r]^{\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla\vert_{\partial M_i}}} \ar[d] & \Omega^2_{dR}(\partial E_\rho) \ar[r]^-{\Theta_\rho^\ast} \ar[dr]_{s_\rho^\ast}& \Omega^2_{dR}( \partial M_i \times B) \ar[d]^ {s^\ast} \\
\Omega^2_{dR}(B_i/T_i) \ar[r]^-{D^\ast} & \Omega^2_{dR}(\widetilde{\partial M})^{\pi_1(\partial{M})} \ar[r] & \Omega_{dR}^2(\partial M)
}$$ Both the proof of commutativity of the diagrams and the compatibility are now elementary diagram chases.
The variation formula {#sec:varformula}
=====================
We are now ready to collect our efforts; but first a word of caution on the smoothness of the variety of representations. The algebraic variety $\mathrm{Hom}(\pi_1M,\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ is not diferentiable in general, in fact for $M$ compact the singularities that appear can be as wild as possible, for a discussion of the singularities see for instance [@MR3654101]. Nevertheless, by Whitney’s theorem the algebraic variety $\mathrm{Hom}(\pi_1 M,\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}))$ is generically smooth (i.e. the non-smooth locus is of Lebesgue mesure zero). Even restricted to the smooth locus, the volume function itself is not everywhere differentiable as is transparent from previous work of Neumann-Zagier. More precisely let us check:
[@NZ]\[lem:volnondiff\] For $n=2$ and a manifold with a single boundary component, the volume function is not differentiable at the defining representation.
Recall that the defining representation is the one corresponding to the complete hyperbolic structure on the interior of $M$. In [@NZ], Neumann and Zagier use a parameter $u \in {\mathbb{C}}$ in a neighbohood of the origin to parametrize a neighborhood of the complete structure in the moduli space of hyperbolic ideal triangulations. As noticed in their work [@NZ], $u$ and $-u$ correspond to se same hyperbolic metric on the interior of $M$. In fact $\mathrm{Hom}(\pi_1
M,\mathrm{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}}))/SL_2({\mathbb{C}})$ is locally parametrized by $$\operatorname{trace}(\rho_u(l)) = \pm 2\cosh(u/2) = \pm (2 + u^2/4 + O(u^4)),$$ where $\rho_u$ denotes the holonomy of the structure with parameter $u$. In particular $\rho_0$ is the defining representation. Then Neumann-Zagier define an analytic function $v(u)$ such that $\operatorname{trace}(\rho_u(m))= \pm
2\cosh(v/2)$ and prove that $v= \tau u + O(u^3)$, where $\tau \in {\mathbb{C}}$ is the so called cusp length with $\Im(\tau)>0$, and $$\operatorname{vol}(\rho_u) = \operatorname{vol}(\rho_0) +
\frac{1}{4}\Im(u\overline{v}) + O(|u|^4) = \operatorname{vol}(\rho_0) +
\frac{1}{4}\Im(\tau)|u|^2 + O(|u|^4).$$ Thus, by choosing a local parameter $z=2\cosh(u/2) -2 = u^2/4 + O(u^4)$ in a neighborhood of the origin, the volume function has an expansion of the form: $$\operatorname{vol}(\rho_u)-\operatorname{vol}(\rho_0) = - \Im(\tau)|z| + O(|z|^2).$$ Hence the volume is not a differentiable function on $\mathrm{Hom}(\pi_1
M,\mathrm{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}}))/\mathrm{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})$, as $z \mapsto |z|$ is not differentiable at $z=0$. Neither is the volume differentiable on the variety of representations, because the projection $\mathrm{Hom}(\pi_1 M,\mathrm{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}}))
\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}(\pi_1 M,\mathrm{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}}))/\mathrm{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})$ is a fibration in a neighborhood of $\rho_0$.
This being said, let us go back now to our variation formula. The following two subsections conclude the proof of the main theorem.
The variation comes from the boundary
-------------------------------------
Recall that the group $\mathrm{SU}(n)$ acts transitively by conjugation on the set of Borel subgroups of $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$. Then by uniqueness of the trivialization $\beta$ proved in Proposition \[prop:trivsurB\], the trivializations of the volume form on two different Borel subgroups $B_1$ and $B_2$, say $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$, are compatible in the sense of that if $H \in \mathrm{SU}(n)$ is chosen such that $HB_2H^{-1} =B_1$, then for any $b,b' \in {\mathfrak{b}}_2$, $\beta_2(b,b') =
\beta_1(\operatorname{Ad}_{H}b,\operatorname{Ad}_{H}b')=
\operatorname{Ad}_H^\ast(\beta_1)$.
Let $\rho_t: \pi_1(M) \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ be a differentiable family of representations. As we discussed before, we may think of the associated flat bundles $E_{\rho_t}$ as being the flat bundle $E_{\rho_0}$ but with a varying family of connections $\nabla_t$. The uniqueness property discussed in the previous paragraph is precisely the coherence requirement of Definition \[def coherencecond\] with respect to the subgroup $H=\mathrm{SU}(n)$. Consistent with our conventions at the end of Section \[subsec varchaclass\], we will decorate with a subscript as in $\operatorname{H}^\ast_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}$ the cohomology of the complexes $C^\ast_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}(\mathfrak{g};\mathbb{R})$, etc. defined in Notation \[not:relcochcoplx\] and Definition \[def relcohcoxes\] of Section \[subsec varchaclass\].
We can now apply the results of Section \[subsec volascharac\] to compute the variation of the volume. By the construction of the factorization of the variation map: $$\xymatrix{
\operatorname{H}^\ast_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{su}}_n,\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}) \ar[r]^-{\operatorname{var}} \ar@/_{1pc}/[drr]_{\operatorname{Var}}& \operatorname{H}^{\ast-1}_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{su}}_n,\{{\mathfrak{b}}\}; {\mathfrak{su}}^\vee_n,\{{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee\})\ar[r]^-{{\operatorname{F}}} & \operatorname{H}^\ast_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}(\widetilde{{\mathfrak{su}}}_n,\{\widetilde{{\mathfrak{su}}}_n\})\ar[d]^{\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t,\{\widetilde{\nabla}_t\}}} \\
& & \operatorname{H}^\ast_{dR}(M,\partial M)
}$$ we have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
\operatorname{H}^2_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;\mathbb{R}) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\operatorname{var}} & \prod \operatorname{H}^{2}({\mathfrak{b}};\mathbb{R}) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\operatorname{var}} & \operatorname{H}^3_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n, \{{\mathfrak{b}}\};\mathbb{R}) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\operatorname{var}} & \operatorname{H}^3_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;\mathbb{R}) \ar[d]^{\operatorname{var}} & \\
\operatorname{H}^1_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \prod \operatorname{H}^{1}({\mathfrak{b}};{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \operatorname{H}^2_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n, \{{\mathfrak{b}}\};{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee,\{{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee\}) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \operatorname{H}^2_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee) \ar[d] & \\
\operatorname{H}^2(M;\mathbb{R}) \ar[r] & \prod \operatorname{H}^{2}(\partial{M}) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^3(M,\partial M) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^ 3(M) \simeq 0 &
}$$
Let us recall the following lemma by Cartier [@cartier Lemme 1]:
\[lem:cartsemsimple\] Let $V$ be a vector space on a field $k$ and $A$ be a family of endomorphisms of $V$. Assume that $V$ is completely reducible. Denote by $V^\sharp$ the subspace of those vectors annihilated by all the $X \in A$. and by $V^0$ the subspace generated by the vectors $Xv$ ($X \in A, v \in V$).
1. $V = V^\sharp \oplus V^0.$
2. If $V$ is equipped with a differential $d$ that commutes to the $X \in A$, and such that $Xv$ is a boundary if $v$ is a cycle, then the homology with respect to this boundary gives $H(V) \simeq H(V^\sharp).$
\[cor annulcohoslsldual\] For $\ast \geq 1$ and any $n \geq 2$, $$\operatorname{H}^\ast({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee) \simeq 0 \simeq \operatorname{H}^\ast_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee).$$
That $\operatorname{H}^\ast({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee) \simeq 0$ is the direct application that Cartier makes of his lemma, given that ${\mathfrak{su}}_n$ is semi-simple.
For the second isomorphism, we apply Lemma \[lem:cartsemsimple\] to the (acyclic!) complex $V= C^\ast({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee)$ viewed as a (graded) vector space acted upon by $SU(n)$. Since $\mathrm{SU}(n)$ is compact then $V$ is indeed completely reducible. Moreover, by functoriality of the complex, its differential commutes with the action of the elements in $\mathrm{SU}(n)-\operatorname{Id}$. If $v$ is a cycle, and $X \in \mathrm{SU}(n)-\operatorname{Id}$, then $Xv$ is a cycle, and by acyclicity of this complex, it is a boundary. Observe that being annihilated by $A-\operatorname{Id} $ is the same as being fixed by $A$, hence Lemma \[lem:cartsemsimple\] tells us that the embedding $C^\ast_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee) \hookrightarrow
C^\ast({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee)$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
As a consequence our diagram above boils down to: $$\xymatrix{
& \prod \operatorname{H}^{2}({\mathfrak{b}};\mathbb{R}) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\operatorname{var}} &
\operatorname{H}^3_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n, \{{\mathfrak{b}}\};\mathbb{R}) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\operatorname{var}} &
\operatorname{H}^3_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;\mathbb{R}) \ar[d]^{\operatorname{var}} \\
0 \ar[d] \ar[r] & \prod \operatorname{H}^{1}({\mathfrak{b}};{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee) \ar[r] \ar[d] &
\operatorname{H}^2_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n, \{{\mathfrak{b}}\};{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee,\{{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee\}) \ar[r] \ar[d] &
0 \ar[d] \\
\operatorname{H}^2(M;\mathbb{R}) \ar[r] & \prod \operatorname{H}^{2}(\partial{M}) \ar[r] &
\operatorname{H}^3(M,\partial M) \ar[r] & 0
}$$
In particular, the variation of the volume class is the image of a cohomology class in $\prod \operatorname{H}^2(\partial M)$. To see which one we have to find an inverse to the isomorphism: $$\xymatrix{
\prod \operatorname{H}^{1}({\mathfrak{b}};{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee) \ar[r] & \operatorname{H}^2_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n,
\{{\mathfrak{b}}\};{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee,\{{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee\}).
}$$ Unraveling the definitions it is given by the following construction. The map $$\xymatrix{
C^2_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n, \{{\mathfrak{b}}\};{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee,\{{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee\}) \rightarrow C^2_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n, ;{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee).
}$$ simply forgets the relative part, and acyclicity on the right hand side means that the absolute part $\operatorname{var}(\varpi)$ of the relative cocycle $\operatorname{var}(\varpi,\{\beta\})$ is a coboundary, say $\operatorname{var}(\alpha) = d\gamma$. Then the preimage of $\operatorname{var}(\varpi,\{\beta\})$ in $\prod \operatorname{H}^{1}({\mathfrak{b}};{\mathfrak{b}}^\vee)$ is given by the class of the family $\operatorname{var}(\beta) - i^\ast \gamma$, where $i^\ast$ is the map induced by the inclusion ${\mathfrak{b}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{su}}$.
\[lem:trivvarvol\] The image of $\varpi$, the absolute part of the volume cocycle, under the map $\operatorname{var}\colon C^3_{\mathrm{SU}(n)}({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow C^2({\mathfrak{sl}}_n;{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee)$ is the coboundary of the cochain: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\gamma\colon {\mathfrak{sl}}_n & \rightarrow &{\mathfrak{sl}}_n^\vee \\
g & \mapsto & h \leadsto i{\operatorname{tr}}(pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n}(g)pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n}(h)).
\end{array}$$ where $pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n}\colon {\mathfrak{sl}}_n \rightarrow {\mathfrak{su}}_n$ and $pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} \colon {\mathfrak{sl}}_n \rightarrow i{\mathfrak{su}}_n$ are the canonical projections associated to the orthogonal decomposition ${\mathfrak{sl}}_n = {\mathfrak{su}}_n \oplus i {\mathfrak{su}}_n$.
For $x_1,x_2\in \mathfrak{sl}_n $, $$d (\gamma) (x_1, x_2)= x_1 \gamma(x_2)- x_2\gamma(x_1)-\gamma([x_1,x_2]).$$ Recall that for $\theta\in \mathfrak{g}^\vee$ and $x,y\in\mathfrak{g}$, we have $(x\theta)(y)=-\theta([x,y])$. Hence, for $x_1,x_2, x_3\in \mathfrak{sl}_n $, $$\begin{gathered}
d (\gamma) (x_1, x_2) (x_3)= -\gamma(x_2)([x_1,x_3 ])+ \gamma(x_1 )([x_2,x_3 ])- \gamma([x_1,x_2])(x_3)\\
= i {\operatorname{tr}}\big(
-pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n}(x_2) pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n}([x_1,x_3]) + pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_1) pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n} ([x_2,x_3])- pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} ([x_1,x_2])pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_3)
\big)\end{gathered}$$ Since $[{\mathfrak{su}}_n,{\mathfrak{su}}_n ]\subset {\mathfrak{su}}_n$, $[ i{\mathfrak{su}}_n, i{\mathfrak{su}}_n]\subset {\mathfrak{su}}_n$, and $[i{\mathfrak{su}}_n, {\mathfrak{su}}_n ]\subset i{\mathfrak{su}}_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta (\gamma) (x_1, x_2) (x_3)&=
& i {\operatorname{tr}}\big( -pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_2) ([ pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_1), pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_3)]+[ pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_1,) pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_3)]) \\
&& \phantom{i{\operatorname{tr}}\big( } +pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_1) ([ pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_2), pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_3)]+[ pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_2), pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_3)]) \\
&& \phantom{i{\operatorname{tr}}\big( } - ([pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_1),pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_2)] -[ pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_1),pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_2)] )pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_3)
\big)\\
&& = 2 i{\operatorname{tr}}( pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_1)[pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_2),pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n} (x_3) ] ).\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used that $(A,B,C)\mapsto {\operatorname{tr}}(A[B,C])$ is alternating.
Each Borel Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{b}}_n$ fits into a split exact sequence of Lie algebras:
$$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & \mathfrak{ut}_n \ar[r] & {\mathfrak{b}}_n \ar[r] & {\mathfrak{t}}_n \ar[r] & 0.
}$$
We have a splitting ${\mathfrak{t}}_n = {\mathfrak{h}}_n \oplus i{\mathfrak{h}}_n$. Denote by $pr_{{\mathfrak{h}}_n}$ (resp. $pr_{i{\mathfrak{h}}_n}$) the projection onto ${\mathfrak{h}}_n$ (resp $i{\mathfrak{h}}_n$).
\[prop:cocyclevariation\] The variation of the volume of a representation is given by the sum over of the integral over each boundary component of $\partial {M} $ of the image of the cohomology class of the $1$-cocycle in $C^1({\mathfrak{b}}_n;{\mathfrak{b}}_n^\vee)
$: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\zeta\colon {\mathfrak{b}}_n & \longrightarrow & {\mathfrak{b}}_n^\vee \\
x & \longmapsto & y \leadsto i{\operatorname{tr}}(pr_{i{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(x)pr_{{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(y))
\end{array}$$ under the map $$\operatorname{H}^1({\mathfrak{b}}_n; {\mathfrak{b}}_n) \rightarrow \operatorname{H}^2(\partial {M}).$$
As $\operatorname{var}(\varpi)$ is the coboundary of $\gamma$, the cocycle $(\operatorname{var}(\varpi),\{\operatorname{var}(\beta_r)\}) $ is cohomologous to $(0,\{\operatorname{var}(\beta_r)-i^*(\gamma) \})$. Therefore, as the integral on the boundary $\partial M$ appears subtracting in Definition \[def:defvolplusprecis\], the variation of volume is: $$-\sum_{r=1}^k\int_{T_r} ( s_\rho^\ast\circ\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t}\circ {\operatorname{F}}) (\operatorname{var}(\beta_r)- i^*(\gamma) ) .$$ Hence we need to prove that $\zeta=i^*(\gamma)- \mathrm{var}(\beta) $. Given $x, y\in\mathfrak{b}_n$, write $$x=x_d+x_u\qquad\textrm{ and }\quad y=y_d+y_u$$ with $x_u,\, y_u\in \mathfrak{u}_n$ and $x_d,y_d\in\mathfrak{h}+i\mathfrak{h}$ diagonal, their Chevalley-Jordan decomposition. Notice that $pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}_n}(x_d)=pr_{i{\mathfrak{h}}}(x)$ and $pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}_n}(y_d)=pr_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(y)$ are diagonal, hence their product with elements of ${\mathfrak{ut}}_n$ and ${}^t{\mathfrak{ut}}_n$ have trace zero. Therefore: $$\gamma(x)(y)=i{\operatorname{tr}}(pr_{i{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(x)pr_{{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(y))+\gamma(x_u)(y_u)= \zeta(x)(y)+ \gamma(x_u)(y_u). $$ As $pr_{i{\mathfrak{su}}}(x_u)=(x_u+{}^t\overline{x_u})/2$, $pr_{{\mathfrak{su}}}(y_u)=(y_u-{}^t\overline{y_u})/2$, and the trace vanishes on $\mathfrak{u}_n$, $$\gamma(x_u)(y_u)= i {\operatorname{tr}}((x_u+{}^t\overline{x_u})(y_u-{}^t\overline{y_u}))/4= i {\operatorname{tr}}({}^t\overline{x_u} y_u-x_u{}^t\overline{y_u})/4=\beta(x,y).$$ Hence $i^*(\gamma)=\zeta+\operatorname{var}(\beta)$ as claimed.
Observe that this form we have to integrate does only depend on the projection on ${\mathfrak{b}}_n/\mathfrak{ut}_n$. Recall that corresponding to the above split exact sequence of ${\mathfrak{b}}_n$ we have a split short exact sequence of Lie groups: $$\xymatrix{
1 \ar[r] & U_n \ar[r] & B_n \ar[r] & T_n\ar[r] & 1,
}$$ where $U_n$ stands for the unipotent matrices, and the sequence is split by the semi-simple matrices in $B_n$. Then the fact that the cochain $\zeta$ only depends on the projection onto ${\mathfrak{t}}_n$ means precisely that the variation of the volume depends on the restriction of the representation $\rho\colon P_i \rightarrow B_i$ only through its projection on $B_i/U_n$, a representation with values in an abelian group.
As an immediate corollary we have that if for each peripheral subgroup the restriction of the representation $\rho$ take values in unipotent subgroups of $\mathrm{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ and the deformation of $\rho$ is also boundary unipotent then the volume does not vary:
\[cor:uniprepvolrigide\] The volume function restricted to the subspace of boundary unipotent representations is locally constant.
We now turn to a more explicit formula for the variation of the volume as encoded on each torus.
Deforming representations on the torus
--------------------------------------
Let $\{\alpha,\beta\}$ be a generating set of the fundamental group of the 2-torus $T^2=\mathbb{R}^2/\mathbb{Z}^2$. They act on the universal covering $\alpha,\beta\colon \mathbb{R}^2\to \mathbb{R}^2$ as the integer lattice of translations: $\alpha(x,y)=(x+1,y)$ and $\beta(x,y)=(x,y+1)$.
By the Lie-Kolchin theorem, the image $\rho(\pi_1(T^2))$ is contained in a Borel subgroup $B_n$ and up to conjugation we assume that its variation is contained in a fixed subgroup. The class we want to evaluate vanishes in $\mathfrak{u}_n$, so we do not need to understand the whole perturbation of $\rho$ in $B_n$ but just its projection to $\pi\colon B_n\to B_n/U_n= \Delta_n \cong \mathbf ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{n-1}$. Write $$\pi(\rho(\alpha))=\exp(a),\ \pi(\rho(\beta))=\exp(b) \in \Delta_n,$$ where $a,b\in\mathfrak{sl}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ are diagonal matrices. Notice that there is an indeterminacy of the logarithm, the nontrivial entries (diagonal) of $a$ and $b$ are only well defined up addition of a term in to $2\pi i \,{\mathbb{Z}}$, but this does not affect the final result.
Since $\Delta_n$ is abelian, for such a representation we have a $\rho$-equivariant map $$\begin{array}{rcl}
D\colon \mathbb{R}^2 & \to & B_n/U_n \\
(x,y) & \mapsto & \exp(x\, a+ y\, b).
\end{array}$$ Then $$(\nabla \circ (s_\rho)_\ast )\left(\tfrac{\partial\phantom{x}}{\partial x}\right)= a \quad \textrm{ and }\quad
(\nabla \circ (s_\rho)_\ast )\left(\tfrac{\partial\phantom{x}}{\partial y}\right)= b\, .$$ We vary the representation by varying $a$ and $b$, so $$(\dot \nabla \circ (s_\rho)_\ast )\left(\tfrac{\partial\phantom{x}}{\partial x}\right)= \dot a \quad \textrm{ and }\quad
(\dot\nabla \circ (s_\rho)_\ast )\left(\tfrac{\partial\phantom{x}}{\partial y}\right)= \dot b\, .$$
\[lemma:evaltorus\] For $c\in C^1(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}^\vee)$ and a variation as above, $$\int_{\partial M} (s_\rho)^\ast(\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t}({\operatorname{F}}(c)) )= c(a)(\dot b)-c(b)(\dot a)\, .$$
For $Z_1, Z_2$ vector fields on $E_\rho\vert_{\partial M}$, $$\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t}({\operatorname{F}}(c))(Z_1,Z_2)= c(\nabla (Z_1))(\dot \nabla(Z_2))-c(\nabla (Z_2))(\dot \nabla(Z_1))$$ Setting $Z_1=(s_\rho)_\ast \left(\frac{\partial\phantom{x}}{\partial x}\right) $ and $Z_2=(s_\rho)_\ast \left(\frac{\partial\phantom{y}}{\partial y}\right) $, $\nabla (Z_1)=a$, $\dot \nabla (Z_1)=\dot a$, $\nabla (Z_2)=b$, $\dot\nabla (Z_2)=\dot b$, hence $$(s_\rho)^\ast(\operatorname{Char}_{\nabla_t}({\operatorname{F}}(c)) )= (c(a)(\dot b)-c(b)(\dot a)) d\, x\wedge d\, y$$ As $\int_{\partial M} d\, x\wedge d\, y=1$, the lemma follows.
\[corollary:formula\]
If $a,b,\dot a, \dot b\in\mathfrak{b}_n$, then the evaluation of the cocycle $\zeta$ is as in Proposition \[prop:cocyclevariation\] at the cochain in $C^1(T^2; \mathfrak{b}_n, \mathfrak{b}_n')$ is: $${\operatorname{tr}}( \Re(b)\Im(\dot a) -\Re(a)\Im(\dot b) )\, ,$$ where $\Re$ and $\Im$ denote the usual real and imaginary part of the coefficients.
By Lemma \[lemma:evaltorus\] and Proposition \[prop:cocyclevariation\], the evaluation of $\zeta$ is $$i({\operatorname{tr}}(pr_{i{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(a)pr_{{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(\dot b))-pr_{i{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(b)pr_{{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(\dot a))$$ Let $pr_{\mathfrak{h}+i\mathfrak{h} }\colon \mathfrak{b}_n\to\mathfrak{h}+i\mathfrak{h} $ denote the projection to the diagonal part, then, as $ \mathfrak{h}\subset\mathfrak{su}(n)$ is the subalgebra of diagonal matrices with zero real part, $$pr_{\mathfrak{h}}= i\, \Im\circ pr_{\mathfrak{h}+i\mathfrak{h} } \qquad pr_{i\, \mathfrak{h}}= \Re\circ pr_{\mathfrak{h}+i\mathfrak{h} }$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
i {\operatorname{tr}}(pr_{i{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(a)pr_{{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(\dot b)-pr_{i{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(b)pr_{{\mathfrak{h}}_n}(\dot a))& =& i {\operatorname{tr}}( \Re(a) i \Im (\dot b)- \Re(b) i \Im (\dot a) )
\\
& = &
- {\operatorname{tr}}( \Re(a) \Im (\dot b)- \Re(b) \Im (\dot a) ).\end{aligned}$$
This concludes the proof of the main theorem.
Comparison with other variation formulas {#subsection:n=2}
----------------------------------------
When $n=2$, we can write $$a=\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{l_1+i\theta_1}2 & 0 \\
0 & -\frac{l_1+i\theta_1}2
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad \textrm{
and }\qquad
b=\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{l_2+i\theta_2}2 & 0 \\
0 & -\frac{l_2+i\theta_2}2
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Hence $\exp(a)$ is an hyperbolic isometry with translation length $l_1$ and rotation angle $\theta_1$, and so is $\exp(b)$ with parameters $l_2$ and $\theta_2$. Then, by Corollary \[corollary:formula\], the contribution to the variation of volume of the corresponding torus component is $${\operatorname{tr}}(\Re(b)\Im(\dot a)- \Re(a)\Im(\dot b))
= \frac{1}{2}(l_2\dot \theta_1-l_1\dot\theta_2),$$ which is precisely Hodgson’s formula in [@Hodgson], as he derived from Schläfli’s formula for the variation of the volume for polyhedra in hyperbolic space.
Still in the case $n=2$ Neumann and Zagier [@NZ] study the space of hyperbolic structures on a manifold by studying triangulations by ideal hyperbolic simplices. To each hyperbolic ideal triangulation there is a natural assignment of a holonomy representation in $\operatorname{PSL}_2({\mathbb{C}})$, and its volume is then just the addition of the volumes of the tetrahedra involved.
For an arbitrary value of $n$, variational formulas for the volume have been obtained in remarkable work by several authors using spaces of decorated ideal triangulations and the Bloch group, see for instance [@GTZ]. Here we shall briefly describe the approach of [@BFG] and [@DGG] and relate their formulas to ours.
For $n=3$, Bergeron-Falbel-Guilloux [@BFG] consider ideal hyperbolic tetrahedra with an additional decoration by flags in $\mathbb P^2({\mathbb{C}})$ (see also [@GTZ]). Under some compatibility conditions one gets back the manifold equipped with a decorated hyperbolic structure, to which one can associate a holonomy in $\operatorname{PSL}_3({\mathbb{C}})$, as well as a flag to each peripheral subgroup (equivalently this fixes yields a Borel subgroup for the holomomy of each peripheral subgroup). Pushing this data to the Bloch group gives then a volume for the holonomy.
Firstly the volume in [@BFG] is $1/4$ of ours, they chose a normalization of the volume such that composing with the irreducible representation $\sigma_3\colon \operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})\to \operatorname{SL}_3({\mathbb{C}})$ does not change the volume (in our case, by Proposition \[prop:volsigman\] it is multiplied by $4$). Secondly, they have a different choice of coordinates in $\operatorname{PSL}_3({\mathbb{C}})$: the holonomy of the peripheral elements $m$ and $l$ is, given respectively by, $$\label{eqn:holonomyPGL3}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{A^*} & * & * \\
0 & 1 & * \\
0 & 0 & A
\end{pmatrix}
\quad\textrm{ and } \quad
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{B^*} & * & * \\
0 & 1 & * \\
0 & 0 & B
\end{pmatrix},$$ [@BFG §5.5.2]. Then Proposition 11.1.1 of [@BFG] states that each end contributes to the variation of volume by a term $$\label{eqn:BFG}
\frac{1}{12}\Im(d\log\wedge_{\mathbb{Z}}\log)(2\, A\wedge _{\mathbb{Z}}B + 2\, A^*\wedge _{\mathbb{Z}}B^* +A^*\wedge _{\mathbb{Z}}B + A\wedge _{\mathbb{Z}}B^* ) ,$$ where $\wedge_{\mathbb{Z}}$ stands for the wedge product as ${\mathbb{Z}}$-modules of the space of analytic functions on the space of decorated structures, and $$\label{eqn:wedgeZ}
\Im(d\log\wedge_{\mathbb{Z}}\log) (f \wedge _{\mathbb{Z}}g) = \Im\big(\log \vert g \vert \cdot d(\log f) -\log \vert f \vert \cdot d(\log g) \big)$$ for any pair of analytic functions $f$ and $g$. Then, after a change of coordinates in $\operatorname{PSL}_3({\mathbb{C}})$, it is straightforward to check that is $1/4$ of Corollary \[corollary:formula\] for $\operatorname{SL}_3({\mathbb{C}})$.
When $n\geq3$, Dimofte, Gabella, and Goncharov in [@DGG] also consider the space of framed flat connection. Thies yields decorated ideal triangulations by means of flags in $\mathbb P^{n-1}({\mathbb{C}})$ and they generalize Equation . In their work then, the holonomy of the peripheral elements $l$ and $m$ (resp. $a$ and $b$ in our setting ) is given by $$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & & 0\\
* & l_1 & 0 & & 0\\
* & * & l_1l_2 & & 0\\
& & & \ddots & \\
* & * & * & & l_1\dots l_{n-1}
\end{pmatrix}
\quad \textrm{ and } \quad
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & & 0\\
* & m_1 & 0 & & 0\\
* & * & m_1m_2 & & 0\\
& & & \ddots & \\
* & * & * & & m_1\dots m_{n-1}
\end{pmatrix},$$ [@DGG (3.42)]. If one denotes by $\kappa$ the Cartan matrix of size $n-1$ given by $$\kappa_{ij}=\begin{cases}
2 & \text{for } i=j,\\
-1 & \text{for } i=j\pm 1, \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ then the contribution of each peripheral group to the variation of volume is then ([@DGG (4.52) and (4.53)]): $$\label{eqn:DGG}
\log d\arg \sum_{i,j=1}^n(\kappa^{-1})_{ij}l_i\wedge m_j.$$ Here ([@DGG 4.60]): $$\log d\arg (f\wedge g)= \log |f| d\arg g-\log |g| d\arg f$$ is the exact the analog of .
Again, an easy computation shows that is the same formula as Corollary \[corollary:formula\].
As conclusion, our work gets back exactly the same formula as in [@BFG] and [@DGG] but with the advantage that we do not have to bother about the existence of decorated ideal triangulations (the existence of non-degenerate ideal triangulations for the complete structure still remains conjectural).
\[biblography\]
[10]{}
Nicolas Bergeron, Elisha Falbel, and Antonin Guilloux. Tetrahedra of flags, volume and homology of [${\rm SL}(3)$]{}. , 18(4):1911–1971, 2014.
Robert Bieri and Beno Eckmann. Relative homology and [P]{}oincaré duality for group pairs. , 13(3):277–319, 1978.
Armand Borel. Sur la cohomologie des espaces fibrés principaux et des espaces homogènes de groupes de [L]{}ie compacts. , 57:115–207, 1953.
Armand Borel and Nollan R. Wallach. , volume 94 of [*Annals of Mathematics Studies*]{}. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1980.
Raoul Bott and Loring W. Tu. , volume 82 of [ *Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1982.
Michelle Bucher, Marc Burger, and Alessandra Iozzi. A dual interpretation of the [G]{}romov-[T]{}hurston proof of [M]{}ostow rigidity and volume rigidity for representations of hyperbolic lattices. In [*Trends in harmonic analysis*]{}, volume 3 of [*Springer INdAM Ser.*]{}, pages 47–76. Springer, Milan, 2013.
Michelle Bucher, Marc Burger, and Alessandra Iozzi. . , December 2014.
Marc Burger and Alessandra Iozzi. Bounded differential forms, generalized [M]{}ilnor-[W]{}ood inequality and an application to deformation rigidity. , 125:1–23, 2007.
Pierre Cartier. Théorie des algèbres semi-simples, exposé 7. In [*Séminaire “Sophus Lie” 1954-55*]{}, volume 1. École Normale Supérieure, Paris, 1955.
Tudor Dimofte, Maxime Gabella, and Alexander B. Goncharov. K-decompositions and 3d gauge theories. , (11):151, front matter+144, 2016.
Jerome Dubois and Stavros Garoufalidis. Rationality of the [${\rm SL}(2,\Bbb C)$]{}-[R]{}eidemeister torsion in dimension 3. , 47:115–134, 2016.
Dmitry B. Fuks. . Contemporary Soviet Mathematics. Consultants Bureau, New York, 1986. Translated from the Russian by A. B. Sosinski[ĭ]{}.
Stavros Garoufalidis, Dylan P. Thurston, and Christian K. Zickert. The complex volume of [${\rm SL}(n,\Bbb{C})$]{}-representations of 3-manifolds. , 164(11):2099–2160, 2015.
Alexander Goncharov. Volumes of hyperbolic manifolds and mixed [T]{}ate motives. , 12(2):569–618, 1999.
Antonin Guilloux. . M[é]{}moire HDR, Inst. Math. Jussieu. Paris, 2015.
Gerhard Hochschild and George D. Mostow. Cohomology of [L]{}ie groups. , 6:367–401, 1962.
Craig Hodgson. . Phd thesis, Princeton University, 1986.
Michael Kapovich and John J. Millson. On representation varieties of 3-manifold groups. , 21(4):1931–1968, 2017.
Colin Maclachlan and Alan W. Reid. , volume 219 of [ *Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003.
Pere Menal-Ferrer and Joan Porti. Twisted cohomology for hyperbolic three manifolds. , 49(3), 2012.
Nicolas Monod. , volume 1758 of [*Lecture Notes in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.
Nicolas Monod. Stabilization for [${\rm SL}_n$]{} in bounded cohomology. In [*Discrete geometric analysis*]{}, volume 347 of [*Contemp. Math.*]{}, pages 191–202. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004.
Walter D. Neumann and Don Zagier. Volumes of hyperbolic three-manifolds. , 24(3):307–332, 1985.
Alexander Reznikov. Rationality of secondary classes. , 43(3):674–692, 1996.
Charles A. Weibel. , volume 38 of [ *Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
Anna Wienhard. Remarks on and around bounded differential forms. , 8(2):479–496, 2012.
Tomoyoshi Yoshida. The [$\eta$]{}-invariant of hyperbolic [$3$]{}-manifolds. , 81(3):473–514, 1985.
[^1]: First author was supported by Mineco grant MTM2016-80439-P
[^2]: Second author was supported by Mineco grant MTM2015–66165-P
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The static and dynamic properties of liquid Si at high-pressure have been studied using the orbital free [*ab-initio*]{} molecular dynamics method. Four thermodynamic states at pressures of 4, 8, 14 and 24 GPa are considered, for which X-ray scattering data are available. The calculated static structure shows qualitative agreement with the available experimental data. We analize the remarkable structural changes occurring between 8 and 14 GPa along with its reflection into several dynamic properties.'
address:
- '$^{1}$ Department of Physics, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, CANADA'
- '$^{2}$Departamento de Física Teórica, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, SPAIN'
author:
- 'A. Delisle$^{1}$, D.J. González$^{2}$ and M.J. Stott$^{1}$'
title: 'Pressure-induced structural and dynamical changes in liquid Si. An [*ab initio*]{} study'
---
Introduction.
=============
The intriguing properties of Silicon along with its technological importance have stimulated intensive theoretical [@StillingerWeber; @Tersoff; @JankHafner; @Wang; @Virkkunen; @Stich1; @Stich2; @Cheli; @DGS1] and experimental [@Gabathuler; @Waseda1; @Waseda2; @Takeda; @Hosokawa1; @Hosokawa2; @FunamoriTsuji] work. Its high-density forms include the semiconducting and covalent crystalline and amorphous phases and the metallic liquid phase. Upon melting it undergoes a semiconductor-metal transition, a density increase of $\approx$ 10% and significant changes in the local structure which evolves from an open one, with a tetrahedral fourfold coordination, to a liquid structure with $\approx$ sixfold coordination. In crystalline Si (c-Si) the semiconducting diamond structure contracts with pressure and transforms at 12 GPa [@Jamieson] to the metallic white-tin structure and then to the metallic simple hexagonal structure at 16 GPa [@Spain]. The local structure of liquid Si (l-Si) at the triple point (TP) is somewhat similar to high-pressure forms of c-Si, and it has been suggested that l-Si might consist of a mixture of diamond-type and white-tin-type structures with the proportion of the latter increasing with pressure.
Within this backdrop, Funamori and Tsuji [@FunamoriTsuji] have recently carried out X-ray (XR) diffraction experiments to determine the static structure of l-Si at pressures of 4, 8, 14 and 23 GPa and temperatures about 50 K above the melting point at the pressure. From an analysis of the static structure factors $S(q)$ and the associated pair distribution functions $g(r)$, Funamori and Tsuji [@FunamoriTsuji] concluded that l-Si up to 8 GPa has a local structure intermediate between the diamond-type and the white-tin-type. But, between 8 and 14 GPa drastic structural changes were noted with l-Si transforming to a denser structure similar to that of l-Sn at ambient pressure as evinced by the strong similarities between the $S(q)$’s of l-Sn and l-Si at 14 GPa.
Prompted by these experimental developments, we have performed an [*ab-initio*]{} molecular dynamics (AIMD) study of several static and dynamic properties of compressed l-Si at the thermodynamic states addressed by Funamori and Tsuji [@FunamoriTsuji]. Of particular interest is the reflection of the reported structural changes in the dynamic properties. Our AIMD method is based on density functional theory [@HK-KS] (DFT) which, for given nuclear positions, allows the calculation of the ground state electronic energy and yields the forces on the nuclei via the Hellmann-Feynman theorem, enabling MD simulations in which the nuclear positions evolve according to classical mechanics whereas the electronic subsystem follows adiabatically. Most AIMD methods are based on the Kohn-Sham (KS) form of DFT (KS-AIMD methods) which treats the electron kinetic energy exactly, but which at present, poses heavy computational demands limiting the size of the systems to be studied as well as the simulation times. Some of these constraints can be relaxed by the so-called orbital-free [*ab-initio*]{} molecular dynamics (OF-AIMD) method, which approximates the electron kinetic energy but disposes of the electronic orbitals of the KS formulation. The method allows simulations in which the number of variables describing the electronic state is greatly reduced so that larger samples (several hundreds of particles) can be studied for longer simulation times (tens of ps).
Theoretical studies of l-Si have mainly focused on static structural properties for thermodynamic states near the TP. Most studies were classical MD simulations using effective interatomic potentials constructed either empirically by fitting to experimental data [@StillingerWeber; @Tersoff] or derived from some approximate theoretical model. [@JankHafner; @Wang; @Virkkunen]. Recently, KS-AIMD calculations [@Stich1; @Stich2; @Cheli] have been reported which address electronic and static properties. Stich [*et al*]{} [@Stich1] and Chelikowsky [*et al*]{} [@Cheli] have reported KS-AIMD calculations for l-Si for 64 particles, using non-local pseudopotentials and the local density approximation. A subsequent calculation [@Stich2] used 350 particles and an improved treatment of electron exchange and correlation. Recently, we have carried out an OF-AIMD simulation [@DGS1] for l-Si near the TP for 2000 particles using a first principles local pseudopotential. Both static and dynamic properties were calculated with results in good agreement with the available experimental data, supporting the validity of the OF-AIMD for treating systems such as l-Si which show some remnants of covalent bonding and are not fully metallic.
On the experimental side, besides the aforementioned XR experiments of Funamori and Tsuji [@FunamoriTsuji], we also quote the availability of both neutron scattering (NS) [@Gabathuler] and X-ray (XR) [@Waseda1; @Waseda2; @Takeda] diffraction data as well as the recent inelastic X-ray scattering (IXS) data of Hosokawa [*et al*]{} [@Hosokawa1; @Hosokawa2] which have provided information on the dynamic structure of l-Si near TP.
In the next section the orbital-free [*ab-initio*]{} molecular dynamics (OF-AIMD) scheme is described briefly with emphasis on the electronic kinetic energy functional and the local pseudopotential used to characterize the electron-ion interaction. In section \[results\] the results of the [*ab initio*]{} simulations for several static and dynamic properties are presented and compared with the available experimental data. Finally, conclusions are drawn and ideas for further improvements are suggested.
Theory. {#theory}
=======
The OF-AIMD method used in this study is described fully in earlier work [@GGLS], and has previously been used to study l-Si near the TP [@DGS1]. In summary, an explicit density functional for the electronic energy is minimized iteratively for each ion configuration, the forces on the ions are found using the Hellman-Feynman theorem and the ion positions and velocities are updated by solving Newton’s equations. The approximate electron kinetic energy functional which correctly gives the Thomas-Fermi and linear response limits is based on the von Weizsäcker term plus a correction which uses an averaged density [@GGLS]. The local electron-ion pseudopotential was constructed, for each thermodynamic state, according to the procedure described in reference [@GGLS].
Simulations have been performed for l-Si in the four thermodynamic states listed in Table \[states\]. These correspond to pressures of 4, 8, 14 and 23 GPa and temperatures about 50 K above the melting point for each pressure [@FunamoriTsuji]. Each simulation used 2000 ions in a cubic cell with periodic boundary conditions and size appropriate for the ionic number density, $\rho_i$. The square root of the electron density was expanded in plane waves up to a cutoff energy $E_{\rm Cut}=15.75$ Ryd. The Verlet leapfrog algorithm with a timestep of $3.5\times 10^{-3}$ ps was used to update the ion positions and velocities. Equilibration lasted 10 ps. and the calculation of properties was made averaging over a further 65 ps. For comparison, we mention that the KS-AIMD simulations for l-Si near the TP lasted 1.2 ps. [@Stich1] 0.9 ps. [@Stich2] and 1.0 ps. [@Cheli], which precludes its application to the study of most dynamical properties.
Several liquid static properties were evaluated during the simulation: pair distribution function, static structure factor and bond angle distribution, as well as various dynamic properties, both single-particle ones: velocity autocorrelation function, mean square displacement, and collective ones: intermediate scattering functions, dynamic structure factors, longitudinal and transverse currents. The calculation of the time correlation functions (CF) was performed by taking time origins every five time steps. Several CF are also dependent on the wave vector q $\equiv$$\mid {\bf q} \mid$.
$P (GPa) $ $\rho_i$ (Å$^{-3}$) T ($^0$K)
-- ------------ --------------------- ----------- --
4 0.058 1503
8 0.060 1253
14 0.067 1093
23 0.071 1270
: \[states\] Input data for the different thermodynamic states studied in this work. $\rho_i$ is the total ionic number density and T is the temperature which have been taken from Ref. [@FunamoriTsuji].
Results
=======
Static properties.
------------------
The simulations yield directly the pair distribution function, $g(r)$, and the static structure factor $S(q)$. Figure \[sqfig4\] shows the calculated $S(q)$’s along with the corresponding XR data of Funamori and Tsuji [@FunamoriTsuji]. The experimental $S(q)$’s show changes with increased pressure. The main peak grows in intensity and its position ($q_p$) increases monotonically, whereas the position of the second peak decreases between 8 and 14 GPa; the distinctive shoulder at the high-q side of the main peak, shrinks smoothly and practically vanishes at 23 GPa. These changes are also reflected in $g(r)$. The position of the main peak, ($r_p$), identified with the average nearest neighbor distance, decreases with pressure except for an increase between 8 and 14 GPa; the position of the second peak decreases monotonically with pressure.
These features are displayed qualitatively in the calculated $S(q)$’s and $g(r)$’s although there are some quantitative discrepancies with the experimental data. Figure \[sqfig4\] shows that the OF-AIMD $S(q)$’s overestimate the intensity of the main peak and slightly underestimate the shoulder. Otherwise the positions of the peaks as well as the amplitudes of the subsequent oscillations are accounted for fairly well. A more detailed comparison with experiment is provided in Table \[results1\] which summarizes most of this structural information. This agreement with experiment is similar to that achieved in earlier orbital-free simulations [@DGS1] and in KS-AIMD [@Stich1; @Stich2; @Cheli] calculations performed for for l-Si near TP.
Based on their experimental data for $S(q)$ and $g(r)$, Funamori and Tsuji [@FunamoriTsuji] have argued that l-Si undergoes a high pressure structural transformation between 8 and 14 GPa. Whereas l-Si contracts with pressure up to at least 8 GPa by reducing the bond length, as measured by $r_p$, the increase in $r_p$ between 8 and 14 GPa suggests a structural change with an increase in the coordination number (CN). An estimate of the CN may be obtained by integrating the radial distribution function (RDF), $4\pi r^2 \rho_i g(r)$, up to the position of the first minimum, $r_m$, in the RDF [@Cusak; @McGreevy]. The results from the calculated RDF in Table \[results1\] show that CN grows with compression but with an abrupt increase from 8 to 14 GPa. Funamori and Tsuji [@FunamoriTsuji] obtained CN values also given in Table \[results1\] by integrating their experimental RDF up to 3.1 Å$\;$ for all the states, and a similar growth between 8 and 14 GPa is seen. Had we used the same $r_m$ = 3.1 Å$\;$ as Funamori and Tsuji did for calculating the CN, then the agreement with the “experimental” values would have been even better but, taking $r_m$ as the position of the first minimum is thought to be more soundly based.
Values for the isothermal compresibility, $\kappa_T$, have been obtained from $S(0) = \rho_i k_B T \kappa_T$ by using a least squares fit to calculated the $S(q)$ for $q$-values up to 0.8 Å$^{-1}$ and extrapolating to $q \to 0$. Results are given in Table \[results2\]. Although no experimental results are available, the OF-AIMD calculation for l-Si near the TP yielded $\kappa_T$ = 3.0, which is rather close to the experimental value [@BaidovGitis] of 2.8 (in $10^{-11}$ m$^2$ Nw$^{-1}$ units).
Further structural information is provided by higher order correlation functions such as the bond-angle distribution function, $g_3(\theta,r_m)$, where $\theta$ is the angle between two vectors joining a reference particle with two neighboring particles at a distance less than $r_m$. In a simple liquid metal such as Al, the $g_3(\theta,r_m)$, has peaks at around $\theta$ $\approx$ $60^o$ and $120^o$, which are close to those expected for a local icosahedral arrangement [@Balubook] ($\theta$ $\approx$ $63.5^o$ and $116.5^o$). In contrast, for l-Si near the TP both the OF-AIMD [@DGS1] and KS-AIMD [@Stich1; @Stich2; @Cheli] calculations for $g_3(\theta,r_m)$ have yielded two maxima centered around $\theta \approx 60^o$ and $89^o$. This double-peak feature has been interpreted as a manifestation of tetrahedral bonding and higher coordinated atoms both contributing to the first coordination shell. In illustration, figure \[bondangle4\] shows the OF-AIMD results for the $g_3(\theta,r_m)$ of l-Si and l-Al near their TP’s. [@DGS1; @GGLS]. OF-AIMD results for compressed l-Si are also included in the figure, and a gradual evolution with pressure towards the simple liquid metal distribution is seen. There is little change up to 8 GPa although the wide maximum at $\theta \approx$ $89^o$ has moved to slightly smaller $\theta$ values which may indicate less tetrahedral bonding. But, as pressure increases from 8 to 14 GPa, there is a qualitative change in the $g_3(\theta,r_m)$ whose shape moves closer to that of the simple liquid metals, and at 23 GPa the positions of the maxima for l-Si and l-Al are rather similar.
$P (GPa)$ $\; \;$ $q_p$ $r_p$ $r_m$ CN CN
-- ------------------- ------------- -- ------------- -- ------- ------------ ----- --
4 2.61 (2.67) 2.52 (2.46) 3.03 6.6 (6.8) 6.9
8 2.65 (2.72) 2.50 (2.42) 3.07 7.2 (7.1) 7.3
14 2.78 (2.82) 2.51 (2.46) 3.20 9.6 (8.5) 8.9
23 2.84 (2.88) 2.47 (2.43) 3.28 11.0 (9.2) 9.5
: \[results1\] Calculated values of $q_p$ (Å$^{-1}$), $r_p$ (Å), $r_m$ (Å) and coordination number (CN), for the different states. The numbers in parenthesis are the corresponding experimental data from Ref. [@FunamoriTsuji]
Dynamic properties.
-------------------
### Collective dynamics.
The intermediate scattering function, $F(q, t)$, contains both spatial and temporal information on the collective dynamics of density fluctuations. It is defined as
$$F(q, t) = \frac{1}{N} \left \langle
\left( \sum_{m=1}^N
e^{-i {\vec q}{\vec R}_m(t + t_0)} \right)
\;
\left( \sum_{l=1}^N e^{i {\vec q}{\vec R}_l(t_0)} \right) \right \rangle$$
Its frequency spectrum is the dynamic structure factor, $S(q, \omega)$, which has experimental relevance due to its connection with the scattered intensity in inelastic X-ray or neutron experiments. The calculated $F(q, t)$ for compressed l-Si exhibit an oscillatory behaviour up to $ q \approx (3/5) \; q_p$, with the amplitude diminishing for larger $q$-values. This oscillatory behaviour is typical of simple liquid metals found by either computer simulation [@GGLS; @TorBalVer; @Shimojo2; @Kambayashi] or from theoretical models [@Litio] and gives rise to a well defined inelastic peak in $S(q, \omega)$.
The $S(q, \omega)$, obtained by a time FT of $F(q, t)$, exhibit for all the states, well defined sidepeaks which are indicative of collective density excitations. This is illustrated in figure \[Sqw\], which shows calculated $S(q, \omega)$ for l-Si at 8 GPa for several $q$ values. The general shape of $S(q, \omega)$ is qualitatively similar at equivalent $q/q_p$ values for all the compressed states, and no specific feature of $S(q, \omega)$ has been identified whose variation would mark the structural transformation occurring somewhere between 8 and 14 GPa.
For all the states the sidepeaks in $S(q, \omega)$ persists up to $q
\approx (3/5) q_p$, which is a feature shared by both l-Si [@DGS1] and the simple liquid metals near their TP’s. [@GGLS; @Balubook] The dispersion relations, $\omega_m(q)$, of the density fluctuations have been obtained from the positions of these sidepeaks. They are plotted in figure \[disper4\] for the 8, 14 and 23 GPa states together with the calculated OF-AIMD [@DGS1] results and experimental data [@Hosokawa1] for l-Si near its TP. The curves look qualitatively similar but there is a marked difference between $\omega_m(q)$ for 8 GPa and less, and those for 14 and 23 GPa. In addition, the slope of the dispersion gives a $q$-dependent adiabatic sound velocity, $c_s(q)$, which in the limit $q \to 0$ reduces to the bulk adiabatic sound velocity, $c_s$. This has been estimated by fitting a straightline to the low-$q$ region of the $\omega_m(q)$’s and the results are given in Table \[results2\]. The $c_s$ increase with pressure but a steeper rise from 8 to 14 GPa will be seen.
The transverse current correlation function, $J_t(q,t)$, provides information on shear modes and is not directly related to any measurable quantity. It can only be obtained from either theoretical models or computer simulations, but it is known that its shape evolves from a gaussian, in both $q$ and $t$, at the free particle ($q \to \infty$) limit, towards a gaussian in $q$ and an exponential in $t$ in the hydrodynamic limit ($q \to 0$), i.e.
$$J_t(q \to 0, t) = \frac{1}{\beta m} e^{-q^2 \eta \mid t \mid /m \rho_i} \; ,
\label{Jtqthyd}$$
where $\eta$ is the shear viscosity coefficient, $\beta=(k_B T)^{-1}$ and $m$ is the atomic mass. In both small and large $q$ limits $J_t(q, t)$ is always positive, but for intermediate $q$-values there is a more complicated behavior with well-defined oscillations [@GGLS; @Balubook; @BoonYip]. Calculated $J_t(q, t)$ for several $q$-values are shown in figures \[Ctqtw1253\]-\[Ctqtw1093\] for l-Si at 8 and 14 GPa respectively. The most noteworthy effect on $J_t(q, t)$ of an increasing pressure is reflected on the oscillations which have a smaller amplitude and last for appreciably shorter times at the lower presures. Its consequences are apparent in the frequency spectra, $J_t(q, \omega)$, which are plotted in the lower panels of figures \[Ctqtw1253\]-\[Ctqtw1093\]. For both 14 and 23 GPa the $J_t(q, \omega)$ exhibits an inelastic peak which appears at low $q$-values ($\approx$ 0.45 Å$^{-1}$) and persists up to about $q$ = 2.50 Å$^{-1}$. However for 8 GPa the inelastic peaks appear for a appreciably smaller range (0.85 Å$^{-1}$ $\leq$ q $\leq$ 1.50 Å$^{-1}$) while for 4 GPa there are no inelastic peaks. This absence of peaks in $J_t(q, \omega)$ is also a feature of l-Si near the TP, but is at variance with the behaviour of a large number of different liquids such as hard sphere systems [@BoonYip], Lennard-Jones liquids [@Balubook; @BoonYip] and simple liquid metals [@GGLS; @Balubook; @Kambayashi] near melting, for which $J_t(q, t)$ oscillates and the associated $J_t(q, \omega)$, has an inelastic peak over some range of $q$-values. The inelastic peak in $J_t(q, \omega)$ is associated with propagating shear waves which seem to be absent in l-Si up to somewhere between 4 and 8 GPa. However, it must be noted that whereas in simple liquid metals near melting the shear waves last up to $q$ $\approx$ $3 q_p$, in the case of l-Si at 14 and 23 GPa they appear up to $q$ $\approx$ $0.9 q_p$.
The shear viscosity coefficient, $\eta$, can be calculated from $J_t(q,t)$ using the memory function representation [@GGLS; @Palmer; @BaBroJedVa]
$$\tilde{J_t}(q, z)= \frac{1}{\beta m}
\left [ z + \frac{q^2}{\rho_i m} \; \tilde{\eta}(q, z)\right ]^{-1} \; ,$$
where the tilde denotes the Laplace transform, and $\tilde{\eta}(q, z)$ is a generalized shear viscosity coefficient. The $\int_0^{\infty}\,dt\,J_t(q, t)$ when normalized gives $\beta m \;
\tilde{J_t}(q, z=0)$, from which $\tilde{\eta}(q, z=0)$ are obtained and extrapolated to $q=0$ to give the usual shear viscosity coefficient, $\eta$. Results are given in Table \[results3\]. Although no comparison can be made with experimental results, the calculated values are considered reliable because the application of this approach to l-Si near its TP gave $\eta$=0.75 $\pm$ 0.15 GPa $\cdot$ ps, in reasonable agreement with the available experimental data [@SasakiKimura], $\eta_{exp}$=0.58-0.78 GPa $\cdot$ ps. It is noteworthy that once more $\eta$ undergoes an abrupt change as the pressure increases from 8 to 14 GPa.
$P (GPa)$ $\; \;$ S(q $\to$ 0) $\kappa_T$ ( $10^{-11}$ $m^2$ Nw$^{-1}$) $c_s$ $(m/s)$
-- ------------------- -------------------- ------------------------------------------ --------------- --
4 0.0180 $\pm$ 0.003 1.50 $\pm$ 0.3 5100
8 0.0135 $\pm$ 0.003 1.30 $\pm$ 0.3 5400
14 0.0095 $\pm$ 0.003 0.94 $\pm$ 0.3 6300
23 0.0085 $\pm$ 0.003 0.68 $\pm$ 0.3 6750
: \[results2\] Calculated values of S(q $\to$ 0), isothermal compressibility $\kappa_T$ (in $10^{-11}$ m$^2$ Nw$^{-1}$ units) and adiabatic sound velocity ($c_s$) for the different states.
### Single-particle dynamics.
Information about the single-particle properties is contained in the self-intermediate scattering function
$$F_s(q, t) = \frac{1}{N} \langle \sum_{j=1}^N
e^{-i {\vec q}{\vec R}_j(t + t_0)}
e^{i {\vec q}{\vec R}_j(t_0)} \rangle$$
and its frequency spectrum, the self-dynamic structure factor, $S_s(q, \omega)$, which is related to the incoherent part of the total intensity scattered in an INS experiment. The OF-AIMD results for the $F_s(q, t)$ presented in figure \[fskt4\] for two states display the usual monotonic decay with time, and comparison of different states shows that at similar $q/q_p$ values $F_s(q, t)$ decays slower with increasing pressure, with the 14 and 23 GPa states behaving very much like the liquid simple metals [@GGLS; @Balubook; @Litio] near their triple points. The different rates of decay can be related to the differences in the self-diffusion coefficients.
Closely related to the $F_s(q, t)$ is the velocity autocorrelation function (VACF) of a tagged ion in the fluid, $Z(t)$, which can be obtained as the $q \to 0$ limit of the first-order memory function of the $F_s(q, t)$, but more conveniently, from its definition
$$Z (t) = \langle \vec{v}_1(t) \vec{v}_1(0) \rangle
/ \langle v_1^2 \rangle$$
Figures \[vacft4x4\]-\[vacfw4x4\] show results for $Z(t)$ and for its power spectrum $Z(\omega)$. The overall shape of $Z(t)$ changes little from the TP up to 8 GPa closely, but as the pressure is further increased changes occur in the range and amplitude of the oscillations until at 23 GPa the shape is very similar to that of the simple liquid metals at their TP. These changes can be explained in terms of the so-called “cage” effect due to backscattering from the shell of nearest neighbors reversing the initial velocity of a tagged ion and driving a deeper first minimum. This is consistent with the results for the static structure summarized in table \[results1\] which shows an open structure up to 8 GPa but a marked increase in the coordination number at higher pressures.
The power spectra which are plotted in figure \[vacfw4x4\] also show significant changes between 8 and 14 GPa. $Z(\omega)$ evolves with pressure from a shape resembling l-Si near the TP towards a liquid simple metal shape with a low frequency peak and a higher frequency peak (or shoulder) [@GGLS; @Balubook]. The shoulder at $\omega$ $\approx$ 40 ps$^{-1}$, present at all the pressures, has been related to vibrational remnants in the liquid of the covalent bonding [@Stich1]. Below 8 GPa, low frequency diffusive modes are present.
The self-diffusion coefficient, $D$, is readily obtained from either the time integral of $Z(t)$ or from the slope of the mean square displacement $\delta R^2(t) \equiv
\langle | \vec{R}_1(t) - \vec{R}_1(0) |^2 \rangle$ of a tagged ion in the fluid, as follows
$$D= \frac{1}{\beta m} \int_0^{\infty} Z(t) dt\; ;\hspace{0.91 cm}
D= \lim_{t \to \infty} \delta R^2(t)/6t$$
Both routes for $D$ lead to practically the same value, and the results are given in Table \[results3\]. The decreasing values of $D$ with increasing pressure is due to the growing importance of backscattering. No experimental results are available for the diffusion coefficients of l-Si, but confidence in the results may be taken from the agreement between the OF-AIMD result for l-Si near the TP: $D_{\rm OF-AIMD}= 2.28
\;$ Å$^2$/ps, and the estimates from KS-AIMD calculations of Stich [*et al*]{} [@Stich1; @Stich2]: $D_{\rm KS-AIMD}=2.02 \;$ Å$^2$/ps. [@Stich1] which slightly increased to $2.4$ Å$^2$/ps. [@Stich2] when the number of particles was augmented to 350 particles. Another KS-AIMD study by Chelikowsky [*et al*]{} [@Cheli] has yielded $D_{\rm KS-AIMD}= $1.90 $\;$ Å$^2$/ps. The results for $D$ at 4 and 8 GPa are similar to the value at the l-Si triple point whereas the results for 14 and 23 GPa are closer to those for the liquid simple metals near their triple points [@GGLS; @Iida; @Alemany]. This change in $D$ with pressure explains the different decay rates found in the $F_s(q,t)$ which decayed much faster at the lower pressures. Recalling the accurate gaussian approximation [@Balubook; @BoonYip], $F_s(q,t)= exp [ - q^2 \; \delta
R^2(t) \; /6 ]$, it will be seen that a greater $D$ implies a greater $\delta R^2(t)$ and therefore a faster decay of $F_s(q,t)$.
$P (GPa)$ $\; \;$ $D$ (Å$^2$/ps) $\eta$ (GPa ps)
-- ------------------- ----------------- -- ----------------- --
4 1.82 $\pm$ 0.05 0.77 $\pm$ 0.10
8 1.33 $\pm$ 0.05 0.84 $\pm$ 0.10
14 0.70 $\pm$ 0.03 1.47 $\pm$ 0.15
23 0.70 $\pm$ 0.03 1.55 $\pm$ 0.15
: Calculated values of the self-diffusion ($D$) and shear viscosity $\eta$ (in GPa ps) for the different states. []{data-label="results3"}
The self-diffusion coefficient, $D$, of a macroscopic particle of diameter $d$ undergoing Brownian motion in a liquid of viscosity $\eta$ is related to $\eta$ through the Stokes-Einstein (SE) relation $\eta$ $D$ = $k_B T$/2$\pi$$d$. This relation has often been used on an atomic scale to estimate $\eta$ by identifying $d$ with the position, $r_p$, of the main peak in $g(r)$. Using the $D$ values for 4, 8 ,14 and 23 GPa the relation yields $\eta$=0.72, 0.82, 1.36 and 1.59 GPa$\cdot$ps respectively, values rather close to the earlier OF-AIMD estimates.
Gaskell and Miller [@GaskellMiller], have used mode-coupling theory to develop a representation of the normalized VACF which has been used to interpret MD data in various fluids [@GaskellMiller; @Barrat; @Baluwater], and which sheds light on l-Si. Within this approach
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ztmc}
Z (t)
& & \approx \frac{1}{24 \pi^3} \int d{\bf q} \; f(q)
\left[ J_l(q, t) + 2 J_t(q, t) \right] F_s(q, t) \nonumber \\
& &
\equiv Z_l(t) \; + \; Z_t(t) \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
where $J_l(q, t)$ and $J_t(q, t)$ are the normalized longitudinal and transverse current correlation functions and $f(q)$ is
$$f(q)= \frac{3}{\rho_i} \frac{j_1(aq)}{aq}$$
with $j_1(x)$ the spherical Bessel function of order one, $\rho_i$ is the ion number density and $a = ( 3/4\pi\rho_i)^{1/3}$ is the radius per ion. Substitution into equation (\[Ztmc\]) of the OF-AIMD results for $J_l(q, t)$, $J_t(q, t)$ and $F_s(q, t)$ allows identification of longitudinal and transverse current contributions: $Z_l(t)$ and $Z_t(t)$ respectively. The two contributions are plotted in figure \[vacft4x4\] which shows that the oscillatory behaviour in the $Z(t)$ is due to $Z_l(t)$, but again the step from 8 to 14 GPa changes the shape of both contributions. Up to 8 GPa, $Z_t(t)$ remains positive for all times as a result of the positive nature of $J_t(q,t)$ (see figures \[Ctqtw1253\]-\[Ctqtw1093\]) and determines the long time behaviour of the $Z(t)$, however, from 14 GPa on, $Z_t(t)$ develops a shallow and broad negative minimum centered at rather long times $\approx$ 0.15 ps. On the other hand, $Z_l(t)$ accounts for most of the backscattering effect. With higher pressure the first minimum sharpens and moves to shorter times and the oscillations extend further, which are results of the increasing role of the “cage” effect. At 14 and 23 GPa, both components are similar in shape to their liquid simple metals counterparts [@GaskellMiller] with both oscillating about zero and with $Z_l(t)$ controlling the large $t$ behaviour of $Z(t)$. Finally, notice that the development of the deep minimum in the $Z(t)$ is mainly due to the rapid decay of $Z_t(t)$ with increasing pressure.
The longitudinal and transverse components of the power spectrum, $Z(\omega)$, are shown in figure \[vacfw4x4\]. The spectrum at small $\omega$ is dominated by $Z_t(\omega)$, and, consequently, the diffusion constant $D \propto Z(\omega =0)$ is completely determined by the transverse component. For 4 and 8 GPa, $Z_t(\omega)$ decreases monotonously but at 14 and 23 GPa the value at zero frequency has dropped and a low-frequency peak has developed. Note that $Z_t(\omega)$ has no maximum for 4 and 8 GPa which are the states where the $J_t(q, \omega)$ shows, either no inelastic peaks (4 GPa) or they exist for a small range (8 GPa). The longitudinal component $Z_l(\omega)$ always exhibits a peak whose position increases slightly with increasing pressure. This peak is responsible for the shoulder in the total $Z(\omega)$ for the 4 and 8 GPa states, as well as for the high-frequency peak for the 14 and 23 GPa states.
By a time FT of the $F_s(q, t)$ we obtain its frequency spectrum, $S_s(q, \omega)$, which is known as the self-dynamic structure factor and is related to the incoherent part of the measured INS cross-section. For all $q$-values $S_s(q,\omega)$ decays monotonically as a function of frequency and can be characterized in terms of the peak value, $S_s(q, \omega = 0)$ and the HWHM, $\omega_{1/2}(q)$. These parameters are frequently reported normalized with respect to the hydrodynamic ($q$ $\to$ 0 ) limit, by introducing the dimensionless quantities $\Sigma(q)=\pi q^2 D S_s(q, \omega =0)$ and $\Delta(q) = \omega_{1/2}(q)/ q^2 D$, where $\omega_{1/2}(q)/ q^2$ can be interpreted as an effective $q$-dependent diffusion coefficient $D(q)$. For a simple liquid near its TP, $\Delta(q)$ usually oscillates whereas in a dense gas it decreases monotonically from unity at $q$ = 0 to the $1/q$ behaviour at large $q$ [@Balubook; @TorBalVer; @BoonYip]. Figures \[Delta4\]-\[Sigma4\] depict the OF-AIMD results for $\Delta(q)$ and $\Sigma(q)$ for 8 and 14 GPa, as this is the pressure range where both magnitudes undergo a substantive change. The obtained $\Delta(q)$ for 14 GPa shows an oscillatory shape with a minimum located at $q$ $\approx$ $q_p$ which can be traced back to structural features (“cage” effect) which somewhat hinder the motion of the ions and becomes more effective at $q$ $\approx$ $q_p$ where the wavelength is comparable to the size of the cage. Conversely, that for 8 GPa resembles the situation of a dense gas where the “cage” effect becomes negligible leading to a net reduction of the diffusion coefficient [@Balubook; @Mont] and its associated $\Sigma(q)$, stands very close to that of the dense gas.
An additional check on the reliability of these results may be provided by the MC theory [@Sjogren; @Sjogren2] which has already shown its capability to describe to experimental data for $\Delta(q)$ and $\Sigma(q)$ in simple liquid metals [@Mont; @Cabrillo] at $q$ $\leq$ $q_p$. Specifically, the MC theory avers that at low-$q$ values
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{modecp}
\Delta(q) = 1 + H(\delta) q/q^* \\
\Sigma(q)= 1 + G(\delta^{-1})q/q^* \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $q^* = 16 \pi m \rho_i \beta D^2$, $\delta= D/(D+\eta/m \rho_i)$ and $H(\delta)$ and $G(\delta^{-1})$ are given in Reference [@Mont].
The first term in equations (\[modecp\]) stands for the hydrodynamic result whereas the second one accounts for the coupling of mass diffusion and collective modes. Calculated values of $D$ and $\eta$ have been used with equations \[modecp\] to obtain the points in figures \[Delta4\]-\[Sigma4\]. For $q$ $\leq$ $q_p$ we observe that the MC theory fairly accounts for the OF-AIMD results, with an accuracy comparable to what has already been achieved in other liquid metals [@Mont]. Consequently, the present results show the ability of the MC theory to describe the single particle dynamics (and presumably the collective dynamics too) in liquid systems encompassing a range of bonding and structure as that displayed by the compressed l-Si .
Conclusions.
============
Several static and dynamic properties of l-Si at four high-pressure thermodynamic states have been investigated using orbital free [*ab initio*]{} molecular dynamics combined with a first-principles local pseudopotential.
The study was motivated by experimental findings [@FunamoriTsuji] of significant structural changes in l-Si when the pressure is increased from 4 to 23 GPa. The obtained results for the static structure qualitatively follow those trends unveiled by the experiment, namely the increase of the intensity and the position of the S(q)’s main peak, along with a progressive vanishing of its shoulder. Other parameters such as the coordination number, isothermal compressibility, and the shape of the bond-angle distibution function provide further insight into the changes. Overall, apart from a contraction with increasing pressure, the static structures of l-Si at the TP, and at 4 and 8 Gpa are very similar. Above 8 GPa the system transforms to a denser more close packed structure typical of a liquid simple metal, with most change taking place between 8 and 14 GPa.
The structural changes are also reflected in several dynamical properties. The calculated dynamic structure factors, $S(q, \omega)$, show collective density excitations over similar wavelength ranges, namely up to $q$ $\approx$ (3/5)$q_p$, as those found for simple liquid metals at their TP. These density excitations are sound waves whose velocity increases with pressure, most steeply between 8 and 14 GPa. The dispersion relations of the excitations divide into two groups, one for l-Si at its TP, 4 GPa and 8 GPa and another group for l-Si at 14 and 23 GPa.
The transverse current correlation also show evidence of the structural changes. Below 4 GPa, its frequency spectra lack inelastic peaks indicating the absence of shear waves, but at 8 GPa clear inelastic peaks are already evident.
The calculated self-diffusion and shear viscosity transport coefficients are also affected by the structural changes occurring between 8 and 14 GPa. These transport coefficients cannot be compared with experiment, but confidence in the calculated values is given by the good agreement with experimental values and/or other [*ab-initio*]{} results for l-Si and its TP.
Finally, we remark that the present results for the static and dynamic properties of compressed l-Si underscore the capability of the OF-AIMD method to tackle liquid systems encompassing a range of bonding and structure which evolves from mild remnants of covalent bonding to a metallic one. Moreover, further improvements in the present [*ab initio*]{} method are still possible and they necessarily will be focused on developing more accurate electron kinetic energy functionals and local ionic pseudopotentials.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work has been supported by the MEC of Spain (MAT2005-03415) and the NSERC of Canada. DJG acknowledges additional financial support from the Physics Dept. of Queen’s University were part of this work was carried out.
Stillinger F H and Weber T A, Phys. Rev. B [**31**]{} 5262 (1985); Broughton J Q and Li X P, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{} 9120 (1987)
Tersoff J, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{} 9902 (1988)
Jank W and Hafner J, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{} 1497 (1990)
Wang C, Chan C and Ho K, Phys. Rev. Letters [**66**]{} 189 (1991); Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{} 12227 (1991)
Virkkunen R, Laasonen K and Nieminen R M, J. Phys.: Cond. Matter [**3**]{} 7455 (1991)
Stich I, Car R and Parrinello M, Phys. Rev. Letters [**63**]{} 2240 (1989); Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{} 4262 (1991)
Stich I, Parrinello M and Hollender J M, Phys. Rev. Letters [**76**]{} 2077 (1996)
Godlevsky V, Chelikowsky J and Troullier N, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{} 13281 (1995)
Delisle A, González D J and Stott M J, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{} 064202 (2006)
Gabathuler J P and Steeb S, Z. Naturforsch [**34**]{}a 1314 (1979)
Waseda Y and Suzuki K, Z.Phys. B [**20**]{} 339 (1975); Waseda Y, [*The Structure of Non-Crystalline Materials*]{}, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980)
Waseda Y, Shinoda K, Sugiyama K, Takeda S, Terashima K and Toguri J M, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**34**]{} 4124 (1995)
Takeda S, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**34**]{} 4889 (1995)
Hosokawa S, Greif J, Demmel F and Pilgrim W C, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. [**199**]{}B 161 (2003)
Hosokawa S, Pilgrim W C, Kawakita Y, Ohshima K, Takeda S, Ishikawa D, Tsutsui S, Tanaka Y and Baron A Q R, J. Phys.: Cond. Matter, [**15**]{} L623 (2003)
Funamori N and Tsuji K, Phys. Rev. Letters [**88**]{} 255508 (2002);
Jamieson J C, Science [**139**]{} 762 (1963)
Olijnyk H, Sikka S K and Holzapfel W B, Phys. Letters [**103A**]{} 137 (1984); Hu J Z and Spain I L, Solid St. Commun. [**51**]{} 263 (1984)
Hohenberg P and Kohn W, Phys. Rev. [**136**]{} 864 (1964); Kohn W and Sham L J, Phys. Rev. [**140**]{} A1133 (1965)
González D J, González L E, López J M and Stott M J, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{} 184201 (2002)
Cusak N E, [*The Physics of Structurally Disordered Matter*]{}, (Bristol: Adam-Hilger, 1987)
McGreevy R L, Baranyai A and Ruff I, Phys. Chem. Liq., [**16**]{} 47 (1986)
Baidov V V and Gitis M B, Sov. Phys. Semicond. [**4**]{} 825 (1970) \[Fiz. Tekh. Poluprovodn. [**4**]{} 967 (1970)\]
Balucani U and Zoppi M, [*Dynamics of the Liquid State*]{}, (Clarendon, Oxford, 1994); Hansen J P and McDonald I R, [*Theory of Simple Liquids*]{}, (Academic Press, London, 1986)
Torcini A, Balucani U, de Jong P H K and Verkerk P, Phys. Rev. E [**51**]{} 3126 (1995)
Shimojo F, Hoshino K and Watabe M, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn [**63**]{} 141 (1994)
Kambayashi S and Kahl G, Phys. Rev. A [**46**]{} 3255 (1992); Kahl G and Kambayashi S, J. Phys.: Cond. Matter, [**6**]{} 10897 (1994)
Casas J, González D J and González L E; Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{} 10094 (1999); Casas J, González D J, González L E, Alemany M M G and Gallego L J, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{} 12095 (2000)
Boon J P and Yip S, [*Molecular Hydrodynamics*]{}, (Dover, New York, 1991)
Palmer B J, Phys. Rev. E [**49**]{} 359 (1994)
Balucani U, Brodholt J P, Jedlovszky P and Vallauri R, Phys. Rev. E [**62**]{} 2971 (2000)
Sasaki H, Tokizaki E, Huang X M, Terashima K and Kimura S, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**34**]{} 3432 (1995); Kimura S and Terashima K, J. of Crystal Growth [**180**]{} 323 (1997)
Iida T and Guthrie R I L, [*Physical Properties of Liquid Metals*]{}, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988)
Alemany M M G, Casas J, Rey C, González L E and Gallego L J, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{} 6818 (1997)
Gaskell T and Miller S, J. Phys. C: Solid St. Phys. [**11**]{} 3749 (1978); [*ibid*]{} [**11**]{} 4839 (1978); Physics Letters A [**66**]{} 307 (1978)
Barrat J L, Hansen J P and Totsuji H, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys., [**21**]{} 4511 (1988)
Balucani U, Brodholt J P and Vallauri R, J. Phys.: Cond. Matter, [**8**]{} 6139 (1996)
Montfrooy W, de Schepper I, Bosse J, Glaser W and Morkel Ch, Phys. Rev. A [**33**]{} 1405 (1986)
Sjögren L, J. Phys. C, [**13**]{} 705 (1980); Phys. Rev. A [**22**]{} 2866 (1980); Phys. Rev. A [**22**]{}, 2883 (1980)
Wahnström G and Sjögren L, J. Phys. C, [**15**]{} 401 (1982)
Cabrillo C, Bermejo F J, Alvarez M, Verkerk P, Maira-Vidal A, Bennington S M and Martin D, Phys. Rev. Letters [**89**]{} 075508 (2002); J. Phys.: Cond. Matter, [**16**]{} S309(2004)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
---
Astro2020 Science White Paper
EUV observations of cool dwarf stars
**Thematic Areas:** $\square$ Planetary Systems $\square$ Star and Planet Formation $\square$ Formation and Evolution of Compact Objects $\square$ Cosmology and Fundamental Physics Stars and Stellar Evolution $\square$ Resolved Stellar Populations and their Environments $\square$ Galaxy Evolution $\square$ Multi-Messenger Astronomy and Astrophysics
**Principal Author:**
Name: Allison Youngblood Institution: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Email: allison.a.youngbloodnasa.gov Phone: (301) 614-5729
**Co-authors:**
Jeremy Drake (CfA), James Mason (NASA GSFC), Rachel Osten (STScI, JHU), Meng Jin (Lockheed Martin), Adam Kowalski (University of Colorado), Kevin France (University of Colorado), Brian Fleming (University of Colorado), Joel Allred (NASA GSFC), Ute Amerstorfer (IWF, Graz), Zachory Berta-Thompson (University of Colorado), Vincent Bourrier (University of Geneva), Luca Fossati (IWF, Graz), Cynthia Froning (University of Texas), Cecilia Garraffo (Harvard CfA), Guillaume Gronoff (NASA LRC), Tommi Koskinen (University of Arizona), Herbert Lichtenegger (IWF, Graz)
**Abstract:** The EUV (100-912 Å) is a spectral region notoriously difficult to observe due to attenuation by neutral hydrogen gas in the interstellar medium. Despite this, hundreds to thousands of nearby stars of different spectral types and magnetic activity levels are accessible in the EUV range. The EUV probes interesting and complicated regions in the stellar atmosphere like the lower corona and transition region that are inaccessible from other spectral regions. In this white paper we describe how direct EUV observations, which require a dedicated grazing-incidence observatory, cannot yet be accurately substituted with models and theory. Exploring EUV emission from cool dwarf stars in the time domain can make a major contribution to understanding stellar outer atmospheres and magnetism, and offers the clearest path toward detecting coronal mass ejections on stars other than the Sun.
The Nature of Stellar EUV Emission {#the-nature-of-stellar-euv-emission .unnumbered}
==================================
Dynamo action in cool stars (T$_{eff}$ $\lesssim$ 7500 K) induced by rotation and convection generates hot plasma (10$^4$-10$^7$ K) that becomes trapped within closed magnetic structures, comprising the chromosphere, transition region, and coronal layers of a star’s atmosphere (e.g. Vaiana & Rosner, 1978). X-ray emission from cool stars arises in the corona, which is comprised of optically-thin plasma (10$^6$-10$^7$ K) that is approximately in thermal equilibrium and relatively easy to observe and model. The EUV spectral range exhibits some of this hot optically-thin emission, but a significant fraction originates from the transition region ($\sim$10$^5$ K) and cooler plasma of the corona (10$^{6}$ K), and is more complicated to observe and model.
Solar and stellar EUV spectra are characterized by emission lines from abundant ionized chemical elements superimposed on a continuum (Figure \[fig:EUVE\_Procyon\]; e.g. @Doschek1991 [@Feldman1992; @Drake1999]). Emission lines are formed by collisional excitation and subsequent decay; the continua are produced in recombination free-bound transitions.
The [*Extreme Ultraviolet Exporer (EUVE)*]{} remains the only observatory to have made extensive spectroscopic observations of cosmic sources in the EUV range. The [*EUVE*]{} spectrometers had an effective area of $\sim$1 cm$^2$, necessitating days-long exposure times generally resulting in low signal-to-noise spectra and limited time resolution. Despite this, [*EUVE*]{} made remarkable breakthroughs, including opening up to stellar physics the wealth of coronal plasma diagnostics enjoyed by solar physicists for decades. A new large-area EUV spectroscopy mission could make major breakthroughs in the study of stellar outer atmospheres; in turn, these observations will be crucial for understanding the effects of stellar energetic emission on exoplanets (see white paper titled “EUV influences on exoplanet atmospheric stability and evolution” led by A. Youngblood).
Stellar EUV Emission Cannot be Inferred from Observations at Other Wavelengths {#stellar-euv-emission-cannot-be-inferred-from-observations-at-other-wavelengths .unnumbered}
==============================================================================
Stellar models that self-consistently treat the chromosphere, transition region, and corona are in their infancy [@Fontenla2016; @Peacock2019], while the fundamental physics of coronal heating remains poorly understood. Differential emission measure (DEM) models can generate EUV spectra under the assumption of thermal equilibrium and optically thin conditions with three parameters: temperature, density, and chemical composition. Constraining these three parameters requires a substantial amount of data describing the collisional excitation and ionization processes involved. Complete DEMs require observations sampling the emission measure of the gas across a very wide range of temperatures, 10$^4$–10$^8$ K [@delZanna2002; @Osten2006]. However, the great majority of spectral lines formed in the 10$^5$–10$^6$ K temperature range (with the notable exception of the O VI doublet at FUV wavelengths) can only be observed in the EUV.
Traditional DEM analyses also suffer from other problems:
- Coronal and transition region emission are strongly variable on a variety of timescales, ranging from seconds (in stellar flares) to years (magnetic cycles) to eons (stellar spindown and decline in magnetic activity). DEMs reconstructed from non-simultaneous observations in different wavelengths—e.g., X-ray and UV—will be subject to large uncertainties due to variability. It is not yet known how the full DEMs of stellar coronae vary over time or during flares.
- The derivation of the DEM based on observations of spectral lines—an integral inversion—is also a mathematically ill-conditioned problem (e.g. @Craig1976). Further constraints are generally required, such as smoothing criteria (see, e.g., the discussion in @Kashyap1998), and spectral lines finely sampling the full range of coronal temperatures are needed. Ill-constrained DEMs can lead to large uncertainties in modeled spectral output.
- Element abundances in solar and stellar coronae are subject to strong fractionation by mechanisms that are not yet understood, but appear to depend on plasma temperature and spectral type (e.g., the first ionization potential (FIP) effect; @Drake1997 [@Laming2015; @Wood2018]). Emergent flux scales linearly with chemical abundance, so typical abundance uncertainties of factors of 4 or more translate to uncertainties in line fluxes by a similar amount.
Flares in the EUV {#flares-in-the-euv .unnumbered}
=================
Existing stellar coronal flare analyses have been limited to very large flares on active stars, while favoring the hotter temperature diagnostics in the X-ray region. The bias in temperatures probed by *EUVE* – mainly hot lines that sample temperatures similar to X-ray lines – resulted from lack of sensitivity to lower temperature transitions, as well as lack of sensitivity at longer wavelengths. [*EUVE*]{} flare analyses are limited to a handful of low S/N observations. Filling in the lower temperatures, as well as a range of flare sizes and on a range of different types of stars, is a relatively unexplored parameter regime for stellar flares—an ample discovery space that is also ripe for comparison with the well-sampled solar measurements from *SDO*/EVE, *SDO*/AIA, *SOHO*/EIT, *IRIS*, *GOES*/SUVI, *GOES*/EXIS, and *PROBA-2*/SWAP.
There are many open questions regarding the structure of flaring regions on other stars. In particular, the EUV late phase of flares was discovered in Sun-as-a-star measurements made by *SDO*/EVE; in some cases these later phases contain more energy than the main peak of the flare [@Woods2014], which has consequences for the impact on planetary atmospheres. Hours after the main hot flare phase ($\sim$10$^7$ K), a second much longer emission enhancement can occur at cooler coronal temperatures (10$^{6.4}$-10$^{6.8}$ K), which has only been in the EUV for the Sun [@Woods2014].
While there appears to be general agreement about the behavior of the radiative component of stellar flares and solar flares, the role of electron beams and accelerated particles indicates disagreement. The work of [@Allred2006] and later [@Kowalski2015; @Kowalski2017] demonstrates that a solar-like prescription of an electron beam in a realistic M dwarf stellar atmosphere does not reproduce the observed stellar flare characteristics in the blue-optical wavelength ranges. Therefore, while the plasma heating characteristics of small to moderate coronal stellar flares seems to be consistent with solar flares, M dwarf observations are revealing a growing disconnect in the particle acceleration properties. For example, [@Froning2019] found that the hot FUV flare continuum from a large M dwarf flare could be reproduced by radiative hydrodynamic models only with the *ad hoc* addition of a hot, dense emitting component not explained by typical electron beam energy fluxes [@Kowalski2015]. The EUV spectral region probes the largest swathe of temperature space compared to the X-ray and the FUV, and time-resolved spectroscopy of stellar flares could resolve some of these outstanding issues.
How can we characterize coronal mass ejections from other stars? A path forward in the EUV {#how-can-we-characterize-coronal-mass-ejections-from-other-stars-a-path-forward-in-the-euv .unnumbered}
==========================================================================================
Solar flares are often accompanied by ejections of mass (coronal mass ejections, or CMEs), and the probability of a CME increases with increasing flare energy [@Yashiro2005; @Wang2007]. Figure \[fig:solarflare\] shows a cartoon illustrating the relationship between the trifecta in a solar eruptive event: the flare (seen as footpoints and loops), the plasmoid lifting off to become the CME, and the open field lines along which solar energetic particles (SEPs) escape to interplanetary space. CMEs are geoeffective in the solar system and the primary source of space weather, driving various authors to consider the “space weather habitable zone” (e.g., @Airapetian2017) as the more meaningful compared to the liquid water habitable zone [@Kasting1993] in our quest to detect and characterize biology on other worlds. CMEs from young stars could also dominate their rotational evolution or spin-down as they carry away angular momentum from the star [@Cranmer2017].
Expectations for a one-to-one relationship between flares and CMEs, as observed in solar eruptive events, have not been borne out with recent constraints for stellar flares [@Osten2015; @Odert2017; @Crosley2018; @Crosley2018a]. The main observational methods used in the stellar context are searches for blueshifts from the chromospheric H$\alpha$ emission line during a flare, long wavelength Type II radio burst signature originating from a CME, and absorption dimming in X-rays [@Moschou2017]. These diagnostics each have specific pros and cons: velocity signatures are expected to occur during the flare as well as any putative ejection of mass; radio observations may not be sensitive enough to detect small ejections; increases in hydrogen column density during stellar X-ray flares is not ubiquitous; and most signatures are dependent on the line-of-sight.
Whereas flare energy manifests in the number and frequency of emitted photons, CME energy is kinematic: cumulative mass and speed of charged particles. Fundamentally, flares and CMEs represent two mechanisms by which considerable pent-up coronal magnetic field energy can be rapidly released. For the Sun, we are able to observe CMEs directly with coronagraphs and *in situ* measurements. These traditional methods are not feasible for stellar CMEs in the near future. However, a number of other techniques for detecting solar CMEs have been developed, and [@Harra2016] determined that coronal dimming, the dimming of emission lines sampling the quiet corona (10$^{6}$-10$^{6.4}$ K for the Sun), is the only feature consistently associated with CMEs.
**Coronal dimming as a method for CME characterization.** The association between solar CME kinematics and coronal dimming has been established for the Sun using spatially resolved EUV images (e.g., @Aschwanden2009) and irradiance spectroscopy (e.g., @Mason2014 [@Mason2016]). The transient void left behind in the corona as a CME departs results in a flux dimming [@Sterling1997; @Harrison2003; @Aschwanden2009; @Reinard2009; @Dissauer2018]. Coronal dimming of the Sun due to CMEs is observed in “Sun-as-a-star" (irradiance) spectra as 1-5% flux decreases in hot emission lines like Fe IX (171 Å) and Fe XII (195 Å) on timescales of minutes to hours [@Woods2011; @Mason2014; @Mason2016]. The dimming light curve’s characteristics have been used to quantify the kinetic energy of solar CMEs. The dimming depth is proportional to the CME mass and the dimming slope is proportional to the CME speed. These empirical relationships have been validated recently by CME models [@Jin2017] and can be adapted and applied to the physical parameters of non-Sun-like stars. Solar studies have found that the emission lines that are sensitive to dimming are those around the ambient coronal temperature ($\sim$10$^6$ K for the Sun; see @Johnstone2015 for measurements and estimates for other stars). Recent modeling by M. Jin (2019, in preparation) indicates that this still holds true for M dwarfs: dimming-sensitive emission lines in M dwarfs should be those that form at the corresponding ambient coronal temperatures of $\sim$10$^7$ K. EUV spectra sampling a wide range of emission lines will be necessary to detect dimming from stars with a variety of coronal temperatures.
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
An EUV-capable observatory is required to fully characterize stars with chromospheres, transition regions, and coronae. Exploring stellar EUV emission in the time domain will allow for studies of the complex magnetic field structures of stellar atmospheres and how the structures depend on stellar parameters. The EUV also offers the clearest path toward detecting and characterizing coronal mass ejections on other stars [@Harra2016], which has important implications for exoplanet atmosphere stability and stellar rotation evolution.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study dynamics of induced gravity cosmological models with the sixth degree polynomial potentials, that have been constructed using the superpotential method. We find conditions on the potential under which exact bounce solutions exist and study the stability of these solutions.'
author:
- |
E.O. Pozdeeva[^1] and S.Yu. Vernov[^2]\
Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University,\
Leninskie Gory 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia
date:
title: |
**Induced gravity models\
with exact bounce solutions**
---
Introduction
============
The observable evolution of the Universe [@Planck2015] can be described by the spatially flat Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) background with the interval $$\label{Fried}
ds^2={}-dt^2+a^2(t)\left(dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2\right).$$ where $a(t)$ is the scale factor, and cosmological perturbations.
At the bounce point the period of universe contraction changes to a period of universe expansion. Thereby, a bounce point is characterized by two condition: at this point the Hubble parameter $H=\dot a/a$ is equal to zero and its cosmic time derivative $\dot H$ is positive. In models with standard (not phantom) scalar fields minimally coupled to gravity the Hubble parameter is monotonically decreasing function. Bounce solutions exist in models with the standard scalar field non-minimally coupled to gravity [@Boisseau:2015hqa; @Boisseau:2016pfh; @KPTVV2015; @PSTV2016].
Models with scalar fields are very useful to describe the evolution of the FLRW metric and play an essential role in modern cosmology. At the same time the number of integrable cosmological models is very limited [@Boisseau:2015hqa; @Fre; @KPTVV2013]. For a generic polynomial potential cosmological models are non-integrable, moreover sometimes it is not easy to get a particular solution in the analytic form. Using a reconstruction procedure, one can construct such a potential of the scalar field that the resulting model with non-minimal coupling has exact solutions with important physical properties [@KTV2011; @KTVV2013]. The reconstruction procedure for the models with non-minimally coupled scalar fields, proposed in [@KTVV2013], is similar to the Hamilton–Jacobi method (also known as the superpotential method or the first-order formalism) that has been applied to cosmological models with minimal coupling [@SalopekBond; @Chervon; @AKV; @Townsend; @Bazeia; @Andrianov:2007ua; @Harko:2013gha].
In this paper we consider the induced gravity model with the sixth degree polynomial potential proposed in [@KTVV2013]. This model has an exact solution that for some values of constants is a bounce solution [@Pozdeeva2014]. We find the necessary condition of the existence and study stability of this exact bounce solution.
The superpotential method and bounce solutions
==============================================
The models with the Ricci scalar multiplied by a function of the scalar field are described by the following action: $$\label{action}
S=\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}\left[U(\sigma)R-\frac12g^{\mu\nu}\sigma_{,\mu}\sigma_{,\nu}-V(\sigma)\right],$$ where $U(\sigma)$ and $V(\sigma)$ are differentiable functions of the scalar field $\sigma$.
In the spatially flat FLRW universe with the interval (\[Fried\]), the variation of action (\[action\]) gives the following equations [@KTVV2013; @Pozdeeva2014]: $$\label{Fr1}
6UH^2+6\dot U H=\frac{1}{2}\dot\sigma^2+V,$$ $$\label{Fr2}
2U\left(2\dot H+3H^2\right)+4\dot U H+2\ddot U={}-\frac{1}{2}\dot\sigma^2+V,$$ $$\label{Fieldequ}
\ddot \sigma+3H\dot\sigma+V^{\prime}=6\left(\dot H +2H^2\right)U^{\prime}\,,$$ where dots mean the time derivatives and primes indicate derivatives with respect to the scalar field $\sigma$. Combining Eqs. (\[Fr1\]) and (\[Fr2\]) we obtain $$\label{Fr21}
4U\dot H-2\dot U H+2\ddot U +\dot\sigma^2=0.$$
Let $H=Y(\sigma)$ and the function ${\cal F}(\sigma)$ is defined by $$\label{equsigma}
\dot \sigma={\cal F}(\sigma).$$ Substituting $\dot\sigma$ and $\ddot \sigma={\cal F}^{\prime}{\cal F}$ into Eq. (\[Fr21\]), one obtains the following equation [@KTVV2013]: $$\label{equa}
4UY^{\prime}+2({\cal F}^{\prime}-Y)U^{\prime}+\left(2U^{\prime\prime}+1\right){\cal F}=0.$$
The potential $V(\sigma)$ one can get from (\[Fr1\]): $$\label{potentialV}
V(\sigma)=6UY^2+6U^{\prime}{\cal F}Y-\frac{1}{2}{\cal F}^2.$$ To find the function $\sigma(t)$ and, hence, $H(t)=Y(\sigma(t))$ we integrate Eq. (\[equsigma\]).
By definition a solution of Eqs. (\[Fr1\])–(\[Fieldequ\]) is a bounce solution if there exists such a point $t_b$ that $$H(t_b)=0, \qquad \dot{H}(t_b)>0.$$
From Eq. (\[Fr1\]) we get that the necessary condition for the existence of a bounce solution is $V(\sigma_b)<0$, where $\sigma_b\equiv\sigma(t_b)$. Also, from Eq. (\[Fr21\]) it follows that a model with a constant positive $U$ has no bounce solutions.
If some model has been constructed by the superpotential method and we know the functions $Y(\sigma)$ and ${\cal F}(\sigma)$ explicitly, then the search of bounce solutions is simplified, because a value of the scalar field at a bounce point $\sigma_b$ is a solution of the equation $Y(\sigma)=0$. The condition $ \dot{H}(t_b)>0$ is equivalent to $Y'(\sigma_b)F(\sigma_b)>0$.
Induced gravity cosmological models with exact solutions
========================================================
In this paper, we study the induced gravity models with $U(\sigma)= \xi\sigma^2/2$, where $\xi$ is a positive constant. The induced gravity was first suggested by A. Sakharov [@Sakharov] and has found many applications in cosmology [@KTV2011; @ind-cosm; @CervantesCota; @ABGV].
Due to superpotential method, the induced gravity model with the sixth degree polynomial potential has been constructed in [@KTVV2013]. The coefficients of the potential of this model depend on three parameters. For some values of the parameters an exact bounce solution exists [@Pozdeeva2014]. In this paper we continue the consideration of this model and study conditions for existence of bounce solutions and their behavior.
Let $Y(\sigma)$ is a generic quadratic polynomial $Y(\sigma)=C_0+C_1\sigma+ C_2\sigma^2$, where $C_0$, $C_1$, and $C_2$ are arbitrary constants, but $C_0\neq 0$ and $C_2\neq 0$. From Eq. (\[equa\]) we obtain $${\cal F}(\sigma)=\frac{2\left[(8\xi+1)C_0-(4\xi+1)C_2\sigma^2\right]\xi\sigma}{(4\xi+1)(8\xi+1)}+ B\sigma^{-(1+2\xi)/(2\xi)},$$ where $B$ is an arbitrary constant. When $B=0$, the function ${\cal F}(\sigma)$ is a cubic polynomial and the general solution for Eq. (\[equsigma\]) can be written in terms of elementary functions [@KTVV2013]: $$\label{stc}
\sigma_\pm(t)=\pm\frac{\sqrt{(8\xi+1)C_0}}{\sqrt{(8\xi+1)C_0ce^{-\omega t}+(4\xi+1)C_2}}\,,$$ where $\omega=4\xi C_0/(4\xi+1)$, $c$ is an integration constant. The function $\sigma_\pm$ should be real at any moment of time, therefore, considering limits at $t\rightarrow\pm\infty$ we get two possibilities: $C_0>0$ and $C_2>0$, or $C_0<0$ and $C_2<0$. In both cases $c>0$. If $C_0<0$ then the Hubble parameter tends to $C_0$ at $t\rightarrow+\infty$, that contradicts to the observable expansion of the Universe at late times. By this reason we restrict ourself to the case $C_0>0$.
The potential of the model considered is the sixth degree polynomial [@KTVV2013; @Pozdeeva2014]: $$\label{V6}
\begin{split}
V(\sigma)&=\frac{(16\xi+3)(6\xi+1)\xi}{(8\xi+1)^2}C_2^2\sigma^6+\frac{6(6\xi+1)\xi}{8\xi+1}C_1C_2\sigma^5+\frac{6(6\xi+1)\xi}{4\xi+1}C_0C_1\sigma^3
+{}\\
&
{}+\left[3\xi C_1^2+\frac{2(6\xi+1)(20\xi+3)\xi}{(8\xi+1)(4\xi+1)}C_0C_2\right]\sigma^4+\frac{(16\xi+3)(6\xi+1)\xi}{(4\xi+1)^2}C_0^2\sigma^2\,.
\end{split}$$ The change of sings both $C_1$ and $\sigma$ does not change the value of the potential and the Hubble parameter. So, we can consider the solutions $\sigma_+$ only. Note that for all $t$ $\sigma_+(t)>0$. All obtained results will be correct for $\sigma_-$ and the potential with $-C_1$ as well.
Existence and stability of exact bounce solutions
=================================================
Let us find conditions that are necessary for the existence of a bounce solution. The first restriction on parameters $C_i$ we get from the equation $Y=0$ that has the following solutions: $$\label{sigmab}
\sigma_{b\pm}=\frac{-C_1\pm\sqrt{C_1^2-4C_0C_2}}{2C_2}.$$ These solutions are real solution only if $C_1^2\geqslant{}4C_0C_2$. We consider the $C_0>0$, $C_2>0$, and $\sigma_+>0$, so, the model get the bounce only at $\sigma=\sigma_{b+}>0$ and only under condition $C_1<{}- 2\sqrt{C_0C_2}$. Note that the value of the potential at the bounce point does not depend on $C_1$, because $V(\sigma_b)=-{\cal F}^2(\sigma_b)/2$.
All considering exact solutions tend to de Sitter ones. In our paper [@Pozdeeva2014] it has been found that de Sitters solutions are unstable at $$\label{condnonmon}
C_1 <{}-\frac{2(16\xi+3)}{3\sqrt{(8\xi+1)(4\xi+1)}}\sqrt{C_0C_2}.$$ The function $\frac{2(16\xi+3)}{3\sqrt{(8\xi+1)(4\xi+1)}}$ is a monotonically decreasing function that is equal to 2 at $\xi=0$. So, we come to conclusion that at any $\xi>0$ all bounce exact solutions $\sigma_+$ tend to unstable de Sitter solutions. The corresponding Hubble parameter is a monotonically increasing function after a bounce, because $\dot H(\sigma)>\sqrt{C^2_2-4C_0C_2}\dot\sigma>0$ for all $\sigma>\sigma_{b+}$. Surely, such solutions can not describe the evolution of the observable Universe, because inflation corresponds to a decreasing Hubble parameter, but these solutions are not unique bounce solutions in the model considered. Using the symmetry of the potential with respect to the change $\sigma_+$ on $\sigma_-$ and $C_1$ on $-C_1$, we come to conclusion that any exact bounce solution tends to unstable de Sitter ones.
Conclusion
==========
We have found necessary condition of existence of the exact bounce solutions that has been constructed using superpotential method. All bounce solutions that can be presented in the analytic form (\[stc\]) tends to unstable de Sitter solution.
The exact bounce solutions of the considering model are not able to describe the evolution of observable Universe. It does not mean that they are useless, because it can be possible to slightly modified these solutions to do not loss the bounce points but get more suitable behaviour after this point. It demand numerical calculations and maybe some modification of the potential. Note that exact bounce solutions obtained in the integrable cosmological model [@Boisseau:2015hqa] corresponds to monotonically increasing Hubble parameter, whereas as slightly modified models that are not integrable [@Boisseau:2016pfh; @PSTV2016] allow to get bounce solutions with non-monotonic Hubble parameter. We hope that further disquisition with numeric calculations gives bounce solutions with an interesting non-monotonic behaviour of the Hubble parameter in this model or in a slightly modified model.
This work was partially supported by grant NSh-7989.2016.2 of the President of Russian Federation. Research of E.P. is supported in part by grant MK-7835.2016.2 of the President of Russian Federation.
[72]{} P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{}, \[Planck Collaboration\], [Planck 2015 results. XX. Constraints on inflation,]{} Astron. Astrophys. [**594**]{}, A20 (2016), arXiv:1502.02114
B. Boisseau, H. Giacomini, D. Polarski, and A.A. Starobinsky, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. **1507**, 002 (2015), arXiv:1504.07927
B. Boisseau, H. Giacomini and D. Polarski, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. **1605**, 048 (2016), arXiv:1603.06648 A.Yu. Kamenshchik, E.O. Pozdeeva, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi and S.Yu. Vernov, Classical Quantum Gravity [**33**]{}, 015004 (2016).
E.O. Pozdeeva, M.A. Skugoreva, A.V. Toporensky and S.Yu. Vernov, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. **1612**, 006 (2016), arXiv:1608.08214 P. Fré, A. Sagnotti and A.S. Sorin, Nucl. Phys. B [**877**]{}, 1028 (2013), arXiv:1307.1910;\
P. Fré, A.S. Sorin and M. Trigiante, Nucl. Phys. B **881**, 91–180 (2014), arXiv:1310.5340
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, E.O. Pozdeeva, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi and S.Yu. Vernov, Class. Quant. Grav. [**31**]{}, 105003 (2014), arXiv:1312.3540;\
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, E.O. Pozdeeva, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi and S.Yu. Vernov, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. [**14**]{}, 382 (2017), arXiv:1604.01959
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi, and G. Venturi, Phys. Lett. B **702**, 191 (2011), arXiv:1104.2125
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, and S.Yu. Vernov, Phys. Rev. D **87**, 063503 (2013), arXiv:1211.6272
D.S. Salopek and J.R. Bond, Phys. Rev. D **42**, 3936–3962 (1990);\
A.G. Muslimov, Class. Quant. Grav. **7**, 231–237 (1990)
V.M. Zhuravlev, S.V. Chervon and V.K. Shchigolev, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. **87** (1998) 223;\
S.V. Chervon and I.V. Fomin, Grav. Cosmol. [**14**]{}, 163 (2008), arXiv:1704.05378;\
A.V. Yurov, V.A. Yurov, S.V. Chervon, and M. Sami, Theor. Math. Phys. **166** (2011) 259–269
I.Ya. Aref’eva, S.Yu. Vernov, and A.S. Koshelev, Theor. Math. Phys. **148**, 895–909, (2006), astro-ph/0412619;\
I.Ya. Aref’eva, A.S. Koshelev, and S.Yu. Vernov, Phys. Rev. D **72**, 064017 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0507067;\
S.Yu. Vernov, Theor. Math. Phys. [**155**]{}, 544 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0612487;\
I.Ya. Aref’eva, N.V. Bulatov, and S.Yu. Vernov, Theor. Math. Phys. **163**, 788 (2010), arXiv:0911.5105
K. Skenderis and P.K. Townsend, Phys. Rev. D **74**, 125008 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0609056;\
P.K. Townsend, Class. Quant. Grav. **25** (2008) 045017, arXiv:0710.5178
D. Bazeia, C.B. Gomes, L. Losano, R. Menezes, Phys. Lett. B **633** 415–419 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512197;\
D. Bazeia, L. Losano, R. Rosenfeld, Eur. Phys. J. C **55** (2008) 113–117, arXiv:astro-ph/0611770
A.A. Andrianov, F. Cannata, A.Yu. Kamenshchik, and D. Regoli, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. [**0802**]{}, 015 (2008), arXiv:0711.4300;\
A.Yu. Kamenshchik and S. Manti, Gen. Rel. Grav. **44**, 2205–2214 (2012), arXiv:1111.5183
T. Harko, F.S.N. Lobo, and M.K. Mak, Eur. Phys. J. C [**74**]{}, 2784 (2013), arXiv:1310.7167 E.O. Pozdeeva and S.Yu. Vernov, AIP Conf. Proc. **1606**, 48–58 (2014), arXiv:1401.7550 A.D. Sakharov, Sov. Phys. - Dokl. [**12**]{}, 1040 (1968); Gen. Rel. Grav. **32**, 365 (2000)
F. Cooper and G. Venturi, Phys. Rev. D [**24**]{}, 3338 (1981);\
A. Cerioni, F. Finelli, A. Tronconi and G. Venturi, Phys. Lett. B [**681**]{}, 383 (2009), arXiv:0906.1902;\
A. Y. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi and G. Venturi, Phys. Lett. B [**713**]{}, 358 (2012), arXiv:1204.2625
J.L. Cervantes-Cota and H. Dehnen, Nucl. Phys. B [**442**]{}, 391 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9505069;\
J.L. Cervantes-Cota, R. de Putter, and E.V. Linder, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. [**1012**]{}, 019 (2010), arXiv:1010.2237
I.Ya. Aref’eva, N.V. Bulatov, R.V. Gorbachev, S.Yu. Vernov, Class. Quant. Grav. **31**, 065007 (2014), arXiv:1206.2801
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give a complete description of all smooth projective complex varieties with $q(X)=\dim(X)$ and $P_2(X)=2$.'
author:
- Zhi Jiang
title: 'Varieties with $q(X)=\dim(X)$ and $P_2(X)=2$'
---
It has always been a goal of algebraic geometers to classify algebraic varieties and a good part of their work in the twentieth century was devoted to the classification of algebraic surfaces. Of course, one can obtain a complete description only in particular cases, such as when the numerical invariants of the surface are small.
In the past thirty years, the development of new techniques made it possible to obtain results in higher dimensions as well. The numerical (birational) invariants of a smooth projective complex variety $X$ that are commonly used are its [*irregularity*]{} $q(X):=h^1(X,\cO_X)$ and its [*plurigenera*]{} $P_m(X):=h^0(X,\omega_X^m)$.
One can quote for example a beautiful result of Kawamata ([@KA]), who proved that $X$ is birational to an abelian variety if and only if $q(X)=\dim(X)$ and the Kodaira dimension $\kappa(X)$ is 0 (this means $\max_{m>0}P_m(X)=1$). This result has been improved on by many authors, and the optimal version can be found in [@CH1] and [@jiang]: [*$X$ is birational to an abelian variety if and only if $q(X) = \dim(X)$, and $ P_2(X)=1$ or $0<P_m(X)\leq m-2$ for some $m\geq 3$.*]{}
When $q(X) = \dim(X)$, but the numerical invariants of $X$ are a little bit higher than these bounds, one can still obtain a complete birational description of $X$. Hacon and Pardini treated the case $P_3(X) = 2$ and proved that $X$ is birational to a smooth double cover of its Albanese variety $\Alb(X)$, with explicit and very specific branch locus ([@HAC1]). Hacon then gave an equally precise description in the case $P_3(X) = 3$ ($X$ is birational to a smooth bidouble cover of $\Alb(X)$) in [@Ha], and Chen and Hacon dealt with the case $P_3(X) = 4$, where the description obtained is still complete but more complicated ([@CH4]).
In this article, following the strategy of Chen and Hacon in [@CH4], but building on the results of [@jiang], we give a complete birational description of $X$ in the case $P_2(X)=2$ (Theorem \[5\]).
[**Theorem** ]{} [ *Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $P_2(X)=2$. Then $\kappa(X)=1$ and $X$ is birational to a quotient $(K\times C)/G$, where $K$ is an abelian variety, $C$ is a curve, $G$ is a finite group which acts diagonally and freely on $K\times C$, and $C\rightarrow C/G$ is branched at 2 points.*]{}
A main ingredient in the above classifications is to bound the possible Kodaira dimensions of $X$. In this direction, we have the following result (Theorem \[4.11\]).
[**Theorem** ]{} [*Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $0< P_m(X)\leq 2m-2$, for some $m\geq 4$. Then $\kappa(X)\leq 1$.*]{}
Throughout this article, we work over the field of complex numbers.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section we recall some definitions and prove preliminary results. Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety.
Albanese variety
----------------
There is an abelian variety $\Alb(X)$, called the [*Albanese variety*]{} of $X$, together with a morphism $a_X:X\to \Alb(X)$ called the [*Albanese morphism*]{} of $X$, which has a universal property for morphisms from $X$ to abelian varieties ([@Laz], §4.4). We say that $X$ has [*maximal Albanese dimension*]{} if $\dim(a_X(X))=\dim(X)$. We recall a criterion for the surjectivity of the Albanese morphism ([@jiang], Theorem 2.9).
\[J1\]Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety. If $$0<P_m(X)\leq 2m-2,$$ for some $m\geq 2$, the Albanese morphism $a_X: X\rightarrow \Alb(X)$ is surjective.
Cohomological loci
------------------
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety and let $ F $ be a coherent sheaf on $X$. The cohomological support loci of $F$ are defined as $$V_i( F)=\{P\in \Pic^0(X)\mid H^i(X, F\otimes
P)\neq 0\}.$$
Iitaka fibration
----------------
We denote by $X\dra I(X)$ the [*Iitaka fibration*]{} of $X$, where $I(X)$ has dimension $\kappa(X)$ ([@Laz], Definition 2.1.36). Given a surjective morphism $f: X\rightarrow Y$, we say that [*the Iitaka model of $X$ dominates $Y$*]{} if there exist an integer $N>0$ and an ample divisor $H$ on $Y$ such that $NK_X \succeq f^*H$.
The following proposition is [@jiang], Lemma 2.2.
\[J2\]Let $f:X\rightarrow Y$ be a surjective morphism between smooth projective varieties and assume that the Iitaka model of $X$ dominates $Y$. Fix a torsion element $Q\in \Pic^0(X)$ and an integer $m\geq 2$. Then $h^0(X, \omega_X^{m}\otimes Q\otimes f^*P)$ is constant for all $P\in \Pic^0(Y)$.
We deduce a corollary in the case where $Y$ is a curve, which we will use several times.
\[J3\]Let $f: X\rightarrow C$ be a surjective morphism between a smooth projective variety $X$ and a smooth projective curve $C$ of genus $\geq 1$ and assume that the Iitaka model of $X$ dominates $C$. If for some torsion element $Q\in \Pic^0(X)$ and some integer $m\geq 2$, we have $h^0(X,
\omega_X^m\otimes Q)\neq 0$, then $f_*(\omega_X^m\otimes Q)$ is an ample vector bundle on $C$.
Since $C$ is a smooth curve, the torsion-free sheaf $f_*(\omega_X^m\otimes Q)$ is locally free. Since $Q$ is torsion, there exists an étale cover $\pi: X^{'}\rightarrow X$ such that $\omega_X^m\otimes Q$ is a direct summand of $\pi_*\omega_{X^{'}}^m$. By [@V], Corollary 3.6, the vector bundle $(f\circ\pi)_*\omega_{X^{'}/C}^m$ is nef, hence so is $f_*(\omega_{X/C}^m\otimes
Q)$.
If $g(C)\geq 2$, $\omega_C$ is ample, hence so is $f_*(\omega_X^m\otimes Q)$.
If $g(C)=1$, we claim the following standard fact for which we could not find a reference:
- for any nef vector bundle $F$ on an elliptic curve $C$, the cohomological locus $V_1(F)$ is finite.
We prove the claim by induction on the rank of $F$. The rank-$1$ case is trivial. Let $r>0$ be an integer. Assuming $\clubsuit$ proved for all nef vector bundles of rank $\leq r$, we will prove $\clubsuit$ for any nef vector bundle $F$ of rank $r+1$.
We consider the Harder-Narasimhan filtration ([@Laz], Proposition 6.4.7) $$\begin{aligned}
0=F_n\subset F_{n-1}\subset\cdots\subset F_1\subset F_0=F,\end{aligned}$$ where $F_i$ are subbundles of $F$ with the properties that $F_i/F_{i+1}$ is a semistable bundle for each $i$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(F_{n-1}/F_n)>\cdots >\mu(F_1/F_2)>\mu(F_0/F_1).\end{aligned}$$ Since $F=F_0$ is nef, so is $F_0/F_1$, hence $\mu(F_0/F_1)\geq 0$. So $F_i/F_{i+1}$ is a semistable vector bundle with positive slope, for each $i\geq 1$. Hence, for each $i\geq 1$, $F_i/F_{i+1}$ is an ample vector bundle (see Main Claim in the proof of [@Laz], Theorem 6.4.15). Thus $F_1$ is also ample, and $V_1(F_1)$ is empty. We just need to prove that $V_1(F_0/F_1)$ is finite.
If $\mu(F_0/F_1)>0$, we again have that $F_0/F_1$ is ample and $V_1(F)$ is empty; so we are done. If $\mu(F_0/F_1)=0$, take $P\in
V_1(F_0/F_1)$. Then $h^1(C, F_0/F_1\otimes P)\neq 0$. Hence, by Serre duality, there exists a non-trivial homomorphism of bundles $$\pi_P: F_0/F_1\rightarrow P^{\vee}.$$ Since $F_0/F_1$ is semistable and $\mu(F_0/F_1)=0$, $\pi_P$ is surjective. We have an exact sequence of vector bundles: $$0\rightarrow G\rightarrow F_0/F_1\rightarrow P^{\vee}\rightarrow 0.$$ The rank of $G$ is $\leq r$. Since $F_0/F_1$ is semistable and $\mu(G)=\mu(F_0/F_1)=0$, $G$ is also semistable. Hence $G$ is a nef vector bundle (by the Main Claim quoted above) of rank $\leq r$ and, by induction, $V_1(G)$ is finite. We conclude that $V_1(F)=V_1(G)\cup \{P\}$ is finite. We have finished the proof of the Claim.
Let the line bundle $Q$ and the integer $m$ be as in the assumptions. By Proposition \[J2\], for $m\geq 2$, $h^0(X, \omega_X^m\otimes Q\otimes
f^*P)=h^0(C, f_*(\omega_X^m\otimes Q)\otimes P)$ is constant for all $P\in\Pic^0(C)$, hence $h^1(C, f_*(\omega_X^m\otimes Q)\otimes P)$ is also constant for all $P\in\Pic^0(C)$. By the claim $\clubsuit$, $h^1(C, f_*(\omega_X^m\otimes Q)\otimes P)=0$ for all $P\in
\Pic^0(C)$. Hence $f_*(\omega_X^m\otimes Q)$ is an I.T. vector bundle of index 0, hence is ample ([@D], Corollary 3.2).
Iitaka fibration of a variety of maximal Albanese dimension {#s14}
-----------------------------------------------------------
We assume in this section that $X$ has maximal Albanese dimension and we consider a model $f: X\rightarrow Y$ of the Iitaka fibration of $X$, where $ Y$ is a smooth projective variety. We have the commutative diagram: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d14}
\xymatrix{ X\ar[d]^f\ar[r]^(.4){a_X}&\Alb(X)\ar[d]^{f_*}\\
Y\ar[r]^(.4){a_Y}&\Alb(Y).}\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition 2.1 of [@HAC1], $a_Y$ is generically finite, $f_*$ is an algebraic fiber space, $\Ker ( f_*)$ is an abelian variety denoted by $K$, and a general fiber of $f$ is birational to an abelian variety $\widetilde{K}$ isogenous to $K$. Let $G$ be the kernel of the group morphism $$\Pic^0(X)=\Pic^0(\Alb(X))\rightarrow\Pic^0(K)\rightarrow
\Pic^0(\tilde{K}).$$ Then $f^*\Pic^0(Y)$ is contained in $G$, and $\overline{G}=G/f^*\Pic^0(Y)$ is a finite group consisting of elements $\chi_1, \ldots, \chi_r$. Let $P_{\chi_1},
\ldots, P_{\chi_r}\in G$ be torsion line bundles representing lifts of the elements of $\overline{G}$, so that $$G=\bigsqcup_{i=1}^r(P_{\chi_i}+f^*\Pic^0(Y)).$$ There is an easy observation:
\[5.11\] Under the above assumptions and notation, let moreover $P\in \Pic^0(X)$. If $H^0(X, \omega_X^m\otimes P)\neq 0$ for some $m>0$, we have $P\in G$.
If $P\notin G$, since a general fiber $F$ of $f$ is birational to the abelian variety $\widetilde{K}$ and $P|_{\widetilde{K}}$ is non-trivial, any section of $\omega_X^m\otimes P$ vanishes on $F$. Hence $H^0(X, \omega_X^m\otimes
P)=0$, which is a contradiction.
Chen and Hacon made several useful observations about the cohomological locus $V_0(\omega_X)$ ([@CH2], Lemma 2.2) which we summarize in the following proposition.
\[ch1\]Under the above assumptions and notation, we have the following.
- $V_0(\omega_X)\subset G.$
- Denote by $V_0(\omega_X, \chi_i)$ the union of irreducible components of $V_0(\omega_X)$ contained in $P_{\chi_i}+f^*\Pic^0(Y)$. Then for each $i$, $V_0(\omega_X,
\chi_i)$ is not empty.
- If $P_{\chi_i}\notin f^*\Pic^0(Y)$, the dimension of $V_0(\omega_X, \chi_i)$ is positive.
Since every component of $V_0(\omega_X)$ is a translate by a torsion point of an abelian subvariety of $\Pic^0(X)$ ([@GL1], [@GL2], [@S]), we can write by item (1): $$V_0(\omega_X)=\bigcup_{1\leq i\leq r}\bigcup_s(P_{\chi_{i,s}}+T_{\chi_{i,s}})\subset
G,$$ where $P_{\chi_{i,s}}\in P_{\chi_i}+f^*\Pic^0(Y)$ is a torsion point and $T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ is an abelian subvariety of $f^*\Pic^0(Y)$.
\[5de\]We call $T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ a [*maximal component*]{} of $V_0(\omega_X)$ if $T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ is maximal for the inclusion among all $T_{\chi_{j,t}}$.
By [@CH2], Theorem 2.3, note that necessarily, if $\kappa(X)>0$, we have $\dim (T_{\chi_{i,s}})\geq 1$.
We conclude this section with a technical result on the structure of the locus $V_0(\omega_X)$ when moreover $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $\kappa(X)>0$.
\[5.4\]Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with maximal Albanese dimension, such that $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $\kappa(X)>0$. Let $T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ be a maximal component of $V_0(\omega_X)$. Then, for any $(j,t)$ such that $\dim
(T_{\chi_{j,t}})\geq 1$, we have $\dim(T_{\chi_{i,s}}\cap
T_{\chi_{j,t}})\geq 1$.
Let $\widehat{T}_{\chi_{i,s}}$ and $\widehat{T}_{\chi_{j,t}}$ be the dual of $T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ and $T_{\chi_{j,t}}$ respectively. Let $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ be the natural morphisms of abelian varieties $\Alb(X)\rightarrow
\widehat{T}_{\chi_{i,s}}$ and $\Alb(X)\rightarrow
\widehat{T}_{\chi_{j,t}}$. Take an étale cover $t:
\widetilde{X}\rightarrow X$ which is induced by an étale cover of $\Alb(X)$ such that $t^*P_{\chi_{i,s}}$ and $t^*P_{\chi_{j,t}}$ are trivial. Let $f_1$ and $f_2$ be the compositions of morphisms $\pi_1\circ a_X\circ t$ and $\pi_2\circ a_X\circ t$, respectively. We then take the Stein factorizations of $f_1$ and $f_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{\widetilde{X}\ar[d]^{g_1}\ar[dr]^{f_1}\\
X_1\ar[r]^(.4){h_1}& \widehat{T}_{\chi_{i,s}}}
\xymatrix{&\widetilde{X}\ar[d]^{g_2}\ar[dr]^{f_2}\\
\qquad\qquad& X_2\ar[r]^(.4){h_2}& \widehat{T}_{\chi_{j,t}}}\end{aligned}$$ After modifications, we can assume that $X_1$ and $X_2$ are smooth. We claim the following:
- $h^0(X_1,
\omega_{X_1}\otimes h_1^*P)>0$ for all $P\in T_{\chi_{i,s}}$, and similarly $h^0(X_2, \omega_{X_2}\otimes h_2^*Q)>0$ for all $Q\in
T_{\chi_{j,t}}$.
The argument to prove the claim is due to Chen and Debarre. Let $c$ be the codimension of $T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ in $\Pic^0(X)$. By the proof of Theorem 3 of [@EL], $P_{\chi_{i,s}}+T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ is an irreducible component of $V_c(\omega_X)$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
h^c(\widetilde{X}, \omega_{\widetilde{X}}\otimes t^*P)\geq h^c(X,
\omega_X\otimes P\otimes P_{\chi_{i, s}})>0\end{aligned}$$ for any $P\in T_{\chi_{i,s}}$.
Again by the proof of Theorem 3 in [@EL], the dimension of a general fiber of $g_1$ is also $c$. Since $g_1$ is an algebraic fiber space, we have $R^cg_{1*}\omega_{\widetilde{X}}=\omega_{X_1}$ ([@K3], Proposition 7.6), and $$R^cf_{1*}\omega_{\widetilde{X}}=h_{1*}(R^cg_{1*}\omega_{\widetilde{X}})=h_{1*}\omega_{X_1}$$ ([@K4], Theorem 3.4). Moreover, the sheaves $R^kf_{1*}\omega_{\widetilde{X}}$, satisfy the generic vanishing theorem ([@HAC3], Corollary 4.2), hence $V_j(R^kf_{1*}\omega_{\widetilde{X}})\neq T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ for any $j>0$. Pick $P\in T_{\chi_{i,s}}-\bigcup_{j>0,
k}V_j(R^kf_{1*}\omega_{\widetilde{X}})$, so that $$H^j(\widehat{T}_{\chi_i,s}, R^kf_{1*}\omega_{\widetilde{X}}\otimes P)=0$$ for all $j>0$ and all $k$. By the Leray spectral sequence, we have $$0\neq h^c(\widetilde{X}, \omega_{\widetilde{X}}\otimes
f_1^*P) = h^0(\widehat{T}_{\chi_{i,s}},
R^cf_{1*}\omega_{\widetilde{X}}\otimes
P) = h^0(\widehat{T}_{\chi_{i,s}},
h_{1*}\omega_{\widetilde{X}}\otimes P).$$ Hence we conclude the claim by semicontinuity.
If $\dim(T_{\chi_{i,s}}\cap T_{\chi_{j,t}})=0$, the morphism $$\Alb(X)\xrightarrow{(\pi_1, \pi_2)}\widehat{T}_{\chi_{i,s}}\times \widehat{T}_{\chi_{j,t}}$$ is surjective. Now we consider the following diagram $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
\widetilde{X}\ar[r]^{t}\ar[d]^{g_1}&X\ar[r]^-{a_X}\ar[dr]&\Alb(X)\ar[d]^{\pi_1}\\
X_1\ar[rr]^-{h_1}&&\widehat{T}_{\chi_{i,s}}.}\end{aligned}$$ From the proof of Theorem 3 in [@EL], we know that the fibers of $g_1$ fill up the fibers of $\pi_1$. Hence we have a surjective morphism $\widetilde{X}\xrightarrow{(g_1,g_2)}X_1\times X_2$. Since $a_X\circ
t: \widetilde{X}\rightarrow \Alb(X)$ and $(h_{1}, h_{2}):
X_{1}\times X_{2}\rightarrow \widehat{T}_{\chi_{i,s}}\times
\widehat{T}_{\chi_{j,t}}$ are generically finite and surjective, by the proof of Lemma 3.1 in [@CH1], $K_{\widetilde{X}/X_{1}\times
X_{2}}$ is effective. Therefore, it follows from the claim that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d16}h^0(\widetilde{X}, \omega_{\widetilde{X}}\otimes
t^*P\otimes t^*Q)>0\end{aligned}$$ for all $P\in T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ and $Q\in T_{\chi_{j,t}}$. Since $t: \widetilde{X}\rightarrow X$ is birationally equivalent to an étale cover of $X$ induced by an étale cover of $\Alb(X)$, $t_*\cO_{\widetilde{X}}=\bigoplus_\alpha P_{\alpha}$, where $P_\alpha$ is a torsion line bundle on $X$ for every $\alpha$. Let $$T=T_{\chi_{i,s}}+T_{\chi_{j,t}}$$ be the abelian variety generated by $T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ and $T_{\chi_{j,t}}$. Then (\[d15\]) implies that there exists an $\alpha$ such that $$P_{\alpha}+T \subset V_0(\omega_X).$$ Since $\dim (T_{\chi_{j,t}})\geq 1$ and $\dim(T_{\chi_{i,s}}\cap
T_{\chi_{j,t}})=0$, we obtain $T_{\chi_{i, s}}\subsetneq T$, contradicting the assumption that $T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ is a maximal component of $V_0(\omega_X)$. This finishes the proof of the proposition.
Varieties with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $0<P_m(X)\leq 2m-2$
======================================================
In this section, we prove that the Iitaka model of a smooth projective variety $X$ with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $0<P_m(X)\leq 2m-2$ for some $m\geq 2$ is birational to an abelian variety. We begin with a useful easy lemma ([@HAC1]).
\[J4\]Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety, let $L$ and $M$ be line bundles on $X$, and let $T\subset \Pic^0(X)$ be an irreducible subvariety of dimension $t$. If for some positive integers $a$ and $b$ and all $P\in T$, we have $h^0(X, L\otimes
P)\geq a$ and $h^0(X, M\otimes P^{-1})\geq b$, then $h^0(X, L\otimes
M)\geq a+b+t-1.$
Our next result is a consequence of the proof of Proposition 3.6 and Proposition 3.7 in [@CH4], although not explicitly stated there.
\[5.1\]Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $0<P_m(X)\leq 2m-2$ for some $m\geq 2$. Let $f: X\rightarrow Y$ be an algebraic fiber space onto a smooth projective variety $Y$, which is birationally equivalent to the Iitaka fibration of $X$. Then $Y$ is birational to an abelian variety.
Since we have $0<P_m(X)\leq 2m-2$ for some $m\geq 2$, $a_X$ is surjective by Theorem \[J1\]. Since $q(X)=\dim (X)$, we saw in §\[s14\] that $a_X$ and $a_Y$ are both surjective and generically finite. We then use diagram (\[d14\]) and the notation of §\[s14\].
If $\kappa(X)=1$, then $Y$ is an elliptic curve, because $a_Y$ is surjective.
If $\kappa(X)\geq 2$, we use the same argument as in the proof of [@CH4], Proposition 3.6. We claim that
- $V_0(\omega_X)\cap f^*\Pic^0(Y)=\{\cO_X\}.$
Let $\delta$ be the maximal dimension of a component of $V_0(\omega_X)\cap f^*\Pic^0(Y)$.
If $\delta=0$, $V_0(\omega_X)\cap f^*\Pic^0(Y)=\{\cO_X\}$ by [@CH2], Proposition 1.3.3.
If $\delta\geq 2$, by Lemma \[J4\], there exists $P_0\in
f^*\Pic^0(Y)$ such that $$h^0(X, \omega_X^{2}\otimes P_0)\geq
1+1+2-1=3.$$ By Proposition \[J2\], $h^0(X, \omega_X^{2}\otimes
P)=h^0(X, \omega_X^{2}\otimes P_0)\geq 3$ for any $P\in
f^*\Pic^0(Y)$. We iterate this process and get $P_m(X)\geq 2m-1$, which is a contradiction.
If $\delta=1$, there is a $1$-dimensional component $T$ of $
V_0(\omega_X)\cap f^*\Pic^0(Y)$. Let $E=\Pic^0(T)$ and let $g:
X\rightarrow E$ be the induced surjective morphism. By Corollary 2.11 and Lemma 2.13 in [@CH4], for some torsion element $P\in T$, there exist a line bundle $L$ of degree $1$ on $E$ and an inclusion $g^*L\hookrightarrow \omega_X\otimes P$, and $P|_F=\cO_F$, where $F$ is a general fiber of $g$. Since $\kappa(X)\geq 2$, we have $\kappa(F)\geq 1$. Again by Theorem 3.2 in [@CH1], $\rank(g_*(\omega_X^{ 2}\otimes P^{2}))=P_2(F)\geq 2$. Consider the exact sequence of sheaves on $E$: $$0\rightarrow L^{2}\rightarrow g_*(\omega_X^{
2}\otimes P^{2})\rightarrow \cQ\rightarrow 0,$$ where $\rank(\cQ)\geq 1$. Since $g: X\rightarrow C$ is dominated by $f: X\rightarrow Y$, the Iitaka model of $X$ (i.e. Y) dominates $E$, hence $ g_*(\omega_X^{2}\otimes P^{2})$ is ample by Corollary \[J3\], so is $\cQ$ and $h^0(X, \cQ)\geq 1$. Hence $h^0(X,
\omega_X^{2}\otimes P^{2})\geq 3$.
For any $k\geq 3$, we apply Lemma \[5.10\] (to be proved below) to get $$\begin{aligned}
h^0(X, \omega_X^{k}\otimes P^{
k})\geq h^0(X, \omega_X^{k-1}\otimes P^{k-1})+2.\end{aligned}$$
By induction, we have $h^0(X, \omega_X^{ m}\otimes P^{m})\geq 2m-1$ for all $m\geq 2$. Since $P\in T\subset f^*\Pic^0(Y)$, we have, by Proposition \[J2\], $P_m(X)=h^0(X, \omega_X^{ m}\otimes P^{m})\geq
2m-1$, which is a contradiction. We have proved claim $(\dag)$.
Since $X$ and $Y$ are of maximal Albanese dimension, $K_{X/Y}$ is effective (see the proof of Lemma 3.1 in [@CH1]). This implies $$f^*V_0(\omega_Y)\subset V_0(\omega_X)\cap f^*\Pic^0(Y)=\{\cO_X\},$$ and hence $\kappa(Y)=0$ by Theorem 1 in [@CH2]. By Kawamata’s Theorem ([@KA]), $a_Y$ is birational.
We still need to prove the following result used in the proof of the proposition. It is an analogue of Corollary 3.2 in [@CH4].
\[5.10\]Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of maximal Albanese dimension with $\kappa(X)\geq 2$. Suppose that there exist a surjective morphism $g: X\rightarrow C$ onto an elliptic curve $C$ and an ample line bundle $L$ on $C$ with an inclusion $g^*L\hookrightarrow
\omega_X\otimes P_{2}$ for some torsion line bundle $P_2\in
\Pic^0(X)$. Then we have $$h^0(X, \omega_X^m\otimes P_1\otimes P_2)\geq h^0(X,
\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_1)+2,$$ for all torsion line bundles $P_1\in
V_0(\omega_X)$ and all $m\geq 3$.
From the inclusion, we obtain $H^0(X, \omega_X\otimes P_2)\neq 0$, and by items (1) and (2) in Proposition \[ch1\], we conclude that $P_2\in V_0(\omega_X, \chi_i)$ for some $i$ and we get an exact sequence of sheaves on $C$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d15}
0\rightarrow g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{1})\otimes
L\hookrightarrow g_*(\omega_X^m\otimes P_1\otimes P_2)\rightarrow
\cQ\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ By item (2) in Proposition \[ch1\], we have $h^0(X, \omega_X\otimes
P_2^{\vee}\otimes P)\neq 0$ for some $P\in f^*\Pic^0(Y)$ such that $P_2^{\vee}\otimes P\in V_0(\omega_X, -\chi_i)$. Hence we have an inclusion $g^*L\hookrightarrow \omega_X^2\otimes P$. Moreover, since $P_2$ is a torsion line bundle and $V_0(\omega_X)$ is a subtorus of $\Pic^0(X)$ translated by a torsion point, we may assume that $P\in f^*\Pic^0(Y)$ is also a torsion line bundle. Therefore the Iitaka model of $X$ dominates $C$. Thus, by Corollary \[J3\], both $g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{1})$ and $g_*(\omega_X^m\otimes
P_1\otimes P_2)$ are ample, and so is $\cQ$. By Serre duality, for any ample vector bundle $V$ on $C$, we have $H^1(C, V)=0$. Hence, Riemann-Roch gives $$h^0(X, \omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_1)=h^0(C, g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes
P_{1}))=\deg(g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{1})),$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
h^0(
\omega_X^m\otimes P_1\otimes P_2)&=&h^0(C, g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes
P_1)\otimes L)+h^0(C, \cQ).\end{aligned}$$ Let $F$ be a connected component of a general fiber of $g$. Since $\kappa(X)\geq 2$, we have $\kappa(F)\geq 1$ by the easy addition formula (Corollary 1.7 in [@Mo]). Hence we have $P_2(F)\geq 2$ by Theorem 3.2 in [@CH1] (see also Remark \[5.8\]). Since $P_1\in
V_0(\omega_X)$, we have $h^0(X, \omega_X^m\otimes P_1\otimes
P_2)\geq h^0(X, \omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_2)> 0.$ Hence we have $h^0(F,\omega_F^m\otimes P_1\otimes P_2)\neq 0$. Then, by Lemma \[5.11\] and Proposition \[ch1\], there exists $P'\in \Pic^0(F)$ which is pulled back by the Iitaka fibration of $F$ such that $(P_1\otimes P_2)|_F\otimes P'\in V_0(\omega_F)$. On the other hand, since $P_1\otimes P_2$ is torsion, we have $h^0(F, \omega_F^m\otimes P_1\otimes
P_2)=h^0(F, \omega_F^m\otimes P_1\otimes P_2\otimes P^{'})$ by Proposition \[J2\]. Therefore, we conclude $$h^0(F,
\omega_F^m\otimes P_1\otimes P_2) = h^0(F, \omega_F^m\otimes
P_1\otimes P_2\otimes P^{'}) \geq P_{m-1}(F) \geq
2,$$ where the last inequality holds since $m\geq 3$. Hence, $$\rank(g_*(\omega_X^m\otimes P_1\otimes P_2))=h^0(F,
\omega_F^m\otimes P_1\otimes P_2)\geq 2.$$
Since $P_1\in V_0(\omega_X)$ by assumption, we have $\rank(g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{1}))\geq 1$.
If $\rank(g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{1}))\geq 2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
h^0(C, g_*(\omega_X^m\otimes P_1\otimes P_2))&\geq&
h^0(C, g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{1})\otimes
L)\\&\geq&\deg(g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes
P_{1}))+\rank(g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{1}))\\&\geq &h^0(X,
\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{1})+2. \end{aligned}$$
If $\rank(g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{1}))=1$, $\cQ$ has rank $\geq 1$. Since $\cQ$ is ample, $h^0(C, \cQ)\geq 1$. We also have $$\begin{aligned}
h^0(X, \omega_X^m\otimes P_1\otimes P_2)&=& h^0(C,
g_*(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{1})\otimes L)+h^0(C, \cQ)\\&\geq &
h^0(X, \omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_1)+ \rank(\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes
P_1)+1 \\&=& h^0(X, \omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_1)+2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the lemma is proved.
Under the hypotheses of Proposition \[5.1\], it turns out that when $m\ge 4$, we can bound the Kodaira dimension of $X$ by 1 (the case $m=2$ is the object of the next section; when $m=3$, the bound $\kappa(X)\le 2$ was obtained in [@CH4] and there are examples when there is equality).
\[4.11\]Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $0< P_m(X)\leq 2m-2$ for some $m\geq 4$. Then $\kappa(X)\leq 1$.
By Theorem \[J1\], the Albanese morphism $a_X: X\rightarrow \Alb(X)$ is surjective and hence generically finite. We then use diagram (\[d14\]). By Proposition \[5.1\], we may assume that $Y$, the image of the Iitaka fibration of $X$, is an abelian variety.
We assume $\kappa(X)\geq 2$ and under this assumption we will deduce a contradiction.
Let $T_{\chi_{1,s}}$ be a maximal component of $V_0(\omega_X)$ in the sense of Definition \[5de\]. If $\dim (T_{\chi_{1,s}})=1$, by Proposition \[5.4\], we conclude that $T_{\chi_{i,t}}\subset
T_{\chi_{1,s}}$ for any $(i,t)$ such that $\dim (T_{\chi_{i,t}})>0$. By Theorem 2.3 in [@CH2], $\Pic^0(Y)=T_{\chi_{1,s}}$. Then $\dim
(Y)=\dim ( \Pic^0(Y))=1$, which contradicts our assumption that $\kappa(X)\geq 2$. Hence we get $\dim (T_{\chi_{1,s}})\geq 2$.
We then iterate Lemma \[J4\] to get $$h^0(X, \omega_X^{m-i}\otimes P_{\chi_{1,s}}^{m-i})
\geq (m-i-1)\dim (T_{\chi_{1,s}})+1.$$ By Proposition \[J2\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d18}h^0(X, \omega_X^{m-i}\otimes P_{\chi_{1,s}}^{m-i}\otimes f^*P)
\geq (m-i-1)\dim (T_{\chi_{1,s}})+1,\end{aligned}$$ for all $0\leq i\leq m-2$ and all $P\in\Pic^0(Y)$. According to item (2) in Proposition \[ch1\], $V_0(\omega_X, -(m-1)\chi_1)$ is not empty, namely there exists $P_0\in \Pic^0(Y)$ such that $h^0(X, \omega_X\otimes
P_{\chi_{1,s}}^{-(m-1)}\otimes P_0)>0$. Thus $h^0(X, \omega_X^m\otimes P_0)\geq h^0(X, \omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{\chi_{1,s}}^{m-1})$. Again by Proposition \[J2\], we have $$P_m(X)=h^0(X, \omega_X^m\otimes P_0)\geq h^0(X, \omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{\chi_{1,s}}^{m-1}).$$ We also have $$2m-2\geq P_m(X) \ge h^0(X,
\omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{\chi_{1,s}}^{m-1}) \geq (m-2)\dim
(T_{\chi_{1,s}})+1,$$ where the last inequality holds by taking $i=1$ in (\[d18\]). Hence we deduce that $\dim (T_{\chi_{1,s}})=2$.
[**Claim 1:**]{} $(m-1)\chi_1=0$.
If $(m-1)\chi_1\neq 0$, by item (3) in Proposition \[ch1\], there exists a torsion point $P_{-(m-1)\chi_{1, t}}\in \Pic^0(X)$ such that $P_{-(m-1)\chi_{1, t}}+T_{-(m-1)\chi_{1, t}}\subset V_0(\omega_X)$ with $\dim (T_{-(m-1)\chi_{1, t}})\geq 1$.
If $\dim (T_{-(m-1)\chi_{1, t}})\geq 2$, by (\[d18\]) (let $i=1$) and Lemma \[J4\], we get $P_m(X)\geq 2m-3+1+2-1=2m-1$, which is a contradiction.
Hence $\dim (T_{-(m-1)\chi_{1, t}})=1$. Let $C=\widehat{T}_{-(m-1)\chi_{1, t}}$ and let $\pi: \Alb(X)\rightarrow
C$ be the dual of the inclusion $T_{-(m-1)\chi_{1, t}}\hookrightarrow\Pic^0(X)$. Then we set $f=\pi\circ a_X$ as in the following commutative diagram: $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
X\ar[d]^{a_X}\ar[dr]^{f}\\
\Alb(X)\ar[r]^{\pi}&C.}\end{aligned}$$ Since we assume $\kappa(X)\geq 2$ and $\dim (T_{-(m-1)\chi_{1, t}})=1$, we have $V_0(\omega_X)\neq \Pic^0(X)$, therefore $\chi(\omega_X)=0$. By Lemma 2.10 and Corollary 2.11 in [@CH4], there exists an ample line bundle $L$ on $C$ such that $f^*L\hookrightarrow
\omega_X\otimes P_{-(m-1)\chi_{1, t}}$. We then apply Lemma \[5.10\] to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
P_m(X)&=&h^0(X, \omega_X^m\otimes P_{\chi_{1,s}}^{m-1}\otimes P_{-(m-1)\chi_{1, t}})\\
&\geq& h^0(X, \omega_X^{(m-1)}\otimes
P_{\chi_{1,s}}^{m-1})+2\\&\geq& 2m-1,\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality holds by (\[d18\]). This is a contradiction. We have proved Claim 1.
Let $\overline{G}$ be defined as in the beginning of §\[s14\].
[**Claim 2:**]{} $\overline{G}\simeq \mathbb{Z}/2$, namely $\overline{G}$ contains only one nonzero element $\chi_1$. In particular, by Claim 1, $m$ is an odd number.
Assuming the claim is not true, there exists $0\neq \chi_2\in
\overline{G}$ such that $(m-2)\chi_1+\chi_2\neq 0$. According to item (3) in Proposition \[ch1\], there exists $P_{\chi_{2,t}}+T_{\chi_{2,t}}\subset
V_0(\omega_X, \chi_2)$ with $\dim (T_{\chi_{2,t}})\geq 1$. Then as in the proof of Claim 1, by Lemma \[J4\] and Lemma \[5.10\], we conclude $$h^0(X, \omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{\chi_{1,s}}^{m-2}\otimes P_{\chi_{2,t}}) \ge h^0(X, \omega_X^{m-2}\otimes P_{\chi_{1,s}}^{m-2})+2 \ge 2m-3,$$ where the last inequality holds because of (\[d18\]).
Since $(m-2)\chi_1+\chi_2\neq 0$, we may repeat the above process to get $$P_m(X) \geq h^0(X, \omega_X^{m-1}\otimes P_{\chi_{1,s}}^{m-2}\otimes P_{\chi_{2,t}})+2\\
\geq 2m-1,$$ which is a contradiction. Hence we have proved Claim 2.\
As $m\geq 4$ is odd, $m-2\geq 3$ and $(m-3)\chi_{1}=0$. By (\[d18\]) (with $i=3$), $P_{m-3}(X)\geq 2m-7$. Since $\kappa(X)\geq 2$, by Proposition \[J2\] and Lemma \[J4\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
2m-2 \geq P_{m}(X) &\geq &P_{m-3}(X)+P_3(X)+\kappa(X)-1\\&\geq
&2m-6+P_3(X).\end{aligned}$$ Hence $P_3(X)\leq 4$. According to Chen and Hacon’s classification of these varieties ([@CH4], see Theorems 1.1 and 1.2) and Claim 2, the only possibility is that $X$ is a double cover of its Albanese variety and $\kappa(X)=2$, as described in Example 2 in [@CH4]. Namely, there exists an algebraic fiber space $$\begin{aligned}
q: \Alb(X)\rightarrow S\end{aligned}$$ from an abelian variety of dimension $\geq 3$ to an abelian surface, and $a_X: X\rightarrow \Alb(X)$ is birational to a double cover of $\Alb(X)$ such that $a_{X*}\cO_X=\cO_{\Alb(X)}\oplus (q^*L\otimes P)^{\vee}$, where $L$ is an ample divisor of $S$ with $h^0(S, L)=1$ and $P\in \Pic^0(A)\moins\Pic^0(S)$ and $2P\in\Pic^0(S)$. However, for such a variety, we have the inclusion of sheaves $a_X^*(q^*L\otimes
P)\hookrightarrow \omega_X$ (see the proof of Claim 4.6 in [@CH4]). Thus, as $m\geq 4$ is odd, $$\begin{aligned}
P_m(X)&=&h^0(X, \omega_X^m)\\
&\geq& h^0(\Alb(X), q^*L^{m}\otimes P^m\otimes a_{X*}\cO_X)\\
&=&h^0(\Alb(X), q^*L^{m-1}\otimes P^{m-1})\\&=&
(m-1)^2 > 2m-2,\end{aligned}$$ which is a contradiction. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[4.11\].
Varieties with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $P_2(X)=2$
=============================================
In this section, we describe explicitly all smooth projective varieties $X$ with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $P_2(X)=2$. We first show that the Iitaka model of $X$ is an elliptic curve. In particular, $\kappa(X)=1$.
\[5.5\]Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $P_2(X)=2$. Assume that $f: X\rightarrow Y$ is a birational model of the Iitaka fibration of $X$ and $Y$ is a smooth projective variety. Then $Y$ is an elliptic curve.
We use diagram (\[d14\]). By Theorem \[J1\], $a_X$ is surjective and hence generically finite. By Proposition \[5.1\], we may assume that $a_Y: Y\rightarrow \Alb(Y)$ is an isomorphism.
If $\dim (Y)=1$, $Y$ is an elliptic curve and we are done. We now assume that $\dim (Y)\geq 2$ and deduce a contradiction.
Let $T_{\chi_{i,s}}$ be a maximal component of $V_0(\omega_X)$. By the claim $(\dag)$ in the proof of Proposition \[5.1\], we know that $P_{\chi_i}\notin f^*\Pic^0(Y)$. By item (3) of Proposition \[ch1\], there exist a torsion line bundle $P_{-\chi_{i,t}}\in
P_{\chi_i}^{\vee}+f^*\Pic^0(Y)$ and a positive-dimensional abelian subvariety $T_{-\chi_{i,t}}\subset f^*\Pic^0(Y)$ such that $P_{-\chi_{i,t}}+T_{-\chi_{i,t}}$ is a connected component of $V_0(\omega_X)$. Let $T$ be the neutral component of $T_{\chi_{i,s}}\cap T_{-\chi_{i,t}}$. By Proposition \[5.4\], $\dim (T)\geq 1$.
If $\dim (T)\geq 2$, then by Lemma \[J4\], $$h^0(X,
\omega_X^{2}\otimes P\otimes Q)\geq 1+1+2-1=3,$$ for all $P\in
P_{\chi_{i,s}}+T$ and all $Q\in P_{-\chi_{i,t}}+T$. Since $P_{\chi_{i,s}}\otimes P_{-\chi_{i,t}}\in f^*\Pic^0(Y)$, we obtain, by Proposition \[J2\], $P_2(X)\geq 3$, which is a contradiction.
Hence $T$ is an elliptic curve and we denote by $\widehat{T}$ its dual. There exists a projection $\pi: Y\rightarrow \widehat{T}$. We then consider the commutative diagram: $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
X\ar[d]^f\ar[dr]^{\bar{f}}\\
Y\ar[r]^{\pi}&\widehat{T} }\end{aligned}$$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
F_1&=&\bar{f}_*(\omega_X\otimes
P_{\chi_{i,s}}),\\ F_2&=&\bar{f}_*(\omega_X\otimes P_{-\chi_{i,t}}),
\\F_3&=&\bar{f}_*(\omega_X^2\otimes P_{\chi_{i,s}}\otimes
P_{-\chi_{i,t}}).\end{aligned}$$ These are vector bundles on the elliptic curve $\widehat{T}$ and by Corollary 3.6 in [@V] and Corollary \[J3\], $F_1$ and $F_2$ are nef and $F_3$ is ample.xxx
Since $P_{\chi_{i,s}}\otimes P_{-\chi_{i,t}}\in f^*\Pic^0(Y)$ and $f: X\rightarrow Y$ is a model of the Iitaka fibration of $X$, we have $$2=P_2(X)=h^0(X, \omega_X^{2}\otimes P_{\chi_{i,s}}\otimes
P_{-\chi_{i,t}})=h^0(\widehat{T}, F_3).$$
There exists a natural morphism $$F_1\otimes F_2\xrightarrow{\upsilon} F_3,$$ corresponding to the multiplication of sections. Let $R_1$, $R_2$, and $R_3$ be the respective ranks of $F_1$, $F_2$, and $F_3$. I claim:
- $R_3>\min\{R_1,
R_2\}$.
Indeed if $R_1\geq 2$ and $R_2\geq 2$, then by Lemma \[J4\], $R_3\geq R_1+R_2-1$. If either $R_1$ or $R_2$ is $1$, we just need to prove $R_3\geq 2$. Let $f|_{X_t}: X_t\rightarrow Y_t$ be the restriction of $f$ to a general fiber of $\bar{f}$. Since $f:
X\rightarrow Y$ is a model of the Iitaka fibration of $X$, fixing an ample divisor $H$ on $Y$, there exists an integer $N>0$ such that $NK_X-H$ is effective. Hence $(NK_X-H)|_{X_t}\succeq 0$, therefore the Iitaka model of $X_t$ dominates $Y_t$. Indeed, $f|_{X_t}: X_t\rightarrow Y_t$ is a birational model of the Iitaka fibration of $X_t$ since a general fiber of $f|_{X_t}$ is isomorphic to a general fiber of $f$ which is birational to an abelian variety. As we have assumed $\dim (Y)\geq 2$, we have $\dim (Y_t)\geq 1$. Thus $X_t$ is of maximal Albanese dimension and $\kappa(X_t)\geq 1$, hence $P_2(X_t)\geq 2$ ([@CH1], Theorem 3.2). Since $(P_{\chi_{i,s}}\otimes P_{-\chi_{i,t}})|_{X_t}$ is pulled back from $Y_t$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
R_3=h^0(X_t, (\omega_X^2\otimes P_{\chi_{i,s}}\otimes
P_{-\chi_{i,t}})|_{X_t})=P_2(X_t)\geq 2,\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality holds again because of Proposition \[J2\]. This proves the claim $\spadesuit$.
Consider the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $F_1$ (resp. $F_2$) and let $G_1$ (resp. $G_2$) be the unique maximal subbundle of $F_1$ (resp. $F_2$) of largest slope. By definition, $G_1$ and $G_2$ are semistable. Let $r_1$ and $r_2 $ be their respective ranks. I claim:
- $r_1>0$ and $r_2>0$ and therefore $G_1$ and $G_2$ are ample.
If $\deg(G_1)=0$, we conclude from the definition of $G_1$ that $0=\mu(G_1)\geq \mu(F_1)$. Since $F_1$ is nef, $\deg(F)=\mu(F)=0$, hence $V_0(F_1)=V_1(F_1)$. By the generic vanishing theorem (see for example [@HAC3]), $V_1(F_1)$ is finite. However, since $T\subset
T_{\chi_{i,s}}$, we have $h^0(F_1\otimes P)>0$ for all $P\in T$, which is a contradiction. So $r_1>0$ and similarly, $r_2>0$. Since $G_1$ and $G_2$ are semistable, they are ample (see the Main Claim in the proof of Theorem 6.4.15 in [@Laz]). This proves the claim $\clubsuit $.
Set $G_3=\upsilon(G_1\otimes G_2)$ and let $r_3$ be its rank. Again by Lemma \[J4\], we have $$r_3\geq r_1+r_2-1\geq \max\{r_1, r_2\}.$$ Since $G_1$ and $G_2$ are semistable and ample, so is $G_1\otimes
G_2$ ([@Laz], Corollary 6.4.14). Therefore the slopes satisfy $$\mu(G_3)\geq \mu(G_1\otimes G_2)=\mu(G_1)+\mu(G_2),$$ and $G_3$ is also ample.
We then apply Riemann-Roch, $$\begin{aligned}
h^0(\widehat{T},
G_3)&\geq& r_3(\mu(G_1)+\mu(G_2))\\
&\geq& \deg(G_1)+\deg(G_2)\\
&\geq& 2,\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality holds because $r_3\geq \max\{r_1, r_2\}$ and the third inequality holds because $\deg(G_1)>0$ and $\deg(G_2)>0$.
Since $G_3$ is a subbundle of $F_3$ and $h^0(\widehat{T}, F_3)=2$, we have $h^0(\widehat{T}, G_3)=2$, hence all the inequalities above should be equalities. In particular, $r_3=r_1=r_2$. Hence by the claim $\spadesuit$, $r_3\leq \min\{R_1, R_2\}<R_3$. Therefore, $F_3/G_3$ is a sheaf of rank $\geq 1$. Since $F_3$ is ample, so is $F_3/G_3$, hence $h^0(\widehat{T}, F_3/G_3)\geq 1$. Since $G_3$ is ample, $h^1(\widehat{T}, G_3)=0$. Hence, $$h^0(\widehat{T}, F_3)=h^0(\widehat{T}, G_3)+h^0(\widehat{T},
F_3/G_3)\geq 3,$$ which is a contradiction. Thus $\dim (Y)=1$. This finishes the proof of Proposition \[5.5\].
\[5.8\]It is easy to see that combining Proposition \[5.4\] and the proof of Proposition \[5.5\], one can give another proof of Chen and Hacon’s characterization of abelian varieties ([@CH1]): [ *a smooth projective variety $X$ with maximal Albanese dimension and $ P_2(X)=1$ is birational to an abelian variety.*]{}
The following theorem is the main result of this article. It describes explicitly all smooth projective varieties $X$ with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $P_2(X)=2$.
\[5\]Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with $P_2(X)=2$ and $q(X)=\dim (X)$. Then $\kappa(X)=1$ and $X$ is birational to a quotient $(K\times C)/G$, where $K$ is an abelian variety and $C$ is a smooth projective curve, $G$ is a finite group that acts diagonally and freely on $K\times C$, and $C\rightarrow C/G$ is branched at $2$ points.
Since we know by Proposition \[5.5\] that $Y$ is an elliptic curve, the proof is parallel to the proof of Theorem 5.1 in [@CH4]. By [@KA], Theorem 13, there exists a curve $C$ of genus $g\geq 2$, an abelian variety $\KK$, and a finite abelian group $G$, which acts faithfully on $C$ and $\KK$, such that $X$ is birational to $(\KK\times C)/G$, where $G$ acts diagonally and freely on $\KK\times C$.
We then consider the induced morphism $\phi: C\rightarrow C/G=Y$. Following [@Be], §VI.12, we have $$2=P_2(X)=\dim (
H^0(C, \omega_C^{2})^G)=h^0(Y, \cO_Y(\sum_{P\in
Y}\big\lfloor2(1-\frac{1}{e_P})\big\rfloor P)),$$ where $P$ is a branch point of $\phi$, and $e_P$ is the ramification index of a ramification point lying over $P$.
Since $\big\lfloor2(1-\frac{1}{e_P}) \big\rfloor=1$ for any branch point $P$, we have only two branch points.
Let $C$ be a bi-elliptic curve of genus $2$, let $\phi: C\rightarrow E$ be the morphism such that $\phi$ is branched at two points, and let $\tau$ be the induced involution. Take an abelian variety $K$ and set $G=\mathbb{Z}_2$. Let $G$ act on $C$ by $\tau$ and on $K$ by translation by a point of order $2$. Set $X=(K \times C)/G$, where $G$ acts diagonally. Then $P_2(X)=h^0(C, \omega_C^{2})^{\tau}=2$ (this construction actually gives all varieties with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $P_3(X)=2$; see [@HAC1]).
The family of varieties with $q(X)=\dim (X)$ and $P_2(X)=2$ is not bounded (see Example 1 in [@CH4]).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I am grateful to my thesis advisor, O. Debarre, for his generous help.
[CH3]{} A. Beauville, [*Complex algebraic surfaces,*]{} London Math. Soc. Student Text [**34**]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
J.A. Chen and C.D. Hacon, Characterization of abelian varieties, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**143**]{} (2001), 435–447.
J.A. Chen and C.D. Hacon, Pluricanonical maps of varieties of maximal Albanese dimension, [*Math. Ann.*]{} [**320**]{} (2001), 367–380.
J.A. Chen and C.D. Hacon, Varieties with $P_3(X)=4$ and $q(X)=\dim(X)$, [*Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa*]{} [**3**]{} (2004), 399–425. O. Debarre, On coverings of simple abelian varieties, [*Bull. Soc. Math. France*]{} [**134**]{} (2006), 253–260. L. Ein and R. Lazarsfeld, Singularities of theta divisors and the birational geometry of irregular varieties, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**10**]{} (1997), 243–258. M. Green and R. Lazarsfeld, Deformation theory, generic vanishing theorems, and some conjectures of Enriques, Catanese and Beauville, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**90**]{} (1987), 389–407. M. Green and R. Lazarsfeld, Higher obstructions to deforming cohomology groups of line bundles, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**4**]{} (1991), 87–103. C. D. Hacon, Varieties with $P_3=3$ and $q(X)=\dim(X)$, [*Math. Nachr.*]{} [**278**]{} (2005), 409–420. C.D. Hacon, A derived category approach to generic vanishing, [*J. Reine Angew. Math.*]{} [**575**]{} (2004), 173–187. C.D. Hacon and R. Pardini, On the birational geometry of varieties of maximal Albanese dimension, [*J. Reine Angew. Math.*]{} [**546**]{} (2002), 177–199. Z. Jiang, An effective version of a theorem of Kawamata on the Albanese map, to appear in [*Commun. Contemp. Math*]{}. Y. Kawamata, Characterization of abelian varieties, [*Compos. Math.*]{} [**43**]{} (1981), 253–276. J. Kollár, Higher direct images of dualizing sheaves I, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**123**]{} (1986), 11–42. J. Kollár, Higher direct images of dualizing sheaves II, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**124**]{} (1986), 171–202. R. Lazarsfeld, [*Positivity in algebraic geometry I & II*]{}, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete [**48**]{} and [**49**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2004. S. Mori, Classification of higher-dimensional varieties, [*Algebraic Geometry, Browdoin 1985*]{}, [Proc. Symp. Pure Math. ]{} [**46**]{}, 1987, 269–331. C. Simpson, Subspaces of moduli spaces of rank one local systems, [*Ann. Sci. École. Norm. Sup. (4)*]{} [**26**]{} (1993), 361–401. E. Viehweg, [*Positivity of direct image sheaves and applications to famillies of higher dimensional manifolds*]{}, ICTP-Lecture Notes [**6**]{} (2001), 249–284.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show a direct connection between Kubo’s fluctuation-dissipation relation and Hawking effect that is valid in any dimensions. The relevant correlators, computed from the known expressions for the stress tensor, are shown to satisfy the Kubo relation, from which the temperature of a black hole as seen by an observer at an arbitrary distance is abstracted. This reproduces the Tolman temperature and hence the Hawking temperature as that measured by an observer at infinity.'
---
**[Fluctuation-Dissipation Relation and Hawking Effect]{}**
Rabin Banerjee$^a$ and Bibhas Ranjan Majhi$^b$\
$^a$S. N. Bose National centre for Basic Sciences, JD Block, Sector III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700098, India\
$^b$Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, Assam, India\
e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
[*[I. Introduction]{}*]{}
Quantisation of fields on a classical background, containing a horizon, leads to the fact that particles can radiate from the horizon [@Hawking:1974rv; @Unruh:1973; @Takagi:1986kn]. Moreover, it is now well known that such phenomenon depends on a particular observer and is connected to the non-unique definition of vacuum in non-inertial frame or in curved spacetime. One of the classic examples in this context is the Hawking effect [@Hawking:1974rv] – the thermal radiation observed by a static observer at infinity in a black hole spacetime in the Kruskal or Unruh vacuum. While there are several approaches to analyse this phenomenon, each has its own merits and/or demerits, but none is truly clinching. This is the primary reason that new avenues are still being explored.
The fluctuation–dissipation theorem is a general result of statistical thermodynamics that yields a concrete relation between the fluctuations in a system that obeys detailed balance and the response of the system to applied perturbations (see [@Kubo] for a review). It has been effectively used to study various processes like Brownian motion in fluids, Johnson noise in electrical conductors and, as shall become clear very soon, relevantly, Kirchoff’s law of thermal radiation. Since black holes satisfy the condition of detailed balance and the emitted radiation is thermal, it is likely that new insights into the phenomenon of Hawking radiation could be obtained by using the fluctuation-dissipation relation.
Our motivation in this paper is to exploit the fluctuation-dissipation relation to obtain the Hawking temperature. In fact we are able to obtain the more general Tolman temperature [@Tolman:1930zza; @Tolman:1930ona], that is valid for an observer at an arbitrary distance. There are different versions of the theorem but the one suited for our analysis was given by Kubo [@Kubo; @kubo_book; @Reif]. In simple terms this relation is able to provide the temperature of the heat bath from a study of the correlators of the fluctuations of the force of the emitted particles, as measured by the detector. We shall apply this relation to black holes. Treating the black holes as a heat bath, it is possible to compute the fluctuations of the force of the emitted particles as seen by an observer at an arbitrary distance. Using Kubo’s relation we derive the temperature, which turns out to be the Tolman temperature. Putting the detector at infinity immediately yields the Hawking temperature [@Hawking:1974rv].
An essential ingredient in our calculation is the structure of the energy momentum tensor. The force is computed by taking the time variation of the space component of the four momentum which in turn is defined from the energy momentum tensor. Since our analysis is very near to the horizon, where the spacetime is effectively $(1+1)$ dimensions [@Robinson:2005pd; @Iso:2006wa; @Majhi:2011yi], we shall concentrate on the two dimensional stress tensor in a curved background. Classically this is not well defined and recourse has to taken to some regularisation to include quantum effects. Incidentally the method discussed here was applied earlier by one of the authors, in a collaborative work [@Adhikari:2017gyb; @Das:2019aii], in a classical treatment. It is useful to recall that the fluctuation dissipation relation remains valid both for classical and quantum systems. Other relevant applications were based on the path integral fluctuation-dissipation formalism developed in [@Caldeira]. The Minkowski vacuum was modelled as a thermal bath with respect to an accelerated observer, so that any particle in it is executing a Brownian like motion [@Unruh:1989; @Raine:1991; @Hinterleitner:1993; @Kim:1997; @Kim:1998]. For the quantum case which is relevant here, there are two possibilities. Either the theory is non-chiral or it is chiral. In the first case the stress tensor satisfies diffeomorphism invariance but lacks conformal invariance leading to a nonvanishing trace of the stress tensor [@Deser:1976yx; @Duff:1977ay; @Polyakov:1981rd; @Christensen:1977jc]. For the chiral theory both conformal and diffeomorphism symmetries are broken [@Bardeen:1984pm; @AlvarezGaume:1984dr; @AlvarezGaume:1983ig; @Leutwyler:1984nd]. We have done the analysis for either situation and find the correct Tolman/Hawking temperatures.
The organisation of the paper is as follows. In the next section, we shall briefly discuss our general formalism of computing fluctuations of force and their use in Kubo’s relation. In sections III and IV, respectively, we derive the Hawking effect from the non-chiral and chiral theories. The last section contains our conclusions and a look into future possibilities.
[*[II. Fluctuations of Force and Kubo’s relation]{}*]{}
\[Force\] Here we outline our general strategy for obtaining the Hawking temperature from Kubo’s relation. The first thing is to define the force that will lead to the force correlators. The space components of the four momentum as measured by the observer in its own frame which perceives the particles is defined as $$p^\alpha=\int d^3{\bf{x}}T^{0\alpha}(\tau,{\bf{x}})\delta({\bf{x}}-{\bf{x}}_D) = T^{0\alpha}(\tau,{\bf{x}}_D)~,
\label{3.01}$$ where ${\bf{x}}_D$ is the position of the detector in its own frame and this is not changing. Therefore, the above quantity will be only function of its proper time $\tau$. Then the force, as measured by this detector turns out to be $$F^\alpha(\tau)=\frac{dp^{\alpha}}{d\tau} = \frac{dT^{0\alpha}}{d\tau}~.
\label{3.02}$$ The fluctuating part of this force is $$F^\alpha_{fluc} (\tau)=F^\alpha-<F^\alpha> = \frac{dT^{0\alpha}}{d\tau} - \frac{d}{d\tau}<T^{0\alpha}>~.
\label{3.03}$$ Next we define the fluctuating force-force two point correlation function as $$R^{\alpha\beta} (\tau_2;\tau_1) = <F^{\alpha}_{fluc}(\tau_2)F^{\beta}_{fluc}(\tau_1)>~.
\label{3.04}$$ In the above $<\dots>$ refers to the expectation value of the quantity of interest with respect to the relevant state. It is now possible to proceed with the calculations in a general way. More precisely, for the accelerated frame case, the stress-tensor components are defined in Rindler frame while the states are vacuum states corresponding to Minkowski observer.
Specialising for black holes, the operators are defined in static Schwarzschild coordinates and the states will be considered as Kruskal and Unruh vacua. Moreover, near the horizon, the arbitrary dimensional stationary black holes are effectively two dimensional and hence conformally flat [@Robinson:2005pd; @Iso:2006wa; @Majhi:2011yi]. The effective metric in Schwarzschild coordinates, Kruskal null-null coordinates and in Eddington null-null coordinates is given by $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2&=& -f(r)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{f(r)};~~{\textrm{Schwarzschild}}
\nonumber
\\
&=& \frac{f(U,V)}{\kappa^2 UV} dUdV; ~~ {\textrm{Kruskal null-null}}
\nonumber
\\
&=&-f(u,v)dudv; ~~ {\textrm{Eddington null-null}}~,
\label{3.15}\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is the metric coefficient and $\kappa =f'(r_H)/2$ is the surface gravity and $r=r_H$ is the horizon. The relations among these sets of coordinates are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&dr^*=\frac{dr}{f(r)}; \,\,\ u=t-r^*; \,\,\,\ v=t+r^*;
\\
&& U=-\frac{1}{\kappa}e^{-\kappa u}; \,\,\ \,\ V=\frac{1}{\kappa}e^{\kappa v}~.
\label{3.16}\end{aligned}$$ Thus in Eq. (\[3.04\]) we have to take only the $R^{11}$ component. Also, since the correlators are translationally invariant, it is a function of only the difference of the proper times, $(\tau_2-\tau_1)$. Let us now represent the Fourier transform of the correlator $R^{11}(\tau_2-\tau_1)$ by $K(\omega)$.
Now as usual [@Kubo; @kubo_book; @Reif], the symmetric and antisymmetric combinations are taken as $$K^\pm(\omega) = K(\omega)\pm K(-\omega)
\label{4.05}$$ Then Kubo’s fluctuation dissipation relation states that these two are related by, $$K^+(\omega) = \coth\Big(\frac{\omega}{2T}\Big) K^-(\omega)~,
\label{4.07}$$ where $T$ is the temperature of the heat bath which, in our case, is the black hole. In the next sections we will explicitly compute the correlators, both for nonchiral and chiral cases, and obtain the temperature from the relation (\[4.07\]).
[*III. Non-chiral theory*]{}:
At the quantum level both the trace and the covariant divergence of the stress tensor cannot be made vanishing. Since diffeomorphism symmetry is more fundamental in gravitational theories, a regularisation is done such that the trace of energy-momentum tensor is non-vanishing and given by [@Deser:1976yx; @Duff:1977ay]: $T^a_a=c_w R$. However, it is covariantly conserved, i.e. $\nabla_aT^{ab}=0$. The value of the proportionality constant is $c_w=1/(24\pi)$. In the (trace) anomaly based approach of discussing the Hawking effect [@Christensen:1977jc], which is valid only for two dimensions, use is made of this result. However we are interested in the explicit form of the stress tensor. This is derived from the anomalous effective action [@Polyakov:1981rd], $$S_P = -\frac{c_w}{4}\int d^2x \sqrt{-g}(-\phi\Box\phi+2R\phi)~,
\label{2.03}$$ where, $$\Box\phi=R~.
\label{2.04}$$ By taking appropriate functional derivatives [@Polyakov:1981rd], $$\begin{aligned}
T_{ab}&=&\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta S_P}{\delta g^{ab}}=\frac{c_w}{2}\Big[\nabla_a\phi\nabla_b\phi-2\nabla_a\nabla_b\phi
\nonumber
\\
&+&g_{ab}(2R-\frac{1}{2}\nabla_c\phi\nabla^c\phi)\Big]~.
\label{2.05}\end{aligned}$$
Now the equation for the scalar field (\[2.04\]) under the background (\[3.15\]) yields $$\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial t^2}-\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial r^{*^2}} = -fR~.
\label{3.17}$$ Since the metric is static, we choose the ansatz for the solution as $\phi(t,r^*)=e^{-i\omega t}F(r^*)$, where $\omega$ is the energy of the scalar mode and $F(r^*)$ is an unknown function to be determined. Substituting this in (\[3.17\]) we obtain $$\frac{d^2F}{dr^{*^2}} +\omega^2F = fRe^{i\omega t}~.
\label{3.19}$$ Since our analysis is very near to the horizon where $R$ is finite, the right hand side of the above can be neglected compared to the terms on the left hand side and then the solutions for $F$ are $F=e^{\pm i\omega r^*}$. Under this limit, the modes are identical to the usual ones and hence the mode expansion of $\phi$ is same as for free massless scalar field. Therefore the positive frequency Wightman functions, corresponding to respective vacuum states, will be same as those for the free massless scalar field. So the expressions for the positive frequency Wightman functions corresponding to Kruskal and Unruh vacuums are as follows [@book2]: $$\begin{aligned}
%&&G^+_B(x_2;x_1) = -\frac{1}{4\pi}\ln[(\Delta u - i\epsilon)(\Delta v -i\epsilon)]~;
%\label{3.211}
%\\
&&G^+_K(x_2;x_1) = -\frac{1}{4\pi}\ln[(\Delta U - i\epsilon)(\Delta V -i\epsilon)]~;
\label{3.212}
\\
&&G^+_U(x_2;x_1) = -\frac{1}{4\pi}\ln[(\Delta U - i\epsilon)(\Delta v -i\epsilon)]~.
\label{3.21}\end{aligned}$$ : For Kruskal vacuum the expectation value of $T^{tr}$, as measured by the Schwarzschild static observer, vanishes (see Appendix C of [@Das:2019aii] for details). So the fluctuating part of the force is given by the first term of (\[3.03\]). Therefore, the fluctuating force-force correlator, as measured by the Schwarzschild static observer, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&R^{11}_K(\tau_2;\tau_1)=\frac{d}{d\tau_2}\frac{d}{d\tau_1}<T^{tr}(\tau_2)T^{tr}(\tau_1)>
\nonumber
\\
&&=\frac{f^2(r_s)}{16}\frac{d}{d\tau_2}\frac{d}{d\tau_1}\Big[\Big(g^{uv}(\tau_2)\Big)^2 \Big(g^{uv}(\tau_1)\Big)^2 e^{-2\kappa(u_2+u_1)}
\nonumber
\\
&&\times<T_{UU}(\tau_2)T_{UU}(\tau_1)>\Big]
\nonumber
\\
&=&[f(r_s)]^{-2}\frac{d}{d\tau_2}\frac{d}{d\tau_1}\Big[e^{-2\kappa(u_2+u_1)}<T_{UU}(\tau_2)T_{UU}(\tau_1)>\Big]~,
\label{3.22}\end{aligned}$$ where $g^{uv} = -(2/f(r))$ has been used while the observer is static at $r=r_s$. In going from first to second equality, only $T_{uu}$ (i.e. $T_{UU}$) component was considered. This is because this component, which is corresponding to outgoing modes, leads to the flux of emitted particles from the horizon; while $T_{vv}$, related to ingoing modes, does not contribute to this flux. Now using (\[2.05\]) one finds $$T_{UU}(x) =
\frac{c_w}{2}\Big[(\partial_U\phi)(\partial_U\phi)-2\partial^2_U\phi+\frac{2}{A}(\partial_UA)(\partial_U\phi)\Big]~,
\label{3.23}$$ where $A=f(U,V)/(UV)$. With this, one finds by using the Wick’s theorem $$\begin{aligned}
&&<T_{UU}(x_2)T_{UU}(x_1)> = \Big(\frac{c_w}{2}\Big)^2\Big[ 4\partial^2_2\partial^2_1G(x_2;x_1)
+ 2\Big(\partial_2\partial_1G(x_2;x_1)\Big)^2
\nonumber
\\
&-& \frac{4\partial_1A_1}{A_1}\partial_2^2\partial_1G(x_2;x_1)
-\frac{4\partial_2A_2}{A_2}\partial_2\partial_1^2G(x_2;x_1)
\nonumber
\\
&+&\frac{4\partial_2A_2\partial_1A_1}{A_2A_1}\partial_2\partial_1G(x_2;x_1)\Big]~.
\label{3.09}\end{aligned}$$ In the above we used the following notations: $\partial_i\equiv\partial_{U_i}$ and $\phi_i \equiv \phi(x_i)$ with $i=1,2$. The expectation value is taken here with respect to the Kruskal vacuum. Other terms vanish as $<\phi>=0$. In the above we denoted $<\phi_2\phi_1> = G(x_2;x_1)$ which is the Green’s function corresponding to the differential equation (\[2.04\]) for field $\phi$. Here for Kruskal vacuum, this is given by (\[3.212\]). Substituting this we find the terms of the expression (\[3.09\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Big(\partial_2\partial_1G(x_2;x_1)\Big)^2=\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\frac{1}{(U_2-U_1)^4}~;
\nonumber
\\
&&\partial^2_2\partial^2_1G(x_2;x_1)=\frac{3}{2\pi}\frac{1}{(U_2-U_1)^4}~;
\nonumber
\\
&&\partial_2^2\partial_1G(x_2;x_1)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{1}{(U_2-U_1)^3}~;
\nonumber
\\
&&\partial_2\partial_1^2G(x_2;x_1)=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{1}{(U_2-U_1)^3}~;
\nonumber
\\
&&\partial_2\partial_1G(x_2;x_1)=-\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{1}{(U_2-U_1)^2}~;
\label{3.12}\end{aligned}$$ Hence the correlator (\[3.22\]) turns out to be $$\begin{aligned}
R^{11}_K(\tau_2;\tau_1) &=& - 16\kappa^6[f(r_s)]^{-3}\Big(\frac{c_w}{2}\Big)^2\Big(\frac{1}{8\pi^2}+\frac{6}{\pi}\Big)
\frac{5+4\sinh^2(\frac{\kappa}{2\sqrt{f(r_s)}}\Delta\tau)}{\sinh^6(\frac{\kappa}{2\sqrt{f(r_s)}}\Delta\tau)}
\nonumber
\\
&+&\frac{2\kappa^6[f(r_s)]^{-3}\Big[(\frac{f'(r_s)}{2\kappa})^2-1\Big]}{\pi}\Big(\frac{c_w}{2}\Big)^2\frac{3+2\sinh^2(\frac{\kappa}{2\sqrt{f(r_s)}}\Delta\tau)}{\sinh^4(\frac{\kappa}{2\sqrt{f(r_s)}}\Delta\tau)}~;
\label{3.25}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the transformation $U=-(1/\kappa)e^{-\kappa u}$, along with $\partial_UA/A=(1/U)((f'(r)/2\kappa)-1)$ while a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $r$ coordinate and $\Delta u = u_2-u_1 = (t_2-r^*_s) - (t_1-r^*_s) = \Delta t = \Delta\tau/\sqrt{f(r_s)}$.
: For Unruh vacuum, the expression for $R^{11}_U(\tau_2;\tau_1)$ is again given by (\[3.22\]) where the vacuum expectation has to be calculated with respect to Unruh vacuum. This is because $<T^{tr}>$ for a Schwarzschild static observer is constant (see Appendix C of [@Das:2019aii] for a detailed analysis) and hence the second part of (\[3.03\]) vanishes. The two point correlation function for stress-tensor component in this expression is again expressed in terms of positive frequency Wightman function, which is given by (\[3.21\]). Since the derivatives will be with respect to $U$, only the $\Delta U$ part of $G^+$ contributes and hence the final expression for $R^{11}_U(\tau_2;\tau_1)$ comes out to be same as that of Kruskal vacuum; i.e. Eq. (\[3.25\]).
[*IV. Chiral theory*]{}:\
Contrary to the previous nonchiral case, here both trace and diffeomorphism anomalies exist: $T^a_a = \frac{c_w}{2}R$; $\nabla_bT^{ab}=\frac{c_w}{4}\bar{\epsilon}^{ac}\nabla_cR$. This is the covariant form of the anomaly which, as was shown by [@Banerjee:2007qs; @Banerjee:2007uc; @Banerjee:2008wq; @Banerjee:2008sn], is more effective than the consistent form of the anomaly, in analysing Hawking effect. Here the effective action and corresponding energy-momentum tensor are evaluated in [@Leutwyler:1984nd]. The form of the stress-tensor is given by, $$T_{ab} = \frac{c_w}{2}\Big[D_a G D_bG -2D_aD_bG+\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}R\Big]~,
\label{2.07}$$ where $G$ satisfies $\Box G=R$. The chiral derivative is defined as $D_a = \nabla_a\pm\bar{\epsilon}_{ab}\nabla^b$. Here $+(-)$ corresponds to ingoing (outgoing) mode and $\bar{\epsilon}_{ab} = \sqrt{-g}\epsilon_{ab}$ (or $\bar{\epsilon}^{ab} = -\frac{\epsilon^{ab}}{\sqrt{-g}}$) is an anti-symmetric tensor while $\epsilon_{ab}$ is the usual Levi-Civita symbol in $(1+1)$ dimensions.
Since we are interested in outgoing modes, the negative sign of $D_a$ operator will be considered. In this case then we have $D_U=2\nabla_U$ and $D_V=0$. This can be checked using the expression for $\bar{\epsilon}_{ab} = \sqrt{-g}\epsilon_{ab}$ with $\epsilon_{UV}=1$. Then $T_{UU}$, as obtained from (\[2.07\]), becomes identical to the non-chiral case. Moreover, $G$ satisfies the equation which is identical to $\phi$. So the correlator for the fluctuation of the force, in both vacua, will be identical to the form (\[3.25\]). Only the over all multiplicative constant factor is different.
Note that in all cases, the form of the correlators for the fluctuation of the force are identical: $$R^{11}(\tau_2;\tau_1) = C\frac{5+4\sinh^2(\frac{B}{2}\Delta\tau)}{\sinh^6(\frac{B}{2}\Delta\tau)}+C_0\frac{3+2\sinh^2(\frac{\kappa}{2\sqrt{f(r_s)}}\Delta\tau)}{\sinh^4(\frac{\kappa}{2\sqrt{f(r_s)}}\Delta\tau)}~;
\label{3.26}$$ where $C$ and $C_0$ are unimportant over all constants (different for different cases) and, $$B=\kappa/\sqrt{f(r_s)}~.
\label{newequation}$$ Moreover, the correlator is time translational invariant as it depends only on the difference of detector’s proper time. This is a signature of the thermal equilibrium between the detector and the thermal bath seen by this detector. It also helps us to express the quantity in it’s Fourier space which we shall do later to find the equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation relation.
The Fourier transformation of (\[3.26\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&K(\omega) %= \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d(\Delta\tau)e^{i\omega\Delta\tau}R^{11}(\tau_2;\tau_1)
%\nonumber
%\\
= C \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d(\Delta\tau) \frac{5e^{i\omega\Delta\tau}}{\sinh^6(\frac{B\Delta\tau}{2}-i\epsilon)}
\nonumber
\\
&+& C\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d(\Delta\tau)\frac{4e^{i\omega\Delta\tau}}{\sinh^4(\frac{B\Delta\tau}{2}-i\epsilon)}
\nonumber
\\
&+&C_0\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d(\Delta\tau)\frac{3e^{i\omega\Delta\tau}}{\sinh^4(\frac{B\Delta\tau}{2}-i\epsilon)}
\nonumber
\\
&+&C_0\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d(\Delta\tau)\frac{2e^{i\omega\Delta\tau}}{\sinh^2(\frac{B\Delta\tau}{2}-i\epsilon)}~.
\label{4.01}\end{aligned}$$ The above one consists of four integrations. All of them can be evaluated by the standard formula [@Padmanabhan:1987rq] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx\frac{e^{-i\rho x}}{\sinh^{2n}(x-i\epsilon)}
\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{(-1)^n}{(2n-1)!}\Big(\frac{2\pi}{\rho}\Big)\frac{1}{e^{\pi\rho}-1}\prod_{k=1}^{n}\Big[\rho^2+4(n-k)^2\Big].
\label{4.02}\end{aligned}$$ Then one finds $$K(\omega) = \Big(\frac{2\omega}{B}\Big)^3
\Big[\Big\{\Big(\frac{2\omega}{B}\Big)^2+4\Big\}\frac{\pi C}{6B}-\frac{2\pi C_0}{B}\Big]\frac{1}{e^{-\frac{2\pi\omega}{B}}-1}~.
\label{4.04}$$ Now use of (\[4.05\]) yields $$K^+(\omega) = \coth\Big(\frac{\pi\omega}{B}\Big) K^-(\omega)~,
\label{4.08}$$ which is identical to Kubo’s fluctuation-dissipation relation (\[4.07\]) with the temperature identified as $$T=\frac{B}{2\pi}~.
\label{4.09}$$ Using (\[newequation\]) one can check that this corresponds to, $$T = \kappa/(2\pi\sqrt{f(r_s)})
\label{tolman}$$ which is the correct value of the Tolman expression [@Tolman:1930ona; @Tolman:1930zza]. For the detector located at infinity, $r_s\rightarrow\infty$, $f(r_s)\rightarrow 1$, the above result simplifies to, $$T = \kappa/2\pi
\label{hawking}$$ which is the familiar Hawking expression [@Hawking:1974rv],
[*V. Conclusions*]{}\
A new approach for analysing the Hawking effect has been given in this paper which is based on the fluctuation dissipation relation as formulated by Kubo. It is general enough to include any stationary metric, any dimensions and also to yield the Tolman temperature, which is the result of measurement by an observer at an arbitrary distance from the black hole horizon. Expectedly, the result for an observer at infinity is easily derived, thereby giving the Hawking temperature. It is universal in the sense that it does not depend on how the effective action yielding the stress tensor is regularised. Thus it was applicable both for nonchiral and chiral couplings. In the literature [@Christensen:1977jc; @Robinson:2005pd; @Iso:2006wa; @Banerjee:2007qs; @Banerjee:2007uc; @Banerjee:2008wq; @Banerjee:2008sn], stress tensor based approaches have used either one or the other but a holistic treatment was lacking.
Contrary to several other approaches, this is a physically motivated derivation of the Hawking effect by directly computing the force of the emitted spectrum on the detector and brings it in line with other phenomena of statistical thermodynamics. For instance, the present approach shows that the thermal heat bath characterising a black hole is Brownian in nature. Naturally such an approach is expected to yield further insights into the interpretation of black holes as thermodynamic objects.
It is possible to extend this analysis in other ways. As an example, the back reaction effect might be taken into account. This would change the force (and its fluctuations) as perceived by the detector. The application of the Kubo relation would then yield a correction to the Hawking temperature that determines the greyness of the otherwise blackbody radiation.
[99]{} S. W. Hawking, Nature [**248**]{}, 30 (1974). W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D [**14**]{}, 870 (1976).
S. Takagi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**88**]{}, 1 (1986).
R. Kubo, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**29**]{}, 255 (1966).
R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. [**35**]{}, 904 (1930). R. Tolman and P. Ehrenfest, Phys. Rev. [**36**]{}, no. 12, 1791 (1930). R. Kubo, M. Toda and N. Hashitsume, “Statistical Physics II: Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics,” Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, (1985)
F. Reif, “Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics,” McGraw-Hill, New York, (1965).
S. P. Robinson and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 011303 (2005) \[gr-qc/0502074\]. S. Iso, H. Umetsu and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 151302 (2006) \[hep-th/0602146\]. B. R. Majhi, “Quantum Tunneling in Black Holes,” PhD Thesis, University of Calcutta, India, arXiv:1110.6008 \[gr-qc\]. A. Adhikari, K. Bhattacharya, C. Chowdhury and B. R. Majhi, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 4, 045003 (2018) \[arXiv:1707.01333 \[gr-qc\]\]. A. Das, S. Dalui, C. Chowdhury and B. R. Majhi, arXiv:1902.03735 \[gr-qc\]. A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, “Path integral approach to quantum Brownian motion,” Physica [**121A**]{}, 587 (1983)
W. G. Unruh and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D [**40**]{} (1989) 1071. D. J. Raine, D. W. Sciama and P. G. Grove, Proc. R. Soc. Land. [**A 435**]{} (1991) 205-215. F. Hinterleitner, Fortsch. Phys. [**43**]{} (1995) 207. H. C. Kim and J. K. Kim, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{} (1997) 3537 \[gr-qc/9704030\]. H. C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{} (1999) 064024 \[gr-qc/9808056\].
S. Deser, M. J. Duff and C. J. Isham, Nucl. Phys. B [**111**]{}, 45 (1976). M. J. Duff, Nucl. Phys. B [**125**]{}, 334 (1977). A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B [**103**]{}, 207 (1981). S. M. Christensen and S. A. Fulling, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 2088 (1977). W. A. Bardeen and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B [**244**]{}, 421 (1984). L. Alvarez-Gaume and P. H. Ginsparg, Annals Phys. [**161**]{} (1985) 423 Erratum: \[Annals Phys. [**171**]{} (1986) 233\]. L. Alvarez-Gaume and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B [**234**]{}, 269 (1984). H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. [**153B**]{}, 65 (1985) Erratum: \[Phys. Lett. [**155B**]{}, 469 (1985)\]. N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, “Quantum Fields in Curved Space,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, (1982).
R. Banerjee and S. Kulkarni, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 024018 (2008) \[arXiv:0707.2449 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Banerjee and S. Kulkarni, Phys. Lett. B [**659**]{}, 827 (2008) \[arXiv:0709.3916 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Banerjee and S. Kulkarni, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 084035 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.5683 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Banerjee and B. R. Majhi, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 064024 (2009) \[arXiv:0812.0497 \[hep-th\]\]. T. Padmanabhan and T. P. Singh, Class. Quant. Grav. [**4**]{}, 1397 (1987).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the coupling between Majorana bound states(CMBS) mediated by a topologically trivial chain in the absence/presence of pairing couplings at the boundaries. Both situations of short-range and long-range interactions in the chain are considered. Our results show that CMBS can be enhanced by the pairing coupling and long-range interaction in the trivial chain. With a driving field applied to the chain, we calculate the dependence of CMBS on the frequency and amplitude of the driving field. Discussion on the application of the tunable CMBS in quantum computation is made.'
author:
- 'Z. C. Shi$^{1}$, X. Q. Shao$^{2}$ and X. X. Yi$^{2}$[^1]'
title: Couplings between Majorana bound states mediated by topologically trivial chains
---
introduction {#I}
============
Topological quantum computation[@kitaev03; @nayak08] is immune to certain types of noise. It has attracted much attention since it was proposed and becomes active again in recent years due to the progress in experiments. The gates used for quantum computation can be conducted by creating quasi-particles, braiding them and measuring their states. Two well-known types of quasi-particles are Fibonacci anyons and Ising anyons (Majorana bound states). The former are capable of offering universal topological quantum computation, while the latter can not form an universal set of gates by braiding operation only. So the non-topologically protected gates have to be introduced in the computation. This type of gate always requires coupling between Majorana bound states (CMBS). Although there is great progress in theories [@read00; @ivanov01; @fu08; @hasan10; @sau2010; @qi11; @alicea12; @beenakker13] and experiments [@das2012; @mourik12; @deng12; @rokhinoson12; @perge14; @lee14], the question how to couple two MBSs is barely explored.
Recently, Schmidt and his co-workers [@schmidt13a; @schmidt13] presented proposals to couple MBSs by putting the system into a microwave cavity, where the microwave field can effectively drive population transfer between MBSs. The authors found that if the microwave frequency approaches the band gap of the topologically trivial region, the coupling between the MBSs is exponentially enhanced. In other words, by modulating microwave frequency or changing number of photons in the cavity, the CMBS can be controlled. Inspiring by this idea, in this work, we study how the central chain affects CMBS. We realize the universal Majorana qubit rotation (UMQR) by controlling the tunable local gate voltage (TLGV).
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[II\] we first briefly review the Kitaev model and calculate CMBS in presence of pairing coupling of the central chain itself. In Sec. \[III\] we explore the performance of CMBS when there exist pairing couplings at the boundaries. In Sec. \[IV\] we extend our calculations to the central chain with long-range interactions. In Sec. \[V\] we develop a scheme to control CMBS by modulating the amplitude or the frequency of the driving field. Sec. \[VI\] is devoted to discussions and conclusions.
Coupling induced by a topologically trivial chain {#II}
=================================================
We here consider an inhomogeneous Kitaev chain [@kitaev01] which can be divided into three homogeneous parts. The total Hamiltonian of the whole chain reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{9}
H_{total}&=&H_{l}+H_{c}+H_{r}+H_{lc}+H_{rc},\end{aligned}$$ where $H_{l}$ ($H_{r}$) denotes the Hamiltonian of left (right) chain with sites from $-N_1$ ($N+1$) to $-1$ ($N_2$), and $H_{c}$ represents the Hamiltonian of central chain with sites from 0 to $N$. $H_{lc}$ ($H_{rc}$) denotes the Hamiltonian of the coupling between the left (right) chain and the central chain. To be specific the Hamiltonian of the three homogeneous Kitaev chains can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2a}
H_{\nu}&=&\sum_{n=M_{\nu}}^{M_{\nu}'}\mu_{\nu} a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n}
-\sum_{n=M_{\nu}}^{M_{\nu}'-1}(\frac{t_{\nu}}{2}a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n+1} \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\Delta_{\nu}e^{i\phi_{\nu}}}{2} a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n+1}^{\dag}+h.c.),\end{aligned}$$ where $a_{n}$ and $a_{n}^{\dag}$ are the spinless fermion creation and annihilation operators at site $n$ with chemical potential $\mu_{\nu}$ ($\nu=l,c,r$). $M_{\nu}=\{-N_1,0,N+1\}$ and $M_{\nu}'=\{-1,N,N_2\}$ label the beginning and end sites of the left, central, and right chain, respectively. $t_{\nu}$ and $\Delta_{\nu} e^{i\phi_{\nu}}$ are the hopping and pairing amplitudes, respectively. Since the phase of the pairing amplitude can be removed from the Hamiltonian by a gauge transformation, we here and hereafter assume both $t_{\nu}$ and $\Delta_{\nu}$ to be real.
Physically, the Kitaev model can be exactly mapped into a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain with XY interactions by Jordan-Wigner transformation [@lieb61] and can be realized in the semiconductor nanowire proximity coupling to a $s$-wave superconductor [@oreg10; @lutchyn10]. This paradigm model shows plentiful fascinating topological properties and there are two distinct phases, i.e., the topologically trivial and nontrivial phases. The critical points lie at $\frac{\mu_{\nu}}{t_{\nu}}=1$ and $\Delta_{\nu}=0$ [@kitaev01].
By choosing $\mu_{l}=\mu_{r}=0$ (the chemical potential can be modulated by TLGV $V_i$ shown in Fig. \[fig:02\]) and $\Delta_l=\Delta_r=t_l=t_r$ for the left and right chains, both chains are in the topologically nontrivial phase. As a result there exist MBSs at the ends of both chains, depicted by the stars in Fig. \[fig:02\]. One can define Majorana operators $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3a}
\gamma_n=a_n+a_n^{\dag}, ~~\gamma_n'=i(a_n^{\dag}-a_n),~~n=-N_1,...,N_2.\end{aligned}$$ After substituting them into Eq.(\[2a\]), the Hamiltonian of left (right) chain becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4a}
H_{\nu}=i\frac{t_{\nu}}{2}\sum_{n=M_{\nu}}^{M_{\nu}'-1}\gamma_n\gamma_{n+1}',~~~\nu=l,r.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, the Majorana operators $\gamma_n$ and $\gamma_{n+1}'$ are coupled with different sites. In particular the Majorana operators $\gamma_{N_1}'=i(a_{-N_1}^{\dag}-a_{-N_1})$, $\gamma_{-1}=a_{-1}+a_{-1}^{\dag}$, $\gamma_{N+1}'=i(a_{N+1}^{\dag}-a_{N+1})$, and $\gamma_{N_2}=a_{N_2}+a_{N_2}^{\dag}$ do not appear in Eq.(\[4a\]), which indicate there are four MBSs in our system. Since the four MBSs are decoupled to the remaining sites and only locate at the end of both left and right chains, we can ignore the Hamiltonian of the remaining sites when we study CMBS.
![Schematic illustration for realizing universal Majorana qubit rotation in the Kitaev chain. There is a direct relationship between the Kitaev model and the solid state system in the low-density limit (for details, see Refs. [@alicea11; @schmidt13a]). The braiding operation can be realized in the T-junction on the left chain by adiabatically controlling TLGV $V_i$, and the CMBS can be modulated by the voltage $V_c$.[]{data-label="fig:02"}](fig2.eps)
Note that to couple MBSs one should choose the parameters $\{\mu_c,t_c,
\Delta_c\}$ to make sure the central chain is in the topologically trivial phase. Otherwise the MBSs $\gamma_{-1}$ and $\gamma_{N+1}'$ would disappear in this inhomogeneous chain. As we just consider the nearest-neighbour interactions in Eq.(\[2a\]), only the MBSs $\gamma_{-1}$ and $\gamma_{N+1}'$ can be coupled to the central chain. So the Hamiltonian of interest is given by [@bolech07] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{10}
H_i&=&H_c+H_{lc}+H_{rc}, \nonumber\\
H_{lc}&=&-\frac{t_{1}}{2}\gamma_{-1}(a_0-a_0^{\dag}), \nonumber\\
H_{rc}&=&-\frac{it_{2}}{2}(a_N+a_N^{\dag})\gamma_{N+1}'.\end{aligned}$$ In order to obtain the energy spectrum of the central chain, it is convenient to carry out Fourier transform $a_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N+1}}\sum_{k}a_{k}e^{ikn}$ by imposing periodic boundary condition (we have set the lattice spacing to be unit and Fourier transform will be precise when the number of sites is very larege, $N\sim \infty$). The validity of Fourier transform is also verified by the numerical calculations in Fig. \[fig:03\]. The Hamiltonian of the central chain becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
H_c=\sum_{k}(\mu_c-t_c\cos k)a_{k}^{\dag}a_{k}-i\Delta_c\sin k a_{k}^{\dag}a_{-k}^{\dag}+h.c.\end{aligned}$$ One can rewrite the above Hamiltonian in a normal Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) form by defining a two component operator $A_k^{\dag}=[a_{k}^{\dag},a_{-k}]$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3}
H_c=\sum_{k}A_k^{\dag}\mathcal{H}_k A_k,~~~\mathcal{H}_k=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
h_z & -ih_y \\
ih_y & -h_z \\
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $h_z=\mu_c-t_c\cos k$ and $h_y=\Delta_c\sin k$. Consequently the Hamiltonian is simplified as (up to a constant) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4}
H_c=\sum_{k}E_{k}b_{k}^{\dag}b_{k},\end{aligned}$$ where the quasi-particle operator $b_{k}$ is defined as $b_{k}=u_{k}a_{k}-v_{k}a_{-k}^{\dag}$ and the energy spectrum of the central chain is given by $E_k=\sqrt{(\mu_c-t_c\cos{k})^2+\Delta_c^2\sin^2{k}}$, $|u_k|=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{\mu_c-t_c\cos k}{E_k})}$, $|v_k|=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(1-\frac{\mu_c-t_c\cos k}{E_k})}$. Using the above notations, we can rewrite the Hamiltonian of interest more explicitly as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{11}
H_i&=&\sum_{k}E_{k}b_{k}^{\dag}b_{k}-\sum_{k}\frac{t_1}{2}\gamma_{-1}
[(u_k+v_k)b_{k}^{\dag}-(u_k^{*}+v_k^{*})b_{k}]
\nonumber\\ &&-\sum_{k}\frac{t_2}{2}[e^{-ikN}
(u_k-v_k)b_{k}^{\dag}+e^{ikN}(u_k^{*}-v_k^{*})b_{k}]\gamma_{N+1}'. \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Since we are particularly interested in the low-energy dynamics of system, we apply Schrieffer-Wolff transformation [@schrieffer66] to eliminate high-energy spectrum. We denote the first term in Eq.(\[11\]) by $\mathcal{H}_0$ and the remaining terms by $\mathcal{H}_1$. By choosing the unitary transformation $\mathcal{S}$ to satisfy the relation $[\mathcal{H}_0,\mathcal{S}]=\mathcal{H}_1$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{11a}
&&\mathcal{S}=\sum_{k}\frac{t_1(u_k+v_k)\gamma_{-1}b_{k}-t_1(u_k^{*}+v_k^{*})b_{k}^{\dag}\gamma_{-1}}{2 E_k} \nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{k}\frac{t_2e^{ikN}(u_k-v_k)\gamma_{N+1}'b_{k}-t_2e^{-ikN}
(u_k^{*}-v_k^{*})b_{k}^{\dag}\gamma_{N+1}'}{2 E_k}. \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Making use of the Baker-Hausdorff formula $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-\mathcal{S}}H_ie^{\mathcal{S}}=H_i+[H_i,\mathcal{S}]+\frac{1}{2}[[H_i,\mathcal{S}],\mathcal{S}]+\cdot\cdot\cdot,\end{aligned}$$ and keeping the terms up to first order, we obtain an effective Hamiltonian between the adjacent MBSs $\gamma_{-1}$ and $\gamma_{N+1}'$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{12}
H_{0N}=i\epsilon\gamma_{-1}\gamma_{N+1}', ~~~\epsilon=
\frac{t_1t_2}{\sqrt{\mu_c^{2}+\Delta_c^2-t_c^2}}e^{-N/\varepsilon_0}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\varepsilon_0$ is the coherence length and $\varepsilon_0^{-1}=\ln\frac{\Delta_{c}-t_c}{\sqrt{\mu_c^{2}+\Delta_c^2-t_c^2}-\mu_c}$. Eq.(\[12\]) demonstrates that the effective CMBS can be induced by the central chain. Physically, $\epsilon$ represents an amplitude for the MBSs to tunnel across the central chain. This is a virtual co-tunneling process since there exists energy gap in the central chain and real electrons and holes cannot tunnel from one MBS to another. In addition the coupling strength $\epsilon$ depends exponentially on the length $N$, which is the reason why the MBSs are topologically protected. In Fig. \[fig:03\], we plot the coupling strength $\epsilon$ versus the chemical potential $\mu_c$ and the pairing amplitude $\Delta_c$ of the central chain. One can find that the analytical solutions are in agreement with the numerical solutions when the chemical potential is much larger than the hopping amplitude. It is also readily observed that the coupling strength $\epsilon$ decreases with the increasing of chemical potential $\mu_c$ and is enhanced by the pairing amplitude $\Delta_c$ of the central chain, reminiscent of the results where the Majorana qubit setup is placed in a microwave cavity [@schmidt13a]. Physically, it originates from the fact that the chemical potential associates with the energy gap, and the pairing amplitude is related to the feature of the energy spectrum (cf. $E_k$ in Eq.(\[4\])). As we know, a larger chemical potential $\mu_c$ gives rise to a larger energy gap. The larger energy gap would prohibit the electron co-tunneling, leading to a weak CMBS. On the other hand, a larger pairing amplitude $\Delta_c$ gives rise to wider of energy spectrum, making more quasi-particles participate in the cotunneling process. As a result the coherence length $\varepsilon_0$ also be large, which can be found in Fig. \[fig:03\](d). Therefore the CMBS gets strong with large pairing amplitude $\Delta_c$.
![The coupling strength $\epsilon$ as a function of the chemical potential $\mu_c$ with the different number of sites. (a) $N=5$. (b) $N=10$. (c) $N=15$. The circle and solid lines are the exact numerical solutions of the whole Kitaev chain (see Eq.(\[9\])) with and without periodic boundary condition, respectively. It shows that it almost makes no difference by imposing periodic boundary condition. The dot line is the approximate analytical solutions (see Eq.(\[12\])). All parameters are in units of hopping amplitude, i.e., $t_1=t_2=t_l=t_r=t_c=1$. (d) The coherence length versus the pairing amplitude with $\mu_c=3$.[]{data-label="fig:03"}](fig3.eps)
Coupling induced by the trivial chain with pairing coupling at the boundaries {#III}
=============================================================================
In this section we will study CMBS when the central chain exists the pairing coupling at the boundaries. The Hamiltonian of interest then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
H_i&=&H_c+H_{lc}+H_{rc}, \nonumber\\
H_{lc}&=&-\frac{t_{1}}{2}\gamma_{-1}(a_0-a_0^{\dag})-
\frac{\Delta_1}{2}(a_{-1}^{\dag}a_{0}^{\dag}-a_{-1}a_{0}), \nonumber\\
H_{rc}&=&-\frac{it_{2}}{2}(a_N+a_N^{\dag})\gamma_{N+1}'-
\frac{\Delta_2}{2}(a_{N}^{\dag}a_{N+1}^{\dag}-a_{N}a_{N+1}), \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $H_c$ is the same as in Eq.(\[10\]). By using the Majorana operators representation in Eq.(\[3a\]), the Hamiltonian can be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{14}
H_{lc}&=&-\frac{t_{1}+\Delta_1}{2}\gamma_{-1}(a_0-a_0^{\dag}) +\frac{i\Delta_1}{2}\gamma_{-1}'(a_0+a_0^{\dag}), \nonumber\\
H_{rc}&=&-\frac{i(t_{2}+\Delta_2)}{2}(a_N+a_N^{\dag})\gamma_{N+1}' +\frac{\Delta_2}{2}(a_N-a_N^{\dag})\gamma_{N+1}. \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ The second term in the Hamiltonian $H_{lc}$ $(H_{rc})$ can be ignored if we only consider CMBS, but this term affects the spatial distribution of the MBSs $\gamma_{-1}$ and $\gamma_{N+1}'$. It is interesting to find that the pairing coupling is equivalent to adjust the effective hopping coupling between the central chain and the left (right) chain with an effective hopping $\frac{t_1+\Delta_1}{2}(\frac{t_2+\Delta_2}{2})$.
Fig. \[fig:04\] demonstrates the coupling strength $\epsilon$ as a function of pairing amplitude in the central chain. It can be observed that the analytical solutions are in agreement with the numerical solutions when $\mu_c$ is large enough, and the coupling strength $\epsilon$ can reach an relatively high value even though the central chain is long. Note that CMBS would in turn modify the spatial distribution of the MBSs $\gamma_{-1}$ and $\gamma_{N+1}'$. Especially, the stronger the coupling strength is, the larger modification the spatial distribution will be. So the coupling strength should not be very large for this consideration. Noting that it would cost long time to perform the operation $U_{0N}(t)$ (cf. Eq.(\[21\])) when the coupling strength is too weak, one should trade off those factors to choose an reasonable coupling strength to implement universal Majorana qubit rotation (UMQR).
![The coupling strength $\epsilon$ as a function of the pairing amplitude $\Delta_c$ with the different number of sites. (a) $N=5$. (b) $N=10$. (c) $N=15$. The solid line and dot line denote the exact numerical solutions (without periodic boundary condition) and the approximate analytical solutions, respectively. The hopping amplitude $t_1t_2$ are revised as $(t_1+\Delta_1)(t_2+\Delta_2)$. All parameters are chosen in units of hopping amplitude in the central chain. $\Delta_1=\Delta_2=5.$ (d) The exact numerical solutions of coupling strength $\epsilon$ versus the pairing amplitude $\Delta_c$ when $\mu_c=2$. $\Delta_1=\Delta_2=1$.[]{data-label="fig:04"}](fig4.eps)
Coupling induced by the trivial chain with long-range interactions {#IV}
==================================================================
In this section we turn to study CMBS mediated by trivial chains with long-range interactions. The Hamiltonian is described by $$\begin{aligned}
H_c&=&\sum_{n=0}^{N}\mu_{c} a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n}-\sum_{m=1}^{2}\sum_{n=0}^{N-m}(\frac{t_{cm}}{2}a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n+m} \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\Delta_{cm}}{2} a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n+m}^{\dag}+h.c.).\end{aligned}$$ That is, the next-to-nearest neighbor interactions are added in the central chain. With the help of Raman laser, this model can be realized by the system of trapped fermi atoms in optical lattice with the zigzag structure coupling to a 3D BEC reservoir, as shown in Fig. \[fig:05\]. The relative strength of hopping amplitudes $t_{c1}$ and $t_{c2}$ can be modulated by changing the zigzag geometry. For details, we refer the readers to [@jiang11; @kraus12].
![The zigzag structure of the Kitaev chain which can be realized in optical lattices. []{data-label="fig:05"}](fig5.eps)
The Hamiltonian of the hopping coupling between the left (right) chain and the central chain becomes $$\begin{aligned}
H_{lc}&=&-\frac{t_{1}}{2}\gamma_{-1}(a_0-a_0^{\dag})-\frac{t_{1}'}{2}\gamma_{-1}(a_1-a_1^{\dag}), \nonumber\\
H_{rc}&=&-\frac{it_{2}}{2}(a_N+a_N^{\dag})\gamma_{N+1}'-\frac{it_{2}'}{2}(a_{N-1}+a_{N-1}^{\dag})\gamma_{N+1}'. \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Following the similar derivation procedures in Eqs.(\[10\])-(\[12\]), one can estimate the effective Hamiltonian of CMBS, $$\begin{aligned}
H_{0N}'&=&i\epsilon\gamma_{-1}\gamma_{N+1}' \nonumber\\
\epsilon&=&\sum_{k}\Big{|}\lim_{z\rightarrow z_k}(z-z_k)\frac{2(t_1z+t_1')(t_2z+t_2')z^{N-1}}{\prod_{i=1}^{4}(z-z_{i})}\Big{|}, \nonumber\\
z_k&\in&\Big{\{}z_i\Big{|}|z_i|<1,~i=1,2,3,4\Big{\}},\end{aligned}$$ where $z_i$ ($i=1,2,3,4$) is the root of the quartic equation $(\Delta_{c2}-t_{c2})z^4+(\Delta_{c1}-t_{c1})z^3+2\mu_cz^2-(\Delta_{c1}+t_{c1})z-(\Delta_{c2}+t_{c2})=0$. Obviously, the Hamiltonian returns to Eq. (\[12\]) if one sets $t_{c2}=\Delta_{c2}=0$. Fig. \[fig:06\] depicts the relation between the coupling strength and the parameters of the central chain. One observes that the analytical solutions are in well agreement with the numerical solutions when $\mu_c\gg t_c$, i.e., $E_k\gg t_{1,2}$. In the presence of long-range interactions, the coupling strength $\epsilon$ is also enhanced since the value of coupling strengh $\epsilon$ takes minimum when $t_{c2}=\Delta_{c2}=0$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:06\](b). It is not surprising since there are multiple channels for electrons co-tunneling in the long-range interactions, i.e., the next-to-nearest hopping amplitude also makes contributions to the electrons co-tunneling process.
![ (a) The coupling strength $\epsilon$ as a function of the chemical potential $\mu_c$. $N=10$. $t_{c2}=\frac{1}{2}t_{c1}$. $\Delta_{c2}=\frac{1}{2}\Delta_{c1}$. $t_1=t_2=t_{c1}$. $t_1'=t_2'=t_{c2}$. The solid line and dot line denote the exact numerical solutions and the approximate analytical solutions, respectively. (b) The coupling strength $\epsilon$ as a function of the hopping amplitude and pairing amplitude. $\mu_c=2$. $\Delta_{c1}=5$. []{data-label="fig:06"}](fig6.eps)
Modulation of CMBS by periodic driving {#V}
======================================
As we have shown, CMBS is closely related to the chemical potential, the hopping amplitude, and the pairing amplitude of the central chain (cf. Eq. (\[12\])). This implies the coupling strength $\epsilon$ can be manipulated through controlling those parameters. Considering the hopping amplitude and the pairing amplitude cannot be easily manipulated in practice, we first explore the relation between the coupling strength $\epsilon$ and the chemical potential $\mu_c$. We do not plot directly the dependence of $\epsilon$ on $\mu_c$. Instead, we show the dependence of Rabi oscillation between two MBSs on $\mu_c$. This Rabi oscillation can show not only how the coupling strength changes with the chemical potential (since distinct coupling strengths can reflect on distinct Rabi frequencies, cf. Eq.(\[21\])), but also how well the Majorana qubit works.
To show the Rabi oscillation, we define the BdG Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{total}$ of our system as follows. $H_{total}=\frac{1}{2}A^{\dag}\mathcal{H}_{total}A$, where $A=[a_{-N_{1}},...,a_{N_{2}},
a_{-N_{1}}^{\dag},...,a_{N_{2}}^{\dag}]^{T}$. By this definition, we can solve the following equation [@gennes66] $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{d|\Psi(t)\rangle}{dt}=\mathcal{H}_{total}|\Psi(t)\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ with the initial condition $|\Psi(0)\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|-1\rangle+|\mathcal{N}\rangle)$. The label $|-1\rangle$ denotes the vector (in basis $A$) with components $|-1\rangle_j=\delta_{-1j}$ for $j\in\{-N_1,...,2\mathcal{N}\}$, and so on. $\mathcal{N}$ denotes the total number of sites. In the Heisenberg picture, $|\Psi(0)\rangle$ stands for the initial operator $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_{-1}+a^{\dagger}_{-1})$, which is the left MBS in vicinity of the central chain. With these notations, $|\Psi(t)\rangle$ clearly represents the operator evolving at time $t$, and $|\langle \Psi(0)|\Psi(t)\rangle|^2$ defines the distance between $|\Psi(t)\rangle$ and $|\Psi(0)\rangle$. Fig. \[fig:07\] shows the distance as a function of evolution time. If there is no CMBS, the Rabi oscillation can not appear in the system, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:07\](a). In Fig. \[fig:07\](b)-(d), different chemical potentials $\mu_c$ result in different Rabi frequencies. When the chemical potential is large, the coupling strength would be small, leading to a small Rabi frequency. That is, the Rabi frequency increases with the decreasing of the chemical potential. Similarly, the coupling strength can be manipulated by changing the pairing amplitude, as the blue-dark lines show in Fig. \[fig:08\]. Besides, the coupling strength can be modulated purely by the phase of pairing amplitude, e.g., Refs. [@alicea11; @zyuzin13; @tong13; @xue14].
![ Population of $|\Psi(0)\rangle$ as a function of evolution time. The system is in the MBS $\gamma_{-1}$ initially. The other parameters are $\mathcal{N}=20$, $\mu_l=\mu_r=0$, $\Delta_l=\Delta_r=t_l=t_r=5$, $\Delta_c=5$, $t_1=t_2=t_c$, $N=10$. (a) $\mu_c=10$. (b) $\mu_c=3$. (c) $\mu_c=2.5$. (d) $\mu_c=2$. []{data-label="fig:07"}](fig7.eps)
![ Population of $|\Psi(0)\rangle$ as a function of evolution time. The system is in the MBS $\gamma_{-1}$ initially. The other parameters are $\mu_l=\mu_r=0$, $\Delta_l=\Delta_r=t_l=t_r=5$, $\mu_c=2$, $t_1=t_2=t_c$, $N=10$. (a) $\Delta_c=0$. (b) $\Delta_c=2$. (c) $\Delta_c=5$. (d) $\Delta_c=10$. The blue-dark lines are the exact numerical results obtained by Eq. (\[9\]), and the green-grey lines are plotted by the Hamiltonian given in Eq. (\[19\]). The effective pairing amplitude are the same for two lines in each panels.[]{data-label="fig:08"}](fig8.eps)
Since the pairing amplitude is inherently determined by the property of superconductors, it may be difficult to directly modulate the pairing amplitude with the current techniques. In following we show that this goal can be reached by driving the central chain with periodic field. The Hamiltonian of the periodic driving field reads $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\mu}(t)=\mu_{0}\cos{\omega t}\sum_{n=0}^{N}a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{0}$ and $\omega$ are the amplitude and the frequency of the driving field, respectively. In an realistic situation, this driving field can be achieved by applying an external ac electric potential to TLGV, since the on-site chemical potential can be modulated by TLGV.
To get an effective Hamiltonian, we work in an rotation frame defined by the unitary transformation, $U(t)=e^{-i\frac{\mu_{0}}{\omega}\sin{\omega
t}\sum_{n=0}^{N}a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n}}$. The effective Hamiltonian of the whole chain becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{19}
H_{total}'&=&U^{\dag}(t)[H_{total}+H_{\mu}(t)]U(t)-iU^{\dag}(t)\dot{U}(t), \nonumber\\
&=&H_{l}+H_{r}+H_{c}'+H_{lc}'+H_{rc}', \nonumber\\
H_{c}'&=&\sum_{n=0}^{N}\mu_{c} a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n}-\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}(\frac{t_{c}}{2}a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n+1} \nonumber\\
&&+ e^{i\frac{2\mu_0}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)}\frac{\Delta_{c}}{2} a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n+1}^{\dag}+h.c.), \nonumber\\
H_{lc}'&=&-e^{-i\frac{\mu_0}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)}\frac{t_1}{2}a_{-1}^{\dag}a_0+h.c., \nonumber\\
H_{rc}'&=&-e^{-i\frac{\mu_0}{\omega}\sin(\omega t)}\frac{t_2}{2}a_{N+1}^{\dag}a_N+h.c.,\end{aligned}$$ where $H_l$ and $H_r$ are invariant under this rotation. By making use of the identity $$\begin{aligned}
e^{ix\sin\omega t}=
\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\mathcal{J}_{n}(x)e^{i
n\omega t},\end{aligned}$$ with the $n$-order Bessel function $\mathcal{J}_{n}(x)$, the time-dependent effective Hamiltonian in the high-frequency limit (i.e., $\omega\gg \mu_{c}, t_{c}$) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{22}
H_{c}'&=&\sum_{n=0}^{N}\mu_{c} a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n}-\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}(\frac{t_{c}}{2}a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n+1} \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\Delta_{c}}{2}\mathcal{J}_{0}(\frac{2\mu_0}{\omega}) a_{n}^{\dag}a_{n+1}^{\dag}+h.c.), \nonumber\\
H_{lc}'&=&-\frac{t_1}{2}\mathcal{J}_{0}(\frac{\mu_0}{\omega})a_{-1}^{\dag}a_0+h.c., \nonumber\\
H_{rc}'&=&-\frac{t_2}{2}\mathcal{J}_{0}(\frac{\mu_0}{\omega})a_{N+1}^{\dag}a_N+h.c.\end{aligned}$$ Under this approximation, the pairing amplitude of the central chain is modulated by the amplitude and the frequency of the driving field through the zero-order Bessel function, i.e., $\Delta_{eff}=\frac{\Delta_{c}}{2}\mathcal{J}_{0}(\frac{2\mu_0}{\omega})$. We plot the time evolution of the MBSs by driving field in Fig. \[fig:08\]. The green-grey lines show that the Rabi frequency in the presence of the driving field is a bit different from the exact results. This originates from the fact that the effective hopping amplitude is also changed by the driving field (see $H_{lc}'$ and $H_{rc}'$ in Eq.(\[22\])), rendering the correction of Rabi frequency. We would like to address that, this correction does not make difference for UMQR as it only change the time to complete the operation. Interestingly, we can also modulate the effective hopping amplitude at the boundaries by the driving field to control CMBS. It is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:09\](a) that the adjacent MBSs $\gamma_{-1}$ and $\gamma_{N+1}'$ can be decoupled by making the effective hopping amplitude at boundaries ($H_{lc}'$ and $H_{rc}'$) vanish, i.e., setting $\mathcal{J}_{0}(\frac{\mu_0}{\omega})=0$. Otherwise, CMBS can be really induced, manifesting in the Rabi oscillation shown in Fig. \[fig:09\](b)-(d).
![ The population of each sites in $|\Psi\rangle$ as a function of time. The MBS $\gamma_{-1}$ locates at the site $-1$ initially. $\Delta_c=10$. (a) $\mathcal{J}_{0}(\frac{\mu_0}{\omega})=0$. (b) $\mathcal{J}_{0}(\frac{\mu_0}{\omega})=0.8605$. (c) $\mathcal{J}_{0}(\frac{\mu_0}{\omega})=0.9120$. (d) $\mathcal{J}_{0}(\frac{\mu_0}{\omega})=0.9696$. The other physical parameters are the same as in Fig. \[fig:08\]. The three part of Kitaev chain are decoupled from each other when $\mathcal{J}_{0}(\frac{\mu_0}{\omega})=0$, and there exists Rabi oscillation between the adjacent MBSs $\gamma_{-1}$ and $\gamma_{N+1}'$ when $\mathcal{J}_{0}(\frac{\mu_0}{\omega})\neq 0$, where the MBSs $\gamma_{N+1}'$ locates at site $11$.[]{data-label="fig:09"}](fig9.eps)
discussion and conclusion {#VI}
=========================
As well known, an ordinary spinless fermion can be used to encode a logical qubit because it can span a two-dimensional Hilbert space (occupy or empty). However it is not true for MBSs since the operators satisfy $\gamma_{i}=\gamma_{i}^{\dag}$ and $\gamma_{i}^2=1$. By recombining the operators $\gamma_{i}$, one can use two MBSs to construct a Dirac fermion, e.g., $d_1=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma_{N_1}'+i\gamma_{-1})$ and $d_2=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma_{N+1}'+i\gamma_{N_2})$ in Fig. \[fig:02\]. It seems that a logical qubit can be encoded by two MBSs. Nevertheless, for the system with parity conservation (calculated through the Dirac fermions formed by MBSs), the coherent superposition of MBSs with different parities is prohibited. Therefore it cannot encode a logical qubit by two MBSs in the parity conservation system. To guarantee the two computational bases having the same parity, four MBSs (see $\gamma_{N_1}'$, $\gamma_{-1}$, $\gamma_{N+1}'$, and $\gamma_{N_2}$ in Fig. \[fig:02\]) is necessary to construct a logical qubit. E. g., we can construct the Majonara-based qubit in the odd parity subspace, $$\begin{aligned}
|1_{1}0_{2}\rangle=d_1^{\dag}|0_{1}0_{2}\rangle, |0_{1}1_{2}\rangle=d_2^{\dag}|0_{1}0_{2}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $|0_{1}0_{2}\rangle$ is the vacuum state of the Dirac fermions. The topologically protected single qubit operations are achieved by exchanging spatial positions of the MBSs $\gamma_{N_1}'$ and $\gamma_{-1}$, which exhibit the non-Abelian statistics. This braiding operation, i.e., the $\frac{\pi}{4}$ phase gate, can be represented by the following unitary operation $$\begin{aligned}
U_{N_10}=e^{\frac{i\pi}{4}\sigma_{z}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_z=|1_{1}0_{2}\rangle\langle
1_{1}0_{2}|-|0_{1}1_{2}\rangle\langle 0_{1}1_{2}|$. It can be achieved in the one-dimensional semiconducting wires with T-junction by controlling TLGV adiabatically [@alicea11]. Note that the braiding operation is insufficient for realizing universal quantum computation since it is not able to perform arbitrary single qubit rotations [@nayak08; @sravyi06], which are usually not topologically protected (rotation angle $\theta\neq \frac{\pi}{2}n$, $n$ is integer).
When there exists CMBS in the system (it has been also investigated in the continuous model instead of lattice model [@cheng09; @sau11a; @sarma12; @cottet13; @kovalev14]), the effective Hamiltonian takes $H_{0N}=\frac{i\epsilon}{2}\gamma_{-1}\gamma_{N+1}'$. We can obtain the following unitary operation for a fixed evolution time $$\begin{aligned}
\label{21}
U_{0N}(t)=e^{-\frac{i\epsilon t}{2}\sigma_x},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_x=|1_{1}0_{2}\rangle\langle
0_{1}1_{2}|+|0_{1}1_{2}\rangle\langle 1_{1}0_{2}|$. Together with the braiding operation $U_{N_10}$, one can implement UMQR via the successive operations $U'=U_{0N}(t_2)U_{N_10}U_{0N}(t_1)$ [@schmidt13a]. To realize the operation $U'$, exact control over CMBS with a fixed evolution time is required. This is crucial since the procedure is usually not topologically protected. The other consideration is that the MBSs should decouple instantaneously from each other after (before) the coupling of the adjacent MBSs. As shown in Figs. (\[fig:07\])-(\[fig:09\]), the two considerations are sufficiently solved since the modulation of the amplitude or frequency of the electric potential on TLGV can be controlled with high precision. As an example, in order to manipulate the chemical potential, we adopt two distinct voltages, e.g., $\mu_{c1}=10$ and $\mu_{c2}=2.5$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:07\](a) and Fig. \[fig:07\](c). We first apply a low voltage $\mu_{c2}$ for periods of time $t_1$ to realize the operation $U_{0N}(t_1)$. Then we switch it to a high voltage $\mu_{c1}$ to realize the braiding operation $U_{N_10}$. Next we change the gate to the low voltage $\mu_{c2}$ for periods of time $t_2$ to realize the operation $U_{0N}(t_2)$. Finally we back to the high voltage $\mu_{c1}$ to cancel CMBS. This suggests that the UMQR can be realized by changing TLGV in a square-wave form, composed by $\mu_{c1}$ and $\mu_{c2}$. In fact, the result is the same as in the case where the driving frequency is switched to $\omega_1$ or $\omega_2$ in sequence, see Fig. \[fig:09\](a) and Fig. \[fig:09\](c).
In conclusion, we have presented a proposal to couple Majorana bound states mediated by a topologically trivial chain. Both cases of short-range and long-range interactions in the chain are considered. We demonstrate that CMBS depends sharply on the pairing amplitude and the chemical potential of the central chain. Particularly, CMBS can be enhanced when the pairing amplitude of the chain is large. When a driving field is applied to the chain, we explore the dependence of the CMBS on the frequency and amplitude of the driving field. These results suggest that there are many ways to change CMBS. One way is to manipulate the chemical potential of the central chain. The other way is to modulate the effective pairing amplitude of the central chain, which can be realized by changing the frequency of periodic driving field. Finally, we have demonstrated the application of tunable CMBS into the realization of quantum gates, i.e., implementing the unitary rotation operator $U$ for quantum computation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 11175032, No. 61475033, and No. 11204028).
A. Y. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. **303**, 2 (2003). C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. **80**, 1083 (2008).
N. Read and D. Green, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 10267 (2000). D. A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 268 (2001). L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 096407 (2008). M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. **82**, 3045 (2010). J. D. Sau, R. M. Lutchyn, S. Tewari, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 040502 (2010). X. L. Qi and S. C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. **83**, 1057 (2011). J. Alicea, Rep. Prog. Phys, **75**, 076501 (2012). C. W. J. Beenakker, Annu. Rev. Con. Mat. Phys. **4**, 113 (2013).
A. Das, Y. Ronen, Y. Most, Y. Oreg, M. Heiblum, and H. Shtrikman, Nat. Phys. **8**, 887 (2012). V. Mourik, K. Zuo, S. M. Frolov, S. R. Plissard, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Science, **336**, 1003 (2012). M. T. Deng, C. L. Yu, G. Y. Huang, M. Larsson, P. Caroff, and H. Q. Xu, Nano Lett. **12**, 6414 (2012). L. P. Rokhinson, X. Liu, and J. K. Furdyna, Nat. Phys. **8**, 795 (2012). S. N. Perge, I. K. Drozdov, J. Li, H. Chen, S. Jeon, J. Seo, A. H. MacDonald, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Science, **346**, 602 (2014). E. J. H. Lee, X. Jiang, M. Houzet, R. Aguado, C. M. Lieber, and S. De Franceschi, Nat. Nanotech. **9**, 79 (2014).
T. L. Schmidt, A. Nunnenkamp, and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 107006 (2013). T. L. Schmidt, A. Nunnenkamp, and C. Bruder, New J. Phys. **15**, 025043 (2013).
A. Yu. Kitaev, Phys. Usp. **44**, 131 (2001).
E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Ann. Phys. (NY) **16**, 407 (1961).
Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 177002 (2010). R. M. Lutchyn, J. D. Sau, and S. D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 077001 (2010).
J. Alicea, Y. Oreg, G. Refael, F. von Oppen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Nat. Phys. **7**, 412 (2011).
C. J. Bolech and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 237002 (2007).
J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Phys. Rev. **149**, 491 (1966).
L. Jiang, T. Kitagawa, J. Alicea, A. R. Akhmerov, D. Pekker, G. Refael, J. I. Cirac, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 220402 (2011). C. V. Kraus, S. Diehl, P. Zoller, and M. A. Baranov, New J. Phys. **14**, 113036 (2012).
Gennes, P. G. de, *Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys* (W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1966).
A. A. Zyuzin, D. Rainis, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. **111**, 056802 (2013). Q. J. Tong, J. H. An, J. B. Gong, H. G. Luo, and C. H. Oh, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 201109 (2013). Z. Y. Xue, M. Gong, J. Liu, Y. Hu, S. L. Zhu, and Z. D. Wang, Sci. Rep. **5**, 12233 (2015).
S. Bravyi, Phys. Rev. A **73**, 042313 (2006).
M. Cheng, R. M. Lutchyn, V. Galitski, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 107001 (2009). J. D. Sau, D. J. Clarke, and S. Tewari, Phys. Rev. B **84**, 094505 (2011). S. D. Sarma, J. D. Sau, and T. D. Stanescu, Phys. Rev. B **86**, 220506 (2012). A. Cottet, T. Kontos, and B. Doucot, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 195415 (2013). A. A. Kovalev, A. De, and K. Shtengel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 106402 (2014).
[^1]: Corresponding address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study partially occupied lattice systems of classical magnetic dipoles which point along randomly oriented axes. Only dipolar interactions are taken into account. The aim of the model is to mimic collective effects in disordered assemblies of magnetic nanoparticles. From tempered Monte Carlo simulations, we obtain the following equilibrium results. The zero temperature entropy approximately vanishes. Below a temperature $T_c$, given by $k_BT_c= (0.95\pm 0.1)x\varepsilon_d $, where $\varepsilon_d$ is a nearest neighbor dipole-dipole interaction energy and $x$ is the site occupancy rate, we find a spin glass phase. In it, (1) the mean value $\langle \mid q\mid\rangle$, where $q$ is the spin overlap, decreases algebraically with system size $N$ as $N$ increases, and (2) $\delta \mid q\mid \simeq 0.5 \langle\mid q \mid \rangle\sqrt{T/x}$, independently of $N$, where $\delta \mid q\mid$ is the root mean square deviation of $\mid q \mid$.'
author:
- 'Julio F. Fernández'
- 'Juan J. Alonso'
date:
-
-
title: 'Equilibrium spin-glass transition of magnetic dipoles with random anisotropy axes on a site diluted lattice'
---
introduction
============
Magnetic dipole-dipole interactions play a fundamental role in magnetic phenomena. Their long range nature gives rise to magnetic domains in ferromagnets. On the other hand, because of their weak strength, they usually play an insignificant role in determining the Curie temperatures and in critical phenomena of atomic crystals. In assemblies of magnetic nanoparticles (NPs), things can be very different. Because ferromagnetic NPs of up to thousands of Bohr magnetons have a single magnetic domain, [@sd] dipole-dipole interactions among such NPs can be very large, and can thus dominate their collective behavior.[@dominate] Often, both the orientation of the crystallites of which NPs are made as well as their positions are disordered in the assembly, and therefore behave much as a system of interacting magnetic dipoles with randomly oriented magnetic easy axes. These systems of random axes dipoles (RADs) are clearly frustrated, since two different dipoles give rise to magnetic fields at any given point which are not in general collinear. The sort of time dependent behavior that is expected of spin glasses has been observed in experiments[@irrev; @2000p; @orbach] as well as in simulations[@mcaging; @ulrich0; @ulrich; @labarta; @bunde] of disordered assemblies of magnetic NPs. Because these systems evolve in time very slowly (exhibiting aging[@irrev; @mcaging] and other memory[@memory] effects), evidence for a *thermodynamic* spin glass phase in them is more difficult to come by. One of us has recently given numerical evidence for the existence of an equilibrium spin glass phase for a *fully* occupied lattice of dipoles with randomly oriented axes.[@unos] On the other hand, numerical evidence against such a phase has been given for site *diluted* lattice systems of magnetic dipoles with *parallel* axes.[@clare]
One might expect a site diluted systems of RADs to behave as fully occupied ones, and therefore to have equilibrium spin glass phases at low temperatures. For support of this expectation, consider rescaling distances in a dilute system of RADs. Because dipole dipole interactions decay with distance $r$ as $r^{-3}$, letting $r\rightarrow b r$ merely redefines dipole-dipole interaction energies as $\varepsilon_d\rightarrow b^{-3}\varepsilon_d$. This would imply all physical quantities for systems of RAD’s in three dimensions (3D) with different values of site concentration $x$ collapse onto the same curve when plotted versus $T/x$, where $T$ is the temperature. This argument holds for randomly located RAD’s on a *continuous* space in 3D. It is therefore expected to hold approximately for a site diluted *lattice* if $x\ll 1$, but not necessarily for lattices with higher concentrations of RADs. This is why dipoles with parallel axes can have an antiferromagnetic phase at low temperature on a fully occupied simple cubic lattice,[@nos0] but appear to have no condensed phase of any sort on a very dilute lattice.[@clare] Similarly, the existence of a spin glass phase for RADs for $x< 1$ does not follow from its existence for $x=1$.
Our main aim here is to find, by means of the parallel tempered Monte Carlo (TMC) algorithm,[@tempering0; @ugrseminar] whether an equilibrium spin glass phase exists in a site diluted system of RADs in 3D. We also aim to establish, if the spin glass phase does exist, whether in the condensed phase (1) there is a single extended state,[@extended] as in a ferromagnet or in the droplet model of spin glasses,[@droplet] or (2) there are multiple extended states, as in the XY model in 2D[@KT] or in the replica symmetry breaking (RSB) theory of spin glasses.[@RSB]
The paper is planned as follows. In Sect. \[mm\] we specify the RAD model and describe how we apply the parallel tempered Monte Carlo (TMC) algorithm.[@tempering0; @ugrseminar] We do this for $x=0.35$ and $x=0.5$. Results are given in Sect. \[results\]. The entropy $S$ follows from our data for the specific heat by numerical integration. It approximately vanishes at zero temperature.[@entropy] More precisely, $S<0.01k_B$ at $T=0$. We provide numerical evidence for the existence of an equilibrium spin glass phase below a transition temperature $T_c$. The evidence comes from the behavior of the distribution of the spin overlap parameter $q$.[@EA; @overlap] In analogy to the behavior of the XY model in 2D, $\langle \ q^2\rangle$ seems to vanish in the macroscopic limit in the spin-glass phase, but only as a power of system size. For both $x=0.35$ and $x=0.5$, $k_BT_c= (0.95\pm 0.1)x\varepsilon_d $, where $\varepsilon_d$ is a nearest neighbor (NN) dipole-dipole interaction energy which is defined in Sect. \[mm\]. (Within errors, the value of $T_c$ for $x=1$[@unos] we have previously obtained also satisfies this expression.) For $T\lesssim 0.9T_c$, $\delta \mid q \mid$, that is, the root mean square deviation of $\mid q\mid$, fulfills $ \delta \mid q\mid \simeq 0.5 \langle\mid q \mid \rangle\sqrt{T/T_c}$, independently of system size. This result is compared with its counterpart for the XY model in 2D. Results are discussed in Sect. \[disc\].
model and method {#mm}
================
We treat systems of magnetic dipoles on simple cubic lattices. We place a dipole on each lattice site with probability $x$, and leave the site unoccupied with probability $1-x$. Each dipole points along a randomly oriented anisotropy axes. With this model we aim to mimic assemblies of NPs in which uniaxial anisotropy energies are an order of magnitude larger than the largest dipole-dipole energy. Then, anisotropy energy barriers are not so large as to freeze spin reorientations near the spin glass temperature, but are sufficiently large to restrict spins to point “up” or “down” approximately along the easy magnetization axes. We term this the random-axes-dipolar (RAD) model. The Hamiltonian is given by, $${\cal H}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ ij}\sum_{\alpha\beta}
T_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}S_i^\alpha S_j^\beta$$ where the first sum is over all occupied sites $i$ and $j$ of a simple cubic lattice, $S_i^\alpha$ is the $\alpha$ component of a classical 3-component spin on site $i$, $$T_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}=\varepsilon_d
(a/r_{ij})^3(\delta_{\alpha\beta}-3
r_{ij}^\alpha r_{ij}^\beta/r_{ij}^2),
\label{T}$$ $ r_{ij}$ is the distance between $i$ and $j$, $\varepsilon_d$ is an energy, and $a$ a nearest neighbor distance. Each spin points along a randomly chosen direction. These equations can be cast into a form that is manifestly Ising like by letting $\textbf{ \^u}_j$ be (1) a null vector if the $j$ site is unoccupied and (2) a $3-$component unit vector chosen randomly from a spherically uniform distribution if the $j$ site is occupied, and defining a pseudospin $\sigma_j=\pm 1$ for each site, such that $\textbf{ S}_j=\textbf{ \^u}_j\sigma_j$. We can then write, $${\cal H}=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ ij}J_{ij}\sigma_i\sigma_j,
\label{Hr}$$ where $J_{ij}=-\sum_{\alpha ,\beta}T_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}u^{\alpha}_i
u^{\beta}_j$. Thus, the RAD model is an Ising model whose bonds $J_{ij}$ are determined by the dipole-dipole terms $T_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}$ and the set of 3-component randomly oriented unit vectors $\{\textbf{\^u}_j\}$.
From here on, unless we state otherwise, we let $k_B=1$, where $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and give all temperatures in terms of $\varepsilon_d$.
We use periodic boundary conditions. Details and justification are given in Refs. \[\].
------------ ---------- -------- ---------------- -------- ---------- ---------- -------- ---------------
x 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
$N$ 22.4 75.6 179.2 604.8 32 108 256 864
$\Delta T$ 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
$T_m$ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
$N_s$ 10000 3000 1250 900 5000 3000 1500 150,600
MCS $50 000$ $10^5$ $5\times 10^6$ $10^6$ $50 000$ $50 000$ $10^6$ $ 10^6, 10^5$
------------ ---------- -------- ---------------- -------- ---------- ---------- -------- ---------------
: Simulation parameters. $x$ is the probability that any given site is occupied by a magnetic dipole; $N$ is the mean number of magnetic dipoles in the system; $\Delta T$ is the temperature step in the TMC runs; $T_m$ is the highest temperature of all systems; $N_s$ is the number of disordered system pairs; MCS is the number of tempered Monte Carlo sweeps.
In order to arrive at equilibrium results, we make use of the parallel tempered Monte Carlo (TMC) algorithm.[@tempering0] This enables one to circumvent large energy barriers that can trap a system’s state. We apply the TMC algorithm as follows. We run (in parallel) several identical systems at different temperatures: a system at temperature $T_0$, a second one at $T_0+\Delta T$, and so on, at equally spaced temperatures, up to $T_m$ We choose $T_m$ to be at least twice as large as what we expect to be the transition temperature between the paramagnetic and spin glass phases. We let each system evolve under the Metropolis MC algorithm for 10 MC sweeps before pairs of systems are given a chance to exchange their states. More specifically, pairs of systems at temperatures ($T_0$ and $T_0+\Delta T$), ($T_0+2\Delta T$ and $T_0+3\Delta T$), and so on, are given a chance to exchange states every $10$ MC sweeps, and pairs of systems at temperatures ($T_0+\Delta T$ and $T_0+2\Delta T$), ($T_0+3\Delta T$ and $T_0+4\Delta T$), and so on, are given a chance to exchange states at times in between. Under TMC rules, these chances are as follows. A system at temperature $T$ that is in state $2$, and another one at $T+\Delta T$ in state $1$, exchange states with probability $P=1$ if $E_1<E_2$ and $\Delta T>0$, but $P=\exp (-\Delta \beta \delta E)$, where $\Delta \beta=1/T-1/(T+\Delta T)$ and $\delta E=E_1-E_2$, if $E_1>E_2$ and $\Delta T>0$.[@ugrseminar]
![(a) (Color online) Plots of $c$ and of $S$ vs $T$, for $x=0.35$. Data points (black) $\circ$ (for $N=605$) and (red) $\times$ (for $N=179$) are for the specific heat, while (black) $\square$ (for $N=605$) and (red) $+$ (for $N=179$) are for the entropy. Errors, $\delta S$, for $S$ increase as $T$ decreases, from $\delta S\approx 0.002$ for $T=4$ to $\delta S\approx 0.004$ for $T<0.1$.[]{data-label="CyS"}](one.eps){width="80mm"}
A sufficiently small value of $\Delta T$ must be chosen in order to keep $\exp (-\Delta \beta \delta E)$ from becoming too small. This will often be fulfilled if $\Delta \beta\Delta E\lesssim 1$, where $\Delta E$ is the mean energy difference between two systems at temperatures $T$ and $T+\Delta T$. The required condition, $\Delta T \lesssim T/\sqrt{Nc}$, where $N$ is the number of dipoles in the system, follows for $\Delta T$ if we replace $\Delta E$ by $cN\Delta T$ (we thus define $c$ as the specific heat per spin). From plots of the specific heat vs $T$, such as the one shown in Fig. \[CyS\] for systems of $179$ and of $605$ magnetic dipoles on lattices with $0.35$ of their sites occupied, one can get upper bounds for $\Delta T$. (How the data points shown in Fig. \[CyS\] were obtained is explained in Sect. \[results\].) Values of $\Delta T$ as well as of other parameters for all TMC runs are given in table I.
In order to probe for spin glass behavior, we define, as is usual, the spin overlap parameter.[@EA; @overlap] First, let $$\phi_j=\sigma^{(1)}_j\sigma^{(2)}_j,
\label{phi}$$ where $\sigma^{(1)}_j$ and $\sigma^{(2)}_j$ are the pseudospins \[defined above Eq. (\[Hr\])\] on site $j$ of identical twin replicas 1 and 2 of the system. Clearly, $$q= N^{-1}\sum_j\phi_j
\label{qtilde}$$ is a measure of the spin configuration overlap between replicas 1 and 2. Thus, $\mid q\mid=1$ if either $\sigma_j^{(1)}= \sigma_j^{(2)}$ for all $j$ or $\sigma_j^{(1)}=- \sigma_j^{(2)}$ for all $j$. We also define the moments of $q$, $q_k= \langle \mid q \mid ^k \rangle$, for $k=1$, $2$ and $4$, where $\langle \ldots\rangle$ stands for an average which we next specify.
Suppose our TMC runs last for a time $t$, and assume that, within the temperature range we are interested in, equilibration takes place in a time less than $t/2$. During the TMC runs, we write, at equally spaced time intervals within the $(t/2,t)$ range, the spin configuration for each temperature. We later draw from these written configurations the numbers for $\sigma^{(1)}_j$ that go into Eq. (\[phi\]). This procedure is repeated for the same system (that is, for a system with the same anisotropy axes), but starting from different initial conditions. From this second set of configurations, we draw the numbers for $\sigma^{(2)}_j$ that go into Eq. (\[phi\]). A value of $q$ for each time $t$ and temperature $T$ is thus obtained from Eq. (\[qtilde\]). We first average all quantities of interest over $t$, and finally repeat these pairs of TMC runs a number $N_s$ of times for different realizations of axes orientations, from which the average values we are reporting are obtained. Values we have used in our TMC runs for $N_s$ and for $t$ (labeled MCS therein) are given in table I.
Finally, in order to check that equilibration actually takes place as assumed, we also calculate the spin overlap $\tilde {q}$, not between identical twin replicas, but between spin configurations at two different times $t_0$ and $t_1$ of the same TMC run. We do this for several values of $t_0$ and $t_1$ in the neighborhoods of $t/2$ and $t$ respectively, and average over different random axes realizations, in order to obtain $\tilde {q}_1$. For $t$ sufficiently large, $\tilde {q}_1=q_1$. We find this is fulfilled for all parameter values given in table I, except for (1) $x=0.35$, $N=604.8$ and $T\lesssim 0.2$, and (2) for $x=0.5$, $N=864$ and $T\lesssim 0.35$.
![(Color online) (a) Log-log plots of $q_1$ and of $q_2$ vs $N$ for $x=0.35$ and the shown values of $T$. Lines are guides to the eye. (b) Same as in (a) but for $x=0.5$. Some data points for small $T$ and large $N$ are missing, because our TMC runs did not reach equilibration for them.[]{data-label="q2q1"}](two.eps){width="80mm"}
results
=======
Plots of the specific heat and of the entropy vs $T$ for the RAD model are shown in Fig. \[CyS\] for $x=0.35$. The data for the specific heat follows from numerical derivatives of the energy with respect to $T$. We obtain $S$ from $S(T)=\ln 2+\int_\infty^T c(T^\prime )/T^\prime dT^\prime$. Our data covers the temperature range (not all of it shown in Fig. \[CyS\]) $0.05< T<4$. For a numerical integration, we must extrapolate our data for $c(T)$ beyond $T=4$. To this end, we use the leading term of an energy expansion in powers of $1/T$, which gives $c(T) \rightarrow A/T^2$. A fit of the value of $A$ to our data for $c(T)$ at $T=4$ leads to a $\Delta S\simeq 0.027$ contribution to the entropy from the $T>4$ range. We thus obtain $S(T)$. It is exhibited in Fig. \[CyS\]. Errors for $S(T)$ come in two approximately equal pieces: (1) an error of roughly $0.002$ from the $4<T<\infty$ range, and (2) an error of roughly $0.002$, from errors in the data for the specific, which enter the integral $\int_\infty^T c(T^\prime )/T^\prime dT^\prime$. We finally obtain $S=0.015\pm 0.004$ for $T=0.05$, and extrapolations below $T=0.05$ yield $S<0.01$ at $T=0$. Similarly, we find $S<0.01$ at $T=0$ for $x=0.50$.
![(Color online) (a) Plots of the probability distribution $P_q$ vs $q_r$, for $x=0.35$ and $T=0.3$. $\bullet$, $\circ$, and $\blacklozenge$, are for $N=76, 179$ and $605$, respectively. Lines are guides to the eye. For clarity, only 30% of the data points are shown. (b) Same as in (a) but for $T=0.45$. For comparison, a dashed line is shown for $(1/\pi )\exp(-q_r^2/\pi)$, which ensues for a macroscopic paramagnetic phase.[]{data-label="pqx35"}](three.eps){width="80mm"}
![(Color online) (a) Plots of the probability $P_q$ vs $q_r$, for $x=0.50$ and $T=0.45$. $\bullet$, $\circ$, and $\blacklozenge$, are for $N=108, 256$ and $864$, respectively. Lines are guides to the eye. For clarity, only 30% of the data points are shown. (b) Same as in (a) but for $T=0.60$. For comparison, a dashed line is shown for $(1/\pi )\exp(-q_r^2/\pi)$, which ensues for a macroscopic paramagnetic phase.[]{data-label="pqx50"}](four.eps){width="80mm"}
Our results for $q_1$ and $q_2$ follow. Note we use an absolute value in the definition of $q_1$. Recall that $Nq_2=\it {O}(1)$ in the paramagnetic phase, and diverges at the transition temperature $T_c$. Above the lower critical dimension $d_c$, $q_2=\it {O}(1)$ in the droplet model of the spin glass phase.[@droplet] Our data shows that $q_2$ decreases as $N$ increases, for all nonzero temperatures. Log-log plots of $q_2$ vs $N$ are exhibited in Figs. \[q2q1\]a and \[q2q1\]b for various values of $T$. The behavior of $q_2$ for $T\lesssim 0.3$ and $T\lesssim 0.45$ for $x=0.35$ and $x=0.5$, respectively, is consistent with $q_2\sim N^{-y}$, where $y$ is some positive parameter that depends on $T$. This behavior is reminiscent of the XY model in 2D.[@KT] For higher values of $T$, $q_2$ vs $N$ clearly curves downwards, in accordance with a faster than algebraic in $N$ decay, as one expects for the paramagnetic phase. Log-log plots of $q_1^2$ are also shown in Fig. \[q2q1\]a and \[q2q1\]b for various values of $T$. Note that $q_2/q_1^2>1$ for all $N$ and nonzero $T$, which implies a nonvanishing uncertainty in $\mid q_r\mid$, where $q_r=q/q_1$, for $T>0$.
We next report results for the probability distribution $P_q(q_r)$. Unless stated otherwise, all data given below are for a normalized $P_q(q_r)$, that is, $\int P_q(q_r)dq_r =1$. Recall that in the paramagnetic phase, because spin-spin correlation lengths are finite, the central limit theorem implies $q_r$ is normally distributed for macroscopic systems. Plots of $P_q$ vs $q_r$ are shown in Fig. \[pqx50\]a (for $T=0.45$) and Fig. \[pqx50\]b (for $T=0.60$), both for $x=0.50$. The distribution of $q$ appears to be size independent for $T=0.45$. For $T=0.60$, on the other hand, $P_q(q_r)$ drifts with system size. The drift seems consistent with $P_q(q_r)\rightarrow (1/\pi )\exp (-q_r^2/\pi )$ as $N\rightarrow \infty$, which would be in accordance with a paramagnetic phase. Similar remarks apply to the plots exhibited in Fig. \[pqx35\]a (for $T=0.30$) and Fig. \[pqx35\]b (for $T=0.45$), both for $x=0.35$. Clearly, $0.30<T_c<0.45$ for $x=0.35$, and $0.45<T_c<0.60$ for $x=0.50$. For $T<T_c$, plots of $P_q$ vs $q_r$ (not shown) become sharply peaked only as $T\rightarrow 0$. Now, if it turns out that $d_c=3$ for systems of RADs, then $P_q(q_r)$ ought to exhibit critical behavior for all $T\leq T_c$, more specifically, $P_q(q_r)$ ought to be size independent. This sort of behavior is best summarized by the mean square deviation of $\mid q_r \mid$, $\Delta_q^2\equiv \langle q_r^2\rangle - \langle \mid q_r\mid \rangle^2$.
![(Color online) (a) Plots of $\Delta^2_q$ vs $T$ for $x=0.35$. (red) $\bullet$, (blue) $\blacklozenge$, and (black) $\square$ are for $N =604.8, 179.2$, and $75.6$, respectively. The continuous (green) line is for $N = 22.4$. The dashed line is for macroscopic paramagnet. (b) Same as in (a) but for $x=0.50$. $\bullet$ (red), $\blacklozenge$ (blue), and $\square$ (black) are for $N = 864, 256$, and $108$, respectively. The continuous (green) line is for $N = 32$, and the dashed line is for $\pi /2-1$. (c) Same as in (a), but for the mean square relative deviation $\Delta _M^2$ of $\mid M\mid$, where $M$ is the magnetic moment of XY systems of $L\times L$ spins in 2D vs $T/x$, where $x=1$, for $L=4$ (green line), $L=8$ (blue $\blacklozenge$), $L=16$ (red $\bullet$), $L=64$ (black $\triangle$), $L=256$ (black $\lozenge$), and L=1024 (black $\boxtimes$).[]{data-label="Dq"}](five.eps){width="80mm"}
Plots of $\Delta_q^2$ vs $T/x$ are shown in Fig. \[Dq\]a (for $x=0.35$) and in Fig. \[Dq\]b for $x=0.50$ for various values of $N$. Clearly, curves in Figs. \[Dq\]a and \[Dq\]b differ only slightly, as expected from the argument given in Sect. I, that variations of $T$ and $x$ have an effect only through $T/x$ if $x\ll 1$. The data points in both figures suggest $\Delta_q^2\rightarrow \pi /2-1$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$, for $T/x\gtrsim 1$. This is expected for a macroscopic paramagnet, since $P_q(q_r)$ is a normal distribution then. For $T/x\lesssim 0.8$, $$\Delta_q \simeq 0.5 \sqrt{T/x}
\label{dqsq}$$ provides the best fit to the data points shown in Figs. \[Dq\]a and \[Dq\]b. This is in contrast with the behavior, $\Delta_q^2\rightarrow 0$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$, that one expects for the ordered phase of ferromagnets such as the Ising model in two or higher dimensions. For a more relevant comparison, we show in Fig. \[Dq\]c plots of the mean square relative deviation $\Delta _M^2$ of $\mid M\mid$, where $M$ is the magnetic moment, of the XY model in $2D$. Notice there is no counterpart in Figs. \[Dq\]a and \[Dq\]b for the data points shown for rather large systems in Fig. \[Dq\]c. We note that $\Delta_M^2$ seems to go to $ 4\times 10^{-3}T^{2.2}$ as $N\rightarrow \infty$, for $T<T_c$ in the XY model in $2D$.
Now, it is hard to see in Figs. \[Dq\]a and \[Dq\]b where curves merge or cross, near $T/x=0.9$. In order to enhance the differences between $\Delta_q^2$ curves for different values of $L$, we plot $\Delta_q^2/\Delta_q^2(L=4)$ vs $T/x$. These plots are shown in Fig. \[ratio\] for $x=0.35$ and $x=0.50$. The weak dependence on $x$ is remarkable. Notice that whereas curves for $L=12$ and $L=8$ cross near $T/x=0.95$ for $x=0.35$ and for $x=0.50$, the same curves cross the $\Delta_q^2/\Delta_q^2(L=4)=1$ horizontal line only, if at all, for much smaller values of $T/x$. It thus appears that curves for $\Delta_q^2$ increasingly larger system sizes merge or cross at increasingly larger values of $T/x$.
![(Color online) Plots of $\Delta^2_q/\Delta^2_q(L=4)$ vs $T$, where $\Delta^2_q(L=4)$ is $\Delta^2_q$ for $L=4$. All ($\blacklozenge$) are for $x=0.35$ and $L=12$, and all ($\blacksquare$) are for $x=0.35$ and $L=8$. All ($\Diamond$) are for $x=0.50$ and $L=12$, and all ($\square$) are for $x=0.50$ and $L=8$. Lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="ratio"}](six.eps){width="80mm"}
We show plots of $P_q(0)$ vs $N$ for $x=0.35$ and various temperatures in Fig. \[P0\]. In the paramagnetic phase, we expect $P_q(0)\rightarrow 1/\pi $ as $N \rightarrow\infty$, as follows from a normal distribution of $q_r$ about $q_r=0$. Now, for $T/x\geq 1.0$, we see that $P_q(0)<1/\pi$, but $P_q(0)$ increases as $N$ increases. On the other hand, for $T/x\leq 0.857$, $P_q(0)$ remains, within errors, constant. This is again in contrast with the behavior, $P_q(0)\rightarrow 0$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$, that one expects for the ordered phase of ferromagnets such as the Ising model in two or higher dimensions, but is in accordance with $d_c\simeq 3$.
Finally, taking into account all our observations above, we arrive at our best estimate for $T_c$: $T_c/x=0.95\pm0.1$.
discussion {#disc}
==========
By tempered Monte Carlo calculations, we have studied systems of RADs in simple cubic lattices in which each site is occupied by a magnetic dipole with probability $x$. Systems sizes, Monte Carlo run lengths and other details about the calculations can be found in Table I. The entropy $S$ as a function of temperature, which follows from our data for the specific heat, is shown in Fig. \[CyS\] for $x=0.35$. $S$ approximately vanishes at zero temperature. More precisely, $S<0.01k_B$ at $T=0$ for both $x=0.35$ and $x=0.50$.[@entropy] Note also that a vanishing zero temperature entropy implies that trapping above the lowest energy states as $T\rightarrow 0$ occurs only very rarely in our TMC runs.
We have obtained the spin overlap parameter, defined in Eq. (\[qtilde\]). More specifically, we have obtained the mean value of $\mid q\mid$, which we term $q_1$, and the mean square value of $q$, that is $q_2$. The plots in Fig. \[q2q1\]a (for $x=0.35$) and in Fig. \[q2q1\]b (for $x=0.50$) suggest both $q_1$ and $q_2$ vanish for all nonzero $T$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$. As can be gathered from those plots, both $q_1^2\sim N^{-y}$ and $q_2\sim N^{-y}$, where $y$ is some positive parameter that depends on $T$, for $k_BT/x\lesssim 0.9\varepsilon_d $. This is reminiscent of the XY model in 2D and suggests the lower critical dimension $d_c$ of the RAD model is at or near 3D.
We have also studied the probability distribution $P_q(q_r)$, where $q_r=q/q_1$. Within errors, $P_q(q_r)$ is independent of system size at $T=T_c$, as is illustrated in Figs. \[pqx35\]a and \[pqx50\]a for $k_BT/x\simeq 0.9\varepsilon_d $. We have also found (not shown) $P_q(q_r)$ to be independent of system size at lower temperatures. The results shown in Figs. \[Dq\]a and \[Dq\]b and in Eq. (\[dqsq\]), for the mean square deviation of $\mid q_r\mid$, $\Delta_q^2$, are consistent with a $P_q(q_r)$ that is independent of system size for all $k_BT/x\lesssim 0.9\varepsilon_d $. Again, this is as in the XY model in 2D (see Fig. \[Dq\]c) and suggests $d_c\simeq 3$ for the RAD model.
![ Plots of $P_q(q=0)$ vs $N$, for $x=0.35$, for $T/x=1.286$ ($\blacktriangle$), $T/x=1.143$ ( $\boxtimes$), $T/x=1.0$ ( $\boxplus$), $T/x=0.857$ ( $\bullet$), $T/x=0.714$ ( $\blacksquare$), $T/x=0.57$ ( $\blacklozenge$), and $T/x=0.429$, ($\blacktriangledown$). []{data-label="P0"}](seven.eps){width="80mm"}
There is a fairly large quantitative difference between the otherwise analogous behavior of the condensed phases of the XY model in 2D and the RAD model in 3D. From Eq. (\[Dq\]) for the RAD system, and from $\Delta_M^2\simeq 4\times 10^{-3}T^{2.2}$, which we drew from the plots shown in Fig. \[Dq\]c for the XY model, $\Delta_q/\Delta_M\approx 10t^{-0.6}$, where $t=T/T_c$, follows. Not surprisingly then, $P_M/M$ at $M\sim 0$ for the XY model[@unpublished] is orders of magnitude smaller than $P_q(0)$ for the RAD model, when they are both at some $T/ T_c$ well below a value of $ 1$. Replica symmetry breaking would account this large quantitative difference between the XY and the RAD models at or near their lower critical dimensionality.
The Instituto Carlos I (at Universidad de Granada) and the BIFI Institute (at Universidad de Zaragoza) have generously allowed us to run on many of their computer cluster nodes. We received financial support, through Grant No. FIS2006-00708, from the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación of Spain.
[99]{}
For a theory of single-domain particle size, see E. H. Frei, S. Shtrikman, and D. Treves, Phys. Rev. **106**, 446 (1957); J. R. Childress, C. L. Chen, and M. Natham, Appl. Phys. Lett. **56**, 95 (1996); S. Chakraverty and M. Bandyopadhyay, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **19**, 216201 (2007).
S. A. Majetich and M. Sachan, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. **39**, R407 (2006).
W. Luo, S. R. Nagel, T. F. Rosenbaum, and R. E. Rosensweig, Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 2721 (1991); T. Jonsson, J. Mattsson, C. Djurberg, F. A. Khan, P. Nordblad, and P. Svedlindh, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 4138 (1995); C. Djurberg, P. Svedlindh, P. Nordblad, M. F. Hansen, F. B[ø]{}dker, S. M[ø]{}rup, [*ibid*]{} **79**, 5154 (1997); T. Jonsson, P. Nordblad, and P. Svedlindh, Phys. Rev. B [**5**7]{}, 497 (1998); H. Mamiya, I. Nakatani, and T. Furubayashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **82**, 4332 (1999).
F. Bert, V. Dupuis, E. Vincent, J. Hammann, and J.-P. Bouchaud, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 167203 (2004).
V. S. Zotev, G. F. Rodriguez, G. G. Kenning, R. Orbach, E. Vincent and J. Hammann, Phys. Rev. B **67**, 184422 (2003); G. G. Kenning, G. F. Rodriguez, and R. Orbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 057201 (2006).
J.O. Andersson, C. Djurberg, T. Jonsson, P. Svedlindh, and P. Nordblad, Phys. Rev. B **56**, 13983 (1997).
J. García-Otero, M. Porto, J. Rivas and A. Bunde, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 167 (2000). M. Ulrich, J. García-Otero, J. Rivas, and A. Bunde, Phys. Rev. B **67**, 024416 (2003).
O. Iglesias and A. Labarta, Phys. Rev. B **70**, 144401 (2004).
S. Russ and A. Bunde, Phys. Rev. B **75**, 174445 (2007).
Memory effects in disordered assemblies of magnetic nanoparticles has been reported in, Y. Sun, M. B. Salamon, K. Garnier, and R. S. Averback, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 167206 (2003).
J. F. Fernández, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 064404 (2008).
J. Snider and C. C. Yu, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 214203 (2005).
See, for instance, J. F. Fernández and J. J. Alonso, Phys. Rev. B **62**, 53 (2000).
K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **65**, 1604 (1996); E. Marinari, Advances in Computer Simulation, edited by J. Kerte’sz and Imre Kondor (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998), p. 50; cond-mat/9612010.
A short justification for the TMC rule can be found in J. F. Fernández and J. J. Alonso (unpublished). By a single extended state we mean that the spin overlap parameter (defined in Sect. III) can take a single value. For further details, see, J. Sinova, G. Canright, H. E. Castillo, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B **63**, 104427 (2001).
D. S. Fisher and D. A. Huse, J. Phys. A **20**, L997 (1987); D. A. Huse and D. S. Fisher, [*ibid*]{}. **20**, L1005 (1987); D. S. Fisher and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B **38**, 386 (1988).
J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys.C **6**, 1181 (1973); J. M. Kosterlitz, [*ibid.*]{} **7**, 1046 (1974); see also, J. F. Fernández, M. F. Ferreira, and J. Stankiewicz, Phys. Rev. B **34**, 292-300 (1986); H. G. Evertz and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B **54**, 12302 (1996).
G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **43**, 1754 (1979); [*ibid*]{} **50**, 1946 (1983); for reviews, see M. Mézard, G. Parisi, and M. A. Virasoro, [*Spin Glass Theory and Beyond* ]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987); E. Marinari, G. Parisi, and J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, in [*Spin Glasses*]{}, edited by K. H. Fischer and J. A. Hertz, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991).
This is in contrast to the behavior of $S$ for the nearest neighbor random bond Ising model in 3D, for which $S\simeq 0.05k_B$ at $T=0$. See, Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev. B **16**, 4630 (1977); A. K. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. E **63**, 016106 (2001).
S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F, **5**, 965 (1975).
K. Binder and A. P. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys. **58**, 801 (1986); H. G. Katzgraber, M. Palassini, and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B, **63**, 184422 (2001).
J. F. Fernández and J. J. Alonso, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 014403 (2007).
J. J. Alonso (unpublished) obtained these data from a cluster Monte Carlo calculation, following J. S. Wang and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. B **38**, 4840 (1988).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An Edgeworth-type expansion is established for the relative Fisher information distance to the class of normal distributions of sums of i.i.d. random variables, satisfying moment conditions. The validity of the central limit theorem is studied via properties of the Fisher information along convolutions.'
address:
- 'Sergey G. Bobkov School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota 127 Vincent Hall, 206 Church St. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA '
- 'Gennadiy P. ChistyakovFakultät für Mathematik, Universität BielefeldPostfach 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany'
- 'Friedrich GötzeFakultät für Mathematik, Universität BielefeldPostfach 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany'
author:
- 'S. G. Bobkov$^{1,4}$'
- 'G. P. Chistyakov$^{2,4}$'
- 'F. Götze$^{3,4}$'
title: FISHER INFORMATION AND THE CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM
---
\#1\#2[.5pt]{} \#1
[^1]
[^2]
[^3] [^4]
¶[[**P**]{}]{} [H]{}
Ø[[Osc]{}\_]{}
Ł[[L]{}]{}
[**Introduction**]{}
====================
Given a random variable $X$ with an absolutely continuous density $p$, the Fisher information of $X$ (or its distribution) is defined by $$I(X) = I(p) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{p'(x)^2} {p(x)} \, dx,$$ where $p'$ denotes a Radon-Nikodym derivative of $p$. In all other cases, let $I(X) = +\infty$.
With the first two moments of $X$ being fixed, this quantity is minimized for the normal distribution (which is a variant of Cramér-Rao’s inequality). That is, if $\E X = a$, $\Var(X) = \sigma^2$, then we have $I(X) \geq I(Z)$ for $Z \sim N(a,\sigma^2)$ with density $$\varphi_{a,\sigma}(x) =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}}\ e^{-(x-a)^2/2\sigma^2}.$$ Moreover, the equality $I(X) = I(Z)$ holds if and only if $X$ is normal.
In many applications the relative Fisher information $$I(X||Z) = I(X)- I(Z) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \bigg(\frac{p'(x)}{p(x)} -
\frac{\varphi_{a,\sigma}'(x)}{\varphi_{a,\sigma}(x)}\bigg)^2\, p(x)\, dx,$$ which is used as a strong measure of non-Gaussianity of $X$. For example, it dominates the relative entropy, or Kullback-Leibler distance of the distribution of $X$ to the standard normal distribution; more precisely (cf. Stam \[S\]), I(X||Z) D(X||Z) = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p(x) dx.
We consider the scheme of a sequence of sums of independent identically distributed random variables $(X_n)_{n \geq 1}$. Assuming that $\E X_1 = 0$, $\Var(X_1) = 1$, define the normalized sums $$Z_n = \frac{X_1 + \dots + X_n}{\sqrt{n}}.$$ Since $Z_n$ are weakly convergent in distribution to $Z \sim N(0,1)$, one may wonder whether the convergence holds in a stronger sense. A remarkable observation in this respect is due to Barron and Johnson proving in \[B-J\] that I(Z\_n) I(Z), n , i.e., $I(Z_n||Z) \rightarrow 0$, if and only if $I(Z_{n_0})$ is finite for some $n_0$. In particular, it suffices to require that $I(X_1) < +\infty$, although choosing larger values of $n_0$ considerably enhances the range of applicability of this theorem.
Quantitative estimates on the relative Fisher information in the central limit theorem are partly developed, as well. In the i.i.d. case Barron and Johnson \[B-J\], and Artstein, Ball, Barthe and Naor \[A-B-B-N1\] derived an asymptotic bound $I(Z_n||Z) = O(1/n)$ under the hypothesis that the distribution of $X_1$ admits an analytic inequality of Poincaré-type (cf. also \[J\]). Poincaré inequalities involve a large variety of “nice” probability distributions on the line all having finite exponential moments.
One of the aims of this paper is to study the exact asymptotics (or rates) of $I(Z_n||Z)$ under standard moment conditions. We prove:
As it turns out, a similar expansion holds as well for the entropic distance $D(Z_n||Z)$, cf. \[B-C-G2\], showing a number of interesting analogies in the asymptotic behavior of these two distances. In particular, in both cases each coefficient $c_j$ is given by a certain polynomial in the cumulants $\gamma_3,\dots,\gamma_{2j+1}$.
In order to describe these polynomials, we first note that, by the moment assumption, the cumulants $$\gamma_r = i^{-r}\, \frac{d^r}{dt^r} \, \log \E\, e^{itX_1}|_{t=0}$$ are well-defined for all positive integers $r \leq s$, and one may introduce the well-known functions $$q_k(x) \ = \, \varphi(x)\, \sum H_{k + 2j}(x) \,
\frac{1}{r_1!\dots r_k!}\, \bigg(\frac{\gamma_3}{3!}\bigg)^{r_1} \dots
\bigg(\frac{\gamma_{k+2}}{(k+2)!}\bigg)^{r_k}$$ involving the Chebyshev-Hermite polynomials $H_k$. Here $\varphi = \varphi_{0,1}$ denotes the density of the standard normal law, and the summation runs over all non-negative integer solutions $(r_1,\dots,r_k)$ to the equation $r_1 + 2 r_2 + \dots + k r_k = k$ with $j = r_1 + \dots + r_k$.
The functions $q_k$ are correctly defined for $k = 1,\dots,s-2$. They appear in Edgeworth-type expansions approximating the density of $Z_n$. We shall employ them to derive an expansion in powers of $1/n$ for the distance $I(Z_n||Z)$, which leads us to the following description of the coefficients in (1.3), c\_j = \_[k=2]{}\^[2j]{} (-1)\^k \_[-]{}\^[+]{} (q\_[r\_1]{}’ + x q\_[r\_1]{}) (q\_[r\_2]{}’ + x q\_[r\_2]{}) q\_[r\_3]{} …q\_[r\_k]{} . Here, the inner summation is carried out over all positive integer tuples $(r_1,\dots,r_k)$ such that $r_1 + \dots + r_k = 2j$.
For example, $c_1 = \frac{1}{2}\,\gamma_3^2$, and in the case $s=4$ (1.3) becomes I(Z\_n||Z) = (X\_1\^3)\^2 + o(). Hence, under the 4-th moment condition, we have $I(Z_n||Z) \leq \frac{C}{n}$ with some constant $C$ (which can actually be chosen to depend on $\E X_1^4$ and $I(X_1)$, only).
For $s=6$, the result involves the coefficient $c_2$ which depends on $\gamma_3,\gamma_4$, and $\gamma_5$. If $\gamma_3 = 0$ (i.e. $\E X_1^3 = 0$), we have $c_1 = 0$, $c_2 = \frac{1}{6}\,\gamma_4^2$, and then $$I(Z_n||Z) = \frac{1}{6 n^2}\,\left(\E X_1^4 - 3\right)^2 +
o\left(\frac{1}{n^2\, (\log n)^{3/2}}\right).$$
More generally, the representation (1.3) simplifies, if the first $k-1$ moments of $X_1$ coincide with the corresponding moments of $Z \sim N(0,1)$.
This relation is consistent with an observation of Johnson who noticed that if $\gamma_k \neq 0$, $I(Z_n||Z)$ cannot be asymptotically better than $n^{-(k-2)}$ (\[J\], Lemma 2.12).
Note that if $k < \frac{s}{2}$, the $O$-term in (1.6) dominates the $o$-term. But when $k \geq \frac{s}{2}$ it can be removed, and if $k > \frac{s}{2} + 1$, (1.6) just says that I(Z\_n||Z) = o(n\^[-(s-2)/2]{} (n)\^[-(s-3)/2]{}).
For the values $s=2,3$ there are no coefficients $c_j$ in the sum (1.3). In case $s=2$ Theorem 1.1 reduces to Barron-Johnson’s theorem (1.2), while under a 3-rd moment assumption we only have $$I(Z_n||Z) = o\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\Big).$$ A similar observation holds for the whole range of reals $2<s<4$. Here the expansion (1.3) should be replaced by the bound (1.7). Although this bound is worse than (1.5), it cannot be essentially improved. As shown in \[B-C-G2\], it may happen that $\E\, |X_1|^s < +\infty$ with $D(X_1) < +\infty$ (in fact, with $I(X_1) < +\infty$), while $$D(Z_n||Z)\, \geq\, \frac{c}{n^{(s-2)/2} \ (\log n)^\eta},
\qquad n \geq n_1(X_1),$$ where the constant $c>0$ depends on $s$ and an arbitrary prescribed value $\eta > s/2$. In view of (1.1), a similar lower bound therefore holds for $I(Z_n||Z)$, as well.
Another interesting issue connected with the convergence theorem (1.2) and the expansion (1.3) is the characterization of distributions for which these results hold. Indeed, the condition $I(X_1) < +\infty$ corresponding to $n_0 = 1$ in Theorem 1.1 seems to be way too strong. To this aim, we establish an explicit criterion such that $I(Z_{n_0}) < +\infty$ holds for sufficiently large $n_0$ in terms of the characteristic function $f_1(t) = \E\,e^{itX_1}$ of $X_1$.
Property $c)$ is a formally strengthened variant of $b)$, although in general they are not equivalent. (For example, the uniform distribution has density of bounded total variation, but its density is not everywhere differentiable.)
Properties $a)-c)$ are equivalent to each other without any moment assumption, while $d)-e)$ are always necessary for the finiteness of $I(Z_n)$ with large $n$. These two last conditions show that the range of applicability of Theorem 1.1 is indeed rather wide, since almost all reasonable absolutely continuous distributions satisfy (1.8). The latter should be compared to and viewed as a certain strengthening of the following condition (sometimes called a smoothness condition) $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |f_1(t)|^\nu\, dt < +\infty, \qquad {\rm for \ some} \ \
\nu > 0.$$ It is equivalent to the property that, for some $n_0$, $Z_{n_0}$ has a bounded continuous density $p_{n_0}$ (cf. e.g. \[BR-R\]). In this and only in this case, a uniform local limit theorem holds: $\Delta_n = \sup_x |p_n(x) - \varphi(x)| \rightarrow 0$, as $n \rightarrow \infty$. That this assertion is weaker compared to the convergence in Fisher information distance such as (1.2) can be seen by Shimizu’s inequality $\Delta_n^2 \leq c I(Z_n||Z)$, which holds with some absolute constant $c$ (\[Sh\], \[B-J\], Lemma 1.5). Note in this connection that Shimizu’s inequality may be strengthened in terms of the total variation distance as $\|p_n - \varphi\|_{\rm TV}^2 \leq c I(Z_n||Z)$. Using Theorem 1.3, this shows that (1.2) is equivalent to the convergence $\|p_n - \varphi\|_{\rm TV} \rightarrow 0$.
The paper is organized in the following way. We start with the description of general properties of densities having finite Fisher information (Section 2) and properties of Fisher information as a functional on spaces of densities (showing lower semi-continuity and convexity, Section 3). Some of the properties and relations which we state for completeness may be known already. We apologize for being unable to find references for them.
In Sections 4-5 we turn to upper bounds needed mainly in the proof of Theorem 1.3. Further properties of densities emerging after several convolutions, as well as, bounds under additional moment assumptions are discussed in Sections 6-8. In Section 9 we complete the proof of Theorem 1.3, and in the next section we state basic lemmas on Edgeworth-type expansions which are needed in the proof of Theorem 1.1. Sections 11-12 are devoted to the proof itself. Some remarks leading to the particular case $s=2$ in Theorem 1.1 (Barron-Johnson theorem) are given in Section 13. Finally, in the last section we briefly describe the modifications needed to obtain Theorem 1.1 under moment assumptions with arbitrary real values of $s$.
1\. Introduction
2\. General properties of densities with finite Fisher information
3\. Fisher information as a functional
4\. Convolution of three densities of bounded variation
5\. Bounds in terms of characteristic functions
6\. Classes of densities representable as convolutions
7\. Bounds under moment assumptions
8\. Fisher information in terms of the second derivative
9\. Normalized sums. Proof of Theorem 1.3
10\. Edgeworth-type expansions
11\. Behavior of densities not far from the origin
12\. Moderate deviations
13\. Theorem 1.1 in the case $s=2$ and Corollary 1.2
14\. Extensions to non-integer $s$. Remarks on lower bounds
[**General properties of densities with finite Fisher information**]{}
======================================================================
If a random variable $X$ has density $p$ with finite Fisher information I(X) = I(p) = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} dx, $p$ has to be absolutely continuous, and then the derivative $p'(x)$ exists and is finite on a set of full Lebesgue measure.
One may write an equivalent definition by involving the score function $\rho(x) = \frac{p'(x)}{p(x)}$. In general $\P\{p(X) > 0\} = 1$, so the random variable $\rho(X)$ is well defined with probability 1, and thus I(X) = (X)\^2. However, strictly speaking, the integration in (2.1) should be restricted to the open set $\{x: p(x) > 0\}$.
For different purposes, it is useful to realize how the ratio $\frac{p'(x)^2}{p(x)}$ may behave when $p(x)$ is small and is even vanishing. The behavior cannot be arbitrary, when the Fisher information is finite. The following statement plays a “justifying” role in obtaining of many Fisher information bounds on the density and its derivatives.
If $p$ is differentiable in some neighborhood of $x_0$ and its derivative is continuous at this point, the statement is obvious.
To cover the general case, for simplicity of notations let $x_0 = 0$ and assume that $c = p'(0) > 0$. Since $p(\ep) = c\ep + o(\ep)$, as $\ep \rightarrow 0$, one may choose $\ep_0>0$ such that $$\frac{3c}{4}\,|x| \leq p(x) \leq \frac{5c}{4}\,|x|, \quad {\rm for \ all} \
0 \leq |x| \leq \ep_0.$$ In particular, $p$ is positive on $(0,\ep_0]$. Hence, by the definition (2.1), $$I(X) \geq \int_0^{\ep_0} \frac{p'(x)^2}{p(x)}\,dx \geq
\frac{4}{5c}\, \int_0^{\ep_0} \frac{p'(x)^2}{x}\,dx.$$ We split the last integral into the intervals $\Delta_n = (2^{-(n+1)}\ep_0,2^{-n}\ep_0)$ and then estimate $p(x)$ from above on each of them, which leads to $$\frac{5c \ep_0}{4}\,I(X) \, \geq \, \sum_{n=0}^\infty \,
2^n \int_{\Delta_n} p'(x)^2\,dx.$$ Now, applying Cauchy’s inequality and using $p(x) - p(\frac{x}{2}) \geq \frac{c}{8}\,x$ for $0 \leq x \leq \ep_0$, we obtain \_[\_n]{} p’(x)\^2dx & & 2\^[n+1]{} (\_[\_n]{} p’(x)dx)\^2\
& = & 2\^[n+1]{} (p(2\^[-n]{}\_0) - p(2\^[-(n+1)]{}\_0))\^2 2\^[-(n+1)]{}. As a result, $$\frac{5c \ep_0}{4}\,I(X) \, \geq \, \sum_{n=0}^\infty 2^n \cdot
2^{-(n+1)} \cdot \frac{(c \ep_0)^2}{64} = +\infty,$$ a contradiction with finiteness of the Fisher information. Proposition 2.1 is proved.
As an example illustrating a possible behavior as in Proposition 2.1, one may consider the beta distribution with parameters $\alpha = \beta = 3$, which has density $$p(x) = 30\,(x(1-x))^2, \qquad 0 \leq x \leq 1.$$ Then $X$ has finite Fisher information, although $p(x_0) = p'(x_0) = 0$ at $x_0 = 0$ and $x_0 = 1$.
More generally, if a density $p$ is supported and twice differentiable on a finite interval $[a,b]$, and if $p$ has finitely many zeros $x_0 \in [a,b]$, and $p'(x_0) = 0$, $p''(x_0) > 0$ at any such point, then $X$ has finite Fisher information.
Now, let us return to the definitions (2.1)-(2.2). By Cauchy’s inequality, $$I(X)^{1/2} = \big(\E\,\rho(X)^2\big)^{1/2} \geq \E\,|\rho(X)| =
\int_{\{p(x)>0\}} |p'(x)|\,dx.$$ Here, by Proposition 2.1, the last integral may be extended to the whole real line without any change, and then it represents the total variation of the function $p$ in the usual sense of the Theory of Functions: $$\|p\|_{{\rm TV}} \, = \, \sup\, \sum_{k=1}^n |p(x_k) - p(x_{k-1})|,$$ where the supremum runs over all finite collections $x_0 < x_1 < \dots < x_n$.
In the sequel, we consider this norm also for densities which are not necessarily continuous, and then it is natural to require that, for each $x$, the value $p(x)$ lies in the closed segment $\Delta(x)$ with endpoints $p(x-)$ and $p(x+)$. Note that if we change $p(x)$ at a point of discontinuity such that $p(x)$ goes out of $\Delta(x)$, then the measure with density $p$ is unchanged, while $\|p\|_{\rm TV}$ will increase.
Thus, if the Fisher information $I(X)$ is finite, the density $p$ of $X$ is a function of bounded variation, so the limits $$p(-\infty) = \lim_{x \rightarrow -\infty} p(x), \qquad
p(+\infty) = \lim_{x \rightarrow +\infty} p(x)$$ exist and are finite. But, since $p$ is a density (hence integrable), these limits must be zero. In addition, for any $x$, $$p(x) = \int_{-\infty}^x p'(y)\,dy \leq \int_{-\infty}^x |p'(y)|\,dy \leq
\sqrt{I(X)}.$$ We can summarize these elementary observations in the following:
Indeed, using Proposition 2.2, one may integrate by parts, $$it\, \E\,e^{itX} = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} p(x)\,d\,e^{itx} =
-\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{itx}\,p'(x)\,dx,$$ which gives $|t|\, |\E\,e^{itX}| \leq \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |p'(x)|\,dx \leq \sqrt{I(X)}$.
Another immediate consequence of Proposition 2.2 is that both $p$ and $p'$ are square integrable, that is, they belong to the Sobolev space $W_1^2 = W_1^2(-\infty,+\infty)$ of all absolutely continuous functions on the real line with finite Euclidean (Hilbert) norm $$\|u\|_{W_1^2}^2 = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} u(x)^2\,dx +
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} u'(x)^2\,dx.$$ More precisely, \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p’(x)\^2dx = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p(x)dx \_x p(x) \_[-]{}\^[+]{} dx I(X)\^[3/2]{}.
Since the estimate on the total variation norm $\|p\|_{{\rm TV}}$ can be given in terms of the Fisher information, it is natural to ask whether or not it is possible to bound the total variation distance from $p$ to a normal density in terms of the relative Fisher information. This suggests the following bound.
Using $$p'(x) - \varphi'(x) =
\Big(\frac{p'(x)}{p(x)} - \frac{\varphi'(x)}{\varphi(x)}\Big) p(x) -
x\,(p(x) - \varphi(x)) \qquad (p(x)>0)$$ and applying Cauchy’s inequality, we may write $$\begin{aligned}
\|p - \varphi\|_{{\rm TV}}
& = &
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |p'(x) - \varphi'(x)|\,dx \nonumber \\
& \leq &
I(X||Z)^{1/2} + \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |x|\,|p(x) - \varphi(x)|\,dx.\end{aligned}$$ The last integral represents a weighted total variation distance between the distributions of $X$ and $Z$ with weight function $w(x) = |x|$.
On this step we apply the following extention of Csiszár-Kullback-Pinsker’s inequality (CKP) to the scheme of weighted total variation distances, which is proposed by Bolley and Villani, cf. \[B-V\], Theorem 2.1 (ii). If $X$ and $Y$ are random variables with densities $p$ and $q$, and $w(x) \geq 0$ is a measurable function, then $$\Big(\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} w(x)\,|p(x) - q(x)|\,dx\Big)^2
\, \leq \, C D(X||Y) \, = \,
C \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} p(x)\,\log\frac{p(x)}{q(x)}\,dx,$$ where $$C \, = \, 2\, \Big(1 + \log \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{w(x)^2} q(x)\,dx\Big).$$ The inequality also holds in the setting of abstract measurable spaces, and when $w=1$ it yields the classical CKP inequality with an additional factor $2$.
In our case, $Y=Z$, $q = \varphi$, and taking $w(x) = \sqrt{t/2}\, |x|$ $(0 < t < 1$), we get $$\frac{t}{2}\,
\Big(\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |x|\,|p(x) - \varphi(x)|\,dx\Big)^2
\, \leq \, \Big(2 + \log \frac{1}{1-t}\Big)\,D(X||Z).$$ One may choose, for example, $t = 1 - \frac{1}{e}$, and recalling (1.1), we arrive at $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |x|\,|p(x) - \varphi(x)|\,dx \, \leq \,
3.1\,D(X||Z)^{1/2} \leq \frac{3.1}{\sqrt{2}} \, I(X||Z)^{1/2}.$$ It remains to use this bound in (2.5), and (2.4) follows.
[**Fisher information as a functional**]{}
==========================================
It is worthwile to discuss separately a few general properties of the Fisher information viewed as a functional on the space of densities. We start with topological properties.
Denote by ${\mathfrak P}_1$ the collection of all (probability) densities on the real line with finite Fisher information, and let ${\mathfrak P}_1(I)$ denote the subset of all densities which have Fisher information of at most size $I>0$. On the set ${\mathfrak P}_1$ the relation (3.1) may be written as I(p) \_[n ]{} I(p\_n), which holds under the condition that the corresponding distributions are convergent weakly, i.e., \_[n ]{} \_[-]{}\^a p\_n(x)dx = \_[-]{}\^a p(x)dx, a . Hence, every ${\mathfrak P}_1(I)$ is closed in the weak topology. In fact, inside such sets (3.3) can be strengthened to the convergence in the $L^1$-metric, \_[n ]{} \_[-]{}\^[-]{} |p\_n(x)dx - p(x)|dx = 0.
For the proof of Proposition 3.1, one may assume that $I(X_n) \rightarrow I$, for some (finite) constant $I$. Then, for sufficiently large $n$, the $X_n$ have absolutely continuous densities $p_n$ with Fisher information at most $I+1$. By Proposition 2.2, such densities are uniformly bounded and have uniformly bounded variations. Hence, by the second Helly theorem (cf. e.g. \[K-F\]), there are a subsequence $p_{n_k}$ and a function $p$ of bounded variation, such that $p_{n_k}(x) \rightarrow p(x)$, as $k \rightarrow \infty$, for all points $x$. Necessarily, $p(x) \geq 0$ and $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} p(x)\,dx \leq 1$. Since the sequence of distributions of $X_n$ is tight (or weakly pre-compact), it also follows that $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} p(x)\,dx = 1$. Hence, $X$ has an absolutely continuous distribution with $p$ as its density, and the weak convergence (3.3) holds.
For the proof of Proposition 3.2, a similar argument should be applied to an arbitrary prescribed subsequence $p_{n_k}$, where we obtain $p(x) = \lim_{l \rightarrow \infty} p_{n_{k_l}}(x)$ for some further subsequence. By Scheffe’s lemma, this property implies the convergence in $L^1$-norm, that is, (3.4) holds along $n_{k_l}$. This implies the convergence in $L^1$ for the whole sequence $p_n$, which is the assertion of Proposition 3.2.
To continue the proof of Proposition 3.1, for simplicity of notations, assume that the subsequence constructed in the first step is actually the whole sequence. By (2.3), $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} p_n'(x)^2\,dx \leq (I + 1)^{3/2},$$ which implies that the derivatives are uniformly integrable on every finite interval. By the Dunford-Pettis compactness criterion for the space $L^1$ (over finite measures), there is a subsequence $p_{n_k}'$ which is convergent to some locally integrable function $u$ in the sense that \_A p\_[n\_k]{}’(x)dx \_A u(x)dx, for any bounded Borel set $A \subset \R$. (This is the weak $\sigma(L^1,L^\infty)$ convergence on finite intervals.) Note that, according to Proposition 2.1, $p_{n_k}'$ may be replaced in (3.5) with the sequence $p_{n_k}' 1_{\{p_{n_k} > 0\}}$, which is thus convergent to $u$ as well.
Taking a finite interval $A = (a,b)$ in (3.5), we get $$\int_a^b u(x)\,dx = p(b) - p(a),$$ which means that $p$ is (locally) absolutely continuous. Furthermore, since $$\|p\|_{{\rm TV}} = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |u(x)|\,dx$$ is finite, we conclude that $u \in L^1(\R)$, thus representing a Radon-Nikodym derivative: $u(x) = p'(x)$. Again, for simplicity of notations, assume the subsequence of derivatives obtained is actually the whole sequence.
Next, consider the sequence of functions $$\xi_n(x) = \frac{p_n'(x)}{\sqrt{p_n(x)}}\, 1_{\{p_n(x) > 0\}}.$$ They have $L^2(\R)$-norm bounded by $\sqrt{I+1}$ (for large $n$). Since the unit ball of $L^2$ is weakly compact, there is a subsequence $\xi_{n_k}$ which is weakly convergent to some function $\xi \in L^2$, that is, $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \xi_{n_k}(x)\, q(x)\,dx \rightarrow
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \xi(x)\, q(x)\,dx,$$ for any $q \in L^2$. As a consequence, $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \xi_{n_k}(x)\, \sqrt{p_{n_k}(x)}\, q(x)\,dx \rightarrow
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \xi(x)\, \sqrt{p(x)}\, q(x)\,dx,$$ due to the uniform boundedness and pointwise convergence of $p_n$. In other words, again omitting sub-indices, the functions $p_n'\, 1_{\{p_n > 0\}}$ are weakly convergent in $L^2$ to the function $\xi\sqrt{p}$. In particular, for $q = 1_A$ with an arbitrary bounded Borel set $A \subset \R$, $$\int_A p_n'\, 1_{\{p_n > 0\}}\,dx \rightarrow \int_A \xi(x)\sqrt{p(x)}\ dx.$$
As a result, we have obtained two limits for $p_n'\, 1_{\{p_n > 0\}}$, which must coincide, i.e., we get $\xi\sqrt{p} = u = p'$ a.e. Hence, $p = 0 \Rightarrow p' = 0$ and $\xi = \frac{p'}{\sqrt{p}}$ a.e. on the set $\{p(x) > 0\}$. Finally, the weak convergence $\xi_{n_k} \rightarrow \xi$ in $L^2$, as in any Banach space, yields $$I(p) \, = \, \|\xi \cdot 1_{\{p>0\}}\|_{L^2}^2 \, \leq \,
\|\xi\|_{L^2}^2 \, \leq \,
\liminf_{k \rightarrow \infty}\, \|\xi_{n_k}\|_{L^2}^2 \, = \,
\liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} \, I(p_{n_k}) \, = \, I.$$ Thus, Proposition 3.1 is proved.
Another general property of the Fisher information is its convexity, that is, we have the inequality I(p) \_[i=1]{}\^n \_i I(p\_i), where $p = \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i p_i$ with arbitrary densities $p_i$ and weights $\alpha_i > 0$, $\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i = 1$. This readily follows from the fact that the homogeneous function $R(u,v) = u^2/v$ is convex on the upper half-plane $u \in \R$, $v>0$. Moreover, Cohen \[C\] showed that the inequality (3.6) is strict.
As a consequence, the collection ${\mathfrak P}_1(I)$ of all densities on the real line with Fisher information $\leq I$ represents a convex closed set in the space $L^1 = L^1(\R)$ (for strong or weak topologies).
We need to extend Jensen’s inequality (3.6) to arbitrary “continuous” convex mixtures of densities. In order to formulate this more precisely, recall the definition of mixtures. Denote by $\mathfrak P$ the collection of all densities, which represents a closed subset of $L^1$ with the weak $\sigma(L^1,L^\infty)$ topology. For any Borel set $A \subset \R$, the functionals $q \rightarrow \int_A q(x)\,dx$ are bounded and continuous on $\mathfrak P$. So, given a Borel probability measure $\pi$ on ${\mathfrak P}$, one may introduce the probability measure on the real line (A) = \_[P]{} d(q). It is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure and has some density $p(x) = \frac{d\mu(x)}{dx}$ called the (convex) mixture of densities with mixing measure $\pi$. For short, $$p(x) = \int_{\mathfrak P} q(x)\,d\pi(q).$$
Note that the integral in (3.8) makes sense, since the functional $q \rightarrow I(q)$ is lower semi-continuous and hence Borel measurable on $\mathfrak P$ (Proposition 3.1). We may assume that this integral is finite, so that $\pi$ is supported on the convex (Borel measurable) set $\mathfrak P_1 = \cup_I \mathfrak P_1(I)$.
Identifying densities with corresponding probability measures (having these densities), we consider $\mathfrak P_1$ as a subset of the locally convex space $E$ of all finite measures $\mu$ on the real line endowed with the weak topology.
[*Step*]{} 1. Suppose that the measure $\pi$ is supported on some convex compact set $K$ contained in $\mathfrak P_1(I)$. Since the functional $q \rightarrow I(q)$ is finite, convex and lower semi-continuous on $K$, it admits the representation $$I(q) \, = \, \sup_{l \in \mathfrak L} \, l(q), \qquad q \in K,$$ where $\mathfrak L$ denotes the family of all continuous affine functionals $l$ on $E$ such that $l(q) < I(q)$, for all $q \in K$ (cf. e.g. Meyer \[M\], Chapter XI, Theorem T7). In our particular case, any such functional acts on probability measures as $l(\mu) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \psi(x)\,d\mu(x)$ with some bounded continuous function $\psi$ on the real line. Hence, $$I(q) \, = \, \sup_{\psi \in \mathfrak C} \,
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} q(x)\psi(x)\,dx,$$ for some family $\mathfrak C$ of bounded continuous functions $\psi$ on $\R$. An explicit description of $\mathfrak C$ would be of interest, but this question will not be pursued here. As a consequence, by the definition (3.7) for the measure $\mu$ with density $p$, \_[P]{} I(q)d(q) & & \_[C]{} \_[P]{} d(q)\
& = & \_[C]{} \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p(x)(x)dx = I(p), which is the desired inequality (3.8).
[*Step*]{} 2. Suppose that $\pi$ is supported on $\mathfrak P_1(I)$, for some $I>0$. Since any finite measure on $E$ is Radon, and since the set $\mathfrak P_1(I)$ is closed and convex, there is an increasing sequence of compact subsets $K_n \subset \mathfrak P_1(I)$ such that $\pi(\cup_n K_n) = 1$. Moreover, $K_n$ can be chosen to be convex (since the closure of the convex hull will be compact, as well). Let $\pi_n$ denote the normalized restriction of $\pi$ to $K_n$ (with sufficiently large $n$ so that $c_n = \pi(K_n) > 0$) and define its baricenter p\_n(x) = \_[K\_n]{} q(x)d\_n(q). From (3.7) it follows that the measures with densities $p_n$ are weakly convergent to the measure $\mu$ with density $p$, hence the relation (3.2) holds: $I(p) \leq \liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} \, I(p_n)$. On the other hand, by the previous step, I(p\_n) \_[K\_n]{} I(q)d\_n(q) = \_[K\_n]{} I(q)d(q) \_[P\_1(I)]{} I(q)d(q), which yields (3.8).
[*Step*]{} 3. In the general case, we may apply Step 2 to the normalized restrictions $\pi_n$ of $\pi$ to the sets $K_n = \mathfrak P_1(n)$. Again, for the densities $p_n$ defined as in (3.9), we obtain (3.10), where $\mathfrak P_1(I)$ should be replaced with $\mathfrak P_1$. Another application of the lower semi-continuity of the Fisher information finishes the proof.
[**Convolution of three densities of bounded variation**]{}
===========================================================
Although densities with finite Fisher information must be functions of bounded variation, the converse is not always true. Nevertheless, starting from a density of bounded variation and taking several convolutions with itself, the resulting density will have finite Fisher information. Our nearest aim is to prove:
One may further extend (4.1) to sums of more than 3 independent summands, but this will not be needed for our purposes (since the Fisher information may only decrease when adding an independent summand.)
In the i.i.d. case the above estimate can be simplified. By a direct application of the inverse Fourier formula, the right-hand side of (4.1) may be related furthermore to the characteristic functions of $X_j$. We will return to this in the next section.
First let us look at the particular case where $X_j$ are uniformly distributed over intervals. This important example already shows that the Fisher information $I(X_1 + X_2)$ does not need to be finite, while it is finite for 3 summands. (This somewhat curious fact was pointed out to one of the authors by K. Ball.) In fact, there is a simple quantitative bound.
The density of the sum $S = X_1 + X_2 + X_3$ may easily be evaluated and leads to a rather routine problem of estimation of $I(S)$ as a function of the parameters $a_j$. Alternatively, there is an elegant approach based on general properties of so-called convex or hyperbolic distributions and the fact that the density $p$ of $S$ behaves like the beta density near the end points of the supporting interval.
To describe the argument, let us recall a few definitions and results concerning such measures. A probability measure $\mu$ on $\R^d$ is called $\kappa$-concave with a (convexity) parameter $0 < \kappa \leq 1$, if it satisfies a Brunn-Minkowski-type inequality $$\mu(tA + (1-t)B) \geq \big(t \mu(A)^\kappa + (1-t) \mu(B)^\kappa\big)^{1/\kappa}$$ in the class of all non-empty Borel sets $A,B \subset \R^d$, and for arbitrary $0 < t < 1$. We refer to the papers by Borell \[Bor1-2\] for basic properties of such measures, cf. also \[Bo\] (in fact, the values $\kappa \leq 0$ are also allowed, but will not be needed here).
If $\mu$ is absolutely continuous, the definition reduces to the property that $\mu$ is supported on some open convex set $\Omega \subset \R^d$ (necessarily bounded), where it has a positive density $p$ such that the function $p^{\kappa/(1-\kappa d)}$ is concave on $\Omega$ (Borell’s characterization theorem). For example, the normalized Lebesgue measure on any convex body is $\frac{1}{d}$-concave. In dimension one, $\mu$ has to be supported on some finite interval $(x_0,x_1)$, and Borell’s description may also be given in terms of the function $$L(t) = p(F^{-1}(t)), \qquad 0 < t < 1,$$ where $F^{-1}:(0,1) \rightarrow (x_0,x_1)$ denotes the inverse of the distribution function $F(x) = \mu(x_0,x)$, restricted to the supporting interval. Namely (cf. \[Bo\]), a probability measure $\mu$ is $\kappa$-concave, if and only if the function $L^{1/(1-\kappa)}$ is concave on $(0,1)$.
We only need the following well-known fact about the convexity parameter of convolutions which we formulate in case of three measures: If $\mu_j$ are $\kappa_j$-concave $(j = 1,2,3)$, then the measure $\mu = \mu_1 * \mu_2 * \mu_3$ is $\kappa$-concave, where = + + .
Note also that the Fisher information of a random variable $X$ with density $p$ is expressed in terms of the associated function $L$ as I(X) = \_0\^1 L’(t)\^2dt. This general formula holds whenever $p$ is absolutely continuous and positive on the supporting interval (without any $\kappa$-concavity assumption).
For definiteness, let $X_j$ take values in $[0,a_j]$. Since the distributions of $X_j$ are $1$-concave, the distribution of $S = X_1 + X_2 + X_3$ is $\frac{1}{3}$-concave, according to (4.3). This means that $S$ has density $p$ such that $p^{1/2}$ is concave on the supporting interval $[0,a_1+a_2+a_3]$, or equivalently, $L^{3/2}$ is concave on $(0,1)$, where $L$ is the associated function for $S$.
Note that $S$ has an absolutely continuous density $p$, which is thus vanishing at the end points $x = 0$ and $x = a_1 + a_2 + a_3$. Hence, $L(0+) = L(1-) = 0$. By the concavity, the Radon-Nikodym derivative $(L^{3/2})' = \frac{3}{2}\,L^{1/2}\, L'$ is non-increasing, and since $L$ is symmetric about the point $\frac{1}{2}$, we get, for all $0 < t < 1$, $$L'(t)^2\, L(t) \, \leq \, c, \qquad {\rm where} \ \ \ \
c \, = \, \lim_{t \rightarrow 0}\, L'(t)^2\, L(t).$$ Hence, by (4.4), I(X) \_0\^1 dt = c(a\_1 + a\_2 + a\_3).
It remains to find the constant $c$. Putting $a = a_1 a_2 a_3$, it should be clear that, for all $x > 0$ and $t>0$ small enough, $$F(x) = \P\{S \leq x\} = \frac{x^3}{6a}, \quad p(x) = \frac{x^2}{2a},
\quad F^{-1}(t) = (6at)^{1/3}, \quad L(t) = \frac{1}{2a}\,(6at)^{2/3},$$ and finally $c = L'(t)^2\, L(t) = \frac{2}{a}$. Thus, in (4.5) we arrive at $I(X) \leq \frac{2}{a}\,(a_1 + a_2 + a_3)$ which is exactly (4.2).
Lemma 4.2 allows us to reduce Proposition 4.1 to the case of uniform distrubutions. Note that if a density $p$ is written as a convex mixture p(x) = \_[P]{} q(x)d(q), then by the convexity of the total variation norm, p\_[TV]{} \_[P]{} q\_[TV]{}d(q). Recall that we understand (4.6) as the equality (3.7) of the corresponding measures. So, (4.7) is also uses our original agreement that, for each $x$, the value $p(x)$ lies in the closed segment with endpoints $p(x-)$ and $p(x+)$.
In order to apply Lemma 4.2 together with Jensen’s inequality for Fisher information, we need however to require that $\pi$ has to be supported on uniform densities (that is, densities of normalized Lebesgue measures on finite intervals) and secondly to reverse (4.7). Indeed this turns out to be possible, which may be a rather interesting observation.
For example, if $p$ is supported and non-increasing on $(0,+\infty)$, there is a canonical representation $$p(x) = \int_0^{+\infty} \frac{1}{x_1}\,1_{\{0 < x < x_1\}}\,d\pi(x_1)
\qquad {\rm a.e.}$$ with a unique mixing probability measure $\pi$ on $(0,+\infty)$. In this case $\|p\|_{\rm TV} = 2p(0+)$, and (4.8) is obvious. One may write a similar representation for densities of unimodal distributions. In general, another way to write (4.6) and (4.8) is p(x) & = & \_[x\_1>x\_0]{} 1\_[{x\_0 < x < x\_1}]{} d(x\_0,x\_1),\
p\_[TV]{} & = & 2 \_[x\_1>x\_0]{} d(x\_0,x\_1), where $\pi$ is a Borel probability measure on the half-plane $x_1 > x_0$ (i.e., above the main diagonal).
Let us also note that the sets ${\rm BV}(c)$ of all densities $p$ with $\|p\|_{\rm TV} \leq c$ are closed under the weak convergence (3.3) of the corresponding probability distributions. Moreover, the weak convergence in ${\rm BV}(c)$ coincides with convergence in $L^1$-norm, which can be proved using the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition 3.2. In particular, the functional $q \rightarrow \|q\|_{\rm TV}$ is lower semi-continuous and hence Borel measurable on $\mathfrak P$, so the integrals (4.7)-(4.8) make sense.
Denote by $U$ the collection of all uniform densities which thus may be identified with the half-plane $\tilde U = \{(a,b) \in \R^2: b > a\}$ via the map $(a,b) \rightarrow q_{a,b}(x) = \frac{1}{b-a}\,1_{\{a<x<b\}}$. The usual convergence on $\tilde U$ in the Euclidean metric coincides with the weak convergence (3.3) of $q_{a,b}$. The closure of $U$ for the weak topology contains $U$ and all delta-measures, hence $U$ is a Borel measurable subset of $\mathfrak P$.
We only need the existence part which is proved below in two steps.
[*Step*]{} 1. First consider the discrete case, where $p$ is piecewise constant, i.e., it is supported and constant on consecutive semiopen intervals $\Delta_k = [x_{k-1},x_k)$, $k = 1,\dots, n$, where $x_0 < ... < x_n$. Putting $p(x) = c_k$ on $\Delta_k$, we then have $$\|p\|_{\rm TV} = c_1 + |c_2 - c_1| + \dots + |c_n - c_{n-1}| + c_n.$$
In this case the existence of the representation (4.6), moreover – with a discrete mixing measure $\pi$, satisfying (4.8), can be proved by induction on $n$. If $n = 1$ or $n = 2$, then $p$ is monotone on $\Delta_1$, respectively, on $\Delta_1 \cup \Delta_2$, and the statement is obvious.
If $n \geq 3$, one should distinguish between several cases. If $c_1 = 0$ or $c_n = 0$, we are reduced to the smaller number of supporting intervals. If $c_k = 0$ for some $1 < k < n$, one can write $p = f + g$ with $f(x) = p(x)\,1_{\{x<x_{k-1}\}}$, $g(x) = p(x)\,1_{\{x \geq x_k\}}$. These functions are supported on disjoint half-axes, so $\|p\|_{\rm TV} = \|f\|_{\rm TV} + \|g\|_{\rm TV}$. Moreover, the induction hypothesis may be applied to both $f$ and $g$ (or one can first normalize these functions to work with densities, but this is less convenient). As a result, $$f = f_1 + \dots + f_k, \qquad g = g_1 + \dots + g_l \quad {\rm a.e.}$$ where each $f_i$ is supported and constant on some interval inside $[x_0,x_{k-1})$, each $g_j$ is supported and constant on some interval inside $[x_k,x_n)$, and $$\|f\|_{\rm TV} = \|f_1\|_{\rm TV} + \dots + \|f_k\|_{\rm TV}, \qquad
\|g\|_{\rm TV} = \|g_1\|_{\rm TV} + \dots + \|g_l\|_{\rm TV} .$$ Hence, $$p = \sum_i f_i + \sum_j g_j \quad {\rm with} \quad
\|f\|_{\rm TV} = \sum_i \|f_i\|_{\rm TV} + \sum_j \|g_j\|_{\rm TV}.$$
Finally, assume that $c_k > 0$ for all $k \leq n$. Putting $c_* = \min_k c_k$, write $p = f + g$, where $f = c_*\, 1_{[x_0,x_n)}$ and $g$ thus takes the values $c_k - c_*$ on $\Delta_k$. Clearly, $$\|p\|_{\rm TV} = 2c_* + \|g\|_{\rm TV} = \|f\|_{\rm TV} + \|g\|_{\rm TV}.$$ By the definition, $g$ takes the value zero on one of the intervals (where $c_k = c_*$), so we are reduced to the previous step. On that step, we obtained a representation $g = g_1 + \dots + g_l$ such that $\|g\|_{\rm TV} = \|g_1\|_{\rm TV} + \dots + \|g_l\|_{\rm TV}$, where each $g_j$ is supported and constant on some interval inside $[x_0,x_n)$. Hence, $$p = f + \sum_j g_j \quad {\rm with} \quad
\|p\|_{\rm TV} = \|f\|_{\rm TV} + \sum_j \|g_j\|_{\rm TV}.$$
Although the measure $\pi$ has not been constructed constructively, one may notice that it should be supported on the densities of the form $$q_{ij}(x) = \frac{1}{x_j - x_i}\,1_{\{x_i \leq x < x_j\}}, \qquad
0 \leq i < j \leq n.$$
[*Step*]{} 2. In the general case, one may assume that $p$ is right-continuous. Consider the collection of piecewise constant densities of the form p(x) = d \_[k=1]{}\^n p(x\_[k-1]{}) 1\_[{x\_[k-1]{} x < x\_k}]{} with arbitrary points $x_0 < ... < x_n$ of continuity of $p$ such that $p(x_{k-1}) > 0$ for at least one $k$, and where $d$ is a normalizing constant so that $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \tilde p(x)\,dx = 1$. Since $p$ has bounded total variation, it is possible to construct a sequence $p_n$ of the form $(4.9)$ which is convergent to $p$ in $L^1$-norm and with $d = d_n \rightarrow 1$. By the construction, p\_n\_[TV]{} = p(x\_0) + p(x\_[n-1]{}) + \_[k=1]{}\^[n-1]{} |p(x\_k) - p(x\_[k-1]{})| p\_[TV]{}, so all $p_n$ belong to ${\rm BV}(c)$ with some constant $c$.
Using the previous step, one can define discrete probability measures $\pi_n$ supported on $U$ and such that p\_n(x) = \_U q(x)d\_n(q), p\_n\_[TV]{} = \_U q\_[TV]{}d\_n(q). Since $U$ has been identified with the half-plane $\tilde U$, replacing $d\pi_n(q)$ with $d\pi_n(a,b)$ should not lead to confusion. In particular, the second equality in (4.11) may be written as p\_n\_[TV]{} = 2\_[U]{} d\_n(a,b).
From the first equality in (4.11) it follows that, for any $T>0$, $$\int_U \Big[\int_{|x| \geq T} q(x)\,dx\Big]\,d\pi_n(q) \, = \,
\int_{|x| \geq T} p_n(x) \, \leq \, \int_{|x| \geq T} p(x)\,dx + \|p_n - p\|_1.$$ Hence, by Chebyshev’s inequality, for any $\ep_k > 0$, \_n{q U: \_[|x| k]{} q(x)dx > \_k} (\_[|x| k]{} p(x)dx + p\_n - p\_1). Clearly, one can choose a sequence $\ep_k \downarrow 0$ and an increasing sequence of indices $n_k$ such that the right-hand side of (4.13) will tend to zero, as $k \rightarrow \infty$, uniformly over all $n \geq n_k$. In particular, the above inequality holds for $\pi_{n_k}$.
On the other hand (identifying $q$ with corresponding probability distributions), by the Prokhorov compactness criterion, the collection of densities $$\Big\{q \in {\mathfrak P}: \int_{|x| \geq k} q(x)\,dx \leq \ep_k\Big\}$$ is pre-compact for the weak topology with convergence (3.3), cf. e.g. \[Bi\]. Therefore, by the same criterion applied to $\mathfrak P$ as a Polish space, $\pi_n$ contains a weakly convergent subsequence $\pi_{n_k}$ with some limit $\pi \in \mathfrak P$. This measure is supported on the (weak) closure of $U$, which is a larger set, since it contains delta-measures, or the main diagonal in $\R^2$, if we identify $U$ with $\tilde U$. However, using (4.12) together with Chebyshev’s inequality, and then applying (4.10), we see that, for any $\ep > 0$ and all $n \geq n_0$, $$\pi_n\{(a,b): b - a < \ep\} \, = \,
\pi_n\Big\{(a,b): \frac{1}{b - a} > \frac{1}{\ep}\Big\} \, \leq \,
\frac{\ep}{2}\, \|p_n\|_{\rm TV} \, < \, \ep\,\|p\|_{\rm TV}.$$ Hence, $\pi$ is actually supported on $U$. Moreover, taking the limit along $n_k$ in the first equality in (4.11), we obtain the representation (4.6).
Now, the sets $G(t) = \{q \in U:\|q\|_{\rm TV} > t\}$ are open in the weak topology (by the lower semicontinuity of the total variation norm), hence, $\liminf_{k \to \infty} \pi_{n_k}(G(t)) \geq \pi(G(t))$. Applying Fatou’s lemma and then again (4.10) and the second equality in (4.11), we get \_U q\_[TV]{}d(q) & = & \_0\^[+]{} (G(t))dt \_[k ]{} \_0\^[+]{} \_[n\_k]{}(G(t))dt\
& = & \_[k ]{} \_U q\_[TV]{}d\_[n\_k]{}(q) = \_[k ]{} p\_[n\_k]{}\_[TV]{} p\_[TV]{}. In view of Jensen’s inequality (4.7), we obtain (4.8) thus proving the existence part of the lemma.
We may write down the representation (4.6) from Lemma 4.2 for each of the densities $p_j$ $(j=1,2,3)$. That is, $$p_j(x) = \int q(x)\,d\pi_j(q) \qquad {\rm a.e.}$$ with some mixing probability measures $\pi_j$, supported on $U$ and satisfying p\_j\_[TV]{} = q\_[TV]{}d\_j(q). Taking the convolution, we then have a similar representation $$(p_1 * p_2 * p_3)(x) \, = \, \int \!\!\int \!\!\int
(q_1 * q_1 * q_3)(x)\ d\pi_1(q_1) d\pi_2(q_2) d\pi_3(q_3)
\quad {\rm a.e.}$$ One can now use Jensen’s inequality (3.8) for the Fisher information and apply (4.2) to bound $I(p_1 * p_2 * p_3)$ from above by $$\frac{1}{2} \int \!\!\int \!\!\int \big[
\|q_1\|_{{\rm TV}} \, \|q_2\|_{{\rm TV}} +
\|q_1\|_{{\rm TV}} \, \|q_3\|_{{\rm TV}} +
\|q_2\|_{{\rm TV}} \, \|q_3\|_{{\rm TV}}\big]
\ d\pi_1(q_1) d\pi_2(q_2) d\pi_3(q_3).$$ In view of (4.14), the triple integral coincides with the right-hand of (4.1).
Proposition 4.1 is proved.
[**Bounds in terms of characteristic functions**]{}
===================================================
In view of Proposition 4.1, let us describe how to bound the total variation norm of a given density $p$ of a random variable $X$ in terms of the characteristic function $f(t) = \E\, e^{itX}$. There are many different bounds depending on the integrability properties of $f$ and its derivatives, which may also depend on assumptions on the finiteness of moments of $X$. We shall present two of them here.
Recall that, if $p$ is absolutely continuous, then $$\|p\|_{{\rm TV}} \, = \, \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |p'(x)|\,dx.$$
The argument is standard, and we recall it here for completeness.
First, by the moment assumption, $f$ is twice continuously differentiable. The assumption (5.1) implies that $X$ has a continuously differentiable density p(x) = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} e\^[-itx]{} f(t)dt with derivative p’(x) = - \_[-]{}\^[+]{} e\^[-itx]{} tf(t)dt.
Necessarily $f(t) \rightarrow 0$, as $|t| \rightarrow +\infty$, and the same is true for $f'(t)$ and $f''(t)$. Therefore, one may integrate in (5.3) by parts to get, for all $x \in \R$, x p(x) = - \_[-]{}\^[+]{} e\^[-itx]{} f’(t)dt and $$x^2 p(x) = -\frac{1}{2\pi}\, \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-itx} f''(t)\,dt.$$ By (5.1), we are allowed to differentiate the last equality by performing differentiation under the integral sign, which together with (5.4) and (5.5) gives $$(1+x^2) p'(x) \, = \, \frac{i}{2\pi}\,
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-itx}\, \big(tf''(t) + 2f'(t) - tf(t)\big)\,dt.$$ Hence, $|p'(x)| \leq \frac{C}{2\pi\,(1 + x^2)}$ with a constant described as the integral in (5.2). After integration of this pointwise bound, the proposition follows.
One can get rid of the assumption of existing second derivative in the bound above and remove any moment assumption in Proposition 5.1. But we still need to insist on the corresponding integrability requirements for the characteristic function including its differentiability on the positive half-axis.
First assume additionally that $f$ and $f'$ decay at infinity sufficiently fast (so that $tf(t) \rightarrow 0$, as $|t| \rightarrow +\infty$). Integrating by parts in (5.4) and since $(t f(t))'$ is integrable near zero, we get a similar representation $$x p'(x) = -\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-itx}\, (t f(t))'\,dt.$$ As usual, write $|p'(x)| = \frac{1}{|1 + ix|}\,|(1 + ix) p(x)|$ and use Cauchy’s inequality together with Plancherel’s formula, to get (\_[-]{}\^[+]{} |p’(x)|dx)\^2 & & \_[-]{}\^[+]{} \_[-]{}\^[+]{} (1+x\^2)p’(x)\^2dx\
& = & \_[-]{}\^[+]{} dt. Applying the same inequality to $\lambda X$ and optimizing over $\lambda > 0$, we arrive at (5.7).
In the general case, one may apply (5.7) to the regularized random variables $X_\sigma = X + \sigma Z$ with small parameters $\sigma>0$, where $Z \sim N(0,1)$ is independent of $X$. They have smooth densities $p_\sigma$ and characteristic functions $f_\sigma(t) = f(t)\, e^{-\sigma^2 t^2/2}$. Repeating the previous argument for the difference of densities, we obtain an analogue of (5.7), p\_[\_1]{} - p\_[\_2]{}\_[[TV]{}]{}\^4 \_[-]{}\^[+]{} |t (f\_[\_1]{}(t) - f\_[\_2]{}(t))|\^2dt \_[-]{}\^[+]{} |(t (f\_[\_1]{}(t) - f\_[\_2]{}(t)) )’|\^2dt with arbitrary $\sigma_1,\sigma_2 > 0$. Since the integrals in (5.7) are finite, by the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, the right-hand side of (5.8) tends to zero, as long as $\sigma_1,\sigma_2 \rightarrow 0$. Hence, the family $\{p_\sigma\}$ is fundamental (Cauchy) for $\sigma \rightarrow 0$ in the Banach space of all functions of bounded variation on the real line that are vanishing at infinity. As a result, there exists the limit $p = \lim_{\sigma \rightarrow 0} p_\sigma$ in this space in total variation norm.
Necessarily, $p(x) \geq 0$ for all $x$, and $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} p(x)\,dx = 1$. Hence, $X$ has an absolutely continuous distribution with density $p$. In addition, by (5.7) applied to $p_\sigma$, $$\|p\|_{{\rm TV}} \, = \, \lim_{\sigma \rightarrow 0} \, \|p_\sigma\|_{{\rm TV}}
\, \leq \, \lim_{\sigma \rightarrow 0} \,
\bigg(\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |t f_\sigma(t)|^2\,dt
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |(tf_\sigma(t))'|^2\,dt\bigg)^{1/4}.$$ The last limit exists and coincides with the right-hand side of (5.7).
[**Classes of densities representable as convolutions**]{}
==========================================================
General bounds like those in Proposition 2.1 may considerably be sharpened in the case where $p$ is representable as convolution of several densities with finite Fisher information.
Given an integer $k \geq 1$ and a real number $I > 0$, denote by ${\mathfrak P}_k(I)$ the collection of all functions $p$ on the real line which can be represented as convolution of $k$ probability densities with Fisher information at most $I$.
Correspondingly, let ${\mathfrak P}_k$ denote the collection of all functions $p$ representable as convolution of $k$ probability densities with finite Fisher information.
The collection ${\mathfrak P}_1$ of all densities with finite Fisher information has been already discussed in connection with general properties of the functional $I$. For growing $k$, the classes ${\mathfrak P}_k(I)$ decrease, since the Fisher information may only decrease when adding an independent summand. This also follows from the following general inequality of Stam + , which holds for all independent random variables (cf. \[St\], \[Bl\], \[J\]). Moreover, it implies that $p = p_1 * \dots * p_k \in {\mathfrak P}_k(I/k)$, as long as $p_i \in {\mathfrak P}_1(I)$, $i = 1,\dots,k$.
Any function $p$ in ${\mathfrak P}_k$ is $k-1$ times differentiable, and its $(k-1)$-th derivative is absolutely continuous and has a Radon-Nikodym derivative, denoted by $p^{(k)}$. Let us illustrate this property in the important case $k=2$. Write p(x) = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p\_1(x-y) p\_2(y)dx in terms of absolutely continuous densities $p_1$ and $p_2$ of independent summands $X_1$ and $X_2$ of a random variable $X$ with density $p$. Differentiating under the integral sign, we obtain a Radon-Nikodym derivative of the function $p$, p’(x) = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p\_1’(x-y) p\_2(y)dy = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p\_1’(y) p\_2(x-y)dy. The latter expression shows that $p'$ is absolutely continuous and has a Radon-Nikodym derivative p”(x) = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p\_1’(y) p\_2’(x-y)dy, which is well-defined for all $x$. In other words, $p''$ appears as the convolution of the functions $p_1'$ and $p_2'$ (which are integrable, according to Proposition 2.2).
These formulas may be used to derive a number of elementary relations within the class ${\mathfrak P}_k$, and here we shall describe some of them for the cases ${\mathfrak P}_2$ and ${\mathfrak P}_3$.
The last bound immediately follows from (6.4) and Proposition 2.2. To obtain the pointwise bound on the derivative, we may appeal to Proposition 2.1 and rewrite the first equality in (6.3) as $$p'(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{p_1'(x-y)}{\sqrt{p_1(x-y)}}\ 1_{\{p_1(x-y) > 0\}} \
\sqrt{p_1(x-y)}\, p_2(y)\,dy.$$ Using Cauchy’s inequality, we get p’(x)\^2 & & I(X\_1) \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p\_1(x-y) p\_2(y)\^2dy\
& & I(X\_1) \_y p\_2(y) \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p\_1(x-y) p\_2(y)dy I(X\_1) I(X\_2)\^[1/2]{} p(x), where we applied Proposition 2.2 to the random variable $X_2$ on the last step. This gives the first inequality in (6.5), while the second follows from $p(x) \leq \sqrt{I}$.
Now, we state similar bounds for the second derivative.
Let us start with the representation (6.4) for a fixed value $x \in \R$. Note that the function $p_1'(x-y)\, p_2'(y)$ appearing in this formula is continuous in $y$. By Proposition 2.1, the integral in (6.4) may be restricted to the set $\{y:p_2(y)>0\}$. By the same reason, it may also be restricted to the set $\{y:p_1(x-y)>0\}$. Hence, p”(x) = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p\_1’(y) p\_2’(x-y)1\_A(y)dy, where $\{y: p_1(x-y)p_2(y)>0\}$. On the other hand, by the definition (6.2), the assumption $p(x) = 0$ implies that $p_1(y) p_2(x-y) = 0$ for almost all $y$. Therefore, $1_A(y) = 0$ a.e., and thus the integral (6.6) is vanishing, that is, $p''(x) = 0$.
Using the representation (6.4), the bound $|p''(x)| \leq I^{3/2}$ follows from the uniform bound (6.5) on $p'$ and the integral bound of Proposition 2.2.
Next, introduce the functions $u_i(x) = \frac{p_i'(x)}{\sqrt{p_i(x)}}\, 1_{\{p_i(x) > 0\}}$ ($i = 1,2$) and rewrite (6.4) as $$p''(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \big(u_1(x-y) u_2(y)\big) \,
\sqrt{p_1(x-y)p_2(y)} \ dy.$$ By Cauchy’s inequality, p”(x)\^2 \_[-]{}\^[+]{} u\_1(x-y)\^2 u\_2(y)\^2 dy \_[-]{}\^[+]{} p\_1(x-y)p\_2(y) dx = u(x)\^2 p(x), where we used $u \geq 0$ given by u(x)\^2 = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} u\_1(x-y)\^2 u\_2(y)\^2 dy. Clearly, $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} u(x)^2\, dx = I(X_1) I(X_2) \leq I^2,$$ which is the inequality of the proposition.
Indeed, by the assumption, one may write $p = p_1 * p_2$ with $p_1 \in {\mathfrak P}_1(I)$ and $p_2 \in {\mathfrak P}_2(I)$. Returning to (6.7)-(6.8) and applying Proposition 6.2 to $p_2$, we get $u_2(y) \leq I^{3/4}$, so $$u(x)^2 \leq I^{3/2} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} u_1(x-y)^2\, dy \leq I^{5/2}.$$
[**Bounds under moment assumptions**]{}
=======================================
Another way to sharpen the bounds obtained in Section 2 for general densities with finite Fisher information is to invoke conditions on the absolute moments $$\beta_s = \beta_s(X) = \E\, |X|^s \qquad (s > 0 \ \ {\rm real}).$$ By Proposition 2.1 and Cauchy’s inequality, if the Fisher information is finite, \_[-]{}\^[+]{} |x|\^s |p’(x)|dx & = & \_[{p(x)>0}]{} |x|\^s p(x)\^[1/2]{} dx\
& & (\_[{p(x)>0}]{} |x|\^[2s]{} p(x)dx)\^[1/2]{} (\_[{p(x)>0}]{} dx)\^[1/2]{}. Hence, we arrive at:
This bound holds irrespectively of the Fisher information or the $2s$-th absolute moment $\beta_{2s}$ being finite or not.
Below we describe several applications of this proposition.
First, let us note that, when $s \geq 1$, the function $u(x) = (1+|x|^s) p(x)$ is (locally) absolutely continuous and has a Radon-Nikodym derivative satisfying $$|u'(x)| \leq s |x|^{s-1}\,p(x) + (1+|x|^s)\, |p'(x)|.$$ Integrating this inequality and assuming that both $I(X)$ and $\beta_{2s}$ are finite, we see that $u$ is a function of bounded variation. Since $u$ is integrable as well, we have $$u(-\infty) = \lim_{x \rightarrow -\infty} u(x) = 0, \qquad
u(+\infty) = \lim_{x \rightarrow +\infty} u(x) = 0.$$ Therefore, applying Propositions 2.2 and 7.1, we get u(x) = \_[-]{}\^x u’(y)dy & & \_[-]{}\^[+]{} |u’(y)|dy\
& & s\_[-]{}\^[+]{} |x|\^[s-1]{}p(x)dx + \_[-]{}\^[+]{} (1+|x|\^s) |p’(x)|dx\
& & s \_[s-1]{} + + . In addition, $u(x) \rightarrow 0$, as $x \rightarrow \infty$. One can summarize.
In the resulting inequality no requirements on the density are needed.
Applying Proposition 7.1 and Corollary 7.2 (the last assertion) with $s=1$, we obtain the following sharpening of Corollary 2.3.
Indeed, if $p$ is density of $X$ and $t \neq 0$, one may integrate by parts f’(t) = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} e\^[itx]{} (ix) p(x)dx & = & \_[-]{}\^[+]{} x p(x)d e\^[itx]{}\
& = & - \_[-]{}\^[+]{} (p(x) + x p’(x))e\^[itx]{}dx, which yields $|tf'(x)| \leq 1 + \sqrt{\beta_2 I(X)}$.
Under stronger moment assumptions, one can obtain better bounds in comparison with Corollary 7.2. For example, if for some $\lambda > 0$, the exponential moment $$\beta = \E\, e^{2\lambda |X|} = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{2\lambda |x|}\,p(x)\,dx$$ is finite, then by similar arguments, for any $x \in \R$, we have $p(x) \leq C\,e^{-\lambda |x|}$ with some constant $C$ depending on $\lambda$, $\beta$ and $I(X)$.
[**Fisher information in terms of the second derivative**]{}
============================================================
It will be convenient to work with the formula for the Fisher information involving the second derivative of the density. We state it for convolutions of two densities with finite Fisher information.
Strictly speaking, the integration in (8.1)-(8.2) should be performed over the set $\{x:p(x)>0\}$. One may extend this integration to the whole real line by using the convention $0 \log 0 = 0$. This is consistent with the property that $p''(x) = 0$, as soon as $p(x) = 0$ (according to Proposition 6.3).
The assumption $p \in {\mathfrak P}_2$ ensures that $p$ has an absolutely continuous derivative $p'$ with Radon-Nikodym derivative $p''$. By Proposition 6.2, $p'$ has bounded total variation, which justifies the possibility of integration by parts.
More precisely, assuming that $p \in {\mathfrak P}_2$, let us decompose the open set $\{x: p(x) > 0\}$ into disjoint open intervals $(a_n,b_n)$, bounded or not. In particular, $p(a_n) = p(b_n) = 0$, and by the bound (6.5) of Proposition 6.2, $$|p'(x)\log p(x)| \leq \,I^{3/4} \sqrt{p(x)}\, |\log p(x)| \rightarrow 0, \quad
{\rm as} \ \ x \downarrow a_n,$$ and similarly for $b_n$. Integrating by parts, we get for $a_n < T_1 < T_2 < b_n$, \_[T\_1]{}\^[T\_2]{} dx & = & \_[T\_1]{}\^[T\_2]{} p’(x) dp(x)\
& = & p’(x) p(x) |\_[x=T\_1]{}\^[T\_2]{} - \_[T\_1]{}\^[T\_2]{} p”(x)p(x)dx. Letting $T_1 \rightarrow a_n$ and $T_2 \rightarrow b_n$, we get $$\int_{a_n}^{b_n} \frac{p'(x)^2}{p(x)}\, dx =
- \int_{a_n}^{b_n} p''(x)\,\log p(x)\,dx,$$ where the second integral is understood in the improper sense. It remains to perform summation over $n$ on the basis of (8.2), and then we obtain (8.1).
To verify the integrability condition (8.2), one may apply an integral bound of Proposition 6.3. Namely, using Cauchy’s inequality, for the integral in (8.2) we have $$\Big(\int_{\{p(x)>0\}}
\frac{|p''(x)|}{\sqrt{p(x)}}\ \sqrt{p(x)}\, |\log p(x)|\,dx\Big)^2 \, \leq \,
I^2 \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} p(x) \log^2 p(x)\,dx.$$ If the moment $\beta_s = \E\, |X|^s$ is finite, Corollary 7.2 yields $$p(x) \log^2 p(x) \, \leq \, C\, \frac{\log(e + |x|)}{1 + |x|^{s/2}}$$ with constant $C$ depending on $I$ and $\beta_s$. The latter function is integrable in case $s>2$, so the integral in (8.2) is finite. Proposition 8.1 is proved.
Of course, for smooth positive $p$, (8.1) remains valid without additional assumptions. However, then the integral should be understood in the improper sense (it exists and is finite, as long as $X$ has finite Fisher information).
In order to involve the standard moment assumption – the finiteness of the second moment, we consider densities representable as convolutions of more than two densities with finite Fisher information.
To show that $(8.2)$ is fulfilled, it suffices to prove the following pointwise bounds which are of independent interest.
The assumption $\E X^2 \leq 1$ implies $I \geq 1$ (by Cramer-Rao’s inequality). Also, the characteristic function $f(t) = \E\, e^{itX}$ is twice differentiable, and by Corollary 2.3, it satisfies $$|f(t)| \leq \frac{I^{5/2}}{|t|^5}.$$ Hence, $p$ may be described as the inverse Fourier transform $$p(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-itx} f(t)\,dt,$$ and a similar representation is also valid for the second derivative, p”(x) = - \_[-]{}\^[+]{} e\^[-itx]{} t\^2 f(t)dt.
Write $X = X_1 + \dots + X_5$ with independent summands such that $I(X_j) \leq I$ and assume (without loss of generality) that they have equal means. Then $\E X_j^2 \leq 1$, hence the characteristic functions $f_j(t)$ of $X_j$ have second derivatives $|f_j''(t)| \leq 1$. Moreover, by Corollaries 2.3 and 7.3, $$|f_j(t)| \leq \frac{I^{1/2}}{|t|}, \qquad
|f_j'(t)| \leq \frac{1 + I^{1/2}}{|t|}.$$
Now, differentiation of the equality $f(t) = f_1(t) \dots f_5(t)$ leads to $$f'(t) = f_1'(t)\,f_2(t) \dots f_5(t) + \dots +
f_1(t) \dots f_4(t)\,f_5'(t),$$ hence $|f'(t)| \leq \frac{5 I^2\, (1 + I^{1/2})}{|t|^5}$. Differentiating once more, it should be clear that $$|f''(t)| \, \leq \,
\frac{5 I^2}{t^4} + \frac{20\,I^{3/2} (1 + I^{1/2})^2}{|t|^5}.$$ These estimates imply that $$|(t^2 f(t))'| \leq \frac{CI^{5/2}}{|t|^3}, \qquad
|(t^2 f(t))''| \leq \frac{CI^{5/2}}{t^2} \qquad (|t| \geq 1)$$ with some absolute constant $C$. As a consequence, one may differentiate the equality (8.5) with $x \neq 0$ by parts to get $$p''(x) \, = \,
\frac{1}{2\pi\, (ix)^2} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} (t^2 f(t))''\,e^{-itx}\,dx.$$ Hence, for all $x \in \R$, |p”(x)| with some absolute constant $C$.
Now, to derive the second pointwise bound, first we recall that $p(x) \leq I^{1/2}$. Hence, |p(x)| (I\^[1/2]{}) + , where the last term is thus non-negative. Next, we partition the real line into the sets $A = \{x: p(x) \leq \frac{I^{1/2}}{2(1 + x^4)}\}$ and its complement $B$. On the set $A$, by Proposition 6.3, $$|p''(x)|\,\log \frac{I^{1/2}}{p(x)} \, \leq \,
I^{5/4} \sqrt{p(x)}\,\log\frac{I^{1/2}}{p(x)}
\, \leq \, C_1 I^{3/2}\, \frac{\log(e + |x|)}{1 + x^2},$$ and similarly, by (8.6), on the set $B$ we have an analogous inequality $$|p''(x)|\,\log \frac{I^{1/2}}{p(x)} \, \leq \, |p''(x)|\,\log\big(2 (1 + x^4)\big)
\, \leq \, C_2I^{5/2}\, \frac{\log(e + |x|)}{1 + x^2}.$$ Thus, for all $x$, applying (8.7) and again (8.6), |p”(x) p(x)| & & |p”(x)| (I\^[1/2]{}) + |p”(x)|\
& & C I\^[5/2]{}(1 + I) . Proposition 8.3 is proved.
[**Normalized sums. Proof of Theorem 1.3**]{}
=============================================
By the definition of classes ${\mathfrak P}_k$ ($k = 1,2,\dots$), the normalized sum $$Z_n = \frac{X_1 + \dots + X_n}{\sqrt{n}}$$ of independent random variables $X_1,\dots,X_n$ with finite Fisher information has density $p_n$ belonging to ${\mathfrak P}_k$, as long as $n \geq k$.
Moreover, if all $I(X_j) \leq I$ for all $j$, then $p_n \in {\mathfrak P}_k(2kI)$. Indeed, one can partition the collection $X_1,\dots,X_n$ into $k$ groups and write $Z_n = U_1 + \dots + U_k$ with $$U_i = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\,\sum_{j = i}^{m} X_{(i-1)m + j} \ \
(1 \leq i \leq k-1), \qquad
U_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\,\sum_{j = (k-1)m + 1}^n X_j,$$ where $m = [\frac{n}{k}]$. By Stam’s inequality (6.1), for $1 \leq i \leq k-1$ $$\frac{1}{I(U_i)} \, \geq \, \frac{1}{n}\,
\sum_{j = i}^{m} \frac{1}{I(X_{(i-1)m + j})} \, \geq \, \frac{m}{nI}
\, \geq \, \frac{1}{2kI},$$ and similarly $\frac{1}{I(U_k)} \geq \frac{1}{2kI}$.
Therefore, the previous observations about densities from ${\mathfrak P}_k$ are applicable to $Z_n$ with sufficiently large $n$, as soon as the $X_j$ have finite Fisher information with a common bound on $I(X_j)$.
A similar application of (6.1) also yields $I(Z_n) \leq 2 I(Z_{n_0})$. Here, the factor $2$ may actually be removed, as a consequence of one generalization of Stam’s inequality obtained by Artstein, Ball, Barthe and Naor. It is formulated below as a separate proposition (although for our purposes the weaker inequality is sufficient).
\[A-B-B-N2\]. [*If $(X_n)_{n \geq 1}$ are independent and identically distributed, then $$I(Z_n) \leq I(Z_{n_0}), \quad {for \ all} \ \ n \geq n_0.$$* ]{}
We are now ready to return to Theorem 1.3 and complete its proof.
Let $(X_n)_{n \geq 1}$ have finite second moment and a common characteristic function $f_1$. The characteristic function of $Z_n$ is thus f\_n(t) = e\^[itZ\_n]{} = f\_1()\^n.
Clearly, $a) \Rightarrow b) \Leftrightarrow c)$.
If $Z_n$ has density $p_n$ of bounded total variation, Proposition 4.1 yields $I(Z_{3n}) = I(p_{3n}) \leq \frac{3}{2}\,\|p_n\|_{{\rm TV}}^2 < +\infty$. Hence we obtain $c) \Rightarrow a)$, as well, and thus, the conditions $a)-c)$ are equivalent.
$a) \Rightarrow d)$. Assume that $I(Z_{n_0}) < +\infty$ for some fixed $n_0 \geq 1$. Applying Corollary 2.3 with $X = Z_{n_0}$, it follows that $$|f_{n_0}(t)| \leq \frac{1}{t}\,\sqrt{ n_0 I(Z_{n_0})}, \qquad t > 0.$$ Hence, $|f_1(t)| \leq Ct^{-\ep}$ with constants $\ep = \frac{1}{n_0}$ and $C = \big(n_0 I(Z_{n_0})\big)^{1/2n_0}$ which is $d)$.
$d) \Rightarrow e)$ is obvious.
$e) \Rightarrow c)$. Differentiating the formula (9.1) and using the integrability assumption (1.8) on $f_1$, we see that, for all $n \geq \nu + 2$, the characteristic function $f_n$ and its first two derivatives are integrable with weight $|t|$. This implies in particular that $Z_n$ has a continuously differentiable density p\_n(x) = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} e\^[-itx]{} f\_n(t)dt, which, by Proposition 5.1, has finite total variation $$\|p_n\|_{{\rm TV}} \, = \, \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |p_n'(x)|\,dx \, \leq \,
\frac{1}{2}\,
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \big(|tf_n''(t)| + 2\,|f_n'(t)| + |t f_n(t)|\big)\,dt.$$ Thus, Theorem 1.3 is proved.
If we assume in Theorem 1.3 finiteness of the first absolute moment of $X_1$ (rather than the finiteness of the second moment), the statement will remain valid, provided that the integrability condition $e)$ is replaced with a stronger condition like \_[-]{}\^[+]{} |f\_1(t)|\^t\^2dt < +, > 0. In this case, it follows from (9.1) that, for all $n \geq \nu + 1$, the characteristic function $f_n$ and its derivative are integrable with weight $t^2$. Therefore, according to Proposition 5.2, the normalized sum $Z_n$ has density $p_n$ with finite total variation $$\|p_n\|_{{\rm TV}} \, \leq \, \bigg(\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |t f_n(t)|^2\,dt
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |(tf_n(t))'|^2\,dt\bigg)^{1/4}.$$ As a result, we obtain the chain of implications $(9.3) \Rightarrow b) \Rightarrow a) \Rightarrow d)$. The latter condition ensures that $p_n$ admits the representation (9.2) and has a continuous derivative for sufficiently large $n$. That is, we obtain $c)$.
[**Edgeworth-type expansions**]{}
=================================
In the sequel, let $(X_n)_{n \geq 1}$ be independent identically distributed random variables with mean $\E X_1 = 0$ and variance $\Var(X_1) = 1$. Here we collect some auxiliary results about Edgeworth-type expansions for the distribution functions $F_n(x) = \P\{Z_n \leq x\}$ and the densities $p_n$ of the normalized sums $Z_n = (X_1 + \dots + X_n)/\sqrt{n}$.
If the absolute moment $\E\,|X_1|^s$ is finite for a given integer $s \geq 2$, define \_s(x) = (x) + \_[k=1]{}\^[s-2]{} q\_k(x)n\^[-k/2]{} with the functions $q_k$ described in the introductory section, i.e., q\_k(x) = (x) H\_[k + 2j]{}(x) ()\^[r\_1]{} …()\^[r\_k]{}. Here, $H_k$ denotes the Chebyshev-Hermite polynomial of degree $k \geq 0$ with leading coefficient 1, and the summation runs over all non-negative solutions $(r_1,\dots,r_k)$ to the equation $r_1 + 2 r_2 + \dots + k r_k = k$ with $j = r_1 + \dots + r_k$.
Put also \_s(x) = \_[-]{}\^x \_s(y)dy = (x) + \_[k=1]{}\^[s-2]{} Q\_k(x)n\^[-k/2]{}. Similarly to $q_k$, the functions $Q_k$ have an explicit description involving the cumulants $\gamma_3,\dots,\gamma_{k+2}$ of $X_1$, namely, $$Q_k(x) \ = \, -\varphi(x) \sum H_{k + 2j-1}(x) \,
\frac{1}{r_1!\dots r_k!}\, \bigg(\frac{\gamma_3}{3!}\bigg)^{r_1} \dots
\bigg(\frac{\gamma_{k+2}}{(k+2)!}\bigg)^{r_k},$$ where the summation is the same as in (10.2), cf. \[B-RR\] or \[P\].
The functions $\varphi_s$ and $\Phi_s$ are used to approximate the density and distribution function of $Z_n$ with error of order smaller than $n^{-(s-2)/2}$. The following lemma is classical.
Let us emphasize that (10.4) remains valid for general real $s \geq 2$. Here, $\Phi_s$ should be replaced with $\Phi_{[s]}$. For the range $2 \leq s < 3$ the Cramer condition for the characteristic function is not used, and the result was obtained in \[O-P\]; the case $s \geq 3$ is treated in \[P\] (cf. Theorem 2, Ch.VI, p. 168).
We also need to describe the approximation of densities. Recall that $Z_n$ have the characteristic functions $$f_n(t) = f_1\bigg(\frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}\bigg)^n,$$ where $f_1$ stands for the characteristic function of $X_1$. If the Fisher information $I(Z_{n_0})$ is finite, then, by Corollary 2.3, $|f_{n_0}(t)| \leq \frac{c}{|t|}$ with some constant (namely, $c^2 = I(Z_{n_0})$). Hence, given $m \geq 1$, the characteristic functions of $Z_n$ admit a polynomial bound $|f_n(t)| \leq c_m\,|t|^{-m}$ for $n \geq m n_0$ and with $c_m$ which does not depend on $t$. Thus, for all sufficiently large $n$, $Z_n$ have continuous bounded densities $$p_n(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\, \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-itx} f_n(t)\,dt,$$ which have continuous derivatives p\_n\^[(l)]{}(x) = \_[-]{}\^[+]{} (-it)\^l e\^[-itx]{} f\_n(t)dt of any prescribed order.
In case $l=0$, this lemma with the first bound $\sup_x \, |\psi_{l,n}(x)| \leq 1$ is a well-known result, which does not need to require the finiteness of Fisher information, while using the assumption of the boundedness of $p_n$ for large $n$, only. We can refer to \[P\], p. 211 in case $s \geq 3$ and to \[P\], pp. 198-201 for the case $s=2$ when $\varphi_s = \varphi$. The result follows from the corresponding Edgeworth-type approximation of $f_n(t)$ by the Fourier transforms of $\varphi_s(x)$ on growing intervals such as $|t| < c_1 n^{1/6}$ in case $s \geq 3$. Repeating the arguments on pp. 211-212 of \[P\] and applying Plancherel’s formula, one can easily obtain the second bound in (10.7), as well. In fact, the case $l \geq 1$ is similar, since the appearence of the additional factor $(-it)^l$ in (10.5) does not create any difficulty due to the polynomial decay at infinity of the characteristic functions $f_n$.
For the proof of Theorem 1.1, the lemma will be used with the values $l = 0,1,2$, only.
[**Behaviour of densities not far from the origin**]{}
======================================================
To study the asymptotic behavior of the Fisher information distance $$I(Z_n||Z) =
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(p_n'(x) + xp_n(x))^2}{p_n(x)}\ dx,$$ we split the domain of integration into the interval $|x| \leq T_n$ and its complement. Thus, define $$J_0 = \int_{|x| \leq T_n} \frac{(p_n'(x) + xp_n(x))^2}{p_n(x)}\ dx$$ and similarly $J_1$ for the region $|x| > T_n$. If $T_n$ is not too large, the first integral can be treated with the help of Lemma 10.2. Namely, we take T\_n = (s>2), where $\rho_n \rightarrow +\infty$ is a sufficiently slowly growing sequence whose growth is restricted by the decay of the sequence $\ep_n$ in (10.6). In other words, $[-T_n,T_n]$ represents an asymptotically largest interval, where we can guarantee that the densities $p_n$ of $Z_n$ are separated from zero, and moreover, $\sup_{|x| \leq T_n} |\frac{p_n(x)}{\varphi(x)} - 1| \rightarrow 0$. To cover the case $s=2$, one may put $T_n = \sqrt{\rho_n}$, where $T_n \rightarrow +\infty$ is a sufficiently slowly growing sequence. With this choice of $T_n$, an estimation of the integral $J_1$ can be performed via moderate inequalities.
In this section we focus on $J_0$ and provide an asymptotic expansion for it with a remainder term which turns out to be slightly better in comparison with the resulting expansion (1.3) of Theorem 1.1.
. Let us adopt the convention to write $\delta_n$ for any sequence of functions satisfying $|\delta_n(x)| \leq \ep_n n^{-(s-2)/2}$ with $\ep_n \rightarrow 0$, as $n \rightarrow \infty$, at least on the intervals $|x| \leq T_n$. For example, the statement of Lemma 10.2 with $l=0$ may be written as p\_n(x) = (1 + u\_s(x))(x) + , where $$u_s(x) \, = \, \frac{\varphi_s(x)-\varphi(x)}{\varphi(x)}
\, = \, \sum_{k=1}^{s-2}\, \frac{q_k(x)}{\varphi(x)} \ \frac{1}{n^{k/2}}.$$ Combining the lemma with $l=0$ and $l=1$, we obtain another representation p\_n’(x) + xp\_n(x) = w\_s(x) + , where $$w_s(x) \, = \, \sum_{k=1}^{s-2}\, \frac{q'_k(x)+xq_k(x)}{n^{k/2}}.$$
Note that the functions $u_s$ and $w_s$ depend on $n$ as parameter and are getting small for growing $n$. More precisely, it follows from the definition of $q_k$ that, for all $x \in \R$, C\_s |u\_s(x)| C\_s with some constants depending on $s$ and the cumulants of $X_1$, only. In particular, for $|x| \leq T_n$ and any prescribed $0 < \ep < \frac{1}{2}$, < |u\_s(x)| < with sufficiently large $n$. In addition, with a properly chosen sequence $\rho_n$, we have < . Hence, by Lemma 10.2, $|\frac{p_n(x)}{\varphi(x)} - 1| < \frac{1}{2}$ on the interval $|x| \leq T_n$.
Now, for $|x| \leq T_n$ $$\big(1+u_s(x)\big)^{-1} -
\Big(1 + u_s(x) + \frac{\delta_n}{(1+|x|^s)\varphi(x)}\Big)^{-1}
= \frac{\delta_n}{(1+|x|^s)\varphi(x)},$$ and we obtain from (11.2) $$\frac{1}{p_n(x)} \, = \, \frac{1}{(1+u_s(x))\varphi(x)} +
\frac{\delta_n}{(1+|x|^s)\varphi(x)^2}.$$ Combining this with (11.3) and using (11.5), we will be lead to $$\frac{(p_n'(x)+xp_n(x))^2}{p_n(x)} = \frac{w_s(x)^2}
{(1+u_s(x))\varphi(x)}+\sum_{j=1}^5 r_{nj}(x), \qquad |x| \leq T_n,$$ where r\_[n1]{} & = & \_n, r\_[n2]{} = \_n,\
r\_[n3]{} & = & \_n\^2, r\_[n4]{} = \_n\^2,\
r\_[n5]{} & = & 1[(1+|x|\^[3s-2]{})(x)\^2]{} \_n\^3. Here, according to the left inequality in (11.5), the remainder terms $r_{n1}(x)$ and $r_{n2}(x)$ are uniformly bounded on $[-T_n,T_n]$ by $|\delta_n|\, n^{-1/3}$. A similar bound also holds for $r_{n3}(x)$, by taking into account (11.6). In addition, integrating by parts, for large $n$ and with some constants (independent of $n$), we have \_[|x|T\_n]{}|r\_[n4]{}(x)|dx & & \_1\^[T\_n]{} e\^[x\^2/2]{}dx\
& & e\^[T\_n\^2/2]{} = o(). With a similar argument, the same $o$-relation also holds for the integral of $|r_{n5}(x)|$.
Thus, \_[|x|T\_n]{} dx = \_[|x|T\_n]{} dx + o().
Now, by Taylor’s expansion around zero, in the interval $|u|\le \frac{1}{4}$ we have $$\frac{1}{1+u} \, = \, \sum_{k=0}^{s-4}\, (-1)^ku^k + \theta u^{s-3}, \qquad
|\theta| < 2$$ (there are no terms in the sum for $s=3$). Hence, with some $-2 < \theta_n < 2$ $$\int_{|x|\le T_n}\frac{w_s^2}{(1+u_s)\varphi}\,dx \, = \,
\sum_{k=0}^{s-4}\, (-1)^k \int_{|x|\le T_n} w_s^2 u_s^k\,\frac{dx}{\varphi}
+ \theta_n \int_{|x|\le T_n} w_s^2 u_s^{s-3}\,\frac{dx}{\varphi}.$$ At the expense of a small error, these integrals may be extended to the whole real line. Indeed, for large enough $n$, by (11.4), we have, for $k=0,1,\dots,s-4$ with some common constant $C_s$ $$\int_{|x|>T_n} w_s^2\, |u_s|^k\,\frac{dx}{\varphi}
\, \leq \,
\frac{C_s}{n^{(k+2)/2}}\int_{|x|>T_n}(1+|x|^{(3k+6)(s-1)})\, \varphi\,dx
\, = \,
o\Big(\frac{1}{n^{(s-1)/2}}\Big).$$ Moreover, $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} w_s^2\, |u_s|^{s-3}\,\frac{dx}{\varphi}
\, = \, O\Big(\frac{1}{n^{(s-1)/2}}\Big).$$ Therefore, $$\int_{|x|\le T_n} \frac{w_s^2}{(1+u_s)\varphi}\,dx \, = \,
\sum_{k=0}^{s-4} \, (-1)^k
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}w_s^2 u_s^k\,\frac{dx}{\varphi}
+ O\Big(\frac{1}{n^{(s-1)/2}}\Big).$$ Inserting this in (11.7), we thus arrive at J\_0 = \_[k=0]{}\^[s-4]{} (-1)\^k \_[-]{}\^[+]{} w\_s\^2 u\_s\^k + o().
In the next step, we develop this representation by expressing $u_s$ and $w_s$ in terms of $q_k$ while expanding the sum in (11.8) in powers of $1/\sqrt{n}$ as $$\sum_{j=2}^{s-2} \, \frac{a_j}{n^{j/2}} + O\Big(\frac{1}{n^{(s-1)/2}}\Big).$$
More precisely, here the coefficients are given by a\_j = \_[k=2]{}\^[j]{} (-1)\^k \_[-]{}\^[+]{} (q\_[r\_1]{}’ + xq\_[r\_1]{}) (q\_[r\_2]{}’ + xq\_[r\_2]{}) q\_[r\_3]{} …q\_[r\_k]{} with summation over all positive solutions $(r_1,\dots,r_k)$ to $r_1 + \dots + r_k = j$. Moreover, when $j$ are odd, the above integrals are vanishing. Indeed, differentiating the equality (10.2) which defines the functions $q_k$ and using the property $H_n'(x) = n H_{n-1}(x)$ $(n \geq 1)$, we obtain a similar equality q\_k’(x) + xq\_k(x) = (x) (k + 2l)H\_[k + 2l - 1]{}(x) ()\^[r\_1]{} …()\^[r\_k]{} with summation over all non-negative solutions $(r_1,\dots,r_k)$ to $r_1 + 2 r_2 + \dots + k r_k = k$, and where $l = r_1 + \dots + r_k$. Hence, the integrand in (11.9) represents a linear combination of the functions of the form $$H_{r_1 + 2l_1 - 1}\, H_{r_2 + 2l_2 - 1}\, H_{r_3 + 2l_3} \dots H_{r_k + 2l_k}\,
\varphi.$$ Note that here the sum of indices is ${{\rm mod}\, 2}$ the same as $j$. We can now apply the following property of the Chebyshev-Hermite polynomials (see Szegö 1967). If the sum of indices $d_1,\dots, d_k$ is odd, then necessarily $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} H_{d_1}(x) \dots H_{d_k}(x) \, \varphi(x)\,dx = 0.$$
Hence, $a_j = 0$, whenever $j$ is odd, and putting $c_j = a_{2j}$, we arrive at the assertion of the lemma.
In formula (11.9) with $c_j = a_{2j}$ we perform summation over all integers $r_l \geq 1$ such that $r_1 + \dots + r_k = 2j$. Hence, all $r_l \leq 2j - 1$, and thus the functions $q_{r_l}$ are determined by the cumulants up to order $2j+1$. Hence, $c_j$ represents a polynomial in $\gamma_3,\dots,\gamma_{2j+1}$.
[**Moderate deviations**]{}
===========================
We now consider the second integral $$J_1 =
\int_{|x|>T_n} \frac{(p_n'(x)+xp_n(x))^2}{p_n(x)}\,dx$$ participating in the Fisher information distance $I(Z_n||Z)$.
Write J\_1 2J\_[1,1]{} + 2J\_[1,2]{} = 2\_[|x|>T\_n]{} dx + 2\_[|x|>T\_n]{} x\^2p\_n(x)dx. Using Lemma 10.1, we conclude that, for $s=3,\dots$, J\_[1,2]{} = o(1[(nn)\^[(s-2)/2]{}]{}). Indeed, integrating by parts we have $$\int_{T_n}^{+\infty} x^2 p_{n}(x)\,dx \, = \, T_n^2\,(1-F_n(T_n)) +
2\int_{T_n}^{+\infty} x(1-F_n(x)) \,dx.$$ Recalling the definition (10.3) of the approximating functions $\Phi_s$ and applying an elementary inequality $1-\Phi(x) < \frac{1}{x}\,\varphi(x)$ ($x>0$), we obtain from (10.4) T\_n\^2 (1-F\_n(T\_n)) & = & T\_n\^2 (1-\_s(T\_n)) + T\_n\^2 (\_s(T\_n)-F\_n(T\_n))\
& & T\_n (T\_n) + C(T\_n) \_[k=1]{}\^[s-2]{} T\_n\^[3k]{} n\^[-k/2]{} + o()\
& = & o() with some constant $C$. In addition, \_[T\_n]{}\^[+]{} x(1-F\_n(x)) dx & & 1-(T\_n) + C \_[k=1]{}\^[s-2]{}1[n\^[k/2]{}]{}\_[T\_n]{}\^[+]{} x\^[3k]{}(x)dx\
& & + o() = o(). With similar estimates for the half-axis $x<-T_n$, we arrive at the relation (12.2).
Let us now estimate $J_{1,1}$. Denote by $J_{1,1}^+$ the part of this integral corresponding to the interval $x > T_n$. By Propositions 6.2, 6.4 and 8.3, for sufficiently large $n$ one may integrate by parts to justify the formula J\_[1,1]{}\^+ = - p\_n’(T\_n) p\_n(T\_n) - \_[T\_n]{}\^[+]{} p\_n”(x)p\_n(x)dx. Since $p_n(x) \leq C\sqrt{I(Z_{n_0})}$ for all $x$ (Propositions 2.2 and 9.1) and since $p_n(T_n) \geq \frac{1}{2}\,\varphi(T_n)$, we see that for all sufficiently large $n$, $|\log p_n(T_n)|\le c T_n^2$ with some constants $C$ and $c$. Therefore, by Lemma 10.2 for the derivative of the density $p_n$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
|p_n'(T_n) \log p_n(T_n)|
& \leq &
c T_n^2\, |p_n'(T_n)| \nonumber \\
& \leq &
cT_n^2\, |\varphi'(T_n)| + o\Big(\frac 1{T_n^{s-2}\, n^{(s-2)/2}}\Big) \nonumber \\
& = &
o\Big(\frac 1{T_n^{s-3}\, n^{(s-2)/2}}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ A similar relation holds at the point $-T_n$, as well.
It remains to evaluate the integral in (12.3). First we integrate over the set $A = \{x > T_n: p_n(x)\le\varphi(x)^4\}$. By the upper bound of Proposition 6.4 and applying Proposition 9.1 once more, we have, for all $x$ and all sufficiently large $n$, with some constant $C$ $$|p_n''(x)| \, \leq \, I(p_n)^{5/4} \sqrt{p_n(x)} \, \leq \,
C I(Z_{n_0})^{5/4} \sqrt{p_n(x)}.$$ Hence, with some constants $c,c'$ \_A |p\_n”(x)p\_n(x)|dx & & c \_A |p\_n(x)|dx\
& & c’\_[T\_n]{}\^[+]{} x\^2(x)\^2dx = o().
On the other hand, for the complementary set $B = (T_n,+\infty) \setminus A$, we have $$\int_B |p_n''(x)\log p_n(x)|\,dx \, \le \, c\int_B x^2\, |p_n''(x)|\,dx.$$ We now apply Lemma 10.2 to approximate the second derivative. It yields $$\int_{T_n}^{+\infty} x^2\, |p_n''(x)|\,dx \, \leq \,
\int_{T_n}^{+\infty} x^2\, |\varphi_s''(x)|\,dx + \int_{T_n}^{+\infty}
\frac{|\psi_{2,n}(x)|}{1+|x|^{s-2}}\,dx \cdot o\Big(\frac{1}{n^{(s-2)/2}}\Big).$$ Here, the first integral on the right-hand side is bounded by $$\int_{T_n}^{+\infty} x^2\, |\varphi_s''(x)-\varphi''(x)|\,dx +
\int_{T_n}^{+\infty} x^2\, |x^2-1|\,\varphi(x)\,dx =
o\Big(\frac 1{T_n^{s-3}n^{(s-2)/2}}\Big).$$ To estimate the second integral, we use Cauchy’s inequality, which gives $$\int_{T_n}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{1 + |x|^{s-2}} \, |\psi_{2,n}(x)|\,dx
\ \leq \ \frac{1}{T_n^{s-5/2}} \
\bigg(\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \psi_{2,n}(x)^2\,dx\bigg)^{1/2}
\ \leq \ \frac{1}{T_n^{s-5/2}}.$$ Therefore, returning to (12.5), we get $$\int_B |p_n''(x)\log p_n(x)|\,dx \, = \,
o\Big(\frac{1}{n^{(s-2)/2}\,(\log n)^{(s-3)/2}}\Big).$$ Together with the bound for the integral over the set $A$, we thus have $$J_{1,1}^+ = o\Big(\frac{1}{n^{(s-2)/2}\,(\log n)^{(s-3)/2}}\Big).$$
The part of the integral $J_{1,1}$ taken over the axis $x < -T_n$ admits a similar bound, hence the lemma is proved.
The statement of Theorem 1.1 in case $s \ge 3$ thus follows from Lemmas 11.1 and 12.1.
[**Theorem 1.1 in the case $s=2$ and Corollary 1.2**]{}
=======================================================
In the most general case $s=2$ the proof of Theorem 1.1 does no need Edgeworth-type expansions. With tools developed in the previous sections the argument is straightforward and may be viewed as an alternative approach to Barron-Johnson’s theorem.
To give more details, recall that once the Fisher information $I(Z_{n_0})$ is finite, the normalized sums $Z_n$ with $n \geq n_0 + 1$ have uniformly bounded densities $p_n$ with bounded continuous derivatives $p_n'$ (Proposition 6.2). Moreover, we have a well-known local limit theorem for densities; we described one of its variants in Lemma 10.2. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_x\ (1+x^2)\,|p_n(x)-\varphi(x)| & = & o(1), \\
\sup_x\ (1+x^2)\,|p_n'(x)-\varphi'(x)| & = & o(1),\end{aligned}$$ as $n \to\infty$, where the convergence of the derivatives relies upon the finiteness of the Fisher information.
Splitting the integration in $$I(Z_n||Z) =
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(p_n'(x) + xp_n(x))^2}{p_n(x)}\ dx$$ into the two regions, we have therefore, for every fixed $T>1$, J\_0 = \_[|x|T]{}dx = o(1), n. On the other hand, write as we did before J\_1 & = & \_[|x|>T]{}dx 2 J\_[1,1]{} + 2J\_[1,2]{}\
& = & 2\_[|x|>T]{}dx + 2\_[|x|>T]{} x\^2 p\_n(x)dx. As we saw in (12.3), $$J_{1,1} = -p_n'(T)\log p_n(T) + p_n'(-T)\log p_n(-T)-
\int_{|x|>T} p_n''(x)\log p_n(x)\,dx.$$ By (13.1)-(13.2), $|p_n'(\pm T)\log p_n(\pm T)|\le 2T^3e^{-T^2/2}$ for all sufficiently large $n \geq n_T$. By Proposition 8.3, with some constant $c$, for all $x$, $$|p_n''(x) \log p_n(x)| \, \leq \, c\, \frac{\log(e+|x|)}{1+x^2},$$ implying $$\int_{|x|>T} |p_n''(x)\log p_n(x)|\,dx \, \leq \, c' T^{-1/2}$$ with some other constant $c'$. In addition, by (13.1), \_[|x|>T]{} x\^2 p\_n(x)dx & = & \_[|x|>T]{} x\^2 (p\_n(x) - (x))dx + \_[|x|>T]{} x\^2 (x)dx\
& -20mm = & -10mm -\_[|x| T]{} x\^2 (p\_n(x) - (x))dx + \_[|x|>T]{} x\^2 (x)dx\
& -20mm & -10mm \_[|x| T]{} x\^2 |p\_n(x) - (x)|dx + \_[|x|>T]{} x\^2 (x)dx 2T\^3 o(1) + 4T(T). Hence, given $\ep>0$, one can choose $T$ such that $J_1 < \ep$, for all $n$ large enough. This means that $J_1 = o(1)$, and recalling (13.3), we get $I(Z_n||Z) = o(1)$.
Let us now return to the case $s \geq 3$.
According to the expansion (11.8) which appeared in the proof of Lemma 11.1, Theorem 1.1 may equivalently be formulated as I(Z\_n||Z) = \_[l=0]{}\^[s-4]{} (-1)\^l \_[-]{}\^[+]{} w\_s(x)\^2 u\_s(x)\^l + o(), where as before $$w_s(x) \, = \, \sum_{j=1}^{s-2}\, (q'_j(x)+xq_j(x))\,n^{-j/2}, \qquad
u_s(x) \, = \, \sum_{j=1}^{s-2}\, \frac{q_j(x)}{\varphi(x)} \, n^{-j/2}.$$
This representation for the Fisher information distance is more convenient for applications such as Corollary 1.2 in comparison with (1.3). Assume that $s \geq 4$ and $\gamma_3 = \dots = \gamma_{k-1} = 0$ for a given integer $3 \leq k \leq s$ (with no restriction when $k = 3$). Then, by the definition (10.2), $q_1 = \dots = q_{k-3} = 0$, so w\_s(x) = \_[j=k-2]{}\^[s-2]{} (q’\_j(x)+xq\_j(x))n\^[-j/2]{}, u\_s(x) = \_[j=k-2]{}\^[s-2]{} n\^[-j/2]{}. Hence, in order to isolate the leading term in (1.3) with the smallest power of $1/n$, one should take $l = 0$ in (13.4) and $j = k-2$ in the first sum of (13.5). This gives I(Z\_n||Z) & = & n\^[-(k-2)]{} \_[-]{}\^[+]{} (q’\_[k-2]{}(x) + x q\_[k-2]{}(x))\^2\
& & + O(n\^[-(k-1)]{}) + o(). Now, again according to (10.2), or as found in (11.10), $$q'_{k-2}(x) + x q_{k-2}(x) = \frac{\gamma_k}{(k-1)!}\,H_{k-1}(x)\, \varphi(x).$$ Therefore, the sum in (1.3) will contain powers of $1/n$ starting from $1/n^{k-2}$ with leading coefficient $$c_{k-2} = \frac{\gamma_k^2}{(k-1)!^{\,2}}\,\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
H_{k-1}(x)^2\, \varphi(x)\,dx = \frac{\gamma_k^2}{(k-1)!}.$$ Thus, $c_1 = \dots = c_{k-3} = 0$ and we get $$I(Z_n||Z) \, = \,
\frac{\gamma_k^2}{(k-1)!}\, \frac{1}{n^{k-2}} + O\big(n^{-(k-1)}\big) + o\Big(\frac{1}{n^{(s-2)/2} \, (\log n)^{(s-3)/2}}\Big).$$
[**Extensions to non-integer $s$. Lower bounds**]{}
===================================================
If $s \geq 2$ is not necessary integer, put $m=[s]$ (integer part). Theorem 1.1 admits the following generalization. As before, let the normalized sums $$Z_n = \frac{X_1 + \dots + X_n}{\sqrt{n}}$$ be defined for independent identically distributed random variables with mean $\E X_1=0$ and variance $\Var(X_1)=1$.
The proof is based on a certain extension and refinement of the local limit theorem described in Lemma 10.2.
Here we use the approximating functions $\varphi_m = \varphi + \sum_{k=1}^{m-2} q_k\, n^{-k/2}$ as before.
When $l = 0$ and in a simpler form, namely, with $\psi_{l,s,j}(x,n) = 1$, this result has recently been obtained in \[B-C-G1\]. In this case, the finiteness of the Fisher information may be relaxed to the boundedness of the densities. The more general case involving derivatives can be carried out by a similar analysis as that developed in \[B-C-G1\], so we omit details.
If $s=m$ is integer, the Edgeworth-type expansions (14.2) and (14.3) coincide, and we are reduced to the statement of Lemma 10.2. However, if $s>m$, (14.3) gives an improvement over (14.2) on relatively large intervals such as $|x| \leq T_n$ considered in Theorem 1.1 and defined in (11.1).
With a few modifications one can argue in the same way as we did in the proof of Theorem 1.1. First, in case $l=0$ (14.3) yields, uniformly in $|x| \leq T_n$ $$p_n(x) \, = \, \varphi_m(x) + \frac{1}{1+|x|^s}\, o\big(n^{-(s-2)/2}\big),$$ which being combined with a similar relation for the derivative $(l=1)$ yields $$p_n'(x) + x p_n(x) \, = \,
w_m(x) + \frac{1}{1+|x|^{s-1}}\, o\big(n^{-(s-2)/2}\big),$$ where $w_m(x) = \sum_{k=1}^{m-2}\, (q'_k(x)+xq_k(x))\,n^{-k/2}$. These two relations thus extend (11.2) and (11.3) which were only needed in the proof of Lemma 11.1. Repeating the same arguments using the functions $u_m(x) = \frac{\varphi_m(x)-\varphi(x)}{\varphi(x)}$, we can extend the expansion of Lemma 11.1 with the same remainder term to general values $s > 2$.
In order to prove Lemma 12.1 with real $s>2$, let us return to (12.1). The fact that the relation (12.2) extends to non-integer $s$ follows from the extended variant of Lemma 10.1, which was already mentioned before. Thus our main concern has to be the integral $J_{1,1}$ which is responsible for the most essential contribution in the resulting remainder term. Thus, consider the part of this integral on the positive half-axis J\_[1,1]{}\^+ = \_[T\_n]{}\^[+]{} dx = - p\_n’(T\_n) p\_n(T\_n) - \_[T\_n]{}\^[+]{} p\_n”(x)p\_n(x)dx.
Applying (14.3) at $x=T_n$, we obtain (12.4) for real $s>2$, that is, $$|p_n'(T_n) \log p_n(T_n)| = o\Big(\frac{1}{n^{(s-2)/2}\, (\log n)^{s-3}}\Big).$$
To prove (14.1), it remains to estimate the last integral in (14.4) which has to be treated with an extra care. The argument uses both (14.2) and (14.3) which are applied on different parts of the half-axis $x>T_n$. For the set $A = \{x \geq T_n: p_n(x) \leq \varphi(x)^4\}$ we have already obtained a general relation $$\int_A |p_n''(x)\log p_n(x)|\,dx \, = \, o\Big(\frac{1}{n^{s-2}}\Big),$$ which holds for all sufficently large $n$ (without any moment assumption). Hence, with some constant $c$ $$\int_{T_n}^{4T_n^4} |p_n''(x)\log p_n(x)|\,dx \, \leq \,
c\int_{T_n}^{4T_n^4} x^2\, |p_n''(x)|\,dx + o\Big(\frac{1}{n^{s-2}}\Big).$$
Now, on the interval $[T_n,4T_n^4]$ we apply Lemma 14.2 with $l=2$ to approximate the second derivative. It yields \_[T\_n]{}\^[4T\_n\^4]{} x\^2 |p\_n”(x)|dx & & \_[T\_n]{}\^[+]{} x\^2 |\_m”(x)|dx + \_[T\_n]{}\^[+]{} dx o()\
& & + \_[T\_n]{}\^[4T\_n\^4]{}|\_[2,n,2]{}(x)|dx (O(n\^[-(m-1)/2]{}) + o(n\^[-(s-2)]{})). Here, as in the proof of Lemma 12.1, the first integral on the right-hand side is bounded, up to a constant, by $$\int_{T_n}^{+\infty} x^4\varphi(x)\,dx = o\Big(\frac{1}{T_n^{s-3}n^{(s-2)/2}}\Big),$$ and for the second one, we use Cauchy’s inequality to estimate it by $T_n^{-(s-5/2)}$. Similarly, the last integral is bounded by $$2 T_n^2\,\bigg(\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \psi_{2,n,2}(x)^2\,dx\bigg)^{1/2}
\, \leq \, 2T_n^2.$$ Since $T_n^2$ has a logarithmic growth, we conclude that $$\int_{T_n}^{4T_n^4} x^2\, |p_n''(x)|\,dx =
o\Big(\frac{1}{n^{(s-2)/2}\,(\log n)^{(s-3)/2}}\Big),$$ so a similar bound also holds for the left integral in (14.5).
To deal with the remaining values of $x$, we will consider the set $S_1 = \big\{x > 4T_n^4: p_n(x) \leq \frac{1}{2}\,e^{-4\sqrt{x}}\,\big\}$ and its complement $S_2 = (4T_n^4,+\infty) \setminus S_1$. By Proposition 6.3, for all sufficiently large $n$, and with some constants $c,c'$ we have \_[S\_1]{} |p\_n”(x)p\_n(x)|dx & & c \_[S\_1]{} |p\_n(x)|dx\
& & c’ \_[4T\_n\^4]{}\^[+]{} e\^[-2]{}dx = o(). On the other hand, applying (14.2) on the set $S_2$, we get \_[S\_2]{} |p\_n”(x)p\_n(x)|dx| & & c \_[S\_2]{} |p\_n”(x)| dx\
& & c’ \_[4T\_n\^4]{}\^[+]{} x\^[5/2]{} (x)dx + c’ \_[4T\_n\^4]{}\^[+]{} o(1[n\^[(s-2)/2]{}]{})\
& = & o(). Combining the two estimates, the theorem is proved.
If $2<s<4$, the expansion (14.1) becomes I(Z\_n||Z) = o(1[n\^[(s-2)/2]{}(n)\^[(s-3)/2]{}]{}). This formulation does not include the case $s=2$. In case $s>2$, we expect that the bound (14.6) may be improved further. However, a possible improvement may concern the power of the logarithmic term, only. This can be illustrated by means of the example of densities of the form $$p(x) = \int_{\sigma_0}^{+\infty} \varphi_\sigma(x)\,dP(\sigma) \qquad (x \in \R),$$ that is, mixtures of densities of normal distributions on the line with mean zero, where $P$ is a (mixing) probability measure supported on the half-axis $(\sigma_0,+\infty)$ with $\sigma_0 > 0$. A natural variance constraint on $P$ is that \_[-]{}\^[+]{} x\^2 p(x)dx = \_[\_0]{}\^[+]{} \^2dP() = 1, so we should assume that $0 < \sigma_0 < 1$.
First, let us note that, by the convexity of the Fisher information, $$I(p) \leq \int_{\sigma_0}^{+\infty} I(\varphi_\sigma)\,dP(\sigma)
= \int_{\sigma_0}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{\sigma^2}\,dP(\sigma) \leq
\frac{1}{\sigma_0^2},$$ hence, $I(p)$ is finite. On the other hand, given $\eta > s/2$, it is possible to construct the measure $P$ to satisfy (14.7) and with $$D(Z_n||Z)\, \geq\, \frac{c}{n^{(s-2)/2} \, (\log n)^\eta},$$ for all $n$ large enough, and with a constant $c$ depending on $s$ and $\eta$, only (cf. \[B-C-G2\]). For example, one may define $P$ on the half-axis $[2,+\infty)$ by its density $$\frac{dP(\sigma)}{d\sigma} = \frac{c}{\sigma^{s+1} (\log \sigma)^\eta},
\qquad \sigma > 2,$$ and then extend it to any interval $[\sigma_0,2]$ in an arbitrary way so that to obtain a probability measure satisfying the requirement (14.7). Hence, (14.6) is sharp up to a logarithmic factor.
Finally, let us mention that in case $s=2$, $D(Z_n||Z)$ and therefore $I(Z_n||Z)$ may decay at an arbitrary slow rate.
[BH3]{} =-0pt S. Artstein, K. M. Ball, F. Barthe and A. Naor. On the rate of convergence in the entropic central limit theorem. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 129 (2004), no. 3, 381–-390.
S. Artstein, K. M. Ball, F. Barthe and A. Naor. Solution of Shannon’s problem on the monotonicity of entropy. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 17 (2004), no. 4, 975–-982.
A. R. Barron and O. Johnson. Fisher information inequalities and the central limit theorem. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 129 (2004), no. 3, 391–-409.
R. N. Bhattacharya and R. Ranga Rao. Normal approximation and asymptotic expansions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1976. Also: Soc. for Industrial and Appl. Math., Philadelphia, 2010.
P. Billingsley. Convergence of probability measures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York-London-Sydney 1968, xii+253 pp.
N. M. Blachman. The convolution inequality for entropy powers. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 11 (1965), 267–-271.
S. G. Bobkov. Large deviations and isoperimetry over convex probability measures with heavy tails. Electr. J. Probab. 12 (2007), 1072–1100.
S. G. Bobkov, G. P. Chistyakov and F. Götze. Non-uniform bounds in local limit theorems in case of fractional moments. I. Math. Methods of Statistics, 20 (2011), no. 3, 171–191; II. Math. Methods of Statistics, 20 (2011), no. 4, 269–287.
S. G. Bobkov, G. P. Chistyakov and F. Götze. Rate of convergence and Edgeworth-type expansion in the entropic central limit theorem. arXiv:1104.3994 (2011).
F. Bolley and C. Villani. Weighted Csiszár-Kullback-Pinsker inequalities and applications to transportation inequalities. Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6) 14 (2005), no. 3, 331–-352.
C. Borell. Convex measures on locally convex spaces. Ark. Mat. 12 (1974), 239–-252.
C. Borell. Convex set functions in $d$-space. Period. Math. Hungar. 6 (1975), no. 2, 111–-136.
M. Cohen. The Fisher information and convexity. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 14 (1968), 591–592.
O. Johnson. Information theory and the central limit theorem. Imperial College Press, London, 2004, xiv+209 pp.
A. N. Kolmogorov and S. V. Fomin. Elements of the theory of functions and functional analysis. With a supplement “Banach algebras”, by V. M. Tikhomirov. (Russian) Sixth edition. “Nauka”, Moscow, 1989, 624 pp.
P.-A. Meyer. Probability and potentials. Blaisdell Publishing Co. Ginn and Co., Waltham, Mass.-Toronto, Ont.-London 1966, xiii+266 pp.
L. V. Osipov and V. V. Petrov. On the estimation of the remainder term in the central limit theorem. (Russian) Theory Probab. Appl., 12 (1967), 322–-329.
V. V. Petrov. Sums of independent random variables. Springer-Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1975, x+345 pp.
R. Shimizu. On Fisher’s amount of information for location family. In: G.P.Patil et al, (eds), Statistical Distributions in Scientific Work, Vol. 3, Reidel, 1975, pp. 305–-312.
A. J. Stam. Some inequalities satisfied by the quantities of information of Fisher and Shannon. Information and Control 2 (1959), 101–-112.
G. Szegö. Orthogonal polynomials. Third edition. Amer. Math. Soc. Colloquium Publications, Vol. 23. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1967, xiii+423 pp.
[^1]: 1\) School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, USA; Email: [email protected]
[^2]: 2\) Faculty of Mathematics, University of Bielefeld, Germany; Email: [email protected]
[^3]: 3\) Faculty of Mathematics, University of Bielefeld, Germany; Email: [email protected]
[^4]: 4\) Research partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1106530 and SFB 701
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Fractional occupation numbers can produce open-shell degeneracy in density functional theory. We develop the corresponding perturbation theory by requiring that a differentiable map connects the initial and perturbed states. The degenerate state connects to a single perturbed state which extremizes, but does not necessarily minimize or maximize, the energy with respect to occupation numbers. Using a system of three electrons in a harmonic oscillator potential, we relate the counterintuitive sign of first-order occupation numbers to eigenvalues of the electron-electron interaction Hessian.'
author:
- 'Mark C. Palenik'
- 'Brett I. Dunlap'
bibliography:
- 'citations.bib'
title: Energy Continuity in Degenerate Density Functional Perturbation Theory
---
[^1]
When a quantum mechanical system is perturbed by a small external potential, $\lambda V^{(1)}$, it is often possible to build Taylor series in the parameter $\lambda$ connecting the eigenstates of the perturbed and unperturbed systems. This is the premise of Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory (RSPT) [@Shavitt2009].
In standard quantum mechanics, degeneracy means that there is not a one-to-one mapping between unperturbed and perturbed eigenvalues. The potential $V^{(1)}$ will, in general, break the initial degeneracy, causing different linear combinations of previously degenerate states to evolve into different eigenstates. In Kohn-Sham (KS) density functional theory (DFT) [@HKTheorems; @Kohn1965], on the other hand, the original degenerate state is paradoxically unique, because degenerate eigenvalues only occur for a specific set of orbital occupations. This means that if perturbation theory can be defined, it must connect the unperturbed state to a unique perturbed state as well [@Cances2014].
In standard quantum mechanics, unless we pick the correct initial linear combination of degenerate states, a discontinuous shift in the wave function is required to remain in an eigenstate after the perturbation is turned on. This correct linear combination is determined entirely by the perturbing potential and not the initial state [@sakurai2011modern]. What properties of KS DFT, then, allow for the existence of a continuous, differentiable connection between perturbed and unperturbed states where none can exist in standard quantum mechanics?
Variational minimization of the KS energy with respect to the orbitals leads to the nonlinear eigenvalue equation $H_{KS}|\phi_i\rangle=\epsilon_i|\phi_i\rangle$, where $\phi_i$ is a single-particle orbital. The operator $H_{KS}$ is like a quantum mechanical Hamiltonian, except that it contains Coulomb and exchange-correlation (XC) potentials, which we will collectively refer to as ${\nu_{ks}}$. These potentials are meant to model electron-electron interactions and introduce nonlinearity because they depend on the electron density, which in turn is determined by the orbitals.
In DFT, it is the symmetry of $H_{KS}$, which includes both the external potential and ${\nu_{ks}}$, that is responsible for eigenvalue degeneracy. For an open-shell system, ${\nu_{ks}}$ is symmetric if and only if each element of the open shell is occupied equally. For example, a single electron that equally occupies three *p* orbitals with occupation numbers of one third will produce a spherically symmetric density and a corresponding spherically symmetric ${\nu_{ks}}$.
The fact that we start with equal occupation numbers is helpful, because it means that we can apply a unitary transformation that diagonalizes the first-order potential without changing the density. However, the level splitting induced by $V^{(1)}$ means that if the occupation numbers are left unchanged, several perturbed states with different eigenvalues will be equally occupied.
{width="0.655\columnwidth"} {width="0.66\columnwidth"} {width="0.66\columnwidth"}
This problem can be solved by allowing the occupation numbers to change at each order. The Coulomb and XC potentials have an order-by-order expansion, because they depend on the density, which has an order-by-order expansion. Therefore, in DFT, it is the full first-order potential $V^{(1)}+{\nu_{ks}^{(1)}}$ that must be diagonalized. If the perturbation is small, transferring electrons between orbitals can change ${\nu_{ks}^{(1)}}$ enough that the eigenvalues become degenerate again. A mathematical proof under mild assumptions shows that two features of degenerate DFT perturbation theory are a change in natural occupation numbers at the Fermi level and a lack of eigenvalue splitting [@Cances2014].
The transfer of electrons from one orbital to another does not necessarily minimize the energy but instead does whatever is required to equate the eigenvalues. This is determined by the interdependence of each eigenvalue on all of the orbital occupations. While one typically expects the eigenvalue of a given orbital to increase as its occupation increases, the eigenvalues also depend on the occupation of all other orbitals, and thus, electrons may end up moving between orbitals in a counterintuitive way. For example, in Fig. \[figrhoandv\](c), the occupation numbers change such that the interaction of the first-order density with the first-order potential is positive, although the total second-order energy is still negative, as one would expect from RSPT.
Before delving into this counterintuitive behavior, we will first use the requirement of differentiability to simultaneously prove that the eigenvalues remain degenerate and find equations for the orbitals at each order. In order for a Taylor series in $\lambda$ to exist connecting the unperturbed and perturbed states, at the very least, the unperturbed state must be differentiable with respect to $\lambda$. If we can write an explicit expression for the orbitals as a function of $\lambda$ and take its derivatives at $\lambda=0$, we can then determine the requirements for differentiability.
Such an expression can be produced by using a normalized, imaginary-time propagator, which results in an orbital with the lowest possible eigenvalue in the limit that $t\rightarrow\infty$. Unlike in standard quantum mechanics, the choice of normalization in DFT is not arbitrary. Although in perturbation theory, the intermediate normalization is often convenient, the Coulomb and XC functionals depend nonlinearly on the electron density, and it is therefore crucial that its magnitude, the number of electrons, is conserved.
We would like to extend this idea to the situation where multiple degenerate orbitals are fractionally occupied. The degeneracy of the unperturbed orbitals in DFT depends on a particular choice of occupation numbers and therefore, the entire fractionally occupied state must evolve into an eigenstate, continuously as a function of $\lambda$. An expression for a Fermi level orbital, $\phi_i$, as a function of $\lambda$, provided it overlaps the original $\phi_i$ for all values of $\lambda$, is given by $$|\phi_i(\lambda)\rangle=\frac{\sum_k|\phi_k\rangle\langle\phi_k|\mathcal{T}e^{-\int_0^\infty
H'_{IP}dt}|\phi_i\rangle}{\frac{1}{N_d}\sum_m\sqrt{\sum_j|\langle\phi_j|\mathcal{T}e^{-\int_0^\infty
H'_{IP}dt}|\phi_m\rangle|^2}},
\label{PhiGround}$$ where $H'_{IP}$ is the difference between the perturbed and unperturbed $H_{KS}$ in the interaction picture and $\mathcal{T}$ is the time ordering operator [@PalenikUnpublished]. The index $m$ runs over the degenerate orbitals, and $j$ and $k$ run over all orbitals at or above the Fermi level. $N_d$ is the number of degenerate orbitals. The factor of $1/N_d$ in the denominator comes from the fact that the degenerate orbitals are initially equally occupied and conserves the total density within the degenerate space.
The first-order orbitals are the first term in the Taylor series of $\phi_i(\lambda)$ at $\lambda=0$. Therefore, we need to differentiate Eq. (\[PhiGround\]) once. When there is no degeneracy, this reproduces the standard RSPT sum over states expression. When there is degeneracy, the matrix elements between degenerate orbitals that appear in the derivative of Eq. (\[PhiGround\]) become infinite.
If perturbation theory is to give a meaningful result, all of the matrix elements involved must approach some well defined value as $t\rightarrow\infty$. Another way of stating this is to say that the time-derivative of the matrix elements must go to zero as $t\rightarrow\infty$. Imposing this condition on the matrix elements between degenerate orbitals $\phi_k$ and $\phi_i$ at first order yields [@PalenikUnpublished] $$\langle\phi_k|V^{(1)}+{\nu_{ks}^{(1)}}|\phi_i\rangle=\epsilon^{(1)}\delta_{ik},
\label{EqFirstOrder}$$ where $\epsilon^{(1)}$ is the first order eigenvalue of all of the fractionally occupied orbitals. We can continue to higher orders by taking additional derivatives of $\phi_i(\lambda)$ at $\lambda=0$. At each order, applying this procedure has the same effect of equating the eigenvalues.
This lack of eigenvalue splitting would, at first glance appear to cause problems for perturbation theory. For example, the usual expression for the first-order mixing between degenerate states has first-order eigenvalue differences in the denominator. While these are nonzero in standard quantum mechanics, they remain zero in DFT. However, it can be shown that the $N$th-order mixing between degenerate orbitals is actually part of perturbation theory at order $N+1$ and does not affect any $N$th-order observables in DFT [@PalenikUnpublished]. DFT introduces a new term through the second-order KS potential, and when this term is included, the equations can be solved without a singularity once again.
In order to make the eigenvalues equal, we must understand how they change as electrons are transferred between orbitals. This information can be obtained from their derivatives with respect to occupation numbers, or equivalently, the Hessian of the energy with respect to occupation numbers. We will compute this Hessian in a way that sheds light on its relationship to the order-by-order expansion of the occupation numbers, by making a connection to our prior work on density perturbation theory [@Palenik2015]. There, we showed that the electron density at order $N$ can be found directly by making the energy at order $N+M$ stationary with respect to the density at order $M$. If we apply this same idea to fractional occupation numbers, with the constraint that the total number of electrons in the fractionally occupied orbitals is conserved, we can write the equation $$\frac{dE^{(N+M)}}{dn_j^{(M)}} = \epsilon^{(N)},
\label{EqdEdn}$$ where now, $\epsilon^{(N)}$ is a Lagrange multiplier that enforces the constraint and $n_j^{(M)}$ is the $M$th-order occupation number of the Fermi level orbital $\phi_j$. Explicitly evaluating the left hand side yields, as one would expect from Janak’s theorem [@Janak1978], the RSPT equation for the $N$th-order eigenvalue $\epsilon_j^{(N)}$. The exception is that $dE^{(N)}/dn_j^{(0)}$ for $N>0$ cannot be easily evaluated, due to the self-consistent dependence of the unperturbed density on the zeroth-order occupation numbers [@PalenikUnpublished].
The zeroth-order Hessian, given a fixed set of zeroth-order orbitals (as a basis for the perturbation expansion), is the second derivative of $E^{(N+M)}$ with respect to $n_j^{(M)}$ and $n_k^{(N)}$, given by $$\frac{d^2E^{(N+M)}}{dn_j^{(M)}dn_k^{(N)}}=\frac{d\epsilon_j^{(N)}}{dn^{(N)}_k} = \int {\rho^{(0)}}_j({\mathbf{r}})\frac{\delta{\nu_{ks}(\mathbf{r})}}{\delta\rho({\mathbf{r}}')}{\rho^{(0)}}_k({\mathbf{r}}')d{\mathbf{r}}d{\mathbf{r}}',
\label{EqEHess2}$$ where we make the definition $\rho_j^{(0)}({\mathbf{r}})=\phi_j^*({\mathbf{r}})\phi_j({\mathbf{r}})$. The term $\delta{\nu_{ks}(\mathbf{r})}/\delta\rho({\mathbf{r}}')$ is the Hessian of the electron-electron interaction energy and comes from the first-order KS potential [@Palenik2015]. This Hessian is neither positive definite nor negative definite, due to the positive contribution of the Coulomb energy and the negative contribution of XC [@Dunlap2016]. Therefore, the extremum we find, in general, will be an energy saddle point.
Because the Hessian is equal to the derivative of the $N$th-order eigenvalues with respect to the $N$th-order occupation numbers, at all orders, this matrix must be inverted to find the corresponding occupation numbers. If we know the basis that diagonalizes the entire first-order potential, in this basis, we could rearrange Eq. (\[EqFirstOrder\]) to get $$\begin{split}
&\sum_jn_j^{(1)}\langle\phi_i|\int\frac{\delta{\nu_{ks}(\mathbf{r})}}{\delta\rho({\mathbf{r}}')}\rho_j^{(0)}({\mathbf{r}}')d{\mathbf{r}}'|\phi_i\rangle
=\epsilon^{(1)}\\
&-\langle\phi_i|V^{(1)}+2Re\sum_j\int\frac{\delta{\nu_{ks}(\mathbf{r})}}{\delta\rho({\mathbf{r}}')}\phi_j^{*(1)}({\mathbf{r}}')\phi_j({\mathbf{r}}')d{\mathbf{r}}'|\phi_i\rangle.
\end{split}
\label{EqN1LHS}$$ The left hand side is the zeroth-order Hessian times the first-order occupation numbers. This matrix determines the manner in which the initial occupation numbers extremize the unperturbed energy, assuming the unperturbed orbitals are unchanged for a small change in occupation numbers, and also the way the $M$ and $N$th-order occupation numbers extremize the $M+N$th-order energy. The negative contribution of XC means that the unperturbed state is not necessarily an energy minimum. This has a profound effect on the behavior of the perturbed occupation numbers.
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
We can demonstrate this by looking at a model problem that can be solved analytically. We will apply a perturbing electric quadrupole potential, given by $V^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}) = Q(y^2-z^2)/|{\mathbf{r}}|^5$ to a system of three electrons in a harmonic oscillator potential, using the X$\alpha$ functional for exchange and correlation, with and without a self-interaction correction (SIC) [@Perdew1981]. The contribution of XC is scaled by the parameter $\alpha$.
Two electrons occupy the lowest state with opposite spins, and the third equally occupies all three degenerate first-excited states. We solve this system in the limit that the oscillator frequency, $\omega$, is infinite. This makes the unperturbed ground state independent of $\alpha$ because the interaction with the external potential dominates, and it allows us to neglect mixing with virtual orbitals. Because there is no mixing with virtual orbitals, the term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[EqN1LHS\]) involving ${\phi_{j}^{*(1)}}\phi_j$, when summed over all $j$, is zero. If desired, we can add the SIC by multiplying the left hand side by $1-\delta_{ij}$. As Perdew and Zunger state, this SIC does not truly remove all self-interactions when fractional occupation numbers are used. If self interactions were completely removed, the entire left hand side of Eq. (\[EqN1LHS\]) would be zero because there is only a single electron within the degenerate space. Although it is clear that for a single electron, the left hand side of Eq. (\[EqN1LHS\]) is zero in a theory completely free of self-interactions, it is much less clear what the correction should be for two or more electrons.
The first-order occupation numbers can be used to find the first through third-order energies [@Wigner1935; @Angyan2009; @Cances2014]. The first and third order energies, in this case, are zero. The second-order energy is negative and given by $$E^{(2)} = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij} n_i^{(1)}n_j^{(1)}\int {\rho^{(0)}}_i({\mathbf{r}})\frac{\delta{\nu_{ks}}({\mathbf{r}})}{\delta\rho({\mathbf{r}}')}{\rho^{(0)}}_j({\mathbf{r}}')d{\mathbf{r}}.$$ The terms that explicitly depend on $V^{(1)}$ either cancel from $E^{(2)}$ or are zero because there is no mixing with virtual orbitals [@PalenikUnpublished]. This makes the second-order energy negative, even in a situation like the one depicted in Fig. \[figrhoandv\](c), where the interaction of the first-order density with the first-order potential is positive.
Performing the diagonalization required by Eq. (\[EqFirstOrder\]) is simple in this problem, in part because the first excited states of the Harmonic oscillator have odd parity, meaning that the ${\nu_{ks}^{(1)}}$ term is diagonal in any basis. Diagonalizing $V^{(1)}$ only requires aligning the the Hermite polynomials in the first excited states of the harmonic oscillator with the axes of the quadrupole. Solving for $n^{(1)}_j$ is then a matter of inverting the Hessian from Eq. (\[EqEHess2\]). The matrix elements are proportional to $\sqrt{\omega}$ (and the exchange portion also has a factor of $\alpha$), while the matrix elements of $V^{(1)}$ are proportional to $Q\omega^{3/2}$. The $\langle\phi_x|V^{(1)}|\phi_x\rangle$ and $\langle\phi_z|V^{(1)}|\phi_z\rangle$ matrix elements have opposite signs, while $\langle\phi_z|V^{(1)}|\phi_z\rangle$ is zero, and so, the same is true for $n^{(1)}_x$, $n^{(1)}_y$, and $n^{(1)}_z$. Therefore, we can specify the first-order occupation numbers by a single parameter, $n^{(1)}$, which we will take to be $n^{(1)}_z$.
In Fig. (\[fignvsalpha\]), we have plotted $n^{(1)}$ alongside the Hessian eigenvalues as a function of $\alpha$. Two of the three eigenvalues are degenerate, represented by the lower line in both (a) and (b). Without the SIC, at $\alpha=0.577$, the off-diagonal and diagonal elements of the Hessian become equal, causing two of the three eigenvalues to go to zero.
When $\alpha$ is greater than $0.577$, these two eigenvalues become negative, meaning that the energy is extremized to a saddle point. Here, $n^{(1)}$ also becomes negative, which means that electrons move from $\phi_z$ into $\phi_y$ \[Fig. \[figrhoandv\](c)\]. The perturbing potential and first-order density are shown in Fig. \[figrhoandv\] along the $y$ (horizontal) and $z$ (vertical) axes. Adding a SIC zeros the diagonal elements of the Hessian, which then has two negative eigenvalues over the entire range of $\alpha$ between zero and one \[Fig. \[fignvsalpha\](b)\]. All three eigenvalues change sign at $\alpha=8.272$, well outside of the physically reasonable range of $0.6$ to $1.0$. This occurs when the off-diagonal elements, and therefore, the entire matrix become zero.
With the SIC, we can always lower the energy by moving electrons into a single orbital. This removes the electron-electron interaction energy, which is dominated by the positive Coulomb term. Therefore, it is obvious that the fractionally occupied state is not an energy minimum with respect to occupation numbers. Similarly, without the SIC, the Hessian is not positive definite when $\alpha>0.577$. Negative Hessian eigenvalues mean that there is some combination of electron transfers between degenerate orbitals that can lower the total energy.
The occupation numbers are proportional to the inverse of this same Hessian at all orders. The presence of negative eigenvalues can change the direction of electron transfer, causing the electron-density to behave in counterintuitive ways, such as in Fig. \[figrhoandv\](c). The eigenvalues of the degenerate orbitals are determined by the interaction of electrons with the entire KS potential, which includes Coulomb and XC portions, and perturbation theory will cause electrons to rearrange themselves in whatever way is necessary to maintain degeneracy after the external perturbing potential is applied.
This work is supported by the Office of Naval Research, directly and through the Naval Research Laboratory. M.C.P. gratefully acknowledges an NRC/NRL Postdoctoral Research Associateship.
[^1]: NRC Research Associate
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The problem of model selection in the context of a system of stochastic differential equations ($SDE$’s) has not been touched upon in the literature. Indeed, properties of Bayes factors have not been studied even in single $SDE$ based model comparison problems.
In this article, we first develop an asymptotic theory of Bayes factors when two $SDE$’s are compared, assuming the time domain expands. Using this we then develop an asymptotic theory of Bayes factors when systems of $SDE$’s are compared, assuming that the number of equations in each system, as well as the time domain, increase indefinitely. Our asymptotic theory covers situations when the observed processes associated with the $SDE$’s are independently and identically distributed ($iid$), as well as when they are independently but not identically distributed (non-$iid$). Quite importantly, we allow inclusion of available time-dependent covariate information into each $SDE$ through a multiplicative factor of the drift function in a random effects set-up; different initial values for the $SDE$’s are also permitted.
Thus, our general model-selection framework includes simultaneously the variable selection problem associated with time-varying covariates, as well as choice of the part of the drift function free of covariates. It is to be noted that given that the underlying process is wholly observed, the diffusion coefficient becomes known, and hence is not involved in the model selection problem.
For both $iid$ and non-$iid$ set-ups we establish almost sure exponential convergence of the Bayes factor. As we show, the Bayes factor is inconsistent for comparing individual $SDE$’s, in the sense that the log-Bayes factor converges only in expectation, while the relevant variance does not converge to zero. Nevertheless, it has been possible to exploit this result to establish almost sure exponential convergence of the Bayes factor when, in addition, the number of individuals are also allowed to increase indefinitely.
We carry out simulated and real data analyses to demonstrate that Bayes factor is a suitable candidate for covariate selection in our $SDE$ models even in non-asymptotic situations.\
[*[**Keywords:**]{} Bayes factor consistency; Kullback-Leibler divergence; Martingale; Stochastic differential equations; Time-dependent covariates and random effects; Variable selection.*]{}
author:
- 'Trisha Maitra and Sourabh Bhattacharya[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'irmcmc.bib'
title: ' On Convergence of Bayes Factor in Stochastic Differential Equations: Part II'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Stochastic differential equations ($SDE$’s) have important standing in statistical applications where “within" subject variability is caused by some random component varying continuously in time. It also seems worthwhile to incorporate available time-dependent covariate information into the subject-wise $SDE$’s. Apart from the covariates there may also be random effects associated with the individuals, which may be useful in modeling variabilities between the individuals. $SDE$-based models with time-dependent covariates are considered in [Zita11]{}, [Overgaard05]{}, [Leander15]{}; moreover, [Zita11]{} analyse their covariate-based $SDE$ model in the hierarchical Bayesian paradigm. In the literature, random effects $SDE$ models without covariates seem to be more popular than those based on covariates. A brief overview of random effects $SDE$ models is provided in [Maud12]{} who undertake theoretical and classical asymptotic investigation of a class of random effects models based on $SDE$’s. Specifically, they model the $i$-th individual by $$d X_i(t)=b(X_i(t),\phi_i)dt+\sigma(X_i(t))dW_i(t),\label{eq:sde_basic1}$$ where, for $i=1,\ldots,n$, $X_i(0)=x^i$ is the initial value of the stochastic process $X_i(t)$, which is assumed to be continuously observed on the time interval $[0,T_i]$; $T_i>0$ assumed to be known. The function $b(x,\varphi)$, which is the drift function, is a known, real-valued function on $\mathbb R\times\mathbb R^d$ ($\mathbb R$ is the real line and $d$ is the dimension), and the function $\sigma:\mathbb R\mapsto\mathbb R$ is the known diffusion coefficient. The $SDE$’s given by (\[eq:sde\_basic1\]) are driven by independent standard Wiener processes $\{W_i(\cdot);~i=1,\ldots,n\}$, and $\{\phi_i;~i=1,\ldots,n\}$, which are to be interpreted as the random effect parameters associated with the $n$ individuals, which are assumed by [Maud12]{} to be independent of the Brownian motions and independently and identically distributed ($iid$) random variables with some common distribution. For the sake of convenience [Maud12]{} (see also [Maitra14a]{} and [Maitra14b]{}) assume $b(x,\phi_i)=\phi_ib(x)$. Thus, the random effect is a multiplicative factor of the drift function. In this work, we generalize this to a random effects $SDE$ set-up consisting of time-dependent covariates.
Note that model selection constitutes an important part of research in both Bayesian and classical paradigms; see, for example, [Dey00]{}, [Jiang07]{}, [Claeskens08]{}, [Muller13]{}. In the case of $SDE$-based mixed effects models as well, model selection constitutes an important issue involving the choice of the drift function and selection of the appropriate subset of (time-dependent) covariates. Here Bayes factors are expected to play the central role as their effectiveness in model selection in complex problems is well-established (see, for example, [Kass95]{} for a good account of Bayes factors). Unavailability of closed form expressions in the traditional $SDE$ set-ups usually prompt usage of numerical approximations based on Markov chain Monte Carlo or related criteria such as the Akaike Information Criterion ([Akaike73]{}) and Bayes Information Criterion ([Schwarz78]{}). For details, see, for example, [Fuchs13]{}, [Iacus08]{}. But we are not aware of any research existing in the literature that attempts to address covariate selection in $SDE$’s.
We are also not aware of any existing literature on asymptotic investigation of Bayes factors in the $SDE$ context although [Siva02]{} present some asymptotic investigation of intrinsic and fractional Bayes factors in the context of three specific diffusion models. The only investigation available in this context seems to be that of [Maitra15a]{}, who model a multiplicative part of the drift function using time-varying covariates, and address Bayes factor asymptotics in a general set-up consisting of the covariate selection problem as well as selection of the part of the drift function independent of the covariates. Different initial values and domains of observations pertaining to different individuals, are also considered in their set-up. Assuming that only the number of individuals increase without bound, [Maitra15a]{} establish almost sure exponential convergence of Bayes factor in both $iid$ and non-$iid$ situations. Here we recall that the $iid$ set-up is the case when there is no covariate associated with the model and when the initial values and the domains of observations are the same for every individual. The non-$iid$ set-up, on the other hand, consists of time-varying covariates, different initial values and domains of observations; in this work we also consider random effects. Thus, unlike the $iid$ case, here the model selection problem also deals with covariate selection apart from selection of the part of the drift functions free of the covariates.
In this article, we prove almost sure exponential convergence of the relevant Bayes factors in both $iid$ and non-$iid$ cases, assuming that the number of individuals, as well as the domains of observations, increase without bound. Hence, for our current purpose, the asymptotic theory developed by [Maitra15a]{} when only the number of individuals tends to infinity, is clearly inapplicable. Indeed, incorporation of random effects is asymptotically feasible only in our current asymptotic framework; [Maitra15a]{} elucidate that inclusion of random effects does not make sense asymptotically unless the domains of observations are also increased indefinitely. Also, only our current asymptotic framework allows different sets of time-dependent covariates for different individuals.
It is important to remark that the diffusion coefficient becomes known once the continuous process is completely observed; see [Robert01]{}. Hence, following [Maitra15a]{} we assume that the diffusion coefficient is known, and is not involved in the model selection problem.
We begin by establishing an asymptotic theory of Bayes factor for two competing individual $SDE$’s, and then extend the theory to systems of $SDE$’s. In this context it is important to draw attention to the fact that even this relatively simple problem of comparing any two individual $SDE$’s using Bayes factors has not yet been considered in the literature. Our investigation in this simpler case, however, faced with an apparently negative result; the associated Bayes factor failed to be consistent in the sense that the relevant variance failed to converge to zero, even though convergence of the log-Bayes factor in expectation is ensured. Despite this, we have been able to utilise this result to establish almost sure exponential convergence of the Bayes factor when the number of individuals are also allowed to increase indefinitely.
The rest of our article is structured as follows. We begin with formalization of our set-up in Section \[sec:bf\_sde\], while we provide the necessary assumptions and results in Section \[sec:case2\]. In Section \[sec:result\_BF\_consistency\] we investigate the asymptotics of Bayes factor for comparing two individual $SDE$’s. We illustrate our results with a special case in Section \[sec:illustration\]. In Section \[sec:asymp\_BF\_nT\] we exploit the asymptotic theory of Bayes factors developed for comparing individual $SDE$’s to construct a convergence theory of Bayes factors comparing systems of $SDE$’s in both $iid$ and non-$iid$ cases. In Section \[sec:simulated\_data\] we carry out two simulation studies to demonstrate that Bayes factor yields the correct set of covariates in our $SDE$ models even in non-asymptotic cases, and in Section \[sec:truedata\], we model a real, company-wise national stock exchange data set, using a system of $SDE$’s, each consisting of a plausible set of covariates, and obtain the best possible sets of covariate combinations for the companies, using Bayes factor. We summarize our contributions and provide concluding remarks in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Formalization of the model selection problem in the $SDE$ set-up when $n\rightarrow\infty$ and $T_i\rightarrow\infty$ for every $i$ {#sec:bf_sde}
===================================================================================================================================
That the systems considered by us are well-defined and the exact likelihoods are computable, are guaranteed by assumption (H2$^{\prime\prime}$) in Section \[sec:case2\]. For our purpose we consider the filtration ($\mathcal F_t^W,t\geq 0$), where $\mathcal F_t^W=\sigma(W_i(s),s\leq t)$. Each process $W_i$ is a $(\mathcal F_t^W , t\geq 0)$-adapted Brownian motion.
Here we consider the set-up where, for $i=1,2,\ldots,n$, $$d X_i(t)=\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_0}(t)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_{0}}(t,X_i(t))dt+\sigma(t,X_i(t))dW_i(t)
\label{eq:sde3}$$ and $$d X_i(t)=\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_1}(t)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_{1}}(t,X_i(t))dt+\sigma(t,X_i(t))dW_i(t),
\label{eq:sde4}$$ where, $X_i(0)=x^i$ is the initial value of the stochastic process $X_i(t)$, which is assumed to be continuously observed on the time interval $[0,T_i]$; $T_i>0$. We consider (\[eq:sde3\]) as representing the true model and (\[eq:sde4\]) is any other model.
It is useful to remark that we must analyze the same data set with respect to two different models for the purpose of model selection. Hence, even though the distribution of the underlying stochastic process under the two models are different, for notational convenience we denote the process by $X_i(t)$ under both the models, relying on the context and the model-specific parameters to naturally clarify the distinction.
Inclusion of time-dependent covariates {#subsec:covariates}
--------------------------------------
We model $\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(t)$ for $j=0,1$, and $i=1,\ldots,n$, as $$\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(t)=\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}({\boldsymbol{z}}_i(t))
=\xi^{(i)}_{0j}+\xi^{(i)}_{1j}g_1(z_{i1}(t))+\xi^{(i)}_{2j}g_2(z_{i2}(t))+\cdots+\xi^{(i)}_{pj}g_p(z_{ip}(t)),
\label{eq:phi_model}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{z}}_i(t)=(z_{i1}(t),z_{i2}(t),\ldots,z_{ip}(t))$ is the set of available covariate information corresponding to the $i$-th individual, depending upon time $t$. Following [Maitra15a]{} we assume ${\boldsymbol{z}}_i(t)$ is continuous in $t$, $z_{il}(t)\in {\boldsymbol{Z}}_l$ where ${\boldsymbol{Z}}_l$ is compact and $g_l:{\boldsymbol{Z}}_l\rightarrow \mathbb R$ is continuous, for $l=1,\ldots,p$. We let ${\mbox{\boldmath{$\mathcal Z $}}}={\boldsymbol{Z}}_1\times\cdots\times{\boldsymbol{Z}}_p$, and $\mathfrak Z=\left\{{\boldsymbol{z}}(t)\in{\mbox{\boldmath{$\mathcal Z $}}}:t\in[0,\infty)~\mbox{such that}~{\boldsymbol{z}}(t)~\mbox{is continuous in}~t\right\}$. Hence, ${\boldsymbol{z}}_i\in{\mbox{\boldmath{$\mathcal Z $}}}$ for all $i$.
The random effects set-up {#subsec:random_effects_2}
-------------------------
In (\[eq:sde3\]), ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_{0}=\left({\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_{0},\xi^{(i)}_{00},\xi^{(i)}_{10},\ldots,\xi^{(i)}_{p0}
\right)=\left({\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_{0},{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0^{(i)}\right)$ stands for the true parameters, and ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_{1}=\left({\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_{1},\xi^{(i)}_{01},\xi^{(i)}_{11},\ldots,\xi^{(i)}_{p1}\right)
=\left({\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_{1},{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1^{(i)}\right)$ are the parameters associated with (\[eq:sde4\]). Let ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j\in{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}=\mathfrak B\times{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}}$ for all $i$, where both $\mathfrak B$ and ${\boldsymbol{\Gamma}}$ are compact spaces. We also assume that for $i=1,2,\ldots,n$, $${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_{1}\stackrel{iid}{\sim}\pi,$$ where $\pi$ is some specified distribution on ${\boldsymbol{\Theta}}$.
Hence, the above describes a random effects set-up. Observe that if $\xi^{(i)}_{lj}=0$ for $l=1,\ldots,p$, and for $i=1,\ldots,n$, then it reduces to the random effects model of [Maud12]{}, showing that the latter is a special case of our model.
As is well-known, even though the term “prior" is not appropiate for the random effects coefficients, operationally there is no difference between a prior and a distribution for random effects in the Bayesian paradigm. Somewhat abusing the terminology, we continue to refer to the distribution of the $iid$ random effects coeffcients, $\pi$, as the relevant prior.
Covariate and drift function selection {#subsec:model_selection_drift_covariates}
--------------------------------------
The key difference between our current model selection idea and that of [Maitra15a]{} is that here, for every individual, there is an independent model selection problem. In other words, for each $i$, one needs to choose between ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0$ and ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_1$. This involves selection of perhaps different sets of covariates for different $i$ with respect to the coefficients ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j$, and different drift functions $b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_j}$. Obviously, the dimensions of ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_0$ and ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_1$ are allowed to differ for each $i$; likewise, for every $i$, the dimensions of ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_0$ and ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_1$ may be different as well. Thus, from this perspective, our current model selection framework appears to be more general compared to that of [Maitra15a]{}, who consider the same set of parameters ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j$ and ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j$ for all the individuals, allowing only a fixed set of covariates for every subject.
Form of the Bayes factor in our set-up {#subsec:bf_form}
--------------------------------------
For $j=0,1$, we first define the following quantities: $$U_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j} =\int_0^{T_i}\frac{\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_j}(s,X_i(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X_i(s))}dX_i(s),
\quad\quad V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j} =\int_0^{T_i}\frac{\phi^2_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_j}^2(s,X_i(s))}
{\sigma^2(s,X_i(s))}ds
\label{eq:u_v}$$ for $j=0,1$ and $i=1,\ldots,n$.
Let ${\boldsymbol{C}}_{T_i}$ denote the space of real continuous functions $(x(t), t \in [0,T_i ])$ defined on $[0,T_i ]$, endowed with the $\sigma$-field $\mathcal C_{T_i}$ associated with the topology of uniform convergence on $[0,T_i ]$. We consider the distribution $P^{x_i,T_i,{\boldsymbol{z}}_i}_j$ on $(C_{T_i} ,\mathcal C_{T_i})$ of $(X_i (t), t\in [0,T_i])$ given by (\[eq:sde3\]) and (\[eq:sde4\]) for $j=0,1$. We choose the dominating measure $P_i $ as the distribution of (\[eq:sde3\]) and (\[eq:sde4\]) with null drift. So, for $j=0,1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dP^{x_i,T_i,{\boldsymbol{z}}_i}_j}{dP_i}=f_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}(X_i)
&=\exp\left(U_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}-\frac{V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}}{2}\right),
\label{eq:densities}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0}(X_i)$ denotes the true density and $f_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_1}(X_i)$ stands for the other density associated with the modeled $SDE$.
For each $i=1,\ldots,n$, letting $X_{i,a,b}$ denote the $i$-th process observed on $[a,b]$ for any $0\leq a<b<\infty$, $$I_{x^i,T_i,{\boldsymbol{z}}_i}=\int_{{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}} \frac{f_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_1}(X_{i,0,T_i})}
{f_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0}(X_{i,0,T_i})}\pi\left({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_{1}\right)d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_{1}
\label{eq:I_iT}$$ denotes the Bayes factor associated with the $i$-th equation of the above two systems of equations. Assuming that the $SDE$’s (\[eq:sde3\]) and (\[eq:sde4\]) are independent for $i=1,\ldots,n$, $$I_{n,T_1,\ldots,T_n}=\prod_{i=1}^nI_{x^i,T_i,{\boldsymbol{z}}_i}
\label{eq:I_nT}$$ is the Bayes factor comparing the entire systems of $SDE$’s (\[eq:sde3\]) and (\[eq:sde4\]).
Comparisons between a collection of different models using Bayes factor, none of which may be the true model, is expected to favour that model which minimizes the Kullback-Leibler divergence from the true model.
The $iid$ and the non-$iid$ cases {#subsec:iid_non_iid_2}
---------------------------------
We are interested in studying the properties of $I_{n,T_1,\ldots,T_n}$ in both $iid$ and non-$iid$ cases when $n\rightarrow\infty$ and $T_i\rightarrow\infty$. In the $iid$ set-up, we assume that $x^i=x$, $T_i=T$ and ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j=\left({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j^{(i)},\xi^{(i)}_{0j}\right)$, for $i=1,\ldots,n$ and $j=0,1$. In the non-$iid$ case we relax these assumptions. However, for simplicity, we assume $T_i=T$ for each $i$, even in the non-$iid$ set-up, so that in our asymptotic framework we study convergence of $$\tilde I_{n,T}=\prod_{i=1}^nI_{i,T},
\label{eq:tilde_I_nT}$$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ and $T\rightarrow\infty$, where $I_{i,T}=I_{x^i,T,{\boldsymbol{z}}_i}$.
A key relation between $U_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}$ and $V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}$ in the context of model selection using Bayes factors {#subsec:key_relation_U_V}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An useful relation between $U_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}$ and $V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}$ which we will often make use of in this paper is as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
U_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}&=\int_0^{T_i}\frac{\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_j}\left(X_i(s)\right)}
{\sigma^2\left(X_i(s)\right)}dX_i(s)\notag\\
&=\int_0^{T_i}\frac{\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_j}\left(X_i(s)\right)}{\sigma^2\left(X_i(s)\right)}
\left[\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_0}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_0}\left(X_i(s)\right)ds+\sigma\left(X_i(s)\right)dW_i(s)\right]\notag\\
&=\int_0^{T_i}\frac{\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(s)\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_0}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_j}
\left(X_i(s)\right)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_0}\left(X_i(s)\right)}
{\sigma^2\left(X_i(s)\right)}ds
+\int_0^{T_i}\frac{\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_j}\left(X_i(s)\right)}
{\sigma\left(X_i(s)\right)}dW_i(s)\notag\\
&=V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}
+\int_0^{T_i}\frac{\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_j}\left(X_i(s)\right)}
{\sigma\left(X_i(s)\right)}dW_i(s),
\label{eq:u_v_relation}\end{aligned}$$ with $$V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}=
\int_0^{T_i}\frac{\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(s)\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_0}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_j}
\left(X_i(s)\right)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_0}
\left(X_i(s)\right)}{\sigma^2\left(X_i(s)\right)}ds.
\label{eq:V_0_j}$$ Note that $V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0}=V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0}$ and $V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_1}=V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_1,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_1}$. Also note that, for $j=0,1$, for each $i$, $$E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0}\left[\int_0^{T_i}\frac{\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(i)}_j}\left(X_i(s)\right)}
{\sigma\left(X_i(s)\right)}dW_i(s)\right]=0,
\label{eq:zero_mean}$$ so that $E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0}\left(U_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}\right)
=E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0}\left(V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j}\right)$.
Requisite assumptions and results for the asymptotic theory of Bayes factor when $n\rightarrow\infty$ and $T\rightarrow\infty$ {#sec:case2}
==============================================================================================================================
All our following assumptions and results are true for each $i$, in particular true for each ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j^{(i)},{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j^{(i)}$ and consequently for $U_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j^{(i)}},
V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j^{(i)}},V_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0^{(i)},{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j^{(i)}}$. For the sake of notational simplicity we provide all the assumptions and results without mentioning $i$ at every stage. We make the following assumptions:
- The parameter space ${\boldsymbol{\Theta}}=\mathfrak B\times{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}}$ such that ${\boldsymbol{\Gamma}}$ and $\mathfrak B$ are compact.
<!-- -->
- For $j=0,1$, given any $s$, ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j$, $b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,\cdot)$, $\sigma(s,\cdot)$ are $C^1$ on $\mathbb R$; we also assume that $b^2_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,x)\leq K_1(1+x^2+\|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j\|^2)$ and $\sigma^2(x)\leq K_2(1+x^2)$ for all $s\in [0,T]$, $x\in\mathbb R$, for some $K_1,K_2>0$. By (H1$^{\prime\prime}$) it follows as before that for $s\in[0,T]$, $b^2_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,x)\leq K(1+x^2)$ and $\sigma^2(s,x)\leq K(1+x^2)$ for all $x\in\mathbb R$, for some $K>0$.
Because of (H2$^{\prime\prime}$) it follows from Theorem 4.4 of [Mao11]{}, page 61, that for all $T>0$, and any $k\geq 2$, $$E\left(\underset{s\in [0,T]}{\sup}~|X_i(s)|^k\right)\leq\left(1+3^{k-1}E|X_i(0)|^k\right)\exp\left(\tilde\vartheta T\right),
\label{eq:moment1}$$ where $$\tilde\vartheta=\frac{1}{6}\left(18K\right)^{\frac{k}{2}}T^{\frac{k-2}{2}}\left[T^{\frac{k}{2}}
+\left(\frac{k^3}{2(k-1)}\right)^{\frac{k}{2}}\right].$$
Specifically, for any $k\geq 2$, we can write, as $T\rightarrow\infty$, $$E\left(\underset{s\in [0,T]}{\sup}~|X(s)|^k\right)=o\left(\exp\left\{T^{k+1}\right\}\right).
\label{eq:moment1_T}$$ We further assume the following conditions.
- $b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,x)$ is continuous in $(x,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j)$.
- For $s\in[0,T]$ and $j=0,1$, $\frac{b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}^2(s,x)}{\sigma^2(s,x)}$ and $\frac{b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}(s,x)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0}(s,x)}{\sigma^2(s,x)}$ satisfy the following: $$\begin{aligned}
&\kappa_j({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j) + \frac{K_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}\left(1+x^2+\|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j\|^2\right)}{c_j+\exp\left(T^5\right)}
<\frac{b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}^2(s,x)}{\sigma^2(s,x)}\notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad<\kappa_j({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j)+
\frac{M_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}\left(1+x^2+\|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j\|^2\right)}{d_j+\exp\left(T^5\right)},
\label{eq:H4_prime_prime_1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1) + \frac{K_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}
\left(1+x^2+\|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0\|^2+\|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1\|^2\right)}{\bar c+\exp\left(T^5\right)}<
\frac{b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}(s,x)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0}(s,x)}{\sigma^2(s,x)}\notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad<\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)+\frac{M_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}
\left(1+x^2+\|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0\|^2+\|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1\|^2\right)}{\bar d+\exp\left(T^5\right)},
\label{eq:H4_prime_prime_2}\end{aligned}$$ where $0<c_j,d_j,\bar c,\bar d<\infty$, are some constants; $\kappa_j({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j)$ are positive, continuous functions of ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j$; $\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)$ is a continuous function of $({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)$; $K_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}$, $M_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}$ are continuous in ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j$, for $j=0,1$, and $K_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}$, $M_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}$ are continuous in $({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)$.
- \(i) We assume that ${\mbox{\boldmath{$\mathcal Z $}}}= {\boldsymbol{Z}}_1\times{\boldsymbol{Z}}_2\times\cdots\times{\boldsymbol{Z}}_p$ is the space of the covariates where ${\boldsymbol{Z}}_l$ is compact for $l=1,\ldots,p$, and for every $t\geq 0$, ${\boldsymbol{z}}_i(t)=(z_{i1}(t),z_{i2}(t),\ldots,z_{ip}(t))\in{\mbox{\boldmath{$\mathcal Z $}}}$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$. Also, we assume that ${\boldsymbol{z}}_i(t)$ are continuous in $t$ for every $i$, so that ${\boldsymbol{z}}_i\in\mathfrak Z$, for every $i$.
\(ii) For $j=0,1$, and for $t\geq 0$, we assume that the vector of covariates ${\boldsymbol{z}}_i(t)$ is related to the $i$-th $SDE$ of the $j$-th model via $$\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}(t)=\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}({\boldsymbol{z}}_i(t))=\xi^{(i)}_{0j}+\sum_{l=1}^p\xi^{(i)}_{lj}g_l({\boldsymbol{z}}_i(t)),$$ where, for $l=1,\ldots,p$, $g_l:{\boldsymbol{Z}}_l\rightarrow \mathbb R$ is continuous. Notationally, when reference to the $i$-th individual is self-explanatory, we shall denote the function $\xi_{0j}+\sum_{l=1}^p\xi_{lj}g_l$ by $\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}$.
\(iii) For $l=1,2,\ldots,p$, for $i=1,\ldots,n$, and for $t\geq 0$, $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n g_l(z_{il}(t))\rightarrow c_{l}(t),
\label{eq:H5_prime_1_T}$$ and $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n g_l(z_{il}(t))g_m(z_{im}(t))\rightarrow c_l(t)c_m(t),
\label{eq:H5_prime_2_T}$$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, where $\left\{c_l(t):t\geq 0\right\}$ are real constants for $l=1,\ldots,p$.
\(iv) For $l=1,2,\ldots,p$, and for $i=1,\ldots,n$, $$\underset{T\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}~\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T g_l(z_{il}(s))ds =\bar c^{(1)}_{il}\label{eq::H5_prime_3_T}$$ and $$\underset{T\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}~\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T g_l(z_{il}(s))g_m(z_{im}(s))ds
=\bar c^{(2)}_{ilm},\label{eq::H5_prime_4_T}$$ where $\bar c^{(1)}_{il}$ and $\bar c^{(2)}_{ilm}$ are real constants.
\[remark:time\_dependent\_covariates2\] Observe that although (H4$^{\prime\prime}$) is seemingly restrictive in the sense that the ratios $\frac{b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}^2(s,x)}{\sigma^2(s,x)}$ and $\frac{b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}(s,x)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0}(s,x)}{\sigma^2(s,x)}$ are approximately independent of the underlying stochastic process, assumption (H5$^{\prime\prime}$) attempts to compensate for the restrictions by providing a rich structure to $\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}$ consisting of covariate information varying continuously with time. Hence, assumption (H4$^{\prime\prime}$) need not be viewed as restrictive.
[Maitra15a]{} argue that (\[eq:H5\_prime\_1\_T\]) and (\[eq:H5\_prime\_2\_T\]) hold if one assumes that for $i=1,\ldots,n$, and $l=1,\ldots,p$, the covariates $z_{il}$ are observed realizations of stochastic processes that are $iid$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$, for all $l=1,\ldots,p$, and that for $l\neq m$, the processes generating $z_{il}$ and $z_{im}$ are independent. In other words, although we assume the covariates to be non-random, in essence, it may be assumed $g_l(z_{il}(t))$ and $g_m(z_{im}(t))$ are uncorrelated for $l\neq m$.
In order that (H5$^{\prime\prime}$) (iv) holds, one needs to further assume that the relevant stochastic processes converge to appropriate stationary distributions. For example, $z_{il}(t)$ may be realizations of Markov processes which are irreducible (with respect to some appropriate measure), aperiodic, positive recurrent and possses invariant distributions; see, for example, [Konto03]{}.
It follows from (H5$^{\prime\prime}$) (iv), that, $$\begin{aligned}
&\underset{T\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}~ \frac{1}{T}\int_0^T\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}({\boldsymbol{z}}_i(s))ds\notag\\
&= \xi^{(i)}_{0j}+\sum_{l=1}^p\xi^{(i)}_{lj}\bar c^{(1)}_{il}\notag\\
&=\bar\phi^{(1)}_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}~\mbox{(say)},
\label{eq:phi_conv}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\underset{T\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}~\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T\phi^2_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j}({\boldsymbol{z}}_i(s))ds\notag\\
&= \left\{\xi^{(i)}_{0j}\right\}^2+2\xi^{(i)}_{0j}\sum_{l=1}^p\xi^{(i)}_{lj}\bar c^{(1)}_{il}
+\sum_{l=1}^p\sum_{m=1}^p\xi^{(i)}_{lj}\xi^{(i)}_{mj}\bar c^{(2)}_{ilm}\notag\\
&=\bar\phi^{(2)}_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_j},~\mbox{(say)},
\label{eq:phisq_conv}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\underset{T\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}~\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_0}({\boldsymbol{z}}_i(s))\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_1}({\boldsymbol{z}}_i(s))ds\notag\\
&=\xi^{(i)}_{00}\xi^{(i)}_{01}+\xi^{(i)}_{00}\sum_{l=1}^p\xi^{(i)}_{l1}\bar c^{(1)}_{il}
+\xi^{(i)}_{01}\sum_{l=1}^p\xi^{(i)}_{l0}\bar c^{(1)}_{il}+
\sum_{l=1}^p\sum_{m=1}^p\xi^{(i)}_{l0}\xi^{(i)}_{m1}\bar c^{(2)}_{ilm}\notag\\
&=\bar\phi^{(2)}_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{(i)}_1},~\mbox{(say)}.
\label{eq:phiphi_conv}\end{aligned}$$ When $i$ is clear from the context, we shall often use the notations $\bar\phi^{(1)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}$, $\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}$ and $\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}$.
Note that, (\[eq:phi\_conv\]), (\[eq:phisq\_conv\]) and (\[eq:phiphi\_conv\]) are limits of expectations with respect to the uniform distribution on $[0,T]$. Hence, by the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality it follows that $$\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}
\leq \sqrt{\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}}.
\label{eq:phi_cs}$$
The following lemmas will be useful in our proceedings. The proofs of these lemmas are provided in sections S-1, S-2 and S-3 of the supplement.
\[lemma:uniform\_convergence\] The limits $\bar\phi^{(1)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}$, $\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}$ and $\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}$ are continuous in ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1$.
\[lemma:convergence1\] Assume (H1$^{\prime\prime}$) – (H5$^{\prime\prime}$). Then, the following hold: $$\begin{aligned}
(i)\quad &E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\frac{V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,T}}{T}\right)\rightarrow
\bar \phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}\kappa_j({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j);j=0,1.\label{eq:E_V_convergence}\\
(ii)\quad &E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\frac{V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,T}}{T}\right)
\rightarrow \bar \phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1).
\label{eq:E_V_convergence2}\\
(iii)\quad &E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\frac{U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,T}}{T}\right)\rightarrow
\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0).\label{eq:E_U_convergence_0}\\
(iv)\quad &E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\frac{U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,T}}{T}\right)\rightarrow
\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1).\label{eq:E_U_convergence}\\
(v)\quad &\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,X(s))}{\sigma(s,X(s))}dW(s)
\stackrel{a.s.}{\longrightarrow} 0; j=0,1,
\label{eq:integral_convergence}\\
(vi)\quad &\frac{V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,T}}{T}\stackrel{a.s.}{\longrightarrow}
\bar \phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}\kappa_j({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j); j=0,1, \label{eq:V_convergence}\\
(vii)\quad &\frac{V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,T}}{T}\stackrel{a.s.}{\longrightarrow}
\bar \phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1),
\label{eq:V_convergence2}\\
(viii)\quad &\frac{U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,T}}{T}\stackrel{a.s.}{\longrightarrow}
\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0),
\label{eq:U_convergence_0}\\
(ix)\quad &\frac{U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,T}}{T}\stackrel{a.s.}{\longrightarrow}
\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1),
\label{eq:U_convergence}\end{aligned}$$ In the above, $``\stackrel{a.s.}{\longrightarrow}"$ denotes convergence “almost surely" as $T\rightarrow\infty$ with respect to $X$ (under ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0$), and the expectations are also with respect to $X$ (under ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0$).
\[lemma:phi\_kappa\_relations\] Assume (H1$^{\prime\prime}$) – (H5$^{\prime\prime}$). Then, the following holds: $$\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}\bar\kappa({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)
\leq \sqrt{\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}}
\times\sqrt{\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)\kappa_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)}.
\label{eq:phi_kappa_relations}$$
Convergence of Bayes factor with respect to time when two individual $SDE$’s are compared {#sec:result_BF_consistency}
=========================================================================================
From the system of $SDE$’s defined by (\[eq:sde3\]) and (\[eq:sde4\]) we now consider the $i$-th individual only. To avoid notational complexity we denote $X_i$ simply by $X$. Consequently, $\phi_{i,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}(t)$ and $T_i$ will be denoted by $\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}(t)$ and $T$, respectively. In connection with the $i$-th individual we consider the following two $SDE$’s: $$d X(t)=\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(t)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0}(t,X(t))dt+\sigma(t,X(t))dW(t)
\label{eq:sde1_T}$$ and $$d X(t)=\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(t)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}(t,X(t))dt+\sigma(t,X(t))dW(t).
\label{eq:sde2_T}$$
For any $t\in[0,T]$, for $j=0,1$, let $$\begin{aligned}
U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t} &=\int_0^t\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}dX(s),\quad
V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t} =\int_0^t\frac{\phi^2_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}(s)b^2_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}ds,\notag\\
V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t}
&=\int_0^t\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,X(s))\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0}(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}ds.
\label{eq:u_v_t}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t}= V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t}$ and $V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t}= V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t}$. We also let $$f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t}(X_{0,t})=\exp\left(U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t}-\frac{V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t}}{2}\right).
\label{eq:f_t}$$ Here we are interested in asymptotic properties of the Bayes factor, given by $$I_T=\int \frac {f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,T}(X_{0,T})}{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,T}(X_{0,T})}\pi (d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1),
\label{eq:bf_T}$$ as $T\rightarrow\infty$.
For our purpose, let us define, for any $h>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t,t+h} &=\int_t^{t+h}\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}dX(s),\quad
V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t,t+h} =\int_t^{t+h}\frac{\phi^2_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}(s)b^2_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}ds,\notag\\
V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t,t+h}
&=\int_t^{t+h}\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,X(s))\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0}(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}ds.
\label{eq:u_v_t2}\end{aligned}$$ Observe, as before, that $V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}= V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}$ and $V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t,t+h}= V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t,t+h}$. We let $$f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})=\exp\left(U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t,t+h}-\frac{V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t,t+h}}{2}\right),
\label{eq:f_t2}$$ where, for any $0\leq a<b<\infty$, $X_{a,b}$ denotes a path of the process $X$ from $a$ to $b$. For any $t>0$ and $h>0$, we define $$\tilde{\mathcal K}(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t,t+h})
=E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left[\log\frac{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}}{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t,t+h}}\right],
\label{eq:kl1_T}$$ where $E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\equiv E_{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t}}$. Note that this is not the familiar Kullback-Leibler divergence measure, since $f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t}$, with respect to which the expectation is taken, is not the same as $f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}$. In fact, since in our case, for $j=0,1$, $$\begin{aligned}
f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t,t+h}\left(X_{t,t+h}\right)&=\exp\left(U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t,t+h}-\frac{V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t,t+h}}{2}\right)\notag\\
&=\exp\left((U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t+h}-U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t})
-\frac{(V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t+h}-V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t})}{2}\right),
\label{eq:f_t3}\end{aligned}$$ it follows that $$\tilde{\mathcal K}(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t,t+h})
=\mathcal K(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t+h},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t+h})-\mathcal K(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t}),
\label{eq:kl2}$$ where $\mathcal K(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t+h},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t+h})$ and $\mathcal K(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t})$ are proper Kullback-Leibler divergences between $f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t+h}$, $f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t+h}$, and $f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t}$, $f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t}$, respectively. We now define $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal K}'_t(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1})&=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}
\frac{\tilde {\mathcal K}(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t,t+h})}{h}\notag\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}E_{\theta_0}(V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t})
-\frac{d}{dt}E_{\theta_0}(V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t})
+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}E_{\theta_0}(V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t}).
\label{eq:kl3}\end{aligned}$$ The expression (\[eq:kl3\]) easily follows using (\[eq:f\_t3\]), the relation (\[eq:u\_v\_relation\]) and (\[eq:zero\_mean\]).
Pseudo Kullback-Leibler $(\delta)$ property {#subsec:pseudo_kl}
-------------------------------------------
We make the following assumption:
- For a fixed $\delta\geq 0$, the prior $\pi$ satisfies $$\pi\left({\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1\in{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}:\underset{t}{\inf}~\tilde{\mathcal K}'_t(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1})\geq\delta\right)=1.
\label{eq:pi_prob_1}$$
Let us define $$\bar{\mathcal K}^{\infty}(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1})
=\underset{T\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}~\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T\tilde{\mathcal K}'_t(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1})dt.
\label{eq:kl_average_infinite}$$ We assume the following:
- Given $\delta$ associated with (H6$^{\prime\prime}$), for any $c\geq 0$, the prior $\pi$ satisfies $$\pi\left({\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1\in{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}:\delta\leq\bar{\mathcal K}^{\infty}(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1})\leq\delta+c\right)>0.
\label{eq:kl_property_T}$$
We refer to property (H7$^{\prime\prime}$) as the pseudo Kullback-Leibler ($\delta$) property of the prior $\pi$. Note that, (\[eq:kl3\]), (\[eq:E\_V\_convergence\]) and (\[eq:E\_V\_convergence2\]) imply $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathcal K}^{\infty}(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1})
&=\frac{\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}}{2}\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)
-\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)
+\frac{\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}}{2}\kappa_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)\label{eq:kl_average_infinite2}\\
&\geq\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)}
-\sqrt{\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}\kappa_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)}\right)^2\notag\\
&\geq 0,\notag
$$ by Lemma \[lemma:phi\_kappa\_relations\]. Provided that (\[eq:pi\_prob\_1\]) holds and the prior $\pi$ is dominated by the Lebesgue measure, the pseudo Kullback-Leibler ($\delta$) property holds because of continuity of (\[eq:kl\_average\_infinite2\]) in ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1=({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1)$ ensured by Lemma \[lemma:uniform\_convergence\].
$Q^*$ property {#subsec:Q_star_T}
--------------
For $t\geq 0$, let $\mathcal F_{t}$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $X(0)$ and the history of the process upto (and including) time $t$, and let $\pi_t({\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1) =\pi({\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1|\mathcal F_t)$ be the posterior of ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1$ given $\mathcal F_t$. Also, let $$\begin{aligned}
&\hat f_{t-h,t}\left(X_{t-h,t}\right)\notag\\
&=\int_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1\in{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}}
\exp\left(\int_{t-h}^t\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}dX(s)
-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t-h}^t\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}^2(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}^2(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}ds\right)
\pi_{t-h}(d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1)\notag\\
&=E\left[\exp\left(\int_{t-h}^t\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}dX(s)
-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t-h}^t\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}^2(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}^2(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}ds\right)
\bigg |\mathcal F_{t-h}\right]
\label{eq:postpred}\end{aligned}$$ be the posterior predictive density. Further, for any Borel set $A$ such that $\pi(A)>0$, let $$\begin{aligned}
&\hat f_{t-h,t,A}\left(X_{t-h,t}\right)\notag\\
&=\int_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1\in A}
\exp\left(\int_{t-h}^t\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}dX(s)
-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t-h}^t\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}^2(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}^2(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}ds\right)
\pi_{t-h,A}(d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1)\notag\\
&=E\left[\exp\left(\int_{t-h}^t\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}dX(s)
-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t-h}^t\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}^2(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}^2(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}ds\right)
\bigg |\mathcal F_{t-h},A\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $$\pi_{t,A}(d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1)=\frac{{{\boldsymbol{I}}}_A({\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1)\pi_t(d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1)}{\int_A \pi_t(d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1)}$$ is the posterior restricted to the set $A$. We assume the following:
- $$\underset{t}{\lim\inf}~E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left[\tilde{\mathcal K}'_t\left(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},\hat f_{A_t(\delta)}\right)\right]\geq\delta,
\label{eq:Q_star_t}$$
whenever $$A_t(\delta)=\left\{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1\in{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}:\tilde{\mathcal K}'_t(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}, f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1})\geq\delta\right\}.
\label{eq:A_t}$$
We refer to (H8$^{\prime\prime}$) as the $Q^*$ property.
Main result on convergence of Bayes factor when two individual $SDE$’s are compared {#subsec:main_result}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $I_0\equiv 1$ and for $t> 0$, let us define, analogous to (\[eq:bf\_T\]), $$I_t=\int \frac {f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t}(X_{0,t})}{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t}(X_{0,t})}\pi (d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1).
\label{eq:bf_t}$$ The following lemma, proved in section S-4 of the supplement, will prove useful in proving our main theorem on convergence of Bayes factor.
\[lemma:towards\_martingale\] $$\begin{aligned}
E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left[\log \frac{I_t}{I_{t-h}}\bigg |\mathcal F_{t-h}\right]
&=E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left[\log \frac{\hat f_{t-h,t}(X_{t-h,t})}{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t-h,t}(X_{t-h,t})}\bigg |\mathcal F_{t-h}\right]
= -\tilde{\mathcal K}(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t-h,t},\hat f_{t-h,t}).
\label{eq:bf_ratio2}\end{aligned}$$
We make the following further assumption:
- For any $t\geq 0$, $\tilde{\mathcal K}\left(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h_n},\hat f_{t,t+h_n}\right)$ converges in expectation for all sequences $\{h_n\}$ converging to zero as $n\rightarrow\infty$, with limit independent of $\{h_n\}$. We refer to the limiting process as $\tilde{\mathcal K}'_t$. In other words, $$\underset{n\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}~
E\left(\frac{\tilde{\mathcal K}\left(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h_n},\hat f_{t,t+h_n}\right)}{h_n}\right)
=E\left(\tilde{\mathcal K}'_t\left(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},\hat f\right)\right),
\label{eq:msd2}$$ for any sequence $\{h_n\}$ such that $h_n\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
Because of Lemma \[lemma:towards\_martingale\] it follows from (H9$^{\prime\prime}$), using uniform integrability (which is easily seen to hold because of (H1$^{\prime\prime}$) – (H4$^{\prime\prime}$) and (\[eq:moment1\_T\])), that $J_{h_n}(t)=\frac{\log I_{t+h_n}-\log I_t}{h_n}$ converges in expectation for all sequences $\{h_n\}$ converging to zero as $n\rightarrow\infty$, with limit independent of $\{h_n\}$. We refer to the limiting process as $J'_t$. That is, for any $t\geq 0$, $$\underset{n\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}~E\left(J_{h_n}(t)\right)=E\left(J'_t\right)=\frac{d}{dt}E(\log I_t).
\label{eq:msd}$$ Now, $$\hat f_{t,t+h}
=E\left[\exp\left(\int_{t}^{t+h}\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}dX(s)
-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t}^{t+h}\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}^2(s)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}^2(s,X(s))}{\sigma^2(s,X(s))}ds\right)
\bigg |\mathcal F_{t}\right],
\label{eq:postpred2}$$ so that Lemma \[lemma:towards\_martingale\] implies $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[\log \frac{I_{t+h}}{I_{t}}\bigg |\mathcal F_{t}\right]
&=E\left[\log \frac{\hat f_{t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})}{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})}\bigg |\mathcal F_{t}\right]
= -\tilde{\mathcal K}(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h},\hat f_{t,t+h}).
\label{eq:bf_ratio3}\end{aligned}$$ It follows, using (H9$^{\prime\prime}$), that $$E\left(J'_t|\mathcal F_{t}\right)=-\tilde{\mathcal K}'_t\left(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},\hat f\right).
\label{eq:towards_martingale2}$$ Note that for all sequences $\{h_n\}$ such that $h_n\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, $J_{h_n}(t)=\frac{\log I_{t+h_n}-\log I_t}{h_n}$ is measurable with respect to $\mathcal F_{t^*}=\sigma\left(X(s):0\leq s\leq t^*\right)$, for all $t^*>t\geq 0$. Hence, $E\left(J'_t|\mathcal F_{t}\right)\neq J'_t$.
Regarding convergence of $I_T$, we are now ready to present our main theorem whose proof is provided in section S-5 of the supplement.
\[theorem:bf\_convergence\] Assume the $SDE$ set-up and conditions (H1$^{\prime\prime}$) – (H9$^{\prime\prime}$). Then $$\frac{1}{T}E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log I_T\right)\rightarrow -\delta,
\label{eq:bf_convergence}$$ but $$\frac{1}{T^2}Var_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log I_T\right)=O(1),
\label{eq:bf_var}$$ as $T\rightarrow\infty$.
\[corollary:bf\_t\] For $j=1,2$, let $R_{jT}({\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j)=\frac{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,T}(X_t)}{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,T}(X_T)}$, where ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1$ and ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_2$ are two different finite sets of parameters, perhaps with different dimensionalities, associated with the two models to be compared. For $j=1,2$, let $$I_{jT}=\int R_{jT}({\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j)\pi_j(d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j),$$ where $\pi_j$ is the prior on ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j$. Let $B_T=I_{1T}/I_{2T}$ denote the Bayes factor for comparing the two models associated with $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$. Assume that both the models satisfy (H1$^{\prime\prime}$) – (H9$^{\prime\prime}$), and have the pseudo Kullback-Leibler property with $\delta=\delta_1$ and $\delta=\delta_2$ respectively. Then $$E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\frac{1}{T}\log B_T\right)\rightarrow \delta_2-\delta_1,
\label{eq:bf_convergence2}$$ as $T\rightarrow\infty$.
Illustration of our asymptotic result for comparing two individual $SDE$’s with a special case {#sec:illustration}
==============================================================================================
Let the parameter space ${\boldsymbol{\Theta}}$ be compact, so that (H1$^{\prime\prime}$) holds. Let $b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}$ and $\sigma$ satisfy (H2$^{\prime\prime}$) such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j}(s,x)}{\sigma(s,x)}&\equiv\eta_j({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j);~j=0,1,
\label{eq:b_sigma_ratio}
$$ so that $$\frac{b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}(s,x)b_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0}(s,x)}{\sigma^2(s,x)}\equiv\eta_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)\eta_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1).\label{eq:b_sigma_ratio3}$$ In the above, $\eta_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)$ is continuous in ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1$. Hence, (H3$^{\prime\prime}$) and (H4$^{\prime\prime}$) are satisfied. We assume that the relevant covariates and the functions $g_l$ are such that (H5$^{\prime\prime}$) holds. Letting $\kappa_j({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j)=\left\{\eta_j({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j)\right\}^2$ and $\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)=\eta({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)\eta({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)$, equations (\[eq:b\_sigma\_ratio\]) – (\[eq:b\_sigma\_ratio3\]) entail $$\begin{aligned}
V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t}&=\kappa_j({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j)\int_0^t\phi^2_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}(s)ds;\label{eq:V_example}\\
V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t}&=\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)\int_0^t\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(s)ds;
\label{eq:V_example2}\\
U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t}&=\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)\int_0^t\phi^2_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)ds
+\eta_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)\int_0^t\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)dW(s);\label{eq:U_example}\\
U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t}&=\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)\int_0^t\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(s)ds
+\eta_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)\int_0^t\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(s)dW(s);\label{eq:U_example2}\\
V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j,t,t+h}&=\kappa_j({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j)\int_t^{t+h}\phi^2_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_j}(s)ds;\label{eq:V_example_h}\\
V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t,t+h}&=\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)\int_t^{t+h}\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(s)ds;
\label{eq:V_example_h2}\\
U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}&=\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)\int_t^{t+h}\phi^2_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)ds
+\eta_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)\int_t^{t+h}\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)dW(s);
\label{eq:U_example_h}\\
U_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t,t+h}&=\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)\int_t^{t+h}\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(s)ds
+\eta_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)\int_t^{t+h}\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(s)dW(s).
\label{eq:U_example_h2}\end{aligned}$$ Due to (\[eq:V\_example\]) and (\[eq:V\_example2\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal K}'_t(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1})&=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}
\frac{\tilde {\mathcal K}(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t,t+h})}{h}\notag\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}E_{\theta_0}(V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t})
-\frac{d}{dt}E_{\theta_0}(V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t})
+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}E_{\theta_0}(V_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t})\notag\\
&=\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}^2(t)}{2}\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)
-\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(t)\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(t)\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)
+\frac{\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}^2(t)}{2}\kappa_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)\notag\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\left(\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(t)\eta_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)-\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(t)\eta_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)\right)^2.
\label{eq:kl4}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\underset{t}{\inf}~\tilde{\mathcal K}'_t(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1})
&\geq \frac{1}{2}~\underset{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1\in\mathfrak B,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1\in{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}},{\boldsymbol{z}}\in\mathfrak Z}{\inf}
~\left(\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}({\boldsymbol{z}})\eta_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)
-\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}({\boldsymbol{z}})\eta_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)\right)^2\notag\\
&=\delta.
\label{eq:kl_inf2}\end{aligned}$$ It follows from (\[eq:kl\_inf2\]) that (H6$^{\prime\prime}$) holds for any prior on ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1$.
Also, it follows directly from (\[eq:kl4\]), that $$\bar{\mathcal K}^{\infty}(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0},f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1})
=\frac{\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}}{2}\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)-\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}\bar{\kappa}({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)
+\frac{\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}}{2}\kappa_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1),
\label{eq:kl_inf3}$$ which is continuous in $({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1)$, due to the continuity assumption of $\eta_1({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1)$ in ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1$ and Lemma \[lemma:uniform\_convergence\], which guarantees continuity of $\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}$ and $\bar\phi^{(2)}_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}$ in ${\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1$. Since the right-most side of (\[eq:kl\_inf3\]) is a continuous function of ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1$, it follows that (H7$^{\prime\prime}$) is clearly satisfied if the prior $\pi$ is dominated by the Lebesgue measure.
We now verify the $Q^*$ property (H8$^{\prime\prime}$). Recall that $\hat f_{A_t(\delta)}=\hat f_{t,t+h}$, since $\pi\left(A_t(\delta)\right)=1$. Since $$\hat f_{t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})\leq \underset{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1\in A_t(\delta)}{\sup}~f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})
=f_{\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1(X_{t,t+h}),t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h}),
\label{eq:q_star_example}$$ where $\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1(X_{t,t+h})\in A_t(\delta)$, is the maximizer of $f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,t,t+h}$ in the compact set $A_t(\delta)$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde{\mathcal K}\left(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h},\hat f_{A_t(\delta)}\right)\notag\\
&=E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})\right)
-E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log \hat f_{A_t(\delta)}(X_{t,t+h})|\mathcal F_t\right)\notag\\
&\geq E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})\right)
-E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log f_{\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1(X_{t,t+h}),t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})|\mathcal F_t\right)\notag\\
&=E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log\frac{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})}{f_{\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1(X_{t,t+h}),t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})}
\bigg |\mathcal F_t\right)\notag\\
&=E_{\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1(X_{t,t+h})|{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}E_{X_{t,t+h}|\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1(X_{t,t+h})=\tau,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}
\left(\log\frac{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})}
{f_{\left\{\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1(X_{t,t+h})=\tau\right\},t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})}\bigg |\mathcal F_t\right)\notag\\
&\geq E_{\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1(X_{t,t+h})|{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\underset{\tau\in A_t(\delta)}{\inf}~
\tilde{\mathcal K}\left(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h},f_{\tau,t,t+h}\right)\notag\\
&=E_{\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1(X_{t,t+h})|{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\tilde {\mathcal K}\left(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h},f_{\tau^*_t,t,t+h}\right)\notag\\
&=\tilde {\mathcal K}\left(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h},f_{\tau^*_t,t,t+h}\right)\notag\\
&\geq\delta,
\label{eq:example_K}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau^*_t=\underset{\tau\in A_t(\delta)}{\arg\min}
~\tilde {\mathcal K}\left(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h},f_{\tau,t,t+h}\right)\in A_t(\delta)$. Hence, the $Q^*$ property is satisfied.
To see that (H9$^{\prime\prime}$) holds, first observe that it follows from the proof of Lemma \[lemma:towards\_martingale\] that $\frac{I_{t+h}}{I_{t}}=\frac{\hat f_{t,t+h}}{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}}$, which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\tilde{\mathcal K}\left(f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h},\hat f_{t,t+h}\right)}{h}
&=\frac{E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})-\log \hat f_{t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})|\mathcal F_t\right)}{h}
\label{eq:verify_H11}\end{aligned}$$ Now, $$E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})|\mathcal F_t\right)
=\frac{\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)}{2}\int_t^{t+h}\phi^2_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)ds=\frac{\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)}{2}h\phi^2_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s^*(h)),
\label{eq:inner0}$$ by the mean value theorem for integrals, where $s^*(h)\rightarrow t$, as $h\rightarrow 0$. Hence, using continuity of $\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(t)$ in $t$, we obtain $$\underset{h\rightarrow 0}{\lim}~\frac{1}{h}~E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})|\mathcal F_t\right)
=\frac{\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)}{2}~ \underset{h\rightarrow 0}{\lim}~\phi^2_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s^*(h))
=\frac{\kappa_0({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0)}{2}\phi^2_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(t).
\label{eq:verify_H11_1}$$ To deal with $E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log \hat f_{t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})|\mathcal F_t\right)$, note that for any $X_{t,t+h}$, by the mean value theorem for integrals, $$\hat f_{t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})=f_{\breve{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h}),t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h}),$$ where $\breve{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h})\in{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}$. It is clear that $\breve{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h})\rightarrow \breve{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(X_{0,t},X_{t})=\breve{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(X_{0,t})$ almost surely, as $h\rightarrow 0$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log \hat f_{t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})|\mathcal F_t\right)\notag\\
&=E_{\breve{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h})|{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}E_{X_{t,t+h}|\breve{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h})=\alpha,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}
\left(\log f_{\{\breve{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h})=\alpha\},t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})|\mathcal F_t\right),\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log \hat f_{t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})|\mathcal F_t\right)\notag\\
&=E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log f_{\{\breve{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h})\},t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})|\mathcal F_t\right)\notag\\
&=E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\bar\kappa({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,\breve{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h}))
\int_t^{t+h}\phi_{\breve{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h})}(s)\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s)ds\right.\notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad\left.-\frac{\kappa_1(\breve{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h}))}{2}\int_t^{t+h}
\phi^2_{\breve{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h})}(s)ds\right)
\notag\\
&=E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\bar\kappa({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,\breve{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h}))
h\phi_{\breve{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h})}(s_1(h))\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(s_1(h))\right.\notag\\
&\quad\quad\quad\left.-\frac{\kappa_1(\breve{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h}))}{2}h\phi^2_{\breve{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h})}(s_2(h))\right),
\label{eq:inner1}\end{aligned}$$ where $s_1(h),s_2(h)\in[t,t+h]$, associated with the mean value theorem for integrals. Hence, $s_1(h)\rightarrow t$ and $s_2(h)\rightarrow t$, almost surely as $h\rightarrow 0$. Continuity of $\bar\kappa(\cdot),\kappa_1(\cdot)$ and the results $\breve{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(X_{0,t},X_{t,t+h})\rightarrow \breve{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(X_{0,t})$, $s_1(h)\rightarrow t$, $s_2(h)\rightarrow t$, almost surely, as $h\rightarrow 0$, in conjunction with the dominated convergence theorem exploiting boundedness of the functions $\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}$, $\phi_{\breve{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}$, $\bar\kappa$ and $\kappa_j$, imply, using continuity of $\phi_{\breve{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1}(t)$ in $t$, that $$\begin{aligned}
&\underset{h\rightarrow 0}{\lim}~\frac{1}{h}~E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log \hat f_{t,t+h}(X_{t,t+h})|\mathcal F_t\right)\notag\\
&\quad\quad=\phi_{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_0}(t)\phi_{\breve{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1(X_{0,t})}(t)\bar\kappa({\boldsymbol{\beta}}_0,\breve{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(X_{0,t}))
-\frac{\phi_{\breve{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_1(X_{0,t})}^2(t)}{2}\kappa_1(\breve{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(X_{0,t})).\notag\end{aligned}$$ In other words, the limit of (\[eq:verify\_H11\]) exists and is unique as $h\rightarrow 0$. Now, equations (\[eq:inner0\]) and (\[eq:inner1\]) along with dominated convergence theorem imply that (H9$^{\prime\prime}$) holds. Thus, all the assumptions required for Theorem \[theorem:bf\_convergence\] and Corollary \[corollary:bf\_t\] are satisfied. Hence, both (\[eq:bf\_convergence\]) and (\[eq:bf\_convergence2\]) hold.
Asymptotic convergence of Bayes factor in the $SDE$ set-up with respect to number of individuals and time {#sec:asymp_BF_nT}
=========================================================================================================
Convergence of Bayes factor in the $iid$ set-up {#subsec:iid}
-----------------------------------------------
Although Theorem \[theorem:bf\_convergence\] fails to ensure consistency of the Bayes factor as $T\rightarrow\infty$ in the sense that the relevant variance is asymptotically positive, the theorem is useful to prove almost sure consistency when $T\rightarrow\infty$ as well as $n\rightarrow\infty$, for both $iid$ and non-$iid$ situations. Theorem \[theorem:bf\_convergence\_iid\] formalizes this for the $iid$ set-up, while Theorem \[theorem:bf\_convergence\_non\_iid\] establishes almost sure consistency of the Bayes factor in the non-$iid$ situation. Proofs of these theorems are contained in section S-6 and S-9 respectively in the supplement.
\[theorem:bf\_convergence\_iid\] Assume the $iid$ set-up; also assume that conditions (H1$^{\prime\prime}$) – (H9$^{\prime\prime}$) hold for each $SDE$ in the systems (\[eq:sde3\]) and (\[eq:sde4\]). Then $$\frac{1}{nT}\log\tilde I_{n,T}
\rightarrow -\delta,
\label{eq:bf_convergence_iid2}$$ almost surely, as $n\rightarrow\infty$ and $T\rightarrow\infty$.
The following corollary is obvious.
\[corollary:bf\_t\_iid\] For $j=1,2$, and $i=1,\ldots,n$, let $R_{j,i,T}({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_{j})=\frac{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j,i,T}(X_{i,0,T})}{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0,i,T}(X_{i,0,T})}$, where, for each $i$, ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_1$ and ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_2$ are two different finite sets of parameters, perhaps with different dimensionalities, associated with the two systems (\[eq:sde3\]) and (\[eq:sde4\]) to be compared. For $j=1,2$, let $$\tilde I_{j,n,T}=\prod_{i=1}^n\int R_{j,i,T}({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j)\pi_j(d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j),$$ where $\pi_j$ is the prior on ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j$, for $i=1,2,\ldots$. Let $B_{n,T}=\tilde I_{1,n,T}/\tilde I_{2,n,T}$ denote the Bayes factor for comparing the two models associated with $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$. Assume the $iid$ case and suppose that both the systems satisfy (H1$^{\prime\prime}$) – (H9$^{\prime\prime}$), and have the pseudo Kullback-Leibler property with $\delta=\delta_1$ and $\delta=\delta_2$ respectively. Then $$\frac{1}{nT}\log B_{n,T}\rightarrow \delta_2-\delta_1,
\label{eq:bf_convergence2_iid}$$ almost surely, as $n\rightarrow\infty$ and $T\rightarrow\infty$.
Convergence of Bayes factor in the non-$iid$ set-up {#subsec:bf_convergence_non_iid}
---------------------------------------------------
We now relax the assumptions $x^i=x$ and $\xi^{(i)}_{1j}=\xi^{(i)}_{2j}=\xi^{(i)}_{3j}=\cdots=\xi^{(i)}_{pj}=0$ for $j=0,1$. Thus, we are now in a non-$iid$ situation where the processes $X_i(\cdot);~i=1,\ldots,n$, are independently, but not identically distributed. As mentioned in Section \[subsec:covariates\] we assume that ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_1\stackrel{iid}{\sim}\pi$. In this set-up, for each ${\boldsymbol{z}}\in\mathfrak Z=\left\{{\boldsymbol{z}}(t)\in{\mbox{\boldmath{$\mathcal Z $}}}:t\in[0,\infty)\right\}$, it holds, due to Theorem \[theorem:bf\_convergence\], that $$\frac{1}{T}E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log I_{x,T,{\boldsymbol{z}}}\right)\rightarrow -\delta(x,{\boldsymbol{z}}), \label{eq:bf_convergence_non_iid}$$ as $T\rightarrow\infty$, where $\delta(x,{\boldsymbol{z}})$ depends upon the initial value $x\in\mathfrak X$ and the set of time-dependent covariates ${\boldsymbol{z}}\in\mathfrak Z$. The following lemma shows that $\delta(x,{\boldsymbol{z}})$ is continuous in $(x,{\boldsymbol{z}})\in\mathfrak X\times\mathfrak Z$.
\[lemma:delta\_continuity\] Assume the conditions of Theorem \[theorem:bf\_convergence\]. Then, $\delta(x,{\boldsymbol{z}})$ is continuous in $(x,{\boldsymbol{z}})\in\mathfrak X\times\mathfrak Z$.
Now consider the following limit: $$\delta^{\infty}=\underset{n\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}~\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\delta(x^i,{\boldsymbol{z}}_i).
\label{eq:delta_convergence}$$ The following lemma shows that the above limit exists for all sequences $\left\{(x^i,{\boldsymbol{z}}_i)\right\}_{i=1}^{\infty}\in\mathfrak X\times\mathfrak Z$.
\[lemma:delta\_limit\_existence\] The limit (\[eq:delta\_convergence\]) exists for all sequences $\left\{(x^i,{\boldsymbol{z}}_i)\right\}_{i=1}^{\infty}
\in\mathfrak X\times\mathfrak Z$.
Proof of these two lemmas are provided in section S-7 and S-8 respectively in the supplement. Now, we have the following theorem.
\[theorem:bf\_convergence\_non\_iid\] Assume the non-$iid$ set-up, and conditions (H1$^{\prime\prime}$) – (H9$^{\prime\prime}$), for each $SDE$ in the systems (\[eq:sde3\]) and (\[eq:sde4\]). Then $$\frac{1}{nT}\log\tilde I_{n,T}
\rightarrow -\delta^{\infty},
\label{eq:bf_convergence_non_iid3}$$ almost surely, as $T\rightarrow\infty$ and $n\rightarrow\infty$.
We then have the following corollary for the non-$iid$ case.
\[corollary:bf\_t\_non\_iid\] For $j=1,2$, and $i=1,\ldots,n$, let $R_{j,i,T}({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_{j})=\frac{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j,i,T}(X_{i,0,T})}{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0,i,T}(X_{i,0,T})}$, where, for each $i$, ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_1$ and ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_2$ are two different finite sets of parameters, perhaps with different dimensionalities, associated with the two systems (\[eq:sde3\]) and (\[eq:sde4\]) to be compared. For $j=1,2$, let $$\tilde I_{j,n,T}=\prod_{i=1}^n\int R_{j,i,T}({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j)\pi_j(d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j),$$ where $\pi_j$ is the prior on ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_j;~i=1,2,\ldots$. Let $B_{n,T}=\tilde I_{1,n,T}/\tilde I_{2,n,T}$ denote the Bayes factor for comparing the two models associated with $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$. Assume the non-$iid$ case and suppose that both the systems satisfy (H1$^{\prime\prime}$) – (H9$^{\prime\prime}$), and have the pseudo Kullback-Leibler property with $\delta_i=\delta_{1i}$ and $\delta_i=\delta_{2i}$ respectively. Let, for $j=1,2$, $$\delta^{\infty}_j=\underset{n\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}~\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\delta_{ji}.
\label{eq:delta_convergence2}$$ Then $$\frac{1}{nT}\log B_{n,T}\rightarrow \delta^{\infty}_2-\delta^{\infty}_1,
\label{eq:bf_convergence2_non_iid}$$ almost surely, as $n\rightarrow\infty$ and $T\rightarrow\infty$.
Simulation studies {#sec:simulated_data}
==================
Covariate selection when $n=1$, $T=5$ {#subsec:N1T5}
-------------------------------------
We first demonstrate with simulation study the finite sample analogue of Bayes factor analysis associated with a single individual, when $T\rightarrow\infty$ . In this regard, we consider modeling a single individual by $$dX(t)=(\xi_1+\xi_2z_1(t)+\xi_3z_2(t)+\xi_4z_3(t))(\xi_5+\xi_6X(t))dt+\sigma dW(t),
\label{eq:sde2_appl}$$ where we fix our diffusion coefficient as $\sigma=20$. We consider the initial value $X(0)=0$ and the time interval $[0, T]$ with $T=5$.
To achieve numerical stability of the marginal likelihood corresponding to data we choose the true values of $\xi_i$; $i=1,\ldots,6$ as follows: $\xi_{i}\stackrel{iid}{\sim} N(\mu_i,0.001^2)$, where $\mu_i\stackrel{iid}{\sim} N(0,1)$. This is not to be interpreted as the prior; this is just a means to set the true values of the parameters of the data-generating model.\
We assume that the time dependent covariates $z_i(t)$ satisfy the following $SDE$s $$\begin{aligned}
dz_1(t)=&(\tilde\theta_{1}+\tilde\theta_{2}z_1(t))dt+ dW_1(t)\notag\\
dz_2(t)=&\tilde\theta_{3}dt+ dW_2(t)\notag\\
dz_3(t)=&\tilde\theta_{4}z_3(t))dt+ dW_3(t),
\label{eq:covariate_appl}\end{aligned}$$ where $W_i(\cdot)$; $i=1,2,3$, are independent Wiener processes, and $\tilde\theta_{i}\stackrel{iid}{\sim} N(0,0.01^2)$ for $i=1,\cdots,4$. We obtain the covariates by first simulating $\tilde\theta_{i}\stackrel{iid}{\sim} N(0,0.01^2)$ for $i=1,\cdots,4$, fixing the values, and then by simulating the covariates using the $SDE$s (\[eq:covariate\_appl\]) by discretizing the time interval $[0,5]$ into $500$ equispaced time points. In all our applications we have standardized the covariates over time so that they have zero means and unit variances.
Once the covariates are thus obtained, we assume that the data are generated from the (true) model where all the covariates are present. For the true values of the parameters, we simulated $(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_6)$ from the prior and treated the obtained values as the true set of parameters ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0$. We then generated the data using (\[eq:sde2\_appl\]) by discretizing the time interval $[0,5]$ into $500$ equispaced time points.
As we have three covariates so we will have $2^3=8$ different models. Denoting a model by the presence and absence of the respective covariates, it then is the case that $(1,1,1)$ is the true, data-generating model, while $(0,0,0)$, $(0,0,1)$, $(0,1,0)$, $(0,1,1)$, $(1,0,0)$, $(1,0,1)$, and $(1,1,0)$ are the other $7$ possible models.
As per our theory, for a single individual, the Bayes factor is not consistent for increasing time domain. However, we have shown that $$\frac{1}{T}E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}(\log I_T)\rightarrow -\delta
\label{eq:bf_appl}$$ as $T\rightarrow \infty$. Thus, the Bayes factor is consistent with respect to the expectation. Our simulation results show that this holds even for the time domain $[0,5]$, where we approximate the expectation with the average of $1000$ realizations of $I_T$ associated with as many simulated data sets.
### Case 1: the true parameter set ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0$ is fixed {#subsubsec:case1_appl2}
[**Prior on ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$**]{}\
We first obtain the maximum likelihood estimator ($MLE$) of ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ using simulated annealing and then consider a normal prior with the $MLE$ as the mean and variance $0.8^2\mathbb I_6$, where $\mathbb I_6$ is the identity matrix of order $6$.\
[**Form of the Bayes factor**]{}\
In this case the related Bayes factor has the form $$I_T=\int \frac {f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,T}(X_{0,T})}{f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0,T}(X_{0,T})}\pi (d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1),
\label{eq:bf_T_appl2}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0=(\xi_{0,1},\xi_{0,2},\xi_{0,3},\xi_{0,4},\xi_{0,5},\xi_{0,6})$ is the true parameter set and ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1=(\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_3,\xi_4,\xi_5,\xi_6)$ is the unknown set of parameters corresponding to any other model. Table \[table:values2\] describes the results of our Bayes factor analyses.
Model Averaged $\frac{1}{5}\log I_5$
----------- --------------------------------
$(0,0,0)$ -2.5756029
$(0,0,1)$ -0.913546
$(0,1,1)$ -0.5454860
$(0,1,0)$ -0.763952
$(1,0,0)$ -2.5774163
$(1,0,1)$ -0.9312218
$(1,1,0)$ -0.7628154
: Bayes factor results[]{data-label="table:values2"}
It is clear from the 7 values of the table that the correct model $(1,1,1)$ is always preferred.
### Case 2: the parameter set ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0$ is random and has the prior distribution $\pi$ {#subsubsec:case2_appl2}
As before, we consider the same form of the prior as in Section \[subsubsec:case1\_appl2\], but with variance $0.1^2\mathbb I_6$. In this case we calculate marginal likelihood of the 8 possible models, and approximate $$\frac{1}{5}E_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}\left(\log\int f_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1,5}(X_{0,5})\pi (d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1)\right)$$ for $i=1,\ldots,8$ by averaging over $1000$ replications of the data obtained from the true model. Denoting its values by $\ell_i$, Table \[table:deltavalues2\] shows that $\ell_8$ is the highest, implying consistency of the averaged Bayes factor.
Model $\ell_i$
----------- --------------------------------
$(0,0,0)$ -1.21923
$(0,0,1)$ -0.21428
$(0,1,0)$ 1.47992
$(0,1,1)$ 2.102966
$(1,0,0)$ -1.222362
$(1,0,1)$ -0.21898
$(1,1,0)$ 1.459921
$(1,1,1)$ 2.121237 ($\mbox{true model}$)
: Averages of $\frac{1}{5}\times$ marginal log-likelihood[]{data-label="table:deltavalues2"}
Bayes factor analysis for $n=15$ and $T=5$ {#subsec:N15T5}
------------------------------------------
In this case we allow our parameter and the covariate sets to vary from individual to individual. We consider $15$ individuals modeled by $$dX_i(t)=(\xi_1^i+\xi_2^iz_1(t)+\xi_3^iz_2(t)+\xi_4^iz_3(t))(\xi_5^i+\xi_6^iX_i(t))dt+\sigma_i dW_i(t)
\label{eq:sde3_appl3}$$ for $i=1,\cdots,15$. We fix our diffusion coefficients as $\sigma_{i+1}=\sigma_i +5$ for $i=1\cdots,14$ where $\sigma_1=10$. We consider the initial value $X(0)=0$ and the interval $[0, T]$, with $T=5$. As before, we generated the observed data after discretizing the time interval into $500$ equispaced time points. Here our covariates and the parameter set ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0^i=(\xi_{0,1}^i,\xi_{0,2}^i,\xi_{0,3}^i,\xi_{0,4}^i,\xi_{0,5}^i,\xi_{0,6}^i)$; $i=1,\ldots,15$, are simulated in a similar way as mentioned in Section \[subsec:N1T5\].
For each of the $15$ individuals, the true set of covariate combination is randomly selected. Thus, for a given model, there are $15$ sets of covariate combinations to be compared with other models consisting of $15$ different sets of covariate combinations. To decrease computational burden we compare the true model with $100$ other models consisting of different sets of covariate combinations.
The Bayes factor corresponding to the $j$-th covariate combination is given by $$I_{nT}^j=\prod_{i=1}^n\int \frac{f^j_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_1}(X_{i,0,T})}
{f_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0}(X_{i,0,T})}\pi\left({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_{1}\right)d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_{1}
\label{eq:I_iT_appl}$$ for $j=1,\cdots,100$, where $n=15$, $T=5$ and ${\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0^{(i)}$ is the true parameter set corresponding to the $i$-th individual.
We obtain the $MLE$ of the $15$ parameter sets by simulated annealing. Then we calculate the Bayes factor with the prior such that the parameter components are independent normal with means as the respective $MLE$s and variances $1$. In all the cases corresponding to $100$ covariate combinations we obtain $\frac{1}{nT}\log I^j_{nT}<0$ for $j=1,\cdots,100$. Thus, Bayes factor indicated the correct covariate combination in all the cases considered. We also considered the case when a normal prior is considered for the parameters of the true model. In this case with respect to the component-wise independent normal prior with individual mean as obtained from simulated annealing and component-wise variance $0.1^2$, we obtain $$\frac{1}{15\times 5}\left[\log\left(\prod_{i=1}^{15}\int f^j_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1^{(i)}}(X_{i,0,T})
\pi({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_1)d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1^{(i)}\right)-\log\left(\prod_{i=1}^{15}\int f_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0^{(i)}}(X_{i,0,T})
\pi({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0)d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0^{(i)}\right)\right]<0, \label{eq:INT_appl}$$ for $j=1,\cdots,100$. Indeed, it turned out that $\frac{1}{15\times 5}\log\left(\prod_{i=1}^{15}\int f_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0^{(i)}}(X_{i,0,T})
\pi({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}_0)d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0^{(i)}\right)=0.4865$ and the maximum of $\frac{1}{15\times 5}\log\left(\prod_{i=1}^{15}\int f ^j_{i,{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_1^{(i)}}(X_{i,0,T})
\pi({\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)})d{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)}\right)$ is $0.4127$. In other words, the Bayes factor consistently selects the correct model even in this situation.
Company-wise data from national stock exchange {#sec:truedata}
==============================================
To deal with real data we collect the stock market data ($467$ observations during the time range August $5$, 2013, to June $30$, 2015) for $15$ companies which is available on [*www.nseindia.com*]{}. The nature of some company-wise data are shown in Figure \[fig:true15\].
![Some company-wise time-series data.[]{data-label="fig:true15"}](realdata1.pdf "fig:"){height="6cm" width="5cm"} \[fig:sfig2\]
![Some company-wise time-series data.[]{data-label="fig:true15"}](realdata11.pdf "fig:"){height="6cm" width="5cm"} \[fig:sfig3\]
![Some company-wise time-series data.[]{data-label="fig:true15"}](realdata12.pdf "fig:"){height="6cm" width="5cm"} \[fig:sfig4\]
Each company-wise data is modeled by various availabe standard financial $SDE$ models with the available “fitsde" package in $R$. After obtaining the BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) for each company corresponding to each available financial model, we find that the minimum value of BIC corresponds to the $CKLS$ model, given, for process $X(t)$, by $$dX(t)=(\theta_1+\theta_2X(t))dt+\theta_3X(t)^{\theta_4}dW(t).$$ As per our theory we treat the diffusion coefficient as a fixed quantity. So, after obtaining the estimated value of the coefficients by the “fitsde" function, we fix the values of $\theta_3$ and $\theta_4$, so that the diffusion coefficient becomes fixed. We let $\theta_3=A$, $\theta_4=B$.
In this $CKLS$ model, we now wish to include time varying covariates. In our work we consider the “close price" of each company. The stock market data is assumed to be dependent on IIP general index, bank interest rate, US dollar exchange rate and on various other quantities. But we assume only these three quantities as possibly the most important time dependent covariates.
Briefly, IIP, that is, index of industrial production, is a measurement which represents the status of production in the industrial sector for a given period of time compared to a reference period of time. It is one of the best statistical data, which helps us measure the level of industrial activity in Indian economy. Its importance lies in the fact that low industrial production will result in lower corporate sales and profits, which will directly affect stock prices. So a direct impact of weak IIP data is a sudden fall in stock prices.
As the IIP data is purely industrial data, banking sector is not included in it. So, we also consider the bank interest rate as another covariate. Note that, higher the bank interest rate, fixed deposits become more attractive and one will preferably deposit money in bank rather than invest in stock market. Besides, companies with a high amount of loans in their balance sheets would be affected very seriously. Interest cost on existing debt would go up affecting their EPS (Earning per Share) and ultimately the stock prices. But during low interest rate these companies would stand to gain. Banking sector is likely to benefit most due to high interest rates. The Net Interest Margins (it is the difference between the interest they earn on the money they lend and the interest they pay to the depositors) for banks is likely to increase leading to growth in profits and the stock prices. Hence, it is clear that, the interest rates and stock markets are inversely related. As the interest rates go up, stock market activities tend to come down.
Finally, exchange rates directly affect the realized return on an investment portfolio with overseas holdings. If one own stock in a foreign company and the local currency goes up, the value of the investment also goes up. Foreign investment is also related very much to US dollar exchange rate.
Hence, we collect the values of the aforementioned time varying covariates during the time range August $5$, 2013, to June $30$, 2015. The pattern of the covariates are displayed in Figure \[fig:cov\].
![Covariates.[]{data-label="fig:cov"}](cov1.pdf "fig:"){height="6cm" width="5cm"} \[fig:realdata\_sfig2\]
![Covariates.[]{data-label="fig:cov"}](cov2.pdf "fig:"){height="6cm" width="5cm"} \[fig:realdata\_sfig3\]
![Covariates.[]{data-label="fig:cov"}](cov3.pdf "fig:"){height="6cm" width="5cm"} \[fig:realdata\_sfig4\]
We denote these three covariates by $c_1,c_2,c_3$ respectively. Now, our considered $SDE$ models for national stock exchange data associated with the $15$ companies are the following: $$dX_i(t)=(\theta_1^i+\theta_2^ic_1(t)+\theta_3^ic_2(t)+\theta_4^ic_3(t))(\theta_5^i+\theta_6^iX_i(t))dt+A^iX_i(t)^{B^i}dW_i(t),
\label{eq:sde4_appl}$$ for $i=1,\cdots,15$.
Selection of covariates by Bayes factor {#subsec:covariate_bf}
---------------------------------------
Among the considered three time varying covariates we now select the best set of covariate combinations for the $15$ companies among $100$ such sets through Bayes factor, computing the log-marginal-likelihoods with respect to the normal prior on the parameter set, assuming [*a priori*]{} independence of the parameter components with individual means being the corresponding $MLE$ (based on simulated annealing) and $0.01^2$ variance (relatively small variance ensured numerical stability of th marginal likelihood). Table \[table:companies\] provides the sets of covariates for the $15$ companies obtained by our Bayes factor analysis. Also observe that each of the three covariates occurs about $50\%$ times among the companies, demonstrating that overall impact of these on national stock exchange is undeniable.
Company Covariates
--------- ----------------------------------------------------------
$1$ Bank rate
$2$ US dollar exchange rate
$3$ None
$4$ None
$5$ Bank rate and US dollar exchange rate
$6$ Bank rate and US dollar exchange rate
$7$ IIP general index and US dollar exchange rate
$8$ Bank rate
$9$ IIP general index and Bank rate
$10$ IIP general index
$11$ IIP general index, Bank rate and US dollar exchange rate
$12$ IIP general index and Bank rate
$13$ US dollar exchange rate
$14$ IIP general index, Bank rate and US dollar exchange rate
$15$ IIP general index
: Company-wise covariates obtained by Bayes factor analysis[]{data-label="table:companies"}
Summary and discussion {#sec:conclusion}
======================
This article establishes the asymptotic theory of Bayes factors when the models to be compared are systems of $SDE$’s consisting of time-dependent covariates and random effects, assuming that the number of individuals as well as the domains of observations of the individuals increase indefinitely. Different initial values for different $SDE$’s are also allowed. The only instance of related effort in this direction is that of [Maitra15a]{}. The main difference of our undertaking with that of [Maitra15a]{} is that they assumed the domains of observations to be fixed for the individuals, a consequence being that incorporation of random effects in their model was not possible from the asymptotic perspective. Moreover, in their case, a single set of covariates was associated with all the individuals, but here our random effects set-up allows different sets of time-dependent covariates for different individuals.
To proceed, we first needed to build an asymptotic theory of Bayes factors for comparing two individual $SDE$’s, rather than two systems of $SDE$’s, as the domain of observation expands. Our results in this regard, which help formulate our asymptotic theory for comparing two systems of $SDE$’s using Bayes factors, are perhaps also of independent interest, being possibly the first ever results in this direction of research. Although the relevant variance did not converge to zero when two individual $SDE$’s are compared, we are able to establish almost sure exponential convergence of the Bayes factor when the number of subjects are allowed to increase indefinitely. Importantly, our theory covers both $iid$ and non-$iid$ cases.
Our simulation studies associated with covariate selection demonstrate that Bayes factor yields consistent results even in non-asymptotic situations. Bayes factor analysis of a real data on company-wise national stock exchange also yielded plausible sets of covariates for the companies.
Note that our current asymptotic Bayes factor theory remains valid for comparison between $iid$ and non-$iid$ models. For instance, if the true model consititutes an $iid$ system, then $f_{0i}\equiv f_0\equiv f_{{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_0}$; the rest remains the same as the theory for our non-$iid$ setting. The situation is analogous when the other model forms an $iid$ system.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We are thankful to Dr. Diganta Mukherjee for drawing our attention towards the website [*www.nseindia.com*]{} at which the real data was available. The first author gratefully acknowledges her CSIR Fellowship, Govt. of India.
[^1]: Trisha Maitra is a PhD student and Sourabh Bhattacharya is an Associate Professor in Interdisciplinary Statistical Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, 203, B. T. Road, Kolkata 700108. Corresponding e-mail: [email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
CITI / Departamento de Informática\
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa\
2829-516 Caparica, Portugal
author:
- Hervé Paulino
- Eduardo Marques
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: Heterogeneous Programming with Single Operation Multiple Data
---
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work used hardware acquired in the scope of project PTDC/EIA-EIA/102579/2008 - Problem Solving Environment for Materials Structural Characterization via Tomography funded by the Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology (FCT-MEC).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The existence of self-organized criticality in the Barkhausen effect and its analogy with sandpile models is investigated. It is demonstrated that a model recently introduced to describe the dynamics of a domain wall \[Cizeau [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 4669 (1997)\] belongs to the universality class of undirected Abelian sandpile models. In this way it is shown that the Barhausen effect can be taken as an experimental observation of self-organized critical phenomena.'
address: 'Department of Theoretical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Havana University, Havana 10400, Cuba'
author:
- 'Alexei Vázquez and Oscar Sotolongo-Costa'
title: |
On the equivalence between the Barkhausen effect and\
directed Abelian sandpile models
---
[2]{}
One of the fundamental tasks of the theory of critical phenomena is to determine the different universality classes. If different systems or phenomena cannot be grouped into a reduced group of universality classes then the central idea of critical phenomena, the existence of universal behavior, will be of no relevance. This task has been carry out succesfully in ordinary critical phenomena. However, the precise identification of the universality classes in a non-equilibrium critical phenomena like self-organized criticality (SOC) is still unresolved.
SOC was introduced to explain the critical behavior of a vast class of driven dissipative system which evolve into a critical state [@bak]. In its early state it was believed that such a critical state is insensitive to changes in control parameters and no fine-tuning is needed. More recent interpretations of this phenomena have shown that criticality in SOC systems is obtained after some control parameters, for instance the driving and dissipation rates, are fine-tuned to zero [@vespignani].
The Barkhausen effect has been taken as an experimental observation of SOC behavior. Based on phenomenological analogies between the Barkhausen effect and sandpile models, such as the existence of power law distributions of avalanche size and duration, some authors have claim that the Barkhausen effect exhibits SOC behavior [@geoffroy; @cote]. However, this conclusion has been criticized by other researches which pointed out that the observation of power law distributions is not necessarely an evidence of SOC behavior [@obrien; @spasojevic]. There are alternative approaches, like the random field Ising model [@sethna; @perkovic; @dahmen], where the power law distributions are a consequence of the scaling properties of disorder. The determination of the universality classes in this case thus become more difficult because it is still not clear if the Barkhausen effect exhibits or not SOC behavior.
Some light in this controversy has been given by Cizeau, Zapperi, Durin and Stanley (CZDE) [@cizeau]. They introduced an equation of motion for a single domain wall where dipolar interactions, demagnetization effects and quenched disorder are considered, containing some previous works [@alessandro; @urbach] as limiting cases. CZDE observed that their model has certain analogies with sandpile models. More precisely the critical state is obtained when the magnetic field rate (the driving rate in sandpile models) and the demagnetization factor (the dissipation rate in sandpile models) are fine-tunned to zero. However their analysis, in relation to this analogy, was limited to this phenomenological observation based on numerical simulations and mean field analysis. The great importance of this conjecture is that if one could map the Barkhausen effect into certain class of sandpile models then one could be sure about the existence of SOC in this phenomena. This is precisely the scope of this work.
We investigate the CZDE model in the case of strong magnetization, where dipolar interactions are relevant [@note]. First we show that when the magnetization field increases at constant rate the domain wall is never pinned but moves in average at constant velocity. Then we obtain exact expressions for the average interface velocity and susceptibility. The scaling exponents are obtained using perturvative analysis, some of them but not all results identical to those obtained by CZDE for the case of constant magnetic field. Further RG calculations reveals that perturbation theory is exact up to ${\cal O}(r^{-1})$, where $r$ is proportional to the square of the saturation magnetization. From the comparison of the scaling exponents with those observed in sandpile models we conclude that the CZDE model with magnetic field increasing at constant rate belongs to the universality class of directed Abelian sandpile models (DASM) [@dhar].
To start our analysis let us introduce the CZDE model. The domain wall is modeled by a $d$-dimensional interface, dividing two regions of opposite magnetization, moving in a $d+1$ environment described by its position $h(\vec{x},t)$. Considering the contribution of magnetostatic, ferromagnetic and magneto-chrystalline interactions one obtains the following equation of motion [@cizeau] $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial t} h(\vec{x},t)
=\Gamma\nabla^2h(\vec{x},t)+2\mu_0M_sH
\nonumber\\
+\eta[\vec{x},h(\vec{x},t)]-
4\mu_0{\cal N}M_s^2\int\frac{d^dx^\prime}{L^d}h(\vec{x}^\prime,t)
\nonumber\\
+\int d^dx^\prime K(\vec{x}-\vec{x}^\prime)[h(\vec{x}^\prime,t)
-h(\vec{x},t)],
\label{eq:1} \end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ is a viscosity coefficient, $\Gamma$ is the surface tension of the wall, $H$ is the magnetic field intensity, $L$ is the linear size of the system, and $M_s$ is the saturation magnetization per unit volume. Long-range demagnetization effects are described by the fourth term in the right hand side, where ${\cal N}$ is the demagnetization factor. Dipolar interactions are characterized by the fifth term, where the kernel $K(\vec{x})$ is anisotropic and has Fourier transform $$\tilde{K}(\vec{k})=\frac{\mu_0M_s^2}{4\pi^2}|\vec{k}|\cos^2\theta,
\label{eq:2}$$ where $\theta$ is the angle between $\vec{k}$ and the magnetization. $\eta(\vec{x},h)$ is a Gaussian uncorrelated noise due to lattice defects or other factors, with zero mean and noise correlator $$\langle\eta(\vec{x},h)\eta(\vec{x}^\prime,h^\prime)\rangle =
\delta^d(\vec{x}-\vec{x}^\prime)\Delta(h-h^{\prime}),
\label{eq:3}$$ where $\Delta(h)$ is a monotonically decreasing even function.
If dipolar interactions and demagnetization effects are neglected and $H$ is constant then eq. (\[eq:1\]) is reduced to the Edwards-Wilkinson equation with quenched noise. This limiting case has been extensively studied in the literature [@fisher; @review]. A depinning transition takes place at certain critical field $H_c$, determined by the disorder. For $H<H_c$ the interface is pinned after certain finite time while for $H>H_c$ it moves with finite average velocity. The upper critical dimension is $d_c=4$. This features remains if dipolar interactions are considered but the upper critical dimension is reduced to $d_c=2$ [@cizeau].
When the demagnetization field is included and the magnetic field increases at rate $c$ then the interface is never pinned by impurities, but always moves with a finite average velocity $v$. A perturbative solution of eq. (\[eq:1\]) can thus be found expanding $h(\vec{x},t)$ around the flat co-moving interface $vt$. Taking $h(\vec{x},t)=vt+y(\vec{x},t)$, with $\langle y(\vec{x},t)\rangle=0$, we obtain the following equation for $y(\vec{x},t)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial t}y(\vec{x},t)
=\Gamma\nabla^2y(\vec{x},t)+2\mu_0M_s(c-2{\cal N}M_sv)t
\nonumber\\
-\lambda v+\eta[\vec{x},vt+y(\vec{x},t)]-
4\mu_0{\cal N}M_s^2\int\frac{d^dx^\prime}{L^d}y(\vec{x}^\prime,t)
\nonumber\\
+\int d^dx^\prime K(\vec{x}-\vec{x}^\prime)[y(\vec{x}^\prime,t)
-y\vec{x},t)],
\label{eq:4} \end{aligned}$$
The average velocity is obtained using the constraint $\langle
y(\vec{x},t)\rangle=0$. For this purpose is better to work with the equation for the Fourier transform of $h(\vec{x},t)$, $\tilde{h}(\vec{k}$,$\omega)$. The effective external field $(c-2{\cal N}M_sv)t$ gives a singular term of the order of $\omega^{-2}$. This singular term predominates in the low frequency limit resulting, after imposing $\langle\tilde{y}(\vec{k},\omega)\rangle=0$, $$v=\frac{c}{2{\cal N}M_s}.
\label{eq:5}$$ This result is valid to all orders of perturbation expansion and, therefore, exact. In the MF theory by CZDE, which is equivalent to the ABBM model, it is obtained that $v\sim c/{\cal
N}M_s$ in agreement with eq. (\[eq:5\]). We have thus shown that this result is exact and, therefore, valid beyond the MF theory.
Another exact result can be obtained if one computes the low-frequency and long-wavelength susceptibility. Adding a source term $\varphi(\vec{x},t)$ to the right hand side of eq. (\[eq:4\]) and going to the Fourier space one obtains the generalized response function $$\tilde{G}(\vec{k},\omega)=\left\langle\frac{\tilde{h}(\vec{k},\omega)}
{\tilde{\varphi}(\vec{k},\omega)}\bigg|_{\tilde{\varphi}=0}\right\rangle=
\frac{1}{[\tilde{G}_0(\vec{k},\omega)]^{-1}-
\tilde{\Sigma}(\vec{k},\omega)},
\label{eq:6}$$ where $$[\tilde{G}_0(\vec{k},\omega)]^{-1}=\Gamma\vec{k}^2+
i\lambda\omega+4\mu_0{\cal N}M_s^2\hat{\delta}(\vec{k},L)
+\tilde{K}(\vec{k}).
\label{eq:7}$$ is the bare correlator and $\tilde{\Sigma}(k,\omega)$ is the “self-energy”. $\hat{\delta}(\vec{k},L)$ is the Fourier transform of $L^{-d}$. In the thermodynamic limit ($L\rightarrow\infty$) $\hat{\delta}(\vec{k},L)\approx1$ for $\vec{k}\rightarrow0$ and zero otherwise. Since $\tilde{\Sigma}(0,0)=0$ and $\tilde{G}_0(0,0)^{-1}=4\mu_0{\cal
N}M_s^2$ it results that the low-frequency and long-wavelength susceptibility (or simply the susceptibility) is given by $$\chi=\tilde{G}(0,0)=\frac{1}{4\mu_0{\cal N}M_s^2}.
\label{eq:8}$$ This result is also exact to all orders of perturbation expansion.
In eq. (\[eq:8\]) one cannot determine precisely which is the control parameter of the model. The susceptibility may diverges if both ${\cal N}$ or $M_s$ goes to zero. To answer this question we look for a self-similar solution of eq. (\[eq:4\]). Performing the scale transformation $x\rightarrow
bx$, $L\rightarrow bL$, $t\rightarrow b^zt$ and $y\rightarrow
b^\zeta y$ where $z$ and $\zeta$ are the dynamic and roughness exponent, respectively, and taking into account eq. (\[eq:5\]), eq. (\[eq:4\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda b^{1-z} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}y(\vec{x},t)
=\Gamma b^{-1}\nabla^2y(\vec{x},t) -\lambda b^{1-\zeta} v
\nonumber\\
+b^{1-\zeta}\eta[b\vec{x},vb^zt+b^\zeta y(\vec{x},t)]
\nonumber\\
-4\mu_0{\cal N}M_s^2b\int\frac{d^dx^\prime}{L^d}y(\vec{x}^\prime,t)
\nonumber\\
+\int d^dx^\prime K(\vec{x}-\vec{x}^\prime)[y(\vec{x}^\prime,t)
-y\vec{x},t)].
\label{eq:9} \end{aligned}$$ Notice that we cannot obtain scale invariance in the elastic and dipolar intercation terms simultaneously. Thus we have to determine which of this terms gives the major contribution. A magnitude which characterizes the ration between elastic and dipolar interactions is $$r=\frac{\mu_0M_s^2}{4\pi^2\Gamma\Lambda},
\label{eq:13}$$ where $\Lambda$, the momentum cutoff, is of the order the inverse of the domain wall thickness. The case $r\ll1$ where dipolar interactions can be neglected has been already analyzed in [@vazquez], here we focuses our attention in the opposite case $r\gg1$ where dipolar interactions are relevant. In this case, imposing scale invariance we obtain that ${\cal N}$ and $v$ should goes to zero and $$z=1,\ \ \ \ \zeta=\frac{2-d}{2}.
\label{eq:10}$$ The scaling exponents obtained in this way are identical to those derived by CZDE [@cizeau] for the case of constant magnetic field. Moreover the upper critical dimension $d_c=2$ is also the same.
The saturation magnetization is not a control parameter because the dipolar interaction term, which is proportional to $M_s^2$, does not renormalize. Thus, ${\cal N}$ and $v$ are the only control parameters. Since scale invariance is obtained when ${\cal N}=0^+$ from eq. (\[eq:9\]) one can define the correlation length $\xi\sim{\cal N}^{-\nu}$ with $\nu=1$. Moreover, from eq. (\[eq:8\]) we obtain that the susceptibility scale as $\chi\sim{\cal N}^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma=1$. At the critical state $\xi\sim L$ and $$\chi\sim\xi^{\gamma\nu}\sim L,
\label{eq:11}$$ On the other hand, the increase of $v$ may change the character of the noise correlator. For large $v$ the noise correlator can be approximated by an annealed noise. In this case the magnetic field predominates over disorder, corresponding with a supercritical regime. From eq. (\[eq:9\]) one can define the characteristic velocity $v_c\sim\epsilon^\theta$ with $$\theta=\nu(z-\zeta),
\label{eq:12}$$ which divides the phase diagram $({\cal N},v)$ into two regions, the supercritical state $v\gg v_c$ and the subcritical one $v\ll
v_c$. Criticality is obtained when ${\cal N}\rightarrow0$ and $v\rightarrow0$.
To go further we have performed a RG analysis of the problem. We integrate out the degrees of freedom in a momentum shell near the cutoff $\Lambda$ and rescale $k\rightarrow b^{-1}k$, $\omega\rightarrow b^{-z}\omega$, and $\tilde{w}\rightarrow
b^{\zeta+d+z}\tilde{w}$, where $b=\text{e}^l$ with $l\rightarrow0$. The flow equations for the parameters $\Gamma$, $\lambda$, ${\cal N}$, $M_s$ and $v$ are obtained through a direct application of the RG transformations to eq. (\[eq:4\]) in the Fourier space. The renormalization of the moments of the noise correlator ($Q_{n}=\int_q\tilde{\Delta}(q)q^n$) is obtained considering vertex functions [@review; @fisher]. As in perturbation theory here we only consider the case $r\gg1$. In this case we found corrections of the order of $r^{-1}$ to the exponents computed by perturbation theory [@vazquez1]. Thus, the exponents $z$ and $\zeta$ in eq. (\[eq:10\]) are exact up to ${\cal O}(r^{-1})$.
Let us now determine the avalanche distribution exponents. The Barkhausen signal $V(t)$ is the voltage produced from a pickup coil around a ferromagnet subjected to a slowly varying applied field. In the low-frequency limit the time scale for domain wall motion is much smaller than the time between jumps and, therefore, one may guarantee that each induced voltage jump corresponds with a single avalanche in the domain wall motion. A resolution voltage level $V_R$ is defined, such that one can not resolve details below $V_R$. An elementary Barkhausen jump can thus be defined as the portion of the $V(t)$ signal delimited by two subsequent intersections of the signal with the $V_R$ line. With this definition, the duration $T$ is simply the time interval between these two subsequent intersections and the size $s$ is the area delimited by $V(t)$ and $V_R$ between the same points.
In the subcritical regime the dynamics takes place in the form of avalanches, characterized by the avalanche size $P(s)=s^{-\tau}f(s/s_c)$ and duration $P(T)=T^{-\alpha}g(T/T_c)$ distributions, where $s_c$ and $T_c$ are the avalanche size and duration cutoffs. In the subcritical state $s_c\sim\epsilon^{-1/\sigma}$ and $\xi\sim\epsilon^{-\nu}$ while at criticality $s_c\sim L^D$ and $\xi\sim L$, where $D$ is the avalanche dimension, leading to the scaling relation $$\sigma=\frac{1}{D\nu}.
\label{eq:14}$$ Other scaling relations are obtained taking into account that $\chi=\langle s\rangle$ and $\int dsP(s)=\int dTP(T)$, which lead to $$\gamma=\frac{(2-\tau}{\sigma},\ \ \ \ (\tau-1)D=(\alpha-1)z,
\label{eq:15}$$ respectively.
Using these scaling relations and our result $\gamma=\nu=z=1$ we obtain the following scaling relations for the avalanche exponents $$\tau=2-\frac{1}{\alpha},\ \ \ \
\alpha=D,
\label{eq:16}$$ On the other hand, for $d<d_c$, the avalanche dimension and the roughness exponent are related via $D=d+\zeta$, while above the upper critical dimension one obtains $D=d_c=2$. Hence, we can compute $\tau$ and $\alpha$ using eq. (\[eq:16\]) and this value of $D$. For instance $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha& =\frac{3}{2},\ \text{for}\ d+1=2;\nonumber\\
& =2,\ \text{for}\ d+1\geq3.
\label{eq:17}\end{aligned}$$
The scaling law in eq. (\[eq:11\]), the scaling relations in eq. (\[eq:16\]) and the values of the scaling exponent $\alpha$ in eq. (\[eq:17\]) are also obtained for DASM [@dhar]. However, the upper critical dimension of DASM is 3, and not 2 as obtained here. This apparent contradiction can be understood if one takes into account that in DASM time evolution does not introduce an additional dimension because it can be represented by the evolution in the preferential dimension. On the contrary in the motion of the domain wall the time evolution take place perpendicular to the $d$-dimensional substrate and, therefore, introduces an additional dimension. Taking this fact into account the upper critical dimension will be $2+1$, as in DASM. Thus, the CZDE model in $d+1$ dimensions is equivalent to a $d$-dimensional DASM.
The fact that the CZDE is mapped into a directed sandpile model, and not into an undirected one, is due to dipolar interactions which introduces an anisotropy in the system. If dipolar interactions becomes negligible ($r\ll1$) then we expect that the CZDE model will be mapped into an undirected sandpile model. Experiments in magnetostrictive materials, where dipolar interactions can be neglected, have been performed [@urbach; @bahiana; @durin]. Earlier measurements by Urbach [*et al*]{} [@urbach] gives $\tau=1.33\pm0.10$. More recently, Durin and Zapperi (DZ) [@durin] reported the more accurate exponents $\tau=1.28\pm0.02$ and $\alpha=1.5\pm0.1$. On the other hand, numerical simulations of the CZDE model in two dimensions and without dipolar interactions have also been performed [@bahiana; @durin]. The more accurate numerical estimates, reported by Durin and Zapperi [@durin], are $\tau=1.26\pm0.04$ and $\alpha=1.40\pm0.05$. These exponents are in the range reported for undirected Abelian sandpile models in two dimensions. For instance, numerical simulations of the Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld (the prototype of undirected Abelian sandpile model) gives $\tau=1.293$ and $\alpha=1.480$ [@lubeck]. However, to validate this guess we cannot base our analysis only in the avalanche exponents, we must provide further elements. In [@vazquez] we have shown that the CZDE without dipolar interactions can be mapped into a class of undirected sandpile models with annealed noise in the toppling rule.
In conclusion we have shown that the CZDE model for the dynamics of a domain wall belongs to the universality class of directed Abelian sandpile models. Dipolar interactions introduce an anisotropy in the systems leading to a preferential direction along the magnetization. We have provided strong arguments which states the equivalence between the dynamics of a domain wall and sandpile models. This conclusion can be extended to systems with many domain walls, since for short time scales the interaction between domain walls can be neglected and the single domain wall picture is correct. Hence, the Barkhausen effect actually exhibits self-organized critical behavior.
[50]{}
P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 381 (1987); Phys. Rev. A [**38**]{}, 364 (1988).
A. Vespignani and S. Zapperi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4793 (1997); Phys. Rev. E [**57**]{}, 6345 (1998).
O. Geoffroy and J. L. Corteseil, J. Magn. Magn. Mate. [**97**]{}, 198 (1991); [*ibid*]{} [**97**]{}, 205 (1991).
P. J. Cote and L. V. Meisel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 1334 (1991).
K. P. O’Brien and M. B. Weissman, Phys. Rev. E [**50**]{}, 3446 (1994).
D. Spasojević, S. Buknić, S. Milošević, and H. E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. E [**54**]{}, 2531 (1996).
J. P. Sethna, K. Dahmen, S. Kartha, J. Krumahansl, B. W. Roberts, and J. D. Shore, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**21**]{}, 3347 (1993).
O. Percović, K. Dahmen, and J. P. Sethna, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4528 (1995).
K. Dahmen and J. Sethna, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 3222 (1993); Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 14872 (1996).
P. Cizeau, S. Zapperi, G. Durin, and H. E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 4669 (1997); S. Zapperi, P. Cizeau, G. Durin, and H. E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. B [****]{}, 1998.
B. Alessandro, C. Beatrice, G. bertotti, and A. Montorsi, J. Appl. Phys. [**68**]{}, 2901 (1990); [*ibid*]{} [**68**]{}, 2908 (1990).
J. S. Urbach, R. C. Madison, and J. T. Markert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 276 (1995).
When dipolar interactions are negligible a different universality class is obtained.
For a review see D. Dhar, cond-mat/9808047.
O. Narayan and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 3615 (1992); Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 7030 (1993).
T. Nattermann, S. Stepanow, L.-H. Tang, and H. Leschhorn, J. Phys. II France [**2**]{},1483 (1992); H. Leschhorn, T. Nattermann, S. Stepanow, and L.-H. Tang, Ann. Phys. [**6**]{}, 1 (1997).
A. Vázquez and O. Sotolongo-Costa, cond-mat/9812173.
A. Vázquez and O. Sotolongo-Costa, in progress.
M. Bahiana, B. Koiller, S. L. A. de Queiroz, J. C. Denardin, and R. L. Sommer, cond-mat/9808017.
G. Durin and S. Zapperi, cond-mat/9808224.
S. Lübeck and K. Usadel, Phys. Rev. E [**55**]{}, 4095 (1997).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We investigate the effects of dissipation in the deconfinement transition for pure $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ gauge theories. Using an effective theory for the order parameter, we study its Langevin evolution numerically. Noise effects are included for the case of $SU(2)$. We find that both dissipation and noise have dramatic effects on the spinodal decomposition of the order parameter and delay considerably its thermalization. For $SU(3)$ the effects of dissipation are even larger than for $SU(2)$.
PACS numbers: 12.38.Mh, 25.75.Nq, 12.38.Gc
Keywords: Quark-gluon plasma, deconfinement, dynamics of phase transitions, spinodal decomposition
author:
- 'Ana Júlia [Mizher]{}$^1$[^1], Eduardo S. [Fraga]{}$^1$[^2], Gastão [Krein]{}$^2$[^3]'
title: '[Langevin dynamics of the deconfinement transition for pure gauge theory]{}'
---
Introduction
============
Recent results from lattice QCD [@laermann], corroborated by experimental data from BNL-RHIC [@bnl], indicate that strongly interacting matter under extreme conditions of temperature and pressure undergoes a phase transition to a deconfined plasma. Such extreme conditions are believed to have happened in the early universe, and might also be found in the core of neutron stars [@G_b].
The process of phase conversion during the deconfinement transition can occur in different ways. For a pure gauge $SU(N)$ theory, the trace of the Polyakov loop provides a well-defined order parameter [@polyakov; @thooft; @pisarski], and one can construct an effective Landau-Ginzburg field theory based on this quantity [@pisarski2; @ogilvie]. The effective potential for $T<<T_c$ has only one minimum, at zero, where the whole system is localized. With the increase of the temperature new minima appear ($N$ minima for $Z(N)$, the center of $SU(N)$). At the critical temperature, $T_c$, all the minima are degenerate, and above $T_c$ the new minima become the true vacuum states of the theory, so that the system starts to decay. In the case of $SU(3)$, whithin a range of temperatures close to $T_c$ there is a small barrier, and the process of phase conversion will be guided by bubble nucleation. For larger $T$, the barrier disappears and the system explodes in the process of spinodal decomposition. For $SU(2)$, the transition is second-order, and there is never a barrier to overcome.
In this paper, we consider pure $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ gauge theories, without dynamical quarks, that are rapidly driven to very high temperatures, well above $T_c$, and decay to the deconfined phase via spinodal decomposition. We are particularly interested in the effect of noise and dissipation on the time scales involved in this “decay process”. In what follows, we adopt an effective model proposed in Ref. [@ogilvie] for the order parameter and the effective potential. Numerical calculations for the evolution of the order parameter are performed on a lattice, using a local Langevin equation.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II briefly describes the effective model for the order parameter. In Section III, we consider the Langevin evolution, discussing how to fix the dissipation coefficient from lattice simulations, and present our results for $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$. Section IV contains our final remarks.
The effective model
===================
The model proposed in [@ogilvie] intends to provide a better representation of lattice results for the gluon plasma equation of state as compared to the usual bag model. It is obtained combining a few phenomenological inputs with $Z(N)$ symmetry and some known features of the perturbative equation of state. In particular, in a temperature range going from the deconfinement temperature $T_d$ to $5T_d$ the model gives reasonable results and exhibits a thermodynamic behaviour that is coherent with data obtained from lattice simulations.
In this approach, thermodynamic properties are determined by functions of the Polyakov loop, defined in Euclidean finite temperature gauge theories as [@polyakov]: $$P(\vec x )= {\cal T}exp\left[ig\int_0^{1/T}d\tau ~A_0(\vec x, \tau)
\right] \; ,$$ where ${\cal T}$ denotes Euclidean time ordering, $g$ is the gauge coupling constant and $A_0$ is the time component of the vector potential. We work with $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$, representing the color degrees of freedom. Consequently, we have a $Z(N)$ symmetry for the case of pure gauge theories that is spontaneously broken. It would be explicitly broken in the presence of quarks.
Working in the imaginary time framework, we have bosonic fields being periodic and fermionic fields being antiperiodic in the imaginary time $\tau$: $$A_\mu (\vec x, \beta)=+ A_\mu (\vec x,0)\ \ , \ q(\vec x, \beta) =
-q(\vec x , 0) \; .$$ Any gauge transformation periodic in $\tau$ respects these boundary conditions. However, as demonstrated by ’t Hooft [@thooft], one can consider more general gauge transformations which are only periodic up to the center of the group: $\Omega (\vec x, \beta)= \Omega_c\ \ , \ \ \Omega(\vec x,0)=1$.
Color adjoint fields are invariant under these transformations, while those in the fundamental representation are not: $$A^\Omega(\vec x, \beta)=\Omega^\dag_c A_\mu (\vec x, \beta)\Omega_c=
A_\mu(\vec x, \beta) = + A_\mu(\vec x, 0) \; ,$$ $$q^\Omega (\vec x, \beta) = \Omega ^\dag_c q(\vec x, \beta )
\neq -q(\vec x, 0) \; .$$ Consequently, pure gauge theories have a global $Z(N)$ symmetry, which is spoiled by the addition of dynamical quarks.
Thus the action is invariant under $Z(N)$ transformations, but $\langle
{\rm Tr}_F \, P(\vec x)\rangle$ is not. Symmetry requires $z \, \langle {\rm Tr}_F \, P(\vec x)\rangle = \langle {\rm Tr}_F \,
P(\vec x)\rangle$, which implies $\langle {\rm Tr}_F \, P(\vec x)\rangle=0$. When the phase transition occurs, the $Z(N)$ symmetry is spontaneously broken and $\langle {\rm Tr}_F \, P(\vec x)\rangle$ assumes a non-vanishing value. So, one can use it as an order parameter for the transition and it is possible to write an effective theory for its dynamics.
The efective theory of Ref. [@ogilvie] is based on a mean field treatment in which the Polyakov loops are constant throughout the space and the free energy is a function of its eigenvalues. A perturbative calculation of the free energy of gluons as a function of the Polyakov loop eigenvalues yields $$f = -\frac{1}{\beta}\sum^{N}_{j,k=1}2\left(1-\frac{1}{N}\delta_{jk}\right)
\int\frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n} e^{- \beta m w_k +
in \Delta\theta_{jk}} \; ,$$ where $\theta$ is defined through the eigenvalues of the Polyakov loop, $P_{jk} = \exp(i\theta_j) \; \delta_{jk}$, and $\Delta\theta_{jk}\equiv \theta_j-\theta_k$, which reduces to the usual blackbody formula in the case $A_0=0$.
This expression for the free energy of gluons propagating in the background of Polyakov loops predicts a gas of gluons that is always in the deconfined phase, with no indication that higher-order corrections will modify this result. This can be modified by the introduction of a mass scale into $f$. This mass scale will determine the deconfinement temperature $T_d$ and is introduced in a phenomenological way. One ends up with the same expression of the perturbative calculation, but now $w_k=\sqrt{k^2+M^2}$. Parametrizing the Polyakov loop and representing the diagonal matrix as $diag[\exp(i\phi_{N/2},...,i\phi_1,-i\phi_1,...,-i\phi_{N/2}]$, it is possible to extract an effective potential as a function of $\phi$. For $SU(2)$ one has only $\phi_1=\phi$ and $\phi_{-1}=-\phi$, and the effective potential can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
V &=& -\frac{\pi^2T^3}{15} + \frac{4T^3}{3\pi^2}\phi^2(\phi-\pi)^2 \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{M^2T}{4} + \frac{M^2T}{\pi^2}\phi(\phi-\pi) \; .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that there is a symmetry $\phi\leftrightarrow \pi-\phi$ associated with the $Z(2)$ invariance. It is convenient to write this equation in terms of a new variable $\psi=1-\phi\pi/2 $ to make this symmetry more evident. One obtains: $$\begin{aligned}
V &=& -\frac{\pi^2T^3}{15}+\frac{T^3\pi^2}{12}(1-\psi^2)^2\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{M^2T}{4} -\frac{M^2T}{4}(1-\psi^2) \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi=0$ represents confinement. It is interesting to connect the $\psi$ used here and the trace of the Polyakov loop, used in Ref. [@pisarski2] as the order parameter. For the diagonalyzed matrix we have the trace, according to our parametrization, as $e^{i\phi}+e^{-i\phi}$, namely ${\rm Tr} \, L = 2 \cos(\phi)$, or, as defined above, ${\rm Tr} \, L = 2 \cos(\pi (1-\psi)/2)$. So, when $\psi =0$ we have ${\rm Tr} \, L = 0$, which represents confinement, and when $\psi\rightarrow 1$, then ${\rm Tr} \, L\rightarrow 1$, representing the deconfined state.
The phase transition in this case is second order, as expected [@yaffe]. The value of $M$ can be determined from the deconfinement temperature through the relation $T_d=(3/2)^{1/2}M/\pi \approx 0.38985M$, so that it is possible to extract the deconfining temperature from the lattice and then fix $M$. The minimum of the potential occurs for $$\psi_0=\sqrt{1 - \frac{3M^2}{2T^2\pi^2}} \; .$$
For $SU(3)$ there are three eigenvalues: $\phi_1=\phi, \ 0$ and $\phi_{-1}=-\phi$. The potential assumes the form: $$\begin{aligned}
V &=& - T^3\frac{8\pi^2}{45} + \frac{T^3}{6\pi^2}[8\phi^2(\phi-\pi)^2+
\phi^2(\phi-2\pi)^2] \nonumber\\
&+& \frac{2TM^2}{3} +\frac{TM^2}{2\pi^2}[2\phi(\phi-\pi)+\phi(\phi-2\pi)]\; .\end{aligned}$$ Again, it is useful to rewrite the potential in terms of a new variable $\psi=2\pi/3-\phi$, so that one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
V &=& \frac{8\pi^2}{405}T^3+\left(\frac{3}{2\pi^2}TM^2-\frac{2}
{3}T^3\right)\psi^2 \nonumber\\
&-&\frac{2}{3\pi}T^3\psi^3+\frac{3}{2\pi^2}T^3\psi^4 \; .\end{aligned}$$ Now, $M$ and $T_d$ are related as follows: $$T_d=\frac{9}{20\pi}\sqrt{10}M\approx 0.45296 \, M \; ,$$ and the minimum is at $$\psi_0 =\frac{\pi T+3\sqrt{T^2\pi^2-2M^2}}{6T} \; .$$ In this case, ${\rm Tr} \, L = e^{i\phi} + 1 + e^{-i\phi}$ and the connection with $\psi$ becomes ${\rm Tr} \, L = \frac{2}{3} \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{3}
-\psi\right) +\frac{1}{3}$.
![Effective potential for $SU(3)$ for different values of the temperature.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](potencial_su3.eps){width="7.75cm"}
Immediately above the critical temperature, the $SU(3)$ potential presents a barrier between the old and the new vacua. This barrier, however, is very small and quickly disappears with the increasing of the temperature. One should notice that above $2T_c$ the changes in the potential are negligible.
Langevin Evolution
==================
Let us now consider the real-time evolution of the order parameter for the breakdown of $Z(N)$. We assume the system to be characterized by a coarse-grained free energy $$F(\phi,T)=\int d^3 x\left[\frac{B}{2} \, (\nabla \phi)^2+
V_{eff}(\phi,T)\right] \; ,$$ where $V_{eff}(\phi,T)$ is the effective potential obtained in the last section, and $B = \pi^2 T/g^2$ for $SU(2)$ and $ B = 4 T/g^2$ for $SU(3)$. The time evolution of the order parameter and its approach to equilibrium will be dictated by the following Langevin equation $$B \left(\frac{\partial^2\psi}{\partial t^2} - \nabla^2 \psi
\right) + \Gamma \, \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial t} + V'_{eff}(\psi) =
\xi \; ,
\label{eq.1}$$ where $g$ is the QCD coupling constant, and $\Gamma$ is the dissipation coefficient, which is usually taken to be a function of temperature only, $\Gamma=\Gamma (T)$. The function $\xi$ is a stochastic noise assumed to be gaussian and white so that $\langle\xi (\vec x, t)\rangle=0$ and $\langle \xi (\vec x, t)\xi(\vec x' ,t')\rangle=
2\Gamma \delta (\vec x- \vec x' )\delta (t - t')$. The noise and dissipation terms are originated from thermal and quantum fluctuations resulting either from self-interactions of the Polyakov loop field or from the coupling to diferent fields (such as chiral fields). The case with only first-order time derivative was considered in Ref. [@Krein:2005wh].
This description is admittedly very simplified. A more complete analysis should consider different contributions of noise and dissipation terms and memory kernels instead of simple Markovian terms proportional to the first time derivate of the field [@gleiser; @rischke]. In general, one obtains a complicated dissipation kernel that simplifies to a multiplicative dissipation term which depends quadratically on the amplitude of the field as $\Gamma_1(T) \,\psi^2(\vec x,t) \, \dot L(\vec x,t)$ where $\Gamma_1$ is determined by imaginary terms of the effective action for $\psi$ and depends weakly (logaritmically) on the couplings. The fluctuation-dissipation theorem implies, then, that the noise term will also contain a multiplicative contribution of the form $\psi(\vec x,t)\xi(\vec x,t)$, and be in general non-Markovian. The white noise limit is reobtained only for very high temperatures.
For the $SU(2)$ case we have fixed $\Gamma$ in the following way. We have used pure-gauge Euclidean lattice Monte Carlo simulations in the line discussed in Ref. [@ogilvie]. In this approach, spinodal decomposition is obtained on the lattice performing local heat-bath updates of gauge field configurations at $\beta = 4/g^2 =3$, after thermalizing the lattice at $\beta = 4/g^2 = 2$. The critical value of $\beta$ for deconfinement is found to be $\beta_d \sim 2.3$. $\Gamma$ is then extracted by comparing the short-time exponential growth of the correlation function $\langle L(k,t) L(-k,t)\rangle$ predicted by the lattice simulations [@AKT] and the Langevin description, assuming of course that both dynamics are the same. Making this comparison for the lowest lattice momentum mode, it is found that $\Gamma = 7.6 \times 10^3 \, T^3 / \mu$, where $\mu$ is a time scale relating Monte Carlo time and real time. Assuming that typical thermalization times are of the order of a few fm/c, we obtain $\Gamma \sim 10^3$ fm$^{-2}$.
![Volume average of the $SU(2)$ order parameter normalized to the $\psi_0 > 0$ minimum of the bare effective potential. []{data-label="fig:2"}](loop_su2.eps){width="8cm"}
In our numerical calculations we solve Eq. (\[eq.1\]) on a cubic spacelike lattice with $64^3$ sites under periodic boundary conditions. We use a semi-implicit finite-diference scheme for the time evolution and a finite-difference Fast Fourier Transform for the spatial dependence [@MIMC]. For $SU(2)$, the critical temperature is $T_d=302~$MeV [@karsch] and we obtain $M=775~$MeV. We took the average of several realizations with random initial configurations around $\psi \sim 0$. We consider the time dependence of the volume average of $\psi$ $$\langle \psi \rangle = \frac{1}{N^3} \sum_{ijk} \psi_{ijk}(t) \; ,
\label{vol_av}$$ where $N$ is the number of lattice sites in each spatial direction, and $i,j,k = 1, \cdots, N$ are the lattice sites. In Fig. \[fig:2\] we plot $\langle \psi \rangle/\psi_0$, where $\psi_0 > 0$ is the positive minimum of the bare effective potential, for three situations: no dissipation and no noise (dotted curve), no noise (dashed curve) and full solution (solid curve). When considering noise, we have added the appropriate counterterms to make the equilibrium solution independent of the lattice spacing [@CT]. All curves are for $T = 6.6 \, T_d$.
Clearly seen in Fig. \[fig:2\] is the large effect of dissipation, which delays the rapid exponential growth of the order parameter due to spinodal decomposition. The retardation seen here for the deconfinement transition is substantially larger than the corresponding delay seen for the chiral condensate evolution in Ref. [@Fraga:2004hp]. The effect of noise is also in the direction of delaying equilibration, as expected. Also expected, and clearly shown in Fig. \[fig:2\], is the effect of noise in the equilibrium value of $\psi$ which is larger than $\psi_0$.
![Volume average of the $SU(3)$ order parameter normalized to the $\psi_0 > 0$ minimum of the bare effective potential. []{data-label="fig:3"}](loop_su3.eps){width="8cm"}
For $SU(3)$ one has $T_d=263~$MeV [@Boyd:1996bx], so that $M = 580~$MeV. The results of our simulations at $T= 6.6\,T_d$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:3\]. Here we are using the same lattice and same dissipation $\Gamma$ as for $SU(2)$. As seen in this figure, the effect of dissipation is even more dramatic than for $SU(2)$, with the proviso of course that we are using the value of $\Gamma$ extracted from $SU(2)$ lattice simulations. As mentioned earlier, immediately above the critical temperature the $SU(3)$ potential presents a barrier between a local minimum and an absolute minimum. However, this barrier has no effect on the delay seen in Fig. \[fig:3\], since our simulations are done for high temperatures, $T \gg 2\,T_d$. We have not investigated the effect of noise in this case because the appropriate renormalization counter-terms for an effective potential with a first-order transition are not yet available [@CT].
Summary and outlook
===================
We have investigated the effects of dissipation and noise in the deconfinement transition of $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ pure gauge theories. We have used the effective model proposed in Ref. [@ogilvie], which combines phenomenological inputs with $Z(N)$ symmetry and some known features of the perturbative equation of state. The model provides a reasonable representation of lattice results for the pure-gluon plasma equation of state in the temperature range between $T_c$ and $5T_c$ . We have performed numerical simulations for the evolution of the order parameter on a spatial cubic lattice using a local Langevin equation. We find that both dissipation and noise have dramatic effects on the spinodal decomposition of the $SU(2)$ order parameter, delaying considerably its thermalization. Dissipation effects are even larger for $SU(3)$.
The present work must be improved in several aspects. Perhaps the most important one is in the method used to extract the dissipation coefficient $\Gamma$ [@AKT]. This was done using Euclidean lattice Monte Carlo simulations, in which spinodal decomposition of the order parameter is obtained performing local heat-bath updates of gauge field configurations above the deconfinement temperature. One of the major uncertainties in this approach is the relation between Monte Carlo updates and real time. Another source of uncertainties comes from a richer structure of noise and dissipation terms, including an evaluation of memory kernels. It is widely known that, in general, quantum corrections lead to complicated dissipation kernels that only in very special situations simplify to an additive noise term as used here. These issues will be considered in a future publication [@future].
We thank G. Ananos for discussions and CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ, FAPESP and FUJB/UFRJ for financial support.
[99]{}
E. Laermann and O. Philipsen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**53**]{}, 163 (2003).
Proceedings of Quark Matter 2004, J. Phys. G 30, S633 (2004).
N. K. Glendenning, [*Compact Stars — Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics,and General Relativity*]{} (Springer, New York, 2000).
A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B [**72**]{}, 477 (1978).
G.‘t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B [**138**]{}, 1 (1978); [*ibid*]{} [**153**]{} 141 (1979).
R. Pisarski in: J.-P. Blaizot and E. Iancu (eds.), [*QCD Perspectives on Hot and Dense Matter*]{}, pp. 353-384 (Springer, 2002).
R. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 111501 (2000); A. Dumitru and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Lett. B [**504**]{}, 282 (2001); A. Dumitru, Y. Hatta, J. Lenaghan, K. Orginos and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 034511 (2004); A. Dumitru, J. Lenaghan and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 074004 (2005); A. Dumitru, R. D. Pisarski and D. Zschiesche, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 065008 (2005). T. Miller and M. Ogilvie, Phys. Lett. B [**488**]{}, 313 (2000); P. Meisinger, T. Miller and M. Ogilvie, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 034009 (2002).
L. G. Yaffe and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D [**26**]{}, 963 (1982).
G. Krein, [*Spinodal decomposition in pure-gauge QCD*]{}, AIP Conf. Proc. [**756**]{}, 419 (2005).
M. Gleiser and R.O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 2441 (1994).
D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev.C [**58**]{}, 2331 (1998).
G. Krein, G. Ananos, G. Krein and A. R. Taurines, in preparation.
M.I.M. Copetti and C.M. Elliot, Mat. Sci. Tecn. [**6**]{}, 273 (1990).
J. Fingberg, U. Heller and F. Karsch, Nuc. Phys. B [**392**]{}, 493 (1993).
E.S. Fraga, G. Krein and R.O. Ramos, in preparation.
E. S. Fraga and G. Krein, Phys. Lett. B [**614**]{}, 181 (2005). G. Boyd [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**469**]{}, 419 (1996). E. S. Fraga, A. J. Mizher and G. Krein, to appear.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give a linear algebraic and a monadic descriptions of the Hilbert scheme of points on the affine space of dimension $n$ which naturally extends Nakajima’s representation of the Hilbert scheme of points on the plane. As an application of our ideas and recent results from the literature on commuting matrices, we show that the Hilbert scheme of $c$ points on $({\mathbb{C}}^3)$ is irreducible for $c\le 10$.'
address:
- |
FACIP - UFU\
Departamento de Matemática\
Rua 20, 1600\
Tupã 38304-402 Ituiutaba–MG, Brazil
- |
IMECC - UNICAMP\
Departamento de Matemática\
Rua Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, 651\
Cidade Universitária\
13083-859 Campinas–SP, Brazil
- |
IMECC - UNICAMP\
Departamento de Matemática\
Rua Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, 651\
Cidade Universitária\
13083-859 Campinas–SP, Brazil
author:
- 'P. Borges dos Santos'
- 'Abdelmoubine A. Henni'
- Marcos Jardim
title: Commuting matrices and the Hilbert scheme of points on affine spaces
---
Introduction
============
The Hilbert scheme ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({{\mathbb{C}}^{n}})$ of $c$ points in the affine space of dimension $n$ parametrizes $0$-dimensional subschemes of ${\mathbb{C}}^{d}$ of length $c$. The case of $n=2$ is much studied, though less is known about the higher dimensional cases.
The linear algebraic and monadic descriptions of the $n=2$ case given by Nakajima in [@N2 Chapters 1 & 2] is particularly relevant to us. One of the goals of this paper is to give analogous descritions of the Hilbert scheme ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ of $c$ points on ${\mathbb{C}}^{n}$, naturally extending Nakajima’s representation of the ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}}^2)$. This goal is attained in the first part of the paper, Sections \[Matrix-Para\] through \[Rep-mod-functor\].
More precisely, let $V$ and $W$ be complex vector spaces of dimension $c$ and $1$, respectively. Let $B_1,\dots,B_n$ be operators on $V$ commuting with each other and consider a map $I:W\to V$. The $(n+1)$-tuple $(B_1,\dots,B_n,I)$ is said to be *stable* if there is no proper subspace $S\subset V$ which is invariant under each operator $B_k$ and contains the image of $I$. The group $GL(V)$ acts on the set of all such $(n+1)$-tuple by change of basis on $V$.
We prove that there is a one-to-one corresponding between the following objects:
1. ideals $J$ in the ring of polynomials ${\mathbb{C}}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ whose quotient has dimension $c$;
2. stable $(n+1)$-tuple $(B_1,\dots,B_n,I)$ with $\dim V=c$, modulo the action of $GL(V)$;
3. complexes of the form, called *perfect extended monads*: $${\small \xymatrix@C-1pc{
V_{1-n}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1-n)\ar[r]^{\alpha_{1-n}} & V_{2-n}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(2-n) &\hdots\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-1}\hspace{0.5cm}}& V_{0}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{0}\hspace{0.2cm}} & V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1)
}}$$ where $V_1:=V$, $V_0=V^{\oplus n}\oplus\mathbb{C}$ and $V_{i}=V^{\oplus \binom{n}{1-i}}$ for $i<0$, which are exact everywhere except at degree $0$ (grading of the complex is given by the twisting).
Furthermore, using the above correspondence, we also show that the ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is isomorphic (as a scheme) to a GIT quotient of ${{\mathcal C}}(n,c)\times\operatorname{Hom}(W,V)$ by $GL(V)$, where ${{\mathcal C}}(n,c)$ denotes the variety of $n$ commuting $c\times c$ matrices.
The correspondence between items (1) and (2) as well as the isomorphism between Hilbert scheme and the GIT quotient of ${{\mathcal C}}(n,c)\times\operatorname{Hom}(W,V)$ by $GL(V)$ are already present in the representation theory literature, see for instance [@See], [@Seshadri Appendix by M. V. Nori] and [@Van], and more recently [@Vacca2; @Gustavsen; @Vacca1]. However, our presentation is more down-to-earth and closer to Nakajima’s description which is familiar to algebraic geometers.
The correspondence with the so-called perfect extended monads is new. In fact, we introduce in Section \[ext-monads\] a new class of objects, *extended monads* (cf. Definition \[l-ext\]), which generalize the usual monads originally introduced by Horrocks in the 1960’s [@HO] and much studied by several authors since then. The basic theory of extended monads is developed here, with a focus on what we call perfect extended monads. We provide a cohomological characterization of the sheaves that arise as cohomology of a perfect extended monad on projective spaces (see Proposition \[Character\] below), showing, in particular, that ideal sheaves of zero dimensional subschemes do satisfy the required conditions.
We complement our discussion on the parametrization via linear algebra of the Hilbert scheme of points on affine varieties in two ways. First, in Section \[hilb-chow\], we provide a desciption of the Hilbert–Chow morphism from ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ to the symmetric product of $c$ copies of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ in terms of our linear data. Second, we provide a linear algebraic description of Hilbert scheme ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{Y}})$ of $c$ points on an affine variety ${\mathbb{Y}}\subset{\mathbb{C}}^n$. More precisely, suppose that ${\mathbb{Y}}$ is given by algebraic equations $f_1=\cdots=f_l=0$; we show in Section \[hilb\_y\] that a point in ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{Y}})$ corresponds to a stable $(n+1)$-tuple $(B_1,\dots,B_n,I)$ such that $f_k(B_1,\dots,B_n)=0$ for each $k=1,\dots,l$. Morever, such correspondence yields a schematic isomorphism between ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{Y}})$ and the variety of commuting matrices satisfying $f_k(B_1,\dots,B_n)=0$ plus a vector, modulo $GL(V)$.
Finally, as an application of our ideas, it is not difficult to see that ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is irreducible whenever ${\mathcal C}(n,c)$ is irreducible, see details in Section \[irred\] below. It then follows from recent results due to Sivic [@S Theorems 26 & 32], that ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}}^3)$ is irreducible if $c\le 10$, while this was known to be the case only for $c\le8$, cf. [@CEVV Theorem 1.1].
#### **Acknowledgments.**
We would like to thank D. Erman for useful discussions and suggestions about the irreducibility results of Hilbert schemes of points.
PBS research was supported by CNPq and the FAPESP PhD grant number 2009/16646-1. AAH is supported by the FAPESP post-doctoral grant number 2009/12576-9. MJ is partially supported by the CNPq grant number 302477/2010-1 and the FAPESP grant number 2011/01071-3.
Commuting matrices and stable ADHM data {#Matrix-Para}
=======================================
In this section we shall introduce the necessary material to our construction: let $V$ be a complex vector space of dimension $c$ and let $B_{0},B_{1},\ldots,B_{n-1}\in\operatorname{End}(V)$ be $n$ linear operators on $V$.
The variety $\mathcal{C}(n,c)$ of $n$ commuting linear operators on $V$ is the subvariety of $\operatorname{End}(V)^{\oplus n}$ whose points are the set of $n$-tuples $(B_{0},B_{1},\ldots,B_{n-1})$ that commutes two by two, that is, $$\mathcal{C}(n,c)=\left\{(B_{0},B_{1},\ldots,B_{n-1})\in\operatorname{End}(V)^{\oplus n} ~|~ [B_i, B_j]=0, \, \forall i\neq j\right\}$$
The commutation relations can be thought of as a system of ${n\choose2}c^{2}$ homogeneous equations of degree $2$ in $nc^{2}$ variables.
Let $W$ be a $1$-dimensional complex vector space; one can form the space $$\mathbb{B}:=\operatorname{End}(V)^{\oplus n}\oplus \operatorname{Hom}(W,V)$$ whose points are represented by the $(n+1)$-tuple $X=(B_{0},B_{1},\ldots,B_{n-1},I)$ that will be called an *ADHM datum*. We then define the *variety of ADHM data* $\mathcal{V}(n,c)$ as the subvariety of $\mathbb{B}$ given by $$\mathcal{V}(n,c):= \mathcal{C}(n,c)\times\operatorname{Hom}(W,V).$$
\[stability\] An ADHM datum $X=(B_{0},B_{1},\ldots,B_{n-1},I)\in\mathbb{B}$ is said to be *stable* if there is no proper subspace $S \subsetneq V$ such that $$B_{0}(S),B_{1}(S),\cdots,B_{n-1}(S), I(W)\subset S.$$
The set of stable points in $\mathbb{B}$ will be denoted by $\mathbb{B}^{st}$; $\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}:= \mathbb{B}^{st}\cap\mathcal{V}(n,c)$ will denote the set of stable points in $\mathcal{V}(n,c).$
The stabilizing subspace $\Sigma_{X}$ of an ADHM datum $X \in \mathbb{B}$ is the intersection of all subspaces $S\subset V$ such that $B_{0}(S),B_{1}(S),\cdots,B_{n-1}(S), I(W)\subset S.$
It is easy to see that $X$ is stable if and only if $\Sigma_{X}=V$. The restricted ADHM datum $X|_{\Sigma_{X}}=(B_{0}|_{\Sigma_{X}},B_{1}|_{\Sigma_{X}},\cdots,B_{n-1}|_{\Sigma_{X}},
I|_{\Sigma_{X}})$ is stable in $\mathbb{B}|_{\Sigma_{X}}=\operatorname{End}(\Sigma_{X})^{\oplus n}\oplus
\operatorname{Hom}(W,\Sigma_{X}).$ The space $\Sigma_{X}\subset V$ is the smallest subspace which makes the datum $X|_{\Sigma_{X}}$ stable, hence the name.
For each ADHM datum $X=(B_{0}, \ldots, B_{n-1},I)\in\mathbb{B},$ we consider the linear map $\mathcal{R}_{n}(X):W^{\oplus c^{n}}\longrightarrow V$ defined by $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\mathcal{R}_{n}(X): & W^{\oplus c^{n}} & \longrightarrow & V \\
& {\displaystyle}\bigoplus_{k_{0}, \ldots, k_{n-1}=0}^{c-1}w_{k_{0}, \ldots, k_{n-1}} & \longmapsto
& {\displaystyle}\sum_{k_{0}, \ldots, k_{n-1}=0}^{c-1}B_{0}^{k_{0}}B_{1}^{k_{1}}\ldots B_{n-1}^{k_{n-1}}Iw_{k_{0}, \ldots, k_{n-1}}
\end{array}$$ One might think of $\mathcal{R}_{n}$ as a regular morphism $\mathbb{B}\to\operatorname{Hom}(W^{\oplus c^{n}},V),$ hence continuous in the Zariski topology.
\[prop2\] For every $X\in \mathbb{B}$ one has
1. ${{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)\subseteq\Sigma_{X};$
2. if $\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$ is surjective, then $X$ is stable.
For any $S \subseteq V$ satisfying $B_{0}(S), B_{1}(S),\ldots,B_{n-1}(S), I(W) \subset S$ we have ${{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X) \subseteq S$ which in particular implies our first assertion.
Moreover, if $\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$ is surjective then we have $c= {{\rm rk\,}}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X) \leq \dim\Sigma_{X}
\leq c.$ Therefore $\dim\Sigma_{X} = c$ and $X$ is stable.
If the ADHM datum $X$ is in $\mathcal{V}(n,c),$ then we obtain the following stronger characterization.
\[prop3\] For every datum $X=(B_{0}, \ldots, B_{n-1},I) \in \mathcal{V}(n,c)$ one has:
1. ${{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)=\Sigma_{X}$.
2. $\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$ is surjective if and only if $X$ is stable.
Note first that the second claim follows easily from Proposition \[prop2\] and the first claim.
To prove the first claim, we only need to prove the inverse inclusion $\Sigma_{X}\subseteq{{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$ for those ADHM data which belong to $\mathcal{V}(n,c)$ since the inclusion ${{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)\subseteq\Sigma_{X}$ holds for all $X\in\mathbb{B}$.
For this end, it is enough show that ${{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$ is $B_{i}$-invariant, for all $i\in\{0,\ldots,n-1\}$, and $I(W)\subseteq {{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$. It is easy to see that $I(W)\subseteq {{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$, so the results follows by showing that ${{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$ is $B_{i}$-invariant, for all $i\in\{0,\ldots,n-1\};$ let $$\sum_{k_{0}, \ldots,k_{n-1}=0}^{c-1}B_{0}^{k_{0}}B_{1}^{k_{1}}\ldots B_{n-1}^{k_{n-1}}Iw_{k_{0}, \ldots, k_{n-1}}\in
{{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X).$$ For $X\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)$ one has the following identity
$$\begin{gathered}
B_{i}\left({\displaystyle}\sum_{k_{0}, \ldots,k_{n-1}=0}^{c-1}B_{0}^{k_{0}}B_{1}^{k_{1}}\ldots B_{n-1}^{k_{n-1}}Iw_{k_{0}, \ldots, k_{n-1}}\right) =\\
{\displaystyle}\sum_{k_{0},\ldots, k_{n-1}=0}^{c-1}B_{i}B_{0}^{k_{0}}B_{1}^{k_{1}}\ldots B_{n-1}^{k_{n-1}}Iw_{k_{0}, \ldots, k_{n-1}}\end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{split}
={\displaystyle}\sum_{k_{0}, \ldots,\widehat{k}_{i},\ldots, k_{n-1}=0}^{c-1}B_{0}^{k_{0}}\ldots &B_{i}^{c}\ldots B_{n-1}^{k_{n-1}}Iw_{k_{0}, \ldots, k_{n-1}} \\
&+{\displaystyle}\sum_{k_{0}, \ldots, \widehat{k}_{i},\ldots, k_{0}=0}^{c-1}\sum_{k_{i}=1}^{c-1}B_{0}^{k_{0}}\ldots B_{i}^{k_{i}}\ldots B_{n-1}^{k_{n-1}}Iw_{k_{0}, \ldots, k_{n-1}}.
\end{split}$$
By the symbol $\hspace{0.1cm}\hat{ }\hspace{0.1cm}$ we mean omitting the term bellow it from the expression. It is clear that the second factor of the sum, in the lower line of the expression above, belongs to ${{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$. To see that also the first factor belongs to ${{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$, notice that the characteristic polynomial of $B_{i}$ is of the form $p(x)=x^{c}+a_{c-1}x^{c-1}+ \ldots +a_{1}x+ a_{0}.$ Hence, by Cayley-Hamilton Theorem, it follows that $B_{i}^{c}$ is given by a linear combination of lower powers of $B_{i},$ i. e., $B_{i}^{c}=-(a_{c-1}B_{i}^{c-1}+ \ldots +a_{1}B_{i}+a_{0}\mathbb{I}_{V}).$ With this, we conclude that $\sum_{k_{0}, \ldots, \widehat{k}_{i},\ldots,k_{n-1}=0}^{c-1} B_{0}^{k_{0}}\ldots B_{i}^{c}\ldots B_{n-1}^{k_{n-1}}Iw_{k_{0}, \ldots, k_{n-1}}\in {{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$ which, in particular means, that ${{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X)$ is $B_{i}$-invariant. Finally, since $\Sigma_{X}$ is the smallest subspace of $V$ with this properties, it then follows that $\Sigma_{X}\subseteq{{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X).$
Next, we introduce the action of the linear group $G:=GL(V)$ on $\mathbb{B}$. For all $g\in G$ and $X=(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1},I)\in \mathbb{B},$ this action is given by $$g\cdot(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1},I) = (gB_{0}g^{-1},\ldots,gB_{n-1}g^{-1},gI).$$ For a fixed ADHM datum $X,$ we will denote by $G_X$ its stabilizer subgroup: $$G_X:=\{g \in G \,|\, gX = X\}\subseteq G.$$ It is easy to see that $X$ is stable if and only if $gX$ is stable, and that $G$ acts on $\mathcal{V}(n,c)$.
We conclude this section with two results relating stability in the sense of Definition \[stability\] with GIT stability.
\[prop4\] If $X\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}$, then its stabilizer subgroup $G_{X}$ is trivial.
Let $X=(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-0},I)$ be a stable ADHM datum and suppose that there exists an element $g\neq\mathbf 1$ in $G$ such that $gI=I$ and $gB_{i}g^{-1}=B_{i}$ for all $i\in\{0, \ldots,n-1\}.$ Then $\ker(g-\mathbf1)$ is $B_{i}$-invariant, for all $i\in\{0, \ldots,n-1\},$ and ${{\rm Im}~}I\subseteq\ker(g-\mathbf 1).$ Since $X$ is stable, then $\ker(g-\mathbf 1)\subset V$ must be the trivial subspace. Hence $g$ must be the identity.
Let $\Gamma(\mathcal{V}(n,c))$ be the ring of regular functions on $\mathcal{V}(n,c).$ Fix $l>0,$ and consider the group homomorphism $\chi:G\to\mathbb{C}^{\ast}$ given by $\chi(g)=(\det g)^{l}.$ This can be used for the of construction a suitable linearization of the $G-$action on $\mathcal{V}(n,c),$ that is, to lift the action of $G$ on $\mathcal{V}(n,c)$ to an action on $\mathcal{V}(n,c)\times\mathbb{C}$ as follows: $g\cdot(X,z):=(g\cdot X,\chi(g)^{-1}z)$ for any ADHM datum $X\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)$ and $z\in\mathbb{C}.$ Then one can form the scheme $$\mathcal{V}(n,c) /\!/_{\chi}G :=
{\rm Proj}\left(\bigoplus_{i\geq0}\Gamma(\mathcal{V}(n,c))^{G,\chi^{i}} \right)$$ where $$\Gamma(\mathcal{V}(n,c))^{G,\chi^{i}}:=\left\{ f\in\Gamma(\mathcal{V}(n,c)) ~|~
f(g\cdot X)=\chi(g)^{-1}\cdot f(X),\hspace{0.2cm}\forall g\in G\right\}.$$ The scheme $\mathcal{V}(n,c)/\!/_{\chi}G$ is projective over the ring $\Gamma(\mathcal{V}(n,c))^{G}$ and quasi-projective over $\mathbb{C}.$
\[closed orbit\] The orbit $G\cdot(X,z)$ is closed, for $z\neq0$, if and only if the ADHM datum $X\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)$ is a stable.
First, suppose that the orbit $G\cdot(X,z)$ is not closed, then there is a $1$-parameter subgroup $\lambda:\mathbb{C}^{\ast}\to G$ such that the limit $(L,w):=\lim_{t\to0}\lambda(t)\cdot(X,z)$ exists but does not belong to the orbit $G\cdot(X,z).$ The existence of the limit $(L,w)$ implies that $\det(\lambda(t))=t^{N}$ for some $N\leq0.$ If $N=0$ then $\lambda(t)=\mathbb{I}_{V},$ which contradicts the fact that the limit does not belong to the orbit $G\cdot(X,z).$ Thus $N<0.$ Now, take the weight decomposition $V=\bigoplus_{m}V(m)$ of the space $V,$ with respect to $\lambda.$ Then the existence of a limit implies that $$B_{0}(V(m)),B_{1}(V(m)),\ldots,B_{n-1}(V(m))\subset\bigoplus_{n\geq
m}V(m)\textnormal{ and } I(W)\subset\bigoplus_{n\geq 0}V(m).$$ The space $S:=\bigoplus_{n\geq0}V(m)\in V$ is proper since $N<0.$ Moreover, one has $B_{0}(S),B_{1}(S),\ldots,B_{n-1}(S)\subset S$ and $I(W)\subset S.$ Hence $X$ is not stable.
Conversely, suppose that the ADHM datum $X=(B_{0},B_{1},\ldots,B_{n-1},I)$ is not stable. Then there exists a subspace $S\subset V$ such that $B_{0}(S),B_{1}(S),\ldots,B_{n-1}(S)\subset S$ and $I(W)\subset S.$ Let $T\subset V$ be a subspace such that $V=S\oplus T.$ With respect to this decomposition, one can write the linear maps $B_{i},$ for $0\geq i\geq n-1$ and $I,$ as follows $$B^{i}=\left(\begin{array}{ll} \star& \star\\ 0&\star\end{array}\right),\textnormal{ for } 0\geq i\geq n-1 \quad I=\left(\begin{array}{l}\star \\ 0\end{array}\right).$$ Now, define the $1$-parameter subgroup as $$\lambda(t)=\left(\begin{array}{ll} \mathbb{I}_{S}& \hspace{0.2cm}0\\ 0& t^{-1}\mathbb{I}_{T}\end{array}\right),$$ then $$\lambda(t) B_{i}\lambda(t)^{-1}=\left(\begin{array}{ll} \star& t\star\\ 0&\star\end{array}\right)\textnormal{ and } \lambda(t)I=I.$$ It follows that the limit $L=\lim_{t\to0}\lambda(t)\cdot X$ exists and $\lim_{t\to0}\lambda(t)\cdot (X,z)=(L,0),$ which means that the orbit is closed within $\mathcal{V}(n,c)\times\mathbb{C}^{\ast}$
From Propositions \[prop4\] and \[closed orbit\] and since the group $G$ is reductive, it follows that the quotient space $\mathcal{M}(n,c):=\mathcal{V}(n,c) /\!/_{\chi}G$ is a good categorical quotient [@mumford Thm. 1.10]. Furthermore, GIT tells us that the GIT quotient $\mathcal{M}(n,c)$ is the space of orbits $G\cdot X\subset \mathcal{V}(n,c)$ such that the lifted orbit $G\cdot(X,z)$ is closed within $\mathcal{V}(n,c)\times\mathbb{C}$ for all $z\neq0.$ We conclude therefore, from Proposition \[closed orbit\], that $$\mathcal{M}(n,c) = \mathcal{V}(n,c)^{\rm st} / G .$$
Parametrization of the Hilbert scheme of $c$ Points in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ {#hilb-para}
=======================================================================
As a set, the Hilbert scheme of $c$ points on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ is given by: $${\rm Hilb}^{[c]}(\mathbb{C}^n) = \{ I \triangleleft \mathbb{C}[z_0,\dots,z_{n-1}] ~|~
\dim_\mathbb{C}(\mathbb{C}[z_0,\dots,z_{n-1}]/I)=c \} .$$
The existence of its schematic structure is a special case of the general result of Grothendieck [@Groth1]. Another explicit construction of the Hilbert scheme of points on the affine plane is given by Nakajima [@N2]. The reader may also consult [@Nitsure] for more general results and examples.
The aim of this section is to prove the following result
\[Corresp\] There exists a set-theoretical bijection between the quotient space $\mathcal{M}(n,c)$ and the Hilbert scheme of $c$ points in $\mathbb{C}^{n}.$
We remark that this result will be strengthen, in Section \[Rep-mod-functor\] below, to a scheme theoretic isomorphism rather than just a bijective correspondence. Before proving the above result it will be useful to, first, establish a few lemmata.
\[lema3\] If $X=(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1},I)\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{\rm st}$ is a stable ADHM datum, then the map:
$\begin{array}{cccl} \Phi_{X}: & \mathbb{C}\left[Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}\right] & \longrightarrow & \qquad V \\ & p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}) & \longmapsto & p(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1})I(1) \end{array}$
is a surjective linear transformation. In particular, $\mathbb{C}\left[Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}\right]/\ker \Phi_{X}$ is isomorphic to $V$.
We Remark that the linear map $\Phi_{X}$ is well-defined, since $[B_i,B_j]=0,$ for all $0\leq i<j \leq n-1.$
Observe that ${{\rm Im}~}I\subseteq {{\rm Im}~}\Phi_{X}$ since the elements of ${{\rm Im}~}I$ consist of vectors of the form $\alpha I(1),$ for some constant $\alpha$ in $\mathbb{C}.$ The inverse image of such an element is simply the constant polynomial $\alpha$ itself. Moreover, the image ${{\rm Im}~}\Phi_{X}$ of the map $\Phi_{X}$ is $B_{i}$-invariant, for all $0\leq i \leq n-1,$ since all the $B_{i}$’s commute. By stability of the ADHM datum $X$ we must have ${{\rm Im}~}\Phi_{X}=V,$ and hence $\Phi_{X}$ is surjective.
It is clear that $\ker \Phi_{X}\subset\mathbb{C}\left[Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}\right]$ is an ideal. Now, given any two polynomials $p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1})\in\mathbb{C}\left[Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}\right]$ and $q(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1})\in\ker \Phi_{X},$ one has $\Phi_{X}(p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1})q(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}))=p(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1})q(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1})I(1)=0.$ Hence the isomorphism $\mathbb{C}\left[Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}\right]/\ker \Phi_{X}\simeq V.$
Let $\pi:\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}\to\mathcal{M}(n,c)$ be the natural projection onto the orbit space $\mathcal{M}(n,c)$ and denote by $[X]=[(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1},I)]$ the class of the ADHM datum $X=(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1},I)$ in $\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st},$ that is, $[X]=\pi(X).$
\[lema4\] Let $X,Y\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}$ be two stable ADHM data such that $[X]=[Y].$ Then $\ker\Phi_{X}\simeq\ker\Phi_{Y}.$
Suppose that $[X]=[(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1},I)]=[Y]=[(A_{0},\ldots,A_{n-1},J)],$ then there exists an element $g\in GL(V)$ such that $A_{i}=gB_{i}g^{-1},$ for all $0\leq i\leq n-1$ and $J=gI.$ Now, for any polynomial $f\in\mathbb{C}[Z_{0},\ldots, Z_{n-1}]$ one has $f(A_{0},\ldots,A_{n-1})=gf(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1})g^{-1},$ hence $$f(A_{0},\ldots,A_{n-1})J(1)=gf(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1})g^{-1}(gI(1))=gf(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1})I(1),$$ in other words, $\Phi_{Y}=g\Phi_{X}$. Since $g$ is invertible, it then follows that $\ker\Phi_{X}\simeq\ker\Phi_{Y}.$
\[lema5\] The ADHM datum $X=(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1},I)\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)$ is stable if and only if the set $\left\{ B_{0}^{i_{0}}\cdot B_{1}^{i_{1}} \cdots B_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}I(1) \in V \, |\, i_k = 0,\ldots, c-1 \right\}$ spans $V$ as a complex vector space.
The result follows from item (2) of Proposition \[prop3\] and the fact that the set $\left\{ B_{0}^{i_{0}}\cdot B_{1}^{i_{1}} \cdots B_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}I(1) \in V \, |\, i_k = 0,\ldots, c-1 \right\}$ spans ${{\rm Im}~}\mathcal{R}_{n}(X).$
We are finally in position to complete the Proof of Theorem \[Corresp\].
We will consider the map
$\begin{array}{cccl}\Psi : & \mathcal{M}(n,c) & \longrightarrow & {{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{n}}) \\ & [X] & \longmapsto & \ker \Phi_{X}\end{array}.$
which associates the ideal $\ker\Phi_{X}$ to the class $[X]=[(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1},I)]$ of a stable ADHM datum $X=(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1},I) \in {\mathcal{V}(n,c)}^{st}.$ By Lemma \[lema4\], the map $\Psi$ is well-defined and it is clear from lemma \[lema3\] that $\ker\Phi_{X}$ belong to ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{n}}).$
Inversely, we define the map
$\begin{array}{cccc}\Psi' : & {{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{n}})& \longrightarrow & \mathcal{M}(n,c) \\ & J& \longmapsto & \left[\left(B_{0},\ldots,B_{n-1}, I \right) \right]\end{array}$
from ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}$ to $\mathcal{M}(n,c)$ as the following:
Given an ideal $J \in{{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{n}})$ we denote by $V=\mathbb{C}\left[Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}\right]/J$ the vector space associated to it. The multiplication by $Z_{i}\mod J$ define endomorphisms $B_{i}\in\operatorname{End}(V),$ for $0\leq i\leq n-1,$ in the following way
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{defBI}
\begin{array}{cccc} B_i: & V & \longrightarrow & V \\ & \left[p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}) \right]& \longmapsto & \left[Z_{i}p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}) \right] \end{array}\end{aligned}$$
One can also define $I \in\operatorname{Hom}(W, V)$ as the linear mapping which associates to the unit vector $1\in W$ the class $1\mod J\in V.$ Since all $B_{i}'s$ commute, then $(B_{0}^{i_{0}},\ldots,B_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}},I)\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)$. Moreover, the set $$\left\{ B_{0}^{i_{0}}\cdot B_{1}^{i_{1}} \cdots B_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}I(1) \in V \, |\, i_k= 0, \ldots, c-1\right\}$$ spans $V$ as complex vector space. Therefore, by Lemma \[lema5\], the ADHM datum $X$ is stable.
To complete the proof, we only have to show that $\Psi' \circ \Psi = {{\mathbf 1}}_{\mathcal{M}(n,c)}$ and $\Psi \circ \Psi' = {{\mathbf 1}}_{{{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}},$ i.e., the maps $\Psi$ and $\Psi'$ are inverse to each other.
Indeed, to each class $[X]\in\mathcal{M}(n,c),$ one associates the ideal $\Psi([X])=\ker\Phi_{X}$ in ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{n}}).$ Moreover, one associates to the later ideal, $\ker\Phi_{X},$ the ADHM datum class $\Psi'(\ker\Phi_{X})=[\tilde{X}].$ Then one has $[X]=[\tilde{X}]$ if and only if there exists an element $g\in GL(V)$ such that $\tilde{X}=g\cdot X.$
Let $pr:\mathbb{C}[Z_{0}, \ldots, Z_{n-1}]\to\mathbb{C}[Z_{0}, \ldots, Z_{n-1}]/ \ker \Phi_{X}$ be the natural projection. From Lemma \[lema3\], it is clear that the diagram $$\[email protected]{\mathbb{C}[Z_{0}, \ldots, Z_{n-1}]\ar[r]^{id}\ar[d]_{pr} & \mathbb{C}[Z_{0}, \ldots, Z_{n-1}]\ar[d]^{\Phi_{X}} \\
\mathbb{C}[Z_{0}, \ldots, Z_{n-1}]/\ker\Phi_{X}\ar[r]^{\hspace{1cm}g}& V
}$$ commutes. Hence $pr=g^{-1}\circ\Phi_{X},$ since $g$ is an isomorphism. On the other hand, from the $Z_{i}$ multiplication one has $pr\circ Z_{i}=\tilde{B}_{i}\circ pr:\mathbb{C}[Z_{0}, \ldots, Z_{n-1}]\to[Z_{0}, \ldots, Z_{n-1}]/\ker\Phi_{X}$ and $\Phi_{X}\circ Z_{i}=B_{i}\circ\Phi_{X}:\mathbb{C}[Z_{0}, \ldots, Z_{n-1}]\to V.$ That is, one has the following diagram
@[email protected][& \[Z\_[0]{}, …, Z\_[n-1]{}\] @[->]{}\^[pr]{}\[rr\]@[->]{}’\[d\]\[dd\]\^[Z\_[i]{}]{} & & \[Z\_[0]{}, …, Z\_[n-1]{}\]/ \_[X]{} @[->]{}\^[\_[i]{}]{}\[dd\]\
\[Z\_[0]{}, …, Z\_[n-1]{}\] @[<-]{}\^[id]{}\[ur\]@[->]{}\^(0.7)[\_[X]{}]{}\[rr\]@[->]{}\^[Z\_[i]{}]{}\[dd\] & & \^[c]{} @[<-]{}\^(0.4)[g]{}\[ur\]@[->]{}\^(0.3)[B\_[i]{}]{}\[dd\]\
& \[Z\_[0]{}, …, Z\_[n-1]{}\] @[->]{}’\[r\]\[rr\]\_(-0.1)[pr]{} & & \[Z\_[0]{}, …, Z\_[n-1]{}\]/ \_[X]{}\
\[Z\_[0]{}, …, Z\_[n-1]{}\] @[->]{}\[rr\]\^(0.6)[\_[X]{}]{}@[<-]{}\^(0.5)[id]{}\[ur\] & & \^[c]{} @[<-]{}\[ur\]\^(0.4)[g]{} ]{}
in which all faces commute. Then, one has $g\circ\tilde{B}_{i}\circ g= B_{i},$ for all $i=\{0,\ldots,n-1\}.$ Moreover, $g\circ\tilde{I}(1)= g(1\mod J)=\Phi_{X}(1)=I(1),$ i. e., $ g\circ\tilde{I}= I.$ Therefore, $[X]=[\tilde{X}]\in\mathcal{M}(n,c),$ in other words, we have just shown that $\Psi' \circ \Psi = {{\mathbf 1}}_{\mathcal{M}(n,c)}.$
To prove that $\Psi \circ \Psi' = {{\mathbf 1}}_{{{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}},$ we only need to show that for a given $J \in {{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}},$ one has $J=\ker\Phi_{X},$ where $X$ is a ADHM datum in ${\mathcal{V}(n,c)}^{st}$ such that $\Psi'(J)=[X]\in\mathcal{M}(n,c).$ For a polynomial $$p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}) =
\sum_{\alpha}a_{\alpha}Z_{0}^{\alpha_{0}}\cdots Z_{n-1}^{\alpha{n-1}}\in
\mathbb{C}[Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}]$$ we have $$\Phi_{X}(p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}))= \sum_{\alpha}a_{\alpha}B_{0}^{\alpha_{0}} \ldots B_{n-1}^{\alpha_{n-1}}I(1)$$ where $I(1)$ is the class $1(\mod J)=:[1].$ Moreover, since $B_{i}\circ\Phi_{X}=\Phi_{X}\circ Z_{i}$ then $$\sum_{\alpha}a_{\alpha}B_{0}^{\alpha_{0}} \ldots B_{n-1}^{\alpha_{n-1}}I(1)=\left[\sum_{\alpha}a_{\alpha}Z_{0}^{\alpha_{0}}\ldots Z_{n-1}^{\alpha_{n-1}} \right]=\left[p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1})\right].$$ Thus, if the polynomial $p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1})$ belongs to the ideal $J,$ then $$\sum_{\alpha}a_{\alpha}B_{0}^{\alpha_{0}} \ldots B_{n-1}^{\alpha_{n-1}}I(1)=0,$$ and therefore $p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1})\in\ker\Phi_{X}.$
On the other hand, suppose that $p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1})\in\ker \Phi_{X}.$ Then
$$\Phi_{X}(p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}))= \sum_{\alpha}a_{\alpha}B_{0}^{\alpha_{0}} \ldots B_{n-1}^{\alpha_{n-1}}I(1)=0.$$ Again, one has $$\sum_{\alpha}a_{\alpha}B_{0}^{\alpha_{0}} \ldots B_{n-1}^{\alpha_{n-1}}I(1)=\left[\sum_{\alpha}a_{\alpha}Z_{0}^{\alpha_{0}}\ldots Z_{n-1}^{\alpha_{n-1}} \right]=\left[p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1})\right],$$ hence $\left[p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1})\right]=0\in\mathbb{C}[Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1}]/J,$ that is, $p(Z_{0},\ldots,Z_{n-1})\in J.$ Thus $J=\ker\Phi_{X}.$ This finishes our proof.
Extended monads and perfect extended monads {#ext-monads}
===========================================
In this section we shall generalize the concept of *monads*, introduced by Horrocks (the reader may consult [@OSS] for definitions and properties), in order to describe ideal sheaves for zero-dimensional subschemes of ${\mathbb{C}}^{n}$ and ${{\mathbb{P}^n}}$, $n\geq2.$
Let $X$ be a smooth projective algebraic variety of dimension $n$ over the field of complex numbers ${\mathbb{C}}$, and let $\mathcal{O}_{X}(1)$ be a polarization on it.
$l-$extended monads
-------------------
The objects we now wish to introduce are defined as follows.
\[l-ext\] An *$l-$extended monad* over $X$ is a complex $$\label{premordial}
C^{\bullet}:\quad C^{-l-1}\stackrel{\alpha_{-l-1}}{\longrightarrow} C^{-l}\stackrel{\alpha_{-l}}{\longrightarrow}\cdots\stackrel{\alpha_{-2}}{\longrightarrow} C^{-1}\stackrel{\alpha_{-1}}{\longrightarrow} C^{0}\stackrel{\alpha_{0}}{\longrightarrow} C^{1}$$ of locally free sheaves over $X$ which is exact at all but the $0-$th position, i.e. $\mathcal{H}^{i}(C^{\bullet})=0$ for $i\ne0$. The coherent sheaf $\mathcal{E}:=\mathcal{H}^{0}(C^{\bullet})=\ker \alpha_{0}/{{\rm Im}~}\alpha_{-1}$ will be called a *the cohomology of $C^{\bullet}$*.
Note that a monad on $X$, in the usual sense, is just a $0$-extended monad.
Moreover, one can associate to any $l-$extended monad $C^{\bullet}$ a *display* of exact sequences as the following $$\label{ext-display}
\[email protected]@C0.5pc{& 0\ar[d] & 0\ar[d] & & \\
& C^{-l-1}\ar[d]_{\alpha_{-l-1}}\ar@{=}[r] & C_{-l-1}\ar[d]^{\alpha_{-l-1}} & & \\
& C^{-l}\ar@{=}[r]\ar[d]_{\alpha_{-l}} & C^{-l}\ar[d]^{\alpha_{-l}} & & \\
& \vdots\ar[d]_{\alpha_{-2}} & \vdots\ar[d]^{\alpha_{-2}} & & \\
& C^{-1}\ar[d]\ar@{=}[r] & C^{-1}\ar[d]^{\alpha_{-1}} & & \\
0\ar[r]& K\ar[d]\ar[r] & C^{0}\ar[d]\ar[r]^{\alpha_{0}} & C^{1}\ar@{=}[d]\ar[r] &0 \\
0\ar[r]& \mathcal{F}\ar[d]\ar[r] & Q\ar[d]\ar[r] & C^{1}\ar[r] & 0\\
& 0& 0 & &
}$$ where $K:=\ker\alpha_{0}$ and $Q:={{\rm coker}}\alpha_{-1}$
A morphism $\phi:C_{1}^{\bullet}\to C_{2}^{\bullet}$ of two $l-$extended monads $C_{1}^{\bullet}$ and $C_{2}^{\bullet}$ is an $(l+3)-$tuple of morphisms such that the following diagram commutes: $$\label{morph}
\[email protected]{
C_{1}^{\bullet}:\ar[d]^{\phi} & C_{1}^{-l-1}\ar[d]^{\phi_{-l-1}}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{1}_{-l-1}}&C_{1}^{-l}\ar[d]^{\phi_{-l}}&\cdots\ar[r]^{\alpha^{1}_{-2}}&C_{1}^{-1}\ar[d]^{\phi_{-1}}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{1}_{-1}} & C_{1}^{0}\ar[d]^{\phi_{0}}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{1}_{0}}&C_{1}^{1}\ar[d]^{\phi_{1}} \\
C_{2}^{\bullet}:& C_{1}^{-l-1}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{2}_{-l-1}}&C_{1}^{-l}&\cdots\ar[r]^{\alpha^{2}_{-2}}&C_{1}^{-1}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{2}_{-1}} & C_{1}^{0}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{2}_{0}}&C_{2}^{1}
}$$
With these definitions, the category of $l-$extended monads form a full subcategory of the category $Kom^{\flat}(X)$ of bounded complexes of coherent sheaves on $X.$
$l-$extended monads have already appeared in the literature. The most important example of a locally-free sheaf that can be obtained as the cohomology of a 2-extended monad on ${{\mathbb{P}^{4}}}$ is the dual of the Horrocks–Mumford bundle; indeed, Fløystad shows in [@Floystad Introduction: example b.] that the Horrocks–Mumford bundle is given by the cohomology at degree zero, where the grading is given by the twist, of a complex of the form $$\mathcal{O}^{5}_{\mathbb{P}^{4}}(-1) \to \mathcal{O}^{15}_{\mathbb{P}^{4}} \to
\mathcal{O}^{10}_{\mathbb{P}^{4}}(1) \to \mathcal{O}^{2}_{\mathbb{P}^{4}}(2) .$$ Dualizing such complex we get a 2-extended monad on ${{\mathbb{P}^{4}}}$ whose cohomology is the dual of the Horrocks–Mumford bundle.
Moreover, object very closely related to 2-extended monads on ${{\mathbb{P}^{3}}}$ have also appeared in the mathematical physics literature, see [@Szabo Section 4].
An $l-$extended monad can be broken into the following two complexes: first, $$\label{Resol}
\[email protected]{ N^{\bullet}:&0\ar[r]&C^{-l-1}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-l-1}}&C^{-l}&\cdots\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-3}}&C^{-2}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-2}} & C^{-1}\ar[r]^{J_{-1}}&\mathcal{G}\ar[r]&0
}$$ which is exact, and a locally free resolution of the sheaf $\mathcal{G}={{\rm coker}}\alpha_{-2},$ and $$\label{Monad-like}
\[email protected]{ M^{\bullet}:& \mathcal{G}\ar[r]^{I_{-1}} & C^{0}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{0}}&C^{1}
}$$ where $I_{-1}\circ J_{-1}=\alpha_{-1}$. $M^{\bullet}$ is a monad-like complex in which the coherent sheaf $\mathcal{G}$ might not be locally free; indeed, $\mathcal{G}$ is not locally free for the extended monads describing ideal sheaves of $0$-dimensional subschemes, the situation most relevant to the present paper.
For a given $l-$extended monad, we refer to the complexes $M^{\bullet}$ and $N^{\bullet}$ as the *associated resolution* and the *associated monad*, respectively. Therefore, the morphism $\phi:C_{1}^{\bullet}\to C_{2}^{\bullet}$ can be thought of as a pair of morphisms $(\phi_{N}:N_{1}^{\bullet}\to N_{2}^{\bullet},\phi_{M}:M_{1}^{\bullet}\to M_{2}^{\bullet})\in\operatorname{Hom}(N_{1}^{\bullet},N_{2}^{\bullet})\times\operatorname{Hom}(M_{1}^{\bullet},M_{1}^{\bullet}).$
Remark that as long as we have $\phi_{0}({{\rm Im}~}\alpha_{1}^{-1})\subseteq{{\rm Im}~}\alpha_{2}^{-1}$ and $\phi_{0}(\ker\alpha_{0}^{1})\subseteq\ker\alpha_{0}^{2}$ then $\phi$ is determined by only $\phi_{0};$ indeed, the conditions $$\phi_{0}({{\rm Im}~}\alpha_{1}^{-1})\subseteq{{\rm Im}~}\alpha_{2}^{-1}\quad\textnormal{ and }\quad\phi_{0}({{\rm Im}~}I_{1}^{-1})\subseteq{{\rm Im}~}I_{2}^{-1}$$ are equivalent (here we considered the morphism of the associated monads). Hence $\phi_{0}$ determines the morphism $\phi_{M},$ and consequently it also determines the whole morphism $\phi:C_{1}^{\bullet}\to C_{2}^{\bullet}.$ This is because $N_{1}^{\bullet}$ and $N^{\bullet}_{2}$ are locally free resolutions and hence projective resolutions, so that giving a morphism $\phi_{G}:\mathcal{G}\to\mathcal{G}$ determines all the morphisms $\phi_{-i}:C_{1}^{-i}\to C_{2}^{-i}$ for $i\leq-1.$
Since taking cohomology is a functorial operation, a morphism $\phi:C_{1}^{\bullet}\to C_{2}^{\bullet}$ of two $l-$extended monads $C_{1}^{\bullet}$ and $C_{2}^{\bullet},$ induces a morphism between their respective cohomologies $$H(\phi):\mathcal{H}^{0}(C_{1}^{\bullet})\to\mathcal{H}^{0}(C_{2}^{\bullet}).$$ Of course, isomorphic complexes induce isomorphic cohomologies. It follows that there is natural notion of equivalence for $l-$extended monads with the same terms $C^{i}$ provided by the action of the automorphism group $\mathcal{A}ut(C^{\bullet})=\mathcal{A}ut(C^{-l-1})\times\mathcal{A}ut(C^{-l})\times\cdots\times\mathcal{A}ut(C^{0})\times\mathcal{A}ut(C^{1}).$
Our goal now is to study families of ideal sheaves of zero-cycles in ${{\mathbb{P}^n}}$. It turns out that such ideal sheaves are given by cohomologies of a special kind of $l-$extended monads. However, before proving this claim, which will be done only in Section \[z-cy\] below, we tackle a more general question, namely under which conditions a homomorphism $\mathcal{H}^{0}(C_{1}^{\bullet})\to\mathcal{H}^{0}(C_{2}^{\bullet})$ lifts to a homomorphism $C_{1}^{\bullet}\to C_{2}^{\bullet}$ between the corresponding complexes. In particular to determine the automorphisms of such objects.
Our next result provides a sufficient condition, by showing when the cohomology functor is full and faithful.
\[full-faith\] Let $$\[email protected]{
C_{1}^{\bullet}:& C_{1}^{-l-1}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{1}_{-l-1}}&C_{1}^{-l}&\cdots\ar[r]^{\alpha^{1}_{-2}}&C_{1}^{-1}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{1}_{-1}} & C_{1}^{0}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{1}_{0}}&C_{1}^{1} &
\textnormal{ and} }$$ $$\[email protected]{
C_{2}^{\bullet}:& C_{2}^{-l-1}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{2}_{-l-1}}&C_{2}^{2-n}&\cdots\ar[r]^{\alpha^{2}_{-2}}&C_{2}^{-1}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{2}_{-1}} & C_{2}^{0}\ar[r]^{\alpha^{2}_{0}}&C_{2}^{1}
}$$ be two $l$-extended monads, and let us denote by $\mathcal{F}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{2}$ their respective cohomologies. Then $$H : \operatorname{Hom}(C^{\bullet}_{1},C^{\bullet}_{2})\to\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{F}_{1},\mathcal{F}_{2})$$ is surjective if $$\operatorname{Ext}^{1}(C^{1}_{1},C^{0}_{1})=0,$$ $$\operatorname{Ext}^{k}(C^{0}_{1},C^{-k}_{2})=0 \textnormal{ for } k\geq1,\quad\quad
\operatorname{Ext}^{k}(C^{1}_{1},C^{-k+1}_{2})=0 \textnormal{ for } k\geq2.$$ Moreover if $$\operatorname{Hom}(C^{1}_{1},C^{0}_{2})=0,$$ $$\operatorname{Ext}^{k}(C^{0}_{1},C^{-k+1}_{2})=0 \textnormal{ for } k\geq1,\quad\quad
\operatorname{Ext}^{k}(C^{0}_{1},C^{-k-1}_{2})=0 \textnormal{ for al } k\geq0,$$ then $H$ is an isomorphism.
Let $\mathcal{G}_{1}={{\rm Im}~}\alpha^{1}_{-1}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{2}={{\rm coker}}\alpha^{2}_{-1}.$ The associated resolution $N^{\bullet}_{2}$ can be broken into sequences $$0\to\mathcal{G}^{-i}_{2}\to C^{-i}_{2}\to\mathcal{G}^{-i+1}_{2}\to0,\quad 1\leq i\leq l+1$$ where we put $\mathcal{G}^{-l-1}_{2}=C^{-l}_{2}$ and $\mathcal{G}^{0}_{2}=\mathcal{G}_{2}.$ Then, by applying either $\operatorname{Hom}(C^{0}_{1},\bullet)$ or $\operatorname{Hom}(C^{1}_{1},\bullet)$ on the above sequences and incorporating the conditions given in the proposition, it follows that $H$ is surjective if $$\operatorname{Ext}^{1}(C^{1}_{1},C^{0}_{1})=\operatorname{Ext}^{1}(C^{0}_{1},\mathcal{G}_{2})=\operatorname{Ext}^{2}(C^{1}_{1},\mathcal{G}_{2})=0,$$ and it is an isomorphism if $$\operatorname{Hom}(C^{1}_{1},C^{0}_{2})=\operatorname{Hom}(C^{0}_{1},\mathcal{G}_{2})=\operatorname{Ext}^{1}(C^{0}_{1},\mathcal{G}_{2})=0.$$ To finish the proof, it suffice to apply [@OSS Lemma 4.1.3] to the associated monad $M^{\bullet}_{2}$ of the $l-$extended monad $C^{\bullet}_{2}.$
Let $$\[email protected]{
C^{\bullet}:& C^{-l-1}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-l-1}}&C^{-l}&\cdots\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-2}}&C^{-1}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-1}} & C^{0}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{0}}&C^{1} }$$ and $$\[email protected]{
C'^{\bullet}:& C^{-l-1}\ar[r]^{\alpha'_{-l-1}}&C^{-l}&\cdots\ar[r]^{\alpha'_{-2}}&C^{-1}\ar[r]^{\alpha'_{-1}}
& C^{0}\ar[r]^{\alpha'_{0}}&C^{1} }$$ be $l$-extended monads, and let $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}'$ be their cohomologies, respectively. Suppose that $$\operatorname{Ext}^{1}(C^{1},C^{0})=0,$$ $$\operatorname{Ext}^{k}(C^{0},C^{-k})=0 \textnormal{ for } k\geq1,\quad\quad
\operatorname{Ext}^{k}(C^{1},C^{-k+1})=0 \textnormal{ for } k\geq2.$$ Then $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}'$ are isomorphic if and only if $C^{\bullet}$ and $C'^{\bullet}$ are isomorphic (as $l$-extended monads).
Perfect extended monads
-----------------------
We now introduce the class of $l-$extended monads which is relevant to the description of the Hilbert scheme of points.
An $l-$extended monad $C^{\bullet}$ is called *pure* if $C^{-i}=\mathcal{L}_{-i}^{\oplus a_{-i}},$ for all $-1\leq i\leq l-1$, where $\mathcal{L}_{-i}$, are invertible sheaves, and it is called *linear* if all maps $\alpha_{-i}$ are given by matrices of linear forms.
Before our next definition, recall that $\mathcal{O}_{X}(1)$ is the chosen polarization on the $n-$dimensional projective algebraic variety $X.$
A *perfect extended monad* on a $n$-dimensional projective variety $X$ is a linear $(n-2)-$extended monad $P^{\bullet}$ on $X$ of the following form $$\[email protected]{ \mathcal{O}_{X}(1-n)^{\oplus a_{1-n}}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{1-n}}&
\mathcal{O}_{X}(2-n)^{\oplus a_{2-n}}\ar[r]&}\hspace{1cm}$$ $$\hspace{3cm}\[email protected]{\cdots\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-2}\hspace{0.5cm}}&\mathcal{O}_{X}(-1)^{\oplus a_{-1}}\ar[r]^{\hspace{0.3cm}\alpha_{-1}} &\mathcal{O}_{X}^{\oplus a_{0}}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{0}\hspace{0.1cm}}&\mathcal{O}_{X}(1)^{\oplus a_{1}}
}.$$
We recall to the reader that a projective scheme $X$ is *arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay*, or simply *ACM*, if its homogeneous coordinate ring is Cohen-Macaulay ring. Moreover let us denote by $\mathfrak{P}er$ the full subcategory of $Kom^{\flat}(X)$ consisting of perfect extended monads.
\[fully-faithfull\] If $X$ is an $n-$dimensional ACM variety, then the cohomology functor $$H:\mathfrak{P}re(X)\to{\rm Coh}(X)$$ is full and faithfull.
This follows easily from Proposition \[full-faith\]: since $X$ is ACM, we have that $$\operatorname{Hom}(C^{1}_{1}, C^{0}_{2})=\operatorname{H}^{0}(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(-1))=0\quad\textnormal{ and}$$ $$\operatorname{Ext}^{i}(\mathcal{O}_{X}(a),\mathcal{O}_{X}(b))=\operatorname{H}^{i}(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(b-a))=0, \textnormal{ for } 1\leq i\leq n-1.$$
It follows from the Corollary above that automorphism group of a perfect extended monad on an ACM variety is just $GL_{a_{1-n}}(\mathbb{C})\times GL_{a_{-n}}(\mathbb{C})\times\cdots\times GL_{a_{1}}(\mathbb{C}).$
We finish this section by describing the cohomology of sheaves which arise as cohomologies of perfect extended monads on ${{\mathbb{P}^n}},$ $n\geq 2$.
\[hom-char\] If $\mathcal{F}$ is the cohomology of a perfect extended monad on ${{\mathbb{P}^n}}$ ($n\ge 2$) then:
- $\operatorname{H}^{0}(\mathcal{F}(k))=0$ for $k<0$;
- $\operatorname{H}^{n}(\mathcal{F}(k))=0$ for $k>-n-1$;
- $\operatorname{H}^{i}(\mathcal{F}(k))=0$ $\forall k,$ $2\leq i\leq n-1$, when $n\ge3$.
We twist the middle column of the display by $\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k),$ then break it into short exact sequences $$\label{broken}
\[email protected]@R-1.4pc{ 0\ar[r]&\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k+1-n)^{\oplus a_{1-n}}\ar[r]&\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k+2-n)^{\oplus a_{2-n}}\ar[r]&Q_{2-n}(k)\ar[r]&0 \\
0\ar[r]&Q_{2-n}(k)\ar[r]&\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k+3-n)^{\oplus a_{2-n}}\ar[r]&Q_{3-n}(k)\ar[r]&0 \\
&&\vdots&& \\
0\ar[r]&Q_{-p-1}(k)\ar[r]&\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k-p)^{\oplus a_{-p}}\ar[r]&Q_{-p}(k)\ar[r]&0 \\
&&\vdots&& \\
0\ar[r]&Q_{-2}(k)\ar[r]&\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k-1)^{\oplus a_{-1}}\ar[r]&Q_{-1}(k)\ar[r]&0 \\
0\ar[r]&Q_{-1}(k)\ar[r]&\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k)^{\oplus a_{0}}\ar[r]&Q_{0}(k)\ar[r]&0 }$$ where $Q_{0}:=Q={{\rm coker}}\alpha_{-1}.$
From the long sequences in cohomology of the first row above, we have $$\operatorname{H}^{i}(\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k+2-n))^{\oplus a_{2-n}} \to \operatorname{H}^{i}(Q_{2-n}(k)) \to \operatorname{H}^{i+1}(\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k+1-n))^{\oplus a_{1-n}}\to\cdots$$ Then, from the vanishing properties of line bundles on ${{\mathbb{P}^n}}$, it follows that
- $\operatorname{H}^{0}(Q_{2-n}(k))=0$ for $k<n-2;$
- $\operatorname{H}^{n}(Q_{2-n}(k))=0$ for $k>-1;$
- $\operatorname{H}^{i}(Q_{2-n}(k))=0$ $\forall k,$ $1\leq i\leq n-1.$
Using induction on the remaining rows in it follows that, for $p>2,$
- $\operatorname{H}^{0}(Q_{p-n}(k))=0$ for $k<n-p;$
- $\operatorname{H}^{n}(Q_{p-n}(k))=0$ for $k>-p-1;$
- $\operatorname{H}^{i}(Q_{p-n}(k))=0$ $\forall k,$ $1\leq i\leq n-1.$
From the long exact sequence in cohomology of the lower row in twisted by $\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k)$ one has $$\operatorname{H}^{i-1}(\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k+1))^{\oplus a_{1}} \to \operatorname{H}^{i}(\mathcal{F}(k)) \to \operatorname{H}^{i}(Q(k))\to\cdots$$ Using the vanishing obtained in Step. $2$ for $Q_{0}=Q,$ the claims of items $(i),$ $(ii),$ $(iii)$ and $(iv)$ follow.
The last item is obtained by dualizing the lower row of .
Now let us denote by $\Omega^{-p}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}$ the bundle of holomorphic $(-p)-$forms on ${{\mathbb{P}^n}},$ where $p\leq0$ in our convention.
\[Character\] If a coherent sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ on ${{\mathbb{P}^n}}$ ($n\ge 2$) satisfies:
- $\operatorname{H}^{0}(\mathcal{E}(-1))=\operatorname{H}^{n}({{\mathbb{P}^n}},\mathcal{E}(-n))=0$;
- $\operatorname{H}^{q}({{\mathbb{P}^n}},\mathcal{E}(k))=0 \quad\forall k,\quad2\leq q\leq n-1$ when $n\ge3$;
- $\operatorname{H}^{1}({{\mathbb{P}^n}},\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^{-p}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-p-1))\neq0$ for $-n\le p\leq0$;
then $\mathcal{E}$ is the cohomology of a perfect extended monad.
Applying Beilinson’s theorem [@OSS Theorem 3.1.4] to the sheaf $\mathcal{E}(-1),$ one gets a spectral sequence with $E_{1}-$term given by $$E_{1}^{p,q}=\operatorname{H}^{q}(\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}^{-p}(-p-1))\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(p)$$ which converges to the graded sheaf associated to a filtration of $\mathcal{E}(-1)$ itself.
Twist the Euler sequence for the sheaves of differential forms $$0 \to \Omega^p(p) \to \mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}^N \to \Omega^{p-1}(p) \to 0 \quad,\quad
N=\binom{n+1}{p}$$ by $\mathcal{E}(k-p)$ and use hypotheses *(i)* and *(ii)* above to conclude, after long but straightforward calculations with the associated long exact sequences of cohomology, that $ E_{1}^{p,q}=0$ for $q\ne1$.
It follows immediately that the Beilinson spectral sequence degenerates already at the $E_2$-term, i.e. $E_2=E_\infty$. Beilinson’s theorem then implies that the complex $E_1^{p,1}$ given by $$\label{cpx-one}
V_n\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-n) \to \cdots \to V_1\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-1) \to V_0\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}},$$ with $V_p:=H^1(\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}^{-p}(-p-1))$, $-n\le p\le 0$, is exact everywhere except at position $p=-1$, and its cohomology at this position is precisely $\mathcal{E}(-1)$.
The third hypothesis implies that none of the vector spaces $V_p$ vanishes. So twisting the complex (\[cpx-one\]) by $\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1)$, we obtain a perfect extended monad whose cohomology is exactly $\mathcal{E}$, as desired.
Ideal sheaves of zero-dimensional subschemes of ${{\mathbb{P}^n}}$ {#z-cy}
==================================================================
We now consider sheaves $\mathcal{E}$ of rank $r$ on ${{\mathbb{P}^n}}$ fitting in the following short exact sequence $$\label{structure}
0 \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}^{\oplus r} \to \mathcal{Q} \to 0,$$ where $\mathcal{Q}$ is a pure torsion sheaf of length $c$ supported on a $0$-dimensional subscheme $Z\subset{{\mathbb{P}^n}}$.
Note that the Chern character of $\mathcal{E}$ is given by $ch(\mathcal{E})=r-cH^{n}$, and that $\mathcal{E}$ is necessarily torsion free. Such sheaves can also be regaded as points in the Quot scheme $Quot^{P=c}(\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}^{\oplus r})$.
In the case $r=1$, it is clear that $\mathcal{E}$ is the sheaf of ideals in $\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}$ associated to the zero-dimensional subscheme $Z$, i.e. $\mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{O}_Z$; in this case, we will then denote $\mathcal{E}$ by $\mathcal{I}_{Z}$.
\[vanishing\] Every sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ on ${{\mathbb{P}^n}}$ given by sequence is the cohomology of a perfect extended monad $P^{\bullet}$ with terms of the form $P^{-i}:=V_{i}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(i)$, $i=1-n,\dots,0,1$, where $$\label{eq-lema}
V_{i}:=\operatorname{H}^{1}(\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^{1-i}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-i)) \cong
\operatorname{H}^{0}(\mathcal{Q}\otimes\Omega^{1-i}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-i)).$$ Furthermore, we the following isomorphisms: $$\label{id1}
V_1 \cong \operatorname{H}^{0}(\mathcal{Q})$$ $$\label{id2}
V_{i}\cong
\left\{\begin{array}{ll} V_{1}^{\oplus n}\oplus\mathbb{C}^{r} & \textnormal{for }i=0 \\
V_{1}^{\oplus \binom{n}{1-i}} & \textnormal{for }i<0 \end{array}\right.$$
In particular, we conclude that $$\dim V_{i} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\quad c & \quad i=1 \\
nc+r & \quad i=0 \\
\binom{n}{1-i}c & \quad i<0
\end{array}\right.$$
Conditions *(i)* and *(ii)* in Proposition \[Character\] follow easily from twisting sequence by $\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(k)$ and using that fact that $\mathcal{Q}$ is supported in dimension zero. Next, twist sequence by $\Omega^{-p}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-p-1)$ and use Bott’s formula to obtain the isomorphisms in .
The isomorphisms and can be proved as follows. First, we have for $i=1$ $$V_1 := \operatorname{H}^{1}(\mathcal{E}(-1)) \cong \operatorname{H}^{0}(\mathcal{Q}(-i))\cong \operatorname{H}^{0}(\mathcal{Q})$$ since $\mathcal{Q}$ is supported in dimension zero.
The space $V_{0}$ fits in the sequence $$0 \to \operatorname{H}^{0}(\mathcal{Q}\otimes\Omega^{1}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}) \to \operatorname{H}^{1}(\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^{1}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}) \to \operatorname{H}^{1}(\Omega^{1}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}})^{\oplus r} \to 0$$ obtained from sequence twisted by $\Omega^{1}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}$. On the other hand, we know from the Euler sequence that $\operatorname{H}^{1}(\Omega^{1}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}})\cong\operatorname{H}^0(\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}})$. Moreover, since $$\operatorname{H}^{0}(\mathcal{Q}\otimes\Omega^{1}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}) \cong \operatorname{H}^{0}(\mathcal{Q})^{\oplus n} \cong V_{1}^{\oplus n},$$ it follows that $\operatorname{H}^{1}(\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^{1-i}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}})\cong V_{1}^{\oplus n}\oplus\mathbb{C}^{r}.$
Finally, note that $$V_{-i} = \operatorname{H}^{1}(\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^{1-i}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-i)) \cong \operatorname{H}^{0}(\mathcal{Q}^{\oplus\binom{n}{-i}}) = V_{1}^{\oplus \binom{n}{1-i}}.$$
In particular, for the case $r=1$, we have the following Corollary.
\[perfect-ideal\] For every zero dimensional subscheme $Z\subset{{\mathbb{P}^n}}$, there exists a perfect extended monad $P^\bullet$ of the form $${\small \xymatrix@C-1pc{
V_{1-n}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1-n)\ar[r]^{\alpha_{1-n}} & V_{2-n}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(2-n) &\hdots\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-1}\hspace{0.5cm}}& V_{0}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{0}\hspace{0.2cm}} & V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1)
}}$$ where $V_1:=\operatorname{H}^0(\mathcal{O}_Z)$ and $$V_{-i} \cong \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
V_{1}^{\oplus n}\oplus\mathbb{C} & \textnormal{for } i=0 \\
V_{1}^{\oplus \binom{n}{1-i}} & \textnormal{for } i<0
\end{array}\right. ,$$ whose cohomology is the ideal sheaf $\mathcal{I}_Z$.
The ${{\mathbb{P}^{3}}}$ case {#reduction}
=============================
In this section, we fix a hyperplane $\wp\subset{{\mathbb{P}^n}}$. We shall describe how to get linear algebraic data out of the perfect extended monad corresponding to a $0-$dimensional subscheme $Z\subset{{\mathbb{P}^{3}}}\setminus\wp$, as in Corollary \[perfect-ideal\].
Let us start by fixing notation; we choose homogeneous coordinates $[z_{0};z_{1};z_{2};z_{3}]$ on ${{\mathbb{P}^{3}}}$ in such a way that the hyperplane $\wp$ is given by the equation $z_{3}=0$. We also regard such coordinates as a basis for the space of global sections $\operatorname{H}^{0}({{\mathbb{P}^{3}}},\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^{3}}}}(1))$.
By Corollary \[perfect-ideal\], there is a perfect extended monad $P^{\bullet}$ with cohomology equal to the ideal sheaf $\mathcal{I}_{Z}$. It is given by $$\label{cpx-p3}
{\small \xymatrix@C-1pc{
V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-2)\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-2}} & V_{1}^{\oplus3}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-1)\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-1}\hspace{0.5cm}}& (V_{1}^{\oplus3}\oplus W)\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{0}\hspace{0.2cm}} & V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1)
}}$$
where $\alpha_{-2}\in\operatorname{Hom}(V_{1},V_{1}^{\oplus3})\otimes\operatorname{H}^{0}({{\mathbb{P}^{3}}},\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^{3}}}}(1)),$ $\alpha_{-1}\in\operatorname{Hom}(V_{1}^{\oplus3},V_{1}^{\oplus3}\oplus
W)\otimes\operatorname{H}^{0}({{\mathbb{P}^{3}}},\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^{3}}}}(1))$ and $\alpha_{0}\in\operatorname{Hom}(V_{1}^{\oplus3}\oplus
W,V_{1})\otimes\operatorname{H}^{0}({{\mathbb{P}^{3}}},\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^{3}}}}(1)).$ Then we can write the $\alpha$’s as: $$\alpha_{-2}=\alpha_{-2}^{0}z_{0}+\alpha_{-2}^{1}z_{1}+\alpha_{-2}^{2}z_{2}+\alpha_{-2}^{3}z_{3};$$ $$\alpha_{-1}=\alpha_{-1}^{0}z_{0}+\alpha_{-1}^{1}z_{1}+\alpha_{-1}^{2}z_{2}+\alpha_{-1}^{3}z_{3};$$ $$\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{0}^{0}z_{0}+\alpha_{0}^{1}z_{1}+\alpha_{0}^{2}z_{2}+\alpha_{0}^{3}z_{3},$$
The conditions $\alpha_{-1}\circ\alpha_{-2}=0$ and $\alpha_{0}\circ\alpha_{-1}=0$, which guarantee that (\[cpx-p3\]) is a complex, are equivalent to $$\label{complex condition}
\alpha_{1-i}^{k}\circ\alpha_{-i}^{k}=0\quad\forall k,i\qquad\textnormal{ and } \qquad\alpha_{1-i}^{k}\circ\alpha_{-i}^{l}+\alpha_{1-i}^{l}\circ\alpha_{-i}^{k}=0 \quad \forall i, k\neq l.$$ We also have to impose the condition $\ker\alpha_{-1}={{\rm Im}~}\alpha_{-2},$ since $\mathcal{H}^{-1}(P^{\bullet})=0.$
Restricting $P^{\bullet}$ to the plane $\wp\simeq{{\mathbb{P}^{2}}}$ we get the following $1$-extended monad on $\wp$: $$\label{Restricted-PEM}
{\small \xymatrix@C-1pc{
V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(-2)\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-2}|_{\wp}} & V_{1}^{\oplus3}\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(-1)\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-1}|_{\wp}\hspace{0.2cm}}& (V_{1}^{\oplus3}\oplus W)\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{0}|_{\wp}} & V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(1)
}}$$ and the maps of this complex are just given by $$\alpha_{-2}|_{\wp}=\alpha_{-2}^{0}z_{0}+\alpha_{-2}^{1}z_{1}+\alpha_{-2}^{2}z_{2};$$ $$\alpha_{-1}|_{\wp}=\alpha_{-1}^{0}z_{0}+\alpha_{-1}^{1}z_{1}+\alpha_{-1}^{2}z_{2};$$ $$\alpha_{0}|_{\wp}=\alpha_{0}^{0}z_{0}+\alpha_{0}^{1}z_{1}+\alpha_{0}^{2}z_{2}.$$
The resolution and the monad associated to the perfect extended monad $P^{\bullet}$ are given by, respectively, $$\label{ass-reso}
{\small \[email protected]{
0\ar[r]&V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(-2)\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-2}|_{\wp}} & V_{1}^{\oplus3}\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(-1)\ar[r]^{\hspace{1cm}J_{-1}|_{\wp}}&\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}\ar[r]&0
}}$$ $$\label{ass-monad}
{\small \[email protected]{
\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}\ar[r]^{I_{-1}|_{\wp}\hspace{1cm}}& (V_{1}^{\oplus3}\oplus W)\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}\ar[r]^{\hspace{0.5cm}\alpha_{0}|_{\wp}} & V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(1)
} } ~.$$
The sheaf $\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}$ is locally free and satisfies
- $\operatorname{H}^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp})=\operatorname{H}^{1}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp})=\operatorname{H}^{2}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp})=0;$
- $\operatorname{H}^{1}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})=\operatorname{H}^{2}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})=0$, and $h^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})=3c.$
Taking the restriction of the display of the perfect monad to the plane $\wp$ one has $\mathcal{I}|_{\wp}=\mathcal{O}|_{\wp},$ since $supp(Z)\cap\wp=\emptyset.$ Moreover, from the lowest row of the restricted disaply, namely $$0\to\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}\to Q|{\wp}\to V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}\to0,$$ it follows that $Q|_{\wp}$ is a locally free sheaf. Furthermore, from the middle column of the restricted display, namely $$0\to\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}\to(V_{1}^{\oplus3}\oplus W)\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}\to Q|_{\wp}\to0,$$ it also follows the sheaf $\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}$ is locally free.
The first item follows from the long exact sequence in cohomology of the associated resolution and the fact that $\operatorname{H}^{i}(\wp,\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(k))=0,$ for $i=0,1,2$ and $k=-1,-2.$
For the second item, dualize the exact sequence and apply the global sections functor $\Gamma$ to obtain the exact sequence [$$\label{dim-count}
0\to\operatorname{H}^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})\to (V_{1}^{\ast})^{\oplus3}\otimes\operatorname{H}^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(1))\to V_{1}^{\ast}\otimes\operatorname{H}^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(2))\to\operatorname{H}^{1}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})\to0.$$]{} and $\operatorname{H}^{2}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})=0,$ since $\operatorname{H}^{1,2}(\wp,\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(1))=\operatorname{H}^{1,2}(\wp,\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(1))=0$. On the other hand, from the dual display of the associated monad one has the exact sequence $$\label{dual-mid-col}
0\to Q|_{\wp}^{\ast}\to(V_{1}^{\ast}\oplus W^{\ast})\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}\to\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast}\to0$$ where $Q:={{\rm coker}}\alpha_{-1}.$ Moreover $ Q|_{\wp}^{\ast}=V_{1}^{\ast}\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(1)\oplus\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}$ since $ Q|_{\wp}\in\operatorname{Ext}^{1}(V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(1),\mathcal{O}|_{\wp})=V_{1}^{\ast}\otimes\operatorname{H}^{1}(\wp,\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(-1))=0.$ Then, from the long exact sequence in cohomology associated to , it follows that $\operatorname{H}^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})$ fits in the exact sequence $$\label{fitting1}
0\to\mathbb{C}\to (V_{1}^{\ast})^{\oplus3}\oplus W\to\operatorname{H}^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})\to0,$$ hence $h^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})=3c$ and from it follows that $h^{1}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})=0.$
Remark that the sequence becomes just $$\label{dual}
0\to\operatorname{H}^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})\stackrel{i}{\to}(V_{1}^{\ast})^{\oplus3}\oplus(V_{1}^{\ast})^{\oplus3}\oplus(V_{1}^{\ast})^{\oplus3}\stackrel{j}{\to} (V_{1}^{\ast})^{\oplus3}\oplus(V_{1}^{\ast})^{\oplus3}\to0,$$ since $\operatorname{H}^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(1))\simeq\mathbb{C}^{3},$ and $\operatorname{H}^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{O}|_{\wp}(2))\simeq\mathbb{C}^{6}.$ So one can identify $\operatorname{H}^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{G}|_{\wp}^{\ast})$ with $(V_{1}^{\ast})^{\oplus3}.$ Furthermore, by , one can identify $W=\operatorname{H}^{0}(\wp,\mathcal{I}_{Z}|_{\wp})\cong\mathbb{C}$, since $Z\cap\wp=\emptyset$.
Combining sequences and , and dualizing the resulting sequence one gets $$\label{fitting2}
0\to V_{1}^{\oplus3}\oplus V_{1}^{\oplus3}\stackrel{i}{\to}V_{1}^{\oplus3}\oplus V_{1}^{\oplus3}\oplus V_{1}^{\oplus3}\stackrel{j}{\to}V_{1}^{\oplus3}\oplus W\to\mathbb{C}\to0,$$ The maps $i$ and $j$ are just $\operatorname{H}^{0}(\alpha_{-2})$ and $\operatorname{H}^{0}(\alpha_{-1}),$ respectively. Thus we have $$\ker\operatorname{H}^{0}(\alpha_{-2})=\ker\alpha_{-2}^{0}\cap\ker\alpha_{-2}^{1}\cap\ker\alpha_{-2}^{2}=\{0\},$$ and $$\textnormal{ker}\operatorname{H}^{0}(^{t}\alpha_{-1})=\ker^{\quad t}\alpha_{-1}^{0}\cap\ker^{\quad t}\alpha_{-1}^{1}\cap\ker^{\quad t}\alpha_{-1}^{2}=\mathbb{C}.$$ The subscript $t,$ in the last equation, stands for transposition. Remark also that the sequence reflects the fact the complex is exact at degree $-1,$ i.e., $\alpha_{-1}\circ\alpha_{-2}=0.$
We can then choose the maps $\alpha_{-1}^{j}$ in the following way. First, $$\alpha_{-2}^{0},\hspace{0.3cm}\alpha_{-2}^{1},\hspace{0.3cm}\alpha_{-2}^{2}:V_{1}\to V_{1}\oplus V_{1}\oplus V_{1},$$ with: $$\alpha_{-2}^{0}=\left(\begin{array}{l} \hspace{0.1cm}0\\\hspace{0.1cm}0\\ \mathbb{I}_{V_{1}}\end{array}\right) \quad
\alpha_{-2}^{1}=\left(\begin{array}{l}\hspace{0.3cm}0 \\ -\mathbb{I}_{V_{1}} \\ \hspace{0.3cm}0\end{array}\right) \quad
\alpha_{-2}^{2}=\left(\begin{array}{l} \mathbb{I}_{V_{1}} \\ \hspace{0.1cm}0 \\ \hspace{0.1cm}0
\end{array}\right) ,$$ and where $\mathbb{I}_{V_{1}}$ denotes the identity in $\operatorname{End}(V_{1})$.
One also has $$\alpha_{-1}^{0},\hspace{0.3cm}\alpha_{-1}^{1},\hspace{0.3cm}\alpha_{-1}^{2}:V_{1}\oplus V_{1}\oplus V_{1}\to V_{1}\oplus V_{1}\oplus V_{1}\oplus\mathbb{C}$$ given by $$\begin{split}
& \alpha_{-1}^{0} = \left(\begin{array}{lll}
\hspace{0.1cm}0 & \hspace{0.1cm}0&0\\ \mathbb{I}_{V_{1}}&\hspace{0.1cm}0&0\\ \hspace{0.1cm}0&\mathbb{I}_{V_{1}}&0 \\ \hspace{0.1cm}0&\hspace{0.1cm}0&0
\end{array}\right) \quad\quad
\alpha_{-1}^{1} = \left(\begin{array}{lll}
-\mathbb{I}_{V_{1}} & 0&\hspace{0.1cm}0\\ \hspace{0.3cm}0&0&\hspace{0.1cm}0\\ \hspace{0.3cm}0&0& \mathbb{I}_{V_{1}}\\ \hspace{0.3cm}0&0&\hspace{0.1cm}0
\end{array}\right) \\
&\hspace{2cm} \alpha_{-1}^{2} = \left(\begin{array}{lll}
0 & -\mathbb{I}_{V_{1}}&\hspace{0.3cm}0\\ 0&\hspace{0.3cm}0&-\mathbb{I}_{V_{1}}\\ 0&\hspace{0.3cm}0&\hspace{0.3cm}0 \\ 0&\hspace{0.3cm}0&\hspace{0.3cm}0
\end{array}\right).
\end{split}$$
Finally, for $$\alpha_{0}^{0},\hspace{0.3cm}\alpha_{0}^{1},\hspace{0.3cm}\alpha_{0}^{2}:
V_{1}\oplus V_{1}\oplus V_{1}\oplus\mathbb{C}\to V_{1}$$ one has $$\begin{split}
& \alpha_{0}^{0} = \left(\begin{array}{llll} -\mathbb{I}_{V_{1}}&0 & 0&0\end{array}\right)
\quad\alpha_{0}^{1}=\left(\begin{array}{llll} 0&-\mathbb{I}_{V_{1}} & 0&0\end{array}\right) \\
&\hspace{2cm}\alpha_{0}^{2}=\left(\begin{array}{llll} 0&0 & -\mathbb{I}_{V_{1}}&0\end{array}\right).
\end{split}$$
Now, to complete our construction, we have to add the maps $\alpha_{-2}^{3},$ $\alpha_{-1}^{3}$ and $\alpha_{0}^{3}.$ such that conditions are satisfied. By putting $$\label{alpha3a}
\alpha_{-2}^{3}=\left(\begin{array}{l} -B_{2} \\ \hspace{0.3cm}B_{1}\\ -B_{0}\end{array}\right);
\quad\alpha_{-1}^{3}=\left(\begin{array}{lll} \hspace{0.3cm}B_{1} &\hspace{0.3cm}B_{2} &\hspace{0.3cm}0\\ -B_{0}&\hspace{0.4cm}0&-B_{0}\\ \hspace{0.4cm}0&\hspace{0.3cm}B_{2}&-B_{1} \\ \hspace{0.4cm}0&\hspace{0.4cm}0&\hspace{0.4cm}0\end{array}\right);
\alpha_{0}^{3}=\left(\begin{array}{llll} B_{0}&B_{1} & B_{2}&I\end{array}\right),$$ where $B_{i}\in\operatorname{End}(V_{1})$ and $I\in\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{C},V_{1}),$ then all the equations are satisfied, since $\alpha_{-1}^{3}\circ\alpha_{-2}^{3}=0$ and $\alpha_{0}^{3}\circ\alpha_{-1}^{3}=0$ are equivalent to $$\label{commutation}
[B_{0},B_{1}]=0;\quad[B_{0},B_{2}]=0;\quad[B_{1},B_{2}]=0,$$
Summing up what we have done so far, for a given $0$-dimensional subscheme $Z\subset{{\mathbb{P}^{3}}}\setminus\wp$ we have constructed a perfect extended monad $P^\bullet$ of the form $$\label{perfect-monad -ideal}
{\small \xymatrix@C-1pc{
V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-2)\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-2}} & V_{1}^{\oplus3}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-1)\ar[r]^{\alpha_{-1}\hspace{0.5cm}}& (V_{1}^{\oplus3}\oplus W)\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}\ar[r]^{\alpha_{0}\hspace{0.2cm}} & V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1)
}}$$ where the maps maps $\alpha_{-2},$ $\alpha_{-1}$ and $\alpha_{0}$ are given by [^1]: $$\label{alpha3}
\begin{split}
\alpha_{-2}=\left(\begin{array}{l} -B_{2}z_{3}+z_{2} \\\hspace{0.3cm} B_{1}z_{3}-z_{1}\\ -B_{0}z_{3}+z_{0}\end{array}\right);&
\quad\alpha_{-1}=\left(\begin{array}{lll} \hspace{0.3cm}B_{1}z_{3}-z_{1} & \hspace{0.3cm}B_{2}z_{3}-z_{2} &\hspace{0.8cm}0\\ -B_{0}z_{3}+z_{0}&\hspace{0.8cm}0& \hspace{0.3cm}B_{2}z_{3}-z_{2}\\ \hspace{0.8cm}0&-B_{0}z_{3}+z_{0}&-B_{1}z_{3}+z_{1} \\ \hspace{0.8cm}0&\hspace{0.8cm}0&\hspace{0.8cm}0\end{array}\right); \\ \\
&\alpha_{0}=\left(\begin{array}{llll} B_{0}z_{3}-z_{0}&B_{1}z_{3}-z_{1} & B_{2}z_{3}-z_{2}&Iz_{3}\end{array}\right).
\end{split}$$
It only remains for us to show the the ADHM datum $$(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2},I)\in\operatorname{End}(V_{1})^{\oplus3}\oplus\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{C},V_{1})$$ obtained from the above construction is indeed stable. Such claim will follow from the following observation.
The map $\alpha_{0}$ given above is surjective if and only if the ADHM datum $(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2},I)$ is stable.
Recall that a map of sheaves is surjective if and only if it is surjective at every fiber.
So if $\alpha_{0}$ is not surjective, then there is a point $z=[z_0;z_1;z_2;z_3]\in\mathbb{P}^{3}$ such that $\alpha_{0}(z)$ is not surjective, while its dual map $\alpha_{0}^\ast$ is not injective. Hence there exists a vector $\bar{v}\in V^{\ast}$ such that $(B_{i}^\ast z_{3}-z_{i})\bar{v}=0$, where $i=0,1,2$, and $I^\ast\bar{v}=0$. Then the subspace $\bar{S}\subsetneq V^{\ast}$ generated by all such vectors is $B_{i}^\ast-$invariant, for $i=0,1,2$, while the restriction $I^\ast|_{\bar{S}}$ of $I^\ast$ to $\bar{S}$ is zero.
Now, consider the following subspace of $V$: $$S=\{v\in V|\bar{v}(v)=0,\hspace{0.2cm}\forall\bar{v}\in\bar{S}\}.$$ It follows that $S$ is $B_{i}-$invariant, for $i=0,1,2,$ since $B_{i}^\ast\bar{v}(v)=\bar{v}(B_{i}v)=0$ for $\bar{v}\in\bar{S}$ and $v\in S.$ Moreover $I(1)\in S$ since $I^\ast|_{\bar{S}}=0.$ Thus $(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2},I)$ is not stable.
Conversely, suppose that $(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2},I)$ is not stable. Then there exists a $B_{i}-$invariant subspace $S\subsetneq V,$ for $i=0,1,2,$ such that ${{\rm Im}~}I\subseteq S.$ Set $$\bar{S}=\{\bar{v}\in V^{\ast}|\bar{v}(v)=0,\hspace{0.2cm}\forall v\in S\}.$$ Then $\bar{S}$ is $B_{i}^\ast-$invariant and $\bar{S}\subset\ker I^\ast$. Since the $B_{i}$’s commutes, there exists a vector $\bar{v}\in V^{\ast}$ such that $B_{i}^\ast\bar{v}=\lambda_{i}\bar{v}$ for some $\lambda_{i}\in\mathbb{C},$ for $i=0,1,2.$ Hence the map $\alpha_{0}^\ast(\lambda_0;\lambda_1;\lambda_2;1)$ is not injective, and equivalently, $\alpha_{0}$ is not surjective.
\[reconstruction\] To a stable ADHM datum $X=(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2},I)\in\mathcal{V}(3,c)^{st}$ one can associate the perfect extended monad with maps $\alpha_{-2},\alpha_{-1},\alpha_{0}$ given as in , such that its cohomology is an ideal sheaf whose restriction to $\mathbb{C}^{3}=\mathbb{P}^{3}\backslash\wp$ is isomorphic to the one given by Theorem\[Corresp\].
Given the stable ADHM datum $(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2},I),$ one can put together the maps $\alpha_{-2},$ $\alpha_{-1}$ and $\alpha_{0}$ and a perfect extended monad like . Restricting the obtained perfect monad to $\mathbb{C}^{3}$ one has the complex $$\label{affine restriction}
{\small \[email protected]{
0\ar[r]&\mathbb{C}^{c}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}\ar[r]^{a_{-2}} & *\txt{$\mathbb{C}^{c}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}$\\ $\oplus$ \\$\mathbb{C}^{c}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}$\\ $\oplus$ \\$\mathbb{C}^{c}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}$}\ar[r]^{a_{-1}\hspace{0.5cm}}& *\txt{$\mathbb{C}^{c}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}$\\ $\oplus$ \\$\mathbb{C}^{c}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}$\\ $\oplus$ \\$\mathbb{C}^{c}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}$\\ $\oplus$ \\ $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}$}\ar[r]^{a_{0}\hspace{0.2cm}} & \mathbb{C}^{c}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}\ar[r]&0
}.}$$ Moreover, by projecting on the fourth summand in the degree $0$ term, one has the injection $\ker a_{0}/{{\rm Im}~}a_{-1}\hookrightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}.$ We denote its image by $\mathcal{J}$. Then, it is clear that $\mathcal{J}$ is an ideal of $c$ points in $\mathbb{C}^{3}.$
To prove that $\mathcal{J}$ is isomorphic to $\ker \Phi_{X}=\{f\in\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}} |\quad f(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2})=0\},$ let us suppose, first, that $f\in\mathcal{J}.$ Then, there exists three vectors $u_{0}(z),u_{1}(z),u_{2}(z)\in V\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}$ such that $f(z)I(1)=(B_{0}-z_{0})u_{0}(z)+(B_{1}-z_{1})u_{1}(z)+(B_{2}-z_{2})u_{2}(z),$ since $f$ represents an element in $\ker a_{0}.$ Hence $f(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2})I(1)=0.$ But $(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2},I)$ is stable and $B_{0}^{l_{0}}B_{1}^{l_{1}}B_{2}^{l_{2}}$ span all $V,$ for $l_{0},l_{1},l_{2}\geq0.$ Thus $f(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2})=0,$ i.e., $f\in\ker \Phi_{X}.$
On the other hand, let $f\in\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}$ such that $ f(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2}).$ One has (unless otherwise specified, all sums are taken with respect to the indices $l_{0},l_{1},l_{2}\geq0$): $$\begin{aligned}
f(z_{0},z_{1},z_{2})\mathbb{I}_{V}& =
\sum a_{l_{0}l_{1}l_{2}} z_{0}^{l_{0}}z_{1}^{l_{1}}z_{2}^{l_{2}}\mathbb{I}_{V} \notag \\
&=\sum a_{l_{0}l_{1}l_{2}} (z_{0}-B_{0}+B_{0})^{l_{0}}(z_{1}-B_{1}+B_{1})^{l_{1}}(z_{2}-B_{2}+B_{2})^{l_{2}} \notag \\
&=\sum a_{l_{0}l_{1}l_{2}}
\left\{\sum_{i=0}^{l_{0}}\alpha_{i}(z_{0}-B_{0})^{i}B_{0}^{l_{0}-i} \right\} \cdot
\left\{\sum_{j=0}^{l_{0}}\beta_{j=0}(z_{1}-B_{1})^{j}B_{1}^{l_{1}-j} \right\} \notag\\
&\quad\quad\cdot \left\{\sum_{i=0}^{l_{0}}\gamma_{k}(z_{2}-B_{2})^{k}B_{2}^{l_{2}-k} \right\}\notag\end{aligned}$$ where we used the expansion $(a+b)^{n}=\sum_{i=0}^{n}\alpha_{i}a^{i}b^{n-1},$ $\alpha_{i}=\binom{n}{i}$ in the third line. Expanding again $$\left\{ \sum_{i=0}^{l_{q}}\alpha_{i}(z_{q}-B_{q})^{i}B_{q}^{l_{q}-i} \right\} =
B_{q}^{l_{q}}+(z_{q}-B_{q})^{l_{q}}+
\left\{\sum_{i=1}^{l_{q}-1}\alpha_{i}(z_{q}-B_{q})^{i}B_{q}^{l_{q}-i} \right\}$$ with $ q=0,1,2$, thus one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
f(z_{0},z_{1},z_{2})\mathbb{I}_{V} & =
\sum a_{l_{0}l_{1}l_{2}} B_{0}^{l_{0}}B_{1}^{l_{1}}B_{2}^{l_{2}}
+ \sum_{q=0}^2 (z_{q}-B_{q})A_{q}(z) \notag \\
& = f(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2}) + \sum_{q=0}^2 (z_{q}-B_{q})A_{q}(z) \notag\end{aligned}$$ for some vectors $A_{q}\in\operatorname{End}(V)\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{C}^{3}}$, $q=0,1,2$. But $f(B_{0},B_{1},B_{2})=0$ by hypothesis. If we put $u_{q}=A_{q}I(1),$ $q=0,1,2,$ then $$f(z_{0},z_{1},z_{2})I(1)=(z_{0}-B_{0})u_{0}(z)+(z_{1}-B_{1})u_{1}(z)+(z_{2}-B_{2})u_{2}(z).$$ Hence, $f\in\mathcal{J}.$
The automorphisms of $P^{\bullet}$ are clearly given by the action of the group $GL(V_{1}).$ Since, by Corollary \[fully-faithfull\], the cohomology functor is fully faithfull, we recover the correspondence, given in Section \[Matrix-Para\], between equivalence classes of ideal sheaves $\mathcal{I}_{Z}$ and the space $\mathcal{M}(3,c)$ defined as the quotient $\mathcal{V}(3,c)^{st}/GL(V_{1})$, in the $3-$dimensional case.
We complete this section by writing down the maps $\alpha_{0}$ and $\alpha_{-1}$ in the more general $n-$dimensional case. Starting with a hyperplane $\wp\subset{{\mathbb{P}^n}}$ and a $0$-dimensional subscheme $Z\subset{{\mathbb{P}^n}}\setminus\wp$, the maps $\alpha_{-i}$ in the corresponding perfect extended monad can also be constructed as done above for the $3-$dimensional case: $$\begin{split}
&\alpha_{0}=\left(\begin{array}{lllll} B_{0}z_{n}-z_{0}&B_{1}z_{n}-z_{1} & \cdots&B_{n-1}z_{n}-z_{n-1}&Iz_{n}\end{array}\right). \\
&\alpha_{-1}=\left(\begin{array}{llll} A_{0} & A_{1} & \cdots & A_{n-2} \\ \hspace{0.1cm}0 & \hspace{0.1cm}0 & \cdots & \hspace{0.3cm}0 \end{array}\right).
\end{split}$$ where each block $A_{i},$ $0\leq i\leq n-2$ is an $[(n-i)\cdot c\times n\cdot c]-$matrix of the form [$$A_{i}=\left( \begin{array}{lllll}
\hspace{1cm}0&\hspace{1cm}0&\hspace{1cm}0&\cdots&\hspace{1cm}0\\
\hspace{1cm}0 &\hspace{1cm}0&\hspace{1cm}0&\cdots& \hspace{1cm}0\\
\hspace{1cm}\vdots &\hspace{1cm}\vdots&\hspace{1cm}\vdots&\cdots&\hspace{1cm}\vdots \\
\hspace{1cm}0&\hspace{1cm}0&\hspace{1cm}0&\cdots&\hspace{1cm}0\\
B_{i+1}z_{n}-z_{i+1}&B_{i+2}z_{n}-z_{i+2}&B_{i+3}z_{n}-z_{i+3}&\cdots&B_{n-1}z_{n}-z_{n-1} \\
-B_{i}z_{n}+z_{i} &\hspace{1cm}0&\hspace{1cm}0&\cdots&\hspace{1cm}0 \\
\hspace{1cm}0&-B_{i}z_{n}+z_{i}&\hspace{1cm}0&\cdots&\hspace{1cm}0 \\
\hspace{1cm}0&\hspace{1cm}0&-B_{i}z_{n}+z_{i}&\cdots&\hspace{1cm}0 \\
\hspace{1cm}0&\hspace{1cm}0&\hspace{1cm}0&\cdots&\hspace{1cm}0 \\
\hspace{1cm}\vdots&\hspace{1cm}\vdots&\hspace{1cm}\vdots&\ddots&\hspace{1cm}0 \\
\hspace{1cm}0&\hspace{1cm}0&\hspace{1cm}0&\cdots&-B_{i}z_{n}+z_{i}
\end{array}\right)$$ ]{}
One can similarly show that $\alpha_{0}\circ\alpha_{-1}=0\Leftrightarrow [B_{i},B_{j}]=0,$ for all $0\leq i,j\leq n-1.$ and that the map $\alpha_{0}$ is surjective if and only if the ADHM datum $(B_{0},\dots,B_{n-1}, I)$ is stable.
Once again, this reflects the set theoretic bijection between the Hilbert scheme of length $c$ zero-dimensional subschemes of $\mathbb{C}^{n}\simeq{{\mathbb{P}^n}}\setminus\wp$ and the quotient space $\mathcal{M}(n,c):=\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}/GL(V_{1}).$
Representability of the Hilbert functor of points {#Rep-mod-functor}
=================================================
Let us start this Section by introducing notation; for every two sheaves, $\mathcal{F}$ on ${{\mathbb{P}^n}}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ on a scheme $S$, we put $\mathcal{F}\boxtimes \mathcal{G}:=p^{\ast}\mathcal{F}\otimes q^{\ast}\mathcal{G},$ where $p:{{\mathbb{P}^n}}\times S\longrightarrow{{\mathbb{P}^n}}$ is the projection on the first factor and $q$ is the projection $\mathbb{P}^{n}\times S\longrightarrow S$ on the second one. We also denote by $k(s)$ the residue field of a closed point $s\in S$.
Using the ingredients developed in the previous sections, we now proceed to prove that $\mathcal{M}(n,c)$ represents the Hilbert functor $$\mathcal{H}\textnormal{ilb}_{{\mathbb{C}}^n}^{[c]}:\mathfrak{S}ch\to\mathfrak{S}et$$ from the category of schemes $\mathfrak{S}ch$ to the category of sets $\mathfrak{S}et$, which associates to every scheme $S$ the set $$\mathcal{H}\textnormal{ilb}_{{\mathbb{C}}^n}^{[c]}(S) :=
\left\{
\hspace{-0.2cm}\begin{array}{c}
\phantom{.} \\ Z\subset{\mathbb{C}}^n\times S \\ \phantom{.} \\ \phantom{.} \end{array} \right.
\left|
\begin{array}{l}
Z\textnormal{ is a closed subscheme,} \\
\begin{array}{ccc}
Z & \hookrightarrow & {\mathbb{C}}^n\times S \\
\pi\downarrow & &\downarrow q \\ S & \simeq & S
\end{array} \hspace{0.4cm} \textnormal{with }\pi\textnormal{ flat, and} \\
\chi(\mathcal{O}_{\pi^{-1}(s)}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{\mathbb{C}}^n}(m))=c \quad, \quad \forall m\in{\mathbb{Z}}.
\end{array}
\right\}$$ of flat families of $0$-dimensional subschemes of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$.
For any noetherian scheme $S$ of finite type over the field of complex numbers ${\mathbb{C}}$, consider the following diagram: $$\xymatrix@1{\mathbb{P}^{n}\times\mathbb{P}^{n}\times S \ar[r]^{\quad pr_{13}}\ar[d]_{pr_{23}} & \mathbb{P}^{n}\times S \ar[d]^{q} \\
\mathbb{P}^{n}\times S \ar[r]_{q}& S
}$$ and the relative Euler sequence: $$0\longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}\times S}(-1)\longrightarrow\mathcal{O}^{\oplus(n+1)}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}\times
S}\longrightarrow T\mathbb{P}^{n}(-1)\boxtimes\mathcal{O}_{S}\longrightarrow 0$$ where $T\mathbb{P}^{n}(-1)$ is tangent bundle. One has the following:
For every coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n}\times S$ there is a spectral sequence $E^{i,j}_{r}$ with $E_{1}$-term $$E_{1}^{i,j}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(i)\boxtimes\mathcal{R}^{j}q_{\ast}(\mathcal{F}\otimes\Omega_{\mathbb{P}^{n}\times S/S}^{-i}(-i))$$ which converges to $$E_{\infty}^{i,j}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \mathcal{F}& i+j=0 \\ 0 & {\rm otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$$
Let $\mathcal{J}$ be an $S$-flat family of ideal sheaves of $0$-dimensional subschemes of ${{\mathbb{P}^n}}$ of length $c$ , for a noetherian scheme $S$ of finite type.
\[hilbert functor\] There exists an $1$-extended monad given by
$$\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1-n)\boxtimes
\mathcal{R}^{1}q_{\ast}(\mathcal{J}\otimes\Omega_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}\times S /S}^{n}(n-1)) \! \to \!
\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(2-n)\boxtimes
\mathcal{R}^{1}q_{\ast}(\mathcal{J}\otimes\Omega_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}\times S /S}^{n-1}(n-2)) \! \to \! \cdots$$ $$\label{Universal-extended}
\cdots\to \mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}\boxtimes
\mathcal{R}^{1}q_{\ast}(\mathcal{J}\otimes\Omega_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}\times S /S}^{1}) \to
\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1)\boxtimes
\mathcal{R}^{1}q_{\ast1}(\mathcal{J}\otimes p^{\ast}\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-1))$$ such that it’s cohomology is exactly the family $\mathcal{J}.$
By the relative Beilinson theorem, we only need the $S$-flatness of $\mathcal{J}$ and the fact that at point $s\in S$ one has $$\mathcal{R}^{1}q_{\ast}(\mathcal{J}\otimes\Omega_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}\times S/S}^{-i}(1-i))\otimes k(s)\simeq
\operatorname{H}^{1}({{\mathbb{P}^n}},\mathcal{I}_{Z(s)}\otimes\Omega_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}^{-i}(1-i)),$$ where $Z(s)$ is the $0$-dimensional subscheme of ${{\mathbb{P}^n}}$ corresponting to the point $s\in S$. The rest of the proof follows from the vanishing properties of Lemma \[vanishing\].
Therefore, on every point $s\in S,$ one has a perfect extended monad $ P^{\bullet}(s)$ given by
$$\operatorname{H}^{1}(\mathcal{I}_{Z(s)}\otimes\Omega_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}^{n}(n-1))\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1-n) \to
\operatorname{H}^{1}(\mathcal{I}_{Z(s)}\otimes\Omega_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}^{n-1}(n-2))\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(2-n) \to \cdots$$ $$\cdots \to \operatorname{H}^{1}(\mathcal{I}_{Z(s)}\otimes\Omega_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}^{1})\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-1) \to
\operatorname{H}^{1}(\mathcal{I}_{Z(s)}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(-1))\otimes\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1)$$
Moreover, in the case of the space $\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}$ defined by one have the *universal extended monad* $$\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1-n)\boxtimes (V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}}) \to
\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(2-n)\boxtimes(V_{1}^{\oplus\binom{n}{n-1}}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}})
\to \cdots$$ $$\label{Universal-extended2}
\cdots \to
\mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}\boxtimes((V_{1}^{\oplus n}\oplus W)\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}})
\to \mathcal{O}_{{{\mathbb{P}^n}}}(1)\boxtimes(V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}})$$
Finally we have the following
\[represent\] The scheme $\mathcal{M}(n,c)$ is a fine moduli space for the Hilbert functor $\mathcal{H}\textnormal{ilb}_{{\mathbb{C}}^n}^{[c]}$ of $c$ points on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$.
The proof is similar, *mutatis mutandis*, to that of [@HJM Theorem 4.2].
It follows by universality of the Hilbert scheme that
\[identified\] ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{n}})\simeq\mathcal{M}(n,c)$ as schemes.
The Hilbert–Chow map {#hilb-chow}
====================
Let $\mathcal{S}^{c}$ denote the group of permutations on $c$ elements, and consider the symmetric product of $c$ copies of $\mathbb{C}^{n}$: $$S^{(c)}\mathbb{C}^{n}:=(\mathbb{C}^{n}\times\mathbb{C}^{n}\times\ldots\times\mathbb{C}^{n})/\mathcal{S}^{c}.$$ In this section, we show how one can describe the Hilbert–Chow morphism $$HC:{{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}(\mathbb{C}^{n})\to S^{(c)}\mathbb{C}^{n}$$ in terms of the linear data $[(B_{0},B_{1},\cdots,B_{n-1},I)]$.
Recall that a partition $\nu=(\nu_{1},\nu_{2},\ldots,\nu_{k}),$ with $\nu_{1}\geq\nu_{2}\geq\ldots\geq\nu_{k}\geq0,$ of $c$ of length $k$, gives a stratum $$Z^{(c)}_{\nu}=
\{\sum_{i=1}^{k}\nu_{i}[p_{i}]\in S^{(n)}{\mathbb{C}}^{n}| p_{i}\neq p_{j}\textnormal{ for } j\neq j\}$$ of the symmetric product $S^{(c)}\mathbb{C}^{n}$ corresponding to $k$ ordered points $p_{1},p_{2},\ldots,p_{k},$ in $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ with multiplicities $\nu_{1},\nu_{2},\ldots,\nu_{k},$ respectively. There is a set theoretic stratification $${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{n}})=\bigsqcup_{\nu}U^{[c]}_{\nu},$$ where each stratum $U^{[c]}_{\nu}$ is given by the inverse imge $HC^{-1}(Z^{(c)}_{\nu})$.
Now let $[(B_{0},B_{1},\cdots,B_{n-1},I)]$ be a datum class in ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}(\mathbb{C}^{n});$ the endomorphisms $B_{i},$ $i=\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$ can be put simultaneously into upper-triangular form, since the $B_{i}$’s commutes two by two. That is one can wtite the $B_{i}'$s as $${\small
B_{1}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\lambda_{1}^{1} &\ast&\ast&\cdots&\ast \\
0&\lambda_{2}^{1}&\ast&\cdots& \\
0&0&\lambda_{3}^{1}&\cdots&\ast \\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots \\
0&0&0&\cdots&\lambda_{c}^{1}
\end{array}\right),
\cdots,
B_{n}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\lambda_{1}^{n} &\ast&\ast&\cdots&\ast \\
0&\lambda_{2}^{n}&\ast&\cdots& \\
0&0&\lambda_{3}^{n}&\cdots&\ast \\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots \\
0&0&0&\cdots&\lambda_{c}^{1}
\end{array}\right),}$$ where the diagonal elements $\lambda^{i}_{1}, \lambda^{i}_{2},\cdots,\lambda^{i}_{k}$ are the, not necessarily all distinct, eigenvelues of the endomorphism $B_{i}.$
The Hilbert-Chow map can be represented by:
$$HC:\quad\[email protected]@C+0.2pc{ {{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}} \ar[r]&S^{(c)}\mathbb{C}^{n} \\
[(B_{0},B_{1},\cdots,B_{n-1},I)]\ar@{|->}[r]&\sum^{k}_{l}\nu_{l} [p_{l}]. }$$
where $\nu_{l}$ counts the number of repeating $n-$tuples $(\lambda^{0}_{l}, \lambda^{1}_{l},\cdots,\lambda^{n-1}_{l}),$ for $l=1,\cdots,c$ and $\{p_{l}=(\lambda^{0}_{l}, \lambda^{1}_{l},\cdots,\lambda^{n-1}_{l})\}_{l=1,\cdots,k}$ is a set of $k$ points in $\mathbb{C}^{n},$ each with multiplicity $\nu_{l}.$ Indeed, $\sum^{k}_{l}\nu_{l}=c$ and $\sum^{k}_{l}\nu_{l} [p_{l}]$ is the topological support of the zero dimensional subscheme corresponding to the datum $[Z].$
Of course, when all the eigenvalues are distinct, the endomorphisms $B_{i}$ are all, simultanusely diagonalizable and the multiplicity $\nu_{l}=1,$ for all $l=1,\cdots,c.$ Hence $\sum^{c}_{l}[p_{l}]$ is a point in the smooth stratum $S^{(c)}\mathbb{C}^{n}\backslash\Delta,$ where $\Delta\subset S^{(c)}\mathbb{C}^{n}$ is the big diagonal.
The Hilbert scheme of points on affine varieties {#hilb_y}
================================================
In this section we realise a scheme-theoretic bijection between ideals of zero dimensional subschemes, with constant Hilbert polynomial $c,$ on affine varieties $\mathbb{Y}$ and points of a subscheme of ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$ which is defined out of the ideal associated to $\mathbb{Y}.$
Let us consider the following data: Let $\mathbb{Y}=\mathcal{Z}(Z_{\mathbb{Y}})\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}$ be an affine variety, given by the zero locus of the ideal $Z_{\mathbb{Y}}\subsetneq\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}].$ We denote by $A(\mathbb{Y})$ the affine coordinate ring of the variety $\mathbb{Y},$ i.e., $A(\mathbb{Y})=\frac{\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}]}{Z_{\mathbb{Y}}}.$
To each stable datum $X=(\vec{B},I),$ as defined in Section \[Matrix-Para\], one can associate a unique Ideal $J\subset\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}]$, up to a $GL(V)$ action, such that the quotient $\frac{\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}]}{J}=V$ is a vector space of dimension $c.$ In other words, $J$ is an ideal corresponding to a zero dimensional subschemes, of length $c,$ of the affine space $\mathbb{C}^{n},$ Theorem \[Corresp\]. Then one has the following exact sequence $$0 \to J\stackrel{j}{\longrightarrow}\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}]\stackrel{\Phi_{X}}{\to} V\to 0,$$ where $\Phi_{X}$ is defined by $\Phi_{X}(p(x_{1},\cdots,x_{n})):=p(B_{1},\cdots,B_{n})I(1)$ for any polynomial $p\in\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}].$
Furthermore, suppose that $X=(\vec{B},I)$ satisfies the condition $f(\vec{B})=0,$ $\forall f\in Z_{\mathbb{Y}}.$ Then $\Phi_{X}(f)=0$ for all $f\in Z_{\mathbb{Y}},$ and we have an injective map $Z_{\mathbb{Y}}\stackrel{i'}{\hookrightarrow} J.$ Moreover there exists an injective map $J'=\frac{J}{Z_{\mathbb{Y}}}\stackrel{j'}{\hookrightarrow}A(\mathbb{Y});$ since $J\stackrel{\pi'}{\to}J'$ is sujective then for any $g'\in J'$ there exists an element $g\in J$ such that $g'=\pi'(g).$ Taking the image of $g$ under the composition $J\stackrel{j}{\hookrightarrow}\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}]\stackrel{\pi}{\twoheadrightarrow}A(\mathbb{Y})$ one has the well defind map $j',$ since any difference in the choice of $g$ lies in the ideal $Z_{\mathbb{Y}}.$ One can resume the above situation in the following commutative diagram $$\label{display}
\[email protected]@R-0.5pc{ &0\ar[d]&0\ar[d]&& \\
&Z_{\mathbb{Y}}\ar[d]^{i'}\ar@{=}[r]&Z_{\mathbb{Y}}\ar[d]^{i}&& \\
0\ar[r]&J\ar[d]^{\pi'}\ar[r]^{j\qquad}&\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}]\ar[r]^{\qquad\Phi_{X}}\ar[d]^{\pi}&V\ar[r]\ar@{=}[d]&0 \\
0\ar[r]&J'\ar[r]^{j'}\ar[d]&A(\mathbb{Y})\ar[r]^{\Phi'_{X}}\ar[d]&V\ar[r]&0 \\
&0&0&&
}$$
Moreover, we have $\Phi_{X}=\Phi'_{X}\circ\pi$ and the correspondence $X\leftrightarrow J:=\ker\Phi_{X}$ is unique up to isomorphism (Theorem \[Corresp\]). Since $\pi$ is fixed for the given variety $\mathbb{Y}$ and its kernel is obviously given by $f\in Z_{\mathbb{Y}},$ then the map that associates $ J':=\ker\Phi_{X}$ to $X=(\vec{B},I)\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st},$ such that $f(\vec{B})=0$ for all $f\in Z_{\mathbb{Y}},$ is also unique up to isomorfism.
Now, Assume we have an ideal $J'\subset A(\mathbb{Y})$ such that $V:=\frac{A(\mathbb{Y})}{J'}$ is a $\mathbb{C}-$vector space of dimension $c,$ that is, $$0\to J'\stackrel{j'}{\to}A(\mathbb{Y})\stackrel{\Phi'}{\to}V\to0.$$ Then one has commutative diagram as above, where $\Phi:\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}]\to V$ is given by the composition $\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}]\stackrel{\pi}{\twoheadrightarrow}A(\mathbb{Y})\stackrel{\Phi'}{\twoheadrightarrow}V.$ Define $J:=\ker\Phi.$ Then, by Theorem \[Corresp\] one can define a datum $X=(\vec{B},I)\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}$ up to a $GL(V)$ action. Furthermore, there is a map $\pi':J\to J'$ with $\ker\pi'=Z_{\mathbb{Y}}.$ Thus, $\Phi(f):=f(\vec{B})I(1)=0,$ and by the stability of $X=(\vec{B},I)$ we have $f(\vec{B})=0,$ for all $f\in Z_{\mathbb{Y}}.$
Now we put $\mathcal{V}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)^{st}:\{X=(\vec{B},I)\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}/f(\vec{B})=0,\quad\forall f\in Z_{\mathbb{Y}}\}$. Hence we have the following:
\[correspond2\] There exists a set-theoretical bijection between the quotient space $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c) := \mathcal{V}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)^{st} / GL(V)$ and the Hilbert scheme ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}_{\mathbb{Y}}$of $c$ points in $\mathbb{Y}.$
Scheme structure on $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)$
-------------------------------------------------
The scheme structure of $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)$ is given as the following: For a given datum $X=(B_{1},\cdots,B_{n}, I)\in\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st},$ the map $\phi_{X}'$ is given by $$\phi_{X}':\begin{array}{ccc} A(\mathbb{Y})& \to & V \\ \lbrack p\mod Z_{\mathbb{Y}} \rbrack & \mapsto &\phi'([p\mod(Z_{\mathbb{Y}})]):=[p(\vec{B})\mod(Z_{\mathbb{Y}})]I(1).\end{array}$$ By stability, one has $\ker\phi_{X}'=\{f\in A(\mathbb{Y})=\frac{\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}]}{Z_{\mathbb{Y}}} | f(B_{1},\cdots,B_{n})=0\}.$ In particular $f(B_{1},\cdots,B_{n})=0$ for all $f\in Z_{\mathbb{Y}}.$ Conversely, one can define an ideal $\tilde{Z}_{\mathbb{Y}}$ in the ring of regular functions $\Gamma(\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}),$ on $\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st},$ which is defined by $\tilde{Z}_{\mathbb{Y}}=\{f(B_{1},\cdots,B_{n})=0\in\operatorname{End}(V)\textnormal{ for }f\in Z_{\mathbb{Y}}\}.$ Then $\mathcal{V}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)^{st}$ is the subscheme of $\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}$ given by $\tilde{Z}_{\mathbb{Y}}\subset\Gamma(\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{st}).$ Of course, by choosing a basis for $V,$ one has $\operatorname{End}(V)\cong \operatorname{Mat}_{c\times c}(\mathbb{C})$ and every polynomial equation $f\in Z_{\mathbb{Y}}$ gives rise to $c$ polynomial equations in $\tilde{Z}_{\mathbb{Y}}$ given the rows of $f(B_{1},\cdots,B_{n}).$ Thus, if $Z_{\mathbb{Y}}$ is generated by $k$ element in $\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}],$ then $\tilde{Z}_{\mathbb{Y}}$ will be generated by, at most, $c\times k$ polynomials in the entries $b_{ab}^{i}$ of $B_{i},$ for $i=1,\cdots,n,$ and $a,b=1,\cdots,c.$
Now, consider $\mathcal{O}_{{{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}}:=\bigoplus_{i\geq0}\Gamma(\mathcal{V}(n,c))^{G,\chi^{i}},$ where $\Gamma(\mathcal{V}(n,c))^{G,\chi^{i}}$ is the ring equivariant regular functions on $\mathcal{V}(n,c),$ of weight $i$ with respect to the character $\chi$ corresponding to the $GL(V)-$action, as defined in Section \[Matrix-Para\]. One can form the space [$$\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c) :=
{\rm Proj}\left(\bigoplus_{i\geq0}\left(\frac{\Gamma(\mathcal{V}(n,c))}{\tilde{Z}_{\mathbb{Y}}}\right)^{G,\chi^{i}} \right) \hookrightarrow{{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}(\mathbb{C}^{n}):=
{\rm Proj}\left(\bigoplus_{i\geq0}\Gamma(\mathcal{V}(n,c))^{G,\chi^{i}} \right).$$ ]{}
Hence, $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)$ is a closed subscheme of the Hilbert scheme of points ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}(\mathbb{C}^{n}),$ and represents, of course a subfunctor, $\mathfrak{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}(\cdot)$ of the Hilbert functor $\mathcal{H}ilb_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]}(\cdot)$
The schematic isomorphism $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)\cong{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that the Hilbert scheme of points ${{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}$ represents the functor $\mathcal{H}ilb_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}(\cdot):\mathfrak{S}ch\to\mathfrak{S}et$ which associates to any noetherian scheme of finite type $S$ the set $$\mathcal{H}ilb_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}(S) :=
\left\{
\hspace{-0.2cm}\begin{array}{c}
\phantom{.} \\ Z\subset\mathbb{Y}\times S \\ \qquad\cap \\ \qquad\mathbb{C}^{n}\times S\end{array} \right.
\left|
\begin{array}{l}
Z\textnormal{ is a closed subscheme,} \\
\begin{array}{ccc}
Z & \hookrightarrow & \mathbb{Y}\times S \\
\pi\downarrow & &\downarrow q \\ S & \simeq & S
\end{array} \hspace{0.4cm} \textnormal{with }\pi\textnormal{ flat, and} \\
\chi(\mathcal{O}_{\pi^{-1}(s)}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Y}}(m))=c \quad, \quad \forall m\in{\mathbb{Z}}.
\end{array}
\right\}$$ of flat families of $0$-dimensional subschemes of $\mathbb{Y}\stackrel{i}{\hookrightarrow}\mathbb{C}^{n}.$ In particular there exists a universal flat family $\mathfrak{X}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{Y}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}$ of $0-$dimensional subschmes of length $c$ on $\mathbb{Y}.$ Moreover, $\mathfrak{X}$ is a flat subfamily of the universal family $\mathfrak{F}\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]},$ of $0-$dimensional subschmes of length $c$ in $\mathbb{C}^{n}.$ This follows from the fact that $\mathcal{H}ilb_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}(\cdot)\stackrel{\tilde{h}^{\natural}}{\to}\mathcal{H}ilb_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]}(\cdot)$ is a subfunctor and $\mathfrak{X}$ is just the restriction $\tilde{h}^{\ast}\mathfrak{F}$ of $\mathfrak{F},$ for the morphism $\tilde{h}:=i\times h:\mathbb{Y}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{[c]}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]}.$ Furthermore, since the scheme $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)$ also parameterizes $0-$dimensional subschmes of length $c$ in $\mathbb{Y}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{n},$ then any flat family $\mathfrak{Z}\subset\mathbb{Y}\times\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)$ is the pull-back of the family $\mathfrak{X}$ under a morphism $\mathbb{Y}\times\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)\stackrel{id_{\mathbb{Y}}\times f}{\to}\mathbb{Y}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}.$ One can resume the above situation in the following diagram: $$\xymatrix@R-1pc@C-1pc{ \mathfrak{X}\ar[dd]\ar[drr]& & & &\mathfrak{Z}\ar[dd]\ar[dll]\ar[llll] \\
& &\mathfrak{F}\ar[dd] & & \\
\mathbb{Y}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}\ar@{^{(}->}[rrd]_{\tilde{\beta}}\ar[dd]& &\ar@{-->}[ll]_{\tilde{f}} & &\mathbb{Y}\times\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)\ar@{--}[ll]\ar@{_{(}->}[lld]^{\tilde{\alpha}}\ar[dd] \\
& & \mathbb{C}^{n}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]}\ar[dd] & & \\
{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}\ar@{^{(}->}[rrd]_{\beta}& & \ar@{-->}[ll]_{f}& & \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)\ar@{--}[ll]\ar@{_{(}->}[lld]^{\alpha} \\
& & {{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]}& &
}$$ whre $\tilde{\alpha}:=i\times\beta,$ $\tilde{\beta}:=i\times\beta$ and $\tilde{f}:=id_{\mathbb{Y}}\times f.$ On the other hand, $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)$ represent a closed subfunctor of the Hilbert functor $\mathcal{H}ilb_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]}(\bullet)$ such that, for any closed point $spec(k)$ such that the following diagram commutes: $$\label{points}\xymatrix{ &spec(k)\ar[rd]^{\rho_{\alpha}}\ar[ld]_{\rho_{\alpha}}\ar@{-}[d]^{\rho}& \\
{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}\ar@{^{(}->}[rd]^{\beta}&\ar[d]\ar@{-->}[l]&\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)\ar@{--}[l]_f\ar@{_{(}->}[ld]_{\alpha} \\
&{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]}& \\
}$$ One has $\operatorname{Hom}(spec(k),\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c))\cong\mathcal{H}ilb_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}(spec(k)),$ since $f$ is isomorphic on points, as it follows from Theorem \[correspond2\].
On the other hand, let us consider the restriction of the universal monad to $\mathbb{Y}\times\mathcal{V}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)^{st}.$ This gives the following extended monad
$$\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Y}}(1-n)\boxtimes (V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{V}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)^{st}}) \to
\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Y}}(2-n)\boxtimes(V_{1}^{\oplus\binom{n}{n-1}}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{V}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)^{st}})
\to \cdots$$ $$\label{Univ-ext-rest}
\cdots \to
\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Y}}\boxtimes((V_{1}^{\oplus n}\oplus W)\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{V}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)^{st}})
\to \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Y}}(1)\boxtimes(V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{V}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)^{st}})$$ We denote by $\tilde{\mathfrak{Z}}$ the family of ideals which arises as its cohomology. The restriction at any point $spec(k)\to\mathcal{V}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)^{st}$ one has an $(n-2)-$extended monad whose cohomology is an ideal of $c$ points on $\mathbb{Y}$ represented by the stable datum $(B_{1},\cdots,B_{n},I)$ which satisfies $f(B_{1},\cdots,B_{n})=0,$ for all $f\in Z_{\mathbb{Y}}.$
Now for any noetherian scheme of finite type $S,$ parameterizing zero-dimensional schemes of $\mathbb{Y},$ suppose there exists a flat family of ideals $\eta$ on $\mathbb{Y}\times S.$ We consider an open cover $\{S_{i}\}_{i\in J}$ of $S.$ Then, for a fixed $i\in J,$ $\eta_{i}:=\eta({\mathbb{Y}\times S_{i}})$ is the cohomology of the following $(n-2)-$extended monad on $S_{i}$ $$\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Y}}(1-n)\boxtimes (V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{S_{i}}) \to
\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Y}}(2-n)\boxtimes(V_{1}^{\oplus\binom{n}{n-1}}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{S_{i}})
\to \cdots$$ $$\label{Univ-ext-rest}
\cdots \to
\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Y}}\boxtimes((V_{1}^{\oplus n}\oplus W)\otimes\mathcal{O}_{S_{i}})
\to \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Y}}(1)\boxtimes(V_{1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{S_{i}})$$ At each point $s\in S_{i},$ this gives an $(n-2)-$extended monad whose cohomology is an ideal of zero dimensional subscheme of $\mathbb{Y}.$ In particular, there exists a datum in $\mathcal{V}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)^{st}$ representing it. Since $S_{i}$ is an open subset, one obtains a morphism $g_{\eta_{i}}:S_{i}\to\mathcal{V}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)^{st},$ such that on the overlaps of the form $S_{i}\cap S_{j}$ one has $$g_{\eta_{i}}(S)\sim_{{\tiny GL(V_{1})}}g_{\eta_{j}}(s), \qquad\forall s\in S_{i}\cap S_{j}.$$ Thus giving rise to a well defined morphism $g_{\eta}:S\to\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)$ such that $\eta=(id_{\mathbb{Y}}\times g_{\eta})^{\ast}(\mathfrak{Z}).$ In particular, there exists a morphism $h_{\mathfrak{X}}:{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}\to\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c),$ such that $\mathfrak{X}=(id_{\mathbb{Y}}\times h_{\mathfrak{X}})^{\ast}\mathfrak{Z}$ and $\mathcal{H}ilb_{\mathbb{Y}}(spec(k))\cong\operatorname{Hom}(spec(k),\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)),$ that is, $h=f^{-1}$ as a set-theoretic maps.
Moreover, for the inclusions $\tilde{\alpha}:\mathbb{Y}\times\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c)\to\mathbb{C}^{n}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]}$ and $\tilde{\beta}:\mathbb{Y}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}\to\mathbb{C}^{n}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]}$ one has $\tilde{\alpha}_{\ast}\mathfrak{Z}(U):=\mathfrak{Z}(U\cap\mathbb{C}^{n}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]})$ and $\tilde{\beta}_{\ast}\mathfrak{X}(U):=\mathfrak{X}(U\cap\mathbb{C}^{n}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]}),$ on every open $U\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]}.$ Furthermore for a point $x=spec(k)$ as in , we have an isomorfism of stalks $$\lim_{V\ni x}[\tilde{\alpha}_{\ast}\mathfrak{Z}(V)]\cong\lim_{V\ni x}[\tilde{\beta}_{\ast}\mathfrak{X}(V)],$$ for all $V\subseteq U,$ in some directed system. Finally, the families $\mathfrak{Z}$ and $\mathfrak{X}$ are both restrictions, of the universal family $\mathcal{F}\to\mathbb{C}^{n}\times{{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}^{[c]},$ to subschemes, with the same topological support, and such that $\mathfrak{X}=(id_{\mathbb{Y}}\times h_{\mathfrak{X}})^{\ast}\mathfrak{Z}=[id_{\mathbb{Y}}\times (h_{\mathfrak{X}}\circ f)]^{\ast}\mathfrak{X}$ and $\mathfrak{Z}=(id_{\mathbb{Y}}\times f)^{\ast}\mathfrak{Z}=[id_{\mathbb{Y}}\times (f\circ h_{\mathfrak{X}})]^{\ast}\mathfrak{Z}.$ Hence $f$ is lifted to an (unique) isomorphism of schemes ${{\rm Hilb}}_{\mathbb{Y}}^{[c]}\cong\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{Y}}(c),$ with inverse $h_{\mathfrak{X}}.$
Irreducible components of the Hilbert scheme of points {#irred}
======================================================
The variety $\mathcal{C}(n,c)$ of $n$ commuting $c\times c$ matrices have been much studied by various authors since a 1961 paper by Gerstenhaber [@G]. The results concerning the irreducibility of $\mathcal{C}(n,c)$ can be sumarized as follows:
- $\mathcal{C}(2,c)$ is irreducible for every $c$ (originally proved by Motzkin and Taussky [@MT], see also [@G]);
- $\mathcal{C}(3,c)$ is irreducible for $c\le 10$ and reducible for $c\ge 30$, see [@HO; @S] and the references therein;
- for $n\ge4$, $\mathcal{C}(n,c)$ is irreducible if and only if $c\le3$ [@G].
In particular, determining the highest possible value of $c$ for which $\mathcal{C}(3,c)$ is irreducible is an important open problem.
On the other hand, much less is known about the irreducibiity of the Hilbert scheme ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{n}})$ of $c$ points on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$, see for instance [@CEVV Section 7] and the references therein.
- ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{2}})$ is irreducible for every $c$, see [@Fog];
- ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{3}})$ is irreducible for $c\le 8$ [@CEVV Theorem 1.1], while it is reducible for $c\ge 78$, cf. [@Iar85];
- for $n\ge 4$, ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{n}})$ is irreducible if and only if for $c\le 7$ [@CEVV Theorem 1.1].
Similarly, determining the highest possible value of $c$ for which ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{3}})$ is irreducible is also an important open question.
In this section, we connect the two problems through the following result.
\[number\] The number of irreducible components of ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{n}})$ is smaller than, or equal to, the number of irreducible components of $\mathcal{C}(n,c)$. In particular, if $\mathcal{C}(n,c)$ is irreducible, then ${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{n}})$ is also irreducible.
Clearly, the number of irreducible components of $\mathcal{C}(n,c)$ is the same as the number of irreducible components of $\mathcal{V}(n,c):=\mathcal{C}(n,c)\times\operatorname{Hom}(W,V)$. Let $\mathcal{V}_1(n,c),\dots,$ $\mathcal{V}_p(n,c)$ denote the irreducible components of $\mathcal{V}(n,c)$, and set $\mathcal{V}_l(n,c)^{\rm st}:=\mathcal{V}_l(n,c)\cap\mathcal{V}(n,c)^{\rm st}$, with $l=1,\dots,p$.
It is possible that some components of $\mathcal{V}(n,c)$ contain no stable points; one can then order the irreducible components of $\mathcal{V}(n,c)$ in such a way that $\mathcal{V}_l(n,c)^{\rm st}\ne\emptyset$ for $l=1,\dots,q$ and $\mathcal{V}_l(n,c)^{\rm st}=\emptyset$ for $l=q+1,\dots,p$.
Since the group $G:=GL(V)$ is irreducible, it is easy to see that if $x\in\mathcal{V}_l(n,c)^{\rm st}$ then its orbit $G\cdot x \subset \mathcal{V}_l(n,c)^{\rm st}$. Note also that $$\mathcal{V}_l(n,c) /\!/_{\chi} G = \mathcal{V}_l(n,c)^{\rm st}/G$$ is irreducible, for each $l=1,\dots,q$.
Since the GIT quotient $\mathcal{M}(n,c)$ coincides, by Proposition \[closed orbit\], with the set of stable $G$-orbits, we have that $$\mathcal{M}(n,c) =
\left( \mathcal{V}_1(n,c)^{\rm st}/G \right) \cup \cdots \cup
\left( \mathcal{V}_q(n,c)^{\rm st}/G \right)$$ and the desired conclusion follows from Corollary \[identified\].
As an immediate consequence of [@S Theorems 26 & 32], we obtain the following new result on the irreducibility of the Hilbert scheme of points in dimension $3$.
${{\rm Hilb}}^{[c]}({\mathbb{C}^{3}})$ is irreducible for $c\le 10$.
As a final comment, we remark that determining which components of $\mathcal{V}(n,c)$ admit stable solutions seems to be a very interesting problem both from the linear algebra and the algebraic geometry points of view. More precisely, given an $n$-tuple of commuting matrices $(B_1,\dots,B_n)$, when is it possible to find a deformation $(B_1',\dots,B_n')$ and a vector $I$ such that the datum $(B_1',\dots,B_n',I)$ is stable?
[99]{}
A. Álvarez, F. Sancho, P. Sancho, Homogeneous Hilbert schemes. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**136**]{} (2008), 781–790.
D. Cartwright, D. Erman, M. Velasco, B. Viray, Hilbert schemes of 8 points. Algebra Number Theory [**3**]{} (2009), 763–-795.
M. Cirafici, A. Sinkivics, R. Szabo, Cohomological gauge theory, quiver matrix models and Donaldson-Thomas theory, Nucl. Phy. B [**809**]{}, (2009) 452–518.
G. Fløystad, Monads on projective spaces, Comm. Algebra [**28**]{} (2000), 5503–5516.
J. Fogarty, Algebraic families on an algebraic surface. Amer. J. Math. [**90**]{} (1968), 511–521.
F. Galluzzi, F. Vaccarino, Hilbert–Chow morphism for non commutative Hilbert schemes and moduli spaces of linear representations. Algebr. Represent. Theory [**13**]{} (2010), 491–509.
M. Gerstenhaber, On dominance and varieties of commuting matrices. Ann. Math. [**73**]{} (1961), 324–348.
Grothendieck, A.: [*Techniques de construction et théorème d’existence en géométrie algébrique IV: Les schémas de Hilbert*]{}. Séminaire Bourbaki, 221, 1960/1961.
T. S. Gustavsen, D. Laksov, R. M. Skjelnes, An elementary, explicit, proof of the existence of Hilbert schemes of points. J. Pure Appl. Algebra [**210**]{} (2007), 705–720.
A. A. Henni, M. Jardim, R. V. Martins, [*ADHM construction of Perverse Instanton sheaves.*]{} Preprint arXiv: 1201.5657.
J. Holbrook, M. Omladic, Approximating commuting operators, Linear Algebra Appl. [**327**]{} (2001) 131-–149.
A. Iarrobino, Reducibility of the family of 0-dimensional schemes on a variety. Inventiones Math. [**15**]{} (1972), 72–77.
A. Iarrobino, Compressed algebras and components of the punctual Hilbert scheme. In: Algebraic Geometry, Sitges, 1983, volume 1124 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 146–185. Springer-Verlag, 1985.
T. Motzkin, O. Taussky-Todd, Pairs of matrices with property L, II, Trans. AMS [**80**]{} (1955), 387–401.
D. Mumford, [*Geometric invariant theory.*]{} Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Neue Folge, Band 34 Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York 1965.
H. Nakajima, [*Lectures on Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces*]{}. Providence: American Mathematical Society, 1999.
N. Nitsure, [*Construction of Hilbert and Quot schemes.*]{} Fundamental algebraic geometry, 105–137, Math. Surveys Monogr., 123, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005.
C. Okonek, M. Schneider, H. Spindler, [*Vector bundles on complex projective spaces.*]{} Progress in mathematics 3, Birkhauser, Boston, 1980.
G. F. Seelinger, Brauer–Severi schemes of finitely generated algebras. Israel Journal of Math. [**111**]{} (1999), 321 – 337.
C. S. Seshadri, [*Vector bundles on curves.*]{} Contemp. Math. [**153**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1993.
K. Sivic, On varieties of commuting matrices III, Linear Algebra Appl. [**437**]{} (2012), 393–460.
M. Van den Bergh, The Brauer Severi scheme of the trace ring of generic matrices. NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci. [**233**]{}, [*Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht,*]{} (1988).
F. Vaccarino, Linear representations, symmetric products and the commuting scheme. J. Algebra [**317**]{} (2007), 634–641.
[^1]: We omit writing the identity in front of the coordinates so $z_{i}\mathbb{I}_{V_{1}}$ will just be written $z_{i}$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Since its development in 1992[@dmrg], the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) has become one of the most widely used numerical techniques for simulations of one dimensional quantum lattice systems. For systems with short ranged interactions, the calculation time for DMRG grows only linearly with the length of the system, while the errors usually decrease exponentially with the calculation time[@details]. Consequently, very high accuracy results are possible even on very large systems.
Most applications of DMRG have been to lattice models for strongly correlated systems. Recently, Fano, Ortolani, and Ziosi applied DMRG to a Pariser-Parr-Pople (PPP) Hamiltonian for a cyclic polyene[@fano]. The PPP model is more realistic than many models in that long range coulomb interactions are included. Fano, et. al. found that DMRG compared quite favorably to coupled cluster approximations. Here, we go a step further: we consider the application of DMRG to the fully [*ab initio*]{} determination of the electronic structure of atoms and molecules. The successful adaptation of DMRG to this field could potentially open up a wide range of improved calculational techniques, characterized by high accuracy and improved scaling of calculation time with system size. As a first step in this direction, we show here that DMRG can be successfully used to obtain very accurate many-body solutions for small molecules. We will use DMRG within the conventional quantum chemical framework of a finite basis set with non-orthogonal basis functions made from products of gaussian radial functions and Cartesian harmonics centered on each atom. The initial step of the calculation is a standard Hartree Fock (HF) calculation in which a Hamiltonian is produced within the orthogonal HF basis. DMRG is then used as a procedure for including correlations beyond HF, much as the configuration interaction (CI) or coupled cluster methods are used.
Within the HF basis, the Hamiltonian is in principle no different from other model Hamiltonians which have been studied using DMRG. It can be written as $$H = \sum_{ij\sigma} T_{ij} c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}
+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ijkl\sigma\sigma'} V_{ijkl}
c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c^\dagger_{j\sigma'}c_{k\sigma'}c_{l\sigma} .$$ Here $T_{ij}$ contains the electron kinetic energy and the Coulomb interaction between the electrons and the nuclei, while $V_{ijkl}$ describes the electron-electron Coulomb interaction. The most important difference in this Hamiltonian from model Hamiltonians is the large number of interaction terms $V_{ijkl}$: $N^4$, where $N$ is the number of basis functions or orbitals. The number of electrons, ${N_{\rm el}}$, is less important in a DMRG calculation. The large number of terms makes standard DMRG programs very inefficient, and below we describe procedures for improving the efficiency of the treatment of these terms[@notoned].
In our approach, an ordering of the orbitals is chosen, and each orbital is treated as a “site” in a one-dimensional lattice. Since this arrangement is artificial, the Hamiltonian is long-ranged. The orbitals can be sorted according to various criteria. We have found that sorting them in order to minimize strong interactions between widely separated orbitals is probably best, but they can also be arranged by HF orbital energy.
Once this ordering is chosen, a standard DMRG finite-system algorithm can be used[@dmrg]. In this procedure, collections of orbitals are represented as “blocks”. The properties of a block are defined by listing the many-body states of the block and by storing matrices representing operators acting on that collection of orbitals. The representation is approximate, since not all of the many-body states are retained. For example, if the block happened to represent the ${N_{\rm el}}/2$ occupied HF orbitals, then a reasonable set of states to represent that block would consist of one “filled” state with ${N_{\rm el}}$ electrons, ${N_{\rm el}}$ one-hole states with ${N_{\rm el}}-1$ electrons, and $({N_{\rm el}}^2-{N_{\rm el}})/2$ two-hole states with ${N_{\rm el}}-2$ electrons. Assuming the one- and two-particle states were represented in the “unoccupied” block, this set of states would allow all singly and doubly excited configurations to be formed, but would leave out all higher excitations. DMRG is an iterative procedure, in which at each step there are two blocks, with all the orbitals belonging to one of the two blocks[@twosite]. Iterations, or sweeps, involve transfering orbitals one at a time from the right to the left block, until the right block has only one orbital, and then reversing the direction. At each step, a new set of states is chosen to represent the block. The number of states $m$ kept per block controls the accuracy of the calculation, as well as the storage and computation time.
However, rather than one having to choose the many-body states which describe a block, the states are chosen in an optimal way by DMRG as the eigenstates of a many-particle density matrix. This procedure is somewhat related to the use of a single particle density matrix to choose natural orbitals in quantum chemistry. However, here the many particle states are much more complicated—too complicated, for a system of reasonable size, to represent in terms of a single particle basis. Instead, the states are described in terms of the matrix elements of various operators between these states. The complicated form of the many particle basis allows much more rapid convergence in the number of states $m$ than in a configuration expansion.
The operators which describe a block are chosen in order to be able to generate the Hamiltonian operator for the system. For example, in order to construct the kinetic energy, we must keep matrix elements for the operators $c^\dagger_{i\sigma}$, for all orbitals $i$ in the block. These operators allow us to construct terms $c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}$ where $j$ is not in the block. In addition, we must keep matrices for $c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}$ if both $i$ and $j$ are in the block. Note that one cannot avoid storing a matrix for $AB$ simply because one has stored matrices for $A$ and $B$: the incomplete nature of the basis means that the matrix for $AB$ is not the product of the matrices for $A$ and $B$. In order to describe the Coulomb interaction, it appears that $o(N^4)$ operators of the form $c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c^\dagger_{j\sigma'}c_{k\sigma'}c_{l\sigma}$, must be kept, where $i$, $j$, $k$, and $l$ are all in the block. In addition, $o(N^3)$ additional operators are needed to construct terms when some of the $ijkl$ are not in the block.
Although it appears that $o(N^4)$ operator matrices must be stored per block, a completely standard DMRG “trick” reduces this number to $o(N^3)$. The trick is to sum terms together into a single block Hamiltonian matrix once all of the parts of the term are in the block. Hence there is no need to store terms of the form $c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c^\dagger_{j\sigma'}c_{k\sigma'}c_{l\sigma}$; these terms are multiplied by $V_{ijkl}$ and summed into $H$. In a typical model Hamiltonian, this tricks reduces the number of operators stored per block from $o(N)$ to $o(1)$. Here, we still have $o(N^3)$ operators. Since $o(N)$ blocks must be stored, the storage is $o(N^4 m^2)$.
Additional improvements can be made by combining other operators, as was first done by Xiang in adapting DMRG to momentum space calculations[@xiang]. There are $o(N^3)$ operators with three $c$ and $c^\dagger$ operators, used to construct the Coulomb interaction. These can be largely eliminated by constructing complementary operators like $$O_{i\sigma} = \sum_{jkl\sigma'} V_{ijkl}
c^\dagger_{j\sigma'}c_{k\sigma'}c_{l\sigma}$$ The corresponding parts of the Coulomb interaction can be constructed as $$\sum_{i\sigma} c^\dagger_{i\sigma} O_{i\sigma}.$$ This trick reduces $o(N^3)$ operators to $o(N)$.
At this point, the dominant terms remaining are $o(N^2)$ operators with two $c$ and $c^\dagger$s. The total storage for these, $o(N^3 m^2)$, is now manageable. Additional complementary operators can reduce computation time, however. The dominant part of a DMRG calculation is the iterative diagonalization of the Hamiltonian of the system, which is done once per step, or $\sim N$ times per sweep. The dominant part of this is the multiplication of a vector by Hamiltonian terms of the form $$\sum_{ij\in L}
\sum_{kl\in R} V_{ijkl}
[c^\dagger_{i}c^\dagger_{j}][c_{k}c_{l}]$$ plus other combinations where, for example, $i$ and $l$ belong to the left block $L$, $j$ and $k$ to the right block $R$. Here $[]$ denote the matrix for the corresponding operator. There are $o(N^4)$ such terms; multiplication of a vector by these terms requires $o(N^4 m^3)$ operations. To reduce this computation time, we construct complementary operators $$O_{ij}^R = \sum_{kl\in R} V_{ijkl} [c_{k}c_{l}]
\qquad \forall ij \in L$$ plus other two operator combinations corresponding to other orbitals being in the left block. Constructing these operators at each step requires $o(N^4 m^2)$ operations. However, this is not necessary: one can save these operators from the previous step, transform them to the current basis, and add in the additional terms coming from the new site being added to the block, in $o(N^2 m^3) + o(N^3 m^2)$ operations. Using the complementary operators, corresponding Hamiltonian terms become $$\sum_{ij \in L} [c^\dagger_{i}c^\dagger_{j}]O_{ij}^R$$ plus similar terms. The calculation time to multiply a vector by these terms is $o(N^2 m^3)$, giving $o(N^3 m^3)$ per DMRG sweep.
After all of these optimizations are used, the final calculation time for the whole calculation is $o(N^3 m^3) + o(N^4 m^2)$. The final storage is $o(N^3 m^2)$, but only $o(N^2 m^2)$ needs to be in RAM; the rest can be on disk with little cost in calculation time. The time for the initial Hartree Fock calculation is $o(N^4)$, which is neglible in comparison. In the test calculations below, the number of states kept per block $m$ is typically a few hundred, and $N=25$. However, in cases such as linear chain molecules, we expect to be able to hold $m$ constant as the the length of the system increases, so that eventually $N \sim m$. If high accuracy was not required, one could have $N >> m$. Note that even $m=1$ gives results slightly more accurate than Hartree Fock. If a localized basis, rather than the Hartree Fock basis, were used in a large molecule, so that many coefficients $V_{ijkl}$ were neglible, then the calculation time could potentially be reduced to $o(N^2 m^3)$. If, in addition, the long range part of the Coulomb interaction could be neglected, as is done in many model Hamiltonians, or closely approximated with a multipole expansion, the calculation time would be $o(N m^3)$. However, in the current [*ab initio*]{} calculations we are far from this regime.
As a test case, we have studied a water molecule in a standard basis, comparing with the benchmark full configuration interaction calculations of Bauschlicher and Taylor[@bauschlicher]. In this work, exact results for the H$_2$O molecule within a particular basis were compared with various approximate approaches. (In the reference calculations and our work, the innermost O orbital was “frozen”.) We have used the same basis for the calculations here. In Fig. 1, we show DMRG results compared with Hartree Fock and singles and doubles configuration interaction (SDCI), for the molecule in its equilibrium geometry. Both DMRG and SDCI results are variational. The DMRG results become more accurate than the SDCI for $m \approx 70$.
=3.0 in
In Fig. 2, we show results on an expanded scale for the same system. We also compare with multireference configuration interaction calculations (MRCI), and MRCI plus an estimated correction (the Davidson correction) (MRCI+Q). MRCI is variational, but MRCI+Q is not. We see that DMRG becomes more accurate than MRCI for $m \approx 110$, and more accurate than MRCI+Q for $m \approx 200$. The most accurate DMRG result is off by 0.00024 Hartrees. The MRCI+Q results were the most accurate of the approximate results reported by Bauschlicher and Taylor, with an error of 0.0014.
=3.0 in
=3.0 in
Hartree Fock gives a reasonably adequate description of a water molecule in its equilibrium geometry, but does not describe the system well when one of the OH bonds is stretched significantly. Many approximate approaches (such as SDCI) are strongly dependent on the adequacy of the HF starting point. In order to test the dependence of DMRG on the quality of HF, we have also studied the water molecule with both OH bond lengths doubled. This case was also studied by Bauschlicher and Taylor. In Fig. 3, we compare DMRG with SDCI, MRCI, and MRCI+Q. In this case, DMRG performs better than SDCI starting much earlier, $m \approx 20$. Both the MRCI and the DMRG results are largely unaffected by the poor HF starting point. In this case, the most accurate DMRG result is off by 0.00019 Hartrees, while the MRCI+Q result is off by 0.00071 Hartrees. Interestingly, both results are more accurate than for the equilibrium geometry. One can see that the convergence of DMRG appears to be roughly exponential in $m$, which is also usually the case in finite lattice model systems.
The numerical effort expended for these DMRG calculations was probably more than for the other approximate methods considered above, but less than for the full CI calculations. The point of our calculations was not to present a fully developed technique, but to demonstrate the potential of a new type of approach. DMRG is a versatile technique, and we believe substantial improvements can be made over the calculations described here. We will now discuss two general directions we believe could be successful in improving the method.
An area for potential progress is in the choice of a single particle basis. The Hartee Fock wavefunctions used here are reasonable choices for a small molecule: this basis gives a reasonable answer even if only one state per block is kept, $m=1$. Within the HF basis, the occupancy of orbitals tends to be either almost 0 or almost 2, which helps the convergence of DMRG as a function of $m$. One could also try natural orbitals, which have similar properties. However, both HF and natural orbitals have a significant flaw: they are delocalized on a large system. Experience on lattice models suggests that DMRG tends to be much more accurate with localized bases. An ideal basis would be one that has occupancies close to 0 or 2, but would also be as local as possible. The DMRG would thus seem to fit naturally into the local correlation approaches currently being developed[@pulay].
Another area for potential progress is in the grouping of similar orbitals into clusters. In the standard version of DMRG, blocks are formed for either the left or right half of the system. However, it is also possible to form blocks built out of clusters of orbitals which are strongly coupled to each other. This sort of procedure was found to be quite effective in an electron-phonon model, where a local density matrix was used to reduce the size of the local phonon space for each oscillator from up to 128 states to only 2 or 3[@czhang]. Here, one could form a cluster out of one “occupied” orbital plus a group “virtual” orbitals which are used to correlate the pair of electrons in the occupied orbital. One would want to organize the basis set into a set of such clusters, with each cluster having one occupied and a set of closely coupled virtual orbitals. A density matrix would be used to form an accurate many body basis for each of these clusters. Our preliminary calculations using this approach suggest that fewer than 50 states would be sufficient to describe such a cluster to millihartree accuracy, and even using just a few states would probably be a substantial improvement over Hartree Fock. (The Generalized Valence Bond approach[@gvb] is closely related to this idea with $m=2$.) A standard DMRG calculation could then procede using these clusters as “sites”, with the expectation that much higher accuracy for a given $m$ would be obtained than in the above orbital-by-orbital approach. Alternatively, one might group these clusters into superclusters, describing shells, atoms, or even molecules. In calculating the potential between two molecules, for example, it would be particularly natural to use a supercluster for each molecule. Note that efficient clustering would require the use of localized orbitals, so that progress in these two areas may be coupled.
We acknowledge support from the NSF under Grant No. DMR-9509945 (SRW), and the DOE/LDRD program at Los Alamos(RLM).
S.R. White, , 2863 (1992), , 10345 (1993).
In DMRG, for a 1D system with short ranged interactions, the calculation time for a system of length $L$, keeping $m$ states per block, is proportional to $m^3 L$. The error in the energy of the ground state is believed to vary as $\exp(-\alpha m)$ for systems with a gap to excited states. Since any finite system has gaps, we expect to get exponential convergence asymptotically for any finite system. However, the convergence using the infinite system DMRG method in a gapless system is generally not exponential, although it is usually still rather rapid.
G. Fano, F. Ortolani, and L. Ziosi, preprint, condmat/9803071.
Another difference is that this Hamiltonian is not at all one dimensional, which decreases the accuracy of DMRG. However, the correlations within an atom or small molecule are quite different from in a model system: for example, the Hartree Fock configuration is a much larger component of the ground state in a molecule. In fact, numerical renormalization group methods were originally developed to deal with a wide range of energy scales, as found in molecular species.
Here, for simplicity, the two sites between the two blocks in the standard superblock configuration are assumed to be parts of their neighboring blocks.
T. Xiang, , 10445 (1996).
C. W. Bauschlicher and P. R. Taylor, J. Chem. Phys. [**85**]{}, 2779 (1986).
C. Zhang, E. Jeckelmann, and S. R. White, , 2661 (1998).
A. E. Azhary, G. Rauhut, P. Pulay and H. J. Werner, J. Chem. Phys [**108**]{}, 5185 (1998), and references therein.
F.W. Bobrowicz and W.A. Goddard III, in [*Methods of Electronic Structure Theory*]{}, H.F. Schaefer III, ed., Plenum, New York(1977).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Deep learning algorithms and networks are vulnerable to perturbed inputs which is known as adversarial attack. Many defense methodologies have been investigated to defend against such adversarial attack. In this work, we propose a novel methodology to defend the existing powerful attack model. We for the first time introduce a new attacking scheme for the attacker and set a practical constraint for white box attack. Under this proposed attacking scheme we present the best defense ever reported against some of the recent strong attacks. It consists of a set of non linear function to process the input data which will make it more robust over adversarial attack. However, we make this processing layer completely hidden from the attacker. Blind pre-processing improves the white box attack accuracy of MNIST from 94.3% to 98.7%. Even with increasing defense when others defenses completely fails, blind pre-processing remains one of the strongest ever reported. Another strength of our defense is that, it eliminates the need for adversarial training as it can significantly increase the MNIST accuracy without adversarial training as well. Additionally, blind pre-processing can also increase the inference accuracy in the face of powerful attack on Cifar-10 and SVHN data set as well without much sacrificing clean data accuracy.'
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
---
Introduction
============
Deep Neural Network (DNN) has achieved great success in performing classification [@andor2016globally], image detection [@he2015delving] and speech recognition [@xiong2016achieving]. All these successes lead to another interesting topic about how well DNN will perform practically depends heavily on how well we address the issues concerning the security of these complex models. It was observed by Szegedy et al. (2014) for computer vision [@goodfellow2014explaining] and Biggio et al. (2013) for malware detection [@biggio2013evasion] that DNNs are vulnerable to adversarial examples which can be generated just by slightly changing inputs or by introducing random noise to the inputs. Not only image classification but also other popular fields of DNN are facing vulnerability to adversarial examples [@kos2017adversarial; @kos2017delving]. Similarly, The behaviour of popular Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models is no exception as it shows no resistance to adversarial examples.
There are now various works on generating adversarial attacks and developing corresponding defense methods. Attacking CNN can be classified into two major categories. In one case the attacker has full access to the network model and parameter which is known as white box attack. On the other hand, for black box attack the attacker sees the model as a black box and can only play with the data. Fast Gradient sign method is one of the popular white box attack method which uses the sign of the gradient of loss function [@goodfellow2014explaining]. Different authors have proposed different attack models to adapt the attacking techniques beating the improving defenses [@szegedy2013intriguing; @kurakin2016adversarial; @kos2017delving; @papernot2016limitations; @moosavi2016deepfool]. Some of the recent attack methods achieved even better success causing CNN to classify whole MNIST data set to wrong classes. For example, projected gradient descent is one of the most powerful white box attack till date [@mkadry2017towards].
Many defense method have been proposed to beat adversarial attacks. Some of them achieved good successes mainly against weak attacks, such a Fast Gradient Sign Method(FGSM) and Jacobian Slaiency Map attack (JSMA) [@gu2014towards; @papernot2016distillation; @papernot2016towards; @xu2017feature]. However, None of them could recover current state of the art accuracy against powerful attacks. One major improvement to the those defenses came when defending model started using adversarial examples while training [@tramer2017ensemble; @mkadry2017towards]. But this defense has to two major drawbacks. First, as a defender we do not know the attack model. So it is difficult to choose which adversarial attack method should be used to generate adversary for training. Second, it would double training cost. Still most recent defenses use this technique to strengthen their defense. In this work we look to eliminate the need for using adversarial training by processing the input with the objective to make the neural network more robust. Moreover, we observed all these defenses mentioned here loses its strength when the attack strength is increased. So by implementing this proposed defense we look to make the defense more robust against a wide variety of attacks.
Inspired by recent One hot coding and thermometer encoding of input data [@buckman2018thermometer], in this work, we propose blind pre-processing (BP) of input data. We process the input data using Tanh function, batch normalization, thermometer encoding and one hot encoding. These techniques work in combination with discrete data to defend CNN against adversarial attacks. However, we change the attack set up by introducing an engineering solution to the gradient problem suggested by recent Obfuscated Gradients paper [@obfuscated-gradients]. From the work of obfuscating gradient it is obvious that no white box defense model would work in the presence of powerful attack model. Specifically, none of them would work if it has gradient shattering, stochastic gradient and vanishing gradient as their defense weapon. They also suggested thermometer encoding is using stochastic gradient and they could fool this defense by their proposed attacking model. However, we introduce a more practical white box attack where the attacker will have access to the model, weights, input, gradient and training algorithm but not to the pre-processing layer. we will use obfuscated logic design by proposing a hardware assisted pre-processing layer to counter the obfuscated gradient’s false sense of security [@obfuscated-gradients]. We strongly believe their attack model has too many freedom and restricting the defense with a lot of constraints. As a result, we believe future attack model should evaluate their models strength by considering this blind processing layer in front of the model. This defense is more realistic for practical application such as autonomous vehicles.
Our proposed defense method makes the CNN more robust to defend the strongest attack, Logit Space Gradient Ascent(LS-PGA) attack and also the general strong attack suggested by Anish et. al [@obfuscated-gradients]. It is a modified version of PGD attack on discrete data. The main contribution of this work is that we could achieve very high accuracy on MNIST without adversary training for the first time. If we include adversary training, our defense methodology provides the best accuracy against MNIST, Cifar 10 and SVHN till date. Not only that with increasing attack strength when all the defenses completely fails, blind pre-processing still defends the CNN causing minimal accuracy loss. Contributions of this work are summarized as follows:
- We derived from the previous analysis of adversarial examples that introducing non linearity would increase the defense to any adversarial attack. As a result, We introduced a series of functions performing non linear transformation of input data to build a robust defense.
- After making the model robust using pre-processing we propose obfuscated logic based implementation of the pre-processing layer so that this network do not fail due to its obfuscated gradients. This modification will also make all the defense that use obfuscated gradient to succeed again.
- This proposed defense resulted in increasing the accuracy for MNIST data set from 94.02% to 98.66% with adversarial training and from 0% to 98.29% without adversarial training. This is the best so far achieved on LS-PGA attack without adversarial examples. Even with adversarial training, previous attempts could only reach as far as 95%.
- We showed that with increasing attack strength our defense remains one of the strongest. Our analysis provides a more detailed understanding of why blind pre-processing stands out in the advent of adversary attack while others fail.
- Additionally by using Adversary training we could achieve 95.06% accuracy on SVHN data set and 86.66% accuracy on Cifar 10 data set.
In the next two sections we summarize the attack model and blind processing scheme to defend those attack models. In section IV our proposed defense technique is described and the following two sections represents the results and analysis of the proposed BP method.
Attack Algorithm
================
In this work, we assume that the adversary has complete access to the network which is popularly known as the white box attack. It was observed from previous works that if a defense model performs well for white box attack it should naturally perform better against black box attack [@mkadry2017towards]. Since black box attack becomes really weak due to the unavailability of network parameters. That is why in general any defense that wants to prove its effectiveness must perform well against white box attack. In order to formulate the attack method for this work, we first investigate some of the popular white box attack models:
Madry et al. introduced Projected gradient descent which achieved 100% success in fooling CNN to miss classify MNIST dataset [@mkadry2017towards]. In their work they show that PGD will generate universal adversary among the first order approaches. They suggested that training network with this kind of adversary would make the neural network more robust. Taking their work forward this algorithm was modified for discrete input [@buckman2018thermometer] known as discrete gradient ascent and logit spcae projected gradient ascent.
Input: Image(x),Label(l), attack steps(n), $\epsilon,\delta$,k(quantized level),Loss function L(w,f(x),l) mask = 0 $low =max[0,x-\epsilon]$ $high=min[0,x+\epsilon]$ $mask=mask+f_{sdi}(\alpha*low+(1-\alpha*high)$ $u^0\ Initialization\ using\ mask$ $T=1$ $z^0=F(\sigma(u^0/T))$ $grad=\nabla_{z^{j-1}}.L(w,z^{j-1},y)$ $u^j=u^{j-1}+\epsilon.grad$ $z^{j}=\sigma(z^{j-1}/T)$ $T=T.\delta$ z after n iteration
Since this method is more suitable for discrete inputs we choose to evaluate our model against this attack. Additionally the success of this white box attack tempted us to evaluate our defense model against it. Finally, based on the success of these attacks against varying defenses we summarize their strength in table 1.
The vast majority of machine learning problem is solved with first order methods like gradient descent or other closely modified versions. That is why those attacks that rely on only first order information could be labeled as universal attack. Since LS-PGA/PGD attack model depends only on the first order information, defending against LS-PGA attack would certainly make the model robust against a wide variety of attack models. This attack takes place by placing each pixel in a random bucket within $\epsilon$. At each step of the attack it will look at that bucket to find values within $\epsilon$ of the true value and select value that will do the most harm. The outcome of this attack will vary depending on the initialization. So the attack needs to be run several times to get the desired result. In case of Logit space projected gradient ascent first discrete encoding was relaxed to continuous space to perform projected gradient ascent. By changing the values of $\epsilon$ and attack step we can certainly change the strength of the attack. We report the performance of our defense against varying attack strength in section VI.
Recent attack developed by [@obfuscated-gradients] is reported to be the more generalized and powerful till now. They not only fool the thermometer encoding but also all the recent defenses. In the next section based on their analysis we introduce the concept of blind processing and also present why obfuscated gradient can actually work as a defense under our defense model. Moreover, we present a attacking scheme for future attacking models to test and evaluate their attack models.
Concept of Blind Pre-Processing
===============================
Obfuscated gradient occur due to gradient shattering, stochastic gradient and gradient vanishing [@obfuscated-gradients]. From the analysis presented by [@obfuscated-gradients], it is evident any defense that uses one of these as their weapon to defend the adversary that will eventually fail. As reported this obfuscated gradient gives a false sense of security. Their generalized attack have caused all of the recent defense models to fail. Thermometer encoding is no exception as it has both gradient shattering and stochastic gradient issue. For our defense to work we need to make this obfuscated gradient based defense to function properly in the advent of powerful attack. So the final conclusion is in a typical white box attack set up it is impossible to defend white box adversarial attack. Even though [@mkadry2017towards] defense works but the success is very small. We conclude that the attacker has too many freedom and defense is constrained by different optimization problems. As a result, we propose a more practical way of dealing with the problem on hand. We propose blind processing where this processing layer is absolutely unknown to the attacker.
In this defense model, the attacker can not access the function of the pre-processing layer. We use obfuscated logic to hide the design of our pre-processing layer. The attacker can access the input and output of the process but can never predict the functionality of the model. Previous work have been done in this field using hybrid polymorphic logic gate to obscure the functionality of a logic gate. We propose using such logic gate to pre-process the data in a practical application such as autonomous vehicle. In this way the attacker can never replicate the module for two reason. Firstly, the layout using polymorphic logic looks same for all kinds of logic. In this way the hacker can never predict the functionality by hacking the module and analyzing layout. Secondly, the attacker can never guess the functionality using the pattern of input and output of the pre-processing layer because this logic is key assisted. In this way whoever does not have the key can never access the pre-processing module to generate input output data. The user have always the power to use this particular key to train the model and can switch off this particular functionality using another key. Additionally, the user can also use different key for different pre-processing functions. As a result it would become impossible for the attacker to guess the functionality of the defense model in the inference mode as well. In this way the whole pre-processing layer becomes a blind pre-processing layer for the attacker. Additionally, the key of this kind of logic is also secured. If the pre-processing layer has an input of M and logic gate of N then total number of key would be $2^{M+3N}$. So for a typical MNIST classifier the input to that function would be 256 and even if we assume the pre-processing layer is a simple and operation it still would have close to $9X10^{77}$ possible key combination. practically this is impossible for the attacker to hack in a limited amount of time. From this proposal we assure the security of the pre-processing layer which we define as blind pre-processing. As suggested by [@obfuscated-gradients] that a defence must define the attackers accessibility to make the defenses more practical. In our case, blind pre-processing keeps all the other attribute of the white box attack in tact. The attacker still has access to the following information:
1. Model architecture
2. weights and gradients
3. Training algorithm
4. Training data before and after pre-processing
However, we are denying two accessibility to the attacker. Firstly, the attacker can not predict the pre-processing layer nor access the layer for gradients. Secondly access query is not allowed without the key in the pre-processing layer. This two attributes constitute the blind pre-processing.
From the analysis of [@obfuscated-gradients] we concluded that it is impossible for traditional defenses to defend under the previous attacking scheme. As a consequence we introduce the concept of blind pre-processing to encounter the obfuscated gradient issue. As a result we set a new attacking scheme to evaluate their attack model against our defense model. We strongly claim that with blind pre-processing the generalized attack method suggested by [@obfuscated-gradients] becomes a failure. We suggest future attack model to generate adversary without back propagating through the pre-processing layer or generate adversary just by using the data after pre-processing layer. Since this new scheme for white box attack is more practical and gives the attacker some form of challenge. Thus any attack that want to succeed must prove its worth by beating these obfuscated gradient based defenses without approximating their gradient. Under this blind pre-processing defense model approximating the pre-processing function is close to impossible let alone the gradient.
Proposed Defense Method
=======================
In the analysis of existence of adversary in deep neural network, goodfellow et al. [@goodfellow2014explaining] concluded that deep neural networks exhibit vulnerability to adversarial examples due to their extreme linearity. Linearity of these models is the reason why they can not resist adversary. For example MNIST data set has an input precision of 8 bit. As a result, a common notion would be why a network would respond differently when the input is x+ $\epsilon$ instead of x where $\epsilon$ is really small. However, as practical experiments show that they do behave differently to these two inputs. To understand this we have to look into the linearity theory of deep models. Output of neural network y could be represented as y= $\sigma(W^TX')$.
$${W^TX'=W^TX+W^T\epsilon}$$
Even if $\epsilon$ is really small, if a weight matrix has n dimension and an average value of m, then this perturbation would result in $\epsilon$\*m\*n increase of activation. Thus with increased dimension, this noise keeps increasing linearly. It suggests that, with sufficient large input dimension, a network will always be vulnerable to adversary. It would then provide two possible directions to solve this issue. One is to introduce non-linearity to the network and the other is to eliminate unnecessary information from input data. First one is a bit tricky as introducing non-linearity inside the neural network creates problem for calculating gradient. Previously, Different non-linear activation functions were investigated but none of them worked due to the difficulty of computing gradients and poor accuracy on real test data set. So in this work, we choose the second direction by adding a pre-processing layer in front of neural network model which will not have any gradient issue. Additionally, blind processing makes the obfuscated gradient issue suggested by [@obfuscated-gradients] nullified. Moreover, adding pre-processing layer in front of the CNN model does not hamper the accuracy on clean data.
Our proposed blind pre-processing (BP) has tanh and Batch Normalization (BN) to process the input data in an attempt to make the CNN more robust. As shown in fig. 2 The input data goes through a non linear transformation first which is tanh function. A batch normalization layer is also added which is similar to the BN layer in CNN but it does not have any learnable parameters. After blind pre-processing input data were quantized to 15 different levels. They were presented in vectorized form of one hot coded value. Finally, they were encoded using thermometer encoding which basically inverts all the digits after first one appears. We observe that adding blind pre-processing before qunatization made the defense model more robust. So during all our experiment we quantize the input data after blind pre-processing. In our experiment it was found that adversarial training was no longer necessary for MNIST.
We also believe those function that uses local information works well as pre-processing layer. Moreover, this pre-processing can not sacrifice much accuracy on the clean data at the same time. Previously, thermometer encoding and quantization were suggested as some form of pre-processing. Our proposed blind pre-processing layer consists of tanh and batch normalization layer. But there could be other possible function that can be used as a blind pre-processing layer. The description of the functionality of those layers are presented here:
1. Tanh and Sigmoid Function: The most popular activation functions are Sigmoid and Tanh functions. Both functions are used in typical deep neural networks. Mathematically they can be expressed as: $$F_{tanh}(x)=\frac{e^x-e^{-x}}{e^x+e^{-x}}$$ $$F_{sigmoid}(x)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-x}}$$
Again during experiments it was observed that tanh outperforms sigmoid function. So we choose tanh to do the non linear transformation in the first layer.
2. Batch Normalization (BN) function: Our normalization layer is similar to the batch normalization layer in a typical Convolutional Neural Network. However, it does not have any learnable parameters. Rather, this is just a pre-processing layer in front of the original neural network model.The function can be written as this: $$\small Y=\frac{X-\mu}{{\sigma}}$$ where $Y$ and $X$ denote the input and output tensor respectively. $\sigma$, $\mu$ represents the standard deviation and mean of the input data for that particular batch. This is a linear layer which basically makes the mean of the input data to be zero and standard deviation to one.
We used tanh in place of sigmoid in this work. As these set of combinations were found to perform better than the other. Each input image is passed through a tanh layer which works as a filter. Followed by a 3 by 3 filter of Maximum smoothing. Then the data goes through a Batch Normalization layer followed by a 15 level quantization. Finally encoded values were feed into the model for training.
Experimental Results
====================
Performance in MNIST Data set
-----------------------------
Our proposed defense method was first tested on a simple LeNet architecture for MNIST data set.MNISt is a set of hand written digit with 55000 training data and 10000 testing data. We used LS-PGA attack model to evaluate our model as described in section 2. In LS-PGA, we set $\epsilon$ =0.3, $\delta=1.2$, xi=1 and step-of-attack = 7 for the following experiments. Here, $\epsilon$ indicates how much the input pixels can be changes and $\delta$ is the attack step as described in section II. In the later section, we also varied such parameters to see the effects on the performance of our proposed defense method.
Our defense model uses various processing layers to defend against adversary. We here investigate the efficacy of individual and combination of different pre-processing layers. Tanh function was chosen to be the first layer of blind pre-processing. It was found that the performance is better if we put tanh function before batch normalization layer.
Table 2 indicates that the performance of tanh was far better than sigmoid as a filtering function. As a result, for our experiment we choose tanh instead of sigmoid. Meanwhile, thermometer encoding fails completely when adversarial training was removed. Whereas tanh function improved the accuracy even without adversary training. After tanh, we add a smoothing layer to investigate the effect of this layer. Based on the experiment, we observe maximum smoothing performs better than average smoothing.
One of the key function here is the batch normalization layer. As a result, the batch size becomes an important tuning parameter for this defense to optimize. We also investigated the defense efficacy using varying batch size on blind pre-processing. Increasing the batch size would increase the accuracy of the overall data set. Because if the batch size is one, batch normalization is the same as normalizing the whole image. In experiments, we found that there is an optimal batch size to achieve highest accuracy without adversary training as shown in fig. 3. When adversarial training is included, in general, the accuracy increases when increasing batch size. For the case of no adversary training, we found that an optimum batch size of 50, which leads to the best accuracy. However, looking at the clean training we decided to choose an optimum batch size of 100 for our experiments. Because in figure 4 the red line goes up a little bit while blue line goes down from 50 to 100 batch size. It means we could optimize the accuracy between with adversary training and without adversary training using a batch size of 100 in place of 50.
[|l|l|l|l|l|]{}
-------
Train
Type
-------
: Accuracy on MNIST dataset using different defense combination[]{data-label="my-label"}
&
------
Work
Type
------
: Accuracy on MNIST dataset using different defense combination[]{data-label="my-label"}
& Defense & Clean & Attack\
& No defense & 99.45 & 0\
& & BN & 99.23 & 98.05\
& & Tanh & 99.56 & 69.55\
& & Tanh & BN & 99.2 & 98.3\
& &
-------------
Thermometer
Encoding
-------------
: Accuracy on MNIST dataset using different defense combination[]{data-label="my-label"}
& 99.2 & 0\
& &
--------------
Madry et. al
PGD Train
--------------
: Accuracy on MNIST dataset using different defense combination[]{data-label="my-label"}
& 99.4 & 0\
& & BN & 99.4 & 98.64\
& & Tanh & 99.5 & 94.42\
& & Tanh & BN & 99.43 & 98.65\
& &
-------------
Thermometer
Encoding
-------------
: Accuracy on MNIST dataset using different defense combination[]{data-label="my-label"}
& 99.03 & 94.02\
& &
--------------
Madry et al.
PGD train
--------------
: Accuracy on MNIST dataset using different defense combination[]{data-label="my-label"}
& 99.2 & 95.7\
Table 3 tabulates the accuracy in MNIST with different combination of blind pre-processing layers as discussed above.It gives more insight about their performance against the attack model. The experiment were performed using two different types of training. Clean training is performed on original training data of MNIST. While adversarial training includes adversarial examples inside the training data. Both training result was evaluated using clean data and attack data. Clean data test basically tells how well the network performs the classification task when there is no attack. One of the key point here is to find which combination works as a better defense method, while causing clean data accuracy to go down marginally. However, by including adversarial training this loss of accuracy could be recovered. This is quite obvious as adversarial training increases the overall robustness of the network. Batch normalization turns out to be the most powerful tool in this defense when we do not include adversarial training. As a result tanh and smoothing filter fails without the support of batch normalization. The best result without adversary training could be obtained is 98.36 % which is one of the major contribution of this defense. Previously, both thermometer encoding and Madry et al. found that, under PGD/LS-PGA attack, CNN accuracy drops to zero on MNIST data set without adverarial training.Moreover, the combinations that include BN & Tanh and Smoothing & BN also performed really well to defend against adversary without adversary training. Based on the experimental results, it could be concluded that adverarial training is not necessary using our proposed defense method for MNIST dataset, which reduces training overhead and keeps the accuracy on the clean data to 99.24 %.
Additionally if adversarial training is included in our proposed method, the accuracy could further be improved. In this case, the combination of tanh function and batch normalization provides the best performance up to 98.65 % result. Smoothing only helps to defend the attack when adversary training is not included. Next, we will conduct similar analysis in another two famous dataset, i.e. Cifar 10 and SVHN.
Performance in SVHN dataset
---------------------------
The Street View House Numbers (SVHN) Dataset is a real world image for testing machine learning algorithms. For SVHN data set, we used Resnet-18 architecture [@he2016deep] in experiment and achieved state-of-the-art accuracy. Instead we only used tanh function for blind pre-processing on SVHN dataset. For this data set we used $\epsilon$ =0.047, $\delta=1.2$ xi=1 and step of attack = 10 as the the attack model parameter. We choose different attack model parameter for different data sets as reported by thermometer encoding defense. [@buckman2018thermometer] just to make the comparison fair.
[|l|l|l|l|l|]{}
-------
Train
Type
-------
: Result in SVHN dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
&
------
Work
Type
------
: Result in SVHN dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
& Defense & Clean & Attack\
& No defense & 95.1 & 6.99\
& & BN & 81.16 & 47.71\
& & Tanh & 96.56 & 49.39\
& & Tanh & BN & 84.19 & 47.86\
&
----------
Previous
Work
----------
: Result in SVHN dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
&
-------------
Thermometer
/
-------------
: Result in SVHN dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
& 96.96 & 48.02\
& & BN & 45.50 & 93.48\
& & Tanh & 96.11 & 95.06\
& & Tanh & BN & 59.84 & 94.55\
&
----------
Previous
Work
----------
: Result in SVHN dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
&
-------------
Thermometer
/
-------------
: Result in SVHN dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
& 97.18 & 95.02\
From table-4, we could easily observe the effect of this defense changes for SVHN dataset. Firstly, batch normalization still works as a strong defense but it causes the clean data accuracy to go down a lot. Tanh and Smoothing performs better than thermometer encoding without adversarial training. Looking at the clean data accuracy we propose to keep only the tanh function for defending against adversary against SVHN dataset. Our proposed defense method combined with adversarial training could achieve 95.06 % accuracy. But adversarial training had to be used since we removed BN for SVHN data to encounter for the loss of accuracy on clean data. Batch normalization layer worked as the key component in the defense of MNIST without adversary training. However, after including the adversary training and blind pre-processing we could recover state of the art accuracy on SVHN data set as well.
So here one of the key problem of using batch normalization and smoohting is that they do sacrifice a lot of clean data accuracy. After using BN and smoohting in the pre-processing layer we see that clean data accuracy drops down to 45.50 % and 69.12 % respectively. As a result even though they provide some form of non-linearity but fail as a defense. Thus one of the key conclusion from this work is that if we find more non-linear function that do not sacrifice clean data accuracy then they might be a potential candidate as a robust defense.
Performance in Cifar 10 dataset
-------------------------------
For Cifar 10 data set, we used Resnet-50 architecture with a little bit of modification on the attack strength. Even though thermometer encoding reported that using wider network helps in increasing the accuracy against adversarial examples and wide resnet is found to perform really well in defending adversary. However, in this paper we wanted to show the performance of functional filter in improving the accuracy from the previous defense model and we leave the analysis on the choice of architecture for future investigation. We choose the attack parameter for cifar 10 with $\epsilon$ equal to 0.031 and number of step of attack equal to 7.
[|l|l|l|l|l|]{}
-------
Train
Type
-------
: Result on CIFAR 10 dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
&
------
Work
Type
------
: Result on CIFAR 10 dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
& Defense & Clean & Attack\
& No defense & 93.72 & 4.10\
& & BN & 79.27 & 10.69\
& & Tanh & 90.36 & 46.14\
& & Tanh & BN & 79.67 & 15.45\
&
----------
Previous
Work
----------
: Result on CIFAR 10 dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
&
-------------
Thermometer
Encoding
-------------
: Result on CIFAR 10 dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
& 90.42 & 43.5\
& & BN & 53.61 & 75\
& & Tanh & 89.52 & 86.61\
& & Tanh & BN & 63.71 & 77.46\
&
----------
Previous
Work
----------
: Result on CIFAR 10 dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
&
-------------
Thermometer
Encoding
-------------
: Result on CIFAR 10 dataset[]{data-label="my-label"}
& 90.18 & 83.6\
Similar to SVHN we found good result using tanh as a pre-processing filter for cifar 10 data. Additionally, it is observed that thermometer encoding produced a lower accuracy even without adversarial training. We could improve the accuracy without adversary training by 3% while maintaining close to 90% accuracy on clean data. After using adversarial training we could get close to 86.66% accuracy on CIFAR 10. So regardless of data set, our proposed defense method helps in improving accuracy without adversary training. However, to achieve better accuracy, we need to include adversarial training. The accuracy reported in this paper is higher than the original thermometer encoding paper because we used a deeper architecture which makes the thermometer defense more robust.
After observing result for SVHN and CIFAR 10 it is clear that BN and smoothing causes a lot of sacrifice in clean data accuracy. This results in the model not learning properly during the training. As a result when we combine BN and Smoothing we get the worst result for this two datasets. THus we chose to keep only the tanh function in our proposed defense for CIFAR 10 and SVHN dataset. In the next section we analyze the expreimental result and try to explain their relative phenomenon.
Analysis
========
Based on the experimental results discussed in previous section, it shows that blind pre-processing can defend only MNIST data set without adversarial training. blind pre-processing can also defend against SVHN and CIFAR10 with adversarial training. We thus claim that the need for adversarial training for MNIST data set was eliminated. In this section we present some more in-depth analysis on MNIST data set to establish our claim. We also report black box attack accuracy in this section to prove the attacks strength even further.
In order to demonstrate the strength of our defense we show how far our defense can go in terms of defending in the advent of very strong attacks [@mkadry2017towards; @buckman2018thermometer]. By changing the value of $\epsilon$ the strength of the attack can be modified. A larger value of $\epsilon$ indicates stronger attack. It was observed that the performance of previous defenses decreases exponentially with increasing attack strength as shown in table 5. However, BP defense strength decreases only a small amount with increasing attack strength is another proof of the success of BP as a universal robust defense.
As described earlier changing the value of $\epsilon$ would change the accuracy a lot since it decides how much the input image would be changed to cause the miss classifications. Our defense can withstand this power full attack even if the value of $\epsilon$ is increased to 0.5. No previous defense method, even under weaker attacks like FGSM, can withstand such large level of change against MNIST data set. What makes it more interesting is that this result can be achieved even without adversarial training. If this defense model combined with adversarial training then this would become the strongest defense ever reported against MNIST data set. On the other hand the accuracy thermometer encoding drops down to 38.08% when $\epsilon$=0.5, even using adversarial training. We analyse this robustness of our defense against Carlini Wagner method now. The mean distance change to cause the miscalssification against carlini wagner attack is a metrice to evaluate e defenses robustness.
-------------- ---------- ----------
Defense $\alpha$ accuracy
Tanh+BN 49.8 98.65
Tanh+ Filter 45.98 83.54
Filter+BN 49.78 98.63
All three 49.78 98.61
-------------- ---------- ----------
: Value of $\alpha$ on Different combination
We also found that overall strength of the defense depends on the accuracy of clean data as well. In order to analyze it, we first define an important parameter called attacked data accuracy ratio *($\alpha$)*. If we assume the accuracy on clean data is x% and on attacked data is y% then, $$\alpha= \frac{y}{(x+y)}*100\%$$
We observed that defense combination that performed well in table 3 and 4 do have a higher value of $\alpha$. Lets look back at the same combination of table 3 for using adversarial training in table 7.
The higher the accuracy, the higher the value of $\alpha$ in table 7 . It is also the same for svhn and cifar 10. The significance of increasing $\alpha$ is that, with increasing performance of the defense, the clean data accuracy actually goes down a little bit. Better defense performance usually comes with a little sacrifice of clean data accuracy. Since BN performed the best for MNIST it also maintained a greater value of $\alpha$ indicating it will hamper the clean data accuracy most. As MNIST is a small dataset the effect was negligible. However, for SVHN and CIFAR 10, this effect on accuracy degradation on clean data was severe. That’s why we choose to drop BN from the model. As we found tanh optimizes between clean data accuracy and attacked data accuracy best for those two. We could also explain this phenomenon of BN not working against cifar by analysing the pixel intensity distribution of the dataset.
In order to understand the robustness of our defense more intuitively it is necessary to understand the frequency distribution of dataset pixels. As shown in fig. 4, the whole dataset’s pixel distribution completely changes after applying blind pre-processing. We understand that this redistribution in the image pixels plays an important role in the robustness of the defense. In fig. 4 typical CIFAR 10 dataset frequency distribution is displayed with pixel values on the x axis and their appearing frequency in the y axis. This distribution’s standard deviation changes completely after applying Tanh processing. The key point is before applying blind pre-processing the pixel values are clustered around a certain pixel range. After processing with tanh their pixel standard deviation increases and becomes more scattered. As a result the pixel difference between the edges of the digit or object becomes larger. Thus fooling the network becomes harder as introducing noises will have less impact on the images due to larger transition near the edges. However, for CIFAR 10 BN does not change the distribution much like MNIST. The inability to change this distribution is one of the reason for the failure of BN in CIFAR 10 dataset.
Summary
=======
We presented a robust defense method that uses a combination of pre-processing layers to defend against adversarial attacks. We choose tanh and batch normalization as our blind pre-processing layer. This processing layer is completely unknown and not accessible to the attacker. We could defend MNIST data set for the first time without using adversarial training. That reduces training time and complexity in the defense model. A combination of tanh and batch normalization worked in improving MNIST accuracy to close to 98% from zero without adversarial examples. Moreoever, we showed that increasing attack defense where other defenses fail, our defense remains one of the strongest ever reported. Additionally the proposed BP model worked better than recent defenses against SVHN and CIFAR 10 as well. But, it required adversarial training to recover the accuracy upto 95% for SVHN and 86% for Cifar 10. We also showed under varying attack strength our defense would outperform its recent counter part.
Discussion
==========
Currently, we are conducting experiments on a variety of attack. We got more than good result in defending FGSM, Carlini Wagner attack and also on black box box. We are also the first to defend against FGSM attack without adversarial training reaching close to 96 % accuracy. Again for Carlini Wagner attack our defense model requires highest amount input perturbation to miss-classify the input for all three distance metrices. One of the strongest attack recently released succeeded in breaking all the ICLR 2018 defend models. Even though we tested against obfuscated gradient attack [@obfuscated-gradients] and got reasonable amount of success but our concept of blind pre-processing actually makes their attack void.
Acknowledgements
================
We would like to thank Jifeng Yi for insightful discussions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '\[abstract\] We study the dynamical evolution of globular clusters containing primordial binaries, including full single and binary stellar evolution using our Monte Carlo cluster evolution code updated with an adaptation of the single and binary stellar evolution codes SSE/BSE from @2000MNRAS.315..543H [@2002MNRAS.329..897H]. We describe the modifications we have made to the code. We present several test calculations and comparisons with existing studies to illustrate the validity of the code. We show that our code finds very good agreement with direct [*N*]{}-body simulations including primordial binaries and stellar evolution. We find significant differences in the evolution of the global properties of the simulated clusters using stellar evolution compared to simulations without any stellar evolution. In particular, we find that the mass loss from stellar evolution acts as a significant energy production channel simply by reducing the total gravitational binding energy and can significantly prolong the initial core contraction phase before reaching the binary-burning quasi steady state of the cluster evolution as noticed in Paper IV. We simulate a large grid of clusters varying the initial cluster mass, binary fraction, and concentration and compare properties of the simulated clusters with those of the observed Galactic globular clusters (GGCs). We find that our simulated cluster properties agree well with the observed GGC properties. We explore in some detail qualitatively different clusters in different phases of their evolution, and construct synthetic Hertzprung-Russell diagrams for these clusters.'
author:
- 'Sourav Chatterjee, John M. Fregeau, Stefan Umbreit, and Frederic A. Rasio'
bibliography:
- 'biblio\_paper5.bib'
title: 'Monte Carlo Simulations of Globular Cluster Evolution. V. Binary Stellar Evolution'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Star clusters in general, and the Galactic globular clusters in particular, have been studied extensively for many years. As tracers of the Galaxy’s potential, their dynamical history tells us something about the formation and evolution of our Galaxy. As dense stellar environments, their interesting constituent populations (including, e.g., blue straggler stars, cataclysmic variables, and low-mass X-ray binaries) inform our understanding of binary stellar evolution through its interaction with dynamics. The study of the evolution of globular and other dense star clusters has had a somewhat long and varied history [e.g., @2003gmbp.book.....H]. Before observations showed that globular clusters contained dynamically significant numbers of binaries, theoretical efforts focused on understanding the process of core collapse and the ensuing post-collapse evolution driven by three-body binary formation. Once it became clear in the early 90s from observations that clusters contained sufficient numbers of binaries that they must have been born with substantial “primordial” populations, theory emphasized properties of clusters in the “binary burning” phase, in which the cluster core is supported against collapse by super-elastic dynamical scattering interactions of binary stars. More recently it has been realized that pure point-mass interactions of binaries result in equilibrium cluster core radii in the binary burning phase that are a factor of $\sim 10$ smaller than what is observed, and so many efforts have focused on alternative cluster energy sources such as central intermediate-mass black holes, expedited stellar mass loss from compact object formation via collisions, or prolonged mass segregation of compact objects [@2006MNRAS.368..677H; @2007ApJ...658.1047F; @2006astro.ph.12040T; @2008IAUS..246..151C; @2004ApJ...608L..25M]. In a similar vein, recent theoretical work, combined with observations showing that the core binary fraction in many clusters is fairly low ($\lesssim 10\%$), suggest that clusters may be born with remarkably low binary fractions of just a few percent [@2009arXiv0907.4196F]. Such a small primordial binary fraction would be surprising since observations of young stars suggest that star formation yields binary fractions of order $\sim 50\%$. Clearly, our understanding of globular cluster evolution has changed considerably over the past few decades, and much of that change has been driven by numerical simulations.
Among computational tools for studying the dynamical evolution of star clusters, the Hénon Monte Carlo (MC) technique represents a balanced compromise between exactness and speed. The MC method allows for a star-by-star realization of the cluster, with its $N$ mass shells representing the $N$ stellar objects in the cluster (either single or binary stars). It assumes, most importantly, spherical symmetry and diffusive two-body relaxation, allowing time integration on a relaxation timescale, and a computational cost that scales as $N \log N$. We have developed our Hénon MC cluster evolution code (which we call CMC, for “Cluster Monte Carlo”) over the past decade [@2000ApJ...540..969J; @2001ApJ...550..691J; @2003ApJ...593..772F; @2007ApJ...658.1047F henceforth Papers I, II, III, and IV, respectively]. Since it allows for a star-by-star description of the cluster at each timestep, it is relatively easy to add physical processes beyond two-body relaxation to the code. We have previously added the effects of a Galactic tidal field, dynamical scattering interactions of binary star systems, and physical collisions between stars. In this paper we describe the addition of stellar evolution of single and binary star systems. Many stars in a cluster evolve internally on a timescale shorter than the age of the cluster. At early times they may lose a substantial fraction of their mass via stellar winds. At later times they may evolve off the main sequence, changing their masses and radii (and hence collision cross section), and possibly receiving systemic velocity kicks when they become compact objects. Since the binding energy of binary stars is an important fuel source that can postpone the deep core collapse of star clusters, stellar evolution of binary systems directly affects their global evolution. Conversely, the properties of the cluster environment feed back on stellar evolution, modifying the evolutionary pathways of binary systems and the properties and numbers of interesting binary systems relative to the low-density Galactic field [e.g., X-ray binaries; @2006MNRAS.372.1043I; @2008MNRAS.386..553I].
Previous cluster evolution studies that include stellar evolution have improved our understanding of the global evolution of clusters greatly, identifying several distinct stages of evolution. At early times, as the stars are forming and the most massive stars have already begun nuclear burning, the cluster loses mass through residual gas expulsion and stellar winds, resulting in cluster expansion during the first few Myr of evolution [@2001MNRAS.323..630H; @2002MNRAS.329..897H]. Shortly thereafter, if a runaway collision scenario is avoided [e.g., @2006MNRAS.368..141F], two-body relaxation dominates, resulting in a fairly long-lived (from a few to tens of Gyr) phase of core contraction. Once the core density becomes high enough for the energy generated in binary scattering interactions to balance the energy carried out of the core by two-body relaxation, a potentially [*very*]{} long-lived (up to tens of Hubble times or more) phase of “binary burning” ensues [e.g., @2007MNRAS.379...93H; @2007ApJ...658.1047F]. Once the population of binaries is exhausted in the core, the cluster goes into deep core collapse. In the classical, point-mass limit, deep core collapse is arrested by the formation of a “three-body binary” and followed by a phase of gravothermal oscillations [@2003gmbp.book.....H]. However, three-body binary formation may be inhibited by stellar collisions in sufficiently young and massive clusters [@2006MNRAS.368..121F].
With the exception of a few recent simulations, most numerical studies that include stellar evolution have either been limited in the number of stars they can treat or have adopted a narrow initial mass function with very simplified stellar evolution recipes [e.g., @1998MNRAS.298.1239G; @2000MNRAS.317..581G; @2000ApJ...540..969J; @2001ApJ...550..691J; @2003ApJ...593..772F; @2007ApJ...658.1047F]. Stars in star clusters are born with a range of masses up to $\sim 100 \, M_\sun$, and down to at least the hydrogen-burning limit [e.g., @1955ApJ...121..161S; @1979ApJS...41..513M; @2001MNRAS.322..231K], so one should evolve the full spectrum of stellar masses as realistically as possible to properly treat the influence of stellar evolution on global cluster evolution. Emphasis has recently been placed on comparing observed properties of Galactic globular clusters with theoretical predictions. Comparison of observed cluster structural properties with theory [e.g., @2007MNRAS.379...93H; @2007ApJ...658.1047F] suggests that either an additional energy source is “puffing” up cluster cores [@2008MNRAS.tmp..374M; @2007MNRAS.374..857T; @2008IAUS..246..151C], or perhaps the clusters are not in the expected evolutionary states, namely binary-burning [@2008ApJ...673L..25F]. For example, recent $N$-body simulations by @2007MNRAS.379...93H show that the core contraction phase can last a Hubble time, resulting in a cluster core radius that is larger than one would expect were the cluster in the binary burning phase. In these simulations, the core contraction phase is prolonged by mass loss from stellar evolution. Clearly, stellar evolution may be an important component in globular cluster evolution.
To more properly treat stellar evolution, we have recently coupled to CMC the stellar evolution recipes of @2000MNRAS.315..543H [@2002MNRAS.329..897H hereafter referred to as BSE]. We choose BSE for ease of implementation, and for more direct comparisons with $N$-body calculations, which commonly use BSE for stellar evolution. In §\[method\] we describe the implementation of stellar evolution in our code. In §\[comparison\] we validate it by comparing with existing cluster evolution calculations in the literature. In §\[without\] we demonstrate the importance of stellar evolution by comparing simulations that do not include it. In §\[real\] we apply our newly updated code to the evolution of a large grid of cluster models, highlighting typical behavior and comparing with observations. Finally, in §\[conclusion\] we summarize and conclude.
Method
======
CMC treats a number of important physical processes, including two-body relaxation, the tidal effects of a host galaxy, strong binary-binary (BB) and binary-single (BS) scattering interactions, and direct physical collisions between stars (Paper IV). Here we describe the recent addition of BSE [@2000MNRAS.315..543H; @2002MNRAS.329..897H] to treat stellar evolution of single and binary stars.
Stellar Evolution {#stellar_evolution}
-----------------
For ease of implementation and for more direct comparisons with direct $N$-body we use the BSE stellar evolution routines, as described in detail in @2000MNRAS.315..543H [@2002MNRAS.329..897H]. For single stars, BSE comprises analytic functional fits to theoretically calculated stellar evolution tracks as a function of metallicity and mass. Binary star systems are treated using the same fitting formulae for each star, but with treatments of physics relevant to binaries, including stable and unstable mass transfer, common envelope evolution, magnetic braking, tidal coupling, and the effects of neutron star and black hole birth kicks. As described above, CMC allows for a star-by-star description of the cluster at every timestep, allowing for the inclusion of additional physics. The stellar properties of binary and single stars are updated in step with dynamics via function calls to the BSE library. As described in detail in Papers I–IV, CMC uses a shared timestep which must be set as small as the smallest characteristic timescale for each physical process. We set the characteristic timescale for stellar evolution to the time for the cluster to lose a fraction $0.001$ of its total mass. In this way, any cluster expansion from stellar evolutionary mass loss is properly resolved.
One aspect of our BSE implementation requires special mention, however. The evolution of high mass stars ($\gtrsim 100 \, M_\sun$) is rather uncertain and can vary greatly depending on the wind mass loss prescription. These high mass stars are also quite rare and short lived, so observational constraints are limited. In BSE stars with mass $>100\,M_\sun$ are evolved as if they were $100 \, M_\sun$ stars. When their dynamical properties are returned from BSE, their original ($> 100 \, M_\sun$) mass is returned.
Collisions {#collision}
----------
As described in Paper IV, collisions are treated in the sticky-sphere approximation, which was shown to be remarkably accurate for the velocity dispersions found in globular clusters [@2006MNRAS.368..141F; @2006MNRAS.368..121F]. When two stars collide, their properties (e.g., stellar type and effective age) are set according to the BSE merger matrix and prescriptions as described in @2002MNRAS.329..897H. In CMC this is implemented in the following simple way. The two stars are passed to BSE as a very tight, eccentric binary with nearly zero pericenter distance and evolved for a very short time until they merge. The properties of the merger product are then naturally set within BSE, and returned to CMC as a single star. BSE by default assumes full mixing of nuclear fuel during a collision involving MSSs. We adopt this same rejuventation prescription for the simulations presented in this paper, but note that the amount of mixing in the collision product should depend on the details of the interaction parameters leading to the collision, as well as the evolutionary stages of the collision progenitors [e.g., @1995ApJ...445L.117L; @1996ApJ...468..797L; @1997ApJ...487..290S; @2001ApJ...548..323S; @2002ApJ...568..939L]. In fact, it is found using detailed SPH calculations that the amount of mixing as a result of a collision may be minimal, especially for collisions involving evolved stars [@1995ApJ...445L.117L; @1996ApJ...468..797L].
Tidal Truncation Treatment {#tide}
--------------------------
Globular clusters are not isolated systems, but are in fact subject to the tidal field of their host galaxy. The assumption of spherical symmetry inherent in MC codes like CMC does not allow for a direct calculation of stellar loss at the tear-drop shaped tidal boundary. Instead, MC codes employ an effective tidal mass loss criterion that attempts to match the tidal mass loss found in direct $N$-body simulations. Since stars are lost from the tidal boundary on a dynamical timescale and MC codes operate on the (much longer) relaxation timescale, the appropriate effective criterion is not obvious. There have been two main suggestions in the literature for the appropriate tidal truncation criterion. Perhaps the most natural is to immediately strip any star whose apocenter ($r_a$) lies outside the Roche lobe radius of the cluster (which we call the tidal radius, $r_t$): $$r_a > r_t \, .
\label{eq:apo}$$ This “apocenter criterion” has been used exclusively in CMC previously (Papers I–IV). Earlier, in the absence of large-$N$ direct $N$-body simulations, comparisons were made with 2-D Fokker-Plank models and the apocenter criterion showed excellent agreement (for details see Papers I and II).
Another simple criterion is the “energy criterion,” in which any star with a specific orbital energy above some critical energy is immediately stripped: $$E_{\rm orb} > 1.5 \phi_t \, ,$$ where $\phi_t$ is the cluster potential at the tidal radius [@1987degc.book.....S]. However, a stellar orbit that instantaneously satisfies the above criterion may still remain bound if it is scattered back to a lower energy orbit before it can escape. To account for this effect a less obvious but empirically validated correction factor to the energy criterion above is suggested by @2008MNRAS.388..429G: $$E_{\rm orb} > \alpha \phi_t \, ,
\label{eq:energy}$$ where $\alpha$ is an $N$-dependent parameter given by $$\alpha = 1.5 - 3\left[\frac{ln(\gamma N)}{N}\right]^{1/4}\, .$$
We have re-examined and tested these two criteria (Equations \[eq:apo\] and \[eq:energy\]) for tidal stellar loss to determine which one agrees better with the latest results from direct $N$-body simulations. @2003MNRAS.340..227B study in detail the tidal dissolution timescales of a cluster in a tidal field varying the initial number of stars and the initial mass of the cluster. We have repeated a large subset of this extensive study of tidal disruption using CMC with both tidal truncation criteria, and compared the results.
We followed the exact same prescription for setting up the initial conditions of the clusters as described in @2003MNRAS.340..227B. Each cluster in this set of runs is assumed to have a circular orbit around the Galactic center with radius $8.5\,\rm{kpc}$. The Galactocentric circular velocity $V_G$ is assumed to be $220\,\rm{km/s}$. The initial position and velocity of each star of the cluster is chosen from a King model distribution function with central concentration parameter $W_0 = 7$. The initial masses of the stars are chosen according to the Kroupa 2001 mass function in the range $0.1-15\,\rm{M_\odot}$. We vary the initial number of stars in the clusters between $16000$ and $10^6$. There are no primordial binaries in these simulations.
Figure \[plot:tide\] shows the evolution of the bound mass in a cluster in the standard Galactic tidal field as described above. We find that the energy criterion results agree better with the direct $N$-body results, when available from @2003MNRAS.340..227B. The agreement is much poorer when using the apocenter criterion. For example, for the direct $N$-body run with initial $N = 64K$, the time when the cluster loses $80\%$ of its initial mass is $\approx 11\,\rm{Gyr}$. Using CMC with the energy criterion this value is $\approx 10\,\rm{Gyr}$, whereas, with the apocenter criterion the same cluster does not lose $80\%$ of its initial mass within $20\,\rm{Gyr}$, the integration stopping time.
Since the energy criterion gives a significantly better agreement with existing direct $N$-body results (Figure \[plot:tide\]; see also more detailed comparisons in §\[comparison\]), we adopt the energy criterion here, in contrast to what was used in our earlier works (Papers II – IV), unless otherwise mentioned.
One should note, however, that the cluster mass range where direct $N$-body results are available is not representative of the actual GGC population. Since no direct $N$-body results exist for more massive clusters, it is not possible at present to determine which approximation is more accurate for larger $N$.
The two criteria above are treated as initial options in CMC and either one can be selected at the beginning of a simulation. At each timestep, the amount of mass lost is calculated using the chosen criterion in an iterative way to obtain the bound mass (see Paper II for details).
Comparison with direct $N$-body Results {#comparison}
=======================================
In this section we validate our treatment of stellar evolution by comparing with results from previously published studies using the popular direct $N$-body code NBODY4 [@2003gnbs.book.....A]. Since the direct $N$-body simulations employ the least degree of assumptions, we tend to trust them more for validation purposes.
One of the biggest simulations treating all relevant physical effects including primordial binaries and stellar evolution was performed by @2007ApJ...665..707H [@2007MNRAS.379...93H]. In particular they studied the evolution of the core properties, binary number fractions in the core as well as in the full cluster, and the evolution of the bound number of stars. Since both these works present data from a common set of simulations we henceforth collectively call them Hurley07.
Initial Conditions {#hurley_ic}
------------------
We choose from Hurley07 the simulations with a number $N_i = 10^5$ initial objects (the largest initial $N_i$ in their set of simulations), with primordial binary fractions $f_{b}=5\%$ and $f_{b}=10\%$ (their K100-5 and K100-10 models, respectively). Throughout this work we count binary center of mass as one object. Thus a cluster with $N_i=10^5$ and $f_{b,i}=5\%$ initially has $95000$ single stars and $5000$ binaries. We simulate clusters with exactly the same initial conditions using CMC. The initial stellar positions and velocities are chosen from a virialized Plummer sphere. The stellar masses are chosen from the IMF presented in @1991MNRAS.251..293K [henceforth K91] in the range $0.1-50\,\rm{M_\odot}$. Metallicity is fixed at $z=0.001$. Each cluster has an initial virial radius $r_v=8.5\,\rm{pc}$ which corresponds to a roche-filling cluster with tidal radius $r_t \sim 50\,\rm{pc}$, consistent with the standard Galactic tidal field with a Galactic rotation speed $220\,\rm{km/s}$ at a Galactocentric distance $8.5\,\rm{kpc}$. The companion mass in each binary is chosen from a uniform distribution in mass ratio in the range $0.1-m_p\,\rm{M_\odot}$, where, $m_p$ is the primary mass. The binary period is drawn from a distribution flat in logarithmic intervals in the semi-major axes [@1989ApJ...347..998E] and the eccentricities are thermal following Hurley07. We call these simulations [hcn1e5b5]{} and [hcn1e5b10]{}, respectively (Table \[tab:hc\]).
[cccccccc]{} hcn1e5b5 & $10^5$ & $5$ & Plummer & K91 $[0.1, 50]\,\rm{M_\odot}$ & $51$ & $8.5$ & $0.05$\
hcn1e5b10 & $10^5$ & $5$ & Plummer & K91 $[0.1, 50]\,\rm{M_\odot}$ & $51$ & $8.5$ & $0.1$\
Comparison of Results {#hurley_results}
---------------------
For the global evolution of a dense cluster the evolution of the core is extremely important since throughout the evolution the global properties of the cluster are determined by the balance of energy in and out of the core. The core radius ($r_c$) is also one of the most easily observable structural properties of a cluster. Moreover, the properties and the evolution of $r_c$ is one of the easiest theoretical way to characterize the distinct phases of a cluster’s evolution. Thus a basic test for the validity of a cluster simulation is to compare the evolution of the core radius ($r_c$) and the ratio of the core to half mass radius ($r_c/r_h$).
Note that for all our simulated clusters in this work $r_c$ is the density-weighted core radius [@1985ApJ...298...80C] commonly used in $N$-body simulations, unless otherwise specified. This is not a directly observable quantity and can differ from the observed $r_c$ by a factor of a few [@2007MNRAS.379...93H].
Figure \[plot:b5\_rc\] shows the evolution of $r_c$ for run [hcn1e5b5]{} (Table \[tab:hc\]) and K100-5 in Hurley07. The scale-free quantity $r_c/r_h$ is also plotted for each run. The core radius expands due to stellar evolution mass loss during the first $\sim 2\times10^2\,\rm{Myr}$. The core then contracts at a steady rate till a little after $\sim 1.5\times10^4\,\rm{Myr}$. The core radius then attains a relatively steadier value as the cluster reaches the binary-burning phase [e.g. @2007ApJ...658.1047F]. All these qualitatively different phases of the evolution of a cluster is reproduced using CMC with excellent agreement.
One of the key results of Hurley07 is that the overall binary fraction ($f_b$) remains close to the primordial value throughout the evolution of the cluster [also see @2009arXiv0907.4196F]. This result has immense observational significance. In practice only the present day properties of a cluster are observed. This result from Hurley07 indicates that if a present day binary fraction of the cluster close to $r_h$ can be observed the primordial hard $f_b$ should have been close to this observed value. Figure \[plot:b5\_fb\] shows the evolution of the core ($f_{b,c}$) and the overall $f_b$ from CMC simulation [hcn1e5b5]{} and direct $N$-body simulation presented in Hurley07. Binaries preferentially sink to the center due to mass segregation and the single stars typically get tidally disrupted from the tidal boundary. These two effects compete with each other— the first reduces and the second increases $f_b$ outside the core. For the simulated cluster these two effects more or less balance each other. For the simulated cluster we reproduce the results presented in Hurley07 and verify that the overall $f_b$ remains close to the primordial value whereas $f_{b,c}$ increases over time. Similar results are found for the simulation [hcn1e5b10]{} (Figure \[plot:b10\_fb\]).
We now focus on the evolution of the number of binaries in the core ($N_{b,c}$). The evolution of the total number of core binaries is interesting for various reasons. The formation rates of interesting stellar objects such as X-ray binaries and blue straggler stars and their properties are directly dependent on $N_{b,c}$, motivating many detailed studies focusing on the evolution of $N_{b,c}$ [e.g. @2002MNRAS.329..897H; @2005MNRAS.358..572I; @2006MNRAS.372.1043I; @2008MNRAS.386..553I; @2009arXiv0907.4196F]. On one hand the core binary number ($N_{b,c}$) increases due to mass segregation. On the other hand strong interactions involving binary-single (BS) and binary-binary (BB) encounters can lead to direct physical collisions or destruction of soft binaries and reduce $N_{b,c}$. In addition, binary stellar evolution can destroy binaries via evolution-driven mergers and disruptions. Since the evolution of $N_{b,c}$ is dependent on these competing effects it is not simple to predict its evolution a-priori. Figure \[plot:hc\_Nbc\] shows the evolution of the number of core binaries ($N_{b,c}$) for CMC run [hcn1e5b5]{} and direct $N$-body run K100-5 from Hurley07 for comparison. The evolution of $N_{b,c}$ is reproduced exactly within the numerical fluctuations of the simulations. Over time the number of core binaries ($N_{b,c}$) decreases.
It is also interesting to study the number fraction of binaries and single stars within the core compared to the global population. Although $N_{b,c}$ decreases over time, due to mass segregation effects the number of single stars within $r_c$ decreases more. Figure \[plot:hc\_nc\] shows the evolution of the number fractions of single stars ($n_{s,c}$) and binaries ($n_{b,c}$) within $r_c$ for the same simulations as above. During the first $\sim 10^4\,\rm{Myr}$ $n_{b,c}$ remains more or less constant whereas, $n_{s,c}$ decreases by $\sim 0.5$ of the initial $n_{s,c}$ due to mass segregation effects. Followed by this phase BS/BB interactions as well as stellar evolution destroys core binaries decreasing $n_{b,c}$. However, throughout the evolution $n_{b,c}>n_{s,c}$. The combined effects of the above leads to the overall increase in $f_{b,c}$ over time as seen in Figures \[plot:b5\_fb\] and \[plot:b10\_fb\]. Note that although qualitatively CMC results and the direct $N$-body results agree, the agreement is not as excellent as the previous comparisons. For example, for the evolution of $n_{b,c}$ there can be upto $\approx 20\%$ difference in the absolute value depending on the age of the simulated cluster. The reason behind this larger difference compared to the excellent agreement for the evolution of $N_{b,c}$ (Figure \[plot:hc\_Nbc\]) originates from the approximations adopted in the tidal treatment in MC methods.
The criterion based tidal removal of stars adopted in CMC loses stars from the tidal boundary at a relatively lower rate (Figure \[plot:hc\_nbound\]). Hence, at a given time the total number of bound single and binary stars in CMC are higher than those in Hurley07 making both $n_{b,c}$ and $n_{s,c}$ calculated using CMC systematically lower than the same calculated in Hurley07.
Another interesting result presented in Hurley07 is the evolution of the fraction of binaries in the core where both components are compact objects. We call them double-degenerate binaries, following Hurley07. In Figure \[plot:hc\_nbc\_dd\] we show the evolution of the fraction of double-degenerate core binaries for CMC run [hcn1e5b5]{} and direct $N$-body run K100-5. The fraction of double-degerate binaries in the core depends on all physical processes in the cluster in a complicated way. Two-body relaxation drives mass segregation in the cluster determining the densities at different radial regions of the cluster as well as radius dependent velocity dispersion. This in turn directly affects the local BS/BB scattering cross-section at a given time consequently determining the survivability of a given binary at some radial position in the cluster and also the properties of the stellar members in a binary and the binary orbit. Changing the binary stellar properties and their orbital properties in turn changes the evolutionary pathways taken by the binary members and consequently compact object formation. Stellar evolution and dynamical effects thus in tandem affect the fraction of double-degerate binaries in the core. The excellent agreement between CMC results with Hurley07 convinces us that not only the dynamical effects, but also the stellar evolution, and the rate of compact object formation, are modeled at least as accurately as in the direct $N$-body code NBODY4.
Comparison With Simulations Without Stellar Evolution {#without}
=====================================================
We now examine the effects of stellar evolution on the evolution of the global observable properties of a GC, by performing comparisons to simulations without stellar evolution. The initial conditions for these simulations are summarized in Table \[tab:without\].
[ccccc]{} kw4b03 & $10^5$ & King & K01 $[0.1, 1.2]\,\rm{M_\odot}$ & $0.03$\
kw4b1 & $10^5$ & King & K01$[0.1, 1.2]\,\rm{M_\odot}$ & $0.1$\
kw4b3 & $10^5$ & King & K01 $[0.1, 1.2]\,\rm{M_\odot}$ & $0.3$\
kw7b0 & $5\times10^5$ & King & K01 $[0.1, 18.5]\,\rm{M_\odot}$ & $0$\
kw7b1 & $5\times10^5$ & King & K01 $[0.1, 18.5]\,\rm{M_\odot}$ & $0.1$\
Our most recent earlier paper, Paper IV, showed results from simulations without stellar evolution, but all other physical processes were included. In the absence of an implementation of full single and binary stellar evolution Paper IV restricted itself to simulations with a narrow range of masses in the IMF. We first compare the results with stellar evolution with a small subset of the previous runs from Paper IV without stellar evolution with the narrow IMF as an example. Since this is for the purpose of comparison, we use the apocenter criterion (§\[method\]) for the tidal treatment to be consistent with Paper IV for these simulations.
For each of these simulations the initial stellar positions and velocities are chosen from a King profile with the concentration parameter $W_0 = 4$. For each simulation $N_i = 10^5$. The stellar IMF is chosen from the stellar MF presented in @2001MNRAS.322..231K [henceforth K01]. The initial binary fraction is varied between $f_b = 0.03, 0.1$, and $0.3$. The mass of each binary companion is chosen in the range $0.1-m_p$ from a uniform distribution in mass ratios. The binary periods are chosen from a distribution flat in logarithmic $a$ intervals within physical limits, where, the hardest binary has $a >$ the sum of the stellar radii of the companions and the softest binary is at the local hard-soft boundary. Binary eccentricities are thermal [e.g. @2003gmbp.book.....H]. For each of these initial conditions one simulation is done including stellar evolution and the other leaving it out.
We find that, even for the simulations with a small range of initial stellar masses, where the stellar evolution mass loss is not as severe as in a realistic cluster, for low $f_b$ stellar evolution can influence the overall cluster evolution to a certain extent. Figure \[plot:w4n1e5\] shows the evolution of $r_c/r_h$. The results are shown for runs [kw4b0.03, 0.1, 0.3]{} (see Table \[tab:without\]). From top to bottom the primordial binary fractions $f_b$ are $0.03$, $0.1$, $0.3$, respectively. For $f_b = 0.03$ even with the narrow mass range the two curves start diverging when the most massive stars (in this case $1.2\,\rm{M_\odot}$) evolve off their MS and lose mass via compact object formation after $\approx 3.4\,\rm{Gyr}$.
Binary interactions take place throughout the evolution of the cluster. As the initial $f_b$ increases, energy available from super-elastic scattering of binaries becomes relatively more important compared to the energy produced from stellar evolution mass loss. Thus for this narrow range of masses as the binary fraction is increased, the difference between the results from simulations including stellar evolution and results without including stellar evolution reduces. For example, evolution of the cluster with initial $f_b = 30\%$ is very similar with and without stellar evolution taken into account. The only difference is that at the quasi-steady binary-burning phase including stellar evolution makes $r_c/r_h$ bigger by about $30\%$. In each of these clusters the central densities are not very high ($\sim 10^4\,\rm{M_\odot/pc^3}$) so direct SS collisions are not dominant. When direct SS collisions are more important in a much denser cluster, this behavior may change [@2008IAUS..246..151C].
The difference in the evolution of the global properties depending on whether stellar evolution was included or not is, of course, a lot more dramatic when a more realistic IMF with a wider mass range is used. Here we use a King profile with central concentration parameter $W_0 = 7$. The IMF is according to the K01 stellar MF in the range $0.1-18.5\,\rm{M_\odot}$. Two such clusters are simulated one with no primordial binaries and the other with $f_b = 0.1$. Note the dramatic difference in the evolution of the simulated clusters.
The evolution during the initial $\sim 10^2\,\rm{Myr}$ is dominated by the mass loss via stellar evolution of the high mass stars and compact object formation (Figure \[plot:semassloss\]). This phase is clearly distinguished by the initial steep expansion of the cluster (Figure \[plot:senose\]). This phase is followed by a slow contraction phase. In this phase, two-body relaxation drives the evolution. The high mass stars have already evolved off the MS and the stars remaining in the cluster are evolving at a much slower rate. The transition between the initial stellar evolution driven expansion and the slow contraction happens when the energy generation rate from stellar evolution mass loss becomes less than the outwards energy diffusion rate from the core due to relaxation. The cluster then keeps contracting until the central density increases so much that BS/BB interaction rates become high enough and the energy injected by the hard binaries (via super-elastic scattering) balances the energy diffusion rate from relaxation. The cluster then reaches the binary-burning phase. All these phases are clearly seen in Figure \[plot:senose\], bottom panel.
Even with this moderately broad range in mass, the clusters without stellar evolution contracts rapidly and are driven towards a quick collapse. If there are primordial binaries, the binary-burning phase starts relatively early ($\sim 1\,\rm{Gyr}$, Figure \[plot:senose\]). On the other hand, when stellar evolution is included, even without any primordial binaries the same cluster may still be in the slow contraction phase at Hubble time. For the cluster with primordial binaries in this case the binary-burning starts only after $11\,\rm{Gyr}$ (Figure \[plot:senose\]).
Results for Realistic Galactic Globular Clusters {#real}
================================================
We have validated CMC by extensive comparisons with direct $N$-body results (§\[comparison\]). Moreover, we have shown the importance of including stellar evolution in cluster modeling including a realistic stellar IMF (§\[without\]). We now simulate a large grid of clusters with realistic initial conditions for $12\,\rm{Gyr}$ taking all physical processes into account, including primordial binaries and single and binary stellar evolution, and the full observed stellar mass range spanning three orders of magnitude. Our goal here is to simulate clusters with realistic initial conditions motivated from observations of young clusters and find whether at a simulated cluster age of $\approx 12\,\rm{Gyr}$, a typical age for the GGCs, the simulated clusters show similar observable properties (e.g., $r_c$, and $r_c/r_h$) as the observed population.
The proper initial conditions for the GGCs are uncertain, however. Moreover, it is hard to infer uniquely the initial conditions from the present day observed cluster properties since the observed cluster global properties as well as their galactic orbits can be quite uncertain [e.g., @2008MNRAS.389.1858H]. Hence, rather than trying to create a detailed model for any particular cluster we compare the collective results of all our grid runs with the observed GGC properties as a whole. For comparison the GGC properties are extracted from the Harris Catalogue for GGCs [@1996AJ....112.1487H and the references therein; also see http://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/Globular.html]. When an observable is not reported in the catalogue for a cluster, we exclude that cluster from comparison. In the following subsections we explain the initial setup of the grid of simulations and present our results.
Initial Conditions {#real_ic}
------------------
We simulate clusters with a large grid of initial conditions. All simulated clusters has a fixed initial virial radius $r_v=4\,\rm{pc}$ (corresponds to an initial $r_h\approx3\,\rm{pc}$). Observations indicate that the effective radius of both young and old clusters are rather insensitive to the cluster mass, and metallicity and has a median value of $\sim 3\,\rm{pc}$. In addition, observations of old massive LMC clusters, old GCs in NGC 5128, old clusters in M 51, as well as the GGCs indicate that the effective cluster radii show only a weak positive relation with the distance from the galactic center .
To restrict the huge parameter space to a certain extent we place all our simulated clusters in a circular orbit at a Galacto-centric distance of $r_{GC}=8.5\,\rm{kpc}$, where the Galactic field is not so strong that the tidal stellar loss dominates the cluster’s evolution. Choosing a circular orbit for the simulated clusters is a simplification, however, the results should still be valid for eccentric orbits with some effective pericenter distance of $8.5\,\rm{kpc}$ [e.g., @2003MNRAS.340..227B]. The Galactic tidal field and consequently the initial $r_t$ for the clusters are calculated using a Galactic rotation speed $v_G = 220\,\rm{km/s}$ following the standard practice.
For the set of runs we vary $N_i$ between $4 -10\times10^5$, the initial $W_0$ for King models in the range $4-7.5$, and initial $f_b$ between $0-0.1$. For each case we choose the stellar masses of the primaries from the MF presented in K01 in the range $0.1-100\,\rm{M_\odot}$. The masses of each binary companion is chosen from a uniform distribution of mass ratios in the range $0.1-m_p\,\rm{M_\odot}$. $a$ for the binaries are chosen from a distribution flat in log within physical limits, namely physical contact of the components and the local hard-soft boundary. Although initially each binary is hard at its position it may not remain so during the evolution of the cluster. The cluster contracts under two-body relaxation and the velocity dispersion increases making initially hard binaries soft. Moreover, binaries sink to the core due to mass segregation where the velocity dispersion is higher than the velocity dispersion for the binaries at $t=0$. We include these soft binaries in our simulations. We let the cluster dynamics disrupt these binaries via BS/BB interactions. So at any instant of time soft binaries are allowed in the cluster as long as they have not been disrupted naturally via dynamical encounters yet. This is closer to reality and this strategy is adopted since soft binaries can act as an energy sink and can contribute to the overall cluster energetics significantly [@2009arXiv0907.4196F].
Each cluster is evolved for $12\,\rm{Gyr}$ including all physical processes— two body relaxation, stellar evolution, strong encounters like BB, BS, and SS collisions. For clusters that reach a deep-collapse phase, the CMC time steps become minuscule and the code grinds to a halt. We stop our simulations at that point for these clusters. Note that in reality, the deep collapse phase is halted via formation of the so called three-body binaries and the cluster enters into the gravo-thermal oscillation phase. Since in CMC we do not include the possibility of creating new binaries via three body encounters, we do not address this phase at this stage. However, this is not a serious limitation for this study since all simulated clusters that reach this phase within $12\,\rm{Gyr}$ had a primordial $f_b = 0$, which is not realistic [e.g., see most recently @2008AJ....135.2155D] and simulated for academic interests only. None of the simulated clusters enter into the deep-collapse phase before $\approx 9\,\rm{Gyr}$. The properties of all these grid simulations are summarized in Table \[tab:fixedrv\].
Results {#real_results}
-------
Here we present some basic observable properties of the simulated clusters and compare them with the same properties of the observed GGCs. For each of these comparison plots the evolution of a cluster property is shown with the distribution of the same property in the GGC population including all GGCs where observation of the concerned property exists. Since we restrict the galacto-centric distance of our simulated clusters for this study to be $8.5\,\rm{kpc}$ (§\[real\_ic\]) we also show the observed distribution of the GGCs with pericenter distances from the Galactic center within $7-10\,\rm{kpc}$ to be consistent in the comparisons. Note that the purpose for this comparison is simply to ensure that the simulated cluster properties agree well with the observed GGC properties. We do not intend to create a present day distribution for these properties since for that a probability distribution for the initial conditions is required, which is poorly constrained and beyond the scope of this study.
Note that for the observed GGCs only the sky projection of the characteristic radii such as $r_c$ and $r_h$ are known. Hence, in order to be consistent in our comparisons with the observed population we show the evolution of the 2D projections of $r_c$, and $r_c/r_h$ for all simulated clusters (e.g., Figures \[plot:rv\_rc\_phys\] and \[plot:rv\_rcoverrh\]). The sky projections for all simulated clusters are done assuming spherical symmetry. Both $r_c$ as well as the $r_c/r_h$ values of the simulated clusters agree well with the observed values in the GGC population producing values at $12\,\rm{Gyr}$ close to the peak of the observed distribution.
We should remind the readers, however, that these $r_c$ and $r_h$ values are not exactly the quantities observed directly. As mentioned before, $r_c$ is the density-weighted core radius [@1985ApJ...298...80C], related to a virial radius in the core, commonly used in $N$-body simulations, and can differ from an observed $r_c$ by a factor of a few [@2007MNRAS.379...93H]. Similarly, only the half-light radius is observed which may differ from the half-mass radius of a cluster. For example, for a typical simulated cluster [c1f3n4]{} the half light radius including all stars is $4.7\,\rm{pc}$. If the giant stars are excluded (a common practice for observers) for the same cluster the half light radius is $4.1\,\rm{pc}$. The theoretically calculated half mass radius for the same cluster at the same age is $7\,\rm{pc}$.
Nevertheless, one should remember that without including stellar evolution the simulated $r_c/r_h$ values including primordial binaries were found to be about an order of magnitude smaller than in the observed population [e.g., Paper IV, @1994ApJ...431..231V] and several studies proposed different additional energy generation mechanisms to explain the large observed $r_c/r_h$ values [e.g. @2007MNRAS.374..857T; @2008IAUS..246..151C; @2008ApJ...673L..25F; @2008MNRAS.tmp..374M]. It is thus quite exciting to find such agreement simply by including stellar evolution in the simulations without the need for any fine tuning with the initial conditions or exotic scenarios.
To focus on the distinct evolutionary stages of the clusters we now choose three clusters from our large grid of simulations. These clusters are representative of clusters in three distinct end stages. Cluster [c1f3n4]{} is at the slow contraction phase at the integration stopping time and cluster age $t_{cl} = 12\,\rm{Gyr}$. Cluster [c3f2n1]{} completes the slow contraction phase at $t_{cl} \sim 10\,\rm{Gyr}$, reaches the binary-burning quasi-steady phase and remains in the binary-burning phase until the integration stopping time $t_{cl} = 12\,\rm{Gyr}$. Cluster [c8f1n1]{} reaches the deep collapse phase at $t_{cl} \approx 9\,\rm{Gyr}$ (Figure \[plot:example\_rc\]). Integration is stopped after this stage is reached. As mentioned earlier, cluster [c8f1n1]{} has no primordial binaries and shown only as a limiting case for comparison. For each of the simulated clusters the three distinct phases of cluster evolution are clearly observed. All simulated clusters first expand due to stellar evolution mass loss during the first $\sim 1\,\rm{Gyr}$. Followed by this initial expansion the clusters slowly contracts due to two-body relaxation. This slow contraction phase ends in the quasi-steady binary-burning phase for clusters with primordial binaries (Table \[tab:fixedrv\] runs except [c$i$f1n$i$]{}, where $i \in [1, 4]$). Clusters without primordial binaries go into deep-collapse directly at the end of slow contraction.
The central density for each simulated cluster first decreases sharply during the initial stellar evolution dominated phase due to the early expansion of the core. During the slow contraction phase the cluster stellar density increases steadily and reaches a quasi-steady value during the binary-burning phase (Figure \[plot:example\_t\_rho\]). The central velocity dispersion ($v_{c,rms}$) decreases sharply during the stellar evolution dominated phase. After that $v_{c,rms}$ reaches a steady value of $\sim 10\,\rm{km/s}$. The final value of $v_{c,rms}$ depends on the evolutionary stage of the cluster as well as the total mass in the core. Note that the value of $v_{c,rms}$ for runs [c3f2n1]{} and [c8f1n1]{} are similar, since the core masses are comparable, whereas a more massive cluster [c1f3n4]{} shows a higher $v_{c,rms}$ as expected. $v_{c,rms}$ for run [c8f1n1]{} starts to diverge from $v_{c,rms}$ for run [c3f2n1]{} only when the former reaches the deep-collapse phase.
Figure \[plot:example\_nl2d\] shows the surface density profiles for the total luminosity and number of stars for clusters [c1f3n4]{}, [c3f2n1]{}, and [c8f1n1]{} at the end of simulation. For the first two clusters the $t_{cl}=12\,\rm{Gyr}$. The third suffers a deep-collapse at $\sim 9\,\rm{Gyr}$; the profile at the end of simulation is shown in that case. We find the best fit single-mass King profile parameters minimizing the $\chi^2$ statistic from a grid of detailed King models, solving the Poisson equation where the mass density is calculated self-consistently [@2006MNRAS.366..227M the fitting program was kindly provided by Miocchi]. Since for old GGCs and similarly for our simulated clusters the mass range of the stars at the final stage is narrow, a single-mass King profile is sufficiently accurate to predict the cluster parameters such as the King core radius and concentration (see Figure \[plot:example\_nl2d\]). Furthermore, we adopt a single-mass King fit since observers often follow this assumption [e.g., @2008ApJ...681..311D]. The deep-collapsed cluster, [c8f1n1]{} clearly shows a very different projected density profile compared to the other two clusters and cannot be represented with a King density profile (Figure \[plot:example\_nl2d\]). The collapsed cluster do not have a well defined core as seen in the steady increase in the stellar number surface density. For cluster [c1f3n4]{}, which is in the slow contraction phase, a standard King density profile is an excellent representation of the simulated density profile. The density profile in the binary-burning cluster [c3f2n1]{} is close to a King profile, however, near the central region there is a hint of a power-law density profile expected from observed core-collapsed clusters. In this region, a power-law is a better representation than a King profile for this cluster indicating a self-similar collapse [Figure \[plot:example\_nl2d\]; e.g. @2003gmbp.book.....H; @2008gady.book.....B].
We call the core radius and the concentrations calculated using the best fit King model as $r_{c,obs}$ and $c_{obs}$ respectively. Table \[tab:fixedrv\] shows a full list of these values for all our simulated clusters. However, as shown in Figure \[plot:example\_nl2d\] these values are not correct for the deep-collapsed clusters. Furthermore, for the binary burning clusters a King profile may not be a good fit. Nevertheless, most of our simulated clusters are in the slow contraction phase at $t_{cl} = 12\,\rm{Gyr}$, where a King density profile is an excellent fit to the data. The luminosity profile is noisy due to the presence of a few high luminosity stars (Figure \[plot:example\_nl2d\]). If only stars with a stellar luminosity $L_\star < 20\,\rm{L_\odot}$ are taken into account, the profile is less noisy.
The stellar properties such as the stellar luminosity and radius for each star in the simulated cluster are calculated in tandem with the dynamical evolution of the cluster using BSE (§\[method\]). From the stellar luminosity and the radius the black-body effective temperature can be calculated. Figure \[plot:example\_hrdiag\] shows an example of Hertzprung-Russell diagram (HRD) obtained from the run [c1f3n4]{} at $t_{cl} = 12\,\rm{Gyr}$. All binaries for this cluster are assumed to be unresolved. The effective temperature of a binary is approximated by a luminosity weighted average. Features of a realistic HRD including the MS of the stars, the binary sequence, giant branch, and single and binary white dwarf cooling sequences can be clearly seen. Moreover, exotic stars such as the BSSs are produced. Here, we define any MSS with a stellar mass $M_\star > 1.1\,M_{TO}$ for the cluster as a BSS and find that these stars populate the area of HRD expected from observations (Figure \[plot:example\_hrdiag\_bss\]). Here $M_{TO}$ is the MS turn-off mass for the cluster. We find that the numbers of BSSs in these clusters depend on the initial conditions as well as the evolutionary history. For example, clusters [c1f3n4]{}, [c3f2n1]{}, and [c8f1n1]{} host $52$, $16$, and zero BSSs, respectively, at the time when these snapshots were taken ($12\,\rm{Gyr}$ for the first two and integration stopping time $\approx 9\,\rm{Gyr}$ for the third; Figure \[plot:example\_hrdiag\_bss\]). A more systematic study on the correlations between the total number of BSSs and the cluster observable properties is underway.
Summary and Conclusion {#conclusion}
======================
We report the recent update in the development of the Hénon based MC code CMC, developed at Northwestern. We have added a fitting formulae based single and binary stellar evolution using BSE by @2000MNRAS.315..543H [@2002MNRAS.329..897H] in addition to the already incorporated physical processes such as two-body relaxation and strong interaction including BS, BB and stellar collisions (Papers I–IV). Thus we are now able to model realistic dense massive clusters including all relevant physics with realistic stellar IMFs in our simulations. We test the code extensively and compare our results with previously published direct $N$-body results to validate CMC (§\[tide\],\[comparison\]).
In spite of the differences of the basic numerical methods we find that the agreement between CMC results and direct $N$-body results is excellent (in particular Figures \[plot:tide\]-\[plot:hc\_nbc\_dd\]). The close reproduction of the evolution of the core $f_b$ and the overall $f_b$ warrants special mention. The evolution of $f_b$ is related to all physical processes relevant in the cluster. Two-body relaxation drives mass segregation. Binaries being more massive than typical single stars mass-segregate towards the center. In the core these binaries interact, and can get destroyed via BS/BB interactions. Throughout the evolution the cluster binaries evolve and can merge or disrupt simply through binary evolution. The galactic tidal field tidally strips low mass stars from the cluster tidal boundary. Thus obtaining the right evolution of $f_b$ indicates all these physical processes are implemented correctly. In addition the close agreement between the fraction of double-degenerate binaries in the core (Figure \[plot:hc\_nbc\_dd\]) bolsters our belief that not only the dynamical processes are modeled correctly, but also stellar evolution and compact object formation are at least as accurate as the direct $N$-body code NBODY4.
Although the core properties are obtained accurately using CMC, a larger difference is found whenever a quantity involving the total number of bound stars in the cluster is compared. For example, the agreement in the evolution of the fractional number of bound stars, although is quite good (Figures \[plot:hc\_nc\], \[plot:hc\_nbound\]) given the drastically different methods of simulations, can differ by at most $\approx 20\%$. These differences are dominated by the tidal mass loss effects which is hard to model within MC methods and can only be addressed in a criterion based way [§\[tide\]; also see e.g., Paper IV @2000MNRAS.317..581G]. A more detailed study in characterizing the orbits in a cluster potential and tidal effects is underway, but is beyond the scope of this work.
Our results show that including stellar evolution and a realistic IMF dramatically change the evolution of a star cluster (§\[without\]) and to model a realistic star cluster, inclusion of this process is vital. The initial expansion of the cluster driven by stellar evolution mass loss significantly prolongs the slow contraction phase. Depending on the initial properties of the cluster, even without any primordial binaries the slow contraction phase may last more than a Hubble time for clusters typical for the GGCs (e.g., Figures \[plot:senose\], \[plot:rv\_rc\_phys\]). On the contrary, exclusion of this important effect leads to a quick contraction of the cluster due to mass segregation even if only a moderately broad range of stellar IMF is used (Figure \[plot:senose\]). We also show that even for simulations with a very narrow stellar mass range, for a relatively low $f_b$ (Figure \[plot:w4n1e5\]) the inclusion of stellar evolution can give $r_c/r_h$ values $\approx 10\%$ larger compared to when it is left out.
One of the biggest uncertainties of studying the evolution of dense, massive star clusters is in determining the initial conditions. The detailed evolution of a cluster depends on various initial properties including the initial effective radius, mass, $f_b$, concentration, and the galactic tidal field and estimating the initial conditions using the present day observed properties of a cluster is hard. Moreover, starting from different initial conditions it is possible to achieve very similar present day properties, e.g., $r_c$, and $r_c/r_h$ (Figures \[plot:rv\_rc\_phys\] and \[plot:rv\_rcoverrh\]). In addition, the observed present day values can also be quite uncertain, especially the 3D orbit of a cluster in the galactic potential is hard to measure. Furthermore, although it may be possible to qualitatively understand individual effects of the various physical processes on the observable cluster properties, the collective effect is impossible to judge without actual detailed simulations. Thus to understand a population of dense clusters it is required to study a large parameter space and study evolution of these cluster in a realistic way including all physics in tandem.
With the recent improvement to CMC it is now possible to truly scan the full parameter space realistically without any loss of generality due to its significantly lower computational cost compared to the direct $N$-body codes and the accuracy and ability to treat all relevant physical processes. We have started a detailed study to create a population of realistic globular clusters, representative of the observed GGCs with a large grid of simulations with realistic initial conditions motivated by observations of young massive clusters . Here we have presented some of these simulations to show that rather than creating specific clusters it is now beginning to be possible to create a whole population of GGCs using CMC in a star-by-star detail. We show that using observationally motivated initial conditions, without any need for fine tuning it is possible to create old dense clusters very similar to the observed GGCs (Figures \[plot:rv\_rc\_phys\] – \[plot:rv\_rcoverrh\]).
Each star in CMC has realistic stellar properties such as luminosity, radius, and effective temperature in addition to the mass and position in the cluster (which is sufficient to follow its dynamics). Hence, in addition to the global evolution of the clusters it is possible to study individual stellar populations in a cluster. For example, we show synthetic HRDs for a few simulated clusters from our grid of simulations. All features, including, e.g., the single and binary MS, WD cooling sequence, the giant branch, and BSSs, of a realistic HRD can be seen in the synthetic HRD (Figures \[plot:example\_hrdiag\], \[plot:example\_hrdiag\_bss\]). After this crucial improvement to CMC a large array of interesting problems are now accessible. For example, a detailed study of the observed GGC BSSs, their properties, and the correlations with various cluster properties is underway.
[cccccccccc|cccccccccc]{} c1f1n1 & 4 & 2.5 & 4 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 12.2 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.1 & 1.4 & 3 & 2.0 & 2.1 & 7.1 & 1.0 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c1f1n2 & 4 & 3.8 & 6 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 16.2 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 2.1 & 5 & 2.3 & 2.2 & 7.0 & 1.1 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c1f1n3 & 4 & 5.1 & 8 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 23.3 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.7 & 2.8 & 7 & 2.4 & 2.1 & 6.9 & 1.2 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c1f1n4 & 4 & 6.4 & 10 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 29.0 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 3.5 & 9 & 2.5 & 2.0 & 6.8 & 1.4 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c1f2n1 & 4 & 2.6 & 4 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 12.3 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.3 & 1.4 & 3 & 2.1 & 2.3 & 7.2 & 0.9 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.4 & 1.5\
c1f2n2 & 4 & 3.9 & 6 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 17.3 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.6 & 2.1 & 5 & 2.3 & 2.2 & 7.1 & 1.1 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c1f2n3 & 4 & 5.3 & 8 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 24.7 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.7 & 2.9 & 7 & 2.5 & 2.2 & 7.0 & 1.2 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c1f2n4 & 4 & 6.6 & 10 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 30.2 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.7 & 3.6 & 9 & 2.5 & 2.0 & 6.9 & 1.4 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c1f3n1 & 4 & 2.7 & 4 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 12.4 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.2 & 1.4 & 3 & 2.1 & 2.3 & 7.3 & 0.9 & 0.09 & 0.14 & 1.4 & 1.5\
c1f3n2 & 4 & 4.0 & 6 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 17.7 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.3 & 2.2 & 5 & 2.3 & 2.2 & 7.2 & 1.1 & 0.09 & 0.14 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c1f3n3 & 4 & 5.4 & 8 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 25.3 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.5 & 2.9 & 7 & 2.5 & 2.2 & 7.1 & 1.2 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c1f3n4 & 4 & 6.8 & 10 & 1.6 & 3.3 & 30.9 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.7 & 3.7 & 9 & 2.6 & 2.1 & 7.0 & 1.4 & 0.09 & 0.12 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c2f1n1 & 4.5 & 2.5 & 4 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 14.2 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.0 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.9 & 2.0 & 7.1 & 1.3 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c2f1n2 & 4.5 & 3.8 & 6 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 18.8 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 2.1 & 5 & 2.1 & 2.0 & 7.0 & 1.4 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c2f1n3 & 4.5 & 5.1 & 8 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 27.2 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.4 & 2.8 & 7 & 2.3 & 2.0 & 6.9 & 1.5 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c2f1n4 & 4.5 & 6.4 & 10 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 33.3 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.4 & 3.5 & 9 & 2.3 & 2.0 & 6.9 & 1.7 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c2f2n1 & 4.5 & 2.6 & 4 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 14.3 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.0 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.9 & 2.1 & 7.3 & 1.2 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c2f2n2 & 4.5 & 3.9 & 6 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 20.1 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.7 & 2.1 & 5 & 2.2 & 2.1 & 7.2 & 1.3 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c2f2n3 & 4.5 & 5.3 & 8 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 28.9 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.6 & 2.8 & 7 & 2.3 & 2.1 & 7.1 & 1.4 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c2f2n4 & 4.5 & 6.6 & 10 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 34.7 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.7 & 3.6 & 9 & 2.4 & 2.0 & 7.0 & 1.7 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c2f3n1 & 4.5 & 2.7 & 4 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 14.4 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.0 & 1.4 & 3 & 2.0 & 2.2 & 7.4 & 1.2 & 0.09 & 0.14 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c2f3n2 & 4.5 & 4.0 & 6 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 20.5 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.8 & 2.2 & 5 & 2.2 & 2.1 & 7.3 & 1.3 & 0.09 & 0.14 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c2f3n3 & 4.5 & 5.4 & 8 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 29.6 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.4 & 2.9 & 7 & 2.4 & 2.1 & 7.2 & 1.3 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c2f3n4 & 4.5 & 6.8 & 10 & 1.5 & 3.3 & 35.4 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.4 & 3.7 & 9 & 2.4 & 2.0 & 7.1 & 1.7 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c3f1n1 & 5 & 2.5 & 4 & 1.4 & 3.2 & 17.2 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.2 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.7 & 1.9 & 7.3 & 1.7 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c3f1n2 & 5 & 3.8 & 6 & 1.4 & 3.3 & 22.4 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.4 & 2.1 & 5 & 2.0 & 2.0 & 7.1 & 1.7 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c3f1n3 & 5 & 5.1 & 8 & 1.4 & 3.3 & 32.5 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.7 & 2.8 & 7 & 2.1 & 2.0 & 7.0 & 1.9 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c3f1n4 & 5 & 6.4 & 10 & 1.4 & 3.3 & 40.0 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 3.5 & 9 & 2.2 & 2.0 & 7.0 & 2.1 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c3f2n1 & 5 & 2.6 & 4 & 1.4 & 3.2 & 17.3 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.3 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.7 & 2.1 & 7.4 & 1.7 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c3f2n2 & 5 & 3.9 & 6 & 1.4 & 3.3 & 24.0 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.3 & 2.1 & 5 & 2.0 & 2.0 & 7.3 & 1.6 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c3f2n3 & 5 & 5.3 & 8 & 1.4 & 3.3 & 34.6 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.5 & 2.8 & 7 & 2.2 & 2.0 & 7.2 & 1.8 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c3f2n4 & 5 & 6.6 & 10 & 1.4 & 3.3 & 41.6 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.7 & 3.6 & 9 & 2.2 & 2.0 & 7.1 & 2.0 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c3f3n1 & 5 & 2.7 & 4 & 1.4 & 3.2 & 17.4 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.5 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.8 & 2.1 & 7.6 & 1.5 & 0.09 & 0.15 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c3f3n2 & 5 & 4.0 & 6 & 1.4 & 3.3 & 24.5 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.5 & 2.2 & 5 & 2.0 & 2.1 & 7.4 & 1.6 & 0.09 & 0.14 & 1.5 & 1.5\
c3f3n3 & 5 & 5.4 & 8 & 1.4 & 3.3 & 35.4 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.4 & 2.9 & 7 & 2.2 & 2.1 & 7.3 & 1.8 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c3f3n4 & 5 & 6.8 & 10 & 1.4 & 3.3 & 42.5 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.5 & 3.6 & 9 & 2.3 & 2.0 & 7.2 & 2.0 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c4f1n1 & 5.5 & 2.5 & 4 & 1.3 & 3.2 & 21.6 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.2 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.5 & 1.8 & 7.4 & 2.5 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c4f1n2 & 5.5 & 3.8 & 6 & 1.3 & 3.2 & 27.6 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.7 & 2.1 & 5 & 1.8 & 1.9 & 7.3 & 2.4 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c4f1n3 & 5.5 & 5.1 & 8 & 1.3 & 3.3 & 40.2 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.4 & 2.8 & 7 & 1.8 & 2.0 & 7.2 & 2.9 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c4f1n4 & 5.5 & 6.4 & 10 & 1.3 & 3.2 & 49.6 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.8 & 3.5 & 9 & 2.0 & 2.0 & 7.1 & 2.9 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c4f2n1 & 5.5 & 2.6 & 4 & 1.3 & 3.2 & 21.7 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.6 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.6 & 1.9 & 7.6 & 2.1 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c4f2n2 & 5.5 & 3.9 & 6 & 1.3 & 3.2 & 29.7 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.3 & 2.1 & 5 & 1.8 & 1.9 & 7.4 & 2.4 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c4f2n3 & 5.5 & 5.3 & 8 & 1.3 & 3.3 & 43.0 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.6 & 2.8 & 7 & 1.9 & 2.0 & 7.3 & 2.6 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c4f2n4 & 5.5 & 6.6 & 10 & 1.3 & 3.2 & 51.5 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.8 & 3.6 & 9 & 2.0 & 2.0 & 7.2 & 2.8 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c4f3n1 & 5.5 & 2.7 & 4 & 1.3 & 3.2 & 21.7 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.3 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.6 & 1.9 & 7.7 & 2.0 & 0.09 & 0.15 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c4f3n2 & 5.5 & 4.0 & 6 & 1.3 & 3.2 & 30.3 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.3 & 2.2 & 5 & 1.9 & 1.9 & 7.5 & 2.3 & 0.09 & 0.15 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c4f3n3 & 5.5 & 5.4 & 8 & 1.3 & 3.3 & 44.0 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.3 & 2.9 & 7 & 2.0 & 2.0 & 7.4 & 2.5 & 0.09 & 0.14 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c4f3n4 & 5.5 & 6.8 & 10 & 1.3 & 3.2 & 52.5 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.8 & 3.6 & 9 & 2.1 & 2.0 & 7.3 & 2.6 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c5f1n1 & 6 & 2.5 & 4 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 28.5 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.4 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.2 & 1.4 & 7.6 & 4.9 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.7 & 1.7\
c5f1n2 & 6 & 3.8 & 6 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 35.7 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.3 & 2.1 & 5 & 1.4 & 1.4 & 7.5 & 4.7 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.7 & 1.8\
c5f1n3 & 6 & 5.1 & 8 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 52.8 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.4 & 2.8 & 7 & 1.6 & 1.9 & 7.4 & 4.5 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.7 & 1.6\
c5f1n4 & 6 & 6.4 & 10 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 64.3 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.7 & 3.5 & 9 & 1.7 & 2.0 & 7.3 & 4.9 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.7 & 1.6\
c5f2n1 & 6 & 2.6 & 4 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 28.6 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.4 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.3 & 1.4 & 7.8 & 3.8 & 0.05 & 0.09 & 1.6 & 1.7\
c5f2n2 & 6 & 3.9 & 6 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 38.5 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.3 & 2.1 & 5 & 1.5 & 1.9 & 7.7 & 4.1 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c5f2n3 & 6 & 5.3 & 8 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 56.6 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.3 & 2.8 & 7 & 1.7 & 2.0 & 7.5 & 4.0 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c5f2n4 & 6 & 6.6 & 10 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 66.5 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.7 & 3.6 & 9 & 1.8 & 2.0 & 7.4 & 4.3 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c5f3n1 & 6 & 2.7 & 4 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 28.6 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.5 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.4 & 1.7 & 8.0 & 3.5 & 0.09 & 0.16 & 1.6 & 1.7\
c5f3n2 & 6 & 4.0 & 6 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 39.3 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.3 & 2.2 & 5 & 1.6 & 1.9 & 7.8 & 3.8 & 0.09 & 0.16 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c5f3n3 & 6 & 5.4 & 8 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 57.9 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.4 & 2.9 & 7 & 1.7 & 2.0 & 7.6 & 3.9 & 0.09 & 0.14 & 1.6 & 1.6\
c5f3n4 & 6 & 6.8 & 10 & 1.2 & 3.2 & 67.9 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.8 & 3.8 & 9 & 2.3 & 1.9 & 6.9 & 1.9 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 1.5 & 1.6\
c6f1n1 & 6.5 & 2.5 & 4 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 40.1 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.3 & 1.4 & 3 & 0.6 & 0.6 & 8.0 & 47.6 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 2.0 & 2.1\
c6f1n2 & 6.5 & 3.8 & 6 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 49.3 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.4 & 2.1 & 5 & 1.1 & 1.2 & 7.7 & 9.7 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.8 & 1.8\
c6f1n3 & 6.5 & 5.1 & 8 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 73.0 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.7 & 2.8 & 7 & 1.2 & 1.3 & 7.6 & 11.6 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.8 & 1.8\
c6f1n4 & 6.5 & 6.4 & 10 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 88.8 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 3.5 & 9 & 1.3 & 1.3 & 7.5 & 9.4 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.8 & 1.8\
c6f2n1 & 6.5 & 2.6 & 4 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 40.3 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.5 & 1.4 & 3 & 0.7 & 1.0 & 8.1 & 25.6 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 1.9 & 1.9\
c6f2n2 & 6.5 & 3.9 & 6 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 53.4 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.4 & 2.1 & 5 & 1.1 & 1.3 & 7.9 & 9.6 & 0.05 & 0.09 & 1.7 & 1.8\
c6f2n3 & 6.5 & 5.3 & 8 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 78.5 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.7 & 2.8 & 7 & 1.3 & 1.4 & 7.8 & 8.1 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 1.7 & 1.8\
c6f2n4 & 6.5 & 6.6 & 10 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 91.7 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.6 & 3.6 & 9 & 1.4 & 1.4 & 7.7 & 8.7 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 1.7 & 1.8\
c6f3n1 & 6.5 & 2.7 & 4 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 40.2 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.4 & 1.4 & 3 & 1.0 & 1.3 & 8.2 & 11.2 & 0.09 & 0.18 & 1.8 & 1.8\
c6f3n2 & 6.5 & 4.0 & 6 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 54.4 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.4 & 2.2 & 5 & 1.2 & 1.5 & 8.0 & 8.3 & 0.09 & 0.16 & 1.7 & 1.8\
c6f3n3 & 6.5 & 5.4 & 8 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 80.2 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.4 & 2.9 & 7 & 1.4 & 1.5 & 7.9 & 8.1 & 0.09 & 0.15 & 1.7 & 1.8\
c6f3n4 & 6.5 & 6.8 & 10 & 1.1 & 3.2 & 93.6 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.6 & 3.6 & 9 & 1.4 & 1.4 & 7.8 & 9.4 & 0.09 & 0.15 & 1.7 & 1.8\
c7f1n1 & 7 & 2.5 & 4 & 0.9 & 3.2 & 61.0 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 1.4 & 3 & 0.3 & 1.3 & 8.2 & 241.9 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 2.3 & 1.8\
c7f1n2 & 7 & 3.8 & 6 & 0.9 & 3.3 & 73.4 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 2.1 & 5 & 0.3 & 1.0 & 8.2 & 314.0 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 2.3 & 1.9\
c7f1n3 & 7 & 5.1 & 8 & 0.9 & 3.3 & 110.3 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.5 & 2.8 & 7 & 0.7 & 0.8 & 8.0 & 56.3 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 2.0 & 2.1\
c7f1n4 & 7 & 6.4 & 10 & 0.9 & 3.3 & 134.5 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 3.5 & 9 & 0.8 & 0.8 & 7.9 & 54.2 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 2.0 & 2.1\
c7f2n1 & 7 & 2.6 & 4 & 0.9 & 3.2 & 61.1 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.5 & 1.4 & 3 & 0.8 & 0.8 & 8.5 & 19.3 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 1.8 & 2.0\
c7f2n2 & 7 & 3.9 & 6 & 0.9 & 3.3 & 79.7 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.9 & 2.1 & 5 & 0.7 & 0.9 & 8.3 & 43.3 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 1.9 & 2.0\
c7f2n3 & 7 & 5.3 & 8 & 0.9 & 3.3 & 118.9 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.5 & 2.8 & 7 & 0.9 & 1.1 & 8.2 & 29.5 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 1.9 & 1.9\
c7f2n4 & 7 & 6.6 & 10 & 0.9 & 3.3 & 138.3 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.6 & 3.6 & 9 & 0.8 & 0.8 & 8.0 & 48.4 & 0.04 & 0.09 & 2.0 & 2.1\
c7f3n1 & 7 & 2.7 & 4 & 0.9 & 3.2 & 60.8 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.7 & 1.4 & 3 & 0.9 & 1.1 & 8.6 & 17.4 & 0.09 & 0.19 & 1.8 & 1.8\
c7f3n2 & 7 & 4.0 & 6 & 0.9 & 3.3 & 81.2 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.6 & 2.2 & 5 & 0.8 & 1.0 & 8.5 & 30.1 & 0.09 & 0.19 & 1.9 & 2.0\
c7f3n3 & 7 & 5.4 & 8 & 0.9 & 3.3 & 121.3 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.5 & 2.9 & 7 & 1.1 & 1.2 & 8.2 & 15.9 & 0.09 & 0.17 & 1.8 & 1.8\
c7f3n4 & 7 & 6.8 & 10 & 0.9 & 3.3 & 141.0 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.9 & 3.6 & 9 & 1.0 & 1.2 & 8.1 & 25.5 & 0.09 & 0.16 & 1.9 & 1.8\
c8f1n1 & 7.5 & 2.5 & 4 & 0.7 & 3.3 & 103.6 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 1.4 & 3 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 8.4 & 267.0 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 2.3 & 2.3\
c8f1n2 & 7.5 & 3.8 & 6 & 0.7 & 3.4 & 119.9 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 2.1 & 5 & 0.4 & 1.2 & 8.2 & 256.0 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 2.2 & 1.8\
c8f1n3 & 7.5 & 5.1 & 8 & 0.7 & 3.4 & 181.1 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 1.6 & 2.8 & 7 & 0.4 & 1.0 & 8.2 & 275.1 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 2.2 & 1.9\
c8f1n4 & 7.5 & 6.4 & 10 & 0.7 & 3.4 & 220.4 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 2.1 & 3.5 & 9 & 0.5 & 0.7 & 8.1 & 179.4 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 2.2 & 2.1\
c8f2n1 & 7.5 & 2.6 & 4 & 0.7 & 3.3 & 103.6 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.6 & 1.4 & 3 & 0.7 & 0.9 & 8.9 & 27.0 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 1.9 & 2.0\
c8f2n2 & 7.5 & 3.9 & 6 & 0.7 & 3.4 & 130.7 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.6 & 2.1 & 5 & 0.7 & 1.4 & 8.5 & 51.9 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 2.0 & 1.8\
c8f2n3 & 7.5 & 5.3 & 8 & 0.7 & 3.4 & 195.8 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.6 & 2.8 & 7 & 0.8 & 1.2 & 8.3 & 44.3 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 1.9 & 1.8\
c8f2n4 & 7.5 & 6.6 & 10 & 0.7 & 3.4 & 225.8 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 1.7 & 3.6 & 9 & 0.8 & 1.1 & 8.2 & 59.5 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 2.0 & 1.9\
c8f3n1 & 7.5 & 2.7 & 4 & 0.7 & 3.3 & 103.0 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.6 & 1.4 & 3 & 0.9 & 1.3 & 8.9 & 18.4 & 0.09 & 0.20 & 1.8 & 1.8\
c8f3n2 & 7.5 & 4.0 & 6 & 0.7 & 3.3 & 133.1 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 2.1 & 2.2 & 5 & 0.8 & 1.4 & 8.6 & 33.2 & 0.09 & 0.19 & 1.9 & 1.8\
c8f3n3 & 7.5 & 5.4 & 8 & 0.7 & 3.4 & 199.3 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.6 & 2.9 & 7 & 0.9 & 1.3 & 8.4 & 40.9 & 0.09 & 0.18 & 1.9 & 1.8\
c8f3n4 & 7.5 & 6.8 & 10 & 0.7 & 3.4 & 230.1 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 1.7 & 3.7 & 9 & 0.9 & 1.1 & 8.2 & 42.5 & 0.09 & 0.17 & 1.9 & 1.9\
We thank Jarrod Hurley for help with the BSE code and Paolo Miocchi for providing us with his fitting codes for single-mass King models. This work was supported by NASA Grants NNX08AG66G and NNG06GI62G at Northwestern University. JMF acknowledges support from Chandra/Einstein Postdoctoral Fellowship Award PF7- 80047. This research was partly done at KITP while the authors participated in the Spring 2009 program on ÒFormation and Evolution of Globular ClustersÓ, and was supported in part by NSF Grant PHY05-51164.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
The nature of the underdoped region and of the pairing mechanism in high-T$_c$ cuprates is still a matter of strong controversies. From the experimental point of view, the relationship between the pseudogap (PG) and the superconducting gap (SG) is still under intense discussion. Older data suggested a pseudogap smoothly connecting with the superconducting gap[@puchkov] while some more recent studies[@tallon; @PGnotS] emphasize a different origin and behavior of the PG and the SG, the PG ending inside the superconducting phase at a “quantum critical point".[@qcp] From the theoretical point of view, the stripe scenario, which is an almost unavoidable consequence of neutron experiments results on La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$[@tranquada; @ichikawa] and perhaps on YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+\delta}$[@mook], offers a natural explanation for PG. Consistently with the experimental controversy about the nature of PG, there are widely diverging views about the origin of stripes and its relationship with superconductivity. In the theory by Emery, Kivelson and coworkers[@emery], the pseudogap is identified with the SG and stripes are a key ingredient to explain superconductivity in the cuprates. In another view,[@white] stripes are regarded as competing with a uniform gas of hole pairs and hence with superconductivity. In yet another approaches, the stripes exclude hole pairing.[@martins] There are even more important differences regarding the origin of stripes. In Ref. , charge inhomogeneity appears as a combined effect of phase separation and long-range Coulomb repulsion and the stripe phase can be thought as a Wigner crystal. According to White and Scalapino[@white], stripes are already present in the simple $t-J$ model at physical values of the parameters. In Ref. , the driving mechanism is the formation of strong singlets across a hole. In this sense, the stripes may be regarded as domain walls.[@zaanen] On the other hand, in some other views, the stripes are not inherent to two-dimensional (2D) extended $t-J$ models but are due to, for example, electron-phonon coupling.[@castroneto; @petrov] Following these alternative views, in this paper we formulate a model assuming that the origin of stripes in the cuprates is non-intrinsic to the 2D electronic correlations and our main goal is to examine the physically relevant properties of such model.
It is also well known the difficulty of studying microscopic models of correlated electrons either by analytical or numerical techniques. The already mentioned work on variants of the $t-J$ model by using the DMRG method[@white; @martins] is affected by limitations of this method, particularly the open boundary conditions adopted. The widely used Lanczos diagonalization could not deal with clusters large enough to reproduce the charge inhomogeneities. In the present study, we use the conventional finite temperature quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) method (world-line algorithm)[@reger] which allows the study of reasonable large clusters with fully periodic boundary conditions. As it is well-known, QMC simulations of fermionic models are affected by strong “minus sign problem"[@minus] that virtually makes impossible these kind of studies at very low temperatures. However, as we discuss below, in the model we consider the “minus sign problem" is not as much severe as in the plain 2D $t-J$ model, and hence we are able to look at physical features which appear at not too low temperatures.
Let us first introduce the model here studied. In the first place, as in many other studies on this subject[@tworzydlo; @kim; @shibata; @liu; @eroles], we impose the presence of straight site-centered stripes by an on-site potential. This on-site potential represents the effects of Coulomb potential due to out-of-plane ions, electron-phonon coupling, a-b plane anisotropy or other structural details, etc. Since in-plane long-range Coulomb repulsion can not be included in QMC simulations, its effects can eventually also be represented by the on-site potential. The confinement of holes to the stripes strongly reduces the “minus sign problem". As we show below, this problem strongly constrains the values of the on-site potential accessible in the simulations. A further alleviation of this problem comes from reducing quantum spin fluctuations. We are thus lead to an anisotropic $t-J$ model, and in the Ising limit to the so-called $t-Jz$ model.[@tjz; @tjz-strip] Again, the “minus sign problem" strongly constrains the off-diagonal exchange term we can deal with. On the other hand, this Ising limit is not only convenient from the numerical point of view but has an additional value, specially if one is interested in finite temperature effects. In fact, a three-dimensional (3D) AF (short- or long-range) order would imply, at a mean-field level, a staggered field acting on the 2D t-J model and in turn would induce an enhancement of the $zz$-component of the Heisenberg term as a second order process.
The Hamiltonian of the anisotropic $t-J$ model is: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{tJ} =
&-& t \sum_{ \langle { i j} \rangle,\sigma }
({\tilde c}^{\dagger}_{ i\sigma}
{\tilde c}_{ j\sigma} + h.c. )
\nonumber \\
&+& J \sum_{ \langle { i j} \rangle }
( \frac{\gamma}{2} (S^{+}_{i} S^{-}_{j} +
S^{-}_{i} S^{+}_{j}) +
S^{z}_{i} S^{z}_{j} -
{\frac{1}{4}} n_{i} n_{j} )
\label{ham_anis}\end{aligned}$$ where the notation is standard. The stripes are induced by an effective on-site potential:[@castro-pot] $$\begin{aligned}
H_{str} = \sum_{i} {e_s}_i n_{i}
\label{stripepot}\end{aligned}$$ ${e_s}_i=-2 e_s < 0$ ($2 e_s$) for sites on (outside) the stripe. Then, the total Hamiltonian of our model is $H=H_{tJ}+H_{str}$. Most of our calculations were performed on an $8 \times 8$ cluster with fully periodic boundary conditions and with eight holes which corresponds to a filling of $x=1/8$. The imposed stripes involves columns separated by three-leg ladders, as in the original picture in Ref. .
Our simulations were done at $J/t=0.35$, a value generally accepted to describe the cuprates, and also at $J/t=0.7$. In this second case, we have seen essentially the same physical behavior but at a higher temperature scale and with a milder minus sign problem. As usual, $t$ is chosen as the unit scale of energy and temperature. $e_s$ was varied between 0.3 and 2.0, and $\gamma=0.0$ (the Ising limit), 0.25 and 0.5 were examined. In the limit $e_s \rightarrow \infty$ each stripe would be at quarter filling. Simulations were also performed for the $12 \times 12$ cluster with twelve holes and also two equidistant stripes. This corresponds to a smaller density $x=1/12$ and the spin domains in between the stripes are five-leg ladders.
The QMC algorithm employed is a straightforward extension of the world-line one successfully used to study the 2D Heisenberg model.[@reger] Besides the cube and plaquette local moves, we have kept the global moves that change the total $S_z$ of the system. Most of the calculations were performed with $\tau=\beta/M=0.083$, where $\beta=1/T$ and $M$ is the Trotter number. The average of the sign of $\exp{-\beta H}$, is shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a). It can be seen that $\langle sgn \rangle$ is smaller for larger $\gamma$ and for smaller $e_s$. In few words, the more isotropic in the spin space and the more homogeneous is the hole movement in real space, the worse becomes the minus sign problem. In Fig. \[fig1\](b), the hole occupancy of sites on the stripes are shown as a function of temperature for various sets of parameters ($J$,$e_s$, and $\gamma$). As expected, the stripe filling increases monotonically as T decreases. At large temperature there is already a filling of the stripes larger than the nominal one ($x=1/8$) and it is driven solely by the on-site potential. As the temperature goes to zero, the stripe density saturates at a value smaller than $1/2$ and it is apparent a small dependence on $J$, i.e., there is a correction due to the magnetic correlations of the $t-J$ model. In Fig. \[fig1\](c), the hole density profile is shown for $J=0.35$ and several values of $e_s$ at the lowest temperatures reached. The sharpness of these profiles could be measured by neutron scattering.[@note0]
We start now to show the main features observed.[@monte2] Results of the computation of magnetic and charge static structure factors, $S({\bf k})$ and $C({\bf k})$ (Fourier transformed spin-spin and hole-hole correlations functions respectively) are partially summarized in Fig. \[fig2\](a). In the $8 \times 8$ cluster ($x=1/8$), at a rather large T there is a crossover in the peak of the structure factor from $(k_x,k_y)=(\pi,0)$ (with the $x$-axis perpendicular to the stripes direction) to $(2\delta,0)$ with $\delta=\pi/4$. This crossover, together with the behavior shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b) indicates a non-trivial behavior of the charge ordering. One is tempted to term this crossover as the “charge ordering" temperature,[@t1star] although this concept is somewhat arbitrary in our model. The most important feature is that at a temperature much lower that this crossover there is a second crossover in the spin sector signalled by a change in the peak of the magnetic structure factor from $(\pi,\pi)$ to $(\pi \pm \delta, \pi)$. This peak very much resembles the one observed in neutron scattering experiments[@tranquada; @mook] signalling the presence of the “incommensurate phase" in underdoped cuprates. Following Ref. , we call $T^\ast_2$ this lower crossover at which a “spin ordering" occurs. A similar behavior is observed in the $12\times 12$ lattice with 12 holes ($x=0.083$). Following the behavior observed in underdoped cuprates, $T^\ast_2$ occurs at a temperature higher than the one observed for similar parameters but for $x=0.125$. The peaks of $S({\bf k})$ and $C({\bf k})$ are the same as above except that for this smaller hole doping, $\delta=\pi/6$. A more detailed evolution of the peaks with temperature is shown in Fig. \[fig2\](b). In particular, the crossover in the charge sector is rather smooth. In the spin sector, the weight of the $(\pi,\pi)$ peak is strongly reduced below the crossover, but $S(\pi \pm \delta, \pi)$ is definitely nonzero above it.
We have detected important hysteresis effects in the crossover region. The results shown in Fig. \[fig2\](b) were obtained by starting the simulation from a configuration with $\pi$-shifted spin domains. If the starting configuration consists of in-phase spin domains the crossover temperature is pushed to smaller values. In this case, for many values of the parameters $J$, $e_s$ and $\gamma$ (specially for large $J$ and $e_s$) we could not detect that crossover to the lowest temperature attainable. In most cases, starting from a randomized spin configuration, behaviors like those of Fig. \[fig2\] are recovered but we cannot rule out the possibility of in-phase domains being more stable than or degenerate with anti-phase domains[@mook; @in-phase] at low temperatures and for very large $J$ and $e_s$.
We can analyze the crossover in the spin sector at a more microscopic level by looking at the real-space spin-spin correlations that experience the most important changes at this crossover. These correlations are between sites two lattice spacings apart in the same row across a stripe (labelled $S_1$), and between sites belonging to the center leg of two consecutive three-leg ladders in the same row ($S_2$). For completeness we have also computed the correlations between nearest neighbor (NN) sites in the center leg of a three-leg ladder ($S_3$), and between sites at the maximum distance along this leg ($S_4$). $S_5$ and $S_6$ are the correlations between NN and next NN (NNN) sites along the stripes. The spin-spin correlations have been normalized in such a way that their maximum (minimum) value is $+1$ ($-1$) for the z-components of the two spins fully aligned or ferromagnetic (FM) (respectively anti-aligned or AF). In Fig. \[fig3\](a), corresponding to $J/t=0.35$, $e_s=1.0$ it can be seen that the correlations $S_1$ and $S_2$ across the stripe are positive at high temperature and they increase as $T$ is lowered. Around $T\approx 0.12$ these correlations reach their maximum value and as the temperature is further lowered they suddenly become fully AF and remain negative down to the lowest temperature reached. These changes from FM to AF indicate that the intervening mostly hole-free ladders are in-phase (anti-phase) above (below) $T\approx 0.11$. $S_3$ and $S_4$ (only shown in Fig. \[fig3\](a)) show a monotonic behavior as the temperature is decreased. They indicate a full polarization of the spin domains at low temperatures. A similar behavior can be observed for smaller $e_s$ and larger $J$ (Fig. \[fig3\](b)). For the $e_s=1.0$ but $J=0.7$ (Fig. \[fig3\](c)), $T^\ast_2$ increases and it increases further for smaller density ($x=0.083$ on the $12\times 12$ cluster). The same features survive when a $XY$ term in the exchange interaction is included, as it can be seen in Fig. \[fig3\](d) for $\gamma=0.25$ and 0.5. As the Heisenberg interaction is made more isotropic, $T^\ast_2$ slightly decreases. Results for $\gamma =0.5$ suggest that the spin ladders are not going to be fully polarized in the isotropic limit $\gamma =1.0$.[@kim] As discussed below, the correlations along the stripe $S_5$ and $S_6$ are much smaller than the previous ones and hence they show a more erratic behavior, specially below the crossover temperature. Above this temperature, these correlations are AF, and the NN correlation is in general larger (in absolute value) than the NNN one, although for $J=0.35$ and just above $T^\ast_2$ the opposite behavior is true in agreement with the analysis made in Ref. which is valid for small $J/t$. A note of caution should be make. Since translational invariance in the direction perpendicular to the stripes is broken, the spin-spin correlations depends on the hole density on each site (e.g. $\langle S^{z}_i S^{z}_i\rangle= \langle n_i\rangle$) which in turn has a smooth variation with temperature as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b)). However, the changes in the spin-spin correlations, specially at low temperatures, are much stronger than the variation of the hole density, so one could safely ignore that dependency.
Our final study concerns the other important issue that is the relationship between stripes and hole pairing. A sign of hole attraction is the presence of largest hole-hole correlations at smallest distances. Taking into account the remark made earlier about the broken translational invariance the hole-hole correlations $C({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j) = \langle n_i n_j\rangle$ result proportional to the hole density at each site. It is then expected that $C({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j)$ along the stripe, $C_{s}({\bf r})$, as shown in Fig. \[fig4\](a), present a smooth increase as the temperature is reduced, while the correlations along the first column next to the stripe, $C_{1}$, are smoothly decreasing. However, near and below $T^\ast_2$ these correlations behave roughly independently of $T$. The same behavior can be observed for $C({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j)$, with ${\bf r}_i$ on the center leg of a three-leg ladder and ${\bf r}_j$ on the column next to it, $C_{c1}$, (Fig. \[fig4\](b)). The normalization adopted is such that: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{y} C((x,y_0),(x,y)) = \langle N_{h,x}\rangle
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $y_0$ is the $y$-coordinate of a reference site on column $x$, and $\langle N_{h,x}\rangle$ is the number of holes on that column. Then, $C({\bf r},{\bf r})=1$.
In Figs. \[fig4\](c) and (d) we show $C({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j)$ at several points $({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j)$ after being averaged in a region $\Delta T\approx 0.2$ above and below the crossover temperature. It may be noticed that there is no abrupt changes as $T^\ast_2$ is crossed since the averaged correlations immediately above and below it fall within each other error bars. The first place to look for hole pairs are on the stripes, where the largest hole density is located. The results for the hole-hole correlations along the stripes (Fig. \[fig4\](c)), for all the parameter sets studied, show that $C_s(r)$ are [*smallest*]{} at nearest neighbor (NN) sites and largest at the maximum possible distance, although they are approximately constant beyond NN sites. This behavior is consistent with a [*metallic*]{} behavior of the stripes, as expected in the cuprates.[@ichikawa] Results for $J=0.7$ are virtually indistinguishable from the ones for $J=0.35$, for the same $e_s=1$. In the metastable in-phase state, degenerate with the anti-phase state within error bars at the same low temperatures, the largest correlations also occur at the largest distance but with a more pronounced $\pi$-modulation, indicating a stronger coupling with the spin surrounding. The same short distance repulsion is obtained for $C_1(r)$ and also when ${\bf r}_i$ belongs to the stripe and ${\bf r}_j$ to the first column next to it ($C_{s1}$) (Fig. \[fig4\](c)). In Fig. \[fig4\](d), similar results are shown for the $12\times 12$ cluster, $x=0.083$. An alternative scenario[@castroneto] assumes that hole pairs with $d_{x^2-y^2}$ symmetry are formed due to short-range AF correlations inside the spin domains located in between the stripes as well-known results on small cluster calculations show.[@rierayoung] Again, due to the dependence of the hole-hole correlations with the local hole density, the correlations between sites along the central leg of the spin domains are extremely small and hence they are almost completely masked by errors. However, the correlations between a site on the central leg of the three-leg ladder and a site on the first column next to it, which are almost identically zero on the $12\times 12$ cluster, acquire on the $8\times 8$ cluster and $x=0.125$, very similar values to those of $C_{s1}$. These correlations could then become important as the hole density is further increased. Fig. \[fig4\](c),(d) also show exact diagonalization results for hole-hole correlations on $L=8$ and $L=12$ $t-Jz$ rings at quarter filling ($T=T^\ast_2=0.08$, 0.18 respectively). They are very similar to the correlations $C_{s}$ along the stripes except for a small shift due to the fact that the hole density on stripes is slightly smaller than $x=0.5$. Besides, as shown earlier, $S_1$ shows that contiguous spin ladders are almost completely AF coupled in a 2D square lattice. This combined behavior suggests, at least for the $t-Jz$ limit, a generalized spin-charge separation, or more properly, a separation between the spin background and the stripes.[@chernyshev; @martins]
In summary, we have studied an anisotropic $t-J$ model, close to the Ising limit, where straight site-centered stripes are imposed by an on-site potential reflecting a mechanism which is not intrinsic to the 2D short-range electronic correlations of that model. The results of the present study suggest that we are able to study with QMC simulations the temperature region between the formation of the stripes at a charge ordering temperature (more or less arbitrarily defined in our model) and the spin ordering process which takes place at a much lower temperature. This lower crossover, at which the spin domains become anti-phase domains and an incommensurate magnetic order appears, should correspond in the cuprates to the opening of the pseudogap. In this sense, this result that stems from a model where the stripes are caused by long-range Coulomb interaction, electron-phonon couplings, or other mechanisms that are described by an on-site potential, is at variance with recent results in which the stripes are originated in the pure $t-J$ model.[@white; @martins] In that and other approaches[@zaanen], the stripes are the [*consequence*]{} of anti-phase domain formation and both features should occur simultaneously. The results of the present study, including the behavior of spin-spin correlations along the stripes, open the possibility of experimentally discriminate the mechanism leading to stripe formation and hence to determine to what extent the stripes are universal to the cuprates or depend on particular details of the various compounds. The hole-hole correlations along and near the stripes show a metallic behavior with no indications of hole attraction. The question arises if a hole attraction on the stripes could appear by taking the isotropic Heisenberg term in the model. One should take into account that, as previous exact results show,[@tjz] hole attraction is actually enhanced in the $t-Jz$ model with respect to the fully isotropic $t-J$ model. Besides, to give more support to our result, it has been suggested that stripes could be introduced in a uniform $t-J$ model by taking an Ising spin interaction at the stripes links.[@eroles] An improvement on statistical errors in order to deal with larger hole densities and lower temperatures would be necessary to detect signs of hole attraction inside the intervening regions between stripes.[@Note]
We wish to acknowledge many interesting discussions with A. Castro Neto, C. Gazza, G. B. Martins, and A. Trumper. We thank the Supercomputer Computations Research Institute (SCRI) and the Academic Computing and Network Services at Tallahassee (Florida) for allowing us to use their computing facilities.
T. Timusk and B. Statt, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**62**]{}, 61 (1999), and references therein.
J. L. Tallon and J. W. Loram, Physica C [**349**]{}, 53 (2001), and references therein.
V. M. Krasnov, A. Yurgens, D. Winkler, P. Delsing, and T. Claeson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5860 (2000); S. Ono, Y. Ando, T. Murayama, F. F. Balakirev, J. B. Betts, and G. S. Boebinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 638 (2000).
A. V. Chubukov, S. Sachdev, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 11919 (1994); C. Castellani, C. Di Castro, and M. Grilli, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4650 (1995).
J. M. Tranquada, B. J. Sternlieb, J. D. Axe, Y. Nakamura, and S. Uchida, Nature [**375**]{}, 561 (1995); J. M. Tranquada, J. D. Axe, N. Ichikawa, Y. Nakamura, S. Uchida, and B. Nachumi, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 7489 (1996); K. Yamada, C. H. Lee, K. Kurahashi, J. Wada, S. Wakimoto, S. Ueki, H. Kimura, Y. Endoh, S. Hosoya, G. Shirane, R. J. Birgeneau, M. Greven, M. A. Kastner, and Y. J. Kim , Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 6165 (1998).
N. Ichikawa, S. Uchida, J. M. Tranquada, T. Niemoller, P. M. Gehring, S.-H. Lee, and J. R. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1738 (2000), and references therein.
P. Dai, H. A. Mook, and F. Dogan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1738 (1998).
V. J. Emery, S. A. Kivelson, and O. Zachar, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 6120 (1997), and references therein.
S. R. White and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 6320 (2000); Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 753 (1999).
G. B. Martins, C. Gazza, J. C. Xavier, A. Feiguin, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5844 (2000); G. B. Martins, C. Gazza, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 13926 (2000).
J. Zaanen, O. Y. Osman, H. V. Kruis, Z. Nussinov, and J. Tworzydlo, cond-mat/0102103, and references therein.
A. H. Castro Neto, cond-mat/0102281.
Y. Petrov, T. Egami, R. J. McQueeney, M. Yethiraj, H. A. Mook, and F. Dogan, cond-mat/0003414.
J. Reger and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 5978 (1988), and references therein.
See e.g., S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3116 (1999), and references therein.
J. Tworzydlo, O. Y. Osman, C. N. A. van Duin, and J. Zaanen, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 115 (1999).
Y. J. Kim, R. J. Birgeneau, M. A. Kastner, and Y. S. Lee, Y. Endoh, G. Shirane, and K. Yamada , Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 3294 (1999).
Y. Shibata, T. Tohyama, and S. Maekawa, cond-mat/0011185; P. Prelovsek, T. Tohyama, and S. Maekawa, cond-mat/0102418.
W. V. Liu and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} 1865 (2001).
J. Eroles, G. Ortiz, A.V. Balatsky, and A.R. Bishop, Europhys. Lett. [**50**]{}, 540 (2000).
J. Riera, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 15346 (1993); A. L. Chernyshev and P. W. Leung, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 15346 (1999).
P. Prelovsek and I. Sega, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 15241 (1994).
The idea of stabilizing stripes with locals changes in the chemical potential was originally presented in A. H. Castro Neto, Z. Phys. B-Cond. Matter, [**103**]{}, 185 (1997).
A. H. Castro Neto, personal communication.
Details of code checking and results for other physical quantities will be reported in J. A. Riera, in preparation.
It is tempting to relate this high temperature crossover with the charge ordering temperature observed in some experiments. See e.g., W. Y. Liang, J. W. Loram, K. A. Mirza, N. Athanassopoulos, and J. R. Cooper, Physica C [**263**]{}, 277 (1996), A. W. Hunt, P. M. Singer, K. R. Thurber, and T. Imai, Phys. Rev. Lett [**82**]{}, 4300 (1999).
Related results were obtained in a model with spatial anisotropy, B. Normand and A. P. Kampf, cond-mat/0102201; A. P. Kampf, D. J. Scalapino, and S. R. White, cond-mat/0102554.
J. Riera, and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 9697 (1989).
A. L. Chernyshev, A. H. Castro Neto, A. R. Bishop, Phys. Rev. Lett [**84**]{}, 4922 (2000); O. Tchernyshyov and L. P. Pryadko, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 12503 (2000).
Many of the features observed below $T^\ast_2$, assuming the metallic behavior remains down to zero temperature, can be reproduced by a “toy model" consisting of a $2 \times 8$ or $2 \times 12$ ladders with the same Hamiltonian as defined by Eqs. (\[ham\_anis\])-(\[stripepot\]), and two holes. This “toy model" would allow the computation of dynamical correlations.[@monte2]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Observations have revealed cold gas with large velocity dispersions ($\approx300$ km/s) within the hot outflows of ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs). This gas may trace its origin to the Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) fragmentation of a super-bubble or may arise on smaller scales. We model a ULIRG outflow at two scales to recreate this gas in three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations using FLASH. Although resolution is limited, these models successfully produce cold gas in outflows with large velocity dispersions. Our small-scale models produce this cold gas through RT fragmentation of the super-bubble wall, but the large-scale models produce the cold gas after hot bubbles fragment the disc’s gas into cold clouds which are then accelerated by thermal pressure, and supplemented by cooling within the outflow. We produce simple mock spectra to compare these simulations to observed absorption spectra and find line-widths of $\approx 250$ km/s, agreeing with the lower end of observations.'
author:
- |
D. J. Williamson$^{1,2}$[^1], Robert J. Thacker$^{3}$, E. Scannapieco$^{4}$, and M. Brüggen$^{5}$\
$^{1}$Département de physique, de génie physique et d’optique, Université Laval, Québe c, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada\
$^{2}$Centre de Recherche en Astrophysique du Québec, Québec, QC, Canada\
$^{3}$Department of Astronomy and Physics, St Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, B3H 3C3, Canada\
$^{4}$School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1404, USA\
$^{5}$Hamburger Sternwarte, Gojenbergsweg 112, D-21029 Hamburg, Germany\
bibliography:
- 'coldflows\_noturb1\_CLEANED.bib'
date: 'This pre-print submitted Mar 2014 (Accepted to MNRAS, Mar 2014) '
title: 'High Velocity-dispersion Cold Gas in ULIRG Outflows. I: Direct Simulations'
---
\[firstpage\]
ISM: jets and outflows, galaxies: starburst, line: formation, hydrodynamics
Introduction
============
Nuclear and galactic scale outflows are common in ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs), and have been detected in X-Ray [@1996ApJ...457..616H; @2003ApJ...591..154M; @2003ApJ...592..782P; @2009ApJ...691..261T] and H$\alpha$ [@2004ApJ...602..181C] emission as hot lobes extending $10-15$ kpc beyond the infrared-luminous portion of the galaxy. These “super-winds” are primarily driven by supernovae, with outflow rates comparable to the host’s star formation rate ($\approx10-1000 M_\odot$/yr), and correspondingly high luminosities ($10^{41}-10^{44}$ erg/s) and projected velocities ($300-400$ km/s).
Several observations [e.g. @1993AJ....105..486P; @2000ApJS..129..493H; @2005ApJ...621..227M; @2006ApJ...647..222M] have detected cold gas with large velocity dispersions in these outflows. The presence of this gas provides a challenge to theoretical models, which must explain how such a cold component [i.e. NaI and KI absorption lines, with ionization potentials of 5.1 eV and 4.3 eV, @2005ApJ...621..227M] can exist within a flow of very hot ($T\sim10^6$ K) gas. These models must also explain the large velocity dispersion of this gas — i.e. the large non-thermal broadening of the NaI lines. A number of works have investigated explanations for the cold component, often supported by numerical calculations [@1986PASJ...38..697T; @2005ApJ...618..569M; @2009ApJ...698..693F; @2010ApJ...713..592E] and simulated spectra [@2009ApJ...698..693F; @2011ApJ...734...24P]. In these models, cold gas is either produced in the disc and then advected by ram-pressure, or produced by gas rapidly cooling within the wind through radiative processes.
In the simulations of @2009ApJ...698..693F, cold gas is produced by turbulence in the wind, which leads to dense condensations that rapidly cool. Specifically, these condensations trace their origin to a super-bubble, which is inflated by the outflow, driving a “snowplough” that builds up a dense bubble wall. The density of this wall allows it to cool efficiently, due to the $\rho^2$ dependency in radiative cooling, and the wall is supported against gravity by the pressure of the hot low-density gas within it. This situation is extremely susceptible to Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) [@1950RSPSA.201..192T; @1984PhyD...12....3S] and Richtmyer-Meshkov (RM) [@CPA:CPA3160130207; @meshkovref] instabilities, which cause the bubble wall to fragment into clouds that become a cold high velocity-dispersion component of the wind.
This situation is difficult to analyze numerically, because the RT and RM instabilities can be strong at a wide range of wavelengths, and so simulations that strongly depend on the RT and RM instabilities will not converge until a fine enough resolution is used to resolve the full turbulent cascade. Alternatively, a sub-grid model for turbulent evolution can be considered, as we do in part II of this series.
To better resolve the scales relevant to turbulent formation and destruction of clouds, the simulations of @2009ApJ...698..693F were performed in two dimensions with cylindrical symmetry. While this allows a resolution of as fine as $0.1$ pc in a $100$ pc by $200$ pc box, it suppresses modes of instability and gas flow that may be present in three dimensions. Furthermore, even at this high resolution, @2009ApJ...698..693F note a significant resolution dependence in the scale of these clouds, which suggests that the turbulence is still not fully-resolved.
There is thus motivation to reexamine this scenario with a fully three-dimensional hydrodynamic model. However, even using adaptive methods, we are not able to attain an equivalent resolution in 3D models on currently available computer resources. Instead we develop 3D models with two scales of size — one with the same scale as @2009ApJ...698..693F but lower resolution, and a full-scale galaxy model to examine large-scale effects. We also vary the initial conditions and mass loading rates, and thus produce a suite of models to investigate numerical effects. To facilitate a more direct comparison with observations, we have also produced a raytracing code for calculating mock NaI absorption spectra of the models.
The layout of the paper is as follows: in section \[simmodel\] we give a summary of the simulation method for both the full galaxy and galaxy centre models. In section \[raytracespectra\] we present the raytracing and mock spectra algorithms. In section \[cloudfind\] we summarise the cloud tracking technique. In section \[resultscoldflows\] we present our results for the full galaxy models (section \[fullgalaxyresults\]) and galaxy centre models (section \[galaxycentreresults\]). We present our conclusions in section \[coldflowsconc\].
Simulation model {#simmodel}
================
Initial Conditions {#ic_section}
------------------
The initial conditions were generated using the galactic disc generator of @2006MNRAS.369..567R [@2010MNRAS.405.1634S] with some modifications. All of our initial conditions were produced by this generator, although the full galaxy and galaxy centre models are generated with different choices of parameters.
In this model, only the gaseous component is explicitly evolved, while the dark matter component is represented by a fixed gravitational potential, and the stellar component is modelled by both a gravitational potential and a feedback algorithm. The gaseous disc is initially axisymmetric, following a $\mathrm{sech}$ profile in both the radial and vertical directions:
$$\rho(r,z)=\frac{M_\mathrm{gas}}{4 C \pi^2 h_r^2 h_z} \mathrm{sech}(r/h_r)\,\mathrm{sech}(|z|/h_z)+\rho_\mathrm{amb},$$
where $M_{gas}$ is the total gass mass, $h_r$ and $h_z$ are the radial and vertical scale heights, $\rho_\mathrm{amb}$ is the ambient density, and $C$ is Catalan’s constant, defined by $2C = \int_0^{\infty} {x\,\mathrm{sech}(x) \mathrm{d} x}$.
Pressure is set to provide vertical hydrostatic equilibrium by
$$P(r,z)=P_\mathrm{amb}-\int_{z_\mathrm{max}}^z \rho(r,z) g(r,z) \mathrm{d}z,$$
where $P_\mathrm{amb}$ is the ambient pressure, $z_\mathrm{max}$ is the height of the computational volume, and $g(r,z)$ is the acceleration due to gravity, given by a combination of a halo and a thick-disc potential.
As in @2010MNRAS.405.1634S we use the halo potential defined in @1995ApJ...447L..25B and given explicitly in @2000ApJ...538..559M:
$$\begin{split}
\phi_\mathrm{halo} = -\pi G \rho_{d0} r_{d0}^2 & \Big\{ -2\left(1+\frac{r_{d0}}{R}\right)\mathrm{atan}\left(\frac{r_{d0}}{R}\right)\\
&+2\left(1+\frac{r_{d0}}{R}\right)\ln\left(1+\frac{R}{r_{d0}}\right)\\
&-\left(1-\frac{r_{d0}}{R}\right)\ln\left[1+\left(\frac{R}{r_{d0}}\right)\right] \Big\},
\end{split}$$
where $r_{d0}$, and $\rho_{d0}$ are the parameters that define the spatial and mass scale of the halo, and $R$ is the radius in spherical coordinates. This potential is a phenomenological model based on observations of dwarf galaxies, where the dark matter density profile can be more directly probed. It is designed to resemble an isothermal profile at low radii, preventing the problem of “cuspiness”, while agreeing with the commonly used Navarro-Frenk-White profile at large radii [@1996ApJ...462..563N].
The disc potential we use is a Plummer-Kuzmin disc [@2008gady.book.....B]: $$\phi_\mathrm{disc} = \frac{-G M_\mathrm{disc}}{\sqrt{r^2+[h_r+(z^2+h_z^2)^{1/2}]^2}},$$ where $M_\mathrm{disc}$ is the mass of the disc, $h_r$ and $h_z$ are the radial and vertical scale heights, and $r$ and $z$ are position in cylindrical coordinates. Given that our initial conditions do not account for the complex irregular structure of a ULIRG, we do not include a bulge potential as this would not significantly improve our model.
To break the symmetry of the initial conditions, we have also produced models that included asymmetric density perturbations. This is only applied to some of the galaxy centre simulations, as the full galaxy models naturally evolve asymmetrically through a stochastic feedback algorithm (section. \[feedbacksection\]). Using the cartesian coordinate system $(x,y,z)$ where $(x,y,z)=(0,0,0)$ is the centre of the feedback region and $(x,y,0)$ defines the plane of the ULIRG disc, the perturbation is applied by defining factors $\xi$ and $f$ as
$$\begin{split}
\xi = & [1+A_\mathrm{lumpy}\cos(\pi(x+\delta)/\lambda)\cos(\pi(y+\delta)/\lambda)]^2\\
\times&[1-A_\mathrm{lumpy}\cos(\pi(x+\delta)/\lambda)\cos(\pi(y+\delta)/\lambda)]^2\\
\end{split}$$
and
$$f = [1-(1-\xi) \mathrm{erfc}(-y/10h_z)/2],$$
and defining the perturbed density $\rho^\prime(x,y,z)$ by $$\rho^\prime (x,y,z) = \rho(x,y,z) f^{\cos[\pi(z+\delta)/\lambda]}.$$Here $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the perturbation, $\delta$ is the offset to break symmetry, the complementary error function (erfc) is a term that smoothly reduces the amplitude of the perturbation towards zero over several scale heights, $A_\mathrm{lumpy}$ is the amplitude of the perturbation, and the cosine term in the $z$-direction is placed in the exponential in order for the perturbation to be significant when compared to the rapid exponential rate of change of density in the vertical direction. This provides an approximately sinusoidal perturbation that is dampened as $z$ increases, which prevents extreme temperature variations in the sparse higher-altitude gas. To further reduce symmetry, this perturbation is applied to the density twice, using $\lambda=37.3$ pc and $\delta=0$ pc in the first instance, and $\lambda=97.2$ pc and $\delta=22.7$ pc in the second, with $A=0.5$ in both cases. These values are not intended to closely match the details of the density field in the central region of a real ULIRG, but are chosen such that the wavelength of the perturbation is large enough to be well-resolved, but still small enough that at least one wavelength can fit within the simulation domain. The intention here is only to ensure that any structure that is produced in the simulation does not directly result from the symmetry of the initial conditions and feedback algorithm.
Galaxy centre model
-------------------
The simulation domain of the galaxy centre model is a cartesian grid of size $200^3$ pc$^3$. We reduce the computational load by using reflective boundary conditions across the $z=0$ plane – which is justified due to the symmetry of the flow in this situation. Following @2009ApJ...698..693F, the disc has a vertical scale-height of $7$ pc, a radial scale-length of $700$ pc, and a mass of $10^{10} M_{\odot}$, which represents only the central molecular disc.
As the scale-length is much larger than the box size, this produces a disc that has almost no radial density variation within the box. The disc is also truncated using the complementary error function to ensure the density at the edge of the box is small, and large amounts of gas do not rotate out of the box. As this truncation is much shorter than the radial scale-length, it does not accurately represent the density profile, and the simulation is stopped when the inflated bubble reaches the truncated region.
@2009ApJ...698..693F used a range of luminosities from $10^{41}$–$10^{43}$ erg/s. In our model we set $\dot{M}_*=50\mathrm{M_\odot /yr}$, which is equivalent to a luminosity of $6.3\times 10^{42}$ erg/s, on the upper edge of their energy range. This results in a mass-loading rate of $2$ $\mathrm{M_\odot /yr}$. The parameters for the galaxy centre models are summarized in the top section of Table \[flashmodels\].
Name $M_\mathrm{SN}$ (M$_\odot$) $l_\mathrm{ref}$ $A_\mathrm{lumpy}$
----------------- ----------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
SVLowRes 6 1 0.
SLowResMassless 0 2 0.
SLowResLight 4 2 0.
SLowRes 6 2 0.
SLowResHeavy 16 2 0.
SMedRes 6 3 0.
SHighRes 6 4 0.
SLowResLumpy 6 2 0.5
SMedResLumpy 6 3 0.5
SHighResLumpy 6 4 0.5
BMedRes 6 2 0.
BHighRes 6 3 0.
: \[flashmodels\] Parameters in disc outflow models. The prefix “S” refers to the “small” central-disc models, while the prefix “B” refers to the “big” full-scale galaxy models. $M_\mathrm{SN}$ is the mass ejected in each supernova (i.e. the mass-loading), $l_\mathrm{ref}$ is the number of refinement levels (including the top level), and $A_\mathrm{lumpy}$ gives the amplitude of perturbations to the initial density distribution.
Full galaxy model
-----------------
The full galaxy model is simulated within a cartesian grid of size $240^3~\mathrm{kpc}^3$. The vertical asymmetry of the feedback does not permit a $z=0$ reflective boundary condition for this model.
This disc is intended to be an isolated simple ULIRG prototype. As ULIRGs are obscured by dust and locally rare, their characteristics are poorly constrained by observations. However, we still need to choose parameters that are consistent with observations and previous models. Direct observations have provided estimates for the star formation rates (SFRs), molecular gas masses, and dynamical masses of these objects [@2008MNRAS.391..420S; @2008ApJ...677..957F; @2011ApJ...737...64A]. Sub-millimetre galaxies (SMGs) and dust-obscured galaxies (DOGs) may also be high-redshift analogues for ULIRGs, and observations of these objects provide additional constraints [@2005MNRAS.356.1191B; @2009MNRAS.400.1919N; @2010MNRAS.407.1701N]. These observational data can be supplemented by the parameters used in previous simulations of ULIRG progenitor mergers [@2006MNRAS.371..805B; @2009PASJ...61..481S; @2010MNRAS.404.1355D; @2012ApJ...746...26M].
Informed by these observations and simulations, we employ a gaseous disc with mass of $1.0\times10^{10} M_\odot$, scale-length of $8$ kpc, and scale-height of $2$ kpc. The gas disc is superimposed on a background potential equivalent to a stellar disc of mass $4.0\times10^{10} M_\odot$ with a scale-length of $16$ kpc and a scale-height of $4$ kpc, as well as a dark-matter halo potential of mass $3.0\times 10^{12} M_\odot$ and scale-radius $100$ kpc.
We performed test simulations with a SFR chosen according to Kennicutt-Schmidt law [@1998ApJ...498..541K], but these simulations did not produce outflows due to the well-known problem of over-cooling at limited resolution. Solutions to this problem include using an effective density in the cooling of heated particles [@2000ApJ...545..728T], shutting off cooling temporarily in heated cells , directly applying momentum “kicks” in addition to thermal energy [@1993MNRAS.265..271N; @1994ApJ...437..611M; @2001ApJ...557..605S; @2003MNRAS.339..289S], and making use of a sub-grid turbulence model [@2010MNRAS.405.1634S]. In part II of this paper series we will include a sub-grid model, but for this work we compensate for over-cooling by simply setting an SFR above the Kennicutt-Schmidt law. We also note that it has been argued that ULIRG SFRs lie above the global Kennicutt-Schmidt law . Hence we set the star formation rate to $200 M_\odot$/yr, which while at the lower end of ULIRG SFRs, is greater than the Kennicutt-Schmidt SFR for our galaxy model’s surface density. The parameters for the galaxy-scale models are summarized in the bottom section of Table. \[flashmodels\].
Cooling Function
----------------
For this code, we make use of the cooling curves, $\Lambda(T)$, of @1976ApJ...204..290R and @1986RvMP...58....1S. We set the metallicity to $Z=0.05Z_\odot$. The cooling algorithm changes the internal energy $e_i$ of each cell by applying $\Delta e_i = \Lambda n^2 \Delta t_j$, several times each time-step, with the cooling time-step $\Delta t_j$ set such that $|\Delta e_i|<|e_i|/10$ in each step, and that $\sum \Delta t_j$ is equal to the true time-step.
Feedback from Star Formation {#feedbacksection}
----------------------------
We use the feedback model implemented by @2010MNRAS.405.1634S, with some modifications. In this model, the number of supernovae is tallied over time. Informed by the cosmic SN rate [@2004ApJ...613..189D; @2004ApJ...600L.103G] and by initial mass functions, it is assumed that $150 $M$_\odot$ of star formation is required to produce a single supernova [e.g @2002ApJ...574..590S]. When the cumulative count of supernovae exceeds a certain number, a bubble of hot gas is produced in the disc, and these supernovae are decremented from the total supernova count. The number of supernovae required to produce a bubble ($N_\mathrm{SN}$) is determined by generating a random variable $\zeta\in[0,1]$ and calculating
$$N_\mathrm{SN} = \frac{N_\mathrm{SN,min}}{1-\zeta},$$
where $N_\mathrm{SN,min}$ is a model parameter. If $N_\mathrm{SN}>N_\mathrm{SN,max}$, where $N_\mathrm{SN,max}$ is another model parameter, then $\zeta$ is regenerated until $N_\mathrm{SN}\le N_\mathrm{SN,max}$. $N_\mathrm{SN,min}$ and $N_\mathrm{SN,max}$ determine whether feedback consists of a small number of large bubbles, or a large number of small bubbles. The radius of the bubble is set such that it is at least the size of the region containing twice the mass in gas of the mass converted into stars, as well as being greater than a resolution-dependent minimum size that ensures that the bubble covers at least one cell.
The feedback is implemented by calculating the mass density and specific internal energy associated with the bubble, $$\rho_\mathrm{SN} = M_\mathrm{SN} \frac{N_\mathrm{SN}}{4 \pi R_\mathrm{bub}^3},\\$$and $$e_i,\mathrm{SN} = \frac{N_\mathrm{SN}}{4 \pi R_\mathrm{bub}^3} f_\mathrm{SN} 10^{51} \mathrm{erg},$$ and adding this energy and density to all gas cells with centres within $2 R_\mathrm{bub}$ by applying the transforms
$$\rho \mapsto \rho + \rho_\mathrm{SN}~\mathrm{erfc}\left(\frac{\vec{r}_\mathrm{cell}-\vec{r}_\mathrm{bub}}{0.05 R_\mathrm{bub}}\right),$$
and $$e_{i} \mapsto \left[e_{i} \rho_\mathrm{old}+e_\mathrm{SN}\rho_\mathrm{SN}~\mathrm{erfc}\left(\frac{\vec{r}_\mathrm{cell}-\vec{r}_\mathrm{bub}}{0.05 R_\mathrm{bub}}\right) \right]/\rho_\mathrm{new}.$$ Here, the erfc term smoothes the edges of the bubble and ensures that the only sharp discontinuities in density and temperature are those caused by the evolution and interaction of bubbles, and not those directly imposed by the feedback algorithm. Again this is a modification to @2010MNRAS.405.1634S’s algorithm.
In our fiducial models we set $f_\mathrm{SN}=0.6$, and $M_\mathrm{SN}=6 \mathrm{M_\odot}$, which allows us to parameterize the feedback’s luminosity, $L_\mathrm{FB}$, in addition to the its mass loading rate, $\dot{M}$, in terms of the star formation rate $\dot{M}_*$, through the following equations:
$$L_\mathrm{FB} \approx 1.3\times 10^{43} \mathrm{erg s}^{-1} \left(\frac{\dot{M}_*}{100 \mathrm{M}_\odot \mathrm{/yr}}\right),\\$$
and $$\dot{M} =\left(\frac{\dot{M}_*}{150 \mathrm{M}_\odot/M_\mathrm{SN}}\right) = \left(\frac{\dot{M}_*}{18.75}\right).$$ Mass loading rates were varied in some models by altering $M_\mathrm{SN}$. Some unrealistically large values are included to investigate the effects of very large mass-loading rates.
### Feedback in full galaxy models
In the full galaxy models, each bubble is placed randomly, with positions weighted according to $\rho_0(r,z)^{3/2}$ to reproduce the Schmidt Law, where $\rho_0(r,z)$ is the initial analytic distribution of density. Specifically, three random numbers $\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_3 \in [0,1]$ determine the position of the bubble. Defining again a cartesian coordinate system $\vec{r}=(x,y,z)$ where the disc lies in the $(x,y)$ plane, the position is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
x =&~r \cos (2\pi \xi_1), \\
y =&~r \sin (2\pi \xi_1),\end{aligned}$$
and $$z = h_z \ln (\xi_3),$$ where $r$ is determined by iteratively solving the equation $$r=\log[(1+r)/(1-\xi_2)].$$We have modified this model from that in [@2010MNRAS.405.1634S] to allow multiple bubbles to be produced in a single time-step, which is necessary due to the large star formation rate.
### Feedback in central disc models
In the central disc models, the outflow is modelled as a single starburst. While $N_\mathrm{SN}$ is calculated as above, the bubbles are always placed in the centre of the disc at $z=0$ pc, and have a constant radius of $R_\mathrm{bub}=10$ pc. This approach is similar to that of @2009ApJ...698..693F, and allows a more direct comparison of the important difference in the models: that our simulations are performed in three dimensions instead of two (at the cost of lower resolution).
Raytracing and Simulated Spectra {#raytracespectra}
================================
To compare our results with observations, we developed a code to perform ray-tracing on FLASH checkpoint data, and obtain a synthetic absorption spectrum from the output. This spectrum covers the NaI line, as this is a useful tracer of cold gas. In particular, [@2005ApJ...621..227M] produced spectra for a sample of $z\sim1$ ULIRGs, and we use these as a basis for comparison.
Raytracing Algorithm
--------------------
Our raytracing algorithm tracks a ray or a grid of rays with arbitrary angles through data from a FLASH checkpoint file. Various quantities can be integrated along a ray as it propagates through the FLASH adaptive mesh. By using a grid of rays, a column density or optical depth plot can be produced from arbitrary angles, or (as described below) the effects of the finite spatial resolution of a spectrometer can be emulated. Our approach follows a ray through the FLASH oct-tree refinement structure without converting the data to a uniform grid.
NaI Line spectrum {#sodiumline}
-----------------
### General process
Our method for modelling the NaI line spectrum incorporates a number of assumptions. Firstly, we have assumed uniform background illumination by weighting the grid of rays evenly when performing an average. Secondly, we have not accounted for dust, which should produce a significant attenuation in ULIRGs, although when examining absorption lines this may be less important. Finally, we have ignored any spectral broadening from the Earth’s atmosphere or from the instrument performing the observations; but given the limited physical resolution of the simulations, it is not necessary to model these effects in detail.
To model the NaI line, we assume a constant HI/NaI ratio, $N_\mathrm{NaI}=1.22\times10^6$, taken from [@2005ApJ...621..227M]. Following @2009ApJ...698..693F, we assume that any cell with a temperature below $5\times10^4$ K consists of cold, NaI-absorbing gas. As justified below, we also make a density cut at $10^{-21} \mathrm{g/cm}^3$, with the assumption that any gas above this density will contain some regions that have cooled sufficiently to absorb the NaI doublet. We assume that any gas which fulfils either of these criteria consists of NaI absorbing gas.
The line is calculated by integrating the optical depth through a ray across a range of wavelengths. The optical depth is summed for each cell the ray passes through, ignoring any emissivity, and the continuum intensity is normalised to $1$, so the final intensity of each frequency is given by $$I(\nu)=\exp(-\tau_\nu)=\exp\left(-\sum \tau_{\nu,i} \right),$$ where $\tau_{\nu,i}$ is the optical depth at frequency $\nu$ through cell $i$. This is calculated from [@1978ppim.book.....S] $$\tau_{\nu,i} = N_i \alpha \lambda \Phi(\nu),$$ where the frequency-integrated cross-section for the interaction ($\alpha$) is given by $\alpha=0.015924$ cm$^2$ s, $N_i$ is the NaI column density, and the doppler profile $\Phi(\nu)$ is given by $$\Phi(\nu)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi b}} \exp(-v^2/b^2),$$ where $b=\sqrt{2kT_i}$, $k$ being the Boltzmann constant and $T_i$ being the cell’s temperature. The optical depth is binned in $1000$ bins, representing line of sight velocities of $-500$ through $500$ km/s. Each optical depth bin is summed through a ray’s path, and converted to intensity in the final step. Results for this method are given in sections \[specnoturb\], and \[specsmall\]
### Spectral and Spatial Resolution
The ray-tracing procedure produces a line profile for an infinitely narrow beam passing through the system. This represents the limit where an instrument can spatially resolve scales considerably smaller than the typical scale-lengths of any structures in the observed object.
As noted in @2005ApJ...621..227M, individual clouds are not spatially or spectrally resolved when using the Echelle Spectrograph and Imager on Keck II. To represent this, the algorithm creates a grid of rays intersecting the computational grid at different points. A single spectrum is calculated by averaging the spectral lines over all rays produced by this grid. The total spatial size of this grid is the effective instrumental spatial resolution. The depth, width, and shape of the spectrum can vary strongly on this spatial resolution. Because the filling factor of dense clouds is small, at very high effective instrumental spatial resolution the grid of rays will generally either all pass through a single cloud, or entirely miss any cloud. This will produce either a narrow and saturated absorption line, or the complete absence of any absorption lines. At coarser effective instrumental spatial resolutions the line strengths can be weak (as is observed), because only a small fraction of rays will intersect clouds. Furthermore, at coarse instrumental resolution a large number of clouds are included within the simulated aperture, causing non-thermal broadening in the sodium-line, which is the effect we hope to capture.
![\[spatialresray\] Examining the effect of spatial resolution on line profiles. Top left: Lines with spatial resolutions of $80-120$ kpc. Top right: Lines with spatial resolutions of $2-100$ kpc. Bottom left: $2$ kpc spatial resolution line at three different elevation angles. Bottom right: $100$ kpc spatial resolution line at three different elevation angles. ](fig1a.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"} ![\[spatialresray\] Examining the effect of spatial resolution on line profiles. Top left: Lines with spatial resolutions of $80-120$ kpc. Top right: Lines with spatial resolutions of $2-100$ kpc. Bottom left: $2$ kpc spatial resolution line at three different elevation angles. Bottom right: $100$ kpc spatial resolution line at three different elevation angles. ](fig1b.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"}\
![\[spatialresray\] Examining the effect of spatial resolution on line profiles. Top left: Lines with spatial resolutions of $80-120$ kpc. Top right: Lines with spatial resolutions of $2-100$ kpc. Bottom left: $2$ kpc spatial resolution line at three different elevation angles. Bottom right: $100$ kpc spatial resolution line at three different elevation angles. ](fig1c.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"} ![\[spatialresray\] Examining the effect of spatial resolution on line profiles. Top left: Lines with spatial resolutions of $80-120$ kpc. Top right: Lines with spatial resolutions of $2-100$ kpc. Bottom left: $2$ kpc spatial resolution line at three different elevation angles. Bottom right: $100$ kpc spatial resolution line at three different elevation angles. ](fig1d.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"}\
The instrumental resolution in @2005ApJ...621..227M is given as $\approx1^{\prime\prime}$, which corresponds to a spatial resolution of $\approx1$ kpc at a distance of $z\approx1$. For the galaxy centre models, this is larger than the entire simulation domain, and so the best approximation is to tighten the effective instrumental spatial resolution to be equal to the size of the entire simulation domain, i.e. $200$ pc. In the full galaxy models, the smallest cells are $250$ pc in size, and an instrumental resolution of $2$ kpc is equivalent to only $\approx8$ cell-widths. While this may be sufficiently large to resolve the entirety of a small cloud, it is not sufficient to resolve a large number of clouds and produce the observed non-thermal broadening. However, based on the assumption that the filling factor and velocity dispersion of dense NaI-absorbing clouds do not depend strongly on scale, we should expect the absorption spectrum of a real galaxy to not strongly depend on instrumental spatial resolution, and the effective instrumental spatial resolution in the simulated spectra can justifiably be coarsened from $\approx1$ kpc to a much larger value, and hence a significant number of clouds will be represented in the spectra. The assumption of scale-independence is not unreasonable, as these clouds are produced by turbulent motions, and the statistics of turbulence do not depend strongly on scale.
We have plotted the effects of varying the effective instrumental spatial resolution on the line profile of BHighRes in Fig. \[spatialresray\]. For the range $80-120$ kpc, all of the NaI absorbing gas is within the beam. At these coarse instrumental spatial resolutions, changing the resolution does not change the line profile shape, but only changes the strength of the line, as more rays “miss” the NaI absorbing regions entirely. The line-depth here is proportional to $1/l^2$ where $l$ is the instrumental spatial resolution. As $l$ drops further (e.g. $40$ kpc and below), the line not only strengthens, but noticeably changes its shape. However, this is strongly dependent on the ray’s path — as noted above, for narrow beams the ray generally either hits one cloud, or misses every cloud. This sensitivity is not the case for coarser spatial resolutions, and so $100$ kpc is chosen as the effective instrumental spatial resolution. The strength of the line is still strongly dependent on instrumental resolution in this regime, and so it is not meaningful to compare this line-strength to observations. However, the velocity-width and velocity at line centre should not be affected by these issues (given the assumption of only weak scale-dependence), and these are the properties that we emphasize for comparison with observations.
The circular component of velocity was also removed before calculating the line profiles, as at this very coarse spatial resolution circular motion can be a non-turbulent source of line-broadening that is not present in the observations due to their finer resolution. At later times, much of the rotation is no longer coherent, but some residual rotational velocity remains. To remove this, the mass and horizontal angular momentum of each FLASH cell are binned into annuli $2$ kpc thick and $2$ kpc tall to produce a set of rotation curves. The rotational velocity of each cell is then calculated with a 2-parameter linear interpolation from this table and subtracted from the cell.
The shape of the spectrum depended weakly on the number of rays produced by the grid - i.e. the numerical resolution of the raytracing. For a small number of rays (e.g. $32\times32$), the produced spectrum was jagged and did not show the smooth shape produced when a larger number of rays (e.g. $512\times512$) were used. The line was fairly well converged for an $L\times L$ grid for $L>64$. We hence used a $128\times128$ grid of rays as it was slightly more accurate and still computationally efficient.
To represent finite [*spectral*]{} resolution, the output line profile is convolved with a gaussian profile. Explicitly, we define $$I_\mathrm{smooth}(v) = \int_{v_\mathrm{min}}^{v_\mathrm{max}} I(v^\prime) \frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{\pi}} \exp \left(\frac{(v-v^\prime)^2}{\sigma^2}\right) dv^\prime$$ where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the spectral broadening. This is calculated this using the convolution theorem, making use of the [*Fastest Fourier Transform in the West*]{} (FFTW) library [@2012ascl.soft01015F]. The full-width at half-maximum ($\sigma=\mathrm{FWHM}/(2\sqrt{2\ln{2}})$) of the Gaussian is set to $65$ km/s as in @2009ApJ...698..693F, to match the observations of @2005ApJ...621..227M.
### Line fitting
Having produced line profiles over a large range of angles for a series of parameters, we fit a Gaussian to the result to estimate the line-width for comparison with observations. This was performed with a weighted $\chi^2$ fit. To ensure the line-centres were well-fit, the weight of wavelengths with zero NaI opacity (i.e. $I=1$) was reduced by weighting each point in the line according to $W=(1.0001-I)^{2}$, where the value of $1.0001$ is used instead of $1.0$ prevent divide-by-zero errors. This improved the algorithm’s ability to correctly fit the width and strength of each line.
In edge-on orientations, a strong double-peak is visible (as in the top-left panel of Fig. \[width\_angle1\]). These two peaks have a similar speed relative to the rest frame of the galaxy (i.e. the peaks at are $\pm v_0$ for some $v_0$) and are clearly distinct in the line profile. However, the clumpy nature of the outflow can produce several peaks in the line that do not correspond to distinct outflow components — they are merely part of the velocity dispersion [*within*]{} an outflow, and should be modelled by a single broad Gaussian. To automatically capture both cases, two fits are performed on each line — one with a single Gaussian curve, and one with two Gaussian curves, both of whose parameters are allowed to vary freely. To determine which fit is most appropriate, we examine the fit parameters. If the two Gaussians have a similar velocity at line centre — where “similar” is defined by $||v_1|-|v_2||/(|v_1|+|v_2|)<0.5$ — then the double-peak fit is used. Otherwise, the single-line fit is used. In the double-peak case, the parameters of each peak (FWHM, line-centre velocity, line-strength) are averaged to produce one set of parameters for each spectrum.
Cloud finding and tracking {#cloudfind}
==========================
To determine the properties of the cold clouds of NaI-absorbing gas produced in these simulations, we developed an algorithm to identify, track, and plot them. The basic assumption of this algorithm is that all cells of sufficiently low temperature or high density are cold cloud cells, and that any cell that is orthogonally adjacent to another cell is labelled as part of the same cloud. The temperature and density cuts are $T<5\times10^4$ K and $\rho>10^{-21} \mathrm{g/cm}^3$, the same criteria used for NaI-absorbing gas in the raytracing algorithm.
To track clouds between checkpoint files we use a method similar to @taskertan. For each cloud, the centre-of-mass position and velocity were calculated. These were used to predict the position of the cloud in the following checkpoint file, i.e. if the positions and velocities in successive files $\bm{v}_i,\bm{r}_i$ and $\bm{v}_{i+1},\bm{r}_{i+1}$ are separated by a time $\Delta t$, the estimated position is $\bm{r}_\mathrm{est}=\bm{r}_i + \bm{v}_i \Delta t$. The cloud closest to this position is identified as the “same cloud”.
In the simulations in which clouds are no longer significantly accelerated by the outflow, we predict the trajectory of clouds using the ballistic approximation. The gravity field is produced from the same subroutine used by FLASH to produce a table of gravitational accelerations during each simulation’s initialization. The initial position and velocity of each cloud is calculated from the FLASH output by the algorithm detailed above. The cloud’s position and velocity are integrated using the leapfrog algorithm with a fixed time-step. The numerical integration allows us to calculate the full vector components of the velocity and position.
![\[bigevolve\] Edge-on density slices of BHighRes at $t=20$ Myr (left) and $t=40$ Myr (right). ](fig2a.png "fig:"){width=".496\columnwidth"} ![\[bigevolve\] Edge-on density slices of BHighRes at $t=20$ Myr (left) and $t=40$ Myr (right). ](fig2b.png "fig:"){width=".504\columnwidth"}\
![\[coldens0153\] Edge-on (left), and face-on (right) column density ray-trace plots of BHighRes at $t=100$ Myr. ](fig3a.png "fig:"){width=".447\columnwidth"} ![\[coldens0153\] Edge-on (left), and face-on (right) column density ray-trace plots of BHighRes at $t=100$ Myr. ](fig3b.png "fig:"){width=".553\columnwidth"}\
Results {#resultscoldflows}
=======
Full Galaxy Models {#fullgalaxyresults}
------------------
### General Evolution
In all models, the bubbles very quickly combine to form a single coherent outflow (see Fig. \[bigevolve\]). Although feedback is spread throughout the disc, and all of the disc gas develops a large vertical velocity, the flow is strongest near the centre, where star formation is most rapid. As almost all of the disc gas is incorporated into the outflow, the outflow front is very dense. This cool, dense front is followed by a hot low-density medium which has been directly heated by feedback. In some of the simulations, cool clouds are carried with the wind, while in others the interior of the wind remains hot. Column density plots of BHighRes in Fig. \[coldens0153\] illustrate these clouds. Their origin does not appear to be the Rayleigh-Taylor instability acting on the cold front of the super-bubble, as we detail in the following subsection.
### Formation and evolution of clouds
![\[nclumpsbig\] Top: Number of clouds in full galaxy models. Centre: Cold ($T<5\times10^4$ K) gas volume fraction. Bottom: Cold gas mass fraction. ](fig4.pdf){width=".95\columnwidth"}
{width=".435\columnwidth"} {width=".359\columnwidth"} {width=".359\columnwidth"} {width=".359\columnwidth"} {width=".488\columnwidth"} {width=".435\columnwidth"} {width=".359\columnwidth"} {width=".359\columnwidth"} {width=".359\columnwidth"} {width=".488\columnwidth"}
The evolution of the number of clouds and the gas gas mass and volume fractions in these models is plotted in Fig. \[nclumpsbig\]. BMedRes shows an initial peak in cloud formation, which is extinguished within $40$ Myr. BMedRes then forms additional clouds at $60$ Myr, and while BHighRes also shows an initial peak, it manages to maintain a large number of clouds throughout the simulation. The reason for this is apparent when we track the evolution of this cold gas, as shown in Fig. \[coldflattened\]. The disc initially cools, producing a large quantity of absorbing gas. Feedback bubbles divide this gas into discrete regions, which are identified as separate clouds of cool gas. In all models except BHighRes, the feedback fills the entire disc with hot gas, destroying all of the cold regions. However, in BHighRes, the cold clouds are not destroyed, and instead are pushed out of the disc by the hot winds, forming the cold high-velocity-dispersion component of the wind while continuing to accrete cooling gas from the surrounding hot wind. This is confirmed by the centre and bottom panels of Fig. \[nclumpsbig\], where the volume and mass fractions of cold gas in BMedRes dramatically drop by $t=40$ Myr, while the cold gas in BHighRes persists more effectively. These cool regions can only form above and below the plane of the disc, as the feedback is too intense in the plane to allow any cold gas to exist. In BMedRes there is also a cold high-velocity dispersion component in the wind, but this is caused solely by gas cooling within the wind. This cooling happens because the starburst has completed, and because the hot gas is now free to adiabatically expand into the regions above the disc.
Hence — unlike the findings of @2009ApJ...698..693F — the cold gas in BHighRes is produced by the cool regions between hot bubbles being pushed out of the disc by the pressure of the hot outflow beneath them, while the cold gas in both BMedRes and further cold gas in BHighRes is produced by cooling in the turbulent outflow itself [as in @2013ApJ...763L..31S].
The formation of cold clouds of gas in these simulations is resolution-dependent, and so even at our highest resolution model (BHighRes) only a moderate number ($\sim150$) of these clouds form by the end of the simulation time, as visible in a ray-traced column-density plot (Fig. \[coldens0153\]). Only one of these clouds lies in the $x=0$ plane, which suggests that the additional avenues for gas flow permitted in 3D simulations inhibit their formation. The number and mass of these clouds depends on resolution, with fewer clouds forming at lower resolution. As the mass spectrum plots in Fig. \[bigmassspect\] demonstrate, the clouds at higher resolution are also more massive, possibly because we can resolve higher densities, and hence cooling instabilities are more dramatic, but also because these clouds have formed at an earlier time from a denser medium (i.e. the disc rather than the outflow).
![\[bigmassspect\] Cumulative mass spectra for BHighRes and BMedRes. ](fig6.pdf "fig:"){width=".98\columnwidth"}\
The escape velocities of these clouds are calculated using $v_\mathrm{escape}=\sqrt{2\phi}$, where $\phi$ is the gravitational potential given by FLASH’s subroutines — i.e. $d\bm{v}/dt = \nabla\phi$. Most of the clouds have exceeded the escape velocities at their positions (Fig. \[vtraj0153\]). Making use of the ballistic approximation detailed above, there is very little change in each cloud’s velocity over a period of $100$ Myr, as also shown in Fig. \[vtraj0153\]. Ignoring hydrodynamics, this would imply that most of the cold gas will not eventually rain back on to the disc as a “galactic fountain”, but will instead continue outwards and enrich the intergalactic medium.
![\[vtraj0153\] Left: Escape velocities and net velocities for all clouds. The line indicates where $v_\mathrm{escape}=v_{cloud}$. Right: Velocity space trajectories for all clouds. The clouds do not decelerate significantly over $100$ Myr. ](fig7a.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\columnwidth"} ![\[vtraj0153\] Left: Escape velocities and net velocities for all clouds. The line indicates where $v_\mathrm{escape}=v_{cloud}$. Right: Velocity space trajectories for all clouds. The clouds do not decelerate significantly over $100$ Myr. ](fig7b.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\columnwidth"}\
The next question is whether we might expect hydrodynamic effects to dissolve the clouds. This is estimated by examining their history to see if they have begun to lose mass. The mass history of a sample of clouds is plotted in Fig. \[cold\_track\], and it is clear that clouds are still [*gaining*]{} mass, as additional gas is cooling and being accreted. This fits the overall trend of cold gas also plotted in Fig. \[cold\_track\]. The large density of gas ejected from the galaxy permits efficient cooling, catalysing cloud-forming instabilities.
![\[cold\_track\] The histories of a sample of clouds in BHighRes. Top left: Mass history. Top right: Volume history. Bottom left: Mean density (i.e. mass/volume) history. The thick line is $2\times10^{-24}\exp(-t/22 \mathrm{Myr})$ g/cm$^3$. For these three plots, the different colours of the thin lines are to distinguish between the different clouds in the sample. Bottom right: The evolution of the mass fraction and volume fraction of cold gas in BHighRes. ](fig8a.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"} ![\[cold\_track\] The histories of a sample of clouds in BHighRes. Top left: Mass history. Top right: Volume history. Bottom left: Mean density (i.e. mass/volume) history. The thick line is $2\times10^{-24}\exp(-t/22 \mathrm{Myr})$ g/cm$^3$. For these three plots, the different colours of the thin lines are to distinguish between the different clouds in the sample. Bottom right: The evolution of the mass fraction and volume fraction of cold gas in BHighRes. ](fig8b.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\
![\[cold\_track\] The histories of a sample of clouds in BHighRes. Top left: Mass history. Top right: Volume history. Bottom left: Mean density (i.e. mass/volume) history. The thick line is $2\times10^{-24}\exp(-t/22 \mathrm{Myr})$ g/cm$^3$. For these three plots, the different colours of the thin lines are to distinguish between the different clouds in the sample. Bottom right: The evolution of the mass fraction and volume fraction of cold gas in BHighRes. ](fig8c.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"} ![\[cold\_track\] The histories of a sample of clouds in BHighRes. Top left: Mass history. Top right: Volume history. Bottom left: Mean density (i.e. mass/volume) history. The thick line is $2\times10^{-24}\exp(-t/22 \mathrm{Myr})$ g/cm$^3$. For these three plots, the different colours of the thin lines are to distinguish between the different clouds in the sample. Bottom right: The evolution of the mass fraction and volume fraction of cold gas in BHighRes. ](fig8d.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\
However, even though the clouds are gaining mass, the mean density of each cloud is dropping exponentially (Fig. \[cold\_track\]). If this continues, clouds will reach the background density of $10^{-29} \mathrm{g/cm}^3$ in only $\approx250$ Myr, and will likely be disrupted by hot flows well before then. This suggests that the clouds will not likely remain coherent as they rise to large distances from the disc. @2006ApJ...647..222M observed that NaI absorption extends out to distances of around $4$–$18$ kpc. Although the hot outflows in BHighRes extend much further than this, out to almost $100$ kpc, the cold clouds are closer to the disc, agreeing with this result.
However, X-ray emission maps from Chandra surveys [@2003ApJ...592..782P] only reveal hot gas at scales of $\approx10$ kpc, much closer to the disc — either the hot gas at large altitudes must be currently undetectable in X-ray wavelengths (perhaps it is not dense enough), or our outflows are too energetic. We propose two possible explanations for an overly energetic outflow in these simulations.
![\[tdyn0153\] [The minimum dynamical time along the line-of-sight for an edge-on view of BHighRes at $t=100$ Myr.]{} ](fig9.png "fig:"){width=".98\columnwidth"}\
{width=".5224\columnwidth"} {width=".4798\columnwidth"} {width=".4798\columnwidth"} {width=".5180\columnwidth"}\
{width=".5224\columnwidth"} {width=".4798\columnwidth"} {width=".4798\columnwidth"} {width=".5180\columnwidth"}\
Firstly, the limited resolution does not permit modelling of the detailed structure of the interaction between hot bubbles and cool gas in the disc, and hence instead of hot under-dense gas escaping through narrow avenues, almost the entire gaseous mass of the disc is propelled outwards, providing a large reservoir of momentum to plough through the halo. This might be exacerbated by the stochastic feedback mechanism, which is not entirely consistent with realistic star formation, especially as resolution limits force a lower limit on the size of hot bubbles. For example, a hot bubble is likely to be placed directly on top of an existing hot bubble, even though star formation is unlikely in such a hot low-density environment.
The second explanation is that the halo model lacks density contrasts, and that a more detailed model of the gaseous halo will would affect the evolution of hot outflowing gas. A galaxy in a cosmological context - especially a merging system such as a ULIRG - may not have a spherically symmetric hot halo whose density smoothly drops with radius. For example, the presence of inflows (both hot and cold) and other substructure in the gaseous halo could provide an impediment to hot outflowing gas, resulting in a lower outflow velocity and a smaller spatial extent.
### Estimates of neglected effects on clouds {#bigneglect}
Some physical processes have been neglected in our simulations, or suppressed due to the limited resolution. Here we estimate the effects of neglecting self-gravity and thermal conduction, as well as cloud destruction from hot flows below our resolution.
The importance of self-gravity can be determined by calculating the dynamical time $t_\mathrm{dyn}=1/\sqrt{G\rho}$ and comparing it to the typical cloud age. The minimum dynamical time along the line-of-sight for an edge-on view of BHighRes at $t=100$ Myr is plotted in Fig. \[tdyn0153\]. In most of the volume $t_\mathrm{dyn}>1$ Gyr. The minimum dynamical time in the entire domain is $t_\mathrm{dyn}=160$ Myr. As the clouds form at around $20$ Myr, the oldest clouds are $80$ Myr old. Hence self-gravity, while not insignificant, is not likely to be dominant in this model.
We can determine the importance of thermal conduction by comparing the conductive heating rate of a cloud with its radiative cooling rate. The cooling rate per unit volume is $\Lambda n_c^2$, where $n_c$ is the number-density of particles in the cold clouds, and $\Lambda$ is the cooling function at the appropriate temperature. In the classical limit [@1962pfig.book.....S; @1990ApJ...358..375B], the heating rate can be approximated by $$\nabla\cdot q = -\nabla\cdot\kappa\nabla T_h \approx \kappa T/l^2,$$ where $\nabla\cdot q$ is the cooling rate per unit volume, $\kappa$ is the thermal conductivity, $T$ is the temperature of the hot gas, and $l$ is the typical diameter of the clouds. The conductivity of the electrons in the hot gas is $\kappa=5.6\times10^{-7}T^{5/2}$ erg s$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$ cm$^{-1}$ [@1984ApJ...281..690D; @1990ApJ...358..375B]. For a cloud of $T=4\times10^5$ K at our chosen metallicity of $Z=0.05Z_\odot$, our cooling function gives $\Lambda=2.8\times10^{-23}$ erg cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$. We can choose typical values for the other parameters, setting $T_h\approx10^7$ K, $l\approx3$ kpc, and $n_c\approx0.06$ cm$^{-3}$. This gives a heating rate of $\nabla\cdot q\approx1.8\times10^{-26}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-3}$, and a cooling rate of $\Lambda n_c^2\approx1.0\times10^{-25}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-3}$. Hence if the classical assumption holds, thermal conduction only has a small contribution. We note that our chosen metallicity is less than that of recent observations [@2008ApJ...674..172R]. A metallicity six times larger than that used in our simulation will result in a cooling rate of $1.3\times10^{-25}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-3}$, which is similarly greater than the heating rate, and hence using a higher metallicity should not drastically change our results.
We must also determine whether the classical assumption is appropriate. If the mean free path for electrons is not small compared to the size of clouds, the classical assumption does not apply, and thermal conduction is saturated and it will be weaker than the classical estimate [@1977ApJ...211..135C]. The mean effective free path for the electrons in the hot gas is given by $\lambda_\kappa = 0.284 \phi_c (T_e/10^7 \mathrm{K}) n_e^{-1}$ pc, where $\phi_c$ is a constant of order one. Taking typical values of $T_e\approx10^7$ K and $n_e\approx7\times10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$ gives $\lambda_\kappa\approx 400$ pc. This is only about an order of magnitude smaller than the typical cloud size in these full galaxy simulations, and so thermal conduction may be even weaker than the classical estimate.
Finally, we use the “cloud crushing” timescale of @1994ApJ...420..213K to estimate the effect of unresolved hot flows destroying the clouds. This is $$t_\mathrm{cc}=\left(\frac{\rho_c}{\rho_h}\right)^{1/2}\frac{l_c}{|v_h-v_c|},$$ where $\rho_h$ and $v_h$ are the density and velocity of the hot wind, $\rho_c$ and $v_c$ are the density and velocity of the cold clouds, and $l_c$ is the typical diameter of the clouds. Taking typical values of $\rho_h\approx10^{-29}$ g cm$^{-3}$, $\rho_c\approx10^{-25}$ g cm$^{-3}$, $v_h\approx300$ km s$^{-1}$, $v_c\approx260$ km s$^{-1}$, and $l_c\approx3$ kpc gives $t_\mathrm{cc}\approx 5$ Gyr, which is much longer than our simulation time. Hence unresolved processes in the hot wind are unlikely to directly disrupt the clouds.
### Simulated spectra {#specnoturb}
In Fig. \[width\_angle1\] we have plotted absorption lines for BHighRes at $t=100$ Myr at viewing angles with elevation angles from $0-210^\circ$, where an elevation angle of $0^\circ$ corresponds to an edge-on view of the disc. These plots are for a single component of the NaI doublet, and also do not include instrumental broadening. The disc lines are not visible as the disc does not retain any cold gas in this simulation.
![\[thermalnonthermal\] Line profiles with and without thermal (i.e. Doppler) broadening in a simulation. The strength of the un-broadened lines are dependent on the spectral resolution of the code, and so we arbitrarily rescale the intensity to allow a closer comparison with the thermal broadened lines. These lines are sight-lines through the BHighRes model at an elevation angle of $0^\circ$ (i.e. edge-on) and an azimuthal angle of $45^\circ$. ](fig11.pdf){width="1.\columnwidth"}
![\[outflowv\] Left: Fitted outflow velocities at line-centre as a function of elevation angle for BHighRes. Right: Line width as a function of elevation angle for three azimuthal angles ](fig12a.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\columnwidth"} ![\[outflowv\] Left: Fitted outflow velocities at line-centre as a function of elevation angle for BHighRes. Right: Line width as a function of elevation angle for three azimuthal angles ](fig12b.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\columnwidth"}\
It is clear from these plots that there is substantial broadening in the outflow. If we remove the thermal contribution to the broadening, replacing each Gaussian line profile with a top-hat function with width equal to our spectral resolution (i.e. the numerically resolution-limited equivalent to a Dirac delta function), then this broadening is still present (Fig. \[thermalnonthermal\]). This confirms that instabilites in outflows can produce cold gas with large non-thermal broadening.
The left frame of Fig. \[outflowv\] shows the line-centre outflow velocity as a function of viewing angle. The variation with elevation angle is closely modelled by an absolute sine function, which demonstrates that the outflow appears to be a single coherent flow. This is not surprising as the spatial resolution is essentially the entire disc, and so any small-scale deviations will be smoothed out. There is also no significant variation with azimuthal angle. This result is consistent with the line-widths below, and so it can be concluded that on a broad scale, this model is azimuthally symmetric. Note that this does not necessarily justify the accuracy of two-dimensional simulations: non-axisymmetric instabilities and flows are still dominant in the simulation (see Fig. \[coldens0153\] for example). Although these full-scale galaxy models evolve from axisymmetric initial conditions, the symmetry is broken through the stochastic feedback algorithm.
The right frame of Fig.\[outflowv\] shows the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) as a function of viewing angle. The line-width peaks at edge-on viewing angles, and is at a minimum for face-on viewing angles, approximately fitting a sine wave. This appears to show that most of the velocity dispersion is parallel to the plane of the disc. This may be seeded by the rotation of the disc, although the outflowing gas is no longer coherently rotating.
### Comparison with observations {#bgalobs}
The outflow velocities from the simulated spectra of the full galaxy simulations are significantly smaller than the average observed by @2005ApJ...621..227M of $330\pm100$ km/s. Our maximum (i.e. face-on) outflow velocity is $240$ km/s, which agrees with Martin’s result though only at the limits of the allowed errors. At any other angle our outflow velocities are slower. The cause may be simply that the simulated star formation rate and galaxy mass are smaller than a typical ULIRG, or that we have neglected the energy impact from an AGN. However, there is also a significant scatter in the relationship between star formation rate and outflow velocity [@2005ApJ...621..227M], and indeed there are observed ULIRGs with star formation rates of $\approx 400$ M$_\odot$/yr with outflow velocities of only $\approx100$ km/s. By comparison, the [*hot*]{} gas in this simulation reaches extremely high velocities, as high as $2000$ km/s, although most of the volume of gas still has velocities of less than $1000$ km/s (Fig. \[bigvely\]). While the clouds do not have significantly slower velocities than hot gas at the same height above $z=0$, the hot gas extends much further above the disc, and hence the maximum velocity of the hot gas greatly exceeds that of the cold clouds.
![\[bigvely\] Vertical velocity (i.e. $v_z$) of BHighRes at $t=100$ Myr. The colour scheme is chosen to match Fig. \[garishvelocity\]. ](fig13.png "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"}\
The line-widths range from $200$ km/s to $300$ km/s, which agrees with the lower range of @2005ApJ...621..227M’s observations of $320\pm120$ km/s (although there is significant scatter in the observations; @2009ApJ...703.1394M observe line-widths up to $800$ km/s). This shows that it is indeed possible for cold clouds in ULIRG outflows to have sufficient velocity dispersion to explain the large observed line-widths.
![\[dens\_res\] Density slices of galaxy centre models at various effective resolutions. Slices of models are taken at $130$ kyr. Top left: SVLowRes, effective resolution $64^3$. Top right: SLowRes, $128^3$. Bottom left: SMedRes, $256^3$. Bottom right: SHighRes, $512^3$. ](fig14a.png "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}![\[dens\_res\] Density slices of galaxy centre models at various effective resolutions. Slices of models are taken at $130$ kyr. Top left: SVLowRes, effective resolution $64^3$. Top right: SLowRes, $128^3$. Bottom left: SMedRes, $256^3$. Bottom right: SHighRes, $512^3$. ](fig14b.png "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\
![\[dens\_res\] Density slices of galaxy centre models at various effective resolutions. Slices of models are taken at $130$ kyr. Top left: SVLowRes, effective resolution $64^3$. Top right: SLowRes, $128^3$. Bottom left: SMedRes, $256^3$. Bottom right: SHighRes, $512^3$. ](fig14c.png "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}![\[dens\_res\] Density slices of galaxy centre models at various effective resolutions. Slices of models are taken at $130$ kyr. Top left: SVLowRes, effective resolution $64^3$. Top right: SLowRes, $128^3$. Bottom left: SMedRes, $256^3$. Bottom right: SHighRes, $512^3$. ](fig14d.png "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\
{width=".977\columnwidth"} {width="1.023\columnwidth"}\
![\[hotlumpy\] [Evolution of the volume fraction $f_\mathrm{hot}$ of gas with $T>10^5$ K in SHighRes and SHighResLumpy. Initially $f_\mathrm{hot}$ is higher in SHighResLumpy due to the initial density perturbations resulting in small regions of hot gas above the disc. In each model $f_\mathrm{hot}$ rapidly increases when the simulation reaches blow-out, at $t\approx100$ kyr for SHighRes, and $t\approx120$ kyr for SHighResLumpy.]{} ](fig16.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"}
![\[nclumpsturb\] Number of clouds in galaxy centre models. ](fig17.pdf){width="1.\columnwidth"}
Galaxy Centre Models {#galaxycentreresults}
--------------------
### General evolution
In these models, the centralized feedback inflates a bubble which rapidly rises through the disc, sweeping up dense matter until instabilities allow the hot gas to break through. At lower resolutions, the entire centre of the bubble “blows out”, and no complex structure is formed. However, at higher resolutions the bubble wall fragments into a number of dense regions, around which the hot gas flows. These results are illustrated in Fig. \[dens\_res\]. Here — as in @2009ApJ...698..693F — the origin of fragmentation does indeed appear to be the RT and RM instabilities, but the nature of the fragmentation differs greatly in our models.
Although at $t=130$ kyr, a 2D slice of SHighRes appears to show clouds forming from the bubble wall (left panel of Fig. \[slice0154\]), the cold gas is not a series of clouds but still a single contiguous structure. It appears that the hot gas has punched holes in the cold shock front, but that the walls surrounding these holes have remained largely intact. The structure of these walls are strongly symmetric, due to the symmetry of the feedback and initial conditions. The inclusion of asymmetric density perturbations in the initial conditions of SHighResLumpy breaks this pattern (right panel of Fig. \[slice0154\]), and produces a more irregular cloud structure. This “blow-out” also occurs a later time in SHighResLumpy (Fig. \[hotlumpy\]), perhaps as a result of increased cooling in the dense perturbations.
At this point in the simulation, hot gas can flow through the fragmenting bubble wall, filling much of the simulation domain with hot high-speed gas. This drives down the time-step and forces refinements across a greater volume of the simulation, dramatically increasing the wall clock time per output. As a result, there was insufficient wall-clock time to fully evolve SHighRes. However, we have allowed one high-resolution simulation – SHighResLumpy – to evolve further so that we can examine the evolution of the fragmenting bubble wall. Our fiducial line profiles are taken from SHighResLumpy at $t=160$ kyr.
### Formation and evolution of clouds
We applied our cloud finding algorithm to these simulations (Fig. \[nclumpsturb\]). Most of the models did not have sufficient time to fragment into a large number of small clouds, but SHighResLumpy produced $>70$ clouds by the end of the simulated time. These clouds were still being strongly accelerated by the hot gas by the end of the simulation, and hence it is not appropriate to use the ballistic approximation to predict the trajectories. However, these clouds will still contribute to the non-thermal broadening of the NaI line, which we analyze in the following section.
### Estimates of neglected effects on clouds {#smallneglect}
Following the procedure outlined in section \[bigneglect\], we can estimate the effects of self-gravity and thermal conduction, as well as the importance of hot flows below our resolution in cloud destruction for the galaxy centre models. We select parameters that are typical of clouds and the wind in these simulation, setting $T_h\approx10^7$ K, $T_c\approx5\times10^4$ K, $n_c\approx600$ cm$^{-3}$, $\Lambda\approx10^{-22}$ erg cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$, $l_c\approx0.3$ pc, $v_c\approx 1300$ km/s, $v_h\approx2000$ km/s, $\rho_c\approx10^{-21}$ g cm$^{-3}$, and $\rho_h\approx10^{-24}$ g cm$^{-3}$.
![\[tdyn0185\] [The minimum dynamical times along the line-of-sight for an edge-on view of SHighResLumpy at $160$ kyr.]{} ](fig18.png "fig:"){width=".98\columnwidth"}\
{width=".962\columnwidth"}{width="1.038\columnwidth"}\
The minimum dynamical times along the line-of-sight for an edge-on view SHighResLumpy at $160$ kyr is plotted in Fig. \[tdyn0185\]. The smallest dynamical times above the disc are $t_\mathrm{dyn}\approx1$ Myr, and so self-gravity is negligible in the evolution of these clouds.
The classical thermal conduction rate of $\nabla\cdot q\approx1.8\times10^{-18}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-3}$, and a radiative cooling rate of $\Lambda n_c^2\approx3.6\times10^{-17}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-3}$, and so conduction is not dominant. The mean-free path for hot electrons is $0.5$ pc, on the order of the size of the clouds, suggesting that the correct thermal conduction rate may be a little less than this classical limit.
The cloud crushing time for the central clouds is $\approx140$ kyr, similar to the simulation time. Hence we should indeed expect these clouds to continue to be disrupted as the system evolves. In paper II we will make use of a sub-grid model that incorporates these effects.
### Simulated spectra {#specsmall}
We applied our raytracing code to produce simulated spectra of the models SHighResLumpy. In contrast to the full-galaxy run, in this model the initial disc is largely intact outside of the central feedback region. Furthermore, even after blow-out, the lower portions of the bubble wall remain intact. These regions are both dense and cold, and contain NaI. An unfiltered face-on spectrum with an effective spatial resolution broad enough to cover the entire simulation shows three components: a sharp line at $v\approx0$ km/s, a broad line at $v\approx500$ km/s and a weaker line at $v\approx1000$ km/s. Fig. \[garishvelocity\] shows the z-velocities of slices through SHighResLumpy, with a colour scheme chosen to emphasize these three broad regions of velocity. The $v\approx0$ km/s line clearly corresponds to the intact disc, while the $v\approx500$ km/s line corresponds largely to the outer portions of the burst-open bubble wall. Only the $v\approx1000$ km/s line corresponds to fragmenting material within the outflow. As this work is primarily focused on the outflowing gas, the disc component can be neglected, and we do this by cutting out all gas below $z=70$ pc. The lower components of the wall have significant velocities ($\approx500$ km/s), but this dense gas is not entrained within the hot flow, and is not being accelerated by it. As shown in Fig. \[garishvelocity\], the clouds are accelerated from $\approx500$ km/s to $\approx1000$ km/s from $t=130$ kyr to $t=160$ kyr, while the lower walls remain at a roughly constant speed. Hence the gas of interest only consists of the clouds near the centre of the outflow. To cut out this outer wall, the beam-width is narrowed to $60$ pc.
![\[centrallines\] Line profiles for angles of $0^\circ$ (top-left), $6^\circ$ (top-right), $14^\circ$ (bottom-left), and $20^\circ$ (bottom-right) from face-on, for the simulation SHighResLumpy. The red line is the line profile, while the green line is a Gaussian fit, both described by the y-axis labels on the left of each plot. The blue line is the residual, described by the y-axis labels on the right of each plot. ](fig20a.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\columnwidth"} ![\[centrallines\] Line profiles for angles of $0^\circ$ (top-left), $6^\circ$ (top-right), $14^\circ$ (bottom-left), and $20^\circ$ (bottom-right) from face-on, for the simulation SHighResLumpy. The red line is the line profile, while the green line is a Gaussian fit, both described by the y-axis labels on the left of each plot. The blue line is the residual, described by the y-axis labels on the right of each plot. ](fig20b.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\columnwidth"}\
![\[centrallines\] Line profiles for angles of $0^\circ$ (top-left), $6^\circ$ (top-right), $14^\circ$ (bottom-left), and $20^\circ$ (bottom-right) from face-on, for the simulation SHighResLumpy. The red line is the line profile, while the green line is a Gaussian fit, both described by the y-axis labels on the left of each plot. The blue line is the residual, described by the y-axis labels on the right of each plot. ](fig20c.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\columnwidth"} ![\[centrallines\] Line profiles for angles of $0^\circ$ (top-left), $6^\circ$ (top-right), $14^\circ$ (bottom-left), and $20^\circ$ (bottom-right) from face-on, for the simulation SHighResLumpy. The red line is the line profile, while the green line is a Gaussian fit, both described by the y-axis labels on the left of each plot. The blue line is the residual, described by the y-axis labels on the right of each plot. ](fig20d.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\columnwidth"}
![\[angleoutflowcentral\] Line-of-sight velocity at line centre (left), and line-width (right) as a function of viewing angle for SHighResLumpy, with the disc removed and a spatial resolution that resolves the outflow while missing the lower bubble wall. ](fig21a.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\columnwidth"} ![\[angleoutflowcentral\] Line-of-sight velocity at line centre (left), and line-width (right) as a function of viewing angle for SHighResLumpy, with the disc removed and a spatial resolution that resolves the outflow while missing the lower bubble wall. ](fig21b.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\columnwidth"}\
Fig. \[centrallines\] shows the line profiles from rays through SHighResLumpy at $t=160$ kyr at angles of $0-20^\circ$ from face-on. It is not useful to fire rays at angles greater than this, as the still intact lower bubble wall would dominate the spectrum. The velocity dispersion of the clouds produces a curve that is well approximated by a Gaussian. The lines show an outflow velocity of up to $1000$ km/s and a FHWM of up to $220$ km/s. There is no strong difference between the line profiles as the viewing angle is changed by this small amount. However, as shown in Fig. \[angleoutflowcentral\], the velocity at line-centre decreases and the velocity dispersion increases as the viewing angle moves away from a direct face-on view. This is unsurprising, as the main component of the net velocity is in the vertical direction, while the main component of the velocity dispersion is in the horizontal direction.
To test the effects of the asymmetric perturbations, we also determined spectra for SHighRes and SHighResLumpy at $t=130$ kyr. At this earlier time, the outflow velocities are lower ($800$ km/s and $850$ km/s), as the clouds have had less time to accelerate, but are similar between the two simulations. However, the line-depth ($1-I/I_0$) at lines centre of $0.4$ is much deeper for SHighResLumpy at $t=130$ kyr than for SHighRes at $t=130$ kyr or SHighResLumpy at $t=160$ kyr, which both have line-depths of $0.14$. As stated above, blow-out occurs later in SHighResLumpy, and so the clouds are less disrupted and more optically thick at $t=130$ kyr.
### Comparison with observations {#comparison-with-observations}
Interestingly, despite the large difference in initial conditions and system evolution, the FWHM of the spectral lines from central-disc model are similar to the full galaxy case, both reaching a minimum of around $220$ km/s for a face-on view. These agree with the lower limit of @2005ApJ...621..227M’s value of $330\pm100$ km/s, and so we have confirmed that the break-up of the bubble wall does indeed produce sufficient velocity dispersion to explain the observed broadening. However, here the outflow velocity ($\approx1000$ km/s) greatly exceeds the observed velocities of $330\pm100$ km/s. This may simply be a product of the feedback conditions — we may have overestimated the energy input rate, or underestimated the size of the feedback region, producing unrealistically intense feedback.
### Mass-loading {#massloading}
We also examined the effects of varying the mass-loading rate. As mentioned above, this is parameterised by $M_\mathrm{SN}$, the mass of gas ejected in each supernova. Modifying this value is equivalent to a combination of (a) varying the initial mass function of massive star formation, (b) including a low mass-loading AGN, and/or (c) varying the amount of gas that completely escapes a supernova. We have produced simulations with $M_\mathrm{SN}=0 \mathrm{M_\odot}$, $M_\mathrm{SN}=4 \mathrm{M_\odot}$, and $M_\mathrm{SN}=16 \mathrm{M_\odot}$ in addition to the fiducial $M_\mathrm{SN}=6$ M$_\odot$. These were performed at a low resolution, and so it is not possible to perform a detailed analysis of the variation in cloud formation and properties with mass-loading. However, we can investigate the impact on bubble evolution and blow-out. This is a scenario that has been well-studied in the past [e.g. @1989ApJ...337..141M; @1989ApJ...345..372N; @1991ApJ...375..239F; @1992ApJ...388..103K; @2009ApJ...701..330S; @2012MNRAS.425.2343Z].
The primary result is that bubble inflation and blow-out occur much more rapidly and violently at smaller mass-loading rates. During blow-out, the volume of hot gas increases dramatically, and so we can plot the volume fraction of hot gas in the models over time to compare the times at which blow-out occurs. With “hot gas” defined as gas above $10^5$ K, this is plotted in Fig. \[hotgasres\], and it is clear that blow-out is weakened and delayed with increasing mass-loading (the initial gentle downwards slope is caused by cooling). The addition of mass raises the density within the bubble, which decreases the cooling time, reducing the effectiveness of heating. A greater mass also requires more kinetic energy to reach a high velocity. This also reduces the density contrast across the bubble interface, weakening the Rayleigh-Taylor instability.
### Resolution Dependence {#resdepends}
![\[hotgasres\] Top: Evolution of hot gas volume fraction as mass-loading is varied. Bottom: Evolution of hot gas volume fraction as resolution is varied. The drop in hot gas fractions at the end of some simulations is due to hot gas escaping the simulated region. ](fig22a.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"}\
![\[hotgasres\] Top: Evolution of hot gas volume fraction as mass-loading is varied. Bottom: Evolution of hot gas volume fraction as resolution is varied. The drop in hot gas fractions at the end of some simulations is due to hot gas escaping the simulated region. ](fig22b.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"}\
We examined models with four different maximum levels of refinement, with effective resolutions ranging from $64^3$ to $512^3$. The effect on blow-out times is clear in the hot gas fraction plots, Fig. \[hotgasres\]. As in section \[massloading\], the hot gas fraction initially decreases slowly as gas radiatively cools throughout the disc, and then dramatically rises when “blow-out” occurs and hot gas begins to stream out of the bubble. A resolution dependence is clear: blow-out occurs at earlier times as resolution is increased. This is likely because the growth-rate of the RT instability increases with decreasing wavelength — for an inviscid medium, the growth rate of an instability with amplitude $\eta$ in a gravitational field of acceleration $g$ is given by
$$\frac{d\eta}{dt} = (Agk)^{1/2} \eta,$$
where $A$ is the Atwood number, and $k=2\pi\lambda$ is the wave-number of the instability [@1961hhs..book.....C]. As resolution is increased, the stronger instabilities at shorter wave-lengths are no longer suppressed by the discretization of the grid, and the bubble-wall can fragment and allow blow-out earlier. Our medium and high resolution runs appear to follow the same locus, but this does not mean the simulation has converged — while blow-out occurs at a similar time, the level of fragmentation is clearly different (Fig. \[dens\_res\]).
![\[varylineprams\] The effects of extensions to the line profile models (left), and the effects of narrowing the “beam-width” (right). ](fig23a.png "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"} ![\[varylineprams\] The effects of extensions to the line profile models (left), and the effects of narrowing the “beam-width” (right). ](fig23b.png "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\
![\[varylineprams\] The effects of extensions to the line profile models (left), and the effects of narrowing the “beam-width” (right). ](fig23c.png "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"} ![\[varylineprams\] The effects of extensions to the line profile models (left), and the effects of narrowing the “beam-width” (right). ](fig23d.png "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\
Line profiles: Extended models
------------------------------
We examined the effects of a more “realistic” line profile on BHighRes, including broadening from limited spectral resolution, and line confusion from inclusion of both lines in the Na D doublet. We also explored the results of using a much tighter spatial resolution (i.e. beam width), using $10$ kpc instead of our fiducial $100$ kpc. The results of these examinations are plotted in Fig. \[varylineprams\].
The effective broadening due to spectral resolution is produced by convolving the intensity with a Gaussian curve, with a FWHM set to $65$ km/s. The second line in the doublet is modelled as a copy of the first line, transposed by $\Delta\lambda=5.97$ Å. It is clear (left panels of Fig. \[varylineprams\]) that these additions do not significantly alter the line profile properties.
However, tightening the effective spatial resolution of the simulated observer [*does*]{} significantly change the line properties (right panels of Fig. \[varylineprams\]). A tight beam does not capture the details of the structure of the outflow — the beam will likely intersect with only a few clouds, or none at all. This produces irregular results for the FWHM and outflow velocities that are not indicative of the overall structure of the outflow. While the very broad effective spatial resolution used in our fiducial models smooths out the large-scale structure, a tight beam misses this structure entirely. This confirms that, given the resolution limits of our hydrodynamic simulations, the “broad beams” used in our fiducial raytracing calculations are the most appropriate choice.
Conclusions {#coldflowsconc}
===========
We performed three-dimensional simulations to explain the source of cold high velocity-dispersion gas in ULIRG outflows [as observed by @2005ApJ...621..227M in particular]. Our initial conditions were set up to produce a scenario where clouds are produced by the fragmentation of the wall of a galactic super-bubble, induced by the Rayleigh-Taylor instability [as in @2009ApJ...698..693F]. This was done in two scenarios, one focusing on the central $200$ pc of the galaxy, and another where the entire galaxy is included in the simulation domain. We produced spectra of the simulations with a raytracing algorithm to facilitate comparison with observation.
Our models succeeded at producing cold outflowing gas with large velocity dispersions, but only at the higher resolutions. The velocity dispersions were $220-260$ km/s in our galaxy centre models, and $200-300$ km/s in our full galaxy models. These results are similar, and both agree with the lower end of the observations ($330\pm100$ km/s). Our two scales of simulation produce this cold outflowing gas through different means. In the highest resolution full galaxy models the cold disc gas is fragmented by the large number of hot bubbles produced in the disc. This gas is then pushed into the outflow by the intense pressure of the feedback beneath it, and is supplemented by cooling within the hot wind. In the lower resolution full-galaxy models, cold gas is only produced by cooling within the hot wind, or at very low resolutions, is not produced at all.
In the galaxy centre models, the cold gas is instead produced by the Rayleigh-Taylor fragmentation of the wall of a feedback-inflated bubble. Precise determination of the most important process will require larger-scale and higher resolution simulations, perhaps with improvements to the physical model such as the inclusion of self-gravity and a more self-consistent feedback algorithm. In paper II, we will perform simulations with a sub-grid turbulence model to better model feedback and alleviate resolution issues. Nevertheless, in this paper we have demonstrated that cold gas with high velocity-dispersions can indeed be present in simulations of ULIRG outflows.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
DJW is supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. RJT is supported by a Discovery Grant from NSERC, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Nova Scotia Research and Innovation Trust and the Canada Research Chairs Program. ES is supported by NSF grant AST11-03608. MB acknowledges support by the research group FOR 1254 funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Simulations were run on the CFI-NSRIT funded [*St Mary’s Computational Astrophysics Laboratory*]{}, on the [*Arizona State University Advanced Computing Center*]{}, and on the Calcul-Québec/Compute-Canada supercomputer [*Colosse*]{} at Université Laval. Simulations were performed using the FLASH code, a product of the DOE ASC/Alliances funded Center for Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes at the University of Chicago. We also thank our anonymous referee for suggestions that improved the content and presentation of this paper.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'I review the good, the bad and the ugly of the non-projectable versions of Hořava gravity. I explain how this non-relativistic theory was constructed and why it was touted with such excitement as a quantum theory of gravity. I then review some of the issues facing the theory, explaining how strong coupling occurs and why this is such a problem for both phenomenology and the question of renormalisability. Finally I comment on possible violations of Equivalence Principle, and explain why these could be an issue for Blas [*et al*]{}’s “healthy extension”. This paper was presented as a talk at PASCOS 2010 in Valencia.'
address: 'School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK'
author:
- Antonio Padilla
title: 'The good, the bad and the ugly .... of Hořava gravity'
---
Introduction
============
Let us begin with a few words regarding the title. A couple of days after I gave this talk in Valencia, Blas [*et al*]{} submitted the following paper to the arXiv: [*Models of non-relativistic quantum gravity: the good, the bad and the healthy*]{} [@gbh]. At the time I did not know whether the similarity with the title of my talk was deliberate, or mere coincidence. My initial suspicion was that it had to be deliberate since what they call healthy, I have called ugly! However, I have since been assured by the authors of [@gbh] that it was nothing more than a rather amusing coincidence.
By now Hořava gravity comes in many different forms [@Horava1; @Blas2; @Horava2]. From now on, when I refer to “Hořava gravity" I will mean the so-called [*non-projectable*]{} theories for which the lapse function can depend on space $N=N(x, t)$. I will begin by explaining what is so good about Hořava’s original idea, and why his toy model was touted with such excitement as a renormalisable theory of quantum gravity. The key idea is to break the isotropic scaling of space and time, allowing us to improve the UV behaviour of the theory without introducing ghosts. To do this we must break diffeomorphism invariance, and this is where the trouble starts. By breaking diffeomorphism invariance we introduce an additional scalar degree of freedom. What happens to this scalar mode as we approach the classical GR limit in the infra-red? Does it decouple or does it become strongly coupled? Unfortunately it is the latter [@me1; @Blas1]. This is the bad of Hořava gravity. Filling a conspicuous gap in the existing literature, we will explain precisely why this strong coupling is so bad for both the renormalisability of the theory and its phenomenology.
Following these developments, Blas [*et al*]{} proposed an extension of Hořava’s theory which they claimed did not run into problems with strong coupling, and should be a phenomenologically viable toy model of quantum gravity [@Blas2; @Blas3]. This is what they refer to as the “healthy" extension, and I have referred to as “ugly". Perhaps “ugly" is a bit harsh. What I find unappealing is that they introduce a large dimensionless parameter ($\sim 10^7$) by hand, through a very low scale of Lorentz violation. This large parameter is absolutely crucial in order to solve the problems described in the previous paragraph[@Blas2; @Blas3]. As we will explain, the situation may even be worse than this since the low scale of Lorentz violation might lead to unacceptably large violations of the Equivalence Principle [@me2]. Establishing whether or not this is the case is a work in progress [@me3]. Should we find that Blas [*et al*]{}’s model [@Blas2] can solve the strong coupling problem without any additional phenomenological problems, then I think the large parameter is a small price to pay for a phenomenologically consistent toy model of quantum gravity. Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder! For now, we should be patient and wait for the results of [@me3].
The Good
========
To understand what is so good about Hořava’s original idea, we need to understand the trouble with gravity. Classical gravity is well described by General Relativity. At the quantum level, GR is non-renormalisable, essentially because the coupling constant has negative mass dimension, $[G_N]=-2$, and the graviton propagator scales like $1/k^2$. To see ways in which we might get round this, let us consider the following toy model, =- ()\^2+\^6 As with GR, the propagator scales like $1/k^2$, and the coupling constant has mass dimension $[\lambda]=-2$, so the theory looks like it might well be non-renormalisable. One way to fix this might be to add relativistic higher derivative corrections to improve the UV behaviour of the propagator. Schematically, + k\^4 + k\^4 k\^4 +…= After canonically normalising in the UV, $\phi \to \hat \phi/\sqrt{|\lambda|}$, we get a new coupling constant $\hat \lambda=\lambda^{-2}$ whose mass dimension is non-negative. The theory appears to be power counting renormalisable, but it has come at a price – the higher derivatives introduce additional ghost-like degrees of freedom. This is easily seen by rewriting the propagator as =- and is patently unacceptable. Note that the problem really lies with higher order time derivatives as opposed to space derivatives. This observation suggests a possible resolution. Let us abandon Lorentz invariance and introduce higher order spatial derivatives without introducing any higher order time derivatives.The former should improve the UV behaviour of the propagator, whereas the latter guarantees the absence of ghosts. To this end, we modify the kinetic term - ()\^2 \^2- (-)\^z , \[zphi\] where $\Delta$ is the spatial Laplacian. We now have non-relativistic dispersion relation $w^2 \propto p^{2z}$, or in other words, time and space scale differently, $[x]=-1, ~[t]=-z$. For large enough $z$, it follows that the coupling constant has a non-negative scaling dimension, $[\lambda]=4z-6$. As an example, consider the $z=3$ theory: we expect it to be power counting renormalisable, but we do not expect ghosts. Of course, the price we have paid is to have broken Lorentz invariance, which is well tested at low energies. However, we can cope with this by adding a relevant operator of the form ${\cal L}_{rel}=\frac12 c^2 \phi \Delta \phi$. This leaves the good UV physics unaffected, but allows Lorentz invariance to be restored as an emergent symmetry in the IR, with an emergent speed of light $c$.
Hořava’s nice idea is to apply these methods to gravity [@Horava1]. First we must abandon Lorentz invariance, which means choosing a preferred time, $t$ and making an ADM split ds\^2=-N(x, t)\^2c\^2 dt\^2+g\_[ij]{}(x, t)(dx\^i+N\^i(x, t) dt)(dx\^j+N\^j(x, t) dt) As usual, $g_{ij}$ is the spatial metric, $N^i$ is the shift vector, and $N$ is the lapse function. By allowing $N$ to depend on space we note that we are dealing with the [*non-projectable*]{} version of the theory. Now we see that we no longer have full diffeomorphism invariance. It has been replaced by “foliation preserving diffeomorphisms" x\^i x\^i=x\^i(x, t), t t=t(t) The action is constructed from the following covariant objects: the spatial metric $g_{ij}$ and the extrinsic curvature $K_{ij}=\frac{1}{2N}(\dot g_{ij}-2\nabla_{(i} N_{j)})$, where $\nabla_i$ is the spatial covariant derivative. In principle, one could also include terms with $\nabla_i \log N$ [@Blas2], but let us come back to that in section \[sec:ug\]. To build the gravitational analogue of the action (\[zphi\]) we first replace the kinetic term 12 \^2 N (K\_[ij]{}K\^[ij]{}-K\^2) where $\kappa$ is the gravitational coupling with scaling dimension $[\kappa]=z-3$, and $\lambda$ is a dimensionless parameter that also runs with scale. Clearly, for the $z=3$ theory the gravitational coupling constant is dimensionless and we might expect the theory to be power counting renormalisable! Sticking with $z=3$, we build the remaining part of the UV action as follows: \[pot\] -12 (-)\^3 N \_k R\_[ij]{} \^k R\^[ij]{} + … where $\beta$ is a dimensionless parameter and $R_{ij}$ is the spatial Ricci tensor. Here “$\ldots$" denotes any of the other possible dimension $6$ operators that one might wish to include in the potential. Just as we needed to restore Lorentz invariance for the low energy scalar, now we need to be able to restore GR at low energies in the gravitational theory. To do this we add a relevant operator \_[rel]{}=N R The full $z=3$ gravitational theory is now given by S=dt d\^3 x N (K\_[ij]{}K\^[ij]{}-K\^2+c\^2 R)+ If we neglect the higher order spatial derivatives (as we would in the IR), we are left with something that looks very similar to the action for GR, S\_[GR]{}= dt d\^3 x N (+R) The claim then is that $\lambda$ flows to $1$ at low energies, such that we recover GR with an emergent speed of light, $c$, and an emergent Newton’s constant, $G_N =\kappa c^2/16\pi$. It would seem that we have a theory of gravity that is well behaved at high energies, and recovers GR at low energies!
The Bad {#sec:bad}
=======
As the cynic might say, if something is too good to be true, it is probably a lie. For Hořava gravity, it turns out that there are some concerns of varying degrees of seriousness. At the not-so-serious end we have to contend with the enormous number of possible terms to be included in the potential – in other words, the “$\ldots$" present in equation (\[pot\]). Hořava tried to reduce the number by borrowing the principle of [*detailed balance*]{} from Condensed Matter Theory [@Horava1], although this has since been ruled out phenomenologically [@me1]. Whilst this is merely an aesthetic consideration, there is a more serious issue involving light cones and fine tuning. We have argued that Lorentz invariance is not exact, and emerges in the IR due to the presence of relevant operators. However, there is no reason to expect different particle species to see the same emergent light-cones. For this to happen we need to fine-tune the coefficients of the relevant operators in each case. A third concern relates to the formal structure of the theory as opposed to phenomenology – the constraint algebra is dynamically inconsistent. This manifests itself through the lapse vanishing asymptotically for generic solutions to the constraint equations[@hen].
The most serious issue of all stems from the breaking of diffeomorphism invariance. To understand why, we briefly return to our scalar example. Here we broke Lorentz invariance, which is just a symmetry of the [*background*]{} and does not affect the number of degrees of freedom. In contrast, for our gravity theory we broke diffeomorphism invariance, which is the [*dynamical*]{} symmetry of General Relativity. We therefore expect new dynamical degrees of freedom to appear. Now, the critical question is: what happens to these additional degrees of freedom as we approach the so-called “GR limit" at low energies? I can think of just two possibilities: either they decouple (which is good), or they become strongly coupled (which is bad).
In Hořava gravity it turns out to be the latter [@me1; @Blas1]. Fluctuations about Minkowski space suggest that there exists an additional scalar mode that becomes strongly coupled at an energy scale of around $\Lambda_{naive} \sim \sqrt{\frac{c^3 |1-\lambda|}{\kappa}} \sim M_{pl}c^2 \sqrt{|1-\lambda|}$ [@me1]. [**This means that the extra mode is strongly coupled on all scales in the “GR limit" where $\lambda \to 1$**]{}. In fact, the situation is even worse than this. A more careful analysis [@Blas1] including fluctuations on general curved backgrounds yields a strong coupling scale of the order $\Lambda_{strong} \sim \Lambda_{naive}^\frac{3}{4} (c/L)^\frac{1}{4} $, where $L$ measures the characteristic length scale of the background[^1] . This means that strong coupling kicks in at all scales not just in the “GR limit" ($\lambda \to 1$), but also in the Minkowski limit ($L \to \infty$).
In each case, the dynamics of the extra mode was revealed using the Stuckelberg trick [@stuck]. Let us remind ourselves of the spirit of this trick by means of a simpler example. The massless photon is described by a Lagrangian ${\cal L}= -\frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}^2$ and has just two degrees of freedom due to gauge invariance, $A_\mu \to A_\mu+\partial_\mu \psi$. Now consider a theory of massive photons (with some interactions) =- F\_\^2-A\_\^2 +A\_J\^ As we no longer have gauge invariance, we allow $\partial_\mu J^\mu \neq 0$ and note that the massive photon picks up an extra degree of freedom. What happens to this extra mode as $m \to 0$? To reveal this we perform a Stuckelberg trick, artificially restoring gauge invariance by means of the field redefinition $A_\mu=\tilde A_\mu+\frac{1}{m}\partial_\mu \phi$. The new action is given by =- F\_\^2-12 ()\^2 +J\^(A\_+\_) +[O]{}(m) and is manifestly invariant under $\tilde A_\mu \to \tilde A_\mu+\partial_\mu \psi, ~\phi \to \phi-m\psi$. As $m \to 0$, the current-scalar interaction diverges, or in other words, the Stuckelberg field, $\phi$, becomes strongly coupled in the massless limit!
The Stuckelberg trick in Hořava gravity works along the same lines, by artificially restoring missing gauge invariance [@me1; @Blas1]. Indeed, we restore diffeomorphism invariance by redefining the ADM slicing in terms of a Stuckelberg field, $\phi(x, t)$. That is the slices go from $t=$ constant $\to$ $\phi(x, t)=$ constant. It is this Stuckelberg field that becomes strongly coupled at the scale $\Lambda_{strong}$.
What is so bad about strong coupling? Is it bad for renormalisability? Not necessarily. It is well known that QED becomes strongly coupled in the UV due to the presence of a Landau pole, and yet the theory is still renormalisable. However, Hořava gravity is not so well behaved. To understand this, consider why we believed the theory to be renormalisable in the first place. We inferred a schematic form of the action in terms of perturbative degree of freedom, simply by identifying curvatures with derivatives of the graviton, e.g. $R_{ij} \leadsto \nabla^2 h_{ij}$. The problem is that this completely ignores the Stuckelberg field. Furthermore, the Stuckelberg action looks nothing like the renormalisable actions studied in [@Visser1]. Crucially, the dispersion relation for the Stuckelberg field does [*not*]{} scale like $z=3$ in the UV [@Blas3; @me2] so we no longer expect our theory to be renormalisable.
Is strong coupling bad for phenomenology? Again, not necessarily. In DGP gravity, for example, strong coupling is linked to the so-called Vainshtein effect which helps to screen an extra scalar on solar system scales [@dgp]. The problem with Hořava gravity is that strong coupling occurs over nearly all scales close to the “GR limit". Strong coupling can be associated with a breakdown of perturbation theory, and so perturbation theory will hardly ever apply in Hořava gravity. What this means is that the effective perturbative degrees of freedom of GR are no longer applicable –the true degrees of freedom will be bound states of the graviton and Stuckelberg fields. Without knowing the precise form of those bounds states, we lose some predictive power, but is the theory ruled out? I suspect it is. The reason is that perturbative GR is actually very well tested by the binary pulsar observations of Hulse and Taylor [@pulsars]. It is difficult to see how these can be reproduced given that a perturbative description hardly ever applies.
I conclude this section with the following orthogonal observation: Hořava gravity may suffer from violations of the Equivalence Principle [@me2]. There are strict bounds [@eotvos] on the size of these violations which one should be able to use to rule out regions of parameter space. To understand how the violations may arise, we need to understand how to couple matter in these theories. In the relativistic Stuckelberg picture, the matter action $S_m[\Psi_n; \gamma_{\mu\nu}, \phi]$ depends on the matter fields, $\Psi_n$, the spacetime metric, $\gamma_{\mu\nu}$, and the Stuckelberg field, $\phi$. In the absence of full diffeomorphism invariance, we no longer have the usual conservation of energy-momentum. Instead, using the foliation preserving diffeomorphisms, we can show that [@me2] h\_ \_T\^=0, =- where $n_\mu=\partial_\mu \phi/\sqrt{-(\nabla \phi)^2}$ is the unit normal to the spatial slices, and $h_{\mu\nu}=\gamma_{\mu\nu}+n_\mu n_\nu$ is the spatial projector. Thus, non-conserved sources can carry a form of Stuckelberg “charge", $\Gamma \sim \nabla T^{\mu\nu}/T^{\mu\nu}$.
With this in mind, we considered the field due to a slowly varying point mass with $T^{\mu\nu}=M\exp(-t\Gamma_\text{source} ) \delta^3(\vec x)\text{diag}(1, 0, 0,0)$ [@me2]. This has Stuckelberg charge $\Gamma_\text{source}$. Probe particles also carrying Stuckelberg charge feel an extra Stuckelberg force, that dominates beyond a critical radius, $r_c \sim (\lambda-1)/\sqrt{ \Gamma_\text{probe} \Gamma_\text{source}}$. In this Stuckelberg region, different probes with different $
\Gamma$s will fall at different rates, in violation of the Equivalence Principle. Such violations are measured by the Eotvos parameter [@eotvos], $\eta \sim \frac{\Gamma_1-\Gamma_2}{\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2}$, which can be large even for small probe charges $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$. To avoid these problems, we need to push the critical radius out to large values so that the Stuckelberg force is subdominant on astrophysical scales. This means taking large $\lambda$ or small $\Gamma$s. With large $\lambda$ we deviate too much from GR and face problems with Lorentz violation [@gbh]. We therefore require small Stuckelberg charges. In fact, one might be tempted to assume that all sources are conserved so that all Stuckelberg charges vanish. Whilst this is fine classically, we would expect quantum corrections to introduce some Stuckelberg charge as there is no symmetry to prevent it. The typical value of $\Gamma$ ought to be non-zero, but suppressed by some power of the Lorentz symmetry breaking scale $M_{UV}$.
The Ugly (or the Beautiful?) {#sec:ug}
============================
Up until now our discussion has focussed on the non-projectable version of Hořava gravity, in its original manifestation [@Horava1]. In an attempt to alleviate some of the more serious problems I have discussed (such as dynamical inconsistency and strong coupling), Blas [*et al*]{} proposed an extension of this model, including terms in the Lagrangian of the form $a_i=\nabla_i \log N$ [@Blas2]. I refer the reader to [@klus] for a discussion on the constraint algebra and dynamical consistency, and focus instead on explaining the proposed resolution of the strong coupling problem. Recall that the main issue with this was the fact that the Stuckelberg action looks nothing like the renormalisable actions studied in [@Visser1], and that crucially, the dispersion relation for the Stuckelberg field does [*not*]{} scale like $z=3$ in the UV [@Blas3; @me2]. By adding terms to the action like N a\_i a\^i, A N a\_i a\_j R\^[ij]{}, B a\_ia\^i a\_j a\_k R\^[jk]{} the dispersion relation is modified so that it has the correct UV scaling ($w^2 \propto p^6$). Specifically, w\^2=c\_s\^2 p\^2+ +, where $c_s^2=\frac{\lambda-1}{\alpha}, ~ M_A \sim \left(\frac{\alpha}{A}\right)^{1/2}M_{pl}, ~M_B \sim \left(\frac{\alpha}{B}\right)^{1/4}M_{pl}$. For $M_B \sim M_{pl}$ strong coupling is still a problem, kicking in at a scale $\Lambda_{strong} \sim (\lambda-1)^{3/4}\alpha^{-1/4}M_{pl}c^2$ [@pap; @me2]. This comes as no surprise – to avoid strong coupling problems we need to introduce some new physics below the would be strong coupling scale. In fact, we need to have $M_B \ll \sqrt{\alpha}M_{pl}$ in order that the $z=3$ scaling kicks in before strong coupling [@Blas3]. In some ways this proposal is reminiscent of string theory in which the string scale is introduced below the Planck scale where strong coupling would otherwise occur.
The reason we have labelled this version of theory as ugly is that the numbers involved are quite large. To see this note that the condition $M_B \ll \sqrt{\alpha}M_{pl}$ corresponds to $B \gg \alpha^{-1}$. As tests of Lorentz violation require $\alpha \lesssim 10^{-7}$, we are forced to take $B \gg 10^7$ [@Blas3]. Of course, as we stated in the introduction, this would be a small price to pay for a consistent quantum theory of gravity! We should also point out that it really is just a question of aesthetics – the choice of $M_B$ parametrically below $M_{pl}$ is not technically unnatural. The point is that $M_B$ sets the cut off and so neither $M_B$ nor $M_{pl}$ receive large corrections.
So, do we have a consistent quantum theory of gravity? Not necessarily – it is too early to say. Whilst Blas [*et al*]{}’s model might cure strong coupling issues, it could do so in such a way that it runs into real trouble with tests of Equivalence Principle. Recall that we expect the typical value of the Stuckelberg charge to be non-zero, but suppressed by some power of the Lorentz symmetry breaking scale $M_{UV}$. The Stuckelberg charges must therefore be relatively large since we need a low scale of Lorentz violation $M_{UV} \sim M_B \ll M_{pl}$ to avoid strong coupling. As $\lambda$ cannot be made arbitrarily large, it is clear that Blas [*et al*]{}’s model could face a challenge from EP tests as described at the end of the previous section. It all boils down to the tension in choosing the value of $M_B$: choose too high a value and you get strong coupling, too low a value and you fail EP tests. We are currently working out the details to see if an acceptable choice for $M_B$ really exists [@me3].
Finally, I would like to highlight a very recent result in which it was claimed that one must take $\lambda < 1/3$ in order to have a stable vacuum in the quantum version of the theory [@shu]. It is difficult to see how this can be compatible with the phenomenological requirement that $|\lambda -1| < 10^{-7}$ at low energies. We should not suppose that $\lambda$ runs from $\lambda<1/3$ in the UV to $\lambda=1$ in the IR, since $\lambda=1/3$ is expected to be a fixed point [@Horava1], and the Stuckelberg field is a ghost whenever $1/3< \lambda<1$ [@Blas2].
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[9]{} D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov, arXiv:1007.3503 \[hep-th\]. [@Horava:2009uw] P. Horava, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 084008 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.3775 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 181302 (2010) \[arXiv:0909.3525 \[hep-th\]\]. P. Horava and C. M. Melby-Thompson, arXiv:1007.2410 \[hep-th\]. C. Charmousis, G. Niz, A. Padilla and P. M. Saffin, JHEP [**0908**]{} (2009) 070 \[arXiv:0905.2579 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov, JHEP [**0910**]{}, 029 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.3046 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Lett. B [**688**]{}, 350 (2010) \[arXiv:0912.0550 \[hep-th\]\]. I. Kimpton and A. Padilla, JHEP [**1007**]{} (2010) 014 \[arXiv:1003.5666 \[hep-th\]\]. I. Kimpton, A. Padilla and T. Sotiriou, [*Work in progress*]{}. M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 025011 \[arXiv:0902.0590 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Visser, arXiv:0912.4757 \[hep-th\]. M. Henneaux, A. Kleinschmidt and G. L. Gomez, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} (2010) 064002 \[arXiv:0912.0399 \[hep-th\]\]. H. Ruegg and M. Ruiz-Altaba, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**19**]{} (2004) 3265 \[arXiv:hep-th/0304245\]. G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B [**485**]{}, 208 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0005016\]. C. Deffayet, G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 044026 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0106001\]. G. Dvali, New J. Phys. [**8**]{}, 326 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0610013\]. R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. [**195**]{}, L51 (1975). S. Schlamminger, K. Y. Choi, T. A. Wagner, J. H. Gundlach and E. G. Adelberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} (2008) 041101 \[arXiv:0712.0607 \[gr-qc\]\]. S. Baessler, B. R. Heckel, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, U. Schmidt and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 3585. J. Kluson, JHEP [**1007**]{}, 038 (2010) \[arXiv:1004.3428 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Papazoglou and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Lett. B [**685**]{} (2010) 197 \[arXiv:0911.1299 \[hep-th\]\]. F. W. Shu, arXiv:1009.3677 \[hep-th\].
[^1]: The background spatial curvature $\bar R_{ij} \sim 1/L^2$ and the background extrinsic curvature $\bar K_{ij} \sim c/L$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Loomis-Whitney inequality states that the volume of a convex body is bounded by the product of volumes of its projections onto orthogonal hyperplanes. We provide an extension of both this fact and a generalization of this fact due to Ball to the context of $q-$concave, $\frac{1}{q}-$homogeneous measures.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095'
author:
- Johannes Hosle
title: 'On Extensions of the Loomis-Whitney Inequality and Ball’s Inequality for Concave, Homogeneous Measures'
---
Introduction
============
The Loomis-Whitney inequality [@loomiswhitney] is a well-known geometric inequality concerning convex bodies, compact and convex sets with nonempty interior. Explicitly, the inequality states that if $u_1,...,u_n$ form an orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $K$ is a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^n$, then $$\begin{aligned}
|K|^{n-1} &\le \prod_{i=1}^{n}|K|u_i^{\perp}|,\end{aligned}$$ where $K|u_i^{\perp}$ denotes the projection of $K$ onto $u_i^{\perp}$, the hyperplane orthogonal to $u_i$. Equality occurs if and only if $K$ is a box with faces parallel to the hyperplanes $u_i^{\perp}$. This was generalized by Ball [@ball], who showed that if $u_1,...,u_m$ are vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $c_1,...,c_m$ positive constants such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{m} c_i u_i \otimes u_i = I_n,\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
|K|^{n-1} &\le \prod_{i=1}^{m} |K|u_i|^{c_i}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $u_i \otimes u_i$ denotes the rank $1$ projection onto the span of $u_i$, so $(u_i \otimes u_i)(x) = \langle x, u_i \rangle u_i$ with $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ representing the standard Euclidean inner product, and $I_n$ is the identity on $\mathbb{R}^n$. What will be useful later is the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{m} c_i = n,\end{aligned}$$ which follows by comparing traces in (1.1).
The Loomis-Whitney inequality and Ball’s inequality have been the subject of various generalizations. For instance, Huang and Li [@huangli] provided an extension of Ball’s inequality with intrinsic volumes replacing volumes and an arbitrary even isotropic measure replacing the discrete measure $\sum_{i=1}^{m}c_i \delta_{u_i}$ in the condition $\int_{S^{n-1}} u \otimes u \ d\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}c_i \delta_{u_i}\right)(u) = I_n$ of (1.1). They [@LpLM] also demonstrated the $L_p$ Loomis-Whitney inequality for even isotropic measures, while Lv [@Lv] very recently demonstrated the $L_{\infty}$ Loomis-Whitney inequality.
In this paper, we will first give a generalization of the original Loomis-Whitney inequality to the context of $q-$concave, $\frac{1}{q}-$homogeneous measures. Using a different argument, we shall then prove a generalization of Ball’s inequality. Our two theorems are independent in the sense that the first is not recovered when specializing the second to the case of $u_1, ... u_n$ being an orthonormal basis and $c_1 = ... = c_n = 1$. Therefore, in fact, two different extensions of the Loomis-Whitney inequality are given.
Let us recall the necessary definitions.
A function $f: \mathbb{R}^n \to [0,\infty]$ is $p-$concave for some $p \in \mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}$ if for all $\lambda \in [0,1]$ and $x, y \in \text{supp}(f)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
f(\lambda x + (1-\lambda) y) &\ge \left(\lambda f^p(x) + (1-\lambda)f^p(y) \right)^{\frac{1}{p}}.\end{aligned}$$
A function $f: \mathbb{R}^n \to [0,\infty]$ is $r-$homogeneous if for all $a>0, x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ we have $f(ax) = a^r f(x)$.
We will interested in the functions $g$ that are both $s-$concave for some $s>0$ and $\frac{1}{p}-$homogeneous for some $p>0$. In this case, we get that in fact $g$ is $p$-concave (see e.g. Livshyts [@livshyts]). Continuity will be assumed throughout. An example of a $p-$concave, $\frac{1}{p}-$homogeneous function is $g(x) = 1_{\langle x, \theta \rangle > 0} \langle x, \theta \rangle^{\frac{1}{p}}$, where $\theta$ is a vector. All such functions $g$, with the exception of constant functions, will be supported on convex cones. To see this, observe that concavity implies that the support is convex and homogeneity implies that if $x \in \text{supp}(g)$ then $tx \in \text{supp}(g)$ for all $t>0$. Moreover, we cannot have both $x, -x \in \text{supp}(g)$, for then concavity will give $g(0) = g\left(\frac{1}{2}x + \frac{1}{2}(-x)\right) > 0$, but $g(0) = 0$ by homogeneity.
A notation we will use is $\tilde{g}(x) = g(x) + g(-x).$
If $\mu$ is a measure with a $p-$concave, $\frac{1}{p}-$homogeneous density, then a change of variables will show that $\mu$ is $n+\frac{1}{p}$ homogeneous, that is $\mu(tK) = t^{n+\frac{1}{p}} \mu(K)$. From a result of Borell [@borell], we also have concavity:
Let $p \in \left( -\frac{1}{n}, \infty\right]$ and let $\mu$ be a measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$ with $p-$concave density $g$. For $q = \frac{1}{n+\frac{1}{p}}$, $\mu$ is a $q-$concave measure, that is for measurable sets $E, F$ and $\lambda \in [0,1]$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(\lambda E + (1-\lambda)F) &\ge (\lambda \mu(E)^{q}+(1-\lambda)\mu(F)^q)^{\frac{1}{q}}.\end{aligned}$$
To now define the generalized notion of projection for measures, one requires the definition of mixed measures (see e.g. Livshyts [@livshyts]).
Let $A, B$ be measurable sets in $\mathbb{R}^n$. We define $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1(A, B) = \liminf_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{\mu(A+\varepsilon B) - \mu(A)}{\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ to be the mixed $\mu-$measure of $A$ and $B$.
An important simple fact, which follows from Lemma 3.3 in Livshyts [@livshyts], is that mixed measure is linear in the second variable, so $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1(K, E + tF) = \mu_1(K, E) + t \mu_1(K, F)\end{aligned}$$ for $t\ge 0$.
For $q-$concave measures, we have the following generalization of Minkowski’s first inequality (see e.g. Milman and Rotem [@milmanrotem]):
Let $\mu$ be a $q-$concave measure and $A, B$ be measurable sets in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(A)^{1-q} \mu(B)^q &\le q \mu_1(A, B).\end{aligned}$$
We now turn to discussing the generalized notion of projection. This notion, defined by Livshyts [@livshyts], is $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\mu, K}(\theta) = \frac{n}{2} \int_{0}^{1} \mu_1(tK, [-\theta, \theta]) dt\end{aligned}$$ for $\theta \in S^{n-1}$, where $K$ is a convex body, $\mu$ is an absolutely continuous measure, and $[-\theta, \theta] = \{t\theta: t\in [-1,1]\}$. This is a natural extension of the identity $|K|\theta^{\perp}| = \frac{1}{2}\lambda_1(K, [-\theta, \theta])$, with $\lambda$ denoting Lebesgue measure, which can be readily seen for polytopes and follows in the general case by approximation.
In [@livshyts], a version of the Shephard problem for $q-$concave, $\frac{1}{q}-$homogeneous measures was proven with this notion of measure. The author in [@hosle] studied the related section and projection comparison problems, including for this same class of $q-$concave, $\frac{1}{q}-$homogeneous measures.
With (1.4), we can now state our first theorem:
Let $\mu$ be a measure with $p-$concave, $\frac{1}{p}-$homogeneous density $g$ for some $p>0$. Then, for any convex body $K$ and an orthonormal basis $(u_i)_{i=1}^n$ with $[-u_i, u_i] \cap \text{supp}(g) \neq \varnothing$ for each $1\le i\le n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(K)^{n+\frac{1}{p}-1} \le 2^{n+\frac{1}{p}} \left(1+\frac{1}{pn}\right)^{n}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_k) \right)^{-\frac{1}{p}} \prod_{i=1}^{n} P_{\mu, K}(u_i)^{1+ \frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}{p \sum_{k=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_k) }}.\end{aligned}$$
Before we state our generalization of Ball’s inequality, we introduce another definition. Let $\mathcal{S} = \{(u_i)_{i=1}^{m}\}$ be a set of unit vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then we define $\mathcal{S}^{(1)}$ to be the set of $u_{ij} = \frac{u_i - \langle u_i, u_j \rangle u_j}{|u_i - \langle u_i, u_j \rangle u_j|},$ the normalized projection of $u_i$ onto the hyperplane $u_j^{\perp}$, for $1\le i, j\le m.$ Recursively defining $S^{(k)} = (S^{(k-1)})^{(1)}$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{P}((u_i)_{i=1}^{m}) := \mathcal{S} \cup \mathcal{S}^{(1)} \cup ... \cup \mathcal{S}^{(n-1)},\end{aligned}$$ some finite sets depending on our initial choice of $\{(u_i)_{i=1}^{m}\}$. Our generalization of Ball’s inequality is the following:
Let $\mu$ be a measure with $p-$concave, $\frac{1}{p}-$homogeneous density $g$ for some $p>0$. If $(u_i)_{i=1}^{m}$ are unit vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $(c_i)_{i=1}^{m}$ are positive constant such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{m} c_i u_i \otimes u_i = I_n\end{aligned}$$ and moreover $[-u, u] \cap \text{supp}(g) \neq \varnothing$ for each $u \in \mathcal{P}((u_i)_{i=1}^{m})$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(K)^{n+\frac{1}{p}-1} &\le 2^{n+\frac{1}{p}} \left(\inf_{u \in \mathcal{P}}\tilde{g}(u)\right)^{-1} \prod_{k=1}^{n}\left(1+\frac{1}{kp}\right) \prod_{i=1}^{m} P_{\mu, K}(u_i)^{c_i\left(1 + \frac{1}{pn}\right)}\end{aligned}$$ for any convex body $K$.
Observe that the condition $[-u, u] \cap \text{supp}(g) \neq \varnothing$ is not particularly restrictive. For instance, if we consider $g$ whose support is a half space with boundary a half plane $P$, then the condition simply reduces to the fact that some finite number of points do not lie on $P$.
Consider $g(x) = 1_{\langle x, \theta\rangle>0} \langle x, \theta\rangle^{\frac{1}{p}}$ where either $u_i \not\in \theta^{\perp}$ for $1\le i\le n$ with the assumptions of Theorem 1.6 or $u \not\in \theta^{\perp}$ for each $u \in \mathcal{P}((u_i)_{i=1}^{m})$ in the assumptions of Theorem 1.7. Then, taking $p\to\infty$, Theorem 1.6 and Theorem 1.7 recover the results for Lebesgue measure up to a dimensional constant of $2^n$. The reason for this extra factor of $2^n$ comes from the fact that nonconstant $p-$concave, $\frac{1}{p}-$homogeneous densities are supported on at most a half-space, which therefore restricts us to only being able to get inequalities on ’half’ of our domain.
**Acknowledgements.** I am very grateful to Galyna Livshyts and Kateryna Tatarko for helpful discussions on this topic and comments on this manuscript. I would also like to thank the anonymous referee for comments that improved the exposition of this paper.
[Extension of the Loomis-Whitney Inequality]{}
We begin with a lemma providing us with a lower bound for the measure of a face of a parallelapiped. With homogeneity, this will give us a lower bound for the measure of a parallelapiped, which will be a key ingredient in the proof of Theorem 1.6.
Let $g, \mu, (u_i)_{i=1}^{n}$ be as in the statement of Theorem 1.6, let $$F_i = \{u = \alpha_i u_i + \sum_{j\neq i}\beta_j u_j: |\beta_j| \le \alpha_j \},$$ where $\alpha_1,..,\alpha_n$ are positive constants, and suppose that $u_i \in \text{supp}(g)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{n-1}(F_i) \ge \left(\frac{pn}{pn+1}\right)^n\left(1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}{p \sum_{k=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_k)}\right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \alpha_i^{-1} \prod_{j=1}^{n} \alpha_j^{1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{p\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{n-1}(F_i)$ denotes the integral of $g$ over the $(n-1)-$dimensional set $F_i$.
For simplicity of notations, we deal with the case $i=1$. We begin by writing $\mu_{n-1}(F_1)$ as an integral of $g$ over $F_1$, subdividing the domain of integration, and using homogeneity: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{n-1}(F_1) &:= \int_{\substack{\text{$v = \alpha_1 u_1 + \sum_{j=2}^{n}\beta_j u_j$ } \\ \text{$|\beta_j| \le \alpha_j$}}} g(v) dv \\ &= \sum_{\sigma = (\pm 1, ..., \pm 1)} \int_{0}^{\alpha_n}...\int_{0}^{\alpha_2} g\left(\alpha_1 u_1 + \sum_{j=2}^{n} \beta_j \sigma(j) u_j \right) d\beta_2 ... d\beta_n \\ &= \sum_{\sigma = (\pm 1,...,\pm 1)} \int_{0}^{\alpha_n}...\int_{0}^{\alpha_2} \left( \alpha_1 + \sum_{j=2}^{n}\beta_j\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} g\left(\frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_1 + \sum_{j=2}^{n}\beta_j} u_1 + \sum_{j=2}^{n} \frac{\beta_j}{\alpha_1 + \sum_{j=2}^{n}\beta_j} \sigma(j) u_j \right) d\beta_2 ... d\beta_n \\ &= \sum_{\sigma = (\pm 1,...,\pm 1)} I_{\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ If we take $\sigma'$ such that ${\sigma}'(j)u_j \in \text{supp}(g)$ for each $j$ (which can be done by the hypothesis of Theorem 1.6), then $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{n-1}(F_1) &\ge I_{{\sigma}'}.\end{aligned}$$
By $p-$concavity and the fact that $g(\sigma'(j)u_j) = \tilde{g}(u_j)$, $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\sigma'} &\ge \int_{0}^{\alpha_n}...\int_{0}^{\alpha_2} \left(\alpha_1+\sum_{j=2}^{n} \beta_j\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \left(\frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_1+\sum_{j=2}^{n}\beta_j}\tilde{g}^p(u_1) + \sum_{j=2}^{n} \frac{\beta_j}{\alpha_1+\sum_{j=2}^{n}\beta_j} \tilde{g}^p(u_j) \right)^{\frac{1}{p}} d\beta_2 ... d\beta_n \\ &= \int_{0}^{\alpha_n} ... \int_{0}^{\alpha_2} \left(\alpha_1 \tilde{g}^p(u_1) + \sum_{j=2}^{n}\beta_j \tilde{g}^p(u_j) \right)^{\frac{1}{p}} d\beta_2 ... d\beta_n \\ &= \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \tilde{g}^p(u_i)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \int_{0}^{\alpha_n} ... \int_{0}^{\alpha_2} \left(\alpha_1 \frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_1)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \tilde{g}^p(u_i)} + \sum_{j=2}^{n} \beta_j \frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \tilde{g}^p(u_i)} \right)^{\frac{1}{p}} d\beta_2 ... d\beta_n.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 \frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_1)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \tilde{g}^p(u_i)} + \sum_{j=2}^{n} \beta_j \frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \tilde{g}^p(u_i)} &\ge \alpha_1^{\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_1)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \tilde{g}^p(u_i)}} \prod_{j=2}^{n}\beta_j^{\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \tilde{g}^p(u_i)}}\end{aligned}$$ from the arithmetic mean-geometric mean inequality under the integral gives $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\sigma'} &\ge \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\alpha_1^{\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_1)}{p\sum_{i=1}^{n} \tilde{g}^p(u_i)}} \prod_{j=2}^{n} \frac{1}{1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{p\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}} \alpha_j^{1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{p\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}} \\ &= \left(1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_1)}{p \sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}\right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \alpha_1^{-1} \prod_{j=1}^{n}\frac{1}{1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{p\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}} \alpha_j^{1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{p\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Again by the arithmetic mean-geometric mean inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{j=1}^{n} \left(1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{p\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}\right) &\le \left(1+\frac{1}{pn}\right)^n,\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\sigma'} &\ge \left(\frac{pn}{pn+1}\right)^n\left(1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_1)}{p \sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}\right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \alpha_1^{-1} \prod_{j=1}^{n} \alpha_j^{1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{p\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}}.\end{aligned}$$ By (2.1), our proof is complete.
For the proof of our theorem, we will recall the definition of a zonotope. A zonotope is simply a Minkowski sum of line segments $$\begin{aligned}
Z= \sum_{i=1}^{m}[-x_i, x_i].\end{aligned}$$ By linearity (1.3), if $Z = \sum_{i=1}^{m} \alpha_i [-u_i, u_i]$ for unit vectors $u_i$ and $\alpha_i$ positive constants, then $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1(K,Z) = \sum_{i=1}^{m} \alpha_i \mu_1(K,[-u_i, u_i])\end{aligned}$$ for a convex body $K$. Since our measure $\mu$ is homogeneous, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\mu,K}(u_i) &= \frac{n}{2} \int_{0}^{1} \mu_1(tK, [-u_i, u_i]) dt \\ &= \frac{n}{2} \int_{0}^{1} t^{\frac{1}{q}-1} dt \mu_1(K, [-u_i, u_i]) \\ &= \frac{qn}{2} \mu_1(K, [-u_i, u_i])\end{aligned}$$ by (1.4). Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1(K, Z) &= \frac{2}{nq}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \alpha_i P_{\mu, K}(u_i).\end{aligned}$$
We now prove our theorem:
Let $Z$ be the zonotope $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_i [-u_i, u_i]$ with $\alpha_i = \frac{1}{P_{\mu, K}(u_i)}$ for $1\le i \le n$. By Lemma 1.5, (2.2), and our choice of $\alpha_i$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(K)^{1-q} &\le q\mu(Z)^{-q} \mu_1(K, Z) \\ &= 2\mu(Z)^{-q},\end{aligned}$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(K)^{\frac{1}{q}-1} &\le 2^{\frac{1}{q}} \mu(Z)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Without loss of generality, we assume that $u_i \in \text{supp}(g)$ and $g(-u_i) = 0$ for each $i$. Let $F_i$ denote the face of $Z$ orthogonal to and touching $\alpha_i u_i$, and subdivide $Z$ into pyramids with bases of $F_i$, apex at the origin, and height of $\alpha_i$. By homogeneity, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(Z) &= \sum_{i=1}^{n} \int_{0}^{\alpha_i} \mu_{n-1}\left(\frac{t}{\alpha_i}F_i\right) dt \\ &= \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left(\int_{0}^{\alpha_i} t^{\frac{1}{q}-1} dt\right) \alpha_i^{1-\frac{1}{q}} \mu_{n-1}(F_i) \\ &= q \sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_i \mu_{n-1}(F_i).\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma 2.1, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(Z) &\ge \frac{1}{n+\frac{1}{p}} \left(\frac{pn}{pn+1}\right)^n\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\left( \prod_{j=1}^{n} \alpha_j^{1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{p\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}}\right) \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left( 1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}{p \sum_{k=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_k)} \right) \\ &= \left(\frac{pn}{pn+1}\right)^n\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \prod_{j=1}^{n} \alpha_j^{1+\frac{\tilde{g}^p(u_j)}{p\sum_{i=1}^{n}\tilde{g}^p(u_i)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining this bound with (2.3) and recalling that $\alpha_i = \frac{1}{P_{\mu, K}(u_i)}$, our desired inequality is proven.
[Extension of Ball’s Inequality]{}
As in the previous section, we will require an estimate from below for the measure of a zonotope. However, mimicking the approach of Ball [@ball], rather than estimating the measures of the faces directly, we shall first project them. A main difference from Ball’s proof stems from the lack of translation invariance of our measure, but we will circumvent this obstacle by an appropriate inequality (3.2) coming from concavity.
Let $g, \mu, (u_i)_{i=1}^{m}, (c_i)_{i=1}^{m}$ be as in the statement of Theorem 1.7. Let $Z = \sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_i [-u_i, u_i]$ be a zonotope. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(Z) &\ge \left(\inf_{u \in \mathcal{P}} \tilde{g}(u)\right) \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \frac{k}{k+\frac{1}{p}}\right) \prod_{i=1}^{m} \left(\frac{\alpha_i}{c_i} \right)^{c_i\left(1+\frac{1}{pn}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
Following Ball [@ball], we induct on the dimension $n$. First consider the case $n=1$. We can then assume $u_1 = ... = u_m$ and without loss of generality $g(u_1) = \tilde{g}(u_1) > 0$ and $g(-u_1) = 0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(Z) &= \mu\left(\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_i\right)[-u_1, u_1] \right) \\ &= \int_{0}^{\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_i} g(t u_1) dt \\ &= \left(\int_{0}^{\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_i} t^{\frac{1}{p}} dt\right)g(u_1) \\ &= \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{p}} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_i \right)^{1+\frac{1}{p}} g(u_1).\end{aligned}$$ Since $n=1$, (1.2) implies $\sum_{i=1}^{m} c_i = 1$, and therefore by the arithmetic mean-geometric mean inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{m} \alpha_i &= \sum_{i=1}^{m} c_i \frac{\alpha_i}{c_i} \ge \prod_{i=1}^{m} \left(\frac{\alpha_i}{c_i}\right)^{c_i}.\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof for $n=1$.
Let us assume we now have our result for dimension $n-1$, and consider the case of dimension $n$. Firstly, observe that homogeneity implies $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1(Z,Z) &= \liminf_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{\mu(Z + \varepsilon Z) - \mu(Z)}{\varepsilon} \\ &= \liminf_{\varepsilon \to 0} \mu(Z) \frac{(1+\varepsilon)^{\frac{1}{q}} - 1}{\varepsilon} \\ & = \frac{1}{q} \mu(Z).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(Z) &= q\mu_1(Z, Z) \\ &= q \sum_{i=1}^{m} \alpha_i \mu_1(Z, [-u_i, u_i]) \\ &= q n \sum_{i=1}^{m} \frac{c_i}{n} \frac{\alpha_i}{c_i} \mu_1(Z, [-u_i, u_i]).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\sum_{i=1}^{m}\frac{c_i}{n} = 1$, we use the arithmetic mean-geometric mean inequality once again to get $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(Z) &\ge qn\prod_{i=1}^{m}\left(\frac{\alpha_i}{c_i}\mu_1(Z, [-u_i, u_i])\right)^{\frac{c_i}{n}}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $P_i Z$ denote the projection of $Z$ onto the hyperplane $u_i^{\perp}$. We wish to show $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1(Z, [-u_i, u_i]) &\ge \mu_{n-1}(P_i Z),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{n-1}$ denotes integration of the density $g$ over the $(n-1)-$dimensional set $P_i Z$. This will compensate for the lack of translation invariance of our measure.
By assumption, one of $u_i$ and $-u_i$ lies in $\text{supp}(g)$. Without loss of generality, $u_i \in \text{supp}(g)$. For $w \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $t>0$, concavity and homogeneity give us $$\begin{aligned}
g(w+tu_i) &\ge \left(g^p(w) + t g^p(u_i)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \ge g(w).\end{aligned}$$ To be precise, concavity gives this to us when $w \in \text{supp}(g)$, but when $w \not\in \text{supp}(g)$ this is trivial. This inequality is equivalent to the statement that $$\begin{aligned}
g(w+t_1 u_i) &\ge g(w + t_2 u_i) \end{aligned}$$ for any $w\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $t_1 \ge t_2$.
For each $w \in P_i Z$, let $t(w)\ge 0$ be taken so that $w + t(w) u_i \in \partial Z$. We now write $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1(Z, [-u_i, u_i]) &= \liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0} \frac{\mu(Z + \varepsilon [-u_i, u_i]) - \mu(Z)}{\varepsilon} \\ &= \liminf_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{\mu((Z+\varepsilon[-u_i,u_i])\setminus Z)}{\varepsilon} \\ &\ge \liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0}\frac{\mu((Z+\varepsilon[0,u_i])\setminus Z)}{\varepsilon} \\ &= \liminf_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \int_{P_i Z} \int_{t(h)}^{t(h)+\varepsilon} g(h + s u_i) ds dh,\end{aligned}$$ where our integral of the density is taken over the region $(Z+[0,u_i])\setminus Z$. By (3.3) and continuity, $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \int_{P_i Z} \int_{t(h)}^{t(h)+\varepsilon} g(h + s u_i) ds dh &\ge \liminf_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \int_{P_i Z} \int_{0}^{\varepsilon} g(h+s u_i) ds dh \\ &= \mu_{n-1}(P_i Z).\end{aligned}$$This proves (3.2).
Denoting the projection of $u_j$ onto $u_i^{\perp}$ by $P_i(u_j)$, we have that $P_i Z$ is the zonotope $$\begin{aligned}
P_i Z &= \sum_{j=1}^{m} \alpha_j [-P_{i}(u_j), P_{i}(u_j)] \\ &= \sum_{i=1}^{m} \alpha_i \gamma_{ji} [-u_{ji}, u_{ji}],\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_{ji} = |u_j - \langle u_i, u_j\rangle u_i|.$ A simple computation shows $\gamma_{ji}^2 = 1 - \langle u_i, u_j \rangle^2$.
We also have $$\begin{aligned}
P_{i} &= \sum_{j=1}^{m} c_j P_{i}u_j \otimes P_{i} u_j \\ &= \sum_{j=1}^{m} \gamma_{ji}^2 c_j u_{ji} \otimes u_{ji},\end{aligned}$$ and this is the identity operator on $u_i^{\perp}$. By (3.1), (3.2), and our inductive hypothesis, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(Z) &\ge \frac{n}{n+\frac{1}{p}} \prod_{i=1}^{m} \left(\frac{\alpha_i}{c_i} \mu_{n-1}(P_{i}Z) \right)^{\frac{c_i}{n}}\\ &\ge \prod_{k=1}^{n} \frac{k}{k+\frac{1}{p}} \prod_{i=1}^{m} \left(\frac{\alpha_i}{c_i} \left(\inf_{u \in \mathcal{P}((u_{ji})_{j=1}^{m})}\tilde{g}(u)\right) \prod_{j=1}^{m}\left(\frac{\alpha_j \gamma_{ji}}{c_j \gamma_{ji}^2}\right)^{c_j \gamma_{ji}^2\left(1+\frac{1}{p(n-1)}\right)} \right)^{\frac{c_i}{n}} \\ &\ge \left(\inf_{u \in \mathcal{P}} \tilde{g}(u)\right) \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n}\frac{k}{k+\frac{1}{p}}\right) \prod_{i, j =1}^{m} \left( \left(\frac{\alpha_i}{c_i}\right)^{c_i} \left(\frac{\alpha_j}{c_j \gamma_{ji}}\right)^{c_ic_j \gamma_{ji}^2\left(1+\frac{1}{p(n-1)}\right)} \right)^{\frac{1}{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ From the inequality $\frac{1}{\gamma_{ji}} \ge 1$ and the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{m} c_i \gamma_{ji}^2 &= \sum_{i=1}^{m}c_i(1- \langle u_i, u_j\rangle^2) = n-1,\end{aligned}$$ an appropriate grouping of elements in our product completes the proof.
As before, the proof of Theorem 1.7 now follows:
Let $Z$ be the zonotope $\sum_{i=1}^{m} \alpha_i [-u_i, u_i]$ where $\alpha_i = \frac{c_i}{P_{\mu, K}(u_i)}$ for $1\le i\le m$. By the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 1.6, where we must use (1.2), $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(K)^{\frac{1}{q}-1} &\le 2^{\frac{1}{q}} \mu(Z)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma 3.1, we reach $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(K)^{\frac{1}{q}-1} &\le 2^{\frac{1}{q}} \left(\inf_{u \in \mathcal{P}} \tilde{g}(u) \right)^{-1} \prod_{k=1}^{n} \left(1+\frac{1}{kp}\right) \prod_{i=1}^{m} P_{\mu, K}(u_i)^{c_i \left(1+\frac{1}{pn}\right)}\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
[MR14]{}
K. Ball. Shadows of convex bodies. , 327(2):891–901, 1991.
C. Borell. Convex set functions in [$d$]{}-space. , 6(2):111–136, 1975.
Q. Huang and A.-J. Li. On the [L]{}oomis-[W]{}hitney inequality for isotropic measures. , (6):1641–1652, 2017.
J. Hosle. On the Comparison of Measures of Convex Bodies via Projections and Sections. rnz215, https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnz215.
A.-J. Li and Q. Huang. The [$L_p$]{} [L]{}oomis-[W]{}hitney inequality. , 75:94–115, 2016.
G. Livshyts. An extension of Minkowski’s theorem and its applications to questions about projections for measures. , 356, 2019.
S. Lv. oomis-[W]{}hitney inequalities. , 199:335–353, 2019.
L. H. Loomis and H. Whitney. An inequality related to the isoperimetric inequality. , 55:961–962, 1949.
E. Milman and L. Rotem. Complemented [B]{}runn-[M]{}inkowski inequalities and isoperimetry for homogeneous and non-homogeneous measures. , 262:867–908, 2014.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
J. Ellis$^{1\star}$, E. Torrente-Lujan${}^{2\star}$, G. G. Volkov${}^{1,3\star}$\
[$^1$[*TH Division, Physics Department, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland*]{}\
$^2$[*GFT, Dept. of Physics, Universidad de Murcia,Spain*]{}\
$^3$[*IFT, Univ. Autonoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain,\
on leave from PNPI, Gatchina, St Petersburg,Russia*]{} ]{}\
,,
title: ' The Classification of the Simply Laced Berger Graphs from Calabi-Yau $CY_3$ spaces'
---
Introduction
============
Progress in fundamental physics is dependent on the identification of underlying symmetries such as general coordinate invariance or gauge invariance. The final objective of this work is to look for possible symmetries beyond those of the Standard Model. The latter is based on Cartan-Lie Algebras and their direct products, and is very successful. there have been valiant efforts to extend the Standard Model within the framework of Cartan-Lie algebras and with the objective of, for example, reducing the number of free parameters appearing in the theory. however, attempts to formulate Grand Unified theories in which the direct product of the symmetries of the Standard Model is embedded in some larger simple Cartan-Lie group have not had the same degree of success as the Standard Model. The alternative possibility of unifying the gauge interactions with gravity in some ‘Theory of Everything’ based on string theory is very enticing, in particular because this offers novel algebraic structures.
At a very basic level, and without any obvious direct interest for the content of the Standard Model, Cartan-Lie symmetries are closely connected to the geometry of symmetric homogeneous spaces, which were classified by Cartan himself. Subsequently, an alternative geometry of non-symmetric spaces appeared, and their classification was suggested in 1955 by Berger using holonomy theory [@Berger]. There are several infinite series of spaces with holonomy groups $SO(n)$, $U(n)$, $SU(n)$, $Sp(n)$ and $Sp(n)\times Sp(1)$, and additionally some exceptional spaces with holonomy groups $G(2)$, $Spin(7)$, $Spin(16)$.
Superstring theories offer new clues how to attack the problem of the nature of symmetries at a very basic geometric level. For example, the compactification of the heterotic string leads to the classification of states in a representation of the Kac-Moody algebra of the gauge group $E_8\times E_8$ or $Spin(32)/{ Z}_2$. These structures arose in compactifications of the heterotic superstring on 6-dimensional Calabi-Yau spaces, non-symmetric spaces with an $SU(3)$ holonomy group [@CHSW]. It has been shown [@belavin] that group theory and algebraic structures play basic roles in the generic two-dimensional conformal field theories (CFTs) that underlie string theory. The basic ingredients here are the central extensions of infinite-dimensional Kac-Moody algebras. There is a clear connection between these algebraic and geometric generalizations. Affine Kac-Moody algebras are realized as the central extensions of loop algebras, namely the sets of mappings on a compact manifold such as $S^1$ that take values on a finite-dimensional Lie algebra. Superstring theory contains a number of other infinite-dimensional algebraic symmetries such as the Virasoro algebra associated with conformal invariance and generalizations of Kac-Moody algebras themselves, such as hyperbolic and Borcherd algebras.
In connection with Calabi-Yau spaces, (Coxeter-)Dynkin diagrams which are in one-to-one correspondence with both Cartan-Lie and Kac-Moody algebras have been revealed through the technique of the crepant resolution of specific quotient singular structures such as the Kleinian-Du-Val singularities ${ {\bf C}^2/G}$ [@DuVal], where $G$ is a discrete subgroup of $SU(2)$. Thus, the rich singularity structure of some examples of non-symmetrical Calabi-Yau spaces provides another opportunity to uncover infinite-dimensional affine Kac-Moody symmetries. The Cartan matrices of affine Kac-Moody groups are identified with the intersection matrices of the unions of the complex proyective lines resulting from the blow-ups of the singularities. For example, the crepant resolution of the ${ {\bf C}^2/Z_n}$ singularity gives for rational, i.e., genus-zero, (-2) curves an intersection matrix that coincides with the A$_{n-1}$ Cartan matrix. This is also the case of $K3 \equiv CY_2$ spaces, where the classification of the degenerations of their elliptic fibers (which can be written in Weierstrass form) and their associated singularities leads to a link between $CY_2$ spaces and the infinite and exceptional series of affine Kac-Moody algebras, $A_r^{(1)}$, $D_{r}^{(1)}$, $E_6^{(1)}$, $E_7^{(1)}$ and $E_8^{(1)}$ (ADE) [@Kodaira; @Ber].
The study of the Calabi-Yau spaces appearing in superstring, F and M theories can be approached via the theory of toric geometry and the Batyrev construction [@Bat] using reflexive polyhedra. The concept of reflexivity or mirror symmetry has been linked [@CF] to the problem of the duality between superstring theories compactified on different $K3$ and $CY_3$ spaces. The same Batyrev construction has also been used to show how subsets of points in these reflexive polyhedra can be identified with the Dynkin diagrams [@CF; @CPR; @Greene; @KV] of the affine versions of the gauge groups appearing in superstring and F-Theory. More explicitly, the gauge content of the compactified theory can be read off from the [*dual*]{} reflexive polyhedron of the Calabi-Yau space which is used for the compactification.
In the case of a $K3 = CY_2$ Calabi-Yau space, any subdivision of the reflexive polyhedron into different subsets separated by a polygon which is itself reflexive is equivalent to establishing a fibration structure for the space, whose fiber is simply being the space corresponding to the intermediate mirror polygon. For example, a reflexive polyhedron intersected by a plane yields a planar reflexive polygon separating the ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ subsets in the nomenclature of [@CF], called ‘left’ and ‘right’ in this work. Subsets of points in these reflexive polyhedra are those which can be identified with the Dynkin diagrams [@CF; @CPR; @Greene; @KV] of the affine Kac-Moody algebras. It is however necessary to stress that this task was facilitated by the a priori knowledge of the fiber structure, the reflexive Weierstrass triangle in those cases. Until the emergence of the UCYA, the absence of a systematic way of determining the slice structure in generic $CY_n$ has prevented further progress in this area and the finding of new Dynkin or generalized Dynkin diagrams.
Since Calabi-Yau spaces may be characterized geometrically by reflexive Newton polyhedra, they can be enumerated systematically [@Skarke]. Moreover, one can beyond simple enumeration, as it has been recently realized that different reflexive polyhedra are related algebraically via what has been termed the Universal Calabi-Yau Algebra (UCYA). The term ‘Universal’ is motivated by the fact that it includes ternary and higher-order operations, as well as familiar, beyond binary operations.
The UCYA is particularly well suited for exploring the fibrations of Calabi-Yau spaces, which are visible as lower-dimensional slice or projection structures in the original polyhedra. The knowledge of the slice structure (see table (1) in this work of some illustration) allows us to uncover and understand not only Dynkin structures in K3 and elliptic polyhedra but new graphs in $CY_n$ polyhedra. For an example of an elliptic fibration of a K3 space, see Fig. (1) in Ref.[@Vol] and its accompanying description. The ‘left’ and ‘right’ parts of this reflexive polyhedron both correspond to so-called ‘extended vectors’. In the UCYA scheme, the binary operation of summing these two extended vectors gives a true reflexive vector, that characterizes the full $CY_2 =K3$ manifold. establishing a direct algebraic relation between K3(= CY$_2$) and CY$_3$ spaces. This property is completely general: it has been shown previously how the UCYA, with its rich structure of binary and higher-order operations, can be used to generate and interrelate $CY_n$ spaces of any order. The UCYA provides a complete and systematic description of the analogous decompositions or nestings of fibrations in Calabi-Yau spaces of any dimension.
One of the remarkable features of Fig. (1) in Ref.[@Vol] is that the right and left sets of nodes constitute graphs corresponding to affine Dynkin diagrams: namely the $E_6^{(1)}$ and $E^{(1)}_8$ diagrams. This is not a mere coincidence or an isolated example. As discussed there, in Ref.[@Vol], all the elliptic fibrations of K3 spaces found using the UCYA construction feature this decomposition into a pair of graphs that can be interpreted as Dynkin diagrams.
The purpose of this paper is to continue the work already initiated in Refs.[@Vol; @volemi] on the generalization of the previous results for K3 spaces to Calabi-Yau spaces in any dimension and with any fiber structure. The main objective here is to describe the “simply laced” cases, those graphs obtained from three dimensional spaces with K3 fibers which lead to symmetric matrices. As was first shown in Ref.[@Vol], many new diagrams - which we term ‘Berger Graphs’ - can be found in this way. In Ref.[@volemi] we gave a more formal and comprehensive definition of Berger graphs and matrices. Some examples of planar and non-planar diagrams obtained from CY3 were presented and studied. It was seen there how some of those diagrams could be extended into infinite series while some others could be considered exceptional, not extendable. We hypothesize that Berger graphs correspond, in some manner that remains to be defined, to some new algebraic structure, just as Dynkin diagrams are in one-to-one correspondence with root systems and Cartan matrices in semi-simple Lie Algebras and affine Kac-Moody algebras.
Our final objective would be to construct a theory similar to Kac-Moody algebras, in which newly extensions of Cartan matrices fulfilling generalized conditions are introduced. There are plenty of possible generalizations of Cartan matrices obtainable by modifying the rules for the diagonal and off-diagonal entries in the matrices, and it is impossible to find all of them and classify them. On the other hand, probably not all of them give meaningful, consistent generalizations of Kac-Moody algebras, and probably fewer of them have interesting implications for physics. One has to find natural conditions on these matrices, hopefully inspired by physics. The relation of Berger Graphs to Calabi-Yau spaces could be this inspirational physical link. Once one has the equivalent of the Cartan matrix, one can use standard algebraic tools, such as the definition of an inner product, the construction of a root system, its group of transformations, etc., which could be helpful in clarifying the meaning and significance of this construction.
The structure of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we show how to extract graphs directly from the polyhedra associated with Calabi-Yau spaces and how one can define new, related graphs by adding or removing nodes. We make the important remark that this is possible in the UCYA formalism because because of its ability to give naturally the complex slice structure of the Calabi-Yau spaces. In section 3 we present a review of the formal algebraic definition of Berger graphs and matrices. In section 4 we present a list of simply laced graphs obtained from CY3 spaces and give a general description of their properties. On continuation we illustrate these properties in some more detail with some examples. Finally, in section 4 we draw some conclusions and make some conjectures.
UCYA and generalized Dynkin diagrams.
=====================================
One of the main results in the Universal Calabi-Yau Algebra (UCYA) is that the reflexive weight vectors (RWVs) $\vec{k_n}$ of dimension $n$, which are the fundament for the construction of CY spaces, can obtained directly from lower-dimensional RWVs $\vec{k_{1}}, \ldots, \vec{k}_{n-r+1}$ by algebraic constructions of arity $r$ [@AENV1; @AENV2; @AENV3; @AENV4]. The dimension of the corresponding vector is $d+2$ for a Calabi-Yau $CY_d$ space.
For example, the sum of vectors, a binary composition rule of the UCYA, gives complete information about the $(d-1)$-dimensional slice structure of $CY_d$ spaces. In the K3 case, the Weierstrass fibered 91 reflexive weight vectors of the total of 95 $\vec{k_4}$ can be obtained by such binary, or arity-2, constructions out of just five RWVs of dimensions 1,2 and 3.
In an iterative process, we can combine by the same 2-ary operation the five vectors of dimension $1,2,3$ with these other 95 vectors to obtain a set of 4242 chains of five-dimensional RWVs $\vec{k_5}$ CY$_3$ chains. This process is summarized in Fig. (3) in Ref.[@Vol]. By construction, the corresponding mirror CY$_3$ spaces are shown to possess K3 fiber bundles. In this case, reflexive 4-dimensional polyhedra are also separated into three parts: a reflexive 3-dimensional intersection polyhedron and ‘left’ and ‘right’ skeleton graphs. The complete description of a Calabi-Yau space with all its non-trivial $d_i$ fiber structures needs a full range of n-ary operations where $n_{max}=d+2$.
It has been shown in the toric-geometry approach how the Dynkin diagrams of affine Cartan-Lie algebras appear in reflexive K3 polyhedra [@CF; @CPR; @Greene; @KV; @Bat]. We present an illustratory example in Fig.(\[figxxwe\]) where the decomposition of a K3 polyhedron with an elliptic Weierstrass intersection gives as a result two Dynkin diagrams for $A_6^{(1)}$ and $E(8)^{(1)}$. This example is not an isolated one, all the elliptic fibrations of K3 spaces found using the UCYA technique feature this kind of decomposition into a pair of graphs that can be interpreted as Dynkin diagrams.
As it has been pointed out in the introduction and as it is obvious from the figure(\[figxxwe\]) the task of discerning Dynkin diagrams among all the set of points was facilitated by the a priori knowledge of the intersecting polyhedra, the Weierstrass triangle in that cases. UCYA gives naturally the slice structure in the reflexive polyhedra and the proyective structure in the corresponding mirror polyhedra. The knowledge of these slices is a necessary first step in the uncovering and understanding of new Dynkin or generalized Dynkin diagrams (our Berger diagrams).
It has also been shown [@AENV1; @AENV3; @AENV4], using examples of the lattice structure of reflexive polyhedra for CY$_n: n
\geq 2$ with elliptic fibers, that there is a correspondence between the five basic RWVs (basic constituents of composite RWVs describing K3 spaces, see section 2 in Ref.[@Vol]) and affine Dynkin diagrams for the five ADE types of Lie algebras ( A, D series and exceptional E$_{6,7,8}$).
In each case, a pair of extended RWVs have an intersection which is a reflexive plane polyhedron; each vector from the pair gives the left or right part of the three-dimensional RVW. The construction generalizes to any dimension. In Ref.[@Vol] it was remarked that in the corresponding “left” and right “graphs” of $CY_{3,4,..}$ Newton reflexive polyhedra one can find new graphs with some regularity in its structure.
In principle one should be able to build , classify and understand these regularities of the graphs according to the n-arity operation which originated the construction. For the case of binary or arity-2 constructions: two graphs are possible. In general for any reflexive polyhedron, for a given arity-r intersection, it corresponds exactly $r$ graphs.
In the binary case, the 2-ary intersection (a plane) in the Newton polyhedra, which correspond to the [*eldest*]{} reflexive vector of the series, separate left and right graphs. A concrete rule for the extraction of individual graph points from all possible nodes in the graphs is that they are selected if they exactly belong “on the edges” lying on one side or another with respect the intersection, see figure(\[figxxwe\]). In the ternary case, the 3-ary intersection hypersurface is a volume, which separate three domains in the newton polyhedra and three graphs are possible. Individual points are assigned to each graph looking at their position with respect to the volume intersection (see Tab.(1) in Ref.[@Vol]) for some aclaratory examples).
The emergence of Dynkin diagrams or generalized Berger diagrams in Calabi-Yau reflexive polyhedra is not a mere philatelic curiosity: in a concrete singular limit of the K3 space, there appears a gauge symmetry whose Cartan-Lie algebra corresponds to the Dynkin diagram seen as a graph on one side of Fig. (\[figxxwe\]). In general, the rich singularity structures of K3 $\equiv$ CY$_2$ spaces are closely connected to the affine Cartan-Lie symmetries A$_r^{(1)}$, D$_{2r}^{(1)}$, E$_6^{(1)}$, E$_7^{(1)}$ and E$_8^{(1)}$ via the crepant resolution of specific quotient singular structures such as the Kleinian-Du-Val singularities ${ {\bf C}^2/G}$ [@DuVal], where $G$ is a discrete subgroup of SU(2). For example, the crepant resolution of the ${ {\bf C}^2/Z_n}$ singularity gives for rational, i.e., genus-zero, (-2) curves an intersection matrix that coincides with the A$_{n-1}$ Cartan matrix. Also, in the case of K3 spaces with elliptic fibers which can be written in Weierstrass form, there exists and ADE classification of degenerations of the fibers [@Kodaira; @Ber].
Graphs can directly be obtained from the reflexive polyhedron construction but can also be defined graphs independently of it. New graphs will be derived, or by direct manipulation of the original ones, or from generalized Cartan matrices in a purely algebraic fashion. They will basically consist on the primitive graphs extracted from reflexive polyhedra to whom internal nodes in the edges will have been added or eliminated. The nature of the relation, if any, of the graphs thus generated to the geometry of Toric varieties and the description of Calabi-Yau as hypersurfaces on them is related to the possibility of defining viable “fan” lattices. This is an open question, clearly related to the properties of the generalized Cartan matrices, interpreted as a matrix of divisor intersections.
From Berger graphs to Berger matrices, a algebra review
=======================================================
Once one has established the existence of Dynkin-like graphs, possibly not corresponding to any of the known Lie or affine Kac-Moody algebras, the next step is to encode the information contained in the graphs in a more workable structure: a matrix of integer numbers to be defined. If these “Dynkin” graphs are somehow related to possible generalizations of the Lie and affine Kac-Moody algebra concepts, it is then natural to look for possible generalizations of the corresponding affine Kac-Moody Cartan matrices when searching for possible ways of assigning integral matrices to them. We include here a little review of some definitions and the procedure of the formal definition of Berger matrices already outlined in Ref.[@volemi]. There we mention one possibility which could serve of guide: to suppose that this affine property remains: matrices with determinant equal to zero and all principal minors positive. We will see in what follows that this is a sensitive choice, on the other hand it turn out that the usual conditions on the value of the diagonal elements has to be abandoned.
In first place, the building of Cartan-like matrices from already existing graphs is as follows. We assign to any generalized Dynkin diagram, a set of vertices and lines connecting them, a matrix, $B$, whose non diagonal elements are either zero or are negative integers. There are different possibilities, for non diagonal elements, considering for the moment the most simple case of “laced” graphs leading to symmetric assignments, we have: Case A) there is no line from the vertex $i$ to the vertex $j$. In this case the element of the matrix $B_{ij}=0$. Case B) there is a single line connecting $i-j$ vertices. In this case $B_{ij}=-1$.
The diagonal entries should be defined in addition. As a first step, no special restriction is applied and any positive integer is allowed. We see however that very quickly only a few possibilities are naturally selected. The diagonal elements of the matrix are two for CY2 originated graphs but are allowed to take increasing integer numbers with the dimensionality of the space, $3,4...$ for $ CY_{3,4...}$.
A large number of graphs and matrices associated to them, obtained by inspection considering different possibilities has been checked (see also Ref.[@Vol]). Some regularities are quickly disclosed. In first place it is easy to see that there are graphs where the number of lines outgoing a determined vertex can be bigger than two, in cases of interest they will be 3, graphs from CY3, or bigger in the cases of graphs coming from CY4 and higher dimensional spaces. Some other important regularities appear. The matrices are genuine generalizations of affine matrices. Their determinant can be made equal to zero and all their principal minors made positive by careful choice of the diagonal entries depending on the Calabi-Yau dimension and n-ary structure.
Moreover, we can go back to the defining reflexive polyhedra and define other quantities in purely geometrical terms. For example we can consider the position or distance of each of the vertices of the generalized Dynkin diagram to the intersecting reflexive polyhedra. Indeed, it has been remarked [@CF] that Coxeter labels for affine Kac-Moody algebras can be obtained directly from the graphs: they correspond precisely to this “distance” between individual nodes and some defined intersection which separates “left” and “right” graphs. Intriguingly, this procedure can be easily generalized to our case, one can see that, by a careful choice of the entry assignment for the corresponding matrix, it follows Coxeter labels can be given in a proper way: they have the expected property of corresponding to the elements of the null vector a generalized Cartan matrix.
From the emerging pattern of these regularities, we are lead to define a new set of matrices, generalization of Cartan matrices in purely algebraic terms, the Berger, or Berger-Cartan-Coxeter matrices. This will be done in the next paragraph.
Based on previous considerations, we define now in purely algebraic terms [@volemi], the so called Berger Matrices [@volemi; @Vol]. We suggest the following rules for them, in what follows we will see step by step how they lead to a consistent construction generalizing the Affine Kac-Moody concept. A Berger matrix is a finite integral matrix characterized by the following data: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb B}_{ii}&=&2,3, 4..\nonumber\\
{\mathbb B}_{ij}& \leq& 0,\quad
{\mathbb B}_{ij} \in {\mathbb Z} ,\nonumber\\
{\mathbb B}_{ij}=0 &\mapsto & {\mathbb B}_{ji}=0, \nonumber\\
Det\ {\mathbb B} &=&0,\nonumber\\
Det\ {\mathbb B}_{\{(i)\}} &>& 0.\nonumber
\label{eqsberger}\end{aligned}$$ The last two restrictions, the zero determinant and the positivity of all principal proper minors, corresponds to the [*affine condition*]{}. They are shared by Kac-Moody Cartan matrices, so we expect that the basic definitions and properties of those can be easily generalized. However, with respect to them, we relaxed the restriction on the diagonal elements. Note that, more than one type of diagonal entry is allowed: $2,3,..$ diagonal entries can coexist in a given matrix.
For the sake of convenience, we define also [*“non-affine” Berger Matrices*]{} where the condition of non-zero determinant is again imposed. These matrices does not seem to appear naturally resulting from polyhedron graphs but they are useful when defining root systems for the affine case by extension of them. They could play the same role of basic simple blocks as finite Lie algebras play for the case of affine Kac-Moody algebras.
The important fact to be remarked here is that this definition lead us to a construction with the right properties we would expect from a generalization of the Cartan matrix idea.
The systematic enumeration of the various possibilities concerning the large family of possible Berger matrices can be facilitated by the introduction for each matrix of its generalized Dynkin diagram. As we intend that the definition of this family of matrices be independent of algebraic geometry concepts we need an independent definition of these diagrams. Obviously the procedure given before can be reversed to allow the deduction of the generalized Dynkin diagram from its generalized Cartan or Berger Matrix. An schematic prescription for the most simple cases could be: A) For a matrix of dimension $n$, define $n$ vertices and draw them as small circles. In case of appearance of vertices with different diagonal entries, some graphical distinction will be performed. Consider all the element $i,j$ of the matrix in turn. B) Draw one line from vertex $i$ to vertex $j$ if the corresponding element $A_{ij}$ is non zero.
In what follows, we show that indeed these kind of matrices and Dynkin diagrams, exist beyond those purely defined from Calabi-Yau newton reflexive polyhedra. In fact we show that there are infinity families of them where suggestive regularities appear.
It seems easy to conjecture that the set of all, known or generalized, Dynkin diagrams obtained from Calabi-Yau spaces can be described by this set of Berger matrices. It is however not so clear the validity of the opposite question, whether or not the infinite set of generalized Dynkin diagrams previously defined can be found digging in the Calabi-Yau $(n,a)$ structure indicated by UCYA. For physical applications however it could be important the following remark. Theory of Kac-Moody algebras show us that for any [*finite*]{} or [*affine*]{} Kac-Moody algebra, every proper subdiagram (defined as that part of the generalized Coxeter-Dynkin diagram obtained by removing one or more vertices and the lines attached to these vertices) is a collection of diagrams corresponding to [*finite*]{} Kac-Moody algebras. In our case we have more flexibility. Proper subdiagrams, obtained eliminating internal nodes or vertices, are in general collections of Berger-Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams corresponding to other (affine by construction )Berger diagrams [*or*]{} to [*affine*]{} Kac-Moody algebras. This property might open the way to the consideration of non-trivial extensions of SM and string symmetries.
Next, one consider the Berger Matrix as a matrix of inner products in some root spaces. Morevoer, for further progress, the interpretation of a Berger matrix as the matrix of divisor intersections $B_{ij}\sim D_i\cdot D_j$ in Toric geometry could be useful for the study of the viability of fans of points associated to them, singularity blow-up, and the existence of Calabi-Yau varieties itself. This geometrical approach will be pursued somewhere else [@newtorrente]. However, for algebraic applications, and with the extension of the CLA and KMA concepts in mind, the interpretation of these matrices as matrices corresponding to a inner product in some vector space is most natural which is our objective now.
The Berger matrices are obtained by weaking the conditions on the generalized Cartan matrix ${\hat {\mathbb A}}$ appearing in affine Kac-Moody algebras. In what concern algebraic properties, there are no changes, it remains intact the condition of semi-definite positiviness, this allows to translate trivially many of the basic ideas and terminology for roots and root subspaces for appearing in Kac-Moody algebras. Clearly, the problem of expressing the “simple” roots in a orthonormal basis was an important step in the classification of semisimple Cartan-Lie algebras.
For a Berger matrix $ \mathbb B_{ij}$ of dimension $n$, the rank is $r=n-1$. The $ (r+1)\times (r+1) $ dimensional is nothing else that a generalized Cartan matrix. This matrix is symmetric in all the cases of interest in this work. We expect that a simple root system $\Delta^0=\{\alpha_1,\ldots ,\alpha_r \}$ and an extended root system by $\hat \Delta^0={\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\ldots ,\alpha_r }$, can be constructed. The defining relation is that the (scaled) inner product of the roots is $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_i \cdot \alpha_j &=&\hat {\mathbb B}_{ij}
\qquad 1\leq i,j \leq n.\end{aligned}$$ The set of roots $\alpha_i$ are the simple roots upon which our generalized Cartan Matrix is based. They are supposed to play the analogue of a root basis of a semisimple Lie Algebra or of a Kac-Moody algebra. Note that, as happens in KMA Cartan matrices, for having the linearly independent set of $\alpha_i$ vectors, we generically define them in, at least, a $2n-r$ dimensional space $H$. In our case, as $r=n-1$, we would need a $n+1$ dimensional space. Therefore, the set of $n$ roots satisfying the conditions above has to be completed by some additional vector, the “null root”, to obtain a basis for $H$. The consideration of these complete set of roots will appear in detail elsewhere [@newtorrente].
A generic root, $\alpha$, has the form $$\alpha=\sum_i c_i \alpha_i$$ where the set of the coefficients $c_i$ are either all non-negative integers or all non-positive integers. In this $n+1$ dimensional space $H$, generic roots can be defined and the same generalized definition for the inner product of two generic roots $\alpha,\beta$ as in affine Kac-Moody algebras applies. This generalized definition reduces to the inner product above for any two simple roots.
Since $B$ is of rank $r=n-1$, we can find one, and only one, non zero vector $\mu$ such that $$B\mu=0.$$ The numbers, $ a_i$, components of the vector $\mu$, are called Coxeter labels. The sums of the Coxeter labels $h=\sum \mu_i$ is the Coxeter number. For a symmetric generalized Cartan matrix only this type of Coxeter number appear.
[to modify? XXX]{}
For each affine matrix we can obtain a number of non-equivalent derived non affine matrix of dimension of smaller dimension simply by eliminating one or more of the columns and raws. In terms of the graph, this correspond to the elimination of any one of the nodes. We can explicitly check in all the cases that the determinant of these matrices are strictly positive and that the matrices are positive definite. We can in the same way write the set of roots ${\alpha_i,i=1,\dots,12}$ for this non affine matrix $B^{n-aff}$ such that $B_{i,j}^{n-aff}=\alpha_i \cdot \alpha_j$. New vectors, fundamental weights, that will play an important role later are These fundamental weights are defined as the vectors ${\Lambda_i,i=1,\dots,12}$ such that $\delta_{ij}=\Lambda_i\cdot \alpha_j$. In the basis of the $\alpha_i's$ they are basically given by the coefficients of the inverse of the non-affine matrix $B^{n-aff}$.
The simply laced cases
======================
Let consider the reflexive polyhedron, which corresponds to a K3-sliced $CY_3$ space and which is defined by two extended vectors [@Vol] ${\vec k}_L^{ext}, {\vec k}_R^{ext}$. One of these vectors is coming from the set $S_L=\{(0,0,0,0,{\vec k }_1),(0,0,0,{\vec k }_2), (0,0,{\vec k }_3),..(perms)..\}$, where the remaining dots correspond to permutations of the position of zeroes and vectors $k$, for example permutations of the type $\{ (0,k,0,0,0), (k,0,0,0,0)$, etc }. The other defining vector can come from the set $S_R= \{(0,{\vec k }_4), ...(perms)..\} $, The vectors ${\vec k}_1,{\vec k}_2,{\vec k}_3$ are respectively any of the five RWVs of dimension 1,2 and 3. The vector ${\vec k}_4$ correspond to any of the 95 $K3$ RWVs of dimension four. As a simple example, a generic quintic CY3 can be defined by two extended vectors, $\vec k_{1L}^{(ext)}=(1,0,0,0,0)$ and $\vec k_{2R}^{(ext)}=(0,1,1,1,1)$ (which correspond to the choice $\vec k_4=(1,1,1,1)$). The left and right skeletons of the reflexive polyhedron are determined by extended vectors, $\vec k_{1L}^{(ext)},\vec k_{2R}^{(ext)}$ respectively. The left skeleton will be a tetrahedron with 4-vertices, 6 edges and a number of internal points over the edges as indicated in the Figure 3 of Ref.[@Vol].
The RW-simply-laced vectors for dimension 1,2 and 3 and their graphs have already been considered before, there are five and only five cases:
- dim =1 the vector ${(1)[1]}$ which can be associated to the A series of Dynkin diagrams,
- dim=2, we have the vector ${(11)[2]}$, which is associated to the D series,
- and dim=3, where the set of vectors ${(111)[3], (112)[4],(123)[6]}$, correspond, as firstly shown by Candelas and font, to the affine exceptional algebras $E_{6,7,8}^{(1)}$.
The main objective of this work is to enlarge this list with graphs obtained by vectors of dimension four (corresponding to CY3). In dim=4, corresponding to K3-sliced $CY_3$ spaces, we can single out by inspection the following 14 RW-reflexive vectors from the total of 95- K3-vectors [(1111),(1122), (1113), (1124), (2334),(1344),(1236), (1225),(14510), (1146),(1269),(1,3,8,12),(2,3,10,15)(1,6,14,21)]{}. The graphs corresponding to these vectors can easily be obtained as explained before. From the geometrical construction Coxeter numbers can be easily assigned to each of the nodes of these graphs. Moreover we can assign genuine Berger matrices to them with specially simple properties: they are symmetric, affine (the determinant is zero, the rank one les than the dimension), they lead to the same set of Coxeter as those obtained from the geometrical construction. In addition, each of these graphs and matrices seems not be “extendable”: in contradistinction to other cases, see the discussion in Ref.[@volemi], no other graphs and Berger matrices can be obtained from them simply adding more nodes to any of the legs. In this sense, these graphs are “exceptional”. As with the classical exceptional graphs, series can be traced among them. Apparently these fourteen vectors are the only ones from the the total of 95 vectors which lead to this kind of symmetric matrices.
The exceptional simply laced graphs from CY3
--------------------------------------------
The graphs and matrices of these simply laced graphs, both, those already known of dimension 1,2,3 and those new of dimension 4 share a number of simple characteristics. The cases of dimension 1,2,3 are well known and correspond to the classical Cartan Lie algebras. Our objective is to give a general description of the new graphs. The Berger matrix is obtained from the planar graph according to the standard rules. We assign different values (2 or 3 ) to diagonal entries depending if they are associated to standard nodes or to the central vertex. One can assign to all of these new graphs a Berger matrix with the following block structure: $$\begin{aligned}
B_{SL}&=&
\pmatrix{
A &0 &0 &0 &v_1 \cr
0 &B &0 &0 &v_2 \cr
0 &0 &C &0 &v_3 \cr
0 &0 &0 &D &v_4 \cr
v_1^t &v_2^t &v_3^t &v_4^t &3
}\end{aligned}$$ where $A,B,C,D$ are square matrices of various dimensions with diagonals filled with two, they are the equivalent of the $A_r$ Cartan matrices and the $v_i$ column vectors filled with zeroes except for one negative entry, $v_i^t=(0,\dots,0,-1)$.
A generic graph for anyone of these fourteen vectors is of the form depicted in Fig.(\[figxxgen\]). As we can see in this figure from a central node four legs with respectively $(N_a,N_b,N_c,N_d)$ nodes are attached. Each of the legs correspond to one of the regular blocks of the Berger matrix $SL$. The central node correspond to the one dimensional block filled with 3 in the matrix. The Coxeter labels can given in a systematic way [@Vol; @volemi], they agree with those directly obtained from the matrix $B_{SL}$. Non affine matrices can be obtained eliminating one or more nodes from the legs. Clearly the number of non-affine matrices depends on the number of eliminated nodes and on the symmetry of the diagram. In what follows we will list all the non-affine matrices of dimension one less of the original matrix. In all these cases can be explicitly checked that the matrices are strictly positive definite.
For each diagram, system of roots $\alpha_i$, set of vectors which realize the Berger matrix $SL$ as a matrix of scalar products, can be easily obtained. Given a minimal set of orthonormal canonical vectors $\{ e_{ai}\}$, one can consider roots of the form, for each of the legs $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{ai}&=& e_{ai}-e_{a,i+1}\nonumber\\
\alpha_{bi}&=& e_{bi}-e_{b,i+1}\nonumber\\
\alpha_{ci}&=& e_{ci}-e_{c,i+1}\nonumber\\
\alpha_{di}&=& e_{di}-e_{d,i+1}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the set of roots and vectors are assigned for each of the legs $l=a,b,c,d$ for the sake of clarity. The root corresponding central node, the one corresponding to the entry 3 in the matrix, is assigned $\alpha_{central}=-\left ( \alpha_{a1}+\alpha_{b1}+\alpha_{c1}+\alpha_{d1}\right )$, and $\alpha_{l1}$ are roots corresponding to the nearest nodes. The affine condition is the used to reduce the dimensionality of the space spanned by the $e_i's$. The dimensionality of this space can be furtherly reduced. This can be systematically done in a number of ways: we can write one,two or more roots as a lineal combination of the rest of them with unknown coefficients and ask for the scalar products relations to be fulfilled. For the sake of simplicity let us take as a representative example any of the cases where one of the legs has only one node, i.e. $N_d=1$. We can write $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{ai}&=& e_{ai}-e_{a,i+1},\; i=1,\dots,N_a-1 \nonumber\\
\alpha_{bi}&=& e_{bi}-e_{b,i+1},\; i=1,\dots N_b\nonumber\\
\alpha_{ci}&=& e_{ci}-e_{c,i+1},\; i=1,\dots,N_a-1\nonumber\\
\alpha_{cent}&=& -\left ( e_{a1}+e_{b1}+e_{c1}\right ).\end{aligned}$$ The two roots $\alpha_{a,N_a},\alpha_{c,N_c}$, are obtained by imposing the scalar products conditions. $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{a,N_a}\cdot \alpha_{a,N_a-1}&=&-1,\quad \alpha_{a,N_a}^2=2,\nonumber \\
\alpha_{c,N_c}\cdot \alpha_{c,N_c-1}&=&-1,\quad \alpha_{c,N_c}^2=2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and the mixed relation $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{a,N_a}\cdot \alpha_{c,N_c}&=&0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The root corresponding to the fourth leg, $\alpha_{d1}$, is obtained by imposing the affine condition at the end of the procedure. The coefficients of the affine condition are the Coxeter labels and these are known from the beginning by condition. One can check that the following expression with arbitrary coefficients $x_j$ satisfy automatically the first condition $\alpha_{a,N_a}\cdot \alpha_{a,N_a-1}=-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{a,N_a}&=&\frac{1}{x_1+x_2} \left (
x_1 e_{c,N_c}-x_2 \sum_1^{N_c-1} e_{ci}+x_3 \sum_1^{N_b+1}
e_{bi}+x_4 \sum_1^{N_a}
e_{ai}
\right )
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and similarly for $\alpha_{c,N_c}$ with arbitrary coefficients $y_j$: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{c,N_c}&=&\frac{1}{y_1+y_2} \left (
y_1 e_{a,N_a}-y_2 \sum_1^{N_a-1} e_{ai}+y_3 \sum_1^{N_b+1}
e_{bi}+y_4 \sum_1^{N_c} e_{ci}
\right ).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ These $4+4$ coefficients are constrained from three non-linear equations obtained from the other scalar products. $$\begin{aligned}
2 \left (x_1+ x_2 \right ) &=& x_1^2 + \left (N_c-1 \right ) x_2^2+\left (N_b+1 \right ) x_3^2+ N_a x_4^2 \nonumber \\
2 \left (y_1+ y_2 \right ) &=& y_1^2 + \left (N_a-1 \right ) y_2^2+\left (N_b+1 \right ) y_3^2+ N_c y_4^2\nonumber \\
0&=& x_1 y_4+x_4 y_1- \left (N_c-1 \right ) x_2 y_4+\left (N_b+1 \right ) x_3 y_3-\left (N_a-1\right ) x_4 y_2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Solutions to equations of this type are obtained for a number of cases presented on continuation.
We present in table (\[t1\]) the list of all the 14 RW vectors of dimension four give above. This table contains all the necessary information to write down the matrices and graphs for each case. For each of the vectors we give the list of integers $(N_a,N_b,N_c,N_d)$ which define both, the number of nodes in each of the four legs of the graph, see Fig.(\[figxxgen\]), and the dimension of the each of the block matrices $A,B,C,D$. In Figs.(\[figall1\]-\[figall4\]) we explicitly give all the graphs with their Coxeter Labels. On continuation we include in the table, the dimension of the graph or the matrix, which is equal to the rank plus one and the Coxeter number $h$ which is the sum the list of the Coxeter labels given in the next entry. The last two entries of the table contain information about the non-affine derived matrices. The first number is the number of non equivalent non-matrices of maximal dimension which can be obtained eliminating one of the nodes of the graph (or just one column and row in the respective matrix), the second number is the smallest determinant of any of these non-affine derived matrices. We note that the dimensions of the affine matrices are well bounded in the range $dim \sim (10,50)$ just above the characteristic dimension of the standard affine algebras $E^{(1)}$. We also note that the total number of non-affine matrices obtained from these 14 simply laced cases is 34. The list of the dimensions of these matrices are $(12,14,16,18,20,25,26,27,28,33,50)$ where two series of five and four members can be recognized in addition to two isolated dimensions. It could be instructive to compare the values of the determinants of these non-affine cases with the values for the determinants of the Cartan matrices of the well-known non-affine Cartan-Lie algebras $\det(E_{6,7,8})=3,2,1,\det(F_4,G_2)=1,\det(B_r,C_r)=2,\det D_r=4,\det A_r=r+1$.
We could ask the question on how we could enlarge this list of affine graphs and matrices using our Berger construction. Following Ref.[@volemi], new matrices could be obtained for example starting from any of these graph and inserting additional internal nodes. However these affine matrices seems to be exceptional, no other affine matrices can be obtained from them in this way.
One can also ask the question wether among the graphs and matrices presented in table (\[t1\]) one can find some series in a similar way as the $E_{6,7,8}$ seem to form a series. Candidates for series like that are the graphs of consecutive dimension $(13,14,15)$ and those of the list $(26,27,28,29)$. Indeed one can see that the cases of dimension $13,14,15$ present some similitudes to the $E_{6,7,8}$ series, in particular the root systems of the vectors $(1122)$ and $(2334)$ are related to each other in a similar way as the $E_7^1,E_8^1$ roots are linked.
In the next paragraphs we will deal in some more detail with each of the fourteen cases in turn, paying some more attention to the cases corresponding to the cases of of lower dimension $13,14,15$.
Example: the (1111) case.
-------------------------
We discuss in some detail the first case apearing in table(2), the matrix associated to the vector $(1111)[4]$. The Berger matrix is obtained from the planar graph according to the standard rules. We assign different values (2 or 3 ) to diagonal entries depending if they are associated to standard nodes or to the central vertex. The result is the following $13\times 13$ symmetric matrix containing, as more significant difference, an additional 3 diagonal entry: [$$\begin{aligned}
CY3B_{()}&=&\left (
\begin{array}{ccc|ccc|ccc|ccc|c}
2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 \\
-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1& 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 &-1 & 0 &-1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 & 0 \\
\hline
-1 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 3
\end{array}
\right )\end{aligned}$$ ]{} One can check that this matrix fulfills the conditions for Berger matrices. Its determinant is zero while the rank $r=12$. All the principal minors are positive.
One can obtain a system of roots $(\alpha_i, i=1,\ldots,13 )$ in a orthonormal basis. Considering the orthonormal canonical basis $(\{e_i\}, i=1,\ldots, 12)$, we obtain: [$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1&=& -(e_1-e_2) \nonumber\\
\alpha_2&=& \frac{1}{2} [(e_1 - e_2 - e_3+e_4+e_5+e_6)+(e_8-e_7)] \nonumber\\
\alpha_3&=&-(e_8- e_7) \nonumber\\
\alpha_4&=&(e_4- e_3) \nonumber\\
\alpha_5&=&(e_5- e_4) \nonumber\\
\alpha_6&=&(e_6- e_5) \nonumber\\
\alpha_7&=&(e_1+ e_2) \nonumber\\
\alpha_8&=& -\frac{1}{2} [(e_1 + e_2 - e_9-e_{10}-e_{11}-e_{12})+(e_8+e_7)]
\nonumber\\
\alpha_9&=& (e_8+e_7)
\nonumber\\
\alpha_{10}&=& -(e_{10}-e_9) \nonumber\\
\alpha_{11}&=& -(e_{11}-e_{10}) \nonumber\\
\alpha_{12}&=& -(e_{12}-e_{11}) \nonumber\\
\alpha_{13}&=& e_3-e_2-e_9 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ ]{} The assignment of roots to the nodes of the Berger-Dynkin graph is given in Fig.(\[fig5\]). It easily to check the inner product of these ¨simple roots¨ leads to the Berger Matrix $a_i\cdot a_j=B_{ij}$. This matrix has one null eigenvector, with coordinates, in the $\alpha$ basis, $\mu=(3,2,1,3,2,1,3,2,1,3,2,1,4).$ The Coxeter number is $h=22$. One can check that these Coxeter labels are identical to those obtained from the geometrical construction [@CF; @Vol]. They are shown explicitly in Fig.(\[fig4\]). Correspondingly the following linear combination of the ¨roots¨ satisfies the affine condition: $$\begin{aligned}
4 \alpha_{0}+
3 \alpha_{a1} + 2 \alpha_{a2} + \alpha_{a3} +
3 \alpha_{b1} + 2 \alpha_{b2} + \alpha_{b3} +
3 \alpha_{c1} + 2 \alpha_{c2} + \alpha_{c3}
& =& 0 \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
It is instructive to compare this case with the standard $E_6^{(1)}$ case. The graph associated to this case can be extracted from a $(111)$ reflexive Newton polyhedron. The result appears in Fig.(\[fig4\],center), we obtain the Coxeter-Dynkin diagram corresponding to the affine algebra $E_6^{(1)}$. We can easily check that following the rules given above we can form an associated Berger matrix, which, coincides with the corresponding generalized Cartan matrix of the the affine algebra $E_6^{(1)}$. The well known Cartan matrix for this is: $$\begin{aligned}
E_6^{(1)}\equiv CY B3&=&
\pmatrix{ 2&-1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\cr
-1& 2& 0& 0& 0& 0& -1\cr
0& 0& 2&-1& 0& 0& 0\cr
0& 0& -1& 2& 0& 0& -1\cr
0& 0& 0& 0& 2&-1& 0\cr
0& 0& 0& 0& -1& 2& -1\cr
0&-1& 0&-1& 0&-1& 2}\end{aligned}$$ The root system is well known, we have (in a, minimal, ortonormal basis $(\{e_i\},i=1,...,8$): $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 &=& -\frac{1}{2}(-e_1+e_2+e_3+e_4+e_5+e_6+e_7-e_8)\nonumber\\
\alpha_2 &=& (e_2-e_1) \nonumber\\
\alpha_3 &=& (e_4-e_3) \nonumber\\
\alpha_4 &=& (e_5-e_4) \nonumber\\
\alpha_5 &=& (e_1+e_2) \nonumber\\
\alpha_6 &=& -\frac{1}{2}(e_1+e_2+e_3+e_4+e_5-e_6-e_7+e_8) \nonumber \\
\alpha_7 &=& -e_2+e_3 \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Coxeter labels and affine condition are easily reobtained. The diagonalization of the matrix gives us the zero mode vector, $B\mu=0$. In this case the Coxeter labels are $\mu=(1,2,1,2,1,2,3)$ and $h=12$. The affine condition satisfied by the set of simple roots is also well known $\alpha_1+2 \alpha_2+\alpha_3+2\alpha_4+\alpha_5+2 \alpha_6+3\alpha_7=0$.
From the $(1111)[4]$ $CY3B$ affine matrix we can obtain a derived non affine matrix of dimension $12$ simply by eliminating one of the columns and raws. It is straightforward to write the graph for it. It is obvious for symmetry reasons that in this case there is only one such affine matrix. We can explicitly check that the determinant of this matrix is strictly positive ($det(BE_6)=16$). Furthermore we have checked that the matrix is positive definite. We can in the same way write the set of twelve roots ${\alpha_i,i=1,\dots,12}$ for this non affine matrix $B^{n-aff}$ such that $B_{i,j}^{n-aff}=\alpha_i \cdot \alpha_j$. The fundamental weights ${\Lambda_i,i=1,\dots,12}$ satisfy $\delta_{ij}=\Lambda_i\cdot \alpha_j$. In the basis of the $\alpha_i's$ they can be obtained from the inverse of the non-affine matrix $B^{n-aff}$. The coefficients of fundamental weights $\Lambda_i$ in this baseis are given in the next table: [$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{c|cc|ccc|ccc|ccc|c}
F.W. &\alpha_{a1}&\alpha_{a2}&\alpha_{b1}&\alpha_{b2}&
\alpha_{b3}&\alpha_{c1}&\alpha_{c2}&
\alpha_{c3}&\alpha_{d1}&\alpha_{d2}&
\alpha_{d3}&\alpha_{0}
\\\hline
\Lambda_{a1}&6 & 3 & 6 & 4 & 2 & 6 & 4 & 2 & 6 & 4 & 2 & 8 \\
\Lambda_{a2}&3 & 2 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 4 \\\hline
\Lambda_{b1}&6 & 3 & 15/2 & 5 & 5/2 & 27/4 & 9/2 & 9/4 & 27/4 & 9/2 & 9/4 & 9 \\
\Lambda_{b2}&4 & 2 & 5 & 4 & 2 & 9/2 & 3 & 3/2 & 9/2 & 3 & 3/2 & 6 \\
\Lambda_{b3}&2 & 1 & 5/2 & 2 & 3/2 & 9/4 & 3/2 & 3/4 & 9/4 & 3/2 & 3/4 & 3 \\\hline
\Lambda_{c1}&6 & 3 & 27/4 & 9/2 & 9/4 & 15/2 & 5 & 5/2 & 27/4 & 9/2 & 9/4 & 9\\
\Lambda_{c2}&4 & 2 & 9/2 & 3 & 3/2 & 5 & 4 & 2 & 9/2 & 3 & 3/2 & 6\\
\Lambda_{c3}&2 & 1 & 9/4 & 3/2 & 3/4 & 5/2 & 2 & 3/2 & 9/4 & 3/2 & 3/4 & 3 \\\hline
\Lambda_{d1}&6 & 3 & 27/4 & 9/2 & 9/4 & 27/4 & 9/2 & 9/4 & 15/2 & 5 & 5/2 & 9\\
\Lambda_{d2}&4 & 2 & 9/2 & 3 & 3/2 & 9/2 & 3 & 3/2 & 5 & 4 & 2 & 6\\
\Lambda_{d3}&2 & 1 & 9/4 & 3/2 & 3/4 & 9/4 & 3/2 & 3/4 & 5/2 & 2 & 3/2 & 3 \\\hline
\Lambda_{0} &8 & 4 & 9 & 6 & 3 & 9 & 6 & 3 & 9 & 6 & 3 & 12\\
\hline
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
One could try to pursue the generalization process of graphs and matrices adding internal nodes to this case as it has been done previously. Surprisingly, in contradiction to previous case where an infinite series of new graphs and matrices can be obtained [@volemi], this is however and “exceptional” case. No infinite series of graphs can be obtained in this way. Similarly, one can find generalizations of the $E_7^{[1]}$ and $E_8^{[1]}$ graphs (corresponding to the choice of three dimensional vectors (112),(123)).
Example: the (1122)(6) case
----------------------------
In the next example, one constructs the Berger matrix and graph based of the vector ${\vec k}_4= (1122)[6]$ from $CY_3$. The graph associated to this vector appears in Fig.(\[figall1\],left). The Berger matrix is obtained from the planar graph according to the standard rules. We assign different values (2 or 3 ) to diagonal entries depending if they are associated to standard nodes or to the central vertex. The result is the following $15\times 15$ symmetric matrix [$$\begin{aligned}
CY3B(1122)&=&\left (
\begin{array}{ccccc|ccccc|cc|cc|c}
2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 &-1 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 &-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 &-1 & 0& 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 & 0& 0 &-1 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2&-1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1& 2 &-1 \\
\hline
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 &-1& 0 & 3 \\
\end{array}
\right )\end{aligned}$$ ]{} One can check that this matrix fulfills the conditions for Berger matrices. Its determinant is zero while the rank $r=14$. One can obtain a system of roots $(\alpha_i, i=1,\ldots,15 )$ in a orthonormal basis. Considering the orthonormal canonical basis $(\{e_i\}, i=1,\ldots, 14)$, we obtain: [$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{b5} &=& e_{13}-e_{14} \nonumber\\
&\cdots& \nonumber\\
\alpha_{b1} &=& e_{9}-e_{10} \nonumber\\
\alpha_{c5} &=& e_{8}-e_{7} \nonumber\\
&\cdots& \nonumber\\
\alpha_{c1} &=& e_4-e_3 \nonumber\\
\alpha_{a2} &=&1/2\left ( e_1-e_2-e_3-e_4-e_5-e_6-e_7-e_8\right ) \nonumber\\
\alpha_{a1} &=& e_2-e_1 \nonumber\\
\alpha_{d2} &=&-1/2\left ( e_1+e_2-e_9-e_{10}-e_{11}-e_{12}- e_{13}-e_{14}\right ) \nonumber\\
\alpha_{d1} &=& e_2+e_1 \nonumber\\
\alpha_{0} &=& e_3-e_2-e_9 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ ]{} The assignment of roots to the nodes of the Berger-Dynkin graph is given according to the notation of Fig.(\[figxxgen\]. It easily to check the inner product of these ¨simple roots¨ leads to the Berger Matrix $a_i\cdot a_j=B_{ij}$. This matrix has one null eigenvector, with coordinates, in the $\alpha$ basis, $\mu=(2,4,2,4,1,2,...,5,1,2,...,6).$ The Coxeter number is $h=48$. One can check that these Coxeter labels are identical to those obtained from the geometrical construction [@CF; @Vol]. They are shown explicitly in Fig.(\[figall1\],left). Correspondingly the following linear combination of the roots satisfies the affine condition:
[$$\begin{aligned}
6 \alpha_{0}+
2 \alpha_{a1} + 4\alpha_{a2} +
2 \alpha_{b1} + 4 \alpha_{b2} +
1 \alpha_{c1} + 2 \alpha_{c2} + \dots + 5 \alpha_{c3}+
1 \alpha_{d1} + 2 \alpha_{d2} + \dots + 5 \alpha_{d3}
& =& 0 \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
For this affine matrix we can obtain [*two*]{} non-equivalent derived non affine matrix of dimension $14$ simply by eliminating one of the columns and raws. In terms of the graph, this correspond to the elimination of any one of the nodes labeled with Coxeter labels $1$ or $2$. We can explicitly check that the determinant of these matrices are strictly positive ($det=10,32$ for elimination Coxeter label nodes $1,2$ respectively). Furthermore we have checked that the matrices are positive definite. We can in the same way write the set of roots ${\alpha_i,i=1,\dots,12}$ for this non affine matrix $B^{n-aff}$ such that $B_{i,j}^{n-aff}=\alpha_i \cdot \alpha_j$. The fundamental weights are defined as before. The ones corresponding to the elimination of the Coxeter label 1 node are given in table(\[tw1122\]).
Example: the $(2334)$ and the rest of SL Berger graphs
-------------------------------------------------------
As before, one can construct the Berger matrix and graph based of the vector ${\vec k}_4= (2334)[12]$ from $CY_3$. The graph associated to this vector appears in Fig.(\[figall1\],center). The result is the following, rank $=14$, $15\times 15$ symmetric matrix [$$\begin{aligned}
CY3B(2334)&=&\left (
\begin{array}{cccccc|ccc|ccc|cc|c}
2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 &-1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 &-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 & 0 & 0 &-1 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 &-1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 2 &-1 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 & 0 &-1 & 0 &-1 & 3 \\
\end{array}
\right )\end{aligned}$$ ]{} A system of roots $(\alpha_i, i=1,\ldots,15 )$ in a orthonormal basis. Considering the orthonormal canonical basis $(\{e_i\}, i=1,\ldots, 14)$, we obtain: [$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\\
\alpha_{a5} &=& e_{13}-e_{14} \nonumber\\
&\cdots& \nonumber \\
\alpha_{a1} &=& e_{9}-e_{10} \nonumber\\
\alpha_{b3} &=& e_7+e_8 \nonumber\\
\alpha_{b2} &=&-1/2 \left ( e_2-e_1+ e_3+e_4+e_5+e_6+ e_7+e_8\right ) \nonumber\\
\alpha_{b1} &=& e_2-e_1 \nonumber\\
\alpha_{c3} &=& e_6-e_5 \nonumber\\
\alpha_{c2} &=& e_5-e_4 \nonumber\\
\alpha_{c1} &=& e_4-e_3 \nonumber\\
\alpha_{d2} &=&-1/2\left (e_1+e_2-e_9-e_{10}-e_{11}-e_{12}-e_{13}-e_{14}\right ) \nonumber\\
\alpha_{d1} &=& e_1+e_2 \nonumber\\
\alpha_{0} &=& e_3-e_2-e_9 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ ]{} The null eigenvector has coordinates in the $\alpha$ basis, or Coxeter labels, $\mu=(4,8,3,6,9,3,6,9,2,4,6,8,10,12).$ The Coxeter number is $h=90$. For this affine matrix we can obtain [*three*]{} non-equivalent derived non affine, positive definite, matrices of dimension $14$ simply by eliminating one of the columns and raws. They correspond to the elimination of any one of the extreme nodes labeled with Coxeter labels $2,3,4$. The determinants are $8,18,32$. The fundamental weights corresponding to the elimination of the Coxeter label 2,3 and 4 nodes are given in tables (\[tw2334a\],\[tw2334b\],\[tw2334c\]) respectively.
The analysis of the rest of the graphs, matrices and obtention of roots and vectors is completely similar to the examples presented until now and offer no difficulty: all the information neccesary to recover these cases have been already presented in table (\[t1\]). The complete list of the graphs is explictly presented in the Figs.(\[figall1\],\[figall2\],\[figall3\],\[figall4\]). Additional examples of root systems are presented in tables(\[troots1\],\[troots2\]) and those of weight vectors in table(\[tw1113\]).
Summary, additional comments and conclusions
============================================
The interest to look for new algebras beyond Lie algebras started from the $SU(2)$- conformal theories (see for example [@CIZ; @FZ]). One can think that geometrical concepts, in particular algebraic geometry, could be a natural and more promising way to do this. This marriage of algebra and geometry has been useful in both ways. Let us remind that to prove mirror symmetry of Calabi-Yau spaces, the greatest progress was reached with using the techniques of Newton reflexive polyhedra in Ref.[@Bat].
In this work we have continued the study of the structure of graphs obtained from $CY_3$ reflexive polyhedra focusing on the description of fourteen “simply laced” cases, those graphs obtained from three dimensional spaces with K3 fibers which lead to symmetric matrices. We have studied both the affine and, derived from them, non-affine cases. We have presented root and weight structurea for them. We have studied in particular those graphs leading to generalizations of the exceptional simply laced cases $E_{6,7,8}$ and $E_{6,7,8}^{(1)}$. The graphs and matrices of these simply laced graphs, both, those already known of dimension 1,2,3 and those new of dimension 4 share a number of simple characteristics. The cases of dimension 1,2,3 are well known and correspond to the classical Cartan Lie algebras. The main objective of this work has been to enlarge this list with graphs obtained by vectors of dimension four (corresponding to CY3). In dim=4, corresponding to K3-sliced $CY_3$ spaces, we have singled out by inspection the following 14 RW-reflexive vectors from the total of 95- K3-vectors [(1111),(1122), (1113), (1124), (2334),(1344),(1236), (1225),(14510), (1146),(1269),(1,3,8,12),(2,3,10,15)(1,6,14,21)]{}. Coxeter numbers can be assigned in a consistent way both geometrically and algebraically. Genuine Berger matrices are assigned to them with specially simple properties: they are symmetric and affine. In addition, each of these graphs and matrices seems not be “extendable”: in contradistinction to other cases [@volemi], no other graphs and Berger matrices can be obtained from them simply adding more nodes to any of the legs. In this sense, these graphs are “exceptional”. As with the classical exceptional graphs, series can be traced among them. Apparently these fourteen vectors are the only ones from the the total of 95 vectors which lead to this kind of symmetric matrices.
It is very well known, by the Serre theorem, that Dynkin diagrams defines one-to-one Cartan matrices and these ones Lie or Kac-Moody algebras. In this work, we have generalized some of the properties of Cartan matrices for Cartan-Lie and Kac-Moody algebras into a new class of affine, and non-affine Berger matrices. We arrive then to the obvious conclusion that any algebraic structure emerging from this can not be a CLA or KMA algebra. The main difference of these matrices with respect previous definitions being in the values that diagonal elements of the matrices can take. In Calabi-Yau CY3 spaces, new entries with norm equal to 3 are allowed. The choice of this number can be related to two facts: First, we should take in mind that in higher dimensional Calabi-Yau spaces resolution of singularities should be accomplished by more topologically complicated projective spaces: while for resolution of quotient singularities in K3 case one should use the $CP^1$ with Euler number 2, the, Euler number 3, $CP^2$ space could be used for the resolution of singularities in $CY_3$ space in a non-irreducible way. The second fact is related to the cubic matrix theory[@Kerner], where a ternary operation is defined and in which the $S_3$ group naturally appears. One conjecture, draft from the fact of the underlying UCYA construction, is that, as Lie and affine Kac-Moody algebras are based on a binary composition law; the emerging picture from the consideration of these graphs could lead us to algebras including simultaneously different n-ary composition rules. Of course, the underlying UCYA construction could manifest in other ways: for example in giving a framework for a higher level linking of algebraic structures: Kac-Moody algebras among themselves and with any other hypothetical algebra generalizing them. Thus, putting together UCYA theory and graphs from reflexive polyhedra, we expect that iterative application of non-associative n-ary operations give us not only a complete picture of the RWV, but allow us in addition to establish “dynamical” links among RWV vector and graphs of different dimensions and, in a further step, links between singularity blow-up and possibly new generalized physical symmetries.
. One of us, [G.G.]{}, would like to give his thanks to E. Alvarez, P. Auranche, R. Coquereaux, N. Costa, C. Gomez, B. Gavela, L. Fellin, A. Liparteliani, L.Lipatov, A. Sabio Vera, J. Sanchez Solano, I. Antoniadis, P.Sorba and G. Valente for valuable discussion and nice support. G.G. wish to acknowledge with special gratitude the support of the PNPI ( Gatchina, St Petersburg). We acknowledge the financial support of the Spanish CYCIT funding agency (Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia) and the CERN Theoretical Division. E.T. wish to acknowledge the kind hospitality of the Dept. of Theoretical Physics, C-XI of the U. Autonoma de Madrid.
[99]{}
M. Berger, [*Sur les groupes d’holonomie des varietes a connexion affine et des varietes riemanniennes*]{}, Bull.Soc.Math.France 83 (19955),279-330.)
P. Candelas, G. Horowitz, A. Strominger and E. Witten, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B258**]{} (1985) 46;
A.A. Belavin, A.M. poliakov, A.B. Zomolodchikov, Nucl. Phys. B241,333 (1984).
V. Batyrev, [*J. Algebraic Geom.*]{} [**3**]{} (1994)493;
P. Candelas and A. Font, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B511**]{} (1998) 295;
P. Candelas, E. Perevalov and G. Rajesh, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B507**]{} (1997) 445; P. Candelas, E. Perevalov and G. Rajesh, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B519**]{} (1998) 225;
B.R. Greene, CU-TP-812, hep-th/9702155.
S. Katz and C. Vafa [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B497**]{} (1997) 196;
S. Katz and C. Vafa, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B497**]{} (1997) 146;
G.G. Volkov, hep-th/0402042.
F. Anselmo, J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos and G. G. Volkov, [ Phys.Part.Nucl.]{} [**32** ]{}(2001) 318-375; Fiz.Elem.Chast.Atom.Yadra [**32**]{} (2001) 605-698.
F. Anselmo, J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos and G. G. Volkov, [*Phys.Lett.*]{} [**B499**]{} (2001) 187-199.
F. Anselmo, J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos and G. G. Volkov, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys*]{}. [****]{} (2003),hep-th/0207188.
F. Anselmo, J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos and G. G. Volkov, [*Mod. Phys.Lett.A*]{} [**v.18, No.10** ]{} (2003) pp.699-710, hep-th/0212272.
M. R. Gaberdiel, P. C. West, hep-th/0207032.
R. Carter, G.Segal, I. Macdonald, [*Lectures on Lie Groups and Lie algebras*]{}, [*London Mathematical Society* ]{} [**32**]{} (1995).
E. Torrente-Lujan and G. G. Volkov, arXiv:hep-th/0406035.
L. Frappat, A. Sciarrino, P. Sorba, [*Dictionary on Lie Algebras and Superalgebras*]{} [Academic Press]{} (2000).
J.F. Cornwell, [*Group Theory in Physics, Vol. III*]{}. Academic Press, 1989.
A. Capelli, C. Itzykson and J.-B. Zuber, Commun. Math. Phys. [**184**]{} (1987), 1-26, MR [**89b**]{}, 81178.
P.Di Francesco and J.-B. Zuber, Nucl. Phys. [**B 338**]{} (1990), no 3, 602-646.
R. Kerner, math-ph/0004031, (2000).
P. Du Val, [*Homographies, Quaternions and Rotations*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1964).
K.Kodaira, [ Annals og Mathematics]{}, [**v77**]{}), (1963), 563-626.
M. Bershadsky, K. Intriligator, S. Kachru, D.R. Morrison, V. Sadov, and C. Vafa, [ Nucl. Phys.]{} [**B481**]{} (1996) 215.
W. Skarke, arXiv:hep-th/9803123
J. Ellis,E. Torrente-Lujan, G.G. Volkov , to appear.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the emergent proximity effect in mesoscopic circuits that involve a conventional superconductor and an unconventional pnictide superconductor separated by a diffusive normal or ferromagnetic wire. The focus is placed on revealing signatures of the proposed $s^{+-}$ state of pnictides from the proximity-induced density of states and Josephson current. We find analytically a universal result for the density of states that exhibits both the Thouless gap at low energies, and peculiar features near the superconducting gap edges at higher energies. The latter may be used to discriminate between $s^{+-}$ and $s^{++}$ symmetry scenarios in scanning tunneling spectroscopy experiments. We also calculate Josephson current-phase relationships for different junction configurations, which are found to display robust $0$-$\pi$ transitions for a wide range of parameters.'
author:
- Stanislav Apostolov
- Alex Levchenko
date: 'December 1, 2012'
title: 'Josephson current and density of states in proximity circuits with $s^{+-}$ superconductors'
---
Introduction
============
The origin of unconventional superconductivity in ferropnictide compounds, their phase diagram and symmetry of the underlying order parameter are topics that attract considerable interest in recent years, see Refs. for reviews. Superconductivity in pnictides emerges in close proximity to an antiferromagnetically ordered state, and the critical temperature $T_c$ has a dome-shaped dependence on doping [@PD-Exp-1; @PD-Exp-2] similar to that in cuprates. Due to their multiband electronic structure with multiple Fermi surfaces and delicate interplay of interactions in different channels a number of possibilities for electron ordering are possible. [@Chubukov-PRB08; @Voronstsov-PRB10; @Fernandes-PRB10] Structural transition, competing or coexisting magnetic spin-density-wave (SDW) and superconducting (SC) orders are being examples. The latter may be in the form of the conventional $s^{++}$-wave state that has $s$-wave symmetry in the Brillouin zone and gaps of the same sign on electron and holes Fermi surfaces. Alternatively, SC order may appear in the form of an extended $s^{+-}$ state that looks as $s$-wave from a symmetry point of view but has opposite signs of the gaps on different sheets of the Fermi surfaces. [@s-pm-1; @s-pm-2; @s-pm-3] There may be scenarios of several SC states with the nodes in the SC gap, of both $s$-wave and $d$-wave symmetries. [@s-d-1; @s-d-2; @s-d-3]
Experimentally, the most convincing support in favor of unconventional symmetry of pnictides is given so far by the observed spin resonance below $T_c$ in inelastic neutron scattering measurements on K-doped BaFeAs. [@Christianson-N08] In all the materials studied, the resonance occurs at the antiferromagnetic wave vector $Q$ of the parent compound. It is thought to be a triplet excitation of the singlet Cooper pairs, implying a superconducting order parameter that satisfies $\Delta(k+Q)=-\Delta(k)$, which indicates either $s^{+-}$ or $d$-wave cases. Fabricated $c$-axis Josephson junctions of this material and ordinary superconductor are suggestive of an $s$-wave state, but not providing unambiguous evidence for the $s^{+-}$ state itself. [@Zhang-PRL09] In addition, $ab$-corner-junction experiments with Co-doped BaFeAs seems to eliminate the option of $d$-wave pairing. [@Zhou-ArXiv08] Other notable experiments providing substantial but still indirect support of $s^{+-}$ state include quasiparticle interference in magnetic field probed by scanning tunneling microscopy [@Hanaguri-Science10] and observation of half-integer flux-quantum jumps through the loop formed by niobium and polycrystalline iron-pnictide sample. [@Chen-NP10] Finally, there is a growing number of low-temperatures studies addressing thermodynamics and transport properties of pnictides, however it is usually hard to deduce underlying symmetry of a superconductor from such data. For fully gapped $s$-wave state, one expects to see exponentially suppressed quasiparticle response and power-law in temperature for the $d$-wave state with the nodes. The possible ambiguity in interpretation of data stems from the fact that accidental nodes on the Fermi surface or impurity-induced subgap states may easily alter low-temperature behavior of, for example, heat capacity or London penetration depth.
It is widely agreed that a decisive experiment should involve a phase sensitive probe such as the Josephson effect. Although original proposals [@Mazin-PRL09; @Wu-PRB09] followed mostly immediately after the $s^{+-}$ candidate symmetry was introduced, no such direct measurements of the current-phase relationship have been performed so far for pnictide-based Josephson junctions. Nevertheless, this inspired a lot of theoretical efforts in finding simpler geometries or alternative signatures of $s^{+-}$ pairing state in proximity circuits with pnictides and conventional superconductors. [@Nagaosa-EPL09; @Linder-PRB09; @Tsai-PRB09; @Chen-PRL09; @Ota-PRB10; @Yerin; @Berg-PRL11; @Koshelev-EPL11; @Lin-PRB12; @Vakaryuk] A particularly interesting recent conclusion [@Tsai-PRB09; @Koshelev-EPL11] is that tunneling spectra of weakly coupled $s$-$s^{+-}$ bi-layers exhibit distinct features characteristic only to sign-changing symmetry of the gap. Physically, the effect comes from the frustration in the junction since the gap of an ordinary superconductor tends to align with one of the gaps of $s^{+-}$ superconductor, and thus becomes in the conflict with the other band experiencing the anti-proximity effect.
Theoretical framework
=====================
In this work, we consider plethora of effects in superconductor-metal-superconductor junctions where one or both superconductors are assumed to have $s^{+-}$ symmetry. The metal is either normal or ferromagnetic diffusive wire. In the context of the Josephson effect, in such structures, we find various current-phase relationships whose shapes depend on the relation between the wire length and superconducting coherence length, and boundary transparency. The generic feature is non-analytical behavior of the current near phase $\pi$, which corresponds to the closing of the proximity-induced gap in the wire, and robust $0$-$\pi$ oscillations even without ferromagnets. In the context of the proximity-induced density of states (DOS) in the wire, we identify fingerprints of the $s^{+-}$ symmetry, which is thus not only unique to frustrated $s$-$s^{+-}$ bi-layers.
We build our calculations based on the Usadel equations [@Usadel] and accompanying Kupriyanov-Lukichev boundary conditions [@KL] modified for a multiband case. [@BGK] This quasiclassical theory captures all the essential features and full complexity of the proximity effect. Adopting angular parametrization for the normal and anomalous quasiclassical Green’s functions [@Belzig] as $G=\cos\theta(\omega,x)$ and $F=\sin\theta(\omega,x)e^{i\chi(\omega,x)}$, Usadel equations take the form
$$\label{Usadel-Eq1}
\partial^2_x\theta-(2\omega/\varepsilon_{Th})\sin\theta=
(\partial_x\chi)^2\sin\theta\cos\theta,$$
$$\label{Usadel-Eq2}
\partial_x(\sin^2\theta\partial_x\chi)=0,$$
where $\omega=(2n+1)\pi T$ is Matsubara frequency, $\varepsilon_{Th}=D/L^2$ is the Thouless energy for the wire of length $L$, and $D$ is the diffusion coefficient. Spatial derivatives are taken with respect to the dimensionless coordinate $x\to x/L$ and we assume quasi-one-dimensional geometry. At the interface, we have two boundary conditions:
$$\label{Boundary-Cond1}
J_\omega=2\sum_{\lambda=1,2}(\delta_\lambda/\gamma_{\lambda})
\sin\theta_B\sin\theta_{s\lambda}\sin\psi,$$
$$\label{Boundary-Cond2}
\partial_x\theta_B\!=2\!\!\sum_{\lambda=1,2}\!\!
\frac{\cos\theta_{s\lambda}\sin\theta_B}{\gamma_\lambda}\!
\left[\delta_\lambda\tan\theta_{s\lambda}\cot\theta_B\cos\psi
-1\right].$$
Here, $J_\omega$ denotes the first integral of Eq. , index $\lambda$ labels different bands, $\psi=(\phi-2\chi_B)/2$ and $\phi$ stands for the global superconducting phase difference across the junction, while factors $\delta_\lambda=\pm1$ account for the relative shifts of phases between the bands, and finally parameters $\gamma_\lambda$ represent dimensionless interface resistances. We also used notations $\theta_B=\theta(\omega,\pm1/2)$ and similar for $\chi_B$, and introduced Green’s functions of a superconductor in the bulk: $\sin\theta_{s\lambda}=|\Delta_\lambda|/\sqrt{|\Delta_\lambda|^2+\omega^2}$ and $\cos\theta_{s\lambda}=\omega/\sqrt{|\Delta_\lambda|^2+\omega^2}$, with $\Delta_{\lambda}$ being corresponding gaps. Having solved Usadel equations, one can find a density of states $$\label{N-def}
N(\varepsilon,x)/N_0=\mathrm{Re}[\cos(\omega,x)]_{\omega\to
i\varepsilon}$$ upon analytical continuation to real energies, and a Josephson current-phase relationship $$\label{I-def}
eI(\phi)R_N=2\pi
T\sum_{\omega}J_\omega=\int\tanh\frac{\varepsilon}{2T}\mathrm{Im}J_\varepsilon
d\varepsilon$$ upon summation over Matsubara frequencies, where $N_0$ is bare density of states in a metal and $R_N=L/e^2DN_0S$ is normal state wire resistance of cross-section area $S$.
Density of states
=================
Consider a symmetric $s|n|s$ junction. In the absence of superconducting phase difference between the leads we have $\chi=0$ and the whole system of equations simplifies to one: $$\partial^2_x\theta-(2\omega/\varepsilon_{Th})\sin\theta=0,$$ which has to be solved for $x\in[-1/2,1/2]$. Since this is the same equation as for the nonlinear pendulum it can be integrated exactly in terms of the Jacobi elliptic functions. Indeed, the above equation has a simple first integral: $$(\partial_x\theta)^2=(4\omega/\varepsilon_{Th})[\cos\theta_0-\cos\theta],$$ where integration constant $\theta_0=\theta(\omega,0)$ was chosen to be at the middle of the wire due to obvious symmetry reasons. To perform a subsequent second integration, we change variables as $$\label{m}
\cos\theta=\frac{2m\cos^2\phi}{1-m\sin^2\phi}-1,\quad
m=\cos^2(\theta_0/2),$$ and find $$x\sqrt{\frac{2\omega}{\varepsilon_{Th}}}=\int^{\phi}_{0}\frac{d\phi}{\sqrt{1-m\sin^2\phi}},$$ which is a tabulated integral. Finally, using the Jacobi elliptic functions ${\mathop{\rm cn}\nolimits}$ and ${\mathop{\rm dn}\nolimits}$, the solution appears in the form $$\label{theta-dos}
\cos[\theta(\omega,x)/2]=\cos(\theta_0/2)\frac{{\mathop{\rm cn}\nolimits}(u,m)}{{\mathop{\rm dn}\nolimits}(u,m)},\quad
u=x\sqrt{\frac{2\omega}{\varepsilon_{Th}}}.$$ It is important to keep in mind that the modulus of the Jacobi functions is actually an energy-dependent function $m(\omega)$, see Eq. . By using now Eq. in the boundary condition Eq. , one finds a closed algebraic equation for the unknown integration coefficient in the form $$\begin{aligned}
u_B\sqrt{1+m}\frac{{\mathop{\rm sn}\nolimits}(u_B,m)}{{\mathop{\rm dn}\nolimits}(u_B,m)}+
\mathcal{F}\frac{{\mathop{\rm cn}\nolimits}(u_B,m)}{{\mathop{\rm dn}\nolimits}^2(u_B,m)}\nonumber\\=
\frac{\mathcal{G}}{\sqrt{m(1-m)}}
\left[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1-m}{{\mathop{\rm dn}\nolimits}^2(u_B,m)}\right]\label{Boundary-Cond-u}\end{aligned}$$ where $u_B=\sqrt{\omega/2\varepsilon_{Th}}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}(\omega)=\sum_{\lambda}\cos\theta_{s\lambda}/\gamma_\lambda=
\sum_\lambda\frac{\omega}{\gamma_\lambda\sqrt{|\Delta_\lambda|^2+\omega^2}},\label{G}\\
\mathcal{F}(\omega)=\sum_{\lambda}\delta_\lambda\sin\theta_{s\lambda}/\gamma_\lambda=
\sum_\lambda\frac{\delta_\lambda|\Delta_\lambda|}{\gamma_\lambda\sqrt{|\Delta_\lambda|^2+\omega^2}}.\label{F}\end{aligned}$$ Equation defines $m$ and thus $\theta_0$ as a function of energy $\omega$ and together with Eqs. and it provides a complete analytical solution for the Green’s function in the wire.
![Representative density of states spectrum in the normal wire as induced by the proximity effect between two $s^{++}$ two-band superconductors. Inset shows parameters, and bulk gaps were normalized to the Thouless energy $\tilde{\Delta}_\lambda=\Delta_\lambda/\varepsilon_{Th}$.[]{data-label="Fig-DOS1"}](Fig-DOS1.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
In particular, we can find density of states in the middle of the wire as $N(\varepsilon)/N_0=\mathrm{Re}[2m(i\varepsilon)-1]$, which exhibits very rich structure. Indeed, Fig. \[Fig-DOS1\] shows representative profiles of $N(\varepsilon)$ in $s^{++}|n|s^{++}$ junction for different choice of parameters. One finds a proximity-induced energy gap $\varepsilon_g$ in the spectrum of a wire, which scales with the Thouless energy $\varepsilon_g\sim\varepsilon_{Th}$. Asymptotic analysis near the gap, $\varepsilon-\varepsilon_g\ll\varepsilon_g$, shows that DOS has a square-root singularity $N(\varepsilon)\propto\sqrt{\varepsilon/\varepsilon_g-1}$, similar to that in a single-band $s|n|s$ junctions. [@AL-DOS] $N(\varepsilon)$ then rapidly grows, passes through the maximum and has two additional peak-like features at higher energies near the superconductive band gaps $\Delta_{\lambda}$. This picture has to be contrasted to the DOS profile in $s^{+-}|n|s^{+-}$ junctions shown in Fig. \[Fig-DOS2\]. The low-energy behavior is similar but the energy gap is reduced due to anti-proximity effect induced by the $\pi$-shifted band. The conceptual difference appears near the band gaps $\Delta_{\lambda}$ where instead of peaks one finds Fano-like antisymmetric features. This important detail is specific for the $s^{+-}$ symmetry case and can be looked for in the tunneling experiments.
![Representative density of states spectrum in the normal wire as induced by the proximity effect between two $s^{+-}$ two-band superconductors. The anti-symmetric Fano-like features near the gap edges $\tilde{\Delta}_\lambda=\Delta_\lambda/\varepsilon_{Th}$ may provide a definite fingerprint of $s^{+-}$-superconductivity.[]{data-label="Fig-DOS2"}](Fig-DOS2.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
Josephson current
=================
Phase-sensitive measurements are clearly more challenging. Nevertheless, we develop a theory for the Josephson effect in mesoscopic $s|n|s^{+-}$ circuits with the idea that some limits considered here will be useful for the future experiments.
In the presence of a superconducting phase gradient in the wire finding an analytical solution of Usadel equations represents a difficult technical problem. In the limit of the long junctions however $L\gg\sqrt{D/T}$ calculation of the Josephson current simplifies considerably. In this case, it is possible to neglect the mutual role of superconducting leads and introduce an ansatz for the anomalous Green’s function $F=e^{i\phi/2}\sin\theta^R+e^{-i\phi/2}\sin\theta^L$, where the functions $\theta^{R(L)}$ satisfy the same sin-Gordon equation as in the case of DOS calculations. Solving it separately near right (left) boundary for $\theta^{R(L)}$ respectively we find [@Zaikin] $$\tan[\theta^{R(L)}(x,\omega)/4]=\mathcal{B}_{R(L)}(\omega)
\exp[\pm(x\mp 1/2)L/\xi_\omega]$$ where we introduced coherence length $\xi_\omega=\sqrt{D/2\omega}$. This approximation conserves the current in the normal layer with the exception of the narrow region of the order $\xi_{\omega=T}$ near the boundaries. The two integration coefficients $\mathcal{B}_{R(L)}$ are to be found from the boundary conditions Eq. at both interfaces, which can be reduced to the algebraic equation: $$\begin{aligned}
4\mathcal{G}_\alpha(\mathcal{B}_\alpha-\mathcal{B}^3_\alpha)-
\mathcal{F}_\alpha(1-6\mathcal{B}^2_\alpha+\mathcal{B}^4_\alpha)\nonumber\\
=\pm2(L/\xi_\omega)(\mathcal{B}_\alpha+\mathcal{B}^3_\alpha),\quad
\alpha=R,L\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{F}$-functions were defined earlier in Eqs. and . With this at hand, we find Josephson current in the form $$\label{I-sns-long}
eI(\phi)R_N=128\pi T\sin\phi \sum_{\omega>0}\frac{L}{\xi_\omega}
\mathcal{B}_{R}(\omega)\mathcal{B}_{L}(\omega)e^{-L/\xi_\omega}$$ which is applicable in the broad range of temperatures $\varepsilon_{Th}\ll T\lesssim|\Delta_\lambda|$. At lowest temperatures $T\ll\varepsilon_{Th}$, the current-phase relationship in Eq. deviates from being simply sinusoidal because a separable approximation for $F$-function fails to account properly for the proximity-induced Thouless gap. Unfortunately, analytical calculation of $I(\phi)$ is not possible in this limit, however one may easily estimate the magnitude of the critical current as $eI_cR_N\sim\varepsilon_{Th}$. Furthermore, it is expected that $I(\phi)$ will be nonanalytical function near $\phi=\pi$ since the proximity gap closes at that point while the current is proportional to its derivative $I(\phi)\propto\partial_\phi\varepsilon_g(\phi)$.
![(Top) Critical current for $s|n|s^{+-}$ junction vs boundary resistance mismatch $r_\gamma$. In the inset, $\Delta_s$ labels the gap of an ordinary superconductor, while $\Delta_{1,2}$ are the two gaps of an $s^{+-}$ superconductor. The other parameters are $T=0.5\Delta_s$, $\gamma_1=\gamma_s=5$, and $L/\xi_{\pi T}=2$. (Bottom) Critical current for $s|f|s^{+-}$ junction vs boundary resistance mismatch $r_\gamma$ for $T=0.3\Delta_s$, $\Delta_1=0.5\Delta_s$, $\Delta_2=1.5\Delta_s$, and $h=3\Delta_s$.[]{data-label="Fig-I-SFS"}](Fig-SFS.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
We plot in Fig. \[Fig-I-SFS\] the critical current from Eq. as a function of the ratio between the interface barriers for each band $r_\gamma=\gamma_1/\gamma_2$. It is well known that for the conventional superconductors, $I_c$ decays monotonously with $r_\gamma$, however, for $s|n|s^{+-}$ junction critical current displays clear $0-\pi$ switching. [@Chen-PRL09; @Linder-PRB09; @Berg-PRL11; @Vakaryuk] This effect is magnified in the presence of ferromagnetic layer. Including the exchange field $h$ in Eq. as $\omega\to\omega+ih{\mathop{\rm sign}\nolimits}(\omega)$, but ignoring spin-flip and spin-orbital scattering, we find from the linearized Usadel equations the current in $s|f|s^{+-}$ junction $I(\phi)=I_c\sin\phi$ with $$\label{I-sfs-long}
eI_cR_N=4\pi T\!\!\sum^{\infty}_{\omega=-\infty}\!\!
\frac{(L/\xi_{|\omega|})(\mathcal{F}_R\mathcal{F}_L/\mathcal{G}_R\mathcal{G}_L)/\cosh(L/\xi_{|\omega|})}
{(1+\Gamma^2_\omega)\tanh(L/\xi_{|\omega|})+\Gamma_\omega\mu_\omega}$$ where $\Gamma_\omega=L/2\xi_{|\omega|}\sqrt{\mathcal{G}_R\mathcal{G}_L}$ and $\mu_\omega=(\mathcal{G}_R+\mathcal{G}_L)/\sqrt{\mathcal{G}_R\mathcal{G}_L}$. Equation is the generalization of the Buzdin formula [@Buzdin-PRB03] for the multi-band case. Lower panel of Fig. \[Fig-I-SFS\] shows enhanced $0$-$\pi$ oscillations of the critical current as a function of $r_\gamma$, which displays two zero points. Such a peculiar feature is due to the combination of a ferromagnet and $s^{+-}$ superconductor.
![Josephson current-phase relationship for short $s|n|s^{+-}$ junction for gaps $\Delta_1= 0.5\Delta_s$, $\Delta_2=1.5\Delta_s$, and interface parameters $\gamma_s=2$, $\gamma_1=2.4$, $\gamma_2=1.8$.[]{data-label="Fig-I-ph"}](Fig-I-ph.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
In the Josephson junction with extremely low barrier transparency when $\gamma_\lambda\gg1$, one can circumvent the need of solving Usadel equation in the wire since current is largely determined by the interface. Superconductive phase $\phi$ changes discontinuously at the barriers and stays nearly zero within the interior of the wire while Green’s function phase $\theta$ is approximately constant. Since $J_\omega\propto\gamma^{-1}\ll1$, then to the leading order, one can set $\chi_B=0$ in Eq. and $\partial_x\theta=0$ in Eq. . These approximations allow to find the spectral current, $$J_\omega=\mathcal{F}^2\sin\phi
\left[\mathcal{G}^2+\mathcal{F}^2\cos^2\frac{\phi}{2}\right]^{-1/2},$$ where we assumed $s^{+-}|n|s^{+-}$ geometry. For the equal gaps case $\Delta_1=\Delta_2\equiv\Delta_s$, above the spectral current $J_\omega$ leads to the Josephson current-phase relationship from Eq. : $$\begin{aligned}
&&eI(\phi)R_N=\frac{\mu^2(1+r_\gamma)}{2\gamma_1}\Delta_s\sin
\phi\nonumber\\
&&\times\int^{\Delta_s}_{\mu\Delta_s\cos\frac{\phi}{2}}
\frac{\tanh(\varepsilon/2T)d\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\Delta^2_s-\varepsilon^2}
\sqrt{\varepsilon^2-\mu^2\Delta^2_s\cos^2\frac{\phi}{2}}}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_\gamma=\gamma_1/\gamma_2$ and $\mu=(1-r_\gamma)/(1+r_\gamma)$. Interestingly, in the zero-temperature limit, even the remaining energy integral can be completed in the closed form, such that we find a Josephson current $$eI(\phi)R_N=\frac{(\gamma_2-\gamma_1)^2\Delta_s\sin\phi}{\gamma_1\gamma_2(\gamma_1+\gamma_2)}
K\!\left[1-\left(\frac{\gamma_2-\gamma_1}{\gamma_2+\gamma_1}\right)^2\!\!
\cos^2\frac{\phi}{2}\right],$$ where $K(x)$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. In the completely symmetric case (with equal transparencies for both bands), the Josephson current vanishes, since the $\pi$-shifted bands drive it in the opposite directions. However, including interband scattering effects may result in additional nonvanishing contributions. [@Yerin]
Analytical results are also possible for arbitrary transparencies but for the short junctions when $L\ll\xi_{\omega=\Delta_\lambda}$. In this case, Usadel equations are dominated by the gradient terms. Despite the fact that they remain coupled and nonlinear, all integrations can be completed in the closed form. [@AL-I] By using the first integral of Eq. , $J_\omega=\sin^2\theta\partial_x\chi$ and excluding $\partial_x\chi$ from Eq. , one finds $$\partial^2_x\theta=\frac{J^2_\omega\sin(2\theta)}{2\sin^4\theta}.$$ This nonlinear differential equation is solved by $$\cos[\theta(x,\omega)]=\cos\theta_0\cos[J_\omega(x-x_0)/\sin\theta_0].$$ Knowing $\theta(x,\omega)$, one can now calculate the second integral of Eq. , $$\chi-\chi_0=J_\omega\int^{x}_{x_0}\frac{dx}{\sin^2\theta},$$ which reads $$\sin\theta_0\tan[\chi(x,\omega)-\chi_0]=\tan[J_\omega(x-x_0)/\sin\theta_0].$$ Having found explicit solutions for the Green’s functions, the boundary problem for the integration coefficients can be reduced to solving three algebraic equations: $$\begin{aligned}
J_\omega=\mathcal{F}_L\sin\theta_B\sin(\chi_B+\phi/2),\\
J_\omega=\mathcal{F}_R\sin\theta_B\sin(\phi/2-\chi_B),\\
\mathcal{F}_L\cos\theta_B\cos(\chi_B+\phi/2)-\mathcal{G}_L\sin\theta_B\nonumber\\
=\mathcal{F}_R\cos\theta_B\cos(\chi_B-\phi/2)-\mathcal{G}_R\sin\theta_B.\end{aligned}$$ These expressions finally lead us to the Josephson current-phase relationship in the form $$\label{I-sns-short}
eI(\phi)R_N=8\pi
T\!\!\sum_\omega\!\frac{\mathcal{A}(\phi)\sin\phi}{\mathcal{F}^{-1}_R+\mathcal{F}^{-1}_L}\!
\left[\mathcal{A}^2(\phi)+\frac{(\mathcal{G}_R-\mathcal{G}_L)^2}
{(\mathcal{F}_R-\mathcal{F}_L)^2}\right]^{-\frac{1}{2}},$$ where $$\mathcal{A}(\phi)=\left[\cos^2\frac{\phi}{2}+
\frac{(\mathcal{F}_R-\mathcal{F}_L)^2}
{(\mathcal{F}_R+\mathcal{F}_L)^2}\sin^2\frac{\phi}{2}\right]^{-1/2}.$$ A representative feature of Eq. is that $I(\phi)$ switches its sign in between $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi$ as shown in Fig. \[Fig-I-ph\]. This implies that the free energy of $s|n|s^{+-}$ junction has two minima and such junction may be used as the phase inverted in superconducting digital circuits. Such feature, however, is not unique for $s^{+-}$ superconductors and can be realized in other complex hybrid circuits with ordinary materials. [@Golubov-RMP04]
In summary, we have studied the density of states and Josephson current in mesoscopic circuits with unconventional $s^{+-}$ superconductors. We find that tunneling spectra have distinct fingerprints of the sign changing symmetry of the underlying superconductive order parameter induced by the proximity effect. Furthermore, the critical current exhibits a robust $\pi$ junction even in the absence of the ferromagnetic layer. The Josephson current-phase relationship itself is not indicative of $s^{+-}$ symmetry due to the sensitivity to parameters defining the junction.
We would like to thank Maxim Vavilov for useful discussions, Valentin Stanev for correspondence regarding Ref. , and Norman Birge for reading and commenting on the paper. This work was supported by Michigan State University.
[99]{}
I. I. Mazin and J. Schmalian, Physica C **469**, 614 (2009).
J. Paglione and R. L. Greene, Nat. Phys. **6**, 645 (2010).
A. Chubukov, Ann. Rev. Cond. Mat. Phys. **3**, 57 (2012).
H. Luetkens, H.-H. Klauss, M. Kraken, F. J. Litterst, T. Dellmann, R. Klingeler, C. Hess, R. Khasanov, A. Amato, C. Baines, M. Kosmala, O. J. Schumann, M. Braden, J. Hamann-Borrero, N. Leps, A. Kondrat, G. Behr, J. Werner, and B. Büchner, Nature Mater. **8**, 305 (2009).
A. J. Drew, Ch. Niedermayer, P. J. Baker, F. L. Pratt, S. J. Blundell, T. Lancaster, R. H. Liu, G. Wu, X. H. Chen, I. Watanabe, V. K. Malik, A. Dubroka, M. Rössle, K. W. Kim, C. Baines, and C. Bernhard, Nature Mater. **8**, 310 (2009).
A. V. Chubukov, D. V. Efremov, and I. Eremin, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 134512 (2008).
A. B. Vorontsov, M. G. Vavilov, and A. V. Chubukov, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 174538 (2010).
R. M. Fernandes and J. Schmalian, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 014521 (2010).
I. I. Mazin, D. J. Singh, M. D. Johannes, and M. H. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 057003 (2008).
K. Kuroki, S. Onari, R. Arita, H. Usui, Y. Tanaka, H. Kontani, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 087004 (2008).
V. Barzykin and L. P. Gorkov, JETP Lett. **88**, 131 (2008).
K. Seo, B. A. Bernevig, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 206404 (2008).
T. A. Maier, S. Graser, D. J. Scalapino, P. J. Hirschfeld,, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 224510 (2009).
A. V. Chubukov, M. G. Vavilov, and A. B. Vorontsov, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 140515(R) (2009).
A. D. Christianson, E. A. Goremychkin, R. Osborn, S. Rosenkranz, M. D. Lumsden, C. D. Malliakas, I. S. Todorov, H. Claus, D. Y. Chung, M. G. Kanatzidis, R. I. Bewley, T. Guidi, Nature **456**, 930 (2008).
X. Zhang, Y. S. Oh, Y. Liu, L. Yan, K. H. Kim, R. L. Greene, and I. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 147002 (2009).
Y.-R. Zhou, Y.-R. Li, J.-W. Zuo, R.-Y. Liu, S.-K. Su, G. F. Chen, J. L. Lu, N. L. Wang, Y.-P. Wang, arXiv:0812.3295.
T. Hanaguri, S. Niitaka, K. Kuroki, H. Takagi, Science **328**, 474 (2010).
C.-T. Chen, C. C. Tsuei, M. B. Ketchen, Z.-A. Ren, and Z. X. Zhao, Nat. Phys. **6**, 260 (2010).
D. Parker and I. I. Mazin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 227007 (2009); A. A. Golubov and I. I. Mazin, arXiv:1209.2944.
J. Wu and P. Phillips, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 092502 (2009).
T. K. Ng and N. Nagaosa, Europhys. Lett. **87**, 17003 (2009).
J. Linder, I. B. Sperstad, and A. Sudbo, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 020503(R) (2009).
W.-F. Tsai, D.-X. Yao, B. A. Bernevig, and J. P. Hu, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 012511 (2009).
W.-Q. Chen, F. Ma, Z.-Y. Lu, and F.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 207001 (2009).
Y. Ota, M. Machida, T. Koyama, and H. Matsumoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 237003 (2009); *ibid* Phys. Rev. B **81**, 214511 (2010).
Yu. Erin and A. N. Omelyanchuk, Low. Temp. Phys. **36**, 969 (2010).
E. Berg, N. H. Lindner and T. Pereg-Barnea, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 147003 (2011).
A. E. Koshelev and V. Stanev, Europhys. Lett. **96**, 27014 (2011); *ibid* Phys. Rev. B **86**, 174515 (2012); A. E. Koshelev, arXiv:1209.5438.
S.-Z. Lin, Phys. Rev. B **86**, 014510 (2012).
V. Vakaryuk, V. Stanev, W.-C. Lee, A. Levchenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 227003 (2012).
K. D. Usadel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **25**, 507 (1970).
M. Kupriyanov and V. F. Lukichev, Sov. Phys. JETP **67**, 1163 (1988).
A. Brinkman, A. A. Golubov, and M. Y. Kupriyanov, Phys. Rev. B **69**, 214407 (2004).
W. Belzig, F. K. Wilhelm, C. Bruder, G. Schön, A. D. Zaikin, Superlat. and Microstruct. **25**, 1251 (1999).
A. Levchenko, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 180503 (2008).
A. D. Zaikin and G. F. Zharkov, Sov. J. Low. Temp. Phys. **7(3)**, 184 (1981).
A. Buzdin and I. Baladié, Phys. Rev. B **67**, 184519 (2003).
A. Levchenko, A. Kamenev and L. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B **74**, 212509 (2006).
A. A. Golubov, M. Yu. Kupriyanov and E. Il’ichev, Rev. Mod. Phys. **76**, 411 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a new class of compact metrizable spaces, which we call fences, and its subclass of smooth fences. We isolate two families ${\mathcal F}, {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ of Hasse diagrams of finite partial orders and show that smooth fences are exactly the spaces which are approximated by projective sequences from ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$. We investigate the combinatorial properties of Hasse diagrams of finite partial orders and show that ${\mathcal F}, {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ are projective Fraïssé families with a common projective Fraïssé limit. We study this limit and characterize the smooth fence obtained as its quotient, which we call a [Fraïssé ]{}fence. We show that the [Fraïssé ]{}fence is a highly homogeneous space which shares several features with the Lelek fan, and we examine the structure of its spaces of endpoints. Along the way we establish some new facts in projective Fraïssé theory.'
address:
- |
Département des Opérations\
Université de Lausanne\
Quartier UNIL-Chambronne Bâtiment Anthropole\
1015 Lausanne\
Switzerland
- |
Dipartimento di matematica\
Università di Genova\
Via Dodecaneso 35\
16146 Genova\
Italy
author:
- Gianluca Basso
- Riccardo Camerlo
title: 'Fences, their endpoints, and projective Fraïssé theory'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper we introduce and begin the study of a new class of topological spaces, which we call *fences*. These are the compact metrizable spaces whose connected components are either points or arcs. Among them, we define the subclass of smooth fences and characterize them as those fences admitting an embedding in ${2^{{\mathbb N}}}\times [0, 1]$.
A major tool for our study are projective Fraïssé families of topological structures, for a given language $ \mathcal L $, and their limits — called projective Fraïssé limits. These were introduced by Irwin and Solecki in [@Irwin2006]. In that paper, the authors focus on a particular example, where $ \mathcal L =\{ R\}$ contains a unique binary relation symbol such that its interpretation on the limit is an equivalence relation, and the quotient is a pseudo-arc. The characterization of all spaces that can be obtained, up to homeomorphism, as quotients $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb L \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb L }$}\right.}} $, where $( \mathbb L , R^{ \mathbb L})$ is the projective Fraïssé limit of a projective Fraïssé family of finite topological $\set{R}$-structures is settled in [@Camerl2010]. In [@Basso] it is noted that, if we admit infinite languages, then every compact metrizable space can be obtained as such a quotient of a projective [Fraïssé ]{}limit; some other examples for finite languages are also given. In this article we provide a new example: we focus on a family ${\mathcal F}$ of structures — finite partial orders whose Hasse diagram is a forest — which we show () is projective Fraïssé; its limit ${\mathbb F}$ admits a quotient ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ which is a smooth fence. This space does not seem to appear in literature and we call it the *[Fraïssé ]{}fence*.
We isolate a cofinal subclass ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ of ${\mathcal F}$ and we show that smooth fences are exactly those spaces which are quotients of projective limits of sequences from ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ (). This result creates a bridge between the combinatorial world and the topological one, which we exploit in to obtain a characterization of the the [Fraïssé ]{}fence by isolating a topological property which yields the amalgamation property for ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$.
Our spaces, some of their properties, and the techniques we use have their analogs in the theory of fans. A *fan* is an arcwise connected and hereditarily unicoherent compact space that has at most one ramification point. A fan with ramification point $t$ is *smooth* if for any sequence $(x_{n})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ converging to $x$, the sequence $([t, x_{n}])_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ of arcs connecting $t$ to $x_{n}$ converges to $[t, x]$. Smooth fans where introduced in [@MR0227944] and have been extensively studied in continuum theory. A point $x$ in a topological space $X$ is an *endpoint* if whenever $x$ belongs to an arc $[a, b] \subseteq X$, then $x = a$ or $x = b$ (note that under this definition points whose connected component is a singleton are endpoints). A *Lelek fan* is a smooth fan with a dense set of endpoints. Such a fan was first constructed in [@MR133806] and was later proven to be unique up to homeomorphism in [@MR991691] and [@MR1002079]. In a series of papers ([@Bartos2015; @Bartos2017; @MR3939568]) Bartošová and Kwiatkowska have studied the Lelek fan and the dynamics of its homeomorphism group by realizing it as a quotient of a projective Fraïssé limit of a particular class of ordered structures.
Besides the fact that both can be obtained as quotients of projective [Fraïssé ]{}limits of some class of ordered structures, the [Fraïssé ]{}fence and the Lelek fan share several other features:
- Both are as homogeneous as possible, namely they are $\nicefrac{1}{3}$-homogeneous (see [@MR3712972] for the Lelek fan and for the [Fraïssé ]{}fence).
- Both are universal in the respective classes with respect to embeddings that preserve endpoints (see [@Dijkstra2010] for the Lelek fan and for the [Fraïssé ]{}fence).
- For both, the set of endpoints is dense (see for the [Fraïssé ]{}fence). In fact, the Lelek fan is defined as the unique smooth fan with a dense set of endpoints; the [Fraïssé ]{}fence too has a characterization in terms of denseness of endpoints (see ).
- The set of endpoints of the Lelek fan is homeomorphic to the complete Erdős space ([@MR1391294]), a homogeneous, almost zero-dimensional, $1$-dimensional space; the complete Erdős space is cohesive, that is, every point has a neighborhood which does not contain any nonempty clopen subset. Among the subspaces of the set of endpoints of the [Fraïssé ]{}fence there is a homogenous, almost zero-dimensional, $1$-dimensional space $ \mathfrak M $ which is not cohesive ((iv)).
A space with the properties mentioned for $ \mathfrak M $ was constructed in [@Dijkstra2006] as a counterexample to a question by Dijkstra and van Mill. This raises the question of whether the two examples are homeomorphic and whether they can be regarded as a non-cohesive analog of the complete Erdős space.
To obtain our results, we establish combinatorial criteria which are of general interest in the context of projective [Fraïssé ]{}theory. characterizes which projective sequences of structures in a language containing a binary relation symbol $\set{R}$ have limit on which $R$ is an equivalence relation, and gives conditions under which the resulting quotient map is irreducible. The irreducibility condition entails a correspondence between structures in the projective sequence and regular quasi-partitions of the quotient, which in turn aids the combinatorial-topological translation.
Here is the plan of the paper. We begin in with recalling some notions and proving some technical lemmas which will lay the basis of this work. In we introduce the topological structures that constitute the main combinatorial objects of our study, prove that the relevant classes $ {\mathcal F}$ and $ {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ are projective Fraïssé and investigate the properties of the projective limits of $ {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$. We define fences and characterize smooth fences in , where we also display the relation linking them to $ {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$. Finally in we characterize topologically the quotient of the projective [Fraïssé ]{}limit of ${\mathcal F}$, explore its homogeneity features and investigate its spaces of endpoints.
Basic terminology and definitions {#defandnot}
=================================
Let $X$ be a topological space. If $A$ is a subset of $X$, then $\operatorname{int}_{X}(A), \operatorname{cl}_{X}(A), \partial_{X}(A)$ denote the interior, closure, and boundary of $A$ in $X$, respectively. We drop the subscript whenever the ambient space is clear from context. A closed set is regular if it coincides with the closure of its interior. We denote by $\operatorname{\mathcal K}(X) = \setnew*{K \subseteq X}{K \text{ compact}}$ the space of compact subsets of $X$, with the Vietoris topology. This is the topology generated by the sets $ \setnew{K\in \operatorname{\mathcal K}(X)}{K\subseteq O} $ and $\setnew{K \in \operatorname{\mathcal K}(X) }{K \cap O\neq \emptyset} $, for $O$ varying among the open subsets of $X$. If $X$ is compact metrizable, so is $\operatorname{\mathcal K}(X)$. Let $\operatorname{Homeo}(X)$ denote the group of homeomorphisms of $X$.
By *mesh* of a covering of a metric space, we indicate the supremum of the diameters of its elements.
We collect here the definitions of some basic topological concepts we need.
- A space is *almost zero-dimensional* if each point has a neighborhood basis consisting of closed sets that are intersection of clopen sets.
- A space is $X$ *cohesive* if each point has a neighborhood which does not contain any nonempty clopen subset of $X$.
- The *quasi-component* of a point is the intersection of all its clopen neighborhoods. A space is *totally separated* if the quasi-component of each point is a singleton.
- A space is $n$-*homogeneous* if for every two sets of $n$ points there is a homeomorphism sending one onto the other.
- A space $X$ is $\nicefrac{1}{n}$-*homogeneous* if the action of $\operatorname{Homeo}(X)$ on $X$ has exactly $n$ orbits.
- A space is $h$-*homogeneous* if it is homeomorphic to each of its nonempty clopen subsets.
When we talk about dimension, we mean the inductive dimension.
Topological structures
----------------------
We recall here some basic definitions, mainly from [@Irwin2006; @Camerl2010], sticking to relational first order languages, since we will not use other kinds of languages in this paper.
Let thus a relational first order language $ \mathcal L $ be given. A *topological* $ \mathcal L $-*structure* is a zero-dimensional compact metrizable space that is also an $ \mathcal L $-structure such that the interpretations of the relation symbols are closed sets. In particular, the topology on finite topological $\mathcal L $-structures is discrete. We will usually suppress the word “topological” when referring to finite topological $\mathcal L $-structures.
An *epimorphism* between topological $ \mathcal L $-structures $A, B$ is a continuous surjection $ {\varphi}:A\to B$ such that $$r^B=\underset{n \text{ times}}{\underbrace{ {\varphi}\times \ldots \times {\varphi}}}\, (r^A)$$ for every $n$-ary relation symbol $r \in {\mathcal{L}}$: in other words, $r^B(b_1,\ldots ,b_n)$ if and only if there exist $a_1,\ldots ,a_n\in A$ such that $${\varphi}(a_1)=b_1,\ldots , {\varphi}(a_n)=b_n,\quad r^A(a_1,\ldots ,a_n).$$ An *isomorphism* is a bijective epimorphism, so in particular it is a homeomorphism between the supports. An isomorphism of $A$ onto $A$ is an *automorphism* and we denote by $\operatorname{Aut}(A)$ the group of automorphisms of $A$. An epimorphism $ {\varphi}:A\to B$ *refines* a covering $ \mathcal U $ of $A$ if the preimage of any element of $B$ is included in some element of $ \mathcal U $. If $ \mathcal G , \mathcal G'
$ are families of topological structures such that $ \mathcal G'
\subseteq \mathcal G $ and for all $A\in \mathcal G$ there exist $ B\in \mathcal G'
$ and epimorphism ${\varphi}: B \to A $, we say that $ \mathcal G'
$ is *cofinal* in $ \mathcal G $.
A family $ \mathcal G $ of topological $ \mathcal L $-structures is a *projective Fraïssé family* if the following properties hold:
1. (joint projection property) for every $A, B\in \mathcal G $ there are $C\in \mathcal G $ and epimorphisms $C\to A$, $C\to B$;
2. (amalgamation property) for every $A, B, C\in \mathcal G $ and epimorphisms $ {\varphi}_1:B\to A$, $ {\varphi}_2:C\to A$ there are $D\in \mathcal G $ and epimorphisms $\psi_1:D\to B$, $\psi_2:D\to C$ such that $ {\varphi}_1\psi_1= {\varphi}_2\psi_2$.
Given a family $ \mathcal G $ of topological $ \mathcal L $-structures, a topological $ \mathcal L $-structure $ \mathbb L $ is a *projective Fraïssé limit* of $ \mathcal G $ if the following hold:
1. \[Lone\] (projective universality) for every $A\in \mathcal G $ there is some epimorphism $ \mathbb L \to A$;
2. for any clopen covering $ \mathcal U $ of $ \mathbb L $ there are $A\in \mathcal G $ and an epimorphism $ \mathbb L \to A$ refining $ \mathcal U $.
3. \[Lthree\] (projective ultrahomogeneity) for every $A\in \mathcal G $ and epimorphisms $ {\varphi}_1, {\varphi}_2: \mathbb L \to A$ there exists an automorphism $\psi \in \operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb L )$ such that $ {\varphi}_2= {\varphi}_1\psi $.
Note that in the original definition of a projective Fraïssé limit in [@Irwin2006] item \[itm:Ltwo\] was replaced by a different but equivalent property.
If $ \mathcal G $ is a projective Fraïssé family of finite $ \mathcal L $-structures and $\mathbb L$ satisfies \[itm:Lone\] and \[itm:Ltwo\], then \[itm:Lthree\] holds if and only if the following extension property holds:
1. for any $A, B\in \mathcal G $ and epimorphisms $\varphi: B\to A$, $\psi : \mathbb L \to A$ there exists an epimorphism $\chi : \mathbb L \to B$ such that $\varphi\chi =\psi $.
The proof is the same as in [@panagi2017]\*[Lemma 3]{}.
In [@Irwin2006] it is proved that every nonempty, at most countable, projective Fraïssé family of finite $ \mathcal L $-structures has a projective Fraïssé limit, which is unique up to isomorphism.
If $ \mathcal G $ is a class of topological $ \mathcal L $-structures, a *projective sequence* in $ \mathcal G $ is a sequence $(A_n, {\varphi}_n^m)_{n\in {\mathbb N}, m\ge n}$, where:
- $A_n\in \mathcal G $;
- $ {\varphi}_n^{n+1}:A_{n+1}\to A_n$ is an epimorphism, for each $n\in {\mathbb N}$;
- $ {\varphi}_n^m= {\varphi}_n^{n+1}\cdots {\varphi}_{m-1}^m:A_m\to A_n$ for $n<m$, and $ {\varphi}_n^n:A_n\to A_n$ is the identity.
A *projective limit* for such a sequence is a topological $ \mathcal L $-structure $ \mathbb A $, whose universe is $ \mathbb A = \setnew{u\in \prod_{n\in {\mathbb N}}A_n}{\forall n\in {\mathbb N}\ u(n)= {\varphi}_n^{n+1}(u(n+1))} $ and such that $r^{ \mathbb A }(u_1, \ldots , u_j)\Leftrightarrow\forall n\in {\mathbb N}\ r^{A_n}(u_1(n), \ldots , u_j(n))$, for every $j$-ary relation symbol $r\in \mathcal L $. We denote by $ {\varphi}_n: \mathbb A \to A_n$ the $n$-th projection map: this is an epimorphism.
A *fundamental sequence* for $\mathcal G$ is a projective sequence $(A_n, {\varphi}_n^m)$ such that the following properties hold:
- $\{ A_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb N}}$ is cofinal in $\mathcal G$;
- for any $n$, any $A, B\in \mathcal G $ and any epimorphisms $ \theta_1 :B\to A$, $ \theta_2:A_n\to A$, there exist $m\geq n$ and an epimorphism $\psi :A_m\to B$ such that $ \theta_1\psi= \theta_2 {\varphi}_n^m$.
To study projective Fraïssé limits it is enough to consider fundamental sequences, due to the following fact whose details can be found in [@Camerl2010].
\[pFfpFlfs\] Let $ \mathcal G $ be a nonempty, at most countable (up to isomorphism) family of finite $ \mathcal L $-structures. Then the following are equivalent.
1. $ \mathcal G $ is a projective Fraïssé family;
2. $ \mathcal G $ has a projective Fraïssé limit;
3. $ \mathcal G $ has a fundamental sequence.
If these conditions hold and $ \mathcal G_0$ is cofinal in $ \mathcal G $ then $\mathcal G_{0}$ is a projective Fraïssé family and the projective Fraïssé limits of $\mathcal G _{0}, \mathcal G $, and of the fundamental sequence coincide. A projective Fraïssé limit for them is the projective limit of the fundamental sequence.
If $\mathcal G$ is a projective Fraïssé family, one can check whether a given projective sequence is fundamental for $\mathcal G$ with the following.
\[provefundseq\] Let $\mathcal G$ be a projective Fraïssé family of topological ${\mathcal{L}}$-structures. Let $(A_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m)$ be a projective sequence in $\mathcal G$. Assume that for each $A\in \mathcal G $, $n \in {\mathbb N}$, and epimorphism $\theta:A \to A_{n}$, there exist $m\ge n$ and an epimorphism $\psi: A_{m} \to A$ such that $\theta\psi= {\varphi}^{m}_{n}$. Then $(A_n, {\varphi}_n^m)$ is a fundamental sequence for $ \mathcal G $.
(F1) Let $A\in \mathcal G $, by (JPP) there exist $A' \in \mathcal G$, and epimorphisms ${\varphi}: A' \to A$ and ${\varphi}': A' \to A_{0}$. By hypothesis there are $n$ and an epimorphism $\theta:A_{n} \to A'$ such that ${\varphi}' \theta = {\varphi}^{n}_{0}$. Then ${\varphi}\theta$ is an epimorphism $A_{n} \to A$, as wished.
(F2) Let $A, B\in \mathcal G $ and epimorphisms $ \theta_1 :B\to A$, $ \theta_2:A_n\to A$. By (AP) there exist $C\in \mathcal G$ and epimorphisms $\rho_{1}:C\to B$ and $\rho_{2}:C\to A_{n}$ such that $\theta_1\rho_{1}=\theta_{2}\rho_2$. By hypothesis, there exist $m\ge n$ and an epimorphism $\psi': A_{m} \to C$ such that $\rho_{2}\psi'= {\varphi}^{m}_{n}$. Then $\psi = \rho_{1}\psi':A_{m} \to B$ is such that $ \theta_{1}\psi= \theta_{2} {\varphi}^{m}_{n}$.
Notice that the converse of holds as well.
Fine projective sequences {#fineprojectivesequences}
-------------------------
In the sequel, whenever we denote a language with a subscript, like in $ \mathcal L_R$, we mean that the language contains a distinguished binary relation symbol represented in the subscript. The interpretation of $R$ in an ${\mathcal{L}}_R$-topological structure is expected to be reflexive and symmetric. These properties are preserved under projective limits. A *prespace* is any $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$-topological structure $A$ where the interpretation of $R$ is also transitive, that is, an equivalence relation; in this case, we say that $A$ is a prespace of $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$A\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^A$}\right.}} $. Since $R^{A}$ is a closed equivalence relation, the quotient map $p:A\to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$A\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^A$}\right.}} $ is closed. Notice that $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$A\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^A$}\right.}} $ is then endowed with an $( {\mathcal{L}}_R\setminus \set{R} )$-structure, where $r^{A/R^A}=p\times\ldots\times p(r^A)$, for any $r\in {\mathcal{L}}_R\setminus \set{R} $; all such relations are closed.
A projective sequence $(A_n, {\varphi}_n^m)$ of finite ${\mathcal{L}}_{R}$-structures and epimorphisms is *fine* whenever its projective limit is a prespace. If $(A_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m)$ is a fine projective sequence in $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$ with projective limit $ \mathbb A $ and $X$ is a compact metrizable space homeomorphic to $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb A \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb A }$}\right.}} $, we say that $(A_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m)$ *approximates* $X$.
Given a reflexive graph (that is, a reflexive and symmetric relation) $R$ on some set, denote by $d_R$ the distance on the graph, where $d_R(a, b)=\infty $ if $a, b$ belong to distinct connected components of the graph. Note that if $R, S$ are reflexive graphs and $\varphi $ is a function between them such that $x{\mathbin{R}}y\Rightarrow x\mathbin{S}y$ for all $x, y$, then the inequality $d_S(\varphi (x), \varphi (y))\le d_R(x, y)$ holds for every $x, y$.
We can determine whether a sequence is fine by checking that the $R$-distance of points which are not $R$-related tends to infinity. More precisely:
\[lemmafour\] Let $(A_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m)$ be a projective sequence of finite $ \mathcal L_R$-structures, with projective limit $ \mathbb A $. Assume that $R^{A_n}$ is reflexive and symmetric for every $n\in {\mathbb N}$. The projective sequence is fine if and only if for all $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $a, b \in A_{n}$ with $d_{R^{A_n}}(a, b) = 2$, there is $m>n$ such that if $a' \in ({\varphi}^{m}_{n})^{-1}(a), b' \in ({\varphi}^{m}_{n})^{-1}(b)$ then $d_{R^{A_m}}(a', b') \ge 3$.
Let $a, b \in A_{n}$ with $d_{R^{A_n}}(a, b) = 2$, say $a {\mathbin{R}}^{A_n}c {\mathbin{R}}^{A_n}b$. If for each $m>n$ there are $a_{m} \in ({\varphi}^{m}_{n})^{-1}(a), b_{m} \in ({\varphi}^{m}_{n})^{-1}(b)$ with $d_{R^{A_m}}(a_{m}, b_{m}) = 2$, say $a_{m}{\mathbin{R}}^{A_m}c_{m}{\mathbin{R}}^{A_m}b_{m}$, let $$x_m\in {\varphi}_m^{-1}(a_m), \quad y_m\in {\varphi}_m^{-1}(b_m), \quad z_m, z'_m\in {\varphi}_m^{-1}(c_m),$$ with $x_m{\mathbin{R}}^{ \mathbb A }z_m, z'_m{\mathbin{R}}^{ \mathbb A }y_m$. Passing to a suitable subsequence, let $$x=\lim_{h\rightarrow\infty }x_{m_h}, \quad y=\lim_{h\rightarrow\infty }y_{m_h}, \quad z=\lim_{h\rightarrow\infty }z_{m_h}=\lim_{h\rightarrow\infty }z'_{m_h},$$ so that $x{\mathbin{R}}^{ \mathbb A }z{\mathbin{R}}^{ \mathbb A }y$. However, $x, y$ are not $R^{ \mathbb A }$-related (otherwise $a {\mathbin{R}}^{A_n}b$), so $(A_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m)$ is not fine.
On the other hand, if $(A_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m)$ is not fine there are $x, y\in \mathbb A $ such that $d_{R^{ \mathbb A }}(x, y) = 2$, say $x{\mathbin{R}}^{ \mathbb A }z{\mathbin{R}}^{ \mathbb A }y$, for $x, y, z$ distinct points. There is $n \in {\mathbb N}$ such that for all $m \ge n$ the points ${\varphi}_{m}(x), {\varphi}_m(y), {\varphi}_m(z)$ are distinct and $\neg({\varphi}_{m}(x) {\mathbin{R}}^{A_m}{\varphi}_{m}(y))$, so $d_{R^{A_m}}({\varphi}_{m}(x), {\varphi}_{m}(y)) = 2$. Therefore the property does not hold for ${\varphi}_n(x), {\varphi}_n(y)$.
\[rconnectedness\] Let $A$ be a topological $\mathcal L_{R}$-structure and $B \subseteq A$. We say $B$ is $R$-*connected* if for any two clopen sets $U, U' \subseteq A$ such that $U\cap B, U'\cap B$ partition $B$, there are $x \in U\cap B, x' \in U' \cap B$ such that $x {\mathbin{R}}^Ax'$.
Notice that if $A$ is a finite $\mathcal L_{R}$-structure and $R^A$ is symmetric, $R$-connectedness coincides with the usual notion of connectedness for the graph $R^{A}$.
\[oldparagraph\] Let $A$ be a prespace. Then the image of an $R$-connected closed subset $B \subseteq A $ under the quotient map $p: A \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$A \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{A }$}\right.}}$ is closed and connected.
The set $p[B]$ is closed as $p$ is a closed map. If $p[B]$ were disconnected, let $C, C'$ be disjoint, nonempty, closed subsets of $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$A \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{A }$}\right.}} $ such that $p[B]=C\cup C'$. Then $p^{-1}(C)\cap B, p^{-1}(C')\cap B$ are disjoint, nonempty, closed subsets of $A $ whose union is $B$. Let $U, U'$ be disjoint clopen subsets of $A $ with $p^{-1}(C)\cap B\subseteq U, p^{-1}(C')\cap B\subseteq U'$. By the assumption, there are $u\in p^{-1}(C)\cap B, u'\in p^{-1}(C')\cap B$ with $u{\mathbin{R}}^{A }u'$, contradicting the disjointness of $C, C'$.
For the remainder of the section we fix a fine projective sequence of finite $ \mathcal L_R$-structures $(A_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m)$ with projective limit $ \mathbb A $ and with quotient map $p: \mathbb A \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb A \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb A }$}\right.}} $.
\[generalprop\]
1. The mesh of the sequence $\left(\setnew{ {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a)}{a \in A_{n}} \right)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ tends to $0$. In particular, the sets $ {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a)$ for $n\in {\mathbb N}, a\in A_n$ form a basis for the topology of $ \mathbb A $.
2. The mesh of the sequence $\left(\setnew{p[ {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a)]}{a \in A_{n}} \right)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ tends to $0$.
\(1) Suppose that there is $\varepsilon > 0$ such that for infinitely many $n \in {\mathbb N}$, there is $a_{n} \in A_{n}$ with $\operatorname{diam}( {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a_n))\ge \varepsilon$. Consider the forest $T= \setnew{ {\varphi}_{n'}^n(a_n)}{n'<n} $, so that $ \operatorname{diam}( {\varphi}_n^{-1}(b))\ge\varepsilon $ for every $b$ in the forest, if $b\in A_n$. Let $u=(b_0, b_1, \ldots )\in \mathbb A $ be an infinite branch in $T$. Since $$n<n'\Rightarrow {\varphi}_{{n'}}^{-1}(b_{n'}) \subseteq {\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(b_{n})$$ it follows that the sequence $ {\varphi}_n^{-1}(b_n)$ converges in $ \operatorname{\mathcal K}( \mathbb A )$ to $K=\bigcap_{n\in {\mathbb N}} {\varphi}_n^{-1}(b_n)$ with $\operatorname{diam}(K) \ge \varepsilon$. But $\bigcap_{n\in {\mathbb N}} {\varphi}_n^{-1}(b_n)= \set{u} $, a contradiction.
\(2) By (1) and the fact that function $p$ is uniformly continuous.
\[limitconnected\] If $B_{n} \subseteq A_{n}$, for $n \in {\mathbb N}$, are $R$-connected subsets and $({\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(B_{n}))_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ converges in $\operatorname{\mathcal K}( \mathbb A )$ to $K$, then $K$ is $R$-connected.
Let $U, U'$ be clopen, nonempty subsets of $ \mathbb A $, with some positive distance $\delta$, such that $U\cap K, U'\cap K $ partition $K$. Consider the open neighborhood $O = \setnew{ C \in \operatorname{\mathcal K}( \mathbb A )}{C \subseteq U \cup U', C \cap U \neq \emptyset, C \cap U' \neq \emptyset}$ of $K$ in $\operatorname{\mathcal K}(\mathbb A)$. Let $n \in {\mathbb N}$ be such that $ {\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(B_{n}) \in O$, and $\operatorname{diam}( {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a))<\delta$ for each $a \in A_{n}$: such a $n$ exists by . Then each $ {\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a)$ for $a \in B_{n}$ is either contained in $U$ or in $U'$, as the distance between the two clopen sets is greater than $ \operatorname{diam}( {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a))$, and $U, U'$ each contain at least one such set, since $ {\varphi}_n^{-1}(B_{n})$ has nonempty intersection with both $U$ and $U'$. It follows that ${\varphi}_n[U]\cap B_n, {\varphi}_n[U']\cap B_n$ partition $B_{n}$. But $B_{n}$ is $R$-connected, so there are $a \in B_{n} \cap {\varphi}_n[U], a' \in B_{n} \cap {\varphi}_n[U']$ such that $a {\mathbin{R}}^{A_n}a'$, and thus there exist $x \in {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a) \subseteq U, x' \in {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a') \subseteq U'$ such that $x {\mathbin{R}}^{ \mathbb A }x'$. So $K$ is $R$-connected.
\[quotlimitconnected\] If $B_{n} \subseteq A_{n}$ are $R$-connected subsets and $(p[{\varphi}^{-1}_{n}(B_{n})])_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ converges in $\operatorname{\mathcal K}( {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb A \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$ R^{ \mathbb A }$}\right.}} )$ to some $K$, then $K$ is connected.
Let $n_k$ be an increasing sequence of natural numbers such that $ {\varphi}_{n_k}^{-1}(B_{n_k})$ converges in $ \operatorname{\mathcal K}( \mathbb A )$, say $\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty } {\varphi}_{n_k}^{-1}(B_{n_k})=L$. Then $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty }p[ {\varphi}_n^{-1}(B_n)]= \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty }p[ {\varphi}_{n_k}^{-1}(B_{n_k})]=p[L],$$ whence $K=p[L]$. Now apply .
Irreducible functions and regular quasi-partitions
--------------------------------------------------
Given topological spaces $X$, $Y$, a continuous map $f:X\to Y$ is *irreducible* if $f[K] \neq Y$ for all proper closed subsets $K \subset X$.
We recall some basic results on irreducible closed surjective maps between compact metrizable spaces, whose proofs can be found in [@MR785749]. Let $f:X\to Y$ be such a map. Given $A\subseteq X$, let $f^{\#}(A) = \setnew{y\in Y}{f^{-1}(y) \subseteq A}$. If $O\subseteq X$ is an open set, then $f^{\#}(O)$ is open and $f^{-1}(f^{\#}(O))$ is dense in $O$. If $C \subseteq X$ is a regular closed set, then $C = \operatorname{cl}(f^{-1}(f^{\#}(\operatorname{int}(C))))$, and $f[C]= \operatorname{cl}(f^{\#}(\operatorname{int}(C)))$, so in particular the image of a regular closed set is regular. The preimage of any point by $f$ is either an isolated point or has empty interior. If $C, C'$ are regular closed and $f[C] = f[C']$ then $C = C'$; if $\operatorname{int}(C \cap C') = \emptyset$ then $\operatorname{int}(f[C] \cap f[C']) = \emptyset$.
\[def:regular quasi-partition\] A covering $ \mathcal C $ of a topological space is a *regular quasi-partition* if the elements of $ \mathcal C $ are nonempty, regular closed sets and $\forall A, B\in \mathcal C \ (A\ne B\Rightarrow A\cap B\subseteq\partial (A)\cap\partial (B))$.
\[quasi-part\] If $X, Y$ are compact metrizable spaces and $f:X\to Y$ is an irreducible closed surjective map, then the image $f \mathcal C = \setnew{f[C] }{C \in \mathcal C}$ of a regular quasi-partition $\mathcal C$ of $X$ is a regular quasi-partition of $Y$, and the map $C \mapsto f[C]$ is a bijection between $\mathcal C$ and $f \mathcal C$.
The fact that $C\mapsto f[C]$ is a bijection is one of the basic properties of irreducible closed surjective maps between compact metrizable spaces. The same for the fact that each $f[C]$ is a regular closed set.
Assume now that $C, C'\in \mathcal C $, and let $y\in f[C]\cap f[C']$. We show that $y\notin \operatorname{int}(f[C])$, similarly $y\notin \operatorname{int}(f[C'])$. If toward contradiction $y\in \operatorname{int}(f[C])$, let $O$ be open with $y\in O\subseteq f[C]$. Since $y\in f[C']$ and $f[C']$ is regular closed, there is $y'\in O\cap \operatorname{int}(f[C'])$, so that there exists an open set $V$ with $y'\in V\subseteq f[C]\cap f[C']$. It follows that $ \operatorname{int}(f[C]\cap f[C'])\ne\emptyset$, whence $ \operatorname{int}(C\cap C')\ne\emptyset $, by irreducibility of $f$, and then $ \operatorname{int}(C)\cap \operatorname{int}(C')\ne\emptyset $, against $ \mathcal C $ being a regular quasi-partition.
Recall that we have fixed a fine projective sequence of finite $ \mathcal L_R$-structures $(A_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m)$ with projective limit $ \mathbb A $ and with quotient map $p: \mathbb A \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb A \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb A }$}\right.}} $.
\[singletonsdenseiffirreducible\] The following are equivalent:
1. The set $M$ of points of $ \mathbb A $ whose $R^{ \mathbb A }$-equivalence class is a singleton is dense.
2. For each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $a \in A_{n}$ there are $m>n$ and $b \in A_{m}$ such that if $b' {\mathbin{R}}^{A_m}b$ then ${\varphi}^{m}_{n}(b')=a$.
3. The quotient map $p: \mathbb A \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb A \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb A }$}\right.}} $ is irreducible.
$(1)\Rightarrow (3)$. Let $K \subset \mathbb A $ be a proper closed subset. Then there is $x \in M\setminus K$, so that $p(x)\notin p[K]$. Thus $p$ is irreducible.
$(3)\Rightarrow (2)$. Let $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $a \in A_{n}$. By irreducibility of $p$, $$O=p^{-1}(p^{\#}({\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a)))= \setnew{x\in \mathbb A }{[x]_{R^{ \mathbb A }}\subseteq {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a)}$$ is an open, nonempty, and $R^{ \mathbb A }$-invariant set contained in $ {\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a)$. Let $m>n$ and $b \in A_{m}$ be such that $ {\varphi}_{m}^{-1}(b) \subseteq O$, which exist since such sets are a basis for the topology on $ \mathbb A $. If $b' {\mathbin{R}}^{A_m}b$, there are $x \in {\varphi}_{m}^{-1}(b), x' \in {\varphi}_{m}^{-1}(b')$ such that $x {\mathbin{R}}^{ \mathbb A }x'$. But $x \in {\varphi}_{m}^{-1}(b) \subseteq O$, which is $R^{ \mathbb A }$-invariant, so also $x' \in O$. It follows that $ {\varphi}_{n}(x') = a$ and thus ${\varphi}^{m}_{n}(b') = a$, for ${\varphi}_{n}= {\varphi}^{m}_{n}{\varphi}_{m}$.
$(2)\Rightarrow (1)$. Since $\setnew{{\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a)}{n \in {\mathbb N}, a \in A_{n}}$ is a basis for the topology on $ \mathbb A $ it suffices to fix $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $a \in A_{n}$ and prove that there is $x \in M$ with ${\varphi}_n(x) = a$. We construct a sequence $n_i$ and elements $b_{i}\in A_{n_i}$ by induction. Let $n_{0} = n$ and $b_{0} = a$. Given $b_{i} \in A_{n_{i}}$, by hypothesis there are $m>n_{i}$ and $b \in A_{m}$ such that whenever $b' {\mathbin{R}}^{A_m}b$ it follows that ${\varphi}^{m}_{n_{i}}(b')=b_{i}$. Set $n_{i+1} = m$ and $b_{i+1} = b$. Thus ${\varphi}^{n_{i+1}}_{n_{i}}(b_{i+1}) = b_{i}$ for each $i$, so there exists $x \in \mathbb A $ such that ${\varphi}_{n_{i}} (x) = b_{i}$, for each $i \in {\mathbb N}$. In particular ${\varphi}_{n}(x) = a$. Let $y {\mathbin{R}}^{ \mathbb A }x$; if towards contradiction $y \neq x$ then there is $i \in {\mathbb N}$ such that ${\varphi}_{n_{i}}(y) \neq {\varphi}_{n_{i}}(x) = b_{i}$. But ${\varphi}_{n_{i+1}}(y) {\mathbin{R}}^{A_{n_{i+1}}}{\varphi}_{n_{i+1}}(x)= b_{i+1}$, so $ {\varphi}_{n_{i}}(y)= {\varphi}^{n_{i+1}}_{n_{i}} {\varphi}_{n_{i+1}}(y)= b_{i}$ by construction of $b_{i+1}$, a contradiction.
If $ {\varphi}: \mathbb A \to A$ is an epimorphism onto a finite $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$-structure $A$ and $a\in A$, we let $${\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}}=p[ {\varphi}^{-1}(a)], \qquad {\llbracket A \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}}= \setnew{ {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}}}{a\in A} .$$
If the quotient map $p: \mathbb A \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb A \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb A }$}\right.}}$ is irreducible, then $ {\llbracket A \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}}$ is a regular quasi-partition of $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb A \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb A }$}\right.}} $ by , and the function $$a \in A\mapsto {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}}\in {\llbracket A \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}}$$ is a bijection.
\[clmboundary\] Suppose that the quotient map $p: \mathbb A \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb A \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb A }$}\right.}}$ is irreducible. For every $n \in {\mathbb N}$, $a\in A_{n}$, $$\begin{gathered}
\partial ( {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}) = \setnew{x \in {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\varphi}_n}}{ \exists a'\ne a, a' {\mathbin{R}}^{A_n}a, x \in {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{{\varphi}_n}} = \\
=\setnew{x\in {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\varphi}_n}}{\exists a'\ne a, x\in {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{{\varphi}_n}} .\end{gathered}$$ Moreover, regardless of the irreducibility of $p$, if $p$ is at most $2$-to-$1$ then for each $x$ there are at most two $a\in A_n$ such that $x\in {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}$.
Let $x\in\partial ( {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n})$, so that $x = p(u)$ for some $u \in {\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a)$. As each $ {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}$ is closed, this implies that there exists $a'\in A_{n}, a'\ne a$ such that $x \in {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}$, so that there is $v\in {\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a')$ with $u {\mathbin{R}}^{ \mathbb A }v$; in turns, this entails that $a {\mathbin{R}}^{A_n}a'$.
Let now $x\in {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}$, and assume that there exists $a'\in A_{n}$, with $a'\ne a, x\in {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}$. Since $ {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}\cap {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}\subseteq\partial ( {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n})\cap\partial ( {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n})$, it follows that $x\in\partial ( {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n})$.
The last statement is a direct consequence of the definition of $ {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}$.
Finite Hasse forests {#secmain}
====================
Henceforth fix ${\mathcal{L}}_R= \set{R, \le}$, where $\le$ is a binary relation symbol. A *Hasse partial order* (*HPO*) is a topological $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$-structure $P$ such that
- $\le^P$ is a partial order, that is, it is reflexive, anti-symmetric and transitive;
- $a \mathbin{R^P} b$ if and only if $a=b$ or $a, b$ are one the immediate $\le^P$-successor of the other, that is:
- $a \le^P b $ and whenever $a\le^P c \le^P b$ it holds that $c= a$ or $c=b$; or
- $b \le^P a $ and whenever $b \le^P c \le^P a$ it holds that $c= a$ or $c=b$.
Indeed, if $P$ is a HPO, the relation $R^P$ is the Hasse diagram of $\le^P$. Where clear we shall write $a\le b$ instead of $a\le^Pb$, and similarly for $a < b$ and $a{\mathbin{R}}b$. When $a\le b$ we also let $[a, b]=\{ c\in P\mid a\le c\le b\} $. If $\le^P$ is total, then we say that $P$ is a *Hasse linear order* (or *HLO*).
If $P, P'$ are HPOs we denote by $P\sqcup P'$ the HPO where the support and the interpretations of $\le $ and $R$ are the disjoint unions of the corresponding notions in $P, P'$.
A *Hasse forest* (*H-forest*) is a HPO whose Hasse diagram has no cycles, and we denote by $ {\mathcal F}$ the family of all finite H-forests.
For an HPO $P$, denote by $ \operatorname{MC}(P)$ the set of maximal chains of $P$ with respect to the partial order $\le^P$.
Notice that if $P\in {\mathcal F}$ and $B\in \operatorname{MC}(P)$ then $B$ is the unique maximal chain to which both $\min B$ and $\max B$ belong. Indeed, if $B' \in \operatorname{MC}(P)$ is such that $\min B, \max B \in B'$ then $\min B' = \min B$ and $\max B' = \max B$ by the maximality of $B$, so if $B\neq B'$ there would be two $R^P$-paths joining $\min B$ and $\max B$.
In [@Bartos2015] it is shown[^1] that the class of all finite H-forests with a minimum is a projective [Fraïssé ]{}family whose limit’s quotient with respect to $R$ is the Lelek fan. In [@Basso] it is shown that the class of all finite HLOs is a projective [Fraïssé ]{}family whose limit’s quotient is the arc. Here we prove that, though the family of all finite HPOs is not a projective [Fraïssé ]{}family, the family of all finite H-forests is.
We begin by describing a smaller yet cofinal family which plays a central role in the rest of the paper.
\[def: pidiamond\] Let ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ be the collection of all $P\in {\mathcal F}$ whose maximal chains are pairwise disjoint. In other words, the elements of ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ are the finite disjoint unions of finite HLOs.
Notice that if $P \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ and $Q \subseteq P$ is $\le^P$-convex — that is, whenever $b, b' \in Q, a \in P$ are such that $b \le^{P} a \le^{P} b'$, then $a \in Q$ — then $Q$ with the induced ${\mathcal{L}}_{R}$-structure is in ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$.
\[propcof\] ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ is cofinal in the family of all finite HPOs.
Let $P$ be a finite HPO. If $ \operatorname{MC}(P)=\{ B_1, \ldots , B_m\} $, let $P'=B'_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup B'_m$ where every $B'_j$ is isomorphic to $B_j$ with the induced structure. Then there is an epimorphism $\varphi: P' \to P$, given by letting $\varphi $ be an isomorphism from $B'_j$ onto $B_j$ for $1\le j\le m$.
The family of all finite HPOs is not a projective Fraïssé family.
We show that the family of all finite HPOs lacks amalgamation. Let $$\begin{aligned}
S= & \{ a, b, c, d\}, \\
P= & \{ a_0, b_0, b'_0, c_0, d_0\}, \\
Q= & \{ a_1, b_1, c_1, c'_1, d_1\}, \end{aligned}$$ be ordered as follows (see ).
- For $S$: $a=\min S, d=\max S$, and $b, c$ are incomparable.
- For $P$: $a_0<b_0, a_0<c_0<d_0, b'_0<d_0$, and no other order comparabilities hold, except for reflexivity and transitivity.
- For $Q$: $a_1<b_1<d_1, a_1<c_1, c'_1<d_1$, and no other order comparabilities hold, except for reflexivity and transitivity.
[\*[3]{}[>X]{}]{}
\(A) \[vrtx=right/$a$\] at ( 0, 0) ; (B) \[vrtx=left/$b$\] at (-1, 1) ; (C) \[vrtx=right/$c$\] at ( 1, 1) ; (D) \[vrtx=right/$d$\] at ( 0,2) ; (A) edge (B) (A) edge (C) (B) edge (D) (C) edge (D);
&
\(A) \[vrtx=right/$a_{0}$\] at ( 0, 0) ; (B) \[vrtx=left/$b_{0}$\] at (-0.72, 0.9) ; (B1) \[vrtx=left/$b'_{0}$\] at (-0.72, 1.6) ; (C) \[vrtx=right/$c_{0}$\] at ( 1, 1.25) ; (D) \[vrtx=right/$d_{0}$\] at ( 0,2.5) ;
\(A) edge (B) (A) edge (C) (B1) edge (D) (C) edge (D);
&
\(A) \[vrtx=right/$a_1$\] at ( 0, 0) ; (B) \[vrtx=left/$b_1$\] at ( -1, 1.25) ; (C) \[vrtx=right/$c_1$\] at (0.72, 0.9) ; (C1) \[vrtx=right/$c'_1$\] at ( 0.72, 1.6) ; (D) \[vrtx=right/$d_1$\] at ( 0,2.5) ;
\(A) edge (B) (A) edge (C) (B) edge (D) (C1) edge (D);
Define $\varphi :P\to S, \psi :Q\to S$ by letting: $$\begin{aligned}
& \varphi (a_0)=\psi (a_1)=a, \\
& \varphi (b_0)=\varphi (b'_0)=\psi (b_1)=b, \\
& \varphi (c_0)=\psi (c_1)=\psi (c'_1)=c, \\
& \varphi (d_0)=\psi (d_1)=d.\end{aligned}$$ Then $\varphi , \psi $ are epimorphisms. To show that there is no amalgamation, by it is enough to show that there is no $F \in{{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ with epimorphisms $\theta: F\to P, \rho :F\to Q$ such that $\varphi\theta =\psi\rho $. Otherwise, as $a_0<d_0$, there must be $B\in \operatorname{MC}(F) $ and $i, i'\in B$, with $i<i'$, such that $\theta (i)=a_0, \theta (i')=d_0$, so that $\theta [B]=\{ a_0, c_0, d_0\} $; moreover $\rho (i)=a_1, \rho (i')=d_1$. If $ j \in B$ is such that $\theta ( j )=c_0$, then $i< j <i'$ and $\rho ( j )\in\{ c_1, c'_1\} $, since ${\varphi}\theta = \psi \rho$. If $\rho ( j )=c_1$, this contradicts $ j \le i'$, as $\rho( j ) \not \leq \rho(i')$; similarly, if $\rho ( j )=c'_1$, this contradicts $i\le j $.
Let us turn to the proof of the central result of the section.
\[fraisseforests\] The family ${\mathcal F}$ of all finite H-forests is a projective [Fraïssé ]{}family.
First, we note the following simple but useful observation.
\[lemchain\] Let $P, P'\in {\mathcal F}$, and let $\varphi :P\to P'$ be an epimorphism. If $B\in \operatorname{MC}(P)$, then there is $B'\in \operatorname{MC}(P')$ such that $\varphi [B]\subseteq B'$. If $B'\in \operatorname{MC}(P')$, then there exists $B\in \operatorname{MC}(P)$ such that $\varphi [B]=B'$.
For the first statement, since $B\in \operatorname{MC}(P)$ and $\varphi $ is an epimorphism, then $\varphi [B]$ is a chain in $P'$, so $\varphi [B]$ is included in a maximal chain.
For the second assertion, fix $B'\in \operatorname{MC}(P')$. Since $\min B'\le\max B'$ and $\varphi $ is an epimorphism, there are $a, b\in P$ such that $a\le b, \varphi (a)=\min B', \varphi (b)=\max B'$. Let $B \in \operatorname{MC}(P)$ contain $a, b$. Since $\min B \leq a$ then ${\varphi}(\min B) \leq \min B'$, so ${\varphi}(\min B) = \min B'$; analogously, ${\varphi}(\max B) = \max B'$. Since $P'$ is an H-forest and $ {\varphi}$ respects $R$, it follows that $\varphi[B]=B'$.
We can also prove a sort of converse. Given $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$-structures $P, P'$ and a function $ {\varphi}:P\to P'$, we say that $ {\varphi}$ is $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$-*preserving* if $a{\mathbin{R}}^Pb\Rightarrow {\varphi}(a){\mathbin{R}}^{P'} {\varphi}(b)$ and $a\leq^Pb\Rightarrow {\varphi}(a) \leq^{P'}{\varphi}(b)$, for every $a, b\in P$.
\[iffchain\] Let $P, P'\in {\mathcal F}$, and let $\varphi :P\to P'$ be an $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$-preserving function. If for each $B'\in \operatorname{MC}(P')$ there exists $B\in \operatorname{MC}(P)$ such that $\varphi [B]=B'$, then ${\varphi}$ is an epimorphism.
The function ${\varphi}$ is clearly surjective. Let $a', b' \in P'$ such that $a'\leq b'$ and let $B' \in \operatorname{MC}(P')$ with $a', b'\in B'$. Let $B\in \operatorname{MC}(P)$ such that $\varphi [B]=B'$, then there are $a, b\in B$ such that ${\varphi}(a)=a', {\varphi}(b) =b'$ and $a \leq b$. If $a' {\mathbin{R}}b'$ with $a'<b'$, then $a, b$ can be chosen to be $R^P$-related by letting $a=\max (B \cap {\varphi}^{-1}(a'))$ and $b= \min (B \cap {\varphi}^{-1}(b'))$.
Since for every $P \in {\mathcal F}$ there is an epimorphism from $P$ to the H-forest consisting of a single point, it suffices to prove amalgamation. Let $P, Q, S \in {\mathcal F}$ and epimorphisms $\varphi: P \to S$, $\psi: Q \to S$.
For each $C \in \operatorname{MC}(P)$, by there is $D \in \operatorname{MC}(Q) $ such that $\psi[D] \supseteq {\varphi}[C]$. Let $C' = \psi^{-1}({\varphi}[C])\cap D$. Since $C, {\varphi}[C], C'$ with the inherited relations are finite HLOs and $ {\varphi}{\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, C}} , \psi{\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, C'}} $ are, in particular, epimorphisms onto $ {\varphi}[C]$, by (AP) for HLOs [@Basso]\*[Lemma 10]{} there exist a finite HLO $E_{C}$ and epimorphisms ${\varphi}'_{C}: E_{C} \to C$, $\psi'_{C} : E_{C} \to C'$ and such that $ {\varphi}{\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, C}} {\varphi}'_{C} = \psi {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, C'}} \psi'_{C}$.
Analogously, for each $C \in \operatorname{MC}(Q)$ there exists $D \in \operatorname{MC}(P)$ such that ${\varphi}[D] \supseteq \psi[C]$. As above there exist a finite HLO $E_{C}$ and epimorphisms ${\varphi}'_{C} : E_{C} \to C'={\varphi}^{-1}(\psi[C]) \cap D$ and $\psi'_{C}: E_{C} \to C$ such that $ {\varphi}{\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, C'}} {\varphi}'_{C} = \psi {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, C}} \psi'_{C}$.
Define the ${\mathcal{L}}_{R}$-structure: $$T = \bigsqcup\setnew*{E_{C}}{C \in \operatorname{MC}(P) \sqcup \operatorname{MC}(Q)} \in{{\mathcal F}_{0}},$$ and ${\varphi}': T \to P, \psi': T \to Q$, where, for $x \in E_{C}$, ${\varphi}'(x) = {\varphi}'_{C}(x)$ and $\psi'(x) = \psi'_{C}(x)$. By construction ${\varphi}{\varphi}' = \psi\psi' $. Since ${\varphi}'_{C}, \psi'_{C}$ are epimorphisms then ${\varphi}', \psi'$ are $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$-preserving. Let $C \in \operatorname{MC}(P)$, then ${\varphi}'[E_{C}] = {\varphi}'_{C}[E_{C}] = C$. Analogously if $C \in \operatorname{MC}(Q)$, then $\psi'[E_{C}] = \psi'_{C}[E_{C}] = C$. By , ${\varphi}', \psi'$ are thus epimorphisms.
By , and it follows that:
\[pfforests\] ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ is a projective [Fraïssé ]{}family with the same projective [Fraïssé ]{}limit as $ {\mathcal F}$.
Projective limits of sequences in F0
-------------------------------------
In the next section we determine the spaces which are approximable by fine projective sequences from ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$. For this, we establish some properties of projective sequences in ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ and their limits which are of use later. For the remainder of the section let $(P_n, {\varphi}_n^m)$ be a fine projective sequence in ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ with projective limit $ \mathbb P $, and $p: \mathbb P \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ be the quotient map. Notice that $\le^{ \mathbb P }$ is an order relation.
\[connectedintervals\] Let $u, v\in \mathbb P $ with $u\le v$. Then $[u, v]$ is $R$-connected.
First notice that the sequence $ {\varphi}_n^{-1}([ {\varphi}_n(u), {\varphi}_n(v)])$ converges in $ \operatorname{\mathcal K}( \mathbb P )$ to $[u, v]$, since $\forall n\in {\mathbb N}$ $ {\varphi}_{n+1}^{-1}([ {\varphi}_{n+1}(u), {\varphi}_{n+1}(v)])\subseteq {\varphi}_n^{-1}([ {\varphi}_n(u), {\varphi}_n(v)])$ and $$\bigcap_{n\in {\mathbb N}} {\varphi}_n^{-1}([ {\varphi}_n(u), {\varphi}_n(v)])=[u, v].$$ By it is now enough to observe that every $[ {\varphi}_n(u), {\varphi}_n(v)]$ is $R$-connected.
\[fineclassesconvex\] The $R^{ \mathbb P }$-equivalence classes contain at most two elements; moreover, each class is totally ordered and convex with respect to $\le^{ \mathbb P }$.
Let $u, v, w\in \mathbb P $ be $R^{ \mathbb P }$-related elements. If $u, v, w$ were all distinct, there would exist $n\in {\mathbb N}$ such that $ {\varphi}_n(u), {\varphi}_n(v), {\varphi}_n(w)$ are all distinct and pairwise $R^{P_n}$-related, which is impossible, since $P_{n} \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$.
If $u{\mathbin{R}}v$, then $ {\varphi}_n(u){\mathbin{R}}{\varphi}_n(v)$ for every $n$; in particular, $ {\varphi}_n(u), {\varphi}_n(v)$ are $\le^{P_n}$ comparable for every $n$. It follows that either $\forall n\in {\mathbb N}\ {\varphi}_n(u)\le {\varphi}_n(v)$ or $\forall n\in {\mathbb N}\ {\varphi}_n(v)\le {\varphi}_n(u)$, whence either $u\le v$ or $v\le u$.
Finally, if $u{\mathbin{R}}v$ but $u<w<v$ for some $u, v, w\in \mathbb P $, let $n\in {\mathbb N}$ be such that $ {\varphi}_n(u), {\varphi}_n(v), {\varphi}_n(w)$ are distinct. Then both $ {\varphi}_n(u){\mathbin{R}}{\varphi}_n(v)$ and $ {\varphi}_n(u)< {\varphi}_n(w)< {\varphi}_n(v)$, which is a contradiction.
\[alleqclassless\] If $u, v \in \mathbb P$ are not $R^{ \mathbb P }$-related and $u \le v$ holds, then whenever $u' {\mathbin{R}}u, v' {\mathbin{R}}v$, the relation $u' \le v'$ holds.
For $n \in {\mathbb N}$ big enough, ${\varphi}_{n}(u), {\varphi}_{n}(v)$ are distinct and not $R^{P_n}$-related. Since ${\varphi}_{n}(u) \le {\varphi}_{n}(v)$, $P_{n} \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, and $R^{P_n}$-related distinct elements are one the immediate $\le^{P_n}$-successor of the other and viceversa, it follows that ${\varphi}_{n}(u') \le {\varphi}_{n}(v')$. This inequality holding eventually, the relation $u'\le v'$ is established.
\[corollarytwentyfour\] The relation $\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} =p\times p(\le^{ \mathbb P })$ on $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ defined by letting $x\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} y$ if there are $u\in p^{-1}(x), v\in p^{-1}(y)$ with $u\le v$, is a closed order relation.
That $\le^{ \mathbb P /R^{ \mathbb P }}$ is closed is observed at the beginning of . Moreover:
- $\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} $ is reflexive by the reflexivity of $\le^{ \mathbb P }$.
- If $x\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} y\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} z$ with $x\ne y\ne z$, let $$\begin{aligned}
& u\in p^{-1}(x), \\
& v, v'\in p^{-1}(y), \\
& w\in p^{-1}(z), \end{aligned}$$ with $u\le v, v'\le w$; by it follows that $u\le v'$, so that $u\le w$ and finally $x\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} z$.
- If $x\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} y\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} x$, there are $$\begin{aligned}
& u, u'\in p^{-1}(x), \\
& v, v'\in p^{-1}(y), \end{aligned}$$ with $u\le v, v'\le u'$; by it follows that $u {\mathbin{R}}v$, and finally $x=y$.
\[branchesareclopen\] If $B \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{n})$ then $\bigcup_{a\in B} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}$ is a clopen subset of ${{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $.
Since for each $a \in B$ the set ${\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a)$ is clopen, it follows that $\bigcup_{a\in B} {\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a)$ is clopen. Let $u, v \in \mathbb P$ be such that $u \in \bigcup_{a\in B} {\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a)$ and $u R^{\mathbb P} v$. Then ${\varphi}_{n}(u) {\mathbin{R}}^{P_{n}} {\varphi}_{n}(v)$, so ${\varphi}_{n}(v) \in B$, that is, $v \in \bigcup_{a\in B} {\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a)$. It follows that $ \bigcup_{a\in B} {\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a)$ is $R^{ \mathbb P }$-invariant, so $\bigcup_{a\in B} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}= p [\bigcup_{a\in B} {\varphi}_{n}^{-1}(a)]$ is open, thus clopen.
A converse of the above also holds.
\[clopensareunionofbranches\] Let $C$ be a clopen subset of ${{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}}$. There is $n \in {\mathbb N}$ such that for all $m \ge n$, there is $S \subseteq \operatorname{MC}(P_{m})$ for which $C = \bigcup_{a\in\bigcup S} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_m}$.
First notice that it is enough to show that there are some $n\in {\mathbb N}$ and $S\subseteq \operatorname{MC}(P_n)$ for which $C=\bigcup_{a\in\bigcup S} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}$. Indeed, assuming this, let $m\ge n$. Then $( {\varphi}_n^m)^{-1}(\bigcup S)=\bigcup T$ for some $T\subseteq \operatorname{MC}(P_m)$, and $C=\bigcup_{a\in\bigcup T} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_m}$.
Since $p^{-1}(C)$ is compact and open and the sets $ \setnew{ {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a)}{n\in {\mathbb N}, a\in A_n} $ form a basis for the topology of $ \mathbb P $, there exist $n\in {\mathbb N}$ and a subset $B\subseteq P_n$ such that $p^{-1}(C)=\bigcup_{a\in B} {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a)$, so that $B= {\varphi}_n[p^{-1}(C)]$.
We prove that $B=\bigcup S$ for some $S\subseteq \operatorname{MC}(P_n)$. If this were not the case, there would exist $a, a'\in P_n$ with $a, a'$ consecutive with respect to $\le^{P_n}$ and $a\in B, a'\notin B$; in particular, $a {\mathbin{R}}a'$. If $u, u'\in \mathbb P $ are such that $ {\varphi}_n(u)=a, {\varphi}_n(u')=a', u {\mathbin{R}}u'$, then $u\in p^{-1}(C), u'\notin p^{-1}(C)$ contradict the fact that $p^{-1}(C)$ is $R^{ \mathbb P }$-invariant. The proof is concluded by observing that: $$C=p(p^{-1}[C])=p[\bigcup_{a\in B} {\varphi}_n^{-1}(a)]=\bigcup_{a\in B} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}.$$
Fences {#sec:fences}
======
\[deffence\] A *fence* is a compact metrizable space whose connected components are either points or arcs. A fence $Y$ is *smooth* if there is a closed partial order $\preceq$ on $Y$ whose restriction to each connected component of $Y$ is a total order.
We call *arc components* of a fence the connected components which are arcs, and *singleton components* those which are points. We denote by $\mathrm{E}(Y)$ the set of endpoints of a fence $Y$; equivalently, $ \mathrm{E}(Y)$ is the set of endpoints of the connected components of $Y$. The *Cantor fence* is the space ${2^{{\mathbb N}}}\times [0, 1]$; it is a smooth fence, as witnessed by the product of equality on $ {2^{{\mathbb N}}}$ and the usual ordering of $[0, 1]$: we denote this order by $\trianglelefteq $.
below establishes that smooth fences are, up to homeomorphism, the compact subspaces of the Cantor fence. It may be confronted with [@MR1020278]\*[Proposition 4]{}, stating that smooth fans are, up to homeomorphism, the subcontinua of the Cantor fan, which is the fan obtained by identifying in the Cantor fence the set $ {2^{{\mathbb N}}}\times\{ 0\} $ to a point.
Recall that if $X$ is a topological space and $f: X \to [0, 1]$ is a function, then $f$ is *lower semi-continuous* (l.s.c.) if $ \setnew{x\in X}{f(x)\leq y}$ is closed for each $y \in [0, 1]$ and is *upper semi-continuous* (u.s.c.) if $ \setnew{x\in X}{f(x)\geq y}$ is closed for each $y \in [0, 1]$.
Let $X$ be a zero-dimensional, compact, metrizable space and $m, M: X \to [0, 1]$ be two functions. We say that $({m}, {M})$ is a *fancy pair* if
- $m$ is l.s.c.;
- $M$ is u.s.c.;
- $m(x) \le M(x)$, for all $x \in X$.
If $({m}, {M})$ is a fancy pair of functions on $X$, let $D_{{m}}^{{M}} = \setnew{(x, y) \in X \times [0, 1]}{{m}(x) \le y \le {M}(x)}$. Then $D_{{m}}^{{M}}$ is a closed subset of $X \times [0, 1]$. Indeed, let $(x_{n}, y_{n}) \in D_{{m}}^{{M}}$, and $(x, y) = \lim (x_{n}, y_{n})$. Then for each $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $n \in {\mathbb N}$ such that for all $m>n$, $${m}(x) - \varepsilon < {m}(x_{n}) \le y_{n} \le {M}(x_{n}) < {M}(x) + \varepsilon,$$ so ${m}(x) \le y \le {M}(x)$, thus $(x, y) \in D_{{m}}^{{M}}$.
\[smoothembedd\] Let $Y$ be a fence. Then the following are equivalent:
1. $Y$ is a smooth fence.
2. \[itm:stronglycomp\] There exists a closed partial order $\preceq $ on $Y$ whose restriction to each connected component is a total order and such that two elements are $\preceq$-comparable if and only if they belong to the same connected component.
3. There is a continuous injection $f:Y\to {2^{{\mathbb N}}}\times [0, 1]$.
4. There is a continuous injection $f:Y\to {2^{{\mathbb N}}}\times [0, 1]$ such that for each $x \in {2^{{\mathbb N}}}$, the set $f[Y]\cap ( \set{x} \times [0, 1])$ is connected (possibly empty).
5. There is a closed, non-empty, subset $X$ of $ {2^{{\mathbb N}}}$ and a fancy pair $({m}, {M})$ of functions on $X$ such that $Y$ is homeomorphic to $D_{{m}}^{{M}}$.
The implications $(2)\Rightarrow (1)$ and $(4)\Rightarrow (3)$ are immediate. The implications $(3)\Rightarrow (1)$ and $(4)\Rightarrow (2)$ follow by copying on $Y$ the restriction of the order $\trianglelefteq $ on the Cantor fence to the image of $Y$ under the embedding.
For $(4)\Rightarrow (5)$, let $X = \pi_{1}[f[Y]]$ be the projection of $f[Y]$ on ${2^{{\mathbb N}}}$ and, for $x \in X$, let ${m}(x)= \min \setnew{y \in [0, 1]}{ (x, y) \in f[Y]}$ and ${M}(x)= \max \setnew{y \in [0, 1]}{ (x, y) \in f[Y]}$. Clearly ${m}(x) \le {M}(x)$, for all $x \in X$, and ${m}, {M}$ are l.s.c, u.s.c., respectively, since $f[Y]$ is closed. Then $({m}, {M})$ is a fancy pair of functions on $X$ and $D_{{m}}^{{M}} = f[Y]$.
For $(5)\Rightarrow (4)$, suppose that there are a closed, non-empty, subset $X$ of $ {2^{{\mathbb N}}}$ and a fancy pair $({m}, {M})$ of functions on $X$ such that there is a homeomorphism $f: Y \to D_{{m}}^{{M}}$. Then $f$ is the required injection.
It thus remains to establish $(1)\Rightarrow (4)$. By [@Kuratowski1968]\*[§46, V, Theorem 3]{}, there is a continuous map $f_{0} : Y \to {2^{{\mathbb N}}}$ such that $f_{0}(x)=f_{0}(x')$ if and only if $x, x'$ belong to the same connected component.
By [@Carruth1968], any compact metrizable space with a closed partial order can be embedded continuously and order-preservingly in $[0, 1]^{{\mathbb N}}$ with the product order. Let $h: Y \to [0, 1]^{{\mathbb N}}$ be such an embedding. Let $f_{1}: Y \to [0, 1]$ be defined by $f_{1}(x) = d(\mathbf{0}, h(x))$, where $d$ is the product metric on $[0, 1]^{{\mathbb N}}$ and $\mathbf{0} = (0, 0, \dots )$. Then $f_{1}$ is the composition of two continuous functions, so it is continuous, and its restriction to each connected component of $Y$ is injective, since $d(\mathbf{0}, x) < d(\mathbf{0}, y)$ whenever $x$ is less than $y$ in the product order on $[0, 1]^{{\mathbb N}}$.
Let $f: Y \to {2^{{\mathbb N}}}\times [0, 1]$ be defined by $f(x) = (f_{0}(x), f_{1}(x))$. Then $f$ is the continuous embedding which we were seeking.
Note that if $\preceq $ is the closed order on $Y$ used for embedding $Y$ into the Cantor fence, the embedding $f$ of $(1)\Rightarrow (4)$ in the preceding proof also embeds $\preceq $ in $\trianglelefteq $.
For later use, we say that an order relation on the fence $Y$ is *strongly compatible* if it satisfies of . For example, $\trianglelefteq $ is a strongly compatible order on the Cantor fence.
Condition in implies that the ternary relation $T$ on a smooth fence $Y$, defined by $T(x, y, x')$ if and only if $x=y=x'$ or $y$ belongs to the arc with endpoints $x, x'$, is closed. We do not know if requiring that this relation is closed is equivalent or strictly weaker than the conditions in .
Smooth fences and F0
--------------------
We turn to proving that smooth fences are exactly the spaces which can be approximated by fine projective sequences in ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$. One direction is , the other .
\[thmpidiamondfence\] Let $(P_n, {\varphi}_n^m)$ be a fine projective sequence in ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, with projective limit $ \mathbb P $ and let $p: \mathbb P \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ be the quotient map. Then $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ is a smooth fence.
The connected components of $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ are the maximal chains of the order $\le^{ \mathbb P /R^{ \mathbb P }}$. They are the sets of the form $p[B]$, where $B$ is a maximal chain in $ \mathbb P $; in particular, if $B$ has more than two elements, then $p[B]$ is an arc.
The relation $\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} $ on $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ is a closed order by .
If $x\not \le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} y\not \le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} x$, pick $u\in p^{-1}(x), v\in p^{-1}(y)$ and let $n\in {\mathbb N}$ be such that $ {\varphi}_n(u)\nleq {\varphi}_n(v)\nleq {\varphi}_n(u)$. This implies that $ {\varphi}_n(u), {\varphi}_n(v)$ belong to distinct maximal chains $B, B'$, respectively, of $P_n$. Then $ {\varphi}_n^{-1}(B), {\varphi}_n^{-1}(B')$ are clopen, $R^{ \mathbb P }$-invariant subsets of $ \mathbb P $ and, in turn, $p[ {\varphi}_n^{-1}(B)], p[ {\varphi}_n^{-1}(B')]$ are clopen subsets of $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ separating $x$ and $y$, so $x, y$ belong to distinct connected components of $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $.
If $x\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} y$, let $u, v\in \mathbb P $ with $u\in p^{-1}(x), v\in p^{-1}(y), u\le v$. Since $[u, v]$ is $R$-connected by , from it follows that $p[[u, v]]$ is a connected subset of $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ containing $x, y$. Therefore $x, y$ belong to the same connected component.
These two facts show that the connected components of $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ are the maximal chains of $\le^{ \mathbb P /R^{ \mathbb P }}$ or, equivalently, the sets of the form $p[B]$, where $B$ ranges over the maximal chains of $ \mathbb P $. If in particular $B$ has more than two points, then $p[B]$ is not a singleton by .
Thus it remains to show that the non-singleton connected components of $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ are arcs. So let $K$ be a non-singleton connected component of $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $. By the above, the restriction of $\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} $ to $K$ is a closed total order, so it is complete as an order by [@Basso]\*[Lemma 15]{}, and has a minimum and a maximum that are distinct. Moreover, it is dense as $K$ is connected, so it is a separable order as open intervals are open subsets in the topology of $K$. Using [@Rosens1982]\*[Theorem 2.30]{}, the restriction of $\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} $ to $K$ is an order of type $1+\lambda +1$, where $\lambda $ is the order type of $ {\mathbb R}$; as the sets of the form $ \setnew{x\in K}{x<^{ \mathbb P /R^{ \mathbb P }}z} $ and $ \setnew{x\in K}{z<^{ \mathbb P /R^{ \mathbb P }}x} $ are open subsets of $K$, this means that there is a continuous bijection $K\to [0, 1]$, which is therefore a homeomorphism.
The converse of is proved in , for which we need the following lemma and definition.
\[usualclaimnew\] Let $X$ be a zero-dimensional compact metrizable space and $({m}, {M})$ a fancy pair of functions on $X$. For each $\varepsilon>0$ and each clopen partition $\mathcal U$ of ${X}$ there is a clopen partition $\mathcal W $ refining $\mathcal U$, such that for all $U \in \mathcal W $ there is $x_{U} \in U$ such that: $$\label{anotherpropertyone}
{m}(x_U)- \min \setnew{ {m}(x)}{x\in U} <\varepsilon ,\qquad\max \setnew{ {M}(x)}{x\in U} - {M}(x_U)<\varepsilon .$$
By dealing with one element of $ \mathcal U $ at a time, it is enough to show that given a zero-dimensional compact metrizable space $X$, a fancy pair $( {m}, {M})$, and $\varepsilon >0$, there is a clopen partition $ \mathcal W = \set*{W_0,\ldots ,W_k}$ of $X$ such that for all $U\in \mathcal W $ there is $x_U\in U$ for which holds.
For any clopen set $U \subseteq X$, let $$m_U=\min \setnew{ {m}(x)}{x\in U} ,\qquad M_U=\max \setnew{ {M}(x)}{x\in U} .$$ If there exists $x_X\in X$ satisfying , then we are done by letting $k=0,W_0=X$. Otherwise, let $U_0= \setnew{x\in X}{ {M}(x)<M_X- \frac{\varepsilon }2 } $. This is an open set, containing the closed, non-empty, set $C_0= \setnew{x\in X}{ {m}(x)\le m_X+ \frac{\varepsilon }2 } $. By the zero-dimensionality of $X$ and the compactness of $C_0$, let $V_0$ be clopen such that $C_0\subseteq V_0\subseteq U_0$. Notice that $$m_{V_0}=m_X,\qquad M_{V_0}<M_X- \frac{\varepsilon }2 .$$ If there exists $x_{V_0}\in V_0$ such that holds, then set $W_0=V_0$. Otherwise repeat the process within $V_0$, to find a clopen set $V_1$ with $C_0\subseteq V_1\subseteq V_0$ and $$m_{V_1}=m_{V_0}=m_X,\qquad M_{V_1}<M_{V_0}- \frac{\varepsilon }2 <M_X-\varepsilon .$$ Thus this process must stop, yielding finally a clopen subset $W_0$ such that $C_0\subseteq W_0\subseteq U_0$ and there exists $x_{W_0}\in W_0$ for which holds.
Now start the process over again within $X'=X\setminus W_0$, which is non-empty by case assumption. Since $C_0\subseteq W_0\subseteq U_0$, it follows that $$m_X+ \frac{\varepsilon }2 <m_{X'},\qquad M_{X'}=M_X.$$
If there exists $x_{X'}\in X'$ satisfying , we are done by letting $k=1,W_1=X'$. Otherwise we eventually produce a clopen subset $W_1$ of $X'$ containing $C_1= \setnew{x\in X'}{ {m}(x)\le m_{X'}+ \frac{\varepsilon }2 } $, contained in $U_1= \setnew{x\in X'}{ {M}(x)<M_{X'}- \frac{\varepsilon }2 } $, and such that there exists $x_{W_1}\in W_1$ satisfying . Set $X''=X\setminus (W_0\cup W_1)$ and notice that $$m_X+\varepsilon <m_{X'}+ \frac{\varepsilon }2 <m_{X''}, \qquad M_{X''}=M_X.$$ Thus the process eventually stops, providing the desired partition $ \mathcal W $.
\[smoothfencespidiamond\] Let $Y$ be a smooth fence with a strongly compatible order $\preceq$. Then there exists a fine projective sequence of structures $(P_n, {\varphi}_n^m)$ from ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ approximating $Y$ in such a way that, denoting by $ \mathbb P $ the projective limit:
- the quotient map $p: \mathbb P \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ is irreducible;
- there is a homeomorphism $g: {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} \to Y$ that is also an order isomorphism between $\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} $ and $\preceq$.
- for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$, $a, a' \in P_{n}$, it holds that $a \le^{P_{n}} a'$ if and only if there are $x \in \operatorname{int}({\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\varphi}_{n}}), x' \in \operatorname{int}({\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{{\varphi}_{n}})$, $g(x)\preceq g(x')$.
By and the remark following it, we can assume that $Y=D_{{m}}^{{M}}$ for a closed, non-empty ${X}\subseteq {2^{{\mathbb N}}}$ and a fancy pair $({m}, {M})$ of functions on ${X}$, such that $\preceq$ coincides with the product order $\trianglelefteq$ on ${X}\times [0, 1]$. We can furthermore assume that ${m}(x) >0, {M}(x)<1$ for all $x \in {X}$. Let ${d}$ be the product metric on ${X}\times [0, 1]$.
We first define a homeomorphic copy $Y'$ of $Y$ in $X \times (0, 1)$ and then find a sequence of regular quasi-partitions of $Y$ which give the $P_{n}$’s.
Let $\mathcal U_{0} = \set{{X}}$ be the trivial clopen partition of ${X}$ and $\beta_{0}: {X}\times {[0, 1]}\to {X}\times {[0, 1]}$ be the identity. Suppose one has defined a clopen partition $\mathcal U_{n}$ of ${X}$ and a homeomorphism $\beta_{n}: {X}\times {[0, 1]}\to {X}\times {[0, 1]}$. Let ${m}^{n}, {M}^{n}$ be such that $D_{{m}^{n}}^{{M}^{n}} = \beta_{n}[Y]$. For any clopen set $U \subseteq X$, denote $${m}_U^n=\min_{x \in U} {m}^{n}(x),\qquad {M}_U^n= \max_{x \in U} {M}^{n}(x).$$ Let $\mathcal U_{n+1}$ refine $\mathcal U_{n}$, have mesh less than $ \frac 1{n+1} $, and satisfy for $\beta_{n}[Y]$ and $\varepsilon = \nicefrac{1}{2^{n+1}}$. For each $U \in \mathcal U_{n+1}$ fix $x_{U}$ given by , additionally we can ask that if ${m}^{n}_{U} < {M}^{n}_{U}$, then ${m}^{n}(x_U) < {M}^{n}(x_U)$.
For any $\ell \in {\mathbb N}$ and any two increasing sequences of real numbers $0< a_{0} < \cdots < a_{\ell -1}< 1$ and $0< b_{0} < \cdots < b_{\ell -1}< 1$, let ${P_{ \vec a}^{\vec b}} : {[0, 1]}\to {[0, 1]}$ be the piecewise linear function mapping $0 \mapsto 0, 1 \mapsto 1, a_{i} \mapsto b_{i}$ for each $i < \ell$: $${P_{ \vec a}^{\vec b}}(y)=
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{b_{0}}{a_{0}}y & \text{ if } y \le a_{0}, \\
\dfrac{b_{i+1} - b_i}{a_{i+1} - a_i}y + \dfrac{b_{i}a_{i+1}-a_{i}b_{i+1}}{a_{i+1} - a_i} & \text{ if } a_{i} < y \le a_{i+1}, i <\ell -1, \\
\dfrac{1-b_{\ell-1}}{1-a_{\ell-1}}y + \dfrac{b_{\ell-1} - a_{\ell-1}}{1-a_{\ell-1}} & \text{ if } y > a_{\ell-1}.
\end{cases}$$ Note that, for fixed $\ell $, this is a continuous function of the variables $a_0,\ldots ,a_{\ell -1},y$.
If for each $x \in U$, ${m}^{n}(x) = {M}^{n}(x)$, then ${m}^{n} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, U}} = {M}^{n} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, U}}: U \to [0, 1]$ is a continuous function, as it is both l.s.c. and u.s.c.. If follows that if we fix $x_{U} \in U$ and define $\alpha_{U}: U \times {[0, 1]}\to U \times {[0, 1]}$ as $\alpha_{U} (x, y) = \left(x, {P_{{m}^{n}(x)}^{{m}^{n}(x_{U})}}(y)\right)$, then $\alpha_{U}$ is a homeomorphism. Notice that, in this case, $\alpha_U$ sends $\beta_n[Y]\cap (U\times [0,1])$ onto $U\times \set*{ {m}^n(x_U)} $; in particular, if $\beta_n[Y]\cap (U\times [0,1])=U\times \set*{ {m}^n(x_U)} $, then $\alpha_U$ is the identity.
If, on the other hand, $x_{U} \in U$ is such that ${m}^{n}(x_{U}) < {M}^{n}(x_{U})$, we define the functions $f_{U}, g_{U}, f'_{U}, g'_{U}: U \to (0, 1)$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
f_{U}(x) &= \begin{cases}
{m}^{n}_{U} & \text{ if } x \ne x_{U} \\
{m}^{n}(x_{U}) & \text{ if } x = x_{U}
\end{cases} \\
g_{U}(x) &= \min \set*{{m}^{n}(x), {m}^{n}(x_{U}) }\\
f'_{U}(x) &= \begin{cases}
{M}^{n}_{U} & \text{ if } x \ne x_{U} \\
{M}^{n}(x_{U}) & \text{ if } x = x_{U}
\end{cases} \\
g'_{U}(x) &= \max \set*{{M}^{n}(x), {M}^{n}(x_{U}) }\end{aligned}$$
It is immediate by their definitions that $f_{U}, g'_{U}$ are u.s.c., $g_{U}, f'_{U}$ are l.s.c., and that: $${m}^{n}_{U} \le f_{U} \le g_{U} \le {m}^{n}(x_{U}) < {M}^{n}(x_{U}) \le g'_{U} \le f'_{U} \le {M}^{n}_{U}.$$ By the Katětov–Tong insertion theorem there are $h_{U}, h'_{U}: U \to (0, 1)$ continuous, such that $f_{U} \le h_{U} \le g_{U}$ and $g'_{U} \le h'_{U} \le f'_{U}$.
We define $\alpha_{U}: U \times {[0, 1]}\to U \times {[0, 1]}$ to be: $$\alpha_{U}(x, y) = \left( x, {P_{h_{U}(x) , h'_{U}(x)}^{{m}^{n}_{U}, {M}^{n}_{U}}}(y) \right).$$ Then $\alpha_{U}$ is a homeomorphism.
Define $\alpha_{n} = \bigsqcup_{U \in \mathcal U_{n+1}} \alpha_{U}$, so $\alpha_{n} \in \operatorname{Homeo}({X}\times {[0, 1]})$. Finally let $\beta_{n+1} = \alpha_{n} \beta_{n}$ and $ {m}^{n+1}, {M}^{n+1}$ be such that $\beta_{n+1}[Y]=D_{ {m}^{n+1}}^{ {M}^{n+1} }$. Notice that for any $U \in \mathcal U_{n+1}$ $$\label{boundsarethesame}
{m}^{n+1}(x_{U}) = {m}_U^n= {m}^{n+1}_{U}\quad \text{and} \quad {M}^{n+1}(x_{U}) = {M}_U^n= {M}^{n+1}_{U}.$$ Let $(x, y), (x, y') \in \beta_{n}[Y]$, and suppose that $x \in U \in \mathcal U_{n+1}$, $y \le y'$. Then ${m}^{n}_{U} \le h_{U}(x) \le y \le y' \le h'_{U}(x) \le {M}^{n}_{U}$ so: $${P_{h_{U}(x) , h'_{U}(x)}^{{m}^{n}_{U}, {M}^{n}_{U}}}(y') -{P_{h_{U}(x) , h'_{U}(x)}^{{m}^{n}_{U}, {M}^{n}_{U}}}(y) =
\dfrac{{M}_{U}^{n} - {m}_{U}^{n}}{h'_{U}(x) - h_{U}(x)} (y'-y) \ge y' - y,$$ that is, ${d}( (x, y), (x, y') ) \le {d}( \alpha_{U}(x, y), \alpha_{U}(x, y'))$. It follows that for $(x, y), (x, y') \in Y$: $$\label{eq:noncontracting}
{d}( (x, y), (x, y') ) \le {d}( \beta_{n+1}(x, y), \beta_{n+1}(x, y')).$$
We prove that the sequence $(\beta_{n})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ is Cauchy with respect to the supremum metric ${d}_{\sup}$. Indeed, for each $n$, ${d}_{\sup}(\mathrm{id}, \alpha_{n}) < \nicefrac{1}{2^{n+1}}$ by the definition of the points $x_U$. By right invariance of the supremum metric and the triangle inequality, whenever $n<m$, $$\begin{gathered}
{d}_{\sup}( \beta_{n}, \beta_{m})= {d}_{\sup}( \beta_{n}, \alpha_{m-1} \cdots \alpha_{n} \beta_{n}) = {d}_{\sup}(\mathrm{id}, \alpha_{m-1} \cdots \alpha_{n})\le \\
\le {d}_{\sup}(\mathrm{id}, \alpha_{m-1} ) + \cdots + {d}_{\sup}(\mathrm{id}, \alpha_{n}) < \sum_{i = n+1}^{m} \nicefrac{1}{2^{i}} < \nicefrac{1}{2^{n}}.\end{gathered}$$ It follows that for each $\varepsilon$, there is $n$ such that for each $m>n$, ${d}_{\sup}(\beta_{n}, \beta_{m}) < \varepsilon$.
Since the space of continuous functions from $X \times {[0, 1]}$ in itself with the supremum metric is complete, the sequence $(\beta_{n})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ has a limit, which we denote by $\beta$. Since it is the limit of surjective functions, $\beta$ is surjective. We prove that it is injective on $Y$, that is, that its restriction to $Y$ is a homeomorphism onto $Y'=\beta [Y]$.
Let $(x, y), (x', y') \in Y $. If $x \neq x'$, then $\beta(x, y) \neq \beta(x', y')$ as $\beta$ is the identity on the first coordinate. So suppose $x=x'$. Since holds for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$, we have that ${d}( (x, y), (x, y') ) \le {d}( \beta(x, y), \beta(x, y'))$, so $\beta$ is injective on $Y$.
By it follows that $Y'\subseteq X\times [ {m}_X, {M}_X]\subseteq X\times (0,1)$. Notice that $x \trianglelefteq x'$ if and only if $\beta(x) \trianglelefteq \beta(x')$. Let ${m}', {M}'$ be such that $D_{{m}'}^{{M}'} = Y'$. For any $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $U \in \mathcal U_{n+1}$, ${m}'(x_{U}) = {m}'_{U}$ and ${M}'(x_{U}) = {M}'_{U}$. This is clear if ${m}^{n} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, U}} = {M}^{n} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, U}}$. Otherwise, we have seen that ${m}^{n+1}(x_{U}) = {m}^{n+1}_{U}$. Assume that $ {m}^r(x_U)= {m}_U^r$ for some $r\ge n+1$. Given any $U'\in \mathcal U_{r+1}$ with $U'\subseteq U$, by it follows that $ {m}^r(x_U)\le {m}_{U'}^r= {m}_{U'}^{r+1}$, whence $ {m}^r(x_U)= {m}_U^r= {m}_U^{r+1}$ and, in particular, $\forall r\ge n+1\ {m}^r(x_U)= {m}^{n+1}(x_U)= {m}_U^r$, which allows to conclude $ {m}'(x_U)= {m}^{n+1}(x_U)= {m}'_U$. Similarly, $ {M}'(x_U)= {M}'_U$.
Let $
K_{U} = \setnew*{(x_{U}, y)}{{m}'_{U} \le y \le {M}'_{U}} = (\set{x_{U}} \times {[0, 1]}) \cap Y'.
$
Let $x_{0} = 0, x_{1}=1$. Let $\Theta = \setnew*{x_{\nicefrac{m}{2^{n}}} }{n\ge 1, 1\le m<2^{n} }$ be a countable dense subset of $(0, 1)\setminus \setnew{{m}_{U}, {M}_{U}}{U \in \mathcal U_{n}, n \in {\mathbb N}}$, indexed in such a way that $x_{p} < x_{q}$ if and only if $p<q$.
For $n\ge 0$, let: $$\mathcal I_{n} = \setnew*{\left[x_{\nicefrac{m}{2^{n}}}, x_{\nicefrac{(m+1)}{2^{n}}}\right]}{0\leq m\le 2^{n}-1} .$$ Then define: $$\mathcal C_{n} = \setnew*{U \times I}{U \in \mathcal U_{n}, I \in \mathcal I_{n}}.$$
Notice that for each $n$:
1. $ \mathcal C_n$ is a regular quasi-partition of $ X \times [0, 1]$,
2. \[uniquerefinement\] $\forall C\in \mathcal C_{n+1}\ \exists !C'\in \mathcal C_n\ C\subseteq C'$.
The mesh of $\mathcal C_{n}$ tends to $0$ as $n$ grows, since $\Theta $ is dense and the mesh of $ \mathcal U_n$ goes to $0$. Endow each $\mathcal C_{n}$ with the discrete topology and give $\mathcal C_{n}$ an $\mathcal L_R$-structure by letting
- $C {\mathbin{R}}^{\mathcal C_{n}} C'$ if and only if $C \cap C' \neq \emptyset$,
- $C \le^{\mathcal C_{n}} C'$ if and only if there are $x \in \operatorname{int}(C), x' \in \operatorname{int}(C')$ with $x\trianglelefteq x'$.
Then $\mathcal C_{n} \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$. Notice that $C, C'$ are $\le^{\mathcal C_{n}}$-comparable if and only if $\pi_{1}[C] = \pi_{1}[C']$, where $\pi_1$ is the projection onto $X$.
For each $n$, define $$P_{n} = \setnew*{C \in \mathcal C_{n}}{C\cap Y' \neq \emptyset}$$ and have it inherit the $\mathcal L_{R}$-structure of $\mathcal C_{n}$.
$P_n= \setnew*{C\in \mathcal C_n}{C\cap K_{\pi_1[C]}\ne\emptyset } $.
If $C\in \mathcal C_n$ is such that $C\cap Y'\ne\emptyset $, let $(x,y)\in C\cap Y'$. As ${m}'(x_{\pi_1[C]}) = {m}'_{\pi_1[C]}$ and ${M}'(x_{\pi_1[C]}) = {M}'_{\pi_1[C]}$, it follows that $(x_{\pi_1[C]},y)\in C\cap K_{\pi_1[C]}$.
If $U\in \mathcal U_n$, the projections of endpoints of $K_{U}$ on the second coordinate do not belong to $\Theta $. This implies that if $C\cap Y'\ne\emptyset $, then actually $ \operatorname{int}(C)\cap K_{\pi_1[C]}\ne\emptyset $.
Notice that $P_{n}$ is a covering of $Y'$: given $(x,y) \in Y'$, let $U\in \mathcal U_n$ be such that $x\in U$; then $ {m}'(x_U)\le y\le {M}'(x_U)$, so that $(x_U,y)\in K_U$. If $I\in \mathcal I_n$ is such that $y\in I$, then $(x,y)\in U\times I\in P_n$.
\[cl:inFzero\] $P_{n} \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ and $C \le^{P_{n}} C'$ if and only if there are $x \in \operatorname{int}(C)\cap K_{\pi_1[C]}, x' \in \operatorname{int}(C')\cap K_{\pi_1[C']}$, $x \trianglelefteq x'$.
Let $C, C' \in P_{n}$, they are $\le^{P_{n}}$-comparable if and only if $U = \pi_{1}[C]=\pi_{1}[C']$, so if and only if $C\cap K_{U} \neq \emptyset$, $C'\cap K_{U} \neq \emptyset$, if and only if $ \operatorname{int}(C)\cap K_U\ne\emptyset , \operatorname{int}(C')\cap K_U\ne\emptyset $. In particular $C \le^{P_{n}} C'$ if and only if there are $x \in \operatorname{int}(C)\cap K_{U}, x'\in \operatorname{int}(C')\cap K_{U}$, with $x \trianglelefteq x'$.
So suppose $C, C' \in P_{n}$ and $D \in \mathcal C_{n}$ with $C \le^{\mathcal C_{n}} D \le^{\mathcal C_{n}} C'$. Then $K_{\pi_1[D]}\cap D\ne\emptyset $, so $D\in P_n$. Therefore $P_{n}$ is a $\le^{ \mathcal C_n}$-convex substructure of $\mathcal C_{n}$, so $P_{n} \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$.
For each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $m\ge n$, let ${\varphi}^{m}_{n}:P_{m} \to P_{n}$ be the inclusion map, that is ${\varphi}^{m}_{n}(C) = D$ if and only if $C \subseteq D$. Notice that this is well defined as $\forall C\in \mathcal C_{m}\ \exists ! D\in \mathcal C_n\ C\subseteq D$ and $$C \in P_{m}\Rightarrow C\cap Y' \neq \emptyset\Rightarrow D\cap Y' \neq \emptyset\Rightarrow D\in P_n.$$ Clearly ${\varphi}^{m}_{n} = {\varphi}^{n+1}_{n} \cdots {\varphi}^{m}_{m-1}$ for $n<m$.
Each ${\varphi}^{m}_{n}$ is an epimorphism.
We prove that ${\varphi}^{m}_{n}$ is ${\mathcal{L}}_{R}$-preserving. Indeed, notice that $C \cap C' \neq \emptyset$ implies that ${\varphi}^{m}_{n}(C) \cap {\varphi}^{m}_{n}(C') \neq \emptyset$, so $C {\mathbin{R}}^{P_{m}} C'$ implies ${\varphi}^{m}_{n}(C) {\mathbin{R}}^{P_{n}} {\varphi}^{m}_{n}(C')$. Moreover, if $x \in \operatorname{int}(C) \cap K_U$ then $x \in \operatorname{int}({\varphi}^{m}_{n}(C))\cap K_U$, so $C \le^{P_{m}} C'$ implies ${\varphi}^{m}_{n}(C) \le^{P_{n}} {\varphi}^{m}_{n}(C')$.
Let $B \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{n})$ and let $U \in \mathcal U_{n}$ be such that $C\cap K_U\ne\emptyset $ for every $C \in B$. Let $B' \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{m})$ be such that $K_{U} \subseteq \bigcup B'$. Then ${\varphi}^{m}_{n}[B']=B$. We conclude by .
We have thus established that $(P_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m)$ is a projective sequence. Let $ \mathbb P $ denote its projective limit.
\[isfine\] The projective sequence $ (P_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m) $ is fine.
Relation $R^{ \mathbb P }$ is reflexive and symmetric, since all $R^{P_n}$ are.
To conclude use , the fact that the mesh of $(P_n)$ goes to $0$, and the fact that elements of $P_n$ are $R^{P_n}$-related if and only if their distance is $0$.
Then $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}}$ is homeomorphic to $Y'$. Indeed, let $f: \mathbb P \to Y'$ be the continuous map defined by letting $f( (C_{n})_{n\in {\mathbb N}} )$ be the unique element of $ \bigcap_{n \in {\mathbb N}} C_n$. Notice that $f$ is well defined since the mesh of the $P_{n}$’s goes to $0$, and $\bigcap_{n \in {\mathbb N}} C_n \subseteq Y'$ as $C_{n} \cap Y' \neq \emptyset$, for each $n$, and $Y'$ is closed. Moreover $f$ is surjective, since each $P_{n}$ is a covering of $Y'$. Also $f((C_{n})_{n\in {\mathbb N}} ) = f((C'_{n})_{n\in {\mathbb N}} )$ if and only if $\bigcap_{n \in {\mathbb N}} C_n = \bigcap_{n \in {\mathbb N}} C'_{n}$ if and only if $C_{n} {\mathbin{R}}^{P_{n}} C'_{n}$ for each $n$, if and only if $(C_{n})_{n\in {\mathbb N}} {\mathbin{R}}^{ \mathbb P } (C'_{n})_{n\in {\mathbb N}}$, so $f$ induces a homeomorphism $g': {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}}\to Y'$. Then $g = \beta^{-1} g': {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}\to Y$ is the desired homeomorphism.
Finally, we prove the statements a), b), and c).
a\) To apply , it is enough to prove that for every $n\in {\mathbb N}, D\in P_n$, the set $ {\varphi}_n^{-1}(D)$ contains a point whose $R^{ \mathbb P }$-equivalence class is a singleton. Since $Q=\bigcap_{m\in {\mathbb N}} \bigcup_{C\in P_m}( \operatorname{int}(C)\cap Y')$ is dense in $Y'$, let $x\in Q\cap \operatorname{int}(D)$. Then for each $m$ there is exactly one $C_m\in P_m$ to which $x$ belongs, so $f^{-1}(x) = \set{ (C_m)_{m\in {\mathbb N}}}$ and the point $(C_m)_{m\in {\mathbb N}}$ is not $R^{ \mathbb P }$-related to any other point; moreover $(C_m)_{m\in {\mathbb N}}\in {\varphi}_n^{-1}(D)$.
b\) We prove that function $g$ defined above is an isomorphism of the orders $\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} , \preceq$.
Let $x, y\in {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb R }$}\right.}} $ be distinct and such that $x\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} y$. Let $u\in p^{-1}(x), v\in p^{-1}(y)$. Then $u, v$ are distinct and $u\le v$. Moreover $\bigcap_{n\in {\mathbb N}} {\varphi}_n(u)= \set{g(x)}$, $\bigcap_{n\in {\mathbb N}} {\varphi}_n(v)= \set{g(y)} $. By the definition of $ {\varphi}_n(u)\le^{P_n} {\varphi}_n(v)$ it follows that there exist $w_n\in \operatorname{int}( {\varphi}_n(u)), z_n\in \operatorname{int}({\varphi}_n(v))$ such that $w_n\trianglelefteq z_n$. Since $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty }w_n=g(x)$, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty }z_n=g(y)$, we conclude $g(x)\preceq g(y)$.
If $x, y\in {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb R }$}\right.}} $ are $\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} $-incomparable, if $u\in p^{-1}(x), v\in p^{-1}(y)$ it follows that $u, v$ are $\le^{ \mathbb P }$-incomparable. Consequently, there exists $n\in {\mathbb N}$ such that $ {\varphi}_n(u), {\varphi}_n(v)$ are $\le^{P_n}$-incomparable, implying that $g(x), g(y)$ are $\preceq$-incomparable.
c\) This follows by point b) and .
As mentioned in the introduction, in [@Bartos2015] the Lelek fan is obtained as a quotient of the projective Fraïssé limit of a subclass of ${\mathcal F}$. In particular, the Lelek fan is approximable by a fine projective sequence from ${\mathcal F}$. We therefore raise the following question, an answer to which would involve proving analogs of for ${\mathcal F}$.
What is the class of spaces which are approximable by fine projective sequences from ${\mathcal F}$?
Spaces of endpoints of smooth fences
------------------------------------
Given a smooth fence $Y$ and a strongly compatible order $\preceq$ on $Y$, let $ \mathfrak L_{\preceq} (Y), \mathfrak U_{\preceq} (Y)$ be the space of $\preceq $-minimal points of $Y$ and the space of $\preceq $-maximal points of $Y$, respectively. By the definition of a strongly compatible order, in these sets are contained all endpoints of $Y$: $$\mathrm{E} (Y)= \mathfrak L_{\preceq} (Y) \cup \mathfrak U_{\preceq} (Y).$$ Notice that $x \in \mathfrak L_{\preceq} (Y) \cap \mathfrak U_{\preceq} (Y)$ if and only if $\set{x}$ is a connected component of $Y$. When the order $\preceq$ is clear from context we suppress the mention of it in $ \mathfrak L_{\preceq} (Y)$ and $\mathfrak U_{\preceq} (Y)$.
\[rmk:endpointsgraphs\] By , $Y$ is homeomorphic to $D^{{M}}_{{m}}$ for some fancy pair $({m}, {M})$ of functions with domain a closed subset of ${2^{{\mathbb N}}}$. It follows that $\mathfrak L_{\preceq} (Y), \mathfrak U_{\preceq} (Y)$ are homeomorphic to the graphs of ${m}, {M}$, respectively.
In this subsection we establish some topological properties of spaces of endpoints of smooth fences. In particular, we concentrate on the spaces $\mathfrak L_{\preceq} (Y)$, $\mathfrak U_{\preceq} (Y)$, $\mathfrak L_{\preceq} (Y) \cap \mathfrak U_{\preceq} (Y)$. We therefore fix a smooth fence $Y$ and a strongly compatible order $\preceq$. By we can assume that $Y= {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}}$ for some fine projective sequence $(P_n, {\varphi}_n^m)$ in ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ with projective limit $ \mathbb P $, and that $\preceq$ is $\le^{ \mathbb P /R^{ \mathbb P }}$. Let $p: \mathbb P \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ be the quotient map.
\[endpointprop\] A point $u \in \mathbb P $ is $\le^{ \mathbb P }$-maximal if and only if for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ there exists $m>n$ such that $ {\varphi}_{n}^{m}\left(\max \setnew{a \in P_{m}}{ {\varphi}_{m}(u) \le a} \right)= {\varphi}_{n}(u)$. Analogously, $u \in \mathbb P $ is $\le^{ \mathbb P }$-minimal if and only if for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ there exists $m>n$ such that $ {\varphi}_{n}^{m}\left(\min \setnew{a \in P_{m}}{a \le {\varphi}_{m}(u)} \right)= {\varphi}_{n}(u)$.
Suppose $u$ is $\le^{ \mathbb P }$-maximal and fix $n \in {\mathbb N}$. For $m>n$, let $b_{m} =\max \setnew{a \in P_{m}}{ {\varphi}_{m}(u) \le a}$. If for every $m>n$ it holds that $ {\varphi}_{n}^{m}(b_m)> {\varphi}_{n}(u)$, let $v_{m} \in {\varphi}_{m}^{-1}(b_{m}), u_{m} \in {\varphi}_{m}^{-1}( {\varphi}_{m}(u))$ be such that $u_{m} \le v_{m}$. A subsequence $v_{m_k}$ converges to some $v$. It follows that $u \le^{ \mathbb P } v$, as $u=\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty }u_{m}$ and the order is closed, and $u \neq v$ as $ {\varphi}_n(v_{m})\ne {\varphi}_{n}(u)$, for any $m > n$, a contradiction with the maximality of $u$.
Conversely, let $u \in \mathbb P $ be such that for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ there exists $m>n$ such that $ {\varphi}_{n}^{m}\left(\max \setnew{a \in P_{m}}{ {\varphi}_{m}(u) \le a} \right)= {\varphi}_{n}(u)$ and let $u \le^{ \mathbb P } v$. Fix $n$, with the objective of showing $ {\varphi}_{n}(u) = {\varphi}_{n}(v)$. Let $m>n$ satisfy the hypothesis; notice that it implies that $ {\varphi}_{n}^{m}[\setnew{a \in P_{m}}{ {\varphi}_{m}(u) \le a}] =\{ {\varphi}_{n}(u)\} $. From $u \le v$ it follows that $ {\varphi}_{m}(u) \le {\varphi}_{m}(v)$ so $ {\varphi}_{n}(v) = {\varphi}^{m}_{n} {\varphi}_{m}(v) = {\varphi}_{n}(u)$.
The case of $u$ $\le^{ \mathbb P }$-minimal is symmetrical.
\[upperlower\] Given $x \in \mathfrak U \left (
Y
\right ) $ and any open neighborhood $O$ of $x$ in $ Y $, for $m$ big enough the following holds: if $B_m\in \operatorname{MC}(P_m)$ is such that $x\in\bigcup_{a\in B_m} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_m}$, then ${\llbracket \max B_m \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_m}\subseteq O$. Consequently, $\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty } {\llbracket \max B_m \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_m}= \set{x}$.
The same holds for $x \in \mathfrak L \left (
Y
\right )$, upon changing $\max$ to $\min$.
Let $u = \max p^{-1}(x)$ and $n \in {\mathbb N}$ be such that $ {\llbracket {\varphi}_{n}(u) \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}\subseteq O$. By there is $m>n$ such that $ {\varphi}_{n}^{m}(\max B_m)= {\varphi}_{n}(u)$, for $B_m\in \operatorname{MC}(P_{m})$ with $ {\varphi}_{m}(u) \in B_m$. This implies that for all $m'\ge m$ if $B_{m'}\in \operatorname{MC}(P_{m'})$ is such that $ {\varphi}_{m'}(u)\in B_{m'}$ then $ {\varphi}_n^{m'}(\max B_{m'})= {\varphi}_n(u)$. It follows that eventually ${\llbracket \max B_m \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_m}\subseteq {\llbracket {\varphi}_{n}(u) \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}\subseteq O$.
\[branchforcomponent\] For any connected component $K \subseteq Y$ and any open neighborhood $O$ of $K$ in $ Y $, there are $m \in {\mathbb N}, B \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{m})$ such that $ K \subseteq \bigcup_{a\in B} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_m}\subseteq O$.
It can be assumed that $O\ne Y$. Fix a compatible metric on $Y$ and let $\delta$ be the distance between $K$ and $Y \setminus O$. Let $u = \min p^{-1}(K), v = \max p^{-1}(K)$ and $n \in {\mathbb N}$ be such that the mesh of $ {\llbracket P_n \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}$ is less than $\delta$, so that if $a \in P_{n}$ is such that ${\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}\cap K \neq \emptyset$, then ${\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}\subseteq O$. By there are $m'>n$ and $B' \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{m'})$ with $ {\varphi}_{m'}(u) \in B'$ and $ {\varphi}_{n}^{m'}(\min B')= {\varphi}_{n}(u)$. By a second application of , there are $m>m', B \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{m})$ such that $ {\varphi}_{m}(v) \in B, {\varphi}_{m'}^{m}(\max B)= {\varphi}_{m'}(v)$, so $ {\varphi}_{n}^{m}(\max B)= {\varphi}_{n}(v)$. Since $ {\varphi}^{m}_{m'}(\min B) \ge \min B'$, it follows that $ {\varphi}^{m}_{n}(\min B) \ge {\varphi}^{m'}_{n}(\min B') = {\varphi}_{n}(u)$ by virtue of $ {\varphi}^{m'}_{n}$ being an epimorphism. If $a \in B$, then ${\varphi}_{n}(u) \le {\varphi}^{m}_{n}(a) \le {\varphi}_{n}(v)$, so ${\llbracket {\varphi}^{m}_{n}(a) \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}\cap K \neq \emptyset$, hence ${\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_m}\subseteq {\llbracket {\varphi}^{m}_{n}(a) \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n} \subseteq O$. It follows that $\bigcup_{a\in B} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_m}\subseteq O$.
\[singlezerodimensional\] Each point of $\mathfrak L (Y) \cap \mathfrak U (Y)$ has a basis of neighborhoods in $Y$ consisting of clopen sets. In particular, the space $ \mathfrak L (Y)\cap \mathfrak U (Y)$ is zero-dimensional.
Let $x \in \mathfrak L (Y) \cap \mathfrak U (Y)$ and $O$ be an open neighborhood of $x$ in $Y$. By there exist $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $B \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{n})$ such that $x \in \bigcup_{a\in B} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}\subseteq O$. By , $\bigcup_{a\in B} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}$ is clopen in $Y$ and so its trace in $\mathfrak L (Y) \cap \mathfrak U (Y)$ is clopen in $\mathfrak L (Y) \cap \mathfrak U (Y)$.
Since $\mathfrak L (Y)$ and $\mathfrak U (Y)$ are homeomorphic to graphs of semi-continuous functions with a zero-dimensional domain, by [@Dijkstra2010]\*[Remark 4.2]{} we have the following:
\[propluazd\] The spaces $\mathfrak L (Y)$ and $\mathfrak U (Y)$ are almost zero-dimensional.
\[maxarepolish\] The spaces $\mathfrak L (Y), \mathfrak U (Y)$ are Polish.
The set $\mathfrak U(Y) = \setnew{x \in Y}{\forall y \in Y, y \preceq x \lor (x \not \preceq y \land y \not \preceq x)}$ is the co-projection of $\setnew{(x, y)}{y \preceq x \lor (x \not \preceq y \land y \not \preceq x)}$, which is the union of a closed set and an open set of $Y^{2}$, since $\preceq$ is closed. A union of a closed set and an open set is $G_{\delta}$ and since $Y$ is compact, the co-projection of an open set is open. Finally, as co-projection and intersection commute, the co-projection of a $G_{\delta}$ is $G_{\delta}$. We conclude that $\mathfrak U(Y)$ is a $G_{\delta}$ subset of $Y$, thus is Polish.
Similarly for $ \mathfrak L (Y)$.
\[singlepolish\] The spaces $ \mathrm{E} (Y)$ and $\mathfrak L(Y) \cap \mathfrak U(Y)$ are Polish.
\[stronglysigmacomplete\] The spaces $\mathfrak L(Y) \setminus \mathfrak U(Y)$ and $\mathfrak U(Y) \setminus \mathfrak L(Y)$ are strongly $\sigma$-complete spaces (that is, they are union of countably many closed and completely metrizable subspaces), since they are $F_{\sigma }$ subsets of a Polish space.
The [Fraïssé ]{}fence {#sec:theprojlimit}
=====================
We denote by ${\mathbb F}$ the projective [Fraïssé ]{}limit of $ {\mathcal F}$. Recall from that $ {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ is a projective [Fraïssé ]{}family, with the same projective [Fraïssé ]{}limit as $ {\mathcal F}$. Therefore, we fix a fundamental sequence $({F}_n, {\gamma}_n^m)$ in ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, with $F_0$ consisting of a single element.
\[lemusualtwo\] The sequence $({F}_n, {\gamma}_n^m)$ is fine and the quotient map $p: {\mathbb F}\to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ {\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ {\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}$ is irreducible.
Let $a, b \in {F}_{n}$ have $R^{{F}_{n}}$-distance $2$. Say, without loss of generality, $a {\mathbin{R}}^{{F}_{n}} c {\mathbin{R}}^{{F}_{n}} b$ and $a <^{{F}_{n}} c <^{{F}_{n}} b$. Consider $P\in{{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ obtained by ${F}_{n}$ by blowing $c$ up to two points. More precisely, let $c_0, c_1$ be two new elements, let $P =({F}_{n} \setminus \set{c} )\cup \set{c_{0}, c_{1}}$, and define $\le^P, R^P$ by extending the corresponding relations on ${F}_n\setminus \set{c} $ requiring $a<^{P}c_{0}<^{P}c_{1}<^{P}b, a{\mathbin{R}}^{P} c_{0}{\mathbin{R}}^{P} c_{1} {\mathbin{R}}^{P} b$. Let ${\varphi}: P \to {F}_{n}$ be defined by: $${\varphi}(d) = \begin{cases}
d & \text{if } d \in {F}_{n}, \\
c & \text{if } d\in \set{c_{0}, c_{1}}.
\end{cases}$$ Then $ {\varphi}$ is an epimorphism by , and by \[itm:Ftwo\] there exist $m>n$ and an epimorphism $\theta: {F}_{m} \to P$ such that ${\varphi}\theta = {\gamma}^{m}_{n}$. Let $a' \in ({\gamma}^{m}_{n})^{-1}(a), b' \in ({\gamma}^{m}_{n})^{-1}(b)$, then $\theta(a') = a, \theta(b')=b$. If there was $c' \in {F}_{m}$ such that $a' {\mathbin{R}}c' {\mathbin{R}}b'$, then $\theta(c')$ should be $R^P$-connected to $a$ and $b$, but no such element exists in $P$. By , $({F}_n, {\gamma}_n^m)$ is therefore fine.
To prove irreducibility of the quotient map, by Lemma \[singletonsdenseiffirreducible\] it suffices to show that for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $a \in {F}_{n}$ there are $m>n$ and $b \in {F}_{m}$ such that $b' {\mathbin{R}}b$ implies ${\gamma}^{m}_{n}(b') = a$. To this end fix $n, a$ as above and define $P={F}_{n} \sqcup \set{a_{0}, a_{1}, a_{2}}$ with $a_{0} {\mathbin{R}}a_{1} {\mathbin{R}}a_{2}$ and $a_{0} < a_1 < a_{2}$, so that $\set{a_{0}, a_{1}, a_{2}} \in \operatorname{MC}(P)$ and $P\in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$. Let ${\varphi}: P\to {F}_{n}$ be the identity restricted to ${F}_{n}$ and ${\varphi}(a_{i})=a$ for $0\le i\le 2$. By , ${\varphi}$ is an epimorphism and by (F2) there exist $m>n$ and an epimorphism $\theta : {F}_{m} \to P$ such that ${\varphi}\theta = {\gamma}^{m}_{n}$. Let $b \in \theta^{-1}(a_{1})$ and $b' {\mathbin{R}}b$, then $\theta (b') \in \set{a_{0}, a_{1}, a_{2}}$, so ${\gamma}^{m}_{n}(b)= a$.
A topological characterization of the [Fraïssé ]{}fence
-------------------------------------------------------
The study of the quotient $ {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ {\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ {\mathbb F}}$}\right.}} $ is one of the main goal of this paper. By , ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ is a smooth fence. We call *[Fraïssé ]{}fence* any space homeomorphic to $ {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$.
The following property of the [Fraïssé ]{}fence is of crucial importance for its characterization.
\[arcsproperty\] Let $ {\varphi}: {\mathbb F}\to P$ be an epimorphism onto some $P\in{{\mathcal F}_{0}}$. If $a, a' \in P$ with $a \le a'$, there is an arc component of ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ whose endpoints belong to $\operatorname{int}({\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}}), \operatorname{int}( {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}})$, respectively.
Let $a_1, \ldots , a_{\ell }\in P$ be such that $$\begin{aligned}
a<a_1< &\ldots <a_{\ell }<a', \\
a{\mathbin{R}}a_1{\mathbin{R}}&\ldots {\mathbin{R}}a_{\ell }{\mathbin{R}}a'.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $\ell=0$ if $a{\mathbin{R}}a'$, in particular when $a=a'$.
Let $Q=P\sqcup\{ b, c, d_1, \ldots , d_{\ell }, b', c'\}\in{{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
b<c<d_1< &\ldots <d_{\ell }<b'<c', \\
b{\mathbin{R}}c{\mathbin{R}}d_1{\mathbin{R}}& \ldots {\mathbin{R}}d_{\ell }{\mathbin{R}}b'{\mathbin{R}}c'.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\psi :Q\to P$ be the epimorphism defined as the identity on $P$ and by letting $$\left \{ \begin{array}{l}
\psi (b)=\psi (c)=a, \\
\psi (d_1)=a_1, \\
\ldots \\
\psi (d_{\ell })=a_{\ell }, \\
\psi (b')=\psi (c')=a'.
\end{array} \right .$$ By \[itm:Lthreeprime\] there is an epimorphism $\theta : {\mathbb F}\to Q$ such that ${\varphi}=\psi\theta $. Let $u, u'\in {\mathbb F}$ with $\theta (u)=b, \theta (u')=c', u\le u'$. Given any $v\in {\mathbb F}$ with $v\le u$, if $w{\mathbin{R}}v$ then $ {\varphi}(w)=a$; similarly, for any $v'\in {\mathbb F}$ with $u'\le v'$, if $w'{\mathbin{R}}v'$ then $ {\varphi}(w')=a'$. So, by , $p(v)\in \operatorname{int}( {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}}), p(v')\in \operatorname{int}( {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}})$. This implies that the arc with endpoints $p(u), p(u')$ is contained in a connected component of $ {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ with endpoints in $ \operatorname{int}( {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}}), \operatorname{int}( {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}})$, respectively.
The following theorem gives a topological characterization of the [Fraïssé ]{}fence.
\[weakcharacthm\] A smooth fence $Y$ is a [Fraïssé ]{}fence if and only if for any two open sets $O, O' \subseteq Y$ which meet a common connected component there is an arc component of $Y$ whose endpoints belong to $O, O'$, respectively.
The following lemmas are used in the proof of .
\[epiconditionslemma1\] Let $A, B, B'$ be HLOs and let ${\varphi}: B \to A$ and $\psi:B'\to A$ be $\mathcal L_{R}$-preserving maps such that $\psi[B'] \subseteq {\varphi}[B]$. Let $a_0= \psi(\min B'), a_1= \psi(\max B')$ and $r = \max\setnew*{\Card{{\varphi}^{-1}(a)}}{a\in A}$. If $\Card{\psi^{-1}(a)} \ge r$ for each $a\in \psi[B'] \setminus \set{a_0, a_1}$, then there exists an $\mathcal L_{R}$-preserving map $\theta:B'\to B$ such that ${\varphi}\theta = \psi$. Moreover:
1. if $\psi[B'] = {\varphi}[B]$ and $\Card{\psi^{-1}(a_0)}, \Card{\psi^{-1}(a_1)} \geq r$, then $\theta$ can be chosen to be surjective;
2. \[itm:minimalB\] if $\psi[B'] = {\varphi}[B]$ and $\Card{{\varphi}^{-1}(a_0)} = \Card{{\varphi}^{-1}(a_1)} = 1$, then $\theta$ can be chosen to be surjective;
3. \[itm:fixpoint\] if $a \in A$, $b \in {\varphi}^{-1}(a), b' \in \psi^{-1}(a)$ and $$\min \big\{\Card{\setnew*{c \in B'}{\psi(c)=a,c<b'} }, \Card{\setnew*{c \in B'}{\psi(c)=a,c>b'} } \big\} \ge r-1,$$ then $\theta$ can be chosen such that $\theta(b') = b$.
For each $a\in \psi[B'] \setminus \set{a_0, a_1}$ let $\theta$ map $\psi^{-1}(a)$ to ${\varphi}^{-1}(a)$ surjectively and monotonically. If $\psi[B'] = {\varphi}[B]$ and $\Card{\psi^{-1}(a_0)}, \Card{\psi^{-1}(a_1)} \geq r$, doing the same for $\psi^{-1}(a_0), \psi^{-1}(a_1)$ provides a map onto $B$. Otherwise, map all of $\psi^{-1}(a_0)$ to the maximal element of ${\varphi}^{-1}(a_0)$, and all of $\psi^{-1}(a_1)$ to the minimal element of $ {\varphi}^{-1}(a_1)$. In the hypothesis of point , this produces a surjective map on $B$.
As for point , map $\setnew*{c \in B'}{\psi(c)=a, c\le b'}$, $\setnew*{c \in B'}{\psi(c)=a, c\ge b'}$ monotonically onto $\setnew*{c \in B}{{\varphi}(c)=a, c\le b}$, $\setnew*{c \in B}{{\varphi}(c)=a, c\ge b}$, respectively, so in particular $\theta(b')=b$.
\[enoughspace\] Let $(P_n, {\varphi}_n^m)$ be a fine projective sequence in ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, with projective limit $ \mathbb P $, and the quotient map $p: \mathbb P \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ be irreducible. Let $J^1, \dots, J^{\ell }$ be connected components of ${{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}}$. For each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $1\le i\le \ell$, let $J^{i}_{n} = {\varphi}_{n}[p^{-1}(J^{i})]$ and $B^{i}_{n} \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{n})$ be such that $J^{i}_{n} \subseteq B^{i}_{n}$. For any $n, r \in {\mathbb N}$, if the endpoints of the $J^{i}$’s belong to $\bigcup_{a \in P_{n}} \operatorname{int}({\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n})$, there is $m_{0}>n$ such that, for each $m \ge m_{0}$ and $1\le i\le \ell$:
1. ${\varphi}^{m}_{n}[B^{i}_{m}] = J^{i}_{n}$,
2. \[it:greaterthanr\] if $J^i$ is an arc, then $\Card{J^{i}_{m} \cap ({\varphi}^{m}_{n})^{-1}(a)} > r$ for each $a \in J^{i}_{n}$.
We can suppose that the $J^{i}$’s are distinct. Let $O_1, \dots, O_{\ell }$ be pairwise disjoint open neighborhoods of $J^1, \dots, J^{\ell }$, respectively, such that $O_{i} \subseteq \bigcup_{a \in J^{i}_{n}} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}$, for $1\le i\le\ell$. By , there is $m'>n$ such that for $1\le i\le\ell$, one has $\bigcup_{a \in B^{i}_{m'}} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_{m'}} \subseteq O_{i}$, that is, ${\varphi}^{m'}_{n}[B^{i}_{m'}] = J^{i}_{n}$. It follows that for all $m>m'$ and $1\le i\le\ell$, one has ${\varphi}^m_{n}[B^{i}_{m}] = J^{i}_{n}$. For $1\le i\le\ell$ such that $J^{i}$ is an arc, and each $a \in J^{i}_{n}$, the set ${\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_n}\cap J^{i}$ has more than one element; since the mesh of ${\llbracket P_{m} \rrbracket}_{ {\varphi}_m}$ goes to $0$, there exists $m_{0}>m'$ such that for all $m>m_{0}$ condition \[it:greaterthanr\] is satisfied.
For the forward implication, it suffices to prove the conclusion for $ {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$. Let $O, O' \subseteq {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ be open sets which meet a common connected component $K$. Let $n \in {\mathbb N}, a, a' \in {F}_{n}$ be such that $${\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_n}\subseteq O, \quad {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_n}\subseteq O', \quad \operatorname{int}( {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_n})\cap K\ne\emptyset\ne \operatorname{int}( {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_n})\cap K.$$ It follows that $a, a'$ are $\le^{{F}_n}$-comparable, so by there is an arc component $J$ of $ {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ whose endpoints belong to $ \operatorname{int}( {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_n}), \operatorname{int}( {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_n})$, respectively, and so to $O, O'$, respectively.
Conversely, assume that for any open sets $O,O'\subseteq Y$ meeting a common connected component there is an arc component of $Y$ whose endpoints belong to $O,O'$, respectively. Let $(P_n, {\varphi}_n^m)$ be the projective sequence defined as in the proof of , and let $ \mathbb Y $ be its projective limit.
It is then enough to prove that $ \mathbb Y $ is a projective Fraïssé limit of ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$. To this end, by , we must prove that given $P \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ and an epimorphism ${\varphi}: P \to P_{n}$, there are $m\ge n$ and an epimorphism $\psi:P_{m} \to P$ such that ${\varphi}\psi = \chi^{m}_{n}$. Let $r = \max \setnew*{\lvert {\varphi}^{-1}(C) \rvert}{C\in P_{n}}$ and $B^1, \dots, B^{\ell }$ be an enumeration of $\operatorname{MC}(P)$.
From $\min B^{i} \le^{P} \max B^{i}$ it follows that ${\varphi}(\min B^{i}) \le^{P_n} {\varphi}(\max B^{i})$, for $1\le i\le\ell$. There is a connected component of $Y$ which meets the interior of both ${\varphi}(\min B^{i}), {\varphi}(\max B^{i})$, so by hypothesis there is an arc component $J^{i}$ of $Y$ whose endpoints belong to $\operatorname{int}({\varphi}(\min B^{i})), \operatorname{int}({\varphi}(\max B^{i}))$, respectively. Notice that if $j \neq i$ is such that ${\varphi}[B^{j}] = {\varphi}[B^{i}]$, one can find a connected component $J^{j}$ disjoint from $J^{i}$, by applying the hypothesis to a couple of open sets $O \subseteq {\varphi}(\min B^{i}), O' \subseteq {\varphi}(\max B^{i})$ which intersect $J^{i}$ but avoid its endpoints.
By there is $m_{0}>n$ such that for all $m \ge m_{0}$ there are $A^1, \dots, A^{\ell } \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{m})$ distinct such that, for $1\le i\le\ell$, one has $ {\varphi}^{m}_{n}[A^{i}] = {\varphi}[B^{i}]$ and $\Card{A^{i} \cap ( {\varphi}^{m}_{n})^{-1}(U)} \ge r$ for each $U \in {\varphi}[B^{i}]$.
On the other hand, since $\varphi $ is an epimorphism, for $m$ big enough it holds that for all $A \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{m})$ there is $B_{A} \in \operatorname{MC}(P)$ such that $ {\varphi}^{m}_{n}[A] \subseteq {\varphi}[B_{A}]$ and, for every $U\in {\varphi}_n^m [A]$, one has ${\lvert ( {\varphi}_n^m)^{-1}(U)\cap A \rvert} \ge r$.
So fix such an $m$, greater or equal to $m_{0}$. We construct an epimorphism $\psi:P_{m} \to P$ such that ${\varphi}\psi = {\varphi}^{m}_{n}$, by defining its restriction on each $A \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{m})$. For $1\le i\le\ell$, we use to construct an $\mathcal L_{R}$-preserving function $\psi_{i}$ from $A^{i}$ onto $B^{i}$ such that ${\varphi}\psi_{i}= {\varphi}^{m}_{n} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, A^{i}}}$. Then, for each $A \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{m}) \setminus \setnew{A^{i}}{1\le i\le\ell}$, we again use to find an $\mathcal L_{R}$-preserving function $\psi_{A}$ from $A$ to $B_{A}$ such that ${\varphi}\psi_{A} = {\varphi}^{m}_{n}{\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, A}}$. Then, defining $\psi =\bigcup_{i=1}^{\ell }\psi_i\cup\bigcup_{A\in \operatorname{MC}(P_m)\setminus \setnew{A^{i}}{1\le i\le\ell}}\psi_A $, it follows that ${\varphi}\psi = {\varphi}^{m}_{n}$ and, by , $\psi$ is an epimorphism.
Homogeneity properties of the [Fraïssé ]{}fence
-----------------------------------------------
In this section we study some homogeneity properties of the [Fraïssé ]{}fence, describing in particular its orbits under homeomorphisms. We denote by $\operatorname{Homeo}_{\le}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}})$ the subgroup of $ \operatorname{Homeo}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}})$ of homeomorphisms which preserve $\le^{{\mathbb F}/R^{{\mathbb F}}}$.
\[homogeneityofcomponents\] Let $J^1, \dots, J^{\ell }, I^1, \dots, I^{\ell }$ be two tuples of distinct connected components of ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$. Suppose that $J^1, \ldots , J^k, I^1, \ldots , I^k$ are arcs and $J^{k+1}, \ldots , J^{\ell }$, $I^{k+1}, \ldots , I^{\ell } $ are singletons, for some $k$ with $0\le k\le\ell $. For $1\le i \le k$, let $x^{i} \in J^{i}, y^{i} \in I^{i}$ be points which are not endpoints. Then there is $h \in \operatorname{Homeo}_{\le}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}})$ such that $h[J^{i}] = I^{i}$, for $1\le i\le\ell$, and $h(x^{i}) = y^{i}$ for $1\le i \le k$.
We obtain by proving in a strengthening of the converse of for $( {F}_n, {\gamma}_n^m)$ and using it in a back-and-forth argument which yields the desired homeomorphism.
\[fixapoint\] Let $(P_n, {\varphi}_n^m)$ be a fine projective sequence in ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, with projective limit $ \mathbb P $, and the quotient map $p: \mathbb P \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} $ be irreducible. Let $x \in {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}}$ be such that $p^{-1}(x)$ is a singleton which is neither $\le^{\mathbb P}$-minimal nor $\le^{\mathbb P}$-maximal. For each $n \in {\mathbb N}$, let $\set{x_{n}} = {\varphi}_{n}[p^{-1}(x)]$. For any $n, r \in {\mathbb N}$, there is $m_{0}>n$ such that for all $m>m_{0}$, $$\min \left(\Card{\setnew*{b \in P_{m}}{b<x_m, {\varphi}^{m}_{n}(b)=x_{n}} }, \Card{\setnew*{b \in P_{m}}{b>x_m, {\varphi}^{m}_{n}(b)=x_{n}} } \right) \ge r.$$
Since $p^{-1}(x)$ is neither $\le^{\mathbb P}$-minimal nor $\le^{\mathbb P}$-maximal, there is $n_{0}>n$ such that $x_{n_{0}}$ is neither $\le^{P_{n_{0}}}$-minimal nor $\le^{P_{n_{0}}}$-maximal. Let $a, a'$ be the $R^{P_{n_0}}$-neighbors of $x_{n_{0}}$ different from $x_{n_0}$. By it follows that $x \in \operatorname{int}({\llbracket x_{n_{0}} \rrbracket}_{{\varphi}_{n_{0}}})$, so $x$ has positive distance from ${\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\varphi}_{n_{0}}}$ and ${\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{{\varphi}_{n_{0}}}$. By (2), there is $m_0>n_{0}$ for which the thesis holds.
\[backandforth\] Let $J^1, \dots, J^{\ell }$ be distinct connected components of $ {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$, such that $J^1,\ldots ,J^k$ are arcs and $J^{k+1},\ldots ,J^{\ell }$ are singletons, where $0\le k\le\ell $. Assume that $p^{-1}(x)$ is a singleton, for any $x$ endpoint of some $J^i$. For $1\le i \le k$, let $x^{i} \in J^{i}$ be a point which is not an endpoint, such that $p^{-1}(x^{i})$ is a singleton. For each $n \in {\mathbb N}$, call $J^{i}_{n} = {\gamma}_{n}[p^{-1}(J^{i})]$, and $\set{x^{i}_{n}} = {\gamma}_{n}[p^{-1}(x^{i})]$. Let $P \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, and ${\varphi}: P \to {F}_{n}$ an epimorphism. For $1\le i\le\ell $, let $I^{i} \subseteq P$ be $R$-connected and such that ${\varphi}[I^{i}] = J^{i}_{n}$; assume moreover that if $J^i$ is a singleton, then $I^{i}$ is a singleton as well. For $1\le i \le k$, let $y^{i} \in {\varphi}^{-1}(x^{i}_{n})$. Then there exist $m>n$ and an epimorphism $\psi: {F}_{m} \to P$ such that:
- $\psi[J^{i}_{m}] = I^{i}$ for $1\le i\le\ell$;
- $\psi(x^{i}_{m}) = y^{i}$ for $1\le i \le k$; and
- ${\varphi}\psi = {\gamma}^{m}_{n}$.
Let $r = \max \setnew{ \Card{{\varphi}^{-1}(a)}}{a \in {F}_{n}}$. For $1\le i\le\ell$ and $m \in {\mathbb N}$, let $B^{i}_{m} \in \operatorname{MC}({F}_{m})$ be such that $J^{i}_{m} \subseteq B^{i}_{m}$. Let $P' \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ be the structure obtained as the disjoint union of $\ell+1$ copies of $P$ and $\alpha: P' \to P$ be the epimorphism whose restriction to each copy of $P$ is the identity. By \[itm:Ftwo\] there are $m'>n$ and an epimorphism $\psi': {F}_{m'} \to P'$ such that ${\varphi}\alpha \psi' = {\gamma}^{m'}_{n}$. By the endpoints of $J^{i}$ belong to $\bigcup_{a \in {F}_{m'}} \operatorname{int}({\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{ {\gamma}_{m'}})$, for $1\le i\le\ell$, so we can apply to find $m_{0}>m'$ such that for all $m>m_{0}$ and $1\le i\le\ell$ we obtain that ${\gamma}^{m}_{m'}[B^{i}_{m}] = J^{i}_{m'}$ and, if $J^i$ is an arc, $\Card{({\gamma}^{m}_{n})^{-1}(a) \cap J^{i}_{m}}>r$ for each $a \in J^{i}_{n}$. For $1\le i \le k$, $p^{-1}(x^{i})$ is a singleton and is neither $\le^{{\mathbb F}}$-minimal nor $\le^{{\mathbb F}}$-maximal, so by there is $m_{1} > m_{0}$ such that for all $m>m_{1}$ and $1\le i \le k$, $$\label{spaceabovebelow}
\min \left(\Card{\setnew*{b \in {F}_{m}}{b<x_m^i,{\gamma}^{m}_{n}(b)=x^{i}_{n}}}, \Card{\setnew*{b \in {F}_{m}}{b>x_m^i,{\gamma}^{m}_{n}(b)=x^{i}_{n}} } \right) \ge r.$$ Now we use to define, for $1\le i\le\ell$, an epimorphism $\psi_{i}: B^{i}_{m} \to I^{i}$ such that $\psi_{i}[J^{i}_{m}] = I^{i}$, $ {\varphi}\psi_i={\gamma}_n^m {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, B_m^i}}$, and such that, moreover, $\psi_{i}(x^{i}_{m}) = y^{i}$ when $1\le i \le k$. Let $\psi: {F}_{m} \to P$ be defined by $$\psi (b)= \left \{ \begin{array}{lcl}
\alpha\psi' {\gamma}_{m'}^m(b) & \text{if} & b\notin\bigcup_{i=1}^{\ell }B_m^i \\
\psi_i(b) & \text{if} & b\in B_m^i
\end{array} \right .
.$$ Then ${\varphi}\psi = {\gamma}^{m}_{n}$ and $\psi$ is an epimorphism. Indeed, $\psi$ is ${\mathcal{L}}_{R}$-preserving by construction and for each $B \in \operatorname{MC}(P)$ there is $C \in \operatorname{MC}({F}_{m})$ such that $\psi'{\gamma}_{m'}^m[C]$ equals one of the copies of $B$ in $P'$, as there are more copies of $B$ in $P'$ than maximal chains of ${F}_{m}$ on which $\psi$ differs from $\alpha\psi'{\gamma}_{m'}^m$.
The connected components of might not satisfy the hypotheses of , since some of the endpoints may be non-singleton $R^{ {\mathbb F}}$-classes, so we cannot apply directly. Therefore we need first the following lemma.
\[identifyendpoints\] Let $\sim \subseteq R^{{\mathbb F}}$ be an equivalence relation on ${\mathbb F}$ which is the equality but on finitely many points. Then ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$\sim$}\right.}}}$ with the induced $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$-structure is isomorphic to ${\mathbb F}$.
Let $\ell$ be the number of $\sim$-equivalence classes of cardinality greater than $1$, that is, by , of cardinality $2$. Denote these equivalence classes by $\set{x_1, x'_1}, \dots, \set{x_{\ell }, x'_{\ell }}$. To prove that ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$\sim$}\right.}}}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb F}$ we show that ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$\sim$}\right.}}}$ satisfies properties \[itm:Lone\], \[itm:Ltwo\] and \[itm:Lthreeprime\]. Inductively, it is enough to prove the assertion for $\ell =1$. Notice also that the quotient map $q: {\mathbb F}\to {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$\sim$}\right.}}}$ is an epimorphism.
Property \[itm:Lone\] follows from \[itm:Lthreeprime\] by considering, for any $P\in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, epimorphisms from ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$\sim$}\right.}}}$ and $P$ to a structure in ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ with one point.
To check that \[itm:Lthreeprime\] holds, fix $P, Q \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ and epimorphisms $\psi: {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$\sim$}\right.}}}\to P, {\varphi}: Q \to P$ with the objective of finding an epimorphism $\theta: {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$\sim$}\right.}}}\to Q$ such that ${\varphi}\theta = \psi$. Let $Q' \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ be the structure obtained from $Q$ by substituting each $a \in Q$ with a chain $ \set{a_0, a_1} $ of length $2$. In other words:
- $Q'= \setnew{a_0, a_1}{a\in Q} $;
- $R^{Q'}$ is the smallest reflexive and symmetric relation such that
- $a_{0} {\mathbin{R}}^{Q'} a_1$ for every $a\in Q$,
- $a_1 {\mathbin{R}}^{Q'} a'_{0}$ whenever $a {\mathbin{R}}^{Q} a'$, with $a <^{Q} a'$;
- $a_i\le^{Q'}a'_j$ if and only if either $a=a', i\le j$, or $a<^Qa'$.
Let $\chi : Q' \to Q$ be the epimorphism $a_{i} \mapsto a$. By \[itm:Lthreeprime\] for ${\mathbb F}$ there exists $\theta': {\mathbb F}\to Q'$ such that ${\varphi}\chi \theta' = \psi q$. Let $C=\theta'[\set{ x_1, x'_1}]$. Let $\chi': Q' \to Q$ be defined as $$\chi'(a_{i})= \begin{cases}
a & \text{ if } a_{i} \not \in C, \\
\chi(\max C) & \text{ if } a_{i} \in C.
\end{cases}$$ Then $\chi'$ is an epimorphism using , which is applicable as $\forall a\in Q'\ \chi'(a_0)=a$. Define $\theta (y)= \chi' \theta'(x)$ for any $x\in q^{-1}(y)$. This is well defined as $\chi'\theta'(x_1)= \chi'\theta'(x'_1)$, and is the required epimorphism: continuity holds since for each $a \in Q$, the set $(\chi' \theta')^{-1}(a)$ is a clopen $\sim$-invariant subset of ${\mathbb F}$, so $q[(\chi' \theta')^{-1}(a)]=\theta^{-1}(a)$ is clopen in ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$\sim$}\right.}}}$.
For \[itm:Ltwo\] let $ \set{V_1, \dots, V_r} $ be a clopen partition of ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$\sim$}\right.}}}$. Consider the induced clopen partition $ \set{q^{-1}(V_1), \dots, q^{-1}(V_r)} $ of ${\mathbb F}$. By \[itm:Ltwo\] for ${\mathbb F}$, there exist $P' \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ and an epimorphism ${\varphi}': {\mathbb F}\to P'$ which refines the partition. Let $P\in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ be the quotient of $P'$ which identifies $a, a'$ if and only if $a = a'$ or $a, a \in {\varphi}'[\set{x_1, x'_1}]$. Then the quotient map $\psi:P' \to P$ is an epimorphism, so ${\varphi}(y)= \psi {\varphi}'(x)$ for any $x\in q^{-1}(y)$ is a well defined epimorphism. Since $\psi {\varphi}'$ refines $ \set{q^{-1}(V_1),\ldots ,q^{-1}(V_r)} $, it follows that ${\varphi}$ refines $ \set{V_1, \dots, V_r} $.
By , up to considering an isomorphic structure, we can assume that the preimages of the endpoints of all the $J^{i}$’s and $I^{i}$’s under the quotient map $p: {\mathbb F}\to {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ are singletons, as well as the preimages of the $x^{i}$’s and $y^{i}$’s.
For $1 \le i \le \ell$, let $J^{i}_{\infty} = p^{-1}(J^{i}), I^{i}_{\infty} = p^{-1}(I^{i})$; for $1\le i \le k$, let $\set{x^{i}_{\infty}} = p^{-1}(x^{i}), \set{y^{i}_{\infty}} = p^{-1}(y^{i})$. For each $n \in {\mathbb N}$, for $1 \le i \le \ell$, let $J^{i}_{n} = {\gamma}_{n}[J^{i}_{\infty}], I^{i}_{n} = {\gamma}_{n}[I^{i}_{\infty}]$; for $1\le i \le k$, let $x^{i}_{n}= {\gamma}_{n}(x^{i}_{\infty}), y^{i}_{n}= {\gamma}_{n}(y^{i}_{\infty})$. When $J^i$ (equivalently, $I^i$) is a singleton, then $J_n^i, I_n^i$ are singletons for every $n\in {\mathbb N}$.
Let $n_{0} = m_{0} = 0$ and ${\varphi}_{0}: {F}_{m_{0}} \to {F}_{n_{0}}$ be the identity. As ${F}_{0}$ consists of a single point, all the hypotheses of are satisfied where $n, P, I^i, y^{i}, {\varphi}$ of the lemma are $0, F_0, I_0^i, y^{i}_{0}, {\varphi}_0$, respectively. Suppose that $n_{j}, m_{j}, {\varphi}_{j}: {F}_{m_{j}} \to {F}_{n_{j}}$ have been defined and are such that ${\varphi}_{j}[I^{i}_{m_{j}}] = J^{i}_{n_{j}}$ for $1 \le i \le \ell$, and ${\varphi}_{j}(y^{i}_{m_{j}})=x^{i}_{n_{j}}$ for $1\le i \le k$. By there exist $n_{j+1}> n_{j}$ and $\psi_{j}: {F}_{n_{j+1}} \to {F}_{m_{j}}$ such that ${\varphi}_{j}\psi_{j} = {\gamma}^{n_{j+1}}_{n_{j}}$, $\psi_{j}[J^{i}_{n_{j+1}}] = I^{i}_{m_{j}}$, for $1 \le i \le \ell$, and $\psi_{j}(x^{i}_{n_{j+1}}) = y^{i}_{m_{j}}$, for $1\le i \le k$. Now ${F}_{m_{j}}, {F}_{n_{j+1}}$ and $\psi_{j}$ satisfy the hypotheses of with the roles of the $I$’s and $J$’s reversed, so there exist $m_{j+1}>m_{j}$ and ${\varphi}_{j+1}: {F}_{m_{j+1}} \to {F}_{n_{j+1}}$ such that $\psi_{j}{\varphi}_{j+1} = {\gamma}^{m_{j+1}}_{m_{j}}$, ${\varphi}_{j+1}[I^{i}_{m_{j+1}}] = J^{i}_{n_{j+1}}$ for $1 \le i \le \ell$, and ${\varphi}_{j+1}(y^{i}_{m_{j+1}})=x^{i}_{n_{j+1}}$, for $1\le i \le k$.
Let ${\varphi}, \psi: {\mathbb F}\to {\mathbb F}$ be the unique epimorphisms such that for each $j \in {\mathbb N}$, ${\gamma}_{n_{j}} {\varphi}= {\varphi}_{j} {\gamma}_{m_{j}}$ and ${\gamma}_{m_{j}} \psi = \psi_{j} {\gamma}_{n_{j+1}}$. Then ${\varphi}\psi$ and $\psi {\varphi}$ are the identity, so ${\varphi}, \psi \in \operatorname{Aut}({\mathbb F})$. As for each $j \in {\mathbb N}$, ${\gamma}_{m_{j}} \psi[J^{i}_{\infty}] = \psi_{j} {\gamma}_{n_{j+1}}[J^{i}_{\infty}] = \psi_{j}[J^{i}_{n_{j+1}}] = I^{i}_{m_{j}}$ for $1 \le i \le \ell$, it follows that $\psi[J^{i}_{\infty}] = I^{i}_{\infty}$; from ${\gamma}_{m_{j}} \psi[x^{i}_{\infty}] = \psi_{j} {\gamma}_{n_{j+1}}[x^{i}_{\infty}] = \psi_{j}[x^{i}_{n_{j+1}}] = y^{i}_{m_{j}}$, it follows that $\psi[x^{i}_{\infty}] = y^{i}_{\infty}$, for $1\le i \le k$. Let $h: {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}\to {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ be defined by $h(x)=p\psi (u)$ for any $u\in p^{-1}(x)$. Then $h\in \operatorname{Homeo}_{\le}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}})$ and $h[J^{i}] = I^{i}$, for $1 \le i \le \ell$, and $h(x^{i}) = y^{i}$ for $1\le i \le k$.
To lighten notation, let $ \mathfrak L = \mathfrak L_{\le^{ \mathbb F /R^{ \mathbb F }}} \left (
{{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}\right ),
\mathfrak U = \mathfrak U_{\le^{ \mathbb F /R^{ \mathbb F }}} \left (
{{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}\right )
$.
\[landuhomeo\] There is $h \in \operatorname{Homeo}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}})$ which switches $\mathfrak U$ and $\mathfrak L$.
For any ${\mathcal{L}}_{R}$-structure $A$, let $A^{*}$ be the ${\mathcal{L}}_{R}$-structure with the same support as $A$, with $R^{A^{*}} = R^{A}$ and $u \le^{A^{*}} u'$ if and only if $u' \le^{A} u$. Then $(A^{*})^{*} = A$ and a function ${\varphi}: B \to A$ is an epimorphism from $B$ to $A$ if and only if it is an epimorphism from $B^{*}$ to $A^{*}$. Now, if $A \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, then $A^{*} \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, so it is straightforward to check that \[itm:Lone\], \[itm:Ltwo\], \[itm:Lthree\] hold for ${\mathbb F}^{*}$. It follows that ${\mathbb F}^{*}$ is the projective Fraïssé limit of ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ and thus that it is isomorphic to ${\mathbb F}$, via an isomorphism $\alpha: {\mathbb F}\to {\mathbb F}^{*}$. Let $h: {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}\to {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ be defined by letting $h(x)=p\alpha (u)$ for any $u\in p^{-1}(x)$. Then $h$ is the required homeomorphism.
\[onethirdhomo\] The [Fraïssé ]{}fence is $\nicefrac{1}{3}$-homogeneous. The orbits of the action of $\operatorname{Homeo}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}})$ on ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ are $\mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U$, $ \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U$, and ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}\setminus (\mathfrak L \cup \mathfrak U)$.
The above subspaces are clearly invariant under homeomorphisms. We conclude by and .
The [Fraïssé ]{}fence also enjoys a different kind of homogeneity property, namely that of $h$-homogeneity.
\[newspacehhomo\] The [Fraïssé ]{}fence is $h$-homogeneous.
Fix a nonempty clopen subset $U$ of ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$. By , there is $n_{0} \in {\mathbb N}$ such that for all $n \ge n_{0}$, there is $S_{n} \subseteq \operatorname{MC}(P_{n})$ for which $U = \bigcup_{a\in\bigcup S_n}{\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_n}$. Let $Q_{n} = \bigcup S_{n}$. We prove that $(Q_{n}, {\gamma}^{m}_{n} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, Q_m}})_{n \ge n_{0}}$ is a fundamental sequence in ${{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, thus showing that $p^{-1}(U)$, with the $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$-structure inherited from $ {\mathbb F}$, is isomorphic to ${\mathbb F}$, which yields the result.
Let $n\ge n_{0}$, $P \in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ and ${\varphi}: P \to Q_{n}$. Let $P' = P \sqcup ({F}_{n} \setminus Q_{n})$ and ${\varphi}' : P' \to {F}_{n}$ be ${\varphi}$ on $P$ and the identity on ${F}_{n} \setminus Q_{n}$. Since $Q_{n}$ is $R^{P_n}$-invariant in ${F}_{n}$ and ${\varphi}$ is an epimorphism, so is ${\varphi}'$, by . By \[itm:Ftwo\] there are $m\ge n$ and an epimorphism $\psi': {F}_{m} \to P'$ such that ${\varphi}' \psi' = {\gamma}^{m}_{n}$. We see that $({\gamma}^{m}_{n})^{-1}(Q_{n}) = Q_{m}$. Indeed, ${\gamma}_{m}^{-1}(Q_{m}) = {\gamma}_{n}^{-1}(Q_{n}) = p^{-1}(U)$, so $Q_{m} \subseteq ({\gamma}^{m}_{n})^{-1}(Q_{n}) \subseteq {\gamma}_{m}[{\gamma}_{n}^{-1}(Q_{n})] = {\gamma}_{m}[p^{-1}(U)] = Q_{m}$. Therefore $(\psi')^{-1}(P)= Q_{m}$, so $\psi = \psi' {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, Q_{m}}} : Q_{m} \to P$ is an epimorphism such that ${\varphi}\psi = {\gamma}^{m}_{n} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, Q_{m}}}$. We conclude by .
A strong universality property of the [Fraïssé ]{}fence
-------------------------------------------------------
shows that any smooth fence embeds in the Cantor fence. We show a stronger universality property for the [Fraïssé ]{}fence, namely that any smooth fence embeds in the [Fraïssé ]{}fence via a map which preserves endpoints.
\[thm:FraisseFenceUniversal\] For any smooth fence $Y$ there is an embedding $f: Y \to {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ such that $f[\mathrm{E}(Y)] \subseteq \mathrm{E}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}})$. Moreover, fixing a strongly compatible order $\preceq $ on $Y$, the embedding $f$ can be constructed so that $f[ \mathfrak L (Y)]\subseteq \mathfrak L ,f[ \mathfrak U (Y)]\subseteq \mathfrak U $.
By there is a projective sequence $(P_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m)$, with projective limit $\mathbb P$ such that ${{\raisebox{.1em}{$\mathbb P\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{\mathbb P}$}\right.}}$ is homeomorphic to $Y$, via $h: {{\raisebox{.1em}{$\mathbb P\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{\mathbb P}$}\right.}} \to Y$; moreover, $h$ is an isomorphism between $\le^{ \mathbb P /R^{ \mathbb P }}$ and $\preceq $. Therefore it is enough to prove the assertion for $( {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P \!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} ,\le^{ \mathbb P /R^{ \mathbb P }})$.
Let $q: \mathbb P \to {{\raisebox{.1em}{$\mathbb P\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{\mathbb P}$}\right.}}$ be the quotient map. We procede by induction to define a topological $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$-structure $ \mathbb P'\subseteq {\mathbb F}$ isomorphic to $ \mathbb P $. Let $a_{0} \in {F}_{0}$, $P'_{0} = \set{a_{0}} \subseteq {F}_{0}$, and $\theta_{0}: P_{0} \to P'_{0}$ be the unique epimorphism.
Suppose one has defined $i_{n}, j_{n} \in {\mathbb N}$, $P'_{n} \subseteq {F}_{i_{n}}$; assume also that, with the induced structure, $P'_n\in {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$ and there is an epimorphism $\theta_{n}: P_{j_{n}} \to P'_{n}$. Let $F'_{n} = {F}_{i_{n}} \sqcup P_{j_{n}}$ and $\theta'_{n}: F'_{n} \to {F}_{i_{n}}$ be the identity on ${F}_{i_{n}}$ and $\theta_{n}$ on $P_{j_{n}}$. By \[itm:Ftwo\] there are $i_{n+1} > i_{n}$ and an epimorphism $\psi_{n}: {F}_{i_{n+1}} \to F'_{n}$ such that ${\gamma}^{i_{n+1}}_{i_{n}} = \theta'_{n} \psi_{n}$. Then $\psi_n^{-1}(P_{j_n})$ is an $R^{F_{i_{n+1}}}$-invariant subset of $F_{i_{n+1}}$, that is the union of a subset of $ \operatorname{MC}(F_{i_{n+1}})$. Let $P'_{n+1} \subseteq \psi_n^{-1}(P_{j_n})$ be in $ {{\mathcal F}_{0}}$, with respect to the induced $ {\mathcal{L}}_R$-structure, and minimal, under inclusion, with the property that $\psi_{n} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_{n+1}}}$ is an epimorphism onto $P_{j_{n}}$. This means that there is a bijection $g: \operatorname{MC}(P_{j_{n}}) \to \operatorname{MC}(P'_{n+1})$ such that $\psi_{n}[g(A)] = A$ and $ \Card{\psi^{-1}(\min A)\cap g(A)} = \Card{\psi^{-1}(\max A)\cap g(A)} =1$, for any $A \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{j_{n}})$. Let $r = \max \setnew{ {\lvert \psi_{n}^{-1}(a) \cap g(A) \rvert}}{a \in A, A \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{j_{n}})}$.
Since the sequence $(P_{n}, {\varphi}_{n}^m)$ is fine, by , there is $j_{n+1}> j_{n}$ such that for all $a, b \in P_{j_{n}}$ with $d_{R^{P_{j_{n}}}}(a, b) = 2$, and all $a' \in ({\varphi}^{j_{n+1}}_{j_{n}})^{-1}(a), b' \in ({\varphi}^{j_{n+1}}_{j_{n}})^{-1}(b)$, it holds that $d_{R^{P_{j_{n+1}}}}(a', b') \ge r+1$; this means that if $B$ is an $R^{P_{j_{n+1}}}$-connected chain in $P_{j_{n+1}}$ and $c\in {\varphi}_{j_n}^{j_{n+1}}[B]\setminus\{\min {\varphi}_{j_n}^{j_{n+1}}[B],\max {\varphi}_{j_n}^{j_{n+1}}[B]\} $, then $ \Card{( {\varphi}_{j_n}^{j_{n+1}})^{-1}(c)\cap B} \ge r$. We find an epimorphism $\theta_{n+1}: P_{j_{n+1}} \to P'_{n+1}$ by defining it on each maximal chain. Fix $B \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{j_{n+1}})$. Let $A \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{j_{n}})$ be such that ${\varphi}^{j_{n+1}}_{j_{n}}[B] \subseteq A$ and $B' \subseteq g(A)$ be the minimal subset such that $\psi_{n}[B'] = {\varphi}^{j_{n+1}}_{j_{n}}[B]$. Then $B, {\varphi}^{j_{n+1}}_{j_{n}}[B]$ and $B'$ satisfy the hypothesis of , so there is an epimorphism $\theta_{B}: B \to B'$ such that $\psi_{n}\theta_{B} = {\varphi}^{j_{n+1}}_{j_{n}} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, B}}$. Let $\theta_{n+1}=\bigcup_{B \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{j_{n+1}})}\theta_{B}$. Then $\theta_{n+1}$ is an epimorphism by : for each $A \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{j_{n}})$, there is $B \in \operatorname{MC}(P_{j_{n+1}})$ with ${\varphi}^{j_{n+1}}_{j_{n}}[B]=A$, so $\theta_{n+1}[B]\subseteq g(A)$, and by minimality of $g(A)$ it follows that $\theta_{n+1}[B] = g(A)$. Note that $\psi_n {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_{n+1}}} \theta_{n+1}= {\varphi}_{j_n}^{j_{n+1}}$.
The functions $ {\gamma}_{i_n}^{i_{n+1}} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_{n+1}}} :P'_{n+1}\to P'_n$ are epimorphisms, so $\mathbb P' = \setnew{ u \in {\mathbb F}}{\forall n \in {\mathbb N}\ {\gamma}_{i_{n}}(u) \in P'_{n}}$, with the induced ${\mathcal{L}}_{R}$-structure is the limit of the projective sequence $(P'_n, {\gamma}_{i_n}^{i_m} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_m}} )$. Since $ {\gamma}_{i_n}^{i_{n+1}} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_{n+1}}} \theta_{n+1}=\theta_n\psi_n {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_{n+1}}} \theta_{n+1}=\theta_n {\varphi}_{j_n}^{j_{n+1}}$, let $\theta: \mathbb P \to \mathbb P'$ be the unique epimorphism such that for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$, ${\gamma}_{i_{n}} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, \mathbb P'}} \theta = \theta_{n+1} {\varphi}_{j_{n+1}}$. Similarly, as $ {\varphi}_{j_n}^{j_{n+1}}\psi_{n+1} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_{n+2}}} =\psi_n {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_{n+1}}} \theta_{n+1}\psi_{n+1} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_{n+2}}} =\psi_n {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_{n+1}}} \gamma_{i_{n+1}}^{i_{n+2}} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_{n+2}}} $, let $\psi: \mathbb P' \to \mathbb P$ be the unique epimorphism such that for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$, ${\varphi}_{j_{n}} \psi = \psi_{n} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, P'_{n+1}}} {\gamma}_{i_{n+1}} {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, \mathbb P'}}$. Then $\theta \psi$ and $\psi \theta$ are the identity, so $\theta, \psi$ are isomorphisms. Let $f: {{\raisebox{.1em}{$ \mathbb P\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{ \mathbb P }$}\right.}} \to {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ be defined by letting $f(x)= p \theta (w)$ for any $w\in q^{-1}(x)$. Then $f$ is an embedding.
We show that $\le^{{\mathbb F}}$-maximal (respectively, $\le^{{\mathbb F}}$-minimal) points of $\mathbb P'$ are $\le^{{\mathbb F}}$-maximal (respectively, $\le^{{\mathbb F}}$-minimal) in ${\mathbb F}$, thus concluding the proof. To this end, let $u \in \mathbb P'$ be $\le^{{\mathbb F}}$-maximal in $\mathbb P'$ and fix $n \in {\mathbb N}$. Let $a_m= \max \setnew{a \in P'_{m}}{ {\gamma}_{i_{m}}(u) \le a}$; by , there is $m>n$ such that ${\gamma}^{i_{m}}_{i_{n}}(a_{m})= {\gamma}_{i_{n}}(u)$. By minimality of $P'_{m}$, it follows that $\psi_{m-1}(a_m)$ is $\le^{F'_{m-1}}$-maximal, so for any $a \in {F}_{i_{m}}$ with $a_m\le a$, we have $\psi_{m-1}(a) = \psi_{m-1}(a_m)$, so ${\gamma}^{i_{m}}_{i_{m-1}}(a) = {\gamma}^{i_{m}}_{i_{m-1}}(a_m)$. It holds therefore that ${\gamma}^{i_{m}}_{i_{n}}(a) = {\gamma}^{i_{m}}_{i_{n}}(a_m)= {\gamma}_{i_{n}}(u)$. By , it follows that $u$ is $\le^{{\mathbb F}}$-maximal in ${\mathbb F}$. The case for $\le^{{\mathbb F}}$-minimal points is analogous.
Spaces of endpoints of the [Fraïssé ]{}fence
--------------------------------------------
By , $ \mathfrak L $ and $ \mathfrak U$ are homeomorphic. It also follows from that lemma that $\mathfrak U \setminus \mathfrak L , \mathfrak L \setminus \mathfrak U$ are homeomorphic. We therefore state the results in this section solely in terms of $\mathfrak U, \mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U$, and $\mathfrak U \setminus \mathfrak L$, the latter of which we denote by $\mathfrak M$. In below we see that $\mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U$ is homeomorphic to the Baire space ${\mathbb N}^{{\mathbb N}}$.
\[homogeneous\] $\mathfrak M$ and $\mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U$ are $n$-homogeneous for every $n\ge 1$.
From .
\[notzerodim\] $\mathfrak M$ is one-dimensional.
As $\mathfrak M$ is a subset of a one-dimensional space, its dimension is at most one. We now show that it is at least one. Let $x \in \mathfrak M $ and $J$ be the arc component of ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ to which it belongs. Let $O$ be an open neighborhood of $x$ in ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ such that $J \not \subseteq \operatorname{cl}(O)$. Let $n_{0}$ be such that there is $B_{0} \in \operatorname{MC}({F}_{n_{0}})$ with $$J \subseteq \bigcup_{a\in B_0} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_0}}, \quad {\llbracket \max B_{0} \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_0}}\subseteq O,$$ which exists by . Choose $a_{0} \in B_{0}$ such that $ {\llbracket a_0 \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_0}}\subseteq {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}\setminus \operatorname{cl}(O)$ and let $a'_{0} \in B_{0}$ be the minimum such that $\bigcup_{ a \ge a'_0} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_0}}\subseteq O$. Notice that $a_{0} < a'_{0}$.
Suppose one has defined $n_i\in {\mathbb N}, B_i\in \operatorname{MC}({F}_{n_i}), a_i, a'_i\in B_i$, with $a_i< a'_i$. By there exists an arc component $J_{i}$ of ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ whose endpoints belong to $\operatorname{int}( {\llbracket a_i \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}), \operatorname{int}( {\llbracket a'_i \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}})$, respectively. By there are $n_{i+1}>n_{i}$ and $B_{i+1} \in \operatorname{MC}({F}_{n_{i+1}})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
J_i\subseteq\bigcup_{a\in B_{i+1}} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_{i+1}}}\ &\subseteq \bigcup_{a\in B_i} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_{i}}}, \\
{\llbracket \max B_{i+1} \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_{i+1}}} &\subseteq {\llbracket a'_i \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}.\end{aligned}$$ Choose $a_{i+1} \in B_{i+1}$ such that $ {\llbracket a_{i+1} \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_{i+1}}}\subseteq {\llbracket a_i \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}$ and let $a'_{i+1} \in B_{i+1}$ be the minimum such that $ \bigcup_{ a \ge a'_{i+1}} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_{i+1}}}\subseteq O$, so in particular $a_{i+1} < a'_{i+1}$. Since the mesh of $( {\llbracket {F}_n \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_n})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ goes to $0$, we can furthermore choose $n_{i+1}$ so that $ {\llbracket a'_{i+1} \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_{i+1}}}\nsubseteq {\llbracket a'_i \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}$, so that in particular $a'_{i+1}\ne\max B_{i+1}$.
Let $K = \bigcap_{i \in {\mathbb N}} \bigcup_{a\in B_i} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}=\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty }\bigcup_{a\in B_i} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}$. By , $K$ is connected, call $y$ its maximum. We prove that $$y \in \mathfrak M \quad \text{and} \quad y \in \operatorname{cl}_{ \mathfrak M } \left (
O\cap \mathfrak M \right ) \setminus O,$$ which concludes the proof.
Since $\bigcup_{a\in B_i} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}\cap {\llbracket a_{0} \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_0}}\ne\emptyset $ for each $i$, it follows that $K \cap {\llbracket a_{0} \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_0}}\neq \emptyset$, so $y \not \in \mathfrak L $. Suppose there exists $y' \in {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$, $y<^{ \mathbb F /R^{ \mathbb F }}y'$. Let $U$ be an open set containing $K$ while avoiding $y'$. There thus is $i \in {\mathbb N}$ such that $\bigcup_{a\in B_i} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}\subseteq U$. For each $a' \in {F}_{n_{i}}$ with $y'\in {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}$, it follows that $a' \not \in B_{i}$ as $ {\llbracket a' \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}\not \subseteq U$. But $y \le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}} y'$ implies $a\le a'$ for some $a \in B_{i}$, a contradiction. So $y \in \mathfrak M $.
Since $ {\llbracket a'_i \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}\subseteq O$ and $\max J_i\in \operatorname{int}\left (
{\llbracket a'_i \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}
\right ) $ for each $i \in {\mathbb N}$, it follows that $y \in \operatorname{cl}_{ \mathfrak M } \left (
O\cap \mathfrak M
\right ) $. Suppose that $y \in O$. Since $y$ has positive distance from $K \setminus O$, there exists $i \in {\mathbb N}$ such that $y \not \in\bigcup \setnew{{\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}}{ a \in B_{i}, a \le a'_{i}}$, as $a'_{i}$ is the minimum element of $B_{i}$ such that $\bigcup_{ a \ge a'_{i}} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}\subseteq O$, and the diameter of the $ {\llbracket a'_i \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}$ goes to $0$. It follows that $y \not \in \bigcup_{a\in B_{i+1}} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_{i+1}}}$ as $\bigcup_{a\in B_{i+1}} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_{i+1}}}\subseteq \bigcup \setnew{{\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_i}}}{ a \in B_{i}, a \le a'_{i}}$, so $y \not \in K$, a contradiction.
\[2orbits\] $\mathfrak U$ is $\nicefrac{1}{2}$-homogeneous. In particular, the orbits of the action of $\operatorname{Homeo}(\mathfrak U)$ on $\mathfrak U$ are $\mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U$ and $\mathfrak M$.
By , for any $x, x' \in \mathfrak M$, $y, y' \in \mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U$ distinct, there is $h \in \operatorname{Homeo}_{\le}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}})$ such that $h(x)=x', h(y)= y'$. Since $h {\, _{{ \begin{tikzpicture}[] \draw (0, -0.5pt) -- (0, 5pt); \draw (0, 5pt) -- (1.5pt, 3.5pt); \end{tikzpicture}}\, \mathfrak U}} \in \operatorname{Homeo}(\mathfrak U)$, it follows that there are at most $2$ orbits of the action of $\operatorname{Homeo}(\mathfrak U)$ on $\mathfrak U$. Therefore it suffices to show that $ \mathfrak U $ is not homogeneous. By the space $ \mathfrak U $ is Polish, by it is not cohesive and by it is not zero-dimensional. By [@Dijkstra2006]\*[Proposition 2]{}, a Polish, non-cohesive, non-zero-dimensional space is not homogeneous.
\[allendpointsaredense\] $\mathfrak M$ and $\mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U $ are dense in ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$.
It is easy too see that $\mathfrak M$ is dense in ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ by .
To see that $\mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U$ is dense, let $O$ be a nonempty open subset of ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ and let $n_{0} \in {\mathbb N}$, $a_{0} \in {F}_{n_{0}}$ be such that ${\llbracket a_{0} \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_0}}\subseteq O$. We define a sequence $(a_{i})_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ by induction. Suppose that $n_{i}$ and $a_{i} \in {F}_{n_{i}}$ are defined and let $P_{i} = {F}_{n_{i}} \sqcup \set{b}$ and ${\varphi}_{i}: P_{i} \to {F}_{n_{i}}$ be the identity on ${F}_{m}$ and ${\varphi}_{i}(b)=a_{i}$. By \[itm:Lthreeprime\] there are $n_{i+1}> n_{i}$ and an epimorphism $\psi_{i}: {F}_{n_{i+1}} \to P_{i}$ such that ${\varphi}_{i} \psi_{i} = {\gamma}^{n_{i+1}}_{n_{i}}$. By , there exists $B_{i} \in \operatorname{MC}({F}_{n_{i+1}})$ such that $\psi_{i}[B_{i}] = \set{b}$, so ${\gamma}^{n_{i+1}}_{n_{i}}[B_{i}] = \set{a_{i}}$. Choose $a_{i+1} \in B_{i}$, so ${\gamma}^{n_{i+1}}_{n_{i}}(a_{i+1})= a_{i}$.
Let $u \in {\mathbb F}$ be such that ${\gamma}_{n_{i}}(u) = a_{i}$ for each $i \in {\mathbb N}$. For each $i \in {\mathbb N}$, we have that ${\gamma}_{n_{i+1}}(u) \in B_{i}$ and ${\gamma}^{n_{i+1}}_{n_{i}} (\max B_{i}) = {\gamma}^{n_{i+1}}_{n_{i}} (\min B_{i}) = a_{i} = {\gamma}_{n_{i}}(u)$. By , $u$ is both $\le^{{\mathbb F}}$-minimal and $\le^{{\mathbb F}}$-maximal. It follows that $p(u) \in \mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U$. Since ${\gamma}_{n_{0}} (u) = a_{0}$, we have $p(u) \in {\llbracket a_{0} \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_{n_0}}\subseteq O$.
\[notcohesive\] $\mathfrak M, \mathfrak U$ have the property that each nonempty open set contains a nonempty clopen subset. In particular they are not cohesive.
The result for $\mathfrak U$ follows from Propositions \[allendpointsaredense\] and \[singlezerodimensional\].
Let $O$ be an open subset of ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ such that $O \cap \mathfrak M \neq \emptyset$. Up to taking a subset we can assume $O$ is $\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}}$-convex. By there exists an arc component $J$ of ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ whose endpoints both belong to $O$, so by $\le^{\mathbb P/R^{\mathbb P}}$-convexity, $J \subseteq O$. By there exist $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $B \in \operatorname{MC}({F}_{n})$ such that $J \subseteq \bigcup_{a \in B} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_n}\subseteq O$. Since $\bigcup_{a\in B} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_n}$ is clopen in $ {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ by , it follows that $
\bigcup_{a\in B} {\llbracket a \rrbracket}_{{\gamma}_n}
\cap \mathfrak M$ is clopen in $ \mathfrak M $, and it is nonempty as it contains $\max J$.
Finally we look at $\mathrm{E}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}) = \mathfrak L \cup \mathfrak U$.
\[nottotsep\] The spaces $\mathrm{E}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}})$ and $\mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U $ are not totally separated. In fact, in $\mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U $ the quasi-component of each point has cardinality $2$.
Let $x\in \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U $, say $x\in \mathfrak M $ and let $z$ be the least element of the connected component $J$ of $x$ in $ {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$. Let $U$ be a clopen neighborhood of $x$ in $ \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U $, and let $O$ be open in $ {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ such that $U=O\cap ( \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U )$.
If $J\nsubseteq \operatorname{cl}(O)$, from the proof of it follows that there exists some $y\in \operatorname{cl}_{ \mathfrak M } \left (
O\cap \mathfrak M \right ) \setminus O$, so $$\begin{gathered}
\emptyset\ne \operatorname{cl}_{ \mathfrak M } \left (
O\cap \mathfrak M \right ) \setminus O\subseteq \operatorname{cl}_{ \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U } \left (
O\cap \mathfrak M \right ) \setminus O\subseteq \\
\subseteq \operatorname{cl}_{ \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U } (O\cap ( \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U ))\setminus (O\cap ( \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U ))=\partial_{ \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U }(U), \end{gathered}$$ contradicting the fact that $U$ is clopen in $ \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U $.
If $J\subseteq \operatorname{cl}(O)$ but $z\notin O$, given any open neighborhood $V$ of $z$ in $ {{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$, by there is some $w\in \mathfrak M \cap O\cap V$, so $w\in U\cap V$. This implies that $z\in \operatorname{cl}_{ \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U }(U)\setminus U$, contradicting again the fact that $U$ is clopen in $ \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U $.
Therefore the intersection of all clopen neighborhoods of $x$ in $ \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U $ also contains $z$. On the other hand any two points belonging to distinct components of ${{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}}$ can obviously be separated by clopen sets, so the quasi-component of $x$ in $\mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U $ is $ \set{x, z} $.
Since almost zero-dimensional, $T_0$ spaces are totally separated, it follows that the spaces $ \mathfrak L {\mathbin{\triangle}}\mathfrak U$ and $\mathrm{E}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}})$ are not almost zero-dimensional. This should be contrasted with .
We sum up what we know about the spaces of endpoints of the [Fraïssé ]{}fence.
\[riassunto\]
1. \[singlearebaire\] $\mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U$ is homeomorphic to the Baire space ${\mathbb N}^{{\mathbb N}}$.
2. \[allendpoints\] $\mathrm{E}({{{\raisebox{.1em}{${\mathbb F}\!$}\left/\raisebox{-.1em}{$R^{{\mathbb F}}$}\right.}}})$ is Polish and not totally separated.
3. \[maximalrecap\] $\mathfrak U$ is $\nicefrac{1}{2}$-homogeneous, Polish, almost zero-dimensional, one-dimensional and not cohesive.
4. \[asexample\] $\mathfrak M$ is homogeneous, strongly $\sigma$-complete, almost zero-dimensional, one-dimensional and not cohesive.
<!-- -->
1. By and , $\mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U$ is Polish and zero-dimensional. By [@MR1321597]\*[Theorem 7.7]{} it is enough to show that every compact subset of $ \mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U $ has empty interior. So let $K$ be such set, and suppose toward contradiction that there is an open subset $O$ of $\mathfrak U $ such that $\emptyset \neq O\cap \mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U =O \cap \mathfrak L \subseteq K$. Recall that, by , $ \mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U $ is dense and codense in $\mathfrak U$. Then $O \setminus ( \mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U )=O\setminus K$ is open in $ \mathfrak U $. Therefore, by denseness of $ \mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U $, it follows that $O\setminus ( \mathfrak L \cap \mathfrak U )=\emptyset $, contradicting codenseness.
2. This holds by and .
3. This holds by , , and .
4. This holds by , , and .
A space with the properties listed in \[asexample\] was first exhibited in [@Dijkstra2006] as a counterexample to a question by Dijkstra and van Mill. We do not know however whether the two spaces are homeomorphic.
Is $\mathfrak M$ homeomorphic to the space in [@Dijkstra2006]?
[^1]: Albeit with a different language, it is easy to see that a continuous surjection is an epimorphism with one such language iff it is so with the other, thus ensuring that the limit is the same.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Analytical expressions for the transition probability and the energy spectrum of the $1D$ Schrödinger equation with position dependent mass are presented for the triangular quantum barrier and quantum well. The transmission coefficient is obtained by using the wave functions written in terms of the Airy’s functions and of the solutions of the Kummer’s differential equation. In order to show the validity of our analyze, an example by taking some numerical values for GaAs heterostructure is presented.'
address: 'Department of Physics Education, Hacettepe University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey'
author:
- Altuğ Arda
title: 'Triangular quantum profiles: transmission probability and energy spectrum'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum well \[1, 2\], quantum dot \[3, 4\] and quantum wire \[5, 6\] heterostructures which are classified as low-dimensional semiconductor quantum systems have become an important part within the semiconductor studies. The theoretical and practical investigation gives some possibilities to produce high quality quantum heterostructures. The materials consisting of GaAs/AlAs have been widely used in investigation of the above heterostructures. However, new types of the materials have been also taken into account, for example, silicon carbide (SiC) \[7\].
To study the semiconductor heterostructures within the theoretical and practical frameworks could give some clues that may be helpful to advance the semiconductor technology such as development of some optoelectronic and communication devices based on the quantum mechanical tunnelling, some visible lasers based on the electronic spectrum of double quantum well \[8\] and quantum cascade lasers based on the electronic transition between levels of the conduction band \[9\]. Among the other quantum heterostructures, the triangular quantum well(s) is also important systems since the absorption coefficient value is reduced in the experimental measurement of the electroabsorption when triangular quantum wells used \[10\]. Moreover, the current absorption spectra of the triangular quantum profile could operate with lower driving voltages \[11\].
The quantum mechanical tunnelling is a fundamental subject within the studying of the semiconductor quantum systems. This is so because studying of tunnelling helps to understand the physical properties of the related system and gives some hints about the lasing in quantum well lasers and electron transport in some devices \[12\]. According to the above points, it could be interesting to find the transmission coefficient for the triangular quantum barrier including a numerical presentation and to study the bound states of the triangular quantum well for the $1D$ Schrödinger equation. We find that the transmission probability oscillates within the range of energy but this behavior is very slightly. The numerical computation is presented for the triangular quantum barrier made of GaAs heterostructure where the thickness is $a=7$ nm while it’s maximum value is $V_{0}=450$ meV. It is observed that our numerical results are in agreement with the ones obtained for the constant mass case \[13\]. We point out that the energy levels of the triangular quantum well is finite and the potential parameter $\alpha$ controls the bound state numbers. In computation, we take the values of the mass parameters as $0.067m_{0}$ for GaAs where $m_{0}$ is the free electron mass.
In the present work, we study the transmission probability of the $1D$ Schrödinger equation for the triangular potential barrier by writing the related wave functions in terms of the Airy’s functions and in terms of the solutions of the Kummer’s differential equation, namely, the confluent hypergeometric functions of the first kind. Among the approaches and methods used to study the quantum heterostructures \[12\], our formalism is based on solving the Schrödinger equation coming from the Hamiltonian written for the case of position dependent mass \[14\]. In this case, the generalization of the standard Hamiltonian is not trivial because the linear momentum and mass operator no longer commute. We propose a mass function depending on spatially coordinate to solve 1D effective Schrödinger equation. Our formalism includes also an approach meaning that we ignore the terms including the derivatives of mass in 1D effective Schrödinger equation by assuming one of the mass parameters goes to zero.
Analytical expressions
======================
The generalized Hamiltonian for the case where the mass depends on the spatially coordinate is given \[14\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}\left[p\,\frac{1}{m}\,p\right]+V\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ is the linear momentum operator and $V$ is the operator which defines the potential function. The $1D$ Schrödinger equation for the position dependent mass obtained from the above Hamiltonian is written as \[14\] $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\frac{d^2}{dx^2}-\frac{dm(x)/dx}{m(x)}\,\frac{d}{dx}+Hm(x)[E-V(x)]\right\}\phi(x)=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $H=2/\hbar^2$.
We tend to parameterize the mass as $$\begin{aligned}
m(x)=M_{0}-M_{1}x\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{0}$ and $M_{1}$ are the arbitrary parameters. For the rest of the computation, we assume that the terms including the derivatives of the mass could be ignored when the mass parameter $M_{1} \rightarrow 0$.
**2.1. Transmission probability**
The triangular quantum barrier is defined as (Figure 1a) \[13\] $$\begin{aligned}
V(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} 0 & \mbox{for} & x<0 \\
V_{0}-\alpha x & \mbox{for} & 0<x<a \\ 0 & \mbox{for} & x>a
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{0}$ represents the maximum value of the potential profile and $\alpha$ controls the thickness of the quantum barrier.
Inserting Eqs. (3) and (4) into Eq. (2), taking into account the above assuming and using a new variable $y=\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{1/3}x$, we obtain the following equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{d^2}{dy^2}-y\right]\phi_{I}(y)=0\,\end{aligned}$$ solutions are expressed in terms of the Airy’s functions. So we write the solution for the region I ($x<0$) as \[15\] $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{I}(y)=b_{1}Ai(y)+b_{2}Bi(y)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, we obtain the following equation for the region II ($0<x<a$) $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\frac{d^2}{dx^2}-[a_{1}x^2+a_{2}x+a_{3}]\right\}\phi_{II}(x)=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ which can be written by using a new variable $y=x+\frac{a_{2}}{2a_{1}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\frac{d^2}{dy^2}-[a_{1}y^2+A_{I}]\right\}\phi_{II}(y)=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{1}&=HM_{1}\alpha\,,\\
a_{2}&=-H[M_{0}\alpha+M_{1}(V_{0}-E)]\,,\\
a_{3}&=HM_{0}(E-V_{0})\,.\end{aligned}$$
and $A_{I}=\frac{4a_{1}a_{3}-a^2_{2}}{4a_{1}}$.
In order to get a more suitable form of Eq. (8), we use a new variable $z=\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y^2$ and a trial wave function in terms of $z$ as $\phi_{II}(y)=e^{-z/2}f(z)$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{z\frac{d^2}{dz^2}-\bigl(z-\frac{1}{2}\bigr)\,\frac{d}{dz}-\frac{1}{4}\,\left[1+\frac{A_{I}}{4a_{1}}\right]
\right\}f(z)=0,,\end{aligned}$$ which is a kind of the Kummer’s differential equation having the form \[15\] $$\begin{aligned}
x\frac{d^2y(x)}{dx^2}+(c-x)\frac{dy(x)}{dx}-by(x)=0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Two linear independent solutions of the above equation is written as \[15\] $$\begin{aligned}
y(x) \sim \,_{1}F_{1}(b;c;x)+U(b;c;x)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\,_{1}F_{1}(b;c;x)$ is the confluent hypergeometric functions of the first kind and the second part is given $$\begin{aligned}
U(b;c;x)=\pi\csc(\pi
c)\left[\frac{\,_{1}\bar{F}_{1}(b;c;x)}{\Gamma(b-c+1)}-x^{1-c}\,\frac{1}{\Gamma(b)}\,
_{1}\bar{F}_{1}(b-c+1;2-c;x)\right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ where $\,_{1}\bar{F}_{1}(b;c;x)$ is the regularized confluent hypergeometric functions of the first kind \[15\].
With the help of Eq. (12) we write the solution for the region II as $$\begin{aligned}
f(z)=b_{3}\,_{1}F_{1}(\frac{1}{4}\,[1+\frac{A_{I}}{4a_{1}}];\frac{1}{2};z)+b_{4}
U(\frac{1}{4}\,[1+\frac{A_{I}}{4a_{1}}];\frac{1}{2};z)\,,\end{aligned}$$
Following the same steps for region I, we obtain the following equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{d^2}{dy^2}-y\right]\phi_{III}(y)=0\,\end{aligned}$$ where we define a new variable as $y=\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{1/3}x-\frac{HEM_{0}}{\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{2/3}}$. We write the physical solution for the region III as $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{III}(y)=b_{5}Ai(y)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where used the properties given as $\lim_{x \to +\infty}Bi(x)\to
\infty$, $\lim_{x \to -\infty}Bi(x)\to 0$ and $Bi(0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt[6]{3}\,\Gamma(\frac{2}{3})}$ \[15\].
Using the continuity conditions for $\phi(x)$ and $d\phi(x)/dx$ at $x=0$ and at $x=a$ and after straightforward calculations we obtain the following expressions
$$\begin{aligned}
&b_{1}Ai(y_{1})+b_{2}Bi(y_{1})=b_{3}f'_{1}+b_{4}f_{7}\,,\\
&\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{1/3}\left[b_{1}Ai'(y_{1})+b_{2}Bi'(y_{1})\right]=b_{3}f_{8}+b_{4}f_{9}\,,\\
&b_{5}Ai(y_{3})=b_{3}g'_{1}+b_{4}g_{7}\,,\\
&\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{1/3}b_{5}Ai'(y_{3})=b_{3}g_{8}+b_{4}g_{9}\,.\end{aligned}$$
where prime in $Ai(y)$ and $Bi(y)$ denote derivatives in the above expressions and the following abbreviations are used
$$\begin{aligned}
f_{1}&=\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y_{2}e^{-y^2_{2}\sqrt{a_{1}\,}/2}
\,_{1}F_{1}(\frac{1}{4}\,[1+\frac{A_{I}}{\sqrt{a_{1}\,}}];\frac{1}{2};\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y^2_{2})\,,\\
f_{2}&=\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y_{2}e^{-y^2_{2}\sqrt{a_{1}\,}/2}
\,_{1}F_{1}(\frac{1}{4}\,[5+\frac{A_{I}}{\sqrt{a_{1}\,}}];\frac{3}{2};\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y^2_{2})\,,\\
f_{3}&=\pi\csc\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y_{2}\frac{e^{-y^2_{2}\sqrt{a_{1}\,}/2}}{\Gamma(\frac{3}{4}
+\frac{A_{I}}{4\sqrt{a_{1}\,}})}
\,_{1}\bar{F}_{1}(\frac{1}{4}\,[1+\frac{A_{I}}{\sqrt{a_{1}\,}}];\frac{1}{2};\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y^2_{2})\,,\\
f_{4}&=\pi\csc\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y_{2}\frac{e^{-y^2_{2}\sqrt{a_{1}\,}/2}}
{2\Gamma(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{A_{I}}{4\sqrt{a_{1}\,}})}
\bigl(1+\frac{A_{I}}{\sqrt{a_{1}\,}}\bigr)
\,_{1}\bar{F}_{1}(\frac{1}{4}\,[5+\frac{A_{I}}{\sqrt{a_{1}\,}}];\frac{3}{2};\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y^2_{2})\,.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
f_{5}&=\pi\csc\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y_{2}\frac{e^{-y^2_{2}\sqrt{a_{1}\,}/2}}
{\Gamma(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{A_{I}}{4\sqrt{a_{1}\,}})}
\,_{1}\bar{F}_{1}(\frac{1}{4}\,[3+\frac{A_{I}}{\sqrt{a_{1}\,}}];\frac{3}{2};\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y^2_{2})\,,\\
f_{6}&=\pi\csc\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y_{2}\frac{e^{-y^2_{2}\sqrt{a_{1}\,}/2}}
{2\Gamma(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{A_{I}}{\sqrt{a_{1}\,}})}
\bigl(3+\frac{A_{I}}{\sqrt{a_{1}\,}}\bigr)
\,_{1}\bar{F}_{1}(\frac{1}{4}\,[7+\frac{A_{I}}{\sqrt{a_{1}\,}}];\frac{5}{2};\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y^2_{2})\,,\\
f'_{1}&=\frac{f_{1}}{\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y_{2}}\,,\\
f'_{3}&=\frac{f_{3}}{\sqrt{a_{1}\,}y_{2}}\,,\\
f'_{5}&=\frac{f_{5}}{a^{1/4}_{1}y_{2}}\,,\\
f_{7}&=f'_{3}-f'_{5}\,,\\
f_{8}&=f_{2}-f_{1}\,,\\
f_{9}&=f_{4}+f_{5}-f_{3}-f_{6}\,.\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
&&g_{1}=f_{1}(y_{2}\rightarrow y_{4});g_{2}=f_{2}(y_{2}\rightarrow
y_{4});g_{3}=f_{3}(y_{2}\rightarrow
y_{4});g_{4}=f_{4}(y_{2}\rightarrow y_{4})\,,\nonumber\\
&&g_{5}=f_{5}(y_{2}\rightarrow y_{4});g_{6}=f_{6}(y_{2}\rightarrow
y_{4});g'_{1}=f'_{1}(y_{2}\rightarrow
y_{4});g'_{3}=f'_{3}(y_{2}\rightarrow
y_{4})\,,\nonumber\\&&g'_{5}=f'_{5}(y_{2}\rightarrow y_{4});g_{7}=g'_{3}-g'_{5};g_{8}=g_{2}-g_{1};g_{9}=g_{4}+g_{5}-g_{3}-g_{6}\,.\end{aligned}$$ where we use $\frac{d}{dz}\,_{1}F_{1}(b;c;z)=\frac{b}{c}\,_{1}F_{1}(b+1;c+1;z)$ and $\frac{d}{dz}\,_{1}\bar{F}_{1}(b;c;z)=b\,_{1}\bar{F}_{1}(b+1;c+1;z)$ to obtain the above expressions \[15\]. The arguments of the above functions coming from the continuity conditions at $x=0$ and $x=a$ are given as
$$\begin{aligned}
y_{1}&=-\frac{HEM_{0}}{\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{2/3}}\,,\\
y_{2}&=\frac{a_{2}}{2a_{1}}\,,\\
y_{3}&=\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{1/3}a-\frac{HEM_{0}}{\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{2/3}}\,,\\
y_{4}&=a+\frac{a_{2}}{2a_{1}}\,.\end{aligned}$$
With the help of Eqs. (18)-(20), Eqs. (17a)-(17d) gives us the transmission probability as $$\begin{aligned}
T=\left|\frac{t_{1}}{t_{2}}\right|^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
t_{1}&=\frac{1}{\pi}\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{1/3}\left[g'_{1}g_{9}-g_{8}g_{7}\right]\,,\\
t_{2}&=\left[g_{9}Ai(y_{3})-\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{1/3}g_{7}Ai'(y_{3})\right]
\left[\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{1/3}f'_{1}Bi'(y_{1})-f_{8}Bi(y_{1})\right]\nonumber\\
&\times\left[\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{1/3}g'_{1}Ai'(y_{3})-g_{8}Ai(y_{3})\right]
\left[\left(HEM_{1}\right)^{1/3}f_{7}Bi'(y_{1})-f_{9}Bi(y_{1})\right]\,.\end{aligned}$$
where the following property of the Airy’s functions $Ai(y)Bi'(y)-Ai'(y)Bi(y)=\frac{1}{\pi}$ \[15\] is used.
To check the validity of our formalism, we compute the transmission coefficient in Eq. (22) numerically. For this aim, the parameters are used: $V_{0}=450$ meV, $a=7$ nm \[16\], the mass made of GaAs $M_{0}=0.067m_{0}$ where $m_{0}$ is the free electron mass $9.1 \times 10^{-31}$ kg \[12\], $\hbar=1.05 \times 10^{-34}$ J.s and $M_{1}=M_{0}$. Figure (2) shows the dependence of the transmission probability on the energy of the incident particle. It is seen that the transmission probability is very slightly within the energy range and observed that goes to one while the energy increases. We plot the dependence of the transmission coefficient on the height and width of quantum barrier in Figures (3) and (4), respectively. The parameter values of mass are the same with the ones used in Figure (2) but Figures (3) and (4) are plotted for $E=0.1$ eV. In both of figures, the transmission probability is exactly one for initial values of $V_{0}$ and $a$, respectively. It’s value decreases while the values of height and width of quantum barrier increase. The fluctuations of transmission coefficient are very small as observed in Figure (2). Figure (5) shows varying of the tunnelling coefficient according to the energy of incident particle. It is observed that the tunnelling coefficient is also very slightly within the energy range as in Figure (2).
**2.2. Bound states**
In order to study the bound states of the triangular quantum well, we parameterize the potential profile as (Figure 1b) $$\begin{aligned}
V(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} 0 & \mbox{for} & x<0 \\
-V_{0}-\alpha x & \mbox{for} & 0<x<a \\ 0 & \mbox{for} & x>a
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ In this case, we obtain a differential equation similar to the one given in Eq. (10) with the following abbreviations
$$\begin{aligned}
a'_{1}&=HM_{1}\alpha=a_{1}\,,\\
a'_{2}&=-H[M_{0}\alpha-M_{1}(V_{0}+E)]\,,\\
a'_{3}&=HM_{0}(E+V_{0})\,.\end{aligned}$$
and $B_{I}=\frac{4a'_{1}a'_{3}-a'^2_{2}}{4a'_{1}}$ which give a physical acceptable solution as $$\begin{aligned}
f(z)
\sim\,_{1}F_{1}(\frac{1}{4}\,[1+\frac{B_{I}}{4a'_{1}}];\frac{1}{2};z)\,.\end{aligned}$$ In order to get a finite solution it must be $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4}\,\bigl(1+\frac{B_{I}}{4a'_{1}}\bigr)=-n\,\, (n\in
\mathbb{N})\,,\end{aligned}$$ which is a quantization condition for the bound states. We write the energy spectra of the triangular quantum well as $$\begin{aligned}
E_{n}=-V_{0}-\frac{M_{0}\alpha}{M_{1}}+2\bigl(\frac{\alpha^{3}}{M_{1}}\bigr)^{1/4}\sqrt{1+4n\,}\,.\end{aligned}$$ It is worth to say that the parameter $\alpha$ in the potential profile depends on the diffusion length (or the Debye length) $L_{D}$ inversely which controls the number of the bound states \[16\]. In order to get some numerical values for the bound states we choose the parameter set as $M_{1}=M_{0}=0.067m_{0}$ and $\alpha=0.01V_{0}$ and present our results in Table 1. It shows that the results are agreement with the ones stated in literature \[16\].
As a final remark, we tend to discuss briefly the effect of an external electric field on a quantum system considered here. For this case, the potential is written as an ’effective’ potential as following $$\begin{aligned}
V_{eff}=V(x)+V_{E}(x)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{E}(x)$ denotes the potential part arising from the external electric field. The second term in Eq. (29) depends on the electric field strength linearly \[8\]. So we expect that the obtained expressions for transmission coefficient and also energy levels have additional terms including the electric field strength.
Conclusion
==========
In the present work, we have analyzed the transmission probability for the $1D$ Schrödinger equation with position-dependent mass for the triangular quantum barrier by applying the continuity conditions on the wave functions which are written in terms of the Airy’s functions and the solutions of the Kummer’s equation. For this aim, we have solved the Schrödinger equation obtained from a non-standard Hamiltonian written for the case where the mass and linear momentum operator does not commute. We have ignored the terms including the derivatives of mass in Schrödinger equation for $M_{1} \rightarrow 0$ to obtain the analytical solutions. We have given the dependence of the transmission probability not only on the energy but also on the height and width of the barrier, respectively. We have observed that the transmission coefficient decreases while the values of parameters $E$, $V_{0}$ and $a$ increase, as expected, and the fluctuations of the transmission probability are very small. We have also studied the bound states of the triangular quantum well and observed that the number of the bound states is finite depending on the mass parameter $M_{1}$ and on the diffusion length.
--------- -- ---------- -- ----------
$E_{1}$ -0.20986 -0.29407
$E_{2}$ -0.00630 -0.00871
--------- -- ---------- -- ----------
: Some energy eigenvalues for the triangular quantum profile (eV).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Fejer, M. M.; Yoo, S. J. B; Beyer, R. L.; Harwit, A; Harris, J. S. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**1989**]{}, 62, 1041-1044.
Guo, K. X.; Chen, C. Y. *J. Phys.:Condens. Matt.* [**1995**]{}, 7, 6583-6589.
Wang, G. H.; Guo, K. X. *J. Phys.:Condens. Matt.* [**2001**]{}, 13, 8197-8206.
Li, B.; Guo, K. X.; Zhang, C. J.; Zhang, Y. B. *Phys. Lett. A* [**2007**]{}, 367, 493-497.
Yu, Y. B.; Guo, K. X.; Zhu, S. N. *Pyhsica E* [**2005**]{}, 27, 62-66.
Yu, Y. B.; Guo, K. X. *Pyhsica E* [**2003**]{}, 18, 492-497.
Fissel, A.; Kaiser, U.; Schröter, B.; Richter, W.; Bechstedt, F. *App. Surface Sci*. [**2001**]{}, 184, 37-42.
Santiago, R. B.; Guimarães, L. G. *Solid-State Electronics* [**2002**]{}, 46, 89-96.
Faist, J.; Capasso, F.; Sirtori, C.; Sivco, D. L.; Hutchinson, A. L.; Hybertsen, M. S.; Cho, A. Y. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**1996**]{}, 76, 411-414.
Gerber, D. S.; Droopad, R.; Maracas, G. N. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* [**1993**]{}, 62, 525-527.
Ishikawa, T.; Tada, K. *Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.* [**1989**]{}, 28, L1982-L1984.
He, Y; Cao, Z.; Shen, Q. *J. Phys. A* [**2005**]{}, 38, 5771-5780.
Ghatak, A. K.; Sauter, E. G.; Goyal, I. C. *Eur. J. Phys.* [**1997**]{}, 18, 199-204.
Dekar, L.; Chetouani, L.; Hammann, T. F. *J. Math. Phys.* [**1998**]{}, 39, 2551-2563.
Abramowitz, M.; Stegun, I. A. Eds. *Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables*, Dover: New York, 1965.
Li, W. *IEEE J. Quantum Electron.* [**2010**]{}, 46, 970-975.
{height="3in" width="5in"}
{height="3in" width="5in"}
{height="3in" width="5in"}
{height="3in" width="5in"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Pulse walk-off in the process of sum frequency generation in a nonlinear $\chi^{(2)}$ crystal is shown to be responsible for pulse jittering which is reminiscent to the Zitterbewegung (trembling motion) of a relativistic freely moving Dirac particle. An analytical expression for the pulse center of mass trajectory is derived in the no-pump-depletion limit, and numerical examples of Zitterbewegung are presented for sum frequency generation in periodically-poled lithium niobate. The proposed quantum-optical analogy indicates that frequency conversion in nonlinear optics could provide an experimentally accessible simulator of the Dirac equation.'
address: 'Dipartimento di Fisica, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza L. da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milano, Italy'
author:
- Stefano Longhi
title: Zitterbewegung of optical pulses in nonlinear frequency conversion
---
Introduction
============
Originally predicted by Schrödinger in the study of the Dirac equation [@Schrodinger], Zitterbewegung (ZB) refers to the trembling motion of a freely-moving relativistic quantum particle that arises from the interference between the positive- and negative-energy parts of the spinor wave function [@Grenier]. For a free electron, the Dirac equation predicts the ZB to have an extremely small amplitude (of the order of the Compton wavelength $\simeq 10^{-12} \; {\rm m}$) and an extremely high frequency ($\simeq 10^{21} \; {\rm Hz}$), making such an effect experimentally inaccessible. In addition, the physical relevance of ZB in relativistic quantum mechanics is a controversial issue because such an effect arises in the framework of the single-particle picture of the Dirac equation, but not in quantum field theory [@Barut; @Grobe]. The notion of ZB and resulting formalism, however, are not peculiar to relativistic quantum dynamics, and phenomena analogous to ZB, which underly the same mathematical model of the Dirac equation, have so far predicted in a wide variety of quantum and even classical physical systems, including among others semiconductors and quantum wells [@ZB1-1; @ZB1-2; @ZB1-3], trapped ions [@ZB2], graphene [@ZB3; @ZB4-1; @ZB4-2; @ZB4-3], cold atoms [@ZB5-1; @ZB5-2], acoustic [@acoustic] and photonic [@P1; @P2; @P3] systems. Simulations of relativistic quantum effects using experimentally-accessible physical set-ups, in which parameter tunability allows access to different physical regimes, have seen in recent years an increasing interest, culminating to the very recent first experimental observation of a quantum analogue of ZB using a single trapped ion set to behave as a free relativistic quantum particle [@NatureZB]. In the optical context, the use of photonic systems to mimic quantum phenomena in the lab has seen a continuous and increasing interest (see, for instance, [@LonghiLPR] and references therein); in particular, optical analogues of the relativistic ZB have been recently proposed to occur in photonic crystals [@P1], metamaterial slabs [@P2], and binary waveguide arrays [@P3]. In this work it is shown theoretically that a classical analogue of ZB can be observed in a much simpler and well-known set-up of nonlinear optics, namely in the process of sum frequency generation of light waves in a nonlinear $\chi^{(2)}$ medium [@Boyd] in presence of pulse (or spatial) walk off. In the nonlinear optics context, optical three-wave interaction (TWI) in nonlinear $\chi^{(2)}$ media in presence of temporal (or spatial) walk-off is a well-known process, which has been widely investigated especially in connection to pulse compression of ultrashort pulses and to TWI soliton theory (see, for instance, [@S1; @S2; @S3; @S4; @S5; @S6]). Notably, the nonlinear TWI equations are solvable by inverse scattering methods [@S1]. However, the ZB phenomenon discussed in this work and the idea of exploiting nonlinear optics to mimic the Dirac equation have not been addressed in such previous studies.
Basic model and quantum-optical analogy
=======================================
The starting point of our analysis is provided by a standard model of TWI in a nonlinear quadratic medium describing propagation of either optical pulses or optical beams at frequencies $\omega_1$, $\omega_2$ and $\omega_3=\omega_1+\omega_2$ in presence of either group velocity mismatch or spatial walk-off. For the sake of definiteness, we will consider here the case of optical pulse interaction in presence of temporal walk-off (i.e. of group velocity mismatch), however the results hold also for spatial beam propagation in a quadratic medium with spatial walk-off provided that the temporal coordinate is replaced by a transverse spatial coordinate (see, for instance, [@S6]). Assuming that group velocity dispersion is negligible, in the plane-wave approximation and assuming perfect phase matching, pulse propagation in the $\chi^{(2)}$ medium is described by the following set of nonlinear coupled equations [@Boyd; @S1; @S2; @S3; @S4; @Longhi02]: $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial z}+\frac{1}{v_{g1}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right) A_1& = & i \rho A_2^*A_3 \\
\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial z}+\frac{1}{v_{g2}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right) A_2& = & i \rho A_1^*A_3 \\
\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial z}+\frac{1}{v_{g3}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right) A_3 & = & i \rho^* A_1 A_2\end{aligned}$$ where $A_l=A_l(z,t)$ ($l=1,2,3$) is the amplitude of the electric field envelope at the carrier frequencies $\omega_l$, normalized such that $|A_l|^2$ is the photon flux at frequency $\omega_l$, $v_{gl}$ is the group velocity in the medium at frequency $\omega_l$, and $\rho$ is the strength of the nonlinear interaction, which reads explicitly $$\rho=\frac{d_{eff}}{c_0} \sqrt{\frac{2 \hbar \omega_1 \omega_2
\omega_3}{\epsilon_0 c_0 n_1 n_2 n_3}},$$ where $n_l$ is the refractive index of the medium at frequency $\omega_l$ ($l=1,2,3)$, $c_0$ is the speed of light in vacuum, and $d_{eff}=(1/2) \chi^{(2)}_{eff}$ is the effective nonlinear coefficient. To achieve perfect phase matching, a quasi-phase-matching (QPM) grating for the nonlinear susceptibility $\chi^{(2)}$ can be employed; in this case one has (see, for instance, [@Longhi02]) $$d_{eff}=\frac{1}{2} \overline{\chi^{(2)}(z) \exp(i \Delta k z)}$$ where $\Delta k=(\omega_3 n_3-\omega_2n_2-\omega_1n_1)/c_0$ is the phase mismatch of the three waves and the overbar denotes a spatial average over a few modulation periods of the QPM grating. Equations (1-3) admit of the following two invariants along the propagation distance $z$ $$\mathcal{I}_{1,2}= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt (|A_{1,2}|^2+|A_3|^3)$$ which correspond to photon flux conservation (Manley-Rowe invariants) in the frequency conversion process. Solitary waves of Eqs.(1-3) in the fully nonlinear regime, including trapped bright-dark-bright solitary waves with locked velocity, have been investigated in Refs.[@S1; @S2; @S3; @S4; @S5; @S6]. To study the analogue of ZB in the frequency conversion process, we assume here that at the input plane $z=0$ the nonlinear crystal is excited by a strong and nearly continuous-wave pump field at frequency $\omega_1$, and by a weak and short signal pulse at frequency $\omega_2$ and temporal profile $g(t)$. Under such assumptions, the invariance of $\mathcal{I}_{1,2}$ implies that the pump wave remains nearly undepleted along the propagation distance, and Eqs.(1-3) reduce to the following two linear coupled-field equations describing sum-frequency generation in the undepleted regime $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial z}+\frac{1}{v_{g2}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right) A_2& = & -i \kappa A_3 \\
\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial z}+\frac{1}{v_{g3}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right) A_3 & = & -i \kappa A_2\end{aligned}$$ where we have set $\kappa \equiv -\rho A_1^*=\rho {\sqrt {I_1/ \hbar
\omega_1}}$ and $I_1$ is the intensity of the pump field. Without loss of generality, $\kappa$ can be assumed to be real-valued and positive. Note that, in the absence of group velocity mismatch for the signal and second-harmonic waves at frequencies $\omega_2$ and $\omega_3$, i.e. for $v_{g2}=v_{g3}$, the solution to Eqs.(7) and (8) is analogous to the one for stationary fields [@Boyd], which shows a well-known oscillatory power transfer, along the propagation distance $z$, between the two fields with spatial period $\pi/\kappa$; namely one has $$\begin{aligned}
A_2(z,t) & = & g \left( t-\frac{z}{v_g}\right) \cos(\kappa z) \\
A_3(z,t) & = & -i g \left( t-\frac{z}{v_g}\right) \sin(\kappa z)\end{aligned}$$ where $v_g=v_{g2}=v_{g3}$. Note that, in spite of the oscillatory power transfer in the frequency conversion process, the two pulses propagates with the common group velocity $v_g$ and do not show any trembling (jitter) motion. If the group velocity mismatch is not negligible ($v_{g2} \neq v_{g3}$), the solution to Eqs.(7) and (8) is more involved, and is given by Eqs.(25) and (26) discussed in the next section. Here we anticipate that, in this regime, the oscillatory power transfer between the two fields is generally accompanied by an oscillatory motion of the pulse center of mass, which is reminiscent of ZB for the free relativistic Dirac electron. To highlight such an analogy in a formal way, it is worth introducing the coordinates of a moving frame $$\xi=z \; , \; \; \eta=t-z/v_g$$ where the velocity $v_g$ is defined by the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{v_g}=\frac{1}{2} \left(
\frac{1}{v_{g2}}+\frac{1}{v_{g3}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ In the moving frame, Eqs.(7) and (8) take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}+ \delta
\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta} \right) A_2 & = & -i \kappa A_3 \\
\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}- \delta
\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta} \right) A_3 & = & -i \kappa A_2\end{aligned}$$ where we have set $$\delta=\frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{v_{g2}}-\frac{1}{v_{g3}}\right).$$ Equations (13) and (14) are supplemented with the boundary conditions $$A_2(0, \eta)=g(\eta) \; , \; A_3(0, \eta)=0.$$ After introduction of the spinor wave field $\psi=(A_2,A_3)^T$, Eqs.(13) and (14) can be finally cast into the Dirac form $$i \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi}=-i \sigma_z \delta
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \eta}+\kappa \sigma_x \psi$$ where $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_z$ are the Pauli matrices. Note that, after the formal change $$\begin{aligned}
\delta & \rightarrow & c \nonumber \\
\kappa & \rightarrow & \frac{m c^2}{\hbar} \\
\xi & \rightarrow & t \; ,\; \eta \rightarrow x \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Eq.(17) corresponds to the one-dimensional Dirac equation for a relativistic particle of mass $m$ in absence of external fields, moving alon the $x$ axis, written in the Weyl representation [@Grenier]. Therefore, the [*temporal*]{} evolution of the spinor wave function $\psi$ for the Dirac particle is mapped into the [*spatial*]{} evolution of the envelopes $A_2$ and $A_3$ for signal and sum-frequency pulses, respectively, whereas the spatial coordinate of the Dirac particle is mapped into the retarded time $\eta$ of the optical pulses.
Zitterbewegung of optical pulses
================================
For the Dirac equation (17), ZB refers to the rapid oscillatory motion of the expectation value of the particle position $$\langle \eta \rangle (\xi) \equiv \frac{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d
\eta \; \eta \left( |A_2|^2+|A_3|^2 \right)}{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
d \eta \left( |A_2|^2+|A_3|^2 \right)}$$ around its mean trajectory, which arises whenever negative- and positive-energy eigenstates of the Dirac equation are simultaneously excitated by the initial condition. Note that, indicating by $\langle \eta \rangle_2(\xi)$ and $\langle \eta \rangle_3(\xi)$ the (temporal) center of mass of the signal and sum-frequency pulses at the crystal plane $\xi=z$, i.e. $$\langle \eta \rangle_{2,3} (\xi) \equiv
\frac{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \eta \; \eta |A_{2,3}(\xi,
\eta)|^2}{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \eta |A_{2,3}(\xi,\eta)|^2}$$ one can write $$\langle \eta \rangle (\xi)=\frac{\phi_2(\xi) \langle \eta
\rangle_{2} (\xi)+\phi_3(\xi) \langle \eta \rangle_{3}
(\xi)}{\mathcal{I}_2}$$ where $\phi_{2,3}(\xi)=\int d \eta |A_{2,3}(\xi,\eta)|^2$ are the photon fluences of the signal and sum-frequency pulses at the plane $z=\xi$, respectively, and $\mathcal{I}_2=\phi_2(\xi)+\phi_3(\xi)=\phi_2(0)$ is the Manley-Rowe invariant. In particular, if the initial pulse envelope $g(t)$ is symmetric, i.e. $g(-t)=g(t)$, as it will be shown below one has $\langle \eta \rangle_{3} (\xi)=0$, and thus according to Eq.(21) the ZB of the Dirac particle for Eq.(17) can be simply retrieved from the temporal jitter $\langle \eta \rangle_{2}(\xi)$ and fractional energy $\phi_2(\xi)/ \phi_2(0)$ of the signal pulse.\
The solution to Eqs.(13) and (14) with $\delta \neq 0$ and with the boundary conditions (16) can be readily obtained in the spectral (Fourier) domain. Indicating by $\hat{A}_{2,3}(\xi,\omega)=(1/2 \pi)
\int d \eta A_{2,3}(\xi, \eta) \exp(-i \eta \omega)$ the spectra of the signal and sum-frequency fields at the propagation plane $\xi$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}_{2}(\xi,\omega) & = & \hat{g}(\omega) \left[ \cos(\beta
\xi)-i \frac{\omega \delta}{\beta} \sin (\beta \xi) \right] \\
\hat{A}_{3}(\xi,\omega) & = & - \frac{i \kappa}{\beta}
\hat{g}(\omega) \sin (\beta \xi)\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{g}(\omega)=(1/2 \pi) \int d \eta g(\eta) \exp(-i \eta
\omega)$ is the spectrum of the signal pulse incident onto the crystal at $\xi=0$, and $$\beta(\omega)=\sqrt{\kappa^2+\omega^2 \delta^2}.$$ In the temporal domain, the inverse Fourier transform of Eqs.(22) and (23) yields the following exact solution for the sum-frequency and signal pulses traveling along the crystal $$A_3(\xi,\eta)=-\frac{i \kappa}{2 \delta} \int_{-\delta \xi}^{\delta
\xi} d \theta g(\theta+\eta) J_0 \left( \kappa
\sqrt{\xi^2-\frac{\theta^2}{\delta^2}} \right)$$ $$\begin{aligned}
A_2(\xi,\eta) & = & \frac{g(\eta+\delta \xi)+g(\eta-\delta \xi)}{2}
\nonumber \\
& + &\frac{1}{2 \delta} \int_{-\delta \xi}^{\delta \xi} d \theta
g(\theta+\eta) \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi} J_0 \left( \kappa
\sqrt{\xi^2-\frac{\theta^2}{\delta^2}} \right) \nonumber \\
& -& \frac{1}{2} \int_{-\delta \xi}^{\delta \xi} d \theta
\frac{\partial g}{\partial \eta} (\theta+\eta) J_0 \left( \kappa
\sqrt{\xi^2-\frac{\theta^2}{\delta^2}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ where $J_0$ is the zero-order Bessel function of first kind. To calculate $\langle \eta \rangle$, $\langle \eta \rangle_2$ and $\langle \eta \rangle_3$, let us assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the signal pulse envelope $g(t)$ at the input crystal plane has a symmetric profile (with e.g. a Gaussian or a sech shape) satisfying the condition $g(-\eta)=g(\eta)$. In this case, from Eq.(25) it follows that $A_3(\xi,-\eta)=A_3(\xi,\eta)$, and thus $$\langle \eta \rangle_3(\xi)=0 \; , \; \; \langle \eta \rangle
(\xi)=\frac{\phi_2(\xi)}{\phi_2(0)} \langle \eta \rangle_2(\xi).$$ The explicit expression of $\langle \eta \rangle_2(\xi)$, as obtained by substitution of Eq.(26) into Eq.(20), turns out to be rather cumbersome and not of easy physical interpretation. However, for a signal spectrum $\hat{g}(\omega)$ narrow at around $\omega=0$ with a spectral width $\Delta \omega$ much smaller than $\kappa /
\delta$, i.e. for a relatively long input pulse, simple approximate expressions for $\langle \eta \rangle_2(\xi)$ and $\langle \eta
\rangle(\xi)$ can be obtained, which read explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \eta \rangle_2 (\xi) & \simeq & \xi
\frac{\delta^3}{\kappa^2} \frac{\Delta \omega^2}{\cos^2(\kappa
\xi)+\frac{\delta^2 \Delta \omega^2}{\kappa^2}}\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{\delta}{2 \kappa} \frac{\sin(2 \kappa
\xi)}{\cos^2(\kappa \xi)+\frac{\delta^2 \Delta \omega^2}{\kappa^2}}
\\
\langle \eta \rangle (\xi) & \simeq & \xi \frac{\delta^3 \Delta
\omega^2}{\kappa^2}+ \frac{\delta}{2 \kappa} \sin(2 \kappa \xi)\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta \omega$ is the spectral width of the input signal pulse, defined by $$\Delta \omega^2=\frac{\int d \omega \omega^2
|\hat{g}(\omega)|^2}{\int d \omega |\hat{g}(\omega)|^2}.$$ Equation (29) corresponds to the well-known approximate expression of ZB in relativistic quantum mechanics (see, for instance, [@Grenier; @NatureZB]), whereas Eq.(28) shows the signature of ZB in the oscillatory motion of the signal pulse center of mass as it propagates along the crystal. Note that such an oscillatory motion, that arises from the second term on the right hand side of Eq.(29), is superimposed to a slight drift term \[the first term on the right hand side of Eq.(29)\]. The oscillatory motion of $\langle \eta
\rangle$ and $\langle \eta \rangle_2$ along the propagation coordinate $\xi$ of the crystal basically follows the oscillatory-like of optical transfer between signal and sum-frequency pulses. Note also that, according to Eq.(28) and because of the assumption $\delta \Delta \omega / \kappa \ll 1$, the pulse center of mass $\langle \eta \rangle_2(\xi$ takes large values at the propagation distances $\xi=\pi/2 \kappa$, $\xi= \pi/\kappa$, $\xi=3 \pi/ 2\kappa$, ... where most of the signal field is converted into the sum-frequency field.\
As an example, let us consider the process of sum frequency generation in a nonlinear periodically-poled lithium-niobate (PPLNB) crystal (see, for instance, [@Fejer]) assuming $\lambda_1=1550$ nm, $\lambda_2=810$ nm, and $\lambda_3=532$ nm for the wavelengths (in vacuum) of pump, signal and sum-frequency waves, respectively. From Sellmeir equations [@Sell], one can estimate at 25$^{\rm
o}$C and for extraordinary waves $n_1=2.1381$, $n_2=2.1748$, $n_3=2.2343$, $v_{g2}/c_0 = 0.4422$, $v_{g3}/c_0 = 0.4069$ and a QPM period of $\Lambda= 2 \pi/ \Delta k \simeq
7.39 \; \mu$m, which is easily accessible with current poling technology. For first-order QPM with alternating sign +/- of $\chi^{(2)}$ with period $\Lambda/2$, the effective nonlinear coefficient is given by [@Fejer] $d_{eff}=(2/\pi)d$, where $d$ is the element of the nonlinear $d$-tensor of the crystal involved in the parametric interaction ($d=d_{33}
\simeq 27 \; {\rm pm/V}$ for extraordinary waves). As an input signal pulse, we assume a Gaussian profile $g(t) \propto
\exp(-t^2/\tau_0^2)$ with a full-width at half maximum (FWHM) pulse duration $\tau_p= (\sqrt{2 {\rm log} 2}) \tau_0$ and spectral pulse width $\Delta \omega=1/ \tau_0$. As an example, Figs.1(a) and 1(b) show the evolution of the pulse intensity profiles $|A_2(\xi,
\eta)|^2$ and $|A_3(\xi, \eta)|^2$ of signal and sum-frequency fields, respectively, in a $L=$1.5-cm-long PPLN crystal as obtained by direct numerical analysis of Eqs.(1-3), for a signal pulse duration $\tau_p=5$ ps of low peak intensity ($1$ W/cm$^2$) and an intensity of the continuous-wave pump field $I_1=\hbar \omega_1 |A_1|^2$ of $1 \; {\rm MW/cm^2}$, corresponding to $\kappa \simeq 0.4656 \; {\rm mm}^{-1}$ and $
\delta \Delta \omega / \kappa \simeq 0.0827$. The numerical results of Fig.1 are with excellent accuracy reproduced by the analytical solutions (25) and (26), derived in the no-pump depletion limit. Figures 1(c) and 1(d) show the corresponding behavior, along the crystal coordinate $\xi=z$, of the normalized photon fluence $\phi_2(\xi)/ \phi_2(0)$ \[inset of Fig.1(c)\], pulse center of mass $\langle \eta \rangle_2(\xi)$ of signal field \[solid curve in Fig.1(c)\], and ZB amplitude $\langle \eta \rangle (\xi)=[\phi_2(\xi)
/ \phi_2(0)] \langle \eta \rangle_2 (\xi)$ \[solid curve in Fig.1(d)\]. In Figs.1(c) and (d), the behaviors of $\langle \eta
\rangle_2 (\xi)$ and $\langle \eta \rangle (\xi)$, as predicted by Eqs.(28) and (29), are also shown (dotted curves, almost overlapped with the solid ones). Note that, according to the theoretical analysis, the center of mass of the signal pulse undergoes a clear oscillatory motion, superimposed to a slight drift \[arising from the first term on the right hand side of Eq.(28)\]. For spectrally broader signal pulses, ZB can not be accurately described by the simple Eqs.(28) and (29), however the oscillatory motion of the pulse center of mass, superimposed to a drift motion, is still observed in numerical simulations. This is shown, as an example, in Figs.2 and 3, where pulse duration of the injected signal pulse has been reduced to $\tau_p=1.5$ ps in Fig.2 (corresponding to $ \delta
\Delta \omega / \kappa \simeq 0.2758$), and to $\tau_p=0.5$ ps in Fig.3 (corresponding to $ \delta \Delta \omega / \kappa \simeq
0.827$). In an experiment, a measurement of the pulse center of mass at internal planes of the nonlinear crystal could be a nontrivial task, whereas autocorrelation measurements can readily reveal a jitter of the output pulse, at the exit of the crystal, with respect to a reference case. Owing to the dependence of the sinusoidal terms entering in Eq.(28) on the product $\kappa \xi \propto \sqrt{I_1}
\xi$, in an experiment the signature of ZB can be easier revealed by monitoring the center of mass of the signal pulse at the output plane $\xi=L$ of the crystal as a function of the pump intensity $I_1$. This is shown, as an example, in Fig.4, where the numerically-computed behavior of $\langle \eta \rangle_2$ at the output crystal plane versus the intensity $I_1$ of the pump field is depicted, together with the approximate prediction based on Eq.(28).\
Conclusions
===========
In this work, a photonic analogue of the trembling motion (Zitterbewegung) of a free relativistic Dirac particle, based on frequency conversion of short optical pulses in a nonlinear quadratic medium, has been presented. The analogy, which stems from the mathematical similarity between the Dirac equation of a massive particle and the coupled equations describing sum frequency generation in the presence of pulse walk-off, indicates that well-known and experimentally accessible nonlinear optical processes could be exploited to simulate the Dirac equation in an optical setting. As compared to other classical and quantum analogues of Zitterbewegung recently proposed in the literature, based on trapped ions [@ZB2; @NatureZB], graphene [@ZB3; @ZB4_1; @ZB4-2; @ZB4-3] or photonic crystals, superlattices or metamaterials [@P1; @P2; @P3], our proposal may show a simpler experimental access and could stimulate further search for nonlinear optics analogues of relativistic quantum phenomena. For example, engineering of the QPM grating could be exploited to introduce in Eq.(17) a $\xi$-dependence of $\kappa$, i.e. to simulate the dynamics of a relativistic Dirac particle with a time-varying mass [@timevarying]. Likewise, if the temporal dependence of the pump pulse is included in the analysis and assuming $v_{g1}=v_g$, an $\eta$-dependence of the mass $\kappa$ is introduced in Eq.(17), which enables to mimic a relativistic Dirac particle in a Lorentz scalar potential [@Grenier].\
\
The author acknowledges financial support by the Italian MIUR (Grant No. PRIN-2008-YCAAK project “Analogie ottico-quantistiche in strutture fotoniche a guida d’onda”).\
[10]{}
Schrödinger E 1930 [*Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. Kl.*]{} [**24**]{} 418
W. Greiner 1990 [*Relativistic Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Berlin: Springer- Verlag)
Barut A O and Bracken A J 1981 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**23**]{} 2454
Krekora P, Su Q and Grobe R 2004 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**93**]{} 043004
Ferrari L and Russo G 1990 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**42**]{} 7454 (1990)
Schliemann J, Loss D and Westervelt R M 2005 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**94**]{} 206801
Zawadzki W 2005 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**72**]{} 085217
Lamata L, León J, Schätz T and Solano E 2007 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{} 253005
Cserti J and David G 2006 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**74**]{} 172305
Rusin T M and Zawadzki W 2007 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**76**]{} 195439
Maksimova G M, Demikhovskii V Ya and Frolova E V 2008 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**78**]{} 235321
Rusin T M and Zawadzki W 2009 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**80**]{} 045416
Vaishnav J Y and Clark C W 2008 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{} 153002
Zhang Q, Gong J and Oh C H 2010 [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**81**]{} 023608
Zhang X and Liu Z 2008 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**101**]{} 264303
Zhang X 2008 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{} 113903
Wang L G, Wang Z G and Zhu S Y 2009 [*EuroPhys. Lett.*]{} [**86**]{} 47008
Longhi S 2010 [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**35**]{} 235
Gerritsma R, Kirchmair G, Zähringer F, Solano E, Blatt R and Roos C F 2010 [*Nature*]{} [**463**]{} 68
Longhi S 2009 [*Laser Photon. Rev.*]{} [**3**]{} 243
R. W. Boyd 2003 [*Nonlinear Optics*]{} (New York: Academic Press).
Kaup D J, Reiman A and Bers A 1979 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**51**]{} 275
Ibragimov E and Struthers A 1997 [*J. Opt. Soc. Am. B*]{} [**14**]{} 1472
Ibragimov E, Struthers A and Kaup D J 1998 [*Opt. Comm.*]{} [**152**]{} 101
Ibragimov E, Struthers A A , Kaup D J, Khaydarov J D and Singer K D 1999 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**59**]{} 6122
Degasperis A, Conforti M, Baronio F and Wabnitz S 2006 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**97**]{} 093901
Baronio F, Conforti M, De Angelis C, Degasperis A, Andreana M, Couderc V and Barthélémy A 2010 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**104**]{} 113902
Longhi S, Marano M and Laporta P 2002 [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**66**]{} 033803
Roussev R V, Langrock C, Kurz J R and Fejer M M 2004 [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**29**]{} 1518
Edwards G J and Lawrence M 1984 [*Opt. Quantum Electron.*]{} [**16**]{} 373
See, for instance: Maamache M and Lakehal H 2004 [*EuroPhys. Lett.*]{} [**67**]{}, 695
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is important to explore the diversity of characteristics of low-mass, low-density planets to understand the nature and evolution of this class of planets. We present a homogeneous analysis of 12 new and 9 previously published broadband photometric observations of the Uranus-sized extrasolar planet [GJ 3470b]{}, which belongs to the growing sample of sub-Jovian bodies orbiting M dwarfs. The consistency of our analysis explains some of the discrepancies between previously published results and provides updated constraints on the planetary parameters. Our data are also consistent with previous transit observations of this system. The physical properties of the transiting system can only be constrained as well as the host star is characterized, so we provide new spectroscopic measurements of GJ 3470 from 0.33 to 2.42 $\mu$$m$ to aid our analysis. We find $R_{\star}$ = $R_{\odot}$, $M_{\star}$ = $M_{\odot}$, and $T_{\rm eff}$ = K for GJ 3470, along with a rotation period of $20.70\pm{0.15}$ d and an R-band amplitude of 0.01 mag, which is small enough that current transit measurements should not be strongly affected by stellar variability. However, to report definitively whether stellar activity has a significant effect on the light curves, this requires future multi-wavelength, multi-epoch studies of GJ 3470. We also present the most precise orbital ephemeris for this system: T$_{o}$ = BJD$_{TDB}$, P = 3.3366487$^{+0.0000043}_{-0.0000033}$ d, and we see no evidence for transit timing variations greater than 1 minute. Our reported planet to star radius ratio is . The physical parameters of this planet are $R_{p}$ = $R_{\oplus}$, and $M_{p}$ = $M_{\oplus}$. Because of our revised stellar parameters, the planetary radius we present is smaller than previously reported values. We also perform a second analysis of the transmission spectrum of the entire ensemble of transit observations to date, supporting the existence of a H$_{2}$ dominated atmosphere exhibiting a strong Rayleigh scattering slope.'
author:
- 'Lauren I. Biddle, Kyle A. Pearson, Ian J. M. Crossfield, Benjamin J. Fulton, Simona Ciceri, Jason Eastman, Travis Barman, Andrew W. Mann, Gregory W. Henry, Andrew W. Howard, Michael H. Williamson, Evan Sinukoff, Diana Dragomir, Laura Vican, Luigi Mancini, John Southworth, Adam Greenberg, Jake D. Turner, Robert Thompson, Brian W. Taylor, Stephen E. Levine, Matthew W. Webber'
bibliography:
- 'exo6.bib'
title: 'Warm Ice Giant GJ 3470b. II Revised Planetary and Stellar Parameters from Optical to Near-infrared Transit Photometry'
---
Introduction
============
It is important to pursue detailed characterization of extrasolar planets between Earth and Neptune-mass because these bodies have no solar system analogue, and may provide key insight to the mechanisms of formation and evolution of planetary systems. The Kepler mission has discovered over 2,300 planet candidates as of February 2012 [@Batalha:2013], analysis of which yields increasing occurrence with decreasing planet radius . Despite the relative abundance of sub-Jovian exoplanets, few have been characterized in great detail. The majority of the Kepler candidates pose a challenge when detecting transits from the ground because they do not meet the criteria for sufficient precision capabilities (e.g., they lack either a large planet-to-star radius ratio or a bright host star). However, these requirements are fulfilled for planets that transit nearby M dwarfs. These systems allow significantly smaller extrasolar planets to be studied with greater precision because they exhibit larger transit depths [@Gillon:2007; @Deming:2007; @Demory:2007] than if they were to orbit a larger, dimmer star. *Per contra*, such observationally favorable systems that exhibit a deep transit are relatively rare. So far, the only other small, low-mass planets that can be thoroughly characterized are GJ 436b [@Gillon:2007; @Butler:2004], GJ 1214b [@Charbonneau:2009], and HD 97658b [@Dragomir:2013; @Howard:2011] with the exception of 55 Cnc e, which orbits a solar type star . It is essential to probe this population to compare these systems’ properties with those of the more thoroughly studied hot Jupiters so that we may develop our understanding of formation mechanisms of planets linking Earth and Jupiter analogues.
A recent addition to this collection of exoplanets is [GJ 3470b]{} [@Bonfils:2012], a warm ice giant roughly the size and mass of Uranus orbiting a nearby M dwarf. This system exhibits a sufficiently large transit depth to make detailed characterization of the planet feasible. Previous studies of GJ 3470b probe the planet’s atmospheric composition: @Fukui:2013 present optical transit photometry and tentatively claim the planet does not have a thick cloud layer. @Crossfield:2013 presented K-band transit spectroscopy and found a flat transmission spectrum consistent with a hazy, methane-poor, or high metallicity atmosphere. Optical photometry indicates a strong Rayleigh-scattering slope at short wavelengths also consistent with a hazy atmosphere [@Nascimbeni:2013].
Several effects can interfere with measurements, posing limitations on our understanding of GJ 3470b’s bulk properties and atmospheric constraints. For example, when occulted by the planet, star spots introduce wavelength-dependent perturbations into the light curve and the resulting transit parameters [e.g., @Pont:2007; @Rabus:2009]. Unocculted star spots can have an effect on the transit depth, making it appear larger than it would without stellar activity . Furthermore, the amount of star spots visible on the Earth-directed face of the star varies over time because of stellar rotation and star spot evolution, and will be different for observations taken over several epochs [e.g., @Czesla:2009; @Knutson:2011; @Pont:2013]. To account for these factors, we utilize long-term photometric monitoring to assist in identifying these time-dependent changes in stellar brightness, and our results predict a weak systematic effect on the data due to stellar activity.
Our photometric campaign of GJ 3470b, consisting of 12 new transit observations in conjunction with 9 previously published light curves, aims to enhance measurements of planetary radius and mass, in addition to placing further constraints on the planetary atmosphere. The analysis also provides an improved ephemeris, which can assist in the eventual search for additional planetary bodies in the GJ 3470 system via observed variations in transit timing [@Holman:2005; @Agol:2005]. A repercussion of photometric follow-up of planetary systems is the opportunity to provide more accurate estimates of stellar properties. Improved constraints on GJ 3470 increases the precision with which we can derive planetary parameters. Thus, we also present revised stellar parameters that improve upon those previously derived for GJ 3470 [@Bonfils:2012; @Demory:2012; @Fukui:2013; @Pineda:2013] using visible and near-IR spectra.
In this paper we provide improved planetary, orbital and stellar parameters for the GJ 3470 system. We also include a revision of stellar properties, and possible sources of systematic error. We begin with host star characterization in Section , which includes data acquisition, reduction processes and results. In Section we describe observations, data calibration, and results for the planetary system. Discussion of the significance of these results takes place within Section . We conclude in Section .
The stellar spectra obtained with IRTF/SpeX () and UH/SNIFS () are plotted in a single figure (). These data are also available as an electronic supplement.
Spectroscopic Observations and Data Reduction
---------------------------------------------
The SNIFS pipeline [@Bacon:2001; @Aldering:2006] performed basic reduction, including bias, flat-field, and dark corrections. The spectrum was wavelength calibrated using arc lamp exposures taken at the same telescope pointing and time as the science data. Over the course of each night, we obtained spectra of the EG131 and Feige 110 spectrophotometric standards [@Bessell:1999fk; @Hamuy:1992qy; @Oke:1990]. We combined a model of telluric absorption from @Buton:2013lr with standard star observations to correct each spectrum for instrument response and atmospheric extinction. We shifted each spectrum in wavelength to the rest frames of their source stars by cross-correlating each spectrum to a spectral template of similar spectral type from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [@Stoughton:2002; @Bochanski:2007lr]. More details on our data reduction can be found in @Mann:2012 and @Lepine:2013lr.
Long-Term Photometric Monitoring
--------------------------------
We obtained nightly photometry of GJ 3470 with the Tennessee State University Celestron C14 0.36 m Automated Imaging Telescope (AIT) located at Fairborn Observatory in southern Arizona [@Henry:1999; @EHF:2003]. The AIT is equipped with an SBIG STL-1001E CCD camera and a Cousins R filter. Each observation consists of 4–10 consecutive exposures on a field containing GJ 3470 and several surrounding comparison stars. The individual frames are then co-added and reduced to differential magnitudes (i.e., GJ 3470 minus the mean brightness of the comparison stars). Each nightly observation is also corrected for differential extinction. A total of 246 nightly observations (excluding transit observations) were collected between 2012 December 10 and 2013 May 27.
The nightly out-of-transit observations range over 169 days of the 2012–2013 observing season and are plotted in the top panel of . Brightness variability with a period of $\sim20$ days and an amplitude of $\sim0.01$ mag is easily seen by inspection of the light curve. A frequency spectrum, based on the least-squares fitting of sine curves to unequally spaced observations, was computed via the method of @Vanicek:1971 and plotted in the middle panel of as the reduction of the variance in the data vs. trial period. The best frequency corresponds to a period of $20.70~\pm~0.15$ days, where the uncertainty is estimated from the width of the highest peak. We take this to be the star’s rotation period, made apparent by rotational modulation in the visibility of star spots. This rotation period agrees well with the low $v\sin(i)$ measured by @Bonfils:2012. The observations are replotted in the bottom panel phased with the rotation period and overlaid with a least-squares sine fit to the phased observations. The peak-to-peak amplitude is only 0.010 mag suggesting that analysis of the transit observations will not have to deal with complications caused by the planetary occultation of large spots. The sine-curve fit in the bottom panel is converted to HJD and overlaid on the observations in the top panel, and shows good coherence in spite of the small spot amplitude. @Henry:1995 show additional detections of low-level brightness variability in several dozen moderately active stars.
We phased the photometric observations to the radial velocity period and computed a new least-squares sine fit to the radial velocity period. The formal peak-to-peak amplitude is $0.00059\pm0.00099$ mag. This is consistent with the lack of detection of the photometric signal in the radial velocities of @Bonfils:2012 and confirms that radial velocity variations in GJ 3470 are indeed due to planetary reflex motion and not line-profile variations due to spots [e.g., @Queloz:2001; @Paulson:2004]. Furthermore, these variations support there is no consequential systematic effect on the transit light curves (see ).
Photometric Observations and Analysis
-------------------------------------
We obtained 12 total light curves (5 full and 7 partial), in which many of the events were observed with multiple facilities. We also include 9 light curves previously analyzed by @Bonfils:2012, @Fukui:2013, and @Nascimbeni:2013 for a total of 21 light curves analyzed homogeneously. All light curves analyzed in this work are plotted in , and the corresponding residuals are displayed in . Observational details including integration time, airmass range, and median seeing are summarized in , and the data acquisition process and reduction methods are described below.
### Discovery Channel Telescope (4 m)
We observed a full transit during early science observations with the Discovery Channel Telescope’s Large Monolithic Imager (LMI), an E2V CCD-231, 6k$\times$6k, deep depletion CCD and a field of view (FOV) of 12.3’$\times$12.3’. Data were taken with the LMI’s Cousin I filter[^1]. Ingress occurred as GJ 3470 was rising (airmass 1.8) so the pre-ingress photometry exhibitshigher scatter than the subsequent data. Because DCT’s audible warning alarms had not yet been activated, a partial dome occultation occurred in the middle of the transit and we excise these data from the subsequent analysis. Observations were made with a significant amount of defocus in order to maximize integration times and reduce overheads. To avoid possible systematic drifts from the LMI’s four-quadrant readout we measure photometry only for GJ 3470 and 2 comparison stars lying within a single quadrant of the detector. We investigate a wide range of aperture sizes, and in the final analysis use a 10" photometric aperture that minimizes the scatter in the resulting light curve. This observation is denoted as transit number 11 as seen in .
### Kuiper (1.55 m)
Three transit observations were conducted at the Steward Observatory Kuiper Telescope in Arizona using the Mont4k CCD 4096$\times$4096 pixel sensor with a FOV of 9.7’$\times$9.7’ using the red, Arizona-I optical filter. Two transits were obtained under poor weather conditions, which was the source of significant amount of scatter in both light curves, yielding extremely low quality data, so we present the one good light curve (number 15), which was acquired on a clear night.
To reduce the data we used the Exoplanet Data Reduction Pipeline, ExoDRPL, described by @Pearson:2013. We performed standard IRAF aperture photometry using eight comparison stars at 110 different aperture radii. After all combinations of comparison stars were tested, we found that a 6.02" aperture radius and one comparison star of much the same brightness as GJ 3470 provided the lowest scatter in the pre- and post-transit baseline. We produce a synthetic light curve by averaging the light curves from our reference stars, and normalize the final light curve of GJ 3470b by dividing by this synthetic light curve.
### LCOGT (1 m and 2 m)
We observed three full and three partial transits using telescopes of the Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope (LCOGT) network. All LCOGT 1.0 m data were obtained using an SBIG STX-16803 4096$\times$4096 CCD with 0.464" square pixels (2$\times$2 binning), a 15.8’$\times$15.8’ field of view, and processed using the pipeline described in @Brown:2013. Two full transits taken in r’ and PanStarrs-Z bands were acquired with two of the 1.0 m telescopes at the LSC node of the network at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) in Chile. Two partial transits were observed in Sloan r’, and a full transit was acquired in the i’ band using the 1.0 m telescope at the ELP node of the network at McDonald Observatory in Texas. The i’ band observations were defocused slightly.
We obtained a partial transit with the 2.0-m Faulkes Telescope North (FTN), a part of the LCOGT’s network of robotic telescopes, using a Fairchild CCD486 BI 4k x 4k Spectral Imaging camera with a FOV of 10.5’ x 10.5’ [@Brown:2013] in the Bessel-B filter. We defocused the telescope moderately in order to avoid saturation and we increased the open shutter time relative to the overhead time. The light curves were extracted through aperture photometry using 5.5" aperture radii, eight comparison stars for the r’ band observation number 18, and seven comparison stars for i’ and r’, 20 and 21. We also perform differential photometry using the weighted average of two, six, and seven comparison stars for the r’, Panstarrs-Z, and B time series (9, 10, and 17), respectively. The weather during all observation nights was clear with the exception of transit 18.
### Lick/Nickel (1 m)
We observed a total of six observations at the Nickel Telescope at Lick Observatory using the CCD-2 Direct Imaging Camera with a 2048$\times$2048 pixel CCD and a FOV of 6.3’$\times$6.3’, with the Gunn Z filter. We omit three of these observations because they were taken under poor weather conditions and resulted in low quality light curves. We do present one full light curve (transit 08) and two partial light curves (transits 12 and 16). All observations were defocused, and counts were kept below 35,000 to preserve linearity. We performed standard aperture photometry methods using two comparison stars of similar magnitude to GJ 3470, and a set of custom IDL routines that were also used for the previous analysis of transit light curves obtained at this facility [@Johnson:2010]. We selected aperture radii for each light curve that minimized scatter.
### Calar Alto/Zeiss (1.23 m)
We observed a partial transit using the Zeiss telescope at the German-Spanish Calar Alto Observatory with the Cousins I filter using a DLRMKIII camera, equipped with an E2V CCD231-84-NIMO-BI-DD sensor, 4k$\times$4k pixels and a FOV of $21^{\prime}\times21^{\prime}$, which was already successfully employed to investigate several transiting planets [@Mancini:2013; @Ciceri:2013]. We observed the ingress phase of the transit, but the emergence of clouds prevented us from observing the remainder of the event.
We analyzed the data using a version of the DAOPHOT reduction pipeline [@Stetson:1987; @Southworth:2009]. Aperture photometry is then performed using the IDL task, Aper, which is part of NASA’s ASTROLIB subroutine library, and we account for pointing variations by cross-correlating each image against a reference image. We chose the aperture size and four comparison stars that yielded the lowest scatter in the final differential photometry light curve. The relative weights of the comparison stars were optimized simultaneously by fitting a second-order polynomial to the outside-transit observations to normalize them to unit flux.
Methods
-------
For the analysis process, we allowed the scaled semi-major axis, $a/R_{\star}$, period, P, and inclination, $i$, to vary freely, but required they be consistent for the entire dataset. The mid-transit time, $T_{o}$, could float for each transit, under the requirement that all events are related to each other by a linear ephemeris. We linked the planet to star radius ratio, $R_{P}/R_{\star}$, for all transits taken with comparable bandpasses to measure transit depths as a function of wavelength. We accounted for limb darkening by using quadratic law limb darkening coefficients and corresponding uncertainties calculated using the Monte Carlo approach described by @Crossfield:2013, who derive these values using T$_{\rm eff}$ = 3500 K, surface gravity of $10^{5}~cm~s^{-2}$, and solar abundances. The limb darkening coefficients varied with Gaussian priors using the coefficients and uncertainties described above, and listed in . @Bonfils:2012 report a 1-sigma upper limit on GJ 3470b’s orbital eccentricity, $e$, of 0.051. Using the Systemic tool [@Meschiari:2009], we estimated that the posterior distribution of orbital eccentricity from the RV discovery data is approximately described by a normal distribution (truncated below zero) with mean 0.009 and dispersion 0.088, consistent with a circular orbit. We used these values to impose a Gaussian prior on $e$ for the light curve analysis in TAP.
Results
-------
The results of the analysis, including $R_{p}/R_{\star}$ and $T_{o}$ for each light curve, are listed in . The updated system parameter, $a/R_{\star}$ equals . We found P = $3.3366487^{+0.0000043}_{-0.0000033}$ d, and $i$ = 88.88$^{+0.62}_{-0.45}$ deg. Under the assumption there is no wavelength dependence, we take the weighted mean of our wavelength-dependent transit depth measurements, and we find $R_{p}/R_{\star}$ equals . These values are tabulated in . The uncertainty on our measurement of $R_{p}/R_{\star}$ is larger than that expected to result from stellar variability (see ), so GJ 3470’s intrinsic variability is unlikely to significantly affect these results.
Using our mid-transit times along with the mid-transit times from @Demory:2013, @Crossfield:2013, we fit a new linear transit ephemeris, (T$_{o}$ = BJD$_{TDB}$, $P$ = d). We plot the epoch of each transit against the observed time minus the calculated time (O-C) in . If there were another body orbiting [GJ 3470]{}, we might observe a transit timing variation due to its gravitational effects on [GJ 3470b]{}. Any detectable TTVs must lie outside the timing range labeled in green in Figure 5, which signifies the upper and lower limits of non-transit variations within $1\sigma$ of the error of the period. Any values lying outside of this region indicate deviations from the linear ephemeris as a result of another body in the system. The data point corresponding to Transit 1 does lie outside the region described above, however this transit coincides with a low quality, partial light curve, so we disregard this point as a TTV. We find no apparent TTVs in the available data, and within the precision of our measurements.
Stellar Characterization
------------------------
### Physical Parameters
We determine the metallicity of GJ 3470 using the prescription from @Mann:2013gf, who provide empirical relations between M dwarf metallicity, \[Fe/H\], and the strength of molecular and atomic features in visible, $J-$, $H-$, and $K-$bands. We adopt the error-weighted mean of metallicities from each of these relations, accounting for both random and systematic errors. This yields a \[Fe/H\] of $+0.18\pm0.08$.
We deduce the effective temperature, radius, and mass of GJ 3470 by following the procedures in @Mann:2013. To summarize, we compared the optical spectrum to the BT-SETTL version of the PHOENIX atmospheric models [@Allard:2013] after masking out a few poorly modeled regions (e.g., TiO at 6500Å). This technique has been shown to reproduce temperatures derived from the bolometric flux and angular diameter of nearby stars [@Boyajian:2012lr] to $\simeq60$ K, which we adopt as the error on our effective temperature. We utilize additional empirical relations from @Mann:2013gf relating stellar effective temperature, mass, and radius from nearby stars to calculate the other physical characteristics of the star. We find the stellar effective temperature, $T_{\rm eff}$ = 3682$\pm{60}$ K, stellar radius, R$_{\star}$ = 0.48$\pm$0.04 $R_{\odot}$, and stellar mass, $M_{\star}~=~0.51\pm0.06~M_{\odot}$.
Under the assumption the planet’s orbit is circular, we employed the formula by @Seager:2003 to independently estimate the stellar density, $\rho_{*}$, which follows directly from inverting Kepler’s 3rd law of motion by substituting in the expression for mean density in place of mass: $$\rho_{*} = \frac{3 \pi}{G P^{2}} \left(\frac{a}{R_{*}} \right)^{3} - \rho_{p} \left(\frac{R_{p}}{R_{*}} \right)^{3},$$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $P$ is the orbital period and the second term on the right is typically negligible. We find $\rho_{\star}$ = 3.27$^{+0.31}_{-0.34}$ $\rho_{\odot}$. These values are tabulated in .
Our results for the radius of GJ 3470 obtained using the stellar spectrum are lower by more than 1$\sigma$ than the radii found by @Fukui:2013 ($0.526\pm0.023~R_{\odot}$) and @Demory:2012 ($0.568\pm0.037~R_{\odot}$). Our values given above for $R_{\star}$ and $M_{\star}$ alone return a mean bulk density of $4.62\pm1.10$ $\rho_{\odot}$, roughly $3\sigma$ greater than the value derived from our light curve analysis. We bring attention to the discrepancy in our stellar density derived using the photometric data versus the stellar spectrum. This density offset could indicate a systematic bias caused by occulted or unocculted star spots, which can be tested by repeated observations and by observations at longer wavelengths. The discrepancy could also be caused by an eccentric orbit, which can be tested further with RV measurements or by determining the time of GJ 3470b’s secondary eclipse. Our results support that light curves of transiting planets can help place constraints on the properties of their host stars. However, stellar activity is likely not a contributing factor in our observations because, as mentioned in , it is unlikely to pose a significant systematic effect for transit observations, which drives home the necessity of advancing our understanding of M dwarf stars.
In , we present the the final value of $\rho_{\star}$, which is the weighted mean of both values in this work, deduced from the light curves and spectra. Also provided in are the resultant values for the weighted mean of all previously published stellar effective temperatures and metallicities displayed in , which also lists $R_{\star}$, $M_{\star}$, $\rho_{\star}$ for all published studies.
### Distance to GJ 3470
We calculate a distance of pc, which is consistent with, and more precise than the value calculated by @Pineda:2013 ($29.2^{+3.7}_{-3.4}$ pc). Our distance is derived from the fundamental relation between bolometric flux and luminosity ($L_{bol}=4~\pi~d^{2}F_{bol}$). We use our derived stellar parameters, $R_{*}$ and $T_{eff}$ (listed in ), to calculate the luminosity for GJ 3470 (L$_{bol}~=~4\pi~R_{\star}^{2}~\sigma T_{\rm eff}^{4}$). To calculate $F_{bol}$ we integrate the spectrum presented in and from 0.33 to 2.42 $\mu$m. For the mid-infrared we use the WISE photometric measurements of GJ 3470, converting the WISE infrared magnitudes into units of flux density using the flux zero points and effective wavelengths given in @Wright:2010. We sum the flux between the WISE data points using a linear relation between each pair of adjacent points and add it to our previous flux value. We propagated the errors associated with each photometric point using the formula obtained by taking a Taylor expansion for the trapezoidal rule.
To account for the missing flux between the two data sets, we scaled a PHOENIX BT-SETTL model [@Allard:2011] to our measured spectrum and added the integrated model flux between 2.42 to 3.35 $\mu$m to the pre-existing bolometric flux obtained using the two spectra. The model used was interpolated from the four nearest spectra in the BT-SETTL compilation to resemble GJ 3470 using the specified parameters $T_{\rm eff}$ = K, $log_{10}(g)$ = and \[Fe/H\] = 0. To determine the resulting error associated with incorporating the model flux, we scaled the pre-existing error to the percentage of the total additional flux compared to the initial, observed flux (1.063).
Furthermore, to account for the fractional flux shortward of 0.3 $\mu$m and longward of 22 $\mu$m we scaled our bolometric flux by 1.0362 (determined by the fraction of flux in those regions compared to total stellar flux using the BT-SETTL model). We refrain from altering our uncertainty because the fraction of flux in those regions was much smaller than our other uncertainties and is negligible. We find an apparent bolometric flux of $1.42\times10^{-9}$ \[erg cm$^{-2}~$s$^{-1}$\]. The uncertainty on $F_{bol}$ is a few percent, based on systematic uncertainties in calibrating ground-based spectra [@Rayner:2009].
To confirm our calculations, we determined an appropriate geometric scale factor by integrating our measured spectrum, BT-SETTL model and WISE data (where applicable) over three different contiguous bandpasses (0.6-0.8$\mu$m, 2.1-2.3$\mu$m and 3.3-4.6$\mu$m) and found the mean ratio between the two quantities. The geometric scale factor is proportional to (R$_{*}/$dist$)^{2}$ and using our previously derived value for $R_{*}$, we found that the distance is consistent with our previously derived value. Additionally, we find the values above also yield a distance consistent with that derived using optical bolometric corrections in @Flower:1996.
### Stellar Variability, Rotation and Age
GJ 3470’s 20 d rotation period (described in Section 2.2) permits an independent estimate of the star’s age, previously estimated to be 0.3–3 Gyr [@Bonfils:2012]. Analysis of Kepler photometry of M dwarf rotation periods shows two distinct groups of stars, with an inferred age ratio between the groups of $\sim$2.5–3 [@McQuillan:2013]. GJ 3470’s rotation period places it in the more rapidly-rotating group; assuming that the slower rotators have ages of 5–10 Gyr then GJ 3470 has an age of roughly 2–4 Gyr. This gyrochronological age is also broadly consistent with the MEarth survey’s analysis of M stars’ rotation periods [@Irwin:2011]. Alternatively, we note also that GJ 3470’s rotation period is roughly 1.5 times longer than observed for stars with comparable $V-K$ colors in the 0.6 Gyr Hyades and Praesepe clusters [@Delorme:2011]. Assuming a rotational braking index of 0.5–0.6, the relations of @Meibom:2009 imply an age of roughly 1.3 Gyr. We therefore estimate GJ 3470’s age to be 1–4 Gyr, consistent with but slightly older than previous estimates [@Bonfils:2012].
Using the formalism of @berta:2011, our measurement of $\sim1\%$ peak-to-valley variability in GJ 3470 implies a time-dependent, spot-induced variability in the R band transit depths of $5\times 10^{-5}$ over the star’s rotation period. Assuming that the spots are 300 K cooler than the stellar photosphere, this effect is roughly 20% larger in B band and roughly three times smaller at Warm Spitzer wavelengths. This amplitude is smaller than the transit precision from our ensemble of light curves. The precision of the 4.5$\,\mu m$ transit measurement from Spitzer [@Demory:2013] is also larger than our estimate. Future multi-wavelength, multi-epoch studies of GJ 3470b’s transits will determine whether stellar activity poses a significant systematic effect for transit observations of this system.
Physical Properties of the Planetary System
-------------------------------------------
We adopted the formula by @Southworth:2007a to calculate the surface gravitational acceleration, $g_{p}$: $$g_{p} = \frac{2 \pi} {P} \left(\frac{a}{R_{p}} \right)^{2} \frac{ \sqrt{1-e^{2} }} { \sin{i} } K_{*},$$ where K$_{*}$ is the stellar velocity amplitude equal to 9.2$\pm$0.8 m s$^{-1}$ [@Bonfils:2012] and assuming $e = 0$ (justified by current data; see ).
The equilibrium temperature, $T_{eq}$, was derived using the relation [@Southworth:2010]: $$T_{eq} = T_{eff} \left( \frac{1-A}{4 F} \right)^{1/4} \left( \frac{R_{\star}} {2 a } \right)^{1/2},$$ where $T_{eff}$ is the effective temperature of the host star at K (See ), $A$ is the Bond albedo, and $F$ is the heat redistribution factor. Assuming $A = 0 - 0.4$ and $F = 0.25-0.50$ we find the range $T_{eq}$ = 506-702 K.
We calculated the planetary mass, $M_{p}$, using the following equation [@Winn:2010; @Seager:2011]: $$M_{p} = \left( 11.18 \right) \left( \frac{K_{\star}} {\sin{i}} \right) \left( \frac{P}{1 yr} \right)^{1/3} \left( \frac{M_{\star}}{{\mbox{M$_\odot$}}} \right)^{2/3} M_{\oplus},$$ where $K_{\star}$ is the radial velocity semi-amplitude equal to 9.2$\pm$0.8 m s$^{-1}$ [@Bonfils:2012]. For M$_{\star}$, and P, we use the values derived from our analysis (see ). The resultant planetary mass is M$_{p}$ = $M_{\oplus}$.
Results of the $M_{p}$, $R_{p}$, $\log_{10}({g_{p}})$ and the planetary density ($\rho_{p}$) from our analysis are summarized in . We find a planetary radius of $R_{p}$ = $R_{\oplus}$.
Atmospheric Constraints
-----------------------
We compare the full ensemble of transit observations of GJ 3470b to a set of model atmospheric transmission spectra. For this purpose, we used the atmospheric models of GJ 3470b presented in @Crossfield:2013, which provide model observed transmission spectra after computing self-consistent equilibrium atmospheric chemistry and thermal structure. We allow each model to be scaled by a constant multiplicative factor to account for differences of a few percent between the observed and modeled transit depths. In light of the recent detection of Rayleigh scattering [@Nascimbeni:2013] we include a second analysis in which an ad-hoc Rayleigh-scattering haze is added to each transmission spectrum by allowing the slope and offset of the Rayleigh-scattering signature to vary in each fit. We parametrize the haze signature as R$_{P}^{haze}$ = A - B $\ln~\frac{\lambda}{1~\micron}$ [@lecavelier:2008haze189], and take as our final transmission model the greater value of $R_P^{haze}$ or the original model at each wavelength. Thus our haze model is not physically self-consistent, but it captures the essential features observed. For each hazy or haze-free model we computed $\chi^{2}$ and the Bayesian Information Criterion [BIC=$\chi^{2}~+~k~\ln~n$ when fitting $n$ measurements with a $k$-dimensional model; @Schwarz:1978], which penalizes models that use too many parameters. Thus, $k=3$ for the hazy models and unity for the haze-free models.
The results of this analysis are compiled in and we show the three best-fitting models in . The best models all include a Rayleigh-scattering haze, consistent with the results of [@Nascimbeni:2013]. Although the hazy models with supersolar metallicities give a lower $\chi^2$ and BIC than the hazy solar-abundance model, the difference is too small to conclusively determine whether GJ 3470b has a metal-rich atmosphere as do Uranus and Neptune [@Lunine:1993] and as proposed for hot Neptune GJ 436b [@Moses:2013; @Fortney:2013].
One benefit of a spectroscopic analysis is the opportunity to provide improved constraints on the host star’s properties. The planetary parameters are known only to the accuracy with which we know the star, so it it extremely important to know these values as well. The distance determined agrees with the value found in @Pineda:2013. The stellar mass, radius, density, and metallicity (see ) have been updated using a weighted average of our derived stellar parameters and those found in @Demory:2012 and @Fukui:2013. Different methods of stellar analysis yield varying parameters appropriate for an M dwarf like GJ 3470, which motivates the need for further investigation of M dwarf stars.
This small planet lies in an observationally favorable system that presents the possibility of measuring a transmission spectrum also considered in detail by @Fukui:2013, @Crossfield:2013, and @Nascimbeni:2013[^2]. Our second analysis of the entire collection of transit observation agrees with the results of [@Nascimbeni:2013], suggesting a H$_{2}$ dominated Rayleigh-scattering haze. Further observations with higher precision and/or at shorter wavelengths will be necessary to confirm the steep Rayleigh scattering slope supported in this work and also by @Nascimbeni:2013, and to search for molecular absorption features in the planet’s transmission spectrum.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
[llccccccc]{}
[llccc]{}
[lcc]{}
[lccccc]{}
[l c c]{}
[^1]: See <http://www.lowell.edu/techSpecs/LMI/I.eps>
[^2]: Our conclusions are consistent with those of @Ehrenreich:2014, which we became aware of seven months after the submission of our work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove a variant of a Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma for matrices with circulant structure. This approach allows to minimise the randomness used, is easy to implement and provides good running times. The price to be paid is the higher dimension of the target space $k=O(\varepsilon^{-2}\log^3n)$ instead of the classical bound $k=O(\varepsilon^{-2}\log n)$.'
author:
- |
Aicke Hinrichs\
Mathematisches Institut, Universität Jena\
Ernst-Abbe-Platz 2, 07740 Jena, Germany\
email: [email protected]\
\
Jan Vybíral\
Radon Institute for Computational and Applied Mathematics (RICAM)\
Austrian Academy of Sciences\
Altenbergerstraße 69\
A-4040 Linz, Austria\
email: [email protected]
title: 'Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma for circulant matrices'
---
[**AMS Classification:** ]{}[52C99, 68Q01]{}
[**Keywords and phrases:** ]{}[Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma, circulant matrices, decoupling lemma]{}
Introduction
============
The classical Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma may be formulated as follows.
Let $\varepsilon\in(0,\frac 12)$ and let $x_1,\dots,x_n\in \R^d$ be arbitrary points. Let $k=O(\varepsilon^{-2}\log n)$ be a natural number. Then there exists a (linear) mapping $f:\R^d\to \R^k$ such that $$(1-\varepsilon)||x_i-x_j||_2^2\le ||f(x_i)-f(x_j)||_2^2\le (1+\varepsilon)||x_i-x_j||_2^2$$ for all $i,j\in\{1,\dots,n\}.$ Here $||\cdot||_2$ stands for the Euclidean norm in $\R^d$ or $\R^k$, respectively.
The original proof of Johnson and Lindenstrauss [@JL] uses (up to a scaling factor) an orthogonal projection onto a random $k$-dimensional subspace of $\R^d$. We refer also to [@DG] for a beautiful and self-contained proof. Later on, this lemma found many applications, especially in design of algorithms, where it sometimes allows to reduce the dimension of the underlying problem essentially and break the so-called “curse of dimension”, cf. [@IM] or [@IN].
The evaluation of $f(x)$, where $f$ is a projection onto a random $k$ dimensional subspace, is a very time-consuming operation. Therefore, a significant effort was devoted to
- minimize the running time of $f(x)$,
- minimize the memory used,
- minimize the number of random bits used,
- simplify the algorithm to allow an easy implementation.
Achlioptas observed in [@A], that the mapping may also be realised by a matrix, where each component is selected independently at random with a fixed distribution. This decreases the time for evaluation of $f(x)$ essentially.
An important breakthrough was achieved by Ailon and Chazelle in [@AC]. Let us briefly describe their [*Fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss transform*]{} (FJLT). The FJLT is the product of three matrices $f(x)=PHDx$, where
- $P$ is a $k\times d$ matrix, where each component is generated independently at random. In particular, $P_{i,j}\approx N(0,1)$ with probability $$q=\min\left\{\Theta\left(\frac{\log^2n}{d}\right),1\right\}$$ and $P_{i,j}=0$ with probability $1-q$,
- $H$ is the $d\times d$ normalised Hadamard matrix,
- $D$ is a random $d\times d$ diagonal matrix, with each $D_{i,i}$ drawn independently from $\{-1,1\}$ with probability 1/2.
It follows, that with high probability, $f(x)$ may be calculated in time $O(d\log d+qd\varepsilon^{-2}\log n).$
We refer to [@M] for a historical overview as well as for an extensive description of the present “state of the art”.
In this note we propose another direction to approach the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma, namely we investigate the possibility of taking a partial circulant matrix for $f$ combined with a random $\pm 1$ diagonal matrix, see the next section for exact definitions.
This transform has a running time of $O(d\log d)$, requires less randomness ($2d$ instead of $kd$ or $(k+1)d$ used in [@A; @AC2; @AC]) and allows a simpler implementation.
Unfortunately, up to now, we were only able to prove the statement with $k=O(\varepsilon^{-2}\log^3 n)$, compared to the standard value $k=O(\varepsilon^{-2}\log n)$. We leave the possible improvements of this bound open for further investigations.
Circulant matrices
==================
We study the question (which to our knowledge has not been addressed in the literature before), whether $f$ in the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma may be chosen as a circulant matrix. Let us give the necessary notation.
Let $a=(a_0,\dots,a_{d-1})$ be independent identically distributed random variables. We denote by $M_{a,k}$ the partial circulant matrix $$M_{a,k}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
a_0 & a_1 & a_2 & \dots & a_{d-1}\\
a_{d-1} & a_0 & a_1 & \dots & a_{d-2}\\
a_{d-2} & a_{d-1} & a_{0} &\dots & a_{d-3}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots\\
a_{d-k+1} & a_{d-k+2} & a_{d-k+3} & \dots & a_{d-k}
\end{matrix}
\right).$$
Furthermore, if $\varkappa=(\varkappa_0,\dots,\varkappa_{d-1})$ are independent Bernoulli variables, we put $$D_{\varkappa}=\left(\begin{matrix}
\varkappa_0 & 0 & \dots & 0\\
0 & \varkappa_1 & \dots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & \dots & \varkappa_{d-1}
\end{matrix}\right).$$
\[thm1\] Let $x_1,\dots,x_n$ be arbitrary points in $\R^d$, let $\varepsilon\in (0,\frac 12)$ and let $k=O(\varepsilon^{-2}\log^3 n)$ be a natural number. Let $a=(a_0,\dots,a_{d-1})$ be independent Bernoulli variables or independent normally distributed variables. Let $M_{a,k}$ and $D_\varkappa$ be as above and put $f(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt k}M_{a,k} D_{\varkappa}x$.
Then with probability at least 2/3 the following holds $$(1-\varepsilon)||x_i-x_j||_2^2\le ||f(x_i)-f(x_j)||_2^2\le (1+\varepsilon)||x_i-x_j||_2^2,\qquad i,j=1,\dots,n.$$
The preconditioning of $x$ using $D_{\varkappa}$ seems to be necessary and we shall comment on this point later on. Its role may be compared with the use of the random Fourier transform in [@AC].
In contrast to the above mentioned variants of the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma, the coordinates of $f(x)$ are now no longer independent random variables. Our approach “decouples” the dependence caused by the circulant structure. It resembles in some aspects the methods used recently in compressed sensing, cf. [@B1; @B2; @R].
First, we recall the Lemma 1 from Section 4.1 of [@LM] (cf. also Lemma 2.2 of [@M]), which shall be useful later on.
\[LemLM\] Let $$Z=\sum_{i=1}^D \alpha_i(a_i^2-1),$$ where $a_i$ are i.i.d. normal variables and $\alpha_i$ are nonnegative real numbers. Then for any $t>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb P}(Z\ge 2||\alpha||_2\sqrt{t}+2||\alpha||_\infty t)&\le \exp(-t),\\
{\mathbb P}(Z\le -2||\alpha||_2\sqrt{t})&\le \exp(-t).\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, we shall use the decoupling lemma of [@BT Proposition 1.9].
\[decoup\] Let $\xi_0,\dots,\xi_{d-1}$ be independent random variables with ${\mathbb E}\,\xi_0=\dots={\mathbb E}\,\xi_{d-1}=0$ and let $\{x_{i,j}\}_{i,j=0}^{d-1}$ be a double sequence of real numbers. Then for $1\le p <\infty$ $${\mathbb E}\biggl|\sum_{i\not=j}x_{i,j}\xi_i \xi_j\biggr|^p
\le 4^p {\mathbb E}\biggl|\sum_{i\not= j}x_{i,j}\xi_i\xi'_j\biggr|^p,$$ where $(\xi'_0,\dots,\xi'_{d-1})$ denotes an independent copy of $(\xi_0,\dots,\xi_{d-1})$.
The key role in the proof of the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma is played by the following estimates.
\[lem1\] Let $k\le d$ be natural numbers and let $\varepsilon \in (0, \frac12)$. Let $a=(a_0,\dots,a_{d-1})$, $M_{a,k}$ and $D_\varkappa$ be as in Theorem \[thm1\] and let $x\in \R^d$ be a unit vector. Put $f(x)=M_{a,k} D_{\varkappa}x$.
Then there is a constant $c$, independent on $k, d,\varepsilon$ and $x$, such that $${\mathbb P_{a,\varkappa}}\Bigl(||f(x)||_2^2\ge (1+\varepsilon)k\Bigr)\le \exp(-c(k\varepsilon^{2})^{1/3})$$ and $${\mathbb P_{a,\varkappa}}\Bigl(||f(x)||_2^2\le (1-\varepsilon)k\Bigr)\le\exp(-c(k\varepsilon^{2})^{1/3}).$$
Let $S:\R^d \to \R^d$ denote the shift operator $$S(x_0,x_1,\dots,x_{d-1})=(x_{d-1},x_0,x_1,\dots,x_{d-2}),\quad x\in\R^d.$$ Then $$||f(x)||_2^2=||M_{a,k} D_{\varkappa} x||_2^2 = \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}|\langle S^j a,D_\varkappa x\rangle|^2
=\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\left(\sum_{i=0}^{d-1}a_i\varkappa_{j+i}x_{j+i}\right)^2
=I + II,$$ where $$I=\sum_{i=0}^{d-1}a_i^2 \cdot \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}x^2_{j+i}$$ and $$II=\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\sum_{i\not=i'} a_i a_{i'}\varkappa_{j+i}\varkappa_{j+i'}x_{j+i}x_{j+i'}.$$ Here (and any time later) the summation in the index is to be understood modulo $d$.
The decoupling of the circulant matrix is based on $$\label{eq:fin1}
\P_{a,\varkappa}\Bigl(||M_{a,k}D_\varkappa x||_2^2\ge (1+\varepsilon)k\Bigr)\le
\P_{a}(I\ge (1+\varepsilon/2)k)+\P_{a,\varkappa}(II\ge \varepsilon k/2)$$ and $$\label{eq:fin2}
\P_{a,\varkappa}\Bigl(||M_{a,k}D_\varkappa x||_2^2\le (1-\varepsilon)k\Bigr)\le
\P_{a}(I\le (1-\varepsilon/2)k)+\P_{a,\varkappa}(II\le -\varepsilon k/2).$$
We use Lemma \[LemLM\] to estimate the diagonal term $I$.
We choose $\alpha_i=\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}x^2_{j+i}$ and get $||\alpha||_1=k, ||\alpha||_\infty\le 1$ and hence $||\alpha||_2\le \sqrt k$. This leads to $$\label{eq:11}
{\mathbb P_a}(I\le k-2\sqrt{kt})\le \exp(-t)$$ and $$\label{eq:12}
{\mathbb P_a}(I\ge k+2\sqrt{kt}+2t)\le \exp(-t).$$ We set $\varepsilon k/2=2\sqrt{kt}$, i.e. $t=\varepsilon^2k/16$, in and obtain $$\label{eq:fin3}
{\mathbb P}_{a}(I\le (1-\varepsilon/2)k)\le \exp(-\varepsilon^2k/16).$$ On the other hand, if $c=5/2-\sqrt6>1/20$, then $\sqrt c+c/2=1/4$ and $$2\sqrt{kt}+2t\le \varepsilon k/2$$ for $t=c\varepsilon^2 k$, which finally gives $$\label{eq:fin4}
{\mathbb P}_a(I\ge (1+\varepsilon/2)k)\le \exp(-c\varepsilon^2 k).$$
Next, we estimate the moments of the off-diagonal part $II$. We use Lemma \[decoup\] twice, which gives $$\E_{a,\varkappa} |II|^p\le 16^p \E_{a,a',\varkappa,\varkappa'} |II'|^p:=
16^p \E_{a,a',\varkappa,\varkappa'}
\biggl|\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\sum_{i\not=i'} a_i a'_{i'}\varkappa_{j+i}\varkappa'_{j+i'}x_{j+i}x_{j+i'}\biggr|^p,$$ where $a'$ and $\varkappa'$ are independent copies of $a$ and $\varkappa$, respectively.
First, we make a substitution $v=j+i, v'=j+i'$ and use the Khintchine inequality with the optimal constant $c_p\le \sqrt p$ and the random variable $\varkappa$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb E}_{\varkappa}
\biggl|\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\sum_{i\not=i'}
a_i a'_{i'}\varkappa_{j+i}\varkappa'_{j+i'}x_{j+i}x_{j+i'}\biggr|^p&=
{\mathbb E}_{\varkappa}
\biggl|\sum_{v=0}^{d-1} \varkappa_v x_v
\sum_{v'\not=v} \varkappa'_{v'}x_{v'}
\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} a_{v-j} a'_{v-j'}\biggr|^p\\
&\le c_p^p \biggl(\sum_{v=0}^{d-1}x_v^2 \Bigl(\sum_{v'\not=v} \varkappa'_{v'}x_{v'}
\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} a_{v-j} a'_{v-j'}\Bigr)^2\biggr)^{p/2}.\end{aligned}$$
Next, we involve Minkowski’s inequality with respect to $p/2\ge 1$ and Khintchine’s inequality for the random variable $\varkappa'.$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb E}_{\varkappa, \varkappa'}|II'|^p
&\le c_p^p\, {\mathbb E}_{\varkappa'}\biggl(\sum_{v=0}^{d-1}x_v^2 \Bigl(\sum_{v'\not=v} \varkappa_{v'}x_{v'}
\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} a_{v-j} a'_{v-j'}\Bigr)^2\biggr)^{p/2}\\
&\le c_p^p \biggl(\sum_{v=0}^{d-1}x_v^2\biggl(
{\mathbb E}_{\varkappa'}\Bigl|\sum_{v'\not=v}\varkappa_{v'}x_{v'}
\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} a_{v-j} a'_{v-j'}\Bigr|^p\biggr)^{2/p}\biggr)^{p/2}\\
&\le c_p^{2p}\biggl(\sum_{v\not=v'}x_v^2x_{v'}^2
\Bigl(\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}a_{v-j}a'_{v'-j}\Bigr)^2\biggr)^{p/2}.\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, the Minkowski inequality for $a$ and $a'$ gives $${\mathbb E_{a,a',\varkappa,\varkappa'}}|II'|^p\le c_p^{2p}
\biggl(\sum_{v\not=v'}x_v^2x_{v'}^2\Bigl({\mathbb E}_{a,a'}
\Bigl|\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}a_{v-j}a'_{v'-j}\Bigr|^p\Bigr)^{2/p}\biggr)^{p/2}.$$ If $a_0,\dots,a_{d-1}$ are Bernoulli variables, then Khintchine’s inequality gives $$\biggl({\mathbb E}_{a,a'}\Bigl|\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}a_{v-j}a'_{v'-j}\Bigr|^p\biggr)^{1/p}\le \sqrt{kp},$$ as the product of two independent Bernoulli variables is again of this type.
For normal variables, we use first Khintchine’s inequality and spherical coordinates to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
{\mathbb E}_{a,a'}\Bigl|\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}a_{v-j}a'_{v'-j}\Bigr|^p&={\mathbb E}_{a,a'}\Bigl|\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}a_ja'_j\Bigr|^p
\le c_p^p {\mathbb E}_{a}\Bigl(\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}|a_j|^2\Bigr)^{p/2}\\
\label{eq:chaos}&=c_p^p{\mathbb E}_{a}||a||_2^p
=\frac{c_p^p}{(2\pi)^{k/2}}\int_{\R^k}e^{-||a||^2_2/2}||a||_2^pda\\
\notag &=\frac{c_p^p}{(2\pi)^{k/2}}\cdot A_k\cdot \int_0^\infty e^{-r^2/2}r^{p+k-1}dr,\end{aligned}$$ where $$A_k=\frac{2\pi^{k/2}}{\Gamma(k/2)}$$ is the area of the unit ball in $\R^k$.
We combine with Stirling’s inequality and obtain $$\biggl({\mathbb E}_{a,a'}\Bigl|\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}a_{v-j}a'_{v'-j}\Bigr|^p\biggr)^{1/p}
\le \sqrt 2 c_p \biggl[\frac{\Gamma((k+p)/2)}{\Gamma(k/2)}\biggr]^{1/p}\le c\sqrt{p(k+p)}.$$
Hence, if $a_0,\dots,a_{d-1}$ are independent Bernoulli or normally distributed variables, we may estimate $$\label{eq:chaos2}
\left({\mathbb E_{a,a',\varkappa,\varkappa'}}|II'|^p\right)^{1/p}\le c p \cdot \sqrt{(k+p)p}\cdot||x||^2
=c p^{3/2}\sqrt {k+p}.$$ Markov’s inequality then gives $${\mathbb P}_{a,a',\varkappa,\varkappa'}(|II'|>k\varepsilon/2)=
{\mathbb P}_{a,a',\varkappa,\varkappa'}\biggl(\frac{2^p|II'|^p}{k^p\varepsilon^p}\ge 1\biggr)
\le\frac{2^p{\mathbb E}_{a,a',\varkappa,\varkappa'}|II'|^p}{k^p\varepsilon^p}
\le \left(\frac{cp^{3/2}\sqrt{k+p}}{k\varepsilon}\right)^{p}.$$ We choose $p$ by the condition $\frac{\sqrt {2}cp^{3/2}}{\sqrt k\varepsilon}=e^{-1}$. We may assume $c\ge 1$, which ensures that $p\le k$ and $\frac{\sqrt{k+p}}{k}\le \frac{\sqrt 2}{\sqrt k}$, which leads to $$\label{eq:fin5}
{\mathbb P}_{a,a',\varkappa,\varkappa'}(|II'|>k\varepsilon/2)\le \exp(-c'(k\varepsilon^2)^{1/3}).$$ The proof then follows by and combined with , and .
The proof of Theorem \[thm1\] follows from Lemma \[lem1\] by the union bound over all $\binom{n}{2}$ pairs of points.
\(i) We note that follows directly by very well known estimates of moments of Gaussian chaos, cf. [@HW; @L]. We preferred to give a simple and direct proof.
\(ii) Let us also mention that Lemma \[lem1\] fails, if the multiplication with $D_\varkappa$ is omitted. Namely, let $k\le d$ be natural numbers, let $a_0,\dots,a_{d-1}$ be independent normal variables and let $x=\frac{1}{\sqrt d} (1,\dots,1)$. If $f(x)=M_{a,k}x$, then $$||f(x)||_2^2=k\Bigl(\sum_{j=0}^{d-1}\frac{a_j}{\sqrt d}\Bigr)^2.$$ Due to the 2-stability of the normal distribution, the variable $$b:=\sum_{j=0}^{d-1}\frac{a_j}{\sqrt d}$$ is again normally distributed, i.e. $b\approx N(0,1).$ Hence $${\mathbb P}_a\Bigl(||f(x)||_2^2>(1+\varepsilon)k\Bigr)=
{\mathbb P}_b\Bigl(b^2>(1+\varepsilon)\Bigr)$$ depends neither on $k$ nor on $d$ and Lemma \[lem1\] cannot hold.
\(iii) The statement of Theorem \[thm1\] holds also for matrices with Toeplitz structure. The proof is literally the same, only notational changes are necessary.
[**Acknowledgement:**]{} We thank Albrecht Böttcher for his comments to the topic. The research of Aicke Hinrichs was supported by the DFG Heisenberg grant HI 584/3-2. Jan Vybíral acknowledges the financial support provided by the FWF project Y 432-N15 START-Preis “Sparse Approximation and Optimization in High Dimensions”.
D. Achlioptas, Database-friendly random projections: Johnson-Lindenstrauss with binary coins. *J. Comput. Syst. Sci.*, 66(4):671-687, 2003.
N. Ailon and B. Chazelle, Approximate nearest neighbors and the fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss transform. In *Proc. 38th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*, 2006.
N. Ailon and B. Chazelle, The fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss transform and approximate nearest neighbors. *SIAM J. Comput.* 39 (1), 302-322, 2009.
W. Bajwa, J. Haupt, G. Raz, S. Wright and R. Nowak, Toeplitz-structured compressed sensing matrices. *IEEE Workshop SSP*, 2007.
W. U. Bajwa, J. Haupt, G. Raz and R. Nowak, Compressed channel sensing. In *Proc. CISS’08*, Princeton, 2008.
J. Bourgain and L. Tzafriri, Invertibility of ’large’ submatrices with applications to the geometry of Banach spaces and harmonic analysis. *Israel J. Math.*, 57(2):137-224, 1987.
S. Dasgupta and A. Gupta, An elementary proof of a theorem of Johnson and Lindenstrauss. *Random. Struct. Algorithms*, 22:60-65, 2003.
D. L. Hanson and F. T. Wright, A bound on tail probabilities for quadratic forms in independent random variables, *Ann. Math. Statist.* 42:1079-1083, 1971.
P. Indyk and R. Motwani, Approximate nearest neighbors: Towards removing the curse of dimensionality. In *Proc. 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*, pp. 604-613, 1998.
P. Indyk and A. Naor, Nearest neighbor preserving embeddings. *ACM Trans. Algorithms*, 3(3), Article no. 31, 2007.
W. B. Johnson and J. Lindenstrauss, Extensions of Lipschitz mappings into a Hilbert space. *Contem. Math.*, 26:189-206, 1984.
R. Latała, Estimates of moments and tails of Gaussian chaoses, *Ann. Prob.* 34(6):2315-2331, 2006.
B. Laurent and P. Massart, Adaptive estimation of a quadratic functional by model selection. *Ann. Statist.* 28(5):1302–1338, 2000.
J. Matoušek, On variants of the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma, *Random Struct. Algorithms* 33(2):142–156, 2008.
H. Rauhut, Circulant and Toeplitz matrices in compressed sensing, In *Proc. SPARS’09*, Saint-Malo, France, 2009.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The spin decomposition of the proton is a long-standing topic of much interest in hadronic physics. Lattice QCD has had much success in calculating the connected contributions to the quark spin. However, complete calculations, which necessarily involve gluonic and strange-quark contributions, still present some challenges. These “disconnected” contributions typically involve small signals hidden against large statistical backgrounds and rely on computationally intensive stochastic techniques. In this work we demonstrate how a Feynman-Hellmann approach may be used to calculate such quantities, by measuring shifts in the proton energy arising from artificial modifications to the QCD action. We find a statistically significant non-zero result for the disconnected quark spin contribution to the proton of about $-5$% at a pion mass of 470 MeV.'
author:
- 'A. J. Chambers'
- 'R. Horsley'
- 'Y. Nakamura'
- 'H. Perlt'
- 'D. Pleiter'
- 'P. E. L. Rakow'
- 'G. Schierholz'
- 'A. Schiller'
- 'H. Stüben'
- 'R. D. Young'
- 'J. M. Zanotti'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Disconnected contributions to the spin of the nucleon
---
Introduction
============
The simple quark model picture suggests that the total nucleon spin is comprised entirely in terms of its constituent quark spins. In contrast, experimental measurements reveal that the quark spin only generates about one third of the total nucleon spin [@Alexakhin:2006oza]. This observation is a clear representation of the nontrivial dynamics associated with nonperturbative QCD. Resolving the full composition of the nucleon spin in terms of the QCD degrees of freedom remains an active experimental and theoretical pursuit. For an overview of the status and progress, we refer the reader to Refs. [@Anselmino:1994gn; @Filippone:2001ux; @Bass:2004xa; @Myhrer:2007cf; @Thomas:2008ga; @Aidala:2012mv].
As a systematically improvable method for studying nonperturbative properties of QCD, lattice simulations offer the potential to provide quantitative predictions for the decomposition of the nucleon spin. For recent numerical investigations of the nucleon spin, and related matrix elements, see Refs. [@Bratt:2010jn; @Syritsyn:2011vk; @Dinter:2011sg; @Owen:2012ts; @Capitani:2012gj; @Sternbeck:2012rw; @Alexandrou:2013joa; @Bhattacharya:2013ehc; @Bali:2013nla].
In the conventional approach, spin matrix elements are extracted from 3-point correlation functions. Operator insertions that are directly connected to the quark field operators of the nucleon interpolators can be reliably computed using established techniques. The operator insertions that involve self-contracted fermion lines, which are essential to isolate the strangeness spin content, for instance, require the stochastic estimation of the trace of an all-to-all propagator. Owing to the increased computational demand of this stochastic estimator and a relatively weak numerical signal, such disconnected contributions have often been neglected in lattice simulations. Nevertheless, there has been substantial progress made in recent years [@Babich:2010at; @QCDSF:2011aa; @Engelhardt:2012gd; @Abdel-Rehim:2013wlz; @Deka:2013zha]. For a related calculation involving the vector current matrix elements we also refer to Ref. [@Green:2015wqa].
In recent work, we have proposed an alternative to the conventional 3-point function technique for the study of hadron matrix elements in lattice QCD. By adapting the Feynman-Hellmann (FH) theorem to the lattice framework, we are able to isolate matrix elements in terms of an energy shift in the presence of an appropriate weak external field [@Horsley:2012pz; @Chambers:2014qaa]. This is similar to the technique proposed by Detmold in Ref. [@Detmold:2004kw]. In Ref. [@Horsley:2012pz] we used the Feynman-Hellmann relation to extract the gluonic contribution to the nucleon mass. The application of Feynman-Hellmann was further developed in Ref. [@Chambers:2014qaa] for the study of the connected spin contributions in various hadrons. We have also recently shown how it is possible to compute flavour-singlet renormalisation constants nonperturbatively by an appropriate application of the FH theorem [@Chambers:2014pea].
In the present work, we apply the FH technique to resolve disconnected spin matrix elements. Whereas the connected spin contributions could be computed on conventional gauge fields, the disconnected contributions requires the generation of new special-purpose gauge configurations. The influence of the weak external spin field is therefore accumulated through the importance sampling of the hybrid Monte Carlo simulation. While such new configurations come at significant computational cost, the computing time is comparable to that required for reliable with sampling using the conventional stochastic techniques.
The manuscript proceeds as follows: Section II reviews the implementation of the FH theorem for the extraction of spin matrix elements and summarises the lattice simulation parameters; Section III describes the strategy for the isolation of the relevant matrix elements from the two-point correlation functions; with results reported in Section IV; followed by concluding remarks in Section V.
Feynman-Hellmann methods and simulation details {#sec:fh_methods}
===============================================
Here we discuss the Feynman-Hellmann approach in the context of calculations of disconnected contributions to matrix elements, in particular the quark axial charges. For details of previous calculations of the connected contributions, and the Feynman-Hellmann technique in general, see [@Chambers:2014qaa].
The quark axial charges are defined by forward matrix elements of the axial operator, $$\bra{\vec{p}, \vec{s}}
\bar{q}(0) \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 q(0)
\ket{\vec{p}, \vec{s}}
=
2 i s_\mu \Delta q
\eqstop$$ We access disconnected contributions to these quantities by implementing a modification to the fermion part of the QCD Lagrangian during gauge-field generation. Extra terms are included involving the axial operator weighted by some freely-varying real parameter $\lambda$, applied equally to all three quark flavours, $$\Lagrangian
\to
\Lagrangian
+
\lambda \sum_{q = u,d,s} \bar{q} \gamma_3 \gamma_5 q
\eqstop
\label{eq:lag_mod}$$ This operator satisfies $\gamma_5$-hermiticity, and so the determinant of the fermion matrix is still real. Hence we avoid introducing any sign problems. We choose projection matrices to isolate spin-up and down components of the nucleon correlation function, $$\Gamma_\pm =
\frac{1}{2}(\I + \gamma_4)
\frac{1}{2}(\I \pm i \gamma_5 \gamma_3)
\eqcomma
\label{eq:proj_mats}$$ and by application of the Feynman-Hellmann relation, find that the correlator picks up a complex phase which mimics an imaginary energy component, $$E \to E(\lambda) + i \phi(\lambda)
\eqstop
\label{eq:fh_phase}$$ At first order in the parameter $\lambda$, there is no shift in the real part of the energy, and the shift in the phase is exactly equal to the disconnected contribution to the total quark axial charge, $$\left.
\frac
{\partial E}{\partial \lambda}
\right|_{\lambda=0}
=
0
\qquad
\qquad
\left.
\frac
{\partial \phi}{\partial \lambda}
\right|_{\lambda=0}
=
\pm
\Delta \Sigma_\text{disc.}
\eqcomma
\label{eq:fh_rel}$$ where the total contribution is the sum of the individual flavour contributions, $$\Delta \Sigma_\text{disc.} =
\Delta u_\text{disc.}
+
\Delta d_\text{disc.}
+
\Delta s
\eqstop$$ Note that we access the total contribution because the operator in includes terms for all 3 quark flavours. Also note that the strange contribution is purely disconnected. The different signs in result from the different choices of $\Gamma_\pm$, and we note that changing the spin projection is equivalent to flipping the sign of $\lambda$.
Our strategy for this calculation, motivated by , is to generate new gauge ensembles for multiple values of $\lambda$, measure the phase shift in and determine $\Delta \Sigma_\text{disc.}$ from the linear behaviour.
In our previous work, we were able to access the connected part by implementing the change in to the Dirac matrix before inversion to compute the quark propagator entering hadron correlation functions (see [@Chambers:2014qaa]). Here the modification is made to the fermion matrix in the HMC algorithm, and so information about the purely disconnected contributions is accessed.
Simulation details
------------------
We use gauge field configurations with $2+1$ flavours of non-perturbatively $O(a)$-improved Wilson fermions and a lattice volume of $L^3 \times T = 32^3 \times 64$. The lattice spacing $a = 0.074(2)$ fm is set using a number of singlet quantities [@Horsley:2013wqa; @Bornyakov:2015eaa; @Bietenholz:2010jr; @Bietenholz:2011qq]. The clover action used comprises the tree-level Symanzik improved gluon action together with a stout smeared fermion action, modified for the implementation of the Feynman-Hellmann method [@Chambers:2014qaa].
For the results discussed here, we use ensembles with two sets of hopping parameters, $(\kappa_l,\kappa_s) =$ (0.120900,120900) and (0.121095,0.120512), corresponding to pion masses of approximately 470 and 310 MeV. These have been generated with the modified quark action described in . The details of these ensembles, including the values of $\lambda$ realised, are given in .
$(\kappa_l, \kappa_s)$ $\lambda$ $N_\text{conf.}$ $N_\text{sources}$ $\phi$
------------------------ ----------- ------------------ -------------------- -------------- --
-0.0125 500 1 0.0014(10)
-0.00625 500 1 0.00002(83)
0.03 500 1 -0.00237(77)
-0.025 600 1 -0.0008(13)
0.05 800 5 0.00027(61)
: Table of ensembles generated for this work. Two pion masses with three and two values of $\lambda$ respectively have been used. The number of configurations and sources used, as well as the phase shift measured (discussed in and ) are also listed.[]{data-label="tab:ensembles"}
Analysis techniques {#sec:analysis}
===================
A standard zero-momentum projected nucleon correlation function is given by $$G_\pm(t)
=
\int \dc{\vec{x}}
\Gamma_\pm
\bra{\Omega}
N(x) \bar{N}(0)
\ket{\Omega}
\notag
\atlarget
A e^{-Et}
\eqcomma
\label{eq:normal_corr}$$ where $N$ and $\bar{N}$ are interpolating operators coupling to the nucleon ground state, and the projection matrices $\Gamma_\pm$ (defined in ) project spin-up and down components respectively. For our simulations, we use identical source and sink smearing and operators. Hence, the amplitude $A$ is purely real.
With the modification to the Lagrangian in , an imaginary component is introduced to the exponential factor, in addition to a complex shift in the amplitude. This shift in the amplitude is not the focus of this work, but is related to the $\lambda$ dependence of the wavefunction overlap factors. To first order in $\lambda$, the amplitude and energy take the form $$\begin{aligned}
A & \to A + \lambda (\Delta A + i \Delta B) \eqcomma
\label{eq:amp_shift}
\\
E & \to E + i \lambda \Delta \Sigma \eqcomma
\label{eq:energy_shift}\end{aligned}$$ and the correlation function at large times is given by $$G_\pm(\lambda, t)
\atlarget
\left[
A \pm \lambda(\Delta A + i\Delta B)
\right]
e^{- \left[ E \pm i \lambda \Delta \Sigma \right] t}
\eqstop
\label{eq:corr_mod}$$ (Recall that changing the spin projection corresponds to flipping the sign of $\lambda$, as discussed in ). The quantity of interest is the shift in the phase, $\Delta \Sigma$. To extract this value, we form the following ratio of real and imaginary parts of spin-up and down projections, $$\begin{aligned}
R(\lambda, t)
=
\;
&
\frac
{\Im \left[ G_-(\lambda,t) - G_+(\lambda,t) \right] }
{\Re \left[ G_-(\lambda,t) + G_+(\lambda,t) \right] }
\notag
\\
\atlarget
\;
&
\frac
{
\sin \left( \lambda \Delta \Sigma t \right)
- \lambda \frac{\Delta B}{A} \cos
\left(\lambda \Delta \Sigma t \right)
}
{
\cos \left( \lambda \Delta \Sigma t \right)
+ \lambda \frac{\Delta B}{A}
\sin \left( \lambda \Delta \Sigma t \right)
}
\eqstop
\label{eq:ratio}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the form of this ratio does not change if we include second order terms in and . For the operator included in , we find that the second order shift in the energy is purely real, and it can be shown that only the factor $\frac{\Delta B}{A}$ will change. Hence, corrections to these calculations do not appear until $\order{\lambda^3}$.
The ratio in is what we fit in our analysis. To determine ground state saturation of this quantity, we observe that, provided $t \ll \frac{1}{|\lambda \Delta \Sigma|}$, the behaviour of the ratio is approximately linear in $t$. $$R(\lambda, t)
=
\lambda \Delta \Sigma t
- \lambda \frac{\Delta B}{A}
+ \order{\lambda^3}
\quad
,
\quad
a \ll t \ll \frac{1}{|\lambda \Delta \Sigma|}
\eqstop$$ Previous determinations of $\Delta \Sigma$ [@Babich:2010at; @QCDSF:2011aa; @Engelhardt:2012gd; @Abdel-Rehim:2013wlz; @Deka:2013zha] suggest that we should expect $|\Delta \Sigma| \approx 0.1$, and hence for the largest value of $\lambda$ realised on our ensembles, $a\lambda = 0.05$, this linear approximation will hold for times $\frac{t}{a} \ll
200$. With this, we are able to introduce an ‘effective phase shift’, $$\phi_\text{eff.}
=
\frac{1}{a}
\left[
\mathcal{R}(\lambda, t+a)
-
\mathcal{R}(\lambda, t)
\right]$$ which in the regime discussed has the behaviour $$\phi_\text{eff.}
=
\lambda \Delta \Sigma
\quad
,
\quad
a \ll t \ll \frac{1}{|\lambda \Delta \Sigma|}
\eqstop
\label{eq:eff_phase}$$
Results {#sec:results}
=======
![ Plots of the ratio in and the effective phase shift defined in for $\lambda=0.03$, $m_\pi \approx 470$ MeV. The fitting window (shown in darker blue) was between time slices 2 and 12. The errors shown are from a bootstrap analysis of the results, as are the errors on the displayed fits.[]{data-label="fig:eff_phase"}](ls03_both.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
shows an example plot of the ratio in and the corresponding effective phase defined in for $\lambda = 0.03$. We observe a clear plateau in the effective phase for the illustrated fitting region, and corresponding linear behaviour in the ratio. As an aside, the fit indicates a clearly non-zero value for the $t = 0$ intercept, confirming that there is a small but statistically significant imaginary shift in the wavefunction overlap factors (given in ) for this value of $\lambda$.
![ Phase shift as a function of $\lambda$ for $m_\pi \approx 470$ MeV.[]{data-label="fig:fh_sym"}](fh_sym.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Repeating this procedure for each value of $\lambda$ and extracting the phase shifts, we are able to calculate the linear shift with respect to $\lambda$, illustrated in . From we know that this shift is directly proportional to the disconnected contribution to $\Delta \Sigma$. Since there is no phase shift in the zero-field limit, we have used a single-parameter slope fit to extract the linear shift. This analysis is repeated at the lighter pion mass. includes the calculated phase shift for each value of $\lambda$ on the ensembles generated, and results of the described analyses are summarised in . Using the methods outlined in [@Chambers:2014qaa], we have also calculated the individual connected contributions to $\Delta \Sigma$ on these ensembles, and hence are able to calculate the total (connected and disconnected) value of $\Delta \Sigma$.
$(\kappa_l, \kappa_s)$ $\Delta u^\text{latt.}$ $\Delta d^\text{latt.}$ $\Delta \Sigma_{\text{disc.}}^\text{latt.}$ $\Delta \Sigma^\text{latt.}$ $\Delta \Sigma_\text{disc.}^{\overline{\text{MS}}(2 \text{ GeV}^2)}$ $\Delta \Sigma^{\overline{\text{MS}}(2 \text{ GeV}^2)}$
------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
$(0.120900, 0.120900)$ 1.001(7) $-0.310(5)$ $-0.079(21)$ 0.612(24) $-0.055(18)$ 0.530(21)
$(0.121095, 0.120512)$ 1.004(10) $-0.319(6)$ 0.014(16) 0.699(25) 0.026(14) 0.605(21)
At the lighter mass, we find a result consistent with zero for $\Delta \Sigma_\text{disc.}$. This unusual result may be the result of a couple of different factors. The $\lambda$ values chosen may simply be too small, and the phase shift is not able to rise above the background correlator noise.
![ Effective phase plots for $\lambda=-0.025, 0.05$ respectively at $m_\pi \approx 310$ MeV. The results in the second plot have greater statistics by a factor of 4. Note that the sign of the fitted value is highly dependent on the fit window.[]{data-label="fig:light_ep"}](light_ep.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
show effective phase plots for the two values of $\lambda$ realised at this lighter quark mass, and show that there is no clearly identifiable plateau at these statistics.
Alternatively, there may be a sign change in either the light or strange contribution to $\Delta \Sigma$ at some mass between $m_\pi =
310 -470$ MeV. This is unlikely, however, as previous results at similar masses have shown a significant $\Delta s$ contribution, which would require the light quark contribution to have a strong quark mass dependence.
From [@Chambers:2014pea] we have both non-singlet and singlet renormalisation factors for the axial current at the SU(3) symmetric point, $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{A,\text{NS}}^{\overline{\text{MS}}(2 \text{ GeV}^2)} & = 0.8458(8)
\eqcomma \label{eq:renorm} \\
Z_{A,\text{S}}^{\overline{\text{MS}}(2 \text{ GeV}^2)} & = 0.8662(34)
\eqstop\end{aligned}$$ Further calculations at additional quark masses are required to perform a chiral extrapolation of these quantities, however the pion mass dependence of these factors is expected to be mild based on the non-singlet calculation of Ref. [@Constantinou:2014fka].
To obtain the renormalised total spin contribution we use the singlet renormalisation factor: $$\Delta \Sigma^{\overline{\text{MS}}}
=Z_{A,\text{S}}^{\overline{\text{MS}}}\Delta \Sigma^{\text{latt.}}.$$ For the purely disconnected quantity, we include the mixing of the connected and disconnected contributions under renormalisation: $$\Delta \Sigma_\text{disc.}^{\overline{\text{MS}}}
=
Z_{A,\text{S}}^{\overline{\text{MS}}} \Delta \Sigma_\text{disc.}^\text{latt.}
+
\left(
Z_{A,\text{S}}^{\overline{\text{MS}}}
-
Z_{A,\text{NS}}^{\overline{\text{MS}}}
\right)
\Delta \Sigma_\text{conn.}^\text{latt.}
\eqstop
\label{eq:renormDisc}$$ Using the renormalisation factors from the SU(3) symmetric point, we quote our $\overline{\text{MS}}$ results in the final two columns of . Finally, since at the SU(3) symmetric point all quarks contribute exactly the same amount to $\Delta \Sigma_{\text{disc.}}^{\overline{\text{MS}}}$, then at this point we can determine $\Delta s$ $$\Delta s^{\overline{\text{MS}}}(m_\pi=465\text{MeV}) =\frac13 \Delta\Sigma_{\text{disc.}}^{\overline{\text{MS}}}= -0.018(6)\ .$$
Concluding remarks
==================
Culminating in the results of , we have shown how the Feynman-Hellmann theorem may be applied to perform full calculations of hadronic matrix elements.
Extensions of these particular calculations include higher-statistics simulations, particularly at the lighter pion mass, and the generation of ensembles at additional pion masses to identify the quark mass dependence of $\Delta \Sigma$. Further analysis of the existing data should allow for the extraction of disconnected quark spin contributions for the other octet baryons and the vector mesons.
The FH technique demonstrated here can be easily adapted to a variety of other disconnected quantities, such as the gluonic contribution to angular momentum, which would otherwise be rather challenging using conventional approaches.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The numerical configuration generation was performed using the BQCD lattice QCD program, [@Nakamura:2010qh], on the IBM BlueGeneQ using DIRAC 2 resources (EPCC, Edinburgh, UK), the BlueGene P and Q at NIC (Jülich, Germany) and the Cray XC30 at HLRN (Berlin–Hannover, Germany). Some of the simulations were undertaken using resources awarded at the NCI National Facility in Canberra, Australia, and the iVEC facilities at the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre. These resources are provided through the National Computational Merit Allocation Scheme and the University of Adelaide Partner Share supported by the Australian Government. The BlueGene codes were optimised using Bagel [@Boyle:2009vp]. The Chroma software library [@Edwards:2004sx], was used in the data analysis. This investigation has been supported by the Australian Research Council under grants FT120100821, FT100100005 and DP140103067 (RDY and JMZ). HP was supported by DFG grant SCHI 422/10-1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have investigated how envelope pollution by icy planetesimals affects the critical core mass for gas giant formation and the gas accretion time-scales. In the core-accretion model, runaway gas accretion is triggered after a core reaches a critical core mass. All the previous studies on the core-accretion model assumed that the envelope has the solar composition uniformly. In fact, the envelope is likely polluted by evaporated materials of icy planetesimals because icy planetesimals going through the envelope experience mass loss via strong ablation and most of their masses are deposited in the deep envelope. In this paper, we have demonstrated that envelope pollution in general lowers the critical core masses and hastens gas accretion on to the protoplanet because of the increase in the molecular weight and reduction of adiabatic temperature gradient. Widely- and highly-polluted envelopes allow smaller cores to form massive envelopes before disc dissipation. Our results suggest that envelope pollution in the course of planetary accretion has the potential to trigger gas giant formation with small cores. We propose that it is necessary to take into account envelope pollution by icy planetesimals when we discuss gas giant formation based on the core-accretion model.'
author:
- |
Y.Hori$^{1}$[^1]; M. Ikoma$^{1}$\
$^{1}$ Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan
date: 'Accepted 2011 May 26. Received 2011 April 20'
title: Gas Giant Formation with Small Cores Triggered by Envelope Pollution by Icy Planetesimals
---
\[firstpage\]
accretion, accretion discs – planets and satellites: formation.
Introduction
============
More than 540 exoplanets have been discovered so far[^2]. Dedicated planet surveys have revealed the diversity of giant planets outside the Solar System. Many Sun-like stars are known to harbor close-in giant planets called hot-Jupiters, in contrast to our Sun. Recently, direct imaging has shed light on the existence of distant extrasolar giant planets such as HR8799b, c, d, e [@Marois+08; @Marois+10], Fomalhaut b [@Kalas+08], and Beta Pic b [@Lagrange+09]. A large number of exoplanets enable us to consider planet formation around various types of star through a statistical approach, which is often called population synthesis. In the population synthesis, planetary systems are built by putting together pieces of formation processes (e.g., solid and gas accretion, planetary migration and so on) in a Monte-Carlo way. Nowadays several groups have worked on the population synthesis independently [e.g. @Ida+08; @Alibert+11; @Kennedy+08; @Miguel+11]. Those population-synthesis studies succeed in reproducing the planetary mass-period distribution of detected extrasolar giant planets. This indicates that our basic picture of planetary formation is supported by observed exoplanets. On the other hand, it is also true that different population syntheses based on different assumptions as to planetary accretion and disc properties reproduce the same observed distribution. This highlights the need to understand underlying formation processes of giant planets more exactly.
The core-accretion model is one of the promising models for giant planet formation [e.g. @Mizuno80; @Bodenheimer+86; @Pollack+96]. In this model, once a core reaches a critical core mass through planetesimal accretion, runaway gas accretion is triggered and the envelope mass increases rapidly. The typical value of the critical core mass is thought of as being $\gtrsim 10 M_\oplus$ [@Pollack+96; @Fortier+07; @Fortier+09] to form a massive envelope within the disc lifetime suggested by observations [@Haisch+01; @Hernandez+07]. This is, however, incompatible with the inferred mass of Jupiter’s core of $\lesssim 10 M_\oplus$ [@Saumon+04]. The critical core mass depends on planetesimal accretion rate and opacities in the envelope [@Mizuno80; @Ikoma+00; @Rafikov06]. Fast accretion of planetesimals leads to form gas giants with large cores. Although slow rates of planetesimal accretion lead to smaller critical cores of $< 10 M_\oplus$, gas accretion on to small cores tends to be long. Reduction of grain opacities in the envelope can not only lower critical core masses but also hasten gas accretion on to the protoplanet [@Ikoma+00; @Hubickyj+05; @Papaloizou+05; @Hori+10]. For example, @Hori+10 showed that core masses needed to form massive envelopes before disc dissipation are as small as $1 M_\oplus$ in the extreme case of grain-free envelopes. In fact, recent calculations on the dynamical behaviour of dust grains in the accreting envelope demonstrate that grain opacities in the envelope can be reduced to be on average 1% or less of those in the protoplanetary disc [@Podolak03; @Movshovitz+08; @Movshovitz+10]. The reason is that small grains initially suspended in the outer envelope quickly grow large in size and then settle down into the deep envelope where temperature is high enough so that grains evaporate. Their results support that reduction of grain opacities can be a feasible idea that relaxes the problem of the formation of gas giants with small cores.
Another factor that affects the critical core mass is considered in this paper. All the previous studies assumed that the composition of gas is solar throughout the envelope. In fact, the envelope is likely to be polluted by evaporated materials of icy planetesimals. Once a protoplanet grows up to be Mars-size, it becomes difficult for the protoplanet to capture planetesimals because the protoplanet enhances their random velocities through gravitational scatterings by itself. On the other hand, disruptive collisions between planetesimals with high relative velocities take place frequently and yield a large number of 10 to 100 m-sized fragments unless the planetesimals are larger than 100 km [@Inaba+03b; @Kobayashi+10]. The protoplanet can capture such small-sized fragments because of the enhanced collisional cross-section between the envelope and those fragments due to gas drag [@Inaba+03a; @Benvenuto+08]. The fragments going through the envelope experience both melting and evaporation and lose most of their masses in the deep envelope before reaching the core [@Pollack+86; @Podolak+88]. As a result, envelope pollution by evaporated materials of icy planetesimals occurs inevitably in the course of planetary accretion. In addition, evaporation (or erosion) of the core itself is also expected to occur, as pointed out by @Lissauer+95. This fact motivates us to consider giant planet formation taking into account the effects of the heavy-element enrichment in the envelope.
Approximate solutions for the critical core mass analytically derived by previous studies tell that envelope pollution has significant impacts on the critical core mass:
- Wholly-radiative envelopes [@Stevenson82]: $$M_\mathrm{crit} \propto \mu^{-\frac{12}{7}} \kappa^{\frac{3}{7}}
\dot{M}^{\frac{3}{7}}_\mathrm{c} (\ln R_\mathrm{out})^{-\frac{3}{7}},
\label{Mcrit_rad}$$
- Wholly convective envelopes [@Wuchterl93]: $$M_\mathrm{crit} \propto \mu^{-\frac{3}{2}}~\Gamma^{\frac{3}{2}}_1
\frac{\sqrt{\Gamma_1 - 4/3}}{(\Gamma_1 - 1)^2}~
\rho_\mathrm{out}^{-\frac{1}{2}}~T_\mathrm{out}^{\frac{3}{2}},
\label{Mcrit_conv}$$
where $M_\mathrm{crit}$ is the critical core mass, $\mu$ the molecular weight, $\kappa$ the Rosseland mean opacity, $\dot{M}_\mathrm{c}$ the planetesimal accretion rate, and $\Gamma_1$ the adiabatic exponent. The subscript “out” means the value at the outer edge of the envelope. The envelope pollution causes increase in $\mu$ and reduction of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ (or reduction of $\Gamma_1$). The reduction of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ comes from dissociations of several kinds of molecules. The two formulae indicate that both effects reduce the critical core mass. This is because those effects lead to reduction of the local pressure gradient that supports the gravity. On the other hand, the envelope pollution also causes rise in gas opacities as a negative effect. The rise in gas opacities, mainly $\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}$ that absorbs infrared radiation, increases the critical core mass by increasing the temperature gradient that results in an increase in the pressure gradient.
In this study, we show that envelope pollution by icy planetesimals lowers critical core masses in most cases and hastens gas accretion on to the protoplanet despite the rise in gas opacities. We present numerical procedures in Section 2, including our modelling for envelope pollution by icy planetesimals. Results of critical core masses and gas accretion time-scales are shown in Section 3 and Section 4, respectively. Discussions and conclusion are in the last two sections.
Numerical Procedure \[sec.2\]
=============================
Structure and Evolution of the Envelope \[sec.2-1\]
---------------------------------------------------
We suppose a spherically-symmetric protoplanet that consists of a gaseous envelope and a rigid core with a constant density of $3.2~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$. The envelope is assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium. Its structure is simulated with a set of the following basic equations [e.g. @Kippenhahn+94] that includes the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium, $$\frac{\partial P}{\partial M_r} = -\frac{GM_r}{4\pi r^4},
\label{HE}$$ the equation of mass conservation, $$\frac{\partial r}{\partial M_r} = \frac{1}{4\pi r^2 \rho},
\label{mass_conv}$$ the equation of heat transfer, $$\frac{\partial T}{\partial M_r} = \frac{T}{P}\frac{\partial P}{\partial M_r}\nabla,
\label{heat_transfer}$$ and the equation of energy conservation, $$\frac{\partial L_r}{\partial M_r} = \epsilon_\mathrm{acc} - T\frac{dS}{dt},
\label{energy_conv}$$ where $M_r$ is the mass interior to radius $r$, $P$ the pressure, $T$ the temperature, $\rho$ the density, $S$ the specific entropy, $L_r$ the energy flux crossing at a sphere of radius $r$, $\nabla = d\log T/d\log P$, $G$ the gravitational constant, $\epsilon_\mathrm{acc}$ the specific energy generation by planetesimal accretion, and $t$ the time.
The dominant mechanism of heat transfer is chosen by the Schwartzschild criterion for convective instability:
$$\left( \frac{\partial \ln T}{\partial \ln P} \right)_s
\equiv \nabla_\mathrm{ad} < \nabla_\mathrm{rad} ,
\label{criterion}$$
where $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ is the adiabatic temperature gradient and $\nabla_\mathrm{rad}$ the radiative temperature gradient given by $$\nabla_\mathrm{rad} = \frac{3}{16\pi ac G}\frac{\kappa P L_r}{M_r T^4},$$ where $c$ is the velocity of light, $a$ the radiation density constant, and $\kappa$ the Rosseland mean opacity. Opacities both of dust grains and gas and the equation of state for gaseous components that we use are mentioned in Section \[sec.2-2\].
The boundary conditions are given at the core surface and the outer edge of the envelope as follows:
$$r = \left( \frac{3M_\mathrm{core}}{4\pi \rho_\mathrm{core}} \right)^{1/3}
~\mathrm{and}~
L = L_\mathrm{core}
~~\mathrm{at}~M_r = M_\mathrm{core},
\label{inner_bc}$$
and $$T = T_\mathrm{disc}~~\mathrm{and}~~\rho = \rho_\mathrm{disc}
~~\mathrm{at}~M_r = M_\mathrm{p},$$ where $M_\mathrm{core}$ and $\rho_\mathrm{core}$ are the core mass and density, respectively, $L_\mathrm{core}$ the luminosity at the core surface, $M_\mathrm{p}$ the protoplanet’s total mass, and $\rho_\mathrm{disc}$ and $T_\mathrm{disc}$ are the density and temperature of the disc gas, respectively. The total mass of the planet, $M_\mathrm{p}$, is the mass of gas contained inside the outer edge of the envelope, which is defined by the smaller of the Bondi radius ($R_\mathrm{B}$) and the Hill radius ($R_\mathrm{Hill}$): $$R_\mathrm{B} = \frac{GM_\mathrm{p}}{c^2_s},~~
R_\mathrm{Hill} = a_\mathrm{p}
\left[ \frac{M_\mathrm{p}}{3(M_\mathrm{p}+M_*)} \right]^{1/3},$$ where $c_s$ is the sound velocity, $a_\mathrm{p}$ the semimajor axis of the protoplanet, and $M_*$ the mass of the central star. In this paper, we use $a_\mathrm{p} = 5.2 \mathrm{AU},~
M_* = 1M_\odot,~T_\mathrm{disc} = 150\mathrm{K}~
\mathrm{,and}~\rho_\mathrm{disc} = 5.0 \times 10^{-11}~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, unless otherwise noted.
We assume that the energy release by planetesimals occurs in a narrow region on top of the core (i.e., $\epsilon_\mathrm{acc} = 0$). This assumption seems to be incompatible with the situation that planetesimals evaporate and deposit their kinetic energy before reaching the core. However, such simplification affects the results little, because the energy deposition of planetesimals occurs mostly in the deep, convective envelope, the structure of which is insensitive to where energy deposition occurs inside itself. On the other hand, we neglect the effect of sinking of dissolved materials of icy planetesimals in this study. Gravitational potential energy released by sinking of ablated materials makes a contribution to slow down gas accretion on to a proto-gas giant as pointed out by @Pollack+96. Whether the energy release by sinking of ablated materials occurs effectively in a wide region where planetesimals slow down via ablation is important for formation time-scales of gas giants. It will be considered in future calculations based on trajectories of planetesimals through a protoplanet’s envelope.
Envelope Pollution by Icy Planetesimals \[sec.2-2\]
---------------------------------------------------
![Schematic picture of the envelope polluted by icy planetesimals. The envelope has two-layer structure: the non-polluted ($Z_\mathrm{A}$) and the polluted ($Z_\mathrm{h}$) layers, where $Z_\mathrm{A}$ and $Z_\mathrm{h}$ are the mass fractions of heavy elements for the disc gas and the mixture of the disc gas and icy planetesimals, respectively. The boundary between the upper and the lower layers is defined by the homopause temperature ($T_\mathrm{h}$). \[fig1\]](fig1.eps){width="0.9\hsize"}
In this study, we consider that the envelope consists of two components, materials of disc gas (component A) and those of icy planetesimals (component B). The chemical compositions of component A and B are assumed to be solar and comet-Halley-like, respectively. The mass fractions of hydrogen, helium, and the others in the solar abundances are $X_\mathrm{A} = 0.711,~Y_\mathrm{A} = 0.274,~\mathrm{and}~Z_\mathrm{A} = 0.015$, respectively [@Lodders+09], while those in comet Halley are $X_\mathrm{B} = 0.06,~Y_\mathrm{B} = 0.00,~\mathrm{and}~Z_\mathrm{B} = 0.94$ [@Mumma+93].
We consider that the envelope has two-layer structure (see Figure \[fig1\]). The upper layer consists only of component A because disc gas flows into the outer part of the envelope. The lower layer consists of component B in addition to A. The reason is as follows. While going through the envelope, planetesimals experience mass loss via strong ablation. Most of their masses are deposited in the deep envelope [@Pollack+86; @Podolak+88]. In the lower envelope, convection occurs because of molecular dissociation and high gas opacity due to the bound-free absorption of hydrogen. The evaporated materials are thus stirred effectively by convection, so that the chemical composition becomes uniform in the lower layer of the envelope. Such a boundary between convective and radiative regions (i.e., “tropopause”) corresponds typically to a temperature of $2000\mathrm{K}$.
However, the boundary is likely to be above the tropopause. Even in radiative regions, eddy diffusion carries the evaporated materials of icy planetesimals upward like in the homosphere extending above the tropopause on the present Earth [e.g. @Chamberlain+87]. Also, pollution occurs even in the upper envelope because the temperature there is enough to evaporate ice. While only a small fraction of the mass of planetesimals evaporates in the upper envelope [@Podolak+88], the envelope is itself tenuous in such a region, so that the upper envelope can be also enriched in heavy elements. Thus, we regard the boundary between the two layers as a free parameter in this study. To do so, we introduce “homopause temperature”, $T_\mathrm{h}$; the values of $T_\mathrm{h}$ that we use in this study are $300,~500,~1000,~\mathrm{and}~2000\mathrm{K}$.
Thermodynamic quantities of the envelope gas are calculated under the assumption of chemical equilibrium. Although chemical equilibrium may not be achieved in the region of low temperature because chemical reactions proceed slowly, this problem is beyond the scope of this paper. The following 13 constituents are considered, namely, $\mathrm{H}$, $\mathrm{He}$, $\mathrm{C}$, $\mathrm{O}$, $\mathrm{H}_2$, $\mathrm{O}_2$, $\mathrm{CO}$, $\mathrm{CO}_2$, $\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}$, $\mathrm{CH}_4$, $\mathrm{H}^+$, $\mathrm{O}^-$, and $\mathrm{e}^-$. Thermodynamic quantities are calculated from the thermodynamic potentials. The relevant physical quantities are given in NIST-JANAF thermochemical tables [@Chase98; @Ott+00].
We determine the mass fractions of carbon ($Z_\mathrm{h}^\mathrm{C}$) and oxygen ($Z_\mathrm{h}^\mathrm{O}$) in the lower envelope in such a manner that the sum of the two fractions is equal to $Z_\mathrm{h}$ and the ratio is conserved: $$\begin{split}
Z_\mathrm{h} &= Z^\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{h} + Z^\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{h}, \\
Z^{\mathrm{C}}_\mathrm{h} &=
(1-\epsilon) Z^\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{A}
+ \epsilon Z^\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{B}, \\
Z^{\mathrm{O}}_\mathrm{h} &=
(1-\epsilon) Z^\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{A}
+ \epsilon Z^\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{B} ,
\label{Zh}
\end{split}$$ where $\epsilon$ is the mixing ratio of component B. The mass fractions of hydrogen and helium in the mixture are described by $\epsilon$ as well: $$\begin{split}
X_\mathrm{h} &=
(1-\epsilon) X_\mathrm{A} + \epsilon X_\mathrm{B}, \\
Y_\mathrm{h} &=
(1-\epsilon) Y_\mathrm{A} + \epsilon Y_\mathrm{B}.
\label{Xh_Yh}
\end{split}$$ The ratio of $Z^\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{A}$ to $Z^\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{A}$ is $0.004:0.011$, while that of $Z^\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{B}$ to $Z^\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{B}$ is $0.24:0.69$. In this study, we deal with $Z_\mathrm{h}$, which is equivalent to $\epsilon$, as a free parameter for simplicity because the actual value of $Z_\mathrm{h}$ depends on various processes such as ablation efficiency of icy planetesimals and their entry velocities and should be determined in a complicated manner.
The gas opacity is derived from opacity tables with different values of $X$ and $Z$ given by J. Ferguson [@Alexander+94]. Their calculations include other heavy elements besides $\mathrm{H},~\mathrm{He},~\mathrm{C},~
\mathrm{and}~\mathrm{O}$. All the elements except $\mathrm{H}$ and $\mathrm{He}$ are assumed to be in the solar abundances. This is reasonable because the abundances of heavy elements in comet Halley are known to be similar to the solar abundances [@Mumma+93]. The opacity tables of @Alexander+94 are provided as a function of $\log Q = \rho/T^3_6$, where $\rho$ is the density in $\mathrm{g~cm}^{-3}$ and $T_6$ the temperature in million K. If $\log Q$ exceeds the available range of the opacity tables, namely, $\log Q > 3$, we calculate the gas opacity by extrapolating the tabular data. Even if the values at $\log Q = 3$ are used for $\log Q > 3$ without extrapolation, no significant difference in the critical core mass is found.
The Rosseland mean opacity of dust grains is calculated from the monochromatic opacities of dust grains in protoplanetary discs presented by @Semenov+03. The dust constituents, their evaporation temperatures, and the size distribution of the dust grains used in @Semenov+03 are the same as those in @Pollack+94, while their optical constants refer to @Henning+96. The difference between the grain opacities is nevertheless small [@Semenov+03]. We introduce a factor, $f$, that represents reduction or enhancement of the grain opacity, namely, grain opacities being $f$ times opacities of grains in disc gas. The reasons why we introduce the factor are as follows. When icy planetesimals go through the upper envelope, if undifferentiated like comet Halley [e.g. @Mumma+93], they release dust grains embedded in a matrix of ice upon evaporation. The deposited grains raise the grain opacities in the upper envelope. On the other hand, opacities of dust grains in the envelope may be reduced due to their coagulation and settling as described in Introduction [@Podolak03; @Movshovitz+08; @Movshovitz+10]. In this study, the total opacity is expressed by $$\kappa = f\kappa_\mathrm{gr} + \kappa_\mathrm{gas},
\label{opc}$$ where $\kappa_\mathrm{gas}$ is the Rosseland mean opacity of gas and $\kappa_\mathrm{gr}$ is that of dust grains in protoplanetary discs.
Critical Core Masses \[sec.3\]
==============================
![The critical core mass ($M_\mathrm{crit}$) as a function of the mass fraction of heavy elements in the lower layer of the envelope, $Z_\mathrm{h}$. The solid, dashed, dotted, and dot-dashed curves correspond to the results for $T_\mathrm{h} = 300,~500,~1000,~\mathrm{and}~2000\mathrm{K}$, respectively. The double dot-dashed curve is the result of wholly-polluted envelopes. In all the calculations, we assume $L = 1 \times 10^{27}~\mathrm{erg/s}$ and $f = 1$. A sudden change in the slope at $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.815~\mathrm{for}~
T_\mathrm{h} = 300\mathrm{K}$ and the wholly-polluted envelopes appears because one of the major molecules, $\mathrm{H}_2$, is replaced with $\mathrm{CO}_2$ (see the text). \[fig2\]](fig2.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
Parameter Value
--------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------
homopause temperature, $T_\mathrm{h}$ 300, 500, 1000, 2000K
mass fraction of heavy elements
in the lower layer, $Z_\mathrm{h}$ $0.015-0.94$
grain-depletion factor, $f$ $0, 0.01, 1, 10$
luminosity, $L$ $1 \times 10^{26}, 10^{27}, 10^{28}, 10^{29} \mathrm{erg/s}$
: Free Parameters and Their Values.\[tbl1\]
Critical core masses are found in the same way as @Mizuno80. For a set of four parameters listed in Table \[tbl1\], we determine the static structure of the envelope (i.e., $dS/dt = 0$) to find the core mass for a given protoplanetary total mass, $M_\mathrm{p}$. We increase $M_\mathrm{p}$ and repeat the same procedure until the core mass reaches a first maximum, which is the critical core mass. In this section, we demonstrate how envelope pollution affects the critical core mass ($M_\mathrm{crit}$). Our results show that the heavy-element enrichment, in general, lowers $M_\mathrm{crit}$ and this behaviour of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ holds good for any choice of four parameters.
Effects of Envelope Pollution by Icy Planetesimals \[sec.3-1\]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig2\] shows $M_\mathrm{crit}$ as a function of the mass fraction of heavy elements in the lower envelope, $Z_\mathrm{h}$, for four different homopause temperatures, $T_\mathrm{h}$. The solid, dashed, dotted, and dot-dashed curves correspond to $T_\mathrm{h} =300,~500,~1000,~\mathrm{and}$
![The critical core mass ($M_\mathrm{crit}$) as a function of $Z_\mathrm{h}$ for four different $T_\mathrm{h}$: (a) $T_\mathrm{h} = 2000\mathrm{K}$, (b) $T_\mathrm{h} = 1000\mathrm{K}$, (c) $T_\mathrm{h} = 500\mathrm{K}$, (d) $T_\mathrm{h} = 300\mathrm{K}$. The solid curves are the same results as Fig.2. The dashed and dot-dashed ones exclude the rise in $\kappa_\mathrm{gas}$ and the reduction of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$, respectively, and the dotted one includes only the increase in $\mu$. \[fig3\]](fig3.eps){width="0.7\hsize"}
![The adiabatic temperature gradient ($\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$) as a function of temperature when $T_\mathrm{h} = 500\mathrm{K}$ and $T_\mathrm{h} = 2000\mathrm{K}$. Convective and radiative regions are shown by solid and dashed lines, respectively. The left panel plots the results for $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.1$ and the right panel plots those for $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.8$ at $M_\mathrm{crit}$. \[fig4\]](fig4.eps){width="0.7\hsize"}
![The number density of chemical species, $n(\mathrm{X})$, relative to that of molecular hydrogen, $n(\mathrm{H}_2)$, as a function of temperature when $M_\mathrm{core} =$ $M_\mathrm{crit}$ for $T_\mathrm{h} = 1000~\mathrm{K}$ and $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.6$ (the left panel) and $M_\mathrm{core} =$ $M_\mathrm{crit}$ for $T_\mathrm{h} = 300~\mathrm{K}$ and $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.9$ (the right one). \[fig5\]](fig5.eps){width="0.7\hsize"}
$2000\mathrm{K}$, respectively. We also examine the wholly polluted envelope as an extreme case, which is shown by the double dot-dashed curve. In all the calculations shown in Figure \[fig2\], we assume $L = 1 \times 10^{27}~\mathrm{erg/s}$ and $f = 1$.
As found in Fig. \[fig2\], except for small increases for $Z_\mathrm{h} \leq 0.1$, the heavy-element enrichment lowers $M_\mathrm{crit}$ for any $T_\mathrm{h}$. In particular, the reduction in $M_\mathrm{crit}$ is significant for high $Z_\mathrm{h}$. In Fig.\[fig2\], one notices that $M_\mathrm{crit}$ depends on $Z_\mathrm{h}$ and $T_\mathrm{h}$ in complicated manners. There are three factors to change $M_\mathrm{crit}$ as described in Introduction. To see how each effect contributes to change $M_\mathrm{crit}$, we have done the following sensitivity tests; the results are presented in Fig.\[fig3\]. The solid curves correspond to the results shown in Fig.\[fig2\]. Other three curves represent the results for cases where one or two out of the three factors are artificially excluded.
- The dashed curves: We have used $\kappa_\mathrm{gas}$ with the solar abundances throughout the envelope instead of including the rise in $\kappa_\mathrm{gas}$. The difference between the solid and the dashed curves represents the increment of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ caused by the rise in $\kappa_\mathrm{gas}$.\
- The dot-dashed curves: We have used $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ with the solar abundances throughout the envelope to exclude the effect of reduction of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$. The difference between the solid and the dot-dashed curves represents the decrement of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ due to reduction of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$.\
- The dotted curves: We have used both $\kappa_\mathrm{gas}$ and $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ with the solar abundances throughout the envelope to extract only the effect of the increase in $\mu$. The difference between the values of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ for $Z_\mathrm{h}=Z_\mathrm{A} (= 0.015)$ and the dotted curves shows the decrement of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ due to the increase in $\mu$.
First, in the case of $T_\mathrm{h} = 2000\mathrm{K}$, the increase in $\mu$ is the most important for lowering $M_\mathrm{crit}$, as shown in Fig.\[fig3\]a. The lower envelope ($T \geq 2000\mathrm{K}$) is fully convective (see Fig.\[fig4\]), so that the rise in $\kappa_\mathrm{gas}$ has no influence on the change in $M_\mathrm{crit}$. That is why the heavy-element enrichment in the region of $T \geq 2000\mathrm{K}$ always decreases $M_\mathrm{crit}$ with increasing $Z_\mathrm{h}$. As for all the other cases, $M_\mathrm{crit}$ increases at first and decreases beyond $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.1$. When $Z_\mathrm{h} < 0.1$, the increase in $\mu$ and reduction of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ are inefficient in lowering $M_\mathrm{crit}$ as shown in Fig.\[fig3\]b-\[fig3\]d, so that the rise in $\kappa_\mathrm{gas}$ raises $M_\mathrm{crit}$.
For low $T_\mathrm{h}$ and relatively high $Z_\mathrm{h}$, reduction of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ is the most effective in lowering $M_\mathrm{crit}$, as shown in Fig.\[fig3\]d. To understand this behaviour, we present profiles of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ in the envelope when $M_\mathrm{core} = M_\mathrm{crit}$ for $T_\mathrm{h} = 500\mathrm{K}~\mathrm{and}~2000\mathrm{K}$ in Fig.\[fig4\]: $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.1$ (left panel) and $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.8$ (right panel). The other $T_\mathrm{h}$ cases are not presented here because the results for $T_\mathrm{h} = 300\mathrm{K}~\mathrm{and}~1000\mathrm{K}$ are quite similar to those for $T_\mathrm{h} = 500\mathrm{K}~\mathrm{and}
~2000\mathrm{K}$, respectively. Convective and radiative regions are indicated by the solid and the dashed lines in Fig.\[fig4\], respectively. Two deep valleys of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ are seen around $500-900\mathrm{K}$ and above $2000\mathrm{K}$ in Fig.\[fig3\]. Especially, $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ for 500-900K is much smaller in the case of $T_\mathrm{h} = 500\mathrm{K}$ than in the case of $T_\mathrm{h} = 2000\mathrm{K}$. Such small $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ is responsible for the small value of $M_\mathrm{crit}$.
The reason for the decrease in $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ is that several chemical reactions occur in that temperature range. We present the number density of each chemical species, $n(\mathrm{X})$, relative to that of molecular hydrogen, $n(\mathrm{H}_2)$, for two typical cases in Fig.\[fig5\]: $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.6$ and $T_\mathrm{h} = 1000$K (left panel) and $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.9$ and $T_\mathrm{h} = 300$K (right panel). Note that a sudden change in the slope at $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.815$ of the solid line in Fig. \[fig3\]d appears because one of major molecules, $\mathrm{H}_2$, is replaced with $\mathrm{CO}_2$ at $Z_\mathrm{h} \geq 0.815$ as shown in Fig.\[fig5\]b. In the regime of $400-900\mathrm{K}$, there occur the abrupt decreases in $\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}$ and $\mathrm{CH}_4$, which are stable chemical species at low temperatures, and the sharp increases in $\mathrm{CO}$ and $\mathrm{CO}_2$. Those chemical reactions have great impacts on reduction of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$. Above $2000\mathrm{K}$, dissociations of several kinds of molecules such as $\mathrm{H}_2$, $\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}$, and $\mathrm{CO}_2$ take place and reduce $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$. As a result, the envelope is rich in $\mathrm{CO}$, $\mathrm{H}$, and $\mathrm{O}$ above $2000\mathrm{K}$.
Dependence on grain opacity \[sec.3-2\]
---------------------------------------
![Critical core masses ($M_\mathrm{crit}$) for four different $f$ in the case of $T_\mathrm{h} = 1000~\mathrm{K}$. The solid, dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted curves correspond to $f = 1,~10,~0.01,~0$ (no grain). In all of the calculations, $L = 1 \times 10^{27}~\mathrm{erg/s}$ is assumed. Only for the results of $f = 0$ are given by @Hori+10. The solid curve is the same as the result represented by the dotted one in Fig.2. \[fig6\]](fig6.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
We considered only the case of $f = 1$ in Section 3.1. The upper layer of the envelope may, however, be grain-rich or grain-poor, as described in Section 2. We consider both grain-rich ($f > 1$) and grain-poor ($f < 1$) envelopes in this subsection. The upper layer (i.e., $T < T_\mathrm{h}$) is convectively stable in most cases. Thus, it is to be verified that the spatial distribution of added dust grains in that layer is homogeneous; nevertheless, we adopt a constant value of $f$ throughout the upper layer for simplicity.
The behaviours of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ for $T_\mathrm{h} = 1000\mathrm{K}$ with respect to four different $f$ are shown in Fig.\[fig6\]. The solid curve is the same as that in Fig.\[fig2\]b. The dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted curves correspond to $f = 10,~0.01,~\mathrm{and}~0$, respectively. Results for $f > 10$ hardly differ from that for $f =10$. In all the calculations, $L = 1 \times 10^{27}~\mathrm{erg/s}$ is assumed.
As shown in Fig. \[fig6\], $M_\mathrm{crit}$ increases as a whole (i.e., for any $Z_\mathrm{h}$), as $f$ increases. This is because dust grains are the dominant opacity source in the upper layer. The increase in $M_\mathrm{crit}$ is found to level off around $f =1$. This is because the part of the envelope where the grain opacity dominates becomes convective; on the other hand, the slight increase for $Z_\mathrm{h} \lesssim 0.1$ is due to increase in gas opacity in a relatively high-temperature, radiative region in the layer where the gas opacity dominates. We have also investigated the behaviour of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ for different $T_\mathrm{h}$ and confirmed that both cases of grain-rich and grain-poor envelopes show trends similar to that for $T_\mathrm{h} = 1000\mathrm{K}$.
Dependence on luminosity \[sec.3-3\]
------------------------------------
$Z_\mathrm{h}$ $1\times10^{26}$ $1\times10^{27}$ $1\times10^{28}$ $1\times10^{29}$
---------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
0.1 $9.8M_\oplus$ $16M_\oplus$ $27M_\oplus$ $43M_\oplus$
0.3 $8.3M_\oplus$ $14M_\oplus$ $22M_\oplus$ $35M_\oplus$
0.6 $4.5M_\oplus$ $7.0M_\oplus$ $11M_\oplus$ $16M_\oplus$
0.9 $1.0M_\oplus$ $1.4M_\oplus$ $1.8M_\oplus$ $1.8M_\oplus$
: Critical core masses for $T_\mathrm{h} = 1000~\mathrm{K}$ and $f = 1$, but four different $L~(\mathrm{erg/s})$ .\[tbl3\]
We assumed $L = 1 \times 10^{27}~\mathrm{erg/s}$ in all the calculations shown above. The dependence of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ on $L$ is qualitatively the same as that in the case of solar-composition envelopes [@Ikoma+00]. Here we quantify the dependence for polluted envelopes. We calculate $M_\mathrm{crit}$ for three different values of $L = 1\times 10^{26}$, $1\times 10^{28}$, and $1\times 10^{29}~\mathrm{erg/s}$. Those values are chosen based on accretion rates of planetesimals that formation theory predicts [@Pollack+96; @Fortier+09]. The results are listed in Table \[tbl3\], where $T_\mathrm{h} = 1000\mathrm{K}$. Table \[tbl3\] shows that the decreasing trend of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ with $Z_\mathrm{h}$ is the same, irrespective of $L$. We also have found that this is true for other $T_\mathrm{h}$.
Dependence on semimajor axis \[sec.3-4\]
----------------------------------------
We discussed $M_\mathrm{crit}$ at the present location of Jupiter in the previous subsections. In this subsection, we consider $M_\mathrm{crit}$ at two different semimajor axes, 1AU and 10AU. The choice of the two values is based on recent theories of the snow line in protoplanetary discs. Many relevant studies suggest that the snow line moves and reaches $\sim 1\mathrm{AU}$ [@Sasselov+00; @Davis05; @Garaud+07; @Min+11]. We thus adopt 1AU as the innermost orbit of the protoplanet that can experience envelope pollution by icy planetesimals. The disc density ($\rho_\mathrm{disc}$) and temperature ($T_\mathrm{disc}$), namely, the outer boundary conditions, are taken as mentioned in Section 2.
The sensitivity of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ to the outer boundary conditions was already investigated in detail [@Mizuno80; @Stevenson82; @Wuchterl93; @Ikoma+01; @Rafikov06]: It is known that $M_\mathrm{crit}$ for wholly radiative envelopes is almost independent of the outer boundary conditions, while $M_\mathrm{crit}$ for fully convective envelopes depends significantly on them. Polluted envelopes tend to be convective, especially near the central star. The critical disc density above which the envelope is wholly convective is given by equation (13) of @Ikoma+01: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\rho^\mathrm{crit}_\mathrm{disc}}{\rho_\mathrm{MMSN}}
&\sim 5 \left(\frac{a_\mathrm{p}}{1\mathrm{AU}}\right)^{3/2}
\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{disc}}{T_\mathrm{MMSN}}\right)^{5/2}
\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{c}}{10M_\oplus} \right)
\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{evap}}{1500\mathrm{K}}\right)^{1/2}
\nonumber \\
&\times \left(\frac{L}{1\times10^{27}~\mathrm{erg/s}}\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{\kappa_\mathrm{evap}}{1~\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{/g}}\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{\mu}{2.3} \right),
\label{rho_crit}
\end{aligned}$$ where $T_\mathrm{evap}$ is the evaporation temperature of grains, $\kappa_\mathrm{evap}$ is the grain opacity near $T = T_\mathrm{evap}$, and the subscript “MMSN” means that the quantity takes the value of the MMSN model [@Hayashi81]. Based on the fact that $\kappa_\mathrm{evap} \sim 30-100~\mathrm{cm}^2~\mathrm{g}^{-1}$ for $T_\mathrm{h} = 300\mathrm{K}$ and $\kappa_\mathrm{evap} \sim 3-5~\mathrm{cm}^2~\mathrm{g}^{-1}$ for other $T_\mathrm{h}$ at $T_\mathrm{evap} \sim 1000\mathrm{K}$, $\rho_\mathrm{disc} > \rho^\mathrm{crit}_\mathrm{disc}$ is satisfied for all the models of $1\mathrm{AU}$ and $T_\mathrm{h} = 300\mathrm{K}$. In fact, the outer envelope becomes fully convective in the cases of $T_\mathrm{h} = 300\mathrm{K}$ and $a_\mathrm{p} = 1\mathrm{AU}$. It is, thus, worth knowing the impact of outer boundary conditions on $M_\mathrm{crit}$ in the case of polluted envelopes.
Figure \[fig7\] shows $M_\mathrm{crit}$ as a function of $Z_\mathrm{h}$ at $5.2\mathrm{AU}$ (solid line), $1\mathrm{AU}$ (dotted one) and $10\mathrm{AU}$ (dashed one) for $T_\mathrm{h} = 300,~1000$, and $2000\mathrm{K}$; the values of the other parameters are the same as in Fig.\[fig2\]. The trend of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ is the same for all the cases. The impact of outer boundary conditions is small at $a_\mathrm{p} > 1~\mathrm{AU}$; $M_\mathrm{crit}$ differs at most by a factor of 2 even for $T_\mathrm{h} = 300~\mathrm{K}$ and $Z_\mathrm{h} \sim 1$.
![Critical core masses ($M_\mathrm{crit}$) as a function of $Z_\mathrm{h}$ for $T_\mathrm{h} = 300\mathrm{K}, 1000\mathrm{K},~\mathrm{and}~2000\mathrm{K}$. The same as Fig.2, but for different semimajor axes. The solid, dashed, and dotted curves adopt the outer boundary conditions of $5.2\mathrm{AU}$, $10\mathrm{AU}$, and $1\mathrm{AU}$, respectively. \[fig7\]](fig7.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
Gas Accretion Time-scale \[sec.4\]
==================================
As mentioned in Introduction, gas accretion is slower for smaller core mass, if the other parameters being the same. We need to check the time-scale for gas accretion in addition to the critical core mass. In this section, we demonstrate that envelope pollution by planetesimals can also hasten the gas accretion on to a protoplanet. We adopt the growth time of the envelope, $\tau_\mathrm{gas}$, defined in @Ikoma+00 as the typical time-scale of gas accretion on to the protoplanet (see also @Ikoma+06b [@Hori+10]). We consider the protoplanet with a given core mass. We simulate accumulation of disc gas after the core growth stops. Both $Z_\mathrm{h}$ and $T_\mathrm{h}$ in those simulations are assumed to be constant in time. We discuss the validity of this assumption in Section 5.
Figure \[fig8\] shows $\tau_\mathrm{gas}$ as a function of the core mass for $T_\mathrm{h} = 1000\mathrm{K}$, $f = 1$, and $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.1,~0.3,~0.6,~\mathrm{and}~0.8$ (solid lines). For comparison, we plot the results for envelopes with the solar abundances: $f = 0.01$ (dashed line) and grain-free ($f = 0$) envelopes (dotted one). This figure demonstrates that envelope pollution by icy planetesimals accelerates gas accretion on to the protoplanet significantly. The acceleration is more effective compared to that by reduction of grain opacities in the envelope. We do not suppose reduction of grain opacities in the upper envelope in those simulations. In addition to envelope pollution, if we take into account reduction of grain opacities, it gives positive feedback to shorten $\tau_\mathrm{gas}$ (see Table \[tbl4\]).
Gas giant formation must be finished before disc gas disappears. The disc lifetime is believed to be 1-10 Myrs based on the disc frequency estimated from near-IR excess ($JHKL$-band) observations of stars in young clusters [@Haisch+01; @Hernandez+07]. We now consider the core masses with $\tau_\mathrm{gas} \leq1\mathrm{Myr}$ as allowable for gas giant formation. Minimum core masses ($M^\mathrm{min}_\mathrm{core}$) that satisfy the criterion ($\tau_\mathrm{gas} = 1\mathrm{Myr}$) are listed in Table \[tbl4\] for $f = 1$ and $f = 0.01$. We cannot simulate quasi-static evolution of the protoplanet’s envelope with smaller cores than $0.1M_\oplus$ because of numerical difficulty. In such a case, we show $M^\mathrm{min}_\mathrm{core} < 0.1M_\oplus$ in Table \[tbl4\]. In Fig.\[fig9\], we also plot $M^\mathrm{min}_\mathrm{core}$ as a function of $Z_\mathrm{h}$ for three $T_\mathrm{h}$, $1000\mathrm{K}$ (solid), $500\mathrm{K}$ (dashed), and $300\mathrm{K}$ (dotted). The behaviours of $M^\mathrm{min}_\mathrm{core}$ with respect of $Z_\mathrm{h}$ are quite similar to those of $M_\mathrm{crit}$. We find that envelope pollution has contributions to hasten $\tau_\mathrm{gas}$ in the similar manner to the lowering of $M_\mathrm{crit}$. Our results suggest that envelope pollution by icy planetesimals has the potential to make gas giant formation with small cores possible; for example, gas giants with cores smaller than $1M_\oplus$ can capture disc gas by 1Myr when $Z_\mathrm{h} \geq 0.7$ for $f = 1$ or when $Z_\mathrm{h} \geq 0.5$ for $f = 0.01$.
![The growth time-scale of the envelope ($\tau_\mathrm{gas}$) as a function of core masses. Four solid lines represent results of four different $Z_\mathrm{h}$ for $T_\mathrm{h} = 1000\mathrm{K}$ and $f = 1$: $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.1$, $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.3$, $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.6$, and $Z_\mathrm{h} = 0.8$. For comparison, we plot the results of $f = 0.01$ with solar abundances (dashed line) and grain-free envelopes with the solar abundances, $f = 0$ (dotted one), which are found by @Hori+10. \[fig8\]](fig8.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
Discussions \[sec.5\]
=====================
![Core masses with $\tau_\mathrm{gas} = 1$Myr for three $T_\mathrm{h}$ : $T_\mathrm{h} = 1000\mathrm{K}$ (solid), $500\mathrm{K}$ (dashed), $300\mathrm{K}$ (dotted). In all the calculations, we assume $f = 1$. \[fig9\]](fig9.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
$T_\mathrm{h} (\mathrm{K})$ $f$ $Z_\mathrm{h}$ = 0.1 $Z_\mathrm{h}$ = 0.3 $Z_\mathrm{h}$ = 0.5 $Z_\mathrm{h}$ = 0.9
----------------------------- -------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
300 $1$ $9.7M_\oplus$ $7.2 M_\oplus$ $3.8M_\oplus$ $0.12M_\oplus$
$0.01$ $4.8M_\oplus$ $2.4M_\oplus$ $ 0.92M_\oplus$ $< 0.1M_\oplus$
500 $1$ $9.5M_\oplus$ $7.2 M_\oplus$ $3.8M_\oplus$ $0.16M_\oplus$
$0.01$ $3.8M_\oplus$ $2.0M_\oplus$ $ 0.85M_\oplus$ $< 0.1M_\oplus$
1000 $1$ $9.4M_\oplus$ $7.3 M_\oplus$ $4.2M_\oplus$ $0.53M_\oplus$
$0.01$ $3.1M_\oplus$ $1.9M_\oplus$ $ 0.95M_\oplus$ $< 0.1M_\oplus$
: Core masses with $\tau_\mathrm{gas} = 1\mathrm{Myr}$.\[tbl4\]
Dilution during runaway gas accretion
-------------------------------------
We assumed that both $Z_\mathrm{h}$ and $T_\mathrm{h}$ are constant with time. This may be oversimplification and questionable, especially in the phase of runaway gas accretion. When the critical core mass is attained, the accretion rate of disc gas is much higher than that of planetesimals. In an extreme case where the unpolluted outer envelope never exchanges material with the polluted lower envelope, the gas accretion results in increasing the mass only of the upper envelope. The lower envelope behaves like a part of the “core”. In this case, the envelope pollution does not resolve the problem of the slow formation of gas giants with small cores.
In the other extreme case where the inner and outer envelopes exchange material instantaneously between each other via eddy diffusion, accreting fresh disc gas dilutes the polluted lower envelope, which results in decelerating the disc-gas accretion. On the other hand, the dilution is inevitably accompanied by mass growth of the envelope, which accelerates the disc-gas accretion.
Unfortunately, it is uncertain whether or not mixing occurs effectively, as follows. A characteristic time-scale of eddy diffusion, $\tau_\mathrm{eddy}$, is given by $$\tau_\mathrm{eddy} \sim \frac{H^2_p}{K_\mathit{zz}},
\label{t_eddy}$$ where $H_p$ is the pressure scale-height and $K_\mathit{zz}$ is the coefficient of eddy diffusion. Estimated values of $\tau_\mathrm{eddy}$ are listed in Table 4, where we have used our numerical values of $H_p$ at the tropopause when $M_\mathrm{core} = M_\mathrm{crit}$. We have adopted $K_\mathit{zz} = 10^6-10^8~\mathrm{cm^2~s^{-1}}$ which correspond to values for the present Jupiter and Saturn [e.g. @Chamberlain+87], although $K_{zz}$ for protoplanetary envelopes is uncertain. The lower and upper values of $\tau_\mathrm{eddy}$ at each $Z_\mathrm{h}$ and $K_\mathit{zz}$ in Table 4 are $\tau_\mathrm{eddy}$ of $T_\mathrm{h} = 2000$K and that of $T_\mathrm{h} = 300$K, respectively. As seen in this table, $\tau_\mathrm{eddy}$ ranges widely from $10^3$ to $10^8~\mathrm{yr}$. Since time-scales of gas accretion of interest are $10^6$–$10^7$ years (which correspond to the observed disc lifetime), we can derive no definite conclusion as to whether dilution occurs or not, because of the uncertainty of $\tau_\mathrm{eddy}$. Mixing in accreting protoplanetary envelopes is found to be an important issue with gas giant formation.
$Z_\mathrm{h}$ $K_\mathrm{zz} = 10^6~(\mathrm{cm}^2~\mathrm{s}^{-1})$ $K_\mathrm{zz} = 10^8~(\mathrm{cm}^2~\mathrm{s}^{-1})$
---------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
0.1 $6\times10^{6}$-$1\times10^{8}~\mathrm{yr}$ $6\times10^{4}$-$1\times10^{6}~\mathrm{yr}$
0.3 $3\times10^{6}$-$6\times10^{7}~\mathrm{yr}$ $3\times10^{4}$-$6\times10^{5}~\mathrm{yr}$
0.6 $3\times10^{5}$-$6\times10^{6}~\mathrm{yr}$ $3\times10^{3}$-$6\times10^{4}~\mathrm{yr}$
0.8 $3\times10^{5}$-$1\times10^{6}~\mathrm{yr}$ $3\times10^3$-$1\times10^4~\mathrm{yr}$
: $\tau_\mathrm{eddy}$ at the critical core masses.\[tbl5\]
Non-ideality of envelope gas
----------------------------
In this study, we considered the envelope gas as ideal. In the case of the envelope with the solar abundances, we find that non-ideal effects cause less than $10\%$ change in the critical core mass. This paper aims to point out the importance to incorporate the effects of heavy-element enrichments in simulations of the structure and evolution of protoplanetary envelopes and to sort out what has a great impact on the critical core mass. Including the effects of non-ideality of gas is a future study. We found that reactions between molecular compounds play a important role in determining the critical core mass. Thus, we need thermodynamic quantities of non-ideal mixture of at least H, He, C, and O.
Dynamical stability
-------------------
We should also pay attention to the dynamical stability of the envelope. @Tajima+97 found that the envelope with solar abundances is stable dynamically throughout quasi-static evolution up to Jupiter’s mass. However, it is not obvious whether the envelope polluted by heavy elements is stable or not. In this study, reduction of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ due to molecular dissociations is one of important effects to lower $M_\mathrm{crit}$ and shorten $\tau_\mathrm{gas}$. Vibrational instability due to molecular dissociation may excite nonlinear hydrodynamical waves by $\kappa$-mechanism because of reduction of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ and the rise in $\kappa_\mathrm{gas}$ [@Wuchterl91]. Nonlinear hydrodynamical waves may cause dynamical expansion of the envelope and the ejection of a large part of the envelope. Thus, the dynamical stability of the polluted envelope should be also investigated in the future.
Implication for Jupiter and Saturn
----------------------------------
It is worth while to consider the origin of Jupiter and Saturn from the viewpoint of core masses. Interior modellings of the two planets suggest that Jupiter’s core is smaller than $10 M_\oplus$, while Saturn’s core is larger than $10 M_\oplus$ [@Saumon+04; @Nettelmann+08]. @Militzer+08 reported that Jupiter may possess a massive core of $> 10 M_\oplus$, but their interior modellings with rigid rotation are inconsistent with the observed value of the 4th-order gravitational moment, $J_4$. In addition, @Fortney+10 pointed out that the mass fraction of helium used by @Militzer+08 is responsible for a massive core of Jupiter. Although the exact mass of Jupiter’s core is still an open question, the core mass of Jupiter suggested by interior modellings is, on average, smaller than that of Saturn.
In this study, we demonstrated that envelope pollution by icy planetesimals enables formation of gas giants with small cores, which seems compatible with recent modellings of Jupiter. If so, how about the origin of Saturn that is inferred to have a large core? The large core inside Saturn may reflect the history of high accretion rates of planetesimals. A variety of ideas for high accretion rates have been investigated so far — e.g., the influence of growing proto-Jupiter and the other protoplanets [@Guilera+10], Type I migration of protoplanets [@Alibert+05], high stellar metallicity and a large initial disc mass [@Thommes+06], high initial surface density of solid materials [@Dodson-Robinson+08; @Rafikov11]. However, high accretion rates of planetesimals could have a risk of forming Saturn with a small core. This is because a large amount of small-sized fragments are produced in the Saturn’s region due to frequent high-velocity collisions of planetesimals, so that the envelope should be polluted heavily by icy planetesimals. Thus, we require to revisit accretion rates of planetesimals on to proto-Saturn, for example, in the case where Jupiter first emerges and other planetary cores still continue to grow. This is because planetary accretion proceeds more rapidly in the inner regions, so that proto-Jupiter may have formed a small core first and triggered runaway gas accretion due to envelope pollution by icy planetesimals.
As one alternative idea for a large core of Saturn, @Li+10 suggested that Saturn might have experienced an impact of a (proto-) gas giant and then merged. It is still an open question whether such an impact on Saturn happened in reality in a multiple-protoplanet system. Direct N-body simulations of competitive core growth beyond the snow line will give an answer to this problem.
We should also comment on another possibility that the disc instability scenario may be able to explain gas giants with small cores. The disc instability scenario is usually a single-stage model in which a massive protoplanetary disc, typically $0.1 M_\odot$, becomes gravitationally unstable and rapidly collapses to form a proto-gas giant planet [e.g. @Cameron78; @Boss06; @Mayer+07; @Durisen+07; @Boley09; @Inutsuka+10]. Recent works on the disc instability scenario showed that a gaseous clump is able to capture planetesimals in the course of its rapid contraction, assuming concurrent formation of large-sized planetesimals [@Helled+08a; @Helled+08b; @Helled+09] or a gaseous clump is formed in a dense region where solid materials (1$\mu\mathrm{m}$-10$\mathrm{cm}$) are collected aerodynamically by spiral arms [@Boley+11]. In those scenarios, grains that grow to typically $\sim10~\mathrm{cm}$ can settle down toward the centre against the stirring of convective motion and form a relatively small core. Also the disc instability scenario is faced with the problem of Saturn formation, although Jupiter with a small core could be formed by the disc instability. One possibility to form a large core of Saturn is that the existence of Jupiter influences the distribution of planetesimals near Jupiter’s region and enhances the core growth of Saturn. As mentioned in the above paragraph, this situation is the almost same as the envisioned picture of the Saturn formation in the core-accretion model taking account into envelope pollution. More recently, @Nayakshin10 has proposed another idea of gas giant formation with large cores by the disc instability: Grain sedimentations inside a large gaseous clump yield a large core and trigger rapid gas accretion on to the core. When the clump migrates into a few AU from a parent star, it experiences tidal disruption and evaporation due to stellar irradiation. It is peeled off the outer metal-poor envelope of the clump and then results in a Saturn-like planet. In the future, further detailed studies will verify his idea.
The amount of heavy elements in envelopes of extrasolar gas giants
------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent measurements of the mass and radius of transiting extrasolar gas giants (EGG) allow us to constrain planetary composition [e.g. @Guillot08]. Those internal structures showed a variety of the total amount of heavy elements contained in transiting EGGs, including cores. Although it is not clear whether such a diversity of the amount of heavy elements in EGGs reflects a diversity of their core masses, core masses of EGGs are a key test to verify how efficiently our idea of envelope pollution works in reality. Further transit observations of EGGs and our comprehensive understanding of interior structures of EGGs will help us to reveal formation of giant planets.
Implication for Uranus and Neptune
----------------------------------
Finally, we consider an implication of interior structures of Uranus and Neptune. Envelope pollution by icy planetesimals (and erosion of their icy shells) may be in good agreement with interior modellings of the present Uranus and Neptune. The $\mathrm{H}/\mathrm{He}$ envelopes enriched by volatile molecules such as $\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}$ and $\mathrm{CH}_4$ have been proposed in order to reproduce their observed gravitational moments ($J_2$ and $J_4$), which are poorly constrained [@Podolak+95; @Marley+95]. Many recent works on interior modellings of Uranus and Neptune also suggested that they may have the $\mathrm{H}/\mathrm{He}$ envelopes into which “ices” are mixed instead of traditional three-layer models, that is density-stratified interiors [@Podolak+00; @Helled+10]. On the other hand, the fact that the present Uranus and Neptune have non-axisymmetric, non-dipolar magnetic fields may favour the existence of stably-stratified fluid layers beneath the outer thin shell that drives dynamo action [@Stanley+04; @Stanley+06]. In addition, the compositional stratification in the interior may be responsible for extremely low-luminous Uranus [@Podolak+91; @Hubbard+95]. It is still unclear whether the H/He envelopes are gradually-mixed with ices toward the centres or not. In any case, both Uranus and Neptune are likely to possess the outer polluted envelopes from the viewpoint of the gravitational harmonics and thermal evolution. Their polluted envelopes may be consistent with the picture of envelope pollution by incoming icy planetesimals, although we cannot rule out the another possibility for Uranus that a giant impact on a primitive Uranus results in the polluted $\mathrm{H}/\mathrm{He}$ envelope because the current Uranus has the extreme axial tilt [@Korycansky+90; @Slattery+92].
Summary and Conclusions \[sec.6\]
=================================
We have investigated how envelope pollution by incoming icy planetesimals affects critical core masses ($M_\mathrm{crit}$) and growth time-scales of the envelope ($\tau_\mathrm{gas}$). We considered that the envelope has two-layer structure: the upper layer with the solar abundances (non-polluted layer) and the lower one with mixture of solar and comet-Halley-like compositions (polluted layer). We introduced two key parameters, the mass fraction of the heavy elements in the lower envelope ($Z_\mathrm{h}$) and the homopause temperature ($T_\mathrm{h}$) which defines the boundary between the two layers. The main results that we obtained in this study are summarized as follows.
- Critical core masses:\
\
Envelope pollution by icy planetesimals lowers $M_\mathrm{crit}$ for any choice of values of $T_\mathrm{h}$ and most of the range of $Z_\mathrm{h} (\gtrsim 0.1)$ (Fig.\[fig2\]). Widely-polluted (low $T_\mathrm{h}$) and highly-polluted (high $Z_\mathrm{h}$) envelopes lessen $M_\mathrm{crit}$ remarkably. The increases in the molecular weight ($\mu$) and reduction of adiabatic temperature gradient ($\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$) are responsible for the lowering of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ (Fig. \[fig3\]). In particular, remarkable reduction of $\nabla_\mathrm{ad}$ due to chemical reactions for 400-900K and molecule dissociations for $>$ 2000K (Figs. \[fig4\] and \[fig5\]). Such behaviour of $M_\mathrm{crit}$ is the same for any choices of other parameters, the grain opacities (Fig. \[fig6\]), the luminosity (Table \[tbl3\]), and the semimajor axes (Fig. \[fig7\]).\
- Growth time-scales of the envelope:\
\
We have simulated the growth of the protoplanetary envelope after the core growth stops. Our simulations demonstrate that the envelope pollution can also hasten gas accretion on to the protoplanet (Fig.\[fig8\]), which implies that envelope pollution may enable gas giant formation with small cores (Fig. \[fig9\] and Table \[tbl4\]).
To confirm that our idea really works, further studies will be required: (i) chemical evolution in the polluted envelope coupled with eddy diffusion and inflow of disc gas, (ii) dynamical stability of the polluted envelope, (iii) competitive core growth (planetary accretion) beyond the snow line in a multiple-protoplanet system, (iv) the efficiency in mass deposits of icy planetesimals based on their trajectories and sizes in the envelope, (v) envelope pollution due to erosion of a core itself, and (vi) chemical equilibria of non-ideal gases in the polluted envelope. However, it is quite certain that envelope pollution by planetesimals occurs and affects the formation process of gas giants. We claim that it is necessary to take into account envelope pollution when we discuss gas giant formation based on the-core accretion model.
Acknowledgements \[sec.7\]
==========================
We thank S. Ida for fruitful discussion and several supports. We appreciate that J. Ferguson calculated and sent the gas opacity data on his request. We also thank T. Guillot and M. Podolak for their critical comments in the early phase of this study and an anonymous referee for the useful comments on this manuscript. Y.H. is supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (No.21009495) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan.
[00]{}
Alexander D. R., Ferguson J. W., 1994, ApJ, 437, 879 Alibert Y., Mordasini C., Benz W., Winisdoerffer C., 2005, A&A, 434, 343 Alibert Y., Mordasini C., Benz W., 2011, A&A, 526, A63 Benvenuto O. G., Brunini A., 2008, Icar, 195, 882 Bodenheimer P., Pollack J. B., 1986, Icar, 67, 391 Boley A. C., 2009, ApJ, 695, L53 Boley A. C., Helled R., Payne M. J., 2011, arXiv, arXiv:1104.0939 Boss A. P., 2006, ApJ, 637, L137 Cameron A. G. W., 1978, M&P, 18, 5 Chamberlain, J. W., Hunten, D. M., 1987, International Geophysics Series, Vol. 36. Academic Press Inc., Orlando, FL, USA. Chase, Jr., M. W., 1998, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data. Monograph No.9., The American Chemical Society and the American Institute of Physics for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Davis, S. S., 2005, ApJ, 620, 994 Dodson-Robinson, S. E., Bodenheimer, P., Laughlin, G., Willacy, K., Turner, N. J., Beichman, C. A., 2008, ApJ, 688, L99 Durisen R. H., Boss A. P., Mayer L., Nelson A. F., Quinn T., Rice W. K. M., 2007, prpl.conf, 607 Fortier A., Benvenuto O. G., Brunini A., 2007, A&A, 473, 311 Fortier A., Benvenuto O. G., Brunini A., 2009, A&A, 500, 1249 Fortney J. J., Nettelmann N., 2010, SSRv, 152, 423 Garaud, P., Lin, D. N. C., 2007, ApJ, 654, 606 Guilera O. M., Brunini A., Benvenuto O. G., 2010, A&A, 521, A50 Guillot T., 2008, PhST, 130, 014023 Haisch K. E., Jr., Lada E. A., Lada C. J., 2001, ApJ, 553, L153 Hayashi C., 1981, PThPS, 70, 35 Helled R., Podolak M., Kovetz A., 2008, Icar, 195, 863 Helled R., Schubert G., 2008, Icar, 198, 156 Helled R., Schubert G., 2009, ApJ, 697, 1256 Helled R., Anderson J. D., Podolak M., Schubert G., 2011, ApJ, 726, 15 Henning, T., Stognienko, R., 1996, A&A, 311, 291 Hern[á]{}ndez J., et al., 2007, ApJ, 662, 1067 Hubbard, W. B., Podolak, M., & Stevenson, D. J. 1995, The Interior of Neptune. Neptune and Triton, 109 Hubickyj O., Bodenheimer P., Lissauer J. J., 2005, Icar, 179, 415 Hori, Y., Ikoma, M., 2010, ApJ, 714, 1343 Ida S., Lin D. N. C., 2008, ApJ, 673, 487 Ikoma M., Nakazawa K., Emori H., 2000, ApJ, 537, 1013 Ikoma M., Emori H., Nakazawa K., 2001, ApJ, 553, 999 Ikoma M., Genda H., 2006, ApJ, 648, 696 Inaba S., Ikoma M., 2003, A&A, 410, 711 Inaba S., Wetherill G. W., Ikoma M., 2003, Icar, 166, 46 Inutsuka S.-i., Machida M. N., Matsumoto T., 2010, ApJ, 718, L58 Kalas P., et al., 2008, Sci, 322, 1345 Kennedy G. M., Kenyon S. J., 2008, ApJ, 673, 502 Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., 1994, Stellar Structure and Evolution, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York. Astronomy and Astrophysics Library Kobayashi H., Tanaka H., Krivov A. V., Inaba S., 2010, Icar, 209, 836 Korycansky D. G., Bodenheimer P., Cassen P., Pollack J. B., 1990, Icar, 84, 528 Lagrange A.-M., et al., 2009, A&A, 493, L21 Li S. L., Agnor C. B., Lin D. N. C., 2010, ApJ, 720, 1161 Lissauer, J. J., Pollack, J. B., Wetherill, G. W., Stevenson, D. J., 1995, Formation of the Neptune system. Neptune and Triton, 37 Lodders K., Plame H., Gail H.-P., 2009, LanB, 44 Marley M. S., G[ó]{}mez P., Podolak M., 1995, JGR, 100, 23349 Marois C., Macintosh B., Barman T., Zuckerman B., Song I., Patience J., Lafreni[è]{}re D., Doyon R., 2008, Sci, 322, 1348 Marois C., Zuckerman B., Konopacky Q. M., Macintosh B., Barman T., 2010, Natur, 468, 1080 Min M., Dullemond C. P., Kama M., Dominik C., 2011, Icar, 212, 416 Mayer, L., Lufkin, G., Quinn, T., Wadsley, J., 2007, ApJ, 661, L77 Miguel Y., Guilera O. M., Brunini A., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2113 Militzer, B., Hubbard, W. B., Vorberger, J., Tamblyn, I., Bonev, S. A., 2008, ApJ, 688, L45 Mizuno H., 1980, PThPh, 64, 544 Movshovitz N., Podolak M., 2008, Icar, 194, 3 Movshovitz N., Bodenheimer P., Podolak M., Lissauer J. J., 2010, Icar, 209, 616 Mumma M. J., Weissman P. R., Stern S. A., 1993, prpl.conf, 1177 Nayakshin S., 2010, MNRAS, 408, L36 Nettelmann, N., Holst, B., Kietzmann, A., French, M., Redmer, R., Blaschke, D., 2008, ApJ, 1217 Ott, J.B., Boerio-Goates, J., 2000, Chemical Thermodynamics: Principles and Applications. Academic Press, London, UK. Papaloizou, J. C. B., Nelson, R. P., 2005, A&A, 433, 247 Podolak, M., 2003, Icar, 165, 428 Podolak M., Hubbard W. B., Stevenson D. J., 1991, Models of Uranus’ interior and magnetic field. Uranus, 29 Podolak M., Podolak J. I., Marley M. S., 2000, P&SS, 48, 143 Podolak M., Pollack J. B., Reynolds R. T., 1988, Icar, 73, 163 Podolak M., Weizman A., Marley M., 1995, P&SS, 43, 1517 Pollack J. B., Podolak M., Bodenheimer P., Christofferson B., 1986, Icar, 67, 409 Pollack J. B., Hollenbach D., Beckwith S., Simonelli D. P., Roush T., Fong W., 1994, ApJ, 421, 615 Pollack J. B., Hubickyj O., Bodenheimer P., Lissauer J. J., Podolak M., Greenzweig Y., 1996, Icar, 124, 62 Rafikov, R. R., 2006, ApJ, 648, 666 Rafikov R. R., 2011, ApJ, 727, 86 Sasselov, D. D., Lecar, M., 2000, ApJ, 528, 995 Saumon, D., Guillot, T., 2004, ApJ, 609, 1170 Semenov, D., Henning, T., Helling, C., Ilgner, M., Sedlmayr, E., 2003, A&A, 410, 611 Slattery W. L., Benz W., Cameron A. G. W., 1992, Icar, 99, 167 Stanley S., Bloxham J., 2004, Natur, 428, 151 Stanley S., Bloxham J., 2006, Icar, 184, 556 Stevenson D. J., 1982, P&SS, 30, 755 Tajima, N., Nakagawa, Y., 1997, Icar, 126, 282 Thommes E. W., Murray N., 2006, ApJ, 644, 1214 Wuchterl, G., 1991, Icar, 91, 53 Wuchterl, G., 1993, Icar, 106
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^2]: http://www.exoplanet.eu
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we show that every finite spatial graph is a connected sum of a planar graph, which is a forest, i.e. disjoint union of finite number of trees and a tangle. As a consequence we get that any finite spatial graph is a connected sum of a planar graph and a braid. Using these decompositions it is not difficult to find a set of generators and defining relations for the fundamental group of compliment of a spatial graph in 3-space $\mathbb{R}^3$.'
address:
- 'Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia'
- 'Novosibirsk State Agrarian University, Dobrolyubova street, 160, Novosibirsk, 630039, Russia'
- 'Tomsk State University, pr. Lenina, 36, Tomsk, 634050, Russia.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Osaka City University Sugimoto, Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka 558-8585, Japan'
author:
- 'Valeriy G. Bardakov'
- Akio Kawauchi
title: Spatial graph as connected sum of a planar graph and a braid
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
For studying classical links in three dimensional space $\mathbb{R}^3$ people use some presentations of links. For example, link diagrams on a plane, rectangular diagram of a link [@C]-[@C1], link as the closure of a braid, link as a plat [@Bir], and so on.
Theory of spatial graphs is a generalization of link theory in three dimensional space. L. Kauffman [@Kauf] defined two types of equivalence relations on the set of spatial graphs and prove some analogs of Reidemeister theorem. Also, he associated a collection of knots and links to a spatial graph that gives computable invariants for spatial graphs. Other invariants were constructed in [@K1] (see also [@K]).
K. Kanno, K. Taniyama [@KT] for every oriented spatial graph found a braid presentation. This result is a generalization of Alexander’s theorem.
In the present paper we suggest some other presentations of a spatial graph. At first we prove that every finite spatial graph is a connected sum of a planar graph, which is a forest, i.e. disjoint union of finite number of trees and a tangle. Using the Alexander theorem, we prove that this graph is a connected some of a forest and a braid (braid decomposition of the spatial graph). Also, we construct another type decomposition without using the Alexander theorem. We prove that any spatial graph is a connected sum of a forest and a plat-braid that is some symbiosis of a plat and a braid (plat decomposition of the spatial graph).
Using these decompositions it is not difficult to find a set of generators and defining relations for the fundamental group of compliment of a spatial graph in 3-space $\mathbb{R}^3$ (see Section 4).
Combinatorial graphs and spatial graphs
=======================================
A combinatorial graph $\mathcal{G}$ consists of a four $(V, E, i, t)$, where $V$ is the set of [*vertices*]{}, $E$ is the set of [*edges*]{}, $i, t : E \to V$ are two functions, $i(e)$ is called the [*beginning of*]{} $e$ and $t(e)$ is called the [*end of*]{} $e$. We write $V(\mathcal{G})$ for the vertices of $\mathcal{G}$ and $E(\mathcal{G})$ for the edges of $\mathcal{G}$ when necessary. If $i(e) = t(e)$, then $e$ is called a [*loop*]{}. A graph $\mathcal{G}$ is called finite if $V$ and $E$ are finite. A combinatorial graph can contains multiple edges, but we will assume that $\mathcal{G}$ has no vertices of degrees 0 and 1.
A [*spatial graph*]{} $\Gamma$ is a geometric realization of a combinatorial graph $\mathcal{G}$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$, that is an injective map $\Gamma \to \mathbb{R}^3$ under which $V$ goes to a set of distinct points and any $e$ in $E$ goes to a topological interval $L_e$ that is a topological space homeomorphic to the close interval $[0, 1]$ in the set of real numbers $\mathbb{R}$, which is beginning in the image of the vertex $i(e)$ and ending in the image of the vertex $t(e)$ if $i(e) \not = t(e)$; if $i(e) = t(e)$, then $L_e$ homeomorphic to the circle. The topological interval $L_e$ can meet with the images of $V$ only in the beginning or ending points and two different topological intervals do not intersect at internal points. For examples, if $\mathcal{G}$ contains one vertex $v$ and one edge $e$, where $i(e) = t(e)$, then the set of spatial graphs is the set of knots in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Two spatial graphs $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ are [*equivalent*]{} if there is an orientation-preserving homeomorphism $h : \mathbb{R}^3 \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ sending $\Gamma$ onto $\Gamma'$. A fundamental topological problem (equivalence decision problem) on spatial graphs is:
By an effective method, decide whether or not two given spatial graphs of a combinatorial graph are equivalent.
A diagram $D_{\Gamma}$ of a spatial graph $\Gamma$ is a regular projection of $\Gamma$ to a plane in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Equivalence relation for spatial graphs is generated by a set of local moves that generalize the Reidemeister moves for diagrams of knots. L. Kauffman [@Kauf] added to the usual list of Reidemeister moves two moves involving a vertex (moves IV and V in Figure 1).
{width="10.0cm"}\
[Fig. 1. Reidemeister moves]{}
Moves IV allows an edge to slide under or over a bundle of strands at a vertex. Move V allows any two adjacent (in the planar diagram) strands at a vertex to twist around one another. This is the basic topological vertex move: two strands at the vertex can twist without affecting the other strands. L. Kauffman proved that two spatial graphs $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ are equivalent if and only if any diagram $D$ of $\Gamma$ is deformed into any diagram $D'$ of $\Gamma'$ by a finite sequence of the generalized Reidemeister moves I–V.
Recall that a connected non-empty graph is called a [*tree*]{} if it does not have cycles and multiples edges, a connected non-empty graph is called a [*forest*]{} if it is a disjoint union of trees. It is evident, that every forest is a planar graph.
We say that a spatial graph $\Gamma$ is a [*connected sum*]{} of two spatial subgraphs $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ and write $\Gamma = \Gamma_1 \sharp \Gamma_2$, if there is a 3-ball $B \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ such that its boundary $S^2 = \partial B$ does not contain vertices of $\Gamma$, the intersection $S^2 \cap \Gamma$ is a finite number of points, the closure of $(\mathbb{R}^3 - B) \cap \Gamma$ is equal to $\Gamma_1$ and the closure of $B \cap \Gamma$ is equal to $\Gamma_2$.
Braid decomposition
===================
The main result of the present section is
\[t1\] Let $\Gamma$ be a finite spatial graph in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Then there are a forest $T_0$ and a braid $\beta$ such that $\Gamma = T_0~ \sharp ~ \beta$.
For illustration of this theorem see Fig. 2, where a forest is in the left box and a braid in the right box.
{width="8.0cm"}\
[Fig. 2. Spatial graph as a connected sum of forest and braid]{}
We prove the theorem for connected graphs. The general case is similar. Let $\Gamma$ be a finite connected spatial graph in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Denote by $V(\Gamma)$ the set of all vertices of $\Gamma$ and by $E(\Gamma)$ the set of all edges of $\Gamma$. Take some maximal tree $T$ of $\Gamma$. By the definition of maximal tree, the set of $V(T)$ is equal to the set $V(\Gamma)$ and the set of edges $E(T)$ is a subset of $E(\Gamma)$. If $E(T) = E(\Gamma)$, then $\Gamma = T$ and the theorem is true. Hence, we shall assume that $E(T) \not= E(\Gamma)$. We call the edges in $E(T)$ by [*tree edges*]{} and the edges in $E(\Gamma) \setminus E(T)$ by [*spatial edges*]{}. The set $V(T)$ is the disjoint union of two subsets: $V(T) = I(T) \sqcup S(T)$, where $I(T)$ is the set of [*inner vertices*]{}, i.e. vertices which are incident only tree edges; $S(T)$ is the set of [*spatial vertices*]{}, i.e. vertices which are incident some spatial edges. Every spatial edge $e$ has the initial vertex $i(e)$ and the terminal vertex $t(e)$, which lie in $S(T)$.
Transform the graph $\Gamma$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ by the such manner that the tree $T$ lies on the plane $xOy$ and all spatial edges lie in the subspace $z \geq 0$ (see Fig. 3). To do it we can consider a diagram of $\Gamma$ and by using the generalized Reidemeister moves transform it to the needed diagram.
{width="8.0cm"}\
[Fig. 3. A maximal tree $T$ on the plane]{}
We assume that the tree $T$ lies inside of some rectangle $D$ those sides are parallel to the axes $Ox$ and $Oy$. Take a some vertex in $S(T)$ and call this vertex by the initial vertex and shift $T$ to a position where this vertex lies in the upper part of $D$ with respect to the $y$-coordinate; the vertices which are connected to the initial vertex by some edge in $E(T)$ lie in a lower level with respect to $y$-coordinate; the vertices which are connected to the vertices of the second level by some edge in $E(T)$ lie in the third level and so on. See the upper picture of Fig. 3, where vertex $a$ is the initial vertex and lies in the first level, vertices $b$, $c$ and $d$ lie in the second level and so on. Using induction by the number of levels transform the graph $\Gamma$ to a graph in which all the vertices in $V(T)$ lie in the middle line of $D$. See the lower picture in Fig. 4, where we transformed the vertex $a$ from the first level to the second level.
{width="8.0cm"}\
[Fig. 4. Transformation of the tree]{}
For every vertex $v \in S(T)$ construct a square $V_v = V_v^0$ on the plane $xOy$, such that $v$ is the center of this square and the sides of this square are parallel to the axes $Ox$ and $Oy$; $V_v$ does not contain the other vertices of $T$. Let $V_v^1$ be the orthogonal projection of $V_v$ onto the plane $z = 1$. Move the spatial edges for which $v$ is the initial vertex to the position in which these edges intersect the upper side (side with larger $y$-coordinate) of $V_v^1$ and the spatial edges for which $v$ is the terminal vertex to the position in which these edges intersect the bottom side (side with smaller $y$-coordinate) of $V_v^1$ (see Fig. 5).
{width="8.0cm"}\
[Fig. 5. Spatial edges in the neighborhood of a vertex]{}
Do this for all spatial vertices to get in the plane $z = 1$ a picture as in Fig. 6.
Denote by $\overline{T}$ the closure of the intersection of $\Gamma$ with the subspace $z \leq 1$. We see that $\overline{T}$ is a tree. Consider the subspace $z \geq 1$. The intersection of this subspace with $\Gamma$ is the union of strings.
{width="15.0cm"}\
[Fig. 6. Rectangles for the vertices ]{}
We can put these strings in the box $D_1 \times [0,1]$, where, $D_1$ be a rectangle in the plane $z = 1$ with sides that are parallel to the coordinate lines $Ox$ and $Oy$. We get some $(m,m)$-tangle $\overline{\beta}$ (see Fig. 7), where $m$ is the set of spatial edges in $\Gamma$. Hence, $\Gamma$ is the connected sum of $\overline{T}$ and $\overline{\beta}$. Tangle $\overline{\beta}$ does not contain free components and each his edge is stating at the upper side and ending at the bottom side of the parallelepiped $D_1 \times [0,1]$.
{width="8.0cm"}\
[Fig. 7. Tree and tangle]{}
Hence, we have proven
\[p1\] Any finite spatial graph $\Gamma$ is a connected sum of a forest $\overline{T}$ and a tangle $\overline{\beta}$.
In this decomposition the forest $\overline{T}$ contains $2m$ edges, where $m = |E(\Gamma)| - |E(T)|$, which do not lie in the maximal forest $T$ of $\Gamma$. From these edges $m$ have beginning vertex of valence 1, denote them $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_m$ and will call [*incoming edges*]{}. Other $m$ edges have terminating vertex of valence 1, denote them $b_1, b_2, \ldots, b_m$ and will call [*outgoing edges*]{}. The tangle $\overline{\beta}$ is $(m,m)$-tangle that is a tangle with $m$ incoming strings and $m$ outgoing strings. To get the spatial graph $\Gamma$ we must gluing the outgoing edges of the forest with the incoming strings of the tangle and the outgoing strings of the tangle with the incoming edges of $\overline{T}$.
Using Proposition \[p1\] we can prove Theorem \[t1\].
We assume that the spatial graph $\Gamma$ is connected and by Proposition \[p1\] it is the connected sum of the tree $\overline{T}$ and the tangle $\overline{\beta}$. Using the same idea as in the proof of the Alexander theorem [@Bir Chapter 2.1], we can present $\overline{\beta}$ as a connected sum of a braid $\beta$ and some number of unknotted and unlinked arcs. Adding these arcs to the tree $\overline{T}$ we get the forest $T_0$ and the decomposition of $\Gamma$ as the connected sum of $T_0$ and the braid $\beta$ (see Fig. 2).
Plat decomposition
==================
Any link can be present as a closure of a braid or as a plat (see [@Bir]). We introduce some object that is a symbiosis of a plat and a braid. Let $k, m$ be non-negative integer numbers and $$I^3 = \{ (x, y, z) \in \mathbb{R}^3~|~0 \leq x, y, z \leq 1 \}$$ be the cub with the side 1. On the upper side take $2k+m$ points $P_1$, $P_2$, $\ldots$, $P_{2k+m}$, which lie in the plane $y = 1/2$ and the point with bigger index has bigger $x$-coordinate. On the bottom side also take $2k+m$ points $Q_1$, $Q_2$, $\ldots$, $Q_{2k+m}$, which also lie in the plane $y = 1/2$ and the point with bigger index has bigger $x$-coordinate.
The $m$-component $k$-[*plat-braid*]{} or simply $(k, m)$-plat-braid $L_{k,m} = L_1 \sqcup L_2 \sqcup \ldots \sqcup L_m$ is the disjoint union of $m$ topological intervals, which are images of $m$ segments $[0, 1]$ into the 3-space $\mathbb{R}^3$ and the following conditions hold:
1\) all points $P_i$ and $Q_i$ lie on $L_{k,m}$ and $$L _{k,m} \cap \partial I^3 = \{ P_1, P_2, \ldots, P_{2k+m}, Q_1, Q_2, \ldots, Q_{2k+m} \};$$
2\) $\partial L_{k,m}$ lie in $\mathbb{R}^3 \setminus I^3$, the first intersection point of $L_i$ and $I^3$ is $P_i$ and the last intersection point of $L_i$ and $I^3$ is $Q_i$ for all $i \in \{ 1, 2, \ldots, m \}$.
3\) Any pair of points $\{P_j, P_{j+1} \}$, $\{Q_j, Q_{j+1} \}$, $j = 1, 2, \ldots, k-1$ is connected by some arc which is a part of $L_{k,m}$.
4\) If we forget about orientation of $L_{k,m}$, then the intersection $L _{k,m} \cap I^3$ is an $2k+m$-braid $\gamma$.
For example of $(2,2)$-plat-braid see Figure 8.
{width="5.0cm"}\
[Fig. 8. Example of $(2,2)$-plat-braid]{}
The main result of the present section is
\[t2\] Let $\Gamma$ be a finite spatial graph with $n$ connected components in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Then there are a forest $\overline{T}$, which is a disjoint union of $n$ trees and a plat-braid $\gamma$ such that $\Gamma = \overline{T}~ \sharp ~ \gamma$. If $\Gamma$ is a connected spatial graph, then the forest $\overline{T}$ is a tree.
For illustration of this theorem see Figure 9. We shall call the decomposition of $\Gamma$ from this theorem by [*plat decomposition*]{}
{width="5.0cm"}\
[Fig. 9. Spatial graph as decomposition of a forest and a plat-braid]{}
We assume that the spatial graph $\Gamma$ is connected and by Proposition \[p1\] it is the connected sum of the tree $\overline{T}$ and the tangle $\overline{\beta}$.
We shall transform $\overline{\beta}$ to get some plate-braid. We can assume that under the projection of $\overline{\beta}$ onto the plane $z = 1$ all crossings lie inside $D_1$ and that this projection is regular projection. This projection has finite number of local maximums and local minimums with respect to $y$-coordinate. We can check that the number of the local maximums is equal to the number of local minimums. Denote by $m_1$, $m_2$, $\ldots$, $m_k$ the points of local maximums and by $l_1$, $l_2$, $\ldots$, $l_k$ the points of local minimums (see Fig. 10). Using isotopy we will move the arcs with maximum to the upper side of $D_1$ and the arcs with minimum to the bottom side of $D_1$.
{width="8.0cm"}\
[Fig. 10. Local maximum and local minimum]{}
Moving this arcs until they will be outside of $D_1$. Using the transformations as in Figure 11 we can assume that outside of $D_1$ all arcs with maximum lie on the left side from the edges which go inside the rectangle and all arcs with minimum lie on the left side from the edges which go outside the rectangle.
{width="8.0cm"}\
[Fig. 11. Moving of arcs with local maximum and minimum ]{}
At the end we transform the $(m, m)$-tangle $\overline{\beta}$ to the $(k, m)$-plat-braid $\gamma$ in which the number of connected components is $m = |E(\Gamma)| - |E(T)|$ (see Fig. 12).
{width="8.0cm"}\
[Fig. 12. The $(k, m)$-plat-braid $\gamma$]{}
Take the decomposition $\Gamma = \overline{T} ~ \sharp ~\overline{\beta}$, constructed in Proposition \[p1\], cut the tangle $\overline{\beta}$ and paste the $(k, m)$-plat-braid $\gamma$, then we get the plat decomposition $\Gamma = \overline{T} ~ \sharp ~\gamma$.
Some applications
=================
Braid index
-----------
Using the braid decomposition we can introduce some invariant of spatial graph. The [*braid index $bi(T_0 ~ \sharp ~\beta)$ of the braid decomposition*]{} $\Gamma = T_0 ~ \sharp ~\beta$ is the number of strings in the braid $\beta$. The [*braid index*]{} $bi(\Gamma)$ of the spatial graph $\Gamma$ is the minimum $bi(T_0 ~ \sharp ~\beta)$ by all possible braid decompositions $\Gamma = T_0 ~ \sharp ~\beta$.
It is not difficult to see that $bi(\Gamma)$ is an invariant of $\Gamma$.
Are there some connections of $bi(\Gamma)$ with other invariants of $\Gamma$?
Groups of spatial graphs
------------------------
Let $\Gamma$ be a spatial graph, then its group $G_{\Gamma}$ is the fundamental group of the complement $\Gamma$ in 3-space: $G_{\Gamma} = \pi_1(\mathbb{R}^3 - \Gamma)$. We can find the set of generators and defining relations for this group. To do it, consider the regular projection $D_{\Gamma}$ of $\Gamma$ into the plane and remove all vertices of valence $\geq 3$. Denote the connected components of this diagram by $x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_s$ this is the generating set of $G_{\Gamma}$. Defining relations can be two types. Any crossing of $D_{\Gamma}$ corresponds defining relation as in Fig. 13.
\
[Fig. 13. Relations in the crossings]{} \[sigma\]
Any vertex of $D_{\Gamma}$ corresponds defining relation as in Figure 14.
\
[Fig. 14. Relation in the vertex]{} \[sigma\]
For simplicity we will consider the case when $\Gamma$ is a connected graph.
Suppose we have decomposition $\Gamma = \overline{T}~ \sharp ~ \overline{\beta}$, constructed in Proposition \[p1\]. To find $G_{\Gamma}$, define a group $G_{\overline{T}}$ and a group $G_{\overline{\beta}}$. Suppose that a 3-ball $B$ contains the forest $\overline{T}$ and $\overline{\beta} = \Gamma \setminus (B \cap \overline{T})$. Then $$G_{\overline{T}} = \pi_1 (B \setminus \overline{T}),~~~G_{\overline{\beta}} = \pi_1 \left( (\mathbb{R}^3 \setminus B) \setminus \overline{\beta} \right).$$ To find $G_{\Gamma}$ note that $G_{\overline{T}} = G_{\overline{T_1}}$, where $\overline{T_1}$ is a tree that is gotten from ${\overline{T}}$ by contracting of the maximal tree $T_0$ into a vertex. Hence, $\overline{T_1}$ contains one vertex and $m$ incoming edges $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_m$ and $m$ outgoing edges $b_1, b_2, \ldots, b_m$ and $$G_{\overline{T_1}} = \langle a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_m, b_1, b_2, \ldots, b_m ~||~ a_1 a_2 \ldots a_m b_m^{-1} b_{m-2}^{-1} \ldots b_1^{-1} = 1 \rangle.$$
Let $b'_1, b'_2, \ldots, b'_m$ be the set of incoming strings in $\overline{\beta}$ and $a'_1, a'_2, \ldots, a'_m$ be the set of outcoming strings in $\overline{\beta}$. Then the group $G_{\overline{\beta}}$ contains elements $$a'_1, a'_2, \ldots, a'_m, b'_1, b'_2, \ldots, b'_m.$$ Suppose that $G_{\overline{\beta}}$ is defined by a set of generators $\mathcal{X}$ and the set of relations $\mathcal{R}$, i.e. $$G_{\overline{\beta}} = \langle \mathcal{X} ~||~\mathcal{R} \rangle.$$
Then from Van Kampen theorem follows
\[t2\] The group $G_{\Gamma}$ is generated by elements $$\mathcal{X}, a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_m, b_1, b_2, \ldots, b_m$$ and is defined by the relations $$\mathcal{R}, a_1 a_2 \ldots a_m b_m^{-1} b_{m-2}^{-1} \ldots b_1^{-1} = 1,~~b_1 = b'_m, b_2 = b'_{m-1}, \ldots, b_m = b'_1,$$ $$a_1 = a'_m, a_2 = a'_{m-1}, \ldots, a_m = a'_1.$$
In particular, if $\Gamma$ is a link then we can decompose it in the form $\Gamma = \overline{T}~ \sharp ~ \overline{\beta}$, where $\overline{T}$ is the disjoint union of $m$ edges $b_1 = a_1$, $b_2 = a_2$, $\ldots$, $b_b = a_m$ and we have
The group $G_{\Gamma}$ is generated by elements $\mathcal{X}$ and is defined by the relations $$\mathcal{R}, ~~a'_1 = b'_1, a'_2 = b'_{2}, \ldots, a'_m = b'_m.$$
In [@K1] was considered conception of [*unknotted spatial graph*]{}. In our terms we can reformulate it by the following manner. A spatial graph $\Gamma$ is called unknotted if there is a decomposition $\Gamma = \overline{T}~ \sharp ~ \overline{\beta}$ into a connection sum of a forest and a tangle, where the tangle $\overline{\beta}$ is monotone. A tangle is called monotone if it has a monotone diagram. A strand in a diagram of a tangle is called [*monotone*]{} if a point going along the oriented strands meets first the upper crossing point at every crossing point. A diagram of a tangle is called [*monotone*]{} if every its strand is monotone and there is some ordering of strands such that the strand with number $i$ is upper than the strands with number $j$ for $i < j$.
As corollary of Theorem \[t2\] we get
Suppose that a finite connected spatial graph $\Gamma$ has a decomposition $\Gamma = \overline{T}~ \sharp ~ \overline{\beta}$. Then
1\) if $\overline{\beta}$ is a $(1,1)$-tangle, then $G_{\Gamma}$ is isomorphic to the group $G_K$ of the knot $K$, which is the closure of the tangle $\overline{\beta}$;
2\) if $\overline{\beta}$ is a monotone tangle with $k$ strands. Then $G_{\Gamma}$ is the free group of rank $k$.
1\) In this case $\overline{T}$ is a line segment with a finite set of vertexes. If we compress this segment into a vertex, then our spatial graph becomes a knot $K$ that is the closure of $\overline{\beta}$.
2\) Follows from [@K1], where was proved the following assertion: An unknotted connected spatial graph is equivalent to a trivial bouquet of circles after the edge contraction of a maximal tree. In particular, the group of unknotted connected spatial graph is free.
Conclusion remarks
==================
Of cause, the decomposition of the spatial graph $\Gamma$ in Proposition \[p1\] is not unique, because there are different possibilities in the choice of the maximal forest. We can formulate
Let $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ are two finite spatial graphs, which correspond to some combinatorial graph $\mathcal{G}$. They are equivalent if and only if there are decompositions $\Gamma = \overline{T}~ \sharp ~ \overline{\beta}$ and $\Gamma' = \overline{T'}~ \sharp ~ \overline{\beta'}$ into the connected sum of a forest and a tangle such that the forest $\overline{T}$ is equivalent to the forest $\overline{T'}$ (as spatial graphs) and the tangle $\overline{\beta}$ is equivalent to the tangle $\overline{\beta'}$.
When we have decomposition of two spatial graphs in the connected sum of a forest and a braid, then the equivalence decision problem is more complicated and we formulate
Let $\Gamma = T_0~ \sharp ~ \beta$ and $\Gamma = T_0'~ \sharp ~ \beta'$ be two decompositions of some finite spatial graph $\Gamma$. How are they related? Is it possible to prove some analog of Markov theorem for spatial graphs?
We know the following problem: for the spatial graph $\Gamma$ find all links, which can be embedding in $\Gamma$. A [*constituent link*]{} of a spatial graph $\Gamma$ is a link contained in $\Gamma$. Conway and Gordon [@CG] proved that every spatial 6-complete graph $K_6$ contains a non trivial constituent link and every spatial 7-complete graph $K_7$ contains a non trivial constituent knot. Is it possible to prove these results, using a decomposition of a spatial graph, constructed in the present paper?
We know the construction of a knot quandle.
Is it possible to define for any spatial graph $\Gamma$ a quandle $Q_{\Gamma}$ such that, if $\Gamma'$ is equivalent to $\Gamma$, the $Q_{\Gamma}$ is isomorphic to $Q_{\Gamma'}$?
[99]{}
J. S. Birman, Braids, links and mapping class group, Princeton–Tokyo: Univ. press, 1974.
J. H. Conway, C. McA. Gordon, [*Knots and links in spatial graphs*]{}, J. Graph Theory, 7, no. 4 (1983), 445-453.
P. R. Cromwell, [*Embedding knots and links in an open book I: Basic properties*]{}, Topology and its Applications 64 (1995), 37-58.
P. R. Cromwell and I. J. Nutt, [*Embedding knots and links in an open book II: bounds on arc index*]{}, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 119:2 (1996), 309- 319.
R. H. Crowell, R. H. Fox, Introduction to knot theory. Based upon lectures given at Haverford College under the Philips Lecture Program Ginn and Co., Boston, Mass. 1963 x+182 pp.
K. Kanno, K. Taniyama, [*Braid presentation of spatial graphs*]{}, Tokyo J. Math., 33, no. 2 (2010), 509-522.
L. H. Kauffman, [*Invariants of graphs in three space*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 1989, 311, 697-710.
A. Kawauchi, A survey of knot theory. Translated and revised from the 1990 Japanese original by the author. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 1996. xxii+420 pp.
A. Kawauchi, [*On transforming a spatial graph into a plane graph*]{}, in: Statistical Physics and Topology of Polymers with Ramifications to Structure and Function of DNA and Proteins, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, no. 191 (2011), 225-234.
[^1]: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the grant RNF-16-11-10073. Also they thank Vera Gorbunova, who drew pictures for the article.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct a potential obtained by one-pion exchange for the coupled channel $\Sigma_c^\ast$$\bar{D}$-$\Sigma_c$$\bar{D}^\ast$, and solve the coupled Schrödinger equations to determine the binding energy. We find that there exists one or two bound states with the binding energy of several MeV below the threshold of $\Sigma_c^\ast$ and $\bar{D}$, dominantly made from a $\Sigma_c^\ast$ baryon and a $\bar{D}$ meson, with the size of about $1.5$fm for a wide parameter region. We also study the pentaquark states including a $b$ quark and/or an anti-$b$ quark. We show that there exist pentaquarks including $c\bar{b}$, $b\bar{c}$, and $b\bar{b}$, all of which lie at about $10$MeV below the corresponding threshold and have size of about $1.5$fm.'
author:
- Yuki Shimizu
- Daiki Suenaga
- Masayasu Harada
title: 'Coupled channel analysis of molecule picture of $P_{c}(4380)$'
---
Introduction
============
Hadrons made of more than three quarks are interesting objects to study. In the summer of 2015, the LHCb announced the discovery of the hidden charm pentaquark [@Aaij:2015tga]: one has a mass of $4380\pm8\pm29$MeV and a width of $205\pm18\pm86$MeV, while the second is narrower, with a mass of $4449.8\pm1.7\pm2.5$MeV and a width of $39\pm5\pm19$MeV. Soon after the announcement, there appeared many theoretical analyses on the pentaquark based on the molecular picture [@Chen:2015loa; @He:2015cea; @Chen:2015moa; @Karliner:2015ina; @Huang:2015uda; @Roca:2015dva; @Mironov:2015ica; @Meissner:2015mza; @Xiao:2015fia; @Burns:2015dwa; @Wang:2015qlf; @Kahana:2015tkb; @Chen:2016heh; @Chen:2016otp; @Lu:2016nnt], the rescattering effects [@Guo:2015umn; @Liu:2015fea; @Mikhasenko:2015vca; @Liu:2016dli], the diquark-diquark-antiquark (or diquark-triquark) picture [@Maiani:2015vwa; @Lebed:2015tna; @Anisovich:2015cia; @Li:2015gta; @Anisovich:2015zqa; @Wang:2015wsa; @Ghosh:2015ksa; @Maiani:2015iaa; @Wang:2015epa; @Wang:2015ava; @Zhu:2015bba; @Wang:2015ixb], and so on [@Wang:2015jsa; @Kubarovsky:2015aaa; @Scoccola:2015nia; @Hsiao:2015nna; @Karliner:2015voa; @Aaij:2015fea; @Anisovich:2015xja; @Stone:2015iba; @Cheng:2015cca; @Lu:2015fva; @Yang:2015bmv; @Wang:2015pcn; @Gerasyuta:2015djk; @Schmidt:2016cmd; @Roca:2016tdh], in addition to some relevant works [@Wu:2010jy; @Wu:2010vk; @Wang:2011rga; @Yang:2011wz; @Wu:2012md; @Xiao:2013yca] done before the LHCb result.
There are many analyses for the molecule picture. In Ref. [@Chen:2015loa], the pentaquarks are regarded as the bound states of the $\bar{D}^\ast$ meson and the $\Sigma_c$ baryon by using the potential made by the one-pion exchange. The contributions from the $\sigma$ and $\omega$ mesons are further included in the potential [@He:2015cea], which shows that $P_c(4380)$ can be understood as a bound state of $\Sigma_c^\ast$ and $\bar{D}$. In Ref. [@Chen:2015moa], the QCD sum rule is used to show that $P_c(4380)$ is a bound state of $\Sigma_c$ and $\bar{D}^\ast$, and that $P_c(4450)$ is a bound state of a mixture of $\Lambda_c$$\bar{D}^\ast$ and $\Sigma_c^\ast$$\bar{D}$. An analysis based on a quark model was performed [@Wang:2011rga] before the LHCb result, which showed that there exists a bound state of $\Sigma_c$ and $\bar{D}$ with the threshold being about 4.3GeV. There are many other analyses such as those in Refs. [@Karliner:2015ina; @Huang:2015uda; @Roca:2015dva; @Meissner:2015mza; @Xiao:2015fia; @Burns:2015dwa; @Wang:2015qlf; @Chen:2016heh; @Chen:2016otp] showing several different molecule structures.
The recently observed $P_c(4380)$ lies below the $\Sigma_c^*$$\bar{D}$ threshold in several MeV, so that this new state can be naturally regarded as a molecular state of $\Sigma_c^*$$\bar{D}$. However, it is impossible to construct a $\Sigma_c^\ast$$\bar{D}$ molecular state by a potential made by just one-pion exchange because $\bar{D}\bar{D}\pi$ vertex is prohibited by the parity invariance. Then, we need to take into account effects of coupled channels to study the existence of the molecular state mainly made from $\Sigma_c^\ast\bar{D}$ by the one-pion exchange. The most likely channel coupled to $\Sigma_c^{\ast}\bar{D}$ through the one-pion exchange is the $\Sigma_c\bar{D}^{\ast}$ channel, since sum of their masses is closer to the sum of masses of $\Sigma_c^{\ast}$ and $\bar{D}$ than the other channels. Thus in this paper, we investigate the coupled channel effect of $\Sigma_c^\ast$$\bar{D}$-$\Sigma_c$$\bar{D}^\ast$ to molecular states. As pointed out in Ref. [@Chen:2016qju], this coupled channel effect was not yet studied. In the present analysis, we construct a one-pion exchange potential following the procedure explained in Ref. [@Yamaguchi:2014era] and solve the Schrödinger type equation of motion. Our results show that the binding energy of the ground state is about several MeV below the sum of $\Sigma_c^\ast$ and $\bar{D}$ masses of $4385.3$MeV in the wide range of the relevant parameters, and that the percentage of the $\Sigma_c^\ast$$\bar{D}$ component is more than 99%. This implies that the observed $P_c(4380)$ can be reasonably understood as a molecular state dominantly made from the $\Sigma_c^\ast$ baryon and the $\bar{D}$ meson.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:opep\] we construct a potential by one-pion exchange. Then, we make a numerical analysis in Sec. \[sec:results\]. We extend the analysis by replacing the charm quark with the bottom quark in Sec. \[sec:bottom\]. Finally, a summary and discussions are given in Sec. \[sec:Summary\].
One-pion exchange potential for $\Sigma_{c}^{*} \bar{D}$-$\Sigma_{c} \bar{D}^{*}$ channels {#sec:opep}
==========================================================================================
In this section, we construct a potential for $\Sigma_{c}^{*} \bar{D}$-$\Sigma_{c} \bar{D}^{*}$ channels generated by one-pion exchange.
Here, we first specify interactions of relevant hadrons with the pions based on the heavy quark symmetry and the chiral symmetry. The pion field is introduced into our model within the framework of the chiral Lagrangian based on the spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking of $\mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm R}\times\mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm L} \to \mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm V}$. The basic quantity is $$\alpha_{\perp \mu} = \frac{1}{2i} \left[ \partial_\mu \xi \cdot \xi^\dag - \partial_\mu \xi^\dag \cdot \xi \right]
\ ,$$ where $\xi = e^{i \pi / f_\pi}$ with $\pi = \pi_a T_a$ ($a=1,2,3$) and $f_\pi=92.4\,\mbox{MeV}$ being the pion fields and the pion decay constant. The quantity $\alpha_{\perp \mu}$ transforms as $$\alpha_{\perp\mu} \ \to \ h \, \alpha_{\perp\mu} \, h^\dag \ ,$$ where $h$ is an element of $\mbox{SU}(2)_{\rm V}$.
We include the $\bar{D}$ and $\bar{D}^\ast$ fields through the standard heavy meson effective field expressed as $$\bar{H} = \left[ \bar{D}^{\ast \mu}\gamma_{\mu} - \bar{D}\gamma_{5} \right] \frac{1+v\hspace{-.47em}/}{2} \ ,$$ where $v^\mu$ denotes the velocity of the heavy meson, $\bar{D}$ and $\bar{D}^\ast$ are the isodoublet fields for the fluctuation of the heavy mesons, $\bar{D}^{+,0}$ and $\bar{D}^{\ast+,0}$. Under the chiral transformation, $\bar{H}$ transforms as $$\bar{H} \ \to \ h \, \bar{H} \ .$$ By using this together with $\alpha_{\perp\mu}$ for the pion fields, an interaction for heavy mesons with pions with least derivatives is written as [@Wise:1992hn; @Yan:1992gz; @Cho:1992gg] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{int} = g\textrm{Tr}\left[ H\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5} \alpha_{\perp}^{\mu} \bar{H} \right] \ ,
\label{L int H}\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is a dimensionless coupling constant. Expanding the $H$ fields and $\alpha_{\perp\mu}$, the one-pion interaction terms of the heavy mesons are expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{int} = &\left( \frac{2g}{f_{\pi}}\bar{D}_{\mu}^{\ast \dagger}\partial^{\mu}\pi\bar{D} + \mbox{h.c.} \right) + \frac{2ig}{f_{\pi}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}v_{\mu}\bar{D}_{\nu}^{\ast \dagger}\partial_{\rho}\pi \bar{D}_{\sigma}^{\ast}\ .\end{aligned}$$
The relevant baryons $\Sigma_c$ and $\Sigma_c^\ast$ are included through an isotriplet heavy-quark doublet field $S_\mu$ as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mu} = -\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\left( \gamma_{\mu} + v_{\mu} \right) \gamma_{5}\Sigma_c + \Sigma_{c\,\mu}^{\ast} \ .\end{aligned}$$ These two fields are expressed in the isospin space as $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_c= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Sigma_{c}^{++} & \frac{\Sigma_{c}^{+}}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\frac{\Sigma_{c}^{+}}{\sqrt{2}} & \Sigma_{c}^{0} \\
\end{array}
\right) \ , \quad \Sigma^{\ast}_{c\,\mu} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Sigma_{c}^{\ast ++} & \frac{\Sigma_{c}^{\ast +}}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\frac{\Sigma_{c}^{\ast +}}{\sqrt{2}} & \Sigma_{c}^{\ast 0} \\
\end{array}
\right)_\mu \ .\end{aligned}$$ The $S_{\mu}$ field transforms under the $\mbox{SU}(2)_R\times \mbox{SU}(2)_L$ chiral transformation as $$S_{\mu} \ \to \ h \, S_{\mu} \, h^{T} \ .$$ An interaction Lagrangian with least derivative is expressed as [@Yan:1992gz; @Cho:1992gg; @Liu:2011xc] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{int} = -\frac{3}{2}i g_{1}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}v_{\sigma} \textrm{Tr}\left[ \bar{S}_{\mu}\alpha_{\perp\nu}S_{\rho} \right] \ ,
\label{L int B}\end{aligned}$$ which leads to the following one-pion interaction terms: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{int} = &\frac{ig_{1}}{2f_{\pi}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}v_{\sigma}\textrm{Tr}\left[ \bar{\Sigma}_c \gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\rho}\partial_{\nu}\pi \Sigma_c \right] \nonumber \\
&-\frac{3ig_{1}}{2f_{\pi}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}v_{\sigma}\textrm{Tr}\left[ \bar{\Sigma}_{c\,\mu}^{\ast}\partial_{\nu}\pi \Sigma_{c\,\rho}^{\ast} \right] \nonumber \\
&+\left( \frac{\sqrt{3}ig_{1}}{2f_{\pi}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}v_{\sigma}\textrm{Tr} \left[ \bar{\Sigma}_{c\,\mu}^{\ast}\partial_{\nu}\pi\gamma_{\rho}\gamma_{5}\Sigma_c \right] + H.c. \right) .\end{aligned}$$
We construct a one-pion exchange potential (OPEP) between ($\bar{D}$, $\bar{D}^\ast$) mesons and ($\Sigma_c$, $\Sigma_c^\ast$) baryons from the above interaction terms. Following the procedure explained in Ref. [@Yamaguchi:2014era], we introduce the monopole-type form factor at each vertex given by $$\begin{aligned}
F(\vec{q}) = \frac{\Lambda^{2} - m_{\pi}^{2}}{\Lambda^{2}+|\vec{q}|^2}\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{\pi}$ is the pion mass, $\vec{q}$ is the momentum of the pion, and $\Lambda$ is a cutoff parameter. Although the cutoff $\Lambda$ for the meson-pion vertex may not be the same as that for the baryon-pion vertex, we use the same parameter in the present analysis for simplicity. By including this form factor, the OPEPs for the S-wave channels of $\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}$-$\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}$, $\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}$ and $\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}$-$\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}$ with $I(J^{P})=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}^{-})$ are obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}-\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}}(r)&=0 \\
V_{\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}-\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}}(r)&=-\frac{1}{3}\times\frac{g_{1}gm_{\pi}^3}{8\pi f_{\pi}^2}Y_{1}(m_{\pi}, \Lambda, r) \\
V_{\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}-\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}}(r)&=-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\times\frac{g_{1}gm_{\pi}^3}{8\pi f_{\pi}^2}Y_{1}(m_{\pi}, \Lambda, r)
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $Y_{1}(m_{\pi}, \Lambda, r)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{1}(m_{\pi}, \Lambda, r) = Y(m_{\pi}r) - \frac{\Lambda}{m_{\pi}}Y(\Lambda r) - \frac{\Lambda^2-m_{\pi}^2}{2m_{\pi}\Lambda}e^{-\Lambda r}, \end{aligned}$$ with $Y(x)=\frac{e^{-x}}{x}$. It should be noted that the OPEP for the $\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}$-$\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ channel is zero because the $\bar{D}\bar{D}\pi$ vertex vanishes by parity.
Numerical results for the binding energy and the mixing structure {#sec:results}
=================================================================
The relevant Schrödinger equation is expressed as $$\left[ - \frac{1}{2m} \vec{\nabla}^2 + V(r) \right] \Psi\left(\vec{r}\right) = E \Psi\left(\vec{r}\right) \ ,$$ where $m$ is the reduced mass, $E$ is the energy eigenvalue, $V(r)$ is the potential matrix obtained from the OPEPs in the previous section as $$\begin{aligned}
V(r) & = \begin{pmatrix}
V_{\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}-\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}}(r) &
V_{\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}-\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}}(r) \\
V_{\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}-\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}}(r) &
V_{\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}-\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}}(r) \\
\end{pmatrix}
\\
&= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & - \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} \\ - \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} & - \frac{1}{3} \end{pmatrix} \times \frac{g_{1}gm_{\pi}^3}{8\pi f_{\pi}^2}Y_{1}(m_{\pi}, \Lambda, r)
\ .\end{aligned}$$ The wave function $\Psi\left(\vec{r}\right)$ has two components for the $\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ and $\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}$ states: $$\Psi = \begin{pmatrix} \psi_{\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}} \\ \psi_{\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}} \\ \end{pmatrix} \ .$$ Solving the above Schrödinger equation, we determine the binding energy of the bound states and the mixing structure. We use $m_{\pi}$=137.2MeV, $m_{\Sigma_{c}}$=2453.5MeV, $m_{\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}}$=2518.1MeV, $m_{\bar{D}}$=1867.2MeV, $m_{\bar{D}^{\ast}}$=2008.6MeV for the hadron masses. For the coupling constant among one pion and the charmed mesons $g$ defined in Eq. (\[L int H\]), we use $\vert g \vert=0.60$ determined from the $D^\ast \to D \pi$ decay width [@Agashe:2014kda]. For the one-pion coupling of charmed baryons $g_1$ defined in Eq. (\[L int B\]), we take $g_1= 0.95$ as an example which is close to the value $0.94$ estimated in a quark model [@Liu:2011xc], and study the dependence by using $g_1 = 0.75$ and $1.95$. We also vary the value of the cutoff parameter $\Lambda$ for the form factor from $0.8$GeV to $2.5$GeV.
We first show $r$ dependences of two potentials $V_{\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}-\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}}(r)$ and $V_{\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}-\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}}(r)$ in Fig. \[fig:OPEP\] for several choices of the cutoff parameter $\Lambda$ with fixed value of $g_1=0.95$ as an example. We note that the shape of the potential for $\Sigma_c \bar{D}^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_c \bar{D}^{\ast}$ shown in Fig.\[fig:OPEP\](a) is different from the one shown in Ref.[@Chen:2015loa]. This may be since our regularization method following Ref.[@Yamaguchi:2014era] is different from the one adopted in Ref.[@Chen:2015loa] .
(a)\
![(color online) One-pion exchange potentials (a) $V_{\Sigma_c\bar{D}^{\ast}-\Sigma_c\bar{D}^{\ast}}$ and (b) $V_{\Sigma_c\bar{D}^{\ast}-\Sigma_c^{\ast}\bar{D}}$ for several choices of the cutoff parameter $\Lambda$ with fixed value of $g_1$=0.95. []{data-label="fig:OPEP"}](OPEP-Lambda-dependence.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
(b)\
![(color online) One-pion exchange potentials (a) $V_{\Sigma_c\bar{D}^{\ast}-\Sigma_c\bar{D}^{\ast}}$ and (b) $V_{\Sigma_c\bar{D}^{\ast}-\Sigma_c^{\ast}\bar{D}}$ for several choices of the cutoff parameter $\Lambda$ with fixed value of $g_1$=0.95. []{data-label="fig:OPEP"}](OPEP-Lambda-dependence2.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Next, we plot the resultant values of the binding energy against the cutoff parameter $\Lambda$ for fixed values of $g_1=0.75,0.95$ and $1.95$ in Fig. \[fig:c-barc\]. In this plot, we measure the binding energy from the $\Sigma_{c}^{\ast} \bar{D}$ threshold of $4385.3$MeV.
![(color online) Binding energy(B.E.) for $\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ molecular state measured from the $\Sigma_{c}^{\ast} \bar{D}$ threshold of $4385.3$MeV plotted against the cutoff $\Lambda$ for the form factor. The values of B.E. for the ground states are shown by solid curves and those for the first excited states are by dashed curves. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$, respectively. []{data-label="fig:c-barc"}](c-barc-BE.png){width="45.00000%"}
For studying the mixing structure of these bound states, we plot the percentage of the $\Sigma_c^\ast\bar{D}$ component of the wave function defined as $$R_{\Sigma_c^{\ast}\bar{D}}=
\frac{ \displaystyle \int d^3r \left \vert \psi_{\Sigma_c^\ast\bar{D}}\left(\vec{r}\right) \right\vert^2 }
{ \displaystyle \int d^3r \left[ \left \vert \psi_{\Sigma_c^\ast\bar{D}}\left(\vec{r}\right) \right\vert^2
+ \left \vert \psi_{\Sigma_c\bar{D}^\ast}\left(\vec{r}\right) \right\vert^2 \right] }
\label{eq:percentage}$$ in Fig. \[fig:c-barc-ratio\].
![(color online) Percentage of the $\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ component of the wave function for the ground state defined in Eq. (\[eq:percentage\]), plotted against the cutoff $\Lambda$. The values of the percentage for ground states are shown by solid curves and those for the first excited states are by dashed curves. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$, respectively. []{data-label="fig:c-barc-ratio"}](c-barc-Ratio.png){width="45.00000%"}
To see the size of the bound states, we show the mean square radius (MSR) for the bound states defined by $\sqrt{ \left\langle r^2 \right\rangle }$ , where $$\left\langle r^2 \right\rangle =
\frac
{ \displaystyle \int d^3r \, \vec{r}\, ^2 \left[ \left \vert \psi_{\Sigma_c^\ast\bar{D}}\left(\vec{r}\right) \right\vert^2
+ \left \vert \psi_{\Sigma_c\bar{D}^\ast}\left(\vec{r}\right) \right\vert^2 \right] }
{ \displaystyle \int d^3r \left[ \left \vert \psi_{\Sigma_c^\ast\bar{D}}\left(\vec{r}\right) \right\vert^2
+ \left \vert \psi_{\Sigma_c\bar{D}^\ast}\left(\vec{r}\right) \right\vert^2 \right] }$$ in Fig. \[fig:c-barc-MSR\].
![(color online) Mean square radius (MSR) for $\Sigma_c\bar{D}^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_c^{\ast}\bar{D}$ system, plotted against the cutoff $\Lambda$. The values of the percentage for ground states are shown by solid curves and those for the first excited states are by dashed curves. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$, respectively. []{data-label="fig:c-barc-MSR"}](c-barc-MSR.png){width="45.00000%"}
We also plot the $r$ dependence of the wave functions of the $\Sigma_c^\ast\bar{D}$ and $\Sigma_c\bar{D}^\ast$ component with the fixed values of $\Lambda=1600$MeV and $g_1=0.95$ in Fig. \[fig:wavefunction\].
![(color online) $r$ dependences of the squared wave functions for $\Sigma_c^\ast\bar{D}$ and $\Sigma_c\bar{D}^\ast$ components with fixed values of $\Lambda=1600$MeV and $g_1=0.95$. []{data-label="fig:wavefunction"}](wavefunction.png){width="45.00000%"}
From Figs. \[fig:c-barc\]-\[fig:c-barc-MSR\] together with Fig. \[fig:wavefunction\], we can see the following properties: There are bound states with the binding energy of several MeV dominantly (more than $99$%) made from $\Sigma_c^\ast\bar{D}$ with the size of about $1.5$fm in wide parameter range. Inside a bound state, the distance between the $\Sigma_c^\ast$ and $\bar{D}$ components is about $1$fm, which implies that it is naturally regarded as a molecule state. The binding energy and the MSR are rather stable against the change of $\Lambda$ in most regions, while the percentage slightly decreases with increasing $\Lambda$. When the value of $\Lambda$ is increased with a fixed value of $g_1$, three quantities of the ground state shown by solid curves suddenly change their values at a certain cutoff, e.g., at $\Lambda=2200$MeV for $g_1=0.95$, the binding energy jumps from $E\sim 1.5$MeV to $4$MeV. But the values before the jump are smoothly connected to those of the first excited states drawn by dashed curves. As a result, there are two bound states for the large values of the cutoff $\Lambda$ and/or the coupling $g_1$. We can understand these properties as follows: The binding energy and the size (MSR) are determined by the shape of the potential and the kinetic energy. When the cutoff $\Lambda$ is increased, the shape of the potential is changed, i.e., the depth becomes deep. On the other hand, the kinetic energy by the quantum fluctuation is stable since the reduced mass is unchanged. Therefore, when the $\Lambda$ reaches a certain value, the potential energy exceeds the value for which the first excited state can exist. Then, there is a jump of three quantities.
From the above analysis, we conclude that there are one or two bound states in the coupled channel of $\Sigma_c^\ast\bar{D}$ and $\Sigma_c\bar{D}^\ast$ with the binding energy of several MeV and the size of about $1.5$fm dominantly made from a $\Sigma_c^\ast$ baryon and a $\bar{D}$ meson. Since the sum of the masses of $\Sigma_c^\ast$ and $\bar{D}$ is $4385.3$MeV, and the observed mass of $P_{c}(4380)$ is $4380\pm 8 \pm 29 $MeV, then the obtained binding energy is just suitable for considering $P_{c}(4380)$ as a molecular state existing in the coupled channel of $\Sigma_{c}$$\bar{D}^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}$$\bar{D}$. Furthermore, for some parameter region, there exist two molecular states within a few MeV range.
Pentaquarks including a $b$ quark and/or a $\bar{b}$ quark {#sec:bottom}
==========================================================
In this section, we extend our analysis in the previous section to pentaquarks including a $b$ quark and/or a $\bar{b}$ quark. As in the case of the charmed baryons and mesons, we use the heavy-quark spin symmetry to relate the $B^\ast$$B$$\pi$ coupling to $B^\ast$$B^\ast$$\pi$ coupling as well as the $\Sigma_{b}^\ast$$\Sigma_b$$\pi$ coupling to the $\Sigma_b^\ast$$\Sigma_b^\ast$$\pi$ coupling. The heavy-quark flavor symmetry further relates these couplings to the ones for the charmed hadrons. Then, in the present analysis, we fix $|g_{B^\ast B \pi}| = |g_{B^\ast B^\ast \pi}| = |g_{D^\ast D \pi}| = |g_{D^\ast D^\ast \pi}| = 0.60$ and vary the value of $g_{\Sigma_{b}^\ast \Sigma_b \pi} = g_{\Sigma_b^\ast \Sigma_b^\ast \pi}$ from $0.75$ to $1.95$. As in the previous section, we introduce one common cutoff parameter $\Lambda$ for two form factors, and study the dependence of the results.
We first study the molecular state in the coupled channel of $\Sigma_{b}$$B^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}$$B$, using $m_{\Sigma_{b}}=5813.4$MeV, $m_{\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}}=5833.6$MeV, $m_{B}=5279.4$MeV, $m_{B^{\ast}}=5324.8$MeV. In Fig. \[fig:b-barb\], we show the binding energy measured from the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast} B$ threshold of $11113.0$MeV, together with the percentage of the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}B$ component and the mean square radius.
(a)\
![(color online) (a) Binding energy (B.E.) for the $\Sigma_{b}B^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}B$ molecular state measured from the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast} B$ threshold of $11113.0$MeV, (b) the percentage of the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}B$ component and (c) the mean square radius. The values for the ground states, first excited states and second excited states are shown by solid, dashed and dotted curves, respectively. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$. []{data-label="fig:b-barb"}](b-barb-BE.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
(b)\
![(color online) (a) Binding energy (B.E.) for the $\Sigma_{b}B^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}B$ molecular state measured from the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast} B$ threshold of $11113.0$MeV, (b) the percentage of the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}B$ component and (c) the mean square radius. The values for the ground states, first excited states and second excited states are shown by solid, dashed and dotted curves, respectively. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$. []{data-label="fig:b-barb"}](b-barb-Ratio.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
(c)\
![(color online) (a) Binding energy (B.E.) for the $\Sigma_{b}B^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}B$ molecular state measured from the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast} B$ threshold of $11113.0$MeV, (b) the percentage of the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}B$ component and (c) the mean square radius. The values for the ground states, first excited states and second excited states are shown by solid, dashed and dotted curves, respectively. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$. []{data-label="fig:b-barb"}](b-barb-MSR.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
This shows that the values of the binding energy are larger than those for the $\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ molecular state. The percentage of the $\Sigma_b^\ast B$ component is slightly smaller for some parameter range, but still more than 99% in most region. The value of the mean square radius takes about $1.5$-$1.7$fm, some of which are slightly larger than those for the $\Sigma_{c}\bar{D}^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ molecular state. Our results summarized in Fig. \[fig:b-barb\] indicate that there exists a hidden bottom pentaquark with mass of about $11080$-$11110$MeV and quantum number of $J^P = \frac{3}{2}^-$. Furthermore, similar to the case for $P_c(4380)$, there may exist two or three molecular states within a few $10$MeV range.
We next study the molecular states in the coupled channel of $\Sigma_{c}$$B^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}$$B$, and that of $\Sigma_{b}$$\bar{D}^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}$$\bar{D}$, which carry the pure exotic flavor quantum numbers. In Figs. \[fig:b-barc\] and \[fig:c-barb\], we show the resultant values of the binding energy, the mixing structure and the mean square radius.
(a)\
![(color online) (a) Binding energy (B.E.) for the $\Sigma_{b}\bar{D}^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ molecular state measured from the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast} \bar{D}$ threshold of $7701$MeV, (b) the percentage of the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ component, and (c) the mean square radius. The values for the ground states, first excited states, and second excited states are shown by solid, dashed, and dotted curves, respectively. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$. []{data-label="fig:b-barc"}](b-barc-BE.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
(b)\
![(color online) (a) Binding energy (B.E.) for the $\Sigma_{b}\bar{D}^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ molecular state measured from the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast} \bar{D}$ threshold of $7701$MeV, (b) the percentage of the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ component, and (c) the mean square radius. The values for the ground states, first excited states, and second excited states are shown by solid, dashed, and dotted curves, respectively. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$. []{data-label="fig:b-barc"}](b-barc-Ratio.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
(c)\
![(color online) (a) Binding energy (B.E.) for the $\Sigma_{b}\bar{D}^{\ast}$-$\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ molecular state measured from the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast} \bar{D}$ threshold of $7701$MeV, (b) the percentage of the $\Sigma_{b}^{\ast}\bar{D}$ component, and (c) the mean square radius. The values for the ground states, first excited states, and second excited states are shown by solid, dashed, and dotted curves, respectively. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$. []{data-label="fig:b-barc"}](b-barc-MSR.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
(a)\
![(color online) (a) Binding energy (B.E.) for the $(\Sigma_{c}B^{\ast}, \Sigma_{c}^{\ast}B)$ molecular state measured from the $\Sigma_{c} B^{\ast}$ threshold of $7778$MeV, (b) the percentage of the $\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}B$ component and (c) the mean square radius. The values for the ground states, first excited states, and second excited states are shown by solid, dashed, and dotted curves, respectively. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$. []{data-label="fig:c-barb"}](c-barb-BE.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
(b)\
![(color online) (a) Binding energy (B.E.) for the $(\Sigma_{c}B^{\ast}, \Sigma_{c}^{\ast}B)$ molecular state measured from the $\Sigma_{c} B^{\ast}$ threshold of $7778$MeV, (b) the percentage of the $\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}B$ component and (c) the mean square radius. The values for the ground states, first excited states, and second excited states are shown by solid, dashed, and dotted curves, respectively. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$. []{data-label="fig:c-barb"}](c-barb-Ratio.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
(c)\
![(color online) (a) Binding energy (B.E.) for the $(\Sigma_{c}B^{\ast}, \Sigma_{c}^{\ast}B)$ molecular state measured from the $\Sigma_{c} B^{\ast}$ threshold of $7778$MeV, (b) the percentage of the $\Sigma_{c}^{\ast}B$ component and (c) the mean square radius. The values for the ground states, first excited states, and second excited states are shown by solid, dashed, and dotted curves, respectively. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$. []{data-label="fig:c-barb"}](c-barb-MSR.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
These show that there exist molecular states several MeV below the thresholds, dominantly made from $\Sigma_b^\ast\bar{D}$ or $\Sigma_c^\ast B$, with the size of about $1.5$fm.
The results for the binding energy in Figs. \[fig:b-barb\]-\[fig:c-barb\] combined with those in Fig. \[fig:c-barc\] indicate that the binding energy is larger for the bound state including heavier components. However, the binding energy cannot keep growing with increasing reduced mass, since the depth of the potential is fixed by the values of the cutoff $\Lambda$ and the coupling $g_1$. Then, the binding energy is expected to be saturated to a certain value with increasing reduced mass. To check this, we show the dependence of the binding energy on the reduced mass with fixed values of the cutoff $\Lambda = 1600$MeV in Fig. \[fig:L=1600\]. This shows that the binding energy is actually saturated at a certain value of the reduced mass.
![(color online) Reduced mass dependence of binding energy (B.E.) with $\Lambda = 1600$MeV. The values of B.E. for the ground states, first excited states and second excited states are shown by solid, dashed and dotted curves. The red, blue and green curves are for $g_1 = 0.75$, $0.95$, and $1.95$, respectively. []{data-label="fig:L=1600"}](L=1600.png){width="45.00000%"}
A summary and discussions {#sec:Summary}
=========================
We investigated the coupled channel effect of $\Sigma_c^\ast$$\bar{D}$-$\Sigma_c$$\bar{D}^\ast$ to the molecular states. We constructed a one-pion exchange potential following the procedure explained in Ref. [@Yamaguchi:2014era], and solved the Schrödinger-type equation of motion. Our results showed that the binding energy of the ground state is about several MeV below the threshold of $\Sigma_c^\ast\bar{D}$, $4385.3$MeV, in wide range of the cutoff $\Lambda$ for the form factor and the unknown coupling constant of $\Sigma_c^\ast$$\Sigma_c$$\pi$. Furthermore, for some parameter region, there exist two molecular states within a few MeV range. This value is quite similar to the one in Ref. [@He:2015cea], where the attractive force in a single $\Sigma_c^{\ast} \bar{D}$ channel is obtained by the $\sigma$ exchange. We would like to stress that, although the one-pion exchange does not provide attractive force in a single $\Sigma_c^{\ast} \bar{D}$ channel, coupled channel effect of $\Sigma_c^{\ast} \bar{D}$ and $\Sigma_c \bar{D}^{\ast}$ makes $\Sigma_c^{\ast}\bar{D}$ bound. We also note the value of the binding energy obtained here is smaller compared with the one in a single $\Sigma_c \bar{D}^{\ast}$ channel obtained in Ref. [@Chen:2015loa]. This may originate from the difference between our regularization of the potential following Ref. [@Yamaguchi:2014era] and the one in Ref. [@Chen:2015loa]. We also studied the size and the mixing structure of the molecular states. We found that the size of the molecule is about $1.5$fm and the percentage of the $\Sigma_c^\ast$$\bar{D}$ component is more than 99%. These results indicate that the observed $P_c(4380)$ can be reasonably understood as a loosely bound molecular state dominantly made from the $\Sigma_c^\ast$ baryon and the $\bar{D}$ meson. We would like to stress that the $\Sigma_c^\ast$ baryon and the $\bar{D}$ meson can form a molecular state mediated by one-pion exchange because the coupled channel effects are included.
We further extended our analysis to the pentaquarks including a $b$ quark and/or an anti-$b$ quark. Our results showed that there exists a loosely bound molecular state dominantly made from one of the ($\Sigma_c^\ast$, $\Sigma_b^\ast$) baryons and one of the ($\bar{D}$, $B$) mesons, and that the size is always about $1.5$fm. We expect that the existence of these pentaquarks will be tested in future experiments.
In the present analysis, we focus on the $S$-wave bound states, and we do not include the effects of the tensor force by the one-pion exchange. We expect that inclusion of the tensor force by considering the mixing to the $D$-wave states makes the binding energy larger. In addition, inclusion of other channels may modify the properties of the bound states.
The present analysis can be extended to the $P$-wave and $F$-wave state of the $\Sigma_c^*\bar{D}$-$\Sigma_c\bar{D}^*$ channel which can be expected to give some explanations of the recently observed $P_c(4450)$. In this case, $P_c(4450)$ can be regarded as the Feshbach resonance state since the mass of $P_c(4450)$ is greater than the value of the $\Sigma_c^*\bar{D}$ threshold and smaller than that of the $\Sigma_c\bar{D}^*$ threshold.
It will be also very interesting to study the decays of the molecular states obtained in this analysis. One possible way is to apply the complex scaling method adopted in, e.g., Ref.[@Aoyama:2006CSM].
We leave the above analyses for future publications.
The authors would like to thank Shigehiro Yasui for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) No. 24540266 and No. 16K05345.
[99]{}
R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 072001 (2015). R. Chen, X. Liu, X. Q. Li and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 132002 (2015). J. He, Phys. Lett. B [**753**]{}, 547 (2016). H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 172001 (2015). M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 122001 (2015). H. Huang, C. Deng, J. Ping, and F. Wang, arXiv:1510.04648 \[hep-ph\]. L. Roca, J. Nieves and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 094003 (2015). A. Mironov and A. Morozov, JETP Lett. [**102**]{}, 271 (2015). U. G. Meißner and J. A. Oller, Phys. Lett. B [**751**]{}, 59 (2015). C. W. Xiao and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{},114002 (2015). T. J. Burns, Eur. Phys. J. A [**51**]{}, 152 (2015). G. J. Wang, L. Ma, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 034031 (2016). D. E. Kahana and S. H. Kahana, arXiv:1512.01902 \[hep-ph\]. R. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, arXiv:1601.03233 \[hep-ph\]. H. X. Chen, E. L. Cui, W. Chen, T. G. Steele, X. Liu, and S. L. Zhu, arXiv:1602.02433 \[hep-ph\]. Q. F. Lü and Y. B. Dong, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 074020 (2016). F. K. Guo, U. G. Meißner, W. Wang, and Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 071502 (2015). X. H. Liu, Q. Wang, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B [**757**]{}, 231 (2016). M. Mikhasenko, arXiv:1507.06552 \[hep-ph\]. X. H. Liu and M. Oka, arXiv:1602.07069 \[hep-ph\]. L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa, and V. Riquer, Phys. Lett. B [**749**]{}, 289 (2015). R. F. Lebed, Phys. Lett. B [**749**]{}, 454 (2015). V. V. Anisovich, M. A. Matveev, J. Nyiri, A. V. Sarantsev, and A. N. Semenova, arXiv:1507.07652 \[hep-ph\]. G. N. Li, X. G. He, and M. He, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2015) 128. R. Ghosh, A. Bhattacharya, and B. Chakrabarti, arXiv:1508.00356 \[hep-ph\]. Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, 70 (2016). Z. G. Wang and T. Huang, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, 43 (2016). L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa, and V. Riquer, Phys. Lett. B [**750**]{}, 37 (2015). V. V. Anisovich, M. A. Matveev, J. Nyiri, A. V. Sarantsev, and A. N. Semenova, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**30**]{}, 1550190 (2015). Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, no. 3, 142 (2016). R. Zhu and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Lett. B [**756**]{}, 259 (2016). Z. G. Wang, arXiv:1512.04763 \[hep-ph\]. Q. Wang, X. H. Liu, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 034022 (2015). V. Kubarovsky and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 031502 (2015). N. N. Scoccola, D. O. Riska, and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 051501 (2015). Y. K. Hsiao and C. Q. Geng, Phys. Lett. B [**751**]{}, 572 (2015). M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. B [**752**]{}, 329 (2016). R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], Chin. Phys. C [**40**]{}, no. 1, 011001 (2016). V. V. Anisovich, M. A. Matveev, A. V. Sarantsev, and A. N. Semenova, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**30**]{}, 38, 1550212 (2015). S. Stone, PoS EPS-HEP2015 (2015) 434. H. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 096009 (2015). Q. F. Lu, X. Y. Wang, J. J. Xie, X. R. Chen, and Y. B. Dong, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 034009 (2016). G. Yang and J. Ping, arXiv:1511.09053 \[hep-ph\]. E. Wang, H. X. Chen, L. S. Geng, D. M. Li, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 094001 (2016). S. M. Gerasyuta and V. I. Kochkin, arXiv:1512.04040 \[hep-ph\]. I. Schmidt and M. Siddikov, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 094005 (2016). L. Roca and E. Oset, arXiv:1602.06791 \[hep-ph\]. J. J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 232001 (2010). J. J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C [**84**]{}, 015202 (2011). W. L. Wang, F. Huang, Z. Y. Zhang, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C [**84**]{}, 015203 (2011). Z. C. Yang, Z. F. Sun, J. He, X. Liu, and S. L. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C [**36**]{}, 6 (2012). J. J. Wu, T.-S. H. Lee, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C [**85**]{}, 044002 (2012). C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 056012 (2013). H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S. L. Zhu, arXiv:1601.02092 \[hep-ph\]. Y. Yamaguchi, S. Ohkoda, A. Hosaka, T. Hyodo, and S. Yasui, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 034034 (2015). M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 2188 (1992). T. M. Yan, H. Y. Cheng, C. Y. Cheung, G. L. Lin, Y. C. Lin, and H. L. Yu, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 1148 (1992) \[Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 5851 (1997)\]. P. L. Cho, Phys. Lett. B [**285**]{}, 145 (1992). Y. R. Liu and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 014015 (2012). K. A. Olive [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Chin. Phys. C [**38**]{}, 090001 (2014). See, for example, S. Aoyama, T. Myo, K. Kato, and K. Ikeda, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**116**]{}, 1 (2006), and references therein.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A special type of Hamamatsu MPPC, with a sensitive area of 1.3$\times$1.3 mm$^2$ containing 667 pixels with 50$\times$50 $\mu$m$^2$ each, has been developed for the near neutrino detector in the T2K long baseline neutrino experiment. About 60 000 MPPCs will be used in total to read out the plastic scintillator detectors with wavelength shifting fibers. We report on the basic performance of MPPCs produced for T2K.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 606-8502, Japan'
- 'IPNS, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan'
- 'Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow 117312, Russia'
- 'TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 2A3, Canada'
- 'Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom'
author:
- 'M. Yokoyama'
- 'T. Nakaya'
- 'S. Gomi'
- 'A. Minamino'
- 'N. Nagai'
- 'K. Nitta'
- 'D. Orme'
- 'M. Otani'
- 'T. Murakami'
- 'T. Nakadaira'
- 'M. Tanaka'
- 'Yu. Kudenko'
- 'F. Retiere'
- 'A. Vacheret'
title: Application of Hamamatsu MPPC to T2K Neutrino Detectors
---
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Neutrino detector, Giger-mode APD, MPPC
Introduction
============
T2K (Tokai-to-Kamioka) [@T2K] is a long baseline neutrino oscillation experiment in Japan, using an intense beam from J-PARC accelerator at Tokai and the massive Super-Kamiokande detector 295 km away. The main goals of T2K are a sensitive search for the $\nu_e$ appearance from $\nu_\mu$, which is related to the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$, and precise measurements of ‘atmospheric’ oscillation parameters. In order to achieve the aimed precision, good understanding of the beam properties and $\nu$-nucleus interaction are indispensable. The ‘near detector’ (ND) complex will be placed in Tokai to provide this information.
The T2K-ND [@T2K-ND280] consists of several sub-detectors with specific and complimentary functions. As the basic elements for particle detection, most of detectors will use the plastic scintillator read out by wavelength shifting (WLS) fibers. This is a widely used technique, especially in recent accelerator neutrino experiments [@sci-wls]. In those experiments, multi-anode PMTs (MAPMTs) have been used as the photosensor. For T2K, MAPMT is not a good candidate because some of detectors have to operate inside a magnetic field of 0.2 T and cope with a limited space available.
The following are major requirements for photosensors in T2K:
- More or equal photon detection efficiency than that of a MAPMT.
- Compact to fit the limited space inside the magnet.
- Operational in a magnetic field.
- Good stability and low cost for a large number of readout channels (60 000).
We decided to use the Multi-Pixel Photon Counter (MPPC) [@MPPC; @MPPC2] in August 2005. Since then, we continued the development collaborating with Hamamatsu and KEK Detector Technology Project. In this paper, we report on the performance of the MPPC developed for T2K.
MPPC for T2K
============
Spec.
----------------------- ------------------------- ---------------
1.3$\times$1.3 mm$^2$
50$\times$50 $\mu$m$^2$
667
70 V (typ.)
$>$15%
Dark count ($>$0.5 pe) $<$1.35 Mcps
$[$ @ 25$^\circ$C $]$ ($>$1.2 pe) $<$0.135 Mcps
: Specifications of T2K-MPPC(S10362-13-050C).
\[tab:spec\]
![MPPC developed for T2K.[]{data-label="fig:MPPC"}](T2K-MPPC.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The major specifications of the MPPC for the T2K-ND is summarized in Table \[tab:spec\]. Based on the past experience, we use the 1.0 mm diameter Kuraray Y11(200)MS WLS fiber. We enlarged the sensitive area of the MPPC from 1$\times$1 mm$^2$ of those on catalogue to 1.3$\times$1.3 mm$^2$ so that we can minimize the light loss at the optical contact with a simple coupler. The size of APD pixel is 50$\times$50 $\mu$m. In order to make the MPPC fit inside the package, one of the bonding pad needs to be located at the corner of otherwise sensitive area (Fig. \[fig:MPPC\]). The number of APD pixels is 667. Thanks to the pulsed beam timing, large light yield, and coincidence usable to select a particle trajectory, our requirement on the dark noise rate is not very demanding and about 1 Mcps at 0.5 p.e. threshold is acceptable.
Performance of T2K-MPPC
=======================
The delivery of mass production MPPC for T2K was started in February 2008. By the middle of June 2008, more than 30 000 MPPCs were received by the T2K group. Among them, about 8000 MPPCs have been measured by the test facility at Kyoto University [@mass-test]. The measured performance of 5820 MPPCs are presented here. While we characterize all MPPCs at 15, 20 and 25 $^\circ$C, only results with 25 $^\circ$C are shown here. More information on the measurement setup and procedure are given in [@mass-test].
Gain and breakdown voltage
--------------------------
![Breakdown voltage.[]{data-label="fig:vbd"}](vbd_25deg.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The breakdown voltage $V_\mathrm{BD}$, the applied voltage above which the APD operates in the Geiger mode, can be measured from the gain-voltage relation. The distribution of $V_\mathrm{BD}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:vbd\]. Note that we selected MPPCs with similar $V_\mathrm{BD}$ here, based on Hamamatsu data sheet, to minimize the necessary range of the bias voltage variation during a measurement. We plan to use MPPCs with similar $V_\mathrm{BD}$ in one subsystem. The full width of $V_\mathrm{BD}$ for all MPPCs produced so far is about 3 V, well within the voltage range adjustable by our electronics [@T2K-elec].
![Gain slope.[]{data-label="fig:cap"}](cap_25deg.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:cap\] shows the distribution of measured gain ($M$) slope against the applied voltage (V) for 5820 MPPCs. The overvoltage $\Delta V$ is defined as the difference between the applied voltage and the breakdown voltage, $\Delta V \equiv V-V_\mathrm{BD}$. The typical gain of MPPC is measured to be about 5$\times10^5$ at $\Delta V=1.0V$. The RMS of the distribution is 4.5%, showing excellent device uniformity.
Dark noise rate
---------------
![Dark noise rate.[]{data-label="fig:dark"}](noise_25deg_ov15.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The measured dark noise rate at a threshold of 0.5 p.e. is shown in Fig. \[fig:dark\]. It is found that the dark noise rate has relatively large device dependence. Note that the dark noise rate is used to select MPPCs before shipping from Hamamatsu.
Photon detection efficiency
---------------------------
![PDE.[]{data-label="fig:pde"}](pde_25deg_ov15.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The photon detection efficiency (PDE) is measured using a PMT (R1818) as a reference. A plastic optical coupler [@Gomi] is used for the connection of WLS fiber and MPPC. The effective PDE, including the effect of the optical coupling, is measured and shown in Fig. \[fig:pde\]. The tail at the larger PDE value is presumably due to the systematics in the light yield measurement for the reference PMT and being checked. The average PDE is about 2.5 times that of PMT at $\Delta$V=1.5 V.
Cross-talk and afterpulse rate
------------------------------
![Cross-talk and afterpulse rate.[]{data-label="fig:xtalk"}](xtalkap_25deg_ov15.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The cross-talk and afterpulse rates are measured together from the ADC distribution [@mass-test]. A detailed study of these effects in MPPC is also given in [@Fabrice]. Figure \[fig:xtalk\] shows the measured values for 5820 MPPCs. The average cross-talk and afterpulse rate is 20% with $\Delta$V=1.5 V. The performance is sufficient for our use, although suppression of cross-talk and afterpulse are desired for some other applications.
Light yield
-----------
We have measured the light yield with real plastic scintillators to be used in T2K. Extruded scintillators made at Fermilab, with dimensions 5$\times$120$\times$1 cm$^3$, were exposed to a 3 GeV electron beam at KEK. A WLS fiber is inserted into the hole at the center of the bar. No optical grease nor cement was used between the scintillator, fiber, and MPPC. A plastic coupler [@Gomi] is used to connect MPPC and WLS fiber. At the center of the bar, the average light yield was about 15 p.e.
The scintillator slabs made in Russia was also measured. A WLS fiber is embedded in a ‘S’-shaped groove on the surface of 167$\times$870$\times$7 mm$^3$ scintillator. Summing signals from both ends of WLS fiber, 36$\pm$3 p.e. was obtained for a cosmic ray muon passing through the center of scintillator.
Conclusion
==========
New type of MPPCs have been developed for the T2K experiment. The T2K-MPPC is designed to have 1.3$\times$1.3 mm$^2$ sensitive area in order to minimize the light loss when coupled to a WLS fiber of 1.0 mm diameter. The size of pixel is 50$\times$50 $\mu$m$^2$ and the number of pixels is 667.
In T2K, about 60 000 MPPCs will be used in total. The mass production has started in February 2008. The gain, breakdown voltage, noise rate, photon detection efficiency, and cross-talk and afterpulse rate of T2K-MPPCs are measured for each device. The device uniformity is found to be excellent based on the measurement of 5820 MPPCs. All of MPPCs satisfy our requirements. We have established techniques necessary for a large scale application of MPPC to the WLS readout.
The T2K experiment is planed to start in 2009. It will be the first experiment to use MPPCs in a large scale.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors are grateful to the solid state division of Hamamatsu Photonics for providing us test samples during the development. The development of MPPC is supported by KEK detector technology project.
[99]{} Y. Itow et al., “The JHF-Kamioka neutrino project,” hep-ex/0106019.
Yu. Kudenko, arXiv:0805.0411. A. Pla-Dalmau, Frascati Phys. Ser. [**21**]{}, 513 (2001); K. Nitta et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**535**]{}, 147 (2004); D. Drakoulakos et al., arXiv:hep-ex/0405002; A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al., arXiv:hep-ex/0601022; T. Adam et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**577**]{}, 523 (2007). Hamamatsu Photonics K. K., \[Online\]: http://www.hamamatsu.com .
M. Yokoyama et al., arXiv:physics/0605241; S. Gomi et al., PoS [**PD07**]{}, 015 (2007).
M. Yokoyama et al., in these proceedings.
A. Vacheret, M. Noy, M. Raymond and A. Weber, PoS [**PD07**]{}, 027 (2007); F. Retiere, PoS [**PD07**]{}, 017 (2007).
H. Kawamuko, T. Nakaya, K. Nitta and M. Yokoyama, PoS [**PD07**]{}, 043 (2007).
F. Retiere et al., in these proceedings.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Progress in understanding of giant planet formation has been hampered by a lack of observational constraints to growing protoplanets. Recently, detection of an H$\alpha$-emission excess via direct imaging was reported for the protoplanet LkCa 15b orbiting the pre-main-sequence star LkCa 15. However, the physical mechanism for the H$\alpha$ emission is poorly understood. According to recent high-resolution three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of the flow accreting onto protoplanets, the disk gas flows down almost vertically onto and collides with the surface of a circum-planetary disk at a super-sonic velocity and thus passes through a strong shockwave. The shock-heated gas is hot enough to generate H$\alpha$ emission. Here we develop a one-dimensional radiative hydrodynamic model of the flow after the shock by detailed calculations of chemical reactions and electron transitions in hydrogen atoms, and quantify the hydrogen line emission in the Lyman-, Balmer-, and Paschen-series from the accreting gas giant system. We then demonstrate that the H$\alpha$ intensity is strong enough to be detected with current observational technique. Comparing our theoretical H$\alpha$ intensity with the observed one from LkCa 15b, we constrain the protoplanet mass and the disk gas density. Observation of hydrogen line emission from protoplanets is highly encouraged to obtain direct constraints of accreting gas giants, which will be key in understanding the formation of gas giants.'
author:
- Yuhiko Aoyama
- Masahiro Ikoma
- Takayuki Tanigawa
bibliography:
- './list.bib'
title: Theoretical Model of Hydrogen Line Emission from Accreting Gas Giants
---
Introduction
============
The origins of the solar system and diverse extrasolar systems have yet to be revealed. In particular, the formation of gas giants would be a high-priority issue, because gas giants are so massive that they have had a dynamical influence on whole planetary systems. Planets are formed in circum-stellar gas disks (or protoplanetary disks) [e.g. @Hayashi1981]. A widespread idea, which is called the core accretion model, is that once a core grows to a critical mass via solid accretion, runaway gas accretion of the disk gas takes place and results in forming a massive envelope [e.g. @Mizuno1980; @Pollack+1996; @Ikoma+2000]. It is, however, still uncertain how and when they form.
Progress in understanding of gas giant formation is hampered by a lack of direct observational constraints to growing protoplanets. The typical formation timescale of gas giants, which is constrained from the observationally inferred lifetime of protoplanetary disks, is at most 10 Myr [e.g. @Hernandez+2008]. Although an increasing number of young exoplanets have been recently detected [e.g., CI Tau b @Johns-Krull+2016], most of gas giants detected so far are several billion years old (e.g., see exoplanet.eu), Those aged gas giants hardly have memory of their formation processes [e.g. @Marley+2007].
A challenging issue would be to detect accreting gas giants. Recent observations have detected infra-red (IR) excess from the three young stars, LkCa15 , HD169142 [@Biller+2014; @Reggiani+2014], and HD100546 [@Quanz+2015]. Those observed excess is interpreted as infra-red (IR) emission from accreting gas giants [@Zhu2015]. Hydrodynamic simulations of gas accretion onto protoplanets show that accreting gas giants are surrounded by circum-planetary disks (CPDs hereafter) [e.g. @Miki1982; @Tanigawa+2002]. Then, the CPD gas falls toward the gas giant, losing its angular momentum through spiral shock waves and turbulent dissipation. Since the angular momentum loss leads to conversion from gravitational energy to thermal energy, the CPD gas is warmer than the original circum-stellar disk gas. According to theoretical modelling, CPDs are warm and geometrically large enough to generate detectable IR emission [@Zhu2015].
Among those stars, in additional to IR, an excess of hydrogen Balmer-$\alpha$ line (H$\alpha$) emission was detected in the circum-stellar disk of the young star LkCa15 of age 2 Myr [@Sallum+2015]. In the case of protostars, it is well known that accretion shock near protostars brings about hydrogen line emission . Likewise, the H$\alpha$ excess detected for LkCa15 is expected to arise from a shock-heated, accreting gas giant.
Theoretical models of stellar accretion developed so far, however, cannot be applied directly to planetary accretion. In general, H$\alpha$ line emission occurs from hot hydrogen of tens of thousands kelvin, which is thought to be reached by accretion-shock heating. In the case of stellar accretion, the strong magnetic field is thought to make a gap between the star and the circum-stellar disk. Then, the accreting gas falls from the disk edge to the stellar surface, resulting in strong shocks . The amount of energy generated by the accretion flow (i.e., released gravitational energy) depends on the flow structure. The flow structure around planets is markedly different from that around stars, basically because planets are rotating around central stars. Thus, it is necessary to develop a new model in order to explore whether accreting gas giants yield strong, observable H$\alpha$ emission.
Recent high-resolution three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of accretion flow onto protoplanets revealed that the flow enters the Roche lobe (or the Hill sphere) not through the Lagrange points in the midplane but from high altitudes [@Tanigawa+2012]. Then, the vertically accreting flow hits the surface of the CPD. Because the flow velocity is nearly free-fall velocity, which is much higher than the local sound speed, strong shock occurs at the CPD surface. In the extreme case of strong shock, the gas temperature reaches tens of thousands kelvin just behind the shock front, as shown later in this paper. In such high temperature regions, hydrogen line emission occurs. From their 3D radiative hydrodynamical simulations, @Marleau+2017 and pointed out the presence of hot regions around accreting gas giants that could be the source of the observed H$\alpha$ line emission. However, they never quantified hydrogen line emission from those hot regions, because those regions, which are much thinner than the CPD thickness, hardly affect the CPD structure.
Radiative continuum emission from shock-heated gas was investigated so far for some other astronomical objects and events, which include white dwarf accretion [@Frank+1983], protostar accretion [@Calvet+Gullbring1998; @Lamzin1998], the interstellar medium [@HM79; @HM89; @MacLow+Shull1986; @Shapiro+Kang1987], and chondrule formation in protoplanetary disks [@Iida+2001]. However, there is no detailed research focusing on hydrogen line emission from highly shock-heated gas, which is of interest in this study. In the case of protostellar accretion, @Calvet+Gullbring1998 investigated the shock heating and atomic line emission at the protostellar photosphere. They, however, assumed weak shock (or C-type shock), because of the magnetic effect, in contrast to strong shock which occurs in our problem. @Lamzin1998 also investigated the recombination lines emitted from the ionized atoms, which came not directly from the postshock gas but from the heated photosphere. In the case of the interstellar shock, although @HM79 investigated the hydrogen line emission, their estimation was simply based on optical depth and the escape probability approximation. Namely, they neglected the absorptive excitation and underestimated the excitation degree in optically thin regions. While hydrogen level population certainly has little influence on the total luminosity from and cooling in the postshock regions, considering it is essential for estimation of each line luminosity. Hence, in order to interpret the H$\alpha$ observation, one must consider transitions between energy levels in hydrogen in more detail.
The purpose of this study is to quantify the hydrogen line emission at the surface of the CPD around an accreting gas giant. To that end, we investigate the hydrodynamic, thermochemical, and radiative properties of the vertically accreting flow after the passage of the shock front by performing 1D hydrodynamic simulations with detailed calculations of hydrogen level population. The details of the theoretical model and numerical method are presented in section \[TM\]. Then, we show results of numerical simulations in section \[R\], where we estimate the intensities of hydrogen line emission in the Lyman-, Balmer-, and Paschen-series. In section \[D\], we demonstrate that we can obtain constraints to the mass of the accreting gas giant and the density of the surrounding disk gas from observed H$\alpha$ emission, by comparing between the theoretically estimated and measured H$\alpha$ luminosity for LkCa15 as an example. We also discuss the validity of our assumptions and future studies. Finally, we summarize and conclude this study in section \[CS\].
Theoretical Model {#TM}
=================
As described in Introduction, based on recent 3D simulations [e.g., @Tanigawa+2012], we consider the situation in which the gas from the circum-stellar disk (CSD) flows almost vertically onto the circum-planetary disk (CPD) nearly at the free-fall velocity (see Fig. \[fig:schematic\] for a schematic illustration). This type of flow is achieved when planet mass is large enough for the accreting gas to form a circum-planetary disk [@Tanigawa+2002]. Since the free-fall velocity is higher than the local sound velocity, shockwave is formed at the CPD surface. When passing through the CPD surface (i.e., the shock front), the gas is heated up to tens of thousands of kelvins, which is high enough to dissociate hydrogen molecules and ionize hydrogen atoms, producing free electrons. Then, the electrons collide with and excite hydrogens. After that, de-excitation of the excited hydrogen results in line emission and cooling.
Thus, to calculate the intensities of hydrogen line emission from the CPD surface, we simulate chemical reactions, excitation/de-excitation of hydrogen atoms, and radiative cooling simultaneously with simulating hydrodynamics of the postshock gas. Here we describe our theoretical model that simulates the hydrodynamic and thermal properties of the postshock gas. All the physical processes and associated references are summarized in Table \[tab:processes\].
[l l ]{} Physical Process & Reference\
1D hydrodynamics & @Shapiro+Kang1987\
Chemical reaction & @Iida+2001\
Radiative transfer & @Chandrasekhar1960\
\
Collisional transition & @Vriens+Smeets1980\
Spontaneous de-excitation & @Vriens+Smeets1980\
Spontaneous recombination & @Johnson1972\
Photon induced transition & @Castor2004\
Photon absorptive ionization & @Shu1991\
\
Hydrogen molecule dissociation & @Blanksby+Ellison2003\
Hydrogen atomic transition & @Vriens+Smeets1980\
Molecular lines & @Iida+2001\
\[tab:processes\]
Key Assumptions
---------------
We assume the shock heating as transient. Namely, the shockwave is jump type and regarded as an infinitely thin adiabatic layer, which is called a shock front. This approximation is valid, because the Mach number of the flow of interest is much larger than unity at the shock front ($\gtrsim$ 30). Also, the magnetic effect, which tends to reduce shock heating, can be ignored, because the preshock gas is too cold to ionize in gas giant forming regions which are usually far from host stars [e.g., @Ikoma+2000]. Thus, in this study, without observing the interior of the shock front, we investigate the hydrodynamical and thermochemical properties of the flow only after the passage of the shock front.
We consider one-dimensional, plane parallel, hydrodynamically steady flow (see the inset of Fig. \[fig:schematic\]). This is valid because the thickness of the postshock region is much smaller than the CPD thickness. Note that the shock front is located a few scale-heights far from the CPD midplane, and thus the postshock flow is never affected by the CPD. We follow the temporal change in properties of the gas flow with its motion, using the Lagrangian coordinates, and define the shock front as the origin.
We assume that the gas is ideal and composed of the four elements H, He, C, and O and electrons. The ideal approximation is valid because the temperature and density of the gas are sufficiently high and low, respectively. We take the relative abundances of those four elements from @Allen3rd, namely $\rm H:He:C:O$ = $1:8.5\times 10^{-2}:3.3\times 10^{-4}:6.6\times 10^{-4}$. We solve 160 chemical reactions that involve 33 gas species (see § \[TCR\]) and 10 principal quantum numbers of hydrogen (see § \[TET\] and § \[THI\]), in addition to the ionized state. Inclusion of other elements such as N and S has little influence on the line emission intensities, because those are much less abundant than H and the regions where molecular cooling occurs are of little interest in this study, as shown later. We consider the radiative transfer only of hydrogen lines and CO, OH, and H$_2$O molecular lines. Also, we assume that the electrons are the same in temperature as other gases, namely neglect the acceleration by electric and magnetic fields.
Finally, we neglect the presence of dust grains in the flow. This is a reasonable assumption, because the gas falling onto the inner CPD comes from high altitudes. It is thought that dust grains have already settled down gravitationally and exit in thin layers near the CSD mid-plane in planet formation stages. Thus, the high altitude gas hardly contains dust grains [@Goldreich+Ward1973]. In addition, if any, small dust grains coupled with gas are quickly sublimated in the postshock gas because of high temperature ($\gg 10^4$K). Although recondensation of silicate may occur when gas becomes cool enough, hydrogen line emission occurs at temperatures higher than the condensation temperature, which means such dust cooling is of little interest in this study.
Hydrodynamics
-------------
### Jump condition across the shock front
In the case of jump-type shock, mass, momentum, and energy are conserved across the shock front. The relationship between the gas properties on both sides of the shock front is described, respectively, as follows [@Landau+Lifshitz1959]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mascon}
\rho_1 v_1 &=& \rho_0 v_0, \\
\label{eq:momcon}
\rho_1 v_1^2 + p_1 &=& \rho_0 v_0^2 +p_0, \\
\label{eq:enecon}
v_1\left(\frac{\rho_1 v_1^2}{2}+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p_1 \right)&=&v_0\left(\frac{\rho_0 v_0^2}{2}+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p_0 \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $v_0$ $(v_1)$ is the preshock (postshock) velocity in the frame of the shock front, $\rho_0$ $(\rho_1)$ and $p_0$ $(p_1)$ are the density and pressure of the preshock (postshock) gas, respectively, and $\gamma$ is the specific heat ratio. Under the assumption of transient shock heating, all the abundances of chemical species and all the electron levels remain unchanged across the shock front. Hence the specific heat ratio is assumed to be constant ($\gamma$ = 1.42, since we assume that hydrogen is in its molecular form and the others are in their atomic forms at the shock front). The postshock temperature, $T_1$, is given by the ideal equation of state as $$\label{eq:EOS}
T_1=\frac{\mu \, p_1}{ k_\mathrm{B}\rho_1},$$ where $k_\mathrm{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant and $\mu$ is the mean mass of the gas per particle. From the assumed molecular abundances, $\mu$ = $3.84\times 10^{-27}$ kg at the shock front. In this paper, we have performed numerical simulations in the ranges of $20~\mathrm{km/s} \leq v_0 \leq 100~\mathrm{km/s}$ and $10^{15} ~\mathrm{m^{-3}} \leq n_{\mathrm{H},0} \leq ~\mathrm{10^{20}\mathrm{m^{-3}}}$, where $n_{\mathrm{H},0}$ is the proton number density just before the shock. (Note that gas density becomes higher by a factor of $\sim$ 5 and $\sim$ 100, respectively, just after the shock and where hydrogen line emission occurs.) Then, the gas temperature just after the shock, $T_1$, is up to $\sim 4\times 10^{5}$ K.
### Postshock gas flow
In the postshock region, mass and momentum are likewise conserved, but the adiabatic approximation (Eq. \[\[eq:enecon\]\]) is invalid. The postshock gas flow is described by the following three equations. $$\begin{aligned}
\rho v &=& \rho_1v_1,
\label{eq:massflow} \\
\rho v^2+p&=&\mathrm{A_1}\rho_1v_1^2,
\label{eq:momflow} \\
\frac{dE}{dt}&=&\left(\Gamma - \Lambda \right)+\left[ \frac{p+E}{\rho} \frac{d\rho}{dt}\right],
\label{eq:eneflow} \end{aligned}$$ where $p$, $\rho$, and $v$ are the pressure, gas density, and fluid velocity in the frame of the shock front, respectively, $$A_1 \equiv 1+ \frac{p_1 }{ \rho_1 v_1^2},$$ $E$ is the internal thermal energy per unit volume, and $\Gamma$ and $\Lambda$ are the heating and cooling rates per unit volume, respectively. The expressions of $\Gamma$ and $\Lambda$ are given in section \[CHR\]. We integrate equations (\[eq:massflow\])-(\[eq:eneflow\]) numerically, following @Shapiro+Kang1987.
Cooling and Heating Processes {#CHR}
-----------------------------
### Exothermic and endothermic chemical reactions
Regarding the energy budget relevant to molecular chemical reactions, we consider only collisional dissociation and recombination of the major molecule ${\mathrm{H}}_2$ among the simulated reactions (see section \[TCR\]). The corresponding rate of net energy change $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:h2d}
(\Lambda - \Gamma)_{{\mathrm{H}}_2} &=&-E_{{\mathrm{H}}_2} \frac{dn_{{\mathrm{H}}_2}}{dt} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{{\mathrm{H}}_2}$ is the binding energy of an ${\mathrm{H}}_2$ molecule [$=435.998~\mathrm{kJ}$; @Blanksby+Ellison2003] and $n_\mathrm{H_2}$ is the number density of H$_2$ molecules. In Eq. (\[eq:h2d\]), we have neglected the energy of rotation and vibration of H$_2$ molecules. The shock heating is strong enough to dissociate H$_2$ molecules completely. Also, the recombined H$_2$ is of little interest in this study. Hence, neglecting the rotational and vibrational energies barely affects our conclusion.
### Radiative cooling by molecules
We take into account some major processes of radiative cooling by molecules, which include vibration of CO and rotation of $\mathrm{H_2O}$ and OH. The cooling rate due to CO vibrational emission is given as [@Iida+2001] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:coc}
\Lambda_\mathrm{CO} &=&
n_\mathrm{CO}
\left[
\frac{1}
{{\displaystyle}\left( \xi^{\mathrm{H}}_\mathrm{CO} n_{\mathrm{H}}+\xi^\mathrm{H_2}_\mathrm{CO} n_\mathrm{H_2} \right) E_\mathrm{CO}}
+ \frac{1}{{\displaystyle}L_\mathrm{LTE}}
\right]^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_\mathrm{CO}$ and $n_\mathrm{H}$ are the number densities of CO molecules and isolated hydrogen atoms, respectively, $E_\mathrm{CO}$ is the CO vibrational transition energy [$\tilde{E}_\mathrm{CO} \equiv E_\mathrm{CO} / k_{\mathrm{B}}=3080\mathrm{K}$; @Millikan+White1963], and $\xi^{\mathrm{H}}_\mathrm{CO}$ and $\xi^\mathrm{H_2}_\mathrm{CO}$ are the transition rates from the ground level to the first excited level $(v=1)$ by collision with H atoms and $\mathrm{H_2}$ molecules, respectively. In Eq. (\[eq:coc\]), we have neglected collisional excitation by minor gas species other than H and ${\mathrm{H}}_2$. The above transition rates are given as [@HM89] $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^{\mathrm{H}}_\mathrm{CO}&=&3.0\times10^{-18} T^{0.5} \nonumber\\
&&\exp{\left[ -\left( \frac{C_1}{T} \right)^{3.43}-\left( \frac{\tilde{E}_\mathrm{CO}}{T} \right)\right]}\mathrm{m^3~s^{-1}},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^\mathrm{H_2}_\mathrm{CO}&=&4.3\times10^{-20} T\nonumber\\
&&\exp{\left[ -\left( \frac{C_2}{T} \right)^{0.333}-\left( \frac{\tilde{E}_\mathrm{CO}}{T} \right)\right]}\mathrm{m^3~s^{-1}},\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ is the temperature in Kelvin, $C_1$ = $2.0 \times 10^3$ K, and $C_2$ = $3.14 \times 10^5$ K. Also, $L_\mathrm{LTE}$ is the thermal emission per CO molecule whose level population is in the local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and is given as [@Neufeld+Kaufman1993] $$\begin{aligned}
L_\mathrm{LTE} = 1.0\times10^{-18} \exp{\left( -\frac{\tilde{E}_\mathrm{CO}}{T} \right)} \,\mathrm{J~s^{-1}}.\end{aligned}$$
The cooling rate due to rotational transition of molecules $j$ with dipole moments ($j$ = H$_2$O and OH) is expressed as [@HM79] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rotrad}
\Lambda _{\mathrm{rot},j}=\frac{n_j (n_{\mathrm{H}}-n_{{\mathrm{H}}_2})\sigma v_\mathrm{th} k_{\mathrm{B}}T}{{\displaystyle}1+ ( n_{\mathrm{H}}n^{-1}_\mathrm{cr}) \left[ 1+\ N_j (A_j N_{1/2})^{-1} \right]}\end{aligned}$$ where $v_\mathrm{th}$ is the thermal velocity of gas particles defined by $v_\mathrm{th}=\sqrt{8k_{\mathrm{B}}T (\pi \mu)^{-1}}$, $N_j$ is the column density of species $j$ integrated from the shock front which is given by $N_j$ = $\int _0^t n_j v dt$, $\sigma$ is the total rotational de-excitation cross section of the molecules, $n_\mathrm{cr}$ is the critical number density above which the collisional deactivation overwhelms the spontaneous decay for the levels at which the former dominates cooling, $N_{1/2}$ is the column density with which the cooling rate is half of that in the optically thin limit, and $A_j$ is the dipole moment. The values of the parameters used in Eq. (\[eq:rotrad\]) are given by @HM79 [@HM89]. This cooling rate, which is derived based on photon escape probability, is valid, regardless of optical thickness.
### Cooling due to collisional de-excitation {#TCE}
Because of high temperature ($\gtrsim$ $1 \times 10^4$ K), a great number of free electrons are produced after the shock front. Those electrons collide with atoms and molecules and excite the atomic and molecular electron levels. Subsequent de-excitations result in radiative emission and make great contribution to cooling. In this study, regarding the collisional de-excitation, we take only the contribution of atomic hydrogen (i.e., isolated hydrogen atoms) into account, because the others are minor. Although the energy is removed eventually via radiation, the decrease in kinetic energy, which leads to reducing temperature, is due directly to collisional excitation and ionization. Thus, the cooling rate is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ecc}
\Lambda_\mathrm{col} &=& -
n_{\mathrm{e}}\sum^{\mathfrak{N}}_{j=1} \sum^{\mathfrak{N}}_{i=j+1}
\left[
\left( K_{ij}^\downarrow H_i - K_{ji}^\uparrow H_j \right)E_{ji}
\right.
\nonumber\\
&+& \left. \left( K_{+ j}^\downarrow n_{\mathrm{e}}H_{+} - K_{j+}^\uparrow H_j \right)E_{j+} \right], \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{N}$ is the maximum principal quantum number taken into account (i.e., $\mathfrak{N}$ = 10 in this study), $H_i$ is the number density of the isolated hydrogen atoms whose principal quantum number is $i$ (i.e., $i$th level atomic hydrogen), $n_{\mathrm{e}}$ and $H_+$ are the number densities of the free electrons and ionized hydrogen (or hydrogen ions), respectively, $K_{ji}^\uparrow$ and $K_{ij}^\downarrow$ are the collisional excitation and de-excitation coefficients, respectively, for transition between the lower level $j$ and the upper level $i$, $E_{ji}$ ($> 0$) is the energy difference between the $j$th and $i$th levels in atomic hydrogen, and the subscript + represents the ionized state. These transition coefficients are given in @Vriens+Smeets1980. In Eq. (\[eq:ecc\]), the first term in the square bracket is the effective cooling rate for collisional excitation from the $j$th to $i$th levels and the second term is that for ionization from the $j$th level. When the de-excitation or recombination is dominant, each term in equation (\[eq:ecc\]) becomes negative, which means that heating occurs.
Chemical Reaction {#TCR}
-----------------
As described in section \[CHR\], to follow the cooling and heating processes, we have to know, at least, the abundances of ${\mathrm{H}}_2$, H, CO, OH, and ${\mathrm{e}}^-$. To simulate the temporal change in their abundances, we adopt the tuned chemical reaction system developed by @Iida+2001 who also addresses the chemical processes in postshock gas in a protoplanetary disk. In this study we consider 33 chemical species composed of H, He, C, and O, and 160 chemical reactions, all of which are listed in Tables 1-4 of @Iida+2001. In contrast to @Iida+2001 being interested in molecular line cooling, we consider the excitation levels of hydrogen atoms before ionization and after recombination by Eq. (\[eq:dion\]), because we are interested in hydrogen line cooling (see section \[THI\]). Also, @Iida+2001 focuses on the fate of silicate dust grains and thus considers Si-bearing species and relevant reactions, whereas we do not take them into account because we assume dust-free gas and can ignore line cooling by minor molecules. We use the numerical package DLSODE in ODEPACK [@LSODE] in order to integrate the temporal change of chemical species, numerically. This numerical method is also used for electron transitions (i.e. Eqs. \[\[eq:dele\]\] and \[\[eq:dion\]\]).
Bound-Bound Transition {#TET}
----------------------
The number density of hydrogen atoms of principal quantum number $i$, $H_i$, changes with time, because of excitation/de-excitation, ionization, and recombination by collision, photon absorption, induced photon emission, and spontaneous photon emission. The temporal change in $H_i$ by transitions from and to the $j$th level due to collision with electrons, $T^\mathrm{C}_{ji}$, is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tcol}
T^\mathrm{C}_{ji}&=&(K_{ji}^\uparrow H_{j} - K_{ij}^\downarrow H_{i} )n_\mathrm{e}.\end{aligned}$$ The change in $H_i$ by spontaneous photon radiation is given as $$\label{eq:tspn}
T^\mathrm{A}_{ij} = A^{\mathrm{spn}}_{ij} H_i ,$$ where $A^\mathrm{spn}_{ij}$ is the Einstein coefficient for spontaneous transition from the $i$th to $j$th levels. The change in $H_i$ by photon absorption and induced radiation is given as [e.g. @Castor2004] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tabs}
T^\mathrm{B}_{ji}&=&\int_{0}^{\infty} u_{ij} {\left( B_{ji}^{\mathrm{abs}} H_j - B_{ij}^{\mathrm{ind}} H_i \right) D } \, d\nu,\end{aligned}$$ where $u_{ij}$ is the spectral energy density (i.e., energy flow per unit volume per unit wavelength interval) yielded by transition from the $i$th to $j$th levels and functions of the frequency $\nu$ (see section \[Rad\]), $B^\mathrm{abs}_{ji}$ and $B^\mathrm{ind}_{ij}$ are the Einstein coefficients for the absorptive and induced transitions between the $i$th and $j$th levels, respectively, and $D (\nu)$ is the spectral broadening function for which we use the approximated Voigt function derived by [@Humlicek1982] and consider the Doppler, natural, and pressure broadenings [see e.g. @Castor2004].
Then, the total temporal change in the number of the $i$th level hydrogen is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dele}&&
\begin{array}{l l l}
{\displaystyle}\frac{dH_{i}}{dt}&=&{\displaystyle}\sum^{i-1}_{j=1} \left(T^\mathrm{C}_{ji} +T^\mathrm{B}_{ji} -T^\mathrm{A}_{ij} \right) \\
&+&{\displaystyle}\sum^{\mathfrak{N}}_{j=i+1} \left( - T^\mathrm{C}_{ji} -T^\mathrm{B}_{ji} +T^\mathrm{A}_{ij} \right)\\
&+&T_{+ i},
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{+ i}$ is the transition rate from the ionized to $i$th level state of hydrogen (see Eq. \[\[eq:dion\]\]).
Radiative Transfer {#Rad}
------------------
Radiative transfer in the postshock flow plays an essential role in determining the intensity of the hydrogen line emission from the shock surface. In addition, absorption of radiation with energy equal to the difference between energy levels (i.e., photon resonant absorption) changes the hydrogen excitation degree and, in some case, affects the temperature profile after the shock. We perform two-stream integration of hydrogen line emission, namely the same and opposite directions relative to the gas flow. Assuming the spectral energy density per unit angle as a quadratic function of $\sin{\theta}$ ($\equiv \mu)$, where $\theta$ is the angle measured from the direction of outward photon flow, we can analytically integrate this quadratic function and get the spectral energy density and flux as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
u_{ij}
=\frac{2\pi}{c}\left[ \frac{4}{3}I_{ij}(0) + \frac{1}{3}I_{ij}(1) + \frac{1}{3}I_{ij}(-1) \right] \\
F^\mathrm{u}_{ij}=\pi \left[ \frac{1}{2}I_{ij}(0) + \frac{7}{12}I_{ij}(1) + \frac{1}{12} I_{ij}(-1) \right]\\
F^\mathrm{d}_{ij}=\pi \left[ \frac{1}{2}I_{ij}(0) + \frac{1}{12}I_{ij}(1) + \frac{7}{12} I_{ij}(-1) \right]\end{aligned}$$ where $F^\mathrm{u}_{ij}$, $F^\mathrm{d}_{ij}$, and $I_{ij}(\mu)$ are the upward energy flux, downward energy flux, and intensity of each line yielded by transition from the $i$th to $j$th levels and $\mu=1$, $-1$, and $0$ correspond to the directions that are the same as, opposite to, and perpendicular to the gas flow, respectively. The spacial change in the intensity is given as [e.g. @Chandrasekhar1960] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:RT}
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \textbf{v} \cdot \nabla \right)
\left[ \mu I_{ij}(\mu) \right] =
\nonumber \\
\left[ \frac{1}{c}(B_{ij}^\mathrm{ind}H_i - B_{ji}^\mathrm{abs} H_j) I_{ij} (\mu) +\frac{A^\mathrm{spn}H_i}{4\pi} \right] v h \nu\end{aligned}$$ Under the assumptions of steady state and plane parallel structure, the left-hand side in Eq. (\[eq:RT\]) must be zero. Thus, the intensity for $\mu=0$ is given by $$I(0)=\frac{c A_{ij}^\mathrm{spn}H_i} {4\pi (B_{ji}^\mathrm{abs}H_i- B_{ij}^\mathrm{ind} H_j ) }.$$
To obtain steady flows in other directions, we integrate Eq. (\[eq:RT\]) with an explicit integration scheme, unlike the case of chemical reactions and electron transitions. This is because the radiative field changes much more slowly than hydrogen transitions occur, in general.
Bound-Free Transition {#THI}
---------------------
Transition between the bound and free states also has a great effect on the radiation field, which includes ionization of hydrogen and recombination of free electrons with hydrogen. The temporal change in the spectral energy density due to the bound-free transition is given by $$\label{eq:drhoion}
\nabla \mu I^\mathrm{(u,d)}_{+i}
= h\nu \left[\frac{1}{4\pi} T_{+ i}^\mathrm{A}
- \frac{1}{c}I_{+ i}^\mathrm{(u,d)} \alpha_{\nu, i} H_i
\right].$$ The first term in the bracket on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:drhoion\]) represents spontaneous recombination of free electrons, which causes a change in $H_i$ at a rate $T_{+i}^\mathrm{A}$ given by $$T_{+ i}^\mathrm{A} = \frac{dA_{+ i}^\mathrm{spn}
}{dx}\frac{dx}{d\nu} n_{\mathrm{e}}H_+.$$ $A_{+i}^\mathrm{spn}$ is the probability of spontaneous recombination of a free electron with an hydrogen atom by which the electron settles at the energy level $i$. The express of $A_{+i}^\mathrm{spn}$ is given by [@Seaton1959] as $$\label{eq:Aion}
\frac{dA_{+ i}^\mathrm{spn}}{dx}
=
5.197 \times 10^{-20}
\epsilon_{i+}^{\frac{3}{2}}
e^{\epsilon_{i+}(1-x)} g_i (x) x^{-1}
\,\mathrm{m^3 \, s^{-1}}$$ where $x \equiv \nu / \nu_i$ ($\nu_i$: the minimum frequency of the $i$th recombination continuum), $\epsilon_{i+} \equiv x h \nu_i (k_\mathrm{B}T)^{-1}$ and $g_i (x)$ is the Gaunt factor, for which we use the approximated polynomial presented in @Johnson1972. We assume that $A_{+i}^\mathrm{spn} = 0$ for $x<1$, because all the electrons are bound by the hydrogen nuclei. The number densities of hydrogen ions and electrons change with time, which are expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dH_+}{dt} &=& - \frac{dn_{\mathrm{e}}}{dt} \nonumber \\
&=&
\sum^{\mathfrak{N}}_{i=1}
\left[
T^\mathrm{C}_{ i+} -
\frac{c}{v h\nu}
\int^{\infty}_{\nu_{i}}{ \frac{{\displaystyle}du_{{\mathrm{e}}i}}{dt}d\nu}
\right],
\label{eq:dion}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:icol}
T^\mathrm{C}_{i+}= K_{i+} H_i - K_{+ i}n_{\mathrm{e}}H_{+}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the second term in Eq. (\[eq:dion\]) contains both the radiative absorption and stimulated radiation.
The second term in the bracket on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:drhoion\]) represents photo-absorptive bound-free transition. Its cross-section is given by [@Shu1991] as $$\label{eq:pics}
\alpha_{\nu, i} = i a_1 y_i^{-3} g_i \left(x_i \right),$$ where $y_i \equiv h \nu / I_i$ ($I_i$: the ionization energy of the $i$th level hydrogen), and $a_1$ is a numerical constant (= $7.91\times10^{-22} \mathrm{m^2}$). In the bound-free transition, we neglect the Doppler broadening (or Doppler shift), because the typical Doppler broadening ratio ($\sim v_\mathrm{th}/c$) is much smaller than the typical continuum width ratio ($\sim \mu v_\mathrm{th}^2/2n_\mathrm{A}h\nu_i$, $n_\mathrm{A}$: the Avogadro constant). Note that we also consider free electrons that come from atoms other than hydrogen.
Results {#R}
=======
Here we present numerical results of the thermo-chemical and radiative processes that the flow undergoes after passing through the shock. The input parameters in this flow model include the preshock velocity $v_0$ and the total number density of atomic hydrogen (including all the hydrogen nuclei in the molecules such as $\mathrm{H}_2$ and $\mathrm{H_2 O}$) $n_\mathrm{H,0}$. As the fiducial case, we adopt $v_0=40~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$ and $n_\mathrm{H,0}=1\times 10^{17} \mathrm{m^{-3}}$, for which we investigate in section \[FC\]. Then, we show results for denser gas ($n_\mathrm{H,0}=1\times 10^{20} \mathrm{m^{-3}}$) in section \[denser\] and for higher velocity ($v_0=90~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$) in section \[higher\], followed by a parameter study in section \[PS\].
Fiducial Case {#FC}
-------------
Figure \[fig:40\_17\] shows temporal changes in postshock quantities for $v_0=40~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$ and $n_{{\mathrm{H}},0}=1 \times 10^{17}$ $\mathrm{m}^{-3}$ [^1]. Since the change of the individual fluid parcel is observed, the horizontal axis also corresponds to the spatial coordinate $z$ (i.e., the Lagrangian coordinate), which means that Fig. \[fig:40\_17\] shows the vertical distribution of the quantities below the shock front.
First, the gas temperature changes as follows (see panel \[a\]): At $t$ = 0, the temperature reaches as high as $6.9\times 10^4$ K, because of shock heating. The flowing gas remains at that temperature until $t \simeq$ $2\times 10^{-4}$ s. Then, the gas cools down to $4 \times 10^4$ K in about $1\times 10^{-2}$ s and remains at that temperature until $t\simeq$ $2\times 10^{-2}$ s. After that, cooling occurs again. This change in temperature is related to chemical reactions, as follows. As shown in panel (b), H continues to form by dissociation of ${\mathrm{H}}_2$ in the first $3\times10^{-3}$ s. Concurrently, H is being ionized to ${\mathrm{H}}^+$ and ${\mathrm{e}}^-$. The decrease of $H_2$ is linked to the increase of H and e$^-$, since the dissociation of $\mathrm{H}_2$ is due mainly to collision with H or e$^-$. In panel (c), it turns out that the gas cools by two different dominant processes: The first cooling phase ($t \lesssim10^{-2}$ s) is governed by ${\mathrm{H}}_2$ dissociation, whereas the second phase ($t \gtrsim 10^{-2}$ s) is controlled by collisional excitation of H. Molecular line emission has little contribution to cooling at high temperatures shown in Fig. \[fig:40\_17\], because molecules such as CO and OH are present only in small amounts.
Panel (d) shows the upward energy fluxes of the hydrogen Lyman-$\alpha$ (black), Balmer-$\alpha$ (red), and Paschen-$\alpha$ (blue) emission. All the fluxes increase monotonically upstream (from right to left in panel \[d\]). In this case, the line emission occurs predominantly at $t\simeq2\times 10^{-2}$ s. This is because the gas is relatively cool in the deep regions ($t\gtrsim 2\times 10^{-2}$ s), while the number of electrons, which excite hydrogen, is too small in the shallow regions ($t\lesssim2\times 10^{-2}$ s). This can be understood also from Fig. \[fig:H40\_17\] that shows the temporal change in the number of isolated hydrogen atoms (relative to the total number of hydrogen nuclei) with principal quantum number $i_q$ of 1 (black), 2 (red), and 3 (blue) and also the number of hydrogen ions (orange) and electrons (green). The numbers of hydrogen ions and electrons increase until $t \simeq$ 2-3 $\times$ $10^{-2}$ s and then become nearly constant. As seen in Fig. \[fig:40\_17\]a, the temperature immediately after shock is high enough to dissociate and ionize hydrogen, producing free electrons. Those electrons collide with and excite hydrogen atoms. Thus, as electrons increase, excited hydrogen atoms increase. The hydrogen excitation, on the other hand, results in cooling the gas, which then leads to reducing the number of free electrons. However, because hydrogen ion recombination proceeds only slowly ($>10$ s), the abundance of ${\mathrm{H}}^+$ and $e^-$ is almost constant for $t \gtrsim 2\times 10^{-2}$ s in Fig. \[fig:H40\_17\]. For $t\gtrsim 3\times 10^{-2}$ s, since gas temperature drops, the number of hydrogen atoms of $i_q \geq 2$ naturally decreases.
High Density Case {#denser}
-----------------
Figure \[fig:H40\_20\]a, b, c, and d are the same as Fig. \[fig:40\_17\]a, c, d, and Fig. \[fig:H40\_17\], respectively, but for $n_{{\mathrm{H}},0}=1\times10^{20} \mathrm{m}^{-3}$. In a denser gas, because of frequent collisions, collisional excitation and de-excitation of hydrogen take place more frequently, so that the postshock processes driven by collisions (e.g., temperature drop) proceed on shorter timescales. On the other hand, the timescale of spontaneous de-excitation is independent of gas number density. Thus, hydrogen is more excited and ionized in a denser gas. A larger number of electrons also lead to further excitation of hydrogen.
In Fig. \[fig:H40\_20\]c, the profile for the Lyman-$\alpha$ shows a different feature from those for the other two lines. At $t\sim 10^{-3}$ s, the Lyman-$\alpha$ flux is on the order of $10^5 ~\mathrm{W~m^{-2}}$, which is high enough that the absorption and emission of Lyman-$\alpha$ balance with each other there. (Note that energy density per wavelength, instead of energy flux, is high enough, exactly to say.) This means that the gas is optically thick with respect to the Lyman-$\alpha$ radiation. Thus, for $t\lesssim 10^{-3}$ s, the emission rate of the Lyman-$\alpha$ line radiation is determined locally by the abundance of the first-excited hydrogen $H_2$ (red line in Fig. \[fig:H40\_20\]d), which is the source of Lyman-$\alpha$ photons, and the ground-state hydrogen, $H_1$ (black line in Fig. \[fig:H40\_20\]d). Indeed, the Lyman-$\alpha$ flux increases sharply with decreasing time at $t\sim3\times 10^{-5}$ s, which corresponds to the peak time for $H_2$, around which $H_1$ also increases moderately. The reason why the Lyman-$\alpha$ *increases* with decreasing time is that $H_2$ changes *more rapidly* than $H_1$.
No similar feature is seen for the Balmer-$\alpha$ and Paschen-$\alpha$ lines in Fig. \[fig:H40\_20\]c. This is because those fluxes are too low for the gas to be optically thick. Note that the Balmer-$\alpha$ flux slightly decreases with decreasing time around $t\sim 3 \times 10^{-5}$ s, which corresponds to the peak time for $H_3$ (see Fig. \[fig:H40\_20\]d). Unlike in the case of Lyman-$\alpha$, $H_2$ decreases more gently than $H_3$ with decreasing time. This is because absorption of Lyman-$\alpha$, which suppresses decrease in $H_2$, is greater than that of Balmer-$\alpha$ or Lyman-$\beta$, which suppresses decrease in $H_3$.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:H40\_20\]d, the change in $H_2$ (red line) shows a somewhat different feature from that in the fiducial case (red line in Fig. \[fig:H40\_17\]). From $3\times 10^{-5}~\mathrm{s}$ to $\sim10^{-4}~\mathrm{s}$, temperature drops and thus the number of the excited hydrogen atoms decreases, same as in the fiducial case. However, after that (i.e., $t \gtrsim10^{-4}~\mathrm{s}$), the decrease in the number of excited hydrogen seems to be rather moderate. This is because excitation due to absorption of the line radiation from downstream compensates for collisional de-excitation. In the fiducial case, namely optically thin case, the absorptive excitation is much less efficient than the collisional excitation. The $H_3$ (blue line) shows the similar feature with $H_2$ (red line), but increases a bit around $t\sim10^{-4}$ s. In this case, the number of the second-excited hydrogen $H_3$ is supported by both of the de-excitation from upper levels, especially the ionised state, and line absorptive excitation. Therefore, $H_3$ increases slightly around $t\sim10^{-4}$ s, though the collisional de-excitation dominates over the collisional excitation in that temperature range.
Higher Velocity Case {#higher}
--------------------
Figure \[fig:H90\] is the same as Fig. \[fig:H40\_20\] but for a higher preshock velocity $v_0=90~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$. In this case, the gas temperature exceeds $1 \times 10^5$ K immediately after shock (see panel \[a\]). Because of such high temperature, hydrogen is ionized almost completely (see panel \[d\]), and thus the number of hydrogen nuclei with electrons (i.e., neutral hydrogen) is much smaller than in the case of lower $v_0$. Because of almost no neutral hydrogen, namely no strong coolant, the cooling timescale is quite long in the highly ionized region ($t\gtrsim 2\times 10^{-3}$ s). Once the gas temperature goes below a certain value at $\sim 5$ s, the ionization rate drastically drops and neutral hydrogen is reproduced (see panel \[d\]). Thus, hydrogen line radiation is generated in that region (see panel \[c\]). The rare neutral hydrogen region means optically thin for hydrogen lines. That is why hydrogen line energy flux mainly changes before ($t \lesssim10^{-2}$ s) and after ($t \gtrsim1$ s) the high ionization region.
Parameter Study {#PS}
---------------
In Fig. \[fig:ps\], we show the dependence of the Balmer-$\alpha$ line energy flux on (a) the preshock velocity $v_0$ and (b) the total number density of hydrogen nuclei $n_\mathrm{H,0}$, respectively. In Appendix, we also show the dependences regarding other lines such as Balmer-$\beta$, Paschen-$\alpha$, and Paschen-$\beta$[^2]. As seen in panel (a), for $v_0 < 30$ km s$^{-1}$, the Balmer-$\alpha$ line flux is quite low. This is because almost all the energy of shock heating is consumed for dissociation of hydrogen molecules. For $v_0 \geq 30$ km s$^{-1}$, the energy flux is found to be nearly proportional to $v_0^4$ in panel (a) and to $n_{{\mathrm{H}},0}$ in panel (b). Intuitively, however, the energy flux is proportional to $v_0^3 n_\mathrm{H,0}$, because the kinetic energy that the flowing gas has before shock is $v_0^3 n_\mathrm{H,0}/2$. This holds true for Lyman-$\alpha$, but for other lines, we have to take into account the effect of absorption of radiation propagated from downstream, as described below.
Figure \[fig:profile\] shows the profiles of the spectral energy density of the Lyman-$\alpha$ and Balmer-$\alpha$ lines at the shock front. In the upper row panels, those for different choices of $n_{{\mathrm{H}},0}$ are presented for $v_0=40$ km s$^{-1}$, while in the lower panels, those for different choices of $v_0$ are presented for $n_{{\mathrm{H}},0}=10^{17}~\mathrm{m^{-3}}$. The Gauss profile caused by the Doppler broadening is seen near the line center, while the Lorenz profile mainly caused by the natural broadening is seen far from the line center. The borders between them are at $\sim 121.48$ nm and $\sim121.53$ nm for Lyman-$\alpha$ (in panel \[a\]) and $\sim656.00$ nm and $\sim 656.26$ nm for Balmer-$\alpha$ (in panel \[b\]), respectively. In panel (b), for $n_\mathrm{H,0}= 10^{17}$ to $10^{19} \mathrm{m^{-3}}$, the energy density is found to be nearly proportional to $n_\mathrm{H,0}$ as a whole.
Basically, the number densities of all the species are proportional to $n_\mathrm{H,0}$. However, because high density leads to high cooling rate and their relationship is almost linear, hydrogen line emission occurs in a shallower region, the depth of which is inversely proportional to $n_\mathrm{H,0}$. Consequently, the column density of the emission region hardly depends on $n_\mathrm{H,0}$. Thus, another reason is needed for explaining the linear dependence of Balmer-$\alpha$ emission on $n_\mathrm{H,0}$. The electron level distribution is roughly in equilibrium between the radiative de-excitation and collisional excitation. Since the former and latter are proportional to $n_\mathrm{H,0}$ and $n_\mathrm{H,0}^2$, respectively, the number ratio of the emitter to absorber of hydrogen lines and thus the emitted line flux are nearly proportional to $n_\mathrm{H,0}$. On the other hand, comparing the profiles for $n_\mathrm{H,0}=10^{19}$ and $10^{20}~\mathrm{m^{-3}}$ in panel (b), one realizes that the energy density is proportional to $n_\mathrm{H,0}$ far from the center, but not near the center. This comes from photo-absorption (see also Fig. \[fig:H40\_20\]c). Since the gas flow velocity is higher where photons are absorbed than where photons are emitted, the center of absorption feature is shifted to longer wavelength relative to the center of emission feature. This is why the left peak is higher than the right peak of the yellow line in panel (b). For Lyman-$\alpha$ in panel (a), all the profiles show the same feature more obviously. Since the Lyman-$\alpha$ is optically thick enough that the energy density is determined locally, the energy density near the line center is proportional to $H_2/H_1$ ratio in the Lyman-$\alpha$ photosphere (or optical depth $\tau=1$ plane).
As shown in panels (c) and (d) of Fig. \[fig:profile\], as $v_0$ increases, the line width becomes larger, because of increase in temperature, and the energy flux becomes larger, because of increase of excited hydrogen. For the Lyman-$\alpha$ in Fig. \[fig:profile\]c, the absorption feature becomes weaker with increasing $v_0$ in the case for $n_0=10^{17}~\mathrm{m^{-3}}$. This is because the gas temperature and the $H_2/H_1$ ratio, which determines the energy density locally in optically thick case, come to be higher with increase of $v_0$ at the $\tau=1$ surface of Lyman-$\alpha$.
Discussion {#D}
==========
Hydrogen Line Luminosity from Accreting Planets
-----------------------------------------------
As described in Introduction, @Sallum+2015 reported on the detection of a source of H$\alpha$ (or Balmer-$\alpha$) emission in the circum-stellar disk of LkCa15. In order to put a physical interpretation on the origin and intensity of this emission and constrain the ranges of the planet mass and disk gas density, we integrate the line emission flux obtained above throughout the CPD surface. The total emergent flux of hydrogen line emission from the CPD is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:luminosity_r}
L&=&\int_{r_\mathrm{P}}^{\infty} 2F(v_0(r),n_{{\mathrm{H}},0}) 2\pi r dr,\end{aligned}$$ where $F(v_0,n_{{\mathrm{H}},0})$ is the emergent intensity per unit area from the shock front obtained in our simulation, $r$ is the radial distance from the center of the protoplanet, and $r_\mathrm{P}$ is the protoplanet radius, which is assumed to be twice the Jupiter’s radius. Here we have assumed an axisymmetric CPD.
![ Contour plot of the H$\alpha$ luminosity (see Eq. \[\[eq:luminosity\_r\]\] and \[\[eq:nonv\]\] for the definition) versus the protoplanet mass in Jupiter mass $M_\mathrm{J}$ and the surface density of protoplanetary disk gas at $14.7$AU around a $1 M_\odot$ protostar. []{data-label="fig:con_Ha"}](f8.pdf)
We obtain the functions of $v_0 (r)$ and $n_{\rm H, 0} (r)$ from 3D hydrodynamic simulations by @Tanigawa+2012, as follows. The accreting gas flows vertically onto the CPD surface. Since the gravity from the CPD is much weaker than that from the protoplanet, we assume that $v_0$ is the free fall velocity to the protoplanet, $$\begin{aligned}
v_0&=&\sqrt{\frac{2GM_\mathrm{p}}{r}},\end{aligned}$$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant and $M_\mathrm{p}$ is the protoplanet mass. The number density $n_\mathrm{H, 0}$ is derived from the condition of steady flow, namely, the mass flux $J$ is equal to $\mu y_\mathrm{t} n_\mathrm{H, 0} v_0$, where $y_\mathrm{t}$ is the particle number density normalized by $n_\mathrm{H,0}$. According to the 3D simulations [see Fig. 13 of @Tanigawa+2012], $J \sim 5 \Sigma_0 \Omega_\mathrm{K}$ in the inner CPD, where $\Sigma_0$ is the unperturbed surface density of CSD and $\Omega_\mathrm{K}$ is the Keplerian angular velocity around the central star. Thus, $n_{\rm H, 0}$ is given from the relation $\mu y_\mathrm{t}n_{\rm H, 0} v_0 = 5 \Sigma_0 \Omega_\mathrm{K}$ as $$\label{eq:nonv}
n_\mathrm{H,0}=\frac{5\Sigma_0} {\mu y_\mathrm{t}} \sqrt{ \frac{M_* r}{2M_\mathrm{p}a^3} },$$ where $M_*$ is the mass of the central star and $a$ is the orbital semi-major axis of the forming gas giant.
Using $M_*=1M_\odot$ and $a=14.7$ AU (and $\mu = 2.4 \times 10^{-27}$ kg) from @Sallum+2015, we integrate Eq. (\[eq:luminosity\_r\]) for various values of $v_0$ and $n_{\rm H, 0}$ and get the H$\alpha$ luminosity contour shown in Fig. \[fig:con\_Ha\]. @Sallum+2015 estimated the H$\alpha$ luminosity of LkCa15b to be $2.3\times 10^{22}$ W. Note that they took interstellar extinction into account in deriving this luminosity: To be exact, one also has to consider extinction that occurs in the vicinity of the planet from this value. This would be, however, small: The gas falling on CPD hardly scatters H$\alpha$ photons because it contains few first-excited hydrogen atoms. The disk gas surface density was estimated by @Marel+2015 to be $165~\mathrm{kg~m^{-2}}$ at 14.7 AU from LkCa15. Applying those two values to Fig. \[fig:con\_Ha\], we find that the mass of LkCa15b is more than 20 $M_\mathrm{J}$, which is out of the planet mass range. This is inconsistent with the mass of LkCa15b, 10 $M_\mathrm{J}$, inferred from the Ks-band observation [@Sallum+2015].
This contradiction argues for the need for further observations of this object and detailed theoretical investigation of the accretion process of massive gas giants. Recent IR observation by @Thalmann+2016 reported on the detection of scattered radiation from the outer disk around LkCa15, which might imply that the H$\alpha$ detected by @Sallum+2015 was also the scattered one. On the other hand, regarding the gas accretion model, the numerical factor of 5 used in Eq. (\[eq:nonv\]) is valid when the planet’s Hill radius is equal to the disk scale height [@Tanigawa+2012]. This factor may depend on planet mass. According to @Tanigawa+2002, the gas accretion rate is proportional to $M_\mathrm{P}^{1.3}$. If we assume that the mass flux onto the circum-planetary disk is proportional to this gas accretion rate and apply such a relation to Fig. \[fig:con\_Ha\], the mass of LkCa15b is estimated at $12M_\mathrm{J}$ for $\Sigma_0=165~\mathrm{kg~m^{-2}}$. However, this is to be examined, because this estimation includes no information of the 3D distribution of gas around the protoplanet.
@Uyama+2017 observed the protostar TW Hya in the Paschen-$\beta$ line with Keck/OSIRIS. TW Hya is known to have a multi-ring (or multi-gap) protoplanetary disk [e.g. @Calvet+2002; @Menu+2014], suggesting the presence of accreting gas giants in the gaps of the disk. No Paschen-$\beta$ excess was, however, detected in 5$\sigma$ detection limit. The detection limits correspond to $2.4\times 10^{17}$ W and $6.3\times10^{16}$ W for the two large disk gaps at 25 AU and 95 AU, respectively. Adopting the gas surface densities of 270 kg m$^{-2}$ and 4.9 kg m$^{-2}$ from the photoevaporating-disk model of @Gorti+2011, we estimate the upper limits of the protoplanet masses to be $\sim$ 2 M$_\mathrm{J}$ and $\sim$ 8 M$_\mathrm{J}$, respectively. Note that the latter estimate is different from that in @Uyama+2017, because we have assumed constant mass flux at the surface of the circum-planetary disk, in contrast to @Uyama+2017 who assumed constant gas density.
For a set of mass accretion rate and protoplanet mass, our estimate of hydrogen line emission is weaker by a few orders of magnitude than that from the empirical relationship used in stellar accretion context [@Gullbring+1998]. This is due to the differences in preshock velocity and gas accretion feature. Because of weak gravity, the preshock velocity is lower and then postshock gas is cooler in planetary accretion than in stellar accretion. The vertical accretion flow which causes strong hydrogen line emission accounts for only a small fraction of the whole accreting gas, while most of the accreting gas falls onto the outer regions of the CPD, where the flow velocity is too slow for the gas to be hot enough to generate hydrogen line emission. Although of great importance are applying our model to stellar accretion and then comparing stellar and planetary accretion, we need more complicated and time-consuming calculations where absorption of hydrogen line radiation by the preshock gas will likely make a great contribution. Such comparison will be done in our future study.
Caveats
-------
### Effects of Magnetic Field
The deep interior of accreting gas giants is hot enough that hydrogen is ionized and convecting [e.g. @Bodenheimer+Pollack1986]. This suggests that accreting gas giants have intrinsic magnetic fields. Provided incoming gas is partially ionized, magnetic waves can affect the strength of shockwaves, which is weakened, if the propagation velocity of magnetic waves, $v_\mathrm{A}$, (termed the magnetosonic velocity) is larger than the flow velocity, $v_0$. In terms of the magnetic field $B$, this condition is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
B &\gg& 2 \sqrt{\pi \rho} v_0 \nonumber \\
& \sim& 2.2
\left( \frac{x_\mathrm{t}}{1.4} \right)
\left( \frac{n_{{\mathrm{H}}, 0}}{10^{17} \mathrm{m^{-3}}} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left( \frac{v_0}{40~\mathrm{km \, s^{-1}}} \right)
\mathrm{T},\end{aligned}$$ where $x_\mathrm{t}$ is the molar mass (in gram). Given even the current surface magnetic field of the Sun is less than 1 T, this condition is unlikely to be satisfied in the case of gas giants.
In the post-shock regions where hydrogen line radiation is generated, partial ionization occurs obviously. Thus, the magnetic fields could influence the hydrodynamic and radiative processes there. From momentum conservation, the dynamical pressure is converted not only into the thermal pressure but also into the magnetic pressure. This means that the existence of magnetic field leads to reducing the gas number density for a given temperature. The characteristic number density $n_\mathrm{m}$ and temperature $T_\mathrm{m}$, respectively, above and below which the magnetic pressure dominates over the thermal one is given by [@HM79]: $$\begin{aligned}
n_\mathrm{m}&=&\sqrt{8\pi \rho}\frac{n_0v_0}{B_\perp} \nonumber \\
&\sim& 3.1 \times 10^{17} \left( \frac{x_\mathrm{t}}{1.4}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left( \frac{n_0}{10^{17}\mathrm{m^{-3}}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\nonumber \\&&
\left( \frac{v_0}{40~\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}}\right)
\left( \frac{B_\perp}{\mathrm{1 T}}\right)^{-1}
\mathrm{m^{-3}},
\\
T_\mathrm{m}&=& \frac{\rho_0 v^2_0}{y_\mathrm{t}n_\mathrm{m} k_\mathrm{B}} \nonumber \\
&\sim& 1.5 \times 10^5
\left( \frac{x_\mathrm{t}}{1.4}\right)^\mathrm{-\frac{1}{2}}
\left( \frac{y_\mathrm{t}}{0.6} \right)^{-1}
\left( \frac{n_0}{10^{17}\mathrm{m^{-3}}} \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \nonumber \\ &&
\left( \frac{v_0}{40~\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}} \right)
\left( \frac{B_\perp}{\mathrm{1 T}} \right)
\mathrm{K},\end{aligned}$$ where $B_\perp$ is the perpendicular component of the magnetic field and $y_\mathrm{t}$ is the number ratio of all the particles to hydrogen nuclei. Since the magnetic field of accreting gas giants is highly uncertain, we are unable to validate our assumption of no magnetic effects at present. If $B_\perp \sim$ 1 T, according to the above estimates, the characteristic number density and temperature are comparable to those observed in the previous section, meaning the magnetic effects should be important for the post-shock processes. In reality, however, $B_\perp$ may be much smaller than 1 T. In any case, detailed investigate of the magnetic field of accreting gas giants is needed for resolving this issue.
### Effects of Preshock Heating {#EPH}
We have performed numerical simulations only in postshock regions in this study, assuming the thermal energy of the preshock gas is negligibly small relative to that of the postshock gas. However, absorption of radiative energy from postshock regions can heat the preshock gas and, thus, weaken the shock strength, because the Mach number becomes low. Consequently, the heating of the preshock gas leads to weakening the hydrogen line emission.
@Marleau+2017 performed 1D radiative hydrodynamical simulations, taking account of radiative transfer in the preshock region. They obtained 2-3 times weaker hydrogen line luminosity than in the case without absorption. However, in contrast to this study, they assumed the local thermodynamic equilibrium, in which the electron energy states are uniquely determined at a given temperature, and simply the blackbody emission. This approximation is valid on large spatial scales that they were interested in. The scales of interest in this study are much smaller than theirs.
On the other hand, @Szulagyi+2016 performed 3D radiative hydrodynamical simulations and showed that the accreting gas giant could not have a circum-planetary disk, but have a circum-planetary envelope that extended to about the Hill radius. Consequently, the shock strength at the surface of the circum-planetary envelope is too weak to excite the hydrogen atoms. However, as also shown in @Szulagyi2017, whether an accreting gas giant is surrounded by a disk or an envelope depends on the temperature of the protoplanetary surface, which is given as the numerical boundary condition. The hydrodynamic accretion simulations that also determine planetary temperature in a self-consistent fashion will be needed for clarifying the environments around accreting protoplanets.
### Effects of Thickness of Postshock Region
We ended the numerical integration, once the gas temperature decreases to $1\times10^4$ K. At that point, the flow still retains about a half of its initial energy. Thus, the actual value of line energy flux from the shock surface is up to twice as large as estimated above. However, in deeper regions we have ignored, molecules such as OH, CO, and H$_2$O make dominant contribution to cooling, instead of hydrogen line cooling, and have no significant influence on the radiative properties of the shallower regions.
While we consider only a vertical flow, there is also a flow rotating around a central protoplanet, namely a circum-planetary disk. The typical timescale on which both flows merge with each other is approximately the Keplerian period multiplied by the ratio of the vertical flow to horizontal flow densities. Since this timescale is longer than the time for which we have integrated, our assumption is valid.
Summary and Conclusions {#CS}
=======================
According to recent high-resolution 3D hydrodynamic simulations of accreting flow onto gas giants, the incoming gas falls vertically down to the surface of the circumplanetary disk and then passes through strong shockwaves. Because of strong shock heating, the gas becomes hot enough that hydrogen line emission is generated in postshock regions. To estimate the flux of the hydrogen line radiation, we have developed a 1D radiative hydrodynamic model of the flow after passing through the shockwave, performing the detailed calculations of chemical reactions, electron transitions in hydrogen atoms, and radiative transfer.
We have found that most of the energy that the flow has before shock is lost through radiative emission of hydrogen Lyman-$\alpha$ line. Since the Lyman-$\alpha$ line is widely broadened by natural broadening and the postshock region is thin for the radiation from the line wing, absorption of the radiation from downstream by upstream gas has little influence on the Lyman-$\alpha$ flux at the shock front. However, the absorption of line radiation has a great effect on the distribution of energy levels of electrons and enhances emission of other lines such as Balmer-$\alpha$ (H$\alpha$), Paschen-$\alpha$ and so on.
Integrating the energy flux throughout the surface of the circum-planetary disk, we have estimated the hydrogen line luminosity from an accreting gas giant as a function of protoplanet mass and circum-stellar disk gas density. Then we have demonstrated that the H$\alpha$ luminosity could be strong enough as the source of the observed H$\alpha$ flux reported by @Sallum+2015, although the accretion process is to be examined in further detail for confirming whether the H$\alpha$ emission is of planetary origin. Other lines in the atmospheric window such as Paschen-$\alpha$ and Paschen-$\beta$ could be observed with current observation instruments. Observation of hydrogen line emission from protoplanets is highly encouraged to obtain direct constraints to accreting gas giants, which will be key in understanding their formation.
Figure \[fig:FC\] is the color contour plot of the Balmer-$\alpha$ (H$\alpha$), Balmer-$\beta$, Paschen-$\alpha$, and Paschen-$\beta$ line energy fluxes versus the preshock velocity $v_0$ and the total number density of hydrogen nuclei $n_\mathrm{H,0}$.
We would like to thank S. Inutsuka for his helpful suggestion about line profiles, H. Kawahara for useful discussions about cooling and radiation processes, and Y. Ito for his fruitful comments on the numerical scheme. We thank the anonymous referee for his/her careful reading and constructive comments, which helped us improve this paper greatly. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP17H01153, JP18H05439, JP15H02065, and JP26800229. Y.A. was supported by Leading Graduate Course for Frontiers of Mathematical Sciences and Physics. Y.A. and M.I. were also supported by JSPS Core-to-Core Program “International Network of Planetary Science”.
[^1]: These values are not always the typical ones for accreting gas giants. We have chosen them for validating our numerical model by comparing it with the @Iida+2001 model.
[^2]: Those profiles would be similar even at infinity except for Lyman-$\alpha$, because hydrogen is in the form of H$_2$ and excited H rarely exists above the shock front. As for Lyman-$\alpha$, absorption in the interstellar medium modifies the profiles.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In order to study the streaming motions of miras in the Solar neighborhood, we newly surveyed 379 red variables in the SiO maser lines at 42.821 and 43.122 GHz with the Nobeyama 45m radio telescope. Accurate radial velocities were obtained for 229 (220 new) detected stars. The sample is selected from optical variables found by new automated surveys: the Northern Sky Variability Survey and the All Sky Automated Survey. The new sample consists of the “bluer” objects compared with those observed in the previous SiO surveys. The distances to the objects are estimated using the period-luminosity relation, and they are mostly less than 3 kpc from the Sun. The longitude-velocity diagram reveals three prominent groups of stars deviant from the circular Galactic rotation with a flat rotation curve. In addition to the Hercules group of stars which was studied before, we found two new deviant groups: one toward the Perseus arm and the other toward the Sagittarius arm. These two groups both exhibit anomalous motions toward the Galactic center, which seem to be consistent with the noncircular motions of these spiral arms found in the recent VLBI proper-motion measurements for maser gas clumps.'
author:
- 'Shuji <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Deguchi</span>, Tsuyoshi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sakamoto</span>,'
- 'Takashi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hasegawa</span>'
title: 'Kinematics of Red Variables in the Solar Neighborhood I . Basic Data Obtained by an SiO Maser Survey'
---
Introduction
============
Moving groups are clumps of stars sharing the same spatial motion in the Solar neighborhood. They are often considered to be a fossil, which keeps past dynamical information after its birth in the Galaxy. The coherent spatial motions of the moving groups are well studied in the past based on the Hipparcos and the RAVE (the Radial Velocity Experiment; [@zwi08]) databases (see [@fam05]). In particular, the Hercules group of stars, which was first identified by O. J. Eggen (see a summary by [@egg96]), is a well studied moving group with rotational lag and outward motion of about 40 km s$^{-1}$ and 50 km s$^{-1}$, respectively, to the Galactic rotation. It is inferred that a few percent of stars in the Solar neighborhood are members of this group [@ben07]. The origin of the Hercules group is attributed to a rotational resonance of the bar-like Bulge, because the population of stars of this group is a mixture with different ages [@ben07]. @fea00 investigated an outward motion of short-period Mira variables near the Sun, and attributed it to the resonance effect of the Bulge bar. Presumably the Hercules moving group, which was found in the Solar neighborhood, spreads spatially far from the Sun. @deg10 found that a group of maser stars in the Galactic longitude range between 20$^{\circ}$ and 40$^{\circ}$, which are located at a few kpc from the Sun, have a distinctively large outward motion compared with the motions of usual stars under the Galactic rotation. They also attributed the large outward motion to the effect at the outer Lindblad and corotation resonances of the central bar. The resonance effect of the Galactic bar should appear in areas near the resonance circles in the Galactic plane. In particular, the old stars with ages several times longer than the rotational period of the bar pattern reflect the resonance effect. Therefore, miras are ideal sample for studying the bulge-bar resonance effect because they are evolved stars with ages of about a few Gyr. In contrast, tidal streams of dwarf galaxies, e.g., the Sgr dwarf stream (for example, [@maj03]), are often traced in a relatively limited area of the sky far from the Galactic plane because of their low stellar density, though they still have been found in the Galactic disk using blue metal-poor stars (e.g., [@bel07]).
Radial velocities of OH and SiO maser sources have been used to investigate dynamics of stars in the disk [@jia96; @nak03; @ita01] and the bulge of the Galaxy [@izu95; @sev01]. These maser stars are mostly miras and semi-regular variables, i.e., O-rich evolved stars at the asymptotic-giant-branch (AGB) phase, though a small amount of red supergiants are contaminated in the sample. Previous surveys of these stars by OH and SiO maser lines were preferentially made for the highly reddened, optically very faint stars because of their high detection rate in a color-selected sample (for example, see [@deg04]). These stars are located at relatively large distances in the Galactic disk, compared with a sample of optical miras. Therefore, optical miras in the Solar neighborhood are missing in the previous samples of maser sources \[e.g., @nak03 [@deg07], except @jew91\]. Even though radial velocities have been obtained for a large number of optical miras by optical spectroscopy, the accuracy in the measurement is quite limited. For example, if we compare the radial velocity of a mira in the RAVE database with that of OH or SiO masers, we often find typically a 10 km s$^{-1}$ or much larger difference between them. This is caused by several reasons: insufficient spectral resolution in optical instruments, phase dependency of optical line velocities on mira pulsation (see, e.g., [@sch00]), and a velocity shift of the optical lines due to scattering by moving circumstellar dust [@van82]. It is known that the stellar velocities obtained in the maser line measurements are accurate within $\sim 2$ km s$^{-1}$ \[e.g., see section 3.1 of [@nak06]\]. Therefore, it is useful to measure the radial velocities of optical miras in the Solar neighborhood in SiO maser lines even if optical velocities are available for some stars. Moreover, the accurate radial velocities of miras in the Solar neighborhood by the maser observations are essential to see if the deviant stream is continuously connected with the stream that is found previously in a large extension of the Galaxy [@fea00; @deg10]. In addition, since precise measurements of proper motions will be available by the phase-reference VLBI technique for SiO maser sources [@kob08], accurate 3d motions in space will reveal in future for these objects.
In this paper, we present the result of a new survey of the optical red variables in the SiO maser lines with the 45m telescope at Nobeyama. A number of new variable stars were recently found by automated optical variability surveys: the Northern Sky Variability Survey (NSVS; [@woz04]) and the All Sky Automated Survey (ASAS; [@poj05]). Though these newly found optical variables are much bluer in near-infrared (NIR) colors (such as $H-K$) than the typical SiO maser sources previously surveyed, they exhibit the characteristic optical variability of miras. Since the bluer color indicates the higher surface temperature and smaller mass loss rate of the central star in general, the detection rate of SiO masers was expect to be very low for such a sample. However, contrary to our expectation, our preliminary survey made in 2009 resulted in a significantly high detection rate of SiO masers. Therefore, we have performed a new extensive observation in the SiO maser lines toward these red variables, and have increased the data of our SiO radial velocity database. In this paper, we present the result of the observations and give a limited discussion on the kinematic properties of this sample, based mainly on the radial velocities. For all of the sampled stars, proper-motions have been measured optically [@roe10]. A kinematic study based on the proper motions will be given in the future paper.
Observation, sample selection, and results
==========================================
Observation
-----------
The observations were made with the 45m radio telescope at Nobeyama in 2009 March, 2010 March–May, and 2010 December–2011 January in the SiO $J=1$–0 $v=1$ and 2 transitions at 43.122 and 42.821 GHz, respectively. A few data taken before 2009 were also added for the present analysis. A cooled HEMT receiver (H40) was used for the 43 GHz observations with acousto-opt spectrometer arrays with 40 and 250 MHz bandwidths (with velocity resolutions of about 0.3 and 1.8 km s$^{-1}$, respectively). The system temperature was about 180 — 250 K for the SiO observations, depending on weather conditions. The half-power beam width (HPBW) of the telescope was about 40$''$ at 43 GHz. A conversion factor of the antenna temperature to the flux density was about 2.9 Jy K$^{-1}$. All of the observations were made by the position-switching mode. Further details of observations using the NRO 45-m telescope have been described elsewhere (see [@deg00]). The spectrometer arrays also covered the SiO $J=1$–0 $v=0$ and $v=3$ lines at 43.424 GHz and 42.519 GHz, respectively, the $^{29}$SiO $J=1$–0 $v=0$ line at 42.880 GHz, and H53$\alpha$ at 42.952 GHz. However, these lines were detected in a few sources (shown in Appendix 1).
(110mm,80mm)[fig1.eps]{}
Sample selection
----------------
The sample for the present SiO maser searches was chosen mainly from the “Catalog of Red Variables in the Northern Sky Variability Survey”[@wil04]. Because the coverage of this survey is heavily weighted on the northern Galactic plane, we used an additional optical catalog of red variables selected from the “ASAS Variable Stars in Southern Hemisphere” [@poj05]. These two catalogs listed up the red variables found in automated sky surveys. They give period of optical light curve, classification code, optical magnitude and amplitude, coordinates of the stars with accuracy better than 10$''$, and 2MASS and IRAS identifications. From these catalogs, we selected the objects with a classification code of “M” (mira) or “SR+L” (semiregular [^1] and irregular variables) and with a period longer than 80 d \[which covers enough for SiO maser stars at the short-period limit ($\sim 150$ d)\]. Additionally, we applied the selection criteria to effectively squeeze out the stars enshrouded by circumstellar dust; $K<9$, and $H-K>0.6$, the 12 $\mu$m flux density brighter than 3 Jy, and the color $-0.5 <C_{12}$ $ [\equiv log(F_{25}/F_{12})] \lesssim 0.2$, where $H$ and $K$ are 2MASS $H$ and $K_s$ magnitudes, respectively [@cut03], and $F_{12}$ and $F_{25}$ are the IRAS flux densities in the 12 and 25 $\mu$m bands, respectively [@bei89] \[the MSX bands C and E [@ega03] were also consulted for the $|b| \lesssim 6^{\circ}$ sources. We applied the same criterion in $C_{12}$ by translating $log(F_E/F_C)$ to $C_{12}$ without any correction, where $F_C$ and $F_E$ are MSX 12 and 21 $\mu$m flux densities. Detailed comparison of the MSX colors with those of IRAS [@sjo09] showed that the correction is negligibly small around $C_{12}=-0.4$ (see their Figure 4)\]. All the objects in the present sample are optically identified variable stars. These are supposedly late-type (AGB or post-AGB) stars surrounded by a dust envelope with a color-temperature range between 250 and 1200 K (they are the stars with a thin dust envelope in region II and IIIa of the mid-IR two-color diagram of [@van88]). The stars cataloged as a carbon star in the SIMBAD database are excluded from the sample. Furthermore, we selected a few bright objects for backup observations in a bad weather condition. They are slightly bluer sources in $H-K$ and in $C_{12}$ but have not been surveyed before. We added these additional objects to our results for completeness. We have observed all the red variables in the @wil04’s catalog down to $F_{12}=7$ Jy (though we could not consume all the bright objects in the ASAS catalog). The distribution of the observed stars in the sky is shown in Figure 1.
Results
-------
(80mm,80mm)[fig2.eps]{}
Observational results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 for the SiO detections and no detections, respectively. The observed spectra of the SiO $J=1$–0 $v=1$ and 2 transitions for detected sources are given in Appendix 1, and the individually interesting objects are also discussed there. Table 3 summarizes a few detections in the additional lines of SiO, i.e., the $^{28}$SiO $v=3$ and $v=0$ $J=1$–0 and $^{29}$SiO $v=0$ $J=1$–0 transitions \[the spectra are shown in Appendix 1\]. Table 4 summarizes the infrared properties of all the observed sources. Figure 2 shows the near- and middle-infrared color–magnitude diagrams for observed stars. If we compare this, for example, with Figure 2 of @deg10, we can recognize that the present sample is weighted toward bluer colors than the previous SiO maser survey samples; for example, the median of $H-K$ for the present sample is 0.72, while it is 1.09 for the former sample, and the median of $C_{12}$ in the present sample is $-0.29$, while it is $-0.16$ for the former sample. In addition, the objects in the present sample are much brighter in $K$ band than those in the previous samples. It suggests that the average distance from the Sun of the sampled stars is much smaller than that of the previous SiO-survey samples with a typical distance of $\sim 4$ kpc. The detection rate of SiO masers is quite high ($\sim 80$ %) for the objects that are bright in the 12 $\mu$m and $K$ bands, but gradually decreases as the infrared flux density decreases. Beyond $K=5$, the number of no detections exceeds that of detections because of the large distance to the sources. Such a high SiO detection rate in SiO maser emission was an unexpected result, which apparently does not match up with the blue colors of the sample. However, this apparent discrepancy could be explained for the following reasons. In the previous SiO surveys, the variability indices of the IRAS catalog were not considered in the selection criteria (except [@jia96]). Therefore, the samples could include young steller objects (YSOs) and red giants (RGB stars) which may mimic IR colors of the AGB stars , but do not emit SiO masers. On the contrary, the present sample is selected from the optically visible variable stars. It assures that they are stars in the AGB or post-AGB phases exhibiting active mass loss.
(80mm,50mm)[fig3.eps]{}
(80mm,50mm)[fig4.eps]{}
Figure 3 shows a histogram of period for the detections and no detections. The averaged period is 424 ($\pm 158$) d for the detections and 347 ($\pm 192$) d for the no detections, where the parenthetic number is a standard deviation. The SiO detection rate seems to increase with period, as has been found in the past surveys (e.g., see Figure 3 of [@deg04]). We found 4 SiO maser sources with a period shorter than 200 d : J18424774+1548565, J19091839+7333285 (the shortest P=154 d), J20414535+3353226, and J22325976+6654394. All of them are semi-regulars. The blue miras with a period less than 200 d occasionally exhibit a large deviant motion from the Galactic rotation [@fea00]. However, above 4 objects (distributing in the Galactic longitude and latitude ranges of $l=46$ – $110^{\circ}$ and $b=-5$ – $+24^{\circ}$) spread only in the velocity range between $-16$ and $25$ km s$^{-1}$. Therefore, we do not find any anomalous kinematics for these 4 objects only from their radial velocities. We estimated distances to the observed stars based on the PL (Period-Luminosity) relation [@whi08]. The detail of the distance estimation is given in Appendix 2. Figure 4 shows histogram of distances for the detections and no detections. This figure indicates that most of objects in the sample are located within a distance of 3 kpc from the Sun except a few faint ones, though there is a considerable uncertainty in the distance estimation. The average distance is 2.0 ($\pm 1.1$) kpc for the detections, and 2.2 ($\pm 2.5$) kpc for the no detections.
Discussion
==========
Longitude-velocity diagram
--------------------------
In Figure 5, we present the longitude-velocity diagram of the detections, in which filled and unfilled circles indicate the galactic latitude ranges of $|b|<10^{\circ}$ and $|b|>10^{\circ}$, respectively. Thick curves indicate the expected radial velocities for the objects under a circular rotation at distances, 1, 2, and 4 kpc from the Sun. Here we assumed a flat Galactic rotation curve of 220 km s$^{-1}$ in the Solar neighborhood and the Sun–Galactic-center distance of 8 kpc. We have also drawn the broken curves which are expected for the Hercules and Arcturus moving groups of stars near the Solar neighborhood (at the distance of 1 kpc). For simplicity, we assumed that the rotational lag and radial motion of the streams to the Galactic rotation are kept the same everywhere near the Solar neighborhood. The curve for each moving group strongly depends on the assumed velocity law: see, for example, Figure 8 and Appendix 3 of [@deg10]).
In Figure 5, we see notable concentrations of the stars with $|b|<10^{\circ}$ near the curve of 4 kpc distance; one around $l=25$ – 45$^{\circ}$ and $V_{\rm lsr}\simeq +40$ – +80 km s$^{-1}$, and the other around $l=95$ – 135$^{\circ}$ and $V_{\rm lsr}\simeq -70$ – $-40$ km s$^{-1}$. In addition, there is a group of stars in the area $l=20$ – 50$^{\circ}$ and $V_{\rm lsr}\simeq -80$ – $-20$ km s$^{-1}$, which is deviant from the Galactic rotation by more than $\sim 50$ km s$^{-1}$. These deviant groups of stars are surrounded by ellipses in Figure 6 for clarity. They are overlaid on the CO $l$-$v$ map [@dam01] for comparison.
The negative velocity feature around $l=20$ – 50$^{\circ}$ ($V_{\rm lsr}\simeq -80$ – $-20$ km s$^{-1}$) has been discussed extensively by @deg10. This is likely an extension of the Hercules moving group of stars, which is caused by outer Lindblad resonance of the Galactic bar structure. @bov10 predicted that the member stars of the Hercules moving group would reveal most promisingly in the Galactic longitude range of $250^{\circ} \lesssim l\lesssim 290^{\circ}$. Unfortunately, stars in this longitude range are difficult to observe from Nobeyama except for stars at high Galactic latitudes. Furthermore, SiO maser sources (O-rich evolved stars) are not populated much outside the Solar circle (e.g., [@jia96]). Therefore, it is hard to confirm such a prediction through only the present discussion based on the longitude-velocity diagram.
(100mm,70mm)[fig5.eps]{}
(110mm,70mm)[fig6.eps]{}
Perseus group of deviant stars
------------------------------
One of notable characteristics of Figure 5 is that a considerable number of objects exhibit radial velocities larger than that expected from the 2 kpc distance; many stars fall around or beyond the curve of the 4 kpc distance. Because the objects in the present sample are optical variables which are bright in $K$ band ($K<4$), most of these are to be close to the Sun, i.e., their distances are smaller than 3 kpc. This discrepancy between the luminosity and kinematic distances is discussed below.
Figure 6 compares the distribution of the SiO sources with that of CO emission. The concentration of the points seen in the area of $l=95$ – 135$^{\circ}$ and $V_{\rm lsr}\simeq -70$ – $-40$ km s$^{-1}$ coincides with a peak of CO emission feature for the Perseus spiral arm (see [@dam01]). CO emission is most prominent at around $l=111^{\circ}$ and $V_{\rm lsr}= -45$ km s$^{-1}$ (toward the NGC7538 molecular cloud). The average distance for the 18 objects in the ellipse of figure 5 (marked as Perseus) is estimated to be 1.94 kpc (with a standard deviation of $\pm 1.10$ kpc) based on the period-luminosity (PL) relation. There is a large difference between the kinematic and luminosity distances for this group of stars. If we believe the luminosity distance, the stars of this group are approaching us with velocity larger than the velocity expected by the standard circular rotation of the Galaxy. Note that the SiO maser sources have a velocity dispersion of about 25 km s$^{-1}$ from the average Galactic rotation \[see the discussion in the last paragraph of Appendix 2 of @deg05\].
The distance to the Perseus spiral arm was controversial in the past [@rik68; @rob72]. Recently parallax distances to the several masing objects in this spiral arm have been measured with Very Long Baseline Interferometric (VLBI) technique. For example, the distance to W3(OH) ($l=134^{\circ}$) is determined to be $1.95\pm 0.04$ kpc [@xu06]. A comprehensive summary of the objects with annual parallax measurements is found in Figure 11 of @asa10, which visualizes positions and peculiar motions of several objects in this spiral arm. The Perseus spiral arm exhibits a systematic deviation from the circular rotation by a $\sim$30 km s$^{-1}$ in the longitude range $l=90$ – 150$^{\circ}$. Since the 18 red variables toward the Perseus arm exhibit a similar kinematic characteristic, we conclude that these variables are associated with the Perseus spiral arm. An average period of the 18 red variables in the Perseus arm is 423 ($\pm 109$) d, which is longer than the average period of field optical miras of about 300 d [@whi00; @tem05]. This fact indicates that they are relatively massive stars compared with the field miras. For example, the initial mass of AGB stars with P=420 d is about 2.5 $M_{\odot}$ with age of 0.9 Gyr (see, e.g., Figure 20 of [@vas93]). Thus, the red variables in the Perseus arm has not left far from the birth place.
Sgr group of deviant stars
--------------------------
As well as the Perseus spiral arm, we may consider a possibility of association of another deviant group at $l=25$ – 45$^{\circ}$ and $V_{\rm lsr}\simeq +40$ – +80 km s$^{-1}$ with the Sagittarius-Crux arm. The average distance and period of 21 stars in this group (the upper ellipse noted as Sgr group in Figure 6) are 2.58 ($\pm 0.99$) kpc and 489 ($\pm 160$) d, respectively. Notable structures in this direction in our Galaxy are the Local Spur ($D\sim 0$–2 kpc), the Sagittarius-Carina spiral arm ($D\sim 2$ – 3 kpc), and the Scutum-Crux arm ($D\sim 3$–5 kpc). It is possible that the Local Spur is a down stream branched from the Sagittarius-Crux arm. The branching to the Local spur seems to start near the tangent of the Sagittarius-Crux arm at $l\sim 55^{\circ}$.
In the $l$-$v$ diagram (see the overlaid color map of figure 6), $^{12}$CO emission is very weak around ($l$, $V_{\rm lsr}$) $\sim$ (30$^{\circ}$, +60 km s$^{-1}$), except in the direction of the HII region $G34.257+0.155$. This is also true for the $^{13}$CO map [@lee01]. The kinematic distance of the HII region $G34.257+0.155$ was estimated to be 3.8$^{+0.4}_{-0.8}$ kpc [@fis03] from the HI absorption feature assuming the standard circular rotation. Recently the annual parallax distance was measured with VERA for the nearby infrared dark cloud, $G034.43+00.24$ [@kur11]. The distance to the H$_2$O maser sources in this dark cloud is $\sim 1.56\pm 0.12$ kpc, which is considerably smaller than the kinematic distance of this cloud. Because the radial velocity of this cloud ($V_{\rm lsr}\sim 50$ – 60 km s$^{-1}$) is similar to that of the HII region $G34.257+0.155$, the distances of $G34.257+0.155$ may be overestimated. It is also likely that our deviant group of stars, which has a similar radial velocity in the same direction, is likely to be in the same spiral arm. Therefore, we call this group as the “Sgr” deviant group because the average luminosity distance of the stars in this deviant group is close to the estimated distance of the Sagittarius arm at $l\sim 30^{\circ}$ .
@rei09 summarized the recent parallax measurements of massive star forming regions with VLBA and VERA by maser lines. Three star forming regions, G23.6$-$0.1, G35.2$-$0.7, and G35.2$-$1.7, exhibit the parallax distances in the range between 2 and 4 kpc in their table 4. However, one of these ($G23.6-0.1$) has a large radial velocity of $V_{\rm lsr}= +83$ km s$^{-1}$ (the kinematic distance $D^{Std}_{k}=5.04$ kpc or $D^{Rev}_{k}=4.77 (\pm 0.3)$ kpc for their new rotational parameters), but the parallax distance of this object is 3.19 kpc, which locates this objects very near the far arm in this direction (the Scutum-Crux arm; see figure 5 of [@rei09]). Another two source, G35.2$-$0.7 and G35.2$-$1.7, have much smaller radial velocities ( $V_{\rm lsr}= +28$ and +42 km s$^{-1}$), for which the parallax distance roughly agrees with the kinematic distance (2 – 3 kpc). From these facts and the 1.6 kpc distance of the dark cloud $G034.43+00.24$ [@kur11], we conclude that the spiral arm in this direction has a complicated velocity structure and a large noncircular motion. The exceeding velocity of the Sgr group of stars to the galactic rotation suggests either (1) that these stars move faster than the rotational velocity given by the flat rotation curve, or (2) that these stars move toward the galactic center (this inward motion causes the radial velocity increase in this direction). Because the directions of these two motions appear in opposite sense in the proper motion, VLBI observations of proper motions of objects in Sagittarius arm can be a good test of above cases.
Because the average period of this star group ($\sim 480$ d) is considerably large compared with the average period of optical miras, they are relatively young objects compared with the field miras. Therefore it is likely that these stars are born in the Sagittarius arm and do not completely depart from this arm yet.
Correction in the distance for long-period miras
------------------------------------------------
Optical and infrared properties of the candidates for the deviant groups are summarized in Table 5; it gives the 2MASS name, period, variability type, $R$ magnitude, $R$ amplitude of the variability, 2MASS $K_s$ magnitude, error in the $K$ magnitude, quality flag for the $K$ magnitude, luminosity and kinematic distances. It involves a few stars with low photometric quality in the $K$ band in the 2MASS catalog. These objects have relatively large distances compared with the average value of each group. Therefore the small average luminosity distances for these two groups of stars are not due to the objects with poor photometric accuracy.
In the previous sections, we used the PL relation which was derived from the photometric measurements of the miras with periods between 100 and 400 d [@whi08], and extended the linear relation to the longer period up to 1000 d. However, it has been known that some miras with $P>400$ d, especially for OH/IR sources, lie above the linear extrapolation of the PL relation (e.g., see [@fea09]). This may cause an error in the distance estimation for the deviant group of stars. Therefore, we also applied the different PL relation for the stars with $P>400$ d, which was derived from the longer period miras in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) [@ita11]. The detail of this correction was described in Appendix 3. The corrected distances (applied for all of $P>400$ d stars) are given in parenthetic number in the 8th column of Table 5. In this case, the average distance is 2.2 ($\pm 1.3$) kpc for the Perseus group of stars, and it is 3.5 ($\pm 2.1$) kpc for the Sgr group of stars, where the parenthetic number is the standard deviation. Therefore, such correction does not influence much for the distance estimation for the Perseus group, but it increases the average distance considerably for the Sgr group, because the latter group involves many stars with $P>400$ d. It is likely that the Sgr group of stars involve several very long period ($P=730$ d) stars, which contaminate this sample. If we remove the 4 stars with $P=730$ d, which is the upper boundary as a result of insufficient data in the NSVS survey [@wil04], the average of the corrected luminosity distances of the Sgr group of 17 deviant stars is 2.6 ($\pm 1.2$) kpc. The average of the kinematic distances of this reduced set is 3.5 ($\pm 0.7$) kpc. The Student t-test gives a probability of 2 % for these two averages being produced by the same distribution function. In other words, with 98% confidence level, we can state that the average distances of these two sets are significantly different. In table 6, we summarized the average distance and standard deviation, and the t probability of the Student’s t-test for the Perseus and Sgr (with smaller number) groups. In summary, the discrepancy between kinematic and luminosity distances for the Perseus and Sgr groups of stars are not removed by the correction in the distance for the $P>400$ d, though evidence is slightly weak for the case of the Sgr group.[^2]
[lcccc]{} Group & Quantity & $D_k$ & $D_L$ & $D_{Lc}$\
(number) & & (kpc) & (kpc) & (kpc)\
Perseus & average & 5.27 & 1.94 & 2.19\
(18) & standard dev. & 1.04 & 1.10 & 1.26\
& $probability^{\dagger}$ & — & $<10^{-4}$ & $<10^{-4}$\
Sgr & average & 3.63 & 2.58 & 3.45\
(21) & standard dev. & 0.81 & 0.99 & 2.08\
& $probability^{\dagger}$ & — & $<10^{-4}$ & 0.66\
reduced Sgr & average & 3.46 & 2.26 & 2.65\
(17) & standard dev. & 0.62 & 0.75 & 1.22\
& $probability^{\dagger}$ & — & $<10^{-4}$ & 0.02\
\
\
\
The present conclusion strongly depends on the luminosity distance based on the PL relation. Further examination on the accuracy of the distances will be given in the future paper, which also discuss the validity of the optical proper motions for these objects. In this paper, we have given a preliminary analysis based on the obtained new radial velocities for a set of optical red variables, and have shown that they provide useful information on the kinematic of the stars in the Galaxy.
Summary
=======
We have observed 379 red variables in the SiO maser lines, obtaining 229 (220 new) detections. Accurate radial velocities of the detected sources are used for investigating the kinematics of stars in the Solar neighborhood. Most of the observed stars locate within 3 kpc from the Sun according to luminosity distances. The longitude-velocity diagram of the sample shows high number densities of stars in two regions. The estimated luminosity distances suggest that these groups of stars spatially collocate with the Perseus and Sagittarius spiral arms. The result of the VLBI parallax measurements of the objects in these spiral arms seems to be consistent with the present data. However, at the current moment, the number of objects observed with VLBI is too small to conclude the membership of objects to the Galactic spiral arms except for the objects in the Perseus arm. In addition, we found a group of stars deviated by more than 40 km s$^{-1}$ in a Galactic longitude range of 20–40$^{\circ}$, which are likely to be members of the Hercules moving group. Proper motion data are essential to reveal the 3d motions of these stars, and the discussion based on the optically obtained proper motions will be given in a forthcoming paper.
We thank Dr. J. Nakashima, Univ. Hong Kong, for reading the manuscripts and useful comments. This research was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Japan Society for the Promotion of Sciences (20540234). This research made use of the SIMBAD and VizieR databases operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, and as well as use of data products from Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and National Science foundation.
Appendix. 1. SiO maser spectra and short notes on individual objects {#appendix.-1.-sio-maser-spectra-and-short-notes-on-individual-objects .unnumbered}
====================================================================
We show the SiO maser spectra (the $J=1$–0 $v=1$ and 2 transitions) for detections in figures 8a–8m. We also show the spectra of other SiO maser transitions in figure 8. Individually interesting objects are noted as follows.
- $J02201452+7845362$ (=AG Cep): This is a relatively bright IRAS source with $F_{12}=34.1$ Jy. H$_2$O maser emission has been detected at $V_{\rm lsr}=0.2$ km $^{-1}$ [@lew97], which is considerably shifted from the SiO radial velocity $V_{\rm lsr}=-28$ km s$^{-1}$ measured in the present paper. OH maser searches have been negative [@ngu79; @lew95]. The large velocity difference of about 30 km s$^{-1}$ between H$_2$O and SiO maser lines suggests that this object is likely a water fountain source [@ima07]. The central star, AG Cep, has a spectral type of M10, and a pulsation period of 403 d in the NSVS catalog, which is slightly different from the period of 445 d in the SVS catalog [@sam10]. The IRAS LRS spectra of this source exhibits a very sharp peak at 9.8 $\mu$m (LRS class 26), and @lit90 classified the shape of silicate feature as “Sil+”, which have high maser detection rate.
- $J01052742+6558594$ (=V888 Cas): The IRAS LRS spectrum of this object (IRAS 01022+6542) was classified as C type (11 $\mu$m SiC feature; [@vol91]), indicating a carbon star [@che03]. Searches for the 86.2 GHz SiO and 88.6 GHz HCN emissions with the IRAM 30m telescope were negative [@gro02]. However, we detected SiO masers in this star at $V_{\rm lsr}=-63$ km s$^{-1}$. This result suggests that the LRS feature is a silicate absorption at 10 $\mu$m typically seen in oxygen-rich evolved stars.
- $J$03542359+1601019 (=UY Tau) and $J$04212541+2015592 (V1110 Tau): These two stars have similar radial velocities, 45.5 and 45.2 km s$^{-1}$, respectively, at the same Galactic longitude $l=175^{\circ}$. The data points for these two stars are overlapped in the longitude-velocity diagram (Figure 5), lying on on the broken curve of the Hercules moving group. In fact, they are at high Galactic latitudes and separated by 8$^{\circ}$ in Galactic latitude ($b=-28.1$ and $-20.5^{\circ}$). These two are likely members of the Hercules moving group.
- $J04402801+301650$ (=V524 Aur): This is a medium bright IRAS source with $F_{12}$=21.1 Jy and IRAS LRS class of 13 (feature less), but this star has been slipped out from the past OH/IR and SiO maser surveys probably because of its “blue” MIR color ($C_{12}=-0.451$). The period of light variation of this star, 678 d, indicates that it is a considerably luminous and massive star among these objects. SiO masers have been detected for the first time in this paper. The observed SiO radial velocity ($V_{\rm lsr}=-100.1$ km s$^{-1}$) of this star at the Galactic coordinates of $(l,b)=(170.6^{\circ}, -10.7^{\circ})$ indicates that this object is kinematically unusual.
- $J$07314247+4733226 (=DN Lyn): This star was once recorded as a dwarf nova and catalogued as a cataclysmic binary[@rit03]. But this is in fact a faint mira [@kaz02], and the status is corrected in the later version of the catalog of cataclysmic binaries \[see on line version of @rit03\].[^3] This is a faint IRAS source ($F_{12}=3.7$ Jy), but SiO masers are detected at $V_{\rm lsr}=-37.8$ km s$^{-1}$ in the present paper.
- $J$20125796$+$3214563 (=V557 Cyg): This star has an extreme radial velocity of $V_{\rm lsr}=53.4$ km s$^{-1}$ at $l=70.4^{\circ}$ in SiO masers. OH and H$_2$O masers have been detected for this star [@lew95]. The longitude-velocity diagram (Figure 6) shows that several other stars also have similar (but slightly lower) radial velocities: $J$20074663+3117241 ($V_{\rm lsr}=43.9$ km s$^{-1}$) and $J$20021291+3057556 ($V_{\rm lsr}=31.8$ km s$^{-1}$). These three stars fall in a circle of 3 degree diameter, and the estimated distances are between 1.5 and 2.3 kpc (though the other two stars also fall near there in Figure 6, their distances are much larger). Because of their Galactic longitudes ($l\sim 70^{\circ}$), it is likely that these stars are not associated with the Sagittarius spiral arm. They move faster than the Galactic rotation by about 50 km s$^{-1}$.
- $J$20195560+8816277 (=X UMi): This star is interesting for its location very near to the celestial north pole. We detected SiO masers at $V_{\rm lsr}=-88.9$ km s$^{-1}$; it is unusual as a star at the Galactic coordinates (121.1$^{\circ}$, 26.5$^{\circ}$); see Figure 5. This star is located near the edge of the Polaris flare cloud in the local spur [@hei90]. The distance to this flaring cloud is not very far from the Sun, possibly less than 0.5 kpc ($V_{\rm lsr}\sim -3$ km s$^{-1}$). But this star is far away from the CO cloud because the distance is estimated to be 2.6 kpc. The pulsation period of this star is 338 d, and the 2MASS $K_s$ magnitude is 4.3. IRAS 12 micron flux is 5.3 Jy with a color index $C_{12}=-0.37$. The spectral class is M8–9 [@gig96]. Therefore, It is likely that this is a deviant star in the Perseus arm, but not a star in the Local spur.
Appendix. 2. Distance estimation using the Period–Luminosity relation {#appendix.-2.-distance-estimation-using-the-periodluminosity-relation .unnumbered}
=====================================================================
We estimated the luminosity distance from the observed $K$ magnitudes using the Period-Luminosity (PL) relation [@whi08], $$M_K=-3.51\times [log (P) -2.38] -7.25.$$ The uncertainty of this formula is approximately 0.15 mag for the miras with a period between 150 and 400 d [@whi08]. The correction for stars with $P>400$ d will be discussed in Appendix 3. The observed $K$ magnitude can be corrected for the interstellar and circumstellar reddening (see equation (1) of [@fuj06]) $$K_c= K - A_K/E(H-K)\times [(H-K)-(H-K)_0],$$ where we use $A_K/E(H-K)=1.44$ [@nis06], and $(H-K)_0 $ is given by the empirical relation $$(H-K)_0 = 0.420\times log(P) -0.597$$ [@cat92]. Then, we can compute the distance from the difference between corrected and absolute $K$ magnitudes, $K_c$ and $M_K$, i.e., $$(D_L/{\rm pc})=10^{0.2(K_c-M_K)+1}$$ Figure 4 is a histogram of the derived distances using PL relation for the SiO detections and no detections. About 80% of the objects are at the luminosity distances below 3 kpc. Accuracy of the obtained luminosity distance depends on two factors: reliability of the measured pulsation period and errors in the average $K$ magnitude for a variable star. To check the reliability of the periods given by the NSVS catalog, we have cross-correlated the NSVS periods with those of the SVS catalog. Though the two periods derived from the NSVS and SVS catalogs coincide well for the medium-period objects ($P<600$ d) in general, the coincidence becomes worse for the longer period stars. Therefore, we have to be careful to derive the distance based on the period given by the NSVS catalog. The present sample involves not only miras but semi-regulars too. Though 75 percent of stars in the present sample are of the variability type of mira, 20 percent of stars are of semi-regular type and 5 percent of stars are of other type (the latter two types are noted by symbols “$\dagger$” and “$\ddag$” in the second column of table 4). Moreover, some miras with SiO masers occasionally exhibits a pulsation in a first overtone mode [@ita06]. Although it has been argued that semi-regulars may follow to a $P$–$M_K$ relation different from miras (for example, [@bed98]), the current understanding attributes this phenomenon to the multiplicity of pulsation modes [@tab10]. For a certain percentage of stars with $P<250$ d follows to the $P$–$M_K$ relation with almost the same slope but approximately one magnitude brighter than the standard sequence of the $P$–$M_K$ relation (sequence C in a $P$–$M_K$ diagram; [@ita04; @tab10]). However, in the present analysis, we have used the single $P$–$M_K$ relation (1) for all of the observed stars, and estimated the distances. This is because it is hard to specify the pulsation mode for a particular star with $P<250$ d whether or not it is of higher overtone modes. Fortunately, the SiO detection rate rapidly decreases for stars with a period below 250 d. Furthermore, semi-regulars have a low SiO detection rate ($\sim 13$ % in the present semi-regular sample; see also [@alc90]). In the present sample, only 18 stars with $P<250$ d were detected in all the 229 SiO detections. Therefore, the error in the distance in the SiO detection sample is not severe. For the 18 Perseus group of stars, no semiregular was involved. For the 21 Sgr group of stars, one semiregular with $P=351$ d, which is likely in the sequence C, was involved. Therefore, the multiplicity of the $P$–$M_K$ relation for the short period variables does not affect the discussions made in section 3.
The K-band amplitude of pulsation reaches to 0.8 magnitude for miras [@whi08]. The 2MASS $K_s$ magnitude, which was measured at a single epoch, may differ from the average value in a pulsation period by about 1 mag \[e.g., figure 11 of [@mes04]\]. Furthermore for bright stars with $K<4$, the 2MASS magnitude involves relatively large uncertainty (up to 0.4 mag) [@cut03]. Therefore, we deduce that the derived luminosity distance may involve uncertainty of a factor of about 2 for individual objects. However, we expect that the uncertainty do not produce severe systematic shift in the distance scale and the average value for a certain number of stars is meaningful. Therefore, we believe that the uncertainty of the distance do not mislead the discussion made in the present paper.
(80mm,50mm)[fig7.eps]{}
Appendix. 3. Distance correction for the stars with $P> 400$ d. {#appendix.-3.-distance-correction-for-the-stars-with-p-400-d. .unnumbered}
===============================================================
It has been argued that the long-period variables with a period longer than 400 d lie systematically above a linear extrapolation of the PL relation of the miras with $100<P<400$ d \[see a nice summary on this problem given by @fea09\]. @whi03 concluded that all the luminous stars found by the early investigation of @hug90 in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) follow an extrapolation of the PL relation except a few stars under the Hot Bottom Burning (HBB) stage. Because Lithium is overabundant in many OH/IR (and SiO maser) stars [@gar07], it is very likely that the present sample of SiO maser sources is contaminated by the luminous HBB stars. Therefore, we re-estimated the distances of stars introducing the PL relation with a steeper gradient at $P>400$ d. We use for stars with $P>400$ d, $$M_K=-6.850\times [log (P) -2.6] -8.406,$$ and $$(H-K)_0 = 1.271 \times [ log(P) -2.6] + 0.271.$$ These equations are derived based on the $JHK$ band observations of the long period variables in the range $2.6< log(P)<2.95$ in the LMC [@ita11]. The apparent $H$ and $K$ magnitudes in LMC are converted to $M_K$ with a distance modulus of 18.5 for LMC. Because the circumstellar extinction is negligibly small for these LMC O-rich stars at $log(P)<2.95$ in their study, the linear fits of $H$ and $K$ against log(P) in their paper represent the H and K magnitudes without extinction. Therefore, the difference between the $H$ and $K$ linear fits directly gives $(H-K)_0$. The uncertainty of the linear fit in K is deduced to be about 0.36 mag (if we assume the deviation in K is the same as that in the LMC; [@ita11]). From the above equations, we can compute the final correction factor for the distance for the stars with $P>400$ d as $$D_{Lc}/D_L=10^{0.913\times [ log(P) -2.6]}.$$ where $D_{Lc}$ and $D_{L}$ are the corrected luminosity distance for $P>400$ d and the luminosity distance given in Appendix 2 (equation 1), respectively. The correction factor increases up to about a factor of 2 for $P=850$ d. We gave the corrected distance for the Perseus and Sgr groups of stars in parenthetic number at the 9th column of table 5. The histogram of the luminosity distances in the present sample, which is corrected for all of the $P>400$ d stars, is shown in Figure 7.
The PL relation for the $P<400$ d stars does not exhibit a significant offset between the LMC and our Galaxy [@whi08]. Therefore it is reasonably expected that, for the longer period stars ($P>400$ d), the same relation holds both in the LMC and in our Galaxy, except for a special environment such as the Galactic center (e.g., [@ort02]).
Alcolea, J., Bujarrabal, V., & Gomez-Gonzalez, J. 1990, , 231, 431 Asaki, Y., Deguchi, S., Imai, H., Hachisuka, K., Miyoshi, M. & Honma, M. 2010, , 721, 267 Bedding, T. R. & Zijlstra, A. A. 1998, , 506, L47 Beichman, C. et al., 1989, NASA RP-1190 “ IRAS Point Source Reject Catalog” Belokurov. V. et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, L89 Bensby, T., Oey, M. S., Feltzing, S., & Gustafsson, B. 2007, ApJ, 655, L89 Benson, P. J. & Little-Marenin, I. R.1996, ,106, 579 Bovy, J., 2010, arXiv1006.0736B Catchpole, R. 1992, ASPC, 30, 295 Chen, P.-S. & Chen, W.-P. 2003,, 125, 2215 Cho, S.-H. & Kim, J. 2010, , 719, 126 Cho, S., Kaifu, N., & Ukita, N. 1996, , 111, 1987 Crocker, D. A. & Hagen, W. 1983, , 54, 405 Cutri, R.M., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of Point Sources[^4] Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D. & Thaddeus, P. 2001, , 547, 792 Deguchi, S., Fujii, T., Izumiura, H., Kameya, O., Nakada, Y., & Nakashima, J. 2000, ApJS, 130, 351 Deguchi, S., Fujii, T., Ita, Y., Imai, H., Izumiura, H., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, 559 Deguchi, S., Imai, H., Fujii, T., Glass, I., Ita, Y. et al. 2004, , 56, 261 Deguchi, S., Nakashima, J., Miyata, T., & Ita, Y. 2005, , 57, 933 Deguchi, S., Shimoikura, T., & Koike, K. 2010, , 62, 525 Eder, J., Lewis, B. M., & Terzian, Y. 1988, , 66, 183 Egan, M. P., Price, S. D., Kraemer, K. E., Mizuno, D. R., Carey, S. J., et al. 2003, Air Force Research Laboratory Technical Report AFRL-VS-TR-2003-1589 Eggen, O. J. 1996, AJ, 112, 1595 Engels, D. & Lewis, B. M. 1996, , 116, 117 Engels, D., Schmid-Burgk, J. & Walmsley, C. M. 1988, , 191, 283 Famaey, B., Jorissen, A., Luri, X., Mayor, M., Udry, S., Dejonghe, H., & Turon, C. 2005, A&A, 430, 165 Feast, M. W. 2009, asrp.proc, 48 (arXiv:0812.0250) Feast, M. W.& Whitelock, P. A. 2000, , 317, 460 Fish, V. L., Reid, M. J., Wilner, D. J. & Churchwell, E. 2003, , 587, 701 Fujii, T., Deguchi, S., Ita, Y., Izumiura, H., Kameya, O., Miyazaki, A., & Nakada, Y. 2006, PASJ, 58, 529 Galt, J. A., Kwok, S., & Frankow, J. 1989, , 98, 2182 García-Hernández, D. A., García-Lario, P., Plez, B., Manchado, A., D’Antona, F., Lub, J., & Habing, H. 2007, , 462, 711 Gigoyan, K. S. & Hambaryan, V. V. 1996, Astrophysics, 39, 310 Groenewegen, M. A. T., Sevenster, M., Spoon, H. W. W., Pérez, I. 2002, , 390, 501 Haikala, L. K., Nyman, L.-Å., & Forsström, V., 1994, , 103, 107 Hall, P. J., Allen, D. A., Troup, E. R., Wark, R. M., & Wright, A. E., 1990, , 243, 480 Heithausen, A. & Thaddeus, P. 1990, , 353, L49 Hughes, S. M. G. & Wood, P. R. 1990, , 99, 784 Imai, H. 2007, IAUS, 242, 279 Ita, Y., &; Matsunaga, N 2011, , 412, 2345 Ita, Y., Deguchi, S., Fujii, T., Kameya, O., Miyoshi, M., Nakada, Y., Nakashima, J., & Parthasarathy, M. 2001, , 376, 112 Ita, Y., Tanabé, T., Matsunaga, N., Nakajima, Y., Nagashima, C. et al. 2004, , 347, 720 Ita, Y., Deguchi, S., Matsunaga, N. & Fukushi, H. 2006, Mem. Soc. Astr. Italy, 77, 85 Izumiura, H., Deguchi, S., Hashimoto, O., Nakada, Y., Onaka, T., Ono, T., Ukita, N., & Yamamura, I. 1995, , 453, 837 Jewell, P.R., Snyder, L.E., Walmsley, C.M., Wilson, T.L., Gensheimer, P.D. 1991, A&A 242, 211 Jiang, B.W., Deguchi,S., & Ramesh, B. 1999, PASJ, 51, 95 Jiang, B. W., Deguchi, S., Yamamura, I., Nakada, Y., Cho, S. H., & Yamagata, T. 1996, , 106, 463 Kazarovets, E.V., Samus, N.N., Durlevich, O.V. 2002, IBVS, 5135, 1 Kim, J., Cho, S.-H., Oh, C. S., Byun, D.-Y. 2010, ApJS, 188, 209 Kobayashi, H., Kawaguchi, N., Manabe, S., Shibata, K. M., Honma, M. et al. 2008, IAUS, 248, 148 Kurayama, T., Nakagawa, A., Sawada-Satoh, S., Sato, K., Honma, M., Sunada, K., Hirota, T., & Imai, H. 2011, arXiv1102.2056K Lee, Y., Stark, A. A., Kim, H-G., Moon, D-S., 2001, ApJS, 136, 137 Lewis, B. M. 1994, ApJS, 93, 549 Lewis, B. M. 1997, , 114, 1602 Lewis, B. M. & Engels, D. 1988, Nature, 332, 49 Lewis, B. M., Eder, J. & Terzian, Y. 1990, , 362, 634 Lewis, B. M., David, P., & Le Squeren, A. M. 1995, , 111, 237 Little-Marenin, I. R., & Little, S. J. 1990, , 99, 1173 Majewski, S. R., Skrutskie, M. F., Weinberg, M. D., Ostheimer, J. C. 2003, , 599, 1082 Messineo, M., Habing, H. J., Menten, K. M., Omont, A. & Sjouwerman, L. O. 2004, , 418, 103 Nakashima, J. & Deguchi, S. 2003, PASJ, 55, 203 Nakashima, J. & Deguchi, S. 2006, , 647, L139 Nguyen-Q-Rieu, Laury-Micoulaut, C., Winnberg, A., & Schultz, G. V. 1979, , 75, 351 Nishiyama, S., Nagata, T., Kusakabe, N., Matsunaga, N., & Naoi, T. 2006, , 638, 839 Olnon, F. M., & IRAS Science team, 1986, , 65, 607 Ortiz, R., Blommaert, J.A.D.L., Copet, E., Ganesh, S., Habing, H.J., et al. 2002, , 388, 279 Parimucha, [Š]{}, 2003, Contri. Astron. Obs. Ska. Pleso, 33, 99 Pojmanski et al. 2005, “ASAS Variable Stars in Southern hemisphere (Pojmanski+, 2002-2005)”, on line catalog available at VizieR Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Zheng, X. W,, Brunthaler, A., Moscadelli, L.,et al. 2009, , 700, 137 Rickard, J. J. 1968, , 152, 1019 Ritter, H. & Kolb, U. 2003, , 404, 301 and see online catalog: version 7.14[^5] Roberts, W. W., Jr. 1972, , 173, 259 Roeser, S., Demleitner, M., & Schilbach, E. 2010, , 139, 2440 Samus N.N., Durlevich O.V., et al. 2010, “Catalog of Variable Stars (GCVS database, Version 2010Jan)” avalable in VizieR Scholz, M. & Wood, P. R. 2000, , 362, 1065 Sevenster M.N., van Langevelde, H. J., Moody, R. A., Chapman J.M., Habing H.ﾊJ., & Killeen, N.E.B., 2001, , 366, 481 Sjouwerman, L. O., Capen, S. M., & Claussen, M. J. 2009, , 705, 1554 Tabur, V., Bedding, T. R., Kiss, L. L., Giles, T., Derekas, A., & Moon, T. T. 2010, , 409, 777 Templeton, M. R., Mattei, J. A., Willson, L. A. 2005, , 130, 776 van Blerkom, D. & Mao, X. 1982, , 252, L73 van der Veen, W. E. C. J., & Habing, H. J. 1988, , 194,125 Vassiliadis, E., & Wood, P. R. 1993, , 413, 641 Volk, K., Kwok, S., Stencel, R. E., & Brugel, E. 1991, ApJS, 77, 607 Whitelock, P., Marang, F., & Feast, M. 2000, , 319, 728 Whitelock, P. A., Feast, M., W., van Loon, J. T., Zijlstra, A. A. 2003, , 342, 86 Whitelock, Patricia A., Feast, M. W. & van Leeuwen, F. 2008, , 386, 313 Williams, P.R., Wozniak, S.J., Vestrand, W.T., & Gupta, V. 2004, , 128, 2965 Wo' zniak, P. R., Williams, S. J., Vestrand, W. T., & Gupta, V. 2004, , 128, 2965 Xu, Y. Reid, M. J. Zheng, X. W. & Menten, K. M. 2006, Sci. 311, 54 Zuckerman, B. 1979, , 230, 442 Zwitter, T., Siebert, A., Munari, U., Freeman, K. C., Siviero, A. et al. 2008, , 136, 421Z
.
0.5pt
[crrrrrrrrr]{}
& & &\
2MASS name & $T_a$ & $V_{\rm lsr}$ & L.F. & rms & $T_a$ & $V_{\rm lsr}$ & L.F. & rms & obs. date\
[(J—)]{} & [(K)]{} & [(km s$^{-1}$)]{} & [(K km s$^{-1}$)]{} & [(K)]{} & [(K)]{} & [(km s$^{-1}$)]{} & [(K km s$^{-1}$)]{} & [(K)]{} & [(yymmdd.d)]{}\
& & &\
2MASS name & $T_a$ & $V_{\rm lsr}$ & L.F. & rms & $T_a$ & $V_{\rm lsr}$ & L.F. & rms & obs. date\
[(J—)]{} & [(K)]{} & [(km s$^{-1}$)]{} & [(K km s$^{-1}$)]{} & [(K)]{} & [(K)]{} & [(km s$^{-1}$)]{} & [(K km s$^{-1}$)]{} & [(K)]{} & [(yymmdd.d)]{}\
\
\
\
\
00100914$+$5452343 & 0.403 & $-$34.6 & 0.950 & 0.062 & 0.415 & $-$35.9 & 1.695 & 0.068 & 100225\
00163648$+$6601104 & 0.283 & $-$60.9 & 0.539 & 0.058 & 0.249 & $-$60.5 & 0.444 & 0.056 & 090309\
00202547$+$6947567 & 0.617 & $-$49.5 & 2.026 & 0.082 & 0.938 & $-$49.6 & 2.752 & 0.094 & 100225\
00251001$+$7008516 & 1.195 & $-$43.3 & 5.694 & 0.057 & 1.365 & $-$41.3 & 4.394 & 0.067 & 100225\
00365942$+$6308016 & 2.428 & $-$58.5 & 11.692 & 0.143 & 2.297 & $-$56.0 & 12.320 & 0.139 & 090308\
00382283$+$8021250 & 0.340 & 2.9 & 0.639 & 0.074 & — & — & — & 0.076 & 100321\
00452805$+$7550219 & 0.607 & $-$83.1 & 1.998 & 0.058 & 0.438 & $-$82.6 & 1.883 & 0.065 & 100225\
00480999$+$5334010 & — & — & — & 0.051 & 0.244 & $-$42.0 & 0.307 & 0.063 & 100225\
00504329$+$4630307$^{\dagger}$ & 1.792 & $-$34.3 & 5.293 & 0.098 & 1.480 & $-$34.1 & 4.131 & 0.101 & 100222\
00532514$+$6501559 & 1.173 & $-$15.5 & 4.471 & 0.131 & 0.946 & $-$19.2 & 3.701 & 0.115 & 090308\
01052742$+$6558594 & 0.952 & $-$62.9 & 4.308 & 0.104 & 0.671 & $-$63.8 & 2.265 & 0.097 & 090308\
01070453$+$4924467$^{\dagger}$ & 0.752 & $-$58.9 & 3.451 & 0.066 & 0.988 & $-$58.0 & 4.119 & 0.068 & 100222\
01215470$+$6120551 & 0.565 & $-$30.4 & 1.477 & 0.053 & 0.604 & $-$31.6 & 1.591 & 0.061 & 100412\
01564706$+$3401107 & 1.001 & $-$120.9 & 1.999 & 0.074 & 0.648 & $-$121.9 & 1.579 & 0.085 & 100227\
02055459$+$4043267 & 0.413 & $-$19.9 & 1.665 & 0.049 & 0.472 & $-$9.9 & 1.553 & 0.052 & 100222\
02201452$+$7845362 & 1.017 & $-$28.0 & 1.835 & 0.082 & 1.210 & $-$27.7 & 1.629 & 0.086 & 100222\
02304255$+$6635004 & 0.000 & 0.0 & 0.000 & 0.049 & 0.243 & $-$56.0 & 0.382 & 0.053 & 100412\
02431547$+$8108095 & 1.692 & $-$57.3 & 4.144 & 0.096 & 1.591 & $-$57.2 & 3.627 & 0.099 & 100222\
02444549$+$1219029 & 0.841 & 20.5 & 2.257 & 0.081 & 0.392 & 20.2 & 0.677 & 0.101 & 100227\
02522580$+$3641298 & 0.714 & $-$60.9 & 1.990 & 0.089 & 0.540 & $-$61.0 & 3.107 & 0.091 & 100412\
02561803$+$4553132 & 0.409 & $-$47.4 & 1.436 & 0.052 & 0.199 & $-$52.1 & 0.682 & 0.057 & 100222\
02572747$+$1118057 & 1.717 & 15.4 & 4.300 & 0.088 & 0.949 & 15.4 & 1.500 & 0.098 & 100227\
03043767$+$5649144 & 0.241 & $-$12.4 & 1.296 & 0.040 & 0.190 & $-$12.5 & 0.795 & 0.043 & 100222\
03194960$+$6120515 & 0.812 & $-$100.1 & 1.602 & 0.100 & 0.653 & $-$100.5 & 1.141 & 0.103 & 100412\
03323218$+$7427045 & 1.017 & $-$50.8 & 2.744 & 0.132 & 1.353 & $-$52.6 & 5.042 & 0.153 & 100412\
03483231$+$3216437 & 1.097 & $-$21.3 & 2.872 & 0.123 & 0.821 & $-$20.8 & 1.821 & 0.121 & 100302\
03542359$+$1601019 & 0.742 & 46.0 & 2.751 & 0.092 & 0.545 & 45.1 & 1.080 & 0.103 & 100227\
04153489$+$3349461 & 0.674 & $-$71.9 & 2.460 & 0.119 & 1.587 & $-$73.9 & 4.153 & 0.125 & 100302\
04212541$+$2015592 & 1.362 & 44.7 & 4.059 & 0.106 & 1.773 & 45.7 & 5.831 & 0.124 & 100227\
04232410$+$0634322 & 1.908 & $-$22.6 & 2.849 & 0.183 & 1.529 & $-$22.6 & 2.071 & 0.162 & 090506\
04341277$+$4715357 & 0.457 & 2.4 & 1.050 & 0.070 & 1.062 & 2.4 & 2.651 & 0.072 & 100222\
04355719$+$2830524 & 5.954 & $-$5.8 & 12.520 & 0.286 & 4.796 & $-$5.9 & 5.642 & 0.116 & 080426\
04402801$+$3016500 & 1.582 & $-$100.0 & 4.241 & 0.100 & 1.521 & $-$100.2 & 4.551 & 0.106 & 100405\
04505728$+$0308323 & 0.213 & $-$16.3 & 0.659 & 0.059 & 0.241 & $-$10.1 & 0.954 & 0.065 & 100405\
04553028$+$0304281 & 0.331 & 47.6 & 0.692 & 0.067 & 0.729 & 46.5 & 1.891 & 0.063 & 101208\
05001777$+$6046152 & 0.320 & $-$50.3 & 2.252 & 0.054 & 0.906 & $-$54.1 & 2.304 & 0.058 & 100222\
05381725$+$4700121 & 0.312 & $-$13.7 & 0.894 & 0.067 & 0.752 & $-$14.1 & 1.973 & 0.070 & 100222\
05413366$-$0407549 & 0.755 & 44.4 & 2.196 & 0.092 & — & — & — & 0.094 & 100302\
05435348$+$0310111 & 2.670 & 60.4 & 11.206 & 0.125 & 0.178 & 60.3 & 8.894 & 0.129 & 100302\
05490636$-$3220002 & 0.755 & 23.5 & 2.755 & 0.096 & 0.930 & 23.5 & 1.887 & 0.093 & 101209\
05505493$+$0018131 & 3.375 & 22.3 & 7.697 & 0.130 & 2.118 & 22.3 & 5.993 & 0.129 & 100302\
05572394$+$4822417$^{\dagger}$ & 8.095 & 2.9 & 22.679 & 0.088 & 9.455 & 2.9 & 22.782 & 0.090 & 100222\
05581447$+$5002407$^{\dagger}$ & 0.795 & $-$43.3 & 3.205 & 0.076 & 2.214 & $-$44.3 & 6.295 & 0.081 & 100222\
06015218$+$2149051 & 0.351 & 21.8 & 1.249 & 0.087 & 0.626 & 20.3 & 2.347 & 0.089 & 100302\
06340951$-$1017085 & — & — & — & 0.056 & 0.222 & 34.4 & 0.773 & 0.048 & 101209\
06450560$+$0902184 & 1.104 & 33.1 & 4.552 & 0.087 & 1.380 & 33.7 & 3.102 & 0.090 & 100222\
06570903$+$4735220 & 0.456 & $-$10.8 & 1.824 & 0.055 & 0.307 & $-$7.2 & 0.561 & 0.056 & 100222\
06574519$+$0318093 & 0.674 & $-$8.6 & 3.260 & 0.092 & 1.322 & $-$10.3 & 5.514 & 0.099 & 100223\
07072185$+$2817559 & 4.483 & $-$49.0 & 14.031 & 0.087 & 3.922 & $-$48.5 & 11.262 & 0.092 & 100223\
07073432$+$2413190 & 0.536 & 38.6 & 2.615 & 0.074 & 0.761 & 38.3 & 1.096 & 0.074 & 100223\
07100587$+$6556246 & 1.984 & 10.3 & 6.786 & 0.071 & 3.262 & 10.4 & 7.784 & 0.075 & 100222\
07125372$+$1739161 & 1.758 & $-$11.5 & 5.007 & 0.109 & 1.321 & $-$11.5 & 2.561 & 0.102 & 090321\
07314247$+$4733226 & 0.206 & $-$37.5 & 0.504 & 0.063 & 0.527 & $-$38.1 & 1.077 & 0.066 & 100222\
07553633$-$3936228$^{1}$ & 0.816 & 40.9 & 3.805 & 0.120 & 1.741 & 40.8 & 4.866 & 0.136 & 100225\
07555070$+$5711533 & 1.458 & 36.5 & 7.553 & 0.066 & 0.697 & 36.5 & 3.342 & 0.070 & 100222\
08093981$-$3810285$^{1}$ & 0.995 & $-$34.4 & 2.712 & 0.134 & 1.173 & $-$34.7 & 2.465 & 0.146 & 100225\
08102916$-$3247207 & 0.312 & 50.0 & 0.931 & 0.076 & 0.351 & 58.3 & 1.300 & 0.074 & 100225\
08170543$-$3126193 & 1.539 & 21.2 & 5.461 & 0.103 & 1.558 & 22.9 & 3.947 & 0.108 & 100225\
08254033$-$2210342 & 0.284 & 88.2 & 0.550 & 0.056 & 0.202 & 96.8 & 0.580 & 0.051 & 101207\
08355329$-$1911284 & 0.545 & 53.6 & 1.115 & 0.071 & 0.239 & 55.1 & 0.701 & 0.075 & 100314\
08400691$-$0813472 & 0.643 & 22.7 & 2.560 & 0.068 & 0.709 & 23.6 & 1.934 & 0.070 & 100222\
08414614$+$0211202 & 0.679 & $-$32.2 & 1.868 & 0.088 & 1.241 & $-$32.5 & 3.048 & 0.094 & 100222\
08520560$-$3305439 & 3.507 & 57.7 & 11.490 & 0.119 & 1.377 & 58.1 & 4.229 & 0.129 & 100225\
09243332$-$3043520 & 0.512 & 49.3 & 1.785 & 0.071 & 0.523 & 48.1 & 2.180 & 0.078 & 100225\
09422273$+$7751074 & 4.430 & 21.1 & 9.394 & 0.089 & 2.436 & 21.1 & 4.737 & 0.096 & 100222\
09572218$-$0232555 & 0.767 & $-$2.9 & 2.626 & 0.082 & 1.226 & $-$1.9 & 3.188 & 0.086 & 100223\
11353071$+$3452042 & 0.663 & 3.4 & 1.240 & 0.092 & 1.695 & 1.7 & 2.022 & 0.118 & 080410\
12002079$-$1011049 & 1.488 & $-$4.3 & 1.573 & 0.075 & 0.490 & $-$4.3 & 1.571 & 0.080 & 100223\
12505315$-$2950431 & 0.432 & $-$38.5 & 1.913 & 0.084 & 0.684 & $-$39.6 & 2.076 & 0.090 & 100223\
13512546$-$3656376 & 3.925 & 3.7 & 14.801 & 0.123 & 1.939 & 3.4 & 6.004 & 0.127 & 100223\
13564515$-$2532429 & 0.664 & 20.9 & 1.300 & 0.090 & 1.105 & 22.8 & 2.438 & 0.101 & 100223\
13574319$-$3104110 & 0.863 & $-$1.4 & 1.899 & 0.095 & 0.907 & $-$2.2 & 1.832 & 0.103 & 100223\
14045992$-$3529505$^{\dagger 7,8}$ & 13.408 & 3.6 & 30.051 & 0.139 & 5.267 & 4.2 & 12.666 & 0.135 & 100223\
16385186$+$1403583 & 0.527 & $-$27.7 & 1.536 & 0.049 & 0.790 & $-$28.9 & 1.698 & 0.082 & 050523\
16510590$+$1020515$^2$ & 0.878 & 20.6 & 4.080 & 0.103 & 0.743 & 17.7 & 2.781 & 0.102 & 100512\
16523612$-$0527277 & 0.391 & 19.1 & 0.415 & 0.078 & — & — & — & 0.090 & 100516\
16582342$-$2054105 & 0.245 & 76.1 & 0.771 & 0.065 & 0.246 & 75.9 & 0.204 & 0.060 & 100315\
16584672$-$1243469 & 0.413 & $-$60.8 & 1.273 & 0.056 & 0.203 & $-$64.6 & 0.629 & 0.055 & 100315\
16594972$+$5219044 & 0.239 & $-$31.6 & 0.316 & 0.032 & 0.213 & $-$33.7 & 0.390 & 0.040 & 101220\
17040522$+$7147470 & 0.476 & $-$54.2 & 1.396 & 0.073 & 0.425 & $-$54.6 & 0.977 & 0.086 & 100225\
17192766$-$1015403 & 0.458 & 73.9 & 1.171 & 0.080 & 0.345 & 73.1 & 0.941 & 0.080 & 100315\
17253651$+$0111059 & 0.620 & $-$20.6 & 3.067 & 0.077 & 0.529 & $-$18.5 & 2.760 & 0.080 & 080427\
17272100$-$0613166 & 0.338 & 73.6 & 1.261 & 0.063 & 0.305 & 77.5 & 0.629 & 0.059 & 100315\
17280830$+$0502185 & 1.654 & 25.3 & 2.290 & 0.118 & 0.793 & 25.2 & 1.637 & 0.104 & 100315\
17381195$-$1241572 & 0.480 & 28.7 & 2.172 & 0.077 & 0.328 & 28.5 & 1.026 & 0.080 & 100315\
17392120$-$1312145 & 0.406 & 0.2 & 1.321 & 0.083 & — & — & — & 0.082 & 100516\
17424879$-$0146555 & 0.209 & 22.6 & 1.127 & 0.056 & 0.187 & 21.7 & 0.544 & 0.053 & 100315\
17444713$+$5437173 & 1.632 & $-$40.2 & 5.571 & 0.138 & 0.813 & $-$41.7 & 2.708 & 0.138 & 100428\
17445378$+$2129466 & 0.500 & $-$32.7 & 0.752 & 0.101 & 1.170 & $-$32.9 & 1.860 & 0.099 & 100512\
18032344$-$0218030 & 0.000 & 0.0 & 0.400 & 0.093 & 0.505 & 52.8 & 0.818 & 0.083 & 100315\
18050458$+$0246114 & 0.558 & 58.2 & 1.854 & 0.080 & 0.552 & 60.1 & 0.979 & 0.077 & 100315\
18074103$-$0518196 & 0.501 & $-$27.5 & 1.023 & 0.089 & 0.342 & $-$27.4 & 0.918 & 0.082 & 100315\
18154122$-$0331121 & 0.360 & $-$37.2 & 1.104 & 0.074 & — & — & — & 0.072 & 100512\
18223780$+$0637444 & 1.603 & 67.9 & 5.216 & 0.102 & 1.225 & 66.3 & 4.000 & 0.083 & 100405\
18230711$-$0146024 & 1.571 & 74.6 & 3.409 & 0.110 & 0.890 & 74.6 & 2.618 & 0.110 & 100315\
18230994$-$0636023 & 0.613 & 2.2 & 1.896 & 0.096 & 0.505 & 4.1 & 1.552 & 0.091 & 100315\
18234044$-$0421328 & 0.562 & 10.2 & 2.424 & 0.116 & 0.953 & 13.4 & 2.276 & 0.112 & 100512\
18250094$-$0650575 & 1.824 & 95.4 & 5.831 & 0.109 & 0.665 & 98.1 & 3.036 & 0.104 & 100512\
18260088$+$5055498 & 0.181 & 1.9 & 0.423 & 0.046 & 0.230 & 3.4 & 0.450 & 0.049 & 101220\
18272417$-$0100456$^{\dagger}$ & 2.039 & $-$7.2 & 8.219 & 0.151 & 1.593 & $-$7.5 & 5.898 & 0.133 & 100315\
18274054$+$4918331 & 0.575 & 13.4 & 1.235 & 0.105 & 0.345 & 14.5 & 0.479 & 0.104 & 100428\
18285243$+$0150161 & 0.516 & 58.9 & 2.716 & 0.082 & 0.467 & 56.0 & 1.854 & 0.083 & 100315\
18335184$+$0342484 & 0.238 & 36.2 & 0.496 & 0.044 & 0.392 & 44.0 & 1.733 & 0.045 & 100405\
18361528$+$0126242 & 0.526 & 40.5 & 1.068 & 0.098 & 0.994 & 40.7 & 1.846 & 0.097 & 100316\
18371700$+$0615306 & 1.151 & 49.6 & 3.724 & 0.132 & 0.922 & 49.5 & 3.674 & 0.126 & 100512\
18373693$+$1309559 & 0.788 & 67.5 & 1.104 & 0.129 & 1.565 & 67.1 & 3.010 & 0.117 & 100512\
18391722$-$0320102$^3$ & 1.054 & 4.9 & 3.483 & 0.110 & 1.033 & 5.1 & 3.583 & 0.108 & 090307\
18395233$-$0423328 & 0.445 & 65.6 & 1.363 & 0.074 & 0.618 & 65.2 & 1.751 & 0.086 & 100526\
18401649$+$0004131 & 0.195 & $-$29.1 & 0.308 & 0.066 & 0.352 & $-$28.9 & 0.752 & 0.068 & 100526\
18420997$+$1038548 & 1.633 & 68.3 & 3.794 & 0.087 & 0.569 & 68.4 & 1.943 & 0.090 & 100511\
18422141$+$0208504 & 0.765 & 48.4 & 2.092 & 0.098 & 0.614 & 51.7 & 2.750 & 0.101 & 100511\
18424774$+$1548565 & — & — & — & 0.087 & 0.491 & $-$10.0 & 1.491 & 0.085 & 100512\
18440224$-$0638441 & 0.496 & 65.8 & 1.461 & 0.094 & 0.560 & 59.1 & 1.623 & 0.091 & 090307\
18451727$+$0056300 & 0.391 & 63.9 & 0.961 & 0.062 & 0.421 & 64.6 & 0.728 & 0.057 & 090307\
18473513$-$0651009 & 0.326 & $-$25.8 & 0.706 & 0.076 & 0.377 & $-$24.0 & 0.796 & 0.081 & 100511\
18482850$-$0540524 & 0.845 & 52.6 & 3.140 & 0.083 & 1.142 & 51.0 & 4.710 & 0.091 & 101220\
18533423$+$0048559 & 0.231 & 42.6 & 1.022 & 0.048 & 0.304 & 40.4 & 0.440 & 0.052 & 101220\
18541840$-$0648564$^{\dagger}$ & 2.358 & $-$20.2 & 7.748 & 0.133 & 2.306 & $-$20.3 & 7.452 & 0.131 & 100511\
18550405$+$0606293 & 0.469 & $-$5.2 & 2.319 & 0.082 & 0.702 & $-$5.7 & 2.222 & 0.079 & 090307\
18551284$+$1041470 & 0.980 & $-$51.8 & 3.819 & 0.157 & 2.276 & $-$51.5 & 4.940 & 0.201 & 100511\
19013031$+$0954055 & 0.265 & 71.2 & 0.736 & 0.057 & 0.254 & 70.4 & 0.438 & 0.057 & 090307\
19021502$+$4712597 & 0.381 & 15.1 & 0.448 & 0.084 & — & — & — & 0.079 & 100428\
19030960$-$0128366 & 0.410 & 56.3 & 1.543 & 0.077 & 0.502 & 56.3 & 1.536 & 0.073 & 100512\
19042996$+$0305134 & 0.635 & 42.4 & 2.166 & 0.069 & 0.270 & 50.6 & 1.320 & 0.070 & 101220\
19084758$-$0402461 & 0.488 & 20.2 & 1.567 & 0.081 & 0.538 & 19.0 & 1.386 & 0.076 & 100315\
19091839$+$7333285 & 0.216 & $-$16.3 & 0.651 & 0.057 & 0.256 & $-$17.2 & 0.750 & 0.069 & 100506\
19092954$+$0127514 & 0.340 & 97.6 & 0.604 & 0.062 & 0.200 & 98.1 & 0.450 & 0.060 & 100315\
19145099$+$0414308 & 1.595 & $-$40.8 & 8.324 & 0.135 & 1.645 & $-$40.6 & 4.599 & 0.134 & 051222\
19145678$+$2204305 & 2.493 & 7.5 & 17.230 & 0.119 & 2.393 & 9.4 & 13.686 & 0.117 & 100420\
19152147$+$0233020 & 0.400 & 55.5 & 0.814 & 0.096 & 0.426 & 58.2 & 1.445 & 0.095 & 051222\
19154874$+$0945208 & 0.660 & 18.0 & 1.419 & 0.103 & 0.728 & 18.2 & 1.047 & 0.111 & 100420\
19161015$+$0841001 & 0.208 & 33.0 & 0.773 & 0.055 & 0.117 & 35.6 & 0.155 & 0.050 & 090307\
19163390$+$1822517 & 0.586 & $-$2.2 & 1.945 & 0.115 & 1.239 & 1.3 & 2.458 & 0.111 & 100315\
19170076$+$1456093 & 0.362 & 28.9 & 0.520 & 0.069 & 0.281 & 28.2 & 0.726 & 0.075 & 090307\
19172579$+$4248497 & 0.828 & $-$21.8 & 2.975 & 0.084 & 0.533 & $-$21.0 & 1.782 & 0.085 & 100518\
19195583$+$1254351 & 1.188 & $-$48.2 & 1.283 & 0.117 & 0.753 & $-$48.2 & 2.295 & 0.121 & 090307\
19202271$+$0455507 & 0.781 & $-$3.2 & 1.275 & 0.114 & 1.170 & $-$1.4 & 3.499 & 0.122 & 090308\
19221604$+$0506593 & 1.762 & $-$37.4 & 4.993 & 0.103 & 1.635 & $-$36.2 & 4.579 & 0.100 & 100511\
19242261$+$3219082 & 0.358 & 1.9 & 1.921 & 0.085 & 0.744 & 3.8 & 2.158 & 0.096 & 100506\
19252049$+$0620243 & 0.336 & $-$45.1 & 1.443 & 0.062 & 0.429 & $-$48.6 & 2.146 & 0.063 & 090308\
19261909$+$1640323$^{\dagger}$ & 1.358 & 18.2 & 10.827 & 0.113 & 1.833 & 15.8 & 9.539 & 0.106 & 090308\
19265263$+$1644068 & 1.808 & $-$21.2 & 8.768 & 0.118 & 2.368 & $-$21.4 & 6.891 & 0.119 & 100511\
19271451$+$1129045 & 3.638 & 42.3 & 13.952 & 0.102 & 2.539 & 41.9 & 9.405 & 0.098 & 090308\
19273109$+$1928141 & 1.048 & 40.6 & 3.276 & 0.114 & 0.807 & 37.9 & 3.458 & 0.104 & 090308\
19291709$-$2034504 & 0.923 & 20.7 & 1.304 & 0.146 & 0.675 & 20.4 & 1.134 & 0.139 & 100516\
19293586$+$0433277 & 1.309 & 48.7 & 3.190 & 0.090 & 0.638 & 48.6 & 1.866 & 0.108 & 100506\
19304765$+$1059508 & 0.371 & $-$2.2 & 1.060 & 0.060 & 0.226 & $-$2.2 & 0.277 & 0.059 & 090308\
19323315$+$1102306 & 0.406 & 11.9 & 1.027 & 0.094 & 0.641 & 12.2 & 2.054 & 0.093 & 090308\
19324583$+$0234383 & 0.640 & 13.9 & 1.282 & 0.089 & 0.414 & 16.2 & 1.481 & 0.091 & 100512\
19344122$+$1455539 & 0.766 & $-$29.9 & 1.952 & 0.082 & 0.876 & $-$29.5 & 2.284 & 0.085 & 090308\
19381020$+$3823403 & 0.473 & 9.2 & 1.390 & 0.085 & 0.391 & 9.5 & 1.484 & 0.090 & 100511\
19385776$+$2830467 & 0.691 & $-$97.4 & 2.655 & 0.078 & 2.407 & $-$98.2 & 4.860 & 0.108 & 050523\
19390785$+$1451271 & 0.841 & 53.8 & 2.372 & 0.103 & 0.448 & 52.8 & 1.246 & 0.101 & 100516\
19420841$+$4722567 & 0.494 & $-$9.5 & 1.164 & 0.081 & 0.392 & $-$6.8 & 1.054 & 0.083 & 100428\
19421995$+$7102137 & 0.335 & $-$9.7 & 1.052 & 0.067 & 0.407 & $-$9.1 & 0.937 & 0.082 & 100506\
19440213$+$2746055 & 1.432 & 7.1 & 1.848 & 0.117 & 1.101 & 7.0 & 1.105 & 0.109 & 100516\
19454354$+$4527431 & 0.898 & 2.7 & 1.519 & 0.146 & 1.710 & 3.0 & 2.996 & 0.148 & 100428\
19462548$+$3628454 & 0.390 & $-$27.9 & 1.509 & 0.068 & 0.345 & $-$27.3 & 0.820 & 0.078 & 101220\
19575512$+$3146002 & 0.927 & 42.4 & 4.696 & 0.078 & 1.489 & 42.8 & 4.300 & 0.068 & 110112\
19590895$+$1733197 & 1.468 & 31.7 & 6.732 & 0.150 & 1.445 & 31.7 & 4.570 & 0.141 & 100512\
19592317$+$0006104 & 0.923 & $-$5.3 & 4.157 & 0.115 & 1.033 & $-$3.4 & 5.024 & 0.115 & 051222\
19595132$+$3232098 & 1.067 & 4.7 & 6.390 & 0.112 & 1.147 & 8.8 & 5.390 & 0.117 & 100511\
20021291$+$3057556 & 0.406 & 30.7 & 0.785 & 0.085 & 0.283 & 32.9 & 0.860 & 0.080 & 100512\
20030816$+$2517265$^4$ & 0.603 & 24.9 & 2.611 & 0.085 & 0.543 & 26.2 & 2.918 & 0.085 & 090307\
20054924$+$4721527 & 0.568 & $-$70.0 & 1.626 & 0.097 & 0.386 & $-$67.3 & 1.969 & 0.103 & 100428\
20074663$+$3117241 & 0.709 & 43.9 & 2.105 & 0.098 & 1.104 & 43.9 & 2.102 & 0.107 & 100511\
20115624$+$5429092 & 0.503 & $-$59.1 & 1.275 & 0.086 & 0.532 & $-$59.2 & 1.375 & 0.084 & 090308\
20125796$+$3214563 & 0.367 & 51.6 & 2.552 & 0.061 & 0.292 & 55.3 & 0.740 & 0.070 & 100316\
20140191$+$5854355 & 0.264 & $-$60.7 & 0.745 & 0.054 & 0.274 & $-$61.4 & 0.900 & 0.061 & 101220\
20192988$+$6305364 & 0.673 & $-$19.4 & 2.774 & 0.089 & 0.350 & $-$19.5 & 1.318 & 0.094 & 100428\
20195560$+$8816277 & 0.622 & $-$89.1 & 2.372 & 0.061 & 0.491 & $-$88.7 & 0.990 & 0.064 & 100321\
20214815$+$3603251 & 0.827 & 10.3 & 2.913 & 0.113 & 0.749 & 9.7 & 1.552 & 0.111 & 100516\
20224015$+$5200579 & 1.974 & $-$5.1 & 6.929 & 0.135 & 1.626 & $-$5.1 & 5.436 & 0.124 & 100428\
20243989$+$4810094 & 0.209 & $-$8.5 & 1.161 & 0.059 & 0.282 & $-$8.6 & 1.049 & 0.053 & 100517\
20293249$+$6702115 & 0.246 & $-$25.5 & 0.596 & 0.066 & 0.812 & $-$29.4 & 1.181 & 0.067 & 100516\
20305733$+$2938363 & 2.260 & 39.3 & 5.864 & 0.103 & 1.971 & 39.1 & 5.022 & 0.099 & 100516\
20310052$+$3304430 & 0.906 & $-$0.8 & 3.192 & 0.145 & 0.783 & 3.2 & 2.767 & 0.117 & 100511\
20342260$+$1544440 & 0.415 & $-$20.2 & 1.365 & 0.107 & 0.385 & $-$18.7 & 0.713 & 0.098 & 100511\
20370015$+$3354089 & 1.306 & 4.9 & 3.214 & 0.132 & 1.059 & 9.6 & 3.727 & 0.130 & 100512\
20412744$+$5113298 & 0.973 & $-$12.8 & 2.956 & 0.104 & 1.072 & $-$12.7 & 2.789 & 0.105 & 100518\
20414535$+$3353226 & 0.000 & 0.0 & 0.000 & 0.061 & 0.186 & 25.1 & 0.553 & 0.060 & 100518\
20421889$-$0815307 & 0.618 & $-$51.4 & 0.791 & 0.133 & 1.585 & $-$51.4 & 2.080 & 0.129 & 100516\
20422178$+$2728476 & 0.587 & 14.7 & 2.467 & 0.080 & 0.561 & 14.3 & 1.040 & 0.056 & 101220\
20434100$+$3809561 & 1.168 & 15.6 & 5.271 & 0.090 & 0.614 & 15.2 & 1.565 & 0.091 & 100511\
20442513$-$0450007 & 5.619 & $-$22.2 & 22.549 & 0.124 & 4.609 & $-$22.3 & 14.189 & 0.136 & 100525\
20452605$+$3745328 & 0.284 & $-$13.0 & 0.666 & 0.078 & 0.251 & $-$12.9 & 0.355 & 0.079 & 100518\
20465378$+$0551292 & 0.314 & 63.0 & 0.539 & 0.050 & 0.345 & 63.4 & 0.588 & 0.048 & 100511\
20474604$+$1920068 & 5.368 & $-$15.4 & 12.368 & 0.119 & 6.949 & $-$15.4 & 12.468 & 0.119 & 100511\
20492117$+$5031512 & 1.257 & $-$29.1 & 6.745 & 0.096 & 1.065 & $-$24.6 & 5.618 & 0.126 & 100506\
20523214$+$2710275 & 0.880 & $-$21.7 & 2.640 & 0.099 & 1.231 & $-$22.8 & 3.090 & 0.113 & 101220\
20525979$+$2322159 & 0.468 & 11.0 & 1.820 & 0.090 & 1.783 & 7.6 & 7.680 & 0.106 & 101220\
20534219$-$0138066 & 1.419 & $-$18.6 & 5.486 & 0.129 & 1.770 & $-$16.3 & 5.675 & 0.141 & 100511\
20550998$+$6701580 & 0.545 & $-$37.7 & 2.240 & 0.094 & 0.691 & $-$37.5 & 1.016 & 0.095 & 100518\
20561005$+$8303252$^5$ & 3.650 & 31.8 & 17.102 & 0.092 & 2.570 & 32.4 & 13.273 & 0.102 & 100321\
20592292$+$5853328 & 3.242 & $-$30.1 & 7.345 & 0.123 & 3.575 & $-$30.1 & 8.554 & 0.121 & 100405\
21013447$+$5129534 & 0.255 & $-$34.8 & 0.662 & 0.062 & 0.216 & $-$36.5 & 0.765 & 0.057 & 100517\
21055966$+$2924220 & 0.330 & $-$35.9 & 0.764 & 0.097 & 0.328 & $-$32.7 & 0.891 & 0.097 & 100511\
21084764$+$0110146 & 4.628 & 21.7 & 10.421 & 0.136 & 3.732 & 21.9 & 8.393 & 0.136 & 100511\
21142956$+$0748337 & 2.702 & 28.6 & 5.655 & 0.128 & 2.081 & 28.7 & 4.453 & 0.126 & 100511\
21192721$+$6126125 & 0.369 & $-$8.0 & 1.077 & 0.080 & 0.528 & $-$8.0 & 0.965 & 0.078 & 100518\
21194864$+$5016575 & 0.495 & $-$65.2 & 1.332 & 0.084 & 0.885 & $-$64.8 & 2.081 & 0.075 & 090308\
21222904$+$2159543 & 0.181 & 2.0 & 0.261 & 0.044 & 0.246 & 1.9 & 0.420 & 0.049 & 101220\
21254399$+$4532327 & 0.497 & 5.3 & 1.242 & 0.095 & 0.436 & 8.1 & 0.728 & 0.102 & 100405\
21305815$+$4629283 & 0.507 & 49.9 & 1.072 & 0.098 & 0.704 & 50.0 & 0.690 & 0.113 & 101220\
21404842$+$4949446 & 0.523 & $-$59.7 & 1.536 & 0.093 & 0.352 & $-$59.9 & 0.494 & 0.088 & 100405\
21485148$+$3956466 & 2.284 & 0.9 & 4.436 & 0.105 & 2.763 & 1.7 & 5.956 & 0.114 & 100321\
21492590$+$4322247 & 0.498 & $-$19.0 & 1.940 & 0.078 & 0.806 & $-$18.5 & 2.482 & 0.083 & 100405\
21545410$+$5128444 & 2.350 & $-$21.8 & 9.574 & 0.085 & 1.730 & $-$19.7 & 9.133 & 0.089 & 100321\
21550333$+$4945406 & 0.310 & $-$38.2 & 0.565 & 0.068 & 0.498 & $-$39.3 & 1.057 & 0.065 & 090308\
21563802$+$3620341 & 1.288 & $-$19.1 & 4.154 & 0.104 & 0.670 & $-$19.5 & 1.734 & 0.105 & 100516\
22071622$+$1153158$^{\dagger 6}$ & 60.161 & 23.3 & 134.019 & 0.124 & 41.517 & 23.3 & 77.849 & 0.106 & 090309\
22162185$+$4744237 & 2.034 & $-$64.7 & 6.842 & 0.106 & 0.970 & $-$64.2 & 4.800 & 0.110 & 100412\
22325976$+$6654394 & — & — & — & 0.053 & 0.240 & $-$9.8 & 0.791 & 0.056 & 100321\
22361244$+$7204404 & 0.576 & 17.0 & 2.810 & 0.076 & 0.419 & 16.7 & 1.100 & 0.077 & 100321\
22482256$+$4911596 & 0.912 & $-$56.2 & 5.952 & 0.052 & 0.342 & $-$54.1 & 2.643 & 0.055 & 100412\
22490803$+$2452563 & 2.088 & $-$49.9 & 11.899 & 0.119 & 1.467 & $-$49.5 & 5.691 & 0.112 & 100512\
22502517$+$6015411 & 1.231 & $-$61.4 & 4.259 & 0.097 & 1.771 & $-$63.0 & 5.192 & 0.106 & 100411\
22504945$+$6415047 & 3.431 & 34.4 & 22.110 & 0.162 & 3.257 & 40.4 & 14.949 & 0.172 & 100405\
22521809$+$3413364 & 0.411 & $-$12.5 & 1.036 & 0.066 & 0.253 & $-$12.9 & 0.526 & 0.067 & 100512\
22593446$+$4250302 & 1.297 & $-$1.0 & 4.129 & 0.122 & 1.043 & $-$0.7 & 2.165 & 0.116 & 100405\
23041981$+$6745358 & 0.917 & $-$50.4 & 4.707 & 0.105 & 0.755 & $-$54.8 & 3.798 & 0.106 & 100405\
23043019$+$6445476 & 1.318 & $-$20.1 & 6.410 & 0.113 & 1.913 & $-$22.6 & 5.571 & 0.121 & 100227\
23055847$+$6014593 & 0.603 & $-$21.7 & 1.875 & 0.091 & 0.575 & $-$22.5 & 1.095 & 0.112 & 100227\
23101295$+$4011462 & 0.486 & 9.2 & 0.940 & 0.097 & 0.499 & 9.4 & 1.215 & 0.110 & 100405\
23143356$+$5715208 & — & — & — & 0.050 & 0.209 & $-$15.8 & 0.377 & 0.053 & 100412\
23203758$+$3937140 & 9.307 & $-$1.9 & 23.264 & 0.123 & 9.943 & $-$2.1 & 20.176 & 0.124 & 100405\
23373973$+$5850458 & 5.443 & $-$89.9 & 16.920 & 0.106 & 2.911 & $-$89.9 & 9.987 & 0.106 & 100321\
23430657$+$3528452 & 0.583 & $-$25.7 & 1.659 & 0.102 & 0.581 & $-$25.5 & 2.158 & 0.104 & 100405\
23520899$+$6634495 & 2.159 & $-$59.6 & 5.212 & 0.128 & 1.272 & $-$59.5 & 3.024 & 0.145 & 100227\
-------------------- --------- --------- ----------------
2MASS name rms rms obs. date
(J—) [(K)]{} [(K)]{} [(yymmdd.d)]{}
2MASS name rms rms obs. date
(J—) [(K)]{} [(K)]{} [(yymmdd.d)]{}
00074306$+$7414113 0.070 0.077 100225
00360130$+$5754427 0.092 0.087 090309
00372236$+$5342117 0.081 0.098 100225
00500597$+$6445351 0.077 0.090 100225
01003486$+$5536221 0.092 0.097 101113
01103043$+$4506115 0.092 0.097 100412
02195542$+$5328072 0.086 0.089 100412
02302753$+$6231456 0.108 0.102 090309
02323488$+$6825324 0.098 0.103 100412
02332877$+$4539162 0.087 0.088 080426
02434850$+$3615022 0.183 0.185 080426
02565576$+$5438358 0.121 0.124 080426
03304049$+$6724078 0.063 0.075 100222
03394128$+$3616044 0.058 0.064 100222
03430321$+$6835275 0.110 0.114 100412
03480562$+$5934563 0.071 0.075 100222
03511623$+$3302069 0.106 0.114 100412
04051774$+$4121023 0.057 0.059 100222
04110273$+$4640253 0.056 0.058 100222
04132963$-$1023138 0.081 0.076 080413
04190835$+$5738225 0.055 0.055 100222
04212725$+$0129134 0.040 0.040 101208
04215740$+$2826355 0.108 0.103 100302
04233661$+$3838036 0.142 0.121 090506
04240873$+$6813180 0.057 0.057 100222
04252721$+$1633233 0.145 0.149 090506
04324806$+$2239523 0.093 0.115 100227
04363710$+$3704451 0.135 0.122 090506
04462516$+$5428507 0.070 0.073 100222
04470673$+$2610455 0.095 0.091 100405
04591899$+$1545118 0.086 0.083 100405
05104212$+$3357144 0.074 0.077 090323
05194379$+$2610352 0.065 0.066 100405
05221592$+$0837391 0.102 0.100 090323
05285405$-$0606063 0.116 0.143 100227
05312805$+$1209102 0.049 0.043 101208
05415139$-$0854565 0.147 0.146 100412
05490369$+$1911005 0.080 0.080 090323
05534254$-$1024007 0.070 0.065 101209
06101597$+$0256268 0.087 0.083 100302
06123120$-$2710145 0.068 0.067 101209
06140002$+$2742122 0.093 0.088 090323
06290218$-$0039203 0.079 0.083 100302
06320728$+$0143006 0.142 0.141 090505
06341217$+$1416346 0.151 0.153 100412
06411508$-$2216436 0.070 0.059 101209
06505251$-$0004235 0.048 0.043 080405
07101638$-$1615491 0.089 0.098 100225
07205859$-$1022441 0.161 0.165 080413
07252277$-$0335508 0.087 0.075 101207
07304746$-$0946366 0.098 0.092 080413
07485921$-$1102277 0.085 0.081 090321
07521749$-$0329044 0.087 0.081 090321
07524790$-$1026439 0.100 0.100 090321
08034242$-$3126459 0.111 0.119 100225
09510854$-$2953451 0.091 0.074 080411
10484663$+$0839579 0.095 0.074 080413
11293071$-$1856182 0.060 0.067 100225
17313400$-$0818559 0.088 0.000 100315
17484719$+$0159472 0.101 0.098 100512
17590076$-$1133231 0.078 0.073 100315
18141650$+$1409344 0.073 0.063 080427
18144939$+$0512556 0.065 0.070 080427
18162366$-$0259033 0.111 0.107 100512
18251801$-$1151109 0.088 0.088 100315
18330727$-$0530138 0.079 0.076 100315
18373020$+$0148410 0.069 0.073 100316
18380236$+$0213546 0.089 0.091 100511
18390434$+$0141173 0.075 0.079 100511
18391616$-$0340489 0.093 0.093 100511
18494283$+$0141017 0.077 0.077 090307
18513199$+$1757581 0.087 0.080 100512
18523589$-$0312163 0.114 0.113 100511
18535746$+$0136407 0.109 0.112 100511
18545593$-$0121217 0.108 0.104 100511
18590914$+$1023398 0.075 0.071 090307
19031282$+$3358117 0.081 0.081 110112
19060808$+$0441110 0.087 0.082 090307
19080470$+$0248571 0.084 0.073 090307
19143038$+$1050456 0.060 0.066 101220
19194716$+$2248220 0.080 0.078 090307
19253109$+$4552428 0.080 0.102 100506
19272030$+$1139227 0.051 0.052 090308
19325060$+$2117217 0.082 0.081 090308
19354575$+$1650318 0.083 0.079 090308
19365303$+$2519359 0.137 0.134 100512
19382455$+$2123132 0.089 0.080 100516
19414554$+$4212326 0.089 0.091 100428
19430452$+$2331452 0.113 0.108 100516
19473259$+$0834449 0.101 0.101 100516
19483842$+$2759358 0.082 0.077 100511
19514353$+$5341314 0.064 0.073 101220
19554461$+$2604497 0.080 0.087 100512
19570502$+$3949363 0.097 0.105 100511
19582591$+$2520238 0.068 0.067 100512
20011298$+$1929375 0.063 0.072 101220
20051813$+$3822231 0.080 0.081 090307
20054586$+$3758597 0.088 0.083 090307
20055019$+$1914390 0.061 0.063 101220
20091038$+$2157020 0.061 0.077 101220
20103451$+$3327260 0.083 0.084 100511
20135576$+$3923489 0.092 0.095 100428
20142861$+$5944210 0.096 0.097 100428
20175937$+$4317424 0.079 0.082 101220
20184764$+$2846120 0.078 0.074 090308
20204822$+$4520446 0.080 0.085 100518
20211825$+$3812440 0.108 0.099 100516
20222536$+$6944465 0.097 0.096 100428
20254959$+$3126054 0.112 0.108 100516
20255026$+$3701465 0.115 0.103 100516
20264303$+$4056268 0.112 0.107 100516
20361159$+$3507454 0.087 0.089 100512
20374385$+$4334417 0.098 0.099 090307
20443146$+$3229319 0.056 0.052 100511
20474862$+$5402373 0.087 0.076 100517
20500496$+$3729598 0.097 0.098 100511
20545041$+$4115401 0.057 0.066 101220
20575361$+$4245544 0.079 0.084 090307
21010281$+$3932493 0.081 0.074 090308
21010620$+$5007568 0.091 0.093 100428
21045803$+$2723558 0.073 0.085 101220
21130526$+$5025299 0.109 0.112 100405
21134983$+$6151234 0.070 0.084 101220
21174247$+$4603477 0.094 0.096 100405
21182190$+$4957472 0.113 0.113 100405
21231933$+$2328482 0.070 0.073 100516
21232465$+$2314599 0.064 0.071 101220
21302607$+$5009190 0.074 0.083 101220
21354271$+$6839071 0.100 0.102 100405
21461997$+$4806502 0.091 0.087 100428
21561897$+$5848227 0.084 0.092 100411
21575765$+$6310007 0.074 0.076 090308
21582612$+$5324124 0.092 0.100 100411
22062959$+$5929281 0.083 0.086 100321
22063776$+$5941202 0.081 0.086 100321
22182648$+$6705527 0.076 0.076 100321
22213319$+$7340270 0.105 0.099 100428
22373599$+$6116091 0.076 0.076 100321
22403720$+$6630334 0.077 0.760 100411
22470407$+$5845143 0.079 0.080 100411
22491046$+$5918129 0.119 0.114 100405
23052739$+$5707463 0.072 0.078 100411
23132411$-$1519163 0.166 0.184 080426
23162591$+$3843473 0.085 0.084 100405
23181054$+$6552436 0.120 0.247 101213
23203705$+$6732137 0.098 0.113 100412
23395874$+$6320547 0.088 0.070 090309
23402236$+$7026294 0.092 0.103 100412
23422673$+$6337387 0.147 0.134 090309
23430569$+$6002467 0.104 0.109 100412
-------------------- --------- --------- ----------------
: Negative results for the SiO $J=1$–0 $v=1$ and 2 lines.
-------------------- -------------------------- --------- ------------------- --------------------- --------- ----------------
2MASS name transition $Ta$ $V_{\rm lsr}$ L.F. rms obs. date
(J—) [(K)]{} [(km s$^{-1}$)]{} [(K km s$^{-1}$)]{} [(K)]{} [(yymmdd.d)]{}
2MASS name transition $Ta$ $V_{\rm lsr}$ L.F. rms obs. date
(J—) [(K)]{} [(km s$^{-1}$)]{} [(K km s$^{-1}$)]{} [(K)]{} [(yymmdd.d)]{}
00504329$+$4630307 $^{29}$SiO $v=0$ $J=1$–0 0.382 $-$34.5 0.739 0.086 100222
01070453$+$4924467 $^{28}$SiO $v=3$ $J=1$–0 0.316 $-$57.7 0.445 0.081 100222
05572394$+$4822417 $^{29}$SiO $v=0$ $J=1$–0 0.521 2.2 0.835 0.084 100222
05572394$+$4822417 $^{28}$SiO $v=3$ $J=1$–0 1.629 2.8 4.406 0.105 100222
05581447$+$5002407 $^{29}$SiO $v=0$ $J=1$–0 0.305 $-$43.2 1.012 0.070 100222
14045992$-$3529505 $^{28}$SiO $v=0$ $J=1$–0 0.438 $-$1.3 2.274 0.108 100223
18272417$-$0100456 $^{29}$SiO $v=0$ $J=1$–0 0.728 $-$7.3 2.443 0.153 100315
18541840$-$0648564 $^{29}$SiO $v=0$ $J=1$–0 0.595 $-$20.8 1.066 0.116 100511
19261909$+$1640323 $^{29}$SiO $v=0$ $J=1$–0 0.374 9.6 0.723 0.087 090308
22071622$+$1153158 $^{29}$SiO $v=0$ $J=1$–0 0.836 23.3 0.542 0.095 090309
22071622$+$1153158 $^{28}$SiO $v=3$ $J=1$–0 4.141 23.2 6.127 0.125 090309
22071622$+$1153158 $^{28}$SiO $v=0$ $J=1$–0 0.334 19.1 0.505 0.104 090309
-------------------- -------------------------- --------- ------------------- --------------------- --------- ----------------
: Observational results for additional SiO lines
[cccccccccc]{}
2MASS name & Period & type & Rmag & Amp(R) & Kmag & e(K) & flg(K) & $D_L$ ($D_{Lc}$)$^{\sharp}$ & $D_K$\
(J—) & (d) & & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & & (kpc) & (kpc)\
2MASS name & Period & type & Rmag & Amp(R) & Kmag & e(K) & flg(K) & $D_L$ ($D_{Lc}$)$^{\sharp}$ & $D_K$\
(J—) & (d) & & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & & (kpc) & (kpc)\
\
\
\
00163648$+$6601104 & 330 & M & 11.816 & 2.786 & 4.241 & 0.059 & E & 2.2 & 5.5\
00202547$+$6947567 & 425 & M & 10.993 & 2.651 & 2.858 & 0.246 & D & 1.2 (1.3)& 4.3\
00251001$+$7008516 & 454 & M & 11.196 & 2.933 & 2.325 & 0.260 & D & 1.1 (1.3)& 3.6\
00365942$+$6308016 & 730 & M & 10.854 & 2.606 & 3.073 & 0.280 & D & 2.2 (3.9)& 5.1\
00480999$+$5334010 & 298 & M & 9.469 & 1.198 & 2.556 & 0.362 & D & 0.9 & 3.5\
01052742$+$6558594 & 341 & M & 10.666 & 2.690 & 2.722 & 0.350 & D & 1.1 & 5.8\
01070453$+$4924467 & 405 & M & 10.426 & 2.414 & 3.184 & 0.350 & D & 1.6 (1.6)& 5.1\
02304255$+$6635004 & 467 & M & 14.287 & 2.930 & 5.536 & 0.020 & A & 4.4 (5.1)& 5.3\
02431547$+$8108095 & 498 & M & 10.268 & 2.584 & 2.395 & 0.252 & D & 1.2 (1.5)& 4.8\
03323218$+$7427045 & 336 & M & 11.043 & 2.556 & 3.716 & 0.294 & D & 1.7 & 4.6\
17040522$+$7147470 & 336 & M & 10.483 & 2.670 & 3.686 & 0.036 & E & 1.7 & 4.7\
20140191$+$5854355 & 385 & M & 12.846 & 2.293 & 6.065 & 9.995$^{\flat}$ & F & 4.9 & 7.1\
21404842$+$4949446 & 337 & M & 9.923 & 1.997 & 2.600 & 0.228 & D & 1.1 & 7.0\
22162185$+$4744237 & 492 & M & 10.554 & 2.165 & 3.218 & 0.366 & D & 1.8 (2.2) & 7.0\
22482256$+$4911596 & 364 & M & 11.262 & 1.724 & 4.600 & 0.018 & A & 2.7 & 5.6\
22502517$+$6015411 & 474 & M & 11.292 & 1.052 & 3.458 & 0.200 & C & 2.1 (2.4) & 6.0\
23041981$+$6745358 & 592 & M & 11.539 & 3.040 & 3.123 & 0.224 & D & 1.8 (2.6) & 4.7\
23520899$+$6634495 & 347 & M & 10.538 & 1.967 & 2.514 & 0.304 & D & 1.1 & 5.4\
\
18032344$-$0218030 & 594 & M & 12.061 & 1.823 & 4.502 & 0.015 & E & 4.1 (5.9) & 3.4\
18050458$+$0246114 & 445 & M & 10.454 & 1.988 & 3.904 & 0.274 & D & 2.5 (2.7) & 3.5\
18223780$+$0637444 & 503 & M & 11.391 & 1.653 & 3.328 & 0.394 & D & 2.0 (2.5) & 4.0\
18230711$-$0146024 & 476 & M & 13.330 & 1.736 & 4.479 & 0.348 & D & 3.3 (3.9) & 4.3\
18285243$+$0150161 & 437 & M & 12.381 & 1.678 & 3.993 & 0.042 & E & 2.1 (2.3) & 3.5\
18335184$+$0342484 & 387 & M & 11.704 & 1.611 & 3.288 & 0.324 & D & 1.4 & 2.6\
18361528$+$0126242 & 354 & M & 11.820 & 1.571 & 3.294 & 0.228 & D & 1.1 & 2.6\
18371700$+$0615306 & 730 & M & 12.631 & 1.712 & 4.475 & 0.021 & A & 4.4 (7.7) & 3.1\
18373693$+$1309559 & 476 & M & 11.522 & 2.583 & 3.060 & 0.300 & D & 1.6 (1.9) & 4.9\
18395233$-$0423328 & 730 & M & 12.468 & 1.776 & 3.909 & 0.036 & E & 3.6 (6.3) & 3.9\
18420997$+$1038548 & 730 & M & 11.760 & 2.022 & 3.699 & 0.256 & D & 3.1 (5.4) & 4.7\
18422141$+$0208504 & 709 & M & 12.522 & 2.397 & 3.154 & 0.264 & D & 2.3 (3.9) & 3.1\
18440224$-$0638441 & 349 & M & 11.000 & 1.798 & 3.814 & 0.236 & D & 1.9 & 3.8\
18451727$+$0056300 & 323 & M & 12.778 & 1.570 & 4.515 & 0.038 & A & 2.2 & 3.9\
18482850$-$0540524 & 437 & M & 11.705 & 1.122 & 3.707 & 0.226 & D & 2.2 (2.4) & 3.3\
18533423$+$0048559 & 221 & M & 11.567 & 1.090 & 3.795 & 0.260 & D & 1.3 & 2.7\
19013031$+$0954055 & 730 & M & 12.180 & 1.250 & 4.483 & 0.029 & A & 4.6 (8.1) & 5.9\
19030960$-$0128366 & 374 & M & 11.587 & 1.355 & 4.611 & 0.036 & E & 2.6 & 3.4\
19042996$+$0305134 & 587 & M & 12.856 & 2.276 & 4.010 & 8.888$^{\flat}$ & F & 3.0 (4.3) & 2.9\
19152147$+$0233020 & 331 & SR+L& 11.564 & 0.866 & 4.550 & 0.024 & A & 2.5 & 3.6\
19293586$+$0433277 & 356 & M & 12.615 & 2.914 & 4.467 & 0.036 & A & 2.2 & 3.2\
[^1]: The variability type, “semi-regular”, is applied to the variables with smaller amplitude, shorter periods, and more irregular pulsations than miras; some occasionally show multiple periodicity [@bed98].
[^2]: Of course, the smaller sets using only the miras with $P<400$ d give luminosity distances, 1.9 ($\pm 1.2$) kpc and 1.8 ($\pm 0.6$) kpc for the Perseus and Sgr groups, respectively. The difference between luminosity and kinematic distances is statistically significant in the Student’s t-test for both groups, which are consistent with the previous result including the $P>400$ d stars.
[^3]: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/W3Browse/all/rittercv.html
[^4]: *http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Gator/*
[^5]: http://physics.open.ac.uk/RKcat/ .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We employ a 3 flavor NJL model to stress some general remarks about the QCD critical line. The dependence of the critical curve on $\mu_q=(\mu_u+\mu_d)/2$ and $\mu_I=(\mu_u-\mu_d)/2$ is discussed. The quark masses are varied to confirm that, in agreement with universality arguments, the order of transition depends on the number of active flavors $N_f$. The slope of the critical curve vs. chemical potential is studied as a function of $N_f$. We compare our results with those recently obtained in lattice simulations to establish a comparison among different models.'
author:
- 'A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni, G. Pettini, L. Ravagli'
title: 'A NJL-based study of the QCD critical line'
---
INTRODUCTION {#int}
============
In recent years, the study of the QCD phase diagram by means of numerical lattice simulations has improved considerably. In particular, the presence of a critical ending point, first discovered within microscopical effective models [@Barducci:1989wi; @Halasz:1998qr; @Rajagopal:2000wf], appears to be a solid feature [@Fodor:2001pe; @Fodor:2004nz], althought its exact location along the critical curve is still controversial. Moreover, the incoming realization of LHC enhances the interest of the scientific community in this kind of problem.\
The main problem regarding the lattice study of QCD phase diagram is related to the so called sign problem; the fermionic determinant is not positive definite at finite baryon chemical potential, and therefore, to avoid this unwelcome feature, some suitable tricks are needed. The most commonly used between them are the study of QCD at imaginary chemical potential [@D'Elia:2002gd; @deForcrand:2002ci; @deForcrand:2003hx], the reweighting procedure [@Fodor:2001pe] and Taylor expansion in $\mu/T$ [@Allton:2002zi; @Ejiri:2003dc]. A possible way of avoiding the sign problem is to consider QCD at finite isospin chemical potential $\mu_I$: in this case, the fermion determinant is real and positive definite, and standard Monte Carlo simulations are allowed [@Kogut:2002zg; @Gupta:2002kp]. Futhermore, the regime of finite $\mu_I$ can be also studied within a class of effective models, and the results can be compared with those obtained on the lattice in order to check the consistency of different approaches. Two properties are remarkable and are of interest at $\mu_I\neq 0$: pion condensation and the splitting of critical curves related with light flavors. The former has been the subject of several studies within different models, starting from effective Lagrangians [@Son:2000xc; @Loewe:2002tw], random matrices [@Klein:2003fy], NJL [@Toublan:2003tt; @Barducci:2004tt] and ladder-QCD [@Barducci:2003un] and so apparently a model-independent phenomenon. However, pion (and kaon [@Barducci:2004nc]) condensation would not be accessible from Heavy Ion experiments, but could regard the physics of compact stars. The latter question is slightly more controversial: the role played by instantons seems to be crucial to determine whether values of $\mu_I$ obtainable in experiments can produce the separation of critical lines [@Frank:2003ve].\
The aim of this paper is to offer an overview of results concerning the behaviour of the critical line, obtained in the NJL model and directly comparable with recent lattice analyses. In its strong simplicity, the NJL model recovers the basic structure of non perturbative dynamics ruling the problem. Therefore, it can be trusted as a good toy model for the study of QCD phase diagram.
The model {#sec:physics}
=========
Let us now consider the Lagrangian of the NJL model with three flavors $u,d,s$, with current masses $m_u=m_d\equiv m$ and $m_s$ and chemical potentials $\mu_u,\mu_d,\mu_s$ respectively
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal {L}}&=& {\cal {L}}_{0}+{\cal {L}}_{m}+{\cal {L}}_{\mu}+{\cal {L}}_{4}+{\cal {L}}_{6}\nonumber\\
&=&{\bar{\Psi}}i{\hat{\partial}}\Psi-{\bar{\Psi}}~\underline{\mathcal{M}}~\Psi~+~
\Psi^{\dagger}~\underline{\mathcal{A}}~\Psi~+~{G}\sum_{a=0}^{8}\left[\left(
{\bar{\Psi}}\lambda_{a}\Psi
\right)^{2}+\left({\bar{\Psi}}i\gamma_{5}\lambda_{a}\Psi\right)^{2}
\right]\\
&+&K\left[\mbox{det}{\bar{\Psi}(1+\gamma_5)\Psi+\mbox{det}\bar{\Psi}(1-\gamma_5)\Psi}\right]\nonumber \label{eq:njlagr}\end{aligned}$$
where $$\Psi=\left(
\begin{array}{c} u\\ d\\s
\end{array} \right),~~~~~\underline{\mathcal{A}}=\left(
\begin{array}{c} \mu_u\\0\\0
\end{array} \begin{array}{c} 0\\ \mu_d\\0
\end{array}\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0\\ \mu_s
\end{array}\right),
~~~~\underline{\mathcal{M}}=\left(
\begin{array}{c} m\\0\\0
\end{array} \begin{array}{c} 0\\ m\\0
\end{array}\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0\\ m_s
\end{array}\right)$$
$\underline{\mathcal{M}}$ is the current quark mass matrix which is taken diagonal and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ is the matrix of the quark chemical potentials. As usual $\lambda_0=\sqrt{\displaystyle{{2\over3}}}~
\mbox{\bf{I}}$ and $\lambda_{a}~$, $~a=1,...,8~$ are the Gell-Mann matrices.
The ’t Hooft determinant term, for the three flavors case, corresponds to a six fermion interaction. By working at the mean field level, the six fermion term can be recast into an effective four-fermion one. In such a way the Lagrangian (\[eq:njlagr\]) reduces to the usual NJL Lagrangian, apart from a redefinition of the four-fermion coupling constant G into a new set of effective ones, taking into account the flavor mixing arising from the ’t Hooft term [@Hatsuda:1994pi; @Klevansky:1992qe]
Therefore, because we are dealing with four fermion interactions only, we can calculate the effective potential by using the standard technique to introduce bosonic (collective) variables through the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation and by integrating out the fermion fields in the generating functional.\
If we limit ourselves to consider the three scalar condensates, and the pseudoscalar condensate in the light quark sector only, the one-loop effective potential we get is: $$\label{eq:poteff} V=\frac{\Lambda^2}{8G}
(\chi_u^2+\chi_d^2+\chi_s^2)-\Lambda^3\frac{K}{16G^3}~\chi_u~\chi_d~\chi_s+\frac{\Lambda^2}{4G}(1-\frac{K\Lambda\chi_s}{8G^2})(\rho_{ud}^2)+V_{\mbox{log}}$$ 0.5cm where
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vlog}
V_{\mbox{log}}=&& -{1\over\beta}\sum_{n=-\infty}
^{n=+\infty}\int{d^{3}p\over (2\pi)^{3}} ~\mbox{Tr log} \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
h_u & -\gamma_5 ~\Lambda~\rho_{ud}~(1-\frac{K\Lambda\chi_s}{8G^2})~&0\\
\gamma_5 ~\Lambda~\rho_{ud}~(1-\frac{K\Lambda\chi_s}{8G^2}) & h_d & 0\\
0& 0 & h_s
\end{array}
\right)
\nonumber\\
\\
&&~~~~~~~~\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~h_f=(i\omega_n+\mu_f)\gamma_0~-~\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\gamma}~-~
M_f\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In eq. (\[eq:vlog\]) $\mbox{Tr}$ means trace over Dirac, flavor and color indices and $\omega_{n}=(2n+1)\pi/\beta$ are the Matsubara frequencies. The dimensionless fields $\chi_{f}$ and $\rho_{ud}$ are connected to the scalar and pseudoscalar condensates respectively by the following relations
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fields}
\chi_f &=& - ~4G~{\langle{\bar{\Psi}}_f\Psi_f\rangle\over \Lambda}\nonumber\\
\\
\rho_{ud} &=& -~2G
~{\langle{\bar{u}}\gamma_{5}d-{\bar{d}}\gamma_{5}u\rangle\over
\Lambda}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and are variationally determined at the absolute minimum of the effective potential. The constituent quark masses are $$M_i=m_i+\Lambda \chi_i-\Lambda^2\frac{K}{G^2}\frac{\chi_j~\chi_k}{8} ~~~(i\neq j \neq k)$$
Since the model is non renormalizable, we have to introduce the hard cut-off $\Lambda$ on the three-momentum.
Through this letter, when we consider the physical case (with realistic values of meson masses and decay consant), we assume for the parameters the same values as in ref. [@Hatsuda:1994pi] $$\label{param1}
\Lambda=631.4~\mbox{MeV};~~~G~\Lambda^2=3.67;~~~K~\Lambda^5=-9.29;\\$$ $$\label{param2}
~~~~\hat{m}\equiv\frac{m_u+m_d}{2}=5.5~\mbox{MeV};~~m_s=135.7~\mbox{MeV}~~$$
To investigate regimes different than the real one, with a varying number of $N_f$ massless flavors, we will treat quark masses as free parameters, by keeping coupling and cut-off scale fixed as in eq. (\[param1\]).
In the following, it will turn out to be more convenient to introduce the following linear combinations of chemical potentials:
$$\mu_q=(\mu_u+\mu_d)/2;~~~\mu_I=(\mu_u-\mu_d)/2;$$
The quark chemical potential $\mu_q$ is just one third of the baryon chemical potential $\mu_q=\mu_B/3$. Following the analyses previously performed within the chiral Lagrangian approach [@Son:2000xc; @Loewe:2002tw], and NJL [@Barducci:2004tt; @He:2005nk] and ladder-QCD [@Barducci:2003un] studies, we expect a superfluid phase with condensed pions when the isospin chemical potential $\mu_I$ exceeds a critical value $\mu_I^C$ ($\mu_I^C=m_{\pi}/2$ at $\mu_q=T=0$).
Behaviour of critical lines
===========================
Critical temperature dependence on baryon/isospin chemical potentials
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The aim of this section is to shed some light on the physics of QCD at finite baryon chemical potential ($\mu_q=\mu_B/3$), by comparing the physics at $\mu_q\neq 0$ and $\mu_I=0$ with that at $\mu_q=0$ and $\mu_I\neq 0$. In fact, the latter case can be studied on the lattice by means of standard importance sampling techniques. The connection of these two regimes could give a deeper understanding of the sign problem in the fermion determinant, and provide us with some procedure to check present simulations and possibly improve numerical algorithms.\
Rigorous QCD inequalities at non zero chemical potential have been proposed to try to resolve this question in [@Cohen:2004qp]; the enigma why, at $T=0$, there exists a critical value for chemical potentials below which the system lies in its ground state has been called “silver blaze problem”. A possible solution of this problem, by using $1/N_c$ expansion, has been proposed in [@Cohen:2004mw; @Toublan:2005rq]. A recent study of phase quenched QCD (a theory where the absolute value of the fermion determinant is taken) has been performed in [@Splittorff:2005wc].\
We will consider here the dependence of the critical temperatures $T_c(\mu_q)\equiv T_c(\mu_q; \mu_I=0)$ and $T_c(\mu_I)\equiv T_c(\mu_I; \mu_q=0)$, for low chemical potentials, obtained by a mean-field analysis of the NJL model. Obviously, mesons and baryons (and di-quarks) carry different spin and charges, and their properties depend differently on $\mu_q$ and $\mu_I$; for these reasons, one could expect the two curves $T_c(\mu_q)$ and $T_c(\mu_I)$, when starting by the same value at $\mu_q=\mu_I=0$, to be different, at least in the regime where bound states heavily influence the thermodynamics of the system. On the other hand, when the free-energy is mainly ruled by the constituent quarks, there is no reason to expect a dependence of the critical curve on the signs of chemical potentials (which will fix the sign of the total charges associated with the system).\
Here at the mean-field level, the effect of bound states is considered when we admit the formation of a pion condensate. Actually, in agreement with chiral models analyses, in the NJL model the pion effective mass dependence on chemical potentials can be analitically computed [@He:2005nk]; the result is that the charged pions chemical potential is exactly the double of the isospin chemical potential. For this reason, as $\mu_I$ is higher than some critical value ($m_{\pi}/2$ at $T=0$), a pion condensate starts to form; a similar effect happens when $\mu_q$ is higher than the critical value for di-quark condensation, which is expected to occur at values $\mu_q>300\div400~\mbox{MeV}$ (of course, before di-quark condensation, for $\mu_q\sim~m_N/3$ and low temperatures there should be the liquid-gas transition for the nucleons). Since in this paper we are interested mainly in the regime of relatively small chemical potentials (lower than $\sim 200~\mbox{MeV}$) we will neglect the latter possibility.\
In fact, when the pion condensate is zero, the mean field effective potential is symmetric under $\mu_u\rightarrow-\mu_u, ~\mu_d\rightarrow-\mu_d$; this implies that $\mu_q\leftrightarrow\pm\mu_I$ is a symmetry of the problem. Therefore, for zero $\rho$, the two curves $T_c(\mu_q)$ and $T_c(\mu_I)$ have the same analytical dependence.\
In Fig. \[fig:DiagTmu2+1\], \[fig:DiagTmui\] the phase diagrams in ($\mu_q,T$), ($\mu_I,T$) spaces are shown; starting from the common value $T_0=201~\mbox{MeV}$, corresponding to $\mu_q=\mu_I=0$, the cross-over curves coincide up to the value of about $150~\mbox{MeV}$ for both chemical potentials. For higher $\mu_I$ (and temperatures lower than $\sim 200~\mbox{MeV}$) we are in the condensed pions phase; in agreement with [@He:2005nk] this regime will persist until $\mu_I\sim 860~\mbox{MeV}$, before the saturation regime takes place. On the other hand, if we follow the cross-over line $T_c(\mu_q)$, we will find, as expected, a critical ending point for $\mu_q=330~\mbox{MeV},T=42~\mbox{MeV}$, and a line of first order transitions for higher $\mu_q$.\
Summarizing, at this level of calculation (mean field), until isospin chemical potential is lower than the critical value for pion condensation the curves $T_c(\mu_q)$ and $T_c(\mu_I)$ have the same analytical expression $T_c(\mu_q)=T_c(\mu_I)$. This could be interesting in the attempt to extend lattice results from $\mu_I\neq0$ and $\mu_q=0$ to $\mu_q\neq 0$ and $\mu_I=0$ (at least in the region of low chemical potentials). Our conclusions appear to be in agreement with the authors of ref. [@Toublan:2004ks] (both from the lattice and from a hadron renonances gas model) .
![*Phase diagram in the plane ($\mu_q,T$), for the physical 2+1 case; $\mu_I$ and $\mu_s$ are set to zero. Dashed/solid lines indicate cross-over/first order transitions; consequently, the dot in the picture labels the critical ending point.*[]{data-label="fig:DiagTmu2+1"}](DiagTmu2+1.eps){width="14cm"}
![*Phase diagram in the plane $(\mu_I,T)$, for the physical 2+1 case; $\mu_q$ and $\mu_s$ are set to zero. The dashed line indicates a cross-over transition for the scalar condensates, whereas dotted line stands for genuine second order transition for the pion condensate. In the regions of a non-vanishing pion condensate, the discontinuous behaviour of the scalar condensate turns into a continuous one, therefore the critical ending point is not present in this case.*[]{data-label="fig:DiagTmui"}](DiagTmui.eps){width="14cm"}
Order of the transition by varying $m_s$
----------------------------------------
It is generally assumed from universality arguments [@Pisarski:1983ms] and lattice analyses, [@Laermann:2003cv], that the order of the phase transition by increasing temperature at zero density can change as the quark mass values are varied. If in the realistic case (with physical quark masses) the zero density transition is expected to be a cross-over, lattice analyses seem to show a first order transition when the three light quark masses are small enough. In particular, by taking $m_u=m_d=0$, there should be a critical value for $m_s$ below which the transition turns into a discontinuous one: different lattice approaches find $m_s^C$ to be half of the physical value of the strange quark mass [@Brown:1990ev] or $m_s^C\sim 5\div10 ~ m_{u,d}~(\mbox{physical})$ [@Laermann:2003cv].\
To study this aspect in the NJL model, we start from the parameters fit of [@Hatsuda:1994pi], and we take the quark masses as free parameters; namely, we take the four and six fermion couplings fixed so as to reproduce the phenomenology of the realistical physical situation. This way of proceeding could seem as rather arbitrary, but for any value of the masses considered here, we have verified that the output parameters have reasonable values (critical temperatures $130\div200~\mbox{MeV}$, light quark scalar condensates $(-250\div-240~\mbox{MeV})^3$, constituent light quark masses $250\div350~ \mbox{MeV}$). Of course our results will be strongly model dependent, both for the choice of a specific set of parameters and of a particular model in itself. For instance, the NJL model provides an estimate of the position of the critical point at lower temperatures and higher chemical potentials with respect to those obtained in ladder-QCD and the ones from recent lattice simulation [@Fodor:2004nz].\
In Fig. \[fig:CondTms8\] we show the behaviour of the light quark scalar condensates vs. temperature, in the $m_u=m_d=0$ limit, and for vanishing chemical potentials too. In the upper picture, $m_s$ is taken to be zero, and for a temperature of about $130~\mbox{MeV}$ there is a sharp first order transition. As we increase $m_s$ the discontinuity of the scalar condensates reduces (in the lower picture the case $m_s=8~\mbox{MeV}$ is shown), and when $m_s$ exceeds the critical value $m_s^C=10~\mbox{MeV}$, the zero temperature transition turns into a genuine second order transition. The value we get for $m_s^C$ is in any case smaller than the one from lattice predictions.\
In Fig. \[fig:Diagmusmu\] we plot the phase diagram in the ($\mu_q,m_s$) space, by taking $m_u=m_d$ fixed to zero, and $\mu_I=\mu_s=0$. The label $I/II$ indicates, for every couple $(\mu_q,m_s)$, whether, by increasing the temperature starting from zero, the transition is a first or a second order one. Actually, up to $m_s<m_s^C=10~\mbox{MeV}$, we have first order transition for every value of $\mu_q$, and consequently there is no critical point; for $m_s$ slight above the critical value, the critical point locates at a value of $\mu_q\sim200~\mbox{MeV}$. The critical value for $\mu_q$ grows together with $m_s$ until the strange quark decouples from the two light quarks and the critical point $\mu_q$ coordinate is independent on $m_s$, and lies at $\mu_q\sim~300\mbox{MeV}$.\
Finally we have studied whether, in agreement with lattice analyses, a first order transition persists when we consider a non zero but small $m_u=m_d$: this does not happen in the NJL model with our choice of parameters, for any value of $m_s$. A recent work based on the linear sigma model had found the critical value for $m_u=m_d=m_s$ to be $m_{crit}=40\pm20\ \mbox{MeV}$ [@Herpay:2005yr].
![*Behaviour of the light quark scalar condensates as a function of temperature at zero chemical potentials and $m_u=m_d=0$, for $m_s=0$ (upper picture) and ${ m_s=8~\mbox{MeV}}$ (lower picture). In the upper picture, $\chi\equiv\chi_u=\chi_d=\chi_s$, in the lower $\chi\equiv\chi_u=\chi_d$. When the strange quark mass exceeds the critical value $m_s^C=10~\mbox{MeV}$, the discontinuous behaviour turns into a genuine phase transition.*[]{data-label="fig:CondTms8"}](CondTms8.eps){width="14cm"}
![*Phase diagram in the ($\mu_q, m_s$) space, at $m_u=m_d=0$ and $\mu_I=\mu_s=0$. For every region in the diagram, the label $I$/$II$ means whether, by increasing temperature and starting from $T=0$, the transition is of first or second order. Actually, the line in the diagram separating the two different regions follows the critical point by varying $m_s$.*[]{data-label="fig:Diagmusmu"}](Diagmusmu.eps){width="14cm"}
Critical lines as a function of $N_f$
-------------------------------------
Even though lattice analyses at finite density still present ambiguities in their different approaches, some general features about the critical line appear to be rather solid. In particular, if $T_0$ is the critical temperature for zero chemical potentials, the dependence of $(T/T_0)$ as a function of $(\mu/T_0)$ should be parabolic, (at least in the regime $(\mu/T_0)<1$), i.e. of the form $(T/T_0)=1-\alpha (\mu/T_0)^2$. Secondly, the $\alpha$ coefficient should depend on the number of flavors $N_f$, increasing with $N_f$; in fact, the curves relative to $N_f=2,2+1,3$ should be very close to each other and the one relative to $N_f=4$ should be steeper.\
It is clear that a dependence of the $\alpha$ coefficient on $N_f$ must be related in any case with a coupling between the flavors; otherwise, the effective potential would become a sum of single flavors contributions, and the critical temperature would not depend on $N_f$. This fact can give us an idea about the strength of the coupling between the flavors at the phase transition, and of its possible reduction with temperature. We will check the issue relative to the cases $2,2+1,3$ in the framework of the NJL model.\
In this context, the aforementioned situations labeled by 2,3 are those with 2,3 massless flavors (in the case 2, $m_s$ is set to $5~\mbox{GeV}$ to decouple the strange quark); 2+1 is the physical case with realistic values of quark masses. In the following, $\mu$ will indicate a common value for the chemical potential equal for all the active flavors.
![*Plot of the three cases $2,2+1,3$ in dimensionless units ($\mu/T_0,T/T_0$), for $\mu/T_0\leq1$. The curves relative to $2$ and $2+1$ (the dashed one) almost overlap. In disagreement with lattice simulations, the curve relative to $3$ stands slight above the others.*[]{data-label="fig:DiagTmuqadimflavors"}](DiagTmuqadimflavors.eps){width="14cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:DiagTmuqadimflavors\] we show the phase diagrams relative to the cases $2+1,2,3$. Obviously, in case $2$, we are in the situation where $m_s<m_s^C$ and we have only first order transitions. As we are varying the quark masses to consider different situations, $T_0$ has a large range of variation (from $130$ to $200~\mbox{MeV}$); it is impressive that, as we plot the phase diagrams in dimensionless units, those large differences cancel out almost completely. This is the most striking evidence that our approach, in its simplicity, has some validity.
When showing the three cases on the same diagram, we can clearly observe the surprising overlap of the results. The agreement between $2$ and $2+1$ cases (apart from numerical instabilities related with $2+1$ case) is remarkable, and good between $2$ and $3$ cases; the slope of case $3$, with respect to the lattice previsions, is smaller than that of $2$, but the difference is slight.\
The results we get for $\alpha$ are the following:\
$$~~2~~~~~~~~~~~\alpha=0.1995\pm0.025~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber$$ $$~~2+1~~~~~~~\alpha=0.2496\pm0.0623~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$$ $$~~3~~~~~~~~~~~\alpha=0.1614\nonumber\pm0.011~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$$
The worse precision we obtain for the $2+1$ case depends on the larger error in the determination of the cross-over curve.\
For completeness, we quote the results for $\alpha$ from lattice analyses:\
$$\begin{aligned}
&2&~~~~~~~\alpha=0.0507\pm0.0034;~\mu_u=\mu_d=\mu~ [6]\nonumber\\
&2&~~~~~~~\alpha=0.0504\pm0.0036;~\mu_u=\mu_d=\mu~ [8]\nonumber\\
&2&~~~~~~~\alpha=0.07\pm0.03;~\mu_u=\mu_d=\mu~ [10]\nonumber\\
&2+1&~~~~~~~\alpha=0.0288\pm0.0009;~\mu_u=\mu_d=\mu_s=\mu=\mu_B/3~ [4]\\
&3&~~~~~~~\alpha=0.0610\pm0.0009;~\mu_u=\mu_d=\mu_s=\mu=\mu_B/3~ [8]\nonumber\\
&3&~~~~~~~\alpha=0.114\pm0.046;~\mu_s=0~ [10]\nonumber\\
&4&~~~~~~~\alpha=0.099;~ \mu_f=\mu=\mu_B/3~ [6]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
0.5cm We find that our predictions for $\alpha$ are bigger than those obtained by lattice approaches, apart from [@Ejiri:2003dc] for $N_f=3$; in that case, the results are comparable. A recent study based on a hadron resonance gas model [@Toublan:2004ks] give the result $\alpha=0.17\pm0.01$ and this value is in a good agreement with our results. A study within a chiral quark model give for $\alpha$ a value of about 0.1, extracted from Fig. 2 of [@Jakovac:2003ar].
We have also studied the behaviour of the critical curve in ladder-QCD [@Barducci:1987gn] (in its version [@Barducci:2003un]); in this model there is no coupling between flavors, therefore it is independent on $N_f$. We have found that the critical curve is flatter than that of NJL model, namely the coefficient $\alpha$ is much smaller, and hence closer to lattice predictions: $\alpha=0.0797\pm0.0056$. We have attributed this feature to the lack of coupling between flavors in the model. On the other hand, since the value for the $\alpha$ coefficient we find in the NJL model is slightly higher than the value found in ref. [@Toublan:2004ks] and sensibly higher than the values obtained from other lattice analyses, we can argue that introducing an effective reduction of the $K$ coupling with temperature, as considered in ref. [@Hatsuda:1994pi; @Costa:2005cz], $\alpha$ would decrease at the meantime. Therefore, by considering the following temperature dependence of the ’t Hooft term $$K(T)=K_0~\mbox{exp}(-T/T_1)^2$$ we have verified that reducing $T_1$ the critical temperature at $\mu=0$ is also reduced; in this way, the curve gets flatter. By taking two different values for $T_1$, and considering for simplicity the case $2$, we find the value $\alpha=0.1186\pm0.0061$ in the case $T_1=160~\mbox{MeV}$, and $\alpha=0.1084\pm0.0035$ in the case $T_1=100~\mbox{MeV}$. In this way, the agreement with lattice is considerably improved; this can be considered an indirect proof of $U(1)_A$ effective restoration with temperature.
For the sake of completeness, we have also studied the two flavor NJL model with the ‘t Hooft determinant. The model is not completely equivalent to the three flavor model in the limit of infinite $m_s$, since in the latter case a strange quark loop gives a contribution, proportional to the strange quark condensate, to the light quark constituent mass. In any case we do not expect a dramatic change in our results, with respect to previous expectations, for the behaviour of the critical curve.\
We consider in this case the following expression for the interaction part of the Lagrangian (the $U(1)_A$ breaking determinant term can be rewritten as a four fermion interaction):
$$\mathcal{L}_{int}=G_1[(\bar{q}q)^2+(\bar{q}\vec{\tau}q)^2+(\bar{q}i\gamma_5q)^2+(\bar{q}i\gamma_5\vec{\tau}q)^2]+G_2[(\bar{q}q)^2-(\bar{q}\vec{\tau}q)^2-(\bar{q}i\gamma_5q)^2+(\bar{q}i\gamma_5\vec{\tau}q)^2]$$
with $$G_1=(1-\beta)G_0~~~;~~~G_2=\beta G_0$$
The $\beta$ coefficient tells us how hard the flavor mixing is; it is maximal for $G_1=0$, namely for $\beta=1$.
For the choice of the parameters $G_1$ and $G_2$ we follow the approach proposed in ref. [@Hatsuda:1994pi; @Frank:2003ve]. In ref. [@Hatsuda:1994pi] the authors study the original two flavor Lagrangian, proposed by Nambu and Jona-Lasinio, with $G_1=G_2$ and therefore $\beta=0.5$. The value we find in this case for $\alpha$ is very similar with the result we obtained in the $SU(3)$ case in the limit $m_s\rightarrow\infty$: $$\alpha=0.2107\pm0.0214~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$$
The authors of ref. [@Frank:2003ve] take $\beta$ as a free parameter instead. Here we furthermore consider the possible dependence of $G_2$ coefficient on the temperature, $G_2=G_2(T=0)~\mbox{exp} (-(T/T_1)^2)$.
If we take $G_2$ independent on the temperature (namely with $T_1=\infty$), the value we find for the $\alpha$ coefficient does not change by varying $\beta$: $$\alpha=0.2142\pm0.0259~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$$ again in agreement with previous analyses. On the other hand, if we admit a restoration of $U(1)_A$ symmetry with temperature, we find a dependence on the $\beta$ coefficient.\
For $\beta=0.2$ we have $$\alpha=0.1484\pm0.009 \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ T_1=160~\mbox{MeV}~~~$$ and $$\alpha=0.1196\pm0.0161 \ \ \mbox{for}\ \ T_1=100~\mbox{MeV}.$$ For $\beta=0.3$ we have $$\alpha=0.1024\pm0.0042\ \ \mbox{for} \ \ T_1=160~\mbox{MeV}$$ and $$\alpha=0.08101\pm0.007 \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ T_1=100~\mbox{MeV}.$$
However, according to Shuryak [@Shuryak:1993ee] it is very unlikely that restoration of $U(1)_A$ can occur before chiral symmetry restoration; therefore, the value $T_1=100\ \mbox{MeV}$ should not be taken too seriously. In any case, it appears clear that restoration of $U(1)_A$ symmetry can strongly influence the behaviour of the critical curve.
\[sec:physics2\]
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have studied some general features of the QCD critical line in the framework of a NJL model. In section one, we have compared the physics at $\mu_q\neq 0$ with that at $\mu_I\neq 0$. In section two, we have varied quark masses to show that the order of finite temperature transition changes if we consider small enough masses. In section three, we have studied the dependence of the slope of the critical curve $T_c$ vs. $\mu$ on $N_f$. In recent times these questions have received much attention from the lattice community, due to the great improvement of finite chemical potential algorithms of simulation.
We wish to thank M.P. Lombardo and D. Toublan for useful discussions.
A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, R. Gatto and G. Pettini, Phys. Lett. B [**231**]{} (1989) 463; Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{} (1990) 1610; A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni, G. Pettini and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{} (1994) 426. M. A. Halasz, A. D. Jackson, R. E. Shrock, M. A. Stephanov and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{} (1998) 096007 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9804290\]. K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, arXiv:hep-ph/0011333.
Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz, JHEP [**0203**]{} (2002) 014 \[arXiv:hep-lat/0106002\].
Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz, JHEP [**0404**]{} (2004) 050 \[arXiv:hep-lat/0402006\].
M. D’Elia and M. P. Lombardo, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} (2003) 014505 \[arXiv:hep-lat/0209146\].
P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B [**642**]{} (2002) 290 \[arXiv:hep-lat/0205016\].
P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B [**673**]{} (2003) 170 \[arXiv:hep-lat/0307020\]. C. R. Allton [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} (2002) 074507 \[arXiv:hep-lat/0204010\].
S. Ejiri, C. R. Allton, S. J. Hands, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E. Laermann and C. Schmidt, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**153**]{} (2004) 118 \[arXiv:hep-lat/0312006\]. J. B. Kogut and D. K. Sinclair, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} (2002) 034505 \[arXiv:hep-lat/0202028\].
S. Gupta, arXiv:hep-lat/0202005.
D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} (2001) 592 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0005225\].
M. Loewe and C. Villavicencio, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} (2003) 074034 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0212275\].
B. Klein, D. Toublan and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 014009 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0301143\].
D. Toublan and J. B. Kogut, Phys. Lett. B [**564**]{} (2003) 212 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0301183\].
A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni, G. Pettini and L. Ravagli, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} (2004) 096004 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0402104\].
A. Barducci, G. Pettini, L. Ravagli and R. Casalbuoni, Phys. Lett. B [**564**]{} (2003) 217 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0304019\]. A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni, G. Pettini and L. Ravagli, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 016011 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0410250\].
M. Frank, M. Buballa and M. Oertel, Phys. Lett. B [**562**]{} (2003) 221 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0303109\].
S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**64**]{} (1992) 649.
T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept. [**247**]{} (1994) 221 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9401310\].
L. y. He, M. Jin and P. f. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 116001 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0503272\].
T. D. Cohen, arXiv:hep-ph/0405043.
T. D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 116009 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0410156\]. D. Toublan, arXiv:hep-th/0501069. K. Splittorff, arXiv:hep-lat/0505001.
D. Toublan and J. B. Kogut, Phys. Lett. B [**605**]{} (2005) 129 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0409310\].
R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D [**29**]{} (1984) 338.
E. Laermann and O. Philipsen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**53**]{} (2003) 163 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0303042\].
F. R. Brown [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{} (1990) 2491; S. Aoki [*et al.*]{} \[JLQCD Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**73**]{} (1999) 459 \[arXiv:hep-lat/9809102\].
T. Herpay, A. Patkos, Z. Szep and P. Szepfalusy, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 125017 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0504167\].
A. Jakovac, A. Patkos, Z. Szep and P. Szepfalusy, Phys. Lett. B [**582**]{} (2004) 179 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0312088\].
A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, D. Dominici and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev. D [**38**]{} (1988) 238.
P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, C. A. de Sousa and Y. L. Kalinovsky, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 116002 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0503258\].
E. V. Shuryak, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. [**21**]{} (1994) 235 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9310253\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose and study a model for $N$ hard-core bosons which allows for the interpolation between one- and high-dimensional behavior by variation of just a single external control parameter $s/t$. It consists of a ring-lattice of $d$ sites with a hopping rate $t$ and an extra site at its center. Increasing the hopping rate $s$ between the central site and the ring sites induces a transition from the regime of a quasi-condensed number $N_0$ of bosons proportional to $\sqrt{N}$ to complete condensation with $N_0 \simeq N$. In the limit $s/t \to 0, d \to \infty$ with $\tilde{s}=(s/t)\sqrt{d}$ fixed the low-lying excitations follow from an effective ring-Hamiltonian. An excitation gap makes the condensate robust against thermal fluctuations at low temperatures. These findings are supported and extended to the full parameter regime by large scale density matrix renormalization group computations. We show that ultracold bosonic atoms in a Mexican-hat-like potential represent an experimental realization allowing to observe the transition from quasi to complete condensation by creating a well at the hat’s center.'
author:
- Mihály Máté
- Örs Legeza
- Rolf Schilling
- Mason Yousif
- Christian Schilling
bibliography:
- 'Ref\_HCB.bib'
title: 'Realizing Bose-Einstein condensation in a Mexican-hat-like potential'
---
#### Introduction.— {#introduction. .unnumbered}
The existence of phase transitions and the occurrence of long range order depends sensitively on the spatial dimension $D$. In contrast to one-dimensional systems (with short range interactions) interacting systems in higher dimensions always exhibit phase transitions, if $D$ is large enough. This $D$ dependence has intensively been explored in spin systems (see, e.g., Ref. [@Coester2016]) or for particles (see, e.g., Refs. [@Metzner1989; @MH1989a; @MH1989b; @vDongen1989; @vDongen1990; @Georges1996]) on a hypercubic lattice by varying the underlying dimension $D$. Quite in contrast to such theoretical and numerical studies, $D$ cannot be changed in experiments. This raises the question to which extent dimensional crossover from $D=1$ to $D \gg1$ can be experimentally simulated, e.g., by the variation of a single controllable parameter. Moreover, the presence of long range order also depends on the density of states of the low-lying excitations. In particular the existence of an excitation gap makes long range order in the ground state robust against thermal fluctuations. It is the goal of our work to propose a model which facilitates such a dimensional crossover. Its comprehensive solution will reveal and illustrate a distinctive mechanism for generating a gap.
The focus of the present work is on Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC), one of the most striking quantum phenomena in nature (see, e.g., [@Griffin1995; @Pethick2002; @Leggett2006; @Pitaevskii2016]). For an ideal gas of $N$ bosons in a $D$-dimensional box of volume $V$ the system undergoes for $D \geq 3$ a transition at a temperature $T_0 >0K$ from a normal fluid to a low-temperature phase where a finite number $N_0(n)$ of the bosons are condensed. $T_0$ depends on the density $n=N/V$. At zero temperature (i.e., in the ground state) noninteracting bosons even exhibit BEC in one and two dimensions. Since the experimental discovery of BEC for ultracold gases [@Anderson1995; @Bradley1995; @Davis1995] the study of BEC has become a particularly active field of research. This has also stimulated the theoretical investigation of BEC for trapped particles (see the review Ref. [@Dalfovo1999] and references therein).
One of the major challenges has been to explore how far BEC persists in the presence of interactions. For a diluted homogeneous Bose gas in $D=3$ Bogoliubov theory [@Bogoliubov1947] yields $N_0(n) \simeq N[1- \frac{8}{3 \sqrt{\pi}} \sqrt{na_s^3}]$ with $a_s$ the $s$-wave scattering length. This result was confirmed by perturbation theory [@Lee1957a; @Lee1957b; @Brueckner1957a; @Brueckner1957b; @Beliaev1958; @Hugenholtz1959; @Lieb1963c], simulations [@Giorgini1999], and experimentally only very recently [@Lopes2017]. The Gross-Pitaevskii theory [@Gross1961; @Gross1963; @Pitaevskii1961] is a classical approach using the order parameter field. Since it is based on a mean field approximation its validity is restricted to weakly correlated bosons.
Our work is concerned with bosons on a lattice with hard-core interaction. These hard-core bosons (HCBs) were originally introduced as a model for liquid Helium II in order to investigate superfluidity [@Matsubara1956; @Matsuda1957]. Let us consider a one-dimensional lattice with lattice constant $a$ and $d$ sites. In the continuum limit $d \to \infty, \ a \to 0$ with $L=a d$ fixed one obtains the Tonks-Girardeau gas of impenetrable (spinless) bosons [@Girardeau1960]. This system was realized experimentally by ultracold gases, as demonstrated first in Ref. [@Paredes2004]. The verification of BEC follows either from the largest eigenvalue of the one-particle reduced density matrix $\gamma(\vec{r},\vec{r}')$ [@Penrose1956] or by its off-diagonal long range order [@Yang1962]. For the Tonks-Girardeau gas it is $\gamma(x,x') \sim 1/|x-x'|^{1/2}$ for $|x-x'| \to \infty$ [@Schultz1963; @Lenard1964] (see also [@Haldane1981]). This implies for the number of condensed bosons $N_0(N) \sim \sqrt{N}$ for $N \gg 1$ [@Schultz1963; @Lenard1964; @Vaidya1979; @Jimbo1980; @Forrester2003b]. This result remains valid in the presence of a trap [@Widom1973; @Girardeau2001; @Forrester2003b; @Gangardt2004; @RigolHCB1d2004; @RigolHCB1dPRL]. Particularly, for a ultracold Bose gas in a cigar-shaped trap the $\sqrt{N}$ dependence was observed experimentally [@Paredes2004]. While still no BEC is present in one dimension even at $T=0K$ interesting phase behavior can occur [@Petrov2000]. In the following we will propose and solve a model which allows for the transition from quasi-condensation with $N_0(N) \sim \sqrt{N}$ to complete condensation with $N_0(N) \propto N$ by increasing a single controllable parameter.
#### The model.— {#the-model. .unnumbered}
We consider $N$ HCBs on a lattice. The main part of that lattice consists of a ring with $d$ sites and lattice constant $a$ (see left part of Fig. \[fig:1D\_Wheel\_Star\]). The HCBs can hop between nearest neighbor sites with a rate $t$ (left part of Fig. \[fig:1D\_Wheel\_Star\]). Their only interaction comes from the hard-core condition. The scattering of two bosons with momenta $q_1$ and $q_2$ only interchanges these momenta, since this model is integrable [@Eckle2019]. This changes drastically if a central site is added (middle part of Fig. \[fig:1D\_Wheel\_Star\]). Indeed, bosons can then hop to the central site and during that process exchange momentum with other bosons. Accordingly, the central site acts like an impurity and HCBs on the ‘wheel-lattice’ become nonintegrable. Central site models are widely used for spins (see, e.g., Refs. [@Gaudin1976; @Prokofev2000; @Uhrig2013; @Uhrig2014a; @Uhrig2014b; @Uhrig2016; @Demler2019] and the review [@Dukelsky2004]). Yet, the surrounding spins in these models do not interact with each other, similar to the ‘star’-model shown on the right of Fig. \[fig:1D\_Wheel\_Star\]. In our model, the crucial feature which generates the dimensional crossover is the competition between the ring-hopping and the center-ring-hopping.
The corresponding Hamiltonian reads $$\label{eq:Hamiltonian-wheel}
\hat{H}= -t\sum_{i=1}^{d} [h_{i}^{\dagger} h_{i+1} + h_{i+1}^{\dagger} h_{i}] -s \sum_{i=1}^{d} [h_{i}^{\dagger} h_{c} + h_{c}^{\dagger} h_{i} ] \ ,$$ with periodic boundary conditions. $h_i^{\dagger}$ and $h_i$ creates and annihilates a HCB on the ring-site $i$ and $h_c^{\dagger}$ and $h_c$ on the central site. They fulfil the conventional mixed commutation relations of HCBs [@Matsubara1956]. For $s/t \to 0$, $\hat{H}$ reduces to the ‘ring’(left of Fig. \[fig:1D\_Wheel\_Star\]) and in the limit $s/t \to \infty$ one obtains the ‘star’ (right of Fig. \[fig:1D\_Wheel\_Star\]). The solution of the eigenvalue problem for these two limiting cases is known. For $s=0$ it follows from the solution for impenetrable bosons [@Girardeau1960; @Lieb1963a; @Lieb1963b] and the problem for $s= \infty$ was solved in Ref. [@Tennie2017]. Since the ‘star’ model is related to a model with infinite-range hopping it exhibits BEC with $N_0(N,d)=N(d-N+1)/d$ [@Toth1990; @Penrose1991; @Kirson2000; @Bru2003; @Boland2008]. It was proven that this value represents a universal upper bound for the condensation of HCBs, i.e., it is independent of the lattice and additional interactions [@Tennie2017]. For finite values of $s/t$ the Hamiltonian (\[eq:Hamiltonian-wheel\]) interpolates between the ring-lattice and the star-lattice (cf. Fig. \[fig:1D\_Wheel\_Star\]). Quite in contrast to *noninteracting* bosons [@Vidal2011], the corresponding eigenvalue problem for HCB cannot be solved analytically anymore.
![An interpolation between the $1D$ regime (left) and the ‘star‘’ (right) through the ‘wheel’ (middle).[]{data-label="fig:1D_Wheel_Star"}](1D_Wheel_Star_new){width="8cm"}
In the following we investigate the eigenvalue problem for $s \neq 0$. For simplicity we choose $t=1$. The unperturbed eigenstates have the form ${\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N) \rangle$}} = \sum_{1 \leq n_1< \cdots < n_N \leq d} \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(n_1,\cdots,n_N)h_{n_1}^{\dagger} \cdots h_{n_N}^{\dagger} {\mbox{$| 0 \rangle$}}_r $ with $\boldsymbol{\mu}=(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_N)$. The ‘wave functions’ $\psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(n_1,\cdots,n_N)$ are given by the Bethe ansatz using superpositions of plane waves with momenta $q_{\mu}$ [@Bethe1931; @Girardeau1960; @Lieb1963a; @Lieb1963b]. In units of $a^{-1}$ it is $q_{\mu}=(\pi/d)(2\mu+1)$ for $N$ even and $q_{\mu}=(\pi/d)(2\mu)$ for $N$ odd [@Lieb1963a; @Nie2013; @Nie2018]. The corresponding eigenvalues are $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N) = -2\sum^N_{n=1} \cos{q_{\mu_n}}$.
A general normalized $N$-HCB state takes the form $$\label{eq:Psi}
{\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}} = \alpha {\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}}_r\otimes {\mbox{$| 0 \rangle$}}_c + \beta {\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}}_r\otimes {\mbox{$| 1 \rangle$}}_c \ ,$$ since the existence of the central site couples the (normalized) ring-states ${\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}}_r$ and ${\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}}_r$ with $N-1$ and $N$ particles, respectively. ${\mbox{$| 0 \rangle$}}_r$ and ${\mbox{$| 0 \rangle$}}_c$ denote the vacuum of the ring-sites and central site, and ${\mbox{$| 1 \rangle$}}_c=h_{c}^{\dagger} {\mbox{$| 0 \rangle$}}_c$. The sectors with $N-1$ and $N$ particles can be decoupled by expanding $ {\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}}_r$ and $ {\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}}_r$ with respect to the unperturbed eigenstates: $$\label{eq:phi}
{\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}}_r = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}{\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N) \rangle$}} \ , \
{\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}}_r = \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mu}} a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}{\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1) \rangle$}} \ .$$ We consider the frame in which the center of mass is at rest (see also Ref. [@Pethick2000]). Hence the summations in Eq. (\[eq:phi\]) are restricted to total momentum $Q=0$. For $d \to \infty$ the dependence of the perturbed eigenvalues and eigenstates on $s$ becomes nonanalytical. Therefore, for arbitrary small values of $s$ all unperturbed eigenstates contribute in Eq. (\[eq:phi\]). Substitution of Eqs. (\[eq:Psi\]) and (\[eq:phi\]) into $\hat{H} {\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}} = E {\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}}$ leads to (see Appendix \[app:effective-hamiltonian\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvalue-1}
\big[E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N) \big] A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} &=& s^2\sum_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(E)A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'} \nonumber \\
\big[E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1) \big]a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}} &=& s^2\sum_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'}m_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\mu}'}(E)a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Without solving Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-1\]) explicitly, it already allows us to characterize qualitatively the $N$-particle spectrum of $\hat{H}$. For $d \to \infty $ the unperturbed eigenvalues of $N-1$ and $N$ HCBs form a band with lower band edges $E^0_{low}(N,d) < E^0_{low}(N-1,d)$ (for $N/d < 1/2$; this is not a restriction due to the particle-hole symmetry). In Appendix \[app:effective-hamiltonian\] it is shown that for $s \neq 0$ the band between $E^0_{low}(N,d)$ and $E^0_{low}(N-1,d)$ persists. Below $E^0_{low}(N,d)$ a discrete spectrum occurs exhibiting an excitation gap.
Let us discuss the solution of Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-1\]) below $E^0_{low}(N,d)$. In Appendix \[app:effective-hamiltonian\] we show that $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(E)$ and $m_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\mu}'}(E)$ strongly simplify in two regimes which is (i) the scaling limit $d \to \infty, s \to 0$ with $\tilde{s}=s\sqrt{d}$ *and* $N$ fixed, and (ii) the strong coupling limit $s \to \infty$ for finite density $n$. In these limits the spectrum of $\hat{H}$ below $E^0_{low}(N,d)$ follows from the solution of $$\label{eq:eigenvalue-2}
H^{eff}_N {\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}}_r = E_{eff} {\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}}_r \ , \
h^{eff}_{N-1} {\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}}_r = E_{eff} {\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}}_r$$ with the effective Hamiltonians $$\label{eq:hamilton-eff}
H^{eff}_N= \tilde{s}^2 (1/d) \sum^{d}_{i,j=1} h^{\dagger}_i h_j \ , \
h^{eff}_{N-1}= \tilde{s}^2 (1/d) \sum^{d}_{i,j=1} h_i h^{\dagger}_j \ \ .$$ The eigenvalues of $H^{eff}_N $ and $h^{eff}_{N-1}$ are identical and are related to $E$ by $E^{eff}= [E-(E^0_{low}-E_F)] [E-E^0_{low}]$. The Fermi energy, $E_F(N,d)$, plays a role here due to the equivalence of HCBs and spinless fermions on the unperturbed ring-lattice. The ground state eigenvalue $E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})$ follows from the largest eigenvalue $E^{eff}_{max}(N,n;\tilde{s}) \simeq \tilde{s}^2N(1-n)$ (see Appendix \[app:effective-hamiltonian\]). This yields ($n=N/d$) $$\label{eq:eigenvalue-3}
\begin{split}
E_0(N,d;\tilde{s}) \simeq E^0_{low}(N,d) - E_F(N,d)/2 \ + \\
- \sqrt{(E_F(N,d)/2)^2 + \tilde{s}^2 N(1-n) } \ \ .
\end{split}$$ In Appendix \[app:effective-hamiltonian\], the corresponding ground states ${\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}}_r$ and ${\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}}_r$ of $H^{eff}_N$ and $h^{eff}_{N-1}$ are presented and the existence of an excitation gap for $\tilde{s} \neq 0$ is proven.
The number $N_0= (1/d){\mbox{$\langle \Psi_N |$}} \sum^d_{i,j=1} h^{\dagger}_i h_j {\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}}$ of condensed particles is identical to ${\mbox{$\langle \Psi_N |$}}\hat{H}^{eff}_N {\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}}/\tilde{s}^2$. The calculation of this expectation value is performed in Appendix \[app:effective-hamiltonian\]. One gets for the ground state $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:condensate}
N_0(N,n;\tilde{s}) &\simeq& N\big[(1-n) - |\beta(N,n;\tilde{s})|^2(1-2n) N^{-1}\big] \nonumber \\
|\beta(N,n;\tilde{s})|^2 &\simeq &\frac{1}{2}\tilde{s}^2N(1-n)\Big\{ \big[(E_F/2)^2+\tilde{s}^2N(1-n) \big] \nonumber \\
&& - (E_F/2) \sqrt{(E_F/2)^2+\tilde{s}^2N(1-n)} \Big\}^{-1} .\end{aligned}$$ The second term in the square bracket in the first line of Eq. (\[eq:condensate\]) is a correction due to finite $N$.
The results for $E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})$ and $N_0(N,d;\tilde{s})$ for finite $d$ are valid (i) in the scaling limit if $\tilde{s} \gg 2\sqrt{2} \pi / \sqrt{d}$ and (ii) in the strong coupling limit if $\tilde{s} \gg 4 \sqrt{n/(1-n)}\sqrt{d}$ (see Appendix \[app:effective-hamiltonian\]). Since the scaling limit involves $d \to \infty$ for $N$ fixed it also implies the low density limit $n \to 0$.
![Dependence of the number of condensed bosons $N_0$ on $log(\tilde{s})$ and on the density $n$. (a) low density $n \simeq 0.05 $ and (b) finite density and $d=199$. Symbols: DMRG results, dashed lines: guide for the eye, solid lines: analytical results (\[eq:condensate\]). The dotted lines mark the asymptotic values for finite $N$, $s=0, d \to \infty$ obtained by the exact numerical calculation of a Toeplitz determinant [@Forrester2003b], and the dots on the vertical axis in (b) represent $N(1-n)$; (see also text)[]{data-label="condensate-number"}](Fig-2-Misi){width="6.8cm"}
#### Results from DMRG.— {#results-from-dmrg. .unnumbered}
In order to check the range of validity of the results above and to extend those for finite $d$ to small and intermediate coupling strengths $\tilde{s}$, we have performed large scale density matrix renormalization group computations (DMRG) [@White1992b; @White1993; @Schollwock2005] for various system sizes and number of particles using optimization tools based on concepts of quantum information theory[@Legeza-2003b; @Legeza-2004b; @Szalay-2015]. Besides calculating energy eigenvalues and the one-particle reduced density matrices we have also determined one- and two-site von Neumann entropies and the two-site mutual information, $I_{i|j}$. More details on our DMRG approach can be found in Appendix \[app:DMRG-details\]. Since we are mostly interested in BEC we only present the results for $N_0(N,n;\tilde{s})$ as a function of $\log(\tilde{s})$. Analysis of the mutual information is summarized in Appendix \[app:DMRG-details\]. Part (a) of Fig. \[condensate-number\] shows $N_0$ in the low density regime for $n \simeq 0.05 \ll 1$ fixed, whereas in part (b) $d=199$ is fixed and $n$ takes various values.
Three main observations can be made. First, the DMRG-results for $(N,d)$ fixed exhibit the crossover from quasi-BEC to BEC in all cases. Of course, the transition from $N_0 \sim \sqrt{N}$ to $N_0 \sim N$ becomes more pronounced with increase of $N$. Second, in the regime of quasi-BEC ($\log(\tilde{s}) < 0$) the agreement between the DMRG-results and the result for impenetrable bosons [@Forrester2003b] is very good, for low densities. This holds because in the limit $d \to \infty$ with $N$ *fixed* the ground state of HCBs becomes identical to that of impenetrable bosons. In this case, $N_0(N)$ for small $N$ follows from the numerical exact computation of the Toeplitz determinant [@Forrester2003b]. Yet, for $N \to \infty, d \to \infty $ with $n$ finite the HCBs on the ring-lattice differ from impenetrable bosons in one dimension. Therefore, both results in Fig. \[condensate-number\](b) deviate more and more from each other as $n$ increases. Third, in the regime of BEC ($\log(\tilde{s}) > 0$) the DMRG results also fit well with the analytical one (Eq. (\[eq:condensate\])) for all densities. Even the non-monotone $\tilde{s}$-dependence stemming from the finite-$N$ correction in Eq. (\[eq:condensate\]) is reproduced for small $N$ (see, e.g., the result in Fig. \[condensate-number\](a) for $d=39$, corresponding to $N=2$). With increasing $N$ the DMRG-result approaches the asymptotic value $N(1-n)$ (full circles in Fig. \[condensate-number\](b) at $\log(\tilde{s}) =4$).
![Realization of the ring lattice (left) and wheel lattice (right) for $d=10$ by a Mexican-hat-like potential. Loading HCBs into the potential landscape on the left and creating a local well as shown on the right generates a crossover from quasi to complete BEC.[]{data-label="mexican-hat(lattice)-1"}](Fig-4a "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![Realization of the ring lattice (left) and wheel lattice (right) for $d=10$ by a Mexican-hat-like potential. Loading HCBs into the potential landscape on the left and creating a local well as shown on the right generates a crossover from quasi to complete BEC.[]{data-label="mexican-hat(lattice)-1"}](Fig-4b "fig:"){width="4cm"}
#### Experimental realization.— {#experimental-realization. .unnumbered}
As an experimental realization of the ‘wheel’ model we suggest to load $N$ ultracold bosonic atoms into a Mexican-hat-like potential with $d$ local wells (left of Fig. \[mexican-hat(lattice)-1\]). Such a ring-type confinement was already realized experimentally (see, e.g., Refs. [@Amico2005; @Franke2007; @Ramanathan2011; @Amico2014; @Bell2016]). Tuning the pair interaction [@Bloch2008; @Chin2010; @Weidemueller2011; @Zuern2012] and the ring-well geometry such that multiple occupancy of a well is excluded one obtains a realization of HCBs on a ring-lattice. Then measuring the number of HCBs in their zero-momentum ring-state should yield a quasi-condensate with $N_0(N) \sim \sqrt{N}$ [@Forrester2003b; @RigolHCB1d2004; @RigolHCB1dPRL], which was already observed for impenetrable bosons in a cigar-shaped confinement [@Paredes2004].
Next, creation of a local well at the hat’s center (right of Fig. \[mexican-hat(lattice)-1\]) and increasing its depth more and more will allow the HCBs in the ring-wells to overcome each other by making transitions back and forth between any ring-well and the central one. This will significantly change the physical behavior since BEC will occur with $N_0(N) \sim N$. In order for this to happen for *finite* $d$ it must be $s/t \gg 1/d$ (see Appendix \[app:effective-hamiltonian\]). The hopping occurs due to tunneling between the corresponding wells. Let $(V_r, l_r=a)$ and $(V_c, l_c=ad/(2\pi))$ denote the potential barrier and tunneling distance, respectively, between two adjacent ring-wells and between a ring-well and the central one. Use of the WKB tunneling rate yields the estimate $s/t \approx (\gamma_c/\gamma_r) \exp[-\sqrt{ma^2/\hbar^2}(\sqrt{V_c}d/(2\pi) -\sqrt{V_r})]$ with $m$ the particle’s mass and $\gamma_{\alpha}, \alpha=c,r$ the so-called attempt frequency related to the zero-point oscillation frequency in the corresponding well. For instance, if $d=79$ and $N=4$ (Fig. \[condensate-number\](a)) ‘BEC’-like behavior should occur for $s/t > 1$. This can be satisfied for all $m$ and $a$ if $V_c/V_r \simeq (2\pi/d)^2$ provided $\gamma_c/\gamma_r \approx 1$. Note, $\log((s/t)\sqrt{d})$ (used in Fig. \[condensate-number\]) is directly related to the barrier heights.
Of course, there is no macroscopic number of condensed particles for $N$ small. But the crossover is already visible for small $N$, as demonstrated by the DMRG result. $N \gg 1$ requires $d \gg1$. Which maximum values for $d$ can be realized is not yet clear. However, generating a *true* Mexican-hat potential with continuous rotational invariance would realize the Tonks-Girardeau gas of impenetrable bosons. Since this corresponds to the continuum limit $a\to 0, d \to \infty$ with $ad$ fixed, the only condition for BEC would be $s >0$, requiring the generation of a central well.
#### Summary and conclusions.— {#summary-and-conclusions. .unnumbered}
We have presented and discussed a model which allows the realization of the dimensional crossover from $D=1$ to $D \gg1$ by variation of a single control parameter. This feature is related to its torroidal topology. The model consists of a ring-lattice with $d$ sites and an extra site at its center. Since our main focus is on BEC, we have investigated $N$ hard-core bosons (HCBs) with nearest neighbor hopping rate $t$ on the ring and a hopping rate $s$ between the ring and the central site. The latter hopping drastically changes the behavior of the HCBs. Varying for large but finite $d$ the ratio $s/t$ from $s/t \ll 1$ to $s/t \gg 1$ induces a transition from a quasi-BEC regime with a number of condensed HCBs $N_0 \sim \sqrt{N}$ to a BEC regime with $N_0 \sim N$. The transition is particularly pronounced for macroscopic $N$. However, the crossover already becomes visible for small $N$, as clearly demonstrated by the large scale DMRG computations (cf. Fig. \[condensate-number\]). As argued above ultracold bosonic atoms in a Mexican-hat-like potential should allow the experimental observation of this dimensional crossover for BEC.
The model is also interesting from a different point of view since it presents a mechanism creating an excitation gap. The unperturbed spectrum consists of an $(N-1)$- and $N$-particle band. For $n \leq 1/2$ the former is a subset of the latter. Turning on the hopping to the central site a band of scattering states occurs with lower and upper band edge identical to those of the unperturbed one. Below (and above) that band the coupling between the unperturbed $(N-1)$- and $N$-particle ring-states generates a discrete spectrum with an excitation gap. It is exactly this gap, which makes the BE-condensate robust against thermal fluctuations. The discrete spectrum follows in the limit $s/t \to 0, d \to \infty$ with $\tilde{s}=(s/t)\sqrt{d}$ from an effective ring-Hamiltonian (cf. Eq. (\[eq:hamilton-eff\])) with ‘infinite’ range hopping. The variable $\tilde{s}$ also occurs for electrons on a lattice in high dimensions [@Metzner1989; @MH1989a; @MH1989b; @vDongen1990; @Georges1996], for the Hubbard model with infinite range hopping [@vDongen1989] and for the fermionic Hubbard star [@vDongen1991]. Nevertheless, our approach is qualitatively different. The former models reduce to an effective one-site model whereas we obtain a model on the ring with renormalized hopping. This highlights the crucial difference to models with a conventional mean-field character and thus described, e.g., by the Gross-Pitaevskii theory [@Gross1961; @Gross1963; @Pitaevskii1961].
Finally, extending the ‘wheel’ model to interacting fermions and spins would be interesting, as well. This would allow one to elaborate on the analogous dimensional crossover for fermions and spins. For instance for spins, increasing the ratio of the corresponding exchange constants should induce long range magnetic order on the ring.
We gratefully acknowledge critical comments on the present manuscript by P.van Dongen, F.Gebhard, J.Marino and L.Pollet. We also would like to thank P.J.Forrester and T.M.Garoni for providing the exact results obtained directly from the Toeplitz determinant for the number of condensed particles in one dimension for small $N$. This work has been supported in part by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (grant no. K120569), and the Hungarian Quantum Technology National Excellence Program (project no. 2017-1.2.1-NKP-2017-00001). [Ö]{}.L. acknowledges financial support from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation. M.M. has been supported by the ÚNKP-19-3 Hungarian New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology. C.S. acknowledges financial support from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (Grant EP/P007155/1) and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant SCHI 1476/1-1).
Derivation of the effective Hamiltonian {#app:effective-hamiltonian}
=======================================
The Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ is given by Eq. (1). Using $\hat{H} = \hat{H}_0 + \hat{H}_1$ (with $\hat{H}_0$ the ring-Hamiltonian) and
$$\label{eq:Psi-Suppl}
{\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}} = \alpha {\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}}\otimes {\mbox{$| 0 \rangle$}}_c + \beta {\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}}\otimes {\mbox{$| 1 \rangle$}}_c \ ,$$
the eigenvalue equation $\hat{H} {\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}} = E{\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}} $ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvalue-1A}
\alpha \hat{H}_0 {\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}} - \beta s \sum^d_{i=1} h^{\dagger}_i {\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}} &=& \alpha E {\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}}\nonumber \\
-\alpha s \sum^d_{i=1} h_i {\mbox{$| \phi_{N} \rangle$}} + \beta H_0{\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}} &=& \beta E {\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The unperturbed eigenstates (i.e., s=0) for $N$ HCBs can be represented as $$\label{eq:psi-0-0}
{\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N) \rangle$}} = \sum_{1 \leq n_1< \cdots < n_N \leq d} \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(n_1,\cdots,n_N)h_{n_1}^{\dagger} \cdots h_{n_N}^{\dagger} {\mbox{$| 0 \rangle$}} \ .$$ The normalized, totally symmetric ‘wave functions’ $\psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(n_1,\cdots,n_N)$ are given for $1 \leq n_1< \cdots < n_N \leq d$ by the determinant constructed from the one-particle states $\exp(iq_{\mu_k}n_l)$ [@Bethe1931; @Lieb1963a] $$\label{eq:psi-0}
\psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(n_1,\cdots,n_N) = \mathcal{N} \sum_{P \in S_N} sgn(P)
\exp{\big(i \sum^N_{k=1}q_{\mu_{P(k)}}n_k\big)} \ ,$$ with $\mathcal{N} = d^{-N/2}$. $S_N$ denotes the permutation group of the integers $(1,2,\cdots,N)$ and $sgn(P)$ its signature. The form highlights the well-known equivalence of spinless fermions and hard-core bosons in 1d and one has $\mu_1 < \mu_2< \ldots <\mu_d$. The unperturbed eigenstates are labelled by $\boldsymbol{\mu}=(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_N)$ and $\mu$ determines the wave number $q_{\mu}= (\pi/d)(2\mu+1)$ for $N$ even and $q_{\mu}= (\pi/d)2 \mu$ for $N$ odd [@Lieb1963a; @Nie2013; @Nie2018] . Since $q_{\mu}$ is restricted to the first Billouin zone $\mu$ takes the values $-d/2+1,-d/2+2,\cdots,-1,0,1,\cdots,d/2-1,d/2 $ for $d$ even and $-(d-1)/2,-(d-1)/2+1,\cdots,-1,0,1,\cdots,(d-1)/2-1,(d-1)/2 $ for $d$ odd. The corresponding unperturbed eigenvalues are given by $$\label{eq:E-0}
E^{0}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N,d) = -2 \sum^N_{k=1} \cos(q_{\mu_k})\ .$$ The unperturbed ground state energy, $E^{0}_{low}(N,d)$, is easily calculated. Using $\cos(x)= [\exp{(ix)} + \exp{(-ix)}]/2$ it is straightforward to calculate the sum in Eq. (\[eq:E-0\]). As a result one gets $$\label{eq:E-0-a}
E^{0}_{low}(N,d) = -2 \sin(\frac{\pi}{d}N)/\sin(\frac{\pi}{d}) \simeq -2 \frac{d}{\pi}\sin(\frac{\pi}{d}N) \ ,$$ and the Fermi energy $E_F(N,d)= E^0_0(N,d) - E^0_0(N-1,d)$ becomes $$\label{eq:E-Fermi}
E_F(N,d) = -2 \big[\tan(\frac{\pi}{2d})\sin(\frac{\pi}{d}N)+\cos(\frac{\pi}{d}N) \big] \simeq -2\cos(\pi n) $$ with $n=N/d$ the particle density. For $d \to \infty, N \to \infty$ with $n=N/d$ fixed the unperturbed $N$-particle spectrum is a single band with lower band edge $E^0_{low}(N,n) \simeq -2N \sin(\pi n) /(\pi n)$ and band width $W(N,n) = 4N \sin(\pi n) /(\pi n) \propto 4N$. First we note that the result for $E^{0}_{low}(N,n)$ holds for N even and odd and second that the ground state lies in the subspace with total momentum $Q=\sum^N_{k=1} q_{\mu_k}$ equal to zero. $Q$ is a good quantum number due to the invariance of $\hat{H}$ under lattice translations on the ring.
Since the unperturbed eigenstates are complete we have(cf. also Eq. (3) of the main text) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phi-varphi}
{\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}} &=& \sum_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}{\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N) \rangle$}} \nonumber \\
{\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}} &=& \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mu}} a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}{\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1) \rangle$}}\ .\end{aligned}$$ with $\sum_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} |A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}|^2 =1$ and $\sum_{\boldsymbol{\mu}} |a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}|^2 =1$. The summations in Eq. (\[eq:phi-varphi\]) are restricted such that $Q= \sum^{N}_{i=1} q_{\nu_i}=\sum^{N-1}_{j=1} q_{\mu_j}$ is fixed (mod $2\pi$). In the following we choose $Q=0$, i.e., we consider the HCBs in the frame where the center of mass of the HCBs is at rest(see also [@Pethick2000]). Substituting the ansatz (\[eq:phi-varphi\]) into Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-1A\]) leads to a decoupling of the $(N-1)$-particle and the $N$-particle sector: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvalue-2A}
\big[E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N,d) \big] A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} &=& s^2\sum_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(E)A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'} \nonumber \\
\big[E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d) \big]a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}} &=& s^2\sum_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'}m_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\mu}'}(E)a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Here we used that $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d)$ and $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N,d)$ are the corresponding unperturbed eigenvalues of ${\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1) \rangle$}}$ and ${\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N) \rangle$}}$ , respectively. The matrix elements $M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(E)$ and $m_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\mu}'}(E)$ depend only on the unperturbed eigenstates and eigenvalues and are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvalue-3A}
M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(E) &=& \sum_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'}(b^{\dagger})_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\mu}'} [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'}(N-1,d)]^{-1}b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'\boldsymbol{\nu}'} \nonumber \\
m_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\mu}'}(E) &=& \sum_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'} b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}'} [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(N,d)]^{-1}b^{\dagger}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'\boldsymbol{\mu}'} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The crucial quantity is the matrix $\bf{b}$ with elements $$\label{eq:eigenvalue-4A}
b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}} = {\mbox{$\langle \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1) |$}} \ \sum^{d}_{i=1}h_i \ {\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N) \rangle$}} \ \ .$$ Having solved Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-2A\]) one obtains from Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-1A\]) with Eq. (\[eq:phi-varphi\]) the coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
Operating with $\sum_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}A^{*}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N,d)]^{-1}$ and $\sum_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}a^{*}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}} [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d)]^{-1} $, respectively, on the 1st and 2nd line of Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-2A\]) and taking the normalization of $\{A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\}$ and $\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\}$ into account the eigenvalue equations take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvalue-5A}
1&=&s^2f^{(N-1)}_d(E;\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\})
\nonumber \\
1&=&s^2F^{(N)}_d(E;\{A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\}) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\label{eq:eigenvalue-6Ai}
f^{(N-1)}_d(E;\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\}) =\sum_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\mu}'\boldsymbol{\nu}'}a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}^{*} [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d)]^{-1} b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}'} [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(N,d)]^{-1}(b^{\dagger})_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'\boldsymbol{\mu}'}a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'} \ .$$ and $$\label{eq:eigenvalue-6Aii}
F^{(N)}_d(E;\{A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\}) =\sum_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\nu}'\boldsymbol{\mu}'}A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}^{*} [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N,d)]^{-1} (b^{\dagger})_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\mu}'} [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'}(N-1,d)]^{-1}b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'\boldsymbol{\nu}'}A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}$$ The unperturbed eigenfunctions can always be chosen to be real, since the unperturbed Hamiltonian is real. Therefore $b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ and $(b^{\dagger})_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\mu}}$ are real. Furthermore, $\{ a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}} \}$ and $\{ A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \}$ can also be chosen to be real since the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ is real as well. Therefore the functions $ f^{(N-1)}_d(E;\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\})$ and $ F^{(N)}_d(E;\{A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\})$ are real.
Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-5A\]) together with Eqs. (\[eq:eigenvalue-6Ai\]) and (\[eq:eigenvalue-6Aii\]) already allows to obtain some qualitative information on the low-energy part of the perturbed $N$-particle spectrum. A crucial observation is that $f^{(N-1)}_d(E;\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\})$ and $F^{(N)}_d(E;\{A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\})$ have *poles* at the unperturbed $(N-1)$- and $N$-particle eigenvalues. As discussed above the unperturbed spectrum of $(N-1)$ and $N$ HCBs form a band with lower band edge $E^{0}_{low}(N-1,d)$ and $E^{0}_{low}(N,d)$, respectively. It is $E^{0}_{low}(N,d) = E^{0}_{low}(N-1,d) + E_F(N,d)$ with the Fermi energy from Eq. (\[eq:E-Fermi\]). For $n < 1/2$ it follows $E_F(N,d) < 0$. Note, this is not a restriction due to the particle-hole duality. Therefore, $E^{0}_{low}(N,d) < E^{0}_{low}(N-1,d)$. Now, we will show that the low-lying perturbed eigenvalues form a discrete spectrum below $E^{0}_{low}(N,d)$, and the band between $E^{0}_{low}(N,d)$ and $E^{0}_{low}(N-1,d)$ persists. The discrete spectrum exhibits an excitation gap even for $d= \infty$.
Let us choose $E$ between $E^0_{low}(N,d)$ and $E^0_{low}(N-1,d)$ and let us denote the increasingly ordered unperturbed eigenvalues $\{ E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N,d) \}$ in this interval by $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_k}(N,d)$, $k \geq 1 $. Due to $E < E^{0}_{low}(N-1,d)$ the denominators $ [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d)]^{-1}$ in Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-6Ai\]) are negative for all $\boldsymbol{\mu}$, i.e., they do not change sign. Then, under variation of $E$ between $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_k}(N,d)$ and $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_{k+1}}(N,d)$, the function $f^{(N-1)}_d(E;\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\})$ varies continuously from $\pm \infty$ at $E=E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_k}(N,d)$ to $\mp \infty$ at $E=E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_{k+1}}(N,d)$, independent of $\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\}$. Accordingly, for arbitrary $s \neq 0$ the first equation of (\[eq:eigenvalue-5A\]) has always a solution $E_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_k}(N, d; s, \{a_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\})$ which is between $E^{0}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_k}(N,d)$ and $E^{0}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_{k+1}}(N,d)$. Substituting $E_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_k}(N, d; s, \{a_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\})$ into the second line of Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-2A\]) yields $\{a^{({\boldsymbol{\nu}_k})}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\}$ which in turn leads to the perturbed eigenvalues $E_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_k}(N,d;s)= E_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_k}(N, d; s, \{a^{({\boldsymbol{\nu}_k})}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\}) $, $k \geq 1$. For $d \to \infty$ these perturbed eigenvalues $\{E_{\boldsymbol{\nu}_k}(N,d; s) \}$ form a band with lower band edge $E^{0}_{low}(N,d)$ and upper edge $E^{0}_{low}(N-1,d)$.
For $E \geq E^{0}_{low}(N-1,d)$ there exist pairs $\boldsymbol{\nu}', \boldsymbol{\mu}$ such that there is no unperturbed eigenvalue between $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(N,d)$ and $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d)$. In that case $ [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(N,d)]^{-1} [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d)]^{-1}$ in Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-6Ai\]) changes from $\pm \infty$ at $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(N,d)$ to $\pm \infty$ at $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d)$ under varying $E$ between $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(N,d)$ and $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d)$. Therefore, $ f^{(N-1)}_d(E;\{a_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\})$ does not necessarily change sign and the first equation of (\[eq:eigenvalue-5A\]) may only have a solution for $s^2$ small enough. In case that the solution between $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(N,d)$ and $E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d)$ disappears if $s^2$ becomes large enough, a perturbed eigenvalue must appear below(or above) the lower(upper) band edge $-|E^{0}_{low}(N,d)|$($|E^{0}_{low}(N-1,d)|$), since the total number of eigenvalues does not depend on $s$.
Finally, let us discuss $E < E^{0}_{low}(N,d)$. In that case the product of both denominators in Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-6Ai\]) is always positive. For $E \to E^{0}_{low}(N,d)$ from below $f^{(N-1)}_d(E;\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\})$ will diverge to $ + \infty$. Because $f^{(N-1)}_d(E;\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\}) \to 0$ for $E \to - \infty$ there must exist at least one solution $E(N,d;s,\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\})$ of the first equation of Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-5A\]) for *all* $s \neq 0$. $E(N,d;s,\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\})$ will have a gap to the lower band edge $E^{0}_{low}(N,d)$. Depending on $s^2$ and $\{a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\}$ there may exist more than one solution. Substitution them into the first line of Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-2A\]) yields a discrete spectrum. The same qualitative discussion can be done for $F^{(N)}_d(E;\{A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\}) $ (Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-6Aii\])) in combination with the second equation in (\[eq:eigenvalue-5A\]). We have checked the correctness of these qualitative results on the perturbed spectrum for $N=2$. There is little doubt that they become incorrect for $N > 2$.
Now we describe how the discrete part of the perturbed spectrum and the corresponding eigenstates below $E^0_{low}(N,d)$ can be obtained exactly in two limiting cases. In these two cases $ [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu'}}(N-1,d)]^{-1}$ and $ [E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(N,d)]^{-1}$ can be replaced by $ [E-E^0_{low}(N,d) + E_F(N,d)]^{-1}$ and $ [E-E^0_{low}(N,d)]^{-1}$, respectively. Then, the matrices $ (M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(E))$ and $ (m_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\mu}'}(E))$ strongly simplify since the sums in Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-3A\]) can be performed using Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-4A\]) and the completeness relations $\sum_{\boldsymbol{\mu}} {\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1) \rangle$}} {\mbox{$\langle \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1) |$}} =$ $\mathbbm{1}|_{N-1}$, $\sum_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} {\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N) \rangle$}} {\mbox{$\langle \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N) |$}} =$ $\mathbbm{1}|_N$. $\mathbbm{1}|_{N-1}$ and $\mathbbm{1}|_{N}$ denote the identity operator, respectively, in the $(N-1)$ and $N$ particle subspace. Then it follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvalue-6Aiiapprox}
M_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\nu}'}(E) &\simeq&
[E-E^0_{low}(N,d) + E_F(N,d)]^{-1} {\mbox{$\langle \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N) |$}} \sum_{ij}h^{\dagger}_ih_j {\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu'}}(N) \rangle$}} \nonumber \\
m_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\mu}'}(E) &\simeq & [E-E^0_{low}(N,d)]^{-1} {\mbox{$\langle \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1) |$}} \sum_{ij}h_ih^{\dagger}_j {\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu'}}(N-1) \rangle$}} \nonumber\ .\end{aligned}$$ and Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-2A\]) simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvalue-6Aiiiapprox}
E^{eff} A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}} & \simeq& s^2\sum_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'} {\mbox{$\langle \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N) |$}} \sum_{ij}h^{\dagger}_ih_j {\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu'}}(N) \rangle$}}A_{\boldsymbol{\nu}'} \nonumber \\
\ E^{eff}a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}} &\simeq& s^2\sum_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'} {\mbox{$\langle \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1) |$}} \sum_{ij}h_ih^{\dagger}_j {\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu'}}(N-1) \rangle$}} a_{\boldsymbol{\mu}'} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\label{eq:eigenvalue-2Aviapprox}
E^{eff}(N,d)= [E-E^0_{low}(N,d) + E_F(N,d)] [E-E^0_{low}(N,d)] \ .$$ The eigenvalue equations (\[eq:eigenvalue-6Aiiiapprox\]) are identical to the eigenvalue equations following from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvalue-2Aivapprox}
\hat{H}^{eff}_N {\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}} &=& E^{eff}(N,d) {\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}} \nonumber \\
\hat{h}^{eff}_{N-1} {\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}} &=& E^{eff}(N,d) {\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ with the effective Hamiltonians $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvalue-2Avapprox}
\hat{H}^{eff}_N &=& \tilde{s}^2 \frac{1}{d }\sum^{d}_{i,j=1}h^{\dagger}_i h_j \nonumber \\
\hat{h}^{eff}_{N-1} &=& \tilde{s}^2 \frac{1}{d } \sum^{d}_{i,j=1}h_i h^{\dagger}_j \ \ ,\end{aligned}$$ and ${\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}}, {\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}}$ from Eq. (\[eq:phi-varphi\]). Note, the eigenvalue $E^{eff}(N,d)$ is identical for $\hat{H}^{eff}_N $ and $\hat{h}^{eff}_{N-1}$. $ \tilde{s}= (s/t) \sqrt{d}$ denotes the scaled dimensionless coupling constant. We remind the reader that we used $t=1$.\
\
In the following it is more convenient to use the equivalence $h^{\dagger}_i=S_i^{-}$, $h_i=S_i^{+}$, $(1-2h^{\dagger}_ih_i)=2S_i^{z}$ between the hard-core Bose operators and the spin-one-half operators. The commutation relations of the latter read $$\label{eq:commutator}
\big[S_i^{+},S_j^{-}\big] = 2\delta_{ij} S_i^{z}, \quad
\big[S_j^{z},S_i^{\pm}\big] = \pm \delta_{ij} S_i^{\pm} \ .$$ The effective Hamiltonians become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvalue-2Avapprox-spin}
\hat{H}^{eff}_N &=& \tilde{s}^2 \frac{1}{d }\sum^{d}_{i,j=1} S^{-}_i S^{+}_j\\
\hat{h}^{eff}_{N-1} &=& \tilde{s}^2 \frac{1}{d } \sum^{d}_{i,j=1}S^{+}_i S^{-}_j \ \ ,\end{aligned}$$ Let $\vec{S}= \sum_{i=1}^d \vec{S}_i$ be the spin operator of the total spin. Because $\hat{H}^{eff}_N$(and $\hat{h}^{eff}_{N-1}$) commutes with $\vec{S}^2$ and $S^{z}$ all its eigenstates can be chosen such that they are also eigenstates of $\vec{S}^2$ and $S^{z}$ with eigenvalues $S(S+1)$ and $M$, respectively. They will be denoted by ${\mbox{$| S,M \rangle$}}$. $M$ is related to the particle number by $M=d/2-N$ and for fixed $N$ the total spin quantum number takes the values $S=d/2-N,d/2-N+1,\cdots,d/2$. The corresponding eigenvalues of $\hat{H}^{eff}_N$ are given by $$\label{eq:E-eff(S,M)}
E^{eff}(S,M; \tilde{s}) = \tilde{s}^2 \frac{1}{d} \big[S(S+1)-M(M+1 \big]\ .$$
The ground state eigenvalue $E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})$ of $\hat{H}$ follows from the largest eigenvalue $E^{eff}_{max}(N,d;\tilde{s})$ of $\hat{H}^{eff}_N$ which corresponds to $S_{max}=d/2$. Then we obtain from Eq. (\[eq:E-eff(S,M)\]) in the thermodynamic limit $N \to \infty, d\to \infty$ with density $n=N/d$ fixed $$\label{eq:E-eff}
E^{eff}_{max}(N,d; \tilde{s}) \simeq \tilde{s}^2N(1-n)\ .$$ The corresponding eigenstates are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:states-eff}
{\mbox{$| \phi^{eff}_N \rangle$}} &=& \binom{d}{N}^{-1/2} (\sum^d_{i=1} h^{\dagger}_i)^N {\mbox{$| 0 \rangle$}} \nonumber \\
{\mbox{$| \varphi^{eff}_{N-1} \rangle$}} &=& \binom{d}{N-1}^{-1/2} (\sum^d_{i=1} h^{\dagger}_i)^{N-1} {\mbox{$| 0 \rangle$}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Using the spin analogy it is ${\mbox{$| \phi^{eff}_N \rangle$}} = {\mbox{$| d/2,d/2-N \rangle$}}$ and ${\mbox{$| \varphi^{eff}_{N-1} \rangle$}} = {\mbox{$| d/2,d/2-(N-1) \rangle$}}$. Note, these eigenstates belong to the subspace with total momentum $Q=0$.
Substitution of $E^{eff}_{max}(N,d; \tilde{s})$ from Eq. (\[eq:E-eff\]) into Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-2Aviapprox\]) leads to the perturbed ground state eigenvalue $$\label{eq:groundapprox}
E_0(N,d;\tilde{s}) \simeq E^0_{low}(N,d) - E_F(N,d)/2 - \sqrt{(E_F(N,d)/2)^2 + \tilde{s}^2 N(1-n)} \ .$$ We remind the reader that Eq. (\[eq:E-Fermi\]) implies $E_F(N,d) \leq 0$ for $0 \leq n \leq 1/2$. The energy, $E_1(N,d;\tilde{s})$, of the first excitation follows from Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-2Aviapprox\]) for the second largest effective eigenvalue. Using the spin analogy the latter corresponds to $S=S_{max}-1 \equiv d/2-1$ which yields $E^{eff}(N,d;\tilde{s})= E^{eff}_{max}(N,d;\tilde{s}) - \tilde{s}^2$. Accordingly we obtain $$\label{eq:first excitation}
E_1(N,d;\tilde{s}) \simeq E^0_{low}(N,d) - E_F(N,d)/2 - \sqrt{(E_F(N,d)/2)^2 + \tilde{s}^2 [N(1-n) - 1 ]} \ .$$ It is easy to see that the excitation gap $\Delta E(N,d;\tilde{s}) = E_1(N,d;\tilde{s}) - E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})$ is finite for $\tilde{s} \neq 0$ and all $d$, including $d= \infty$. The higher excitation energies $ E_n(N,d;\tilde{s})$ for $n=2, \cdots,N-1$ follow similarly using $S=d/2-n$. Therefore, the eigenvalues of $\hat{H}$ below $E^0_{low}(N,d)$ form a discrete spectrum of $N$ eigenvalues.
Let us summarize: The unperturbed spectrum in the subspace $Q=0$ consists of two bands. One band, $B^0_{N-1}$, of $K_{N-1}$ eigenvalues, $\{ E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d) \}$, and the other band, $B^0_N$, with $K_N$ eigenvalues, $\{ E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N,d) \}$). These two bands correspond to $(N-1)$ and $N$ HCBs on the ring-lattice. The band edges of $B^0_{N-1}$ are at $\pm E^0_{low}(N-1,d)$ and those of $B^0_N$ at $\pm E^0_{low}(N,d)$. For $d$ finite, both sets $\{ E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1,d) \}$ and $\{ E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N,d) \}$ are disjoint, and for density $n=N/d \leq 1/2$ $B^0_{N-1}$ is a subset within the interval $[-|E^0_{low}(N,d)|,+|E^0_{low}(N,d)|]$. Turning on $s$ leads to a coupling between these two bands. Part of these two bands persist. The lower band edge of the perturbed band coincides for $d= \infty$ with the lower band edge of the unperturbed band. Below that band a discrete spectrum of maximally $N$ eigenvalues occurs exhibiting an excitation gap. The number of discrete eigenvalues may change with $\tilde{s}$.
The number $N_0= (1/d){\mbox{$\langle \Psi_N |$}} \sum^d_{i,j=1} h^{\dagger}_i h_j {\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}}$ of condensed particles in the state $ {\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}}$ is easily obtained since $(1/d){\mbox{$\langle \Psi_N |$}} \sum^d_{i,j=1} h^{\dagger}_i h_j {\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}} \simeq {\mbox{$\langle \Psi_N |$}} \hat{H}^{eff}_N {\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}}/\tilde{s}^2 $. Substitution of ${\mbox{$| \Psi_N \rangle$}}$ from Eq. (\[eq:Psi-Suppl\]) leads to $N_0= [ |\alpha|^2 {\mbox{$\langle \phi^{eff}_N |$}} \hat{H}^{eff}_N {\mbox{$| \phi^{eff}_N \rangle$}} + |\beta|^2 {\mbox{$\langle \varphi^{eff}_{N-1} |$}} \hat{H}^{eff}_{N} {\mbox{$| \varphi^{eff}_{N-1} \rangle$}}]/\tilde{s}^2$. Making use of the commutation relations of $\{h^{\dagger}_i\}, \{h_j\}$ one can express $\hat{H}^{eff}_{N} $ in the second summand by $\hat{h}^{eff}_{N-1}$: $$\label{eq:condensate-Ai}
\hat{H}^{eff}_N=\hat{h}^{eff}_{N-1} - \frac{\tilde{s}^2}{d}\sum^d_{i=1}(1-2\hat{n}_i) \ .$$ With $|\alpha|^2 + |\beta|^2 =1$, $ \sum^d_{i=1}\hat{n}_i {\mbox{$| \varphi^{eff}_{N-1} \rangle$}} = (N-1) {\mbox{$| \varphi^{eff}_{N-1} \rangle$}}$, Eqs. (\[eq:eigenvalue-2Aivapprox\]), (\[eq:eigenvalue-2Avapprox\]) and (\[eq:E-eff\]) we obtain for $d \to \infty$ the final result $$\label{eq:condensate-Aii}
N_0(N;\tilde{s}) \simeq N \big[(1-n) - |\beta|^2(1-2 n) N^{-1} \big] \ .$$ Since $ |\beta|^2 \leq 1$ the second term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[eq:condensate-Aii\]) is a negative correction(for $n < 1/2$) to the leading order term $(1-n)$ which is of order $\mathcal{O}(1/N)$.
As discussed above the mapping of the original model to an effective one is valid if one is allowed to replace $ E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu'}}(N,d)$ by the unperturbed ground state energy eigenvalue $E^0_{low}(N,d)$. This is equivalent to the replacement of $\hat{H}_0$ in the first line of Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-1A\]) by $E^0_{low}(N,d)$. With this replacement and that of $({\mbox{$| \phi_N \rangle$}}, {\mbox{$| \varphi_{N-1} \rangle$}})$ by $({\mbox{$| \phi^{eff}_N \rangle$}}, {\mbox{$| \varphi^{eff}_{N-1} \rangle$}})$ from Eq. (\[eq:states-eff\]) one can solve the linear equation for $\alpha, \beta$. With use of $ [E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})-E^0_{low}(N,d)]$ from Eq. (\[eq:groundapprox\]) and the normalization condition $|\alpha |^2+|\beta|^2=1$ one obtains for the ground state $$\begin{aligned}
|\alpha|^2 &\simeq & 1 -\frac{1}{2}\tilde{s}^2N(1-n) \Big\{ \big[(E_F/2)^2+\tilde{s}^2N(1-n) \big] - (E_F/2) \sqrt{(E_F/2)^2+\tilde{s}^2N(1-n)} \Big\}^{-1} \label{eq:alpha-ground} \\
|\beta|^2 &\simeq& \frac{1}{2}\tilde{s}^2N(1-n)\Big\{ \big[(E_F/2)^2+\tilde{s}^2N(1-n) \big] - (E_F/2) \sqrt{(E_F/2)^2+\tilde{s}^2N(1-n)} \Big\}^{-1}. \label{eq:beta-ground}\end{aligned}$$ Now we discuss the validity of the above mapping of the original eigenvalue problem to an effective one. The simplest limiting case under which the mapping becomes exact is the strong coupling limit $s \to \infty$. For the ground state energy $E=E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})$ the denominators in Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-3A\]) can be rewritten as follows $$\label{eq:denom}
[E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu'}}(N,d)] = [E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})-E^0_{low}(N,d)] \{1 + [E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu'}}(N,d) - E^0_{low}(N,d)]/ [E^0_{low}(N,d) - E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})]\}^{-1} \ .$$ and similar for $[E_0(N,d;\tilde{s}) -E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu'}}(N-1,d)]$. From Eqs. (\[eq:E-0\]) and (\[eq:E-0-a\]) we get $0 \leq [E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu'}}(N,d) - E^0_{low}(N,d)] \leq 4N$ for all $\boldsymbol{\nu'}$. The mapping becomes exact if $$\label{eq:approx-validity}
[E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu'}}(N,d) - E^0_{low}(N,d)]/ [E^0_{low}(N,d) - E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})] \to 0\ .$$\
Substituting $[E^0_{low}(N,d) - E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})]$ from Eq. (\[eq:groundapprox\]) and taking the upper bound, $4N$, for $[E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu'}}(N,d) - E^0_{low}(N,d)]$ into account leads for $N = \mathcal{O}(d)$, i.e. for finite $n$, to the condition $$\label{eq:strong-coupling}
s \gg 4\sqrt{\frac{n}{1-n}} \ .$$ Note that $n \leq 1/2$, and $\tilde{s}=s \sqrt{d}$ is used.
The reason why the mapping becomes exact in the scaling limit $s \to 0, d \to \infty$ with $\tilde{s}=s \sqrt{d}$ and $N$ fixed, is more subtle. In that case the variation with $\boldsymbol{\mu'}$ of the numerator $b^{\dagger}_{\boldsymbol{\nu}\boldsymbol{\mu'}}b_{\boldsymbol{\mu'}\boldsymbol{\nu'}}$ and of the denominator $[E-E^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu'}}(N-1,d)]$ in the first line of Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-3A\]) plays the essential role. In Appendix B we prove that $b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}} \sim \sqrt{d}$ for $\boldsymbol{\mu}, \boldsymbol{\nu}$ fixed and $d \to \infty$ whereas $b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}} = \mathcal{O}(1)$ if $\mu_k \in \boldsymbol{\mu}$ and $\nu_k \in \boldsymbol{\nu}$ are of $\mathcal{O}(d)$. This means that $b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ decreases fast with increasing $\mu_k$ and $\nu_k$. Therefore the main contributions in the sums in Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-3A\]) for $N$ arbitrary large but fixed comes from $\boldsymbol{\mu'},\boldsymbol{\nu}$ with $\mu'_k$ and $\nu_k$ arbitrary large but fixed. Therefore restricting the sums in Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-3A\]), e.g., over $\boldsymbol{\mu'}$ to $|\mu'_k| \leq \sqrt{d}$ for all $k$ does not change the result if $d$ becomes very large. Due to this restriction of $\{ \mu_k \}$ we obtain with $E^0_{low}(N,d) \simeq -2N$ and $\cos{(2\pi \mu_k/d)} \leq 1- 2\pi^2/d$ from (\[eq:E-0\]) the upper bound $ [E^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu'}}(N,d) - E^0_{low}(N,d)] \ll 4 \pi^2 N/d$ for the numerator in Eq. (\[eq:approx-validity\]). Substituting this upper bound and $[E^0_{low}(N,d) - E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})]$ from Eq. (\[eq:groundapprox\]) into Eq. (\[eq:approx-validity\]) leads for $N$ fixed and $d \gg1$ to the condition $$\label{eq:scaling limit}
s \gg 2\sqrt{2} \pi /d\ .$$ Here we also used $E_F(N,d) \simeq -2$ because $n \approx 0$ for $N$ fixed and $d \gg 1 $(cf. Eq. (\[eq:E-Fermi\])).
Behavior of $b_{\mu,\nu}$ for $N$ fixed and $d \to \infty$ {#app:b}
==========================================================
To study the behavior of $b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ for $N$ fixed and $d \to \infty$ we first observe that the translational invariance on the ring implies that Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-4A\]) becomes $b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}} = d \ {\mbox{$\langle \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1) |$}} h_1 \ {\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N) \rangle$}}$. Substituting ${\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(N-1) \rangle$}}$, ${\mbox{$| \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(N) \rangle$}}$ from Eq. (\[eq:psi-0-0\]) and taking advantage of the ordering $1 \leq n_1< \cdots < n_N \leq d$ one arrives at $$\label{eq:eigenvalue-12Ai}
b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}} = d \sum_{2 \leq m_2 < \cdots < m_N \leq d} \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(m_2,\cdots,m_N)^{*} \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(1,m_2,\cdots,m_N) \ .$$ Introducing new variables $n_i=m_{i+1}-1$ and taking the translational invariance into account this yields $$\label{eq:eigenvalue-12Aii}
b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}} = d \sum_{1 \leq n_1 < \cdots < n_{N-1} \leq d-1} \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(n_1,\cdots,n_{N-1})^{*} \psi^0_{\boldsymbol{\nu}}(0,n_1,\cdots,n_{N-1}) \ .$$ Substituting the normalized ‘wave functions’ from Eq. (\[eq:psi-0\]) leads to $$\label{eq:eigenvalue-6Aiii}
b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}} = d d^{-(N-\frac{1}{2})} \sum_{P \in S_{N-1}} \sum_{P' \in S_N} sgn(P) sgn(P')
\sum_{1 \leq n_1 < \cdots < n_{N-1} \leq (d-1)} \exp{\Big[-i \sum^{N-1}_{k=1} \big(q_{\mu_{P(k)}} - q_{\nu_{P'(k+1)}} \big)n_k\Big]} \ .$$ The crucial quantity is the 2nd line of Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-6Aiii\]). This sum can be written as $ \sum^{d-N+1}_{n_1=1} \sum^{d-N+2}_{n_2=n_1+1} \cdots \sum^{d-1}_{n_{N-1}=n_{N-2}+1} (\cdots)$. Each single sum generates a denominator of the form $\big(1- \exp[-i(\sum^{N-1}_{j=1} a_jq_{\mu_j} -\sum^{N}_{j'=1} b_{j'}q_{\nu_{j'}})]\big)$ where the integers $\{a_j\}$ and $\{ b_{j'}\}$ take values $0, \pm 1$. There is a product of $(N-1)$ such denominators. For $\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu}$ fixed and for $d \to \infty$ this product is proportional to $d^{N-1}$ . Performing the sums in the 2nd line of Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-6Aiii\]) also generates numerators of the form $\big(1-\exp[-i(\sum^{N-1}_{j=1} a'_jq_{\mu_j} -\sum^{N}_{j'=1} b'_{j'}q_{\nu_{j'}} )d] \big)$ where $\{a'_j\}$ and $\{ b'_j\}$ take values $0, \pm 1$. $\exp[iq_{\mu_j}d]=+1(-1)$ and $\exp[iq_{\nu_j}d]=-1(+1)$ for $N$ even(odd). Therefore some of the numerators vanish and some do not. The latter take the value $2$. Accordingly, for $d \to \infty$ the contribution of these terms in the 2nd line of Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-6Aiii\]) is of order $d^{N-1}$. The contribution of all the other terms are of $\mathcal{O}(d^{N-2})$. Taking the prefactor $d d^{-(N-\frac{1}{2})}$ on the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[eq:eigenvalue-6Aiii\]) into account one obtains for $(\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu})$ arbitrary but fixed and $d \to \infty$ in leading order in $d$ $$\label{eq:eigenvalue-12Aiv}
b_{\boldsymbol{\mu}\boldsymbol{\nu}} \sim \sqrt{d} \ ,$$ which we wanted to prove.
Details of the DMRG calculations {#app:DMRG-details}
================================
The DMRG calculations were performed for $d \leq 199$ and $N \leq 98$. In the DMRG procedure we have performed calculations using the dynamic block state selection approach [@Legeza-2004b] and by fixed bond dimension. We have set a tight error bound on the diagonalization procedure, i.e., we set the residual error of the Davidson method to $10^{-9}$ and used ten DMRG sweeps. We have checked that the various quantities of interest are practically insensitive for $M\ge 1024$. In the regime of validity of the analytical results, e.g., the ground state energy $E_0(N,d;\tilde{s})$ (Eq. (7)) and $N_0(N,n;\tilde{s})$ (Eq. (8)) agree with the corresponding DMRG-results better than one percent.
Besides calculating energy eigenvalues and the one-particle reduced density matrices we have also determined one- and two-site von Neumann entropies ($s_i$ and $s_{ij}$, respectively) and the two-site mutual information, $I_{i|j}$, given as $I_{i|j}=s_i+s_j-s_{ij}$. Here $s_i=-{\rm Tr}\rho_i\ln\rho_i$ and $s_{ij}=-{\rm Tr}\rho_{ij}\ln\rho_{ij}$ where $\rho_i (\rho_{ij})$ is the reduced density matrix of site $i$ (sites $i$ and $j$), which is derived from the density matrix of the total system by tracing out the configurations of all other sites.
In Fig. \[fig:1D\_Wheel\_Star\_I\] we show mutual information for various pairs of sites as a function of $\log(\tilde{s})$ for $d=199$ and $n\simeq 0.05$. The change in the correlation pattern related to the crossover from quasi-BEC to BEC is also clearly visible through the mutual information. The correlation between the central and a ring site, $I_{i|c}$, vanishes for small $\tilde{s}$ coupling while it saturates to a finite value in the strong coupling limit when the model exhibits infinite-range hopping. Similarly, for arbitrary two ring sites, $I_{i|i+\ell}$, saturates to a constant value for large $\tilde{s}$ when the hopping along the ring is mediated by the central site. For $\tilde{s}=0$ $I_{i|i+\ell}$ decays algebraically with increasing $\ell$ while it becomes exponential as the gap opens and saturate to finite value for very large $\ell$ values.
![Two-site mutual information, $I_{i|\mathrm{c}}$, measured between the central site and a ring site (red star symbol), and $I_{i|i+\ell}$ for various two sites on the ring separated by distance $\ell=1,3,10,99$ for $d=199$ and $n\simeq 0.05$.[]{data-label="fig:1D_Wheel_Star_I"}](1D_Wheel_Star_I){width="8cm"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The use of Association Rule Mining techniques in diverse contexts and domains has resulted in the creation of numerous interestingness measures. This, in-turn, has motivated researchers to come up with various classification schemes for these measures. One popular approach to classify the objective measures is to assess the set of mathematical properties they satisfy in order to help practitioners select the right measure for a given problem. In this research, we discuss the insufficiency of the existing properties in literature to capture certain behaviors of interestingness measures. This motivates us to present a novel approach to analyze and classify measures. We refer to this as a rate of change analysis (RCA). In this analysis a measure is described by how it varies if there is a unit change in the frequency count $(f_{11},f_{10},f_{01},f_{00})$, for different pre-existing states of the frequency counts. More formally, we look at the first partial derivative of the measure with respect to the various frequency count variables. We then use this analysis to define two new properties, Unit-Null Asymptotic Invariance (UNAI) and Unit-Null Zero Rate (UNZR). UNAI looks at the asymptotic effect of adding frequency patterns, while UNZR looks at the initial effect of adding frequency patterns when they do not pre-exist in the dataset. We present a comprehensive analysis of 50 interestingness measures and classify them in accordance to the two properties. We also present empirical studies, involving both synthetic and real-world data sets, which are used to cluster various measures according to the rule ranking patterns of the measures. The study concludes with the observation that classification of measures using the empirical clusters share significant similarities to the classification of measures done through the properties presented in this research.'
author:
- Nandan Sudarsanam
- Nishanth Kumar
- Abhishek Sharma
- Balaraman Ravindran
bibliography:
- 'Citations.bib'
title: Rate of Change Analysis for Interestingness Measures
---
Introduction
============
Association rule mining (ARM) has emerged as a powerful and specialized tool to identify patterns in large datasets. It can be used in applications or business operations where instances of some spatio-temporal occurrence is represented in tabular format across a set of common attributes. An ARM study typically results in rules of the form A$\rightarrow$ B, which would mean that, based on evidence from the data, the presence of attribute A is likely to indicate the presence of attribute B. There are two major challenges to an ARM implementation: (i) Candidate Generation: This involves the process of filtering all the possible combinations of items that satisfy a given condition for selection. Given the exponentially large possibilities of rules, this condition focuses on the use of frequency based thresholds to remove potentially uninteresting rules [@AG93]. The second major challenge is (ii) Candidate Evaluation: This involves the use of an appropriate metric (*interestingness measure*) to evaluate all the different rules that can be defined from the selected item sets [@TK].
This research concerns itself with the latter challenge. Candidate evaluation can be challenging because there are different ways of describing interestingness of rules. A recent study [@all] showed that even among *objective measures*, there exist more than 61 that are defined in literature. Also, the information derived from these different interestingness measures (IM) may not always be consistent [@TK].
The properties are typically defined using a contingency table (see Table \[tbl1\]), a simplified adaptation from [@TK]. Here, two states, present and absent, are defined for two variables, A (rows) and B (columns). The frequency counts $f_{11}$ and $f_{00}$ define the co-presence and co-absence of A and B, respectively. While the term $f_{10}$ would represent the presence of A and absence of B, and $f_{01}$ the opposite.
[|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $B$ & $B^{c}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$A$ & $f_{11}$ & $f_{10}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$A^{c}$ & $f_{01}$ & $f_{00}$\
In this research, we posit that the popularly used set of 8 properties covered in [@TK2] do not fully capture some important aspects of interestingness measures, and this motivates us to define a more relevant and new property based analysis of IMs. Specifically, our motivation is built on the observations of [@all], who state that the empirical classification of measures based on how they rank rules has little to do with the property based classification. A deeper study on this mismatch leads us to believe that pre-existing mathematical properties are only useful in specific environmental contexts. These observations lead us to devise simpler, more generic property definitions which can be applied to different environmental contexts and bear a stronger affiliation to rule ranking patterns exhibited by the measures on empirical datasets.
To this end, we create a property definition framework that defines properties based on the change in the IM per unit change in a frequency count $(f_{11},f_{10},f_{01},f_{00})$. We broadly refer to this as *Rate of Change Analysis* (RCA). Specifically, we define two properties which look at the partial derivative of the measure at two different pre-existing states of the frequency count. The first studies the rate of change behavior of IM when the frequency count is very large (asymptotic effect as the frequency count tends to $+\infty$). We refer to this as *Unit-Null Asymptotic Invariance* (UNAI). The second property is defined at the point when the frequency count is currently $0$ or is tending to $0$. We refer to this as *Unit-Null Zero Rate* (UNZR). This looks at the effect of increasing the frequency count on the IM when it is currently non-existent in the data set. By defining properties based on how measures actually change at different contingency table configurations we explicitly link the rule ranking behavior with the mathematical property.
Intuition for the properties UNAI and UNZR
------------------------------------------
When UNAI is satisfied, we can say that the measure will not keep increasing or decreasing with the addition of one of the $f_{ij}$s while the others are kept constant, that is, the metric will asymptotically converge to a fixed value. A metric that fails this property will not converge to a constant value with continued addition of $f_{ij}$s. An example is Lift, which keeps increasing with addition of $f_{00}$s and does not converge to a value.
UNZR is satisfied when we can say that the measure will increase when shown evidence of co-presence or co-absence, if such evidence did not previously exist. Also, it should decrease when shown evidence that one item occurs when the other does not (case of counterexamples). Such a relationship could be weak, but at the very least, such metrics will not behave counter to expectation (like decreasing when shown evidence of co-presence or co-absence) and will not stay completely invariant.\
The major contributions of this research are listed as follows:
- Introduction of a novel approach to classify interestingness measures and the development of two specific properties, namely UNAI and UNZR, using this approach
- An analysis of the performance of these properties through the classification of various interestingness measures, as well as a comparison with other properties presented in [@TK]
- Presenting empirical case studies that provide validation for the findings and also demonstrates the usefulness of the properties using real-world and synthetic data sets.
Related Work {#sec:prevwork}
============
A large number of objective IMs have emerged as a result of the application of ARM across different domains. It is also documented that not all measures are capable of capturing the strength of associations and in some cases provide conflicting information of the strength of patterns [@TK]. Given the abundance of measures and difficulty in choosing the appropriate IM, researchers have suggested various classification schemes (of the IMs) to help identify the appropriate measure for a given application [@PS], [@TK], [@TK2], [@GGDN], [@all], [@TGTB]. There are two different types of classification that exist in literature: classification based on the properties of IMs (e.g. [@PS], [@TK], [@TK2], [@GGDN]) and classification based on empirical results of IMs on different datasets (e.g. [@all]).
Research conducted by [@PS] formalized a framework consisting of three properties that an IM should satisfy, namely: the measure should take value 0 if the occurrences of itemsets are independent (P1); the measure should be monotonically increasing with the co-presence of itemsets (P2); and the measure should be monotonically decreasing with the occurrences of either itemsets (P3).
[@TK] proposed the following 5 properties in addition to the 3 proposed by [@PS]: symmetry under variable permutation (O1), row/column scaling invariance (O2), anti-symmetry under row/column permutation (O3), inversion invariance (O4) and null invariance (O5). They conducted a comparative study, testing 21 different IMs against the resulting 8 properties. The authors further proposed that the optimal way of finding a suitable IM would be to let the user define a property vector indicating the properties that would be ideally required for the given application. This property vector would then be compared to the property vectors of the different objective measure to pick out the ideal interestingness measure for that particular case. For instance, the null-invariance property is considered to be important for interestingness measures used in the context of small probability events in a large dataset [@Wu]. While there has been further work in introducing new properties (e.g., [@HH], [@FR], [@GH], [@GGDN], [@Hebert2007]), these have not been as commonly used or cited as the work of [@PS] and [@TK2].
There has been limited work on classification of IMs based on empirical results on different datasets. Research by [@Huyn1] proposed the classification of 35 different interestingness measures based on their empirical performance on 2 different datasets by studying the correlation of the interestingness measures. These measures were classified using a graph based clustering approach to create high correlation and low-correlation graphs. The work of [@all] performed a comprehensive classification of 61 different objective IMs on the based on empirical results on 110 different datasets. It suggested that there exist 21 clusters of measures which are distinct and each of these clusters were studied in detail.
Mathematical definitions for properties UNAI and UNZR {#sec:mathreq}
=====================================================
An interestingness measure (IM) can be represented as a function of the frequency counts (see Equation \[eqn:1\]). RCA analysis seeks to assess the relative change in the interestingness measure per unit change of the frequency counts. This is essentially the first partial derivative of the interestingness measure with respect to the variables representing the counts, as shown in Equation \[eqn:2\]. The set of formulas representing the first partial derivative of the interestingness measure with respect to each of the four state variables $f_{11}$, $f_{00}$, $f_{10}$ and $f_{01}$ represent the RCA analysis as shown in Equation \[eqn:3\].
$$\label{eqn:1}
IM = \phi(f_{11},f_{10},f_{01},f_{00})$$
$$\label{eqn:2}
\phi^{'}_{f_{ij}} =\frac{\partial(IM)}{\partial f_{ij}}$$
$$\label{eqn:3}
RCA (IM) = \{\phi^{'}_{f_{11}},\phi^{'}_{f_{10}},\phi^{'}_{f_{01}},\phi^{'}_{f_{00}}\}$$
$$\label{eqn:4}
UNAI_{ij} = \lim_{f_{ij}\longrightarrow +\infty} (\phi^{'}_{f_{ij}}) %\frac{ \partial (IM)}{\partial f_{ij} }$$
$$\label{eqn:5}
UNZR_{ij} = \lim_{f_{ij}\longrightarrow 0} (\phi^{'}_{f_{ij}}) %\frac{ \partial (IM)}{\partial f_{ij} }$$
We use the RCA analysis to define two novel properties. The *Unit-Null Asymptotic Invariance* (UNAI), and the *Unit-Null Zero Rate* (UNZR). Mathematically, both these properties are the *derivative at a point* or the *instantaneous rate of change*, at two specific points. We can define the property Unit-Null Asymptotic Invariance (UNAI) as the derivative of the interestingness measure (IM) with respect to $f_{ij}$ as $f_{ij} \to \infty$, and this instantaneous rate of change can be written as shown in Equation \[eqn:4\]. UNAI can be defined for each of the four frequency count variables by substituting $ij$ with the count of interest. Similar to UNAI, UNZR can be captured by looking at the instantaneous rate of change at $0$. Formally, this would be the derivative of the interestingness measure (IM) with respect to $f_{ij}$ as $f_{ij} \to 0$, and this instantaneous rate of change can be written as shown in Equation \[eqn:5\]. To compute, UNAIs and UNZRs, in some cases we can simply take the first partial derivative and directly substitute the point of interest, in other scenarios we use the limit notation for derivative at a point (also shown in Equations \[eqn:4\] and \[eqn:5\]). Having defined the framework for computing the satisfaction of UNAIs and UNZRs, in the subsequent sections we define the conditions where an interestingness measure can be said to satisfy these properties. These sections presents a classification scheme for the properties UNAI and UNZR which are presented at the individual $f_{ij}$ level as well as the metric as a whole
UNAI property definition {#sub:UNAI}
------------------------
We create a two-pronged classification scheme for UNAI. We define $UNAI_{f_{ij}}$ which is $UNAI$ defined for each frequency count $(f_{11},f_{10},f_{01},f_{00})$. We do this explicitly for $f_{11}$ which can then be extended to the other frequency counts. We also consolidate the results across all $f_{ij}$s to present the property $UNAI$ for the metric as a whole:
1. $UNAI_{f_{11}}$ is satisfied when: $\lim_{f_{11}\to +\infty} (\phi^{'}_{f_{11}})=0$, for all feasible combination of values of $f_{00},f_{10}, \text{and} f_{01}$. We define a *feasible combination* of values as ones which enable the calculation of the metric in deterministic forms for a database with non-zero rows.\
By extension, we can say that the $UNAI_{f_{11}}$ condition is not met when $\lim_{f_{11}\to +\infty} (\phi^{'}_{f_{11}})\neq0$, for any feasible combination of values of $f_{00},f_{10}, \text{and} f_{01}$.\
Similarly, we can define $UNAI_{f_{ij}}$ for the other three frequency counts by swapping the variables accordingly.
2. $UNAI$ is satisfied when $UNAI_{f_{ij}}$ is satisfied $ \forall (ij)$. This is essentially an extension of the classification from $UNAI_{f_{ij}}$ to a general property for the metric as a whole.
UNZR property definition {#sub:UNZR}
------------------------
The classification scheme we adopt for UNZR is more complex than $UNAI$. Similar to UNAI we adopt a two-pronged approach of defining $UNZR$ at the $f_{ij}$ level as well as a defining it for the metric as a whole. However, we differ from $UNAI$ in that $UNZR$ states are not binary, but have three states that correspond to the property being satisfied, partially satisfied, and not satisfied. Another aspect of the difference is that the definitions at the $f_{ij}$ level are different for {$f_{11}$, $f_{00}$} and {$f_{10}$, $f_{01}$}. They are identically opposite in terms inequality conditions that need to be met, as shown below. We formally defined the property for $f_{11}$ and $f_{10}$ below and extend it to the other frequency counts $f_{00}$ and $f_{01}$ respectively:
1. $UNZR_{f_{11}}$ is satisfied when $\lim_{f_{11}\to 0} (\phi^{'}_{f_{11}})>0$ for all feasible combinations of $f_{00},f_{10}, \text{and} f_{01}$. Again, a *feasible combination* is one that enables the computation of the metric in deterministic forms. This formulation can be extended to $UNZR_{f_{00}}$ by swapping the variables accordingly.\
$UNZR_{f_{10}}$ is satisfied when $\lim_{f_{10}\to 0} (\phi^{'}_{f_{10}})<0$ for all feasible combinations of $f_{11},f_{00}, \text{and} f_{01}$. This formulation can be extended to $UNZR_{f_{01}}$ by swapping the variables accordingly.
2. $UNZR_{f_{11}}$ is partially satisfied when two conditions are met. These are: (i) $\lim_{f_{11}\to 0} (\phi^{'}_{f_{11}})\geq 0$ for all feasible combinations of $f_{00},f_{10}, \text{and} f_{01}$, and (ii) $\lim_{f_{11}\to 0} (\phi^{'}_{f_{11}})>0$ for at least one or more feasible combinations of $f_{00},f_{10},\text{and} f_{01}$. This formulation can be extended to $UNZR_{f_{00}}$ by swapping the variables accordingly.\
Similarly, $UNZR_{f_{10}}$ is partially satisfied when two conditions are met. These are: (i) $\lim_{f_{10}\to 0} (\phi^{'}_{f_{10}})\leq 0$ for all feasible combinations of $f_{11},f_{00}, \text{and} f_{01}$, and (ii) $\lim_{f_{10}\to 0} (\phi^{'}_{f_{10}})<0$ for at least one or more feasible combinations of $f_{11},f_{00},\text{and} f_{01}$. This formulation can be extended to $UNZR_{f_{01}}$ by swapping the variables accordingly.
3. Finally, by extension, we can say that $UNZR_{f_{11}}$ is not satisfied when either of these two conditions are met: (i) $\lim_{f_{11}\to 0} (\phi^{'}_{f_{11}})<0$ for any feasible combination of $f_{00},f_{10}, \text{and } f_{01}$ or, (ii) $\lim_{f_{11}\to 0} (\phi^{'}_{f_{11}})=0$ for all feasible combinations of $f_{00},f_{10}, \text{and } f_{01}$. This formulation can be extended to $UNZR_{f_{00}}$ by swapping the variables accordingly.\
Similarly, we can say that $UNZR_{f_{10}}$ is not satisfied when either of these two conditions are met: (i) $\lim_{f_{10}\to 0} (\phi^{'}_{f_{10}})>0$ for any feasible combination of $f_{11},f_{00}, \text{and } f_{01}$ or, (ii) $\lim_{f_{10}\to 0} (\phi^{'}_{f_{10}})=0$ for all feasible combinations of $f_{11},f_{00}, \text{and } f_{01}$. This formulation can be extended to $UNZR_{f_{01}}$ by swapping the variables accordingly.
4. At the overall metric level we say that $UNZR$ property is satisfied for a metric if the $UNZR_{f_{ij}}$ is satisfied $ \forall (ij)$ . We say that UNZR property is partially satisfied for a metric if $UNZR_{f_{ij}}$ is at least partially satisfied for all $f_{ij}$s. Finally, a metric fails to satisfy the UNZR property if one or more $UNZR_{f_{ij}}$s do not satisfy the property.
Illustrative example of the UNAI and UNZR framework using Lift
===============================================================
In this sections, we consider the behaviour of the popular interestingness measure, Lift under the UNAI and UNZR properties defined in the previous section. Lift is defined as follows: $$\label{eqn:6}
Lift(L) = \frac{P(A;B)}{P(A)P(B)} = \frac{f_{11}(f_{11} + f_{01} + f_{10} + f_{00})}{(f_{10} + f_{11})(f_{01}+f_{11})}$$
Differentiating w.r.t to $f_{11}$ and simplifying, we get $$\label{eqn:7}
\frac{\partial(L)}{\partial f_{11}} = \frac{2f_{10}f_{11}f{01} + f_{10}f_{01}(f_{10} + f_{00} +f{01}) - f^2_{11}f_{00}}{(f_{10} +f_{11})^2(f_{01} + f_{11})^2}$$ We check the UNAI property for Lift by considering the derivative as $f_{11} \rightarrow \infty$ $$\label{eqn:8}
L_{f_{11}}(\infty) = \lim_{f_{11} \longrightarrow \infty} \frac{\partial L}{\partial f_{11}} =
\lim_{f_{11} \longrightarrow \infty} \frac{2f_{10}f_{11}f{01} + f_{10}f_{01}(f_{10} + f_{00} +f{01}) - f^2_{11}f_{00}}{(f_{10} + f_{11})^2(f_{01} +f_{11})^2}$$
After algebraic simplification we can say that the above function is equal to zero for all feasible combinations of $f_{00}$, $f_{10}$ and $f_{01}$. Hence, We can say that Lift satisfies UNAI with respect to $f_{11}$. Similarly, we check for UNAI property with respect to $f_{00}$, $f_{10}$ , $f_{01}$. Hence, We can say that Lift satisfies UNAI with respect to $f_{11}$. Similarly, we check for UNAI property with respect to $f_{00}, f_{10}, f_{01}$.
$$\label{eqn:9}
L_{f_{00}}(\infty) = \lim_{f_{00} \longrightarrow \infty} \frac{\partial L}{\partial f_{00}} = \frac{f_{11}}{(f_{01} +f_{11})(f_{10}+f_{11})}$$
$$\label{eqn:10}
L_{f_{10}}(\infty) = \lim_{f_{10} \longrightarrow \infty} \frac{\partial L}{\partial f_{10}} = 0$$
$$\label{eqn:11}
L_{f_{01}}(\infty) = \lim_{f_{01} \longrightarrow \infty} \frac{\partial L}{\partial f_{01}} = 0$$
Here it is evident that this function is not equal to 0 for all possible values of $ f_{11}, f_{10}, f_{01}$. Hence, we say that $UNAI_{f_{00}}$ is not satisfied but I w.r.t to $UNAI_{f_{11}}, UNAI_{f_{01}}, UNAI_{f_{10}}$ is satisfied.
We check for the UNZR property for $f_{11}$ by taking the partial derivative at $f_{11}=0$, we get, $$\label{eqn:12}
L_{f_{11}}(0) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial f_{11}}|_{f_{11}=0} = \frac{f_{10}+f_{00}+f_{01}}{f_{10}f_{01}}$$ Similarly, taking the derivative with respect to $f_{00}, f_{10}, f_{01}$ at 0, we get $$\label{eqn:13}
L_{f_{00}}(0) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial f_{00}}|_{f_{00}=0} = \frac{f_{11}}{(f_{11}+f_{10})(f_{11}+f_{01})}$$ $$\label{eqn:14}
L_{f_{10}}(0) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial f_{10}}|_{f_{10}=0} = - \frac{(f_{01} + f_{00})}{(f_{11}+f_{01})f_{11}}$$
$$\label{eqn:15}
L_{f_{01}}(0) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial f_{01}}|_{f_{01}=0} = - \frac{(f_{10} + f_{00})}{(f_{11}+f_{10})f_{11}}$$
We see that for all feasible combinations $UNZR_{f_{11}}$ , $UNZR_{f_{10}}$ and $UNZR_{f_{01}}$ are satisfied. However, $UNZR_{f_{00}}$ is only partially satisfied. From equation \[eqn:13\] we can see that the following conditions are met: (i) For all feasible combinations of $f_{11}, f_{10}, f_{01}$, $L_{f_{00}}(0) > 0$. This passes the definition of partial satisfaction for UNZR as defined in the paper. At the same time this does not fully satisfy the $ UNZR_{f_{00}}$ property since there are values where it can be 0[^1]. Figure \[fig:lift\]
![Change in value of Lift on varying the frequency counts[]{data-label="fig:lift"}](fig_lift){width="\textwidth"}
Mapping UNAI and UNZR to commonly used measures and other properties {#sec:propertyofmetrics}
====================================================================
This section is divided in two parts. The first part performs a detailed analysis that uses the proposed properties to classify commonly used measures. The second part then compares these classifications to the classification done by other popular properties in literature [@TK2]. This two-fold approach is used because it is important to show that a property can actually differentiate between measures (Subsection \[subsec4.1\]), and that it classifies measures in a way that is different from other properties (Subsection \[subsec4.2\]).
Classification of existing measures using UNAI and UNZR {#subsec4.1}
-------------------------------------------------------
In this section we classify 50 common measures across the two properties $UNAI$ and $UNZR$, at both the $f_{ij}$ level as well as the metric level. We use all 21 metrics from [@TK2] and also borrow popular metrics from [@all]. We consciously avoid metrics which are mathematically identical as suggested by [@all], but choose to have metrics which could still be rank-wise indistinguishable. We do this because practitioners might make sense of an absolute score and the rate at which it increases or decreases. We also avoid metrics which need us to make any *a priori* assumptions on probability distributions or cannot be abstracted as a function of $f_{ij}$s. The analysis is carried out in accordance to the definitions in Section \[sec:mathreq\] and findings are summarized in Table \[tbl:maintable\].
Where, Y: Indicates that the Property is Satisfied, P: Indicates that the property is partially satisfied, and N: Indicates that the property is not satisfied\
\* These metric names are shortened to fit into the table: Y and L’s stand for Yao and Liu’s for both the shortened names
The results on the classification of these measures provide two important insights. First, that $UNAI$ property for the metrics as a whole is satisfied by a majority of the measures (37 of the 50). These numbers are even higher for the individual $UNAI_{f_{ij}}$ (ranging from 45 for $f_{11}$, 44 for $f_{00}$, 46 for $f_{10}$ and 45 for $f_{01}$ out of the 50 measures). This suggests that UNAI would be less useful as a tool to eliminate measures that nullify the unstable effect of one frequency count being particularly large. Instead, this property can be useful when due importance needs to be given when a frequency count is expected to be high and continues to grow. A classic scenario would be Lift. In certain contexts, an increase in co-absence in a sparse database should continue to increase the metric value since it makes co-presence even less probabilistic through random chance.\
The second insight from the case of $UNZR$ is of a different nature. At the overall metric level, there are only 3 measures that fully satisfy the UNZR property, they are *Novelty*, *Piatetsky-Shapiro* and *Collective Strength*. Of the remaining, 14 measures partially satisfy the property and 33 fail to satisfy the property. For each $f_{ij}$ the UNZR measures are more discerning. In the case of $f_{11}$, 25 satisfy the property, 9 for $f_{00}$, 22 for$f_{10}$ and 15 for $f_{01}$. These suggest that UNZR at the $f_{ij}$ level could be more meaningfully used to pick metrics, especially for the case of $f_{00}$, which is satisfied by only nine measures. A particular case could be when the practitioner expects an $f_{ij}$ to be low or close to zero and would like to see the metric impacted when presented with evidence of it. The use of $UNZR$ at the overall metric level could also be useful if the practitioner suspects that any of the frequency values can be close to zero but would like to see its presence or absence to have a meaningful impact on the metric.
Comparing the UNAI and UNZR mapping with other properties {#subsec4.2}
---------------------------------------------------------
In this section we compare the classification of measures done through $UNZR$ and $UNAI$, with the classification done through other properties in literature [@TK2]. This is important because, in addition to fulfilling other criteria, it is necessary that a property classifies measures differently from other pre-existing properties. Otherwise, there is a redundancy and one could question the need for the new property in question. We conduct our comparison on the properties proposed by [@TK2]. This includes five new properties proposed in that study, as well as three previous properties from [@PS]. In order to perform the analysis, we take all the 50 measures analyzed in Table \[tbl:maintable\] which include the 21 measures analyzed by [@TK2]. We conduct an analysis that compares the classification of these measures across the two states of $UNAI$ and three states of $UNZR$ and compare it to the two states (satisfied or not satisfied) across the 8 properties presented in [@TK2]. This leads us to create the Contingency Table \[tbl:table3\].
The findings from Table \[tbl:table3\] suggest that the classification of measures through $UNAI$ and $UNZR$ are more or less independent of the classification done through all of the eight pre-existing properties. The few cases where we see low overlaps is also easily explainable by the low membership to a certain class and not a relationship between properties (for instance, observe that only 3 of the 50 measures satisfy the ’Row and Column Scaling Invariance’ or fully satisfy UNZR). We do not, however, carry out a Chi-Square test to establish independence because in the case of some properties they are explicitly related. For instance, all Null Invariant properties have to fail UNZR by definition. It is therefore not entirely meaningful to perform such an analysis to look at statistical independence. The overarching conclusion from the Table \[tbl:table3\] is that while some of these properties could be weakly related to each other, there is sufficient independence with pre-existing properties that can justify UNAI and UNZR as two new properties in-terms of classification of measures.
Empirical Studies {#sec:Casestudy}
==================
The work of [@all] has established that empirical clustering of measures bears no meaningful relationship to properties presented in [@TK2] (which also cover three properties originally presented in [@PS]). While the properties UNAI and UNZR have been constructed to intuitively convey a certain mathematical aspect of the measure, an important motivation and therefore requirement in design was that they have a meaningful map to the actual behavior of measures, empirically. Our studies across a wide range of datasets, both synthetic and real suggest that these two properties bear strong relationships with the empirical clusters. More interestingly, we find that the results are substantially more pronounced in certain environmental conditions. Specifically, we find that $UNZR_{f_{11}}$ and $UNAI_{f_{00}}$ are valuable in sparse datasets, and correspondingly $UNZR_{f_{00}}$ and $UNAI_{f_{11}}$ are better properties to consider in dense data. In the following sections, we do a detailed and illustrative analysis showing how the $UNZR_{f_{11}}$ classification of measures is useful in sparse datasets and $UNZR_{f_{00}}$ is useful in dense datasets. The motivation to choose the $UNZR$ properties over the $UNAI$ is the fact that the $UNZR$ creates groups of more or less equal sizes. For instance, $UNZR_{f_{11}}$ splits the measures with 25 of them satisfying the property, 15 of them partially satisfying it, and 10 of them failing to satisfy the property. Where as with $UNAI_{f_{00}}$ we see that 44 of the 50 measures satisfy this property. A similar comparison exists between $UNZR_{f_{00}}$ and $UNAI_{f_{11}}$.
We conduct our empirical studies by first considering synthetic contingency tables that mimic sparse and dense datasets, and in each case we explore further by choosing a real world dataset that is sparse and dense, respectively. Based on the rule ranking of the measures in the two environmental conditions, we then cluster the measures into sets and see how they correlate with the property of interest.
Sparse datasets {#subsec5.1}
---------------
Sparse datasets are characterized by having a relatively high $f_{00}$ count with respect to $f_{11}$, primarily, and to a lesser extent $f_{10}$, and $f_{01}$. As discussed in the previous section we choose to analyze the effect of the $UNZR_{f_{11}}$ property in this setting.
We mimic the rules from a synthetic dataset using artificially created sets of rules in form of contingency tables. We do this specifically for the sparse settings. We achieve these environments by assigning low values to ${f_{11}}$, high values for ${f_{00}}$, while ${f_{10}}$, ${f_{01}}$ fall in between the two extremes. The ${f_{11}}$, ${f_{00}}$, ${f_{10}}$ and ${f_{01}}$ cells of the tables took the values {0, 1, 10, 11}, {1000, 5000, 10000, 25000, 50000, 75000, 100000}, {10, 100, 250, 500, 600, 800, 1000} and {10, 100, 250, 500, 600, 800, 1000} respectively. This resulted in $1372$ unique contingency tables, each representing a rule in a sparse dataset.
For the real world dataset, we chose the fairly popular ’Adult’ data set from the UCI Machine Learning archive [@UCI1]. This is essentially an extraction from a census database which has demographic and financial information of individuals. This includes features like age, employment, gender, native country, etc. In its native format there are a total of 14 features and more than 48,000 records. A detailed discretization and binarization of variables was carried out in conformance to the best practices suggested in [@tankumarbook]. These helps us create the transactional table. This table now has a total of 115 features. We confine the analysis to one-to-one rules. We use a basic support based pruning with a threshold close to 0, in order to get a full enumeration of all one-to-one rules but avoid a variable mapping to itself. This results in a total of $13000$ rules. Similar to the [@all] we choose a subset of the rules to compare. However, given the unique nature of our problem, unlike [@all] we do not randomly select the rules. Instead we choose a subset of rules that are typically encountered in sparse data sets, by selecting cases where $f_{11}$ is lower than $f_{00}$. This results in $764$ rules.
In the next steps we follow the same procedure as [@all]. Each rule is evaluated using each measure, and a rank ordering of rules is done for each measure. Using Spearman’s rank correlation, we create a matrix of pairwise distances between measures which acts as the adjacency matrix for a complete graph. We create clusters by using a threshold value of 0.8 on the correlation co-efficient. This process naturally creates groups of measures depending on the threshold used. While there are various other graph clustering algorithms that can be implemented, the simplicity of this approach is appealing.
Dataset Cluster Measures N P Y
--------- --------- ---------- ---- ---- ----
50 10 15 25
A 21 0 4 17
B 20 4 9 7
C 9 6 2 1
A 36 2 12 22
B 14 8 3 3
: Empirical analysis - Sparse dataset[]{data-label="tbl:table4"}
Our study finds that there is a significant match between the three property states and the clusters that are formed for both the synthetic and real data sets. However, this is not a perfect overlap. We split the measures into three clusters in the synthetic setting and into two clusters in the ’Adult’ dataset’s rules. The cluster memberships are shown below:
**Synthetic dataset**: **Cluster A**: { Recall, Precision, Confidence, Jaccard, F-Measure, Odd’s Ratio, Sebag Schoenauer, Support, Lift, Ganascia, Kulczynski-1, Relative Risk, Yule’s Q, Yule’s Y, Cosine, Odd Multiplier, Information Gain, Laplace, Zhang, Leverage, Examples and Counter Examples }, **Cluster B**: { Specificity, Negative Reliability, Accuracy, Descriptive Confirm, Causal Confirm, Piatetsky-Shapiro, Novelty, Causal Confidence, Certainty Factor, Loevinger, Conviction, Klosgen, 1-Way Support, 2-Way Support, Kappa, Putative Causal Dependency, Causal Confirm Confidence, Added Value, Collective Strength, Dependency }, **Cluster C**: { Mutual Information, Coverage, Prevalence, Least Contradiction, Normalized Mutual Information, Implication Index, Gini Index, Goodman Kruskal, J-Measure }
**’Adult’ dataset**: **Cluster A**: { Recall, Precision, Confidence, Jaccard, F-Measure, Odd’s Ratio, Sebag Schoenauer, Support, Causal Confidence, Lift, Ganascia, Kulczynski-1, Relative Risk, Piatetsky-Shapiro, Novelty, Yule’s Q, Yule’s Y, Cosine, Odd Multiplier, Certainty Factor, Loevinger, Conviction, Information Gain, Laplace, Klosgen, Zhang, 1-Way Support, 2-Way Support, Leverage, Kappa, Putative Causal Dependency, Examples and Counter Examples, Causal Confirm Confidence, Added Value, Collective Strength, Dependency }, **Cluster B**: { Mutual Information, Specificity, Negative Reliability, Accuracy, Coverage, Prevalence, Least Contradiction, Descriptive Confirm, Causal Confirm, Normalized Mutual Information, Implication Index, Gini Index, Goodman Kruskal, J-Measure }
The relationship between empirical cluster memberships and property affiliations is summarized in Table \[tbl:table4\]. In the synthetic dataset, all of the 21 measures of cluster A satisfy $UNZR_{f_{11}}$, either completely of partially. The split is rather more even in cluster B, but cluster C is dominated by measures which do not satisfy $UNZR_{f_{11}}$. In the ’Adult’ dataset, cluster A again overwhelmingly consists of measures which satisfy $UNZR_{f_{11}}$, either partially or completely (34 out of 36), whereas the properties that do not satisfy $UNZR_{f_{11}}$ tend to exist more in cluster B.
Dense datasets {#subsec5.2}
--------------
We characterize dense dataset as one which has relatively higher ${f_{11}}$ count compared to ${f_{00}}$ count, primarily, and to a lesser extent $f_{10}$, and $f_{01}$. As discussed earlier, we choose to study the effect of $UNZR_{f_{00}}$ property in this environment.
The motivation for using synthetic tables is the same as in the sparse case. The values chosen for ${f_{11}}$, ${f_{00}}$, ${f_{10}}$ and ${f_{01}}$ cells are {1000, 5000, 10000, 25000, 50000, 75000, 100000}, {0, 1, 10, 11}, {10, 100, 250, 500, 600, 800, 1000} and {10, 100, 250, 500, 600, 800, 1000} respectively. This resulted in $1372$ unique contingency tables.
For the real world dataset, we chose ’Mushroom’ data set from the UCI Machine Learning archive [@UCI1]. This data set includes descriptions of hypothetical samples corresponding to 23 species of gilled mushrooms in the Agaricus and Lepiota Family. The methodology of rule generation was identical to that of the ’Adult’ dataset, with the focus to create rules from a dense environment (as opposed to the sparse environment in the Adult dataset). This process results in in $739$ rules being used for the purpose of rule ranking.
Dataset Cluster Measures N P Y
--------- --------- ---------- ---- ---- ---
50 23 18 9
A 24 3 15 6
B 19 14 2 3
C 7 6 1 0
A 23 2 15 6
B 12 7 3 2
C 12 11 0 1
D 3 3 0 0
: Empirical analysis - Dense dataset[]{data-label="tbl:table5"}
The synthetic dataset was split into 3 clusters while the ’Mushroom’ dataset was split into 4 clusters. The cluster memberships are shown below:
**Synthetic dataset:** **Cluster A:** { Recall, Odd’s Ratio, Specificity, Negative Reliability, Lift, Coverage, Piatetsky-Shapiro, Novelty, Yule’s Q, Yule’s Y, Odd Multiplier, Certainty Factor, Loevinger, Conviction, Information Gain, Klosgen, Zhang, 1-Way Support, 2-Way Support, Kappa, Putative Causal Dependency, Added Value, Collective Strength, Dependency }**Cluster B:** { Precision, Confidence, Jaccard, F-Measure, Sebag Schoenauer, Support, Accuracy, Causal Confidence, Ganascia, Kulczynski-1, Prevalence, Relative Risk, Cosine, Least Contradiction, Descriptive Confirm, Causal Confirm, Laplace, Examples and Counter Examples, Causal Confirm Confidence }**Cluster C:** { Mutual Information, Normalized Mutual Information, Implication Index, Gini Index, Goodman Kruskal, Leverage, J-Measure }
**’Mushroom’ dataset:** **Cluster A**: { Recall, Specificity, Negative Reliability, Lift, Piatetsky-Shapiro, Novelty, Yule’s Q, Yule’s Y, Odd Multiplier, Certainty Factor, Loevinger, Conviction, Information Gain, Klosgen, Zhang, 1-Way Support, 2-Way Support, Leverage, Kappa, Putative Causal Dependency, Added Value, Collective Strength, Dependency } **Cluster B:** { Mutual Information, Odd’s Ratio, Accuracy, Causal Confidence, Prevalence, Relative Risk, Least Contradiction, Descriptive Confirm, Causal Confirm, Normalized Mutual Information, Gini Index, J-Measure } **Cluster C:** { Precision, Confidence, Jaccard, F-Measure, Sebag Schoenauer, Support, Ganascia, Kulczynski-1, Cosine, Laplace, Examples and Counter Examples, Causal Confirm Confidence } **Cluster D:** { Coverage, Implication Index, Goodman Kruskal }
The results from this analysis is summarized in Table \[tbl:table5\]. In the synthetic dataset, cluster A is populated by measures which satisfy the $UNZR_{f_{00}}$ (21 out of 24), either partially or completely. Clusters B (14 out of 19) and C (6 out of 7) are dominated by measures that do not satisfy $UNZR_{f_{00}}$. In the ’Mushroom’ dataset, cluster A is again consisted of measures which satisfy $UNZR_{f_{00}}$, either partially or completely (21 out of 23). Cluster B is split between the measures that satisfy $UNZR_{f_{00}}$ and measure that don’t (7 N’s vs 3 P’s and 2 Y’s). Clusters C and D are overwhelmingly consisted of measures which don’t satisfy $UNZR_{f_{00}}$, with only 1 measure satisfying the property among the 15 in both clusters combined. In general, it is evident that the clustering holds a clear mapping to the $UNZR_{f_{00}}$ property for the selected rules in a dense setting.
Conclusions and Future work {#sec:Conclusion}
===========================
This study presents a new property-based framework (RCA) for analyzing interestingness measures. This framework uses the partial derivative of an IM with respect to a frequency count. This provides us with the insight of how the IM will change when the frequency count is increased or decrease. This approach is then used to create two specific properties, $UNAI$ and $UNZR$, which correspond to taking the partial derivative at two points, infinity and zero. The study then showcases the classification of a broad set of measures in accordance to these properties and also compares them to the classification done by other properties in literature. The properties proposed in this study classify the measures assigning memberships to all property states, suggesting that they might be discerning some meaningful differences in the measures. The classifications through these properties are also fairly independent of those done by other pre-existing properties, suggesting, that something new is being captured. Finally, the study showcases the utility of classification through the new properties by conducting empirical analyses on both synthetic and real-world data sets, which relate the rule ranking behavior of the measures with two of the properties proposed. The findings suggest that the rule ranking behavior holds a clear relationship to the classification done by the property.
One of the major contributions of this research is the new framework (RCA) for analyzing measures using the rate of change idea through partial differentiation. This is markedly different from the property-based classification schemes that currently exist in literature. Given this, we feel that there could be a more extensions in the development of properties that build on this idea, which go beyond the two that are proposed in this study. Also, the idea of using differentiation as tool to defining properties opens up a plethora of characteristics that can be analyzed. One possible extension is to study the shape of the partial derivative curve (linear, polynomial, etc).
Finally, the authors in this study agree with the view put forth in [@all] that meaningful classification of measures needs to, also, be driven by similarity (or dissimilarity) in rule ranking that can be seen on empirical data sets. We would like to extend this argument by stating that the value of mathematical properties, derived from principled arguments, can be benchmarked across-the-board in this fashion (this study performs such an analysis exclusively for the two properties proposed in this study). This can also be extended beyond Interestingness measures in ARM. We can see that classification metrics (some of which are included in this analysis like accuracy, recall, specificity, etc.) can also be defined by the same contingency table (for two class classification problems) and could therefore lend themselves to a representation and segmentation using a rate of change analysis.
Acknowledgments {#sec:Acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by a funding from IIT Madras (CSE/14-15/831/RFTP/BRAV)
[^1]: substitute $f_{11}$ = 0, while giving the others positive values
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In recent work ([@milgrom2009; @bla2011; @blanchet2011]), the authors showed that MOdified Newton Dynamics (MOND) have a non-negligible secular perturbation effect on planets with large semi-major axes (gaseous planets) in the Solar System. Some comets also have a very eccentric orbit with a large semi-major axis (Halley family comets) going far away from the Sun (more than 15 AU) in a low acceleration regime where they would be subject to MOND perturbation. They also approach the Sun very closely (less than 3 AU) and are affected by the sublimation of ices from their nucleus, triggering so-called non-gravitational forces. The main goal of this paper is to investigate the effect of MOND perturbation on three comets with various orbital elements (2P/Encke, 1P/Halley and 153P/Ikeya-Zhang) and then compare it to the non-gravitational perturbations. It is motivated by the fact that when fitting an outgassing model for a comet, we have to take into account all of the small perturbing effects to avoid absorbing these effects into the non-gravitational parameters. Otherwise, we could derive a completely wrong estimation of the outgassing. For this work, we use six different forms of MOND functions and compute the secular variations of the orbital elements due to MOND and non-gravitational perturbations. We show that, for comets with large semi-major axis, the MONDian effects are not negligible compared to the non-gravitational perturbations.'
author:
- 'Lucie Maquet$^{1}$'
- Frédéric Pierret$^2$
bibliography:
- 'MP\_MOND\_NG.bib'
title: 'Coupling the non-gravitational forces and MOdified Newton Dynamics for cometary orbits'
---
1. [ESA/ESAC, PO Box 78, 28691 Villanueva de la Cañada, Spain]{}
2. [SYRTE UMR CNRS 8630, Observatoire de Paris and University Paris VI, France]{}
Introduction
============
Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) has been proposed in [@milgrom1983_5] as an alternative to the dark matter paradigm (see [@sanders2002_2]). At the non-relativistic level, the best formulation of MOND is the modified Poisson equation (see [@bekenstein1984]), $$\label{e:MOND}
\nabla \cdot \left[ \mu\left(\frac{g}{a_0}\right) \nabla U \right] = -4\pi G \rho\,$$
where $\rho$ is the density of ordinary (baryonic) matter, $U$ is the gravitational potential, $\textbf{g}=\nabla U$ is the gravitational field and $g = \|\bf{g}\|$ its ordinary Euclidean norm. The modification of the Poisson equation is encoded in the MOND function $\mu(y)$ of the single argument $y\equiv g/a_0$, where $a_0=1.2\times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}^2$ denotes the MOND constant acceleration scale. The MOND function $\mu(y)$ tends to 1 for $y\gg1$ in a Newtonian strong-field regime, and tends to $y$ for $y\ll1$ in a weak gravitational field regime. According to [@milgrom2009], [@bla2011] and [@blanchet2011] the most important effect of MOND in the Solar System is the External Field Effect (EFE) which produces two corrections (parametrized by two quantities $Q_2$ and $Q_4$) to the Newtonian potential which increase with the distance to the Sun. In other words, objects with a large semi-major axis are more sensitive to the effects of perturbations induced by MOND formalized by a modified Poisson equation.\
Hence, we study comets with large semi-major axes to determine the magnitude of the effects of MOND theory. Indeed, the comets are good candidates because they not only go far from the Sun on a very eccentric orbit but also come back close to the earth to be observed accurately. When the comets approach the Sun, their gravitational orbit is affected by the sublimation of ices from their nucleus surface. The outgassing triggers non-gravitational forces that significantly modify the orbit of the comet close to the Sun (under 3 AU). These non-gravitational forces have been modeled for the first time in [@mar1969] and then improved in [@mar1973]. Other more physical approaches for the non-gravitational forces have been developed in [@sit1990], [@sek1993], [@dav2004] and [@maq2012]. These last models take into account outgassing from only a few areas on the nucleus which describes more accurately the observations made by space probes.\
The model developed in [@mar1973] to compute the non-gravitational forces is both sufficient to study cometary orbits and more easily implemented than the more sophisticated model. This model is used to generate cometary ephemeris and gives a good estimate of the non-gravitationnal effect for cometary orbits. These non-gravitationnal forces are obtained by fitting the astrometrical data but it is important to take into account all of the small effects, such as relativistic terms, to estimate correctly the outgassing (see [@maqphd]). That is why the main goal of this paper is to quantify what would be the MOND perturbation on comets if this theory is validated and what is the maximum order of magnitude of this effect.\
In [@hees2012_2] and [@hees2014_6], the authors used the formalism developped in [@bla2011] and [@blanchet2011] to constrain the quantity $Q_2$ with the collected data of the Cassini spacecraft mission. Even though the authors claimed that the range of values of $Q_2$ are drastically restricted with that set of data, we choose to keep all the different values of $Q_2$ in order to obtain the extreme variations of the comet orbits as in [@bla2011] and [@blanchet2011].\
The plan of the paper is as follows :\
In section \[pert\_prob\], we present a brief reminder about the Gauss equation of the perturbed two body problem and the implementation of the non-gravitational and MOND perturbations. Section \[applic\] shows the consequence in terms of secular variation of the orbital elements due to the non-gravitational and the MOND perturbations of three comets. We conclude in section \[conclu\] and give some prospects.
Perturbed Sun-Comet system {#pert_prob}
==========================
Reminder about perturbed two-body problem
-----------------------------------------
In this Section, we recall classical definitions and results concerning the perturbed two-body problem. We refer in particular to [@bro1961] for more details and proofs.\
The unperturbed two-body problem of a comet $C$ with mass $M_C$ around the Sun $S$ with mass $M_S$ is described by six orbital elements. We adopt the most classical, which are the semi-major axis $a$, the eccentricity $e$, the orbital plane inclination $i$, the argument of the perihelion $\omega$, the ascending node longitude $\Omega$ and the mean anomaly $M$ defined by $M=n(t-\tau)$ where $n=\frac{2\pi}{P}$ is the mean motion, $P$ the orbital period of the comet and $\tau$ the time passage at the perihelion (Fig. \[orb\_fig\]).\
![Representation of the orbital elements as used in the text. The direction $\mathbf{e}$ is the direction of the center of the galaxy[]{data-label="orb_fig"}](orb.eps){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
Let $(S,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z})$ be the fixed reference frame attached to the Sun, typically the fixed heliocentric frame and let $(S,\mathbf{e}_R,\mathbf{e}_T,\mathbf{e}_N)$ be the frame associated with the heliocentric motion of the comet in the orbital plane where $\mathbf{e}_R$ is the radial unit vector, $\mathbf{e}_T$ the tangential unit vector and $\mathbf{e}_N$ the normal unit vector. In $(S,\mathbf{e}_R,\mathbf{e}_T,\mathbf{e}_N)$, the position vector of the comet is written as $\mathbf{r}=r\mathbf{e}_R$. Remember that the change of basis from $(S,\mathbf{e}_R,\mathbf{e}_T,\mathbf{e}_N)$ to $(S,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z})$ is obtained by performing as usual three successive frame rotations with angles $\Omega$, $i$ and $f+\omega$ where $f$ is the true anomaly.\
Let $\mathbf{a}$ be a perturbing acceleration of the comet with components $(R,T,N)$ in $(S,\mathbf{e}_R,\mathbf{e}_T,\mathbf{e}_N)$. Using the classical Gauss equations associated with the perturbed two-body problem Sun-Comet, we obtain the time variation of orbital elements as follow :
\[gauss\_eq\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{da}{dt} & = & \frac{2}{n\sqrt{1-e^2}}[e \sin f R + (1+e\cos f)T] \label{gauss_a}, \\
\frac{de}{dt} & = &\frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}}{na}[\sin f R + \left(\cos f+\frac{e+\cos f}{1+e\cos f}\right) T] \label{gauss_e},\\
\frac{di}{dt} & = & \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2} \cos (f+\omega )}{a n (1+e \cos f)}N \label{gauss_i},\\
\frac{d\Omega}{dt} & = & \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2} \sin (f+\omega )}{a n \sin i (1+ e \cos f)}N \label{gauss_Om},\\
\frac{d\omega}{dt} & = & \frac{\sqrt{(1-e^2)}}{nae}\left[-\cos f R +\left(\frac{2+e\cos f}{1+e\cos f}\right)\sin f T \right]- \cos i \frac{d\Omega}{dt}\label{gauss_om}, \\
\frac{dM}{dt} & = & n(t) - \frac{2(1-e^2)}{na^2(1+e\cos f}R -\sqrt{(1-e^2)}\left(\frac{d\omega}{dt}+\cos i \frac{d\Omega}{dt}\right) \label{gauss_M}.\end{aligned}$$
If $\mathbf{a}$ is determined by a perturbing function $U$ as $\mathbf{a}=\nabla U$ where $\nabla$ denotes the gradient, then we have the classical relation between the perturbing force and the components $(R,T,N)$ as follow : $$\label{conversion_lagrange_gauss}
R=\frac{a}{r}\frac{\partial U}{\partial a}, \ T=\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial U}{\partial \omega} \ \text{and} \ N=\frac{1}{r\sin(f+\omega)}\frac{\partial U}{\partial i}.$$
Using $\{c_i\}_{i=1,...,6}=\{a,e,i,\Omega,\omega,M\}$, the secular variation of the orbital elements are obtained for all $i=1,...6$ as follow : $$\left< \frac{dc_i}{dt}\right>=\frac{1}{P}\int_{0}^{P} \frac{dc_i}{dt}dt=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{dc_i}{dt}\frac{\left(1-e^2\right)^{3/2}}{n (1+e \cos f)^2}df.$$
Non-gravitational and MOND perturbations
----------------------------------------
In [@mar1973], the authors developed a semi-empirical model of the non-gravitational forces applied to comet. The illuminated surface of a spherical nucleus is assumed to be isotropically outgassing. The authors introduced the dimensionless function $g(r)$ which represents the variation in the sublimation rate as a function of the heliocentric distance of the comet. Its determination is based on the observation of the water sublimation rate curve. From the work and the model established in [@mar1973], we have the non-gravitational perturbing acceleration given in $(S,\mathbf{e}_R,\mathbf{e}_T,\mathbf{e}_N)$ by its components $$R_{NG}= A_1 g(r), \ T_{NG}= A_2 g(r), \ N_{NG}= A_3 g(r)$$ where $$g(r)=0.111262 \left(\frac{r}{2.808}\right)^{-2.15} \left(1+\left(\frac{r}{2.808}\right)^{5.093}\right)^{-4.6142}$$ and $A_1, A_2, A_3$ are constants obtained by fitting the astrometrical positions of the considered comet together with the orbital elements.\
In [@bla2011], MOND was formulated to ease testing in the Solar System (for the domain with Solar distance $r\lesssim r_{0}\approx 7100 \ \mathrm{AU}$). The modification of the Newtonian gravity is given as a perturbation of the classical two-body problem. The perturbing acceleration $\mathbf{a}_{MOND}$ caused by the MOND theory in their formulation has two main perturbing parts $\mathbf{a}_{MOND,Q_2}$ and $\mathbf{a}_{MOND,Q_3}$. [@bla2011] show that $\mathbf{a}_{MOND,Q_3}$ is very weak for the planets. Consequently, here, we only consider $\mathbf{a}_{MOND,Q_2}$. The MOND perturbation is determined by a perturbing function given by ([@bla2011 Eq. 40]) $$U_{MOND,Q_2} = \frac{1}{2}r^2Q_2(r)\left(\left(\mathbf{e}\cdot \mathbf{e}_R\right)^2-\frac{1}{3}\right)$$ where $Q_2$ is a function of $r$, and $\mathbf{e}$ is the direction of the galactic center. In fact, as we consider only comets with maximum distance $r\approx100 \mathrm{AU}$, $Q_2$ is observed to be constant for $r\leq100 \ \mathrm{AU}$. Indeed, according to Fig. 4 and 5 of [@bla2011], we can see that between 0 and 1000 AU, $Q_2$ varies from $3.83\times 10^{-26} \mathrm{s^{-2}}$ to $3.80\times 10^{-26} \mathrm{s^{-2}}$.\
The values of $Q_2$ depend on the chosen MOND function $\mu$. In [@bla2011], the authors deal with various MOND functions such as $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_n(y) &= \dfrac{y}{(1+y^n)^{1/n}}, \ \text{for any integer} \ n\ge 1, \\
\mu_{\textrm{exp}}(y) &= 1-e^{-y}, \ \mu_{\textrm{TeVeS}}(y) = \dfrac{\sqrt{1+4y} - 1}{\sqrt{1+4y} + 1}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For these MOND functions, the values of $Q_2$ are given in Table \[Q2values\].
. \[Q2values\]
MOND function $\mu_1(y)$ $\mu_2(y)$ $\mu_5(y)$ $\mu_{20}(y)$ $\mu_{\textrm{exp}}(y)$ $\mu_{\textrm{TeVeS}}(y)$
--------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------
$Q_2$ \[$\text{s}^{-2}$\] $3.8\times 10^{-26}$ $2.2\times 10^{-26}$ $7.4\times 10^{-27}$ $2.1\times10^{-27}$ $3.0\times 10^{-26}$ $4.1\times 10^{-26}$
In what follows, we denote the latitude and longitude of the galactic center in the heliocentric coordinate system by $\beta$ and $\lambda$ respectively, then we obtain the expression of $U_{MOND,Q2}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
U_{MOND,Q_2} = \frac{Q_2}{6}\bigg(& 3 (x \cos \beta \cos \lambda+y \cos \beta \sin \lambda+z \sin \beta)^2 \nonumber \\
&-\left(x^2+y^2+z^2\right)\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where $x,y$ and $z$ are the coordinates of the comet in the frame $(S,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z})$. In order to obtain the expression of the perturbing acceleration $\mathbf{a}_{MOND,Q_2}$ in $(S,\mathbf{e}_R,\mathbf{e}_T,\mathbf{e}_N)$, we express $x,y$ and $z$ as functions of the orbital elements using the functions in formulas \[conversion\_lagrange\_gauss\] for each perturbing function. Straightforward computations lead to the expression of $R_{MOND,Q2}$, $T_{MOND,Q2}$ and $N_{MOND,Q2}$ written as
$$\begin{aligned}
R_{MOND,Q_2}&=\frac{Q_2\left(1-e^2\right) }{3(1+e \cos f)} \nonumber \\
&\times \bigg( 3 \big(\cos \beta (\sin \lambda (\cos i \cos \Omega \sin (f+\omega )+\sin \Omega \cos (f+\omega )) \nonumber \\
&+\cos \lambda (\cos \Omega \cos (f+\omega )-\cos i \sin \Omega \sin (f+\omega ))) \nonumber \\
&+\sin \beta \sin i \sin (f+\omega )\big)^2-1\bigg),\\
T_{MOND,Q_2}=&-\frac{Q_2 a(1-e^2)}{1+e\cos f} \nonumber\\
&\times\bigg(\cos (\beta ) \sin (f+\omega ) \cos (\lambda -\Omega )\nonumber \\
&\quad \quad -\cos (f+\omega ) (\cos (\beta ) \cos (i) \sin (\lambda -\Omega )+\sin (\beta ) \sin (i))\bigg) \nonumber \\
& \times \bigg(\cos (\beta ) (\cos (i) \sin (f+\omega ) \sin (\lambda -\Omega )\nonumber \\
&\quad \quad +\cos (f+\omega ) \cos (\lambda -\Omega ))+\sin (\beta ) \sin (i) \sin (f+\omega )\bigg),\\
N_{MOND,Q_2}=&\frac{Q_2a(1-e^2)}{1+e\cos f}(\sin (\beta ) \cos (i)-\cos (\beta ) \sin (i) \sin (\lambda -\Omega )) \nonumber \\
&\times\bigg(\cos (\beta ) (\cos (i) \sin (f+\omega ) \sin (\lambda -\Omega )\nonumber \\
&\quad \quad+\cos (f+\omega ) \cos (\lambda -\Omega ))+\sin (\beta ) \sin (i) \sin (f+\omega )\bigg).\end{aligned}$$
We now have all the expressions of the perturbing force so we can deduce the secular variations of the orbital elements of the comet which are given as follows : $$\left< \frac{dc_i}{dt}\right>=\left< \frac{dc_i}{dt}\right>_{NG}+\left< \frac{dc_i}{dt}\right>_{MOND,Q_2}$$ for all $i=2,...,6$. For the secular variation of the semi-major axis we only have $$\left< \frac{da}{dt}\right>=\left< \frac{da}{dt}\right>_{NG}$$ because the secular variation caused by MOND on the semi-major axis is zero.
Application to three comets {#applic}
===========================
We now compute the effects of the non-gravitational and MOND perturbations on three comets. We computed analytically the MONDian part and numerically the non-gravitational part due to the expression of the equations.\
The three comets were choosen because of their orbital parameters. As the MONDian effects are bigger for objects far from the sun, we choose 1P/Halley and 153P/Ikeya-Zhang which have amongst the largest semi-major axes known for periodic comets. They are also relatively well know (8154 and 1954 astrometrical observations respectively). Conversely, we choose 2P/Encke for its small semi-major axis to be able to make a comparison of the two types of comet.\
In Table \[tab:orb\_el\_JPL\], we present truncated values of the orbital elements and non-gravitational parameters. These orbital elements are given by the database of JPL Small-Bodies Browser[^1]. For the computations, we used non-truncated values of these elements. We refer to the JPL Small-Bodies Browser website for the values and their uncertainties. It can be noted that, for most of the comets, the non-gravitational parameter $A_3$ is considered as zero. Indeed, the non-gravitational perturbation in this direction is very weak and cannot be solved by the fit (see [@maqphd] and [@mar1973]).\
Using the values of the latitude $\beta$ and longitude $\lambda$ of the galactic center in the fixed heliocentric reference frame which are $\beta=-5.5^\circ$ and $\lambda=-93.2^\circ$ (see for example [@all2000]), the results of the computation are given in Tables \[tab:res\_encke\], \[tab:res\_halley\] and \[tab:res\_ikeya\]. The secular variation of the angles induced by MOND are in the range of a few *milli*-arc-seconds per century. We can note that for 2P/Encke (short orbit), the MONDian effects are very small and may be negligible compared to the non-gravitational perturbation. Conversely, for 1P/Halley and 153P/Ikeya-Zhang (large orbit), the MONDian effects are much bigger and must be included together with the non-gravitational perturbations. As noticed in [@bla2011], the effects of the MOND perturbations decreases by a factor $\approx 10$ for the MOND function $\mu_n$ between $n=2$ and $n=20$. But the effects are in the same range for $\mu_1$, $\mu_{exp}$ and $\mu_{TeVeS}$.\
According to Table \[tab:res\_encke\], \[tab:res\_halley\] and \[tab:res\_ikeya\], the cometary orbits are precessing under non-gravitational perturbations but also because of the modified dynamics. As the non gravitational parameter $A_3$ is zero, there is no secular variation of the inclination of the orbit or of the longitude of the ascending node due to the outgassing from the comet. The variation of these elements is purely due to the modified dynamics. We also computed the effects of MOND on the eccentricity but it was not significant ($\left<\frac{de}{dt}\right>$ takes a value around $10^{-10}$-$10^{-11}$ $\mathrm{cy}^{-1}$).\
For the well-known comet 1P/Halley (seen by the ESA spacecraft Giotto in 1986), the MONDian effects are in the same range as the precision of the orbital element determination ($\sigma_i=24.4$ mas, $\sigma_{\omega}=42.2$ mas and $\sigma_{\Omega}=32.6$ mas, see JPL Small Bodies browser website for more details). As the dynamical models of comets are continually improving, it will soon be possible to detect and quantify these effects in cometary orbits.\
We also computed the perturbation induced by $\textbf{a}_{MOND,Q3}$. To give an idea of the effect, it is about $10^{-11}$ to $10^{-12}$ mas/cy for 153P/Ikeya-Zhang and much less for the two other comets. With the precision of current observations, it is completely negligible.
2P/Encke 1P/Halley 153P/Ikeya-Zang
------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------
P \[yr\] 3.30 75.31 366.51
a \[AU\] 2.215 17.834 51.214
e 0.848 0.967 0.990
i \[deg\] 11.8 162.3 28.1
$\omega$ \[deg\] 186.5 111.3 34.7
$\Omega$ \[deg\] 334.6 58.4 93.4
n \[deg.$\mathrm{day}^{-1}$\] 0.299 0.013 0.003
q \[AU\] 0.336 0.586 0.507
$\mathrm{A_1}$ \[AU.$\mathrm{day}^{-2}$\] $1.58\times10^{-10}$ $2.70\times10^{-10}$ $3.33\times10^{-9}$
$\mathrm{A_2}$ \[AU.$\mathrm{day}^{-2}$\] $-5.05\times10^{-11}$ $1.56\times10^{-10}$ $-3.51\times10^{-10}$
$\mathrm{A_3}$ \[AU.$\mathrm{day}^{-2}$\] $0.0$ $0.0$ $0.0$
MOND function $\left<\frac{da}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{de}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{di}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{d\Omega}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{d\omega}{dt}\right>$
--------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
$\mu_1(y)$ - - 0.125 -0.062 -0.23
$\mu_2(y)$ - - 0.072 -0.036 -0.13
$\mu_5(y)$ - - 0.024 -0.012 -0.04
$\mu_{20}(y)$ - - 0.007 -0.003 -0.01
$\mu_{\textrm{exp}}(y)$ - - 0.099 -0.049 -0.18
$\mu_{\textrm{TeVeS}}(y)$ - - 0.135 -0.067 -0.25
Non-gravitational $-6.76 \times 10^{-5}$ $-3.87 \times 10^{-6}$ - - -3477.51
MOND function $\left<\frac{da}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{de}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{di}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{d\Omega}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{d\omega}{dt}\right>$
--------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
$\mu_1(y)$ - - 3.06 -33.95 -19.07
$\mu_2(y)$ - - 1.77 -19.66 -11.04
$\mu_5(y)$ - - 0.60 -6.61 -3.71
$\mu_{20}(y)$ - - 0.17 -1.88 -1.05
$\mu_{\textrm{exp}}(y)$ - - 2.41 -26.80 -15.05
$\mu_{\textrm{TeVeS}}(y)$ - - 3.30 -36.63 -20.572
Non-gravitational $2.62 \times 10^{-3}$ $4.33 \times 10^{-6}$ - - -508.72
MOND function $\left<\frac{da}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{de}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{di}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{d\Omega}{dt}\right>$ $\left<\frac{d\omega}{dt}\right>$
--------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
$\mu_1(y)$ - - -10.57 -45.30 -43.41
$\mu_2(y)$ - - -6.12 -26.22 -25.13
$\mu_5(y)$ - - -2.06 -8.82 -8.45
$\mu_{20}(y)$ - - -0.58 -2.50 -2.40
$\mu_{\textrm{exp}}(y)$ - - -8.34 -35.76 -34.27
$\mu_{\textrm{TeVeS}}(y)$ - - -11.40 -48.87 -46.83
Non-gravitational 0.17 $3.23\times 10^{-5}$ - - -5168.5
Conclusion {#conclu}
==========
This work shows that the effects of MOND theory are not negligible compared with other small perturbations like non-gravitational perturbations on the cometary orbits. In agreement with the study of [@bla2011], the MONDian effects are stronger for large orbits than for short orbits.\
If the MOND theory is validated, it is really important to take into account its effects on the secular variation of cometary orbital elements, especially in the case of Halley family comets with large orbits. Indeed, as for the relativistic terms, the MOND perturbation would not be absorbed in the fitting of the constants $A_1$, $A_2$ and $A_3$ representing the outgassing.\
Some long-term studies of cometary orbits have already begun, for example to constrain the Oort cloud density through incoming new comets from this cloud (for example [@fou2011]). Generally, this kind of study takes into account the galactic tide, the star encounters and the non-gravitational effects of the new comets introduced into the inner Solar System. It would be interesting to include MONDian perturbations to these studies on the injection of new comets into the Solar System and hence improve the Oort object density.\
Finally, thanks to space missions like Rosetta (see [@sch2012]), our understanding of cometary physics will be improved in the very near future and consequently the cometary dynamical model will be more accurate. In this way, the models of outgassing such as [@mar1973] or [@maq2012] including MOND perturbation will be tested through ephemeris computation in order to validate (or otherwise) such a perturbation. This work will the subject of a future paper.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
It is a great pleasure to thank Luc Blanchet for a careful reading and interest in the manuscript and very useful comments and advice. We also thank Tim Rawle for his careful proof reading.\
Lucie Maquet is supported by a Europeen Space Agency (ESA) research fellowship at the Europeen Space Astronomy Center (ESAC), in Madrid, Spain.
[^1]: <http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**[Nadhem ECHI^a^, Boulbaba GHANMI^b^]{}**
^a,b^Gafsa University, Faculty of Sciences of Gafsa
Department of Mathematics, Zarroug Gafsa 2112 Tunisia
^a^E-mail: nadhemechi\[email protected]
93C10, 93D15, 93D20.
[**Keywords.**]{} Rational stability; delay system; nonlinear observer; Lyapunov functional.
Introduction
============
Time-Delay Systems (TDSs) is also known as call systems with aftereffect or dead-time, hereditary systems, equations with deviating argument, or differential-difference equations. They are part of the class of functional differential equations which are infinite-dimensional, as opposed to ordinary differential equations (ODEs). Time-delay has a number of characteristics. It appears in several control systems, including aircraft, chemical [@mounier], biological systems [@lili], engineering, electrical [@anthonis], economic model [@hamed; @ghanes], or process control systems, and communication networks, either in the state, the control input, or the measurements [@Baillieul; @Natori]. There, we can find transported, communication, or measurement delays. It is noticeable that time delay can cause different problems, such as instability, divergence behavior, and oscillation of dynamic systems. A considerable amount of studies have analyzed the stability of dynamic systems with a delay. Therefore, the stability of systems with time delay has been investigated extensively over the past decades. It is a well known fact that stability of nonlinear time-delay systems in Lyapunov sense plays a major role in control theory, and becomes a challenging problem both in theory and applications. The stability analysis of time delay systems has been recently studied in many areas. There are two crucial kinds of stability of dynamical systems. These include asymptotic stability and exponential stability. In the case of asymptotic stability, for more details, the reader is referred to [@Be; @nadhem2017; @Ibrir; @germani2000; @germani2001; @sun; @tsinias] and references therein. [@Ramasamy2016] addressed the problem of asymptotic stability for Markovian jump that generalized neural networks with interval time-varying delay systems. Based on the Lyapunov method, it is suggested that asymptotic stability can be used to solve linear matrix inequality with triple integral terms a delay. For exponential stability, it is requires that all solutions starting near an equilibrium point not only stay nearby, but tend to the equilibrium point very fast with exponential decay rate; see [@Thun; @Benad; @Rajchakit; @phat].
A new notion of stability known as rational stability for systems without time delays is introduced in [@hahn]. The study demonstrates the characteristics of rational stability. It can be characterized by means of Lyapunov functions. This notion did not know any intense progress like other tools of the stability theory. For free-delay system, [@jammzi2013] studied the issue of rational stability of continuous autonomous systems, followed by several examples of control systems. Under a Hamilton-Jacobi- Belleman approach, some sufficient conditions are developed by [@zaghdoudi] to achieve the rational stability of optimal control for every dynamical control systems.
The questions which are worth being raised here are can we speak about rational stability for time-delay systems? What is the advantage of this stability? The aim of the current study is to present a new term of stability for nonlinear time-delay systems. This term is called rational stability. Sometimes the decay of the energy or the Lyapunov function is not exponential, but it can be polynomial. For rational stability and especially when the Jacobean matrix is no longer Hurwitz and the transcendental characteristic polynomial, the solutions do not decrease exponentially. However, in some cases, the solutions decrease like $t^{-r},\,r>0$ with $r$ is called the rate decay of the solution. The real $r$ measures the velocity of convergence of the solution which is crucial in several practical engineering such as satellite systems, unicycle systems, underwater, transport equation, string networks, etc.
The current paper introduces a novel notion of stability of nonlinear time-delay systems called rational stability. It also investigates the problem of output feedback stabilization of a class of nonlinear time delay system written in triangular form, with constant delay. We impose a generalized condition on the nonlinearity to cover the time-delay systems is considered by [@Ibrir]. Motivated by [@jammzi2013] and [@zaghdoudi], Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional is used for the purpose of obtaining to establish globally rational stability of the closed loop systems. We design a nonlinear observer to estimate the system states. Then, it is used to obtain a new state and input delay-dependent criterion that ensures the rational stability of the closed-loop system with a state feedback controller. The global rational stability using output feedback is also presented.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The next section presents the definition of rational stability and an auxiliary result concerning a functional should satisfy for guaranteeing the rational stability. In section 3, It also shows the system description. The main results are stated in section 4, it is concluded that parameter dependent linear state and output feedback controllers are synthesized to ensure global rational stability of the nonlinear time delay system. In section 5, we establish the problem of global rational stability using output feedback. Finally, an illustrative example, of network-based control systems (NBCSs), is discussed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the obtained results.
Definitions and auxiliary results
=================================
Consider time delay system of the form: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\dot{x}(t)=f(x(t),x(t-\tau)) & \hbox{} \\
x(\theta)=\varphi(\theta) & \hbox{ }\\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{1}$$ where $\tau > 0$ denotes the time delay. The knowledge of $x$ at time $t = 0$ does not allow to deduce $x$ at time $t$. Thus, the initial condition is specified as a continuous function $ \varphi\in\mathcal{C}$, where $\mathcal{C}$ denotes the Banach space of continuous functions mapping the interval $[-\tau, 0]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$ equipped with the supremum-norm: $$\parallel \varphi\parallel_{\infty}\ =\ \max_{\theta\in[-\tau,0]}\parallel\varphi(\theta)\parallel$$ $\| \ \|$ being the Euclidean-norm. The map $f :\mathbb{R}^{n} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a locally Lipschitz function, and satisfies $f(0, 0) = 0.$
The function segment $x_{t}$ is defined by $x_{t}(\theta) = x(t + \theta),\,\ \theta \in[-\tau, 0].$ For $\varphi \in \mathcal{C}$, we denote by $x(t,\varphi)$ or shortly $x(t)$ the solution of that satisfies $x_{0} =\varphi. $ The segment of this solution is denoted by $x_{t}(\varphi)$ or shortly $x_{t}$.
Inspired from [@jammzi2013] and [@hahn], we introduce some definition of rational stability for the time-delay systems.
The zero solution of is called
- Stable, if for any $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $\delta > 0$ such that $$\|\varphi \|_{\infty} <\delta \Rightarrow \|x(t)\| < \varepsilon,\,\ \forall t \geq 0.$$
- Rationally stable, if it is stable and there exist positive numbers $M,\, k,\, r,\, e\leq1$ such that if $$\|\varphi \|_{\infty} <\sigma \Rightarrow\|x(t)\|\leq\frac{M\|\varphi\|_{\infty}^{e}}{(1+\|\varphi\|_{\infty}^{k}t)^{\frac{1}{k}}},\,\ \forall t \geq 0.
\label{rat}$$
- Globally rationally stable, if it is stable and $\delta$ can be chosen arbitrarily large for sufficiently large $\varepsilon$, and is satisfied for all $\sigma > 0$.
Sufficient conditions for rotational stability of a functional differential equation are provided by [@jammzi2013], a generalization of time delay system given by following theorem. For a locally Lipschitz functional $V : \mathcal{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$, the derivative of V along the solutions of is defined as $$\dot{V}= \lim _{h\rightarrow0}\frac{1}{h}(V (x_{t+h}) - V (x_{t})).$$
It is easy to see that rational stability is satisfied then asymptotic stability is satisfied, but the converse is not true.
\[th1\] Assume that there exist positive numbers $\lambda_{1} ,\, \lambda_{2},\, \lambda_{3} ,\, r_{1} ,\, r_{2} ,\, k$ and a continuous differentiable functional $V:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ such that: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{1}\parallel x(t)\parallel^{r_{1}} \leq V(x_{t})&\leq&
\lambda_{2}\parallel x_{t}\parallel_{\infty}^{r_{2}}, \label{i}\\
\dot{V}(x_{t})+\lambda_{3} V^{1+k}(x_{t})&\leq&0, \label{ii}\end{aligned}$$ then, the zero solution of is globally rationally.
Using , we have for $V\neq0$, $$\frac{d}{d\theta}V^{-k}(x_{\theta})\geq k\lambda_{3}$$ Integrating between $0$ and $t$, one obtains $$\int_{0}^{t}\frac{d}{d\theta}V^{-k}(x_{\theta})d\theta\geq \int_{0}^{t}k\lambda_{3}d\theta$$ equivalently, for all $t\geq 0$ $$V^{k}(x_{t})\leq \frac{1}{k\lambda_{3}t+V^{-k}(\varphi)}.$$ Now, it follows Theorem \[th1\], condition that $$\|x(t)\|\leq (\frac{1}{\lambda_{1}})^{\frac{1}{r_{1}}}
\frac{1} {(\lambda_{2}^{-k}\|\varphi\|^{-r_{2}k}_{\infty}+\lambda_{3}k t)^{\frac{1}{k r_{1}}}}.$$
\[coro1\] Assume that there exist positive numbers $\lambda_{1} ,\, \lambda_{2},\, \lambda_{3} ,\, r_{1} ,\, r_{2} ,\, r_{3},\, r_{2}<r_{3}$ and a continuous differentiable functional $V:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ such that: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{1}\parallel x(t)\parallel^{r_{1}} \leq V(x_{t})&\leq&
\lambda_{2}\parallel x_{t}\parallel_{\infty}^{r_{2}}, \nonumber\\
\dot{V}(x_{t})&\leq&-\lambda_{3} \|x_{t}\|_{\infty}^{r_{3}},\label{i2}\end{aligned}$$ then, the zero solution of is globally rationally stable.
The conditions and imply that zero solution of is stable.\
By combining the assertions and , we obtain $$\dot{V}(x_{t}) \leq -\frac{\lambda_{3}}{\lambda_{2}^{\frac{r_{3}}{r_{2}}}}V^{\frac{r_{3}}{r_{2}}}(x_{t}) \label{v1}$$ equivalent to $$\dot{V}(x_{t}) \leq -\frac{\lambda_{3}}{\lambda_{2}^{\frac{r_{3}}{r_{2}}}} V^{1+k}(x_{t})$$ where $k=\frac{r_{3}-r_{2}}{r_{2}}$.\
Hence, from Theorem \[th1\], the zero solution of is globally rationally stable.
Let us recall here that a function $\alpha : \mathbb{R}_{+} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ is of class $\mathcal{K}$ if it is continuous, increasing and $\alpha(0) = 0$, of class $\mathcal{K}_{\infty}$ if it is of class $\mathcal{K}$ and it is unbounded. The following theorem provides sufficient Lyapunov-Krasovskii conditions for global rationally stability of the zero solution of system .
Assume that there exist positive numbers $\lambda_{1} ,\, \lambda_{2},\, r_{1} ,\, r_{2} ,\, k,$ $\alpha$ a function of class $\mathcal{K}$ and a continuous differentiable functional $V:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ such that:
(i)
: $\lambda_{1}\parallel x(t)\parallel^{r_{1}} \leq V(x_{t})\leq
\lambda_{2}\parallel x_{t}\parallel_{\infty}^{r_{2}},$
(ii)
: $\dot{V}(x_{t})\leq-\alpha(V(x_{t})),\label{i3}$
(iii)
: $\displaystyle\lim_{t\rightarrow0}\frac{\alpha(t)}{t^{k+1}}=l\in]0, +\infty].\label{i4}$
Then the zero solution of is globally rationally stable. \[th2\]
$0 < l < +\infty$. The conditions and imply that zero solution of system is stable and attractive, then asymptotically stable and $\displaystyle\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}V(x_{t})=0$.\
Therefore, by using limit definition, there exists $t_{0} > 0$ such that for every $0 \leq t \leq t_{0}$, we have $\alpha(t)\geq \frac{l}{2}t^{k+1}$. Since, $\displaystyle\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}V(x_{t})=0$, for this $t_{0} > 0$, there exists $t_{*} >0$ such that for every $t \geq t_{*}$ one gets $0\leq V(x_{t}) \leq t_{0}$ and $$\alpha(V(x_{t}))\geq \frac{l}{2}V^{1+k}(x_{t}).$$ Using , we obtain $$0\geq \dot{V}(x_{t})+\alpha V(x_{t})\geq\dot{V}(x_{t})+\frac{l}{2}V(x_{t})^{k+1}.$$ Thus, we have $$\dot{V}(x_{t})\leq\frac{l}{2}V(x_{t})^{k+1}.$$ Then, using the Theorem \[th1\], we can conclude that the zero solution of is globally rationally stable.\
$l = +\infty$. As in the proof of first case, there exists $t_{0} > 0$ such that for every $0 \leq t \leq t_{0}$, we have $$\alpha(t)\geq t^{k+1}\ and \ \dot{V}(x_{t})\leq V(x_{t})^{k+1}.$$
The Theorem \[th1\], Theorem \[th2\] and Corollary \[coro1\] generalize the results given by [@jammzi2013] for the case of free-delay system.
System description
==================
Consider the nonlinear time-delay system: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\dot{x}(t)=Ax(t)+Bu(t) +f(x(t),x(t-\tau),u(t)) \\
y(t)=Cx(t)
\end{array}
\right.
\label{3}$$ where $ x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the state vector, $u \in \mathbb{R}$ is the input of the system, $y\in \mathbb{R}$ is the measured output and $\tau$ is a positive known scalar that denotes the time delay affecting the state variables. The matrices $A$, $B$ and $C$ are given by $$A=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 &0& \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots&0 \\
\vdots & \vdots& \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0&\cdots & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0&\cdots & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right],\ \ \,\ B=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
\vdots\\
0 \\
1\\
\end{array}
\right]
,\, C=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & 0 & \cdots&0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right],$$ and the perturbed term is $$f(x(t), x(t -\tau), u(t)) =\left[
\begin{array}{c}
f_{1}(x_{1}(t),x_{1}(t -\tau), u(t)) \\
f_{2}(x_{1}(t),x_{2}(t),x_{1}(t -\tau),x_{2}(t -\tau), u(t)) \\
\vdots \\
f_{n}(x(t),x(t -\tau), u(t))
\end{array}\right].$$ The mappings $f_{i}:\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R},$ $i=1,\ldots,n,$ are smooth and satisfy the following assumption:\
We suppose that $f$ satisfies the following assumption:
[**Assumption 1.**]{} The nonlinearity $f (y, z,u)$ is smooth, globally Lipschitz with respect to $y$ and $z$, uniformly with respect to $u$ and well-defined for all $y,z\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ with $f (0, 0,u)= 0$.\
We suppose also that,
[**Assumption 2.**]{} For all $t \geq 0$, the delay $\tau$ is known and constant.\
Throughout the paper, the time argument is omitted and the delayed state vector $x(t-\tau)$ is noted by $x^{\tau}$. $A^{T}$ means the transpose of $A$. $\lambda_{max}(A)$ and $\lambda_{min}(A)$ denote the maximal and minimal eigenvalue of a matrix $A$ respectively. $I$ is an appropriately dimensioned identity matrix, $diag[\cdots]$ denotes a block-diagonal matrix.
This paper focuses on state observer design for a class of system given by . It specifically shows that the general high-gain observer design framework established in [@Gauthier] and [@Hammouri] for free delay systems can be properly extended to this class of time-delay systems.
Separation principle
====================
Observer design
---------------
The observer synthesis for triangular nonlinear system design problems along with time-delay systems have become the focal focus of various studies [@Be], [@Farza] and [@ghanes] and references therein. Under the global Lipschitz condition, an observer for a class of time-delay nonlinear systems in the strictly lower triangular form was proposed by [@ghanes]. In [@Be] a nonlinear observer is used to investigate the output feedback controller problem for a class of nonlinear delay systems for the purpose of calculating the system states. Based on time-varying delays known and bounded, [@Farza] propose a nonlinear observer for a class of time-delay nonlinear systems. In this section we devote to the design of the observer-based controller. $$\label{obs}
\dot{\hat{x}}(t) = A\hat{x} + Bu(t)+f(\hat{x},\hat{x}^{\tau},u) + L(\theta)( C\hat{x}-y)$$ where $L(\theta)= [l_{1}\theta,\ldots,l_{n}\theta^{n}]^{T}$ with $\theta>0$ and where $L= [l_{1},\ldots,l_{n}]^{T}$ is selected such that $A_{L}:=A+LC$ is Hurwitz, $\hat{x}(s)=\hat{\phi}(s),\ -\tau\leq s\leq0$ with $\hat{\phi}:[-\tau,0]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$ being any known continuous function. Let $P$ be the symmetric positive definite solution of the Lyapunov equation $$A^{T}_{L}P + PA_{L} = -I.\label{Ly1}$$
Suppose that Assumption 1-2 is satisfied and there exist positive constant $\theta$ such that $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\theta}{2}-\|P\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}-3k\|P\|>0 & \hbox{,} \\\\
\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}-k\|P\|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ >0 & \hbox{.}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{condi1}$$ Then, is globally rationally observer for system . \[th3\]
Denote $e=\hat{x}-x$ the observation error. We have $$\dot{e}=(A+L(\theta)C)e+f(\hat{x},\hat{x}^{\tau},u)-f(x,x^{\tau},u)\label{erro}$$ For $\theta>0$, let $\Delta_{\theta}=diag[1,\frac{1}{\theta},\ldots,\frac{1}{\theta^{n-1}}]$. One can easily check the following identities: $\Delta_{\theta}A\Delta_{\theta}^{-1}=\theta A,\, C\Delta_{\theta}^{-1}=C$. Let us now introduce $\eta=\Delta_{\theta}e$, then we get $$\dot{\eta}=\theta A_{L}\eta+\Delta_{\theta}(f(\hat{x},\hat{x}^{\tau},u)-f(x,x^{\tau},u))\label{erro1}$$ Let us choose a Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional candidate as follows $$V(\eta_{t})= V_{1}(\eta_{t})+ V_{2}(\eta_{t})\label{veta}$$ with $$V_{1}(\eta_{t})=\eta^{T} P\eta$$ and $$V_{2}(\eta_{t})= \frac{\theta}{2}\theta^{\frac{-t}{2\tau}}\displaystyle\int_{t-\tau}^{t}\theta^{\frac{s}{2\tau}}\|\eta(s)\|^{2}ds.$$ Since $P$ is symmetric positive definite then for all $\eta\in\mathbb{R}^{n},$ $$\lambda_{\min}(P)\|\eta\|^{2}\leq \eta^{T}P\eta\leq \lambda_{\max}(P)\|\eta\|^{2}\label{norm}$$ This implies that on the one hand, $$V (\eta_{t}) \geq \lambda_{\min}(P)\parallel \eta(t)\parallel^{2},$$ and on the other hand, $$\begin{array}{lll}V(\eta_{t})&=&
\eta^{T} P \eta+\frac{\theta}{2}\displaystyle\int_{-\tau}^{0}\theta^{\frac{\mu}{2\tau}}\parallel \eta(\mu+t)\parallel^{2}d\mu\\
&=&\eta^{T} P \eta+\frac{\theta}{2}\displaystyle\int_{-\tau}^{0}\theta^{\frac{\mu}{2\tau}}\parallel \eta_{t}( \mu)\parallel^{2}d\mu\\
&\leq& \lambda_{\max}(P)\parallel \eta \parallel^{2}+\frac{\theta}{2}
\displaystyle\int_{-\tau}^{0}\theta^{\frac{\mu}{2\tau}}\parallel \eta_{t}\parallel_{\infty}^{2}d\mu\\
&\leq& (\lambda_{\max}(P)+\frac{\theta\tau}{2})\|\eta_{t}\|_{\infty}^{2}.
\end{array}$$ Thus condition $(i)$ of Theorem \[th2\] is satisfied with $$\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{\min}(P),\
\lambda_{2}= \lambda_{\max}(P)+\frac{\theta\tau}{2},\ r_{1}=r_{2}=2.$$ The time derivative of $V_{1}(\eta_{t} )$ along the trajectories of system is $$\dot{V}_{1} (\eta_{t})= \eta^{T} ( A^{T}_{L}P + PA_{L} )\eta+
2\eta^{T} P(f(\hat{x},\hat{x}^{\tau},u)-f(x,x^{\tau}u))\label{dv1}.$$ The time derivative of $V_{2}(\eta_{t} )$ along the trajectories of system is $$\dot{V}_{2} (\eta_{t})=\frac{\theta}{2}\| \eta\|^{2} -\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}\|\eta^{\tau}\|^{2} -\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}V_{2}(\eta_{t})\label{dv2}.$$ Next, the time derivative of along the trajectories of system and making use of ,, and , we have $$\begin{array}{lll}
\dot{V} (\eta_{t})
&\leq& -\frac{\theta}{2} \|\eta\|+
2\|\eta \|\| P\|\|\Delta_{\theta}(f(\hat{x},\hat{x}^{\tau},u)-f(x,x^{\tau}u))\|\\\\
& &-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}\|\eta^{\tau}\|^{2}
-\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}V_{2}(\eta_{t}).\end{array}\label{dotv}$$ Using we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{V} (\eta_{t})+\frac{\ln\theta}{ 2\tau}V(\eta_{t})
&\leq& -\left\{\frac{\theta}{2}-\|P\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}\right\}\|\eta\|^{2}+
2\|\eta \|\| P\|\|\Delta_{\theta}(f(\hat{x},\hat{x}^{\tau},u)-f(x,x^{\tau}u))\|-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}\|\eta^{\tau}\|^{2}\nonumber
\label{v+v}\end{aligned}$$ The following inequality hold globally thanks to assumption $\textbf{A1}$ ( as in [@Farza; @ghanes]) $$\begin{aligned}
\|\Delta_{\theta}(f(\hat{x},\hat{x}^{\tau},u)-f(x,x^{\tau}u))\|
&\leq& k_{1}\|\Delta_{\theta}(\hat{x}-x)\|+k_{2} \|\Delta_{\theta}(\hat{x}^{\tau}-x)\|\label{lipsch1}\\ \nonumber\\
&\leq& k\|\eta\|+k \|\eta^{\tau}\|\label{lipsch2}.\end{aligned}$$ where $k_{1},\ k_{2}$ is a Lipschitz constant in and $k=\max(k_{1},\ k_{2})$.\
So, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{V} (\eta_{t})+\frac{\ln\theta}{ 2\tau}V(\eta_{t})
&\leq& -\left\{\frac{\theta}{2}-\|P\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}+2k\|P\|\right\}\|\eta\|^{2}+
2k\| P\|\|\eta\|\|\eta^{\tau}\|^{2}-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}\|\eta^{\tau}\|^{2}\nonumber
\label{v+v1}\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $$\begin{array}{lll}
2\|\eta\|\|\eta^{\tau}\|&\leq& \|\eta\|^{2}+\|\eta^{\tau}\|^{2},\end{array}$$ we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{V} (\eta_{t})+\frac{\ln\theta}{ 2\tau}V(\eta_{t})
&\leq& -\left\{\frac{\theta}{2}-\|P\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}-3k\|P\|\right\}\|\eta\|^{2}
-\left\{\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}-k\|P\|\right\}\|\eta^{\tau}\|^{2}\label{v+v-mu}\end{aligned}$$ Let $$\begin{array}{lll}a(\theta)&=& \frac{\theta}{2}-\|P\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}-3k\|P\|\\\\
b(\theta)&=& \frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}-k\|P\|\end{array}$$ Using we have $a(\theta)> 0$ and $b(\theta)> 0$.
Now, the objective is to prove the rational convergence of the observer . Inequality becomes $$\dot{V}(\eta_{t})\leq-\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau} V(\eta_{t}).$$ Finally, using the stability Theorem \[th2\], we can conclude that the error dynamics is rationally stable if hold.
Global rational stabilization by state feedback
-----------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we establish a delay-dependent condition for the rational state feedback stabilization of the nonlinear system . The state feedback controller is given by $$u=K(\theta)x \label{5}$$ where $K(\theta)= [k_{1}\theta^{n},\ldots,k_{n}\theta]$ and $K= [k_{1},\ldots,k_{n}]$ is selected such that $A_{K}:=A+BK$ is Hurwitz. Let $S$ be the symmetric positive definite solution of the Lyapunov equation $$A^{T}_{K}S + SA_{K} = -I.\label{Ly2}$$
\[th4\] Suppose that Assumption 1-2 is satisfied and there exist positive constant $\theta$ such that $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\theta}{2}-\|S\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}-3k\|S\|>0 & \hbox{,} \\\\
\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}-k\|S\|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ >0 & \hbox{,}
\end{array}
\right.\label{condi2}$$ then, the closed loop time-delay system - is globally rationally stable.
The closed loop system is given by $$\dot{x}=(A+BK(\theta))x+f(x,x^{\tau},u).\label{dotx}$$ Let $\chi = \Delta_{\theta}x$. Using the fact that $\Delta_{\theta}BK(\theta) = \theta BK\Delta_{\theta}$ we get $$\dot{\chi}=\theta A_{K}\chi+\Delta_{\theta}f(x,x^{\tau},u).\label{dotchi}$$ Let us choose a Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional candidate as follows $$W(\chi_{t})= W_{1}(\chi_{t})+ W_{2}(\chi_{t}),\label{xeta}$$ with $$W_{1}(\chi_{t})=\chi^{T} S\chi$$ and $$W_{2}(\chi_{t}) = \frac{\theta}{2}\theta^{\frac{-t}{2\tau}}\displaystyle\int_{t-\tau}^{t}\theta^{\frac{s}{2\tau}}\|\chi(s)\|^{2}ds.$$ As in the proof of Theorem \[th3\], we have $$\lambda_{\min}(S)\|\chi(t)\|^{2}\leq W(\chi_{t} )\leq( \lambda_{\max}(S)+\frac{\theta\tau}{2})\| \chi_{t}\|_{\infty}^{2}$$ Thus condition $(i)$ of Theorem \[th2\] is satisfied with $$\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{\min}(S),\
\lambda_{2}= \lambda_{\max}(S)+\frac{\theta\tau}{2},\ r_{1}=r_{2}=2.$$ The time derivative of along the trajectories of system is given by $$\begin{array}{lll}
\dot{W} (\chi_{t})&=&2\chi^{T}S\dot{\chi}+\frac{\theta}{2}\|\chi\|^{2}-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}\|\chi^{\tau}\|^{2}-
\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}W_{2}(\chi_{t})\\\\
&=& 2\theta\chi^{T}SA_{K}\chi+2\chi^{T}S\Delta_{\theta}f(x,x^{\tau},u)+\frac{\theta}{2}\|\chi\|^{2}
-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}\|\chi^{\tau}\|^{2}-\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}W_{2}(\chi_{t})\\\\
&\leq& -\frac{\theta}{2}\|\chi\|+2\|\chi\|\|S\|\|\Delta_{\theta}f(x,x^{\tau},u)\|
-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}\|\chi^{\tau}\|^{2}-\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}W_{2}(\chi_{t})
.\end{array}$$ Since $f(0,0,u)=0$, implies that $$\|\Delta_{\theta}f(x,x^{\tau},u)\|\leq k\|\chi\|+k\|\chi^{\tau}\|.\label{delta}$$ So $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{W} (\chi_{t})+\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}W(\chi_{t})
&\leq& -\left\{\frac{\theta}{2} -\|S\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}-2k\|S\|\right\}\|\chi\|^{2}+
2k\| S\|\|\chi \|\|\chi^{\tau}\|-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}\|\chi^{\tau}\|^{2}\label{w+w}\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $$\begin{array}{lll}
2\|\chi\|\|\chi^{\tau}\|&\leq& \|\chi\|^{2}+\|\chi^{\tau}\|^{2}.\end{array}$$ We deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{W} (\chi_{t})+\frac{\ln\theta}{ 2\tau}W(\chi_{t})
&\leq& -\left\{\frac{\theta}{2}-\|S\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}-3k\|S\|\right\}\|\chi\|^{2}
-\left\{\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}-k\|S\|\right\}\|\chi^{\tau}\|^{2}.\label{w+w-mu}\end{aligned}$$ Let $$\begin{array}{lll}c(\theta)&=& \frac{\theta}{2}-\|S\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}-3k\|S\|,\\\\
d(\theta)&=& \frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}-k\|S\|.\end{array}$$ Using , we have $c(\theta)> 0$ and $d(\theta)> 0$ which implies that
$$\dot{W}(\chi_{t})\leq-\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau} W(\chi_{t}).$$ By Theorem \[th2\], we conclude that the origin of the closed loop system is globally rationally stable.
Observer-based control stabilization
------------------------------------
In this subsection, we implement the control law with estimate states. The observer-based controller is given by: $$u = K(\theta)\hat{x}, \label{cont}$$ where $\hat{x}$ is provided by the observer .
Suppose that Assumptions 1-2 are satisfied, such that conditions and hold. Then the origin of the closed loop time-delay system - is globally rationally stable.
The closed loop system in the $(\chi, \eta)$ coordinates can be written as follows: $$\begin{array}{lll}\dot{\chi}&=&\theta A_{K}\chi+\theta BK\eta+\Delta_{\theta}f(x,x^{\tau},u),\\
\dot{\eta}&=&A_{L}\eta+\Delta_{\theta}(f(\hat{x},\hat{x}^{\tau},u)-f(x,x^{\tau},u)).\label{w+v}\end{array}$$ Let $$U(\eta_{t},\chi_{t})=\alpha V(\eta_{t})+ W(\chi_{t}),$$ where $V$ and $W$ are given by and respectively. Using the above results, we get $$\begin{array}{lll}\dot{U}(\eta_{t},\chi_{t})+\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}U( \eta_{t},\chi_{t})&\leq& -\alpha a(\theta)
\|\eta\|^2 - c(\theta)\|\chi\|^{2}+2\theta
\|S\|\|K\|\|\eta\|\|\chi\|.\end{array}$$ Now using the fact that for all $\varepsilon > 0$, $$2\|\chi\|\|\eta\|\leq\varepsilon\|\chi\|^{2}+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\|\eta\|^{2},$$ and select $\varepsilon = \frac{c(\theta)}{2\theta\|S\|\|K\|}$, we get $$\begin{array}{lll}\dot{U}(\eta_{t},\chi_{t})+\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}U( \eta_{t},\chi_{t})&\leq& -\alpha a(\theta)
\|\eta\|^2 - \frac{c(\theta)}{2}\|\chi\|^{2}+\frac{2\theta^{2}}{c(\theta)}\|S\|^{2}\|K\|^{2}\|\eta\|^{2}.\end{array}$$ Finally we select $\alpha$ such that $$\alpha a(\theta)-\frac{2\theta^{2}}{c(\theta)}\|S\|^{2}\|K\|^{2}>0,$$ to deduce that the origin of system is globally rationally stable.
It is easy to see that, $a(\theta),\, b(\theta),\, c(\theta)$ and $d(\theta)$ tend to $\infty$ as $\theta$ tends to $\infty$. This implies that there exists $\theta_{0} >1$ such that for all $\theta>\theta_{0}$ conditions and are fulfilled.
Global rational stabilization by output feedback
================================================
In this subsection, we propose the following system: $$\label{observa}
\dot{\tilde{\hat{x}}}(t) = A\tilde{\hat{x}} + Bu(t)+ L(\theta)( C\tilde{\hat{x}}-y)$$ The output feedback controller is given by $$\label{k2}u=K(\theta)\tilde{\hat{x}}$$ Under Assumption 1-2, we give now required conditions to ensure that the origin of system is rendered globally rationally stable by the dynamic output feedback control -.
Consider the time-delay system under Assumptions 1-2. Suppose that there exists $\theta > 0$ such that condition holds and $$\frac{\theta}{2}-\|S\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}-3k\|S\|>0\label{cond3}$$ then the closed-loop time-delay system - is globally rationally stable.
Defining $\widetilde{e}=x-\tilde{\hat{x}}$ the observation error. We have $$\dot{\widetilde{e}}=(A+L(\theta)C)\widetilde{e}+f(x,x^{\tau},u)\label{errotil}$$ For $\theta>0$, let $\Delta_{\theta}=diag[1,\frac{1}{\theta},\ldots,\frac{1}{\theta^{n-1}}]$. Let $\widetilde{\eta}=\Delta_{\theta}\widetilde{e}$, then we get $$\dot{\widetilde{\eta}}=\theta A_{L}\tilde{\eta}+\Delta_{\theta}f(x,x^{\tau},u)\label{erro11}$$ Let us choose a Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional candidate as follows $$V(\widetilde{\eta}_{t})=\widetilde{\eta}^{T} P\widetilde{\eta}+
\frac{\theta}{2}\theta^{\frac{-t}{2\tau}}\displaystyle\int_{t-\tau}^{t}\theta^{\frac{s}{2\tau}}\|\widetilde{\eta}(s)\|^{2}ds\label{veta1}$$ As in the proof of Theorem \[th3\], we have thus condition $(i)$ of Theorem \[th2\] is satisfied with $$\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{\min}(P),\
\lambda_{2}= \lambda_{\max}(P)+\frac{\theta\tau}{2},\ r_{1}=r_{2}=2.$$ Following the proof of Theorem \[th2\], inequality becomes $$\begin{array}{lll}
\dot{V} (\widetilde{\eta}_{t})
&\leq& -\frac{\theta}{2} \|\widetilde{\eta}\|+
2\|\widetilde{\eta} \|\| P\|\|\Delta_{\theta}f(x,x^{\tau},u)\|\\\\
& &-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}\|\widetilde{\eta}^{\tau}\|^{2}
-\frac{\theta}{2}\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}\theta^{\frac{-t}{2\tau}}\displaystyle\int_{t-\tau}^{t}\theta^{\frac{s}{2\tau}}\|\widetilde{\eta}(s)\|^{2}ds.
\end{array}$$ Using and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{V} (\widetilde{\eta}_{t})+\frac{\ln\theta}{ 2\tau}V(\widetilde{\eta}_{t})
&\leq& -\left\{\frac{\theta}{2}-\|P\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}\right\}\|\widetilde{\eta}\|^{2}+
2k\| P\|\|\widetilde{\eta} \|\|\chi\|+2k\| P\|\|\widetilde{\eta} \|\|\chi^{\tau}\|-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}\|\widetilde{\eta}^{\tau}\|^{2}\nonumber
\label{v+v}\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $$\begin{array}{lll}
2\|\widetilde{\eta}\|\|\chi\|&\leq& \|\widetilde{\eta}\|^{2}+\|\chi\|^{2}\end{array}$$and $$\begin{array}{lll}2\|\widetilde{\eta}\|\|\chi^{\tau}\|& \leq& \|\widetilde{\eta}\|^{2}+\|\chi^{\tau}\|^{2},\end{array}$$ we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{V} (\widetilde{\eta}_{t})+\frac{\ln\theta}{ 2\tau}V(\widetilde{\eta}_{t})
&\leq& -\left\{\frac{\theta}{2}-\|P\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2 \tau}-2k\|P\|\right\}\|\widetilde{\eta}\|^{2}+k\|P\|\|\chi\|^{2}
+k\|P\|\|\chi^{\tau}\|^{2}-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{2}\|\widetilde{\eta}^{\tau}\|^{2}\label{v+v-mu1}\end{aligned}$$ Let $$U(\widetilde{\eta}_{t},\chi_{t})=\alpha V(\widetilde{\eta}_{t})+ W(\chi_{t}),$$ where $W$ is given by . Using and , we get $$\begin{array}{lll}\dot{U}(\widetilde{\eta}_{t},\chi_{t})+\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}U( \widetilde{\eta}_{t},\chi_{t})&\leq&
-\alpha \left\{\frac{\theta}{2}-\|P\|\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}-2k\|P\|\right\}\|\tilde{\eta}\|^2 \\\\
& &- \left\{c(\theta)-\alpha k\|P\|\right\}\|\chi\|^{2}-\left\{d(\theta)-\alpha k\|P\|\right\}\|\chi^{\tau}\|^{2}.\end{array}$$ Finally, we select $\alpha$ such that $$\alpha<\min\left(\frac{c(\theta)}{\alpha k\|P\|},\frac{d(\theta)}{\alpha k\|P\|}\right)$$ to get $$\dot{U}(\widetilde{\eta}_{t},\chi_{t})+\frac{\ln\theta}{2\tau}U( \widetilde{\eta}_{t},\chi_{t})\leq 0$$ Therefore, the closed-loop system is globally rationally stable.
The given controller in Theorem \[th3\] depends on the nonlinearity $f$ and the time delay $\tau$, but the controller - is independent of $f$.
It is worth mentioning that exponential stability including both passivity and dissipativity of generalized neural networks with mixed time-varying delays are developed in [@Ramasamy2017] by using the Lyapunov Krasovskii approach in combination with linear matrix inequalities. These conditions rely on the bounds of the activation functions. In this paper, we utilize parameter-dependent control laws. We assume that there exists a linear feedback that asserts global rational stability of the linear part. Hence, we select the $\theta$- parameter in order to establish global rational stability of the nonlinear system under the same controller.
[@moon; @li] show the sufficient conditions which guarantee that the calculation error converges asymptotically towards zero in terms of a linear matrix inequality. As compared to [@moon; @li], our results are less conservative and more convenient to use and it seems natural and attractive to improve feedbacks and to get solutions decreasing to zero faster.
It is worth noting that the obtained findings can be used in multiple time-delays nonlinear systems in the upper-triangular form.
Simulation results
==================
This section presents experimental results, in the case of constant delay as an example of practical application of the time-delay method in actual network-based control systems. The dynamics of the network-based system are represented by: $$\begin{array}{lll}
\dot{x}_{1}&=&x_{2}(t)+x_{1}\cos x_{1}+x_{1}(t-\tau)\cos u,\\
\dot{x}_{2}&=&u,
\end{array}\label{*}$$ where $x(t)$ is the augmented state vector containing the plant state vector and $\tau$ indicates the sensor-to-controller delay in the continuous-time case, is supposed to be constant. The difference between $\hat{x} ( t )$ and $x ( t )$ is formulated as an error of the network-based system. The system nonlinearities are globally Lipschitz. Following the notation used throughout the paper, let $f_{1}(x,x^{\tau},u)=x_{1}\cos x_{1}+x_{1}(t-\tau)\cos u$, $f_{2}(x,x^{\tau},u)=0$. Now, select $L=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
-14& -28 \\
\end{array}
\right]^{T}$ and $K=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
-30& -30 \\
\end{array}
\right]$, $A_{L}$ and $A_{K}$ are Hurwitz. Using Matlab, the solutions of the Lyapunov equations and are given respectively by $$P=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.0377 & 0.0278\\
0.0278 & 1.0675\\
\end{array}\right],\ \ S=\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.5172 & -0.5000\\
-0.5000 & 0.5167\\
\end{array}\right].$$ So, $\|P\|=1.0682$ and $\|S\|=1.0169$. For our numerical simulation, we choose constant delay $\tau = 1,$ and the initial conditions for the system are $x(0) = \left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
-20& -10 \\
\end{array}
\right]^{T} $, for the observer $\hat{x}(0) = \left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
10& 10 \\
\end{array}
\right]^{T}$ and $\theta=8.$ Corresponding numerical simulation results are shown in Figures \[fig1\]-\[fig2\].
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, rational stability and stabilization are investigated for nonlinear time-delay systems. Based on this study, we reached a novel result in global rational stability and stabilization of a class nonlinear time-delay systems. This class of systems deals with the systems that have a triangular structure. Based on the result, it was found that the Lyapunov approach was used to perform sufficient conditions for rational stability. The novel design plays a crucial role in getting a rational stability condition and rendering our approach application to a general class of systems, namely the class of nonlinear time-delay systems in a lower triangular form. The numerical result of an example is provided to show the effectiveness of the proposed approach. As a perspective, It is well known that delay-dependent conditions reveal less conservative than delay-dependent ones, it can be developed in future research by considering other Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional to derive delay dependent conditions.
[00]{} Anthonis, J.; Seuret A., Richard, J-P., Ramon, H. *Design of a pressure control system with band time delay*. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, Vol. 15, No 3, (2007).
Baillieul, J., Antsaklis, P. J. *Control and communication challenges in networked real-time systems.* Proc. IEEE, 95, (1), 9-28, (2007).
Benabdallah, A.: *A separation principle for the stabilization of a class of time delay nonlinear systems.* Kybernetika, 51, 1, 99-111(2015).
Benabdallah, A., Echi, N. *Global exponential stabilisation of a class of nonlinear time-delay systems.* International Journal of Systems Science, 47, 16, 3857-3863(2016).
Ben Hamed, B. *On the robust practical global stability of nonlinear time-varying systems.* Mediterranean Journal of Mathematics 10, 1591-1608(2013).
Echi, N., Benabdallah, A. *Delay-dependent stabilization of a class of time-delay nonlinear systems: LMI approach.* Advances in Difference Equations 2017, 271 (2017).
Farza, M., Sboui, A., Cherrier, E., M’Saad, M. *High-gain observer for a class of time-delay nonlinear systems.*, International Journal of Control, 83, 2, 273-280, (2010).
Gauthier, J.P., Hammouri, H., and Othman, S., *A Simple Observer for Nonlinear Systems - Application to Bioreactors.* IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 37, 875-880(1992).
Germani,A. Manes,C., Pepe, P. *Local asymptotic stability for nonlinear state feedback delay systems.* Kybernetika 36, 31–42(2000).
Germani,A. Manes,C., Pepe, P. *An asymptotic state observer for a class of nonlinear delay systems.* Kybernetika 37, 459–478(2001).
Ghanes, M., De Leon, J., Barbot, J. *Observer design for nonlinear systems under unknown time-varying delays.* IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 58, 1529-1534 (2013).
Ibrir, S.: *Observer-based control of a class of time-delay nonlinear systems having triangular structure*. Automatica 47, 388-394 (2011).
C. Jammazi, M. Zaghdoudi, *On the rational stability of autonomous dynamical systems. Applications to control chained systems*. Applied Mathematics and Computation. 219, 10158-10171, (2013).
Hahn,W. *Theory and Application of Liapunov’s Direct Method.* Englewood Cliffs NJ, (1963).
Hammouri, H., Farza, M., *Nonlinear Observers for Locally Uniformly Observable Systems.* ESAIM Journal on Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 9, 353-370(2003).
Li, X., de Souza, C.: *Output feedback stabilization of linear time-delay systems.* Stability and control of time-delay systems. Lect. Notes Control Inform. Sci. 241-258(1998), . Lili, C., Ying, Z., Xian, Z.*Guaranteed cost control for uncertain genetic regulatory networks with interval time-varying delays.* Neurocomputing 131, 105-112 (2014).
Moon, Y. S., Park, P., . Kwon,W. H, Lee, Y. S.: *Delay-dependent robust stabilization of uncertain state-delayed systems.* International Journal of Control, 74, 1447-1455(2001).
Mounier, H., Rudolph,J. *Flatness Based Control of Nonlinear Delay Systems: A Chemical Reactor Example.* International Journal of Control, Vol. 71, No 5, pp. 871-890, (1998).
Natori, K.,Ohnishi, K. *A design method of communication disturbance observer for time-delay compensation, taking the dynamic property of network disturbance into account.* IEEE Transaction on Industrial Electronics, 55(5), (2008).
Pepe, P., Karafyllis, I. *Converse Lyapunov-Krasovskii theorems for systems described by neutral functional differential equations in Hales form.* International Journal of Control, 86(2), 232-243, (2013).
Phat, V.N., Khongtham, Y., Ratchagit, K.: *LMI approach to exponential stability of linear systems with interval time-varying delays.* Linear Algebra and its Applications, 436, 243-251(2012).
Rajchakit, G., Saravanakumar, R., Choon Ki Ahn, Hamid Reza Karimi: *Improved exponential convergence result for generalized neural networks including interval time-varying delayed signals.* Neural Networks 86, 10-17(2017).
Ramasamy, S., Ali, M. S., Ahn, C. K., Karimi, H. R. and Shi, P. *Stability of Markovian jump generalized neural networks with interval time-varying delays,* IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., to be published, doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2016.2552491.
Ramasamy, S., Rajchakit, G., Ahn, C. K., Karimi, H. R. *Exponential stability, passivity, and dissipativity analysis of generalized neural networks with mixed time-varying delays,* IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, to be published, doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2017.2719899. Sun, Y. J.: *Global stabilization of uncertain systems with time-varying delays via dynamic observer-based output feedback.* Linear Algebra and its Applications 353, 91–105(2002).
Thuan, M. V., Phat, V.N., Trinh, H.: *Trinh Observer-based controller design of time-delay systems with an interval time-varying delay.* International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science 22, 4, 921-927(2012).
Tsinias, J.: *A theorem on global stabilization of nonlinear systems by linear feedback.* Systems Control Lettre. 17, 357-362(1991).
Zaghdoudi, M., Jammazi, C., *On the rational stabilizability of nonlinear systems by optimal feedback control : The bilinear case.* IEEE-3 rd International Conference on Control Dicision and Information Technologie (2016).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the nonlinear embeddability of Banach spaces and the equi-embeddability of the family of Kalton’s interlaced graphs $([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{\mathbb{K}})_k$ into dual spaces. Notably, we define and study a modification of Kalton’s property $\mathcal Q$ that we call property $\mathcal{Q}_p$ (with $p \in (1,+\infty]$). We show that if $([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{\mathbb{K}})_k$ equi-coarse Lipschitzly embeds into $X^*$, then the Szlenk index of $X$ is greater than $\omega$, and that this is optimal, i.e., there exists a separable dual space $Y^*$ that contains $([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{\mathbb{K}})_k$ equi-Lipschitzly and so that $Y$ has Szlenk index $\omega^2$. We prove that $c_0$ does not coarse Lipschitzly embed into a separable dual space by a map with distortion strictly smaller than $\frac{3}{2}$. We also show that neither $c_0$ nor $L_1$ coarsely embeds into a separable dual by a weak-to-weak$^*$ sequentially continuous map.'
address:
- 'University of Virginia, 141 Cabell Drive, Kerchof Hall, P.O. Box 400137, Charlottesville, USA'
- 'Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Besançon, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CNRS UMR-6623, 16 route de Gray, 25030 Besançon Cédex, Besançon, France'
- 'LAMA, Univ Gustave Eiffel, UPEM, Univ Paris Est Creteil, CNRS, F-77447, Marne-la-Vallée, France'
- 'Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Besançon, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CNRS UMR-6623, 16, route de Gray, 25030 Besançon Cedex, France'
author:
- Bruno de Mendonça Braga
- Gilles Lancien
- Colin Petitjean
- Antonín Procházka
bibliography:
- 'bibliography2.bib'
title: 'On Kalton’s interlaced graphs and nonlinear embeddings into dual Banach spaces'
---
Introduction
============
It was a long standing problem in the nonlinear theory of Banach spaces whether every metric space coarsely embeds into a reflexive Banach space (we refer the reader to Section \[SectionPrel\] for definitions). Although some partial positive results on this question were obtained for some classes of metric spaces – for instance, N. Brown and E. Guentner showed in [@BrownGuentner2005]\*[Theorem 1]{} that every metric space with bounded geometry can be coarsely embedded into a reflexive space, and later F. Baudier and the second named author showed that every locally finite metric space Lipschitz embeds into a reflexive space (see [@BaudierLancien2008]) –, a negative answer was only found in 2007. Indeed, N. Kalton exhibited in [@Kalton2007Quarterly] a property for metric spaces, that he named property $\mathcal Q$, which serves as an obstruction to coarse embeddability into reflexive spaces (see Section \[SectionPropQ\] for precise statements). Precisely, its absence is an obstruction to coarse embeddability into reflexive Banach spaces. As it is easily checked, $c_0$ fails property $\mathcal Q$ and so does not embed into any reflexive Banach space. This property is defined in terms of the behaviour of Lipschitz maps defined on a particular family of metric graphs: *the Kalton’s interlaced graphs* (see Section \[s:KaltonGraphs\]).
Furthermore, N. Kalton proved the stronger result that any space $X$ coarsely containing $c_0$ must have some of its iterated duals nonseparable (see [@Kalton2007Quarterly]\*[Theorem 3.6]{}). Let us point out that coarsely containing the James tree space $\mathcal{JT}$ would have the same impact on the iterated duals of $X$ [@LancienPetitjeanProchazka2018]\*[Theorem 6.2]{}. The result of Kalton raises the following very natural problem:
\[ProblemUniversaln\] Is there a universal $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ so that if $c_0$ coarsely embeds into a Banach space $X$, then its $n$-th iterated dual $X^{(n)}$ is nonseparable?
It is standard in the linear theory of Banach spaces, than $c_0$ does not isomorphically embed into any separable dual space. So it is also quite natural to wonder the following:
\[ProbEmbc0SepDual\] Does $c_0$ coarsely embed into a separable dual space?
It is clear that a negative answer to this last problem would represent the strongest possible positive solution for Problem \[ProblemUniversaln\] (namely $n=2$). However, this last problem is still open even in the category of *coarse-Lipschitz embeddings* (see Section \[s:coarse\] for a precise definition).
\[ProbEmbc0SepDual2\] Does $c_0$ coarsely Lipschitz embed into a separable dual space?
The current paper revolves around these questions. Therefore, inspired by N. Kalton, we not only study different notions of nonlinear embeddability of $c_0$ into $X$, but we also analyse to which extent the equi-embeddability of the interlaced graphs into a Banach space $X$ forces the dual of $X$ to be nonseparable.
We now describe the main findings of this paper. Throughout this paper, $[{\mathbb{N}}]^k$ denotes the set of all subsets of ${\mathbb{N}}$ with $k$ elements, $[{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}$ denotes the set of all finite subsets of ${\mathbb{N}}$, and $d_{\mathbb{K}}=d_{{\mathbb{K}},k}$ denotes Kalton’s interlaced metric on $[{\mathbb{N}}]^k$. There exists a metric on $[{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}$ which extends all metrics $d_{{\mathbb{K}},k}$ simultaneously, and we also denote this metric by $d_{\mathbb{K}}$ (see Subsection \[s:KaltonGraphs\] for precise definitions).
First of all, inspired by [@KaltonRandrianarivony2008], we define a modification of Kalton’s property ${\mathcal{Q}}$ that we call property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$ for $p\in (1,\infty]$. In a nutshell, while property $\mathcal{Q}$ consists in a strong concentration inequality for Lipschitz maps $f : ([{\mathbb{N}}]^{k},d_{{\mathbb{K}}}) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ defined on the interlaced graphs, property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$ is a concentration inequality proportional to $k^{1/p}$ (see Definition \[PropertyQp\]). In this way, property $\mathcal{Q}$ may be seen as property ${\mathcal{Q}}_\infty$. It is readily seen that property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$ is a coarse-Lipschitz invariant. The first main result relates this property with asymptotic uniform convexity (see Subsection \[SubsectionAUSAUC\] for definitions of asymptotic properties).
Let $p\in (1,+\infty]$ and let $q\in [1,\infty)$ be the conjugate exponent of $p$. If a dual space $X^*$ admits an equivalent $q$-AUC$^*$ dual norm then $X^*$ has property $\mathcal{Q}_p$.
We also prove that property ${\mathcal{Q}}_{q}$ is equivalent to reflexivity for a certain class of Banach spaces (namely those having the $p$-alternating Banach-Saks property, see Corollary \[cor:BanachSaks\]). These results can be used to rule out the coarse-Lipschitz embeddability between certain Banach spaces (see Corollaries \[cor:JamesQ\_p\] and \[optimalJamesQp\]).
Next, recall that a separable Banach space $X$ has separable dual if and only if its Szlenk index $\mathrm{Sz}(X)$ is countable (see Subsection \[SubsectionSzlenk\] for a definition of the Szlenk index). Hence, $\mathrm{Sz}(X)$ can be seen as a quantitative measurement of “how close to be nonseparable” is $X^*$. We obtain the following relation between containment of Kalton’s interlaced graphs and the Szlenk index.
Let $X$ be a Banach space. If the family of Kalton’s interlaced graphs $(([{\mathbb{N}}]^{k},d_{{\mathbb{K}}}))_{k\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ equi-coarse Lipschitz embeds into $X^*$, then ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X) > \omega$, where $\omega$ denotes the first infinite ordinal.
We also prove that if $X$ has summable Szlenk index then $X^*$ enjoys property $\mathcal{Q}$. Moreover, Theorem \[Szlenk\] is actually optimal and the containment of Kalton’s interlaced graphs cannot help us any further in the problem of whether $c_0$ coarsely embeds into a separable dual. Indeed, we show the following.
The Kalton graph $([{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}, {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}})$ Lipschitz embeds into a separable dual space $X^*$ with ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X) = \omega^2$.
Although we were not able to obtain a negative answer to Problem \[ProbEmbc0SepDual2\], we obtained a restriction for the existence of a coarse Lispchitz embedding from $c_0$ into $X^*$ based on the distortion of such embeddings. Before presenting our result, let us recall this definition. Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces and $f:X\to Y$ be a coarse Lipschitz embedding. We say that *$f$ has coarse Lipschitz distortion strictly less than $K$* if there exist $A,B,C,D>0$ with $AC<K$ so that $$\frac{1}{A}\|x-y\|-B\leq \|f(x)-f(y)\|\leq C\|x-y\|+D$$ for all $x,y\in X$. We obtain the following.
If $c_0$ coarse Lipschitz embeds into a dual space $X^*$ with coarse Lipschitz distortion strictly less than $\frac{3}{2}$, then $X$ contains an isomorphic copy of $\ell_1$.
On a different direction, we show that Problem \[ProbEmbc0SepDual\] has a negative answer with the extra assumption that the embedding is weak-to-weak$^*$ sequentially continuous. Moreover, just as in the isomorphic theory, this also holds for the space $L_1$.
Neither $c_0$ nor $L_1$ can be coarsely (resp. uniformly) embedded into a separable dual Banach space by a map that is weak-to-weak$^*$ sequentially continuous.
Since the “weak-to-weak$^*$ sequential continuity” hypothesis is nonstandard, a word on Theorem \[ThmCoarUniEmbWSCinDualSp\] is necessary. The first named author has begun the study of coarse and coarse Lispchitz embeddings between Banach spaces which also satisfy some continuity condition with respect to the weak topologies [@Braga2018IMRN; @Braga2019Jussieu]. For instance, in contrast with the famous result of I. Aharoni that $c_0$ contains a Lipschitz copy of every separable metric space [@Aharoni1974Israel]\*[Theorem in page 288]{}, any Banach space not containing $\ell_1$ which can be coarsely embedded into $c_0$ by a weakly sequentially continuous map must actually be isomorphic to a subspace of $c_0$ [@Braga2019Jussieu]\*[Theorem 1.6]{}. Also, although $\ell_p$ (resp. $L_p$) coarsely embeds into $\ell_q$ (resp. $L_q$) for all $p,q\in [1,2]$, the same is only true for weak sequentially continuous coarse embeddings $\ell_p\to \ell_q$ if $p\leq q$ [@Braga2018IMRN]\*[Corollary 1.7]{}. In particular, Theorem \[ThmCoarUniEmbWSCinDualSp\] shows that although the theory of coarse embeddability for members of the families $(\ell_p)_{p\in [1,2]}$ and $(L_p)_{p\in [1,2]}$ are the same, this is not the case for weakly sequentially continuous embeddings. Indeed, $L_1$ does not coarsely embed into $L_q$ by a weakly sequentially continuous map for any $q>1$, but $\ell_p$ does so into $\ell_q$ for all $q\geq p$.
This summarises our main findings. We now give the definitions and terminologies necessary for this paper.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[SectionPrel\], we give the definitions and terminologies necessary for this paper. In particular, Subsection \[SubsectionGenProp\] gives several basic properties of Lipschitz maps from $[{\mathbb{N}}]^k$ into dual Banach spaces which will be heavily used throughout the paper. In Section \[SectionPropQ\], we define a modification of Kalton’s property ${\mathcal{Q}}$, called property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$, with $p\in (1,\infty]$. In a nutshell, a Banach space $X$ has property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$ if Lipschitz maps $[{\mathbb{N}}]^k\to X$ satisfy a concentration inequality proportional to $k^{1/p}$. We then prove that every $q$-AUC$^*$ Banach dual space has proeprty ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$, where $1/p+1/q=1$ (see Theorem \[ThmAUCandPropQp\]).
In Section \[SectionConcentrationSzlenk\] and Section \[SectionOptimality\], we deal with embedding the family of Kalton’s interlaced graphs $(([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{\mathbb{K}}))_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ into dual spaces and prove Theorem \[Szlenk\] and Theorem \[prop:Igraphdual\], respectively. Section \[SectionOptimality\] deals with Lipschitz maps from certain uniformly discrete metric spaces into duals paces which have low distortion. We give examples of two metric spaces so that the existence of a Lispchitz embedding from those spaces into $X^*$ with distortion less than $3/2$ and $2$, respectively, imply that $X$ contains an isomorphic copy of $\ell_1$ (see Proposition \[Prop3/2\] and Proposition \[PropDist2\], respectively). At last, Section \[SectionWeakSeq\] deals with embeddings between Banach spaces which also preserve the weak topologies in some way.
Preliminaries {#SectionPrel}
=============
Embeddings between metric spaces {#s:coarse}
--------------------------------
Let $(M,d_M)$, $(N,d_N)$ be two metric spaces and $f \colon M \to N$ be a map. We define the *compression modulus $\rho_f$* by letting $$\rho_f (t) = \inf \{ d_N(f(x),f(y)) \, : \, d_M(x,y) \geq t \}$$ for each $t\geq 0$, and the *expansion modulus $\omega_f$* by letting $$\omega_f (t) = \sup \{ d_N(f(x),f(y)) \, : \, d_M(x,y) \leq t \}$$ for all $t\geq 0$. We adopt the convention $\sup(\emptyset)=0$ and $\inf(\emptyset)=\infty$. Note that for every $x,y \in M$, $$\rho_f (d_M(x,y)) \leq d_N(f(x),f(y)) \leq \omega_f (d_M(x,y)).$$ Moreover, the map $f:M\to N$ is called
(i) a *coarse embedding* if $\lim_{t \to \infty} \rho_f (t) = \infty$ and $\omega_f (t) < \infty$ for every $t \in [0,+\infty)$;
(ii) a *coarse Lipschitz embedding* if there exits $A,B,C,D>0$ such that $\rho_f(t) \geq At-C$ and $\omega_f (t) \leq Bt +D$ for every $t \in [0,+\infty)$;
(iii) a *Lipschitz embedding* if there exits $A,B>0$ such that $\rho_f(t) \geq At$ and $\omega_f (t) \leq Bt $ for every $t \in [0,+\infty)$.
Let $(M_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of metric spaces. We say that the family $(M_i)_{i \in I}$ *equi-coarsely embeds* (*equi-coarsely Lipschitz embeds* and *equi-Lipschitz embeds* respectively) into a metric space $N$ if there exist two maps $$\rho, \, \omega \colon [0,+\infty) \to [0,+\infty)$$ and a family of maps $(f_i \colon M_i \to N)_{i \in I}$ such that
1. $\rho(t) \leq \rho_{f_i}(t)$ for every $i \in I$ and $t \in [0,\infty) $,
2. $\omega_{f_i}(t) \leq \omega(t)$ for every $i \in I$ and $t \in [0,\infty) $, and
3. the maps $\rho$ and $\omega$ satisfy the properties (i) above (respectively (ii) for coarse Lipschitz embedding and (iii) for Lipschitz embedding).
In order to refine the scale of coarse embeddings between Banach spaces, we will also shortly use the following notion. Let $X$ and $Y$ be two Banach spaces. We define $\alpha_Y(X)$ as the supremum of all $\alpha \in [0,1)$ for which there exists a coarse embedding $f:X\to Y$ and $A,C$ in $(0,\infty)$ so that $\rho_f(t)\ge At^\alpha-C$ for all $t>0$. Note that in this setting, the map $f$ is automatically coarse Lipschitz (i.e., the expansion modulus $\omega_f$ is bounded above by an affine map). Then, $\alpha_Y(X)$ is called the [*compression exponent of $X$ in $Y$*]{}.
Kalton interlaced graphs {#s:KaltonGraphs}
------------------------
Given $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and an infinite ${\mathbb{M}}\subset {\mathbb{N}}$, let $[{\mathbb{M}}]^k$ denote the set of all strictly increasing $k$-tuples in ${\mathbb{M}}$. Given distinct $\bar n=(n_1,\ldots,n_k),\bar m=(m_1,\ldots,m_k)\in [{\mathbb{M}}]^k$, define a graph structure on $[{\mathbb{M}}]^k$ by declaring $\bar n$ and $\bar m$ adjacent if and only if either $$n_1\leq m_1\leq n_2\leq \ldots\leq n_k\leq m_k\ \text{ or }\ m_1\leq n_1\leq m_2\leq \ldots\leq m_k\leq n_k.$$ The metric $d_{\mathbb{K}}^k$ is defined as the shortest path metric in the graph $[{\mathbb{M}}]^k$. The family $([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{\mathbb{K}}^k)_k$ is the family of *Kalton’s interlaced graphs*.
Given $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, ${\mathbb{M}}_1\in[{\mathbb{N}}]^\omega$ and ${\mathbb{M}}_2\in [{\mathbb{M}}_1]^\omega$. The distance ${d_{{\mathbb{K}}}^k}$ is independent of the infinite subset of ${\mathbb{N}}$ chosen and $[{\mathbb{M}}_1]^k$ is naturally a metric subspace of $[{\mathbb{M}}_2]^k$. This is implied by the following proposition obtained in [@LancienPetitjeanProchazka2018], which moreover gives us an explicit formula to compute ${d_{{\mathbb{K}}}^k}$.
Letting $$d_{\mathbb{K}}({\overline n},{\overline m}) =\sup \{\big| |{\overline n}\cap S| - |{\overline m}\cap S| \big| \; : \; S \text{ segment of } {\mathbb{N}}\}$$ for all ${\overline n},{\overline m}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}$, we have that ${d_{{\mathbb{K}}}^k}=d_{\mathbb{K}}{\mathord{\upharpoonright}}_{[{\mathbb{N}}]^k}$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$.\[p:KaltonDistanceFormula\]
For $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and ${\mathbb{M}}$ an infinite subset of ${\mathbb{N}}$, we put $[{\mathbb{M}}]^{\le k}=\bigcup_{m\leq k}[{\mathbb{M}}]^m$, $[{\mathbb{M}}]^{< \omega}=\bigcup_{m\in{\mathbb{N}}}[{\mathbb{M}}]^m$ and $[{\mathbb{M}}]^\omega=\{ S\subset {\mathbb{M}}: S\text{ is infinite}\} $. Just as in the finite case, the elements of $[{\mathbb{M}}]^\omega$ are always written as strictly increasing infinite tuples, i.e., if $\bar n=(n_1,n_2,\ldots)\in [{\mathbb{M}}]^\omega$, we always have $n_j< n_{j+1}$ for all $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
The formula from the previous proposition also defines a graph metric on $[{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}$ whose restriction to $[{\mathbb{N}}]^k$ of course coincides with ${d_{{\mathbb{K}}}^k}$. From now on we simply denote the interlaced metric by ${d_{{\mathbb{K}}}}$ (thus omitting the reference to $k$).
\[RemarkEquiCoarseLip\] It is easy to see that the sequence $([{\mathbb{N}}]^{k}, {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}})_k$ equi-coarsely Lipschitz embeds into a Banach space $X$ if and only if it equi-Lipschitz embeds into $X$. Indeed, this follows from the fact that, for any $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, the map $f : ([{\mathbb{N}}]^k, {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}}) \to ([{\mathbb{N}}]^{2k}, \frac12{d_{{\mathbb{K}}}})$ defined by: $$\forall \, {\overline n}=(n_1,\ldots,n_k) \in [{\mathbb{N}}]^k, \quad f({\overline n}) = (2n_1,2n_1+1, \ldots , 2n_k, 2n_k +1)$$ is an isometry.
For ${\overline m}=(m_1,m_2,\ldots, m_r)\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}$ and ${\overline n}=(n_1,n_2,\ldots, n_s)\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}$, we write ${\overline m}\prec {\overline n}$, if $r<s\le k$ and $m_i=n_i$, for $i=1,2,\ldots, r$, and we write ${\overline m}\preceq {\overline n}$ if ${\overline m}\prec {\overline n}$ or ${\overline m}={\overline n}$. Thus ${\overline m}\preceq {\overline n}$ if ${\overline m}$ is an initial segment of ${\overline n}$. At last, for ${\overline n}=(n_1,\dots,n_k)$ and ${\overline m}=(m_1,\ldots,m_l)$ in $[{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}$, we write ${\overline n}<{\overline m}$ if $n_k<m_1$.
Szlenk index {#SubsectionSzlenk}
------------
Let $X$ be Banach space and $K$ be a weak$^*$ compact subset of $ X^*$. For each ${\varepsilon}>0$, define $$s_{\varepsilon}(K)=K\setminus\{V\subset X^*\colon V\text{ weak$^*$ open and }\mathrm{diam}(V\cap K)< {\varepsilon}\} .$$ Given an ordinal $\xi$, $s_{\varepsilon}^\xi(K)$ is defined inductively by letting $s_{\varepsilon}^0(K)=s_{\varepsilon}(K)$, $s_{\varepsilon}^{\xi+1}(K)=s_{\varepsilon}(s^\xi_{\varepsilon}(K))$ and $s_{\varepsilon}^{\xi}(K)=\cap_{\zeta<\xi}s^\zeta_{\varepsilon}(K)$ if $\xi$ is a limit ordinal. We then define $\mathrm{Sz}(X,{\varepsilon})$ as the least ordinal $\xi$ so that $s_{\varepsilon}^\xi(B_{X^*})=\emptyset$, if such ordinal exists, and $\mathrm{Sz}(X,{\varepsilon})=\infty$ otherwise. The *Szlenk index of $X$* is defined as $$\mathrm{Sz}(X)= \sup_{{\varepsilon}>0}\mathrm{Sz}(X,{\varepsilon}).$$
A Banach space $X$ is said to have *summable Szlenk index* if there exists $c>0$ so that for all ${\varepsilon}_1,\ldots,{\varepsilon}_n>0$ the inequality $$s_{{\varepsilon}_n}(s_{{\varepsilon}_{n-1}}(\ldots(s_{{\varepsilon}_2}(s_{{\varepsilon}_1}(B_{X^*}))\ldots ))\neq\emptyset$$ implies ${\varepsilon}_1+\ldots+{\varepsilon}_n\leq c$. It is known that any subspace of $c_0$ has summable Szlenk index, but the converse is not true (see details in Section \[SectionConcentrationSzlenk\]).
The Szlenk index of a Banach space is closely related to the behavior of the so-called weak$^*$-null or weak$^*$-continuous trees in its dual. So let us give the necessary definitions. For a Banach space $X$, we call *tree of height $k$* in $X$ any family $(x({\overline n}))_{{\overline n}\in[{\mathbb{N}}]^{\le k}}$, with $x({\overline n})\in X$. Then, if ${\mathbb{M}}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^\omega$, $(x({\overline n}))_{{\overline n}\in[{\mathbb{M}}]^{\le k}}$ will be called a *full subtree* of $(x({\overline n}))_{{\overline n}\in[{\mathbb{N}}]^{\le k}}$. For ${\mathbb{M}}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^\omega$, a tree $(x^*({\overline n}))_{{\overline n}\in[{\mathbb{M}}]^{\le k}}$ in $X^*$ is called *weak$^*$-null* if for any ${\overline n}=(n_1,\dots,n_j) \in [{\mathbb{M}}]^{\le k-1}\setminus \{\emptyset\}$, the sequence $(x^*(n_1,\ldots,n_{j},t))_{t>n_{j},t\in {\mathbb{M}}}$ is weak$^*$-null and the sequence $(x^*(t))_{t\in {\mathbb{M}}}$ is also weak$^*$-null. It is called *weak$^*$-continuous* if for any ${\overline n}=(n_1,\dots,n_j) \in [{\mathbb{M}}]^{\le k-1}\setminus \{\emptyset\}$, the sequence $(x^*(n_1,\ldots,n_{j},t))_{t>n_{j},t\in {\mathbb{M}}}$ is weak$^*$-converging to $x^*(n_1,\ldots,n_{j})$ and the sequence $(x^*(t))_{t\in {\mathbb{M}}}$ is also weak$^*$-converging to $x^*_\emptyset$. Then, the following proposition is a direct consequence of the definition of the Szlenk index.
\[Szlenk-trees\] Let $X$ be a Banach space and assume that $(x^*({\overline n}))_{{\overline n}\in[{\mathbb{M}}]^{\le k}}$ is a weak$^*$-continuous tree in $B_{X^*}$ such that there exist $i_1<\cdots<i_l$ in $\{0,\ldots,k-1\}$ and $K_{i_1},\ldots,K_{i_l}>0$ satisfying $$\forall s\in \{1,\ldots,l\}\ \forall {\overline n}\in [{\mathbb{M}}]^{i_s}\ \ \limsup_{t\to \infty, t\in {\mathbb{M}}}\|x^*({\overline n},t)-x^*({\overline n})\|\ge K_{i_s}.$$ Then $$x^*_\emptyset \in s_{K_{i_l}}\ldots s_{K_{i_1}}(B_{X^*}).$$
Asymptotic uniform smoothness and convexity {#SubsectionAUSAUC}
-------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a Banach space. We denote the set of all closed subspaces of $X$ with finite codimension by $\mathrm{CoFin}(X)$. We define the *modulus of asymptotic uniform smoothness of $X$* by letting $$\overline{\rho}_X(t)=\sup_{x\in \partial B_{X}}\inf_{E\in \mathrm{CoFin}(X)}\sup_{y\in \partial B_{E}}\|x+ty\|-1$$ for each $t\geq 0$. The space $X$ is called *asymptotic uniformly smooth* (abbreviated by *AUS*) if $\lim_{t\to 0^+}\overline{\rho}_X^*(t)/t=0$ for all $t>0$. Let $p\in (1,\infty]$. We say that $X$ is *$p$-asymptotic uniformly smooth* (abbreviated by *$p$-AUS*) if there exists $C>0$ so that $\overline{\rho}_X^*(t)\leq Ct^p$ for all $t\in [0,1]$.
Let $X$ be a dual space. We denote the set of all weak$^*$ closed subspaces of $X^*$ with finite codimension by $\mathrm{CoFin}^*(X)$. We define the *modulus of weak$^*$ asymptotic uniform convexity of $X$* by letting $$\overline{\delta}_{X^*}(t)=\inf_{x^*\in \partial B_{X^*}}\sup_{E\in \mathrm{CoFin}^*(X)}\inf_{y^*\in \partial B_{E}}\|x^*+ty^*\|-1$$ for each $t\geq 0$. The space $X^*$ is called *weak$^*$ asymptotic uniformly convex* (abbreviated by *AUC$^*$*) if $\overline{\delta}_X^*(t)>0$ for all $t>0$. Let $p\in [1,\infty)$. We say that $X$ is *weak$^*$ $p$-asymptotic uniformly convex* (abbreviated by *$p$-AUC$^*$*) if there exists $C>0$ so that $\overline{\delta}_X^*(t)\geq Ct^p$ for all $t\in [0,1]$.
We first recall the following classical duality result concerning these moduli (see [@DKLR]\*[Corollary 2.4]{}).
\[duality\] Let $X$ be a Banach space.
(i) Then $\|\ \|_X$ is AUS if and and only if $\|\ \|_{X^*}$ is AUC$^*$.
(ii) If $p\in (1,\infty]$ and $q\in [1,\infty)$ are conjugate exponents, then $\|\ \|_X$ is $p$-AUS if and and only if $\|\ \|_{X^*}$ is $q$-AUC$^*$.
The next proposition is elementary.
\[as-sequences\] For any weak$^*$-null sequence $(x^*_n)_{n=1}^\infty \subset X^*$ and for any $x^* \in X^*\setminus {\left\{0\right\}}$ we have $$\limsup_{n\to \infty} {\|x^*+x^*_n\|} \geq {\|x^*\|}\left(1+\overline{\delta}_X^*\left(\frac{\limsup_{n\to \infty} {\|x_n^*\|}}{{\|x^*\|}}\right)\right).$$
By iterating this estimate one can deduce the following property of weak$^*$-null trees in a $q$-AUC$^*$ dual space.
\[qAUC-trees\] Let $X$ be a Banach space with a dual $q$-AUC$^*$ norm, for some $q\in [1,\infty)$. Then, there exists $c>0$ such that for any weak$^*$-null tree $(x^*({\overline n}))_{{\overline n}\in[{\mathbb{N}}]^{\le k}}$ in $X^*$, there exists ${\mathbb{M}}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^\omega$ such that $$\forall {\overline n}\in [{\mathbb{M}}]^{k},\ \Big\|\sum_{{\overline m}\preceq {\overline n}}x^*({\overline m})\Big\|^q\ge c\sum_{{\overline m}\preceq {\overline n}}\|x^*({\overline m})\|^q.$$
This standard fact can be obtained for instance by [@LancienPetitjeanProchazka2018]\*[Lemma 3.6 and Lemma 3.7]{} but can also be found in [@Kalton2013AsymptoticStructure; @KnaustOdellSchlumprecht1999].
We conclude this section by recalling the fundamental renorming result for spaces with Szlenk index equal to $\omega$. The result is due to H. Knaust, E. Odell and Th. Schlumprecht [@KnaustOdellSchlumprecht1999] in the separable case and M. Raja [@Raja2013] in the non separable setting. The precise quantitative version can be found in [@GodefroyKaltonLancien2001].
\[SzlenkAUS\] Let $X$ be a Banach space such that $\mathrm{Sz}(X)=\omega$. Then there exists $p\in (1,\infty)$ such that $X$ admits an equivalent $p$-AUS norm.
General properties of Lipschitz maps into a dual space {#SubsectionGenProp}
------------------------------------------------------
We finish this preliminaries section by gathering a few decompositon properties of Lipschitz maps from $([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}})$ into a dual Banach space $X^*$ which will be heavily used throughout these notes. We start with an elementary separable reduction.
\[toutcon\] Let $X$ be a Banach space and $f \colon [{\mathbb{N}}]^k \to X^*$ be a map. Then, there exists a separable subspace $Y$ of $X$ such that the closed linear span of $f([{\mathbb{N}}]^k)$ isometrically embeds into $Y^*$.
Since $[{\mathbb{N}}]^k$ is countable, the closed linear span of $f([{\mathbb{N}}]^k)$ is a separable subspace of $X^*$; let us call it Z. Therefore, there exists a separable subspace $Y$ of $X$ such that $$\forall x^* \in Z,\ \ \|x^*\|_{X^*}=\sup_{y\in B_Y} |x^*(y)|.$$ This concludes our proof.
The next proposition is [@LancienPetitjeanProchazka2018]\*[Proposition 2.8]{}. As it is mentioned in [@LancienPetitjeanProchazka2018], its proof follows the ideas of the proof of [@BaudierLancienMotakisSchlumprecht2018]\*[Lemma 4.1]{}. As usual ${\mathrm{Lip}}(f)$ denotes the best Lipschitz constant of a Lipschitz map $f$ between metric spaces; note that if $f:([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}})\to Y$ with $Y$ being a normed vector space then ${\mathrm{Lip}}(f) = \omega_f(1)$.
\[w\*nulltree\] Let $X$ be a separable Banach space, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and $f:([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}})\to X^*$ a Lipschitz map. Then there exist ${\mathbb{M}}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^\omega$ and a weak$^*$-null tree $(x^*({\overline m}))_{{\overline m}\in[{\mathbb{M}}]^{\le k}}$ in $X^*$ with $\|x^*({\overline m})\| \leq {\mathrm{Lip}}(f)$ for all ${\overline m}\in [{\mathbb{M}}]^{\leq k}\setminus\{\emptyset\}$ and so that $$\forall {\overline n}\in [{\mathbb{M}}]^k,\ f({\overline n})=x^*_\emptyset + \sum_{i=1}^k x^*(n_1,\ldots,n_i)=\sum_{{\overline m}\preceq {\overline n}} x^*({\overline m}).$$
Next, we will extract infinite subsets of ${\mathbb{M}}$ in order to simplify further the structure of $f$ restricted to the corresponding graph. So assume, for the sequel of this subsection, that $X$ is a separable Banach space, $f:([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}})\to X^*$ is Lipschitz and $(x^*({\overline m}))_{{\overline m}\in[{\mathbb{M}}]^{\le k}}$ is as in the conclusion of Proposition \[w\*nulltree\].
\[Ramsey\] Fix ${\varepsilon}>0$. Then there exits ${\mathbb{M}}_1 \in [{\mathbb{M}}]^\omega$ such that for all $i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$ there exists $K_i\in [0,{\mathrm{Lip}}(f)]$ satisfying $$\forall (n_1,\ldots,n_i) \in [{\mathbb{M}}_1]^i,\ K_i\leq \|x^*(n_1,\dots,n_i)\|\le K_i+{\varepsilon}.$$
This a direct consequence of Ramsey’s theorem and the compactness of $[0,{\mathrm{Lip}}(f)]$.
Let us now enumerate ${\mathbb{M}}_1$: ${\mathbb{M}}_1=\{l_1<\cdots <l_n<\cdots\}$. Note that, using the weak$^*$-lower semi-continuity of $\|\cdot\|_{X^*}$, we may also assume, by passing to a further subtree that for every $i \in \{1, \ldots , k\}$: $$\forall (n_1,\ldots,n_i) \in [{\mathbb{N}}]^i,\quad \|x^*(l_{2n_1}, \ldots ,l_{2n_i}) - x^*(l_{2n_1+1}, \ldots ,l_{2n_i+1})\| \geq \frac{K_i}{2}.$$ Then we set $y^*_{\emptyset}=0$ and for every ${\overline n}= (n_1,\ldots,n_i) \in [{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq k}\setminus \{\emptyset\}$, we let $$y^*({\overline n}) = x^*(l_{2n_1}, \ldots ,l_{2n_i}) - x^*(l_{2n_1+1}, \ldots ,l_{2n_i+1}).$$ We have that for every ${\overline n}\in {[{\mathbb{N}}]^k}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\| \sum_{i=1}^{n} y^*(n_1,\ldots ,n_i) \Big\|&=
\|f(l_{2n_1}, \ldots ,l_{2n_k}) - f(l_{2n_1+1}, \ldots ,l_{2n_k+1})\|\\
&\leq {\mathrm{Lip}}(f).
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we can build a weak$^*$-continuous tree $(z^*({\overline n}))_{{\overline n}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq k}}$ in ${\mathrm{Lip}}(f)B_{X^*}$ as follows: $$\forall {\overline n}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq k},\ \ z^*({\overline n})=\sum_{{\overline m}\preceq {\overline n}} y^*({\overline n}).$$ To summarise, we have the following.
\[summarize\] Let $X$ be a separable Banach space, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $f:([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}})\to X^*$ a Lipschitz map. Then there exist ${\mathbb{M}}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^\omega$, a weak$^*$-null tree $(x^*({\overline m}))_{{\overline m}\in[{\mathbb{M}}]^{\le k}}$ in $X^*$ and constants $K_1,\ldots,K_k$ in $[0,{\mathrm{Lip}}(f)]$ such that
(i) For all ${\overline m}\in [{\mathbb{M}}]^{\leq k}\setminus\{\emptyset\}$, $\|x^*({\overline m})\| \leq {\mathrm{Lip}}(f)$.
(ii) For all ${\overline n}\in [{\mathbb{M}}]^k$, $f({\overline n})=\sum_{{\overline m}\preceq {\overline n}} x^*({\overline m}).$
(iii) For all $i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$ and all $(n_1,\ldots,n_i) \in [{\mathbb{M}}]^i$, $$K_i\leq \|x^*(n_1,\dots,n_i)\|\le K_i+{\varepsilon}.$$
(iv) Denote ${\mathbb{M}}=\{l_1<\cdots <l_n<\cdots\}$, $y^*_{\emptyset}=z^*_{\emptyset}=0$ and,\
for ${\overline n}= (n_1,\ldots,n_i) \in [{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq k}\setminus \{\emptyset\}$, $$y^*({\overline n}) = x^*(l_{2n_1}, \ldots ,l_{2n_i}) - x^*(l_{2n_1+1}, \ldots ,l_{2n_i+1})$$ and $$z^*({\overline n})=\sum_{{\overline m}\preceq {\overline n}} y^*({\overline n}).$$ Then $(z^*({\overline n}))_{{\overline n}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq k}}$ is a weak$^*$-continuous tree in ${\mathrm{Lip}}(f)B_{X^*}$ such that for every $i \in \{1, \ldots , k\}$ and every $(n_1,\ldots,n_i) \in [{\mathbb{N}}]^i$, $$\|y^*(n_1,\dots,n_i)\| \geq \frac{K_i}{2}.$$
Property Qp {#SectionPropQ}
===========
N. Kalton proved in [@Kalton2007Quarterly]\*[Theorem 3.6]{} that $c_0$ neither coarsely nor uniformly embeds into any Banach space $X$ so that all of its iterated duals are separable. In the same paper, N. Kalton introduced the notion of property ${\mathcal{Q}}$ for a Banach space and showed that any reflexive Banach space has property ${\mathcal{Q}}$. Recall, a Banach space $X$ has *property ${\mathcal{Q}}$* if there exists $C\ge 1$ such that for every $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and every Lipschitz map $f \colon ([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}}) \to X$, there exists an infinite subset ${\mathbb{M}}$ of ${\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\|f(\overline{n})-f(\overline{m})\| \leq C\omega_f(1)$$ for all $\overline{n},\overline{m} \in [{\mathbb{M}}]^k$.
In this section, we introduce property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$ for $p\in (1,\infty]$, which coincides with property ${\mathcal{Q}}$ when $p=\infty$. We then give a sufficient condition for a Banach space to have property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$ and use this in order to obtain some applications to the theory of nonlinear embeddings between Banach spaces.
\[PropertyQp\] Let $p \in (1,+\infty]$. We say that a Banach space $X$ has *property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$* if there exists $C\ge 1$ such that for every $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and every Lipschitz map $f \colon ([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}}) \to X$, there exists an infinite subset ${\mathbb{M}}$ of ${\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\|f(\overline{n})-f(\overline{m})\| \leq C\omega_f(1) k^{\frac{1}{p}}$$ for all $\overline{n},\overline{m} \in [{\mathbb{M}}]^k$ (if $p=\infty$, we use the convention that $1/\infty=0$).
Clearly, property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$ implies property ${\mathcal{Q}}_q$ for all $q<p$. Hence, since every Banach space which either coarsely or uniformly embeds into a reflexive space has property ${\mathcal{Q}}$ [@Kalton2007Quarterly]\*[Corollary 4.3]{}, the same holds for property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$ for any $p\in (1,\infty]$.
The next proposition illustrates some simple permanence properties of property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$. Since its proof is immediate, we choose to omit it.
\[PropositionPropQp\] Let $p\in (1,\infty]$ and let $X$ be a Banach space with property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$. The following hold.
(i) If $Y$ coarse Lipschitz embeds into $X$, then $Y$ has property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$.
(ii) The family $([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}})_k$ does not equi-coarsely Lipschitz embed into $X$.
(iii) If $p=\infty$, then $([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}})_k$ does not equi-coarsely embed into $X$.
The next theorem allows us to obtain new examples of spaces with property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$ and relates this property with asymptotic uniform convexity.
\[ThmAUCandPropQp\] Let $X$ be a Banach space and let $p\in (1,+\infty]$. Assume that $X$ admits an equivalent norm which is $p$-AUS (or equivalently whose dual norm is $q$-AUC$^*$, where $q$ is the conjugate exponent of $p$). Then $X^*$ has property $\mathcal{Q}_p$.
Assume, as it is allowed by Proposition \[toutcon\], that $X$ is separable and that its norm is $p$-AUS. Therefore, the norm of $X^*$ is $q$-AUC$^*$, where $q$ is the conjugate exponent of $p$. Let $f:([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}})\to X^*$ be a 1-Lipschitz map and fix ${\varepsilon}>0$. Consider ${\mathbb{M}}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^\omega$ and $(K_i)_{i=1}^k$ given by Proposition \[summarize\]. Since $(x^*({\overline m}))_{{\overline m}\in[{\mathbb{M}}]^{\le k}}$ is a weak$^*$-null tree in $X^*$, it follows from Proposition \[qAUC-trees\] that we can find $n_1 < m_1 < \ldots < n_k < m_k$ in ${\mathbb{M}}$ so that we have the following lower $\ell_q$ estimate: $$\begin{aligned}
\| f({\overline n}) - f({\overline m}) \|^q &=& \Big\| \sum_{i=1}^k x^*(n_1, \ldots , n_k) - x^*(m_1, \ldots , m_k) \Big\|^q \\
&\geq& c\left(\sum_{i=1}^k {\|x^*(n_1, \ldots , n_k) \|}^q + {\|x^*(m_1, \ldots , m_k) \|}^q \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $c>0$, only depends on the AUC$^*$ modulus of $X^*$. Formally, we have applied Proposition \[qAUC-trees\] to the weak$^*$-null tree $(u^*({\overline m}))_{{\overline m}\in[{\mathbb{M}}]^{\le 2k}}$ given by $$u^*(n_1,\ldots,n_{l})=\left\{\begin{array}{l l }
x^*(n_1,n_3,\ldots,n_{l}),& \text{ if }l\text{ is odd}\\
-x^*(n_2,n_4,\ldots, n_l),& \text{ if }l \text{ is even}.
\end{array}\right.$$ Since $f$ is 1-Lipschitz, we deduce that $$\sum_{i=1}^k K_i^q \leq \frac{1}{2c}.$$ Using Hölder’s inequality and item $(iii)$ in Proposition \[summarize\], this implies that for every ${\overline n}, {\overline m}\in [{\mathbb{M}}]^k$: $$\|f({\overline n}) - f({\overline m})\| \leq 2 \sum_{i=1}^{k} K_i +2k{\varepsilon}\leq \frac{2k^{1/p}}{(2c)^{1/q}} + 2k{\varepsilon}.$$ If ${\varepsilon}$ was initially chosen small enough, this gives us the desired estimate.
Let $p\in (1,\infty)$. We now recall the definition and some basic properties of the James space ${\mathcal{J}}_p$. We refer the reader to [@AlbiacKalton2006]\*[Section 3.4]{} and references therein for more details on the classical case $p=2$. The James space ${\mathcal{J}}_p$ is the real Banach space of all sequences $x=(x(n))_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ of real numbers with finite $p$-variation and verifying $\lim_{n \to \infty} x(n) =0$. The space ${\mathcal{J}}_p$ is endowed with the following norm $$\|x\|_{{\mathcal{J}}_p} = \sup \Big \{ \big (\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} |x(p_{i+1})-x(p_i)|^p \big )^{1/p} \; \colon \; 1 \leq p_1 < p_2 < \ldots < p_{k} \Big \}.$$ This is the historical example, constructed for $p=2$ by R.C. James, of a quasi-reflexive Banach space which is isomorphic to its bidual. In fact ${\mathcal{J}}_p^{**}$ can be seen as the space of all sequences $x=(x(n))_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ of real numbers with finite $p$-variation, which is ${\mathcal{J}}_p \oplus {\mathbb{R}}e$, where $e$ denotes the constant sequence equal to 1.
The standard unit vector basis $(e_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a monotone shrinking basis for ${\mathcal{J}}_p$. Hence, the sequence $(e_n^*)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ of the associated coordinate functionals is a basis of its dual ${\mathcal{J}}_p^*$.
N. Kalton also proved that the James space ${\mathcal{J}}_2$ and its dual ${\mathcal{J}}_2^*$ fail property ${\mathcal{Q}}$ (see [@Kalton2007Quarterly]\*[Proposition 4.7]{}). On the other hand, it is shown in [@LancienPetitjeanProchazka2018]\*[Corollary 5.3]{} that the family $([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,{d_{{\mathbb{K}}}^k})_k$ does not equi-coarsely embed in ${\mathcal{J}}_2$, nor in ${\mathcal{J}}_2^*$. It is known that, for $p\in (1,\infty)$, ${\mathcal{J}}_p$ admits an equivalent $p$-AUS norm and ${\mathcal{J}}_p^*$ admits an equivalent $p'$-AUS norm, where $p'$ is the conjugate exponent of $p$ (see [@Lancien1994; @Netillard2016]). Therefore we can state.
\[cor:JamesQ\_p\] Let $p\in (1,\infty)$ and $p'$ be its conjugate exponent. Then ${\mathcal{J}}_p$ has property $Q_{p'}$ and ${\mathcal{J}}_p^*$ has property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$.
A Banach space $X$ is said to have the *alternating Banach-Saks property* if every bounded sequence $(x_n)_n$ in $X$ has a subsequence $(x_{n_j})_j$ so that its sequence of alternating-sign Cesàro means $(\sum_{j=1}^k(-1)^jx_{n_j})_k$ converges to $0$. N. Kalton proved in [@Kalton2007Quarterly]\*[Theorem 4.5]{} that a Banach space with the alternating Banach-Saks property which also has property ${\mathcal{Q}}$ must be reflexive. We now present the $p$-version of this result. For that, we will need the following theorem, which is a version of [@Kalton2007Quarterly]\*[Theorem 4.4]{} to property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$.
\[clusterpoint\] Let $C\geq 1$, $p\in (1,\infty)$ and $X$ be a Banach space with property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$ with constant $C$. Then, for all ${\varepsilon}>0$ and all bounded sequences $(x_n)_n$ in $X$ with weak$^*$ cluster point $x^{**}\in X^{**}$, there exists an infinite subset ${\mathbb{M}}$ of ${\mathbb{N}}$ so that $$\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^{2k}(-1)^jx_{n_j}\Big\|\geq \frac{(1-{\varepsilon})}{C}d(x^{**},X)k^{1-1/p},$$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and all $n_1<\ldots<n_{2k}\in{\mathbb{M}}$.
If $x^{**}\in X$, the statement is trivial. Assume that $\theta= d(x^{**},X)>0$. Let $B=\sup_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\|x_n\|$ and pick $\lambda>1$ and $\alpha \in (0,1)$ so that $$C^{-1}\lambda^{-1}\theta- \alpha -2B\alpha\geq (1-{\varepsilon})C^{-1}\theta.$$
Going to a subsequence of $(x_n)$, we can assume that $$\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^ka_jx_{n_j}-\sum_{j=1}^kb_jx_{m_j}\Big\|\geq \lambda^{-1}\theta,$$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, all $\bar n<\bar m\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^k$ and all $a_1,\ldots,a_k,b_1,\ldots,b_k\geq 0$ with $\sum_{j=1}^ka_j=\sum_{j=1}^kb_j=1$.
A simple application of Ramsey theory and a standard diagonalization procedure gives an infinite subset ${\mathbb{M}}$ so that for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, there exists $b_k>0$ with the following property: for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and all $\alpha k^{1-1/p}\leq n_1<\ldots<n_{2k}$, we have that $$\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^{2k}(-1)^jx_{n_j}\Big\|\in[b_k-\alpha, b_k].$$
Fix $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let ${\mathbb{M}}_k=\{n\in{\mathbb{M}}\colon n\geq \alpha k^{1-1/p}\}$ and define $f: [{\mathbb{M}}_k]^k\to X$ by setting $$f(\bar n)=\sum_{j=1}^{k}x_{n_j},$$ for all $\bar n\in [{\mathbb{M}}_k]^k$. Then $\omega_f(1)\leq b_k$. Since $X$ has property ${\mathcal{Q}}_p$, there exist $\bar n<\bar m\in [{\mathbb{M}}_k]^k$ with $$\|f(\bar n)-f(\bar m)\|\leq C b_kk^{1/p}.$$ Therefore, this gives us that $\lambda^{-1}\theta k\leq Cb_k k^{1/p}$. In particular, $$b_k\geq C^{-1}\lambda^{-1}\theta k^{1-1/p}.$$
Fix $\bar n\in [{\mathbb{M}}_k]^{2k}$. Notice that $\lceil\alpha k^{1-1/p}\rceil\leq 2k$. Let $\bar m\in [{\mathbb{M}}_k]^{2k}$ be any element so that $m_j=n_{\lceil\alpha k^{1-1/p}\rceil+j-1}$, for all $j\in \{1,\ldots,2k-\lceil\alpha k^{1-1/p}\rceil+1\}$. Then, we can pick $\beta\in\{-1,1\}$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^{2k}(-1)^j x_{n_j}+\beta\sum_{j=1}^{2k}(-1)^jx_{m_j}\Big\|
&\leq & \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^{\lceil\alpha k^{1-1/p}\rceil-1}(-1)x_{n_j}\Big\|\\
& & +\Big\|\sum_{j=2k-\lceil\alpha k^{1-1/p}\rceil+2}^{2k}(-1)^jx_{m_j}\Big\|\\
&\leq & 2B\alpha k^{1-1/p} .\end{aligned}$$
We conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^{2k}(-1)^j x_{n_j}\Big\|&\geq &\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^{2k}(-1)^jx_{m_j}\Big\|- 2B\alpha k^{1-1/p}\\
&\geq& C^{-1}\lambda^{-1}\theta k^{1-1/p}- 2\alpha -2B\alpha k^{1-1/p}\\
&\geq &(1-{\varepsilon})C^{-1}\theta k^{1-1/p}.\end{aligned}$$
We now introduce a $p$-version of the alternating Banach-Saks property.
Let $p\in (1,\infty)$ and $C>0$. We say that $X$ has the *$p$-alternating Banach-Saks property with constant $C>0$* if for all sequences $(x_n)_n$ in $B_X$ and all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, there exists an infinite subset ${\mathbb{M}}\subset {\mathbb{N}}$ so that $$\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^k(-1)^jx_{n_j}\Big\|\leq C k^{1/p},$$ for all $n_1<\ldots<n_k\in{\mathbb{M}}$.
Notice that the $p$-alternating Banach-Saks property implies the alternating Banach-Saks property.
\[cor:BanachSaks\] Let $p,q\in (1,\infty)$ be so that $q>p/(p-1)$ (i.e., $q$ is larger than the conjugate exponent of $p$). Let $X$ be a Banach space with the $p$-alternating Banach-Saks property and with property ${\mathcal{Q}}_{q}$. Then $X$ is reflexive.
Since reflexivity is separably determined, assume that $X$ is separable. Let $C\geq 1$ be so that $X$ has both the $p$-alternating Banach-Saks property and property ${\mathcal{Q}}_{q}$ with constant $C$. Suppose $X$ is not reflexive and pick $x^{**}\in B_{X^{**}}\setminus X$, so that $d(x^{**},X)>0$. Let $(x_n)_n$ be a sequence in $B_X$ with $x^{**}$ as a weak$^*$ cluster point.
Fix $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Since $X$ has the $p$-alternating Banach-Saks property with constant $C$, by going to a subsequence, we can assume that $$\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^{2k}(-1)^jx_{n_j}\Big\|\leq 2^{1/p}C k^{1/p},$$ for all $n_1<\ldots<n_{2k}\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Since $X$ has property ${\mathcal{Q}}_{q}$ with constant $C$ the previous theorem tells us that, by going to a subsequence, we can assume that $$\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^{2k}(-1)^jx_{n_j}\Big\|\geq \frac{1}{2C}k^{1-1/q}d(x^{**},X),$$ for all $n_1<\ldots<n_{2k}\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
As $k$ was arbitrary, this shows that $$\frac{1}{2C}k^{1-1/q}d(x^{**},X)\leq 2^{1/p}C k^{1/p}$$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. As $1-1/q>1/p$, this gives us a contradiction.
As another application of Theorem \[clusterpoint\], we can show that Corollary \[cor:JamesQ\_p\] is optimal.
\[optimalJamesQp\] Let $p$ in $(1,\infty)$ and $p'$ be its conjugate exponent. Then, for any $r>p'$, ${\mathcal{J}}_p$ fails property ${\mathcal{Q}}_r$ and for any $s>p$, ${\mathcal{J}}_p^*$ fails property $Q_s$.
We follow the proof of Proposition 4.7 in [@Kalton2007Quarterly].
First, consider in ${\mathcal{J}}_p$ the sequence $(x_n)_n$ given by $x_n=\sum_{i=1}^ne_i$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. We have that $(x_n)_n$ converges weak$^*$ to $e\in {\mathcal{J}}_p^{**}\setminus {\mathcal{J}}_p$. However, it is easy to see that there exists $C>0$ such that for any $n_1<\cdots<n_{2k}$, we have: $$\Big\|\sum_{i=1}^{2k} (-1)^jx_{n_j}\Big\|_{{\mathcal{J}}_p}\le Ck^{1/p}.$$ For $r>p$, according to Theorem \[clusterpoint\], this prevents ${\mathcal{J}}_p$ to have property ${\mathcal{Q}}_r$.
We now consider in ${\mathcal{J}}_p^*$ the sequence $(e^*_n)_n$ which is weak$^*$-converging to an element $\lambda \in {\mathcal{J}}_p^{***}\setminus {\mathcal{J}}_p^*$, which is just the functional assigning its limit to any sequence of bounded $p$-variation. For $x\in {\mathcal{J}}_p$, we have $$\Big|\langle \sum_{i=1}^{2k} (-1)^je^*_{n_j},x\rangle\Big| \le \sum_{j=1}^k|x(n_{2j})-x(n_{2j-1})|\le k^{1/p'}\|x\|_{{\mathcal{J}}_p}.$$ It follows that $\|\sum_{i=1}^{2k} (-1)^je^*_{n_j}\|_{{\mathcal{J}}_p^*}\le k^{1/p'}$. We then deduce from Theorem \[clusterpoint\] that ${\mathcal{J}}_p^*$ fails property $Q_s$ for all $s>p$.
From Corollaries \[cor:JamesQ\_p\] and \[optimalJamesQp\] it is natural to get information on some compression exponents of ${\mathcal{J}}_q$ in ${\mathcal{J}}_p$ or ${\mathcal{J}}_q^*$ in ${\mathcal{J}}_p^*$. More precisely we have.
Let $p,q$ be in $(1,\infty)$ and $p',q'$ be their respective conjugate exponents.
(1) If $p<q$, then $\alpha_{{\mathcal{J}}_p}({\mathcal{J}}_q)\le \frac{q'}{p'}$.
(2) If $p>q$, then $\alpha_{{\mathcal{J}}_p^*}({\mathcal{J}}_q^*)\le \frac{q}{p}$.
We shall omit the easy details of the proof. However we need to make a few remarks. Estimates on the compression exponents for the “other half” of the values of $p$ and $q$ are already known (see [@Netillard2016] or [@LancienRaja2017]). They are based on concentration properties for Lipschitz maps defined on the Hamming graphs with values in quasi-reflexive $p$-AUS spaces. When one wants to use asymptotic convexity as an obstruction for coarse Lipschitz embeddings, it is customary to use the so-called approximate midpoint principle (see for instance [@KaltonRandrianarivony2008]). However this method, as far as we know, only allows to show the impossibility of a coarse Lipschitz embedding, but does not provide extra information on the compression modulus. In fact, this method was used by F. Netillard [@Netillard2016] to prove that for $p<q$, ${\mathcal{J}}_q$ does not coarse Lipschitz embed in ${\mathcal{J}}_p$ and that for $p>q$, ${\mathcal{J}}_q^*$ does not coarse Lipschitz embed in ${\mathcal{J}}_p^*$. Our last corollary is an improvement of these results. This shows that Theorem \[ThmAUCandPropQp\] can serve as an alternative to the approximate midpoint principle, but only in a non reflexive setting.
Concentration properties and Szlenk indices {#SectionConcentrationSzlenk}
===========================================
In this section, we obtain obstructions to the embeddability of Kalton’s graphs into some dual Banach spaces. We emphasize here that, although we will assume in each proof that our Banach space is separable, all the statements of this section are valid for general Banach spaces. This simply follows from Proposition \[toutcon\].
\[summable\] Let $X$ be a Banach space with summable Szlenk index. Then $X^*$ has property $\mathcal{Q}$.
Let $f:([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}})\to X^*$ a 1-Lipschitz map, fix ${\varepsilon}\in (0,\frac{1}{2C})$ and consider ${\mathbb{M}}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^\omega$ given by Proposition \[summarize\]. Then it clearly follows from item $(iv)$ and Proposition \[Szlenk-trees\] that $$0 \in s_{\frac{K_1}{2}}\ldots s_{\frac{K_k}{2}} (B_{X^*}).$$ Since the Szlenk index of $X$ is summable, we deduce that $\sum_{i=1}^k K_i \le 2C$, where $C$ is the “summable Szlenk index constant” of $X$. Then, we deduce from items $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ that $${\text{diam}\,}(f([{\mathbb{M}}]^k) \le 2\sum_{i=1}^k K_i+2k{\varepsilon}\le 4C+1.$$
Note that Theorem \[ThmAUCandPropQp\] insures that if $X$ admits an equivalent norm whose dual norm is $1$-AUC$^*$ then $X^*$ has property $\mathcal{Q}$. It is known [@GodefroyKaltonLancien2000] that a separable Banach space admits an equivalent norm whose dual norm is $1$-AUC$^*$ if and only if $X$ is isomorphic to a subspace of $c_0$. It is an easy exercise to check that any subspace of $c_0$ has a summable Szlenk index. However, there are Banach spaces with summable Szlenk index that do not linearly embed into $c_0$. Before describing a few of them, let us mention that a Banach space has a summable Szlenk index if and only if it is *asymptotic-$c_0$* (see [@Causey2018]\*[Theorem 4.1]{}). The original Tsirelson space, now denoted $T^*$, is an example of a reflexive asymptotic-$c_0$ space. Let us also mention that there exists a non reflexive quasi-reflexive Banach space which is asymptotic-$c_0$ (see Section 7 in [@BaudierLancienMotakisSchlumprecht2018] and references therein). In conclusion, Theorem \[summable\] applies to spaces that are not covered by N. Kalton’s work nor by our Theorem \[ThmAUCandPropQp\].
\[Szlenk\] Let $X$ be a Banach space. If the family of Kalton’s interlaced graphs $(([{\mathbb{N}}]^{<k},d_{{\mathbb{K}}}))_{k\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ equi-coarse Lipschitz embeds into $X^*$, then ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X) > \omega$.
By Remark \[RemarkEquiCoarseLip\], we can assume that $(([{\mathbb{N}}]^{<k},d_{{\mathbb{K}}}))_{k\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ equi-Lipschitz embeds into $X^*$. Hence, without loss of generality, we may assume that there exists $A\in (0,1]$ so that for any $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ there exists $f_k : ([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}}) \to X^*$ such that $$\forall {\overline n},{\overline m}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^k,\ \ Ad_{{\mathbb{K}}}({\overline n},{\overline m})\le \|f({\overline n})-f({\overline m})\| \le d_{{\mathbb{K}}}({\overline n},{\overline m}).$$ Let ${\overline n}< {\overline m}\in {[{\mathbb{N}}]^k}$ (that is such that $n_k<m_1$). By the triangle inequality we have $$\Big\| \sum_{\bar s \preceq{\overline n}} x^*(\bar s) \Big\| + \Big\| \sum_{\bar s \preceq {\overline m}} x^*(\bar s) \Big\| \geq \|f({\overline n})- f({\overline m})\| \geq Ak.$$ For a fixed $k$ and a given ${\varepsilon}>0\in (0,\frac{A}{4})$, we consider ${\mathbb{M}}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^\omega$ given by Proposition \[summarize\]. It then follows from item $(iii)$ that $2\sum_{i=1}^{k} K_i \geq Ak-2k{\varepsilon}$. Now, if we denote $I=\{1, \ldots,k\}$, $I_1 = \{ i\in I,\ K_i > \frac{A}{8}\} $ and $N = |I_1|$, we have that $$\frac{Ak}{2}-k{\varepsilon}\leq \sum_{i=1}^{k} K_i = \sum_{I \setminus I_1} K_i + \sum_{I_1} K_i \leq \frac{A}{8}k + N.$$ From our choice of ${\varepsilon}$, it follows that $N \geq \frac{Ak}{8}$. Finally, we deduce from item $(iv)$ in Proposition \[summarize\] and Proposition \[Szlenk-trees\] that $$0\in s_{\frac{A}{16}}^N(B_X^*)$$ and therefore that ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X,\frac{A}{16}) \geq \frac{Ak}{8}$. Since $k$ was arbitrary, this concludes our proof.
As it is recalled in the introduction, a Banach space $X$ admits an equivalent AUS norm if and only if ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X)\le \omega$ and in that case there exists $p\in (1,\infty)$ such that $X$ admits an equivalent $p$-AUS norm. Therefore Theorem \[ThmAUCandPropQp\] is a quantitative version of Theorem \[Szlenk\]. In fact Theorem \[Szlenk\] is a consequence of Theorem \[ThmAUCandPropQp\] and these deep renorming results. We have chosen to present here an independent, self contained elementary proof.
Let us now say that a Banach space $X$ has *proportional Szlenk index* if there exists $C>0$ such that for all ${\varepsilon}>0$, ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X,{\varepsilon}) \le \frac{{\varepsilon}}{C}$. it is clear that a Banach space with summable Szlenk index has proportional Szlenk index. To the best of our knowledge, whether the converse implication is true is an open problem. We do not know either if the dual of a Banach space with a proportional Szlenk index has property $\mathcal{Q}$, but we can prove the following weaker concentration estimate.
Let $X$ be a Banach space with proportional Szlenk index. Then, there exists $M>0$ such that for any $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and every Lipschitz map $f \colon ([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}}) \to X^*$, there exists an infinite subset ${\mathbb{M}}$ of ${\mathbb{N}}$ such that: $$\forall \, \overline{n},\overline{m} \in [{\mathbb{M}}]^k,\ \|f(\overline{n})-f(\overline{m})\| \leq M(1+\log k){\mathrm{Lip}}(f).$$
Assume that $X$ is a separable Banach space such that for all ${\varepsilon}>0$, ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X,{\varepsilon}) \le \frac{{\varepsilon}}{C}$, for some $C>0$. Let $f:([{\mathbb{N}}]^k,d_{{\mathbb{K}}}^k)\to X^*$ be a 1-Lipschitz map, fix ${\varepsilon}>0$ and consider ${\mathbb{M}}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^\omega$ given by Proposition \[summarize\]. Denote $\eta=\frac{C}{k}$ and, discarding as we may the first values of $k$, assume that $\eta\le \frac12$. Let now $N\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\frac12 < N <2^N\eta$. For $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we denote $I_r$ the set of all $i$’s in $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ such that $2^{r-1}\eta\le K_i\le 2^r\eta$ and $N_r$ the cardinality of $I_r$. Now it follows from item $(iv)$ in Proposition \[summarize\] that $N_r\le {\mathrm{Sz}}(X,2^{r-2}\eta)\le \frac{4C}{2^r\eta}$. Since $f$ is 1-Lipschitz, we have that for all $i$’s, $K_i\le 1$, which implies that $I_r$ is empty for $r>N+1$. We deduce that $$\sum_{i=1}^kK_i\le k\eta + \sum_{r=1}^{N+1}\sum_{i\in I_r}K_i\le k\eta + 4C(N+1)\le C+4C(N+1).$$ Finally, using item (iii) of Proposition \[summarize\], we get that $${\text{diam}\,}(f([{\mathbb{N}}]^k)\le C+4C(N+1) +2k{\varepsilon}\le 2C+4C(N+1),$$ if ${\varepsilon}$ was initially chosen small enough. In view of the definition of $\eta$ and $N$, this clearly yields the conclusion of our proposition.
Optimality {#SectionOptimality}
==========
In the previous section, we proved that if the family of Kalton’s interlaced graphs equi-Lipschitz embeds into a dual Banach space $X^*$, then the Szlenk index of $X$ is at least $\omega^2$. Indeed, it is known that, when it is well defined, the Szlenk index of a Banach space is always of the form $\omega^\alpha$ for some ordinal $\alpha$ (see for instance [@Lancien2006]). Here we show that this result is optimal. That is, we exhibit a separable dual Banach space with Szlenk index $\omega^2$ and which contains the interlaced graphs. To this aim we will use Lipschitz free spaces. Recall, if $(M,x_0)$ is a pointed metric space – a Banach space $X$ is always considered as a pointed metric space with $x_0=0$ –, then ${\mathrm{Lip}}_0(M)$ denotes the space of all Lipschitz maps $f:M\to {\mathbb{R}}$ so that $f(x_0)=0$. Endowed with the norm $\|f\|={\mathrm{Lip}}(f)$, ${\mathrm{Lip}}_0(M)$ is a Banach space. Given $x\in M$, the map $\delta_x:{\mathrm{Lip}}_0(M)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ given by $\delta_x(f)=f(x)$ for all $f\in {\mathrm{Lip}}_0(M)$ belongs to ${\mathrm{Lip}}_0(M)^*$, and we define the *Lipschitz free space of $M$* as $${\mathcal{F}}(M)=\overline{\mathrm{span}}\{\delta_x\in {\mathrm{Lip}}_0(X)^*\colon x\in X\}.$$ We refer to the monograph [@Weaver2018SecondEdBook] for the basic properties of ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$. Just note that the map $\delta:x\mapsto \delta_x$ is an isometry from $M$ into ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$.
In order to exhibit a separable dual Banach space with Szlenk index $\omega^2$, the strategy will be to consider the Lipschitz free space ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$ over a metric space $M$ which contains the interlaced graphs, and then prove that ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$ has the required properties. In particular, the next corollary from [@GarciaLirolaPetitjeanProchazka2018Medi] will be useful for proving that ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$ is isometrically a dual Banach space. In the following statement, $\mathcal C_\tau(M)$ stands for the set of maps from $M$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$ which are continuous with respect to some other topology $\tau$ on $M$.
\[prop:unifdiscduality\] Let $(M, d)$ be a uniformly discrete, bounded, separable metric space with a distinguished point $0 \in M$. Assume that there is a Hausdorff topology $\tau$ on $M$ such that:
- $(M, \tau)$ is compact
- $d$ is $\tau$-lower semicontinuous.
If $X=\mathrm{Lip}_0(M,d) \cap \mathcal C_\tau(M)$ is equipped with the Lipschitz norm ${\|\cdot\|}_L$, then $X$ is an isometric predual of ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$. Moreover the weak$^*$-topology induced by $X$ on ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$ coincides with $\tau$ on $\delta(M)$, that we identify with $M$.
For any given $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, a concrete bi-Lipschitz copy of the metric space $([{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq k}, {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}})$ into $c_0$ is given by the map $f_k:[{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq k}\to c_0$ defined by $$\forall {\overline{n}} = (n_1 , \ldots ,n_j) \in [{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq k}: \quad f_k({\overline n})=\sum_{i=1}^j s_{n_i},$$ where $(s_n)_{n=1}^\infty$ stands for the summing basis of $c_0$. Indeed, one can easily check that $$\label{eq:embc0} \tag{E}
\forall {\overline n},{\overline m}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq k} : \quad \frac12 {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}}({\overline n},{\overline m})\le \|f_k({\overline n})-f_k({\overline m})\| \le {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}}({\overline n},{\overline m})$$ (see for instance [@LancienPetitjeanProchazka2018]\*[Proposition 2.5]{}).
For each $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let $$\widetilde{M_k} = {\overline{f_k\big([{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq k}\big)}}^{w^*} \subset \ell_{\infty},$$ where the weak$^*$-topology is of course given by $\ell_1$. Letting $\mathds{1} \in \ell_{\infty}$ be the sequence constant and equal to 1, it is readily seen that $$\widetilde{M_k} = \Big\{\sum_{i=1}^j s_{n_i} + \ell \mathds{1} \: : \; j,\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}\cup \{0\}, \; j+\ell \leq k, \; n_1< \ldots < n_j \in {\mathbb{N}}\Big\}.$$ Hence, considering $\widetilde{M_k}$ endowed with the usual norm $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ of $\ell_\infty$, $\widetilde{M_k}$ is a countable and uniformly discrete metric space. Moreover, $\widetilde{M_k}$ is weak$^*$-compact since $f_k\big([{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq k}\big)$ is bounded, and the norm $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ is trivially weak$^*$-lower semicontinuous.
The next corollary is therefore a direct consequence of Proposition \[prop:unifdiscduality\].
\[cor:Mkdual\] For any $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the free space ${\mathcal{F}}\big(\widetilde{M_k} ,\|\cdot\|_\infty \big)$ is isometric to a separable dual Banach space $X_k^*$, where $X_k = \mathrm{Lip}_0(\widetilde{M_k},\|\cdot\|_\infty ) \cap \mathcal C_{w^*}(\widetilde{M_k})$.
\[prop:Igraphdual\] The Kalton graph $([{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}, {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}})$ Lipschitz embeds into a separable dual space $X^*$ with ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X) = \omega^2$.
Let $M = ([{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}, {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}})$, and consider the distinguished point $0=\emptyset\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}$. For each $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let $$M_{2^k} = B(0,2^k) =[{\mathbb{N}}]^{\leq 2^k}.$$ So $M=\bigcup_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}} M_{2^k}$. Then we use Kalton’s decomposition [@Kalton2004CollMath]\*[Proposition 4.3]{} to deduce that for every ${\varepsilon}>0$, ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$ $(1+{\varepsilon})$-linearly embeds into $$\Big(\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}} {\mathcal{F}}(M_{2^k},{d_{{\mathbb{K}}}}) \Big)_{\ell_1}.$$
For each $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we let $\widetilde{M_{2^k}} $ be the metric subspace of $\ell_\infty$ as it is defined above. For each $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, let $X_{2^k}$ be the predual of ${\mathcal{F}}(\widetilde{M_{2^k}} ,\|\cdot\|_\infty )$ given by Corollary \[cor:Mkdual\]. It follows from (\[eq:embc0\]) that each ${\mathcal{F}}(M_{2^k},{d_{{\mathbb{K}}}})$ 2-linearly embeds into $X^*_{2^k}$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Since $M$ isometrically embeds into ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$, we deduce that, for any ${\varepsilon}>0$, $M$ Lipschitz embeds with distorsion $2(1+{\varepsilon})$ into $$\Big(\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}} {\mathcal{F}}\big(\widetilde{M_{2^k}} ,\|\cdot\|_\infty \big) \Big)_{\ell_1} \equiv \Big(\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}} X_{2^k} \Big)_{c_0}^*.$$
Let $X := (\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}} X_{2^k} )_{c_0}$. It remains to prove that ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X)=\omega^2$. By Theorem \[Szlenk\] we know that ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X) > \omega$ and therefore ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X) \ge \omega^2$, so we only have to prove the reverse inequality. Notice that $X_{2^k} = \mathrm{Lip}_0(\widetilde{M_{2^k}},\|\cdot\|_\infty ) \cap \mathcal C_{w^*}(\widetilde{M_{2^k}})$ equipped with its Lipschitz norm is isomorphic to a subspace of the Banach space $(\mathcal C(\widetilde{M_{2^k}},w^*) , \|\cdot\|_{\infty})$ of continuous functions on the compact metrisable space $(\widetilde{M_{2^k}},w^*)$. Indeed, as $(\widetilde{M_{2^k}} , \|\cdot\|_{\infty})$ is bounded and uniformly discrete, we have that the sup-norm and the Lipschitz norm are equivalent on $X_{2^k}$. In fact $$X_{2^k}=\{f\in \mathcal C_{w^*}(\widetilde {M_{2^k}})\colon f(0)=0\},$$ which clearly is a hyperplane of $\mathcal C_{w^*}(\widetilde{M_{2^k}})$ and it follows, for instance from [@AlbiacKalton2006]\*[Proposition 4.4.1]{}, that $X_{2^k}$ is actually isomorphic to $(\mathcal C(\widetilde{M_{2^k}},w^*) , \|\cdot\|_{\infty})$.
Next, we claim that the Cantor–Bendixson index of $\widetilde{M_{2^k}}$ is equal to $2^k+1$. Indeed it is readily seen by induction that the first $2^k$ derived sets are $$\widetilde{M_{2^k}}^{(d)} = \Big\{\sum_{i=1}^j s_{n_i} + \ell \mathds{1} \: : \; j,\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}\cup \{0\},\; \ell \geq d, \; \; j+\ell \leq 2^k, \; n_1< \ldots < n_j \in {\mathbb{N}}\Big\},$$ whenever $d \in {\left\{1 , \ldots ,2^k\right\}}$ so the claim easily follows. This shows that $X_{2^k}$ is isomorphic to $c_0$ (e.g., [@AlbiacKalton2006]\*[Theorem 4.5.2]{}) and therefore that ${\mathrm{Sz}}(X_{2^k}) = \omega$. Finally it follows from [@Brooker2011] that $${\mathrm{Sz}}(X) = {\mathrm{Sz}}\Big(\Big(\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} X_{k} \Big)_{c_0}\Big) \leq \omega^2,$$ and we are done.
The proof of the last proposition shows that ${\mathcal{F}}([{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}, {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}})$ is isomorphic to a subspace of $X^* = \big(\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}} {\mathcal{F}}\big(\widetilde{M_{2^k}} ,\|\cdot\|_\infty \big) \big)_{\ell_1}$. In fact, the image is even complemented in $X^*$. Indeed, this follows from the following two facts (we adopt the same notation as in the proof of Theorem \[prop:Igraphdual\] above). First, in Kalton’s decomposition, the image of ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$ is complemented in $(\sum_k{\mathcal{F}}(M_{2^k}))_{\ell_1}$ (this is proved in detail in [@VectorValued]\*[Proposition 3.5]{}).
From Kalton’s decomposition (see [@Kalton2004CollMath]\*[Lemma 4.2]{}). there exist a constant $C>0$ and a sequence of operators $T_k\colon {\mathcal{F}}(M) \to {\mathcal{F}}(M_{k})$ satisfying $$\gamma = \sum_{k\in \mathbb Z} T_k \gamma \text{ unconditionally and } \sum_{k\in \mathbb Z} \|T_k \gamma \| \leq C\|\gamma\|$$ for every $\gamma\in \mathcal F(M)$. Let $S\colon {\mathcal{F}}(M) \to (\sum_k{\mathcal{F}}(M_{k}))_{\ell_1}$ be given by setting $S \gamma = (T_k \gamma)_k$ for all $\gamma\in {\mathcal{F}}(M)$, so $S$ is an isomorphism between ${\mathcal{F}}(M)$ and a closed subspace of $(\sum{\mathcal{F}}(M_{k}))_{\ell_1}$. Define $P:(\sum_k{\mathcal{F}}(M_{k}))_{\ell_1} \to S({\mathcal{F}}(M))$ by letting $P((\gamma_k)_k) = \nolinebreak (T_k \gamma)_k$ for all $\gamma = \sum_k \gamma_k\in (\sum{\mathcal{F}}(M_{k}))_{\ell_1}$. Then $P$ is a well defined projection. Indeed, if $(\gamma_k)_k \in (\sum{\mathcal{F}}(M_k))_{\ell_1}$ then $P(P((\gamma_k)_k)) = P((T_k\gamma)_k)$. Next if we define $\gamma := \sum_{k\in \mathbb N} T_k \gamma$, it follows that $P((T_k\gamma)_k) = (T_k \gamma)_k$, which proves that $P\circ P=P$ . Notice that $P$ is continuous since, given $(\gamma_k)\in (\sum{\mathcal{F}}(M_k))_{\ell_1}$, if we define $\gamma:=\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z} \gamma_k$, we have the following chain of inequalities $$\Vert P((\gamma_k))\Vert =\big \|\sum_{k\in \mathbb Z} T_k \gamma \big\| \leq \sum_{k\in \mathbb Z} \|T_k \gamma \| \leq C \|\gamma\| = C \big \|\sum_{k\in \mathbb Z} \gamma_k\big \| \leq C \sum_{k\in \mathbb Z} \|\gamma_k\|.$$
Second, we claim that $\big(\sum {\mathcal{F}}(M_{2^k}) \big)_{\ell_1}$ is isomorphic to a 1-complemented subspace of $\big(\sum {\mathcal{F}}(\widetilde{M_{2^k}}) \big)_{\ell_1}.$ It is enough to show that ${\mathcal{F}}(f_{2^k}(M_{2^k}))$ is 1-complemented in ${\mathcal{F}}(\widetilde{M_{2^k}})$ for every $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, but this simply follows from the fact that $$\begin{array}{cccc}
r_{2^k} : & \widetilde{M_{2^k}} & \to & f_{2^k}(M_{2^k}) \\
&\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^j s_{n_i} + \ell \mathds{1} & \mapsto &\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^j s_{n_i}
\end{array}$$ is a 1-Lipschitz retraction.
We proved that, for every ${\varepsilon}>0$, $([{\mathbb{N}}]^{<\omega}, {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}})$ Lipschitz embeds with distorsion $2(1+{\varepsilon})$ into a separable dual Banach space. It is actually possible to do it with distorsion $(1+{\varepsilon})$. To this end, instead of using the natural embeddings of the $([{\mathbb{N}}]^{k}, {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}})$’s into $c_0$ (which are of distorsion 2), one can build concrete metric spaces containing isometrically the interlaced graphs and which satisfy the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:unifdiscduality\]. The counterpart is that one has to define by hand the required topology $\tau$ and then check that the distance is $\tau$-lower semicontinous (which was automatic with the $w^*$-topology in $\ell_\infty$). The same optimal estimate on the Szlenk index is otained.
Here is one way to do it: Let $I_k = {\mathbb{N}}\cup \{\omega , \omega+1 , \ldots ,\omega + k -1\}$ where $\omega$ denotes the first infinite ordinal. We consider the usual order on ${\mathbb{N}}\cup \{\omega , \omega+1 , \ldots ,\omega+ k -1 \}$ and we still write elements ${\overline{n}} = (n_1 , \ldots , n_k) \in [I_k]^{k}$ with $n_1 < n_2 < \ldots < n_k $. We extend Kalton’s interlaced metric on $[I_k]^{k}$ in the obvious way: We declare ${\overline m}\neq{\overline n}\in [I_k]^{\leq k}$ adjacent if and only if $$n_1 \leq m_1 \leq n_2 \ldots \leq n_k \leq m_k\ \ \text{or}\ \ m_1 \leq n_1 \leq m_2 \ldots \leq m_k \leq n_k.$$ For any ${\overline m},{\overline n}\in [I_k]^{k}$, the distance ${d_{{\mathbb{K}}}}({\overline m},{\overline n})$ is then defined as the shortest path distance in the graph just described. We finally denote $\overline{M_k} = ([I_k]^{\leq k}, {d_{{\mathbb{K}}}})$. To conclude it remains to define the required topology $\tau$ on $[I_k]^{\leq k}$ which satisfies the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:unifdiscduality\]. Let us first define the set of accumulation points as being the set $A$ which is the union of: $$\big\{ (\omega , \ldots , \omega + \ell ) \; : \; \ell \in {\mathbb{N}}\cup{\left\{0\right\}} \big\}$$ and $$\big\{ (n_1 , \ldots , n_i , \omega , \ldots , \omega + j ) \; : \;
n_1 < \ldots < n_i \in {\mathbb{N}}, \; j \in {\mathbb{N}}\cup{\left\{0\right\}}, \; i+j \leq k-1 \big\} .$$ Now for every $x \in A$ and every $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we let $U_x(m)$ be the set such that : If ${\overline{n}} \in [I_k]^{\leq k}$ then ${\overline{n}} \in U_x(m)$ if and only if ${\overline{n}} = x$ or if the following conditions are satisfied
- $|{\overline{n}}| = |x|$
- $|{\overline{n}} \cap {\mathbb{N}}| > |x \cap {\mathbb{N}}|$
- $x \cap {\mathbb{N}}= {\left\{n_1 , \ldots , n_{|x \cap {\mathbb{N}}|}\right\}}$
- $n_{|x \cap {\mathbb{N}}|+1} \geq m$
Now we declare $\tau$ to be the topology generated by the basis: $$B = \bigcup_{x \in [I_k]^{\leq k} \setminus A} \{x\} \cup \bigcup_{x \in A, m \in {\mathbb{N}}} U_x(m).$$ The final details are left to the reader.
Low distortion embedding of the grid of c0 into duals {#SectionLowDistortion}
=====================================================
In this section, we produce two uniformly discrete countable metric spaces so that if they Lipschitz embeds into $X^*$ with Lipschitz distortion at most $3/2$ or $2$, respectively, then $X$ must contain an isomorphic copy of $\ell_1$. We use this in order to prove Theorem \[Thmc0SepDualDist\].
We define the *integer grid of $c_0$* as $$\mathrm{Grid}(c_0)=\{(x_n)_n\in c_0\colon \forall n\in{\mathbb{N}},\ x_n\in\mathbb Z\}.$$ So $\mathrm{Grid}(c_0)$ is a $(1,1)$-net of $c_0$ (meaning that it is $1$-separated and for every $x\in c_0$, $d(x,\mathrm{Grid}(c_0))\le 1$). We consider it as a metric space with the metric inherited from $c_0$.
\[Prop3/2\] Let $X$ be a Banach space and $f:\mathrm{Grid}(c_0)\cap 2{B_{c_0}} \to X^*$ be a Lipschitz embedding with distortion strictly smaller than $\frac32$. Then $X$ contains an isomorphic copy of $\ell_1$.
Replacing $f$ by $\lambda f$ for some appropriate $\lambda>0$, we may assume that there exists $D\in [1,\frac{3}{2})$ so that$${\|x-y\|}\leq {\|f(x)-f(y)\|}\leq D{\|x-y\|}$$ for all $x,y \in \mathrm{Grid}(c_0)\cap {B_{c_0}}$. Fix $\varepsilon>0$ such that $3-\varepsilon-2D>0$.
Let $(e_n)_n$ be the canonical basis of $c_0$. For every $k\in {\mathbb N}$, pick $x_k \in {S_{X}}$ such that $${\left\langlex_k,f(2e_k)-f(-e_k)\right\rangle}\geq 3-\varepsilon.$$ We claim that the sequence $(x_k)_k$ has no weakly Cauchy subsequence. Indeed, let ${\mathbb{M}}={\left\{m_1<m_2<\ldots\right\}}\in [{\mathbb{N}}]^\omega$ and set $A_1={\left\{m_{2k+1}:k\in {\mathbb N}\right\}}$ and $A_2={\mathbb N}\setminus A_1$. Then, for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and all $m>m_{2k+1}$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langlex_{m_{2k+1}},f({{\mathbf 1}_{{A_1\cap [1,m]}}})-f({{\mathbf 1}_{{A_2\cap [1,m]}}})\right\rangle}&=&
\Big\langle x_{m_{2k+1}},f(2e_{m_{2k+1}})-f(-e_{m_{2k+1}})\\ & &+f({{\mathbf 1}_{{A_1\cap [1,m]}}})-f(2e_{m_{2k+1}})\\
& &+ f(-e_{m_{2k+1}}))-f({{\mathbf 1}_{{A_2\cap [1,m]}}})\Big\rangle\\
&\geq& 3-\varepsilon-2D\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langlex_{m_{2k}},f({{\mathbf 1}_{{A_1\cap [1,m]}}})-f({{\mathbf 1}_{{A_2\cap [1,m]}}})\right\rangle}
&=&\Big\langle x_{m_{2k}},f(-e_{m_{2k}})-f(2e_{m_{2k}})\\ & &+f({{\mathbf 1}_{{A_1\cap [1,m]}}})-f(-e_{m_{2k}})\\
& &+ f(2e_{m_{2k}})-f({{\mathbf 1}_{{A_2\cap [1,m]}}})\Big\rangle\\
&\leq & -3+\varepsilon+2D.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\mathcal U$ be a nonprincipal ultrafilter on ${\mathbb{N}}$ and set $$x^*=w^*\text{-}\lim_{m,\mathcal U}\big(f({{\mathbf 1}_{{A_1\cap [1,m]}}})-f({{\mathbf 1}_{{A_2\cap [1,m]}}})\big).$$ The above inequalities imply that for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$: $$x^*(x_{m_{2k+1}})\geq 3-{\varepsilon}-2D\ \ \text{and}\ \ x^*(x_{m_{2k}})\leq -3+{\varepsilon}+2D.$$ This shows that $(x_{m_k})_k$ is not weakly Cauchy.\
By Rosenthal’s $\ell_1$ theorem [@Rosenthal1974PNAS], this implies that $(x_{k})_k$ has a subsequence equivalent to the standard unit basis of $\ell_1$. In particular, $X$ contains an isomorphic copy of $\ell_1$ and we are done.
\[Thmc0SepDualDist\] If $c_0$ coarse Lipschitz embeds into a dual space $X^*$ with coarse Lipschitz distortion strictly less than $\frac{3}{2}$, then $X$ contains an isomorphic copy of $\ell_1$.
Assume $f$ is such a coarse Lipschitz embedding from $c_0$ into $X^*$. Replacing $f$ with $x\mapsto f(nx)/n$ for a large enough $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the map $f$ restricted to ${\mathrm{Grid}(c_0)\cap 2B_{c_0}}$ becomes a Lipschitz embedding with distortion strictly smaller than $3/2$. Then, it follows from Proposition \[Prop3/2\] that $X$ contains an isomorphic copy of $\ell_1$.
We will now show that replacing $\mathrm{Grid}(c_0)\cap {B_{c_0}}$ by an appropriate graph $M$, the distortion in Proposition \[Prop3/2\] can be pushed up to 2. It is not clear if the metric space $M$ needed for this is isometric to a subset of $c_0$, but maybe such graphs are better suited for trying to go to larger distortions.
We define the graph $M$ as follows. Let $S=[{\mathbb N}]^{<\omega}$, $G={\mathbb{N}}$ and $H={\mathbb{N}}$. Moreover, we write $G=\{g_i\colon i\in{\mathbb{N}}\}$ and $H=\{h_i:i\in{\mathbb{N}}\}$, where $g_i=h_i=i$ for all $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$. We define $M$ as the disjoint union $$M={\left\{0\right\}}\sqcup S \sqcup G \sqcup H$$ and we define a graph structure on $M$ by putting an edge
- between $0$ and any element of $S$,
- between $A \in S$ and $g_k \in G$ iff $k \in A$, and
- between $A \in S$ and $h_k \in H$ iff $k \notin A$.
Then endow $M$ with the shortest path distance, which we denote by $d_M$. It should be clear that $d_M(A,B)=2$ if $A\neq B \in S$ and that $d_M(g_k,h_k)=4$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
\[PropDist2\] Let $f:(M,d_M) \to X^*$ be a Lipschitz embedding with distortion strictly less than 2. Then $X$ contains $\ell_1$.
Replacing $f$ by $\lambda f$ for some appropriate $\lambda>0$, we may assume that there exists $D\in [1,2)$ so that$${\|x-y\|}\leq {\|f(x)-f(y)\|}\leq D{\|x-y\|}$$ for all $x,y \in M$. Fix $\varepsilon>0$ such that $4-\varepsilon-2D>0$.
For every $k\in {\mathbb N}$, let $x_k \in {S_{X}}$ be such that ${\left\langlex_k,f(g_k)-f(h_k)\right\rangle}\geq 4-\varepsilon$. We claim that $(x_k)_k$ does not contain any weakly Cauchy subsequence. Rosenthal’s $\ell_1$ theorem thus implies that $X$ contains $\ell_1$. In order to prove our claim, let ${\mathbb{M}}={\left\{m_1<m_2<\ldots\right\}}$ be an infinite subset of ${\mathbb N}$. We set $A={\left\{m_{2k+1}:k\in {\mathbb N}\right\}}$ and $B={\mathbb N}\setminus A$. Let ${\mathcal{U}}$ be a nonprincipal ultrafilter on ${\mathbb{N}}$ and let $\xi_A=w^*\text{-}\lim_{m,{\mathcal{U}}} f(A\cap[1,m])$ and $\xi_B=w^*\text{-}\lim_{m,{\mathcal{U}}} f(B\cap[1,m])$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langlex_{m_{2k+1}},\xi_A-\xi_B\right\rangle}&=& \Big\langle x_{m_{2k+1}},f(g_{2k+1})-f(h_{2k+1})+\xi_A-f(g_{2k+1})\\& &+f(h_{2k+1})-\xi_B\Big\rangle\\ &\geq &4-\varepsilon -2D\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langlex_{m_{2k}},\xi_A-\xi_B\right\rangle}&=&\Big\langle x_{m_{2k}},f(h_{2k})-f(g_{2k})+\xi_A-f(h_{2k})\\
& &+f(g_{2k})-\xi_B\Big\rangle\\
&\leq &-4+\varepsilon +2D\end{aligned}$$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. So $(x_{m_k})_k$ is not weakly Cauchy, and we are done.
The results of this section have a certain importance also for the theory of Lipschitz free spaces. Indeed, it is a well known open problem of N. Kalton (see [@Kalton2012] the remarks after Problem 1) to determine whether the ${\mathcal F}(M)$ enjoys the metric approximation property (MAP) for every bounded and uniformly discrete metric space $M$. One silly approach would be to show that for such $M$, the free space ${\mathcal F}(M)$ is isometrically a dual. Then a stroke of Grothendieck theorem would imply that ${\mathcal F}(M)$ has the (MAP) since, being isomorphic to $\ell_1$, it has the (AP). This approach does not work since not all such ${\mathcal F}(M)$ are isometrically duals (other than the examples above see Example 5.8 in [@GarciaLirolaPetitjeanProchazka2018Medi]) and so A. Rueda Zoca proposed a refined strategy which consists in proving that for every bounded uniformly discrete metric space $(M,d)$ and for every $0<\alpha<1$ the free space ${\mathcal F}(M,d^\alpha)$ of the $\alpha$-snowlaked $M$ is isometrically a dual. Then again by Grothendieck the space ${\mathcal F}(M,d^\alpha)$ would enjoy the (MAP) and by approximation when $\alpha\to 1$, ${\mathcal F}(M)$ would enjoy the (MAP) too. Strike number two: this approach does not work either since for the metric space from Propostion \[PropDist2\] there is $0<\alpha_0<1$ such that for all $\alpha_0<\alpha<1$ the space ${\mathcal F}(M,d_M^\alpha)$ is not isometrically a dual. Indeed, it is enough to take $\alpha_0$ such that the Banach-Mazur distance of ${\mathcal F}(M)$ and ${\mathcal F}(M,d_M^\alpha)$ is strictly less than $2$. Now, since $(M,d)$ embeds isometrically into ${\mathcal F}(M)$, it will Lipschitz embed into ${\mathcal F}(M,d_M^\alpha)$ with distortion $<2$ whenever $\alpha_0<\alpha<1$. Proposition \[PropDist2\] then implies that ${\mathcal F}(M,d_M^\alpha)$ cannot be a dual as it is separable.
Weak sequentially continuous embeddings {#SectionWeakSeq}
=======================================
In this section, we show that Problem \[ProbEmbc0SepDual\] has a negative answer with the further assumption that the embedding is weak-to-weak$^*$ sequentially continuous.
Let $X$ be a Banach space, $K\subset X^*$ and $x\in K$. We say that *$x^*$ is a point of weak$^*$-to-norm continuity of $K$* if every sequence $(x_n)_n$ in $K$ which converges to $X$ in the weak$^*$ topology converges to $x$ in the norm topology.
The following is well known (see [@AlbiacKalton2006]\*[Lemma 6.3.4]{}).
\[LemmaWeakStarToNormContInCompDual\] Let $X$ be a Banach space with separable dual and $K$ be a weak$^*$ compact subset of $X^*$. Then $K$ has a point of weak$^* $-to-norm continuity.
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces, $E\subset X$, and $f:E\to Y^*$ be a map. We define the *weak$(f)$* topology on $E$ as the topology generated by the collection $$\{f^{-1}(U)\subset E\colon U\subset Y^*\text{ weak}^*\text{ open}\}.$$ Clearly, $f$ is weak$(f)$-to-weak$^*$ continuous.
The next result should be compared with [@AlbiacKalton2006]\*[Lemma 6.3.5]{}, which is a classical result in the isomorphic theory of Banach spaces.
\[LemmaPointOfweakFtoNormCont\] Suppose $X$ and $Y$ are Banach spaces and assume that $Y^*$ is separable. Let $f:B_X\to Y^*$ be a norm-to-weak$^*$ continuous bounded map so that its inverse exists and it is uniformly continuous. Then every closed bounded subset $F\subset B_X$ contains a point of weak$(f)$-to-norm continuity for $f{\mathord{\upharpoonright}}_F$.
Let $F\subset B_X$ be closed and bounded and let $W$ be the weak$^*$ closure of $f(F)$. Since $f(F)$ is bounded, $W$ is weak$^*$ compact. By Lemma \[LemmaWeakStarToNormContInCompDual\], there exists $y\in W$ which is a point of weak$^*$-to-norm continuity of $W$. Let $(y_n)_n$ be a sequence in $f(F)$ converging to $y$ in the weak$^*$ topology. By the choice of $y$, $(y_n)_n$ converges to $y$ in norm. For each $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, pick $x_n\in F$ so that $f(x_n)=y_n$. Since $(y_n)_n $ is a Cauchy sequence and $f^{-1}$ is uniformly continuous, it follows that $(x_n)_n$ is Cauchy. Let $x=\lim_nx_n$. As $F$ is closed, $x\in F$. Since $f$ is norm-to-weak$^*$ continuous, we have $$f(x)={w^*\text{-}\lim}_nf(x_n)={w^*\text{-}\lim}_ny_n=y.$$
Fix ${\varepsilon}>0$. Since $y$ is a point of weak$^*$-to-norm continuity of $K$, there exists a weak$^*$ open set $U$ containing $y$ so that $\|y-w\|<{\varepsilon}$ for all $w\in U\cap W$. Hence, $\|y-f(v)\|<{\varepsilon}$ for all $v\in f^{-1}(U)\cap F$. Since $f(x)=y$, this shows that $x$ is a point of weak$(F)$-to-norm continuity of $f{\mathord{\upharpoonright}}_F$.
\[LemmaCoarseSeqWeakUnfContInvMap\] Let $X$ be either $L_1$ or $c_0$, and $Y$ be a Banach space with separable dual. There is no weak-to-weak$^*$ sequentially continuous bounded map $B_X\to Y$ with a uniformly continuous inverse.
Suppose $f:B_X\to Y^*$ is a weak-to-weak$^*$ sequentially continuous bounded map with uniformly continuous inverse. In particular, $f$ is norm-to-weak$^*$ continuous and Lemma \[LemmaPointOfweakFtoNormCont\] gives a point $x\in F$ of weak$(f)$-to-norm continuity for $f{\mathord{\upharpoonright}}_F$, where $F=\{x\in X\colon \|x\|\in [1/2,1]\}$.
There exists a sequence $(x_n)_n$ in $B_X$ converging to $x$ in the weak topology.
If $X=c_0$, let $z_n=e_n$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, where $(e_n)_n$ is the standard basis of $c_0$. If $X=L_1$, let $(r_n)_n$ be the sequence of Rademarcher functions and let $z_n=r_nx$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. In both cases, it follows that $(z_n)_n$ is weakly null and $$\label{EqLimOne}
\lim_n\|x+z_n\|\in[\|x\|,1] \tag{$*$}.$$ Indeed, if $X=c_0$ this is trivial that $\lim_n\|x+z_n\|=1$ and if $X=L_1$ it follows from the classic properties of the Rademarcher functions that $\lim_n\|x+z_n\|=\|x\|$ (e.g., see [@AlbiacKalton2006]\*[Lemma 6.3.2]{}).
By , there exists a sequence $(\alpha_n)_n$ of positive reals converging to $1$ so that $\alpha_n(x+z_n)\in F$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. For each $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, set $x_n=\alpha_n(x+z_n)$. Since $\lim_n\alpha_n=1$ and ${\text{w-}\lim}_nz_n=0$, $(x_n)_n$ converges to $x$ in the weak topology.
Let $(x_n)_n$ be the sequence given by the claim above. Since $f$ is weak-to-weak$^*$ sequentially continuous and $x={\text{w-}\lim}_nx_n$, it follows that $(x_n)_n$ converges to $x$ in the weak$(f)$ topology. As $x$ is a point of weak$(f)$-to-norm continuity of $f{\mathord{\upharpoonright}}_F$ and $(x_n)_n$ is in $F$, we have that $\lim_n f(x_n)=f(x)$. As $f^{-1}$ is continuous, $\lim_nx_n=x$. Notice that for each $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, if $X=c_0$, $\|z_n\|=1$ and, if $X=L_1$, $\|z_n\|= \|x\|$. So, $$0=\lim_n\|x-x_n\|\geq \lim_n|\alpha_n|\cdot \|z_n\|-\lim_n\|\alpha_nx-x\|\geq \|x\|,$$ which is a contradiction.
\[ThmCoarUniEmbWSCinDualSp\] Neither $c_0$ nor $L_1$ can be coarsely (resp. uniformly) embedded into a separable dual Banach space by a map that is weak-to-weak$^*$ sequentially continuous.
Let $X$ be either $L_1$ and $c_0$, $Y$ be a Banach space with separable dual and assume that there exists a weak-to-weak$^*$ sequentially continuous map $f:X\to Y^*$ which is either a coarse or a uniform embedding.
There exists a coarse map $g:X\to \ell_2(Y^*)$ which is weak-to-weak$^*$ sequentially continuous and so that $g^{-1}$ exists and is uniformly continuous.
If $f:X\to Y^*$ is uniformly continuous there is nothing to be done. Indeed, we may simply take $g=i\circ f$, where $i:Y^*\to \ell_2(Y^*)$ is a linearly isometric inclusion.
Suppose $f$ is a coarse embedding. Without loss of generality, assume that $f(0)=0$. By [@Braga2017JFA]\*[Lemma 5.1]{}, there exist sequences of positive reals $(a_n)_n$ and $(b_n)_n$ so that the map $g:X\to \ell_2(Y^*)$ given by $g(x)=(f(a_nx)/b_n)_n$, for all $x\in X$, is a well defined coarse embedding with uniformly continuous inverse.[^1] Since $f$ is weak-to-weak$^*$ sequentially continuous, so is $g$.
Since $\ell_2(Y^*)$ is the dual of $\ell_2(Y)$ and separable, the result follows from Lemma \[LemmaCoarseSeqWeakUnfContInvMap\].
Notice that Theorem \[ThmCoarUniEmbWSCinDualSp\] implies that $L_1$ does not coarse (resp. uniform) embeds into either $\ell_p$ or $L_p$ by a weakly sequentially continuous map, for all $p>1$. In contrast with that, $\ell_q$ strongly embeds into $\ell_p$ by a weakly sequentially continuous map for all $q\leq p$ (see [@Braga2018IMRN]\*[Theorem 1.8]{}).
Part of this paper was done while the first named author was visiting the Université Bourgogne Franche Comté, Besançon, France in May of July of 2019. This author would like to thank the hospitality of their mathematics department. The first named author was partially supported by the Simons Foundation through York Science Fellowship. The three last named authors were supported by the French “Investissements d’Avenir” program, project ISITE-BFC (contract ANR-15-IDEX-03).
[^1]: Notice that the hypothesis of [@Braga2017JFA]\*[Lemma 5.1]{} also demand the map to be norm continuous. However, this is only used in order to guarantee that $g$ is norm continuous.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this article, we have interested the study of the existence and uniqueness of positive solutions of the first-order nonlinear Hilfer fractional differential equation $$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }y(t)=f(t,y(t)),\text{ }0<t\leq 1,$$with the integral boundary condition$\ $$$I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }y(0)=\lambda \int_{0}^{1}y(s)ds+d,$$where $0<\alpha \leq 1,$ $0\leq \beta \leq 1,$ $\lambda \geq 0,$ $d\in
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+},$ and $D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }$, $I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }$ are fractional operators in the Hilfer, Riemann-Liouville concepts, respectively. In this approach, we transform the given fractional differential equation into an equivalent integral equation. Then we establish sufficient conditions and employ the Schauder fixed point theorem and the method of upper and lower solutions to obtain the existence of a positive solution of a given problem. We also use the Banach contraction principle theorem to show the existence of a unique positive solution. The result of existence obtained by structure the upper and lower control functions of the nonlinear term is without any monotonous conditions. Finally, an example is presented to show the effectiveness of our main results.
author:
- |
Mohammed A. Malahi[^1]\
Department of Mathematics\
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University\
Aurangabad, (M.S),431001, India\
`[email protected]`\
Mohammed S. Abdo$^1$$^,$$^2$\
$^1$Department of Mathematics\
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University\
Aurangabad, (M.S),431001, India\
$^2$Hodeidah University\
Al-Hodeidah, 3114, Yemen\
`[email protected]`\
Satish K. Panchal\
Department of Mathematics\
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University\
Aurangabad, (M.S),431001, India\
`[email protected]`\
title: Positive solution of Hilfer fractional differential equations with integral boundary conditions
---
Introduction
============
Fractional differential equations have high significance due to their application in many fields such as applied and engineering sciences, etc. In the recent years, there has been a significant development in ordinary and partial differential equations involving fractional derivatives, see the monographs of Kilbas et al.[@KL1], Miller and Ross [@MR], Podlubny[@PO], Hilfer [@HI] and referance therein. In particular, many interesting results of the existence of positive solutions of nonlinear fractional differential equations have been discussed, see [AWP,AD,BAL,LLH,NC,WLK]{} and referance therein. The integral boundary conditions have various applications in applied fields such as, underground water flow, blood flow problems, thermo-elasticity, population dynamics, chemical engineer-ing, and so forth. Since only positive solutions are useful for many applications. For example, Abdo et al in [@AP1] discussed the existence and uniqueness of a positive solution for the nonlinear fractional differential equations with integral boundary condition of the form $$^{c}D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }y(t)=f(t,y(t)),\text{\qquad\ \ \qquad }t\in \left[ 0,1%
\right]$$$$y(0)=\lambda \int_{0}^{1}y(s)ds+d,\text{ \ \ }\lambda \geq 0,d\in
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+},$$
where $^{c}D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }$ is the Caputo fractional derivative of order $\alpha \in \left( 0,1\right) ,$ and$\ f\ $satisfied some appropriate assumptions.
Ardjouni and Djoudi in [@ARD], discussed the existence and uniqueness of a positive solution for the nonlinear fractional differential equations $$D_{1^{+}}^{\alpha }x(t)=f(t,x(t)),\text{ \ \ }t\in \left[ 1,e\right]$$$$x(1)=\lambda \int_{1}^{e}x(s)ds+d,\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }$$
where $D_{1^{+}}^{\alpha }$ is the Caputo-Hadamard fractional derivative of order $\alpha \in \left( 0,1\right) $ , $\lambda \geq 0,d\in
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+},$and $f$ satisfies some suitable hypotheses. On the other hand, Long et al. [@LLH] investigated some existence of positive solutions of period boundary value problems of fractional differential equations$$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }x(t)=\lambda x(t)+f(t,x(t))\text{, \ \ \ \qquad }%
t\in \left( 0,b\right] \\
\underset{t\longrightarrow 0^{+}}{\lim }t^{1-\gamma }x(t)=\underset{%
t\longrightarrow b^{-}}{\lim }t^{1-\gamma }x(0),\text{ }\gamma =\alpha
+\beta -\alpha \beta%
\end{array}%
\right.$$
where $\lambda <0,$ $D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }$ is the Hilfer fractional derivative of order $\alpha \in \left( 0,1\right) $ and type $\beta \in
\lbrack 0,1]$ and$\ f\ $satisfied some appropriate conditions.
Motivated by the above works, in this paper, we discuss the existence and uniqueness of positive solution of the following nonlinear Hilfer fractional differential equations with integral boundary condition in a weighted space of continuous functions
$$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }y(t)=f(t,y(t)),\text{ \ }0<t\leq 1 \label{equ 1}$$
$$I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }y(0)=\lambda \int_{0}^{1}y(s)ds+d,\text{ \ \ }
\label{equ 2}$$
where $D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }$ is the left-sided Hilfer fractional derivative of order $\alpha \in \left( 0,1\right) $ of type $\beta \in %
\left[ 0,1\right] $, $\lambda \geq 0,$ $d\in
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}$ and $f:\left[ 0,1\right] \times
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}\longrightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}$ is a continuous, $I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }$ is the Riemann–Liouville fractional integral of order $1-\gamma ,$ with $\gamma =\alpha +\beta
(1-\alpha )$. The Hilfer fractional derivative can be regarded as an interpolator between the Riemann–Liouville derivative $(\beta =0)$ and Caputo derivative $(\beta =1)$. Furthermore, there are studies addressed the given problem in cases of $\beta =0,1$, however, to the best of our knowledge, there are no results of the Hilfer problem (\[equ 1\])-([equ 2]{}), hence, our article aims to fill this gap.
This article is constructed as follows: In Section \[Sec2\], we recall some concepts which will be useful throughout this article. Section [Sec3]{} contains certain sufficient conditions to establish the existence criterions of positive solution by using the Schauder fixed point theorem and the technique of upper and lower solutions. Section \[Sec4\] demonstrates the uniqueness of the positive solution by using the Banach contraction principle. We are given an example in last section.
**Preliminaries\[Sec2\]**
=========================
Let $C_{1-\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] $ be a weighted space of all continuous function defined on the intervel $(0,1],$ such that$$C_{1-\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] =\left\{ y:(0,1]\rightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+};\text{ }t^{1-\gamma }y(t)\in C\left[ 0,1\right] \right\} ,0\leq \gamma
\leq 1$$with the norm $$\left\Vert y\right\Vert _{c_{1-\gamma \left[ 0,1\right] }}=\underset{t\in %
\left[ 0,1\right] }{\max }\left\vert t^{1-\gamma }y(t)\right\vert .$$It is clear that $C_{1-\gamma }\left( \left[ 0,1\right] ,%
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}\right) $ is Banach space with the above norm. Define the cone $\Omega
\subset C_{1-\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] $ by $$\Omega =\left\{ y(t)\in C_{1-\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] :y(t)\geq 0,\text{ }%
t\in (0,1]\right\} .$$
\[def 11\] The left-sided Riemann-Liouville fractional integral of order $\alpha >0$ with the lower limit zero for a function $y:%
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}\longrightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
$ is defined by$$(I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }y)(t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{%
\alpha -1}y(s)ds,$$provided the right-hand side is pointwise on $%
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}$, where $\Gamma $ is the gamma function.
\[def 22\] The left-sided Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative of order $0<\alpha <1$ with the lower limit zero of a function $y:%
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}\longrightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
$ is defined by$$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }y(t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\alpha )}\frac{d}{dt}%
\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}y(s)ds.$$provided the right-hand side is pointwise on $%
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}$.
\[def 22 copy(1)\] The left-sided Caputo fractional derivative of order $%
0<\alpha <1$ with the lower limit zero of a function $y:%
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}\longrightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
$ is given by$$^{c}D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }y(t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{%
\alpha -1}y^{\prime }(s)ds.$$provided the right-hand side is pointwise on $%
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}$.
\[def34\] [@FK] The left-sided Hilfer fractional derivative of order $0<\alpha <1$ and type $0\leq \beta \leq 1$ with the lower limit zero of a function $y:%
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}\longrightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
$ is given by $$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }y(t)=I_{0^{+}}^{\beta (1-\alpha
)}DI_{0^{+}}^{(1-\beta )(1-\alpha )}y(t),$$where $D=\frac{d}{dt}.$ One has, $$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }y(t)=I_{0^{+}}^{\beta (1-\alpha
)}D_{0^{+}}^{\gamma }y(t), \label{R1}$$where $$D_{0^{+}}^{\gamma }y(t)=DI_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }y(t),\text{ }\gamma =\alpha
+\beta (1-\alpha ).$$In the forthcoming analysis, we need the following spaces: $$C_{1-\gamma }^{\alpha ,\beta }[0,1]=\left\{ y\in C_{1-\gamma
}[0,1]:D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }y\in C_{1-\gamma }[0,1]\right\} ,$$and$$C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }[0,1]=\left\{ y\in C_{1-\gamma
}[0,1]:D_{0^{+}}^{\gamma }y\in C_{1-\gamma }[0,1]\right\} . \label{a1}$$Since $D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }y=I_{0^{+}}^{\beta (1-\alpha
)}D_{0^{+}}^{\gamma }y$, it is obvious that $C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma
}[0,1]\subset C_{1-\gamma }^{\alpha ,\beta }[0,1].$
\[def8.8\] [@AP1] Let $\alpha >0$, $\beta >0$ and $\gamma =\alpha
+\beta -\alpha \beta .$ If $y\in C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }[0,1]$, then$$I_{0^{+}}^{\gamma }D_{0^{+}}^{\gamma }y=I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }\text{ }%
D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }y,$$and $$D_{0^{+}}^{\gamma }I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }y=D_{0^{+}}^{\beta (1-\alpha )}y.$$
\[th2.3\] [@FK] Let $y\in C_{\gamma }[0,1],$ $0<\alpha <1$, and $%
0\leq \gamma <1$. Then$$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }y(t)=y(t),\text{ }\forall t\in (0,1].$$Moreover, if $y\in C_{\gamma }[0,1]$ and $I_{0^{+}}^{1-\beta (1-\alpha
)}y\in C_{\gamma }^{1}[0,1],$then $$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }y(t)=y(t),\text{ for a.e. }t\in
(0,1].$$
\[th2.3’\] [@FK] Let $\alpha ,\beta \geq 0$ and $y\in C_{\gamma
}^{1}[0,1],$ $0<\alpha <1$, and $0\leq \gamma <1$. Then $$I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }I_{0^{+}}^{\beta }y(t)=I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha +\beta }y(t).$$
\[th2.3a\] [@KL1] Let $\alpha \geq 0,$ and $\sigma >0$. Then
$$I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }t^{\sigma -1}=\frac{\Gamma (\sigma )}{\Gamma (\alpha
+\sigma )}t^{\alpha +\sigma -1},\text{ }t>0$$
and$$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }t^{\alpha -1}=0,\text{ \ \ }0<\alpha <1.$$
\[th2.4\] [@FK] Let $0<\alpha <1$, $0\leq \gamma \leq 1$, if $y\in
C_{\gamma }[0,1]$ and $I_{0^{+}}^{1-\alpha }y\in C_{\gamma }^{1}[0,1],$ we have $$I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }y(t)=y(t)-\frac{I_{0^{+}}^{1-\alpha
}y(0)}{\Gamma (\gamma )}t^{\alpha -1},\text{ \ for all }t\in (0,1].$$
\[th2.5\] [@FK] Let $y\in C_{\gamma }[0,1].$ If $0\leq \gamma
<\alpha <1$, then$$\underset{t\longrightarrow 0^{+}}{\lim }I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha
}y(t)=I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }\ y(0)=0.$$
**Existence of positive solution** \[Sec3\]
===========================================
In this section we will discuss the existence of positive solution for equation \[equ 1\] with condition \[equ 2\] . Befor starting in prove our result , we interduce the following conditions:
$(H_{1})$ $f:\left( 0,1\right] \times \left[ 0,\infty \right)
\longrightarrow \left[ 0,\infty \right) $ is continuous such that $f(\cdot
,y(\cdot ))\in C_{1-\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] $ for any $y\in C_{1-\gamma }%
\left[ 0,1\right] .$
$(H_{2})$ There exist a positive constant $L_{f}$ such that$$\left\vert f(t,x)-f(t,y)\right\vert \leq L_{f}\left\Vert x-y\right\Vert
_{C_{1-\gamma }}.$$
The following lemmas are fundamental to our results.
\[lem 3\] If $Q(t):=\int_{\tau }^{1}(s-\tau )^{\alpha -1}ds$ , for $\tau
\in \left[ 0,1\right] ,$ then $$\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}<e. \label{e3}$$
According to the definition of gamma function with some simple computation, we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )} &=&\frac{\int_{\tau }^{1}(s-\tau )^{\alpha
-1}ds}{\int_{0}^{\infty }s^{\alpha -1}e^{-s}ds} \\
&=&\frac{\int_{0}^{1-\tau }s^{\alpha -1}ds}{\int_{0}^{\infty }s^{\alpha
-1}e^{-s}ds}\leq \frac{e\int_{0}^{1-\tau }s^{\alpha -1}e^{-s}ds}{%
\int_{0}^{\infty }s^{\alpha -1}e^{-s}ds}<e.\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma 3.1\] Assume that $Q(\tau ):=\int_{\tau }^{1}(s-\tau )^{\alpha
-1}ds$ for $\tau \in \left[ 0,1\right] ,$ $\mu :=1-\frac{\lambda }{\Gamma
(\gamma +1)}\neq 0,$ $f\in C_{1-\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] $ and $y\in
C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] $ exist. A function $y$ is the solution of $$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }y(t)=f(t,y(t)),\text{ }0<t\leq 1, \label{equ 4}$$$$I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }y(0)=\lambda \int_{0}^{1}y(s)ds+d,\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }
\label{equ 5}$$
if and only if $y$ satisfies the fractional integral equation$$y(t)=\Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }%
\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}f(\tau ,y(\tau ))d\tau +\frac{1%
}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}f(s,y(s))ds, \label{equ 3.3}$$where $\Lambda :=\left( \frac{\lambda }{\mu \Gamma (\gamma )\Gamma (\gamma
+1)}+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\right) d.$
First, Assume that $y$ satisfies equation (\[equ 4\]), then by applying $%
I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }$ on both side of equation (\[equ 4\]) and use Lemma \[th2.4\], integral condition, we obtain$$y(t)=\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )}\int_{0}^{1}y(s)ds+\frac{d%
}{\Gamma (\gamma )}t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}%
\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}f(s,y(s))ds. \label{equ 6a}$$
Set $A:=\int_{0}^{1}y(s)ds.$ This the assumption with the equation (\[equ 6a\]) implies
$$A=\frac{d}{\mu \Gamma (\gamma +1)}+\frac{1}{\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{%
\Gamma (\alpha )}f(\tau ,y(\tau ))d\tau , \label{equ 123}$$
substituting (\[equ 123\]) into (\[equ 6a\]), we attain
$$y(t)=\Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }%
\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}f(\tau ,y(\tau ))d\tau +\frac{1%
}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}f(s,y(s))ds,$$
for all $t\in (0,1].$
Conversely, assume that $y$ satisfies (\[equ 3.3\]). Applying $%
I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }$ to both sides of (\[equ 3.3\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }y(t) &=&\Lambda \Gamma (\gamma )+\frac{\lambda }{\mu }%
\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}f(\tau ,y(\tau ))d\tau \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-\gamma +\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -\gamma
}f(s,y(s))ds.\end{aligned}$$Taking the limit at $t\longrightarrow 0^{+}$ of last equality and using Lemma \[th2.5\] with $1-\gamma <1-\gamma +\alpha ,$ we get$$I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }y(0)=\Lambda \Gamma (\gamma )+\frac{\lambda }{\mu }%
\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}f(\tau ,y(\tau ))d\tau .$$From the equation (\[equ 123\]) with help of the definition of $\Lambda ,$ it follows that the integral boundary conditions given in (\[equ 5\]) is satisfied, i.e. $I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }y(0)=\lambda \int_{0}^{1}y(s)ds+d.$
Next , applying $D_{0^{+}}^{\gamma }$ to both sides of (\[equ 3.3\]) and using lemmas \[def8.8\], \[th2.3a\], yields$$D_{0^{+}}^{\gamma }y(t)=D_{0^{+}}^{\beta (1-\alpha )}f(t,y(t)) \label{3.6}$$
since $y\in C_{1-\gamma }^{\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] $, by (\[a1\]), we have $D_{0^{+}}^{\gamma }y(t)\in C_{1-\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] ,$ therefore $D_{0^{+}}^{\beta (1-\alpha )}f=DI_{0^{+}}^{1-\beta (1-\alpha )}f\in
C_{1-\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] .$ For $f\in C_{1-\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] $, it is clear that $I_{0^{+}}^{1-\beta (1-\alpha )}f\in C_{1-\gamma }^{1}%
\left[ 0,1\right] .$ Consequently, $f$ and $I_{0^{+}}^{1-\beta (1-\alpha )}f$ satisfy Lemma \[th2.4\].
Now, we apply $I_{0^{+}}^{\beta (1-\alpha )}$to both side of equation ([3.6]{}), then Lemma \[th2.4\] and definition of Hilfer operator imply that$$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }y(t)=f(t,y(t))-\frac{I_{0^{+}}^{1-\beta (1-\alpha
)}f(0,y(0))}{\Gamma (\beta (1-\alpha ))}t^{\beta (1-\alpha )-1}$$
By virtue of Lemma \[th2.5\], one can obtain $$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }y(t)=f(t,y(t)).$$
This completes the proof.
\[lemma 3.2\] Assume that $(H_{1})$ and (\[e3\]) are satisfied$.$ Then the operator $\Delta :\Omega \longrightarrow \Omega $ defined by $$\Delta y(t)=\Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma
(\gamma )\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}f(\tau ,y(\tau
))d\tau +\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}f(s,y(s))ds
\label{equ 3.1}$$is compact.
We know that the operator $\Delta :\Omega \longrightarrow \Omega $ is continuous, from fact that $f(t,y(t))$ is continuous and nonnegative. Define bounded set $B_{r}\subset \Omega $ as follows $$B_{r}=\left\{ y\in \Omega :\left\Vert y\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}\leq
r\right\} .$$
The function $f:(0,1]\times B_{r}\longrightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}$ is bounded, then there exist $\xi >0$ such that $$0<f(t,y(t))\leq \xi .$$
In view of equation (\[equ 3.1\]), Lemma \[lem 3\], and for all $y\in
B_{r}$, $t\in (0,1],$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\vert \Delta y(t)t^{1-\gamma }\right\vert \\
&\leq &\Lambda +\frac{\lambda }{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{%
Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\left\vert f(\tau ,y(\tau ))\right\vert d\tau +%
\frac{t^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha
-1}\left\vert f(s,y(s))\right\vert ds \\
&\leq &\Lambda +\frac{\lambda e}{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\left\vert
f(\tau ,y(\tau ))\right\vert d\tau +\frac{t^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\alpha )}%
\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}\left\vert f(s,y(s))\right\vert ds \\
&\leq &\Lambda +\frac{\lambda e\xi }{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }+\frac{t^{1-\gamma
+\alpha }\xi }{\Gamma (\alpha +1)},\end{aligned}$$which implies $$\left\Vert \Delta y\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}\leq \left[ \Lambda +\frac{%
\lambda e\xi }{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }+\frac{\xi }{\Gamma (\alpha +1)}\right] .$$
Thus, $\Delta (B_{r})$ is uniformly bounded.
Next, we prove that $\Delta (B_{r})$ is equicontinuous. Let $y\in B_{r}.$ Then for any $\delta ,\eta \in (0,1]\ $with $0<\delta <\eta \leq 1,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\vert \eta ^{1-\gamma }\Delta y(\eta )-\delta ^{1-\gamma }\Delta
y(\delta )\right\vert \notag \\
&=&\left\vert \frac{\eta ^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{\eta
}(\eta -s)^{\alpha -1}f(s,y(s))ds-\frac{\delta ^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\alpha )%
}\int_{0}^{\delta }(\delta -s)^{\alpha -1}f(s,y(s))ds\right\vert \notag \\
&\leq &\frac{\eta ^{1-\gamma }-\delta ^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\alpha )}%
\int_{0}^{\delta }\left\vert (\eta -s)^{\alpha -1}-(\delta -s)^{\alpha
-1}\right\vert \left\vert f(s,y(s))\right\vert ds \notag \\
&&+\frac{\eta ^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{\delta }^{\eta }(\eta
-s)^{\alpha -1}\left\vert f(s,y(s))\right\vert ds \notag \\
&\leq &\frac{\left[ \eta ^{1-\gamma }-\delta ^{1-\gamma }\right] \xi }{%
\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{\delta }\left( (\delta -s)^{\alpha -1}-(\eta
-s)^{\alpha -1}\right) ds \notag \\
&&+\frac{\eta ^{1-\gamma }\xi }{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{\delta }^{\eta }(\eta
-s)^{\alpha -1}ds \notag \\
&\leq &\frac{\left[ \eta ^{1-\gamma }-\delta ^{1-\gamma }\right] \xi }{%
\Gamma (\alpha +1)}\left[ \left( \delta ^{\alpha }-\eta ^{\alpha }\right)
+(\eta -\delta )^{\alpha }\right] +\frac{\eta ^{1-\gamma }\xi }{\Gamma
(\alpha +1)}(\eta -\delta )^{\alpha }. \label{1}\end{aligned}$$
By the classical Mean value Theorem, we have$$\begin{aligned}
\delta ^{\alpha }-\eta ^{\alpha } &\leq &\alpha \left( \delta -\eta \right) .
\label{3}\end{aligned}$$
The last inequality with(\[1\]) implies $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\vert \eta ^{1-\gamma }\Delta y(\eta )-\delta ^{1-\gamma }\Delta
y(\delta )\right\vert \\
&\leq &\frac{\left[ \eta ^{1-\gamma }-\delta ^{1-\gamma }\right] \xi }{%
\Gamma (\alpha +1)}\left[ \alpha \left( \delta -\eta \right) +(\eta -\delta
)^{\alpha }\right] +\frac{\eta ^{1-\gamma }\xi }{\Gamma (\alpha +1)}(\eta
-\delta )^{\alpha } \\
&\leq &\frac{\left[ \eta ^{1-\gamma }-\delta ^{1-\gamma }\right] \xi }{%
\Gamma (\alpha +1)}(\eta -\delta )^{\alpha }+\frac{\eta ^{1-\gamma }\xi }{%
\Gamma (\alpha +1)}(\eta -\delta )^{\alpha } \\
&\leq &\frac{2\eta ^{1-\gamma }\xi }{\Gamma (\alpha +1)}(\eta -\delta
)^{\alpha }-\frac{\delta ^{1-\gamma }\xi }{\Gamma (\alpha +1)}(\eta -\delta
)^{\alpha }.\end{aligned}$$
As $\delta \longrightarrow \eta $ the right-hand side of the preceding inequality is independent of $y$ and tends to zero. So, $$\left\vert \eta ^{1-\gamma }\Delta y(\eta )-\delta ^{1-\gamma }\Delta
y(\delta )\right\vert \longrightarrow 0,\forall \left\vert \eta -\delta
\right\vert \longrightarrow 0.$$Hence, $\Delta (B_{r})$ is an equicontinuous set. By the Arzela-Ascoli theorem we get that $\Delta (B_{r})$ is relatively compact set, which prove that $\Delta :\Omega \longrightarrow \Omega $ is a compact operator.
\[def ulc\] For any$\ y\in \left[ a,b\right] \subset
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+},$ we define the upper-control function by $$G(t,x)=\sup_{a\leq y\leq x}f(t,y),$$and the lower-control function by $$g(t,x)=\inf_{x\leq y\leq b}f(t,y).$$It is obvious that these functions are nondecreasing on $\left[ a,b\right] ,$ i.e.$$g(t,x)\leq f(t,y)\leq G(t,x).$$
\[def uls\] Let $\overline{y},$ $\underline{y}\in \Omega $ such that $0<%
\underline{y}\leq \overline{y}$ $\leq 1$ satisfy the following Hilfer problem$$\begin{aligned}
D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }\overline{y}(t) &\geq &G(t,x),\text{ }0<t\leq 1 \\
I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\overline{y}(0) &\geq &\lambda \int_{0}^{1}\overline{y}%
(s)ds+d,\end{aligned}$$
or $$\overline{y}(t)\geq \Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{%
\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}G(\tau ,%
\overline{y}(\tau ))d\tau +\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{%
\alpha -1}G(s,\overline{y}(s))ds,$$
and$$\begin{aligned}
D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }\underline{y}(t) &\leq &g(t,x),\text{ }0<t\leq 1 \\
I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\underline{y}(0) &\leq &\lambda \int_{0}^{1}\underline{y%
}(s)ds+d,\end{aligned}$$
or$$\underline{y}(t)\leq \Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{%
\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}g(\tau ,%
\underline{y}(\tau ))d\tau +\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{%
\alpha -1}g(s,\underline{y}(s))ds.$$
Then the functions $\overline{y}(t)$ and $\underline{y}(t)$ are called the upper and lower solutions of the Hilfer problem (\[equ 1\])-(\[equ 2\]).
\[th 3.1\] Assume that $(H_{1})$ and (\[e3\]) hold. Then there exists at least one positive solution $y(t)\in C_{1-\gamma }[0,1]$ of the Hilfer problem (\[equ 1\]),(\[equ 2\]), such that$$\underline{y}(t)\leq y(t)\leq \overline{y}(t),\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }%
0<t\leq 1.$$where $\overline{y}(t)$ and $\underline{y}(t)$ are upper and lower solutions of Hilfer problem (\[equ 1\]),(\[equ 2\]) respectively.
In view of Lemma (\[lemma 3.1\]), the solution of problem (\[equ 1\])-(\[equ 2\])is given by$$y(t)=\Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }%
\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}f(\tau ,y(\tau ))d\tau +\frac{1%
}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}f(s,y(s))ds$$
Define $$\Upsilon =\left\{ x(t):x(t)\in \Omega ,\text{ }\underline{y}(t)\leq x(t)\leq
\overline{y}(t),\text{ }0<t\leq 1\right\}$$endowed with the norm $\left\Vert x\right\Vert =\underset{t\in (0,1]}{\max }%
\left\vert x(t)\right\vert ,$ then we have $\left\Vert x\right\Vert \leq b.$ Hence, $\Upsilon $ is a convex, bounded, and closed subset of the Banach space $C_{1-\gamma }[0,1]$. Now, to apply the Schauder fixed point theorem, we divide the proof into several steps as follows:
**Step(1)** We need to prove that** **$\Delta :\Omega
\longrightarrow \Omega $ is compact .
According to Lemma \[lemma 3.2\], the operator** **$\Delta :\Omega
\longrightarrow \Omega $ is compact. Since $\Upsilon \subset \Omega ,$ the operator $\Delta :\Upsilon \longrightarrow \Upsilon $ is compact too.
**Step(2)** We need to prove that** **$\Delta :\Upsilon
\longrightarrow \Upsilon $. Indeed, by the definitions \[def ulc\], [def uls]{}, then for any $x(t)\in \Upsilon $, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta x(t) &=&\Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma
(\gamma )\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}f(\tau ,x(\tau
))d\tau +\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}f(s,x(s))ds
\notag \\
&\leq &\Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma
)\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}G(\tau ,x(\tau ))d\tau +%
\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}G(s,x(s))ds \notag \\
&\leq &\Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma
)\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}G(\tau ,\overline{y}(\tau
))d\tau +\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}G(s,%
\overline{y}(s))ds \notag \\
&\leq &\overline{y}(t). \label{equ ali}\end{aligned}$$Also$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta x(t) &=&\Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma
(\gamma )\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}f(\tau ,y(\tau
))d\tau +\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}f(s,y(s))ds
\notag \\
&\geq &\Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma
)\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}g(\tau ,x(\tau ))d\tau +%
\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}g(s,x(s))ds \notag \\
&\geq &\Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma
)\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma (\alpha )}g(\tau ,\underline{y}%
(\tau ))d\tau +\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}g(s,%
\underline{y}(s))ds \notag \\
&\geq &\underline{y}(t). \label{equ osa}\end{aligned}$$
From (\[equ ali\]) and (\[equ osa\]), we conclude that $\underline{y}%
(t)\leq \Delta x(t)\leq \overline{y}(t)$, and hence $\Delta x(t)\in \Upsilon
$, for $0<t\leq 1$ i. e. $\Delta :\Upsilon \longrightarrow \Upsilon .$
In view of the above steps and Schauder fixed point theorem, the problem (\[equ 1\])-(\[equ 2\]) has at least one positive solution $y(t)\in
\Upsilon $ .
\[Cor\] Assume that $f:\left( 0,1\right] \times \left[ 0,\infty \right)
\longrightarrow \left[ 0,\infty \right) $ is continuous$,$ and there exist $%
A_{1},A_{2}>0$ such that$$A_{1}\leq f(t,y)\leq A_{2},\text{ \ }(t,y)\in (0,1]\times
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
^{+}. \label{6}$$Then the Hilfer problem (\[equ 1\])-(\[equ 2\]) has at least one positive solution $y(t)\in \Upsilon $. Moreover,$$\frac{d}{\Gamma (\gamma )}t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{A_{1}}{\Gamma (\alpha +1)}%
t^{\alpha }\leq y(t)\leq \frac{d}{\Gamma (\gamma )}t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{A_{2}%
}{\Gamma (\alpha +1)}t^{\alpha }. \label{8}$$
From the Definition \[def ulc\] and equation (\[6\]), we have$$A_{1}\leq g(t,y)\leq G(t,y)\leq A_{2}. \label{9}$$
Now, we consider the following Hilfer problem $$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }\overline{y}(t)=A_{2},\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\overline{y}(0)=d. \label{10}$$
Then, the Hilfer problem (\[10\]) has a positive solution$$\begin{aligned}
\overline{y}(t) &=&\frac{t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )}I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma
}\overline{y}(0)+I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }A_{2} \\
&=&\frac{d}{\Gamma (\gamma )}t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{A_{2}}{\Gamma (\alpha )}%
\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}ds \\
&=&\frac{d}{\Gamma (\gamma )}t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{A_{2}}{\Gamma (\alpha +1)}%
t^{\alpha }.\end{aligned}$$
By (\[9\]) we conclude that $$\overline{y}(t)=\frac{d}{\Gamma (\gamma )}t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{A_{2}}{\Gamma
(\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}ds\geq \frac{d}{\Gamma (\gamma )}%
t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}G(s,%
\overline{y})ds.$$
Thus, the function $\overline{y}(t)$ is the upper solution of the Hilfer problem (\[equ 1\])-(\[equ 2\]).
In the similar way, if the Hilfer problem of the type $$D_{0^{+}}^{\alpha ,\beta }\underline{y}(t)=A_{1},\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }%
I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\underline{y}(0)=d. \label{12}$$
Obviously, the Hilfer problem (\[12\]) has also a positive solution $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{y}(t) &=&\frac{t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )}%
I_{0^{+}}^{1-\gamma }\underline{y}(0)+I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha }A_{1} \\
&=&\frac{d}{\Gamma (\gamma )}t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{A_{1}}{\Gamma (\alpha )}%
\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}ds \\
&=&\frac{d}{\Gamma (\gamma )}t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{A_{1}}{\Gamma (\alpha +1)}%
t^{\alpha }.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, by (\[9\]) we infer that $$\underline{y}(t)=\frac{d}{\Gamma (\gamma )}t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{A_{1}}{\Gamma
(\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}ds\leq \frac{d}{\Gamma (\gamma )}%
t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}g(s,%
\overline{y})ds.$$Hence, the function $\underline{y}(t)$ is the lower solution of the Hilfer problem (\[equ 1\])-(\[equ 2\]).
By Theorem (\[th 3.1\]), we deduce that the problem (\[equ 1\])-([equ 2]{}) has at least one positive solution $y(t)\in \Omega $, which verifies the inequalitiy (\[8\]).
Uniqueness of positive solution\[Sec4\]
=======================================
In this portion, we will demonstrate the uniqueness of the positive solution using the Banach contraction principle.
\[th3.2\] Assume that $f:\left( 0,1\right] \times \left[ 0,\infty
\right) \longrightarrow \left[ 0,\infty \right) $ is continuous, the condition $(H_{2})$ and the inequality (\[e3\]) hold. If $$\left( \frac{\lambda e}{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha +1)}%
\right) L_{f}<1. \label{e4}$$
Then the problem (\[equ 1\])-(\[equ 2\]) has a unique positive solution in $\Upsilon .$
According to Theorem (\[th 3.1\]), the problem (\[equ 1\])-(\[equ 2\]) has at least one positive solution in $\Upsilon $ as the form$$\begin{aligned}
y(t) &\longrightarrow &\Delta y(t)=\Lambda t^{\gamma -1}+\frac{\lambda
t^{\gamma -1}}{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{\Gamma
(\alpha )}f(\tau ,y(\tau ))d\tau \\
&&+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}f(s,y(s))ds.\end{aligned}$$
Now, we need only to proof that the operator $\Delta $ is contraction mapping on $\Upsilon $. Indeed, for any $y_{1},y_{2}\in \Upsilon $ and $t\in
(0,1],$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\vert t^{1-\gamma }\Delta y_{1}(t)-t^{1-\gamma }\Delta
y_{2}(t)\right\vert \\
&\leq &\frac{\lambda }{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\frac{Q(\tau )}{%
\Gamma (\alpha )}\left\vert f(\tau ,y_{1}(\tau ))-f(\tau ,y_{2}(\tau
)\right\vert d\tau \\
&&+\frac{t^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha
-1}\left\vert f(s,y_{1}(s))-f(s,y_{2}(s))\right\vert ds \\
&\leq &\frac{\lambda e}{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }\int_{0}^{1}\left\vert f(\tau
,y_{1}(\tau ))-f(\tau ,y_{2}(\tau )\right\vert d\tau \\
&&+\frac{t^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma (\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha
-1}\left\vert f(s,y_{1}(s))-f(s,y_{2}(s))\right\vert ds \\
&\leq &\frac{\lambda e}{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }\int_{0}^{1}L_{f}\left\Vert
y_{1}-y_{2}\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}d\tau +\frac{t^{1-\gamma }}{\Gamma
(\alpha )}\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha -1}L_{f}\left\Vert
y_{1}-y_{2}\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}ds \\
&\leq &\frac{\lambda eL_{f}}{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }\left\Vert
y_{1}-y_{2}\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}+\frac{t^{1-\gamma +\alpha }}{\Gamma
(\alpha +1)}L_{f}\left\Vert y_{1}-y_{2}\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }} \\
&\leq &\left( \frac{\lambda e}{\Gamma (\gamma )\mu }+\frac{1}{\Gamma (\alpha
+1)}\right) L_{f}\left\Vert y_{1}-y_{2}\right\Vert _{C_{1-\gamma }}\end{aligned}$$
The hypothesis (\[e4\]) shows$\ $that $\Delta $ is a contraction mapping. The conclusion from the Banach contraction principle that the Hilfer problem (\[equ 1\])-(\[equ 2\]) has a unique positive solution $u(t)\in
C_{1-\gamma }\left[ 0,1\right] .$
**An example \[Sec5\]**
=======================
Will be provided in the revised submission.
[99]{} Abdo, M.S., Panchal, S.K., *Fractional integro-differential equations involving* $\psi $*-Hilfer fractional derivative*, Adv. Appl. Math. Mech.**11**, no. 2, (2019), 338-359.
Abdo, M. S., Wahash, H. A., & Panchal, S. K., *Positive solution of a fractional differential equation with integral boundary conditions*. J. Appl. Math. Computational Mechanics, **17**, no. 3, (2018), 5-15.
Ardjouni, A., Djoudi, A., *Existence and uniqueness of positive solutions for first-order nonlinear Liouville–Caputo fractional differential equations*. São Paulo J. Math. Sci., (2019) 1-10.
Ardjouni, A., *Positive solutions for nonlinear Hadamard fractional differential equations with integral boundary conditions*, AIMS Mathematics, **4**(2019), 1101-1113.
Boulares, H., Ardjouni, A., Laskri, Y., *Positive solutions for nonlinear fractional differential equations*, Positivity, **21**, no. 3, (2017), 1201-1212.
Furati, K. M. and Kassim, M. D., *Existence and uniqueness for a problem involving Hilfer fractional derivative*, Comput. Math. Applic., **64** (2012), 1616-1626.
Hilfer R., *Applications of Fractional Calculus in Physics*, World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River 27 Edge, NJ, Singapore, 2000.
Kilbas, A. A., Srivastava, H. M. and Trujillo, J. J., *Theory and Applications of Fractional Differential Equations*. North-Holland Mathematics Studies, Elsevier, Amsterdam,**207** (2006).
Long, T., Li, C., He, J., *Existence of positive solutions for period BVPs with Hilfer derivative*, J. Appl. Math. Computing, **60**, no. 1-2, (2019)., 223-236.
Miller, K.S., Ross, B., *An Introduction to the Fractional Calculus and Differential Equations*, New York: John Wiley (1993).
Nan, L. I., Changyou, W. A. N. G., *New existence results of positive solution for a class of nonlinear fractional differential equations*, Acta Mathematica Scientia, **33**, no. 3, (2013)., 847-854.
Podlubny, I., *Fractional differential equations: an introduction to fractional derivatives*, fractional differential equations, to methods of their solution and some of their applications, **198** (1998), Elsevier.
Wang, F., Liu, L., Kong, D., Wu, Y., *Existence and uniqueness of positive solutions for a class of nonlinear fractional differential equations with mixed-type boundary value conditions*, Nonlinear Anal. Modelling Control, **24**no. 1, (2019)., 73-94.
Zhang, S., *The existence of a positive solution for a nonlinear fractional differential equation*, J. Math. Anal. Applic., **252**, no. 2, (2000)., 804-812.
[^1]: M.A. Malahi, [email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In Voevodsky’s theory of motives, the Nisnevich topology on smooth schemes is used as an important building block. In this paper, we introduce a Grothendieck topology on proper modulus pairs, and prove its fundamental properties. Proper modulus pairs are introduced in [@modsheaf1], as an ingredient to develop a non-homotopy invariant generalization of Voevodsky’s theory.'
address: 'RIKEN iTHEMS, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan'
author:
- Hiroyasu Miyazaki
title: Nisnevich topology with modulus
---
[^1]
Introduction {#section:intro}
============
In the theory of motives à la Voevodsky in [@voetri], the Nisnevich topology on the category of smooth schemes over a field $k$ plays a fundamental role. A Nisnevich cover $f : Y \to X$ is an étale cover such that any point $x \in X$ admits a point $y \in Y$ with $f(y) = x$ and $k(y) = k(x)$. Therefore, the Nisnevich topology is finer than the Zariski topology and is coarser than the étale topology. Voevodsky defined the category of effective motives ${\operatorname{\mathbf{DM}}}^{{\operatorname{eff}}}$ as the derived category of the abelian category of Nisnevich sheaves with transfers ${\operatorname{\mathbf{NST}}}$, modulo ${\mathbf{A}}^1$-homotopy invariance: $$\label{eq:DM}
{\operatorname{\mathbf{DM}}}^{{\operatorname{eff}}}:= \frac{\mathbf{D}({\operatorname{\mathbf{NST}}})}{(\text{${\mathbf{A}}^1$-homotopy invariance})}.$$
We briefly recall the definition of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{NST}}}$. Let ${{\operatorname{\mathbf{PST}}}}$ be the category of additive abelian presheaves on the category of finite correspondences ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Cor}}}$. Then we have a natural functor ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}\to {\operatorname{\mathbf{Cor}}}$, where ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$ denotes the category of smooth schemes over $k$. Then ${\operatorname{\mathbf{NST}}}$ is defined to be the full subcategory of ${{\operatorname{\mathbf{PST}}}}$ which consists of $F \in {{\operatorname{\mathbf{PST}}}}$ such that the restriction $F|_{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}}$ is a Nisnevich sheaf on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$.
The definition of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{NST}}}$ is simple, but it is non-trivial that ${\operatorname{\mathbf{NST}}}$ is an abelian category. It follows from the existence of a left adjoint to the inclusion functor ${\operatorname{\mathbf{NST}}}\to {{\operatorname{\mathbf{PST}}}}$. A key ingredient of the proof of its existence is the following fact: for any Nisnevich cover $U \to X$, the following Čech complex is exact as a complex of Nisnevich sheaves: $$\cdots \xrightarrow{} {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(U \times_X U) \xrightarrow{} {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(U) \xrightarrow{} {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(X) \to 0,$$ where ${\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(-): {\operatorname{\mathbf{Cor}}}\to {{\operatorname{\mathbf{PST}}}}$ denotes the Yoneda embedding (see for example [@mvw Prop. 6.12]). Moreover, the Nisnevich topology is *subcanonical*, i.e., every representable presheaf in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$ is a sheaf.
The category of motives ${\operatorname{\mathbf{DM}}}^{{\operatorname{eff}}}$ has provided vast applications to the study of arithmetic geometry, but on the other hand, it has a fundamental constraint that it cannot capture [*non-${\mathbf{A}}^1$-homotopy invariant phenomena*]{}, e.g., wild ramification. Indeed, the arithmetic fundamental group $\pi_1 (X)$, which captures the information of ramifications, is not ${\mathbf{A}}^1$-homotopy invariant.
An attempt to develop a theory of motives which captures non-${\mathbf{A}}^1$-homotopy invariant phenomena started in [@motmod]. The strategy is to extend Voevodsky’s theory to *modulus pairs*. A *modulus pair* is a pair $M=({\overline}{M},M^\infty)$ of a scheme ${\overline}{M}$ and an effective Cartier divisor $M^\infty$ on ${\overline}{M}$ such that the *interior* $M^{{\operatorname{o}}}:= {\overline}{M} - M^\infty$ is smooth over $k$. We can define a reasonable notion of morphisms between modulus pairs, and we obtain a category of modulus pairs ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$. A modulus pair $M$ is *proper* if ${\overline}{M}$ is proper over $k$, and we denote by ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$ the full subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ consisting of proper modulus pairs (see Definition \[def:mod-pair\] for details).
These categories embed in categories of “modulus correspondences” ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MCor}}}$, just as ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$ embeds in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Cor}}}$ (see Definition \[def:MCor\]). In [@motmod], categories of “modulus sheaves with transfers” ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}NST}}}$ (relative to ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}$) and ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MNST}}}$ (relative to ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MCor}}}$) were introduced, in order to parallel the definition of . However, the proof that these categories are abelian was found to contain a gap. This gap was filled in [@modsheaf1] for ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}NST}}}$, by showing that its objects are indeed the sheaves with transfers for a suitable Grothendieck topology on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$.
In this paper, we construct a Grothendieck topology on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$ with nice properties. It will be shown in [@modsheaf2], using [@cofinality], that the objects of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MNST}}}$ are the sheaves (with transfers) for this topology and that this category is abelian. Thus the present paper contains the tools to finish filling the gap of [@motmod]. Moreover, we prove an important exactness result.
Our guide is the following characterization of the Nisnevich topology on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$: the Nisnevich topology is generated by coverings $U \sqcup V \to X$ associated with some commutative square $S$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$ of the form $$\xymatrix{
W \ar[r] \ar[d] & V \ar[d] \\
U \ar[r] & X
}$$ which satisfies the following properties:
1. $S$ is a cartesian square,
2. the horizontal morphisms are open immersions,
3. the vertical morphisms are étale, and
4. the morphism $(V-W)_{{{\operatorname{red}}}} \to (X-U)_{{{\operatorname{red}}}}$ is an isomorphism.
Such squares are called *elementary Nisnevich squares*. Elementary Nisnevich squares form a *cd-structure* on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$ in the sense of [@cdstructures]. A remarkable property of the Nisnevich cd-structure is the following fact: a presheaf of sets $F$ on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$ is a Nisnevich sheaf if and only if $F(\emptyset) = \{\ast\}$ and for any elementary Nisnevich square as above, the square $$\xymatrix{
F(M) \ar[r] \ar[d] & F(U) \ar[d] \\
F(V) \ar[r] & F(W)
}$$ is cartesian. This equivalence holds for any cd-structure which is complete and regular (see [@cdstructures Def. 2.3, 2.10, Cor. 2.17]).
In [@modsheaf1], a cd-structure on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ is introduced. It is denoted $P_{{\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}}$, and satisfies properties similar to elementary Nisnevich squares. Its definition will be recalled in §4.1. For short, we call the topology on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ associated with $P_{{\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}}$ the *${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-topology.*
Our main result is the following.
The category of proper modulus pairs ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$ admits a cd-structure $P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$ such that the following assertions hold: For short, we call the topology associated with $P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$ the ${\operatorname{MV}}$-topology.
1. (see Theorem \[thm:completeness\], \[thm:regularity\], \[thm:sheaf-criterion\]) The cd-structure $P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$ is complete and regular. In particular, a presheaf of sets $F$ on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$ is a sheaf for the ${\operatorname{MV}}$-topology if and only if $F(\emptyset ) = \{\ast \}$ and for any square $T \in P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$ of the form $$\xymatrix{
W \ar[r] \ar[d] & V \ar[d] \\
U \ar[r] & M,
}$$ the square $$\xymatrix{
F(M) \ar[r] \ar[d] & F(U) \ar[d] \\
F(V) \ar[r] & F(W)
}$$ is cartesian.
2. (see Theorem \[thm:subcanonicality\]) The ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-topology and the ${\operatorname{MV}}$-topology are subcanonical.
3. (see Corollary \[cor:Mayer-Vietoris\]) For any $M \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$, consider the preshaf ${\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(M)$ on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}$ represented by $M$, which is a sheaf for the ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-topology by [@modsheaf1 Th. 2 (2)]. Then, for any square as above, the following complex of sheaves for the ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-topology is exact: $$0 \to {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(W) \xrightarrow{} {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(U) \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(V)\xrightarrow{} {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(M) \to 0 .$$
The organization of the paper is as follows. In §\[section:basics\], we recall basic definitions and results on modulus pairs from [@modsheaf1]. In §\[section-OD\], we introduce “the off-diagonal functor”, which is a key ingredient to define the cd-structure on the category of proper modulus pairs. In §\[section:cd-structure\], we define the cd-structure on the category of proper modulus pairs, and prove that it satisfies completeness and regularity. Finally, in §\[section:Mayer-Vietoris\], we prove the exactness of the Mayer-Vietroris sequences associated with the distinguished squares with respect to the cd-structure.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The author thanks Shuji Saito for many helpful discussions on the first draft of the paper. It enabled him to find a simple proof of Theorem \[thm:exactness\]. The author also thanks Bruno Kahn for encouraging him to find a conceptual formulation of the cd-structure, which led to a considerable improvement of the paper.
Notation and convention {#notation-and-convention .unnumbered}
-----------------------
Throughout the paper, we fix a base field $k$. Let ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$ be the category of separated smooth schemes of finite type over $k$, and let ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sch}}}$ be the category of separated schemes of finite type over $k$. For any scheme $X$ and for any closed subscheme $F \subset X$, we denote by ${{\mathbf{Bl}}}_F (X)$ the blow-up of $X$ along $F$.
Basics on modulus pairs {#section:basics}
=======================
In this section, we introduce basic notions which we use throughout the paper.
Category of modulus pairs
-------------------------
We recall basic definitions on modulus pairs, which is introduced in [@modsheaf1]. We will also introduce new notations. Especially, *the canonical model of fiber product* is important (see Definition \[def:canonical-model\]). Though our main interest in this paper is on *proper* modulus pairs, we introduce the general definition of modulus pairs for later use.
\[def:mod-pair\]
1. \[def:mod-pair1\] A *modulus pair* is a pair $M = ({\overline}{M},M^\infty)$ consists of a scheme ${\overline}{M} \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{Sch}}}$ and an effective Cartier divisor $M^\infty$ on ${\overline}{M}$ such that
- *the ambient space* ${\overline}{M} \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{Sch}}}$, and
- *the modulus divisor* $M^\infty$, i.e., an effective Cartier divisor on ${\overline}{M}$
such that
- *the interior* $M^{{\operatorname{o}}}:= {\overline}{M} \setminus |M^\infty |$ belongs to ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$, where $|M^\infty|$ denotes the support of $M^\infty$.
Note that $M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is a dense open subset of ${\overline}{M}$. Moreover, we can prove that ${\overline}{M}$ must be a reduced scheme by using the smoothness of $M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ and the assumption that $M^\infty$ is an effective Cartier divisor.
2. \[def:mod-pair2\] A modulus pair $M$ is called *proper* if the ambient space ${\overline}{M}$ is proper over $k$.
3. \[def:mod-pair3\] An *admissible morphism* $f : M \to N$ of modulus pairs is a morphism between the interiors $f^{{\operatorname{o}}}: M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to N^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$ which satisfies *the properness condition*:
- Let $\Gamma$ be the graph of the rational map ${\overline}{f} : {\overline}{M} \dashrightarrow {\overline}{N}$ which is induced by $f^{{\operatorname{o}}}$. Then the natural morphism $\Gamma \to {\overline}{M}$ is proper.
and *the modulus condition*:
- Let $\Gamma^N$ be the normalization of $\Gamma$. Then we have the following inequality $$M^\infty |_{\Gamma^N} \geq N^\infty |_{\Gamma^N},$$ of effective Cartier divisors on $\Gamma^N$, where $M^\infty |_{\Gamma^N}$ and $N^\infty |_{\Gamma^N}$ denote the pullbacks $M^\infty$ and $N^\infty$ along the natural morphisms $\Gamma^N \to {\overline}{M}$ and $\Gamma^N \to {\overline}{N}$. Note that the pullbacks are defined since the rational map ${\overline}{f}$ restricts to a morphism $f^{{\operatorname{o}}}$, and since $M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is dense in ${\overline}{M}$.
If $f : M \to N$ and $g : N \to L$ are admissible morphisms, then the composite $g^{{\operatorname{o}}}\circ f^{{\operatorname{o}}}: M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to L^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ defines an admissible morphism $M \to N$ (cf. [@modsheaf1]). If $N$ is proper, then the properness condition above is always satisfied.
4. \[def:mod-pair4\] We let ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ denote the category whose objects are modulus pairs and whose morphisms are admissible morphisms. The full subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ consisting of proper modulus pairs is denoted by ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$.
5. \[def:mod-pair5\] A morphism $f : M \to N$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ is called *ambient* if $f^{{\operatorname{o}}}: M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to N^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ extends to a morphism ${\overline}{M} \to {\overline}{N}$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sch}}}$. Such an extension is unique since ${\overline}{M}$ is reduced, $M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is dense in ${\overline}{M}$, and ${\overline}{N}$ is separated. We let ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$ (resp. ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$) denote the (non-full) subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ (resp. ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$) whose objects are modulus pairs (resp. proper modulus pairs) and whose morphisms are ambient morphisms.
6. \[def:mod-pair6\] A morphism $f : M \to N$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ is called *minimal* if $f$ is ambient and satisfies $M^\infty = {\overline}{f}^\ast N^\infty$.
7. \[def:mod-pair7\] We let ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}$ denote the subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ whose objects are the same as ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ and whose morphisms are those morphisms $f : M \to N$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$ such that $f$ is minimal, ${\overline}{f} : {\overline}{M} \to {\overline}{N}$ is proper and $f^{{\operatorname{o}}}: M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to N^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$. Then the canonical functor ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}\to {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ induces an equivalence of categories ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}^{-1} {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}\xrightarrow{\simeq} {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ [@modsheaf1 Prop. 1.9.2].
8. \[def:mod-pair8\] Let ${{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ be the product category $[0] \times [0]$, where $[0]= \{0 \to 1\}$. For any category $\mathcal{C}$, we define $\mathcal{C}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ to be the category of functors from ${{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ to $\mathcal{C}$. An object $T$ of $\mathcal{C}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ is given by a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
T(00) \ar[r] \ar[d] & T(01) \ar[d] \\
T(10) \ar[r] & T(11).
}$$ in $\mathcal{C}$, and a morphism $T_1 \to T_2$ in $\mathcal{C}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ is given by a set of morphisms $T_1 (ij) \to T_2 (ij)$, $i,j=0,1$, which are compatible with all the edges of the squares.
9. \[def:mod-pair9\] A morphism $T_1 \to T_2$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ is called *ambient* if for any $i,j=0,1$, the morphisms $T_1 (ij) \to T_2 (ij)$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ are ambient. A square $T \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ is called *ambient* if it is contained in $({\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}})^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}\subset {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$.
The following lemma is often useful.
\[lem:ambient-diagram\] For any square $T \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$, there exists an ambient square $T'$ which admits an ambient morphism $T' \to T$ which is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$.
This is just a consequence of a repeated use of the graph trick ([@modsheaf1 Lemma 1.3.6]). Or the reader can consult the calculus of fractions in [@modsheaf1 Prop. 1.9.2]). The details are left to the reader.
Fiber products
--------------
We discuss fiber products in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$.
\[lem:univ-sup\] Let $X$ be a scheme, and let $D_1$ and $D_2$ be effective Cartier divisors on $X$. Assume that the scheme-theoretic intersection $\inf (D_1 ,D_2) := D_1 \times_X D_2$ is also an effective Cartier divisor on $X$. Set $X^\infty := D_1 + D_2 - \inf (D_1 ,D_2)$.
Then, for any morphism $f : Y \to X$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sch}}}$ such that $Y$ is normal and the image of any irreducible component of $Y$ is not contained in $|X^\infty| = |D_1| \cup |D_2|$, we have $$f^\ast X^\infty = \sup (f^\ast D_1 , f^\ast D_2),$$ where $\sup$ is the supremum of Weil divisors on the normal scheme $Y$.
See [@modsheaf1 Lem. 1.10.1, Def. 1.10.2 Rem. 1.10.3].
\[def:canonical-model\] Let $f_1 : M_1 \to N$ and $f_2 : M_2 \to N$ be morphisms in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$, and assume that the fiber product $P^{{\operatorname{o}}}:= M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ exists in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$. We define a modulus pair $P$ as follows. Let ${\overline}{P}_0$ be the scheme-theoretic closure of $P^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ in ${\overline}{M} \times_{{\overline}{N}} {\overline}{M}_2$, and let ${\overline}{p}_{0,i} : {\overline}{P}_0 \to {\overline}{M}_1 \times_{{\overline}{N}} {\overline}{M}_2 \xrightarrow{{{\operatorname{pr}}}_i} {\overline}{M}_i$ be the composite of the closed immersion followed by the $i$-th projection for $i=1,2$. Let $${\overline}{P} := {{\mathbf{Bl}}}_{({\overline}{p}_{0,1}^\ast M_1^\infty ) \times_{{\overline}{P}_0} ({\overline}{p}_{0,2}^\ast M_2^\infty )} ({\overline}{P}_0)^N \xrightarrow{\pi_P} {\overline}{P}_0$$ be the normalized blow-up of ${\overline}{P}_0$ along the closed subscheme $({\overline}{p}_{0,1}^\ast M_1^\infty ) \times_{{\overline}{P}_0} ({\overline}{p}_{0,2}^\ast M_2^\infty )$. Set $$P^\infty := \pi_P^\ast {\overline}{p}_{0,1}^\ast M_1^\infty + \pi_P^\ast {\overline}{p}_{0,2}^\ast M_2^\infty - E,$$ where $E := \pi_P^{-1} (({\overline}{p}_{0,1}^\ast M_1^\infty ) \times_{{\overline}{P}_0} ({\overline}{p}_{0,2}^\ast M_2^\infty ))$ denotes the exceptional divisor. Then we have ${\overline}{P} - |P^\infty | = P^{{\operatorname{o}}}\in {\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$ by construction, and we obtain a modulus pair $P=({\overline}{P},P^\infty)$.
We call $P$ *the canonical model of fiber product of $f_1$ and $f_2$*, and we often write $$M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2 := P.$$ By construction, we have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2 \ar[r]^{p_2} \ar[d]_{p_1} & M_2 \ar[d]^{f_2} \\
M_1 \ar[r]_{f_1} & N
}$$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$. Moverover, we have $(M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\cong M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$.
\[thm:fiber-product-fin\] Let $f_1 : M \to N$ and $f_2 : M_2 \to N$ be morphisms in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$. Assume that the fiber product $M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ exists in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$. Then the canonical model of fiber product $M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2$ represents the fiber product $M_1 \times_N M_2$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$. Moreover, if $M_1, M_2$, $N$ are proper, then $M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2$ (hence $M_1 \times_N M_2$) is proper.
$M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2$ does not necessarily represent a fiber product in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$, and it is not functorial in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$. However, under some minimality conditions, they behave nicely in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$.
We prove that $P:=M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2$ satisfies the universal property of fiber product in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$. Let $g_1 : L \to M_1$ and $g_2 : L \to M_2$ be morphisms in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ which coincide at $N$. Since ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}\cong {{\underline{\Sigma}}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}^{-1} {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$, we can find morphisms $L_1 \to L$ in ${{\underline{\Sigma}}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}$ such that the composite morphisms $L_1 \to L \to M_i$ are ambient for $i=1,2$, and such that ${\overline}{L}_1$ is normal. Since $L_1 \to L$ is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$, we replace $L$ with $L_1$ and assume that ${\overline}{L}$ is normal, and that $g_1$ and $g_2$ are ambient. Let $p_1 : P \to M_1$ and $p_2 : P \to M_2$ be the ambient morphisms as in Def. \[def:canonical-model\].
There exists a unique morphism $g^{{\operatorname{o}}}: L^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to P^{{\operatorname{o}}}= M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$ which is compatible with $g_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}$, $g_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$, $p_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ and $p_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$. It suffices to prove that $g^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ defines a morphism $L \to P$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$. Let $\Gamma \subset {\overline}{L} \times {\overline}{P}$ be the closure of the graph of $g^{{\operatorname{o}}}$, and let $\Gamma^N$ be the normalization of $\Gamma$. Let $s : \Gamma^N \to {\overline}{L}$ and $t : \Gamma^N \to {\overline}{P}$ be the natural projections.
Then, for $i=1,2$, we obtain a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
\Gamma^N \ar[r]^{t} \ar[d]_{s} & {\overline}{P} \ar[d]^{{\overline}{p}_i} \\
{\overline}{L} \ar[r]_{{\overline}{g}_i} \ar@{.>}^{g^{{\operatorname{o}}}}[ru] & {\overline}{M}_i
}$$ where the commutativity follows from the fact that ${\overline}{p}_i t$ and ${\overline}{g}_i s$ coincide on the dense open subset $s^{-1} (L^{{\operatorname{o}}}) \subset \Gamma^N$.
By the construction of $P$ and by Lemma \[lem:univ-sup\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
t^\ast P^\infty
&= \sup (t^\ast {\overline}{p}_1^\ast M_1^\infty , t^\ast {\overline}{p}_2^\ast M_2^\infty ) \\
&= \sup (s^\ast {\overline}{g}_1^\ast M_1^\infty , s^\ast {\overline}{g}_1^\ast M_2^\infty ),\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality follows from the commutativity of the above diagram. Since $g_1$ and $g_2$ are ambient and ${\overline}{L}$ is normal, we have ${\overline}{g}_i^\ast M_i^\infty \leq L^\infty$. Therefore, we obtain $$t^\ast P^\infty \leq s^\ast L^\infty,$$ which shows that $g^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ defines a morphism $g : L \to P$. This proves the first assertion. The last assertion is obvious by construction. This finishes the proof.
\[thm:fiber-product\] Let $f_1 : M_1 \to N$ and $f_2 : M_2 \to N$ be morphisms in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$. Assume that the fiber product $M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ exists in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$. Then there exists a fiber product $M_1 \times_N M_2$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$. Moreover, if $M_1$, $M_2$, and $N$ are proper, then $M_1 \times_N M_2$ is proper.
By [@modsheaf1 Lemma 1.3.6], for each $i=1,2$, there exists a morphism $M'_i \to M_i$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$ which is invertible in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ and such that the composite $M'_i \to M_i \to N$ is ambient. Theorem \[thm:fiber-product-fin\] shows that the fiber product $M'_1 \times_N M'_2$ exists in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$. This also represents a fiber product $M_1 \times_N M_2$, proving the first assertion. The second assertion follows from the construction of the canonical model of fiber product. This finishes the proof.
\[rem:tau-fb\] The inclusion functor $\tau_s : {\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}\to {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ preserves fiber products by construction.
Given some minimality assumptions, we can say more about the canonical model of fiber product. We will need this in this paper, but it will be used in the other papers, including [@cofinality]. Recall from [@modsheaf1 Definition 1.8.1] the definition of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Comp}}}$.
1. Let $f_1 : M_1 \to N$ and $f_2 : M_2 \to N$ be morphisms in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$, and assume that $f_1$ is minimal. Then we have $$M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_{N} M_2 = (({\overline}{M}_1 \times_{{\overline}{N}} {\overline}{M}_2 )^N , \pi^\ast ({\overline}{M}_1 \times_{{\overline}{N}} M_2^\infty )),$$ where $\pi : ({\overline}{M}_1 \times_{{\overline}{N}} {\overline}{M}_2 )^N \to {\overline}{M}_1 \times_{{\overline}{N}} {\overline}{M}_2$ is the normalization.
2. Consider the following commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
U_1 \ar[r] \ar[d]_{j_1} & V \ar[d]_j & \ar[l] \ar[d]^{j_2} U_2 \\
M_1 \ar[r] & N & \ar[l] M_2
}$$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$, such that $j_1$ and $j_2$ are minimal. Then the morphism $$j_1 \times j_2 : U_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_V U_2 \to M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2$$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$, induced by the universal property of fiber product, belongs to ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$ and is minimal.
3. In the situation of (2), if ${\overline}{j}, {\overline}{j}_1,{\overline}{j}_2$ are open immersions, and if $U_1 \to V$ is minimal and if ${\overline}{U}_1 \times_{{\overline}{V}} {\overline}{U}_2$ is normal, then $${\overline}{j_1 \times j_2} : {\overline}{U}_1 \times_{{\overline}{V}} {\overline}{U}_2 = {\overline}{U_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_V U_2} \to {\overline}{M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2}$$ is an open immersion, where the equality follows by (1).
(1): This follows from the construction of canonical model of fiber product (see also [@modsheaf1 Corollary 1.10.7]).
(2): Let ${\overline}{P}$ (resp. ${\overline}{Q}$) be the closure of $M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ (resp. $U_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{V^{{\operatorname{o}}}} U_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$) in ${\overline}{M}_1 \times_{{\overline}{N}} {\overline}{M}_2$ (resp. ${\overline}{U}_1 \times_{{\overline}{V}} {\overline}{U}_2$). Then the morphisms ${\overline}{j}_1$ and ${\overline}{j}_2$ induce a morphism $${\overline}{J} : {\overline}{Q} \to {\overline}{P}.$$ Then we obtain the following commutative diagrams: $$\xymatrix{
{\overline}{Q} \ar[r]^{{\overline}{J}} \ar[d]_{q_i} & {\overline}{P} \ar[d]^{p_i} \\
{\overline}{U}_i \ar[r]^{{\overline}{j}_i} & {\overline}{M}_i ,
}$$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sch}}}$ for $i=1,2$, where $p_i$ and $q_i$ are the natural $i$-th projections. Set $F := p_1^\ast M_1^\infty \times_{{\overline}{P}} p_2^\ast M_2^\infty \subset {\overline}{P}$ and $G := q_1^\ast U_1^\infty \times_{{\overline}{Q}} p_2^\ast U_2^\infty \subset {\overline}{Q}$. Then the commutativity of the diagrams shows $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline}{J}^{-1} F &:= F \times_{{\overline}{P}} {\overline}{Q} = (q_i^\ast {\overline}{j}_1^\ast M_1^\infty ) \times_{{\overline}{Q}} (q_i^\ast {\overline}{j}_2^\ast M_2^\infty ) \\
&= q_i^\ast U_1^\infty \times_{{\overline}{Q}} q_i^\ast U_2^\infty \\
&= G,\end{aligned}$$ where the equality in the second line follows from the minimality of $j_1$ and $j_2$. Let $\pi_P : {{\mathbf{Bl}}}_{F} ({\overline}{P})^N \to {\overline}{P}$ and $\pi_Q : {{\mathbf{Bl}}}_{G} ({\overline}{Q})^N \to {\overline}{Q}$ be the normalized blow-ups. Therefore, by the universal property of blow-up and normalization, ${\overline}{J}$ lifts to a morphism $${\overline}{J}_1 : {\overline}{U_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_V U_2} = {{\mathbf{Bl}}}_{G} ({\overline}{Q})^N \to {{\mathbf{Bl}}}_{F} ({\overline}{P})^N = {\overline}{M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2},$$ which makes the diagram $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathbf{Bl}}}_{G} ({\overline}{Q})^N \ar[d]_{\pi_Q} \ar[r]^{{\overline}{J}_1} & {{\mathbf{Bl}}}_{F} ({\overline}{P})^N \ar[d]^{\pi_P} \\
{\overline}{Q} \ar[r]^{{\overline}{J}} & {\overline}{P}
}$$ commute. Moreover, letting $F':=\pi_P^{-1} (F), G':=\pi_Q^{-1} (G)$ be the exceptional divisors, the commutativity of the two diagrams as above shows $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline}{J}_1^\ast (M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2)^\infty &= {\overline}{J}_1^\ast (\pi_P^\ast p_1^\ast M_1^\infty + \pi_P^\ast p_1^\ast M_1^\infty - F') \\
&= \pi_Q^\ast {\overline}{J}^\ast p_1^\ast M_1^\infty + p_Q^\ast {\overline}{J}^\ast \pi_2^\ast M_2^\infty - G' \\
&= \pi_Q^\ast q_1^\ast {\overline}{j}_1^\ast M_1^\infty + \pi_Q^\ast q_2^\ast {\overline}{j}_2^\ast M_2^\infty - G' \\
&= \pi_Q^\ast q_1^\ast U_1^\infty + \pi_Q^\ast q_2^\ast U_2^\infty - G' \\
&= (U_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_V U_2)^\infty\end{aligned}$$ where the equality in the fourth line follows from the minimality of $j_1$ and $j_2$. Therefore, the morphism ${\overline}{J}_1$ defines a minimal morphism $U_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_V U_2 \to M_1 {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M_2$, as desired.
(3): We take the notation as above. Then ${\overline}{U}_1 \times_{{\overline}{V}} {\overline}{U}_2$ is an open subset of $\subset {\overline}{P}$. Since ${\overline}{J}^\ast F = G$, the minimality of $U_1 \to V$ shows $F \cap {\overline}{U}_1 \times_{{\overline}{V}} {\overline}{U}_2 = {\overline}{U}_1 \times_{{\overline}{V}} U_2^\infty$, where the right hand side is an effective Cartier divisor on ${\overline}{U}_1 \times_{{\overline}{V}} {\overline}{U}_2$. Therefore, the normalized blow-up $\pi_P$ is an isomorphism over ${\overline}{U}_1 \times_{{\overline}{V}} {\overline}{U}_2$, and the open immersion ${\overline}{U}_1 \times_{{\overline}{V}} {\overline}{U}_2 \to {\overline}{P}$ uniquely lifts to an open immersion ${\overline}{U}_1 \times_{{\overline}{V}} {\overline}{U}_2 \to {{\mathbf{Bl}}}_F ({\overline}{P})$. This finishes the proof.
A remark on elementary correspondences
--------------------------------------
In this subsection, we will observe a relationship between cartesian squares and elementary correspondences. First we provide some definitions.
\[def:elem-set\] For any $M_1,M_2 \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$, we define ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}$ to be the set of elementary finite correspondence $V : M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ which satisfies the following *admissibility conditions*: let ${\overline}{V}$ be the closure of $V$ in ${\overline}{M}_1 \times {\overline}{M}_2$, and let ${\overline}{V}^N \to {\overline}{V}$ be the normalization of ${\overline}{V}$. Let ${{\operatorname{pr}}}_i:{\overline}{V}^N \to {\overline}{M}_i$ be the $i$-th projections.
1. $p_1$ is proper.
2. ${{\operatorname{pr}}}_1^\ast M_1^\infty \geq {{\operatorname{pr}}}_2^\ast M_2^\infty$.
\[def:MCor\] A category ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}$ is defined as follows: the objects are the same as ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$, and and for $M,N \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}$, the set of morphisms is defined as the free abelian group generated on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,N)$. Note that ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,N) \subset {\operatorname{\mathbf{Cor}}}(M^{{\operatorname{o}}},N^{{\operatorname{o}}})$ by definition. The composition is given by the composition of finite correspondences. Define ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MCor}}}$ as the full subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}$ whose objects are proper modulus pairs.
\[prop:functor-elem\] For any modulus pair $M$, for any $f : N \to L$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ and for any $V \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,N)$, the image $$f_+ (V):=({{\operatorname{Id}}}_{M^{{\operatorname{o}}}} \times f^{{\operatorname{o}}})(V) \subset M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times L^{{\operatorname{o}}}$$ is an irreducible closed subset, and we have $f_+ (V) \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,L)$.
Thus, any modulus pair $M$ is associated a covariant functor $${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,-) : {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}\to {{\operatorname{\mathbf{Set}}}}.$$
By [@modsheaf1 Prop. 1.2.3], the composition of finite correspondences $W := \Gamma_{f^{{\operatorname{o}}}} \circ V$ belongs to ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,L)$, where $\Gamma_{f^{{\operatorname{o}}}}$ denotes the graph of $f^{{\operatorname{o}}}: M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to N^{{\operatorname{o}}}$. By the definition of composition, we can verify that $|W| = f(V)$. This implies that $f(V)$ is a component of $W$. Therefore, we have $W \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,L)$, as desired.
\[prop:fb-fc\] Let $T$ be a pull-back square in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ of the form $$\label{eq:square-T}\begin{gathered}\xymatrix{
T(00) \ar[r]^{v_T} \ar[d]_{q_T} & T(01) \ar[d]^{p_T} \\
T(10) \ar[r]^{u_T} & T(11)
}\end{gathered}$$ and let $M$ be a modulus pair. Then the associated commutative diagram of sets $$\xymatrix{
{\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(00)) \ar[r]^{v_{T+}} \ar[d]_{q_{T+}} & {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(01)) \ar[d]^{p_{T+}} \\
{\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(10)) \ar[r]^{u_{T+}} & {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(11))
}$$ is cartesian in ${{\operatorname{\mathbf{Set}}}}$.
We can formulate another statement by replacing ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}$ with ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}$ and $(-)_+$ with $(-)_\ast$, but it will be false. Indeed, if $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are distinct elementary correspondences which have the same image $\beta$ under $p_{T\ast}$, then the image of the (non-elementary) finite correspondence $\alpha := \alpha_1 - \alpha_2$ is zero, which is trivially contained in the image of $u_{T\ast}$. But there is no reason why $\alpha$ is contained in the image of $v_{T\ast}$.
Take any $\alpha_1 \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(10))$ and $\alpha_2 \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(01))$, and assume $\beta := u_{T+} (\alpha_1) = p_{T+} (\alpha_2)$. Let $\xi_i$ be the generic point of $\alpha_i$ for $i=1,2$.
We need to prove that there exists a unique $\gamma \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(00))$ which maps to $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$. The uniqueness is easy. Indeed, suppose given such $\gamma$, and let $\zeta$ be the generic point of $\gamma$. Then, since $\zeta$ lies over $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ and since $T^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is a pull-back diagram in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$, the point $\zeta$ must be unique.
We prove the existence of $\gamma$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta
&\in (M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times T(10)^{{\operatorname{o}}}) \times_{M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times T^{{\operatorname{o}}}(11)} (M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}}) \\
&\cong M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times T(10)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{T^{{\operatorname{o}}}(11)} T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\\
&\cong M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times T(00)^{{\operatorname{o}}}.\end{aligned}$$ be the unique point which lies over $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$. Let $\gamma := {\overline}{\{\zeta\}}$ be the closure of $\zeta$ in $M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times T(00)^{{\operatorname{o}}}$, endowed with the reduced scheme structure.
$\gamma$ is an elementary correspondence from $M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ to $T(00)^{{\operatorname{o}}}$.
We have to prove that $\gamma$ is finite and surjective over a component of $M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$. Since $\zeta = (\xi_1,\xi_2) \in \alpha_1 \times_{M^{{\operatorname{o}}}} \alpha_2$, the scheme $\gamma$ is naturally a closed subscheme of $\alpha_1 \times_{M^{{\operatorname{o}}}} \alpha_2$. Moreover, since $\zeta$ maps to $\xi_i$ via the projection ${{\operatorname{pr}}}_i : \alpha_1 \times_{M^{{\operatorname{o}}}} \alpha_2 \to \alpha_i$ for each $i=1,2$, we obtain dominant maps $\gamma \to \alpha_i$. These maps are finite (hence surjective) since each $\alpha_i$ is finite over $M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$. Since the natural map $\gamma \to M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ factors as $\gamma \to \alpha_1 \to M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$, and since $\alpha_1$ is finite and surjective over a component, we obtain the claim.
$\gamma \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(00))$.
We make a preliminary reduction as follows: since the assertion depends only on the isomorphism class of $T$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$, we may assume that $T$ is ambient by Lemma \[lem:ambient-diagram\]. Moreover, since $T$ is a pull-back diagram, we have $T(00) \cong T(10) \times^c_{T(11)} T(01)$, where the right hand side is the canonical model of fiber product in Def. \[def:canonical-model\]. Therefore, by replacing $T(00)$ with $T(10) {\times^\mathrm{c}}_{T(11)} T(01)$ (this preserves the condition that $T$ is ambient by the construction of canonical model), we may assume that ${\overline}{q}_T^\ast T(10)^\infty$ and ${\overline}{v}_T^\ast T^\ast (01)$ have a universal supremum in the sense of [@modsheaf1 Def. 1.10.2] and that $T(00)^\infty = \sup ({\overline}{q}_T^\ast T(10)^\infty , {\overline}{v}_T^\ast T(01)^\infty)$.
Let ${\overline}{\gamma}$ be the closure of $\gamma$ in ${\overline}{M} \times {\overline}{T}(00)$. First we check that ${\overline}{\gamma}$ is proper over ${\overline}{M}$. Note that the natural map ${\overline}{\gamma} \to {\overline}{M}$ factors as ${\overline}{\gamma} \to {\overline}{\alpha}_1 \times_{{\overline}{M}} {\overline}{\alpha}_2 \to {\overline}{M}$. The first map is proper since the natural map ${\overline}{T}(00) \to {\overline}{T}(10) \times_{{\overline}{T}(11)} {\overline}{T}(01)$ is proper by construction of the canonical model of fiber product, and the latter map is proper since ${\overline}{
\alpha}_i$ are proper over ${\overline}{M}$ by assumption. This shows that ${\overline}{\gamma} \to {\overline}{M}$ is proper, as desired.
Next we check the modulus condition. Let ${\overline}{\gamma}^N$ be the normalization of ${\overline}{\gamma}$. Similarly, let ${\overline}{\alpha}_1$ (resp. ${\overline}{\alpha}_2$) be the closure of $\alpha_1$ (resp. $\alpha_2$) in ${\overline}{M} \times {\overline}{T}(10)$ (resp. ${\overline}{M} \times {\overline}{T}(01)$), and ${\overline}{\alpha}_i^N$ the normalization of ${\overline}{\alpha}_i$. By assumption, we have $\alpha_1 \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(10))$ and $\alpha_2 \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(01))$, which means $M^\infty |_{{\overline}{\alpha}_1^N} \geq T(10)^\infty |_{{\overline}{\alpha}_1^N}$ and $M^\infty |_{{\overline}{\alpha}_2^N} \geq T (01)^\infty |_{{\overline}{\alpha}_2^N}$. Since $\gamma \to \alpha_i$ are dominant for $i=1,2$, we obtain morphisms ${\overline}{\gamma}^N \to {\overline}{\alpha}_i^N$ by the universal property of normalization. Therefore, the above inequalities imply $$M^\infty |_{{\overline}{\gamma}^N} \geq {\overline}{q}_T^\ast T(10)^\infty |_{{\overline}{\gamma}^N}, \ \ M^\infty |_{{\overline}{\gamma}^N} \geq {\overline}{v}_T^\ast T(01)^\infty |_{{\overline}{\gamma}^N}.$$ Thus, since ${\overline}{q}_T^\ast T(10)^\infty$ and ${\overline}{v}_T^\ast T(01)^\infty$ have a universal supremum and since $T(00)^\infty = \sup ({\overline}{q}_T^\ast T(10)^\infty, {\overline}{v}_T^\ast T(01)^\infty)$ by assumption, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
M^\infty |_{{\overline}{\gamma}^N}
&\geq \sup ({\overline}{q}_T^\ast T(10)^\infty |_{{\overline}{\gamma}^N} , {\overline}{v}_T^\ast T(01)^\infty |_{{\overline}{\gamma}^N}) \\
&= \sup ({\overline}{q}_T^\ast T(10)^\infty , {\overline}{v}_T^\ast T(01)^\infty) |_{{\overline}{\gamma}^N} \\
&= T(00)^\infty |_{{\overline}{\gamma}^N} .\end{aligned}$$ by [@modsheaf1 Remark 1.10.3 (3)]. This finishes the proof of the claim.
By construction, we have $\alpha_1 = q_{T+} (\gamma)$ and $\alpha_2 = v_{T+} (\gamma)$.This finishes the proof of Proposition \[prop:fb-fc\].
Off-diagonal functor {#section-OD}
====================
We introduce the “off-diagonal” functor, which is a key notion used in the definition of the cd-structure on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$.
Define ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Et}}}$ as a category such that
1. objects are those morphisms $f : M \to N$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ such that $f^{{\operatorname{o}}}: M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to N^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is étale, and
2. morphisms of $f : M_1 \to N_1$ and $g : M_2 \to N_2$ are those pairs of morphisms $(s: M_1 \to M_2 , t:N_1 \to N_2)$ which are compatible with $f,g$ such that $s^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ and $t^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ are *open immersions*.
Define ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MEt}}}$ as the full subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Et}}}$ consisting of those $f : M \to N$ such that $M,N \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$.
For modulus pairs $M$ and $N$, we define *the disjoint union of $M$ and $N$* by $$M \sqcup N := ({\overline}{M} \sqcup {\overline}{N}, M^\infty \sqcup N^\infty ).$$ We have $(M \sqcup N)^{{\operatorname{o}}}= M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\sqcup N^{{\operatorname{o}}}$, and $M \sqcup N$ represents a coproduct of $M$ and $N$ in the category ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$.
\[thm:def-OD\] There exists a functor $${\mathrm{OD}}: {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Et}}}\to {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$$ such that for any $f : M \to N$, there exists a functorial decomposition $$M \times_N M \cong M \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(f).$$ Moreover, we have ${\mathrm{OD}}(f)^{{\operatorname{o}}}= M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\setminus \Delta (M^{{\operatorname{o}}})$, where $\Delta : M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is the diagonal morphism. In particular, if $f^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is an open immersion, then ${\mathrm{OD}}(f)^{{\operatorname{o}}}= \emptyset$, hence ${\mathrm{OD}}(f) = \emptyset$. Moreover, the functor ${\mathrm{OD}}$ restricts to a functor $${\mathrm{OD}}: {\operatorname{\mathbf{MEt}}}\to {\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}.$$ We call the functors *the off-diagonal functors*.
First, we prove that for any $f : M \to N$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Et}}}$, there exists a morphism $i : X \to M \times_N M$ such that the induced morphism $$M \sqcup X \xrightarrow{\Delta \sqcup i} M \times_N M$$ is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$. Take any object $f : M \to N$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Et}}}$. Since $f^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is étale and separated by the assumption, the diagonal morphism $\Delta : M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is an open and closed immersion. Therefore, we obtain a decomposition into two connected components: $$M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M^{{\operatorname{o}}}= \Delta (M^{{\operatorname{o}}}) \sqcup (M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M^{{\operatorname{o}}}- \Delta (M^{{\operatorname{o}}})).$$
Let $P$ denote the canonical model of fiber product $M {\times^\mathrm{c}}_N M$ as in Def. \[def:canonical-model\]. Note that $P^{{\operatorname{o}}}= M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$.
Define a closed immersion ${\overline}{i}_{\Delta} : {\overline}{\Delta}(f) \to {\overline}{P}$ as the scheme-theoretic closure of the open immersion $\Delta (M^{{\operatorname{o}}}) \to P^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to {\overline}{P}$. Set $\Delta (f)^\infty := {\overline}{i}_{\Delta}^\ast P^\infty$ and $\Delta (f):= ({\overline}{\Delta}(f), \Delta (f)^\infty)$. Then ${\overline}{i}_\Delta$ induces a minimal morphism $i_\Delta : \Delta (f) \to P$. Moreover, we have $\Delta (f)^{{\operatorname{o}}}= \Delta (M^{{\operatorname{o}}})$.
Similarly, define a closed immersion ${\overline}{i}_{{\mathrm{OD}}} : {\overline}{{\mathrm{OD}}(f)} \to {\overline}{P}$ as the scheme-theoretic closure of the open immersion $M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M^{{\operatorname{o}}}- \Delta (M^{{\operatorname{o}}}) \to P^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to {\overline}{P}$. Set ${\mathrm{OD}}(f)^\infty := {\overline}{i}_{{\mathrm{OD}}}^\ast P^\infty$ and ${\mathrm{OD}}(f) := ({\overline}{{\mathrm{OD}}(f)}, {\mathrm{OD}}(f)^\infty)$. Then ${\overline}{i}_{\mathrm{OD}}$ induces a minimal morphism $i_{\mathrm{OD}}: {\mathrm{OD}}(f) \to P$. Moreover, we have ${\mathrm{OD}}(f)^{{\operatorname{o}}}= M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M^{{\operatorname{o}}}- \Delta (M^{{\operatorname{o}}})$.
The morphisms $i_\Delta$ and $i_{\mathrm{OD}}$ induce a minimal morphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$: $$i_\Delta \sqcup i_{\mathrm{OD}}: \Delta (f) \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(f) \to P.$$ By in Definition, \[def:mod-pair\], this morphism is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$ (not in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$) since $(i_\Delta \sqcup i_{\mathrm{OD}})^{{\operatorname{o}}}= i_\Delta^{{\operatorname{o}}}\sqcup i_{\mathrm{OD}}^{{\operatorname{o}}}: \Delta (f)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(f)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to P^{{\operatorname{o}}}\cong M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$, and since ${\overline}{i}_\Delta \sqcup {\overline}{i}_{\mathrm{OD}}: {\overline}{\Delta (f)} \sqcup {\overline}{{\mathrm{OD}}(f)} \to {\overline}{P}$ is proper by construction.
We claim $\Delta (f) \cong M$. Let $\Delta : M \to P (\cong M \times_N M)$ be the diagonal morphism. Then, the composite $M \xrightarrow{\Delta} P \cong \Delta (f) \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(f)$ factors through $\Delta (f)$. The inverse morphism is given by $\Delta (f) \to P \xrightarrow{\mathrm{pr}_1} M$, where $\mathrm{pr}_1$ denotes the first projection $P \cong M \times_N M \to M$.
Thus, for any $f : M \to N$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Et}}}$, we have obtained a decomposition $$M \times_N M \cong M \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(f).$$ Next we check the functoriality of ${\mathrm{OD}}(f)$. Let $(f_1 : M_1 \to N_1) \to (f_2 : M_2 \to N_2)$ be a morphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Et}}}$, i.e., a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
M_1 \ar[r]^{s} \ar[d]_{f_1} & M_2 \ar[d]^{f_2} \\
N_1 \ar[r]^{t} & N_2
}$$ where $f_1$, $f_2$, $s$ and $t$ are morphisms in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ such that $f_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ and $f_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ are étale and $s^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ and $t^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ are open immersions.
We claim that there exists a unique morphism ${\mathrm{OD}}(f_1) \to {\mathrm{OD}}(f_2)$ such that the following diagram commutes: $$\xymatrix{
M_1 \times_{N_1} M_1 \ar[r] & M_2 \times_{N_2} M_2 \\
M_1 \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(f_1) \ar[r] \ar[u]^{\cong} & M_2 \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(f_2) \ar[u]_{\cong} .
}$$ The uniqueness is obvious by the commutativity of the above diagram. For the existence, we need to show that the composite $${\mathrm{OD}}(f_1) \to M_1 \times_{N_1} M_1 \to M_2 \times_{N_2} M_2 \cong M_2 \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(f_2)$$ factors through ${\mathrm{OD}}(f_2)$. To see this, it suffices to prove that the image of the morphism $$M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\setminus \Delta (M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}) \to M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M_1^{{\operatorname{o}}}\xrightarrow{s^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times s^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}$$ lands in $M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}} M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}}\setminus \Delta (M_2^{{\operatorname{o}}})$, which easily follows from the injectivity of the open immersion $s^{{\operatorname{o}}}$. This finishes the proof.
The off-diagonal functor is compatible with base change.
\[prop:pullback-OD\] Let $f : M \to N$ be an object of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Et}}}$, and $N' \to N$ any morphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$. Then the base change $g:= f \times_N N'$ belongs to ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Et}}}$, and we have a natural isomorphism ${\mathrm{OD}}(g) \cong {\mathrm{OD}}(f) \times_N N'$.
The first assertion holds since $g^{{\operatorname{o}}}= f^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{N^{{\operatorname{o}}}} N'^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is étale as a base change of an étale morphism. We prove the second assertion. Note $(M \times_N M) \times_{N} N' \cong M' \times_{N'} M'$, where $M' := M \times_{N} N'$. Consider the following diagram in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$: $$\xymatrix{
(M \times_N M) \times_{N} N' \ar[d] & \ar[l] (M \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(f)) \times_{N} N' & \ar[l] \ar[d]^{h} M' \sqcup ({\mathrm{OD}}(f) \times_N N') \\
M' \times_{N'} M' & & \ar[ll] M' \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(g)
}$$ where all the arrows, except for $h$, are natural isomorphisms in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$, and $h$ is defined to be the composite. By diagram chase, $h$ restricts to the identity map on $M'$ and an isomorphism ${\mathrm{OD}}(f) \times_N N' \to {\mathrm{OD}}(g)$. This finishes the proof.
In the following, we describe ${\mathrm{OD}}$ for special cases.
\[lem:et-OD\] Let $f : U \to M$ be a minimal morphism such that ${\overline}{f} : {\overline}{U} \to {\overline}{M}$ is étale. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
&{\overline}{{\mathrm{OD}}(f)} = ({\overline}{U} \times_{{\overline}{M}} {\overline}{U} - \Delta ({\overline}{U}))^N \\
&{\mathrm{OD}}(f)^\infty = \pi^\ast M^\infty ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta : {\overline}{U} \to {\overline}{U} \times_{{\overline}{M}} {\overline}{U}$ is the diagonal, $(-)^N$ denotes the normalization, and $\pi : ({\overline}{U} \times_{{\overline}{M}} {\overline}{U})^N \to {\overline}{M}$ is the natural morphism.
Since $U^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{M^{{\operatorname{o}}}} U^{{\operatorname{o}}}- \Delta (U^{{\operatorname{o}}})$ is dense in ${\overline}{U} \times_{{\overline}{M}} {\overline}{U} - \Delta ({\overline}{U})$ (as a complement of the divisor $U^\infty \times_{{\overline}{M}} {\overline}{U} \setminus \Delta ({\overline}{U})$), and since $U^\infty \times_{{\overline}{M}} {\overline}{U} = {\overline}{U} \times_{{\overline}{M}} U^\infty = \pi^\ast M^\infty$, the assertion follows from the construction of ${\mathrm{OD}}(f)$. This finishes the proof.
\[prop:MV-OD\] Let $S$ be an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$-square of the form $$\xymatrix{
S(00) \ar[r]^{v_S} \ar[d]_{q_S} & S(01) \ar[d]^{p_S} \\
S(10) \ar[r]^{u_S} & S(11).
}$$ Then the morphism ${\mathrm{OD}}(q_S) \to {\mathrm{OD}}(p_S)$ is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$.
Let $S$ be an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$-square. Then, since ${\overline}{S}$ is an elementary Nisnevich square, we have a natural isomorphism $${\overline}{S}(00) \times_{{\overline}{S}(10)} {\overline}{S}(00) - \Delta_0 ({\overline}{S}(00)) \xrightarrow{\sim} {\overline}{S}(01) \times_{{\overline}{S}(11)} {\overline}{S}(01) - \Delta_1 ({\overline}{S}(01)),$$ where $\Delta_i : {\overline}{S}(0i) \to {\overline}{S}(0i) \times_{{\overline}{S}(1i)} {\overline}{S}(0i)$ is the diagonal for each $i=0,1$. Then, in view of Lemma \[lem:et-OD\], the minimality of $u_S,p_S,q_S$ shows that the isomorphism as above induces an isomorphism ${\mathrm{OD}}(q_S) \to {\mathrm{OD}}(p_S)$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$. This finishes the proof.
Let $S$ be an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-square. Then the natural morphism ${\mathrm{OD}}(q_S) \to {\mathrm{OD}}(p_S)$ is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$.
By definition of ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-square, there exists an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}^{\mathrm{fin}}}}$-square $S'$ which is isomorphic to $S$. Then, noting that there are natural isomorphisms ${\mathrm{OD}}(q_{S}) \cong {\mathrm{OD}}(q_{S'})$ and ${\mathrm{OD}}(p_{S}) \cong {\mathrm{OD}}(p_{S'})$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$, the assertion follows from Proposition \[prop:MV-OD\].
The cd-structure {#section:cd-structure}
================
In this section, we introduce a cd-structure on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$, and prove its fundamental properties.
$\protect{\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-squares
-------------------------------------------------
First, we recall from [@modsheaf1] the cd-structure on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$.
\[def:ulMV\]
1. An *${\operatorname{\underline{MV}^{\mathrm{fin}}}}$-square* is a square $S \in ({\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}})^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ such that the morphisms in $S$ are minimal, and such that the resulting square $$\xymatrix{
{\overline}{S}(00) \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\overline}{S}(01) \ar[d] \\
{\overline}{S}(10) \ar[r] & {\overline}{S}(11)
}$$ is an elementary Nisnevich square (on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sch}}}$).
2. An ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-square is a square $S \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ which belongs to the essential image of the inclusion functor $({\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}})^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}\to {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$.
The ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-squares form a complete and regular cd-structure $P_{{\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}}$ on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$.
The topology on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ associated with the cd-structure $P_{{\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}}$ is called *the ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-topology*.
$\protect{\operatorname{MV}}$-squares
-------------------------------------
\[def:new-MV\] Let $T$ be an object of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ of the form . Then $T$ is called an *${\operatorname{MV}}$-square* if the following conditions hold:
1. \[thm:new-MV1\] $T$ is a pull-back square in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$.
2. \[thm:new-MV2\] There exist an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-square $S$ such that $S(11) \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$ and a morphism $S \to T$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ such that the induced morphism $S^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to T^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ and $S(11) \to T(11)$ is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$. In particular, $T^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is an elementary Nisnevich square.
3. \[thm:new-MV3\] ${\mathrm{OD}}(q_T) \to {\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)$ is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$.
We let $P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$ be the cd-structure on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$ consisting of ${\operatorname{MV}}$-squares. The topology on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$ associated with the cd-structure $P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$ is called *the ${\operatorname{MV}}$-topology* for short.
\[rem:new-OD\]
1. \[rem:new-OD1\] For any $T \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ with $T^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ an elementary Nisnevich square, the induced morphism ${\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to {\mathrm{OD}}(q_T)^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ between interiors is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$. This follows easily from the definition of elementary Nisnevich squares.
2. \[rem:new-OD2\] If $p_T^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ and $q_T^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ are open immersions, then ${\mathrm{OD}}(q_T) = {\mathrm{OD}}(p_T) = \emptyset$. In particular, we have ${\mathrm{OD}}(q_T ) \cong {\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)$.
\[MV-bc\] Let $T$ be a square in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ which satisfies Condition (resp. , resp. ). Then, for any morphism $M \to T(11)$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$, the base change square $T_M := T \times_{T(11)} M$ satisfies (resp. , resp. ).
Since base change of a pull-back diagram is a pull-back diagram, Condition is preserved by base change. Prop. \[prop:pullback-OD\] shows that is preserved by the base change.
Finally, we prove that Condition is preserved by base change. Let $S \to T$ be a morphism as in , and let $M \to T(11)$ be any morphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$. Then we obtain a morphism $S_M \to T_M$, where $S_M := S \times_{S(11)} M$ and $T_M := T \times_{T(11)} M$. Since $S(11) \cong T(11)$, we obtain $S_M (11) \cong T_M(11)$. Moreover, $S_M$ is an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-square as the base change of an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-square (see [@modsheaf1 Theorem 4.1.2]), and we have $S_M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\cong T_M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$. Therefore, the morphism $S_M \to T_M$ satisfies the requirement in . This finishes the proof.
Completeness
------------
\[thm:completeness\] The cd-structure $P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$ is complete.
By [@cdstructures Lemma 2.5], it suffices to prove the following assertions:
1. Any morphism with values in $\emptyset = (\emptyset , \emptyset)$ is an isomorphism.
2. For any $T \in P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$ and for any $M \to T(11)$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$, the square $T_M := T \times_{T(11)} M$, which is obtained by base change, belongs to $P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$.
\(1) is obvious, and (2) is a direct consequence of Proposition \[MV-bc\].
Regularity
----------
\[thm:regularity\] The cd-structure $P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$ is regular.
By [@cdstructures Lemma 2.11], it suffices to prove that for any $T \in P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$, the following assertions hold:
1. $T$ is a pull-back square in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$.
2. $u_T : T(10) \to T(11)$ is a monomorphism.
3. The fiber products $T(01) \times_{T(11)} T(01)$ and $T(00) \times_{T(10)} T(00)$ exist in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$, and the derived square $$\xymatrix{
T(00) \ar[r] \ar[d]_{\Delta_{q_T}} & T(01) \ar[d]^{\Delta_{p_T}} \\
T(00) \times_{T(10)} T(00) \ar[r] & T(01) \times_{T(11)} T(01)
}$$ which we denote by $d(T)$, belongs to $P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$.
\(1) is by the definition of ${\operatorname{MV}}$-squares. (2) holds since $u_T^{{\operatorname{o}}}: T^{{\operatorname{o}}}(10) \to T^{{\operatorname{o}}}(11)$ is an open immersion. We prove (3): we check the conditions in Def. \[def:new-MV\] for $d(T)$.
Since $\Delta_{p_T}^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ and $\Delta_{q_T}^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ are open immersions, we have ${\mathrm{OD}}(\Delta_{q_T}) \cong \emptyset \cong {\mathrm{OD}}(\Delta_{p_T})$ by Theorem \[thm:def-OD\]. Hence $d(T)$ satisfies in Def. \[def:new-MV\].
Note that $d(T)$ is isomorphic in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ to the following diagram: $$\xymatrix{
T(00) \ar[r] \ar[d]_{} & T(01) \ar[d]^{} \\
T(00) \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(q_T) \ar[r]^{} & T(01) \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)
}$$ where the vertical maps are the canonical inclusions, and the horizontal maps are induced by $v_T$. It is easy to see that this diagram is a pull-back diagram, i.e., $d(T)$ satisfies in Def. \[def:new-MV\]. Indeed, suppose that we are given a pair of morphisms $f : M \to T(01)$ and $g : M \to T(00) \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(q_T)$ which coincide at $T(01) \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)$. Then, one sees that $g^{{\operatorname{o}}}: M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to T(00)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(q_T)^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ factors through $T(00)^{{\operatorname{o}}}$, which implies that $g$ factors through $T(00)$.
We are reduced to checking the condition for $d(T)$. Consider the following diagram in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$: $$\xymatrix{
(T(00)^{{\operatorname{o}}},\emptyset) \ar[r] \ar[d]_{} & T(01) \ar[d]^{} \\
(T(00)^{{\operatorname{o}}},\emptyset) \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(q_T) \ar[r]^{} & T(01) \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)
}$$ which we denote by $d(T)_0$, where the vertical maps are the canonical inclusions. Then $d(T)_0$ is an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-square since ${\mathrm{OD}}(q_T) \cong {\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)$, and there exists a natural morphism $d(T)_0 \to d(T)$. It induces an isomorphism $d(T)_0^{{\operatorname{o}}}\cong d(T)^{{\operatorname{o}}}$, and we have $d(T)_0(11) \cong d(T)(11)$. Therefore, $d(T)$ satisfies in Def. \[def:new-MV\]. This finishes the proof.
\[thm:sheaf-criterion\] Let $F$ be a presheaf with values in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sets}}}$ on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$. Then $F$ is a sheaf with respect to the ${\operatorname{MV}}$-topology if and only if $F(\emptyset ) = 0$ and for any ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-square $T \in P_{{\operatorname{MV}}}$, the square $$\xymatrix{
F(T(11)) \ar[r] \ar[d] & F(T(10)) \ar[d] \\
F(T(01)) \ar[r] & F(T(00))
}$$ is cartesian.
This follows from [@cdstructures Corollary 2.17], Theorem \[thm:completeness\] and Theorem \[thm:regularity\].
Subcanonicity {#subsection:subcanonicality}
-------------
In this subsection, we prove the following result. Recall that a Grothendieck topology is *subcanonical* if every representable presheaf is a sheaf.
\[thm:subcanonicality\] The ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-topology and the ${\operatorname{MV}}$-topology are subcanonical.
We need the following elementary observation.
\[lem:subcan-cocart\] Let $P$ be a complete and regular cd-structure on a category ${\mathcal{C}}$. Then the topology associated with $P$ is subcanonical if and only if every square $T \in P$ is cocartesian in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
Let ${\mathcal{Y}}$ denote the Yoneda embedding of ${\mathcal{C}}$ into the category of presheaves on ${\mathcal{C}}$. All squares $T \in P$ are cocartesian in ${\mathcal{C}}$ if and only if for any $T \in P$ and for any $X \in {\mathcal{C}}$, the square $$\label{eq:YT}\begin{gathered}\xymatrix{
{\mathcal{Y}}(X) (T(11)) \ar[r]^{u_T^\ast} \ar[d]_{p_T^\ast} & {\mathcal{Y}}(X) (T(10)) \ar[d]^{q_T^\ast} \\
{\mathcal{Y}}(X) (T(01)) \ar[r]^{v_T^\ast} & {\mathcal{Y}}(X) (T(00))
}\end{gathered}$$ is cartesian in ${\mathcal{C}}$. The latter condition is equivalent to that for any $X \in {\mathcal{C}}$, the representable presheaf ${\mathcal{Y}}(X)$ is a sheaf for the topology associated with $P$ by [@cdstructures Cor. 2.17]. This finishes the proof.
We also need the following results:
\[lKL\] Let $f:X\to Y$ be a surjective morphism of normal integral schemes, and let $D,D'$ be two Cartier divisors on $Y$. If $f^*D'\le f^*D$, then $D'\le D$.
\[prop:cocartesian\]
1. Any ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-square is cocartesian in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$.
2. Any ${\operatorname{MV}}$-square is cocartesian in in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$, hence in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$.
(1): Let $S$ be an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-square. We may assume that $S$ is an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}^{\mathrm{fin}}}}$-square since cocartesian-ness is stable under isomorphisms. Let $S(10) \to M$ and $S(01) \to M$ be morphisms in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ which coincide after restricted to $S(00)$. Since $S^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is an elementary Nisnevich square, it is cocartesian in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$. Therefore, the morphisms $S(10)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ and $S(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ induce a unique morphism $h^{{\operatorname{o}}}: S(11)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to M^{{\operatorname{o}}}$. It suffices to check that $h^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ induces a morphism $S(11) \to M$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$.
Let $\Gamma$ be the graph of the rational map ${\overline}{S}(11) \dashrightarrow {\overline}{M}$, and let $\Gamma^N \to \Gamma$ be the normalization. For any $(ij) \in {{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$, set $$S_1 (ij) := ({\overline}{S}(ij) \times_{{\overline}{S}(11)} \Gamma^N , S^\infty \times_{{\overline}{S}(11)} \Gamma^N).$$ Then minimal morphisms $S_1(ij) \to S_1(kl)$ are induced by $S(ij) \to S(kl)$ for all $(ij) \to (kl)$ in ${{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$, and they form an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}^{\mathrm{fin}}}}$-square $S_1$. Moreover, $S_1(ij)$ are normal for all $(ij) \in Sq$, and the composites $${\overline}{h}_{ij} : {\overline}{S}_1 (ij) \to {\overline}{S} (11) \dashrightarrow {\overline}{M}$$ are morphism of schemes for all $(ij) \in {{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ by construction. Moreover, the morphisms ${\overline}{S}_1(ij) \to {\overline}{S}(ij)$ are proper (by the properness of $\Gamma$ over ${\overline}{S}(11)$). Therefore, by the minimality of $S_1(ij) \to S(ij)$, the morphism $S_1 \to S$ is an isomorphism in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$.
\[claim:3.4.5\] $S_1^\infty \geq {\overline}{h}_{11}^\ast M^\infty$.
The admissibilities of $S(10) \to M$ and $S(01) \to M$ implies those of $S_1 (10) \to M$ and $S_1 (01) \to M$. Since ${\overline}{S}(10)$ and ${\overline}{S}(01)$ are normal, we have $$S_1^\infty (ij)^\infty \geq {\overline}{h}_{ij}^\ast M^\infty$$ for $(ij)=(10), (01)$. Since ${\overline}{S}_1(10) \sqcup {\overline}{S}_1 (01) \to {\overline}{S}_1 (11)$ is a surjection between normal schemes and since $S_1^\infty (10) \to S_1(11)$ and $S_1(01) \to S_1(11)$ are minimal, Lemma \[lKL\] implies $$S_1^\infty (11)^\infty \geq {\overline}{h}_{11}^\ast M^\infty .$$ This finishes the proof.
By Claim \[claim:3.4.5\], we have a morphism $S_1(11) \to M$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{fin}}}$. The composite $S(11) \xleftarrow{\sim} S_1(11) \to M$ gives the desired morphism. The uniqueness of the morphism follows from the fact that the elementary Nisnevich square $S^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is cocartesian in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Sm}}}$. This finishes the proof of (1).
(2): Let $T$ be an ${\operatorname{MV}}$-square. Then Condition (2) of Definition \[eq:square-T\] shows that there exists an ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-square $S$ and a morphism $S \to T$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ such that $S(11) \cong T(11)$. Let $f : T(10) \to M$ and $g : T(01) \to M$ be morphisms in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ which coincide after restricted to $T(00)$. Then the composites $$f_S : S(10) \to T(10) \to T(11) , \ \ g_S : S(01) \to T(01) \to T(11)$$ coincide after restricted to $S(00)$. Then $f_S$ and $g_S$ induce a unique morphism $h : T(11) \cong S(11) \to M$ since $S$ is cocartesian in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ by (1). Since $S^{{\operatorname{o}}}\cong T^{{\operatorname{o}}}$, we have $h \circ u_T = f$ and $h \circ p_T = g$. This finishes the proof of Proposition \[prop:cocartesian\].
This follows from Lemma \[lem:subcan-cocart\] and Proposition \[prop:cocartesian\] (1) and (2). This finishes the proof.
Mayer-Vietoris sequence {#section:Mayer-Vietoris}
=======================
Easy Mayer-Vietoris
-------------------
\[def:pre-yoneda\] For any sheaf $F$ on a site ${\mathcal{C}}$, we denote by ${\mathbb{Z}}F$ the sheaf associated with the presheaf ${\mathcal{C}}\ni X \mapsto {\mathbb{Z}}(F(X))$, where for any set $S$, we denote by ${\mathbb{Z}}S$ the free abelian group generated on $S$.
For any $M \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ (resp. ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$), we set ${\mathbb{Z}}(M) := {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal{Y}}(M)$, where ${\mathcal{Y}}(M)$ denotes the presheaf of sets represented by $M$.
\[thm:easy-MV\] Let $T$ be an ${\operatorname{MV}}$-square. Then the complex of sheaves on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}$ $$0 \to {\mathbb{Z}}(T(00)) \to {\mathbb{Z}}(T(10)) \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}(T(01)) \to {\mathbb{Z}}(T(11)) \to 0$$ is exact.
This follows from [@cdstructures Lemma 2.18], Theorem \[thm:regularity\] and Theorem \[thm:subcanonicality\].
Mayer-Vietoris with transfers
-----------------------------
\[thm:exactness\] Let $T \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{MSm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$. Assume that $T^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is an elementary Nisnevich square, and that $T$ satisfies Conditions and in Def. \[def:new-MV\]. Recall the following notation from Def. \[def:new-MV\]: $$\label{eq:T} \vcenter{\xymatrix{
T(00) \ar[r]^{v_T} \ar[d]_{q_T} & T(01) \ar[d]^{p_T} \\
T(10) \ar[r]^{u_T} & T(11).
}}$$
Then, for any $M \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$, the following complex of abelian groups is exact: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:middle-exactness-tr}
0 \to {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(00))(M) \xrightarrow{(q_{T_\ast} , v_{T\ast})} {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(10))(M) \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(01))(M) \\ \xrightarrow{p_{T\ast } - u_{T\ast}} {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(11))(M),\end{gathered}$$
The injectivity of $(q_{T\ast}, v_{T\ast})$ is obvious since $v_T^{{\operatorname{o}}}: T(00)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is an open immersion. Therefore, it suffices to prove the exactness at ${\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(10))(M) \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(01))(M)$. This is equivalent to proving that the commutative square $$\xymatrix{
{\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,T(00)) \ar[r]^{v_{T\ast}} \ar[d]_{q_{T\ast}} & {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,T(01)) \ar[d]^{p_{T\ast}} \\
{\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,T(10)) \ar[r]^{u_{T\ast}} & {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,T(11))
}$$ is cartesian. Note that the horizontal maps are injective.
A key observation is the following lemma. Recall the notation from Proposition \[prop:functor-elem\].
\[lem:resurgence\] Let $\alpha_1, \alpha_2 \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(01))$ be elementary correspondences with $\alpha_1 \neq \alpha_2$. Assume that $p_{T+} (\alpha_1) = p_{T+} (\alpha_2)$ holds in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(11))$. Then $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ belong to the image of $v_{T\ast}$.
Set $P := T(01) \times_{T(11)} T(01)$, and consider the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M, P) \ar[r]^{{{\operatorname{pr}}}_{1+}} \ar[d]^{{{\operatorname{pr}}}_{2+}} & {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M, T(01)) \ar[d] \\
{\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M, T(01)) \ar[r] & {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M, T(11))
}$$ in ${{\operatorname{\mathbf{Set}}}}$. By Proposition \[prop:fb-fc\], there exists a unique $\gamma \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,P)$ such that ${{\operatorname{pr}}}_{1+} (\gamma) = \alpha_1$ and ${{\operatorname{pr}}}_{2+} (\gamma) = \alpha_2$.
We have a canonical identification $${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,P) \cong {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(01)) \sqcup {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,{\mathrm{OD}}(p_T))$$ induced by $P \cong T(01) \sqcup {\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)$. Through this identification, we regard ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,{\mathrm{OD}}(p_T ))$ as a subset of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,P)$.
$\gamma \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,{\mathrm{OD}}(p_T ))$.
Let $\xi_1, \xi_2$ and $\zeta$ be the generic points of $\alpha_1, \alpha_2$ and $\gamma$. Then $\zeta$ lies over $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$. Since $\xi_1 \neq \xi_2$ by the assumption that $\alpha_1 \neq \alpha_2$, we have $\zeta \notin M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times \Delta (T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}})$, where $\Delta (T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}})$ denotes the image of $\Delta : T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{T(11)^{{\operatorname{o}}}} T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}}$. This implies that $\zeta \in M^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times {\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)^{{\operatorname{o}}}$. Therefore, we have $$\gamma \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{Cor}}}(M^{{\operatorname{o}}}, {\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)^{{\operatorname{o}}}) \cap {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,P) = {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,{\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)).$$ This finishes the proof of the claim.
By construction, we have $\alpha_i = {{\operatorname{pr}}}_i (\gamma) = |({{\operatorname{pr}}}_{i})_{\ast} (\gamma)|$, where ${{\operatorname{pr}}}_i : T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\times_{T(11)^{{\operatorname{o}}}} T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}}$, $i=1,2$, are the projections. Therefore, in order to prove $\alpha_i \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,T(00))$ for $i=1,2$, it suffices to prove that $\gamma \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,T(00) \times_{T(10)} T(00))$. Since $\gamma \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,{\mathrm{OD}}(p_T))$ by the above claim, and since ${\mathrm{OD}}(q_T) \cong {\mathrm{OD}}(p_T)$ by Condition of Definition \[def:new-MV\], we have $\gamma \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,{\mathrm{OD}}(q_T)) \subset {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,T(00) \times_{T(10)} T(00))$. This finishes the proof of Lemma \[lem:resurgence\].
Now we are ready to prove that the above square is cartesian. Let $\alpha \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,T(01))$ and assume $p_{T\ast} (\alpha) \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,T(10))$. Write $\alpha = \sum_{i \in I} m_i \alpha_i$, where $I$ is a finite set, $m_i \in {\mathbb{Z}}- \{0\}$ and $\alpha_i$ are elementary correspondences which are distinct from each other. Then we have $\alpha_i \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,T(01))$ for all $i \in I$. Set $$J := \{i \in I \ | \ \exists j \in I - \{i\}, \ |p_{T\ast} (\alpha_i)| = |p_{T\ast} (\alpha_{j})| \}.$$ Then, by Lemma \[lem:resurgence\], we have $\alpha_i \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}}}(M,T(00))$ for all $i \in J$. Let $i \in I - J$, and set $\beta := |p_{T\ast} (\alpha_i)|$. Then the coefficient of $\beta$ in $p_{T\ast} (\alpha)$ is non-zero, and therefore $\beta \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(10))$. By Proposition \[prop:fb-fc\], there exists a unique $\gamma \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(00))$ such that $v_{T+} (\gamma) = \alpha_i$ and $q_{T+} (\gamma) = \beta$. Since $T(00)^{{\operatorname{o}}}\to T(01)^{{\operatorname{o}}}$ is an open immersion, this implies that $\alpha_i = \gamma \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Cor}^{\mathrm{el}}}}(M,T(00))$. This finishes the proof of the exactness of .
Recall from [@modsheaf1 Th. 2 (2)] that for any $M \in {\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$, the presheaf ${\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(M)$ on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ is a sheaf for the ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-topology.
\[cor:Mayer-Vietoris\] Let $T$ be an ${\operatorname{MV}}$-square. Then the following complex of sheaves on ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}$ for the ${\operatorname{\underline{MV}}}$-topology is exact: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:exactness-tr}
0 \to {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(00))\xrightarrow{(q_{T_\ast} , v_{T\ast})} {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(10))\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(01))\\ \xrightarrow{p_{T\ast } - u_{T\ast}} {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(11)) \to 0.\end{gathered}$$
By Theorem \[thm:exactness\], it suffices to prove the surjectivity of the last maps of the complexes. Take a morphism $S \to T$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}Sm}}}^{{\operatorname{\mathbf{Sq}}}}$ as in of Definition \[def:new-MV\]. Then the map $${\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(S(10)) \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(S(01)) \to {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(S(11)) = {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(11))$$ is epi in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{\underline{M}NST}}}$ by [@modsheaf1 Theorem 4.5.7]. Since the map factors through $${\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(10)) \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}_{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T(01)),$$ we are done.
[99]{} B. Kahn, H. Miyazaki, [*Topologies on schemes and modulus pairs*]{}, preprint 2019. B. Kahn, H. Miyazaki, S. Saito, T. Yamazaki [*Motives with modulus, I:\
Modulus sheaves with transfers for non-proper modulus pairs*]{}, <arXiv:1908.02975>.
B. Kahn, H. Miyazaki, S. Saito, T. Yamazaki [*Motives with modulus, II:\
Modulus sheaves with transfers for proper modulus pairs*]{}, preprint 2019.
B. Kahn, S. Saito, T. Yamazaki, [*Reciprocity sheaves*]{} (with two appendices by Kay Rülling), Compositio Math. [**152**]{} (2016), 1851–1898.
B. Kahn, S. Saito, T. Yamazaki [*Motives with modulus*]{}, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07124>, withdrawn.
A. Krishna, J. Park, [*Moving lemma for additive higher Chow groups*]{}, Algebra Number Theory 6 (2012), no. 2, 293–326.
C. Mazza, V. Voevodsky, C. Weibel, [*Lecture notes on motivic cohomology*]{}, Clay Math. Monographs [**2**]{}, AMS, 2006.
H. Miyazaki, [*Cube invariance of higher Chow groups with modulus*]{}, J. Algebraic Geom. [**28**]{} (2019), 339-390
V. Voevodsky, [*Triangulated categories of motives over a field*]{}, [*in*]{} E. Friedlander, A. Suslin, V. Voevodsky Cycles, transfers and motivic cohomology theories, Ann. Math. Studies [**143**]{}, Princeton University Press, 2000, 188–238.
V. Voevodsky, [*Homotopy theory of simplicial sheaves in completely decomposable topologies*]{}, J. pure appl. Algebra [**214**]{} (2010) 1384–1398.
Acronyms
E. Artin, A. Grothendieck, J.-L. Verdier, [*Théorie des topos et cohomologie étale des schémas*]{} (SGA4), Lect. Notes in Math. [**269, 270, 305**]{}, Springer, 1972–73.
[^1]: This work is supported by RIKEN Special Postdoctoral Researchers (SPDR) Program, by RIKEN Interdisciplinary Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Program (iTHEMS), and by JSPS KAKENHI Grant (19K23413).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'N. Armstrong[^1] [^2], W. Kalceff$^\ddagger$, J. P. Cline & J. Bonevich'
title: '**Bayesian inference of nanoparticle-broadened x-ray line profiles** '
---
National Institute of Standards and Technology,\
Gaithersburg, Md 20899, USA\
$\ddagger$University of Technology Sydney,\
PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, AUSTRALIA
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
The analysis of x-ray line profile broadening can be considered as solving a series of inverse problems. There are usually two steps:— removing the instrumental contribution (deconvolution), and determining the broadening contribution in terms of crystallite size and microstrain. Here we are concerned with quantifying only the size broadening, in terms of the shape and size distributions of the crystallites. We present a method that removes the instrumental broadening and determines the particle size distribution in a single step. The general theoretical framework developed makes it possible to determine the crystallite shape and average dimensions, and to fully quantify these results by also assigning uncertainties to them.
There are two approaches that can be adopted. The first assumes functional forms for the size distribution and shape of the crystallite, and applies a least squares fitting to determine the parameters defining the size distribution [@krill98; @langford00]. For pragmatic reasons, this approach is often used to ensure numerical stability; however, it is based on an explicit assumption for the crystallite size distribution and does not take into account the uniqueness of the solution.
The second approach takes into account the non-uniqueness of the problem of determining the size distribution $P(\mathbf{D})$ from the experimental data, by assigning a probability to the solutions and enabling an average solution to be determined from the set of solutions; moreover, it also allows any *a priori* information and assumptions to be included and tested. This approach is embodied in the Bayesian and maximum entropy methods [@gull89; @skilling89a; @bryan90a; @sivia96]. Essentially, Bayesian theory tells us how to express and manipulate probabilities. It might be said, therefore, that Bayesian theory helps us to ask the appropriate questions, while the maximum entropy method tells how to assign values to quantities of interest.
X-ray line profiles {#theory_broadening}
===================
Observed profile
----------------
The observed line profile, $g(2\theta)$, can be expressed as $$g(2\theta)=\int\, k(2\theta
-2\theta')\, f(2\theta')\,\mathrm{d}(2\theta') + b(2\theta) +
n(2\theta) \label{equ_obs}$$ where $k(2\theta)$ defines the instrument profile and considers the imperfect optics of the diffractometer; $f(2\theta)$ is the specimen profile, which (apart from strain effects which are not covered here) characterizes the size broadening due to microstructural properties of the specimen (i.e. crystallite shape, distribution and dimensions); $b(2\theta)$ and $n(2\theta)$ are the background level and the noise distribution, respectively. The observed profile, (\[equ\_obs\]), can also be expressed in terms of reciprocal-space units, $s$, centered about $s_{0}=\frac{2\sin\theta_{0}}{\lambda}$, as $$g(s)=g(2\theta)\,\frac{\mathrm{d}(2\theta)}{\mathrm{d}s} \label{equ_rspace}$$ where $\mathrm{d}(2\theta)=\frac{\lambda}{\cos\theta}\,\mathrm{d}s$.
The problem we face is determining the size distribution and shape of the crystallites from (\[equ\_obs\]), given our knowledge of the instrument kernel, $k(2\theta)$, and our understanding of the counting statistics, $\sigma^{2}$. We also want to quantify the specimen profile and size distribution by assigning error bars to them. Before addressing these questions, we review line profile broadening from nanocrystallites.
Crystallite-size broadening {#sec_sizebroadening}
---------------------------
The line profile, $I_{p}(s,\,\mathbf{D})$, from a specimen consisting of crystallites of the same size and shape can be expressed in terms of the common-volume function [@stokes42] $$I_{p}(s,\,\mathbf{D})=2\int_{0}^{\tau}\,V(t,\,\mathbf{D})\,\cos
2\pi s t\,\mathrm{d}t \label{equ_intprofile}$$ where $I_{p}(s,\,\mathbf{D})$ is the intensity profile given by the dimensions of the crystallite, $\mathbf{D}=\{D_{i};\,i=1,2,3\}$. The common-volume function of the crystallite, $V(t,\,\mathbf{D})$, quantifies the volume between the crystallite and its ‘ghost’, shifted a distance $t$ parallel to the diffraction vector. The dimension $\tau$ represents the maximum length of the crystallite in the direction of the diffraction vector, and can be expressed in terms of the dimensions of the crystallite, $\mathbf{D}$, such that $\tau\equiv\tau(\mathbf{D})$. The boundary conditions for the common-volume function are $V(0,\,\mathbf{D})=V_{0}$, where $V_{0}$ is the volume of the crystallite, and $V(\pm\tau,\,\mathbf{D})=0$. Fig. \[fig\_common\] shows a schematic of a crystallite and its ghost shifted a distance $t$ in the direction $[hkl]$; the shaded region represents the common volume between the crystallite and its ghost. $V(t,\,\mathbf{D})$ is symmetrical about the origin over the range $t\in[-\tau,\,\tau]$. This implies that $V(t,\,\mathbf{D})$ is an even function over this range. A simple example is a set of spherical crystallites with diameter $D$, for which the common-volume is given by [@stokes42]
$$V(t,\,D)=\frac{\pi}{12} (t+2\,D)(t-D)^{2} \label{equ_commonsphere}$$
and using (\[equ\_intprofile\]) the corresponding line-profile is [@stokes42; @langford00] $$I_{p}(s,\,D)=\frac{1}{16 \pi^{3} s^{4}} + \frac{D^{2}}{8 \pi
s^{2}} - \frac{\cos(2\pi s D)}{16 \pi^{3}
s^{4}} - \frac{D\, \sin(2\pi s
D)}{8 \pi^{2} s^{3}} \label{equ_sphereprofile}$$\[equ\_sphereexample\]
where $\tau(D)=D$ for spherical crystallites and in the limit of $s\rightarrow 0$ (\[equ\_sphereprofile\]) reduces to $I_{p}(0,\,D)=\pi D^{4}/8$.
![The crystallite (solid line) and its ‘ghost’ (dashed line) shifted a distance $t$ in the direction of the scattering vector $[hkl]$. The crystallite and ghost have dimensions, $\mathbf{D}=\{D_{1},\,
D_{2},\,D_{3}\}$. The shaded region represents the common volume between the crystallite and ghost. The maximum thickness of the crystallite in the direction $[hkl]$ is $\tau$. The common-volume function has the boundary conditions, $V(0,\,\mathbf{D})=V_{0}$ and $V(\pm\tau,\,\mathbf{D})=0$. As $t\rightarrow \tau$, $V(t,\,\mathbf{D}) \rightarrow 0$. The graph of this function over $t$ represents the Fourier coefficients from which the area- and volume-weighted sizes can be determined.\[fig\_common\]](comVolWK.eps)
Essentially, (\[equ\_intprofile\]) is the Fourier transform of the $V(t,\,\mathbf{D})$, and noting $V(t,\,\mathbf{D})$ is an even function, the odd (sine) terms in the Fourier transform vanish. This also implies that the size-broadened profiles will always be symmetrical about the Bragg angle, $2\theta_{0}$. From (\[equ\_intprofile\]) and Fig. \[fig\_common\], it is clear that information concerning the dimensions and shape of the crystallite is given in $V(t,\,\mathbf{D})$.
Particle-size distribution, $P(\mathbf{D})$
-------------------------------------------
A powder specimen would not normally consist of crystallites all having the same size, but it can be assumed that the crystallites can have the same shape, based on kinetics arguments. The effect of the particle-size distribution on the common volume is to ‘blur’ the broadening effects of a single crystallite.
The size-broadened line profile from a distribution of crystallites, $P(\mathbf{D})\, \mathcal{D}\mathbf{D}$, with dimensions in the range $\mathbf{D}$ to $\mathbf{D}+\mathcal{D}\mathbf{D}$ can be expressed as $$f(s) =2 \int_{0}^{\infty}\, \tilde{V}(t)\,\cos 2\pi s
t\,\mathrm{d}t, \,\,\,\, \, \, \forall \, s\in [-\infty,\,+\infty]\label{equ_sprofile}$$ where $\tilde{V}(t)$ is the *modified* common-volume function due to the influence of the particle-size distribution, $$\tilde{V}(t)=\int_{t}^{\infty}\,V(t, \,
\mathbf{D})\,P(\mathbf{D})\, \mathcal{D}\mathbf{D}.
\label{equ_modcomvol}$$ In (\[equ\_modcomvol\]) a generalized measure, $\mathcal{D}\mathbf{D}$, has been used which is dependent on the crystallite shape and coordinate system. The area-weighted size, $\langle t \rangle_{a}$, volume-weighted size,$\langle t
\rangle_{v}$, and column-length distribution (or area-weighted size distribution), $p_{a}(t)$, can be determined from (\[equ\_modcomvol\]) [@wilson68a; @wilson71a]. It can be seen from (\[equ\_modcomvol\]) how the shape and distribution of the crystallites influence the area- and volume-weighted quantities. Substituting (\[equ\_modcomvol\]) into (\[equ\_sprofile\]), we have
$$\begin{aligned}
f(s) &=& 2\int_{0}^{\infty}\left[\int_{t}^{\infty}\,V(t,\,\mathbf{D})\,
P(\mathbf{D})\,\mathcal{D}\mathbf{D}\right]\, \cos 2\pi s t \,\mathrm{d}t
\label{equ_sprofile2}\\
&=& \int_{0}^{\infty}\,\left[2\int_{0}^{\tau}\,V(t,\,\mathbf{D}) \cos
2\pi s t \,\mathrm{d}t \right]\,
P(\mathbf{D})\,\mathcal{D}\mathbf{D} \label{equ_sprofile3}
\end{aligned}$$
\[equ\_sizeprofiles\]
where in going from (\[equ\_sprofile2\]) to (\[equ\_sprofile3\]) the order of integration has been changed and $t$ is integrated out. In addition we note that $V(t,\,\mathbf{D}) \geq 0$ for $t\in [0,\,\tau]$ and $V(t,\,\mathbf{D})= 0$ for $t>\tau$. Inside the brackets of (\[equ\_sprofile3\]), we have $I_{p}(s,\,\mathbf{D})$ from (\[equ\_intprofile\]). Hence, (\[equ\_sprofile3\]) can be written as $$f(s)=\int_{0}^{\infty}\,
I_{p}(s,\,\mathbf{D})\,P(\mathbf{D})\,\mathcal{D}\mathbf{D},\,\,\,\, \, \, \forall \, s\in [-\infty,\,+\infty]
\label{equ_sprofile4}$$ where we define the profile kernel, $I_{p}(s,\,\mathbf{D})$, as the size-broadened line profile given by a single crystallite with dimensions $\mathbf{D}$. In (\[equ\_sprofile4\]), we notice that the effect of $P(\mathbf{D})$ is to weight the superposition of size profiles over the range of $\mathbf{D}$ to $\mathbf{D}+\mathcal{D}\mathbf{D}$.
Determining $P(\mathbf{D})$ from $g(s)$ {#sec_g}
---------------------------------------
In analysing the size distribution, we want to ensure that the statistics of the observed profile can be carried directly into quantifying the size distribution. Equation (\[equ\_sprofile4\]) expresses the specimen profile, $f(s)$, in terms of the particle-size distribution and the shape of the nanocrystallites, while (\[equ\_obs\]), after transformation into $s$-space, expresses the observed profile in terms of $f(s)$. Combining these two equations, the experimental data, $g(s)$, can be expressed in terms of the particle-size distribution, $P(\mathbf{D})$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
g(s) &=& \int_{0}^{+\infty}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\,k(s-s')\,I_{p}(s',\,\mathbf{D})\,P(\mathbf{D})\,\mathrm{d}s'
\mathcal{D}\mathbf{D} + b(s) + n(s)
\label{equ_allinone}\\
&=& \int_{0}^{+\infty}\,
K(s,\,\mathbf{D})\,P(\mathbf{D})\,\mathcal{D}\mathbf{D} + b(s) +
n(s)\label{equ_allinone2}\end{aligned}$$
\[equ\_single\]
where the scattering kernel, $K(s,\,\mathbf{D})$, ‘rolls up’ the instrumental effects and the profile kernel, given by $$K(s,\,\mathbf{D})=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\,
k(s-s')\,I_{p}(s',\,\mathbf{D})\,\mathrm{d}s'.
\label{equ_kernel}$$ In (\[equ\_kernel\]), the dummy variable $s'$ is being integrated out. The results given by (\[equ\_allinone2\]) and (\[equ\_kernel\]) enable the particle-size distribution to be extracted directly from the experimental data. This ensures that the statistics of the experimental data are transferred to quantifying the uncertainty in the solution. This approach also addresses a difficulty of the *two-fold approach* discussed by .
Bayesian & maximum entropy methods {#sec_bayes}
==================================
The uniqueness of $P(\mathbf{D})$ {#sec_uniqueness}
---------------------------------
In (\[equ\_single\]) we have a single expression for the observed profile in terms of the crystallite size distribution and shape, background level, and statistics of the experiment; information concerning the crystallite properties has been incorporated.
In seeking to determine $P(\mathbf{D})$ from $g(s)$, the issue of uniqueness for $P(\mathbf{D})$ becomes important, for two reasons: firstly, because of the ‘conditioning’ of the kernels, particularly $K(s,\,\mathbf{D})$; and secondly, due to the presence of statistical noise, $\sigma$.
Generally, $K(s,\,\mathbf{D})$ will be *ill-conditioned*. This can be demonstrated in a numerical calculation by expressing $K(s,\,\mathbf{D})$ as a matrix, $\mathbf{K}$; we can show $\det
\mathbf{K}^{T} \mathbf{K} \sim 0$. This implies that the column vectors of $\mathbf{K}$ are (nearly all) linearly dependent, which has dire consequences, as any attempt to determine $P(\mathbf{D})$ (given $g(s)$, $K(s,\,\mathbf{D})$, $\sigma$ and $b(s)$), produces a set of solutions $\{P(D)\}$ rather than a unique solution. The presence of statistical noise in the data simply worsens the situation, in that the ill-conditioning of $K(s,\,\mathbf{D})$ amplifies the noise and the solution is swamped by spurious and unphysical oscillations [@armstrong98a]. Faced with this situation, the following question arises:
*How do we develop a method to extract a unique $P(\mathbf{D})$ from $g(s)$, given our knowledge of $K(s,\,\mathbf{D})$, $b(s)$ and $\sigma^{2}$?*
Some observations {#sec_observations}
-----------------
Before proceeding with developing a ‘method’ to determine the crystallite size and shape from the observed data, $g(s)$, some observations concerning these distributions need to be made.
The integral equations given by (\[equ\_obs\]) and (\[equ\_single\]) refer to a set of continuous functions. However, the recording of the observed and instrument profiles is made in discrete time intervals. To convey this, we express the observed profile, specimen profile and size distribution as vectors, such that $\mathbf{g}=\{g_{i};\,i=1,\,2,\,3,\,\ldots,\,M\}$, $\mathbf{f}=\{f_{j'};\,j'=1,\,2,\,3,\,\ldots,\,N'\}$ and $\mathbf{P}=\{P_{j};\,j=1,\,2,\,3,\,\ldots,\,N\}$. The scattering kernel $K(s,\,\mathbf{D})$ can be expressed as matrix, $\mathbf{K}=\{K_{ij}; \, \forall \ i \,\& \,j\}$ by taking the product of the instrument kernel and the line profile kernel. The instrument kernel can be evaluated in $2\theta$-space, such that $\mathbf{R}=\{k(2\theta_{i}-2\theta_{j'}');\,i=1,\,2,\,3,\,\ldots,\,M
\, \& \, j'=1,\,2,\,3,\,\ldots,\,N' \}$, and using $\mathrm{d}(2\theta)=\frac{\lambda}{\cos\theta}\,\mathrm{d}s$ can be mapped into $s$-space. Similarly, the profile kernel can be evaluated over $s$ and $\mathbf{D}$, such that $\mathbf{I}_{p}=\{I_{p\,j'j};\,j'=1,\,2,\,3,\,\ldots,\,N' \, \& \,
j=1,\,2,\,3,\,\ldots,\,N\}$. The matrix product gives $\mathbf{K}=\mathbf{R}\,\mathbf{I}_{p}$ and is an $[M \times
N]$ matrix, such that $N < N' \leq M$.
There are *two* fundamental properties which $g(2\theta)$, $f(2\theta) $, $P(\mathbf{D})$ and $V(t,\,\mathbf{D})$ all share. The first is that these distributions are *positive* definite; that is, the observed profile $g(2\theta)$ and specimen function $f(2\theta)$ represent intensities which are positive values. The second property is that these distributions are *additive*; that is, the sum of the distributions over a region represents a physically meaningful quantity [@sivia96]. For example, the integrated intensity of $g(s)$ can be related back to the structure factor of the lattice, while the integrals $\int f(s)\,\mathrm{d}s$ and $\int V(t,\,\mathbf{D})\,\mathrm{d}t$ are inversely proportional to the integral breadth and quantify the specimen broadening in terms of size and strain contributions. The integral for $P(\mathbf{D})$ is a special case, in that it must be unity. This ensures that we can attribute a probability for a particular $\mathbf{D}$ and detemine its moments.
These two observations are important in formulating a ‘method’ that can determine both the specimen profile from the observed x-ray diffraction profile and an underlying distribution such as the size distribution, $P(\mathbf{D})$, while dealing with the issue of uniqueness. That is, we expect our method to extract this information from the observed data and produce results which preserve the positivity and additivity of the profile or distribution. It should also be possible to incorporate the properties of positivity and additivity without making additional assumptions about, say, the functional/analytical form of the specimen profile or size distribution. These conditions ensure that the specimen profile or size distribution determined from the observed profile can be interpreted in general terms.
In order to assign values to these distributions and preserve their additivity and positivity, a suitable function must be selected. Based on these observations and various arguments, the entropy function and maximum entropy principle are found to be the *only* consistent approach to inferring discrete probabilities .
Bayes’ theorem for $P(\mathbf{D})$
----------------------------------
In analyzing size-broadened profiles, the central aim is to quantify the shape and size distribution of the crystallites, given the experimental data. Bayesian theory is well suited for testing a *hypothesis* in the presence of experimental data. This is achieved by quantifying the *a posteriori* probability distribution for $\mathbf{P}$, conditional on the experimental data and statistical noise. The formulation of Bayes’ theorem is general and can also be applied to determining $\mathbf{f}$.
Using Bayes’ theorem, the *a posteriori* probability for $\mathbf P$ is given by $$\Pr(\mathbf{P}|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\alpha,\,\mathcal{I})
=\frac{\Pr(\mathbf{P}|\,\mathbf{m},\alpha,\,\mathcal{I})\,\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{P},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})}{\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})}
\label{equ_btheorem}$$ This is conditional on everything after ‘$|$’, viz. the observed profile $\mathbf{g}$, an *a priori* model $\mathbf{m}$, the scattering kernel $\mathbf{K}$, statistical noise $\sigma$, a constant $\alpha$, and any additional background information concerning the experiment, $\mathcal I$.
On the right-hand side of (\[equ\_btheorem\]) there are several terms that require further discussion.
The *likelihood* probability distribution $\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{P},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})$ defines the probability of measuring $\mathbf{g}$, given a size distribution $\mathbf{P}$, profile kernel $\mathbf{K}$, and statistical noise $\sigma$. That is, we include our hypothesis $\mathbf{P}$, and determine how probable it is to measure $\mathbf{g}$, given this hypothesis, $\mathbf{K}$ and $\sigma$. The likelihood function is approximated as a Gaussian distribution for large counts ($>>10$) by applying the *central limit theorem*,
$$\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{P},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})=
\frac{1}{Z_{L}(\sigma)}\,\exp[-\frac{1}{2}\,L(\mathbf{P},\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{K},\,
\sigma)]
\label{equ_likelihood}$$
where $$L=\sum_{i=1}^{M}\,\frac{\left(g_{i}-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\,K_{ij}\,P_{j}\right)^{2}}{\sigma_{i}^
{2}} \label{equ_chisq}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{L}(\sigma) &=& \prod_{i=1}^{M}\,\sqrt{2 \pi\,\sigma_{i}^{2}}
\label{equ_liknorm} \\
&=& \det \{\sqrt{2 \pi\,\sigma^{2}}\},\label{equ_liknorm2}\end{aligned}$$
such that $\{\sqrt{2 \pi\,\sigma^{2}}\}$ is an $[M \times M]$ diagonal matrix.
The variance is defined in terms of the observed counts and estimated background-level as $\sigma_{i}^{2} = g_{i} + b_{i}^{est}$. In (\[equ\_likelihood\]), the kernel, $\mathbf{K}$ has been included as it contains information about the shape of the crystallites and will influence the solution. We notice from (\[equ\_chisq\]) that the matrix form of (\[equ\_single\]) has been incorporated.
The term $\Pr(\mathbf{P}|\,\mathbf{m},\alpha,\,\mathcal{I})$ defines how probable is our hypothesis $\mathbf{P}$, given it is a positive and additive distribution and conditional on an *a priori* model, $\mathbf m$. The *a priori* probability distribution can be expressed as
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\mathbf{P}|\,\mathbf{m},\alpha,\,I) &=&
\frac{1}{Z_{S}(\alpha)}\,\exp\left[\alpha\,S(\mathbf{P},\,\mathbf{m})\right]
\label{equ_apriori}.\end{aligned}$$
The entropy function is given as [@skilling89a], $$S(\mathbf{P},\,\mathbf{m}) = \sum_{j=1}^{N} \,P_{j} - m_{j}-P_{j}
\ln\left(P_{j}/m_{j} \right).\label{equ_entropy}$$ where the normalization term, $Z_{S}(\alpha)$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{S}(\alpha)&=&\int\mathcal{D}\mathbf{P}\,
\exp\left[\alpha\,S(\mathbf{P},\,\mathbf{m})\right] \label{equ_zalpha1}\\
&=& \left(\frac{2 \pi}{\alpha}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}}
\label{equ_zalpha2}\\
&=& \frac{(2 \pi)^\frac{N}{2}}{
\sqrt{\det \alpha \mathbf{I}}} \label{equ_zalpha3}\end{aligned}$$ and the integration in (\[equ\_zalpha1\]) involves the measure $\mathcal{D}\mathbf{P}=
\prod_{j=1}^{N}\,P_{j}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\,\mathrm{d}P_{j}$.
The log term in (\[equ\_entropy\]) ensures that positive and additive distributions are obtained and that $\mathbf P$ will have these fundamental characteristics. The *a priori model*, $\mathbf m$, defines our ignorance/knowledge about $\mathbf P$. That is, if we are unsure of the shape of $\mathbf P$, it is best to admit our ignorance by assigning a uniform distribution over a specified range. The *a priori* model may also include data gathered from other sources, such as electron microscopy (e.g. TEM, SEM and SPTM) techniques. It may also include theoretical or analytical models. For example, recently in the literature there has been a widespread use of the log-normal distribution for $\mathbf P$. However, in the Bayesian formulation we *do not explicitly* define $\mathbf P$ as a log-normal distribution, but set the *a priori* model as a log-normal distribution and test it in the presence of the observed data.
$S(\mathbf{P},\,\mathbf{m})$ is essentially a measure for $\mathbf
P$ relative to $\mathbf m$. Suppose the model $\mathbf{m}$ was found to be a log-normal distribution and its parameters determined using least squares analysis. If the resulting $\mathbf P$ lies ‘close’ to $\mathbf m$, the change in $S$ will be small and there will be little difference between $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{m}$; also, this would imply that the underlying crystallite-size distribution in the specimen is a log-normal distribution with values similar to those determined for $\mathbf m$, since this assumption has been tested in the presences of the experimental data. On the other hand, if $\mathbf P$ lies ‘some distance’ from $\mathbf m$, the change in $S$ will be large; this would result in a considerable difference between $\mathbf{m}$ and $\mathbf{P}$ and would imply that the underlying size distribution is not a log-normal distribution with the values estimated for $\mathbf m$.
The denominator term in (\[equ\_btheorem\]) has an important application in selecting between various kernels, $\mathbf{K}$, for different crystallite shapes. It is called the *evidence* [@gull89], $$\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I}) =
\int\mathcal{D}\mathbf{P}\,\int\mathrm{d}\alpha\,
\Pr(\mathbf{P},\,\mathbf{g},\,\alpha|\,\mathbf{m},\,
\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I}).
\label{equ_evid}$$
Including all the necessary terms, the *a posteriori* probability distribution for $\mathbf{P}$ can be expressed as $$\Pr(\mathbf{P}|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\mathbf{K},\,
\sigma,\alpha,\,\mathcal{I})
= \frac{1}{Z_{S}(\alpha)\,Z_{L}(\sigma)}\,
\frac{e^{Q} }{\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,
\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})}
\label{equ_btheorem2}$$ where $Q =\alpha\,S-\frac{1}{2}\,L$. For convenience, $Q\equiv
Q(\mathbf{P},\,\alpha)$, since $\mathbf{P}$ and $\alpha$ are the only two unknown terms. The $\alpha$ term in $Q(\mathbf{P},\,
\alpha)$ can be interpreted as an undetermined Lagrangian multiplier.
Determining the most probable size distribution, $\hat{\mathbf{P}}$, depends on maximizing (\[equ\_btheorem2\]), which in turn requires determining the global minimum for $Q(\mathbf{P})$. There are several algorithms for determining $\hat{\mathbf{P}}$ from $Q(\mathbf{P})$, given its nonlinear characteristics .
The approach we follow in determining the crystallite-size distribution is similar to that outlined by and . We start with a large $\alpha$ value and step towards $\alpha \approx 0$. For a given $\alpha$, we determine $\mathbf{P}$ such that $\nabla Q =0$. After stepping through a range of $\alpha$ values, a set of solutions, $\{\mathbf{P}(\alpha)\}$, is formed parameterized by $\alpha$. The average distribution, $\langle \mathbf{P} \rangle$, can be determined from the set of solutions $\{\mathbf{P}(\alpha)\}$, $$\langle \mathbf{P} \rangle =
\int_{\alpha_{min}}^{\alpha_{max}}\mathrm{d}\alpha\,\mathbf{P}(\alpha)\,\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathbf{g},\,
\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I}).
\label{equ_avesize}$$ where $\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})$ is normalized to unity for $\alpha \in
[\alpha_{min},\,\alpha_{max}]$. In the application of the Bayesian/MaxEnt method, the selected range was defined by $\alpha \in
[10^{-2},\,10^{5}]$. The average particle size distribution can be used to determine the average specimen profile, $\langle \mathbf{f} \rangle$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \mathbf{f} \rangle &=&
\int_{\alpha_{min}}^{\alpha_{max}}\mathrm{d}\alpha\,\mathbf{I}_{p}
\mathbf{P}(\alpha)\,\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,
\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,
\mathcal{I})\nonumber\\
&=& \mathbf{I}_{p}\, \langle \mathbf{P}
\rangle. \nonumber \label{equ_aveprofile}\end{aligned}$$
Determining $\Pr(\alpha|\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,
\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\cal{I})$
--------------------------------------------------
The $\alpha$ parameter in (\[equ\_btheorem2\]) is important in coupling the entropy function $S(\mathbf{P},\,\mathbf{m})$ with the likelihood function $L(\mathbf{P})$. It is also a ‘nuisance parameter’ and its influence can be integrated out. In evaluating (\[equ\_avesize\]), it is necessary to determine $\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,
\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})$; we do this by integrating out the influence of $\mathbf P$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})
&=&
\int\mathcal{D}\mathbf{P}\,\Pr(\mathbf{P},\,\alpha|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})
\nonumber \\
&=& \int\mathcal{D}\mathbf{P}\,\frac{\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathcal{I})\,\Pr(\mathbf{P}|\,\mathbf{m},\alpha,\,\mathcal{I})\,\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{P},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})}{\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})}\nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathcal{I})}{\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,
\mathcal{I})}\,\frac{1}{Z_{S}(\alpha) \, Z_{L}(\sigma)}\nonumber\\
&\times&\int\mathcal{D}\mathbf{P}\,e^{Q(\mathbf{P},\,\alpha)},
\label{equ_alphaint}
\end{aligned}$$
and expanding $Q(\mathbf{P},\,\alpha)\approx
Q(\hat{\mathbf{P}},\,\alpha)+\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{P}-\hat{\mathbf{P}})
^{T}\nabla\nabla
Q (\mathbf{P}-\hat{\mathbf{P}})$ about $\hat{\mathbf{P}}$ for a given $\alpha$. We note $\nabla Q=0$ for $\mathbf{P}=\hat{\mathbf{P}}$ for a given $\alpha$. On integrating, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,
\mathcal{I}) &\approx&
\frac{\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathcal{I})}{\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{m},\,
\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,
\mathcal{I})}\,\frac{1}{Z_{S}(\alpha)\, Z_{L}(\sigma)} \nonumber\\
&\times& \frac{
(2\pi)^{Nq
/2}\,e^{Q(\hat{\mathbf{P}},\,\alpha)}
}{
\sqrt{\det \nabla \nabla Q(\alpha)}
}
\label{equ_alphaint2}\\
&=&\frac{
\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathcal{I})
}{
\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})
}\,\frac{1}{Z_{L}(\sigma)}
\nonumber\\
&\times& \sqrt{\frac{\det \alpha \mathbf{I}}{\det (\alpha
\mathbf{I} + \hat{\Lambda})}}\,e^{Q(\hat{\mathbf{P}},\,\alpha)}\end{aligned}$$\[equ\_subequ1\]
where $\nabla \nabla Q(\hat{\mathbf{P}},\,\alpha) \equiv \nabla
\nabla Q(\alpha)$ and $\hat{\Lambda}$ are the eigenvalues of $(-\nabla\nabla S)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\,\nabla\nabla L \,(-\nabla\nabla
S)^{-\frac{1}{2}} = \{\hat{\mathbf{P}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\}
\,\mathbf{K}^{T}\{\sigma^{-2}\}\mathbf{K}\,\{\hat{\mathbf{P}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\}$. The quantities in parentheses represent diagonal matrices. In (\[equ\_alphaint\]), we have introduced the *a priori* distribution for $\alpha$, $\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathcal{I})$. Generally, we set $\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathcal{I})$ as a uniform model over a range $[\alpha_{min},\,\alpha_{max}]$. Using (\[equ\_subequ1\]) we can evaluate (\[equ\_avesize\]). In practice, we determine $\ln
\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})$ and $\hat{\Lambda}$ for each $\hat{\mathbf{P}}$ and $\alpha$ in the range of $[\alpha_{min},\,\alpha_{max}]$.
Resolving overlapped profiles
-----------------------------
The formalism presented here enables single and overlapped profiles, and even whole patterns to be analyzed, provided that crystallite-size effects are the major broadening component. Line profiles are generally overlapped due to low unit cell symmetry. However, specimen broadening, such as size broadening from crystallites, can also cause profiles to be overlapped. In this case, the underlying invariant quantity is the crystallite-size distribution, $\mathbf{P}$. The above integral equations for overlapped peaks can be expressed in terms of $\mathbf P$. The general form of (\[equ\_single\]) does not change; the term that does change is the kernel, $\mathbf{K}(s,\,\mathbf{D})$, $$K(s,\,\mathbf{D})=
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\,\sum_{q}\,k(s-s';\,s'_{0q})\, I_{p}(s',
\,\mathbf{D}) \,\mathrm{d}s' \label{equ_newkernel2}$$ where $s'_{0q}=2\sin\theta_{0q}/\lambda$ and $\theta_{0q}$ is the Bragg angle at the $q$th peak in the pattern. The $k(s-s';\,s'_{0q})$ term expresses the instrument kernel at each peak position, $\theta_{0q}$. The $I_{p}(s',\,\mathbf{D})$ term is invariant over the range of $s$. In terms of the Bayesian analysis presented above, nothing else changes.
Error analysis {#sec_errorbars}
--------------
Determining the errors in $\mathbf{P}$ over regions of importance is a final test for the quality of $\mathbf{P}$. The error bars for $\mathbf{P}$ are dependent on the choice of the *a priori* model and the quality of the observed data, $\sigma$.
It is only possible to assign error bars over a defined region, because the errors between points are strongly correlated [@skilling89a; @sivia96]. The region of interest may consist of features in the specimen profile or size distribution which may not be physical, such as ripples in the tails of the distribution or a second peak suggesting a bimodal distribution. Over the defined region, we are interested in the *average integrated flux* [@skilling89a], $$\begin{aligned}
\rho &=& \sum_{j=1}^{N} P_{j} w_{j}/ \sum_{j=1}^{N} w_{j} w_{j} \label{equ_flux1}\\
&=& \mathbf{P}^{T}\,\mathbf{w}/\mathbf{w}^{T}\mathbf{w} \label{equ_flux2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{w}$ is a ‘window function’ defined as, $$w_{j}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{$r \leq j \leq r'$}, \\
0, & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right. \label{equ_win}$$ and the region of interest is defined by $rr'$. Expanding $\Pr(\mathbf{P}|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\alpha,\,\mathcal{I})$ about $\hat{\mathbf{P}}$, we have $\Pr(\mathbf{P}|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{K},\,\sigma,\,\alpha,\,\mathcal{I})
\propto
e^{\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{P}-\hat{\mathbf{P}})^{T}\nabla\nabla
Q (\mathbf{P}-\hat{\mathbf{P}})}$. This is a Gaussian centered about $\hat{\mathbf{P}}$. By inspection, the covariance matrix for $\mathbf{P}$ is given by $-(\nabla \nabla Q)^{-1}$, where the elements in $-(\nabla
\nabla Q)^{-1}$ are strongly correlated with neighboring elements. Following the suggestion of the variance for $\mathbf{P}$ is $$\sigma_{\mathbf{P}}^{2}= \mathbf{w}^{T} \left[-(\nabla \nabla
Q)^{-1}\right]\mathbf{w}/ \mathbf{w}^{T} \mathbf{w}\label{equ_var}.$$ Hence, we can assign error bars over a region of interest to the integrated flux of $\mathbf{P}$.
Fuzzy pixel approach for determining $\mathbf{f}$ {#sec_fuzzy}
--------------------------------------------------
It is often important to assess the specimen broadening by determining $\mathbf{f}$, without making any assumptions concerning its functional form. This can be performed by deconvolving (\[equ\_obs\]). However, in determining $\mathbf{f}$ ‘ringing effects’ can appear in the solution. The ringing is often due to noise effects which are amplified and appear as unphysical oscillations in the solution . The above theory assumes that smoothing is applied globally. However, the ringing effects are local artifacts. In order to introduce ‘local’ smoothing, we must address how to decompose $\mathbf f$. Explicit in the composition of $\mathbf{f}$ is that it is expressed as a superposition of delta functions, $$f(2\theta)=\sum_{l=1}^{N}\,\delta(2\theta-2\theta_{l}) \,a_{l} \label{equ_delta}$$ where $\mathbf{a}=\{a_{1},\,a_{2},\,\ldots,\,a_{N}\}$ is the set of coefficients that define the amplitude of $f$ at the $l$th position. However, (\[equ\_delta\]) assumes a global smoothness, while the ringing effects are local effects.
Following the suggestion of [-@sivia99; -@sivia96], we blur $\delta(2\theta)$ by including the spatial correlation length or width. To do this, we choose a basis function which includes a spatial correlation length as its width and reduces to $\delta(2\theta)$ in the limit of the width going to zero. That is, we make the pixel at the $l$th position of $\mathbf f$ *fuzzy*. A simple choice is to express $\mathbf
f$ in terms of a sum of Gaussian function, $$f(2\theta)=\sum_{l=1}^{N}\,\exp\left[-\frac{(2\theta-2\theta_{l})^{2}}{2\,\omega^{2}}
\right]\,a_{l}
\label{equ_fuzzy}$$ where $\omega$ is the width of the spatial correlation or fuzzy pixel. In the limit of $\omega \rightarrow 0$, (\[equ\_fuzzy\]) reduces to (\[equ\_delta\]).
In matrix notation (\[equ\_fuzzy\]) becomes, $$\mathbf{f}=\mathbf{F}\,\mathbf{a}
\label{equ_fuzzy2}$$ where $\mathbf{F}$ is an $[N\times N]$ matrix containing the elements of the Gaussian function.
*How do we determine the optimum $\omega$ given the observed data, kernel and statistical noise?*
The tools for addressing this question have been presented. That is, we employ Bayes’ theorem to determine the *a posteriori* probability distribution for $\omega$ conditional on the observed line profile. The $\omega$ which maximises the resulting *a posteriori* probability distribution becomes the optimum fuzzy pixel width, $\hat{\omega}$. At a practical level, we replace the equations where $\mathbf{P}$ appears with $\mathbf{a}$, and the kernel $\mathbf{K}$ is replaced by $$\mathbf{G}=\mathbf{R}\,\mathbf{F} \label{equ_newkernel}$$ where $\mathbf{G}\equiv\mathbf{G}(\omega)$.
Applying Bayesian theory, the distribution for $\omega$ can be determined by integrating out $\mathbf{a}$ and $\alpha$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\omega|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{\sigma},\,\mathcal{I}) &=& \int
\mathcal{D}\mathbf{a} \, \int \mathrm{d}\alpha
\Pr(\mathbf{a},\,\alpha,\,\omega|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{\sigma},\,
\mathcal{I})\label{equ_jpdomega}\\
&=& \int\mathcal{D}\mathbf{a} \, \int \mathrm{d}\alpha
\,\Pr(\alpha| \, \mathcal{I})
\,\Pr(\omega| \, \mathcal{I}) \nonumber\\
&\times&
\Pr(\mathbf{a}|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\mathbf{\sigma},\,\alpha,\,\omega,\,
\mathcal{I}).\label{equ_jpdomega2}
\end{aligned}$$
Following the same steps as in (\[equ\_subequ1\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\omega|\,\mathbf{g},\,\mathbf{m},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})
&\approx&
\frac{\Pr(\alpha|\,\mathcal{I})\,\Pr(\omega|\,\mathcal{I})}{\Pr(\mathbf{g}|\,\mathbf{m},\,\sigma,\,\mathcal{I})}\,\frac{1}{Z_{S}(\alpha)\, Z_{L}(\sigma)} \nonumber\\
&\times& \frac{(2\pi)^{\frac{N}{2}}\,e^{Q(\alpha,\,\omega)}
}{\sqrt{\det \nabla \nabla Q(\alpha,\,\omega)}}. \label{equ_jpdomega3}
\end{aligned}$$\[equ\_subequ2\]
where $Q(\mathbf{a},\, \alpha, \, \omega) =\alpha\,S(\mathbf{a}) -
L(\mathbf{a},\,\omega)$ for the unknown terms $\mathbf{a}$, $\alpha$ and $\omega$; and $\nabla \nabla Q(\alpha,\, \omega) \equiv \nabla_{\mathbf{a}}\nabla_{\mathbf{a}}Q(\alpha,\, \omega)$.
Error bars can also be attributed to $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{f}$. Using the results discussed in § \[sec\_errorbars\], the covariance matrix for $\mathbf{a}$, $\nabla_{\mathbf{a}} \nabla_{\mathbf{a}} Q$ can be determined. The corresponding covariance matrix for $\mathbf{f}$ can be determined from $\nabla_{\mathbf{f}} \nabla_{\mathbf{f}}
Q=\mathbf{F}\,\nabla_{\mathbf{a}} \nabla_{\mathbf{a}}
Q\,\mathbf{F}^{T}$. On applying (\[equ\_var\]) the error bars for $\mathbf{f}$ can be determined.
Traditionally this problem has been solved by applying classical techniques, such as the method. In order to overcome the numerical instability of the Stokes method, methods such *direct convolution* [@howard89a; @howard89b] and profile fitting methods, such as the Voigt function [@wu98a; @balzar93a; @langford92; @keijser83; @keijser82] have been developed. These approaches assume an analytical profile function for the specimen profile; the convolution product between the instrument and specimen profile is refined, by updating the parameters that define the specimen profile, until the error between the calculated and observed data is minimized. These methods are a means to an end. There is often no physical basis for choosing a particular profile function, except that it results in a minimized error [@armstrong99]. However, the Bayesian/fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt approach determines the *maximally uncommitted* solution or the solution with the least assumptions [@wu97], given all the available data and information.
Generating & analyzing simulated $\mbox{CeO}_{2}$ data {#sec_mockdata}
======================================================
Generating the simulated data {#sec_genmock}
-----------------------------
#### Particle-size distribution, $P(D)$.
In order to test the Bayesian/MaxEnt method, simulated data for the $2 0 0$ and $4 0 0$ line profiles from $\mbox{CeO}_{2}$ were generated. The crystallites were assumed to be spherical in shape with a log-normal crystallite-size distribution,
$$P(D)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\,D^{2}\,\ln^{2}\sigma_{0}}}\,\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}
\left(\frac{\ln (D/D_{0})}{\ln\sigma_{0}}\right)^{2}\right]
\label{equ_lognorm}$$
where $D_{0}$ is the median and $\sigma_{0}^{2}$ is the log-normal variance. The average diameter, $\langle D \rangle$, and variance, $\sigma_{\langle D
\rangle}^{2}$, of the distribution are related to these quantities by $$\langle D \rangle= D_{0}\,e^{\ln^{2}\sigma_{0}/2} \label{equ_logave}$$ and $$\sigma_{\langle D \rangle}^{2} =
D_{0}^{2}\,e^{\ln^{2} \sigma_{0}}\left(e^{\ln^{2}\sigma_{0}} - 1\right).
\label{equ_logvar}$$ \[equ\_lognormal\]
The log-normal parameters used were $D_{0}=13.03\,\mbox{nm}$ and $\sigma_{0}^{2}=2.89$. Using (\[equ\_logave\]) and (\[equ\_logvar\]), the average diameter and variance were determined to be, $\langle D \rangle
=15.00\,\mbox{nm}$ and $\sigma_{\langle D
\rangle}^{2}=73.17\,\mbox{nm}^{2}$, respectively. Using the results from (see Equations 6-8, p625), the corresponding area- and volume-weighted sizes were determined.
The area- and volume-weighted diameters for spheres are related to the sizes [@langford00] by
$$\langle D \rangle_{a}=\frac{3}{2}\langle t \rangle_{a}
\label{equ_areadiam}$$
and $$\langle D \rangle_{v}=\frac{4}{3}\langle t \rangle_{v}
\label{equ_voldiam}.$$ \[equ\_diam\]
The area- and volume-weighted sizes, $\langle t \rangle_{a}$ and $\langle t \rangle_{v}$, can be determined from the specimen profile, $f$, and Fourier coefficients, $A(t)$, by using [@warren69] $$\langle t \rangle_{a}^{-1} = -\left. \frac{\mathrm{d}A(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}
\right |_{t\rightarrow 0}
\label{equ_areat}.$$ The volume-weighted size is inversely related to the integral breadth and can be determined either directly from the specimen profile, $f$, or from its Fourier coefficients, $A(t)$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\beta &=& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\, f(s)\,\mathrm{d}s /f_{max}
\label{equ_int1} \\
&=& \left[ 2 \int_{0}^{\infty}\, A(t)\,\mathrm{d}t
\right]^{-1} \label{equ_int2}\\
&=& \langle t \rangle_{v}^{-1} \label{equ_volt},
\end{aligned}$$
\[equ\_intbreadth\]
where $\beta$ is in reciprocal space units.
Using (\[equ\_areat\]) and (\[equ\_diam\]), the area-weighted size and diameter were determined as $\langle t\rangle_{a}=17.56
\,\mbox{nm}$ and $\langle D \rangle_{a}=26.34\,\mbox{nm}$, respectively. Using (\[equ\_int1\]) and (\[equ\_diam\]), the volume-weighted size and diameter were determined as $\langle t \rangle_{v}=26.18\,\mbox{nm}$ and $\langle D \rangle_{v}=34.91
\,\mbox{nm}$, respectively. These settings are considered as the theoretical values for the simulated data. The Bayesian/fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt results are compared with the theoretical sizes and percentage differences are determined.
#### Line profiles, $f(2\theta)$ & $k(2\theta)$.
Using the parameters for the size distribution, the specimen profile for spherical crystallite, $f(2\theta)$, was modelled over the range $(2\theta_{0}
\pm10)\,^{\circ}2\theta$ at a step size of $0.01 \,^{\circ}2\theta$ (see (\[equ\_sprofile4\])). The simulation of the specimen profile over this range minimized any artifacts in the Fourier coefficients. The instrument profile, $k(2\theta)$, was modelled on the diffractometer parameters and $\mbox{LaB}_{6}$ line-position standard reference material, as discussed in § \[sec\_exp\]. The split-Pearson VII function for the 200 line consisted of the following parameters: $\mbox{FWHM}_{low}=0.030\,^{\circ}2\theta$, $\mbox{FWHM}_{high}=0.027\,^{\circ}2\theta$ and $m_{exp,low}=6.928$, $m_{exp,high}=11.324$, where $m_{exp}$ are the split-Pearson exponents. The ‘low’ and ‘high’ subscripts are with respect to the Bragg positions, $2\theta_{0}$ (see Fig. \[fig\_exp\_lab6\]).
#### Generating $g(2\theta)$.
The observed line profiles, $g(2\theta)$, for the $2 0 0$ and $4 0
0$ lines consisted of the convolution of the specimen line profile, $f(2\theta)$, with the instrument line profile, $k(2\theta)$, Poisson noise, and a linear background level, $b(2\theta)$. Statistical noise was also imparted onto the background before adding it to the convoluted product. This is expressed by (\[equ\_obs\]).
The generation of $g(2\theta)$ was carried out over $2\theta_{0}\pm 10\,^{\circ}2\theta$ in order to minimize any truncation errors. The maximum peak height for the $2 0 0$ line profile was set to 6500 counts (without background level and noise or a total of 7835 counts including background level and noise) and the peak-to-background ratio, $R_{pb}$, was set to 6.0. The corresponding percentage error in the peak maximum was determined using $$\sigma_{peak} =
\frac{1}{(R_{pb}-1)}\,\left[\frac{R_{pb}(R_{pb}+1)}{
I_{max,bg}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
\, \times \,100 \%
\label{equ_errorcounts}$$ where $I_{max,bg}$ is the maximum number of counts, including background level. Simulated $g(2\theta)$ for the $2 0 0$ and $4 0
0$ line profiles are shown in Fig. \[fig\_obs\_ceo2\]. The uncertainty for the $2 0 0$ line was 1.5% in the peak height. Similarly, for the $4 0 0$ line the maximum peak height was set to 1500 counts (2646 counts including background level and noise), the average peak-to-background ratio was set to 2.4; and the estimated statistical uncertainty in the peak height was found to be 4.0%.
[cc]{}
&
\
&
In order to simulate realistic conditions, the Bayesian/MaxEnt analysis of the $g(2\theta)$ was carried out in a truncated region $(2\theta_{0}\pm 2)\,^{\circ}2\theta$ for the $2 0 0$ and $(2\theta_{0}\pm 1.5)\,^{\circ}2\theta$ for the $4 0 0$ line profiles. In the analysis, the background level was assumed to be unknown and was approximated by a linear function over this region. This was achieved by examining the Fourier coefficients of $g(2\theta)$ as the level was raised/lowered until distortions (i.e. ‘hook effect’ etc.) were removed. Fig. \[fig\_obs\_ceo2\] shows the simulated $g(2\theta)$ before and after the background level estimation for the $2 0 0$ and $4 0 0$ line profiles.
#### Generating the kernels, $\mathbf{R}$, $\mathbf{I}_{p}$ & $\mathbf{K}$ {#sec_kernels}
The numerical evaluation of the instrument kernel $\mathbf{R}$, line profile kernel $\mathbf{I}_{p}$, and scattering kernel $\mathbf{K}$, are an important aspect in the application of the Bayesian/MaxEnt method. The evaluation of the fuzzy pixel kernel, $\mathbf{F}$, is also important in the implementation of the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method in determining the specimen profile, $f$. This section expands on § \[sec\_observations\].
The advantage of the algorithm [@bryan90a] and the Bayesian/MaxEnt algorithm is that the search direction (or subspace) is defined by the singular value decomposition (SVD) of the scattering kernel, $\mathbf{K}$. This approach is numerically efficient (in that it reduces the number of floating point operations) and also numerically stable, since it does not utilize the full column-space of the kernels. As was pointed out in § \[sec\_observations\], the vector-space spanned by the column vectors of $\mathbf{K}$ may be all (or nearly all) linearly dependent, causing it to be ill-conditioned. The ill-conditioned characteristics are overcome by the SVD of $\mathbf{K}$, $\mathbf{V}\,\mathbf{\Sigma}\,\mathbf{U}^{T}$, where the ‘singular space’ spanned by the column vectors of $\mathbf{U}$ is used to define the subspace in which the size distribution can be determined.
The instrument kernel, $\mathbf{R}$, is an $[M\times N']$ matrix. The elements of this matrix can be determined by $R_{ij'}=k(2\theta_{i}-2\theta_{j'})$, where $M \geq N'$. This matrix can be mapped into reciprocal-space, s, by multiplying each column of $\mathbf{R}$ by $\mathrm{d}(2\theta)/\mathrm{d}s
=\lambda/\cos \theta_{j'}$.
The line profile kernel expresses (\[equ\_intprofile\]) as an $[N' \times N]$ matrix, $\mathbf{I}_{p} \equiv [I_{p\,j'j}$\], consisting of the line profile from a specific common volume (i.e. shape) function. The formalism presented here is completely general and any shape function can be used where appropriate. In this study, we have employed the common-volume function for spherical crystallites (see \[equ\_sphereexample\]), $$I_{p\,j'j}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{16 \pi^{3} s_{j'}^{\prime 4}} + \frac{D_{j}^{2}}{8 \pi
s_{j'}^{\prime 2}} - \frac{\cos(2\pi s_{j'}' D_{j})}{16 \pi^{3}
s_{j'}^{\prime 4}} - \frac{D_{j}\, \sin(2\pi s_{j'}^{\prime}
D_{j})}{8 \pi^{2} s_{j'}^{\prime 3}} & \mbox{for $ s_{j'}' \neq 0$} \\
\frac{\pi D_{j}^{4}}{8} & \mbox{for $ s_{j'}' =0$}
\end{array}
\right. \label{equ_lineprofilesphere}$$ where the second term in (\[equ\_lineprofilesphere\]) ensures that the line profile from a single spherical crystallite is finite for $s=0$.
The evaluation of the scattering kernel, $\mathbf{K}$, is the matrix product of the instrument kernel (mapped into $s$-space), $\mathbf{R}$, and the line profile kernel, (\[equ\_lineprofilesphere\]). Using (\[equ\_kernel\])
$$\begin{aligned}
K(s_{i},\,D_{j}) &=& \delta D \, \delta s'\,
\sum_{j'}\,k(s_{i}-s_{j'}')\,I_{p}(s_{j'}',\,D_{j})\label{equ_scatkernela} \\
K_{ij} &=& \delta D \, \delta s'\, \sum_{j'}\,R_{ij'}\,I_{p\,j'j}
\label{equ_scatkernelb} \\
\mathbf{K} &=& \delta D \, \delta s'\,\mathbf{R}\, \mathbf{I}_{p}\label{equ_scatkernelc}
\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{R}$ has been mapped into $s$-space, $\delta s'$ is the step size in $s'$-space and approximates the integration in (\[equ\_kernel\]), while $\delta D$ is the step size in $D$-space and approximates the integration in (\[equ\_single\]). Care must be taken in selecting $\delta D$ to avoid the under-sampling of (\[equ\_lineprofilesphere\]).
Applying the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method for $f(2\theta)$ {#sec_mockfuzzy}
-------------------------------------------------------
This approach involves determining the specimen profile from the simulated data. It is equivalent to solving the deconvolution problem, (\[equ\_obs\]), and is an important first step in assessing the nature of the specimen broadening. In the past, we have applied the algorithm with global smoothing , which we refer to here as the ‘old’ MaxEnt method. However, in this section we apply the Fuzzy Pixel/MaxEnt method discussed in § \[sec\_fuzzy\], to determine $f(2\theta)$. The results are also compared with those from the ‘old’ MaxEnt method, and their reliability in reproducing the log-normal parameters for the crystallite-size distribution (set in § \[sec\_genmock\]) are assessed.
The specimen line profiles from the ‘old’ MaxEnt approach are given in Fig. \[fig\_oldsol\]. These results were compared with the theoretical specimen profiles by evaluating the $R_{f}$ and $R_{w}$ values. A summary of these and subsequent analyses is given in Table \[tab\_memresults\].
[cc]{}
&
The ‘old’ MaxEnt method is not based on a Bayesian formalism and spurious oscillations can appear in the solution specimen profile. This second point becomes important in analyzing high angle/low intensity profiles. This is further illustrated by inspecting the residuals in Fig. \[fig\_oldsol\](b), where the amplitude of the residuals is large in comparison with the normalized peak height. We contrast the results in Fig. \[fig\_oldsol\] with the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method discussed in § \[sec\_fuzzy\]. Using this theory, the fuzzy pixel distribution specimen profiles are shown in Fig. \[fig\_fuzzsol\]. The fuzzy pixel distribution determines the optimum fuzzy pixel width, $\omega$ (see (\[equ\_subequ2\])). For the $2 0 0$ line, the optimum value was found to be $\hat{\omega} \approx 0.07\,^{\circ}2\theta$ and for the $4 0 0$ line, $\hat{\omega} \approx 0.05\,^{\circ}2\theta$. This defines the correlation-length scale of the noise in the simulated data and essentially filters out the noise effects. It is evident from the residuals of the multiple orders that smoothing of the specimen profile has been achieved using this approach.
[cc]{}
&
\
&
Using the line profiles determined and assuming a spherical crystallite shape, the parameters of the underlying log-normal size distribution can be reproduced by following the approach of . These results are shown in Table \[tab\_memresults\]. The analysis has produced mixed results, due to the stringent but realistic conditions imposed on the background estimation. Comparing the $2 0 0$ line profile results for the ‘old’ MaxEnt and fuzzy pixels methods, there is a noticeable improvement in the latter results over the former. This is not only seen in an improved $R_{f}$ value, but also in the reproduced log-normal parameters. In the case of the $4 0 0$ line, we notice that the $R_{f}$ value has improved by a factor of $\sim
3$ and the volume-weighted size by a factor of $\sim 1.5$ for the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt approach. However, the area-weighted size for the $4 0 0$ line profile has not improved. As a consequence, when the underlying log-normal parameters are determined from the area- and volume-weighted sizes no improvements are gained.
----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Results $2 0 0$ $4 0 0$ $2 0 0$ $4 0 0$
$R_{f}\, (\%)$ 4.2 10.9 2.7 3.1
$R_{w}\, (\%)$ 2.9 3.7 3.0 3.7
$\langle t \rangle_{a}\,\mbox{(nm)}$ $\begin{array}{c}19.9 \pm 0.1 \,(13.3\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}20.4 \pm 0.1 \, (16.0\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}17.89\pm 0.07 \, (1.9\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}20.5 \pm 0.1 \, (16.5\%) \end{array}$
$\langle D \rangle_{a}\,\mbox{(nm)}$ $29.8 \pm 0.2$ $30.5\pm 0.2$ $26.8 \pm 0.1$ $30.7 \pm 0.2$
$\langle t \rangle_{v}\,\mbox{(nm)}$ $\begin{array}{c}26.63\pm 0.07 \,(1.7\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}28.0\pm 0.2 \, (7.1\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}25.86 \pm 0.04 \, (1.2\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c} 27.4 \pm 0.2 \, (4.8\%)\end{array}$
$\langle D \rangle_{v}\,\mbox{(nm)}$ $35.51\pm 0.09$ $37.4\pm 0.2$ $34.48\pm 0.05$ $36.6\pm 0.3$
$D_{0}\,\mbox{(nm)}$ $\begin{array}{c}19.3\pm 0.4 \,(48.1\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}18.4 \pm 0.5\, (41.5\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}14.3\pm 0.2 \, (10.1\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}19.8 \pm 0.6 \, (52.0\%) \end{array}$
$\sigma_{0}$ $\begin{array}{c}1.52 \pm 0.01 \, (10.7\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}1.57 \pm 0.02 \, (7.8\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}1.650\pm 0.007 \, (3.0\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}1.52 \pm 0.02\, (10.6\%) \end{array}$
$\langle D \rangle \,\mbox{(nm)}$ $\begin{array}{c}21.06\pm 0.43 \, (40.4\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}20.4\pm 0.5 \, (36.0\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}16.3 \pm 0.2 \, (8.4\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}2.6 \pm 0.6 \, (44.1\%)\end{array}$
$ \sigma_{\langle D \rangle}^{2} \,(\mbox{nm}^{2})$ $\begin{array}{c}84 \pm 5 \, (15.3\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c} 93\pm 7 \, (27.2\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}75 \pm 3 \, (2.9\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}89 \pm 8 \, (22.4\%) \end{array}$
----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
: Area- and volume-weighted sizes for the $2
0 0$ and $4 0 0$ specimen line profiles ($f$) from the ‘old’ MaxEnt and fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt methods. $\langle D \rangle_{a}$ and $\langle D \rangle_{v}$ values were determined using (\[equ\_diam\]). The $D_{0}$, $\sigma_{0}$, $\langle D \rangle$ and $\sigma_{\langle D \rangle}^{2}$ values were determined from (\[equ\_lognormal\]). The percentage differences between the calculated and theoretical values are given in parentheses. \[tab\_memresults\]
These results for the $4 0 0$ line profile can be explained by the low peak-to-background ratio, statistical uncertainty, and the presence of systematic errors arising from the background estimation. The peak-to-background ratio for the $4 0 0$ line profile is 2.4. This low value results in an increased uncertainty in the estimated background level. From (\[equ\_errorcounts\]), we notice that as the peak-to-background ratio increases, the peak height uncertainty decreases and the dominant source of uncertainty becomes the statistical noise.[^3] The variance of the observed profile is determined by two components: the Poisson counting statistics, which can be approximated as $\sqrt{\mbox{g}}$, for $\mbox{g}>>10\,\mbox{counts}$, and the estimated background level, $b_{est}$; it can be expressed as $\sigma^{2}=g+ b_{est}$. The presence of statistical uncertainty and the low peak-to-background ratio introduces uncertainties to the slope and intercept of the estimated background level. In turn, this introduces systematic errors to the Fourier coefficients of $f$ [@armstrong99]. Although the fuzzy/pixel method has been successful in improving the quality of the line profile (which amounts to reducing the statistical error in the solution line profile), the systematic errors have propagated to the Fourier coefficients of the specimen profile and in turn to the area-weighted size. Additional calculations and applying the above analysis to simulated data with zero background (i.e. only Poisson noise) show percentage differences between the calculated and theoretical results of $\lesssim 5\%$ for both the $2 0 0$ and $4 0 0$ fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt specimen profiles. This highlights the difficulty of analyzing high-angle/weak line profiles, which clearly requires a good understanding of the background level in order to reduce the influence of systematic errors.
The application of the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method for determining $f(2\theta)$ enables the specimen broadening to be assessed. This is important in the application of methods such as those of Warren-Averbach and Williamson-Hall. Furthermore, the analysis discussed here can be used as the *a priori* information of the Bayesian/MaxEnt analysis. The fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt approach overcomes the difficulties in commonly used deconvolution techniques and resolves the ‘ringing effects’ in .
Bayesian/MaxEnt method for $P(D)$ using different $m(D)$ {#sec_mockanal}
--------------------------------------------------------
The next stage in the analysis of the simulated data is applying the Bayesian/MaxEnt method to determine the particle distribution, $P(D)$. In addition, two different approaches for determining a model, $m(D)$, were explored and their effects on $P(D)$ were quantified. The two approaches were (i) uniform model over $D\in[0,\,60]\,\mbox{nm}$ and (ii) ‘low resolution’ approach [@armstrong99] using the log-normal distribution parameters determined in § \[sec\_mockfuzzy\] as the prior.
#### Uniform model
The Fourier coefficients $A(t)$ of the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt specimen profiles (not shown here) suggest the maximum size of the crystallites is $\sim 60\,\mbox{nm}$, since $A(t)\sim 0$ at this length. Using this information, a uniform distribution was defined over $D\in[0,\,60]\,\mbox{nm}$. The corresponding Bayesian/MaxEnt results are shown in Fig. \[fig\_unibayessol\]. The posterior distribution for $\alpha$ is shown in Figs. \[fig\_unibayessol\](a) & (c) for the $2 0 0$ and $4 0 0$ profiles, respectively. This distribution was used to average over the set of solutions $\{\mathbf{P}\}$ for each case. The Bayesian/MaxEnt results are given in Fig. \[fig\_unibayessol\](b) & (d) for the $2 0 0$ and $4 0 0$ profiles respectively.
Using a uniform model, the Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions where compared with the theoretical size distribution, $P(D)$. The Bayesian/MaxEnt results share ‘global’ features with the theoretical size distributions. However, ‘local’ features are poorly defined, especially in the region of $0\lesssim D \lesssim
10\, \mbox{nm}$. This is a direct consequence of the uniform model and the lack of relevant information in the data; that is, it assigns an equal weight to all sizes over $D$. The vertical error bars in both cases correctly represent the misfitting between the theoretical and Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions; additionally, their magnitude also signifies that a uniform model transfers little or no useful information. This can also be seen in the parameters for the Bayesian/MaxEnt distribution compared with their theoretical values in Table \[tab\_unip\]. In determining the log-normal parameters from the Bayesian/MaxEnt $P(D)$, the fitted distribution produce reasonable results. This suggests that, although the *a proiri* model is uniform, the Bayesian/MaxEnt method can ‘extract’ some information concerning the underlying distribution from the simulated data.
[cc]{}
&
\
&
----------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
Results $2 0 0$ $4 0 0$ $2 0 0$ $4 0 0$
$R_{f}\,(\%)$ 23.0 40.0 22.2 19.1
$D_{0} \, (\mbox{nm})$ $\begin{array}{c}13.9 \pm 0.3 \, (6.5\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}11.9 \pm 0.9 \, (8.8\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}14.8 \pm 0.2 \, (13.4\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}12.5 \pm 0.2 \, (4.4\%) \end{array}$
$\sigma_{0}$ $\begin{array}{c}1.589\pm 0.003 \, (6.5\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c} 2.14 \pm 0.03, (25.8\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}1.612 \pm 0.002\, (5.1\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}1.544 \pm 0.002 \, (9.2\%) \end{array}$
$\langle D \rangle \,\mbox{(nm)}$ $\begin{array}{c}15.5 \pm 0.3 \, (3.0\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c} 15 \pm 2 \, (5.8\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}16.6\pm 0.2 \, (10.4\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}13.7 \pm 0.2 \, (8.7\%) \end{array}$
$ \sigma_{\langle D \rangle}^{2} \,(\mbox{nm}^{2})$ $\begin{array}{c}57\pm 3 \, (22.0\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}197 \pm 145 \, (>100\%) \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c} 70 \pm 2 \, (3.9\%)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c} 39 \pm 1 \, (46.7\%)\end{array}$
----------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
: $P(D)$ results from the Bayesian/MaxEnt method for the $2 0 0$ and $4 0 0$ line profiles using different *a priori* models. The values for $D_{0}$, $\sigma_{0}$, $\langle D \rangle$ and $\sigma_{\langle D \rangle}^{2}$ were determined by fitting the Bayesian/MaxEnt solutions with a log-normal distribution. The percentage difference between calculated and theoretical values are given in parentheses.\[tab\_unip\]
#### ‘Low resolution’ approach
A log-normal *a priori* model used in the Bayesian/MaxEnt method was defined from the $D_{0}$ and $\sigma_{0}$ of the $2 0
0$ fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt line profile (see Table \[tab\_memresults\]). Unlike the uniform model, this model defines local features of the size-distribution. The Bayesian/MaxEnt results using this model are shown in Fig. \[fig\_nonbayessol\] and the determined parameters in Table \[tab\_unip\]. Before discussing the results, it is interesting to point out that the log-normal model and theoretical size-distribution produce a difference of 15.8%. One of the aims of this section is to assess whether this difference has been imparted to the Bayesian/MaxEnt size-distribution.
Comparing the *a posteriori* distribution for $\alpha$ using a uniform model (see Figs. \[fig\_unibayessol\] (a) & (c)) with that of the log-normal distribution, given in Figs. \[fig\_nonbayessol\](a) & (c), we notice that the effect of the log-normal model is to shift the distribution in $\alpha$-space and widen it. Essentially the solution space parameterized by $\alpha$ has been expanded to encompass those solutions which correspond to the available *a priori* and experimental data.
The Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions, given in Figs. \[fig\_nonbayessol\](b) & (d), compare reasonably well with the theoretical distribution. However, there is noticeable misfitting between these distributions. Further, the Bayesian/MaxEnt solution has been shifted slightly relative to the log-normal model. This is also evident in the $R_{f}$ for the $2 0
0$ and $4 0 0$ size distributions, given in Table \[tab\_unip\]. The $R_{f}$ for both solutions has increased relative to the log-normal model by an additional $\sim 3-6\%$. This can also be seen by comparing the percentage differences for the $D_{0}$, $\sigma_{0}$, $\langle D \rangle$ and $ \sigma_{\langle D
\rangle}^{2}$ parameters for the $2 0 0$ fuzzy pixel solution, given in Table \[tab\_memresults\] (i.e. third column), with those given in Table \[tab\_unip\] using the ‘low resolution’ method, where there is a slight increase in the percentage difference, with the exception of the $\sigma_{\langle D
\rangle}^{2}$ value. Additional calculations suggest that misfitting between the solution and theoretical size distributions arises from errors in the *a prior* model. The influence of the background estimation which was problematic in the fuzzy pixel analysis does not seem to be a factor in this analysis.
[cc]{}
&
\
&
While there exists some misfitting between the solution and theoretical size distributions, the vertical error bars correctly account for this misfitting. This characteristic of the Bayesian/MaxEnt can be seen for both the uniform and non-uniform models. Indeed, this feature of the method ensures that it is fully quantitative, and represents a clear strength over existing methods. Comparing these solutions with those using a uniform model, considerable improvement in the size distribution has been achieved. The ‘local’ information defined in the log-normal *a priori* model has been imparted to the Bayesian/MaxEnt solution.
This analysis also demonstrates the difficulty in estimating a suitable non-uniform model based on the current techniques. Further, any uncertainty in the model parameters is also passed on to the solution distribution. This indicates the need to quantify the uncertainty in the model parameters and quantify how these uncertainties are passed on to the solution size distribution.
Experimental Details {#sec_exp}
====================
Analysis of the simulated data highlighted difficulties of background estimation and the effect of the *a priori* model on the Bayesian/MaxEnt size distribution. However, this analysis provided a useful understanding of the experimental condition which were used in conducting an appropriate set of measurements. The fuzzy pixel/Bayesian/MaxEnt methods were applied to experimental CeO$_2$ diffraction data to determine the specimen profiles, crystallite shape, and size distribution. These results are compared with transmission electron microscopy data.
XRD Details
-----------
The CeO$_2$ specimen used here was prepared for the recent CPD and IUCR size round robin by .
Diffraction patterns were collected on a Siemens D500[^4] diffractometer equipped with a focusing Ge incident beam monochromator, sample spinner and a scintillation detector. Copper K$_{\alpha 1}$ radiation with a wavelength $\lambda = 0.15405945
\, \mbox{nm}$ was used. The divergence slit was $0.67\,^{\circ}$, while the receiving optics included a slit of $0.05\,^{\circ}$ and $2\,^{\circ}$ Soller slits. Data were collected in discrete regions straddling the maxima of each profile, with the step and scan width of each region being varied in correspondence with the FWHM. Count times were varied so as to obtain an approximately constant total number of counts for each scan region. The instrument profile function was determined using a split-Pearson VII profile shape function fitted to 22 reflections collected from SRM 660a (LaB$_{6}$). Fig. \[fig\_exp\_lab6\], shows the FWHMs and exponents for the split-Pearson VII profile function. The low- and high-FWHMs were fitted using [@cheary95] $$\mbox{FWHM}^{2}=A \, \tan^{2}\theta + B\,\cot^{2}\theta + C\,\tan
\theta +D, \label{equ_exp_fwhms}$$ while the low- and high-exponents were fitted using a fifth-order polynomial.
[cc]{}
&
The count times for the CeO$_2$ data were optimized using (\[equ\_errorcounts\]) so that the percentage error was kept in the range 1-3% for all peaks in the CeO$_2$ pattern. The scan ranges for the CeO$_2$ data were considerably wider, in proportion to the FWHM, than those used for the data collection from SRM 660a. This ensured a reasonable determination of the tails of the profiles and background levels. The CeO$_2$ $2 0 0$ line profile is shown in Fig. \[fig\_exp\_ceo2\](a). This illustrates a typical experimental line profile using the above conditions and settings. The estimated (linear) background level is also shown. A log plot of the $2 0 0$ line before and after the background estimation is shown in Fig. \[fig\_exp\_ceo2\](b). The procedure for determining the background level is as described in § \[sec\_genmock\].
[cc]{}
&
TEM Details
-----------
Particle agglomerates were gently crushed in ethanol using a mortar and pestle. A portion of the dilute slurry was dispersed on a holey carbon film and left to dry. Once in the TEM, a series of micrographs of particles were taken at a fixed magnification of 200k$\times$. In the *preliminary* examination reported here, these negatives were scanned and analysed by manually approximating the particle size with an oval. The oval’s major and minor axes were adjusted so as to tangentially intersect the particle surface facets.
There are several sources of error in the measurements: TEMs typically have a 5% error in length scale measurements; also, imaging the particle clusters means that particles are at different heights, which results in Fresnel fringes around the particles making it harder to identify particle edges. Further, larger particles give better contrast and it is easier to detect their edges, so it is possible to inadvertently preferentially choose larger particles over smaller ones.
A frequency histogram for about 850 particles is shown in Fig. \[fig\_pnon\](d). This figure also shows the Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions (discussed in § \[sec\_expquant\]) determined from the non-overlapped $h k l$ profiles of the CeO$_2$ diffraction pattern. A TEM micrograph of the CeO$_2$ crystallites is shown in Fig. \[tem\_images\]. It can be seen from the larger particles that they have a spherical-like morphology.
Analysis of CeO$_2$ x-ray diffraction data
==========================================
Two levels of application of the Bayesian and MaxEnt theory has been chosen in our analysis. We refer to these as the *qualitative* and *quantitative* approaches, to reflect their degree of rigor (see § \[sec\_expqual\] & \[sec\_expquant\], respectively).
Qualitative analysis {#sec_expqual}
--------------------
The qualitative analysis is used to determine the type and nature of specimen broadening, by first determining the specimen profile, $f$, followed by the application of the Warren-Averbach and Williamson-Hall methods. The integral breadths, from a Williamson-Hall plot, identify the presence of both strain- and size-broadening contributions, while plotting multiple-order Fourier coefficients and all other available Fourier coefficients on the same axes, also allows size- and strain-broadening contributions be identified .
We have introduced the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method for determining $f$ to ensure that no artifacts (such as spurious oscillations in the tails of $f$) are promulgated to the solution, and also to preserve the positivity of $f$.
We stress that unlike traditional methods, the approach in this section makes no assumptions at all about the nature of the specimen profile or broadening (i.e be it Gaussian, Lorentzian, Voigtian etc.). Thus, in further distinction from traditional deconvolution approaches, our approach facilitates the subsequent unbiased assessment of anisotropic broadening in the specimen, for example using contrast factors [@ungar99a].
Fig. \[fig\_expfuzzsol\] shows an example of the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method applied to the CeO$_2$ measured $2 0 0$ line profile given in Fig. \[fig\_exp\_ceo2\]. Fig. \[fig\_expfuzzsol\](a) is an example of the ‘old’ MaxEnt method, showing the effect of noise amplification. On applying the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method, the correlation length scale for the profile was determined, as discussed in § \[sec\_fuzzy\] and is shown in Fig. \[fig\_expfuzzsol\](b); the subsequent $f$ and Fourier coefficients for the $2 0 0$ line profile are given in Figs. \[fig\_expfuzzsol\](c) & (d), respectively. As demonstrated in the analysis of the simulated data, there is noticeable improvement in the quality of the solution line profile using the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method. This approach was applied to all the non-overlapped line profiles, including $1 1 1$, $2 0 0$, $2 2 0$, $4 0 0$, $4 2 2$, $5 1 1$ and $5 3 1$.
-- --
-- --
The volume- and area-weighted sizes were determined from the Williamson-Hall plot and Fourier coefficients, respectively. These results are shown in Fig. \[fig\_exp\_sizes\] and summarized in Table \[tab\_expsizes\].
[cc]{}
&
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$h k l$ $\begin{array}{c} \langle t \rangle_{a} \\ \mbox{(nm)} $\begin{array}{c}\langle D \rangle_{a} \\ $\begin{array}{c} \langle t $\begin{array}{c}\langle $\begin{array}{c} D_{0} $\sigma_{0}$ $\begin{array}{c} \langle D \rangle \\ \mbox{(nm)}\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c} \sigma_{\langle D \rangle}^{2} \\ (\mbox{nm}^{2})
\end{array}$ \mbox{(nm)} \end{array}$ \rangle_{v} \\ \mbox{(nm)} \end{array}$ D \rangle_{v} \\ \mbox{(nm)} \end{array}$ \\ \mbox{(nm)} \end{array}$ \end{array}$
--------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
$1 1 1$ $19.21 \pm 0.05$ $28.81 \pm 0.07$ $22.88 \pm 0.03$ $30.50 \pm 0.04$ $25.0 \pm 0.2$ $1.270 \pm 0.007$ $25.7\pm 0.2$ $39 \pm 2$
$2 0 0$ $16.04 \pm 0.06$ $24.06 \pm 0.08$ $22.22 \pm 0.05$ $29.63 \pm 0.06$ $14.3 \pm 0.2$ $1.578 \pm 0.007$ $15.9 \pm 0.2$ $58 \pm 2$
$2 2 0$ $18.92 \pm 0.04$ $28.38 \pm 0.06$ $23.24 \pm 0.04$ $31.00 \pm 0.05$ $22.8 \pm 0.2$ $1.345 \pm 0.006$ $23.8 \pm 0.2$ $52 \pm 2$
$4 0 0$ $15.76 \pm 0.06$ $23.64 \pm 0.09$ $22.03 \pm 0.11$ $29.4 \pm 0.2$ $13.7 \pm 0.3$ $1.59 \pm 0.01$ $15.3 \pm 0.3$ $56 \pm 3$
$4 2 2$ $15.45 \pm 0.08$ $23.2 \pm 0.1$ $21.5 \pm 0.1$ $28.6 \pm 0.1$ $13.7 \pm 0.3$ $1.58 \pm 0.01$ $15.2 \pm 0.3$ $54 \pm 3$
$5 1 1$ $15.91 \pm 0.07$ $23.9 \pm 0.1$ $21.9 \pm 0.1$ $29.2 \pm 0.2$ $14.4 \pm 0.3$ $1.57 \pm 0.01$ $16.0 \pm $57 \pm 3$
0.3$
$5 3 1$ $15.04 \pm 0.04$ $22.55 \pm 0.07$ $21.9 \pm 0.1$ $29.20 \pm 0.16$ $11.8 \pm 0.2$ $1.66 \pm 0.01$ $13.5 \pm 0.2$ $53 \pm 3$
Average $16.6 \pm 0.2$ $24.9 \pm 0.2$ $22.2 \pm 0.2$ $29.6 \pm 0.3$ $16.5 \pm 0.6$ $1.51 \pm 0.03$ $17.9 \pm 0.7$ $53 \pm 7$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Summary of CeO$_2$ data analysis. The area- and volume-weighted sizes were determined from the specimen profile of the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method. The $\langle t
\rangle_{a}$ and $\langle t \rangle_{v}$ results were determined directly from $f$ using (\[equ\_areat\]) and (\[equ\_intbreadth\]), respectively. The area- and volume-weighted diameters were determined using (\[equ\_diam\]), while the log-normal parameters were determined from Krill & Birringer (1998) and using (\[equ\_lognormal\]).\[tab\_expsizes\]
Fig. \[fig\_exp\_sizes\](a) shows the Williamson-Hall plot for the non-overlapped line profiles. It is evident that size effects are the dominant source of specimen broadening, since there is no detectable slope in the integral breadth data. Moreover, there is no systematic variation of the integral breadths with $h k l$, further suggesting that the crystallite shape is independent of $h
k l$. From these results, we can infer that the average shape of the crystallites is spherical. This is further supported by the area-weighted sizes shown in Fig. \[fig\_exp\_sizes\](b). These results were determined by applying (\[equ\_areat\]) to the Fourier coefficients of the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt specimen profiles and plotted over the entire $2\theta$-range. Again, the relative uniformity of this plot suggests that size effects are the major source of specimen broadening and that crystallites are near-spherical in shape. Deviations for the $1 1 1$ and $2 2 0$ data points in Fig. \[fig\_exp\_sizes\](b) arise from the differentiation of (\[equ\_areat\]) in the region $t \rightarrow
0$, where perturbations in the Fourier coefficients cause large changes in the area-weighted size [@armstrong99]. In addition, the Fourier coefficients for all the non-overlapped $h k l$ lines suggest that the maximum crystallite size is $\sim50-60\,\mbox{nm}$. An example of this can be seen in Fig. \[fig\_expfuzzsol\](d), where $A(t) \sim 0$ for $\sim50-60\,\mbox{nm}$. This can also be seen from the discussion in § \[sec\_sizebroadening\] and by inspecting Fig. \[fig\_common\], where the boundary conditions for $A(t)$ (or $V(t)$) are defined in terms of the maximum size in the direction of the scattering vector.
Referring to Table \[tab\_expsizes\], a spherical crystallite shape model was used to determine the area- and volume-weighted diameters, together with (\[equ\_areadiam\]) and (\[equ\_voldiam\]), respectively. The log-normal distribution parameters, $D_{0}$, $\sigma_{0}$, $\langle D \rangle$ and $\sigma_{\langle D \rangle}^{2}$ were determined using the equations developed by and (\[equ\_lognormal\]), which relate the log-normal parameters to the area- and volume-weighted sizes and the average diameter, $\langle D\rangle$, and variance $\sigma_{\langle D \rangle}$.
It can be seen from Fig. \[fig\_expfuzzsol\] and Table \[tab\_expsizes\], that the area- and volume-weighted sizes are relatively uniform for the $2\theta$ (or $h k l$) range. The quoted uncertainty for the averages was determined from a sum of squares of the uncertainties in the tabulated results.
The average results for $D_{0}$ and $\sigma_{0}$, were used to define a log-normal *a priori* model in the Bayesian/MaxEnt method (see § \[sec\_expquant\]). By defining the *a priori* model as a log-normal distribution, we are essentially testing the assumption that the size distribution is a log-normal distribution.
If the underlying size distribution is indeed log-normal, with parameters close to those in Table \[tab\_expsizes\], then we would expect the Bayesian/MaxEnt solution to lie ‘close’ to the *a priori* model. However, if the Bayesian/MaxEnt solution were ‘some distance’ from the *a priori* model, this would imply that either the underlying parameters or the model were inappropriately defined. The former case was demonstrated in analysis of the simulated data (see § \[sec\_mockanal\]), where uncertainties in the log-normal model were passed onto the Bayesian/MaxEnt solution; the latter case requires additional Bayesian analysis to test possible models [@sivia93; @loredo01].
In summary, the qualitative analysis has applied the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method to determine the specimen profile $f$ for all non-overlapped line profiles from the CeO$_{2}$ measured data (see Fig. \[fig\_expfuzzsol\]). This enabled subsequent analyses to determine the Fourier coefficients, integral breadths, and the area- and volume-weighted sizes. Fig. \[fig\_exp\_sizes\] and Table \[tab\_expsizes\] clearly indicate that the CeO$_{2}$ specimen on average consists of spherical crystallites. While a log-normal distribution can be fitted to these results, a quantitative method such as the Bayesian/MaxEnt technique is needed to determine the CeO$_{2}$ size distribution *directly* from the experimental data and to verify the assumption of a log-normal model.
Quantitative analysis {#sec_expquant}
---------------------
The quantitative analysis method uses the *a priori* information determined from the qualitative analysis and the available experimental data (such as the instrument and profile kernels, statistical uncertainties and experimental line profiles) to directly determine the crystallite size distribution.
The MaxEnt method also enables an *a priori* model to be included, while quantifying the uncertainty in the solution size distribution.
In this section, we apply the Bayesian/MaxEnt method to the CeO$_{2}$ data. The analysis presented here follows the steps discussed in § \[sec\_mockanal\]. Two *a priori* models are used: – (i) a uniform model, and (ii) the log-normal distribution determined in § \[sec\_expqual\]. The Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions for each case are fitted with a log-normal distribution, while the size distributions from (ii) are compared with the TEM size distribution, with very good agreement.
#### Uniform model
A uniform model was defined over the region of $D\in
[0,\,60]\,\mbox{nm}$ determined by the Fourier coefficients of the specimen profile, where $A(t) \sim 0$. This is illustrated by the Fourier coefficients for the $2 0 0$ line profile, given in Fig. \[fig\_expfuzzsol\](d). The Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions using this model are shown in Fig. \[fig\_puni\] for the $2 0 0$ line profile (see Fig. \[fig\_puni\] (a & b)). The size distributions for the non-overlapped line profiles are given in Fig. \[fig\_puni\] (c & d).
-- --
-- --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$h k l$ $\begin{array}{c} D_{0} \\ \mbox{(nm)} \end{array}$ $\sigma_{0}$ $\begin{array}{c} \langle D \rangle \\ \mbox{(nm)}\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c} \sigma_{\langle D \rangle}^{2} \\ (\mbox{nm}^{2})
\end{array}$
---------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
$1 1 1$ $13.1 \pm 0.4$ $1.9 \pm 0.1$ $16.3 \pm 0.8$ $140 \pm 43$
$2 0 0$ $14.7 \pm 0.3$ $1.61 \pm 0.03$ $16.4 \pm 0.4$ $69 \pm 7$
$2 2 0$ $ 15.5 \pm 0.4$ $1.70 \pm 0.08$ $17.8 \pm 0.6$ $104\pm 25$
$4 0 0 $ $15.8 \pm 0.8$ $1.7 \pm 0.1$ $18 \pm 1$ $120 \pm 48$
$4 2 2 $ $11.1 \pm 0.2$ $1.728 \pm 0.007$ $12.8 \pm 0.2$ $58\pm 2$
$5 1 1$ $14.3 \pm 0.3$ $1.66 \pm 0.05$ $16.3 \pm 0.4$ $78 \pm
15$
Average $14 \pm 1$ $1.7\pm 0.2$ $16 \pm 2$ $95 \pm 71$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Size distribution results using a uniform *a priori* model in the Bayesian/MaxEnt method. The Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions given in Fig. \[fig\_puni\](c) were fitted with a log-normal size distribution and the above parameters determined.\[tab\_expsizes2\]
The uncertainties in the Bayesian/MaxEnt size distribution for the $2 0 0$ line profile indicate how little useful *a priori* information has been transferred from the uniform model to the final distribution. We also notice that the final distribution is some distance from the model, illustrating that the underlying CeO$_2$ crystallite size distribution consists of a non-uniform structure. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig\_puni\](c), the size distributions are poorly defined in the range of $D\in[0,\,5]\,\mbox{nm}$; while for $D\gtrsim 5\,\mbox{nm}$ the non-uniform structure is evident. Since the size distribution is the only invariant quantity, we also expect the solution for each $ h k l$ to be the same. From the size distributions given in Fig. \[fig\_puni\](c), there is a broad agreement between the distributions, with the exception of the $1 1 1$ and $4 2 2$ cases. Both of these distributions lie at the extremities of the diffraction pattern and are more likely to be susceptible to larger experimental uncertainties.
The Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions were fitted with a log-normal model and the $D_{0}$, $\sigma_{0}$, $\langle D
\rangle$ and $\sigma_{\langle D \rangle}^{2}$ parameters determined. These results are given in Table \[tab\_expsizes2\]. The uncertainties in the solution distributions for the uniform model are also reflected in the uncertainties in the fitted quantities. This is especially the case for the variance of the size distributions, $\sigma_{\langle D
\rangle}^{2}$, with an error of $\sim 80\%$. This large uncertainty is a consequence of the scatter of size distributions shown in Fig. \[fig\_puni\](c). Such scatter is also noticeable when the average diameters, $\langle D \rangle$, (Table \[tab\_expsizes2\]) are plotted, as shown in Fig. \[fig\_puni\](d). The average values for $D_{0}$, $\sigma_{0}$, $\langle D\rangle$ and $\sigma_{\langle D
\rangle}^{2}$ are again in broad agreement with results determined in § \[sec\_expqual\], once the uncertainties are taken into account.
In summary, the use of the uniform model in the Bayesian/MaxEnt method has shown that there is a non-uniform structure to the CeO$_2$ size distributions. However, the lack of information in this model results in large uncertainties and considerable scatter of the distributions when plotted on the same axes (see Fig. \[fig\_puni\](c)).
#### Log-normal model
The parameters for the log-normal distribution determined in § \[sec\_expqual\] were used as the non-uniform *a priori* model in the Bayesian/MaxEnt method. The model was defined over the range of $D\in [0,\,60]\, \mbox{nm}$.
The Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions for this model are shown in Fig. \[fig\_pnon\]. The results are listed in Table \[tab\_expsizes3\]. Figs. \[fig\_pnon\](a) & (b) show the results for the $2 0 0$ size distribution using this model. The Bayesian/MaxEnt solution lies close to the log-normal model, while the uncertainties have decreased considerably compared with the size distribution (using a uniform model) in Fig. \[fig\_puni\](b); however, although the vertical error bars have decreased, they are still considerable. This can be explained in terms of the influence of the peak-to-background ratio. As discussed in § \[sec\_mockfuzzy\], the variance of the experimental data is determined by two terms, the statistical noise and the variance on the estimated background level. If the peak-to-background ratio is large ($\gtrsim 10$), then the statistical noise dominates and the corresponding error bars in the Bayesian/MaxEnt distribution become small when the solution is close to the underlying size distribution. This has been demonstrated using computer simulations. However, if the peak-to-background ratio is finite ($< 10$), the corresponding error bars in the MaxEnt/Bayesian solution remain finite regardless of how close the solution is to the underlying distribution. This is a direct consequence of determining the size distribution directly from the experimental data.
The Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions for all the non-overlapped $h k l$ line profiles are shown in Fig. \[fig\_pnon\](c). They lie very close to each other, reflecting the invariance of the size distribution and remaining close to the log-normal model. The scatter in the size distributions that was noticeable in Fig. \[fig\_puni\](c) for the uniform model has disappeared. Further, these results imply that the underlying size distribution from the CeO$_2$ crystallites can be described by a log-normal distribution. Comparing these results with the TEM size distribution, very good agreement is obtained for $14 \lesssim
D\lesssim 60 \,\mbox{nm}$. Due to its poor statistics, the TEM size distribution is ill-defined for $D\lesssim 14\,\mbox{nm}$. As mentioned above, the CeO$_{2}$ agglomerates were not separated, making it difficult to identify the smaller crystallites and contributing to the poorly defined region for $D\lesssim
14\,\mbox{nm}$. The TEM size distribution given in Fig. \[fig\_pnon\](d), represents a *preliminary* set of data and further results are currently being collated.
-- --
-- --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$h k l$ $\begin{array}{c} D_{0} \\ \mbox{(nm)} \end{array}$ $\sigma_{0}$ $\begin{array}{c} \langle D \rangle \\ \mbox{(nm)}\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c} \sigma_{\langle D \rangle}^{2} \\ \mbox{(nm$^2$)}
\end{array}$
---------- ----------------------------------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
$1 1 1$ $15.9 \pm 0.2$ $1.505\pm 0.008$ $17.2\pm 0.2$ $54 \pm 2$
$2 0 0$ $16.64 \pm 0.04$ $1.469 \pm 0.005$ $17.91 \pm 0.04$ $51 \pm 1$
$2 2 0$ $15.68 \pm 0.06$ $1.502 \pm 0.008$ $17.04\pm 0.08$ $52 \pm 2$
$ 4 0 0$ $15.48 \pm 0.01$ $1.480 \pm 0.005$ $16.72 \pm $46 \pm 1$
0.03$
$4 2 2$ $15.86 \pm 0.07$ $1.4799 \pm 0.0002$ $17.12 \pm $48.7 \pm 0.5$
0.08$
$5 1 1$ $16.21 \pm 0.07$ $1.497 \pm 0.002$ $17.58\pm 0.08$ $54.7 \pm 0.6$
$5 3 1$ $16.32 \pm 0.07$ $1.500 \pm 0.005$ $17.72 \pm 0.09$ $56 \pm 1$
Average $16.0 \pm 0.2$ $1.49 \pm 0.01$ $17.3 \pm 0.3$ $52
\pm 3$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Size distribution results using a log-normal *a priori* model in the Bayesian/MaxEnt method. The Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions given in Fig. \[fig\_puni\](c) were fitted with a log-normal size distribution and the above parameters determined.\[tab\_expsizes3\]
The correspondence between the Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions and the TEM distribution is very good for $D \geq 14\,\mbox{nm}$. The size distributions shown in Fig. \[fig\_pnon\](c) were fitted with a log-normal distribution and the $D_{0}$, $\sigma_{0}$, $\langle D \rangle$ and $\sigma_{\langle D \rangle}^{2}$ parameters were determined. These results are shown in Table \[tab\_expsizes3\]. The fitted distribution compared very closely with the solution distribution. The small uncertainties in the fitted quantities of Table \[tab\_expsizes3\] reflect the quality of the Bayesian/MaxEnt distributions. This can also be seen in the low uncertainty in the variance, $\sigma_{\langle D
\rangle}^{2}$, which is $\sim 8 \%$.
The average quantities given in Table \[tab\_expsizes3\] can be considered to represent the size distribution for the CeO$_{2}$ specimen. Hence, the use of the fuzzy pixel/Bayesian/MaxEnt methods has determined the specimen profile, $f$, and enabled size effects to be identified as the major source of specimen broadening. The analysis of the line profiles has shown that the crystallite shape is spherical, on average. The Fourier coefficients of the specimen profiles also show that the crystallites have a maximum size of $\sim 60 \,\mbox{nm}$. This was subsequently shown from the Bayesian/MaxEnt size distributions. Using this information, the Bayesian/MaxEnt method successfully determined the CeO$_{2}$ size distribution. While the size distributions using a uniform *a priori* model broadly agree with the results from the fuzzy pixel analysis, the uncertainty in the results is large; on using a log-normal *a priori* model considerable improvements in the size distribution were obtained. The non-uniform structure in the model has been transferred to the Bayesian/MaxEnt solution.
The TEM micrograph of the CeO$_{2}$ specimen, shown in Fig. \[tem\_images\], confirms the results that have been determined from the x-ray diffraction data. From the micrograph, it can be seen that the crystallites are near-spherical in shape. It can also be seen that the crystallites are in the range of size predicted by crystallite-size analysis. Considerable overlapping of the crystallites, which complicates the task of gathering sufficiently reliable data for the TEM size distribution is evident.
![A TEM micrograph of the CeO$_{2}$ specimen taken at a magnification of $200\,\mbox{k}\times$. The crystallites appear to have a spherical-like shape and size that are in the range predicted by the crystallite-size analysis presented here. []{data-label="tem_images"}](ForPaper_em0209.ps)
Conclusion
==========
The central aim of this study was to develop a single and self-contained method for determining the crystallite-size distribution and shape from experimental line profile data. We have shown that the crystallite-size distribution can be determined without assuming a functional form for the size distribution, determining instead the size distribution with the least assumptions.
This was achieved by reviewing size broadening theory showing how the observed line profile can be expressed in terms of the instrument kernel, line profile kernel and size distribution. It was also shown that the instrument and line profile kernels could be combined into a single kernel, hence enabling the simultaneous removal of instrumental broadening while determining the size distribution (see § \[theory\_broadening\]).
The development of this method made use of two fundamental observations— that distributions such as the specimen profile and size distribution must be *both* positive and additive. Drawing on extensive theoretical developments, the entropy function was selected as the function that can attribute values to the specimen line profile and size distribution, while preserving the positivity and additivity of the profile and distribution. It can be also argued that the entropy function is the only function that produces consistent results in the light of experimental data (see § \[sec\_observations\]).
Using the mathematical and statistical foundations of Bayesian theory, the *a posteriori* distributions of $P(\mathbf{D})$ in terms of the experimental data, statistical noise and scattering kernel can be determined. By maximizing this distribution, the most probable size distribution can be calculated from the experimental line profile, without making any assumptions concerning the functional form of the size distribution. Determining the most probable size distribution addresses the inherent non-uniqueness and ill-conditioning in the integral equations arising from scattering and instrumental broadening. The generality of this formalism enables any crystallite shape to be used and any number of principal axes, $\mathbf{D}=\{D_{1},\,D_{2},\,D_{3}\}$, of the crystallite shape can be included in determining the corresponding size distributions.
Simulated data were used to test the fuzzy pixel and Bayesian/MaxEnt methods on size-broadened line profiles. The reliability of these methods was established by showing that they can reproduce the underlying parameters of the area- and volume-weighted sizes, and the parameters of the size distributions.
The application of these methods to CeO${_2}$ experimental data generally produced very good results. The line profile analysis applying fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt methods produced reliable and consistent results over a wide range of low-, mid- and high-angle profiles.
The application of the Bayesian/MaxEnt method to the CeO$_{2}$ data demonstrated that this method can determine size distributions, while making the minimum number of assumptions. The use of a uniform *a priori* model produced broadly consistent results with the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method; however, the lack of information defined in this model was evident in the large uncertainties of the estimated quantities.
Using the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt results as the log-normal *a priori* model demonstrated that once ‘useful’ information is encoded in the model, improvements in the size distributions and considerable reduction in the uncertainties can be achieved. Analysis of the x-ray diffraction profiles using the log-normal model in the Bayesian/MaxEnt method revealed that the crystallites are spherical in shape, with a size distribution corresponding to the distribution in Fig. \[fig\_pnon\] and average quantities in Table \[tab\_expsizes3\]. The comparison of these Bayesian/MaxEnt results with TEM results is favorable, but it does reveal shortcomings in the collected TEM data arising from particle aggregation. The TEM distribution micrographs support the results from the line profile analysis.
The use of simulated and experimental data demonstrates that the fuzzy pixel/Bayesian/ MaxEnt methods are fully quantitative in their ability to determine and attribute errors to the solution line profiles and size distributions.
Although the results from the Bayesian/MaxEnt method are in good agreement and address the limitations of the earlier work , several important issues have been raised and are the subject of further investigation. These concern the accurate background estimation of the observed line profile and are very important; for example, the analysis of simulated data demonstrated how systematic errors affect the Fourier coefficients. Recently, have developed a Bayesian technique for estimating the background, which can be adopted in this method. Another problem encountered was in the estimation and quantifying of a non-uniform *a priori* model. In this analysis we have used the information determined from the fuzzy pixel/MaxEnt method; however, the issue of determining the *a priori* model can also be addressed in a Bayesian context, by using a process of model selection [@sivia93; @loredo01] and defining an *a posteriori* distribution of parameters in the model [@jarrell96]. Further, only single line profiles were analyzed here; while the formalism has been expressed for overlapped line profiles, demonstrating that Bayesian/MaxEnt method is flexible in its application, additional analysis of overlapped line profiles is needed and this will be followed in future studies.
The literature has seen considerable debate over the type of distribution that best describes the distribution of sizes . In the analysis presented here we have simply used a log-normal distribution to demonstrate that the Bayesian/MaxEnt method can reproduce the parameters. Moreover, the position we have taken in developing the Bayesian/MaxEnt method is that we are not concerned with the type of distribution; rather, we have produced a reliable and consistent method that can determine the specimen profile and/or the size distribution, given our understanding of the experimental data, statistical noise and instrumental effects.
[xx]{}
Armstrong, N. 1999, Application of the maximum entropy method to x-ray profile analysis, PhD thesis, Department of Applied Physics, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Armstrong, N. Kalceff, W. 1998 , ‘Eigen-system analysis of x-ray diffraction profile deconvolution methods explains ill-conditioning’, [*J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [**31**]{}, 453–460.
Armstrong, N. Kalceff, W. 1999 , ‘A maximum entropy method for determining the column-length distributions from size-broadened [X]{}-ray diffraction profiles’, [*J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [ **32**]{}, 600–613.
Balzar, D. Ledbetter, H. 1993, ‘Voigt-function modeling in [F]{}ourier analysis of size- and strain-broadened x-ray diffraction peaks’, [*J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [**26**]{}, 97–103.
Blackman, J. A., Evans, B. L. Maaroof, A. I. 1994, ‘Analysis of island-size distributions in ultrathin metallic films’, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**49**]{}(19), 13863–13871.
Bryan, R. K. 1990, ‘Maximum entropy analysis of oversampled data problems’, [*Eur. Biophys. J.*]{} [ **18**]{}, 165–174.
Cheary, R. W. Cline, J. P. 1995 , ‘An analysis of the effect of different instrumental conditions on the shapes of x-ray powder line profiles’, [*Adv. X-Ray Anal.*]{} [ **38**]{}, 75–82.
David, W. I. F. Sivia, D. S. 2001, ‘Background estimation using a robust [B]{}ayesian analysis’, [*J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [**34**]{}, 318–324.
de Keijser, T. H., Langford, J. I., Mittemeijer, E. J. Vogels, A. B. P. 1982, ‘Use of the [V]{}oigt function in a single-line method for the analysis of x-ray diffraction line broadening’, [*J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [**15**]{}, 308–314.
de Keijser, T. H., Mittemeijer, E. J. Rozendaal, C. F. 1983, ‘The determination of crystallite-size and lattice-strain parameters in conjunction with the profile-refinement method for the determination of crystal structures’, [ *J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [**16**]{}, 309–316.
Goambo, F. Gassiat, E. 1997, ‘Bayesian methods and maximum entropy for ill-posed inverse problems’, [ *Annals Stat.*]{} [**25**]{}(1), 328–350.
Gull, S. F. 1989, Developments in maximum entropy data analysis, [*in*]{} J. Skilling, ed., ‘Maximum [E]{}ntopy and [B]{}ayesian [M]{}ethods’, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Netherlands, pp. 53–71.
Gull, S. F. Skilling, J. 1984, ‘Maximum entropy image reconstruction’, [*IEE Proc.*]{} [**F131**]{}, 646–659.
Howard, S. A. Preston, K. D. 1989, ‘Profile fitting of powder diffraction patterns’, [*Rev. Min.*]{} [**20**]{}, 217–275.
Howard, S. A. Snyder, R. L. 1989, ‘The use of direct convolution products in profile and pattern fitting algorithms. [I]{}. [D]{}evelopment of the algorithms’, [ *J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [**22**]{}, 238–243.
Jarrell, M. Gubernatis, J. E. 1996, ‘Bayesian inference and analytic continuation of imaginary-time quantum [M]{}onte [C]{}arlo data’, [*Phys. Reports*]{} [ **269**]{}, 133–195.
Johnson, R. W. Shore, J. E. 1983, ‘Comments on and correction to “[A]{}xiomatic derivation of the principle of maximum entropy and principle of minimum cross-entropy”’, [*IEEE Trans. IT*]{} [**26**]{}(6), 942–943.
Kiss, L. B., Söderland, J., Niklasson, G. A. Granqvist, C. G. 1999, ‘The real origin of lognormal size distributions of nanoparticles in vapor growth processes’, [*NanoStruct. Mater.*]{} [**12**]{}, 327–332.
Krill, C. E. Birringer, R. 1998 , ‘Estimating grain-size distribution in nanocrystalline material from x-ray diffraction profile analysis’, [*Phil. Mag.*]{} [**A77**]{}(3), 621–640.
Langford, J. I. 1992, ‘The use of the [V]{}oigt function in determining microstructural properties from diffraction data by means of pattern decomposition’, [*NIST Spec. Pub.*]{} [ **846**]{}, 110–126.
Langford, J. I., Louër, D. Scardi, P. 2000, ‘Effect of a crystallite size distribution on [X]{}-ray diffraction line profiles and whole-pattern fitting’, [*J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [**33**]{}, 964–974.
Loredo, T. J. Lamb, D. Q. 2001 , Bayesian analysis of neutrinos observed from supernova [S]{}[N]{}1987[A]{}. URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/astro-ph/0107260.
Louër, D. Audebrand, N. 2001, University of [R]{}ennes. For details see links at www.iucr.org/iucr-top/comm/cpd/projects/index.html.
Shore, J. E. Johnson, R. W. 1980, ‘Axiomatic derivation of the principle of maximum entropy and principle of minimum cross-entropy’, [*IEEE Trans. IT*]{} [ **26**]{}(1), 26–37.
Sivia, D. S. 1996, [*Data [A]{}nalysis: [A]{} [B]{}ayesian [T]{}utorial*]{}, Oxford Science Pub., Oxford.
Sivia, D. S. 1999, Private communication.
Sivia, D. S., David, W. I. F., Knight, K. S. Gull, S. F. 1993, ‘An introduction to [B]{}ayesian model selection’, [*Physica*]{} [**D66**]{}, 234–242.
Skilling, J. 1989[*a*]{}, Classic maximum entropy, [*in*]{} J. Skilling, ed., ‘Maximum [E]{}ntropy and [B]{}ayesian [M]{}ethods’, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Netherlands, pp. 45–52.
Skilling, J. 1989[*b*]{}, The eigenvalues of mega-dimensional matrices, [*in*]{} J. Skilling, ed., ‘Maximum [E]{}ntropy and [B]{}ayesian [M]{}ethods’, Kluwer Acad. Pub., Netherlands, pp. 455–566.
Skilling, J. 1990, Quantified [M]{}aximum [E]{}ntropy, [*in*]{} P. F. Fougére, ed., ‘Maximum [E]{}ntropy and [B]{}ayesian [M]{}ethods’, Kluwer Acad. Pub., Netherlands, pp. 341–350.
Skilling, J. Bryan, R. K. 1984 , ‘Maximum entropy image reconstruction: general algorithm’, [*Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc.*]{} [**211**]{}, 111–124.
Stokes, A. R. 1948, ‘A numerical [F]{}ourier analysis method for the correction of width and shapes of the lines on x-ray powder photography’, [*Proc. Phys. Soc. London*]{} [**A61**]{}, 382–391.
Stokes, A. R. Wilson, A. J. C. 1942, ‘A method of calculating the integral breadths of [D]{}ebye-[S]{}cherrer lines’, [*Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.*]{} [**38**]{}, 313–322.
Tikochinsky, Y., Tishby, N. Z. Levine, R. D. 1984, ‘Consistent inference of probabilities for reproductive experiments’, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**52**]{}(16), 1357–1360.
Ungár, T., Gubicza, J., Ribárik, G. Borbély, A. 2001, ‘Crystallite size distribution and dislocation structure determined by diffraction profile analysis: principles and practical application to cubic and hexagonal crystals’, [*J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [**34**]{}, 298–310.
Ungár, T. Tichy, G. 1999, ‘The effect of dislocation contrast on x-ray line profiles in untexturd polycrystals’, [*Phys. Stat. Sol. (a)*]{} [**171**]{}, 425–434.
Warren, B. E. 1969, [*X-ray Diffraction*]{}, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts.
Wilson, A. J. C. 1968, ‘On variance as a measure of line broadening in diffractometry: [E]{}ffect of distribution of sizes on the apparent crystallite size’, [*J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [ **1**]{}, 194–196.
Wilson, A. J. C. 1971, ‘Some further considerations in particle-size broadening’, [*J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [ **4**]{}, 440–443.
Wu, E., Gray, E. M. A. Kisi, E. H. 1998, ‘Modelling dislocation-induced anistropic line broadening in [R]{}ietveld refinements using a [V]{}oigt function. [I]{}: General principles.’, [*J. Appl. Cryst.*]{} [**31**]{}, 356–362.
Wu, N. 1997, [*The Maximum Entropy Method*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Present address: Department of Applied Physics, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, AUSTRALIA.
[^3]: Taking (\[equ\_errorcounts\]), we see that in the limit of $R_{pb}
\rightarrow 1$, $\sigma_{p}\rightarrow \infty$. On the other hand, in the limit of $R_{pb} \rightarrow \infty$, $\sigma_{p}\rightarrow 1/\sqrt{I_{max,bg}}$. For example, with $R
\sim 15$, $\sigma_{p} \sim 1.2/\sqrt{I_{max,bg}}$.
[^4]: Certain commercial materials, equipment and software are identified in order to adequately specify the experimental procedure. Such identification does not imply a recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment or software are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the mysterious, rapidly variable emission at $\sim400\,$MeV observed from the Crab Nebula by the AGILE and Fermi experiments could be the result of a sudden drop in the mass-loading of the pulsar wind. The current required to maintain wave activity in the wind is then carried by very few particles of high Lorentz factor. On impacting the Nebula, these particles produce a tightly beamed, high luminosity burst of hard gamma-rays, similar to those observed. This implies (i) the emission is synchrotron radiation in the toroidal field of the Nebula, and, therefore, linearly polarized and (ii) this mechanism potentially contributes to the gamma-ray emission from other powerful pulsars, such as the Magellanic Cloud objects J0537$-$6910 and B0540$-$69.'
author:
- 'John G. Kirk'
- Gwenael Giacinti
title: 'Inductive spikes in the Crab Nebula — a theory of gamma-ray flares'
---
The detection of powerful gamma-ray flares from the Crab Nebula by the AGILE satellite and the Large Area Telescope on the Fermi satellite [@Agileflares11; @Fermiflares11; @buehleretal12] has provided theorists with three major puzzles: How are particles able to emit synchrotron radiation well above the $\sim100\,\textrm{MeV}$ astrophysical upper-limit [@guilbertetal83]? What is the geometry and location of the source, given that it varies on a timescale of hours, whereas the Nebula has a light-crossing time of months? By which mechanism can such a small source achieve a power only one order of magnitude less than that of the entire Nebula? Many theories have addressed these issues (for a review see [@buehlerblandford14]), but none has yet achieved general acceptance. In this [*Letter*]{} a novel theory is proposed, based on the properties of relativistic winds that are dominated by Poynting flux: the frequency, variability and power of the flares emerge as natural consequences of a sharp reduction of the supply of electron-positron pairs to the wind of the Crab pulsar, an effect closely analogous to the voltage spikes generated when the current in an inductive electrical circuit is interrupted. Although the underlying cause remains a mystery, such interruptions are not implausible, since the electromagnetic cascades responsible for creating the pairs are thought to be highly erratic [@ceruttibeloborodov17], a conclusion supported by strong pulse-to-pulse fluctuations in the radio emission, that presumably originates in this region [@hankinsetal16]. The new theory predicts the polarization properties of the flares, which may be measurable in the near future [@tatischeffetal16], and suggests that similar emission may be detectable from other pulsar wind nebulae.
The Crab Nebula is powered by an electron-positron wind that is energetically dominated by electromagnetic fields. These oscillate at the pulsar period $P$ and have a finite phase-averaged (DC) component [@reesgunn74], the necessary currents being carried by the pairs. Such winds propagate radially [@kirketal09] up to a [*termination shock*]{} at radius $r=r_{\rm t.s.}$, where the ram pressure balances that of the surroundings. Because the particle density drops off as $1/r^2$, non-MHD effects become important at sufficiently large radius. These can lead to the conversion of the oscillations into electromagnetic waves [@usov75; @arkakirk12], for which there is no observational evidence, or to damping of the oscillations, accompanied by radial acceleration of the plasma.
This latter process was originally modeled as magnetic reconnection in a striped wind— one with oppositely directed bands of toroidal magnetic field separated by hot current sheets [@coroniti90; @lyubarskykirk01]. Dissipation in the current sheets releases the magnetic tension, leading to radial acceleration of the flow. However, in the case of the Crab, complete dissipation of the wave energy occurs only for a relatively high pair density [@kirkskjaeraasen03], which implies a terminal Lorentz factor $<10^4$. An additional acceleration mechanism is then needed for the flares [@zrake16]. Conversely, lower density flows reach higher bulk Lorentz factors, even though they do not achieve complete dissipation. However, in the Crab, hot plasma cannot be confined in the sheets up to the termination shock [@lyubarskykirk01], which invalidates this model, and leaves the ultimate fate of the waves uncertain. Here, we present a solution to this problem: assuming that the pulsar wind is launched as a mildly supersonic MHD flow with embedded magnetic fluctuations, we demonstrate that inductive acceleration converts $10\,\%$ of the power into kinetic energy. When the supply of electron-positron pairs is severely limited, the few particles that are present achieve very high Lorentz factors.
Dissipation is not essential for acceleration [@spruitdrenkhahn04], as was shown using a static, sinusoidal, magnetic shear (a sheet-pinch) as a wave model [@kirkmochol11]. This wave contains neither a current sheet nor hot plasma. The transverse magnetic field has constant magnitude and rotates at a uniform rate as a function of phase. The current is carried by cold electron and positron fluids which, in the co-moving frame, flow along the magnetic field. Provided the transverse flow speed $v_\bot$, remains small, the wave propagates at constant speed, as expected in MHD. But towards larger radius the drop in density causes $v_\bot$ to increase to maintain the wave currents. When $v_\bot\approx c$, particle inertia causes a small misalignment of current and field, leading to a net radial acceleration. Because resistive dissipation is absent, and the underlying cause is the maintenance of a current flow, this mechanism is appropriately described as [*inductive*]{} acceleration.
Reference [@kirkmochol11] identified the location of the inductive acceleration zone, and gave an approximate solution in which the Lorentz factor $\gamma$ of the plasma is proportional to $r$. This result is not immediately applicable to a pulsar wind, because it does not allow for a DC component. However, it is straightforward to generalize the model to that of a striped wind that contains two sheet pinches instead of two hot current sheets. Each pinch causes the magnetic field to rotate through $\pi$ radians, so that the field outside of the pinches is purely toroidal, and the magnitude of the DC component is controlled by the location in phase of the pinches. The analysis is particularly simple if the thickness of the pinches is small — i.e., they become rotational discontinuities. This wave displays the same radial evolution as the single, sinusoidal pinch studied by [@kirkmochol11] (for details, see supplemental material), the only difference is that the DC component is $\propto1/r$, which causes the pinches to migrate in phase. Ultimately, when the wave energy has been completely converted into kinetic energy, the pinches merge. However, provided their initial separation is not small, merging occurs only towards the end of the acceleration phase, when the kinetic energy flux is already comparable to the Poynting flux.
Pulsar winds are usually modeled as either isotropic or axisymmetric, with the power concentrated towards the equator [@porthetal17], but the estimates presented below are not sensitive to this distinction. Assuming isotropy, two parameters characterize the wind: (i) the ratio at the light cylinder, $r_{\rm L}=cP/2\pi$, of the gyrofrequency of a non-relativistic electron to the rotation frequency of the neutron star, given, for a magnetically dominated flow, by $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\rm L}&=&\left(e^2 L_{\rm s.d.}/m^2c^5\right)^{1/2}
\,=\,3.4\times10^{10}L_{38}^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ where $L_{\rm s.d.}=L_{38}\times 10^{38}\,\textrm{erg\,s}^{-1}$ is the spin-down power of the neutron star, and (ii) the energy carried per particle in units of $mc^2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mu&=&L_{\rm s.d.}/\left(\dot{N}_\pm mc^2\right),
\label{mudef}\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot{N}_\pm$ is the rate at which electrons and positrons are transported into the nebula by the wind. For the Crab, $a_{\rm L}\approx 7.6\times 10^{10}$, but $\mu$ is uncertain. It can be related to the multiplicity parameter $\kappa$ used in modeling pair production near the pulsar [@ceruttibeloborodov17] (conventionally, one sets $\kappa=a_{\rm L}/\left(4\mu\right)$ [@lyubarskykirk01]), but this should not be interpreted too literally. A latitude-dependent mass-loading of the wind can be defined by generalizing (\[mudef\]), which enables detailed modeling of the radio to X-ray emission of the Crab Nebula [@olmietal15]. The tightest constraints, however, refer to the average of $\mu$ over the entire wind and over the lifetime of this object: $10^4\lesssim\mu\lesssim10^6$, which corresponds to $\dot{N}_\pm\approx 10^{39}$–$10^{41}\,\textrm{s}^{-1}$ and $10^6\gtrsim\kappa\gtrsim10^4$[@bucciantinietal11].
![\[fig1\]The radial evolution of the magnetization parameter $\sigma$ and fluid Lorentz factor $\gamma$ in a pulsar wind for high pair loading ($\mu=10^6$, thin lines) and low pair loading ($\mu=a_{\rm L}$, thick lines), for parameters corresponding to the Crab ($a_{\rm L}=7.6\times 10^{10}$). The position of the termination shock [@hesteretal02] is shown as a thick vertical line. For phase-averaged, DC magnetic fields equal to $90\,\%$ and $50\,\%$ of the field magnitude at launch, the horizontal, dotted lines show the solutions after dissipation of the wave energy, i.e., in the regions $r\gtrsim10^{10}r_{\rm L}$ and $r\gtrsim10^{11}r_{\rm L}$, respectively. ](fig1.eps){width="8"}
The radial evolution of the wind is governed by three equations derived in Ref. [@kirkmochol11] and in the supplemental material (where they are numbered (35), (37) and (38)). These can be integrated numerically to find the three unknown functions of $r$, which are the fluid Lorentz factor $\gamma$, the magnetization parameter $\sigma=\left|B\right|^2/\left(8\pi n_0\gamma^2 mc^2\right)$, with $n_0$ the proper number density of the fluids, and $B$ the magnetic field strength, and the transverse component of the dimensionless fluid four-velocity $u_\bot=v_\bot/\left(c^2-v_\bot^2\right)^{1/2}$. Despite impressive progress based on 3D MHD and force-free simulations [@tchekhovskoyetal16], the nature of the wind at launch, and, therefore, the initial conditions remain uncertain. Fundamental properties of axisymmetric flows suggest they accelerate steadily up to the sonic point, and thereafter coast at constant speed ([@kirketal09], see supplemental material). Assuming the wave is launched as a mildly supersonic MHD flow, Fig. \[fig1\] shows results for $a_{\rm L}=7.6\times 10^{10}$ and two different values of mass-loading: $\mu=10^6$, the time-averaged value needed to provide the optical to X-ray emitting particles in the Crab Nebula, and $\mu=a_{\rm
L}$, a severely charge-depleted value with $\kappa\approx
1/4$. The latter is a plausible upper limit on $\mu$, since it corresponds to the charge density at which light-like waves can propagate already at radius $r_{\rm L}$. If these predominate, the solutions shown in Fig. \[fig1\] lose validity. However, embedded fluctuations could, in principle, be preserved at even lower density — a more rigorous but higher upper limit, $\mu\le a_{\rm
L}^{3/2}$, is derived in equation (40) of the supplemental material. Note that a fluctuation in pair loading need not be isotropic, and is advected radially with the flow. Sectors of the wind separated by an angle $>1/\gamma$ evolve essentially independently of each other, since a light signal launched by a fluid element in one sector does not reach the equivalent element in the other until it has more than doubled its radius.
The results shown in Fig. \[fig1\] exhibit three phases. In order of increasing radius, these are (i) the MHD phase, in which $u_\bot$ is small, and both $\gamma$ and $\sigma$ are constant; (ii) an acceleration phase in which $u_\bot\sim 1$, and the inertia of the charge carriers causes $\gamma$ to increase and $\sigma$ to decrease at the expense of the oscillating component of the field; (iii) a coasting phase in which the wave again proceeds at constant $\gamma$, which begins either when the current sheets merge (for a finite DC component) or is approached asymptotically as $\sigma\rightarrow0$.
An approximate solution for the acceleration phase is [@kirkmochol11]: $$\begin{aligned}
u_\bot&\approx&1\qquad
\gamma\,\approx\,2\mu r/\left(a_{\rm L}r_{\rm L}\right)
\qquad \sigma\,\approx\,r_{\rm L}a_{\rm L}/\left(2r\right),
\label{accelerationzone}\end{aligned}$$ valid for $a_{\rm L}\gamma_{\rm L}/\mu\ll r/r_{\rm L}\ll a_{\rm L}$, where $\gamma_{\rm L}$ is the initial Lorentz factor of the wind. According to (\[accelerationzone\]), inductive acceleration is a relatively slow process requiring an undisturbed pulsar wind that extends to very large radius. For the Crab, Fig. \[fig1\] shows that $\sigma\approx 10$ at the termination shock, independent of $\mu$. Thus, only $10\,\%$ of the Poynting flux is converted into kinetic-energy flux before the wind reaches the inner boundary of the Nebula.
Taking into account that $B\approx\left(2\pi m c/e P\right)\left(a_{\rm L}r_{\rm L}/r\right)$ for a magnetically dominated flow, and that the termination shock compresses it by roughly a factor of three, the synchrotron emission of an electron that enters the nebula with $\gamma$ given by Eq. (\[accelerationzone\]) peaks at a photon energy of $$\begin{aligned}
h\nu_{\rm max}&\approx&18 \mu^2 \left(h/P\right)
\left[r_{\rm t.s.}/\left(a_{\rm L}r_{\rm L}\right)\right].
\label{numaxeq}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for the Crab under average conditions ($P=33\,\textrm{ms}$, $r_{\rm t.s.}=4.3\times10^{17}\,\textrm{cm}$, $\mu=10^6$), particles that cross the shock initially radiate at $h\nu_{\rm max}\approx 10^{-1}\,\textrm{eV}$, and are subsequently accelerated, either close to the shock or elsewhere in the Nebula, to produce the time-averaged optical to hard X-ray synchrotron emission. However, the situation changes dramatically if the supply of particles in some section of the wind is interrupted. The arrival at the termination shock of a low-density pocket with $\mu= a_{\rm L}$, as depicted in Fig. \[fig1\], causes the injection into the Nebula of a radially directed beam that initially radiates photons of energy $h\nu_{\rm max}\approx 500\,\textrm{MeV}$.
An electron injected at pitch angle $90^\circ$ into a homogeneous magnetic field with a Lorentz factor such that its synchrotron peak is $h\nu_{\rm max}$, is deflected through an angle $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\theta\left(\nu\right)&\approx&\left(80\,\textrm{MeV}/h\nu\right)
\left(1-\nu/\nu_{\rm max}\right)
\,\textrm{radians}
\label{deflectioneq}\end{aligned}$$ whilst cooling to the point at which its peak emission has decreased to $h\nu$. Thus, if energetic electrons are injected radially by a pulsar wind into the surrounding nebula, synchrotron photons of energy $h\nu >
80\,\textrm{MeV}$ will appear to an observer with sufficient angular resolution to emerge from a finite-sized patch on the termination shock, centered on the pulsar. The precise size and shape of this patch depend on the configuration of the magnetic field downstream of the termination shock, which is expected to be turbulent on length scales of $r_{\rm t.s.}$ [@porthetal16], but, nevertheless, predominantly toroidal. A rough upper limit on the area of the patch, $A\lesssim\delta\theta^2\left(\nu\right)r_{\rm t.s.}^2$, follows from assuming random deflections through an angle of at most that given in Eq. (\[deflectioneq\]). For $\nu\ll\nu_{\rm max}$, this implies $A\propto\nu^{-2}$. However, a weaker dependence on frequency is found if the beam diverges diffusively.
![\[fig2\]The predicted flare spectrum (Eq. (\[predictedspectrum\]), solid lines), for the three most powerful known pulsars: the Crab (B0531$+$21), and two objects in the Large Magellanic Cloud, assuming a turnover at $h\nu_{\rm t}=80\,\textrm{MeV}$ and a filling factor $f=1$. Dotted lines trace the locus of the peak flux as the position of the termination shock is varied between the observed value (orange dots) and $a_{\rm L}r_{\rm L}/2$ (blue dots (circles in black and white)). Fermi observations of the powerful flare from the Crab Nebula in April 2011 are also shown — points taken from Fig 6, epoch 7 of Ref. [@buehleretal12]. ](fig2.eps){width="8"}
This has important implications for the spectrum, time-dependence and overall power of the emission: Assume the pulsar wind is depleted of charges in a cone that occupies a solid angle $\Omega$ and includes the line-of-sight to the observer. Then, photons with energy $h\nu >
h\nu_{\rm t}\approx\left(80/\Omega^{1/2}\right)\,\textrm{MeV}$, that are radiated by electrons crossing the termination shock in this cone, remain within it, and their steady-state, differential flux has the form typical of mono-energetically injected, cooling electrons. On the other hand, lower frequency photons emerge from a patch with $A>\Omega r_{\rm t.s.}^2$, and are radiated into a solid angle that exceeds $\Omega$. This depletes the observed flux, leading to a turnover at $\nu_{\rm
t}$. Using (\[deflectioneq\]) to estimate the rate at which the beam of cooling electrons diverges, and employing a crude, monochromatic approximation for the synchrotron emissivity, gives, for the differential energy flux $F_\nu$: $$\begin{aligned}
\nu F_\nu&=&\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{l}
f L_{\rm s.d.}/\left(8\pi\sigma D^2\right)
\left(\nu/\nu_{\rm max}\right)^{1/2} \\
\qquad \textrm{for }\nu_{\rm t}<\nu<\nu_{\rm max}\\
f L_{\rm s.d.}/\left(8\pi\sigma D^2\right)
\left(\nu_{\rm t}/\nu_{\rm max}\right)^{1/2}
\left(\nu/\nu_{\rm t}\right)^{5/2}\\
\qquad \textrm{for }\nu<\nu_{\rm t}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{predictedspectrum}\end{aligned}$$ where $D$ is the distance to the source, and the filling factor, $f$, ($\le1$) is the fraction of the flow containing charge-depleted regions. As shown in Fig. \[fig2\], observations of powerful gamma-ray flares from the Crab Nebula show a spectral form roughly consistent with (\[predictedspectrum\]), provided $h\nu_{\rm max}$ given by Eq. (\[numaxeq\]) is $500\,\textrm{MeV}$, and $\Omega$ is about $1\,\textrm{sr}$. Furthermore, the available power is more than adequate to explain the most powerful flare observed to date (that of April 2011[@buehleretal12]): within the uncertainties in the distance to this object, and the angular distribution of power in the pulsar wind, this flare is consistent with $f\approx 0.1$ and $\sigma\approx10$ at the termination shock, as indicated in Fig. \[fig1\]. Gamma-ray flares from the Crab are seen with a range of powers and peak photon energies, and collations of their spectra, as presented, for example, in Figs. 6 and 7 of Ref. [@buehleretal12], can, in principle, be been used to test model predictions. However, although the crude model of synchrotron radiation plotted in Fig. \[fig2\] suggests rough agreement with the data, a more sophisticated approach would be needed to fit details of the spectrum. Since electron-positron pairs are injected into the wind relatively close to the pulsar, the relevant timescale of variations is roughly the rotation period. A reduction in the injection rate on this timescale causes the wind to propagate at a higher Lorentz factor. At the termination shock, the transition between the two flow states is broadened in time to roughly $r_{\rm t.s.}/c\gamma^2$, where $\gamma$ refers to the slower flow, but this is still very short ($\sim 10\,$s for the Crab) compared to the variation time of the flares. Therefore, both the leading edge and the trailing edge of a cone of charge-depleted wind can be treated as sharp transitions, and the observed rise and decay-times of the emission are dominated by the variation in travel time from different parts of the illuminated patch on the termination shock. This patch appears larger at lower photon energy, and the timescale $t_{\rm var}$ of variation is, correspondingly, energy dependent: $$\begin{aligned}
t_{\rm var}&=& \delta\theta^2\left(\nu\right)r_{\rm t.s.}/c\\
&\approx&167\, \left(80\,\textrm{MeV}/h\nu\right)^2
\left(1-\nu/\nu_{\rm max}\right)^2 \textrm{days}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where, in the second equation, the value of $r_{\rm t.s.}$ for the Crab has been inserted. Thus, the timescale of eight hours observed in the powerful 2011 April Crab flare [@buehleretal12] suggests a patch of angular extent $\delta\theta\approx 2.5^\circ$. This is consistent with $h\nu\approx 400\,\textrm{MeV}$, provided $h\nu_{\rm max}\approx 500\,\textrm{MeV}$, which is also suggested by the spectrum shown in Fig. \[fig2\].
Although it provides an attractive scenario, the main shortcoming of the theory presented above is that it does not explain why the supply of charged particles to small parts of a magnetically dominated, relativistic outflow should suffer interruptions. The reason is assumed to lie in the physics of the electromagnetic cascades that are responsible for producing the pairs we observe when the flows terminate. These are known to be non-stationary, both in pulsars and in black hole magnetospheres [@ceruttibeloborodov17; @levinsonsegev17], but a detailed understanding of their 3D spatial and temporal properties is not currently within reach. On the other hand, as long as the theory provides a reasonable fit to the data, it can be used to infer the properties of these cascades. Indeed, the fact that flares from the Crab can last for several days or longer implies that during this time, pockets of depleted charge in a small cone of outflow directed at the observer have a spatial or temporal filling factor of several per cent, which, in turn, suggests that the global geometry of the cascade varies on a timescale much longer than the pulsar rotation period. The Crab is the most powerful pulsar known in the Milky Way, but it is not unique. In our neighboring galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud, two pulsars of comparable power are known: PSR J0537$-$6910 and PSR B0540$-$69 [@Fermi_LMC_pulsar15]. The predicted flare spectra for these objects are shown in Fig. \[fig2\], using estimates of the location of the termination shock given in Table 2 of reference [@kargaltsevpavlov08]. Flares from the gamma-ray pulsar B0540$-$69 are not expected at energies significantly larger than $200\,\textrm{MeV}$, and may, therefore, be difficult to detect. PSR J0537$-$6910, however, has a shorter pulse period and a longer undisturbed wind than the Crab. As a result, its nebula (PWN N 157B) should exhibit synchrotron flares with photons of up to $3\,\textrm{GeV}$, as suggested by a recent analysis of Fermi-data [@saitoetal17]. Thus, inductive spikes may be a common property of young, powerful pulsars, and enable more detailed modeling and a deeper understanding of the way in which they energize their surrounding nebulae. Furthermore, inasmuch as they are also powered by low density, magnetically dominated, relativistic outflows, both blazars and gamma-ray bursts may exhibit analogous phenomena [@kirkmochol11].
This research was supported by a Grant from the GIF, the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development.
[28]{}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
10.1126/science.1200083), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1199705), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/26), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1093/mnras/205.3.593) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0034-4885/77/6/066901), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s11214-016-0315-7), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/47), in [**](\doibase 10.1117/12.2231601), , Vol. () p. , @noop [****, ()]{} in [**](\doibase 10.1007/978-3-540-76965-1_16), , Vol. , () p. , [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF00643150) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/108), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/168340) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/318354), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/375215), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/39), in @noop [**]{}, , Vol. , () p. , [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/104), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s11214-017-0344-x), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1093/mnras/stv498), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17449.x), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/344132) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1093/mnras/stv2869), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1093/mnras/stw1152), @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.aac7400) in [**](\doibase 10.1063/1.2900138), , Vol. , () pp. , in [**](\doibase 10.1063/1.4968917), , Vol. () p.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Shengjun Yuan</span> $^{1,2}$[^1], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mikhail I. Katsnelson</span>$^{1}$, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hans De Raedt</span>$^{2}$'
title: 'Origin of the Canonical Ensemble: Thermalization with Decoherence'
---
Introduction
============
Statistical mechanics is one of cornerstones of modern physics but its foundations and basic postulates are still under debate [@balescu; @Popescu2006; @Rigol2008; @Goldstein2006; @Reimann2007; @Reimann2008; @Gemmer2006; @Gemmer2006b; @Cazalilla2006; @Rigol2006; @Rigol2007; @Eckstein2008; @Cramer2008; @Cramer2008b; @Flesch2008; @Bocchieri1959; @Shankar1985; @Tasaki1998; @sait96; @Esposito2003; @Merkli2007]. There is a common believe that a generic system that interacts with a generic environment evolves into a state described by the canonical ensemble. Experience shows that this is true but a detailed understanding of this process, which is crucial for a rigorous justification of statistical physics and thermodynamics, is still lacking. In particular, in this context the meaning of generic is not clear. The key question is to what extent the evolution to the equilibrium state depends on the details of the dynamics of the whole system.
Earlier demonstrations that the system can be in the canonical ensemble state are based on showing that time-averages of the expectation dynamical variables of the system approach their values for the subsystem that is the thermal equilibrium state [@Bocchieri1959; @Shankar1985; @Tasaki1998; @sait96] or do not consider the dynamics of the system but assume that the state of the whole system has a special property called “canonical typicality” [@Popescu2006; @Rigol2008; @Goldstein2006; @Reimann2007; @Reimann2008; @Gemmer2006; @Gemmer2006b] in which case it is as yet unclear under which conditions the whole system will evolve to the region in Hilbert space where its subsystems are in the thermal equilibrium state. A very different setting to study nonequilibrium quantum dynamics is to start from an eigenstate of some initial Hamiltonian and push the system out of this state by a sudden change of the model parameters [@Cazalilla2006; @Rigol2006; @Rigol2007; @Eckstein2008; @Cramer2008; @Cramer2008b; @Flesch2008]. To the best of our knowledge, it has not yet been shown that this approach leads to the establishment of the canonical equilibrium distribution. Finally, we want to draw attention to the fact that a demonstration of relaxation to the canonical distribution requires a system with at least three different eigenenergies because a diagonal density matrix of a two-level system can always be represented as a canonical distribution [@Esposito2003; @Merkli2007].
The main result of this paper is that we show, without any time-averaging procedure or any approximation, that systems embedded in a closed quantum system generally evolve to their canonical distribution states. This result complies with the fact that if we make a real measurement of a thermodynamic property, we observe its equilibrium value without having to perform time averaging. Furthermore, we show that the relaxation to the canonical distribution is not limited to the regime of weak coupling between system and environment, an assumption that is often used [@balescu; @Popescu2006; @Rigol2008; @Goldstein2006; @Reimann2007; @Reimann2008; @Gemmer2006; @Gemmer2006b].
General theory
==============
In general, the state of a closed quantum system is described by a density matrix [@Neumann55; @BALL03]. The canonical ensemble is characterized by a density matrix that is diagonal with respect to the eigenstates of the system Hamiltonian, the diagonal elements taking the form $\exp(-\beta E_{i})$ where $\beta=1/k_BT$ is proportional to the inverse temperature ($k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant) and the $E_{i}$’s denote the eigenenergies. The time evolution of a closed quantum system is governed by the time-dependent Schr[ö]{}dinger equation (TDSE) [@Neumann55; @BALL03]. If the initial density matrix of an isolated quantum system is non-diagonal, then, according to the TDSE, its density matrix remains nondiagonal and never approaches the thermal equilibrium state with the canonical distribution. Therefore, in order to thermalize the system $S$, it is necessary to have the system $S$ interact with an environment ($E$), also called heat bath. Thus, the Hamiltonian of the whole system ($S+E$) takes the form $H=H_{S}+H_{E}+H_{SE}$, where $H_S$ and $H_E$ are the system and environment Hamiltonian, respectively and $H_{SE}$ describes the interaction between the system and environment.
The state of system $S$ is described by the reduced density matrix $$\widetilde\rho(t)\equiv\mathbf{Tr}_{E}\rho \left( t\right)
,
\label{eq1}$$ where $\rho \left( t\right) $ is the density matrix of the whole system at time $t$ and $\mathbf{Tr}_{E}$ denotes the trace over the degrees of freedom of the environment. The system $S$ is in its thermal equilibrium state if the reduced density matrix takes the form $$\widehat\rho\equiv\left.{e^{-\beta H_{S}}}\right/{\mathbf{Tr}_{S}e^{-\beta H_{S}}}
,
\label{eq2}$$ where $\mathbf{Tr}_{S}$ denotes the trace over the degrees of freedom of the system $S$. Therefore, in order to demonstrate that the system $S$, evolving in time according to the TDSE, relaxes to its thermal equilibrium state one has to show that $\widetilde\rho\left( t\right)\approx\widehat\rho$ for $t>t_0$ where $t_0$ is some finite time.
The difference between the state $\widetilde\rho\left( t\right)$ and the canonical distribution $\widehat\rho$ is most conveniently characterized by the two quantities $\delta(t)$ and $\sigma (t)$ defined by $$\delta(t)=\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^N\left( \widetilde\rho_{ii}(t) -
\left.{e^{-b(t) E_{i}}}\right/{\sum_{i=1}^{N} e^{-b \left( t\right) E_{i}}}\right) ^{2}}
,$$with $$b(t)=\frac{\sum_{i<j,E_{i}\neq E_{j}}
[\ln \widetilde\rho_{ii}(t) -\ln \widetilde\rho _{jj}(t)]/({E_{j}-E_{i}})}{\sum_{i<j,E_{i}\neq E_{j}}1},$$and$$\sigma (t) =\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\sum_{j=i+1}^{N}\left\vert\widetilde\rho_{ij}(t) \right\vert ^{2}}.$$Here $N$ denotes the dimension of the Hilbert space of system $S$ and $\widetilde\rho_{ij}(t)$ is the matrix element $(i,j)$ of the reduced density matrix $\widetilde\rho$ in the representation that diagonalizes $H_S$. As the system relaxes to its canonical distribution both $\delta(t)$ and $\sigma (t)$ vanish, $b(t)$ converging to $\beta$. As $\sigma(t)$ is a global measure for the size of the off-diagonal terms of the reduced density matrix, $\sigma(t)$ also characterizes the degree of coherence in the system: If $\sigma(t)=0$ the system is in a state of full decoherence.
Model and simulation method
===========================
To study the evolution to the canonical ensemble state in detail, we consider a general quantum spin-1/2 model defined by the Hamiltonians $$\begin{aligned}
H_{S} &=&-\sum_{i=1}^{n_{S}-1}\sum_{j=i+1}^{n_{S}}\sum_{\alpha
=x.y,z}J_{i,j}^{\alpha }S_{i}^{\alpha }S_{j}^{\alpha }, \label{HAMS} \\ %\nonumber \\
H_{E} &=&-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\sum_{j=i+1}^{n}\sum_{\alpha =x,y,z}\Omega
_{i,j}^{\alpha }I_{i}^{\alpha }I_{j}^{\alpha }, \label{HAME}\\ % \nonumber \\
H_{SE} &=&-\sum_{i=1}^{n_{S}}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\sum_{\alpha =x,y,z}\Delta
_{i,j}^{\alpha }S_{i}^{\alpha }I_{j}^{\alpha }. \label{HAMSE}\end{aligned}$$Here the $S^\alpha$’s and $I^\alpha$’s denote the spin-1/2 operators of the system and environment respectively (we use units such that $\hbar$ and $k_B$ are one). Analytic expressions for $\rho(t)$ can only be obtained for very special choices of the exchange integrals $J_{i,j}^{\alpha }$, $\Omega _{i,j}^{\alpha }$ and $%
\Delta _{i,j}^{\alpha }$ but it is straightforward to solve the TDSE numerically for any choice of the model parameters. Here, we numerically solve the TDSE for $H=H_{S}+H_{E}+H_{SE}$ using the Chebyshev polynomial algorithm [@TALE84; @LEFO91; @Iitaka97; @DOBR03]. These *ab initio* simulations yield results that are very accurate (at least 10 digits), independent of the time step used [@RAED06].
The state, that is the density matrix $\rho(t)$ of the whole system at time $t$ is completely determined by the choice of the initial state of the whole system and the numerical solution of the TDSE. In our work, the initial state of the whole system (S+E) is a pure state. This state evolves in time according to $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi(t)\rangle&=&e^{-iHt}|\Psi(0)\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^{2^{n_s}} \sum_{p=1}^{2^n} c(i,p,t)|i,p\rangle
,
\label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$where the states $\{ |i,p\rangle \}$ denote a complete set of orthonormal states. In terms of the expansion coefficients $c(i,p,t)$, the reduced density matrix reads $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde\rho(t)_{i,j} &=&\mathbf{Tr}_{E} \sum_{p=1}^{2^n}\sum_{q=1}^{2^n} c^\ast(i,q,t)c(j,p,t)|j,p\rangle\langle i,q|
\nonumber \\
&=&\sum_{p=1}^{2^n} c^\ast(i,p,t)c(j,p,t)
,
\label{eq5}\end{aligned}$$ which is easy to compute from the solution of the TDSE. Another quantity of interest that can be extracted from the solution of the TDSE is the local density of states (LDOS) $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{LDOS}(E)&\equiv& \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dt\; e^{-iEt} \langle \Psi(0)|e^{-iHt}|\Psi(0)\rangle
\nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{k=1}^{D} |\langle \Psi(0)|\varphi_k\rangle|^2 \delta(E-E_k)
\nonumber \\
&=&
\sum_{i=1}^{2^{n_s}} \sum_{p=1}^{2^n} c^\ast(i,p,0)c(i,p,t)
,
\label{eq6}\end{aligned}$$where $D=2^{n+n_S}$, $\{|\varphi_k\rangle\}$, and $\{E_k\}$ denote the dimension of the Hilbert space, the eigenstates and eigenvalues of the whole system, respectively. The LDOS is “local” with respect to the initial state: It provides information about the overlap of the initial state and the eigenstates of $H$. The notation to specify the initial state is as follows: $\left\vert GROUND\right\rangle _{S}$ is the ground state or a random superposition of all degenerated ground states of the system; $\left\vert RANDOM\right\rangle _{S}$ denotes a random superposition of all possible basis states; $\left\vert UU\right\rangle _{S}$ is a state in which all spins of the system are up meaning that in this state, the expectations value of each spin is one; $\left\vert UD\right\rangle _{S}$ is a state in which two nearest-neighbor spins of the system are antiparallel implying that in this state, the correlation of their $z$-components is minus one; and $\left\vert RR\right\rangle _{S}$ denotes the product state of random superpositions of the states of the individual spins of the system. The same notation is used for the spins in the environment, the subscript $S$ being replaced by $E$.
As we report results for many different types of spin systems it is useful to introduce a simple terminology to classify them according to symmetry and connectivity. The terms “XY”, “Heisenberg”, “Heisenberg-type” and “Ising” system refer to the cases $J_{i,j}^{x}=J_{i,j}^{y}=J$ and $J_{i,j}^{z}=0$, $J_{i,j}^{x}=J_{i,j}^{y}=J_{i,j}^{z}=J$, $J_{i,j}$ uniform random in the range $[-\left\vert J\right\vert,\left\vert J\right\vert ]$, and $J_{i,j}^{x}=J_{i,j}^{y}=0$ and $J_{i,j}^{z}=J$, respectively. The same terminology of symmetry is used for the Hamiltonian $H_E$ of the environment and for the interaction Hamiltonian $H_{SE}$. In our model, all the spins of the system interact with each spin of the environment. To characterize the connectivity of spins within the system (environment), we use the term “ring” for spins forming a one-dimensional chain with nearest-neighbor interactions and periodic boundary conditions, “triangular-lattice” if the spins are located on a two-dimensional triangular lattice with nearest-neighbor interactions, and “maximum-connectivity-system” when all the spins within the system (environment) interact with each other.
![(Color online) Simulation results for the diagonal elements $\rho_i\equiv\widehat\rho_{ii}(t)$ of the density matrix of $S$, the energy $E_S\equiv E_S(t)$, the effective inverse temperature $b\equiv b(t)$ and its variance $\delta \equiv \delta(t)$, and $\sigma \equiv \sigma(t)$ which is measure for the decoherence in $S$, as obtained by solving the TDSE for the whole system with Heisenberg-ring $H_{S}$ ($J=-1$, $n_S=4$), Heisenberg-type $H_{SE}$ ($\Delta =0.3$), spin glass $H_{E}$ ($\Omega =1$, $n=18$), and $\tau=\pi/10$. The initial state of the whole system is a product state of $\left\vert UD\right\rangle _{S}$ and $\left\vert RANDOM\right\rangle_{E}$. []{data-label="fig1"}](m63802fig1.eps){width="15cm"}
Results
=======
{width="15cm"}
In earlier work, it was found that a frustrated spin glass (Heisenberg-type maximum-connectivity-system) environment is very effective for creating full decoherence ($\sigma \rightarrow0 $) in a two-spin system [@Yuan2006; @Yuan2007; @Yuan2008]. As $\sigma \rightarrow0 $ is a necessary condition for the state of the system to converge to its canonical distribution, we have chosen spin glass environments, which have no obvious symmetries, for further exploration.
First, we consider a system ($H_S$: Heisenberg-ring) interacting ($H_{SE}$: Heisenberg-type) with an environment ($H_E$: spin glass). The system has four distinct eigenvalues ($E_{1}=-2$, $E_{2-4}=-1$, $E_{5-11}=0$, and $E_{12-16}=1$) and sixteen different eigenstates. The environment has $2^{18}$ eigenstates. During the time-integration of the TDSE, the reduced density matrix of the system is calculated every $\tau =\pi /10$. Following the general procedure described earlier, the values of the diagonal elements $\widehat\rho_{ii}$ yield an estimate for the effective inverse temperature $b(t)$, the error $\delta(t)$ for this estimate and the measure $\sigma(t)$ for the deviation from a non-diagonal matrix. We also monitor the energy $E_S(t)=\mathbf{Tr}_S\widehat\rho(t)H_S$, of the system.
From the simulation results, shown in Fig. \[fig1\], it is clear that for $t>50\tau$, each diagonal element $\widehat\rho_{ii}$ of the reduced density matrix converges to one out of four stationary values, corresponding to the four non-degenerate energy levels of the system. This convergence is a two-step process. First the system looses all coherence, as indicated by the vanishing of $\sigma \left( t\right) $ for $t>50\tau$. The time dependence of $\sigma \left( t\right)$ fits very well to an exponential law $$\sigma \left( t\right) =\sigma_\infty+Ae^{-t/T_{2}}
,$$ with $\sigma_\infty=0.00128$, $A=0.602$ and $T_{2}=8.01\tau$. Likewise, the vanishing of $\delta(t)$ on the same time-scale indicates that the density matrix of the system converges to the canonical distribution. The effective temperature $b(t)$ and the energy of the system $E_S\left( t\right)$ also fit very well to the exponential laws $$b\left( t\right) =\beta+Be^{-t/T_{1}}
,$$ and $$E\left( t\right) =E_\infty+Ce^{-t/T_{1}}
,$$ with $\beta=0.0962$, $B=-0.900$, and $T_{1}=13.3\tau$ and $E_\infty=-0.0745$, $C=-0.952$. The estimated values for $T_1$ and $T_2$ change very little if we choose different random realizations for the initial state of the environment or for the model parameters $\Omega _{i,j}^{\alpha }$ and $\Delta _{i,j}^{\alpha }$ (data not shown) but if we change their range, $T_1$ and $T_2$ also change, as naively expected.
![(Color online) Simulation results for the local density of states as a function of the energy. Solid line: Case corresponding to Fig. \[fig2\]**b**. The initial state is $\vert UD\rangle _{S}\otimes \vert RANDOM\rangle _{E}$; Dashed line: Case corresponding to Fig. \[fig2\]**f**. The initial state is $\vert UD\rangle _{S}\otimes \vert GROUND\rangle _{E}$. []{data-label="fig3"}](m63802fig3.eps){width="15cm"}
![(Color online) Simulation results for a Heisenberg-ring $H_{S}$ ($J=-5$, $n_{S}=4$, initial state $\vert UD\rangle_S$) coupled to a spin glass $H_{E}$ ($\Omega =0.15$, $n=16$, initial state $\vert RANDOM\rangle_E $) via (**a**) Heisenberg $H_{SE}$ ($\Delta =0.075$) or (**b**) Heisenberg-type $H_{SE}$ ($\Delta =0.15$). Although full decoherence is observed in both cases, the the system $S$ only relaxes to a state with equal probabilities within each energy subspace, that is to a “microcanonical” state per energy subspace.[]{data-label="fig4"}](m63802fig4.eps){width="15cm"}
The simulation demonstrates that the system first looses all coherence and then, on a longer time-scale, relaxes to its thermal equilibrium state with a finite temperature. In terms of the theory of magnetic resonance [@Abragam61], $T_{1}$ and $T_{2}$ are the times of dissipation and dephasing, respectively. Note that in contrast to the cases considered in the theory of nuclear magnetic resonance, in most of our simulations, $H_{S}$, $H_{E}$ and $H_{SE}$ are comparable so the standard perturbation derivation of $\sigma$ and $E$ does not work. In the case of very small $H_{E}$, one should expect, instead of an exponential decay of $\sigma$ and $E$, a Gaussian decay, as observed in our earlier work [@Yuan2006; @Yuan2007; @Yuan2008].
Results for systems ($H_S$) with different symmetries and connectivities that interaction with the same type of environments ($H_E$) via the same type of couplings ($H_{SE}$) are shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. The systems used are an XY-ring, a Heisenberg-ring, an Ising-ring, a Heisenberg-triangular-lattice, and a spin glass. From Fig. \[fig2\], it is clear that independent the internal symmetries and connectivity of the system and independent the initial state of the whole system (except for case **f** in which the environment is initially in its ground state), all systems relax to a state with full decoherence. Notice that in case **b**, $\sigma$ vanishes exponentially with time, whereas in other cases (**a**,**c**,**d**,**e**), $\sigma$ initially increases and then vanishes exponentially with time, due to the entanglement between the system and the environment. This observation is in concert with our earlier work [@Yuan2006; @Yuan2007; @Yuan2008].
Furthermore, in all cases except **f**, the system always relaxes to a canonical distribution ($\delta\rightarrow 0$) as soon as it is in the state with full decoherence ($\sigma\rightarrow 0$), indicating that the time of decoherence ($T_2$) and the thermalization is almost the same. In agreement with the results depicted in Fig. \[fig1\], the decoherence time $T_2$ is shorter than the typical time scale $T_1$ on which the system and environment exchange energy and the effective inverse temperature $b(t)$ reaches its stationary value.
The case **f** is easily understood in terms of the local density of states. In Fig. \[fig3\] we show the LDOS for the cases **b** and **f**, the only difference between these two cases being the initial state of the environment. Up to a trivial normalization factor, the LDOS curve for case **b** is indistinghuisable from the density of states (data not shown) calculated from the solution of the TDSE using the technique described in Ref. [@HAMS00] This suggests that if the environment starts from the random superposition of all its states, all states of the whole system may participate in the decoherence/relaxation process. In contrast, the LDOS curve for case **f** has a very small overlap with the density of states (the curve of which coincides with the solid line in Fig. \[fig3\]). Therefore, starting with an environment in the ground state, only a relatively small number states participates in the decoherence process, as confirmed by the results for $\sigma(t)$ shown in Fig. [\[fig2\]]{}**f**.
For completeness, we discuss a two other situations in which, for fairly obvious reasons, the system cannot relax to its canonical distribution. Obviously, if the energy of the system is conserved ($[H_{S},H]=0$), the system cannot exchange energy with the environment and we should not expect relaxation to the canonical distribution. In this case, as shown in Fig. \[fig4\], after the system $S$ has reached a state with full decoherence, its density matrix does not converge to the canonical state. Likewise, if the range of energies of the environment $E$ is too small compared to that of the system ($\vert \Omega \vert \ll \vert J\vert$) as in the example shown in Fig. \[fig4\]b, there is no convergence to the canonical state either. It is to be noted that in both cases, the interaction with the environment leads to perfect decoherence ($\sigma(t)\approx0$, see insets) such that the reduced density matrix converges to a diagonal matrix. However, from Fig. \[fig4\], it follows that $S$ relaxes to a kind of microcanical state in which the states in each energy subspace have equal probability, the probabilities to end up in a subspace depending on the initial state.
Disregarding the three cases mentioned earlier, the simulation results presented in Figs. (\[fig1\]) and (\[fig2\]) suggest that the state of a system generally relaxes to the canonical distribution when the system is coupled to an environment of which the dynamics is sufficiently complex also in the case that the interaction between system and environment cannot be regarded as a perturbation. There are exceptions but these are easily understood: Either there are not enough states available for the decoherence (Fig. [\[fig2\]]{}**f**) to yield a diagonal reduced density matrix or the energy relaxation (Fig. [\[fig4\]]{}) is not effective in letting the diagonal reduced density matrix relax to the canonical distribution.
Although we have only presented results for a spin glass environment $H_{E}$, our results (not shown) for any of the choices for $H_{S}$ and $H_{E}$ mentioned earlier, in combination a Heisenberg-type $H_{SE}$ interaction between system and environment, or for $H_{S}$ and $H_{SE}$ in combination Heisenberg-type $H_{E}$ leads to the same conclusion, namely that the state of a system relaxes the canonical distribution.
Discussion
==========
The results presented here have been obtained from an *ab initio* numerical solution of the TDSE in the absence of, for instance, dissipative mechanisms, and demonstrate that the existence of the canonical distribution, a basic postulate of statistical mechanics, is a direct consequence of quantum dynamics.
We have shown that if we have a system $S$ that interacts with an environment $E$ and the whole system $S+E$ forms a closed quantum system that evolves in time according to the TDSE, $S$ and $E$ can exchange energy, the range of energies of $E$ is large compared to the range of energies of $S$, and the interaction between $S$ and $E$ leads to full decoherence of $S$, then the state of $S$ relaxes to the canonical distribution. Note that only the condition of full decoherence is a nontrivial requirement.
We emphasize that our conclusion does not rely on time averaging of observables, in concert with the fact that real measurements of thermodynamic properties yield instantaneous, not time-averaged, values. Furthermore and perhaps a little counter intuitive, our results show that relatively small environments ($\approx20$ spins) are sufficient to drive the system $S$ to thermal equilibrium and that there is no need to assume that the interaction between the system and environment is weak, as is usually done in kinetic theory.
In conclusion: The work presented here strongly suggests that the canonical ensemble, being one of the basic postulates of statistical mechanics, is a natural consequence of the dynamical evolution of a quantum system. This conclusion may be exciting but as quantum mechanics describes the dynamics of a system and statistical mechanics gives us the distribution when the system is in the equilibrium state, these two successful theories should not be in conflict once the conditions for the system to relax to its thermal equilibrium are satisfied.
Aknowledgments
==============
It is a pleasure to thank S. Miyashita, F. Jin, S. Zhao and K. Michielsen for many helpful discussions. We are grateful to S. Miyashita and M. Novotny for several suggestions to improve the manuscript. This work was partially supported by NCF, The Netherlands.
[99]{}
R. Balescu: *Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics* (Wiley, New York, 1975). P. Bocchieri and A. Loinger: Phys. Rev. **114**, 948 (1959). R.V. Jensen and R. Shankar: Phys. Rev. Lett. **54**, 1879 (1985). H. Tasaki: Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 1373 (1998). K. Saito, S. Takesue, and S. Miyashita: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **65**, 1243 (1996). S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter: Nature Phys. **2**, 754 (2006). M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii: Nature **452**, 854 (2008). S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zangh: Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 050403 (2006). P. Reimann: Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 160404 (2007). P. Reimann: J. Stat. Phys. **132**, 921 (2008). J. Gemmer and M. Michel: Europhys. Lett. **73**, 1 (2006). J. Gemmer and M. Michel: Eur. Phys. J. B **53**, 517 (2006). M. A. Cazalilla: Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 156403 (2006). M. Rigol, A. Muramatsu, and M. Olshanii: Phys. Rev. A **74**, 053616 (2006). M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, V. Yurovsky, and M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 050405 (2007). M. Eckstein and M. Kollar: Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 120404 (2008). M. Cramer, A. Flesch, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollwock, and J. Eisert: Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 063001 (2008). M. Cramer, C. M. Dawson, J. Eisert, and T. J. Osborne: Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 030602 (2008). A. Flesch, M. Cramer, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollwock, and J. Eisert: Phys. Rev. A **78**, 033608 (2008). M. Esposito and P. Gaspard: Phys. Rev. E **68**, 066113 (2003). M. Merkli and I. M. Sigal: Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 130401 (2007). J. von Neumann: *Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.* (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955). L.E. Ballentine: *Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development* (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003). H. Tal-Ezer and R. Kosloff: J. Chem. Phys. **81**, 3967 (1984). C. Leforestier, R.H. Bisseling, C. Cerjan, M.D. Feit, R.Friesner, A. Guldberg, A. Hammerich, G. Jolicard, W. Karrlein, H.-D. Meyer, N. Lipkin, O. Roncero and R. Kosloff: J. Comp. Phys. **94**, 59 (1991). T. Iitaka, S. Nomura, H. Hirayama, X. Zhao, Y. Aoyagi and T. Sugano: Phys. Rev. E **56**, 1222 (1997). V.V. Dobrovitski and H. De Raedt, Phys. Rev. E **67**, 056702 (2003). H. De Raedt and K. Michielsen: “Computational Methods for Simulating Quantum Computers”, Handbook of Theoretical and Computational Nanotechnology, Chapter 1, pp. 2 – 48, M. Rieth and W. Schommers eds., American Scientific Publisher, Los Angeles (2006). S. Yuan, M.I. Katsnelson, and H. De Raedt: JETP Lett. **84**, 99 (2006). S. Yuan, M.I. Katsnelson, and H. De Raedt: Phys. Rev. A **75**, 052109 (2007). S. Yuan, M.I. Katsnelson, and H. De Raedt: Phys. Rev. B **77**, 184301 (2008). A.H. Hams and H. De Raedt: Phys. Rev. E **62**, 4365 (2000). A. Abragam: *The principles of nuclear magnetism* (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By combining angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy and quantum oscillation measurements, we performed a comprehensive investigation on the electronic structure of LaSb, which exhibits near-quadratic extremely large magnetoresistance (XMR) without any sign of saturation at magnetic fields as high as 40 T. We clearly resolve one spherical and one intersecting-ellipsoidal hole Fermi surfaces (FSs) at the Brillouin zone (BZ) center $\Gamma$ and one ellipsoidal electron FS at the BZ boundary $X$. The hole and electron carriers calculated from the enclosed FS volumes are perfectly compensated, and the carrier compensation is unaffected by temperature. We further reveal that LaSb is topologically trivial but share many similarities with the Weyl semimetal TaAs family in the bulk electronic structure. Based on these results, we have examined the mechanisms that have been proposed so far to explain the near-quadratic XMR in semimetals.'
author:
- 'L.-K. Zeng'
- 'R. Lou'
- 'D.-S. Wu'
- 'Q. N. Xu'
- 'P.-J. Guo'
- 'L.-Y. Kong'
- 'Y.-G. Zhong'
- 'J.-Z. Ma'
- 'B.-B. Fu'
- 'P. Richard'
- 'P. Wang'
- 'G. T. Liu'
- 'L. Lu'
- 'Y.-B. Huang'
- 'C. Fang'
- 'S.-S. Sun'
- 'Q. Wang'
- 'L. Wang'
- 'Y.-G. Shi'
- 'H. M. Weng'
- 'H.-C. Lei'
- 'K. Liu'
- 'S.-C. Wang'
- 'T. Qian'
- 'J.-L. Luo'
- 'H. Ding'
title: Compensated Semimetal LaSb with Unsaturated Magnetoresistance
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
Magnetoresistance (MR) is the magnetic-field induced changes of electrical resistance of a material, which has attracted great attention not only in understanding the underlying physical mechanisms but also for practical applications, such as spintronics devices, magnetic memory and magnetic field sensors. Negative MR has been discovered in many magnetic materials, such as giant MR in magnetic multilayer films [@1; @2] and colossal MR in perovskite manganites [@3; @4]. Extremely large positive MR (XMR) has been reported in nonmagnetic materials [@5; @6; @7; @8; @9; @10].
Recently, the discovery of XMR without any sign of saturation at magnetic fields up to 60 T in nonmagnetic semimetal WTe$_2$ has renewed the research interest for this topic [@11]. The magnetotransport in WTe$_2$ is characterized by a typical near-quadratic field dependence of MR and a field-induced up-turn in resistivity followed by a plateau at low temperature. Soon after, these fingerprints were also observed in several semimetals including $TmPn_2$ ($Tm$ = Ta/Nb, $Pn$ = As/Sb) [@12; @13; @14; @15; @16; @17], $LnX$ ($Ln$ = La/Y, $X$ = Sb/Bi) [@18; @19; @20; @21; @22], and ZrSiS [@23; @24; @25]. These common features imply that the quadratic XMR in these nonmagnetic semimetals may have the same origin. XMR has also been observed in Dirac and Weyl semimetals like Cd$_3$As$_2$ [@26; @27], TaAs [@28], and NbP [@29], which, nevertheless, show a linear field dependence of MR distinct from the near-quadratic behavior. So far, several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the exotic quadratic XMR behavior, including electron-hole resonance compensation [@11; @30], forbidden backscattering at zero field [@31], field-induced Fermi surface (FS) changes [@12], and nontrivial band topology [@18].
It is widely believed that XMR in semimetals is intimately related to their underlying electronic structures. First-principles calculations have shown that most of their electronic structures are rather complicated [@10; @11; @12; @13; @14; @15; @32]. The experimental electronic structures by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) measurements are even more complicated and illegible because of the convoluted bulk and surface states [@31; @33; @34; @35; @36; @37; @38]. The lack of unambiguous experimental data on the intrinsic electronic structures seriously obstructs the investigation on the underlying mechanism of quadratic XMR.
In this work, we report a comprehensive study on the electronic structure of LaSb by combining ARPES and quantum oscillation (QO) measurements. The FS topology of LaSb is clearly resolved, which consists of two hole FS pockets at the Brillouin zone (BZ) center $\Gamma$ and one electron FS pocket at the BZ boundary $X$. We have precisely quantified the hole and electron carrier densities and demonstrated that LaSb is a compensated semimetal. The measured band structure confirms that LaSb is topologically trivial but with a linearly dispersive bulk band. As compared to other XMR semimetals, LaSb has a much simpler electronic structure, which facilitates the investigation on the origin of quadratic XMR.
High-quality single crystals of LaSb were grown by the flux method. ARPES measurements were performed at the Dreamline beamline of the Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility (SSRF) with a Scienta D80 analyzer and at the beamline 13U of the National Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (NSRL) at Hefei with a Scienta R4000 analyzer. The energy and angular resolutions were set to 15 meV and 0.05$^\circ$, respectively. The samples were cleaved $\emph{in situ}$ along the (001) plane and measured at $T$ = 30 and 200 K in a working vacuum better than 5$\times$10$^{-11}$ Torr.
![(Color online) Crystal structure and magnetotransport of LaSb. (a) Schematic crystal structure of LaSb. (b) XRD pattern on the (001) surface of single crystal. The inset shows a typical cuboid single crystal. (c) Resistivity as a function of temperature at magnetic field $H$ = 0 (black curve) and 9 T (red curve). The inset illustrates the directions of $H$ and $I$ in the magnetotransport measurements. (d) $MR$ (%) = \[$R$($H$) - $R$(0)\]/$R$(0) $\times$ 100 % plotted as a function of field up to 40 T at $T$ = 2 K (red curve), where $R$($H$) and $R$(0) represent the resistivity at magnetic field $H$ and at zero field, respectively. Blue curve is the fitting to the two-band model considering slightly imperfect carrier compensation ($n_e$/$n_h$ = 0.998). Black curve is the fitting to the three-band model with perfect carrier compensation. (e) Simulated MR as a function of the ratio $n_e$/$n_h$ based on the two-band model. Solid circles represent the experimental MR at $T$ = 2 and 200 K under 9 T assuming that the suppression of MR at high temperatures is attributed to carrier imbalance. (f) FFT spectrum of the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations shown in the Supplemental Materials. The inset shows that the peak positions of $F_{\gamma}$ and $F_{2\beta}$ are extracted by the fitting to two Gaussian functions.](fig1){width="1\columnwidth"}
Figure 1(a) shows the schematic of the crystal structure of LaSb. It has a simple rock salt structure, which is face-center cubic with space group $Fm$-3$m$. A typical cuboid single crystal of LaSb is shown in the inset of Fig. 1(b). X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements on single crystals confirm that the rectangular face is the (001) plane. The electric current ($I$) and the magnetic field ($H$) in our magnetotransport measurements are applied along the (100) and (001) directions, respectively, as illustrated in the inset of Fig. 1(c). In Fig. 1(c), the resistivity at zero field shows a metallic behavior in the measured temperature range from 2 to 300 K. When a magnetic field of 9 T is applied, the resistivity shows a minimum at a field-induced “turn on” temperature $T$ $\sim$ 100 K, and then increases dramatically with decreasing temperature. A resistivity plateau is ultimately formed after an inflection at $T$ $\sim$ 15 K, which is consistent with previous results on LaSb [@18].
In Fig. 1(d), the MR curve as a function of magnetic field exhibits no any sign of saturation even up to 40 T. Unsaturated MR at magnetic fields up to several tens of Tesla has also been reported in other XMR semimetals like WTe$_2$ [@11], LaBi [@20], and ZrSiS [@25]. The MR curve can be approximately fit to a power-law function with an exponent $m$ = 1.78. Similar power-law field dependence with $m$ slightly less than 2 has been observed in WTe$_2$ [@39], PtSn$_4$ [@10], NbSb$_2$ [@12], and LaBi [@19]. So far, the most commonly used mechanism to explain the quadratic XMR is the two-band model, which predicts a quadratic field dependence of MR as electron-hole compensation is satisfied [@40]. The deviation from the quadratic behavior was simply attributed to slight imbalance between electrons and holes. We fit the data based on the two-band model considering imperfect carrier compensation [@19; @41] and obtain the ratio of electron-to-hole carrier density $n_e$/$n_h$ = 0.998 by assuming equal electron and hole mobilities. Although the deviation from perfect compensation is negligible, the fitting curve exhibits an obvious trend of saturation, which does not reproduce the MR data. The two-band model is not sufficient to explain the near-quadratic behavior in LaSb, and unlikely the deviation from quadratic in other XMR materials either. To understand the XMR in LaSb, we investigate comprehensively its electronic structure.
{width="1\columnwidth"}
{width="1.7\columnwidth"}
We demonstrate that the electron and hole carriers in LaSb are perfectly compensated by combining QO and ARPES measurements. The fast Fourier transform (FFT) spectrum of the QO data in Fig. 1(f) exhibits four principal frequencies: $F_\alpha$ = 214 T with its third harmonic $F_{3\alpha}$ = 644 T, $F_\beta$ = 436 T with its second harmonic $F_{2\beta}$ = 875 T, $F_\gamma$ = 836 T, and $F_\delta$ = 1090 T. Using the Onsager relation \[$F$ = ($\hbar$/$2{\pi}e$)$A_k$ between frequency $F$ and the extreme cross section $A_k$ of a FS\], we extract the corresponding $A_k$ values.
We further determine the topology of these FSs by ARPES measurements. Figures 2(b) and 2(c) show the intensity maps at the Fermi level ($E_F$) recorded at $T$ = 30 K with photon energy $hv$ = 53 and 83 eV, close to the $k_z$ = 0 and $\pi$ planes, respectively (See more photon energy dependence data in the Supplemental Materials). To examine temperature effects on the electronic structure, we also performed ARPES measurements with $hv$ = 53 eV at $T$ = 200 K and plot the FS intensity map in Fig. 2(d). The FS topology at $k_z$ = 0 \[Fig. 2(b)\] is the same as at $k_z$ = $\pi$ \[Fig. 2(c)\], but shifted by the wave vector ($\pi$, $\pi$), which is illustrated in the schematic three-dimensional (3D) BZ in Fig. 2(a). We extract the Fermi wave vectors of the FSs and plot them as symbols in Fig. 2(e). The FSs at $k_z$ = 0 in the first BZ consist of one circular and one intersecting-elliptical hole pockets at the BZ center $\Gamma$, and one elliptical electron pocket at the BZ boundary $X$ with its long-axis along $\Gamma$-$X$. In addition, there is one small circular electron pocket at $X$ (-$\pi$, -$\pi$) in the second BZ. These experimental FS topology is consistent with the theoretical calculations in Fig. 2(f). Moreover, we observe some additional FSs around the $X$ points in Figs. 2(b) and 2(d), which could be associated with the lattice periodic potential of the termination layer on the (001) surface. As the ARPES experimental technique with vacuum ultraviolet lights is surface sensitive, the excited photoelectrons suffer from the influence of periodic potential on the (001) surface. As the consequence of broken translational symmetry along the (001) direction, the projected (001) surface BZ, illustrated as dashed lines in Fig. 2(d), is reduced by 1/$\sqrt{2}$ as compared with the translation periodicity in the $k_x$-$k_y$ plane of bulk BZ. As a result, the band folding with a wave vector $Q$ = ($\pi$, $\pi$, 0) leads to the additional FSs around $X$. By comparing the FS areas in ARPES with the $A_k$ values in QO, we assign the electron FSs at $X$ (-$\pi$, -$\pi$) and (-$\pi$, 0) as $\alpha$ and $\gamma$, respectively, and the inner and outer hole FSs at $\Gamma$ as $\beta$ and $\delta$, respectively, as indicated in Fig. 2(e). With the knowledge of the FS profiles, we derive the FSs from the $A_k$ values and plot them as solid curves in Fig. 2(e), which are well consistent with those determined by ARPES.
As LaSb has a cubic crystal structure, its electronic structure is identical along the three directions $k_x$, $k_y$, and $k_z$ of the BZ. The 3D structure of the FSs can thus be reconstructed by the regular 2D FSs in the $k_z$ = 0 and $\pi$ planes. The 3D FSs consist of one spherical and one intersecting-ellipsoidal hole FSs at $\Gamma$ reconstructed by the $\beta$ and $\delta$ FSs, respectively, and one ellipsoidal electron FS at $X$ reconstructed by the $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ FSs, which is elongated along $\Gamma$-$X$, as seen in Fig. 2(f). The regular 3D structure of these FSs enables us to precisely quantify the volume of each FS. Note that while the ARPES measurements do not map the FSs exactly at $k_z$ = 0 and $\pi$, the extreme cross sections of the FSs at $k_z$ = 0 and $\pi$ can be accurately extracted from the QO data. Therefore, we calculate the volumes of the 3D FSs that are reconstructed with the 2D FSs derived from the QO data. The enclosed volumes of the $\beta$, $\delta$ and $\alpha$/$\gamma$ FSs are 0.00639, 0.0196, and 0.00856 $\AA^{-3}$, corresponding to carrier densities of 5.15$\times$10$^{19}$, 1.58$\times$10$^{20}$, and 6.90$\times$10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$, respectively. Considering that there are three electron $\alpha$/$\gamma$ FSs in one BZ, the ratio of electron-to-hole carrier density $n_e$/$n_h$ = 0.99, indicating LaSb a compensated semimetal within the experimental accuracy. This is in conflict with the claim in Ref. [@18], in which it is argued that LaSb is not compensated, but our result is in agreement with the previous reports [@42; @43]. Furthermore, the extracted FSs from the ARPES data measured at $T$ = 30 and 200 K are exactly the same, as shown in Fig. 2(e), indicating that the condition of carrier compensation is held in a broad temperature range.
Figure 3 shows the near-$E_F$ band dispersions along the high-symmetry lines recorded with $hv$ = 53 eV, whose momentum locations are indicated in Fig. 2(b). We first discuss the topological nature of LaSb based on the band dispersions. First-principles electronic structure calculations show controversial results about the band topology, depending on the density functions used in the calculations [@18; @41; @44]. In the calculation with the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) function at the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) level, the band inversion happens at $X$ between the La $d$-states and the Sb $p$-states, suggesting that LaSb is a 3D topological insulator, whereas the calculation with the modified Becke-Johnson (MBJ) potential [@45; @46] at the meta-GGA level shows no band inversion at $X$ [@18; @41]. The major discrepancy between the band structures in these two types of calculations is that there exists an anti-crossing of two bands along $\Gamma$-$X$ in the former. To elucidate the band topology of LaSb, we analyze the experimental band dispersions along $\Gamma$-$X$. As shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), on moving from $\Gamma$ to $X$, the outer hole band gradually levels off and then curves upward, forming a hole band with a top at $\sim$-0.35 eV at $X$. In addition, there is a parabolic electron band along $\Gamma$-$X$ with a bottom at $\sim$-0.25 eV at $X$, forming a band gap of $\sim$0.1 eV. Note that the linear electron band at $X$ in Figs. 3(a)-3(c), which is associated with the additional FSs in Fig. 2(b), is a result of the band folding with a wave vector $Q$ = ($\pi$, $\pi$, 0). It is clear that there is no band anti-crossing along $\Gamma$-$X$, which is at odds with the calculation with the PBE functional. In contrast, the experimental band dispersions are well reproduced by the calculations with the MBJ potential. We therefore conclude that LaSb is a topologically trivial material.
As our results confirm that LaSb is topologically trivial, no Dirac-like surface states are observed. Therefore, the 2D angle dependence of QOs reported previously [@18] could not be a result of 2D surface state FSs associated with a topologically nontrivial phase. In contrast, the 2D transport behavior should arise from the ellipsoidal $\alpha$/$\gamma$ FS, which is largely elongated along $\Gamma$-$X$ with the ratio of long-axis to short-axis $\sim$4. We further reveal that the highly anisotropic electron band associated with the $\alpha$/$\gamma$ FS disperses parabolically along the long-axis \[Figs. 3(a)-3(c)\] but linearly along the short-axis \[Figs. 3(f)-3(j)\]. Many materials exhibit ultrahigh mobility possess linearly dispersive bands, such as Bi [@47], Cd$_3$As$_2$ [@27], TaAs [@28], and NbP [@29]. It is widely believed that the high mobility in these materials is associated with the linear bands. The linearly dispersive electron band may be the origin of the high mobility in LaSb.
We examine the proposed mechanisms for the XMR by comparing the electronic structure of LaSb with those of other XMR semimetals. Firstly, in WTe$_2$ the measured FSs show dramatic changes with varying temperature [@33; @34], which spoils the carrier compensation. This was considered as the origin of the drastically suppressed XMR with increasing temperature. The suppression of MR is also observed in LaSb, for instance the MR at 200 K is suppressed by three orders as compared to that at 2 K under 9 T. If the suppression is attributed to carrier imbalance, the ratio $n_e$/$n_h$ has to be $\sim$100 in the simulation based on the two-band model, as plotted in Fig. 1(e). This is contradictory to our ARPES results, which reveal no observable changes of the FSs with temperature in LaSb. Secondly, due to the lack of inversion symmetry in WTe$_2$, the spin degeneracy is removed by spin-orbit coupling, leading to a complicated spin texture of the bands, which has been claimed to play an important role in the XMR of WTe$_2$ [@31]. This explanation is not applicable to LaSb because the inversion symmetry in LaSb preserves that its spins are doubly-degenerate at zero field. Thirdly, the field-induced insulator-like resistivity with a plateau is considered as the consequences of breaking time reversal symmetry in topological semimetals [@18], whereas our results have demonstrated that LaSb is a topologically trivial material, which excludes the possibility that the XMR is associated with nontrivial band topology. Fourthly, it is worth noting that the bulk electronic structure of LaSb shares a considerable degree of similarity to that of the Weyl semimetal TaAs family, which consists of hole FSs from the normal parabolic bands and electron FSs from the linear Weyl bands [@29; @49]. These Weyl semimetals exhibit a linear MR [@28; @29] distinct from the near-quadratic behavior in LaSb, suggesting they should be associated with different origins.
While LaSb satisfies the two prerequisites for XMR in the two-band model, $i.e.$, carrier compensation and ultrahigh mobility, the deviation from the quadratic behavior cannot be explained by a slightly imperfect carrier compensation. Thus we consider a three-band model within the general multiple-band picture [@30]. Our ARPES results exhibit that the electron band is highly anisotropic along and perpendicular to the long-axis of the ellipsoidal FS while the two hole bands have similar dispersions near $E_F$. Based on the electronic structure, considering the magnetic field applied along the (001) direction, one can construct a three-band model including two kinds of electrons and one kind of holes. As seen in Fig. 1(d), the formula derived from the three-band model with carrier compensation [@30] fits to the MR curve excellently. Further investigation is desirable to clarify if the near-quadratic XMR can be understood in the frame of the multiple-band picture. As a common behavior in many materials, the XMR remains puzzling by the complication from the band structures. LaSb with a simple electronic structure represents an ideal system to formulate a theoretical understanding to this exotic phenomenon.
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Nos. 2012CB921701, 2016YFA0302400, 2016YFA0300600, 2013CB921700 and 2015CB921300), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11274381, 11274362, 11474340, 11274367, 11474330, 11574394 and 11234014), and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XDB07000000). KL was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and the Research Funds of Renmin University of China (RUC) (Nos. 14XNLQ03, 15XNLF06). Computational resources was provided by the Physical Laboratory of High Performance Computing at RUC. The FSs were prepared with the XCRYSDEN program [@50].
M. N. Baibich, J. M. Broto, A. Fert, F. Nguyen Van Dau, F. Petroff, P. Etienne, G. Creuzet, A. Friederich, and J. Chazelas, Phys. Rev. Lett. **61**, 2472 (1988).
G. Binasch, P. Grunberg, F. Saurenbach, and W. Zinn, Phys. Rev. B **39**, 4828 (1989).
$\emph{Colossal Magnetoresistive Oxides}$, Advances in Condensed Matter Physics Science Vol. 2, edited by Y. Tokura (Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, 2000).
$\emph{Colossal Magnetoresistive Manganites}$, edited by T. Chatterji (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004).
L. Schubnikow, and W. J. De Haas, Nature (London) **126**, 500 (1930).
P. B. Alers, and R. T. Webber, Phys. Rev. **84**, 863 (1951).
T. Kasuya, M. Sera, and T. Suzuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **62**, 2561 (1993).
F. Y. Yang, K. Liu, K. Hong, D. H. Reich, P. C. Searson, and C. L. Chein, Science **284**, 1335 (1999).
R. Xu, A. Husmann, T.F. Rosenbaum, M.-L. Saboungi, J. E. Enderby, and P. B. Littlewood, Nature (London) **390**, 57 (1997).
E. Mun, H. Ko, G. J. Miller, G. D. Samolyuk, S. L. Bud¡¯ko, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **85**, 035135 (2012).
M. N. Ali, J. Xiong, S. Flynn, J. Tao, Q. D. Gibson, L. M. Schoop, T. Liang, N. Haldolaarachchige, M. Hirschberger, N. P. Ong, and R. J. Cava, Nature (London) **514**, 205 (2014).
K. Wang, D. Graf, L. Li, L. Wang, and C. Petrovic, Sci. Rep. **4**, 7328 (2014).
B. Shen, X. Y. Deng, G. Kotliar, and N. Ni. arXiv:1602.01795.
D. S. Wu, J. Liao, W. Yi, X. Wang, P. G. Li, H. M. Weng, Y. G. Shi, Y. Q. Li, J. L. Luo, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Appl. Phys. Lett. **108**, 042105 (2016).
C. C. Xu, J. Chen, G. X. Zhi, Y. K. Li, J. H. Dai, and C. Cao, arxiv:1602.02344 (2016).
Y.-Y. Wang, Q.-H. Yu, P.-J. Guo, K. Liu, and T.-L. Xia, Phys. Rev. B **94**, 041103 (2016).
Z. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Lu, Z. Shen, F. Sheng, C. Feng, Y. Zheng, and Z. A. Xu, arXiv:1603.01717.
F. F. Tafti, Q. D. Gibson, S. K. Kushwaha, N. Haldolaarachchige, and R. J. Cava, Nat. Phys. **12**, 272 (2015).
S. S. Sun, Q. Wang, P. J. Guo, K. Liu, and H. C. Lei, New J. Phys. **18**, 082002 (2016).
N. Kumar, C. Shekhar, S.-C. Wu, I. Leermakers, U. Zeitler, B. H. Yan, and C. Felser, arXiv:1601.07494.
Q. Yu, Y. Wang, S. Xu, and T.-L. Xia, arXiv:1604.05912.
O. Pavlosiuk, P. Swatek, and P. Wiśniewski, arXiv:1604.06945.
R. Singha, A. Pariari, B. Satpati, and P. Mandal, arXiv:1602.01993.
M. N. Ali, L. M. Schoop, C. Garg, J. M. Lippmann, E. Lara, B. Lotsch, and S. Parkin, arXiv:1603.09318.
X. F. Wang, X. C. Pan, M. Gao, J. H. Yu, J. Jiang, J. R. Zhang, H. K. Zuo, M. H. Zhang, Z. X. Wei, W. Niu, Z. C. Xia, X. G. Wan, Y. L. Chen, F. Q. Song, Y. B. Xu, B. G. Wang, G. H. Wang, and R. Zhang, arXiv:1604.00108.
J. Feng, Y. Pang, D. Wu, Z. Wang, H. Weng, J. Li, X. Dai, Z. Fang, Y. Shi, and L. Lu, Phys. Rev. B **92**, 081306 (2015).
T. Liang, Q. Gibson, M. N. Ali, M. Liu, R. J. Cava, and N. P. Ong, Nat. Mater. **14**, 280 (2015).
X. C. Huang, L. X. Zhao, Y. J. Long, P. P. Wang, D.Chen, Z. H. Yang, H. Liang, M. Q. Xue, H. M. Weng, Z. Fang, X. Dai, and G. F. Chen, Phys. Rev. X. **5**, 031023 (2015).
C. Shekhar, A. K. Nayak, Y. Sun, M. Schmidt, M. Nicklas, I. Leermakers, U. Zeitler, Z. K. Liu, Y. L. Chen, W. Schnelle, J. Grin, C. Felser, and B. H. Yan, Nat. Phys. **11**, 645 (2015).
T. Kasuya, M. Sera, Y. Okayama, and Y. Haga, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **65**, 160 (1996).
J. Jiang, F. Tang, X. C. Pan, H. M. Liu, X. H. Niu, Y. X. Wang, D. F. Xu, H. F. Yang, B. P. Xie, F. Q. Song, P. Dudin, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, P. K. Das, I. Vobornik, X. G. Wan, and D. L. Feng, Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 166601 (2015).
Q. N. Xu, Z. D. Song, S. M. Nie, H. M. Weng, Z. Fang, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. B **92**, 205310 (2015).
I. Pletikosić, M. N. Ali, A. V. Fedorov, R. J. Cava, and T. Valla, Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**, 216601 (2014).
Y. Wu, N. H. Jo, M. Ochi, L. Huang, D. Mou, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, N. Trivedi, R. Arita, and A. Kaminski, Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 166602 (2015).
Pranab Kumar Das, D. Di Sante, I. Vobornik, J. Fujii, T. Okuda, E. Bruyer, A. Gyenis, B. E. Feldman, J. Tao, R. Ciancio, G. Rossi, M. N. Ali, S. Picozzi, A. Yadzani, G. Panaccione, and R. J. Cava, Nat. Commun. **7**, 10847 (2016).
L. M. Schoop, M. N. Ali, C. Stra${\beta}$er, V. Duppel, S. S. P. Parkin, B. V. Lotsch, and C. R. Ast, Nat. Commun. **7**, 11696 (2016).
R. Lou, J.-Z. Ma, Q.-N. Xu, B.-B. Fu, L.-Y. Kong, Y.-G. Shi, P. Richard, H.-M. Weng, Z. Fang, S.-S. Sun, Q. Wang, H.-C. Lei, T. Qian, H. Ding, and S.-C. Wang, Phys. Rev. B **93**, 241104(R) (2016).
Y. Wu, L.-L. Wang, E. Mun, D. D. Johnson, D. Mou, L. Huang, Y. Lee, S. L. Bud¡¯ko, P. C. Canfield, and A. Kaminski, Nat. Phys., doi: 10.1038/nphys3712 (2016).
Y. L. Wang, L. R. Thoutam, Z. L. Xiao, J. Hu, S. Das, Z. Q. Mao, J. Wei, R. Divan, A. Luican-Mayer, G. W. Crabtree, and W. K. Kwok, Phys. Rev. B **92**, 180402 (2015).
A. B. Pippard, *Magnetoresistance in Metals* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989).
P.-J. Guo, H.-C. Yang, B.-J. Zhang, K. Liu, and Z.-Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. B **93**, 235142 (2016).
H. Kitazawa, T. Suzuki, M. Sera, I. Oguro, A. Yanase, A. Hasegawa, and T. Kasuya, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **31**, 421 (1983).
A. Hasegawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **54**, 677 (1985).
M. G. Zeng, C. Fang, G. Q. Chang, Y.-A. Chen, T. Hsieh, A. Bansil, H. Lin, and L. Fu, arXiv:1504.03492.
A. D. Becke and E. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys. **124**, 221101 (2006).
F. Tran and P. Blaha, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 226401 (2009).
A. Collaudin, B. Fauqué, Y. Fuseya, W. Kang, and K. Behnia, Phys. Rev. X. **5**, 021022 (2015).
P. Zhang, P. Richard, T. Qian, Y.-M. Xu, X. Dai, and H. Ding, Rev. Sci. Instrum. **82**, 043712 (2011).
H. Weng, C. Fang, Z. Fang, B. A. Bernevig, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. X. **5**, 011029 (2015).
A. Kokalj, Comp. Mater. Sci. **28**, 155 (2003).
[^1]: These authors contributed equally to this work.
[^2]: These authors contributed equally to this work.
[^3]: These authors contributed equally to this work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A number of time resolved optical experiments probing and controlling the spin and charge dynamics of the high mobility two-dimensional electron gas in a GaAs/AlGaAs heterojunction are discussed. These include time resolved reflectivity, luminescence, transient grating, magneto-optical Kerr effect, and electro-optical Kerr effect experiments. The optical experiments provide information on the carrier lifetimes and spin dephasing times, as well as on the carrier diffusion coefficient which directly gives the charge mobility. A combination of the two types of Kerr experiments, shows to be useful in extracting both the carrier lifetimes and spin dephasing times in a single experiment.'
address:
- '$^1$ MSC$^{plus}$, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands'
- '$^2$ Angewandte Festkörperphysik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Germany'
author:
- |
A Pugžlys$^1$[^1], P J Rizo$^1$, K Ivanin$^1$, A Slachter$^1$, D Reuter$^2$,\
A D Wieck$^2$, C H van der Wal$^1$ and P H M van Loosdrecht$^1$
bibliography:
- 'jcf.bib'
title: Charge and spin dynamics in a two dimensional electron gas
---
Introduction\[sec:intro\]
==========================
Realization of the dream of spintronics [@Wolf01; @Zutic04] requires not only detailed knowledge on how to inject electron spin currents into functional devices [@Schmidt05], but also profound understanding of how the spin information eventually gets lost, how it is connected to the charge degree of freedom, and how to manipulate and control the spin degree of freedom. Some useful spin-based devices are available, but the final grail of fully spin-based electronics is still not reached, despite tremendous progress in the field [@Zutic04]. Electronic and optical methods are the two favourite manners to study and manipulate the spin degree of freedom in bulk and confined semiconductors. In particular optical methods are quite powerful, since they can address [*and*]{} manipulate the charge and spin degrees of freedom independently. Quite early on it has been shown using transient Faraday spectroscopy that the lifetime of a coherent spin population in $n$-doped bulk GaAs can be tremendously long, exceeding 100 nanoseconds [@Kikkawa98]. Moreover, it has been shown that such a coherent spin population can be transported over tens of micrometers before eventually the coherence is lost [@Kikkawa99; @Kikkawa01]. Even though these bulk results are instrumental in the study of spin coherence and control, it is clear, in the light of functional devices, that the properties of confined structures as found in quantum well systems, heterojunctions, and quantum wires and dots are even more important.[@Kikkawa97; @Holleitner06; @Hanson03] Again, optical methods provide excellent tools to study the charge and spin dynamics of these confined structures. The charge channel can for instance be studied using time resolved luminescence, reflectivity, and transient grating techniques. The spin degrees of freedom can be addressed using time resolved magneto-optical Kerr effect, Faraday, and transient spin grating techniques. Finally using a combination of magneto-optical and birefringence methods, one can even address both the charge and spin degrees of freedom simultaneously.
This paper presents and compares results from some of these optical techniques as applied to a high mobility two-dimensional electron gas in a GaAs/AlGaAs heterojunction (HJ2DEG). The different techniques were applied with the same laser system and sample material, allowing a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the results from the different techniques. Moreover, part of the experiments have been performed under identical conditions on both the 2DEG material and bulk GaAs material. This demonstrates how the techniques are useful for studies on 2DEG systems, and evidences that the signals are from the 2DEG system rather than from the surrounding bulk material. Developing a consistent picture of the coupled spin and charge dynamics in the GaAs/AlGaAs multilayer system using only one method is very challenging. Therefore it is better to use results from different methods to collect evidence for the mechanisms that underlie this spin and charge dynamics.
The advantage of using heterojunctions for charge transport is obviously their high mobility, which can be 10’s of millions cm$^{2}$/Vs at low temperatures. For spin transport, this advantage turns out to be a disadvantage. The long mean free path results in a dephasing of a macroscopic coherent spin state trough the coupling to the anisotropic crystal field, leading to dephasing times of the order of a nanosecond or less. Note however, that optical measurements on heterojunction 2DEGs are challenging because the 2DEG has transition energies in the same spectral region as the underlying buffer layer. This makes optical studies in HJ2DEGs more involved than those on double sided quantum wells (QWs), which can have transition energies that differ substantially from all other characteristic transitions in the QW structure. As a result, it is for QWs relatively easy to spectrally discern the optical response originating from the QW. For heterojunction 2DEGs however, one has to disentangle the bulk and 2DEG contributions from the mixed 2DEG/bulk optical response, and this will therefore be discussed for several of the optical techniques used in the experiments.
After an introduction of the samples and the experimental set-up in section \[sec:exp\], the charge and spin dynamics of the HJ2DEG will be discussed in sections \[sec:charge\] and \[sec:spin\], respectively. Next, in section \[sec:spincharge\], the electro-optical Kerr effect in the presence of an external magnetic field (the MEOKE technique) applied to HJ2DEGs will be discussed. This technique allows for the simultaneous study of both the charge and spin dynamics. Finally, section \[sec:concl\] will summarize and conclude this paper.
Sample material and experimental set-up\[sec:exp\]
==================================================
GaAs/AlGaAs Heterojunction sample
---------------------------------
Investigations of the intriguing properties of two-dimensional electron gases (2DEGs) such as the integer and fractional quantum Hall effect have stimulated extensive optical studies of modulation doped single heterojunctions (see [@Kukushkin96] and references therein). These heterojunctions show remarkably high carrier mobilities due to the separation of the free carriers from the parent ionized donors and the ability to grow AlGaAs on top of GaAs with extremely low interface roughness[@Stormer79]. Heterojunction 2DEGs are formed by growing an undoped narrow band gap semiconductor, known as the buffer (or active) layer, in contact with a doped wide band gap semiconductor (or dopant) layer. An undoped spacer layer made of the wide band gap material deposited between the dopant and buffer layers enhances carrier mobility by reducing Coulomb scattering between free carriers and ionized donors. Excess carriers from the dopant layer reduce their energy by a transfer to the conduction band of the narrow band gap semiconductor. Here, these free carriers accumulate at the heterointerface due to electrostatic attraction from the parent ionized donors in the dopant layer, thus forming a 2DEG (see figure \[bandstructure\]).
![Schematic of the conduction and valence bands along the growth direction (here from right to left) of a heterostructure containing a heterojunction 2DEG. The roman numerals I, II, and III indicate the buffer, spacer, and dopant layers, respectively. The illustration also shows the capping layer above the dopant layer. The 2DEG is localized at the notch potential between the buffer and spacer layers. Notice that a built-in electric field is established across the buffer layer.[]{data-label="bandstructure"}](jcf1){width="\figwid"}
The resulting charge separation establishes an electric field or band bending along the growth direction in the buffer layer. The preferred materials for high mobility 2DEGs are GaAs (buffer layer) and an Al$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As alloy (dopant and spacer layers). The reasons for utilizing these materials are the matching lattice constants, the good interface quality, and the low effective electron mass in the conduction band of GaAs. Note that the term heterojunction will be used for the GaAs/AlGaAs interface where the 2DEG is confined, while the term heterostructure will be used for the entire GaAs/AlGaAs multilayer system.
The experiments described in this paper are performed on a modulation doped single heterojunction with a band structure as depicted in figure \[bandstructure\]. The heterostructure consists of 9330 Å undoped GaAs buffer layer grown on top of a (100) $i$-GaAs substrate. On top of this, 368 Åof undoped Al$_{.32}$Ga$_{.68}$As forms the spacer layer. The dopant layer consists of 719 Å of Si-doped Al$_{.32}$Ga$_{.68}$As with $3\times10^{18}$ dopants/cm$^{3}$. The heterostructure is capped with 55 Å of $n$-GaAs. The dark mobility and 2DEG carrier density, as derived from transport experiments at 4.2 K are $1.59\times 10^{6}$ cm$^{2}$/Vs and $2.14\times 10^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$ respectively. After illumination these values become $2.7\times 10^{6}$ cm$^{2}$/Vs and $4.2\times 10^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$.
Laser system and optical cryostat
---------------------------------
In the experiments a cavity dumped Titanium sapphire laser (Cascade, Kapteyn-Murnane Laboratories Inc.) was used as a source of excitation and probe light. The laser generates 25 fs, 40 nJ pulses centred around 780 nm. The repetition rate of the laser pulses can be tuned between 40 kHz and 4 MHz. Experiments were performed either by exciting and probing the sample with a broad spectrum corresponding to a 25 fs pulse or with spectral portions having width of $\sim$10 nm (90 % transmission), which were selected using interference filters at appropriate places in the optical set up. In the latter case, the temporal width was about 120 fs. The typical focal spot size in the experiments is about $\sim$75 $\mu$m in diameter, unless stated differently. The energy of the excitation pulses was varied between 100 pJ and 1.2 nJ. Experiments were carried out at temperatures ranging from room temperature down to 4.2 K. In the case of low temperature measurements the sample was placed in a optical cryostat with a split pair superconducting magnet system (Spectromag, Oxford Instruments), which allows to vary sample temperature from 2 K up to 300 K and is capable of creating an external magnetic field up to 8 Tesla.
Charge dynamics\[sec:charge\]
=============================
Photoluminescence\[sec:pl\]
---------------------------
Photoluminescence (PL) studies are very well suited for identifying charge relaxation and recombination mechanisms and their time scales. However, it is well known that PL signals from HJ2DEG samples are dominated by signals from the underlying bulk regions, and it is very difficult to extract the weak signals that are due the 2DEG system. Time- and spectrally-resolved PL studies on a HJ2DEG sample, mounted in a cold finger cryostat, have been performed using streak-camera detection . The results (no data presented here) show indeed strong PL signals that must be attributed to processes in the bulk substrate, and only a very weak signal from the HJ2DEG at high pump intensities. Luminescence from the bulk GaAs buffer layer can be affected by the presence of the 2DEG and the built-in electric field in the buffer layer.[@shen99] Time-resolved PL measurements in the 2DEG sample revealed several PL lines from the GaAs buffer layer. The lifetime of the brightest PL line, the bound exciton line,is strongly dependent on temperature and showed a very slow growth at early times. At 4.2 K after illumination with 780 nm, 120 fs pulses the PL intensity reaches a maximum after 2.3 ns. The PL lifetime measured was 2.35 ns. At 40 K, the peak intensity delay and PL lifetime becomes 0.9 ns and 9 ns, respectively. For comparison, an i-GaAs sample was measured under identical excitation conditions and the parameters of the bound exciton line were extracted. In this case the peak intensity delay and PL lifetime at 4.2 K were 0.3 ns and 0.36 ns respectively. At 40 K the decay time remained unchanged within experimental accuracy. Further, the results are consistent with published results from earlier work (discussed below). Since this type of results will be of interest for the discussion of the results from other methods, a summary of the main findings reported in literature will be given here. Note however, that while much results have been published on this topic, the exact process responsible for the PL associated with 2D electrons in samples with an undoped buffer layer still remains unclear.
In HJ2DEGs the carrier accumulation at the heterointerface bends the buffer layer conduction band below the Fermi level in the region close to the heterojunction [@Stormer79], as depicted in figure \[bandstructure\]. This built in electric field rapidly segregates photoexcited electrons toward the heterointerface and holes toward the back of the buffer layer. 2D electron and 3D hole recombination in these heterostructures is then an indirect process in real space. Spatially indirect recombination coupled with the space charge potential present in the buffer layer give rise to a red shift in the PL energy akin to the quantum confined Stark effect [@Miller84]. In view of the rapid segregation of electrons and holes in heterojunction 2DEGs it is surprising that any holes are present at the heterointerface to recombine with 2D electrons. Significant efforts have been made to explain the presence of holes near the heterojunction, but the mechanism by which segregated electrons and holes recombine in a heterojunction 2DEG still remains controversial.
Early PL studies identified the bands particular to heterojunction structures with a 2DEG and described their features. Yuan *et al.* studied the PL from heterojunctions with different layer thickness and Al-composition in the barriers [@Yuan85]. They observed a PL band associated with the heterojunction which they called the H-band, with peak energies between $\sim$1.505 eV and $\sim$1.525 eV (at 1.4 K), depending on excitation density and the Al-composition of the barriers. The shift of the PL peak energy with excitation density is a trait intimately linked to the shape of the potential well in heterojunctions. Several other authors have reported a similar PL peak energy shift with excitation density (see for example [@Zhao90] and [@Kim95]). In heterojunction 2DEGs, segregated photoexcited carriers screen the built-in electric field thus flattening the buffer layer bands. 2D electron-3D hole recombination is still indirect in real space but a reduction of the built-in electric field reduces the red shift (produces a blue shift) of the luminescence band. Higher excitation densities generate more photoexcited electrons and holes that segregate and oppose the built-in electric field thereby increasing the H-band’s peak energy. Band gap renormalization due to the high concentration of free carriers at the heterojunction also contributes to the observed spectral shifts.
A blue shift in the H-band PL is also observed when the built-in electric field in the buffer layer is lowered by applying an external bias via a top gate[@Zhao90]. Reversing the gate bias produces a red shift of the H-band by increasing the band bending [@Zhao91]. Other PL bands, originating from the buffer layer, show no spectral shifts under intense illumination nor under the influence of an external electric field [@Yuan85; @Kim95; @Yang88]. The presence of PL lines characteristic of the bulk buffer material highlights the fact that in heterojunction structures 2D carriers are in close relation with bulk carriers. In fact a flat band region can exist in the buffer layer away from the heterojunction which is actually a layer of bulk material. The existence of this flat band region depends on temperature, 2DEG carrier density, buffer layer thickness and unintentional acceptor doping level.
In view of the inevitable interaction of the excitation beam with the buffer layer it is necessary to establish that the H-band is indeed a recombination involving 2D electrons. This was conclusively demonstrated by Kukushkin et al. [@Kukushkin88] through the modifications of the H-band of a 2DEG in the quantum Hall regime. In their work the authors showed that the PL intensity at the Fermi energy exhibit the same Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations as detected by magneto-transport measurements. By tilting the magnetic field direction, they determined that the observed oscillations depended only on the component of the magnetic field normal to the plane of the heterojunction, a proof of the 2D character of the carriers involved in the PL. Later, Turberfield et al. [@Turberfield90] and Buhmann et al. [@Buhmann90] observed the quantum Hall effect at integer and fractional filling factors by modifications to the detected PL from 2D electrons in a heterojunction.
The 2D carrier concentration in the heterojunction can be altered by illumination. A persistent increase in 2DEG density (persistent photoconductivity (PPC)) was observed by Störmer *et al.* [@Stormer79] after illuminating the sample with photons of energy below the AlGaAs band gap. The additional electrons are photoexcited from deep traps called *DX* centres in the AlGaAs. Some of the electrons released tunnel into the GaAs and accumulate in the heterojunction potential well. Chaves *et al.* [@Chaves86] and Chou *et al.* [@chou85] observed negative persistent photoconductivity (NPPC) in 2D electron and hole gases in modulation doped quantum wells respectively. In this case, illumination with photons above the AlGaAs band gap is necessary. Photoexcited holes in the AlGaAs are swept into the GaAs by the built in electric field in the spacer layer without having to cross an energy barrier (see figure \[bandstructure\]). The holes are then trapped in the GaAs close to the heterojunction and recombine with 2D electrons thus reducing the 2DEG density. NPPC and the magneto-optical experiments discussed above demonstrate that 2D electrons can recombine with photoexcited holes even though both carrier types are segregated by the built-in potential in the buffer layer.
Time resolved PL studies have yielded additional information about photoexcited carrier dynamics in single heterojunctions. After short pulse excitation photoexcited carriers drift in opposite directions driven by the built-in electric field. A photoexcited hole with mobility $\mu_{h}\sim10^{4}$ cm/Vs in a moderately low built-in electric field $E_{B}$ of $10^{3}$ V/cm will drift a distance $d$ of 1 micron away from the heterojunction in roughly $d/\mu_{h}E_{B}=10$ ps. Time-resolved PL measurements can observe the dynamics after the segregated charges have equilibrated. Bergman *et al.* [@Bergman91] measured the time dependence of the H-band PL peak energy. The authors reported a red shift of the H-band peak energy as a function of time. This should be compared to the continuous wave measurements as a function of excitation density. Reducing the excitation density in this case shifts the H-band PL to lower peak energies [@Yuan85; @Zhao90; @Kim95]. In the time resolved measurements the observed red shift of the H-band peak energy with time is produced by the recovery of the space charge as the photoexcited carriers recombine. Bergman *et al.* also measured an increase in the H-band decay time for increasing photon energy and interpreted it as coming from electrons and holes with larger and larger separations in real space. Electrons and holes in close proximity have large wave function overlap which gives short recombination lifetimes and larger photon energies. Widely separated electrons and holes exhibit longer recombination lifetimes and emit lower energy photons.
Transient reflectivity\[sec:tr\]
--------------------------------
Transient reflectivity provides important information about carrier dynamics in heterostructures. However, as with photoluminescence studies, the interpretation of the results is not straightforward because of the interaction of pump and probe beams with both the bulk buffer layer and with the 2DEG, and because of the high spectral sensitivity of the reflectivity in the vicinity of the band gap and the 2DEG energy levels. Since the luminescence experiments show that electron hole segregation occurs in the first few picoseconds, the reflectivity changes observed on a time scale of hundreds of picoseconds to nanoseconds should correspond to the dynamics of the photoinduced carriers in an already equilibrated, segregated charge distribution.
![Transient reflectivity $(\Delta R)$ traces on the 2DEG sample at different energies per pump pulse. A slow decrease of the signal in the delay range 0 to 100 ps is seen at the highest pump power. As the pulse energy is reduced the minimum of the signal is reached at later times and the signal becomes positive at early delays. The origin of this signal increase is discussed in the main text. Data taken at 4.2 K, no magnetic field, 780 nm pump, and weaker 820 nm probe pulses.[]{data-label="Transrefvsfluence"}](jcf2){width="\figwid"}
Transient reflectivity changes induced in the heterojunction structure by the pump pulse as a function of probe delay and pump pulse energy at 4.2 K are shown in figure \[Transrefvsfluence\]. The highest excitation energy trace shows that the $\Delta R$ has an initial slow decrease reaching a negative minimum at a delay of approximately 100 ps. Reducing the pump pulse energy shifts this minimum to later delays.
Several mechanisms could be responsible for the observed delayed formation of the $\Delta R$. A delayed formation similar to that observed in figure \[Transrefvsfluence\] has been discussed by Prabhu *et al.* [@Prabhu04] for $i$-GaAs. They showed that a delayed formation could arise at higher temperature and high excitation density from a combination of electron cooling, band filling and band gap renormalization. One could imagine that also in the present case this happens for the 2DEG and the underlying bulk GaAs, leading to the observed delayed formation. The electron energy-loss, or electron cooling, in $i$-GaAs occurs on a time scale of tens to hundred ps [@Alexandrou95]. The slow formation resulting from this should, however, speed up as the pump pulse energy decreases [@Leo88]. This is in contrast to the observation in the HJ2DEG sample, where the minimum of $\Delta R$ is reached at later delays when the pump pulse energy is reduced. Alternatively, carrier accumulation in the 2DEG by electron and hole segregation in the built-in electric field of the buffer layer could be responsible for the slow formation of $\Delta R$. Again this process should slow down at higher excitation densities. As discussed in the section on photoluminescence (section \[sec:pl\]), the segregated carriers in the buffer layer oppose the built-in electric field and reduce it. At a low pump pulse energy the carriers are efficiently separated by the electric field, while at higher pump pulse energy the partial screening produced by the initial segregated carriers reduces the built-in field, thereby slowing down the segregation of the remaining carriers.
Even though the above discussed phenomena should play a role, they do not explain the observed power dependence of the transient reflectivity response. Time resolved Kerr rotation experiments (see section \[sec:trkr\]) hint toward a different interpretation. These experiments show the presence of at least two different photoinduced charge populations, each with their own $g$-factor. Therefore the origin of the slow formation observed in the heterojunction structure studied might very well be related to the detection of carrier dynamics of two different populations, where the observed $g$-factors suggest that they are of 2D and 3D origin. Both of these carrier populations then independently produce transient reflectivity signals that decay exponentially. In order to explain the observed transient response one of these populations should gives a positive $\Delta R$, while the other should give a negative $\Delta R$. Given the complex behaviour of the dielectric function in the vicinity of the band gap and 2DEG level energies, this is not unexpected.
Based on these notions, the sum of two mono-exponential decays of opposite sign has been fitted to the data of figure \[Transrefvsfluence\] giving excellent agreement. The difference between the traces at different pump pulse energies is mainly a change in the relative amplitude of the individual signals. The two traces taken at the lowest pump pulse energy show a positive $\Delta R$ at early delays that later turns into a negative $\Delta R$. The reason for this is that the lifetime of the population giving negative $\Delta R$ is shorter than that of the other population but its amplitude is larger. Thus, at early delays this population dominates the signal. At later delays, on the other hand, the signal is dominated by the population with the longest lifetime. The estimated carrier lifetimes from fits to the data using the sum of two exponentials with amplitudes of opposite sign are 1200 ps and 730 ps for the negative and positive contributions, respectively.
![Transient reflectivity of the 2DEG sample as a function of temperature. The lifetime of carriers giving a negative $\Delta R$ increases with temperature in a manner comparable with confined carriers [@Gurioli91]. Data taken with pump at 780 nm wavelength and pulse energy of 0.8 nJ and weaker probe at 820 nm, no magnetic field. Data offset for clarity.[]{data-label="TransrefvsTemp"}](jcf3){width="\figwid"}
Temperature dependent transient reflectivity measurements, figure \[TransrefvsTemp\], shed some light on the origin of the two contributions. The observed increase of the longer lifetime as a function of temperature is consistent with measurements by other groups [@Gurioli91] of carrier recombination time constants in QWs at low temperatures. This suggests that the negative $\Delta R$ in figure \[Transrefvsfluence\] originates from photoinduced 2D electrons at the heterojunction. The positive $\Delta R$ is then produced by 3D carriers for instance in the bulk region of the buffer layer.
Transient grating techniques, probing diffusion and carrier relaxation\[sec:tg\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the disadvantages of time resolved reflectivity is that for long lifetimes diffusion of carriers out of the laser spot might play an important role. A better, though somewhat more involved, technique to study the carrier (and spin [@Weber05; @Carter06]) dynamics is the so called transient grating technique. The formation of transient gratings (TG’s) is a result of a four-wave mixing process which is described by the third order non-linear susceptibility $\chi^{(3)}_{ijkl}$. In general $\chi^{(3)}_{ijkl}$ is a fourth rank tensor with 81 elements. In isotropic media, however, only three elements are independent: $\chi^{(3)}_{xxyy}$, $\chi^{(3)}_{xyxy}$, and $\chi^{(3)}_{xyyx}$. $\chi^{(3)}_{xxxx}$ in this case can be expressed as: $$\chi^{(3)}_{xxxx}=\chi^{(3)}_{xxyy}+\chi^{(3)}_{xyxy}+\chi^{(3)}_{xyyx}.$$ Indices $x$ and $y$ here refer to the polarization planes of the interacting beams which propagate along the $z$ direction. The first and the second indices correspond to the two pump beams which set up the holographic grating. The third and forth indicate polarization plane of the incident probe and resulting diffracted beam, respectively. When the polarizations of two pump beams are parallel they interfere to form a sinusoidal intensity, and thus population grating. In contrast, when the polarizations are perpendicular interference of two beams is not possible, and the sample is irradiated with a uniform intensity. Still, one a particularly interesting modulation occurs: there will be a polarization grating in which the polarization varies sinusoidally between left en right circular states. In magnetically active samples, this obviously leads to a modulation of the magnetization. In other words, a spin grating will be formed with alternating spin-up and spin-down excitations.
![Confocal imaging system used in the transient grating experiments, showing the spatial arrangement of pump beams. The symbols are explained in the main text. \[fig:confocal\]](jcf4){width="\figwid"}
In transient grating experiments the laser output was split by a beam splitter into two pulses with a $3:1$ intensity ratio (pump and probe, respectively). The pump and probe beams passed through $\lambda$/2-plates, which rotates the plane of polarization, and subsequently through Glan Taylor polarizers to ensure well defined polarization states. The pump beam then was focused by a $f_0=250$ mm focal length lens onto a phase grating with a period of 30 mm$^{-1}$ which is specially designed to diffract about 30% of the input energy into the $+1$ and $-1$ orders of diffraction. One advantage of using a phase grating is that it produces phase locked beams, which remain so if the same optical elements are used for them after the grating. In addition the use of the phase grating ensures optimum spatial overlap of the excitation and probe pulses in the sample[@Maznev98]. The two pump beams produced by the phase grating were used to write a holographic grating on the sample. The imaging system, based on two lenses with focal length $f_1$ and $f_2$ (see figure \[fig:confocal\]), allows control of the angle between the two writing beams and so, of the holographic grating period $\Lambda$: $$\alpha = 2 \arctan\left[\frac{f_1}{f_2}\left(\left(
\frac{d}{\lambda}\right)^2-1\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right], \ \ \
\Lambda=\frac{\lambda}{2\sin(\alpha/2)}.$$ Here $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the irradiation, and $d$ is the spacing of the phase grating. For room temperature experiments $f_1$ was $250$ mm while $f_2$ was chosen to be 150 mm or 80 mm corresponding to grating periods of 11 $\mu$m and 5 $\mu$m, respectively (estimated focal spot diameters: 45 and 25 $\mu$m, respectively). For low temperature measurements $f_2$ was replaced by a spherical mirror with a curvature $R=-500$ mm ($f_2=250$ mm), corresponding to a grating period of 24 $\mu$m (estimated focal spot diameter 75 $\mu$m).
The diffracted signal decays as the amplitude of the holographic grating vanishes. The dynamics of the recorded holographic grating were probed by a probe pulse which was delayed with respect to the pump pulses by a computer controlled delay stage. All three, two pump and a probe, beams were arranged in a so called BOXCAR geometry. This geometry satisfies phase matching conditions and allows control over the direction of diffracted beam. In the BOXCAR arrangement three parallel beams, pump $k_1$, pump $k_2$, and probe $k_3$, are arranged parallel to each other so that they form three corners of a rectangle in a plane perpendicular to their path. A lens (or a focusing mirror) which center matching the one of this rectangle is used to focus the beams onto the sample. The two pump pulses interfere in the sample and form a population grating from which the third beam diffracts into the direction $k_s$ satisfying the phase matching conditions, [*i.e.*]{} it emerges through the fourth corner of the rectangle in the direction $k_s=k_3+k_1-k_2$. Since the diffracted signal is typically rather weak the BOXCAR geometry is convenient because the direction of the diffracted beam is strictly determined. During the measurements transient reflectivity (TR) and TG signals were recorded simultaneously by two photodiodes. This allows simultaneously determination of both the photoinduced electron (spin) decay time, and the grating decay time in a single scan. Since transient reflectivity gives information on the population dynamics, and transient grating decay reflects both the spatial diffusion and the population decay, a simultaneous measurement permits separation of these two contributions and eventually the diffusion coefficient as detailed in section \[sec:tg\].
A basic description of the dynamics of sinusoidal TG formed by photogenerated excess carriers was first developed by Woerdman [@Woerdman71], and reviewed by Eichler [*et al.*]{}[@Eichler86]. After ultrafast holographic excitation excess carriers simultaneously recombine and diffuse within the sample, eventually leading to equilibrium conditions. In the two-dimensional case the interference between the two pump pulses results in a harmonic modulation $\delta N(x,t)$ of the charge density $N(t)$: $$\delta N(x,t)=\frac{\delta N(t)}{2}\left(1+\sin(2\pi x/\Lambda)\right),$$ where $\Lambda$ is the period of the grating. When carrier relaxation and diffusion occurs on similar time scales, the decay of the grating may be described by [@Moss81] $$\frac{\partial \delta N(x,t)}{\partial t}=D\nabla^2(\delta N(x,t))-\frac{\delta N(x,t)}{T_r},$$ with $T_r$ the time constant for population relaxation, and $D$ the diffusion coefficient. If the diffusion coefficient does not depend on the space coordinate nor on the charge density then one finds for the population modulation $$\frac{\partial \delta N(t)}{\partial t}=
-\delta N(t)\left[\frac{4\pi^2}{\Lambda^2}D+\frac{1}{T_r}\right] ,$$ with solution $$\delta N(t)\propto e^{-\left[\frac{4\pi^2}{\Lambda^2}D+\frac{1}{T_r}\right]t}.$$ Since the diffracted signal is proportional to the square of population modulation ($I(t)\propto (\delta N(t))^2$ ) the diffracted signal will decay as $$I(t)\propto e^{-2\left[\frac{4\pi^2}{\Lambda^2}D+\frac{1}{T_r}\right]t}.$$ This leads to the definition of the grating decay rate constant $$\frac{1}{T_{gr}}= \frac{8\pi^2}{\Lambda^2}D+\frac{2}{T_r},\label{eq:tgdec}$$ which depends on the grating period $\Lambda$, the diffusion coefficient $D$, and the population decay time constant $T_r$. The diffusion coefficient and population decay time constant can thus be determined independently from two grating experiments using different grating periods. Alternatively, the diffusion constant can also be determined from a simultaneous measurement of the dynamics of the diffracted signal and the population relaxation (time resolved reflectivity). Once the diffusion coefficient is known, one can calculate the mobility $\mu$ using $$\mu=\frac{eD}{k_bT} ,$$ where $e$, $k_b$, and $T$ are the electron charge, Boltzmann coefficient and the temperature, respectively.
![The transient reflectivity (a) and transient grating (b) signals measured on the 2DEG sample, at different wavelengths. Data taken at 294 K, no magnetic field, 780 nm pump, probe wavelengths are indicated in the panels. \[fig:trgroom\]](jcf5a "fig:"){width="\tfigwid"} ![The transient reflectivity (a) and transient grating (b) signals measured on the 2DEG sample, at different wavelengths. Data taken at 294 K, no magnetic field, 780 nm pump, probe wavelengths are indicated in the panels. \[fig:trgroom\]](jcf5b "fig:"){width="\tfigwid"}
First some results obtained for a heterojunction at room temperature are discussed, which has the advantage that one can easily change the grating period by changing the angle of incidence for the pump beams. Figure \[fig:trgroom\] shows TR and TG signals measured at room temperature for various probe wavelengths. The pump wavelength was 780 nm with an energy of 1125 pJ per pulse. Evidently, the TR dynamics is wavelength dependent on a sub-100 ps time scale. This might result from a variety of processes such as intraband relaxation, exciton formation, bulk recombination and excited electron migration from the bulk to the heterojunction as discussed in section \[sec:tr\]. In contrast the decay of the TG signal is substantially less probe wavelength dependent. Apparently the fast processes determining the initial dynamics of the TR signal do not play a role in the TG dynamics. On the time scale on which the TG signal relaxes, the TR dynamics are practically wavelength independent.
The decay of the TR and TG signals are more strongly dependent on the excitation power, as is shown in figures \[fig:trpowroom\] (TR) and \[fig:tgpowroom\] (TG). The TR dynamics evidently speeds up with increasing excitation power, and is well approximated by a two-exponential decay function with typical time constants of about 100 ps and 2 ns. In line with this, also the TG decay, measured for grating periods 5 $\mu$m and 11 $\mu$m, becomes faster upon increasing excitation power (see figure \[fig:tgpowroom\]). It is nearly single exponential, except for a delayed formation observed during the first tens of picoseconds (see also section \[sec:tr\]). In order to check for possible accumulation effects such as heating or secondary excitations of long-living photoexcited species TR and TG measurements have been performed at different pulse repetition rates (800 kHz $-$ 4 MHz). Since these experiments showed no dependence of the observed dynamics on the repetition rate one may conclude that heating and secondary excitation processes do not play an important role.
![The transient reflectivity measured on the 2DEG sample, at different pump pulse energies. Data taken at 294 K, no magnetic field, 780 nm pump. A fraction of the output of the Ti:Sapphire laser was used as probe, without spectral filtering. \[fig:trpowroom\]](jcf6){width="\figwid"}
![Transient grating decay measured on the 2DEG sample, at different pump pulse energies. The period of gratings is 5 $\mu$m (a) and 11 $\mu$m (b). Data taken at 294 K, no magnetic field, 780 nm pump. A fraction of the output of the Ti:Sapphire laser was used as probe, without spectral filtering. \[fig:tgpowroom\]](jcf7a "fig:"){width="\tfigwid"} ![Transient grating decay measured on the 2DEG sample, at different pump pulse energies. The period of gratings is 5 $\mu$m (a) and 11 $\mu$m (b). Data taken at 294 K, no magnetic field, 780 nm pump. A fraction of the output of the Ti:Sapphire laser was used as probe, without spectral filtering. \[fig:tgpowroom\]](jcf7b "fig:"){width="\tfigwid"}
The diffusion coefficient determined from the data of figure \[fig:tgpowroom\] is tabulated in table \[tab:rtdiff\]. The value of about 25 cm$^2$/s, which is quite independent on the pump power, yields a room temperature mobility for the photoexcited carriers of $\sim$10$^3$ cm$^2$/Vs. This is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the value determined from room temperature transport experiments under illumination ($8\times10^3$ cm$^2$/Vs, which is not surprising since the TG technique is particularly sensitive to the carriers with the lowest mobility. The complicated dynamics of the TR complicates extraction of the diffusion constant from the simultaneous measurements of TR and TG decay, but leads to similar values. Conversely, the population decay constant (T$^{calc}_2$) extracted from the transient grating experiments with two different grating spacings (5 and 11 $\mu$m) is in reasonable agreement with the slow component observed in the TR experiments. The independence of the diffusion constant (the electron mobility) on the excitation density shows that the observed speeding of the decay of the TG signal is solely caused by the faster relaxation of electron population as also observed in the transient reflectivity data recorded under the same conditions.
Energy (pJ) $T^{TR}_1$ (ps) $T^{TR}_2$ (ns) T$^{5 \mu\mathrm{m}}_{gr}$ (ps) T$^{11 \mu\mathrm{m}}_{gr}$ (ps) T$^{calc}_2$ (ns) $D$ (cm$^{2}$/s)
------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------
1125 148$\pm$28 2.1$\pm$0.3 107$\pm$1 365$\pm$2 2.0 26.4
1025 129$\pm$25 2.3$\pm$0.4 120$\pm$1 369$\pm$8 1.6 22.4
887 115$\pm$20 2.4$\pm$0.3 124$\pm$2 389$\pm$3 1.8 21.9
725 108$\pm$25 3.0$\pm$0.9 119$\pm$1 438$\pm$3 2.9 24.4
600 101$\pm$28 3.1$\pm$0.9 119$\pm$1 478$\pm$4 4.5 25.2
500 83$\pm$20 3.2$\pm$0.7 140$\pm$2 523$\pm$4 3.6 20.9
: The power dependent decay time constants of transient reflectivity signal ($T^{TR}_1$ and $T^{TR}_1$) and of transient grating signals (T$^{5 \mu\mathrm{m}}_{gr}$ for the 5 $\mu$m spaced grating, and T$^{11 \mu\mathrm{m}}_{gr}$ for the 11 $\mu$m spaced grating). Data measured on the 2DEG sample. The last two columns give the population decay constant (T$^{calc}_2$) and the diffusion coefficient ($D$) calculated from the two grating time constants. Experimental parameters as in figure \[fig:trpowroom\] \[tab:rtdiff\]
![The transient reflectivity (a) and transient grating (b) decay measured on the 2DEG sample, at different temperatures. Data taken with 780 nm pump (pulse energy 1 nJ), and weaker 820 nm probe pulses, no magnetic field. \[fig:tgtdep\]](jcf8a "fig:"){width="\tfigwid"} ![The transient reflectivity (a) and transient grating (b) decay measured on the 2DEG sample, at different temperatures. Data taken with 780 nm pump (pulse energy 1 nJ), and weaker 820 nm probe pulses, no magnetic field. \[fig:tgtdep\]](jcf8b "fig:"){width="\tfigwid"}
Temperature (K) $T^{TR}$ (ns) T$^{24 \mu\mathrm{m}}_{gr}$ (ps) $D$ (cm$^{2}$/s) $\mu$ (cm$^{2}$/Vs)
----------------- --------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------------
294$^\dagger$ - - 26.4 $1.0\times10^{3}$
100 2.6 230 262 $3.0\times10^{4}$
80 2.3 149 425 $6.2\times10^{4}$
60 1.2 67 965 $1.9\times10^{5}$
40 0.55 53 1111 $3.2\times10^{5}$
20 0.36 28 2200 $1.3\times10^{6}$
10 0.4 30 2077 $2.4\times10^{6}$
4.2 0.58 38 1667 $4.8\times10^{6}$
: The temperature dependent decay time constants of the transient reflectivity signal ($T^{TR}$) and of the transient grating signals (T$^{24 \mu\mathrm{m}}_{gr}$ for a 24 $\mu$m spacing grating. The TR decay time constant was evaluated by using a single-exponential approximation in a time window corresponding to the decay of TG signal. The last two columns give the diffusion coefficient ($D$) and the mobility ($\mu$) calculated from the TG and TR time constants. Experimental parameters as in figure \[fig:tgtdep\]. \[tab:lowdiff\]\
$\dagger$ Value taken from table \[tab:rtdiff\].
![Electron mobility of 2DEG as a function of temperature, as derived from transient grating data as in figure \[fig:tgtdep\]. \[fig:mob\]](jcf9){width="\figwid"}
Simultaneous temperature dependent TR and TG measurements were performed at low temperatures using a $R=-50$ cm spherical mirror instead of the last lens in the imaging system. This results in a grating period of 24 $\mu$m. The wavelength was 780 nm, and the excitation energy was kept 1125 pJ per pulse throughout the experiments. Some typical TR and TG transients measured different temperatures are shown in figure \[fig:tgtdep\]. The decay of both TR and in particular the TG signals speeds up with decreasing temperature from 100 K to 4.2 K. For the TR response this has already been discussed in section \[sec:tr\]. The faster relaxation of the TG signal at low temperatures reflects a tremendous increase of the mobility at low temperatures, typical for a heterojunction 2DEG. This evidently shows that the measured signal indeed originates from the 2DEG. The mobility as calculated from the decay of the TG and TR signals measured at different temperatures is shown table \[tab:lowdiff\] and figure \[fig:mob\]. At 4.2 K the mobility is in the order of $5\times10^6$ cm$^2$/Vs, which is comparable to the mobility determined from transport experiments under illumination ($2.7\times10^6$ cm$^2$/Vs), and substantially larger than the bulk values measured under similar conditions ($5\times10^4$ cm$^2$/Vs). With increasing temperate the mobility gradually decreases due to the increased scattering rate. It is interesting to note that at temperatures 80 K and 100 K the TG response becomes evidently non-single-exponential and can be reasonably well approximated by two-exponential decay function with typical decay constants in the range on 150 ps and a couple nanoseconds. This probably results from the presence of two charge carrier species, one in the 2DEG, and one in the dopant layer, with each their own temperature dependent response originating from the temperature dependence of the band gap.
Spin dynamics\[sec:spin\]
=========================
Transient magneto-optics: TRKR \[sec:trkr\]
-------------------------------------------
Electron spin dynamics were investigated in the heterojunction structures by time-resolved Kerr rotation (TRKR). This technique is sensitive to the evolution of spin polarized carriers on ultra short time scales. A circularly polarized pump pulse first promotes an unequal number of spin up and spin down electrons to the conduction band of the semiconductor. Subsequently, a linearly polarized probe pulse is reflected from the sample. By analyzing the change in polarization state of the probe beam the magnetization of the sample along the direction of the probe beam can be traced at a given instant.[@Meier84] A TRKR trace is obtained by scanning the delay between the pump and probe pulses using a mechanical delay line.
The TRKR set-up is similar to the one used for the transient reflectivity measurements, with appropriate changes for controlling the polarization state of both the pump and probe pulses. To improve the signal to noise ratio of the signals, a lock-in technique is used with a photo-elastic modulator that alternates the polarization of the pump beam between right and left circular polarizations at a rate of 50 kHz. The rotation of the plane of polarization of the probe pulses, corresponding to the Kerr rotation angle, are detected using a balanced photodiode bridge. A schematic of the beam geometry utilized is depicted in figure \[beamgeometry\].
![Schematic of the pump and probe beams incident on the 2DEG sample as used in TRKR experiments. The pump pulse is circularly polarized and the probe is linearly polarized. The pulses are incident on the sample at a small angle from the normal ($\sim$2.3$^{\circ}$). Time traces are taken by scanning the delay between the pump and probe pulses. A rotation of the probe pulse polarization ($\theta_{K}$) is induced by the instantaneous alignment of spins in the conduction band of the semiconductor. The applied magnetic field is oriented in the plane of the 2DEG.[]{data-label="beamgeometry"}](jcf10){width="\figwid"}
In the presence of an in-plane external magnetic field, the spins injected by the pump pulse precess at the Larmor frequency $\Omega_{L}$ given by:
$$\vec{\Omega}_{L}=g\mu_{B}\vec{B}/\hbar \label{eq:Larmorfreq}$$
where $g$ is the electron $g$-factor, $\mu_{B}$ is Bohr’s magneton, $B$ is the applied magnetic field and $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck constant. Spin precession shows up in TRKR traces as distinct oscillations of the Kerr angle. Figure \[bulkand2deg\] shows low temperature TRKR traces taken on a sample of bulk $n$-type GaAs figures \[bulkand2deg\](a) and \[bulkand2deg\](b) at 7 and 0 Tesla respectively. The doping concentration of the bulk sample ($3\times10^{16}$ cm$^{-3}$ Si doping) was chosen equal to a well-characterized material, that was reported to give the longest spin coherence times in bulk GaAs [@Kikkawa98]. The electron $g$-factor can be determined from the measured precession frequency at $B\neq 0$ utilizing equation \[eq:Larmorfreq\]. The $g$-factor in turn gives important information about the optically pumped spin population. For bulk GaAs a $g$-factor of $|g|\sim 0.44$ is found, consistent with the accepted value for this material of $g\simeq
-0.44$. The loss of coherence of the photoexcited spins can be studied by measuring TRKR traces at $B=0$ or the envelopes of the oscillatory signal at $B\neq 0$.
![Time resolved Kerr rotation signal at 4.2K from bulk $n$-GaAs at 7 Tesla (a) and 0 Tesla (b) and from the heterojunction 2DEG also at 7 Tesla (c) and 0 Tesla (d). The data shows considerable differences between the spin dynamics in bulk and 2DEG samples. Most remarkable is the presence of beatings in the signal taken at 7 Tesla in the 2DEG sample (plot c). Also in the 2DEG, comparing plots (b) and (d) clearly shows a slow increase of the Kerr signal in the delay range 0 to 100 ps. Data taken with 780 nm pump (0.8 nJ/pulse), and weaker 820 nm probe pulses. []{data-label="bulkand2deg"}](jcf11){width="\lfigwid"}
The traces taken on $n$-GaAs should be compared to the ones taken on the heterojunction structure under similar conditions, figures \[bulkand2deg\](c) and \[bulkand2deg\](d). In the HJ2DEG traces clear beatings are seen in the data taken at 7 Tesla, evidencing the existence of two spin populations with different $g$-factors. The $g$-factors determined from the data in plot \[bulkand2deg\](c) are $|g|\sim 0.44$ and $|g|\sim 0.39$. These values suggest the existence of both a 3D ($|g|\sim 0.44$) and a 2D ($|g|\sim 0.39$)[@Hannak95] spin (and charge) population.
The TRKR traces for the HJ2DEG sample, figure \[bulkand2deg\](c) and (d), show a slow increase of the Kerr rotation angle amplitude reaching a maximum at approximately 100 ps. The origin of this signal increase is analogous to the origin of the increase in the transient reflectivity signal as discussed in the previous section. Again it is needed that the two distinct carrier populations give Kerr rotations of opposite signs, which again may easily arise from the spectral details in the Kerr response. Assuming two different spin populations with different dephasing times and different $g$-factors gives a satisfactory description of the observed data.
Combined spin and charge dynamics: MEOKE\[sec:spincharge\]
==========================================================
Experimental techniques for EOKE and MEOKE
------------------------------------------
To introduce MEOKE, it is useful to first describe the electro-optical Kerr effect (EOKE). The EOKE is the rotation of the plane of polarization of an optical probe field in an external electric field. Excitation of a material by an ultra short laser pulse induces a transient anisotropy of the refractive index resulting in a rotation of polarization and an induced ellipticity of a subsequent probe pulse reflected of the excited material. The photoinduced anisotropy vanishes as photoinduced excitations lose their orientational memory or relax to the ground state. From a magneto-optical point of view EOKE can be viewed as an excitation of $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ transitions leading to two populations that are coherent with the excitation. In zero magnetic field these populations are degenerate resulting in a non-spin-polarized macroscopic dielectric polarization $P$[@Worsley96], which in turn leads to the photoinduced anisotropy. In the presence of an external magnetic field $B$ the Zeeman splitting of the energy levels ($\Delta E = g\mu_B B$) removes the degeneracy of the states populated by the $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ transitions. This leads to a macroscopic polarization $P$ which is now determined by a coherent superposition of the energy-split states. The superposition oscillates at the Larmor frequency $\omega=\Delta E/\hbar$ resulting in a rotation of the polarization around the direction of $B$. The rotation of $P$ around the magnetic field results in a modulation of the polarization of the reflected probe beam, similar to that in the TRKR experiments. The strength of the modulation depends on the angle at which the probe field propagates with respect to the direction of the external magnetic field $B$. Again, as for TRKR, for zero degrees incidence the modulation will be maximal. In general the response will reflect both the decay of the coherence of the induced population as well as the dephasing of the spin precession.
In the electro-optical Kerr effect (EOKE) experiments the sample was excited with linearly polarized light while photoinduced anisotropy was recorded by analyzing the polarization changes of a reflected weak probe beam which is initially polarized at 45 degrees with respect to the pump. The sample’s normal was oriented at an angle of $\sim$5 degrees with respect to the propagation direction of the probe beam. For EOKE experiments in an external magnetic field (MEOKE), this results in a nearly transverse geometry when the applied magnetic field is practically perpendicular to the $\mathbf{k}$-vector of the excitation and probe light, and is parallel to the 2DEG plane of the HJ2DEG sample.
MEOKE results
-------------
Figure \[fig:meoke\] shows transient birefringence decay curves at 4 K for two different applied magnetic fields. The pump energy is 250 pJ, excitation and probe were centred at 780 nm and 820 nm respectively.
![MEOKE signals at 4.2 K for 1 Tesla (a) and 4 Tesla (b) applied magnetic fields, measured on the 2DEG sample. Dots are experimental data, solid lines are fits. Data taken with 780 nm pump (250 pJ/pulse), and weaker 820 nm probe pulses.\[fig:meoke\]](jcf12a "fig:"){width="\tfigwid"} ![MEOKE signals at 4.2 K for 1 Tesla (a) and 4 Tesla (b) applied magnetic fields, measured on the 2DEG sample. Dots are experimental data, solid lines are fits. Data taken with 780 nm pump (250 pJ/pulse), and weaker 820 nm probe pulses.\[fig:meoke\]](jcf12b "fig:"){width="\tfigwid"}
The time evolution of the signal can be described as a decay modulated by oscillations. Again, an initial growth is observed, similar to the growth seen in the other experiments. It is evident that the amplitude of the oscillations decays substantially faster than the population decay, indicating that the spin dephasing occurs on a shorter time scale than the loss of induced charge coherence. Consequently MEOKE experiments potentially allow simultaneous tracing of the dynamics of both spin and charge coherence.
Field (T) $T_e$ (ps) $T_s$ (ps) $\omega$ (GHz)
----------- ------------- ------------ ----------------
1 1518$\pm$20 351$\pm$7 6.35
2 1487$\pm$15 268$\pm$5 11.8
4 1444$\pm$25 210$\pm$9 23.8
7 1421$\pm$14 205$\pm$3 42.3
: Electron and spin life time, precession frequency at different magnetic fields from MEOKE experiments on the 2DEG sample. Data taken at 4.2 K, 780 nm pump (250 pJ/pulse), and weaker 820 nm probe pulses. \[tab:meoke\]
![$g$-factor derived from MEOKE measurements as a function of pump pulse energy for the 2DEG sample, derived from data as in figure \[fig:meoke\]. The measurements were performed with 780 nm pump and 820 nm probe pulses at temperature of 4.2 K in an external magnetic field of 7 T. \[fig:meokeg\]](jcf13){width="\figwid"}
Energy (pJ) $T_e$ (ps) $T_s$ (ps)
------------- ------------ ------------
100 1815 504
250 1481 286
437 1221 210
877 1040 118
1500 875 60
: Electron and spin decay times for different excitation pulse energies, from MEOKE experiments on the 2DEG sample. The measurements were performed with 780 nm pump and 820 nm probe pulses at temperature of 4.2 K in an external magnetic field of 7 T. \[tab:powmeoke\]
The measured traces (neglecting the initial growth) were fitted using: $$I(t)=A_1e^{-t/T_e}+A_2e^{-t/T_s}\sin(\omega t + \phi),$$ with $T_e$ the decay time constant of photoinduced anisotropy, $T_s$ the spin dephasing time, and $\omega$ is the precession frequency. The time constants and the precession frequency for different strength of applied external magnetic field at temperature of 4 K are given in the table \[tab:meoke\]. The $g$-factor deduced from these experiments is slightly dependent on excitation density and amounts to -0.43 and -0.42 for the excitation pulse energies of 100 pJ and 1.5 nJ respectively (see figure \[fig:meokeg\]).
![Electron (solid circles) and spin (open circles) decay times at different pump pulse energies for the 2DEG sample, derived from data as in figure \[fig:meoke\]. The measurements were performed with 780 nm pump and 820 nm probe pulses at temperature of 4.2 K in an external magnetic field of 7 T.\[fig:powmeoke\]](jcf14){width="\figwid"}
MEOKE experiments at different excitation densities reveal a strong dependence of the dynamics of both charges and spins on the excitation pulse energy, as is the case in TR and TRKR experiments. Furthermore, the results reveal that the spin dephasing time decreases much faster than the charge phase memory upon increasing excitation energy. Although the nature of this behaviour is still unclear, it does show that the internal relaxation between spin split levels strongly depends on scattering processes between electrons in highly excited states. Finally note that the value of the $g$-factor is slightly power dependent, resulting from the increasing average energy of the photoinduced charge carriers. The results for several excitation powers are summarized in figure \[fig:meokeg\] for the $g$-factor, and in table \[tab:powmeoke\] and figure \[fig:powmeoke\].
Summary and conclusions\[sec:concl\]
====================================
Optical experiments on the charge and spin dynamics in a heterojunction structure show a quite complex behaviour. The high mobility 2DEG does have characteristic features in for instance the photoluminescence, the transient reflectivity, and the time resolved Kerr rotation, but this has to be discriminated from the features originating from in particular the 3D buffer layer. The interpretation of the observed phenomena is further complicated by the changes in the HJ2DEG potential resulting from the photoinduced charges. Nevertheless, important information can be extracted from the optical experiments. The photoluminescence evidences for instance the existence of indirect 2D electron $-$ 3D hole exciton recombination resulting from interaction of the 2DEG charges with acceptor-bound holes in the surrounding bulk. The transient magneto-optical Kerr rotation experiments showed the existence of two populations of photoexcited charge carriers. It appears from the time resolved reflectivity experiments that each of them has its own relaxation time and they contribute to the observed transient reflectivity with different signs at 820 nm probe wavelength. Size, sign and decay times of the contributions by the different populations depend strongly not only on the probe wavelength but also on the excitation power. This originates from the details of the electronic structure for the 2D and 3D electrons, from carrier diffusion, and from optically induced band-bending and renormalization effects. One of the best methods to study the charge dynamics is the transient grating technique, since it allows to discriminate between population decay dynamics and diffusion processes. As a bonus one also obtains the mobility of the charge carriers. A variant of this technique, using a polarization grating rather than an intensity grating, has also proved to be quite successful in the study of spin dynamics [@Weber05; @Carter06]. The most straightforward technique to study the spin dynamics are the time resolved Kerr rotation experiments. The two species of charge carriers probed in these experiments lead to a beating of the precession oscillations in the TRKR traces. These TRKR experiments also show that the dephasing time of the spin population can be much faster than the charge population decay (270 ps and 1.2 ns, respectively measured at 4.2 K and 0 Tesla with 780 nm pump of 0.8 nJ per pulse and 820 nm probe light). Most likely, this relatively fast dephasing results from the high mobility of the 2DEG in combination with the Dyakonov-Perel mechanism[@Dyakonov72], in which the spin population of an ensemble of electrons propagating in different directions dephases due to the anisotropy of spin-orbit field. This difference in spin dephasing and charge decay times is also found in a simultaneous measurement of the charge and spin dynamics using the magneto-electro-optical Kerr effect. Again the dephasing time is found to be quite a bit faster than the charge decay. Moreover, the spin dephasing time rapidly decreases upon increasing excitation power. Whereas for moderate powers (100 pJ) this time is about half a nanosecond, it is only 60 ps at high power (1500 pJ). The origin of this rapid quenching of the spin lifetime is not quite clear presently, possibly it results from an enhanced mobility at high excitation (through the Dyakonov-Perel mechanism) or maybe even from enhanced spin-flip momentum scattering through the Elliot-Yafet mechanism[@Elliot54; @Yafet63].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are grateful to Bernd Beschoten for providing us the bulk GaAs sample, and to Ben Hesp for help with time-resolved PL studies. This work is supported by the MSC$^{plus}$, and by the ’Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM)’, which is financially supported by the ’Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO)’.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: present address:Photonics Institute, Vienna University of Technology, Gusshausstrasse 27/387, 1040 Vienna, Austria
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using realistic low-energy electron models, derived from the first-principles electronic structure calculations, we investigate behavior of interatomic exchange interactions in CrO$_2$, which is regarded to be one of the canonical half-metalic (HF) ferromagnetic. For these purposes we employ the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT), based on the exact diagonalization of the effective Anderson impurity Hamiltonian, which was further supplemented with the theory of infinitesimal spin rotations for the exchange interactions. In order to elucidate the relative roles played by static and dynamic electron correlations, we compare the obtained results with several static techniques, including the unrestricted Hartree-Fock (HF) approximation, static DMFT (corresponding to the infinite frequency limit for the self-energy), and optimized effective potential (OEP) method for treating the correlation interactions in the random-phase approximation. Our results demonstrate that the origin of the HM ferromagnetism in CrO$_2$ is highly nontrivial. As far as the interactions in neighboring coordination spheres are concerned, HF and DMFT methods produce very similar results, due to the partial cancelation of ferromagnetic (FM) double exchange and antiferromagnetic (AFM) superexchange contributions, which represent two leading terms in the $(\Delta \hat{\Sigma})^{-1}$ expansion for the exchange interactions ($\Delta \hat{\Sigma}$ being the intraatomic exchange splitting between majority- and minority-spin states). Both contributions are weaker in the HF approximation due to, respectively, additional orbital polarization of the $t_{2g}$ states and neglect of dynamic correlations. The role of higher-order terms in the $(\Delta \hat{\Sigma})^{-1}$ expansion is twofold. On the one hand, they give rise to additional FM contributions to the neighboring exchange interactions, which tend to stabilize the FM state. On the other hand, they produce AFM long-range interactions, which make the FM state unstable in the DMFT calculations for the minimal model, consisting of the $t_{2g}$ bands. Thus, the robust ferromagnetism in the $t_{2g}$ model, which can be easily obtained using static approximations, is fortuitous and this picture is largely revised at the level of more rigorous DMFT approach. We argue that the main ingredients, which are missing in the $t_{2g}$ model, are the direct exchange interactions and the magnetic polarization of the oxygen $2p$ band. We evaluate these contributions in the local-spin-density approximation and argue that they play a very important role in stability of the FM ground state in CrO$_2$.'
author:
- 'I. V. Solovyev'
- 'I. V. Kashin'
- 'V. V. Mazurenko'
title: 'Mechanisms and origins of half-metallic ferromagnetism in CrO$_2$'
---
\[sec:Intro\] Introduction
==========================
CrO$_2$ provides a rare example of metallic ferromagnetism in stoichiometric oxides. It is widely used in magnetic recording and still considered as one of the best particulate ever invented for these purposes [@SkomskiCoey; @Skomski]. Besides magnetorecording, chromium dioxide has attracted a considerable interest due to its half-metallic (HM) electronic structure, which was predicted by first-principles calculations [@Schwarz]. The HM electronic structure is such that the majority-spin electrons are metallic, whereas the minority-spin electrons are semiconducting [@deGroot]. In CrO$_2$, such behavior has been supported by point-contact Andreev reflection measurements [@Soulen]. Because of its implication in various spin-dependent transport phenomena [@Singh], the half-metallicity is the very important property of magnetic substances, which is intensively studied today [@HMRevModPhys]. These studies typically include both fundamental and practical aspects.
Needless to say that ferromagnetism is one of the key properties of CrO$_2$, which predetermines its popularity and importance in all the applications. Although the Curie temperature is not exceptionally high from the view point of practical applications (about $390$ K, meaning that the magnetic properties are significantly deteriorated at room temperature) [@Skomski], it is still sufficiently high in order to classify CrO$_2$ as “robust ferromagnet”.
Because of its popularity, CrO$_2$ is the well studied material, both theoretically and experimentally. There is a fair number of theoretical works, focusing on the analysis of structural, transport, optical, and electronic properties of CrO$_2$ [@Schwarz; @Sorantin; @Lewis; @Korotin; @Mazin; @Yamasaki; @Chioncel; @Craco]. Many of them are based on the first-principles electronic structure calculations. These works clarify many important aspects of the material properties of CrO$_2$. However, despite its immanent importance in the field, the problem of interatomic magnetic interactions and stability of the ferromagnetic (FM) ground state is CrO$_2$ remains in the shadow. Particularly, why is CrO$_2$ ferromagnetic? What are the main microscopic mechanisms yielding the FM ground state in CrO$_2$? From our point of view, these important questions remain largely unanswered and in the present work we will try to fill in this gap.
The ferromagnetism in CrO$_2$ is typically ascribed to the double exchange (DE) mechanism [@Korotin; @Schlottmann; @Laad], which was originally introduced for magnetoresistive manganites [@Zener; @AndersonHasegawa; @deGennes; @Dagotto]. This mechanism is governed by the large intraatomic exchange splitting ($\Delta \hat{\Sigma}$) between the majority ($\uparrow$) and minority ($\downarrow$) spin states, which penalizes the electron hoppings between atoms with opposite directions of spins. In such situation, the FM state will be the most stable one because any deviation from the collinear FM alignment of spins will increase the kinetic energy of electrons. The DE picture is well justified for large-spin ($S$) systems. In manganites, where $S=2$, it can be very useful for semi-quantitative analysis, and, in many cases, provides a valuable insight in understanding the electronic and magnetic properties [@Dagotto; @Springer]. However, even in this case, the additional effects can play a very important role and substantially modify the canonical DE picture [@PRL99]. For instance, the well-known antiferromagnetic (AFM) superexchange interaction [@PWA], which is also important in manganites, is formally a next-order effect in the $(\Delta \hat{\Sigma})^{-1}$ expansion for interatomic exchange interactions [@Springer; @PRL99]. In CrO$_2$, where $S=1$, the interatomic exchange splitting is not particularly large and the DE picture can be even more problematic: namely, besides FM DE interactions between the nearest neighbors, one can expect other magnetic interactions (not necessarily the FM ones), which can alter the magnetic ground state [@Springer]. Another important factor, which is not treated by the DE model, is the oxygen states [@Oguchi; @Priya; @Ku; @Mazurenko].
Another disputable point is the role of electron correlations beyond the local-spin-density approximation (LSDA) and whether CrO$_2$ should be regarded as a strongly-correlated material or not. On the one hand, LSDA and generalized gradient approximation (GGA) already provide a reasonable description for the structural, transport, and optical properties of CrO$_2$ with only moderate manifestation of many-body effects [@Sorantin; @Lewis; @Mazin]. On the other hand, it was also suggested that electron correlations are essential for understanding results of photoemission, x-ray absorption, optical, and resistivity measurements [@Craco]. We are not aware of any investigation of the effect of electron correlations on the behavior of interatomic exchange interactions in CrO$_2$. Basically, there is only one theoretical work [@Sims], which addresses the problem of interatomic exchange interactions in CrO$_2$ on the basis of first-principles GGA and LSDA$+$$U$ calculations. However, both are static techniques and do not treat dynamic correlations. Moreover, the reliability of the LSDA$+$$U$ approach suffers from the use of adjustable parameters and still unresolved problem of how to construct the LSDA$+$$U$ functional in order to avoid the double-counting problem [@PRB98]. Taking into account the above controversy, it is crucially important to treat the electron correlations (if any) in the most unambiguous manner. In the present work, we will try to pursue this strategy, first, by constructing the realistic model for CrO$_2$ and deriving all the parameters from first-principles calculations and, then, by solving this model within the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT), supplemented with the exact diagonalization (ED) method for the quantum impurity problem. We will show that stability of the HM FM ground state in CrO$_2$ is a highly nontrivial problem. If one considers only static electron correlations in the frameworks of either unrestricted Hartree-Fock (HF) or static DMFT techniques, the FM ground state can be formally obtained already in the minimal model, including only the closest to the Fermi level $t_{2g}$ bands. However, the dynamic correlations tend to destabilize this state. Therefore, in order to explain the experimentally observed ferromagnetism in CrO$_2$, it is crucially important to consider other magnetic interactions and we argue that these are the direct exchange interactions between Wannier functions centered at different Cr sites and the polarization of the oxygen $2p$ band. Another static approach – the so-called optimized effective potential (OEP) method, treating the correlation interactions in the random-phase approximation, produces a curious but unphysical insulating solution and further suppresses the tendencies towards ferromagnetism. This again emphasizes the importance of consistent treatment of correlation interactions in CrO$_2$.
The rest of the article is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:Method\] we will explain details of our method: the construction of effective low-energy model (Sec. \[sec:Method\]), the solution of DMFT equations (Sec. \[sec:DMFT\]), and the difference between unrestricted HF and static DMFT techniques. In Sec. \[sec:J\] we will present our results for interatomic exchange interactions and discuss them in many details: the $(\Delta \hat{\Sigma})^{-1}$ expansion for nearest-neighbor (NN) and next-NN interactions (Sec. \[sec:DE\]), the magnetic state dependence of interatomic exchange interactions (Sec. \[sec:finite\]), the behavior of long-range interactions (Sec. \[sec:JLR\]), the contribution of the direct exchange interactions and the oxygen states (Sec. \[sec:Oband\]), as well as results of the OEP method (Sec. \[sec:dcorr\]). Finally, in Sec. \[sec:Summary\], we will present a summary of our work.
\[sec:Method\] Method
=====================
\[sec:LEmodel\] Parameters of effective low-energy model
--------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we briefly remind the reader the main ideas behind the construction of effective low-energy model and present results of such construction for CrO$_2$. The methodological details can be found in the review article [@review2008]. All calculations have been performed using parameters of experimental rutile structure (the space group $P4_2/mnm = D_{4h}^{14}$) [@Porta].
The model Hamiltonian, $$\hat{\cal{H}} = \sum_{ij} \sum_\sigma \sum_{ab}
t_{ij}^{ab}\hat{c}^\dagger_{i a \sigma}
\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{j b \sigma} +
\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i} \sum_{\sigma \sigma'} \sum_{abcd} U^i_{abcd}
\hat{c}^\dagger_{i a \sigma} \hat{c}^\dagger_{i c \sigma'}
\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i b \sigma}
\hat{c}^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i d \sigma'},
\label{eqn.ManyBodyH}$$ is formulated in the basis of Wannier orbitals $\{ \phi_{i a} \}$, which are constructed for the magnetically active Cr $t_{2g}$ bands near the Fermi level, starting from the band structure in the local-density approximation (LSDA) (Fig. \[fig.DOS\]).
![\[fig.DOS\] (Color online) Total and partial densities of states of CrO$_2$ in the local density approximation. The shaded light (blue) area shows the contribution of the Cr $3d$ states. The positions of the main bands are indicated by symbols. The Fermi level is at zero energy (shown by dot-dashed line). ](figure1.eps){width="10cm"}
Here, $\sigma (\sigma')$$=$ $\uparrow$/$\downarrow$ are the spin indices, while $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ label three $t_{2g}$ orbitals, which have the following form in the global coordinate frame: $|1 \rangle = \pm$$\frac{1}{2}|xy \rangle$$+$$\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}|3z^2$$-$$r^2 \rangle$, $|2 \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|yz \rangle$$\pm$$|zx \rangle$, and $|3 \rangle = |x^2$$-$$y^2 \rangle$, where the upper and lower signs stand for the Cr site 1 and 2, respectively (see Fig. \[fig.orbitals\]).
![\[fig.orbitals\] (Color online) Atomic electron densities, explaining relative positions of Cr $t_{2g}$ orbitals at the sites $1$, $1'$, and $2$. The oxygen atoms are indicated by the green spheres. ](figure2.eps){width="15cm"}
These orbitals are sometimes denoted as, respectively, $| xy \rangle$, $| yz$$-$$zx \rangle$, and $| yz$$+$$zx \rangle$, referring to the local coordinate frame [@Yamasaki]. It is important that at Cr sites all three orbitals belong to different irreducible representations of the point group $mmm = D_{2h}$, meaning that all local quantities, including the crystal field, DMFT self-energy, and local Green’s function, will be diagonal with respect to these orbital indices. Moreover, the diagonal matrix elements will be the same for the Cr-sites $1$ and $2$.
Each lattice point $i$ ($j$) is specified by the position $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ ($\boldsymbol{\tau}'$) of the Cr site in the primitive cell and the lattice translation ${\bf R}$. Hence, the basis orbital $\phi_{i a}({\bf r}) \equiv \phi_{\tau a} ({\bf r}$$-$${\bf R}$$-$$\boldsymbol{\tau})$ is centered in the lattice point $({\bf R}$$+$$\boldsymbol{\tau})$ and labeled by the indices $\tau$ and $a$. The Wannier functions were calculated using the projector-operator technique [@review2008; @WannierRevModPhys] and orthonormal linear muffin-tin orbitals (LMTO’s) [@LMTO1; @LMTO2; @LMTO3] as the trial wave functions. In physical terms, LMTO can be viewed as the localized atomic-like Wannier function constructed for the whole region of valence states. Therefore, the projector-operator technique allows us to generate well localized Wannier functions for the $t_{2g}$ bands, that is guaranteed by the good localization of LMTO’s themselves. Then, the one-electron part of the model is identified with the matrix elements of LDA Hamiltonian (${\cal H}_{\rm LDA}$) in the Wannier basis: $t^{ab}_{\boldsymbol{\tau}, \boldsymbol{\tau}'+{\bf R}} =
\langle \phi_{\tau a} ({\bf r}$$-$$\boldsymbol{\tau})| {\cal \hat H}_{\rm LDA} |
\phi_{\tau' b} ({\bf r}$$-$${\bf R}$$-$$\boldsymbol{\tau}') \rangle$. Since the Wannier basis is complete in the low-energy part of the spectrum, the construction is exact in the sense that the band structure, obtained from $t^{ab}_{\boldsymbol{\tau}, \boldsymbol{\tau}'+\bf R}$, exactly coincides with the one of LDA.
The site-diagonal part of $\hat{t}_{ij} \equiv [t_{ij}^{ab}]$ describes the crystal field splitting. It has the following form (in meV): $$\hat{t}_{11} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-246 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 60 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 186 \\
\end{array}
\right).
\label{eqn:t11}$$ The matrices of transfer integrals in the bonds $1$-$1'$ and $1$-$2$ are given by $$\hat{t}_{11'} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-67 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -191 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 158 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eqn:t11p}$$ and $$\hat{t}_{12} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-15 & 0 & 0 \\
-28 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 194 & -119 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eqn:t12}$$ respectively. Other transfer integrals are considerably weaker [@note1]. The obtained values are in reasonable agreement with results of previous calculations [@Yamasaki]. One interesting aspect is the large matrix element $t_{11'}^{33} = 158$ meV, which is formally of the $dd\delta$ type (see Fig. \[fig.orbitals\]) and, therefore, supposed to be weak [@SlaterKoster]. Nevertheless, such large transfer integrals are possible due to peculiar geometry of the CrO$_2$ lattice and contributions of intermediate O $2p$ and Cr $e_g$ states [@Yamasaki]. In terms of the Wannier functions, this means that the functions should have a sizable tail spreading to the oxygen and other Cr sites [@Yamasaki]. Thus, already from this fact one can expect appreciable direct exchange interactions, which will be evaluated in Sec. \[sec:Oband\]. Another interesting aspect is the large asymmetric contribution $t_{12}^{32} = 194$ meV, caused by the electron transfer via intermediate oxygen atom (see Fig. \[fig.orbitals\]h). The same mechanism is responsible for finite $t_{12}^{21}$. However, it is considerably smaller than $t_{12}^{32}$.
Matrix elements of the on-site Coulomb interactions can be also obtained in the Wannier basis as $$U_{abcd} = \int d {\bf r} \int d {\bf r}'
\phi_{i a}^* ({\bf r})
\phi_{i b} ({\bf r}) v_{\rm scr}({\bf r},{\bf r}')
\phi_{i c}^* ({\bf r}') \phi_{i d} ({\bf r}'),$$ where the screened interaction $v_{\rm scr}({\bf r},{\bf r}')$ is computed in the constrained random-phase approximation (RPA) [@Ferdi04]. Since RPA is very time consuming, we apply additional approximations, which were discussed in [@review2008]. Namely, first we evaluate the screened Coulomb and exchange interactions between atomic Cr $3d$ orbitals, using fast and more suitable for these purposes constrained LDA technique. After that, we consider additional channel of screening caused by the $3d \rightarrow 3d$ transitions in the polarization function of constrained RPA and project this function onto the $3d$ orbitals. The so obtained parameters of Coulomb interactions are well consistent with results of full-scale constrained RPA calculations without additional approximations.
The obtained matrices of the on-site Coulomb interactions were fitted in terms of two Kanamori parameters [@Kanamori]: the parameter of intra-orbital Coulomb interaction ${\cal U} = 2.84$ eV and the exchange interaction ${\cal J} = 0.70$ eV. The third Kanamori parameter – the so-called inter-orbital Coulomb interaction – can be obtained from ${\cal U}$ and ${\cal J}$ as ${\cal U}' = {\cal U} - 2{\cal J}$.
\[sec:DMFT\] Dynamical mean-field theory
----------------------------------------
Solution of the low-energy model, represented by Hamiltonian (\[eqn.ManyBodyH\]), is a complicated numerical and methodological problem. In general, microscopic properties of a periodic magnetically collinear system can be expressed via one-electron Green’s function $\hat{G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega, {\bf k})$, which, in the reciprocal space, can be formally related to the frequency- and momentum-dependent self-energy $\hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega, {\bf k})$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega, {\bf k}) =
\left[\omega - \hat{t}({\bf {k}}) - \hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega, {\bf k}) \right]^{-1},
\label{eqn.latticeG}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\hat{t}}({\bf {k}})$ is the one-electron part of the Hamiltonian (\[eqn.ManyBodyH\]) in the reciprocal space and all kind of correlation effects are described by $\hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega, {\bf k})$.
The basic approximation, underlying the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT), is that the self-energy is assumed to be independent on ${\bf k}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega, {\bf k}) \approx \hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega),\end{aligned}$$ which becomes exact in the limit of infinite dimensions (or coordination numbers) [@DMFTRevModPhys]. The main idea of DMFT is to map the initial many-body problem for the crystalline lattice onto the quantum impurity one, surrounded by an effective electronic bath, and find self-consistently the parameters of this bath. Namely, the local (or site-diagonal) Green function of the crystal is given by $$\hat{G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega) = \sum_{{\bf k}} \hat{G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega, {\bf k}).$$ It can be further used to obtain the bath Green function, ${\cal G}(\omega)$, from the Dyson equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega) =
\hat{\cal G}(\omega) + \hat{\cal G}(\omega) \hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega) \hat{G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega).
\label{eqn.Dyson}\end{aligned}$$
Then, new $\hat{G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega)$ is obtained by solving the Anderson impurity model. The corresponding Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\cal{H}}_{imp} = \sum_{a \sigma} E_a \hat{d}^{\dagger}_{a \sigma} \hat{d}_{a \sigma}
+ \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{abcd, \sigma, \sigma'} U_{abcd} \hat{d}^{\dagger}_{a \sigma} \hat{d}^{\dagger}_{c \sigma'} \hat{d}_{b \sigma} \hat{d}_{d \sigma'}
\label{eqn.Anderson} \\
+ \sum_{ap,\sigma} \left[ V_{ap} \hat{d}_{a \sigma}^{\dagger} \hat{c}_{p \sigma} + H.c. \right]
+ \sum_{p,\sigma} \epsilon_p \hat{c}_{p \sigma}^{\dagger} \hat{c}_{p \sigma}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{d}(\hat{d}^{\dagger})$ and $\hat{c}(\hat{c}^{\dagger})$ are the electron annihilation(creation) operators for the impurity and bath states, respectively, $V_{ap}$ is impurity-bath hybridization, and $E_a$ ($\epsilon_p$) are the noninteracting energy levels of the impurity (bath). In order to obtain parameters of the Anderson impurity model, we adapt the following analytical form of the bath Green function (separately for each $t_{2g}$ orbital $a$): $${\cal {G}}_{a}^{N_{s}}(\omega) = \left( \omega - E_a - \sum_{p} \frac{V_{ap}^{2}}{\omega - \epsilon_p} \right)^{-1}$$ and fit it in terms of $E_a$, $\epsilon_p$, and $V_{ap}$. Generally speaking, the number of bath states $p$ is infinite. However, in order to handle this problem numerically by means of ED, we discretize the bath and use a finite number of electronic orbitals $N_{s}$. It enables us to numerically diagonalize the impurity Hamiltonian (\[eqn.Anderson\]) and obtain $\hat{\cal G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}_{imp}$, which is further identified with $\hat{G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega)$. Then, using ${\cal {G}}_{a}(\omega) \equiv {\cal {G}}_{a}^{N_{s}}(\omega)$, the new self-energy can be found from the Dyson equation (\[eqn.Dyson\]). After that, it is substituted into Eq. (\[eqn.latticeG\]) to obtain new $\hat{G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega, {\bf k})$, and the problem is solved self-consistently.
The ED method allows us to find the ground state as well as the low-lying excitations of the quantum impurity model. The standard numerical algorithms to treat the eigenproblem are based on the matrix-vector multiplication, where the initial vector, matrix and net vector are kept in computer’s random-access memory (RAM). In order to make our model treatment realistic, it is necessary to take total $N_s$ ranging from 15 to 18. However, it would lead to the Hamiltonian matrix (\[eqn.Anderson\]) of the dimensionality $\sim(10^{10}$$\times$$10^{10})$, which makes the diagonalization procedure troublesome, even for modern multiprocessor computers.
In this study we use the newly developed numerical ED scheme, based on the standard Arnoldi algorithm implemented in ARPACK program package [@ARPACK], where the Hamiltonian matrix is not stored in the RAM, but efficiently recalculated ‘on the fly’ at each matrix-vector multiplication step. It makes the computational time to increase by only 10-15%. However, the amount of necessary RAM is decreased by 80-90%, giving us the possibility to perform realistic calculations with the large number of effective orbitals $N_{s}$. Particularly, using this scheme, we were able to include 4 bath states per each $t_{2g}$ orbital in the framework of DMFT. We have confirmed that the obtained electronic structure is well converged depending on the number of the bath states. The numerical calculations have been performed for the temperature $T = 232$ K, which is substantially larger than the magnetic transition temperature, and in the external magnetic field $\mu_{\rm B}H = 5$ meV, which is required in order to lift the magnetic degeneracy of multiplet states [@Mazurenko1]. The example of electronic spectrum is shown in Fig. \[fig.DOSmodel\], which is in remarkable agreement with results of the previous DMFT studies [@Chioncel].
![\[fig.DOSmodel\] (Color online) Partial densities of states as obtained in the unrestricted Hartree-Fock approach (left) and the dynamical mean-field theory (right) for the ferromagnetic state. The Fermi level is at zero energy (shown by dot-dashed line). ](figure3.eps){width="12cm"}
\[sec:SDMFT\] Static DMFT versus unrestricted Hartree-Fock approach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The asymptotic high-frequency behavior of $\hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow,\downarrow}(\omega)$ in DMFT is given by [@WangDangMillis]: $$\Sigma_1^{\uparrow}(\infty) = ({\cal U}-3{\cal J})(n_2^{\uparrow} + n_3^{\uparrow})
+ {\cal U}n_1^{\downarrow}
+ ({\cal U}-2{\cal J})(n_2^{\downarrow} + n_3^{\downarrow}),
\label{eqn:Sinfinity}$$ where $\{ n_a^{\uparrow,\downarrow} \}$ are the self-consistent populations in DMFT: $$n_a^{\uparrow, \downarrow} = - \frac{1}{\pi} {\rm Im}
\int_{- \infty}^{\varepsilon_{\rm F}} d \omega \, G^{\uparrow, \downarrow}_a (\omega).$$ Other matrix elements of $\hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow,\downarrow}(\infty)$ can be obtained from Eq. (\[eqn:Sinfinity\]) by permutation of the spin and orbital indices. $\hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow,\downarrow}(\infty)$ has the same form as the potential matrix in the unrestricted Hartree-Fock method [@review2008], but with different populations: in DMFT, these populations include the effect of frequency-dependence of the self-energy, while in HF, they do not. For the FM state, these populations are summarized in Table \[tab:n\].
$n_1^{\uparrow}$ $n_2^{\uparrow}$ $n_3^{\uparrow}$ $n_1^{\downarrow}$ $n_2^{\downarrow}$ $n_3^{\downarrow}$
------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
DMFT $0.934$ $0.587$ $0.431$ $0.010$ $0.020$ $0.023$
HF $0.999$ $0.710$ $0.291$ $0$ $0$ $0$
: Self-consistent orbital populations $\{ n_a^{\uparrow,\downarrow} \}$ for the ferromagnetic states, as obtained in DMFT and unrestricted Hartree-Fock calculations for the low-energy model.[]{data-label="tab:n"}
Besides small population of the $\downarrow$-spin states (and, therefore, small deviation from the HM behavior), the main difference between DMFT and HF is in the orbital polarization of the $\uparrow$-spin states (see Fig. \[fig.DOSmodel\]). The first orbital is practically fully occupied in both approaches. The population of other two orbitals tends to be nearly equal in DMFT, while in HF these states are strongly polarized and there is an additional redistribution of electrons between $n_2^{\uparrow}$ to $n_3^{\uparrow}$. Finite values of $\{ n_a^{\downarrow} \}$ is the natural result of DMFT calculations for the HM magnets, which is related to the existence of nonquasiparticle $\downarrow$-spin states near the Fermi level [@HMRevModPhys; @Chioncel]. Nevertheless, we have found that these states have a minor effect on the behavior of interatomic exchange interactions and, from this point of view, CrO$_2$ can be treated as HM ferromagnet, even in DMFT.
\[sec:J\] Interatomic exchange interactions
===========================================
We consider the mapping of electron model (\[eqn.ManyBodyH\]) onto Heisenberg model with $S=1$: $$\hat{\cal{H}}_S = -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} J_i \hat{\boldsymbol{S}}_{j} \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{S}}_{j+i}.$$ In these notations, $J_i$ is the exchange coupling between two Cr sites, located in the origin ($0$) and in the point $i$ of the lattice, relative to the origin. The mapping onto the spin model implies the adiabatic motion of spins when all instantaneous changes of the electronic structure adjust slow rotations of the spin magnetic moments. The parameters of this model can be obtained by using the theory of infinitesimal spin rotations [@JHeisenberg; @Katsnelson2000]: $$J_i = \frac{1}{2\pi} {\rm Im} \int_{- \infty}^{\varepsilon_{\rm F}} d \omega \, {\rm Tr}_L \left\{
\Delta \hat{\Sigma}(\omega) \hat{G}_{0i}^{\uparrow}(\omega)
\Delta \hat{\Sigma}(\omega) \hat{G}_{i0}^{\downarrow}(\omega)
\right\},
\label{eqn:Jij}$$ where $\hat{G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}_{0i}(\omega) = [ \omega - \hat{t} -
\hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega) ]^{-1}_{0i}$ is the one-electron Green function between sites $0$ and $i$, $\Delta \hat{\Sigma} = \hat{\Sigma}^\uparrow - \hat{\Sigma}^\downarrow$ and ${\rm Tr}_L$ denotes the trace over orbital indices. The parameters $\{ J_i \}$ given by Eq. (\[eqn:Jij\]) are nothing but the second derivatives of the total energy with respect to the rotations of spins. Therefore, this definition of the Heisenberg model is valid only for small rotations of the magnetic moments near the FM state and characterizes the local stability of this state. The effect of finite rotations will be discussed in Sec. \[sec:finite\].
The parameters of interatomic magnetic interactions, obtained in the theory of infinitesimal spin rotations, are listed in Table \[tab:J\] and their behavior is explained in Fig. \[fig.J\].
parameter HF DMFT SDMFT
----------- --------- ---------- ----------
$J_1$ $14.06$ $16.35$ $19.63$
$J_2$ $12.26$ $12.14$ $13.65$
$J_3$ $1.16$ $0.60$ $0.82$
$J_4$ $0.96$ $0.35$ $0.78$
$J_5$ $-0.39$ $-1.15$ $-0.72$
$J_6$ $-1.87$ $-1.85$ $-1.78$
$J_7^<$ $-1.21$ $-2.58$ $-1.45$
$J_7^>$ $-3.26$ $-4.19$ $-3.25$
$J_8^<$ $-0.31$ $-0.94$ $-0.47$
$J_8^>$ $-0.46$ $-2.44$ $-1.00$
: Parameters of interatomic exchange interactions (in meV) as obtained in the theory of infinitesimal spin rotations with three different types of approximations for the self-energy: the unrestricted Hartree-Fock approximation (HF), the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT), and the static limit for the DMFT self-energy $\hat{\Sigma}(\omega$$\to$$\infty)$ (SDMFT). The notations of parameters $J_i$ are explained in Fig. \[fig.J\].[]{data-label="tab:J"}
![\[fig.J\] (Color online) (Left) Distance dependence of interatomic exchange interactions as obtained in the theory of infinitesimal spin rotations with three different types of approximations for the self energy: the unrestricted Hartree-Fock approximation (HF), the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT), and the static limit for the DMFT self-energy $\hat{\Sigma}(\omega$$\to$$\infty)$ (SDMFT). (Right) Lattice of Cr sites with the notation of interatomic exchange interactions. ](figure4.eps){width="12cm"}
We note the following: (i) As expected, the FM ground state is stabilized by the NN and next-NN interactions ($J_1$ and $J_2$, respectively). The values of these interactions, obtained in DMFT and unrestricted HF approach, are surprisingly close, while static DMFT overestimates both of them; (ii) Besides strong FM interactions $J_1$ and $J_2$, there are several types of AFM interactions, operating in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th coordination spheres, which tend to destabilize the FM state. These interactions are especially strong in the case of DMFT. In the next sections, we will elucidate the microscopic origin of such behavior and its consequences on the properties of CrO$_2$.
\[sec:DE\] Double exchange and beyond
-------------------------------------
The ferromagnetism of CrO$_2$ is frequently attributed to the DE mechanism [@Korotin; @Schlottmann; @Laad]. This is the very important point, which needs to be clarified.
In the HM regime, all poles of $\hat{G}^{\downarrow}(\omega)$ are located in the unoccupied part of the spectrum and $\Delta \hat{\Sigma}$ can be regarded as a large parameter. Note that the existence of the small weight of nonquasiparticle $\downarrow$-spin states near the Fermi level does not alter this conclusion, which will remain true even in the case of DMFT. This justifies the use of the $(\Delta \hat{\Sigma})^{-1}$ expansion in the occupied part [@PRL99]: $$\hat{G}^{\downarrow}(\omega) = - \Delta \hat{\Sigma}^{-1} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left( [\Delta \hat{\Sigma} \hat{G}^{\uparrow}]^{-1} \right)^n,$$ which follows from the identity $\hat{G}^{\downarrow} = \left( [\hat{G}^{\uparrow}]^{-1} - \Delta \hat{\Sigma} \right)^{-1}$. The $n=0$ term of this expansion contains only site-diagonal elements and, consequently, does not contribute to Eq. (\[eqn:Jij\]). Therefore, in the HM state, $J_i$ can be presented as an infinite series: $$J_i = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} J_i^{(n)},
\label{eqn:nseries}$$ where $$J_i^{(n)} = - \frac{1}{2\pi} {\rm Im} \int_{- \infty}^{\varepsilon_{\rm F}} d \omega \, {\rm Tr}_L \left\{
\hat{G}_{0i}^{\uparrow}(\omega) \left( [\Delta \hat{\Sigma}(\omega) \hat{G}^{\uparrow}(\omega)]^{-1} \right)^n_{i0} \Delta \hat{\Sigma}(\omega)
\right\}.
\label{eqn:nterm}$$ The $n=1$ term corresponds to the DE interaction, which can be easily found analytically [@PRL99]: $$J_i^{(1)} = \frac{1}{2\pi} {\rm Im} \int_{- \infty}^{\varepsilon_{\rm F}} d \omega \, {\rm Tr}_L \left\{
\hat{G}_{0i}^{\uparrow}(\omega) \hat{t}_{i0}
\right\}.
\label{eqn:JDE}$$ Moreover, using the identity $\hat{G}^{\uparrow}(\omega)\left[\omega - \hat{t} -
\hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow}(\omega) \right] = \hat{1}$, it is straightforward to show that $$\sum_i J_{i}^{(1)} = -\frac{1}{2} E_{\rm kin},
\label{eqn:DEEkin}$$ where $E_{\rm kin}$ is the kinetic energy (per one Cr site): $$E_{\rm kin} =
- \frac{1}{\pi} {\rm Im} \int_{- \infty}^{\varepsilon_{\rm F}} d \omega \, {\rm Tr}_L \left\{
\hat{G}_{00}^{\uparrow}(\omega) \left[ \omega - \hat{t}_{00} - \hat{\Sigma}^{\uparrow}(\omega) \right]
\right\}.$$
From Eq. (\[eqn:DEEkin\]) it is clear that the main interactions $J_{i}^{(1)}$ should be positive (or ferromagnetic). This equation is nearly perfectly reproduced by our calculations. For instance, we have obtained the following values of DE interactions in DMFT: $J_1^{(1)} = 28.95$ meV, $J_2^{(1)} = 19.44$ meV, $J_3^{(1)} = 1.33$ meV, and $J_4^{(1)} = 1.59$ meV. Since the Wannier functions are localized and the transfer integrals connecting more remote sites are small, the corresponding to them parameters of DE interactions are also small. Then, by considering the sum of DE interactions up to the fourth coordination sphere, we find $2J_1^{(1)}$$+$$8J_2^{(1)}$$+$$4J_3^{(1)}$$+$$8J_4^{(1)} = 231.50$ meV, which readily reproduces 99 % of the kinetic energy $-$$\frac{1}{2}E_{\rm kin} = 234.13$ meV. A very similar conclusion holds in unrestricted HF and SDMFT calculations.
Moreover, SDMFT yields very similar parameters of the main DE interactions: $J_1^{(1)} = 28.71$ meV and $J_2^{(1)} = 19.82$ meV, which are practically undistinguishable from the ones in DMFT. However, the parameters obtained in the HF calculations are considerably smaller, especially for the nearest neighbors: $J_1^{(1)} = 23.75$ meV and $J_2^{(1)} = 19.03$ meV. Such behavior is directly related to the orbital polarization and additional splitting of the states $2$ and $3$ around the Fermi level (see Fig. \[fig.DOSmodel\], which tend to decrease $|E_{\rm kin}|$ and, therefore, the values of DE interactions. For instance, in the case of $J_1^{(1)}$, all transfer integrals (\[eqn:t11p\]) are diagonal with respect to the orbital indices. Therefore, as the orbitals $2$ and $3$ become, respectively, more and less populated in the case of HF calculations (see Table \[tab:n\]), the DE interaction $J_1^{(1)}$ will decrease. In the case of $J_2^{(1)}$, the situation is less straightforward, because the transfer integrals (\[eqn:t12\]) mix the orbitals $2$ and $3$, counterbalancing the change of the orbital occupations.
Other contributions to $J_i^{(n)}$ can be found numerically. Particularly, $J_i^{(2)}$ is of the first order of $[\Delta \hat{\Sigma}(\omega)]^{-1}$. It contains the contributions of superexchange interactions and the exchange processes between sites separated by two hoppings. In static case, all these parameters can be expressed via moments of the local density of states [@Springer]. However, in dynamic case such simple relationship does not exist, because of the frequency-dependence of $\hat{\Sigma}$.
The results of these calculations are shown in Fig. \[fig.Jn\].
![\[fig.Jn\] (Color online) Results of the $(\Delta \hat{\Sigma})^{-1}$ expansion for the nearest-neighbor (top) and next-nearest-neighbor (bottom) exchange interactions. The individual contributions, $J_i^{(n)}$, are shown on the left panel and their sum – on the right panel. The asymptotic values of $J_1$ and $J_2$ are shown by the dash-dotted lines. ](figure5.eps){width="12cm"}
Both $J_1^{(n)}$ and $J_2^{(n)}$ display some characteristic oscillating behavior, where the odd FM contributions are partially compensated by the even AFM ones. This tendency is observed in all the calculations, based on the unrestricted HF, SDMFT, and DMFT techniques. The main difference is the convergence of $\sum_n J_i^{(n)}$, which is noticeably slower in DMFT: the frequency-dependence substantially reduces ${\rm Re}[\Delta \hat{\Sigma}]$ in the occupied part, especially in the region close to the Fermi level (see Fig. \[fig.DSigma\]) and, therefore, slows down the convergence of the $(\Delta \hat{\Sigma})^{-1}$ expansion. On the other hand, ${\rm Im}[\Delta \hat{\Sigma}]$ is relatively small in the occupied part and does not play a significant role. Another important aspect is the cancelation of FM and AFM contributions to $J_1$ and $J_2$. As was discussed above, the unrestricted HF approach yields somewhat weaker FM DE contributions $J_1^{(1)}$ and $J_2^{(1)}$, due to the orbital polarization effects. However, the next AMF contributions $J_1^{(2)}$ and $J_2^{(2)}$ are also weaker due to the larger spin splitting $\Delta \hat{\Sigma}$ in comparison with DMFT. Thus, the total values of $J_1$ and $J_2$, obtained after summation of all these contributions, appear to be very close in the case of HF and DMFT.
![\[fig.DSigma\] (Color online) Frequency dependence of intraatomic spin splitting $\Delta \hat{\Sigma} (\omega)$ in DMFT. The static limit $\Delta \hat{\Sigma} (\omega$$\to$$\infty)$ is shown by dashed lines. The Fermi level is at zero energy (shown by dot-dashed line). ](figure6.eps){width="8cm"}
The series $\sum_n J_i^{(n)}$ is practically converged for $n=5$, where these sums are close to the saturated values of $J_1$ and $J_2$. The major FM contribution to $J_1$ and $J_2$ is indeed due to the DE mechanism ($n=1$). However, this contribution is not the only one and, at least, the $n=3$ term is also very important in stabilizing the FM ground state. Thus, already from this point of view, it is not quite right to consider CrO$_2$ as the DE system: the behavior of $J_1$ and $J_2$ involves other important mechanisms besides the double exchange and superexchange interactions, which are considered in the conventional DE model [@deGennes; @Dagotto].
\[sec:finite\] Magnetic-state dependence of interatomic exchange interactions and Curie temperature
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, the exchange interactions (\[eqn:Jij\]) depend on the magnetic state in which they are calculated. This dependence reflects the change of the electronic structure in different magnetic states and such information is incorporated in the one-electron Green function $\hat{G}^{\uparrow, \downarrow}(\omega)$. The magnetic state-dependence of exchange interactions may have different physical origin. For instance, it can be the orbital ordering in insulating [@KugelKhomskii] or metallic [@PRB01] systems, or simply the change of the bandwidth in metallic compounds depending on the magnetic state [@deGennes]. The theory of infinitesimal spin rotations [@JHeisenberg; @Katsnelson2000] is more suitable for the description of effects, which are related to small variations of magnetic moments near the ground state (for instance, the spin waves). Generally speaking, it is not applicable for the analysis of large perturbations, such as the spin disorder near the Curie temperature ($T_{\rm C}$), unless the exchange interactions do not depend on the magnetic state.
The comparison of interatomic exchange interactions, calculated in the FM and AFM states using the theory of infinitesimal spin rotations in the case of HF and DMFT techniques, is given in Table \[tab:JMState\] (throughout this work we consider the simplest AFM configuration, where the corner and body-centered Cr moments in the single unit cell are oriented antiferromagnetically).
------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
parameter SCHF
F A F A
$J_1$ $14.06$ $23.77$ $16.35$ $18.14$ $11.00$
$J_2$ $12.26$ $14.91$ $12.14$ $6.73$ $15.43$
$J_3$ $1.16$ $0.25$ $0.60$ $0.21$ $2.90$
$J_4$ $0.96$ $1.39$ $0.35$ $-1.08$ $1.43$
$J_5$ $-0.39$ $1.39$ $-1.15$ $-2.66$ $0.10$
$J_6$ $-1.87$ $-0.14$ $-1.85$ $0.22$ $-1.36$
$J_7^<$ $-1.21$ $-6.21$ $-2.58$ $-2.68$ $-4.13$
$J_7^>$ $-3.26$ $-7.99$ $-4.19$ $-5.03$ $-4.13$
$J_8^<$ $-0.31$ $-0.94$ $-0.94$ $-3.57$ $-1.41$
$J_8^>$ $-0.46$ $-3.05$ $-2.44$ $-1.60$ $-1.41$
$T_{\rm C}$ $581$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $684$
------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
: Parameters of interatomic exchange interactions (in meV) and corresponding Curie temperature (in Kelvins), obtained using different techniques and starting conditions, such as the theory of infinitesimal spin rotations near the ferromagnetic (F) and antiferromagnetic (A) state in the frameworks of unrestricted HF and DMFT methods, as well as the mapping of the total energies obtained in the self-consistent HF calculations for the spin-spiral configurations onto Heisenberg model (SCHF). The notations of parameters $J_i$ are explained in Fig. \[fig.J\]. The dash sign in the row $T_{\rm C}$ means that for the given set of parameters the ferromagnetic state is unstable.[]{data-label="tab:JMState"}
One can clearly see that the exchange interactions are quite sensitive to the magnetic state in which they are calculated. Generally, the AFM structure remains unstable and is not the ground state of CrO$_2$. Nevertheless, the AFM spin alignment tends to reconstruct the electronic structure (Fig. \[fig.DOSmodelA\]) in such a way as to additionally stabilize the FM interactions $J_1$ in the NN ferromagnetically coupled bond. Moreover, in DMFT, the FM interactions $J_2$ in the antiferromagnetically coupled next-NN bond is strongly reduced, that also works in the direction of stabilizing the AFM state (and destabilizing the FM one).
![\[fig.DOSmodelA\] (Color online) Partial densities of states as obtained in the unrestricted Hartree-Fock approach (left) and the dynamical mean-field theory (right) for the antiferromagnetic state. The Fermi level is at zero energy (shown by dot-dashed line). ](figure7.eps){width="12cm"}
Similar tendency holds for longer-range interactions. Thus, if one tries to use the parameters obtained in the AFM state in order to describe the FM state, one can easily find that this FM state will be unstable, even in the unrestricted HF approach. Perhaps, this was an extreme example, and below we will consider a more realistic strategy for the evaluation of $T_{\rm C}$.
Taking into consideration the strong magnetic state-dependence of exchange interactions, we tried to go beyond the theory of infinitesimal spin rotations and evaluated the exchange interactions using results of self-consistent total energy calculations for spin-spiral configurations with arbitrary wavevectors ${\bf q}$. Namely, using generalized Bloch theorem [@Sandratskii], we performed the unrestricted HF calculations for spin-spiral configurations, where the directions of magnetic moments varied as $$\boldsymbol{e}_{\boldsymbol{\tau}+{\bf R}} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos (\boldsymbol{\tau}+{\bf R}) \cdot {\bf q} \\
\sin (\boldsymbol{\tau}+{\bf R}) \cdot {\bf q} \\
0 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ calculated the total energy ($E_{\bf q}$) for each ${\bf q}$, and evaluated the exchange interactions as the Fourier transform of $E_{\bf q}$. The results are also listed in Table \[tab:JMState\], in the column ‘SCHF’. Particularly, we expected that the exchange interactions, obtained by mapping the total energies of the spin-spiral configurations onto the Heisenberg model, should provide a good estimate for $T_{\rm C}$. The latter was evaluated using Tyablikov’s random-phase approximation [@spinRPA]. The results are also listed in Table \[tab:JMState\] and can be summarized as follows: as long as we use the unrestricted HF approximation, supplemented either with the theory of infinitesimal spin rotations near the FM state or with the self-consistent spin-spiral calculations for finite ${\bf q}$’s, running through the first Brillouin zone, $T_{\rm C}$ is even overestimated in comparison with the experimental data, meaning that the FM state is indeed very robust. However, when we switch to more rigorous DMFT technique, the FM state appears to be unstable because of the longer-range AFM interactions (and any numerical estimates of $T_{\rm C}$ in this case become meaningless). This is a very serious problem, which we will discuss in details in the next section.
\[sec:JLR\] Long-range interactions and stability of the ferromagnetic state
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. \[sec:DE\], we have seen that, as far as the NN and next-NN interactions are concerned, unrestricted HF and DMFT techniques very similar results. Nevertheless, there is an important difference in the behavior of longer-range interactions, which has fundamental consequences. Since the frequency-dependence reduces intraatomic spin splitting ${\rm Re}[\Delta \hat{\Sigma} (\omega)]$ near the Fermi level, the series (\[eqn:nseries\]) converges somewhat slower in the case of DMFT. Besides oscillating behavior depicted in Fig. \[fig.Jn\], smaller ${\rm Re}[\Delta \hat{\Sigma} (\omega)]$ is responsible for larger spacial extension of the exchange interactions. This can be directly seen from the construction $\left( [\Delta \hat{\Sigma}(\omega) \hat{G}^{\uparrow}(\omega)]^{-1} \right)^n_{i0}$ in Eq. (\[eqn:nterm\]): since $[\hat{G}^{\uparrow}(\omega)]^{-1}_{ij} = \hat{t}_{ij}$ for $i$$\ne$$j$, and the transfer integrals are typically restricted by only few coordination spheres, the $n$-order term will include the processes, which connect two remote sites $0$ and $i$ by $n$ sequential hoppings between nearest or next nearest neighbors. Obviously, such contributions will be stronger for smaller ${\rm Re}[\Delta \hat{\Sigma} (\omega)]$. Moreover, the number of nodes of the integrand in Eq. (\[eqn:nterm\]) increases with the distance between $0$ and $i$ [@Heine1; @Heine2]. Therefore, it is possible that some of these long-range interactions can easily become antiferromagnetic. Such behavior is clearly seen in Table \[tab:J\] and Fig. \[fig.J\]: besides FM interactions, there are several relatively strong AFM interactions, connecting the sites in the 5-8 coordination spheres. These interactions are stronger in DMFT because of smaller spin splitting ${\rm Re}[\Delta \hat{\Sigma} (\omega)]$.
The appearance of AFM interactions naturally rises the question about stability of the FM state and whether it is indeed the magnetic ground state of the considered model. In order to investigate this problem, we evaluate the spin-wave dispersion, $\omega({\bf q})$, using the interatomic exchange interactions obtained in the theory of infinitesimal spin rotations. In the $P4_2/mnm$ structure, containing two magnetic sublattices, $\omega({\bf q})$ can be obtained from the diagonalization of the $2$$\times$$2$ matrix (for $S$$=$$1$): $$\hat{\Omega}({\bf q}) =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
J_{11}({\bf q}) - J_0 & J_{12}({\bf q}) \\
J_{21}({\bf q}) & J_{22}({\bf q}) - J_0 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $J_{\alpha \beta}({\bf q})$ is the Fourier image of magnetic interactions between sublattices $\alpha$ and $\beta$, and $J_0 = J_{11}(0)+J_{12}(0)$. In principle, due to the symmetry properties, $J_{22}({\bf q})$ can be related to $J_{11}({\bf q}^*)$ in some other ${\bf q}$-point. The same holds for $J_{12}({\bf q})$ and $J_{21}({\bf q}^*)$. The results of these calculations are shown in Fig. \[fig.SW\].
![\[fig.SW\] (Color online) Results of calculations of the spin-wave dispersion with the parameters, obtained in the theory of infinitesimal spin rotations in the case of HF, SDMFT, and DMFT techniques. Notations of the high-symmetry points of the Brillouin zone are taken from [@BradleyCracknell]. ](figure8.eps){width="12cm"}
The negative spin-wave frequencies signal that the FM state is unstable. One can clear see that as long as we use the static HF and SDMFT techniques, there is no problem with the stability of the FM state, and $T_{\rm C}$ is even overestimated in comparison with the experimental data (Table \[tab:JMState\]). Thus, one could naively think that the FM state is very robust. Nevertheless, in DMFT, which is definitely the most rigorous approach among the considered ones, the FM state appears to be unstable. This instability occurs along three high symmetry directions of the Brillouin zone ($\Gamma$-${\rm X}$, $\Gamma$-${\rm M}$, and $\Gamma$-${\rm Z}$). This is a very serious problem, meaning that there should be additional factors, which are not taken into account in the low-energy electron model for the $t_{2g}$ bands and which stabilize the FM state. This problem will be studied in the next section.
\[sec:Oband\] Direct exchange interactions and contributions of the oxygen states
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we evaluate the change of magnetic energy, caused by the polarization of the O $2p$ band and other contributions, which are not taken into account in the minimal model for the $t_{2g}$ bands.
For these purposes, after solution of the low-energy model in DMFT, we go back from the Wannier basis $\{ \phi_{\tau a} \}$ of the model to the original LMTO basis $\{ \chi_{\upsilon b} \}$: $$\phi_{\tau a}(\textbf{r} - \boldsymbol{\tau}) = \sum_{\upsilon b}
q_{\tau a}^{\upsilon b} \chi_{\upsilon b} (\textbf{r} - \boldsymbol{\upsilon}),
\label{eqn:overLMTO}$$ and construct the spin magnetization density, $m({\bf r}) = n_{\uparrow}({\bf r})$$-$$n_{\downarrow}({\bf r})$, associated with the Cr $t_{2g}$ band. This $m({\bf r})$ has major contributions at the Cr sites as well as some hybridization-induced contribution at the oxygen sites. Following the philosophy of the low-energy model [@review2008], the interaction of $m({\bf r})$ with the rest of the electronic states should be well described already at the LSDA level. Therefore, our strategy is to evaluate, in LSDA, the exchange-correlation (xc) field $b({\bf r}) = v_{\downarrow}({\bf r})$$-$$v_{\uparrow}({\bf r})$ ($v_{\uparrow,\downarrow}$ being the xc potential in LSDA), which is induced by $m({\bf r})$ and polarizes the O $2p$ band, and find the self-consistent change of $m({\bf r})$ and $b({\bf r})$, caused by the interaction between $t_{2g}$ and O $2p$ bands. For these purposes, it is convenient to use the self-consistent linear response (SCLR) theory [@SCLR]. For simplicity, let us consider the discrete lattice model and assume that all weights of $m({\bf r})$ are concentrated in the lattice points: $m({\bf r}) = \sum_{\upsilon} m_{\upsilon} \delta (\textbf{r} - \boldsymbol{\upsilon})$, where $m_{\upsilon}$ is the local magnetic moment at the site $\upsilon$. Furthermore, we recall that LSDA is conceptually close to the Stoner model, where the xc energy is given by [@Gunnarsson]: $$E_{\rm xc} = -\frac{1}{4} \sum_{\upsilon} I_{\upsilon} m_{\upsilon}^2.
\label{eqn:Stoner}$$ In practical calculations, the parameters $\{ I_{\upsilon} \}$ can be found using the values of intraatomic spin splitting and local magnetic moments in LSDA. Meanwhile the intraatomic spin splitting itself can be obtained using LMTO parameters of the centers of gravity for the $\uparrow$- and $\downarrow$-spin states [@LMTO2], which yields $I_{\rm Cr} = 0.98$ eV and $I_{\rm O} = 1.68$ eV.
Then, the self-consistent field can be found as $$\vec{b} = \left[ 1 + \hat{\cal I} \hat{\cal R} \right]^{-1} \vec{b}^{\,0},$$ where we have introduced the vector $\vec{b} \equiv [ b_{\upsilon} ]$ and the tensors $\hat{\cal I} = [ I_{\upsilon} \delta_{\upsilon \upsilon'}]$ and $\hat{\cal R} = [ {\cal R}_{\upsilon \upsilon'} ] $. In this equation, $\vec{b}^{\,0} = \hat{\cal I} \vec{m}$ is the xc field induced by the Cr $t_{2g}$ band, and the response tensor $\hat{\cal R}$ is obtained in the first order perturbation theory for the wavefunctions, starting from the nonmagnetic LDA band structure: $${\cal R}_{\upsilon \upsilon'} = \sum_{ab} \sum_n^{\rm occ} \sum_{n'}^{\rm unocc} \sum_{\bf k}^{\rm BZ}
\left\{
\frac{(C_{n {\bf k}}^{\upsilon a})^* C_{n' {\bf k}}^{\upsilon a}
(C_{n' {\bf k}}^{\upsilon' b})^* C_{n {\bf k}}^{\upsilon' b}}
{\varepsilon_{n {\bf k}} - \varepsilon_{n' {\bf k}}}
+
{\rm c.\,c.}
\right\},
\label{eqn:Rtensor}$$ where $\{ C_{n {\bf k}}^{\upsilon a} \}$ are the coefficients of the expansion of the LDA wavefunctions over LMTO’s, $\{ \varepsilon_{n {\bf k}} \}$ are the LDA eigenvalues, and ${\bf k}$ runs over the first Brillouin zone (BZ). Moreover, similar to the constrained RPA [@Ferdi04], we have to exclude from Eq. (\[eqn:Rtensor\]) contributions, where both indexes $n$ and $n'$ belong to the Cr $t_{2g}$ band. In the perturbation theory, such terms describe the change of the magnetization in the $t_{2g}$ band, which are caused by the LSDA potential. However, in the low-energy model, this part is replaced by the more rigorous DMFT solution with the screened Coulomb interactions. Therefore, in order avoid the double counting, such contributions should be excluded in the process of SCLR calculations. In practice, $n$ runs over the occupied O $2p$ bands and $n'$ runs over the unoccupied Cr $t_{2g}$ and $e_g$ bands.
Once the self-consistent field $\vec{b}$ is known, the change of $\vec{m}$ and $\vec{b}$, caused by the polarization of the oxygen band, can be found as $\delta \vec{m} = - \hat{\cal R} \vec{b}$ and $\delta \vec{b} = \hat{\cal I} \delta \vec{m}$, respectively. Since the O $2p$ band is occupied, the net change of magnetic moment will vanish: $\sum_{\upsilon} \delta m_{\upsilon} = 0$, irrespectively on the type of the magnetic order. Nevertheless, the individual moments $\delta m_{\upsilon}$ can be finite and contribute to the total energy. The corresponding energy change, caused by the magnetic polarization of the oxygen band, consists of two parts: $\delta E^{\rm pol} = \delta E_{\rm Cr-O}^{\rm pol} + \delta E_{\rm O}^{\rm pol}$, where $\delta E_{\rm Cr-O}^{\rm pol} = -\frac{1}{2} \delta \vec{m}^T \hat{\cal I} \vec{m}$ is the interaction of $\delta m_{\upsilon}$ with the “external” xc field, created by the Cr $t_{2g}$ band, and $\delta E_{\rm O}^{\rm pol}$ is the energy change caused by $\delta \vec{m}$ in the O $2p$ band. It also consists of two parts: $\delta E_{\rm O}^{\rm pol} = \delta E_{\rm sp} + \delta E_{\rm dc}$, where $\delta E_{\rm sp}$ is the single-particle energy, which can be found in the second order of $\delta \vec{b}$ as $\delta E_{\rm sp} = \frac{1}{4} \delta \vec{b}^T \hat{\cal R} \vec{b}$ [@SCLR], and $\delta E_{\rm dc} = \frac{1}{4} \delta \vec{m}^T \hat{\cal I} \delta \vec{m}$ is the double-counting energy, where $\delta \vec{m}^T$ is the row vector, corresponding to the column vector $\delta \vec{m}$. In all these calculations, it is assumed that the magnetic energy of the $t_{2g}$ band itself is described by DMFT.
The polarization energy $\delta E^{\rm pol}$ may have different values in the case of the FM and AFM alignment of spins and, thus, contributes to interatomic exchange interactions. Below we evaluate this effect in CrO$_2$. The magnetic moments are listed in Table \[tab:A1\] and the energies are in Table \[tab:A2\].
---- ---------------- ----------------------- ---------------- -----------------------
$m_{\upsilon}$ $\delta m_{\upsilon}$ $m_{\upsilon}$ $\delta m_{\upsilon}$
Cr $1.628$ $\phantom{-}0.594$ $1.392$ $\phantom{-}0.584$
O $0.134$ $-0.297$ $0.029$ $-0.089$
---- ---------------- ----------------------- ---------------- -----------------------
: The values of local magnetic moments at the chromium and oxygen sites $\{ m_{\upsilon} \}$ as obtained in DMFT calculations for the isolated $t_{2g}$ band in the case of ferromagnetic (F) and antiferromagnetic (A) alignment of Cr spins, and the moments $\{ \delta m_{\upsilon} \}$, caused by the polarization of the O $2p$ band. All values are in $\mu_{\rm B}$.[]{data-label="tab:A1"}
F A
--------------------------------- ----------- -----------
$\delta E_{\rm Cr-O}^{\rm pol}$ $-449.27$ $-434.67$
$\delta E_{\rm O}^{\rm pol}$ $99.04$ $66.42$
$\delta E^{\rm pol}$ $-350.24$ $-368.24$
: The energy changes (in meV per one formula unit), caused by the magnetic polarization of the O $2p$ band in the ferromagnetic (F) and antiferromagnetic (A) states: the interaction energy between Cr $t_{2g}$ and O $2p$ bands ($\delta E_{\rm Cr-O}^{\rm pol}$), the magnetic energy in the O $2p$ band ($\delta E_{\rm O}^{\rm pol}$), and the total energy ($\delta E^{\rm pol} = \delta E_{\rm Co-O}^{\rm pol} + \delta E_{\rm O}^{\rm pol}$). All values were derived using DMFT magnetization density for the $t_{2g}$ band. []{data-label="tab:A2"}
The spin moments $m_{\upsilon}$ are redistributed between Cr and oxygen sites. As expected for the FM state, the total moment is $m_{\rm Cr} + 2m_{\rm O} = 1.9$ $\mu_{\rm B}$, which is totally consistent with the value obtained in the Wannier basis (see Table \[tab:n\]). The small deviation from $2$ $\mu_{\rm B}$ is caused by nonquasiparticle $\downarrow$-spin states near the Fermi level. The moments $m_{\upsilon}$ and $\delta m_{\upsilon}$ are parallel at the Cr sites and antiparallel at the oxygen sites. This tendency is consistent with results of first-principles calculations and can be deduced from the analysis of hybridization between Cr $3d$ and O $2p$ states [@JPSJ]. Therefore, the negative sign of $\delta E_{\rm Cr-O}$ is due to the contributions of the Cr sites, which are partly compensated by positive contributions of the oxygen sites. The absolute value of $\delta E_{\rm Cr-O}$ is larger in the FM state, mainly because $m_{\rm Cr}$ and $\delta m_{\rm Cr}$ are larger. Thus, the Cr-O interaction additionally stabilizes the FM state. The contribution of the O $2p$ band to the magnetic energy is positive. This is because the O $2p$ band itself does not favor the magnetism and any magnetic polarization of this band will increase the total energy. This also explains why $\delta E_{\rm O}$ is smaller in the AFM state: the magnetic moments $\delta m_{\upsilon}$ are smaller and, therefore, the magnetic perturbation of the O $2p$ band is also smaller. In CrO$_2$, the second effect ($\delta E_{\rm O}$) dominates and the polarization of the O $2p$ slightly favors the AFM alignment. The corresponding energy difference between FM and AFM states, $\Delta E^{\rm pol} = \delta E^{\rm pol}({\rm F})$$-$$\delta E^{\rm pol}({\rm A})$, is about $18$ meV per one formula unit.
Another contribution to the magnetic energy is related to the direct interactions between Wannier functions in the $t_{2g}$ bands [@Ku; @Mazurenko], which are centered at different Cr sites. They are not taken into account in the low-energy model, because the latter treats only on-site Coulomb and exchange interactions. Nevertheless, these interactions can be evaluated in LSDA. First, let us evaluate the difference of LSDA xc energies between FM and AFM states in the $t_{2g}$ band, $\Delta E_{\rm xc} = \delta E_{\rm xc}({\rm F})$$-$$\delta E_{\rm xc}({\rm A})$, using the values of magnetic moments $\{ m_{\upsilon} \}$ from Table \[tab:A1\] and Eq. (\[eqn:Stoner\]) for $E_{\rm xc}$. This yields $\Delta E_{\rm xc} = -$$199.65$ meV per one formula unit, where the main contribution (about 93%) comes from the Cr sites. This energy difference favors the FM alignment. Then, we note that the xc interaction between Wannier orbitals centered at the same Cr site is already taken into account in the low-energy model in the framework of DMFT. Therefore, we should subtract this on-site “self-interaction” (SI) part from the LSDA xc energy difference. This can be done as follow. Using the spin magnetization matrix $$\hat{\cal M}_{\tau} \equiv [{\cal M}_{\tau}^{ab}]
= -\frac{1}{\pi} {\rm Im} \int_{- \infty}^{\varepsilon_{\rm F}} d \omega \, \left[
\hat{G}_{\tau \tau}^{\uparrow}(\omega) - \hat{G}_{\tau \tau}^{\downarrow}(\omega)
\right],$$ obtained in the Wannier basis at the Cr site $\tau$, and the expansion (\[eqn:overLMTO\]) over LMTO’s, we evaluate magnetic moments, that are produced by $\hat{\cal M}_{\tau}$ at the central and neighboring to it sites $\upsilon$: $$\bar{m}_{\upsilon} = \sum_{abc} \left( q_{\tau a}^{\upsilon c} \right)^* {\cal M}_{\tau}^{ab} q_{\tau b}^{\upsilon c}.$$ The difference between $\bar{m}_{\upsilon}$ and $m_{\upsilon}$ is that $\bar{m}_{\upsilon}$ is the contribution of the *single Cr site* $\tau$ to the magnetic moment at the site $\upsilon$, while $m_{\upsilon}$ takes into account the contributions of *all sites of the Cr lattice*. Therefore, $\bar{m}_{\upsilon}$ at the central site $\tau$ is substantially smaller than $m_{\upsilon}$ ($\bar{m}_{\upsilon}$$=$ $1.169$ and $1.099$ $\mu_{\rm B}$ in the FM and AFM state, respectively). The total moment $\sum_{\upsilon} \bar{m}_{\upsilon}$ in the FM state is only $1.543$ $\mu_{\rm B}$, which also substantially deviates from $\sum_{\upsilon} m_{\upsilon} = 1.9$ $\mu_{\rm B}$. Then, we evaluate the SI energy, which is also given by (\[eqn:Stoner\]), but after replacing $\{ m_{\upsilon} \}$ by $\{ \bar{m}_{\upsilon} \}$. This yields the following energy difference between FM and AFM states: $\Delta E_{\rm SI} \equiv \delta E_{\rm SI}({\rm F})$$-$$\delta E_{\rm SI}({\rm A}) = -$$39.19$ meV per one formula unit. Therefore, by subtracting the SI term, we will additionally shift the energy balance in the favor of antiferromagnetism.
Thus, by combining all the contributions, the total energy difference $\Delta E = \Delta E^{\rm pol} + \Delta E_{\rm xc} - \Delta E_{\rm SI}$ is about $-$$142.46$ per one formula unit. By mapping this total energy difference onto the Heisenberg model and assuming that it contributes only to the next-NN interactions, one can find the following correction to this interaction, arising from the polarization of the oxygen band and direct exchange interactions in the $t_{2g}$ band: $\Delta J_2 \equiv -$$\Delta E/8 = 17.81$ meV. The spin-wave dispersion, which takes into account the additional FM contribution $\Delta J_2$ is plotted in Fig. \[fig.SWm\] in comparison with results of regular DMFT calculations for the isolated $t_{2g}$ band.
![\[fig.SWm\] (Color online) Results of calculations of the spin-wave dispersion with DMFT parameters obtained for the isolated $t_{2g}$ band (solid line) and after taking into account the additional ferromagnetic contribution $\Delta J_2 = 17.81$ meV, arising from magnetic polarization of the oxygen band and direct exchange interactions in the $t_{2g}$ band (dotted line). Notations of the high-symmetry points of the Brillouin zone are taken from [@BradleyCracknell]. ](figure9.eps){width="8cm"}
One can clear see that all $\omega({\bf q})$ in this case become nonnegative and the FM state is stable. Thus, the magnetic polarization of the oxygen band and direct exchange interactions in the $t_{2g}$ band play a very important role in the stability of the FM state in CrO$_2$.
\[sec:dcorr\] Optimized effective potential method and importance of dynamic correlations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we discuss results of the optimized effective potential method (OEP) [@TalmanShadwick; @KotaniAkai; @Kotani; @EngelSchmid; @GraboGross], which we consider mainly for pedagogical purposes, in order to emphasize the importance of careful treatment of the correlation effects. OEP is a numerical realization of the Kohn-Sham density functional theory [@KohnSham], where
1. the one-electron band structure is obtained from solution of Schrödinger equations with some effective static local potential $\hat{v}$: $$\left( \hat{t}_{\bf k} + \hat{v} \right) | c_{n {\bf k}} \rangle =
\varepsilon_{n {\bf k}} | c_{n {\bf k}} \rangle;
\label{eqn:KS}$$
2. the obtained band structure is used to calculate the total energy $$E = E_{\rm kin} + E_{\rm C} + E_{\rm X} + E_{\rm corr},
\label{eqn:Etot}$$ consisting of kinetic ($E_{\rm kin}$, which also includes the energy of crystal-field splitting), Coulomb ($E_{\rm C}$), exchange ($E_{\rm X}$), and correlation ($E_{\rm corr}$) parts;
3. the parameters of effective potential $\hat{v}$ are found numerically, so to minimize the total energy (\[eqn:Etot\]).
Thus, the OEP method provides some alternative possibility for the construction of static potential, which, in addition to the standard Coulomb and exchange contribution, includes the effect of correlation interactions and, in this sense, can be regarded as a step beyond the HF approximation.
This aforementioned OEP procedure was implemented for the solution of the low-energy model for the $t_{2g}$ band [@OEP2011]. Here, we assume that the one-electron band structure is half-metallic and all minority-spin states are unoccupied. Therefore, we drop the spin indices, but keep in mind that both the potential and electronic structure are referred to the $\uparrow$-spin states. Then, because of the symmetry, the potential matrix is diagonal $\hat{v} = \left[ v_{ab} \delta_{\tau \tau'} \delta_{ab} \right]$ and does not depend on the indices $\tau =$ $1$ or $2$ of the Cr-atoms in the primitive cell. Therefore, the effective potential has only two independent parameters (apart from the constant energy shift): $\Delta_{2-1} = v_{22}$$-$$v_{11}$ and $\Delta_{3-2} = v_{33}$$-$$v_{22}$. Note also that the eigenvector $| c_{n {\bf k}} \rangle$ in Eq. (\[eqn:KS\]) is the row-vector of the form $| c_{n {\bf k}} \rangle = [c_{n {\bf k}}^{a \tau}]$.
The correlation energy can be evaluated in RPA as [@Pines; @FerdiPRL2002]: $$E_{\rm corr} = \frac{1}{4 \pi} \sum_{\bf q} \int_0^{\infty} d \omega \,
{\rm Tr} \left\{
\ln \left[1-\hat{P}(i\omega,{\bf q})\hat{U}\right]
\left[1-\hat{U}\hat{P}(i\omega,{\bf q})\right]
+ 2 \hat{P}(i\omega,{\bf q})\hat{U}
\right\},
\label{eqn:EcRPA}$$ where $\hat{U}$ is the matrix $\left[ U_{abcd} \right]$ of the on-site Coulomb interaction and $\hat{P} = \left[ P^{\tau \tau'}_{abcd} \right]$ is the polarization in the imaginary frequency: $$P^{\tau \tau'}_{abcd}(i\omega,{\bf q}) = \sum_n^{\rm occ} \sum_{n'}^{\rm unocc}
\sum_{\bf k}
\frac{2 ( \varepsilon_{n {\bf k}} - \varepsilon_{n' {\bf k}+{\bf q}} )}
{\omega^2 + ( \varepsilon_{n {\bf k}} - \varepsilon_{n' {\bf k}+{\bf q}} )^2}
c_{n' {\bf k}+{\bf q}}^{a \tau *} c_{n {\bf k}}^{b \tau}
c_{n {\bf k}}^{c \tau' *} c_{n' {\bf k}+{\bf q}}^{d \tau'}.
\label{eqn:Polarization}$$ The matrix multiplication in Eq. (\[eqn:EcRPA\]) implies the summation over two intermediate orbital indices: $(\hat{U}\hat{P})^{\tau \tau'}_{abcd} \equiv
\sum_{ef} U_{abef} P^{\tau \tau'}_{efcd}$ and the $\omega$-integration has been performed using 10-points Gaussian quadrature method [@FerdiPRL2002].
By applying this OEP approach, we expected that the correlation effects, beyond the HF approximation, will reduce the orbital polarization and yield an improved description, at least for the majority-spin states and DE interactions. Moreover, we expected RPA to work reasonably well for metallic systems, such as CrO$_2$. Since the RPA total energy of HM systems does not depend on the position of unoccupied $\downarrow$-spin states, we cannot easily determine in the framework of this method the spin-splitting $\Delta \hat{\Sigma}$ and the parameters of exchange interactions, which depend on $\Delta \hat{\Sigma}$ and $\hat{G}^{\downarrow}(\omega)$. Nevertheless, at least we should be able to evaluate the DE interactions, which do not depend on $\Delta \hat{\Sigma}$.
However, somewhat surprisingly, we have obtained very curious, but unphysical result: the correlation interactions, treated in RPA with the *static* effective potential, tend to additionally stabilize the orbital ordering and *increase* the orbital polarization, leading to the *insulating* solution, which is shown in Fig. \[fig.OEP\].
![\[fig.OEP\] (Color online) Electronic band structure of CrO$_2$, obtained in the OEP approach: (Left) Total and partial densities of states of three $t_{2g}$ orbitals and (Right) band dispersion along high-symmetry directions of the Brillouin zone (notations of the high-symmetry points are taken from [@BradleyCracknell]). ](figure10.eps){width="12cm"}
The reason for such unphysical behavior is that, even when the HF energy $E_{\rm HF} = E_{\rm kin}$$+$$E_{\rm C}$$+$$E_{\rm X}$ reaches its minimum, $E_{\rm corr}$ continues to decrease as a function of $\Delta_{3-2}$ (Fig. \[fig.EOEP\]).
![\[fig.EOEP\] (Color online) Results of energy minimization in the OEP method versus the splitting in the potential between atomic levels 3 and 2: the Hartree-Fock part of the energy $E_{\rm HF} = E_{\rm kin} + E_{\rm C} + E_{\rm X}$, the correlation energy $E_{\rm corr}$, and the total energy $E = E_{\rm HF} + E_{\rm corr}$. ](figure11.eps){width="6cm"}
Obviously, $E_{\rm corr}$ decreases when the polarization decreases (note that $\hat{P}$ is the negative-defined matrix in the imaginary frequency). Then, there are two competing effects. On the one hand, the additional splitting of orbitals $2$ and $3$ across the Fermi energy is expected to suppress the correlation interactions. This is rather general property of correlation energy, which follows from the perturbation theory analysis [@Callaway]. If there were no transfer integrals, connecting the orbitals $2$ and $3$, the effect of $\Delta_{3-2}$ would be equivalent to the scissors operator and the behavior of $E_{\rm corr}$ would be totally described by the above mentioned mechanism (which indeed dominates for large $\Delta_{3-2}$). Nevertheless, the strong hybridization between orbitals $2$ and $3$ \[see Eq. (\[eqn:t12\])\] may change this canonical behavior. First, we note that, in order to produce a large contribution to $E_{\rm corr}$, one should activate the channels involving the large Coulomb matrix elements $U_{aacc}$ (where $a$ and $c$ are $2$ or $3$). This can be done only if the polarization matrix has sizable elements of the same $P_{aacc}$ type \[see Eq. (\[eqn:EcRPA\])\]. Such matrix elements are indeed produced by the hybridization effects in the insulating state \[see Eq. (\[eqn:Polarization\])\]: because of the hybridization, the orbital $3$ may have a substantial weight in the occupied part of the spectrum (so as the orbital $2$ in the unoccupied part), yielding finite matrix elements $P_{aacc}$. Thus, we believe that the decreasing of $E_{\rm corr}$ in Fig. \[fig.EOEP\] is a specific property of CrO$_2$ and related to the strong hybridization between occupied and unoccupied orbitals in the orbitally polarized state. Nevertheless, such a behavior is, of course, unphysical and this example demonstrates again the importance of explicit consideration of dynamic correlations.
In order to conclude this section, let us evaluate the consequences of the exaggerated orbital polarization and gap opening on the DE interactions. The kinetic energy (without the energy of the crystal field splitting), obtained in the OEP method, is only $-168.57$ meV per formula unit and corresponding parameters of DE interactions can be estimated as $J^{(1)}_1 = 3.80$ meV and $J^{(1)}_2 = 8.74$ meV. Thus, as expected, the DE interactions are strongly underestimated in the OEP approach.
\[sec:Summary\] Summary and conclusions
=======================================
We have presented detailed theoretical analysis of interatomic exchange interaction in CrO$_2$, which was based on realistic low-energy model, derived from the first-principles electronic structure calculations, and have involved various techniques for treating electron correlations in the narrow $t_{2g}$ band, ranging from the static Hartree-Fock approximation to the dynamical mean-field theory. Such analysis allowed us to elucidate different contributions to the exchange couplings and understand the origin of these contributions on the microscopic level. Despite practical importance and broad interest to the HM ferromagnetism in CrO$_2$, the problem was far from being fully understood. There are several reasons for it.
First, there is no single microscopic mechanism, which is primarily responsible for the ferromagnetism of CrO$_2$. Our analysis clearly shows that it is a joint effect of several contributions, of very different origins, and besides conventional double exchange in the $t_{2g}$ band, there are other magnetic interactions, which are equally important in stabilizing the ferromagnetic ground state of CrO$_2$. They include direct exchange interactions, the interactions between $t_{2g}$ and magnetically polarized oxygen $2p$ band, as well as higher order effects in the $(\Delta \hat{\Sigma})^{-1}$ expansion for the magnetic energy of the $t_{2g}$ band.
Second, the description of interatomic exchange interactions in CrO$_2$ may have many traps, because the behavior of these interactions strongly depends on the method in use, which may lead to different conclusions. Particularly, if one sticks to static methods, which totally neglect the effect of correlation interactions on the magnetic properties (such as unrestricted HF approximation), the solution of the problem may look very easy and the robust HM ferromagnetism emerges already in the minimal model, consisting of the $t_{2g}$ bands. However, this “easy solution” appears to be largely incomplete, as it becomes clear after considering the correlation interactions. Moreover, one should be most careful with the use of additional approximations for treating the correlation interactions, because some of these approximations may lead to unphysical results. For instance, by using the random-phase approximation for the correlation energy and treating this problem in the spirit of the OEP method with some *static* local potential, one can easily obtain an insulating solution, which suppresses the tendencies towards ferromagnetism. This curious example also demonstrates the importance of dynamic correlations.
The most reliable technique for dealing with this kind of problem is the dynamical mean-field theory. In the present work, we have employed the new realization of this method, which is based on the exact diagonalization solution of the quantum impurity problem, performed ‘on-the-fly’. The use of this numerically advanced algorithm enabled us not only no to solve the standard DMFT equations, but also to study in many details the behavior of interatomic exchange interactions in the frameworks of this method. Our study provides an important insight into the origin of HM ferromagnetism in CrO$_2$. It clearly shows that, besides conventional processes, related to the change of the kinetic energy of electrons in the $t_{2g}$ band, the realistic microscopic model for CrO$_2$ should also include the direct exchange interactions and the magnetic polarization of the oxygen $2p$ band. Finally, we have proposed how the latter two contributions can be evaluated using results of electronic structure calculations in the local-spin-density approximation. Thus, our work provides the firm microscopic basis for understanding the magnetic properties of CrO$_2$ – the canonical and technologically important half-metallic ferromagnet.
*Acknowledgements*. This work is partly supported by the grant of Russian Science Foundation (project No. 14-12-00306).
[99]{}
R. Skomski and J. M. D. Coey, [*Permanent Magnetism*]{}, Taylor & Francis Group, New York (1999).
R. Skomski, [*Simple Models of Magnetism*]{}, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008).
K. Schwarz, [*CrO$_2$ predicted as a half-metallic ferromagnet*]{}, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. [**16**]{}, L211 (1986).
R. A. de Groot, F. M. Mueller, P. G. van Engen, and K. H. J. Buschow, [*New Class of Materials: Half-Metallic Ferromagnets*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{}, 2024 (1983).
R. J. Soulen Jr., J. M. Byers, M. S. Osofsky, B. Nadgorny, T. Ambrose, S. F. Cheng, P. R. Broussard, C. T. Tanaka, J. Nowak, J. S. Moodera, A. Barry, J. M. D. Coey, [*Measuring the Spin Polarization of a Metal with a Superconducting Point Contact*]{}, Science [**282**]{}, 85 (1998).
A. Singh, S. Voltan, K. Lahabi, and J. Aarts, [*Colossal Proximity Effect in a Superconducting Triplet Spin Valve Based on the Half-Metallic Ferromagnet CrO$_2$*]{}, Phys. Rev. X [**5**]{}, 021019 (2015).
M. I. Katsnelson, V. Yu. Irkhin, L. Chioncel, A. I. Lichtenstein, and R. A. de Groot, [*Half-metallic ferromagnets: From band structure to many-body effects*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 315 (2008).
P. I. Sorantin and K. Schwarz, [*Chemical bonding in rutile-type compounds*]{}, Inorg. Chem. [**31**]{}, 567 (1992).
S. P. Lewis, P. B. Allen, and T. Sasaki, [*Band structure and transport properties of CrO$_2$*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 10253 (1997).
M. A. Korotin, V. I. Anisimov, D. I. Khomskii and G. A. Sawatzky, [*CrO$_2$: A Self-Doped Double Exchange Ferromagnet*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 4305 (1998).
I. I. Mazin, D. J. Singh, and C. Ambrosch-Draxl, [*Transport, optical, and electronic properties of the half-metal CrO$_2$*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 411 (1999).
A. Yamasaki, L. Chioncel, A. I. Lichtenstein, and O. K. Andersen, [*Model Hamiltonian parameters for half-metallic ferromagnets NiMnSb and CrO$_2$*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 024419 (2006).
L. Chioncel, H. Allmaier, E. Arrigoni, A. Yamasaki, M. Daghofer, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. I. Lichtenstein, [*Half-metallic ferromagnetism and spin polarization in CrO$_2$*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 140406(R) (2007).
L. Craco, M. S. Laad, and E. Müller-Hartmann, [*Orbital Kondo Effect in CrO$_2$: A Combined Local-Spin-Density-Approximation Dynamical-Mean-Field-Theory Study*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 237203 (2003).
M. S. Laad, L. Craco, and E. Müller-Hartmann, [*Orbital correlations in the ferromagnetic half-metal CrO$_2$*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 214421 (2001).
P. Schlottmann, [*Double-exchange mechanism for CrO$_2$*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 174419 (2003).
C. Zener, [*Interaction Between the d Shells in the Transition Metals*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**81**]{} 440 (1951).
P. W. Anderson and H. Hasegawa, [*Considerations on Double Exchange*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**100**]{} 675 (1955).
P.-G. de Gennes, [*Effects of Double Exchange in Magnetic Crystals*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**118**]{} 141 (1960).
E. Dagotto, T. Hotta, and A. Moreo, [*Colossal magnetoresistant materials: the key role of phase separation*]{}, Phys. Rep. [**344**]{}, 1 (2001).
I. V. Solovyev and K. Terakura, [*Electronic Structure and Magnetism of Complex Materials*]{}, ed. by D. J. Singh and D. A. Papaconstantopoulos (Springer, Berlin, 2003).
I. V. Solovyev and K. Terakura, [*Zone Boundary Softening of the Spin-Wave Dispersion in Doped Ferromagnetic Manganites*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 2959 (1999).
P. W. Anderson, [*New Approach to the Theory of Superexchange Interactions*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**115**]{}, 2 (1959).
T. Oguchi, K. Terakura, and A. R. Williams, [*Band theory of the magnetic interaction in MnO, MnS, and NiO*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**28**]{}, 6443 (1983).
P. Mahadevan, I. V. Solovyev, and K. Terakura, [*Low-temperature spin dynamics of doped manganites: Roles of Mn t$_{2g}$, Mn e$_g$, and O 2p states*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 11439 (1999).
W. Ku, H. Rosner, W. E. Pickett, and R. T. Scalettar, [*Insulating Ferromagnetism in La$_4$Ba$_2$Cu$_2$O$_{10}$: An Ab Initio Wannier Function Analysis*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 167204 (2002).
V. V. Mazurenko, S. L. Skornyakov, A. V. Kozhevnikov, F. Mila, and V. I. Anisimov, [*Wannier functions and exchange integrals: The example of LiCu$_2$O$_2$*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 224408 (2007).
H. Sims, S. J. Oset, W. H. Butler, J. M. MacLaren, and M. Marsman, [*Determining the anisotropic exchange coupling of CrO$_2$ via first-principles density functional theory calculations*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 224436 (2010).
I. V. Solovyev and K. Terakura, [*Effective single-particle potentials for MnO in light of interatomic magnetic interactions: Existing theories and perspectives*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 15496 (1998).
I. V. Solovyev, [*Combining DFT and many-body methods to understand correlated materials*]{}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 293201 (2008).
P. Porta, M. Marezio, J. P. Remeika, P. D. Dernier, [*Chromium dioxide: High pressure synthesis and bond lengths*]{}, Mater. Res. Bull. [**7**]{}, 157 (1972).
N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, [*Maximally localized Wannier functions: Theory and applications*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**84**]{}, 1419 (2012).
O. K. Andersen, [*Linear methods in band theory*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**12**]{}, 3060 (1975).
O. Gunnarsson, O. Jepsen, and O. K. Andersen, [*Self-consistent impurity calculations in the atomic-spheres approximation*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**27**]{}, 7144 (1983).
O. K. Andersen, Z. Pawlowska, and O. Jepsen, [*Illustration of the linear-muffin-tin-orbital tight-binding representation: Compact orbitals and charge density in Si*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**34**]{}, 5253 (1986).
All model parameters are available upon request.
J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster, [*Simplified LCAO Method for the Periodic Potential Problem*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**94**]{}, 1498 (1954).
F. Aryasetiawan, M. Imada, A. Georges, G. Kotliar, S Biermann, and A. I. Lichtenstein, [*Frequency-dependent local interactions and low-energy effective models from electronic structure calculations*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 195104 (2004).
J. Kanamori, [*Electron Correlation and Ferromagnetism of Transition Metals*]{}, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**30**]{}, 275 (1963).
A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, [*Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 13 (1996).
(http://www.caam.rice.edu/software/ARPACK/).
V. V. Mazurenko, S. N. Iskakov, A. N. Rudenko, I. V. Kashin, O. M. Sotnikov, M. V. Valentyuk, and A. I. Lichtenstein, [*Correlation effects in insulating surface nanostructures*]{} Phys. Rwv. B [**88**]{}, 085112 (2013).
X. Wang, H. T. Dang, and A. J. Millis, [*High-frequency asymptotic behavior of self-energies in quantum impurity models*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 073104 (2011).
A. I. Liechtenstein, M. I. Katsnelson, V. P. Antropov, and V. A. Gubanov, [*Local spin density functional approach to the theory of exchange interactions in ferromagnetic metals and alloys*]{}, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**67**]{}, 65 (1987).
M. I. Katsnelson and A. I. Lichtenstein, [*First-principles calculations of magnetic interactions in correlated systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 8906 (2000).
K. I. Kugel and D. I. Khomskii, [*The Jahn-Teller effect and magnetism: transition metal compounds*]{}, Sov. Phys. Usp. [**25**]{}, 231 (1982).
I. V. Solovyev and K. Terakura, [*Spin canting in three-dimensional perovskite manganites*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 174425 (2001).
L. M. Sandratskii, [*Noncollinear magnetism in itinerant-electron systems: Theory and applications*]{}, Adv. Phys. [**47**]{}, 1 (1998).
S. V. Tyablikov, [*Methods of Quantum Theory of Magnetism*]{}, (Nauka, Moscow, 1975).
V. Heine and J. H. Samson, [*Theory of some physical properties and competing processes in tight-binding bands*]{}, J. Phys. F: Metal Phys. [**10**]{}, 2609 (1980).
V. Heine and J. H. Samson, [*Magnetic, chemical and structural ordering in transition metals*]{}, J. Phys. F: Metal Phys. [**13**]{}, 2155 (1983).
C. J. Bradley and A. P. Cracknell, [*The Mathematical Theory of Symmetry in Solids*]{}, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972).
I. V. Solovyev, [*Self-consistent linear response for the spin-orbit interaction related properties*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 024417 (2014).
O. Gunnarsson, [*Band model for magnetism of transition metals in the spin-density-functional formalism*]{}, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. [**6**]{}, 587 (1976).
I. Solovyev, [*Long-Range Magnetic Interactions Induced by the Lattice Distortions and the Origin of the E-type Antiferromagnetic Phase in the Undoped Orthorhombic Manganites*]{}, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**78**]{}, 054710 (2009).
J. D. Talman and W. F. Shadwick, [*Optimized effective atomic central potential*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**14**]{}, 36 (1976).
T. Kotani and H. Akai, [*KKR-ASA method in exact exchange-potential band-structure calculations*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 16502 (1996).
T. Kotani, [*An optimized-effective-potential method for solids with exact exchange and random-phase approximation correlation*]{}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**10**]{}, 9241 (1998).
E. Engel and R. N. Schmid, [*Insulating Ground States of Transition-Metal Monoxides from Exact Exchange*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 036404 (2009).
H. Grabo and E. K. U. Gross, [*The optimized effective potential method of density functional theory: Applications to atomic and molecular systems*]{}, Int. J. Quantum Chem. [**64**]{}, 95 (1997).
W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, [*Self-Consistent Equations Including Exchange and Correlation Effects*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**140**]{}, A1133 (1965).
I. V. Solovyev, [*Optimized effective potential model for the double perovskites $Sr_{2 - x}Y_{x}VMoO_{6}$ and $Sr_{2 - x}Y_{x}VTcO_{6}$*]{}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**23**]{}, 326002 (2011).
D. Pines, [*Elementary Excitations in Solids*]{}, (Westview Press, Oxford, 1999).
F. Aryasetiawan, T. Miyake, and K. Terakura, [*Total Energy Method from Many-Body Formulation*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 166401 (2002).
J. Callaway, [*Correlation Energy in a Model Semiconductor*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**116**]{}, 1368 (1959).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the Theory of Scattering in Restricted Geometries developed by A. Lupu-Sax as a starting point, we present a comprehensive multi-channel theory of atom-atom scattering in tight atom waveguides.'
address:
- ' Department of Physics & Astronomy, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA '
- ' Department of Physics & Astronomy, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800, USA '
- ' Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0484, USA '
author:
- 'M. G. Moore'
- 'T. Bergeman'
- 'M. Olshanii'
title: Scattering in tight atom waveguides
---
Conventions and notations {#conventions-and-notations .unnumbered}
-------------------------
### *Square root conventions* {#square-root-conventions .unnumbered}
Throughout the text we will be using two complementary conventions for the complex square root function: the usual convention $\sqrt{z}$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
%
\sqrt{|z|e^{i\phi}} = \sqrt{|z|} e^{i\phi/2} \quad\quad 0 \le \phi < 2\pi
\quad,
%\end{aligned}$$ and a non-traditional $\sqrt[\downarrow]{z}$ one defined as $$\begin{aligned}
%
\sqrt[\downarrow]{|z|e^{i\phi}}
= \sqrt{|z|} e^{i\phi/2} \quad\quad -2\pi < \phi \le 0
\quad.
% \end{aligned}$$
### *Some notations* {#some-notations .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)$ Green’s function of a Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$
$\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)$ T-matrix of a perturbation $\hat{V}$ to a Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$
$\hat{G}(E)$ Green’s function of the harmonic waveguide with no scatterer present
$\chi_{\hat{H}}(E)$ regular part of the Green’s function of a Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ at the origin
$\chi(E)$ regular part of the harmonic waveguide Green’s function at the origin
${\cal E}=E/2\hbar\omega_\perp-1/2$ rescaled and renormalized energy
$a_\perp=\sqrt{\hbar/\mu\omega_\perp}$ transverse harmonic oscillator length
$|nm\rangle$ eigenstates of the two-dimensional harmonic oscillator
$a$ three-dimensional scattering length
$g=2\pi\hbar^2 a/\mu$ three-dimensional coupling constant
$a_{1D}$ one-dimensional scattering length
$g_{1D} = -\hbar^2/\mu a_{1D}$ one-dimensional coupling constant
---------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
============
Atom waveguides are a fundamental component of Atom Optics, and are expected to play an important role in Atom Interferometry and Quantum Computing applications. To ensure proper coherence as atomic beams propagate through the waveguides, effort should be made to avoid decoherence-inducing mechanisms such as collisional losses and collisional phase shifts. This clearly requires a detailed understanding of the effects of quasi-one-dimensional confinement on atom-atom collisions. In particular, we will see that in the few-mode regime, necessary for coherent propagation, the free-space estimates of the collisional effects are no longer valid and a waveguide-specific theory is needed.
Such one-dimensional interacting atomic quantum gases have recently been attracting significant theoretical and experimental interest, having become accessible via adiabatic transfer from atomic Bose condensates to highly elongated tight cigar-shape traps. Here the question of [*effective one-dimensional coupling constants*]{} becomes important, as they play a crucial role in determining whether or not the ground state posses long-range order (coherence). In the regime of tight confinement it is the virtual excitation of the transverse modes which play a crucial role, leading to the confinement-induced renormalization of interatomic interactions [@Tonks_PRL; @Tom] (see also the two-dimensional analog of such a renormalization described in [@Gora_2D_tight] and the fermionic p-wave analog in [@Doerty_fermions]).
In this paper we present a comprehensive theory of atom-atom scattering in atom waveguides. Our theory correctly takes into account both quantization of the transverse motion and the transverse renormalization of the collisional strength, otherwise inaccessible by the free-space scattering theory.
From the formal point of view the problem reduces to a Schrödinger equation for two atoms in a harmonic waveguide. In this paper we concentrate on the universal properties of the waveguide scattering which are governed uniquely by the scattering length. The Theory of Scattering in Restricted Geometries developed by A. Lupu-Sax [@Lupu-Sax] allows us to describe these properties without invoking the full interaction potential, which is very often unknown.
Formulation of the scattering problem {#subsec:formulation}
=====================================
We begin from the Hamiltonian for two atoms under transverse harmonic confinement and subject to an arbitrary interaction potential $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H2atoms}
\hat{H}_2&=&-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_1}\nabla^2_1-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_2}\nabla^2_2
+\frac{1}{2}m_1\omega_\perp^2{\bf r}^2_{1\perp}
+\frac{1}{2}m_2\omega_\perp^2{\bf r}^2_{2\perp}\nonumber\\
&+&V({\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2)\end{aligned}$$ where $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the atomic masses, $\omega_\perp$ is the transverse trap frequency, and $\nabla^2_i$ and ${\bf r}_{i\perp}$ are the Laplacian and radial coordinate of the $i^{th}$ atom, respectively. This Hamiltonian is separable in relative and center-of-mass coordinates ${\bf R}=(m_1{\bf r}_1+m_2{\bf r}_2)/M$, ${\bf
r}={\bf r}_1-{\bf
r}_2$, $M=m_1+m_2$ being the total mass, yielding $\hat{H}_2=\hat{H}_{rel}+\hat{H}_{COM}$, where $$\label{Hrel}
\hat{H}_{rel}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\nabla^2_{\bf
r}+\frac{1}{2}\mu\omega_\perp^2{\bf r}^2_\perp
+V({\bf r}),$$ and $$\label{HCOM}
\hat{H}_{COM}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2M}\nabla^2_{\bf
R}+\frac{1}{2}M\omega_\perp^2{\bf R}^2_\perp,$$ where $\mu=m_1m_2/(m_1+m_2)$ is the reduced mass, and ${\bf r}_\perp$ and ${\bf R}_\perp$ are the relative and center-of-mass radial coordinates, respectively. The center-of-mass Hamiltonian is that of a simple harmonic oscillator whose solution is known, hence we focus only on the relative motion of the two particles. This reduces the problem to a single particle of mass $\mu$, subject to transverse harmonic confinement, which is scattered by an external potential $V({\bf r})$. The central equation which must be solved is therefore Schrödinger’s equation for the state of relative motion of the two atoms $$\label{HpsiE}
\left[E-\hat{H}-\hat{V}\right]|\psi(E)\rangle =0$$ where $\hat{H}=\hat{H}_{rel}$ and $\hat{V}$ is the interatomic potential. Determining the eigenstates of this Hamiltonian, in particular within the s-wave scattering approximation for $V({\bf r})$, is the central goal of this paper.
Green’s function and T-matrix formalism
=======================================
Definitions and theorems {#subsec:definitions}
------------------------
In this section briefly review the T-matrix formulation of scattering theory, which provides a convenient framework for approaching the present problem. Let us first introduce the retarded Green’s function for a system with the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ and energy $E$ $$\label{GEH}
\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)
= \lim_{\epsilon\to 0^+}(E + i\epsilon - \hat{H})^{-1}.$$ We then define the T-matrix at energy $E$ of the scatter $\hat{V}$ in the presence of the background Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ (Fig.\[fig:scattering\_theory\]a,b) in the usual manner as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TEofVG}
\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)&=&\left[1-\hat{V}\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\right]^{-1}
\hat{V}\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[\hat{V}\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\right]^n\hat{V},\end{aligned}$$ the summation form being valid provided that there are no difficulties with convergence.
![ An artist view on the Lupu-Sax theorem. Here $G^{free} = \hat{G}_{\hat{H}_0}(E)$, $G^{bound.} = \hat{G}_{\hat{H}_0+\hat{U}^{bound.}}(E)$, $T^{free} = \hat{T}_{\hat{H}_0,\hat{V}_{s}}(E)$, $T^{bound.}
= \hat{T}_{\hat{H}_0 + \hat{U}^{bound.},\hat{V}_{s}}(E)$. In our problem $\hat{H}_0$ corresponds to the kinetic energy, $\hat{U}^{bound.}$ is the waveguide potential, and $\hat{V}_{s}$ is the interatomic interaction potential. []{data-label="fig:scattering_theory"}](lupu-sax.eps){width="11cm"}
Two relations on which we will rely heavily are the Lippman-Schwinger relation $$\label{LippSchwing}
\hat{G}_{\hat{H}+\hat{V}}(E)=\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)
+\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E),$$ which relates the full Green’s function of the system $\hat{H}+\hat{V}$ to the unperturbed Green’s function $\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)$ and the T-matrix, and the Lupu-Sax formula (Fig.\[fig:scattering\_theory\]c) $$\label{LupuSax}
\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)=
\left[1-\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E)
\left[\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)-\hat{G}_{\hat{H}'}(E)\right]
\right]^{-1}\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E),$$ which relates the T-matrix of the scatter $\hat{V}$ in the background Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ (Fig.\[fig:scattering\_theory\]b) to the T-matrix for the same scatter but in a different background Hamiltonian $\hat{H}'$ (Fig.\[fig:scattering\_theory\]a). Derivations for these expressions are given in Appendices \[LippSchwApp\] and \[LupSaxApp\], respectively.
Scattering theory {#subsec:scattering_theory}
-----------------
In the continuous part of the spectrum of the total Hamiltonian $\hat{H}+\hat{V}$ its eigenstates can be expressed as a sum of an incident and a scattered wave according to $$\label{psispis0}
|\psi(E)\rangle=|\psi_0(E)\rangle+|\psi_s(E)\rangle,$$ where $|\psi_0(E)\rangle$, the ‘incident’ state vector, satisfies $$\label{Gpsi0}
\hat{G}^{-1}_{\hat{H}}(E)|\psi_0(E)\rangle=0,$$ we can then express the Schródinger equation for the total system as $$\label{GVpsi}
\left[\hat{G}^{-1}_{\hat{H}}(E)-\hat{V}\right]
\left(|\psi_0(E)\rangle+|\psi_s(E)\rangle\right)=0.$$ This equation is readily solved for the scattered wave in terms of the unperturbed Green’s function and the T-matrix (see Appendix \[GVTApp\]), yielding $$\label{TEHV}
|\psi_s(E)\rangle=\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)|\psi_0(E
)\rangle,$$ which will serve as the basis for our treatment of the present scattering problem.
Bound T-matrix as a generator for bound state energies {#subsec:bound_T-matrix}
------------------------------------------------------
It follows from Eq. (\[GEH\]) that $\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)$ is diagonal in energy representation and therefore takes the form $$\label{GEbasis}
\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)=
\sum_n\frac{|E_n\rangle\langle E_n|}{E-E_n}
+\sum_j\int^{E_{u,j}}_{E_{l,j}} dE'\
\frac{|E',j\rangle\langle E',j|}{E-E'+i\epsilon},$$ where the first term on the r.h.s. sums over the discrete portion of the spectrum of $\hat{H}$ and the second term sums over all continuous bands of the spectrum. The limit $\epsilon\to 0^+$ is implied. From this expression we see that in the discrete (bound-state) part of the spectrum the poles of the Green’s function correspond to the bound state energies.
Consider now the particular case where the background Green’s function $\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)$ has only a continuous spectrum bounded from below by $E=0$, i.e. $$\label{GHtoy}
\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)=\int^\infty_0 dE'\ \frac{|E'\rangle\langle
E'|}{E-E'+i\epsilon}.$$ Now consider a system consisting of this background Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ plus a scattering potential $\hat{V}$, described by the T-matrix $\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)$. Inserting equation (\[GHtoy\]) into the Lippman-Schwinger Equation (\[LippSchwing\]) for the total Green’s function gives $$\label{GHVtoy}
\hat{G}_{\hat{H}+\hat{V}}(E)
=\int^\infty_0 dE'\ \frac{|E'\rangle\langle E'|}{E-E'+i\epsilon}
+\int^\infty_0\int^\infty_0 dE' dE''
\frac{|E'\rangle\langle
E'|\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)|E''\rangle\langle E''|}
{(E-E'+i\epsilon)(E-E''+i\epsilon)}$$ If a bound state of the combined system $\hat{H}+\hat{V}$ having energy $E_n<0$ exists, then the full Green’s function must take the form $$\label{Gfullnerres}
\hat{G}_{\hat{H}+\hat{V}}(E)\stackrel{E \approx E_n}{\approx}
\frac{|E_n\rangle\langle E_n|}{E-E_n}.$$ Since the background Green’s function has no pole at $E_n$, it follows that the T-matrix itself must have a singularity at $E=E_n$. Finding the poles of the T-matrix below the lower bound of the spectrum of the background Hamiltonian therefore gives a method for determining the bound state energies of the system $\hat{H}+\hat{V}$.
S-wave scattering regime: the reference T-matrix approach {#swavepseudopot}
=========================================================
At first glance it may seem that finding the T-matrix is no easier than a direct solving of the Schrödinger equation (\[HpsiE\]). We will demonstrate, however, that the T-matrix formulation allows for a self-consistent description of the low-energy part of the spectrum that uses the [*free-space*]{} low-energy scattering properties of the interaction potential as the [*only*]{} input. In addition the low-energy (s-wave) limit is isolated to a single well-defined approximation without requiring the ad-hoc introduction of regularization via a pseudo-potential. In this section we first outline this self-consistent low-energy treatment. We then solve for the T-matrix using the standard Huang-Fermi pseudo-potential, showing that the pseudo-potential reproduces the exact result in this situation.
Let the unperturbed Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ be a Hamiltonian for a single nonrelativistic particle in presence of a trapping potential $U$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hgeneral}
\langle{\bf r}|\hat{H}|\psi\rangle
=\left[ -\frac{\hbar^2 \nabla^2_{{\bf r}}}{2\mu} + U({\bf
r})\right]\langle{\bf r}|\psi\rangle \quad ,\end{aligned}$$ Assume also that the particle is‘ perturbed’ by a scatterer given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Vgeneral}
\langle{\bf r}|\hat{V}|\psi\rangle
=V({\bf r})\langle{\bf r}|\psi\rangle \quad\end{aligned}$$ localized around ${\bf r} = {\bf 0}$. In what follows we will derive a [ *low-energy approximation*]{} for the T-matrix of the scatterer $V$ in presence of $\hat{H}$. It is important to note that, by definition, the T-matrix acts only on eigenstates of the unperturbed Hamiltonian, which we can safely assume to be regular everywhere (this is of course a constraint on the properties of the unperturbed Hamiltonian). In this case the zero-range s-wave scattering limit does not require any regularization of the T-matrix. By making use of the Lupu-Sax formula (\[LupuSax\]), we first derive the correct form of the T-matrix in the low-energy s-wave regime without the introduction of a regularized pseudo-potential. In the following section, however, we will see that the results we obtain are in agreement with the standard Huang-Fermi pseudopotential approach to s-wave scattering.
We begin our derivation by first specifying a ‘reference’ background Hamiltonian $\hat{H}'$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H'}
\langle{\bf r}|\hat{H}'|\psi\rangle
=\left[-\frac{\hbar^2 \Delta_{{\bf r}}}{2\mu}+E\right]\langle{\bf
r}|\psi\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ This Hamiltonian is that of a free particle, but with an explicit energy dependence included so that the eigenstates have zero wavelength at all energies. We note that this reference Hamiltonian agrees with the free-space Hamiltonian in the zero-energy limit. While this Hamiltonian may seem strange, it is a valid reference Hamiltonian which turns out to be useful because the resulting T-matrix is energy independent for any scattering potential. The Green’s function for this Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G'}
\langle {\bf r} | \hat{G}_{\hat{H}'}(E) | {\bf r}' \rangle =
-\frac{\mu}{2\pi \hbar^2}
\frac{1}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}^{\prime}|},\end{aligned}$$ as can be verified by direct substitution into $[E-\hat{H}']\,
\hat{G}_{\hat{H}'}(E)=\hat{I}$. In turn the $T$-matrix of the interaction potential $V$ in presence of $\hat{H}'$ is independent of energy and can therefore be expressed as $$\label{T'}
\langle {\bf r}|\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E)|{\bf r}'\rangle
=g D({\bf r},{\bf r}'),$$ where the kernel $D$ is defined as normalized to unity, $$\label{Dnorm}
\int d{\bf r} d{\bf r}' \, D({\bf r},{\bf r}') = 1.$$ The normalization coefficient $g$ is then related to the 3-dimensional scattering length $a$ according to $$g=\frac{2\pi\hbar^2 a}{\mu},
\label{g}$$ a relationship which is derived explicitly in Appendix \[gaApp\].
Imagine that the kernel $D({\bf r},{\bf r}')$ is well localized within some radius $R$. In perturbative expansions at low energies this kernel only participates in convolutions with slow (as compare to $R$) functions, in which case it can be approximated by a $\delta$-function, $$\label{Ddelta}
D({\bf r},{\bf r}') \approx \delta({\bf r}) \delta({\bf r}').$$ This straightforward approximation is the key to the s-wave scattering approximation. As we demonstrate in detail in Appendix \[lowkApp\], this effectively replaces the exact reference T-matrix by its long-wavelength limit, so that the reference T-matrix assumes the form $$\label{T'delta}
\langle {\bf r}|\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E)|{\bf r}'\rangle
\stackrel{k,k^{\prime} \ll 1/R}{\approx} g \delta({\bf r})\delta({\bf r}'),$$ which is equivalent to $$\label{TH'E}
\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E)=g|0\rangle\langle 0|,$$ where $|0\rangle$ is the position eigenstate corresponding to the location of the scatterer. In expression (\[T’delta\]) $k$ and $k'$ refer to the wavevectors of any matrices which multiply the T-matrix from the left and right, respectively.
If we now substitute the above expression for the reference T-matrix into the Lupu-Sax formula (\[LupuSax\]) for the T-matrix under the background Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expansion_1}
\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)
&=&\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[g|0\rangle\langle
0|\hat{G}_{\hat{H}'}(E)\right]^ng|0\rangle\langle 0|\nonumber\\
&=&
\left[1-g\langle 0|\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)|0\rangle+g\langle
0|\hat{G}_{\hat{H}'}(E)|0\rangle\right]^{-1}
g|0\rangle\langle 0|
.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Making use of Eq. (\[G’\]), we introduce the function $\chi({\cal E})$, defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chi}
\chi(E)=\lim_{{\bf r}\to 0}\left[\langle{\bf
r}|\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)|0\rangle
+\frac{\mu}{2\pi\hbar^2|{\bf r}|}\right],\end{aligned}$$ from which we obtain the following simple expression for the T-matrix of the scatterer $\hat{V}$ in presence of the trap: $$\label{Tzerorange}
\langle {\bf r} | \hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E) | \psi \rangle
\stackrel{E \ll \hbar^2/\mu R^2}{\approx}
\frac{g\delta({\bf r})}{1-g\chi(E)}
\langle {\bf r}
| \psi \rangle.$$ As we will explicitly demonstrate for the case of transverse harmonic confinement, the singularity in bound Green’s function is the same as that in the free-space Green’s function. Hence, $\chi(E)$ is the value of the regular part of the bound Green’s function at the origin.
The function $\chi(E)$ {#functionchi}
======================
In this section we derive the bound Green’s function of the waveguide, from which we obtain an analytic expression for regular part at the origin $\chi(E)$, which gives the energy dependence of the bound T-matrix. We begin by reviewing the eigenstates of the waveguide potential, which we then use as a basis for expanding the bound Green’s function and obtaining $\chi(E)$.
Eigenstates of the waveguide Hamiltonian
----------------------------------------
The Hamiltonian for the relative motion of two atoms in a harmonic waveguide contains two parts, the longitudinal free Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_z$ and the transverse confinement Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_\perp$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H}
\hat{H}=\hat{H}_z+\hat{H}_\perp,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\langle{\bf r}|\hat{H}_z|\psi\rangle
=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}\langle{\bf
r}|\psi\rangle,
\label{Hz}$$ and $$\langle{\bf r}|\hat{H}_\perp|\psi\rangle
=\left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \rho^2}
+\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial}{\partial\rho}
+\frac{1}{\rho^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\phi^2}\right)
+\frac{1}{2}\mu\omega^2_\perp\rho^2\right]\langle{\bf r}|\psi\rangle.
\label{Hperp}$$ The eigenstates of the transverse Hamiltonian, denoted by $|nm\rangle$, are well known and satisfy both $$\hat{H}_\perp|n,m\rangle=\hbar\omega_\perp(2n+|m|+1)|nm\rangle,
\label{Enm}$$ as well as $$\hat{L}_z|nm\rangle=\hbar m|nm\rangle,
\label{Lnm}$$ where $\hat{L}_z$ is the operator for angular momentum along the z-axis. We note that in this representation the radial and azimuthal quantum numbers $n$ and $m$ independently assume the values $$n=0,1,2,\ldots,\infty,
\label{n}$$ and $$m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\ldots,\pm\infty.
\label{nm}$$ The eigenfunctions are given in r-representation by $$\langle\rho\phi|nm\rangle=\left[\frac{\pi
a^2_\perp(n+|m|)!}{n!}\right]^{-1/2}
e^{-{1\over
2}(\rho/a_\perp)^2}(\rho/a_\perp)^{|m|}e^{i m\phi}L^{[|m|]}_n(\rho^2/a^2_\perp),
\label{rhophinm}$$ where $$a_\perp=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{\mu\omega_\perp}}
\label{aperp}$$ is the transverse harmonic oscillator length. Lastly we note that the value of $|n,m\rangle$ at the origin is given by $$\langle 0|nm\rangle=\frac{\delta_{m,0}}{\sqrt{\pi}a_\perp},
\label{0phinm}$$ which is independent of $n$.
The Green’s function for the relative motion of two particles in a harmonic waveguide
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bound Green’s function is the solution to the equation $$\left[E-\hat{H}_z-\hat{H}_\perp\right]\hat{G}(E)=\hat{I},
\label{GEeq}$$ where $\hat{I}$ is the identity matrix and for simplicity we have taken $\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\leftrightarrow\hat{G}(E)$. Expanding this equation onto the set of states $$|nmz\rangle=|nm\rangle\otimes|z\rangle,
\label{nmz}$$ where $|nm\rangle$ is the eigenstate of $\hat{H}_\perp$ given by (\[rhophinm\]) and $|z\rangle$ is the eigenstate of $\hat{z}$, satisfying $\langle
z|z'\rangle=\delta(z-z')$, then gives $$\begin{aligned}
\left[E-\hbar\omega_\perp(2n+|m|+1)+\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\frac{\partial^2}
{\partial z^2}
\right]\langle nmz|\hat{G}(E)|n'm'z'\rangle
&=&\langle nmz|n'm'z'\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\delta_{n,n'}\delta_{m,m'}\delta(z-z').
\label{GEnmzeq}\end{aligned}$$ We proceed by making the Ansatz for the Green’s function $$\begin{aligned}
\langle nmz|\hat{G}(E)|n'm'z'\rangle&=&\delta_{n,n'}\delta_{m,m'}
\alpha_{nm}e^{i\gamma_{nm}|z-z'|}\nonumber\\
&=&\delta_{n,n'}\delta_{m,m'}
\alpha_{nm}\left[e^{i\gamma_{nm}(z-z')}\Theta(z-z')+e^{-i\gamma_{nm}(z-z')}
\Theta(z'-z)\right],
\label{ansatz}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta(z)$ is the Heavyside step-function. Differentiating (\[ansatz\]) twice with respect to $z$ gives $$\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}\langle nmz|\hat{G}(E)|n'm'z'\rangle
=-\gamma^2_{nm}\langle
nmz|\hat{G}(E)|n'm'z'\rangle+2i\gamma_{nm}\alpha_{nm}
\langle nmz|n'm'z'\rangle,
\label{d2Gdz2}$$ so the Eq. (\[GEnmzeq\]) becomes $$\left[E-\hbar\omega_\perp(2n+|m|+1)-\frac{\hbar^2\gamma^2_{nm}}{2\mu}\right]
\langle nmz|\hat{G}(E)|n'm'z'\rangle
+i\frac{\hbar^2\gamma_{nm}\alpha_{nm}}{\mu}\langle nmz|n'm'z'\rangle
=\langle nmz|n'm'z'\rangle.
\label{GEnmzeq2}$$ This equation is satisfied provided that $$\gamma^2_{nm}=\frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\left[E-\hbar\omega_\perp(2n+|m|+1)\right]
\label{gammanm}$$ and $$\alpha_{nm}=-i\frac{\mu}{\hbar^2\gamma_{nm}}.
\label{alphanm}$$ Equation (\[gammanm\]) is quadratic, and therefore has in general two solutions. We can determine which solution is needed, however, from the causal nature of the retarded Green’s function. We should choose the solutions which propagate outwards from $z=z'$.
By introducing the dimensionless energy $${\cal E}=\frac{E}{2\hbar\omega_\perp}-\frac{1}{2},
\label{epsilon}$$ and making use of the relation (\[aperp\]), we find that retarded Green’s function can be expressed as $$\label{nmzGnmz}
\langle nmz|\hat{G}({\cal E})|n'm'z'\rangle
=-i\frac{\mu a_\perp}{2\hbar^2}
\frac{e^{i\frac{2}{a_\perp}\sqrt{{\cal E}-n-\frac{|m|}{2}}\quad|z-z'|}}
{\sqrt{{\cal E}-n-\frac{|m|}{2}}}
\delta_{n,n'}\delta_{m,m'}.$$ With this expression for the bound Green’s function we can now proceed to compute the bound T-matrix via equation (\[Tzerorange\]).
The function $\chi({\cal E})$ for a point scatterer in presence of a wave-guide
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to evaluate $\chi({\cal E})$ we must first compute the matrix element $\langle
{\bf r}|\hat{G}({\cal E})|0\rangle$. Expanding this matrix element in terms of transverse eigenstates gives $$\langle{\bf r}|\hat{G}({\cal E})|0\rangle
=\sum_{nmn'm'}\langle \rho\phi|nm\rangle
\langle nmz|\hat{G}({\cal E})|n'm'0\rangle
\langle n'm'0 |0\rangle,
\label{rG0}$$ which, with the help of Eqs. (\[0phinm\]) and (\[nmzGnmz\]), gives $$g\langle{\bf r}|\hat{G}({\cal E})|0\rangle
=-\sqrt{\pi}a\sum^\infty_{n=0}\langle\rho\phi|n0\rangle
\frac{e^{-\frac{2}{a_\perp}\sqrt[\downarrow]{n-{\cal E}}\ |z|}}
{\sqrt[\downarrow]{n-{\cal E}}},
\label{rG02}$$ where the modified square root $\sqrt[\downarrow]{}$ is defined in the “Conventions and notations” table above. Now by inserting Eqs. (\[rG02\]) and (\[g\]) into Eq. (\[chi\]) we arrive at the expression $$g\chi({\cal E})=\lim_{{\bf r}\to 0}
\left[-\sqrt{\pi}a\sum_{n=0}^\infty\langle\rho\phi|n0\rangle\
\frac{e^{-\frac{2}{a_\perp}\sqrt[\downarrow]{n - {\cal E}}|z|}}
{\sqrt[\downarrow]{n-{\cal E}}}
+\frac{a}{|{\bf r}|}\right].
\label{gchiE2}$$ While both terms in Eq. (\[gchiE2\]) diverge in the limit ${\bf
r}\to\infty$, we now demonstrate that their difference remains finite and leads to an expression for $\chi({\cal
E})$ in terms of a generalized Zeta function.
First we assume, without a proof, that the multi-variable limit in Eq. (\[gchiE2\]) does exist, [*i.e.*]{} the directional single-variable limits ${\bf r} = s{\bf n}, s \to 0$ exist for all directions ${\bf n}$ and they are all equal to each other. This assumption allows us to deal with the limit along the z-axis only: $$g\chi({\cal E})=-\frac{a}{a_\perp}\lim_{|z|\to 0}
\left[
\sum_{n=0}^\infty
\frac{e^{-\frac{2}{a_\perp}\sqrt[\downarrow]{n - {\cal E}}|z|}}
{\sqrt[\downarrow]{n-{\cal E}}}
-\frac{a}{|z|}\right],
\label{gchiE10}$$ where we have used the identity (\[0phinm\]). We proceed by first replacing the $a/|{\bf r}|$ term in Eq. (\[gchiE10\]) with an integral expression via the identity $$\frac{a}{|{\bf r}|}=\frac{a}{a_\perp}\int_{\cal E}^\infty dn\,
\frac{e^{-\frac{2}{a_\perp}\sqrt{n-{\cal E}}|{\bf r}|}}
{\sqrt{x-{\cal E}}}.
\label{intform}$$ This allows us to write $$g\chi({\cal E})=-\frac{a}{a_\perp}
\lim_{|z|\to 0}
\lim_{N\to \infty}
\left[
\sum_{n=0}^N
\frac{e^{-\frac{2}{a_\perp}\sqrt[\downarrow]{n - {\cal E}}|z|}}
{\sqrt[\downarrow]{n-{\cal E}}}
-
\int_{\cal E}^N dn\,
\frac{e^{-\frac{2}{a_\perp}\sqrt{n-{\cal E}}|{\bf r}|}}
{\sqrt{n-{\cal E}}}
\right]
,
\label{gchiE11}$$ It is now tempting to interchange the limit signs and thus get rid of the coordinate dependence. In order to be able to do that one have to prove the uniformity with respect to $|z|$ of the $N\to\infty$ convergence of the expression in the square brackets $\Xi(N,\,|z|)$, [*i.e.*]{} to prove that for every $\epsilon$ there exists $N^{\star}$, the same for all $|z|$, such that $\Xi(N,\,|z|) - \lim_{N\to \infty}\Xi(N,\,|z|) < \epsilon$ for all $N>N^{\star}$. Such a proof does exist: provided its length we do not exhibit it here.
We arrive at the following expression for $\chi({\cal E})$: $$g\chi({\cal E})=-\frac{a}{a_\perp}
\lim_{N\to \infty}
\left[
\sum_{n=0}^N
\frac{1}
{\sqrt[\downarrow]{n-{\cal E}}}
-
2\,\sqrt{N-{\cal E}}
\right]
.
\label{gchiE12}$$ One can now make use of the following theorem involving the Hurwitz Zeta function, an analytic generalized Zeta function described in the mathematical literature [@Hurwitz], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zeta}
&& \zeta(s,\alpha)=\lim_{N\to\infty}
\left[
\left(
\sum_{n=0}^N \frac{1}{(n+\alpha)^{s}}
\right)
- \frac{1}{1-s} \, \frac{1}{(N+\alpha)^{s-1}}
\right]
\\
\nonumber
&&\mbox{Re}(s)>0, \quad -2\pi < \arg(n+\alpha) \le 0.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zeta_1/2}
&& \zeta(1/2,\alpha)=\lim_{N\to\infty}
\left[
\left(
\sum_{n=0}^N \frac{1}{\sqrt[\downarrow]{n+\alpha}}
\right)
- 2\,\sqrt{N+\alpha}
\right]. \end{aligned}$$ While this expression, valid for any $N$, may be taken as a definition of the Hurwitz Zeta function, it does not constitute an efficient method for computation. Most symbolic math software packages will have efficient algorithms, however in using them care must be taken with regards to the branch cut for fractional $s$. With this definition and taking $s=1/2$ we arrive at $$g\chi({\cal E})=-\frac{a}{a_\perp}\zeta(1/2,-{\cal E}).
\label{gchiEfinal}$$
By substituting this expression into Eq. (\[Tzerorange\]) we arrive at the final expression for the long-wavelength T-matrix in the waveguide: $$\hat{T}({\cal E})=\frac{g|0\rangle\langle
0|}{1+\frac{a}{a_\perp}\zeta(1/2,-{\cal E})}.
\label{Tfinal}$$ We note that in the definition (\[zeta\]) of the Hurwitz Zeta function, there is an ambiguity in the sign of the square root.
Results
=======
Multi-channel scattering amplitudes and transition rates
--------------------------------------------------------
From Equations (\[TEHV\]) and (\[Tfinal\]) we find that the scattered wavefunction takes the form $$\label{nmzpsis}
\langle nmz|\psi_s({\cal E})\rangle
=g\frac{\langle nmz|\hat{G}({\cal E})|0\rangle}
{\left[1+\frac{a}{a_\perp}{\zeta}(1/2,-{\cal E})\right]}
\langle 0|\psi_0({\cal E})\rangle.$$ Now the matrix element $\langle nmz|\hat{G}({\cal E})|0\rangle$ can be determined by by making use of Eqs. (\[nmzGnmz\]) and (\[0phinm\]), yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nmzGE0}
\langle nmz|\hat{G}({\cal E})|0\rangle&=&\sum_{n'm'}\int dz'\
\langle nmz|\hat{G}({\cal E})|n'm'z'\rangle
\langle n'm'z'|0\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&-i\frac{\mu}{2\sqrt{\pi}\hbar^2}\delta_{m,0}\frac{e^{i\frac{2}{a_\perp}
\sqrt{{\cal E}-n}|z|}}
{\sqrt{{\cal E}-n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting this expression into Eq. (\[nmzpsis\]) then gives $$\label{nmzpsis2}
\langle nmz|\psi_s({\cal E})\rangle=
-i\frac{\sqrt{\pi}a}{\left[1+\frac{a}{a_\perp}{\zeta}(1/2,-{\cal
E})\right]}
\delta_{m,0}\frac{e^{i\frac{2}{a_\perp}\sqrt{{\cal
E}-n}|z|}}{\sqrt{{\cal E}-n}}
\langle 0|\psi_0({\cal E})\rangle.$$ Let us now assume that the incident wave has the longitudinal wave vector $k$ and the transverse quantum numbers $n$ and $m$, according to $$\label{nmzpsi0}
\langle {\bf r}|\psi_0({\cal E})\rangle
=\langle \rho\phi|nm\rangle e^{ikz},$$ where the relation $$\label{Ek}
{\cal E}=\left(\frac{a_\perp k}{2}\right)^2+n+\frac{|m|}{2}$$ gives the dependence of the scaled energy ${\cal E}$ on the incident wavevector $k$. This incident wave is nonzero at the origin only for $m=0$, hence only incident waves with zero angular momentum will scatter. The value of the $m=0$ incident wave at the origin conveniently takes the $n$-independent value, $$\label{0psi0E}
\langle 0|\psi_0({\cal
E})\rangle=\frac{\delta_{m,0}}{\sqrt{\pi}a_\perp}.$$ Assuming henceforth $m=0$, we can now express Eq. (\[nmzpsis2\]) as $$\label{nmzpsis3}
\langle n'm'z|\psi_s({\cal E})\rangle
=-i\frac{\delta_{m',0}}
{\left[\frac{a_\perp}{a}+{\zeta}(1/2,-{\cal E})\right]}
\frac{e^{i\frac{2}{a_\perp}\sqrt{{\cal E}-n'}|z|}}{\sqrt{{\cal E}-n'}}.$$ From this expression it follows that the full wavefunction of the relative motion takes the form $$\label{rpsiE}
\langle {\bf r}|\psi({\cal E})\rangle
=\sum_{n'=0}^\infty\langle\rho\phi|n'0\rangle
\left[\delta_{n',n}e^{ikz}
+f(k_{n'}\leftarrow k_n)_{n'\leftarrow n}
e^{ik_{n'}|z|}\right].$$ Here we have introduced the even-wave [*transversely inelastic scattering amplitudes*]{} $f(k_{n'}\leftarrow k_n)_{n'\leftarrow n}$, given by $$\label{fknn}
f(k_{n'}\leftarrow k_n)_{n'\leftarrow n}=-\frac{2i}{a_\perp
k_{n'}}\frac{1}
{\left[\frac{a_\perp}{a}
+{\zeta}(1/2,-\left(\frac{a_\perp k_n}{2}\right)^2-n)\right]},$$ and the outgoing wave vector for the mode $|n'0\rangle$ $$\label{kn}
k_{n'}=\frac{2}{a_\perp}\sqrt{\left(\frac{a_\perp
k_n}{2}\right)^2+n-n'}\ ,$$ from which the desired scattering probabilities can be computed.
One can now easily compute the elastic and inelastic transition probabilities for collisions under transverse harmonic confinement. We begin by considering the asymptotic forms of the total wavefunction given by Eq. (\[rpsiE\]), which are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{z\to\infty}\langle n'0z|\psi({\cal E})\rangle
&=&\delta_{n',n}e^{ikz}+\Theta\left[{\cal E}-n'\right]\
f(k_{n'}\leftarrow k_n)_{n'\leftarrow n}
e^{ik_{n'}z}\\
\lim_{z\to-\infty}\langle n0z|\psi({\cal E})\rangle
&=&\Theta\left[{\cal E}-n'\right]\
f(k_{n'}\leftarrow k_n)_{n'\leftarrow n}e^{-ik_{n'}z}.\end{aligned}$$ Because of energy conservation, an inelastic collision results in a change in the longitudinal momentum $k\to k_n$, so that the introduction of inelastic transmission and reflection coefficients must be based on conservation of total incident and outgoing probability current. For longitudinal plane waves the probability current is given by the amplitude squared times the velocity, which leads to the inelastic transmission and reflection coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TnmRnm}
T(k_{n'}\leftarrow k_n)_{n'\leftarrow n}
&=&\Theta\left[{\cal E}-n'\right]
\sqrt{\frac{{\cal E}-n'}{{\cal E}-n}}
\left|\delta_{n',n}+f(k_{n'}\leftarrow k_n)_{n'\leftarrow n}\right|^2\\
R(k_{n'}\leftarrow k_n)_{n'\leftarrow n}&=&
\Theta\left[{\cal E}-n'\right]\sqrt{\frac{{\cal E}-n'}{{\cal E}-n}}
\left|f(k_{n'}\leftarrow k_n)_{n'\leftarrow n}\right|^2,\end{aligned}$$ which are readily evaluated with the help of Eq. (\[fknn\]). The sum of the transmission and reflection coefficients of the particular channel gives the corresponding transition probability governing the population exchange between the transverse vibrational levels.
Substituting the expression (\[fknn\]) to the transmission and reflection coefficients above we obtain the following set of kinetic coefficients: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kinetic}
&&W_{\hookrightarrow n}(k) = 1 - W_{\leftarrow n}(k)
\\
&&W_{\leftarrow n}(k) = \frac{2}{\sqrt{{\cal E}_{t}}}\,\frac{\eta({\cal
E})-1/\sqrt{{\cal E}_{t}}}
{[\frac{a}{a}_{\perp}+\zeta(1/2,
1-\delta{\cal E})]^2 + \eta^2({\cal E}) }
\\
&&W_{n'\leftarrow n}(k) = \Theta\left[{\cal E}-n'\right]\,
\frac{2}{\sqrt{{\cal E}_{t}}}\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\cal E}-n'}}\,
\frac{1}
{[\frac{a}{a}_{\perp}+\zeta(1/2, 1-\delta{\cal E})]^2 + \eta^2({\cal E}) }
\\
&&T_{\hookrightarrow n}(k) = W_{\hookrightarrow n}(k) - R_{\hookrightarrow
n}(k)
\\
&&R_{\hookrightarrow n}(k) = \frac{1}{{\cal E}_{t}}\,
\frac{1}
{[\frac{a}{a}_{\perp}+\zeta(1/2, 1-\delta{\cal E})]^2 + \eta^2({\cal E}) }
\\
&&T_{n'\leftarrow n}(k) = R_{n'\leftarrow n}(k) = W_{n'\leftarrow n}(k)/2\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{\hookrightarrow n}(k)$ is the probability that after a collision of two particles with the relative momentum $k$ and relative transverse excitation $n$ the particles will remain in the same transverse state, this probability is a sum of transmission $T_{\hookrightarrow n}(k)$ and reflection $R_{\hookrightarrow n}(k)$ probabilities, $W_{\leftarrow n}(k)$ is the total probability of changing the transverse state, $W_{n'\leftarrow n}(k)$ is the probability of transition to a particular transverse channel, the transmission $T_{n'\leftarrow n}(k)$ and reflection $R_{n'\leftarrow n}(k)$ probabilities in channel-changing collisions are equal to each other. Here $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal E} = n + {\cal E}_{t}
\\
&&{\cal E}_{t} = (ka_{\perp}/2)^2
\\
&&\delta{\cal E} = {\cal E} - [{\cal E}] \quad\quad 0\le \delta{\cal E} < 1
\\
&&\eta({\cal E}) = \sum_{n'=0}^{[{\cal E}]} \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\cal E}-n'}}\end{aligned}$$ where $[\ldots]$ is the integral part sign.
Single-channel scattering and effective one-dimensional interaction potential {#subsect:1D_pot}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us now consider the special case of a single-channel scattering: $$\label{singlech}
0 \le {\cal E} < 1,\quad n_0=0$$ In this case we have $$\label{singchxi}
g\chi({\cal E})=-\frac{a}{a_\perp}\zeta(1/2,-{\cal E})=
-\frac{a}{a_\perp}\left[\zeta(1/2,1-{\cal E})+\frac{i}{\sqrt{\cal
E}}\right].$$ Using an alternative representation for $\zeta(1/2,1-{\cal E})$ $$\label{zeta1minusE}
\zeta(1/2,1-{\cal E})=\lim_{N\to\infty}
\left[\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{1}{\sqrt[\downarrow]{n-{\cal E}}}-2\sqrt{N}\right].$$ and making use of the expansion in powers of ${\cal E}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{powersE}
&& \frac{1}{\sqrt{n-{\cal E}}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
+\sum_{j=1}^\infty\frac{(2j-1)!!}{2^jj!n^{j+1/2}}{\cal E}^j
\\
\nonumber
&&|{\cal E}| < 1, \quad n > 0,\end{aligned}$$ allows us to write $$\label{introLE}
\zeta(1/2,1-{\cal E})=\zeta(1/2)+{\cal L}({\cal E}),$$ where $$\label{defLE}
{\cal L}({\cal
E})=\sum_{j=1}^\infty\frac{(2j-1)!!\zeta(j+1/2)}{2^jj!}{\cal E}^j,$$ which clearly separates the zero energy limit from the finite energy corrections.
According to (\[fknn\]) this leads to $$\label{singchfk}
f_e(k)=-\frac{1}
{\left[1+ia_{1D}k-i\frac{a_\perp k}{2}{\cal
L}\left(\frac{a_\perp^2k^2}{4}\right)\right]},$$ where $f_e(k)=f(k_0\leftarrow k_0)_{0\leftarrow 0}$ is the even single-channel scattering amplitude and $$\label{a1D}
a_{1D}=-\frac{a_\perp}{2}\left[\frac{a_\perp}{a}+\zeta(1/2)\right]$$ with $\zeta(1/2)=-1.4603\ldots$, is the effective one-dimensional scattering length which agrees with the result in [@Tonks_PRL].
It is now tempting to introduce an effective one-dimensional interaction potential in such a way that its scattering amplitude, introduced through the one-dimensional scattering solution as $$\psi(z) \stackrel{z\to \pm\infty}{=} \exp(ikz) + f_e(k)\exp(ik|z|) + f_o(k)
\mbox{sign}(z) \exp(ik|z|)
\quad,$$ matches (\[singchfk\]), i.e. solve the corresponding one-dimensional inverse scattering problem. It turns out that this problem is ill-posed due to the presence of open transverse channels unaccessible within the one-dimensional model. Nevertheless one may pose the following problem: find a one-dimensional potential, whose scattering amplitude reproduces the exact one (\[singchfk\]) with the relative error ${\cal O}(k^3)$. Such an object does exist, and it is represented by a zero-range scatterer $$v(z) = g_{1D}\delta(z)
\label{1D_pot}$$ of a coupling strength $g_{1D} = -\hbar^2/\mu a_{1D}$.
Notice now the resonant behavior of $g_{1D}$ showing a Confinement Induced Resonance (CIR) at $a = a_\perp/|\zeta(1/2)|$. The effect was recently interpreted in terms of Feshbach resonance between ground and excited vibrational manifolds. The resonance has been confirmed by numerical calculations with finite-range potentials, at both two-body [@Tom] and many-body [@Doerty_CIR] level.
Bound states {#boundstates}
------------
As it has been discussed in the section \[subsec:bound\_T-matrix\] the poles of the full T-matrix of the problem (the T-matrix \[Tfinal\] in our case) correspond to the bound states. We get the following eigenvalue equation $$\zeta(1/2,-{\cal E}) = -\frac{a_\perp}{a}$$ The detailed analysis, interpretation, and testing of the solutions against finite-range models is presented in [@Tom]. It turns out that for any set of parameters there exists one and only one bound state. For small positive three-dimensional scattering length it converges to the free-space three-dimensional bound state. For small negative scattering length the bound state corresponds to the bound state of the one-dimensional potential (\[1D\_pot\]).
Concluding remarks, related works, and open problems
====================================================
In this paper we have demonstrated that the low-energy free-space properties of a scatterer are sufficient to describe its low-energy behavior in a non-free environment. The T-matrix formalism and the Lupu-Sax connection formula in particular serve as a powerful bridge between the two.
Several related works ought to be mentioned. Scattering of bosons in two-dimensional (planar) harmonic waveguides has been successfully treated in [@Gora_2D_tight]. Fermions in a linear guide were considered in [@Doerty_fermions] via the K-matrix formalism and the corresponding one-dimensional amplitudes were explicitly computed. In an $N$-body setting $N-2$ particles can be interpreted as the background potential for a given pair [@lambda].
One would expect that the inverse scattering problem posed in section \[subsect:1D\_pot\] can be solved with an accuracy higher than existing ${\cal O}(k^3)$. The solution will allow to improve the accuracy of the many-body Monte-Carlo numerical models without introducing the transverse dimensions, otherwise making the computation harder.
Shallow atomic guides with only a few transverse bound levels constitute a significant challenge. Unlike for harmonic guides the separation of relative and transverse degrees of freedom will be lifted leading to new collision channels. Presence of continuum spectrum for virtual transverse excitations may significantly enhance the renormalization effects or even lead to new resonances.
Acknowledgments
===============
Authors are grateful to Adam Lupu-Sax, Rick Heller, Vanja Dunjko, Yvan Castin, and Dimitry Petrov for enlightening discussions on the subject. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grant [ *PHY-0070333*]{} (M.O.), a grant from Office of Naval Research [*N00014-03-1-0427*]{} (T.B., M.0.), and through the National Science Foundation grant for the Institute for Theoretical Atomic and Molecular Physics at Harvard University and Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
Appendices
==========
The T-matrix, the potential and the background Green’s function {#GVTApp}
---------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we derive various useful relationships between the Green’s function of a given background Hamiltonian, $\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)$, the scattering potential, $\hat{V}$, and the T-matrix, $\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)$, which connects the incident wavevector $|\psi_0(E)\rangle $ with the scattered wave $|\psi_s(E)\rangle$ according to Eq. (\[TEHV\]). By making use of the definition of the T-matrix (\[TEHV\]) and the fact that the incident wave satisfies the unperturbed Hamiltonian (\[Gpsi0\]), we can cast Schrödinger’s equation (\[GVpsi\]) in the following form $$\label{SchroT}
\left[\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)
-\hat{V}\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)-\hat{V}\right]
|\psi_0(E)\rangle.$$ Since this equation must be satisfied for any $|\psi_0(E)\rangle$ it follows that $$\label{VGTeq}
\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)
-\hat{V}\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)-\hat{V}=0.$$ This equation can be readily solved for either the T-matrix $\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)$ or the potential $\hat{V}$. Solving first for $\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)$ then gives $$\label{TEofGV2}
\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)=\left[1-\hat{V}\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\right]^{-1}
\hat{V},$$ which gives an expression for the T-matrix at energy $E$ in terms of the perturbation $\hat{V}$ and the background Green’s function $\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)$. We can also solve Eq. (\[VGTeq\]) for $\hat{V}$, which yields $$\label{VofGT}
\hat{V}=\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)
\left[1+\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)\right]^{-1},$$ or by starting from the Hermite conjugate of Eq. (\[GVpsi\]) we can similarly arrive at the equivalent expression $$\label{VofTG}
\hat{V}=
\left[1+\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\right]^{-1}
\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E).$$
The Lippman-Schwinger equation {#LippSchwApp}
------------------------------
In this section we derive the relation between the full Green’s function of the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}+\hat{V}$ in terms of the Green’s function for the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ and the T-matrix. The full Green’s function can be defined by $$\label{GEHV}
\hat{G}^{-1}_{\hat{H}+\hat{V}}(E)=\hat{G}^{-1}_{\hat{H}}-\hat{V},$$ which, after substituting Eq. (\[VofGT\]) yields $$\label{GEHT}
\hat{G}^{-1}_{\hat{H}+\hat{V}}(E)=\hat{G}^{-1}_{\hat{H}}
-\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)\left[1+\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)
\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)\right]^{-1}.$$ Multiplying from the left by $\hat{G}_{\hat{H}+\hat{V}}(E)$ and then from the right by $\left[1+\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)\right]\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)$ then yields the Lippman-Schwinger relation $$\label{LippSchwing1}
\hat{G}_{\hat{H}+\hat{V}}(E)=\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)
+\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)$$ which relates the full Green’s function to the ‘background’ Green’s function and T-matrix.
The Lupu-Sax formula {#LupSaxApp}
--------------------
In many situations one may not have knowledge of the potential $\hat{V}$, but rather have direct knowledge only of the T-matrix, $\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E)$ with respect to some background Hamiltonian $\hat{H}'$. If additional external fields are applied, then ideally one would like an expression for the T-matrix of the same perturbation in the presence the new background Hamiltonian $\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)$.
We can derive the required expression directly from the relations (\[VofGT\]) and (\[VofTG\]). Since $\hat{V}$ is equal to itself we can equate expression (\[VofGT\]) for $\hat{V}$ in terms of $\hat{H}'$ to the equivalent expression (\[VofTG\]) in terms of $\hat{H}$, which yields the relation $$\label{TGHTGH'}
\left[1+\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E)\hat{G}_{\hat{H}'}(E)\right]^{-1}
\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E)=\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)
\left[1+\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)\right]^{-1}.$$ Multiplying from the left by $1+\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E)\hat{G}_{\hat{H}'}(E)$ and from the right by $1+\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)$ then gives $$\label{TGHTGH'2}
\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)
\left[1+\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)\right
]=\left[1+\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E)\hat{G}_{\hat{H}'}(E)\right]
\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E).$$ We note that in this equation the unknown operator $\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)$ appears linearly and always on the far-right side. Hence, solving for $\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)$ is straightforward and results in the Lupu-Sax formula [@Lupu-Sax] relating the $T$-matrices of the same perturbation but in two different background Hamiltonians $\hat{H}$ and $\hat{H}^{\prime}$: $$\label{LupuSax2}
\hat{T}_{\hat{H},\hat{V}}(E)=
\left[1-\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E)
\left(\hat{G}_{\hat{H}}(E)-\hat{G}_{\hat{H}'}(E)\right)
\right]^{-1}\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(E).$$
The free-space scattering length {#gaApp}
--------------------------------
In this section we will related the 3-dimensional scattering length to the normalization of the kernel of the reference T-matrix (\[T’\]). In Section \[swavepseudopot\] we introduced the reference Hamiltonian $\hat{H}'=\hat{H}_{free}+E$, where $\hat{H}_{free}$ is the free-space Hamiltonian containing only a 3-dimensional kinetic energy term. We note that for $E=0$ the reference Hamiltonian and the free-space Hamiltonian agree, hence we can use the Green’s function and T-matrix of $\hat{H}'$ to solve the free-space scattering problem at zero energy. The free-space solution for scattering from the potential $\hat{V}$ is therefore given at $E=0$ by $$\label{psis0}
|\psi_s(0)\rangle=\hat{G}_{\hat{H}'}(0)\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(0)|\psi_0
(0)\rangle$$ where $\hat{G}_{\hat{H}'}(0)$ is given by Eq. (\[G’\]) and $\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}(0)$ by Eq. (\[T’\]). Expanding this expression onto position eigenstates and making use of (\[G’\]) and (\[T’\]) gives $$\label{psis0r}
\langle{\bf r}|\psi_s(0)\rangle
=-\frac{\mu g}{2\pi\hbar^2} \int d{\bf r}' d{\bf r}'\
\frac{D({\bf r}',{\bf r}'')}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}'|}\langle{\bf
r}''|\psi_0(0)\rangle.$$ For zero energy the incident wave is given by $\langle{\bf
r}|\psi_0(0)\rangle=1$, hence by making the assumption that $D({\bf r}',{\bf r}'')$ is localized at ${\bf
r}',{\bf
r}''\approx 0$ we find that the limit as ${\bf r}\to\infty$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rtoinftypsis0}
\lim_{{\bf r}\to\infty}\langle{\bf r}|\psi_s(0)\rangle&=&
-\frac{\mu g}{2\pi\hbar^2}\frac{1}{|{\bf r}|}
\int d{\bf r}' d{\bf r}'' D({\bf r}',{\bf r}'')\nonumber\\
&=& -\frac{\mu g}{2\pi\hbar^2}\frac{1}{|{\bf r}|}.\end{aligned}$$ Because the potential is assumed to vanish as ${\bf r}\to\infty$, we know that the asymptotic form of the scattered wavefunction is given by a spherical plane wave with zero kinetic energy, characterized by the zero-energy scattering amplitude $f_s(0)$, $$\label{asymptform}
\lim_{{\bf r}\to\infty}\langle{\bf
r}|\psi_s(0)\rangle=f_s(0)\frac{1}{|{\bf r}|}.$$ Comparison with Eq. (\[rtoinftypsis0\]) then shows that the zero-energy scattering amplitude is $$\label{fs0}
f_s(E=0)=-\frac{\mu g}{2\pi\hbar^2}.$$ The asymptotic form of the total wavefunction is then $$\label{rtoinftypsi0}
\lim_{{\bf r}\to\infty}\langle{\bf r}|\psi(0)\rangle
=1-\frac{\mu g}{2\pi\hbar^2}\frac{1}{|{\bf r}|}.$$ By definition, the scattering length is the radius of the first node of wavefunction at zero energy. Setting Eq. (\[rtoinftypsi0\]) equal to zero and solving for ${\bf r}$ then gives $$\label{ga}
a=\frac{\mu g}{2\pi\hbar^2},$$ which relates the scattering length $a$ and the normalization of the reference T-matrix, giving the standard expression $g=2\pi\hbar^2a/\mu$.
The s-wave scattering approximation {#lowkApp}
-----------------------------------
In this section we will discuss the long-wavelength properties of the reference T-matrix (\[T’\]) and motivate the s-wave scattering approximation in which we replace this T-matrix by its long-wavelength (low energy) limit. From Eq. (\[T’\]) we have $$\langle {\bf r}|\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}|{\bf r'}\rangle=gD({\bf
r},{\bf r}'),
\label{T'App}$$ where the kernel $D({\bf r},{\bf r}')$ is defined as normalized to unity. We note that the exact expression for $D({\bf r},{\bf r}')$ via Eqs. (\[TEofVG\]) and (\[G’\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
g\, D({\bf r},{\bf r}')&=&V({\bf r})\delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}')
+\left[\frac{-\mu}{2\pi\hbar^2}\right]\frac{V({\bf r})V({\bf
r}')}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}'|}
+\left[\frac{-\mu}{2\pi\hbar^2}\right]^2V({\bf r})V({\bf r}')
\int d{\bf r}''\frac{V({\bf r}'')}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}''||{\bf r}''-{\bf
r}'|}\nonumber\\
&+&\left[\frac{-\mu}{2\pi\hbar^2}\right]^3V({\bf r})V({\bf r}')
\int d{\bf r}''\, d{\bf r}'''\frac{V({\bf r}'')V({\bf r}''')}
{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}''||{\bf r}''-{\bf r}'''||{\bf r}'''-{\bf r}'|}+\ldots,
\label{Drr'expand}\end{aligned}$$ from which we see that $D({\bf r}',{\bf r})=D({\bf r},{\bf r}')$. We will make use of these expressions in what follows.
At present we are interested in the long-wavelength (low energy) properties of this reference T-matrix, hence we begin by expanding (\[T’App\]) onto momentum eigenstates, yielding $$\langle {\bf k}|\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}|{\bf k}'\rangle
=\frac{g}{(2\pi)^3}\int d{\bf r}\, d{\bf r}'\, e^{-i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf
r}}e^{i{\bf k}'\cdot{\bf r}'}
D({\bf r},{\bf r}').
\label{TH'Vkk'}$$ By applying the gradient operators $\nabla_{\bf k}$ and $\nabla_{\bf k}'$ we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\bf k}\langle{\bf k}|\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}|{\bf
k}'\rangle\big|_{{\bf k},{\bf k}'=0}
&=&
-i\frac{g}{(2\pi)^3}\int d{\bf r}\,d{\bf r}'\ {\bf r}\, D({\bf r},{\bf
r}')\nonumber\\
&=&-\nabla_{{\bf k}'}\langle{\bf k}|\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}|{\bf
k}'\rangle\big|_{{\bf k},{\bf k}'=0}.
\label{nablakT}\end{aligned}$$ >From Eq. (\[Drr’expand\]) we see that $\int d{\bf r}' D({\bf r},{\bf
r}')$ is an even function of ${\bf r}$ provided only that $V(-{\bf r})=V({\bf r})$. Hence the r.h.s of Eq. (\[nablakT\]) is the integral of an odd function which leads to $$\nabla_{\bf k}\langle{\bf k}|\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}|{\bf
k}'\rangle\big|_{{\bf k},{\bf k}'=0}
=\nabla_{{\bf k}'}\langle{\bf k}|\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}|{\bf
k}'\rangle\big|_{{\bf k},{\bf k}'=0}=0.
\label{nablazero}$$ The fact that the gradient vanishes at ${\bf k},{\bf k}'=0$ implies that this point is either an extremum or inflection point, i.e. the reference T-matrix is topologically flat in the long wavelength limit. Extending this approach will lead to the result that the curvature in k-space is proportional to the second moment of $D({\bf
r},{\bf r}')$ so that we can approximate the T-matrix by its long-wavelength limit provided that $|{\bf
k}|R\approx |{\bf k}'|R \ll 1$, where $R$ is roughly the radius of the kernel $D({\bf
r},{\bf r}')$. Replacing the reference T-matrix by its long-wavelength limit and recalling that the kernel is normalized to unity gives $$\langle{\bf k}|\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}|{\bf k}'\rangle\approx
\frac{g}{(2\pi)^3},
\label{Tlowk}$$ which then leads to the delta-function approximation $$\begin{aligned}
\langle{\bf r}|\hat{T}_{\hat{H}',\hat{V}}|{\bf r}'\rangle
&\approx& \frac{g}{(2\pi)^6}\int d{\bf k} d{\bf k}'\, e^{i{\bf
k}\cdot{\bf r}}
e^{-i{\bf k}'\cdot{\bf r}'}\nonumber\\
&=&g\delta({\bf r})\delta({\bf r}')
\label{deltaapprox}\end{aligned}$$ which is the main result of this section.
[99]{} M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 938 (1998) T. Bergeman, M. G. Moore, and M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{} 163201 (2003). D.S. Petrov, M. Holzmann and G.V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**84**]{} 2551 (2000); D. S. Petrov and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 012706 (2001) B. E. Granger and D. Blume, \[cond-mat/0307358\] Adam Lupu-Sax, [*Quantum Scattering Theory and Applications*]{}, PhD Thesis, Harvard University (1998) T. M. Apostol, Introduction to Analytic Number Theory (Springer, 1976) G.E. Astrakharchik, D. Blume, S. Giorgini, B.E. Granger, \[cond-mat/0308585\] Maxim Olshanii and Ludovic Pricoupenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 010402 (2002)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We show that up to automorphism of ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ there are $14$ homogeneous convex foliations of degree five on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}.$ Using this result, we give a partial answer to a question posed in $2013$ by D. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Marín</span> and J. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pereira</span> about the classification of reduced convex foliations on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}.$
[*2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. — 37F75, 32S65, 32M25.*]{}
address:
- 'Faculté de Mathématiques, USTHB, BP $32$, El-Alia, $16111$ Bab-Ezzouar, Alger, Algérie'
- 'Departament de Matemàtiques Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona) Spain'
author:
- 'Samir <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bedrouni</span>'
- 'David <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Marín</span>'
title: Convex foliations of degree $5$ on the complex projective plane
---
[^1]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Following [@MP13] a foliation on the complex projective plane is said to be *convex* if its leaves other than straight lines have no inflection points. Notice (*see* [@Per01]) that if ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a foliation of degree $d\geq 1$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}},$ then ${\mathcal{F}}$ can not have more than $3d$ (distinct) invariant lines. Moreover, if this bound is reached, then ${\mathcal{F}}$ is necessarily convex; in this case ${\mathcal{F}}$ is said to be *reduced convex*. To our knowledge the only reduced convex foliations known in the literature are those presented in [@MP13 Table 1.1]: the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fermat</span> foliation ${\mathcal{F}}_{0}^{d}$ of degree $d$, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hesse</span> pencil ${\mathcal{F}_{\hspace{-0.4mm}\raisebox{-0.2mm}{\tiny{$H$}}}^{4}}$ of degree $4$, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hilbert</span> modular foliation ${\mathcal{F}_{\hspace{-0.4mm}\raisebox{-0.2mm}{\tiny{$H$}}}^{5}}$ of degree $5$ and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hilbert</span> modular foliation ${\mathcal{F}_{\hspace{-0.4mm}\raisebox{-0.2mm}{\tiny{$H$}}}^{7}}$ of degree $7$ defined in affine chart respectively by the $1$-forms $${{\mspace{2mu}\overline{\mspace{-1.4mu}\omega\mspace{-1.4mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{0}^{d}=(x^{d}-x)\mathrm{d}y-(y^{d}-y)\mathrm{d}x,$$ $${\omega_{\scalebox{0.64}{\ensuremath H}}^{4}}=(2x^{3}-y^{3}-1)y\mathrm{d}x+(2y^{3}-x^{3}-1)x\mathrm{d}y,$$ $${\omega_{\scalebox{0.64}{\ensuremath H}}^{5}}=(y^2-1)(y^2-(\sqrt{5}-2)^2)(y+\sqrt{5}x)\mathrm{d}x-(x^2-1)(x^2-(\sqrt{5}-2)^2)(x+\sqrt{5}y)\mathrm{d}y,$$ $${\omega_{\scalebox{0.64}{\ensuremath H}}^{7}}=(y^3-1)(y^3+7x^3+1)y\mathrm{d}x-(x^3-1)(x^3+7y^3+1)x\mathrm{d}y.$$ D. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Marín</span> and J. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pereira</span> [@MP13 Problem 9.1] asked the following question: are there other reduced convex foliations? The answer in degree $2$, resp. $3$, resp. $4$, to this question is negative, by [@FP15 Proposition 7.4], resp. [@BM17 Corollary 6.9], resp. [@BM18 Theorem B]. In this paper we show that the answer in degree $5$ to [@MP13 Problem 9.1] is also negative. To do this, we follow the same approach as that described in degree $4$ in [@BM18]. More precisely, we begin by establishing the following theorem classifying the convex foliations of degree $5$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ which are *homogeneous*, [*i.e.*]{} which are invariant under homothety.
\[thmalph:class-homogene-convexe-5\]
*Up to automorphism of ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ there are fourteen homogeneous convex foliations of degree five $\mathcal{H}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{H}_{14}$ on the complex projective plane. They are respectively described in affine chart by the following $1$-forms*
- $\omega_1\hspace{1mm}=y^5\mathrm{d}x-x^5\mathrm{d}y$;
- $\omega_2\hspace{1mm}=y^2(10\hspace{0.2mm}x^3+10x^2y+5xy^2+y^3)\mathrm{d}x-x^4(x+5y)\mathrm{d}y$;
- $\omega_3\hspace{1mm}=y^3(10\hspace{0.2mm}x^2+5xy+y^2)\mathrm{d}x-x^3(x^2+5xy+10y^2)\mathrm{d}y$;
- $\omega_4\hspace{1mm}=y^4(5x-3y)\mathrm{d}x+x^4(3x-5y)\mathrm{d}y$;
- $\omega_5\hspace{1mm}=y^3(5x^2-3y^2)\mathrm{d}x-2x^5\mathrm{d}y$;
- $\omega_6\hspace{1mm}=y^3(220\hspace{0.2mm}x^2-165xy+36y^2)\mathrm{d}x-121x^5\mathrm{d}y$;
- $\omega_7\hspace{1mm}=y^4\Big(\big(5-\sqrt{5}\big)x-2y\Big)\mathrm{d}x
+x^4\Big(\big(7-3\sqrt{5}\big)x-2\big(5-2\sqrt{5}\big)y\Big)\mathrm{d}y$;
- $\omega_8\hspace{1mm}=y^4\Big(5\big(3-\sqrt{21}\big)x+6y\Big)\mathrm{d}x
+x^4\Big(3\big(23-5\sqrt{21}\big)x-10\big(9-2\sqrt{21}\big)y\Big)\mathrm{d}y$;
- $\omega_9\hspace{1mm}=y^3\Big(2\big(5+a\big)x^2-\big(15+a\big)xy+6y^2\Big)\mathrm{d}x
-x^4\Big(\big(1-a\big)x+2ay\Big)\mathrm{d}y,$ where $a=\sqrt{\scalebox{0.83}{$5\big(4\sqrt{61}-31\big)$}}$;
- $\omega_{10}=y^3\Big(2\big(5+\mathrm{i}b\big)x^2-\big(15+\mathrm{i}b\big)xy+6y^2\Big)\mathrm{d}x
-x^4\Big(\big(1-\mathrm{i}b\big)x+2\mathrm{i}by\Big)\mathrm{d}y,$ where $b=\sqrt{\scalebox{0.83}{$5\big(4\sqrt{61}+31\big)$}}$;
- $\omega_{11}=y^3(5x^2-y^2)\mathrm{d}x+x^3(x^2-5y^2)\mathrm{d}y$;
- $\omega_{12}=y^3(20\hspace{0.2mm}x^2-5xy-y^2)\mathrm{d}x+x^3(x^2+5xy-20y^2)\mathrm{d}y$;
- $\omega_{13}=y^2(5x^3-10\hspace{0.2mm}x^2y+10\hspace{0.2mm}xy^2-4y^3)\mathrm{d}x-x^5\mathrm{d}y$;
- $\omega_{14}=y^3\Big(u(\sigma)x^2+v(\sigma)xy+w(\sigma)y^2\Big)\mathrm{d}x+\sigma\hspace{0.3mm}x^4\Big(2\sigma\big(\sigma^2-\sigma+1\big)x
-\big(\sigma+1\big)\big(3\sigma^2-5\sigma+3\big)y\Big)\mathrm{d}y,$
- where $u(\sigma)=(\sigma^2-3\sigma+1)(\sigma^2+5\sigma+1),$ $v(\sigma)=-2(\sigma+1)(\sigma^2-5\sigma+1),$ $w(\sigma)=(\sigma^2-7\sigma+1),$
- $\sigma=\rho+\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}-\frac{4}{3}\rho-\frac{1}{3}\rho^2}$ and $\rho$ is the unique real number satisfying $8\rho^3-52\rho^2+134\rho-15=0.$
Then, using this classification, we prove the following theorem.
\[thmalph:convexe-reduit-5\] [*Up to automorphism of ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fermat</span> foliation ${\mathcal{F}}_{0}^{5}$ and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hilbert</span> modular foliation ${\mathcal{F}_{\hspace{-0.4mm}\raisebox{-0.2mm}{\tiny{$H$}}}^{5}}$ are the only reduced convex foliations of degree five on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}.$*]{}
Preliminaries
=============
Singularities and inflection divisor of a foliation on the projective plane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A degree $d$ holomorphic foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ is defined in homogeneous coordinates $[x:y:z]$ by a $1$-form $$\omega=a(x,y,z)\mathrm{d}x+b(x,y,z)\mathrm{d}y+c(x,y,z)\mathrm{d}z,$$ where $a,$ $b$ and $c$ are homogeneous polynomials of degree $d+1$ without common factor and satisfying the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Euler</span> condition $i_{\mathrm{R}}\omega=0$, where $\mathrm{R}=x\frac{\partial{}}{\partial{x}}+y\frac{\partial{}}{\partial{y}}+z\frac{\partial{}}{\partial{z}}$ denotes the radial vector field and $i_{\mathrm{R}}$ is the interior product by $\mathrm{R}$. The [*singular locus*]{} $\mathrm{Sing}\mathcal{F}$ of $\mathcal{F}$ is the projectivization of the singular locus of $\omega$ $$\mathrm{Sing}\,\omega=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{C}^3\,\vert \, a(x,y,z)=b(x,y,z)=c(x,y,z)=0\}.$$
Let us recall some local notions attached to the pair $(\mathcal{F},s)$, where $s\in{\mathrm{Sing}}\mathcal{F}$. The germ of ${\mathcal{F}}$ at $s$ is defined, up to multiplication by a unity in the local ring $\mathcal{O}_s$ at $s$, by a vector field $\mathrm{X}=A(\mathrm{u},\mathrm{v})\frac{\partial{}}{\partial{\mathrm{u}}}+B(\mathrm{u},\mathrm{v})\frac{\partial{}}{\partial{\mathrm{v}}}$. The [*algebraic multiplicity*]{} $\nu(\mathcal{F},s)$ of $\mathcal{F}$ at $s$ is given by $$\nu(\mathcal{F},s)=\min\{\nu(A,s),\nu(B,s)\},$$ where $\nu(g,s)$ denotes the algebraic multiplicity of the function $g$ at $s$. The [*tangency order*]{} of $\mathcal{F}$ with a generic line passing through $s$ is the integer $$\hspace{0.8cm}\tau(\mathcal{F},s)=\min\{k\geq\nu(\mathcal{F},s)\hspace{1mm}\colon\det(J^{k}_{s}\,\mathrm{X},\mathrm{R}_{s})\neq0\},$$ where $J^{k}_{s}\,\mathrm{X}$ denotes the $k$-jet of $\mathrm{X}$ at $s$ and $\mathrm{R}_{s}$ is the radial vector field centered at $s.$ The *<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Milnor</span> number* of ${\mathcal{F}}$ at $s$ is the integer $$\mu(\mathcal{F},s)=\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathcal{O}_s/\langle A,B\rangle,$$ where $\langle A,B\rangle$ denotes the ideal of $\mathcal{O}_s$ generated by $A$ and $B.$
The singularity $s$ is called [*radial of order*]{} $n-1$ if $\nu(\mathcal{F},s)=1$ and $\tau(\mathcal{F},s)=n.$
The singularity $s$ is called [*non-degenerate*]{} if $\mu({\mathcal{F}},s)=1$, or equivalently if the linear part $J^{1}_{s}\mathrm{X}$ of $\mathrm{X}$ possesses two non-zero eigenvalues $\lambda,\mu.$ In this case, the quantity $\mathrm{BB}({\mathcal{F}},s)=\frac{\lambda}{\mu}+\frac{\mu}{\lambda}+2$ is called the [*<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baum-Bott</span> invariant*]{} of ${\mathcal{F}}$ at $s$ (*see* [@BB72]). By [@CS82] there is at least a germ of curve $\mathcal{C}$ at $s$ which is invariant by ${\mathcal{F}}$. Up to local diffeomorphism we can assume that $s=(0,0)$ $\mathrm{T}_{s}\mathcal{C}=\{\mathrm{v}=\,0\,\}$ and $J^{1}_{s}\mathrm{X}=\lambda \mathrm{u}\frac{\partial}{\partial\mathrm{u}}+(\varepsilon \mathrm{u}+\mu\hspace{0.1mm}\mathrm{v})\frac{\partial}{\partial \mathrm{v}}$, where we can take $\varepsilon=0$ if $\lambda\neq\mu$. The quantity $\mathrm{CS}({\mathcal{F}},\mathcal{C},s)=\frac{\lambda}{\mu}$ is called the [*<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Camacho-Sad</span> index*]{} of ${\mathcal{F}}$ at $s$ along $\mathcal{C}.$
Let us also recall the notion of inflection divisor of ${\mathcal{F}}$. Let $\mathrm{Z}=E\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+F\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+G\frac{\partial}{\partial z}$ be a homogeneous vector field of degree $d$ on $\mathbb{C}^3$ non collinear to the radial vector field describing $\mathcal{F},$ [*i.e.*]{} such that $\omega=i_{\mathrm{R}}i_{\mathrm{Z}}\mathrm{d}x\wedge\mathrm{d}y\wedge\mathrm{d}z.$ The [*inflection divisor*]{} of $\mathcal{F}$, denoted by ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}}$, is the divisor of ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ defined by the homogeneous equation $$\left| \begin{array}{ccc}
x & E & \mathrm{Z}(E) \\
y & F & \mathrm{Z}(F) \\
z & G & \mathrm{Z}(G)
\end{array} \right|=0.$$ This divisor has been studied in [@Per01] in a more general context. In particular, the following properties has been proved.
1. On $\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}\smallsetminus\mathrm{Sing}\mathcal{F},$ ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}}$ coincides with the curve described by the inflection points of the leaves of $\mathcal{F}$;
2. If $\mathcal{C}$ is an irreducible algebraic curve invariant by $\mathcal{F}$ then $\mathcal{C}\subset{\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}}$ if and only if $\mathcal{C}$ is an invariant line;
3. ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}}$ can be decomposed into ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}}={\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}^{\mathrm{inv}}}+{\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}^{\hspace{0.2mm}\mathrm{tr}}},$ where the support of ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}^{\mathrm{inv}}}$ consists in the set of invariant lines of ${\mathcal{F}}$ and the support of ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}^{\hspace{0.2mm}\mathrm{tr}}}$ is the closure of the isolated inflection points along the leaves of $\mathcal{F}$;
4. The degree of the divisor ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}}$ is $3d.$
The foliation $\mathcal{F}$ will be called [*convex*]{} if its inflection divisor ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}}$ is totally invariant by $\mathcal{F}$, [*i.e.*]{} if ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{F}}}$ is a product of invariant lines.
Geometry of homogeneous foliations
----------------------------------
A foliation of degree $d$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ is said to be [*homogeneous*]{} if there is an affine chart $(x,y)$ of $\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}$ in which it is invariant under the action of the group of homotheties $(x,y)\longmapsto \lambda(x,y),\hspace{1mm} \lambda\in \mathbb{C}^{*}.$ Such a foliation $\mathcal{H}$ is then defined by a $1$-form $$\omega=A(x,y)\mathrm{d}x+B(x,y)\mathrm{d}y,$$ where $A$ and $B$ are homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$ without common factor. This $1$-form writes in homogeneous coordinates as $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{2mm} z\hspace{0.3mm}A(x,y)\mathrm{d}x+z\hspace{0.2mm}B(x,y)\mathrm{d}y-\left(x\hspace{0.2mm}A(x,y)+yB(x,y)\right)\mathrm{d}z.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the foliation $\mathcal{H}$ has at most $d+2$ singularities whose origin $O$ of the affine chart $z=1$ is the only singular point of $\mathcal{H}$ which is not situated on the line at infinity $L_{\infty}=\{z=0\}$; moreover $\nu(\mathcal{H},O)=d.$
In the sequel we will assume that $d$ is greater than or equal to $2.$ In this case the point $O$ is the only singularity of $\mathcal{H}$ having algebraic multiplicity $d.$
We know from [@BM17] that the inflection divisor of $\mathcal{H}$ is given by $z{\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}{\mathrm{D}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}=0,$ where ${\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}=xA+yB\in\mathbb{C}[x,y]_{d+1}$ denotes the [*tangent cone*]{} of $\mathcal{H}$ at the origin $O$ and ${\mathrm{D}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}=\frac{\partial A}{\partial x}\frac{\partial B}{\partial y}-\frac{\partial A}{\partial y}\frac{\partial B}{\partial x}\in\mathbb{C}[x,y]_{2d-2}.$ From this we deduce that:
1. the support of the divisor ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathrm{inv}}}$ consists of the lines of the tangent cone ${\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}=0$ and the line at infinity $L_{\infty}$ ;
2. the divisor ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{H}}^{\hspace{0.2mm}\mathrm{tr}}}$ decomposes as ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{H}}^{\hspace{0.2mm}\mathrm{tr}}}=\prod_{i=1}^{n}T_{i}^{\rho_{i}-1}$ for some number $n\leq \deg{\mathrm{D}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}=2d-2$ of lines $T_{i}$ passing through $O,$ $\rho_{i}-1$ being the inflection order of the line $T_{i}.$
\[pro:SingH\]
*With the previous notations, for any point $s\in\mathrm{Sing}\mathcal{H}\cap L_{\infty}$, we have*
***1.*** $\nu(\mathcal{H},s)=1;$
***2.*** the line joining the origin $O$ to the point $s$ is invariant by $\mathcal{H}$ and it appears with multiplicity $\tau(\mathcal{H},s)-1$ in the divider ${\mathrm{D}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}=0,$ [*i.e.*]{} $${\mathrm{D}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}={\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{H}}^{\hspace{0.2mm}\mathrm{tr}}}\prod_{s\in\mathrm{Sing}\mathcal{H}\cap L_{\infty}}L_{s}^{\tau(\mathcal{H},s)-1}.$$
\[def:type-homog\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a homogeneous foliation of degree $d$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ having a certain number $m\leq d+1$ of radial singularities $s_{i}$ of order $\tau_{i}-1,$ $2\leq\tau_{i}\leq d$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,m.$ The support of the divisor ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{H}}^{\hspace{0.2mm}\mathrm{tr}}}$ consists of a certain number $n\leq2d-2$ of transverse inflection lines $T_{j}$ of order $\rho_{j}-1,$ $2\leq\rho_{j}\leq d$ for $j=1,2,\ldots,n.$ We define the [*type of the foliation*]{} $\mathcal{H}$ by $$\mathcal{T}_\mathcal{H}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}\mathrm{R}_{\tau_{i}-1}+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}\mathrm{T}_{\rho_{j}-1}=
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{d-1}(r_{k}\cdot\mathrm{R}_k+t_{k}\cdot\mathrm{T}_k)
\in{\mathbb{Z}}\left[\mathrm{R}_1,\mathrm{R}_2,\ldots,\mathrm{R}_{d-1},\mathrm{T}_1,\mathrm{T}_2,\ldots,\mathrm{T}_{d-1}\right].$$
Let us consider the homogeneous foliation $\mathcal{H}$ of degree $5$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ defined by $$\omega=y^5\mathrm{d}x+2x^3(3x^2-5y^2)\mathrm{d}y.$$ A straightforward computation leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathrm{C}_{\mathcal{H}}=xy\left(6x^4-10x^2y^2+y^4\right) \qquad\text{and}\qquad {\mathrm{D}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}=150\hspace{0.15mm}x^2y^4(x-y)(x+y).\end{aligned}$$ We see that the set of radial singularities of $\mathcal{H}$ consists of the two points $s_1=[0:1:0]$ and $s_2=[1:0:0]$; their orders of radiality are equal to $2$ and $4$ respectively. Moreover the support of the divisor ${\mathrm{I}_{\mathcal{H}}^{\hspace{0.2mm}\mathrm{tr}}}$ is the union of the two lines $x-y=0$ and $x+y=0$; they are transverse inflection lines of order $1.$ Therefore the foliation $\mathcal{H}$ is of type $\mathcal{T}_\mathcal{H}=1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{4}+2\cdot\mathrm{T}_{1}.$
Following [@BM17], to every homogeneous foliation $\mathcal{H}$ of degree $d$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ we can associate a rational map ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\hspace{1mm}\colon\mathbb{P}^{1}_{\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}_{\mathbb{C}}$ in the following way: if $\mathcal{H}$ is described by $\omega=A(x,y)\mathrm{d}x+B(x,y)\mathrm{d}y,$ with $A$ and $B$ being homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$ without common factor, we define ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ by $${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}([x:y])=[-A(x,y):B(x,y)];$$ it is clear that this definition does not depend on the choice of the homogeneous $1$-form $\omega$ describing the foliation $\mathcal{H}.$
Conversely, every rational map $f\hspace{1mm}\colon\mathbb{P}^{1}_{\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}_{\mathbb{C}}$ of degree $d$ can be obtained in this way; indeed, if $f(z)=\dfrac{p(z)}{q(z)}$, with $p,q\in\mathbb{C}[z]$, ${\mathrm{pgcd}}(p,q)=1$ and $\max(\deg p,\deg q)=d,$ then $f={{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}_{f}}$, where $\mathcal{H}_{f}$ is the homogeneous foliation of degree $d$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ defined by the $1$-form $$\omega_{f}=-x^{d}p\left(\frac{y}{\raisebox{1mm}{$x$}}\right)\mathrm{d}x+x^{d}q\left(\frac{y}{\raisebox{1mm}{$x$}}\right)\mathrm{d}y.$$
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a homogeneous foliation of degree $d$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}.$ Notice (*see* [@BM17]) that the map ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ has the following properties:
1. the fixed points of ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ correspond to the singular points of $\mathcal{H}$ on the line at infinity (*i.e.* $[a:b]\in\mathbb{P}^{1}_{\mathbb{C}}$ is fixed by ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ if and only if the point $[b:a:0]\in L_{\infty}$ is singular for $\mathcal{H}$);
2. the point $[a:b]\in\mathbb{P}^{1}_{\mathbb{C}}$ is a fixed critical point of ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ if and only if the point $[b:a:0]\in L_{\infty}$ is a radial singularity of $\mathcal{H}$. The multiplicity of the critical point $[a:b]$ of ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ is exactly equal to the the radiality order of the singularity at infinity;
3. the point $[a:b]\in\mathbb{P}^{1}_{\mathbb{C}}$ is a non-fixed critical point of ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ if and only if the line $by-a\hspace{0.2mm}x=0$ is a transverse inflection line of $\mathcal{H}.$ The multiplicity of the critical point $[a:b]$ of ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ is precisely equal to the inflection order of this line.
It follows, in particular, that a homogeneous foliation $\mathcal{H}$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ is convex if and only if its associated map ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ has only fixed critical points; more precisely, a homogeneous foliation $\mathcal{H}$ of degree $d$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ is convex of type $\mathcal{T}_\mathcal{H}=\sum_{k=1}^{d-1}r_{k}\cdot\mathrm{R}_k$ if and only if the map ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ possesses $r_{1}$, resp. $r_{2},\ldots,$ resp. $r_{d-1}$ fixed critical points of multiplicity $1$, resp. $2\ldots,$ resp. $d-1,$ with $\sum_{k=1}^{d-1}kr_{k}=2d-2.$
Every homogeneous convex foliation of degree $d$ on the complex projective plane has exactly $d+1$ singularities on the line at infinity, necessarily non-degenerate. This follows from remark (i) above and Theorem $4.3$ of [@Cra06] which ensures that if a rational map $f$ of degree $d$ from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Riemann</span> sphere to itself has only fixed critical points, then $f$ admits $d+1$ distinct fixed points.
Proof of Theorems \[thmalph:class-homogene-convexe-5\] and \[thmalph:convexe-reduit-5\]
=======================================================================================
We need to know the numbers $r_{ij}$ of radial singularities of order $j$ of the homogeneous foliations $\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i},$ $i=1,\ldots,14$, $j=1,\ldots,4,$ and the values of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Camacho-Sad</span> indices $\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i},L_{\infty},s)$, $s\in{\mathrm{Sing}}\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i}\cap L_{\infty}$, $i=1,\ldots,14$. For this reason, we have computed, for each $i=1,\ldots,14$, the type $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i}}$ of $\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i}$ and the following polynomial (called *<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Camacho-Sad</span> polynomial of the homogeneous foliation* $\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i}$) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{CS}_{\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i}}(\lambda)=\prod\limits_{s\in{\mathrm{Sing}}\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i}\cap L_{\infty}}(\lambda-\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i},L_{\infty},s)).\end{aligned}$$
The following table summarizes the types and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Camacho-Sad</span> polynomials of the foliations $\mathcal{H}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{H}_{14}$.
$i$ $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i}}$ $\mathrm{CS}_{\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i}}(\lambda)$
------ ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
$1$ $2\cdot\mathrm{R}_4$ $(\lambda-1)^2(\lambda+\frac{1}{4})^4$
$2$ $1\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_3+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_4$ $\frac{1}{491}(\lambda-1)^3(491\lambda^3+982\lambda^2+463\lambda+64)$
$3$ $2\cdot\mathrm{R}_2+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_4$ $(\lambda-1)^3(\lambda+\frac{3}{7})^2(\lambda+\frac{8}{7})$
$4$ $1\cdot\mathrm{R}_2+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_3$ $(\lambda-1)^3(\lambda+\frac{9}{11})^2(\lambda+\frac{4}{11})$
$5$ $2\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_2+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_4$ $(\lambda-1)^4(\lambda+\frac{3}{2})^2$
$6$ $2\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_2+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_4$ $\frac{1}{59}(\lambda-1)^4(59\lambda^2+177\lambda+64)$
$7$ $2\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_3$ $(\lambda-1)^4(\lambda^2+3\lambda+1)$
$8$ $2\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_3$ $(\lambda-1)^4(\lambda+\frac{3}{2})^2$
$9$ $1\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_2+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_3$ $\frac{1}{197}(\lambda-1)^4(197\lambda^2+591\lambda+302-10\sqrt{61})$
$10$ $1\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_2+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_3$ $\frac{1}{197}(\lambda-1)^4(197\lambda^2+591\lambda+302+10\sqrt{61})$
$11$ $4\cdot\mathrm{R}_2$ $(\lambda-1)^4(\lambda+\frac{3}{2})^2$
$12$ $2\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+3\cdot\mathrm{R}_2$ $(\lambda-1)^5(\lambda+4)$
$13$ $4\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_4$ $(\lambda-1)^5(\lambda+4)$
$14$ $3\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_2+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_3$ $(\lambda-1)^5(\lambda+4)$
: Types and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Camacho-Sad</span> polynomials of the homogeneous foliations $\mathcal{H}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{H}_{14}.$[]{data-label="tab:CS(lambda)"}
Before beginning the proof of Theorem \[thmalph:class-homogene-convexe-5\], let us recall the following result which follows from Propositions $4.1$ and $4.2$ of [@BM17]:
\[pro:omega1-omega3\] [*Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a convex homogeneous foliation of degree $d\geq3$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$. Let $\nu$ be an integer between $1$ and $d-2.$ Then, $\mathcal{H}$ is of type $$\hspace{-1.7cm}\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{d-1},
\hspace{0.6cm}{\qquad\qquad\text{resp}.\hspace{1.5mm}
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{\nu}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{d-\nu-1}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{d-1}},$$ if and only if it is linearly conjugated to the foliation $\mathcal{H}_{1}^{d}$, resp. $\mathcal{H}_{3}^{d,\nu}$ given by $$\omega_1^{\hspace{0.2mm}d}=y^d\mathrm{d}x-x^d\mathrm{d}y,
\qquad\qquad\text{resp}.\hspace{1.5mm}
\omega_{3}^{\hspace{0.2mm}d,\nu}=\sum\limits_{i=\nu+1}^{d}\binom{{d}}{{i}}x^{d-i}y^i\mathrm{d}x-\sum\limits_{i=0}^{\nu}\binom{{d}}{{i}}x^{d-i}y^i\mathrm{d}y.$$* ]{}
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a convex homogeneous foliation of degree $5$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$, defined in the affine chart $(x,y)$, by the $1$-form $$\hspace{1cm}\omega=A(x,y)\mathrm{d}x+B(x,y)\mathrm{d}y,\quad A,B\in\mathbb{C}[x,y]_5,\hspace{2mm}\gcd(A,B)=1.$$ By [@Bed17 Remark 2.5] the foliation $\mathcal{H}$ can not have $5+1=6$ distinct radial singularities; in other words it can not be of one of the two types $5\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}$ or $4\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}.$ We are then in one of the following situations: $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{4}\hspace{0.5mm};&&
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{4}\hspace{0.5mm};&&
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{4}\hspace{0.5mm};\\
&
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}\hspace{0.5mm};&&
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{4}\hspace{0.5mm};&&
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}\hspace{0.5mm};\\
&
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}\hspace{0.5mm};&&
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=4\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}\hspace{0.5mm};&&
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+3\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}\hspace{0.5mm};\\
&
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=4\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{4}\hspace{0.5mm};&&
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=3\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}.\end{aligned}$$
- If the foliation $\mathcal{H}$ is of type $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{4}$, resp. $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{4}$, resp. $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{4}$, then, by [@BM17 Propositions 4.1, 4.2], the $1$-form $\omega$ is linearly conjugated to $$\hspace{-3.79cm}\omega_1^{\hspace{0.2mm}5}=y^5\mathrm{d}x-x^5\mathrm{d}y=\omega_1,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\text{resp}.\hspace{1.5mm}
\omega_{3}^{\hspace{0.2mm}5,1}
\hspace{-2.24mm}&=&\hspace{-2.24mm}
\sum\limits_{i=2}^{5}\binom{{5}}{{i}}x^{5-i}y^i\mathrm{d}x-\sum\limits_{i=0}^{1}\binom{{5}}{{i}}x^{5-i}y^i\mathrm{d}y
\\
\hspace{-2.24mm}&=&\hspace{-2.24mm}y^2(10\hspace{0.2mm}x^3+10x^2y+5xy^2+y^3)\mathrm{d}x-x^4(x+5y)\mathrm{d}y
\\
\hspace{-2.24mm}&=&\hspace{-2.24mm}
\omega_2,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\text{resp}.\hspace{1.5mm}
\omega_{3}^{\hspace{0.2mm}5,2}
\hspace{-2.24mm}&=&\hspace{-2.24mm}
\sum\limits_{i=3}^{5}\binom{{5}}{{i}}x^{5-i}y^i\mathrm{d}x-\sum\limits_{i=0}^{2}\binom{{5}}{{i}}x^{5-i}y^i\mathrm{d}y
\\
\hspace{-2.24mm}&=&\hspace{-2.24mm}y^3(10\hspace{0.2mm}x^2+5xy+y^2)\mathrm{d}x-x^3(x^2+5xy+10y^2)\mathrm{d}y
\\
\hspace{-2.24mm}&=&\hspace{-2.24mm}
\omega_3.
\end{aligned}$$
- Assume that $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}$. This means that the rational map ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\hspace{1mm}\colon\mathbb{P}^{1}_{\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}_{\mathbb{C}}$, ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}(z)=-\dfrac{A(1,z)}{B(1,z)},$ possesses three fixed critical points, one of multiplicity $2$ and two of multiplicity $3.$ By [@CGNPP15 page 79], ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ is conjugated by a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Möbius</span> transformation to $z\mapsto-\dfrac{z^4(3z-5)}{5z-3}$. As a result, $\omega$ is linearly conjugated to $\omega_4=y^4(5x-3y)\mathrm{d}x+x^4(3x-5y)\mathrm{d}y.$
- Let us study the possibility $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{4}.$ Up to linear conjugation we can assume that ${\mathrm{D}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}=cx^4y^2(y-x)(y-\alpha x)$ and ${\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(0,1)={\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(1,0)={\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(1,1)={\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(1,\alpha)=0$, for some $c,\alpha\in \mathbb{C}^*,$ $\alpha\neq1.$ The points $\infty=[1:0],\,[0:1],\,[1:1],\,[1:\alpha]\in\mathbb{P}^{1}_{\mathbb{C}}$ are then fixed and critical for ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}},$ with respective multiplicities $4,2,1,1.$ By [@BM17 Lemma 3.9], there exist constants $a_0,a_2,b\in{\mathbb{C}}^{*},a_1\in{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{3mm}B(x,y)=bx^5,&& A(x,y)=(a_0\hspace{0.2mm}x^2+a_1xy+a_2y^2)y^3,&&
(z-1)^2\hspace{1mm} \text{divides}\hspace{1mm} P(z),&&
(z-\alpha)^2\hspace{1mm} \text{divides}\hspace{1mm} Q(z),
\end{aligned}$$ where $P(z):=A(1,z)+B(1,z)$ and $Q(z):=A(1,z)+\alpha B(1,z).$
Therefore we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{array}[c]{l}
\vspace{4.6mm}
P(1)=0\\
\vspace{4.6mm}
P^{\prime}(1)=0\\
\vspace{4.6mm}
Q(\alpha)=0\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
Q^{\prime}(\alpha)=0
\end{array}
\right.
\Leftrightarrow\hspace{2mm}
\left\{\begin{array}{llll}
\vspace{4.6mm}
a_0+a_1+a_2+b=0\\
\vspace{4.6mm}
3a_0+4a_1+5a_2=0\\
\vspace{4.6mm}
a_2\alpha^4+a_1\alpha^3+a_0\alpha^2+b=0\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
5a_2\alpha^2+4a_1\alpha+3a_0=0\\
\end{array}\right.
\Leftrightarrow\hspace{2mm}
\left\{\begin{array}{llll}
\vspace{1.4mm}
a_0=\dfrac{5a_2\alpha}{3}\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
a_1=-\dfrac{5a_2(\alpha+1)}{4}\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
b=-\dfrac{a_2(5\alpha-3)}{12}\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
(\alpha+1)(3\alpha^2-5\alpha+3)=0\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{aligned}$$
Replacing $\omega$ by $\dfrac{\raisebox{-0.8mm}{$12$}}{\raisebox{1mm}{$a_2$}}\omega,$ we reduce it to $$\hspace{1cm}\omega=y^3(20\alpha\hspace{0.1mm}x^2-15(\alpha+1)xy+12y^2)\mathrm{d}x-(5\alpha-3)x^5\mathrm{d}y,\qquad (\alpha+1)(3\alpha^2-5\alpha+3)=0.$$ This $1$-form is linearly conjugated to one of the two $1$-forms $$\begin{aligned}
&\omega_5=y^3(5x^2-3y^2)\mathrm{d}x-2x^5\mathrm{d}y
&&\text{or}&&
\omega_6=y^3(220\hspace{0.2mm}x^2-165xy+36y^2)\mathrm{d}x-121x^5\mathrm{d}y.
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, on the one hand, if $\alpha=-1$, then $\omega_5=-\frac{1}{4}\omega.$ On the other hand, if $3\alpha^2-5\alpha+3=0$, then $$\omega_6=\frac{121(15\alpha-16)}{81(3\alpha-8)^5}\varphi^*\omega,\quad\text{where}\hspace{1.5mm}\varphi=\Big((3\alpha-8)x,-3y\Big).$$
- Assume that $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}$. Then the rational map ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ admits four fixed critical points, two of multiplicity $1$ and two of multiplicity $3.$ This implies, by [@CGNPP15 page 79], that up to conjugation by a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Möbius</span> transformation, ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ writes as $$\hspace{1cm}z\mapsto-\frac{z^4(3z+4cz-5c-4)}{z+c},$$ where $c=-1/2\pm\sqrt{5}/10$ or $c=-3/10\pm\sqrt{21}/10.$ Thus, up to linear conjugation $$\hspace{1cm}\omega=y^4(3y+4cy-5cx-4x)\mathrm{d}x+x^4(y+cx)\mathrm{d}y,\qquad c\in\left\{-\frac{1}{2}\pm\frac{\sqrt{5}}{10},\,-\frac{3}{10}\pm\frac{\sqrt{21}}{10}\right\}.$$ In the case where $c=-1/2\pm\sqrt{5}/10$, resp. $c=-3/10\pm\sqrt{21}/10$, the $1$-form $\omega$ is linearly conjugated to $$\hspace{-0.45cm}
\omega_7=y^4\Big(\big(5-\sqrt{5}\big)x-2y\Big)\mathrm{d}x+x^4\Big(\big(7-3\sqrt{5}\big)x-2\big(5-2\sqrt{5}\big)y\Big)\mathrm{d}y,$$ $$\text{resp}.\hspace{1.5mm}
\omega_8=y^4\Big(5\big(3-\sqrt{21}\big)x+6y\Big)\mathrm{d}x+x^4\Big(3\big(23-5\sqrt{21}\big)x-10\big(9-2\sqrt{21}\big)y\Big)\mathrm{d}y.$$ Indeed, on the one hand, if $c=-1/2+\sqrt{5}/10$, resp. $c=-3/10+\sqrt{21}/10$, then $\omega_7=-2(5-2\sqrt{5})\omega$, resp. $\omega_8=-10(9-2\sqrt{21})\omega$. On the other hand, if $c=-1/2-\sqrt{5}/10$, resp. $c=-3/10-\sqrt{21}/10$, then $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{0.9cm}\omega_7=-(25+11\sqrt{5})\varphi^*\omega,\hspace{1.2mm}\quad \text{where}\hspace{1.5mm} \varphi=\left(\tfrac{3-\sqrt{5}}{2}x,y\right),\\
&\text{resp}.\hspace{1.5mm}
\omega_8=5(87+19\sqrt{21})\psi^*\omega,\quad \text{where}\hspace{1.5mm} \psi=\left(\tfrac{\sqrt{21}-5}{2}x,y\right).
\end{aligned}$$
- By Table \[tab:CS(lambda)\], we have on the one hand $\mathrm{CS}_{\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}9}}\neq\mathrm{CS}_{\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}10}},$ so that the foliations $\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}9}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}10}$ are not linearly conjugated, and on the other hand $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}_{9}}=\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}_{10}}=1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}.$ Moreover, by [@CGNPP15 page 79], up to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Möbius</span> transformation there are two rational maps of degree $5$ from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Riemann</span> sphere to itself having four distinct fixed critical points, one of multiplicity $1$, two of multiplicity $2$ and one of multiplicity $3$; thus up to automorphism of ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ there are two homogeneous convex foliations of degree $5$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ having type $1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}.$ As a result, we deduce that if the foliation $\mathcal{H}$ is of type $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3},$ then $\mathcal{H}$ is linearly conjugated to one of the two foliations $\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}9}$ or $\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}10}.$
- Assume that $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=4\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}$. The rational map ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ has therefore four different fixed critical points of multiplicity $2$. By [@CGNPP15 page 80], up to conjugation by a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Möbius</span> transformation, ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ writes as $$\hspace{1cm}z\mapsto-\frac{z^3(z^2-5z+5)}{5z^2-10z+4}.$$ As a consequence, up to linear conjugation $$\hspace{2cm}\omega=y^3(5x^2-5xy+y^2)\mathrm{d}x+x^3(4x^2-10xy+5y^2)\mathrm{d}y.$$ This $1$-form is linearly conjugated to $\omega_{11}=y^3(5x^2-y^2)\mathrm{d}x+x^3(x^2-5y^2)\mathrm{d}y$; indeed $$\hspace{-0.6cm}\omega_{11}=\frac{\raisebox{-0.8mm}{$1$}}{\raisebox{0.5mm}{$8$}}\varphi^*\omega,\quad\text{where}\hspace{1.5mm}\varphi=(x+y,2y).$$
- Assume that $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+3\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}$. Then the rational map ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ possesses five fixed critical points, two of multiplicity $1$ and three of multiplicity $2.$ By [@CGNPP15 page 80], ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ is conjugated by a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Möbius</span> transformation to $z\mapsto-\dfrac{z^3(z^2+5z-20)}{20z^2-5z-1}$, which implies that $\omega$ is linearly conjugated to $$\hspace{2cm}\omega_{12}=y^3(20\hspace{0.2mm}x^2-5xy-y^2)\mathrm{d}x+x^3(x^2+5xy-20y^2)\mathrm{d}y.$$
- Let us consider the eventuality $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=4\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{4}.$ We can assume, up to linear conjugation, that ${\mathrm{D}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}=cx^4y(y-x)(y-\alpha x)(y-\beta x)$ and ${\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(0,1)={\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(1,0)={\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(1,1)={\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(1,\alpha)={\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(1,\beta)=0$, where $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0,1\}, c\in\mathbb{C}^*$, with $\alpha\neq\beta.$ The points $\infty=[1:0],\,[0:1],\,[1:1],\,[1:\alpha],\,[1:\beta]\in\mathbb{P}^{1}_{\mathbb{C}}$ are therefore fixed and critical for ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}},$ with respective multiplicities $4,1,1,1,1.$ By [@BM17 Lemma 3.9], there exist constants $a_0,a_3,b\in{\mathbb{C}}^{*},a_1,a_2\in{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&B(x,y)=bx^5,&&
A(x,y)=(a_0\hspace{0.2mm}x^3+a_1x^2y+a_2xy^2+a_3y^3)y^2,&&
(z-1)^2\hspace{1mm} \text{divides}\hspace{1mm} P(z),\\
&(z-\alpha)^2\hspace{1mm} \text{divides}\hspace{1mm} Q(z),&&
(z-\beta)^2\hspace{1mm} \text{divides}\hspace{1mm} R(z),
\end{aligned}$$ where $P(z):=A(1,z)+B(1,z)$, $Q(z):=A(1,z)+\alpha B(1,z)$ and $R(z):=A(1,z)+\beta B(1,z).$ Then we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{6mm}
\left\{
\begin{array}[c]{l}
\vspace{6mm}
P(1)=0\\
\vspace{6mm}
P^{\prime}(1)=0\\
\vspace{6mm}
Q(\alpha)=0\\
\vspace{6mm}
Q^{\prime}(\alpha)=0\\
\vspace{6mm}
R(\beta)=0\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
R^{\prime}(\beta)=0
\end{array}
\right.
\Leftrightarrow\hspace{1mm}
\left\{\begin{array}{llllll}
\vspace{6mm}
a_0+a_1+a_2+a_3+b=0\\
\vspace{5mm}
2a_0+3a_1+4a_2+5a_3=0\\
\vspace{6mm}
a_3\alpha^4+a_2\alpha^3+a_1\alpha^2+a_0\alpha+b=0\\
\vspace{6mm}
5a_3\alpha^3+4a_2\alpha^2+3a_1\alpha+2a_0=0\\
\vspace{6mm}
a_3\beta^4+a_2\beta^3+a_1\beta^2+a_0\beta+b=0\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
5a_3\beta^3+4a_2\beta^2+3a_1\beta+2a_0=0\\
\end{array}\right.
\Leftrightarrow\hspace{1mm}
\left\{\begin{array}{llllll}
\vspace{1.4mm}
a_0=-\dfrac{a_3\alpha(\alpha+1)(3\alpha^2-5\alpha+3)}{2(\alpha^2-\alpha+1)}\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
a_1=\dfrac{a_3(\alpha^4+2\alpha^3-3\alpha^2+2\alpha+1)}{\alpha^2-\alpha+1}\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
a_2 =-\dfrac{a_3(\alpha+1)(4\alpha^2-5\alpha+4)}{2(\alpha^2-\alpha+1)}\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
b=\dfrac{a_3\alpha^2(\alpha-1)^2}{2(\alpha^2-\alpha+1)}\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
\beta=\dfrac{(\alpha+1)(3\alpha^2-5\alpha+3)}{5(\alpha^2-\alpha+1)}\\
\vspace{1.4mm}
(\alpha^2-2\alpha+2)(2\alpha^2-2\alpha+1)(\alpha^2+1)=0\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{aligned}$$
Multiplying $\omega$ by $\dfrac{\raisebox{-0.8mm}{$2$}}{\raisebox{1mm}{$a_3$}}(\alpha^2-\alpha+1),$ we reduce it to $$\begin{aligned}
&\omega=-y^2\Big(\alpha(\alpha+1)(3\alpha^2-5\alpha+3)x^3+(\alpha+1)(4\alpha^2-5\alpha+4)xy^2-2(\alpha^2-\alpha+1)y^3\Big)\mathrm{d}x\\
&\hspace{6.8mm}+2(\alpha^4+2\alpha^3-3\alpha^2+2\alpha+1)x^2y^3\mathrm{d}x+\alpha^2(\alpha-1)^2x^5\mathrm{d}y,
\end{aligned}$$ with $(\alpha^2-2\alpha+2)(2\alpha^2-2\alpha+1)(\alpha^2+1)=0.$ This $1$-form $\omega$ is linearly conjugated to $$\omega_{13}=y^2(5x^3-10\hspace{0.2mm}x^2y+10\hspace{0.2mm}xy^2-4y^3)\mathrm{d}x-x^5\mathrm{d}y.$$ Indeed, the fact that $\alpha$ satisfies $(\alpha^2-2\alpha+2)(2\alpha^2-2\alpha+1)(\alpha^2+1)=0$ implies that $$\omega_{13}=-\frac{(\alpha+1)(3\alpha^2-5\alpha+3)}{5\alpha^3(\alpha-1)^4}\varphi^*\omega,
\quad\text{where}\hspace{1.5mm}
\varphi=\left(x,\frac{5\alpha\left(\alpha-1\right)^2}{\left(\alpha+1\right)\left(3\alpha^2-5\alpha+3\right)}y\right).$$
- Finally let us examine the case $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}}=3\cdot\mathrm{R}_{1}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{2}+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_{3}.$ Up to isomorphism, we can assume that ${\mathrm{D}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}=cx^3y^2(y-x)(y-\alpha x)(y-\beta x)$ and ${\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(0,1)={\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(1,0)={\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(1,1)={\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(1,\alpha)={\mathrm{C}_{\hspace{-0.3mm}\mathcal{H}}}(1,\beta)=0$, where $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0,1\}, c\in\mathbb{C}^*$, with $\alpha\neq\beta.$ A similar reasoning as in the previous case leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{7mm}\omega=\omega(\alpha)=y^3\Big(\big(\alpha^2-3\alpha+1\big)\big(\alpha^2+5\alpha+1\big)x^2-2\big(\alpha+1\big)\big(\alpha^2-5\alpha+1\big)xy
+\big(\alpha^2-7\alpha+1\big)y^2\Big)\mathrm{d}x\\
&\hspace{2.65cm}+\alpha\hspace{0.3mm}x^4\Big(2\alpha\big(\alpha^2-\alpha+1\big)x-\big(\alpha+1\big)\big(3\alpha^2-5\alpha+3\big)y\Big)\mathrm{d}y,
\end{aligned}$$ with $P(\alpha)=0$ where $P(z):=3z^6-39z^5+194z^4-203z^3+194z^2-39z+3.$ The $1$-form $\omega$ is linearly conjugated to $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{7mm}\omega_{14}=y^3\Big(\big(\sigma^2-3\sigma+1\big)\big(\sigma^2+5\sigma+1\big)x^2-2\big(\sigma+1\big)\big(\sigma^2-5\sigma+1\big)xy
+\big(\sigma^2-7\sigma+1\big)y^2\Big)\mathrm{d}x\\
&\hspace{1.68cm}+\sigma\hspace{0.3mm}x^4\Big(2\sigma\big(\sigma^2-\sigma+1\big)x-\big(\sigma+1\big)\big(3\sigma^2-5\sigma+3\big)y\Big)\mathrm{d}y,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma=\rho+\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}-\frac{4}{3}\rho-\frac{1}{3}\rho^2}$ and $\rho$ is the unique real number satisfying $8\rho^3-52\rho^2+134\rho-15=0.$ Indeed, on the one hand, it is easy to see that $\sigma$ is a root of the polynomial $P$, so that $\omega_{14}=\omega(\sigma).$ On the other hand, a straightforward computation shows that if $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are any two roots of $P$ then
$$\begin{aligned}
\omega(\alpha_2)=-\frac{\mu}{21600}\left(13035\alpha_1^5-167802\alpha_1^4+821633\alpha_1^3-777667\alpha_1^2+743778\alpha_1-76185\right)
\varphi^*\big(\omega(\alpha_1)\big)
\end{aligned}$$
with
$\mu=195\alpha_2^4-202\alpha_2^3+233\alpha_2^2-42\alpha_2+3$
,
$\varphi=\left(x,-\dfrac{\lambda}{43200}y\right)$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{4mm}
\lambda=\left(39\alpha_2^5-501\alpha_2^4+2447\alpha_2^3-2293\alpha_2^2+2343\alpha_2-477\right)
\left(24\alpha_1^5-309\alpha_1^4+1510\alpha_1^3-1415\alpha_1^2+1446\alpha_1-21\right).
\end{aligned}$$
The foliations $\mathcal{H}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{H}_{14}$ are not linearly conjugated because for all $i,j\in\{1,\ldots,14\}$ with $i\neq j$ we have (*see* Table \[tab:CS(lambda)\]) $$\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i}}~\neq~\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}_{j}}
\qquad\hspace{1cm}\text{or}\qquad\hspace{1cm}
\mathrm{CS}_{\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.2mm}i}}\neq\mathrm{CS}_{\mathcal{H}_{j}}.$$ This ends the proof of the theorem.
An immediate consequence of Theorem \[thmalph:class-homogene-convexe-5\] is the following.
[*Up to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Möbius</span> transformation there are fourteen rational maps of degree five from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Riemann</span> sphere to itself having only fixed critical points, namely the maps ${{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.1mm}1}},\ldots,{{\mspace{2mu}\underline{\mspace{-2mu}\mathcal{G}\mspace{-2mu}}\mspace{2mu}}}_{\mathcal{H}_{\hspace{0.1mm}14}}.$* ]{}
Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be a reduced convex foliation of degree $5$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$. Let us denote by $\Sigma$ the set of non radial singularities of ${\mathcal{F}}$. By [@BM18 Lemma 3.4], $\Sigma$ is nonempty. Since by hypothesis ${\mathcal{F}}$ is reduced convex, all its singularities have <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Milnor</span> number $1$ ([@BM17 Lemma 6.8]). The set $\Sigma$ consists then of the singularities $s\in{\mathrm{Sing}}{\mathcal{F}}$ such that $\tau({\mathcal{F}},s)=1.$ Let $m$ be a point of $\Sigma$; by [@BM18 Lemma 3.1], through the point $m$ pass exactly two ${\mathcal{F}}$-invariant lines ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)}$ and ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)}$.
On the other hand, according to [@BM18 Proposition 3.2] or [@BM17 Proposition 6.4], for any line ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}$ invariant by ${\mathcal{F}}$, there exists a homogeneous convex foliation $\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}}$ of degree $5$ on ${\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ such that the line ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}$ is $\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}}$-invariant. Therefore $\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}}$, and in particular each $\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(i)}}$, is linearly conjugated to one of the fourteen homogeneous foliations given by Theorem \[thmalph:class-homogene-convexe-5\]. Proposition $3.2$ of [@BM18] also ensures that
- ${\mathrm{Sing}}{\mathcal{F}}\cap{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}={\mathrm{Sing}}\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}}\cap{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}$;
- $\forall\hspace{1mm}s\in{\mathrm{Sing}}\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}}\cap{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}},\hspace{1mm}
\mu(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}},s)=1$;
- $\forall\hspace{1mm}s\in{\mathrm{Sing}}\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}}\cap{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}},\hspace{1mm}
\tau(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}},s)=\tau({\mathcal{F}},s)$;
- $\forall\hspace{1mm}s\in{\mathrm{Sing}}\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}}\cap{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}},\hspace{1mm}
\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}},s)=\mathrm{CS}({\mathcal{F}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}},s)$.
Since $\mathrm{CS}({\mathcal{F}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)},m)\mathrm{CS}({\mathcal{F}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)},m)=1,$ relation ($\mathfrak{d}$) implies that $\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)},m)\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)},m)=1.$ This equality and Table \[tab:CS(lambda)\] lead to $$\label{equa:CS-convexe-reduit-5}
\qquad\Big\{\big\{\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)},m),\,
\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)},m)\big\}\Big\}
=\Big\{\big\{-4,-\tfrac{1}{4}\big\},\big\{-\tfrac{3}{2}+\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{5},-\tfrac{3}{2}-\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{5}\big\}\Big\}.$$
At first let us assume that it is possible to choose $m\in\Sigma$ so that $$\{\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)},m),\,\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)},m)\}
=\{-4,-\tfrac{1}{4}\}.$$ Up to renumbering the ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(i)}$ we can assume that $\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)},m)=-\frac{1}{4}$ and $\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)},m)=-4.$ Consulting Table \[tab:CS(lambda)\], we see that $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{5mm}\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)}}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_4,&&
\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)}}}\in
\Big\{
2\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+3\cdot\mathrm{R}_2,
\hspace{0.2mm}
4\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_4,
\hspace{0.2mm}3
\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_2+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_3
\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it follows from relations ($\mathfrak{a}$) and ($\mathfrak{c}$) that ${\mathcal{F}}$ possesses two radial singularities $m_1,m_2$ of order $4$ on the line ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)}$ and a radial singularity $m_3$ of order $2$ or $4$ on the line ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)}.$
We will see that the radiality order of the singularity $m_3$ of ${\mathcal{F}}$ is necessarily $4,$ [*i.e.*]{} $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_3)=5.$ By [@Bru00 Proposition 2, page 23], the fact that $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_1)+\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_3)\geq5+3>\deg{\mathcal{F}}$ implies the invariance by ${\mathcal{F}}$ of the line ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}=(m_1m_3)$; if $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_3)$ were equal to $3$, then relations ($\mathfrak{a}$), ($\mathfrak{b}$) and ($\mathfrak{c}$), combined with the convexity of the foliation $\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}}$, would imply that $$\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}}}\in
\Big\{
2\cdot\mathrm{R}_2+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_4,
\hspace{0.2mm}
2\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_2+1\cdot\mathrm{R}_4
\Big\}$$ so that (*see* Table \[tab:CS(lambda)\]) $\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}}$ would possess a singularity $m'$ on the line ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}$ satisfying $$\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}},m')\in
\Big\{
\lambda\in\mathbb{C}\hspace{1mm}\colon\big(\lambda+\tfrac{3}{7}\big)\big(\lambda+\tfrac{8}{7}\big)\big(\lambda+\tfrac{3}{2}\big)\big(59\lambda^2+177\lambda+64\big)=0
\Big\}$$ which is not possible by (\[equa:CS-convexe-reduit-5\]).
By construction, the three points $m_1$, $m_2$ and $m_3$ are not aligned. We have thus shown that ${\mathcal{F}}$ admits three non-aligned radial singularities of order $4$. By [@BM17 Proposition 6.3] the foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$ is linearly conjugated to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fermat</span> foliation ${\mathcal{F}}_{0}^{5}.$
Let us now consider the eventuality $
\{\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)},m),\,\mathrm{CS}(\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)}},{\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)},m)\}
=\{-\tfrac{3}{2}+\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{5},-\tfrac{3}{2}-\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{5}\}
$ for any choice of $m\in\Sigma.$ In this case, Table \[tab:CS(lambda)\] leads to $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{H}_{{\scalebox{0.9}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(i)}}}=2\cdot\mathrm{R}_1+2\cdot\mathrm{R}_3$ for $i=1,2.$ Then, as before, by using relations ($\mathfrak{a}$), ($\mathfrak{b}$) and ($\mathfrak{c}$), we obtain that ${\mathcal{F}}$ possesses exactly four radial singularities on each of the lines ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(i)}$, two of order $1$ and two of order $3.$ Moreover, every line joining a radial singularity of order $3$ of ${\mathcal{F}}$ on ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(1)}$ and a radial singularity of order $3$ of ${\mathcal{F}}$ on ${\scalebox{1.1}{\ensuremath \ell}}_{m}^{(2)}$ must necessarily contain two radial singularities of order $1$ of ${\mathcal{F}}.$ We can then choose a homogeneous coordinate system $[x:y:z]\in{\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}}$ in such a way that the points $m_1=[0:0:1],$ $m_2=[1:0:0]$ and $m_3=[0:1:0]$ are radial singularities of order $3$ of ${\mathcal{F}}$. Moreover, in this coordinate system the lines $x=0$, $y=0$, $z=0$ must be invariant by ${\mathcal{F}}$ and there exist $x_0,y_0,z_0,x_1,y_1,z_1\in \mathbb{C}^{*},$ $x_1\neq x_0,y_1\neq y_0,z_1\neq z_0,$ such that the points $m_4=[x_0:0:1],$ $m_5=[1:y_0:0],$ $m_6=[0:1:z_0],$ $m_7=[x_1:0:1],$ $m_8=[1:y_1:0],$ $m_9=[0:1:z_1]$ are radial singularities of order $1$ of ${\mathcal{F}}.$ Let us set $\xi=\frac{x_1}{x_0},\,\rho=\frac{y_1}{y_0},\,\sigma=\frac{z_1}{z_0},\,w_0=x_0y_0z_0$; then $w_0\in\mathbb{C}^*$, $\xi,\rho,\sigma\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0,1\}$ and, up to renumbering the $x_i,y_i,z_i,$ we can assume that $\xi,$ $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are all of modulus greater than or equal to $1.$ Let $\omega$ be a $1$-form describing ${\mathcal{F}}$ in the affine chart $z=1.$ By conjugating $\omega$ by the diagonal linear transformation $(x_0\hspace{0.2mm}x,\hspace{0.2mm}x_0y_0y)$, we reduce ourselves to $m_4=[1:0:1],$ $m_5=[1:1:0],$ $m_6=[0:1:w_0],$ $m_7=[\xi:0:1],$ $m_8=[1:\rho:0],$ $m_9=[0:1:\sigma w_0].$ The equalities $\nu({\mathcal{F}},m_1)=1$, $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_1)=4$ and the invariance of the line $z=0$ by ${\mathcal{F}}$ ensure that $\omega$ is of type $$\begin{aligned}
&\omega=(x\mathrm{d}y-y\mathrm{d}x)(\gamma+\lambda_0\hspace{0.2mm}x+\lambda_1y+c_0\hspace{0.2mm}x^2+c_1xy+c_2y^2)
+(\alpha_0\hspace{0.2mm}x^4+\alpha_1x^3y+\alpha_2x^2y^2+\alpha_3xy^3+\alpha_4y^4)\mathrm{d}x\\
&\hspace{0.7cm}+(\beta_0\hspace{0.2mm}x^4+\beta_1x^3y+\beta_2x^2y^2+\beta_3xy^3+\beta_4y^4)\mathrm{d}y
+(a_0\hspace{0.2mm}x^5+a_1x^4y+a_2x^3y^2+a_3x^2y^3+a_4xy^4+a_5y^5)\mathrm{d}x\\
&\hspace{0.7cm}+(b_0\hspace{0.2mm}x^5+b_1x^4y+b_2x^3y^2+b_3x^2y^3+b_4xy^4+b_5y^5)\mathrm{d}y,\end{aligned}$$ where $a_i,b_i,c_{\hspace{-0.2mm}j},\alpha_k,\beta_k,\lambda_l\in\mathbb{C}$ and $\gamma\in\mathbb{C}^*.$
In the affine chart $x=1$, resp. $y=1,$ the foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\theta=-(\beta_0\hspace{0.2mm}z+\beta_1yz+\beta_2y^2z+\beta_3y^3z+\beta_4y^4z+b_0+b_1y+b_2y^2+b_3y^3+b_4y^4+b_5y^5)(y\mathrm{d}z-z\mathrm{d}y)\\
&\hspace{0.62cm}-(\alpha_0\hspace{0.2mm}z+\alpha_1yz+\alpha_2y^2z+\alpha_3y^3z+\alpha_4y^4z+a_0+a_1y+a_2y^2+a_3y^3+a_4y^4+a_5y^5)\mathrm{d}z\\
&\hspace{0.62cm}+z^3(\gamma\hspace{0.1mm}z^2+\lambda_1yz+\lambda_0\hspace{0.2mm}z+c_0+c_1y+c_2y^2)\mathrm{d}y,\\
&\hspace{-0.9cm}\text{resp.}\hspace{1.5mm}
\eta=(\alpha_0\hspace{0.2mm}x^4z+\alpha_1x^3z+\alpha_2x^2z+\alpha_3xz+\alpha_4z+a_0\hspace{0.2mm}x^5+a_1x^4+a_2x^3+a_3x^2+a_4x+a_5)(z\mathrm{d}x-x\mathrm{d}z)\\
&\hspace{0.62cm}-(\beta_0\hspace{0.2mm}x^4z+\beta_1x^3z+\beta_2x^2z+\beta_3xz+\beta_4z+b_0\hspace{0.2mm}x^5+b_1x^4+b_2x^3+b_3x^2+b_4x+b_5)\mathrm{d}z\\
&\hspace{0.62cm}-z^3(\gamma\hspace{0.1mm}z^2+\lambda_0\hspace{0.2mm}xz+\lambda_1z+c_0x^2+c_1x+c_2)\mathrm{d}x.\end{aligned}$$ A straightforward computation shows that
$$\begin{aligned}
&\Big(J^{3}_{(y,z)=(0,0)}\theta\Big)\wedge\Big(y\mathrm{d}z-z\mathrm{d}y\Big)=-z\hspace{0.1mm}P(y,z)\mathrm{d}y\wedge\mathrm{d}z,&&
\Big(J^{3}_{(x,z)=(0,0)}\eta\Big)\wedge\Big(z\mathrm{d}x-x\mathrm{d}z\Big)=z\hspace{0.1mm}Q(x,z)\mathrm{d}x\wedge\mathrm{d}z,\\
&\Big(J^{1}_{(x,y)=(1,0)}\omega\Big)\wedge\Big((x-1)\mathrm{d}y-y\mathrm{d}x\Big)=R(x,y)\mathrm{d}x\wedge\mathrm{d}y,&&
\Big(J^{1}_{(y,z)=(1,0)}\theta\Big)\wedge\Big((y-1)\mathrm{d}z-z\mathrm{d}y\Big)=-z\hspace{0.1mm}S(y,z)\mathrm{d}y\wedge\mathrm{d}z,\\
&\Big(J^{1}_{(x,z)=(0,w_0)}\eta\Big)\wedge\Big((z-w_0)\mathrm{d}x-x\mathrm{d}z\Big)=T(x,z)\mathrm{d}x\wedge\mathrm{d}z,&&
\Big(J^{1}_{(x,y)=(\xi,0)}\omega\Big)\wedge\Big((x-\xi)\mathrm{d}y-y\mathrm{d}x\Big)=\xi U(x,y)\mathrm{d}x\wedge\mathrm{d}y,\\
&\Big(J^{1}_{(y,z)=(\rho,0)}\theta\Big)\wedge\Big((y-\rho)\mathrm{d}z-z\mathrm{d}y\Big)=-z\hspace{0.1mm}V(y,z)\mathrm{d}y\wedge\mathrm{d}z,&&
\Big(J^{1}_{(x,z)=(0,\sigma w_0)}\eta\Big)\wedge\Big((z-\sigma w_0)\mathrm{d}x-x\mathrm{d}z\Big)=W(x,z)\mathrm{d}x\wedge\mathrm{d}z\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
&P(y,z)=a_0+a_1y+\alpha_0z+a_2y^2+\alpha_1yz+a_3y^3+\alpha_2y^2z-c_0yz^2,\\
&Q(x,z)=b_5+b_4x+\beta_4z+b_3x^2+\beta_3xz+b_2x^3+\beta_2x^2z+c_2xz^2,\\
&R(x,y)=4a_0+3\alpha_0-(9a_0+7\alpha_0)x+(\gamma-c_0-a_1-\alpha_1-4b_0-3\beta_0)y+(\lambda_0+2c_0+a_1+\alpha_1+5b_0+4\beta_0)xy\\
&\hspace{1.32cm}+(5a_0+4\alpha_0)x^2+(\lambda_1+c_1+b_1+\beta_1)y^2,\\
&S(y,z)=(a_1+2a_2+3a_3+4a_4+5a_5+b_1+2b_2+3b_3+4b_4+5b_5)y+a_0-a_2-2a_3-3a_4-4a_5+b_0-b_2-2b_3\\
&\hspace{1.24cm}-3b_4-4b_5+(\alpha_0+\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\alpha_3+\alpha_4+\beta_0+\beta_1+\beta_2+\beta_3+\beta_4)z,\\
&T(x,z)=-b_5w_0-w_0(4\gamma\hspace{0.1mm}w_0^4+3\lambda_1w_0^3+2c_2w_0^2+\beta_3w_0+a_5+b_4)x-(\beta_4w_0-b_5)z+w_0(\lambda_0w_0^3+c_1w_0^2-\alpha_3w_0-a_4)x^2\\
&\hspace{1.32cm}+(5\gamma\hspace{0.1mm}w_0^4+4\lambda_1w_0^3+3c_2w_0^2-\alpha_4w_0+\beta_3w_0+b_4)xz+\beta_4z^2,\\
&U(x,y)=(4a_0\xi+3\alpha_0)\xi^4-\xi^3(9a_0\xi+7\alpha_0)x-(a_1\xi^4+4b_0\xi^4+\alpha_1\xi^3+3\beta_0\xi^3+c_0\xi^2-\gamma)y+\xi^2(5a_0\xi+4\alpha_0)x^2\\
&\hspace{1.37cm}+(a_1\xi^3+5b_0\xi^3+\alpha_1\xi^2+4\beta_0\xi^2+2c_0\xi+\lambda_0)xy+(b_1\xi^3+\beta_1\xi^2+c_1\xi+\lambda_1)y^2,\\
&V(y,z)=(5b_5\rho^5+5a_5\rho^4+4b_4\rho^4+4a_4\rho^3+3b_3\rho^3+3a_3\rho^2+2b_2\rho^2+2a_2\rho+b_1\rho+a_1)y-4b_5\rho^6-(4a_5+3b_4)\rho^5\\
&\hspace{1.3cm}+(\beta_4\rho^5+\alpha_4\rho^4+\beta_3\rho^4+\alpha_3\rho^3+\beta_2\rho^3+\alpha_2\rho^2+\beta_1\rho^2+\alpha_1\rho+\beta_0\rho+\alpha_0)z
-(3a_4+2b_3)\rho^4-(2a_3+b_2)\rho^3\\
&\hspace{1.3cm}-a_2\rho^2+b_0\rho+a_0,\\
&W(x,z)=\sigma w_0(\lambda_0\sigma^3w_0^3+c_1\sigma^2w_0^2-\alpha_3\sigma w_0-a_4)x^2
+(5\gamma\hspace{0.1mm}\sigma^4w_0^4+4\lambda_1\sigma^3w_0^3+3c_2\sigma^2w_0^2-\alpha_4\sigma w_0+\beta_3\sigma w_0+b_4)xz\\
&\hspace{1.40cm}+\beta_4z^2-\sigma w_0(4\gamma\hspace{0.1mm}\sigma^4w_0^4+3\lambda_1\sigma^3w_0^3+2c_2\sigma^2w_0^2+\beta_3\sigma w_0+a_5+b_4)x+(b_5-\beta_4\sigma w_0)z-b_5\sigma w_0,\end{aligned}$$
so that the equality $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_2)=4$ (resp. $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_3)=4$, resp. $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_4)=2$, resp. $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_5)=2$, resp. $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_6)=2$, resp. $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_7)=2$, resp. $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_8)=2$, resp. $\tau({\mathcal{F}},m_9)=2$) implies that the polynomial $P$ (resp. $Q$, resp. $R$, resp. $S$, resp. $T$, resp. $U$, resp. $V$, resp. $W$) is identically zero. From $P=Q=0$ we obtain $a_0=a_1=a_2=a_3=\alpha_0=\alpha_1=\alpha_2=b_2=b_3=b_4=b_5=\beta_2=\beta_3=\beta_4=c_0=c_2=0$. Next, from the equalities $R=S=T=U=V=W=0$ we deduce that
$$\begin{aligned}
&
\xi=\rho=\sigma=\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{5}}{2},&&
\gamma=\frac{47+21\sqrt{5}}{2}a_5,&&
\lambda_0=-\frac{65+29\sqrt{5}}{2}a_5,\\
&
a_4=-\frac{5+\sqrt{5}}{2}a_5,&&
b_1=(5+2\sqrt{5})a_5,&&
\beta_0=\frac{25+11\sqrt{5}}{2}a_5,\\
&
\alpha_3=(9+4\sqrt{5})(5w_0+5-2\sqrt{5})a_5,&&
\alpha_4=-\frac{25+11\sqrt{5}}{2}a_5w_0,&&
\lambda_1=-(85+38\sqrt{5})a_5w_0,\\
&
\beta_1=-\frac{(65+29\sqrt{5})(w_0+5-2\sqrt{5})}{2}a_5,&&
c_1=\frac{(47+21\sqrt{5})(5w_0+5-2\sqrt{5})}{2}a_5,&&
w_0=\pm(\sqrt{5}-2)\end{aligned}$$
with $a_5\neq0.$ Thus $\omega$ is of type $$\begin{aligned}
&\omega=
\frac{a_5(47+21\sqrt{5})}{4}\Big(x\mathrm{d}y-y\mathrm{d}x\Big)\Big(2-\big(5-\sqrt{5}\big)x-w_0\big(5+\sqrt{5}\big)y+\big(10w_0+10-4\sqrt{5}\big)xy\Big)\\
&\hspace{0.72cm}+\frac{a_5}{2}y^3\Big(\big(9+4\sqrt{5}\big)\big(10w_0+10-4\sqrt{5}\big)x-w_0\big(25+11\sqrt{5}\big)y-\big(5+\sqrt{5}\big)xy+2y^2\Big)\mathrm{d}x\\
&\hspace{0.72cm}+\frac{a_5}{2}x^3\Big(\big(25+11\sqrt{5}\big)x-\big(65+29\sqrt{5}\big)\big(w_0+5-2\sqrt{5}\big)y-\big(7+3\sqrt{5}\big)x^2
+\big(10+4\sqrt{5}\big)xy\Big)\mathrm{d}y,\end{aligned}$$ where $w_0=\pm(\sqrt{5}-2)$ and $a_5\in\mathbb{C}^*.$ The $1$-form is linearly conjugated to $${\omega_{\scalebox{0.64}{\ensuremath H}}^{5}}=\big(y^2-1\big)\big(y^2-(\sqrt{5}-2)^2\big)\big(y+\sqrt{5}x\big)\mathrm{d}x
-\big(x^2-1\big)\big(x^2-(\sqrt{5}-2)^2\big)\big(x+\sqrt{5}y\big)\mathrm{d}y.$$ Indeed, if $w_0=\sqrt{5}-2$, resp. $w_0=2-\sqrt{5}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
&
\hspace{0.9cm}{\omega_{\scalebox{0.64}{\ensuremath H}}^{5}}=\frac{32(3571-1597\sqrt{5})}{a_5}\varphi_{1}^*\omega,
\hspace{2.9mm}\quad\text{where}\hspace{1.5mm}
\varphi_1=\left(\frac{3+\sqrt{5}}{4}\big(x+1\big),-\frac{2+\sqrt{5}}{2}\big(y-1\big)\right),\\
&
\text{resp}.\hspace{1.5mm}
{\omega_{\scalebox{0.64}{\ensuremath H}}^{5}}=\frac{32(64079-28657\sqrt{5})}{a_5}\varphi_{2}^*\omega,
\hspace{-1mm}\quad\text{where}\hspace{1.5mm}
\varphi_2=\left(\frac{2+\sqrt{5}}{2}\big(x+\sqrt{5}-2\big),-\frac{7+3\sqrt{5}}{4}\big(y+\sqrt{5}-2\big)\right).\end{aligned}$$
[12]{}
P. Baum and R. Bott. Singularities of holomorphic foliations. , 7:279–342, 1972.
M. Brunella. . IMPA Monographs, 1. Springer, Cham, 2015. xiv+130 pp.
S. Bedrouni and D. Marín. Tissus plats et feuilletages homogènes sur le plan projectif complexe. , 146(3):479–516, 2018.
S. Bedrouni and D. Marín. Convex foliations of degree [$4$]{} on the complex projective plane. Preprint [`arxiv:1811.07735`](http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07735), 2018.
S. Bedrouni. . PhD thesis, University of Sciences and Technology Houari Boumediene, 2017. Available on <https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03895>.
C. Camacho and P. Sad. Invariant varieties through singularities of holomorphic vector fields. , 115(3):579–595, 1982.
K. Cordwell, S. Gilbertson, N. Nuechterlein, K. M. Pilgrim, and S. Pinella. On the classification of critically fixed rational maps. , 19:51–94,2015.
E. Crane. Mean value conjectures for rational maps. , 51(1):41–50, 2006.
C. Favre and J. V. Pereira. Webs invariant by rational maps on surfaces. , 64(3):403–431, 2015.
D. Marín and J. V. Pereira. Rigid flat webs on the projective plane. 17(1):163–191, 2013.
J. V. Pereira. Vector fields, invariant varieties and linear systems. , 51(5):1385–1405, 2001.
[^1]: D. Marín acknowledges financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, through grant MTM2015-66165-P and the “María de Maeztu” Programme for Units of Excellence in R&D (MDM-2014-0445).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a method to cool atoms on a ring by combining an atom diode –a laser valve for one-way atomic motion which induces robust internal state excitation– and a trap. We demonstrate numerically that the atom is efficiently slowed down at each diode crossing, and it is finally trapped when its velocity is below the trap threshold.'
author:
- 'A. Ruschhaupt'
- 'J. G. Muga'
title: 'Atom cooling with an atom-optical diode on a ring'
---
There is currently much interest in controlling the motion of cold atoms for further (deeper) cooling, quantum information processing, atom laser generation, metrology, interferometry, and the investigation of fundamental physical phenomena. Cold atoms are relatively easy to produce and offer with respect to other particles many possibilities for coherent external manipulation with lasers, magnetic fields, or mechanical interactions. They may be trapped in artificial lattices or even individually, can be guided in effectively one-dimensional wires, or adopt interesting collective behavior in Bose-Einstein condensates; also, their mutual interactions can be changed, or suppressed. All this flexibility facilitates the translation of some of the concepts and applications of electronic circuits into the atom-optical realm to implement atom chips, atom circuits, or quite generally “atomtronics” [@atomtronics]. In this context, efficient elementary circuit elements playing the role of diodes or transistors need to be developed. In particular, we have proposed and studied a laser device acting as a one-way barrier for atomic motion [@RM04; @RM06; @RMR06q; @RMR06d; @RM07], and similar ideas, near experimental verification, have been considered by Raizen and coworkers for atom cooling [@raizen05; @dudarev05]. (These one-way models rely on atom-laser interactions in the independent atom regime, but there are also complementary proposals making use of interatomic interaction for “diodic” one-way transport [@diodeH].) In the following we propose to combine, within a ring, the diode and a trap, to achieve cooling and trapping with phase-space compression. Ring-shaped traps for cold atoms have been proposed or implemented for matter-wave interferometry and highly precise sensors [@Gupta], for studying the stability of persistent currents [@JPY; @sombrero], sound waves, solitons and vortices in Bose-Einstein condensates [@vortex], collisions [@Marcassa], for coherent acceleration [@acceleration; @BK], production of highly directional output beams [@SBC], or quantum computation [@qc]. (For further applications see [@Nugent].) The ring traps are implemented by magnetic waveguides [@SBC; @Gupta; @Spreeuw], purely optical dipole forces [@optical; @ring], magnetoelectrostatic potentials [@me], overlapping of magnetic and optical dipole traps [@opma], or misalignment of counterpropagating laser beam pairs in a magneto-optical trap [@Marcassa].
 Setting of an atom diode in a ring, (b) schematic action of the different lasers on the atom levels for the two-level atom diode plus quenching, and (c) schematic spatial location of the different laser potentials and their effect on the moving atom. They are all taken as Gaussian functions: $\Omega_P(x) = \hat{\Omega}_P \Pi(x,x_P,\sigma)$, $W_\alpha(x) = \hat{W}_\alpha\; \Pi (x,x_{\alpha},\sigma_\alpha)$, where $\alpha=1,2,T,Q$; $\sigma_{1,2}=\sigma$; and $\Pi (x, x_0, \tilde\sigma)= {\exp \left( -\frac{(x-x_0)^2}{2 {\tilde\sigma}^2} \right)}$. ](dr_fig_1){width="0.8\linewidth"}
In this paper, we assume for simplicity tight lateral confinement so that motion along the ring is effectively one dimensional or, more exactly, circular with a length $l$. An atom diode followed by a trap are put on the ring (see Fig. \[fig1\]a). The initial state of ground-state atoms will have some velocity and position width, but the anti-clockwise moving atoms will be reflected by the diode -which can be crossed only in the direction of the arrow- so all atoms will eventually approach the diode clockwise. After each crossing of the diode, the atom, which is now excited, is forced to emit a spontaneous photon (quenched), and ends up at the bottom of the trap; the atom has to loose kinetic energy to escape from the trap, so it is slowed down at every crossing until being finally trapped when its velocity is below the trap threshold. The process is reminiscent of Sysiphus cooling [@sc], a difference being that both the transfer from ground to excited state in the diode and the quenched decay are highly controlled, robust and efficient processes.
Before looking at the quantum-mechanical description, we will examine a simple classical model to estimate the time scales and the cooling efficiency for different recoil velocities. In this classical toy model, the diode and the trap are reduced to a point at position $x_D$, and the initial particle positions and momenta are distributed according to Gaussian probability distributions corresponding to the initial quantum distributions ${\left| \Psi_0(x) \right|^2}$ resp. ${\left| \Phi_0 (k) \right|^2}$ (see below). In each classical trajectory a random recoil kick is imparted at the diode clockwise passage, as in the quantum jump calculation done below. The trajectory is “trapped” (and eliminated from the ensemble) when the velocity becomes smaller than the threshold imposed by the trap depth; otherwise a fixed amount of kinetic energy corresponding to the well depth $\frac{1}{2}m v_T^2$ is subtracted and the motion continues. The results for the trapping probability are shown in Fig. \[fig2\]a. Random recoil affects the result in two ways: higher recoil velocities accelerate a rapid initial trapping, but slightly increase the time necessary for cooling and trapping the complete ensemble. The number of diode crossings before the atom is trapped for an initial velocity $v>0$ and no recoil is given by the smallest integer $n$ fulfilling $v - n v_T < v_T$. The time until this particle has been trapped is given by the time to reach the diode the first crossing, $t_0 = -(x_0 - x_D)/v$ plus the total time for the $n$ rounds, $t_n = l \sum_{j=1}^n\left(v - j v_T\right)^{-1}$. For the parameters of Fig. \[fig2\]a and $v=v_0$ we get $n=2$ and $t_0+t_n \approx 41{\, \mbox{ms}}$.
Now we switch to the quantum mechanical description. The scheme of the diode used here can be seen in Fig. \[fig1\]b and c and it has been explained before [@RM04; @RM06; @RMR06q; @RM07]. In brief, there are three, partially overlapping laser regions: two of them are state-selective mirrors blocking the excited (level 2) and ground (level 1) state on the left and right, respectively of a central pumping region on resonance with the atomic transition. If the atom is traveling from the right and the velocity is not too high, it is reflected by the state-selective mirror potential $W_1 \hbar/2$. If the atom is traveling from the left in the ground state then it will be pumped to the second level adiabatically (so that the process is robust and independent of velocity in a broad velocity interval) and then pass the potential $W_1 \hbar/2$. Note that this setting, see Fig. \[fig1\]b, can be realized by a detuned STIRAP transfer [@RM06] with just two overlapping lasers. To avoid backwards motion after the atom has crossed the diode we assume a third level which decays to the ground state with a decay rate $\gamma_3$ and we add a quenching laser coupling levels 2 and 3 with a Rabi frequency $\Omega_Q$, see Fig. \[fig1\]b. A novelty with respect to previous diode models is the addition of a ground state well overlapping partially with the quenching laser region. The effect of this well is twofold: it subtracts kinetic energy from the ground state atoms trying to escape from it, and it also traps eventually the cooled atoms.
![\[fig2\] (a) Trapping probability in the classical model; (b) trapping probability $P_{T,x}$ in the quantum model ($x_{min}=10{\, \mu \mbox{m}}$ and $x_{max}=200{\, \mu \mbox{m}}$); and (c) trapping probability $P_{T,v}$ in the quantum model. Thick, green, dotted line: $v_{rec}=0$ (in the quantum model: averaged over $N=200$ trajectories, $\hat{\Omega}_P = 4\times 10^4{/\mbox{s}}$, $\hat{W}_1=\hat{W}_2=4\times 10^6{/\mbox{s}}$); solid, red line: $v_{rec}=3.5 {\, \mbox{cm/s}}$ (in the quantum model: averaged over $N=190$ trajectories, $\hat{\Omega}_P = 1\times 10^5{/\mbox{s}}$, $\hat{W}_1=\hat{W}_2=1\times 10^7{/\mbox{s}}$). Common parameters: $l = 400 {\, \mu \mbox{m}}$ ($-200 {\, \mu \mbox{m}}\le x < 200{\, \mu \mbox{m}}$), $m$ mass of Neon, initial wave packet $
\Psi_0 (x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int dk\, \Phi_0 (k) e^{i k x}
$ with $\Phi_0 (k) = \frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{2\pi}\sqrt{\Delta k}}
(1,0,0)^T
\exp\Big[-\frac{(k-k_0)^2}{4 \Delta k^2} - i (k-k_0) (x_0-\frac{\hbar}{m} t_0 k_0)
- i \frac{\hbar}{m} t_0 \frac{k^2}{2}\Big]
$, $k_0 = \frac{m}{\hbar} v_0$, $\Delta k = \frac{m}{\hbar} \Delta v$, $x_0=-200{\, \mu \mbox{m}}$, $v_0=5 {\, \mbox{cm/s}}$, $\Delta v= 4{\, \mbox{cm/s}}$, $t_0=1{\, \mbox{ms}}$; other parameters in the classical model: $v_{T} = 1.8 {\, \mbox{cm/s}}$, $x_D = 80 {\, \mu \mbox{m}}$; other parameters in the quantum model: $\hat{W}_{T} = -10^5{/\mbox{s}}$, $\hat{W}_{Q} = 10^5{/\mbox{s}}$, $x_{W2} = -90 {\, \mu \mbox{m}}$, $x_P = -40{\, \mu \mbox{m}}$, $x_{W1}=10{\, \mu \mbox{m}}$, $x_{T}=80{\, \mu \mbox{m}}$, $x_{Q} = 100 {\, \mu \mbox{m}}$, $\sigma = 15 {\, \mu \mbox{m}}$, $\sigma_{T}=30{\, \mu \mbox{m}}$, $\sigma_{Q}=10/\sqrt{2}{\, \mu \mbox{m}}$. ](dr_fig_2){width="\linewidth"}
The corresponding Hamiltonian using $|1\rangle=(1,0,0)^T$, $|2\rangle=(0,1,0)^T$, and $|3\rangle=(0,0,1)^T$, where $T$ means “transpose”, may now be written as $$\begin{aligned}
H = \frac{{{\bf{p}}}_x^2}{2m} +
\frac{\hbar}{2} \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
W_1(x) + W_{T} (x) & \Omega_P (x) & 0\\
\Omega_P (x) & W_2(x) & \Omega_Q (x)\\
0 & \Omega_Q (x) & 0
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\bf{p}}}_x$ is the momentum operator, and $\Omega_P(x)$ is the Rabi frequency for the resonant transition. All potentials are chosen as Gaussian functions according to the caption of Fig. 1. The “velocity depth” of the trap used is $
v_{T} := \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{m} {\left| \hat{W}_{T} \right|}}
\approx 1.8 {\, \mbox{cm/s}}, $ and it corresponds to the trap depth used in the classical simulation.
We examine the time evolution by means of a one-dimensional master equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho
&=& - \frac{i}{\hbar} [H, \rho]_-
- \frac{\gamma_3}{2} \{|3\ra \la 3|,\rho\}_+ + \gamma_3 \int_{-1}^{1} \!\!du\; \frac{3}{8} (1+u^2) \;
{\exp \left( i\frac{mv_{rec}}{\hbar} u {{\bf{x}}}\right)}
\,|1\ra \, \la 3|\rho|3\ra \, \la 1|\,
{\exp \left( -i\frac{mv_{rec}}{\hbar} u {{\bf{x}}}\right)},
\label{master_eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $v_{rec}$ is the recoil velocity and ${{\bf{x}}}$ is the position operator. The initial condition is taken as a pure state $\rho(0)=|\Psi_0\ra\la\Psi_0|$, namely a Gaussian wave packet (see the caption of Fig. 2).
The master equation (\[master\_eq\]) is solved by using the quantum jump approach [@qjump]. A basic step is to solve a time-dependent Schrödinger equation with an effective Hamiltonian $H_{eff} = H - i \frac{\hbar}{2} \gamma_3 |3\ra \la 3|$. For large $\gamma_3$ (see [@ruschhaupt_2004_eeqt]), $$\begin{aligned}
\la 3|\Psi(t)\ra \approx -i \frac{\Omega_Q (x)}{\gamma_3} \la 2|\Psi(t)\ra.
\label{approx}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the three-level Schrödinger equation can be approximated by a two-level one with the effective Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_{approx} = \frac{{{\bf{p}}}_x^2}{2m} +
\frac{\hbar}{2} \left(\begin{array}{cc}
W_1(x) + W_{T} (x) & \Omega_P (x)\\
\Omega_P (x) & W_2(x)-i W_{Q} (x)
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{Q} = \frac{\Omega_Q (x)^2}{\gamma_3}$. The second element of the approach is the resetting operation at each jump, $
{\exp \left( i\frac{mv_{rec}}{\hbar} u {{\bf{x}}}\right)} \la 3|\Psi(t) \ra \longrightarrow \la 1|
\Psi(t)\ra,
$ where $u \in [-1,1]$ is chosen with the probability density $\frac{3}{8}
(1+u^2)$, all other amplitudes are set to zero, and the wave function is normalized. Because of Eq. (\[approx\]), this can also be done in the two-level approximation, $
-i \sqrt{W_{Q} ({{\bf{x}}})} {\exp \left( i\frac{mv_{rec}}{\hbar} u {{\bf{x}}}\right)} \la
2|\Psi(t) \ra \longrightarrow \la 1|
\Psi(t)\ra,
$ then the second level is set to zero and the wave function is normalized.
![\[fig3\] Evolution of the probability densities versus time (a) in velocity space, (b) in coordinate space; $v_{rec}=0$, the other parameters can be found in the caption of Fig. \[fig2\].](dr_fig_3){width="\linewidth"}
We start by looking at the case with negligible recoil velocity, i.e. with $v_{rec}=0$. We calculate the trapping probability in coordinate space, $
P_{T,x} = \int_{x_{min}}^{x_{max}} dx \, \la x|\rho_{11}|x\ra,
$ and in velocity space, $
P_{T,v} = \int_{-v_{T}}^{v_{T}} dv\, \la v|\rho_{11}|v\ra.
$ The results are shown in Fig. \[fig2\]b/c (thick green dotted line) averaging over $N=200$ trajectories; a numerical error defined by the difference of the result between averaging over $N$ and $N/2$ trajectories is also plotted in Fig. \[fig2\]b/c. The parameters used for the atom diode with $v_{rec}=0$ result in a range for perfect “diodic” behavior $-11 {\, \mbox{cm/s}}< v < 11 {\, \mbox{cm/s}}$ (defined as in [@RM06]).
![\[fig4\] Initial probability density (dotted blue line); final probability density at $t=400 {\, \mbox{ms}}$ for $v_{rec} = 0$ (thick, green, dotted line), $v_{rec} = 3.5 {\, \mbox{cm/s}}$ (solid, red line); other parameters see Fig. \[fig2\]; (a) in velocity space; (b) in coordinate space.](dr_fig_4){width="7.5cm"}
Fig. \[fig3\] shows the evolution of the probability density in velocity space, $p(v) = \la v | (\rho_{11} + \rho_{22}) | v\ra$, and in coordinate space, $p(x) = \la x | (\rho_{11} + \rho_{22}) | x\ra$. The final probability densities can be seen in more detail in Fig. \[fig4\] (thick, dashed, green line). In this figure we may verify the occurrence of cooling and phase space compression, namely, a narrower distribution both in coordinate and velocity space. The final trapping probabilities are $P_{T,x} = 0.9838 \pm 0.0009$ and $P_{T,v} = 0.9809 \pm 0.0040$ (with the errors calculated as before).
Let us now examine the case with recoil velocity $v_{vec}=3.5 {\, \mbox{cm/s}}> v_{T}$. Because the average value of the recoil velocities is still zero, the cooling method will still work except for a small fraction of atoms which may acquire by successive random recoils velocities above the break-up threshold of the diode. (The parameters used for the atom diode with $v_{rec}=3.5{\, \mbox{cm/s}}$ result in a working range $-17.5 {\, \mbox{cm/s}}< v < 22 {\, \mbox{cm/s}}$.) The trapping probability versus time shown in Fig. \[fig2\]b (solid, red line) shows anyway a high final trapping probability. The final probability densities are shown in Fig. \[fig4\] (solid, red line). The main peak is comparable with the main peak without recoil, i.e. the velocity width of the main peak is smaller than the recoil velocity. We have finally $P_{T,x} = 0.9544 \pm 0.0003$ and $P_{T,v} = 0.9654 \pm 0.0017$.
In summary, we have proposed and numerically demonstrated a method to cool atoms on a ring, even below recoil velocity, after repeated passages across an atom diode combined with a ground state trap.
We acknowledge “Acciones Integradas” of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and of Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (MEC). This work has also been supported by MEC (FIS2006-10268-C03-01) and UPV-EHU (00039.310-15968/2004). AR acknowledges support by the Joint Optical Metrology Center (JOMC), Braunschweig.
[10]{}
B. T. Seaman, M. Krämer, D. Z. Anderson, and M. J. Holland Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 023615 (2007).
A. Ruschhaupt and J. G. Muga, [Phys. Rev.]{} A [**70**]{}, 061604(R) (2004).
A. Ruschhaupt and J. G. Muga, [Phys. Rev. A]{} [**73**]{}, 013608 (2006).
A. Ruschhaupt, J. G. Muga, and M. G. Raizen, [J. Phys.]{} B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**39**]{}, L133 (2006).
A. Ruschhaupt, J. G. Muga, and M. G. Raizen, J. Phys. B [**39**]{}, 3833 (2006).
A. Ruschhaupt and J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. A [**76**]{}, 013619 (2007).
M. G. Raizen, A. M. Dudarev, Qian Niu, and N. J. Fisch, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**94**]{}, 053003 (2005).
A. M. Dudarev, M. Marder, Qian Niu, N. J. Fisch, and M. G. Raizen, [Europhysics Letters]{} [**70**]{}, 761 (2005).
R. A. Pepino, J. Cooper, D. Z. Anderson, M. J. Holland, arXiv:0705.3268v1
S. Gupta, K. W. Murch, K. L. Moore, T. P. Purdy, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Let. [**95**]{}, 143201 (2005).
J. Javanainen, S. M. Paik, and S. M. Yoo, Phys. Rev. A 58, 580 (1998).
L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 2990 (1999).
M. Cozzini, B. Jackson, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. [**73**]{}, 013603 (2006).
L. G. Marcassa, A. R. L. Caires, V. A. Nascimento, O. Dulieu, J. Weiner, and V. S. Bagnato, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 060701(R) (2005).
O. Dutta, M. Jääskeläinen, and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 023609 (2006).
Y. V. Bludov and V. V. Konotop, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 053614 (2007).
J. A. Sauer, M. D. Barrett, and M. S. Chapman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 270401 (2001).
W. Rooijakkers, Appl. Phys. B [**78**]{}, 719 (2004).
E. Nugent, D. McPeake, and J. F. McCann, Phys. Rev. A [**68**]{}, 063606 (2003).
T. Fernholz, R. Gerritsma, P. Krüger, and R. J. C. Spreeuw, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 063406 (2007).
E. M. Wright and K. Dholakia, Phys. Rev. [**63**]{}, 013608 (2000).
A. Hopkins, B. Lev, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. A [**70**]{}, 053616 (2004).
J. Tempere, J. T. Devreese, and E. R. I. Abraham, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 023603 (2001).
J. Dalibard and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, JOSA B [**6**]{}, 2023 (1989).
K. Bergmann, H. Theuer, and B. W. Shore, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**70**]{}, 1003 (1998).
A. Ruschhaupt, J.A. Damborenea, B. Navarro, J.G. Muga, and G.C. Hegerfeldt, [Europhys. Lett.]{} [**67**]{}, 1 (2004).
G. C. Hegerfeldt, Phys. Rev. A [**47**]{}, 449 (1993); M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**70**]{}, 101 (1998); J. Dalibard, , Y. Castin and K. M[ø]{}lmer, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**68**]{}, 580 (1992); H. Carmichael, [*An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics m18, (Springer, Berlin, 1993).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
=-1 In 2003, A.J. Majda and J.A. Biello derived and studied the so-called reduced equations for equatorial baroclinic-barotropic waves, to which we refer as to the Majda–Biello system. The equations in question describe the nonlinear interaction of long-wavelength equatorial Rossby waves and barotropic Rossby waves with a significant midlatitude projection in the presence of suitable horizontally and vertically sheared zonal mean flows.
Below we present a Hamiltonian structure for Majda–Biello system and describe all generalized symmetries and conservation laws for the latter. It turns out that there are only three symmetries corresponding to $x$-translations, $t$- translations and to a scaling of $t$, $x$, $u$ and $v$, and four conservation laws, one of which is associated to the conservation of energy, the second conserved quantity is just the Hamiltonian functional and the other two are Casimir functionals of the Hamiltonian operator admitted by our system. Our result provides [*inter alia*]{} a rigorous proof of the fact that the Majda–Biello system has just the conservation laws mentioned in the paper by Majda and Biello.
address: 'Mathematical Institute, Silesian University in Opava, Na Rybníčku 1, 746 01 Opava, Czech Republic'
author:
- 'Jiřina Vodová-Jahnová'
title: ' On symmetries and conservation laws of the Majda–Biello system'
---
Introduction
============
The problem of short-time and long-time weather forecasts and the prediction of climate variations on seasonal, yearly and decade time scales is currently of great interest for both climatologists and meteorologists, as well as mathematicians and physicists. One of the recent discoveries in this field is the profound impact of variations in the tropics on long-range seasonal forecasting and climate on the entire globe. The problem of dynamics of the equatorial atmosphere is intensively studied e.g. in [@majda3; @kiladis; @majda2; @majda4; @majda1; @majda5; @majda6; @wang]. In [@majda1], the so-called two-layer-equatorial $\beta$-plane equations (TLEPE) for the barotropic (propagating in the poleward direction) and baroclinic (i.e., trapped in the vicinity of and propagated along the equator) horizontal velocity and pressure have been derived. When the barotropic-baroclinic cross-interaction terms in the TLEPE equations are neglected, then these equations split naturally into nonlinear rotating 2D incompressible Euler equations for the barotropic flow and a rotating linear shallow-water system for the baroclinic mode (see e.g. [@majda3; @majda2]; cf. also [@burde] and references therein for nonlinear system describing shallow-water waves) respectively, the former possesing the wave-like solutions known as barotropic Rossby waves that travel northward and southward towards the midlatitudes and therefore are an interesting (and it is believed that main) engine for energy exchange between the tropics and extra-tropics, the latter possessing wave-like solutions that are trapped near the equator.=-1
In [@majda1], the TLEPE equations (containing the cross-interactions terms) are studied, the so-called long-wave-scaled-equatorial baroclinic-barotropic equations (LWSEBB) are derived from them, and small-amplitude weakly nonlinear solutions of the LWSEBB equations in the form of an asymptotic expansion with parameters assuring the resonance of dispersionless packets are constructed. The solvability conditions yield the the reduced equations for equatorial baroclinic-barotropic waves, to which we hereinafter refer to as to the Majda–Biello system: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{syst}
u_t&=& du_{xxx}-vu_x-uv_x\nonumber\\
v_t&=&v_{xxx}-uu_x.\end{aligned}$$ Here $d=1-\frac{1}{(2m+1)^2}$ is a parameter depending on the meridional index $m\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ (see e.g. [@majda2]), and $u(x,t)$ and $v(x,t)$ are functions that describe the amplitudes of the mentioned solutions of the LWSEBB equations. This KdV-like system describes the nonlinear resonant interaction between barotropic and baroclinic Rossby waves. The properties of the system (\[syst\]) are studied in [@majda3] and [@majda1], where several conservation laws are found and employed for the construction of a perturbed system. Note that an analytic solitary wave solution in the form $\mathrm{sech}^2(\xi)$ for both components of (\[syst\]) is found in [@majda3]. In what follows we consider (\[syst\]) for arbitrary real $d$ unless otherwise explicitly stated. Quite a few third-order evolution systems, especially those arising in applications, including the celebrated Korteweg–de Vries equation, possess local or nonlocal Hamiltonian structures, cf. e.g. [@ds; @Olver; @sergy; @sergdem; @vlad] and references therein. The system (\[syst\]) is no exception: it is Hamiltonian (we refer the reader to [@Olver] for details on the Hamiltonian formalism for PDEs), with an operator $$\mathfrak{D}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}D_x&0\\ 0&D_x\end{array}\right)$$ being the Hamiltonian operator and $\mathcal{H}=-\frac{1}{2}\int (du_x^2+v_x^2+u^2v)\ \mathrm{d}x$ being the corresponding Hamiltonian functional; here $D_x$ denotes the total $x$-derivative $$D_x=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}u_{j+1}\frac{\partial}{\partial u_j}+\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}v_{j+1}\frac{\partial}{\partial v_j},$$ where $u_j$ (resp. $v_j$) denotes the $j$th derivative of $u$ (resp. of $v$) with respect to the spatial variable $x$; $u_0\equiv u$, $v_0\equiv v.$ The above means that the system (\[syst\]) can be written as $$(u_t,v_t)^{T}=\mathfrak{D}\delta\mathcal{H},$$ where $\int\ \mathrm{d}x$ is understood as a formal integral in the sense of calculus of variations (see e.g. [@dickey; @Olver]) and the superscript $T$ indicates the transposed matrix. For any functional $\mathcal{F}=\int f(x,t,u,v,\dots,u_s,v_r)\ \mathrm{d}x$ with a smooth density $f$ its variational derivative is defined (see e.g. [@Olver]) as $$\delta\mathcal{F}=\left(\frac{\delta f}{\delta u},\frac{\delta f}{\delta v}\right)^T,\ \mbox{where } \frac{\delta }{\delta u}=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}(-D_x)^j\circ\frac{\partial }{\partial u_j},\ \frac{\delta }{\delta v}=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}(-D_x)^j\circ\frac{\partial }{\partial v_j}.$$
Existence of the Hamiltonian operator implies (cf. e.g. [@wh_integrability; @complete_lists; @Olver]) that an infinite set of standard obstacles for existence of infinitely many conservation laws of increasing order for (\[syst\]) vanishes, thus leaving open the problem of description of a complete set of conservation laws for (\[syst\]).=-1
Below we describe all generalized symmetries and all nontrivial conservation laws for the Majda–Biello system (\[syst\]).
First of all, we prove that this system for $d\neq 0$ is not symmetry integrable: it has no generalized symmetries of order higher than eight. This allows us to find all generalized symmetries for (\[syst\]) with $d\neq 0$. Moreover, in fact by our Theorem \[symetrie\_veta\] for $d\neq 0$ there exist just three symmetries of (\[syst\]), and all three are equivalent to the Lie point ones. Note that while using the general results from [@meshkov] on the integrability of systems from a certain class that includes (\[syst\]) one could prove non-existence of [*time-independent*]{} generalized symmetries for (\[syst\]) of order greater than five, our result is stronger than that: it shows that the same holds true for any generalized symmetries of order greater than three including [*explicitly time-dependent*]{} ones.=-1
Knowing all generalized symmetries in conjunction with the Hamiltonian operator $\mathfrak{D}$ we obtain a complete description of the conservation laws for (\[syst\]) in Theorem \[zakony\_veta\] below. It turns out that the only conserved functionals are the energy, the Hamiltonian functional and the functionals corresponding to the zonal averages, $\overline{u}(t)=\int u(x,t)\mathrm{d}x$ and $\overline{v}(t)=\int v(x,t)\mathrm{d}x $. Our result provides [*inter alia*]{} a rigorous proof of the fact that the system (\[syst\]) for $d\neq 0$ has just the conservation laws found by Majda and Biello in [@majda3] and [@majda1].=-1
Preliminaries
=============
Below we work in the jet space $J^{\infty}(\pi)$ where $\pi:\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}$ is a trivial bundle, with local coordinates $x, u^1, u ^2, u^1_1,u^2_1,u^1_2,u ^2_2,\dots$; here $x$ stands for the spatial variable, $u^{\alpha}$ for the dependent variables and $u^{\alpha}_j$’s correspond to their derivatives $\partial^j u^{\alpha}/\partial x^j$. By $\mathbf{u}^{(n)}$ we mean the set of all derivatives of $u^{1}$ and $u^2$ with respect to $x$ up to order $n$. Recall [@Olver] that a *differential function* is a function $f$ that smoothly depends on $t$, $x$, $u^{\alpha}$’s ($\alpha=1, 2%\dots, q
$) and a finite number of derivatives of $u^{\alpha}$’s with respect to $x$, i.e. there exists $n\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$ such that $f=f(x,t,\mathbf{u}^{(n)})$. The *differential order* of a differential function $f$, denoted by $\mathrm{ord}(f)$, is the maximal $s\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$ such that $\frac{\partial f}{\partial u^{\alpha}_s}\neq 0$ for some $\alpha\in\{1,2\}$ if $f$ is not a quasiconstant function in the sense of [@Kac], i.e., a function depending only on $x$ and $t$. If $f$ is quasiconstant then $\mathrm{ord}f=-\infty$ by definition. If we are not interested in the differential order of a differential function, we write just $f=f[\mathbf{u}]$.=-1
Consider a system of $n$-th order evolution equations of the form $$\label{evsyst}
\mathbf{u}_t=\mathbf{F}(x,\mathbf{u}^{(n)}),$$ where $\mathbf{u}=(u^1,u^2)^T$, and $\mathbf{F}=(F_1, F_2)^T$ is a 2-tuple of explicitly time-independent differential functions. A 2-tuple of differential functions[^1] $\mathbf{Q}=(Q_1, Q_2)^T$ with $Q_{\alpha}=Q_{\alpha}(x, t,\mathbf{u}^{(k)})$ for all $\alpha =1, 2$, is called a *generalized symmetry of order $k$ for (\[evsyst\])* if $\mathrm{ord}\ Q_{\alpha}=k$ for at least one $\alpha\in\{1,2\}$, $$\label{defsym}D_t(\mathbf{Q})=\mathrm{D}_{\mathbf{F}}(\mathbf{Q}),$$ where $D_t=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\sum_{\alpha=1}^2\sum_{j}D_x^j(F_{\alpha})\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{\alpha}_j}$, and $\mathrm{D}_{\mathbf{F}}$ is a $2\times 2$ matrix differential operator with entries $(\mathrm{D}_{\mathbf{F}})_{\mu\nu}=\sum_{j}\frac{\partial F_{\mu}}{\partial u^{\nu}_j}D_x^j$, so $(\mathrm{D}_{\mathbf{F}}(\mathbf{Q}))_\mu=\sum_{\nu}(\mathrm{D}_{\mathbf{F}})_{\mu\nu}(Q_\nu)$.
\[gs\] If $\mathbf{Q}=(Q_1, Q_2)$ is a generalized symmetry for the system (\[evsyst\]) then the condition $$\label{podm}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}})+\mathrm{pr}\ \mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{F}}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}})+\left[\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}},\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{F}}}\right]=\mathrm{pr}\ \mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{Q}}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{F}}})$$ holds identically. Here $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}})$ is a matrix differential operator with the entries $\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}})\right)_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}}\right)_{\mu\nu}$, $\mathrm{pr}\ \mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{F}}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}})$ is a differential operator with the entries $\left(\mathrm{pr}\ \mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{F}}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}})\right)_{\mu\nu}=\mathrm{pr}\ \mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{F}}\left(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}}\right)_{\mu\nu}$ where $\mathrm{pr}\ \mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{F}}=\sum_{\alpha,i}D_x^i(F_{\alpha})\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{\alpha}_i}$, the operator $\mathrm{pr}\ \mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{Q}}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{F}}})$ is defined in a similar fashion, and $\left[\cdot,\cdot\right]$ is the usual commutator of operators.
Note that from the computational point of view the necessary condition (\[podm\]) on the symmetry $\mathbf{Q}=(Q_1, Q_2)^T$ for (\[evsyst\]) is very often much more helpful than the corresponding relation from the very definition of a symmetry, see e.g. [@complete_lists] for details.
A *conservation law* for (\[evsyst\]) is (see e.g. [@complete_lists; @Olver]) the equation $$D_t(\rho(x,t,\mathbf{u}^{(l)}))=D_x(\sigma(x,t,\mathbf{u}^{(s)})),$$ which holds identically. The differential function $\rho=\rho(x,t,\mathbf{u}^{(l)})$ (resp. $\sigma=\sigma(x,t,\mathbf{u}^{(s)})$) is called *the density* (resp. the *flux*) of the conservation law in question. A functional $\mathcal{F}=\int f \mathrm{d}x$ is called [*conserved*]{} if $f$ is a density of a conservation law for (\[evsyst\]).
A *cosymmetry* for (\[evsyst\]) is (see e.g. [@Blaszak]) a $q$-component differential function $\mathbf{G}$ which satisfies the condition $$D_t(\mathbf{G})+\mathrm{D}_{\mathbf{F}}^{\ast}(\mathbf{G})=0,$$ where $\left(\mathrm{D}_{\mathbf{F}}^{\ast}\right)_{\mu\nu}=\sum_{i=0}(-1)^iD_x^i\circ\left(\frac{\partial F_{\nu}}{\partial u_i^{\mu}}\right)$ is the formal adjoint of $\mathrm{D}_{\mathbf{F}}$. It is well known (see e.g. [@Blaszak]) that if $\rho$ is a conservation law density for (\[evsyst\]), then $\frac{\delta \rho}{\delta \mathbf{u}}$ is a cosymmetry for (\[evsyst\]).
Main results
============
Our goal in this section is to show that the system (\[syst\]) with $d\neq 0$ has no generalized symmetries (including the time-dependent ones) of order greater than eight (in fact, for the cases $d\neq 1/7$ we find upper bounds for the order of symmetries lower than eight, see Proposition \[prp\_sym\]), and, based on this result, to describe all generalized symmetries and nontrivial conservation laws for (\[syst\]). Note that since the coefficients at the highest-order derivatives in (\[syst\]) are constant, it is impossible, in contrast with [@vodova], to apply the method of [@sergyeyev] for establishing the nonexistence of higher-order symmetries for (\[syst\]), so we employ a more direct approach based on Lemma \[gs\].
\[prp\_sym\] The following assertions hold:
1. [The Majda–Biello system (\[syst\]) for $d\neq 0,1,1/7$ has no generalized symmetries (including time-dependent ones) of order greater than six.]{}
2. [The Majda–Biello system (\[syst\]) for $d=1/7$ has no generalized symmetries (including time-dependent ones) of order greater than eight.]{}
3. [ The Majda–Biello system (\[syst\]) for $d=1$ has no generalized symmetries (including time-dependent ones) of order greater than five.]{}
To simplify notation, throughout the proof the vector $\mathbf{u}=(u,v)^T$ from the system (\[syst\]) will be denoted by $(u^1,u^2)^T$.
First we derive a general formula (formula (\[polynom\])) that follows from Lemma \[gs\] and which comes in more handy in course of the proof. To this end, suppose that there is a symmetry $\mathbf{Q}=(Q_1,Q_2)^T$ of order $k\geq k_0>0$ for the system (\[syst\]). Then, according to Lemma \[gs\], the condition $$\label{podminka}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}})+\mathrm{pr}\ \mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{F}}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}})+\left[\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}},\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{F}}}\right]=\mathrm{pr}\ \mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{Q}}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{F}}}),$$ where $\mathbf{F}=(F_1,F_2)^T=( du^1_{3}-u^2u_1-u ^1u^2_1,u^2_{3}-u^1u^1_1)^T$, holds identically. It can be readily verified that the operator on the right-hand side of (\[podminka\]) is a first-order matrix differential operator, $$\mathrm{pr}\ \mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{Q}}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{F}}})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}-D_x(Q^2)-Q^2D_x&-D_x(Q^1)-Q^1D_x\\-D_x(Q^1)-Q^1D_x&0\end{array}\right).$$ Therefore, all the matrix coefficients at $D_x^m$ on the left-hand side of (\[podminka\]) with $m\geq 2$ must be equal to zero; we will write this as $$\label{podm2}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}})+\mathrm{pr}\ \mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{F}}(\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}})+\left[\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{Q}}},\mathrm{D_{\mathbf{F}}}\right]=0\ \mbox{mod}\ D_x.$$
In order to obtain some information about $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, let us equate the coefficients at $D_x^{k+3}$, $D_x^{k+2}$, $\dots$, $D_x^{k-k_0+3}$ on the left-hand side of this equation to zero. To simplify computations we shall use the so-called symbolic transform (see e.g. [@folland; @Gel'fand; @sw] and references therein), i.e., we replace a matrix differential operator $\mathfrak{R}=\sum_{j}R_j[\mathbf{u}]D_x^j$ with the formal series $\widetilde{ \mathfrak{R}}=\sum_{j}R_j[\mathbf{u}]z^j$ and employ the formula $$\label{mult}
\widetilde{\mathfrak{R}}\cdot\widetilde{\mathfrak{S}}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{i\mathrm{!}}\frac{\partial^i\widetilde{\mathfrak{R}}}{\partial z^i}D_x^i(\widetilde{\mathfrak{S}})$$ for the multiplication of two formal series $\widetilde{\mathfrak{R}}$, $\widetilde{\mathfrak{S}}$ corresponding to differential operators $$\mathfrak{R}=\sum_{i=-\infty}^{l}R_i[\mathbf{u}]D_x^i,\quad \mathfrak{S}=\sum_{i=-\infty}^{m}S_i[\mathbf{u}]D_x^i.$$ The formula (\[mult\]) gives a formal series $\widetilde{\mathfrak{R}}\cdot\widetilde{\mathfrak{S}}$ that corresponds to a (pseudo)differential operator $\mathfrak{R}\circ\mathfrak{S}$: Note that in (\[mult\]) we have $D_x^i\left(\sum_{j}R_j[\mathbf{u}]z^j\right)\equiv\sum_{j}D_x^i\left(R_j[\mathbf{u}]\right)z^j$, where $\left(D_x^i(R_j[\mathbf{u}])\right)_{\mu\nu}=D_x^i((R_j[\mathbf{u}])_{\mu\nu})$.
Upon applying the transform in question to (\[podm2\]) the task of equating the coefficients at $D_x^{k+3}$, $D_x^{k+2}$, $\dots$, $D_x^{k-k_0+3}$ on the left-hand side of (\[podm2\]) to zero reduces to that of equating to zero the coefficients at $z^{k+3},z^{k+2},\dots z^{k-k_0+3}$ in $$\label{polynom}\sum_{i=k-k_0}^{k}D_t\left(P_i[\mathbf{u}]\right)z^i+\sum_{i=k-k_0}^{k}P_i[\mathbf{u}]\sum_{j=0}^{k_0}\frac{1}{j\mathrm{!}}\frac{\partial^j z^i}{\partial z^j}D_x^j(\widetilde{\mathrm{D}_{\mathbf{F}}})-
\sum_{i=k-k_0}^{k}P_i[\mathbf{u}]\sum_{j=0}^3\frac{1}{j\mathrm{!}}\frac{\partial^j \widetilde{\mathrm{D}_{\mathbf{F}}}}{\partial z^j}D_x^j(P_i[\mathbf{u}])z^i,$$ where $P_i[\mathbf{u}]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\partial Q_{1}}{\partial u^1_i}&\frac{\partial Q_{1}}{\partial u^2_i}\\ \frac{\partial Q_{2}}{\partial u^1_i}&\frac{\partial Q_{2}}{\partial u^2_i}\end{array}\right)$. The formula (\[polynom\]) is just a polynomial in $z$ with matrix coefficients, so that the task of equating its coefficients to zero can be performed e.g. using computer algebra software.=-1
We will now employ (\[polynom\]) to prove the statements (i)–(iii) from Proposition \[prp\_sym\].
To prove (i), suppose that there is a symmetry $\mathbf{Q}=(Q_1,Q_2)^T$ of order $k\geq 7$ for the system (\[syst\]) with $d\neq 0,1/7,1$. Then the coefficients at $z^{k+3},z^{k+2},\dots,z^{k-4}$ in the polynomial (\[polynom\]) must be equal to zero. For instance, the coefficients at $z^{k+3}$ and $z^{k+2}$ are equal to $$\hspace*{-1mm}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& (1-d) (P_{k})_{12}\\
(d-1)(P_{k})_{21} &0
\end{array}\right)\mbox{ and }\left(\begin{array}{cc}-3d D_x\left( (P_{k})_{11}\right)& (1-d) (P_{k-1})_{12}\\
(d-1)(P_{k-1})_{21} &-3D_x\left( (P_{k})_{22}\right)
\end{array}\right),$$ respectively. Since $d\neq 0,1$ by assumption, we obtain $$P_{k}[\mathbf{u}]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\phi_1(t)&0\\
0&\phi_2(t)\end{array}\right).$$ The coefficients $P_{k-1}[\mathbf{u}],\dots, P_{k-5}[\mathbf{u}]$ can be recursively computed in a similar way by equating the coefficients at $z^{k+3},\dots,z^{k-3}$ to zero. Finally, if we equate the coefficient at $z^{k-4}$ to zero, we obtain the conditions $$D_x\left((P_{k-6})_{11}\right)=f_1,\quad D_x\left((P_{1+r})_{22}\right)=f_2,$$ where $f_1$ and $f_2$ are quite complicated differential functions whose explicit form we omit.
The necessary condition for the above equations to hold is (cf. e.g. [@Olver]) the vanishing of variational derivatives of $f_1$ and $f_2$: $$\label{var}
\delta f_i/\delta u^1=0,\quad \delta f_i/\delta u^2=0,\quad i=1,2.$$ However, it turns out that we have, in particular, $$\delta f_1/\delta u^1=-k (7d-1)\phi_1(t) u^1 u^1_1/(27(d-1)d^3),\quad \delta f_2/\delta u^2=-2k \phi_2(t) u^1 u^1_1/(9(d-1)).$$ As $k\neq 0$ by assumption, we see that for $d\neq 0,1,1/7$ the necessary conditions for (\[var\]) to hold are $\phi_1(t)=0$ and $\phi_2(t)=0$. But then $\mathbf{Q}=(Q_1,Q_2)^T$ is a symmetry of order $k-1$, which is a contradiction, and the result follows.
To prove (ii), suppose that there is a symmetry $\mathbf{Q}=(Q_1,Q_2)^T$ of order $k\geq 9$ for the system (\[syst\]) with $d=1/7$. We substitute $\mathbf{Q}$ and $k_0=9$ into the formula (\[polynom\]) and equate the coefficients at $z^{k+3}$, $z^{k+2}$, …$z^{k-6}$ to zero. For instance, the coefficients at $z^{k+3}$ and $z^{k+2}$ are equal to $$\hspace*{-1mm}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{6}{7} (P_{k})_{12}\\
-\frac{6}{7}(P_{k})_{21} &0
\end{array}\right)\mbox{ and }\left(\begin{array}{cc}-\frac{3}{7} D_x\left( (P_{k})_{11}\right)& \frac{6}{7} (P_{k-1})_{12}\\
-\frac{6}{7}(P_{k-1})_{21} &-3D_x\left( (P_{k})_{22}\right)
\end{array}\right),$$ respectively. We obtain $$P_{7+r}[\mathbf{u}]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\phi_1(t)&0\\
0&\phi_2(t)\end{array}\right).$$ The coefficients $P_{k-1},\dots,P_{k-5}$ can be computed in the same fashion by comparing the coefficients at $z^{k+2},z^{k+1},\allowbreak\dots z^{k-3}$ with zero. If we equate the coefficient at $z^{k-4}$ with zero, we obtain $$D_x((P_{k-6})_{22})=g,$$ where $g$ is a differential function whose explicit form we omit. One of the necessary conditions for the above equation to hold is $$\begin{aligned}
\delta g/\delta u^1&=&\left((7/27)(k-9)+(7/3)\right)u^1u^1_1{\phi}_2=0.
% \delta g/\delta u^2&=&\left(-(7/27)(k-9)-(7/3)\right)u^1u^2_1{\phi}_2+(7/9)\frac{\partial \phi_2}{\partial t}u=0\end{aligned}$$ Since $k-9\geq 0$, we see that ${\phi}_2(t)=0$.
If we equate the coefficient at $z^{k-6}$ to zero, we obtain $$D_x((P_{k-8})_{11})=f.$$ One of the necessary conditions for this to hold is $$\begin{aligned}
\delta f/\delta u^1&=&\left((16807/12)+(16807/107)(k-9)\right){\phi}_1u^1u^2_3+\left((6517/4)+(6517/36)(k-9)\right){\phi}_1u^1_1u^2_2\\
&&+\left((6517/4)+(6517/36)(k-9)\right){\phi}_1u^1_2u^2_1+\left((4802/9)+(4802/81)(k-9)\right)u^1u^2u^2_1{\phi}_1=0.\end{aligned}$$ As $k-9\geq 0$ by assumption, we see that ${\phi}_1(t)=0$ must hold. But this fact together with ${\phi}_2(t)=0$ implies that $\mathbf{Q}=(Q_1,Q_2)^{T}$ is a symmetry of order $k-1$, which is a contradiction, and the result follows.
To prove (iii), suppose that there is a symmetry $\mathbf{Q}=(Q_1,Q_2)^T$ of order $k\geq 6$ for the system (\[syst\]) with $d=1$. We substitute $\mathbf{Q}$ and $k_0=6$ into the formula (\[polynom\]) and equate the coefficients at $z^{k+3}$, $z^{k+2}$, $\dots, z^{k-3}$ to zero. In particular, the coefficient at $z^{k+3}$ is a zero matrix, the coefficient at $z^{k+2}$ is equal to $$\hspace*{-1mm}-3\left(\begin{array}{cc}D_x((P_{k})_{11})&D_x((P_{k})_{12})\\
D_x((P_{k})_{21}) &D_x((P_{k})_{22})
\end{array}\right).$$ This yields $$P_{k}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}{\phi}_1(t)&{\lambda}_1(t)\\
{\eta}_1(t) &{\psi}_1(t)
\end{array}\right).$$ The coefficient at $z^{k+1}$ is then equal to $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}-3D_x((P_{k-1})_{11}))-{\lambda}_1u^ 1+{\eta}_1u^1&-{\phi}_1u^1+u^2{\lambda}_1+{\psi}_1u^1-D_x((P_{k-1})_{12})\\
-3D_x((P_{k-1})_{21}) &-3D_x\left( (P_{k-1})_{22}\right)
\end{array}\right).$$ If we equate this coefficient to zero we obtain $(P_{k-1})_{21}={\eta}_2(t)$, $(P_{k-1})_{22}={\psi}_2(t)$, $D_x((P_{k-1})_{11}))=(1/3)(-{\lambda}_1u^1+{\eta}_1u^1)$, $D_x((P_{k-1})_{12}))=(1/3)(-{\phi}_1u^1+{\lambda}_1u^2+{\psi}_1u^1)$. The necessary conditions for the two last formulas to hold are $$\begin{aligned}
\delta ((1/3)(-{\lambda}_1u^1+{\eta}_1u^1))/ \delta u^1&=&-(1/3)({\lambda}_1-{\eta}_1)=0\\
\delta((1/3)(-{\phi}_1u^1+{\lambda}_1u^2+{\psi}_1u^1))\delta u^1&=&-(1/3)({\phi}_1-{\psi}_1)=0\\
\delta((1/3)(-{\phi}_1u^1+{\lambda}_1u^2+{\psi}_1u^1))\delta u^2&=&(1/3){\lambda}_1=0.\end{aligned}$$ This implies ${\lambda}_1(t)={\eta}_1(t)=0$ and ${\psi}_1(t)={\phi}_1(t)$. Hence we have $(P_{k-1})_{12}={\lambda}_2(t)$ and $(P_{k-1})_{1}={\phi}_2(t)$.
The matrices $P_{k-2}$, $P_{k-3}$, and $P_{k-4}$ can be computed upon equating the coefficients at $z^{k}, \dots z^{k-2}$ to zero. Finally, if we equate the coefficient at $z^{k-3}$ to zero we obtain, in particular, $$D_x((P_{k-5})_{12})=f,$$ where $f$ is a differential function whose explicit form we omit. One of the necessary conditions for the last formula to hold is $$\begin{aligned}
\delta f/\delta u^1&=&\left(-(1/3)-(1/18)(k-6)\right)(u^1)^2{\phi}_1+\left((1/27)(k-6)+(2/9)\right)(u^2)^2{\phi}_1+\alpha(t)=0.
%\delta f/\delta u^2&=&\left((4/9)+(2/27)(k-6)\right)u^1u^2{\phi}_1+\beta(t)=0.\end{aligned}$$ As $k-6\geq 0$ by assumption, we have ${\phi}_1(t)=0$, therefore also ${\psi}_1(t)=0$. But then $\mathbf{Q}=(Q_1,Q_2)^T$ is a symmetry of order $k-1$, which is a contradiction, and the result follows.
It follows from Proposition \[prp\_sym\] that system (\[syst\]) for $d\neq 0$ is not symmetry integrable in the sense of [@symmetries; @wh_integrability; @complete_lists; @test], i.e., it has no generalized symmetries of arbitrarily high order. We intend to study the special case of $d=0$ elsewhere.
Now that we know that all generalized symmetries for the system (\[syst\]) with $d\neq 0$ are of order not higher than eight, they can be found by straightforward computation. The result is given by the following theorem:
\[symetrie\_veta\] The only generalized symmetries for the Majda–Biello system (\[syst\]) with $d\neq 0$ are those with characteristics $\mathbf{Q}^1=(\frac{x}{3}u_x+\frac{2}{3}u+t(du_{xxx}-vu_x-uv_x),\frac{x}{3}v_x+\frac{2}{3}v+t(v_{xxx}-uu_x))^T$, $\mathbf{Q}^2=(du_{xxx}-vu_x-uv_x,v_{xxx}-uu_x)^T$, and $\mathbf{Q}^3=(u_x,v_x)^T$, i.e., the scaling symmetry, $t$-translations and $x$-translations.
Using (\[syst\]) the above symmetries can be written as $\mathbf{Q}^1=(\frac{x}{3}u_x+\frac{2}{3}u+tu_t,\frac{x}{3}v_x+\frac{2}{3}v+tv_t)^T$, $\mathbf{Q}^2=(u_t,v_t)^T$, and $\mathbf{Q}^3=(u_x,v_x)^T$, which facilitates their interpretation. In particular, we immediately see that all generalized symmetries for (\[syst\]) with $d\neq 0$ are equivalent to the Lie point ones.
It is readily checked that there exists no conserved functional $\mathcal{K}$ associated (through the Hamiltonian operator $\mathfrak{D}$ so that $\mathbf{Q}_1=\mathfrak{D}\delta\mathcal{K}$) to the first symmetry $\mathbf{Q}_1$. The conserved functional associated to the second symmetry $\mathbf{Q}_2$ is $\mathcal{H}=-1/2\int (du_x^2+v_x^2+u^2 v)\ \mathrm{d}x$, the conservation law associated to the third symmetry $\mathbf{Q}_3$ is the energy $1/2\int (u^2+v^2)\ \mathrm{d}x.$
In particular, it follows from Theorem \[symetrie\_veta\] that the highest possible order of a generalized symmetry for (\[syst\]) with $d\neq 0$ is at most three. We will now use this fact to find all conservation laws for the system (\[syst\]). First of all we state the following lemma:
\[lemma\] The only cosymmetries for the Majda–Biello system (\[syst\]) with $d\neq 0$ are $\mathbf{G}^1=(1,0)^T$, $\mathbf{G}^2=(0,1)^T$, $\mathbf{G}^3=(u,v)^T$ and $\mathbf{G}^4=(du_{xx}-uv,v_{xx}-\frac{1}{2}u^2)^T$.
In order to find all cosymmetries for the system (\[syst\]), we have to find the maximal order of all cosymmetries. To this end we make use of the fact that our system is Hamiltonian with the Hamiltonian operator $\mathfrak{D}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}D_x&0\\0&D_x\end{array}\right)$ and $\mathfrak{D}$ maps cosymmetries to symmetries. So, let $\mathbf{G}=(G_1,G_2)^T$ be a cosymmetry for (\[syst\]). Then the 2-tuple $\mathfrak{D}(\mathbf{G})=(D_x(G_1),D_x(G_2))^T$ is a symmetry. According to the previous results, the highest possible order of $\mathfrak{D}(\mathbf{G})$ is equal to 3. Therefore, $\mathbf{G}=(G_1,G_2)^T$ must be of differential order at most two. Now, it is just a matter of straightforward computation to find all cosymmetries for (\[syst\]).=-1
\[zakony\_veta\] The only linearly independent conservation laws for the Majda–Biello system $(\ref{syst})$ with $d\neq 0$ are, modulo the addition of trivial conservation laws, of the form $D_t(\rho)=D_x(\sigma)$, where $\rho$ (resp. $\sigma$) are linear combinations of $\rho_i$ (resp. $\sigma_i$), $i=1,\dots,4$, given by the formulas $$\begin{array}{llllll}
\rho_1&=&u,&\sigma_1&=&du_{xx}-uv,\\[5mm]
\rho_2&=&v,&\sigma_2&=&v_{xx}-\frac{1}{2}u^2\\[5mm]
\rho_3&=&u^2+v^2,&\sigma_3&=&2duu_{xx}-2u^2v-du_x^2+2vv_{xx}-v_x^2\\[5mm]
\rho_4&=&du_x^2+v_x^2+vu^2,\ \ &\sigma_4&=&2v_x(v_{xxx}-uu_x)+2du_x( du_{xxx}-vu_x-uv_x)-v_{xx}^2-d^2u_{xx}^2\\[5mm]
&&&&&+u^2v_{xx}+2duvu_{xx}-\frac{1}{4}u^2(u^2+v^2).
\end{array}$$
Let $\rho$ be a conservation law density for (\[syst\]). Then the 2-tuple $\frac{\delta\rho}{\delta \mathbf{u}}=(\frac{\delta\rho}{\delta u},\frac{\delta\rho}{\delta v})$ is a cosymmetry for (\[syst\]). From Lemma \[lemma\] it follows that $\mathrm{ord}\ \frac{\delta\rho}{\delta u}\leq 2$ and $\mathrm{ord} \frac{\delta\rho}{\delta v}\leq 2$, which means that up to the addition of a trivial density $\rho$ is a function of $x,t,u,v,u_x,v_x$ only. In order to find all conserved densities for (\[syst\]) we now need to find all solutions to the system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rho}
\frac{\delta\rho(x,t,u,v,u_x,v_x)}{\delta u}&=&a_4(du_{xx}-uv)+a_3 u+a_1,\\
\frac{\delta\rho(x,t,u,v,u_x,v_x)}{\delta v}&=&a_4\left(v_{xx}-\frac{1}{2}u^2\right)+a_3 v+a_2,\end{aligned}$$ where the right-hand sides are linear combinations of the components of cosymmetries for (\[syst\]), so $a_i$ are arbitrary constants.
The general solution of (\[rho\]) modulo the trivial conserved density is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(x,t,u,v,u_x,v_x)&=& \sum\limits_{i=1}^4 a_i \rho_i,
%-\frac{1}{2}a\left(du_x^2+v_x^2+u^2v\right)+\frac{1}{2}b(u^2+v^2)+cu+ev.
%\\
%&&+\left( u_x\frac{\partial }{\partial u}\int g_1(x,t,u,v)\mathrm{d}v+g_1(x,t,u,v)v_x+\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\int %g_1(x,t,u,v)\mathrm{d}v\right)\\
%&&+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\int g_2(x,t,u)\mathrm{d}u+g_2(x,t,u)u_x+g_3(x,t),\end{aligned}$$ and the result follows. =-1 The fluxes $\sigma_i$ are easy to find by straightforward computation.
The conserved functionals $\int \rho_i \mathrm{d}x$, $i=1,2$, corresponding to the first and second conserved densities $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ are Casimir functionals corresponding to the Hamiltonian operator $\mathfrak{D}$. They were used in [@majda1] for the construction of a perturbed system for (\[syst\]). The conserved functional $\int \rho_3 \mathrm{d}x$ corresponding to the third conserved density $\rho_3$ is the energy, i.e., the integral of motion associated with the invariance under the time shifts. The conserved functional corresponding to the fourth conserved density is just the Hamiltonian functional $\mathcal{H}$ which generates the dynamics of (\[syst\]). Note that both equations of (\[syst\]) have the form of conservation laws, so the system (\[syst\]) is written in the normal form in the sense of [@ps].
The above conservation laws of (\[syst\]) can be employed e.g. for the stability analysis of (\[syst\]) and for the construction of nonlocal symmetries and nonlocal conservation laws for (\[syst\]) through introduction of the associated potentials, cf. e.g. [@bocharov; @kunzinger] and references therein. Also, the knowledge of all symmetries and conservation laws for (\[syst\]) enables one to construct higher-precision discretizations of (\[syst\]), cf. e.g. [@lw].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author thanks Dr. A. Sergyeyev for stimulating discussions and Prof. I. S. Krasil’shchik for helping her to gain a deeper understanding of the subject. This research was in part supported by the fellowship from the Moravian-Silesian region and the institutional support for IČ47813059. =-1
[99]{} J. Biello, A. J. Majda, *The effect of meriditional and vertical shear on the interaction of equatorial baroclinic and barotropic Rossby waves*, Stud. Appl. Math. 112 (2004), 341–390. M. Blaszak, *Multi-Hamiltonian Theory of Dynamical Systems*, Springer, Berlin etc., 1998. A. Bocharov et al, *Symmetries and Conservation Laws for Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics*, AMS, Providence, R1, 1999. G. I. Burde, A. Sergyeyev, *Ordering of two small parameters in the shallow water wave problem*, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46 (2013), paper 075501, arXiv:1301.6672. A. De Sole, V. Kac, M. Wakimoto, *On classification of Poisson vertex algebras*, Transformation Groups 15 (2010), 883–907, arXiv:1004.5387. L. A. Dickey, *Lectures on classical W-algebras*, Acta Appl. Math. 47 (1997), 243–321. V. G. Drinfeld, V.V. Sokolov, [*Lie algebras and equations of Korteweg–de Vries type*]{}, J. Sov. Math. 30 (1985), 1975–2036. G. B. Folland, *Introduction to partial differential equations*, Princeton University Press, 1995. I. M. Gel’fand, L. A. Dikii, *Fractional powers of operators and Hamiltonian systems*, Func. Anal. Appl. 10 (1976), 259–273. B. J. Hoskins, F.-F. Jin, *The initial value problem for tropical perturbations to a baroclinic atmosphere*, Quart J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. 117 (1991), 299–317. G. Kiladis, M. Wheeler, *Horizontal and vertical structure of observed tropospheric equatorial Rossby waves*, J. Geophys. Res. 100 (1995), 22981–22997. M. Kunzinger, R.O. Popovych, *Potential conservation laws*, J. Math. Phys. 49 (2008), no. 10, paper 103506, arXiv:0803.1156. D. Levi, P. Winternitz, [*Continuous symmetries of difference equations*]{}, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 (2006), R1–R63, arXiv:nlin/0502004. B. Khouider, A. J. Majda, S. N. Stechmann, *Climate science in the tropics: waves, vortices and PDEs*, Nonlinearity 26 (2013), R1–R68. A. J. Majda, *Introduction to PDEs and Waves for the Atmosphere and Ocean*, NYU, CIMS, New York; AMS, Providence, RI, 2003. A. J. Majda, J. A. Biello, *The Nonlinear Interaction of Barotropic and Equatorial Baroclinic Rossby Waves*, Journal of the atmospheric sciences, 60, no. 15 (2003), 1809-1821. A. J. Majda, M. Shefter, *Models for stratiform instability and convectively coupled waves*, J. Atmos. Sci. 58 (2001), 1567–1584. A. J. Majda, R. Klein, *Systematic multiscale models for the Tropics*, J. Atmos. Sci. 60 (2003), 357–372. A. G. Meshkov, *On symmetry classification of third-order evolutionary systems of divergent type*, J. Math. Sci. 151 (2008), no. 4, 3167-3181. A. V. Mikhailov, V. V. Sokolov, *Symmetries of Differential Equations and the Problem of Integrability*, in *Integrability*, A. V. Mikhailov (ed.), 19–98, Springer, Berlin etc., 2009. A. V. Mikhailov, A. B. Shabat, V. V. Sokolov, *Thy Symmetry Approach to Classification of integrable equations*, in *What is Integrability?*, V. E. Zakharov (ed.), 115–184, Springer, Heidelberg etc., 1991. A. V. Mikhailov, A. B. Shabat, R. I. Yamilov, *The symmetry approach to the classification of non-linear equations. Complete lists of integrable systems*, Russian Math. Surveys 42 (1987),no. 4, 1–63. J. D. Neelin, N. Zeng, *A quasi-equilibrium tropical circulation model - Formulation*, J. Atmos. Sci. 57 (2000), 1741–1766. P. J. Olver, *Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations*, Springer, N. Y., 1993. R.O. Popovych and A. Sergyeyev, *Conservation laws and normal forms of evolution equations*, Phys. Lett. A 374 (2010), no. 22, 2210–2217, arXiv:1003.1648. J. A. Sanders, J. P. Wang, *Number theory and the symmetry classification of integrable systems*, in *Integrability*, A.V. Mikhailov (ed.), 89–118, Lecture Notes in Phys., 767, Springer, Berlin etc., 2009. A. Sergyeyev, *A strange recursion operator demystified*, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38 (2005), L257–L262, arXiv:nlin.SI/0406032. A. Sergyeyev, *On time-dependent symmetries and formal symmetries of evolution equations*, in *Symmetry and perturbation theory (Rome, 1998)*, G. Gaeta (ed.), 303–308, World Scientific 1999, arXiv:solv-int/9902002. A. Sergyeyev, D. Demskoi, *Sasa–Satsuma (complex modified Korteweg–de Vries II) and the complex sine-Gordon II equation revisited: Recursion operators, nonlocal symmetries, and more*, J. Math. Phys. 48 (2007), no. 4, paper 042702, arXiv:nlin/0512042. A. B. Shabat, A. V. Mikhailov, *Symmetries - Test of Integrability*, in [*Important developments in soliton theory*]{}, 355–374, Springer, Berlin etc., 1993. V. V. Sokolov, *On the symmetries of evolution equations*, Russian Math. Surveys 43 (1988), no. 5, 165–204. J. Vodová, *A complete list of conservation laws for non-integrable compacton equations of $K(m, m)$ type*, Nonlinearity 26 (2013), 757–762, arXiv:1206.4401. B. Wang, X. Xie, *Low-frequency equatorial waves in vertically sheared zonal flow. Part I: Stable waves*, J. Atmos. Sci., 53 (1996), 449–467. V. A. Vladimirov, C.Maczka, A. Sergyeyev, S. Skurativskyi, *Stability and dynamical features of solitary wave solutions for a hydrodynamic-type system taking into account nonlocal effects*, Comm. Nonlin. Sci. Numer. Simul. 19 (2014), no. 6, 1770–1782, arXiv:1207.6198.
[^1]: For the sake of simplicity we identify here and below the generalized symmetry with its characteristics, cf. e.g. [@wh_integrability; @Olver].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Multilingual spoken dialogue systems have gained prominence in the recent past necessitating the requirement for a front-end Language Identification (LID) system. Most of the existing LID systems rely on modeling the language discriminative information from low-level acoustic features. Due to the variabilities of speech (speaker and emotional variabilities, etc.), large-scale LID systems developed using low-level acoustic features suffer from a degradation in the performance. In this approach, we have attempted to model the higher level language discriminative phonotactic information for developing an LID system. In this paper, the input speech signal is tokenized to phone sequences by using a language independent phone recognizer. The language discriminative phonotactic information in the obtained phone sequences are modeled using statistical and recurrent neural network based language modeling approaches. As this approach, relies on higher level phonotactical information it is more robust to variabilities of speech. Proposed approach is computationally light weight, highly scalable and it can be used in complement with the existing LID systems.'
address: |
International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, India\
$^{\dagger}$ Speech & Vision Lab\
$^{\star}$ Language Technology Research Center\
{brijmohanlal.s, hari.vydana}@research.iiit.ac.in\
{anil.vuppala, m.shrivastava}@iiit.ac.in
bibliography:
- 'strings.bib'
- 'refs1.bib'
title: A Language model Based Approach towards large scale and lightweight language identification systems
---
Language Identification, Recurrent neural network language model (RNNLM), SRI language model (SRILM), Phone recognizer followed by language model (PRLM), phonotactics.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Language identification (LID) refers to the task of automatically identifying the language from the speech utterance. An LID system is a vital module for a wide range of multilingual applications like, call centers, multilingual Spoken Dialog Systems, emergency services and speech-to-speech translation systems. Human-Computer interaction through speech can be taken more deeply into human society if the interaction is through multiple regional languages, for that LID system is a preliminary requirement. A lot of scientific interest is being shown in developing an LID system, specifically a lightweight system to lower the overhead cost. In relevance to the task of developing an LID system, recent works have focused on developing algorithms to extract suitable features for language identification. Lately i-vector based features are explored and they have exhibited better performance compared to the conventional spectral features like Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC), Linear predictive cepstral coefficients (LPCC) and Shifted delta cepstral coefficients (SDC) in NIST evaluations for speaker and language recognition tasks [@mccree2015dnn]. Neural networks have also been employed as feature extractors to compute the stacked bottleneck features for LID [@matejka2014neural]. Multilingual bottleneck, multilingual tandem bottleneck obtained by stacking the SDC with the corresponding bottleneck features are explored in [@fer2015multilingual; @geng2015multilingual]. In most of the recent approaches the power of DNN (Deep neural networks) is explored for the task of language identification. Various approaches featuring Feed Forward Deep Neural Networks (FF-DNNs) and Long-Short Term Memory Recurrent Neural Networks (LSTM-RNNs) have been employed for developing the language classifiers. Additionally, convolutional neural networks have been studied to develop an end-to-end LID system for 8 languages in[@lozano2015end].\
The approaches mentioned above rely on the language discriminative capability present in the lower-level acoustic information with some contextual information in time neighborhood. The better performance of i-vector based approaches compared to the conventional spectral features can be attributed to its better context modeling capability. The systems which try to model the language discriminative information at higher-level (phones, phone frequency and phonotactics) have exhibited better performance [@zissman2001automatic]. In this paper, we propose an approach to capture higher-level language discriminative information, which can be used as a complementary information to the existing low-level acoustic information modeling LID systems. A language independent phone recognizer followed by a language dependent phone model (PRLM) for capturing the phonotactics of 4 languages is used in [@zissman1994ngram]. In [@zissman1994ngram], language dependent phone recognizer for every language operated in parallel (PPRLM) is used to decode the test utterance and the language model with large number of uni-gram and bi-gram counts is used as an indication to the spoken language identity. Though PPRLM (Parallel-Phone recognizer followed by language model) is quite efficient compared to PRLM, it is computationally inefficient to decode the test utterance using all language’s phone recognizer. Scalability is the major issue for a PPRLM system whenever a new language has to be incorporated into the existing LID system.\
In this paper, we attempt to explore the significance of PRLM based approaches for developing a large scale LID system. As a part of our experiments, we develop an LID system comprising of $176$ different languages. The pipeline of our system includes a language independent phone recognizer to generate the phone sequences from raw signal and two different language modeling approaches (SRILM and RNNLM) to capture the phonotactic information. The proposed approach is computationally quite efficient hence can be quite handy to add complementary evidence to the existing approaches. As the proposed approach mostly relies on the large durational phonotactic information of a language, it is more robust compared to low-level acoustic modeling approaches. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the dataset used in this approach. The proposed approach as such is described in section 3. Results and relevant discussions are presented in section 4. Conclusion and future scope are discussed in section 5.
Data Description {#sec:print}
================
The language data which is made openly available by Topcoder [^1] as a part of Spoken Language Recognition challenge is used in this work. Data sets comprises of recorded speech in 176 languages. The dataset contains $375$ utterances per language and the language labels of these utterances are also available. Each utterance has a duration of 10 seconds. Each speech recording is given in a separate file and only one language is spoken in each file. The available data is reorganized into training, testing, and validation sets. For training SRILM n-grams, $330$ utterances were used for developing language models and the remaining $45$ utterances are used for testing the models. In case of RNNLMs, $300$ utterances were used for training, $30$ utterances were used for validation and $45$ utterances are used to test the developed models. The data provided has speech recordings in mp3 format, which are later converted to WAV format with sampling rate as 16 kHz.\
Proposed Approach {#sec:prior}
=================
In this approach, we mostly rely on the higher-level phonotactic information extracted from speech for developing an LID system. To extract the higher level phonotactic information input speech signal is to be tokenized. For tokenizing the input speech a language independent phone recognizer is used and the phone sequence is obtained. Although the phone recognizer is independent of the language that is being decoded, we assume that the similar sounding acoustic patterns will be decoded as approximately the same phone labels. By using the language independent phone recognizer, we are relying on the consistency of the phone recognizer rather than the accuracy i.e., similar sounding acoustic sounds will be tagged with same phone label regardless of the language. In this work, we hypothesize that the statistical patterns present in the obtained phone sequence have the language-discriminative information. For that purpose, SRILM and RNNLM are explored to model the statistical patterns that convey the language discriminative information from the tokenized phone sequence. The block diagram of the proposed approach is presented in Fig \[Block\_diagram\]. The details of the phone recognizer and the language modeling techniques employed are described in the following subsections.\
Language-independent phone recognizer
-------------------------------------
The goal of the language-independent phone recognizer is to provide maximum coverage of phone units present in all the languages for which the system is being developed. We employ PocketSphinx[@huggins2006pocketsphinx] as the front-end phone recognizer which uses HMM-based phone decoder from speech signal. A phonetically tied-mixture (PTM) model is used for efficient decoding. It contains 256 mixture components per state and assigns different mixture weights to the shared states of tri-phones. This model provides a good balance between speed and accuracy. Since it can be trained over huge data, it gives a decent decoding result in under real time. We use US English phone set with 40 phones and an unbiased phonetic language model for decoding. The phone recognizer can be improved by training over multiple languages which will certainly increase the coverage of common phonetic and acoustic patterns. Current acoustic model is trained on US English speech data.
Language modeling
-----------------
SRILM n-grams (uni-gram to 6-grams) and RNNLM have been used for experimentations to model the statistical patterns in the phone sequences.
![Architecture of RNNLM used in this work.[]{data-label="rnnlm_arch"}](rnnlm_arch1.png)
RNNLM as shown in Figure \[rnnlm\_arch\], uses the current phone token $w(t)$ and previous state of hidden layer $s(t-1)$ to predict the probability of next token $y(t)$. The neuron in hidden layer $s(t)$ uses sigmoid activation function. Once the network is trained, we can use the output layer $y(t)$ as the probability distribution of the next word given current word and the state of hidden layer. Here, $c(t)$ represents the class layer which can be optionally used to reduce the computational complexity of model. As observed in the experiments conducted by us, models with lesser classes generally perform better at a higher computation cost. The matrix $W$ represents recurrent weights of the network which is trained using backpropagation through time (BPTT) algorithm. Training of $W$ can be improved by choosing optimum number of steps to propagate the error back in time. This can be task-dependent and for good LID models this value can be $4$ to $6$.
Results & Discussion {#sec:majhead}
====================
[**System**]{} Min Max Avg Accuracy
------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
SRILM 1-gram 43.79 60 46.53
SRILM 2-gram 77.77 83.61 81.77
SRILM 3-gram 84.07 88.88 85.45
SRILM 4-gram 81.11 86.66 83.94
SRILM 5-gram 77.77 86.66 83.15
SRILM 6-gram 77.77 86.66 82.98
RNNLM 1-class 83.13 [**93.33**]{} 84.42
RNNLM 6-classes [**84.44**]{} 90.58 [**87.69**]{}
RNNLM 100-classes 82.22 89.44 85.38
: Language identification accuracies for each language model (explicit approach)[]{data-label="results_table"}
Column 1 of Table. \[results\_table\] are the various language models developed during the study. Column 2 specifies the performance of language model with minimum accuracy among all the 176 language models. Similarly, column 3 specifies the performance of language model with maximum accuracy among all the 176 language models. Column 4 is the average percentage of correctly detected testcases in all the 176 languages. Columns 2, 3 are intended to show that the performance of LID system is consistant across the languages. In Table. \[results\_table\], row 2-7 are the performances using SRILM and rows 8-10 are the performaces obtained using RNNLM.
Language models are estimated for each of the 176 languages. While training, we experimented with different classes (1, 6, 100) and sizes of the hidden layers (30, 40) in RNNLM. Model with 6 classes and 40 units in hidden layer gives best accuracy averaged over all languages. The maximum accuracy obtained using RNNLM is $93.33\%$ for Dangaleat language. Although the performance of RNNLM models for LID can be boosted at the cost of higher computational complexity, we observed that tri-gram models with low complexity can be used to achieve comparable results.\
RNNLM is known to exhibit high sequence learning capabilities [@mikolov2011rnnlm] so the language-discriminative patterns from the phone sequences is captured to a good extent which can observed from the results of section \[sec:majhead\]. We also notice that n-grams accuracy increases drastically when we go from uni-gram to trigram models and then comes down gradually while we move to 6-gram models. For certain languages n-grams even surpass the accuracy obtained from a 100-class RNNLM. This observation can be utilized in order to linearly interpolate the scores obtained from both models to boost the accuracy to maximum. For testing, sentence-level perplexity obtained from each model is compared and the language which gives lowest perplexity value is chosen as the most probable label.\
Based on the conducted experiments, we observed that RNNLM performance increases when we use optimum number of classes to decompose the vocabulary, i.e., when number of classes are approximately equal to $\sqrt{|V|}$, where $|V|$ is the vocabulary size. In case of RNNLM 6-classes, error has been propagated to $4$ steps back in time, which lets the model predict the next word probability with the knowledge of higher dimensional features captured by the history. According to Table \[results\_table\], this model gives highest average language identification performance of $87.69\%$ at a much higher computational cost. Rest of the models use simple RNN to model the language.
Conclusion {#sec:foot}
==========
In this work, we have studied the scalability of PRLM based approaches for language identification. The proposed approach employs a language independent phone recognizer for tokenizing the input speech to phone sequences. We have explored the language modeling approaches such as SRILM and RNNLM for modeling the statistical patterns in the phone sequence. As the proposed approach relies on the phonotactic information this can be used as a complementary information to the approaches that rely on language information from low-level acoustic features. The proposed approach is highly computationally efficient and it can come handy to enhance many other approaches of LID systems. From the results it can be observed that both SRILM and RNNLM based language models have shown equally good performance for developing a large scale LID systems.\
We have developed LID systems using sentence-level probabilities and n-best scores obtained from various language models. Currently, the language models are developed independent of each other. Some of the future tasks can be to develop linearly and non-linearly interpolated language models for LID, synthesizing LID-specific acoustic models and Language model pruning. Less phonetic coverage could be a reason for low recognition accuracy of some languages hence more generalized phone recognizer with large phonetic coverage could be developed specifically for LID systems. Based on the statistics obtained from the language-specific language models, further pruning can be done.\
[^1]: <https://community.topcoder.com/tc?module=MatchDetails&rd=16555>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Matthew Headrick$^a$,'
- 'Veronika E. Hubeny$^b$,'
- 'Albion Lawrence$^a$,'
- |
\
Mukund Rangamani$^b$
title: 'Causality & holographic entanglement entropy'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
One of the remarkable features of the holographic AdS/CFT correspondence is the geometrization of quantum-field-theoretic concepts. While certain aspects of recasting field-theory quantities into geometric notions have been ingrained in our thought, we are yet to fully come to grips with new associations between QFT and bulk geometry. A case in point is the fascinating connection of quantum entanglement and spacetime geometry. The genesis of this intricate and potentially deep connection harks back to the observation of Ryu-Takayanagi (RT) [@Ryu:2006ef; @Ryu:2006bv] and subsequent covariant generalization by Hubeny-Rangamani-Takayanagi (HRT) [@Hubeny:2007xt] that the entanglement entropy of a quantum field theory is holographically computed by the area of a particular extremal surface in the bulk. In recent years, much effort has been expended in trying to flesh out the physical implications of these constructions and in promoting the geometry/entanglement connection to a deeper level [@Swingle:2009bg; @VanRaamsdonk:2009ar; @VanRaamsdonk:2010pw; @Maldacena:2013xja] which can be summarized rather succinctly in terms of the simple phrases “entanglement builds bridges” and “ER = EPR”. Whilst any connection between entanglement and geometry is indeed remarkable, further progress is contingent on the accuracy and robustness of this entry in the holographic dictionary. Let us therefore take stock of the status quo.[^1]
The RT proposal is valid for static states of a holographic field theory, which allows one to restrict attention to a single time slice ${\tilde \Sigma}$ in the bulk spacetime $\bulk$. The entanglement entropy of a region $\regA$ on the corresponding Cauchy slice $\Sigma$ of the boundary spacetime $\bdy$ is computed by the area of a certain bulk minimal surface which lies on ${\tilde \Sigma}$. In this case we have a lot of confidence in this entry to the AdS/CFT dictionary; firstly the RT formula obeys rather non-trivial general properties of entanglement entropies such as strong subadditivity [@Headrick:2007km; @Hayden:2011ag; @Headrick:2013zda], and secondly a general argument has been given for it in the context of Euclidean quantum gravity [@Lewkowycz:2013nqa].
However, it should be clear from the outset that restricting oneself to static states is overly limiting. Not only is the field theory notion of entanglement entropy valid in a broader, time-dependent, context, but more importantly, one cannot hope to infer all possible constraints on the holographic map without considering time dependence.
The HRT proposal, which generalizes the RT construction to arbitrary time-dependent configurations by promoting a minimal surface on ${\tilde \Sigma}$ to an [*extremal*]{} surface $\extr$ in $\bulk$, allows one to confront geometric questions in complete generality. However, this proposal has passed far fewer checks, and an argument deriving it from first principles is still lacking. This presents a compelling opportunity to test the construction against field-theory expectations and see how it holds up. Since the new ingredient in HRT is time-dependence, the crucial property to check is causality. The present discussion therefore focuses on verifying that [*the HRT prescription is consistent with field-theory causality*]{}.[^2]
Let us start by considering the implications of CFT causality on entanglement entropy, in order to extract the corresponding requirements to be upheld by its putative bulk dual. As we will explain in detail in §\[sec:overview\], there are two such requirements. First, the entanglement entropy is a so-called *wedge observable*. This means that two spatial regions $\regA$, $\regA'$ that share the same domain of dependence, $D[\regA]=D[\regA']$, have the same entanglement entropy, $S_\regA=S_{\regA'}$; this follows from the fact that the corresponding reduced density matrices $\rho_\regA$, $\rho_{\regA'}$ are unitarily related [@Casini:2003ix]. Second, fixing the initial state, a perturbation to the Hamiltonian with support contained entirely inside $D[\regA]\cup D[\regA^c]$ (where $\regA^c$ is the complement of $\regA$ on a Cauchy slice) cannot affect $S_\regA$. The reason is that we can choose a Cauchy slice $\Sigma'$ that lies to the past of the support and contains a region $\regA'$ with $D[\regA']=D[\regA]$; since the perturbation cannot change the state on $\Sigma'$, it cannot affect $S_{\regA'}$, which by the previous requirement equals $S_\regA$. Time-reversing the argument shows that, similarly, $S_\regA$ cannot be affected by a perturbation in $D[\regA]\cup D[\regA^c]$ when we consider time evolution toward the past with a fixed final state.
Having specified the implications of causality for the entanglement entropy in the field theory, let us now translate them into requirements on its holographic dual. First, in order to ensure that the HRT formula in general gives the same entanglement entropy for $\regA$ and $\regA'$, they should have the same extremal surface, $\extr={\cal E}_{\regA'}$. Second, in order for $\extr$ to be safe from influence by perturbations of the boundary Hamiltonian in $\domdA$ and $D[\regA^c]$ (when evolving either toward the future or toward the past), it has to be causally disconnected from those two regions. This means that the extremal surface has to lie in a region which we dub the [*causal shadow*]{}, denoted by $\shadow_{\entsurf}$ and defined in as the set of bulk points which are spacelike-separated from $\domdA\cup\domdAc$.
This causality requirement takes an interesting guise in the case where $\regA$ is an entire Cauchy slice for a boundary. If this is the only boundary, and the bulk is causally trivial, then there is no causal shadow; indeed, $\extr=\emptyset$, corresponding to the fact that the entanglement entropy of the full system vanishes in a pure state. However, if the state is [*not*]{} pure, the bulk geometry is causally nontrivial: typically the bulk black-hole spacetime has two boundaries, dual to two field theories in an entangled state (which can be thought of as purifying the thermal state of the theory on one boundary). If we take the region $\regA$ to be a Cauchy slice for one boundary and $\regAc$ a Cauchy slice for the other, then the extremal surface whose area, according to HRT, measures the amount of entanglement between the two field theories must lie in a region out of causal contact with either boundary.[^3]
How trivial or expected is the claim that the extremal surface resides in the causal shadow? It is interesting to note that for [*local*]{} CFT observables, analogous causality violation is in fact disallowed by the gravitational time-delay theorem of Gao and Wald [@Gao:2000ga]. This theorem, which assumes that the bulk satisfies the null energy condition, implies that a signal from one boundary point to another cannot propagate faster through the bulk than along the boundary, ensuring that bulk causality respects boundary causality. However, since entanglement entropy is a more nonlocal quantity, which according to HRT is captured by a bulk surface that can go behind event and apparent horizons [@Hubeny:2002dg; @AbajoArrastia:2010yt] and penetrate into causally disconnected regions from the boundary, it is far less obvious whether CFT causality will survive in this context.
Let us first consider a static example. Although it is guaranteed to be consistent with CFT causality since it is covered by the RT prescription which is “derived” from first principles, it is useful to gain appreciation for how innocuous or far-fetched causality violation would appear in the more general case. Intriguingly, already the simplest case of pure AdS reveals the potential for things to go wrong.
![ For , the RT formula satisfies field-theory causality marginally. The plane generated by null geodesics (color-coded by angular momentum) from a given boundary point (blue) is also ruled by spacelike geodesics at constant time (color-coded by time). []{data-label="f:AdS3geods"}](AdS3geods){width="2in"}
As illustrated in Fig. \[f:AdS3geods\], the null congruence from a single boundary point (which bounds the bulk region which a boundary source at that point can influence) is simultaneously foliated by spacelike geodesics $\{ \extr \}$. So a signal that can influence a given extremal surface $\extr$ in that set can also influence $\entsurf$, thereby upholding CFT causality. However, note that here causality was maintained marginally: if the extremal surface was deformed away from $\regA$ by arbitrarily small amount, one would immediately be in danger of causality violation.
Another, less trivial, test case is the static eternal Schwarzschild-AdS black hole. The extremal surface that encodes entanglement between the two boundaries is the horizon bifurcation surface. Again, arbitrarily small deformation of this surface would shift it into causal contact with at least one of the boundaries, thereby endangering causality; in particular, entanglement entropy for one CFT should not be influenced by deformations in the other CFT. For static geometries we’re in fact safe because extremal surfaces do not penetrate event horizons [@Hubeny:2012ry]; however this is no longer the case in dynamical situations [@Hubeny:2002dg; @AbajoArrastia:2010yt; @Hartman:2013qma; @Liu:2013iza; @Hubeny:2013dea]. Moreover, as illustrated in [@Hubeny:2013hz], in Vaidya-AdS geometry, $\extr$ can be null-related to the past tip of $\domdA$, thereby again upholding causality just marginally—an arbitrarily small outward deformation of the extremal surface would render it causally accessible from $\domdA$. These considerations demonstrate that the question of whether the HRT prescription is consistent with field-theory causality is a highly nontrivial one.
The main result of this paper is a proof that, if the bulk spacetime metric obeys the null energy condition, then the extremal surface $\extr$ does indeed obey both of the above requirements. We conclude that the HRT formula is consistent with field-theory causality. This theorem can be viewed as a generalization of the Gao-Wald theorem [@Gao:2000ga]. We regard it as a highly nontrivial piece of evidence in favor of the HRT formula. Along the way, we will also slightly sharpen the statement of the HRT formula, and in particular clarify the homology condition on $\extr$.
Partial progress towards this result was achieved in [@Hubeny:2012wa; @Hubeny:2013gba], which showed that the extremal surface $\extr$ generically lies outside of the “causal wedge" of $\domdA$, the intersection of the bulk causal future and causal past of $\domdA$. (However, these works did not make the connection to field-theory causality). A stronger statement equivalent to our theorem was proved in [@Wall:2012uf] (cf., Theorem 6) and it is noted in passing that this would ensure field theory causality. We present an alternate proof which brings out some of of the bulk regions more cleanly and make the connections with boundary causality more manifest.
As a byproduct of our analysis, we will identify a certain bulk spacetime region, which we call the *entanglement wedge* and denote $\EWA$, which is bounded on one side by $D[\regA]$ and on the other by $\extr$. Apart from providing a useful quantity in formulating and deriving our results, the entanglement wedge is, as we will argue, the bulk region most naturally associated with the boundary reduced density matrix $\rhoA$.
The outline of this paper is as follows. We begin in §\[sec:overview\] with an overview of the causal domains of interest on each side of the gauge-gravity duality, and motivate and state the core theorem of the paper, which shows that the HRT proposal is consistent with boundary causality. We motivate one of the major implications of our theorem by considering spherically symmetric deformations of the eternal black hole containing a region out of causal contact with both asymptotically AdS boundaries, the *causal shadow*, and showing that the HRT surface lies in this causal shadow. In §\[sec:examples\], we begin to develop some intuition used in the proof of our main theorem, by considering classes of null geodesic congruences in . In §\[sec:results\] we prove the general theorem which establishes the main result of the paper. We conclude in §\[sec:discuss\] with a discussion of the physical implications of our result and open questions.
[*Note added:*]{} While this paper was nearing completion [@Engelhardt:2014gca] appeared on the arXiv, which has some overlap with the present work. It introduces the notion of quantum extremal surfaces and argues that for bulk theories that satisfy the generalized second law such surfaces satisfy the causality constraint.
Causal domains and entanglement entropy {#sec:overview}
=======================================
In this section we will state our basic results and discuss some of their implications. The specific proof, and some additional results, will be presented in §\[sec:results\]. In §\[sec:discuss\] we will suggest some further interpretations of our results, particularly regarding the dual of the reduced density matrix.
We will open in §\[sec:cqft\] by deriving the causality properties of entanglement entropy in a QFT, and setting up some notation regarding causal domains which will be useful in the sequel. In §\[sec:cbulkexp\], we will review the HRT formula and discuss various causal regions in the bulk. In §\[sec:bulkextc\], we state the basic theorem and some implications for the bulk causal structure relative to specific regions arising in the HRT conjecture. §\[sec:gexpt\] spells out a particular consequence of our results for spacetimes with multiple boundaries.
Where left unspecified, our notation follows [@Wald:1984ai].
Causality of entanglement entropy in QFT {#sec:cqft}
----------------------------------------
Consider a local quantum field theory (QFT) on a $d$-dimensional globally hyperbolic spacetime $\bdy$. The state on a given Cauchy slice[^4] $\Sigma$ is described by a density matrix $\rho_\Sigma$; this could be a pure or mixed state. We are interested in the entanglement between the degrees of freedom in a region[^5] $\regA \subset \Sigma$ and its complement $\regAc$. Following established terminology, we call the boundary $\entsurf$ the [*entangling surface*]{}.
The entanglement entropy is defined by first decomposing the Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ of the QFT into ${\cal H}_{\regA} \otimes {\cal H}_{\regAc}$, after imposing some suitable cutoff.[^6] The reduced density matrix $\rho_{\regA} := \operatorname{Tr}_{{\cal H}_{\regAc}} \rho_\Sigma$ captures the entanglement between $\regA$ and $\regAc$; in particular, the entanglement entropy is given by its von Neumann entropy: $S_{\regA} := - \operatorname{Tr}\left( \rho_{\regA} \ln \rho_{\regA}\right)$. For holographic theories, we expect that this quantity has good properties in the large-$N$ limit,[^7] unlike the Rényi entropies $S_{n,\regA} := - \frac{1}{n-1} \ln \operatorname{Tr}\left(\rho_{\regA}^n\right)$ [@Headrick:2010zt; @Headrick:2013zda]. Note that both quantities are determined by the eigenvalues of $\rhoA$, and are thus insensitive to unitary transformations of $\rhoA$.
Now, since $\Sigma$ is a Cauchy slice, the future (past) evolution of initial data on it allows us to reconstruct the state of the QFT on the entirety of ${\cal B}$. In other words, the past and future domains of dependence of $\Sigma$ , $D^\pm[\Sigma]$, together make up the background spacetime on which the QFT lives, i.e., $D^+[\Sigma] \cup D^-[\Sigma] = \bdy$. Likewise, the domain of dependence of $\regA$, $\domdA = D^+[\regA] \cup D^-[\regA]$, is the region where the reduced density matrix $\rhoA$ can be uniquely evolved once we know the Hamiltonian acting on the reduced system in $\regA$.[^8]
$\regAc$ similarly has its domain of dependence $\domdAc$. However, unless $\regA$ comprises the entire Cauchy slice, the two domains do not make up the full spacetime, $\domdA \cup \domdAc\neq \bdy$, since we have to account for the regions which can be influenced by the entangling surface $\entsurf$. Denoting the causal future (past) of a point $p\in {\cal B}$ by $J^\pm(p)$ we find that we have to keep track of the regions $J^\pm[\entsurf]$ which are not contained in either $\domdA$ or $\domdAc$. As a result, the full spacetime $\bdy$ decomposes into four causally-defined regions: the domains of dependence of the region and its complement, and the causal future and past of the entangling surface: $$\bdy = \domdA \cup \domdAc \cup J^+[\entsurf] \cup J^-[\entsurf]\,.
\label{bdy4d}$$ These four regions are non-overlapping (except that $J^\pm[\partial\regA]$ both include $\partial\regA$). See Fig. \[f:bdy4d\] for an illustration of this decomposition. Although this decomposition is fairly obvious pictorially, for completeness we provide a proof in §\[sec:results\] (cf. theorem \[decomposition\]).
![ An illustration of the causal domains associated with a region $\regA$, making manifest the decomposition of the spacetime into the four distinct domains indicated in . Two deformations $\regA'$ are also included for illustration in the right panel. []{data-label="f:bdy4d"}](bdydomains){width="5in"}
(0.3,0.4)(0,0) (-2.5,2.6)[(0,0)[$J^+[\entsurf]$]{}]{} (-2.5,0.5)[(0,0)[$J^-[\entsurf]$]{}]{}
The decomposition is particularly convenient for formulating the QFT causality constraint. Recall that the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix $\rhoA$, and hence the Rényi and von Neumann entropies, are invariant under unitary transformations which act on ${\cal H}_{\regA}$ alone or on ${\cal H}_{\regAc}$ alone. These include perturbations of the Hamiltonian and local unitary transformations supported in the domains $D[\regA]$ or $D[\regAc]$. In particular, if we consider another region $\regA'$ of a Cauchy slice $\Sigma'$ such that $D[\regA]=D[\regAc]$ (as indicated in Fig. \[f:bdy4d\]), then the state $\rho_{\Sigma'}$ is related by a unitary transformation to the state $\rho_\Sigma$. It is clear that such a transformation can be constructed from operators localized in $\regA$, and so does not change the entanglement spectrum of $\rhoA$. Furthermore, if we fix the state at $t\to-\infty$, then a perturbation to the Hamiltonian with support $R$ cannot affect the state on a Cauchy slice to the past of $R$ (i.e. that doesn’t intersect $J^+[R]$). Such a perturbation can therefore affect the entanglement spectrum only if $R$ intersects $J^-[\entsurf]$, because otherwise we can imagine evaluating $S_\regA$ by using a sufficiently early Cauchy slice $\Sigma' \supset \entsurf$ that passes to the past of $R$. Similarly, if we fix the state at $t\to+\infty$, the spectrum can be affected only by perturbations in $J^+[\entsurf]$. In summary, we have the following properties of $\rhoA$:
- The entanglement spectrum of $\rhoA$ depends only on the domain $D[\regA]$ and not on the particular choice of Cauchy slice $\Sigma$. The spectrum is thus a so-called “wedge observable” (although it is not, of course, an observable in the usual sense).
- Fixing the state in either the far past or the far future, the entanglement spectrum of $\rhoA$ is insensitive to any local deformations of the Hamiltonian in $\domdA$ or $\domdAc$.
These are the crucial causality requirements that entanglement (Rényi) entropies are required to satisfy in any relativistic QFT.
The essential result of this paper is that the HRT proposal for computing $S_{\regA}$ satisfies these causality constraints. In the conclusions we will revisit the question of what the dual of $\rhoA$, and thus of the data in $D[\regA]$, might be.
Bulk geometry and holographic entanglement entropy {#sec:cbulkexp}
--------------------------------------------------
Let us now restrict attention to the class of holographic QFTs, which are theories dual to classical dynamics in some bulk asymptotically AdS spacetime. To be precise, we only consider strongly coupled QFTs in which the classical gravitational dynamics truncates to that of Einstein gravity, possibly coupled to matter which we will assume satisfies the null energy condition.
The dynamics of the QFT on $\bdy$ is described by classical gravitational dynamics on a bulk asymptotically locally AdS spacetime $\bulk$ with conformal boundary $\bdy$, the spacetime where the field theory lives. We define $\overM:=\bulk\cup\bdy$. $\overM$ is endowed with a metric $\tilde g_{ab}$ which is related by a Weyl transformation to the physical metric $g_{ab}$ on $\bulk$, $\tilde g_{ab}=\Omega^2g_{ab}$, where $\Omega\to0$ on $\bdy$.[^9] Causal domains on $\overM$ will be denoted with a tilde to distinguish them from their boundary counterparts, e.g., $\bulkJ^\pm(p)$ will denote the causal future and past of a point $p$ in $\overM$ and $\bulkD[R]$ will denote the domain of dependence of some set $R\subset\overM$.
It will also be useful to introduce a compact notation to indicate when two points $p$ and $q$ are spacelike-separated; for this we adopt the notation $\splrel$, i.e.$$p\splrel q \;\; \Leftrightarrow \;\;\text{$\nexists$ a causal curve between $p$ and $q$.}
\label{splrel}$$ Moreover, to denote regions that are spacelike separated from a point, we will use $\splsep(p)$ and $\bulksplsep(p)$ in the boundary and bulk respectively, $$\splsep(p) := \{ q \mid p\splrel q \}
=\left( J^+(p) \cup J^-(p) \right)^c
\qquad {\rm and} \qquad
\bulksplsep(p) := \left( \bulkJ^+(p) \cup \bulkJ^-(p) \right)^c\,.
\label{splregions}$$ Just as for other causal sets, we can extend these definitions to any region $R$, namely $\splsep[R] := \cap_{p \in R} \splsep(p)$ is the set of points which are causally disconnected from the entire region $R$, etc.
Having established our notation for general causal relations, let us now specify the notation relevant for holographic entanglement entropy. As before we will fix a region $\regA$ on the boundary. The HRT proposal [@Hubeny:2007xt] states that the entanglement entropy $S_\regA$ is holographically computed by the area of a bulk codimension-two extremal surface $\extr$ that is anchored on $\entsurf$; specifically, $$S_\regA = \frac{\text{Area}(\extr)}{4 G_N}\,.
\label{SAdef}$$ In the static (RT) case, it is known that the extremal surface is required to be homologous to $\regA$, meaning that there exists a bulk region $\homsurfA$ such that $\partial\homsurfA=\regA\cup\extr$. So far, it has not been entirely clear what the correct covariant generalization of this condition is. In particular, should it merely be a topological condition, or should one impose geometrical or causal requirements on $\homsurfA$, for example, that it be spacelike? (A critical discussion of the issues involved can be found in [@Hubeny:2013gta].) In this paper, we will show that a clean picture, consistent with all aspects of field-theory causality, is obtained by requiring that $\homsurfA$ be a region of a bulk Cauchy slice.[^10] We will call this the “spacelike homology” condition.[^11]
The homology surface $\homsurfA$ naturally leads us to the key construct pertaining to entanglement entropy, which we call the [*entanglement wedge*]{} of $\regA$, denoted by[^12] $\EWA$. This can be defined as a causal set, namely the bulk domain of dependence of $\homsurfA$, $$\EWA := \bulkD[\homsurfA]\,.
\label{ewedge}$$ Note that the entanglement wedge is a bulk codimension-zero spacetime region, which can be equivalently identified with the region defined by the set of bulk points which are spacelike-separated from $\extr$ and connected to $\domdA$. The latter definition has the advantage of absolving us of having to specify an arbitrary homology surface $\homsurfA$ rather than just $\extr$ and $\domdA$. As we shall see below, the bulk spacetime can be naturally decomposed into four regions analogously to the boundary decomposition ; the entanglement wedge is then the region associated with (and ending on) $\domdA$.
While we have focused on the regions in the bulk which enter the holographic entanglement entropy constructions, we pause here to note two other causal constructs that can be naturally associated with $\regA$. First of all we have the [*causal wedge*]{} $\CWA$ which is set of all bulk points which can both send signals to and receive signals from boundary points contained in $\domdA$, i.e.,[^13] $$\CWA := \bulkJ^+\big[\domdA\big] \cap \bulkJ^- \big[\domdA\big].
\label{cwedge}$$ (The entanglement wedge $\EWA$ and causal wedge $\CWA$ are in fact special cases of the “rim wedge” and “strip wedge” introduced recently in [@Hubeny:2014qwa] as bulk regions associated with residual entropy.)
![ Example of a causally trivial spacetime and a boundary region $\regA$ whose causal shadow is a finite spacetime region. We have engineered an asymptotically geometry sourced by matter satisfying the null energy condition (see footnote \[fn:metric\]) and taken $\regA$ to nearly half the boundary, $\varphi_\regA = 1.503$, at $t=0$ (thick red curve). The shaded regions on the boundary cylinder are $\domdA$ and $\domdAc$ respectively. The extremal surface is the thick blue curve, while the purple curves are the rims of the causal wedge (causal information surfaces) for $\regA$ and $\regAc$ respectively. A few representative generators are provided for orientation: the blue null geodesics generate the boundary of the causal wedge for $\regA$ while the green ones do likewise for $\regAc$. The orange generators in the middle of the spacetime generate the boundary of the causal shadow region $\shadow_{\entsurf}$. []{data-label="f:causalshadow"}](CausalShadow){width="3in"}
(0,0) (-3.8,5.2) [$\extr$]{} (-0.7,5) [$\color{red}{\regA}$]{} (-7.1,5.1) [$\regAc$]{} (-0.7,6) [$\leftarrow\domdA$]{} (-8.2,6.2) [$\domdAc\rightarrow$]{} (-3.5,6.6) [$\big\downarrow$]{} (-3.6,7.1)[$ \shadow_{\entsurf}$]{}
The second bulk causal domain which will play a major role in our discussion below is a region we call the [*causal shadow*]{} $\shadow_{\entsurf}$ associated with the entangling surface $\entsurf$. We define this region as the set of points in the bulk $\bulk$ that are spacelike-related to both $\domdA$ and $\domdAc$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\shadow_{\entsurf}
& := \left(\bulkJ^+[\domdA]\cup\bulkJ^-[\domdA] \cup \bulkJ^+[\domdAc]\cup\bulkJ^-[\domdAc]\right)^c
\nonumber \\
&= \bulksplsep[\domdA \cup \domdAc]\,.
\label{shadowdef}\end{aligned}$$ For a generic region $\regA$ in a generic asymptotically AdS spacetime, the causal shadow is a codimension-zero spacetime region; see Fig. \[f:causalshadow\] for an illustrative example.[^14] In certain special (but familiar) situations, such as spherically symmetric regions in pure AdS (where $\rhoA$ is unitarily equivalent to a thermal density matrix), it can degenerate to a codimension-two surface. In such special cases, the entanglement wedge and the causal wedge coincide [@Hubeny:2012wa]. In general, the causal information surface for $\regA$ and that for $\regAc$ comprise the edges of the causal shadow. For a generic pure state these causal information surfaces each recede from $\extr$ towards their respective boundary region but approach each other near the AdS boundary. Hence the geometrical structure of $\shadow_{\entsurf}$, described in language of a three-dimensional bulk, is a “tube” (connecting the two components of $\entsurf$) with a diamond cross-section, which shrinks to a point where the tube meets the AdS boundary at $\entsurf$.
For topologically trivial deformations of AdS, in the absence of $\extr$ (i.e. when the state is pure and $\regA = \Sigma$) the causal shadow disappears, but intriguingly, even when $\regA$ is the entire boundary Cauchy slice, the causal shadow can be nontrivial. This occurs for example in the -geon spacetimes[^15] [@Balasubramanian:2014hda] and in perturbations of the eternal AdS black hole, such as those studied by [@Shenker:2013pqa]. In such a situation we simply define the casual shadow of the entire boundary (dropping the subscript) as $$\begin{aligned}
\shadow := \bulksplsep[ \bdy] =\left(\bulkJ^+[{\bdy}]\cup\bulkJ^-[\bdy]\right)^c
\label{}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\bdy$ is understood generally to include multiple disconnected components; the causal shadow is the region spacelike separated from points on all the boundaries.
Causality constraints on extremal surfaces {#sec:bulkextc}
------------------------------------------
Having developed the various causal concepts which we require, let us now ask what the constraints of field-theory causality concerning entanglement entropy translate to in the bulk. The first constraint is that $S_\regA$ should be a wedge observable, i.e. if $D[\regA]=D[\regA']$ then $S_\regA=S_{\regA'}$. For this to hold in general, we need $\extr={\cal E}_{\regA'}$. The second concerns perturbations of the field-theory Hamiltonian. Such perturbations will source perturbations of the bulk fields, including the metric, that will travel causally with respect to the background metric. In particular, disturbances originating in $\domdA$ will be dual to bulk modes propagating in $\bulkJ^+\big[\domdA\big]$ (if we fix the state in the far past) or in $\bulkJ^-\big[\domdA\big]$ (if we fix the state in the far future). If either of these bulk regions intersected $\extr$, the dual of local operator insertions in $D[\regA]$ could change the area of $\extr$, meaning that the HRT proposal would be inconsistent with causality in the QFT. By the same token, the extremal surface cannot intersect $\bulkJ^+\big[\domdAc\big]$ or $\bulkJ^-\big[\domdAc\big]$. Since the region complement to union of the causal sets $\bulkJ^\pm[D[\regA]], \bulkJ^{\pm}[D[\regAc]]$ is the set of points that are spacelike related to $D[\regA]\cup D[\regAc]$, we learn that $$\extr \splrel \domdA \;\cup \domdAc \,.
\label{bulkcausal1}$$ In others words, using we can say that $\extr$ has to lie in the causal shadow of $\entsurf$ $$\extr \subset \shadow_{\entsurf}\,.
\label{}$$ It is known, based on properties of extremal surfaces, that $\extr$ lies outside the causal wedges $\CWA$ and $\CWAc$ [@Hubeny:2012wa; @Wall:2012uf; @Hubeny:2013gba]. This leaves open the possibility that the surface could still lie in the causal future (or past) of the boundary domain of dependence of $\regA$ or $\regAc$. A particular worry arises in explicit examples in Vaidya-AdS geometries where the extremal surface lies on the boundary of $\bulkJ^+\big[\domdA \big]$. This then leaves open the question whether one might indeed be able to push $\extr$ into a causally forbidden region, by introducing appropriate deformations in $\domdA$. A theorem of Wall [@Wall:2012uf] (Theorem 6 of the reference), guarantees that this does not occur (modulo some assumptions).
We will prove an essentially equivalent statement in §\[sec:results\], directly for extremal surfaces in an asymptotically AdS spacetime. The main result however can be stated in terms of three simple causal relations: $$\begin{split}
\bulkD[\homsurfA] \cap \bdy & = \domdA \\
\bulkD[\homsurfAc] \cap \bdy & = \domdAc \\
\bulkJ^{\pm}[\extr] \cap \bdy & = J^{\pm}[\entsurf]\,.
\end{split}
\label{finalrels}$$ In other words, the causal split of the bulk into spacelike- and timelike-separated regions from $\extr$ restricts to the boundary at precisely the boundary split (\[bdy4d\]). Given the decomposition (\[bdy4d\]), these causal relations imply that perturbations in $D[\regA]\cup D[\regAc]$ are not in causal contact with $\extr$. So, as required, the extremal surface lies in the causal shadow.
As a consequence of this theorem, we will also show that, if there is a spacelike region $\regA' $ such that $D[\regA'] = D[\regA]$, then there is a bulk region ${\cal R}_{\regA'}$ such that $\partial{\cal R}_{\regA'}= \regA'\cup\extr$, so $\extr$ is spacelike-homologous to $\regA'$. Thus, the HRT formula gives the same entanglement entropy for $\regA'$ and $\regA$, as required on the field-theory side.
Entanglement for disconnected boundary regions {#sec:gexpt}
----------------------------------------------
A striking consequence of the theorems discussed above emerges when we consider spacetimes with two boundary components, and let $\regA$ be (a Cauchy slice for) all of one component.
As a starting point, consider the eternal black hole in the Hartle-Hawking state, with a Penrose diagram shown in Fig. \[f:VaidyaSAdSPD\](a) below. The left and right boundaries of the diagram each have the topology ${\bf S}^{d-1}\times \RR$. This geometry is believed to be dual to the CFT on the product spatial geometry ${\bf S}^{d-1}_L\times {\bf S}^{d-1}_R$, in the entangled “thermofield double" state [@Horowitz:1998xk; @Balasubramanian:1998de; @CarneirodaCunha:2001jf; @Maldacena:2001kr]: $$\ket{{\rm HH }}_{L,R} = \sum_i\, e^{-\frac{1}{2}\,\beta \, E_i} \; \ket{E_i}_L \, \ket{E_i}_R
\label{hhstate}$$ where $\ket{E_i}_{R,L}$ is the energy eigenstate of the CFT on ${\bf S}^{d-1}_{R,L}$.
Let $\Sigma_R$ lie on the $t=0$ slice of the right boundary, and consider the reduced density matrix for some region $\regA \subset \Sigma_{R}$. Since this is a static geometry, its entanglement entropy $S_\regA$ is computed by a minimal surface $\extr$ which never penetrates past the bifurcation surface ${\cal X}$ of the black hole [@Hubeny:2012ry].[^16] If we let $\regA$ be the full Cauchy slice of one of the boundaries, say $\regA = \Sigma_R$, the extremal surface precisely coincides with the black hole bifurcation surface, as indicated in Fig. \[f:VaidyaSAdSPD\]. Note that $\extr$ lies on the edge of the causally acceptable region since ${\cal X}$ sits at the boundary of both $\CWA$ and $\CWAc$, and therefore constitutes the entire causal shadow for this special case.
One might now wonder what happens if we deform the state . This is not an innocuous question. In time-dependent geometries, the global (teleological) nature of the event horizon implies that extremal surfaces anchored on the boundary [*can*]{} pass through this horizon [@Hubeny:2002dg]. Furthermore, as first explicitly shown in [@AbajoArrastia:2010yt], even apparent horizons do not form a barrier to the extremal surfaces. Hence we see that, a priori, in a state which is a deformation of (\[hhstate\]), $\extr$ is in danger of entering $\CWAc$.
The theorems we have stated above indicate that this does not happen. The question is, how precisely does the extremal surface $\extr$ avoid doing so? As a first step to answering this, consider a deformation of the static eternal case localized along a null shell emitted from the right boundary at some time. The corresponding metric is given by the global Vaidya-SAdS geometry, where both the initial (prior to the shell) and final (after the shell) spacetime regions describe a black hole.
![ Sketch of Penrose diagram for [**(a)**]{} static eternal and [**(b)**]{} ‘thin shell’ Vaidya-, with the various regions labeled. The AdS boundaries are represented by vertical black lines, the singularities by purple curves, the horizons by diagonal blue lines, and the ‘shell’ in the Vaidya case by diagonal brown line. []{data-label="f:VaidyaSAdSPD"}](VSAdS_collapse){width="6in"}
(0,0) (-12.2,0) [(a)]{} (-3.5,0) [(b)]{} (-11.75,4.5)[$F$]{} (-11.75,2.5)[$P$]{} (-9.75,3.5)[$R$]{} (-13.75,3.5)[$L$]{} (-4.25,4.5)[$F_b$]{} (-3.1,4.85)[$F_a$]{} (-2.05,4.5)[$F_c$]{} (-3,2)[$P$]{} (-4.2,2.5)[$P_c$]{} (-1.25,3.5)[$R_a$]{} (-3.15,3.5)[$R_c$]{} (-1.35,2)[$R_b$]{} (-5.5,3.5)[$L$]{}
Fig. \[f:VaidyaSAdSPD\]b presents a sketch of the Penrose diagram of such a geometry, contrasted with the standard static eternal black hole (Fig. \[f:VaidyaSAdSPD\]a). The diagonal brown line represents the shell which is sourced at some time on the right boundary and implodes into the black hole (terminating at the future singularity), and the blue lines represent the various (future and past, left and right) event horizons. The solid parts of these lines indicate where these event horizons coincide with apparent horizons (as well as isolated horizons); the dashed parts are parts of the event horizon which are not apparent horizons.
In such a geometry, let us again consider $\regA = \Sigma_R$. Then our theorems guarantee that the extremal surface must lie on the null sheet separating regions $R_c$ and $P_c$: it is again spacelike-separated from both $D[\Sigma_L]$ and $D[\Sigma_R]$. (In fact, since the spacetime prior to the shell is identical to the eternal static case, the extremal surface remains in the same location as for the static case, namely the bifurcation surface where regions $R_c$ and $L$ touch.) The situation is again marginal, much like the original undeformed case. Indeed, any perturbation to which emanates from (or reaches to) the right boundary cannot change the location of the original extremal surface by causality; it could at most generate a new extremal surface.
A less marginal case occurs when we symmetrically perturb both copies of the CFT as above. Consider a perturbation at $t = 0$ such that spherically symmetric null shells are emitted both to the past and future on both sides of the diagram. One then obtains the Penrose diagram shown in Fig. \[f:VaidyaSAdSSym\]; this has time-reflection symmetry about $t=0$, symmetry under exchanging the left and right sides, and the $SO(d)$ rotational symmetry.
![ Sketch of Penrose diagram for a symmetric Vaidya- geometry obtained by imploding null shells to the past and future from both boundaries. The crucial new feature of note is the presence a [*causal shadow*]{} region that is spacelike separated from both boundaries. We have also indicated the extremal surface $\extr$ for the region $\regA = \Sigma_R$ in red at the center of the figure and ${\cal F}_\regA$ is a ${\bf S}^{d-1}$ of finite area in the causal future of the left boundary. The lightly shaded regions are the causal wedges associated with $\regA$ and $\regAc$ respectively. []{data-label="f:VaidyaSAdSSym"}](VSAdS_SymPD){width="4in"}
(0.3,0.4)(0,0) (0.25,3)[(0,0)[CFT$_R$]{}]{} (-7.15,3)[(0,0)[CFT$_L$]{}]{} (0.,2)[(0,0)[$\regA$]{}]{} (-2.65,2)[(0,0)[$\color{red}{\extr}$]{}]{} (-3.4,2.9)[(0,0)[$\shadow$]{}]{} (-1.5,2.6)[(0,0)[$\CWA$]{}]{} (-5.5,2.6)[(0,0)[$\CWAc$]{}]{} (-4.6,3.6)[(0,0)[${\cal F}_\regA$]{}]{}
According to the theorems above, the extremal surface must be spacelike-separated from both boundaries, when we take $\regA = \Sigma_R$. Using both time and space reflection symmetry, it is clear that $\extr$ must sit in the center of the [*causal shadow*]{} $\shadow$ of the two boundaries, spacelike separated from both.
In the general case of spherically symmetric spacetime (even in the absence of time or space reflection symmetry) there is an easy proof of our claim that $\extr$ must lie in the causal shadow. We proceed by contradiction: suppose that a spherical extremal surface $\extr$ lies in $\bulkJ^+\left[\Sigma_L\right]$. This means that on a Penrose diagram, it lies somewhere in the top-left region; say it is the surface ${\cal F}_\regA$ indicated in Fig. \[f:VaidyaSAdSSym\] (which by rotational symmetry is a copy of ${\bf S}^{d-1}$). Let us then consider the past congruence of null normal geodesics from ${\cal F}_\regA$ towards $\bdy_L$. Since we assume that ${\cal F}_\regA$ candidate surface lies in $\bulkJ^+\left[\Sigma_L\right]$, past-going null congruences from the surface intersect $\bdy_L$ on a spacelike codimension-one surface. In other words, the area of the spheres grows without bound along this past-directed congruence.
However, by definition, for an extremal surface the initial expansion is vanishing. Moreover, if the matter in the spacetime satisfies the null energy condition,then it also follows that the area along the congruence is guaranteed not to grow. Nor can the area go to zero along the congruence, since the area of the $S^{d-1}$ represented by each point on the Penrose diagram is finite. It therefore follows that our assumption about $\extr$ penetrating $\bulkJ^+\left[\Sigma_L\right]$ must be erroneous; ${\cal F}_\regA$ cannot be an extremal surface. Running a similar argument for the other unshaded regions in Fig. \[f:VaidyaSAdSSym\], we learn that the extremal surface must indeed lie in the causal shadow region, as denoted by the red surface $\extr$.
Indeed, in this particular case, the extremal surface lies at the point on the Penrose diagram where the future and past apparent horizons meet—the “apparent bifurcation surface”. The fact that it lies in the causal shadow is a consequence of the familiar fact that the apparent horizon can never be outside the event horizon, applied to both future and past horizons.
While the above result relied on the special properties of spherically symmetry (both of the spacetime and the null congruences therein), the theorems we prove in §\[sec:results\] will establish this in full generality.
In the next two sections we set out to prove the theorems stated in §\[sec:bulkextc\]. The proof in our spherically symmetric case indicates that understanding null congruences leaving the extremal surface might play a key role. We will therefore spend some time in §\[sec:examples\] examining null congruences emanating from bulk codimension-two surfaces in , in order to develop a picture of the relevant causal domains, before embarking on a general proof in §\[sec:results\].
Null geodesic congruences in {#sec:examples}
=============================
In this section, we consider null geodesic congruences emanating from curves in that are anchored at the boundary. Our aim is to build some intuition about such congruences in a simple setting, since their properties will play a crucial role in the proofs in what follows. Readers familiar with the general statements are invited to skip ahead to the abstract discussion.
We work in the Poincaré patch of with the standard metric: $$ds^2 = \frac{1}{z^2} \left( -dt^2 + dx^2 + dz^2 \right)
\label{fgads3}$$ Since our aim is to understand specifically the (causal) boundary of bulk causal domains, we are going to examine properties of null geodesic congruences. In particular, for a spacelike codimension-one region $R\subset\bulk$ which is anchored on the AdS boundary, the domain of dependence $\bulkD[R]$ is bounded by a family of outgoing null geodesics emanating from $\partial R$, up to the point where each geodesic encounters a caustic or intersects another generator.[^17]
To gain intuition for how these null congruences behave in the context of the extremal surfaces of interest, we examine a more general family of codimension-two surfaces (these are curves in ) which in the above coordinates are given by $$x^2 + \frac{z^2}{a^2} = 1 \ , \qquad t=0
\label{initsurfellipse}$$ parameterized by $a$. Note that all of these are anchored on the boundary ${\mathbb R}^{1,1}$ at the ends of the interval $\regA = \{(t,x) \in {\mathbb R}^{1,1} \;\mid\; t=0,\; x\in [-1,1]\} $. (For orientation, see the bottom set of curves in Fig. \[f:initsurfs\].) When $a=1$, the surface is a semi-circle, which is simultaneously the causal information surface $\CIS$ defined in [@Hubeny:2012wa], and the extremal surface $\extr$ for the region $\regA$ under consideration. Surfaces with $a< 1$ lie inside the causal wedge $\CWA$, while those with $a>1$ lie outside i.e., they are spacelike related to $\domdA$. We wish to study the family of null congruences leaving these surfaces, as we vary $a$. The geodesics will be labelled by their starting position $x_0$ and parameterized by an affine parameter $\lambda$ (fixed such that we have unit energy along each geodesic).
Explicit solutions for geodesic congruences
-------------------------------------------
Since the $a=1$ surface is extremal, the null expansion $\Theta(\lambda; a=1) = 0$ for each generator. For the surfaces with $a < 1$, closer to the boundary, we expect that the expansion is positive and the congruence intersects the boundary in a spacelike curve inside $\domdA = \{(t,x) \in {\mathbb R}^{1,1} \mid |t \pm x| \leq 1 \}$. For curves with $a>1$, long ellipse, we expect the expansion to be negative. The resulting congruence should develop a caustic before reaching the boundary.
Due to the relative simplicity of the set-up, we can confirm these expectations explicitly. Since everything is time-symmetric, let us consider just the future-directed outgoing congruence: $$\begin{split}
z(\lambda) &= \frac{a \, \sqrt{1-x_0^2} \, \sqrt{1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2}}
{a \, (1-x_0^2) \, \lambda +\sqrt{1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2}}
\\
x(\lambda) &= x_0 \, \frac{a \, (1-a^2) \, (1-x_0^2) \, \lambda + \sqrt{1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2}}
{a \, (1-x_0^2) \, \lambda +\sqrt{1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2}}
\\
t(\lambda) &= \frac{a^2 \, (1-x_0^2) \, \sqrt{1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2} \, \lambda}
{a \, (1-x_0^2) \, \lambda +\sqrt{1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2}}
\label{ellipsegeods}
\end{split}$$ Note that the endpoints of these generators at $\lambda = \infty$ are given by $$z_\infty = 0 \ , \qquad
x_\infty = x_0 \, (1-a^2) \ , \qquad
t_\infty = a \, \sqrt{1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2}
\label{}$$ A representative plot of the generators is given in Fig. \[f:congruence\] for $a=0.5$ (left) and $a=1.5$ (right). We see that when $a<1$, the generators don’t intersect each other before reaching the boundary, and they reach within $D^+[\regA]$. On the other hand, when $a>1$, the generators intersect in a seam (drawn as thick blue curve, whose explicit expression is given below in ), before reaching the boundary (with the geodesic endpoints indicated by the red curves in Fig. \[f:congruence\]). We call the points on this seam the [*cross-over points*]{}; non-neighbouring geodesics intersect at these points. This seam terminates in a [*caustic*]{}, which as always refers to the locus where neighbouring geodesics intersect.
![ Null normal congruence from the initial surface given by with $a=0.5$ (left) and $a=1.5$ (right). The initial surface is the bold black curve on the bottom, the boundary is the shaded plane on the left in each plot (with the domain of dependence $D^+[\regA]$ boundary indicated by the thin black lines), the individual geodesics are the thin lines color-coded by $x_0$, their endpoints on the boundary are depicted by the red curve, and finally the seam of crossover points where generators intersect for $a>1$ is the blue thick curve. (The generators are cut off at a finite value of $\lambda \approx 64$, so in the plot they don’t look like they reach all the way to the boundary.) []{data-label="f:congruence"}](congruencea0p5 "fig:"){width="2.in"} ![ Null normal congruence from the initial surface given by with $a=0.5$ (left) and $a=1.5$ (right). The initial surface is the bold black curve on the bottom, the boundary is the shaded plane on the left in each plot (with the domain of dependence $D^+[\regA]$ boundary indicated by the thin black lines), the individual geodesics are the thin lines color-coded by $x_0$, their endpoints on the boundary are depicted by the red curve, and finally the seam of crossover points where generators intersect for $a>1$ is the blue thick curve. (The generators are cut off at a finite value of $\lambda \approx 64$, so in the plot they don’t look like they reach all the way to the boundary.) []{data-label="f:congruence"}](congruencea1p5 "fig:"){width="2in"}
Intersections within congruences
--------------------------------
We can determine the intersection between distinct geodesics in the bulk using the explicit expressions from . By symmetry of the set-up, we know that geodesics with opposite values of $x_0$ necessarily intersect, and they must do so at $x=x_\times = 0$. Solving for the intersection of the pair of geodesics starting from $x_0$ and $-x_0$ we find that they meet at: $$t_\times = \frac{ \sqrt{1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2}}{a} \ , \quad
z_\times = \frac{a^2-1}{a} \, \sqrt{1-x_0^2} \ , \quad
\lambda_\times = \frac{ \sqrt{1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2}}{a \, (a^2-1) \, (1-x_0^2)}
\label{intersectioncoords}$$
![ Initial surfaces (thick curves at the bottom, color-coded by $a$), along with endpoints of the generators of the corresponding null congruence: for $a=1$ (initial surface is the red semi-circle), all generators meet at the tip. Increasing $a>1$ (color shift towards purple and blue) makes the generators intersect at the seam of cross-over points before reaching the boundary. On the other hand, decreasing $a<1$ (color shift towards orange and green) makes the generators reach the boundary within $D^+[\regA]$ (depicted as in Fig. \[f:congruence\]). []{data-label="f:initsurfs"}](surf_caust_bdy){width="2.8in"}
This generates the seam of cross-over points depicted in the right panel of Fig. \[f:congruence\], and plotted for various values of $a$ in Fig. \[f:initsurfs\] (the top set of curves, color-coded by $a$ corresponding to the initial surface indicated by the thick horizontal curve of the same color). It is easy to see from that the cross-over points terminate on the boundary at the future tip of $D^+[\regA]$, i.e., at $z=0, \ x=0, \ t=1$, corresponding to the intersection of the boundary geodesics $x_0=\pm1$. On the other hand, the cross-over seams for different $a$ start at the point in the bulk when neighbouring geodesics from $x_0 \simeq 0$ intersect which happens at$$x_\times = 0 \ , \qquad
t_\times = \frac{1}{a} \ , \qquad
z_\times = \frac{a^2-1}{a} \ , \qquad
\lambda_\times = \frac{1}{a \, (a^2-1)}
\label{causticbottom}$$ To summarize, depending on whether $a$ is greater or less than 1, the congruence has qualitatively different behaviour, as illustrated in Fig. \[f:initsurfs\]. For $a<1$ (depicted by colors from red toward green), the congruence reaches the boundary inside $D^+[{\cal A}]$, while for $a>1$, the generators intersect each other at the seam of crossover points (depicted by colors from red toward purple). At precisely $a=1$, all generators reach the boundary at the future tip of $D^+[{\cal A}]$, namely $z=0, \ x=0, \ t=1$.
Expansion of congruences and caustics
-------------------------------------
Let us now analyze the expansion along this congruence. This can be calculated as the change in area along the wavefront $$\Theta(\lambda,x_0) = \frac{1}{A(\lambda,x_0)} \, \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda}A(\lambda,x_0)
\label{ellipseThetadef}$$ with $$A(\lambda,x_0) = \int_{x_0}^{x_0+\delta x}
\sqrt{\frac{-t'(\lambda ,{\tilde x}_0)^2+x'(\lambda ,{\tilde x}_0)^2+z'(\lambda ,{\tilde x}_0)^2}{z^2(\lambda ,{\tilde x}_0) }} \, d{\tilde x}_0
\label{}$$ where $t'(\lambda,x_0) \equiv \frac{\partial}{\partial x_0} t(\lambda;x_0)$ etc., using the expressions given in . While one can numerically solve for $\Theta(\lambda)$ it is easier to obtain the solution for small $\lambda$ and evolve using the Raychaudhuri equation.
Near $\lambda=0$, the leading order expression for $\Theta$ is: $$\Theta_0 \equiv \Theta(\lambda=0) =
\frac{a \, (1-a^2) \, (1-x_0^2)^2}{(1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2)^{3/2}}
\label{initexp}$$ This is plotted in the left panel of Fig. \[f:expansion\] (with same color-coding by $a$ as employed in Fig. \[f:initsurfs\]). At the ends of the interval $x_0=\pm 1$, $\Theta_0$ vanishes (which is to be expected since the congruence approximates a larger one with $a=1$), while $\Theta_0$ reaches its extremum at the midpoint, $x_0=0$ (again, expected by symmetry), where $\Theta_0(x_0=0) = a \, (1-a^2)$. Furthermore, $\Theta_0$ is positive for $a<1$ and negative for $a>1$; that is, the congruences are expanding for $a<1$ and converging for $a>1$). The former make it out to the boundary without intersecting, while the latter have a seam of cross-overs. As we will see below, the geodesics end in a curve of caustics, which touches the seam of cross-overs at the endpoint of the latter.
![ Expansion $\Theta(\lambda; x_0)$ along the generators for various values of $a$ (color-coded by $a$ as in Fig. \[f:initsurfs\]). On left, we show the expansion from the initial surface $\lambda =0$ as a function of the starting position $x_0$. On right, we fix $x_0=0$ as plot the evolution of $\Theta(\lambda)$ along the radial generator. []{data-label="f:expansion"}](initexpofx "fig:"){width="2.5in"} ![ Expansion $\Theta(\lambda; x_0)$ along the generators for various values of $a$ (color-coded by $a$ as in Fig. \[f:initsurfs\]). On left, we show the expansion from the initial surface $\lambda =0$ as a function of the starting position $x_0$. On right, we fix $x_0=0$ as plot the evolution of $\Theta(\lambda)$ along the radial generator. []{data-label="f:expansion"}](Theta_of_lambda "fig:"){width="2.5in"}
Given $\Theta_0$ as our initial condition, it is straightforward to solve the Raychaudhuri equation $$\frac{d\Theta}{d\lambda} = -\Theta^2 -2\,\sigma_{ab}\, \sigma^{ab} - R_{ab} \,\xi^a\, \xi^b
\label{rceqn}$$ to find the expansion along the geodesics. Here $\xi^a$ is the tangent vector to the null geodesics and $\sigma_{\mu\nu} $ is the shear of the congruence. For a one-dimensional congruence the shear trivially vanishes and the Ricci tensor contracted with null tangents likewise vanishes upon using the bulk equations of motion $R_{ab} = -2 \, g_{ab}$, so (\[rceqn\]) simplifies to: $$\frac{d \Theta}{d\lambda} = - \Theta^2
\qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
\Theta(\lambda) = \frac{\Theta_0}{1+ \Theta_0 \, \lambda}
\label{}$$ Using , we find: $$\Theta(\lambda, x_0) =
\frac{a \, (1-a^2) \, (1-x_0^2)^2}
{(1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2)^{3/2} + a \, (1-a^2) \, (1-x_0^2)^2 \, \lambda}
\label{ThetaEllipse}$$ In Fig. \[f:expansion\] we have plotted this as a function of $\lambda$ for $x_0 = 0$, at which $\Theta = \frac{a \, (1-a^2)}{1+ a \, (1-a^2) \, \lambda}$.
For $a > 1$, we expect the congruence to develop a caustic where the expansion diverges. This occurs when infinitesimally nearby geodesics intersect each other. Eq. shows that this can only occur for $a>1$, where the second term in the denominator is negative for positive $\lambda$. In this case $\Theta(\lambda) \to -\infty$ at a finite value of $\lambda = \lambda_c$, $$\lambda_c = \frac{ (1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2)^{3/2}}{a \, (a^2-1) \, (1-x_0^2)}
\label{}$$ for any $x_0$. The spacetime coordinates for the points along the congruence where this happens are given by $$x_c = (1-a^2) \, x_0^3 \ , \qquad
t_c = \frac{ (1-x_0^2+a^2 \, x_0^2)^{3/2}}{a} \ , \qquad
z_c = \frac{a^2-1}{a} \, (1-x_0^2)^{3/2}
\label{divergingTheta}$$ Viewed as a pair of parametric curves parametrized by $x_0$ which starts at $x_0=0$ and ends at $x_0=\pm 1$, the caustic seams are null curves, starting at the intersection point and ending on the boundary at $z_c =0$, $x_c = \pm (1-a^2)$, and $t_c = a^2$. Note that this is a finite distance on the boundary.
The divergence $\Theta \to -\infty$ signifies the presence of conjugate points, but their geometric meaning is a bit obscure in our discussion so far. The reason is as follows: as we see in Fig. \[f:congruence\] and can check explicitly, we generically have caustics in the neighbourhood of $x_0 \simeq 0$, but more generally encounter cross-over points from the intersection geodesics symmetrically placed about $x_0 = 0$. The expansion is [*finite*]{} along the cross-over seam for $x_0 \neq 0$. This can be understood by realizing that the expansion is a local property of the nearby geodesics which doesn’t know about any other piece of the congruence. So nothing special ought to happen at the cross-over points which are non-local in the congruence, and indeed these are not conjugate points.
![ Surface generated by the null normal congruence, along with the locus of points on this surface where the expansion diverges, indicated by the thick red curves. The cyan contours represent the geodesic generators, while the blue contours are the constant-$\lambda$ wavefronts (we cut off the surface at $|x_0| < 1$ for convenience). []{data-label="f:InftExpansion"}](InftExpansion){width="2.5in"}
The clue as to the geometric meaning of $\Theta \to -\infty$ comes from plotting this locus on the surface of the null congruence (continued through the cross-over seam). This is presented in Fig. \[f:InftExpansion\] by the thick red curves. We see that the surface intersects itself at the cross-over seam, beyond which the constant-$\lambda$ wavefronts form closed loops. On the sharp flank, these wavefronts turn around and locally become null; this is precisely where $A(\lambda,x_0)$ vanishes and therefore $\Theta \to -\infty$.
Summary {#p:ellipsesummary}
-------
The upshot of our calculations can be summarized as follows. Consider the null geodesic congruence emanating from a codimension-two spacelike surfaces ${\cal F}_\regA \subset \bulk$ anchored on the boundary of a region $\regA$ with $\partial \regA = {\cal F}_\regA \cap \bdy$.
- If ${\cal F}_\regA \subset \CWA$ then the congruence terminates inside $\domdA$ along a spacelike boundary codimension-one surface.
- If ${\cal F}_\regA$ lies on the boundary of the causal wedge $\CWA$ then the congruence intersects the boundary on the null surface $\partial \domdA$.
- If ${\cal F}_\regA \subset \bulksplsep\left[\domdA\right]$ then the congruence finds itself terminated by a seam of cross-over points (and if continued further, would encounter caustic points prior to reaching the AdS boundary). The seam itself however reaches out to the boundary and ends on the future tip[^18] of $\partial \domdA$.
This gives a clear picture of the causal domains for regions bounded by curves inside and outside of $\CWA$. As we will see in our explicit proof, the extremal surface will in general lie outside of $\CWA$; in special cases it can at best lie on the boundary, but never in the interior, of the causal wedge.
Theorem and proof {#sec:results}
=================
We now get to the main part of the paper where we prove that the extremal surface $\extr$ satisfies the causality requirements discussed in §\[sec:bulkextc\]. Our main goal will be to establish the causal relations quoted there in . These will establish for us the consistency of the HRT proposal for computing holographic entanglement entropy.
In §\[sec:psetup\], we remind the reader of the holographic set-up and of our assumptions. In §\[sec:pnullcong\], we study null geodesic congruences in the bulk and their intersections with the boundary. In particular, since a geodesic that reaches the boundary travels an infinite affine parameter, a non-expanding congruence that reaches the boundary without hitting a caustic must have vanishing shear, and therefore must intersect the boundary at a single point. This allows us to show, using the null energy condition, that the intersection with the boundary of the causal future of an extremal bulk surface equals the causal future of its intersection with the boundary. As a warm-up, we prove a version of the Gao-Wald theorem [@Gao:2000ga]. Finally, in §\[sec:pspatial\], we carefully define what we mean by a region and by the spacelike homology condition. We prove that a region $\regA$ implies a natural decomposition of the spacetime into four regions $D[\regA]$, $D[\regAc]$, and $J^\pm[\partial\regA]$. Then, given the spacelike homology condition, and using the results of §\[sec:pnullcong\], we establish the compatibility of the boundary and bulk decompositions, , and prove that the extremal surface is a wedge observable.
Holographic setup {#sec:psetup}
-----------------
In this subsection we will describe our holographic setup and assumptions.[^19]
Let $(\bulk,g_{ab})$ be a connected spacetime, of dimension greater than or equal to 3, that can be embedded in a spacetime $(\bulkC,\tilde g_{ab})$, such that the boundary $\bdy$ of $\bulk$ in $\bulkC$ is a smooth timelike hypersurface in $\bulkC$, and such that $\tilde g_{ab}=\Omega^2 g_{ab}$, where $\Omega$ is a smooth function on $\bulkC$ that vanishes on $\bdy$. (We do not assume that $\bdy$ is connected.) We define $\overM:=\bulk\cup\bdy$. On $\overM$ we have a causal structure induced from $\tilde g_{ab}$, which in $\bulk$ agrees with that induced from $g_{ab}$. We make the following assumptions:
1. $(\bulk,g_{ab})$ obeys the null energy condition.
2. $\overM$ is globally hyperbolic.
3. Every null geodesic in $(\bdy,\tilde g_{ab})$ is a geodesic in $(\overM,\tilde g_{ab})$.
We begin by showing that $\bdy$ is globally hyperbolic. We omit the proofs, which are very simple, cf., [@Galloway:1999bp]. (For brevity, we will only indicate one time direction for each statement below, but the time-reversed statements are clearly equally valid.)
\[domaincontained\]For any set $ \Upsilon \subset\overM$, $\bulkD^+[\Upsilon] \cap\bdy\subset \domd{\Upsilon\cap\bdy}$.
If $\tilde\Sigma\subset\overM$ is closed and acausal, then $\tilde\Sigma\cap\bdy$ is closed and acausal in $\bdy$.
\[boundaryCauchy\] If $\tilde\Sigma$ is a Cauchy slice[^20] for $\overM$, then $\tilde\Sigma\cap\bdy$ is a Cauchy slice for $\bdy$.
$\bdy$ is globally hyperbolic.\[MdotGH\]
Congruences of null geodesics {#sec:pnullcong}
-----------------------------
In this subsection, we will study null geodesics in $\overM$. Assumption (iii) has the following useful implication:
\[nullgeo\]Any null geodesic in $\overM$ either (1) lies entirely in $\bdy$, or (2) does not intersect $\bdy$ except possibly at its endpoints, where it is not tangent to $\bdy$.
*Proof:* Given a point $p$ in $\bdy$ and a non-zero null vector in the tangent space to $\bdy$ at $p$, there exists a null geodesic in $\bdy$ passing through $p$ with that tangent vector. By assumption (iii), it is a geodesic in $\overM$, and by the uniqueness of geodesics it is the only one. Therefore no null geodesic passing through $\bulk$ can intersect $\bdy$ tangentially. Finally, since $\bdy$ is the boundary of $\overM$ and is smooth, any smooth curve that intersects $\bdy$ at some point without ending there must be tangent to it. $\Box$
Now we constrain the behavior of congruences of null geodesics that pass through $\bulk$, using the fact that the metric $g_{ab}$ obeys the null energy condition and the fact that a geodesic that reaches $\bdy$ travels an infinite affine parameter.
\[point\]Consider a codimension-one congrence of future-directed null geodesics in $\overM$, each of which lies entirely in $\bulk$ except possibly at its endpoints. Suppose that the part of the congruence in $\bulk$ has the following properties: (1) its expansion with respect to the metric $g_{ab}$ is nowhere positive; (2) at each point, every deviation vector is spacelike and orthogonal to the tangent vector. Then the congruence intersects $\bdy$ on a set of isolated points.
*Proof:* We begin by working in the metric $g_{ab}$. Since the deviation vectors are everywhere spacelike, the expansion $\Theta$ is finite everywhere. On any geodesic that reaches $\bdy$, the affine parameter goes to infinity, so, by the null energy condition, $\Theta$ is nowhere negative, and therefore vanishes everywhere. Again using the null energy condition, the shear therefore vanishes everywhere also. Therefore, for any one-parameter family of geodesics that reach $\bdy$, the norm of the deviation vector $X^a$ is a positive constant along each geodesic.
We now return to $\overM$, and switch to the metric $\tilde g_{ab}$. On $\bdy$, $X^a$ has vanishing norm; being also orthogonal to the geodesic’s tangent vector $T^a$, it is proportional to $T^a$ (since orthogonal null vectors are proportional). Without loss of generality, we choose the affine parameter $\lambda$ on each geodesic so that it intersects $\bdy$ at $\lambda=0$; hence, at $\lambda=0$, $X^a$ is tangent to $\bdy$. However, by lemma \[nullgeo\], $T^a$ is not tangent to $\bdy$. So $X^a=0$. Since this holds for every one-parameter family of geodesics, every connected set of geodesics that reach $\bdy$ intersects it at a point. $\Box$
As a warm-up for our main theorem of this subsection, we will now use lemma \[point\] to prove a version of the Gao-Wald theorem [@Gao:2000ga] and a version of the topological censorship theorem [@Galloway:1999br].
\[pointJ\]For any point $p\in\bdy$, $\bulkJ^+(p)\cap\bdy=J^+(p)$.
*Proof:* Clearly $J^+(p) \subset \bulkJ^+(p) \cap\bdy$. Let $t$ be a global time function on $\overM$. Then if $t(q)<t(p)$ we have $q\notin \bulkJ^+(p)$. Therefore, each connected component of $\bdy$ contains some points not in $\bulkJ^+(p)$. Therefore, if $\bulkJ^+(p)\cap\bdy\neq J^+(p)$, then $\partial\bulkJ^+(p)\cap\bdy$ includes a hypersurface ${\cal S}$ in $\bdy$ that is not in $J^+(p)$. We will now show that ${\cal S}$ cannot exist.
$\partial \bulkJ^+(p)$ consists of future-directed null geodesics starting at $p$ on which, except at the endpoints, every deviation vector is spacelike and orthogonal to the tangent vector. By lemma \[nullgeo\], each such geodesic either lies entirely in $\bdy$ or lies entirely in $\bulk$ except at its endpoints. In particular, the points in ${\cal S}$ must lie on geodesics that are entirely in $\bulk$ except at their endpoints. We thus consider the congruence of geodesics in $\bulk$ starting at $p$. Reversing its direction, every geodesic in this congruence reaches $\bdy$ (at $p$), so the expansion is nowhere negative. Therefore, in the forward direction, its expansion is nowhere positive. Thus the conditions of lemma \[point\] apply. Hence ${\cal S}$ consists of isolated points, contradicting the fact that it is a hypersurface in $\bdy$. $\Box$
\[wormholes\]If $\bdy_1,\bdy_2$ are distinct connected components of $\bdy$, then $\bulkJ^+(\bdy_1)\cap\bdy_2=\emptyset$.
Corollary \[wormholes\] rules out traversable wormholes through the bulk connecting different boundary components, and is thus closely related to topological censorship. (A simple argument establishing this can be found in [@Freivogel:2005qh].)
Our goal for the rest of this subsection is generalize Theorem \[pointJ\] to codimension-two surfaces that are extremal with respect to $g_{ab}$. First, we need two lemmas:
\[Idot\]Let ${\cal E}$ be a compact codimension-two submanifold-with-boundary of $\overM$, with boundary ${\cal N}$. Then every point $p\in\partial \bulkJ^+[{\cal E}]$ is on a future-directed null geodesic lying entirely in $\partial \bulkJ^+[{\cal E}]$ that either (1) starts orthogonally from ${\cal E}$ and has no point conjugate to ${\cal E}$ between ${\cal E}$ and $p$, or (2) starts orthogonally from ${\cal N}$, moving away from ${\cal E}$ (i.e. $U_aT^a>0$, where $T^a$ is the tangent vector to the geodesic at its starting point, and $U^a$ is a vector at the same point that is tangent to ${\cal E}$, normal to ${\cal N}$, and outward-directed from ${\cal E}$).
*Proof:* This is a generalization of theorem 9.3.11 in [@Wald:1984ai]. Every $p\in\partial \bulkJ[{\cal E}]$ lies on a null geodesic starting from ${\cal E}$. If neither condition (1) nor (2) is met, then it can be deformed to a timelike curve and therefore $p\in \bulkI^+[{\cal E}]$. $\Box$
\[normal\]Let ${\cal E}$ be a spacelike submanifold-with-boundary of $\overM$ whose restriction to $\bulk$ is extremal with respect to the metric $g_{ab}$. Then ${\cal E}$ intersects $\bdy$ orthogonally, i.e., every normal vector to ${\cal E}$ is tangent to $\bdy$.
*Proof:* A short calculation shows that, in $\bulk$, the mean curvature $\tilde K^a$ of ${\cal E}$ with respect to ${\tilde g}_{ab}$ is related to that with respect to $g_{ab}$, $K^a$, as follows: $$\tilde K^a = \Omega^{-2}K^a + \dim({\cal E})\; \tilde Q^{ab}\partial_b\ln\Omega\,,$$ where $\tilde Q^{ab}:={Q^a}_c\; {\tilde g}^{bc}$ and ${Q^a}_c$ is the projector normal to ${\cal E}$. Since ${\cal E}$ is extremal, $K^a=0$. So $$\tilde K^2 = \dim({\cal E})^2\; {\tilde Q}^{ab}\; \partial_a\ln\Omega\,\partial_b\ln\Omega\,.$$ Since ${\cal E}$ is smooth, $\tilde K^2$ remains finite on $\bdy$, where $\ln\Omega\to-\infty$. This requires that every normal vector to ${\cal E}$ be tangent to $\bdy$. $\Box$
\[surfaceJ\]Let ${\cal E}$ be a compact smooth spacelike codimension-two submanifold-with-boundary in $\overM$, whose only boundary is where it intersects $\bdy$, and whose restriction to $\bulk$ is extremal with respect to the metric $g_{ab}$. Then $\bulkJ^+[{\cal E}] \cap\bdy=J^+[{\cal E}\cap\bdy]$.
*Proof:* The proof is largely a repetition of that of Theorem \[pointJ\]. Clearly $J^+[{\cal E}\cap\bdy]\subset \bulkJ^+[{\cal E}]\cap\bdy$. Let $t$ be a global time function on $\overM$. Since ${\cal E}$ is compact, it has a minimum time $t_{\rm min}$. Clearly if for some point $q\in\bdy$, $t(q)<t_{\rm min}$, then $q\notin \bulkJ^+[{\cal E}]$. Therefore, each connected component of $\bdy$ contains some points not in $\bulkJ^+[{\cal E}]$. Therefore, if $\bulkJ^+[{\cal E}]\cap\bdy\neq J^+[{\cal E}\cap\bdy]$, then $\partial
\bulkJ^+(m)\cap\bdy$ includes a hypersurface $\Sigma$ in $\bdy$ that is not in $\bulkJ^+[{\cal E}\cap\bdy]$. We will now show that ${\cal S}$ cannot exist.
By lemma \[normal\], ${\cal E}$ intersects $\bdy$ orthogonally. Therefore, in lemma \[Idot\], the second type of null geodesic in $\partial \bulkJ^+[{\cal E}]$ does not exist. The first type of geodesic forms a codimension-two congruence starting orthogonally from ${\cal E}$ on which, except possibly at the endpoints, every deviation vector is spacelike and orthogonal to the tangent vector. By lemma \[nullgeo\], each such geodesic either lies entirely in $\bdy$ or lies entirely in $\bulk$ except at its endpoints. In particular, the points in ${\cal S}$ must lie on geodesics that are entirely in $\bulk$ except where they end. We thus consider the congruence of geodesics in $\bulk$ starting orthogonally from ${\cal E}\cap \bulk$. Since ${\cal E}\cap \bulk$ is extremal, its expansion (with respect to $g_{ab}$) is initially zero. By the null energy condition, its expansion is nowhere positive. Thus the conditions of lemma \[point\] apply. Hence ${\cal S}$ consists of isolated points, contradicting the fact that it is a hypersurface in $\bdy$. $\Box$
Note that theorem \[pointJ\] is a special case of theorem \[surfaceJ\], in which we take ${\cal E}$ to be a small (in the metric $\tilde g_{ab}$) hemisphere centered on $p$ and take the limit in which its radius goes to $0$.
Spatial regions and causal decompositions {#sec:pspatial}
-----------------------------------------
Let $\Sigma$ be a Cauchy slice of $\bdy$. Given a codimension-zero submanifold of $\Sigma$, let $\regA$ be its interior, $\partial\regA$ its boundary, and $\regAc$ its complement; these three sets do not overlap and cover $\Sigma$. They naturally induce a causal decomposition of the spacetime $\bdy$ into four nonoverlapping regions (except that $J^\pm[\partial\regA]$ both include $\partial\regA$):
$$\begin{aligned}
\domd{\regA} \cup \domd{\regAc} \cup J^+[\partial\regA]\cup J^-[\partial\regA] &=& \bdy
\label{covers}\\
D[\regA]\cap D[\regAc]=\domd{\regA} \cap J^\pm[\partial\regA] = \domd{\regAc} \cap J^\pm[\partial\regA]
&=& \emptyset \label{nonoverlapping1}\\
J^+[\partial\regA]\cap J^-[\partial\regA]&=&\partial\regA\,.\label{nonoverlapping2}\end{aligned}$$
\[decomposition\]
*Proof:* and are obvious from the definitions.
We now prove . Suppose a point $p\in J^+[\Sigma]$ is not in any of the four regions. Each inextendible causal curve through $p$ intersects $\Sigma$ exactly once, but not in $\partial\regA$ (else $p\in J^+[\partial\regA]$). Nor can all such curves intersect it in $\regA$ (else $p\in D[\regA]$) or $\regAc$ (else $p\in D[\regAc]$). So some must intersect $\Sigma$ in $\regA$ and others in $\regAc$. Let $\lambda_1$ be in the first set and $\lambda_2$ in the second. Join $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ at $p$ to make a continuous curve $\lambda$ from $\regA$ to $\regAc$. Now, in any globally hyperbolic spacetime there exists a global timelike vector field; its integral curves can be used to construct a continuous map $f$ from $J^+(\Sigma)$ to $\Sigma$. $f(\lambda)$ is a continuous curve in $\Sigma$ from $\regA$ to $\regAc$. There therefore exists a point $q\in\lambda$ such that $f(q)\in\partial\regA$, and therefore $q\in I^+[\partial\regA]$. Since $p\in J^+(q)$, $p\in J^+[\partial\regA]$, which is a contradiction. $\Box$
Now let $\extr$ be a surface in $\overM$ that satisfies the conditions of theorem \[surfaceJ\] and is spacelike-homologous to $\regA$. The precise meaning of the latter condition is as follows: There exists a Cauchy slice $\tilde\Sigma$ for $\overM$ such that $\tilde\Sigma\cap\bdy=\Sigma$, containing a codimension-zero submanifold with boundary $\regA\cup\extr$; we call its interior $\homsurfA$. Since $\tilde\Sigma$ is itself a manifold-with-boundary (namely $\tilde\Sigma\cap\bdy$), one has to be careful about the definitions of “interior” and “boundary” for a submanifold. We mean “interior” in the sense of point-set topology; thus $\homsurfA$ includes $\regA$ but not $\extr$. The “boundary” can be either in the sense of “submanifold-with-boundary” (which is what we call $\partial\homsurfA$), or in the sense of point-set topology. In the latter sense, the boundary is just $\extr$.[^21] As with $\regA$, we define $\homsurfA^c:=\tilde\Sigma\setminus(\homsurfA\cap\extr)$. To summarize, in parallel to the decomposition of $\Sigma$ into $\regA$, $\regA^c$, and $\partial\regA$, we have a decomposition of $\tilde\Sigma$ into $\homsurfA$, $\homsurfA^c$, and $\extr$. Furthermore, $\homsurfA\cap\bdy=\regA$, $\homsurfA^c\cap\bdy=\regA^c$, and $\extr\cap\bdy=\partial\regA$.
We can now apply theorem \[decomposition\] to obtain a decomposition of $\overM$ into the four spacetime regions $D[\homsurfA]$, $D[\homsurfA^c]$, $J^\pm[\extr]$. The central result of this section is that this decomposition reduces on the boundary precisely to its decomposition into $D[\regA]$, $D[\regA^c]$, and $J^\pm[\partial\regA]$:
\[compatible\]
$$\begin{aligned}
\bulkD[\homsurfA] \cap\bdy&=\domdA
\label{D(R)}\\
\bulkD[\homsurfA^c]\cap\bdy&=\domdAc
\label{D(Rc)}\\
\bulkJ^\pm[\extr]\cap\bdy&=J^\pm[\entsurf]
\label{Ipm}\end{aligned}$$
*Proof:* Equation is Theorem \[surfaceJ\] (and its time reverse). Using Theorem \[decomposition\] both in $\bdy$ and in $\overM$ to take the complement of both sides, we have $$\left(\bulkD[\homsurfA]\cap\bdy\right)\cup\left(\bulkD[\homsurfAc]\cap\bdy\right) = \domdA\cup \domdAc \,.$$ Lemma \[domaincontained\] then implies , . $\Box$
Theorem \[compatible\] immediately implies that $\extr$ is outside of causal contact with $D[\regA]$ and $D[\regAc]$, as required by field-theory causality.
The spacelike-homology condition raises the following practical question: Given a codimension-one submanifold of $\overM$ with boundary $\regA\cup\extr$, under what circumstances is it contained in a Cauchy slice? Obviously, it must be acausal. However, this is not sufficient; for example, a spacelike hypersurface in Minkowski space that approaces null infinity is not contained in a Cauchy slice. The following lemma, which will also be needed in theorem \[wedgeobservable\], shows that compactness is a sufficient additional condition. (This lemma applies in any globally hyperbolic spacetime.)
If $R$ is a compact acausal set, then there exists a Cauchy slice containing it.\[Cauchyexistence\]
*Proof:* Let $t \in {\mathbb R}$ be a global time function, and define $t_{\rm max}:=\max_R(t)$, $t_{\rm min}:=\min_R(t)$ (these exist since $R$ is compact). Define $\Upsilon:=\{p:t>t_{\rm max}\}$ and $\Upsilon':= \Upsilon \cup \bdyI^+[R]$. Define $$\Sigma:= \partial \Upsilon'= \left(\partial \Upsilon\setminus \bdyI^+[R]\right)\cup \left( \partial\bdyI^+[R]\setminus \Upsilon\right).$$ $\partial \bdyI^+[R]$ contains $R$, and $\Upsilon\cap R=\emptyset$, so $R\subset\partial \bdyI^+[R]\setminus \Upsilon\subset\Sigma$. Next we show that $\Sigma$ is achronal. The maximum value of $t$ on $\Sigma$ is $t_{\rm max}$, so there can be no future-directed timelike curve from $\partial \Upsilon$ to $\Sigma$. Further $\partial \bdyI^+[R]$ is itself achronal. Finally, if there is a future-directed timelike curve from $p\in\partial \bdyI^+[R]$ to $q\in\partial\Upsilon$, then $q\in \bdyI^+[R]$ and hence $q\not\in\Sigma$. So $\Sigma$ is achronal.
Next, we show that every inextendible future-directed timelike curve intersects $\Sigma$. On such a curve, $t$ increases monotonically and continuously from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$. For $t\le t_{\rm min}$, the curve is not in $\Upsilon'$; for $t>t_{\rm max}$, it is. Therefore for some value of $t$ it intersects $\Sigma$.
While $\Sigma$ is achronal, it is not quite a Cauchy slice (in the sense used in this paper) because it is not acausal. However, since $R$ is acausal, $\Sigma$ can be deformed outside of $R$ to be acausal. $\Box$
\[wedgeobservable\]Let $\Sigma'$ be a Cauchy slice for $\bdy$ and $\regA'\subset\Sigma'$ a region such that $\regA'\cup\partial\regA'$ is compact and $D[\regA']=D[\regA]$. Then $\regA'$ is spacelike-homologous to $\extr$.
*Proof:* Since $\extr$ and $\regA'\cup\partial\regA'$ are both compact, $\extr\cup\regA'$ is compact as well. (Recall that $\partial\regA'=\partial\regA\subset\extr$.) $\extr$ and $\regA'$ are acausal, since each sits on a Cauchy slice. Furthermore, by theorems \[decomposition\] and \[surfaceJ\], there are no causal curves connecting them; hence $\extr\cup \regA'$ is acausal. Therefore, by theorem \[Cauchyexistence\], there is a Cauchy slice $\tilde\Sigma'$ containing both $\extr$ and $\regA'$.
Choosing a global timelike vector field on $\overM$, its integral curves define a diffeomorphism $f:\tilde\Sigma\to\tilde\Sigma'$. Let $\homsurfA':=f(\homsurfA)$. Since $\extr$ is contained in both $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$, $f(\extr)=\extr$. Since every timelike curve in $\domdA$ intersects $\Sigma$ in $\regA$ and $\Sigma'$ in $\regA'$, $f(\regA)=\regA'$. So $\homsurfA':=f(\homsurfA)$ is a region in $\tilde\Sigma'$ with $\partial\homsurfA'=\regA'\cup\extr$. (Strictly speaking, we also need to define a new Cauchy slice for $\bdy$, $\Sigma'':=\tilde\Sigma'\cap\bdy$, and to consider $\regA'$ to be a region in $\Sigma''$, since the equality $\Sigma''=\tilde\Sigma'\cap\bdy$ is part of the definition of the spacelike homology condition.) $\Box$
Theorem \[wedgeobservable\] shows that the HRT formula gives the same value for the entanglement entropy of $\regA$ and $\regA'$, as required by field-theory causality.
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
==========
The main result of this paper, Theorem \[compatible\], shows that the HRT prescription for computing holographic entanglement entropy [@Hubeny:2013gta] is consistent with the requirements of field theory causality. As we have explained with various simple examples and gedanken experiments in §\[sec:gexpt\], the result was in no way *a priori* obvious, since there are several marginal cases where arbitrarily small deformation of the bulk extremal surface would place it in causal future of a boundary deformation which however cannot affect the entanglement entropy. With the primary result at hand, we now take stock of the various physical consequences it implies for holographic field theories.
#### Causality constraints on holography:
Let us start by asking what we can learn about holography from causality considerations. Recall that we proved our result for extremal surfaces in the context of two-derivative theories of gravity satisfying the null energy condition. This was crucial for us to be able to use the Raychaudhuri equation in order to ascertain properties of null geodesic congruences. Thus the domain of validity of our statements was strong coupling in a planar (large-$N$) field theory. This translates to demanding a macroscopic spacetime with $\ell_s \ll \ell_{\rm AdS}$ in a perturbative string ($g_s \ll1$) regime. Lets see what happens as we move away from this corner of moduli space.
Firstly, consider classical stringy corrections which we can encapsulate in an effective higher-derivative theory of gravity. In such a theory, as long as higher-derivative operators are suppressed by powers of $\ell_s$, our conclusions will hold, since the dominant effect will come from the leading two-derivative Einstein-Hilbert term in the bulk. When the higher-derivative operators are unsuppressed we have little to say for two reasons: (a) the holographic entanglement prescription so far is only given for static situations (or with time reversal symmetry) [@Dong:2013qoa; @Camps:2013zua] and (b) even assuming the covariant generalizations, one is stymied by the absence of clean statements regarding dynamics of null geodesic congruences (even for example in Lovelock theories).[^22] One could, however, use the causality constraint to rule out certain higher-derivative theories from having unitary relativistic QFT duals (see e.g. [@Erdmenger:2014tba]); this is similar in spirit to the recent discussions on causality constraints on the three-graviton vertex [@Camanho:2014apa].
Turning next to $1/N$, or bulk quantum corrections, while we have less control in general, we can make some observations about the leading $1/N$ correction which has been proposed to be given by the entanglement of bulk perturbative quantum fields across $\extr$ [@Faulkner:2013ana]. Since the bulk theory itself is causal, it follows that entanglement across the extremal surface satisfies the desired causality conditions.
#### Does causality prove the HRT conjecture?:
One intriguing possibility given, the importance of the causality, is whether we can use it to constrain the location of the extremal surface in the bulk, and thus prove the HRT conjecture.[^23] Unfortunately, causality alone is not strong enough to pin down the location of the extremal surface. What we can say is that the extremal surface $\extr$ has to lie inside the causal shadow $\shadow_{\entsurf}$. In a generic asymptotic AdS spacetime, for a generic region $\regA$, the casual shadow is a codimension-zero volume of the bulk spacetime $\bulk$. It is only in some very special cases that we zero in on a single bulk codimension-two surface uniquely (e.g., spherical regions in pure AdS or in the eternal Schwarzschild-AdS black hole).[^24]
#### Causality constraints on other CFT observables:
Our discussion has exclusively focused on the causality properties of a particular non-local quantity in the field theory, namely the entanglement entropy. However, causality places restrictions on other physical observables we can consider on the boundary as well. For instance, correlation functions of (time-ordered) local operators, Wilson loop expectation values, etc., should all obey appropriate constraints which we can infer from basic principles. Indeed, this can be shown to be the case, for example, for correlation functions, by considering the fact that the bulk computation involves solving a suitable boundary initial value problem for fields in the bulk, which can be checked to manifestly satisfy causality.
However, this is less clear when we approximate, say, two point functions of heavy local operators using the geodesic approximation [@Balasubramanian:1999zv]. Similar issues arise for the semi-classical computation of Wilson loop expectation values [@Maldacena:1998im; @Rey:1998ik] using the string worldsheet area. In these cases, one generically encounters some tension between the use of extremal surfaces—geodesics, two-dimensional worldsheets, etc.—for the bulk computation, and field theory expectations regarding causality (cf., [@Louko:2000tp] for an earlier discussion of this issue). Indeed, it appears that codimension-two extremal surfaces are special in this regard, for we can rely on the boundary of the entanglement wedge being generated by a codimension-one null congruence, and thus apply the Raychaudhuri equation. Understanding the proper application of the WKB approximation for other observables is an interesting question; we hope to report upon in the near future [@Headrick:2014gf].
#### Entanglement wedges:
One of the key constructs in our presentation, naturally associated with a given boundary region $\regA$, has been the entanglement wedge $\EWA$. This is the domain of dependence of the homology surface $\homsurfA$ (recall that $\homsurfA$ forms a part of a Cauchy surface which interpolates between $\regA$ and $\extr$). Equivalently, it comprises the set of spacelike-separated points from $\extr$ which is connected to $\regA$, one of the four regions in the natural decomposition of the bulk spacetime.
Given $\regA$, one might ask how unique this decomposition is. Since $\EWA$ is a causally-defined set, its specification only requires the specification of the (oriented) extremal surface $\extr$ (possibly consisting of multiple components when so required by the homology constraint). The prescription for constructing the null boundary of $\EWA$ is unambiguous: simply to follow all null normals (emanating from $\extr$ in the requisite direction, towards $\domdA$) until they encounter another generator (i.e. a crossover seam) or a caustic. However, there is a possibility that the extremal surface itself is not uniquely determined from $\regA$. This happens when multiple (sets of) extremal surfaces satisfy but have the same area. Since entanglement entropy itself cares only about the area, the HRT (as well as RT and maximin) prescription is to take [*any*]{} of these. However, which we take [*does*]{} matter for the entanglement wedge. We propose that, just as for the extremal surfaces, in such cases we may have [*multiple*]{} entanglement wedges $\EWA$ associated to the same boundary region $\regA$.
The most “obvious” class of examples where this can happen is the case of $\regA$ consisting of multiple regions or in higher dimensions where the entangling surface $\entsurf$ consists of multiple disjoint components. As we vary the parameters describing the configuration, the extremal surfaces involved typically exchange dominance, so at some point their areas must agree. Applying continuity from both sides, at the transition point, both entanglement wedges should be naturally associated with $\regA$. However, in complicated states, there can actually be multiple extremal surfaces even for when $\regA$ and $\entsurf$ are both connected. In such cases, we could have candidate entanglement wedges which are proper subsets of (rather than merely overlapping with) other candidate entanglement wedges.
![ Sketch of Penrose diagram for a symmetric Vaidya- geometry obtained by imploding null shells to the past and future from both boundaries now displaying the entanglement wedges and the causal shadow region, with $\regA$ being a full Cauchy surface for CFT$_R$. []{data-label="f:VSAdSewedge"}](VSAdS-ewdeges){width="4in"}
(0.3,0.4)(0,0) (0.2,3)[(0,0)[CFT$_R$]{}]{} (-7.15,3)[(0,0)[CFT$_L$]{}]{} (0.,2)[(0,0)[$\regA$]{}]{} (-3.45,2.9)[(0,0)[$\shadow$]{}]{} (-5.5,2.5)[(0,0)[$\EWAc$]{}]{} (-1.5,2.5)[(0,0)[$\EWA$]{}]{}
It is also interesting to note that the decomposition of the bulk into four spacetime regions causally defined from $\extr$ need not coincide with the bulk decomposition defined from ${\cal E}_{\regAc}$, despite there being a unique boundary decomposition defined from $\entsurf$. For pure states, where the homology constraint trivializes and we have $\extr = {\cal E}_{\regAc}$, we can write the bulk decomposition equivalently with respect to both $\regA$ and $\regAc$, $$\bulk = \EWA \cup \EWAc \cup \bulkJ^+[\extr] \cup \bulkJ^-[\extr]
\label{bulkdecomp}$$ which is directly analogous to the boundary decomposition . However, for mixed states, where typically $\extr \ne {\cal E}_{\regAc}$, the decomposition is [*not*]{} true;[^25] instead the correct decomposition should replace $\EWAc$ with the bulk domain of dependence of the complement of $\homsurfA$ within the bulk Cauchy slice ${\tilde \Sigma}$, or more precisely $\bulkD[{\tilde \Sigma} \backslash \homsurfA \backslash \extr]$.
#### Dual of $\rhoA$?
Within the class of CFTs and states with a geometrical holographic dual, it has often been asked,[^26] for a given region $\regA$, what is the bulk “dual" of the reduced density matrix $\rhoA$. One way to formulate what one means by this is as follows: suppose we fix $\rhoA$ and vary over all compatible density matrices for the full state $\rho$. What is the maximal bulk spacetime region which coincides for all such $\rho$’s? By “coinciding bulk regions” one means having the same geometry, i.e. the same bulk metric modulo diffeomorphisms. Another way to define the dual of $\rhoA$ is to ask what is the maximal bulk region wherein we can uniquely determine the bulk metric (again modulo diffeomorphisms). In fact there are several (generally distinct) bulk regions that might be naturally associated with the density matrix; in nested order:
- The bulk region that $\rhoA$ is [*sensitive to*]{}; in other words, regions wherein a deformation of the metric affects $\rhoA$.[^27]
- The bulk region that $\rhoA$ [*determines*]{}, i.e. where we can uniquely reconstruct all the components of the metric (up to diffeomorphisms).
- The bulk region that $\rhoA$ [*affects*]{}, i.e. where by changing $\rhoA$ one can change the bulk metric.
Here we focus on the second case, following [@Bousso:2012sj; @Czech:2012bh]. Based on lightsheet arguments, the authors of [@Bousso:2012sj] proposed the causal wedge as the correct dual. On the other hand, [@Czech:2012bh], as well as [@Hubeny:2012wa; @Wall:2012uf], argued that the requisite region should contain more than the causal wedge. In particular, [@Czech:2012bh] presented a number of criteria that such a region should satisfy, and explored several possibilities, most notably the region they denoted ${\hat w}(D_A)$ which corresponds to the bulk domain of dependence of the spacetime region spanned by all codimension-two extremal surfaces anchored within $\domdA$. If every point of $\homsurfA$ lies on at least one of these, then this region coincides with our entanglement wedge $\EWA$. On the other hand, as [@Czech:2012bh] pointed out, there may be “holes” in such a set, i.e., regions of $\homsurfA$ which do not lie along any least-area extremal surface anchored on a given region $\regA' \subset \regA$.[^28]
We propose that, since the most “natural” causal set associated with $\rhoA$ from the bulk point of view is the entanglement wedge, this is indeed the most appropriate region to be identified with the “dual” of the reduced density matrix $\rhoA$ (even in the presence of such entanglement “holes”). In this context, we should note that we can strip away the rest of the boundary spacetime, and consider the field theory just on $D[\regA]$, which is a globally hyperbolic spacetime in its own right, in the state $\rho_\regA$. Whether this state in general admits a holographic description is not known, but, if it does, then a natural candidate would seem to be the entanglement wedge: this is, in its own right, a globally hyperbolic, asymptotically AdS spacetime, whose conformal boundary (according to theorem \[compatible\]) is precisely $D[\regA]$, and the area of whose edge $\extr$ gives the entropy of $\rho_\regA$.
Here the word “natural” should be qualified, especially in light of the arguments in [@Hubeny:2012wa] that the causal wedge $\CWA$ is a natural bulk codimension-zero region associated with $\regA$. The latter can be obtained more minimally: it suffices to know the causal structure of the bulk to define $\CWA$. On the other hand, the density matrix clearly encodes much more than the bulk causal structure, since at least it knows the entanglement entropy (as well as entanglement entropies of all subregions, apart from other observables). Since, in the bulk, the corresponding extremal surface is defined only once we know the bulk geometry, the entanglement wedge $\EWA$ it defines is a less minimal construct that the causal wedge $\CWA$. Nevertheless, once $\extr$ is identified, the rest of the bulk construction of the entanglement wedge is purely causal, and therefore defined fully robustly for any time-dependent asymptotically AdS spacetime.
![ Left: Exterior AdS-Schwarzschild solution, dual to a deconfined thermal state on $S^{d-1}$. The extremal surface for the entire boundary (red dot) coincides with the bifurcation surface and the causal information surface. Right: Vaidya solution with an ingoing null shell that reaches the boundary at $t<0$ and an outgoing one that leaves it at $t>0$ (brown); the geometry between the shells is unchanged, but the past and future event horizons (blue) have moved closer to the boundary, leaving the extremal surface (red dot) hidden behind them. The entanglement wedge in both cases is the entire spacetime (with a homology surface shown in green), while the causal wedge in the right figure is just the part outside of the event horizons. (The causal information surface is shown as the black dot.) []{data-label="f:wedgeargument"}](regionA-ewedge){width="4in"}
(0.3,0.4)(0,0) (0,2.35)[(0,0)[$\regA$]{}]{} (-4.1,2.35)[(0,0)[$\regA$]{}]{} (-5.5,2.65)[(0,0)[$\color{olivegreen}{\homsurfA}$]{}]{} (-1,2.55)[(0,0)[$\color{olivegreen}{\homsurfA}$]{}]{} (-6.9,2.35)[(0,0)[$\color{red}{\extr}$]{}]{} (-2.8,2.35)[(0,0)[$\color{red}{\extr}$]{}]{}
The statement that the entanglement wedge is the natural dual of the reduced density matrix (which implies that the boundary observer in $\domdA$ can learn about the bulk geometry in the entire $\EWA$) has a profound consequence. We have shown that the extremal surface $\extr$ has to lie in the causal shadow. This set can however be quite large, and so $\extr$ can lie very deep inside the bulk (as indicated by the shaded region in Fig. \[f:VSAdSewedge\]). In fact, a simple example supports the idea that the entanglement wedge represents the state in such a case (see Fig. \[f:wedgeargument\]). We start with a deconfined thermal state at $t=0$ on a single ${\bf S}^{d-1}$, represented holographically by the exterior Schwarzschild-AdS solution. We add an outgoing null shell that reaches the boundary at $t<0$ and an ingoing one that leaves it at $t>0$. At $t=0$ we still have the thermal state. The bulk solution is also unchanged between the past and future shells. However, these shells move the singularity and therefore have the effect of bringing the future and past event horizons closer to the boundary, leaving the previous bifurcation surface hidden behind both horizons. While this surface is no longer the bifurcation surface of a global Killing vector, it remains the extremal surface whose area gives the entropy of the state of the field theory on the right boundary. Presumably the holographic description of the state extends all the way down to this extremal surface, as it does in the absence of the shells, and thus consists of the entire entanglement wedge.
Another (related) example where the separation between entanglement wedge and causal wedge is particularly striking is the eternal (two-sided) black hole deformed by many shocks considered in [@Shenker:2013pqa; @Shenker:2013yza]. The Einstein-Rosen bridge is highly elongated and the extremal surface probably lies somewhere in the middle of it—so that the entanglement wedge for the entire right boundary is substantially larger than the causal wedge, which in this case is simply the right exterior (domain of outer communication) of the black hole. So not only does the entanglement wedge penetrate arbitrarily close to the curvature singularity, it also contains a substantial part of the spacetime far beyond the black hole horizon!
We would like to thank Hong Liu, Juan Maldacena, Don Marolf, Steve Shenker, Mark Van Raamsdonk, and Aron Wall for discussions. MH, VH, and MR would like to thank University of Amsterdam for hospitality during the initial stages of this project. VH and MR would also like to acknowledge the hospitality of Brandeis University, MIT, Cambridge University, and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver during various stages of this project. We would like to thank the Aspen Center for Physics (supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant 1066293) for their hospitality during both intermediate and concluding stages of this project.
MH is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under CAREER Grant No. PHY10-53842. VH and MR are supported in part by the Ambrose Monell foundation, by the FQXi grant “Measures of Holographic Information" (FQXi-RFP3-1334) and by the STFC Consolidated Grant ST/J000426/1. AL is supported in part by DOE grant DE-SC0009987. MR is supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013), ERC Consolidator Grant Agreement ERC-2013-CoG-615443: SPiN (Symmetry Principles in Nature).
[10]{}
S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Aspects of holographic entanglement entropy,” [ *JHEP*]{} [**08**]{} (2006) 045, [[hep-th/0605073]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0605073). S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “[Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT]{},” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**96**]{} (2006) 181602, [[hep-th/0603001]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603001). V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and T. Takayanagi, “[A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**0707**]{} (2007) 062](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/07/062), [[arXiv:0705.0016 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0016). B. Swingle, “[Entanglement Renormalization and Holography]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D86**]{} (2012) 065007](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.065007), [[arXiv:0905.1317 \[cond-mat.str-el\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1317). M. Van Raamsdonk, “[Comments on quantum gravity and entanglement]{},” [[arXiv:0907.2939 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2939). M. Van Raamsdonk, “[Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement]{},” [[*Gen.Rel.Grav.*]{} [**42**]{} (2010) 2323–2329](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10714-010-1034-0,
10.1142/S0218271810018529), [[arXiv:1005.3035 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3035). J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, “[Cool horizons for entangled black holes]{},” [[*Fortsch.Phys.*]{} [**61**]{} (2013) 781–811](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prop.201300020), [[arXiv:1306.0533 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0533). M. Headrick and T. Takayanagi, “[A Holographic proof of the strong subadditivity of entanglement entropy]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D76**]{} (2007) 106013](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.106013), [[arXiv:0704.3719 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3719). P. Hayden, M. Headrick, and A. Maloney, “[Holographic Mutual Information is Monogamous]{},” [[arXiv:1107.2940 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2940). M. Headrick, “[General properties of holographic entanglement entropy]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1403**]{} (2014) 085](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2014)085), [[arXiv:1312.6717 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6717). A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, “[Generalized gravitational entropy]{},” [[arXiv:1304.4926 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4926). A. C. Wall, “[Maximin Surfaces, and the Strong Subadditivity of the Covariant Holographic Entanglement Entropy]{},” [[arXiv:1211.3494 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3494). H. Casini, “[Geometric entropy, area, and strong subadditivity]{},” [[*Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} [**21**]{} (2004) 2351–2378](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/21/9/011), [[arXiv:hep-th/0312238 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312238). S. Gao and R. M. Wald, “[Theorems on gravitational time delay and related issues]{},” [[ *Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} [**17**]{} (2000) 4999–5008](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/17/24/305), [[arXiv:gr-qc/0007021 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007021). V. E. Hubeny, “[Precursors see inside black holes]{},” [[*Int.J.Mod.Phys.*]{} [ **D12**]{} (2003) 1693–1698](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218271803003992), [[arXiv:hep-th/0208047 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208047). J. Abajo-Arrastia, J. Aparicio, and E. Lopez, “[Holographic Evolution of Entanglement Entropy]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1011**]{} (2010) 149](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2010)149), [[arXiv:1006.4090 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4090). V. E. Hubeny, “[Extremal surfaces as bulk probes in AdS/CFT]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1207**]{} (2012) 093](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2012)093), [[arXiv:1203.1044 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1044). T. Hartman and J. Maldacena, “[Time Evolution of Entanglement Entropy from Black Hole Interiors]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1305**]{} (2013) 014](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2013)014), [[arXiv:1303.1080 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1080). H. Liu and S. J. Suh, “[Entanglement Tsunami: Universal Scaling in Holographic Thermalization]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**112**]{} (2014) 011601](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.011601), [[arXiv:1305.7244 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.7244). V. E. Hubeny and H. Maxfield, “[Holographic probes of collapsing black holes]{},” [[arXiv:1312.6887 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6887). V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and E. Tonni, “[Thermalization of Causal Holographic Information]{},” [[arXiv:1302.0853 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0853). V. E. Hubeny and M. Rangamani, “[Causal Holographic Information]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1206**]{} (2012) 114](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2012)114), [[arXiv:1204.1698 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1698). V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and E. Tonni, “[Global properties of causal wedges in asymptotically AdS spacetimes]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1310**]{} (2013) 059](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2013)059), [[arXiv:1306.4324 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4324). N. Engelhardt and A. C. Wall, “[Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime]{},” [[arXiv:1408.3203 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3203). R. Wald, [*[General Relativity]{}*]{}. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984.
P. Buividovich and M. Polikarpov, “[Entanglement entropy in gauge theories and the holographic principle for electric strings]{},” [[*Phys.Lett.*]{} [ **B670**]{} (2008) 141–145](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.10.032), [[arXiv:0806.3376 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3376). W. Donnelly, “[Decomposition of entanglement entropy in lattice gauge theory]{},” [[ *Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D85**]{} (2012) 085004](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.085004), [[arXiv:1109.0036 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0036). H. Casini, M. Huerta, and J. A. Rosabal, “[Remarks on entanglement entropy for gauge fields]{},” [[ *Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D89**]{} (2014) 085012](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.085012), [[arXiv:1312.1183 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1183). W. Donnelly, “[Entanglement entropy and nonabelian gauge symmetry]{},” [[arXiv:1406.7304 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7304). D. Marolf, M. Rangamani, and T. Wiseman, “[Holographic thermal field theory on curved spacetimes]{},” [[ *Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} [**31**]{} (2014) 063001](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/31/6/063001), [[arXiv:1312.0612 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0612). M. Headrick, “[Entanglement Renyi entropies in holographic theories]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{} (2010) 126010](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.126010), [[arXiv:1006.0047 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0047). V. E. Hubeny, H. Maxfield, M. Rangamani, and E. Tonni, “[Holographic entanglement plateaux]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1308**]{} (2013) 092](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2013)092), [[arXiv:1306.4004]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4004). V. E. Hubeny, “[Covariant Residual Entropy]{},” [[arXiv:1406.4611 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4611). V. Balasubramanian, P. Hayden, A. Maloney, D. Marolf, and S. F. Ross, “[Multiboundary Wormholes and Holographic Entanglement]{},” [[arXiv:1406.2663 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2663). S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “[Black holes and the butterfly effect]{},” [[arXiv:1306.0622 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0622). G. T. Horowitz and D. Marolf, “[A New approach to string cosmology]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**9807**]{} (1998) 014](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/1998/07/014), [[arXiv:hep-th/9805207 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9805207). V. Balasubramanian, P. Kraus, A. E. Lawrence, and S. P. Trivedi, “[Holographic probes of anti-de Sitter space-times]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D59**]{} (1999) 104021](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.104021), [[arXiv:hep-th/9808017 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9808017). B. G. Carneiro da Cunha, “[Inflation and holography in string theory]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D65**]{} (2002) 026001](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.026001), [[arXiv:hep-th/0105219 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0105219). J. M. Maldacena, “[Eternal black holes in anti-de Sitter]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**0304**]{} (2003) 021](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2003/04/021), [[arXiv:hep-th/0106112 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0106112). G. Galloway, K. Schleich, D. Witt, and E. Woolgar, “[Topological censorship and higher genus black holes]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D60**]{} (1999) 104039](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.60.104039), [[arXiv:gr-qc/9902061 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9902061). G. Galloway, K. Schleich, D. Witt, and E. Woolgar, “[The AdS / CFT correspondence conjecture and topological censorship]{},” [[*Phys.Lett.*]{} [ **B505**]{} (2001) 255–262](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00335-5), [[arXiv:hep-th/9912119 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9912119). B. Freivogel, V. E. Hubeny, A. Maloney, R. C. Myers, M. Rangamani, [*et al.*]{}, “[Inflation in AdS/CFT]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**0603**]{} (2006) 007](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/03/007), [[arXiv:hep-th/0510046 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0510046). X. Dong, “[Holographic Entanglement Entropy for General Higher Derivative Gravity]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [ **1401**]{} (2014) 044](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2014)044), [[arXiv:1310.5713 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.5713). J. Camps, “[Generalized entropy and higher derivative Gravity]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1403**]{} (2014) 070](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2014)070), [[arXiv:1310.6659 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6659). J. Erdmenger, M. Flory, and C. Sleight, “[Conditions on holographic entangling surfaces in higher curvature gravity]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1406**]{} (2014) 104](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2014)104), [[arXiv:1401.5075 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5075). X. O. Camanho, J. D. Edelstein, J. Maldacena, and A. Zhiboedov, “[Causality Constraints on Corrections to the Graviton Three-Point Coupling]{},” [[arXiv:1407.5597 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5597). T. Faulkner, A. Lewkowycz, and J. Maldacena, “[Quantum corrections to holographic entanglement entropy]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1311**]{} (2013) 074](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2013)074), [[arXiv:1307.2892]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.2892). V. Balasubramanian and S. F. Ross, “[Holographic particle detection]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D61**]{} (2000) 044007](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.044007), [[arXiv:hep-th/9906226 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9906226). J. M. Maldacena, “[Wilson loops in large N field theories]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**80**]{} (1998) 4859–4862](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4859), [[arXiv:hep-th/9803002 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9803002). S.-J. Rey and J.-T. Yee, “[Macroscopic strings as heavy quarks in large N gauge theory and anti-de Sitter supergravity]{},” [[*Eur.Phys.J.*]{} [**C22**]{} (2001) 379–394](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100520100799), [[arXiv:hep-th/9803001 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9803001). J. Louko, D. Marolf, and S. F. Ross, “[On geodesic propagators and black hole holography]{},” [[ *Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D62**]{} (2000) 044041](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.044041), [[arXiv:hep-th/0002111 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0002111). M. Headrick, V. E. Hubeny, A. E. Lawrence, and M. Rangamani, “work in progress,”.
R. Bousso, S. Leichenauer, and V. Rosenhaus, “[Light-sheets and AdS/CFT]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D86**]{} (2012) 046009](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.046009), [[arXiv:1203.6619 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.6619). B. Czech, J. L. Karczmarek, F. Nogueira, and M. Van Raamsdonk, “[The Gravity Dual of a Density Matrix]{},” [[ *Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} [**29**]{} (2012) 155009](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/29/15/155009), [[arXiv:1204.1330 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1330). S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “[Multiple Shocks]{},” [[arXiv:1312.3296 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.3296).
[^1]: We will focus exclusively on local QFTs with conformal UV fixed points which are holographically dual to asymptotically AdS spacetimes in [*two-derivative*]{} theories of gravity.
[^2]: As we elaborate in the course of our discussion this result follows from Theorem 6 of [@Wall:2012uf]. As this is however not widely appreciated we focus on proving the result from a different perspective highlighting certain novel bulk constructs in the process.
[^3]: For the well-known eternal static Schwarzschild-AdS case, the shadow region degenerates to the bifurcation surface, but we will see that in general it is a finite codimension-zero bulk region.
[^4]: \[Cauchydef\]Throughout this paper we will require all Cauchy slices to be *acausal* (no two points are connected by a causal curve). This is slightly different from the standard definition in the general-relativity literature, in which a Cauchy slice is merely required to be achronal. The reason is to ensure that different points represent independent degrees of freedom, which is useful when we decompose the Hilbert space according to subsets of the Cauchy slice.
[^5]: Technically, $\regA$ is defined as the interior of a codimension-zero submanifold-with-boundary in $\Sigma$, $\partial\regA$ is the boundary of that submanifold, and $\regAc:=\Sigma\setminus(\regA\cup\partial\regA)$.
[^6]: In the case of gauge fields, this decomposition is not possible even on the lattice. Instead, one must extend the Hilbert spaces ${\cal H}_{\regA}$, ${\cal H}_{\regAc}$ to each include degrees of freedom on $\entsurf$, so that ${\cal H} \subset {\cal H}_{\regA} \otimes {\cal H}_{\regAc}$ [@Buividovich:2008gq; @Donnelly:2011hn; @Casini:2013rba; @Donnelly:2014gva].
[^7]: Technically, by “large-$N$" we mean large $c_\text{eff}$, where $c_\text{eff} $ is a general count of the degrees of freedom (see [@Marolf:2013ioa] for the general definition of $c_\text{eff}$).
[^8]: We remind the reader that $D[\regA]$ is defined as the set of points in $\bdy$ through which every inextendible causal curve intersects $\regA$. Note that, given that we have defined $\regA$ as an open subset of $\Sigma$, $D[\regA]$ is open subset of $\bdy$.
[^9]: These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the spacetime to be asymptotically AdS.
[^10]: Technically, similarly to $\regA$, we define $\homsurfA$ to be the interior of a codimension-zero submanifold-with-boundary of a Cauchy slice $\tilde\Sigma$ of $\overM$ (with $\tilde\Sigma\cap\bdy=\Sigma$). Since $\tilde\Sigma$ itself has a boundary (namely its intersection with $\bdy$), the interior of a subset (in the sense of point-set topology) includes the part of its boundary along $\bdy$. Thus, $\homsurfA$ includes $\regA$ (but not $\extr$).
[^11]: If there are multiple extremal surfaces obeying the spacelike homology condition, then we are to pick the one with smallest area. However, in this paper we will not use this additional minimality requirement; all our theorems apply to any spacelike-homologous extremal surface.
[^12]: While we have associated it notationally with the region $\regA$, it depends only on $D[\regA]$.
[^13]: Following [@Hubeny:2012wa], we can also define a particular bulk codimension-two surface $\CIS$, the causal information surface, to be the rim of the causal wedge; in fact, it is the minimal area codimension-two surface lying on $\partial\CWA$.
[^14]: The bulk metric used in the plot for Fig. \[f:causalshadow\] is $$ds^2 =\frac{1}{\cos^2\rho} \left(-f(\rho)\, dt^2 + \frac{d\rho^2}{f(\rho)} + \sin^2\rho \, d\varphi^2 \right) ,\qquad f(\rho) = 1-\frac{1}{2}\, \sin^2(2\,\rho)\,.$$ The matter supporting this geometry satisfies the null energy condition as can be checked explicitly. \[fn:metric\]
[^15]: Since these describe pure states, the presence of a causal shadow region does not necessarily guarantee the presence of an extremal surface [*whose area gives the entanglement entropy*]{} contained within it. However, there will be [*some*]{} extremal surface spanning this region.
[^16]: Note that the extremal surface does not come arbitrarily close to the horizon—it either includes a component that wraps the horizon, or stays a finite distance away from it [@Hubeny:2013gta].
[^17]: The latter set of intersections is referred to as cross-over points; the set of these generically form a crossover seam which is codimension-one on this null surface.
[^18]: In higher-dimensional setting, $\domdA$ itself may terminate in a crossover seam rather than a single point, which occurs when the null generators of $\partial \domdA$ on the boundary themselves cross over.
[^19]: We largely follow the setup and assumptions of section 3 of [@Gao:2000ga], with two exceptions: we remove the null generic condition and we add the condition that the boundary is totally geodesic for null geodesics (assumption (iii) below).
[^20]: We remind the reader that, as explained in footnote \[Cauchydef\], throughout this paper we require all Cauchy slices to be acausal, not just achronal.
[^21]: The point-set-topology boundary can be shown to equal the “edge” of the submanifold, in the sense used in the general-relativity literature (see e.g. [@Wald:1984ai]).
[^22]: The family of $f(R)$ theories can be brought to heel, since here we can map the theory to Einstein-Hilbert via a suitable Weyl transformation. Causality constraints can be discerned here so long as the Weyl transformation (which is non-linear in the curvature) is well-behaved.
[^23]: We thank Vladimir Rosenhaus for inspiring us to think through this possibility.
[^24]: The examples are all cases where, by a suitable choice of conformal frame, the extremal surface can be mapped onto the bifurcation surface of a static black hole. The black funnel and droplet solutions (see [@Marolf:2013ioa] for a review) provide nontrivial examples, cf., [@Hubeny:2013gba].
[^25]: Note however that if we purify a mixed state by additional boundaries, such as in the deformed eternal black hole example illustrated in Fig. \[f:VSAdSewedge\], then the decomposition does hold.
[^26]: In recent years this question has been invigorated by e.g. [@Bousso:2012sj; @Czech:2012bh].
[^27]: In fact there is a further subdivision here based on whether [*any* ]{}geometrical deformation of the metric should change $\rhoA$ or merely whether there should exist [*some*]{} deformation of the metric which changes $\rhoA$. We thank Mark Van Raamsdonk for discussions on this issue.
[^28]: The example given in [@Czech:2012bh] involves a region through which traversing surfaces are not the smallest-area ones anchored on the given region, but a simpler physical example would be a point sufficiently close to an event horizon of an eternal spherical black hole, with $\regA = \Sigma$ of one side as considered in §\[sec:gexpt\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use monadic second-order logic to define two-dimensional subshifts, or sets of colorings of the infinite plane. We present a natural family of quantifier alternation hierarchies, and show that they all collapse to the third level. In particular, this solves an open problem of \[Jeandel & Theyssier 2013\]. The results are in stark contrast with picture languages, where such hierarchies are usually infinite.'
author:
- Ilkka Törmä
bibliography:
- '../../../bib/bib.bib'
title: 'Subshifts, MSO Logic, and Collapsing Hierarchies'
---
Introduction
============
A two-dimensional subshift is a set of colorings of the infinite plane with finitely many colors. Concrete examples are given by sets of *Wang tiles*, or squares with colored edges, introduced by Wang in [@Wa61]. The associated *tiling system* consists of all tilings of the plane where overlapping edges have the same color. The initial motivation for Wang tiles was to use a possible algorithm for the infinite tiling problem to recognize tautologies in first-order logic. The tiling problem was proved undecidable by Berger [@Be66], and more undecidability results for tiling systems followed. More recently, strong connections between multidimensional subshifts and computability theory have been found. For example, it was shown in [@DuRoSh12], [@AuSa13] that every vertically constant co-RE subshift can be implemented as a letter-to-letter projection of a tiling system. The topological entropies of tiling systems were characterized in [@HoMe10] as the right recursively enumerable nonnegative reals. It seems that every conceivable behavior occurs in the class of (projections of) tiling systems, if there is no obvious geometric or computational obstruction.
In this article, we follow the approach of [@JeTh09; @JeTh13] and define two-dimensional subshifts by monadic second-order (MSO) logical formulas. We show that certain hierarchies obtained by counting quantifier alternations are finite, solving an open problem posed in [@JeTh13]. Classes of finite structures defined by MSO formulas have been studied extensively. Examples include finite words, trees, grids and graphs; see [@MaSc08] and references therein. For words and trees, MSO formulas define exactly the regular languages, and the quantifier alternation hierarchy collapses to the second level. On the other hand, the analogous hierarchy of picture languages was shown to be infinite in [@MaTh97] and strict in [@Sc97]. Although subshifts behave more like sets of words or trees than picture languages in this sense, the reasons are different: MSO-definable languages are regular because the geometry is so simple, while the subshift hierarchy collapses since we can simulate arbitrary computation already on the third level. The concept of constructing subshifts by quantifying over infinite configurations has also been studied in [@LoMaPa13] under the name of *multi-choice shift spaces*, and in [@To14] under the more general framework of *quantifier extensions*. Both formalisms are subsumed by MSO logic.
Preliminary Definitions
=======================
Patterns and Subshifts
----------------------
Fix a finite *alphabet* $A$. A *pattern* is a map $P : D \to A$ from an arbitrary *domain* $D = D(P) \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ to $A$. A pattern with domain ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$ is a *configuration*, and the set $A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ of all configurations is the *full shift over $A$*. The set of finite patterns over $A$ is denoted by $A^{**}$, and those with domain $D \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ by $A^D$. The restriction of a pattern $P$ to a smaller domain $E \subset D(P)$ is denoted $P|_E$. A pattern $P$ *occurs at $\vec v \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$* in another pattern $Q$, if we have $\vec v + \vec w \in D(Q)$ and $Q_{\vec v + \vec w} = P_{\vec w}$ for all $\vec w \in D(P)$. We denote $P \sqsubset Q$ if $P$ occurs in $Q$ at some coordinate. For a set of patterns ${\mathsf{X}}$, we denote $P \sqsubset {\mathsf{X}}$ if $P$ occurs in some element of ${\mathsf{X}}$.
A set of finite patterns $F \subset A^{**}$ defines a *subshift* as the set of configurations ${\mathsf{X}}_F = \{ x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2} \;|\; \forall P \in F : P \not\sqsubset x \}$ where no pattern of $F$ occurs. If $F$ is finite, then ${\mathsf{X}}_F$ is *of finite type*, or SFT. The *language* of a subshift ${\mathsf{X}}\subset A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ is ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}}) = \{ P \in A^{**} \;|\; P \sqsubset {\mathsf{X}}\}$. For a finite $D \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$, we denote ${\mathcal{B}}_D({\mathsf{X}}) = {\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}}) \cap A^D$. For $\vec v \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$, we denote by $\sigma^{\vec v} : A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2} \to A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ the *shift by $\vec v$*, defined by $\sigma^{\vec v}(x)_{\vec w} = x_{\vec w + \vec v}$ for all $x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ and $\vec w \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$. Subshift are invariant under the shift maps.
A *block map* is a function $f : {\mathsf{X}}\to {\mathsf{Y}}$ between two subshifts ${\mathsf{X}}\subset A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ and ${\mathsf{Y}}\subset B^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ defined by a finite *neighborhood* $D \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ and a *local function* $F : {\mathcal{B}}_D({\mathsf{X}}) \to B$ which is applied to every coordinate synchronously: $f(x)_{\vec v} = F(x|_{D + \vec v})$ for all $x \in {\mathsf{X}}$ and $\vec v \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$. The image of an SFT under a block map is a *sofic shift*.
Let $A = \{0,1\}$, and let $F \subset A^{**}$ be the set of patterns where $1$ occurs twice. Then ${\mathsf{X}}_F \subset A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ is the set of configurations containing at most one letter $1$. This subshift is sometimes called the *sunny side up shift*, and it is sofic.
A famous example of an SFT is the *two-dimensional golden mean shift* on the same alphabet, defined by the forbidden patterns $\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}$ and $\begin{smallmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}$. In its configurations, no two letters $1$ can be adjacent, but there are no other restrictions.
Logical Formulas
----------------
We continue the line of research of [@JeTh09; @JeTh13], and define subshifts by monadic second-order (MSO) formulas. We now introduce the terminology used in these articles, and then expand upon it. A *structure* is a tuple ${\mathfrak{M}}= (U, \tau)$, where $U$ is an *underlying set*, and $\tau$ a *signature* consisting of functions $f : U^n \to U$ and relations $r \subset U^n$ of different *arities* $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$. A configuration $x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ defines a structure ${\mathfrak{M}}_x = ({\mathbb{Z}}^2, \tau_A)$, whose signature $\tau_A$ contains the following objects:
- Four unary functions, named ${\mathsf{North}}$, ${\mathsf{South}}$, ${\mathsf{East}}$ and ${\mathsf{West}}$, and called *adjacency functions* in this article. They are interpreted in the structure ${\mathfrak{M}}_x$ as ${\mathsf{North}}^{{\mathfrak{M}}_x}((a,b)) = (a,b+1)$, ${\mathsf{East}}^{{\mathfrak{M}}_x}((a,b)) = (a+1,b)$ and so on for $a, b \in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
- For each symbol $a \in A$, a unary *symbol predicate* $P_a$. It is interpreted as $P_a^{{\mathfrak{M}}_x}(\vec v)$ for $\vec v \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ being true if and only if $x_{\vec v} = a$.
The MSO formulas that we use are defined with the signature $\tau_A$ as follows.
- A *term (of depth $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$)* is a chain of $k$ nested applications of the adjacency functions to a first-order variable.
- An *atomic formula* is either $t = t'$ or $P(t)$, where $t$ and $t'$ are terms and $P$ is either a symbol predicate or a second-order variable.
- A *formula* is either an atomic formula, or an application of a logical connective ($\wedge, \vee, \neg, \ldots$) or first- or second-order quantification to other formulas.
The *radius* of a formula is the maximal depth of a term in it. First-order variables (usually denoted $\vec n_1, \ldots, \vec n_\ell$) hold elements of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$, and second-order variables hold subsets of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$. Formulas without second-order variables are *first-order*. Let $\phi$ be a closed MSO formula, and let $D \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$. A configuration $x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ is a *$D$-model* for $\phi$, denoted $x \models_D \phi$, if $\phi$ is true in the structure ${\mathfrak{M}}_x$ when the quantification of the first-order variables in $\phi$ is restricted to $D$. If $D = {\mathbb{Z}}^2$, then we denote $x \models \phi$ and say that $x$ *models* $\phi$. We define a set of configurations ${\mathsf{X}}_\phi = \{ x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2} \;|\; x \models \phi \}$, which is always shift-invariant, but may not be a subshift. A subshift is *MSO-definable* if it equals ${\mathsf{X}}_\phi$ for some MSO formula $\phi$.
As we find it more intuitive to quantify over configurations than subsets of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$, and we later wish to quantify over the configurations of specific subshifts, we introduce the following definitions.
- The notations $\forall X[{\mathsf{X}}]$ and $\exists X[{\mathsf{X}}]$ (read *for all (or exists) $X$ in ${\mathsf{X}}$*) define a new *configuration variable* $X$, which represents a configuration of a subshift ${\mathsf{X}}\subset B^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ over a new alphabet $B$.
- For $X[{\mathsf{X}}]$ quantified as above, $b \in B$ and a term $t$, the notation $X_t = b$ defines an atomic formula that is true if and only if the configuration represented by $X$ has the letter $b$ at the coordinate represented by $t$.
MSO formulas with configuration variables instead of ordinary second-order variables are called *extended MSO formulas*, and the relation $\models$ is extended to them. We state without proof that if the subshifts occurring in an extended MSO formula $\phi$ are MSO-definable, then so is ${\mathsf{X}}_\phi$. Conversely, we can convert an MSO formula to an extended MSO formula by replacing every second-order variable with a configuration variable over the binary full shift. Unless stated otherwise, by second-order variables (usually denoted $X_1, \ldots, X_n$) we mean configuration variables, and by MSO formulas we mean extended MSO formulas.
The two-dimensional golden mean shift is defined by the formula $$\forall \vec n \big( P_1(\vec n) \Longrightarrow \big( P_0({\mathsf{North}}(\vec n)) \wedge P_0({\mathsf{East}}(\vec n)) \big) \big).$$ Also, the sunny side up shift is defined by the formula $$\forall \vec m \forall \vec n \big( P_1(\vec n) \Longrightarrow ( P_0(\vec m) \vee \vec m = \vec n ) \big).$$ Another way to define the sunny side up shift is to use a second-order quantifier: $$\arraycolsep=0pt
\begin{array}{rl}
\exists U \forall & \vec n \big( U(\vec n) \Longleftrightarrow \big( U({\mathsf{North}}(\vec n)) \wedge U({\mathsf{West}}(\vec n)) \big) \big) \\
& \wedge \big( P_1(\vec n) \Longrightarrow \big( U(\vec n) \wedge \neg U({\mathsf{South}}(\vec n)) \wedge \neg U({\mathsf{East}}(\vec n)) \big) \big).
\end{array}$$ We can produce an equivalent extended MSO formula, as per the above remark: $$\arraycolsep=0pt
\begin{array}{rl}
\exists X[\{0,1\}^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}] \forall & \vec n \big( X_{\vec n} = 1 \Longleftrightarrow ( X_{{\mathsf{North}}(\vec n)} = 1 \wedge X_{{\mathsf{West}}(\vec n)} = 1 ) \big) \\
& \wedge \big( P_1(\vec n) \Longrightarrow (X_{\vec n} = 1 \wedge X_{{\mathsf{South}}(\vec n)} = 0 \wedge X_{{\mathsf{East}}(\vec n)} = 0) \big).
\end{array}$$
Computability Theory
--------------------
We recall the *arithmetical hierarchy*, a classical reference for which is [@Sa90]. A first-order arithmetical formula over ${\mathbb{N}}$ is $\Pi^0_0$ (equivalently, $\Sigma^0_0$), if it only contains bounded quantifiers (of the form $\forall n \leq k$ or $\exists n \leq k$). The formula is $\Pi^0_{k+1}$ ($\Sigma^0_{k+1}$) if it is of the form $\forall n_1 \cdots \forall n_\ell \phi$ ($\exists n_1 \cdots \exists n_\ell \phi$) where $\phi$ is $\Sigma^0_k$ ($\Pi^0_k$, respectively). Every such formula is equivalent to a $\Pi^0_k$ or $\Sigma^0_k$ one, and if it defines a subset of ${\mathbb{N}}$, that set is given the same classification. Completeness and hardness in the classes are defined using Turing reductions. For all $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, the class $\Delta^0_{k+1} = \Pi^0_{k+1} \cap \Sigma^0_{k+1}$ contains exactly the languages decidable by Turing machines with $\Pi^0_k$ oracles. Also, $\Sigma^0_1$ is the class of recursively enumerable subsets of ${\mathbb{N}}$.
When classifying subsets of countable sets other than ${\mathbb{N}}$, we assume they are in some natural and computable bijection with ${\mathbb{N}}$. For example, a co-recursively enumerable set of finite patterns is $\Pi^0_1$. A subshift ${\mathsf{X}}$ is given the same classification as its language ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}})$. If ${\mathsf{X}}$ is $\Pi^0_k$ for some $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, then it can be defined by a $\Sigma^0_k$ set of forbidden patterns (the complement of ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}})$), and a subshift defined by such a set is always $\Pi^0_{k+1}$. In particular, SFTs and sofic shifts are $\Pi^0_1$.
We use several hierarchies of subshifts obtained by counting quantifier alternations in different kinds of formulas, and the notation for them can be confusing. In general, classes defined by computability conditions (the arithmetical hierarchy) are denoted by $\Pi$ and $\Sigma$, while classes defined by MSO formulas via the modeling relation are denoted by $\bar \Pi$ and $\bar \Sigma$.
Hierarchies of MSO-Definable Subshifts
======================================
In this section, we recall the definition of a hierarchy of subshift classes defined in [@JeTh09; @JeTh13], and then generalize it. We also state some general lemmas.
Let $C$ be a class of subshifts. An MSO formula $\psi$ is *over $C$ with universal first-order quantifiers*, or $C$-u-MSO for short, if it is of the form $$\psi = Q_1 X_1[{\mathsf{X}}_1] Q_2 X_2[{\mathsf{X}}_2] \cdots Q_n X_n[{\mathsf{X}}_n] \forall \vec n_1 \cdots \forall \vec n_\ell \phi,$$ where each $Q_i$ is a quantifier, ${\mathsf{X}}_i \in C$, and $\phi$ is quantifier-free. If there are $k$ quantifier alternations and $Q_1$ is the existential quantifier $\exists$, then $\psi$ is called $\bar \Sigma_k[C]$, and if $Q_1$ is $\forall$, then $\psi$ is $\bar \Pi_k[C]$. The set ${\mathsf{X}}_\psi$ is given the same classification. If $C$ is the singleton class containing only the binary full shift $\{0, 1\}^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$, then $\psi$ is called u-MSO, and we denote $\bar \Sigma_k[C] = \bar \Sigma_k$ and $\bar \Pi_k[C] = \bar \Pi_k$. The classes $\bar \Sigma_k$ and $\bar \Pi_k$ for $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ form the *u-MSO hierarchy*.
In [@JeTh13], the u-MSO hierarchy was denoted by the letter ${\mathcal{C}}$, but we use the longer name for clarity. In the rest of this article, $C$ denotes an arbitrary class of subshifts, unless otherwise noted. We proceed with the following result, stated for u-MSO formulas in [@JeTh13]. We omit the proof, as it is essentially the same.
\[thm:Compactness\] Let $\phi$ be a $C$-u-MSO formula over an alphabet $A$. Then for all $x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$, we have $x \models \phi$ if and only if $x \models_D \phi$ for every finite domain $D \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$.
Every $C$-u-MSO formula $\phi$ over an alphabet $A$ defines a subshift.
Let $r \in {\mathbb{N}}$ be the radius of $\phi$. By Theorem \[thm:Compactness\], we have ${\mathsf{X}}_\phi = {\mathsf{X}}_F$, where $F = \{ x|_{D + [-r,r]^2} \;|\; D \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2 \mbox{~finite}, x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}, x \not\models_D \phi \}$.
\[cor:UpperBounds\] For all $k, n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we have $\bar \Pi_n[\Pi^0_k] \subset \Pi^0_{k+1}$. In particular, the u-MSO hierarchy only contains $\Pi^0_1$ subshifts.
Let $\phi = \forall X_1[{\mathsf{X}}_1] \exists X_2[{\mathsf{X}}_2] \ldots Q_n X_n[{\mathsf{X}}_n] \psi$ be a $\bar \Pi_n[\Pi^0_k]$ formula, where each ${\mathsf{X}}_i \subset A_i^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ is a $\Pi^0_k$ subshift and $\psi$ is first-order. Then the product subshift $\prod_{i=1}^n {\mathsf{X}}_i$ is also $\Pi^0_k$. Let $P \in A^{**}$ be a finite pattern. Theorem \[thm:Compactness\], together with a basic compactness argument, implies that $P \in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}}_\phi)$ holds if and only if for all finite domains $D(P) \subset D \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$, there exists a configuration $x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ such that $x|_{D(P)} = P$ and $x \models_D \phi$. For a fixed $D$, denote this condition by $C_P(D)$.
We show that deciding $C_P(D)$ for given pattern $P$ and domain $D$ is $\Delta^0_{k+1}$. Denote $E = D + [-r,r]^2$, where $r \in {\mathbb{N}}$ is the radius of $\phi$, and let $L = {\mathcal{B}}_E(\prod_{i=1}^n {\mathsf{X}}_i)$. For a configuration $x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$, the condition $x \models_D \phi$ only depends on the finite pattern $x|_E \in A^E$, and is computable from it and the set $L$. Thus $C_P(D)$ is equivalent to the existence of a pattern $Q \in A^E$ such that $x|_E = Q$ implies $x \models_D \phi$ for all $x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$. Moreover, this can be decided by the oracle Turing machine that computes $L$ using a $\Pi^0_k$ oracle, and then goes through the finite set $A^E$, searching for such a $Q$. Thus the condition $C_P(D)$ is $\Delta^0_{k+1}$, which implies that deciding $P \in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}}_\phi)$ is $\Pi^0_{k+1}$.
Finally, if the final second-order quantifier of a u-MSO formula is universal, it can be dropped. This does not hold for $C$-u-MSO formulas in general. We omit the proof, as it is essentially the same as that of [@JeTh13 Lemma 7].
\[lem:UnivDrop\] If $k \geq 1$ is odd, then $\bar \Pi_k = \bar \Pi_{k-1}$, and if it is even, then $\bar \Sigma_k = \bar \Sigma_{k-1}$.
\[ex:MirrorNew\] Define the *mirror shift* $\mathsf{M} \subset \{0,1,\#\}^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ by the forbidden patterns $\begin{smallmatrix} a \\ \# \end{smallmatrix}$ and $\begin{smallmatrix} \# \\ a \end{smallmatrix}$ for $a \neq \#$, every pattern $\{\vec 0 \mapsto \#, (n,0) \mapsto \#\}$, and every pattern $\{(-n,0) \mapsto a, \vec 0 \mapsto \#, (n,0) \mapsto b\}$ for $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $a \neq b$. A ‘typical’ configuration of $\mathsf{M}$ contains one infinite column of $\#$-symbols, whose left and right sides are mirror images of each other. It is well-known that $\mathsf{M}$ is not sofic. We show that it can be implemented by an SFT-u-MSO formula $\psi = \forall X[{\mathsf{X}}] \forall \vec n_1 \forall \vec n_2 \forall \vec n_3 \phi$ in the class $\bar \Pi_1[\mathrm{SFT}]$. This also shows that Lemma \[lem:UnivDrop\] fails outside the u-MSO hierarchy.
(1.5,1) – (2.25,1.75) – (5.25,1.75) – (6,1); (2.25,1.75) – (3.75,3.25) – (5.25,1.75);
(1.5,1) – (3.75,3.25) – (6,1); (2.25,1.75) – (5.25,1.75);
() at (2.25,1.75) [$a$]{}; () at (3.75,3.25) [$b$]{}; () at (5.25,1.75) [$c$]{};
(.5,.9999) grid (7,4);
Let ${\mathsf{X}}$ be the SFT whose alphabet is seen in Figure \[fig:Mirror\], defined by the obvious $2 \times 2$ forbidden patterns. Define the formula $\phi$ as $\phi_1 \wedge (\phi_2 \Longrightarrow \phi_3)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_1 & = P_\#(\vec n_2) \Longleftrightarrow P_\#({\mathsf{North}}(\vec n_2)) \\
\phi_2 & = X_{\vec n_1} = a \wedge X_{\vec n_2} = b \wedge X_{\vec n_3} = c \wedge P_\#(\vec n_2) \\
\phi_3 & = \neg P_\#(\vec n_1) \wedge \neg P_\#(\vec n_3) \wedge (P_0(\vec n_1) \Longleftrightarrow P_0(\vec n_3))\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that the subshift ${\mathsf{X}}_\psi$ is exactly $\mathsf{M}$, with $\psi$ defined as above.
The u-MSO Hierarchy
===================
The u-MSO hierarchy is a quite natural hierarchy of MSO-definable subshifts. Namely, the lack of existential first-order quantification makes it easy to prove that every u-MSO formula defines a subshift, and quantifier alternations give rise to interesting hierarchies in many contexts. The following is already known.
The class of subshifts defined by formulas of the form $\forall \vec n \phi$, where $\phi$ is first-order, is exactly the class of SFTs. The class $\bar \Pi_0 = \bar \Sigma_0$ consists of the *threshold counting shifts*, which are obtained from subshifts of the form $\{ x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2} \;|\; \mbox{$P$ occurs in $x$ at most $n$ times} \}$ for $P \in A^{**}$ and $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ using finite unions and intersections. Finally, the class $\bar \Sigma_1$ consists of exactly the sofic shifts.
We show that the hierarchy collapses to the third level, which consists of exactly the $\Pi^0_1$ subshifts. This gives negative answers to the questions posed in [@JeTh13] of whether the hierarchy is infinite, and whether it only contains sofic shifts.
\[thm:CHierarchy\] For all $n \geq 2$ we have $\Pi^0_1 = \bar \Pi_n$.
As we have $\bar \Pi_n \subset \Pi^0_1$ by Corollary \[cor:UpperBounds\], and clearly $\bar \Pi_n \subset \bar \Pi_{n+1}$ also holds, it suffices to prove $\Pi^0_1 \subset \bar \Pi_2$. Let thus ${\mathsf{X}}\subset A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ be a $\Pi^0_1$ subshift. We construct an MSO formula of the form $\phi = \forall Y[B^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}] \exists Z[C^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}] \forall \vec n \psi(\vec n, Y, Z)$ such that ${\mathsf{X}}_\phi = {\mathsf{X}}$.
The main idea is the following. We use the universally quantified configuration $Y$ to specify a finite square $R \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ and a word $w \in A^*$, which may or may not encode the pattern $x_R$ of a configuration $x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$. The existentially quantified $Z$ enforces that either $w$ does not correctly encode $x_R$, of that it encodes *some* pattern of ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}})$. As $R$ and $w$ are arbitrary and universally quantified, this guarantees $x \in {\mathsf{X}}$. The main difficulty is that $Y$ comes from a full shift, so we have no control over it; there may be infinitely many squares, or none at all.
First, we define an auxiliary SFT ${\mathsf{Y}}\subset B^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$, whose configurations contain the aforementioned squares. The alphabet $B$ consists of the tiles seen in Figure \[fig:FirstLayer\], where every $w_i$ ranges over $A$, and it is defined by the set $F_{\mathsf{Y}}$ of $2 \times 2$ forbidden patterns where some colors or lines of neighboring tiles do not match. A configuration of ${\mathsf{Y}}$ contains at most one maximal pattern colored with the lightest gray in Figure \[fig:FirstLayer\], and if it is finite, its domain is a square. We call this domain the *input square*, and the word $w \in A^*$ that lies above it is called the *input word*.
(1.5,1.5) rectangle (5.5,5.5); (5.5,1.5) rectangle (12.5,5.5); (1.5,7) – (1.5,5.5) – (12.5,5.5) – (12.5,1.5) – (14,1.5) – (14,7); (1.5,7) – (1.5,1.5) – (14,1.5); (1.5,5.5) – (12.5,5.5) – (12.5,1.5); (5.5,5.5) – (5.5,1.5); (1.5,1.5) – (5.5,5.5);
in [0,1,...,9]{}[ (2.15+,5.25) rectangle ++(.7,.5); () at (2.5+,5.5) [$w_{\x}$]{}; ]{} (0,0) grid (14,7);
We now define another SFT ${\mathsf{S}}$, this time on the alphabet $A \times B \times C$. The alphabet $C$ is more complex than $B$, and we specify it in the course of the construction. The idea is to simulate a computation in the third layer to ensure that if the second layer contains a valid configuration of ${\mathsf{Y}}$ and the input word encodes the contents of the input square in the first layer, then that square pattern is in ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}})$. We also need to ensure that a valid configuration exists even if the encoding is incorrect, or if second layer is not in ${\mathsf{Y}}$. For this, every locally valid square pattern of ${\mathsf{Y}}$ containing an input square will be covered by another square pattern in the third layer, inside which we perform the computations. We will force this pattern to be infinite if the second layer is a configuration of ${\mathsf{Y}}$.
Now, we describe a configuration $(x,y,z) \in {\mathsf{S}}$. The coordinates of every $2 \times 2$ rectangle $R \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ with $y|_R \in F_{\mathsf{Y}}$ are called *defects*. A non-defect coordinate $\vec v \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ such that $y_{\vec v} = \tikz[scale=.4,baseline=1]{
\fill[black!20] (.5,.5) rectangle (1,1);
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
\draw[thick] (.5,1) -- (.5,.5) -- (1,.5);
\draw[thick, densely dotted] (.5,.5) -- (1,1);}$ is called a *seed*. Denote $C = C_1 \cup C_2$, where $C_1$ is the set of tiles depicted in Figure \[fig:CTiles\] (a). Their adjacency rules in ${\mathsf{S}}$ are analogous to those of ${\mathsf{Y}}$. The rules of ${\mathsf{S}}$ also force the set of seeds to coincide with the coordinates $\vec v \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ such that $z_{\vec v} =\tikz[scale=.4,baseline=1]{
\fill[black!20] (.5,.5) rectangle (1,1);
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
\draw[thick] (.5,1) -- (.5,.5) -- (1,.5);}$. These coordinates are the southwest corners of *computation squares* in $z$, whose square shape is again enforced by a diagonal signal. The southwest half of a computation square is colored with letters of $C_2$. See Figure \[fig:CTiles\] (b) for an example of a computation square.
() at (-.5,2) [a)]{};
(.5,.5) rectangle (1,1); (.5,1) – (.5,.5) – (1,.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,.5) rectangle (1,1); (0,.5) – (1,.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,.5) – (.5,.5) – (0,1); (0,1) – (.5,1) – (.5,.5); (0,1) – (.5,.5); (0,.5) – (.5,.5) – (.5,1); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (.5,1); (.5,0) – (.5,1); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (.5,1); (.5,1) – (.5,0); (.25,1) – (.25,0); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (.5,1); (.5,1) – (.5,0); (.25,1) – (.25,.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (.5,.5); (0,.5) – (.5,.5) – (.5,0); (0,.25) – (.25,.25) – (.25,0); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) – (1,0) – (0,1); (1,0) – (0,1) – (1,1); (0,1) – (1,0); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(.5,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,0) – (.5,1); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(.5,0) – (.5,.5) – (1,0); (.5,.5) – (1,.5) – (1,0); (.5,.5) – (1,0); (.5,0) – (.5,.5) – (1,.5); (.5,.25) – (1,.25); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,.5); (0,.5) – (1,.5); (0,.25) – (1,.25); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,.5); (0,.5) – (1,.5); (0,.25) – (.5,.25); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,.5); (0,.5) – (1,.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (.5,.5); (0,.5) – (.5,.5) – (.5,0); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (.5,.5); (0,.5) – (.5,.5) – (.5,0); (0,.25) – (.25,.25); (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); () at (.5,.5) [$C_2$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,1);
() at (-1,8.5) [b)]{};
(1.5,1.5) – (7.5,1.5) – (1.5,7.5); (7.5,7.5) – (7.5,1.5) – (1.5,7.5);
(1.5,1.5) rectangle (7.5,7.5); (1.5,7.25) – (7.25,7.25) – (7.25,3.5); (1.5,7.5) – (7.5,1.5);
(1.5,5.5) – (5.5,5.5) – (5.5,1.5);
/in [0/0,1/0,7/3,8/3,7/2,8/2,9/6,10/6,9/5,10/5,9/4,10/4,3/8,4/8]{}[ () at (+.75,+.75) [D]{}; ]{}
(0,0) grid (12,9);
A computation square may not contain defects or coordinates $\vec v \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ such that $y_{\vec v} = \tikz[scale=.4,baseline=1]{\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1);}$ except on its north or east border, and conversely, one of the borders will contain a defect. This is enforced by a signal emitted from the northwest corner of the square (the dotted line in Figure \[fig:CTiles\] (b)), which travels along the north and east borders, and disappears when it encounters a defect.
We now describe the set $C_2$, and for that, let $M$ be a Turing machine with input alphabet $\Sigma = A \times (A \cup \{0, 1, \#\})$ and two initial states $q_1$ and $q_2$. This machine is simulated on the southwest halves of the computation squares in a standard way, and we will fix its functionality later. The alphabet $C_2$ is shown in Figure \[fig:C2Tiles\]. Note that the colors and lines in $C_2$ are disjoint from those in $C_1$, even though the figures suggest otherwise. The idea is to initialize the machine $M$ with either the input word (if it correctly encodes the input square), or a proof that the encoding is incorrect, in the form of one incorrectly encoded symbol.
(0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,.5) – (.5,1); (.25,.25) rectangle (.75,.75); () at (.5,.5) [$a$]{}; () at (.5,1) [$a0, q_0$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,.5) – (.5,1); (.5,.5) circle (.25); () at (.5,.5) [$a$]{}; () at (.5,1) [$ac$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,0) – (.5,1); () at (.5,1) [$s$]{}; () at (.5,0) [$s$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,.5) – (.5,1); (.5,.5) – (1,1); (.5,.25) – (.25,.5) – (.5,.75) – (.75,.5) – cycle; () at (.5,.5) [$b$]{}; () at (.5,1) [$b$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,0) – (.5,1); () at (.5,0) [$b$]{}; () at (.5,1) [$b$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (0,0) – (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,.5) – (.5,1); (.5,0) – (.5,.5) – (0,.5); () at (.5,0) [$s,q$]{}; () at (.5,1) [$t$]{}; () at (0,.5) [$r$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,0) – (.5,.5); (.5,.5) – (.5,1); (0,.5) – (.5,.5); () at (.5,0) [$s$]{}; () at (.5,1) [$s,q$]{}; () at (0,.5) [$q$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (0,.5) – (.5,.5); (.5,.5) – (.5,1); () at (0,.5) [$q$]{}; () at (.5,1) [$B,q$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,0) – (.5,.5); (.5,.5) – (.5,1); (1,.5) – (.5,.5); () at (.5,0) [$s$]{}; () at (.5,1) [$s,q$]{}; () at (1,.5) [$q$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,.5) – (.5,1); (.5,0) – (.5,.5) – (1,.5); () at (.5,0) [$s,q$]{}; () at (.5,1) [$t$]{}; () at (1,.5) [$r$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,.5) – (.5,1); (.5,0) – (.5,.5); (.5,.5) circle (.25); () at (.5,.5) [$a$]{}; () at (.5,1) [$ab$]{}; () at (.5,0) [$b$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
(0,0) rectangle (1,1); (.5,.5) – (.5,1); (0,0) – (.5,.5); (.5,.5) circle (.25); () at (.5,.5) [$a$]{}; () at (.5,1) [$a\#$]{}; (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
The white squares and circles of $C_2$ must be placed on the letters of the input word $w \in A^*$ of the computation square, the square on the leftmost letter and circles on the rest. The $A$-letters of these tiles must match the letters of $w$, and the second component is $1$ if the tile lies on the corner of the input square, $0$ if not, $b \in A$ in the presence of a vertical signal, and $\#$ in the presence of a diagonal signal. Such signals are sent by a white diamond tile (called a *candidate error*), which can only be placed on the interior tiles of the input square, and whose letter must match the letter on the first layer $x$. Other tiles of $C_2$ simulate the machine $M$, which can never halt in a valid configuration. See Figure \[fig:Computation\] for a visualization. We also require that for a pattern $\begin{smallmatrix} c_2 \\ c_1 \end{smallmatrix}$ to be valid, where $c_i \in C_i$ for $i \in \{1,2\}$, the tile $c_2$ should have a gray south border with no lines. Other adjacency rules between tiles of $C_1$ and $C_2$ are explained by Figure \[fig:CTiles\] (a).
We now describe the machine $M$. Note first that from an input $u \in \Sigma^*$ one can deduce the input word $w \in A^*$, the height $h \in {\mathbb{N}}$ of the input square, and the positions and contents of all candidate errors. Now, when started in the state $q_1$, the machine checks that there are no candidate errors at all, that $|w| = h^2$, and that the square pattern $P \in A^{h \times h}$, defined by $P_{(i,j)} = w_{i h + j}$ for all $i, j \in [0,h-1]$, is in ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}})$. If all this holds, $M$ runs forever (the check for $P \in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}})$ can indeed take infinitely many steps). When started in $q_2$, the machine checks that there is exactly one candidate error at some position $(i,j) \in [0,h-1]^2$ of the input square containing some letter $b \in A$, and that one of $|w| \neq h^2$ or $w_{i h + j} \neq b$ holds. If this is the case, $M$ enters an infinite loop, and halts otherwise.
(1.5,2.5) rectangle (20,14);
(1.5,14) – (1.5,2.5) – (20,2.5); (3.5,3.75) – (3.5,6.5); (3.5,3.5) – (6.5,6.5);
in [2.5,3.5,...,12.5]{}[ (,6.5) – (,14); ]{} //in [1/0/1,2/1/2,3/2/3,4/3/2,5/2/3,6/3/4,7/4/5]{}[ (+2.5,+5.5) – (+2.5,+6.5) – (/2+/2+2.5,+6.5); (/2+/2+2.5,+6.5) – (+2.5,+6.5); ]{} (2.25,6.25) rectangle (2.75,6.75); in [3.5,4.5,...,12.5]{}[ (,6.5) circle (.25); ]{} (7.5,13.5) – (7.5,14);
(3.5,3.25) – (3.25,3.5) – (3.5,3.75) – (3.75,3.5) – cycle;
(0,1) grid (20,14);
The definition of ${\mathsf{S}}$ is now complete, and it can be realized using a set $F$ of forbidden patterns of size $3 \times 3$. We define the quantifier-free formula $\psi(\vec n, Y, Z)$ as $\neg \bigvee_{P \in F} \psi_P$, where $\psi_P$ states that the pattern $P$ occurs at the coordinate $\vec n$. This is easily doable using the adjacency functions, color predicates and the variables $Y$ and $Z$. If we fix some values $y \in B^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ and $z \in C^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ for the variables $Y$ and $Z$, then $x \models \forall \vec n \psi(\vec n, y, z)$ holds for a given $x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ if and only if $(x, y, z) \in {\mathsf{S}}$.
Let $x \in A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ be arbitrary. We need to show that $x \models \phi$ holds if and only if $x \in {\mathsf{X}}$. Suppose first that $x$ models $\phi$, and let $\vec v \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ and $h \geq 1$. Let $y \in {\mathsf{Y}}$ be a configuration whose input square has interior $D = \vec v + [0, h-1]^2$, and whose input word correctly encodes the pattern $x|_D$. By assumption, there exists $z \in C^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ such that $(x,y,z) \in {\mathsf{S}}$, so that the southwest neighbor of $\vec v$ is the southwest corner of a computation square in $z$, which is necessarily infinite, since no defects occur in $y$. In this square, $M$ runs forever, and it cannot be initialized in the state $q_2$ as the encoding of the input square is correct. Thus its computation proves that $x|_D \in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}})$. Since $D$ was an arbitrary square domain, we have $x \in {\mathsf{X}}$.
Suppose then $x \in {\mathsf{X}}$, and let $y \in B^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ be arbitrary. We construct a configuration $z \in C^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ such that $(x,y,z) \in {\mathsf{S}}$, which proves $x \models \phi$. First, let $S \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ be the set of seeds in $y$, and for each $\vec s \in S$, let $\ell(\vec s) \in {\mathbb{N}}\cup \{\infty\}$ be the height of the maximal square $D(\vec s) = \vec s + [0, \ell(\vec s)-1]^2$ whose interior contains no defects. We claim that $D(\vec s) \cap D(\vec r) = \emptyset$ holds for all $\vec s \neq \vec r \in S$. Suppose the contrary, and let $\vec v \in D(\vec s) \cap D(\vec r)$ be lexicographically minimal. Then $\vec v$ is on the south border of $D(\vec s)$ and the west border of $D(\vec r)$ (or vice versa). Since these borders contain no defects, $y_{\vec v}$ is a south border tile and a west border tile, a contradiction.
Now, we can define every $D(\vec s)$ to be a computation square in $z$. If it contains an input square and an associated input word which correctly encodes its contents, we initialize the simulated machine $M$ in the state $q_1$. Then the computation does not halt, since the input square contains a pattern of ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}})$. Otherwise, we initialize $M$ in the state $q_2$, and choose a single candidate error from the input square such that it does not halt, and thus produces no forbidden patterns. Then $(x,y,z) \in {\mathsf{S}}$, completing the proof.
We have now characterized every level of the u-MSO hierarchy. The first level $\bar \Pi_0 = \bar \Sigma_0$ contains the threshold counting shifts and equals $\bar \Pi_1$ by Lemma \[lem:UnivDrop\], the class $\bar \Sigma_1 = \bar \Sigma_2$ contains the sofic shifts, and the other levels coincide with $\Pi^0_1$.
The quantifier alternation hierarchy of MSO-definable picture languages was shown to be strict in [@Sc97]. It is slightly different from the u-MSO hierarchy, as existential first-order quantification is allowed. However, in the case of pictures we know the following. Any MSO formula $\mathcal{Q}_L \exists \vec n \mathcal{Q}_R \phi$, where $\mathcal{Q}_L$ and $\mathcal{Q}_R$ are strings of quantifiers, is equivalent to a formula of the form $\mathcal{Q}_L \exists X \mathcal{Q}_R \forall \vec n \psi$, where $\phi$ and $\psi$ are quantifier-free. See [@MaSc08 Section 4.3] for more details. Thus the analogue of the u-MSO hierarchy for picture languages is infinite. The proof of the result of [@Sc97] relies on the fact that one can simulate computation within the pictures, and the maximal time complexity depends on the number of alternations. In the case of infinite configurations, this argument naturally falls apart.
Finally, Theorem \[thm:CHierarchy\] has the following corollary (which was also proved in [@JeTh13]).
\[cor:Pi01Definable\] Every $\Pi^0_1$ subshift is MSO-definable.
Other $C$-u-MSO Hierarchies
===========================
Next, we generalize Theorem \[thm:CHierarchy\] to hierarchies of $\Pi^0_k$-u-MSO formulas. The construction is similar to the above but easier, since we can restrict the values of the variable $Y$ to lie in a geometrically well-behaved subshift.
\[thm:MoreHierarchy\] For all $k \geq 1$ and $n \geq 2$ we have $\Pi^0_{k+1} = \bar \Pi_n[\Pi^0_k]$. Furthermore, $\Pi^0_2 = \bar \Pi_n[\mathrm{SFT}]$ for all $n \geq 2$.
As in Theorem \[thm:CHierarchy\], it suffices to show that for a given $\Pi^0_{k+1}$ subshift ${\mathsf{X}}\subset A^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$, there is a $\bar \Pi_2[\Pi^0_k]$ formula $\phi = \forall Y[{\mathsf{Y}}] \exists Z[{\mathsf{Z}}] \forall \vec n \psi$ such that ${\mathsf{X}}_\phi = {\mathsf{X}}$. In our construction, ${\mathsf{Y}}\subset B^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ is a $\Pi^0_k$ subshift and ${\mathsf{Z}}= C^{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ is a full shift.
For a square pattern $P \in A^{h \times h}$, define the word $w(P) \in A^{h^2}$ by $w_{i h + j} = P_{(i,j)}$ for all $i, j \in [0, h-1]$. Let $R \subset A^* \times {\mathbb{N}}$ be a $\Pi^0_k$ predicate such that the set $$F = \{ P \in A^{h \times h} \;|\; h \in {\mathbb{N}}, \exists n \in {\mathbb{N}}: R(w(P), n) \}$$ satisfies ${\mathsf{X}}_F = {\mathsf{X}}$. As in Theorem \[thm:CHierarchy\], configurations of ${\mathsf{Y}}$ may contain one input square with an associated input word. This time, the input word is of the form $w \#^n$ for some $w \in A^*$, $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and a new symbol $\#$. As ${\mathsf{Y}}$ is $\Pi^0_k$, we can enforce that $R(w, n)$ holds, so that $w$ does *not* encode any square pattern of ${\mathsf{X}}$. This can be enforced by SFT rules if $k = 1$: a simulated Turing machine checks $R(w,n)$ by running forever if it holds. As before, the existential layer ${\mathsf{Z}}$ enforces that $w$ does *not* correctly encode the contents of the input square in the first layer. Let $x \in {\mathsf{X}}$ and $y \in {\mathsf{Y}}$ be arbitrary. If $y$ has a finite input square $D \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ and input word $w \#^n$, then $w \in A^*$ cannot correctly encode the pattern $x|_D \in {\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}})$, and thus a valid choice for the variable $Z$ exists. Degenerate cases of $y$ (with, say, an infinite input square) are handled as in Theorem \[thm:CHierarchy\]. Thus we have $x \models \phi$. Next, suppose that $x \notin {\mathsf{X}}$, so there is a square domain $D \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ with $x|_D \notin {\mathcal{B}}({\mathsf{X}})$. Construct $y \in {\mathsf{Y}}$ such that the input square has domain $D$, the word $w \in A^*$ correctly encodes $x|_D$, and the number $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ of $\#$-symbols is such that $R(w, n)$ holds. For this value of $Y$, no valid choice for $Z$ exists, and thus $x \not\models \phi$.
Corollary \[cor:Pi01Definable\], Theorem \[thm:MoreHierarchy\] and a simple induction argument show the following.
For every $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, every $\Pi^0_k$ subshift is MSO-definable.
However, note that the converse does not hold, since one can construct an MSO-formula defining a subshift whose language is not $\Pi^0_k$ for any $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I am thankful to Emmanuel Jeandel for introducing me to [@JeTh09; @JeTh13] and the open problems therein, and to Ville Salo for many fruitful discussions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report the first experimental observations of strong suppression of matter-wave superradiance using blue-detuned pump light and demonstrate a pump-laser detuning asymmetry in the collective atomic recoil motion. In contrast to all previous theoretical frameworks, which predict that the process should be symmetric with respect to the sign of the pump-laser detuning, we find that for condensates the symmetry is broken. With high condensate densities and red-detuned light, the familiar distinctive multi-order, matter-wave scattering pattern is clearly visible, whereas with blue-detuned light superradiance is strongly suppressed. In the limit of a dilute atomic gas, however, symmetry is restored.'
author:
- 'L. Deng'
- 'E.W. Hagley'
- Qiang Cao
- Xiaorui Wang
- Xinyu Luo
- Ruquan Wang
- 'M.G. Payne'
- Fan Yang
- Xiaoji Zhou
- Xuzong Chen
- Mingsheng Zhan
title: 'Observation of a red-blue detuning asymmetry in matter-wave superradiance'
---
Matter-wave superradiance is coherent, collective atomic recoil motion that was first reported [@inouye1] in a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) of $^{23}$Na atoms illuminated by a single, far red-detuned, long-duration laser pulse. Since its discovery, processes such as short-pulsed, bi-directional superradiance [@schneble1], Raman superradiance [@schneble2; @kuga1], and matter-wave amplification [@inouye2; @kozuma] have been observed. Also, many theoretical investigations [@moore; @li; @piovella; @han; @bonifacio; @fallani; @uys; @benedek; @robb; @ketterle] have studied this light/matter-wave interaction process that is of significant importance to the fields of cold atomic physics, cold molecular physics, nonlinear optics and quantum information science.
The widely-accepted theory [@inouye1] of matter-wave superradiance is based on spontaneous Rayleigh scattering and the buildup of a matter-wave grating enhanced by subsequent stimulated Rayleigh scattering. This intuitive picture, which correctly models late-stage superradiant growth when red-detuned light is used, captures many important aspects of this intriguing matter-light interaction process. However, the simple grating viewpoint and most rate-equation-based theories neglect propagation dynamics of the internally-generated optical field. In fact, the initial study [@inouye1] explicitly assumed that the optical fields traveled at the speed of light in vacuum and therefore did not affect scattering at later times. To date, no report in the literature has contradicted that statement [@slowwavenote]. However, we have recently shown theoretically [@lu1; @noteref1] that the internally-generated field propagates ultra slowly and plays an important role in the genesis of superradiance with BECs. We also note that most previous theories effectively treated the BEC as a thermal gas by neglecting the extra factor of the mean-field potential seen by the scattered atoms due to the exchange term in the Hamiltonian. As we will show, this unique property of BECs profoundly impacts superradiant scattering and leads to the pump detuning asymmetry reported here.
{width="3in"}
In this Letter we present the first experimental observation of a red-blue detuning asymmetry in matter-wave superradiance. We demonstrate astonishingly efficient suppression of superradiance when the pump laser is blue detuned that cannot be explained by current theoretical frameworks. However, using our new theoretical framework [@lu1] we propose a possible explanation for the detuning asymmetry based on an induced optical-dipole potential that results from the ultra-slow propagation velocity and gain characteristics of the generated field.
The experimental data reported here were obtained using two $^{87}$Rb BECs created with very different experimental systems at two independent institutions. In both systems we produced an elongated BEC using standard magneto-optical trapping techniques followed by radio-frequency evaporative cooling. After formation of the BEC a pump laser of selected frequency, polarization, and duration was applied along the BEC’s short axis (Fig. 1b). The magnetic trap was then switched off and absorption imaging was employed after a delay sufficient to allow spatial separation of the scattered components. For all data reported the relevant transition was $|5S_{1/2}\rangle-|5P_{3/2}\rangle$ ($|1\rangle-|2\rangle$), the ground electronic state was $F=2$, $m_F=+2$, and the detuning was measured with respect to the $F'=3$ state. We derived the pump laser from a cavity-stabilized diode laser with linear polarization perpendicular to the long axis of the BEC. The detuning asymmetry was investigated from 500 MHz $\leq |\delta|/2\pi \leq$ 4 GHz for both red and blue detunings. The blue-detuned data presented in this manuscript are entirely consistent with results obtained at other blue detunings and other pump-laser intensities. Over the range of detunings investigated, superradiance was always strongly suppressed (null result at background level) when a pure high-density BEC was illuminated with blue-detuned light. We note that the scattering efficiency for red detunings was already studied [@Hilliard], and our red-detuned data are consistent with that work as well as with previous studies [@inouye1; @schneble1; @schneble2; @bonifacio; @fallani].
{width="3.2in"}
The left panel of Fig. 2 shows two Time-Of-Flight (TOF) absorption images of a BEC momentum distribution after application of a pump pulse. For Fig. 2a, which shows no superradiant scattering, the laser was blue detuned by $+3$ GHz, whereas for Fig. 2b the laser was red detuned by $-3$ GHz and first-order superradiance is clearly visible. The insert in Fig. 2, which is a map of the low-power scattering efficiency for red and blue detunings, clearly shows that superradiant scattering could not be initiated with a blue-detuned pump. The right panel of Fig. 2 displays two TOF images after application of a high-power pump pulse to an elongated BEC using a different experimental apparatus. These images show that growth of higher-order momentum states is subject to a condition similar to the one that leads to suppression of first-order scattering when blue-detuned light is used. We point out that this is consistent with a sequential scattering process where higher-order growth is predicated on the growth of first-order momentum components. The above observations demonstrate the stark contrast between red- and blue-detuned pump light in the generation of collective atomic recoil motion with BECs, and raise challenges to current theoretical frameworks [@inouye1; @schneble1; @moore; @li; @piovella; @han; @bonifacio; @fallani; @uys; @benedek; @robb; @ketterle] which predict the process should be symmetric with respect to detuning.
When a pump laser interacts with a BEC it first generates photons by spontaneous Rayleigh scattering, regardless of the sign of the pump-laser detuning. However, even in this early stage the BEC’s structure factor [@sf] imposes additional constraints on the scattering process and slightly suppresses this two-photon channel to about 90$\%$ of its free-particle value. Never-the-less, these seed fields may then be amplified by coherent scattering of pump photons via the two-photon process treated in Ref. [@lu1]. Since the initial number of spontaneously-scattered photons per unit volume is proportional to the local density, at early times the intensity of these seed fields will directly reflect the local BEC density. However, the velocity of these growing seed fields will be inversely proportional to the local density and the field gain will be an exponential function of density. For sufficiently high spontaneous Rayleigh scattering rates the generated field will grow diabatically with respect to atomic motion, and will result in a non-negligible average optical-dipole potential $\bar{U}_{dipole}$. This induced $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ breaks the detuning symmetry of the original scattering process because for red (blue) detuned light $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ is attractive (repulsive). The important question to ask is how can $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ affect the scattering process?
It has been shown interferometrically [@campbell] that the energy of an atom scattered out of a BEC has an additional mean-field contribution due to the exchange term in the Hamiltonian, $E/\hbar=4\omega_{R}+\omega_{MF}$. Here $\omega_{MF}=\bar{U}_{MF}/\hbar =16\pi\hbar an_0/(7M)$ is the average mean-field shift where $a$ is the scattering length, $M$ is the atomic mass, $n_0$ is the peak condensate density, $\omega_R$ is the single-photon recoil frequency, and we have neglected the optical index of the medium because of the large detunings in this study. Clearly, the scattering is not free-particle-like because of the additional energy $\hbar \omega_{MF}$. However, with red detunings the induced $\bar{U}_{dipole}$, which is seen by both condensed and scattered atoms, will grow and eventually reach the level of the mean-field potential ($\bar{U}_{dipole}\approx -\bar{U}_{MF}$). Under this condition the net energy available to an atom scattered out of the condensate relative to the unperturbed condensate is simply $E/\hbar=4\omega_{R}$, and the scattering becomes “free-particle-like" for all momentum transfers. The attractive $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ can therefore be thought of as a work function for removing atoms from the BEC that is overcome by the additional factor of $\bar{U}_{MF}$ given to the scattering process by the host BEC itself. Note that only scattered atoms would experience a “flat" potential, and that the host BEC would not be in equilibrium [@noteref6]. Satisfying this free-particle-like scattering condition implies that there is no extra energy left for quasi-particle excitations of the host condensate.
This naturally brings us back to the structure factor [@sf] of a BEC (without $\bar{U}_{dipole}$), which goes to zero at low-momentum scatterings. If we postulate that the free-particle-scattering condition removes the constraint of the host BEC structure factor and allows low-momentum scatterings to occur, then the system would start to behave like an ultra-cold thermal gas. In this case both linear and non-linear [@nonlinear] processes would occur simultaneously, resulting in very efficient coherent growth of the generated field. We also point out that because $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ grows exponentially with density, it becomes more sharply peaked than the Thomas-Fermi density distribution and the resulting transverse optical-dipole force will lead to an increasing transverse velocity spread of the atoms [@noteref6]. We speculate that the sudden opening of efficient non-linear gain channels may facilitate triggering bosonic stimulation by creating a burst of highly monochromatic photons (atoms) scattered along (at 45$^{o}$ to) the long symmetry axis of the BEC where the transverse velocity is zero and the density is greatest. However, even without invoking non-linear gain channels the impact of the evolving structure factor on the two-photon channel may be sufficient to explain the asymmetry.
With blue-detuned light the diabatically-generated field moves the system further away from free-particle-like scattering because the growing $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ adds to $\bar{U}_{MF}$ rather than canceling it. This would cause the effective structure factor to have an increasingly larger negative impact on the two-photon channel as the optical-dipole potential grows, and would lead to gain clamping. Therefore the two-photon gain channel becomes inefficient and non-linear gain channels remain closed. In addition, the repulsive optical-dipole potential will cause a radially outward-going momentum spread, and this explains the significant expansion seen in Fig. 2c.
Although the growing 3D $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ is very difficult to model theoretically, we can estimate its importance [@noteref5]. Intuitively, photons emitted along the long axis of the BEC dominate coherent growth because of maximum propagation gain. From Ref. [@lu1], the generated field originating at one end and propagating an effective distance $\alpha$ along the long axis results in
$$U(\alpha)_{dipole}\approx \hbar\left[\frac{3\lambda^2}{8\pi^2}\frac{\Gamma}{\delta}\left(\frac{N_i}{\tau_0A}\right)e^{2G\alpha}\right].\nonumber$$
Here $\lambda$ is the generated-field wavelength, $N_i$ is the number of initial seed photons, $\tau_0$ is the pulse length of the initial seed photon burst, and $A$ is the BEC cross-section. In addition, $G=4R\kappa_0n_0/(\gamma_B\Gamma)$ with $\kappa_0=(2\pi)^2|d|^2/(\hbar\lambda)$ where $|d|$ is the dipole transition matrix element, $R$ is the single-photon scattering rate, and $\gamma_B$ is the width of the two-photon Bragg resonance involving a pump and a generated photon. For the BEC in Ref. [@inouye1] when $N_i\approx 1$, $\bar{U}_{dipole}\approx-\bar{U}_{MF}$ occurs when $R\approx$ 100 Hz, in good agreement with the observed threshold scattering rate.
In the limit of thermal vapors, where there is no mean-field exchange term and the density distribution is more uniform, the process should be detuning agnostic. The scattering efficiency will be reduced because of shorter coherence times and lower density, but wave-mixing channels (both linear and non-linear) will remain open because the scattering would already be free-particle-like in nature. To test this hypothesis we applied a pump laser pulse to a BEC after adiabatically relaxing the magnetic trapping potential to lower the density. In this case wave-mixing will occur with both the condensed fraction and the uncondensed fraction that results from the expansion not being completely adiabatic. For the condensed fraction the internal-field generation will be the same as before if $R$ is increased to compensate for the lower density. However, the BEC itself will begin to look more like an ultra-cold thermal gas since $\bar{U}_{MF}$ is correspondingly reduced, bringing the initial system closer to the free-particle-scattering limit. As the system is expanded to a greater degree, less efficient generation of collective atomic recoil modes from the underlying wave-mixing processes should occur with blue detunings for both the thermal fraction and the BEC itself, and this is consistent with what we observe experimentally. For the upper images in Fig. 3, where the magnetic field was lowered to 50% of its original value, the asymmetry is still pronounced. However for the lower images, where the magnetic field strength was lowered to 10% of its original value (40% uncondensed), symmetry is beginning to be restored, in agreement with our postulation.
{width="3in"}
In conclusion, we have demonstrated a red-blue detuning asymmetry in matter-wave superradiance and showed that symmetry is restored in the limit of dilute atomic vapors for which there is no additional factor of the mean-field potential to influence scattering dynamics. We also provided a plausible explanation for the symmetry breaking based on the mean-field potential of the BEC and an induced $\bar{U}_{dipole}$ to stimulate further studies. We believe that the asymmetry results from early-stage growth of a scattered optical field which causes the system to evolve toward (away from) the free-particle scattering limit with red (blue) detunings. With red detunings this results in enhanced coherent growth of an ultra-slow generated field. However with blue detunings, linear and non-linear gain channels are inhibited by the evolving structure factor, and this precludes the formation of a high contrast grating. At early times in the scattering process, where the genesis of the red-blue asymmetry occurs, the grating picture is invalid. However, at late times with red detunings, our model and previous theoretical models converge because the atomic polarization in Maxwell’s equation (see Eq. 3 of Ref. [@lu1]) can now be viewed as a grating. We therefore believe that the origin of matter-wave superradiance is fundamentally a multi-matter-optical, wave-mixing process. The suppression of superradiance with blue detunings reported here results from the unique properties of BECs, and will therefore not occur in fermionic or uncondensed bosonic systems. Since the wave-mixing process need not invoke bosonic stimulation, collective atomic recoil motion will occur with fermions [@fermion], but with a much lower efficiency. Finally we note that the widely-accepted theoretical model of matter-wave superradiance developed over the last decade is incapable of explaining our experimental results because it does not address early-stage growth of the scattering process. Since this theoretical framework provides the foundation for many important studies, its revision should be a scientific priority.
Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge fruitful discussions with Dr. C.W. Clark, Prof. W. Ketterle, Dr. J. Bienfang, and Prof. K. Burnett. Ruquan Wang acknowledges financial support from the National Basic Research Program of China (973 project Grant No. 2006CB921206), the National High-Tech Research Program of China (863 project Grant No. 2006AA06Z104), and the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 10704086).
[13]{}
S. Inouye et al., Science [**285**]{}, 571 (1999).
D. Schneble et al., Science [**300**]{}, 475 (2003).
D. Schneble et al., Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 041601(R)(2004).
Y. Yoshikawa et al., Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 041603(R)(2004).
S. Inouye et al., Nature (London) [**402**]{}, 641 (1999).
M. Kozuma et al., Science [**286**]{}, 2309 (1999).
M.G. Moore and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 5202 (1999).
$\ddot{\text{O}}$.E. M$\ddot{\text{u}}$stecaplioglu and L. You, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 063615 (2000).
N. Piovella et al., Opt. Commun. [**187**]{}, 165 (2001).
H. Pu, W. Zhang, and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 150407 (2003).
R. Bonifacio et al., Opt. Commun. [**233**]{}, 155 (2004).
L. Fallani [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 033612 (2005). L. De Sarlo et al., Eur. Phys. J. D [**32**]{}, 167 (2005).
H. Uys and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 033805 (2007).
C. Benedek and M. G. Benedikt, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. [**6**]{}, S111 (2004).
G.R.M. Robb, N. Piovella, and R. Bonifacio, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. [**7**]{}, 93 (2005).
W. Ketterle and S. Inouye, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, t. 2, S$\acute{e}$r. IV, 339 (2001).
Ultra-slow propagation of an externally-supplied probe laser in a pump-probe Bragg experiment \[S. Inouye et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4225 (2000)\] is not evidence of ultra-slow propagation in superradiance since these were considered to be two independent processes [@ketterle; @fallani].
L. Deng, M.G. Payne, and E.W. Hagley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 050402 (2010).
The single-particle phase-matching condition derived in [@lu1] is not accurate because the photon recoil momentum in dispersive media [@campbell] was neglected. To first order, such static phase-matching should be satisfied for all detunings (W. Ketterle, private communications).
G.K. Campbell et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 170403 (2005).
A. Hilliard et al., Phys. Rev A [**78**]{}, 051403(R) (2008).
J. Steinhauer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 120407 (2002); D.M. Stamper-Kurn et al., [*ibid.*]{} [**83**]{}, 2876 (1999).
An alternative, but consistent, viewpoint is that red and blue detunings chirp the BEC phase in different ways, and modify the light-scattering properties of the superfluid that now finds itself under compression or tension.
L. Deng and E.W. Hagley (submitted, see arXiv:1006.4619). The nonlinear process of interest is optically-degenerate four-wave mixing. This process may explain the origin of the sudden steep optical and matter wave gain increase observed in Ref. [@inouye1].
We believe that when the Gross-Pitasvskii and Maxwell equations are solved self-consistently, a generalized dynamic phase-matching relation including the polarization force/potential and the BEC structure factor will verify our postulation about the underlying mechanism.
P. Wang et al. (PRL submitted, see arXiv:1006.3250).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a discrete quantum system coupled to a finite bath, which may consist of only one particle, in contrast to the standard baths which usually consist of continua of oscillators, spins, etc. We find that such finite baths may nevertheless equilibrate the system though not necessarily in the way predicted by standard open system techniques. This behavior results regardless of the initial state being correlated or not.'
author:
- 'Jochen Gemmer[^1]'
- Mathias Michel
title: Thermalization of quantum systems by finite baths
---
Due to the linearity of the Schrödinger equation concepts like ergodicity or mixing are strictly speaking absent in quantum mechanics. Hence the tendency towards equilibrium is not easy to explain. However, except for some ideas [@Neumann1929; @Landau1980] the approaches to thermalization in the quantum domain seem to be centered around the idea of a thermostat, i.e., some environmental quantum system (bath, reservoir), enforcing equilibrium upon the considered system. Usually it is assumed that this bath’s classical analogon contains an infinite number of decoupled degrees of freedom.
Theories addressing such scenarios are the projection operator techniques (time-convolutionless, Nakajima Zwanzig), the Born approximation (BA) [@Breuer2002] and the path integral technique (Feynman Vernon [@Weiss1999]). The projection operator techniques are exact if all orders of the system-bath interaction strength are taken into account which is practically unfeasible. However, assuming weak interactions and accordingly truncating at leading order in the interaction strength (BA) produces an exponential relaxation behavior (c.f. [@Caldeira1985; @Makri1999]) whenever the bath consists of an continuum of oscillators, spins, etc. The origin of statistical dynamics is routinely based on this scheme, if it breaks down no exponential thermalization can a priori be expected.
We find that this scheme breaks down (i.e. the BA produces wrong results) if the bath features a special spectral structure which cannot arise from an uncoupled multitude of subsystems or modes (see below). We refer to this type of bath as finite bath. This holds true even and especially in the limit of weak coupling and arbitrarily dense bath spectra.
Nevertheless a statistical relaxation behavior can be induced by finite baths. It simply is not the behavior predicted by the BA. Thus the principles of statistical mechanics in some sense apply below the infinite particle number limit and beyond the BA.
This also supports the concept of systems being driven towards equilibrium through increasing correlations with their baths [@Lubkin1978; @Lubkin1993; @Zurek1994; @GemmerOtte2001; @Scarani2002] rather than the idea of system and bath remaining factorizable, which is often attributed to the BA [@Weiss1999; @Breuer2002].
![Two-level system coupled to a finite bath. The environment’s spectrum deviates significantly from those of baths with infinitely many decoupled degrees of freedom[]{data-label="fig:1"}](bild1.eps){width="5cm"}
The model we analyze is characterized (for simplicity) by a two level system (S or “spin”) coupled two a many level system (B) consisting of two relevant bands featuring the same width and equidistant level spacing (see Fig. \[fig:1\]). So this may be viewed as a spin coupled to a single molecule, a one particle quantum dot, an atom or simply a single harmonic oscillator. Note that the spin, unlike in typical oscillator baths or the Jaynes-Cummings Model, is not in resonance with the environments level spacing but with the energy distance between the bands. There are two principal differences of such an finite environment level scheme from the level scheme of, say, a standard oscillator bath. i) The total amount of levels within a band may be finite. ii) Even more important, from, e.g., the ground state of a standard bath there are infinitely many resonant transitions to the “one-excitation-states” of the bath. But from all those, the “back- transitions” lead to only one ground state. Thus the relevant bands of any infinite bath would consist of only one state in the lower and infinitely many states in the upper band. And it will turn out to be that limit in which the standard methods produce correct results.
A finite bath which cannot be decomposed in uncoupled subunits any further may, however, feature arbitrary numbers of states in both bands. Note that in our model there is no notion of the environment being chaotic in itself. Due to the considered type of interaction the full system might be termed chaotic, as will become clear below (for a treatment of finite baths under a different perspective, see [@Kolovsky1994; @Scarani2002]). The Hamiltonian of the model in the Schrödinger picture reads $\hat{H}=\hat{H}_0+\hat{V}$, $\hat{H}_0$ representing the uncoupled system and $\hat{V}$ the interaction: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_0&=\Delta E \hat{\sigma}_z\n
+\sum_{n_1}\frac{\delta \epsilon}{N_1}n_1
|n_1\rangle \langle n_1| +\sum_{n_2}(\Delta E+\frac{\delta \epsilon}{N_2}n_2)
|n_2\rangle \langle n_2|\n\\
\hat{V}&=
\lambda\sum_{n_1,n_2}C(n_1, n_2)\;\hat{\sigma}^{+}|n_1\>\<n_2|
+\mbox{h.c.}\end{aligned}$$ Here the Pauli matrices refer to S, $n_1(n_2)$ denotes the $n$’th energy eigenstate within the lower(upper) band of B and h.c. stands for the hermitian conjugate the previous sum. For the example at hand we chose $\Delta E=25u,\; \delta \epsilon=0.5u,\; N_1=N_2=500,\; \lambda=5 \cdot 10^{-4}u$, $u$ being some arbitrary energy unit. The real and imaginary parts of the $C$’s are randomly (Gaussian) distributed numbers with mean zero and normalized to $\sum_{n_1,n_2}|C(n_1,n_2)|^2/N_1N_2=1$. This interaction type has been chosen in order to keep the model as general and free from peculiarities as possible. (In the fields of nuclear physics or quantum chaos random matrices are routinely used to model unknown interaction potentials. We do, however, analyze the dynamics generated by one single interaction, not the average dynamics of an Gaussian ensemble of interaction matrices.)
We firstly analyze the decay behavior of two different pure product initial states: The bath-part of both initial states is a pure state that only occupies the lower band but is, apart from that, chosen at random. Apart from its pureness only with respect to occupation numbers, B’s initial state can be considered an approximation to a Gibbs state with $\delta \epsilon\ll kT_{\text{B}} \ll \Delta E$ (in the example at hand, e.g., $ kT_{\text{B}} \approx 5u$). For small $\delta\epsilon$ the temperature may be arbitrarily small. Initially, the system S is firstly chosen to be completely in its excited state (this initial state is indicated by the black dots in Fig. \[fig:1\]) and, secondly, in a 50:50 superposition of ground and excited state. The probability (density matrix element $\rho_{11}(t)$) to find the system excited as produced by the first initial state is shown in Fig. \[fig:2\]. Since the first initial state does not contain any off-diagonal elements, we find $|\rho_{01}|^2\approx 0$ for all times. This is different for the second initial state investigated in Fig. \[fig:3\], it starts with $|\rho_{01}|^2=0.25$ and is thus well suited to study the decay of the coherence. (The diagonal elements of the second state are already at their equilibrium value ($\rho_{11}(0)=0.5$) in the beginning and exhibit no further change.)
By numerically solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the full model’s pure state $|\Psi(t)\>$ we find for the reduced state of the system $\hat{\rho}(t)=\mbox{Tr}_{\text{B}} \{|\Psi(t)\>\<\Psi(t)|\}$, an exponential decay, up to some fluctuations. (For the baths initial state being a real mixed Gibbs state one can even expect fluctuations to be smaller, since fluctuations corresponding to various pure addends of the Gibbs state will partially cancel each other.) Thus the Schrödingerian dynamics yield a local behavior that might be described as statistical, controlled by some transition rate.
The full model is Markovian in the sense that bath correlations decay much faster than the system relaxes, concretely bath correlations decay on a time scale of $\tau_c \approx \hbar /\delta \epsilon =2$ (all times given in units of $\hbar/u$), whereas the system relaxes on a timescale $\tau_r \approx 640$ (cf. Fig.’s \[fig:2\],(b)). Since the whole system is finite there is a finite (quasi) recurrence time. But due to the incommensurability of the full system’s frequencies it appears to be $>10 ^8$, i.e., orders of magnitudes larger than the relaxation time of S. (The special example at hand features, due to the environments equidistant level spacing, a recurrence time for the bath correlations of approximately $6 \cdot 10^3$ but that does not induce a recurrence in S.)
Although the model is Markovian in the above sense and its relaxation appears locally statistical, S’s excitation probability deviates significantly from what the BA predicts (cf. Fig \[fig:2\]): The beginning is described correctly, but rather than ending up at $T=T_\text{B}$ as the BA predicts for thermal environment states [@Breuer2002], S ends up at $T=\infty$, i.e., equal occupation probabilities for both levels. Furthermore a condition often attributed to the BA, namely that S and B remain unentangled, is not fulfilled: When S has reached equilibrium the full system is in a superposition of $|$S in the excited state $\otimes$ B in the lower band$\>$ and $|$S in the ground state $\otimes$ B in the upper band$\>$. This is a maximum entangled state with two orthogonal addends, one of which features a bath population corresponding to $T_\text{B}\approx 0$, the other a bath population inversion, i.e., even a negative bath temperature. These findings contradict the concept of factorizability but are in accord with a result from [@Gemmer2005] claiming that an evolution towards local equilibrium is always accompanied by an increase of system-bath correlations. However, the off-diagonal element evolution coincides with the behavior predicted by the BA. Thus in spite of the systems finiteness and the reversibility of the underlying Schrödinger equation S evolves towards maximum local von Neumann entropy (see Fig. \[fig:3\]) which supports the concepts of [@Lubkin1993].
We now very roughly (and rather incompletely) outline the Hilbert space Average Method (HAM) which explains the behavior of this model-type. HAM is not limited to two level systems, the example has just been chosen for simplicity. (For a detailed description of HAM, see [@Gemmer2003; @Gemmer2004]). We start by considering short time steps of the evolution of S’s density matrix $\hat{\rho}$. With a truncated (second order) Dyson series for $|\Psi(t+\Delta t)\>\approx \hat{D}(t,\Delta t)|\Psi(t)\>,$ one formally gets $$\label{eq:1}
\hat{\rho}(t+\Delta t)\approx \mbox{Tr}_{\text{B}} \{
\hat{D}|\Psi(t)\>\<\Psi(t)|\hat{D}^{\dagger} \}.$$ If the right hand side of (\[eq:1\]) (r.h.s.) was only a function of S’s local density matrix $\hat{\rho}$, one could set up an iterative scheme for the local dynamics of S. But one finds that the r.h.s. depends on all the details of the full model’s state $|\Psi(t)\>$ and explicitly on the absolute time $t$, thus no autonomous iterative sub-dynamics for S can be inferred directly. However, computing the Hilbert space average (${\mathopen{\llbracket} \cdots \mathclose{\rrbracket}}$) of the r.h.s., i.e., the average over an adequate set of full system states $|\Phi\>$ sharing (some) crucial quantities with $|\Psi(t)\>$, i.e., $ \<\Phi|\hat{A}|\Phi\>=\<\Psi(t)|\hat{A}|\Psi(t)\>$ with $\hat{A}$ being the full model’s energy, the local energy of S or the coherence of S , yields under specific conditions on the model (see below) $$\label{eq:2}
{\mathopen{\llbracket} \mbox{Tr}_{\text{B}} \{
\hat{D}|\Phi\>\<\Phi|\hat{D}^{\dagger} \} \mathclose{\rrbracket}}
\approx \hat{\rho}(t)+\Delta t \left(\mathcal{L}
\hat{\rho}(t)+\mathcal{I}\hat{\rho}(0)\right),$$ where $\mathcal{L}$, $\mathcal{I}$ are linear super-operators. (Note that the majority of the states belonging to the above set is correlated, i.e., no factorization is implied.) Replacing the r.h.s. of (\[eq:1\]) by its Hilbert space average would thus yield an autonomous iteration scheme. But is that justified? It is justified, whenever (\[eq:2\]) does not only hold for the Hilbert space average over all $|\Phi\>$’s but also (approximately) for the majority of all $|\Phi\>$’s belonging to the above set individually. If this is the case the evolution of S tends to be independent of the full models state and basically controlled by the local state of S. This tendency increases with B featuring increasing numbers of eigenstates as can be shown theoretically [@Gemmer2004] or numerically (cf. Fig. \[fig:5\]). Nevertheless, this replacement does not represent an approximation with a computable error, it only represents a best unbiased guess for the evolution of S. This “best guess” structure of HAM accounts for the non-statistical character of the under-laying dynamics, i.e., allows for a non-statistical behavior of S in some (rare) cases.
Performing the above replacement and taking $\Delta t$ to zero yields for the system-type at hand (but independent of the concrete interaction) the following master equation scheme: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:6}
\dot{\rho}_{11}(t)&=-(R_{10}+R_{01})\rho_{11}(t)+R_{10}\rho_{11}(0)\;, \qquad
R_{01}=\frac{2\pi\lambda^2N_2}{\hbar \delta \epsilon},\qquad
R_{10}=\frac{2\pi\lambda^2N_1}{\hbar \delta \epsilon}\n\\
\dot{\rho}_{01}(t)&=(i\Delta E/\hbar-R_{01}/2)\rho_{01}(t).\end{aligned}$$ The equilibrium value of S’s excitation probability is given by $\rho_{11}(\infty)=N_1/(N_1+N_2)$. Thus only if $N_2 \gg N_1$ (infinite bath) the BA produces correct results. Otherwise BA must fail for the reduced sub-dynamics of S are not even Markovian now in the sense of the equilibrium state being independent of the initial state. Note, however that it is not the finite density of states that causes the break down of the BA, since the BA produces wrong results even for $N_1, N_2 \rightarrow \infty$ as long as the above condition is not met. Since boldly calculating transition probabilities according to Fermi’s Golden Rule, would have produced the same rates $R$ the applicability of the above scheme implies the applicability of a random phase approximation in the sense of, say, Peierls [@Peierls1955].
Such an approximation cannot always hold since the Schrödinger equation is completely non-random. Thus, as necessary conditions on the model parameters for statistically appearing behavior of S we find (from theory and numerics) $$\label{eq:7}
2\lambda\frac{N}{\delta \epsilon}\geq 1, \qquad
\lambda^2\frac{N}{\delta \epsilon^2}\ll 1,$$ where $N$ refers to the band with the larger state density. Those conditions enforce Markovicity in the above sense, and exclude the infinitely weak coupling limit, $\lambda \rightarrow 0$ as long as B’s state density is finite. Neither the equidistant level spacing of B nor the Gaussian distribution of the interaction matrix elements are indispensable. A condition on the level structure of B is that the number of states within an interval of $I \approx \delta \epsilon /10$ does not depend much on where within the band the interval is chosen. A similar condition restricts the interaction: The sum of $|C|^2$’s corresponding to transitions from one state of a band to states within an interval $I$ of the other band should not depend much on the position of the interval.
Since HAM is just a “best guess theory” the exact evolution follows its predictions with different accuracies for different initial states, even if all conditions on the model are fulfilled.
To analyze this for, say $\rho_{11}(t)$, we introduce $D^2$, being the time-averaged quadratic deviation of HAM from the exact (Schrödinger) result $$\label{eq:12}
D^2=\frac{1}{\tau}
\int_0^{\tau}
\Big(\rho_{11}^{\text{HAM}}(t)-\rho_{11}^{\text{exact}}(t)\Big)^2
\text{d} t\;.$$ Thus $D$ is a measure of the deviations from a predicted behavior. The results of the investigation for our model (Fig. \[fig:1\]) are condensed in the histogram (Fig. \[fig:4\], $\tau=2000$). The set of respective initial states is characterized by a probability of $3/4$ for $|$S in its excited state $\otimes$ B in its lower band$\>$ and $1/4$ for $|$S in its ground state $\otimes$ B in its upper band$\>$. Within these restrictions the initial states are uniformly distributed in the corresponding Hilbert subspace. Since all of them are correlated the application of a product projection operator technique would practically be unfeasible. However, as Fig. \[fig:4\] shows, the vast majority of them follows the HAM prediction quite closely, although there is a typical fluctuation of $D=\sqrt{2}\cdot 10^{-2}$ which is small compared to the features of the predicted behavior (which are on the order of one), due to the finite size of the environment (cf. also fluctuations in Fig. \[fig:2\]).
In Fig. \[fig:5\] the dependence of $D^2$ on the number of states of B is displayed for $N=10,\dots,800$ (one evolution for each environment size). At $N=500$ like used in the above accuracy investigation we find the same typical fluctuation, whereas for smaller environments the typical deviation is much bigger. We find that the squared deviation scales as $1/N$ with the environment size, thus making HAM a reasonably reliable guess for many-state environments.
What about the claim that reduced dynamics need not to be completely positive, once S and B are correlated [@Pechukas1994; @Weiss1999; @Haenggi2004]? In principle this holds. But regardless of their being correlated just a small fraction of all states from Fig. \[fig:4\] shows significant deviations from HAM. Thus a smooth evolution towards equilibrium (though not necessarily of the Lindblad-type [@Alicki1987]) can typically be expected for the reduced dynamics, regardless of the initial state being correlated or not.
![Evolution of the spins excitation probability before and after full excitation for two different sets of model parameters.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](bild6.eps){width="7cm"}
What about reversibility and statistically appearing dynamics? The Schrödinger equation is time reversible and indeed there is no apparent time asymmetry in Fig. \[fig:6\]. For $t>0$ the behavior of the above system (solid line) is well described by the above rate equation scheme featuring an attractive fix-point. But for $t<0$ it would have to be described by a scheme with an repulsive fix-point! Thus, any of the full model states at $t<0$ is a paradigm for an initial state that does not yield statistical decay behavior eventhough the model typically generates it. The dashed line shows the behavior of a model like the above one, only with $\delta \epsilon \approx 0$ and (in order to keep the timescales comparable) $\lambda =10^{-4}u$. This clearly violates the second criterion of (\[eq:7\]) and the model is no longer Markovian in the above mentioned sense. And indeed even for $t>0$ there is no exponential decay although the model features equally many states as the above one. Nevertheless the same equilibrium state as in the above case is reached (cf. also [@Breuer2004]) regardless of whether the system is propagated forwards or backwards in time.
In essence we have shown that statistical relaxation may emerge directly from the Schrödinger equation. This requires the respective system being coupled in an adequate way to a suitable environment. This environment must feature many eigenstates. There is, however, no minimum particle number limit. Thus the thermodynamic limit appears to be essentially controlled by the number of environmental eigenstates involved in the dynamics rather than by the number of environmental particles. This relaxation behavior results even for correlated initial states, nevertheless, standard open system methods may fail to produce the correct result.
We are indebted to H.-P. Breuer, G. Mahler, A. Kolovsky and A. Buchleitner for interesting discussions on this subject. Financial Support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft is gratefully acknowledged.
[20]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, **, vol. of ** (, , ), ed.
, ** (, ).
, ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , .
, ****, ().
, , , **, vol. of ** (, , ).
, ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, ().
, **, Lecture Notes in Physics (, , ).
, , , ****, ().
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We identified 21 new Planetary Nebula (PN) candidates in the Sculptor Group galaxy NGC 55. We determined a most likely distance of 2.00 $\pm$ 0.2 Mpc using the Planetary Nebulae Luminosity Function (PNLF) method. The distance to NGC 55 is larger than previously determined distances, which means that the Sculptor Group is a bit further away from the Local Group than previously thought. The distance to NGC 55 is again similar to the distance of NGC 300, adding support to the suggestion that these galaxies form a bound pair.'
author:
- 'G. C. Van de Steene'
- 'G. H. Jacoby'
- 'C. Praet'
- 'R. Ciardullo'
- 'H. Dejonghe'
title: The PNLF distance to the Sculptor Group galaxy NGC 55
---
NGC 55
======
NGC 55 is a highly inclined (i$=$$85\pm5{\hbox{$^\circ$}}$) late type galaxy (SB(s)m) in the Sculptor Group. Its Holmberg radius is 202 and blue magnitude m$_B$$=$8.42. Sculptor is a very loosely concentrated and almost freely expanding aggregate of galaxies of prolate shape which we view pole-on. It stretches from the outskirts of the Local Group at 1.5 Mpc out to 5 Mpc. Besides the 5 main spiral galaxies, the Sculptor Group contains several dwarf galaxies (Jerjen et al. [@Jerjen98]).
NGC 55 is one of the 5 bright spiral galaxies of the Sculptor Group, which could be the one nearest to the Milky Way. Distance estimates for NGC 55 range from 1.34 Mpc based on carbon stars (Pritchet et al. [@Pritchet87]) to 1.8 Mpc based on the Tully-Fisher relation (Karachentsev et al. [@Karachentsev03]). The two bright spiral galaxies NGC 55 and NGC 300 are both at the near side of the Sculptor group and it has been suggested that NGC 55 and NGC 300 form a bound pair (Graham [@Graham82]; Pritchet et al. [@Pritchet87]; Whiting [@Whiting99]). The distance to NGC 300 is well determined via Cepheids (Freedman et al. [@Freedman01]: 2.07 $\pm$ 0.07 Mpc) and via the PLNF method (Soffner et al. [@Soffner96]: 2.4 $\pm$ 0.4 Mpc). NGC 55 has remained without a reliable distance estimate.
Observations
============
The observations were done with the Wide Field Imager (WFI) on the 2.2-m telescope at the La Silla Observatory of the European Southern Observatory on the 4 and 5 July 1999. The weather was photometric. WFI consists of a 4 times 2 mosaic of 2k x 4k CCDs. The pixel scale is 0238 and the total field of view is 34 x 33, which covers the entire galaxy. NGC 55 was observed through the \[O III\]/8 (FWHM 80.34 Å) and the off-band filter 518/16, and the H$\alpha$/7 filter for a total of 3120 sec, 1620 sec, and 3600 sec respectively. On the first day the galaxy was offset to the east and south by 3 to fill in the CCD gaps. The seeing was 14.
Data reduction and results
==========================
The [esowfi]{} external package in [iraf]{} was used to convert the ESO headers to suit the [mscred]{} package and to set the instrument files and astrometry solution. Next the reductions were done using the [mscred]{} mosaic reduction package in [iraf]{} according to the guide by Valdes ([@Valdes98]).
We followed the survey technique as described in e.g. Jacoby et al.[@Jacoby89b] and Ciardullo et al. [@Ciardullo89a]. The on- and off-band images were aligned. The off-band images were then scaled to the level of the on-band images and subtracted from them to produce the difference image. We identified the PNe by blinking this difference image with the off-band image, and the H$\alpha$+\[N II\] images. In order to discriminate PNe from other emission-line sources, we used the following critieria (Feldmeier et al. [@Feldmeier97]): (1) PN candidates had to have a point-spread function (PSF) consistent with that of a point source as all PNe are expected to be unresolved at the distance of NGC 55; (2) PN candidates had to be invisible on the off-band image to exclude bright OB stars exciting H II regions; and (3) PN candidates had to be significantly fainter in H$\alpha$+\[N II\] image than \[O III\], in order to reduce further the possibility of contamination from H II regions. With all these constraints, only compact, H II regions that have high nebula excitation and faint central OB associations will have been mistaken for PNe. However, even these will be faint and hence cannot significantly affect the PNLF. In total we identified 21 candidate planetaries in NGC 55.
The PN candidates were measured photometrically in the off-band image using [phot]{} in [iraf]{} and flux calibrated using standard stars and the procedures outlined in Jacoby et al. [@Jacoby87]. In order to determine the filter transmission for the PNe we need to take the redshift into account and the bandpass shift of the interference filter to the blue. The systemic velocity of NGC 55 was taken to be 116 km/s (Puche & Carignan [@Puche91]). The percentage of transmission is about 88% across the filter for the \[O III\] line and about 87% for the H$\alpha$ filter at the location of our objects. The difference in transmission across the field has negligible effect on the derived flux values and magnitudes.
The resulting monochromatic \[O III\] flux values F$_{5007}$ were converted to \[O III\]$\lambda$5007 magnitudes using (Jacoby [@Jacoby89a]) :
$$m_{5007} = -2.5~log(F_{5007}) - 13.74 .$$
The PNLF distance
=================
\[O III\] magnitudes were corrected for the interstellar extinction. We consider only the foreground Galactic extinction towards NGC 55 and adopt E(B-V)$=$0.013 mag (Schlegel et al. [@Schlegel98]).
Identifications become incomplete beyond m$_{5007}$ $=$ 23.5 mag. Besides missing faint PNe, the probability of overlap with a star or with an H II region increases towards the centre, particularly in the H$\alpha$+\[N II\] image. Hence brighter PNe than the ones recovered in the outskirts may have been missed towards the center.
From these data the PNLF distance to the galaxy can normally be derived by convolving the empirical model for the PNLF given by Ciardullo et al. [@Ciardullo89b]: $$N(m) \propto e^{0.307M} [1-e^{3(M^*-M)}]$$ with the photometric error function and fitting the data to the resultant curve via the method of maximum likelihood. This takes into account that the probability of observing PNe near the cutoff magnitude M$^*$ decreases for small sample sizes. Fig. \[vandesteeneF1\] plots the PNLF for the sample. Assuming M$^*$$=$ $-$4.47, based on the calibration to M 31 (Ciardullo et al. [@Ciardullo02]), we obtain a most likely distance modulus (m $-$ M$^*$) $=$ 26.95. The PNLF cut-off is fainter in small, low metallicity galaxies, but well modeled by the theoretical relation of Dopita et al. [@Dopita92]. The metallicity correction as determined from the oxygen abundance, is needed only for galaxies with metallicities smaller than the LMC (12$+$log(O/H) $<$ 8.5) (Ciardullo et al. [@Ciardullo02]). The oxygen abundance of NGC 55 as determined based on H II regions is 12$+$log(O/H)$=$8.05 (Tüllmann et al. [@Tullmann03]), which is much lower than this value and simlar to the SMC metallicity. Assuming a solar abundance of oxygen of 12$+$log(O/H) $=$ 8.87 (Grevesse et al. [@Grevesse96]), the metallicity corrected value of the distance modulus is (m $-$ M$^*$) $=$ 26.50 $\pm$ 0.2, which corresponds to a distance of 2.00 $\pm$ 0.2 Mpc. This value is a bit larger than previously determined distances to NGC 55, which would mean that the Sculptor Group would be a bit further away than previously thought.
NGC 300 also has a low metallicity, though not as low as NGC 55. The metallicity correction to be applied is 0.15 mag (Ciardullo et al. [@Ciardullo02]). The distance modulus to NGC 300 determined via the PNLF maximum likelihood method is 26.8 mag (Soffner et al. [@Soffner96]) and after correction for metallicity 26.65 mag. This corresponds to a distance of 2.14 $\pm$0.4 Mpc , which is in very good agreement with the Cepheid distance determination of 2.02 $\pm$ 0.07 Mpc by Freedman et al. ([@Freedman01]).
The PNLF distances to NGC 55 and NGC 300 are again similar, which adds support to the fact that they form a bound pair and illustrates the consistency of the PNLF method for distance determination.
![Observed \[O III\]$\lambda$5007 PNLF of NGC 55. The curve represents the best-fitting empirical PNLF convolved with the photometric error function and shifted to the most likely distance. The open circle represents a point past the completeness limit.[]{data-label="vandesteeneF1"}](vandesteeneF1.ps){width=".95\textwidth"}
Conclusions
===========
We identified 21 new PNe candidates in the Sculptor Group galaxy NGC 55. The PNLF method gives us a most likely distance of 2.00 $\pm$0.2 Mpc, which would mean that the Sculptor Group is a bit further away from the Local Group than previously thought. The distance to NGC 55 turns out to be similar to the distance of NGC 300, adding support to the suggestion that these galaxies form a bound pair and illustrates the consistency of the PNLF method for distance determination.
[8.]{}
Ciardullo, R., Jacoby, G. H, Ford, H.C., 1989, ApJ, 344, 715
Ciardullo, R., Jacoby, G. H., Ford, H.C., Neill, J. D., 1989b, ApJ, 339, 53
Ciardullo, R. Feldmeier, J. J., Jacoby, G. H., Kuzio de Naray, R., Laychak, M. B., Durell, P. R., ApJ, 577, 31
Dopita, M. A., Jacoby, G. H., Vassiliadis, E., 1992, ApJ, 389, 27
Feldmeier, J. J., Ciardullo, R., Jacoby, G.H., 1997, ApJ, 479, 231
Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., Ferrarese, L., Kelson, D. D., Sakai, S., Mould, J. R., Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., Ford, H. C., Graham, J. A., Huchra, J. P., Hughes, S. M. G., Illingworth, G. D., Macri, L. M., Stetson, P. B., ApJ, 553, 47
Graham, J. A. 1982, ApJ, 252, 474
Grevess, N., Noels, A., Sauval, A.J., 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 99, Cosmic Abundances, ed. S. S. Holt & G. Sonneborn (San Francisco: ASP), 117
Jacoby, G. H., Quigley, R. J., Africano, J. L., 1987, PASP, 99, 672
Jacoby, G. H, 1989, ApJ, 339. 39.
Jacoby, G.H., Ciardullo, R., Ford, H.C., Booth, J., 1989, ApJ, 344, 70
Jerjen, H., Freeman, K. C., Binggeli, B., 1998, AJ, 116, 2873
Karachentsev, I. D., Grebel, E. K., Sharina, M. E., Dolphin, A. E., Geisler, D., Guhathakurta, P., Hodge, P. W., Karachentseva, V. E., Sarajedini, A., Seitzer, P., 2003, å, 404, 93
Méndez, R. H., Kudritzki, R. P., Ciardullo, R., Jacoby, G. H., 1993, A&A, 275, 534
Pritchet, C. J., Schade, D., Richer, H. B., Crabtree, D., Yee, H. K. C. 1987, ApJ, 323, 79
Puche, D., Carignan, C. 1988, AJ, 95, 1025
Puche, D., Carignan, C., Wainscoat, R. J., 1991, AJ, 101, 447
Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., Davis, M., 1998, ApJ, 500 525
Soffner, T., Méndez, R. H., Jacoby, G. H., Ciardullo, R., Roth, M. M., Kudritzki, R. P. 1996, A&A, 306, 9
Tüllmann, R., Rosa, M. R., Elwert, T., Bomans, D. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Dettmar, R.-J., 2003, A&A, 412, 69
Valdes, F., 1998, “Guide to the NOAO mosaic data handling software”
Whiting, A. B., 1999, AJ, 117 202
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'R.F. Garcia Ruiz [^1]'
- 'A. Vernon [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
- 'bib\_ARV.bib'
date: 'Received: date / Revised version: date'
title: 'Emergence of simple patterns in many-body systems: from macroscopic objects to the atomic nucleus[^3] '
---
=1
Introduction {#intro}
============
Our understanding of the universe is intimately related to our description of many-body systems. The knowledge of the fundamental particles and forces of nature is as important as our ability to understand how these building blocks are organized to form complex systems. Remarkably, the emergence of simple and regular patterns are common features observed in strongly correlated many-body systems [@Teich2016; @Reinhardt2005; @Arp2004; @Grigorieva2006; @Wang2018; @Suess1956; @Fowler1992; @Brack1993; @DeHeer1993]. At the microscopic level, the individual parts of different physical systems can be described by fundamentally different interactions, however, their collective behaviour can exhibit similar patterns. These seemingly simple regularities of certain properties of a physical system tends to suggest the existence of underlying symmetries and allows simple models to provide a good description of the observed data [@And72; @sch81; @Gol87; @DeHeer1993; @Tal93]. However, the link between these models and their microscopic interactions is an open question in many fields of physics.
The recent progress of both experimental and theoretical developments have allowed an unprecedented connection between reductionist and emergent views of nature. Advances in many-body methods and the rapid development of computing power have provided new paths towards the ab initio description of macroscopic phenomena. Theoretical developments are motivated by the ambition of a first principles description of emergent phenomena, yet this reductionist approach is deeply motivated by empirical observations [@Gib18; @Coleman2017]. The emergence of unexpected phenomena is uniquely accessed through experiments. A deeper understanding of the microscopic origin of the observed physical phenomena is achieved through systematic experimental studies confronted with the theoretical descriptions.
This article presents a short overview of experimental signatures that are commonly used to characterize the emergence of phenomena in different physical systems. Various examples of objects from the human size scale down to the femtometer scale are presented. The discussion is centered on the observables that are used to indicate the emergence of phenomena such as shell structures and “magic” numbers - integer number of constituents with notably different properties. Albeit not exhaustive, an effort is made to include citations that could be useful to direct interested readers to the relevant literature.
The manuscript is divided in two main parts: The first part provides a brief description of selected examples that illustrate the emergence of regular patters in macroscopic systems and their relation with similar patterns observed in the atomic nucleus. The second part is focused on the experimental signatures used to discuss the emergence of collective phenomena and shell structures in nuclei. Commonly discussed properties such as binding energies, nuclear charge radii, excitation energies and transition probabilities are presented. The discussion is expanded using recent experimental results obtained for the ground-state properties of nuclei in the neighborhood of nuclear shell closures. Finally, an emphasis is made on the trends and open questions that the new observations pose for our current understanding of nuclear structure in different regions of the nuclear chart.
Emergence of simple patterns in many-body systems
=================================================
[lp[5mm]{}lllp[30mm]{}l]{} Constituent & Size & System & Size & Observable(s) & Magic numbers & Refs.\
Spheres & Any & & Any & Density & 6, 12, 21, 25, 38 ... & [@Teich2016]\
Sunflower seeds & $\sim$ 1 cm & & 5- & Number of spirals & 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, ... & [@Reinhardt2005; @Ridley1982; @Vogel1979]\
&\
Dust particles & & & mm & Radial distribution & 2, 21, 60, 107 .. & [@Arp2004]\
&\
& & Vortex shells & & Radial distribution & 5, 16, 32 & [@Grigorieva2006]\
&\
& 244 nm & Colloidal cluster & $\sim$ & Evaporation rate & 135, 297, 851, 801, 1283, 2583 ... & [@Wang2018]\
&\
& $\sim$5 nm & & $\sim$ & Abundance & 15,17,18,42 & [@Chen2007; @Roos2010; @Berger1994]\
&\
C atoms & 170 pm & Fullerenes & $\sim$ & Mass abundance & 60, 70, 72, 76, 78, 84 .. & [@Kratschmer1990; @Diederich1991; @Fowler1992]\
&\
H$_2$O& 275 pm & & $\sim$3-20 Å& Mass abundance & 2, 6, 7, 11 & [@Lee2005]\
&\
Xe atoms & 216 pm & Atom clusters & $\sim$2-10 Å& & 13, 16, 19, 25, 55, 71, 87, 147 ... & [@Echt1981; @Echt1987]\
&\
Na atoms & 227 pm & Atom clusters & $\sim$2-10 Å& & 8, 20, 40, 58, 92 ... & [@Knight1984; @Pedersen1991; @Homer1991]\
& & & & Melting temperature & 55, 116, 147, 178 ... & [@Haberland2005]\
&\
Electrons & fm & Atoms & 31-348 fm & Ionization energy & 2, 10, 18, 36, 54 & [@A.KramidaY.RalchenkoJ.Reader2014]\
&\
Nucleons & fm & Nuclei & 1-10 fm & Binding energies, t$_{1/2}$, & 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 126 .. & [@Audi2017; @Wang2017a; @Audi2017a; @Nordheim1950; @Ismail2016]\
& & & & $<r^2>$, & & [@Angeli2013]\
& & & & B(E2), E$_{2^+}$, & & [@Pritychenko2016]\
& & & & Q$_S$, $\mu$, & & [@Stone2016a]\
& & & & Solar abundances, & & [@Grevesse1998; @Suess1956]\
& & & & Neutron capture $\sigma$s & & [@Ismail2016; @Hurwitz1951]\
&\
Throughout nature, driving forces give rise to optimization problems for the arrangement of constituents in many-body systems at almost every size scale [@Teich2016; @Reinhardt2005; @Ridley1982; @Vogel1979; @Arp2004; @Grigorieva2006; @Wang2018; @Kratschmer1990; @Diederich1991; @Fowler1992; @Echt1981; @Echt1987; @Knight1984; @Pedersen1991; @Haberland2005; @Sutherland2011; @Marenduzzo2010; @Ellis2001; @Turing1952; @Vakili2017]. On biological scales, this manifests in a variety of collective phenomena and pattern formation [@Teich2016; @Cines2014; @Hayashi2004a; @Kelso1988; @Schoner1988]. Such as in the phyllotaxis of plants [@Mitchison1977; @Reinhardt2003; @Turing1952], where simply growth patterns appear in the arrangement of leaves or flowers around a plant step. One particularly striking example is observed in the growth of seeds in a sunflower head [@Ridley1982; @Vogel1979], in which the number of spirals of seeds follows the Fibonacci sequence. A large variety of patterns emerge in smaller systems as a consequence of the optimal arrangement of their constituents [@Cines2014; @Hayashi2004a; @Farhadifar2007], from the clustering in framboidal pyrite [@Ohfuji2005; @Ohfuji2002] to the crowding of molecules in cells [@Norred2018; @Ellis2003; @Ellis2001], or that of DNA strands in cell nuclei [@Marenduzzo2010; @Micheletti2011]. Complex many-body systems often form clusters to minimise their energy by interactions between their neighbours and their mean field. This situation can give rise to “magic” numbers, as with those in the atomic nucleus, where certain integer numbers of constituents of a given system results in greater stability of its collective whole. The simplest signature for these magic numbers is the greater natural abundance of systems with the magic number of constituents compared to those with the less stable configurations of with other numbers of constituents [@Kratschmer1990; @Diederich1991; @Fowler1992; @Echt1981; @Echt1987; @Knight1984; @Echt1981; @Lee2005]. This is comparable with the abundance distribution of isotopes in the universe [@Alpher1950; @Anders1989] following nucleosynthesis [@Pagel2009]. The energetic efficiency of these more stable magic number configurations leads to their prevalence in biological systems also [@Alexander1996; @Cherrett1989; @Smith1976a; @Parker1990], such as with the magic number of capsid proteins which appear to form virus capsid structures [@Chen2007]. A summary of different systems in nature which exhibit these magic numbers of stability is shown in Table \[tab:magic\_nos\]. The experimental signatures and typical size of the different systems are shown in the same table. For non-deformable constituents with their packing constrained by symmetric polyhedral shapes, the magic numbers that appear can be determined for a system with constituents of any size using purely geometric considerations, and they appear in nature with these numbers when this is the case [@Teich2016; @Boles2016; @Haberland2005; @Echt1981; @Rutgers1962; @Castillo2008]. However the identification of naturally occuring magic numbers from a distribution becomes more challenging for greater length scales, as the likelyhood of finding ensembles with a similar number of homogenous constituents decreases. Those constituents between magic numbers, can also be said to belong to a ‘shell’, in analogy to the electronic shells of atoms [@A.KramidaY.RalchenkoJ.Reader2014] or for nucleons in atomic nuclei [@Mayer1949; @Haxel1949]. In some cases this is reflected by the spatial arrangement of the constituents. This has been observed for example in ‘dusty’ plasmas [@Bonitz2010; @Fortov2005], where charged dust particles (on the micrometer scale) can self assemble into a plasma crystal arrangement with a radial spherical shell distribution of particles [@Arp2005; @Arp2004], with the total system on the scale of millimeters. Such mesoscopic systems are often called ‘artificial atoms’ due to their close resemblence with atomic systems. The examples enlisted in Table \[tab:magic\_nos\] for dust particles, occur for particular experimental conditions. These experiments have several highly tunable parameters, which can result in different sequences of magic numbers [@Arp2005; @Arp2005a; @Ludwig2005]. Similar self arrangement and appearance of magic numbers has also been observed in 2-dimensional mesoscopic experiments using micrometer-sized superconducting disks [@Juan1998; @Grigorieva2006].
At the scale of hundreds of micrometers, polystyrene spheres (colloidal particles) with diameters of around 200 nm have been observed to self-assemble into colloidal clusters [@Dinsmore2002; @DeNijs2015]. While the interaction has a complicated description including surface chemistry [@Kister2016], capillary forces [@Manoharan2003], entropy maximization [@DeNijs2015] and the presence of depletants [@Meng2010], these clusters were also found to exhibit magic number configurations. These specific numbers of colloidal particles were found to result in a higher thermodynamic stability, as observed through decreased evaporation rates [@Wang2018], similar to that of the total energy of an unstable nucleus as reflected in its half-life [@Audi2017; @Wang2017a; @Audi2017a]. Due to the absence of a repulsive force, these colloidal systems can range from a few particles [@Manoharan2003] to billions of particles (colloidal crystals) [@Clark1979; @Velev2000].
Perhaps the systems with the most in common with the atomic nucleus are atomic clusters [@Martin1996; @Brack1997; @DeHeer1993], an area of physics which has historically benefited from analogies with nuclear models [@Cohen1990; @Brack1997; @Nishioka1990]. Clusters of atoms were observed to have magic numbers of enhanced stability reflected in their produced mass abundance spectra [@Knight1984; @Katakuse1985; @Echt1981; @Echt1987] (see Table \[tab:magic\_nos\]). The electronic structure of the constituent atom ultimately dictates the properties of the atomic clusters, however phenomenological models have been developed to provide a good description of the observed magic numbers, similar to the shell model of the atomic nucleus [@Ekardt1984; @Brack1993]. A ‘wine-bottle’ shaped potential used to describe these atomic clusters was adapted from the Woods-Saxon potential [@Katakuse1985]. This potential predicted ‘super shells’ to appear as the number of atoms in the clusters approaches $N$ = 1000 [@Nishioka1990], due to higher-order stabilizing effects, analogous to the predicted islands of stability of heavy nuclei [@Stoyer2006]. The predicted super-shell magic numbers were soon observed in sodium clusters [@Pedersen1991]. Deformation also has an analogous role in these clusters as in atomic nuclei, where the most stable clusters have spherical deformation and those between shell closures have oblate or prolate deformation [@DeHeer1993a; @Brack1993]. The Nilsson model of the atomic nucleus [@Nilsson1955] has been adapted to describe axially deformed clusters, known as the Clemenger-Nilsson model [@Clemenger1985a]. Giant dipole resonances of atomic nuclei [@Berman1975] also have a counterpart in these cluster systems, in the form of plasma resonance frequencies [@Ekardt1985; @Raza2015]. Taking the example of the sodium clusters, many of the observables corroborate the same set of magic numbers [@Knight1984; @Homer1991; @Honea1990; @Iniguez1986; @Wrigge2002] which are of electronic origin. A modified set of magic numbers was found in the melting temperatures of the clusters [@Schmidt2003]. However, this required an additional interpretation considering the geometric shells of the positions of the atomic nuclei alongside the electronic shells, due to the importance of the positions of the atomic nuclei in the melting process [@Haberland2005]. This highlights how experimental observables can probe very different aspects of the same physical system, leading to different sequences of magic numbers for different properties of the same system. These magic numbers in experimental observables give crucial insights into the most important forces and symmetries stabilizing systems at all scales, and this is often reflected in the increased abundance of systems with magic numbers of constituents to begin with.
Global trends and simple patterns in nuclei
===========================================
The atomic nucleus provides a rich laboratory in the studies of strongly correlated many-body systems. Due to the high nuclear density and the short- and long-range properties of the nuclear force, nuclei are highly sensitive to two- and higher-order many-body forces. The non-perturbative character of the strong force requires highly demanding theoretical treatments. In contrast to the electromagnetic forces, three-body forces appear at a fundamental level in the strong interaction [@Ham13]. By varying the numbers of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, inter-nucleon correlations can drive very different collective phenomena [@Hey11; @Lu13; @Gar16; @Fre18]. Intriguingly, a set of regular patterns appear across the whole nuclear chart [@Sim86; @Cas93; @Sor08; @Ang15; @Ben16; @Cas19]. These seemingly simple patterns have motivated numerous phenomenological models since the early days of nuclear physics. Simple model principles such as independent-particle motion [@May50; @May50b] and the semi-classical collective motion of nuclei [@Boh75] have been very successful in providing a global description of the observed nuclear phenomena.
Below we present a short overview of the experimental signatures of nuclear shell structures and collective phenomena that are commonly discussed in literature. While similar signatures and correlations are found in different observables, some of these correlations appear to break down in neutron-rich systems, where different patterns emerge. This discussion is expanded upon using the evolution of nuclear properties in the neighborhood of the neutron-rich $^{52}$Ca ($Z$ = 20), $^{78}$Ni ($Z$ = 28), and $^{132}$Sn ($Z$ = 50) isotopes as examples, where recent theoretical and experimental results are available.
Experimental signatures of shell structures
-------------------------------------------
The signatures of nuclear shell structures are manifested in different observables [@Cak10; @Sor08; @Gar15; @Gar16; @Wie13; @Ste13]. The numbers of nucleons that completely fills nuclear closed-shells are the so-called “magic” numbers. Nuclei with a magic number of nucleons are commonly observed to have the following experimental signatures: i. a relatively small mean-squared charge radius, $\langle r^2 \rangle$. As seen in Figure \[fig:prop\_N\] at nucleon number $N=$20, 28, 50, 82 and 126, there is a pronounced change of the charge radius as nucleons are added beyond a shell closure (“kink”), with a smooth increase towards shell closures, and a larger increase through the filling of the new open shell [@Ang15]. ii. a relatively large two-nucleon separation energy, $S_{2n}$; iii. a small quadrupole moment value, $Q_{s}$; iv. a high excitation energy of the first $2^+$ state, $E_{2^+}$; and v. a small transition probability to the first $2^+$ excited state, $B(E2)$. A compilation of these experimental properties as a function of the neutron and proton numbers are shown in Figure \[fig:prop\_N\] and Figure \[fig:prop\_P\], respectively. The data corresponding to different isotones are shown in Figure \[fig:prop\_N\], using bars of different colors to indicate the magnitudes of the observables for each isotone, the same is shown in \[fig:prop\_P\] as a function of atomic number.
The changes of the mean square charge radii when two neutrons are added, $\Delta \langle r^2 \rangle$(2n), are presented in Figure \[fig:prop\_N\]. The analogous differences when two protons are added, $\Delta \langle r^2 \rangle$(2p), are shown in Figure \[fig:prop\_P\], however the data in this case is relatively sparse as the charge radii of many elements have not yet been measured. At magic number of nucleons these differences exhibit a minimum value, with local maxima ouccring after crossing the closed shell. As the magnitude of $Q_{s}$, $B(E2)$, and $E_{2^+}$ scales with the atomic number and the nuclear size, these parameters were normalized in order to compare light and heavy nuclei on the same scale. The experimental values of $Q_{s}$ and $B(E2)$ were scaled to the dimensionless values $Q_{s}/ZR$ and $B(E2)/Z^2R^2$, with $Z$ the proton number and $R=1.18 A^{1/3}$ the droplet-model radius. Normalized observables present minimum values around the nucleon numbers 28, 50, 82 and 126, with a clear correlation seen in the trends of all observables. For some isotopes, additional local minima appear around nuclear numbers 2, 8, 16, 20, and 40. Figure \[fig:prop\_N\] iv), for example, shows bars of different color at $N$ = 20, indicating that nuclei with the same number of neutrons, such as $^{32}$Mg and $^{40}$Ca, have very different $E(2^+)$ values [@Mot95]. The isotopes with magic nucleon numbers have relatively high binding energy, and their charge distribution exhibit smaller variations with respect to the spherical shapes (small quadrupole moments). The nuclear charge radius commonly increases with the number of nucleons, but the slope of the increase is notably smaller approaching the nuclear closed shells. These nuclei are more difficult to excite than their neighbors, which is evidenced by their relatively high excitation energies and low excitation probabilities.
The properties of light nuclei ($A$<20) exhibit different patterns with respect to the number of nucleons. These nuclei do not display the regular trends observed in heavier isotopes. The addition or removal of a single nucleon can produce drastic changes on the properties of these few-nucleon systems. Common patterns are more evident in heavy nuclei, with a few points outside the general trends. Some particular isotopes, as in the region around $Z$ = 40, $N$ = 60 and $Z$ = 62, $N$ = 90, are considered to present a rapid onset of deformation [@Tog16z; @Hey11]. Interestingly, collective phenomena such as shape coexistence and phase transitions observed for nuclei in the region $Z$ = 62, $N$ = 90 have been suggested to exhibit analogous features as those for silicon clusters, which are governed by very different interactions [@Hor06].
Simple patterns in complex nuclei
---------------------------------
Nuclear electromagnetic moments such as the magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole moment provide complementary insights into the microscopic and collective properties of nuclei [@Ney03; @Woo13]. In fact, electromagnetic moments played a key role in motivating the most basic models of nuclear physics: the nuclear shell model [@May50], and nuclear deformation [@Mot76; @Boh76; @Rai76]. Systematic experimental studies of isotopes around nuclear closed shells have revealed surprisingly simple trends in the evolution of nuclear ground-state electromagnetic properties as a function of the neutron number [@Ebe87; @Ney03; @Leb04; @Yor13; @Pap13; @Pap14; @Gar15; @Gro17].
Nuclei in the vicinity of the tin isotopes give outstanding examples of simple patterns. The electromagnetic properties of these complex nuclei, with around 50 protons and more than 50 neutrons, seem to be described by a single particle in a nuclear orbital. The experimental nuclear $g$-factor (the ratio between the dipole magnetic moment and the nuclear spin) and electric quadrupole moments of cadmium ($Z$ = 48), indium ($Z$ = 49), and tin ($Z$ = 50) isotopes are shown in Figure \[fig:moments\], exhibiting simple trends as a function of neutron number. A simplified single-particle model provides a good description of these observations. In the shell model picture, the electromagnetic properties of odd-even indium isotopes are given by a single proton hole in the $\pi h_{11/2}$ orbit [@Ari54; @Hor55; @Tal63]. This simple picture of nuclear structure seems to be supported by a rather constant value of their nuclear moments, which present very small variations when neutrons are added. For the even-proton nuclei, cadmium and tin, the naive shell-model expectation is that that the electromagnetic properties of even-odd isotopes are dominated by a single neutron occupying the $\nu h_{11/2}$ neutron orbit. This idea is also supported by a constant value of the magnetic moment, and a linear trend in the nuclear quadrupole moments. In this shell model picture, a particle occupying an orbit around closed shells has a negative quadrupole moment, which is interpreted as polarizing a spherical core towards an oblate deformation ($Q_{s}<0$) [@Ney03]. If neutrons are added to the same orbit, the values of quadrupole moments cross zero when the orbit is half-filled, and take positive values when more than half of the orbit is occupied. This is interpreted as a “hole” polarizing the core towards prolate deformation ($Q_{s} >0$). Similar trends have been observed in the calcium ($Z$ = 20) [@Gar15], nickel ($Z$ = 28) [@Wra17] and lead ($Z$ = 82) [@Ney03] regions.
New trends in neutron-rich nuclei
---------------------------------
Recent developments in both experimental and theoretical tools have provided a deeper insight in our understanding of nuclear properties at extreme proton-to-neutron ratios. Particular interest has been focused on the evolution of nuclear properties towards the suggested neutron-rich doubly magic nuclei: $^{52,54}$Ca ($Z$ = 20, $N$ = 32,34)[@Kre14; @Gar16; @Wie13; @Ste13], $^{78}$Ni ($Z$ = 28, $N$ = 50)[@Yan16; @Han16; @Bis16; @Tan19], and $^{132}$Sn ($Z$ = 50, $N$ = 82) [@Gor19; @Ham18]. These regions of the nuclear chart are being studied by several experimental techniques providing tests of theoretical descriptions at limits of the nuclear existence. While most of the measured experimental properties ($S_{2n}$, $E(2^+)$, $B(E2)$, and $Q_s$) have been described by available nuclear models [@Wie13; @Ste13; @Gar15; @Tog18; @Tan19], the description of the nuclear size ($\langle r^2\rangle$) has posed new challenges for modern nuclear theory [@Eks15; @Gar16; @Lap16; @Gor19; @Mil19]. This problem has been tackled with density functional theory, where satisfactory description of charge radii have been obtained in the calcium [@Mil19] and tin regions [@Gor19]. However, a description in the ab-initio framework has not been achieved yet [@Gar16; @Lap16].
Figure \[fig:radii\] shows the changes of the mean-squared charge radii around the calcium, nickel, and tin regions. The values for each isotopic chain are shown with respect to the value at the closed neutron shells. While a strong element dependence is seen close to stability, the charge radii of neutron-rich isotopes beyond the neutron closed-shell appear to increase with surprisingly similar slopes. The radii of the proton-closed-shell calcium isotopes increase as rapid as the open shell isotopes Mn ($Z$ = 25) and Fe ($Z$ = 26).
Similar charge radii trends have been observed for isotopes around the nickel and tin regions. As illustrated in Figure \[fig:radii\] ii), the nuclear charge radii evolution in the nickel region present a noticeable dependence with the atomic number up to the neutron number $N$ = 50. However, for neutron-rich nuclei the mean-squared charge radii of different elements increase with the same slope. Beyond $N$ = 50, the radii of isotopes near to the proton closed-shell such as zinc ($Z$ = 30) increase with the same magnitude as the open proton shell isotopes krypton ($Z$ = 36) and rubidium ($Z$ = 37). These trends are almost identical in the tin region below and beyond the neutron number $N$ = 82 (see Figure \[fig:radii\]iii ).
The rapid increase of the nuclear charge radii observed beyond the neutron number $N$ = 28 is in contrast with the patterns seen in isotopes close to stability. For neutron-rich nuclei in the calcium region, the discontinuities seen in other observables such as $S_{2n}$ [@Wie13] and $E(2^+)$ [@Ste13] values at neutron number $N$ = 32, do not appear to be evident in the nuclear charge radii trends. A compilation of different properties measured in the calcium region is shown in Figure \[fig:ca\_region\]. The signatures of closed shells at $N$ = 20 and $N$ = 28 appears across all observables. For the nuclear charge radii (Figure \[fig:ca\_region\]i ) the signatures at $N$ = 20 are present but less pronounced than for $N$ = 28. At $N$ = 32 and $N$ = 34 the clear agreement for the signs of shell closures among the different observables breaks down, and distinct regular patterns appear for different observables.
Only very recently systematic measurements have been achieved for the nuclear charge radii in the vicinity of calcium and tin isotopes beyond $N$ = 28 and $N$ = 82 [@Gar16; @Han16; @Gor19]. The charge radii and electromagnetic moments of $^{58-70}$Ni, $^{124-134}$Sn and $^{112-134}$Sb isotopes have been measured by the COLLAPS collaboration at ISOLDE-CERN [@Ett19; @Gor19]. Moreover, results for $^{47-52}$K ($Z$ = 19), $^{58-78}$Cu ($Z$ = 29), $^{104-111}$Sn ($Z$ = 50) and $^{101-131}$In ($Z=49$) isotopes have been obtained by the CRIS collaboration at ISOLDE-CERN [@Kos19; @Kos19b; @gro19; @Ver19]. Current efforts to extend these measurements to more exotic calcium, potassium, indium and tin isotopes are underway [@Gar16b; @Gar17; @Gar17b; @Kos19b].
Conclusions
===========
Despite the drastic difference in the interactions between their constituents, the collective properties of strongly correlated many-body systems exhibit surprisingly common features. A common feature is the appearance of shell structures and collective phenomena with seemingly simple trends. From dust particles governed by coulomb interactions, atomic clusters interacting by covalent bonds and inter-atomic potentials, up to nuclei governed by short-range nuclear forces. The interactions, length scale and dynamics are very different, but these systems present similar signatures of shell structures and collective phenomena. Perhaps the commonalities between these often seemingly disparate many-body systems may allow further mutual advancements in different fields, as for example was found in the field of atomic nanoclusters by the successful application of modified nuclear structure models.
The recent developments in many-body theory and the continuous increase in computing power have allowed an unprecedented reductionist insight of the emergent of physical phenomena. This connection between reductionist and emergence viewpoints is grounded uniquely through empirical observations.
The microscopic description of strongly correlated many-body systems demands different theoretical challenges. In contrast to other quantum systems, the atomic nucleus is formed by two different constituents (protons and neutrons) that interact mainly by the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. Recent developments in many-body methods and higher computing power have provided great steps towards the understanding of the microscopic origin of collective phenomena in different regions of the nuclear chart [@Lau16; @Hag16E; @Ots19; @Cau05; @Tog16; @Leo17]. However, forming a consistent and unified microscopic description of the distinct nuclear phenomena remains as an open problem for nuclear theory. A particular challenge has been the description of nuclear charge radii, where new data in neutron-rich nuclei all exhibit an intriguingly simple increase in charge radii beyond nuclear closed-shells. Moreover, the electromagnetic properties of isotopes around magic numbers of protons and neutrons have been found to exhibit astonishingly simple trends. The microscopic description of these simple patterns, which are predicted by the oldest models of nuclear physics, is a major challenge for modern nuclear theory.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by ERC Consolidator Grant No.648381 (FNPMLS); STFC grants ST/L005794/1,\
ST/L005786/1, ST/P004423/1 and Ernest Rutherford Grant No. ST/L002868/1; GOA 15/010 from KU Leuven, BriX Research Program No. P7/12; the FWO-Vlaanderen (Belgium); the European Unions Grant Agreement 654002 (ENSAR2). We thank A. Koszorus and S. Wilkins for helpful comments and suggestions.
[^1]: *E-mail: [email protected]*
[^2]: *E-mail: [email protected]*
[^3]: Invited contribution prepared for the special issue of “The tower of effective (field) theories and the emergence of nuclear phenomena”
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ cross section is measured in the center-of-mass energy range $1.05-2.00$ GeV at the SND detector. The measurement is based on data with an integrated luminosity of 35 pb$^{-1}$ collected at the VEPP-2000 $e^+e^-$-collider. The obtained results are consistent with the previous most accurate data obtained in the BABAR experiment and have a comparable accuracy.'
author:
- 'M. N. Achasov'
- 'V. M. Aulchenko'
- 'A. Yu. Barnyakov'
- 'M. Yu. Barnyakov'
- 'K. I. Beloborodov'
- 'A. V. Berdyugin'
- 'D. E. Berkaev'
- 'A. G. Bogdanchikov'
- 'A. A. Botov'
- 'A. R. Buzykaev'
- 'T. V. Dimova'
- 'V. P. Druzhinin'
- 'V. B. Golubev'
- 'L. V. Kardapoltsev'
- 'A. G. Kharlamov'
- 'S. A. Kononov'
- 'I. A. Koop'
- 'A. A. Korol'
- 'S. V. Koshuba'
- 'D. P. Kovrizhin'
- 'E. A. Kravchenko'
- 'A. S. Kupich'
- 'A. P. Lysenko'
- 'K. A. Martin'
- 'A. E. Obrazovsky'
- 'A. P. Onuchin'
- 'A. V. Otboyev'
- 'E. V. Pakhtusova'
- 'E. A. Perevedentsev'
- 'Yu. A. Rogovsky'
- 'S. I. Serednyakov'
- 'Yu. M. Shatunov'
- 'P. Yu. Shatunov'
- 'D. A. Shtol'
- 'Z. K. Silagadze'
- 'A. N. Skrinsky'
- 'I. K. Surin'
- 'Yu. A. Tikhonov'
- 'Yu. V. Usov'
- 'A. V. Vasiljev'
- 'I. M. Zemlyansky'
title: 'Measurement of the $\mathbf{e^+e^-\to K^+K^-}$ cross section in the energy range $\mathbf{\sqrt{s}=1.05-2.0}$ GeV'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper we continue the study of $e^+e^-$-annihilation into kaon pairs with the SND detector begun in experiments at the VEPP-2M collider [@sndkc; @sndkn1; @sndkn2]. Data collected with the upgraded SND detector [@snd1; @snd2; @snd3; @snd4] in experiments at the VEPP-2000 collider [@vepp] allow to extend the energy range under study up to 2 GeV and improve the accuracy of cross section measurements.
One of the goals of the experiments at VEPP-2000 is the measurement of the total cross section of $e^+e^-$-annihilation into hadrons necessary for the Standard Model calculation of the muon anomalous magnetic moment and the running electromagnetic coupling. The process $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ studied in this work gives a significant contribution to the total hadronic cross section in the center-of-mass (c.m.) energy range $\sqrt{s}=1-2$ GeV.
The combined analysis of the $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ and $e^+e^-\to K_SK_L$ cross sections and the spectral function in the $\tau^-\to K^-K^0\nu_\tau$ decay allows to test the conserved-vector-current hypothesis, as well as to separate isovector and isoscalar parts of the $\gamma^\ast\to K\bar{K}$ amplitude. The latter is needed, in particular, to measure the branching fractions for the decays of excited vector states of the $\rho$, $\omega$, $\phi$ families to kaon pairs.
The process $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ at energies above the $\phi$-meson resonance was studied in the OLYA [@olya], DM1 [@dm1], DM2 [@dm2], SND@VEPP-2M [@sndkc], and BABAR [@babar] experiments. The most accurate measurement to date was performed by BABAR using the initial-state-radiation technique. It should be noted that there are significant differences between the SND@VEPP-2M and BABAR measurements at $\sqrt{s}<1.4$ GeV, and between the DM2 and BABAR measurements at $\sqrt{s}=1.33-1.64$ GeV [@babar]. In this paper, the $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ cross section is measured in the energy range $\sqrt{s}=1.05 \div 2.00$ GeV with an accuracy not worse than that in the BABAR experiment.
The $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ study is also useful from the methodical point of view. The charged kaon identification in the upgraded SND detector is based on information from the threshold aerogel Cherenkov counters [@snd3]. The present analysis is the first work using this identification system and demonstrates its ability to select events with charged kaons.
Detector and experiment\[sec\_det\]
===================================
SND is an universal nonmagnetic detector collecting data at the VEPP-2000 $e^+e^-$ collider. The main part of the detector is a three-layer electromagnetic calorimeter [@snd1] consisting of 1640 NaI(Tl) crystals. The total thickness of the calorimeter is 13.4 radiation lengths. Its energy resolution for photons is $\sigma_E/E = 4.2\% /\sqrt[4\,]{E(\mathrm{GeV})}$, and the angular resolution is $\sigma_{\phi},\sigma_{\theta}\simeq1.5^\circ$. The solid-angle coverage of the calorimeter is about 95% of the $4\pi$. Inside the calorimeter, a nine-layer drift chamber [@snd2] is installed, which is used for measurement of directions and production points of charged particles. Charged particle identification is based on information from the system of threshold aerogel Cherenkov counters (ACC) [@snd3]. It consists of 9 counters, which form a cylinder located directly behind the drift chamber. The thickness of the aerogel is about 30 mm. The counters cover the polar angle range $50^\circ<\theta<132^\circ$. The Cherenkov light is collected using wavelength shifters located inside the aerogel radiator. In the data analysis, the coordinates of the particle entrance to ACC are calculated. Information from ACC is used only if the particle track extrapolates to the ACC active area that excludes the regions of shifters and gaps between counters. The active area is 81% of the ACC area. There are two ACC options, with a refractive index of 1.05 and 1.13. At energies above the threshold of kaons production ACC with the higher refractive index is used, and a kaon is identified by the requirement of no Cherenkov signal in ACC. For pions, the threshold momentum is about 265 MeV/$c$.
In this paper, data with an integrated luminosity of 34.6 pb$^{-1}$ are analyzed, which were recorded in several scans of the c.m. energy interval from 1.05 to 2.00 GeV in 2011 and 2012.
During the experiments, the beam energy was monitored using measurements of the magnetic field in the collider bending magnets. For absolute calibration of the collider energy, a scan of the $\phi(1020)$ resonance and its mass measurement were performed. In 2012, the energy was measured in several energy points near 2 GeV using the back-scattering-laser-light system [@COMPTON]. The absolute energy measurements were used to calibrate the momentum measurement in the CMD-3 detector, which collected data at VEPP-2000 in parallel with SND. The c.m. energies for all scan points were then determined with an accuracy of 2–6 MeV using average momentum of Bhabha and $e^+e^-\to p\bar{p}$ events [@BEAM1; @BEAM2].
Selection of $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^-$ events
=======================================
The $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^-$ events are detected as a pair of back-to-back (collinear) charged particles. Events may contain extra charged tracks originating from $\delta$-electrons or beam background, and spurious photons originating from beam background and kaon nuclear interaction in the calorimeter. We select events with at least two reconstructed charged particles. Two of them with highest energy deposition in the calorimeter must satisfy the following requirements:
- the distance between the track and the beam axis $|d_{i}| < 0.25$ cm;
- the difference between $z$ coordinates of the interaction point and the point at the track closest to the beam axis $|z_{i}| < 7$ cm;
- $|z_1-z_2| < 1$ cm;
- $|\Delta\phi|< 10^\circ$ for $\sqrt{s}<1.09$ GeV,\
$|\Delta\phi|< 5^\circ$ for $1.09 < \sqrt{s} < 1.20$ GeV,\
$|\Delta\phi|< 3^\circ$ for $\sqrt{s}> 1.2$ GeV,\
where $\Delta\phi=|\phi_1-\phi_2|-180^\circ$, and $\phi_i$ is the track azimuthal angle;
- $|\Delta\theta|< 10^\circ$ for $\sqrt{s} < 1.2$ GeV,\
$|\Delta\theta|< 7^\circ$ for $\sqrt{s}> 1.2$ GeV,\
where $\Delta\theta=\theta_1+\theta_2-180^\circ$, and $\theta_i$ is the track polar angle;
- one of the particles extrapolates to the ACC active area and does not produce any signal in ACC.
At $\sqrt{s} < 1.2$ GeV, a significant suppression of background processes with electrons, muons and pions in the final state can be achieved using ionization energy loss $(dE/dx)$ measurements in the drift chamber. The following condition on the sum of $dE/dx$ of two particles is applied: $(dE/dx)_1+(dE/dx)_2 > k (dE/dx)_e$, where $(dE/dx)_e$ is the average $dE/dx$ for electrons, and the coefficient $k$ is equal to 3 for $\sqrt{s} < 1.1$, and 2.5 for $1.1 < \sqrt{s} < 1.2$ GeV.
At $\sqrt{s} > 1.9$ GeV it is required that $dE/dx$ of one of the charged particles do not exceed $1.5(dE/dx)_e$. This condition is used to suppress the background from $e^+e^-\to p\bar{p}$ events.
Background subtraction\[bkg\]
=============================
Background events can be divided into two groups, collinear and noncollinear. The first group includes two-body processes $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$, $\mu^+\mu^-$, $\pi^+\pi^-$ and $p\bar{p}$, as well as events with cosmic muons passing near the interaction point. The second group contains mainly multibody processes with two charged particles: $e^+e^-\to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0\pi^0$, $K^+K^-\pi^0$, etc. The process $e^+e^-\to \phi\gamma \to K^+ K^- \gamma$, where the photon is emitted from the initial state, also contributes to the second group. This process is strongly suppressed by the condition on $\Delta\theta$. Its contribution is significant only near $\phi$-meson resonance, at $\sqrt{s} < 1.06$ GeV, and in the narrow region $1.75 < \sqrt{s} < 1.80$ GeV, where the $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^- \gamma$ cross section is very small.
The background subtraction is performed in two stages. At the first stage the number of background noncollinear events is determined. The collinear background is subtracted at the second stage.
Noncollinear background
-----------------------
![\[dfdt\]The two-dimensional $\Delta \phi$ versus $\Delta \theta$ distribution for selected data events with $\sqrt{s}=1.4-1.6$ GeV. The dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the conditions on $\Delta \phi$ and $\Delta \theta$. The central box is a signal region corresponding the standard selection criteria for $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^-$ candidates.](fig1.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
![\[spect1\] The distribution of the normalized total energy deposition in the calorimeter for selected data events with $\sqrt{s}=1.4-1.6$ GeV (points with error bars). The shaded histogram represents the noncollinear background. The dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted curves show the contribution of $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$ and cosmic events, $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^-$ events, and $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ events, respectively. The solid curve is the sum of these three components.](fig2.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
The noncollinear background is estimated from the two-dimensional distribution of $\Delta \phi$ and $\Delta \theta$. Such a distribution for selected data events from the energy range $\sqrt{s}=1.4-1.6$ GeV is shown in Fig. \[dfdt\]. The dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the conditions on $\Delta \phi$ and $\Delta \theta$. The central box in the plot is a signal region corresponding to the standard selection criteria for $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^-$ candidates. The peak of signal and background collinear processes is clearly seen in the center of the signal region. Noncollinear processes is expected to have a flat $\Delta \phi$ vs $\Delta \theta$ distribution. The number of noncollinear background events in the signal region ($n_{\rm bkg}$) is estimated from the number of events in four regions located in the corners of the two-dimensional plot ($n^\prime_{\rm bkg}$) as $n_{\rm bkg}=\alpha_{\rm bkg}n^\prime_{\rm bkg}$. The value of the $\alpha_{\rm bkg}$ coefficient is estimated from Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of the main noncollinear background processes $e^+e^-\to 3\pi$, $e^+e^-\to 4\pi$, $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^-\pi^0$, $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^-\eta$ and found to be equal to unity with 10% uncertanty. Figure \[spect1\] shows the distribution of the normalized total energy deposition in the calorimeter $E_{tot}/\sqrt{s}$ for data events from the signal region. The shaded histogram shows the contribution of noncollinear background events estimated using the procedure described above. In further analysis, the noncollinear background is subtracted from the number of events in the signal region. Its fraction changes slowly from 3% at 1.1 GeV to 5% at 1.65 GeV, and then increases up to 40% at $\sqrt{s} > 1.8$ GeV.
Collinear background
--------------------
![\[spect2\] The distribution of the normalized total energy deposition in the calorimeter for data events with $\sqrt{s}=1.4-1.6$ GeV selected with the additional requirement that the muon system fires (points with error bars). The shaded histogram represents the noncollinear background. The descriptions of the curves are given in the caption of Fig. \[spect1\].](fig3.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
![\[spect3\] The distribution of the normalized total energy deposition in the calorimeter for data events with $\sqrt{s}=1.4-1.6$ GeV in which the condition of no ACC signal is applied to both particles (points with error bars). The shaded histogram represents the noncollinear background. The descriptions of the curves are given in the caption of Fig. \[spect1\].](fig4.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
The contributions of the process under study (middle peak) and background processes, $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$ plus cosmic muons (left peak) and $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ (right peak), are clearly seen in the $E_{tot}/\sqrt{s}$ distribution shown in Fig. \[spect1\]. It should be noted that the requirement of no ACC signal for one of the charged particles suppresses $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ and $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$ events by a factor of about 300. Background from the $e^+e^-\to p\bar{p}$ process is completely rejected by the selection criteria used, in particular, the requirement on $dE/dx$.
The $E_{tot}/\sqrt{s}$ distribution for $e^+e^-\to \pi^+\pi^-$ events is close to that for kaons. Their fraction under the kaon peak calculated using MC simulation decreases from 5% at 1.2 GeV to 0.1% at $\sqrt{s}=1.6$ GeV, and then increases reaching about 8% at 1.8 GeV. The calculation uses the $e^+e^-\to \pi^+\pi^-$ cross section measured in Ref. [@pipi].
The accuracy of the $e^+e^-\to \pi^+\pi^-$ simulation and, in particular, the probability for a pion to not produce a signal in ACC are tested in the energy range $1.05 \geq \sqrt{s} \leq 1.15$ GeV, where the cross section of this process is relatively high. The standard criteria are applied to select $e^+e^-\to \pi^+\pi^-$ events, except the condition on $(dE/dx)$, which is inverted to suppress events with kaons: $(dE/dx)_1+(dE/dx)_2 < 2 (dE/dx)_e$. Events of the $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ process are suppressed by the requirement $E_{tot}/\sqrt{s} < 0.7$, while $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$ and cosmic background is rejected by the muon-system veto and the condition that the energy deposition in the upper half of the calorimeter is outside the range of the peak from minimum-ionizing particles. The number of selected $e^+e^-\to \pi^+\pi^-$ events coincides with the number expected from simulation within 10%. This value is taken as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty on the pion background calculation.
To determine the number of kaon events, the $E_{tot}/\sqrt{s}$ distribution is fitted by a sum of muon, kaon and electron distributions. The distributions for background processes are obtained from data. A practically pure sample of $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ events is selected by the requirement that one of the particles in an event passes through the ACC active area and produces a Cherenkov signal. The muon distribution is obtained using events selected with the requirement that the muon system fires. The $E_{tot}/\sqrt{s}$ distribution for such events is shown in Fig. \[spect2\]. It is seen that the muon peak survives, while kaon and electron events are strongly suppressed. To study the distribution for cosmic muons, the condition on the parameters $d_i$ is modified: $0.25 < |d_{1,2}| < 0.5$. This allows to reject $e^+e^-$ annihilation events and obtain a pure spectrum of cosmic muons. It is found that the muon distribution consist of two components. One of the components, with higher energy deposition, contains $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$ events and events with energetic cosmic muons. The other component contains cosmic muons with momentum less than the threshold momentum for muons in ACC. This second component is seen in Fig. \[spect3\], which shows the $E_{tot}/\sqrt{s}$ distribution for events, in which the condition of no ACC signal is applied to both particles.
The kaon distribution is obtained using simulation. To take into account a possible inaccuracy in simulation of detector response, the distribution is convolved with a Gaussian distribution, the parameters which (a shift of the peak position $\delta x$ and sigma $\sigma_x$, where $x\equiv E_{tot}/\sqrt{s}$) are determined from the fit to data. The fit results for events from the energy range $\sqrt{s}=1.4-1.6$ selected with different conditions are shown in Figs. \[spect1\], \[spect2\] and \[spect3\]. It is seen that the fitted curves describe data well. For this range the parameters $\delta x$ and $\sigma_x$ are found to be $-0.019\pm0.002$ and $0.034\pm0.006$, respectively.
The fitted numbers of kaon events with subtracted $e^+e^-\to \pi^+\pi^-$ contribution are listed in Tables \[table1\] and \[table2\] for the 2011 and 2012 scans, respectively.
$\sqrt{s}$, GeV $L$, nb$^{-1}$ $N_{exp}$ $\varepsilon_0$ $1+\delta$ $\sigma_0$, nb
----------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------ ----------------------------
1.047 426 $ 3975\pm 63$ 0.229 1.126 $36.243\pm 0.592\pm 0.471$
1.075 566 $ 3744\pm 61$ 0.400 0.895 $18.483\pm 0.305\pm 0.240$
1.097 568 $ 3436\pm 59$ 0.487 0.876 $14.184\pm 0.244\pm 0.184$
1.124 550 $ 3292\pm 58$ 0.594 0.890 $11.307\pm 0.199\pm 0.147$
1.151 499 $ 2460\pm 50$ 0.584 0.896 $ 9.415\pm 0.192\pm 0.122$
1.174 557 $ 2917\pm 54$ 0.638 0.898 $ 9.148\pm 0.171\pm 0.119$
1.196 566 $ 2441\pm 48$ 0.618 0.903 $ 7.737\pm 0.153\pm 0.101$
1.223 575 $ 2350\pm 56$ 0.639 0.880 $ 7.269\pm 0.175\pm 0.104$
1.245 480 $ 1747\pm 49$ 0.624 0.879 $ 6.624\pm 0.187\pm 0.092$
1.273 513 $ 1928\pm 50$ 0.654 0.881 $ 6.518\pm 0.170\pm 0.089$
1.295 497 $ 1680\pm 52$ 0.643 0.881 $ 5.964\pm 0.184\pm 0.081$
1.323 565 $ 1900\pm 51$ 0.666 0.883 $ 5.718\pm 0.154\pm 0.077$
1.344 598 $ 1801\pm 52$ 0.660 0.885 $ 5.160\pm 0.148\pm 0.069$
1.374 626 $ 1971\pm 49$ 0.668 0.888 $ 5.308\pm 0.132\pm 0.072$
1.394 624 $ 1834\pm 48$ 0.661 0.889 $ 5.001\pm 0.131\pm 0.067$
1.423 588 $ 1639\pm 43$ 0.683 0.891 $ 4.579\pm 0.121\pm 0.063$
1.443 473 $ 1200\pm 39$ 0.668 0.893 $ 4.254\pm 0.137\pm 0.057$
1.471 620 $ 1551\pm 42$ 0.686 0.891 $ 4.093\pm 0.111\pm 0.056$
1.494 754 $ 1648\pm 50$ 0.672 0.892 $ 3.646\pm 0.110\pm 0.049$
1.522 508 $ 1138\pm 38$ 0.684 0.889 $ 3.679\pm 0.124\pm 0.050$
1.543 578 $ 1159\pm 42$ 0.668 0.889 $ 3.382\pm 0.122\pm 0.045$
1.572 533 $ 1140\pm 39$ 0.684 0.889 $ 3.518\pm 0.121\pm 0.048$
1.594 462 $ 959\pm 41$ 0.667 0.888 $ 3.507\pm 0.152\pm 0.047$
1.623 545 $ 1010\pm 34$ 0.684 0.898 $ 3.022\pm 0.102\pm 0.043$
1.643 499 $ 846\pm 32$ 0.662 0.911 $ 2.815\pm 0.106\pm 0.039$
1.669 483 $ 663\pm 28$ 0.679 0.937 $ 2.155\pm 0.091\pm 0.031$
1.693 490 $ 494\pm 25$ 0.668 0.956 $ 1.570\pm 0.081\pm 0.023$
1.723 539 $ 349\pm 25$ 0.682 0.976 $ 0.968\pm 0.069\pm 0.020$
1.742 529 $ 224\pm 18$ 0.662 1.014 $ 0.633\pm 0.051\pm 0.013$
1.774 485 $ 111\pm 13$ 0.683 1.100 $ 0.310\pm 0.036\pm 0.009$
1.793 412 $ 50\pm 10$ 0.667 1.084 $ 0.170\pm 0.035\pm 0.008$
1.826 529 $ 74\pm 12$ 0.685 0.957 $ 0.215\pm 0.034\pm 0.012$
1.849 438 $ 44\pm 10$ 0.654 0.895 $ 0.171\pm 0.038\pm 0.020$
1.871 669 $ 116\pm 15$ 0.683 0.871 $ 0.291\pm 0.036\pm 0.017$
1.893 624 $ 125\pm 15$ 0.668 0.867 $ 0.345\pm 0.040\pm 0.016$
1.901 494 $ 96\pm 14$ 0.650 0.867 $ 0.343\pm 0.049\pm 0.013$
1.927 626 $ 111\pm 15$ 0.644 0.872 $ 0.316\pm 0.042\pm 0.014$
1.953 330 $ 66\pm 11$ 0.637 0.878 $ 0.357\pm 0.061\pm 0.015$
1.978 449 $ 85\pm 14$ 0.642 0.886 $ 0.332\pm 0.055\pm 0.017$
2.005 582 $ 122\pm 16$ 0.641 0.893 $ 0.367\pm 0.048\pm 0.016$
: \[table1\]Data for the 2011 scan. The c.m. energy ($\sqrt{s}$), integrated luminosity ($L$), number of selected $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ events ($N_{exp}$), detection efficiency ($\varepsilon_0$), radiative correction factor ($1+\delta$), and $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ Born cross section ($\sigma_0$). For the number of events, only the statistical uncertainty is quoted. For the cross section, the first error is statistical, the second is systematic.
$\sqrt{s}$, GeV $L$, nb$^{-1}$ $N_{exp}$ $\varepsilon_0$ $1+\delta$ $\sigma_0$, nb
----------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------ ----------------------------
1.277 763 $ 2795\pm 62$ 0.653 0.882 $ 6.358\pm 0.142\pm 0.105$
1.357 845 $ 2676\pm 61$ 0.670 0.886 $ 5.339\pm 0.122\pm 0.089$
1.435 1032 $ 2556\pm 61$ 0.675 0.892 $ 4.114\pm 0.099\pm 0.069$
1.515 940 $ 2031\pm 54$ 0.678 0.891 $ 3.574\pm 0.094\pm 0.060$
1.595 822 $ 1604\pm 44$ 0.666 0.888 $ 3.302\pm 0.090\pm 0.055$
1.674 914 $ 1044\pm 36$ 0.682 0.944 $ 1.770\pm 0.062\pm 0.031$
1.716 512 $ 373\pm 25$ 0.673 0.967 $ 1.115\pm 0.075\pm 0.025$
1.758 804 $ 282\pm 21$ 0.658 1.068 $ 0.503\pm 0.038\pm 0.014$
1.798 1012 $ 136\pm 18$ 0.683 1.069 $ 0.187\pm 0.025\pm 0.016$
1.840 568 $ 103\pm 15$ 0.676 0.915 $ 0.293\pm 0.041\pm 0.014$
1.874 936 $ 152\pm 18$ 0.675 0.870 $ 0.276\pm 0.033\pm 0.016$
1.903 962 $ 162\pm 18$ 0.677 0.867 $ 0.287\pm 0.033\pm 0.017$
1.926 680 $ 148\pm 18$ 0.679 0.872 $ 0.367\pm 0.044\pm 0.016$
1.945 929 $ 145\pm 19$ 0.676 0.876 $ 0.263\pm 0.034\pm 0.015$
1.967 755 $ 147\pm 18$ 0.666 0.885 $ 0.331\pm 0.041\pm 0.015$
1.989 641 $ 131\pm 17$ 0.666 0.889 $ 0.346\pm 0.046\pm 0.015$
Detection efficiency\[detef\]
=============================
![\[eff0\] The energy dependence of the detection efficiency for $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^-$ events with $E_\gamma=0$.](fig5.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
![\[eff2\] The dependence of the detection efficiency on the energy of the photon emitted from the initial state at $\sqrt{s}=1.6$ GeV.](fig6.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
The detection efficiency for the process under study is determined using MC simulation. The simulation takes into account extra photon radiation from the initial state [@RadCor; @RadCor2]. The detection efficiency ($\varepsilon$) is calculated as a function of $\sqrt{s}$ and the energy of the photon ($E_\gamma$) emitted by the initial particles. The energy dependence of the detection efficiency for $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^-$ events with $E_\gamma=0$ is shown in Fig. \[eff0\]. The decrease of the efficiency when the energy approaches the reaction threshold is explained by an increase of the fraction of events with a kaon decayed before ACC. A nonmonotonic behavior of the detection efficiency as a function of energy is due to variation of experimental conditions during data taking, in particular, the number of dead detector channels and the level of beam background. A typical dependence of the detection efficiency on $E_\gamma$ is shown in Fig. \[eff2\].
The efficiency determined from MC simulation is corrected to take into account a difference between data and simulation in detector response and the absence of the final state radiation (FSR) in the $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^-$ simulation. Corrections associated with inaccuracy of detector simulation is described by three correction factors: for kinematic selection criteria ($c_{\rm kin}$), e.g., the conditions on $\Delta\theta$ and $\Delta\phi$, for the geometric condition that one of the particles must pass through the active ACC area ($c_{\rm geo}$), and for the kaon identification condition ($c_{\rm id}$). To measure the corrections of the first group, the condition on the parameter under study is loosened. Tighter conditions may be applied on other kinematic parameters. The correction factor is calculated as follows: $$c_i=\frac{n/n^\prime}{m/m^\prime},
\label{noncollbkg}$$ where $n$ and $m$ are the numbers of events in data and simulation obtained with the standard condition on the parameter under study, and $n^\prime$ and $m^\prime$ are the same numbers with a looser condition. The total correction factor for the kinematic conditions is calculated as a product of the factors obtained for each of the condition and is found to be $c_{\rm kin} =1.008\pm0.002$.
The identification correction is determined as follows. The cross section for $e^+e^-\to K^+ K^-$ is measured for two sets of selection criteria. In the first set it is required that both particles pass through the active ACC area, but only one of them is identified as a kaon (no signal in ACC). In the second set it is required that both particles pass through the active ACC area and are identified as kaons. Since the geometric conditions are identical in the both selections, the ratio of the cross sections is equal to the value of the identification correction factor. It is found that $c_{\rm id}$ is independent of energy and is equal to $1.003\pm0.007$ for the 2011 scan and $1.004\pm0.012$ for the 2012 scan. The closeness of the obtained correction factors to unity indicates that our simulation reproduces the ACC response for kaons well.
The geometric correction is estimated using $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ events. The fractions of events, in which one of the the particle tracks extrapolates to the ACC active area, are determined in data and simulation. From their ratio the geometric correction factor is obtained to be $c_{\rm geo} = 1.0017\pm0.0004$ for the 2011 scan and $c_{\rm geo} = 0.9974\pm0.0007$ for the 2012 scan.
As was mentioned above, our signal simulation does not include FSR and therefore reproduces the $\Delta\theta$ and $\Delta\phi$ distributions incorrectly. In particular, some fraction of FSR events falls into the corner regions of the two-dimensional $\Delta\phi$ vs $\Delta\theta$ distribution in Fig. \[dfdt\], which are used to estimate the noncollinear background. The effect of FSR on the detection efficiency is studied with the event generator based on Ref. [@arbuzov], which includes both initial and final state radiation. Using MC simulation at the generator level the detection efficiencies calculated with and without FSR are compared. The inclusion of FSR reduces the efficiency by 0.1% at 1.1 GeV, 0.7% at 1.5 GeV and 1.3% at 2.0 GeV.
The corrected values of the detection efficiency $\varepsilon_0\equiv\varepsilon(E_\gamma=0)$ are listed in Tables \[table1\] and \[table2\] for 2011 and 2012, respectively. The uncertainty of the total correction factor is 0.7% for 2011 and 1.2% for 2012. These values are taken as an estimate of the systematic uncertainties on the detection efficiency.
Born cross section
==================
The experimentally observed cross section of the process under study $\sigma_{\rm vis}$ is related to the Born cross section $\sigma_{0}$ by the formula: $$\sigma_{\rm vis}(\sqrt{s})=\int\limits^{z_{\rm max}}_{0} dz\sigma_{0}
(\sqrt{s(1-z)})F(z,s)\varepsilon(\sqrt{s},z),
\label{bornsec}$$ where $F(z,s)$ is a function describing the probability to emit extra photons with the total energy $z\sqrt{s}/2$ from the initial state [@RadCor], $\varepsilon(\sqrt{s},z)$ is the detection efficiency, and $z_{\rm max}=1-4m_K^2/s$. The following procedure is used to determine the experimental values of the Born cross section. The measured cross section $\sigma_{{\rm vis},i}={N_{{\rm exp},i}}/{L_i}$, where $N_{{\rm exp},i}$ is the number of selected events with subtracted background and $L_i$ is the integrated luminosity for $i$-th energy point, is fitted by Eq. (\[bornsec\]) with a theoretical model for the Born cross section. As a result of the fit, parameters of the model are determined, and the radiation correction factor is calculated as $1+\delta(s)=\sigma_{\rm vis}(s)/(\varepsilon_0(s)\sigma_{0}(s))$, where $\varepsilon_0(s)\equiv\varepsilon(s,z=0)$. The experimental values of the Born cross sections are then obtained as $$\sigma_{0,i}=\frac{\sigma_{{\rm vis},i}}{\varepsilon_0(s_i)(1+\delta(s_i))}.
\label{secborni}$$
![\[crsecb\] The Born cross section for the process $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ measured in this work and in the BABAR experiment [@babar]. The curve is the result of the fit described in the text.](fig7.eps){width="90.00000%"}
The vector meson dominance model is used to describe the Born $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ cross section [@vmd]: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{0}(s)&=& \frac{\pi\alpha^2\beta^3}{3s}|F_K(s)|^2(1+C_{\rm FS}),\\
F_K(s)&=&\sum_{V=\rho,\omega,\phi,{\ldots}}a_Ve^{i\phi_V}\frac{m_V^2}
{m_V^2-s-im_V \Gamma_V(s)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant, $\beta=\sqrt{1-4m_K^2/s}$, $C_{\rm FS}$ is a factor describing radiation corrections to the final state [@cfs], which varies from about 3% at $\sqrt{s}=1.05$ GeV to 0.9% at $\sqrt{s}=2.0$ GeV. The charged kaon electromagnetic form factor $F_K(s)$ is a sum of the contributions of the $\rho$, $\omega$ and $\phi$ resonances and their excited states. The masses ($m_V$), widths ($\Gamma_V$), amplitudes ($a_V$), and the relative phases ($\phi_V$) of the $\rho$, $\omega$ and $\phi$ are fixed using Particle Data Group (PDG) data [@PDG] and SU(3) relations. For the masses and widths of excited states, PDG values are taken, while their amplitudes and phases are free fit parameters. The model describes data reasonably well ($\chi^2/ndf=65/46$). The fit result is shown in Fig. \[crsecb\]. The values of the Born cross section calculated using Eq. (\[secborni\]) together with the values of the radiation correction factors are listed in Tables \[table1\] and \[table2\].
Systematic errors
=================
------------------------ -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
source
$\sqrt{s}<1.8$ GeV $\sqrt{s}>1.8$ GeV $\sqrt{s}<1.8$ GeV $\sqrt{s}>1.8$ GeV
Luminosity 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Detection efficiency 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2
Background subtraction 0.7 4.1 0.7 4.1
Nuclear interaction 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Radiative correction 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total 1.4 4.3 1.7 4.4
------------------------ -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
: \[table3\] The average over the energy intervals systematic uncertainties (%) on the measured $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ cross section.
The sources of systematic uncertainties on the measured cross section are listed in Table \[table3\].
The integrated luminosity is measured on events of the processes $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ and $e^+e^-\to\gamma\gamma$, the cross sections for which are known with an accuracy better than 1%. The relative difference between these two measurements is independent of the c.m. energy and does not exceed 1%. This value is taken as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty on the luminosity measurement.
The uncertainty on the detection efficiency is discussed in Sec. \[detef\]. The systematic uncertainties associated with the subtraction of the noncollinear and $e^+e^-\to \pi^+\pi^-$ backgrounds are discussed in Sec. \[bkg\]. Accuracy of the subtraction of the muon and electron backgrounds in the fit to the $E_{tot}/\sqrt{s}$ distribution is tested by the comparison of the cross sections measured on events with one and two identified kaons. The ratio of the cross sections is described by the coefficient $c_{\rm id}$. Since both electron and muon contributions to the $E_{tot}/\sqrt{s}$ spectra with these two selections are strongly different (see Fig. \[spect1\] and \[spect3\]) and the $c_{\rm id}$ value is consistent with unity, we do not introduce an additional systematic uncertainty associated with the fit to the $E_{tot}/\sqrt{s}$ distribution.
A part of kaon events is lost due to the kaon nuclear interaction in the material before the drift chamber. Its thickness is about $0.5\%$ of the nuclear interaction length. Taking into account that the cross sections for the charged kaon nuclear interactions are well known, we estimate that the systematic uncertainty associated with the kaon nuclear interaction does not exceed 0.1%. The theoretical uncertainty on the radiative correction calculation is less than 0.1% [@RadCor].
We assume that all the sources of systematic uncertainties are independent and add them in quadrature. The resulting total systematic uncertainty is listed in Table \[table3\].
Summary
=======
In this paper, the $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ cross section has been measured in the c.m. energy range 1.05–2.00 GeV. The data with an integrated luminosity of 34.6 pb$^{-1}$ collected with the SND detector at the VEPP-2000 $e^+e^-$ collider VEPP-2000 in 2011 and 2012 have been used for this measurement. The obtained cross section has a complex energy dependence (see. Fig. \[crsecb\]) explained by the fact that all resonances of the $\rho$, $\omega$, and $\phi$ families give contributions to the $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ amplitude.
![\[reldif\] The relative difference between the $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ cross section measured in the BABAR experiment [@babar] and the fit to SND data shown in Fig. \[crsecb\]. For BABAR data (points with error bars), the statistical errors (diagonal elements of the covariance matrix) are shown. The SND and BABAR systematic uncertainties are shown by the light and dark shaded bands, respectively. ](fig8.eps){width="90.00000%"}
The comparison of our measurement with the most accurate previous measurement of the $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ cross section in the BABAR experiment [@babar] is shown in Fig. \[crsecb\] and \[reldif\]. Our measurement is in good agreement with BABAR data and has comparable or better accuracy. We confirm the disagreement with the SND@VEPP-2M [@sndkc] and DM2 [@dm2] $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ data observed by BABAR.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
===============
This work is supported in part by the RFBR grants 16-02-00327-a, 16-02-00014-а and 15-02-01037.
[99]{}
M. N. Achasov [*et al.*]{} (SND Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 072012 (2007).
M. N. Achasov [*et al.*]{} (SND Collaboration), J. Exp. Theor. Phys. [**103**]{}, 720 (2006).
M. N. Achasov [*et al.*]{} (SND Collaboration), JINST [**10**]{}, P09006 (2015).
M. N. Achasov [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**598**]{}, 31 (2009). V. M. Aulchenko [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**598**]{}, 102 (2009). A. Y. Barnyakov [*et al.*]{}, JINST [**9**]{}, C09023 (2014);A. Y. Barnyakov [*et al.*]{}, Instrum. Exp. Tech. [**58**]{}, 30 (2015). V. M. Aulchenko [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**598**]{}, 340 (2009).
A. Romanov [*et al.*]{}, in [*Proceedings of PAC 2013, Pasadena, CA USA*]{}, p.14.
P. M. Ivanov [*et al.*]{} (OLYA Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**107**]{}, 297 (1981).
B. Delcourt [*et al.*]{} (DM1 Collaboration) Phys. Lett. B [**99**]{}, 257 (1981).
D. Bisello [*et al.*]{} (DM2 Collaboration), Z. Phys. C [**39**]{}, 13 (1988).
J. P. Lees [*et al.*]{} (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 032013 (2013).
E. V. Abakumova [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**744**]{}, 35 (2014); E. V. Abakumova [*et al.*]{}, JINST [**10**]{}, T09001 (2015).
R. R. Akhmetshin [*et al.*]{} (CMD-3 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**759**]{}, 634 (2016). D. N. Shemyakin [*et al.*]{} (CMD-3 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**756**]{}, 153 (2016).
B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 231801 (2009).
E. A. Kuraev and V. S. Fadin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**41**]{}, 466 (1985) \[Yad. Fiz. [**41**]{}, 733 (1985)\].
G. Bonneau and F. Martin, Nucl. Phys. B [**27**]{}, 381 (1971).
A. B. Arbuzov et al., JHEP [**9710**]{}, 006 (1997). C. Bruch, A. Khodjamirian and J. H. Kuhn, Eur. Phys. J. C [**39**]{}, 41 (2005).
A. Hoefer, J. Gluza and F. Jegerlehner, Eur. Phys. J. C [**24**]{}, 51 (2002).
K. A. Olive [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C [**38**]{}, 090001 (2014).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The objective of this paper is to correct a substantial, widespread error in parts of the quasielastic scattering literature. This error leads to entirely erroneous interpretations of quasielastic scattering spectra. The error, which is most prominent for interpreting spectra of dilute probe particles diffusing in complex fluids, arises from a valid calculation that is being invoked under circumstances in which its primary assumptions are incorrect.
Quasielastic scattering from dilute probes yields the incoherent structure factor $g^{(1s)}(q,t) = \langle \exp(i q \Delta x(t)) \rangle$, with $q$ being the magnitude of the scattering vector ${\bf q}$ and $\Delta x(t)$ being the probe displacement parallel to ${\bf q}$ during a time interval $t$. The error is the claim that $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ for dilute probe particles uniformly reduces to $\exp(- q^{2} \langle (\Delta x(t))^{2} \rangle/2 )$, regardless of the nature of the surrounding medium. If true, this claim would allow one to use quasielastic scattering to determine the time-dependent mean-square probe displacements in complex fluids. In reality, $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ is determined by all even moments $\langle (\Delta x(t))^{2n} \rangle$, $n = 1, 2, 3,\ldots$, of the displacement distribution function $P(\Delta x,t)$. Only in the very special case of monodisperse probes in a simple Newtonian solvent is $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ entirely determined by $\langle (\Delta x(t))^{2} \rangle$. Furthermore, the Langevin equation approach that ties $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ to $\langle (\Delta x(t))^{2} \rangle$ *also requires with equal certainty* that $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ relaxes as a simple exponential $\exp(- \Gamma t)$, $\Gamma$ being a time-independent constant. Contrariwise, *if the spectrum is not a simple exponential in time, $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ is not determined by $\langle (\Delta x(t))^{2} \rangle$.* Several related subsidiary errors are discussed.
author:
- 'George D. J. Phillies'
title: Interpretation of Quasielastic Scattering Spectra of Probe Species in Complex Fluids
---
Introduction
============
Quasielastic scattering of light, x-rays, and neutrons has proven to be a powerful experimental tool for the study of complex fluids. For dilute macromolecule solutions, quasielastic scattering has extensive analytic applications for particle sizing[@phillies1990z]. With non-dilute solutions and more complex systems, quasielastic scattering reveals consequences of intermacromolecular and other interactions.
In a substantial enhancement of the classical method, the fluid of interest is doped with trace concentrations of monodisperse probe particles. Probes have ranged from small molecules to micron-size colloidal particles. The diffusion of probe particles through the complex fluid is then observed. Early successful studies of probe diffusion in complex fluids using quasielastic light scattering were by Hallett and co-workers[@gray1974a; @turner1976a], who in 1974 and 1976 observed the diffusion of polystyrene spheres through hyaluronic acid and dextran solutions, and compared probe diffusion with the rheological properties of their solutions. The subsequent four decades have seen an enormous extension of this approach[@phillies2011a], including studies of probes in highly viscous simple liquids[@phillies1981z], polymer melts[@lin1986a], chemically cross-linked gels[@schmidt1989b], surfactant solutions[@phillies1993b], protein solutions[@ullmann1985a], and the interior of living cells[@lubyphelps1987a]. More recently, quasielastic x-ray scattering has been used to extend the range of distance scales over which diffusion can be observed[@dierker1995a].
Probe diffusion has also been studied by a series of other physical techniques, each technique being sensitive to distinctive range of time and distance scales or other features of probe motion. For example, fluorescence correlation spectroscopy[@magde1972a], which by varying the probe concentration can measure both the self diffusion coefficient and the mutual diffusion coefficient of the labeled species[@phillies1975a; @scalettar1989a], has in recent years been extensively used to measure tracer diffusion. Recent work using probe diffusion is sometimes termed *microrheology*, the term microrheology referring to a particular model[@mason1996a] for interpreting quasielastic scattering spectra. In some studies, probe diffusion has been viewed as being of interest because it is a path to measuring the viscoelastic properties of the solution. In other studies, probe diffusion has been viewed as being of interest because it measures solution properties that are not the same as the viscoelastic properties of the solution.
A valuable complement to quasielastic scattering studies of probe diffusion is provided by measurements on probes subject to external driving forces. The overwhelming bulk of the literature on driven probe motion is provided by studies of capillary electrophoresis. The electrophoretic literature primarily emphasizes improving separations of different charged species. However, electrophoretic separations often use solutions of neutral polymers as the support medium. At the same time as these experiments are performing separations, these experiments are also giving information on the dynamics of the neutral polymers[@phillies2011a; @phillies2012e]. A substantial literature exists on buoyancy-driven probe motion in the ultracentrifuge[@laurent1963a; @ye1998a]. In a few experiments, magnetic[@hough1999a; @schmidt2000a] or optical[@amblard1996a] tweezers were used to examine oscillatory driven movements of probes. Tweezer experiments are particularly interesting because the experimenter can separately control two of the three: drive force, drive frequency, and particle displacement. An alternative complement to probe diffusion is provided by tracking probes in complex fluids in which the fluid itself is performing driven motion, e.g., shear[@tapadia2006a].
Quasielastic scattering of light and other photons is most commonly studied via correlation methods, in which the quantity measured directly is the intensity-intensity time correlation function $$S(q,t) = \langle I(q,\tau) I(q, \tau+t) \rangle,
\label{eq:Sqtdef}$$ Here $q$ is the magnitude of the scattering vector, $I(q,\tau)$ and $I(q, \tau+t)$ are the scattering intensities over short time intervals near $\tau$ and $\tau+t$, and the brackets $\langle \cdots \rangle$ represent an average. Scattering is said to be due to scatterers within the medium, scatterers generally being represented mathematically by points whose locations are known. Scattering from extended bodies, such as high-molecular-weight polymer chains, is often treated by representing the scattering body as a series of scattering points whose relative positions are partly fixed. If the volume being observed is much larger than the volumes over which particle positions and displacements are correlated, quasielastic scattering corresponds to the intermediate structure factor (or field correlation function) $g^{(1)}(q,t)$ via[@crosignani1975a] $$S(q,t) = A |g^{(1)}(q,t)|^{2} + B.
\label{eq:Sqg1def}$$ In this equation $A$ and $B$ are constants determined by details of the experimental apparatus; these constants have no effect on the time dependence. Homodyne rather than heterodyne detection of the scattered light is assumed. The factorization of $S(q,t)$ into $g^{(1)}(q,t)$ is sometimes termed the “Gaussian approximation”. This Gaussian approximation is not related to the Gaussian approximation for the particle displacements as discussed below.
The intermediate structure factor is in turn determined by the time-dependent positions of the scattering particles via $$g^{(1)}(q,t) = \left\langle \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \exp(\imath {\bf q} \cdot ({\bf r}_{i}(t+\tau) - {\bf r}_{j}(\tau) )) \right\rangle
\label{eq:g1qgeneral}$$ In this equation, sums on $i$ and $j$ proceed separately over all $N$ particles in the system, while ${\bf r}_{i}(t+\tau)$ and ${\bf r}_{j}(\tau)$ are the locations of scatterers $i$ and $j$ at times $t+\tau$ and $\tau$, respectively.
In applying eq \[eq:g1qgeneral\], two particularly interesting experimental circumstances are described as mutual diffusion measurements and as probe diffusion measurements. In a measurement on a binary solvent: scatterer system, the scattering particles may be concentrated or dilute. Quasielastic scattering on such a system measures the mutual diffusion coefficient, which describes the diffusion of the scatterers down a concentration gradient[@phillies1974a; @phillies1974b]. Tracer diffusion experiments examine ternary solvent: matrix : probe systems. In these systems the matrix component may be dilute or concentrated, is substantially responsible for the system’s rheological and other interesting properties, but is nearly optically inert. Conversely, the probe (tracer) component is dilute, has virtually no effect on rheological and other properties of the solvent: matrix system, but dominates scattering by the ternary mixture. If matrix scattering is not entirely negligible, there are established, reliable ways to isolate the probe scattering, based on spectral subtraction at the level of the field correlation function.
Because probe particles very nearly do not interact with each other, the field correlation function for probe diffusion reduces (up to normalization constants) to the incoherent scattering function $$g^{(1s)}(q,t) = \langle \exp(\imath q \Delta x(t))\rangle.
\label{eq:g1sandr}$$ with $\Delta x(t)$ being the component parallel to ${\bf q}$ of $\mathbf{\Delta r}(t) = {\bf r}_{i}(t+\tau) - {\bf r}_{i}(\tau)$. Probe motions perpendicular to $\mathbf{q}$ do not contribute to $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$. In moving from eq \[eq:g1qgeneral\] to eq \[eq:g1sandr\], terms of eq \[eq:g1qgeneral\] in which $i \neq j$ were taken to average to zero, because the relative positions of dilute probes are very nearly uncorrelated. An expression formally identical to eq \[eq:g1sandr\] describes diffusion measurements using pulsed-field-gradient nuclear magnetic resonance, though with this method $q$ has an entirely different meaning, namely in the simplest case $q = \gamma \delta g$, where $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $\delta$ is a pulse width, and $g = dB/dz$ is the field gradient.
The averages in eqs \[eq:g1qgeneral\] and \[eq:g1sandr\] may formally be phrased as averages over displacement distribution functions such as $P(\Delta x, t)$, which gives the time-dependent probability that a scattering particle will displace through $\Delta x$ during time $t$. Two previous papers[@phillies2005a; @phillies2012a] examined how $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ and $g^{(1)}(q,t)$ are actually related to the displacement distribution functions. The two prior papers were primarily concerned with establishing formal relationships between dynamic structure factors and probabilities for scatterer displacement. The significance of these relationships for the interpretation of experimental measurements was at most a secondary consideration. This paper focuses on interpreting experimental measurements.
Section II of this paper presents the correct general relationship between $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ and $P(\Delta x, t)$. Section III discusses the special case of probe particles in a purely Newtonian fluid. Section IV notes experimental findings bearing on the relative significance of Sections II and III. Section V considers paths for interpreting probe diffusion spectra. Section VI treats the determination of $P(\Delta x, t)$, relationships between $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ and trapping/hopping behavior, and, closing on a positive note, cases in which quasielastic scattering from diffusing probes, correctly interpreted, has given valuable information about complex fluids and the objects diffusing in them.
General Case\[sectiongeneralcase\]
==================================
This section summarizes what $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ and $g^{(1)}(q,t)$ actually reveal about particle displacements. Extended derivations have appeared previously in two earlier papers, refs and , and are not repeated here. For probe diffusion, the intermediate structure factor is always determined by the displacement distribution function, namely the average in eq \[eq:g1sandr\] can be written as $$g^{(1s)}(q,t) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d(\Delta x) \exp(i q \Delta x) P(\Delta x, t).
\label{eq:g1sPDelta}$$ $P(\Delta x, t)$ is taken to be properly normalized.
On taking a Taylor series expansion of the exponential in powers of $q$, reflection symmetry, namely $P(\Delta x, t) = P(-\Delta x, t)$, eliminates all terms odd in $q$. As a result, $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ and its logarithm are necessarily power series in $q^{2}$. The coefficients of the $q^{2n}$ are generated by the even moments $\langle(\delta x)^{2n}\rangle$ of $P(\Delta x, t)$. As shown previously[@phillies2005a], the lead terms of an expansion for $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ are $$g^{(1s)}(q,t) = N \exp\left( - \frac{1}{2} q^2 \langle \Delta x(t)^{2} \rangle + \frac{1}{24} q^{4}( \langle \Delta x(t)^{4} \rangle - 3\langle \Delta x(t)^{2} \rangle^{2}) - {\cal O}(q^{6})\right).
\label{eq:g1sanddisplacements}$$ All even moments $\langle(\delta x)^{2n}\rangle$ are required for the complete expansion.
It was early shown that quasielastic scattering from a binary solvent: macromolecule system determines the mutual diffusion coefficient, not the self diffusion coefficient[@phillies1974a; @phillies1974b]. Theoretical approaches to computing $g^{(1)}(q,t)$ and the mutual diffusion coefficient of non-dilute colloid solutions have historically followed routes very different from the routes that are based on the displacement distribution function $P(\Delta x, t)$. Only very recently[@phillies2012a] was a solution for $g^{(1)}(q,t)$ in terms of displacement distribution functions obtained. In this solution, the expansion of eq \[eq:g1qgeneral\] was shown to require averages over two different displacement distribution functions, namely $P(\Delta x, t)$ and a new distribution function $P_{2}(\Delta x, t, \mathbf{R}_{12})$. $P_{2}$ is a two-particle conditional displacement distribution function, in which $\Delta x$ is the displacement of particle $1$ during $(0, t)$ given that the vector $\mathbf{R}_{12}$ from particle $1$ to some particle $2$ at time $0$ has a given value.
Special Case: Probes in Simple Newtonian Liquids \[sectionsimple\]
===================================================================
The earliest quasielastic scattering experiments were performed on dilute suspensions of monodisperse scattering particles in simple Newtonian solvents. Cummins, et al.’s results on polystyrene spheres in water[@cummins1964a] are the archetype. The resulting spectra were interpreted by invoking a mechanical model for the motions of diffusing particles. The mechanical model was provided by the Langevin equation, which in one dimension is $$m\frac{d^{2} x(t) }{dt^{2}} = - f \frac{dx(t)}{dt} +{\cal F}_{x}(t).
\label{eq:Langevin}$$ Here $x(t)$ is a coordinate of the diffusing particle, $m$ is the particle mass, $f$ is the particle’s drag coefficient, and ${\cal F}_{x}(t)$ is the random force, called *random* because in the Langevin model the values of ${\cal F}_{x}(t)$ at different instants in time are uncorrelated. Within the model, ${\cal F}_{x}$ cannot be predicted beyond stating that ${\cal F}_{x}$ has certain statistical properties.
The canonical literature treatment of the Langevin model as applied to quasielastic light scattering is the volume by Berne and Pecora[@berne1976a], notably their Section 5.9. Berne and Pecora show that the Langevin model is appropriate for polystyrene spheres in water, on the time and distances scales observed by quasielastic light scattering. From the Langevin model and the requirement that the system remains in thermal equilibrium, a series of conclusions about the statistical properties of the particle motion follow. In particular:
(i)
: The mean-square average value of ${\cal F}_{x}(t)$ must be consistent – the fluctuation-dissipation theorem – with the drag coefficient $f$ and the thermal energy $k_{B}T$.
(ii)
: The distribution $P(\Delta x)$ of particle displacements $\Delta x$ during a time interval $\Delta t$ is the same for all time intervals $(t, t+\Delta t)$.
(iii)
: Velocity correlations are evanescent. For time steps appreciably longer than $m/f$, which for Brownian particles is actually a quite short time, particle displacements in a series of time steps are very nearly independent from each other.
Conclusion (ii) corresponds to the statement that $x(t)$ is the sum of a series of identically-distributed random variables. Conclusion (iii) corresponds to the independent statement that the time evolution of $x(t)$ is described by a Markoff process. In this very special case, the distribution of particle displacements is described by Doob’s Theorem[@doob1942a]. Doob’s theorem is closely related to the central limit theorem. Doob’s theorem treats random processes such as $\Delta x(t)$, while the central limit theorem treats random variables. For the Langevin model, Doob’s Theorem shows that the distribution of particle displacements is a Gaussian $$P(\Delta x) = \left(2\pi \langle \Delta x^{2} \rangle \right)^{-1/2} \exp(- (\Delta x(t))^{2}/ 2 \langle \Delta x^{2} \rangle ).
\label{eq:gaussianform}$$ For this special case, the incoherent scattering function reduces to $$g^{(1s)}(q,t) = \exp(- q^{2} \langle (\Delta x(t))^{2} \rangle/2).
\label{eq:g1swrong}$$ Equation \[eq:g1swrong\] is quite accurate for the systems considered in Ref. [@berne1976a], namely highly dilute solutions of monodisperse objects in simple Newtonian solvents.
However, Berne and Pecora[@berne1976a], especially their Appendix 5.A and Section 5.9 leading to their eq 5.9.6, also prove the other important consequence of the Langevin model and Doob’s theorem, namely that the Langevin model determines the exact value of $\langle (\Delta x(t))^{2} \rangle$. On the time and distance scales accessible to quasielastic scattering, the Langevin model requires $$\langle (\Delta x(t))^{2} \rangle = 2 D t.
\label{eq:meansquare}$$ Here $k_{B}$ is Boltzmann’s constant and $T$ is the absolute temperature. $D = k_{B}T/f$ is the diffusion constant, a quantity *that does not depend on time*. Time independence of $D$ is required by the calculation, because $D$ results from a time integral over ($0 \leq t \leq \infty$).
Equations \[eq:g1swrong\] and \[eq:meansquare\] come as a package; they are equally consequences of the Langevin model. Correspondingly, Berne and Pecora show for diffusing monodisperse Brownian particles that the Langevin model requires that the field correlation function is a simple exponential $$g^{(1s)}(q,t) = \exp(- q^{2} D t).
\label{eq:g1ssimple}$$ For unclear reasons – the literature error noted in the introduction – Berne and Pecora’s entirely correct Chapter 5 is being misread as proving that eq \[eq:g1swrong\] is always correct, even when the time relaxation of $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ is not a simple exponential. Berne and Pecora in fact prove exactly the opposite, namely the contrapositive of their result is that if the relaxation is not a single exponential, then the Langevin model must not be applicable to the system, and therefore invocation of the the Langevin Model prediction eq \[eq:g1swrong\] is incorrect.
Berne and Pecora’s discussion refers purely and exclusively to the special case of particle motion that is described by the Langevin equation, in which case eqs \[eq:gaussianform\]-\[eq:g1ssimple\] are all correct. This special case corresponds to most of the experiments that were of interest at the time that ref was written, namely applications of quasielastic scattering for particle sizing[@dahneke1983]. For diffusing dilute colloids, the $t$ and $q$ dependences of $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ are precisely as predicted by the Langevin model, in particular $g^{(1s)}(q,t) \sim \exp(- \Gamma t)$ with $\Gamma \propto q^{2}$. The quasielastic scattering spectrum only leads to the time-dependent mean-square particle displacement if the spectrum is a pure exponential in $q^{2} t$. In this special case, the mean-square displacement increases linearly with $t$, so that the short-time and long-time behaviors of $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ are one and the same.
If the decay of the field correlation function is not a simple exponential in $t q^{2}$, then eq \[eq:gaussianform\] and the Langevin model cannot not possibly describe how the scattering particles move. If eq \[eq:gaussianform\] described the particle motions, then the spectrum would be a simple exponential. In systems in which the spectrum is more complex than a simple exponential, eq \[eq:g1swrong\] is invalid. That is, if $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ is not a simple exponential in $t$, $\log(g^{(1s)}(q,t))$ does not reveal the mean-square displacement of the particles.
Why does eq \[eq:g1sanddisplacements\] ever reduce to eq \[eq:g1swrong\]? If and only if $P(\Delta x, t)$ is a Gaussian in $\Delta x$, $P(\Delta x, t)$ is entirely characterized by its second moment $\langle \Delta x^{2} \rangle$. For a Gaussian displacement distribution function, the higher moments of $P(\Delta x, t)$ have values such that the coefficients of the higher-order terms ($q^{2n}$ for $n \geq 2$) of eq \[eq:g1sanddisplacements\] all vanish. For a Gaussian $P(\Delta x, t)$, the only non-zero part of eq \[eq:g1sanddisplacements\] is eq \[eq:g1swrong\]. This disappearance of the higher-order terms is unique to a Gaussian $P(\Delta x, t)$. For any other $P(\Delta x, t)$, the higher-order terms of eq \[eq:g1sanddisplacements\] do not vanish.
Experimental Findings \[sectionexperiment\]
===========================================
What do experiments say about $P(\Delta x, t)$ and $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$? There are systems in which the Langevin model is adequate, namely dilute monodisperse particles suspended in simple Newtonian fluids. The Langevin model provides the solid foundation for particle sizing via quasielastic scattering[@dahneke1983]. For probe diffusion in complex fluids, experiment provides a far more complex picture. Consider a few representative experiments that have determined $P\Delta x, t)$ or $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ for probe particles in complex fluids.
On relatively long time scales, $P(\Delta x,t)$ is accessible via particle tracking methods. As examples, note experimental studies by Apgar, et al.[@apgar2000a], Tseng and Wirtz[@tseng2001a], and Xu, et al.[@xu2002a] on probe diffusion in glycerol, actin solutions and gels, and gliadin solutions. These authors used video recording and computer image analysis to track simultaneously the motions of large numbers of particles. They report $P(\Delta x, t)$ and $\langle \Delta x(t)^{2} \rangle$ in their systems. Probes in glycerol follow eqs \[eq:gaussianform\] and \[eq:meansquare\]. For probes in various complex fluids, $P(\Delta x, t)$ has decidedly non-Gaussian forms. In these systems, the mean-square displacement does not increase linearly in time. By direct measurement, eq \[eq:gaussianform\] and \[eq:meansquare\] are not uniformly correct for probes in polymer solutions.
Quasielastic scattering spectra of probes in polymer solutions are often markedly non-exponential. For polystyrene latex sphere probes in hydroxypropylcellulose: water, this author and Lacroix[@lacroix1997a] found stretched exponentials in time $$g^{(1s)}(q,t) = a \exp(- \theta t^{\beta}) \equiv a \exp(- (t/\tau)^{\beta}).
\label{eq:gisqeext}$$ Here $\beta$ is a scaling exponent while $\theta$ and $\tau$ are prefactors. A series of papers by Streletzky and collaborators on the same chemical system (most recently, ref. ) established by viewing a much wider range of delay times that $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ is in fact a sum of two stretched exponentials in time.
Finally, I note a very simple model system in which eqs \[eq:gaussianform\] and \[eq:g1swrong\] fail. The system is a dilute aqueous dispersion of polystyrene spheres, in which the spheres are of two different sizes. There are no sphere-sphere interactions. Each sphere individually performs Brownian motion as described by the Langevin equation. Therefore, for each sphere in the mixture, $P(\Delta x, t)$ is a Gaussian in $\Delta x$ and $\langle (\Delta x)^{2} \rangle$ increases linearly in time. For the mixture as a whole, the mean-square displacement averaged over all the particles must therefore also increase linearly with time, at a rate determined by a weighted average of the diffusion coefficients of the two sphere species.
However, the mixture’s field correlation function is a sum of two exponentials $$g^{(1s)}(q,t) = A_{1} \exp(-D_{1} q^{2} t) + A_{2} \exp(-D_{2} q^{2} t)
\label{eq:doubleexponential}$$ where $A_{i}$ is the scattering amplitude of species $i$ and $D_{i}$ is the diffusion coefficient of species $i$. Correspondingly, the displacement distribution function for all the particles in solution is a weighted sum of two Gaussians, one Gaussian for each sphere size.
Suppose one were used eq \[eq:g1swrong\] to determine $\langle (\Delta x)^{2} \rangle$ of the sphere mixture. According to eq \[eq:g1swrong\] $$\langle (\Delta x)^{2} \rangle = - \ln( g^{(1s)}(q,t))/q^{2}.
\label{eq:meansquare2}$$ At short times, $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ contains contributions from both species, and the $\langle (\Delta x)^{2} \rangle$ computed from eq \[eq:meansquare2\] is the weighted average of the mean-square displacements of the two species. At long times, in eq \[eq:doubleexponential\] the exponential corresponding to the more rapidly-moving species has decayed to zero, so the nominal mean-square displacement from eq \[eq:meansquare2\] is determined by scattering from the larger, more slowly-moving spheres. For this simple bidisperse sphere suspension, eq \[eq:meansquare2\] asserts that the slope of $\langle (\Delta x)^{2}\rangle$ depends on time, $\langle (\Delta x)^{2}\rangle$ increasing more rapidly at short times and more slowly at long times. The assertion is incorrect. In this system $\langle (\Delta x)^{2}\rangle$ increases linearly with $t$. At large times the smaller spheres continue to move, but they stop contributing to $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ or to the nominal $\langle (\Delta x)^{2}\rangle$ from eq \[eq:meansquare2\].
Experiment thus demonstrates that neither eq \[eq:gaussianform\] nor eq \[eq:g1ssimple\] is generally valid for probe diffusion in complex fluids. Even in a Newtonian fluid, a model system in which $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ does not decay exponentially in time does not follow eqs \[eq:g1swrong\] and \[eq:meansquare2\], a result that is exactly as required by Doob’s theorem. Interpretations of quasielastic scattering spectra for probes in complex fluids, based on the Gaussian approximation of eq \[eq:g1swrong\], are therefore incorrect. Interpretations of spectra of probes in complex fluids in terms of particle displacements are properly based on eq \[eq:g1sanddisplacements\], which correctly reflects the non-Gaussian displacement distribution function of real probes.
Interpretations of Quasielastic Scattering Spectra \[sectioninterpretations\]
=============================================================================
First, every single physical $g^{(1s)}$ viewed only as a function of $t$ corresponds to a system in which the mean-square particle displacement increases linearly with time. However, the correspondence is not unique. The same $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ may also correspond to systems in which particle thermal motions are more complex. In consequence, from a $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ measured over a full range of times and a single $q$ one cannot infer how the particle displacement depends on time.
This result has a purely mathematical basis, namely that the field correlation function can always be represented via a Laplace transform as $$g^{(1s)}(q,t) = \int_{0}^{\infty} A(\Gamma) \exp(- \Gamma t).
\label{eq:laplace}$$ Here $\Gamma$ is a relaxation rate and $A(\Gamma)$ is the contribution of relaxations having decay rate $\Gamma$ to $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$. So long as the system does not have relaxational modes that have negative amplitudes, $A(\Gamma)$ is everywhere positive or zero. In this case, there is always a system having the same $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ as the system of interest, and in which $ \langle (\Delta x(t) )^{2} \rangle$ increases linearly in time. The system can be physically constructed as a solution of of polystyrene spheres of all different sizes. The composition of the mixture is determined by $A(\Gamma)$: One adds to the mixture just enough polystyrene spheres having diffusion coefficient $\Gamma/q^{2}$ so that their contribution to the scattering spectrum is $A(\Gamma)$. For each sphere, $\langle (\Delta x(t) )^{2} \rangle$ increases linearly in time, so therefore $\langle (\Delta x(t) )^{2} \rangle$ of the mixture also increases linearly in time. Thus, an arbitrary physically-acceptable (i.e., $A(\Gamma) > 0 \ \forall \ \Gamma$) form for $A(\Gamma)$ corresponds as one non-unique possibility to a system in which $\langle (\Delta x(t) )^{2} \rangle$ increases linearly in time.
It has repeatedly been found that $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ decays in time as the stretched exponential of eq \[eq:gisqeext\]. If one interpreted this time dependence by applying eq \[eq:g1swrong\], one would conclude $$\langle (\Delta x(t) )^{2} \rangle = \theta t^{\beta}.
\label{eq:subdiffusive}$$ In the common case $\beta < 1$, from eq \[eq:subdiffusive\] one would infer that the mean-square particle displacement increases less rapidly at large times than would be the case for simple diffusion, a behavior that has been termed ’subdiffusive’ motion. The inference is incorrect. A more reasonable interpretation for $\beta <1$ is that diffusion in the complex fluid is created by modes having a range of relaxation times, some longer than others, the contribution of the slower modes to the spectrum becoming more important at longer times.
It is not suggested that there cannot exist subdiffusive motion. Such motion has unambiguously been observed experimentally. Amblard, et al.,[@amblard1996a] studied probe motion in f-actin solutions, using magnetic tweezers and video microscopy. Small-bead motion was diffusive; larger-bead diffusion was subdiffusive with $\beta \approx 3/4$. The non-classical drag forces for diffusive motion and for driven motion are the same, in the sense that the displacement under an applied force and the mean-square displacement for diffusion have the same linear or sublinear time dependences, depending on the probe size.
There are sometimes suggestions that probe behavior should approach Stokes’ Law and the Stokes Einstein-equation as the size of the probes is increased. Amblard, et al.’s experiments show precisely the opposite behavior. Deviations from simple diffusion are larger for the larger particles. Whenever particle motion is subdiffusive, the light scattering spectrum will not be a simple exponential. The scattering spectrum will follow eq \[eq:g1sanddisplacements\], showing that the relationship between $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ and $\langle (\Delta x(t) )^{2} \rangle$ is a neither-way street. Just as one cannot in general calculate $\langle (\Delta x(t) )^{2} \rangle$ from $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$, so also one cannot in general calculate $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ from $\langle (\Delta x(t) )^{2} \rangle$, because all higher moments of $P(\Delta x)$ are needed in order to calculate $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$.
Discussion\[sectiondiscussion\]
===============================
The primary objective of this paper was to correct a widespread literature error, namely the false belief that that $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ can in general be used to determine the mean-square displacement of probes in complex fluids. The belief appears to have arisen from a misreading of Berne and Pecora’s excellent monograph, Chapter 5, in which Berne and Pecora discuss the motions of monodisperse probe particles in simple Newtonian fluids by using the Langevin model. The spectra of monodisperse Langevin-model particles are without exception single exponentials. The calculation is correct, but does not refer to non-Newtonian fluids or polydisperse probe systems. Having corrected this error, I turn to several subsidiary points of misinterpretation.
The functional form of $P(\Delta x, t)$ can be inferred, at least approximately, from the angular dependence of $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$, namely as seen in eq \[eq:g1sPDelta\] the correlation function $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ at fixed $t$ is the spatial Fourier transform of $P(\Delta x, t)$. If $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ is determined sufficiently accurately over an adequate range of $q,$ an inverse spatial Fourier transform can take the experimenter back from $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ to $P(\Delta x, t)$. To the author’s knowledge, this inversion has only been done for the ubiquitous polystyrene spheres in distilled water, for which $g^{(1s)}$ is a simple exponential $\exp(- \Gamma t)$, while $\Gamma$ is found to be accurately linear in $q^{2}$, showing that $P(\Delta x, t)$ in this system has the Gaussian form of eq \[eq:gaussianform\]. Measurements of the $q$-dependence of $g^{(1s)}$ for probes in complex fluids are less common, though note, e. g., Streletzky and Phillies[@streletzky1998q]. These authors found spectra having multiple relaxational modes, some of which had relaxation rates that did not scale linearly in $q^{2}$, proving that the modes did not correspond to Gaussian displacement distribution functions.
Particle tracking is sometimes used to generate the simplified $\langle \Delta x(t)^{2} \rangle$, rather than the full $P(\Delta x, t)$. The simplification is potentially hazardous, because if one has not determined $P(\Delta x, t)$ one does not know if the particle motion process corresponds to simple diffusion. Any physically reasonable $P(\Delta x, t)$ has some second moment $\langle \Delta x(t)^{2} \rangle$, but if the form of $P(\Delta x, t)$ is unknown, one cannot tell if it is meaningful to characterize $P(\Delta x, t)$ by its second moment or by the corresponding nominal diffusion coefficient $$D(t) = \langle \Delta x(t)^{2} \rangle/ 2 t
\label{eq:timedependentD}$$ The notion that a diffusive process can be characterized by $\langle \Delta x(t)^{2} \rangle$ corresponds to particle diffusion in simple Newtonian liquids, in which $D(t)$ as defined here is a constant independent of time. In a complex fluid, characterization of probe motion via measurement of the second moment $\langle \Delta x(t)^{2} \rangle$ must be expected to be inadequate.
The assertion that the central limit theorem guarantees that $P(\Delta x, t)$ is a Gaussian in $\Delta x$ is sometimes describes as the “Gaussian Approximation”. Experiments such as those summarized above prove that this assertion is incorrect. The central limit theorem (for random variables) and Doob’s theorem (for random processes) are well-known. Where do their invocations go wrong? The central limit theorem and Doob’s theorem are statements about the sum of a large number of identically distributed, independent random processes. As applied to the diffusion problem, the displacement $\Delta x$ during experimentally accessible times can be expressed as the sum of a large number of far smaller steps $\delta x$, each taken during a far smaller time interval $\delta t$. If a random variable $\Delta x$ is the sum of a large number of identically distributed *independent* variables, i. e., if $\delta x(t)$ is a Markoff process, it must in general be the case that $P(\Delta x, t)$ is a Gaussian in $\Delta x$. This rationale fails because it refers to a sum of *independent* random processes. The process that generates $\delta x$ for probes in a viscoelastic fluid is not a Markoff process, because the system has memory. The central limit theorem and Doob’s theorem are therefore not applicable. For probes in complex fluids, the processes generating the steps $\delta x$ are highly correlated, because the “random” forces that determine the $\delta x(t)$ are controlled by the shear modulus $G(t)$, which in a complex fluid has a long correlation time. Correspondingly, the time correlation function of the random force $\langle {\cal F}_{x}(0) {\cal F}_{x}(t) \rangle$ is long-lived, not $\sim \delta(t)$, and in the Langevin equation the friction force $f \dot{x}(t)$ is replaced with a memory function $\sim \int ds \langle {\cal F}_{x}(0) {\cal F}_{x}(s) \rangle \dot{x}(t-s)$.
An alternative to the central limit theorem is the *small-$q$ approximation*. The nominal idea in the small-q approximation is that the rhs of eq \[eq:g1sanddisplacements\] is a power series in $q$. If one went to sufficiently small $q$, one might hope that the $q^{2}$ term in the exponential would become dominant, so that eq \[eq:g1swrong\] would approach being valid. This hope is not met. For the simplest case of a mixture of diffusing particles, $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ is in fact a power series in $q^{2} t$. If one goes to smaller $q$, in order to keep fitting spectra equally accurately one needs to observe the same fractional degree of decay of $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$; one must therefore go out to longer times. At those longer times, the ($q^{4}$) terms are as significant as they were at larger $q$, smaller $t$, and the same $q^{2} t$. Said differently, the coefficients of the correct Taylor series (in $q$) expansion of $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ are time-dependent. In order for the lead term of the expansion to be dominant, the expansion must be limited not only to small $q$ but also to to small $t$. If $t$ is large, no matter how small $q$ has been made, the higher-order in $q$ terms are as important as the lower-order terms. Only at small $q$ and small $t$ is a single-term small-$q$ expansion valid. The valid small-$q$ expansion is $1-q^{2} \langle \Delta x(t)^{2} \rangle$, which only describes the leading slope of $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ at small times.
Consider spectra described by eq \[eq:gisqeext\]. The exponential in eq \[eq:g1sanddisplacements\] scales as $q^{2}$ or is a power series in $q^{q}$, so therefore $\theta$ should also be a power series in $q^{2}$, perhaps simply by being linear in $q^{2}$. Indeed, for probes in in some but not other water: hydroxypropylcellulose solutions, Streletzky[@streletzky1998q] confirmed experimentally $\theta \sim q^{2}$ over a wide range of $q$. If $\theta$ were replaced with $\tau^{-\beta}$, one would have $$\tau \sim q^{-2/\beta}.
\label{eq:tauq}$$ $\beta$ is often in the range 0.5-1.0, so $\tau$ often depends on $q$ as $q^{-3\pm 1}$. If one interpreted $\tau$ to be a relaxation time, the $q$-dependence from eq \[eq:tauq\] would be strange indeed: The relaxation would occur more rapidly over large distances (small $q$) than over short distances (large $q$). This strange $q$-dependence is simply an artifact of the choice of parameterization of $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$, and the identification of $\tau$ as a relaxation time. In terms of eq \[eq:gisqeext\], $(\theta, \beta)$ provides a natural parameterization while $(\tau,\beta)$ is less transparent. If mean relaxation times are inferred from the spectral time moments $$\langle T_{n} \rangle = \int_{0}^{\infty} t^{n} g^{(1s)}(q,t) dt
\label{eq:Tmoments}$$ of $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$, the choice of parameterizations in eq \[eq:gisqeext\] has no consequences. The two paramaterizations of $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ must lead to the same $\langle T_{n} \rangle$.
Spectra of diffusing probes showing two relaxations on very different time scales are sometimes interpreted in terms of caging and hopping relaxations. The notion is that the medium supplies regions of low potential energy within which probes are free to move (“caging”). The regions are separated by barriers of high potential energy, across which probes only pass on rare occasion (“hopping”). The short time-scale relaxation is said to correspond to caging, while the long time-scale relaxation is said to correspond to hopping.
Computer simulation studies by Luo and Phillies and Luo, et al., test the caging-hopping interpretation[@luo1995a; @luo1996a]. These simulations represented Brownian particles moving through a square lattice or a random glass of Lennard-Jones force centers. The force centers were immobile. Probe motions were generated via the Metropolis algorithm. These studies differed from some earlier work in that they determined not only time dependent mean-square displacements and effective diffusion coefficients but also obtained $P(\Delta r,t)$ and $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$. By varying the nominal temperature, trapping, hopping, and hindered diffusion behaviors were obtained. At low temperatures, probe particles explored the volume of their traps; after a certain relaxation time $\langle r^{2}(t) \rangle$ ceased to increase. At high temperatures, $P(\Delta r, t)$ was nearly Gaussian, with $\langle r^{2}(t) \rangle$ increasing linearly in time even at short times.
Luo, et al., evaluated $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ for $q^{-1}$ extending from a small fraction of the size of a single potential energy minimum out to distances substantially larger than a typical distance between force centers. At low and high temperatures, $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ showed nearly exponential relaxations, though at small $T$ and small $q$ the relaxation fell to a non-zero baseline. The baseline was non-zero because the particles were permanently trapped in small isolated volumes of the system. At intermediate temperatures, relaxations were single-exponential at large $q$ but double-exponential at small $q$. At the same intermediate temperatures, $P(\Delta r, t)$ was radically non-Gaussian, with local maxima and minima created by local potential energy minima, potential energy saddle points, and times required to traverse local energy maxima.
Other, physically different, systems also give bimodal spectra. In contrast to Luo, et al.’s probes moving though a fixed matrix, in which relaxations are only bidisperse for some values of $q$, relaxations of dilute bidisperse suspensions are double-exponential at all $q$. An alternative model system in which monodisperse particles show several very different classes of relaxation behavior is shown by Glotzer, et al.’s[@glotzer2000a] computer simulations of three-dimensional glasses, in which one finds distinct long-lived populations of slow and fast-moving particles, with the immobile particles in clumps and the rapidly moving particles lying in thin ribbons.
Thus, in order to distinguish between systems containing species with two different dynamic behaviors, and systems in which there is local trapping with escapes from the traps at longer times, it is experimentally necessary to study $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ over a wide range of $q$. Observations at fixed $q$ of double-exponential relaxations do not reveal whether one is seeing trapping with hopping, or whether the system is in some sense dynamically bidisperse. Furthermore, in the cases in which $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ was observed by Luo, et al., to be very nearly the sum of two exponentials, $P(\Delta r,t)$ on interesting distance scales had an elaborate dependence on $r$ with multiple maxima and deep minima. The interpretation that a biexponential $g^{(1s)}(q,t)$ must correspond to a $P(\Delta r,t)$ that is a sum of two Gaussians, each with a mean-square width increasing linearly in time, is categorically disproved by Luo, et al.’s measured forms for $P(\Delta r,t)$.
Finally, the observation that quasielastic scattering does not determine the mean-square probe displacement certainly does not mean that probe diffusion is ineffective as an experimental technique. Probe diffusion measurements can certainly be used to obtain novel information about complex fluids. The richness of the revealed information corresponds to the depth with which models for probe motion are constructed. As a positive conclusion, two successful applications of probe diffusion are noted:
\(i) A long-time question in the study of surfactant solutions is the determination of the aggregation number $n$ of surfactant molecules in micelles. One of many approaches to this question has been to use quasielastic scattering to determine an effective hydrodynamic radius of the micelles. Perhaps after some hydrodynamic modeling to account for micelle shape, spherical micelles being the simplest case, the measured diffusion coefficient can be transformed to an apparent hydrodynamic radius $r_{H}$, to a hydrodynamic volume $V_{h}$, and (taking into account the surfactant density and molecular weight) finally to a nominal aggregation number. This procedure was criticized by Kratohvil[@kratohvil1980a], who noted that the hydrodynamic volume of the micelle might well include solvent molecules rather than being composed of pure surfactant. Probe diffusion experiments prove that Kratovil was correct. The diffusion of probe particles through micellar solutions is retarded by hydrodynamic and direct interactions between the micelles and the probe particles. The degree of retardation is determined by the volume fraction of micelles in the solution. By combining quasielastic scattering measurements on surfactant solutions and on surfactant-probe mixtures, quasielastic scattering has been used to determine the size, volume fraction, and thus number density of micelles in solution, leading to determinations of the micellar aggregation number and, independently, the (substantial) degree of hydration of micelles, as seen in studies by Phillies and collaborators[@phillies1993a].
\(ii) Diffusion of mesoscopic probe particles in polymer solutions is not Stokes-Einsteinian. $D$ is not determined by the macroscopic viscosity $\eta$. Therefore, one cannot use the Stokes-Einstein equation for sphere diffusion $$D = \frac{k_{B}T}{6 \pi \eta R}
\label{eq:SEeq}$$ (where $k_{B}$ is Boltzmann’s constant, $T$ is the absolute temperature, $\eta$ is the solution viscosity, and $R$ is the sphere radius) to determine the size of probe particles in polymer solutions. However, by using probes of known size, Ullmann and Phillies[@ullmann1983a] were able to quantitate the degree of failure of the Stokes-Einstein equation for their polymer solutions, allowing them to measure the size of unknown probe particles in the same solutions. This approach permitted a quantitative study of the extent of polymer adsorption onto particles chosen for their ability to bind polymers in solution.
[10.]{}
G. D. J. Phillies, Analyt. Chem. **62**, 1049A (1990).
F. R. Hallett and A. L. Gray, Biochim. Biophys. Acta **343**, 648 (1974).
D. N. Turner and F. R. Hallett, Bioch. Biop. Acta **451**, 305 (1976).
G. D. J. Phillies, *Phenomenology of Polymer Solution Dynamics*, (Cambridge U. P., Cambridge, 2011), Ch. 9.
G. D. J. Phillies, J. Phys. Chem. [**85**]{}, 2838 (1981).
T.-H. Lin, Makromol. Chem. **187**, 1189 (1986).
C. F. Schmidt, M. Baermann, G. Isenberg and E. Sackmann, Macromolecules **22**, 3638 (1989).
G. D. J. Phillies, J. Stott, and S. Z. Ren, J. Phys. Chem. **97**, 11563 (1993).
K. Ullmann, G. S. Ullmann, and G. D. J. Phillies, J. Coll.Interf. Sci., **105**, 315 (1985).
K. Luby-Phelps, P. E. Castle, D. L. Taylor, and F. Lanni, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. **84**, 4910 (1987).
S. B. Dierker, R. Pindak, R. M. Fleming, I. K. Robinson, and L. Berman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 449 (1995). D. Magde, E. L. Elson, and W. W. Webb, Phys. Rev. Lett. **29**, 705 (1972).
G. D. J. Phillies, Biopolymers **14**, 499 (1975).
B. A. Scalettar, J. E. Hearst and M. P. Klein, Macromolecules **22**, 4550 (1989).
T. G. Mason, H. Gang, and D. A. Weitz, J. Mol. Struct. [**383**]{}, 180 (1996)
G. D. J. Phillies, Electrophoresis [**33**]{}, 1008 (2012).
T. C. Laurent, I. Bjork, A. Pietruszkiewicz, and H. Persson, Biochim. Biophys.Acta **78**, 351 (1963); T. C. Laurent and H. Persson, Biochim. Biophys. Acta **83**, 141 (1964).
X. Ye, P. Tong, and L. J. Fetters, Phys. Rev. Lett. **31**, 6534 (1998).
L. A. Hough and H. D. Ou-Yang, J. Nanoparticle Research **1**, 495 (1999).
F. G. Schmidt, B. Hinner and E. Sackmann, Phys. Rev. E **61**, 5646 (2000); F. G. Schmidt, B. Hinner, E. Sackmann and J. X. Tang, Phys. Rev. E **62**, 5509 (2000).
F. Amblard, A. C. Maggs, B. Yurke, A. N. Pargellis and S. Leibler, Phys. Rev. Lett.**77**, 4470 (1996).
P. Tapadia and S. Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 016001 (2006).
B. Crosignani, P. DiPorto and M. Bertoleotti, *Statistical Properties of Scattered Light* (New York, NY: Academic Press, 1975).
G. D. J. Phillies, J. Chem. Phys. **60**, 976 (1974)
G. D. J. Phillies, J. Chem. Phys. **60**, 983 (1974).
G. D. J. Phillies, J. Chem. Phys. **122**, 224905 (2005).
G. D. J. Phillies, J. Chem. Phys. **137**, 124901 (2012).
H. Z. Cummins, N. Knable, and Y. Yeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**12**]{}, 150 (1964).
J. L. Doob, Ann. Math. **43**, 351 (1942).
B. J. Berne and R. Pecora.*Dynamic Light Scattering: With Applications in Chemistry, Biology and Physics.* (New York: Wiley, 1976).
B. E. Dahneke, *Measurement of Suspended Particles by Quasi-Elastic Light Scattering*, Wiley: New York (1983).
J. Apgar, Y. Tseng, E. Federov, M. B. Herwig, S. C. Almo, and D. Wirtz, Biophys. J. **79**, 1095 (2000).
Y. Tseng and D. Wirtz., Biophys. J. **81**, 1643 (2001).
J. Xu, Y. Tseng, C. J. Carriere, and D. Wirtz, Biomacromolecules **3**, 92 (2002).
G. D. J. Phillies and M. Lacroix, J. Phys. Chem. B [**101**]{}, 39 (1997).
G. D. J. Phillies, R. O’Connell, P. Whitford and K. A. Streletzky, J. Chem. Phys. **119**, 9903 (2003).
K. A. Streletzky and G. D. J. Phillies, J Polym. Sci.: Part B Polym. Phys. **36**, 3087 (1998).
L.-S. Luo, G. D. J. Phillies, L. Colonna-Romano, and H. Gould, Phys. Rev. E [**51**]{}, 43 (1995).
L.-S. Luo and G. D. J. Phillies, J. Chem. Phys. [**105**]{}, 598 (1996).
S. Glotzer, V. N. Novikoff, and T. B. Schroder, J. Chem. Phys. [**112**]{}, 509 (2000).
J. P. Kratohvil, J. Colloid Interface Sci. [**75**]{}, 271 (1980).
G. D. J. Phillies, J. Stott, and S. Z. Ren, J. Phys. Chem. [**97**]{}, 11563 (1993); K. Streletzky and G. D. J. Phillies, Langmuir [**11**]{}, 42 (1995); G. D. J. Phillies, R. H. Smith, K. Strang, and N. V. Sushkin, Langmuir, [**11**]{}, 3408 (1995); G. D. J. Phillies and J. Yambert, Langmuir [**12**]{}, 3431-3436 (1996); N. V. Sushkin, D. Clomenil, J. Ren, and G. D. J. Phillies, Langmuir [**15**]{}, 3492 (1999).
G. S. Ullmann and G. D. J. Phillies, Macromolecules [**16**]{}, 1947 (1983).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The $\rho$ meson polarized generalized parton distribution functions, its structure functions $g_1$ and $g_2$ and its axial form factors ${\tilde G}_{1,2}$ are studied based on a light-front quark model for the first time. Comparing our obtained moments of $g_1$ to the Lattice QCD calculation, we find that our results are reasonably consistent to the Lattice predictions.'
author:
- 'Bao-Dong Sun'
- 'Yu-Bing Dong'
title: 'Polarized GPDs and structure functions of $\rho$ meson'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
It is believed that the generalized parton distributions (GPDs) of a system could be a powerful tool to understand its hadronic structure [@Diehl:2003ny]. This is because GPDs naturally embody the information of both form factors (FFs) and parton distribution functions (PDFs) for the complicated system. They can provide the normal PDFs for the longitudinal parton distribution as well as the transverse information. Consequentially, GPDs display the unique properties to present a “three-dimensional (3D)” description for the transverse and longitudinal partonic degrees of freedom inside the system. Furthermore, it should be addressed that the physical meaning of the transverse distribution is more transparent when one goes to the impact parameter space [@Burkardt:2002hr; @Miller:2010nz; @Sun:2018tmk]. Another important potential of GPDs is the information about how the orbital angular momentum contributes to the total spin of a hadron. We know that the sum rules proposed by Xiangdong Ji for a nucleon (spin-1/2) reveal the relation between GPDs and the spin carried by quarks and gluons [@Ji:1996nm; @Ji:1998pc]. For the spin-1 hadrons, such as deuteron and $\rho$ meson, one may also reach similar relations. Meanwhile, they provide some new structure functions which have no analogue to the case of spin-1/2 targets [@Hoodbhoy:1988am; @Berger:2001zb; @Cosyn:2017fbo].\
For a spin-1 target, there are 9 helicity nonflip GPDs and 9 helicity flip GPDs for each quark flavour (or for the gluon) at the twist-2 order. The spin-1 helicity nonflip (twist-2) GPDs are defined in Ref. [@Berger:2001zb] by considering the deeply virtual Compton scattering and meson electroproduction processes of the deuteron. Recently, the 9 helicity flip (twist-2) GPDs, or transversity GPDs, are introduced and discussed in Ref. [@Cosyn:2018rdm]. Among the total 9 helicity nonflip quark GPDs, 5 of them are unpolarized and 4 of them are polarized ones. The sum rules of the unpolarized GPDs can give the charge $G_C$, magnetic $G_M$, and quadrupole $G_Q$ form factors. We have intensively studied those observables with a help of a light-front constituent quark model for the $\rho$ meson phenomenologically [@Sun:2017gtz], where the $\rho$ meson form factors $G_{C,M,Q}(Q^2)$, mean square charge radius, magnetic and quadrupole moments are calculated. Our obtained results are reasonably compatible with the previous model calculations and the experimental data [@deMelo:1997hh; @Gudino:2013jaa; @Krutov:2018mbu]. Moreover, our calculated results for the first Mellin moments of the unpolarized GPDs $H_1$ and $H_5$, which respectively correspond to the reduced matrix elements and to the structure functions of $F_1$ and $b_1$ (the tensor structure), are in a good agreement with the results from the Lattice QCD calculation [@Best:1997qp]. For the transversity GPDs of $\rho$ meson, they are remained to be studied. In this work, only helicity nonflip GPDs are considered.\
To account for a polarized target, we know that the spin-dependent structure functions $g_1(x)$ and $g_2(x)$ are defined by the decomposition of the imaginary part of the forward virtual Compton scattering amplitudes [@Hoodbhoy:1988am; @Jaffe:1989xx; @Jaffe:1990qh; @Guichon:1998xv]. In the leading order (twsit-2), the forward limit of the polarized GPD $\tilde{H}_1(x,0,0)$ is related to $g_1(x)$ [@Berger:2001zb; @Best:1997qp]. It is believed that the $g_1$ gives the information of the polarized quark density, namely, the probability to find a polarized quark (with longitudinal momentum fraction $x$) parallel or antiparallel to the polarization of the target [@Feynman:1973xc; @Mankiewicz:1990ji]. In addition, the sum $g_T=g_1+g_2$ involves the transverse spin density [@Feynman:1973xc]. In general, the structure functions, $g_2$, or $g_T$, also receive the contributions from a quark-gluon correlation which comes from the twist-3 operator [@Cortes:1991ja]. Thus, they may give the information of the “high-twist effects” in a system. Many theoretical and experimental studies have been preformed for both $g_1$ and $g_2$ (see for example Refs. [@Song:1996ea; @Dong:1997cdh; @Anthony:1999py; @Airapetian:2006vy; @Adolph:2016myg]) in the literature. More details can be found in recent review articles [@Kuhn:2008sy; @Chen:2010qc; @Aidala:2012mv].\
To our knowledge, the spin-dependent structure functions $g_1$ and $g_2$ of spin-1 hadrons, particular for the $\rho$ meson, have been rarely studied theoretically. Since we have successfully studied the unpolarized GPDs of the $\rho$ meson with a help of a light-front quark model, we extend our approach to further calculate the polarized GPDs of the $\rho$ meson, and try to obtain its $g_1(x)$ from the forward limit of the polarized GPDs $\tilde{H}_1(x,0,0)$. It is known that the spin structure function $g_2$ is usually related to $g_1$ according to the Wandzura and Wilczek relation [@Wandzura:1977qf]. However, as emphasized by Jaffe and Ji [@Jaffe:1989xx; @Jaffe:1990qh], $g_2$ is not solely determined by $g_1$ as Wandzura and Wilczek concluded. There are another twist-2 function ($h_T$) and a twist-3 term which may also have non-negligible contributions to $g_2$ (see Refs. [@Jaffe:1989xx; @Jaffe:1990qh; @Cortes:1991ja]). In this work, however, only twist-2 operators are involved and we ignore $h_T$ and twist-3 terms as many other theoretical calculations [@Cortes:1991ja; @Song:1996ea] did for simplicity.\
In addition, the axial form factors for the spin-1 particle ${\tilde G}_{1,2}$ are seldom discussed due to no axial current in electromagnetic interaction. However, after taking into account the electro-weak interaction which contains axial vector currents, the two form factors can be measured through the respond functions $W_{1,2,8}$ [@Pollock:1990uv]. This phenomenon is similar to the nucleon (spin-1/2) case [@Kaplan:1988ku]. Therefore, the axial form factors become important when we study the electro-weak structure of the system, such as the parity violating in the electron-deuteron scattering [@Ito:2003mr]. Since the axial form factors relate to the sum rules of the polarized GPDs of the system, we may also estimate them according to our obtained polarized GPDs for the $\rho$ meson.\
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:1\], the definitions and sum rules of the polarized GPDs and the structure function $g_1$ etc. are briefly presented. Moreover, the light-front quark model employed in this and our previous works is also shortly discussed in this section. In Section \[sec:evolution\], the evolution for the spin structure function $g_1$ is discussed. Section \[sec:Results\] gives our numerical results for the polarized GPDs, the spin structure functions $g_1$, $g_2$ and the axial form factors of the $\rho$ meson. Section \[sec:conclusions\] is devoted for a short summary.\
Polarized GPDs and our model {#sec:1}
============================
Fig. \[fig:gpd\] illustrates the process we are considering. The notations are [@Sun:2017gtz] t &=&\^2=(p’-p)\^2=(q-q’)\^2 , Q\^2=-q\^2 ,\
&=&-= - , = , (||1)\
x &=&= , (-1x1) , where $p$ and $p'$ are the 4-momenta of the incoming and outgoing $\rho$ mesons, $P=({p'+p})/{2}$, $\Delta=p'-p
$, $n$ is a light-like 4-vector with $n^2=0$. Here $q$ is the virtual photon momentum, and $q'$ is treated as a real one.\
The four polarized GPDs, for a spin-1 particle, are introduced in Ref. [@Berger:2001zb], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gpd}
\lefteqn{
\frac{1}{2} \int \frac{d \lambda}{2\pi}\, e^{ix (P z)}
\langle p'|\, \bar{q}(-{ {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} }z)\, {n \hspace{-0.45em} / } \gamma_5 \,
q({ {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} }z)\, \,|p \rangle \Big|_{z = \lambda n}
} \nonumber \\
&=&- i \frac{\epsilon_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma}
n^\mu \epsilon'^{*\, \alpha}
\epsilon^\beta P^\gamma}{P n}\,
\tilde{H}_1^q(x,\xi,t)
\nonumber \\
&&+ 2i\, \frac{\epsilon_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma}\, n^\mu
\Delta^\alpha P^\beta}{P n}\,
\frac{ \epsilon^\gamma (\epsilon'^* P) +
\epsilon'^{* \,\gamma} (\epsilon P) }{M^2}\,
\tilde{H}_2^q(x,\xi,t)
\nonumber \\
&&+ 2i\, \frac{\epsilon_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma}\, n^\mu
\Delta^\alpha P^\beta}{P n}\,
\frac{ \epsilon^\gamma (\epsilon'^* P) -
\epsilon'^{* \,\gamma} (\epsilon P) }{M^2}\,
\tilde{H}_3^q(x,\xi,t)
\nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{i}{2}\, \frac{\epsilon_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma}\, n^\mu
\Delta^\alpha P^\beta}{P n}\,
\frac{ \epsilon^\gamma (\epsilon'^* n) +
\epsilon'^{* \,\gamma} (\epsilon n) }{P n}\,
\tilde{H}_4^q(x,\xi,t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_{0123}=1$ and $M$ is the $\rho$ meson mass. Without loss of generality, we choose the $\rho^+$ meson in this work and omit the superscript hereafter when there is no ambiguity. Thus, in the constituent quark model, only $u$ and ${\bar d}$ contribute to the current operator in Eq. (\[eq:gpd\]). Time reversal constraints that $\tilde{H}_3^q$ are $\xi$-odd and all other GPDs $\xi$-even. Taking the lowest moments of the polarized GPDs in $x$, one recovers the axial vector form factors for each flavour $q$ [@Berger:2001zb], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sum-rules}
\int_{-1}^1 dx\, \tilde{H}_i^q(x,\xi,t) = \tilde{G}_i^q(t) \ ,
\hspace{3em} (i=1,2) ,\end{aligned}$$ with matrix elements of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:axail-ff}
\lefteqn{
\langle p' |\,
\bar{q}(0)\, \gamma^\mu \gamma_5\, q(0) \,| p \rangle
= - 2i \, \epsilon^\mu{}_{\!\alpha \beta \gamma}\,
\epsilon'^{* \alpha} \epsilon^\beta P^\gamma\; \tilde{G}_1^q(t)
}
\nonumber \\[0.2em]
&& {}+ 4i \, \epsilon^\mu{}_{\!\alpha \beta \gamma}\,
\Delta^\alpha P^\beta\, \frac{\epsilon^\gamma (\epsilon'^* P)
+ \epsilon'^{* \gamma} (\epsilon P)}{M^2}\; \tilde{G}_2^q(t) .\end{aligned}$$
For other two GPDs, time reversal invariance gives $$\label{zero-sum-a}
\int_{-1}^1 dx\, \tilde{H}_3^q(x,\xi,t) = 0 \ ,$$ and the Lorenz invariance constraints $$\label{zero-sum-b}
\int_{-1}^1 dx\, \tilde{H}_4^q(x,\xi,t) = 0 \ .$$\
With respect to the axial-vector current $J^{5\mu}$, one gets the axial vector form factors \_[i]{} = \_[i]{}\^u -\_[i]{}\^d - \_[i]{}\^s + , (i=1,2) , where the definition for individual flavour is given in Eq. (\[eq:axail-ff\]). As shown later (in Eq. (\[eq:axial\_vector\_iso\_ff\])), under the isospin symmetry, $\tilde{G}_{i}^u =\tilde{G}_{i}^d$ in $\rho^+$ and the contributions of light $u$ and $d$ quarks to the total axial vector form factors cancel each other. When considering only the $u$ and $d$ flavours simultaneously, one gets $\tilde{G}_{1,2}=0$ [@Pollock:1990uv].
Due to the isospin symmetry and charge symmetry (G-parity), the polarized (or axial) GPDs are related by \[eq:g\_parity\_axial\] \_[i,\^+]{}\^u(x,,t) = \_[i,\^+]{}\^[d]{} (-x,,t) , where $i=1\sim4$. Project the axial (polarized) GPDs onto isoscalar and isovector combinations, we have \[eq:axial\_isoscalar\] \_i\^[I=0]{}(x,,t)&=& ,\
\[eq:axial\_isovector\] \_i\^[I=1]{}(x,,t)&=& , and the corresponding axial vector isoscalar and isovector form factors are \[eq:axial\_vector\_isoscalar\_ff\] \_[-1]{}\^1 dx \_i\^[I=0]{}(x,,t) &=& \_i\^[u]{}(t) + \_i\^[d]{}(t) \_i\^[I=0]{}(t) ,\
\[eq:axial\_vector\_isovector\_ff\] \_[-1]{}\^1 dx \_i\^[I=1]{}(x,,t) &=& \_i\^[u]{}(t) - \_i\^[d]{}(t) \_i\^[I=1]{}(t) . With Eq. (\[eq:g\_parity\_axial\]), one gets \[eq:axial\_isoscalar\_1\] \_i\^[I=0]{}(x,,t) &=& \_i\^[I=0]{}(-x,,t) ,\
\[eq:axial\_isovector\_1\] \_i\^[I=1]{}(x,,t) &=& -\_i\^[I=1]{}(-x,,t) , which give \[eq:axial\_vector\_iso\_ff\] \_i\^[I=0]{}(t) = 2\_i\^u(t) , \_i\^[I=1]{}(t) = 0 , (i=1,2) , This results from $\tilde{G}_{i}^u =\tilde{G}_{i}^d$ in $\rho^+$.
For a comparison to the unpolarized case, we note that, for the unpolarized GPDs [@Sun:2017gtz], there is an overall minus sign difference w.r.t. Eq. (\[eq:g\_parity\_axial\]) and Eq. (\[eq:axial\_isovector\]), respectively, \[eq:g\_parity\_vector\] [H]{}\_[i,\^+]{}\^u(x,,t) &=& -[H]{}\_[i,\^+]{}\^[d]{} (-x,,t) ,\
[H]{}\_[i,\^+]{}\^[I=1]{}(x,,t) &=& [H]{}\_[i,\^+]{}\^[I=1]{}(-x,,t) . where $i=1\sim5$. More details on the projection are referred to Refs. [@Sun:2017gtz; @Frederico:2009fk; @Polyakov:1999gs].\
As emphasized in Ref. [@Pollock:1990uv], the axial vector form factors $\tilde{G}_1$ and $\tilde{G}_2$ are usually discarded in the previous studies. After considering the electro-weak interaction, one may expect nonzero strange quark contribution to $\tilde{G}_1$ and $\tilde{G}_2$, by measuring the difference between the cross sections of the pure electromagnetic interaction and the electro-weak interaction. These measurements can provide an important probe for the electro-weak structure of the nucleons [@Ito:2003mr]. For the $\rho$ meson, which is an isovector system, it is still quite interesting to know what these two form factors, for $u$ and $d$ flavours, look like under our phenomenological calculation.\
In the forward limit $\Delta=0$, only $\tilde H_1^q$ survives and has quark density interpretation. Using the relation of the helicity amplitudes for finding a quark in a $\rho$ meson [@Berger:2001zb], one gets \[eq:ht1q\] [H]{}\_1\^q(x,0,0)= q\^1\_(x) -q\^1\_(x) q(x) , where $x>0$ and $q^1_\uparrow(x)$ is the probability to find a quark with momentum fraction $x$ and polarization parallel to the $\rho$ meson helicity $+1$. Here $\Delta q(x)$ is called the spin dependent density [@Diehl:2003ny], or the polarized quark distribution [@Ji:1998pc]. The parity constraints $q^1_\uparrow=q^{-1}_\downarrow$. In the frame of GPDs, Eq. (\[eq:ht1q\]) with $x~<~0$ stands for the antiquark ($\bar q$) distribution at $-x$. This leads to the partonic decomposition [@Diehl:2003ny; @Ji:1998pc] \[eq:delta\_q\] [H]{}\_1\^q(x,0,0) = (x) q(x) + (-x) |q(-x) . By Eqs. (\[eq:g\_parity\_axial\]) and (\[eq:delta\_q\]), one gets \[eq:delta\_u\_d\] u\_[\^+]{}(x)= \_[\^+]{}(x) .
As discussed in Ref. [@Diehl:2003ny], the $x$-even (“singlet”) combination \_[1]{}\^[q(+)]{}(x,,t) = \_[1]{}\^[q]{}(x,,t) + \_[1]{}\^[q]{}(-x,,t) corresponds to the charge conjugation $C=+1$, and gives $\tilde{H}_{1}^{q(+)}(x,0,0)=\Delta q(x)+\Delta \bar q(x)$ in the forward limit. The $x$-odd (“nonsinglet” or “valence”) combination \_[1]{}\^[q(-)]{}(x,,t) = \_[1]{}\^[q]{}(x,,t) - \_[1]{}\^[q]{}(-x,,t) corresponds to the charge conjugation $C=-1$, and gives $\tilde{H}_{1}^{q(-)}(x,0,0)=\Delta q(x)-\Delta \bar q(x)$ in the forward limit. Thus, like the pion case [@Polyakov:1999gs; @Broniowski:2007si], for $\rho^+$, the valence (or nonsinglet) polarized quark distribution is \[eq:valence\] V = u\_ - |u\_ + |d\_ - d\_ , and the singlet polarized quark distribution is \[eq:singlet\] S = u\_ + |u\_ + d\_ + |d\_ + s\_ + |s\_ . These two combinations do not mix under evolution (see Sec. \[sec:evolution\]). The sea-quark distribution is defined as [@Broniowski:2007si] \[eq:sea\_quark\] s= S - V= 2(|u\_ + d\_ ) + s\_ + |s\_ . In the present work, the $\rho^+$ meson is restricted to be only composed by an active quark $u$ and an active antiquark $\bar d$, which means the contribution of sea quarks ($\bar u$, $d$, $s$ and $\bar s$) is not included here.
On the other hand, at leading order, the polarized structure function $g_1^q (x)$ gives the fraction of spin carried by quarks [@Best:1997qp] \[eq:g1q\] g\_1\^q (x) = + { q|[q]{} } , and follows the relation [@Berger:2001zb; @Best:1997qp] g\_1(x)&=&\_q e\_q\^2 g\_1\^q (x) . Therefore, with Eqs. (\[eq:ht1q\]) and (\[eq:delta\_u\_d\]), we get \[eq:g1\] g\_1(x) &=& e\_u\^2 u(x)+ e\_[|d]{}\^2 (x) = ( e\_u\^2+ e\_[|d]{}\^2 ) u(x) ,\
\[eq:quark\_spin\] q && \_0\^1 dx= \_0\^1 u (x) dx . where $\Delta q $ is the total fraction of spin carried by valence $u$ and $\bar d$ in $\rho^+$.
In general, the rigorous expression for the structure function $g_2$ contains another twist-2 piece, “transversity” $h_T$, and a twist-3 piece arising from quark-gluon correlation [@Cortes:1991ja; @Song:1996ea]. $h_T$ is proportional to the ratio of the current quark mass to the target mass ($\sim m_c/M$) and it is commonly neglected in most studies [@Song:1996ea]. In present work, both $h_T$ and the twist-3 parts are neglected, although it may not be small. Under those approximations, one gets the Wandzura-Wilcze relation [@Wandzura:1977qf] for $g_2$, g\_2\^[WW]{}(x)=-g\_1(x)+\_x\^1[[dy]{}y]{}g\_1(y). Here, the $Q^2$-dependence is ignored, since at large $Q^2$, the $g_1$ and $g_2$ become scaling. It may not be a good approximation to identify $g_2(x)=g_2^{WW}(x)$ (which may have $15\sim 40 \%$ breaking of the size of $g_2$ [@Accardi:2009au]), however, we argue that it, at least, allows us to estimate the contribution of the axial current operator to $g_2$. In this case, it is easy to verify the Burkhardt-Cottingham sum rule [@Burkhardt:1970ti] by changing the integral variables, \_0\^1 g\_2(x) dx=0 . \[eq:sumrule\_g2\] Notes that, according to Ref. [@Jaffe:1989xx], this relation remains to be tested since the derivation in [@Burkhardt:1970ti] is based on the assumption of the Regge theory. However, Ref. [@Song:1996ea] claims, for proton, this sum rule for $g_2$ holds up to order of $O(M^2/Q^2)$. Finally, with those approximations, one gets the transverse spin density [@Feynman:1973xc; @Wandzura:1977qf] $$g_T(x) =g_1(x)+g_2(x) \sim \int_x^1{{dy}\over y}g_1(y).$$
The Mellin moment of a function $f(x)$ is defined as M\_n(f)=\_0\^1 x\^[n-1]{}f(x)dx . For the $\rho$ meson case, at the leading order (twist 2), one finds [@Best:1997qp] 2M\_n(g\_1\^q)=C\_n\^[(1)]{}r\_n , where $C_n^{(k)}=1+O(\alpha)$ is the Wilson coefficient of the operator product expansion and $r_n$ are the reduced matrix elements. These relations hold for both even and odd $n$-th orders with the quenched approximation. Note that there are two different sets of notations labeling the moments of $F_1$, $b_1$ and $g_1$ respectively in Refs. [@Best:1997qp] and [@Mankiewicz:1990ji]. Here we follow the former.\
In a numerical calculation, we employ the phenomenological light-front quark model to describe the interaction between the spin-1 $\rho$ meson and its constitutes $u$ and ${d}$. It is based on a effective interaction Lagrangian for the $\rho\rightarrow\bar{q}q$ vertex, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{key}
\lefteqn{
\mathcal{L}_I = -{\imath M\over f_\rho} \bar{q} \Gamma^\mu \mathbf{ \tau} q \cdot\mathbf{\rho}_\mu}
\nonumber\\
&&= -{\imath \sqrt{2}M\over f_\rho}
\left[ \frac{\bar{u} \Gamma^\mu u
- \bar{d} \Gamma^\mu d }{\sqrt{2}} \rho^0_\mu
+ \bar{u} \Gamma^\mu d \rho^+_\mu
+ \bar{d} \Gamma^\mu u \rho^-_\mu
\right] , \end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_\mu$ is the $\rho$ meson field, $f_\rho$ is the $\rho$ decay constant (which may be absorbed in the normalization factor $N$), and $\Gamma^\mu$ is a Bethe-Salpeter amplitude (BSA) [@Sun:2017gtz; @Choi:2004ww], $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^\mu=N\frac{
\gamma^{\mu} - {(k_{q}+k_{\bar q})^{\mu}}/{(M_{i,f}+2m)}
}{ [ k_{q}^2-m^2_R+ \imath \epsilon] [ k_{\bar q}^2-m^2_R+ \imath \epsilon] } \ ,
\end{aligned}$$ where, for the $u$ quark contribution, the struck $u$ quark momentum $k_u=k-\Delta/2$ and the spectator constituent momentum is $k_s=k_{\bar{d}}=k-P$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:gpd\_u\]. $N$ is the normalization constant, $m$ and $m_R$ are the constituent quark and the regulator masses, respectively, and $M_{i,f}$ are the kinematic invariant masses, [@Sun:2017gtz; @Choi:2004ww] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vertexM:v}
M_{i}^2 = \frac{\kappa^2_\perp + m^2}{1-x'} + \frac{\kappa^2_\perp + m^2}{x'} \ , \\
M_{f}^2 = \frac{\kappa'^2_\perp + m^2}{1-x''} + \frac{\kappa'^2_\perp + m^2}{x''} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the subscript $i(f)$ for initial(final) state and, following momenta convention in Fig. \[fig:gpd\_u\], the LF momentum fractions $x'(x'')$ and $\kappa_\perp(\kappa'_\perp)$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vertexM-variables}
x'&=& - {k_s^+\over p^+} ={1-x\over 1-\abs{\xi}} \ , \;
x''= x' {p^+\over p'^+} = {1-x\over 1+\abs{\xi}} \ , \nonumber \\
\kappa_\perp &=& (k-P)_\perp- \frac{x'}{2} {\Delta}_{\perp} \ , \;
\kappa'_\perp =(k-P)_\perp+ \frac{x''}{2} {\Delta}_{\perp} \ . \end{aligned}$$ In the nonvalence regime where $-\abs{\xi}<x<\abs{\xi}$ leads to $x' > 1$ in Eq. (\[eq:vertexM:v\]) and (\[eq:vertexM-variables\]), and the initial vertex becomes the non-wave-function vertex. To keep the mass square positive, as Refs. [@Sun:2017gtz; @Choi:2004ww], we directly replace $1-x'$ with $x'-1$ in Eq. (\[eq:vertexM:v\]) and get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vertexM:nv}
M_{i(NV)}^2 = \frac{\kappa^2_\perp + m^2}{x'-1} + \frac{\kappa^2_\perp + m^2}{x'}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, to keep this phenomenological $\Gamma^\mu$ respecting to the isospin symmetry (which is required by Eqs. (\[eq:g\_parity\_axial\]), (\[eq:g\_parity\_vector\]) and (\[eq:delta\_u\_d\])), one has to employ the symmetric momenta convention as shown in Fig. \[fig:gpd\_u\]. More details are explained in our previous work [@Sun:2017gtz].
The expressions for individual axial GPDs can be obtained through the same way showed in the Appendix of Ref. [@Sun:2017gtz]. For example, the $\tilde H_1^u$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:u_quark}
\tilde H^{u}_1 (x, \xi, t) &=&
N_{\mu\nu} \int \frac{d^4 k }{ (2\pi)^4 }
\, \delta \left[ n \cdot ( x P - k ) \right]
Tr \Bigg[
\frac{\imath ( {k \hspace{-0.45em} / }-{P \hspace{-0.45em} / }+m ) }{ (k-P)^2-m^2 + \imath \epsilon}
\Gamma^\nu
\frac{\imath ( {k \hspace{-0.45em} / }+\frac{{\Delta \hspace{-0.45em} / }}{2} +m ) }{ (k+\frac{\Delta}{2})^2 -m^2 + \imath \epsilon}
{n \hspace{-0.45em} / }\gamma_5
\nonumber \\ && \times
\frac{\imath ( {k \hspace{-0.45em} / }-\frac{{\Delta \hspace{-0.45em} / }}{2} +m ) }{ (k-\frac{\Delta}{2})^2 -m^2 + \imath \epsilon}
\Gamma^\mu
\Bigg],
$$ where N\_ &=& i , with $c$ being a normalization factor.
On the QCD Evolution {#sec:evolution}
====================
Comparing the model-dependent results to the available “data”, like the Lattice QCD calculation, one may perform a QCD evolution to evolve the parton distribution and its moments from the factorization scale $\mu_0$ to the scale that a Lattice QCD calculation is performed. For the calculated $\rho$ meson polarized GPDs or structure functions in the present work, we compare our result with the Lattice QCD results at the scale $\mu=2.4\gev$ with quenched approximation [@Best:1997qp], as our previous work for the unpolarized ones. Here, we ignore the gluon contribution to the evolution, thus, we can adopt the same (LO) DGLAP evolution function for the moments of the single flavor structure function $g_1^u(x)$ as \[eq:dglap\] = ( )\^[\_n\^[(0)]{}/(2\_0)]{} , \[ratio\] where the single quark spin fractions $${\tilde V}_n^u=2 M_{n+1}\left[g_1^u(x)\right]
\sim r_{n+1}$$ and the running coupling constant is () &=& , where $\beta_0 = {11N_c}/{3} - {2N_f}/{3} $ with $N_c=N_f=3$ and \_[QCD]{} = 0.226 GeV being employed [@Broniowski:2007si; @Broniowski:2008hx]. In our previous work, we performed the evolution of the Mellin moments of unpolarized structure function, and found the factorization scale of the model is $\mu_0 = 528_{-62}^{+77} \; \text{MeV} \ .
$\
In our previous work, we obtained the evolution ratio for the valence quark distribution, by calculating the evolution of the active $u$ quark unpolarized distribution. Here we adopt the same ratio for the evolution of valence polarized quark distribution (or their Mellin moments) to compare with the Lattice QCD results since the scale ($\mu=2.4\gev$) is same for both unpolarized and polarized cases. In addition, the sea quark contributions (Eq. (\[eq:sea\_quark\])) are excluded from our calculation, thus one can observe that the nonsinglet (Eq. (\[eq:valence\])) and singlet (Eq. (\[eq:singlet\])) polarized quark distributions make no more difference in present work.\
Numerical results {#sec:Results}
=================
Following our previous work on the unpolarized GPDs [@Sun:2017gtz], we take the two model parameters, the constituent mass $m=0.403~\gev$ and regulator mass $m_R=1.61~\gev$. We simply extend the model to the polarized GPDs ${\tilde H}_{1,2}$ case. Their $x$- and $t$-dependences with skewness $\xi=0$ and $\xi=-0.4$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:ht1\] and in Fig. \[fig:ht2\] respectively. The results are normalized with respect to the corresponding $u$ quark axial form factors. The obtained polarized GPDs have opposite values in the region $-1<x<0$ with respect to the region $0<x<1$ at the same $t$, as a consequence of the isospin symmetry of our model. At the joint points of valance and non-valance regions, namely at $\abs{x}=\abs{\xi}=0.4$ in Figs. \[fig:ht1xi04\] and \[fig:ht2xi04\], our resulted ${\tilde H}_{1,2}$ are continuous. This phenomenon fulfills the requirement of the consistency of the factorization at leading twist [@Diehl:2003ny]. Here, we take the momentum transfer $t$ up to $-10~\gev^2$, similar to the unpolarized case. Comparing to the unpolarized GPDs, especially $H_1$, we find that the polarized GPDs ${\tilde H}_{1,2}$ vary much slow with respect to $t$. Figs. \[fig:Gt1tu\] and \[fig:Gt2tu\] show the single flavour axial form factor ${\tilde G}_1^u(t)$ and ${\tilde G}_2^u(t)$, respectively. Within the region $-10~\gev^2<t<0$, ${\tilde G}_1^u(t)$ is larger than ${\tilde G}_2^u(t)$ and decreases slower than ${\tilde G}_2^u(t)$ as $t$ increases. The starting points are ${\tilde G}_1^u(0)=0.86$ and ${\tilde G}_2^u(0)=-0.16$, respectively. Correspondingly, we have ${\tilde
G}_1^{I=0}(0)=1.72$ and ${\tilde G}_2^{I=0}(0)=-0.32$, respectively.\
In Fig. \[fig:g1\] and Fig. \[fig:g2\], the $x$ dependence of $g_1^u$ and $g_2^u$ are shown. Our result for $g_1^u(x)$ remains positive in the whole $0<x<1$ region and it is nearly symmetry around $x=1/2$. The available experimental data for deuteron $g_1^{(d)}(x)$, summarized in Ref. [@Airapetian:2006vy], have negative values at small $x$ region, but it is believed to be consistent with zero after combining the new COMPASS result [@Adolph:2016myg]. We think our result for the $\rho$ meson may indirectly confirm the positiveness of $g_1(x)$. In general, our twist-2 results for the $\rho$ meson $g_1$ have similar $x$-dependence behavior with the $g_1$ of the deuteron in the new COMPASS result [@Adolph:2016myg] (see its Fig. 4). Summing over $x$ of $g_1^u(x)+g_1^d(x)$ as Eq. (\[eq:quark\_spin\]), we get q= 0.86 . which means the fraction of spin carried by the constituent quark and antiquark in $\rho$ meson is $0.86$, while the expected value is 1. This result is similar to the case of the nucleon (see for example Ref. [@Deur:2018roz]). In general, the total fraction of spin carried by quarks and antiquarks in nucleon is not more than $30\%$ to $50\%$. It is well known as the “spin crisis" issue (or “spin puzzle”) [@Ji:1998pc; @Kuhn:2008sy; @Aidala:2012mv; @Deur:2018roz]. As proposed by Sehgal [@Sehgal:1974rz], another important contribution to the proton spin may come from the orbital angular momentum of partons. Through the light-cone representation of the spin and orbital angular momentum of relativistic composite systems, Brodsky, Hwang, Ma and Schmidt [@Brodsky:2000ii] have shown that the “spin crisis" of the nucleon can be explained due to the relativistic motion of quarks, and the contribution of the orbital angular momentum. Thus the small $\Delta q$ can be naturally understood. According to Refs. [@Schreiber:1988uw; @Myhrer:2007cf], the nucleon “spin crisis" maybe also be understood through the pion cloud effect together with relativistic corrections and one-gluon exchange, which can transfer the quark spin to the orbital angular momentum and it mainly accounts for the missing spin. The pions play a role of quark and antiquark sea. Here, we suggest that the orbital angular momentum may also be an important source for the $\rho$ meson spin and the corresponding parton splitting processes $q \rightarrow qg$ and $g\rightarrow q\bar q$ responsible for the DGLAP evolution, generate the orbital angular momentum [@Diehl:2003ny]. After the evolution to a higher scale $\mu=2.4~\gev$, as $r_1$ shown in Fig. (\[fig:rn\]) later, $\Delta q$ becomes to around $60\%$.\
Another way to understand the proton spin problem (see for example Refs. [@Ma:1991xq; @Ma:1992sj]) is to consider the Wigner rotation of the spin of a moving quark. In this sense, there is no need to require the sum of quark’s spin equals the total proton spin in the light front frame.\
For the $g_2(x)$ structure function, the present constituent model predicts that \_0\^1 g\_2(x) dx=0.000112 , comparing with the Burkhardt-Cottingham sum rule Eq. (\[eq:sumrule\_g2\]), we conclude that it is numerically consistent with vanishing. With Eq. (\[eq:sumrule\_g2\]), we find that $g_2(x)$ has a remarkable feature of a nontrivial zero between $x=0$ and $x=1$. Note again that $g_2$ should also receives contributions from twist-3 quark-gluon correlation which may be not small comparing to that of the twist-2 piece. The importance of this unique feature has stressed in previous works [@Jaffe:1990qh; @Cortes:1991ja; @Anthony:1999py].\
If one takes the massless limit of quark (asymptotic free), then $g_T=g_1+g_2$ would be small, but this phenomenon contradicts to the $\rho$ meson rest mass, since the quarks are not free inside hadrons, especially in the constituent quark model. Our results (see Fig. \[fig:gt\]) tells that $g_T^u$ is sizeable in the small and moderate $x$ regions ($<0.5$) and becomes much smaller in large $x$ region. It may be interpreted that as the quark possesses more fraction of longitudinal momentum (larger $x$), it contributes less to the transverse spin density.\
The numerical evolution for the polarized structure functions is similar to the unpolarized case. With the same ratio, which is 0.67, we evolute our results for the moments of $g_1$ to the scale of the Lattice QCD result [@Best:1997qp]. We compare the results of the two approaches in Fig. \[fig:rn\]. The results of $r_n$ in Ref. [@Best:1997qp] was obtained with two sets of operators, and in Fig. \[fig:rn\] we plot the averaged values. In general, our results agree with the Lattice QCD ones. Moreover, one more order of the moment (see $r_4$) is given by our calculation.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this work, we extend our previous work on the $\rho$ meson GPDs with the light-front constituent quark model to the polarized case. The polarized GPDs ${\tilde H}_{1,2}$ with nonzero skewness (e.g. $\xi=-0.4$) are given in 3-D plots w.r.t. $x$ and $t$. With the sum rules for ${\tilde H}_{1,2}$, we obtained the axial form factors $\tilde G_{1,2}$, the spin structure functions $g_1(x)$ and $g_2(x)$, and the moments for $g_1(x)$. After the evolution, our results of the moments of $g_1$ agree with the Lattice QCD results. The quark spin contribution ($\Delta q=0.86$) to the $\rho$ meson spin and the transverse spin density $g_T$ for the $\rho$ meson are also estimated with the constituent quark model for the first time. The small value of $\Delta q$ for $\rho$ may be mainly explained by its transfer to the orbital angular momentum carried by valence quarks, which is also a possible resolution of the nucleon spin problem. Our numerical result for $g_2(x)$ shows that the Burkhardt-Cottingham sum rule holds reasonably well in this work.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
One of the authors (BDS) acknowledges Ruhr-Universität Bochum, for the warm hospitality where part of this work is being done; and thanks Bernard Pire and Maxim V. Polyakov for helpful discussions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11475192, by the fund provided to the Sino-German CRC 110 “Symmetries and the Emergence of Structure in QCD" project by the NSFC under Grant No.11621131001, and the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS, Grant No. Y7292610K1 and the State Scholarship Fund of China Scholarship Council No. 201804910428 and the DAAD Research Grants 2018 No. 57381332.
M. Diehl, Phys. Rept. **388**, 41 (2003). M. Burkardt, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**18**]{}, 173 (2003). G. A. Miller, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**60**]{}, 1 (2010). B.-D. Sun, Y.-B. Dong, Chin. Phys. C **42**(6), 063104 (2018). X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D **55**, 7114 (1997). X. D. Ji, J. Phys. G [**24**]{}, 1181 (1998). P. Hoodbhoy, R. L. Jaffe, A. Manohar, Nucl. Phys. B **312**, 571 (1989). E. R. Berger, F. Cano, M. Diehl, B. Pire, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 142302 (2001). W. Cosyn, Y.-B. Dong, S. Kumano, M. Sargsian, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}(7), 074036 (2017).
W. Cosyn, B. Pire, Phys. Rev. D **98**, 074020 (2018).
B.-D. Sun, Y.-B. Dong, Phys. Rev. D **96**(3), 036019 (2017).
J. P. B. C. de Melo, T. Frederico, Phys. Rev. C [**55**]{}, 2043 (1997). D. Garcia Gudino, G. Toledo Schnchez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. **35**, 1460463 (2014). A. F. Krutov, R. G. Polezhaev, V. E. Troitsky, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}(3), 033007 (2018). C. Best, M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, E. M. Ilgenfritz, H. Perlt, P. Rakow, A.Schafer, G. Schierholz, A. Schiller, S. Schramm, Phys. Rev. D **56**, 2743 (1997). R. L. Jaffe, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. **19**(5), 239 (1990). R. L. Jaffe, X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D **43**, 724 (1991) P. A. M. Guichon, M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**41**]{}, 125 (1998). R. P. Feynman, *Photon-hadron interactions* (Benjamin Press, New York 1972) 132-159. L. Mankiewicz, Z. Ryzak, Phys. Rev. D **43**, 733 (1991), . J. L. Cortes, B. Pire, J. P. Ralston, Z. Phys. C **55**, 409 (1992). X. Song, Phys. Rev. D **54**, 1955 (1996). Y.-B. Dong, Phys. Lett. B **408**, 393 (1997). P. L. Anthony *et al.*, Phys. Lett. B **458**, 529 (1999); **553**, 18 (2003). A. Airapetian *et al.*, Phys. Rev. D **75**, 012007 (2007).
C. Adolph *et al.*, Phys. Lett. B **769**, 34 (2017). S. E. Kuhn, J.-P. Chen, E. Leader, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **63**, 1 (2009). J. P. Chen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E **19**, 1893 (2010). C. A. Aidala, S. D. Bass, D. Hasch, G. K. Mallot, Rev. Mod. Phys. **85**, 655 (2013). S. Wandzura, F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B **72**, 195 (1977). S. J. Pollock, Phys. Rev. D **42**, 3010 (1990); **43**, 2447(E) (1991). D. B. Kaplan, A. Manohar, Nucl. Phys. B **310**, 527 (1988). T. M. Ito *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 102003 (2004). T. Frederico, E. Pace, B. Pasquini, G. Salme, Phys. Rev. D **80**, 054021 (2009). M. V. Polyakov, C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D **60**, 114017 (1999). W. Broniowski, E. R. Arriola, K. Golec-Biernat, Phys. Rev. D **77**, 034023 (2008). A. Accardi, A. Bacchetta, W. Melnitchouk, M. Schlegel, JHEP **11**, 093 (2009). H. Burkhardt, W. N. Cottingham, Annals Phys. **56**, 453 (1970). H.-M. Choi, C.-R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D **70**, 053015 (2004). W. Broniowski, E. R. Arriola, Phys. Rev. D **78**, 094011 (2008). A. Deur, S. J. Brodsky, G. F. De Téramond, arXiv:1807.05250. L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Rev. D **10**, 1663 (1974); **11**, 2016(E) (1975). S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang, B. Q. Ma, I. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B **593**, 311 (2001). A. W. Schreiber, A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B **215**, 141 (1988). F. Myhrer, A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B **663**, 302 (2008). B. Q. Ma, J. Phys. G **17**, L53 (1991). B. Q. Ma, Q. R. Zhang, Z. Phys. C **58**, 479 (1993).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Owen D. Miller'
- Ognjen Ilic
- Thomas Christensen
- 'M. T. Homer Reid'
- 'Harry A. Atwater'
- 'John D. Joannopoulos'
- Marin Soljačić
- 'Steven G. Johnson'
bibliography:
- '/Users/odm5/Library/texmf/bibtex/bib/library.bib'
- '/Users/odm5/Library/texmf/bibtex/bib/journalshort.bib'
- '/Users/odm5/Library/texmf/bibtex/bib/nonotes.bib'
- '/Users/odm5/Library/texmf/bibtex/bib/My\_Pubs\_abbr.bib'
title: 'Supporting Information: Limits to the Optical Response of Graphene and 2D Materials'
---
Optimized structure to reach within $1\%$ of extinction bound
=============================================================
![(a) “Pinched ellipse” geometry, described by [Eq. (\[eq:parameterization\])]{}, with the parameters in [Eq. (\[eq:paramvals\])]{}. The pinched ellipse geometry has a mode with $99.6\%$ of the maximum polarizability possible, such that the response is almost perfectly concentrated at a single resonant frequency. (b) Spectral response of the pinched-ellipse geometry, for two different scaling factors (given by the widths of the structures). The response achieves $99.6\%$ of the general bound.[]{data-label="fig:figS1"}](optimized_struct){width="48.00000%"}
In this section we show that the bounds can be reached to within $1\%$ through simple optimization of the scattering structure. The elliptical disks considered in the main text only have two degrees of freedom, one of which is a scaling parameter that solely shifts the frequency. Thus, we consider the “pinched ellipse” structure depicted in [Fig. \[fig:figS1\]]{}. Utilizing the angle $\theta$ in the two-dimensional plane of the structure, the boundary of a simple ellipse can be parameterized as $x = a\cos\theta$, $y=\sin\theta$. We generate the pinched ellipse via the parameterization:
$$\begin{aligned}
x &= a \cos \theta \\
y &= \sin \theta \left[ 1 + d e^{-|x(\theta)|^s/w} \right] \end{aligned}$$
\[eq:parameterization\]
where $a$, $d$, $s$, and $w$ are free parameters. Many different combinations can lead to good performance; from simple unconstrained optimizations, the values
$$\begin{aligned}
a &= 53.788 \\
d &= 3.0917 \\
s &= 3.6358 \\
w &= 0.3964\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:paramvals\]
reach near-ideal performance. The performance of such a structure is exhibited not only in the peak of the spectral response but also in the quasistatic polarizability. The quasistatic polarizability of a 2D scatterer, $\alpha(\omega)$, can be decomposed into a complete set of modes that are orthonormal under a properly chosen inner product. The polarizabilities of the modes, $\alpha_n$ for mode $n$, must satisfy the sum rule [@DeAbajo2015] $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_n \alpha_n \leq ||\Omega||\end{aligned}$$ where $||\Omega||$ is the total surface area of the scatterer.
The capability of a structure to reach the bounds developed in the main text is directly related to whether its response is concentrated into a single mode at the frequency of interest. The elliptical disks of the main text have oscillator strengths, i.e., mode polarizabilities, of approximately $90\%$, explaining their large extinction cross-sections that reach within 10% of the bounds. For the pinched ellipse of [Fig. \[fig:figS1\]]{}, the parameter values in [Eq. (\[eq:paramvals\])]{} yield a normalized oscillator strength of $99.6\%$, as computed by a quasistatic integral-equation solver [@Christensen2017] and shown in [Fig. \[fig:figS1\]]{}(a). Such a large oscillation strength indicates that the scatterer should reach $99.6\%$ of the extinction bound, which we verify numerically. The nearly ideal spectral response is shown in [Fig. \[fig:figS1\]]{}(b), for two scaled versions of the ellipse shown in [Fig. \[fig:figS1\]]{}(a) with the parameters given in [Eq. (\[eq:paramvals\])]{}.
Optimal conductive heat transfer through graphene
=================================================
![Optimal radiative heat-transfer coefficient for near-field energy exchange between graphene structures operating at the maximum theoretical flux rate, over a bandwidth dictated by the material loss rate. At $\SI{300}{K}$ it is possible for graphene RHT to surpass conductive transfer through air at $\approx \SI{350}{nm}$ separation distance; at $\SI{1500}{K}$, it is possible at almost $\SI{800}{nm}$ separations. The theoretical RHT coefficient increases with the resonant wavelength, ${\lambda_{\rm res}}$, due to the increasing material FOM $|\sigma|^2 / {\operatorname{Re}}\sigma$ of graphene with increasing wavelength.[]{data-label="fig:figS2"}](graphene_air_comp){width="48.00000%"}
We showed in Eq. (8) of the main text that near-field radiative heat transfer (RHT) has a unique $1/d^4$ separation-distance dependence for 2D materials, increasing more rapidly than the $1/d^3$ dependence of 3D materials. Here we consider the potential for a 2D material such as graphene to exhibit large radiative heat transfer relative to the large *conductive* heat transfer rate for two bodies separated by micron-scale air gaps. As discussed in the main text, the total radiative heat transfer between two bodies is given by $H = \int \Phi(\omega) \left[\Theta(\omega,T_1) - \Theta(\omega,T_2)\right]\,{\rm d}\omega$. For a small temperature differential between the bodies, the *conductance* (heat transfer per unit temperature) per area $A$ is termed the *radiative heat transfer coefficient* and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
h_\text{rad} &= \frac{1}{A} \int \Phi(\omega) \frac{\partial \Theta}{\partial T} \,{\rm d}\omega = \frac{1}{A} k_B \int \Phi(\omega) f(\omega) \,{\rm d}\omega, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f(\omega) = \left(\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}\right)^2 \frac{e^{\hbar\omega/k_BT}}{\left(e^{\hbar\omega/k_BT} - 1\right)^2} \end{aligned}$$ For common 2D materials such as graphene, the material loss rates are sufficiently small that resonant response is sharply peaked, with a width determined by the material loss. For resonant response the distribution of $\Phi(\omega)$ will be much sharper than the Boltmann-like distribution $f(\omega)$ in the integrand. Thus we can approximate $h$ by $$\begin{aligned}
h_\text{rad} &\approx \frac{1}{A} k_B f({\omega_{\rm res}}) \int \Phi(\omega) \,{\rm d}\omega \\
&\approx \frac{1}{A} k_B f({\omega_{\rm res}}) \Phi({\omega_{\rm res}}) \frac{\pi \Delta\omega}{2}
\label{eq:hrad_eqn}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\omega_{\rm res}}$ is the peak resonant frequency, and the second approximation assumed a Lorentzian distribution for $\Phi$, with $\Delta \omega$ as the full-width at half-maximum of the distribution. For a plasmonic material such as graphene, we can model the bandwidth through the quality factor: $Q = \frac{\omega}{\Delta \omega} = \frac{|{\operatorname{Im}}\sigma|}{{\operatorname{Re}}\sigma}$, which is the 2D-material version of the well-known expression $Q = |{\operatorname{Re}}\chi| / {\operatorname{Im}}\chi$ (Refs. [@Wang2006a; @Raman2013]). For graphene and similar materials at optical frequencies, ${\operatorname{Im}}\sigma \approx |\sigma|$. Thus if we use the minimal material-dependent bandwidth $\Delta \omega \approx {\omega_{\rm res}}{\operatorname{Re}}\sigma / |\sigma|$, and insert the bound for $\Phi/A$ from Eq. (8) in the main text into [Eq. (\[eq:hrad\_eqn\])]{}, we find a bound on the radiative heat-transfer coefficient: $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\rm rad} \leq \frac{3}{16\pi^2} \frac{k_B {\omega_{\rm res}}}{d^2} f({\omega_{\rm res}}) \frac{|\sigma|^3 Z_0^2}{{\operatorname{Im}}\sigma} \frac{1}{k_{\rm res}^2 d^2}.
\label{eq:hrad_bnd}\end{aligned}$$ Note that this is not a strict bound, but rather an indication of what is *possible*, if the single-frequency bounds derived in the text can be reached over a typical plasmonic bandwidth (which is significantly narrower than the RHT flux rates seen in Fig. 4 of the main text).
[Figure \[fig:figS2\]]{} shows the heat-transfer coefficient in graphene if [Eq. (\[eq:hrad\_bnd\])]{} can be met. We fix the Fermi level at $\SI{0.6}{eV}$, consider two temperatures: $T = \SI{300}{K}$ and $T=\SI{1500}{K}$, for a resonant wavelength ${\lambda_{\rm res}}$ swept from $\SI{3}{\mu m}$ to $\SI{5}{\mu m}$. For the sake of comparison, we include the *conductive* heat-transfer coefficient through air, taking the thermal conductivity to be $\kappa_{\rm air} = \SI{0.026}{W/m^2 \cdot K}$ ([Ref. [@Haynes2013]]{}). An exciting feature of [Fig. \[fig:figS2\]]{} is the length scale at which heat transfer may become dominated by radiative rather than conductive heat transfer. For $\SI{300}{K}$, this transition can occur at separation distances larger than $\SI{300}{nm}$, and for $\SI{1500}{K}$, the transition can happen beyond $\SI{800}{nm}$, separations orders of magnitude larger than those required with conventional designs.
Graphene material figure of merit: second-order approximation
=============================================================
A surprise in the material figure of merit of graphene is the extent to which interband contributions play a significant role in the peak magnitude of the response even at energies smaller than the Fermi level. The simplified expressions for graphene’s material FOM given in Eq. (9) of the main text are asymptotic expressions, and the low-energy expression is only valid for $\omega \ll \gamma$, where $\gamma$ is the small material loss rate. In this section, we derive a higher-order correction that more accurately describes a broader frequency range. For $\hbar\omega < 2{E_{\rm F}}$, the low-temperature ($T \ll {E_{\rm F}}/ k_B$) approximations of the intra- and interband conductivities are
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\rm intra} &= \frac{i e^2}{4\pi\hbar} \frac{4{E_{\rm F}}}{\hbar (\omega + i\gamma)} \\
\sigma_{\rm inter} &= -\frac{i e^2}{4\pi\hbar} \ln\left( \frac{2{E_{\rm F}}+ \hbar(\omega + i\gamma)}{2{E_{\rm F}}- \hbar\left(\omega + i\gamma\right)} \right).\end{aligned}$$
A Taylor expansion in frequency (with small parameter $\hbar (\omega + i\gamma) / 2 {E_{\rm F}}$) yields an inverse total conductivity of $$\begin{aligned}
\left(Z_0 \sigma\right)^{-1} \simeq -\frac{i}{\alpha} \frac{\hbar (\omega + i\gamma)}{4{E_{\rm F}}} \left( 1 + \frac{\hbar^2 (\omega^2 - \gamma^2 + 2i\gamma\omega)}{4{E_{\rm F}}^2}\right).
\label{eq:inv_cond}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the inverse conductivity of [Eq. (\[eq:inv\_cond\])]{} into the cross-section bound, Eq. (6) of the main text, yields the approximate graphene bound: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\sigma_{\rm ext}}{A}\right)_{\rm bound} &= \left[ {\operatorname{Re}}\left(Z_0 \sigma\right)^{-1} \right]^{-1} \nonumber \\
&\simeq 4\alpha \left(\frac{E_{\rm F}}{\hbar \gamma}\right) - \alpha \frac{\hbar\gamma}{E_{\rm F}} \left[ 3 \left(\frac{\omega}{\gamma}\right)^2 - 1\right]
\label{eq:secOrder}\end{aligned}$$ [Equation (\[eq:secOrder\])]{} predicts a quadratic reduction in graphene’s material figure of merit (and thus its response bounds) as a function of energy. As shown in [Fig. \[fig:figS2\]]{}, the quadratic dependence is a good approximation of the full local-response material conductivity for energies well below twice the Fermi level. Note that the frequency-dependent second term in [Eq. (\[eq:secOrder\])]{} arises entirely from *inter*band contributions to the conductivity, which are a crucial limiting factors even at frequencies well below the Fermi level.
![Comparison of the extinction bounds, $(\sigma_{\rm ext}/A)_{\rm bound}$, for graphene with the full local-response-approximation (LRA) conductivity (solid) and with the second-order approximation in [Eq. (\[eq:secOrder\])]{} (dash-dot). Even at frequencies below the Fermi level, inclusion of the interband terms, resulting in the quadratic dependence evident here, yields much better agreement than the intraband-only expression (dashed).[]{data-label="fig:figS3"}](TaylorExpansion){width="48.00000%"}
Variational-calculus derivation of upper bounds
===============================================
Here we provide the intermediate mathematical steps in the derivation of the bounds that appear in Eqs. (4–8) of the main text. For generality, we also accommodate the possibility of magnetic surface currents in addition to electric surface currents. We denote the fields as components of a six-vector $\psi$, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi &= \begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbf{E}}\\
{\mathbf{H}}\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ and the electric (${\mathbf{K}}$) and magnetic (${\mathbf{N}}$) surface currents as components of a six-vector $\phi$: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi &= \begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbf{K}}\\
{\mathbf{N}}
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ Then we can write the absorption and extinction as the inner products of the fields and currents: $$\begin{aligned}
{P_{\rm abs}}&= \frac{1}{2} {\operatorname{Re}}{\left\langle \psi, \phi \right\rangle} \\
{P_{\rm ext}}&= \frac{1}{2} {\operatorname{Re}}{\left\langle \psi_{\rm inc}, \phi \right\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ where the inner product is defined by ${\left\langle a, b \right\rangle} = \int_A a^\dagger b \,{\rm d}A$. For the most general bounds in the main text, Eq. (4), we assume only that the fields are currents are related by some linear operator $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}\phi = \psi,
\label{eq:const_eqn}\end{aligned}$$ where we have generalized the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}$ operator from the main text, to include magnetic currents.
The simplest bound to derive is the one for scattered power. We substitute the constitutive equation, [Eq. (\[eq:const\_eqn\])]{}, in the equations for absorption and extinction, and write the scattered power as the difference between extinction and absorption: $$\begin{aligned}
{P_{\rm scat}}= \frac{1}{2} \left[\frac{1}{2} {\left\langle \psi_{\rm inc}, \phi \right\rangle} + \frac{1}{2} {\left\langle \phi, \psi_{\rm inc} \right\rangle} - {\left\langle \phi, \left({\operatorname{Re}}\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}\right) \phi \right\rangle} \right]
\label{eq:pscat_gen}\end{aligned}$$ Note that by passivity ${\operatorname{Re}}\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}$ is positive-definite (for a scalar isotropic conductivity, ${\operatorname{Re}}\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}> 0$ is equivalent to ${\operatorname{Re}}\sigma > 0$). Thus the negative term in [Eq. (\[eq:pscat\_gen\])]{} is a positive-definite quadratic function of the currents $\phi$, whereas the first two positive terms are only *linear* in $\phi$. Thus ${P_{\rm scat}}$ is inherently bounded by constraints imposed by the optical-theorem form of the extinction. We can find the extremum by setting the variational derivative $\delta / \delta \phi^*$ equal to zero: $$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{\delta {P_{\rm scat}}}{\delta \phi^*}} = \frac{1}{4} \psi_{\rm inc} - \frac{1}{2} \left({\operatorname{Re}}\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}\right) \phi = 0\end{aligned}$$ which implies that the optimal currents are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi = \frac{1}{2} \left({\operatorname{Re}}\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}\right)^{-1} \psi_{\rm inc}
\label{eq:phi_opt_s}\end{aligned}$$ For these optimal currents, the scattered power is given by direct substitution of [Eq. (\[eq:phi\_opt\_s\])]{} into [Eq. (\[eq:pscat\_gen\])]{}, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
{P_{\rm scat}}\leq \frac{1}{8} {\left\langle \psi_{\rm inc}, \left({\operatorname{Re}}\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}\right)^{-1} \psi_{\rm inc} \right\rangle}.
\label{eq:pscat_bnd}\end{aligned}$$ [Equation (\[eq:pscat\_bnd\])]{} is the magnetic-current generalization of the scattered-power component of Eq. (4) in the main text. By similar variational derivatives, with a Lagrangian-multiplier approach to the constraint ${P_{\rm abs}}< {P_{\rm ext}}$, the bounds on ${P_{\rm abs}}$ and ${P_{\rm ext}}$ follow: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\rm abs,ext} \leq \frac{1}{2} {\left\langle \psi_{\rm inc}, \left({\operatorname{Re}}\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}\right)^{-1} \psi_{\rm inc} \right\rangle},
\label{eq:pext_bnd}\end{aligned}$$ with the only difference from the scattered-power bound being the extra factor of four (the $\beta$ term in the main text), which arises because maximization of absorption or extinction can fully “saturate” the constraint, i.e. ${P_{\rm abs}}= {P_{\rm ext}}$. Similar saturation would yield no scattered power, and thus the scattered-power optimum occurs for ${P_{\rm abs}}= {P_{\rm scat}}= \frac{1}{2} {P_{\rm ext}}$, at half the current level and thus one-fourth of the power level.
The next equation from the main text that we want to show the key steps for is Eq. (7), the bound for the LDOS. In this case, we can consider a spatially local conductivity for the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}$ operator, i.e., $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}= {{\bm{\sigma}}}^{-1}$. We henceforth do not consider magnetic currents, though the generalization is straightfoward. The bound for the LDOS takes exactly the same form as [Eqs. (\[eq:pscat\_bnd\],\[eq:pext\_bnd\])]{}, for absorption, scattering, and extinction, but with a different prefactor to account for the free-space LDOS, $\rho_0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\rho_\alpha}{\rho_0} &\leq \beta_\alpha \frac{1}{{\varepsilon_0}\omega} \frac{2\pi}{k^3} \sum_j {\left\langle {\mathbf{E}}_{{\rm inc},j}, \left({\operatorname{Re}}{{\bm{\sigma}}}^{-1}\right)^{-1} {\mathbf{E}}_{{\rm inc},j} \right\rangle} \nonumber \\
&= \beta_\alpha \frac{1}{{\varepsilon_0}\omega} \frac{2\pi}{k^3} \left\|{{\bm{\sigma}}}^\dagger \left({\operatorname{Re}}{{\bm{\sigma}}}\right)^{-1} {{\bm{\sigma}}}\right\|_2 \sum_j \int_A \left|{\mathbf{E}}_{{\rm inc},j}\right|^2 \,{\rm d}A
\label{eq:rho_eqn}\end{aligned}$$ where $j$ denotes the (random) orientation of the dipolar emitter, $\alpha$ denotes either the total, radiative, or nonradiatve LDOS, and $\beta_\alpha$ is $1$ for the total or nonradiative LDOS and $1/4$ for the radiative LDOS (and we have dropped an additive +1 factor for the radiative LDOS that is negligible in the near field). The surface $A$ of the 2D material can take any shape; because the integrand in [Eq. (\[eq:rho\_eqn\])]{} is positive, we can find the planar surface passing through the point on $A$ that is closest to the emitter. Denoting this half space $\Gamma$, we know that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_A |{\mathbf{E}}_{\rm inc}|^2 \,{\rm d}A \leq \int_\Gamma |{\mathbf{E}}_{\rm inc}|^2 \,{\rm d}A\end{aligned}$$ where the latter expression can be analytically evaluated due to its symmetry. \[As discussed in the main text, other bounding surfaces (such as the closest spherical shell) can be used, instead of a half space, with the resulting difference only being different numerical prefactors. To determine the integral, we can use the fact that the sum of the squared electric field over all source-dipole orientations is given by the Frobenius norm of the dyadic electric-field Green’s function: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j \left| {\mathbf{E}}_{{\rm inc},j}\right|^2 = \left\|{\bm{G}}_0\right\|_F^2 = \frac{k^6}{8\pi^2} \left[\frac{3}{\left(kr\right)^6} + \frac{1}{\left(kr\right)^4} + \frac{1}{\left(kr\right)^2} \right]
\label{eq:GF0_sq}\end{aligned}$$ which has contributions from $1/r^6$, $1/r^4$, and $1/r^2$ terms. The $1/r^2$ term represents a far field radiative contribution, which is dominated in the near field by higher-order terms. The integrals of $1/r^6$ and $1/r^4$ over the plane $\Gamma$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Gamma \frac{1}{r^6}\,{\rm d}A &= \frac{\pi}{2d^4} \\
\int_\Gamma \frac{1}{r^4}\,{\rm d}A &= \frac{\pi}{d^2}\end{aligned}$$
where $d$ is the separation of the emitter from the plane $\Gamma$. Thus the integral over the Frobenius norm of the Green’s function, excluding the far-field term, is $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Gamma \left\|{\bm{G}}_0\right\|_F^2\,{\rm d}A = \frac{k^4}{8\pi} \left[ \frac{3}{2(kd)^4} + \frac{1}{(kd)^2} \right]\end{aligned}$$ Inserting this value into the bound of [Eq. (\[eq:rho\_eqn\])]{} yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\rho_\alpha}{\rho_0} \leq \beta_\alpha \left\|{{\bm{\sigma}}}^\dagger \left({\operatorname{Re}}{{\bm{\sigma}}}\right)^{-1} {{\bm{\sigma}}}\right\|_2 \left[ \frac{3}{8(kd)^4} + \frac{1}{4(kd)^2}\right],\end{aligned}$$ which is the LDOS bound of Eq.(7) in the main text, including the second-order term.
The final expression whose mathematical form we want to derive is the RHT bound of Eq. (8) in the main text. As explained in the main text, and derived in [Ref. [@Miller2015]]{}, a bound on RHT can be developed by consideration of two scattering problems connected through (generalized) reciprocity. For two surfaces with conductivities ${{\bm{\sigma}}}_1$ and ${{\bm{\sigma}}}_2$, the bound is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(\omega) \leq &\frac{2}{\pi {\varepsilon_0}^2 \omega^2} \left\| \left({\operatorname{Re}}{{\bm{\sigma}}}_1^{-1}\right)^{-1} \right\|_2 \left\| \left({\operatorname{Re}}{{\bm{\sigma}}}_2^{-1}\right)^{-1} \right\|_2 \\
&\times \int_{A_1} \int_{A_2} \left\| {\bm{G}}_0({\mathbf{x}}_1,{\mathbf{x}}_2) \right\|_F^2 \, {\rm d}^2{\mathbf{x}}_1 {\rm d}^2 {\mathbf{x}}_2.
\label{eq:PhiBnd}
\end{aligned}$$ To complete the integral over the two 2D surfaces, we use the same “bounding plane” approach as for the LDOS. Now we need a double integral over $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$, where $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are the bounding planes for $A_1$ and $A_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Gamma_1} \int_{\Gamma_2} \frac{1}{r^6} = A \int_{\Gamma_2} \frac{1}{r^6} = \frac{\pi A}{2 d^4} \\
\int_{\Gamma_1} \int_{\Gamma_2} \frac{1}{r^4} = A \int_{\Gamma_2} \frac{1}{r^4} = \frac{\pi A}{d^2}\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is the (infinite) area of the $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ surfaces, which could be pulled out of the integrals by symmetry. Inserting the integrals into the RHT bound expression in [Eq. (\[eq:PhiBnd\])]{} yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(\omega) \leq &\frac{k^2A}{4\pi^2} Z_0^2 \left\| \left({\operatorname{Re}}{{\bm{\sigma}}}_1^{-1}\right)^{-1} \right\|_2 \left\| \left({\operatorname{Re}}{{\bm{\sigma}}}_2^{-1}\right)^{-1} \right\|_2 \\
& \times \left[ \frac{3}{2(kd)^4} + \frac{1}{4(kd)^2} \right].
\end{aligned}$$ Recognizing that $k^2 A / 4\pi^2$ is precisely the blackbody flux rate [@Joulain2005], $\Phi_{\rm BB}$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Phi(\omega)}{\Phi_{\rm BB}(\omega)} \leq & Z_0^2 \left\| \left({\operatorname{Re}}{{\bm{\sigma}}}_1^{-1}\right)^{-1} \right\|_2 \left\| \left({\operatorname{Re}}{{\bm{\sigma}}}_2^{-1}\right)^{-1} \right\|_2 \\
& \times \left[ \frac{3}{2(kd)^4} + \frac{1}{4(kd)^2} \right],
\end{aligned}$$ which is precisely the RHT bound of Eq. (8) in the main text, except that here we allow for two different materials in the interaction, and we include the second-order distance term, proportional to $1/d^2$.
Bounds in the presence of hydrodynamic nonlocality
==================================================
In the main text, we showed that in a general Maxwell-equation framework, hydrodynamic nonlocality *cannot* increase maximum optical response, as any such nonlocal response is subject to the local-response bound. Here we show that under the additional assumption of *quasistatic* response, which will almost always apply at the length scales for which nonlocal effects are non-negligible, the nonlocality necessarily *reduces* the maximum achievable optical response in a given 2D material. In accord with typical hydrodynamic models [@Mortensen2014], we will work only with electric surface currents ${\mathbf{K}}$, driven by electric fields ${\mathbf{E}}$, related by Eq. (10) of the main text, repeated here in compact notation: $$\begin{aligned}
-A \nabla\nabla \cdot {\mathbf{K}}+ B{\mathbf{K}}= {\mathbf{E}},
\label{eq:HydroEqnSM}\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
A &= \frac{i}{{\varepsilon_0}\omega {\omega_{\rm p}}^2} \left(\beta^2 + D\left(\gamma - i\omega \right)\right), \\
B &= \sigma_{\rm loc}^{-1},\end{aligned}$$
$\sigma_{\rm loc}$ is the local surface conductivity, and $\beta^2 = (3/5)v_F^2$ (for Fermi velocity $v_F$) for both parabolic 2D materials as well as graphene. Note that one can define the plasma frequency $\omega_p$ using $\hbar k_{\rm F} / v_{\rm F}$ as the effective mass, yielding $\omega_p^2 = e^2 E_{\rm F} / (\pi {\varepsilon_0}\hbar^2)$. In the presence of a hydrodynamic nonlocality, it is straightforward to write the absorbed power in terms of the currents ${\mathbf{K}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\rm abs} &= \frac{1}{2} {\operatorname{Re}}\int_A {{\mathbf{K}}^*} \cdot {\mathbf{E}}\nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{2} {\operatorname{Re}}\int_A -A {{\mathbf{K}}^*} \cdot \nabla \nabla \cdot {\mathbf{K}}+ B {{\mathbf{K}}^*} \cdot {\mathbf{K}}\nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_A a \left( \nabla \cdot {{\mathbf{K}}^*} \right) \left( \nabla \cdot {\mathbf{K}}\right) + b {{\mathbf{K}}^*} \cdot {\mathbf{K}},
\label{eq:PabsNL}\end{aligned}$$ where the second line follows from integration by parts and the no-spillout condition ($\hat{{\mathbf{n}}}\cdot {\mathbf{K}}= 0$), and $a$ and $b$ are the real parts of $A$ and $B$, respectively,
$$\begin{aligned}
a &= {\operatorname{Re}}(A) = \frac{D}{{\varepsilon_0}{\omega_{\rm p}}^2}, \\
b &= {\operatorname{Re}}(B) = {\operatorname{Re}}\left(\sigma_{\rm loc}^{-1}\right),\end{aligned}$$
which are positive by the sign convention chosen in [Eq. (\[eq:HydroEqnSM\])]{}. The key insight to take away from [Eq. (\[eq:PabsNL\])]{} is that it is quadratic in ${\mathbf{K}}$ *and* ${\nabla \cdot}{\mathbf{K}}$. Thus for nonlocal models, restrictions on the *divergence* of the currents represent an additional constraint on maximal optical response. To have a non-trivial restriction on ${\nabla \cdot}{\mathbf{K}}$, there should also be a term in the extinction that is linear in ${\nabla \cdot}{\mathbf{K}}$. This is where the quasistatic approximation is useful. Quasisatic electromagnetism dictates that the incident field is the (negative) gradient of some potential $\phi_{\rm inc}$: ${\mathbf{E}}_{\rm inc} = -\nabla \phi_{\rm inc}$. Then, using integration by parts and the no-spillout condition once more, we can write the extinction in either of two equivalent ways: $$\begin{aligned}
{P_{\rm ext}}^{(1)} &= \frac{1}{2} {\operatorname{Re}}\int_A {{\mathbf{E}}_{\rm inc}^*} \cdot {\mathbf{K}}\label{eq:Pext1},\\
{P_{\rm ext}}^{(2)} &= \frac{1}{2} {\operatorname{Re}}\int_A {\phi_{\rm inc}^*} {\nabla \cdot}{\mathbf{K}}\label{eq:Pext2}.\end{aligned}$$ The first equation, [Eq. (\[eq:Pext1\])]{}, offers a constraint on the magnitude of ${\mathbf{K}}$, while the second equation, [Eq. (\[eq:Pext2\])]{}, offers a constraint on the magnitude of ${\nabla \cdot}{\mathbf{K}}$. Thus if we wish to maximize extinction, for example, it is subject to two constraints, ${P_{\rm abs}}< {P_{\rm ext}}^{(1)}$ and ${P_{\rm abs}}< {P_{\rm ext}}^{(2)}$, and we should maximize the *minimum* of ${P_{\rm ext}}^{(1)}$ and ${P_{\rm ext}}^{(2)}$ (which are not necessarily equivalent since we do not impose the additional nonconvex constraint of satisfying quasistatic electromagnetism). Thus the maximal-extinction problem can be written as a “maximin” (negative of a minimax) convex problem $$\begin{aligned}
& \max_{{\mathbf{K}},{\nabla \cdot}{\mathbf{K}}} \min_{i \in \{1,2\}} & & {P_{\rm ext}}^{(i)} \\
& \text{such that} & & {P_{\rm abs}}\leq {P_{\rm ext}}^{(i)}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:MaxExt}$$ Although [Eq. (\[eq:MaxExt\])]{} is nonsmooth (because of the absolute value), a standard transformation [@Nocedal2006] yields an equivalent smooth optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
& \max_{{\mathbf{K}},{\nabla \cdot}{\mathbf{K}},x} & & x \\
& \text{such that} & & x \leq {P_{\rm ext}}^{(i)} \\
& & & {P_{\rm abs}}\leq {P_{\rm ext}}^{(i)},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:MaxExtSmooth}$$ where $i \in \{1,2\}$ and the constraints are all convex. At the extremum ${P_{\rm ext}}^{(1)} = {P_{\rm ext}}^{(2)}$, and standard optimization techniques (e.g., Lagrange multipliers) yield this optimal value: $$\begin{aligned}
{P_{\rm ext}}\leq \frac{1}{2} \left[ \frac{{\operatorname{Re}}(\sigma_{\rm loc}^{-1})}{\int_A \left|{\mathbf{{\mathbf{E}}_{\rm inc}}}\right|^2} + \frac{D/({\varepsilon_0}{\omega_{\rm p}}^2)}{\int_A |\phi_{\rm inc}|^2} \right]^{-1}.
\label{eq:fbndNL}\end{aligned}$$ The bound on the right-hand side of [Eq. (\[eq:fbndNL\])]{} is a rate competition between the local-conductivity bound in the first term and a diffusion-constant-based bound in the second term that only arises from the hydrodynamic nonlocality. We can simplify the bound in the case of a plane wave.
Within the quasistatic approximation, an incident plane wave is represented by a constant vector field across/over the surface of the 2D material; for a polarization along $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, i.e. for $\mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{inc}} = E_0\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, the associated potential is $\phi_{\mathrm{inc}} = -E_0z$. If the “radius” of the scatterer (more precisely, its smallest bound sphere in the polarization direction) is given by $r$, we can simplify the integral of $|\phi_{\rm inc}|^2$ via the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\int_A |\phi_{\rm inc}|^2 = |E_0|^2 \int_A z^2 = |E_0|^2 \left\langle z^2 \right\rangle A \leq |E_0|^2 r^2 A,\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle \cdot \rangle$ denotes an average over the area of the scatterer. In terms of the cross-section, $\sigma_{\rm ext} = {P_{\rm ext}}/ (|E_0|^2 / 2Z_0)$, the expression of [Eq. (\[eq:fbndNL\])]{} is bounded above by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\sigma_{\rm ext}}{A} \leq \left[ \left(Z_0 \frac{\left| \sigma_{\rm loc} \right|^2}{{\operatorname{Re}}\sigma_{\rm loc}}\right)^{-1} + \left(\frac{r^2}{\ell_D^2}\right)^{-1} \right]^{-1},
\label{eq:extBndNL}\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell_D = \sqrt{\frac{cD}{{\omega_{\rm p}}^2}}$ is a normalized diffusivity that we can interpret as a plasmonic “diffusion” length. [Equation (\[eq:extBndNL\])]{} has an appealing, intuitive interpretation: the cross-section of a scatterer is bounded above by a combination of the local-conductivity bound and a nonlocal contribution proportional to the square of the ratio of the size of the scatterer to the “diffusion” length. Thus as the size of the particle approaches $\ell_D$, and goes below it, there is a significant reduction in the maximal optical response.
Because the local density of states (LDOS) is proportional to [Eq. (\[eq:Pext1\])]{}, but with the replacement ${{\mathbf{E}}_{\rm inc}^*} \rightarrow {\mathbf{E}}_{\rm inc}$ ([Ref. [@Miller2016]]{}), the equivalent LDOS bound is exactly [Eq. (\[eq:fbndNL\])]{}, with additional numerical prefactors and the caveat that ${\mathbf{E}}_{\rm inc}$ is now rapidly decaying in space. The $1/r^3$ decay of the incident field is responsible for the $1/d^4$ distance dependence of the local-conductivity LDOS bound, Eq.(7), in the main text. But the incident-field potential, $\phi_{\rm inc}$, decays less rapidly, with scaling $\sim 1/r^2$. Thus $\int_A |\phi_{\rm inc}|^2 \sim 1/d^2$, a dramatic reduction from the $1/d^4$ scaling for a local conductivity. The crossover from the $1/d^4$ term being dominant in the bound to the $1/d^2$ term being dominant occurs when the separation distance $d$ is of the same order of magnitude as the diffusion length $\ell_D$. Exploration of the $1/d^2$ scaling in various relevant materials and geometries would be interesting future work.
LDOS above a planar conducting sheet
====================================
In this section we analytically derive the LDOS above a planar conducting sheet. We show that the envelope of the peak LDOS has $1/d^3$ scaling when dominated by a single resonance, whereas it has a $1/d^4$ scaling, and comes within a factor of two of the LDOS bounds of Eq. (7) in the main text, when it arises from a “lossy-background” contribution. The LDOS above any structure with translational and rotational symmetry is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\omega) = \int \rho(\omega,k_p) \, {\rm d}k_p\end{aligned}$$ where $k_p$ is the magnitude of the surface-parallel component of the wavevector. In the near field ($k_p \gg k_0$), for $p$-polarized waves (e.g., surface plasmons), $\rho(\omega,k_p)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\omega, k_p) = \frac{k_0}{2\pi^2 c} \frac{k_p^2}{k_0^2} e^{-2k_p z} {\operatorname{Im}}r_p
\label{eq:rhoInt}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_p$ is the $p$-polarized (TM) reflection coefficient. For a 2D material with surface conductivity $\sigma$, $r_p$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
r_p &\approx \frac{i \sigma k_p}{2\varepsilon_0 \omega + i\sigma k_p} \label{eq:rp_sigma} \\
&= \frac{k_p}{k_p - \xi}\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi = i 2{\varepsilon_0}\omega / \sigma$. Thus the imaginary part of the reflection coefficient is $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Im}}r_p = \frac{k_p \xi''}{(k_p - \xi)' + (\xi'')^2},
\label{eq:ImR}\end{aligned}$$ where the single and double apostrophes indicate real and imaginary parts, respectively. The variable $\xi(\omega)$ encodes the material conductivity. For single-resonance-dominant response, the wavevector integral of [Eq. (\[eq:rhoInt\])]{} will be dominated by a narrow peak in the imaginary part of the reflection coefficient, i.e. [Eq. (\[eq:ImR\])]{}, where $k_p \approx \xi'$. Conversely, for a highly lossy background, for which ${\operatorname{Re}}\sigma \gg |{\operatorname{Im}}\sigma|$ and thus ${\operatorname{Im}}\xi \gg |{\operatorname{Re}}\xi|$, the contribution of ${\operatorname{Im}}r_p$ to the integrand in [Eq. (\[eq:PhiBnd\])]{} will be roughly constant. We treat the two cases separately.
Pole contribution to the LDOS
-----------------------------
As discussed above, the imaginary part of the reflection coefficient will be sharply peaked around $k_p \approx {\operatorname{Re}}\xi(\omega)$ in the case of a single resonance dominating the response. Then the peak value of ${\operatorname{Im}}r_p$, as a function of wavevector, will be $$\begin{aligned}
\max {\operatorname{Im}}r_p \approx \frac{k_p}{\xi''}
\end{aligned}$$ and the width of the peak will be $\Delta k_p \approx 2 \xi''$. If we denote $k_{p0}$ as the peak wavevector at which ${\operatorname{Im}}r_p$ takes its maximum value, and assume a Lorentzian lineshape for ${\operatorname{Im}}r_p$, then we can approximate the $k_p$-dependent terms in the integral of [Eq. (\[eq:rhoInt\])]{} by $$\begin{aligned}
\int k_p^2 e^{-2k_p z} {\operatorname{Im}}(r_p) \, {\rm d}k_p &\approx k_{p0}^2 e^{-2k_{p0} z} \int {\operatorname{Im}}(r_p) \, {\rm d}k_p \nonumber \\
&\approx k_{p0}^2 e^{-2k_{p0} z} \frac{\pi}{2} {\operatorname{Im}}\left[ r_p(k_{p0}) \right] \Delta k_p \nonumber \\
&= \pi k_{p0}^3 e^{-2k_{p0} z}\end{aligned}$$ Thus we can write the full LDOS, $\rho(\omega)$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\omega) = \rho_0(\omega) \frac{k_{p0}^3}{k_0^3} e^{-2 k_{p0} z},\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_0(\omega)$ is the electric-only free-space LDOS, $\rho_0 = k_0^2 / 2\pi^2 c$. We note that the optimal frequency, and thus the optimal $k_{p0}$, changes as a function of $z$, with the optimal $k_{p0}$ given by $k_{p0} = 3/2z$. Replacing the height $z$ with the separation distance $d$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\max_\omega \frac{\rho(\omega)}{\rho_0(\omega)} &\approx \pi \left(\frac{3}{2e}\right)^3 \frac{1}{(k_0d)^3} \nonumber \\
&\approx \frac{1}{2(k_0 d)^3}.
\label{eq:ldos_pole}\end{aligned}$$ The expression given by [Eq. (\[eq:ldos\_pole\])]{} quantitatively predicts the short-distance and low-frequency behavior of the LDOS in Fig. 3 of the main text.
Lossy-background contribution to the LDOS
-----------------------------------------
The lossy-background contribution to the LDOS exhibits a different mathematical structure. Instead of ${\operatorname{Im}}r_p$ being sharply peak around a single resonance, ${\operatorname{Im}}\xi \gg |{\operatorname{Re}}\xi|$, and the imaginary part of the reflectivity is nearly constant over wavevector: $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Im}}r_p \approx \frac{k_p}{\xi''}\end{aligned}$$ for all $k_p$ (that are not so large as to be inaccessible at a finite separation distance). Thus ${\operatorname{Im}}r_p$ can be taken out of the integral for $\rho$, [Eq. (\[eq:rhoInt\])]{}, which is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\int k_p^2 e^{-2 k_p z} {\operatorname{Im}}r_p \, {\rm d}k_p &\approx \frac{1}{\xi''} \int k_p^3 e^{-2 k_p z} \, {\rm d}k_p \nonumber \\
&\approx \frac{1}{\xi''} \frac{3}{8z^4},\end{aligned}$$ where we have kept ony the lowest-order term in $1/z$. Writing out $\xi'' = 2{\varepsilon_0}\omega / {\operatorname{Re}}\sigma$, straightforward algebra yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\rho(\omega)}{\rho_0(\omega)} \approx \frac{3}{16} \left(Z_0 {\operatorname{Re}}\sigma\right) \frac{1}{(k_0 d)^4}
\label{eq:rhoLB}\end{aligned}$$ for emitter–material separation distance $d$. We see that in the limit ${\operatorname{Re}}\sigma \gg |{\operatorname{Im}}\sigma|$, which is a prerequisite for the lossy-background contribution to dominate, [Eq. (\[eq:rhoLB\])]{} is exactly a factor of 2 smaller than the general LDOS bound that appears in Eq. (7) of the main text. The factor of 2 stems from the factor of 2 in the denominator of [Eq. (\[eq:rp\_sigma\])]{}, which itself arises from the equal interactions of a 2D material with the exterior regions on either side of its surface. [Equation (\[eq:rhoLB\])]{} quantitatively predicts the LDOS in the moderate-separation and large-energy regimes of Fig. 3 of the main text.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Joel Stehouwer, Amin Jourabloo, Yaojie Liu, Xiaoming Liu\
Department of Computer Science and Engineering\
Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 48824\
[{stehouw7, liuyaoj1, jourablo, liuxm}@msu.edu]{}
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: 'Noise Modeling, Synthesis and Classification for Generic Object Anti-Spoofing'
---
#### Acknowledgment
This research is based upon work supported by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), via IARPA R&D Contract No. $2017$-$17020200004$. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the ODNI, IARPA, or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
= 7mm
****
Hyperfine Anomaly of Be Isotopes and
Anomalous Large Anomaly in $^{11}$Be
T. FUJITA[^1] and K. ITO[^2]
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Technology
Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan
and
Toshio SUZUKI[^3]
Department of Physics, College of Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University Sakurajosui 3-25-40, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 156-8550, Japan
[ABSTRACT]{}
A new result of investigations of the hyperfine structure (hfs) anomaly in Be isotopes is presented. The hfs constant for $^{11}$Be is obtained by using the core plus neutron type wave function: $ |2s_{1\over 2}>+|1d_{5\over2}\times 2^+ ; \frac{1}{2}^{+}> $. A large hfs anomaly of $^{11}$Be is found, which is mainly due to a large radius of the halo single particle state.
$PACS \ numbers $ : 21.10.Ky, 21.60.Cs, 27.20.+n, 33.15.Pw\
$Key \ words $ : Hyperfine anomaly, neutron halo
Introduction
============
Recently, much interest has been paid to the magnetic hyperfine structure (hfs) for various nuclear isotopes [@Kla; @Fin; @Sch; @Asa; @AF; @AFH]. For the experimental side, there is some progress in observing the transition of the hyperfine levels for atomic ground states. In fact, the accuracy of the measurement of the hfs splitting is improved a great deal, and even for lighter nuclei, there is a good chance of observing the hfs anomaly. This becomes possible due to the ion trap method which can isolate the atoms. This ion trap method[@End; @Wada] can measure the hfs anomaly with the accuracy of order $10^{-6}$.
The hyperfine structure has a sensitivity to the magnetization distribution
in nucleus. It can, therefore, present a unique way to measure the neutron distribution in nucleus. In particular, there is a strong evidence that the $^{11}$Li has a neutron
halo[@Tan] which may extend quite far over the typical nuclear radius of the neighboring light nuclei. Moreover, $^{11}$Be has an anomalous spin-parity state for the ground state[@FOT], and there may be some chance that it also has a large neutron radius.
In this paper, we present a model calculation of the hfs anomaly for Be isotopes. For $^{7}$Be and $^{9}$Be nuclei, we can use the Cohen-Kurath wave functions[@CK]. On the other hand, $^{11}$Be has an anomalous spin-parity state, which is ${1\over 2}^+$ instead of ${1\over 2}^-$. A simple minded shell model wave function does not give a proper structure of the ground state.
Here, we calculate the matrix element of the hfs operator for the ground state of $^{11}$Be using the core plus neutron type wave function: $ \alpha |2s_{1\over 2}>+ \beta |1d_{5\over2}\times 2^+: {1\over2}^+> $. It turns out that the hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ for $^{11}$Be is quite large
in magnitude compared to those of $^{7}$Be and $^{9}$Be. This is mainly related to the fact that the ground state of $^{11}$Be has a large radius compared to those of ground states of other Be isotopes.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we briefly explain the theory of the magnetic hyperfine structure in electronic atoms. Section 3 treats the core plus neutron type wave function. We evaluate the matrix elements of the hfs operator using this wave function. In section 4, numerical results of the isotope shifts of the hfs anomaly for Be isotopes are presented. Summary is given in section 5.
Magnetic Hyperfine Structure
============================
An atomic electron which is bound by a nucleus feels the magnetic interaction in addition to the static Coulomb force. The magnetic interaction between the electron and the nucleus can be described as $$H' = -\int {\bf j}_N ({\bf r}) \cdot {\bf A}({\bf r}) d^3 r
\eqno{(2.1)}$$ where the nuclear current ${\bf j}_N ({\bf r})$ can be written as $${\bf j}_N({\bf r}) = {e\hbar\over{2Mc}}\sum_i g_s^{(i)} \nabla \times s_i
\delta ({\bf r}-{\bf R}_i )
+\sum_i {eg^{(i)}_{\ell}\over{2M}} \left( {\bf P}_i \delta ({\bf r}-{\bf
R}_i )
+\delta ({\bf r}-{\bf R}_i ) {\bf P}_i \right) \eqno{(2.2)}$$ ${\bf A}({\bf r})$ denotes the vector potential which is created by the atomic electron, and it can be written as $${\bf A}({\bf r})= \int { {\bf j}_e({\bf r}')
\over{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}' |}} d^3 r' \eqno{(2.3)}$$ where ${\bf j}_e ({\bf r}) $ denotes the current density of an electron, and can be written as $${\bf j}_e ({\bf r}) = -e \mbox{\boldmath $\alpha $}
\delta ({\bf r}-{\bf r}_e )
\eqno{(2.4)}$$ where $\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha $} $ denotes the Dirac matrix.
The hfs anomaly
---------------
The magnetic hyperfine splitting energy $W$ can be written as $$W = <IJ:FF|H'|IJ:FF>= {1\over 2} \left[ F(F+1)-I(I+1)-J(J+1) \right] a_I
\eqno{(2.5)}$$ where $I$,$J$ and $F$ denote the spin of the nucleus, the spin of the atomic electron and the total spin of the atomic system, respectively. $a_I$ is called the hyperfine structure (hfs) constant. Following ref. [@FA], we can write the expression for the $a_I$ as $$a_I =a_I^{(0)} (1+\epsilon ) \eqno{(2.6)}$$ where $a_I^{(0)}$ is the hfs constant for the point charge, and can be written as $$a_I^{(0)} = -{2ek\mu_N \over{IJ(J+1)}}
\mu \int_0^\infty F^{(kJ)} G^{(kJ)} dr \eqno{(2.7)}$$ where $\mu$ is the magnetic moment of the nucleus in units of the nuclear magneton $\mu_{N}$, and $F^{(kJ)}$ and $ G^{(kJ)}$ are the large and small
components of the relativistic electron wave function for the $kJ$ state. $\epsilon$ is called hfs anomaly and can be written as $$\epsilon =-{0.62 b^{(kJ)}\over{\mu}}<II|\sum_{i=1}^A
\left( {R_i\over{R_0}}\right)^2
\mu_i |II>
-{0.38 b^{(kJ)}\over{\mu}}<II|\sum_{i=1}^A
\left( {R_i\over{R_0}}\right)^2 g_s^{(i)}
\Sigma_i^{(1)} |II> \eqno{(2.8)}$$ where $\mu_{i}$ is the single-particle operator of the magnetic moment, that is, $\mu_{i} = g_{s}^{(i)}s_{i}$ + $g_{\ell}^{(i)}\ell_{i}$, and $ \Sigma_i^{(1)}$ is defined as $$\Sigma_i^{(1)} = s_i +\sqrt{2\pi}[sY^{(2)}]_i^{(1)} . \eqno{(2.9)}$$ $R_0$ is a nuclear radius and can be given as $ R_0=r_0 A^{ 1\over 3} $ with $r_0 = 1.2$ fm. On the other hand, $b^{(kJ)}$ is a constant which is calculated in terms of relativistic electron wave functions[@BW], and is given as $$b^{(kJ)} = 0.23 k^2_0 R_0 \gamma (1-0.2 \gamma^2 )
/ \int_0^{\infty} F^{(kJ)}G^{(kJ)} dr . \eqno{(2.10)}$$ $m_e$ denotes the electron mass, $k_0^2$ is a normalization constant, and $\gamma = Z\alpha $.
The isotope shift of the hfs anomalies of the two isotopes $\Delta_{12}$ is defined as $$\Delta_{12} = {a_{I_1}g_2\over{a_{I_2}g_1}} -1 \eqno{(2.11)}$$ where $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$ are the total nuclear g-factors for isotope 1 and 2, respectively. Since the hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ is quite small, $\Delta_{12}$ becomes $$\Delta_{12} \approx \epsilon_1 -\epsilon_2 . \eqno{(2.12)}$$
The hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ can be calculated once we know the nuclear wave function. Here, we employ simple-minded shell model wave functions with core polarization taken into account. We take the following approach which considers only the $\Delta \ell =0$ core polarization for the $ \Sigma_i^{(1)} $ operator. In this case, we can obtain the matrix element of the $
\Sigma_i^{(1)}$ without introducing any free parameters as discussed in ref. [@FA].
$\Delta \ell =0$ core polarization
-----------------------------------
In this case, we can express the effect of the core polarization on the $ \Sigma_i^{(1)} $ operator in terms of the core polarization of the magnetic moment. Following ref. [@FA], we can write the expectation value of the $ \Sigma_i^{(1)} $ as $$<II| \sum_{i=1}^A g_s^{(i)} \Sigma_i^{(1)} |II>
= \pm g_s^{(VN)}{3(I+{1\over 2})\over{4(I+1)}} +
{3g_s^{(VN)}\over{4(g_s-g_{\ell})^{(VN)} }} (\mu-\mu_{sp}-
\delta \mu^{mes} ) \eqno{(2.13)}$$ for $I=\ell \pm {1\over 2} $. Here, $g_s^{(VN)}$ denotes the g-factor of the valence nucleon for the single particle state we are considering. $\mu_{sp}$ is the single
particle value of the magnetic moment. $\delta \mu^{mes}$ comes from the meson exchange current and can be given approximately as $$\delta \mu^{mes} \approx 0.1 \tau_3 \ell .$$ Therefore, we do not have any free parameters in the evaluation of the expectation value of the $ \Sigma_i^{(1)} $. As the Be isotopes have orbits with small $\ell $, the exchange current effects are not important and we can safely neglect the term $\delta \mu^{mes} $.
Core plus neutron model
=======================
Recently, Suzuki et al.[@SOM] investigated the magnetic moment of the ground state of $^{11}$Be. They describe the ground state of $^{11}$Be as $$|^{11}\mbox{Be} \left({1\over {2}}^+\right)> = \alpha |^{10}\mbox{Be}
(0^+) \times \nu
2s_{1\over 2}: {1\over 2}^+ > + \beta |^{10}\mbox{Be} (2^+) \times \nu
2d_{5\over 2}: {1\over 2}^+ > . \eqno{(3.1)}$$ In this case, the magnetic moment of the $^{11}$Be ground state can be expressed as $$\mu = \alpha^2 \mu_{\nu (2s_{1\over 2}) } +{7\over {15}} \beta^2
\mu_{\nu (1d_{5\over 2})} -{1\over 3} \beta^2 \mu_{(2^+)} \eqno{(3.2)}$$ where $\mu_{\nu (2s_{1\over 2}) }$, $\mu_{\nu (1d_{5\over 2}) }$ and $\mu_{(2^+)}$ denote the magnetic moment of the neutron $ 2s_{1\over 2}$, $ 1d_{5\over 2}$ states and the $2^+$ (3.37 MeV) state of $^{10}$Be, respectively. Here, we evaluate the hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ for the two- component wave function, eq.(3.1). The hfs anomaly of eq.(2.8) can be written as $$\epsilon =
-{0.62 b^{(1s)}\over{\mu}} \left[
\alpha^2 \mu_{\nu (2s_{1\over 2})} < \left( {R\over{R_0}} \right)^2 >_{2s} +
{7\over {15}} \beta^2
\mu_{\nu (1d_{5\over 2})} < \left( {R\over{R_0}} \right)^2 >_{1d}
-{1\over 3} \beta^2 \mu_{ (2^+ )} < \left( {R\over{R_0}} \right)^2 >_{1p}
\right]$$ $$-{0.38 b^{(1s)}\over{\mu}} \left[
\alpha^2 \Sigma_{\nu (2s_{1\over 2})} < \left( {R\over{R_0}} \right)^2
>_{2s} +
{7\over {15}} \beta^2
\Sigma_{\nu (1d_{5\over 2})} < \left( {R\over{R_0}} \right)^2 >_{1d}
-{1\over 3} \beta^2 \Sigma_{ (2^+ )} < \left( {R\over{R_0}} \right)^2 >_{1p}
\right] \eqno{(3.3)}$$ where $$\Sigma_{j} = < j j \mid \sum_{i} g_{s}^{(i)} \Sigma_{i}^{(1)} \mid jj >
\eqno{(3.4)}$$ and $i$ runs over the nucleons in the state that has the total angular momentum $j$. $\mu_{\nu(2s_{{1\over 2}})}$ = $\mu_{\nu(1d_{{5\over 2}})}$ = ${1\over 2} g_{s}^{(n)}$, where $g_{s}^{(n)} = -3.826$ is the spin g-factor for the neutron, and $\mu_{(2^{+})}$ = 1.787[@SOM]. The values of $\Sigma_{\nu (2s_{1\over 2})}$, $\Sigma_{\nu (1d_{5\over 2})}$ and $\Sigma_{(2^{+})}$ are obtained as $ \Sigma_{\nu (2s_{1\over 2})}$ = ${1\over 2} g_{s}^{(n)}$, $ \Sigma_{\nu (1d_{5\over 2})}$ = ${9\over 14} g_{s}^{(n)}$, and $ \Sigma_{(2^{+})} = -1.034$, respectively.
The $\mu_{(2^{+})}$ and the $\Sigma_{(2^+)}$ are obtained by using the Cohen-Kurath wave function, TBE(8-16)[@CK; @OXB]. Now, the recent measurement of the magnetic moment of $^{11}$Be gives[@Asah] $$\mu ({^{11}Be}) = -1.682(3) \ \ \mu_N . \eqno{(3.5)}$$ This indicates that the value of $\alpha^2$ is close to $$\alpha^{2} = 0.5 \eqno{(3.6)}$$ from the comparison of the observation with Fig. 2a of ref. [@SOM]. In this way, we obtain the hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ for $^{11}$Be. For the $^{7}$Be and $^{9}$Be isotopes, we can calculate the hfs anomaly using the Cohen-Kurath wave function[@CK]. The hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ for this case is written similarly as $$\epsilon = - {0.62 b^{(1s)}\over \mu} \mu_{({3\over 2}^{-})}
<({R \over R_{0}})^{2}>_{1p} - {0.38 b^{(1s)}\over \mu}
\Sigma_{({3\over 2}^{-})}
<({R \over R_{0}})^{2}>_{1p}. \eqno{(3.7)}$$
We also consider the case in which the effective $g$ factor for the spin operator, $g_{s}^{eff}$, is taken into account. As for the halo orbit, we assume that the second-order effects are rather small and result in little quenching of the spin operator. We, therefore, take $g_{s}^{eff}$ = 1.0 for the $\nu$2s$_{1/2}$- orbit. In this case, $\mu_{\nu(2s_{1/2})}$ = $\frac{1}{2}g_{s}^{(n)}$ = $-1.913$, $\mu_{\nu(1d_{5/2})}$ = $\frac{1}{2}g_{s}^{(n)} g_{s}^{eff}$ = $-1.913 g_{s}^{eff}$, $\mu_{(2^{+})}$ = 1.076 + 0.711 $g_{s}^{eff}$, and $\Sigma_{\nu(2s_{1/2})}$ = $\frac{1}{2}g_{s}^{(n)}$ = $-1.913$, $\Sigma_{\nu(1d_{5/2})}$ = $\frac{9}{14}g_{s}^{(n)} g_{s}^{eff}$ = $-2.460 g_{s}^{eff}$, $\Sigma_{(2^{+})}$ = $-1.034 g_{s}^{eff}$, in units of $\mu_{N}$. The magnetic moment is, then, given by $$\mu = -1.913 \alpha^{2} - (0.3585 + 1.1298 g_{s}^{eff})\beta^{2}.
\eqno{(3.8)}$$
In comparison with the experimental value of the magnetic moment, $-1.682(3)$ $\mu_{N}$, we obtain $\alpha^{2}$ = 61$\%$. When the contributions from the meson exchnge currents are taken into account, $\alpha^{2}$ is close to 65$\%$. We give results of the hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ for $^{11}$Be also for the case with the effective spin $g$ factor. Numerical evaluations are carried out in section 4.
Numerical Results
=================
Now, we evaluate numerically the hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ for the Be isotopes.
Core plus neutron type wave function
------------------------------------
In order to evaluate eq.(3.3), we need to know the magnetic moment $\mu$ for the Be isotopes. The magnetic moments of $^9$Be and $^{11}$Be are observed, but the magnetic moment of $^7$Be is not yet determined experimentally. We evaluate the magnetic moment of $^{7}$Be empirically.
For $^7$Be, we can make use of the magnetic moment of $^7$Li since they are isospin doublet states. In this case, we predict the magnetic moment for $^7$Be $$\mu^{Pred} (^7\mbox{Be}) = -1.377 . \eqno{(4.1)}$$
In Table 1, we list the values of the quantities which are necessary to calculate the hfs anomaly $\epsilon$. The r.m.s. radii are those for wave functions solved in a Woods-Saxon potential with $R_{0}$ = 1.2 A$^{1/3}$ and a=0.60 fm. For the 2s$_{1/2}$ and 1d$_{5/2}$ neutron orbits in $^{11}$Be, the wave functions are obtained to reproduce the separation energies, 0.50 MeV and 3.87 MeV, respectively. The anomaly $\epsilon$ for $^{11}$Be is obtained from eq. (3.3) to be $$\epsilon (^{11}\mbox{Be}) = -0.12015 \alpha^{2} - 0.02326 \beta^{2}
\quad ( \% ). \eqno{(4.2)}$$ It gives $\epsilon = -0.0717 \%$ for $\alpha^{2}$ = 0.50 and $\beta^{2}$ = 0.50. Magnitude of $\epsilon$ gets as large as $-0.091 \%$ ($-0.101 \%$) as $\alpha^{2}$ becomes 0.70 (0.80). The hfs anomalies for $^{7}$Be and $^{9}$Be are obtained from eq.(3.7) by using the Cohen-Kurath wave functions[@CK; @OXB].
In Table 2a, we present the calculated values of hfs anomay $\epsilon$ for the Be isotopes. Now, it turns out that the hfs anomaly for $^{11}$Be has a very large value
compared to other isotopes. This is mainly connected with the fact that the
$^{11}$Be has a large neutron radius. The r.m.s. radius of the halo 2s$_{{1\over
2}}$ orbit becomes as large as 6.4 fm in deformed Woods-Saxon models[@Muta]. When we use a value of 6.37 fm for the r.m.s. radius of the halo 2s$_{{1\over
2}}$ orbit, which is obtained in the deformed Woods-Saxon model[@Muta; @SOM], the hfs anomaly is given by $$\epsilon = -0.12827 \alpha^{2} -0.02326 \beta^{2} \quad (\%).
\eqno{(4.3)}$$ Eq. (4.3) leads to $\epsilon = -0.0758$ $\%$ for $\alpha^{2}$ = 0.5, which is close to the value obtained from eq. (4.2). The anomaly $\epsilon$ becomes $-0.076 \sim -0.097$ $\%$ for $\alpha^{2}$ = $0.5 \sim 0.7$. We finally give numerical results for the case with the effective spin $g$ factor. We take $g_{s}^{eff}$ = 1.0 for the halo $\nu$2s$_{1/2}$ orbit and $g_{s}^{eff}$ = 0.85[@CWB] for other normal orbits. The hfs anomaly is given by $$\epsilon = -0.12015 \alpha^{2} - 0.02014 \beta^{2} \quad(\%).
\eqno{(4.4)}$$ Here, the 2s$_{1/2}$ orbit obtained in the spherical Woods-Saxon potential
is used. The anomaly becomes $\epsilon$ = $-0.0852 \%$ for $\alpha^{2}$ = 0.65, whose magnitude is larger than the value obtained from eq. (4.2) about by 0.01 $\%$. The anomaly $\epsilon$ becomes $-0.070 \sim -0.100 \%$ for $\alpha^{2}$ = 0.5$\sim$ 0.7.
Single particle model with core polarization
--------------------------------------------
Next, we calculate the hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ for Be isotopes using the single particle model with core polarization. Since the radius of the single particle state can be different from that of
the core polarization state, we modify the expression eq. (2.8) in the same way as eq. (3.3) $$\epsilon =
-{0.62 b^{(1s)}\over{\mu}} \left[
\mu_{sp} < \left( {R\over{R_0}} \right)^2 >_{sp} +
\delta\mu_{CP} < \left( {R\over{R_0}} \right)^2 >_{CP}
\right]$$ $$-{0.38 b^{(1s)}\over{\mu}} \left[
g_{s}^{(VN)}\Sigma_{sp} < \left( {R\over{R_0}} \right)^2 >_{sp} +
{3\over 4}\delta\mu_{CP} < \left( {R\over{R_0}} \right)^2 >_{CP}
\right] \eqno{(4.5)}$$ where $\Sigma_{sp}$ denotes the expectation value of $ <II \mid \sum_{i=1}^{A} \Sigma_{i}^{(1)} \mid II>$ with the single particle state and can be written as $$\Sigma_{sp} = {3(I+{1\over2})\over{4(I+1)}}
\quad \mbox{for} \quad I=\ell + {1\over2}. \eqno{(4.6)}$$ $\delta\mu_{CP}$ is the magnetic moment which arizes from the core polarization[@NAH]. $< ({R\over{R_{0}}})^{2} >_{CP}$ denotes the expectation values with the states involved in the core polarization. In Be isotopes, they are 1p states. In Table 2b, we list the calculated values of the hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ for the Be isotopes. In the same way as the core plus neutron type calculation, the hfs anomaly for $^{11}$Be has a very large value compared to other isotopes. This is due to the fact that the $^{11}$Be has a large neutron radius since it has an anomalous spin-parity state.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented the numerical calculations of the magnetic hfs anomaly for the Be isotopes. First, we employ the wave function which has a component coupled to the $2^+-$core excitation. This gives a large hfs anomaly for $^{11}$Be since the neutron outside the shell is assumed to be $2s_{1\over 2}$ or $1d_{5\over 2}$ orbits. On the other hand, we find that the $^{7}$Be and $^{9}$Be isotopes have a small hfs anomaly. We also evaluate the hfs anomaly using a single particle shell model with core polarization. We also predict a very large hfs anomaly for $^{11}$Be.
It would be extremely interesting to learn whether the very large hfs anomaly of $^{11}$Be can be realized in nature or not. Since this is related to the radius of the neutron halo nucleus, it may well help understand the structure of the neutron-rich nuclei. We hope that experimental observations will clarify this point in near future.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank I. Katayama and M. Wada for discussions. They are also grateful to K. Asahi for discussions on the recent measurement of the magnetic moment of $^{11}$Be. They also thank T. Otsuka for valuable
discussions on the magnetic moment of $^{11}$Be. This work is supported in part by Japanese-German Cooperative Science Promotion Program and Grant-in-Aids for Scientific Research (c) (No. 08640390) from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.
[99]{} I. Klaft, S. Borneis, T. Engel, B. Frick, R. Grieser, G. Huber, T. Kühl, D. Marx, R. Neumann, S. Schröder, P. Seeling and L. Völker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 2425 (1994).
M. Finkbeiner, B. Frick and T. Kühl, Phys. Lett. [**A176**]{}, 113 (1993).
S.M. Schneider, J. Schaffner, G. Soff and W. Greiner, J. Phys. [**B26**]{}, L581 (1993).
T. Asaga, T. Fujita and K. Ito, Z. Phys. [**A359**]{}, 237 (1997). T. Asaga, T. Fujita and M. Hiramoto, Phys. Rev. [**A57**]{}, 4974 (1998).
T. Asaga, T. Fujita and M. Hiramoto, “Hyperfine anomaly in hydrogen and hydrogen-like high Z atoms” Nihon University Preprint NUP-98-3 (1998).
K. Enders, O. Becker, L. Brand, J. Dembczynski, G. Marx, G. Revalde, P.B. Rao and G. Werth, Phys. Rev. [**A52**]{}, 4434 (1995). M. Wada, K. Okada, H. Wang, K. Enders, F. Kurth, T. Nakamura, S. Fujitaka,
J. Tanaka, H. Kawakami, S. Ohtani and I. Katayama, Nucl. Phys. [**A626**]{}, 365c (1997).
I. Tanihata, et al., Phys. Lett. [**160B**]{}, 380 (1985); [**206B**]{}, 592 (1988);\
I. Tanihata, Nucl. Phys. [**A478**]{}, 795c (1988).
N. Fukunishi, T. Otsuka and I. Tanihata, Phys. Rev. [**C48**]{}, 1648 (1993);\
P.G. Hansen, A.S. Jensen and B. Johnson, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. [**45**]{}, 591 (1995).
S. Cohen and D. Kurath, Nucl. Phys. [**73**]{}, 1 (1965).
T. Fujita and A. Arima, Nucl. Phys. [**A254**]{}, 513 (1975).
A. Bohr and V.F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. [**77**]{}, 94 (1950).
T. Suzuki, T. Otsuka and A. Muta, Phys. Lett. [**B364**]{}, 69 (1995). OXBASH, The Oxford, Buenos-Aires, Michigan State, Shell Model Program, B. A. Brown, A. Etchegoyen, and W. D. Rae, MSU Cyclotron Laboratory Report No. 524, 1986. S. Kappertz et al, in “2nd International Conference on Exotic Nuclei and Atomic Masses (ENAM98)”, Michigan (1998).
A. Dote, H. Horiuchi and Y. Kanda-En’yo, “AMD+HF model and its application to Be isotopes” (nucl-th/9705050). A. Muta and T. Otsuka, RIKEN preprint $\sharp$: RIKEN-AF-NP-188 (1995);\
D. Ridikas and J. S. Vaagen, ECT$^{\ast}$ preprint $\sharp$: ECT$^{\ast}$-96-006 (1996). W. -T. Chou, E. K. Warburton and B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. [**C47**]{}, 163 (1993). H. Noya, A. Arima and H. Horie, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**8**]{}, 33 (1958).
\
$\displaystyle{ \rm \ R_0, \ b^{(1s)}, \
r.m.s. \ radius \ and \ magnetic \ moment } $\
\
---------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------------
$^7\mbox{Be} $ $^9\mbox{Be} $ $ ^{11}\mbox{Be} $
$ R_0$ \[fm\] 2.296 2.496 2.669
$ b^{(1s)} $ \[%\] 0.0170 0.0185 0.0198
$<r^2>^{1\over 2}_{(1p)}$ \[fm\] 2.553 2.569 2.588
$<r^2>^{1\over 2}_{(2s)}$ \[fm\] $--$ $--$ 6.165
$<r^2>^{1\over 2}_{(1d)}$ \[fm\] $--$ $--$ 3.551
$\mu_{exp}$ \[n.m.\] $-1.377^*$ $ -1.177$ $-1.682$
$\mu_{sp}$ \[n.m.\] $-1.913$ $-1.913$ $-1.913$
$\delta \mu_{CP}$ \[n.m.\] $0.536^*$ 0.736 0.231
---------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------------
The values of $R_0$, $b^{(1s)}$, r.m.s. radii for the $1p$ and $2s$ states and the magnetic moments for Be isotopes are shown. \* indicates that the value of the magnetic moment is empirically extracted from those of other nuclear isotopes.
\
$\displaystyle{ \rm \ hfs \ anomaly \
\epsilon \ and \ isotope \ shift \ \Delta_{12} } $\
\
---------------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------------
$^7\mbox{Be} $ $^9\mbox{Be} $ $ ^{11}\mbox{Be} $
$\epsilon$ \[%\] $-0.0245$ $-0.0249$ $-0.0717$
$\Delta_{7,A}$ \[%\] 0 $$0.0004 0.0472
---------------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------------
The calculated values of the hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ and the isotope shift $\Delta_{12}$ for the Be isotopes obtained from eqs. (3.3) and (3.7) are shown. $\alpha^{2}$ = $\beta^{2}$ = 0.50 are used for $^{11}$Be.
\
$\displaystyle{ \rm \ hfs \ anomaly \
\epsilon \ and \ isotope \ shift \ \Delta_{12} } $\
\
---------------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------------
$^7\mbox{Be} $ $^9\mbox{Be} $ $ ^{11}\mbox{Be} $
$\epsilon$ \[%\] $-0.024$ $-0.023$ $-0.118 $
$\Delta_{7,A}$ \[%\] 0 $-$0.001 0.094
---------------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------------
The calculated values of the hfs anomaly $\epsilon$ and the isotope shift $\Delta_{12}$ for the Be isotopes obtained from eq. (4.5) are shown.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: e-mail:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report on Hybrid-Monte-Carlo simulations at finite spin density of the $\pi$-band electrons in monolayer graphene with realistic inter-electron interactions. Unlike simulations at finite charge-carrier density, these are not affected by a fermion-sign problem. Our results are in qualitative agreement with an interaction-induced warping of the Fermi contours, and a reduction of the bandwidth as observed in angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy experiments on charge-doped graphene systems. Furthermore, we find evidence that the neck-disrupting Lifshitz transition, which occurs when the Fermi level traverses the van Hove singularity (VHS), becomes a true quantum phase transition due to interactions. This is in-line with an instability of the VHS towards the formation of electronic ordered phases, which has been predicted by a variety of different theoretical approaches.'
author:
- Michael Körner
- Dominik Smith
- Pavel Buividovich
- Maksim Ulybyshev
- Lorenz von Smekal
title: |
A Hybrid-Monte-Carlo study of monolayer graphene with partially screened\
Coulomb interactions at finite spin density
---
Introduction
============
Already the nearest-neighbor hexagonal tight-binding model [@Wallace:1947an] qualitatively captures many of the interesting features of monolayer graphene, such as the existence of massless electronic excitations near the corners of the first Brillouin zone (K-points) with a linear dispersion relation for the low-energy excitations around those Dirac points [@Gusynin:2007ix]. In the electronic bands one also finds saddle points, located at the M-points, which are characterized by a vanishing group velocity. These separate the low energy region, described by an effective Dirac theory, from a region where electronic quasi-particles behave like a regular Fermi liquid with a parabolic dispersion relation centered around the $\Gamma$-points. See Fig. \[fig:tbbands\] for an illustration of the valence and conduction bands of the nearest-neighbor tight-binding theory.
![Left: Electronic band structure of the nearest-neighbor tight-binding theory of graphene. Dirac cones around the K-points are enlarged. Right: The first Brillouin zone and terminology for special points therein.\[fig:tbbands\]](tbbands){width="0.97\linewidth"}
When the Fermi level is shifted across the saddle points by a chemical potential, a change of the topology of the Fermi surface (which is one-dimensional for a 2D crystal) takes place. The distinct circular Fermi (isofrequency) lines surrounding the Dirac points are deformed into triangles when the saddle point is approached, meet to form one large connected region and then break up again into circles around the $\Gamma$-points (see Fig. \[fig:Lifshitz1\]). This is known as neck-disrupting Lifshitz transition [@Lifshitz:1960su].
The Lifshitz transition is not a true phase transition in the thermodynamic sense (as it is purely topological and not associated with any type of spontaneous symmetry breaking i.e. formation of an ordered phase), but exhibits features commonly associated with such: singularities in free energy and susceptibility at zero temperature with the chemical potential as the control parameter. Unlike phase transitions these singularities are logarithmic (in two dimensions) and not due to interactions but to the vanishing group velocity of electronic excitations at the saddle points which leads to a logarithmic divergence in the density of states (DOS) with increasing surface area of the graphene sheet. This is known as a van Hove singularity (VHS) [@VanHove:1953kkj] and can be observed in a pure form, for instance, in microwave photonic crystals with a Dirac spectrum as macroscopic models for the non-interacting graphene band structure [@Dietz:2013sga; @Dietz:2016aj] and fullerenes with an Atiyah-Singer index theorem [@Dietz:2015cna].
The fate of the VHS of monolayer graphene in the presence of many-body interactions is a topic of active research. Since interactions are strongly enhanced by the divergent DOS, it is generally believed that the VHS is unstable towards formation of electronic ordered phases. This would imply that the Lifshitz transition becomes a true phase transition in a realistic description of the interacting system at sufficiently low temperatures. It is known that superconductivity can arise from purely repulsive interactions through the Kohn-Luttinger mechanism [@Kohn:1965ss]. Furthermore, it is known that VHSs exist close to the Fermi level in most high-$T_c$ superconducting cuprates, so it has long been discussed whether they produce superconducting instabilities generically (known as the “van Hove scenario” [@Markiewicz:1997zh]). This scenario was also proposed for doped graphene [@Bostwick:2010as]. An exciting possibility specific to graphene furthermore is the emergence of an anomalous time-reversal symmetry violating chiral d-wave superconducting phase from electron-electron repulsion close to the VHS [@Gonzalez:2008hn; @Chubukov:2012as; @PhysRevB.86.020507; @Kagan:2014gf; @Schaffer:2014sd; @Loethman:2014gg; @Wang:2012as].
The theoretical perspective is not unambiguous, however. The underlying reason is that several competing channels exist for interaction-driven instabilities at the VHS, and that a subtle interplay of different mechanisms (nesting of the Fermi surface and deviations thereof, relative interaction strengths of couplings at different distances, accounting for electron-phonon interactions etc.) can tilt the balance towards one phase or another. Aside from d-wave superconductivity different formalisms have, for example, predicted superconductivity with pairing in a channel of f-wave symmetry [@Gonzalez:2013op], spin-density wave (SDW) phases [@Makogon:2011da], a Pomeranchuk instability [@Valenzuela:2008fa; @Lamas:2009cv] or a Kekulé superconducting pattern [@Faye:2016xx]. And this is by no means an exhaustive list.
![ Topology of the Fermi lines (intersection lines with horizontal planes) for Fermi levels below (left), exactly at (middle) and above (right) the saddle points. \[fig:Lifshitz1\]](NDLT){width="0.97\linewidth"}
On the experimental side, by now there exist several techniques to shift the Fermi level of graphene to the van Hove singularity: The VHS can be probed in systems where gold nanoclusters are intercalated between monolayer graphene and epitaxal graphene [@Cranney:2010ad], by chemical doping [@McChesney:2007uh; @Bostwick:2010as], by gating [@Novoselov:2005df; @Zhang:2005ff; @Efetov:2010sb] or in “twisted graphene” [@Li:2010sd] (stacked graphene layers with a rotation angle). Furthermore the valence and conduction bands of graphene can be precisely mapped using angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES). Such experiments show clear evidence for a reshaping of the graphene bands by many-body interactions [@Bostwick200763] and for a warping of the Fermi surface, leading to an extended, not pointlike, van Hove singularity (EVHS) characterized by the flatness of the bands, i.e. lack of energy dispersion, along one direction [@Bostwick:2010as].[^1] ARPES experiments on many different doped graphene systems have also shown bandwidth renormalizations with deviations of several $100$ meV from single-particle band models [@Ulstrup:2016ha] and a massive enhancement of the electron-phonon coupling at the VHS [@McChesney:2007uh]. Unambiguously distinguishing different electronic phases close to the VHS however is an open experimental challenge.
In this work, results of Hybrid-Monte-Carlo (HMC) simulations of the interacting tight-binding theory of graphene are presented. These simulations were carried out at finite chemical potential for spin rather than charge density, as induced by a spin-staggered chemical potential. Although the effects of the two are substantially different, both kinds of chemical potential can be used to tune Fermi levels across the entire range of the $\pi$-bands, including the VHS. The only difference, however substantial, is that the spin-staggered chemical potential shifts the Fermi levels of the two spin orientations in opposite directions corresponding to the pure Zeeman splitting of an in-plane magnetic field [@Aleiner:2007va].
Technically this modification is necessary to avoid the fermion-sign problem which otherwise arises from the complex phase of the fermion determinant in the charge-doped system, and which causes importance sampling to break down. The system with spin-staggered chemical potential may be viewed as the so-called “phase-quenched” version (defined by the modulus of the fermion determinant in the measure) of graphene at finite charge density. Because the two spin components of the $\pi$-band electrons in graphene correspond to two different fermion flavors, this is entirely analogous to simulating two-flavor QCD at finite isospin density with pion condensation rather than finite baryon density in the form of self-bound nuclear matter which is equally impossible due to a strong sign problem. The phases are clearly distinct but many important questions and genuine finite-density effects in lattice simulations can be addressed at finite isospin density as well.
The particular questions addressed here are about the genuine effects of inter-electron interactions on the VHS and the Lifshitz transition in graphene. Our main focus thereby is the behavior of susceptibilities to identify signatures of instabilities and phase transitions. To directly study the interaction-driven instabilities that might occur in the charge-doped systems described above would require us to measure the particle-hole susceptibility at finite charge density which is however not possible due to the sign problem. We therefore simulate at finite spin density and measure the susceptibility corresponding to ferromagnetic spin-density fluctuations instead which does not have this problem. In the non-interacting limit the two agree, and either one may be used to characterize the electronic Lifshitz transition. Because the spin-staggered chemical potential used here could at least in principle be realized in experiment as well, by sufficiently strong in-plane magnetic fields, our study might also become relevant in its own right in the future.
We chose a realistic microscopic inter-electron interaction potential which accounts for screening by electrons in the $\sigma$-bands [@Wehling:2011df]. A range of different system sizes and temperatures were considered (these are temperatures of the electron gas only, as our simulations presently do not account for phonons). Furthermore, the inter-electron interaction potential was rescaled to different magnitudes, ranging from zero to the full interaction strength of suspended graphene.
The purpose of this work is two-fold: First we wish to assess whether the effects of interactions on the VHS at finite spin density can at least qualitatively be compared with the observations from ARPES data at finite charge density. To this end, we study the reshaping of the $\pi$-bands of the interacting system (with respect to a “flattening” scenario). Secondly, we want to exemplify how the logarithmic divergence of a susceptibility at the VHS in the $T \to 0$ limit can change to a critical scaling law at non-zero $T_c$ in the presence of inter-electron interactions, as this would signal the existence of an electronic ordered state close to the VHS and indicate that the Lifshitz transition becomes a true quantum phase transition (with $\mu$ as a control parameter) below this $T_c$. Identifying the precise nature of the ordered phase will of course depend on the choice of chemical potential and is thus beyond the scope of this work, however.
This paper is structured as follows: In the following chapter we discuss the behavior of the particle-hole susceptibility in the non-interacting tight-binding theory with temperature and system size where it agrees with that of the ferromagnetic spin-density fluctuations. Exact results for the non-interacting system will serve as a baseline for our studies of the effects of inter-electron interactions. As the HMC method necessitates the introduction of a non-zero temperature of the electron gas (due to the introduction of a Euclidean time dimension which must be of finite extent) and of finite system size, the derivation accounts for both. Furthermore, we derive the leading temperature dependence at the VHS, of the divergent peak height of the susceptibility, in the infinite volume limit. In Chapter \[sec:Setup\] the Hybrid-Monte-Carlo simulation of the interacting theory is introduced, with emphasis on the fermion-sign problem which arises at finite chemical potential for charge-carrier density. We derive expressions for the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic spin-density susceptibilities expressed in terms of the inverse fermion matrix. In Chapter \[sec:Results\] results of the HMC calculations are presented. These include detailed studies of the temperature and interaction-dependent behavior of the ferromagnetic susceptibility with particular emphasis on the fate of the VHS. Preliminary results concerning the possibility of spin-density wave order from the corresponding antiferromagnetic susceptibility are also presented. We then provide our summary and conclusions in Chapter \[sec:Conclusion\].
Particle-hole susceptibility and Lifshitz transition
====================================================
Non-interacting tight-binding theory {#sec:TBLI}
------------------------------------
As mentioned in the introduction, in the nearest-neighbor tight-binding description of the $\pi$-bands in graphene, due to particle-hole symmetry the particle-hole susceptibility is independent of the sign of the chemical potential $\mu $. Because this is true independently for both spin components, there is thus no distinction between the susceptibilities for charge and spin fluctuations in the non-interacting case, and both equally reflect the Lifshitz transition at finite charge or spin density. The chemical potential $\mu $ this section can therefore be used for either one interchangeably.
In order to understand the relation between the VHS in the electronic quasi-particle DOS $\rho(\omega)$, the Thomas-Fermi susceptibility $\chi $ and the properties of the neck-disrupting electronic Lifshitz transition, one best starts from the particle-hole polarization function $\Pi(\omega, \vec{p}; \mu, T)$ at temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\mu $ for charge-carrier density (with $\mu =0 $ at half filling), excitation frequency $\omega $ and momentum $\vec p$.
The particle-hole polarization function determines the charge-density correlations corresponding to the diagonal time component of the polarization tensor in QED. Using the imaginary-time formalism and subsequent analytic continuation with the appropriate boundary conditions for retarded Green’s functions, at one-loop one arrives at the expression, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{chiint}\Pi(\omega, \vec{p}; \mu, T) =& - \int_\mathrm{BZ} \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2} \sum_{s,s' = \pm 1 } \\
& \hskip -1cm \frac{g_\sigma}{2} \bigg( 1 + ss' \frac{{{\rm Re}\,}\big( \phi^*_{\vec{k}}\,\phi_{\vec{k}+\vec{p}}\big)}{|\phi_{\vec{k}}| |\phi_{\vec{k}+\vec{p}}|} \bigg) \notag \\
& \times
\frac{n_f\big( \beta(s'\epsilon_{\vec{k}+\vec{p}} - \mu ) \big) - n_f\big( \beta (s \epsilon_{\vec{k}} - \mu) \big)}{ s'\epsilon_{\vec{k}+\vec{p}}- s\epsilon_{\vec{k}}-\omega -i\epsilon}\, , \notag \end{aligned}$$]{} where $g_\sigma = 2 $ here for the spin degeneracy, $\phi_{\vec{k}}=\sum_n e^{i\vec{k}\vec{\delta}_n}$ is the structure factor with nearest-neighbor vectors $\vec\delta_n$, $n= 1,2,3$ on the hexagonal lattice, and single-particle energies $\epsilon_{\vec k} = \kappa|\phi_{\vec{k}}|$ (where $\kappa $ is the hopping parameter) in Fermi-Dirac distributions $n_f(x) = 1/(e^{x}+1) $ at $\beta = 1/T$.
The particle-hole polarization or Lindhard function $\Pi$ is a sum of terms describing particle-hole excitations within the same band for $s'=s$ (intraband), and terms describing interband excitations for $s' = -s$. The complete one-loop expressions for intraband and interband transitions have been computed from Eq. (\[chiint\]) in closed analytic form in Refs. [@Stauber:2010mn; @Dietz:2013sga].
The imaginary parts of $\Pi$ vanish in the limit $\omega\to 0$ which describes static Lindhard screening. In a subsequent long-wavelength limit $\vec p\to 0$, to which only interband excitations contribute, one obtains the usual Thomas-Fermi susceptibility, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:TFs}\chi(\mu) = A_c \, \lim_{\vec{p} \rightarrow 0} \, \lim_{\omega \rightarrow 0} \Pi(\omega, \vec{p}; \mu, T)\, ,\end{aligned}$$]{} here normalized per unit cell of area $A_c = 3 \sqrt 3 a^2/2$ with nearest-neighbor distance $a \approx 1.42 \text{\AA}$ for the carbon atoms in graphene. It is straightforwardly calculated as [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:CHITEMP}\chi(\mu) =& \frac{g_\sigma A_c}{4T} \int_\mathrm{BZ} \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2} \\
&
\times\left[ \text{sech}^{2}\left( \frac{\epsilon_{\vec{k}}-\mu }{2T} \right)
+ \text{sech}^{2}\left( \frac{\epsilon_{\vec{k}}+\mu }{2T} \right) \right]~.\notag\end{aligned}$$]{} With the present normalization, the zero-temperature limit of $\chi(\mu)$ then in turn agrees with the density of states per unit cell $\rho(\epsilon) $ at the Fermi level $\epsilon =\mu$, i.e. [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dosdef} \lim_{T\to 0} \, \chi(\mu) = g_\sigma A_c \int_\mathrm{BZ}
\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2} \, \delta(\epsilon_{\vec{k}}-|\mu|) \equiv
\rho(\mu)~. \end{aligned}$$]{} Fig. \[FINITE\_T\] demonstrates explicitly how the integrand in (\[eq:CHITEMP\]) encodes the effect of temperature on the susceptibility. The sharp Fermi lines which were shown in the lower row of Fig. \[fig:Lifshitz1\] are smeared out, since a spread of different energy levels may now be excited. The allowed range becomes narrower as temperature is lowered and concentrates on the Fermi level with $\chi $ approaching the DOS there, for $T\to 0 $, cf. Eq. (\[eq:dosdef\]).
![ Integrand of Eq. (\[eq:CHITEMP\]) for values of $\mu$ below (right), at (middle) and above (left) the van Hove singularity; from the top to the bottom row the temperature has been lowered by a factor $1/2$ (from $T = \kappa/2$ to $\kappa/4$). \[FINITE\_T\]](FINITE_T){width="0.97\linewidth"}
The density of states was first derived for transverse vibrations of a hexagonal lattice by Hobson and Nierenberg in 1953 [@Hobson:1953df]. They found logarithmic divergences near the saddles of the energy bands, i.e., the van Hove singularities, as well as the zeros now identified with the Dirac points. From the corresponding analytical expression of the hexagonal tight-binding model given in [@CastroNeto:2009zz], one readily obtains for the fermionic system at finite charge-carrier density, with a Fermi energy near one of the van Hove singularities at $\mu = \pm \kappa$, $$\rho(\mu) = \frac{3g_\sigma }{2\pi^2\kappa} \Big\{ - \frac{1}{2}
\ln\Big(\frac{|\mu |}{\kappa} - 1\Big)^2 + 2\ln 2 + \mathcal
O\Big(\frac{|\mu|}{\kappa} -1\Big) \Big\} \, . \label{vHs}$$ The correspondingly diverging zero-temperature susceptibility $\chi$ is due to the infinite degeneracy of ground states of the two-dimensional fermionic system when the Fermi level passes through the van Hove singularity. In the thermodynamic sense this can be considered as a zero temperature transition with control parameter $|\mu|$. To illustrate this one introduces the reduced Fermi-energy parameter $z
= (|\mu|-\kappa)/\kappa$ to rewrite (\[vHs\]), $$\chi(z) = \frac{3 g_\sigma }{2\pi^2\kappa} \Big( -
\ln |z| + 2\ln 2 + \mathcal O(z) \Big) \, . \label{LT}$$ Unlike the cases of first or second order phase transitions, the susceptibility does not diverge with a power law but logarithmically. This is a manifestation of the neck-disrupting electronic Lifshitz transition in two dimensions [@Lifshitz:1960su; @Blanter1994]. There is no obvious change in symmetry, the transition is only due to the topology change of the Fermi surface. The singular part of the corresponding thermodynamic grand potential is non-zero on both sides of the transition. The original argument is simple, one expands the single-particle energy around a saddle point at $\kappa$ in suitable coordinates, $$\epsilon_{\vec k} = \kappa + \frac{k_x^2}{2m_1} - \frac{k_y^2}{2m_2}
\, , \label{eq:saddle_ni}$$ which gives in Eq. (\[eq:dosdef\]) a singular contribution $$\rho_s(z) = - \frac{g_\sigma A_c}{2\pi^2} \, \sqrt{m_1 m_2} \,
\ln|z| \, .$$ For the nearest-neighbor tight-binding model on the hexagonal lattice, one verifies that $\sqrt{m_1 m_2} = 1/(\kappa A_c ) $ so that $\rho_s(z) = - g_\sigma/(2\pi^2 \kappa) \ln |z|$. With a factor of 3 for the three $M$ points per Brillouin zone this agrees with the leading behavior of the zero-temperature susceptibility in Eq. (\[LT\]) as it should. One integration over $\kappa z$ then yields the number of states in an interval around the saddle, a second one the corresponding contribution to the grand potential $\Omega$ per unit cell which hence acquires a corresponding singularity [@Blanter1994] $$\Omega_\mathrm{sing} = \frac{3 g_\sigma \kappa }{2\pi^2} \,
\frac{z^2}{2} \ln|z| \, .$$ It is symmetric around $z=0$. There is thus no order parameter in the usual sense, but one may discuss this transition in terms of a change in the approximate symmetries of the low-energy excitation spectrum with some analogy in excited-state quantum phase transitions [@Dietz:2013sga].
At any rate, the logarithmic singularity of the electronic Lifshitz transition in the grand potential is restricted to strictly zero temperature. To see this explicitly, we first use the density of states to express the finite-temperature susceptibility in the following form, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:chiintegral2}\chi(\mu) =& \frac{1}{4T} \int_{0}^{3\kappa} d\epsilon \, \rho(\epsilon) \,\notag \\& \times
\left[ \text{sech}^{2}\left( \frac{\epsilon-\mu}{2T} \right) + \text{sech}^{2}\left( \frac{\epsilon+\mu}{2T} \right) \right]~.\end{aligned}$$]{} Assuming $\mu > 0$ for now, we may drop the second term in the brackets for sufficiently low temperatures, and extend the limits of integration to $\pm \infty$. For the susceptibility maximum at $\mu =
\kappa $ we can furthermore approximate $\rho(\epsilon)$ by the expansion in Eq. (\[vHs\]) in the region of support of the integrand around $\epsilon = \kappa $ to obtain, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Temppeakgl}\hspace*{-.4cm}\chi_\mathrm{max} = \frac{3g_\sigma }{2\pi^2\kappa}
\Big\{ - \ln{\big({\pi T}/{\kappa} \big)} + \gamma_E + 3 \ln
2 + \mathcal{O}(T) \Big\}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\gamma_E$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. The maximum of the susceptibility of the electronic Lifshitz transition is finite at finite $T$.
In this way, the logarithmic divergence in the DOS at the VHS is reflected in the Thomas-Fermi susceptibility $\chi(\mu)$. At low but finite temperatures $\chi(\mu)$ peaks when the Fermi level crosses the VHS (for $\mu = \kappa $ in the non-interacting system). The peak height grows logarithmically as temperature is lowered. Its divergence in the zero-temperature limit is a manifestation of the neck-disrupting electronic Lifshitz transition with its logarithmic singularity in the chemical potential as the corresponding control parameter.
So much for the non-interacting and infinite system. Before we discuss finite volume effects and interactions, we can speculate how a reshaping of the saddle points in the single-particle band structure by interactions might qualitatively affect the Lifshitz transition. If we assume a non-Fermi liquid behavior near the saddles for example of the form $$\epsilon_{\vec k} = \epsilon_0 + \kappa \big( c_1 (k_x a)^\alpha -
c_2 (k_ya)^\alpha\big)\, , \label{saddlereshape}$$ instead of (\[eq:saddle\_ni\]), where we had $\sqrt{c_1 c_2} = 3\sqrt 3/4$, $\epsilon_0 = \kappa $ and $\alpha =2$ for the non-interacting tight-binding model, we now obtain analogously, $$\rho_s(z) \propto \kappa^{-1} |z|^{-\gamma} \, , \;\;\mbox{with}\;\;
\gamma = 1- \frac{2}{\alpha} \, .$$ In Eq. (\[eq:chiintegral2\]) this for $\mu = \epsilon_0$ then readily yields $$\chi_\mathrm{max} \propto \frac{1}{\kappa} \,
\Big(\frac{\kappa}{T}\Big)^\gamma \, ,$$ replacing Eq. (\[Temppeakgl\]) for $\gamma\not=0$. We can see that, e.g. for $\alpha = 4$ in single-particle energies near the saddles (\[saddlereshape\]), the logarithmic divergence of Eq. (\[Temppeakgl\]) turns into a square root divergence of the susceptibility maximum for $T\to 0$ with $\gamma = 1/2$. Whereas the limit of a completely flat single-particle energy band with $\alpha \to\infty $ would correspond to $\gamma = 1 $ and hence $\chi_\mathrm{max} \propto 1/T$.
We conclude this section by reiterating that for vanishing two-body interactions, $\chi(\mu)$ is blind to a change of sign. And this is true for each of the spin orientations separately. We will use opposite signs of $\mu$ for the two spin orientations in our simulations below to avoid a fermion-sign problem. While this then corresponds to a Zeeman splitting, as caused by an in-plane magnetic field for example, rather than a change of the charge-carrier density away from half filling, the tight-binding results are unaffected by such a sign change. We may therefore thus use $\chi(\mu)$ with unlike-sign chemical potentials for the two spin states, analogous to isospin chemical potential in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), to detect deviations from the pure tight-binding theory in our Hybrid-Monte-Carlo (HMC) simulations, where it can be readily obtained (discussed in Sec. \[subsec:Observables\]).
To make the comparison between the Lifshitz transition in the non-interacting system and the results from HMC simulations with interactions as direct as possible, in the next subsection we first derive semi-analytic expression for $\chi(\mu)$ in the tight-binding model on finite lattices with the same boundary conditions that we use in the simulations.
Finite lattices
---------------
In our HMC simulations we study graphene sheets of finite surface area, with periodic boundary conditions along the primitive vectors $\vec{a}_{1,2}=\frac{a}{2} (\sqrt{3}, \pm 3)$ (where $a \approx 1.42 \text{\AA}$ is the inter-atomic distance on the hexagonal lattice) spanning one of the triangular sub-lattices (“Born-von Karman boundary conditions”). We simulate symmetric lattices, with $N$ unit cells along each axis. To take finite size into account, Eq. (\[eq:CHITEMP\]) is rewritten as a sum over the allowed momentum states, which are given by the Laue condition $e^{i\vec{k}\vec{R}} = 1$, where $\vec{R}=n\vec{a}_1+m\vec{a}_2$ with $n,m \in [1,\cdots,N]$. The momentum states are [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lauevectors}\vec{k}= \frac{n}{N}\vec{b}_1 + \frac{m}{N}\vec{b}_2~,\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\vec{b}_{1,2} = \frac{2\pi}{3a} (\sqrt{3}, \pm 1) $ are the the base vectors of the reciprocal lattice. The integral measure $d^{2}k$ turns into a finite surface element $(\Delta k)^2= | \vec{b}_1
\times \vec{b}_2 |/N^2 =A_\mathrm{BZ}/N^2$, where $A_\mathrm{BZ} =
(2\pi)^2/A_c$ is the area of the first Brillouin zone, and the integral in Eq. (\[eq:CHITEMP\]) for the susceptibility of a finite sheet becomes, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:chisum}\chi(\mu) = \frac{g_\sigma}{ 4 T N^2 } \sum_{n,m}& \left[
\text{sech}^{2}\left( \frac{\epsilon_{mn} - \mu }{2T} \right)
\right. \notag \\ &
\hskip 1cm \left. + \, \text{sech}^{2}\left(
\frac{\epsilon_{mn} +\mu}{2T} \right) \right]~. \end{aligned}$$]{} Here $\epsilon_{mn} $ is the dispersion relation, evaluated at the points defined by Eq. (\[eq:lauevectors\]): [$$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{mn}
= \kappa \left\{3 + 4\cos{ \left(\pi\frac{n+m}{N}\right)}\cos{\left(\pi \frac{n-m}{N}\right)}\right.\notag\\ \left. + 2\cos{\left(2\pi\frac{n+m}{N}\right)} \right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}~. \end{aligned}$$]{} Eq. (\[eq:chisum\]) is of a form which can be compared directly to the simulations. The sums cannot be carried out analytically, but are straightforward to evaluate numerically.
![Finite-size scaling of the susceptibility peak at different temperatures ($\beta=1/T$) from Eq. (\[eq:chisum\]); the horizontal lines indicate the leading-order prediction from Eq. (\[Temppeakgl\]), the slight deviations of the infinite volume limit from this prediction for $\beta = 2$ eV$^{-1}$ are due to $\mathcal O(T)$ corrections. \[DIFF\_TEMP\_OVER\_VOL\]](DIFF_TEMP_OVER_VOL.pdf){width="0.97\linewidth"}
Of course there is no divergence of the particle-hole susceptibility in a finite volume, not even at zero temperature. The spectrum is discrete and the total number of states is finite, so the density of states cannot diverge either. In Ref. [@Dietz:2013sga] it was shown, however, that the finite-size scaling of the susceptibility maximum at $T=0$ is logarithmic likewise, namely $$\chi_\mathrm{max} = \frac{3g_\sigma}{2\pi^2\kappa } \, \Big(
\ln N_c - 2 \ln \pi +1 +{{\cal O}}(1/N_c) \Big) \, , \label{eq:lifshitzscaling}$$ where $N_c = N^2$ is the number of unit cells. Since our simulations are carried out at finite temperature, it is clear that we cannot observe this behavior directly because it is valid only at strictly zero temperature. The extension of the analytic expressions to finite volume and finite temperature is not so straightforward, however, and cannot be done analytically.
Therefore, we use the implicit representation of $\chi(\mu) $ for a finite sheet at temperature $T$ in Eq. (\[eq:chisum\]) and compute the sums numerically. The results of $\chi$ at $\mu=\kappa$ are shown for various lattice sizes and temperatures in Fig. \[DIFF\_TEMP\_OVER\_VOL\]. In general, for any finite temperature, $\chi(\mu=\kappa,N)$ for $N \to \infty$ approaches a flat asymptote $\propto \ln(\beta\kappa ) $ which in turn increases with $\beta = 1/T$ according to Eq. (\[Temppeakgl\]). It is the temperature dependence of these asymptotic values which follows Eq. (\[Temppeakgl\]). Convergence to the infinite volume limit becomes slower for decreasing temperatures as the asymptotic value increases.
Fig. \[DIFF\_TEMP\_OVER\_VOL\] shows a strong influence of the parity of the lattice, where odd lattices approach the $N \to \infty$ limit from below and even lattices from above. For a fixed lattice size, the peak height either diverges (for even lattices) or goes to zero (for odd lattices) as $T\to 0$. This difference arises from the fact that the sums in Eq. (\[eq:chisum\]) only contain momentum modes which hit the M-points exactly when $N$ is even. For even $N$, points on the lines with $\text{sech}^2 ((\epsilon_{mn}-\mu)/2T) =1 $ contribute with diverging weight $\propto 1/T$ to the sum (cf. Fig. \[FINITE\_T\]), while for odd $N$ there are no such points but only points that cluster around these lines when the system becomes large.
Inter-electron interactions
===========================
Simulation setup {#sec:Setup}
----------------
The present work implements Hybrid-Monte-Carlo simulations of the interacting tight-binding theory on the hexagonal graphene lattice, based on a formalism developed by Brower et al. [@Brower:2012zd; @Brower:2012ze], which goes beyond the low-energy approximation (studied extensively in the past [@Drut:2008rg; @Drut:2009gg; @Drut:2009rf; @Drut:2010ff; @Drut:2011fd; @Hands:2008dg; @Armour:2009vj; @Armour:2011ff; @Buividovich:2012uk; @Giedt:2011df]) and is thus able to capture the full band structure beyond the Dirac cones. The HMC method on the graphene lattice is by now well established, and has been successfully applied in conclusive studies of the antiferromagnetic phase transition [@Buividovich:2012nx; @Ulybyshev:2013swa; @Smith:2013pxa; @Smith:2014tha; @Smith:2014vta] as well as in ongoing studies of the phase diagram of an extended fermionic Hubbard model on the hexagonal graphene lattice [@Buividovich:2016tgo]. Numerous other topics were also addressed with HMC, such as the optical conductivity of graphene [@Boyda:2016emg], the effect of hydrogen adatoms [@Ulybyshev:2015opa; @Buividovich:2017sju] or the single quasi-particle spectrum of carbon nanotubes [@Luu:2015gpl].
We have written about our setup in great detail in the past (see ref. [@Smith:2014tha] for a step-by-step derivation) and will only provide a summary here. In particular, we focus on the additional challenges which arise when introducing a chemical potential (i.e. the fermion-sign problem) and discuss our workaround solution (a spin-dependent sign flip). To be clear: This work does not attempt to solve the sign-problem, but rather studies a modified Hamiltonian which is free of such a problem. To assess to what degree the physics is changed by this modification is part of the motivation for this work.
The starting point is the interacting tight-binding Hamiltonian in second-quantized form $$\begin{aligned}
H =& \sum_{\langle x,y \rangle}(-\kappa)({a_x^\dagger}{a_y}+ {b_x^\dagger}{b_y}+ \textrm{h.c.}) \notag\\
&+ \sum_{x,y}\, q_x V_{xy} q_y + \sum_{x}m_s ({a_x^\dagger}{a_x}+ {b_x^\dagger}{b_x})~.
\label{eq:tightbinding}\end{aligned}$$ The chemical potential is absent at this stage and will be introduced later. The first sum in Eq. (\[eq:tightbinding\]) runs over pairs of nearest neighbors only (with a hopping parameter $\kappa=2.7 $ eV), so we neglect higher order hoppings. The other sums run over all sites (including both sublattices) of the $2D$ hexagonal lattice. Here ${a_x^\dagger},{a_x}$ denote creation/annihilation operators for electrons in the $\pi$-bands with spin $+1/2$ in the $z$-direction (perpendicular to the graphene sheet) and ${b_x^\dagger},{b_x}$ are analogous operators for holes (“anti-particles”) with spin $-1/2$. The hopping term also contains a sublattice dependent sign-flip for the ${b_x^\dagger},{b_x}$ operators [@Smith:2014tha].
We have also added in Eq. (\[eq:tightbinding\]) a staggered mass term $m_s= (-1)^s \, m$ with a sublattice $s=0,1$ dependent sign to regulate the low-lying eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian, as is customary in lattice-QCD simulations. While simulations at exactly zero mass are possible in principle [@Buividovich:2016tgo] (unlike lattice QCD there appear to be no topological obstructions to simulating at exactly zero mass here), a finite mass term has numerical advantages, and it only affects the low-lying excitations around the Dirac points which are not the primary focus of our present study. In fact, our investigation of the Lifshitz transition turns out to be rather insensitive to this mass term as one might expect, based on the band structure of the non-interacting system, as long as $m_s \ll \kappa $. Moreover, a spin and sublattice-staggered mass term of this form also serves as an external field for sublattice-symmetry breaking by spin-density wave formation. So derivatives with respect to $m_s$ may be used to detect an instability of the ground state towards SDW order.
The operator $q_x={a_x^\dagger}{a_x}- {b_x^\dagger}{b_x}$ represents physical charge. Interactions are taken to be instantaneous, which is true to good approximation since $v_F \ll c$, where $v_F$ is the Fermi velocity of the electrons. One of the great advantages of the instantaneous Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eq:tightbinding\]) (compared to implementing the photon as an Abelian gauge field on link variables) is that any positive-definite matrix can be chosen for $V_{xy}$, leaving a great freedom to choose a realistic two-body potential to describe microscopic interactions. In particular, it is possible to implement deviations from pure Coulomb-type interactions due to screening from $\sigma$-band and other localized electrons.
In this work, we choose a two-body potential which accounts for precisely this screening as obtained from calculations within a constrained random-phase approximation (cRPA) by Wehling *et al.* in Ref. [@Wehling:2011df]. Therein exact values were obtained for the on-site $U_{00}$, nearest-neighbor $U_{01}$, next-nearest-neighbor $U_{02}$, and third-nearest-neighbor $U_{03}$ interaction parameters, and a momentum dependent phenomenological dielectric screening formula derived, based on a thin-film model, which can be used to interpolate to an unscreened Coulomb tail at long distances. Here we use the “partially screened Coulomb potential” of Ref. [@Smith:2014tha] which combines both results via a parametrization based on a distance dependent Debye mass $m_D$. The matrix elements $V_{xy}$ are then filled using $$V(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr}
U_{00},U_{01},U_{02},U_{03} & , \; r\le 2a \\[2pt]
e^2 \left( c \, \displaystyle
\frac{\exp(-m_D r)}{a (r/a)^{\gamma}} + m_0
\right) &, \; r > 2a
\end{array}
\right.\label{eq:potfit}$$ where $a$ is the nearest-neighbor distance as before, and $m_D$, $m_0$, $c$ and $\gamma$ are piecewise constant chosen such that $m_D,
m_0 \to 0$ and $c, \gamma \to 1$ for $r \gg a $. For the precise values of these parameters we refer to the tables in [@Smith:2014tha]. The resulting interaction potential is shown in comparison to the unscreened Coulomb potential in Fig. \[fig:potential\].
![Comparison of the standard Coulomb potential (red) with the partially screened potential given by Eq. (\[eq:potfit\]). The first four points are exact cRPA results of Ref. [@Wehling:2011df] (green), while the remaining ones are obtained from the interpolation based on the thin-film model from the same reference (blue).[]{data-label="fig:potential"}](Potential.pdf){width="0.97\linewidth"}
We note in passing that there is still some theoretical uncertainty concerning the screening effects generated by the $\sigma$-band electrons at short distances (for a detailed discussion, see Ref. [@Tang:2015as]). For the purpose of our present study, this is of minor importance because our main conclusions should be insensitive to small variations of the short-range interaction parameters. Larger variations of these parameters on the other hand can lead to very rich phase diagrams including topological insulating phases [@Raghu:2008a]. A detailed study of competing order from HMC simulations of the extended Hubbard model on the hexagonal lattice with varying on-site and nearest-neighbor couplings currently in progress [@Buividovich:2016tgo].
To proceed, one derives a functional-integral formulation of the grand-canonical partition function $Z={{\rm Tr}\,}e^{-\beta H}$, in which the ladder-operators are replaced by Grassman valued fermionic field variables, by factorizing $e^{-\beta H}$ into $N_t$ terms (taken to be “slices” in Euclidean time) and inserting complete sets of fermionic coherent states. Formally, $N_t$ must be taken to infinity to obtain an exact result, but for numerical simulations $N_t$ is a finite number. This implies a discretization error of order [[O]{}]{}($\delta^2$), where $\delta=\beta/N_t$. The final result is
$$\begin{aligned}
Z &= \int \prod_{t=0}^{N_t-1} \left[ \prod_x d\psi^{*}_{x,t} \, d\psi_{x,t} \, d\eta^{*}_{x,t} \, d\eta_{x,t} \right]
\exp \Big\{ -\delta \Big[\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x,y} Q_{x,t+1,t}V_{xy}Q_{y,t+1,t}\notag\\
&-\sum_{\langle x,y \rangle}\kappa
(\psi_{x,t+1}^{*} \psi_{y,t}+\psi_{y,t+1}^{*} \psi_{x,t}+\eta_{y,t+1}^{*} \eta_{x,t}+\eta_{x,t+1}^{*} \eta_{y,t} )
+\sum_x
m_s(\psi_{x,t+1}^{*}\psi_{x,t}+\eta_{x,t+1}^{*}\eta_{x,t})
\notag\\
&+\frac{1}{2}
\sum_x V_{xx}(\psi_{x,t+1}^{*}\psi_{x,t}+\eta_{x,t+1}^{*}\eta_{x,t})\Big]
-\sum_x\big[ \psi^{*}_{x,t+1} (\psi_{x,t+1}-\psi_{x,t} )+\eta^{*}_{x,t+1} (\eta_{x,t+1}-\eta_{x,t}) \big] \Big\}~.\label{eq:partfunc1}\end{aligned}$$
Here we have used the notation $Q_{x,t,t'}=\psi_{x,t}^{*}\psi_{x,t'} - \eta_{x,t}^{*}\eta_{x,t'}$.
One would now like to integrate out the fermionic fields to obtain an expression containing only determinants of a fermionic matrix $M$, which can then be sampled stochastically. This is prevented by fourth powers of the fields, appearing in the interaction term $\sim q_x V_{xy} q_y$. These can be removed by a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\exp\big\{& -
\frac{\delta}{2}\sum_{x,y}q_{x}V_{xy}q_{y} \big\}
\propto \int \big[ \prod_x \phi_x \big]\, \notag\\
&\times \exp\big\{-\frac{\delta}{2}
\sum_{x,y} \phi_{x} V_{xy}^{-1} \phi_{y}
-i\,\delta
\sum_{x} \phi_{x} q_{x}\big\}~, \label{eq:hubbard1}\end{aligned}$$ at the expense of introducing an additional dynamical scalar field $\phi$ (“Hubbard field”). The resulting expression contains only quadratic powers, so Gaussian integration can be carried out, which yields $$\begin{aligned}
Z =\int \big[& \prod_{x,t} \phi_{x,t} \big]\
\, \det\big[ M(\phi) M^\dagger(\phi) \big] \notag \\
&\times\exp \big\{-\frac{\delta}{2} \sum_{t=0}^{N_t-1} \sum_{x,y}
\phi_{x,t}V_{xy}^{-1} \phi_{y,t} \big\}~, \label{eq:partfunc2}\end{aligned}$$
A subtlety here is that, if the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation (\[eq:hubbard1\]) is naively applied to Eq. (\[eq:partfunc1\]), the determinant of the fermion matrix is a high-degree polynomial of the non-compact field $\phi$ whose numerical evaluation is plagued by uncontrollable rounding errors. It is therefore advantageous to use an alternative fermion discretization with a coupling to a compact Hubbard field [@Brower:2012zd; @Ulybyshev:2013swa; @Smith:2014tha]. Its derivation is slightly more involved but straightforward, essentially based on applying the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation *before* introducing the fermionic coherent states. The matrix elements are then computed using the identity | e\^[\_[x,y]{}[a\_x\^]{}A\_[xy]{} [a\_y]{}]{} |’ = ( \_[x,y]{} \^\*\_x ( e\^A )\_[xy]{} ’\_y ) , \[eq:matrixelement2\] which holds for arbitrary matrices $A$. Here, $A$ is a diagonal matrix with elements $A_{xx}=\pm i \delta\, \phi_x$. The differences are of subleading order $\delta^2$ in the time discretization. Hence both are equivalent at the order $\delta$ and share the same continuum limit. It is this modified version of the fermion matrix $M(\phi)$, with the compact Hubbard field, which is used for numerically stablility in our simulations. Its matrix elements are given by (for details, see Ref. [@Smith:2014tha]): $$\begin{aligned}
&M_{(x,t)(y,t')}(\phi)=
\delta_{xy}(\delta_{tt'}-e^{-i\frac{\beta}{N_t}\phi_{x,t}} \delta_{t-1,t'})\notag \\
&\quad-\kappa\frac{\beta}{N_t} \sum\limits_{n} \delta_{y,x+\vec\delta_{n}}\delta_{t-1,t'}+
m_s\frac{\beta}{N_t} \delta_{xy} \delta_{t-1,t'}~.\label{eq:fermionmat1}\end{aligned}$$ The matrix contains terms corresponding to the different contributions from the tight-binding Hamiltonian and a covariant derivative in Euclidean time, in which the Hubbard field enters in form of a gauge connection where $\phi$ acts as an electrostatic potential.
Both $M$ and $M^\dagger$ appear in Eq. (\[eq:partfunc2\]) due to the two spin orientations entering as independent degrees of freedom into the Hamiltonian (we are essentially treating spin-up and spin-down states as different particle flavors). The resulting expression is suitable for simulation via HMC at half filling ($\mu =
0$), as the integrand may be interpreted as a weight function for the Hubbard field $\phi$.
Hybrid-Monte-Carlo and the fermion-sign problem {#sec:HMCfsp}
-----------------------------------------------
The HMC method (originally developed for strongly interacting fermionic quantum field theories [@Duane:1987de]) consists in essence of creating a distribution of field configurations representative of the thermal equilibrium, by evolving the $\phi$ field in computer time $\tau$ through a fictitious deterministic dynamical process, governed by a conserved classical Hamiltonian defined in the higher dimensional space spanned by real Euclidean space-time and $\tau$. Quantum fluctuations enter in the form of stochastic refreshments of the canonical momentum $\pi$ associated with the Hubbard field $\phi$. As a symplectic integrator must be used to solve Hamilton’s equations for $\phi$ and $\pi$, an additional error arises from the finite step-size of this integrator, which is subsequently corrected by a Metropolis accept/reject step. HMC is thus an exact algorithm (see Ref. [@Smith:2014tha] for further details).
HMC is a form of *importance sampling*, i.e. a method of approximating the functional integral by probabilistically generating points in configuration space which are clustered in the regions that contribute most to the integral. A crucial criterion for its applicability is the existence of a real and positive-definite measure for the dynamical fields, which may then be interpreted as a probability density. This is true here only because the phases of $M$ and $M^\dagger$ cancel exactly in Eq. (\[eq:partfunc2\]). As we will see, this no longer holds at non-zero charge density.
To generate finite charge-carrier density, one would have to add a corresponding chemical potential $\mu$, replacing the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eq:tightbinding\]) by $$H \to H - \mu \sum_x q_x = H - \mu \sum_x({a_x^\dagger}{a_x}- {b_x^\dagger}{b_x})\, .
\label{eq:tightbinding_withmu}$$ At the level of the partition function, this leads to the modification $$\begin{aligned}
&Z(\mu) = \int \prod_{t=0}^{N_t-1} \left[ \prod_x d\psi^{*}_{x,t} \, d\psi_{x,t} \, d\eta^{*}_{x,t} \, d\eta_{x,t} \right]
\notag \\&~\times
\exp \Big\{ \left( \ldots \right) + \frac{\beta\mu}{N_t} \sum_x
(\psi_{x,t+1}^{*} \psi_{x,t}-\eta_{x,t+1}^{*} \eta_{x,t}) \Big\}~.\label{eq:partfunc3}\end{aligned}$$ After integrating out the fermion fields, one obtains a modified version of Eq. (\[eq:partfunc2\]) $$\begin{aligned}
Z =&\int \big[ \prod_{x,t} \phi_{x,t} \big]\
\, \det\big[ M(\phi,\mu) \widetilde{M}(\phi,\mu) \big]\notag\\
&\times \exp \big\{-\frac{\delta}{2} \sum_{t=0}^{N_t-1} \sum_{x,y}
\phi_{x,t}V_{xy}^{-1} \phi_{y,t} \big\}~, \label{eq:partfunc4}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
M(\phi,\mu)_{(x,t)(y,t')}=& M(\phi,0)_{(x,t)(y,t')}
- \mu \frac{\beta}{N_t} \delta_{xy} \delta_{t-1,t'}~,\notag\\
\widetilde{M}(\phi,\mu) _{(x,t)(y,t')}=& M^\dagger(\phi,0)_{(x,t)(y,t')}
+ \mu \frac{\beta}{N_t} \delta_{xy} \delta_{t-1,t'} \notag\\
=& M^\dagger(\phi,-\mu)_{(x,t)(y,t')}
~.
\label{eq:fermionoperators}\end{aligned}$$ There is no cancellation of phases in Eq. (\[eq:partfunc4\]), thus importance sampling breaks down, as we no longer can interpret the integrand as the weight of a given microstate in the ensemble. This is at the root of the fermion-sign problem. Whether it is a hard problem or not depends on the expectation value of the phase of the determinant in the “phase-quenched” theory defined by the modulus of the fermion determinant in the measure, i.e. writing $$\begin{aligned}
Z =&\int \big[ \prod_{x,t} \phi_{x,t} \big]\
\, \big|\det M(\phi,\mu) \big|^2 \, \frac{\det\widetilde{M}(\phi,\mu)}{\det\widetilde{M}(\phi,-\mu)} \notag\\
&\times \exp \big\{-\frac{\delta}{2} \sum_{t=0}^{N_t-1} \sum_{x,y}
\phi_{x,t}V_{xy}^{-1} \phi_{y,t} \big\}~, \label{eq:partfunc4a}\end{aligned}$$ we consider the complex ratio of determinants with opposite-sign chemical potentials as an observable in the phase-quenched theory with partition function $Z_\mathrm{pq}$ and $$\frac{Z(\mu)}{Z_\mathrm{pq}(\mu)} \, = \, \Big\langle
\frac{\det\widetilde{M}(\phi,\mu)}{\det\widetilde{M}(\phi,-\mu)}
\Big\rangle_\mathrm{pq} \, . \label{eq:reweight}$$ Obviously this ratio is unity at half filling (i.e. for $\mu\to 0$) and at vanishing interaction strength for all $\mu$, because the non-interacting tight-binding theory is blind to the sign of $\mu$ for each spin component individually.
![Histograms of the phase of $\det\widetilde{M}(\phi,\mu)/\det\widetilde{M}(\phi,-\mu)$ obtained from a $6\times 6 $ lattice at $\beta = 2 \textrm{ eV}^{-1}$ for different $\mu$, at $10\, \%$ of the interaction strength of suspended graphene. The results are modelled with gaussian ($\mu =
0.15\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$ and $0.30\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$) and uniform ($\mu = 0.45\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$) distributions respectively. The inlay shows the adjusted $\textrm{R}^2$ for fitting a constant to the data at a range of different $\mu$. For $\mu \gtrsim 0.4\textrm{
eV}$ the numerical datais well described by a uniform distribution, indicating a hard sign problem.[]{data-label="fig:signproblem"}](Signproblem.pdf){width="0.97\linewidth"}
To exemplify that the signal is indeed lost quickly, however, when the chemical potential for charge-carrier density is tuned away from half filling in the interacting theory, we have measured the modulus and the complex phase of the ratio of determinants in Eq. (\[eq:reweight\]) on a $6 \times 6$ lattice, at $\beta=2\, \textrm{eV}^{-1}$ and $10\, \%$ of the interaction strength of suspended graphene. This method of “reweighting” therefore certainly fails near the van Hove singularity, already at rather moderate interaction strengths. Fig. \[fig:signproblem\] shows histograms of the phase for different values of $\mu$ together with fit-model curves. As a measure for the signal-to-noise ratio we have used the adjusted $R^2$ associated with attempting to model the histograms with a uniform distribution (this quantity is $0$ for a strictly non-linear relation between the data and the fitted curve and $1$ for a perfect linear dependence). As one can see in the figure, the adjusted $R^2$ of the constant fit shows a rather rapid crossover and approaches values close to $1$ at $\mu
\approx 0.4 \textrm{eV}$ which indicates that the signal is lost in the noise already on the $6\times 6$ lattice. The effect will be further enhanced with increasing lattice sizes. Note that the modulus of the ratio of determinants is not unity here eihter. In fact, it also decreases with $\mu$. As usual, however, it is the phase fluctuations that are primarily responsible for the loss of signal due to cancellations.
The underlying physical reason for a non-polynomially hard signal-to-noise-ratio problem typically is that the overlap of phase-quenched and full ensembles tends to zero exponentially because of a complete decoupling of the corresponding Hilbert spaces in the infinite-volume limit when the two ensembles correspond to excitations above different finite-density ground states (here charge-carrier versus spin density). An exponential error reduction might be possible with generalized density-of-states methods [@Langfeld:2012ah] which work beautifully in spin systems [@Langfeld:2014nta] and heavy-dense QCD [@Garron:2016noc] but have yet to be applied to strongly interacting theories with dynamical fermions.
Dense fermionic theories with a sign problem are a very active field of research and we cannot cover the vast body of literature here. There is no general solution, however.
Sometimes cluster algorithms [@Chandrasekharan:1999cm] or extensions thereof that exploit cancellations of field configurations [@Huffman:2013mla] help. On the other hand, when they do, there also appears to be an underlying Majorana positivity [@Li:2015a; @Wei:2016a; @Li:2016a] and the theory therefore really is sign-problem free as in the case of the anti-unitary symmetries such as time-reversal invariance with Kramers degeneracy discussed below.
Sometimes it is possible to simulate dual theories with worm algorithms [@Prokofev:2001ddj; @Mercado:2013ola]. Deformation of the originally real configuration space into a complex domain can help by either sampling Lefschetz thimbles of constant phase [@Mukherjee:2014hsa], reducing the sign problem to that of the residual phases, or more generally, field manifolds with a milder sign problem obtained from holomorphic gradient flow [@Alexandru:2016ejd]. Doubling the number of degrees of freedom by complexification one can also try a complex version of stochastic quantization, i.e. by simulating the corresponding Complex Langevin process [@Sexty:2014dxa].
While all these techniques have their difficulties and are actively being further developed, in the mean time we follow a different strategy here. This is to simulate a sign-problem free variant of the original theory with standard Monte-Carlo techniques and study genuine finite-density effects where importance sampling is possible. Such variants could be theories with anti-unitary symmetries such as two-color QCD, with two instead of the usual three colors [@Boz:2015ppa; @Holicki:2017psk], or $G_2$-QCD, with the exceptional Lie group $G_2$ replacing the $SU(3)$ gauge group of QCD [@Maas:2012wr; @Wellegehausen:2015iea].
The arguably simplest variant is the phase-quenched theory itself, however. In two-flavor QCD this amounts to simulating at finite isospin density [@Detmold:2012wc; @Brandt:2016zdy]. Here it corresponds to introducing a chemical potential for finite spin density, like a pure Zeeman term from an in-plane magnetic field, rather than one for finite charge-carrier density, as mentioned above. To this end we add a chemical potential $\mu_\sigma = (-1)^\sigma
\mu $ with a spin $\sigma = 0,1$ (for up/down) dependent sign, i.e. instead of (\[eq:tightbinding\_withmu\]) we use the replacement $$H \to H - \mu \sum_{x} ({a_x^\dagger}{a_x}+ {b_x^\dagger}{b_x})~.
\label{eq:tightbinding_withisomu}$$ Compared to (\[eq:tightbinding\_withmu\]), the sign of the term $\sim{b_x^\dagger}{b_x}$ has been flipped. This leads to a modification of the spin-down determinant in Eq. (\[eq:fermionoperators\]), such that $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{M}(\phi,\mu_\sigma) _{(x,t)(y,t')}=& M^\dagger(\phi,0)_{(x,t)(y,t')}
- \mu \frac{\beta}{N_t} \delta_{xy} \delta_{t-1,t'}\notag\\
=& M^\dagger(\phi,\mu )_{(x,t)(y,t')}~.\end{aligned}$$ Cancellation of the phases in the partition function is thus restored; $\mu_\sigma$ shifts the Fermi surfaces for electron-like and hole-like excitations in opposite directions. As the nearest-neighbor tight-banding bands are symmetric under exchange of particle-like and hole-like states individually for each spin, the Lifshitz transition in the non-interacting theory is in fact blind to this change of sign. As a result, $\mu_\sigma$ induces a Zeeman-splitting but without the phase factors from a Peierls substitution in the hopping term. It therefore describes graphene coupled to an in-plane magnetic field [@Aleiner:2007va]. In the following we will omit the spin-index. It is implied that $\mu $ is spin staggered from now on, i.e. corresponding to $\mu_\sigma = (-1)^\sigma \mu $ as in Eq. (\[eq:tightbinding\_withisomu\]).
Observables {#subsec:Observables}
-----------
Expectation values of physical operators in the thermal ensemble are expressed in the path-integral formalism as [$$\begin{aligned}
\langle O \rangle=\frac{1}{Z} \int D\phi\, O(\phi)\,
\text{det}\left(MM^\dag \right) e^{-S(\phi)}~. \end{aligned}$$]{} Their representation in the space of field variables can be obtained from derivatives of the partition function with respect to corresponding source terms. We are interested in the particle-hole susceptibility (\[eq:TFs\]), which up to a factor of $\beta=1/T$ agrees with the number susceptibility (per unit cell).[^2] Hence it is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\chi(\mu) &= - \frac{1}{N_c} \,
\left(\frac{d^2\Phi}{d\mu^2} \right)
\\&= \frac{1}{N_c \beta} \left[\frac{1}{Z} \frac{d^2Z}{d\mu^2}
-\frac{1}{Z^2} \left(\frac{dZ}{d\mu}\right)^2 \right]~, \notag\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\Phi=-T \ln{Z}$ is the grand-canonical potential and $N_c=N^2$ is the number of unit cells. Using the path-integral representation of $Z$, we can express $\chi(\mu) $ in terms of the fermion matrix $M(\phi)$, since [$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{Z} \frac{d^n Z}{d\mu^n} = \frac{1}{Z} \int D\phi \left[ \frac{d^n}{d\mu^n} \text{det}\left(MM^\dag \right) \right] e^{-S(\phi)}~. \end{aligned}$$]{} Calculating the derivatives for $n=1,2$ we obtain [$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-4mm}\frac{d}{d\mu} \text{det}\left(MM^\dag\right) = 2\, \text{det}\,\left(MM^\dag\right)\,
\text{ReTr}\,\left(M^{-1} \frac{dM}{d\mu}\right)\end{aligned}$$]{} and $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1mm}\frac{d^2}{d\mu^2} \text{det}&\left(MM^\dag\right) = 4\, \text{det}\left(MM^\dag\right) \left\{ \left[ \text{ReTr}\,\left( M^{-1} \frac{dM}{d\mu} \right) \right]^2 \right.\notag\\
&\left.\quad\quad\quad - \frac{1}{2} \, \text{ReTr}\,\left( M^{-1} \frac{dM}{d\mu}M^{-1} \frac{dM}{d\mu} \right) \right\}.\end{aligned}$$
Using these relations we can write the spin-staggered particle-hole susceptibility as $\chi = \chi_\textrm{con} + \chi_\textrm{dis} $, with $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu) =& \frac{-2}{N_c \beta}
\left\langle \text{ReTr}\,\left( M^{-1} \frac{dM}{d\mu}M^{-1} \frac{dM}{d\mu} \right) \right\rangle\notag\\
\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu) =& \frac{4}{N_c \beta}\left\{ \left\langle \left[ \text{ReTr}\,\left( M^{-1} \frac{dM}{d\mu} \right) \right]^2
\right\rangle \right.\notag \\& \left. - \left\langle \text{ReTr}\,\left( M^{-1} \frac{dM}{d\mu} \right) \right\rangle^2 \right\}~,
\label{eq:susc1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_\textrm{con/dis}$ denote the connected and disconnected contributions respectively. The brackets on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (\[eq:susc1\]) are understood as averages over a representative set of field configurations. The traces can be evaluated with noisy estimators.
A susceptibility $\chi^\textrm{sdw}$ corresponding to the fluctuations of the antiferromagnetic spin-density wave order parameter computed at half filling in Ref. [@Buividovich:2016tgo] can be obtained in complete analogy to the above, replacing all derivatives with respect to $\mu$ by derivatives with respect to the sublattice-staggered mass $m_s = (-1)^s \, m$ in Eq. (\[eq:tightbinding\]). The resulting expressions are then of precisely the same form as Eqs. (\[eq:susc1\]), with the replacement $\mu \to m $, $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_\textrm{con}^\textrm{sdw}(\mu) =& \frac{-2}{N_c \beta}
\left\langle \text{ReTr}\,\left( M^{-1} \frac{dM}{dm}M^{-1} \frac{dM}{dm} \right) \right\rangle\notag\\
\chi_\textrm{dis}^\textrm{sdw}(\mu) =& \frac{4}{N_c \beta}\left\{ \left\langle \left[ \text{ReTr}\,\left( M^{-1} \frac{dM}{dm} \right) \right]^2
\right\rangle \right.\notag \\& \left. - \left\langle \text{ReTr}\,\left( M^{-1} \frac{dM}{dm} \right) \right\rangle^2 \right\}~.
\label{eq:sdwsusc}\end{aligned}$$
Results {#sec:Results}
=======
In this chapter we first present our results for the susceptibility $\chi(\mu)$ of ferromagnetic spin-density fluctuations, i.e. the spin-staggered particle-hole susceptibility, from Hybrid-Monte-Carlo simulations of the interacting tight-binding theory at finite spin-density and temperature. Only in the last subsection we briefly come back to the spin-density dependence of the antiferromagnetic SDW susceptibility $\chi^\textrm{sdw}$ as well.
All results were obtained from hexagonal lattices of finite size with periodic Born-von Kármán boundary conditions, with an equal number of unit cells in each principal direction. We chose a sublattice and spin-staggered mass $m_s$ of magnitude $m = 0.5 \textrm{ eV}$, an inter-atomic spacing of $a = 1.42 \text{ \AA}$ and a hopping parameter of $\kappa=2.7\textrm{ eV}$. We furthermore use the partially screened Coulomb potential discussed in detail in Section \[sec:Setup\] and Ref. [@Smith:2014tha].
The rescaled effective interaction strength $\alpha_\textrm{eff}$ is defined in the following as $\alpha_\textrm{eff} = \lambda \cdot
\alpha_\textrm{graphene}$ with $\alpha_\textrm{graphene} =
\frac{e^2}{\hbar v_F} \approx 2.2$ ($\lambda$ thus acts as a global rescaling factor which changes each element of the interaction matrix in the same way, i.e. $V_{xy} \to \lambda V_{xy}$). Interactions were rescaled to different magnitudes in the range $\lambda=[0,1]$ (spanning the range from no interactions to suspended graphene, i.e. without any substrate induced dielectric screening).
For each set of parameters presented in the following, measurements were done in thermal equilibrium on at least 300 independent configurations of the Hubbard field. Integrator stepsizes were tuned such that the Metropolis acceptance rate was always above $70\%$. All error bars were calculated taking possible autocorrelations into account, using the binning method and standard error propagation where appropriate. For calculation of observables all traces are estimated with 500 gaussian noise vectors.
Influence of the Euclidean-time discretization {#sec:DISK}
----------------------------------------------
As HMC simulations are carried out at finite discretization $\delta$ of the Euclidean time axis (which is related to the temperature through the relation $\beta=\delta N_t$, where $N_t$ is the number of time-slices), exact quantitative results can be only obtained by $\delta \to 0$ extrapolation. As it would be computationally prohibitively expensive to simulate for a suitable range of $\delta$ values with each set of physical parameters (in particular when temperatures are low, system sizes are large or interactions are strong) we carry out such an extrapolation only for a few exemplary cases. This will help to develop an understanding of the systematics of the discretization errors in order to assess whether simulations with a fixed discretization can provide reliable results at reasonable cost, in particular for the low temperatures which are required to detect deviations from the logarithmic divergence of $\chi(\mu=\kappa)$. Such is the purpose of this section.
![$\chi(\mu)$ for $\lambda=0.0$ (top), $\lambda=0.4$ (middle) and $\lambda=1.0$ (bottom) at $\beta = 2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$, $N =12$. Different discretizations are shown as well as pointwise quadratic $\delta \rightarrow 0$ extrapolations (blue). The semi-analytic $\lambda=0.0$ result obtained from Eq. (\[eq:chisum\]) is shown for comparison in all plots (gray).[]{data-label="fig:ALP_DISK"}](ALP_ZERO_DISK "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"}\
![$\chi(\mu)$ for $\lambda=0.0$ (top), $\lambda=0.4$ (middle) and $\lambda=1.0$ (bottom) at $\beta = 2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$, $N =12$. Different discretizations are shown as well as pointwise quadratic $\delta \rightarrow 0$ extrapolations (blue). The semi-analytic $\lambda=0.0$ result obtained from Eq. (\[eq:chisum\]) is shown for comparison in all plots (gray).[]{data-label="fig:ALP_DISK"}](ALP_A040_DISK "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"} ![$\chi(\mu)$ for $\lambda=0.0$ (top), $\lambda=0.4$ (middle) and $\lambda=1.0$ (bottom) at $\beta = 2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$, $N =12$. Different discretizations are shown as well as pointwise quadratic $\delta \rightarrow 0$ extrapolations (blue). The semi-analytic $\lambda=0.0$ result obtained from Eq. (\[eq:chisum\]) is shown for comparison in all plots (gray).[]{data-label="fig:ALP_DISK"}](ALP_A100_DISK "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"}
Fig. \[fig:ALP\_DISK\] (top) shows the trivial case of $\chi(\mu)$ at vanishing two-body interactions, corresponding to a Hubbard field $\phi$ which is set to zero on all lattice sites. The inversions of the fermion matrix in Eqs. (\[eq:susc1\]) are straightforward to carry out in this case and no molecular dynamics trajectories are in fact needed at all. Furthermore, the disconnected part of $\chi(\mu)$ vanishes exactly in this case, as the expectation value $\langle {{\rm ReTr}\,}(\ldots)^2\rangle$ factorizes. The different curves represent calculations for different values of $\delta$, on an $N=12$ lattice at $\beta=2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$ (from Fig. \[DIFF\_TEMP\_OVER\_VOL\] we know that finite-size effects can be neglected for this choice), together with a point-by-point $\delta\to 0$ extrapolation using quadratic polynomials. As we expect, the extrapolated points agree well with the semi-analytic calculation from Eq. (\[eq:chisum\]), with small deviations only arising from the uncertainty associated with the fitting procedure. We also see that the main effect of finite $\delta$ is a shift to lower and in some areas negative values. Fortunately, the shift is nearly constant over the entire range of $\mu$. A similar behaviour can be seen when interactions are switched on. Figs. \[fig:ALP\_DISK\] (middle and bottom) again show results from the $N=12$ lattice at $\beta=2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$ (for $N_t$ between 12 and 96) but with non-zero interaction strengths corresponding to $\lambda=0.4$ and $\lambda=1.0$ respectively. For comparison, as a first indication of the effects of interactions, we also show the non-interacting limit in these figures. In order to illustrate the origin of the discretization errors in the interacting case, in Figs. \[fig:ALP\_A100\_DISK\_CON\_DIS\] we also display $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (top) and $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ separately for $\lambda=1.0$. What is striking is that the disconnected part seems to depend only very weakly on $\delta$, while the connected part displays the familiar shift. This is a fortunate situation, as it is $\chi_\textrm{dis}$ which is expected to show the characteristic scaling indicative of a true thermodynamic phase transition.
![$\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (top) and $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom) for $\lambda=1.0$ at $\beta = 2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$, $N =12$ for different discretizations (red) and their pointwise quadratic $\delta \rightarrow 0$ extrapolations (blue). []{data-label="fig:ALP_A100_DISK_CON_DIS"}](ALP_A100_DISK_CON "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"} ![$\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (top) and $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom) for $\lambda=1.0$ at $\beta = 2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$, $N =12$ for different discretizations (red) and their pointwise quadratic $\delta \rightarrow 0$ extrapolations (blue). []{data-label="fig:ALP_A100_DISK_CON_DIS"}](ALP_A100_DISK_DIS "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"}
Our main conclusion here is that we have good justification to assume that the effect of interactions can be studied qualitatively rather well for fixed $\delta$. Nevertheless, we present a set of fully extrapolated results for $\beta=2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$ in the following section. Results for lower temperatures will then be presented for fixed $\delta$.
Influence of inter-electron interactions {#sec:manybody}
----------------------------------------
![$\chi(\mu)$ (top), $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (middle) and $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom) for $\beta=2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$, $N = 12$ at different interaction strengths. All displayed points are quadratic $\delta \rightarrow 0$ extrapolations from simulations at non-zero $\delta$. []{data-label="fig:susB2V12M5"}](Susceptibility_B2V12M5 "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"} ![$\chi(\mu)$ (top), $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (middle) and $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom) for $\beta=2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$, $N = 12$ at different interaction strengths. All displayed points are quadratic $\delta \rightarrow 0$ extrapolations from simulations at non-zero $\delta$. []{data-label="fig:susB2V12M5"}](Connected_B2V12M5 "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"} ![$\chi(\mu)$ (top), $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (middle) and $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom) for $\beta=2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$, $N = 12$ at different interaction strengths. All displayed points are quadratic $\delta \rightarrow 0$ extrapolations from simulations at non-zero $\delta$. []{data-label="fig:susB2V12M5"}](Disconnected_B2V12M5 "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"}
To demonstrate the effects of inter-electron interactions we have carried out the same $\delta \to 0$ extrapolations for $\beta = 2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$ , $N = 12$, and $\lambda \in
\left\{0.1,0.4,0.8,1.0 \right\}$. As before, $\delta$ values where chosen from the set $\delta \in
\left\{\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{12},\frac{1}{18},\frac{1}{24},\frac{1}{30},\frac{1}{36},\frac{1}{48}\right\}\textrm{eV}^{-1}$ (corresponding to $N_t$’s between $ 12 $ and $96$), and second order polynomials were used in all cases (the full set of $\delta$ values was only used for the cases $\lambda=0.8/1.0$). In Figs. \[fig:susB2V12M5\] we have collected the extrapolated results for the various interaction strengths, showing the full susceptibility (top), the connected (middle) and disconnected (bottom) parts respectively. We observe that with increasing interaction strength the peak of the full susceptibility at the VHS becomes more and more pronounced. This is due to both, a corresponding rise in the connected part at the VHS and an additional contribution from the disconnected part (which is clearly non-zero for the interacting system). The peak position as well as the upper end of the conduction band are shifted towards smaller values of $\mu$. Note that we cannot disentangle the squeezing of the $\pi$-bandwidth from interactions and doping here. The combined effect certainly increases with increasing interaction strength which is qualitatively in line with experimental observations [@Ulstrup:2016ha]. Additionally, we observe that the thermodynamically interesting disconnected part $\chi_\textrm{dis}$ of the susceptibility develops a second peak close to the upper end of the band (corresponding to the $\Gamma$ point) which is thus a purely interaction-driven effect.
From Figs. \[fig:susB2V12M5\] (top and middle) it also appears that the connected part $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ is slightly negative at large values of $\mu$. This is clearly unphysical. We attribute it to a residual systematic error associated with the $\delta \to 0$ continuum extrapolations. We have checked that with quadratic polynomial fits the negative offset shrinks as additional points with smaller $\delta$ are included.
Influence of temperature
------------------------
This section focuses on the effect of electronic temperature (as no phonons are included, the temperature of the lattice atoms is zero by definition). All results presented in the present section were obtained for $\lambda=1$. Figs. \[fig:susTEMP\] show results for $\chi(\mu)$ (top), $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (middle) and $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom) respectively over the entire range of the conduction bands for different temperatures. Proper lattice sizes for each temperature were chosen such that finite size effects play no role (we first estimated the necessary lattice sizes from Fig. \[DIFF\_TEMP\_OVER\_VOL\], and subsequently verified the stability of the results under further increase of $N$ for individual points). All results were obtained with $\delta=1/6~ \textrm{eV}^{-1}$, which leads to a rather large negative shift of the entire curves. Nevertheless, a clear signal can be seen for an increase of $\chi(\mu)$, not only at the VHS, but at the upper end of the band as well. What is even more striking is that from a comparison of Figs. \[fig:susTEMP\] (middle and bottom) it is clear that these increases are driven mainly by the disconnected parts here, which are once more unaffected by negative offsets from the Euclidean time discretization as observed in Sec. \[sec:DISK\] already.
![Temperature dependence of $\chi(\mu)$ (top), $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (middle) and $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom). Lattice sizes scale linearly with $\beta$, such that the displayed curves correspond to $N=12,18,24$ respectively; with $\delta=1/6~ \textrm{eV}^{-1}$ and $\lambda=1$ for all cases.[]{data-label="fig:susTEMP"}](Susceptibility_TEMP "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"} ![Temperature dependence of $\chi(\mu)$ (top), $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (middle) and $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom). Lattice sizes scale linearly with $\beta$, such that the displayed curves correspond to $N=12,18,24$ respectively; with $\delta=1/6~ \textrm{eV}^{-1}$ and $\lambda=1$ for all cases.[]{data-label="fig:susTEMP"}](Connected_TEMP "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"} ![Temperature dependence of $\chi(\mu)$ (top), $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (middle) and $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom). Lattice sizes scale linearly with $\beta$, such that the displayed curves correspond to $N=12,18,24$ respectively; with $\delta=1/6~ \textrm{eV}^{-1}$ and $\lambda=1$ for all cases.[]{data-label="fig:susTEMP"}](Disconnected_TEMP "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"}
To detect deviations from the temperature driven logarithmic divergence characteristic of the neck-disrupting Lifshitz transition and described by Eq. (\[Temppeakgl\]), we simulate lattices with $\delta=1/6~
\textrm{eV}^{-1}$ in the range $\beta=1.0 \ldots 6 \textrm{
eV}^{-1}$ in steps of $\Delta\beta=0.5 \textrm{ eV}^{-1}$. For these simulations we focused on the immediate vicinity of the VHS (the position of which does not depend strongly on temperature), generating several points in a small interval around it and using parabolic fits to identify the peak-positions and heights of $\chi/\chi_\textrm{con}/\chi_\textrm{dis}$. Obtaining a proper infinite-size limit becomes increasingly problematic for lower temperatures. In particular for $\beta = 5.0 \textrm{ eV}^{-1}$ and larger this turned out to be too expensive to carry out in a brute-force way. Based on the observation that the approach $N \to
\infty$ depends on the lattice parity, i.e. whether its linear extend $N$ is even or odd, see Fig. \[DIFF\_TEMP\_OVER\_VOL\] and the discussion thereof, we have thus devised a method to improve convergence: Since even lattices overestimate the infinite-size limit of $\chi_\textrm{max}$ and odd lattices underestimate it, we may expect faster convergence for average values of two subsequent lattices of different parity. We have verified that this is indeed so with $\beta = 4.0 \textrm{ eV}^{-1} $ and $ 4.5 \textrm{
eV}^{-1}$, for which we compare the average values from the $N = 12$ and $13$ lattices with the converged large $N$ results in Fig. \[fig:chimaxtemp\]. We then apply this averaging method for $\beta = 5.0 \textrm{ eV}^{-1}$, $5.5 \textrm{ eV}^{-1} $ and $6
\textrm{ eV}^{-1} $ where we have no brute-force results in the infinite-size limit. We expect this method to break down close to a true thermodynamic phase transition, as the usual finite-size scaling relations would then apply, but for the $\beta $ values up to $ 5.5 \textrm{ eV}^{-1}$ successive average values from $N= 11,12 $ and $11,12$ lattices still have converged with good accuracy.[^3]
![Temperature dependence of $\chi_\textrm{max}$ in the range $\beta=1.0, \ldots 6.0 \textrm{ eV}^{-1}$. The lighter dots are from single lattices in the infinite volume limit, the darker dots of matching colors are obtained from average values of subsequent even and odd lattices. The dotted lines are fits using Eq. (\[eq:chiconfit\]) for $\chi_\textrm{con}^\textrm{max}$ and Eq. (\[eq:powdivergence\]) for $\chi_\textrm{dis}^\textrm{max}$ in appropriate ranges (see text).[]{data-label="fig:chimaxtemp"}](Chimax_temp){width="0.97\linewidth"}
Fig. \[fig:chimaxtemp\] shows the temperature dependence of the resulting infinite-size estimates for the peak heights of $\chi/\chi_\textrm{con}/\chi_\textrm{dis}$ obtained in this way. We have identified a range of $\beta =1/T$ between $1.0$ eV$^{-1}$ and $3.0$ eV$^{-1}$ as the one over which a fit of the form f\_1(T)=a ()+ b + c \[eq:logdivergence\] to the full susceptibility is possible (it breaks down if one attempts to include lower temperatures). More interestingly, however, the same fit to the connected part of the susceptibility alone is consistent with $a = 3/(\pi^2\kappa ) $ for $\beta \le 2.5$ eV$^{-1}$ as predicted for the Lifshitz transition in the non-interacting system from Eq. (\[Temppeakgl\]), despite the fact that we have simulated at full interaction strength $\lambda=1$ here. A two-parameter fit to the form \_\^ = ()+b +c \[eq:chiconfit\] is included in Fig. \[fig:chimaxtemp\], yielding $b = 0.519(3) $ and, for the leading ${{\cal O}}(T)$ corrections in Eq. (\[Temppeakgl\]), $c = -
0.472(8)$ (a three-parameter fit to the form in Eq. (\[eq:logdivergence\]) produces $\kappa a =0.307(32)$, i.e. a central value in $1\%$ agreement with $\kappa a\!=\!3/\pi^2$). The result for $b$ is furthermore quite close (within 13%) to the constant in Eq. (\[Temppeakgl\]) as well, with a discrepancy that is within the expected offset from the discretization $\delta = 1/6 $ eV$^{-1}$ here. We may conclude that for the larger temperatures, where the logarithmic scaling of the peak height is observed, the behavior of the connected susceptibility basically fully agrees with that of the non-interacting tight-binding model in Eq. (\[Temppeakgl\]).
At temperatures below $T\sim 0.15\, \kappa $ this contribution from the electronic Lifshitz transition, which we have successfully isolated in $\chi_\textrm{con}$, suddenly drops in the interacting theory, however. This is contrasted by a rapid increase of the peak height of the disconnected susceptibility $\chi_\textrm{dis} $ here, which vanishes in the non-interacting limit. While $ \chi_\textrm{dis}$ is negligible at high temperatures, it becomes the dominant contribution to the susceptibility at $T\sim 0.07 \, \kappa$. In fact, we find that for $\beta \geq 2.5\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$ (corresponding to $T \le 0.15 \, \kappa$), $\chi_\textrm{dis}^\textrm{max} $ is well described by the model f\_2(T)=k | |\^[-]{} , \[eq:powdivergence\] resulting in the following fit parameters:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\beta_c~[\textrm{eV}^{-1}]$ $T_c~ [\kappa]$ $\gamma~$ $k~
[\textrm{eV}^{-1}]$
------------------------------ ----------------- ----------- -------------------------
6.1(5) $0.060(5) $ $0.52(6)$ $0.12(1)$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emerging peak in $\chi^\textrm{max}_\textrm{dis}(T) $ around $\beta \approx 6$ eV$^{-1}$ is thus consistent with a powerlaw divergence indicative of a thermodynamic phase transition at non-zero $T_c$. Despite our efforts to produce reliable estimates for the infinite-size limits, we must expect, however, that there are still residual finite-size effects in the points closest to $T_c$, especially in the case of a continuous transition with a diverging correlation length. Nevertheless, the case for a powerlaw divergence at a finite temperature seems rather compelling here. All attempts to model $\chi_\textrm{dis}^\textrm{max}(T)$ using a logarithmic increase as in Eq. (\[eq:logdivergence\]) were certainly unsuccessful, so that our conclusion seems qualitatively robust and significant.
The two most important observations are: (a) we observe good evidence of a finite transition temperature $T_c>0 $ from the behavior of the disconnected susceptibility as an indication of the proximity to a thermodynamic phase transition as temperatures approach this $T_c\approx 0.06 \, \kappa $ from above. (b) While the scaling exponent $\gamma \approx 0.5$ might also be interpreted as an indication of a reshaping of the saddle points in the single-particle band structure by the inter-electron interactions according to Eq. (\[saddlereshape\]) with an exponent $\alpha
\approx 4$ as discussed in Sec. \[sec:TBLI\],[^4] because of the non-zero $T_c$ it does not have this simple description in terms of independent quasi-particles with modified single-particle energies, however. Rather, it resembles critical behavior in the vicinity of a second-order phase transition. This is in line with our observation that here it arises in the disconnected susceptibility as mentioned above.
Antiferromagnetic spin-density wave susceptibility
--------------------------------------------------
![$\chi^\textrm{sdw}_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (top) and $\chi^\textrm{sdw}_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom) for $\beta=2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$, $N = 12$ at different interaction strengths. All displayed points are quadratic $\delta \rightarrow 0$ extrapolations from simulations at non-zero $\delta$. []{data-label="fig:susSDWB2V12M5"}](Connected_B2V12M5_SDW "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"} ![$\chi^\textrm{sdw}_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (top) and $\chi^\textrm{sdw}_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom) for $\beta=2\textrm{ eV}^{-1}$, $N = 12$ at different interaction strengths. All displayed points are quadratic $\delta \rightarrow 0$ extrapolations from simulations at non-zero $\delta$. []{data-label="fig:susSDWB2V12M5"}](Disconnected_B2V12M5_SDW "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"}
![Temperature dependence of $\chi^\textrm{sdw}_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (top) and $\chi^\textrm{sdw}_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom) for $\delta=1/6~
\textrm{eV}^{-1}$ and $\lambda=1$. Lattice sizes scale linearly with $\beta$, such that the displayed curves correspond to $N=12,18,24$ respectively.[]{data-label="fig:susSDWtemp"}](Connected_SDW_temp "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"} ![Temperature dependence of $\chi^\textrm{sdw}_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ (top) and $\chi^\textrm{sdw}_\textrm{dis}(\mu)$ (bottom) for $\delta=1/6~
\textrm{eV}^{-1}$ and $\lambda=1$. Lattice sizes scale linearly with $\beta$, such that the displayed curves correspond to $N=12,18,24$ respectively.[]{data-label="fig:susSDWtemp"}](Disconnected_SDW_temp "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"}
As explained in Sec. \[sec:Setup\] we have used here for purely computational reasons a sublattice $s$ and spin-staggered mass $m_s = (-1)^s\, m$ in order to regulate the low-lying eigenvalues of the fermion matrix near half filling. This has the effect of introducing a small gap around the Dirac points in the single-particle energy bands by triggering an antiferromagnetic order in the ground state. For the interaction strengths $0\le\lambda \le 1$ considered here, this order will disappear in the limit $m\to 0$ because suspended graphene with $\lambda =1$ remains in the semimetal phase, which has been established experimentally [@Elias:2011] as well as in our present HMC simulation setup [@Ulybyshev:2013swa; @Smith:2014tha].
Nevertheless, we have also measured the corresponding susceptibility $\chi^\textrm{sdw}(\mu)$ for the antiferromagnetic spin-density fluctuations here. While we expect no singularity at half filling, we were particularly interested in its behavior at finite $\mu$ in our present study. With the same splitting into connected and disconnected contributions, cf. Eqs. (\[eq:sdwsusc\]), our main observations are the following: The systematics for discretization errors are completely analogous to what was discussed above (a shift of the connected part which is nearly independent of $\mu$ and almost no effect on the disconnected part). As above, in Figs. \[fig:susSDWB2V12M5\] we again first show the continuum extrapolated results at high temperature $\beta = 2$ eV$^{-1}$ where this is still affordable. We observe an increase of $\chi^\textrm{sdw}(\mu=0)$ at half filling with increasing interaction strength as expected. However, in addition to this, a peak appears to form at finite $\mu$ for the larger values of $\lambda$, mainly in $\chi^\textrm{sdw}_\textrm{con}$ but to some extend also visible in $\chi^\textrm{sdw}_\textrm{dis}$ which again vanishes in the non-interacting system of course.
This peak occurs about half way between $\mu =0 $ and the VHS in the vicinity of $\mu = \kappa$. When the temperature is lowered, however, it it appears to move towards the VHS while getting more and more pronounced. This is demonstrated with the ensembles at finite discretization $\delta = 1/6 $ eV$^{-1}$ but lower temperatures and maximal interaction strength $\lambda = 1$ in Figs. \[fig:susSDWtemp\]. As before, there is no negative offset from the Euclidean-time discretization in the disconnected susceptibility which shows the increasingly sharp peak structure at the lower temperatures particularly well. Whether the peaks observed in the disconnected susceptibilities of ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic spin-density fluctuations eventually merge and perhaps reflect the same thermodynamic phase transition when approaching $T_c$ certainly deserves to be further studied in the future.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:Conclusion}
=======================
We have set out to study the effects of inter-electron interactions on the electronic Lifshitz transition in graphene. This neck-disrupting Lifshitz transition occurs when the Fermi-level traverses the van Hove singularity at the M-points in the bandstructure of graphene. To elucidate the effects of interactions we have first discussed in detail how the Lifshitz transition is reflected in the particle-hole susceptibility of the non-interacting system, where it is due to a logarithmic singularity of the density of states. In particular we have demonstrated how this singularity translates into a logarithmic growth of the susceptibility maximum, when viewed as a function of the chemical potential, with decreasing temperature and increasing system size.
The detailed analytical knowledge of the behavior of the particle-hole susceptibility in the non-interacting system, where it agrees with the ferromagnetic spin susceptibility, allowed us to isolate the same Lifshitz behavior also in presence of strong inter-electron interactions where it would otherwise have swamped any signs of thermodynamic singularities indicative of true phase transitions.
To search for such signs we have simulated the $\pi$-band electrons in monolayer with partially screened Coulomb interactions, combining realistic short-distance couplings with long-range Coulomb tails, using Hybrid-Monte-Carlo. This requires a chemical potential with a spin-dependent sign to circumvent the fermion-sign problem, however. We were therefore led to compare the ferromagnetic spin susceptibility with that of the non-interacting system. Despite this modification our results qualitatively resemble some of the experimental results at finite charge-carrier density. An increase of its peak-height due to interactions is in-line with the existence of an extended van Hove singularity (EVHS) as observed in ARPES experiments [@Bostwick:2010as]. Likewise, we observe band structure renormalization (narrowing of the widths of the $\pi$-bands) due to interactions and doping [@Ulstrup:2016ha] here as well. A possibly interesting new feature of our results is a second peak in the spin susceptibility $\chi (\mu)$ which arises near the upper end of the band. Whether this is due to some form of condensation of quasi-particle pairs near the $\Gamma$-points, which might happen because the Fermi levels of the different spin-components were shifted in opposite directions, remains to be further studied.
The electronic Lifshitz transition itself is reflected in the connected part of the susceptibility $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ which diverges logarithmically in the $T \to 0$ limit when $\mu $ is at the van Hove singularity. In the non-interacting system, $\chi(\mu) =
\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ and $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu) =0 $. With interactions, on the other hand one has $\chi(\mu) =
\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu) + \chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu) $. Interestingly, however, for higher temperatures where $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu) $ is comparatively small, the behavior of $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$ remains precisely the same as in the non-interacting case. The electronic Lifshitz transition is entirely encoded in $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu)$. Upon its subtraction from the full susceptibility one is left with $\chi_\textrm{dis}(\mu) $ which is moreover expected to be the relevant part in search for a thermodynamic singularity reflecting a phase transition.
In fact, our simulations provide evidence of such a thermodynamic singularity, our results are consistent with a power-law divergence of $\chi_\textrm{dis}$ at an electron temperature of about $T_c \approx
0.16 \textrm{ eV} \approx 0.06\, \kappa $, which suggests that the Lifshitz transition is replaced in the interacting theory by a true quantum phase transition below $T_c$, and hence for $T\to 0$ with $\mu$ as the control parameter. Without identifying and isolating the Lifshitz behavior in $\chi_\textrm{con}(\mu) $ it would not have been possible to observe this with our present computational resources (we have already invested several hundreds of thousands of GPU hours in this project). The thermodynamic singularity is basically not visible in our present data for the full susceptibility although it will eventually dominate, sufficiently close to $T_c$, of course.
There are a number of possible directions for future work on the VHS. The most straightforward albeit expensive extension would be an analysis of the critical scaling close to $T_c$. Furthermore, of direct practical interest would be a comparison of susceptibilities associated with different types of ordered phases such as that of the antiferromagnetic spin-density wave order parameter studied as a first example at the end of the last section, or superconducting phases (e.g. chiral superconductivity [@Chubukov:2012as]). It should in principle be possible to identify the dominant instability of the VHS and a corresponding pairing channel.
Since the relevance of electron-phonon couplings at the VHS was demonstrated experimentally [@McChesney:2007uh], a quantitatively exact result should only be expected when phonons are accounted for. Furthermore, as was demonstrated e.g. in Ref. [@PhysRevB.86.020507], deviations from exact Fermi-surface nesting have a profound impact on the competition between ordered phases. This implies that for a realistic description the inclusion of higher order hoppings, which suffer from a fermion-sign problem, will be necessary. For this reason, and due to the obvious fact that finite spin and charge-carrier densities have different ground states, there is a solid motivation for efforts towards dealing with the sign problem. As the Hubbard field introduced in this work has a much simpler structure than a non-Abelian gauge theory, it is conceivable that some of the more recent developments [@Langfeld:2014nta; @Huffman:2013mla; @Mukherjee:2014hsa; @Alexandru:2016ejd] mentioned in Sec. \[sec:HMCfsp\] will turn out to be useful in this context.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grants BU 2626/2-1 and SM 70/3-1. Calculations have been performed on GPU clusters at the Universities of Giessen and Regensburg. P.B. is also supported by a Sofia Kowalevskaja Award from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation.
[^1]: This is a rather general phenomenon which can also exist, e.g. around the saddle points in the dispersion relation of a triangular lattice [@ext_vanHove2]. It is considered to be a crucial mechanism in the context of the “van Hove scenario”, since it enhances the singularity in the DOS and thus possible instabilities towards ordered phases, such as superconductivity.
[^2]: Of course, with the spin-staggered $\mu$ it is strictly speaking not a number but a spin, i.e. magnetic susceptibility, see above.
[^3]: The $\beta = 6$ eV$^{-1}$ result still has somewhat reduced statistics compared to the others, and it is likely to be affected by larger systematic uncertainties from less control of finite-size effects.
[^4]: As such it would be at odds with the scenario of completely flat bands (the large-$\alpha$ limit).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Advancing over up-to-date information theoretic results that assume symmetric correlation models, in this work we consider the problem of lossy binary source coding with side information, where the correlation is expressed by a generic binary asymmetric channel. Specifically, we present an in-depth analysis of rate distortion with side information available to both the encoder and decoder (conventional predictive), as well as the Wyner-Ziv problem for this particular setup. Prompted by our recent results for the Z-channel correlation case, we evaluate the rate loss between the Wyner-Ziv and the conventional predictive coding, as a function of the parameters of the binary asymmetric correlation channel.'
author:
- |
\
E-mail: {atsechel, acmuntea, ndeligia}@etro.vub.ac.be, [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Binary Rate Distortion With Side Information:\
The Asymmetric Correlation Channel Case
---
Source coding with side information, Wyner-Ziv coding, rate-distortion bound, asymmetric channel
Introduction
============
Using side information is fundamental in many source and channel coding problems and has recently been adopted in new fields, like compressed sensing and compressive classification [@mota2014compressed]. The vast majority of results in discrete source coding with side information assume that correlation channel between the source and the side information to be symmetric. Side information is also a key factor in distributed source coding; e.g. recent results in distributed video coding [@Toto-Zarasoa12; @DeligiannisTIP] have shown that using an asymmetric channel model to express the correlation between the source (frame to be encoded) and the side information (motion-compensated prediction) leads to substantial compression performance gains compared to the case where a conventional symmetric correlation channel model is used.
In this work, we focus on the theory of rate distortion with side information. Specifically, we consider the following setup: let $(X,Y)\in \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}$ be correlated binary random variables, such that the source $X\backsim\textit{Bernoulli}(0.5)$ is to be encoded using the source $Y$ as side information. The correlation between the two sources is described by a binary asymmetric channel: $$p(Y|X)=\begin{bmatrix} (1-a) & a \\ b & (1-b) \end{bmatrix},
\label{eq: correl_channel}$$ $(a,b)\in\big[0,1\big]^2$. The reconstructed source is the binary variable $\hat X\in \hat{\mathcal{X}}$, and the distortion metric considered is the Hamming distance: if $(x,\hat x)\in \mathcal{X} \times \hat{\mathcal{X}}$ then $d_{H}(x,\hat x) = 0$ if $x=\hat x$, and $d_{H}(x,\hat x) = 1$ if $x \neq\hat x$. Our goal is to describe the rate distortion characteristics of this system in two cases, that is when the side information $Y$ is available at (i) both the encoder and decoder, corresponding to the conventional predictive case, and (ii) available only at the decoder, i.e., the Wyner-Ziv (WZ) case.
For the binary symmetric correlation, the rate distortion functions were given by Berger in [@berger1971rate] for the predictive case, and respectively by Wyner and Ziv in [@WynerZiv], for the corresponding WZ case. Another binary correlation channel that has been recently studied is the Z-channel, for which Steinberg derived in [@steinberg2009coding] the rate distortion bound $R_{X|Y}^Z(d)$ for the predictive case, while in [@deligiannis2014no] we derived the rate distortion bound $R_{WZ}^Z(d)$ for the Wyner-Ziv case. In [@WynerZiv], it is established that, for the general case, a rate loss exists between the predictive and WZ bounds. Zamir showed in [@zamir1996rate] that, for binary sources and the Hamming distortion metric, the rate loss is at most 0.22 bits/sample, and in [@deligiannis2014no] we show that this difference vanishes in the case of the Z-channel correlation.
To the best of our knowledge, the characterization of the binary rate distortion function in the general case of the asymmetric correlation is still an open problem. A straightforward option is to use a numerical algorithm to compute it, such as the Blahut-Arimoto [@blahut1972computation] implementation in [@cheng2005computing]. Unfortunately, such a numerical analysis does not provide an analytical characterization of the rate distortion function nor an understanding of its behaviour in various rate regions.
In this paper, we present the derivation of the conventional predictive $R_{X|Y}(d)$ function for the considered setup. Subsequently, by considering a binary auxiliary variable in the formulations of [@WynerZiv], we derive rate and distortion expressions that yield a bound for the WZ problem. Furthermore, through our analysis, we are able to evaluate the evolution of the rate-loss, with respect to the crossover probabilities of the binary asymmetric correlation channel.
Source coding with Encoder-Decoder Side Information
===================================================
When the side information is available both at the encoder and the decoder, the rate-distortion function is given by $$R_{X|Y}(d)=\inf_{p(\hat x|x,y): \ E\big[d(X,\hat X)\big]\leq d} I(X;\hat X|Y),
\label{eq:RD_SI_ED}$$ where $E\big[\cdot\big]$ denotes the expectation operator and $d$ is the targeted distortion.
The quantity to be minimized in (\[eq:RD\_SI\_ED\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
I(X;\hat X|Y) &= \ H(X|Y)-H(X|\hat X,Y) \nonumber \\
&= \ H( X|Y) - H(X \oplus \hat X|\hat X,Y) \nonumber \\
&\geq H(X|Y) - H(\mathcal{D}|Y),
\label{eq:RD_SI_ED_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $H(\cdot )$ denotes the binary entropy function and $\mathcal{D}=X \oplus \hat X$. With the $X-Y$ correlation channel given by (\[eq: correl\_channel\]), the maximum distortion to be considered is the average crossover of the side information channel, i.e., if $\hat X = Y$: $D_{max} = \frac{a+b}{2}$. We consider the inverse channel $Y-X$: $$\begin{aligned}
p(X|Y)&=\begin{bmatrix} 1-a^* & a^* \\ b^* & 1-b^* \end{bmatrix}
\
&=\begin{bmatrix} \frac{(1-a)}{1-a+b} & \frac{b}{1-a+b} \\ \frac{a}{a+ 1-b} & \frac{(1-b)}{a+1-b} \end{bmatrix}.
\label{eq: inv_correl_channel}\end{aligned}$$ We have $p(Y=0) = \frac{1-a+b}{2}$ and $p(Y=1) = \frac{a+1-b}{2}$, and the maximum distortion can be written as $D_{max} = p(Y=0)\cdot a^*+p(Y=1)\cdot b^*$. Without loss of generality, let $a\le b$ in (\[eq: correl\_channel\]). This implies $a^*\ge b^*$. Given that the side information is known at the encoder, we can always describe the overall distortion as being $$d = E\big[\mathcal{D}\big]=p(Y=0)\cdot d_{Y=0}+p(Y=1)\cdot d_{Y=1},$$ where $d_{Y=0} =E\big[d(X, \hat X)|Y=0\big] \leq a^*$ and $d_{Y=1} =E\big[d(X, \hat X)|Y=1\big] \leq b^*$. Maximizing the term $H(\mathcal{D}|Y)$ in (\[eq:RD\_SI\_ED\_1\]) with the above mentioned constraints gives the minimum for $I(X;\hat X|Y)$. This is an optimization problem that can be expressed using the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{maximize} \quad & p(Y=0)\cdot H(d_{Y=0})+p(Y=1)\cdot H(d_{Y=1}) \nonumber\\
&\text{subject to} \quad &
\begin{cases}
p(Y=0) \cdot d_{Y=0} + p(Y=1) \cdot d_{Y=1}= d \\
d_{Y=0}\le a^* \\
d_{Y=1}\le b^*
\end{cases}
\label{eq:KKTpb}\end{aligned}$$ We formulate the Lagrangian optimization problem with the above inequality constraints, and the Lagrangian function is: $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{J} = p(Y=0)\cdot H(d_{Y=0})+p(Y=1)\cdot H(d_{Y=1}) + \\
\lambda(p(Y=0) \cdot d_{Y=0} + p(Y=1) \cdot d_{Y=1}-d) + \\
\lambda_{0}(d_{Y=0}-a^*)+\lambda_{1}(d_{Y=1}-b^*)
\end{split}$$ Deriving with respect to the unknowns yields: $$R_{X|Y}(d) =
\begin{cases}
p(Y=0)\cdot \big[H(a^*)-H(d)\big]+ \\ \qquad p(Y=1)\cdot\big[H(b^*)-H(d)\big], \ \ \mbox {if} \ d\le b^* \\
p(Y=0)\cdot \big[H(a^*)-H(\frac{d-\frac {a}{2}}{p(Y=0)})\big], \\ \qquad \ \ \ \mbox {if} \ b^*\le d \le D_{max} \\
0, \qquad \mbox{if} \ d\ge D_{max}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:R_X|Y_D}$$ This can be achieved by considering an auxiliary variable $U$ given by a binary symmetric channel with input $X$ and output $U$, with crossover probability $p_0$ as follows: $$p_0=\begin{cases}
\mbox {if} \ d\le b^* & \mbox{then} \ p_0 = d \\
\mbox {if} \ d> b^* & \mbox{then} \ p_0 = \frac{d-p(Y=1)\cdot b^*}{p(Y=0)}
\end{cases}$$ The corresponding reconstruction function is: $$\begin{cases}
\mbox {if} \ d\le b^* & \mbox{then} \ \hat X = U \\
\mbox {if} \ d> b^* & \mbox{then} \
\begin{cases}
\hat X = Y & \mbox{if} \ Y = 1 \\
\hat X = U & \mbox{if} \ Y = 0
\end{cases}
\end{cases}$$
Source Coding with Side Information at the Decoder
==================================================
When the side information is available only at the decoder, the R-D function is given by $$R_{WZ}(d)=\inf_{p(u|x)p(\hat x|u,y): \ E[d(X,\hat X)]\leq d} I(X;U|Y),
\label{eq:RD_SI}$$ where $\hat{X}=f(U,Y)$ and $U$ is an auxiliary random variable, satisfying the Markov chains: $U\leftrightarrow X\leftrightarrow Y$ and $X\leftrightarrow (U, Y)\leftrightarrow \hat X$, such that $E\big[d(X,\hat X)\big]\leq d$. Let $U \in \mathcal{U}$ be the outcome obtained from a binary channel with input $X$ and the transition matrix given by: $$p(U|X)=\begin{bmatrix} (1-p) & p \\ q & (1-q) \end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:xu_channel}$$ with $(p,q)\in\big[0,1\big]^2$.
We will express the resulting rate and distortion as functions of the crossover probabilities of the channels in (\[eq: correl\_channel\]) and (\[eq:xu\_channel\]).
Expression of the Rate
----------------------
The quantity to be minimized in (\[eq:RD\_SI\]) is written as $$I(X;U|Y) = H(U|Y)-H(U|X).
\label{eq:WZ_exp}$$ Given the Markovianity $U\leftrightarrow X\leftrightarrow Y$ the channel between $Y$ and $U$ can be expressed as the concatenation of the channels $X-U$ and $X-Y$. Knowing (\[eq: inv\_correl\_channel\]) and (\[eq:xu\_channel\]) the transition matrix is $$\begin{aligned}
p(U|Y)
&= \begin{bmatrix} \frac{(1-a)(1-p)+ bq}{1-a+b} & \frac{(1-a)p+ b(1-q)}{1-a+b} \\ \frac{a(1-p)+(1-b)q}{a+1-b} & \frac{ap+(1-b)(1-q)}{a+1-b} \end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, based on (\[eq:WZ\_exp\]), let us define $R_{WZ}^*(p,q)$ to be: $$\begin{aligned}
I(X;U|Y)&\triangleq\ R_{WZ}^{*}(p,q) = H(U|Y)-H(U|X) \nonumber
\\
&= \frac{(1-a+b)}{2} \cdot H\left(\frac{(1-a)(1-p)+ bq}{1-a+b}\right) \nonumber\\ & + \frac{(a+1-b)}{2} \cdot H\left(\frac{a(1-p)+(1-b)q}{a+1-b}\right) \nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad-\frac{1}{2}\cdot\big[H(p) + \ H(q)\big].
\label{eq:Rate_general}
\end{aligned}$$
Expression of the Distortion
----------------------------
The distortion expression can be determined by observing that for a fixed pair $(u,y)$, $x$ is given by the conditional distribution $p(x|u,y)$. Since the decoder can only make a deterministic decision given $u$ and $y$, the best choice is to output: $$\hat x = f(u,y) = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_x p(x|u,y).
\label{eq:reconstruction_function}$$ We can write the error rate conditioned on $(u,y)$ as $\big[1-p(f(u,y)|u,y)\big]$, so the average distortion is given by $$\label{eq:Dist}
d = \sum_{u,y} (1-p(f(u,y)|u,y) ) p(u,y).$$ This is equivalent to: $$\label{eq:Dist_qp}
d = \sum_{u,y} \min( \ p(X=0,y,u),\ p(X=1,y,u) \ ).$$ Knowing that, due to the Markov property $U\leftrightarrow X\leftrightarrow Y$, $$p(x,y,u) = p(x,y)p(u|x)=p(x)p(y|x)p(u|x)$$ we can write $p(x,y,u) $ as follows:$$\label{eq:X0YU}
p(X=0,Y,U)=\frac{1}{2} \cdot \begin{bmatrix}(1-a)(1-p) & (1-a)p \\ a(1-p) & ap \end{bmatrix},$$ and $$\label{eq:X1YU}
p(X=1,Y,U)=\frac{1}{2} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} bq & b(1-q) \\ (1-b)q & (1-b)(1-q) \end{bmatrix}.$$
At this point, it is useful to make the following observations regarding the symmetries of the $R_{WZ}^{*}(p,q)$ and $d$ with respect to the crossover probabilities in (\[eq: correl\_channel\]) and (\[eq:xu\_channel\]):
- If in (\[eq: correl\_channel\]) we substitute the pair $(a,b)$ by $(1-a,1-b)$, the functions $R_{WZ}^{*}(p,q)$ and $d$ do not change.
- If in (\[eq:xu\_channel\]) we substitute the pair $(p,q)$ by $(1-p,1-q)$, the functions $R_{WZ}^{*}(p,q)$ and $d$ do not change.
Essentially, the substitutions are equivalent to a label swap at the output of the respective channels and do not affect the rate-distortion function. The consequence is that the domains of interest for the pairs $(a,b)$ and $(p,q)$ can be reduced from $[0,1]^2$ to $0\leq a+b \leq 1$ and $0\leq p+q\leq 1$. Using symmetry constraints and (\[eq:X0YU\]), (\[eq:X1YU\]), equation (\[eq:Dist\_qp\]) becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}(p,q) = &(bq + \min((1-a)p,b(1-q))+ \nonumber \\
& \min(a(1-p),(1-b)q)+ap)/2.
\label{eq:Dist_4_cases}\end{aligned}$$ There can be four possible expressions for the above equation, each corresponding to a different reconstruction strategy at the decoder. Without loss of generality, let $a<b$, fixed by the initial setup. The crossover probabilities $p$ and $q$ can vary.
In order to emphasize the decision taken by the reconstruction function given in (\[eq:reconstruction\_function\]) for every pair $(y,u)$, we introduce the following function: $$\hat x_{out}(y,u) = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_x p(x, Y=y,U = u)$$ In our binary case, $\hat x_{out}$ can be seen a $2 \times 2$ matrix, with the lines corresponding to the values of $Y\in\{0,1\}$, and columns corresponding to the values of $U\in \{0,1\}$, indicating whether the reconstruction was $\hat x = 0$ or $\hat x = 1$.
The possible expressions for (\[eq:Dist\_4\_cases\]) are the following:
when $ \begin{cases}
(1-a)p< b(1-q) \\
a(1-p)>(1-b)q
\end{cases},$ $\hat{x}_{out} = \left (\begin{array}{cc}0 & 1 \\ 0 &1 \end{array} \right)$ is equivalent to having the reconstruction function $\hat{X} = U$ and a distortion value of $D_1 = \frac{p+q}{2}$;
when $\begin{cases}
(1-a)p< b(1-q) \\
a(1-p)<(1-b)q
\end{cases},$ $\hat{x}_{out} = \left (\begin{array}{cc}0 & 1 \\ 1 &1 \end{array} \right)$ is equivalent to having the reconstruction function $\hat{X} = Y \lor U$ (where $\lor$ is the binary OR operator) and a distortion value of $D_2 = \frac{bq+(1-a)p+a}{2}$;
when $\begin{cases}
(1-a)p> b(1-q) \\
a(1-p)>(1-b)q
\end{cases},$ $\hat{x}_{out} = \left (\begin{array}{cc}0 & 0 \\ 0 &1 \end{array} \right)$ is equivalent to having the reconstruction function $\hat{X} = Y \land U$ (where $\land$ is the binary AND operator) and a distortion value of $D_3 = \frac{(1-b)q+ap+b}{2}$;
when $\begin{cases}
(1-a)p>b(1-q) \\
a(1-p)<(1-b)q
\end{cases},$ $\hat{x}_{out} = \left (\begin{array}{cc}0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 \end{array} \right)$ is equivalent to having the reconstruction function $\hat{X} = Y$ and a distortion value of $D_4 = \frac{a+b}{2}$.
An example of the resulting decision regions derived above is presented in Fig. \[fig:pq\_1\]. The white region (IV) corresponds to the reconstruction decision $\hat{X}=Y$. When the pair $(a,b)$ is fixed, the lines that delimit the regions in the plot are given by: $a(1-p)=(1-b)q$ and $(1-a)p = b(1-q)$.
![Reconstruction regions in the $(p,q)$ plane for $a = 0.1, b = 0.4$[]{data-label="fig:pq_1"}](FIG1){height="1.7in"}
Deriving a tight bound on the rate distortion function
------------------------------------------------------
Given $R_{WZ}^{*}(p,q)$ as in (\[eq:Rate\_general\]) and the four expressions of the distortion function in (\[eq:Dist\_4\_cases\]), finding the bound can be formulated as a minimization problem with constraints. For every distortion level $d \in \big[0, D_{max}\big]$, the goal is to find the $(p,q)$ pair that minimizes the rate, while satisfying the distortion constraint: $$\begin{aligned}
& \text{for each $d \in\big[0,D_{max}\big]$ minimize} \ R_{WZ}^*(p,q) \nonumber \\
& \text{subject to}
\begin{cases}
0\le \mathcal{D}(p,q)\le d\le D_{max}\\
\mathcal{D}(p,q) \ \text{has a form} \in \{ D_1, D_2,D_3,D_4\}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:min_pb}\end{aligned}$$ The result of the above minimization is denoted $R_{WZ}^*(d)$.
In order to establish a characterization of the bound, we need to show how a certain distortion level can be achieved, i.e., what reconstruction function should be used. For example, if the required distortion level is $d=0$, this can only be obtained using $\hat X = U$, since $\min(D_2) = a/2$, $\min(D_3) = b/2$, and $D_4$ is a constant.
As such, we consider all possible values for the expected distortion $d$, and we must find what pairs $(p,q)$ can achieve it and the corresponding reconstruction strategy. As $d$ grows from zero to $D_{max}$, we can derive the following conclusions:
- If $0\le d<\frac {a}{2 \cdot(1-b)}$ we have only one reconstruction possibility, denoted $RI$, namely $\hat X = U,$ and $d = D_1$.
- If $\frac {a}{2 \cdot(1-b)} \le d \le \frac {b}{2 \cdot(1-a)}$ we have two possible reconstructions, $RI$ and $RII$ (i.e. $\hat X = U \lor Y$), and $d$ can have forms $D_1$ or $D_2$.
- If $\frac{b}{2 \cdot (1-a)} \le d \le D_{max}=\frac {a+b}{2}$ we have three possible reconstructions, cases $RI$, $RII$ and $RIII$ (i.e. $\hat X = U \land Y$), so $d$ can have forms $D_1, D_2$ or $D_3$.
- The reconstruction function $\hat X=Y$ gives constant distortion $D_4 =D_{max}$.
![$R_{X|Y}(d)$ and $R_{bound}(d)$ for a = 0.1 and b = 0.4[]{data-label="fig:RD_all_1"}](FIG2_b){height="1.7in"}
By numerical evaluation, the minimum for $R_{WZ}^*(d)$ can be achieved by letting $\hat X=U$ at lower distortion levels, and by letting $\hat X = U \lor Y$ for high distortions.
We want our bound to be a convex function; $R_{WZ}^*(d)$ on the other hand may not be convex, as it is the union of two convex curves: one corresponding to $\hat X=U$, the other to $\hat X = U \lor Y$. To this end, we must consider the lower convex envelope of the achievable points: $R_{bound}(d) = \text{l.c.e.} \{ R_{WZ}^*(d)\}$. This will include the common tangent of the two curves and the region is achievable through time sharing.
As an illustration, the rate distortion points in region $Ri$ of Fig. \[fig:RD\_all\_1\] correspond to the $p(q)$ values in region $i$ of Fig. \[fig:pq\_1\], for all $i\in \{I ,II, III\}$. Fig. \[fig:RD\_all\_1\] also presents $R_{WZ}^*(d)$, the common tangent which completes $R_{bound}(d)$, and the predictive $R_{X|Y}(d)$.
The solution to the minimization problem proposed has a complex form and the resulting equations cannot be solved analytically. We can therefore obtain the $R_{bound}(d)$ curve only by numerically solving a logarithmic equation.
An important aspect is to answer whether the obtained rate distortion bound is tight. From [@WynerZiv] we know that the cardinality of the auxiliary variable $U$ is bounded by $|\mathcal{X}| +1$, so a ternary alphabet for $U$ might be needed to achieve the rate distortion function. However, numerical experiments obtained with various probability input distributions $\pi$, and crossover probabilities of the correlation channel $(a,b)$, indicate that the proposed rate distortion bound does overlap with the rate distortion function obtained with the Blahut-Arimoto algorithm in [@cheng2005computing]. Hence, we conjecture that a binary auxiliary variable $U$ is sufficient to achieve the rate distortion function and the proposed rate distortion bound $R_{bound}(d)$ is tight. A thorough analysis of this aspect is left as topic of further investigation.
Optimal $p(U|X)$ and rate-loss assessment
=========================================
Since our bound $R_{bound}(d)$ does not have an analytical form, we use a numerical approach to derive the optimal crossover values of the $X-U$ channel, i.e., the $(p,q)$ pairs, and also to find the time-sharing region.
![Optimal $p(d)$ and $q(d)$ for $a = 0.1$ and $b = 0.4$[]{data-label="fig:pq_of_D"}](FIG4){height="1.1in" width="2in"}
The optimal crossover pairs $(p,q)$ that achieve the $R_{WZ}^*(d)$ bound, are plotted as $p(q)$ in Fig. \[fig:pq\_1\], while Fig. \[fig:pq\_of\_D\] presents the same $(p,q)$ pairs as functions of the distortion. The cross markers in both figures show the values that delimit the time sharing region. For low distortions, when the reconstruction function is $\hat X = U$, the optimal channels are close to binary symmetric channels. When the transition to the reconstruction function $\hat X = U \lor Y$ occurs, there is a discontinuity in the $p(d)$ and $q(d)$ functions. That can be noticed in Fig. \[fig:pq\_1\] as well, where the two green curve segments are disjoint.
If we fix the average distortion of the correlation channel, the highest rate-loss is in the case of the binary symmetric correlation. Fig. \[fig:rateloss\] shows the variation of the rate-loss for different crossover probabilities of the binary symmetric correlation channel $X-Y$. The maximum value $\Delta R = 0.0765$ is obtained for the crossover $a = b = 0.227$.
Conclusion
==========
This paper analyzes the rate distortion problem for a binary uniform source in the presence of correlated side information, when the correlation is given by an asymmetric channel. We have derived the $R_{X|Y}(d)$ for the conventional predictive case, and also proposed a bound $R_{bound}(d)$ for the Wyner-Ziv case. Numerical algorithms allow us to describe the optimum $p(U|X)$ achieving the bound, as well as to establish the maximum rate-loss in the case of binary uniform sources.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We consider (in the framework of algorithmic information theory) questions of the following type: construct a message that contains different amounts of information for recipients that have (or do not have) certain a priori information.
Assume, for example, that the recipient knows some string $a$, and we want to send her some information that allows her to reconstruct some string $b$ (using $a$). On the other hand, this information alone should not allow the eavesdropper (who does not know $a$) to reconstruct $b$. It is indeed possible (if the strings $a$ and $b$ are not too simple).
Then we consider more complicated versions of this question. What if the eavesdropper knows some string $c$? How long should be our message? We provide some conditions that guarantee the existence of a polynomial-size message; we show then that without these conditions this is not always possible.
author:
- 'Andrej A. Muchnik[^1]'
title: Kolmogorov complexity and cryptography
---
Non-informative conditional descriptions
========================================
In this section we construct (for given strings $a$ and $b$ that satisfy some conditions) a string $f$ that contains enough information to obtain $b$ from $a$, but does not contain any information about $b$ in itself (without $a$), and discuss some generalizations of this problem.
Uniform and non-uniform complexity {#uniform-and-non-uniform-complexity .unnumbered}
----------------------------------
Let us start with some general remarks about conditional descriptions and their complexity. Let $X$ be a set of binary strings, and let $y$ be a string. Then $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(X\to y)$ can be defined as the minimal length of a program that maps every element of $X$ to $y$. (As usually, we fix some optimal programming language. We can also replace minimal length by minimal complexity.) Evidently, $$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(X\to y) \ge \max_{x\in X}\operatorname{\textit{C}}(y|x)$$ (if a program $p$ works for all $x\in X$, it works for every $x$), but the reverse inequality is not always true. It may happen that the “uniform” complexity of the problem $X\to y$ (left hand side) is significantly greater than the “nonuniform” complexity of the same problem (right hand side).
To prove this, let us consider an incompressible string $y$ of length $n$ and let $X$ be the set of all strings $x$ such that $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(y|x)<n/2$. Then the right hand side is bounded by $n/2$ by construction. Let us show that left hand side is greater than $n-O(\log n)$. Indeed, let $p$ be a program that outputs $y$ for every input $x$ such that $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(y|x)<n/2$. Among those $x$ there are strings of complexity $n/2+O(\log n)$ and together with $p$ they are enough to obtain $y$, therefore $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(y|p) \le n/2+O(\log n)$. Therefore, there exists a string $e$ of length $O(\log n)$ such that $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(y|\langle p,e\rangle)<n/2$. Then, by our assumption, $p(\langle p, e\rangle)=y$ and therefore the complexity of $p$ is at least $n-O(\log n)$.
**Remark**. In this example the set $X$ can be made finite if we restrict ourselves to strings of bounded length, say, of length at most $2n$.
Complexity of the problem $(a\to b)\to b$ {#complexity-of-the-problem-ato-bto-b .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
The example above shows that uniform and nonuniform complexities could differ significantly. In the next example they coincide, but some work is needed to show that they coincide.
Let $a$ and $b$ be binary strings. By $(a\to b)$ we denote the set of all programs that transform input $a$ into output $b$. It is known [@shen-ver] that $$\operatorname{\textit{C}}((a\to b)\to b) = \min (\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a),\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b))+O(\log N)$$ for any two strings $a,b$ of length at most $N$. It turns out that a stronger version of this statement (when the uniform complexity is replaced by a non-uniform one) is also true:
\[th:1\] For every two strings $a$ and $b$ of length at most $N$ there exists a program $f$ that maps $a$ to $b$ such that $$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f)=\min\{\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a),\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)\} + O(\log N)$$
**Proof**. Note that $\le$-inequality is obviously true for any program $f$ that maps $a$ to $b$. Indeed, having such a function and any of the strings $a$ and $b$, we can reconstruct $b$.
Let us prove that the reverse inequality is true for some function $f$ that maps $a$ to $b$. We restrict ourselves to total functions defined on the set of all strings of length at most $n$ and whose values also belong to this set, so such a function is a finite object and conditional complexity with respect to $f$ is defined in a natural way. Note also that (up to $O(\log N)$ precision) it does not matter whether we consider $f$ as an explicitly given finite object or as a program, since (for known $N$) both representations can be transformed to each other.
Let $m$ be the maximum value of $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f)$ for all functions (of the type described) that map $a$ to $b$. We need to show that one of the strings $a$ and $b$ has complexity at most $m+O(\log N)$. This can be done as follows.
Consider the set $S$ of all pairs $\langle a', b'\rangle$ where $a'$ and $b'$ are strings of length at most $N$ that have the following property: *$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b'|f)\le m$ for every total function $f$ whose arguments and values are string of length at most $N$ and $f(a')=b'$*. By the definition of $m$, the pair $\langle a,b\rangle$ belongs to $S$.
The set $S$ can be effectively enumerated given $m$ and $N$. Let us perform this enumeration and delete pairs whose first or second coordinate was already encountered (as the first/second coordinate of some other undeleted pair during the enumeration); only “original” pairs with two “fresh” components are placed in $\tilde S$. This guarantees that $\tilde S$ is a graph of a bijection. The pair $\langle a, b\rangle$ is not necessarily in $\tilde S$; however, some other pair with the first component $a$ or with the second component $b$ is in $\tilde S$ (otherwise nothing prevents $\langle a,b\rangle$ from appearing in $\tilde S$).
Since $\tilde S$ can also be effectively enumerated (given $m$ and $N$), it is enough to show that it contains $O(2^m)$ elements (then the ordinal number of the above-mentioned pair describes either $a$ or $b$).
To show this, let us extend $\tilde S$ to the graph of some bijection $g$. If some $\langle a',b'\rangle\in \tilde S$, then $g(a')=b'$ and therefore $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b'|g)\le m$ by construction (recall that $\tilde S$ is a subset of $S$). Therefore, $\tilde S$ contains at most $O(2^m)$ different values of $b'$, but $\tilde S$ is a bijection graph. (End of proof.)
Cryptographic interpretation {#cryptographic-interpretation .unnumbered}
----------------------------
Theorem \[th:1\] has the following “cryptographic” interpretation. We want to transmit some information (string $b$) to an agent that already knows some “background” string $a$ by sending some message $f$. Together with $a$ this message should allow the agent to reconstruct $b$. At the same time we want $f$ to carry minimal information about $b$ for a “non-initiated” listener, i.e., the complexity $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f)$ should be maximal. This complexity cannot exceed $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)$ for evident reasons and cannot exceed $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a)$ since $a$ and $f$ together determine $b$. Theorem \[th:1\] shows that this upper bound can be reached for an appropriate $f$.
Let us consider a relativized version of this result that also has a natural cryptographic interpretation. Assume that non-initiated listener knows some string $c$. Our construction (properly relativized) proves the existence of a function $f$ that maps $a$ to $b$ such that $$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f,c) \approx \min (\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a|c), \operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)).$$ This function has minimal possible amount of information about $b$ for people who know $c$. More formally, the following statement is true (and its proof is a straightforward relativization of the previous argument):
\[th1:relativized\] Let $a,b,c$ be strings of length at most $N$. Then there exists a string $f$ such that:
$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,f)=O(\log N)$;
$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c,f)=\min\{\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a|c),\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)\} + O(\log N)$.
The claim (1) says that for recipients who know $a$ the message $f$ is enough to reconstruct $b$; the claim (2) says that for the recipients who know only $c$ the message $f$ contains minimal possible information about $b$.
**Remark**. One may try to prove Theorem \[th:1\] as follows: let $f$ be the shortest description of $b$ when $a$ is known; we may hope that it does not contain “redundant” information. However, this approach does not work: if $a$ and $b$ are independent random strings of length $n$, then $b$ is such a shortest description, but cannot be used as $f$ in Theorem \[th:1\]. In this case one can let $f=a\oplus b$ (bit-wise sum modulo $2$) instead: knowing $f$ and $a$, we reconstruct $b=a\oplus f$, but $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f)\approx n$.
This trick can be generalized to provide an alternative proof for Theorem \[th:1\]. For this we use the conditional description theorem from [@conditional-codes]. It says that
> for any two strings $a,b$ of length at most $N$ there exist a string $b'$ such that
>
> $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,b')=O(\log N)$ \[$b'$ is a description of $b$ when $a$ is known\],
>
> $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b'|b)=O(\log N)$ \[$b'$ is simple relative to $b$\] and
>
> the length of $b'$ is $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)$ \[$b'$ has the minimal possible length for descriptions of $b$ when $a$ is known\].
To prove Theorem \[th:1\], take this $b'$ and also $a'$ defined in the symmetric way (the short description of $a$ when $b$ is known simple relative to $a$). Add trailing zeros or truncate $a'$ to get the string $a''$ that has the same length as $b'$. (Adding zeros is needed when $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a)<\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)$, truncation is needed when $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a)>\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)$.) Then let $f=a''\oplus b'$.
A person who knows $a$ and gets $f$, can compute (with logarithmic additional advice) first $a'$, then $a''$, then $b'$ and then $b$. It is not difficult to check also that $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f)=\min\{\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a),\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)\}$ with logarithmic precision.
Indeed, $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f)=\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b,f|f)=\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b,b',f|f)=\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b,a''|f)\ge\\ \ge \operatorname{\textit{C}}(b,a'')-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f)\ge\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b,a'')-|f|=\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b,a'')-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)
\end{gathered}$$ with logarithmic precision. The strings $a'$ and $b$ are independent (have logarithmic mutual information), so $b$ and $a''$ (that is a simple function of $a'$) are independent too. Then we get lower bound $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)+\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a'')$ which is equal to $\min\{\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a),\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)\}$. (End of the alternative proof.)
The advantage of this proof: it provides a message $f$ of polynomial in $N$ length (unlike our original proof, where the message is some function that has domain of exponential size), and, moreover, $f$ has the minimal possible length $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)$. The result it gives can be stated as follows:
\[th:1bis\] For every two strings $a$ and $b$ of length at most $N$ there exists a string $f$ of length $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)$ such that $$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f,a)=O(\log N)$$ and $$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f)=\min\{\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a),\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)\} + O(\log N).$$
The disadvantage is that this proof does not work for relativized case (Theorem \[th1:relativized\]), at least literally. For example, let $a$ and $b$ be independent strings of length $2n$ and let $a=a_1a_2$ and $b=b_1b_2$ be their divisions in two halves. Then let $c=(a_1\oplus a_2\oplus b_1)(a_2\oplus b_1\oplus b_2)$. Then $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a|c)=\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a,c|c)=\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a,b|c)=2n$, $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)=2n$, but $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c,a\oplus b)=0$. In the next section we provide a different construction of a short message $f$ that has the required properties (contains information about $b$ only for those who know $a$ but not for those who know $c$).
A combinatorial construction of a low complexity\
description
=================================================
We will prove that if $a$ contains enough information (more precisely, if $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a|c)\ge \operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)+\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)+O(\log N)$), then there exists a message $f$ that satisfies the claim of Theorem \[th1:relativized\] and has complexity $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)+O(\log N)$. We need the following combinatorial statement. (By $\mathbb{B}^k$ we denote the set of $k$-bit binary strings.)
Combinatorial statement {#combinatorial-statement .unnumbered}
-----------------------
Let $n\ge m$ be two positive integers. There exists a family $\mathcal{F}$ consisting of $2^m\operatorname{\textrm{poly}}(n)$ functions of type $\mathbb{B}^n\to\mathbb{B }^m$ with the following property: for every string $b\in \mathbb{B}^m$ and for every subfamily $\mathcal{F}'$ that contains at least half of the elements of $\mathcal{F}$, there are at most $O(2^m)$ points with the second coordinate $b$ and not covered by the graphs of the functions in $\mathcal{F}'$.
Formally the property of $\mathcal{F}$ claimed by Lemma (Fig. \[fig\]) can be written as follows: $$\forall b\, \forall \mathcal{F}'\subset\mathcal{F}
\bigl[\#\mathcal{F}' \ge \frac{1}{2}\#\mathcal{F}\ \Rightarrow\
\#\{ a\in\mathbb{B}^n \mid f(a)\ne b
\text{ for all } f\in\mathcal{F}'\} = O(2^m)
\bigr].$$
(Note that the condition $n\ge m$ is in fact redundant: if $n<m$, the claim is trivial since the number of all $a$ is $O(2^m)$.)
Before proving the Lemma, let us try to explain informally why it could be relevant. The family $\mathcal{F}$ is a reservoir for messages ($f$ will be a number of some function from $\mathcal{F}$). Most functions from $\mathcal{F}$ (as in any other simple family) have almost no information about $b$; they form $\mathcal{F}'$. If the pair $\langle a, b\rangle$ is covered by the graph of some function $f\in\mathcal{F'}$, then $f$ (i.e., its number) is the required message. If not, $a$ belongs to a small set of exceptions, and its complexity is small, so the condition of the theorem is not satisfied. (See the detailed argument below.)
![Some functions (up to $50\%$) are deleted from $\mathcal{F}$; nevertheless the graphs of the remaining ones cover every horizontal line almost everywhere (except for $O(2^m)$ points).[]{data-label="fig"}](fig.mps)
**Proof** of the combinatorial lemma. We use probabilistic method and show that for a random family of $2^t$ independent random function the required property holds with positive probability. (The exact value of parameter $t$ will be chosen later.)
Let us upperbound the probability of the event “random family $
\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_{2^t}
$ does not satisfy the required property”. This happens if there exist
- an element $b\in \mathbb{B}^m$;
- a set $S\subset \mathbb{B}^n$ that contains $s2^m$ elements (the exact value of the constant $s$ will be chosen later);
- a set $I\subset\{1,2,\ldots,2^t\}$ that contains half of all indices
such that $$\varphi_i(a)\ne b \text{ for every $a\in S$ and every $i\in I$}.
\eqno(*)$$ To get an upper bound for the probability of this event, note that there are $2^m$ different values of $b$, at most $2^{2^t}$ different values of $I$ and at most $(2^n)^{s2^m}$ different values of $S$. For fixed $b$, $I$, and $S$ the probability of $(*)$ is $$\left(1 - \frac{1}{2^m}\right)^{2^{t-1}\cdot s2^m}$$ (each of $2^{t-1}$ functions with indices belonging to $I$ has a value different from $b$ at each point $a\in S$). In total we get an upper bound $$2^m \cdot 2^{2^t} \cdot 2^{ns2^m}\cdot
\left(1 - \frac{1}{2^m}\right)^{2^{t-1}\cdot s2^m},$$ and we have to show that this product is less than $1$ if the values of the parameters are chosen properly. We can replace $(1-1/2^m)^{2^m}$ by $1/e$ (the difference is negligible with our precision) and rewrite the expression as $$2^{m+2^t}\cdot 2^{ns2^m}\cdot (1/e)^{s2^{t-1}}.$$ The most important terms are those containing $2^t$ and $2^m$ in the exponents (since $2^t,2^m\gg m,n,s$). We want the last small term to overweight the first two. Let us split it into two parts $(1/2)^{s2^t/4}$ and use these parts to compensate the first and the second term. It is enough that $$2^{m+2^t}\cdot (1/e)^{s2^t/4} < 1$$ and $$2^{ns2^m}\cdot (1/e)^{s2^t/4} < 1$$ at the same time. The first inequality can be made true if the constant $s$ is large enough (note that $m\ll 2^t$). The second inequality (where both exponents can be divided by $s$) is achievable with $2^t=2^m\operatorname{\textrm{poly}}(n)$.
Main result {#main-result .unnumbered}
-----------
Now we are ready to give the formal statement and proof:
\[th:main\] There exists a constant $d$ such that for any strings $a,b,c$ of length at most $N$ satisfying the inequality $$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a|c)\ge\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)+\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)+d\log N$$ there exists a string $f$ of length at most $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)+d\log N$ such that $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,f)\le d\log N$ and $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c,f)\ge\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)-d\log N$.
Recall the intuition behind this result. The condition of the theorem guarantees that the agent’s “background” $a$ has enough information not available to the adversary (who knows $c$); theorem guarantees that there exists a string $f$ that allows the agent to reconstruct $b$ from $a$, has the minimal possible length among all strings with this property and does not provide any information about $b$ if the adversary knows only $c$. (Note that we use the same constant $d$ in all $O(\log N)$ expressions, but this does not matter since increasing $d$ makes the statement only weaker.)
**Proof**. Using conditional description theorem [@conditional-codes], we find string $b'$ of length $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)$ such that both complexities $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|b',a)$ and $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b'|b)$ are $O(\log N)$. Then we apply the combinatorial lemma with $n$ equal to the length of $a$ and $m$ equal to the length of $b'$, i.e., to $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)$. The lemma provides a family $\mathcal{F}$, and we may assume without loss of generality that the complexity of $\mathcal{F}$ is $O(\log N)$ (for given $m$ and $n$, take the first family with the required properties in some fixed ordering).
Most functions in $\mathcal{F}$ (as well as most objects in any simple set) do not have much information about $b$ when $c$ is known, i.e., the difference $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f,c)$ is small for most $f\in\mathcal{F}$. Indeed, with logarithmic precision this difference can be rewritten as $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f|c)-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f|b,c)$ (recall the formula for pair and conditional complexities), and the average value of both terms in the last expression is $m+O(\log N)$, the difference is of order $O(\log N)$ and we can use the Chebyshev inequality.
Let $\mathcal{F}'$ be functions from this majority. The lemma guarantees that the graphs of those functions cover all pairs $\langle a',b'\rangle$ for all strings $a'$ of length $n$ except for $O(2^m)$ “bad” values of $a'$, and it remains to show that the given string $a$ is not “bad”. It is because $$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a'|c)<\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)+\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)+O(\log N)$$ for all “bad” $a'$. Indeed, knowing $b$, $c$ and $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)$ (the latter contains $O(\log N)$ bits and can be ignored with logarithmic precision), we can enumerate all functions $f$ that do not belong to $\mathcal{F'}$ (=functions that make complexity of $b$ with condition $c$ smaller), and therefore we can enumerate all $O(2^m)$ “bad” values. (Note also that $b'$ can also be obtained from $b$ with a logarithmic advice.) So the complexity of the “bad” values (for known $b$ and $c$) is at most $m+O(\log N)$: $$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a'|b,c)\le \operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)+O(\log N)$$ for all “bad” $a'$, therefore $$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a'|c)\le \operatorname{\textit{C}}(a'|b,c)+\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)+O(\log N) \le \operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)+\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)+O(\log N)$$ as we claimed.
Negative result and open questions
==================================
Theorem \[th:main\] makes an assumption that looks artificial at first: for example, if $a, b, c$ are pairwise independent, we require $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a)$ to be twice as big as $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)$, and it is intuitively unclear why the amount of the background information should be twice as big as the message we want to transmit (inequality $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a)>\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)$ looks more natural). In this section we show that this condition, even if looking artificial, is important: without it, all the strings $f$ that satisfy the claim of Theorem \[th1:relativized\] may have exponentially large length. The exact statement (see Theorem \[th:negative\] below) and its proof are rather technical, so let us start with a simplified example, where, unfortunately, we get a string $c$ of large complexity. Then we explain the more advanced example that does not have this problem.
Let us construct three strings $a,b,c$ with the following properties: every reasonably long program $f$ (of polynomial or subexponential length) that maps $a$ to $b$ can be used to simplify the transformation of $c$ into $b$. In our example the string $a$ has complexity $1.3n$, the string $b$ has complexity $n$, and they are mutually independent (have logarithmic mutual information). (The coefficient $1.3$ is chosen arbitrarily; it is important that $1.3$ is greater than $1$ and less than $2$. The complexity of $b$ when $c$ is known will be about $n$, so using $c$ as a condition does not make $b$ simpler. But if we add to $c$ any program $f$ that maps $a$ to $b$, it becomes possible to obtain $a$ using only $0.3n$ bits of advice: the conditional complexity decreases from $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)\approx n$ to $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f,c)\approx 0.3n$.
The main idea of this example can be explained as follows: the string $c$ itself encodes a function that maps $a$ to $b$ (but still $c$ without $a$ has no information about $b$). Assume that some program $f$ that maps $a$ to $b$ is given. Why does it help to describe $b$ if $c$ is known in addition to $f$? We know that both $f$ and $c$ map $a$ to $b$, so $a$ is one of the solution of the equation $f(x)=c(x)$. If this equation has not too many solutions, we can describe $a$ (and therefore $b$) by specifying the ordinal number of $a$ in the enumeration of all solutions. (Note that $f$ may be not everywhere defined, but this does not matter.) In this way we get a conditional description of $b$ (for known $c$ and $f$) that may have small length compared to $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)$ (and $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)$ will be close to $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)$; we promised that $c$ itself has no information about $b$).
How do we get $a$, $b$, and $c$ with these properties? We get such a triple with high probability if $a$ and $b$ are independently taken at random among strings of length $1.3n$ and $n$ respectively, and $c$ is a random function whose graph contains pair $\langle a,b\rangle$. The same distribution on $a,b,c$ can be described in a different way: we take a random function $c$ and then a random element $\langle a,b\rangle$ of its graph.
With high probability we get strings $a$ and $b$ with the required complexities $1.3n$ and $n$ and small mutual information. We can also show that $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)$ is close to $n$ with high probability. Indeed, for a typical function $c$ of type $\mathbb{B}^{1.3n}\to\mathbb{B}^n$ most of its values have preimage of size $2^{0.3n}$, and therefore the second component of a random element of its graph has almost uniform distribution, so most of the values of $c$ have high complexity even with condition $c$.
Now let $f$ be some program that maps $a$ and $b$ and has not very high complexity (much less than what Theorem \[th1:relativized\] gives). How many solution has the equation $f(x)=c(x)$? Typically (for a given $f$ and a random $c$) we have about $2^{0.3n}$ solutions (for each $x$ the probability of $f(x)=c(x)$ equals $2^{-n}$, and there are $2^{1.3n}$ points $x$); here we assume that $f$ is total, but if it is not, we get even less solutions. For a fixed $f$ and a random $c$, it is very unlikely that the number of solutions is significantly greater than $2^{0.3n}$. In other words, Hamming ball of the corresponding radius around $f$ has a negligible probability. If the number of these balls (i.e., the number of programs $f$ we consider) is not too large, the union of these events also has small probability, so a randomly chosen $c$ will be outside these balls. This means that for all programs $f$ with bounded complexity the equation $f(x)=c(x)$ has at most $2^{0.3n}$ solutions (or slightly more) and the complexities $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a|f,c)$ and $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|f,c)$ are (almost) bounded by $0.3n$ as we promised.
We do not provide details of this argument since we want to prove a stronger (and more complicated) results. Namely, we want to find a function $c$ that has not very high complexity (and the argument explained gives $c$ that can have exponential complexity): the complexity of $c$ should exceed the complexity of programs $f$ (that it opposes) by $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)$. (If we allow more programs, we need more freedom for $c$.)
The idea of the construction remains the same: we select a random point on the graph of a random function. However, now the function is a random element of some family $\mathcal{C}$ of functions. We formulate some combinatorial properties of $\mathcal{C}$. Then we prove (by a probabilistic argument) that there exists a family with these properties and conclude that there exists a simple family with these properties (the first family found by exhaustive search). Finally, we prove that for most pairs $\langle a,b\rangle$ there exists a function $c$ in the family that satisfies our requirements. (So we prove even a bit stronger statement: instead of existence of a triple $a,b,c$ we prove that for most $a$ and $b$ there exists $c$.) The size of the family $\mathcal{C}$ provides a bound for the complexity of $c$ (since every element of $\mathcal{C}$ is determined by its index).
Let us formulate the required combinatorial statement starting with some definitions. Fix some sets $A$ and $B$. We say that some family $\mathcal{F}$ of functions $A\to B$ *rejects* a function $c\colon A\to B$ if there exists $f\in\mathcal{F}$ such that the cardinality of the set $\{a\colon c(a)=f(a)\}$ exceeds $4\#A/\#B$ (note that the “expected” cardinality is $\#A/\#B$). Let $\mathfrak{H}$ be a mapping defined on $B$; for every $b\in B$ the value $\mathfrak{H}(b)$ is a family of functions of type $A\to B$ (i.e., $\mathfrak{H}(b)\subset B^A$ for every $b\in B$). We say that a function $c$ *covers* the pair $\langle a,b\rangle\in A\times B$ (for given $\mathfrak{H}$ and $\mathcal{F}$) if (1) $c(a)=b$; (2) the function $c$ is not rejected by $\mathcal{F}$ and (3) $c\notin\mathfrak{H}(b)$.
\[combinatorial-negative\] Assume that $\#B\ge 2$ and $\#A\ge 16\#B$. Assume that two numbers $\varepsilon\ge4\#B/\#A$ and $\phi\le 2^{\#A/(4\#B)}$ are fixed. There exists a family $\mathcal{C}$ of functions $A\to B$ of cardinality $$\max\left\{\frac{20\#B}{\varepsilon},\: \frac{6\Phi\log_2(\#B)}{\varepsilon},\:
6\Phi\cdot\#B\cdot\log_2(\#B)\right\}$$ with the following property: for every family $\mathcal{F}$ of size at most $\Phi$ and for every mapping $\mathfrak{H}$ such that $\#(\mathfrak{H}(b))\le(1/4)\#\mathcal{C}$ for every $b\in B$, at most $\varepsilon$-fraction of all pairs $\langle a,b\rangle$ are not covered by any $c\in \mathcal{C}$ (for these $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathfrak{H}$).
The statement of this lemma can be written as follows (we omit conditions for cardinalities of $\mathcal{C}$, $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathfrak{H}(b)$): $$\begin{gathered}
\exists \mathcal{C}
\ \forall \mathcal{F},\mathfrak{H}\\
\biggl|\biggl\{\langle a,b\rangle\colon
\forall c\:
\biggl[ (c(a)=b) \Rightarrow \bigl[(c\in \mathfrak{H}(b))\ \lor\
(\exists f\in \mathcal{F}\:
\#\{x:f(x)=c(x)\}\ge{\textstyle\frac{4\#A}{\#B}}
)\bigr]\biggr]
\biggr\}\biggr|\le\\ \le \varepsilon\cdot\#A\cdot\#B\,.
\end{gathered}$$
Let us explain informally the meaning of this lemma (how it is used in the sequel). We may assume without loss of generality that the family $\mathcal{C}$ is simple (looking for the first family with the required properties in some ordering). Let $\mathcal{F}$ be the family of all functions that have simple programs (or their extensions, if the functions are partial). Let $\mathfrak{H}(b)$ be the set of all functions that are simple when $b$ is known (having small conditional complexity with condition $b$). For a pair $\langle a,b\rangle$ that does not belong to the “bad” $\varepsilon$-fraction, there exists a function $c\in\mathcal{C}$ that covers $\langle a,b\rangle$. This function (or, better to say, its index in $\mathcal{C}$) is a counterexample we are looking for. Indeed, if the eavesdropper knows $c$ and gets a simple program $f$ mapping $a$ to $b$, the complexity of $b$ for her decreases. Indeed, it is enough to specify the ordinal number of $a$ in the enumeration of all solutions of the equation $f(x)=c(x)$, and the eavesdropper can reconstruct $a$ (and therefore $b$, since $f(a)=b$). On the other hand, the choice of $\mathfrak{H}$ guarantees that $c$ and $b$ are independent (i.e., $c$ has maximal possible complexity even if $b$ is known). The details of these argument will be explained later, after we prove the lemma.
**Proof of the lemma**. Using a probabilistic argument, let us consider a random family $\mathcal{C}$ of the size mentioned. We assume that $\mathcal{C}$ is indexed by integers in range $1$…$\#\mathcal{C}$, and for every index $i$ and every point $a\in A$ the value of $i$th function on $a$ is an independent random variable uniformly distributed over $B$. Then we prove that the probability of the event “$\mathcal{C}$ is bad” (i.e., does not have the required property) is strictly less than $1$.
For this we get an upper bound for the probability of the event “$\mathcal{C}$ does not have the required property” with respect to a fixed family $\mathcal{F}$ (and then multiply it by the number of different families $\mathcal{F}$). So let us assume $\mathcal{F}$ is fixed. Things are “good” if for every mapping $b\mapsto\mathfrak{H}(b)$ (with our restrictions: all $\mathfrak{H}(b)$ have cardinality at most $(1/4)\#\mathcal{C}$) for $\varepsilon$-almost all pairs $\langle a,b\rangle$ there is a function $c\in\mathcal{C}$ that is not rejected by $\mathcal{F}$ and is not in $\mathfrak{H}(b)$ such that $c(a)=b$.
Note that the definition of rejection does not refer to $\mathcal{C}$: the set of rejected function is determined by $\mathcal{F}$ alone. For a given $\mathcal{F}$ there are two possibilities: (1) many functions are rejected (we choose $(1/4)\#\mathcal{C}$ as a threshold) or (2) not many functions are rejected. In the latter case we may add rejected functions to all $\mathfrak{H}(b)$ (for all $b$), and the size of all $\mathfrak{H}(b)$ remains bounded by $(1/2)\#\mathcal{C}$.
In other term, for a fixed $\mathcal{F}$ the “bad” event is covered by the union of the following two events:
1. $\mathcal{F}$ rejects at least $1/4$ of all functions in $\mathcal{C}$;
2. there exists a mapping $b\mapsto\mathfrak{H}(b)$ where all sets $\mathfrak{H}(b)$ have cardinality at most $(1/2)\#\mathcal{C}$ such that the fraction of pairs $\langle a,b\rangle\in A\times B$ that do not belong to any function $c\in\mathcal{C}\setminus\mathfrak{H}(b)$ exceeds $\varepsilon$.
What we need is the following: the sum of the probabilities of these two events multiplied by the number of possibilities for $\mathcal{F}$ is less than $1$. To show this, we prove that each of these two probabilities is less than $1/2$ divided by $(\# B^{\# A})^{\Phi}$ (this expression is an upper bound for the number of different families $\mathcal{F}\subset B^A$ of size $\Phi$).
The first event can be rewritten as follows: *there exists a subfamily $\mathcal{C}'\subset\mathcal{C}$ of size $\#\mathcal{C}/4$ such that for all $c\in\mathcal{C}'$ there exists $A'\subset A$ of size $4\#A/\#B$ and a function $f\in\mathcal{F}$ such that $f(a)=c(a)$ for all $a\in A'$.*
The number of possibilities for $\mathcal{C}'$ does not exceed $2^{\#\mathcal{C}}$, the number of all subsets. For a fixed $\mathcal{C}'$ (or, better to say, for a fixed set of indices) the functions with these indices are chosen independently. So we can estimate the probability of the bad event for one index and then use independence. To get an upper bound for the number of possibilities for $A'$ let us note that the number of $r$-element subsets of a $q$-element set, $\binom{q}{r}$, does not exceed $q^r/r!\le {q^r}/{((r/3)^r)}=(3q/r)^r$. For $q=\#A$ and $r=4\#A/\#B$ we get the bound $(3\#B/4)^{4\#A/\#B}$.
Therefore, the probability of the first event does not exceed $$2^{\#\mathcal{C}}\left(
\Phi
\left(\frac{3\#B}{4}\right)^{4\#A/\#B}
\left(\frac{1}{\#B}\right)^{4\#A/\#B}
\right)^{\#\mathcal{C}/4}=
\left(2\Phi^{1/4}
\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{\#A/\#B}
\right)^{\#\mathcal{C}}\,.$$ Multiplied by $(\#B)^{\#A\cdot\Phi}$ (the number of possibilities for $\mathcal{F}$), this probability is less than $1/2$, since $\#B\ge 2$, $\#A\ge 16\#B$, $\Phi\le 2^{\#A/4\#B}$, and $\#\mathcal{C}\ge 6\Phi\cdot\#B\cdot\log_2(\#B)$ (according to lemma’s assumptions). Indeed, the last inequality implies that $\#\mathcal{C}\ge 12$ if $\Phi\ge 1$ (for empty $\mathcal{F}$ the statement is trivial). Since $\#B\ge 2$, we conclude that $1+\#\mathcal{C}\le 13\#\mathcal{C}/12$. Then $1\le\#A/(16\#B)$ implies that $1+\#\mathcal{C}\le (13/192)(\#A\cdot\#C/\#B)$. The condition $\log_2\Phi\le \#A/4\#B$ implies that $(\#\mathcal{C}/4)\log_2\Phi \le (1/16)(\#A\cdot\#\mathcal{C}/\#B)$. Finally, the inequality $\#\mathcal{C}\ge 6\Phi\cdot\#B\cdot\log_2\#B$ implies that $\#A\cdot\Phi\log_2\#B\le (1/6)(\#A\cdot\#\mathcal{C}/\#B)$. Adding these inequalities (note that $19/64 < 1/3 < \log_2(4/3)$ and taking the exponent (with base $2$) of both sides, we get the required inequality (after appropriate grouping of the factors).
Now let us consider the second event (recall that it depends on $\mathcal{F}$ which is fixed): *there exist a mapping $b\mapsto\mathfrak{H}(b)$ such that every $\mathfrak{H}(b)$ has cardinality at most $\#\mathcal{C}/2$ and a subset $U\subset A\times B$ of size $\varepsilon\cdot\#A\cdot\#B$ such that for every pair $\langle a,b\rangle\in U$ and for every function $c\in\mathcal{C}\setminus\mathfrak{H}(b)$ we have $c(a)\ne b$.*
In the sequel we assume that $\mathfrak{H}(b)$ is not a set of functions, but a set of their indices (numbers in $1$…$\#\mathcal{C}$ range); this does not change the event in question.
To estimate the probability of the second event, let us fix not only $\mathcal{F}$ but also $\mathfrak{H}$ and $U$. The corresponding event can be described as the intersection (taken over all pairs $\langle a,b\rangle$ and over all $i\notin\mathfrak{H}(b)$) of the events $c[i](a)\ne b$ (“the $i$th function does not map $a$ to $b$”). The probability bound would be simple if all these events were independent; in this case the probability would be $(1-1/\#B)^d$, where $d$ is the number of all triples $\langle i,a,b\rangle$, i.e., $\varepsilon\cdot \#A\cdot\#B\cdot\#\mathcal{C}/2$ (i.e., $d$ is the product of the number of pairs $\langle a,b\rangle\in U$ and the number of possible values of $i$ for given $b$).
Unfortunately, these events are independent only for different $a$ (or different $i$); the events $c[i](a)\ne b_1$ and $c[i](a)\ne b_2$ are dependent. However, the dependence works in the “helpful” direction: the condition $c[i](a)\ne b_1$ only increases the probability of the event $c[i](a)\ne b_2$ (the denominator in $1/\#B$ decreases by $1$). The same is true for several conditions.
Formally speaking, we may group the events with common $a$ and $i$ and then use the inequality $(1-k/\#B)\le (1-1/\#B)^k$, where $k$ is the number of events in a group.
In this way we get an upper bound for the probability of failure: for fixed $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathfrak{H}$ and $U$, it does not exceed $$\left(1-\frac{1}{\#B}\right)^{\varepsilon\cdot\#A\cdot\#B\cdot\#\mathcal{C}/2}\le
2^{-\varepsilon\cdot\#A\cdot\#\mathcal{C}/2}\,.$$ This expression is then multiplied by the number of possibilities for $U$ (that does not exceed $2^{\#A\cdot\#B}$), for $\mathfrak{H}$ (that does not exceed $(2^{\#\mathcal{C}})^{\#B}$) and for $\mathcal{F}$. In total, we get $$2^{-\varepsilon\cdot\#A\cdot\#\mathcal{C}/2}\cdot
2^{\#A\cdot\#B}\cdot
2^{\#\mathcal{C}\cdot\#B}\cdot
(\#B)^{\#A|\cdot\Phi}\,.$$ It is easy to check that this expression is less than $1/2$ if $\#B\ge 2$, $\varepsilon\ge 4\#B/\#A$, $\#\mathcal{C}\ge 20\#B/\varepsilon$, and $\#\mathcal{C}\ge (6\Phi\log_2\#B)/\varepsilon$. Indeed, we have $1+\#A\cdot\#B\le 3\cdot\#A\cdot\#B/2$ if $A$ is not empty and $\#B\ge 2$. Therefore, $\#\mathcal{C}\ge 20\cdot\#B/\varepsilon$ implies $1+\#A\cdot\#B\le (3/40)\varepsilon\cdot\#A\cdot\#\mathcal{C}$. Also $\varepsilon\ge 4\#B/\#A$ implies $\#\mathcal{C}\cdot\#B\le (1/4)\varepsilon \cdot\#A\cdot\#\mathcal{C}$. Finally, $\#\mathcal{C}\ge (6\Phi\log_2\#B)/\varepsilon$ implies $\#A\cdot\Phi\cdot\log_2(\#B)\le (1/6)\varepsilon\cdot\#A\cdot\#\mathcal{C}$. Adding these inequalities, noting that $59/120 < 1/2$ and then taking the exponents (with base $2$), we get the required bound after regrouping the factors.
Lemma is proven.
Now we use this lemma to prove the promised negative result. Let $\alpha>0$ be some constant. Let $m,n,l$ be positive integers such that $n\ge 1$, $m\ge n+4$, $m-\alpha\log_2 m\ge n+2$, and $l+1+\log_2 (l+1)\le 2^{m-n-2}$. Let $N=\max\{m,l\}$.
\[th:negative\] Let $a$ be a string of length $m$ and let $b$ be a string of length $n$ such that $$m+n-\operatorname{\textit{C}}^{\mathbf{0}'}(a,b)<\alpha\log_2 m.$$ Then there exists a string $c$ of complexity $n+l+O(\log N)$ such that
- $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(c|b)=\operatorname{\textit{C}}(c) + O(\log N)$;
- $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,c)=O(\log N)$;
- for every $f$ such that $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f)\le l-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,f)$ we have $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c,f)\le m-n + \operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,f) +O(\log N)$.
(The constant hidden in $O(\cdot)$ depends on $\alpha$ but not on $m$, $n$, $l$.)
Before proving this theorem, let us explain why it shows the importance of the condition in theorem \[th:main\]. The equation $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(c|b)=\operatorname{\textit{C}}(c) + O(\log N)$ shows that the strings $b$ and $c$ are independent and $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)=\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b)=n$ with $O(\log N)$-precision. Since $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,c)=O(\log N)$, we have $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a|c)\ge\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,c)=n$ (with the same $O(\log N)$-precision). Note also that $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)= n$ (with $O(\log m)$-precision). Therefore, if $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,f) = O(\log N)$ for some string $f$ of length not exceeding $l$, then $$\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c,f) < \min\{\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a|c),\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c)\} + O(\log N)$$ when $m - n < n + O(\log N)$, i.e., when $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(a) < \operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c) + \operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a)$.
**Proof**. Let $A$ be the set of all $m$-bit strings, and let $B$ be the set of all $n$-bit strings. Let $\varepsilon=1/m^\alpha$ and $\Phi=2^l(l+1)$. Our assumptions about $n,m,l$ guarantee that $A$, $B$, $\varepsilon$ and $\Phi$ satisfy the conditions of the lemma. Therefore there is a family $\mathcal{C}$ with the properties described in the statement of the lemma. As we have said, we may assume without loss of generality that $\mathcal{C}$ is simple, and in this case the complexity of every element of $\mathcal{C}$ does not exceed $\log_2\#\mathcal{C}$ plus $O(\log N)$, i.e., does not exceed $n+l+O(\log N)$.
Now let $\mathfrak{H}(b)$ be the set $\{c\in \mathcal{C}\colon \operatorname{\textit{C}}(c|b) < \log_2(\#\mathcal{C})-2\}$; then $\#\mathfrak{H}(b)\le \#\mathcal{C}/4$ for every $b$.
Now the family $\mathcal{F}$ is constructed as follows. It contains $\Phi$ functions numbered by integers in $1$…$\Phi$ range. We enumerate all triples $\langle a,b,f\rangle$, where $a\in A$, $b\in B$ and $f$ is a $l$-bit string such that $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f) + \operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,f)\le l$. Some indices (numbers) have labels that are $l$-bit strings. When a new triple $\langle a,b,f\rangle$ appears, we first try to add $\langle a,b\rangle$ to one of the functions whose index already has label $f$. If this is not possible (all functions that have label $f$ are already defined at $a$ and have values not equal to $b$), we take a fresh index (that has no label), assign label $f$ to it and let the corresponding function map $a$ to $b$. A free index does exist since each $f$ occupies at most $2^{l-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f)+1}$ indices (if some $f$ needs more, then for some $a$ all $2^{l-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f)+1}$ functions are defined and have different values, so we have enumerated already more than $2^{l-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f)+1}$ different elements $b$ such that $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,f)\le l-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f)$; a contradiction), and all $f$ in total require at most $\sum_{\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f)\le l}2^{l-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f)+1}=\sum_{k=0}^l\sum_{\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f)=k}2^{l-k+1}=\Phi$ indices. After all the triples with these properties are enumerated, we extend our functions to total ones (arbitrarily).
Consider the set of pairs $\langle a,b\rangle$ that are not covered by $\mathcal{C}$ (for given $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathfrak{H}$). The cardinality of this set does not exceed $\varepsilon2^{m+n}$. On the other hand, $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathfrak{H}$ can be computed using $\mathbf{0}'$-oracle, and after that the set of non-covered pairs can be enumerated, therefore $\operatorname{\textit{C}}^{\mathbf{0}'}(a,b)\le m+n-\alpha\log_2 m$ for every non-covered pair $\langle a,b\rangle$.
Therefore for every $a$ and $b$ such that $m+n-\operatorname{\textit{C}}^{\mathbf{0}'}(a,b)<\alpha\log_2 m$ there exists $c\in\mathcal{C}$ such that $c(a)=b$, $c\notin \mathfrak{H}(b)$, and for every $f\in \mathcal{F}$ the equation $c(x)=f(x)$ has at most $2^{m-n+2}$ solutions.
Since $c(a)=b$, we have $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,c)=O(\log N)$.
Since $c\notin \mathfrak{H}(b)$, we have $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(c|b) \ge \log_2(\#\mathcal{C})-2$, i.e., $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(c)=\operatorname{\textit{C}}(c|b)+O(\log N)$.
Finally we have to estimate $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c,f)$ for strings $f$ such that $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f)\le l-\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,f)$. Knowing $f$, we enumerate functions in $\mathcal{F}$ that have label $f$. One of them, say, $\tilde f$, goes through $\langle a,b\rangle$ (i.e., $\tilde{f}(a)=b$). To specify this functions, we need at most $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,f)+O(\log N)$ additional bits. Knowing $\tilde{f}$ and $c$ we may enumerate all $x$ such that $c(x)=\tilde{f}(x)$. (More precisely, we specify the index of $\tilde{f}$ in $\mathcal{F}$, not the $\tilde{f}$ itself. However, to enumerate the solutions of the equation $c(x)=\tilde{f}(x)$ it is enough to enumerate pairs $\langle x,y\rangle$ such that $y=\tilde{f}(x)$ by replaying the construction of $\mathcal{F}$.) This set contains $a$ and has cardinality at most $2^{m-n+2}$, so we can specify $a$ using $m-n+2$ additional bits. Altogether, $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|c,f)\le \operatorname{\textit{C}}(a|c,f) + O(\log N)\le \operatorname{\textit{C}}(b|a,f) + m - n + O(\log N)$, as we claimed.
Theorem \[th:negative\] is proven.
**Open questions**
1. Is it possible to strengthen theorem \[th:negative\] and have $c$ of complexity at most $n+O(\log N)$ instead of $n+l+O(\log N)$? (An.A. Muchnik in his talk claimed that this can be done by a more complicated combinatorial argument, which was not explained in the talk.)
2. Theorem \[th:negative\] shows that if $a$ is only slightly more complex than $b$, then for some $c$ short messages do not work. On the other hand, the alternative proof of theorem \[th:1\] works for empty $c$. What can be said about other $c$? What are the conditions that make short messages possible?
3. What can be said about the possible complexities $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f|b)$, $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f|a,b)$, and $\operatorname{\textit{C}}(f|a,b,c)$ if $f$ is a message with the required properties?
[9]{}
Muchnik An.A., Conditional complexity and codes. *Theoretical Computer Science*, v. 271 (2002), issues 1–2, p. 97–109. \[Preliminary version: Andrej Muchnik, Alexej Semenov, Multi-conditional Descriptions and Codes in Kolmogorov Complexity, ECCC Technical Report, no. 15, January 27, 2000.\]
Shen A., Vereshchagin N.K., Logical operations and Kolmogorov Complexity. *Theoretical Computer Science*, v. 271 (2002), p. 125–129.
[^1]: This paper contains some results of An.A. Muchnik (1958–2007) reported in his talks at the Kolmogorov seminar (Moscow State Lomonosov University, Math. Department, Logic and Algorithms theory division, March 11, 2003 and April 8, 2003) but not published at that time. These results were stated (without proofs) in the joint talk of Andrej Muchnik and Alexei Semenov at Dagstuhl Seminar 03181, 27.04.2003–03.05.2003. This text was prepared by Alexey Chernov and Alexander Shen in 2008–2009.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report a new analytical method for solution of a wide class of second-order differential equations with eigenvalues replaced by arbitrary functions. Such classes of problems occur frequently in Quantum Mechanics and Optics. This approach is based on the extension of the previously reported differential transfer matrix method with modified basis functions. Applications of the method to boundary value and initial value problems, as well as several examples are illustrated.'
address: 'School of Electrical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology'
author:
- Sina Khorasani
title: Differential Transfer Matrix Solution of Generalized Eigenvalue Problems
---
Introduction
============
Analytical solution of differential equations provides insight to the behavior of solutions whenever they exist. Unfortunately, most practical physical problems are described by governing models which are normally solved by numerical techniques. Moreover, explicit solutions even to the simplest differential equations are rare. A wide class of physical problems are described by second-order differential equations, where the only known analytical method with explicit solution for this purpose is the approximate WentzelKramersBrillouin (WKB) method [@ref1; @ref2]. An approximate method for solution of linear homogeneous differential equations with variable coefficients has been reported in [@ref2a], which is based on a transformation into a Volterra or Fredholm integral equation. Also, a matrix method has been reported in [@ref2b] which is used to transform the Schrödinger equation into a Shabat–Zakharov system of second order, and then the solution is obtained by perturbation technique. There are also a number of further existing analytical methods for solution of Ordinary Differential Equations which are categorized and reviewed by Polyanin and Zaitsev in [@ref2c].
Recently, we have introduced an analytical method which is capable of solving linear homogeneous Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) with variable coefficients [@ref3]. The method is based on the definition of jump transfer matrices and taking the differential limit. The approach reduces the $n$th-order differential equation to a first order system of $n$ linear differential equations. The full analytical solution is then found by the perturbation technique, which may be elegantly expressed in terms of matrix exponentiation of the integral of a Kernel matrix. The important feature of this method is that it deals with the evolution of independent solutions, rather than its derivatives. The exact mathematical nature of this method has also been rigorously established [@ref3].
This method emerged as an extension of Differential Transfer Matrix Method (DTMM), which was originally proposed in the context of optics and quantum mechanics [@ref4; @ref5; @ref6]. DTMM is based on the modification of the standard transfer matrix method in optics [@ref7] and quantum mechanics [@ref8], and employs exponential basis functions. Through numerous examples, this method was shown to be simple, exact, and efficient, while reflecting the basic properties of the physical problem.
However, the initial formulation of DTMM had difficulty when dealing with singularities. Such singularities arise in the domain of optics and quantum mechanics at the turning points of wavefunctions, where the behavior switches between oscillatory and decaying forms [@ref2]. As a result, basic DTMM results suffer from numerical error when approaching physical singularities. To overcome this difficulty, the solution may be expressed by using Airy functions [@ref2]. Further applications and extensions of DTMM have been reported by Mehrany et. al., which include employment of WKB basis [@ref9; @ref10] for improvement of numerical accuracy, and numerical implementation of the method using Airy functions [@ref11] for dealing with singularities. Also, the original DTMM has been used in [@ref12] with no essential change as reported in the main formulation [@ref3].
In this paper, we report a general formulation of DTMM for eigenvalue problems having second-order ODEs. The generalization is done by replacing the eigenvalue with an arbitrary function, which we here refer to as the eigenvalue function. We show that DTMM is still capable of delivering the analytical solution provided that proper basis functions are used. We also establish the mathematical validity of this method by presenting the fundamental theorem of DTMM. The major improvement of this work in contrast to the original formulation [@ref3] is two-fold. Firstly, the solution to the extended eigenvalue problem evolves ‘naturally’ out of the relevant basis functions rather than exponentials. Secondly, envelope functions undergo minimal variations because most of the solution is encompassed in the extended bases. As a result, we may obtain a simple approximate solution for problems with slowly varying eigenvalue functions.
Formulation
===========
Suppose that a linear homogeneous ordinary differential equation (ODE) is given as
$$\mathbb{H}_k f\left( {x;k} \right) = 0
\label{eq1}$$
where $\mathbb{H}_k $ is a second-order linear operator with eigenvalue $k$ which involves partial derivatives only with respect to $x$, and $f\left( {x;k} \right)$ being its eigenfunction. It is the purpose of this formulation to find solutions of (\[eq1\]) when the eigenvalue $k$ is replaced by an eigenvalue function such as $k\left( x \right)$. Hence, the extended problem reads
$$\mathbb{L}_{k\left( x \right)} f\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = 0
\label{eq2}$$
Here, the new operator $\mathbb{L}_{k\left( x \right)}
$ is obtained from $\mathbb{H}_k $ by replacing the eigenvalue $k$ with an eigenvalue function $k\left( x \right)$, and ${\partial \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {\partial {\partial x}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\partial x}}$ with ${d \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {d {dx}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {dx}}$. In general, (\[eq1\]) admits a general solution having the form
$$f\left( {x;k} \right) = aA\left( {x;k} \right) + bB\left( {x;k}
\right)
\label{eq3}
%(3)$$
in which $a$ and $b$ are constants determined by initial or boundary conditions, and $A\left( {x;k} \right)$ and $B\left({x;k} \right)$ are linearly independent solutions with non-vanishing Wronskian determinant, i.e.
$$W\left( {x;k} \right) = \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left( {x;k} \right)} & {B\left( {x;k} \right)} \\
{A_x \left( {x;k} \right)} & {B_x \left( {x;k} \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right| \ne 0
\label{eq4}$$
Clearly, $A_x \left( {x;k} \right) = {{\partial A\left(
{x;k} \right)} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\partial A\left( {x;k} \right)} {\partial x}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\partial x}}$ and $B_x \left( {x;k} \right) = {{\partial B\left( {x;k}
\right)} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\partial B\left( {x;k} \right)} {\partial x}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\partial x}}$.
Now, we seek a solution to (\[eq2\]) having the extended form to (\[eq3\]) given by
$$f\left( {x;k} \right) = a\left( x \right)A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right] + b\left( x \right)B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]
\label{eq5}$$
where $a\left( x \right)$ and $b\left(x \right)$ remain as unknown functions to be determined.
Transfer Matrix of Finite Jumps
-------------------------------
In order to proceed with the formulation, we take a similar approach to the conventional Differential Transfer Matrix Method with exponential basis. For this reason, we first need to obtain the transfer matrix of finite jumps in the eigenvalue $k$. Suppose that the eigenvalue function is $k\left( x \right)$ defined as
$$k\left( x \right) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{k_1 ,} & {x > X} \\
{k_2 ,} & {x < X} \\
\end{array}} \right.
\label{eq6}$$
with $k_1 $, $k_2 $, and $X$ being constants. Solution to (\[eq1\]) is readily given by (\[eq3\]) as
$$\begin{array}{l}
f\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = \left\{
{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{f_1 \left( x \right),} & {x < X} \\
{f_2 \left( x \right),} & {x > X} \\
\end{array}} \right. \\
\quad \quad \;\;\;\, = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{a_1 A\left( {x;k_1 } \right) + b_1 B\left( {x;k_1 } \right),} & {x
< X} \\
{a_2 A\left( {x;k_2 } \right) + b_2 B\left( {x;k_2 } \right),} & {x
> X} \\
\end{array}} \right. \\
\end{array}
\label{eq7}$$
Analyticity of $f\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}\right]$ across requires that
$$\begin{array}{l}
f_1 \left( X \right) = f_2 \left( X \right) \\
f_1 ^\prime \left( X \right) = f_2 ^\prime \left( X \right) \\
\end{array}
\label{eq8}$$
We hence arrive in the system of equations
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left( {X;k_2 } \right)} & {B\left( {X;k_2 } \right)} \\
{A_x \left( {X;k_2 } \right)} & {B_x \left( {X;k_2 } \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{a_2 } \\
{b_2 } \\
\end{array}} \right\} = \\
\quad \quad \;\;\;\,
\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left( {X;k_1 } \right)} & {B\left( {X;k_1 } \right)} \\
{A_x \left( {X;k_1 } \right)} & {B_x \left( {X;k_1 } \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{a_1 } \\
{b_1 } \\
\end{array}} \right\}
\end{array}
\label{eq9}$$
Since the Wronskian $W$ is supposed to be non-zero by (\[eq4\]), then (\[eq9\]) can be solved to obtain
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{a_2 } \\
{b_2 } \\
\end{array}} \right\} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A_2 } & {B_2 } \\
{A_2 ^\prime } & {B_2 ^\prime } \\
\end{array}} \right]^{ - 1} \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A_1 } & {B_1 } \\
{A_1 ^\prime } & {B_1 ^\prime } \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{a_1 } \\
{b_1 } \\
\end{array}} \right\} = \\
\quad \quad \;\;\;\,
\frac{1}{{W_2 }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{B_2 ^\prime } & { - B_2 } \\
{ - A_2 ^\prime } & {A_2 } \\
\end{array}} \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A_1 } & {B_1 } \\
{A_1 ^\prime } & {B_1 ^\prime } \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{a_1 } \\
{b_1 } \\
\end{array}} \right\}
\end{array}
\label{eq10}$$
Here, $A_i $ and $A_i ^\prime$ respectively denote $A\left( {X;k_i }
\right)$ and $A_x \left( {X;k_i }\right)$, $i = 1,2$. Similarly, $B_i $ and $B_i ^\prime$ respectively denote $B\left( {X;k_i } \right)$ and $B_x \left( {X;k_i } \right)$, $i =1,2$. Also, $W_2 = W\left( {X;k_2 }
\right)$. Hence, we get
$$\left\{ {C_2 } \right\} = \left[ {Q^{1 \to 2} } \right]\left\{ {C_1 }
\right\} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{q_{11}^{1 \to 2} } & {q_{12}^{1 \to 2} } \\
{q_{21}^{1 \to 2} } & {q_{22}^{1 \to 2} } \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {C_1 } \right\}
\label{eq11}$$
Here, $\left[ {Q^{1 \to 2} } \right]$ is referred to as the jump transfer matrix with the elements
$$\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{q_{11}^{1 \to 2} = \frac{{B_2 ^\prime A_1 - B_2 A_1 ^\prime
}}{{W_2 }}} & {q_{12}^{1 \to 2} = \frac{{B_2 ^\prime B_1 - B_2 B_1
^\prime }}{{W_2 }}} \\
{q_{21}^{1 \to 2} = \frac{{A_1 ^\prime A_2 - A_1 A_2 ^\prime
}}{{W_2 }}} & {q_{22}^{1 \to 2} = \frac{{B_1 ^\prime A_2 - B_1 A_2
^\prime }}{{W_2 }}} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq12}$$
and
$$\left\{ {C_i } \right\} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{a_i } \\
{b_i } \\
\end{array}} \right\},i = 1,2
\label{eq13}$$
Properties of jump transfer matrices have been extensively discussed in earlier works. But for the sake of convenience we mention a few
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left| {Q^{1 \to 2} } \right| = \frac{{W_1 }}{{W_2 }} \\
\left[ {Q^{m \to n} } \right] = \left[ {Q^{n - 1 \to n} }
\right]\left[ {Q^{n - 2 \to n - 1} } \right] \cdots \left[ {Q^{m + 1
\to m + 2} } \right]\left[ {Q^{m \to m + 1} } \right] \\
\left[ {Q^{m \to n} } \right]^{ - 1} = \left[ {Q^{n \to m} } \right]
\\
\end{array}
\label{eq14}$$
corresponding respectively to the determinant, combination, and inversion properties. Moreover, we readily notice that $\left| {Q^{m \to n} } \right| = {{W_m } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{W_m } {W_n }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {W_n }}$. It is clear that a given transfer matrix $\left[ {Q^{1 \to 2} }
\right]$ is not invertible unless the Wronskian (\[eq4\]) does not vanish. The combination property explains how to obtain the total transfer matrix over a number of finite jumps, among which the eigenvalue function $k\left( x \right)$ is constant.
Differential Transfer Matrix
----------------------------
Now, we let $k\left( x \right)$ be a smooth function of $x$. Within the infinitesimal neighborhood of any given point such as $x = X$, the eigenvalue function $k\left( x \right)$ will undergo a first-order change from $k_1 = k\left( X
\right)$ to $k_2 = k\left( {X + \Delta x}
\right)$. We may then define $k_2 = k_1 + \Delta
k$, where $\Delta k$ represents a small change in the eigenvalue. If $\Delta x$ is small, then we may neglect the variations of $k\left( x
\right)$ within $\left[ {X,X + \Delta x}
\right]$. The corresponding first order change in the vector $\left\{ C \right\}$ across $x =
X$ will be clearly given by
$$\left\{ {\Delta C} \right\} \approx \frac{1}{{\Delta x}}\left( {\left[
{Q^{1 \to 2} } \right] - \left[ I \right]} \right)\left\{ {C_1 }
\right\}
\label{eq15}$$
where the approximation becomes exact if we let $\Delta
x$ approach zero. Thereby, we get
$$d\left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\} = \left[ {U\left( x \right)}
\right]\left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\}dx
\label{eq16}$$
in which $\left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\}$ is the envelope vector function, and the Kernel matrix $\left[
{U\left( x \right)} \right]$ is
$$\left[ {U\left( x \right)} \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{u_{11} \left( x \right)} & {u_{12} \left( x \right)} \\
{u_{21} \left( x \right)} & {u_{22} \left( x \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right] = \lim _{\Delta x \to 0} \frac{1}{{\Delta
x}}\left( {\left[ {Q^{1 \to 2} } \right] - \left[ I \right]} \right)
\label{eq17}$$
We notice that in order to obtain the correct solution to the Kernel matrix $\left[ {U\left( x \right)} \right]$, one needs to make the replacements $G_1 = G$, $G_1 ^\prime = G_x $, and $G_2 = G +
G_k \Delta k$, $G_2 ^\prime = G_x + G_{xk}
\Delta k$, where represents either of $A$ or $B$. Here, subscripts refer to partial derivatives in the sense that $G_x = {{\partial G}
\mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\partial G} {\partial x}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\partial x}}$, $G_k
= {{\partial G} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\partial G} {\partial k}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\partial k}}$, $G_{xk} = {{\partial ^2 G} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\partial ^2 G} {\partial x\partial k}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\partial x\partial k}}$. After doing some algebra and simplification we get the complete form for the elements of the Kernel matrix $\left[ {U\left( x \right)}
\right]$ as
$$\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{u_{11} = k'\frac{{A_{xk} B - A_k B_x }}{W}} & {u_{12} =
k'\frac{{B_{xk} B - B_k B_x }}{W}} \\
{u_{21} = k'\frac{{A_k A_x - A_{xk} A}}{W}} & {u_{22} =
k'\frac{{A_x B_k - AB_{xk} }}{W}} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq18}$$
Here, $k' = {{\partial k\left( x \right)} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\partial k\left( x \right)} {\partial x}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\partial x}}$ and $W
= AB_x - A_x B$. In the fully expanded form we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
u_{11} \left( x \right) = \frac{{k'\left( x \right)}}{{W\left( x
\right)}}\left\{ {\frac{{\partial ^2 A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]}}{{\partial x\partial k}}B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]
- \frac{{\partial A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]}}{{\partial
k}}\frac{{\partial B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]}}{{\partial
x}}} \right\} \\
u_{12} \left( x \right) = \frac{{k'\left( x \right)}}{{W\left( x
\right)}}\left\{ {\frac{{\partial ^2 B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]}}{{\partial x\partial k}}B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]
- \frac{{\partial B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]}}{{\partial
k}}\frac{{\partial B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]}}{{\partial
x}}} \right\} \\
u_{21} \left( x \right) = \frac{{k'\left( x \right)}}{{W\left( x
\right)}}\left\{ {\frac{{\partial A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]}}{{\partial k}}\frac{{\partial A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]}}{{\partial x}} - \frac{{\partial ^2 A\left[ {x;k\left( x
\right)} \right]}}{{\partial x\partial k}}A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]} \right\} \\
u_{22} \left( x \right) = \frac{{k'\left( x \right)}}{{W\left( x
\right)}}\left\{ {\frac{{\partial A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]}}{{\partial x}}\frac{{\partial B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]}}{{\partial k}} - A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]\frac{{\partial ^2 B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]}}{{\partial x\partial k}}} \right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq19}$$
where
$$W\left( x \right) = A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]\frac{{\partial B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]}}{{\partial x}} - \frac{{\partial A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right]}}{{\partial x}}B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]
\label{eq20}$$
A general solution to (\[eq2\]) is given by (\[eq5\]) with
$$\left\{ {C'\left( x \right)} \right\} = \left[ {U\left( x \right)}
\right]\left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\}
\label{eq21}$$
in which the elements of the Kernel matrix $\left[ {U\left(
x \right)} \right]$ are given in (\[eq18\]). Interestingly, (\[eq21\]) allows an analytical solution through perturbation theory as [@ref2; @ref3]
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\{ {C\left( {x_2 } \right)} \right\} = \left\{ {C\left( {x_1 }
\right)} \right\} + \int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\left[ {U\left( {y_0 }
\right)} \right]\left\{ {C\left( {y_0 } \right)} \right\}dy_0 } \\
\quad \quad \;\; + \int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\int\limits_{x_1 }^{y_1
} {\left[ {U\left( {y_1 } \right)} \right]\left[ {U\left( {y_0 }
\right)} \right]\left\{ {C\left( {y_0 } \right)} \right\}dy_0 dy_1 } }
\\
\quad \quad \;\; + \int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\int\limits_{x_1 }^{y_2
} {\int\limits_{x_1 }^{y_1 } {\left[ {U\left( {y_2 } \right)}
\right]\left[ {U\left( {y_1 } \right)} \right]\left[ {U\left( {y_0 }
\right)} \right]\left\{ {C\left( {y_0 } \right)} \right\}dy_0 dy_1 dy_2
} } } + \cdots \\
\end{array}
\label{eq22}$$
Often (\[eq22\]) is written symbolically as
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\{ {C\left( {x_2 } \right)} \right\} = \mathbb{T}\exp \left\{
{\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\left[ {U\left( x \right)} \right]dx} }
\right\}\left\{ {C\left( {x_1 } \right)} \right\} \\
\quad \quad \;\; = \left\{ {C\left( {x_1 } \right)} \right\} +
\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\left[ {U\left( {y_0 } \right)}
\right]\left\{ {C\left( {y_0 } \right)} \right\}dy_0 } \\
\quad \quad \quad \;\; + \frac{1}{{2!}}\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 }
{\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\mathbb{T}\left[ {U\left( {y_1 } \right)}
\right]\left[ {U\left( {y_0 } \right)} \right]\left\{ {C\left( {y_0 }
\right)} \right\}dy_0 dy_1 } } \\
\quad \quad \quad \;\; + \frac{1}{{3!}}\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 }
{\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\mathbb{T}\left[
{U\left( {y_2 } \right)} \right]\left[ {U\left( {y_1 } \right)}
\right]\left[ {U\left( {y_0 } \right)} \right]\left\{ {C\left( {y_0 }
\right)} \right\}dy_0 dy_1 dy_2 } } } + \cdots \\
\quad \quad \;\; = \left[ {Q^{x_1 \to x_2 } } \right]\left\{
{C\left( {x_1 } \right)} \right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq23}$$
where $\left[ {Q^{x_1 \to x_2 } } \right]$ is the transfer matrix from $x_1 $ to $x_2
$ and $\exp \left( \cdot \right)$ being the matrix exponentiation
$$\exp \left[ M \right] = \left[ I \right] + \sum\limits_{n = 1}^\infty
{\frac{1}{{n!}}} \left[ M \right]^n
\label{eq24}
%(24)$$
Furthermore, $\mathbb{T}$ is the Dyson’s ordering operator defined as
$$\mathbb{T}\left[ {U\left( a \right)} \right]\left[ {U\left( b \right)}
\right] = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\left[ {U\left( a \right)} \right]\left[ {U\left( b \right)}
\right],} & {a > b} \\
{\left[ {U\left( b \right)} \right]\left[ {U\left( a \right)}
\right],} & {a < b} \\
\end{array}} \right.
\label{eq25}$$
There are few known sufficient conditions [@ref3; @ref13], which rarely happen and under which $\mathbb{T}$ may be dropped exactly to reach
$$\left\{ {C\left( {x_2 } \right)} \right\} = \exp \left\{
{\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\left[ {U\left( x \right)} \right]dx} }
\right\}\left\{ {C\left( {x_1 } \right)} \right\}
\label{eq26}$$
The most important sufficient condition includes the case when the Kernel matrix commutes with itself as $\left[ {U\left( a
\right)} \right]\left[ {U\left( b \right)} \right] = \left[ {U\left( b
\right)} \right]\left[ {U\left( a \right)} \right]$ for all given $a$ and $b$. This is better known as the Lappo-Danilevskii [@ref13a] criterion, and is also generalized by Fedorov [@ref13b]. Evidently, this condition applies to all constant as well as diagonal Kernel matrices. It is therefore a challenge to find construct the proper extended eigenvalue equation in such a way that the corresponding Kernel matrix meets any of these sufficient criteria. If possible, then exact and explicit closed form solutions to (\[eq2\]) are found analytically by using (\[eq26\]) instead of (\[eq23\]).
While in general, (\[eq26\]) is merely an approximation to the exact solution (\[eq23\]), nevertheless, in any case the determinant and trace of $\left[ {Q^{x_1 \to x_2 } } \right]$ would be preserved exactly, meaning that the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix $\left[ {Q^{x_1 \to x_2 } } \right]$ would not be affected at least. This allows us to formulate a very convenient approximate numerical solution to the extended problem (\[eq2\]).
Properties of Differential Transfer Matrix
------------------------------------------
Properties of the transfer matrix $\left[ {Q^{x_1 \to x_2
} } \right]$ as defined in (\[eq23\]) are very much similar to those of the jump transfer matrix (\[eq14\]), given by
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left[ {Q^{x_1 \to x_1 } } \right] = \left[ I \right] \\
\left| {Q^{x_1 \to x_2 } } \right| = \frac{{W_1 }}{{W_2 }} \\
\left[ {Q^{x_1 \to x_2 } } \right] = \left[ {Q^{x_3 \to x_2 } }
\right]\left[ {Q^{x_1 \to x_3 } } \right] \\
\left[ {Q^{x_1 \to x_2 } } \right]^{ - 1} = \left[ {Q^{x_2 \to x_1
} } \right] \\
\end{array}
\label{eq27}$$
Properties of the transfer matrix in which $W_i = W\left[
{x_i ;k_i } \right] = W\left[ {x_i ;k\left( {x_i } \right)} \right],i =
1,2$. The first property, the identity property readily follows by definition in (\[eq23\]). The determinant property can be observed by noting that Dyson’s operator has no effect on the determinant, and thus
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left| {Q^{x_1 \to x_2 } } \right| = \left| {\mathbb{T}\exp \left\{
{\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\left[ {U\left( x \right)} \right]dx} }
\right\}} \right| = \left| {\exp \left\{ {\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 }
{\left[ {U\left( x \right)} \right]dx} } \right\}} \right| \\
\quad \quad \,\,
= \exp\left( {{\mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits} \left\{ {\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 }
{\left[ {U\left( x \right)} \right]dx} } \right\}} \right)
= \exp \left( {\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\left[
{u_{11} \left( x \right) + u_{22} \left( x \right)} \right]dx} }
\right) \\
\end{array}
\label{eq28}$$
Now from (\[eq18\]) we get
$$\begin{array}{l}
\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\left[ {u_{11} \left( x \right) + u_{22}
\left( x \right)} \right]dx} = \int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 }
{\frac{{A_{xk} B - AB_{xk} }}{{AB_x - BA_x }}k'dx} = -
\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\frac{\partial }{{\partial k}}\ln
W\frac{{\partial k}}{{\partial x}}dx} \\
\quad = - \int\limits_{k_1 }^{k_2 } {\frac{\partial }{{\partial
k}}\ln Wdk} = \ln k_1 - \ln k_2 \\
\end{array}
\label{eq29}$$
Inserting this result in (\[eq28\]) gives the determinant property in (\[eq28\]). Combination and inversion properties also follow the definition (\[eq23\]).
Fundamental Theorem
-------------------
In this section, we rigorously show that the differential transfer matrix method leads to an exact solution of the differential equation (\[eq2\]). To show this, we start by proving the so-called *Derivative Lemma*.
The total derivative of function (\[eq5\]) is given by
$$\frac{{d^n }}{{dx^n }}f\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = a\left(
x \right)\frac{{\partial ^n }}{{\partial x^n }}A\left[ {x;k\left( x
\right)} \right] + b\left( x \right)\frac{{\partial ^n }}{{\partial x^n
}}B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right],\,\,0 \le n \le 2
\label{eq30}$$
Proof follows by direct substitution. The case of $n = 0$ is trivial, and we first prove the validity of (\[eq30\]) for $n = 1$. Direct differentiation of (\[eq5\]) by chain rule gives
$$\frac{d}{{dx}}f = a'A + b'B + a\left( {A_x + k'A_k } \right) +
b\left( {B_x + k'B_k } \right)
\label{eq31}$$
where $f = aA + bB$. But we already have obtained the derivatives $a'$ and $b'$ from (\[eq21\]) and (\[eq18\]) as
$$\begin{array}{l}
a' = u_{11} a + u_{12} b = \frac{{k'}}{W}\left[ {\left( {A_{xk} B -
A_k B_x } \right)a + \left( {B_{xk} B - B_k B_x } \right)b} \right] \\
b' = u_{21} a + u_{22} b = \frac{{k'}}{W}\left[ {\left( {A_k A_x -
A_{xk} A} \right)a + \left( {B_k A_x - B_{xk} A} \right)b} \right] \\
\end{array}
\label{eq32}$$
in which the elements $u_{ij} ,i,j =
1,2$ of the Kernel matrix are given in (\[eq18\]). After some minor algebra we get
$$\frac{d}{{dx}}f = aA_x + bB_x
\label{eq33}
%(33)$$
To show the correctness of (\[eq30\]) for $n = 2$, we take the derivative again with respect to $x$ from both sides of (\[eq30\]), thus giving
$$\begin{array}{l}
\frac{{d^2 }}{{dx^2 }}f = \frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {aA_x + bB_x }
\right) \\
\quad = a'A_x + b'B_x + a\frac{d}{{dx}}A_x + b\frac{d}{{dx}}B_x
\\
\quad = \left( {u_{11} a + u_{12} b} \right)A_x + \left( {u_{21} a
+ u_{22} b} \right)B_x \\
\quad + a\left( {A_{xx} + k'A_{xk} } \right) + b\left( {B_{xx} +
k'B_{xk} } \right) \\
\end{array}
\label{eq34}$$
Further substitution of (\[eq32\]) in (\[eq34\]) gives
$$\begin{array}{l}
\frac{{d^2 }}{{dx^2 }}f\; = \frac{{k'}}{{AB_x - BA_x }}\left[
{\left( {A_{xk} B - A_k B_x } \right)a + \left( {B_{xk} B - B_k B_x }
\right)b} \right]A_x \\
\quad \quad \;\; + \frac{{k'}}{{AB_x - BA_x }}\left[ {\left( {A_k
A_x - A_{xk} A} \right)a + \left( {B_k A_x - B_{xk} A} \right)b}
\right]B_x \\
\quad \quad \;\; + a\left( {A_{xx} + k'A_{xk} } \right) + b\left(
{B_{xx} + k'B_{xk} } \right) \\
\end{array}
\label{eq35}$$
Here, we have used the definition of the Wronskian $W = AB_x - BA_x $ from (\[eq4\]). Eventually, after some algebra we arrive at the final result
$$\frac{{d^2 }}{{dx^2 }}f\; = aA_{xx} + bB_{xx}
\label{eq36}$$
This completes the proof
We are now in a position to present the *Fundamental Theorem of Differential Transfer Matrix Method* as follows.
The solution to (\[eq2\]) having the form (\[eq5\]) with (\[eq21\]) is exact.
To show the validity of the statement, we start by plugging in (\[eq5\]) directly into (\[eq2\]).
$$\begin{array}{l}
\mathbb{L}_k f\left[ {x;k} \right] = \mathbb{L}_k \left\{ {aA\left[ {x;k}
\right] + bB\left[ {x;k} \right]} \right\} \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad \; = a\mathbb{H}_k A\left[ {x;k} \right] +
b\mathbb{H}_k B\left[ {x;k} \right] \\
\end{array}
\label{eq37}$$
where $\mathbb{H}_k $ and $\mathbb{L}_k $ are respectively defined in (\[eq1\]) and (\[eq2\]). Here, the explicit dependence of the operator $\mathbb{L}_k$ and functions $a$, $b$, and $k$ on $x$ is not shown. But by assumption we have $\mathbb{H}_k A\left[ {x;k} \right] = \mathbb{H}_k B\left[ {x;k}
\right] = 0$ and hence the assertion.
All remains is to force the initial or boundary conditions, and we here mention the treatment of both types of conditions.
Initial Conditions
------------------
Without loss of generality, we may assume that initial conditions are known at some point like $x = c$. Suppose that $f\left( c \right)$ and $f'\left( c
\right)$ are known. Then by derivative lemma (\[eq30\]) we have
$$f'\left( x \right) = A_x \left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]a\left( x
\right) + B_x \left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]b\left( x \right)
\label{eq38}$$
Therefore we get
$$\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{f\left( c \right)} \\
{f'\left( c \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right\} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left[ {c;k\left( c \right)} \right]} & {B\left[ {c;k\left( c
\right)} \right]} \\
{A_x \left[ {c;k\left( c \right)} \right]} & {B_x \left[ {c;k\left(
c \right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{a\left( c \right)} \\
{b\left( c \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right\}
\label{eq39}
%(39)$$
Thus we may obtain the initial vector $\left\{ {C\left( c
\right)} \right\}$ as
$$\left\{ {C\left( c \right)} \right\} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left[ {c;k\left( c \right)} \right]} & {B\left[ {c;k\left( c
\right)} \right]} \\
{A_x \left[ {c;k\left( c \right)} \right]} & {B_x \left[ {c;k\left(
c \right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right]^{ - 1} \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{f\left( c \right)} \\
{f'\left( c \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right\}
\label{eq40}
%(40)$$
with the solution
$$\left\{ {C\left( c \right)} \right\} = \frac{1}{{W\left[ {c;k\left( c
\right)} \right]}}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{B_x \left[ {c;k\left( c \right)} \right]} & { - B\left[ {c;k\left(
c \right)} \right]} \\
{ - A_x \left[ {c;k\left( c \right)} \right]} & {A\left[ {c;k\left(
c \right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{f\left( c \right)} \\
{f'\left( c \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right\}
\label{eq41}
%(41)$$
Now by (\[eq23\]) we have the full solution to the envelope vector as
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\} = \mathbb{T}\exp \left\{
{\int\limits_c^x {\left[ {U\left( y \right)} \right]dy} }
\right\}\left\{ {C\left( c \right)} \right\}
\\
\quad \quad \,\,
\approx \exp \left\{
{\int\limits_c^x {\left[ {U\left( y \right)} \right]dy} }
\right\}\left\{ {C\left( c \right)} \right\}
\end{array}
\label{eq42}$$
This allows us to obtain the final solution to the initial value problem (\[eq2\]) as
$$f\left( x \right) = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]} & {B\left[ {x;k\left( x
\right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\}
\label{eq43}$$
Boundary Conditions
-------------------
Without loss of generality, we may assume that boundary conditions are known at two points like $x = c_1 ,c_2 $. Suppose that $f\left( {c_1 } \right)$ and $f\left( {c_2 } \right)$ are known. Then by (\[eq5\]) we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
f\left( {c_1 } \right) = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left[ {c_1 ;k\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right]} & {B\left[ {c_1
;k\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {C\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right\} \\
f\left( {c_2 } \right) = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left[ {c_2 ;k\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right]} & {B\left[ {c_2
;k\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {C\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq44}$$
But from (\[eq23\]) we have
$$\left\{ {C\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right\} = \left[ {Q^{c_1 \to c_2 }
} \right]\left\{ {C\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right\}
\label{eq45}$$
Thus by combining (\[eq44\]) and (\[eq45\]) we may obtain the system of equations
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{f\left( {c_1 } \right)} \\
{f\left( {c_2 } \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right\} =
\\
\quad
\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left[ {c_1 ;k\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right]} & {B\left[ {c_1
;k\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right]} \\
{q_{11} A\left[ {c_2 ;k\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right] + q_{21}
B\left[ {c_2 ;k\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right]} & {q_{12} A\left[ {c_2
;k\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right] + q_{22} B\left[ {c_2 ;k\left( {c_2 }
\right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right] \times \\ \quad
\left\{ {C\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right\}
\end{array}
\label{eq46}$$
with the solution
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\{ {C\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right\} = \\
\quad
\left[
{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left[ {c_1 ;k\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right]} & {B\left[ {c_1
;k\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right]} \\
{q_{11} A\left[ {c_2 ;k\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right] + q_{21}
B\left[ {c_2 ;k\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right]} & {q_{12} A\left[ {c_2
;k\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right] + q_{22} B\left[ {c_2 ;k\left( {c_2 }
\right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right]^{ - 1} \times \\
\quad \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{f\left( {c_1 } \right)} \\
{f\left( {c_2 } \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right\} \\
\left\{ {C\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right\} = \left[ {Q^{c_1 \to c_2 }
} \right]\left\{ {C\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq47}$$
The rest is the same and similar to (\[eq42\])
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\} = \mathbb{T}\exp \left\{
{\int\limits_{c_1 }^x {\left[ {U\left( y \right)} \right]dy} }
\right\}\left\{ {C\left( {c_1 } \right)} \right\} = \mathbb{T}\exp
\left\{ { - \int\limits_x^{c_2 } {\left[ {U\left( y \right)} \right]dy}
} \right\}\left\{ {C\left( {c_2 } \right)} \right\} \\
\quad \quad \; \approx \exp \left\{ {\int\limits_{c_1 }^x {\left[
{U\left( y \right)} \right]dy} } \right\}\left\{ {C\left( {c_1 }
\right)} \right\} \approx \exp \left\{ { - \int\limits_x^{c_2 } {\left[
{U\left( y \right)} \right]dy} } \right\}\left\{ {C\left( {c_2 }
\right)} \right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq48}$$
Examples
========
In this section, we present some application examples describing the details of the method.
Wave Equation
-------------
Numerous physical problems are described via the simple second-order equation
$$\psi ''\left( x \right) + k^2 \left( x \right)\psi \left( x \right) =
0
\label{eq49}
%(49)$$
The equation (\[eq49\]) is known to have no explicit solution for arbitrary eigenvalue function $k\left( x \right)$, which in the literature is usually referred to as the wavenumber function. The only existing analytical solution to (\[eq49\]) is the very well-known WKB approximation. Here, the corresponding operators read
$$\mathbb{H}_k = \frac{{\partial ^2 }}{{\partial x^2 }} + k^2 \quad \quad
\mathbb{L}_{k\left( x \right)} = \frac{{d^2 }}{{dx^2 }} + k^2 \left( x
\right)
\label{eq50}$$
In case of constant wavenumber, any solution of (\[eq49\]) is given by linear combinations of exponential functions $\exp
\left( { \pm ikx} \right)$, and therefore the eigenfunctions are readily found to be
$$A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = \exp \left[ { - ixk\left( x
\right)} \right]\quad B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = \exp
\left[ { + ixk\left( x \right)} \right]
\label{eq51}
%(51)$$
with the Wronskian $W\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] =
2ik\left( x \right)$. To find a solution to (\[eq49\]) it is therefore sufficient to find the Kernel matrix $\left[ {U\left( x \right)} \right]$, which is
$$\left[ {U\left( x \right)} \right] = \frac{{k'\left( x
\right)}}{{2k\left( x \right)}}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{ - 1 + 2ixk\left( x \right)} & {\exp \left[ { + 2ixk\left( x
\right)} \right]} \\
{\exp \left[ { - 2ixk\left( x \right)} \right]} & { - 1 -
2ixk\left( x \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right]
\label{eq52}$$
Numerical and analytical solutions of (\[eq49\]) using the Kernel matrix (\[eq52\]) has been extensively studied in the literature through past years.
Airy’s Equation
---------------
One of the known problems with the above differential transfer matrix solution of (\[eq49\]) is occurrence of singularities at which $k^2 \left( x
\right)$ changes sign and the Wronskian vanishes, better known as returning points. The singularity is clear in (\[eq52\]) as the denominator. Even the approximate WKB solution fails near returning points. It is a common practice however to expand the solution near the returning points via Airy functions. Without loss of generality we may assume that the singularity is located at $x = 0$. In this case, we present a slightly modified form of (\[eq49\]) as
$$\psi ''\left( x \right) - k^3 \left( x \right)x\psi \left( x \right) =
0
\label{eq53}$$
with the Airy wavenumber satisfying $k\left( 0 \right) \ne0$. Hence,
$$\mathbb{H}_k = \frac{{\partial ^2 }}{{\partial x^2 }} - k^3 x\quad
\quad \mathbb{L}_{k\left( x \right)} = \frac{{d^2 }}{{dx^2 }} - k^3
\left( x \right)x
\label{eq54}$$
In case of constant wavenumber, any solution of (\[eq53\]) is given by linear combinations of Airy functions ${\mathop{\rm Ai}\nolimits} \left( {kx} \right)$ and ${\mathop{\rm Bi}\nolimits} \left( {kx}
\right)$, and thus the eigenfunctions take the form
$$A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = {\mathop{\rm Ai}\nolimits}
\left[ {xk\left( x \right)} \right]\quad B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)}
\right] = {\mathop{\rm Bi}\nolimits} \left[ {xk\left( x \right)}
\right]
\label{eq55}$$
having the constant Wronskian $W\left[ {x;k\left( x
\right)} \right] = {1 \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {1 \pi }} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} \pi }$. This choice of basis, after some simplification, leads to the following Kernel matrix elements
$$\begin{array}{l}
u_{11} = + \pi k'\left\{ {k^2 x^2 {\mathop{\rm Ai}\nolimits} \left(
{kx} \right){\mathop{\rm Bi}\nolimits} \left( {kx} \right) +
{\mathop{\rm A}\nolimits} i'\left( {kx} \right)\left[ {{\mathop{\rm
Bi}\nolimits} \left( {kx} \right) - kx{\mathop{\rm B}\nolimits}
i'\left( {kx} \right)} \right]} \right\} \\
u_{12} = \pi k'\left\{ {{\mathop{\rm B}\nolimits} i'\left( {kx}
\right)\left[ {{\mathop{\rm Bi}\nolimits} \left( {kx} \right) -
xk{\mathop{\rm B}\nolimits} i'\left( {kx} \right)} \right] + k^2 x^2
{\mathop{\rm Bi}\nolimits} ^2 \left( {kx} \right)} \right\} \\
u_{21} = \pi k'\left\{ {{\mathop{\rm A}\nolimits} i'\left( {kx}
\right)\left[ {xk{\mathop{\rm A}\nolimits} i'\left( {kx} \right) -
{\mathop{\rm Ai}\nolimits} \left( {kx} \right)} \right] - k^2 x^2
{\mathop{\rm Ai}\nolimits} ^2 \left( {kx} \right)} \right\} \\
u_{22} = - \pi k'\left\{ {k^2 x^2 {\mathop{\rm Ai}\nolimits} \left(
{kx} \right){\mathop{\rm Bi}\nolimits} \left( {kx} \right) +
{\mathop{\rm B}\nolimits} i'\left( {kx} \right)\left[ {{\mathop{\rm
Ai}\nolimits} \left( {kx} \right) - kx{\mathop{\rm A}\nolimits}
i'\left( {kx} \right)} \right]} \right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq56}$$
which is clearly non-singular at $x = 0$. Here, dependence of the eigenvalue function $k\left( x
\right)$ on $x$ is not displayed for the sake of convenience.
Bessel’s Equation
-----------------
In the domain of fiber optics having cylindrical symmetry and after proper transformations, the radial component of the wave equation takes the form
$$x^2 \psi ''\left( x \right) + x\psi '\left( x \right) + \left[ {k^2
\left( x \right)x^2 - \nu ^2 } \right]\psi \left( x \right) = 0
\label{eq57}$$
Hence
$$\mathbb{H}_k = x^2 \frac{{\partial ^2 }}{{\partial x^2 }} +
x\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}} + \left( {k^2 x^2 - \nu ^2 }
\right)\quad \quad \mathbb{L}_{k\left( x \right)} = x^2 \frac{{d^2
}}{{dx^2 }} + x\frac{d}{{dx}} + \left[ {k^2 \left( x \right)x^2 - \nu
^2 } \right]
\label{eq58}$$
In case of constant wavenumber, any solution of (\[eq57\]) is given by any linear combinations of Bessel and Neumann functions $J_\nu \left( {kx} \right)$ and $N_\nu
\left( {kx} \right)$, or Hankel functions $H_\nu
^{\left( 1 \right)} \left( {kx} \right)$ and $H_\nu
^{\left( 2 \right)} \left( {kx} \right)$. For the first pair the eigenfunctions take the form
$$A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = J_\upsilon \left[ {xk\left( x
\right)} \right]\quad B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] =
N_\upsilon \left[ {xk\left( x \right)} \right]
\label{eq59}$$
having the Wronskian $W\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]
= {2 \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {2 {\pi x}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\pi x}}$. The elements of the corresponding Kernel matrix are
$$\begin{array}{l}
u_{11} = + \frac{{x\pi k'}}{2}\left\{ {\left[ {kx\left[ {J_{\nu -
2} \left( {kx} \right) - 2J_\nu \left( {kx} \right) + J_{\nu + 2}
\left( {kx} \right)} \right] + 2\left[ {J_{\nu - 1} \left( {kx}
\right) - J_{\nu + 1} \left( {kx} \right)} \right]} \right]N_\nu
\left( {kx} \right)} \right. \\
\quad \left. {\quad \quad \quad \;\; - kx\left[ {J_{\nu - 1} \left(
{kx} \right) - J_{\nu + 1} \left( {kx} \right)} \right]\left[ {N_{\nu
- 1} \left( {kx} \right) - N_{\nu + 1} \left( {kx} \right)} \right]}
\right\} \\
u_{12} = - \frac{{x\pi k'}}{2}\left\{ {\left[ {kx\left[ {N_{\nu -
2} \left( {kx} \right) - 2N_\nu \left( {kx} \right) + N_{\nu + 2}
\left( {kx} \right)} \right] + 2\left[ {N_{\nu - 1} \left( {kx}
\right) - N_{\nu + 1} \left( {kx} \right)} \right]} \right]N_\nu
\left( {kx} \right)} \right. \\
\quad \left. {\quad \quad \quad \;\; + kx\left[ {N_{\nu - 1} \left(
{kx} \right) - N_{\nu + 1} \left( {kx} \right)} \right]^2 } \right\}
\\
u_{21} = + \frac{{x\pi k'}}{2}\left\{ {\left[ {kx\left[ {J_{\nu -
2} \left( {kx} \right) - 2J_\nu \left( {kx} \right) + J_{\nu + 2}
\left( {kx} \right)} \right] + 2\left[ {J_{\nu - 1} \left( {kx}
\right) - J_{\nu + 1} \left( {kx} \right)} \right]} \right]J_\nu
\left( {kx} \right)} \right. \\
\quad \left. {\quad \quad \quad \;\; + kx\left[ {J_{\nu - 1} \left(
{kx} \right) - J_{\nu + 1} \left( {kx} \right)} \right]^2 } \right\}
\\
u_{22} = - \frac{{x\pi k'}}{2}\left\{ {\left[ {kx\left[ {N_{\nu -
2} \left( {kx} \right) - 2N_\nu \left( {kx} \right) + N_{\nu + 2}
\left( {kx} \right)} \right] + 2\left[ {N_{\nu - 1} \left( {kx}
\right) - N_{\nu + 1} \left( {kx} \right)} \right]} \right]J_\nu
\left( {kx} \right)} \right. \\
\quad \left. {\quad \quad \quad \;\; - kx\left[ {J_{\nu - 1} \left(
{kx} \right) - J_{\nu + 1} \left( {kx} \right)} \right]\left[ {N_{\nu
- 1} \left( {kx} \right) - N_{\nu + 1} \left( {kx} \right)} \right]}
\right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq60}$$
As it can be seen, all elements of the Kernel matrix vanish at $x = 0$; this ensures cylindrical symmetry of the radial function.
It should be also noticed that since Bessel functions with non-integer order are well-defined [@ref14]
$$J_\alpha \left( x \right) = \sum\limits_{m = 0}^\infty
{\frac{{\left( { - 1} \right)^m }}{{m!\Gamma \left( {m + \alpha + 1}
\right)}}} \left( {\frac{x}{2}} \right)^{2m + \alpha }
\label{eq61}$$
One could have also replaced the eigenvalue function with the order as
$$x^2 \psi ''\left( x \right) + x\psi '\left( x \right) + \left[ {x^2 -
k^2 \left( x \right)} \right]\psi \left( x \right) = 0
\label{eq62}
%(61)$$
Hence
$$\mathbb{H}_k = x^2 \frac{{\partial ^2 }}{{\partial x^2 }} +
x\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}} + \left( {x^2 - k^2 } \right)\quad
\quad \mathbb{L}_{k\left( x \right)} = x^2 \frac{{d^2 }}{{dx^2 }} +
x\frac{d}{{dx}} + \left[ {x^2 - k^2 \left( x \right)} \right]
\label{eq63}
%(62)$$
Again since $J_\alpha \left( x \right)$ and $J_{ - \alpha } \left( x \right)$ for non-integer $\alpha $ are linearly independent, the natural choice of eigenfunctions based on Bessel functions would be either
$$A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = J_{ + k\left( x \right)}
\left( x \right)\quad B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = J_{ -
k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)
\label{eq64}
%(63)$$
or
$$A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = J_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x
\right)\quad B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = N_{k\left( x
\right)} \left( x \right)
\label{eq65}
%(64)$$
The latter pair has the same Wronskian of $W\left[
{x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = {2 \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {2 {\pi x}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\pi x}}$. Hence, the elements of the Kernel matrix are
$$\begin{array}{l}
u_{11} \left( x \right) = \frac{{\pi xk'\left( x \right)}}{2}\left\{
{\frac{{\partial ^2 J_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)}}{{\partial
x\partial k}}N_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right) - \frac{{\partial
J_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)}}{{\partial k}}\frac{{\partial
N_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)}}{{\partial x}}} \right\} \\
u_{12} \left( x \right) = \frac{{\pi xk'\left( x \right)}}{2}\left\{
{\frac{{\partial ^2 N_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)}}{{\partial
x\partial k}}N_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right) - \frac{{\partial
N_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)}}{{\partial k}}\frac{{\partial
N_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)}}{{\partial x}}} \right\} \\
u_{21} \left( x \right) = \frac{{\pi xk'\left( x \right)}}{2}\left\{
{\frac{{\partial J_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)}}{{\partial
k}}\frac{{\partial J_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)}}{{\partial
x}} - \frac{{\partial ^2 J_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x
\right)}}{{\partial x\partial k}}J_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x
\right)} \right\} \\
u_{22} \left( x \right) = \frac{{\pi xk'\left( x \right)}}{2}\left\{
{\frac{{\partial J_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)}}{{\partial
x}}\frac{{\partial N_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)}}{{\partial
k}} - J_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)\frac{{\partial ^2
N_{k\left( x \right)} \left( x \right)}}{{\partial x\partial k}}}
\right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq66}
%(65)$$
Euler-Cauchy Equation
---------------------
The Euler-Cauchy equation reads
$$x^2 \psi ''\left( x \right) + x\psi '\left( x \right) - k^2 \left( x
\right)\psi \left( x \right) = 0
\label{eq67}
%(66)$$
Therefore, the corresponding operators are given by
$$\mathbb{H}_k = x^2 \frac{{\partial ^2 }}{{\partial x^2 }} +
x\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}} - k^2 \quad \mathbb{L}_{k\left( x
\right)} = x^2 \frac{{d^2 }}{{dx^2 }} + x\frac{d}{{dx}} - k^2 \left( x
\right)
\label{eq68}
%(67)$$
When $k\left( x \right)$ is a constant, solutions of (\[eq67\]) are given by linear combinations of $x^{ + k} $ and $x^{ - k} $. Thus, the extended basis functions are
$$A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = x^{ + k\left( x \right)} \quad
B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = x^{ - k\left( x \right)}
\label{eq69}
%(68)$$
with the Wronskian $W\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] =
- {{2k\left( x \right)} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{2k\left( x \right)} x}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} x}$, which vanishes at $k\left( x \right) = 0$. The Kernel matrix simplifies to the convenient form
$$\left[ {U\left( x \right)} \right] = - \frac{{k'\left( x
\right)}}{{2k\left( x \right)}}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{1 + 2k\left( x \right)\ln x} & { - x^{ - 2k\left( x \right)} } \\
{ - x^{2k\left( x \right)} } & {1 - 2k\left( x \right)\ln x} \\
\end{array}} \right]
\label{eq70}
%(69)$$
Approximate Solution
--------------------
The exact matrix exponential in (\[eq23\]) can be evaluated if off-diagonal elements of the Kernel matrix could be dropped. This has been previously shown to lead to the well-known WKB solution [@ref2b; @ref4; @ref5]. Under such conditions, the approximate differential transfer matrix takes the form
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left[ {Q^{x_1 \to x_2 } } \right] = \mathbb{T}\exp \left\{
{\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {\left[ {U\left( x \right)} \right]dx} }
\right\} \approx \mathbb{T}\exp \left\{ {\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 }
{\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{u_{11} \left( x \right)} & 0 \\
0 & {u_{22} \left( x \right)} \\
\end{array}} \right]dx} } \right\} \\
\quad \quad \; = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\exp \left[ {\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {u_{11} \left( x \right)dx}
} \right]} & 0 \\
0 & {\exp \left[ {\int\limits_{x_1 }^{x_2 } {u_{22} \left( x
\right)dx} } \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right] \\
\end{array}
\label{eq71}
%(70)$$
Periodic Perturbations
----------------------
There is a great deal of simplification possible, when the eigenvalue function $k\left( x \right) = k\left( {x + L}
\right)$ is periodic for some $L > 0$. Let $\mathbb{T}_L $ be the translation operator, defined as $\mathbb{T}_L h\left( x \right) = h\left( {x + L}
\right)$, for all arbitrary functions $h\left( x
\right)$. Hence, we readily have the commutation property $\left[ {\mathbb{L}_{k\left( x \right)} ,\mathbb{T}_L } \right]
= 0$, and hence these two operators share identical eigenfunctions. Since $\mathbb{L}_{k\left( x \right)}
$ is supposed to be linear, Bloch-Floquet theorem [@ref6] applies and then any solution will take the form of Bloch eigenfunctions
$$\mathbb{T}_L f\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = f\left[ {x +
L;k\left( {x + L} \right)} \right] = \exp \left( { - j\kappa L}
\right)f\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]
\label{eq72}
%(71)$$
in which the complex number $\kappa $ is being referred to as the Bloch number. This shows that $f\left[
{x;k\left( x \right)} \right]$ is an eigenfunction of the translation operator $\mathbb{T}_L $ with the eigenvalue $\exp \left( { - j\kappa L} \right)$. Based on (\[eq72\]), we furthermore have
$$f\left( x \right) = \exp \left( { - j\kappa x} \right)g_\kappa \left(
x \right)
\label{eq73}
%(72)$$
with the envelope function satisfying
$$\mathbb{T}_L g_\kappa \left( x \right) = g_\kappa \left( x \right)
\label{eq74}
%(73)$$
Under such circumstances, it is easy to obtain the characteristic equation of eigenfunctions. From (\[eq5\]) and (\[eq72\]) we have
$$\begin{array}{l}
\mathbb{T}_L f\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = a\left( {x + L}
\right)A\left[ {x + L;k\left( x \right)} \right] + b\left( {x + L}
\right)B\left[ {x + L;k\left( x \right)} \right] \\
\quad \quad \quad \;\;\, = \exp \left( { - j\kappa L} \right)\left\{
{a\left( x \right)A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] + b\left( x
\right)B\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]} \right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq75}
%(74)$$
By taking differentiating with respect to $x$ from (\[eq72\]) and derivative lemma (\[eq30\]) we also get
$$\begin{array}{l}
\mathbb{T}_L f'\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] = \exp \left( { -
j\kappa L} \right)f'\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] \\
\quad \quad \quad \;\;\; = \exp \left( { - j\kappa L} \right)\left\{
{a\left( x \right)A_x \left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right] + b\left( x
\right)B_x \left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]} \right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq76}
%(75)$$
We furthermore notice that (\[eq75\]) and (\[eq76\]) are actually identities which hold for all $x$. These two can be combined to get the system of equations
$$\begin{array}{l}
\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left[ {x + L;k\left( x \right)} \right]} & {B\left[ {x +
L;k\left( x \right)} \right]} \\
{A_x \left[ {x + L;k\left( x \right)} \right]} & {B_x \left[ {x +
L;k\left( x \right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {C\left( {x + L} \right)} \right\} = \\
\quad \quad \exp \left( { - j\kappa L} \right)\left[
{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]} & {B\left[ {x;k\left( x
\right)} \right]} \\
{A_x \left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]} & {B_x \left[ {x;k\left(
x \right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq77}
%(76)$$
which allows the solution
$$\begin{array}{l}
\mathbb{T}_L \left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\} = \frac{{\exp \left(
{ - j\kappa L} \right)}}{{W\left[ {x + L;k\left( x \right)}
\right]}}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{B_x \left[ {x + L;k\left( x \right)} \right]} & { - B\left[ {x +
L;k\left( x \right)} \right]} \\
{ - A_x \left[ {x + L;k\left( x \right)} \right]} & {A\left[ {x +
L;k\left( x \right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right] \times \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \left[
{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{A\left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]} & {B\left[ {x;k\left( x
\right)} \right]} \\
{A_x \left[ {x;k\left( x \right)} \right]} & {B_x \left[ {x;k\left(
x \right)} \right]} \\
\end{array}} \right]\left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\} \\
\quad \quad \quad \; = \exp \left( { - j\kappa L} \right)\left[ V
\right]\left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\} \\
\end{array}
\label{eq78}
%(77)$$
But from (\[eq26\])
$$\mathbb{T}_L \left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\} = \left[ {Q^{x \to x +
L} } \right]\left\{ {C\left( x \right)} \right\}
\label{eq79}$$
Simultaneous satisfaction of (\[eq77\]) and (\[eq78\]) requires that
$$\left| {\exp \left( { - j\kappa L} \right)\left[ V \right] - \left[ Q
\right]} \right| = 0
\label{eq80}
%(79)$$
In other words, we should have
$$\kappa = \frac{j}{L}\ln \left\{ {{\mathop{\rm eig}\nolimits} \left[ P
\right]} \right\}
\label{eq81}
%(80)$$
in which $\left[ P \right] = \left[ V \right]^{ - 1} \left[
Q \right]$. Here, constancy of the Bloch wavenumber $\kappa $ is guaranteed by Bloch-Floquet theorem, and is rigorously shown to hold for the example of extended wave equation (\[eq49\]) with periodic wavenumber in [@ref6].
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we presented a new analytical solution obtained by differential transfer matrix method to a wide class of second-order linear differential equations, which are extended from eigenvalue problems by replacing the eigenvalue with an arbitrary eigenvalue function. We presented the details of the method and a fundamental theorem to rigorously establish the mathematical formulation. Few examples were also described.
[99]{}
M. Razavy, *Quantum Theory of Tunneling*, World Scientific, 2003.
W. Schleich, *Quantum Optics in Phase Space*, Wiley, 2001.
X.-F. Li, Approximate solution of linear ordinary differential equations with variable coefficients, *Mathematics and Computers in Simulation* 75 (2007) pp. 113–125.
P. Boonserm, M. Visser, Reformulating the Schrödinger equation as a Shabat–Zakharov system, *Journal of Mathematical Physics* 51 (2010) 022105.
A. D. Polyanin and V. F. Zaitsev, *Handbook of Exact Solutions for Ordinary Differential Equations*, 2nd Edition, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2003.
S. Khorasani, and A. Adibi, Analytical Solution of Linear Ordinary Differential Equations by Differential Transfer Matrix Method, *Electronic Journal of Differential Equations* 2003 (79) (2003), pp. 1-18.
S. Khorasani and K. Mehrany, Analytical solution of wave equation for arbitrary non-homogeneous media, *Proceedings of SPIE* 4772 (2002), pp. 25-36.
S. Khorasani and K. Mehrany, Differential transfer matrix method for solution of one-dimensional linear non-homogeneous optical structures, *Journal of Optical Society of America B* 20 (2003), pp. 91-96.
S. Khorasani, and A. Adibi, New Analytical Approach for Computation of Band Structure in One-dimensional Periodic Media, *Optics Communications* 216 (4-6) (2003) pp. 439-451.
P. Yeh, *Optical Waves in Layered Media*, Wiley, New York, 1988.
A. Fassler and E. Stiefel, *Group Theoretical Methods and Their Applications*, Birkhauser, Boston, 1992.
M. H. Eghlidi, K. Mehrany, and B. Rashidian, Modified differential transfer matrix method for solution of one dimensional linear inhomogeneous optical structures, *Journal of Optical Society of America B* 22 (2005) pp. 1521-1528.
M .H. Eghlidi, K. Mehrany, and B. Rashidian, Improved differential transfer matrix method for inhomogeneous one-dimensional photonic crystals, *Journal of Optical Society of America B* 23 (2006), pp. 1451-1459.
N. Zariean, P. Sarrafi, K. Mehrany, and B. Rashidian, Differential-Transfer-Matrix Based on Airy’s Functions in Analysis of Planar Optical Structures With Arbitrary Index Profiles, *IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics* 44 (2008) pp. 324-330.
M. H. Eghlidi, K. Mehrany, and B. Rashidian, General solution of linear differential equations by using differential transfer matrix method, *Proceedings of the 2005 European Conference on Circuit Theory and Design* 3 (2005), pp. III/113-III/116.
S. Khorasani, Reply to ‘Comment on Analytical solution of non-homogeneous anisotropic wave equation based on differential transfer matrices’, *Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics* 5 (2003), pp. 434-435.
S. A. Mazanik, Linear Differential Lappo-Danilevskii Systems, *Mathematica Bohemica* 127 (2) (2001) pp. 275-282.
F. I. Fedorov, A generalization of the Lappo-Danilevskii criterion, *Dokl. Akad. Nauk. BSST* 4 (11) (1960) pp. 454-455.
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, *Handbook of Mathematical Functions*, Dover, New York, 1965.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'All optical magnetic switching (AOS) is a recently observed rich and puzzling phenomenon that offers promising technological applications. However, fundamental understanding of the underlying mechanisms remains elusive. Here we present a new model for multi-shot helicity-dependent AOS in ferromagnetic materials based on a purely heat-driven mechanism in the presence of Magnetic Circular Dichroism (MCD). We predict that AOS should be possible with as little as 0.5% of MCD, after a minimum number of laser shots. Finally, we reproduce previous AOS results by simulating the sweeping of a laser beam on an FePtC granular ferromagnetic film.'
author:
- 'J. Gorchon'
- 'Y. Yang'
- 'J. Bokor'
bibliography:
- 'library.bib'
- 'library\_MCD\_AOS.bib'
title: 'Model for multi-shot all-thermal all-optical switching in ferromagnets'
---
The magnetic dynamics of a system triggered by an ultrashort optical pulse has been an exciting and yet unresolved problem in the magnetism community for the past 20 years. One of the most surprising results in the field was the discovery of the All-Optical Switching (AOS), the possibility of optically switching the magnetization of a magnetic material [@Stanciu2007]. This was first observed in ferrimagnetic GdFeCo alloys [@Stanciu2007], later in a variety of ferrimagnet alloys and synthetic ferrimagnets [@Mangin2014] and eventually in metallic ferromagnets [@Lambert2014b]. It has been recently shown [@Hadri2016] that two different types of switching need to be considered: First, a single-shot helicity-independent AOS found in ferrimagnets such as GdFeCo [@Ostler2012], and second, a multi-shot helicity-dependent AOS found in TbCo and ferromagnets [@Hadri2016]. Although some models have been proposed that explain the switching in 2-sublattice systems such as ferrimagnets[@Radu2011; @Ostler2012a; @Barker2013; @Atxitia2015], modelling for AOS in ferromagnets is lacking.
In this letter, we present a model that describes multi-shot helicity-dependent AOS in ferromagnetic materials based on a purely heat driven mechanism. We first present the switching mechanism which is based on a combination of MCD and stochastic switching close to the Curie temperature $T_C$. This is followed by an in-depth description of the problem and of the way physical parameters are chosen. AOS is shown to be possible within a range of temperatures (i.e. laser fluences), for a large range of MCD values, but only after a certain number of laser shots. Finally, we reproduce previous AOS results by simulating the sweeping of the laser beam.
In our model, the mechanism driving the switching is a very simple and intuitive one: Whenever a laser heats a magnetic layer close to $T_C$, the stability of the magnetic state will be dramatically lowered as the anisotropy drops. For a circularly polarized beam, regions of the magnet with opposite magnetization will absorb different amounts of light due to MCD, resulting in hotter $T_{hot}$ and cooler regions $T_{cold}$. The difference in temperatures will lead to a difference in magnetic stability. If $T_{hot}\approx T_c$ and the MCD is large enough, cool regions will remain stable whereas hot regions will be prone to stochastic switching. Repeating the process (laser heating & cooling) multiple times will statistically lead the magnet to full switching.
![\[fig:schema\]: The AOS model supposes an a) $N_x$ by $N_y$ grid of cells, which present b) a temperature dependent magnetic anisotropy energy barriers $E_{ab}$, resulting in c) two stable possible states a (up) and b (down). As a d) circularly polarized laser pulse arrives onto the grid, e) cells in a and b states will absorb different amounts of energy due to MCD inducing a temperature distribution in the grid of hot and cold cells. This will lead to f) different energy landscapes for the hot and cold cells, resulting mostly in stochastic switching of the hotter cells.](Figure1c){width=".60\columnwidth"}
In order to numerically test this idea, we represent the magnetic material by an array of $N_x$ by $N_y$ cells, grains or macrospins (as in Fig. \[fig:schema\].a), presenting a strong out of plane magnetic anisotropy of energy density $K$. For the sake of simplicity we ignore exchange and dipolar couplings between cells. These hypotheses will be discussed later in the text. This means that the magnetic state of the cell can be represented by a symmetric double well potential, as shown in Fig.\[fig:schema\].c, where the magnetization can be only in the states *up* or *down*. The characteristic hopping time for the magnetization from state $a$ (*up*) to state $b$ (*down*) is given by the Néel-Brown formula [@Brown1963]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tau}
\tau_{ab}(T) = \tau_0 e^{\frac{E_{ab}(T)}{k_B T}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_0$ is an attempt time typically estimated to be on the order of $~0.1$ ns [@Lee2014], $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T$ is the temperature of the cell and $E_{ab}$ is the energy barrier that prevents the magnetization from switching. The barrier will have the temperature dependence $E_{ab} (T) = K(T) V$ (depicted in Fig. \[fig:schema\].b ) where $V$ is the volume of the cell. A high anisotropy at room temperature $T_0$ leads to long term stability of the magnetization. However, when heating the cells with a laser pulse (assuming a step-like heating profile of amplitude $\Delta T$ proportional to the laser fluence and duration $t_{hot}$) the probabilities that determine the final state ($a$ or $b$) of the magnetization when starting in state $a$ are given by[@KurtJacobs2010]:
\[eq:Proba\] $$\begin{aligned}
P_{ab} = \frac{1}{2}(1-e^{\left({-\dfrac{t_{hot}}{\tau_{ab}(T_0+\Delta T)}} \right)})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
P_{aa} = 1 - P_{ab}\end{aligned}$$
The probabilities are defined the same way when starting in state $b$, but the hopping time will be given by $\tau_{ba}$. The probability function spans from $0$ to $^1/_2$ as the energy barrier decreases from infinite to $0$. Intuitively, it means that when the cell is heated close to $T_C$ and the barriers disappear, the magnetization has no preferential direction. If the laser pulse is right $\sigma^+$ (left $\sigma^-$) circularly polarized [@Comment2016], $b$ ($a$) states will absorb more heat due to MCD. This difference will result in hot and cold cells where, assuming a temperature independent phonon heat capacity the temperatures are given by $T_{hot/cold}=T_0+(1\pm \frac{MCD}{2})\Delta T$ (Fig. \[fig:schema\].e). Because of this difference in temperatures, hot and cold cells will have different switching probabilities (Fig. \[fig:schema\].f) leading to a higher number of reversals of the hot cells (Fig. \[fig:schema\].d). If we now heat the cells and allow them to cool back to $T_0$ $N$ times, the cumulative probability for the magnetization to end in state $b$ is given by (details in suppl. mat. [@SuppMat]),
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ProbaCum}
P_{B} &= \left(P_{ib}-\frac{P_{ab}}{P_{ab}+P_{ba}}\right) \left( 1 - P_{ab} - P_{ba}\right)^{N-1} + \frac{P_{ab}}{P_{ab}+P_{ba}}\end{aligned}$$
where the subscript $i$ refers to the initial state. As $N$ increases, the probability is given by the last term in Eq. \[eq:ProbaCum\] and when $P_{ab} \gg P_{ba}$ we find $P_{B} \approx 1$. Consequently as long as enough heating cycles (i.e. laser pulses) are used and as long as there is a significant difference in the energy barriers for $a$ and $b$ cells, deterministic switching is expected. The barrier height difference originates in the difference in absorption due to MCD which leads to different temperature rises for cells in state $a$ and $b$. Because of this temperature difference and the strong [@SuppMat] $dK/dT$ close to $T_C$, $E_{ab}$ will be very different for the two initial magnetization states.
Numerical simulations were conducted by considering an FePt-C-L1$_0$ granular film, for which AOS has been reported [@Lambert2014b]. The typical size of grains is around $5$ nm wide and $7$ nm thick [@Zhang2010], where grains are separated by a $1$ nm thick C matrix [@Rausch2015]. This matrix ensures thermal isolation, as well as magnetic exchange isolation. We can therefore safely neglect the exchange interaction and assume that important temperature distributions can exist.
The temperature dependence of the magnetization $M_S$ and $K$ was extracted from Ref. [@Thiele2002], and corresponds to an Fe$_{50}$Pt$_{50}$ film. First $M_S$ was fitted with phenomenological equation [@Fallis2013b] $ M_{s0}((T_c-T)/(T_c-T_0))^\gamma$ where $M_{s0}=1.15\cdot10^6$ A/m is the magnetization at $T_0=300K$, $T_c=775$ K and $\gamma=0.34$ is the phenomenological fitting exponent used for Fe [@Fallis2013b]. Then $K$ was fitted with [@Thiele2002; @Staunton2004a] $ K_0(M_{S}/M_{S0})^2$ where $K_0=4.5\cdot10^6$ J/m$^3$. The fits are shown in the supplementary materials [@SuppMat].
The MCD was calculated, for a wavelength $\lambda=810$ nm, by using the non-magnetic complex index of refraction $n=3+4i$ and the complex non-diagonal term $\sigma_{xy}=-(1.4+1.7i)\cdot10^{14}$ s$^{-1}$ (c.g.s) of the optical conductivity tensor. These values were extracted from elipsometry, Kerr rotation and Kerr elipticity measurements in Refs. [@Sato; @Weller1997] through the relations reported in Refs. [@Sato; @XuThompson2002]. Through Maxwell equations, the complex index of refraction for left and right circular polarized light $n_\pm$ are found to be [@XuThompson2002] $n_\pm=\sqrt{n^2 \pm 4\pi\sigma_{xy}/\omega}$, where $\omega=2\pi c/\lambda$ and $c$ is the speed of light. Fresnel equations were then used to obtain the reflectances and absorptions $A_+$ and $A_-$ for both helicities in the case of an infinitely thick film and normal incidence. Finally, the MCD was calculated as $2(A_+-A_-)/(A_++A_-)$. An MCD of $5.8$% is obtained for Fe$_{50}$Pt$_{50}$.
![\[fig:P\_vs\_T\]: All-optical switching probability as a function of the laser temperature increase $\Delta T$ for different number of shots $N$. Three different temperature regimes are observed. At low temperature no switching is possible due to strong anisotropy barriers. Close to $T_C$ a certain amount of AOS occurs as the number of shots increases. With enough pulses full switching becomes possible. At higher temperatures the sample gets randomly demagnetized into a multidomain structure.](Figure2){width=".55\columnwidth"}
We first compute Eq. \[eq:ProbaCum\] as a function of the temperature, where the starting state $a$ is heated more than $b$ due to MCD. We begin with the calculated MCD$=5.8$ %, a cell volume of $5$x$5$x$7=175$ nm$^3$ [@Zhang2010] and $t_{hot}=1$ ns. As shown in Fig. \[fig:P\_vs\_T\] for a single pulse ($N=1$, black line) the probability of switching is $0$ below a certain temperature threshold and $0.5$ above. No full switching is thus possible with a single shot. As we increase the number of shots, a narrow range of temperatures around $T_C$ results in a probability of switching that increases up to $1$ eventually ensuring full switching. In this case the absorbed critical fluences for AOS will be around $F= \Delta T h C\approx 1.16$ mJ/cm$^2$, where $\Delta T=T_C-T_0$, $h=7$ nm is the thickness and $C=3.5\cdot 10^6$ J/(m$^3$K) is the heat capacity of FePt [@Kimling2014].
Since this model assumes a sudden step-like temperature increase in the sample, cooling dynamics are not taken into account. Cooling in the presence of strong dipolar fields would make a full switching process less probable. However, this argument is consistent with the observation [@Lambert2014b] that only thin films, with a small magnetization volume and thus smaller dipolar fields, exhibit nearly full AOS. Thicker films always show some degree of demagnetization (multidomains), and full switching is not observed.
In this calculation, the ratio $t_{hot}/\tau_0$ that acts as a prefactor in the exponential of Eq. \[eq:Proba\].a was set equal to $10$. This parameter varies for different heat dissipation in the sample, but mostly offsets the temperature range at which AOS is observed (see suppl. mat. [@SuppMat] for details).
![\[fig:MCD\_vs\_T\]: AOS Probability as a function of temperature and MCD for $N=10$ pulses.](Figure3){width=".55\columnwidth"}
As shown in Fig. \[fig:MCD\_vs\_T\], the temperature window for AOS becomes larger as the MCD increases. However, even for a small MCD value of $0.5$%, some AOS is still possible in a narrow range of temperatures.
Next, the lateral spatial heating profile was assumed to be Gaussian, according to the laser intensity profile. The $1/e^2$ radius was set to $115$ cells and the temperature rise to $\Delta T=600$ (Fig. \[fig:Sweep\].a) and $\Delta T=500$ (Fig. \[fig:Sweep\].b). As shown in Fig. \[fig:Sweep\].a, with white and black corresponding to opposite magnetizations, one shot on an initially saturated grid results in a circular demagnetized pattern. As the number of shots increases an outer ring, within the temperature window for AOS, fully switches. This behavior resembles the AOS result in FePtC reported by Lambert el al. [@Lambert2014b].
We next scan the Gaussian beam (temperature profile) at a speed of 1 cell/$T$ where $T$ is the laser repetition period, and as shown in Fig. \[fig:Sweep\].b (Multimedia view), we are able to write a magnetic domain by swiping the outer edge across the grid. Initially the grid was set so that the left half of the grid was *up* (white) and the right one *down* (black). Left circular ($\sigma^-$) and right circular ($\sigma^+$) polarized light causes *up* and *down* magnetizations respectively, whereas linearly polarized ($\pi$) light only demagnetizes the sample and results in multidomain states. Again, this result resembles previous results on AOS in FePtC by Lambert el al. [@Lambert2014b].
![\[fig:Sweep\]: Simulations of the magnetization state after assuming a Gaussian temperature increase induced by the laser intensity profile (profile details in text). a) Simulation of successive shots with left circularly polarized ($\sigma^-$) light on an initially saturated black (“down”) grid. After 10 shots a fully switched white ring develops. b) Simulations scanning the beam with left circular ($\sigma^-$), right circular ($\sigma^+$) and linearly polarized ($\pi$) laser shots at a shots/cell sweeping speed. Initially, the grid consisted of a left-half *up* (white) magnetization and right-half *down* (black) magnetization. Each helicity favors one magnetization direction, which is determined by the edge of the Gaussian profile, whereas the linearly polarized laser beam only demagnetizes the sample (Multimedia view).](Figure4){width=".55\columnwidth"}
This AOS mechanism should thus operate in materials with large MCD, small dipolar fields, limited in-plane heat diffusion and a strong temperature dependence of the anisotropy close to $T_C$. We note that this doesn’t restrict the mechanism to ferromagnets, thin ferrimagnetic films (such as TbCo, GdFeCo) or even antiferromagntic materials are also strong candidates for this switching mechanism due to their small dipolar fields and significant MCD.
Finally we would like to discuss the validity of the model for ultrathin ferromagnetic films such as Pt/Co multilayers. These films do have significant MCD and exhibit low dipolar fields, however, they lack the granular structure that allows for magnetic and thermal isolation. Nevertheless, exchange interaction is not necessarily detrimental for the AOS. In such materials, we provide the following qualitative description: The first laser shot demagnetizes the sample. The magnetization spontaneously breaks into domains of various sizes. Under negligible dipolar fields, domain relaxation is dominated by the wall energy and pinning. The smallest domains will thus dissapear because shrinking forces induced by the wall energy increase as the bubble diameter decreases [@Malozemoff1979], whereas larger ones (100-1000 nm wide) will remain pinned. These larger domains will then remain cool on the next laser shot, while the rest of the film will restart the same process over. Repetition of this mechanism will eventually finish when various large domains merge together, resulting in full AOS.
In summary, we have proposed a new multi-shot all-thermal mechanism for helicity dependent AOS in magnetic materials, which is based on temperature distributions induced by the MCD. We calculated the cumulative probability for AOS after a certain number of pulses, and numerically estimated it for the case of an FePtC granular film. The AOS window as a function of MCD, temperature, and the number of pulses was presented showing that even with as little as $0.5$% of MCD, multi-shot switching should still be possible. Finally our simulation of AOS using a scanned laser beam with different helicities being swept qualitatively reproduces previously reported experimental results.
See supplementary material for more details about the probabilities and chosen parameters.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under Award Number DE-SC0012371 and the National Science Foundation Center for Energy Efficient Electronics Science.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '*Synchronous Kleene algebra* (*SKA*), an extension of Kleene algebra (KA), was proposed by Prisacariu as a tool for reasoning about programs that may execute synchronously, i.e., in lock-step. We provide a countermodel witnessing that the axioms of SKA are incomplete w.r.t. its language semantics, by exploiting a lack of interaction between the *synchronous product* operator and the Kleene star. We then propose an alternative set of axioms for SKA, based on Salomaa’s axiomatisation of regular languages, and show that these provide a sound and complete characterisation w.r.t. the original language semantics.'
author:
- Jana Wagemaker
- Marcello Bonsangue
- Tobias Kappé
- Jurriaan Rot
- Alexandra Silva
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Completeness and Incompleteness of Synchronous Kleene Algebra
---
Introduction
============
*Kleene algebra* (*KA*) is applied in various contexts, such as relational algebra and automata theory. An important use of KA is as a logic of programs. This is because the axioms of KA correspond well to properties expected of sequential program composition, and hence they provide a logic for reasoning about control flow of sequential programs presented as Kleene algebra expressions. Regular languages then provide a canonical semantics for programs expressed in Kleene algebra, due to a tight connection between regular languages and the axioms of KA: an equation is provable using the Kleene algebra axioms if and only if the corresponding regular languages coincide [@boffa-1990; @krob-1991; @kozen-1994].
In [@prisacariu], Prisacariu proposes an extension of Kleene algebra, called *synchronous Kleene algebra* (*SKA*). The aim was to introduce an algebra useful for studying not only sequential programs but also *synchronous* concurrent programs. Here, synchrony is understood as in Milner’s SCCS [@milner], i.e., each program executes a single action instantaneously at each discrete time step. Hence, the synchrony paradigm assumes that basic actions execute in one unit of time and that at each time step, all components capable of acting will do so. This model permits a *synchronous product* operator, which yields a program that, at each time step, executes some combination of the actions put forth by the operand programs.
This new operator is governed by various expected axioms such as associativity and commutativity. Another axiom describes the interaction between the synchronous product and the sequential product, capturing the intended lock-step behaviour. Crucially, the axioms do not entail certain equations that relate the Kleene star (used to describe loops) and the synchronous product.
The contributions of this paper are twofold. First, we show that the lack of connection between the Kleene star and the synchronous product is problematic. In particular, we exploit this fact to devise a countermodel that violates a semantically valid equation, thus showing that the SKA axioms are incomplete w.r.t. the language semantics. This invalidates the completeness result in [@prisacariu].
The second and main contribution of this paper is a sound and complete characterisation of the equational theory of SKA in terms of a generalisation of regular languages. The key difference with [@prisacariu] is the shift from *least* fixpoint axioms in the style of Kozen [@kozen-1994] to a *unique* fixpoint axiom in the style of Salomaa [@salomaa]. In the completeness proof, we give a reduction to the completeness result of Salomaa via a normal form for SKA expressions. As a by-product, we get a proof of the correctness of the partial derivatives for SKA provided in [@broda].
This paper is organised as follows. In we discuss the necessary preliminaries. In we discuss SKA as presented in [@prisacariu]. Next, in , we demonstrate why SKA is incomplete, and in go on to provide a new set of axioms, which we call [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}. The latter section also includes basic results about the partial derivatives for SKA from [@broda]. In we provide an algebraic characterisation of [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}-terms; this characterisation is used in , where we prove completeness of [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}w.r.t. to its language model. In we consider related work and conclude by discussing directions for future work in . For the sake of readability, some of the proofs appear in the appendix.
Preliminaries
=============
Throughout this paper, we write $2$ for the two-element set $\{ 0, 1 \}$.
#### Languages
Throughout the paper we fix a finite alphabet $\Sigma$. A *word* formed over $\Sigma$ is a finite sequence of symbols from $\Sigma$. The *empty word* is denoted by $\varepsilon$. We write $\Sigma^*$ for the set of all words over $\Sigma$. *Concatenation* of words $u, v \in \Sigma^*$ is denoted by $uv \in \Sigma^*$. A *language* is a set of words. For $K,L\subseteq \Sigma^*$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
& K\cdot L= \{uv : u\in K, v\in L\}
&& K+L=K\cup L
&& K^*= \bigcup\nolimits_{n\in\mathbb{N}} K^n,\end{aligned}$$ where $K^0=\{\varepsilon\}$ and $K^{n+1}=K\cdot K^n$.
#### Kleene Algebra
We define a *Kleene algebra* [@kozen-1994] as a tuple $(A,+,\cdot,^*,0,1)$ where $A$ is a set, $^*$ is a unary operator, $+$ and $\cdot$ are binary operators and $0$ and $1$ are constants. Moreover, for all $e,f,g\in A$ the following axioms are satisfied: $$\begin{aligned}
& e + (f + g) = (e + f) + g
&& e + f = f + e
&& e + 0 = e \qquad e + e = e
\\
&e \cdot 1 = e = 1 \cdot e
&& e \cdot 0 = 0 = 0 \cdot e
&&e \cdot (f \cdot g) = (e \cdot f) \cdot g
\\
&e^* = 1 + e \cdot e^* = 1 + e^* \cdot e
&& (e + f) \cdot g = e \cdot g + f \cdot g
&& e \cdot (f + g) = e \cdot f + e \cdot g\end{aligned}$$ Additionally, we write $e \leq f$ as a shorthand for $e + f = f$, and require that the *least fixpoint axioms* [@kozen-1994] hold, which stipulate that for $e, f, g \in A$ we have
e + f g g f\^\* e g e + f g f e g\^\* f
The set of *regular expressions*, denoted ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$, is described by the grammar: $${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}\ni e,f ::= 0 {\;\;|\;\;}1 {\;\;|\;\;}a \in \Sigma {\;\;|\;\;}e + f {\;\;|\;\;}e \cdot f {\;\;|\;\;}e^*$$ Regular expressions can be interpreted in terms of languages. This is done by defining ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}: {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{P}(\Sigma^*)}$ inductively, as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
&{{\llbracket0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}} = \emptyset
&& {{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}} = \{ a \}
&& {{\llbrackete \cdot f\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}} = {{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}} \cdot {{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}} \\
&{{\llbracket1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}} = \{\varepsilon\}
&&{{\llbrackete + f\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}} = {{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}} + {{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}
&&{{\llbrackete^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}} = {{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}^*\end{aligned}$$ A language $L$ is called *regular* if and only if $L={{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$ for some $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$. We write ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$ for the smallest congruence on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$ induced by the Kleene algebra axioms — e.g., for all $e \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$, we have $1 + e \cdot e^* {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}e^*$. Intuitively, $e {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}f$ means that the regular expressions $e$ and $f$ can be proved equivalent according to the axioms of Kleene algebra. A pivotal result in the study of Kleene algebras tells us that ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$ characterises ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$, in the following sense:
\[theorem:sandcka\] For all $e,f\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$, we have that $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}f$ if and only if ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}
$.
\[remark:extended-soundness-ka\] The above can be generalised, as follows. Let $\mathcal{K} = (A, +, \cdot, ^*, 0, 1)$ be a KA, and let $\sigma: \Sigma \to A$. Then for all $e, f \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$ such that $e {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}f$, interpreting $e$ and $f$ according to $\sigma$ in $\mathcal{K}$ yields the same result. For instance, since ${(a^*)}^* {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}a^*$, we know that for *any* element $e$ of *any* KA $\mathcal{K}$, we have that ${(e^*)}^* = e$.
#### Linear Systems {#linearsystems}
Let $Q$ be a finite set. A *$Q$-vector* is a function $x: Q\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$. A *$Q$-matrix* is a function $M: Q\times Q \rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$. Let $x$ and $y$ be $Q$-vectors. Addition is defined pointwise, setting $(x+y)(q)=x(q)+y(q)$. Multiplication by a $Q$-matrix $M$ is given by $$(M\cdot x)(q)=\sum_{e\in Q}M(q,e)\cdot x(e)$$ When $x(q) {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}y(q)$ for all $q \in Q$, we write $x {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}y$.
\[definition:solution-linear\] A *$Q$-linear system* is a pair $(M, x)$ with $M$ a $Q$-matrix and $x$ a $Q$-vector. A solution to $(M, x)$ in KA is a $Q$-vector $y$ such that $M\cdot y + x{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}y$.
#### Non-deterministic finite automata
A *non-deterministic automaton (NDA)* over an alphabet $\Sigma$ is a triple $(X,o,d)$ where $o \colon X \rightarrow 2$ is called the *termination function* and $d \colon X \times \Sigma \rightarrow X$ called the *continuation function*. If $X$ is finite, $(X,o,d)$ is referred to as a *non-deterministic finite automaton (NFA)*.
The semantics of an NDA $(X,o,d)$ can be characterised recursively as the unique map $\ell: X \to {\mathcal{P}(\Sigma^*)}$ such that $$\label{uniquesemantics}
\ell(x) = \{ \varepsilon : o(x) = 1 \} \cup \bigcup_{x' \in d(x, a)} \{ a \} \cdot \ell(x')$$ This coincides with the standard definition of language acceptance.
Synchronous Kleene Algebra {#preliminaries:ska}
==========================
Synchronous Kleene algebra extends Kleene algebra with an additional operator denoted $\times$, which we refer to as the synchronous product [@prisacariu].
\[definition:ska\] A *synchronous KA (SKA)* is a tuple $(A, S, +, \cdot, ^*,\times, 0,1)$ such that $(A, +, \cdot, ^*, 0,1)$ is a Kleene algebra and $\times$ is a binary operator on $A$, with $S \subseteq A$ closed under $\times$ and $(S,\times)$ a semilattice. Furthermore, the following hold for all $e,f,g\in A$ and $\alpha,\beta\in S$: $$\begin{aligned}
& e \times (f + g) = e \times f + e \times g
&& \quad e \times (f \times g) = (e \times f) \times g
&& \quad e \times 0 = 0 \\
& (\alpha\cdot e)\times (\beta\cdot f) = (\alpha\times \beta)\cdot (e\times f)
&& \quad e \times f = f\times e
&& \quad e \times 1 = e\end{aligned}$$
Note that $0$ and $1$ need not be elements of $S$. The *semilattice terms*, denoted ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$, are given by the following grammar. $${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\ni e,f :: = a\in{\Sigma}{\;\;|\;\;}e\times f$$ The *synchronous regular terms*, denoted ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$, are given by the grammar: $${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}\ni e, f ::= 0 {\;\;|\;\;}1 {\;\;|\;\;}a \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}{\;\;|\;\;}e + f {\;\;|\;\;}e \cdot f {\;\;|\;\;}e\times f {\;\;|\;\;}e^*$$ Thus we have ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$. We then define ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ as the smallest congruence on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ satisfying the axioms of [$\mathsf{SKA}$]{}. Here, ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ plays the role of the semilattice; for instance, for $a \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ we have that $a \times a {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}a$.
In [@prisacariu], $\times$ is declared to be idempotent on the *generators* of the semilattice, whereas in our definition it holds for semilattice elements in general. This does not change anything, as the axiom $a \times a = a$ for generators together with commutativity and associativity results in idempotence on the semilattice. We present SKA as in to prevent a meta-definition of a third sort (namely the semilattice generated by ${\Sigma}$) present in the signature of the algebra. We have also left out the second distributivity and unit axioms that follow immediately from the ones presented and commutativity.
A Language Model for SKA
------------------------
Similar to Kleene algebra, there is a language model for SKA [@prisacariu].
Words over $\mathcal{P}({\Sigma})\setminus\{\emptyset\}=\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$ are called *synchronous strings*, and sets of synchronous strings are called *synchronous languages*. The standard language operations (sum, concatenation, Kleene closure) are also defined on synchronous languages. The synchronous product of synchronous languages $K, L$ is given by: $$K\times L = \{u\times v : u\in K, v\in L\}$$ where we define $\times$ inductively for $u, v \in {(\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma}))}^*$ and $x, y \in \mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$, as follows:
u= u = u (xu)( yv) = (xy)(uv)
To define the language semantics for all elements in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$, we first give an interpretation of elements in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ in terms of non-empty finite subsets of ${\Sigma}$.
For $a\in{\Sigma}$ and $e,f\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$, define ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}:{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\rightarrow \mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$ by
[\_]{}={a} [[f]{}\_]{} = [\_]{}[\_]{}
Denote the smallest congruence on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ with respect to idempotence, associativity and commutativity of $\times$ with ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$. It is not hard to show that ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ characterises ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$, in the following sense.
\[semilatticestuff\] For all $e,f\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$, we have ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ if and only if $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}f$.
The semantics of synchronous regular terms is given in terms of a mapping to synchronous languages: ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}:{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{P}({(\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma}))}^*)}$. We have: $$\small
\begin{array}{@{}l@{\hspace{.5cm}}l@{\hspace{.5cm}}l@{}}
{{\llbracket0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} = \emptyset\quad{{\llbracket1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} = \{\varepsilon\}
& {{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} = \{ {{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}} \} \quad \forall a\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}& {{\llbrackete^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} = {{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}^*\\[1ex]
{{\llbrackete \cdot f\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} = {{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} \cdot {{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}
& {{\llbrackete + f\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} = {{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} + {{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}
& {{\llbrackete \times f\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} = {{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} \times {{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}
\end{array}$$ A synchronous language $L$ is called *regular* when $L={{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ for some $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$.
Let $S=\{\{x\} : x\in \mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})\}$, that is to say, $S$ is the set of synchronous languages consisting of a single word, whose single letter is in turn a subset of ${\Sigma}$. Furthermore, let ${\mathcal{L}_{{\Sigma}}}$ denote the set of synchronous languages over ${\Sigma}$. It is straightforward to prove that ${\mathcal{L}_{{\Sigma}}}$ together with $S$ is closed under the SKA operations and satisfies the SKA axioms [@prisacariu]; more precisely, we have:
[lemma]{}[synlanska]{}\[lemma:synlan\_ska\] The structure $({\mathcal{L}_{{\Sigma}}},S,+, \cdot ,^*,\times, \emptyset,\{\varepsilon\})$ is an SKA, that is, synchronous languages over ${\Sigma}$ form an SKA.
As a consequence of , we obtain soundness of the SKA axioms with respect to the language model based on synchronous regular languages:
[lemma]{}[soundness]{}\[lemma:soundness\] For all $e, f \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$, we have that $e {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}f$ implies ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} = {{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$.
\[remark:extended-soundness-ska\] The above generalises almost analogously to . Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an SKA with semilattice $S$, and let $\sigma: \Sigma \to S$ be a function. Then for all $e, f \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ such that $e {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}f$, if we interpret $e$ in $\mathcal{M}$ according to $\sigma$, then we should get the same result as when we interpret $f$ in $\mathcal{M}$ according to $\sigma$.
In other words, when $e {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}f$ holds, it follows that $e = f$ is a valid equation in *every* SKA, provided that the symbols from $\Sigma$ are interpreted as elements of the semilattice. It is not hard to show that this claim does not hold when symbols from $\Sigma$ can be interpreted as elements of the carrier at large.
Incompleteness of SKA {#incompleteness}
=====================
We now prove incompleteness of the SKA axioms as presented in [@prisacariu]. Fix alphabet $\mathcal{A}=\{a\}$. First, note that the language model of SKA has the following property.
[lemma]{}[astar]{}\[astar\] For $\alpha\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$, we have ${{\llbracket\alpha^* \times \alpha^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracket\alpha^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$.
If ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ were complete w.r.t. ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$, then the above implies that $a^*\times a^* {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}a^*$ holds. In this section, we present a countermodel where all the axioms of SKA are true, but $\alpha^*\times \alpha^* = \alpha^*$ does not hold for any $\alpha \in S$. This shows that $a^* \times a^* \not{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}a^*$; consequently, ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ cannot be complete w.r.t. ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$.
Countermodel for SKA {#section:countermodel .unnumbered}
--------------------
We define our countermodel as follows. For the semilattice, let $S=\{\{\{ {s}\}\}\}$, the set containing the synchronous language $\{\{ {s}\}\}$. We denote the set of all synchronous languages over alphabet $\{ {s}\}$ with ${\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$; the carrier of our model is formed by ${\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup \{ \dagger \}$, where $\dagger$ is a symbol not found in ${\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$. The symbol $\dagger$ exists only in the model, and not in the algebraic theory. It remains to define the SKA operators on this carrier, which we do as follows.
\[definitionoperators\] An element of ${\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$ is said to be infinite when it is an infinite language. For $K,L \in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$, define the SKA operators as follows: $$\begin{array}{rll}
K + L
&=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\dagger \\[1mm]
K \cup L
\end{array}
\right.
&
\begin{array}{l}
K = \dagger \vee L = \dagger \\[1mm]
\text{otherwise}
\end{array} \\[5mm]
K \cdot L
&=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\emptyset \\[1mm]
\dagger \\[1mm]
\{ u \cdot v : u \in K, v \in L \}
\end{array}
\right.
&
\begin{array}{l}
K = \emptyset \vee L = \emptyset \\[1mm]
K = \dagger \vee L = \dagger \\[1mm]
\text{otherwise}
\end{array} \\[8mm]
K \times L &=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\emptyset \\[1mm]
\dagger \\[1mm]
\{ u \times v : u \in K, v \in L \}
\end{array}
\right.
&
\begin{array}{l}
K = \emptyset \vee L = \emptyset \\[1mm]
K = \dagger \vee L = \dagger \vee K, L \text{ infinite} \\[1mm]
\text{otherwise}
\end{array} \\[8mm]
K^*
&=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\dagger \\[1mm]
\bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} K^n
\end{array}
\right.
&
\begin{array}{l}
K = \dagger \\[1mm]
\text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\end{array}$$ where $u\times v$ for $u\in K$ and $v\in L$ and $K^n$ is as defined in . Here, the cases are given in order of priority — e.g., if $K=\emptyset$ and $L=\dagger$, then $K \cdot L = \emptyset$.
The intuition behind this model is that SKA has no axioms that relate to the synchronous execution of starred expressions, such as in $\alpha^* \times \alpha^*$, nor can such a relation be derived from the axioms, meaning that a model has some leeway in defining the outcome in such cases. Since the language of a starred expression is generally infinite, we choose $\times$ such that it diverges to the extra element $\dagger$ when given infinite languages as input; for the rest of the operators, the behaviour on $\dagger$ is chosen to comply with the axioms.
First, we verify that our operators satisfy the SKA axioms.
[lemma]{}[countermodelis]{}\[lemma:countermodelisska\] $\mathcal{M}=({\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\},\{\{\{ {s}\}\}\},+,\cdot,^*,\times,\emptyset,\{\varepsilon\})$ with the operators as defined in forms an SKA.
For the sake of brevity, we validate one of the least fixpoint axioms and the synchrony axiom; the other axioms are treated in the appendix.
Let $K,L,J\in{\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$. We verify that $K+L\cdot J \leq J \implies L^*\cdot K\leq J$. Assume that $K+L\cdot J\leq J$. If $J=\dagger$, then the result follows by definition of $\leq$ and our choice of $+$. Otherwise, if $J\in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$, we distinguish two cases. If $L=\dagger$, then $J$ must be $\emptyset$ (otherwise $J = \dagger$); hence $K = \emptyset$, and the claim holds. Lastly, if $L\in{\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$, then $K\in{\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$. In this case, all of the operands are languages, and thus the proof goes through as it does for KA.
For the synchrony axiom, we need only check $$(A\cdot K)\times (A\cdot L)=(A\times A)\cdot (K\times L)$$ for $A=\{\{ {s}\}\}$ as that is the only element in $S$. Let $K,L\in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$. If either $K$ or $L$ is $\emptyset$, both sides of the equation reduce to $\emptyset$. Otherwise, if $K$ or $L$ is $\dagger$, then both sides of the equation reduce to $\dagger$. If $K$ and $L$ are both infinite then $A\cdot K$ and $A\cdot L$ are infinite and the claim follows. In all the remaining cases where $K$ and $L$ are elements of ${\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$ and at most one of them is infinite, the proof goes through as it does for synchronous regular languages ().
This leads us to the following theorem:
The axioms of SKA presented in are incomplete. That is, there exist $e,f\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ such that ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ but $e{\not\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}f$.
Take $a\in\mathcal{A}$. We know from that ${{\llbracketa^* \times a^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketa^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$. Now suppose $a^*\times a^*{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}a^*$. As our countermodel is an SKA that means in particular that ${\{\{ {s}\}\}}^* \times {\{\{ {s}\}\}}^* = {\{\{ {s}\}\}}^*$ should hold (c.f. ). However, in this model we can calculate that ${\{\{ {s}\}\}}^* \times {\{\{ {s}\}\}}^* = \dagger\neq {\{\{ {s}\}\}}^*$. Hence, we have a contradiction. Thus $a^*\times a^*{\not\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}a^*$, rendering SKA incomplete.
A new axiomatisation {#newaxiomatisation}
====================
We now create an alternative algebraic formalism, which we call [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}, and prove that its axioms are sound and complete w.r.t the model of synchronous regular languages. Whereas the definition of SKA relies on Kleene algebras (with *least fixpoint axioms*) as presented by Kozen [@kozen-1994], the definition of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}$ builds on ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}$-algebras (with a *unique fixpoint axiom*) as presented by Salomaa [@salomaa]. The axioms of Salomaa are strictly stronger than Kozen’s [@struthfoster], and we will see that the unique fixpoint axiom allows us to derive a connection between the synchronous product and the Kleene star, even though this connection is not represented in an axiom directly (see ).
An *${\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}$-algebra* [@salomaa] is a tuple $(A,+,\cdot,^*,0,1,H)$ where $A$ is a set, $^*$ is a unary operator, $+$ and $\cdot$ are binary operators and $0$ and $1$ are constants, and such that for all $e,f,g\in A$ the following axioms are satisfied: $$\begin{aligned}
& e + (f + g) = (e + f) + g
&& e + f = f + e
&& e + 0 = e \qquad e + e = e
\\
&e \cdot 1 = e = 1 \cdot e
&& e \cdot 0 = 0 = 0 \cdot e
&&e \cdot (f \cdot g) = (e \cdot f) \cdot g
\\
&e^* = 1 + e \cdot e^* = 1 + e^* \cdot e
&& (e + f) \cdot g = e \cdot g + f \cdot g
&& e \cdot (f + g) = e \cdot f + e \cdot g\end{aligned}$$ Additionally, the *loop tightening* and *unique fixpoint axiom* hold: $$\begin{aligned}
& {(e + 1)}^* = e^*
&& H(f) = 0 \wedge e + f \cdot g = g \implies f^* \cdot e = g\end{aligned}$$ Lastly, we have the following axioms for $H$: $$\begin{aligned}
& H(0) = 0
&& H(e + f) = H(e) + H(f)
&& H(e^*)={(H(e))}^* \\
& H(1) = 1
&& H(e \cdot f) = H(e) \cdot H(f)\end{aligned}$$
In [@salomaa], an $e \in A$ with $H(e) = 1$ is said to have the *empty word property*, which will be reflected in the semantic interpretation of $H(e)$ stated below.
The set of *${\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}$-expressions*, denoted ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$, is described by: $${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}\ni e,f ::= 0 {\;\;|\;\;}1 {\;\;|\;\;}a \in \Sigma {\;\;|\;\;}e + f {\;\;|\;\;}e \cdot f {\;\;|\;\;}e^* {\;\;|\;\;}H(e)$$ We can interpret ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}$-expressions in terms of languages through ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}: {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}\to {\mathcal{P}(\Sigma^*)}$, defined analogously to ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$, where furthermore for $e \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$ we have $${{\llbracketH(e)\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}} = {{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}} \cap \{ \varepsilon \}$$
We write ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$ for the smallest congruence on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$ induced by the ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}$-axioms. Additionally, we require that for $a \in \Sigma$, we have $H(a) {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}0$. A characterisation similar to can then be established as follows[^1]:
\[salomaacomplete\] For all $e, f \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$, we have that $e {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}f$ if and only if ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}} = {{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$.
\[remark:extended-soundness-f1\] Kozen [@kozen-1994] noted that the above does not generalise along the same lines as in . In particular, the axiom $H(a) {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}0$ is not stable under substitution; for instance, if we interpret $H(a)$ according to the valuation $a \mapsto \{ \epsilon \}$ in the ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}$-algebra of languages, then we obtain $\{ \epsilon \}$, whereas $0$ is interpreted as $\emptyset$.
A *synchronous [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{}-algebra* (*${\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}$-algebra* for short) is a tuple $(A,S,+,\cdot,^*,0,1,H)$, such that $(A, +, \cdot,^*, 0, 1, H)$ is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}$-algebra and $\times$ is a binary operator on $A$, with $S \subseteq A$ closed under $\times$ and $(S, \times)$ a semilattice. Furthermore, the following hold for all $e, f, g \in A$ and $\alpha,\beta\in S$: $$\begin{aligned}
& e \times (f + g) = e \times f + e \times g
&& \quad e \times (f \times g) = (e \times f) \times g
&& \quad e \times 0 = 0 \\
& (\alpha\cdot e)\times (\beta\cdot f) = (\alpha\times \beta)\cdot (e\times f)
&& \quad e \times f = f\times e
&& \quad e \times 1 = e\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $H$ is compatible with $\times$ as well, i.e., for $e, f \in A$ we have that $H(e \times f) = H(e) \times H(f)$. Lastly, for $\alpha \in S$ we require that $H(\alpha) = 0$.
The countermodel from cannot be extended to a model of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}$. To see this, note that we have $H(\{\{{s}\}\}) = 0$ and $\emptyset + \{\{{s}\}\} \cdot \dagger = \dagger$, but ${\{\{{s}\}\}}^* \cdot \emptyset \neq \dagger$ — contradicting the unique fixpoint axiom.
The set of *${\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}$-expressions* over ${\Sigma}$, denoted ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, is described by: $${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\ni e,f ::= 0 {\;\;|\;\;}1 {\;\;|\;\;}a \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}{\;\;|\;\;}e + f {\;\;|\;\;}e \cdot f {\;\;|\;\;}e\times f {\;\;|\;\;}e^* {\;\;|\;\;}H(e)$$ We interpret ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ in terms of languages via ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}: {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{L}_{{\Sigma}}}$, defined analogously to ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$, where furthermore for $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ we have $${{\llbracketH(e)\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}} = {{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\cap \{\varepsilon\}$$ Note that when $e \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$, then $e \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ and ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} = {{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$.
Define ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ as the smallest congruence on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ induced by the axioms of [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}, where ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ fulfills the role of the semilattice — e.g., if $a \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$, then $a \times a {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}a$. This axiomatisation is sound with respect to the language model.[^2]
[lemma]{}[soundnessska]{}\[soundness:unique\] Let $e,f\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$. If $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}f$ then ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$.
The caveat from can be transposed to this setting. However, the condition that for $\alpha \in S$ we have that $H(\alpha) = 0$ allows one to strengthen the above along the same lines as , that is, if $e {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}f$, then interpreting $e$ and $f$ in some SKA according to some valuation of $\Sigma$ in terms of semilattice elements will produce the same outcome.
\[heiligvoorbeeld\] To demonstrate the use of the new axioms, we give an algebraic proof of $\alpha^*\times \alpha^*{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\alpha^*$ for $\alpha\in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^*\times \alpha^* & {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}(1+\alpha\cdot \alpha^*)\times (1+\alpha\cdot \alpha^*) {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}1+\alpha\cdot \alpha^* + (\alpha\cdot \alpha^*)\times (\alpha\cdot \alpha^*) \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}1+ \alpha\cdot \alpha^* + (\alpha\times \alpha)\cdot (\alpha^*\times \alpha^*) {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\alpha^* + \alpha\cdot (\alpha^*\times \alpha^*)\end{aligned}$$ Since $H(\alpha) = 0$, we can apply the unique fixpoint axiom to find $\alpha^*\cdot \alpha^*{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\alpha^*\times \alpha^*$. In ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}$, it is not hard to show that $\alpha^*\cdot \alpha^* {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}\alpha^*$; hence, we find $\alpha^*\times \alpha^*{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\alpha^*$.
\[isditeenremark?\] Adding $\alpha^*\times \alpha^* = \alpha^*$ for $\alpha\in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ as an axiom to the old axiomatisation of SKA would not have been sufficient; one can easily find another semantical truth that does not hold in our countermodel, such as ${{\llbracket{(\alpha\cdot\beta)}^*\times{(\alpha\cdot\beta)}^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracket{(\alpha\cdot\beta)}^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$. Adding $e^*\times e^* = e^*$ as an axiom is also not an option, as this is not sound; for instance, take $e=a+b$ for $a,b\in{\Sigma}$. In order to keep the axiomatisation finitary, a unique fixpoint axiom provided an outcome.
Partial Derivatives
-------------------
In this section we develop the theory of SKA and set up the necessary machinery for and the completeness proof in . We start by presenting partial derivatives, which provide a termination and continuation map on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$. These derivatives allow us to turn the set of synchronous regular terms into a non-deterministic automaton structure, such that the language accepted by $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ as a state in this automaton is the same as the semantics of $e$. Furthermore, partial derivatives turn out to provide a way to algebraically characterise a term by means of acceptance and reachable terms, which is useful in the completeness proof of [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}.
The termination and continuation map for ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}$-expressions presented below are a trivial extension of the ones from [@broda]. Intuitively, the termination map is $1$ if an expression can immediately terminate, and $0$ otherwise; the continuation map of a term w.r.t. $A$ gives us the set of terms reachable with an $A$-step.
For $a\in{\Sigma}$, we define ${o}: {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\to 2$ inductively, as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{o}(0) &= 0 & {o}(e^*) &= 1 & {o}(e + f) &=
\max({o}(e),{o}(f)) & {o}(e \times f) &= \min({o}(e), {o}(f)) \\
{o}(1) &= 1 & {o}(a) &= 0 & {o}(e \cdot f) &= \min({o}(e), {o}(f)) & {o}(H(e)) & = {o}(e)
\end{aligned}$$
For $a\in{\Sigma}$, we inductively define $\delta: {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\times\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma}) \to {\mathcal{P}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(0, A) &= \delta(1,A) = \emptyset
& \delta(e \times f, A) &= \Delta(e,f,A)\cup \Delta(f,e,A)\\
\delta(H(e), A) &= \emptyset
&& \cup \{ e' \times f' : e' \in \delta(e, B_1), \\
\delta(a, A) &= \{ 1 : A=\{a\} \}
&& f'\in\delta(f,B_2), B_1\cup B_2=A \} \\
\delta(e^*, A) &= \{ e' \cdot e^* : e' \in \delta(e, A) \}
& \delta(e \cdot f, A)&= \{ e' \cdot f : e' \in \delta(e, A) \} \\
\delta(e + f, A) &= \delta(e, A) \cup \delta(f, A)
&& \cup \Delta(f,e,A)\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta(e, f, A)$ is defined to be $\delta(e, A)$ when ${o}(f) = 1$, and $\emptyset$ otherwise.
\[def:synaut\] We call the NDA $({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}},{o},\delta)$ the *syntactic automaton* of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}$-expressions.
In we give a proof of correctness of partial derivatives: for $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ the semantics of $e$ is equivalent to the language accepted by $e$ as a state in the syntactic automaton. An analogous property holds for (partial) derivatives in Kleene algebras [@brz; @antimirov], which makes derivatives a powerful tool for reasoning about language models and deciding equivalences of terms [@bonchi-pous-2013].
In the next two sections, we want to use terms reachable from $e$, that is to say, terms that are a result of repeatedly applying the continuation map on $e$. To this end, we define the following function:
\[reach\] For $e,f \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ and $a\in{\Sigma}$, we inductively define the *reach* function ${\rho}: {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\to {\mathcal{P}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\rho}(e + f) = {\rho}(e) \cup {\rho}(f) && {\rho}(0) = \emptyset \\
& {\rho}(e \cdot f) = \{ e' \cdot f : e' \in {\rho}(e) \} \cup {\rho}(f) && {\rho}(1) = \{ 1 \} \\
&{\rho}(e^*) = \{ 1 \} \cup \{ e' \cdot e^* : e' \in {\rho}(e) \}
&& {\rho}(a) = \{ 1, a \} \\
&{\rho}(e\times f) = \{e'\times f' : e'\in{\rho}(e),f'\in{\rho}(f)\} \cup{\rho}(e)\cup{\rho}(f)
&& {\rho}(H(e))=\{1\}\end{aligned}$$
Using a straightforward inductive argument, one can prove that for all $e \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, ${\rho}(e)$ is finite. Note that $e$ is not always a member of ${\rho}(e)$. To see that $\rho(e)$ indeed contains all terms reachable from $e$, we record the following.
[lemma]{}[reachisreach]{}\[lemma:reachisreach\] For all $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ and $A\in\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$, we have $\delta(e,A)\subseteq{\rho}(e)$. Also, if $e'\in{\rho}(e)$, then $\delta(e',A)\subseteq{\rho}(e)$.
Normal form {#section:normalform}
-----------
In this section we develop a *normal form* for expressions in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$, which we will use in the completeness proof for [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}. As ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ is a surjective function it has at least one right inverse. Let us pick one and denote it by ${{(-)}^{\Pi}}$. We thus have ${{(-)}^{\Pi}}:\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ such that ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\circ{{(-)}^{\Pi}}$ is the identity on $\mathcal{P}_n(\Sigma)$. The normal form for expressions in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ is defined as follows:
\[normalform\] For all $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ the *normal form* of $e$, denoted as $\overline{e}$, is defined as ${{({{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}}$. Let ${\overline{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}}}=\{\overline{e} : e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\}$.
Intuitively, an expression in normal form is standardised with respect to idempotence, associativity and commutativity. For instance, for a term $(a\times a)\times (c\times b)$ with $a,b,c\in{\Sigma}$, the chosen normal form, dictated by the chosen right inverse, could be $(a\times b)\times c$, and all terms provably equivalent to $(a\times a)\times (c\times b)$ will have this same normal form. Using , we can formalise this in the following two results:
\[factsnormalform\] For all $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$, we have that $e$ is provably equivalent to its normal form: $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\overline{e}$. Moreover, if two expressions $e,f\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ are provably equivalent, they have the same normal form: if $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}f$, then $\overline{e}=\overline{f}$.
As ${{(-)}^{\Pi}}$ is a right inverse of ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$, we can derive the following: $${{\llbracket\overline{e}\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracket{{({{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}}\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}={{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$$ From completeness we get $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\overline{e}$. For the second part of the statement we obtain via soundness that ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ and subsequently that $\overline{e}=\overline{f}$.
Normalising normalised terms does not change anything.
[lemma]{}[nfisnf]{}\[lemma:nfisnf\] For all $e\in{\overline{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}}}$ we have that $\overline{e}=e$.
We extend ${(-)}^{\Pi}$ from synchronous strings of length one to words and synchronous languages in the obvious way. For a synchronous string $aw$ with $a\in\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$ and $w\in {(\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma}))}^*$, and synchronous language $L\in {\mathcal{L}_{{\Sigma}}}$ we define:
\^=\^=a\^(w\^) L\^={w\^ : wL}
We abuse notation and assume the type of ${(-)}^{\Pi}$ is clear from the argument.
Since ${(-)}^\Pi$ is a homomorphism of languages, we have the following.
[lemma]{}[pionlanguages]{}\[lemma:pi-on-languages\] For synchronous languages $L$ and $K$, all of the following hold:
\[lemma:plus\] ${(L\cup K)}^{\Pi}=L^{\Pi}\cup K^{\Pi}$,
\[lemma:sequential\] ${(L\cdot K)}^{\Pi}=L^{\Pi}\cdot K^{\Pi}$, and
\[lemma:star\] ${(L^*)}^{\Pi}= {(L^{\Pi})}^*$.
A Fundamental Theorem for [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{} {#fundamental}
=============================================
In this section we shall algebraically capture an expression in terms of its partial derivatives. This characterisation of an [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}-term will be useful later on in proving completeness but also provides us with a straightforward method to prove correctness of the partial derivatives. Following [@rutten:2003; @thesisalexandra], we call this characterisation a *fundamental theorem* for [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}. Before we state and prove the fundamental theorem, we prove an intermediary lemma:
\[lemma:sommetjes\] For all $e,f\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, we have $$\sum_{e'\in\delta(e,A)} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e')\times \sum_{e'\in\delta(f,A)} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e'){\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\sum_{\substack{e'\in\delta(e,A) \\ e'' \in \delta(f, B)}} {(A\cup B)}^{\Pi}\cdot (e'\times e'')$$
First note the following derivation for $A,B\in\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$, using , the fact that all axioms of ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ are included in ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, and that ${{(-)}^{\Pi}}$ is a right inverse of ${{\llbracket-\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{{A}^{\Pi}}\times {{B}^{\Pi}} &{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\overline{{{A}^{\Pi}}\times {{B}^{\Pi}}} = {{({{\llbracket{{A}^{\Pi}}\times {{B}^{\Pi}}\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}} \\
&={{({{\llbracket{{A}^{\Pi}}\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\cup{{\llbracket {{B}^{\Pi}}\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}}={{(A\cup B)}^{\Pi}}\end{aligned}$$ Using distributivity, the synchrony axiom and the equation above, we can derive: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{e'\in\delta(e,A)} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e')\times \sum_{e'\in\delta(f,A)} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e')
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\sum_{\substack{e'\in\delta(e,A) \\ e'' \in \delta(f, B)}} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e')\times (B^{\Pi}\cdot e'')\\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\sum_{\substack{e'\in\delta(e,A) \\ e'' \in \delta(f, B)}} (A^{\Pi}\times B^{\Pi})\cdot (e'\times e'')
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\sum_{\substack{e'\in\delta(e,A) \\ e'' \in \delta(f, B)}} {{(A\cup B)}^{\Pi}}\cdot (e'\times e'')\end{aligned}$$ The synchrony axiom can be applied because ${{A}^{\Pi}},{{B}^{\Pi}}\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$.
[theorem]{}[fundamentaltheorem]{}\[theorem:fundamental\] For all $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, we have $$e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(e,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'.$$
This proof is mostly analogous to the proof of the fundamental theorem for regular expressions, such as the one that can be found in [@thesisalexandra].
We proceed by induction on $e$. In the base, we have three cases to consider: $e\in\{0,1\}$ or $e=a$ for $a\in{\Sigma}$. For $e\in \{0,1\}$, the result follows immediately. For $e=a$, the only non-empty derivative is $\delta(a,\{a\})$ and the result follows: $${o}(a)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(a,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(a) + \overline{a}\cdot 1 {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\overline{a} {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}a$$ In the inductive step, we treat only the case for synchronous composition; the others can be found in the appendix. If $e=e_0\times e_1$, derive as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& e_0\times e_1 \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\big({o}(e_0)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\big) \times \big({o}(e_1)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_1,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\big)
\tag{Ind. hyp.} \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0)\times {o}(e_1) +\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e')\times {o}(e_1)+ {o}(e_0)\times \sum_{e'\in\delta(e_1,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\\
& \quad \quad +\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e')\times \sum_{e'\in\delta(e_1,A)} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e')
\tag{Distributivity} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0\times e_1) +\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e')\times {o}(e_1)
+ {o}(e_0)\times \sum_{e'\in\delta(e_1,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e' \\
& \quad \quad +\sum_{\substack{e'\in\delta(e_0,A) \\ e'' \in \delta(e_1, B)}} {(A\cup B)}^{\Pi}\cdot (e'\times e'')
\tag{Def. ${o}$, \autoref{lemma:sommetjes}} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0\times e_1) +\sum_{e'\in\Delta(e_0,e_1,A)\hspace{-1cm}} A^{\Pi}\cdot e' + \sum_{e'\in\Delta(e_1,e_0,A)\hspace{-1cm}} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'
+ \sum_{\substack{ e'\in\{e_0'\times e_1':e_0'\in\delta(e_0,A), \\ e_1'\in\delta(e_1,B),C=A\cup B\}}\hspace{-1cm}} C^{\Pi}\cdot e'\\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0\times e_1) +\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0\times e_1,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e' \tag*{(Def. $\delta$) \qed}\end{aligned}$$
Correctness of partial derivatives for [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{} {#correctness-of-partial-derivatives-for-mathsfsf_1 .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------
We now relate the partial derivatives for [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}to their semantics. Let $\ell:{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{L}_{{\Sigma}}}$ be the semantics of the syntactic automaton $({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}},{o},\delta)$ (), uniquely defined by :
$$\label{semanticsofautomaton}
\ell(e) = \{ \varepsilon : {o}(e) = 1 \} \cup \bigcup_{e' \in \delta(e, A)} \{A\}\cdot \ell(e')$$
To prove correctness of derivatives for [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}, we prove that the language semantics of the syntactic automaton and the [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}-expression coincide:
\[soundnessderivatives\] For all $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ we have: $$\ell(e)={{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$$
The claim follows almost immediately from the fundamental theorem. From and , we obtain $${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}=\{\varepsilon:{o}(e)=1\}\cup\bigcup_{e'\in\delta(e,A)} \{A\}\cdot {{\llbrackete'\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$$ Note that ${{\llbracketA^{\Pi}\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}=\{{{\llbracket{{A}^{\Pi}}\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\}=\{A\}$ by definition of the [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}semantics of a term in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ and the fact that ${{(-)}^{\Pi}}$ is a right inverse. Because $\ell$ is the only function satisfying , we obtain the desired equality between ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ and the language $\ell(e)$ accepted by $e$ as a state of the automaton $({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}},{o},\delta)$.
Completeness of [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{} {#completeness}
===================================
In this section we prove completeness of the [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}-axioms with respect to the synchronous language model: we prove that for $e,f\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, if ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, then $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}f$. We first prove completeness of [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}for a subset of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}$-expressions, relying on the completeness result of [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{} (). Then we demonstrate that for every [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}-expression we can find an equivalent [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}-expression in this specific subset (). This subset is formed as follows.
\[def:nf\] The set of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}$-expressions in *normal form*, ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$, is described by the grammar $${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}\ni e, f ::= 0 {\;\;|\;\;}1 {\;\;|\;\;}a \in {\overline{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}}}{\;\;|\;\;}e + f {\;\;|\;\;}e \cdot f {\;\;|\;\;}e^*$$ where ${\overline{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}}}$ is as defined in .
From this description it is immediate that an [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}-term $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$ is formed from terms of ${\overline{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}}}$ connected via the regular [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{}-algebra operators. Hence, ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}$-expressions formed over the alphabet ${\overline{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}}}$ are the same set of terms as ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$. We shall use this observation to prove completeness for ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$ with respect to the language model by leveraging completeness of [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{}.
We use the function ${{(-)}^{\Pi}}$ to give a translation between the [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}semantics of a term in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$ and the [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{}semantics of that same term:
[lemma]{}[semantictranslation]{}\[soundnessf\] For all $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$, we have ${({{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$.
We proceed by induction on the construction of $e$. In the base, there are three cases to consider. If $e=0$, then ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}=\emptyset={{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$, and we are done. If $e=1$, then ${({{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={(\{\varepsilon\})}^{\Pi}=\{\varepsilon\}={{\llbracket1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$, and the claim follows. If $e=a$ for $a\in{\overline{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}}}$, we use to obtain $\overline{a}=a$. As $a\in{\overline{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}}}\subseteq{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$, we know that ${({{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={(\{{{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\})}^{\Pi}=\{{{({{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}}\}=\{\overline{a}\}=\{a\}={{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$, and the claim follows.
For the inductive step, first consider $e=H(e_0)$. ${({{\llbracketH(e_0)\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}=\{\varepsilon\}$ if $\varepsilon\in{{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ and $\emptyset$ otherwise. We also have ${{\llbracketH(e_0)\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}=\{\varepsilon\}$ if $\varepsilon\in{{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$ and $\emptyset$ otherwise. The induction hypothesis states that ${({{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$, from which we obtain that $\varepsilon\in {{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\Leftrightarrow\varepsilon\in{{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$. Hence we can conclude that ${({{\llbracketH(e_0)\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbracketH(e_0)\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$. All other inductive cases follow immediately from . The details can be found in the appendix.
We are now ready to prove completeness of [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}for terms in normal form.
\[lemma:completenessnormalform\] Let $e,f\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$. If ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, then $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}f$.
By the premise, we have that ${({{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={({{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}$. From we get ${({{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$ and ${({{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$, which results in ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$. From we know that this entails that $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}f$. As [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}contains all the axioms of [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{}, we may then conclude that $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}f$ and the claim follows.
In order to prove completeness with respect to the language model for all $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, we prove that for every $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ there exists a term $\hat{e}\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$ in normal form such that $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\hat{e}$. To see this is indeed enough to establish completeness of [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}, imagine we have such a procedure to transform $e$ into $\hat{e}$ in normal form. We can then conclude that ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ implies ${{\llbracket\hat{e}\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}={{\llbracket\hat{f}\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, which by implies $\hat{e}{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\hat{f}$, and consequently that $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}f$.
To obtain $\hat{e}$, we will make use of the “unfolding” of an [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}-expression $e$ in terms of partial derivatives, given by the fundamental theorem, which will give rise to a linear system. We will then show that this linear system has a unique solution that has the properties we require from $\hat{e}$. Since $e$ is also a solution to this linear system, we can conclude that they are provably equivalent.
Let us start with the following property of linear systems over [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}. A $Q$-vector is a function $x: Q\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ and a $Q$-matrix is a function $M: Q\times Q \rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$. We call a matrix $M$ *guarded* if $H(M(i,j))=0$ for all $i,j\in Q$. We say a vector $p$ and matrix $M$ are in normal form if $p(i)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$ for all $i\in Q$ and $M(i,j)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$ for all $i,j\in Q$. The following lemma is a variation of [@salomaa Lemma 2] and the proof is a direct adaptation of the proof found in [@cka Lemma 3.12].
[lemma]{}[leastsolution]{}\[lemma:leastsolution\] Let $(M, p)$ be a $Q$-linear system such that $M$ and $p$ are guarded. We can construct $Q$-vector $x$ that is the unique (up to ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}$-equivalence) solution to $(M, p)$ in [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}. Moreover, if $M$ and $p$ are in normal form, then so is $x$.
We now define the linear system associated to an [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}-expression $e$. This linear system makes use of the partial derivatives for [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}, and essentially represents an NFA that acceps the language described by $e$.
Let $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, and choose $Q_e ={\rho}(e)\cup \{e\}$, where ${\rho}$ is the reach function from . Define the $Q_e$-vector $x_e$ and the $Q_e$-matrix $M_e$ by
x\_e(e’)=[o]{}(e’) M\_e(e’,e”)= \_[e”(e’,A)]{}A\^
We can now use to obtain the desired normal form $\hat{e}$:
\[thm:normalform\] For all $e\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, there exists an $\hat{e}\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$ such that $\hat{e}{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}e$.
It is clear from their definition that $x_e$ and $M_e$ are both in normal form and that $M_e$ is guarded. From we then get that there exists a unique solution $s_e$ to $(M_e, x_e)$, and $s_e$ is a $Q_e$-vector in normal form. Now consider the $Q_e$-vector $y$ such that $y(q)=q$ for all $q\in Q_e$. Using and , we can derive the following: $$\begin{aligned}
x_e(q) + M_e\cdot y(q)&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}x_e(q) + \sum_{q'\in Q_e}M_e(q,q')\cdot y(q') \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(q)+\sum_{q'\in Q_e}\sum_{q'\in\delta(q,A)}A^{\Pi}\cdot q' \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(q)+\sum_{q'\in\delta(q,A)}A^{\Pi}\cdot q' {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}q = y(q)\end{aligned}$$ This demonstrates that $y$ is also a solution to $(M_e, x_e)$. As we know from that $s_e$ is unique, we get that $y{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}s_e$. This means that $e=y(e){\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}s_e(e)$. As $s_e$ is in normal form we get that $s_e(e)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSF}}\xspace}}}$. Thus, if we take $s_e(e)=\hat{e}$, then we have obtained the desired result.
Combining and gives the main result of this section:
\[maintheorem\] For all $e,f\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$, we have $$e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}f \Leftrightarrow {{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$$
As a corollary of and we know that [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}is decidable by deciding language equivalence in the syntactic automaton.
Related Work {#section:related-work}
============
Synchonous cooperation among processes has been extensively studied in the context of process calculi such as ASP [@BK1984] and SCCS [@milner]. SKA bears a strong resemblance to SCCS, with the most notable differences being the equivalence axiomatised (bisimulation vs. language equivalence), and the use of Kleene star (unbounded finite recursion) instead of fixpoint (possibly infinite recursion). Contrary to ASP, but similar to SCCS, SKA cannot express incompatibility of action synchronisation.
In the context of Kleene algebra based frameworks for concurrent reasoning, a synchronous product is just one possible interpretation of concurrency. An interleaving-based approach with a concurrent operator (a parallel operator denoted with $\parallel$) is explored in Concurrent Kleene Algebra [@cka; @struthenzo; @hoare-2009; @hoare-2016; @cka].
We have proved that ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}$ is sound and complete with respect to the synchronous language model by making use of the completeness of [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{} [@salomaa]. The strategy of transforming an expression $e$ to an equivalent expression $\hat{e}$ with a particular property is often used in literature [@cka; @kat; @struthenzo; @kao]. In particular, we adopted the use of linear systems as a representation of automata, which was first done by Conway [@completenessmetconway] and Backhouse [@backhouse-1975]. The machinery that we used to solve linear systems in [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{}is based on Salomaa [@salomaa] and can also be found in [@cka] and [@kozen-2001]. The idea of the syntactic automaton originally comes from Brzozowski, who did this for regular expressions [@brz]. He worked with derivatives which turn a Kleene algebra expression into a deterministic automaton. We worked with partial derivatives instead, resulting in a non-deterministic finite automaton for each [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}-expression. Partial derivatives were first proposed by Antimirov [@antimirov].
Other related work is that of Hayes et al. [@hayes1]. They explore an algebra of synchronous atomic steps that interprets the synchrony model SKA is based on (Milner’s SCCS calculus). However, their algebra is not based on a Kleene algebra — they use concurrent refinement algebra [@cra] instead. Later, Hayes et al. presented an abstract algebra for reasoning about concurrent programs with an abstract synchronisation operator [@hayes2], of which their earlier algebra of atomic steps is an instance. A key difference seems to be that Hayes et al. use different units for synchronous and sequential composition. It would be interesting to compare expressive powers of the two algebras more extensively.
A decision procedure for equivalence between SKA terms is given by Broda et al. [@broda]. They defined partial derivatives for SKA that we also used in the proof of completeness, and used those to construct an NFA that accepts the semantics of a given SKA expression. Deciding language equivalence of two automata then leads to a decision procedure for semantic equivalence of SKA expressions.
Conclusions and Further Work {#section:future-work}
============================
We have presented a complete axiomatisation with respect to the model of synchronous regular languages. We have first proved incompleteness of SKA via a countermodel, exploiting the fact that SKA did not have any axioms relating the synchronous product to the Kleene star. We then provided a set of axioms based on the [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{}-axioms from Salomaa [@salomaa] and the axioms governing the synchronous product familiar from SKA. This was shown to be a sound and complete axiomatisation with respect to the synchronous language model.
In the original SKA paper there is a presentation of *synchronous Kleene algebra with tests* including a wrongful claim of completeness. An obvious next step would be to see if we can prove completeness of [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}with tests. We conjecture [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}with tests is indeed complete and that this is straightforward to prove via a reduction to [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}in a style similar to the completeness proof of KAT [@kat]. Another generalisation is to add a unit to the semilattice, making it a bounded semilattice. This will probably lead to a type of delay operation [@milner].
Our original motivation to study SKA was to use it as an axiomatisation of Reo, a modular language of connectors combining synchronous data flow with an asynchronous one [@BSAR2006]. The semantics of Reo is based on an automata model very similar to that of SKAT, in which transitions are labelled by sets of ports (representing a synchronous data flow) and constraints (the tests of SKAT). Interestingly, automata are combined using an operation analogous to the synchronous product of SKAT expressions. We aim to study the application of SKA or SKAT to Reo in future work.
#### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
The first author is grateful for discussions with Hans-Dieter Hiep and Benjamin Lion.
Appendix
========
The carrier ${\mathcal{L}_{{\Sigma}}}$ is obviously closed under the operations of synchronous Kleene algebra. We need only argue that each of the SKA axioms is valid on synchronous languages.
The proof for the Kleene algebra axioms follows from the observation that synchronous languages over the alphabet ${\Sigma}$ are simply languages over the alphabet $\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$. Thus we know that the Kleene algebra axioms are satisfied, as languages over alphabet $\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$ with $1=\{\varepsilon\}$ and $0=\emptyset$ form a Kleene algebra.
For the semilattice axioms, note that $S$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{P}_n(\Sigma)$ (by sending a singleton set in $S$ to its sole element), and that the latter forms a semilattice when equipped with $\cup$. Since the isomorphism between $S$ and $\mathcal{P}_n(\Sigma)$ respects these operators, it follows that $(S, \times)$ is also a semilattice.
The first SKA axiom that we check is commutativity. We prove that $\times$ on synchronous strings is commutative by induction on the paired length of the strings. Consider synchronous strings $u$ and $v$. For the base, where $u$ and $v$ equal $\varepsilon$, the result is immediate. In the induction step, we take $u=xu'$ with $x\in\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$. If $v=\varepsilon$ we are done immediately. Now for the case $v=yv'$ with $y\in\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$. We have $u\times v= (xu')\times (yv')=(x\cup y)\cdot (u'\times v')$. From the induction hypothesis we know that $u'\times v' = v'\times u'$. Combining this with commutativity of union we have $u\times v = (x\cup y)\cdot (v'\times u') = v\times u$. Take synchronous languages $K$ and $L$. Now consider $w\in K\times L$. This means that $w=u\times v$ for $u\in K$ and $v\in L$. From commutativity of synchronous strings we know that $w=u\times v= v\times u$. And thus we have $w\in L\times K$. The other inclusion is analogous.
It is obvious that the axioms $K\times \emptyset=\emptyset$ and $K\times \{\varepsilon\}=K$ are satisfied.
For associativity we again first argue that $\times$ on synchronous strings is associative. Take synchronous strings $u,v$ and $w$. We will show by induction on the paired length of $u,v$ and $w$ that $u\times (v\times w)= (u\times v)\times w$. If $u,v,w=\varepsilon$ the result is immediate. Now consider $u=xu'$ for $x\in\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$. If $v$ or $w$ equals $\varepsilon$ the result is again immediate. Hence we consider the case where $v=yv'$ and $w=zw'$ for $y,z\in\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$. From the induction hypothesis we know that $u'\times (v'\times w')= (u'\times v')\times w'$. We can therefore derive $$\begin{aligned}
u\times (v\times w)&= (xu') \times (yv'\times zw') = (xu') \times ((y\cup z)\cdot (v'\times w')) \\
&= (x\cup (y\cup z))\cdot (u'\times (v'\times w')) = (x\cup (y\cup z))\cdot ((u'\times v')\times w')\end{aligned}$$ From associativity of union, we then know that $(x\cup (y\cup z))\cdot ((u'\times v')\times w')=(u\times v)\times w$. Now consider $t\in K\times(L\times J)$ for $K,L$ and $J$ synchronous languages. Thus $t=u\times (v\times w)$ for $u\in K$, $v\in L$ and $w\in J$. From associativity of synchronous strings we know that $t=u\times (v\times w)= (u\times v)\times w$, and thus we have $t\in (K\times L)\times J$. The other inclusion is analogous.
For distributivity consider $w\in K\times (L+J)$ for $K,L,J$ synchronous languages. This means that $w=u\times v$ for $u\in K$ and $v\in L+J$. Thus we know $v\in L$ or $v\in J$. We immediately get that $u\times v\in K\times L$ or $u\times v\in K\times J$ and therefore that $w\in K\times L + K\times J$. The other direction is analogous.
For the synchrony axiom we take synchronous languages $K,L$ and $A,B\in S$. Suppose $A=\{x\}$ and $B=\{y\}$ for $x,y\in\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$. Take $w\in (A\cdot K)\times (B\cdot L)$. This means that $w=u\times v$ for $u\in A\cdot K$ and $v\in B\cdot L$. Thus we know that $u=xu'$ with $u'\in K$ and $v=yv'$ with $v'\in L$. From this we conclude $w=u\times v=(xu')\times (yv')=(x\cup y)\cdot (u'\times v')$. As $u'\in K$ and $v'\in L$ and $x\cup y = x\times y$ with $x\in A$ and $y\in B$, we have that $w\in (A\times B)\cdot (K\times L)$. For the other direction, consider $w\in (A\times B)\cdot (K\times L)$. This entails $w=t\cdot v$ for $t\in A\times B$ and $v\in K\times L$. As $A\times B=\{x\cup y\}$ we have $t=x\cup y$. And $v=u\times s$ for $u\in K$ and $s\in L$. Thus $t\cdot v=(x\cup y)\cdot (u\times s)=(xu)\times (ys)$ for $u\in K$, $s\in L$, $x\in A$ and $y\in B$. Hence $w\in (A\cdot K)\times (B\cdot L)$.
This is proved by induction on the construction of ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$. In the base case we need to check all the axioms generating ${\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$, which we have already done for . For the inductive step, we need to check the closure rules for congruence preserve soundness. This is all immediate from the definition of the semantics of SKA and the induction hypothesis. For instance, if $e=e_0+e_1$, $f=f_0+f_1$, $e_0{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}f_0$ and $e_1{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}f_1$, then ${{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}+{{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}+{{\llbracketf_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$, where use that ${{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ and ${{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbracketf_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ as a consequence of the induction hypothesis.
For the first inclusion, take $w\in{{\llbracketa^* \times a^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} = {{\llbracketa^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}} \times {{\llbracketa^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$. Thus we have $w=u\times v$ for $u,v\in{{\llbracketa^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$. Hence $u=x_1\cdots x_n$ for $x_i\in{{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ and $v=y_1\cdots y_m$ for $y_i\in{{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$. As ${{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}=\{{{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\}$ with ${{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}\in\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$, we know that $x_i={{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$ and $y_i={{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$. Assume that $n\leq m$ without loss of generality. We then know that $v=u\cdot {{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}^{m-n}$, where synchronous string $e^n$ indicates $n$ copies of string $e$ concatenated. Unrolling the definition of $\times$ on words, we find $u\times v=u\times (u\cdot {{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}^k)=(u\times u)\cdot {{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}^k=u\cdot{{\llbracketa\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}^k=v$, and hence $w = u \times v = v \in {{\llbracketa^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$. For the other inclusion, take $w\in{{\llbracketa^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$. As $\varepsilon\in{{\llbracketa^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$ and $w\times \varepsilon=w$, we immediately have $w\in{{\llbracketa^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}\times{{\llbracketa^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}$.
\[infiniteness\] For $K,L\in{\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$, $K$ a non-empty finite language and $L$ an infinite language, $K\times L$ is an infinite language.
Suppose that $K\times L$ is a finite language. Hence we have an upper bound on the length of words in $K\times L$. Since the length of the synchronous product of two words is obviously the maximum of the length of the operands, this means we also have an upper bound on the length of words in $L$, and as we have finite words over a finite alphabet in $L$ this means that $L$ is finite. Hence we get a contradiction, thus $K\times L$ is infinite.
In the main text we treated one of the least fixpoint axioms and the synchrony axiom, and here we will treat all the remaining cases. For the sake of brevity, for each axiom we omit the cases where we can appeal to the proof for (synchronous) regular languages.
The proof that $(S, \times)$ is a semilattice is the same as in . Next, we take a look at the Kleene algebra axioms. If $K\in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$, then $K+\emptyset= \emptyset$ holds by definition of union of sets. If $K=\dagger$, we get $\dagger+\emptyset=\dagger$, and the axiom also holds.
For $K\in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$, the axiom $K+K=K$ also easily holds by definition of the plus operator. Same for $K\cdot \{\varepsilon\}= K = K \cdot \{\varepsilon\}$ and $K\cdot \emptyset = \emptyset = \emptyset \cdot K$ by definition of the operator for sequential composition.
It is easy to see the axioms $1+e\cdot e^*{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}e^*$ and $1+e^*\cdot e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}e^*$ hold for $K\in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$. In case $K=\dagger$, for $1+e\cdot e^*{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}e^*$ we have $$1+\dagger\cdot\dagger^*= 1+\dagger\cdot\dagger=1+\dagger=\dagger=\dagger^*$$ and a similar derivation for $1+e^*\cdot e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}e^*$.
For the commutativity of $+$ we take $K,L \in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$. If $K=\dagger$ or $L=\dagger$, we have $K+L=\dagger=L+K$.
For associativity of the plus operator we take $K,L,J\in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$. If any of $K$, $L$ or $J$ is $\dagger$, it is easy to see the axiom holds.
For associativity of the sequential composition operator, consider $K,L,J\in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$. We first can observe that if one of $K$, $L$ or $J$ is empty, then the equality holds trivially. Otherwise, if one of $K$, $L$ and $J$ is $\dagger$, then $(K\cdot L)\cdot J = \dagger = K\cdot (L\cdot J)$.
Next, we verify distributivity of concatenation over $+$. We will show a detailed proof for left-distributivity only; right-distributivity can be proved similarly. Let $K,L,J\in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$. If one of $K$, $L$, or $J$ is empty, then the claim holds immediately (the derivation is slightly different for $K$ versus $L$ or $J$). Otherwise, if one of $K$, $L$ or $J$ is $\dagger$, then $K\cdot (L + J) = \dagger = K\cdot L + K\cdot J$.
For the remaining least fixpoint axiom, let $K,L,J\in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$. Assume that $K+L\cdot J\leq L$. We need to prove that $K\cdot J^*\leq L$. If $L=\dagger$, then the claim holds immediately. If $L\in{\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$ and $J = \dagger$, then $L$ must be empty, hence $K$ is empty, and the claim holds. If $L,J\in{\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$, then also $K\in{\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}$ and the proof goes through as it does for KA.
We now get to the axioms for the $\times$-operator. The commutativity axiom is obvious from the commutative definition of $\times$ (as we already know that $\times$ is commutative on synchronous strings). The axiom $K\times \emptyset=\emptyset$ is also satisfied by definition. The same holds for the axiom $K\times \{\varepsilon\}= K$ as $\{\varepsilon\}$ is finite.
For associativity of the synchronous product, consider $K,L,J\in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$. If one of $K$, $L$ or $J$ is empty, then both sides of the equation evaluate to $\emptyset$. Otherwise, if one of $K$, $J$, or $L$ is $\dagger$, then both sides of the equation evaluate to $\dagger$. If $K$, $J$ and $L$ are all languages, and at most one of them is finite, then either $K \times L = \dagger$, in which case the left-hand side evaluates to $\dagger$, or $K \times L$ is infinite (by ) and $J = \dagger$, in which case the right-hand side evaluates to $\dagger$ again. The right-hand side can be shown to evaluate to $\dagger$ by a similar argument. In the remaining cases (at least two out of $K$, $J$ and $L$ are finite languages and none of them is $\dagger$ or $\emptyset$), the proof of associativity for the language model applies.
For distributivity of synchronous product over $+$, let $K,L,J\in {\mathcal{L}_{{s}}}\cup\{\dagger\}$. If one of $K$, $L$ or $J$ is $\emptyset$, then the proof is straightforward. Otherwise, if one of $K$, $L$ or $J$ is $\dagger$, then both sides evaluate to $\dagger$. If $K$ and $L + J$ are infinite, then the outcome is again $\dagger$ on both sides (note that $L + J$ being infinite implies that either $L$ or $J$ is infinite). In the remaining cases, $K$, $L$ and $J$ are languages and either $K$ or $L + J$ (hence $L$ and $J$) is finite. In either case the proof for synchronous regular languages goes through.
We need to verify each of the axioms of [$\mathsf{SF}_1$]{}. The proof for the axioms of [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{}is immediate via the observation that synchronous languages over the alphabet ${\Sigma}$ are simply languages over the alphabet $\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$. Thus we know that the [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{}-axioms are satisfied, as languages over alphabet $\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$ with $1=\{\varepsilon\}$ and $0=\emptyset$ form an [$\mathsf{F}_1$]{}-algebra. The additional axioms are the same as the ones that were added to KA for SKA, and we know they are sound from .
We prove the first statement by induction on the structure of $e$. In the base, if we have $e \in \{0, 1\}$, the claim holds vacuously. If we have $a\in{\Sigma}$, then ${\rho}(a)=\{1,a\}$ and $\delta(a,A)=\{1 : A=\{a\}\}$, so the claim follows. For the inductive step, there are five cases to consider.
- If $e=H(e_0)$, then immediately $\delta(H(e_0),A)=\emptyset$ so the claim holds vacuously.
- If $e = e_0 + e_1$, then by induction we have $\delta(e_0, A) \subseteq {\rho}(e_0)$ and $\delta(e_1, A) \subseteq {\rho}(e_1)$. Hence, we find that $\delta(e, A) = \delta(e_0, A) \cup \delta(e_1, A) \subseteq {\rho}(e_0) \cup {\rho}(e_1) = {\rho}(e)$.
- If $e = e_0 \cdot e_1$, then by induction we have $\delta(e_0, A) \subseteq {\rho}(e_0)$ and $\delta(e_1, A) \subseteq {\rho}(e_1)$. Hence, we can calculate that $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(e, A)
&= \{ e_0' \cdot e_1 : e_0' \in \delta(e_0, A) \} \cup \Delta(e_1,e_0,A) \\
&\subseteq \{ e_0' \cdot e_1 : e_0' \in {\rho}(e_0) \} \cup {\rho}(e_1)
= {\rho}(e)
\end{aligned}$$
- If $e = e_0 \times e_1$, then by induction we have $\delta(e_0, A) \subseteq {\rho}(e_0)$ and $\delta(e_1, A) \subseteq {\rho}(e_1)$ for all $A\in\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$. Hence, we can calculate that $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(e, A)
&= \{ e_0' \times e_1' : e_0' \in \delta(e_0, B_1), e_1'\in\delta(e_1,B_2),B_1\cup B_2=A \} \\
& \quad \cup \Delta(e_0, e_1, A) \cup \Delta(e_1, e_0, A) \\
&\subseteq \{ e_0' \times e_1' : e_0' \in {\rho}(e_0), e_1'\in{\rho}(e_1) \} \cup {\rho}(e_0)\cup {\rho}(e_1) = {\rho}(e)
\end{aligned}$$
- If $e = e_0^*$, then by induction we have $\delta(e_0, A) \subseteq {\rho}(e_0)$. Hence, we find that $$\delta(e, A) = \{ e_0' \cdot e_0^* : e_0' \in \delta(e_0, A) \} \subseteq \{ e_0' \cdot e_0^* : e_0' \in {\rho}(e_0) \}\subseteq{\rho}(e)$$
For the second statement, we prove that if $e' \in {\rho}(e)$, then ${\rho}(e') \subseteq {\rho}(e)$. The result of the first part tells us that $\delta(e',A)\subseteq{\rho}(e')$, which together with ${\rho}(e') \subseteq {\rho}(e)$ proves the claim. We proceed by induction on $e$. In the base, there are two cases to consider. First, if $e =0$, then the claim holds vacuously. If $e=1$, then the only $e'\in{\rho}(e)$ is $e'=1$, so the claim holds. If $e=a$ for $a\in{\Sigma}$, we have ${\rho}(e)=\{1,a\}$. It trivially holds that ${\rho}(e')\subseteq {\rho}(e)$ for $e'\in{\rho}(e)$.
For the inductive step, there are four cases to consider.
- If $e = H(e_0)$, then ${\rho}(e) = \{ 1 \}$, and the proof is as in the case where $e = 1$.
- If $e = e_0 + e_1$, assume w.l.o.g. that $e' \in {\rho}(e_0)$. By induction, we derive that $${\rho}(e') \subseteq {\rho}(e_0) \subseteq {\rho}(e)$$
- If $e = e_0 \cdot e_1$ then there are two cases to consider.
- If $e' = e_0' \cdot e_1$ where $e_0' \in {\rho}(e_0)$, then we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
{\rho}(e')
&= \{ e_0'' \cdot e_1 : e_0'' \in {\rho}(e_0') \} \cup {\rho}(e_1)\\
&\subseteq \{ e_0'' \cdot e_1 : e_0'' \in {\rho}(e_0) \} \cup {\rho}(e_1)
= {\rho}(e)
\end{aligned}$$
- If $e' \in {\rho}(e_1)$, then by induction we have ${\rho}(e') \subseteq {\rho}(e_1) \subseteq {\rho}(e)$.
- If $e = e_0 \times e_1$ then there are three cases to consider.
- The first case is $e' = e_0' \times e_1'$ where $e_0' \in {\rho}(e_0)$ and $e_1'\in{\rho}(e_1)$, we get ${\rho}(e_0')\subseteq{\rho}(e_0)$ and ${\rho}(e_1')\subseteq{\rho}(e_1)$ by induction. We calculate $$\begin{aligned}
{\rho}(e')
&= \{ e_0'' \times e_1'' : e_0'' \in {\rho}(e_0'), e_1'' \in {\rho}(e_1') \} \cup{\rho}(e_0')\cup{\rho}(e_1') \\
& \subseteq \{ e_0'' \cdot e_1'' : e_0'' \in {\rho}(e_0), e_1'' \in {\rho}(e_1) \} \cup{\rho}(e_0)\cup{\rho}(e_1) \\
& = {\rho}(e)
\end{aligned}$$
- For $e' \in {\rho}(e_0)$, then by induction we have ${\rho}(e') \subseteq {\rho}(e_0) \subseteq {\rho}(e)$.
- For $e' \in {\rho}(e_1)$, the argument is similar to the previous case.
- If $e = e_0^*$, then either $e' = 1$ or $e' = e_0' \cdot e_0^*$ for some $e_0' \in {\rho}(e_0)$. In the former case, ${\rho}(e') = \{1\}\subseteq {\rho}(e)$. In the latter case, we find by induction that $$\begin{aligned}
{\rho}(e')
&= \{ e_0'' \cdot e_0^* : e_0'' \in {\rho}(e_0') \} \cup {\rho}(e_0^*) \\
&\subseteq \{ e_0'' \cdot e_0^* : e_0'' \in {\rho}(e_0) \} \cup {\rho}(e_0^*) \subseteq {\rho}(e_0^*)
\tag*{\qed}
\end{aligned}$$
As $e\in{\overline{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}}}$ we have that $e=\overline{e_0}$ for some $e_0\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SL}}\xspace}}}$. From we know that $\overline{e_0}{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}e_0$. So we get $e{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}e_0$. Again from we then know that $\overline{e}=\overline{e_0}=e$.
\[lemma:pi-on-strings\] For $x,y\in{(\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma}))}^*$, we have ${(x\cdot y)}^{\Pi}=x^{\Pi}\cdot y^{\Pi}$.
We proceed by induction on the lenth of $xy$. In the base, we have $xy=\varepsilon$. Thus $x=\varepsilon$ and $y=\varepsilon$. We have $\varepsilon^{\Pi}=\varepsilon$ so the result follows immediately. In the inductive step we consider $xy=aw$ for $a\in\mathcal{P}_n({\Sigma})$. We have to consider two cases. In the first case we have $x=ax'$. The induction hypothesis gives us that ${(x'\cdot y)}^{\Pi}=x'^{\Pi}\cdot y^{\Pi}$. We then have ${(x\cdot y)}^{\Pi}={(ax'\cdot y)}^{\Pi}=a^{\Pi}\cdot{(x'\cdot y)}^{\Pi}=a^{\Pi}\cdot x'^{\Pi}\cdot y^{\Pi}=x^{\Pi}\cdot y^{\Pi}$. In the second case we have $x=\varepsilon$ and $y=aw$. We then conclude that ${(x\cdot y)}^{\Pi}=y^{\Pi}= x^{\Pi}\cdot y^{\Pi}$.
(i) First, suppose $w \in {(L\cup K)}^{\Pi}$. Thus we have $w=v^{\Pi}$ for $v\in L\cup K$. This gives us $v\in L$ or $v\in K$. We assume the former without loss of generality. Thus we know $w=v^{\Pi}\in L^{\Pi}$. Hence we know $w\in L^{\Pi}\cup K^{\Pi}$. The other direction can be proved analogously.
(ii) First, suppose $w \in {(L\cdot K)}^{\Pi}$. Thus we have $w=v^{\Pi}$ for some $v\in L\cdot K$. This gives us $v=v_1\cdot v_2$ for some $v_1\in L$ and some $v_2\in K$. By definition of ${(-)}^{\Pi}$ we know that $v_1^{\Pi}\in L^{\Pi}$ and $v_2^{\Pi}\in K^{\Pi}$. Thus we have $v_1^{\Pi}\cdot v_2^{\Pi}\in L^{\Pi}\cdot K^{\Pi}$. From we know that $w=v^{\Pi}={(v_1\cdot v_2)}^{\Pi}=v_1^{\Pi}\cdot v_2^{\Pi}$, which gives us the desired result of $w\in L^{\Pi}\cdot K^{\Pi}$. The other direction can be proved analogously.
(iii) Take $w\in {(L^*)}^{\Pi}$. Thus we have $w=v^{\Pi}$ for some $v\in L^*$. By definition of the star of a synchronous language we know that $v=u_1\cdots u_n$ for $u_i\in L$. As $u_i\in L$, we have $u_i^{\Pi}\in L^{\Pi}$ and $u_1^{\Pi}\cdots u_n ^{\Pi}\in {(L^{\Pi})}^*$. By , we know that $w=v^{\Pi}={(u_1\cdots u_n)}^{\Pi}=u_1^{\Pi}\cdots u_n^{\Pi}$. Thus we have $w\in {(L^{\Pi})}^*$, which is the desired result. The other direction can be proved analogously.
Here we treat the inductive cases not displayed in the main proof, where we treated only the synchronous case.
- If $e=H(e_0)$, derive: $$\begin{aligned}
H(e_0)
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}H(o(e_0)) + \sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)} H(A^\Pi) \cdot H(e') \tag{IH, compatibility of $H$} \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}H(o(e_0)) \tag{$H(A^\Pi) = 0$} \\ &{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}o(H(e_0)) \tag{$o(H(e_0)) \in 2$} \\ &{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}o(H(e_0)) + \sum_{e' \in \delta(H(e_0), A)} A^\Pi \cdot e'\tag{Def. $\delta$} \\
\end{aligned}$$
- If $e=e_0+e_1$, derive: $$\begin{aligned}
e_0+e_1
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e' + {o}(e_1)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_1,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'
\tag{IH} \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0+e_1)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)\cup\delta(e_1,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'
\tag{Def. $o$, merge sums} \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0+e_1)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0+e_1,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'
\tag{Def. $\delta$ }
\end{aligned}$$
- If $e=e_0\cdot e_1$, derive: $$\begin{aligned}
e_0\cdot e_1
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}\big({o}(e_0)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\big) \cdot e_1
\tag{IH} \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0)\cdot e_1 +\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\cdot e_1)
\tag{Distributivity} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0)\cdot \big({o}(e_1)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_1,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\big) +\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\cdot e_1)
\tag{IH} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0\cdot e_1) + {o}(e_0)\cdot\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_1,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e' +\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)} (A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\cdot e_1)
\tag{Def. ${o}$, distributivity} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0\cdot e_1) + \sum_{e'\in\Delta(e_1,e_0,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e' +\sum_{e'\in\{e_0'\cdot e_1:e_0'\in\delta(e_0,A)\}} A^{\Pi}\cdot e' \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0\cdot e_1)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0\cdot e_1,A)} A^{\Pi}\cdot e'
\tag{Def. $\delta$ }
\end{aligned}$$
- If $e=e_0^*$, we derive: $$\begin{aligned}
e_0^*
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{\Big({o}(e_0)+\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)}A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\Big)}^* \tag{Induction hypothesis} \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{\Big(\hspace{-0.6cm}\sum_{\quad e'\in\delta(e_0,A)}\hspace{-0.6cm}A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\Big)}^* \tag{${o}(e_0) \in 2$ and loop tightening}\\ &{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}1+ \Big(\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)}A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\Big)\cdot {\Big(\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)}A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\Big)}^* \tag{star axiom of {\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}} \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}1+ \Big(\sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)}A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\Big)\cdot e_0^* \tag{first two steps} \\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}1+ \sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0,A)}(A^{\Pi}\cdot e'\cdot e_0^*) \tag{Distributivity}\\
&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{o}(e_0^*)+ \sum_{e'\in\delta(e_0^*,A)}A^{\Pi}\cdot e' \tag*{(Def. ${o}$, def. $\delta$) \qed}
\end{aligned}$$
In the main text we have treated the base cases. The inductive cases work as follows. There are three cases to consider. If $e=e_0+e_1$, then ${({{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={({{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}\cup{{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={({{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}\cup {({{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}$ (). From the induction hypothesis we obtain ${({{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$ and ${({{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$. Combining these results we get ${({{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}\cup{{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}+{{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbrackete_0+e_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$, so the claim follows. Secondly, if $e=e_0\cdot e_1$, then ${({{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={({{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}}\cdot{{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={({{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}\cdot{({{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}$ (). From the induction hypothesis we obtain ${({{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$ and ${({{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$. We can then conclude that ${({{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}\cdot{{\llbrackete_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}={{\llbrackete_0\cdot e_1\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$. Lastly, if $e=e_0^*$, we get ${({{\llbrackete_0^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={({({{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^*)}^{\Pi}={({({{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi})}^*$ (). From the induction hypothesis we obtain ${({{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$. Thus we have ${({{\llbrackete\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SKA}}\xspace}}})}^{\Pi}={{\llbrackete_0\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}^* = {{\llbrackete_0^*\rrbracket}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{KA}}\xspace}}}$ and the claim follows.
We will construct $x$ by induction on the size of $Q$. In the base, let $Q=\emptyset$. In this case the unique $Q$-vector is a solution. In the inductive step, take $k\in Q$ and let $Q'=Q\setminus\{k\}$. Then construct the $Q'$-linear system $(M', p')$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
M'(i,j)&=M(i,k)\cdot {M(k,k)}^*\cdot M(k,j) + M(i,j)\\
p'(i)&= p(i)+M(i,k)\cdot {M(k,k)}^*\cdot p(k)\end{aligned}$$ As $Q'$ is a strictly smaller set than $Q$ and $M'$ is guarded, we can apply our induction hypothesis to $(M', p')$. So we know by induction that $(M', p')$ has a unique solution $x'$. Moreover, if $M'$ and $p'$ are in normal form, so is $x'$; note that if $M$ and $p$ are in normal form, then so are $M'$ and $p'$.
We use $x'$ to construct the $Q$-vector $x$: $$x(i)=\twopartdef{x'(i)}{i\neq k}{{M(k,k)}^*\cdot \big(p(k)+\sum_{j\in Q'}M(k,j)\cdot x'(j)\big)}{i=k}$$ The first thing to show now is that $x$ is indeed a solution of $(M, p)$. To this end, we need to show that $M\cdot x+p{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}x$. We have two cases. For $i\in Q'$ we derive: $$\begin{aligned}
x(i)&=x'(i)\tag{Def. $x$} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p'(i)+\sum_{j\in Q'} M'(i,j)\cdot x'(j) \tag{$x'$ solution of $(M', p')$} \\ & {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(i)+M(i,k)\cdot {M(k,k)}^*\cdot p(k) \\
& \quad +\sum_{j\in Q'} (M(i,k)\cdot {M(k,k)}^*\cdot M(k,j) + M(i,j))\cdot x'(j) \tag{Def. $(M', p')$} \\ & {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(i)+\sum_{j\in Q'}M(i,j)\cdot x'(j) \\
& \quad + M(i,k)\cdot {M(k,k)}^*\cdot \big(p(k)+ \sum_{j\in Q'}M(k,j)\cdot x'(j)\big) \tag{Distributivity} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(i)+\sum_{j\in Q'}M(i,j)\cdot x(j) + M(i,k)\cdot x(k) \tag{Def. $x$} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(i)+\sum_{j\in Q}M(i,j)\cdot x(j) \tag{Merge sum}\end{aligned}$$
For $i=k$, we derive: $$\begin{aligned}
x(k) &= {M(k,k)}^*\cdot \big(p(k)+\sum_{j\in Q'}M(k,j)\cdot x'(j)\big) \tag{Def. $x$} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}(1+M(k,k)\cdot {M(k,k)}^*)\cdot \big(p(k)+\sum_{j\in Q'}M(k,j)\cdot x'(j)\big) \tag{star axiom} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(k)+\sum_{j\in Q'}M(k,j)\cdot x'(j) \\
& \quad +M(k,k)\cdot {M(k,k)}^* \cdot \big(p(k)+\sum_{j\in Q'}M(k,j)\cdot x'(j)\big) \tag{Distributivity} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(k)+\sum_{j\in Q'}M(k,j)\cdot x(j) + M(k,k)\cdot x(k) \tag{Def. $x$} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(k)+\sum_{j\in Q}M(k,j)\cdot x(j) \tag{Merge sum}\end{aligned}$$ We now know that $x$ is a solution to $(M, p)$ because $M\cdot x+p{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}x$. Furthermore, if $M$ and $p$ are in normal form, then so is $x'$, and thus $x$ is in normal form by construction.
Next we claim that $x$ is unique. Let $y$ be any solution of $(M, p)$. We choose the $Q'$-vector $y'$ by taking $y'(i)=y(i)$. To see that $y'$ is a solution to $(M', p')$, we first claim that the following holds: $$\label{equation:yk}
y(k){\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{M(k,k)}^* \cdot \Big( p(k) + \sum_{j\in Q'} M(k,j)\cdot y(j)\Big)$$
To see that this is true, derive $$\begin{aligned}
y(k) &{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(k)+\sum_{j\in Q}M(k,j)\cdot y(j) \tag{$y$ solution of $(M, p)$} \\ & {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(k) + M(k,k)\cdot y(k) + \sum_{j\in Q'}M(k,j)\cdot y(j)\tag{Split sum} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{M(k,k)}^* \cdot \Big( p(k) + \sum_{j\in Q'} M(k,j)\cdot y(j)\Big) \tag{Unique fixpoint axiom}\end{aligned}$$ Note that we can apply the unique fixpoint axiom because we know that $M$ is guarded and thus that $H(M(k,k))=0$.
Now we can derive the following: $$\begin{aligned}
y'(i)&=y(i)\tag{Def. $y$} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(i)+\sum_{j\in Q} M(i,j)\cdot y(j) \tag{$y$ solution of $(M, p)$} \\ & {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(i)+ M(i,k)\cdot y(k)+\sum_{j\in Q'} M(i,j)\cdot y(j) \tag{Split sum} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(i)+\sum_{j\in Q'} M(i,j)\cdot y(j) \\
& \quad + M(i,k)\cdot {M(k,k)}^* \cdot \Big( p(k) + \sum_{j\in Q'} M(k,j)\cdot y(j)\Big) \tag{\autoref{equation:yk}} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p(i)+M(i,k)\cdot {M(k,k)}^*\cdot p(k) \\
& \quad + \sum_{j\in Q'}\big(M(i,k)\cdot {M(k,k)}^*\cdot M(k,j) + M(i,j)\big)\cdot y(j) \tag{Distributivity} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}p'(i)+\sum_{j\in Q'}M'(i,j)\cdot y(j) \tag{Def. $(M', p')$} $$ Thus $y'$ is a solution to $(M', p')$. As $x'$ is the unique solution to $(M', p')$, we know that $y'{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}x'$.
For $i\neq k$ we know that $x(i)=x'(i){\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}y'(i)=y(i)$. For $i=k$ we can derive: $$\begin{aligned}
y(k)&{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{M(k,k)}^* \cdot \Big( p(k) + \sum_{j\in Q'} M(k,j)\cdot y(j)\Big)\tag{\autoref{equation:yk}} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{M(k,k)}^* \cdot \Big( p(k) + \sum_{j\in Q'} M(k,j)\cdot y'(j)\Big) \tag{Def. $y'$} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{M(k,k)}^* \cdot \Big( p(k) + \sum_{j\in Q'} M(k,j)\cdot x'(j)\Big) \tag{$x'{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}y'$} \\ & {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}{M(k,k)}^* \cdot \Big( p(k) + \sum_{j\in Q'} M(k,j)\cdot x(j)\Big) \tag{Def. $x'$} \\
& {\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}x(k) \tag{Def. $x$}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $y{\equiv_{\scriptscriptstyle{\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}}}x$, thereby proving that $x$ is the unique solution to $(M, p)$.
[^1]: Unlike [@salomaa], we include $H$ in the syntax; one can prove that for any $e \in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{F}_1}\xspace}}}$ it holds that $H(e) \equiv 0$ or $H(e) \equiv 1$, and hence any occurence of $H$ can be removed from $e$. This is what allows us to apply the completeness result from op. cit. here.
[^2]: Note that for the synchronous language model we know the least fixpoint axioms are sound as well (). However, there might be other ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{SF}_1}\xspace}\text{-models}$ where the least fixpoint axioms are not valid.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We put forward a conjecture of recurrence for a gas of hard spheres that collide elastically in a finite volume. The dynamics consists of a sequence of instantaneous binary collisions. We study how the numbers of collisions of different pairs of particles grow as functions of time. We observe that these numbers can be represented as a time-integral of a function on the phase space. Assuming the results of the ergodic theory apply, we describe the evolution of the numbers by an effective Langevin dynamics. We use the facts that hold for these dynamics with probability one, in order to establish properties of a single trajectory of the system. We find that for any triplet of particles there will be an infinite sequence of moments of time, when the numbers of collisions of all three different pairs of the triplet will be equal. Moreover, any value of difference of collision numbers of pairs in the triplet will repeat indefinitely. On the other hand, for larger number of pairs there is but a finite number of repetitions. Thus the ergodic theory produces a limitation on the dynamics.'
author:
- Alexander Jonathan Vidgop$^1$
- 'Itzhak Fouxon$^{2}$'
title: Evolution of collision numbers for a chaotic gas dynamics
---
The systems of colliding hard-core particles take a special place in the theory of many-body systems. They were used extensively already by Boltzmann to study the fundamental principles of the statistical physics [@Boltzmann]. These systems are unique as they allow insight into the basic properties of complex systems that are usually postulated. Namely, rigorous facts on the ergodicity [@SinaiBook; @Dorfman] of these systems are known. The famous Boltzmann-Sinai hypothesis states that systems of an arbitrary number $N\geq 2$ of elastic hard balls in a $d-$dimensional box with periodic boundary conditions (torus), $d\geq 2$, are ergodic in the phase space region where the trivial conserved quantities of the system are constant [@Sinai]. The exceptional feature of this hypothesis is that by today it can be considered as “almost proved”, in contrast to the ergodicity hypothesis on other chaotic systems where the proof is generally absent. The first rigorous result was obtained in $1970$ by Sinai who proved that a system of two disks in a $2-$dimensional torus is ergodic [@Sinai2]. Notably, this result shows amply that the thermodynamic limit of a large number of particles is not necessary for the ergodicity. The extension of the proof to an arbitrary number of particles and arbitrary $d$ is “almost” complete by now, see e. g. [@Simanyi] and references therein, and also [@Szasz; @Mulero]. As the system is equivalent to a billiard [@CM] - a single particle colliding elastically against the boundary of a certain manifold - we will call it below a “billiard”.
In this Rapid Communication we use the ergodic theory not to deal with the equilibrium properties of the billiard, but rather to extract information on the structure of dynamics at finite times (this means considering non-equilibrium phenomena, as the equilibrium statistical physics, within the approach of the ergodic theory, describes the infinite-time averages). The dynamics are a sequence of the events of binary collisions of particles. This sequence is an ordered list of pairs of particles, say $(1, 2)$ $(5, 6)$ $(7, 8)...$ meaning that first particles $1$ and $2$ collided, then $5$ and $6$, then $7$ and $8$ and so on. Due to chaos this list looks like a random sequence of pairs. Here we find a deterministic constraint on that sequence.
The sequence of collisions $c_i$ is a discrete process taking $K(K-1)/2$ values corresponding to the pairs of the system with $K$ particles. This process is not a Bernoulli scheme, i. e. $c_i$ and $c_{i+1}$, determined by Newton’s law, are not independent. However, the Bernoulli property, which is likely to hold for the considered system [@GalOrn; @Ornstein], would suggest that $c_i$ and $c_{i+m}$ do become independent in the limit $m\to\infty$. Thus a coarse-graining of $c_i$ over a sufficient number of steps would produce a process which consecutive steps are already independent to a good approximation, producing a random walk. Below we perform the analysis of the coarse-grained sequence in the formulation that we found convenient.
We consider the numbers of collisions of pairs of particles up to a time $t$, cf [@Harald]. Roughly, for sufficiently large $t$ one can split the considered time-interval into sub-intervals with approximately independent numbers of collisions, so the total number of collisions is a sum of many i. i. d. random variables and one can use the central limit theorem (CLT). Below we formulate this assumption using the ergodic theory. Then, the numbers of collisions of different pairs can be described using an effective system of Langevin equations. The sequence of collision events following from the Newtonian dynamics is statistically indistinguishable from a realization of the random Langevin dynamics, cf. [@Ornstein]. Here the statistics is defined by the volume of the initial conditions in the phase space corresponding to the considered property. The effective Langevin description allows to put forward a conjecture of recurrence that seems to be new. For any triplet of particles in the billiard, there is an infinite sequence of times at which the collision numbers of the corresponding three pairs of particles are equal. For $K=3$ this conjecture covers all the particles of the system. Furthermore, any prescribed value of two differences of collisions will repeat infinitely many times. In contrast, a prescribed value of three and more differences, existing for $K>3$, repeats but a finite number of times. Significantly, the statements are dynamical and they hold for almost every trajectory of the system (i. e. with a possible exception of a set of trajectories the volume of the initial conditions of which is zero).
The analysis below applies to billiards both in $D=2$ and $D=3$ cases, where $D$ is the space dimension, with ramifications in $D=2$ case entailed by the slow, non-integrable decay of the correlation tails [@EW; @PR]. For definiteness one can think of hard balls of diameter $d$ that collide in a square cube with periodic boundary conditions. The dynamics is a succession of the discrete events of binary collisions. Starting from a given initial condition for particles’ positions and velocities, one determines the time to the next collision and the pair that is going to collide. Pushing then the particles’ positions and the velocities to the time after the collision, one iterates the procedure. We designate the number of collisions of particles $i$ and $j$ that occurred up to time $t$ by $N_{ij}(t)$. The important observation at the basis of the analysis below is that $N_{ij}(t)$ can be represented as an integral of a function on the phase space. To provide this representation we first consider a formal representation of $N_{ij}(t)$ in terms of the Dirac $\delta-$function. We designate the collision times of the pair $i$ and $j$ by $t_{ij}^k$, and note that $r_{ij}^2(t)-d^2$ is a non-negative function of $t$ that vanishes only at $t=t_{ij}^k$. Introducing $F(\bm r, \bm v)\equiv 2 \delta\left[r^2-d^2\right]|\bm r\cdot \bm v|$, write formally $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!N_{ij}(t)\!=\!\!\sum_k\!\!\int_0^t \!\delta\left[t'-t_{ij}^k\right]
dt'\!\!=\!\!\!\int_0^t\!\! F\left[\bm r_{ij}(t'),\! \bm v_{ij}(t')\right]
%\xi_{ij}(t')
dt'%\nonumber\\&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!F(\bm r, \bm v)\equiv 2 \delta\left[r^2-d^2\right]|\bm r\cdot \bm v|
, \label{g1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm r_{ij}(t)$ and ${\bm v}_{ij}(t)$ are the relative distance and velocity of particles $i$ and $j$, respectively. Using the above, one may introduce a rigorous representation of $N_{ij}(t)$ by any family of smooth functions used to represent the $\delta-$function. For example, using exponential profiles, and the fact that $r_{ij}^2(t)-d^2>0$ except at $t=t_{ij}^k$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!N_{ij}(t)=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}N^{\epsilon}_{ij}(t),\ \ N^{\epsilon}_{ij}(t)\equiv \int_0^t
\xi^{\epsilon}_{ij}(t')
%F_{\epsilon}\left[\bm r_{ij}(t'), \bm v_{ij}(t')\right]
dt',
\label{rigorous}\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi^{\epsilon}_{ij}(t)$ are the regularized collision rates, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
%\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!F_{\epsilon}(\bm r, \bm v)
\xi^{\epsilon}_{ij}(t)\equiv 2\epsilon^{-1}|\bm r_{ij}\cdot \bm v_{ij}|\exp\left[-\epsilon^{-1}\left(r_{ij}^2-d^2\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ rigorously. To see how the above works, single out a neighborhood of the collision $(t_{ij}^k-\delta, t_{ij}^k+\delta)$, where $\delta$ is so small one can assume the particles $i$ and $j$ do not collide with other particles during that interval. The quantity $\delta$ depends on properties of the system, like concentration. Considering a sufficiently small $\epsilon\ll \delta$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\int_{t_{ij}^k-\delta}^{t_{ij}^k+\delta} \xi^{\epsilon}_{ij}(t')
dt'
=\int_{t_{ij}^k-\delta}^{t_{ij}^k} dt'\frac{d}{dt'} e^{[d^2-r^2(t')]/\epsilon}
\nonumber\\&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\
-\int_{t_{ij}^k}^{t_{ij}^k+\delta} dt'\frac{d}{dt'}\exp\left[-\frac{r^2(t')-d^2}{\epsilon}\right]=1+o\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\delta}\right).\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $\bm r_{ij}\cdot \bm v_{ij}<0$ before the collision and $\bm r_{ij}\cdot \bm v_{ij}>0$ after the collision. Note the latter representation can be generalized straightforwardly to a dilute gas of particles with short-range interactions [@JI].
The form (\[rigorous\]) of $N_{ij}(t)$ suggests the use of the results of the ergodic theory. Ergodicity guarantees the existence of the average collision rate $\lim_{t\to\infty}N^{\epsilon}_{ij}(t)/t\equiv \nu^{\epsilon}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\nu^{\epsilon}=\lim_{t\to\infty}\int_0^t \xi^{\epsilon}_{ij}(t')\frac{dt'}{t}=\left
\langle \frac{2|\bm r\cdot \bm v|}{\epsilon}\exp\left[-\frac{r^2-d^2}{\epsilon}\right]\right\rangle%\equiv \langle \xi^{\epsilon}_{ij}\rangle
,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the angular brackets stand for the average over the microcanonical ensemble, and $\nu^{\epsilon}$ does not depend on $ij$. It seems safe to assume that $\nu^{\epsilon}$ has a finite limit $\nu$ as $\epsilon\to 0$. While the above applies to a single trajectory, here we address the behavior of the trajectories statistically. The statistics is defined by picking the initial condition at random in the allowed region of the phase space. The latter is defined by the trivial conserved quantities of the system (for torus energy and momentum), i. e. we consider the microcanonical ensemble.
One expects that correlations of $\xi^{\epsilon}_{ij}$ at large times decay as $t^{-D/2}$, where $D$ is the space dimension [@EW; @PR]. For $D=3$ the integral of $t^{-D/2}$ converges and one may assume $\xi^{\epsilon}_{ij}(t)$ effectively has a finite correlation time $\tau^{\epsilon}_{cor}<\infty$, cf. e. g. [@Szasz]. Here we make the main assumption underlying the conjecture proposed in this work. We assume the correlation time $\tau^{\epsilon}_{cor}$ has a finite limit $\tau_{cor}$ at $\epsilon\to 0$. While this assumption seems very plausible (the representation seems to work for the dilute gas [@JI] where no increase of the correlation time is known to us), it is this assumption that allows us to circumvent the singularity in the representation (\[g1\]). Then at $t\gg \tau_{cor}$ the numbers $N^{\epsilon}_{ij}(t)$ are sums of roughly $t/\tau_{cor}\gg 1$ independent random variables and one can use the CLT, giving the following Gaussian approximation to the probability density function (PDF) $P(\{N_{ij}\}, t)$ of $N_{ij}(t)$ at $t\gg \tau_{cor}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
P(\{N_{ij}\}, t)=\frac{\exp\left[-(N_{ij}-\nu t)\Gamma^{-1}_{ij, mn}(N_{mn}-\nu t)/4t\right]}{\sqrt{(4\pi t)^{K(K-1)/2}\det \Gamma}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the summation over repeated indices is assumed. The dispersion matrix $\Gamma_{ij, mn}$ describes the fluctuations of the collision rates $\xi_{ij}(t)$ and it is given by (the double brackets stand for the dispersion so that for any random variables $x$, $y$ we have $\langle\langle x y \rangle\rangle=\langle x y \rangle-\langle x \rangle\langle y \rangle$): $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\Gamma_{ij, mn}\equiv \int_0^{\infty} \langle\langle \xi_{ij}(0)\xi_{mn}(t)\rangle\rangle dt. \label{a}\end{aligned}$$ The use of the CLT above neglects the tails in $P(\{N_{ij}\}, t)$. For certain billiards these tails can be even algebraic, see e. g. [@Sanders]. This is not a limitation for the analysis below, that concerns the probability of fixed values of $N_{ij}(t)-N_{mn}(t)$ at large $t$. At a sufficiently large $t$, any given value belongs to the bulk of the PDF of the differences and is describable by the CLT.
The simplest system for which the above relations apply is the $D=3$ system of $2$ balls in a torus. In this case we have but one pair of particles, so that the number of collisions $N$ that occurred by the time $t$ obeys $$\begin{aligned}
&&
P(N, t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \Gamma t}}\exp\left[-\frac{[N-\nu t]^2}{4\Gamma t}\right].\end{aligned}$$ The above relation appears to be a fundamental result on a very basic system and it demands further studies, both theoretical and numerical that we postpone for further work [@JI]. We note the same statistical distribution $P(\{N_{ij}\}, t)$ would result for the Langevin dynamics $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\frac{d N_{ij}}{dt}=\zeta_{ij}(t),\ \ \langle\zeta_{ij}\rangle=\nu,
\label{a1}\\&&
\langle \langle\zeta_{ij}(t)\zeta_{mn}(t')\rangle\rangle=2 \Gamma_{ij, mn}\delta(t-t'). \label{a2}\end{aligned}$$ Thus the above stochastic dynamics gives the effective description of the collision numbers $N_{ij}(t)$ in quite the same sense as the usual Langevin dynamics does: if one considers the dynamics over the temporal scale of coarse-graining that is much larger than $\tau_{cor}$ then the two dynamics are statistically equivalent.
Eqs. (\[a1\])-(\[a2\]) differ from similar results of the equilibrium statistical physics. There the Langevin dynamics describes macroscopic quantities determined by a large number of particles. Here the quantities $N_{ij}(t)$ are not macroscopic since the result holds even for the system of two particles (at least for the torus). The macroscopic nature of the law is due to the consideration of the dynamics on a large time-scale. While $N_{ij}(t)$ depend strongly on the details of the Newtonian mechanics at time-scales $\lesssim\tau_{cor}$, on a larger time-scale the dynamics forgets the details of the mechanism of collisions and $N_{ij}(t)$ are effectively Brownian motions with non-zero mean.
Using the above Langevin dynamics and facts that hold for the Brownian motion with probability one, we make deterministic predictions on the billiard. We note that the average rates of growth of $N_{ij}(t)$ are equal, so the differences ${\tilde N}_{ij}=N_{ij}-N_{12}$ are regular Brownian motions, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\frac{d {\tilde N}_{ij}}{dt}=\omega_{ij},\ \ \langle \omega_{ij}(t)\omega_{mn}(t')\rangle=2D_{ij, mn}\delta(t-t'),
\nonumber\\&&
D_{ij, mn}\equiv\Gamma_{ij, mn}+\Gamma_{12, 12}-\Gamma_{ij, 12}-\Gamma_{mn, 12}.\end{aligned}$$ The non-diagonality of $D_{ij, mn}$ is not important for our considerations below. We note however that using that $D_{ij, mn}$ is symmetric it is always possible to pass to rotated ${\tilde N}_{ij}$ that perform independent Brownian motions.
We use the familiar fact that Brownian motion returns to the origin with unit probability for dimension lower or equal to the critical dimension $2$. In $D>2$ the return is probabilistic - there is a finite probability of return which is strictly less than one [@Montroll], so the number of returns to the origin is always finite. In the light of this, the differences ${\tilde N}_{ij}$, that exist for systems with $K\geq 3$, are seen to be special in the case $K=3$. Here the Brownian motion $({\tilde N}_{13}, {\tilde N}_{23})$ is two-dimensional. We arrive at the following conjecture of recurrence: for billiards with three particles there will almost always (i. e. with a possible exception of trajectories which initial conditions have zero volume) be a time when the numbers of collisions of all three pairs will equalize, $N_{12}(t)=N_{23}(t)=N_{12}(t)$. Moreover, the system will be getting back to these equalized states an infinite number of times. Here it should be clear that the equality sign should be understood with a finite accuracy following both from the approximate nature of the Langevin equation and from the fact that the Brownian motion in $D=2$ is only neighborhood-recurrent and not point-recurrent as in $D=1$ [@MortersPeres]. This limitation is not important qualitatively, since $N_{ij}(t)$ grow with time indefinitely, so the finite accuracy is irrelevant at large times. The result is quite distinct from the familiar Poincare recurrence theorem where the system gets back to the neighborhood of the same point in the phase space: the two recurrences are generally unrelated. Furthermore, based on the fact that the Brownian motion visits neighborhood of every point in the plane an indefinite number of times, the conjecture can be extended to the statement that every possible combination of $[N_{13}(t)-N_{12}(t), N_{23}(t)-N_{12}(t)]$ is going to occur and then recur an infinite number of times.
The above conjecture of recurrence does not hold for systems with $K\geq 4$. Here with a finite probability after $t=0$ there will never be again a situation where all $N_{ij}(t)$ are equal. The volume fraction of the initial conditions in the phase space for which all $N_{ij}(t)$ get equal at some time $t\gg \tau_{cor}$ is strictly less than one for $K\geq 4$ and it decreases as $K$ grows (for the explicit formula see [@Montroll]). A limited version of the recurrence hypothesis holds, stating that for any three variables $N_{ij}$, $N_{kl}$ and $N_{mn}$ there is an infinite sequence of times at which any two differences of these numbers will take a fixed, preassigned value. However, with probability one, three and more linearly independent differences of collision numbers, definable for a number of particles larger than three, will repeat but a finite number of times. Finally, the return property in $D=1$, gives that the sequence of times at which $N_{ij}(t)=N_{mn}(t)$ is infinite for any $i$, $j$, $m$ and $n$.
We now rederive the conjecture qualitatively. We consider particles $1$, $2$ and $3$ and study the $D=2$ vector $({\tilde N}_{13}, {\tilde N}_{23})$. At large $t$ the probability that ${\tilde N}_{13}$ equals to zero decays as $t^{-1/2}$. Assuming effective independence of ${\tilde N}_{13}(t)$ and ${\tilde N}_{23}(t)$ we conclude that the probability that both latter functions equal zero decays as $t^{-1}$. Since the latter is non-integrable, the probability that there exists a finite time $t$ such that ${\tilde N}_{13}(t)={\tilde N}_{23}(t)=0$ is one. For three functions ${\tilde N}_{ij}(t)$ the corresponding probability would decay as $t^{-3/2}$ and the recurrence probability is strictly less than one. This argument can be generalized to the recurrence of $({\tilde N}_{13}, {\tilde N}_{23})=(m, n)$ for any $m$, $n$.
The derivation can be generalized to $D=2$, where the usual Langevin dynamics does not hold. Such a generalization is important because billiards on $D=2$ tori were studied extensively. For $D=2$ the correlations of $\xi_{ij}$ are expected [@EW; @PR] to decay as $1/t$ making $\Gamma_{ij, mn}$ in Eq. (\[a\]) divergent. As a result the CLT cannot be used, however the recurrence still holds. The dispersion of ${\tilde N}_{ij}(t)$ grows at $t\ln t$, so the probability that ${\tilde N}_{ij}(t)=0$ decays as $(t\ln t)^{-1/2}$. The logarithmic correction does not change the convergence/divergence of the corresponding integrals and the argument above can be repeated. Thus we expect the conjecture also to hold in $D=2$.
We showed a use of the ergodic theory to approach a single realization of a chaotic dynamics. The basic observation is that under the assumption of a finite correlation time, natural for the considered systems, the PDF of the numbers of collisions of pairs of particles is described by the CLT. This allows to introduce Langevin’s equations that provide an effective description of the dynamics of those numbers. Based on this description, the behavior of the realizations of which is well-known, one can draw conclusions on the behavior of the billiard’s trajectories. For this one concentrates on facts that hold for the Langevin dynamics with probability one. Using the return properties of the random walks, we demonstrated that for every triplet of particles in the billiard there is an infinite sequence of times where the differences of the collision numbers of all three pairs take an arbitrary fixed value. Furthermore, any value of three and more linearly independent differences of collision numbers, definable for $K>3$, repeats but a finite number of times.
The conjecture involves the continuous approximation to the discrete process $c_i$ via the approximate dynamics of $N_{ij}(t)$. It would be advantageous to study the discrete random walk $c_i$ directly. This would demand the consideration of the one-dimensional random walk $N_{ij}(t)-N_{mn}(t)$ and the two-dimensional discrete random walk $[N_{ij}(t)-N_{mn}(t), N_{pr}(t)-N_{kl}(t)]$. Both walks occur on the lattice with step size one. However, there are two major differences from the usual discrete random walk. First, the times between different steps of the walk are random. Second, both, the time intervals between one step of the walk and the next one, and $c_i$ and $c_{i+1}$ are not independent. Thus the description of the appropriate random walk would demand either the consideration of detailed joint PDFs of time-intervals between the steps, or introducing a certain coarse-graining in time making the subsequent steps of the walk independent. The latter approach would involve a continuous approximation to $N_{ij}(t)$ and it can be said that our work does just that.
The described phenomena apply to any number of particles larger than one as long as the ergodic theory applies. Since they concern large numbers of collisions of the same pairs of particles, their practical observation (either numerical or experimental) demands considering systems with a relatively small number of particles. The results might also apply to the Lyapunov modes of large systems, that involve a small number of particles [@Harald].
The hypothesis applies to almost every trajectory only. In particular, we do not consider those initial conditions for which the hard-sphere dynamics is ill-defined, which phase space volume was shown to vanish [@Alexander].
Within the approximation used in the Boltzmann equation, the collisions in the gas of particles with short-range interactions are considered instantaneous. Thus the conjecture proposed here can be expected to hold for any gas of particles, where similar statistical properties of $N_{ij}(t)$ hold. In particular, our derivation of the effective Langevin description, allows direct generalization to the gas \[for the gas, one can again introduce the time-scale $\delta$ where the colliding pair is “isolated” and the appropriate spatial scale $\sqrt{\epsilon}$\]. We will report elsewhere the numerical studies of the conjecture proposed here, both for hard spheres and for the gas with short-range interactions [@JI].
In this work we used the ergodic theory to derive quite detailed dynamical properties of almost all trajectories of the billiard. We showed that any prescribed value of two differences of collision numbers will repeat indefinitely. On the other hand, any value of three and more differences of collision numbers repeats but a finite number of times. These properties seem to be non-obvious from dynamical standpoint. The study of the underlying assumption of the asymptotic independence of $c_i$ and $c_{i+m}$ at large $m$, both numerical and theoretical, is the subject for further analysis [@JI].
We thank N. Chernov and N. Simanyi for very useful remarks that helped to improve the paper significantly.
[99]{} L. Boltzmann, [*Lectures on gas theory*]{}, Dover Publications, New York, 1995. Ya. G. Sinai, [*Topics in Ergodic Theory*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1994. J. R. Dorfman, [*An Introduction to Chaos in Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999. Ya. G. Sinai, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 153, 1261-1264 (1963). Ya. G. Sinai, Russian Math. Surveys 25:2, 137-189 (1970). N. Simanyi, arXiv:1007.1206. D. Szasz (Ed.), [*Hard Ball Systems and the Lorentz Gas*]{}, Springer, 2000. A. Mulero (Ed.), [*Theory and Simulation of Hard-Sphere Fluids and Related Systems*]{}, Springer, 2010. N. Chernov and R. Markarian, [*Introduction to the Ergodic Theory of Chaotic Billiards*]{}, IMPA (2003). D. S. Ornstein, [*Ergodic Theory, Randomness, and Dynamical Systems*]{}, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1974. G. Gallavotti and D. S. Ornstein, Comm. Math. Phys. [**38**]{}, 83-101 (1974). C. Forster, R. Hirschl, H. A Posch, and W. G. Hoover, Physica D [**187**]{}, 294 (2004). J.J. Erpenbeck and W.W. Wood, Phys. Rev. A [**26**]{}, 1648–1675 (1982). Y. Pomeau and P. Resibois, Phys. Rep. [**19**]{}, 63-139 (1975). E. W. Montroll, J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math., [**4**]{}, 241-260 (1956). P. Morters and Y. Peres, [*Brownian Motion*]{}, Cambridge University Press (2010). A. J. Vidgop and I. Fouxon, in preparation. D. P. Sanders, Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 060101R (2008). R.K. Alexander, [*The infinite hard-sphere system*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Berkeley (1975).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Victor ConnesNicolas Dugué\
[ (1) Le Mans Université, LIUM, EA 4023, Laboratoire d’Informatique de l’Université du Mans\
(2) LS2N Université de Nantes – faculté des Sciences et Techniques (FST) Bâtiment 34 2 Chemin de la Houssinière BP 92208, 44322 Nantes Cedex 3\
` [email protected], [email protected] `]{}
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Apprentissage de plongements lexicaux par une approche réseaux complexes
---
Introduction
============
Dans l’état de l’art de l’apprentissage de plongements lexicaux, on recense de nombreuses approches basées sur une matrice de co-occurrences termes-termes construite en utilisant de grands corpus [@pennington_glove:_2014; @goldberg_improving_nodate]. Les auteurs factorisent ensuite cette matrice creuse de façon à obtenir un nouvel espace dans lequel chaque terme est représenté par un vecteur dense.
Dans le domaine des réseaux complexes, ces matrices de co-occurrences sont appelées *graphes* ou *réseaux*. L’étude du langage naturel par le prisme des réseaux complexes n’est pas une science nouvelle. L’état de l’art du domaine utilise également de grands corpus pour construire des réseaux $G=(V,E)$ tels que chaque nœud $u \in V$ du réseau représente un terme du vocabulaire, et un lien $(u,v) \in E$ entre deux nœuds représente une co-occurrence dans le corpus entre deux termes. Ces réseaux peuvent être dirigés, ou valués, on se dote alors d’une fonction $w$ qui associe un poids à chaque lien $w:E \to {\rm I\!R}$.
Ces travaux ont notamment permis de révéler plusieurs propriétés de ces réseaux et ainsi de mieux comprendre la façon dont est construite la langue : ces réseaux sont petit-monde [@i_cancho_small_2001], sans-échelle avec une loi de puissance à deux vitesses [@i_cancho_small_2001] expliquée par le modèle de @dorogovtsev_language_2001, et le poids des liens suit également une loi de puissance dans le cas des réseaux valués [@gao_comparison_2014; @masucci_network_2006].
Parmi les propriétés observées, ce papier se concentre sur la présence d’une structure de communautés dans ces réseaux [@newman_analysis_2004]. La structure de communautés d’un réseau est une partition des nœuds du réseau telle que pour chaque partie, les nœuds sont plus connectés entre eux qu’avec le reste du réseau [@newman2004finding]. Nous faisons l’hypothèse que cette structure de communautés permet de construire des plongements lexicaux.
Cette hypothèse se base sur deux constats. Le premier vient des exemples de @palla_uncovering_2005 qui semblent indiquer que les communautés encapsulent une partie de l’information sémantique. D’ailleurs, la définition de la structure de communautés vient appuyer ce constat : pour chaque partie (communauté) de la partition (structure de communautés), les nœuds sont plus connectés entre eux qu’avec le reste du réseau. Au regard de l’hypothèse de Firth “*a word is characterized by the company it keeps*”, on comprend que chaque communauté sera constituée de mots qui seront utiles pour se caractériser les uns les autres. Le second constat vient de certains travaux de la littérature qui mettent en évidence les liens entre décomposition en valeur singulière (SVD) et détection de communautés [@sarkar_community_2011]. Or, appliquer une SVD à une matrice de co-occurrences pondérée par la *positive pointwise mutual information* est une méthode efficace pour aboutir à des plongements lexicaux [@goldberg_improving_nodate].
Nous présentons donc Section \[sec:methode\] notre approche basée sur la détection de communautés pour extraire des plongements. Cette approche considère chaque communauté comme une dimension, et les liens d’un nœud vers ces communautés permettent de calculer pour chaque dimension la valeur de la composante. Nous montrons Section \[sec:resultats\] que les résultats expérimentaux démontrent la pertinence de l’approche, d’un point de vue qualitatif, mais également quantitatif. Enfin, nous discuterons Section \[sec:discussion\] des avantages d’une telle approche. Tout d’abord, celle-ci permet d’espérer des dimensions interprétables. Ensuite, le calcul d’un plongement pour un terme est très rapide. Enfin, ce type d’approche ouvre des perspectives pour créer des plongements lexicaux évoluant dans le temps via des algorithmes de détection de communautés incrémentaux.
Méthode {#sec:methode}
=======
#### Données.
Les données utilisées sont les GoogleBooksNgram [^1] anglais, corpus BristishEnglish et EnglishFiction. Les GoogleBooksNgram sont des recueils de co-occurrences de termes observées sur une grande bibliothèque de textes allant des années 1800 à 2008. Les co-occurrences sont fournies avec une fenêtre de contexte allant de 2 à 5. Pour nos expériences, nous avons conservé seulement les co-occurrences observées depuis 1980 aboutissant à un vocabulaire avant pré-traitements d’environ $380000$ termes.
#### Construction et pré-traitement du réseau.
Une fois le réseau créé en exploitant les co-occurrences d’un corpus textuel avec une fenêtre de taille $f$, on obtient alors $G=(V,E,w)$ comme décrit. Pour rappel, l’ensemble des nœuds $V$ est équivalent au *vocabulaire* considéré, l’ensemble des liens $E$ représente les co-occurrences entre les termes du vocabulaire, et on définit la pondération des liens de $E$ avec la fonction $w(u, v)$, qui vaut le nombre de co-occurrences observées entre les termes représentés par les nœuds $u$ et $v$ dans le corpus en considérant le paramètre $f$. Dans le but de ne conserver que les co-occurrences ayant une valeur sémantique, nous supprimons les liens entre les nœuds qui ne révèlent pas une dépendance statistique significative en utilisant l’Éq. \[eq:ppmi\] : $$\label{eq:ppmi}
ppmi(w, c) = max\Bigg(0, log_2\bigg(\frac{p(u, v)}{p(v)p(u)}\bigg)\Bigg)$$ Ce pré-traitement du réseau découle directement de ce qui est préconisé par l’état de l’art, notamment par @goldberg_improving_nodate. Mais il semble également pertinent de l’appliquer pour simplifier le travail de l’algorithme de détection de communautés, dont les résultats s’améliorent avec des pré-traitements de type seuillage ou repondération [@yan2018weight].
Dans le but d’alléger le réseau avec un filtre basse-fréquence, nous appliquons l’algorithme \[alg:kcoeur\] qui permet d’obtenir le $k$-cœur du réseau [@matula_smallest-last_1983] : il s’agit de supprimer tous les nœuds ayant moins de $k$ voisins de manière récursive jusqu’à que tous les nœuds restant dans le réseau soient connectés à au moins $k$ voisins.
\[algo:kcore\] $G=(V,E)$ graphe, $k$ entier\
$convergence \leftarrow False$ $convergence \leftarrow True$; $V' \leftarrow \{\}$ $V' \leftarrow V' \cup \{n\}$; $convergence \leftarrow False$ $V \leftarrow V \setminus V'$ G
Enfin, dans le but de supprimer les mots vides et de limiter l’influence des hautes fréquences (comme dans Glove [@pennington_glove:_2014] ou Word2vec [@mikolov2013distributed], nous choisissons de supprimer les $ntop$ nœuds de plus haut degré. Les meilleurs résultats sont empiriquement obtenus pour $ntop$ = 200 et $k$ = 10. Après pré-traitement, nous aboutissons à un vocabulaire de $135.000$ mots dans le cas de notre corpus.
#### Détection de communautés.
Une fois le réseau généré et pré-traité, la seconde étape consiste à détecter les communautés qui serviront par la suite de dimensions aux vecteurs de plongement lexicaux. On dit que $C$ est une partition de $V$ telle que $C = \{C_0, C_1, ..., C_{n}\}$ avec $\cup_i C_i \in C = V$. S’il n’existe pas de définition unique du concept de communauté, une structure de communautés est souvent définie comme une partition du réseau telle que les nœuds de chaque partie sont plus connectés entre eux qu’avec le reste du réseau.
De nombreuses méthodes existent pour réaliser l’extraction de ces communautés. Nous avons choisi l’algorithme \[algo:LP\] de propagation de labels introduit par @raghavan_near_2007, dont la complexité est quasi-linéaire en $O(|V|)$, et qui génère *théoriquement* des communautés dont les tailles suivent une distribution permettant d’éviter d’avoir en grand nombre des communautés trop grandes (fourre-tout) ou trop petites (trop spécifiques) [@dao_estimating_2018]. En pratique, on constate Figure \[fig:distribution\] un très grand nombre de petites communautés. Il s’agirait de considérer des adaptations de l’algorithme de propagation de labels pour éviter cet écueil.
\[algo:LP\] $G=(V, E, w)$ graphe\
$\forall n \in V, c(n) \leftarrow n$\
\
\
$C(n) \leftarrow countmax( \{c(v),\ \forall v \in voisins(n)\}, w)$\
C
![Distribution de la taille des communautés (en log-log) \[fig:distribution\]](distribution){width="80.00000%"}
#### Extraction des plongements lexicaux.
Une fois les communautés extraites, il reste à construire les plongements pour notre vocabulaire. Pour ce faire, nous considérons la distribution des liens de chaque nœud à travers les communautés. Néanmoins, il s’agit de prendre en compte l’influence du degré du nœud et de celui de ses voisins. Prenons un exemple pour clarifier : celui des mots *escroc* et *aigrefin*. Ces deux mots sont proches d’un point de vue sémantique. Par contre, *escroc* est plus fréquent qu’*aigrefin*. Il sera donc mécaniquement d’un degré pondéré plus élevé. Une fois cette remarque faite, on se rend compte que si on considère seulement la distribution d’*escroc* dans les communautés pour créer son plongement, la norme de son vecteur sera plus grande que celle d’*aigrefin*. Par ailleurs, la taille des communautés a une influence similaire. L’algorithme de détection de communautés aboutit (sauf exception) à une partition dont les tailles des communautés sont hétérogènes. Si l’on ne tient pas compte de cet état de fait, les communautés les plus petites auront mécaniquement une composante plus faible que les grosses communautés dans les vecteurs. Ainsi, si on note $e_n$ le plongement du nœud représentant le mot $n$, $e_n \in {\rm I\!R}^{|C|}$ et $e_n^c$ la valeur de la composante correspondante à la communauté $c$ de $e_n$, cette valeur se calculera ainsi :
$$\hat{e}_n^c = \frac{1}{|N^c(e_n)|}\sum_{v \in N^c(e_n)}sppmi(n, v)$$
$$e_n^c = \frac{\hat{e}_n^c - \mu(\hat{e}_*^c)}{\sigma(\hat{e}_*^c)}
\label{eq:zscore}$$
\[eq:embedding\] Avec $N^c(e_n)=voisins(n)\cap C_c$, *i.e.* l’ensemble des voisins du noeud représentant le mot $n$ appartenant à la communauté $c$, $\mu(\hat{e}_*^c)$ et $\sigma(\hat{e}_*^c)$ respectivement la moyenne et l’écart-type des valeurs de $\hat{e}_n^c$, $\forall n \in V$ et $sppmi$ une version normalisée de la $ppmi$ (Éq. \[eq:ppmi\]) à valeur dans $\left[0, 1\right]$.
L’utilisation de la $sppmi$ nous permet de contrebalancer l’influence du degré du nœud et de celui de ses voisins, celle du *z-score* (Éq. \[eq:zscore\]) l’influence de la taille des communautés. L’exemple de la Figure \[fig:chirac\] illustre le résultat une fois toutes les étapes réalisées, en proposant une visualisation des vecteurs de *bush*, *putin* et *chirac* via les 30 dimensions les plus utiles pour la caractériser (10 par vecteur).
{width="60.00000%"}
Résultats {#sec:resultats}
=========
Nous débuterons cette section avec quelques évaluations empiriques purement qualitatives concernant la pertinence des dimensions exploitées (les communautés) et l’espace appris (les voisinages). Nous donnerons enfin des résultats quantitatifs qui démontrent l’intérêt de l’approche. Sur notre corpus, après pré-traitement, nous aboutissons à une taille de vocabulaire qui est d’un peu plus de $135.000$ mots, ce qui correspond au nombre de nœuds du graphe. Après détection de communautés, nous obtenons environ $30.000$ communautés (voir la distribution de leurs tailles Figure \[fig:distribution\]), soit des vecteurs de taille $30.000$. En revanche, on constate qu’en moyenne, seulement 300 (environ) composantes du vecteur sont non-nulles, les vecteurs sont donc extrêmement creux.
#### Communautés et interprétabilité.
En utilisant des méthodes d’étiquetage des communautés, il est possible d’évaluer empiriquement la pertinence de l’approche. Les communautés extraites constituent les dimensions des vecteurs qui semblent ainsi interprétables et cohérentes. Nous donnons ici en exemple trois communautés et leurs étiquettes caractéristiques :
- (’officiel’, ’republique’, ’parisienne’, ’couture’, ’senat’)
- (’copper’, ’iron’, ’stand’, ’metal’, ’upon’)
- (’volleyball’, ’handball’, ’softball’, ’badminton’, ’basketball’)
La première communauté regroupe les mots français du corpus. La seconde concentre du vocabulaire lié aux métaux même si l’on peut constater qu’on y trouve des intrus (*stand* et *upon*). Enfin, la dernière communauté regroupe du vocabulaire lié au sport. Ce sont les mêmes méthodes d’étiquetage qui sont utilisées dans la Figure \[fig:chirac\] pour étiqueter chaque dimension des vecteurs visualisés. On reconnaît un bon nombre de ces étiquettes comme par exemple *Delors* (Jacques), *rpr* (Rassemblement pour la république), *Jospin* (Lionel) pour caractériser le vecteur de Jacques Chirac. Il est particulièrement intéressant de s’intéresser au vecteur *bush*, où l’on trouve *Mcarthy* (Joseph), ou encore *Putin* (Vladimir) mais également des noms d’arbustes puisque c’est l’un des sens de *bush* (*azalea*, *fuschia*). Grâce à l’interprétabilité du modèle, nous pouvons ainsi observer la façon dont celui-ci intègre la polysémie/l’homonymie.
#### Base canonique et interprétabilité.
Avec une approche telle que celle de *Word2Vec*, il est difficile d’interpréter les dimensions. Tout d’abord, supposer qu’il est possible d’interpréter les dimensions revient à faire l’hypothèse que chaque dimension peut être considérée indépendamment des autres, et que chaque dimension a un sens cohérent, i.e. qu’explorer les vecteurs colinéaires aux vecteurs de la base canonique de l’espace appris permettrait d’extraire ces *sens*. Empiriquement, il est pourtant difficile d’affirmer cela. Considérons un modèle Word2vec à 300 dimensions appris sur le corpus Google News [@mikolov2013distributed], et prenons des contre-exemples simples. Soit $C$ la base canonique de l’espace de dimension $300$ de notre expérimentation telle que $C=\left\lbrace e_1=(1, 0, 0, \cdots, 0), e_2=(0, 1, 0, \cdots, 0), \cdots, e_{300}=(0, 0, 0, \cdots, 1) \right\rbrace$.
- Considérons ainsi les 10 termes les plus proches de $e_4$ dans l’espace : Ginsburgs, Dinty Moore, jelly sandwiches, cheartier appetites, they’d, Fabens fliers, banana republics, isn, Chipotle burritos, payroll deduction.
- Pour $e_9$, nous obtenons les résultats suivants : costliest natural disasters, counterparty defaults, mute button, closely scrutinized, Bernankes, damage Minsch, student Tyler Clementi, degraded Kenneth Merten, historian Bob Kreipke, Nishu Sood.
Il semble très difficile de tirer une quelconque cohérence dans les termes qui sont retournés, contrairement aux communautés précédemment citées. Les communautés sont en effet des objets concrets, des ensembles de mots du corpus qui sont particulièrement connectés ensemble, et elles peuvent de plus être considérées indépendamment les unes des autres.
Considérons maintenant notre modèle et les vecteurs canoniques de l’espace constitué via l’extraction des communautés. Dans notre modèle comme dans les autres, il est possible d’extraire les plus proches voisins d’un mot ou d’un vecteur en utilisant la similarité *cosine* pour évaluer la distance entre deux vecteurs. Considérons dans les cas des deux exemples suivants les $10$ vecteurs les plus proches du vecteur canonique dont la composante non-nulle correspond à la communauté qui contient le mot **alcohol**, puis **petal** :
- mannite, dinitro, polyhydric, benzole, benzol, lactose, fermenter, disaccharide, bisulphide, reconverted.
- sepal, papilionaceous, floret, stamen, blotch, dewdrops, petals, bracts, corolla.
Dans le premier exemple, de manière générale, on obtient des termes liés à l’alcool directement : *mannite* pour le manniotal qui est un alcool, *polyhydric* parce que les alcools de sucre sont dits polyhydriques ; des termes liés au sucre qui est l’un des éléments de base pour la création d’alcool (*lactose*, *disaccharise*), au processus de création d’alcool (*fermenter*), ou à la chimie (*dinitro*, *bisulphide*). Dans le second exemple, tout ou presque est lié à la fleur : les sépales (*sepal*), les étamines (*stamen*), *papilionaceous* qui est une fleur, *drewdrop* qui signifie goutte de rosée, *bract* qui est une petite feuille, *corolla* qui est un synonyme de pétale. Dans ces deux cas, il existe un fort recouvrement entre les $10$ plus proches voisins mentionnés ci-dessus et les représentants les plus caractéristiques de la communauté (étiquettes).
Un autre exemple parlant est celui du vecteur $e_{746}$ de notre modèle dont les $10$ plus proches voisins sont : sifteen, fiftyfour, fortyseven, fiftyseven, sixtyfive, fortysix, fiftyfive, sixtyseven, twentyeight, twentyseven.
La distance *cosine* peut comme dans les autres modèles être exploitée pour étudier la similarité entre les termes du vocabulaire, pas seulement avec les vecteurs canoniques. Ainsi, la liste de voisins suivante fournit quelques exemples de résultats illustrant le bon fonctionnement de la méthode :
- metal: (metals, metallic, iron, copper, steel, alloy, aluminium, oxides, chromium)
- picture: (pictures, portrait, image, painting, view, images, depiction, portrayal, painted)
- salad: (mayonnaise, ketchup, lettuce, tomato, vegetables, sauce, celery, mashed, cheese)
- mars: (altimeter, orbiter, venus, saturn, jupiter, orbit, pioneer, planets, planet)
- news: (television, cnn, bbc, pathe, nbc, tidings, newspapers, cbs, gaumont)
#### Comparaison à l’état de l’art.
Pour obtenir des résultats quantitatifs, nous comparons notre approche à celles de l’état de l’art en considérant deux tâches d’évaluation [@schnabel_evaluation_2015] :
Similarité
: La tâche de similarité se présente comme une base de données de paires de mots, avec pour chaque paire un score associé. Le score de similarité entre deux mots est issu d’une évaluation humaine. La qualité du modèle peut donc être évaluée en calculant la corrélation entre le vecteur de score humain et le vecteur de distances entre les vecteurs appris. Une corrélation linéaire (coefficient de *Spearman* proche de $1$) correspond à un modèle complètement en accord avec l’évaluation humaine.
Catégorisation
: La tâche de catégorisation se présente comme une base de données de paires (mot, catégorie). Le but est de réussir à regrouper des mots en différentes catégories en utilisant les vecteurs appris. Pour faire cela, on opère une analyse de regroupement sur les vecteurs appris. On évalue ensuite le modèle en calculant la pureté entre les regroupements et la catégorisation humaine.
Nous utilisons la librairie *word-embeddings-benchmarks*[^2] pour réaliser nos évaluations [@jastrzebski2017evaluate]. Nous comparons nos résultats à ceux obtenus avec des plongements pré-entraînés accessibles en ligne en utilisant cette librairie. Les plongements utilisés sont ceux obtenus via les méthodes Glove [@pennington_glove:_2014], NMT [@hill2014embedding], HDC et PDC [@sun2015learning], Skip-gram [@mikolov2013distributed] et Lexvec [@salle2016enhancing].
Les résultats Table \[tab:res\] sont encourageants, ils montrent que notre approche est pertinente. Pour chaque tableau, nous comparons les résultats de notre méthode aux meilleurs résultats des méthodes de l’état de l’art citées, pour $50$ et $300$ dimensions. Sur deux corpus (en gras dans la Table), l’un exploité pour la tâche de similarité, l’autre pour la tâche de catégorisation, notre méthode obtient des résultats comparables à celles de l’état de l’art auxquelles nous nous comparons. Dans le reste des cas, notre méthode obtient des résultats supérieurs aux performances des approches de l’état de l’art paramétrés pour retourner des vecteurs en dimension $50$, mais inférieurs lorsque ces vecteurs sont en dimension $300$. En accord avec l’état de l’art nos meilleurs résultats sont obtenus pour les plus grandes tailles de fenêtre ($f=5$ dans notre cas).
Discussion et perspectives {#sec:discussion}
==========================
Nous avons décrit une méthode originale d’apprentissage de plongements lexicaux basée sur une approche réseaux complexes. Nous proposons d’utiliser les communautés détectées sur le réseau de co-occurrences représentant le corpus comme dimensions de nos plongements. Les vecteurs sont ensuite directement extraits de la distribution des liens de chaque nœud à travers la structure communautaire. Les résultats qualitatifs et quantitatifs montrent la pertinence de l’approche qui obtient des scores comparables à l’état de l’art. Néanmoins, une étude avec les mêmes méta-paramètres (corpus, taille de fenêtre) semblent nécessaire pour se situer exactement par rapport à l’état de l’art.
Cette approche a pour avantage de fournir des dimensions qui sont des objets concrets, physiquement existants : les communautés. Ces dimensions semblent donc interprétables : il est possible de consulter le contenu de ces communautés, de les étiqueter avec des éléments caractéristiques. Néanmoins, cela ne garantit pas l’interprétabilité des vecteurs appris. Pour que ces vecteurs soient interprétables, il s’agit à notre sens de réunir deux conditions. La première, est de disposer d’un étiquetage suffisamment précis pour qu’il soit tout à fait compréhensible. La seconde nécessite d’avoir un vecteur de taille raisonnable, ou du moins un vecteur creux afin de ne pas avoir trop de communautés à inspecter. Ces questions sont en lien direct avec le paramétrage des algorithmes de détection de communautés et constituent des perspectives directes de notre travail. Nous souhaitons en effet travailler à évaluer l’interprétabilité des vecteurs extraits par notre méthode par des humains.
De plus, notre méthode permet l’extraction rapide du plongement d’un mot ou d’une expression. Le calcul de ce vecteur découle en effet directement de la connectivité du nœud qui représente le mot, de la façon dont ses liens se dispersent au sein de la structure communautaire. Ainsi, le calcul du vecteur d’un nouveau mot ou d’une expression composée ne nécessite pas de réapprendre un modèle, mais simplement d’ajouter le terme au réseau pour extraire le vecteur.
Enfin, les langues évoluent avec le temps : le sens des mots change ou de nouveaux sens apparaissent. Ces évolutions de la langue ont été décrites, notamment par @bloomfield1983introduction [@mitra2015automatic]. Des travaux considèrent des méthodes automatiques basées sur les plongements lexicaux et de grands corpus temporels pour la détection de ces néologismes sémantiques [@tang_state---art_2018]. Ces méthodes peuvent être séparées en deux classes. La première classe est celle des méthodes *diachroniques* : elles discrétisent le temps et séparent ainsi le corpus en plusieurs sous-corpus. Sur chacun de ces sous-corpus, les auteurs proposent d’apprendre des plongements lexicaux puis d’aligner les espaces appris entre les sous-corpus deux à deux [@hamilton_diachronic_2016]. Ces approches sont basées sur l’hypothèse très forte qu’il est possible d’aligner des espaces différents issus d’algorithmes non déterministes aboutissant à des résultats sous-optimaux. La seconde classe, celle des méthodes *dynamiques*, propose une optimisation globale de tous les plongements du vocabulaire à travers le temps, aboutissant à un problème gourmand en calcul et très difficile [@bamler_dynamic_2017]. Notre approche peut permettre d’ouvrir le champ à de nouveaux travaux basés sur les algorithmes de détection de communautés incrémentaux [@xie2013labelrankt]. Cela permettrait ainsi de s’abstraire d’une optimisation globale coûteuse, et de contourner l’hypothèse d’alignement diachronique des espaces.
[^1]: http://storage.googleapis.com/books/ngrams/books/datasetsv2.html
[^2]: https://github.com/kudkudak/word-embeddings-benchmarks
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Experiments on trapped quantum gases can probe challenging regimes of quantum many-body dynamics, where strong interactions or non-equilibrium states prevent exact solutions. Here we present an exact result which holds even when no exact solutions can be found: a class of spacetime mappings of different experiments onto each other, as long as the gas particles interact via two-body potentials which possess a scaling property that most real interactions do possess. Since our result is an identity relating second-quantized field operators in the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics, it is otherwise general; it applies to arbitrary measurements on any mixtures of Bose or Fermi gases, in arbitrary initial states. Practical applications of this mapping include perfect simulation of non-trivial experiments with other experiments which may be easier to perform.'
author:
- 'Etienne Wamba$^{1,2}$'
- 'Axel Pelster$^{1}$'
- 'James R. Anglin$^{1}$'
title: Exact quantum field mappings between different experiments on quantum gases
---
Spacetime coordinate transformations have long been used to map different solvable theoretical problems onto each other. A transformation introduced in 1890 by Poincaré [@poincare] has for example been used by Kustaanheimo and Stiefel to map the three-dimensional Kepler problem onto the four-dimensional harmonic oscillator [@stiefel1], and thereby improve the numerical stability of perturbative calculations in celestial mechanics [@stiefel2]. The same mapping works in quantum mechanics [@duru1; @duru2], along with many other spacetime mappings between analytically solvable quantum systems [@jackiw; @inomata; @pelster1; @kleinert; @grosche], such as that between the one-dimensional harmonic oscillator and free particle [@inomata; @pelster1; @kleinert]. Spacetime mappings have also been constructed between Markov processes [@pelster2].
In quantum many-body theory, exactly solvable problems are rare, but spacetime mappings have been used in special cases to obtain additional evolution solutions by mapping them onto known ones. For quantum gases with certain special forms of inter-particle interaction, such as a $1/r^{2}$ potential [@Benj] or a short-ranged interaction with infinite scattering length [@Castin], or for systems confined effectively to two spatial dimensions [@Pitaevskii], non-trivial time-dependent many-body wave functions can be found exactly by taking a simpler known wave function, and transforming its space and time co-ordinates in a certain way. Scaling solutions have been found for general initial states within the Gross-Pitaevskii mean field approximation for the evolution of dilute Bose-Einstein condensates, either in two dimensions, or in further hydrodynamic approximation [@CastinDum; @Kagan], or in one dimension with an introduced imaginary potential [@Theocharis], or with only three-body interactions [@Wu]. A spacetime transformation closely related to these scaling solutions has also been used, in mean-field theory in one dimension, to map evolution in time-dependent harmonic traps onto evolution with no trap, but with time-dependent interactions [@Etienne1; @Etienne2].
Here we show that allowing time-dependent two-body interactions lets us extend the mean-field spacetime mapping to full quantum field theory, whose description of real quantum gases is itself essentially exact. This makes our class of spacetime mappings valid, not just between a few specially solvable theoretical problems, but between real experiments — even if neither of the mapped experiments can be theoretically solved: see Fig. 1. Our mappings apply, moreover, to any mixtures of Bose or Fermi gases, in any number of dimensions, and for a class of interactions that includes most experimentally relevant cases. No restriction on initial states is required, because the mappings relate time-dependent operators in the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics, in which all quantum states are time-independent [@Cohen-Tannoudji].
![Spacetime mapping between expectation values of an arbitrary observable $\hat{O}$ in different experiments. The mapping consists of a time-dependent dilatation of space and multiplication of field operators by a Gaussian phase factor, and it relates observables at different times in the two experiments, which may be very different procedures. A might for example be free expansion after turning off the trap, while B is ramping to a Feshbach resonance. Observables are the same in the two experiments initially, because the gas is prepared in the same (arbitrary) state. []{data-label="fig0"}](Fig0.png){width="3.0in"}
In the Heisenberg picture, the evolution of all observables is given, for any pure or mixed quantum state, by the equations of motion for the associated operators [@Cohen-Tannoudji]. For a quantum gas, all observables may be expressed in terms of the second-quantized field operator $\hat{\psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)$, which destroys a particle of type $n$, and of its Hermitian conjugate field $\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)$, which correspondingly creates a particle, at position $\mathbf{r}$ and time $t$. Since effectively one- or two-dimensional systems can be realized with ultracold atomic gases (by applying strong confining forces in transverse directions), we consider $\mathbf{r}$ to be in $D=1,2,$ or 3 dimensions. With the canonical (anti-)commutation relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CCR}
[\hat{\psi}_{m}(\mathbf{r},t),\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}_{n}(\mathbf{r}',t)]_{\pm}=\delta_{mn}\delta^{D}(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}')\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $[\hat{A},\hat{B}]_{\pm}=\hat{A}\hat{B}\pm\hat{B}\hat{A}$, this description is equally applicable to fermions and bosons. Any experimental measurements can be expressed in terms of expectation values of $N$-point functions, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Npoint}
F_{\mathbf{n},\mathbf{m}}(\mathbf{R},\mathbf{R}',t)&=&\left\langle \left[\Pi_{j=1}^{N}\hat{\psi}_{n_{j}}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{r}'_{j},t)\right]\left[\Pi_{j=1}^{N}\hat{\psi}_{m_{j}}(\mathbf{r}_{j},t)\right]\right\rangle\nonumber\\
\hbox{where }\mathbf{n}&=&\{n_{1},...,n_{N}\}\hbox{ and } \mathbf{R}=\{\mathbf{r}_{1},...,\mathbf{r}_{N}\}\;.\end{aligned}$$ The time dependence of all observables is thus determined by the time dependence of the quantum fields. For a quantum gas whose particles may be of several species $n$ with possibly different masses $M_{n}$, with general two-body interactions in $D$ dimensions, the Heisenberg equation of motion for the field operator reads
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{HE}
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\hat{\psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t) = \left[-\frac{\hbar^{2}\nabla^{2}}{2M_{n}} + V_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)\right]\hat{\psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t) + \sum_{klm}\int\!d^{D}r'\,U_{klmn}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',t)\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}_{k}(\mathbf{r}',t)\hat{\psi}_{l}(\mathbf{r}',t)\hat{\psi}_{m}(\mathbf{r},t)\;,\end{aligned}$$
where $V_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)$ is the external potential felt by the particles of type $n$, and $U_{klmn}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',t)$ is the general two-particle interaction, which may possibly mix different particle species (such as by including spin flips) but cannot change particle masses (*i.e.* $U_{klmn}=0$ except for $k,l,m,n$ such that $M_{k}=M_{l}$ and $M_{m}=M_{n}$). By exploiting collisional resonances controlled with time-dependent external fields [@Feshbach], $U$ can also be made time-dependent in essentially any way, including being ramped to very large positive or negative values.
Here we will consider cases where $U$ is a homogeneous function of its spatial arguments: $U_{klmn}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\lambda\mathbf{r}',t)=\lambda^{-s}U_{klmn}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',t)$, for some real number $s$, for any real factor $\lambda$. Most physically relevant interactions have this property, for some $s$; for a so-called contact interaction (Fermi-Huang pseudo-potential), $s=D$; for an electric or magnetic dipole-dipole interaction, $s=3$ (since experiments do not confine the electromagnetic fields into lower dimensions).
The spacetime mapping identity is as follows. Suppose that some particular set of time-dependent quantum fields $\hat{\psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)$ satisfy (\[HE\]), for some particular $V_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)$ and $U$. We then define a second set of quantum fields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dual}
\hat{\Psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t) = e^{-\frac{iM_{n}}{2\hbar}\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}r^{2}}\lambda^{D/2}\hat{\psi}_{n}(\lambda \mathbf{r},\tau(t))\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda = \lambda(t)$, $\dot{\lambda}(t)\equiv d\lambda/dt$, and (importantly) $d\tau/dt = \lambda^{2}$. The canonical (anti-)commutation relations (\[CCR\]) for $\hat{\psi}_{n},\hat{\psi}_{n}^{\dagger}$ then imply that the $\hat{\Psi}_{n},\hat{\Psi}_{n}^{\dagger}$ satisfy the same relations and are just as canonical.
Using the fact that $\hat{\psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)$ obeys (\[HE\]), it is then straightforward to show (see our Supplementary Material) that $\hat{\Psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)$ also satisfies (\[HE\]), but with $V_{n}\to\tilde{V}_{n}$ and $U\to\tilde{U}$, for $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tildevars}
\tilde{V}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t) &=& \lambda^{2}V_{n}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau(t))+\frac{M_{n}r^{2}}{2}\lambda^{3}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}\frac{d}{dt}\right)^{2}\lambda\nonumber\\
\tilde{U}_{klmn}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',t) &=& [\lambda(t)]^{(2-s)}U_{klmn}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',t)\;.\end{aligned}$$
This formal identity gains a concrete physical meaning when we further stipulate that $\lambda(0)=1$, $\dot{\lambda}(0)=0$, and $\tau(0)=0$, so that $\hat{\Psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},0)=\hat{\psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},0)$. At time $t=0$, therefore, the expectation values of any combination of $\hat{\Psi}_{n}$ and $\hat{\Psi}^{\dagger}_{n}$ operators, in any pure or mixed quantum state, will be identical to the expectation values, in the same quantum state, of the same combination of $\hat{{\psi}}_{n}$ and $\hat{{\psi}}^{\dagger}_{n}$ operators. The time-dependent $\hat{\Psi}_{n}$ and $\hat{{\psi}}_{n}$ operators therefore represent two different time evolutions of a quantum gas from the same initial conditions at $t=0$.
By comparing the two different Heisenberg equations which they obey, we can see that $\hat{\psi}_{n}$ represents the gas evolving with $V_{n}$ and $U$, while $\hat{\Psi}_{n}$ represents the gas evolving with $\tilde{V}_{n}$ and $\tilde{U}$. The two evolutions which the mapping relates thus represent the same gas evolving under different experimental procedures. Each of these two evolutions of an interacting quantum gas may be very complicated — perhaps impossible to compute theoretically — especially if the initial state is far from equilibrium; and the mapping is valid for any initial state.
To show what this means, we focus on a concrete example, in which $U$ is time-independent and $V_{n}=0$, but we achieve a constant, isotropic, harmonic potential $\tilde{V}_{n}=M_{n}\omega^{2}r^{2}/2$, having the same frequency $\omega$ for all species $n$, by choosing $\tau(t)=\omega^{-1}\tan(\omega t)$ and $\lambda(t) = \sec(\omega t)$ [@jackiwnote]. This indeed satisfies $\dot{\tau}=\lambda^{2}$, $\tau(0)=0$, $\lambda(0)=1$, and $\dot{\lambda}(0)=0$, but it provides $\tau(\frac{\pi}{2\omega})=\infty$. Hence an infinitely long time evolution of the $\hat{\psi}_{n}$ (for which $V_{n}=0$) is mapped onto the evolution of $\hat{\Psi}_{n}$ over only one quarter of a period of the harmonic trap with frequency $\omega$.
Furthermore, the time-independent $U$ has been mapped onto $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\tilde{U}_{klmn}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',t)= [\cos(\omega t)]^{s-2}U_{klmn}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')\;.\end{aligned}$$ This is experimentally achievable, even though (depending on the sign of $s-2$), $[\cos(\omega t)]^{s-2}$ may approach either $\infty$ or 0 as $\omega t\to\pi/2$. For a contact interaction ($s=D$), for example, this can be achieved experimentally in $D=2$ by doing nothing, or with a time-dependent magnetic field which approaches either a Feshbach resonance [@Feshbach] (for $D=1$), or a point of zero scattering length between two Feshbach resonances [@Feshbach] (for $D=3$). The result then is that we have mapped the evolution of a gas with time-independent interactions, and no trap, onto the evolution of a gas in a time-independent harmonic trap, with a certain time-dependent interaction.
The mapping is valid for any initial state, and how this state is prepared is of no theoretical consequence; for experimental convenience we can consider that the two experiments prepare their gases initially in the same isotropic harmonic trap, having the same frequency $\omega$ for all species, and with time-independent interactions $U$. In the first experiment (A), one simply turns off the trap at $t=0$, allowing the gas to expand until some final time $t_{\rm A}$. One then measures some $N$-point function (as in (\[Npoint\])), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Npoint2}
F^{\rm A}_{\mathbf{n},\mathbf{m}}(\mathbf{R},\mathbf{R}')&=&\left\langle \left[\Pi_{j=1}^{N}\hat{\psi}_{n_{j}}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{r}'_{j},t_{\rm A})\right]\left[\Pi_{j=1}^{N}\hat{\psi}_{m_{j}}(\mathbf{r}_{j},t_{\rm A})\right]\right\rangle\;.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In the second experiment (B), the trap is left on, but at $t=0$ one begins ramping a control parameter in such a way that $U\to [\cos(\omega t)]^{s-2}U=\tilde{U}$. One continues ramping until the final time $t_{\rm B}=\omega^{-1}\tan^{-1}(\omega t_{\rm A})<\pi/(2\omega)$. One then measures the $N$-point function, as in the A experiment. Since $\hat{\Psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)$ is the solution to the Heisenberg equations of motion under the B experimental conditions, the $N$-point function at $t_{\rm B}$ will be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Nprime}
F^{\rm B}_{\mathbf{n},\mathbf{m}}(\mathbf{R},\mathbf{R}')=\left\langle \left[\Pi_{j=1}^{N}\hat{\Psi}_{n_{j}}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{r}'_{j},t_{\rm B})\right]\left[\Pi_{j=1}^{N}\hat{\Psi}_{m_{j}}(\mathbf{r}_{j},t_{\rm B})\right]\right\rangle .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Applying (\[dual\]), however, and using the fact that $t_{\rm B}$ was defined by $\tan(\omega t_{\rm B})\equiv \omega t_{\rm A}$, we find the identity
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{identity}
F^{\rm B}_{\mathbf{n},\mathbf{m}}(\mathbf{R},\mathbf{R}')&=&\frac{e^{-\frac{i\omega\,\tan(\omega t_{\rm B})}{2\hbar}\sum_{j=1}^{N}(M_{n_{j}}r_{j}^{2}-M_{m_{j}}r_{j}^{'2})}}{[\cos(\omega t_{\rm B})]^{ND}}
F^{\rm A}_{\mathbf{n},\mathbf{m}}\left(\frac{\mathbf{R}}{\cos(\omega t_{\rm B})},\frac{\mathbf{R}'}{\cos(\omega t_{\rm B})}\right)\;.\end{aligned}$$
The identity (\[identity\]) is an example of how our general spacetime mapping (\[dual\]) implies concrete consequences: (\[identity\]) explicitly relates arbitrary measurements on interacting quantum gases which evolve under significantly different experimental conditions, after being prepared in the same arbitrary initial state. The usefulness of this result is admittedly limited by the fact that the B experiment, with the time-dependent interaction in the constant trap, can only run for the maximum duration of a quarter trap-period. A lot can happen during this time, however, especially if the initial state is far from equilibrium — and the mapping is valid for arbitrary states. It is also valid for arbitrary mixtures of Bose and/or Fermi gases, in arbitrarily many effective dimensions, having any two-particle interaction which is a homogeneous function of its spatial arguments (and which can be given the required time dependence in the B experiment). In the case of a contact interaction in one dimension ($s=1$), the interaction strength approaches infinity in the B experiment as $t_{\rm B}\to \pi/(2\omega)$, so it is possible to probe quite non-trivial many-body dynamics within our example scheme.
![Numerical results for Gross-Pitaevski mean-field evolution showing densities $|\psi(x,t)|^{2}$ (A) and $|\Psi(x,t)|^{2}$ (B), evolving under Eqn. (\[HE\]) with the operator fields replaced by complex classical fields, and a repulsive contact interaction whose initial strength is $U(x,x',0)=g(0)\delta(x-x')$ for $g(0)=50\hbar\omega a_{0}$ where $\omega$ is the initial trap frequency and $a_0=\sqrt{\hbar/(M\omega)}$ is the corresponding ground state width. The integrated densities are normalized to 1. Time and space are shown in units of $1/\omega$ and $a_0$, respectively; note the different ranges of space and time covered by the two plots. The two plots A and B correspond respectively to Experiments A (expansion with $V_{n}=0$, $g(t)=g(0)$) and B (ramped interaction with constant trap, $g(t)=g(0)\sec(\omega t)$), as described in the text. The spacetime transformation maps the two plots onto each other. Even when mean-field theory is not valid, the quantum field mapping remains exact; this Figure illustrates how it can relate non-trivial experiments. Here the initial state contains a dark soliton, which moves and changes in width while the whole cloud expands, and demonstrates how adiabaticity can break down at different times on different length scales. The dashed white curves in the B plot show the adiabatic Thomas-Fermi radius $R(t)=R(0)[\cos(\omega t)]^{-1/3}$. []{data-label="figs"}](expmtA_v3c.png "fig:"){width="3.0in"} ![Numerical results for Gross-Pitaevski mean-field evolution showing densities $|\psi(x,t)|^{2}$ (A) and $|\Psi(x,t)|^{2}$ (B), evolving under Eqn. (\[HE\]) with the operator fields replaced by complex classical fields, and a repulsive contact interaction whose initial strength is $U(x,x',0)=g(0)\delta(x-x')$ for $g(0)=50\hbar\omega a_{0}$ where $\omega$ is the initial trap frequency and $a_0=\sqrt{\hbar/(M\omega)}$ is the corresponding ground state width. The integrated densities are normalized to 1. Time and space are shown in units of $1/\omega$ and $a_0$, respectively; note the different ranges of space and time covered by the two plots. The two plots A and B correspond respectively to Experiments A (expansion with $V_{n}=0$, $g(t)=g(0)$) and B (ramped interaction with constant trap, $g(t)=g(0)\sec(\omega t)$), as described in the text. The spacetime transformation maps the two plots onto each other. Even when mean-field theory is not valid, the quantum field mapping remains exact; this Figure illustrates how it can relate non-trivial experiments. Here the initial state contains a dark soliton, which moves and changes in width while the whole cloud expands, and demonstrates how adiabaticity can break down at different times on different length scales. The dashed white curves in the B plot show the adiabatic Thomas-Fermi radius $R(t)=R(0)[\cos(\omega t)]^{-1/3}$. []{data-label="figs"}](expmtB_v3b.png "fig:"){width="3.0in"}
We illustrate our mapping for that one-dimensional case in Fig. 2. We cannot plot a quantum field, but it is straightforward to show that the spacetime transformation (\[dual\]) also serves to map between the classical field equations that are obtained by replacing the operator fields with complex c-number fields. These classical field theories are only mean-field approximations to quantum many-body dynamics, but they obey the same spacetime mapping identity, and thus serve to illustrate it.
Fig. \[figs\] shows $|\psi(x,t)|^{2}$ and $|\Psi(x,t)|^{2}$ corresponding to the Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field approximation to the gas density in experiments A and B, respectively, for a quasi-one-dimensional single-component Bose-Einstein condensate with a repulsive contact interaction $U(x,x',t)= g(t)\delta(x-x')$ whose initial state features a single dark soliton, slightly displaced from the center of the trap. Experiment A is the familiar scenario of free expansion with $g(t)=g(0)$. In experiment B, however, we see non-equilibrium response of the trapped gas to a temporally nonlinear ramping of the interaction strength $g(t)=g(0)\sec(\omega t)$. As the dashed lines in Fig. 2B show, the gas cloud at first expands adiabatically to follow the instantaneous Thomas-Fermi ground state, but when the equilibrium Thomas-Fermi radius increases too rapidly, the actual expansion of the gas fails to keep up. With increasingly strong nonlinearity, the soliton also narrows, but eventually it fails to shrink fast enough to maintain an equilibrium shape. We show in the Supplementary Material that the soliton width tracks its equilibrium value for a longer time than the Thomas-Fermi radius follows its equilibrium value, indicating that the gas loses equilibrium globally before losing it locally.
Even just in mean-field theory, therefore, experiment B is non-trivial; and yet it is related exactly to free expansion by the spacetime mapping (\[dual\]). Of course, the mean-field initial state is only accurate for a gas whose thermal excitation and quantum depletion are both negligible; and mean-field theory will eventually break down in any case, in both experiments, as the one-dimensional density becomes low (in A) or the interaction becomes strong (in B). The validity of our mapping for the quantum field operators, however, means that whatever the actual quantum evolution of the gas may be, the observations in A and B scenarios will still be related by (\[identity\]).
Time-dependent potentials and interactions are well-established experimental tools in today’s quantum gas labs, and the mapping between an isotropic harmonic trap and no trap was just one special case of ${V}_{n}$ and $\lambda(t)$. Since our exact spacetime mapping is so general, allowing arbitrary $\lambda(t)$ and applying to arbitrary measurements on arbitrary mixtures of multi-component Bose and Fermi gases with many realistically possible interactions, prepared in any initial states, it is a strong prediction from quantum field theory which can be tested in a wide range of real quantum gas systems. If the mapping is experimentally confirmed, it can become a tool to expand experimental technique, by allowing time-dependent traps to mimic time-dependent interactions, or vice versa; or it may be used to test for experimental errors. The mapping identity may also be a useful benchmark for theoretical approximations: failure to fulfill it will mark limits of validity.
[10]{} H. Poincare, [*Sur le Probleme des Trois Corps et les Equations de la Dynamique*]{}, Acta Math. [**13**]{}, 1 (1890). P. Kustaanheimo and E. Stiefel, [*Perturbation Theory of Kepler Motion Based on Spinor Regularization*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**218**]{}, 204 (1965). E. Stiefel and G. Scheifele, [*Linear and Regular Celestial Mechanics*]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 1971). I. H. Duru and H. Kleinert, [*Solution of the path integral for the H-atom*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**84**]{}, 185 (1979). I. H. Duru and H. Kleinert, [*Quantum Mechanics of H-Atom from Path Integrals*]{}, Fortschr. Phys. [**30**]{}, 401 (1982). R. Jackiw, [*Dynamical symmetry of the magnetic monopole*]{}, Ann. Phys. [**129**]{}, 183 (1980). P. Y. Cai, A. Inomata, and P. Wang, [*Jackiw transformation in path integrals*]{}, Phys. Lett. A [**91**]{}, 331 (1982). A. Pelster and A. Wunderlin, [*On the Generalization of the Duru-Kleinert-Propagatortransformations*]{}, Z. Phys. B [**89**]{}, 373 (1992). H. Kleinert, [*Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics, and Financial Markets*]{}, 5th Edition (World Scientific, Singapore, 2009). C. Grosche and F. Steiner, [*Handbook of Feynman Path Integrals*]{}, Vol. 145, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics (2013). A. Pelster and H. Kleinert, [*Relations Between Markov Processes Via Local Time and Coordinate Transformations*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 565 (1997). S.C. Benjamin, L. Quiroga, and N.F. Johnson, [*Analytic results for the linear and nonlinear response of atoms in a trap with a model interaction*]{}, Phys. Rev. A **54**, 4309 (1996). Y. Castin, [*Exact scaling transform for a unitary quantum gas in a time-dependent harmonic potential*]{}, Comptes Rendus Physique **5**, 407 (2004). L.P. Pitaevskii and A. Rosch, [*Breathing modes and hidden symmetry of trapped atoms in two dimensions*]{}, Phys. Rev. A **55**, R853 (1997). Y. Castin and R. Dum, [*Bose-Einstein Condensates in Time Dependent Traps*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 5315 (1996). Yu. Kagan, E.L. Surkov and G.V. Schlyapnikov, [*Evolution of a Bose-condensed gas under variations of the confining potential*]{}, Phys. Rev. A **54**, R1753 (1996). G. Theocharis, Z. Rapti, P.G. Kevrekidis, D.J. Frantzeskakis and V.V. Konotop, [*Modulational instability of Gross-Pitaevskii-type equations in 1+1 dimensions*]{}, Phys. Rev. A **67**, 063610 (2003). L. Wu and J.-F. Zhang, [*Modulational Instability of (1+1)-Dimensional Bose-Einstein Condensate with Three-Body Interatomic Interaction*]{}, Chin. Phys. Lett. **24**, 1471 (2006). E. Wamba, A. Mohamadou and T.C. Kofané, [*Modulational instability of a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate with two- and three-body interactions*]{}, Phys. Rev. E **77**, 046216 (2008). A. Mohamadou, E. Wamba, S.Y. Doka, T.B. Ekogo and T.C. Kofané, [*Generation of matter-wave solitons of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation with a time-dependent complicated potential*]{}, Phys. Rev. A **84**, 023602 (2011). C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu and F. Laloë, *Quantum Mechanics*, p. 312. Wiley (1977). C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne and E. Tiesinga, [*Feshbach resonances in ultracold gases*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. **82**, 1225 (2010). The transformation in our example happens to be the same transformation that was defined in Ref. [@jackiw].
Acknowledgements
================
EW acknowledges funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and from the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics, through a Simons Associateship. AP thanks the German Research Foundation (DFG) for support via the Collaborative Research Center SFB/TR 49 “Condensed Matter Systems with Variable Many-Body Interactions”.
**Supplementary Material**
**Derivation of the mapping identity**
The canonical (anti-)commutation relations (1) for $\hat{\psi}_{n}$ and $\hat{\psi}_{n}^{\dagger}$ imply that the $\hat{\Psi}_{n}$ and $\hat{\Psi}_{n}^{\dagger}$ satisfy precisely the same relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CCR2}
[\hat{\Psi}_{m}(\mathbf{r},t),\hat{\Psi}^{\dagger}_{n}(\mathbf{r}',t)]_{\pm}&=&\delta_{mn}\lambda^{D}\delta^{D}\Big(\lambda(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}')\Big)\equiv\delta_{mn}\delta^{D}(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}')\;.\end{aligned}$$
To show that $\hat{\Psi}_{n}$ also satisfy (3), but with $V_{m}\to\tilde{V}_{n}$ and $U\to\tilde{U}$, we first differentiate (4) with respect to $t$ and find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\hat{\Psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t) = e^{-\frac{iM_{n}}{2\hbar}\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}r^{2}}\lambda^{D/2}\left[i\hbar \frac{D\dot{\lambda}}{2\lambda} +\frac{M_{n}r^{2}}{2}\left(\frac{\ddot{\lambda}}{\lambda}-\frac{\dot{\lambda}^{2}}{\lambda^{2}}\right)
+i\hbar \frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}\mathbf{r}\cdot\mathbf{\nabla}+i\hbar\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial t}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}\right]\hat{\psi}_{n}\big(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau(t)\big)\;,\end{aligned}$$ where the partial differentiation with respect to $\tau$ implies treating $\lambda$ as a constant — the differentiation of $\lambda(t)\mathbf{r}$ with respect to $t$, in the argument of $\hat{\psi}$, is the preceding $\mathbf{r}\cdot\mathbf{\nabla}$ term. Using the Heisenberg equation (3) for $\partial_{\tau}\hat{\psi}_{n}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\hat{\psi}_{n}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)&=&\left[-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2M_{n}}\nabla_{\lambda\mathbf{r}}^{2}+V_{n}(\lambda \mathbf{r},\tau)\right]\hat{\psi}_{n}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)\nonumber\\
&&+ \sum_{klm}\int\!d^{D}(\lambda r')\,U_{klmn}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\lambda\mathbf{r}',\tau)\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}_{k}(\lambda\mathbf{r}',\tau)\hat{\psi}_{l}(\lambda\mathbf{r}',\tau)\hat{\psi}_{m}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)\end{aligned}$$ where the Laplacian with respect to $\lambda\mathbf{r}$ is simply $$\nabla_{\lambda\mathbf{r}}^{2}\equiv \sum_{j=1}^{D}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial (\lambda x_{j})^{2}} \equiv \lambda^{-2}\nabla^{2}\;,\nonumber$$ and also using the “homogeneous function” property of the interaction $U_{klmn}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\lambda\mathbf{r}',\tau)=\lambda^{-s}U_{klmn}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau)$, this becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\hat{\Psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)&=& e^{-\frac{iM_{n}}{2\hbar}\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}r^{2}}\lambda^{D/2}\left[i\hbar\frac{D\dot{\lambda}}{2\lambda} +\frac{M_{n}r^{2}}{2}\left(\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}\right)^{2}+i\hbar\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}\mathbf{r}\cdot\mathbf{\nabla}-\frac{d\tau}{dt}\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}\frac{{\hbar}^{2}}{2M_{n}}\nabla^{2}\right]\hat{\psi}_{n}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)\nonumber\\
&&+ e^{-\frac{iM_{n}}{2\hbar}\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}r^{2}}\lambda^{D/2}\left[\frac{d\tau}{dt}V_{n}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)+\frac{M_{n}r^{2}}{2}\left(\frac{\ddot{\lambda}}{\lambda}-2\frac{\dot{\lambda}^{2}}{\lambda^{2}}\right)\right]\hat{\psi}_{n}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)
\nonumber\\
&&+e^{-\frac{iM_{n}}{2\hbar}\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}r^{2}}\lambda^{D/2}\frac{d\tau}{dt}\lambda^{D-s}\sum_{klm}\int\!d^{D}r'\,U_{klmn}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau)\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}_{k}(\lambda\mathbf{r}',\tau)\hat{\psi}_{l}(\lambda\mathbf{r}',\tau)\hat{\psi}_{m}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)\;,
\end{aligned}$$ where on the right-hand side $\tau$ denotes $\tau(t)$ everywhere. Then using the definition $d\tau/dt=\lambda^{2}$ this yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\hat{\Psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)&=& e^{-\frac{iM_{n}}{2\hbar}\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}r^{2}}\lambda^{D/2}
\left[i\hbar\frac{D\dot{\lambda}}{2\lambda} +\frac{M_{n}r^{2}}{2}\left(\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}\right)^{2}+i\hbar\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}\mathbf{r}\cdot\mathbf{\nabla}
-\frac{{\hbar}^{2}}{2M_{n}}\nabla^{2}\right]\hat{\psi}_{n}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)\nonumber\\
&&+ e^{-\frac{iM}{2\hbar}\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}r^{2}}\lambda^{D/2}
\left[\lambda^{2}V_{n}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)+\frac{M_{n}r^{2}}{2}\lambda^{3}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}\frac{d}{dt}\right)^{2}\lambda\right]
\hat{\psi}_{n}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)\nonumber\\
&&+e^{-\frac{iM_{n}}{2\hbar}\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}r^{2}}\lambda^{3D/2}\lambda^{2-s}\sum_{klm}\int\!d^{D}r'\,U_{klmn}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau)\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}_{k}(\lambda\mathbf{r}',\tau)\hat{\psi}_{l}(\lambda\mathbf{r}',\tau)\hat{\psi}_{m}(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau)\\
&\equiv&-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2M_{n}}\nabla^{2}\left[e^{-\frac{iM_{n}}{2\hbar}\frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}r^{2}}\lambda^{D/2}\hat{\psi}_{n}\big(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau(t)\big)\right]+\left[\lambda^{2}V_{n}\big(\lambda\mathbf{r},\tau(t)\big)+\frac{M_{n}r^{2}}{2}\lambda^{3}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}\frac{d}{dt}\right)^{2}\lambda\right]\hat{\Psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)\nonumber\\
&&+\lambda^{2-s}\sum_{klm}\int\!d^{D}r'\,U_{klmn}\big(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\tau(t)\big)\hat{\Psi}^{\dagger}_{k}(\mathbf{r}',t)\hat{\Psi}_{l}(\mathbf{r}',t)\hat{\Psi}_{m}(\mathbf{r},t)\end{aligned}$$
where in the last line we have used the mass conservation property of non-relativistic interactions ($U_{klmn}=0$ except for $k,l,m,n$ such that $M_{k}=M_{l}$ and $M_{m}=M_{n}$) to replace $\hat{\psi}_{j}\to\hat{\Psi}_{j}$ by inserting additional phase factors which all cancel each other.
Recognizing the first term in square brackets on the right-hand side of (S-7) as $\hat{\Psi}_{n}(\mathbf{r},t)$, we confirm the statements (5) in our main text.\
\
**Mapped version of Fig. 2.**
Fig. \[mfigs\] shows $|\psi(x,t)|^{2}$ and $|\Psi(x,t)|^{2}$ obtained by mapping the Gross-Pitaevskii mean fields from the evolutions shown in Fig. 2. The grids of numbers shown in each plot have been transformed according to (4) and its inverse, but it is effectively impossible to tell that the two plots of Fig. 2 have not just been switched. The mapping is perfect: free expansion over about $15/(2\pi)$ trap periods and 160 trap widths corresponds exactly to interaction ramping (with the particular $1/\cos(\omega t)$ time dependence specified in the main text) over about $1.5/(2\pi)$ trap periods and 10 trap widths. Remember, however, that the mapping is not trivial: the spatial dilatation factor $\lambda$ is time-dependent, and the time transformation $t\to\tau(t)$ is nonlinear.
![Space-time evolution of the densities $|\psi(x,t)|^{2}$ and $|\Psi(x,t)|^{2}$, respectively, plotted by mapping the densities obtained in experiments A (above) and B (below), according to (4) and its inverse. Since the mapping is exact, the barely visible differences between these plots, and those of Fig. 2 in our main text, are due to large re-scalings of numerical solutions with finite resolution.[]{data-label="mfigs"}](mapBfromA_v3b.png "fig:"){width="3.0in"} ![Space-time evolution of the densities $|\psi(x,t)|^{2}$ and $|\Psi(x,t)|^{2}$, respectively, plotted by mapping the densities obtained in experiments A (above) and B (below), according to (4) and its inverse. Since the mapping is exact, the barely visible differences between these plots, and those of Fig. 2 in our main text, are due to large re-scalings of numerical solutions with finite resolution.[]{data-label="mfigs"}](mapAfromB_v3b.png "fig:"){width="3.0in"}
\
\
**Adiabaticity on different length scales in Experiment B**
Figure 2B in our main text has shown the mean-field approximation to the time-dependent condensate density during Experiment B, in which the strength of the repulsive contact interaction is ramped towards infinity. The white dashed curves superimposed on the density plot show the adiabatic Thomas-Fermi radius, which would mark the approximate edge of the condensate cloud, if the ramping of the interaction strength were infinitely slow. As observed in the main text, the condensate does expand when the repulsive interaction increases; but as the interaction increases more and more rapidly, the increasing pressure which it supplies cannot expand the gas fast enough to maintain the even more rapidly increasing equilibrium size. The actual condensate size therefore falls below the instantaneous equilibrium Thomas-Fermi radius (at least within Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field theory).
We can quantify this breakdown in adiabaticity of the condensate cloud size by fitting the actual condensate density profile to a Thomas-Fermi-like parabola, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{parabola}
|\Psi(x,t)|^{2} \to \frac{M\omega^{2}}{2 g_{\rm TF}(t)}[R^{2}(t)-x^{2}],\end{aligned}$$ tuning $R(t)$ and $g_{\rm TF}(t)$ independently at each instant $t$. These fits are quite good — the actual density envelope remains quite parabolic, even though the width of the parabola lags behind the adiabatic Thomas-Fermi value. From this time-dependent parabolic fit, we obtain the fitted instantaneous interaction strength $g_{\rm TF}(t)$ for which that parabolic density profile would be the Thomas-Fermi ground state. The resulting $g_{\rm TF}(t)$ is shown as the dotted curve in Fig. S-2, along with the actual interaction strength $g(t) = g(0)\sec(\omega t)$, shown as a solid curve. Since the initial state has been well relaxed (by imaginary time evolution with fixed normalization), at an initial interaction $g(0)$ large enough for the Thomas-Fermi approximation to Gross-Pitaevskii density envelope to be quite accurate, the initial fit value $g_{\rm TF}(0)$ coincides closely with the actual interaction strength $g(0)$. As the time-dependent condensate fails to sustain the rapidly increasing Thomas-Fermi radius of instantaneous equilibrium, the Thomas-Fermi-fitted effective interaction strength $g_{\rm TF}(t)$ fails to rise as fast as the actual $g(t)$: the dashed curve falls away from the solid curve significantly from about half-way through the plotted time interval.
The initial state used for both A and B plots was prepared by relaxation (Gross-Pitaevskii evolution in imaginary time) while maintaining $\int dx\,|\psi|^{2}=1$, with interaction $g(0)=50\hbar\omega a_{0}$. By including a zero in the trial wave function before relaxation, however, and stopping relaxation before the zero filled in, the initial state was prepared with a dark soliton at $x=2$. In the subsequent real time evolution shown in the plots, this soliton moves and changes width, while the whole cloud expands; in Experiment B, the soliton narrows as the repulsive interaction strengthens. Such a narrowing would be expected adiabatically, if the interaction were increased very slowly; when the interaction strengthens too quickly, however, the soliton may not have time to become as narrow as it would in the adiabatic limit.
The adiabatic soliton width is determined by three factors: the ‘grayness’ of the soliton (which increases when the soliton moves); the local gas density near the soliton, which is well described by the instantaneous Thomas-Fermi envelope described above; and the interaction strength $g$. To quantify how closely the soliton narrowing adapts to the changing interaction strength, independently of the soliton grayness and ambient density, we can approximate the harmonic potential as constant over the width of the soliton, and then approximate the Gross-Pitaevskii evolution of $\Psi(x,t)$ near the soliton with the integrable nonlinear Schrödinger equation $$\label{GPAD}
i\hbar\partial_{t}\tilde{\Psi}(x,t) = \left[-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2M}\partial_{xx} + V_{0} + g_{\rm sol}|\tilde{\Psi}|^{2}\right]\tilde{\Psi}(x,t)\;$$ where the effective trap potential at the soliton $V_{0}$, and the effective interaction $g_{\rm sol}$ which is ‘felt’ by the soliton, are considered as constants. Moving grey soliton solutions to (\[GPAD\]) are given by the ansatz
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{ansatz}
\tilde{\Psi}(x,t) = \left(i\beta + \kappa\tanh\left[\kappa\frac{\sqrt{g_{\rm sol}M}}{\hbar}\left(x-x_{0}-\beta\frac{\sqrt{g_{\rm sol}}}{\sqrt{M}}t\right)\right]\right)\exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}[V_{0}+g_{\rm sol}(\beta^{2}+\kappa^{2})]t\right)\end{aligned}$$
for any constants $\beta$, $\kappa$, and $x_{0}$.
![Time dependence in trap units $\hbar\omega a_{0}$ of the actual contact interaction strength $g(t)=g(0)\sec(\omega t)$ (solid curve) and of two effective interaction strengths $g_{\rm sol}(t)$ (dash-dotted curve) and $g_{\rm TF}(t)$ (dotted curve), obtained by fitting small- and large-scale features of the density profile, respectively, as explained in the Supplementary text. The effective interaction $g_{\rm TF}(t)$ represents the constant interaction strength for which the instantaneous parabolic envelope of the density profile would be a Thomas-Fermi ground state of the form (\[parabola\]). The effective interaction $g_{\rm sol}(t)$ represents the constant interaction strength for which the part of $\Psi(x,t)$ near the soliton would be a gray soliton solution to the integrable nonlinear Schrödinger equation obtained by approximating the harmonic potential as constant. The fact that $g_{\rm sol}(t)$ follows $g(t)$ more closely than $g_{\rm TF}(t)$ shows that the condensate remains locally adiabatic on short length scales for longer than it remains adiabatic globally.](gplot.png){width="3.0in"}
For each time $t$, then, we fit the actual density profile $|\Psi(x,t)|^{2}$ to the ansatz $|\tilde{\Psi}(x,t)|^{2}$ near the soliton, by tuning $\kappa$, $\beta$, $x_{0}$ and $g_{\rm sol}$. The fits remain good, near the soliton, at all times. The resulting fitted $g_{\rm sol}(t)$ then represents the effective interaction strength ‘felt’ by the soliton at time $t$: it is the constant interaction strength for which the instantaneous $\Psi(x,t)$ would be a gray soliton solution locally, given the instantaneous grayness parameter $\beta$ and local envelope density $\kappa^{2}+\beta^{2}$. This fitted $g_{\rm sol}(t)$ is shown as the dash-dotted curve in Fig. S-2. Like the analogous effective interaction strength $g_{\rm TF}(t)$ implied by the overall condensate radius, the effective interaction strength $g_{\rm sol}(t)$ implied by the instantaneous soliton width also lags behind the actual interaction strength $g(t)$ as it increases. (It seems to follow a power law: $g_{\rm sol}(t)/g(0)\doteq [g(t)/g(0)]^{0.89}$.) We can note, however, that $g_{\rm sol}(t)$ follows the actual $g(t)$ much more closely than $g_{\rm TF}(t)$ does (which does not appear to obey any comparable power law). The soliton width behaves more adiabatically, for longer, than the overall condensate cloud size.
This differential adiabaticity, depending on length scale, is physically intuitive. The dynamical time scale for large-scale changes of the overall density profile is that of low-frequency collective modes of the condensate: it is on the order of the harmonic trap period. The soliton, however, is a structure on the scale of the local healing length; the characteristic time scale for evolution on this shorter length scale is correspondingly shorter. We therefore expect that the more rapidly responding soliton width will be better able to follow the changing $g(t)$ than the more slowly reacting Thomas-Fermi radius. Adiabaticity breaks down on large scales (globally) before it breaks down on small scales (locally).
The evolution in Experiment B is therefore quite interesting, because for initial conditions which feature structures on different length scales, it can reveal how adiabaticity and equilibration occur at different rates on those different length scales, so that a quantum gas may be both in and out of equilibrium, in different respects, at the same time. The failure of mean-field theory at stronger interactions, or even initially because of quantum or thermal depletion, will invalidate our plotted mean-field evolution; but it will only make the real Experiment B even more interesting. This non-trivial experiment may nonetheless be simulated exactly in every respect, with all possible quantum and thermal and non-equilibrium corrections fully included, by the standard expansion of Experiment A — when the exact spacetime mapping is applied.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We construct $(0,2)$, $D=2$ gauged linear sigma model on supermanifold with both an Abelian and non-Abelian gauge symmetry. For the purpose of checking the exact supersymmetric (SUSY) invariance of the Lagrangian density, it is convenient to introduce a new operator $\hat{U}$ for the Abelian gauge group. The $\hat{U}$ operator provides consistency conditions for satisfying the SUSY invariance. On the other hand, it is not essential to introduce a similar operator in order to check the exact SUSY invariance of the Lagrangian density of non-Abelian model, contrary to the Abelian one. However, we still need a new operator in order to define the (0,2) chirality conditions for the (0,2) chiral superfields. The operator $\hat{U}^{a}$ can be defined from the conditions assuring the (0,2) supersymmetric invariance of the Lagrangian density in superfield formalism for the (0,2) U(N) gauged linear sigma model.
We found consistency conditions for the Abelian gauge group which assure (0,2) supersymmetric invariance of Lagrangian density and agree with (0,2) chirality conditions for the superpotential. The supermanifold $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$ becomes the super weighted complex projective space $WCP^{m-1|n}$ in the U(1) case, which is considered as an example of a Calabi-Yau supermanifold. The superpotential $W(\phi,\xi)$ for the non-Abelian gauge group satisfies more complex condition for the SU(N) part, except the U(1) part of U(N), but does not satisfy a quasi-homogeneous condition. This fact implies the need for taking care of constructing the Calabi-Yau supermanifold in the SU(N) part. Because more stringent restrictions are imposed on the form of the superpotential than in the U(1) case, the superpotential seems to define a certain kind of new supermanifolds which we cannot identify exactly with one of the mathematically well defined objects.
---
Yusuke Okame and Mitsuo J. Hayashi\
Tokai University, 1117 Kitakaname, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa 259-1292, Japan\
E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
============
Recently, it was reported that the perturbative expansion of the $D=4$, $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory with the ${\rm U(N)}$ gauge group is equivalent to the instanton expansion of the topological $B$ model for which the target space is the Calabi-Yau supermanifold $CP^{3|4}$. The connection between the topological string theory on supermanifold $CP^{3|4}$ and the $D=4$, $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory is established through the explicit calculations of the Maximally-Helicity-violating (MHV) amplitude that lead the twistor equations [@witten1]. Furthermore the methods for calculating many types of MHV amplitudes which include loop amplitudes were developed [@cachazo1] - [@brandhuber2]. From these aspects, the Calabi-Yau supermanifold played an important role to establish the relation between the super Yang-Mills theory and topological B model. Recent works on these relationships have investigated of the nature of the Calabi-Yau supermanifold. The geometry of the Calabi-Yau supermanifold was shown to be related to the curvature of the Grassmann even submanifold[@rocek1; @rocek2] .
The super Landau-Ginzburg mirror symmetry was used to construct the correspondence between the topological B model on $CP^{3|4}$ as D instanton[@witten1], and the topological A model on $CP^{3|3}\times CP^{3|3}$[@aganagic1; @Ahn1]. (These supermanifold are both Calabi-Yau supermanifolds.) These mirror correspondences were proved by defining the superpotential on each case[@Kumar1]. In fact, the restricted superpotential on A (B) model corresponds to the restricted superpotential on B (A) model through the mirror symmetry. These restrictions are given by physical symmetries like supersymmetry. As a simple example, these superpotentials have been shown in the (2,2) U(1) gauged linear sigma model, because the non-linear sigma model description with Calabi-Yau supermanifold is given by the gauged linear sigma model in its infrared limit[@Kumar1]. Then the restriction of superpotential became equivalent to the (2,2) supersymmetric invariance of the total (2,2) Lagrangian density.
In [@seki1], the Lagrangian density of (2,2) U(1) gauged linear sigma model on supermanifold has been constructed. The supermanifold then became the Calabi-Yau supermanifold which was defined by the Calabi-Yau condition[@witten1; @Belhaj1], $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{I}Q_{I}-\sum_{A}q_{A}=0.
\label{q1}\end{aligned}$$ However, in Ref.[@seki1] the (2,2) supersymmetric transformation properties of the total (2,2) Lagrangian density seems incomplete, because the superpotential term in [@seki1] is not exactly closed under the (2,2) supersymmetric tansformation when the vector multiplets are included. If we consider the (2,2) U(1) gauged linear sigma model, the (2,2) supersymmetric transformation must include the U(1) vector multiplets in its transformation. Additionally, in Ref.[@seki1], a Lagrangian density of the (0,2) U(1) gauged linear sigma model was proposed whose transformation properties under the (0,2) supersymmetric transformation was identified by the (0,2) part of the (2,2) transformation on supermanifold. However, the U(1) charges of each local coordinates must retain the same values. This result means that the number of Grassmann even coordinates is equal to the number of Grassmann odd coordinates from Eq.(\[q1\]), as far as we focus on the Calabi-Yau supermanifolds which are defined by the mirror symmetric correspondence with the super Landau-Ginzburg model. In this case, the Calabi-Yau supermanifolds will be ristricted to $CP^{m-1|m}$.
In the present paper, as the first move toward finding out the correspondence between the Calabi-Yau supermanifold and the super Landau-Ginzburg model, we will concentrate on the construction of a consistent theory of the two-dimensional $(0,2)$ U(1) gauged linear sigma model on a supermanifold. The Lagrangian density of this model becomes (0,2) supersymmetric invariant under the corrected (0,2) supersymmetry which includes the vector multiplets. Then we obtain the restrictions on the superpotential which assure the (0,2) supersymmetric invarinace of Lagrangian density. Furthermore, the conditions define the more general form of the Calabi-Yau supermanifold, such as $WCP^{m-1|n}$, by using the newly introduced operator $\hat{U}$. Next, we will construct a consistent (0,2) U(N) gauged linear sigma model on supermanifold. We will show that the restrictions on the superpotential are similar to the U(1) gauged linear sigma model for the U(1) part of U(N), while for the SU(N) part the restrictions seem to be stronger than in the U(1) gauged liear sigma model on the supermanifolds.
In Section 2, we define supermultiplets of the $D=2$, $(0,2)$ U(1) gauged linear sigma model and construct the Lagrangian densities on a supermanifold, where we introduce a new operator in order to distinguish the U(1) charges of local coordinates on the supermanifold. In Section 3, we derive the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric invariance of the Lagrangian densities defined in Section 2, and obtain the restriction imposed on the superpotential. We explicitly define the new operator assumed in Section 2 and describe the implication of this new operator on the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric invariance of the theory. In Section 4, we extend the gauge group to the non-Abelian case and construct the $D=2$, $(0,2)$ U(N) gauged linear sigma model Lagrangian densities on a supermanifold. In Section 5, the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric invariance is verified on the model constructed in Section 4. Then we obtain the restriction on the superpotential in the U(N) gauge group. In Section 6, the operator introduced in Section 3 is extended to the non-Abelian U(N) gauge transformation and is shown in relation to the $(0,2)$ supersymmetry invariance.
In Section 7, we summarize and discuss our constructions of the $D=2$, $(0,2)$ gauged linear sigma models. Our notations are the same as those of [@wess1].
$(2,2)$ and $(0,2)$ Supermultiplets
===================================
By introducing several (0,2) superfields, we construct the total (0,2) Lagrangian density by a method similar as used in Ref.[@seki1]. However, in the original method it is impossible to assign different values of the U(1) charge to each local coordinate. In this section we solve this problem by introducing a new operator $\hat{U}$, by which it is possible to assign different values of the U(1) charge to each local coordinate, and construct the more general form of (0,2) Lagrangian density. Furthermore, by using the new operator $\hat{U}$, we will obtain the more general Calabi-Yau supermanifold, where the number of Grassmann even local coordinates and Grassmann odd local coordinates is different. This distinction was not made in the method of Ref.[@seki1].
The $D=2$, $\mathcal{N}=2$ superfields are defined on the (2,2) superspace. We herein redefine these superfields on the (0,2) superspace and construct the (0,2) Lagrangian density by using a new operator $\hat{U}$.
In $D=2$, the $(2,2)$ Grassmann even chiral superfield $\Phi_{\left(2,2\right)}$ and the $(2,2)$ Grassmann odd chiral superfield $\Xi_{\left(2,2\right)}$ are defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\Phi^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.9cm}=\phi^{I}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\left(\theta^{+}\psi_{+}^{I}
+\theta^{-}\psi_{-}^{I}\right)
+2\theta^{+}\theta^{-}F^{I}
-i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\phi^{I}
-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\phi^{I}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\psi_{+}^{I}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\psi_{-}^{I}-\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\partial_{+}\phi^{I},
\\
% 2009/03/16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\overline{\Phi}^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.9cm}=\overline{\phi}^{I}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\left(\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\psi}_{+}^{I}
%+\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\psi}_{-}^{I}\right)
%+2\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{F}^{I}
%+i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\overline{\phi}^{I}
%+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\phi}^{I}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\overline{\psi}_{+}^{I}
%+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\psi}_{-}^{I}
%-\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\partial_{+}\overline{\phi}^{I},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\nonumber\\
% 2009/03/16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\Xi^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.9cm}=\xi^{A}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\left(\theta^{+}b_{+}^{A}+\theta^{-}b_{-}^{A}\right)
+2\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\chi^{A}
-i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\xi^{A}
-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\xi^{A}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}b_{+}^{A}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}b_{-}^{A}
-\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\partial_{+}\xi^{A},
% 2009/03/16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\overline{\Xi}^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.9cm}=\overline{\xi}^{A}
%+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\left(\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{b}_{+}^{A}+\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{b}_{-}^{A}\right)
%+2\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\chi}^{A}
%+i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\overline{\xi}^{A}
%+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\xi}^{A}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}
%+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\overline{b}_{+}^{A}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{b}_{-}^{A}
%-\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\partial_{+}\overline{\xi}^{A},
%2009/03/16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu=0,3$, $g_{\mu\nu}={\rm diag}(-1,+1)$, and $\partial_{\pm}=\partial_{0}\pm\partial_{3}$ [@seki1]. The supermanifold is defined on $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$, $(I=1,\cdots,m$, $A=1,\cdots,n)$. For the $(2,2)$ chiral superfield, we introduce the operator $\hat{U}$, which satisfies the following relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&\hat{U}\Phi^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)}=Q_{I}\Phi^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)},\hspace{13pt}\hat{U}\overline{\Phi}^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)}=-Q_{I}\overline{\Phi}^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)},\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hat{U}\Xi^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)}=q_{A}\Xi^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)},\hspace{13pt}\hat{U}\overline{\Xi}^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)}=-q_{A}\overline{\Xi}^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)},
\end{array}
\label{Ucharge1}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{I}$ and $q_{A}$ are the ${\rm U(1)}$ charges of $\Phi^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)}$ and $\Xi^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)}$, respectively, and the $\hat{U}$ operator is considered to define the ${\rm U(1)}$ charges of the superfields. We assume that $\hat{U}$ is a Grassmann even operator that satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&\left[\hat{U},\theta^{\alpha}\right]=\left[\hat{U},\overline{\theta}^{\alpha}\right]=0,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\left[\hat{U},\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^{\alpha}}\right]=\left[\hat{U},\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\theta}^{\alpha}}\right]=0,
\end{array}
\label{hat{U}1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=\pm$. We define the covariant derivative of the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric transformation by incorporating the $\hat{U}$ and gauge fields $v_{\mu}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal D}_{+}\equiv e^{-\Psi\hat{U}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^{+}}-i\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\right)e^{\Psi\hat{U}},
% 2009/03/16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.65cm}=\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^{+}}
%-i\overline{\theta}^{+}\left(\partial_{+}+iv_{+}\hat{U}\right),
% 2009/03/16 mod end
\label{kyouhen1}
% 2009/03/16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\cal D}_{+}\equiv e^{\Psi\hat{U}}\left(-\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\theta}^{+}}+i\theta^{+}\partial_{+}\right)e^{-\Psi\hat{U}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.7cm}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\theta}^{+}}+i\theta^{+}\left(\partial_{+}+iv_{+}\hat{U}\right),
%\label{kyouhen2}
% 2009/03/16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ where $v_{\pm}=v_{0}\pm v_{3}$ and $\Psi=\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}v_{+}$. The $(0,2)$ super charges are defined by incorporating the $\hat{U}$ operator and the gauge fields $v_{\mu}$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal Q}_{+}\equiv e^{\Psi\hat{U}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^{+}}+i\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\right)e^{-\Psi\hat{U}}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.7cm}=\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^{+}}+i\overline{\theta}^{+}\left(\partial_{+}+iv_{+}\hat{U}\right),
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{cyoutaisyou1}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\cal Q}_{+}\equiv e^{-\Psi\hat{U}}\left(-\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\theta}^{+}}%-i\theta^{+}\partial_{+}\right)e^{\Psi\hat{U}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.7cm}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\theta}^{+}}-i\theta^{+}\left(\partial_{+}+iv_{+}\hat{U}\right).
%\label{cyoutaisyou2}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ We now consider the $(0,2)$ case. The (0,2) chirality conditions are defined by using Eq. (\[kyouhen1\]) for arbitrary functions $F(x_{\mu},\theta^{+},\overline{\theta}^{+})$ and $\overline{F}(x_{\mu},\theta^{+},\overline{\theta}^{+})$ on the (0,2) superspace: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_{+}\overline{F}=\overline{\cal D}_{+}F=0.
\label{N=(0,2)chiral condition}\end{aligned}$$ We can define the $(0,2)$ chiral superfields that satisfy Eq. (\[N=(0,2)chiral condition\]) from the $(2,2)$ chiral multiplets by imposing restrictions $\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0$ [@seki1]. $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}\Phi^{I}_{\left(0,2\right)}\equiv\Phi^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)}e^{Q_{I}\Psi}\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%=\phi^{I}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\psi_{+}^{I}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\phi^{I},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Phi2}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.7cm}\overline{\Phi}^{I}_{\left(0,2\right)}\equiv e^{Q_{I}\Psi}\overline{\Phi}^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)}
%\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0}=\overline{\phi}^{I}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\psi}_{+}^{I}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\overline{\phi}^{I},
%\label{overline{Phi2}}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}\Xi^{A}_{\left(0,2\right)}\equiv\Xi^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)}e^{q_{A}\Psi}\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%=\xi^{A}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}b_{+}^{A}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\xi^{A},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Xi2}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.7cm}\overline{\Xi}^{A}_{\left(0,2\right)}\equiv e^{q_{A}\Psi}\overline{\Xi}^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)}\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0}
%=\overline{\xi}^{A}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{b}_{+}^{A}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\overline{\xi}^{A},
%\label{overline{Xi2}}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ where the covariant derivatives for the ${\rm U(1)}$ gauge transformation are given by $$\begin{aligned}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\begin{array}{rcl}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
&&D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}+iv_{\mu}\hat{U}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&D_{\pm}=\partial_{\pm}+iv_{\pm}\hat{U}.
%\end{array}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ Since Eqs. (\[Phi2\]) and (\[Xi2\]) satisfy the $(0,2)$ chirality conditions, they are the $(0,2)$ chiral superfields: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\overline{\cal D}_{+}\Phi^{I}_{\left(0,2\right)}={\cal D}_{+}\overline{\Phi}^{I}_{\left(0,2\right)}=0,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\overline{\cal D}_{+}\Xi^{A}_{\left(0,2\right)}={\cal D}_{+}\overline{\Xi}^{A}_{\left(0,2\right)}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we define the Lagrangian density ${\cal L}_{kin.}$ for the $(0,2)$ chiral superfields. Denoting the $\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}$ term of the $(2,2)$ vector superfields as ${\cal V}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal V}=iv_{-}+2\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-}+2\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{-}+2i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D.
\label{cal V1}\end{aligned}$$ The ${\rm U(1)}$ charge for ${\cal V}$ is assumed to be zero, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}{\cal V}=0.
\label{Ucharge'1}\end{aligned}$$ From the assumptions on ${\rm U(1)}$ charges for $(0,2)$ chiral superfields in Eqs. (\[Ucharge1\]) and (\[Ucharge’1\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&\hat{U}\Phi^{I}_{\left(0,2\right)}=Q_{I}\Phi^{I}_{\left(0,2\right)},\hspace{13pt}\hat{U}\overline{\Phi}^{I}_{\left(0,2\right)}=-Q_{I}\overline{\Phi}^{I}_{\left(0,2\right)},
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hat{U}\Xi^{A}_{\left(0,2\right)}=q_{A}\Xi^{A}_{\left(0,2\right)},\hspace{13pt}\hat{U}\overline{\Xi}^{A}_{\left(0,2\right)}=-q_{A}\overline{\Xi}^{A}_{\left(0,2\right)}.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Using $\mathcal{V}$, we define the covariant derivative for gauge transformation: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_{0}-{\cal D}_{3}\equiv\partial_{-}+{\cal V}\hat{U}.
\label{cal D_{0}-D_{3}}\end{aligned}$$ From the (0,2) chiral superfields and Eq. (\[cal D\_[0]{}-D\_[3]{}\]), ${\cal L}_{kin.}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal L}_{kin.}=\frac{i}{2}\int d\theta^{+}d\overline{\theta}^{+}\Bigg[\sum_{I}\overline{\Phi}^{I}_{\left(0,2\right)}\left({\cal D}_{0}-{\cal D}_{3}\right)\Phi^{I}_{\left(0,2\right)}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{3.6cm}+\sum_{A}\overline{\Xi}^{A}_{\left(0,2\right)}\left({\cal D}_{0}-{\cal D}_{3}\right)\Xi^{A}_{\left(0,2\right)}\Bigg].
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.95cm}=\sum_{I}\Bigg[-\sum_{\mu}D_{\mu}\overline{\phi}^{I}D^{\mu}\phi^{I}
%+i\overline{\psi}_{+}^{I}D_{-}\psi_{+}^{I}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}iQ_{I}\overline{\phi}^{I}\lambda_{-}\psi_{+}^{I}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.35cm}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}iQ_{I}\overline{\psi}_{+}^{I}\overline{\lambda}_{-}\phi^{I}
%+Q_{I}D\overline{\phi}^{I}\phi^{I}\Bigg]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.35cm}+\sum_{A}\Bigg[-\sum_{\mu}D_{\mu}\overline{\xi}^{A}D^{\mu}\xi^{A}
%+i\overline{b}_{+}^{A}D_{-}b_{+}^{A}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}iq_{A}\overline{\xi}^{A}\lambda_{-}b_{+}^{A}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.35cm}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}iq_{A}\overline{b}_{+}^{A}\overline{\lambda}_{-}\xi^{A}
%+q_{A}D\overline{\xi}^{A}\xi^{A}\Bigg]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.35cm}-\frac{1}{2}\partial_{-}\Bigg[\sum_{I}\overline{\phi}^{I}D_{+}\phi^{I}
%+\sum_{A}\overline{\xi}^{A}D_{+}\xi^{A}\Bigg].
\label{{cal L}_kin.}\end{aligned}$$ Next, we will define the Lagrangian density ${\cal L}_{gauge}$ and the Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) term ${\cal L}_{D,\theta}$ for the vector superfield $\mathcal{V}$. The gauge invariant field strength $\Upsilon$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Upsilon\equiv\overline{\cal D}_{+}{\cal V}+\theta^{+}\partial_{-}v_{+}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.4cm}=-2\lambda_{-}+2i\theta^{+}D+2\theta^{+}v_{03}+2i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\lambda_{-},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Upsilon1}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Upsilon}\equiv{\cal D}_{+}\overline{\cal V}+\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}v_{+}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.4cm}=-2\overline{\lambda}_{-}-2i\overline{\theta}^{+}D+2\overline{\theta}^{+}v_{03}-2i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-},
%\label{overline{Upsilon}2}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[Upsilon1\]), the kinetic Lagrangian density ${\cal L}_{gauge}$ of this gauge multiplet is given as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}{\cal L}_{gauge}=\frac{1}{8e^2}\int d\theta^{+}d\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\Upsilon}\Upsilon,
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.65cm}=\frac{1}{e^{2}}\Biggl[\frac{1}{2}D^{2}
%+\frac{1}{2}v_{03}^{2}+i\overline{\lambda}_{-}\partial_{+}\lambda_{-}\Biggr]
%-\frac{1}{2e^{2}}i\partial_{+}\Biggl[\overline{\lambda}_{-}\lambda_{-}\Biggr],
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{{cal L}_gauge}\end{aligned}$$ and the FI term is $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal L}_{D,\theta}=\frac{t}{4}\int d\theta^{+}\Upsilon\hspace{0.1cm}\Biggl|_{\overline{\theta}^{+}=0}+\frac{\overline{t}}{4}\int d\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\Upsilon}\hspace{0.1cm}\Biggl|_{\theta^{+}=0},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.9cm}=-rD+\frac{\theta}{2\pi}v_{03},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{{cal L}_D,theta}\end{aligned}$$ with the FI parameter $t=ir+\theta/(2\pi)$.
Since the field components in Eq. (\[Upsilon1\]) contain part of the (2,2) vector supermultiplet, the residual field components should be introduced into the theory by
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\Omega\equiv\tau+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\overline{\omega}_{+}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\tau,
\label{Omega1}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Omega}\equiv\overline{\tau}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\theta}^{+}\omega_{+}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\tau},
%\label{overline{Omega}1}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$
where Eq. (\[Omega1\]) is a Grassmann even superfield and assumed to be chargeless, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}\Omega=\hat{U}\overline{\Omega}=0\label{Ucharge2}.\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[Omega1\]), we can define the Lagrangian density ${\cal L}_{\Omega}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-1.6cm}{\cal L}_{\Omega}=\frac{i}{2e^{2}}\int d\theta^{+}d\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\Omega}\partial_{-}\Omega.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-1cm}=\frac{1}{e^{2}}\Biggl[-\sum_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\overline{\tau}\partial^{\mu}\tau+i\overline{\omega}_{+}\partial_{-}\omega_{+}\Biggr]
%+\frac{1}{2e^{2}}\partial_{-}\Biggl[-\overline{\tau}\partial_{-}\tau+2i\omega_{+}\overline{\omega}_{+}\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{{cal L}_Omega}\end{aligned}$$ In order to construct the $(0,2)$ superpotential consitently, we introduce some $(0,2)$ chiral superfield valued functions $E_{a}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)$, $\tilde{E}_{\tilde{a}}(\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)$ where the indices $a$ and $\tilde{a}$ denote Grassmann even and Grassmann odd, respectively. In addition, the other $(0,2)$ superfields are introduced as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Lambda_{-a}^{'}\equiv\lambda_{-a}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}G_{a}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\lambda_{-a},
\label{Lambda_a'1}
\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Lambda}_{-a}^{'}\equiv\overline{\lambda}_{-a}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{G}_{a}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-a},
%\label{overline{Lambda}_a'1}
%\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}^{'}\equiv\tilde{\lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\tilde{G}_{\tilde{a}}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\tilde{\lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}.
\label{tilde{Lambda}_a'1}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}^{'}\equiv\overline{\tilde{\lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\tilde{G}}_{\tilde{a}}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\tilde{\lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}.
%\label{overline{tilde{Lambda}}_a'1}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ The ${\rm U(1)}$ charges for the fields in Eqs. (\[Lambda\_a’1\]) and (\[tilde[Lambda]{}\_a’1\]) are assumed as $$\begin{aligned}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&\hat{U}\Lambda_{-a}^{'}=\alpha_{a}\Lambda_{-a}^{'},
%\label{Ucharge3}
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&
\hspace{13pt}
\hat{U}\overline{\Lambda}_{-a}^{'}=-\alpha_{a}\overline{\Lambda}_{-a}^{'},
%\label{Ucharge4}
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hat{U}\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}^{'}=\beta_{\tilde{a}}\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}^{'},
%\label{Ucharge5}
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&
\hspace{13pt}
\hat{U}\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}^{'}=-\beta_{\tilde{a}}\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}^{'}.
%\label{Ucharge6}
\end{array}
\label{Ucharge3}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by Eqs. (\[Lambda\_a’1\]) and (\[tilde[Lambda]{}\_a’1\]), we define new fields as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Lambda_{-a}\equiv\Lambda_{-a}^{'}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}E_{a}(\Phi,\Omega),
\label{Lambda_a1}
\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Lambda}_{-a}\equiv\overline{\Lambda}_{-a}^{'}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{E}_{a}(\overline{\Phi},\overline{\Omega}),
%\label{overline{Lambda}_a1}
%\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}\equiv\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}^{'}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\tilde{E}_{\tilde{a}}(\Xi,\Omega).
\label{tilde{Lambda}_a1}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}\equiv\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}^{'}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{\tilde{E}}_{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\Xi},\overline{\Omega}).
%\label{overline{tilde{Lambda}}_a1}\end{aligned}$$ We can then define the $(0,2)$ superfields as: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-1cm}\Lambda_{-a\left(0,2\right)}\equiv\Lambda_{-a}e^{\alpha_{a}\Psi},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.4cm}=\lambda_{-a}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}G_{a}
%-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\lambda_{-a}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}E_{a}(\Phi,\Omega),
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Lambda_a{02}1}
\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-1cm}\overline{\Lambda}_{-a\left(0,2\right)}\equiv e^{\alpha_{a}\Psi}\overline{\Lambda}_{-a}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.4cm}=\overline{\lambda}_{-a}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{G}_{a}
%+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-a}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{E}_{a}(\overline{\Phi},\overline{\Omega}),
%\label{overline{Lambda}_a{02}1}
%\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-1cm}\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}\left(0,2\right)}\equiv\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}e^{\beta_{\tilde{a}}\Psi},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.4cm}=\tilde{\lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\tilde{G}_{\tilde{a}}
%-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\tilde{\lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\tilde{E}_{\tilde{a}}(\Xi,\Omega),
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{tilde{Lambda}_a{02}1}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-1cm}\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}\left(0,2\right)}\equiv e^{\beta_{\tilde{a}}\Psi}\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.4cm}=\overline{\tilde{\lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\tilde{G}}_{\tilde{a}}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\overline{\tilde{\lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}
%+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{\tilde{E}}_{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\Xi},\overline{\Omega}),
%\label{overline{tilde{Lambda}}_a{02}1}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ by using Eqs. (\[Ucharge3\]), (\[Lambda\_a1\]) and (\[tilde[Lambda]{}\_a1\]). We then obtain the Lagrangian density ${\cal L}_{\Lambda}$ from Eqs. (\[Lambda\_a[02]{}1\]) and (\[tilde[Lambda]{}\_a[02]{}1\]). $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-1cm}{\cal L}_{\Lambda}
=\frac{1}{2}\int d\theta^{+}d\overline{\theta}^{+}\Biggl[\sum_{a}\overline{\Lambda}_{-a\left(0,2\right)}\Lambda_{-a\left(0,2\right)}
+\sum_{\tilde{a}}\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}\left(0,2\right)}\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}\left(0,2\right)}\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.4cm}
%=\sum_{a}\Biggl[i\overline{\lambda}_{-a}D_{+}\lambda_{-a}
%+\overline{G}_{a}G_{a}
%-\overline{E}_{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\tau})E_{a}(\phi,\tau)\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&+\sum_{\tilde{a}}\Biggl[i\overline{\tilde{\lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}D_{+}\tilde{\lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}
%+\overline{\tilde{G}}_{\tilde{a}}\tilde{G}_{\tilde{a}}
%-\overline{\tilde{E}}_{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\xi},\overline{\tau})\tilde{E}_{\tilde{a}}(\xi,\tau)\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&-\sum_{I,a}\Biggl[\overline{\lambda}_{-a}\psi_{+}^{I}\frac{\partial E_{a}(\phi,\tau)}{\partial\phi^{I}}
%+\overline{\psi}_{+}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{E}_{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\tau})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}}\lambda_{-a}
%+i\overline{\lambda}_{-a}\overline{\omega}_{+}\frac{\partial E_{a}(\phi,\tau)}{\partial\tau}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&-i\omega_{+}\frac{\partial\overline{E}_{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\tau})}{\partial\overline{\tau}}\lambda_{-a}\Biggr]
%-\sum_{A,\tilde{a}}\Biggl[\overline{\tilde{\lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}b_{+}^{A}\frac{\partial\tilde{E}_{\tilde{a}}(\xi,\tau)}{\partial\xi^{A}}
%+\overline{b}_{+}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{\tilde{E}}_{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\xi},\overline{\tau})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}\tilde{\lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&+i\overline{\tilde{\lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}\overline{\omega}_{+}\frac{\partial\tilde{E}_{\tilde{a}}(\xi,\tau)}{\partial\tau}
%+i\omega_{+}\frac{\partial\overline{\tilde{E}}_{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\xi},\overline{\tau})}{\partial\overline{\tau}}\tilde{\lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&-\frac{i}{2}\partial_{+}\Biggl[\sum_{a}\overline{\lambda}_{-a}\lambda_{-a}+\sum_{\tilde{a}}\overline{\tilde{\lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}\tilde{\lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{{cal L}_Lambda}\end{aligned}$$ We need more $(0,2)$ chiral superfield valued functions $J^{a}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)})$, $\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)})$. The ${\rm U(1)}$ charges for these fields are assumed as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat{U}J^{a}(\phi,\xi)=\sum_{I}\hat{U}\phi^{I}\frac{\partial J^{a}(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi^{I}}
+\sum_{A}\hat{U}\xi^{A}\frac{\partial J^{a}(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi^{A}},
\label{Ucharge7}
\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hat{U}\overline{J}^{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})=\sum_{I}\hat{U}\overline{\phi}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{J}^{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}}
%+\sum_{A}\hat{U}\overline{\xi}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{J}^{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}},
%\label{Ucharge8}
%\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hat{U}\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\phi,\xi)=\sum_{I}\hat{U}\phi^{I}\frac{\partial\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi^{I}}
+\sum_{A}\hat{U}\xi^{A}\frac{\partial\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi^{A}}.
\label{Ucharge9}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hat{U}\overline{\tilde{J}}^{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})=\sum_{I}\hat{U}\overline{\phi}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{\tilde{J}}^{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}}
%+\sum_{A}\hat{U}\overline{\xi}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{\tilde{J}}^{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}.
%\label{Ucharge10}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ Here we impose the following restrictions on the fields $E_{a}(\phi,\tau)$, $\tilde{E}_{\tilde{a}}(\phi,\tau)$ and $J^{a}(\phi,\xi)$, $\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\phi,\xi)$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{a}E_{a}(\phi,\tau)J^{a}(\phi,\xi)
+\sum_{\tilde{a}}\tilde{E}_{\tilde{a}}(\xi,\tau)\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\phi,\xi)=0.
\label{E_aJ^a1}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\sum_{a}\overline{J}^{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})\overline{E}_{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\tau})
%+\sum_{\tilde{a}}\overline{\tilde{J}}^{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})\overline{\tilde{E}}_{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\xi},\overline{\tau})=0.
%\label{overline{J}^aoverline{E}_a1}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ From these restrictions, we can obtain the (0,2) chirality conditions $$\begin{aligned}
&&\overline{\cal D}_{+}\left(\sum_{a}\Lambda_{-a\left(0,2\right)}J^{a}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)})
+\sum_{\tilde{a}}\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}\left(0,2\right)}\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)})\right)
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.4cm}={\cal D}_{+}\Biggl(\sum_{a}\overline{J}^{a}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)})\overline{\Lambda}_{-a\left(0,2\right)}
+\sum_{\tilde{a}}\overline{\tilde{J}}^{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)})\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}\left(0,2\right)}\Biggr)
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.4cm}=0,
\label{overline{JLambda}1}\end{aligned}$$ which define $(0,2)$ chiral superfields and provide the Lagrangian density ${\cal L}_{J}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}{\cal L}_{J}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\int d\theta^{+}\Biggl[\sum_{a}\Lambda_{-a\left(0,2\right)}J^{a}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)})
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{2.2cm}
+\sum_{\tilde{a}}\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}\left(0,2\right)}\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)})\Biggr]\Biggl|_{\overline{\theta}^{+}=0}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{0.3cm}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\int d\overline{\theta}^{+}\Biggl[\sum_{a}\overline{J}^{a}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)})\overline{\Lambda}_{-a\left(0,2\right)}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{2.5cm}+\sum_{\tilde{a}}\overline{\tilde{J}}^{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)})\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}\left(0,2\right)}\Biggr]\Biggr|_{\theta^{+}=0}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.2cm}=\sum_{I,a}\Biggl[\psi_{+}^{I}\lambda_{-a}\frac{\partial J^{a}(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi^{I}}
%+\frac{\partial\overline{J}^{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}}\overline{\lambda}_{-a}\overline{\psi}_{+}^{I}\Biggr]
%+\sum_{A,a}\Biggl[-b_{+}^{A}\lambda_{-a}\frac{\partial J^{a}(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi^{A}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.2cm}
%+\frac{\partial\overline{J}^{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}\overline{\lambda}_{-a}\overline{b}_{+}^{A}\Biggr]
%+\sum_{I,\tilde{a}}\Biggl[\psi_{+}^{I}\tilde{\lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}\frac{\partial\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi^{I}}
%+\frac{\partial\overline{\tilde{J}}^{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}}\overline{\tilde{\lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}\overline{\psi}_{+}^{I}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.2cm}+\sum_{A,\tilde{a}}\Bigg[b_{+}^{A}\tilde{\lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}\frac{\partial\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi^{A}}
%+\frac{\partial\overline{\tilde{J}}^{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}\overline{\tilde{\lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}\overline{b}_{+}^{A}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.2cm}-\sum_{a}\Biggl[G_{a}J^{a}(\phi,\xi)
%+\overline{J}^{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})\overline{G}_{a}\Biggr]
%-\sum_{\tilde{a}}\Biggl[\tilde{G}_{\tilde{a}}\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\phi,\xi)
%+\overline{\tilde{J}}^{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})\overline{\tilde{G}}_{\tilde{a}}\Biggr].
%\nonumber\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{{cal L}_J}\end{aligned}$$ We now describe the correspondences between the $(2,2)$ field components and the $(0,2)$ field components. First, the following differential operator is defined: $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal D}_{-}\equiv e^{-\Pi\hat{U}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^{-}}-i\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\right)e^{\Pi\hat{U}},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.7cm}=\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^{-}}-i\overline{\theta}^{-}\left(\partial_{-}+iv_{-}\hat{U}\right),
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{kyouhen3}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\cal D}_{-}\equiv e^{\Pi\hat{U}}\left(-\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\theta}^{-}}+i\theta^{-}\partial_{-}\right)e^{-\Pi\hat{U}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.7cm}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\theta}^{-}}+i\theta^{-}\left(\partial_{-}+iv_{-}\hat{U}\right),
%\label{kyouhen4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi=\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}v_{-}$. We can then find the following relations: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Lambda_{-a}^{'}e^{\alpha_{a}\Psi}
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}{\cal D}_{-}\left(\Phi_{\left(2,2\right)}^{I}e^{Q_{I}\Psi}\right)\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0},
\label{Lambdae2}
\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&e^{\alpha_{a}\Psi}\overline{\Lambda}_{-a}^{'}
%=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\overline{\cal D}_{-}\left(e^{Q_{I}\Psi}\overline{\Phi}_{\left(2,2\right)}^{I}\right)\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0},
%\label{eoverline{Lambda}2}
%\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}^{'}e^{\beta_{\tilde{a}}\Psi}
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}{\cal D}_{-}\left(\Xi_{\left(2,2\right)}^{A}e^{q_{A}\Psi}\right)\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0}.
\label{tilde{Lambda}e2}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&e^{\beta_{\tilde{a}}\Psi}\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}^{'}
%=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\overline{\cal D}_{-}\left(e^{q_{A}\Psi}\overline{\Xi}_{\left(2,2\right)}^{A}\right)\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0}.
%\label{eoverline{tilde{Lambda}}2}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ From these relations, it is shown that $I=a$, $A=\tilde{a}$ for indices and $Q_{I}=\alpha_{a}$, $q_{A}=\beta_{\tilde{a}}$ for ${\rm U(1)}$ charges. The exact correspondences between the field components of the $(2,2)$ chiral superfield and those of the $(0,2)$ superfields are given as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&\lambda_{-a}=\psi_{-}^{I},\hspace{13pt}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\overline{\lambda}_{-a}=\overline{\psi}_{-}^{I},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\tilde{\lambda}_{-\tilde{a}}=b_{-}^{A},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\hspace{13pt}\overline{\tilde{\lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}}=\overline{b}_{-}^{A},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&G_{a}=F^{I},\hspace{13pt}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\overline{G}_{a}=\overline{F}^{I},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\tilde{G}_{\tilde{a}}=\chi^{A}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\hspace{13pt}\overline{\tilde{G}}_{\tilde{a}}=\overline{\chi}^{A}.
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\end{array}
\label{22 021}\end{aligned}$$
In order to find the corresponding relations between the $(2,2)$ superfields and the $(0,2)$ superfields, the products of the $(2,2)$ chiral superfields and the $(2,2)$ twist chiral superfields are shown. The $(2,2)$ twist chiral superfield is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-1cm}\Sigma=\sigma
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{+}
-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\theta}^{-}\lambda_{-}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{-}\left(D-iv_{03}\right)
+i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\sigma
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.3cm}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\sigma
-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\overline{\lambda}_{+}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\lambda_{-}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.3cm}+\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\partial_{+}\sigma.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-1cm}\overline{\Sigma}
%=\overline{\sigma}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{-}\overline{\lambda}_{-}
%+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{+}
%+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\left(D+iv_{03}\right)
%-i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\overline{\sigma}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.3cm}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\sigma}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-}
%+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\lambda_{+}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.3cm}+\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\partial_{+}\overline{\sigma}.
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ We find the correspondences as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\overline{\cal D}_{+}\Lambda_{-a\left(0,2\right)}
=2Q_{I}\Sigma\Phi^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)}e^{Q_{I}\Psi}\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0},
\label{DLambda2}
\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&{\cal D}_{+}\overline{\Lambda}_{-a\left(0,2\right)}=-2Q_{I}e^{Q_{I}\Psi}\overline{\Phi}^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)}\overline{\Sigma}\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0},
%\label{Doverline{Lambda}2}
%\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\overline{\cal D}_{+}\tilde{\Lambda}_{-\tilde{a}\left(0,2\right)}
=2q_{A}\Sigma\Xi^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)}e^{q_{A}\Psi}\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0},
\label{Dtilde{Lambda}2}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&{\cal D}_{+}\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{-\tilde{a}\left(0,2\right)}
%=2q_{A}e^{q_{A}\Psi}\overline{\Xi}^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)}\overline{\Sigma}\biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0}.
%\label{Doverline{tilde{Lambda}}2}\end{aligned}$$ where we assumed the following relations: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat{U}E_{a}(\phi,\tau)
=\sum_{I}\hat{U}\phi^{I}\frac{\partial E_{a}(\phi,\tau)}{\partial\phi^{I}},
\label{Ucharge'2}
\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hat{U}\overline{E}_{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\tau})
%=\sum_{I}\hat{U}\overline{\phi}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{E}_{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\tau})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}},
%\label{Ucharge'3}
%\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hat{U}\tilde{E}_{\tilde{a}}(\xi,\tau)
=\sum_{A}\hat{U}\xi^{A}\frac{\partial\tilde{E}_{\tilde{a}}(\xi,\tau)}{\partial\xi^{A}}.
\label{Ucharge'4}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hat{U}\overline{\tilde{E}}_{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\xi},\overline{\tau})
%=\sum_{A}\hat{U}\overline{\xi}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{\tilde{E}}_{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\xi},\overline{\tau})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}.
%\label{Ucharge'5}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ The correspondences between the field components of the $(2,2)$ chiral superfields and the $(0,2)$ superfields are derived as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&E_{a}(\phi,\tau)
=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}Q_{I}\sigma\phi^{I},
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tilde{E}_{\tilde{a}}(\xi,\tau)
=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}q_{A}\sigma\xi^{A},
\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{E}_{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\tau})
%=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}Q_{I}\overline{\sigma}\overline{\phi}^{I},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\tilde{E}}_{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\xi},\overline{\tau})
%=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}q_{A}\overline{\sigma}\overline{\xi}^{A},
%\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tau=\sigma,\hspace{13pt}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\overline{\tau}=\overline{\sigma},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\omega_{+}=\lambda_{+}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\hspace{13pt}\overline{\omega}_{+}=\overline{\lambda}_{+}.
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\end{array}
\label{22 022}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we present the following relations between the field components of the $(0,2)$ superfields $J^{a}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{(0,2)})$, $\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)})$ and those of the $(2,2)$ superfields by using the superpotential $W$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&J^{a}(\phi,\xi)
=\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi^{I}},
\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{J}^{a}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})
%=\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}},
%\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tilde{J}^{\tilde{a}}(\phi,\xi)
=\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi^{A}}.
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\tilde{J}}^{\tilde{a}}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})
%=-\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}.
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\end{array}
\label{22 023}\end{aligned}$$ We have shown that the total $(0,2)$ Lagrangian density ${\cal L}_{\left(0,2\right)}$ is obtained from Eqs. (\[[cal L]{}\_kin.\]), (\[[cal L]{}\_gauge\]), (\[[cal L]{}\_D,theta\]), (\[[cal L]{}\_Omega\]), (\[[cal L]{}\_Lambda\]), and (\[[cal L]{}\_J\]) as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{\left(0,2\right)}={\cal L}_{kin.}+{\cal L}_{gauge}+{\cal L}_{D,\theta}+{\cal L}_{\Omega}+{\cal L}_{\Lambda}+{\cal L}_{J}.
\label{{cal L}_02}\end{aligned}$$ As a result, by the method of using the operator $\hat{U}$, the $(0,2)$ action of the total Lagrangin density of Eq. (\[[cal L]{}\_02\]) agrees exactly with the $(2,2)$ action $S_{\left(2,2\right)}$ in [@seki1], because of the correspondences in Eqs. (\[22 021\]), (\[22 022\]), and (\[22 023\]). By using the new operator $\hat{U}$, unlike in the method of Ref.[@seki1] where it is impossible to have different values of U(1) charges, we could assign different values of U(1) charges to each local coordinate, and provide a more general (0,2) Lagrangian density. These result will lead to a more general Calabi-Yau supermanifold which has a different number of even local coordinates and odd local coordinates, as will be shown in later sections.
$(0,2)$ Supersymmetric Transformations and Invariance of Lagrangian Densities
=============================================================================
In this section we will show the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric transformation properties of the field components, and prove the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric invariances of the Lagrangian densities introduced in section 2, up to the total derivatives.
The (2,2) supersymmetric transformation property of the total (2,2) Lagrangian density has been indicated in Ref.[@seki1]. However the (0,2) supersymmetric transformation property of the total (0,2) Lagrangian density, in which each local coordinate has the same U(1) charge, has not yet been explicitly indicated. We are able to find the (0,2) supersymmetric transformation property of the (0,2) Lagrangian density by looking at the (2,2) supersymmetric transformation property of the (2,2) Lagrangian density indirectly. This is different from the method of Ref.[@seki1], where the (0,2) supersymmetric transformation property of the superpotential term is calculated indirectly, and the supersymmetric transformation of U(1) vector multiplets and the U(1) gauge transformation is not included. Therefore, by assigning different values of U(1) charges to each local coordinate and assigning the correct (0,2) supersymmetric transformation property to the superpotential term, we define the (0,2) supersymmetric transformation operator by using the new operator $\hat{U}$, and we will verify the (0,2) supersymmetric transformation property of the total (0,2) Lagrangian density.
First, we define an operation of the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric transformations from Eq. (\[cyoutaisyou1\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}=-\epsilon_{-}{\cal Q}_{+}+\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\overline{\cal Q}_{+}.
\label{cyoutaisyou3}\end{aligned}$$ We can then derive the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric transformation properties of the field components, and can show that they match the $(2,2)$ supersymmetric transformation properties by using the correspondence relations of Eqs. (\[22 021\]), (\[22 022\]), and (\[22 023\]). The $(0,2)$ supersymmetric transformation properties for the field components of the $(2,2)$ Grassmann even chiral superfield are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\phi^{I}
=-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\epsilon_{-}\psi_{+}^{I},
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\psi_{+}^{I}
={\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}i\overline{\epsilon}_{-}D_{+}\phi^{I},
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\psi_{-}^{I}
={\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\left(\epsilon_{-}F^{I}
+{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}Q_{I}\sigma\phi^{I}\right),
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}F^{I}
=-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\left(iD_{+}\psi_{-}^{I}-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}iQ_{I}\overline{\lambda}_{+}\phi^{I}
-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}Q_{I}\psi_{+}^{I}\sigma\right).
%2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\phi}^{I}
%={\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\overline{\psi}_{+}^{I},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\psi}_{+}^{I}
%=-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}i\epsilon_{-}D_{+}\overline{\phi}^{I},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\psi}_{-}^{I}
%={\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\left(\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\overline{F}^{I}
%+{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\epsilon_{-}Q_{I}\overline{\sigma}\overline{\phi}^{I}\right),
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{F}^{I}
%=-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\epsilon_{-}\left(iD_{+}\overline{\psi}_{-}^{I}
%-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}iQ_{I}\lambda_{+}\overline{\phi}^{I}
%+{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}Q_{I}\overline{\psi}_{+}^{I}\overline{\sigma}\right).
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ In addition, the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric transformation properties for the field components of the $(2,2)$ Grassmann odd chiral superfield are:
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\xi^{A}
=-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\epsilon_{-}b_{+}^{A},
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}b_{+}^{A}
={\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}i\overline{\epsilon}_{-}D_{+}\xi^{A},
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}b_{-}^{A}
={\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\left(\epsilon_{-}\chi^{A}+{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}q_{A}\sigma\xi^{A}\right),
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\chi^{A}
=-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\left(iD_{+}b_{-}^{A}
-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}iq_{A}\overline{\lambda}_{+}\xi^{A}
-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}q_{A}b_{+}^{A}\sigma\right).
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\xi}^{A}
%=-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\overline{b}_{+}^{A},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{b}_{+}^{A}
%={\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}i\epsilon_{-}D_{+}\overline{\xi}^{A},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{b}_{-}^{A}
%=-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\left(\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\overline{\chi}^{A}
%+{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\epsilon_{-}q_{A}\overline{\sigma}\overline{\xi}^{A}\right),
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\chi}^{A}
%={\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\epsilon_{-}\left(iD_{+}\overline{b}_{-}^{A}
%+{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}iq_{A}\lambda_{+}\overline{\xi}^{A}
%+{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}q_{A}\overline{b}_{+}^{A}\overline{\sigma}\right).
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
The $(0,2)$ supersymmetric transformation properties for the field components of the $(2,2)$ vector superfield are given as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}v_{+}
=0,
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}v_{-}
=2i\left(\epsilon_{-}\overline{\lambda}_{-}+\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\lambda_{-}\right),
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\sigma
=-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}i\epsilon_{-}\overline{\lambda}_{+}
,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\lambda_{-}
=i\epsilon_{-}\left(D-iv_{03}\right)
,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\lambda_{+}
={\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\epsilon_{-}\partial_{+}\overline{\sigma}
,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}D
=\epsilon_{-}\partial_{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-}
-\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\partial_{+}\lambda_{-}
,
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\sigma}
%=-{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}i\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\lambda_{+}
%,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\lambda}_{-}
%=-i\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\left(D+iv_{03}\right)
%,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\lambda}_{+}
%={\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\partial_{+}\sigma.
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Where $v_{03}=\partial_{0}v_{3}-\partial_{3}v_{0}$.
The $(0,2)$ supersymmetric transformation properties of the Lagrangian densities $\mathcal{L}_{\left(0,2\right)}$ are derived and expressed by using the $(2,2)$ field components from Eqs. (\[22 021\]), (\[22 022\]), and (\[22 023\]). The actions for $\mathcal{L}_{\left(0,2\right)}$ are supersymmetric invariants up to total derivatives. However, for ${\cal L}_{J}$ in Eq. (\[[cal L]{}\_J\]), we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}{\cal L}_{J}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.4cm}
=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\partial_{+}\Biggl[\sum_{I}\psi_{-}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi^{I}}
+\sum_{A}b_{-}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi^{A}}\Biggr]
\nonumber\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\epsilon_{-}\partial_{+}\Biggl[\sum_{I}\overline{\psi}_{-}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}}
%-\sum_{A}\overline{b}_{-}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\Biggl[v_{+}\hat{U}\left(\sum_{I}\psi_{-}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi^{I}}
+\sum_{A}b_{-}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi^{A}}\right)
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&+\Biggl(\sum_{J}\psi_{+}^{J}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi^{J}}
+\sum_{B}b_{+}^{B}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi^{B}}
+i\overline{\lambda}_{+}\frac{\partial}{\partial\sigma}\Biggr)
\Biggl(\sum_{I}\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}Q_{I}\sigma\phi^{I}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi^{I}}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&+\sum_{A}\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}q_{A}\sigma\xi^{A}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi^{A}}\Biggr)\Biggr]
+(h.c.).
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\epsilon_{-}\Biggl[-v_{+}\hat{U}\left(\sum_{I}\overline{\psi}_{-}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}}
%-\sum_{A}\overline{b}_{-}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}\right)
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&
%+\left(\sum_{J}\overline{\psi}_{+}^{J}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{J}}
%-\sum_{B}\overline{b}_{+}^{B}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{B}}
%-i\lambda_{+}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\sigma}}\right)
%\Biggl(\sum_{I}\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}Q_{I}\overline{\sigma}\overline{\phi}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&+\sum_{A}\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}q_{A}\overline{\sigma}\overline{\xi}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}\Biggr)\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{delta{cal L}_J}\end{aligned}$$ The results of Eq. (\[delta[cal L]{}\_J\]) imply that the action for $\mathcal{L}_{J}$ is not a supersymmetric invariant, because the variations consist of non-total derivative terms under the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric transformation.
Therefore, we must impose consistency conditions that will assure that ${\cal L}_{J}$ is $(0,2)$ supersymmetric invariant up to total derivatives: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{I}Q_{I}\phi^{I}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi^{I}}
+\sum_{A}q_{A}\xi^{A}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi^{A}}
=0.
\label{zyouken1}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\sum_{I}Q_{I}\overline{\phi}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}}
%+\sum_{A}q_{A}\overline{\xi}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}
%=0,
%\label{zyouken2}
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hat{U}\left(\sum_{I}\psi_{-}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi^{I}}+\sum_{A}b_{-}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi^{A}}\right)
%=0,
%\label{zyouken3}
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hat{U}\left(\sum_{I}\overline{\psi}_{-}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}}
%-\sum_{A}\overline{b}_{-}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}\right)
%=0.
%\label{zyouken4}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[zyouken1\]) is the same condition as Eq. (\[E\_aJ\^a1\]). We undestand that Eq. (\[E\_aJ\^a1\]) does not only define $(0,2)$ chiral superfields, but also gives a consistency condition that ensures the supersymmetric variation of ${\cal L}_{J}$ to be invariant under $(0,2)$ supersymmetric transformations up to total derivatives.
These restrictions on the superpotential are confirmed by using the corrected (0,2) supersymmetric transformation which includes the U(1) vector multiplets. Using the method of Ref.[@seki1], one could not confirm the necessity of the restrictions clearly. However, we in our present method we could indicate explicitly the necessity of the restrictions. It has been reported (Ref.[@seki1]) that Eq. (\[zyouken1\]) is equivalent to the quasi-homogeneous condition $W(\phi^{I},\xi^{A})=W(\lambda^{Q_{I}}\phi^{I},\lambda^{q_{A}}\xi^{A})$ for the superpotential. Thus, we can use the identification: $$\begin{aligned}
&&(\phi^{1},\phi^{2},\cdots,\phi^{m}|\xi^{1},\xi^{2},\cdots,\xi^{n})
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&& \hspace{1cm}\sim (\lambda^{Q_{1}}\phi^{1},\lambda^{Q_{2}}\phi^{2},\cdots,\lambda^{Q_{m}}\phi^{m}|\lambda^{q_{1}}\xi^{1},\lambda^{q_{2}}\xi^{2},\cdots,\lambda^{q_{n}}\xi^{n}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda\in C^{\times}$. Namely, the supermanifold $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$ becomes the super weighted complex projective space $WCP^{m-1|n}$, which can be reproduced using $\hat{U}$. If we focus on the Calabi-Yau supermanifold corresponding to the super Landau-Ginzburg model, we can construct a Calabi-Yau supermanifold, which is more general in Ref.[@seki1] and which has different numbers of even coordinates and odd coordinates satisfying Eq. (\[q1\]). The formula of the $\hat{U}$ charge operator satisfies the assumptions of Eqs. (\[Ucharge1\]), (\[hat[U]{}1\]), (\[Ucharge’1\]), (\[Ucharge2\]), (\[Ucharge3\]), (\[Ucharge7\]) and (\[Ucharge’2\]). The operator $\hat{U}$ is written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.7cm}
\hat{U}=\sum_{I}Q_{I}\Biggl[\phi^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi^{I}}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%-\overline{\phi}^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\phi}^{I}}
+\sum_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\phi^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\phi^{I}\right)}
%-\sum_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\overline{\phi}^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\overline{\phi}^{I}\right)}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\sum_{\mu,\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\phi^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\nu}\partial^{\nu}\phi^{I}\right)}
%-\sum_{\mu,\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\overline{\phi}^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\nu}\partial^{\nu}\overline{\phi}^{I}\right)}
+\sum_{\alpha=\pm}\Bigg\{\psi^{I}_{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi^{I}_{\alpha}}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&
%-\overline{\psi}^{I}_{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\psi}^{I}_{\alpha}}
+\sum_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\psi^{I}_{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\psi^{I}_{\alpha}\right)}\Bigg\}
%-\sum_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\overline{\psi}^{I}_{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\overline{\psi}^{I}_{\alpha}\right)}\Bigg\}
+F^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial F^{I}}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&
%-\overline{F}^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{F}^{I}}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&+\sum_{A}q_{A}\Biggl[\xi^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi^{A}}
%-\overline{\xi}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\xi}^{A}}
+\sum_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\xi^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\xi^{A}\right)}
%-\sum_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\overline{\xi}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\overline{\xi}^{A}\right)}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&
+\sum_{\mu,\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\xi^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\nu}\partial^{\nu}\xi^{A}\right)}
%-\sum_{\mu,\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\overline{\xi}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\nu}\partial^{\nu}\overline{\xi}^{A}\right)}
+\sum_{\alpha=\pm}\Bigg\{b_{\alpha}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial b_{\alpha}^{A}}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&
%-\overline{b}_{\alpha}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{b}_{\alpha}^{A}}
+\sum_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}b_{\alpha}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}b_{\alpha}^{A}\right)}\Bigg\}
%-\sum_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\overline{b}_{\alpha}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\overline{b}_{\alpha}^{A}\right)}\Bigg\}
+\chi^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\chi^{A}}
+(h.c.).
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&
%-\overline{\chi}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\chi}^{A}}\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{U}\end{aligned}$$ By using the operator $\hat{U}$, we could assign different values of U(1) charges to the each local coordinate. Furthermore, different from method of Ref.[@seki1], we could indicate the necessity of the restrictions on the superpotential explicitly, and succeeded in constructing a more general (0,2) Lagrangian density, which has different U(1) charges for each local coordinate.
$\left(0,2\right)$ Supermultiplets in the Non-Abelian Gauge Theory
==================================================================
Now we will construct the (0,2) Lagrangian density for the U(N) gauge group. In contrast to the U(1) case, in the U(N) case we do not need to assign different values of the charge to each local coordinate. By introducing the (0,2) supermultiplets in the U(N) gauge group, we can construct the (0,2) U(N) Lagrangian density without using the $\hat{U}$ operator at first.
First, $\Psi=\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\sum_{a}v_{+}^{a}T^{a}$ is defined for the vector fields $v_{\mu}$, where $T^{a}$ are the generators of the ${\rm U(N)}$ group and $a=1,\cdots,\rm{dim}$ ${\rm U(N)}$. In $D=2$, the $(2,2)$ Grassmann even chiral superfield $\Phi_{\left(2,2\right)i}$ and $(2,2)$ Grassmann odd chiral superfield $\Xi_{\left(2,2\right)i}$ are given in a manner similar to the ${\rm U(1)}$ case: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\Phi^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)i}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.9cm}=\phi^{I}_{i}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\left(\theta^{+}\psi_{+i}^{I}
+\theta^{-}\psi_{-i}^{I}\right)
+2\theta^{+}\theta^{-}F_{i}^{I}
-i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\phi_{i}^{I}
-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\phi_{i}^{I}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\psi_{+i}^{I}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\psi_{-i}^{I}
-\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\partial_{+}\phi_{i}^{I},
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\nonumber\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\overline{\Phi}^{I}_{\left(2,2\right)i}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.9cm}
%=\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\left(\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\psi}_{+i}^{I}
%+\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}\right)
%+2\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{F}_{i}^{I}
%+i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}
%+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\overline{\psi}_{+i}^{I}
%+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}
%-\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\partial_{+}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\nonumber\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\Xi^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)i}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.9cm}
=\xi_{i}^{A}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\left(\theta^{+}b_{+i}^{A}
+\theta^{-}b_{-i}^{A}\right)
+2\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\chi_{i}^{A}
-i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\xi_{i}^{A}
-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\xi_{i}^{A}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}b_{+i}^{A}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}b_{-i}^{A}
-\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\partial_{+}\xi_{i}^{A},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\overline{\Xi}^{A}_{\left(2,2\right)i}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.9cm}
%=\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}
%+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\left(\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{b}_{+i}^{A}
%+\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}\right)
%+2\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\chi}_{i}^{A}
%+i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\partial_{-}\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}
%+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}
%+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\overline{b}_{+i}^{A}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}
%-\theta^{+}\theta^{-}\overline{\theta}^{-}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{-}\partial_{+}\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A},
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ where $i=1,\cdots,N$ [@seki1]. For these $(2,2)$ chiral superfields, we will define superfields with restrictions $\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)i}^{I}\equiv\sum_{j}\left(e^\Psi\right)_{ij}\Phi_{\left(2,2\right)j}^{I}\Biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}=\phi_{i}^{I}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\psi_{+i}^{I}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\left(D_{+}\phi^{I}\right)_{i},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Phi02non.}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)j}^{I}\equiv\sum_{i}\overline{\Phi}_{\left(2,2\right)i}^{I}\left(e^{\Psi}\right)_{ij}\Biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}=\overline{\phi}_{j}^{I}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\psi}_{+j}^{I}
%+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\left(D_{+}\overline{\phi}^{I}\right)_{j},
%\label{overlinePhi02non.}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)i}^{A}\equiv\sum_{j}\left(e^{\Psi}\right)_{ij}\Xi_{\left(2,2\right)j}^{A}\Biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}=\xi_{i}^{A}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}b_{+i}^{A}
%-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\left(D_{+}\xi^{A}\right)_{i},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Xi02non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)j}^{A}\equiv\sum_{i}\overline{\Xi}_{\left(2,2\right)i}^{A}\left(e^{\Psi}\right)_{ij}\Biggl|_{\theta^{-}=\overline{\theta}^{-}=0}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}=\overline{\xi}_{j}^{A}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{b}_{+j}^{A}
%+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\left(D_{+}\overline{\xi}^{A}\right)_{j},
%\label{overlineXi02non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ where the covariant derivatives of the gauge transformation for the components of the $(2,2)$ chiral superfields are defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\begin{array}{rcl}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
&&\left(D_{\mu}\phi^{I}\right)_{i}=\partial_{\mu}\phi_{i}^{I}+i\sum_{j}v_{\mu ij}\phi_{j}^{I}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\left(D_{\mu}\overline{\phi}^{I}\right)_{j}=\partial_{\mu}\overline{\phi}_{j}^{I}-i\sum_{i}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}v_{\mu ij},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\left(D_{\pm}\phi^{I}\right)_{i}=\partial_{\pm}\phi_{i}^{I}+i\sum_{j}v_{\pm ij}\phi_{j}^{I},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\left(D_{\pm}\overline{\phi}^{I}\right)_{j}=\partial_{\pm}\overline{\phi}_{j}^{I}-i\sum_{i}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}v_{\pm ij}.
%\end{array}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ We now consider the Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_{non.kin.}$ for the fields in Eqs. (\[Phi02non.\]) and (\[Xi02non.\]). From the definition of the $\left(2,2\right)$ vector superfield, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\mathcal{V}=\sum_{a}\left(iv_{-}^a+2\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-}^a+2\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{-}^a+2i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D^a\right)T^a,
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.1cm}=iv_{-}+2\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-}+2\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{-}+2i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D,
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ we can define the covariant derivative: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}_{0}-\mathcal{D}_{3}\equiv\partial_{-}+\mathcal{V}.
\label{mathcalD0-mathcalD3non.}\end{aligned}$$ Then, $\mathcal{L}_{non.kin.}$ is given by Eqs. (\[Phi02non.\]), (\[Xi02non.\]) and (\[mathcalD0-mathcalD3non.\]) $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{L}_{non.kin.}=\frac{i}{2}\int d\theta^{+}d\overline{\theta}^{+}\sum_{i,j}\Biggl[\sum_{I}\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)i}^{I}\left(\mathcal{D}_{0}-\mathcal{D}_{3}\right)_{ij}\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)j}^{I}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{4.7cm}+\sum_{A}\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)i}^{A}\left(\mathcal{D}_{0}-\mathcal{D}_{3}\right)_{ij}\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)j}^{A}\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.5cm}=\sum_{i}\Biggl[-\sum_{I,\mu}\left(D_{\mu}\overline{\phi}^{I}\right)_{i}\left(D^{\mu}\phi^{I}\right)_{i}
%+i\sum_{I}\overline{\psi}_{+i}^{I}\left(D_{-}\psi_{+}^{I}\right)_{i}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.9cm}-\sum_{A,\mu}\left(D_{\mu}\overline{\xi}^{A}\right)_{i}\left(D^{\mu}\xi^{A}\right)_{i}
%+i\sum_{A}\overline{b}_{+i}^{A}\left(D_{-}b_{+}^{A}\right)_{i}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.9cm}+\sum_{i,j,I}\Biggl[-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}\lambda_{-ij}\psi_{+j}^{I}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\psi}_{+i}^{I}\overline{\lambda}_{-ij}\phi_{j}^{I}+\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}D_{ij}\phi_{j}^{I}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.9cm}+\sum_{i,j,A}\Biggl[-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}\lambda_{-ij}b_{+j}^{A}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{b}_{+i}^{A}\overline{\lambda}_{-ij}\xi_{j}^{A}+\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}D_{ij}\xi_{j}^{A}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.9cm}-\frac{1}{2}\partial_{-}\sum_{i}\Biggl[\sum_{I}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}\left(D_{+}\phi^{I}\right)_{i}+\sum_{A}\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}\left(D_{+}\xi^{A}\right)_{i}\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{mathcalLnon.kin.}\end{aligned}$$ The Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_{non.gauge}$ for the vector superfield $\mathcal{V}$ and Fayet-Iliopoulos(FI) term $\mathcal{L}_{non.D,\theta}$, which arises from ${\rm U(1)}$ sector of the ${\rm U(N)}$ group, is given as follows. We define an operator acting on a function $f_{i}(x_{\mu},\theta^{+},\overline{\theta}^{+})$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{j}\mathcal{D}_{+ij}f_{j}\equiv\sum_{j,k}\left(e^{-\Psi}\right)_{ik}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^{+}}-i\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\right)\left(e^{\Psi}\right)_{kj}f_{j}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.8cm}=\sum_{j}\Bigg\{\delta_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^{+}}-i\overline{\theta}^{+}\left(\delta_{ij}\partial_{+}+iv_{+ij}\right)\Bigg\}f_{j},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{mathcalD+non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\sum_{i}\overline{\mathcal{D}}_{+ij}f_{i}\equiv\sum_{j,k}\left(e^{\Psi}\right)_{ik}\left(-\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\theta}^{+}}+i\theta^{+}\partial_{+}\right)\left(e^{-\Psi}\right)_{kj}f_{i}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.8cm}=\sum_{i}\Bigg\{-\delta_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\theta}^{+}}+i\theta^{+}\left(\delta_{ij}\partial_{+}+iv_{+ij}\right)\Bigg\}f_{i}.\label{overlinemathcalD+non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[mathcalD0-mathcalD3non.\]) and (\[mathcalD+non.\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Upsilon_{non.}\equiv\bigl[\mathcal{\overline{D}}_{+},\left(\mathcal{D}_{0}-\mathcal{D}_{3}\right)\bigr].
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.05cm}=-2\lambda_{-}+2i\theta^{+}D+2\theta^{+}v_{03non.}+2i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\lambda_{-},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Upsilonnon.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Upsilon}_{non.}\equiv\bigl[\left(\mathcal{D}_{0}-\mathcal{D}_{3}\right),\mathcal{D}_{+}\bigr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.05cm}=-2\overline{\lambda}_{-}-2i\overline{\theta}^{+}D+2\overline{\theta}^{+}v_{03non.}-2i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-},
%\label{overlineUpsilonnon.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ The covariant derivatives of the gauge transformations for the components of the $(2,2)$ vector superfield are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&D_{\pm}\lambda_{-}=\partial_{\pm}\lambda_{-}+i\bigl[v_{\pm},\lambda_{-}\bigr].
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&D_{\pm}\overline{\lambda}_{-}=\partial_{\pm}\overline{\lambda}_{-}+i\bigl[v_{\pm},\overline{\lambda}_{-}\bigr].
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[Upsilonnon.\]), $\mathcal{L}_{non.gauge}$ can be given as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-1cm}\mathcal{L}_{non.gauge}=-\frac{1}{8e^{2}}\int d\theta^{+}d\overline{\theta}^{+}{\rm tr}\Biggl[\Upsilon_{non.}\overline{\Upsilon}_{non.}\Biggr],
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.8cm}=\frac{1}{2e^{2}}{\rm tr}\Biggl[D^{2}+\left(v_{03non.}\right)^{2}+i\lambda_{-}D_{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-}-iD_{+}\lambda_{-}\overline{\lambda}_{-}\Biggr],
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{mathcalLnon.gauge}\end{aligned}$$ and $\mathcal{L}_{non.D,\theta}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{L}_{non.D,\theta}=\frac{t}{4}\int d\theta^{+}{\rm tr}\Upsilon_{non.}\Bigl|_{\overline{\theta}^{+}=0}+\frac{\overline{t}}{4}\int d\overline{\theta}^{+}{\rm tr}\overline{\Upsilon}_{non.}\Bigr|_{\theta^{+}=0}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.5cm}=-{\rm tr}\Biggl[rD-\frac{\theta}{2\pi}v_{03non.}\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{mathcalLnon.D,theta}\end{aligned}$$ Since Eq. (\[Upsilonnon.\]) includes only part of the components of the $(2,2)$ vector superfield, the residual compensating components will be given by the superfield $\Omega$ : $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Omega\equiv\sum_{a}\left(\sigma^a+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{+}^a-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\sigma^a\right)T^{a}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.35cm}=\sigma+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{+}-i\theta^{+}\overline{%\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\sigma,
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Omeganon.''}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Omega}\equiv\sum_{a}\left(\overline{\sigma}^a+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{+}^a+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\sigma}^a\right)T^{a}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.35cm}=\overline{\sigma}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{+}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\sigma}.
%\label{overlineOmeganon.''}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[Omeganon.”\]), we redefine the following superfield: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Omega_{non.}\equiv\Omega+\bigl[\Psi,\Omega\bigr],
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1cm}=\sigma+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{+}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\sigma,
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Omeganon.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Omega}_{non.}\equiv\overline{\Omega}+\bigl[\overline{\Omega},\Psi\bigr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1cm}=\overline{\sigma}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{+}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\overline{\sigma},
%\label{overlineOmeganon.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ and from these definitions, we obtain the following: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{V}^{'}\equiv\sum_{a}\left(iv_{-}^a+2\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-}^a+2\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{-}^a+2i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D^a\right)T^{a},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.5cm}=iv_{-}+2\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-}+2\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{-}+2i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D,
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{mathcalV'non.}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\mathcal{V}}^{'}\equiv
%\sum_{a}\left(-iv_{-}^a-2\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-}^a-2\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{-}^a-2i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D^a\right)T^{a}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.5cm}=-iv_{-}-2\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-}-2\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{-}-2i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D,
%\label{overlinemathcalV'non.}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\Omega^{'}\equiv
\sum_{a}\left(\sigma^a+i\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{+}^a-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\sigma^a\right)T^{a}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.5cm}=\sigma+i\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{+}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\sigma,
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Omega'non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Omega}^{'}\equiv
%\sum_{a}\left(\overline{\sigma}^a+i\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{+}^a+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\sigma}^a\right)T^{a}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.5cm}=\overline{\sigma}+i\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{+}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\sigma}.
%\label{overlineOmega'non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq. (\[Omega’non.\]), we can define $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Omega_{non.}^{'}\equiv\Omega^{'}+\bigl[\Psi,\Omega^{'}\bigr].
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1cm}=\sigma+i\theta^{+}\overline{\lambda}_{+}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\sigma,
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Omeganon.'}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Omega}_{non.}^{'}\equiv\overline{\Omega}^{'}+\bigl[\overline{\Omega}^{'},\Psi\bigr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1cm}=\overline{\sigma}+i\overline{\theta}^{+}\lambda_{+}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}D_{+}\overline{\sigma}.
%\label{overlineOmeganon.'}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[mathcalV’non.\]) and (\[Omeganon.’\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Gamma\equiv\bigl[\mathcal{V}^{'},\Omega_{non.}^{'}\bigr]\Bigl|_{\overline{\theta}^{+}=0},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.35cm}=i\bigl[v_{-},\sigma\bigr]-\theta^{+}\bigl[v_{-},\overline{\lambda}_{+}\bigr]
%+2\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\bigl[\overline{\lambda}_{-},\sigma\bigr],
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Gammanon.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Gamma}\equiv\bigl[\overline{\Omega}_{non.}^{'},\overline{\mathcal{V}}^{'}\bigr]\Big|_{\theta^{+}=0}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.35cm}=i\bigl[v_{-},\overline{\sigma}\bigr]-\overline{\theta}^{+}\bigl[v_{-},\lambda_{+}\bigr]+2\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\bigl[\lambda_{-},\overline{\sigma}\bigr],
%\label{overlineGammanon.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ is defined. Then, the Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_{non.gauge}^{'}$ is obtained from Eqs. (\[Omeganon.\]), (\[Omeganon.’\]) and (\[Gammanon.\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{L}_{non.gauge}^{'}
=\frac{i}{2e^{2}}\int d\theta^{+}d\overline{\theta}^{+}{\rm tr}\Biggl[\overline{\Omega}_{non.}\partial_{-}\Omega_{non.}+\overline{\Omega}_{non.}^{'}\Gamma-\overline{\Gamma}\Omega_{non.}^{'}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{5cm}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\bigl[\Omega_{non.}^{'},\overline{\Omega}_{non.}^{'}\bigr]^{2}\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.8cm}=\frac{1}{e^{2}}{\rm tr}\Biggl[-\sum_{\mu}D_{\mu}\overline{\sigma}D^{\mu}\sigma-\frac{i}{2}D_{-}\lambda_{+}\overline{\lambda}_{+}+\frac{i}{2}\lambda_{+}D_{-}\overline{\lambda}_{+}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.9cm}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\lambda_{+}\bigl[\overline{\lambda}_{-},\sigma\bigr]-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\bigl[\lambda_{-},\overline{\sigma}\bigr]\overline{\lambda}_{+}-\frac{1}{2}\bigl[\sigma,\overline{\sigma}\bigr]^{2}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.9cm}+\frac{1}{2e^{2}}{\rm tr}\Biggl[\partial_{-}\left(-\overline{\sigma}D_{+}\sigma+i\lambda_{+}\overline{\lambda}_{+}\right)\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{mathcalLnon.gauge'}\end{aligned}$$ Next, we will introduce the other $(0,2)$ superfields as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Lambda_{Ii}^{'}\equiv\psi_{-i}^{I}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}F_{i}^{I}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\psi_{-i}^{I},
\label{Lambda'non.}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Lambda}_{Ii}^{'}\equiv\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{F}_{i}^{I}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I},
%\label{overlineLambda'non.}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tilde{\Lambda}_{Ai}^{'}\equiv b_{-i}^{A}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\chi_{i}^{A}-i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}b_{-i}^{A}.
\label{tildeLambda'non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{Ai}^{'}\equiv\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\chi}_{i}^{A}+i\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}.
%\label{overlinetildeLambda'non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ We will give functions $E_{Ii}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)$, and $\tilde{E}_{Ai}(\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)$ defined on the variables given by Eqs. (\[Phi02non.\]), (\[Xi02non.\]) and (\[Omeganon.”\]). We assume these functions to be separable in variables: $$\begin{aligned}
&&E_{Ii}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)=\sum_{j}H_{ij}(\Omega)G_{Ij}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)}),
\label{Enon.}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{E}_{Ii}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Omega})=\sum_{j}\overline{G}_{Ij}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)})\overline{H}_{ji}(\overline{\Omega}),
%\label{overlineEnon.}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tilde{E}_{Ai}(\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)=\sum_{j}H_{ij}(\Omega)\tilde{G}_{Aj}(\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)}).
\label{tildeEnon.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\tilde{E}}_{Ai}(\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Omega})=\sum_{j}\overline{\tilde{G}}_{Aj}(\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)})\overline{H}_{ji}(\overline{\Omega}).
%\label{overlinetildeEnon.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs. (\[Lambda’non.\])-(\[tildeEnon.\]), we redefine the fields: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Lambda_{Ii}\equiv\Lambda_{Ii}^{'}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}E_{Ii}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega),
\label{Lambdanon.}
\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\Lambda}_{Ii}\equiv\overline{\Lambda}_{Ii}^{'}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{E}_{Ii}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Omega}),
%\label{overlineLambdanon.}
%\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tilde{\Lambda}_{Ai}\equiv\tilde{\Lambda}_{Ai}^{'}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\tilde{E}_{Ai}(\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega).
\label{tildeLambdanon.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{Ai}=\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{Ai}^{'}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\overline{\tilde{E}}_{Ai}(\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Omega}).
%\label{overlinetildeLambdanon.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ We can then obtain the following identities from Eqs. (\[Enon.\])-(\[tildeLambdanon.\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\Lambda_{Ii\left(0,2\right)}\equiv\sum_{j}\left(e^{\Psi}\right)_{ij}\Lambda_{Ij},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.8cm}=\psi_{-i}^{I}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}F^{I}_{i}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\sum_{j}H_{ij}(\sigma)G_{Ij}(\phi)
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}+\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\Bigg\{-i\partial_{+}\psi_{-i}^{I}
%+\sum_{j}v_{+ij}\psi_{-j}^{I}+2\sum_{j,k,J}H_{ij}(\sigma)\psi_{+k}^{J}\frac{\partial G_{Ij}(\phi)}{\partial\phi_{k}^{J}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}+2i\sum_{j}\left(\overline{\lambda}_{+}\frac{\partial H(\sigma)}{\partial\sigma}\right)_{ij}G_{Ij}(\phi)\Bigg\},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{Lambda02non.}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\overline{\Lambda}_{Ii\left(0,2\right)}\equiv\sum_{j}\overline{\Lambda}_{Ij}\left(e^{\Psi}\right)_{ji}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.8cm}=\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{F}_{i}^{I}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\sum_{j}\overline{G}_{Ij}(\overline{\phi})\overline{H}_{ji}(\overline{\sigma})
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}+\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\Bigg\{i\partial_{+}\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}
%+\sum_{j}\overline{\psi}_{-j}^{I}v_{+ji}+2\sum_{j,k,J}\overline{\psi}_{+k}^{J}\frac{\partial\overline{G}_{Ij}(\overline{\phi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{k}^{J}}\overline{H}_{ji}(\overline{\sigma})
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}-2i\sum_{j}\overline{G}_{Ij}(\overline{\phi})\left(\lambda_{+}\frac{\partial\overline{H}(\overline{\sigma})}{\partial\overline{\sigma}}\right)_{ji}\Bigg\},
%\label{overlineLambda02non.}\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\tilde{\Lambda}_{Ai\left(0,2\right)}\equiv\sum_{j}\left(e^{\Psi}\right)_{ij}\tilde{\Lambda}_{Aj},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.8cm}=b_{-i}^{A}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\chi_{i}^{A}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\sum_{j}H_{ij}(\sigma)\tilde{G}_{Aj}(\xi)
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}+\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\Bigg\{-i\partial_{+}b_{-i}^{A}
%+\sum_{j}v_{+ij}b_{-j}^{A}+2\sum_{j,k,B}H_{ij}(\sigma)b_{+k}^{B}\frac{\partial\tilde{G}_{Aj}(\xi)}{\partial\xi_{k}^{B}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}+2i\sum_{j}\left(\overline{\lambda}_{+}\frac{\partial H(\sigma)}{\partial\sigma}\right)_{ij}\tilde{G}_{Aj}(\xi)\Bigg\},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{tildeLambda02non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{Ai\left(0,2\right)}\equiv\sum_{j}\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{Aj}\left(e^{\Psi}\right)_{ji}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{0.8cm}=\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\chi}_{i}^{A}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\theta^{+}\sum_{j}\overline{\tilde{G}}_{Aj}(\overline{\xi})\overline{H}_{ji}(\overline{\sigma})
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}+\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\Bigg\{i\partial_{+}\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}
%+\sum_{j}\overline{b}_{-j}^{A}v_{+ji}+2\sum_{j,k,B}\overline{b}_{+k}^{B}\frac{\partial\overline{\tilde{G}}_{Aj}(\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}_{k}^{B}}\overline{H}_{ji}(\overline{\sigma})
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1.1cm}-2i\sum_{j}\overline{\tilde{G}}_{Aj}(\overline{\xi})\left(\lambda_{+}\frac{\partial\overline{H}(\overline{\sigma})}{\partial\overline{\sigma}}\right)_{ji}\Bigg\},
%\label{overlinetildeLambda02non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&E_{Ii}^{'}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\Omega})=\sum_{j}\overline{H}_{ij}(\overline{\Omega})G_{Ij}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)}),
\label{E'non.}
\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{E}_{Ii}^{'}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)=\sum_{j}\overline{G}_{Ij}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)})H_{ji}(\Omega),
%\label{overlineE'non.}
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tilde{E}_{Ai}^{'}(\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Omega})=\sum_{j}\overline{H}_{ij}(\overline{\Omega})\tilde{G}_{Aj}(\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)}).
\label{tildeE'non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\overline{\tilde{E}}_{Ai}^{'}(\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)=\sum_{j}\overline{\tilde{G}}_{Aj}(\overline{\xi}_{\left(0,2\right)})H_{ji}(\Omega).
%\label{overlinetildeE'non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ We can now obtain the Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_{non.\Lambda}$ from Eqs. (\[Enon.\]), (\[tildeEnon.\]), and (\[Lambda02non.\])-(\[tildeE’non.\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.35cm}\mathcal{L}_{non.\Lambda}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.75cm}=\frac{1}{2}\int d\theta^{+}d\overline{\theta}^{+}\sum_{i}\Biggl[\sum_{I}\overline{\Lambda}_{Ii\left(0,2\right)}\Lambda_{Ii\left(0,2\right)}+\sum_{A}\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{Ai\left(0,2\right)}\tilde{\Lambda}_{Ai\left(0,2\right)}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{2.45cm}+\sum_{I}\left(\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{E}_{Ii}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Omega})+\theta^{+}\overline{E}_{Ii}^{'}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)\right)
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{2.45cm}\times\left(\theta^{+}E_{Ii}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)+\overline{\theta}^{+}E_{Ii}^{'}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Omega})\right)
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{2.45cm}-\sum_{A}\left(\overline{\theta}^{+}\overline{\tilde{E}}_{Ai}(\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Omega})+\theta^{+}\overline{\tilde{E}}_{Ai}^{'}(\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)\right)
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{2.45cm}\times\left(\theta^{+}\tilde{E}_{Ai}(\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Omega)+\overline{\theta}^{+}\tilde{E}_{Ai}^{'}(\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Omega})\right)\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.75cm}=\sum_{i}\Biggl[i\sum_{I}\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}\left(D_{+}\psi_{-}^{I}\right)_{i}+\sum_{I}\overline{F}_{i}^{I}F_{i}^{I}+i\sum_{A}\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}\left(D_{+}b_{-}^{A}\right)_{i}+\sum_{A}\overline{\chi}_{i}^{A}\chi_{i}^{A}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.35cm}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j,k,I}\Biggl[\overline{G}_{Ij}(\overline{\phi})\overline{H}_{ji}(\overline{\sigma})H_{ik}(\sigma)G_{Ik}(\phi)
%+\overline{G}_{Ij}(\overline{\phi})H_{ji}(\sigma)\overline{H}_{ik}(\overline{\sigma})G_{Ik}(\phi)\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.35cm}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j,k,A}\Biggl[\overline{\tilde{G}}_{Aj}(\overline{\xi})\overline{H}_{ji}(\overline{\sigma})H_{ik}(\sigma)\tilde{G}_{Ak}(\xi)
%+\overline{\tilde{G}}_{Aj}(\overline{\xi})H_{ji}(\sigma)\overline{H}_{ik}(\overline{\sigma})\tilde{G}_{Ak}(\xi)\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.35cm}-\sum_{i,j,k,I,J}\Biggl[\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}H_{ij}(\sigma)\psi_{+k}^{J}\frac{\partial G_{Ij}(\phi)}{\partial\phi_{k}^{J}}+\overline{\psi}_{+k}^{J}\frac{\partial\overline{G}_{Ij}(\overline{\phi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{k}^{J}}\overline{H}_{ji}(\overline{\sigma})\psi_{-i}^{I}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.35cm}-\sum_{i,j,k,A,B}\Biggl[\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}H_{ij}(\sigma)b_{+k}^{B}\frac{\partial\tilde{G}_{Aj}(\xi)}{\partial\xi_{k}^{B}}+\overline{b}_{+k}^{B}\frac{\partial\overline{\tilde{G}}_{Aj}(\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}_{k}^{B}}\overline{H}_{ji}(\overline{\sigma})b_{-i}^{A}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.35cm}+\sum_{i,j,I}\Biggl[i\overline{G}_{Ij}(\overline{\phi})\left(\lambda_{+}\frac{\partial\overline{H}(\overline{\sigma})}{\partial\overline{\sigma}}\right)_{ji}\psi_{-i}^{I}-i\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}\left(\overline{\lambda}_{+}\frac{\partial H(\sigma)}{\partial\sigma}\right)_{ij}G_{Ij}(\phi)\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.35cm}+\sum_{i,j,A}\Biggl[i\overline{\tilde{G}}_{Aj}(\overline{\xi})\left(\lambda_{+}\frac{\partial\overline{H}(\overline{\sigma})}{\partial\overline{\sigma}}\right)_{ji}b_{-i}^{A}-i\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}\left(\overline{\lambda}_{+}\frac{\partial H(\sigma)}{\partial\sigma}\right)_{ij}\tilde{G}_{Aj}(\xi)\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.35cm}-\frac{i}{2}\partial_{+}\sum_{i}\Biggl[\sum_{I}\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}\psi_{-i}^{I}+\sum_{A}\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}b_{-i}^{A}\Biggr].
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{mathcalLnon.Lambda}\end{aligned}$$ We will choose the functions given in Eqs. (\[Enon.\]) and (\[tildeEnon.\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&G_{Ii}(\phi)=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\phi_{i}^{I},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\hspace{13pt}\overline{G}_{Ii}(\overline{\phi})=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tilde{G}_{Ai}(\xi)=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\xi_{i}^{A},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\hspace{13pt}\overline{\tilde{G}}_{Ai}(\overline{\xi})=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&H(\sigma)=\sigma.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\hspace{13pt}\overline{H}(\overline{\sigma})=\overline{\sigma},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\end{array}
\label{N=left(0,2right)non.}\end{aligned}$$ \[mathcalLnon.Lambda’\] We further define functions $J_{i}^{I}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)})$ and $\tilde{J}_{i}^{A}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)})$ by Eqs. (\[Phi02non.\]) and (\[Xi02non.\]), and assume the following relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&&J_{i}^{I}(\phi,\xi)=\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi_{i}^{I}},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\hspace{13pt}
%\overline{J}_{i}^{I}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})=\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\tilde{J}_{i}^{A}(\phi,\xi)=\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi_{i}^{A}},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\hspace{13pt}
%\overline{\tilde{J}}_{i}^{A}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})=-\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\end{array}
\label{Jnon.}\end{aligned}$$ where $W$ is superpotential of the theory. The Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_{non.J}$ is then obtained by Eqs. (\[Lambda02non.\]), (\[tildeLambda02non.\]) and (\[Jnon.\]) as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.1cm}\mathcal{L}_{non.J}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\int d\theta^{+}\sum_{i}\Biggl[\sum_{I}\Lambda_{Ii\left(0,2\right)}J_{i}^{I}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)})
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{2.5cm}+\sum_{A}\tilde{\Lambda}_{Ai\left(0,2\right)}\tilde{J}_{i}^{A}(\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)},\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)})\Biggr]\Biggl|_{\overline{\theta}^{+}=0}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.1cm}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}}\int d\overline{\theta}^{+}\sum_{i}\Biggl[\sum_{I}\overline{J}_{i}^{I}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)})\overline{\Lambda}_{Ii\left(0,2\right)}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{2.8cm}+\sum_{A}\overline{\tilde{J}}_{i}^{A}(\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)},\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)})\overline{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{Ai\left(0,2\right)}\Biggr]\Biggr|_{\theta^{+}=0}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}=-\sum_{i}\Biggl[\sum_{I}F_{i}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi_{i}^{I}}
%+\sum_{j,I,J}\psi_{-i}^{I}\psi_{+j}^{J}\frac{\partial^{2}W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi_{i}^{I}\partial\phi_{j}^{J}}
%+\sum_{A}\chi_{i}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi_{i}^{A}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.1cm}+\sum_{j,A,B}b_{-i}^{A}b_{+j}^{B}\frac{\partial^{2}W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi_{i}^{A}\partial\xi_{j}^{B}}-\sum_{j,I,A}\left(\psi_{+i}^{I}b_{-j}^{A}-\psi_{-i}^{I}b_{+j}^{A}\right)\frac{\partial^{2}W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi_{i}^{I}\partial\xi_{j}^{A}}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.1cm}-\sum_{i}\Biggl[\sum_{I}\overline{F}_{i}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}}
%+\sum_{j,I,J}\overline{\psi}_{+i}^{I}\overline{\psi}_{-j}^{J}\frac{\partial^{2}\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}\partial\overline{\phi}_{j}^{J}}
%+\sum_{A}\overline{\chi}_{i}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.1cm}+\sum_{j,A,B}\overline{b}_{+i}^{A}\overline{b}_{-j}^{B}\frac{\partial^{2}\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}\partial\overline{\xi}_{j}^{B}}
%-\sum_{j,I,A}\left(\overline{\psi}_{+i}^{I}\overline{b}_{-j}^{A}-\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}\overline{b}_{+j}^{A}\right)\frac{\partial^{2}\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}\partial\overline{\xi}_{j}^{A}}\Biggr].
%\nonumber\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{mathcalLnon.J}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by combining Eqs. (\[mathcalLnon.kin.\]), (\[mathcalLnon.gauge\]), (\[mathcalLnon.D,theta\]), (\[mathcalLnon.gauge’\]), (\[mathcalLnon.Lambda\]), and (\[mathcalLnon.J\]), we can obtain the $(0,2)$ total Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_{\left(0,2\right)non.}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{L}_{\left(0,2\right)non.}
=\mathcal{L}_{non.kin.}
+\mathcal{L}_{non.gauge}
+\mathcal{L}_{non.D,\theta}
+\mathcal{L}_{non.gauge}^{'}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{1.9cm}+\mathcal{L}_{non.\Lambda}
+\mathcal{L}_{non.J}.
\label{l}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[l\]), the (0,2) U(N) Lagrangian density was constructed without using $\hat{U}$ at this moment, because we do not need to assign differenent values of charge to each local coordinate.
$(0,2)$ Supersymmetric Transformation and Invariance of Lagrangian Densities in Non-Abelian Gauge Theory
========================================================================================================
In this section, we will verify the $\left(0,2\right)$ supersymmetric transformation properties of Eqs. (\[mathcalLnon.kin.\]), (\[mathcalLnon.gauge\]), (\[mathcalLnon.D,theta\]), (\[mathcalLnon.gauge’\]), (\[mathcalLnon.Lambda\]), and (\[mathcalLnon.J\]).
In constructing the (0,2) U(N) Lagrangian density, it appears that similar restrictions on the superpotential are required as in the U(1) case. So here we concentrate on the restrictions on the superpotential, and compare them for the U(N) and the U(1) cases. While for the U(1) part, a Calabi-Yau supermanifold with the same number of even coordinates and odd coordinates may be obtained, for the SU(N) part constraints, a supermanifold may be defined which is different from the U(1) case.
The $\left(0,2\right)$ supersymmetric transformation properties of the components of the $(2,2)$ Grassmann even and odd superfields are given, respectively, as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1cm}\begin{array}{rcl}
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\phi_{i}^{I}=-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\epsilon_{-}\psi_{+i}^{I},
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\psi_{+i}^{I}=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\left(D_{+}\phi^{I}\right)_{i},
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\psi_{-i}^{I}=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\epsilon_{-}F_{i}^{I}+2\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\sum_{j}\sigma_{ij}\phi_{j}^{I},
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}F_{i}^{I}=\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\Bigg\{-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\left(D_{+}\psi_{-}^{I}\right)_{i}+2\sum_{j}\sigma_{ij}\psi_{+j}^{I}+2i\sum_{j}\overline{\lambda}_{+ij}\phi_{j}^{I}\Bigg\},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\overline{\psi}_{+i}^{I},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\psi}_{+i}^{I}=-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\epsilon_{-}\left(D_{+}\overline{\phi}^{I}\right)_{i},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\overline{F}_{i}^{I}+2\epsilon_{-}\sum_{j}\overline{\phi}_{j}^{I}\overline{\sigma}_{ji},
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{F}_{i}^{I}=\epsilon_{-}\Bigg\{-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\left(D_{+}\overline{\psi}_{-}^{I}\right)_{i}-2\sum_{j}\overline{\psi}_{+j}^{I}\overline{\sigma}_{ji}+2i\sum_{j}\overline{\phi}_{j}^{I}\lambda_{+ji}\Bigg\},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\end{array}
\label{deltaPhinon.}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1cm}\begin{array}{rcl}
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\xi_{i}^{A}=-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\epsilon_{-}b_{+i}^{A},\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}b_{+i}^{A}=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\left(D_{+}\xi^{A}\right)_{i},
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}b_{-i}^{A}=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\epsilon_{-}\chi_{i}^{A}+2\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\sum_{j}\sigma_{ij}\xi_{j}^{A}
,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\chi_{i}^{A}=\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\Bigg\{-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\left(D_{+}b_{-}^{A}\right)_{i}+2\sum_{j}\sigma_{ij}b_{+j}^{A}+2i\sum_{j}\overline{\lambda}_{+ij}\xi_{j}^{A}\Bigg\}.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}=-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\overline{b}_{+i}^{A}
%,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{b}_{+i}^{A}=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\epsilon_{-}\left(D_{+}\overline{\xi}^{A}\right)_{i}
%,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}=-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\overline{\chi}_{i}^{A}-2\epsilon_{-}\sum_{j}\overline{\xi}_{j}^{A}\overline{\sigma}_{ji}
%,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\chi}_{i}^{A}=\epsilon_{-}\Bigg\{\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\left(D_{+}\overline{b}_{-}^{A}\right)_{i}+2\sum_{j}\overline{b}_{+j}^{A}\overline{\sigma}_{ji}-2i\sum_{j}\overline{\xi}_{j}^{A}\lambda_{+ji}\Bigg\}.
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\end{array}
\label{deltaXinon.}\end{aligned}$$ The $\left(0,2\right)$ supersymmetric transformation properties of components of the $(2,2)$ vector superfield are given as: $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1cm}\begin{array}{rcl}
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}v_{+}=0
,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}v_{-}=2i\left(\epsilon_{-}\overline{\lambda}_{-}+\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\lambda_{-}\right)
,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\sigma=-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\epsilon_{-}\overline{\lambda}_{+}
,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\lambda_{-}=i\epsilon_{-}\left(D-iv_{03non.}-\bigl[\sigma,\overline{\sigma}\bigr]\right)
,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\lambda_{+}=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\epsilon_{-}D_{+}\overline{\sigma}
,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}D=\epsilon_{-}\left(D_{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\bigl[\overline{\sigma},\overline{\lambda}_{+}\bigr]\right)-\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\left(D_{+}\lambda_{-}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\bigl[\sigma,\lambda_{+}\bigr]\right)
,
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\sigma}=-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\lambda_{+}
%,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\lambda}_{-}=-i\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\left(D+iv_{03non.}-\bigl[\sigma,\overline{\sigma}\bigr]\right)
%,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\overline{\lambda}_{+}=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}D_{+}\sigma.
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\end{array}
\label{deltaVnon.}\end{aligned}$$ where $v_{03non.}=\partial_{0}v_{3}-\partial_{3}v_{0}+i\bigl[v_{0},v_{3}\bigr]$.
Using the Eqs. (\[deltaPhinon.\])-(\[deltaVnon.\]), the actions for $\mathcal{L}_{\left(0,2\right)non.}$ are supersymmetric invariants up to total derivatives. However, for ${\cal L}_{non.J}$ in Eq. (\[mathcalLnon.J\]), we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\delta_{\left(0,2\right)}\mathcal{L}_{non.J}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.9cm}=\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\partial_{+}\sum_{i}\Biggl[\sum_{I}\psi_{-i}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi_{i}^{I}}
+\sum_{A}b_{-i}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi_{i}^{A}}\Biggr]
\nonumber\\
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\epsilon_{-}\partial_{+}\sum_{i}\Biggl[\sum_{I}\overline{\psi}_{-i}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}}
%-\sum_{A}\overline{b}_{-i}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}}\Biggr]
%\nonumber\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\overline{\epsilon}_{-}\sum_{i,j}\Biggl[\sum_{k,J}v_{+ij}\psi_{-k}^{J}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_{k}^{J}}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\sum_{k,J}\sigma_{ij}\psi_{+k}^{J}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_{k}^{J}}
+\sum_{k,B}v_{+ij}b_{-k}^{B}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_{k}^{B}}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\sum_{k,B}\sigma_{ij}b_{+k}^{B}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_{k}^{B}}
+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\overline{\lambda}_{+ij}\Biggr]
\Biggl[\sum_{I}\phi_{j}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi_{i}^{I}}+\sum_{A}\xi^{A}_{j}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi_{i}^{A}}\Biggr]
+(h.c.).
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\epsilon_{-}\sum_{i,j}\Biggl[\sum_{k,J}\overline{\psi}_{-k}^{J}v_{+ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{k}^{J}}
%+\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\sum_{k,J}\overline{\psi}_{+k}^{J}\overline{\sigma}_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{k}^{J}}
%-\sum_{k,B}\overline{b}_{-k}^{B}v_{+ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\xi}_{k}^{B}}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.5cm}-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}\sum_{k,B}\overline{b}_{+k}^{B}\overline{\sigma}_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\xi}_{k}^{B}}
%-\sqrt{\mathstrut 2}i\lambda_{+ij}\Biggr]
%\Biggl[\sum_{I}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{j}^{I}}
%+\sum_{A}\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}_{j}^{A}}\Biggr].
%\nonumber\\
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{delta02mathcalLnon.J}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\end{aligned}$$ Next, we derive the consistency condition for the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric invariances of the action under the $(0,2)$ supersymmetric transformation by the following relation using Eq. (\[delta02mathcalLnon.J\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{i,j}\left(\sum_{I}T_{ij}^{a}\phi_{j}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi_{i}^{I}}
+\sum_{A}T_{ij}^{a}\xi_{j}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi_{i}^{A}}\right)=0.
\label{zyoukennon.1}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\sum_{i,j}\left(\sum_{I}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}T_{ij}^{a}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{j}^{I}}
%+\sum_{A}\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}T_{ij}^{a}\frac{\partial\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})}{\partial\overline{\xi}_{j}^{A}}\right)=0.
%\label{zyoukennon.2}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ We define Eq.(\[zyoukennon.1\]) as a function $G(\phi,\xi)$: $$\begin{aligned}
G(\phi,\xi)\equiv\sum_{i,j}\left(\sum_{I}T^{a}_{ij}\phi_{j}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi_{i}^{I}}
+\sum_{A}T^{a}_{ij}\xi_{j}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi_{i}^{A}}\right)=0,
\label{tuika1}\end{aligned}$$ and transform the function $G(\phi,\xi)$ under the transformation laws: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^{I}_{i}\rightarrow\sum_{j}(\lambda^{T^{a}})_{ij}\phi_{j}^{I},\hspace{0.5cm}\xi_{i}^{A}\rightarrow\sum_{j}(\lambda^{T^{a}})_{ij}\xi_{j}^{A}.
\label{tuika2}\end{aligned}$$ Because $G(\phi,\xi)$ is equal to zero, the function transformed by using Eq.(\[tuika2\]) also vanishes: $$\begin{aligned}
G(\phi,\xi)=G(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)=0.
\label{tuika3}\end{aligned}$$ Eq.(\[tuika3\]) gives the equivalence relation for local coordinates in a supermanifold $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-1.5cm}(\phi_{i}^{1},\cdots,\phi_{i}^{m}|\xi_{i}^{1},\cdots,\xi_{i}^{n})
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\sim(\sum_{j}(\lambda^{T^{a}})_{ij}\phi_{j}^{1},\cdots,\sum_{j}(\lambda^{T^{a}})_{ij}\phi_{j}^{m}\Bigl|\sum_{j}(\lambda^{T^{a}})_{ij}\xi_{j}^{1},\cdots,\sum_{j}(\lambda^{T^{a}})_{ij}\xi_{j}^{n}).
\label{tuika4}\end{aligned}$$ Eq.(\[tuika4\]) may indicate that the manifold $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$ can be considered to be equivalent to the super weighted projective space $WCP^{m-1|n}$. Moreover, we calculate for the superpotential $W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{i,j}\left(\sum_{I}T^{a}_{ij}\phi_{j}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)}{\partial\phi_{i}^{I}}
+\sum_{A}T^{a}_{ij}\xi_{j}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)}{\partial\xi_{i}^{A}}\right)
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}=\sum_{b,i,j,k,m}\left(\sum_{I}T^{a}_{ij}\phi_{j}^{I}(\lambda^{T^{b}})_{ki}\frac{\partial W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)}{\partial((\lambda^{T^{b}})_{km}\phi_{m}^{I})}
+\sum_{A}T^{a}_{ij}\xi_{j}^{A}(\lambda^{T^{b}})_{ki}\frac{\partial W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)}{\partial((\lambda^{T^{b}})_{km}\xi_{m}^{A})}\right).
\label{tuika5}\end{aligned}$$ Eq.(\[tuika5\]) can be divided into the U(1) part and the SU(N) part of the U(N) gauge group. Then, the generators of the U(1) part and the SU(N) part are defined as $T^{0}_{ij}=M\delta_{ij}$ and $T^{\Theta}_{ij}$ $(\Theta=1,\cdots,\rm{N}^{2}-1)$ respectively, where $M$ is a normalization factor. The U(1) part of Eq.(\[tuika5\]) is calculated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
M\sum_{b,i,j,k}\left(\sum_{I}(\lambda^{T^{b}})_{ij}\phi_{j}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)}{\partial((\lambda^{T^{b}})_{ik}\phi_{k}^{I})}
+\sum_{A}(\lambda^{T^{b}})_{ij}\xi_{j}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)}{\partial((\lambda^{T^{b}})_{ik}\xi_{k}^{A})}\right),
\label{tuika6}\end{aligned}$$ which coincides with the U(1) part of $G(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)$. Furthermore, by using Eq.(\[tuika3\]), we found that these equations also coincide with that of $G(\phi,\xi)$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-1.8cm}G(\phi,\xi)\Bigl|_{a=0}=G(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)\Bigr|_{a=0}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&=M\sum_{i}\left(\sum_{I}\phi_{i}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\phi_{i}^{I}}
+\sum_{A}\xi_{i}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\phi,\xi)}{\partial\xi_{i}^{A}}\right)
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&=M\sum_{i}\left(\sum_{I}\phi_{i}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)}{\partial\phi_{i}^{I}}
+\sum_{A}\xi_{i}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)}{\partial\xi_{i}^{A}}\right)
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&=0.
\label{tuika8}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Eq.(\[tuika8\]) gives the quasi-homogeneous condition $W(\phi,\xi)=W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)$ for the superpotential.
On the other hand, the SU(N) part of Eq.(\[tuika5\]) is: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{b,i,j,k,l}\left(\sum_{I}(\lambda^{T^{b}})_{ij}T^{\Theta}_{jk}\phi_{k}^{I}\frac{\partial W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)}{\partial((\lambda^{T^{b}})_{il}\phi_{l}^{I})}
+\sum_{A}(\lambda^{T^{b}})_{ij}T^{\Theta}_{jk}\xi_{k}^{A}\frac{\partial W(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)}{\partial((\lambda^{T^{b}})_{il}\xi_{l}^{A})}\right),
\label{tuika7}\end{aligned}$$ which, however, does not coincide with the SU(N) part of $G(\phi,\xi)$ and of $G(\lambda^{T}\phi,\lambda^{T}\xi)$. Thus the superpotential $W(\phi,\xi)$ does not satisfy a quasi-homogeneous condition in SU(N).
From these results, the supermanifold $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$ seems to become the super weighted complex projective space $WCP^{m-1|n}$, although the superpotential $W(\phi,\xi)$ for the non-Abelian gauge group does not satisfy a quasi-homogeneous condition in SU(N), except for the U(1) part of U(N). Therefore, because of the extention to the U(N) gauge group, there are more stringent restrictions to be imposed on the form of the superpotential than in the U(1) case.
From the U(1) part, the Calabi-Yau supermanifold must have the same number of even coordinates and odd coordinates from Eq. (\[q1\]). In the SU(N) part, we must take care in constructing the Calabi-Yau supermanifold, because there are more stringent restrictions to be imposed on the form of the superpotential than in the U(1) case.
${\rm U(N)}$ Charge Operator
============================
In constructing the (0,2) U(N) Lagrangian density, we could not confirm the reason of necessity to introduce the $\hat{U}$-type operator. However, in order to introduce the (0,2) chiral superfields, we need this operator, because otherwise we cannot define the (0,2) chirality conditions of the (0,2) chiral superfieldsm as will be shown later. Therefore, in this section, we will introduce the $\hat{U}^a$ operator in U(N) version in order to define the (0,2) chirality conditions of the (0,2) chiral superfields.
We can define the ${\rm U(N)}$ charge operator in a manner similar to that for the ${\rm U(1)}$ Abelian case: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-1cm}\hat{U}_{ij}^{a}
\equiv\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k,I}\Biggl[T_{ik}^{a}\phi_{k}^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_{j}^{I}}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%-\overline{\phi}_{k}^{I}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
+\sum_{\mu}T_{ik}^{a}\partial_{\mu}\phi_{k}^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\phi_{j}^{I}\right)}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&-\sum_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\overline{\phi}_{k}^{I}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}\right)}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
+\sum_{\mu,\nu}T_{ik}^{a}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\phi_{k}^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\nu}\partial^{\nu}\phi_{j}^{I}\right)}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%&&-\sum_{\mu,\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\overline{\phi}_{k}^{I}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\nu}\partial^{\nu}\overline{\phi}_{i}^{I}\right)}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
&&+\sum_{\alpha}T_{ik}^{a}\psi_{\alpha k}^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{\alpha j}^{I}}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&-\sum_{\alpha}\overline{\psi}_{\alpha k}^{I}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\psi}_{\alpha i}^{I}}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
+\sum_{\mu,\alpha}T_{ik}^{a}\partial_{\mu}\psi_{\alpha k}^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\psi_{\alpha j}^{I}\right)}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&-\sum_{\mu,\alpha}\partial_{\mu}\overline{\psi}_{\alpha k}^{I}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\overline{\psi}_{\alpha i}^{I}\right)}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
+T_{ik}^{a}F_{k}^{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial F_{j}^{I}}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%-\overline{F}_{k}^{I}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{F}_{i}^{I}}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\Biggr]
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k,A}\Biggl[T_{ik}^{a}\xi_{k}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_{j}^{A}}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%-\overline{\xi}_{k}^{A}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
+\sum_{\mu}T_{ik}^{a}\partial_{\mu}\xi_{k}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\xi_{j}^{A}\right)}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&-\sum_{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\overline{\xi}_{k}^{A}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}\right)}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
+\sum_{\mu,\nu}T_{ik}^{a}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\xi_{k}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\nu}\partial^{\nu}\xi_{j}^{A}\right)}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%&&-\sum_{\mu,\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\overline{\xi}_{k}^{A}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\nu}\partial^{\nu}\overline{\xi}_{i}^{A}\right)}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
&&+\sum_{\alpha}T_{ik}^{a}b_{\alpha k}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial b_{\alpha j}^{A}}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&-\sum_{\alpha}\overline{b}_{\alpha k}^{A}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{b}_{\alpha i}^{A}}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
+\sum_{\mu,\alpha}T_{ik}^{a}\partial_{\mu}b_{\alpha k}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}b_{\alpha j}^{A}\right)}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&-\sum_{\mu,\alpha}\partial_{\mu}\overline{b}_{\alpha k}^{A}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\left(\partial_{\mu}\overline{b}_{\alpha i}^{A}\right)}
% 2009-03-16 mod end
+T_{ik}^{a}\chi_{k}^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial\chi_{j}^{A}}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%-\overline{\chi}_{k}^{A}T_{kj}^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\chi}_{i}^{A}}\Biggr]
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\Biggr]+(h.c.).
\label{hatUnon.}\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[hatUnon.\]), the consistency condition in Eq. (\[zyoukennon.1\]) is rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
&&N\sum_{i,j}\delta_{ij}\hat{U}_{ij}^{a}W(\phi,\xi)=0.
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&N\sum_{i,j}\delta_{ij}\hat{U}_{ij}^{a}\overline{W}(\overline{\phi},\overline{\xi})=0.
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ Using the operator in Eq. (\[hatUnon.\]), we are able to define an operation on the function $f_{i}(x_{\mu},\theta^{+},\overline{\theta}^{+})$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\sum_{j}\mathcal{D}_{+ij}^{'}f_{j}\equiv\sum_{j,k}\left(e^{-\Psi^{'}}\right)_{ik}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^{+}}-i\overline{\theta}^{+}\partial_{+}\right)\left(e^{\Psi^{'}}\right)_{kj}f_{j},
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1cm}=\sum_{j}\Bigg\{\delta_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta^{+}}-i\overline{\theta}^{+}\left(\delta_{ij}\partial_{+}+i\sum_{a}v_{+}^{a}\hat{U}_{ij}^{a}\right)\Bigg\}f_{j},
% 2009-03-16 mod end
\label{mathcalD+'non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod start
%\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{-0.8cm}\sum_{i}\overline{\mathcal{D}}_{+ij}^{'}f_{i}\equiv\sum_{i,k}\left(e^{\Psi^{'}}\right)_{ik}\left(-\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\theta}^{+}}+i\theta^{+}\partial_{+}\right)\left(e^{-\Psi^{'}}\right)_{kj}f_{i}
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%&&\hspace{1cm}=\sum_{i}\Bigg\{-\delta_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{\theta}^{+}}+i\theta^{+}\left(\delta_{ij}\partial_{+}+i\sum_{a}v_{+}^{a}\hat{U}_{ij}^{a}\right)\Bigg\}f_{i},
%\label{overlinemathcalD+'non.}
% 2009-03-16 mod end\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi^{'}=\theta^{+}\overline{\theta}^{+}\sum_{a}v_{+}^{a}\hat{U}^{a}$ is assumed. We finally obtain the $\left(0,2\right)$ chirality conditions by using Eqs. (\[Phi02non.\]), (\[Xi02non.\]) and (\[mathcalD+’non.\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{j}\overline{\mathcal{D}}_{+ij}^{'}\Phi_{\left(0,2\right)j}^{I}=\sum_{i}\mathcal{D}_{+ij}^{'}\overline{\Phi}_{\left(0,2\right)i}^{I}=0,
\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\sum_{j}\overline{\mathcal{D}}_{+ij}^{'}\Xi_{\left(0,2\right)j}^{A}=\sum_{i}\mathcal{D}_{+ij}^{'}\overline{\Xi}_{\left(0,2\right)i}^{A}=0.\end{aligned}$$ From these results, we could confirm the necessity of the $\hat{U}$ operator for defining the (0,2) chirality conditions of (0,2) chiral superfields, though this operator was not required for the construction of the (0,2) U(N) Lagrangian density.
Summary and Discussion
======================
We have constructed the $D=2$, $(0,2)$ U(1) gauged linear sigma model on a supermanifold $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$ by a method which differs from that of Ref.[@seki1], because to our opinion that method seems to be incomplete. Furthermore, we have constructed the U(N) gauged linear sigma model explicitly. In the first part of the present paper, we consistently constructed the $D=2$, $(0,2)$ U(1) gauged linear sigma model on the supermanifold $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$, by introducing a new operator, $\hat{U}$. In the method of Ref.[@seki1], it was impossible to assign different value of U(1) charge to each local coordinate. The explicit form of the $\hat{U}$ operator was determined by assuming that it is the operator that assigns different value of U(1) charges to each local coordinate of $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$. The covariant derivatives and super charges of the (0,2) supersymmetric transformation are also defined using the $\hat{U}$ operator. The (0,2) chirality conditions on the of the superpotential term in the Lagrangian density appear to be most appropriately implied by these covariant derivatives.
The (0,2) supersymmetric invariance of the Lagrangian density of the (0,2) U(1) gauged linear sigma model was also proved by using consistency conditions derived by using the $\hat{U}$ operator. We found that the conditions that assure the (0,2) supersymmetric invariance of the Lagrangian density agree with the (0,2) chirality conditions for the superpotential. Though the method of Ref.[@seki1] could not confirm the necessity of ristriction conditions clearly, we could indicate the necessity of conditions explicitly. The supermanifold $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$ then becomes the super weighted complex projective space $WCP^{m-1|n}$ from these conditions. If we focus on the Calabi-Yau supermanifold corresponding to the super Landau-Ginzburg model, by using $\hat{U}$ we can construct a Calabi-Yau supermanifold which is more general than in Ref.[@seki1], and which has a different number of even coordinates and odd coordinates. In the second part of the present paper, we constructed a $D=2$, (0,2) U(N) gauged linear sigma model on the supermanifold $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$ as a new construction. The construction is approximately parallel to the U(1) case, but the $\hat{U}^{a}$ operator, which is an extension of the $\hat{U}$ operator of the U(1) gauge group to the U(N) gauge group, coincides with a set of generators of U(N). Although $\hat{U}^{a}$ is unnecessary in constructing the Lagrangian density of the (0,2) U(N) gauged linear sigma model, we could confirm the necessity of $\hat{U}^{a}$ for giving the (0,2) chirality conditions of the (0,2) chiral superfields. We obtained the conditions that give (0,2) supersymmetric invariance of the Lagrangian density of the (0,2) U(N) gauged linear sigma model.
As in the case of U(1), these conditions decide the form of the superpotential. However, in the U(N) case more stringent restrictions on the form of the superpotential have to be imposed than in the U(1) case. From these results, the superpotential $W(\phi,\xi)$ does not satisfy a quasi-homogeneous condition for SU(N). However, one can argue that the supermanifold $\mathcal{M}^{m|n}$ may be a kind of super weighted projective space both for the U(1) gauged linear sigma model and the U(N) gauged one.
In the U(1) part, the Calabi-Yau supermanifold must have the same number of even coordinates and odd coordinates from Eq. (\[q1\]). In the SU(N) part, we must take care to constructing the Calabi-Yau supermanifold. Because of the more stringent conditions to be imposed on the form of the superpotential than in the U(1) case, it seems define a certain kind of new supermanifold other than $WCP^{m-1|n}$, which we cannot identify exactly among mathematically defined objects. In our forthcoming paper, we intend to investigate the relationships between the non-linear sigma model and (0,2) linear sigma model in order to investigate further the correspondence with the super Landau-Ginzburg theory. Then, we expect to establish the correspondence between the $D=2$, $(0,2)$ gauged linear sigma model in the U(1) and U(N) gauge groups on the supermanifold to the super Landau-Ginzburg model at $r\ll 0$, which has been reported in the $D=2$, $(2,2)$ U(1) gauged linear sigma model[@aganagic1; @witten2]. As a second step, we hope to investigate the Calabi-Yau supermanifold on the constructed U(1) and U(N) gauged linear sigma model mathematically [@Grassi1; @Catenacci1], by using the super Landau-Ginzburg mirror symmetry.
[99]{} E. Witten, ${\it Commun}$. ${\it Math}$. ${\it Phys}$. [**252**]{}, 189 (2004). F. Cachazo, ${\rm P.Svr\check{c}ek}$ and E. Witten, ${\it JHEP}$. [**0409**]{}, 006 (2004). C.-J. Zhu, [*JHEP*]{} [**0404**]{}, 032 (2004). G. Georgiou, E.W.N. Glover and V.V. Khoze, [*JHEP*]{} [**0407**]{}, 048 (2004). A. Brandhuber, B. Spence and G. Travaglini, [*Nucl*]{}. [*Phys*]{}. [*B*]{} [**706**]{}, 150 (2005). J. Bedford, A. Brandhuber, B. Spence and G. Travaglini, [*Nucl*]{}. [*Phys*]{}. B [**706**]{}, 100 (2005). J. Bedford, A. Brandhuber, B. Spence and G. Travaglini, [*Nucl*]{}. [*Phys*]{}. B [**712**]{}, 59 (2005). R. Britto, F. Cachazo, B. Feng and E.Witten, [*Phys*]{}. [*Rev*]{}. [*Lett*]{}. [**94**]{}, 181602 (2005). K. Risager, [*JHEP*]{} [**0512**]{}, 003 (2005). J.-B. Wu and C.-J. Zhu, [*JHEP*]{} [**0407**]{}, 032 (2004). R. Roiban, M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, [*Phys*]{}. [*Rev*]{}. D [**70**]{}, 026009 (2004). E. Witten, [*Adv*]{}. [*Theor*]{}. [*Math*]{}. [*Phys*]{}. [**8**]{}, 779 (2004). G. Georgiou and V.V. Khoze, [*JHEP*]{} [**0405**]{}, 070 (2004). C. Quigley and M. Rozali, [*JHEP*]{} [**0501**]{}, 053 (2005). J.-B. Wu and C.-J. Zhu, [*JHEP*]{} [**0409**]{}, 063 (2004). L.J. Dixon, E.W.N. Glover and V.V. Khoze, [*JHEP*]{} [**0412**]{}, 015 (2004). Z. Bern, D. Forde, D.A. Kosower and P. Mastrolia, [*Phys*]{}. [*Rev*]{}. D [**72**]{}, 025006 (2005). A. Brandhuber, B. Spence and G. Travaglini, [*JHEP*]{} [**0702**]{}, 088 (2007). M. Rocek and N. Wadhwa, ${\it Adv}$. ${\it Theor}$. ${\it Math}$. ${\it Phys}$. ${\bf 9}$, 315 (2005). M. Rocek and N. Wadhwa, ${\it On}$ ${\it Calabi}$-${\it Yau}$ ${\it Supermanifold}$ ${\rm I\hspace{-.1em}I}$, hep-th/0410081. M. Aganagic and C. Vafa, ${\it Mirror}$ ${\it Symmetry}$ ${\it and}$ ${\it Supermanifolds}$, hep-th/0403192. C. Ahn, ${\it Mirror}$ ${\it Symmetry}$ ${\it of}$ ${\it Calabi}$-${\it Yau}$ ${\it Supermanifolds}$, hep-th/0407009. S. P. Kumar and G. Policastro, ${\it Phys}$. ${Lett}$. ${\it B}$ [**619**]{}, 163 (2005). S.Seki and K.Sugiyama, ${\it Gauged\hspace{0.1cm}Linear\hspace{0.1cm}Sigma\hspace{0.1cm}Model\hspace{0.1cm}on}$ ${\it Supermanifold}$, hep-th/0503074. A. Belhaj, L. B. Drissi, J. Rasmussen, E. H. Saidi and A. Sebbar, ${\it Toric}$ ${\it Calabi}$-${\it Yau}$ ${\it supermanifolds}$ ${\it and}$ ${\it mirror}$ ${\it symmetry}$, hep-th/0410291. J.Wess and J.Bagger, ${\it Supersymmetry}$ ${\it and}$ ${\it Supergravity}$, (Princeton University Press, 1976). E. Witten, ${\it Nucl}$. ${\it Phys}$. ${\it B}$ [**403**]{}, 159 (1993). P. A. Grassi and M. Marescotti, ${\it Integration}$ ${\it of}$ ${\it Superforms}$ ${\it and}$ ${\it Super}$-${\it Thom}$ ${\it Class}$, arXiv:0712.2600. R. Catenacci, M. Debernardi, P. A. Grassi and D. Matessi, ${\it Balanced}$ ${\it Superprojective}$ ${\it Varieties}$, arXiv:0707.4246.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'L. Lechuga and A. Murillo showed that a non-oriented, simple and connected finite graph $G$ is $k$-colourable if and only if a certain pure Sullivan algebra, constructed from $G$ and $k$, is non-elliptic. In this paper, we settle us in the framework of finite simplicial complexes where no standard definition of colourability exists. Therefore, we introduce different colourings for simplicial complexes and we extend Lechuga-Murillo’s result for them. We also prove that determining whether a simplicial complex admits most of the considered colourings is a *NP*-hard problem.'
address: 'Departamento de [Á]{}lgebra, Geometr[í]{}a y Topolog[í]{}a, Universidad de M[á]{}laga, Campus de Teatinos, 29071 M[á]{}laga, Spain.'
author:
- David Méndez
title: 'Colouring simplicial complexes: on the Lechuga-Murillo’s model'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The first to relate graph theory and rational homotopy theory were L. Lechuga and A. Murillo in a celebrated paper [@lechugamurillo]. They showed that the (vertex) $k$-colourability of a non-oriented, simple, connected, finite graph $G = (V, E)$ can be codified through the ellipticity of a pure Sullivan algebra derived from it. This interplay between graph theory and rational homotopy theory has been proven fruitful: recently, C. Costoya and A. Viruel were able to use this interaction to solve a question of realisability of groups [@CV2; @CV3].
This relation between graph theory and rational homotopy theory was not the only interesting connection between widely different theories that the authors were able to obtain in [@lechugamurillo]. They were also able to provide a link between rational homotopy theory and algorithmic complexity by proving that the problem of graph colourability can be reduced in polynomial time to the problem of determining whether a certain Sullivan algebra is elliptic or not. Hence, since the former is a *NP*-complete problem, the latter is a *NP*-hard problem. In [@lechugamurillo2] they go further by reducing the problem of colouring a graph to deciding whether a certain cohomology class of a Sullivan algebra vanishes. As a consequence, they show that determining whether certain cohomology classes of a Sullivan algebra vanish or not is also a *NP*-hard problem.
The aim of this work is to deep into this relation and to extend Lechuga and Murillo result to the framework of connected simplicial complexes. The difficulty arises when working with the notion of colourability of a simplicial complex: there is no definition of colourability that may be considered standard. In fact, in literature there exist many definitions that could be suitable in different situations. In this paper, we will introduce quite a large number of different notions of colourability for simplicial complexes, which we will divide in three different groups. Namely, in Section \[sub: hypergraphcolour\] we study the vertex, the face, and the total colourings. This family of colourings is inherited from hypergraph colourings so, although they are very natural, they have the disadvantage of not taking in consideration the special structure of simplicial complexes. For that reason, in Section \[sub: simplexcolour\] we introduce colourings that are specially thought for simplicial complexes: the complete ascending, the complete descending, the full and the $(P,s)$-colourings. Finally, Section \[sub: strongly\] deals with colourings that are also conceived for simplicial complexes but for technical reasons, they need the simplicial complex to be strongly connected and homogeneous: the maximal ascending, the maximal descending, the minimal ascending and the minimal descending colourings. For ease of notation, we will refer to all the colourings above as $\mathfrak{C}_i$-colouring, for $i=1, \dots, 11$ respectively.
In this paper, we prove the following:
\[theorem:all\] Let $X$ be a connected simplicial complex and $\mathfrak C_i$, $i=1,\dots, 7$, be one of the colourings above mentioned. Then, there exists a pure Sullivan algebra ${\mathcal M}^{\mathfrak C_i}_k (X)$ such that $X$ is $\mathfrak C_i$-$k$-colourable if and only if ${\mathcal M}^{\mathfrak C_i}_k (X)$ is non-elliptic. Moreover, if $X$ is strongly connected and homogeneous, for $\mathfrak C_i$, $i=8,\dots, 11$, there exists a pure Sullivan algebra ${\mathcal M}^{\mathfrak C_i}_k (X)$ such that $X$ is $\mathfrak C_i$-$k$-colourable if and only if ${\mathcal M}^{\mathfrak C_i}_k (X)$ is non-elliptic.
We point out here that the same problem has also been tackled in [@CV7] for the $\mathfrak{C}_7$-colouring [@DMN]. Nevertheless, thanks to the work developed in [@MollerNord] where the authors computed the chromatic number related to these colourings, we are able to provide a different proof of the aforementioned result.
We are also able to prove the following regarding the algorithmic complexity of the studied colourings:
\[NP-hardness\] Let $X$ be a connected simplicial complex. For $i\in\{1,7,8,9,10,11\}$ and $k\ge 3$ or for $i\in\{4,5,6\}$ and $k\ge 4$, determining whether a simplicial complex $X$ is $\mathfrak{C}_i$-$k$-colourable is a NP-hard problem.
Background {#section:background}
==========
In this section, we introduce some of the concepts and theories which will be needed later, along with the notation to be used in the sequel. Namely, we give a brief introduction to algorithmic complexity and rational homotopy theory, to then recall the construction of Lechuga and Murillo. We also fix our terminology for graphs and simplicial complexes.
We start with a brief introduction to algorithmic complexity, based on the one provided by the authors in [@lechugamurillo]. A decision problem is a function $\Pi\to \{0,1\}$ where $\Pi=\{I_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in \Gamma}$ is a family of subsets of non-negative integers, each $I_\alpha$ being an instance of the problem. If $I\in \Pi$, then $f(I)$ is the solution of $I$, the 0 codifying *No* and the 1 codifying *Yes*. The language of a decision problem is the set of instances for which the answer is *Yes*, that is, the $I\in \Pi$ such that $f(I)=1$.
A decision problem $f\colon \Pi \to \{0,1\}$ belongs to the polynomial class *P* if there is an algorithm that solves it in polynomial time. This means that for an instance $I\in \Pi$ of length $n$, the considered algorithm obtains a solution in a number of steps bounded by $p(n)$ for a certain polynomial $p$.
On the other hand, a problem $f\colon \Pi \to \{0,1\}$ belongs to the non-deterministic polynomial class *NP* if there is an algorithm whose input data are pairs $(C,I)$ formed by the instance $I$ plus a certificate $C$ verifying the following: for each instance $I$ for which $f(I)=1$, there is a certificate $C(I)$ such that when having $(I,C(I))$ as input, the considered algorithm is able to obtain that $f(I)=1$ in a number of steps bounded by a certain polynomial on the length of the instance; whereas for those instances where $f(I)=0$, any input pair $(I,C)$ will allow the algorithm to determine that the answer is 0 in a number of steps bounded by a certain polynomial on the length of $I$.
It is obvious that $P\subset NP$, since for a problem in class $P$ one can give an empty certificate and obtain a solution in a number of steps bounded by a polynomial on the length of the instance. The class *P* is usually referred as the class of *easy* problems, while the *NP* class is referred as the class of problems that are not necessarily *easy*, but for which it is *easy* to validate a certain solution.
We now need to recall the concept of reducibility: a map $T\colon \Pi \to \Pi'$ between two problems is a polynomial or Turing reduction if $T(I)$ belongs to the language of $\Pi'$ if and only if $I$ belongs to the language of $\Pi$, thus solving $I$ is equivalent to solving $T(I)$; and there exists a polynomial $p$ such that if $I\in \Pi$ is an instance of $\Pi$ of length $n$, $T(I)$ is an instance of $\Pi'$ of length bounded above by $p(n)$. Two problems that have such a map between them are said to be polynomially or Turing equivalent.
This concept allows us to introduce some interesting classes of decision problems, and among the *hardest* of the *NP*-problems are the *NP*-complete problems: a *NP* problem $\Pi$ is *NP*-complete if any other *NP* problem admits a polynomial reduction to $\Pi$. Hence any algorithm that solves a *NP*-complete problem would solve any *NP* problem in the same range of time. In particular, obtaining an algorithm that can solve a *NP*-complete problem in polynomial time would immediately lead to a proof that *P*$=$*NP*, this being the most important open problem in algorithmic complexity.
Finally we have the class of *NP*-hard problems. A problem $\Pi$ is said to be *NP*-hard if any *NP* problem can be reduced to it in polynomial time, but $\Pi$ does not need to be in the *NP* class itself. Hence, any problem such that there is a *NP*-complete problem that can be reduced to it is *NP*-hard.
An extensive list of *NP*-complete problems can be found in [@GarJoh]. One of the listed problems is determining whether a certain graph admits a $k$-colouring, for $k\ge 3$. In [@lechugamurillo], the authors show that said problem is Turing-reducible to the problem of determining whether a certain Sullivan algebra they model from the graph is non-elliptic, and hence they show that determining whether certain Sullivan algebras are elliptic or not is a *NP*-hard problem. For our purposes, we will also make use of the fact that the problem of edge $k$-colourability of a graph is *NP*-complete for $k\ge 3$, [@Hol; @Lev], and that the problem of determining whether a certain graph is total-$k$-colourable is *NP*-complete for $k\ge 4$, [@San]. Our aim is, on the one hand, to show that the problem of (total, edge or vertex) graph colourability can be reduced to the problem of determining whether a certain simplicial complex admits one of the notions of colourability we consider, thus proving that the problem of $\mathfrak{C}_i$-$k$-colourability is *NP*-hard; and on the other, to extend Lechuga-Murillo’s model to all of them, thus obtaining, for each of the considered colourings, a Sullivan algebra whose ellipticity codifies the corresponding simplicial complex colourability.
With that objective in mind, we first recall the construction in [@lechugamurillo]. But before we should introduce some fundamental aspects of rational homotopy theory and we refer to [@FHT] for the basics. By Sullivan algebra $(\Lambda V,d)$ we mean the free commutative graded algebra generated by the graded rational vector space $V$, i.e., $\Lambda V = TV / I$, where $TV$ denotes the tensor algebra over $V$ and $I$ is the ideal generated by $v \otimes w - (-1)^{|v||w|} w \otimes v, \, v,w \in V$. It is therefore a symmetric algebra on $V^{\text{even}}$ tensored with an exterior algebra on $V^{\text{odd}}.$ Recall that a Sullivan algebra is called elliptic when both $V$ and $H^*(\Lambda V,d)$ are finite dimensional as graded vector spaces.
Now, for a non-oriented, simple, connected, finite graph $G = (V, E)$, and for every integer $k\ge 2$, the Lechuga-Murillo’s model is defined as the Sullivan algebra $S_k(G) =(\Lambda V_{G,k},d)$, where $V_{G,k}$ is the graduated vector space over the field of rational numbers given by $$\begin{aligned}
V_{G,k}^{\text{even}} &= \langle x_v \mid v\in V \rangle , &|x_v|&=2, &d(x_v)&=0, \\
V_{G,k}^{\text{odd}} &= \langle y_{v_1 v_2} \mid v_1 v_2\in E\rangle, &|y_{v_1 v_2}| &= 2k-3, &d(y_{v_1 v_2}) &= \Sigma_{l=1}^k x_{v_1}^{k-l}x_{v_2}^{l-1}.\end{aligned}$$ They proved the following result.
\[theorem:lechugamurillo\] The graph $G$ is $k$-colourable if and only if the Sullivan algebra $S_k(G)$ is non-elliptic.
Throughout this paper, we will consider only abstract simplicial complexes with a finite number of simplices, which will also be finite themselves. Thus, a simplicial complex $X$ on a finite vertex set $V$ is a finite and nonempty collection of nonempty finite subsets of $V$, $X = \{\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_r\}$, such that if $\sigma\in X$ and there exists $\sigma'\ne \emptyset$ verifying that $\sigma'\subset \sigma$, then $\sigma'$ is also in $X$, and such that $V = \bigcup_{i=1}^r \sigma_i$. We use the following notation. The elements of $X$ are called faces or simplices of the complex. The dimension of a face $\sigma_i\in X$ is $\dim(\sigma_i)=|\sigma_i|-1$, i.e. its cardinality minus $1$. A face of dimension $s$ is called a $s$-face or $s$-simplex. The set of all the $s$-faces of $X$ is denoted $X^{s}$, in particular, $X^{0}=V$. The subcomplex of $X$ spanned by all the $r$-faces of $X$ for $r\leq s$ is denoted by $X^{(s)}$, and is called the $s$-skeleton. The dimension of a complex, $\dim X$, is the largest of the dimensions of all its faces. A complex $X$ on a vertex set $V$ is called connected if for every pair of vertices $v,w\in V$ there exists a collection of faces $\{\sigma_{i_0},\ldots, \sigma_{i_m}\}$ such that $v\in \sigma_{i_0}$, $w\in \sigma_{i_m}$ and $\sigma_{i_j}\cap \sigma_{i_{j+1}}\ne\emptyset$ for $j=0,\ldots,m-1$. Observe that $X$ is connected when its underlying graph $(V,X^1)$ is so. Recall that a hypergraph $H$ is a pair $H=\big(V(H),E(H)\big)$ formed by a nonempty set of vertices $V(H)=\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_n\}$ and a set of hyperedges $E(H)=\{e_1,e_2,\dots,e_m\}$, each of them being a nonempty subset of $V(H)$. Then, it is immediate to see that a simplicial complex $X$ can be regarded as a hypergraph $H=(V, X)$.
Finally, to be able to show that the problem of (total, edge or vertex) graph colourability is polynomially reducible to the problem of whether a simplicial complex admits one of the considered colourings it would be useful to know the length of an instance of these problems. A graph is usually represented through its adjacency matrix $A=(a_{ij})$: a square matrix of order $n$ where $n$ is the number of vertices, say $\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_n\},$ of the graph such that $a_{ij}=1$ if $v_i v_j$ is an edge in the graph and $a_{ij}=0$ otherwise. In binary, it would have length $\log_2 n+n^2$, where $\log_2 n$ is the number of binary digits needed to represent the number of vertices $n$ and $n^2$ is the number of elements in the adjacency matrix. In particular, we can represent a one dimensional simplicial complex in the same manner.
Models for connected simplicial complexes
=========================================
Through this section, $X$ will denote a connected simplicial complex with vertex set $V$ and $H = (V, X)$ its associated hypergraph.
Models for colourings from hypergraphs {#sub: hypergraphcolour}
---------------------------------------
Since we can regard a simplicial complex $X$ over a set $V$ as a hypergraph $H = ( V, X)$, one source of simplicial complex colourings is hypergraph colourings. In this section we take some of the most common hypergraph colourings and adapt them to simplicial complexes: vertex colouring (Definition \[def: vertexcolour\]), face colouring (Definition \[def: facecolour\]), and total colouring (Definition \[def: totalcolour\]).
For each of those colourings, $\mathfrak C_i$, $i = 1, 2,3$, we will find a connected graph $G_i, \, i= 1, 2,3$, such that the $k$-colourability of the graph $G_i$ is equivalent to the $\mathfrak C_i$-$k$-colourability of the simplicial complex $X$. Then, it suffices to apply Theorem \[theorem:lechugamurillo\] to conclude.
The first idea we may come with when thinking of a colouring for a hypergraph is to extend the notion of vertex colouring from a graph (recall that a graph is $k$-colourable if there exists a map from its set of vertices to a set of $k$ different elements such that adjacent vertices do not share the same image). There are mainly two different ways of doing this: one is to ask every pair of adjacent vertices of the hypergraph to have different colours, which we call a *strong vertex colouring*. The other possibility is to ask non-unitary hyperedges to have more than one colour, which we will call a *weak vertex colouring*. We are going to see that these ideas are actually the same when working with hypergraphs that come from simplicial complexes, thus we may choose any of the two formulations. As a consequence, we have the following definition.
\[def: vertexcolour\] A *vertex $k$-colouring* of $X$ ($\mathfrak C_1$-$k$-colouring), is a map $\varphi\colon V\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ such that if $\sigma\in X \backslash X^{(0)}$, then $\#(\varphi(\sigma))>1$, that is, $X$ does not have a monochromatic face with two or more different vertices.
This definition for $X$ coincides with the definition of weak vertex colouring for $H$, and we have:
Every vertex $k$-colouring of $X$ is a strong vertex $k$-colouring of $(V,X)$.
Consider $\varphi\colon V \to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ a vertex $k$-colouring of $X$ and take $u,v\in V$ two different vertices such that there exist a simplex $\sigma$ containing both of them. Then $\{u,v\}\subset \sigma$, and thus, $\{u,v\}$ must also be a simplex in $X$. Therefore, since $\#(\varphi(\{u,v\}))>1$, $\varphi(u)\ne \varphi(v)$.
Notice that if we have a graph $G$ and consider it as a one-dimensional simplicial complex $X$ with 0-simplices the vertices of $G$ and 1-simplices the edges of $G$, a $k$-colouring of $G$ is precisely a vertex $k$-colouring of $X$. Since a graph and a one-dimensional simplicial complex have the same length as instances of the corresponding problems, we immediately obtain the following result.
\[lemma:C1NPhard\] The problem of graph $k$-colourability is Turing-reducible to the problem of $\mathfrak{C}_1$-$k$-colourability and hence the latter is a NP-hard problem, for $k\ge 3$.
We now need to find a graph codifying the strong or weak vertex colourability of a hypergraph. To that purpose, consider for a hypergraph $H$ the corresponding *$2$-section graph* $H_2$ [@bretto p. 25] defined as the graph with vertices $V(H_2) =V(H)$ and edges $E(H_2)=\{uv\mid \exists e\in E(H), u,v\in e\}.$ Then, the following result holds.
\[theorem:vertexcolour\] Let $X$ be a connected simplicial complex. Then there exists a pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C_1}}(X)$ such that $X$ is vertex $k$-colourable if and only if $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C_1}}(X)$ is non-elliptic.
First, we regard $X$ as a hypergraph $H = (V, X)$. Now, as $H$ is connected we claim that its corresponding 2-section graph, $H_2$, is also connected. Indeed for $H$ connected, if $u,v\in V(H)=V(H_2)$, there is a collection of hyperedges $e_1,e_2,\dots,e_r\in E(H)$ such that $u\in e_1, v\in e_r$ and $e_i\cap e_{i+1}\ne\emptyset$, for $i\in\{1,2,\dots,r-1\}$. If we take $v_i\in e_i\cap e_{i+1}$ any vertex, then $uv_1v_2\dots v_{r-1}v$ is a path in $H_2$ joining $u$ and $v$. Therefore, $H_2$ is connected. Moreover, an application $\varphi\colon V(H)=V(H_2)\to\{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is a strong vertex $k$-colouring for $H$ if and only if it is a (vertex) colouring for $H_2$. We only need to realise that two vertices are adjoint in a hypergraph if and only if they are adjoint on its 2-section graph.
Notice that when regarding $X$ as a hypergraph, two vertices are adjoint if and only if the set of those two vertices is a simplex in $X$. Thus, when taking the 2-section graph of a simplicial complex, its edges are precisely the 1-simplices of $X$. Therefore, the 2-section graph of $X$ is $X_2 = G_1 =(V,X^1)$, and the desired algebra is $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C_1}}(X) = {S}_k (G_1)$, where $S_k (G_1)$ is the Sullivan algebra introduced in Section \[section:background\].
We now move on to a different notion of colouring for a hypergraph: a hyperedge colouring. A hyperedge colouring for a hypergraph $H$ is a map $\varphi'\colon E(H)\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ such that adjoint hyperedges have different colours, that is, different images through $\varphi'$. This yields the following definition for simplicial complexes.
\[def: facecolour\] A *face $k$-colouring* of $X$ ($\mathfrak C_2$-$k$-colouring) is a map $\varphi'\colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ such that if $\sigma,\tau\in X$ are two different simplices and $\sigma\cap\tau\ne\emptyset$, then $\varphi'(\sigma)\ne \varphi'(\tau)$.
Notice that this kind of colouring only takes in consideration intersecting faces, so when restricted to $X^0=V$ it may not be a vertex colouring of $X$.
We now need to find a graph codifying this colourability. To that purpose we recall that for a hypergraph $H$, we can consider its *intersection graph* (also called *line graph* or *representation graph*) $L(H) = (E(H),\{de \mid d\cap e\ne \emptyset\})$, defined in [@bretto p. 24]. In this graph, the set of vertices is the set of edges of the hypergraph, and two of them will be connected by an edge if and only if the edges are adjacent in $H$. So it is immediate that an edge colouring of the hypergraph $H$ corresponds to a colouring of the graph $L(H)$, and vice-versa. Thus, we can prove the following result.
\[theorem:facecolour\] Let $X$ be a connected simplicial complex. Then there exists a pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C_2}}(X)$ such that $X$ is face $k$-colourable if and only if $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C_2}}(X)$ is non-elliptic.
We only need to show that if the hypergraph $H = ( V, X)$ is connected, then its intersection graph $L(H)$ is also connected so we can apply Lechuga-Murillo’s result. In order to do that, take $d,e\in E(H)$ two vertices on the intersection graph and take $u\in d$, $v\in e$. Since $H$ is connected, we can find a collection of hyperedges $e_1,e_2,\dots, e_r$ such that $u\in e_1$, $v\in e_r$ and $e_i\cap e_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$ for $i\in\{1,2,\dots,r-1\}$. In that case, $d\cap e_1\ne\emptyset\ne e\cap e_r$, and $de_1e_2\dots e_re$ is a path connecting $d$ and $e$. As we mentioned above, an edge colouring of $H$ corresponds to a colouring of the graph $G_2=L (H)$. Therefore, by using Theorem \[theorem:lechugamurillo\], $X$ is face $k$-colourable if and only if $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C_2}}(X) = {S}_k (G_2)$ is non-elliptic, where $S_k (G_2)$ is the Sullivan algebra introduced in Section \[section:background\].
To finish with the first family of colourings, we are going to give a model for the total colouring. A total colouring of a hypergraph is a map $\psi \colon V(H)\cup E(H) \to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ such that any pair formed by either two adjacent vertices, two adjacent faces or an incident vertex and edge, have different images. Thus, this raises the following definition in the scenario of simplicial complexes.
\[def: totalcolour\] A *total $k$-colouring* of $X$ (${\mathfrak C}_3$-$k$-colouring) is a map $\psi\colon V\cup X \to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ such that
- if $u,v\in V$ and $\{u,v\}\in X$, then $\psi(u)\ne \psi(v)$.
- if $\sigma,\tau \in X$ and $\sigma\cap\tau\ne\emptyset$, then $\psi(\sigma)\ne\psi(\tau)$.
- if $u\in V$, $\sigma \in X$ and $v\in \sigma$, then $\psi(u)\ne \psi(\sigma)$.
Notice that when restricted to proper sets, a total $k$-colouring yields a vertex $k$-colouring and a face $k$-colouring.
The graph which is going to codify the total colouring is the *total graph*, which is, for a given hypergraph $H$, a graph $T(H)$ with vertices $V(H)\cup E(H)$ and edges any pair formed by two adjacent vertices, two adjacent edges or an incident vertex and edge. Being defined like this, it is clear that a total colouring of a hypergraph is precisely a colouring of this graph, so we obtain the following result:
\[theorem:totalcolour\] Let $X$ be a connected simplicial complex. Then there exists a pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C_3}}(X)$ such that $X$ is total $k$-colourable if and only if $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C_3}}(X)$ is non-elliptic.
We associate to $X$ a connected hypergraph $H$ and we have to show that a connected hypergraph yields a connected total graph $T(H)$. To do so, we need to consider three different ways of choosing vertices.
First, choose, $u,v\in V(H)$. Since $H$ is connected, there exists a collection of hyperedges $e_1,e_2,\dots, e_r$ such that $u\in e_1$, $v\in e_r$ and $e_i\cap e_{i+1}\ne \emptyset$, $i\in\{1,2,\dots, r-1\}$. But then, $u e_1e_2\dots e_r v$ is a path from $u$ to $v$.
Now take $u\in V(H)$ and $d\in E(H)$. If we take $v\in d$, then we have shown that there is a path $u e_1e_2\dots e_r v$ joining $u$ and $v$. Now, since $v\in d$, there is an edge joining $v$ and $d$, so $u e_1e_2\dots e_r v d$ is also a path in $T(H)$, which connects $u$ and $d$.
Finally, if $d,e\in E(H)$, we can get a path connecting them by taking $u\in d, v\in e$, finding a path from $u$ to $v$ and adding $d$ and $e$ to each end of the path. Therefore $G_3= T(H)$ is connected. As we mentioned above, the colouring of $G_3$ defines the total colouring of $H$ and hence of $X$ so it suffices to consider $ \mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C_3}}(X) = {S}_k (G_3)$, where $S_k (G_3)$ is the Sullivan algebra introduced in Section \[section:background\].
Proper simplicial complex colourings {#sub: simplexcolour}
------------------------------------
All the previous colourings were obtained from hypergraph colourings. As a matter of fact, they did not take advantage of the special structure of simplicial complexes. For instance, a total colouring on a simplicial complex colours the vertices twice: once as a vertex and then as a $0$-simplex. Similarly, a vertex colouring only uses the information of the 1-skeleton of the simplicial complex, and face colourings do not take into account the dimension of the intersection of the faces. For this reason, we now introduce the following definitions.
An *ascending $k$-colouring of $X$ in dim $r$* is a map $\varphi\colon X^r \to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ such that if $\sigma,\tau\in X^r$ join in a $(r+1)$-simplex, then $\varphi(\sigma)\ne\varphi(\tau)$. We will denote by $\chi_r(X)$ the chromatic number associated to this colouring (that is, the minimum $k$ for which an ascending $k$-colouring of $X$ in dimension $r$ exists).
A *descending $k$-colouring of $X$ in dim $r$* is a map $\varphi'\colon X^r \to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ such that if $\sigma,\tau\in X^r$ intersect in a $(r-1)$-simplex, then $\varphi(\sigma)\ne\varphi(\tau)$. We will denote by $\chi'_r(X)$ the corresponding chromatic number.
Thus, $\varphi$ distinguishes faces of $(r+1)$-simplices, while $\varphi'$ distinguishes $r$-faces that intersect in a $(r-1)$-face. We will now give some observations corresponding to these colourings.
- An ascending colouring in dim 0 is a vertex colouring of the 2-section graph.
- A descending colouring in dim 1 is an edge colouring of the same graph.
- Any map $X^{\dim X}\to\{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is an ascending colouring in dimension $\dim X$.
- Similarly, any map $X^0\to\{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is a descending colouring in dim $0$.
- Any descending colouring is also an ascending colouring in the same dimension.
It is immediate to observe that an ascending $k$-colouring on dim $r$ is a colouring of the *$r$-th exchange graph*, [@grunbaum], $$\label{asc}G_r(X)=(X^r,\{\sigma\tau\mid \sigma\cup\tau \in X^{r+1}\}),$$ which is a generalisation of the 2-section graph $G_0(X)$. Similarly, a descending $k$-colouring in dim $r$ is a colouring of the graph $$\label{desc}
G'_r(X)=(X^r,\{\sigma\tau\mid \sigma\cap\tau\in X^{r-1}\}).$$ We remark that, in this case, the connectivity of the simplicial complex does not imply the connectivity of the above graphs except for the particular cases of $G_0(X)$ and $G_1'(X)$. This issue will be treated in Section \[sub: strongly\]. We now introduce some definitions that make use of the previous ones and which we will be able to model in this section.
\[def: completeasc\] A *complete ascending $k$-colouring of $X$* ($\mathfrak{C}_4$-$k$-colouring) is a map $\varphi\colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ such that, for any given $r,s\in \{0,1,\dots,\dim X\}$,
- $\sigma,\tau\in X^r, \sigma\cup\tau\in X^{r+1} \Rightarrow \varphi(\sigma)\ne \varphi(\tau)$.
- $\sigma\in X^r, \tau\in X^s, r\ne s \Rightarrow \varphi(\sigma)\ne \varphi(\tau)$.
Thus, $\varphi$ is, when restricted to $X^r$, an ascending $k$-colouring of $X$ in dim $r$, for every $r$. Also, simplices of different dimensions will have different colours. Let $\chi_c(X)$ be the corresponding chromatic number.
We can easily prove that the problem of graph colourability can be reduced to the problem of $\mathfrak{C}_4$-colourability of a certain simplicial complex.
\[lemma:C4NPhard\] The problem of $k$-colourability of a graph $G$ is reducible to the problem of $\mathfrak{C}_4$-$(k+1)$-colourability of the same graph considered as a simplicial complex $X$. Hence the problem of $\mathfrak{C}_4$-$k$-colourability is NP-hard, for $k\ge 4$.
Since the graph $G$ and the simplicial complex $X$ have the same length as instances of the corresponding problems, we only have to show that it is equivalent to give a $k$-colouring of $G$ and to give a $\mathfrak{C}_4$-$(k+1)$-colouring of $X$.
Suppose first that $V$ is the set of vertices of $G$ (and $X$) and we have $\varphi\colon V\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ a $k$-colouring of $G$. We can then define a map $\psi\colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k+1\}$ as $$\psi(\sigma) = \begin{cases}
\varphi(\sigma), & \text{if $\sigma\in X^0$}, \\
k+1, & \text{if $\sigma \in X^1$}.
\end{cases}$$ It is immediate that $\psi$ is a $\mathfrak{C}_4$-$(k+1)$-colouring of $X$.
Reciprocally, suppose that $\psi\colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k+1\}$ is a $\mathfrak{C}_4$-$(k+1)$-colouring of $X$. Then we know that the $1$-simplices and $0$-simplices of $X$ receive different colours. We may assume that there is at least a $1$-simplex receiving the colour $k+1$, so no $0$-simplex may receive that colour. We can then define a map $\varphi\colon V \to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ by $\varphi(v)=\psi(\{v\})$, for $v\in V$. Since two vertices are adjacent if and only their union is a simplex in $X$, adjacent vertices must receive different colours by $\varphi$, so $\varphi$ is a $k$-colouring for $X$.
Similarly, we can make the restrictions of $\varphi$ to $X^r$ descending colourings instead of ascending, which yields the following definition.
\[def: completedesc\] A *complete descending $k$-colouring of $X$* ($\mathfrak{C}_5$-$k$-colouring) is a map $\varphi'\colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ such that, for any given $r,s\in \{0,1,\dots,\dim X\}$,
- $\sigma,\tau\in X^r, \sigma\cap\tau\in X^{r-1} \Rightarrow \varphi'(\sigma)\ne \varphi'(\tau)$.
- $\sigma\in X^r, \tau\in X^s, r\ne s \Rightarrow \varphi'(\sigma)\ne \varphi'(\tau)$.
We will call the corresponding chromatic number $\chi'_c(X)$.
We can prove that this problem is *NP*-hard by using techniques similar to those in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:C4NPhard\].
The problem of edge $k$-colourability of a graph $G$ is reducible to the problem of $\mathfrak{C}_5$-$(k+1)$-colourability of the same graph considered as a simplicial complex $X$. Hence the problem of $\mathfrak{C}_5$-$k$-colourability is NP-hard, for $k\ge 4$.
We have to show that it is equivalent to give an edge $k$-colouring of $G=(V,E)$ and to give a $\mathfrak{C}_5$-$(k+1)$-colouring of $X$.
Suppose fist that $\varphi\colon E\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is an edge $k$-colouring for $G$ and define a map $\varphi'\colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k+1\}$ by $$\varphi'(\sigma)=\begin{cases}
\varphi(\sigma), & \text{if $\sigma \in X^1 \equiv E$}, \\
k+1, & \text{if $\sigma \in X^0 \equiv V$}.
\end{cases}$$ If two 1-simplices intersect in a 0-simplex, that would mean that the edges they represent have a vertex in common, so they would receive different images through $\varphi$ and hence through $\varphi'$. Since the image of the $0$-simplices is not restricted other than it being different from the image of any simplex of a different dimension, it is clear that $\varphi'$ is a complete descending $(k+1)$-colouring for $X$.
Reciprocally, if $\varphi'\colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k+1\}$ is a complete descending $(k+1)$-colouring for $X$, we may suppose that at least one 0-simplex receives image $k+1$, so $k+1$ does not fall in the image of $X^1$ through $\varphi'$. Hence we may define $\varphi = \varphi'_{|X^1}\colon E\equiv X^1 \to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$, and it is clear that this map is an edge $k$-colouring for $G$.
Since in both cases, the colours of different dimensions are distinct, and since restricted to each dimension these colourings are ascending or descending respectively, the next equalities follow: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_c(X) & = \chi_0(X) + \chi_1(X) + \dots + \chi_{\dim X}(X), \\
\chi'_c(X) & = \chi'_0(X) + \chi'_1(X) + \dots + \chi'_{\dim X}(X). \end{aligned}$$
Now, to model them through graphs, one possible idea would be to get the graphs modelling each of the ascending or descending colourings and join every vertex of two different graphs with an edge. Then a colouring of the resulting graph will be a colouring when restricted to each of the considered graphs, and also, since every vertex is connected to all the vertices of the rest of the graphs, no two different graphs will have vertices with the same colour. This is the idea of the *sum of graphs* defined inductively from the sum of two graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$, that is the graph $G = G_1 + G_2$ with vertices $V(G) = V(G_1)\sqcup V(G_2)$ and edges $E(G) = E(G_1)\cup E(G_2)\cup \{uv\mid u\in V(G_1), v\in V(G_2)\}$. It is easily shown that $\chi(G)=\chi(G_1)+\chi(G_2)$, which will extend inductively to the sum of any finite number of graphs.
Hence, we have the following result.
\[theorem:sum\] Let $X$ be a simplicial complex. Then there exists a pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_4}(X)$ (respectively $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_5}(X)$) such that $X$ admits a complete ascending (respectively descending) $k$-colouring if and only if $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_4}(X)$ (respectively $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_5}(X)$) is non-elliptic.
As we have mentioned above, complete ascending $k$-colourings and complete descending $k$-colourings are respectively modelled by the colourings of the following graphs: $$\begin{aligned}
G_c(X) & = G_0(X) + G_1(X) + \dots + G_{\dim X}(X), \\
G'_c(X) & = G'_0(X) + G'_1(X) + \dots + G'_{\dim X}(X), \end{aligned}$$ where $G_r (X)$ and $G'_s (X)$ are defined in (\[asc\]) and (\[desc\]) respectively. Now, one can easily see that the sum of two graphs is always connected. Indeed, if we choose one vertex for each of the graphs, they are by definition connected with an edge, and if they are in the same graph, we can choose any vertex on the other graph and we have a path joining the two vertices through this one. As a consequence, for the graph $G_4 = G_c (X) $ we get that $\mathcal{M}_k^{{\mathfrak{C}_4}}(X) ={S}_k (G_4)$ (respectively for the graph $G_5 = G'_c (X) $ we get that $\mathcal{M}_k^{{\mathfrak{C}_5}}(X) ={S}_k (G_5)$), where $S_k (G_4)$ is the Sullivan model introduced in Section \[section:background\].
The following colouring is also formulated by combining colourings in different dimensions. It was introduced for dimension two in [@kronk], and it has been recently studied, also for dimension two, under the name of VEF-colouring in [@sohaee].
\[def: fullcolour\] A map $\psi\colon X \to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is a *full $k$-colouring of $X$* ($\mathfrak{C}_6$-$k$-colouring) if it satisfies:
- $\sigma\subset \tau \Rightarrow \psi(\sigma)\ne \psi(\tau)$.
- $\sigma,\tau \in X^0, \sigma\cup\tau\in X^1\Rightarrow \psi(\sigma)\ne\psi(\tau)$.
- $1 \le r\le \dim X, \sigma,\tau \in X^r, \sigma\cap\tau\in X^{r-1}\Rightarrow \psi(\sigma)\ne \psi(\tau)$.
Thus, $\psi$ distinguishes incident faces, it is an ascending colouring when restricted to $X^0$, and a descending colouring when restricted to $X^r$, on all the other dimensions. Particularly, any complete ascending $k$-colouring is a full $k$-colouring.
Notice that if we take a graph $G$ and consider it as a one-dimensional complex $X$, then a $\mathfrak{C}_6$-$k$-colouring of $X$ is precisely a total $k$-colouring of $G$. Therefore:
\[lemma:C6NPhard\] The problem of total graph $k$-colourability is Turing-reducible to the problem of $\mathfrak{C}_6$-$k$-colourability of a simplicial complex, and hence, the later is a NP-hard problem, for $k\ge 4$.
On the other hand, the full $k$-colouring is equivalent to a colouring of the *full graph* of $X$, $$\label{whole}G^e(X) = I \cup (G_0(X)\sqcup G_1'(X)\sqcup \dots \sqcup G'_{\dim X}(X)),$$ where the union of two graphs is the graph with vertices the union of the vertices of the two, and edges the union of the edges of the two, and $I$ is the strict inclusion graph, that is, a graph whose vertices are the simplices of the complex, and they are joined by an edge if and only if the simplices they represent are one contained in the other. This graph is connected when $X$ is also connected, so the next result holds.
\[theorem:wholecolour\] Let $X$ be a connected simplicial complex. Then, there exists a pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_6}(X)$ such that $X$ is full $k$-colourable if and only if $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_6}(X)$ is non-elliptic.
It suffices to consider $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_6}(X) = S_k(G^e(X)), $ where $S_k (G^e(X))$ is the Sullivan algebra introduced in Section \[section:background\].
We are now going to introduce the last colouring for this section. For a regular vertex colouring of a simplicial complex $X$ with colours from a palette $P$, we assign to each vertex a colour from $P$ such that for every face $\sigma \in X$, the vertices of $\sigma$ have different colours. That is we look at maps $f: V \rightarrow P$ such that its restriction $f {{\mid}_{\sigma}}$ is injective. In [@DMN] a more relaxed definition of vertex colouring is introduced.
\[def:colorDMN\] Let $P$ be a finite set (palette of colours) and $s \geq 1$ be a natural number.
1. A $(P, s)$-colouring of $X$ (or a $\mathfrak{C}_7$-$(P,s)$-colouring) is a map $f: V \rightarrow P$ such that, for all $\sigma \in X $ and all $p \in P$, we have $| \sigma \cap f^{-1}(p) | \leq s.$
2. $X$ is $(k,s)$-colourable if $X$ admits a $(P,s)$-colouring from a palette $P$ of $|P|=k$ colours.
3. The $s$-chromatic number of $X$, $\operatorname{chr}^s(X)$, is the least $k$ so that $X$ is $(k,s)$-colourable.
Notice that a $(k,1)$-colouring of $X$ is a traditional $k$-colouring of $X$ with respect to the $1$-skeleton, and $\operatorname{chr}^1(X)$ is the usual chromatic number of $X^{(1)}$. This means that a $k$-colouring for a graph $G$ is precisely a $(k,1)$-colouring for the one-dimensional simplicial complex it induces, and hence:
\[lemma:C7NPhard\] The problem of graph $k$-colourability can be polynomially reduced to the problem of $\mathfrak{C}_7$-$(P,s)$-colourability of a certain simplicial complex, and hence, the latter is a NP-hard problem, for $k\ge 3$.
Observe also that $f: V \rightarrow P$ is a $(P,s)$-colouring if and only if $|f(\sigma) | \geq 2$ for all $s$-dimensional faces.
\[definition:independent\] Let $B \subset V$ be a set of vertices of $X$ and denote $D[B]$ the complete simplicial complex of all subsets of the finite set $B$. Then
- $B$ is [*$s$-independent*]{} if $B$ contains no $s$-simplex of $X$;
- $B$ is [*connected*]{} if $X \cap D[B]$ is a connected simplicial complex.
\[definition:cP\] Let $P$ be a partition of $V$. The graph $G_0(P)$ of $P$ is the simple graph whose vertices are the blocks of $P$ and where two blocks are joined by an edge whenever their union is connected.
Following the notation in [@MollerNord], the set of all block-connected $s$-independent partitions of $V$ will be denoted as $\text{BCP}^s(X)$. We are then able to prove the following result.
\[theorem:connindep\] Let $X$ be a connected simplicial complex. Then, there exists a pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_{r,s}^{\mathfrak{C}_7}(X)$ such that $X$ is $\mathfrak{C}_7$-$(r,s)$-colourable if and only if $\mathcal{M}_{r,s}^{\mathfrak{C}_7}(X)$ is not elliptic.
In [@MollerNord Theorem 2.5] the authors show that the $s$-chromatic number of $X$ is the minimum $${\operatorname{chr}^{s}(X)} = \min_{P \in \mathrm{BCP}^s(X)} {\operatorname{chr}^{1}(G_0(P))}$$ of the $1$-chromatic numbers of the graphs of all $s$-independent and block-connected partitions of $V$. Moreover, it is easy to show that if $X$ is connected, then $G_0(P)$ is connected for every $P\in \text{BCP}^s(X)$. Hence, we may consider $$\mathcal{M}_{r,s}^{\mathfrak{C}_7}(X) = \bigotimes_{P \in \mathrm{BCP}^s(X)} S_r(G_0(P)),$$ where $S_r(G_0(P))$ is the Sullivan algebra introduced in Section \[section:background\]. Since the tensor product of Sullivan algebras is non-elliptic if and only if at least one of the factors is non-elliptic, when this algebra is non-elliptic at least one of the graphs $G_0(P)$ is $r$-colourable, so the $s$-chromatic number is, at most, $r$, and $X$ is $(r,s)$-colourable, and reciprocally.
It is worth noting that the Sullivan algebras obtained in Theorem \[theorem:connindep\] are different from those obtained by the authors in [@CV7] to codify the $(P,s)$-colourings.
Models for strongly connected homogeneous simplicial complexes {#sub: strongly}
==============================================================
A simplicial complex is strongly connected when any two simplices of maximum dimension can be joined via a finite list of simplices of maximum dimension verifying that the intersection of one simplex of the list with the next one is a simplex on the previous dimension.
This notion of connectivity, though apparently stronger than the previous one, does not necessarily imply connectivity. Indeed, any simplicial complex with only one simplex in maximum dimension will be strongly connected, but it may not be connected. However, if we consider homogeneous simplicial complexes, then strong connectivity implies connectivity. We recall that homogeneous simplicial complexes satisfy that for every given vertex there is a face of maximum dimension containing it. It is clear that if $X$ is homogeneous and strongly connected, then $X^{(k)}$ is also homogeneous and strongly connected for $0\le k \le \dim X$.
We start showing that, under these restrictions, graphs and , which model ascending and descending $k$-colourings respectively, are connected, and thus we can use Lechuga-Murillo’s result. First, notice that $X$ is strongly connected if and only if $G'_{\dim X}(X)$ is connected. Indeed, since the vertices of this graph are simplices of $X$ of maximum dimension and they are connected through an edge, when they intersect in a simplex of the previous dimension, a chain like the one in the definition of strong connectivity is a path in this graph. For the rest of the dimensions, we have the following result.
\[prop:grconexos\] Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional strongly connected homogeneous simplicial complex. Then $G_r(X)$ and $G'_s(X)$ are connected, for $0\le r < n$ and $0 < s \le n$.
We will start by proving the connectivity of $G_r(X)$. Choose $\sigma,\tau\in X^r$. If $0\le r <n$, since $X$ is homogeneous, there is a simplex of maximum dimension containing $\sigma$, and if we choose a vertex in this simplex that is not in $\sigma$, we may add it to $\sigma$ to get a $(r+1)$-simplex $\tilde{\sigma}$ of which $\sigma$ is a face. In a similar way, we can choose a $(r+1)$-simplex $\tilde{\tau}$ containing $\tau$. Now $\tilde{\sigma},\tilde{\tau}\in X^{(r+1)}$, and $X^{(r+1)}$ is homogeneous and strongly connected. Then we have a list of $(r+1)$-simplices in $X^{(r+1)}$, $\tilde{\sigma}=\tilde{\sigma}_1, \tilde{\sigma}_2,\dots, \tilde{\sigma}_t=\tilde{\tau}$ such that $\sigma_i = \tilde{\sigma}_i\cap \tilde{\sigma}_{i+1}$ is a $r$-simplex, $i\in \{1,2,\dots,t-1\}$. It is easily seen that $\sigma_i\cup \sigma_{i+1}$ is a $(r+1)$-simplex, and also, $\sigma=\sigma_1$ or they join in a $(r+1)$-simplex. The same happens with $\tau$ and $\sigma_{t-1}$. In any case, $\sigma \sigma_1 \dots \sigma_{t-1} \tau$ is a path in $G_r(X)$ between $\sigma$ and $\tau$, so $G_r(X)$ is connected. The connectivity of $G'_s(X)$, for $0< s \le n$ is an immediate consequence of the strong connectivity of $X^{(s)}$.
We thus have the next result.
Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional strongly connected homogeneous simplicial complex. Then, for every $0\le r <n$ (respectively for every $0<s\le n$), there exists a Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k (X,r)$ (respectively $\mathcal{M}'_k(X,s)$) such that $X$ admits an ascending $k$-colouring in dim $r$ (respectively a descending $k$-colouring in dim $s$) if and only if ${\mathcal{M}_k}(X,r)$ (respectively $\mathcal{M}'_k(X,s)$) is non-elliptic.
By the previous proposition, under these hypothesis the graph $G_r(X)$ is connected, for $0\le r < n$, so $X$ admits an ascending $k$-colouring in dim $r$ if and only if the Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k(X,r) = S_k(G_r(X))$ is non-elliptic. Similarly, for $0<s\le n$, $X$ will admit a descending $k$-colouring in dim $s$ if and only if the Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}'_k(X,s) = S_k(G'_s(X))$ is non-elliptic.
We now introduce the last collection of colourings.
We say that a map $\varphi\colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is:
- a *maximal ascending $k$-colouring* ($\mathfrak{C}_8$-$k$-colouring) if, for $0\le r \le \dim X$, the restriction $\varphi_{|X^r}$ is an ascending $k$-colouring in dim $r$ for $X$.
- a *maximal descending $k$-colouring* ($\mathfrak{C}_{9}$-$k$-colouring) if, for $0\le s \le \dim X$, the restriction $\varphi_{|X^s}$ is a descending $k$-colouring in dim $s$ for $X$.
- a *minimal ascending $k$-colouring* ($\mathfrak{C}_{10}$-$k$-colouring) if there exists $0\le r < \dim X$ such that the restriction $\varphi_{|X^r}$ is an ascending $k$-colouring in dim $r$ for $X$.
- a *minimal descending $k$-colouring* ($\mathfrak{C}_{11}$-$k$-colouring) if there exists $0 < s \le \dim X$ such that the restriction $\varphi_{|X^s}$ is a descending $k$-colouring in dim $s$ for $X$.
The corresponding chromatic numbers are respectively denoted by $\chi_{\max}(X)$, $\chi'_{\max}(X)$, $\chi_{\min}(X)$ and $\chi'_{\min}(X)$. We start by proving that both ascending colourings are *NP*-hard problems.
\[lemma:C810NPhard\] The $k$-colourability of a graph $G$ is polynomially reducible to both the $\mathfrak{C}_8$-$k$-colourability and the $\mathfrak{C}_{10}$-$k$-colourability of the one-dimensional simplicial complex it induces, $X$, and hence both are NP-hard problems, for $k\ge 3$.
First notice that for a one-dimensional simplicial complex, the concepts of maximal and minimal descending colourings are actually the same, since any map $\varphi\colon X^1\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ will be an ascending colouring in dimension 1. Hence we only have to prove that having a $k$-colouring of $G$ is equivalent to having a $\mathfrak{C}_8$-$k$-colouring of $X$.
Suppose then that $V$ is the set of vertices of $G$ (and $X$) and that we have a $k$-colouring $\varphi\colon V \to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ for $G$. We define a map $\psi\colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ by $$\psi(\sigma) = \begin{cases}
\varphi(\sigma), & \text{if $\sigma \in X^0 \equiv V$}, \\
k, & \text{if $\sigma \in X^1$}.
\end{cases}$$ Since $X$ is one-dimensional, we know that any map $X^1\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$, and in particular $\psi_{|X^1}$, is an ascending $k$-colouring in dimension one. In dimension zero, if $\sigma,\tau \in X^0$ are such that $\{\sigma,\tau\}\in X^1$, that would mean that the corresponding vertices in $G$ are joined by an edge, so they receive different colours through $\varphi$ and hence through $\psi$, so $\psi$ is a maximal ascending $k$-colouring.
Reciprocally, suppose that $\psi\colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is a maximal ascending $k$-colouring for $X$. We know in particular that $\varphi =\psi_{|X^0} \colon X^0\equiv V \to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is an ascending $k$-colouring in dimension 0. Hence two vertices that form a 1-simplex, or equivalently, that are joined through an edge in $G$, must receive different colours through $\varphi$, and $\varphi$ is, indeed, a $k$-colouring for $G$.
We can show in a similar manner that descending $k$-colourings are both *NP*-hard problems.
\[lemma:C911NPhard\] The edge $k$-colourability of a graph $G$ is equivalent to both the $\mathfrak{C}_9$-$k$-colourability and the $\mathfrak{C}_{11}$-$k$-colourability of the one-dimensional simplicial complex it induces, $X$, and hence both are NP-hard problems, for $k\ge 3$.
In a similar way as what we have shown in Lemma \[lemma:C810NPhard\], maximal and minimal descending colourings are the same concept when applied to one dimensional simplicial complexes, since they both must be descending $k$-colourings in dimension one while they do not have any restriction on the image of 0-simplices. Hence we may only prove that having an edge $k$-colouring of $G$ is equivalent to having a $\mathfrak{C}_9$-$k$-colouring of $X$.
Suppose then that $G=(V,E)$ and that $\varphi'\colon E\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is an edge $k$-colouring of $G$, and consider the map $\varphi \colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ defined by $$\varphi(\sigma)= \begin{cases}
\varphi'(\sigma), & \text{if $\sigma \in X^1\equiv E$},\\
k, & \text{if $\sigma \in X^0 \equiv V$}.
\end{cases}$$ We know that $\varphi_{|X^0}$ is a descending $k$-colouring in dimension 0. In dimension one, if $\sigma,\tau \in X^1$ are such that $\sigma\cap\tau \in X^0$, that means that the edges that $\sigma$ and $\tau$ represent in $X$ have a vertex in common, so they would receive different images through $\varphi'$ and hence through $\varphi$, so $\varphi$ is a maximal descending $k$-colouring.
Reciprocally, suppose that $\varphi\colon X\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is a maximal descending $k$-colouring for $X$. We know in particular that $\varphi' = \varphi_{|X^1}\colon X^1\equiv E\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is a descending $k$-colouring in dimension one. Hence two 1-simplices that intersect in a 0-simplex receive different images through $\varphi'$. In terms of the graph $G$, what we are saying is that two edges that intersect in a vertex receive different images through $\varphi'$, and hence, $\varphi'$ is an edge colouring for $G$.
We continue by showing that maximal colourings can be modelled using the Lechuga-Murillo’s result.
Let $X$ be a $n$-dimensional strongly connected homogeneous simplicial complex. Then there exists a pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_8}(X)$ such that $X$ has a maximal ascending $k$-colouring (that is, $\chi_{\max}(X)\le k$) if and only if the pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_8}(X)$ is non-elliptic. Similarly, there exists a pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_{9}}(X)$ such that $X$ has a maximal descending $k$-colouring (or $\chi'_{\max}(X)\le k$) if and only if $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_{9}}(X)$ is non-elliptic.
First, since in maximal ascending $k$-colourings we allow colours to be repeated between different dimensions, $\chi_{\max}(X)$ will be the least integer $k$ such that, for every $r\le n$, $X$ admits an ascending $k$-colouring in dim $r$. Also, since any map $X^{n}\to\{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is an ascending colouring in dimension $n$, $\chi_{n}(X)=1$. Thus $$\chi_{\max}(X) = \max\{\chi_0(X),\chi_1(X),\dots,\chi_{n-1}(X)\}.$$ The same reasoning applies to the maximal descending $k$-colouring. In this case, we know that any map $X^0\to \{1,2,\dots,k\}$ is a descending $k$-colouring, so $\chi'_0(X)=1$, and thus, $$\chi'_{\max}(X) = \max\{\chi'_1(X),\chi_2(X),\dots,\chi'_{n}(X)\}$$
Consider now the Cartesian product of graphs, $G\square G'$. Since we know that $\chi(G\square G')=\max\{\chi(G),\chi(G')\}$ [@hik Theorem 26.1], we inductively obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\max}(X) & = \max\{\chi_0(X), \chi_1(X),\ldots, \chi_{n-1}(X)\} \\& = \max\{\chi(G_0(X)), \chi(G_1(X)),\ldots, \chi(G_{n-1}(X))\} \\&= \chi(G_0(X)\Box G_1(X)\Box\cdots\Box G_{n-1}(X)),\end{aligned}$$ therefore having a maximal ascending $k$-colouring of $X$ is equivalent to having a $k$-colouring of the graph $$G_\square(X)=G_0(X)\square G_1(X)\square\cdots\square G_{n-1}(X).$$ Also, the Cartesian product of connected graphs is itself connected, [@hik Corollary 5.3], and since by Proposition \[prop:grconexos\] we already know that graphs $G_r(X)$ are connected for $0\le r < n$, we deduce that $G_\square(X)$ is connected. Then $X$ admits a maximal ascending $k$-colouring if and only if the Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_{8}}(X)=S_k(G_\square(X))$ is non-elliptic.
Similarly, graphs $G'_s(X)$ are connected for $0<s\le n$, so $$G'_{\square}(X) = G'_1(X)\square G'_2(X)\square\cdots\square G'_n(X)$$ is connected, and $X$ will admit a maximal descending $k$-colouring if and only if the pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_{9}}(X)=S_k(G'_\square(X))$ is non-elliptic.
In the previous theorem we have seen that the chromatic number for the maximal $k$-colourings is the maximum of the chromatic numbers for the corresponding colourings, by using that the Cartesian product of graphs models this colourability. In a similar way, it is easy to see that the chromatic number for the minimal colourings is the minimum of the chromatic numbers for the corresponding colourings, so we might be tempted to search for a graph operation such that the chromatic number of the resulting graph is the minimum of the chromatic number of the factors. Though a good candidate seems to be the direct product of graphs, this is an open problem known under the name of Hedetniemi’s conjecture [@hik Conjecture 26.25]. Since we do not know any suitable graph operation, we may proceed in a similar way as we did in Theorem \[theorem:connindep\] to obtain an algebra that codified the $\mathfrak{C}_7$-colourings.
\[theorem:mincolour\] Let $X$ be a $n$-dimensional strongly connected homogeneous simplicial complex. Then there exists a pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_{10}}(X)$ such that $X$ has a minimal ascending $k$-colouring (that is, $\chi_{\min}(X)\le k$) if and only if the pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_{10}}(X)$ is non-elliptic. Similarly, there exists a pure Sullivan algebra $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_{11}}(X)$ such that $X$ has a minimal descending $k$-colouring (or $\chi'_{\min}(X)\le k$) if and only if $\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_{11}}(X)$ is non-elliptic.
It is easily seen that a simplicial complex $X$ admits a minimal ascending $k$-colouring if and only if there exists an integer $0 \le r <n$ such that $X$ admits an ascending $k$-colouring in dimension $r$, which is also equivalent to the non-ellipticity of the Sullivan algebra $S_k(G_r(X))$. Since the tensor product of pure Sullivan algebras is elliptic if and only if all factors are elliptic, such $r$ exists if and only if the pure Sullivan algebra $$\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_{10}}(X) = S_k(G_0(X)) \otimes S_k(G_1(X))\otimes \dots \otimes S_k(G_{n-1}(X))$$ is non-elliptic. Similarly, a minimal descending $k$-colouring exists if and only if the pure Sullivan algebra $$\mathcal{M}_k^{\mathfrak{C}_{11}}(X) = S_k(G'_1(X)) \otimes S_k(G'_2(X))\otimes \dots \otimes S_k(G'_{n}(X)).$$ is non-elliptic.
To conclude this work, we just need to gather Theorems \[theorem:vertexcolour\] – \[theorem:mincolour\] to obtain the proof of Theorem \[theorem:all\] and Lemmas \[lemma:C1NPhard\] – \[lemma:C911NPhard\] to obtain the proof of Theorem \[NP-hardness\], so we have proven both of our main results.
A. Bretto, Hypergraph Theory. An Introduction. Mathematical Engineering, Springer, Cham, 2013.
C. Costoya, A. Viruel, *Every finite group is the group of self homotopy equivalences of an elliptic space*, Acta Mathematica **213** (2014), 49–62.
C. Costoya, A. Viruel, *Faithful actions on Commutative Differential Graded Algebras and the Group Isomorphism Problem*, The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics **65** (2014), 857–867.
C. Costoya, A. Viruel, *Rational homotopy theory for computing colourability of simplicial complexes*, Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing **26** (2015), 207–212.
N. Dobrinskaya, J. M[ø]{}ller, D. Notbohm, *Vertex colorings of simplicial complexes*. Preprint [arXiv:1007.0710 \[math.CO\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0710).
Y. Félix, S. Halperin, J. C. Thomas, Rational Homotopy Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, **205**, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001.
Z. Galil, D. Leven, *NP-completeness of finding the chromatic index of regular graphs*, J. of Algorithms [**4**]{} (1983), 35–44.
M. R. Garey, D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 1979.
B. Grünbaum, *Incidence patterns of graphs and complexes, in: The Many facets of Graph Theory*, Lecture Notes in Math., Springer-Verlag, [**110**]{} (1969), 115–128.
R. Hammack, W. Imrich, S. Klavžar, Handbook of product graphs. Discrete Mathematics and its Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2011.
I. Holyer, *The NP-completeness of edge-colourings*, SIAM J. Comput. [**10**]{} (1981), 718–720.
H. V. Kronk, J. Mitchem, *A seven-colour theorem on the sphere*, Discrete Math. [**5**]{} (1973), 253–260.
L. Lechuga, A. Murillo, *Complexity in rational homotopy*, Topology [**39**]{} (2000), 89–94.
L. Lechuga, A. Murillo, *The fundamental class of a rational space, the graph coloring problem and other classical decision problems*, Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin [**8**]{} (2001), no. 3, 451–467.
J. M[ø]{}ller, G. Nord, *Chromatic polynomials of simplicial complexes*, Graphs Combin. [**32**]{} (2016), no. 2, 745–772.
A. Sánchez-Arroyo, *Determining the total colouring number is NP-hard*, Discrete Math. [**78**]{} (1989), 315–319.
N. Sohaee, *List VEF colouring of Planar Graphs*, Appl. Math. Sci. (Ruse) [**3**]{} (2009), 1243–1247.
[^1]: Author partially supported by Xunta de Galicia grant EM 2013/016, by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad grant MTM2013-43687-P (European FEDER support included) and by the Ministerio de Educación Cultura y Deporte grant FPU14/05137. This work was awarded a second price in the XIV Certamen Universitario Arquímedes of the Spanish Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. The author is thankful to J. M. Carballés, C. Costoya and A. Viruel for their insightful comments and guidance.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article, we consider abstract linear conservative systems and their time-discrete counterparts. Our main result is a representation formula expressing solutions of the continuous model through the solution of the corresponding time-discrete one. As an application, we show how observability properties for the time continuous model yield uniform (with respect to the time-step) observability results for its time-discrete approximation counterparts, provided the initial data are suitably filtered. The main output of this approach is the estimate on the time under which we can guarantee uniform observability for the time-discrete models. Besides, using a reverse representation formula, we also prove that this estimate on the time of uniform observability for the time-discrete models is sharp. We then conclude with some general comments and open problems.'
author:
- |
Sylvain Ervedoza$^{1,2,}$[^1]\
[*$^{1}$ CNRS ; Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse UMR 5219 ;*]{}\
[*F-31062 Toulouse, France,*]{}\
[*$^{2}$ Université de Toulouse ; UPS, INSA, INP, ISAE, UT1, UTM ; IMT ;*]{}\
[*F-31062 Toulouse, France,*]{}\
and Enrique Zuazua$^{3,4,}$ [^2]\
[*$^{3}$ BCAM - Basque Center for Applied Mathematics, Alameda de Mazarredo, 14*]{}\
[*E-48009 Bilbao, Basque Country, Spain.*]{}\
[*$^{4}$ Ikerbasque Research Professor, Ikerbasque - Basque Foundation for Science,*]{}\
[*E-48011 Bilbao, Basque Country, Spain.*]{}
title: 'Transmutation techniques and observability for time-discrete approximation schemes of conservative systems[^3]'
---
Introduction
============
Setting
-------
Assume that ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is a skew-adjoint unbounded operator defined in a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ with dense domain $\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}) \subset {{\mathcal{X}}}$ and compact resolvent. We consider the equation $$\label{FD-Abstract}
y' = {{\mathcal{A}}}y, \quad t \in {\mathbb{R}}, \qquad y(0) = y^0 \in {{\mathcal{X}}}.$$
This equation is well-posed for $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and, ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ being skew-symmetric, solutions $y(t)$ of have constant norms ${\left\Verty(t)\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}$. Often ${\left\Verty(t)\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2/2$ is referred to as the energy of the system.
Several classical systems fit this abstract setting, as for instance the wave equation, Schrödinger’s and Maxwell’s equations, among many others.
Our primary goal is to establish a link between the solutions $y$ of and the solutions of time-discrete versions of . Since the solutions $y$ of have constant energy, we will reduce our analysis to time-discretization schemes which preserve the ${{\mathcal{X}}}$-norm ${\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}$ of the solutions.
To state our results precisely, we need to introduce filtered spaces of solutions. For, we write down the spectral decomposition of the operator ${{\mathcal{A}}}$, which is given by a sequence of purely imaginary eigenvalues $(i \mu_{j})$, corresponding to an orthonormal basis of ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ constituted by the eigenvectors $\Phi_j$. For $\delta >0$, we define the filtered space $$\label{FiteredSpaceTime}
\mathfrak{C}(\delta) = \hbox{span} \{\Phi_j \hbox{ corresponding to eigenvalues } |\mu_j|\leq \delta \}.$$ One easily checks that this space is left invariant by the equation , and thus we will identify the space of trajectories $y$ solutions of lying in $\mathfrak{C} (\delta)$ with the space of initial data $y^0$ lying in $\mathfrak{C}(\delta)$.
Let us now describe the time-discretization schemes under consideration.
We assume that the time-discretization of system discretized with a time-step $\tau >0$ takes the form $$\label{AbstractTimeDisc}
y^{k+1}_\tau = {\mathbb{T}}_\tau y^k_\tau, \quad k \in {\mathbb{Z}}, \qquad y^0_\tau = y^0.$$ Here, $y^k_\tau$ denotes an approximation of the solution $y$ of at time $k \tau$, and ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ is assumed to be an approximation of $\exp(\tau {{\mathcal{A}}})$.
To be more precise, we assume that ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ is a linear operator which has the same eigenvectors as the operator ${{\mathcal{A}}}$, and such that, for some function $f$, $$\label{TonEig}
{\mathbb{T}}_\tau \Phi_j = \exp (i \mu_{j, \tau} \tau) \Phi_j, \quad \hbox{where } \mu_{j, \tau} = \frac{1}{\tau} f (\mu_j \tau).$$ Actually, this operator may also be written as $${\mathbb{T}}_\tau = \exp\left( i f(- i {{\mathcal{A}}}\tau)\right).$$ Let us now make precise the assumptions we impose on $f$.
First, we assume that $f$ is $C^\infty$ and satisfies $$\label{HypG-1}
f(0) = 0, \quad f'(0) = 1.$$ This assumption on $f$ is satisfied for most of the time-discretization approximation schemes: Roughly speaking, this is equivalent to the consistency of the time-discretization.
To simplify notations and avoid technical developments, we furthermore assume that $f$ is odd. This is not necessary in our arguments, but in practice, most of the time-discretization schemes modeled by fit in this class.
We also assume that $f$ is real valued and $$\label{HypG-2}
f : (-R, R) \to (-\pi, \pi),$$ where $R \in {\mathbb{R}}_+^* \cup \{\infty\}$ may be infinite. The fact that $f$ is real-valued is equivalent to the fact that the norms of solutions of are constant in the discrete time $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and ensures the stability of the numerical scheme. The range of $f$ is limited to $(-\pi, \pi)$ to avoid aliasing since one cannot measure oscillations at frequencies higher than $\pi/\tau$ on a discrete mesh of mesh-size $\tau$.
In particular, for to be well-defined, we always consider solutions of with initial data lying in some class of filtered data at the scale $\tau$, namely $\mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ for some $\delta \in (0,R)$.
We also assume that for all $\delta < R$, $$\label{HypG-3}
\inf\{f'(\alpha); \ |\alpha| \leq \delta \} >0$$ to ensure the invertibility of $f$.
We finally define $g : (-f(R), f(R)) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ as the inverse function of $f$ on $(-R, R)$. This can be done due to assumption .
Before going further, let us point out that several classical time-discretization schemes fit the abstract setting provided by Assumptions ––, see Section \[ExamplesTimeDisc\] for several examples.
A representation formula
------------------------
We are now in position to state the following result, whose proof can be found in Section \[Sec-Rho-tau\]:
\[Thm-DiscTransmutation\] Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time discrete operator ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ as in , assume ––, and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$.
Let $\chi$ be a $C^\infty$ function compactly supported in $(-f(R), f(R))$ and equal to $1$ in $(-f(\delta), f(\delta))$. For $\tau >0$, define then $\rho_\tau(t,s)$ for $t \in {\mathbb{R}},\ s \in {\mathbb{R}}$ as $$\label{KernelDiscTransmutation}
\rho_\tau(t, s) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{- \pi/\tau}^{\pi/\tau} \exp\left(-\frac{i g(\mu_\tau \tau) t}{\tau} \right) \chi\left(\mu_\tau\tau\right) e^{i \mu_\tau s}\, d\mu_\tau.$$ Then, if $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ and $y^k_\tau$ is the corresponding solution of , the function $y(t)$ defined by $$\label{Transmutation}
y(t) = \tau \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \rho_\tau(t, k \tau) y_\tau^k$$ is the solution of with initial data $y^0$.
Note that when $f$ is bijective from $(-R,R)$ to $(-\pi, \pi)$, the above representation formula does not require the use of the cut-off function $\chi$ and allows describing all solutions $y$ of for all initial data in $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(R/\tau)$, see Remark \[Remark-a\] for further details.
We now give some informal arguments motivating the representation formula in Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\].
First, we remark that under the assumptions on the operator ${{\mathcal{A}}}$, solutions $y$ of admit the following spectral decomposition: $$\label{Y-expanded}
y(t) = \sum_j a_j e^{i \mu_j t} \Phi_j,$$ where $(a_j)$ are the coefficients of the initial datum on the basis $\Phi_j$: $$\label{Init-Data}
y^0 = \sum_j a_j \Phi_j.$$ Similarly, due to , the solutions $y_\tau$ of the time-discrete system with initial datum $y^0$ as in can be written as $$\label{Y-tau-Expanded}
y^k_\tau = \sum_j a_j e^{i \mu_{j,\tau} k \tau} \Phi_j,$$ where the $\mu_{j,\tau}$ are defined by . Obviously, we can then extrapolate a time-continuous version $z_\tau$ of $y_\tau$: $$\label{Z-cont}
z_\tau(s) = \sum_j a_j e^{i \mu_{j,\tau} s} \Phi_j.$$ Here, we use the notation $s$ for the continuous time-variable corresponding to the *a priori* time-discrete dynamics, and $z_\tau$ for the new state variable to avoid confusion with time $t$ and state $y$ of the continuous dynamics.
Transmutation or subordination refers to the possibility of expressing one semi-group as a function of another one. In our context, this simply consists in writing the solutions $y$ of as a function of $z_\tau(s)$ by means of a kernel $\tilde \rho = \tilde \rho(t,s)$ under the form $$\label{GeneralTransForm}
y(t) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}\tilde \rho_{\tau} (t,s) z_\tau(s) \, ds, \quad t \in {\mathbb{R}}.$$ For this to be done, using the explicit expressions and , the kernel $\tilde \rho(t,s)$ has to be built so that $$\label{Formal-tilde-rho-req}
e^{i \mu_j t} = \int_{\mathbb{R}}\tilde \rho_\tau(t,s) e^{i \mu_{j,\tau} s} \, ds, \quad t \in {\mathbb{R}}, \, \mu \in {\mathbb{R}}.$$ Interpreting the right-hand side of as a Fourier transform in $s$ and taking into account that $\mu_{j,\tau} = f (\mu_j \tau)/\tau$ with $f$ invertible, naturally leads to $$\label{Formal-tilde-rho}
\tilde \rho_\tau(t,s) = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\mathbb{R}}\exp\left(-\frac{i g(\mu \tau) t}{\tau} \right) e^{i \mu s}\, d\mu.$$ This formula is a simplified version of the one of $\rho_\tau$ in , in which the above time-continuous function $z_\tau$ in has to be replaced by the time-discrete function $y_\tau$ in and the filtering operator $\chi$ has been introduced.
Application to observability
----------------------------
As an application of Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\], we consider an observation problem for the equation and its time-discrete counterparts for . This problem, inspired in control theoretical issues, concerns the possibility of recovering the full energy of solutions out of partial measurements. The question is relevant both in the continuous and in the time-discrete frame, and in the later, a natural question arising in numerical analysis is to know whether the observability property is uniform with respect to the time-step. Indeed, this problem is the dual version of the classical controllability one and the uniformity (with respect to time-step) of the observability inequality is equivalent to the convergence of numerical controls towards the continuous ones as the time-step tends to zero (see [@Zua05Survey; @ErvZuaCime]).
We thus consider an observation operator ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ taking value in some Hilbert space ${{\mathcal{U}}}$ and assumed to belong to $ \mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p), {{\mathcal{U}}})$ for some $p\in {\mathbb{N}}$. To be more precise, we assume that there exists $C_{p}>0$ such that $$\label{C-p-boundedness}
{\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{U}}}}^2 \leq C_{p}^2 \left({\left\Vert{{\mathcal{A}}}^p y\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}}^2 + {\left\Verty\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}}^2 \right), \quad \forall y \in \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p).$$ We furthermore assume that equation is observable through ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ at time $T_0>0$, meaning that there exists a constant $C_0$ such that, for all $y^0 \in \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p)$, the solution $y(t)$ of with initial data $y^0$ satisfies $$\label{FD-Obs}
{\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2 \leq C_0 \int_0^{T_0} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y(t)\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \, dt.$$ Estimate is the so-called observability estimate for . As it has been established in the classical works [@DoleckiRussell; @Lions], this property is essentially equivalent to the controllability of the adjoint system: $$\label{ControlledSystem}
y_c' = {{\mathcal{A}}}y_c + {{\mathcal{B}}}^* v, \quad t \in (0,T), \qquad y_c(0) = y_c^0,$$ where $v$ is a control function in $L^2(0,T; {{\mathcal{U}}})$. Actually the control for can be built by minimizing a suitable quadratic functional over the class of solutions . We do not give details on these links in this article and we refer the interested reader to [@Lions; @TWbook]. Also note that the observability property is also closely linked to some inverse problems, see e.g. the work [@AlvesSilvestreTakahashiTucsnak] for precise statements in a setting similar to ours and the references therein.
We are thus interested in deriving discrete versions of for solutions $y_\tau$ of . Namely, we are asking if, given $\delta \in (0,R)$, there exist a time $T>0$ and constants $C>0$ and $\tau_0>0$ independent of $\tau>0$ such that for all $\tau \in (0,\tau_0)$, solutions $y_\tau$ of with initial data $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ satisfy $$\label{Fully-Obs}
{\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2 \leq C \tau \sum_{ k \tau \in (0,T)} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2.$$ This is a discrete observability estimate for the time-discrete equations which is uniform with respect to the time-discretization parameter, provided the initial state is suitably filtered. As it is well-known, see e.g. the survey articles [@Zua05Survey; @ErvZuaCime], this is needed to derive algorithms to compute convergent sequences of discrete controls approximating the control of the continuous dynamics.
Our second main result, whose proof is given in Section \[Sec-Rho-tau\], is the following one:
\[Thm-Main\] Assume that ${{\mathcal{B}}}\in \mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p), {{\mathcal{U}}})$ for some $p\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and ${{\mathcal{U}}}$ an Hilbert space, and that ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ satisfies with constant $C_p$.
Assume that equation is observable through ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ at time $T_0$ with constant $C_0$, i.e. for all $y^0 \in \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p)$, the solution $y(t)$ of with initial data $y^0$ satisfies .
Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time discrete operator ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ as in , assume ––, and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$. Then, for all $$\label{TimeConditionTau}
T > \frac{T_0}{\underset{|\alpha| \leq \delta}{\inf} \{f'(\alpha) \}},$$ there exist positive constants $C$ and $\tau_0>0$ depending on $f, T, \delta, p, C_p, C_0,T_0$ such that for any $\tau \in (0,\tau_0)$, solutions $y_\tau$ of lying in $\mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ satisfy .
Theorem \[Thm-Main\] was already proved in [@je3] under an additional admissibility property for the operator ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ (see [@Lions] for a definition, or Section \[Sec-Admissibility\] in our context), but with an estimate on the observability time which is worse than the one we prove here in . Indeed, the technique in [@je3], based on a resolvent characterization of observability due to [@BurqZworski; @Mil05], does not yield explicit estimates on the time of observability. A variant of this strategy was developed in [@je9] for time-discrete approximations of Schrödinger equations in a geometric setting in which the corresponding wave equation is observable, where it was proved that the time-discrete approximations of Schrödinger equations are uniformly observable in any time $T>0$. In that case indeed, the resolvent estimates behave much better at high-frequencies, see e.g. [@TWbook], and the low frequency components of the solutions can be handled following the arguments of [@HarauxTime]. These resolvent estimates were also used to derive observability estimates for space semi-discrete conservative systems in filtered classes of initial data, see [@je8; @je7; @Miller2012], but still with non-explicit estimates on the time of observability.
The new ingredient introduced in this article that allows us to improve the results in [@je3] is the representation formula and careful estimates on the kernel $\rho_\tau$ in . This will be done using classical techniques of harmonic analysis, and in particular the oscillatory phase lemma. In particular, Proposition \[RhoDescription\] shows that, for all $\varepsilon>0$, $\rho_\tau$ is polynomially small with respect to $\tau>0$ to any arbitrary order in the set $$\Big\{(t,s) \in (0,T) \times {\mathbb{R}}, \hbox{ s.t. } t + \varepsilon < s \underset{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon}\inf \{f'(\alpha)\} \hbox{ or } s \sup_{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon} \{f'(\alpha)\} < t-\varepsilon \Big\}.$$ To give some insights on this result, let us again consider the informal arguments given above and remark that $z_\tau(s)$ in formally solves $$\partial_s^{\tau} z_\tau = A z_\tau,$$ where $\partial_s^{\tau}$ is the operator defined on the Fourier basis by $$\label{Def-ds}
\forall \mu \in {\mathbb{R}}, \quad \partial_s^\tau \left(e^{i \mu s}\right) = i \frac{g(\mu \tau)}{\tau} e^{i \mu s}.$$ Thus, the kernel $\tilde \rho_\tau$ in formally satisfies the transport-like equation $$\label{Transport-Pseudo}
\partial_t \tilde \rho_\tau - \partial_s^\tau \tilde \rho_\tau = 0, \quad (t,s) \in {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}},$$ with an initial data $\rho_\tau(t = 0, s) = \delta_{0}(s)$ where $\delta_{0}(s)$ is the Dirac function, since, according to , $\tilde \rho_\tau(t= 0, \cdot)$ is the Fourier transform of the function taking value $1$ identically.
Note that the solution of $(\partial_t - \partial_s) \rho_* = 0$ with initial data $\rho_*(t = 0) = \delta_0(s)$ is simply the Dirac delta transported at velocity one: $\rho_*(t,s) = \delta_{t} (s)$. Of course, for the kernel under consideration, $\partial_s^\tau$ is not a classical differential operator, but it is nevertheless very close to the classical derivation operator $\partial_s$ at low frequency since $g'(0) = 1$. We can thus interpret as a transport equation with some added dispersion effects at frequencies of the order of $1/\tau$.
Let us also point out that the representation formula in given through the kernel $\rho_\tau$ in is not far from a Fourier integral operator - see e.g. [@Treves-Book-80] - with the phase $\varphi(t,s, \mu_\tau) = \mu_\tau s- g(\mu_\tau) t$, and similar techniques can be employed. In particular the above localization result can also be seen as a counterpart of the fact that the kernel of a Fourier integral operator with phase $\varphi$ is regularizing outside of the set in which $\partial_{\mu_\tau} \varphi = 0$.
Next, in Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse\], we discuss a reverse representation formula giving solutions of the time-discrete equation in terms of solutions of the continuous equation . This allows us to prove admissibility results for solutions of uniformly with respect to the time-discretization parameter $\tau$, see Theorem \[MainFully5\], and the optimality of the time estimates in , see Section \[SectionOptimality\].
Let us also point out that, similarly as in [@je3], our approach can also be applied in the context of fully-discrete schemes: Indeed, to derive observability estimates for fully discrete approximations of that are uniform in both time and space discretization parameters, our approach shows that it is sufficient to prove observability estimates for time-continuous and space semi-discrete approximation schemes that are uniform in the space discretization parameter, see Section \[Sec-Further-Space\] for precise statements. Also note that our results can be used to recover discrete Ingham inequalities in a slightly different setting as the one in [@NegZua06], see Section \[Sec-Further-Ingham\]. We also explain how our strategy applies in the case of weak observability estimates in Section \[Sec-Further-Weak\].
Related results
---------------
Our approach is inspired by several previous works which establish representation formula for solutions of one equation through the solution of another equation. As we have already said, this technique is called subordination (in particular in the context of functional analysis, see e.g. [@Pruss93] and references therein) or transmutation. For instance, the work [@Kannai77] provides estimates on the heat kernel thanks to an analysis of the corresponding wave equation and the so-called Kannai transform expressing solutions of the heat equation in terms of solutions of the wave equation, and the work [@Kannai92] proposes a study of singular problems based on a representation formula adding one dimension to the problem.
In the context of control theory in which we focus here, the so-called Fourier Bros Iagnoniltzer transform, linking solutions of the wave equation to a suitable elliptic operator, provides an efficient tool to prove quantified unique continuation properties, see e.g. [@Robbiano91; @Robbiano95; @Phung09].
Similarly, using a suitable transformation linking the wave and heat equations, Miller in [@Miller06a; @Miller06b] derived estimates on the cost of controllability of the heat equations in small time, later improved in [@TucsnakTenenbaumTransAMS]. Similar estimates, related to the characterization of the reachable set for heat equations, can be found in [@ErvZuazuaARMA]. The main difference between the transforms in [@Miller06a; @Miller06b] and [@ErvZuazuaARMA] is that, whereas the articles [@Miller06a; @Miller06b] express solutions of the heat equations in terms of solutions of the wave equation, [@ErvZuazuaARMA] is based on a transform expressing solutions of the wave equation in terms of the solutions of the heat equation. Note that the robustness of the transformation of [@ErvZuazuaARMA] is illustrated by the fact that the weak observation properties derived in [@Phung09] for the waves in general geometric setting (not necessarily satisfying the geometric control conditions) can be used to recover control properties for the heat operator. Let us also point out that these transmutation techniques can also be used to derive numerical schemes to compute approximate controls for the heat equations [@MunchZuazua2010].
We also emphasize that Theorem \[Thm-Main\] states observability results for the time-discrete schemes observed through an observation operator ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ provided the continuous model is observable through ${{\mathcal{B}}}$. Hence the first step is to check the observability property for the continuous model, and these observability properties have to be checked in each situation. When the continuous model stands for a wave equation and ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ is a distributed observation operator or a boundary observation, the necessary and sufficient condition for observability is the so-called geometric control condition, see [@Bardos; @BurqGerard]. For what concerns plate or Schrödinger’s equations, the geometry still plays a role, but due to the infinite speed of propagation the situation is more intricate: for these models, observability holds when the geometric control condition is satisfied (see e.g. [@Miller2004] where this result is derived using transmutation techniques), but other less restrictive geometric settings still enjoy observability properties, see e.g. [@BurqZworski].
Outline
-------
The article is organized as follows. In Section \[ExamplesTimeDisc\], we give several instances of classical time-discretization schemes that fit the abstract setting with a function $f$ satisfying Assumptions ––. Section \[Sec-Rho-tau\] is devoted to the proofs of Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\] and Theorem \[Thm-Main\]. In Section \[Sec-Reverse\] we present a reverse representation formula and discuss its application to uniform admissibility results and use it to prove the optimality of the time estimate . In Section \[Sec-Further\], we present some further comments. In Section \[Sec-Open\], we end up discussing some open problems.
Some admissible time-discretization schemes {#ExamplesTimeDisc}
===========================================
In this section, we provide several classical time-discretization schemes that fit the setting – and satisfy assumptions ––.
The midpoint scheme
-------------------
Perhaps the simplest time-discretization of which preserves the energy is the midpoint scheme: for $\tau >0$, the time-discrete equation is given by: $$\label{Midpoint}
\frac{y_\tau^{k+1} - y_\tau^k}{\tau} = {{\mathcal{A}}}\left(\frac{y_\tau^k + y_\tau^{k+1}}{2} \right), \quad k \in {\mathbb{Z}}, \qquad y_\tau^0 = y^0.$$ Thus, if $\Phi_j$ is an eigenvector of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ with eigenvalue $i \mu_j$, the solution $y_\tau$ of with initial data $y^0 = \Phi_j$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
y_\tau^k = \left(\frac{1 + i \mu_j \tau /2}{1-i \mu_j \tau /2}\right)^k \Phi_j = \exp( i \mu_{j,\tau} k \tau) \Phi_j,
\\
\hbox{ where $\mu_{j,\tau}$ is defined by }
\exp( i \mu_{j,\tau} \tau ) = \frac{1 + i \mu_j \tau /2}{1-i \mu_j \tau /2},
\end{gathered}$$ yielding $$ \mu_{j,\tau} \tau = 2 \arctan( \mu_j \tau/2).$$
Hence the midpoint scheme fits the assumptions of Theorem \[Thm-Main\] by setting $f(\alpha) = 2 \arctan(\alpha/2)$ and thus $R = \infty$.
The fourth order Gauss Method
-----------------------------
Let us present the so-called fourth order Gauss method for discretizing , which enters the frame of Runge-Kutta methods, see for instance [@Hairer-book].
It reads as follows: $$\label{Gauss}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle}\kappa_i^k={{\mathcal{A}}}\left(y_\tau^k+\tau\sum_{j=1}^2 \alpha_{ij}\kappa_j^k\right), \qquad i=1,2,
\\
\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle}y_\tau^{k+1}=y_\tau^k+\frac{\tau}{2}(\kappa_1^k+\kappa_2^k),
\\
{\displaystyle}y_\tau^0 = y^0 \in {{\mathcal{X}}}\ \hbox{given},
\end{array}
\qquad
(\alpha_{ij}) =
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{4}& \frac{1}{4}-\frac{\sqrt 3}{6}\\
\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\sqrt 3}{6}&\frac{1}{4}
\end{array}\right).
\end{array}\right.$$ An easy computation shows that, for any $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $$\frac{1}{2}\left(\kappa_1^k + \kappa_2^k \right)= \left(Id - \frac{\tau {{\mathcal{A}}}}{2} + \frac{\tau^2 {{\mathcal{A}}}^2}{12} \right)^{-1} {{\mathcal{A}}}y_\tau^k,$$ which allows to rewrite as $$y_\tau^{k+1} = \left(Id - \frac{\tau {{\mathcal{A}}}}{2} + \frac{\tau^2 {{\mathcal{A}}}^2}{12} \right)^{-1} \left(Id + \frac{\tau {{\mathcal{A}}}}{2} + \frac{\tau^2 {{\mathcal{A}}}^2}{12} \right) y_\tau^k, \quad k \in {\mathbb{Z}}.$$
The spectral decomposition of the semi-discrete scheme can easily be performed. If $y^0 = \Phi_j$, we obtain $$y_\tau^k = \exp\left(i \frac{f(\mu_j\tau)}{\tau} k \tau\right) y^0, \quad \hbox{ where } f(\alpha)= 2 \arctan\left( \frac{6\alpha}{12-\alpha^2}\right).$$ Hence the discretization fits the assumption of Theorem \[Thm-Main\] by setting $$f : (-2 \sqrt{3}, 2 \sqrt{3}) \to {\mathbb{R}}; \quad f(\alpha)= 2 \arctan\left( \frac{6\alpha}{12-\alpha^2}\right).$$ Note that, here, the function $f$ is limited to the range where $R = 2\sqrt{3}$.
The Newmark method for second order in time equations
-----------------------------------------------------
The Newmark method is designed for second order in time equations such as, in particular, the wave equation. Namely, let ${{\mathcal{A}}}_0$ be a self-adjoint operator defined on an Hilbert space ${{\mathcal{X}}}_0$ with dense domain $\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}_0)$ and with compact resolvent, and consider the following equation: $$\label{AbstractWaveCont}
\varphi'' + {{\mathcal{A}}}_{0} \varphi = 0, \quad t \in {\mathbb{R}}, \qquad (\varphi, \varphi')(0) = (\varphi^0, \varphi^1) \in \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2})\times {{\mathcal{X}}}_0.$$ The Newmark method yields, for $\beta \in [0,1/4]$, the following time-discrete scheme: $$\label{Anewmark}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle}\frac{\varphi_\tau^{k+1}+\varphi_\tau^{k-1}-2\varphi_\tau^k}{\tau^2}
+
{{\mathcal{A}}}_0\left( \beta \varphi_\tau^{k+1}+(1-2\beta )\varphi_\tau^{k}+ \beta \varphi_\tau^{k-1}\right)=0,
\smallskip
\\
{\displaystyle}\left( \frac{\varphi_\tau^0+\varphi_\tau^1}{2}, \frac{\varphi_\tau^1-\varphi_\tau^0}{\tau} \right) = (\varphi^0, \varphi^1)
\in {{\mathcal{X}}}_0^2.
\end{array}
\right.$$ System is conservative and preserves the discrete energy: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{EnergyNewmark}
E^{k+1/2} =
{\left\Vert{{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2} \left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^k + \varphi_\tau^{k+1}}{2} \right) \right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}^2
+
{\left\Vert\frac{\varphi_\tau^{k+1} - \varphi_\tau^k}{\tau} \right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}^2
\\
+
(4 \beta - 1) \frac{\tau^2}{4} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2} \left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^{k+1}- \varphi_\tau^k}{\tau} \right)\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}^2.
\end{gathered}$$
System fits the abstract setting by setting ${{\mathcal{X}}}= \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2})\times {{\mathcal{X}}}_0$, where $\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2})$ is endowed with the scalar product $\langle {{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2}\cdot, {{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2}\cdot \rangle_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0} $ and $${{\mathcal{A}}}= \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & I \\ -{{\mathcal{A}}}_0 & 0 \end{array}\right).$$
But another way to write under the form is to set ${{\mathcal{X}}}= {{\mathcal{X}}}_0^2$, $$\label{NewmarkFormulation}
y_1 = \varphi' + i {{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2} \varphi, \quad y_2 = \varphi' - i {{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2} \varphi,
\qquad {{\mathcal{A}}}= \left(\begin{array}{cc} i {{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2} & 0 \\ 0 & - i {{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2} \end{array}\right).$$ This formulation will be preferred to study since the eigenvectors are now given as $\Phi_j^+ = (\Psi_j, 0)$, $\Phi_j^- = (0, \Psi_j)$ where $\Psi_j$ are the eigenvectors of ${{\mathcal{A}}}_0$, and ${{\mathcal{A}}}\Phi_j^{\pm} = \pm i \sqrt{\lambda_j} \Phi_j^{\pm}$, with ${{\mathcal{A}}}_0 \Psi_j = {\lambda_j} \Psi_j$. (At this step, remember that ${{\mathcal{A}}}_0$ is assumed to be a self-adjoint positive definite operator, so its spectrum is given by a sequence of positive real numbers going to infinity.)
Now, setting $${{\mathcal{A}}}_{0, \tau} = \left(I+ \left(\frac{4\beta-1}{4} \right) \tau^2 {{\mathcal{A}}}_0\right)^{-1} {{\mathcal{A}}}_0,$$ considering $$\label{VariableNewmark}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle}y_{1, \tau}^{k+1/2} = \frac{\varphi_\tau^{k+1}-\varphi_\tau^k}{\tau} + i {{\mathcal{A}}}_{0,\tau}^{1/2} \left( \frac{\varphi_\tau^k+\varphi_\tau^{k+1}}{2 }\right),
\smallskip
\\
{\displaystyle}y_{2, \tau}^{k+1/2} = \frac{\varphi_\tau^{k+1}-\varphi_\tau^k}{\tau} - i {{\mathcal{A}}}_{0,\tau}^{1/2} \left(
\frac{\varphi_\tau^k+\varphi_\tau^{k+1}}{2}\right),
\end{array}\right.$$ system can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{MidpointNewmark}
{\displaystyle}\frac{y_\tau^{k+1/2} - y_\tau^{k-1/2}}{\tau} = {{\mathcal{A}}}_\tau \left(\frac{y_\tau^{k-1/2} + y_\tau^{k+1/2}}{2} \right), \quad k \in {\mathbb{Z}},
\\
\hbox{with }
{{\mathcal{A}}}_\tau =
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
i {{\mathcal{A}}}_{0,\tau}^{1/2} & 0
\\
0 & - i {{\mathcal{A}}}_{0,\tau}^{1/2}
\end{array}\right).
\end{gathered}$$ Under this form, one easily sees that another energy for solutions of is given by $$\tilde E^{k+1/2} = \frac{1}{2}{\left\Verty^{k+1/2}_\tau\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0^2}^2
= {\left\Vert\frac{\varphi_\tau^{k+1}-\varphi_\tau^k}{\tau}\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}^2
+ {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{A}}}_{0, \tau}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^k+\varphi_\tau^{k+1}}{2}\right) \right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}^2.$$ As one easily checks, it turns out that the energies $\tilde E^{k+1/2}$ and $E^{k+1/2}$ (defined in ) are equivalent when working within a filtered class $\mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ at scale $1/\tau$, thus making of no particular relevance to our purpose the fact that they do not coincide.
Now, one can easily show that if $y^{1/2} = \Phi$, where $\Phi$ is an eigenvector of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ given by corresponding to the eigenvalue $i \mu$, then the solution $y_\tau$ of is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{f-Newmark}
y_\tau^{k+1/2} = \exp \left(i \frac{f(\mu\tau )}{\tau} k \tau \right) \Phi, \\
\hbox{ with } f(\alpha) = 2 \arctan\left(\frac{\alpha}{2} \frac{1}{ \sqrt{1+ (\beta-1/4)\alpha^2 }}\right), \quad R = \infty.
\end{gathered}$$
Hence the Newmark approximation scheme fits the assumptions of Theorem \[Thm-Main\].
Also note that the observation ${{\mathcal{B}}}_1 \varphi + {{\mathcal{B}}}_2 \varphi'$ for can be discretized in two different ways:
- A natural discretization consists in taking $$\label{Formulation1-a}
{{\mathcal{B}}}_1\left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^k + \varphi_\tau^{k+1}}{2}\right) + {{\mathcal{B}}}_2 \left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^{k+1} - \varphi_\tau^k}{\tau} \right)$$ for system , which corresponds to $$\label{Formulation1}
\hspace{-3ex} {{\mathcal{B}}}_\tau y_\tau^{k+1/2} := \frac{i}{2} {{\mathcal{B}}}_1 {{\mathcal{A}}}_{0, \tau}^{-1/2} \left(y_{2, \tau}^{k+1/2} - y_{1, \tau}^{k+1/2}\right) + \frac{1}{2}{{\mathcal{B}}}_2 \left(y_{1, \tau}^{k+1/2} + y_{2, \tau}^{k+1/2}\right)$$ in the formulation .
- A less natural discretization is as follows $$\label{Formulation2-a}
{{\mathcal{B}}}_1 {{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{-1/2} {{\mathcal{A}}}_{0, \tau}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^k + \varphi_\tau^{k+1}}{2}\right) + {{\mathcal{B}}}_2 \left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^{k+1} - \varphi_\tau^k}{\tau} \right),$$ which corresponds to $$\label{Formulation2}
\hspace{-3ex} {{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^{k+1/2} := \frac{i}{2} {{\mathcal{B}}}_1 {{\mathcal{A}}}_{0}^{-1/2} \left(y_{2, \tau}^{k+1/2} - y_{1, \tau}^{k+1/2}\right) + \frac{1}{2}{{\mathcal{B}}}_2 \left(y_{1, \tau}^{k+1/2} + y_{2, \tau}^{k+1/2}\right)$$ in the formulation .
Note that Theorem \[Thm-Main\], as stated, can only handle the second formulation in which the observation operator does not depend on $\tau >0$, though it corresponds to a time-discrete observation operator of the form for , which seems less natural than .
Whether or not system is observable through for general observation operators ${{\mathcal{B}}}_1, {{\mathcal{B}}}_2$ when the corresponding continuous system is observable is an open problem.
Though, if ${{\mathcal{B}}}_2 =0$, a trick allows us to get the same result as in Theorem \[Thm-Main\] for an observation operator of the form $${{\mathcal{B}}}_1\left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^k + \varphi_\tau^{k+1}}{2}\right).$$ Indeed, first apply Theorem \[Thm-Main\] to the observation . There we obtain, for $\delta >0$, $T$ as in , and initial data in $\mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ back in the variable $\varphi_\tau$: $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\Vert\frac{\varphi_\tau^{1}-\varphi_\tau^0}{\tau}\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}^2
+ {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{A}}}_{0, \tau}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^0+\varphi_\tau^{1}}{2}\right) \right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}^2
\\
\leq C \tau \sum_{ k \tau \in (0,T)} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}_1 {{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{-1/2} {{\mathcal{A}}}_{0, \tau}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^k + \varphi_\tau^{k+1}}{2}\right)\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2.
\end{gathered}$$ Now, applying this identity to ${{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2}{{\mathcal{A}}}_{0, \tau}^{-1/2} \varphi_\tau$, which is still a solution of with initial data in $\mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$, $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\Vert{{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2} {{\mathcal{A}}}_{0, \tau}^{-1/2}\left( \frac{\varphi_\tau^{1}-\varphi_\tau^0}{\tau}\right)\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}^2
+ {\left\Vert {{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2} \left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^0+\varphi_\tau^{1}}{2}\right) \right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}^2
\\
\leq C \tau \sum_{ k \tau \in (0,T)} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}_1 \left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^k + \varphi_\tau^{k+1}}{2}\right)\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2.
\end{gathered}$$ But easy spectral computations show that, in the class $\mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$, there exists a constant $C>0$ depending only on $\delta$ such that $$\tilde E^{1/2} \leq C \left({\left\Vert{{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2}{{\mathcal{A}}}_{0, \tau}^{-1/2}\left( \frac{\varphi_\tau^{1}-\varphi_\tau^0}{\tau}\right)\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}^2
+ {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{A}}}_0^{1/2} \left(\frac{\varphi_\tau^0+\varphi_\tau^{1}}{2}\right) \right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_0}^2\right).$$
A representation formula, properties of the kernel $\rho_\tau$ and applications {#Sec-Rho-tau}
===============================================================================
We will first recall basic facts on the discrete Fourier transform. We will then prove Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\] and give some estimates on the kernel $\rho_\tau$ in , which we use in Section \[Sec-Proof-Main\] to prove Theorem \[Thm-Main\].
Discrete Fourier transforms
---------------------------
Let us introduce the definition of the discrete Fourier and inverse Fourier transforms:
\[DiscreteFourier\] Given any function $u_\tau$ defined on $\tau {\mathbb{Z}}$, we define its discrete Fourier transform ${{\mathcal{F}}}_\tau[u_\tau]$ at scale $\tau$ as: $$\label{FourierDis}
{{\mathcal{F}}}_\tau [ u_\tau](\mu_\tau) = \tau \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} u_\tau(k \tau) \exp(- i \mu_\tau k \tau), \quad \mu_\tau \in (-\pi/\tau,\pi/\tau).$$ For any function $v \in L^2(-\pi/\tau, \pi/\tau)$, we define the inverse Fourier transform ${{\mathcal{F}}}_\tau^{-1}[v]$ at scale $\tau>0$ as: $$\label{FourierDisInv}
{{\mathcal{F}}}_\tau^{-1}[v](k \tau) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi/\tau}^{\pi/\tau} v(\mu_\tau) \exp(i \mu_\tau k \tau) \ d\mu_\tau, \quad k \in \mathbb{Z}.$$
According to Definition \[DiscreteFourier\], one easily checks that these transforms are inverse one from another, so that, $$\label{FourierIso}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
{\displaystyle}{{\mathcal{F}}}_\tau^{-1}[{{\mathcal{F}}}_\tau[u_\tau]] (k \tau ) = u_\tau (k \tau), \quad k \in {\mathbb{Z}},
\smallskip
\\
{\displaystyle}{{\mathcal{F}}}_\tau[{{\mathcal{F}}}_\tau^{-1}[v]] (\mu_\tau) = v(\mu_\tau),\quad \mu_\tau \in (-\pi/\tau,\pi/\tau),
\end{array}\right.$$
Similarly as for the continuous Fourier transform, we also have the following Parseval identity: $$\label{ParsevalDis}
\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi/\tau}^{\pi/\tau} |{{\mathcal{F}}}_\tau [u_\tau](\mu_\tau)|^2 \ d \mu_\tau = \tau \sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} |u_\tau(k\tau)|^2.$$ These properties will be used in the sequel.
In the following, for a Hilbert space $H$, the space $L^2(\tau {\mathbb{Z}}; H)$ is the set of discrete functions $u_\tau$ defined on $\tau {\mathbb{Z}}$ with values in $H$ endowed with the norm $${\left\Vert u_\tau\right\Vert}_{L^2(\tau {\mathbb{Z}}; H)}^2 = \tau \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\left\Vertu_\tau(k \tau)\right\Vert}_H^2.$$
Proof of Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\]
------------------------------------------
Expand $y^0$ as $$y^0 = \sum_{j, \ |\mu_j| \leq \delta/\tau} a_j \Phi_j.$$ Then, for all $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, according to , $$y_\tau^k = \sum_{j, \ |\mu_j| \leq \delta/\tau} a_j \Phi_j \exp (i \mu_{j,\tau} k\tau),$$ and thus $y(t)$ defined by can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
y(t) &=& \tau \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \rho_\tau(t, k \tau) \sum_{j, \ |\mu_j| \leq \delta/\tau} a_j \Phi_j \exp (i \mu_{j,\tau} k\tau)
\nonumber
\\
& = & \sum_{j, \ |\mu_j| \leq \delta /\tau} a_j \Phi_j \tau \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \rho_\tau(t, k \tau) \exp(i \mu_{j, \tau} k \tau).
\nonumber
\\
& =& \sum_{j, \ |\mu_j| \leq \delta /\tau} a_j \Phi_j {{\mathcal{F}}}_\tau[ \rho_\tau(t, \cdot) ](- \mu_{j,\tau}).
\label{XbyTransmutation}
\end{aligned}$$
According to , for all $\mu_{\tau} \in (- \pi/\tau, \pi/\tau)$, $${{\mathcal{F}}}_\tau [\rho_\tau(t, \cdot)] (\mu_\tau) = \exp\left(-\frac{i g(\mu_\tau \tau) t}{\tau} \right) \chi\left(\mu_\tau \tau \right).$$ Due to the definition of $g$, for all $j$ such that $|\mu_j| \leq \delta/\tau$, $g(\mu_{j, \tau} \tau) = \mu_j\tau $. It then follows from that $$y(t) = \sum_{j, \ |\mu_j| \leq \delta /\tau} a_j \Phi_j \exp( i \mu_j t) \chi(\mu_{j,\tau} \tau).$$ But the choice of $\chi$ implies that $$y(t) = \sum_{j, \ |\mu_j| \leq \delta /\tau} a_j \Phi_j \exp( i \mu_j t).$$ Hence $y(t)$ solves with initial data $y^0$.
\[Remark-a\] When the parameter $R \in {\mathbb{R}}_+^* \cup \{\infty\} $ in is such that $f(R) = \pi$ if $R$ is finite or $\underset{\infty}\lim f = \pi$, i.e. when $f$ is bijective from $(-R, R)$ to $(-\pi, \pi)$, then there is no need of introducing a cut-off function to get Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\]. To be more precise, we have the following result:
\[Prop-DiscTransmutation-SansChi\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\], if we further assume that $f$ is bijective from $(-R, R)$ to $(-\pi, \pi)$, then we can take the function $\chi$ in Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\] to be identically one. In other words, if for $\tau >0$ we define $\rho_{\tau,0}(t,s)$ by $$\label{KernelDiscTransmutation-SansChi}
\rho_{\tau,0}(t, s) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{- \pi/\tau}^{\pi/\tau} \exp\left(-\frac{i g(\mu_\tau \tau) t}{\tau} \right) e^{i \mu_\tau s}\, d\mu_\tau, \qquad (t,s) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2,$$ we have the following result: for all $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(R/\tau)$ and $y^k_\tau$ is the corresponding solution of , the function $y(t)$ defined by with $\rho_{\tau,0}$ instead of $\rho_\tau$ is the solution of with initial data $y^0$.
Indeed, under the additional assumption that $f$ is bijective from $(-R, R)$ to $(-\pi, \pi)$, the function $g$ is defined on the whole interval $(-\pi, \pi)$.
Remark that all the numerical schemes presented in Section \[ExamplesTimeDisc\] fit the assumptions of Proposition \[Prop-DiscTransmutation-SansChi\] and thus Proposition \[Prop-DiscTransmutation-SansChi\] applies for a wide range of numerical schemes.
But even under this additional assumption, the localization properties of the kernel function $\rho_{\tau,0}$ may be very rough and are not suitable to derive good estimates on the time of uniform observability for solutions $y_\tau$ of as in Theorem \[Thm-Main\].
Localization of $\rho_\tau$
---------------------------
We now analyze the function $\rho_\tau$ in :
\[RhoDescription\] Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time discrete operator ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ as in , assume ––, and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$.
Let $\varepsilon >0$ such that $\delta + \varepsilon < R$, and choose the function $\chi$ in Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\] supported in $(- f(\delta + \varepsilon), f( \delta + \varepsilon))$ and real-valued.
Let $T>0$ and $(t,s) \in (0,T) \times {\mathbb{R}}$ be such that $$\label{Cond(t,s)}
t +\varepsilon < s \inf_{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon} \{f'(\alpha)\} \quad \hbox{or} \quad s \sup_{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon} \{f'(\alpha)\} < t- \varepsilon .$$ Then for all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, there exists a constant $C_{n,\varepsilon}$ independent of $(t,s) \in (0,T) \times {\mathbb{R}}$ such that for all $(t,s)$ satisfying , $$\label{RhoSmall}
|\rho_\tau(t,s) | \leq \frac{C_{n,\varepsilon} \tau^{2n-1}}{\underset{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon}\inf \{ |f'(\alpha) s- t | \}^{2n} },$$ where $\rho_\tau$ is the kernel function given by .
Recall that $\rho_\tau$ is given by . Hence $$\label{KernelDiscTransmutation-2}
\rho_\tau(t, s) = \frac{1}{2\pi \tau } \int_{- \pi}^{\pi} \exp\left(\frac{i}{\tau} \left(\alpha_\tau s - g(\alpha_\tau)t \right)\right) \chi(\alpha_\tau) \, d\alpha_\tau.$$ Remark then that $$\begin{gathered}
- \frac{d^2}{d\alpha_\tau^2}\left( \exp\left(\frac{i}{\tau} \left(\alpha_\tau s - g(\alpha_\tau)t \right)\right) \right)
\\
= \left(\frac{1}{\tau^2} (s- g'(\alpha_\tau) t)^2 + \frac{i}{\tau} g''(\alpha_\tau)t\right) \exp\left(\frac{i}{\tau} \left(\alpha_\tau s -g(\alpha_\tau)t \right)\right).
\end{gathered}$$
For $(t,s) \in (0,T) \times {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying or, equivalently, $$\label{Cond(t,s)-000}
t \sup_{|\alpha_\tau| \leq f(\delta + \varepsilon)} \{ g'(\alpha_\tau)\} + \tilde \varepsilon < s \quad \hbox{or} \quad s < t \inf_{|\alpha_\tau| \leq f(\delta + \varepsilon)} \{g'(\alpha_\tau)\} - \tilde \varepsilon,$$ for some $\tilde \varepsilon>0$, the right hand-side of this identity does not vanish, and then we can write, for all $\alpha_\tau$ with $|\alpha_\tau| \leq f(\delta + \varepsilon)$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{StationaryTau}
{\displaystyle}\exp\left(\frac{i}{\tau} \left(\alpha_\tau s -g(\alpha_\tau)t \right)\right) = - \tau^2 G_\tau(\alpha_\tau)\frac{d^2}{d\alpha_\tau^2}\left( \exp\left(\frac{i}{\tau} \left(\alpha_\tau s - g(\alpha_\tau)t \right)\right) \right)
\\
\hbox{with } {\displaystyle}G_\tau (\alpha_\tau) = \frac{1}{(s- g'(\alpha_\tau)t)^2 + i \tau g''(\alpha_\tau)t}.
\end{gathered}$$ Hence, using the fact that $\chi$ is compactly supported in $(-f(\delta + \varepsilon), f(\delta+\varepsilon))$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\rho_\tau(t, s) =
\frac{1}{2\pi \tau } \int_{- \pi}^{\pi}
- \tau^2 G_\tau(\alpha_\tau) \frac{d^2}{d\alpha_\tau^2} \left(\exp\left(\frac{i}{\tau} \left(\alpha_\tau s - g(\alpha_\tau)t \right)\right) \right)
\chi(\alpha_\tau) \, d\alpha_\tau}
\nonumber
\\
=&
- \frac{\tau}{2\pi } \int_{- \pi}^{\pi}
\exp\left(\frac{i}{\tau} \left(\alpha_\tau s - g(\alpha_\tau)t \right)\right)
\frac{d^2}{d\alpha_\tau^2}\left( G_\tau(\alpha_\tau) \chi(\alpha_\tau)\right) \, d\alpha_\tau.
\nonumber
\\
= &
(-1)^{n}\frac{\tau^{2n-1}}{2\pi} \int_{- \pi}^\pi
\exp\left(\frac{i}{\tau} \left(\alpha_\tau s - g(\alpha_\tau)t \right)\right)
\left(\frac{d^2}{d\alpha_\tau^2}( G_\tau(\alpha_\tau) \cdot )\right)^{n} \chi(\alpha_\tau) \, d\alpha_\tau,
\label{KernelDiscTransmutation-3}
\end{aligned}$$ where $ n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\left(\frac{d^2}{d\alpha_\tau^2}( G_\tau(\alpha_\tau) \cdot )\right)^{n}$ denotes the operator $\frac{d^2}{d\alpha_\tau^2}( G_\tau(\alpha_\tau) \cdot )$ iterated $n$ times.
We finally remark that, since $\chi$ is smooth and compactly supported on $(-f(\delta+\varepsilon), f(\delta + \varepsilon))$ and due to the explicit form of $G_\tau$ given by , for any $ n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, there exists a constant $C_{n,\varepsilon}$ such that for all $\alpha_\tau $ and $(t,s)$ satisfying , $$\left| \left( \frac{d^2}{d\alpha_\tau^2}( G_\tau(\alpha_\tau) \cdot )\right)^{n} \chi(\alpha_\tau) \right| \leq \frac{C_{n,\varepsilon}}{(s- g'(\alpha_\tau )t)^{2n}}.$$ This immediately yields .
The transmutation operator
--------------------------
We then prove that the transmutation operator is bounded as an operator from $L^2(\tau {\mathbb{Z}})$ in $L^2({\mathbb{R}})$.
\[Prop-TransmutOp\] Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time discrete operator ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ as in , assume ––, and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$.
Let $\varepsilon >0$ such that $\delta + \varepsilon < R$, and choose the function $\chi$ in Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\] supported in $(- f(\delta + \varepsilon), f( \delta + \varepsilon))$ and real-valued.
For $\tau>0$, set ${\mathcal{I}}_\tau$ the transformation defined for discrete functions $w_\tau$ compactly supported on $ \tau {\mathbb{Z}}$ with values in some Hilbert space $H$ by $$\label{Itau}
{\mathcal{I}}_\tau (w_\tau) (t) = \tau \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \rho_\tau(t, k \tau) w_\tau(k \tau),$$ where $\rho_\tau$ is the kernel function given by .
Then the operator ${\mathcal{I}}_\tau$ is bounded from $L^2(\tau {\mathbb{Z}}, H)$ to $L^2({\mathbb{R}}, H)$ and $$\label{ItauBounded}
{\left\Vert{\mathcal{I}}_\tau\right\Vert}_{\mathfrak{L} (L^2(\tau {\mathbb{Z}}; H); L^2 ({\mathbb{R}}; H))} \leq {\left\Vert\chi\right\Vert}_\infty \sqrt{\sup_{|\alpha| \leq \delta+\varepsilon} f'(\alpha)}.$$
For $w_\tau$ in $L^2 (\tau {\mathbb{Z}}; H)$ and $z \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}, H)$, both compactly supported in time, using Fubini’s formulas, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\langle {\mathcal{I}}_\tau (w_\tau)(t), z(t) \rangle_H \, dt
}
\\
& = \int_{\mathbb{R}}\left \langle \tau \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \frac{1}{ 2 \pi} \int_{-\pi/\tau}^{\pi/\tau} e^{ - i g(\mu_\tau \tau)t/\tau} \chi(\mu_\tau \tau) e^{i \mu_\tau k \tau} \, d\mu_\tau \, w_\tau(k \tau), z(t) \right\rangle_H\, dt
\\
& = \frac{1}{2 \pi } \int_{-\pi/\tau}^{\pi/\tau} \chi(\mu_\tau \tau)
\left\langle \tau \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} w_\tau(k\tau)e^{i \mu_\tau k\tau} , \int_{\mathbb{R}}z(t) e^{ i g(\mu_\tau \tau)t/\tau} \, dt
\right\rangle_H \, d\mu_\tau
\\
& = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi/\tau}^{\pi/\tau} \chi(\mu_\tau \tau)\left\langle \mathcal{F}_\tau[w_\tau](-\mu_\tau), \widehat{ z}\left( -\frac{ g(\mu_\tau \tau)}{\tau} \right)\right\rangle_H \, d \mu_\tau
\\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi/\tau}^{\pi/\tau} \chi(-\mu_\tau \tau)\left\langle \mathcal{F}_\tau [w_\tau](\mu_\tau), \widehat{ z}\left(\frac{ g(\mu_\tau \tau)}{\tau} \right)\right\rangle_H \, d \mu_\tau,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\widehat{z}$ denotes the Fourier transform of $z$. Hence, using , $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\left|
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\langle {\mathcal{I}}_\tau (w_\tau)(t), z(t) \rangle_H \, dt
\right|
}
\\
& \leq
\left(\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi/\tau}^{\pi/\tau} {\left\Vert\mathcal{F}_\tau[w_\tau](\mu_\tau)\right\Vert}_H^2\, d\mu_\tau \right)^{1/2}
\\
& \qquad \qquad
\left(\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi/\tau}^{\pi/\tau} |\chi(-\mu_\tau \tau)|^2 {\left\Vert\widehat{ z} \left(\frac{ g(\mu_\tau \tau)}{\tau} \right)\right\Vert}_H^2 \, d \mu_\tau\right)^{1/2}
\\
& \leq {\left\Vertw_\tau\right\Vert}_{L^2(\tau {\mathbb{Z}}; H)}
{\left\Vert\chi\right\Vert}_\infty \sqrt{\sup_{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon} f'(\alpha)}{\left\Vert z\right\Vert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}; H)}.
\end{aligned}$$ where the last line is justified by the change of variable $\mu \tau = g(\mu_\tau \tau)$, which is valid due to Assumption and the fact that $\chi$ is supported in the interval $(-f(\delta +\varepsilon),f(\delta+\varepsilon))$: $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi/\tau}^{\pi/\tau} |\chi(-\mu_\tau \tau)|^2 {\left\Vert\widehat{ z} \left(\frac{ g(\mu_\tau \tau)}{\tau} \right)\right\Vert}_H^2 \, d \mu_\tau}
\\
& =
\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-(\delta+\varepsilon)/\tau}^{(\delta+\varepsilon)/\tau}|\chi(f(\mu \tau))|^2 {\left\Vert\widehat{ z} (\mu)\right\Vert}_H^2 \, f'(\mu \tau) d \mu
\\
& \leq {\left\Vert\chi\right\Vert}_\infty^2\Big(\sup_{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon} f'(\alpha)\Big)\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-(\delta+\varepsilon)/\tau}^{-(\delta+\varepsilon)/\tau}{\left\Vert\widehat{ z}(\mu)\right\Vert}_H^2 \, d\mu
\\
& \leq
{\left\Vert\chi\right\Vert}_\infty^2\Big(\sup_{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon} f'(\alpha)\Big) \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\mathbb{R}}{\left\Vert\widehat{ z}(\mu)\right\Vert}_H^2\, d \mu
\\
&
\leq
{\left\Vert\chi\right\Vert}_\infty^2 \Big(\sup_{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon} f'(\alpha)\Big) {\left\Vert z\right\Vert}_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}; H)}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof of .
Proof of Theorem \[Thm-Main\] {#Sec-Proof-Main}
-----------------------------
Let $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ and $y_\tau^k$ the corresponding solution of . Using Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\], and setting $y(t)$ as in with $\chi$ compactly supported on $(-f(\delta +\varepsilon), f(\delta+ \varepsilon))$ for $\varepsilon >0$ small enough so that $\delta + \varepsilon < R$, we obtain the solution of with initial data $y^0$.
Using the observability of the continuous system , we thus obtain $$\label{KeyTransmutation}
{\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2 \leq C \int_0^{T_0} {\left\Vert {{\mathcal{B}}}y(t)\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \, dt
\leq C \int_0^{T_0} {\left\Vert \tau \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \rho_\tau(t, k \tau) {{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \, dt.$$ Estimate is the center of our argument. Now, we only have to check that the right hand-side of can be bounded by the right hand-side of .
To do this, we set $$\label{T-epsilon-1}
T_{1, \varepsilon} = \frac{T_0} {\underset{|\alpha|\leq \delta + \varepsilon}\inf \{f'(\alpha) \}} + \varepsilon
\quad \hbox{ and }\quad
t_{1, \varepsilon} = - \varepsilon,$$ and write $$\label{RHS-Transmutation}
\int_0^{T_0} {\left\Vert \tau \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \rho_\tau(t, k \tau) {{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \, dt \leq 3 \mathcal{O}_{\leq t_{1, \varepsilon}} + 3 \mathcal{O}_{t_{1, \varepsilon}, T_{1, \varepsilon} } + 3\mathcal{O}_{\geq T_{1, \varepsilon}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}_{\leq t_{1, \varepsilon}}
& = &
\int_0^{T_0} \Big\| \tau \sum_{k\tau \leq t_{1, \varepsilon}} \rho_\tau(t, k \tau) {{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\Big\|_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \, dt,
\label{ObsTrans-1}
\\
\mathcal{O}_{t_{1, \varepsilon}, T_{1, \varepsilon} }
& = &
\int_0^{T_0} \Big \| \tau \sum_{t_{1, \varepsilon} < k\tau < T_{1, \varepsilon}} \rho_\tau(t, k \tau) {{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\Big\|_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \, dt,
\label{ObsTrans-2}
\\
\mathcal{O}_{\geq T_{1, \varepsilon}}
& = &
\int_{0}^{T_0} \Big\| \tau \sum_{k\tau \geq T_{1, \varepsilon}} \rho_\tau(t, k \tau) {{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\Big\|_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \, dt.
\label{ObsTrans-3}
\end{aligned}$$
Now, using Proposition \[RhoDescription\] and Proposition \[Prop-TransmutOp\], we prove the following facts:
- There exists a constant $C$ independent of $\tau >0$ such that $$\label{EstObsTrans-2}
\mathcal{O}_{t_{1, \varepsilon}, T_{1, \varepsilon} } \leq C \tau \sum_{t_{1, \varepsilon} < k\tau < T_{1, \varepsilon}} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2.$$
- For all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}^*$, there exists a constant $C_n = C_{n, \varepsilon,p,\delta}$ independent of $\tau >0$ such that $$\label{EstObsTrans-1et3}
\mathcal{O}_{\leq t_{1, \varepsilon}} +\mathcal{O}_{\geq T_{1, \varepsilon}}
\leq C_n \tau^{4n-2 - 2p} {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2.$$
Indeed, estimate can be deduced immediately from Proposition \[Prop-TransmutOp\] by choosing $w_\tau(k\tau) = {{\mathcal{B}}}y^k_\tau$ for $k \tau \in (t_{1, \varepsilon}, T_{1, \varepsilon})$ and $0$ for $k\tau \notin (t_{1, \varepsilon}, T_{1, \varepsilon})$.
Let us then focus on . According to Proposition \[RhoDescription\], we have $$\mathcal{O}_{\leq t_{1, \varepsilon}}
\leq
\int_0^{T_0} \left(\sup_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2\right)
\left(\tau \sum_{k\tau \leq t_{1, \varepsilon}} |\rho_\tau(t, k \tau)| \right)^2
\, dt,$$ Using that the discrete semi-group is conservative in norms ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ and $\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p)$, preserves $\mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$, and that ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ satisfies , we immediately have that $$\label{EstCxk}
\sup_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y^k_\tau\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \leq \frac{C_{p, \delta}^2}{\tau^{2p}} {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2.$$ Besides, according to Proposition \[RhoDescription\], for all $t \in (0, T_0 )$, and $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{gathered}
\tau \sum_{k\tau \leq t_{1, \varepsilon}} |\rho_\tau(t, k \tau)|
\leq
\tau \sum_{k\tau \leq t_{1, \varepsilon}} \frac{C_{n} \tau^{2n-1}}{ \Big(\underset{|\alpha|\leq \delta + \varepsilon}\inf | f'(\alpha) k \tau - t|\Big)^{2n} }
\\
\leq
\tau \sum_{k\tau \leq t_{1, \varepsilon}} \frac{C_{n} \tau^{2n-1}}{\Big(t - \underset{|\alpha|\leq \delta + \varepsilon}\inf \{f'(\alpha)\} k \tau\Big)^{2n} }
\leq C_{n} \tau^{2n-1},
\end{gathered}$$ for some constant $C_{n}$ depending on $n\geq 1$.
Similar estimates can be done to bound $\mathcal{O}_{\geq T_{1, \varepsilon}}$, yielding immediately.
We now conclude the proof of Theorem \[Thm-Main\]. Estimates together with and show that $$\begin{gathered}
\int_0^{T_0} {\left\Vert \tau \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \rho_\tau(t, k \tau) {{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \, dt
\leq C \tau \sum_{t_{1, \varepsilon} < k\tau < T_{1, \varepsilon}} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \\
+ C_n \tau^{4n-2-2p} {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2.
\label{TransmutationAlmostOK0}
\end{gathered}$$ Thus implies $$\label{TransmutationAlmostOK}
{\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2 \left(1- C_n \tau^{4n-2-2p} \right)
\leq
C \tau \sum_{t_{1, \varepsilon} < k\tau < T_{1, \varepsilon}} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2.$$ Since the discrete semigroup is conservative, we can shift the time in , and obtain $$\label{TransmutationAlmostOK-1}
{\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2 \left(1- C_n \tau^{4n-2-2p} \right)
\leq
C \tau \sum_{0 < k\tau < T_{1, \varepsilon}- t_{1, \varepsilon}} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2.$$ Taking $n \geq 1 + p$ and $\tau >0$ small enough, we obtain with $$T_\varepsilon = T_{1, \varepsilon} - t_{1, \varepsilon} = \frac{T_0}{\underset{|\alpha|\leq \delta + \varepsilon}\inf \{f'(\alpha) \} } + 2 \varepsilon.$$ This concludes the proof of Theorem \[Thm-Main\] by taking $\varepsilon>0$ small enough.
A reverse formula and its applications {#Sec-Reverse}
======================================
A reverse formula
-----------------
In this section, our aim is to explain that the representation formula derived in Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\] allowing to write the solutions of the continuous abstract equation as functions of those of the time-discrete one can be reversed:
\[DiscTransmutationReverse\] Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time discrete operator ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ as in , assume ––, and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$.
Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time discrete evolution as in , and assume , and .
Let $\chi$ be a $C^\infty$ function compactly supported in $(-R, R)$ and equal to $1$ in $(-\delta, \delta)$. For $\tau >0$, define then $q_\tau(t,s)$ for $(t, s) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ as $$\label{KernelDiscTransmutation-Rev}
q_\tau(t, s) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} \exp\left(\frac{i f(\mu \tau) s}{\tau} \right) \chi\left(\mu \tau \right) e^{ - i \mu t}\, d\mu.$$ Then, if $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ and $y(t)$ is the corresponding solution of , the function $y_\tau$ defined for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ by $$\label{Transmutation-Rev}
y^k_\tau = \int_{\mathbb{R}}q_\tau(t, k \tau) y(t) \, dt$$ is the solution of with initial data $y^0$.
The proof is similar to the one of Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\]: Write the solution $y(t)$ of on the basis of eigenfunctions of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$, and remark that for all $\mu \in {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $|\mu| \leq \delta/\tau $, due to the definition of $q_\tau$ in , for all $s \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $$\int_{\mathbb{R}}q_\tau(t, s) \exp( i \mu t) \, dt = \chi(\mu \tau) \exp \left( \frac{i f(\mu \tau) s}{\tau}\right) = \exp \left( \frac{i f(\mu \tau) s}{\tau}\right).$$ Details are left to the reader.
Similarly as in Remark \[Remark-a\], if $R$ in satisfies $R = \infty$, Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse\] still holds when taking $\chi \equiv 1$, which consists in replacing $q_\tau$ in by $q_{\tau,0}$ defined by $$q_{\tau,0}(t, s) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{ {\mathbb{R}}} \exp\left(\frac{i f(\mu \tau) s}{\tau} \right) e^{ - i \mu t}\, d\mu.$$ Note that this definition has to be understood in the sense of $\mathcal{D}'({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ as the integrand is not integrable.
Similarly, one can prove the following:
\[DiscTransmutationReverse-2\] With the notations and assumptions of Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse\], if $0<\delta_1 < \delta_2 <R$ and $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(\delta_2/\tau)\cap \mathfrak{C}(\delta_1/\tau)^\perp$, the same result holds for a smooth function $\chi$ compactly supported in $(-R, R)$ and equal to $1$ in $(-\delta_2, - \delta_1) \cup (\delta_1, \delta_2)$.
The notation $\perp$ in $\mathfrak{C}(\delta_2/\tau)\cap \mathfrak{C}(\delta_1/\tau)^\perp$ stands for the orthogonal complement with respect to the ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ scalar product, so that $\mathfrak{C}(\delta_2/\tau)\cap \mathfrak{C}(\delta_1/\tau)^\perp$ stands for the set $\hbox{Span}\{\Phi_j : \delta_1 <\mu_j \tau \leq \delta_2 \}$.
The proof of Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse-2\] is the same as the one of Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse\].
As we will see below, these transmutation formula also yield non-trivial informations, for instance when dealing with uniform hidden regularity results or the optimality of the time-estimate in Theorem \[Thm-Main\].
Uniform hidden regularity results {#Sec-Admissibility}
---------------------------------
In this section, we are interested in the admissibility property - also called hidden regularity property - for system .
To be more precise, if ${{\mathcal{B}}}\in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p), {{\mathcal{U}}})$ for some $p\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and Hilbert space ${{\mathcal{U}}}$, system is said to be admissible for ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ if there exist a constant $C_0$ and a time $T_0>0$ such that any solution $y(t)$ of with initial data $y^0 \in \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p)$ satisfies $$\label{HiddenRegAss}
\int_0^{T_0} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y(t)\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \leq C_0 {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2.$$
Note that, when $p = 0$, i.e. ${{\mathcal{B}}}\in \mathcal{L}({{\mathcal{X}}}, {{\mathcal{U}}})$, this property is straightforward since the energy of solutions $y$ of is preserved. However, when $p>0$, this property is not at all granted and comes from subtle properties of the system under consideration, requiring suitable assumptions on ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ and in particular an adequate interaction of ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ with the free dynamics generated by ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. The paradigmatic example of such situation concerns the wave equation in a bounded domain with homogenous Dirichlet boundary conditions observed through the flux on the boundary. In this case indeed, the operator ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ is not bounded on ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ but is still admissible, see [@Lions]. This additional property then allows to define solutions in the sense of transposition for , see e.g. [@TWbook].
Let us also remark that by the semi-group property, it is straightforward to show that if the admissibility estimate is true for some $T_0$ with a constant $C_0$, it is true for all $T$ with constant $C(T) = C_0 (1+\lfloor T/T_0 \rfloor)$.
Finally, we point out that the estimate is the reverse of the observability estimate , and we may therefore expect that the strategy developed for getting uniform observability estimates for time-discrete approximations of also applies in the context of admissibility. This is indeed the case:
\[MainFully5\] Assume that ${{\mathcal{B}}}\in \mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p), {{\mathcal{U}}})$ for some $p\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and ${{\mathcal{U}}}$ an Hilbert space, and that ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ satisfies with constant $C_p$.
Assume that equation is admissible for ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ at time $T_0$ with constant $C_0$, i.e. for all $y^0 \in \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p)$, the solution $y(t)$ of with initial data $y^0$ satisfies .
Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time discrete operator ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ as in , assume ––, and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$.
Then, for all time $T>0$, there exists a constant $C(T)$ so that for all $\tau >0$ small enough, solutions $y_\tau$ of lying in $\mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ satisfy $$\label{HiddenRegDiscrete}
\tau \sum_{k \tau \in (0,T)} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \leq C {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2.$$
Similarly as in Theorem \[Thm-Main\], Theorem \[MainFully5\] is derived by careful estimates on the kernel function $q_\tau$ in Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse\].
Note however that Theorem \[MainFully5\] can be found in [@je3 Theorem 6.5]. There, it is proved using an equivalent form of the admissibility property in terms of packets of eigenfunctions, in the spirit of [@RTTT] for the observability of waves (see also [@TWbook]). Though, we will provide a short proof of Theorem \[MainFully5\] by using the kernel $q_\tau$ given by Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse\] to show the flexibility and efficiency of our strategy. The proof of Theorem \[MainFully5\] is postponed to the end of the section.
We first show that the kernel function $q_\tau$ given by Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse\] is mainly localized in some parts of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ when we choose the function $\chi$ compactly supported in $(-\delta - \varepsilon, \delta + \varepsilon)$, for $\varepsilon \in (0, R- \delta)$:
\[QDescription\] Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time discrete operator ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ as in , assume ––, and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$. Let $\varepsilon >0$ such that $\delta + \varepsilon <R$, and choose the function $\chi$ in Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse\] supported in $(-\delta - \varepsilon, \delta + \varepsilon)$.
Let $T>0$ and $(t,s) \in {\mathbb{R}}_+ \times (0,T)$ be such that $$\label{Cond(t,s)-Q}
t > s \sup_{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon} \{ f'(\alpha)\} + \varepsilon \quad \hbox{or} \quad t < s \inf_{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon} \{f'(\alpha)\} -\varepsilon.$$ Then for all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, there exists a constant $C_{n,\varepsilon}$ independent of $(t,s) \in {\mathbb{R}}\times (0,T) $ such that for all $(t,s)$ satisfying , $$\label{QSmall}
|q_\tau(t,s) | \leq \frac{C_{n,\varepsilon} \tau^{2n-1}}{\underset{|\alpha| \leq \delta + \varepsilon}\inf \{ |f'(\alpha) s- t| \}^{2n} },$$ where $q_\tau$ is the kernel given in .
Again, we only sketch the proof which can be done following the one of Proposition \[RhoDescription\].
By a change of variable, similarly as in , rewrite $q_\tau$ as $$q_\tau(t,s) = \frac{1}{2\pi \tau} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \exp\left(\frac{i}{\tau}\left(f(\alpha) s - \alpha t \right) \right) \chi(\alpha) \, d\alpha.$$ As in , we then remark that, for $(t, s) \in {\mathbb{R}}_+ \times (0,T)$ satisfying and $|\alpha| \leq (\delta+ \epsilon)/\tau$, $$\begin{gathered}
{\displaystyle}\exp\left(\frac{i}{\tau} \left(f(\alpha) s -\alpha t \right)\right) = - \tau^2 F_\tau(\alpha)\frac{d^2}{d\alpha^2}\left( \exp\left(\frac{i}{\tau} \left(f(\alpha) s - \alpha t \right)\right) \right)
\\
\hbox{with } {\displaystyle}F_\tau (\alpha) = \frac{1}{(f'(\alpha) s- t)^2 - i \tau f''(\alpha)t}.
\end{gathered}$$ The rest of the proof follows line to line the one of Proposition \[RhoDescription\].
Proposition \[Prop-TransmutOp\] also has a counterpart:
\[Prop-TransmutOp-Reverse\] Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time discrete operator ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ as in , assume ––, and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$. Let $\varepsilon >0$ such that $\delta + \varepsilon <R$, and choose the function $\chi$ in Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse\] supported in $(-\delta - \varepsilon, \delta + \varepsilon)$.
For $\tau>0$, set $\mathcal{J}_\tau$ the transformation defined for functions $w(t)$ compactly supported on ${\mathbb{R}}$ with values in some Hilbert space $H$ by $$\label{Itau-Q}
\mathcal{J}_\tau (w) (k \tau) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}q_\tau(t,k \tau) w(t) \, dt,$$ where $q_\tau$ is the kernel given in .
Then $\mathcal{J}_\tau$ is a bounded operator from $L^2({\mathbb{R}}; H)$ to $L^2(\tau {\mathbb{Z}}; H)$: $$\label{JtauBounded-Q}
{\left\Vert\mathcal{J}_\tau\right\Vert}_{\mathcal{L}(L^2({\mathbb{R}}; H); L^2(\tau {\mathbb{Z}}; H))} \leq \frac{{\left\Vert\chi\right\Vert}_{\infty}} {\sqrt{ \underset{|\alpha| < \delta + \varepsilon}\inf f'(\alpha)}}.$$
Again, the proof is similar to the one of Proposition \[Prop-TransmutOp\]. Details are left to the reader.
Theorem \[MainFully5\] can be derived similarly as Theorem \[Thm-Main\] by applying Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse\], Proposition \[QDescription\] and Proposition \[Prop-TransmutOp-Reverse\].
Optimality of the time-estimate {#SectionOptimality}
--------------------------------
Our goal here is to prove that the time-estimate is sharp.
Let us begin with the following result:
\[MainFully6\] Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time discrete operator ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ as in , assume ––, and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$.
Assume that there exist $p \geq 0$ and a constant $C_{p}>0$ such that holds.
Also assume that there exist a time $T_1$ and a constant $C$ such that for any $\tau >0$, solutions $y_\tau$ of lying in $\mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ satisfy .
Then, for any $0 < \delta_1< \delta_2 < \delta$, for any time $T$ satisfying $$\label{ReverseTime}
T > T_1 \sup_{\alpha \in (\delta_1, \delta_2)} \{f'(\alpha) \},$$ there exist positive constants $C$ and $\tau_0>0$ such that, for all $\tau\in (0,\tau_0)$, all solutions $y$ of with initial data $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(\delta_2/\tau) \cap \mathfrak{C}(\delta_1/\tau)^\perp$ satisfy .
Let $0 < \delta_1 < \delta_2 < \delta$, consider a smooth even function $\chi$ compactly supported on $(- \delta_2 - \varepsilon, - \delta_1 + \varepsilon) \cup (\delta_1 - \varepsilon, \delta_2 + \varepsilon)$ for some $\varepsilon \in (0, \delta - \delta_2)$, and set $q_\tau$ as in Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse-2\].
Then, similarly as in Proposition \[QDescription\], one can prove that for $(t,s) \in {\mathbb{R}}\times (0,T_1)$ such that $$\label{Cond(t,s)-Q-2}
t >s \sup_{\delta_1 - \varepsilon \leq |\alpha| \leq \delta_2 + \varepsilon} \{ f'(\alpha)\} + \varepsilon \quad \hbox{or} \quad t < s \inf_{\delta_1 - \varepsilon \leq |\alpha| \leq \delta_2 + \varepsilon} \{f'(\alpha)\} -\varepsilon,$$ for all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, there exists a constant $C_{n}>0$ such that $$\label{QSmall-2}
|q_\tau(t,s) | \leq \frac{C_{n} \tau^{2n-1}}{\underset{\delta_1 - \varepsilon \leq |\alpha| \leq \delta_2 + \varepsilon} \inf \{ |f'(\alpha) s- t| \}^{2n} }.$$
Similarly, Proposition \[Prop-TransmutOp-Reverse\] still holds.
Hence, following the proof of Theorem \[Thm-Main\] and in particular of estimate , we obtain that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Eq-RHS-Transmutation-2}
\tau \sum_{k \tau \in (0,T_1)} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^{k}\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \leq C \int_{-\varepsilon}^{T_1\sup_{\delta_1 - \varepsilon \leq |\alpha| \leq \delta_2 + \varepsilon} \{ f'(\alpha)\}+ \varepsilon} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y(t)\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \, dt
\\+ C_{n} \tau^{4n-2-2p} {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2.
\end{gathered}$$ Applying and taking $\tau >0$ small enough, follows with $T = T_1 \sup_{\delta_1- \varepsilon\leq |\alpha| \leq \delta_2 + \varepsilon} f'(\alpha) + 2 \varepsilon$.
Since $\varepsilon$ can be chosen arbitrary small, the observability estimate holds for any solution of with initial data in $\mathfrak{C}(\delta_2/\tau) \cap \mathfrak{C}(\delta_1/\tau)^\perp$ and time $T$ as in .
We are now in position to prove that the estimate is sharp. In order to show this, we specify the abstract system to the simplest case fitting the assumptions, namely the transport equation at velocity $1$ on the $1$-d circle denoted by $\mathbb{S}$ and identified with the interval $(0,1)$ with periodic boundary conditions. In this case, the equation reads: $$\label{TransportTorus}
\partial_t y + \partial_x y = 0, \quad (t,x) \in {\mathbb{R}}\times \mathbb{S}.$$ This correspond to an operator ${{\mathcal{A}}}= - \partial_x $, defined on ${{\mathcal{X}}}= L^2_{\#}(\mathbb{S})$, the space of periodic functions of period one in $L^2(0,1)$, with domain $\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}) = H^1_{\#}(\mathbb{S})$.
We consider the observation operator ${{\mathcal{B}}}y = y(0)$, which is continuous on $\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}) = H^1_{\#}(\mathbb{S})$ and takes value in ${{\mathcal{U}}}= {\mathbb{R}}$ .
Since the solutions of the transport equations can easily be solved with characteristics, we get $y(t,x) = y^0(x-t)$. It is thus completely straightforward to show that $$\label{Obs-Torus}
\int_0^1 |y^0(x)|^2 \, dx = \int_0^1 |y(t,0)|^2 \, dt.$$
In particular, applying Theorem \[Thm-Main\] for some discretization scheme corresponding to $f$ satisfying ––, taking $\delta <R$, for all $T$ satisfying $$\label{Time-Condition-Torus}
T > \frac{1}{\underset{|\alpha| < \delta}\inf \{f' (\alpha)\} },$$ there exist a constant $C$ and $\tau_0>0$ such that for all $\tau \in (0, \tau_0)$ and $y_\tau$ solution of $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Torus-Discrete}
y_\tau^{k+1} = \exp( i f(-i {{\mathcal{A}}}\tau)) y_\tau^k, \quad k \in {\mathbb{Z}}, \qquad y_\tau^0 = y^0,
\\ \hbox{ with } {{\mathcal{A}}}= - \partial_x, \quad \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}) = H^1_{\#}(\mathbb{S}), \quad {{\mathcal{X}}}= L^2_{\#}(\mathbb{S}),\end{gathered}$$ with initial data $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$, $$\label{Obs-Discrete-Torus}
{\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{L^2_\#(\mathbb{S})}^2 \leq C \tau \sum_{ k \tau \in (0,T)} |y_\tau^{k}(0)|^2.$$
To prove the sharpness of the time estimate , we are thus going to show the following:
\[Thm-Sharpness-Torus\] Assume that $f$ satisfies –– and take $\delta <R$.
There is no time $T>0$ satisfying $$\label{T-too-small}
T < \frac{1}{\underset{|\alpha| < \delta}\inf \{f' (\alpha)\} }$$ and constants $C>0$ and $\tau_0>0$ such that for all $\tau \in (0,\tau_0)$, solutions $y_{\tau}$ of with initial data $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ satisfy .
We argue by contradiction and assume that there exist a time $T$ satisfying and positive constants $C>0$ and $\tau_0>0$ such that for all $\tau \in (0,\tau_0)$, solutions $y_{\tau}$ of with initial data $y^0\in \mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ satisfy .
Since $T$ satisfies , we can find $[\delta_1, \delta_2] \subset (0, \delta)$ such that $$T < \frac{1}{\underset{\alpha \in [\delta_1,\delta_2]} \sup f'(\alpha)}.$$ According to Theorem \[MainFully6\], choosing $$\tilde T \in \left( \sup_{\alpha \in [\delta_1, \delta_2]} f'(\alpha), 1 \right),$$ we get the existence of a constant $C$ such that for all $\tau >0$ small enough, all solutions $y$ of with initial data $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(\delta_2/\tau)\cap \mathfrak{C}(\delta_1/\tau)^\perp$ satisfy $$\label{Obs-Torus-Ttilde}
\int_0^1 |y^0(x)|^2 \, dx \leq C \int_0^{\tilde T} |y(t,0)|^2\, dt.$$ Now, we show that this cannot be true for $\tilde T <1$. In order to do this, let us remark that the spectrum of the operator ${{\mathcal{A}}}= -\partial_x$ with domain $\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}) = H^1_{\#}(\mathbb{S})$ on ${{\mathcal{X}}}= L^2_{\#}(\mathbb{S})$ simply is given by the Fourier basis $(\Phi_j (x) = \exp(2 i j \pi x))_{j \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$ and corresponds to the eigenvalues $(i \mu_j = 2 i j \pi)_{j \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$.
Besides, using that solutions of are simply given by $y(t,x) = y^0(x-t)$, $$\int_0^{\tilde T} |y(t,0)|^2\, dt = \int_{1- \tilde T}^1 |y^0(x)|^2 \, dx,$$ so that can be rewritten as $$\label{Obs-Torus-Ttilde-bis}
\int_0^1 |y^0(x)|^2 \, dx \leq C \int_{1- \tilde T}^1 |y^0(x)|^2 \, dx.$$ We thus have to prove that cannot be true uniformly with respect to $\tau >0$ for $y^0$ lying in $\mathfrak{C}(\delta_2/\tau)\cap \mathfrak{C}(\delta_1/\tau)^\perp$.
This can be proved by an explicit construction as follows. We choose $\delta_0 \in (\delta_1, \delta_2)$, a smooth compactly supported function $\chi$ with support in $(-1,1)$ and with unit $L^2({\mathbb{R}})$-norm, and $x_0 \in \mathbb{S}$ such that $x_0 \in (0, 1 - \tilde T)$.
We then set, for $x_0 \in \mathbb{S}$ to be chosen later on, $$\label{DisprovingY0}
y_\tau^0(x) = \sum_{j \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \tau^{1/4} \chi\left( \sqrt{\tau} 2j \pi - \frac{\delta}{\sqrt{\tau}} \right) \exp( 2 i j \pi (x-x_0)).$$ First, let us note that the coefficients of $y_\tau^0$ in the basis $\Phi_j (x) = \exp(2i j \pi x)$ vanish for $$\label{Numbers-Of-Terms}
\left| 2j \pi -\frac{\delta}{\tau}\right| \geq \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau}}.$$ This implies in particular that for all $\tau>0$, the sum in is finite and thus makes sense, and that for $\tau >0$ small enough, $y_\tau^0$ indeed belongs to $\mathfrak{C}(\delta_2/\tau)\cap \mathfrak{C}(\delta_1/\tau)^\perp$.
We can also compute the $L^2_\#(\mathbb{S})$-norm of $y_\tau^0$ by Parseval’s formula: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{NormL2-Y0}
\int_0^1 |y^0_\tau(x)|^2 \, dx = \sqrt{\tau} \sum_{j \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \left|
\chi\left(\sqrt{\tau} 2 j \pi - \frac{\delta}{\sqrt\tau}\right)\right|^2
\\
\underset{\tau \to 0}{\longrightarrow}
\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|\chi(\alpha)|^2 \, d\alpha = \frac{1}{2\pi},
\end{gathered}$$ since the sum is a Riemann sum.
We now claim that $y_\tau^0$ is concentrated around $x_0$. In order to show this, for a function $v =v (j)$ defined for $j \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we introduce the discrete Laplacian $$\Delta_d v(j) = v(j+1) +v(j-1) - 2 v(j),$$ and remark that $$- \Delta_d \exp( 2 i j \pi (x-x_0)) = \exp( 2 i j \pi (x-x_0)) 4 \sin^2(\pi (x-x_0)).$$ Thus, for $\varepsilon >0$ and $|x-x_0| \in (\varepsilon, 1- \varepsilon)$, $$\begin{aligned}
y_\tau^0(x) & = \sum_{j \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \tau^{1/4} \chi\left( \sqrt{\tau} 2j \pi - \frac{\delta}{\sqrt\tau} \right) e^{2 i j \pi (x-x_0)}
\\
& = \frac{1}{ (4 \sin^2(\pi (x-x_0)))^n} \sum_{j \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \tau^{1/4} \chi\left( \sqrt{\tau} 2j \pi - \frac{\delta}{\sqrt\tau} \right) (-\Delta_d)^n \left(e^{ 2 i j \pi (x-x_0)}\right)
\\
& = \frac{1}{ (4 \sin^2(\pi (x-x_0)))^n} \sum_{j \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \tau^{1/4} (-\Delta_d)^n \left( \chi\left( \sqrt{\tau} 2j \pi - \frac{\delta}{\sqrt\tau} \right) \right) e^{ 2 i j \pi (x-x_0)},
\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\label{Est-y-tau-0}
\sup_{|x- x_0| \in (\varepsilon, 1-\varepsilon)} |y_\tau^0(x) | \leq C_{n,\varepsilon} \tau^{n-1/4},$$ where we used that $$\left| (-\Delta_d)^n \left( \chi\left( \sqrt{\tau} 2j \pi - \frac{\delta}{\sqrt\tau} \right) \right)\right| \leq C_{n,\varepsilon} \tau^n,$$ and that the number of non-vanishing terms in the sum is of order $\tau^{-1/2}$, see .
In particular, considering and with $\varepsilon>0$ such that $\{x \in \mathbb{S}, \, d_{\mathbb{S}}(x,x_0) \geq \varepsilon\} \subset (1- \tilde T, 1)$, where $d_{\mathbb{S}}$ is the geodesic distance on $\mathbb{S}$, we have found a sequence $y_\tau^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(\delta_2/\tau)\cap \mathfrak{C}(\delta_1/\tau)^\perp$ such that $$\int_{1- \tilde T}^1 |y^0_\tau(x)|^2 \, dx \leq C_{n,\varepsilon}^2 \tau^{2n-1/2} \quad \hbox{ while } \quad \int_0^1 |y^0(x)|^2 \, dx \underset{\tau \to 0}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{2\pi},$$ thus contradicting .
Further comments {#Sec-Further}
================
Fully discrete approximation schemes {#Sec-Further-Space}
------------------------------------
Our approach also applies in the context of fully-discrete approximation schemes for , or more generally, to time-discrete approximations of a family of time continuous equations depending on a parameter.
Following [@je3], we introduce the following class:
Let $p\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $C_p>0$, $C_0>0$ and $T_0>0$ be constant parameters and define the set $\mathcal{S}( p, C_p, C_0, T_0)$ as the set of elements $({{\mathcal{A}}}, {{\mathcal{X}}}, {{\mathcal{B}}}, {{\mathcal{U}}})$ such that:
- ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{U}}}$ are Hilbert spaces;
- ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is a skew-adjoint unbounded operator defined in ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ with dense domain $\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ and compact resolvent;
- ${{\mathcal{B}}}\in \mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p), {{\mathcal{U}}})$ and satisfies with constant $C_p$;
- System is observable through ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ in time $T_0$ and satisfies with constant $C_0$.
Theorem \[Thm-Main\] can then be reformulated as follows:
\[Thm-Main-Reformulated\] Let $p \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $C_p >0$, $C_0 >0$ and $T_0 >0$. Let also $f$ be a smooth function describing the discretization process as in satisfying –– and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$. Then, for all $T$ satisfying , there exist positive constants $C$ and $\tau_0>0$ such that for any $\tau \in (0,\tau_0)$, solutions $y_\tau$ of lying in $\mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ satisfy uniformly for $({{\mathcal{A}}}, {{\mathcal{X}}}, {{\mathcal{B}}}, {{\mathcal{U}}})$ in $\mathcal{S}(p, C_p, C_0, T_0)$.
In particular, Theorem \[Thm-Main-Reformulated\] allows to decompose the study of the observability properties of a fully-discrete approximation scheme in two steps.
Indeed, if $({{\mathcal{A}}}, {{\mathcal{X}}}, {{\mathcal{B}}}, {{\mathcal{U}}})$ belongs to some $\mathcal{S}(p,C_p, C_0, T_0)$ and ${{\mathcal{X}}}$ is an infinite dimensional vector space, the usual strategy to construct a fully discrete approximation of $y' = {{\mathcal{A}}}y$ is to first design a space semi-discrete approximation scheme. If $h>0$ denotes the space semi-discretization parameter, these approximations are defined on finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces ${{\mathcal{X}}}_h$ and can be written as $y_h' = {{\mathcal{A}}}_h y_h$. Similarly, the observation, originally given by ${{\mathcal{B}}}y$ on the time and space continuous model $y' = {{\mathcal{A}}}y$, is approximated by ${{\mathcal{B}}}_h y_h$ for some operator ${{\mathcal{B}}}_h$ defined on ${{\mathcal{X}}}_h$ and with values in some Hilbert space ${{\mathcal{U}}}_h$ approximating ${{\mathcal{U}}}$ in some sense.
Theorem \[Thm-Main-Reformulated\] then states that, if we can find some $p \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and constants $C_p,\, C_0, \, T_0$ such that for all $h >0$, $({{\mathcal{A}}}_h, {{\mathcal{X}}}_h, {{\mathcal{B}}}_h, {{\mathcal{U}}}_h) \in \mathcal{S}(p, C_p, C_0, T_0)$ then, taking $f$ satisfying the assumption –– and fixing $\delta \in (0,R)$, the solutions $y_{\tau, h}$ of the fully discrete schemes $$y^{k+1}_{\tau, h} = \exp( i f(- i {{\mathcal{A}}}_h \tau)) y^k_{\tau, h}, \quad k \in {\mathbb{N}}, \qquad y^0_{\tau, h} = y^0_h$$ satisfy $${\left\Verty^0_h\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}_h}^2 \leq C \tau \sum_{ k \tau \in (0,T)} {\left\Vert {{\mathcal{B}}}_h y^k_{\tau, h}\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{U}}}_h}^2$$ provided $y^0_h \in \mathfrak{C}_h(\delta/\tau)$, where $\mathfrak{C}_h(\delta/\tau)$ is the vector space spanned by the eigenfunctions of ${{\mathcal{A}}}_h$ corresponding to eigenvalues of modulus smaller than $\delta /\tau$.
Thus, in many practical situations, proving observability properties for fully-discrete approximations of uniformly with respect to both space and time discretization parameters is reduced to proving observability properties for time continuous and space semi-discrete approximations of .
We do not give further details on this strategy as we have already developed it in [@je3 Section 5] - except for the estimate on the time which is new.
Also note that our strategy also applies to derive uniform admissibility estimates for fully discrete approximations of - where uniform means with respect to both space and time discretization parameters - provided uniform admissibility estimates are proved for the corresponding space semi-discrete and time continuous approximations of - here, uniform means with respect to the space semi-discretization parameter.
In both situations, our approach successfully reduces the study of observability/admissibility issues for the time and space discrete approximations of to the study of the observability/admissibility properties for the underlying time-continuous and space semi-discrete approximations of , for which a large literature is available, see e.g. [@InfZua; @CasMic; @CasMicMunch; @NegMatSch; @NegZua] and the survey articles [@Zua05Survey; @ErvZuaCime].
Discrete Ingham inequalities {#Sec-Further-Ingham}
----------------------------
As a by-product of our analysis, we proved the following discrete Ingham inequalities:
\[Thm-Discrete-Ing\] Let $I = \mathbb{N}$ or $\mathbb{Z}$ and $(\mu_j)_{j \in I}$ be an increasing sequence of real numbers such that, for some $\gamma >0$, $$\label{GapCondition}
\inf_{j \in I } | \mu_{j+1} - \mu_j | \geq \gamma.$$ Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time-discrete operator $\mathbb{T}_\tau$ as in , assume –– and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$.
Then for all time $$\label{TimeIngDiscrete}
T> \frac{2\pi}{\gamma \underset{|\alpha| \leq \delta}\inf f'(\alpha) },$$ there exist two positive constants $C$ and $\tau_0>0$ such that for all $\tau \in (0,\tau_0)$, for all $(a_j)_{j \in I} \in \ell^2(I)$ vanishing for $j \in I$ such that $|\mu_j| \tau \geq \delta$, $$\label{InghamDiscrete}
\frac{1}{C} \sum_{j \in I} | a_j|^2
\leq
\tau \sum_{k \tau \in (0,T)} \left| \sum_{j \in I} a_j e^{i f(\mu_j \tau) k} \right|^2
\leq
C \sum_{j \in I} | a_j|^2.$$
Theorem \[Thm-Discrete-Ing\] has to be compared with the results of [@NegZua06], which derived a discrete Ingham lemma. Indeed, [@NegZua06] gives assumptions on an increasing sequence $(\lambda_j)_{j \in I}$ of real numbers under which one can guarantee for all $\tau \in (0,\tau_0)$ and $(a_j)_{j \in I} \in \ell^2(I)$, $$\label{InghamDiscrete-Neg}
\frac{1}{C} \sum_{j \in I} | a_j|^2
\leq
\tau \sum_{k \tau \in (0,T)} \left| \sum_{j \in I} a_j e^{i \lambda_j k \tau} \right|^2
\leq
C \sum_{j \in I} | a_j|^2.$$ It is proven in [@NegZua06] that holds when assuming the existence of a gap $\tilde \gamma >0$ such that $$\label{GapNeg}
\inf_{j \in I } | \lambda_{j+1} - \lambda_j | \geq \tilde \gamma,$$ and provided that the sequence $\lambda_j$ satisfies, for some $p \in (0,1/2)$, $$\label{Cond-Et}
\sup_{k, \ell} |\lambda_k - \lambda_\ell| \leq \frac{2\pi - \tau^p}{\tau}.$$ When both and hold, see [@NegZua06], for any time $T> 2 \pi /\tilde \gamma$, there exists a constant $C >0$ depending only on $\tilde \gamma$ and $p$ such that holds.
Of course, the result in [@NegZua06] is thus very similar to Theorem \[Thm-Discrete-Ing\] as one can check by setting $$\lambda_j = \frac{f(\mu_j\tau)}{\tau}, \quad j \in I \hbox{ such that } |\mu_j| \tau \leq \delta,$$ which satisfies with $\tilde \gamma = \gamma \inf_{|\alpha| \leq \delta} f'(\alpha) $ and due to the assumption $\delta <R$.
Nevertheless, our approach yields various generalizations of discrete Ingham inequalities from the ones known in the continuous setting, for instance the ones in [@LoretiMehrenberger; @Mehrenberger].
For completeness, we briefly explain below how Theorem \[Thm-Discrete-Ing\] follows from Theorem \[Thm-Main\] and Theorem \[MainFully5\].
Let us consider ${{\mathcal{X}}}= \ell^2(I)$, set $\Phi_j = (a_{\ell,j})_{ \ell \in I}$ with $a_{\ell,j} = \delta_{\ell,j}$, and define the operators ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ by ${{\mathcal{A}}}\Phi_j = i \mu_j \Phi_j$, and ${{\mathcal{B}}}\Phi_j = 1$, which is continuous on $\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ since $1/(1+ \mu_j^2)$ is summable under the assumption .
According to Ingham’s lemma [@Ing], for all $T>2 \pi/\gamma$, there exists a constant $C >0$ such that for all $(a_j) \in \ell^2(I)$, $$\frac{1}{C} \sum_{j \in I} |a_j|^2 \leq \int_0^T \left| \sum_j a_j e^{ i \mu_j t} \right|^2\, dt \leq C \sum_{j \in I } |a_j|^2.$$ This can be rewritten as follows: for all $y^0 = \sum_j a_j \Phi_j \in \ell^2(I)$, the solution $y$ of $y' = {{\mathcal{A}}}y$ with initial data $y^0$ satisfies $$\frac{1}{C} {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{\ell^2(I)}^2 \leq \int_0^T | {{\mathcal{B}}}y(t) |^2 \, dt \leq C {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{\ell^2(I)}^2.$$ Hence we can apply Theorem \[Thm-Main\] and Theorem \[MainFully5\] immediately to ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ and the corresponding discretizations described by and satisfying assumptions ––. Theorem \[Thm-Discrete-Ing\] then follows from the explicit form of the solutions of $y_\tau^{k+1} = {\mathbb{T}}_\tau y_\tau^k$ with initial data $y_\tau^0 = \sum_j a_j \Phi_j$, which is simply given by $y_\tau^k = \sum_j a_j e^{i f(\mu_j \tau) k} \Phi_j$.
Weak observability estimates {#Sec-Further-Weak}
----------------------------
In this section, we briefly focus on the case of weak observability estimates. To be more precise, we consider an observation operator ${{\mathcal{B}}}\in \mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p), {{\mathcal{U}}})$ and we assume the following: there exist a norm ${\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert}_*$, a time $T_w>0$ and a positive constant $C_{w}$ such that for all solutions $y$ of with initial data $y^0 \in \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p)$, $$\label{WeakObs}
{\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_*^2 \leq C_w^2 \int_0^{T_w} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y(t)\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2\, dt.$$
This property is a weak observability property for the system . Roughly speaking, this property appears as soon as solutions $y$ of satisfy the following unique continuation property: $$\label{UCP}
{{\mathcal{B}}}y(t) = 0 \hbox{ on } (0,T) \Rightarrow y \equiv 0,$$ since then one can simply define ${\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert}_*$ as $$\label{Trivial-Norm-*}
{\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_*^2 = \int_0^T {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y(t)\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2\, dt.$$ Of course, defining ${\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert}_*$ as in does not provide any other information than the unique continuation property .
When trying to quantify unique continuation properties, it is then natural to try to find a norm ${\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert}_*$ which can be compared to the norms constructed on, for instance, the iterated domains of the operator ${{\mathcal{A}}}$.
To be more precise, we introduce the family ${{\mathcal{X}}}_r$ of Hilbert spaces indexed by $r \in {\mathbb{R}}$ as follows: for $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we set ${{\mathcal{X}}}_n = \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^{n})$; for $r \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$, we take $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $r \in [n,n+1]$, and we define ${{\mathcal{X}}}_r$ as the interpolate between ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{n}$ and ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{n+1}$ of order $r - n$. We then define ${{\mathcal{X}}}_{r}$ for $r <0$ as the dual spaces of ${{\mathcal{X}}}_r$ (${{\mathcal{X}}}_0= {{\mathcal{X}}}$ is identified with its dual). The corresponding norms ${\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert}_r$ on ${{\mathcal{X}}}_r$ are then the following ones: for $y = \sum a_j \Phi_j$, $${\left\Verty\right\Vert}_{r}^2 = \sum_j |a_j|^2 (1+ \mu_j^2)^{r}.$$
We thus assume that there exist a constant $r \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $C_r>0$, such that for all $y \in {{\mathcal{X}}}_p$, $$\label{Ass-norm-*}
{\left\Verty\right\Vert}_r \leq C_r {\left\Verty\right\Vert}_*.$$ Note that this definition makes sense for all $y \in {{\mathcal{X}}}_p$ since the weak observability estimate guarantees that ${\left\Verty\right\Vert}_*$ is finite for $y \in {{\mathcal{X}}}_p$. Actually, estimate and ${{\mathcal{B}}}\in \mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p), {{\mathcal{U}}})$ also imply $r \leq p$. Also note that when $r \geq 0$, inequality is stronger than the one in . We are thus mainly interested in the case $r <0$.
We then have the following variant of Theorem \[Thm-Main\]:
\[Thm-Main-Weak\] Assume that ${{\mathcal{B}}}\in \mathfrak{L}(\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p), {{\mathcal{U}}})$ for some $p\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and ${{\mathcal{U}}}$ an Hilbert space, and that ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ satisfies with constant $C_p$.
Assume that equation is observable through ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ at time $T_w$ with constant $C_w$ and norm ${\left\Vert\cdot \right\Vert}_*$, i.e. for all $y^0 \in \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^p)$, the solution $y(t)$ of with initial data $y^0$ satisfies . Also assume that there exist a constant $C_r>0$ and $r \leq p$ such that holds.
Let $f$ be a smooth function describing the time discrete operator ${\mathbb{T}}_\tau$ as in , assume ––, and fix $\delta \in (0,R)$. Then, for all $$\label{TimeConditionTau-weal}
T > \frac{T_w}{\underset{|\alpha| \leq \delta}\inf \{f'(\alpha) \}},$$ there exist positive constants $C$ and $\tau_0>0$ depending on $f$, $T$, $\delta$, $p$, $C_p$, $C_w$, $T_w$, $C_r$, $r$ such that for any $\tau \in (0,\tau_0)$, solutions $y_\tau$ of lying in $\mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$ satisfy $$\label{Dis-Obs-Weak}
{\left\Verty^0_\tau\right\Vert}_*^2 \leq C \tau \sum_{k \tau \in (0,T)} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}^* y^k_\tau\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2.$$
The proof of Theorem \[Thm-Main-Weak\] is very close to the one of Theorem \[Thm-Main\], see Section \[Sec-Proof-Main\]. Indeed, we first introduce $\varepsilon >0$, a function $\chi$ compactly supported on $(-f(\delta+\varepsilon), f(\delta+\varepsilon))$ and taking value one on $(-f(\delta), f(\delta))$ and the kernel function $\rho_\tau$ given by Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\]. Then setting $t_{1, \varepsilon} = - \varepsilon$ and $T_{1, \varepsilon} = \varepsilon + T_w/{\inf_{|\alpha| \leq \delta} \{f'(\alpha) \}}$, we get the counterpart of : for some constants $C, C_n$ independent of $\tau>0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\int_0^{T_w} {\left\Vert \tau \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \rho_\tau(t, k \tau) {{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \, dt
\leq C \tau \sum_{t_{1, \varepsilon} < k\tau < T_{1, \varepsilon}} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \\
+ C_n \tau^{4n-2-2p} {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2,
\end{gathered}$$
Using then Theorem \[Thm-DiscTransmutation\] and the fact that $y(t)$ defined by is a solution of , we have $${\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_*^2 \leq C \tau \sum_{t_{1, \varepsilon} < k\tau < T_{1, \varepsilon}} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2 \\
+ C_n \tau^{4n-2-2p} {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2,$$ instead of .
One then uses that, since $y^0 \in \mathfrak{C}(\delta/\tau)$, there exists a constant $C>0$ independent of $\tau \in (0,1)$ and $y^0$ such that $${\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_{{{\mathcal{X}}}}^2 \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle}C \tau^{2r} {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_r^2 & \quad \hbox{ if } r <0,
\\
{\displaystyle}C {\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_r^2 & \quad \hbox{ if } r \geq 0.
\end{array}\right.$$ Using then , estimate implies $$\label{TransmutationAlmostOK-w}
{\left\Verty^0\right\Vert}_*^2 \left(1- C_n \tau^{4n-2-2p+2\min\{r,0\} } \right)
\leq
C \tau \sum_{t_{1, \varepsilon} < k\tau < T_{1, \varepsilon}} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2.$$ Thus, taking $n \geq 1 + p- \min\{r, 0\}$ and $\tau >0$ small enough, we obtain with $$T_\varepsilon = T_{1, \varepsilon} - t_{1, \varepsilon} = \frac{T_w}{\underset{|\alpha|\leq \delta + \varepsilon}\inf \{f'(\alpha) \} } + 2 \varepsilon.$$ This concludes the proof of Theorem \[Thm-Main-Weak\] by taking $\varepsilon>0$ small enough.
Among the typical cases fitting our assumptions, let us quote the case of the wave equation on $(0,1)$ observed from a point $x_0 \in (0,1) \setminus \mathbb{Q}$. In that case, the equation reads: $$\label{1d-Wave}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{tt}y - \partial_{xx} y = 0, \quad &\hbox{ for } (t,x) \in (0,T) \times (0,1),
\\
y(t,0) = y (t,1) = 0,\quad & \hbox{ for } t \in (0,T),
\\
(y(0,\cdot), \partial_t y(0,\cdot)) = (y^0,y^1) &\hbox{ in } L^2(0,1) \times H^{-1}(0,1),
\end{array}
\right.$$ and the observation is given by $y(t,x_0)$.
Equation indeed fits the abstract setting of by setting $$\begin{gathered}
Y = \left( \begin{array}{c} y \\ \partial_t y \end{array}\right) = \left( \begin{array}{c} Y_1 \\ Y_2 \end{array}\right), \quad
{{\mathcal{A}}}= \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & Id \\ \partial_{xx} & 0 \end{array}\right),
\\
\hbox{ with } {{\mathcal{X}}}= L^2(0,1) \times H^{-1}(\Omega), \quad \mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}) =H^1_0(0,1) \times L^2(0,1).\end{gathered}$$ and the point-wise observation operator is given for smooth $Y$ by $${{\mathcal{B}}}Y = {{\mathcal{B}}}\left( \begin{array}{c} Y_1 \\ Y_2 \end{array}\right) = Y_1(x_0).$$ Sobolev’s embedding easily shows that ${{\mathcal{B}}}$ is continuous from $\mathcal{D}({{\mathcal{A}}}^{1/2+\varepsilon})$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$ for any $\varepsilon >0$.
Besides, expanding solutions $y$ of in Fourier, one easily checks $$y(t,x) = \sqrt{2} \sum_{j \geq 1} \Big(a_j \exp(i j \pi t) + b_{j} \exp( - i j \pi t )\Big) \sin(j \pi x) ,$$ where the coefficients $(a_j),\,(b_j)$ can be characterized from the expansion of the initial datum $(y^0, y^1)$: if $(y^0,y^1)$ are given by $$y^0 (x) = \sqrt{2} \sum_{ j \geq 1} \alpha_j \sin(j \pi x) , \qquad y^1 (x) = \sqrt{2} \sum_{ j \geq 1} \beta_j \sin(j \pi x),$$ the coefficients $(a_j),\,(b_j)$ are given by $$a_j = \frac{1}{2} \left( \alpha_j - i\frac{\beta_j}{j\pi}\right), \quad b_j = \frac{1}{2} \left( \alpha_j + i\frac{\beta_j}{j\pi}\right).$$ In particular, using Parseval’s identity, one easily gets $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^2 |{{\mathcal{B}}}Y(t) | \, dt = \int_0^2 |y(t,x_0)|^2 \, dt
&=& 2 \sum_{j \geq 1} \left(|a_j|^2 +|b_j|^2\right) \sin^2(j \pi x_0)
\\
& = &\sum_{ j \geq 1} \left( |\alpha_j|^2 + \frac{|\beta_j|^2}{j^2 \pi^2} \right) \sin^2(j \pi x_0).\end{aligned}$$ Of course, if $x_0 \notin \mathbb{Q}$, one easily checks that $\sin (j \pi x_0)$ cannot vanish for $j \in {\mathbb{N}}$, hence unique continuation holds. In particular, this implies that the semi-norm defined for $$Y = \left( \begin{array}{c} Y_1 \\ Y_2 \end{array}\right) = \left( \begin{array}{c} \sqrt{2} \sum_{ j \geq 1} \alpha_j \sin(j \pi x) \\ \sqrt{2} \sum_{ j \geq 1} \beta_j \sin(j \pi x) \end{array}\right)$$ by $${\left\Vert Y\right\Vert}_*^2 = \sum_{ j \geq 1} \left( |\alpha_j|^2 + \frac{|\beta_j|^2}{j^2 \pi^2} \right) \sin^2(j \pi x_0)$$ is a norm satisfying for $ T_w = 2$ and $C_w = 1$.
Besides, one easily checks that the norms ${\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert}_r$ in that case are simply given by $${\left\Vert Y\right\Vert}_r^2 = \sum_{ j \geq 1} \left( |\alpha_j|^2 + \frac{|\beta_j|^2}{j^2 \pi^2} \right) (1+(j \pi)^2)^{r/2}.$$ Thus, if one wants to apply Theorem \[Thm-Main-Weak\], one should verify condition , i.e. that there exist $r >0$ and $C>0$ such that for all $j \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\label{Cond-x0}
(1+(j \pi)^2)^{r/2} \leq C \sin^2(j \pi x_0).$$ It turns out that condition is satisfied for a large set of irrational numbers $x_0 \notin {\mathbb{Q}}$, that we will denote by $\mathcal{S}$ in the following.
Indeed, $\mathcal{S}$ contains the irrational numbers $x_0 \in (0,1)$ whose expansion $[0,x_1,x_2, \cdots, x_n,\cdots]$ as a continuous fraction is given by a bounded sequence $(x_n)$, see [@Lang p.23], for which the following property holds: there exists a positive constant $C$ such that for all $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\label{Cond-x0Lang}
\inf_{p \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \{|q x_0 - p|\} \geq \frac{C}{q}.$$ Since condition is stronger than , we deduce in particular that $\mathcal{S}$ is uncountable.
Besides, $\mathcal{S}$ also contains all the irrational algebraic numbers according to Liouville’s theorem: If $x_0 \in (0,1)$ is an algebraic number of degree $d$ on $\mathbb{Q}$, there exists $c>0$ such that for all $q \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\inf_{ p \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \{|q x_0 - p|\} \geq \frac{c}{q^d}.$$
Theorem \[Thm-Main-Weak\] applies when $x_0 \in \mathcal{S}$, and yields for instance the following observability result, corresponding to the Newmark method with $\beta = 1/4$: for all $\delta >0$ and $T > 2(1+ \delta^2/4)$, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for all $ \tau >0$ small enough, solutions $y_\tau$ of $$\label{TimeDiscreteWave}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle}\frac{1}{\tau^2}\left(y_\tau^{k+1} - 2 y_\tau^k + y_\tau^{k-1} \right)- \partial_{xx} \left( \frac{1}{4}\left(y_\tau^{k+1} + 2 y_\tau^k + y_\tau^{k-1} \right)\right) = 0,
\\
\hspace{6cm} \hbox{ for } (k,x) \in {\mathbb{Z}}\times (0,1),
\\
{\displaystyle}\frac{y^0_\tau + y^1_\tau}{2} = y^0,\, \, \frac{y_\tau^1 - y_\tau^0}\tau = y^1, \hbox{ for } x \in (0,1),
\end{array}
\right.$$ with initial data $$(y^0, y^1) \in \left(\hbox{Span} \{ \sqrt{2} \sin(j \pi x), \hbox{ with } j \in {\mathbb{N}}\, \hbox{ satisfying } j \pi \leq \delta/\tau \} \right)^2$$ all satisfy $${\left\Vert\left( \begin{array}{c} y_0 \\ y_1 \end{array}\right)\right\Vert}_*^2 \leq C \tau \sum_{k \tau \in (0,T)} |y^k_\tau(x_0)|^2.$$
We conclude this paragraph by pointing out that similar weak observation properties often appear in the models for wave propagation on networks ([@DagZua06]). Nervertheless, condition is sometimes violated as in the case of the wave equation observed through a subset which does not satisfy the geometric control condition, see [@Robbiano95; @Lebeau92].
Open problems {#Sec-Open}
=============
Non-conservative time-discretization schemes
--------------------------------------------
In this article, we focused on time-discretization schemes that preserve the energy of the solutions, which is a natural class since the continuous model also preserves the energy of the solutions.
However, in many situations, it may be interesting to consider dissipative numerical schemes, adding some numerical viscous effects to avoid instabilities. A very simple scheme introducing such dissipation properties is the Euler implicit method, which approximates as follows: $$\label{EulerImp}
\frac{y^{k+1}_\tau - y^k_\tau}{\tau} = {{\mathcal{A}}}y^{k+1}_\tau, \quad k \geq 0, \qquad y^0_\tau = y^0.$$ If $y^0 = \Phi_j$, one easily checks that the solution $y^k_\tau$ is given by $$y^k_\tau = \left(\frac{1}{1- i \tau \mu_j}\right)^k \Phi_j$$ Thus, when considering only eigenvectors such that $\tau |\mu| >\delta_0>0$, solutions $y^k_\tau$ decay exponentially. In particular, this implies that the observability inequality may be not appropriate and should be replaced as follows: for all $y_\tau$ solutions of , $$\label{Final-Time-Obs}
{\left\Verty_\tau^{\lfloor T/\tau \rfloor} \right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{X}}}^2 \leq C \tau \sum_{ k \tau \in (0,T)} {\left\Vert{{\mathcal{B}}}y_\tau^k\right\Vert}_{{\mathcal{U}}}^2.$$ We emphasize that, though the observability inequalities and are completely equivalent when the time-discretization schemes preserve the energy, it is not anymore the case when considering the Euler implicit method , and estimate is indeed weaker than the observability property in that case.
This seems to indicate that a representation formula similar to would involve kernels similar to the ones obtained to link the wave equation to the heat equations, see the ones proposed in [@Miller04a; @ErvZuazuaARMA] for instance.
Let us rapidly explain what is the new difficulty occurring when considering non-conservative schemes by transposing the formal arguments we developed in the introduction to the Euler implicit equation . Similarly as in , solutions $y_\tau$ of with initial datum $y^0$ as in can be written as $$y_\tau^k = \sum_{j} a_j \Phi_j \exp\left(i \frac{f( \mu_j \tau)}{\tau} k \tau\right),$$ but this time $f$ is a complex-valued function given by $$f(\alpha) = \arctan(\alpha) + \frac{i}{2} \log( 1+ \alpha^2).$$ Hence, similarly as in , one can introduce the formal continuous version of $y_\tau$ given by $$z_\tau(s) = \sum_{j} a_j \Phi_j \exp\left(i \frac{f( \mu_j \tau)}{\tau} s \right).$$ *But* this solution is only well-defined for $s \geq 0$, and we are thus led to look for some kernel function $\tilde \rho_\tau = \tilde \rho_\tau(t,s)$ such that for all $\mu \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $t \in R$, $$\label{Eq-GeneralCase}
e^{i \mu t} = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+^*} \rho_\tau(t,s)\exp\left(i \frac{f( \mu \tau)}{\tau} s \right) \, ds,$$ where the domain of integration has been modified into ${\mathbb{R}}_+^*$ instead of ${\mathbb{R}}$ as in . Also note that, to derive observability properties for the time-discrete model , we actually need the identity only for $t $ in a bounded set of time and $|\mu| \leq \delta/\tau$, which might help deriving appropriate kernels.
But we do not even know if equation is solvable. It may be the case but probably to the price of involving more singular kernels, as for instance in [@ErvZuazuaARMA] where the kernel was only defined for bounded sets of time, and allows to express solutions of the conservative model (wave-type model) in terms of solution of the dissipative models (heat-type model).
In some sense, this problem could also be thought as follows: given an observable conservative system, can we guarantee nice observability properties for viscous versions of it? With that respect, it is worth pointing out the works [@CoronGuerrero; @GlassJFA2010; @LissyCras2012] considering the controllability properties of the transport equation $$\label{TransportVisc}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t y + \partial_x y -\varepsilon \partial_{xx} y = 0, \quad (t,x) \in (0,T) \times (0,1),
\\
y(t,0) = v(t), \quad y(t,1) = 0, \quad \hbox{ for } t \in (0,T),
\end{array}\right.$$ with vanishing viscosity parameter $\varepsilon >0$, which illustrate the difficulties one encounters when considering control issues for vanishing viscosity systems (see also [@MicuRoventa] for another example). Indeed, to our knowledge, it is still not known what is the best time $T$ guaranteeing that the systems are uniformly (with respect to $\varepsilon >0$) null-controllable, though the critical time is expected to be $1$, i.e. the time needed to control the underlying transport equation obtained by setting $\varepsilon = 0$ and dropping the boundary condition at $x = 1$.
The complexity of this singular limit problem is one more evidence of the intrinsic complexity of passing from strongly dissipative dynamics to conservative ones. But the reverse problem is simpler. Indeed, in [@LopZZ] for instance (see also [@Phung02]), it was proved that the null-controllability and the observability of the heat equation $$y_t - \Delta y =0,$$ can be obtained as a limit, when $\varepsilon \to 0$, of the corresponding wave-like properties for the one-parameter family of wave equations $$\varepsilon y_{tt} + y_t - \Delta y =0.$$
This is also in agreement with the results in [@Miller06a] allowing to write down solutions of the heat equation in terms of solutions of the wave equation. In our context, this corresponds to writing the solutions of the time-discrete implicit Euler schemes in terms of the time-continuous conservative dynamics. As one can easily check, this can be done with the same formula as in Theorem \[DiscTransmutationReverse\] This allows obtaining interesting results about the uniform (with respect of time-step) admissibility properties or the optimality of the possible uniform time-discrete observability results. But, unfortunately, the key issue of getting uniform observability results for the time-discrete dynamics out of the continues ones, requires a transformation expressing the solution of the conservative dynamics in terms of the dissipative one, and thus requires further analysis.
Variable time-steps
-------------------
In many applications, it is important to allow the time discretization parameter to change in an adaptive manner. The precise study of such case seems to be out of reach by using our method which strongly relies on the use of discrete Fourier analysis.
[10]{}
C. Alves, A. L. Silvestre, T. Takahashi, and M. Tucsnak. Solving inverse source problems using observability. [A]{}pplications to the [E]{}uler-[B]{}ernoulli plate equation. , 48(3):1632–1659, 2009.
C. Bardos, G. Lebeau, and J. Rauch. Un exemple d’utilisation des notions de propagation pour le contrôle et la stabilisation de problèmes hyperboliques. , (Special Issue):11–31 (1989), 1988. Nonlinear hyperbolic equations in applied sciences.
N. Burq and P. G[é]{}rard. Condition nécessaire et suffisante pour la contrôlabilité exacte des ondes. , 325(7):749–752, 1997.
N. Burq and M. Zworski. Geometric control in the presence of a black box. , 17(2):443–471 (electronic), 2004.
C. Castro and S. Micu. Boundary controllability of a linear semi-discrete 1-d wave equation derived from a mixed finite element method. , 102(3):413–462, 2006.
C. Castro, S. Micu, and A. M[ü]{}nch. Numerical approximation of the boundary control for the wave equation with mixed finite elements in a square. , 28(1):186–214, 2008.
J.-M. Coron and S. Guerrero. Singular optimal control: a linear 1-[D]{} parabolic-hyperbolic example. , 44(3-4):237–257, 2005.
R. D[á]{}ger and E. Zuazua. , volume 50 of [*Mathématiques & Applications (Berlin)*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006.
S. Dolecki and D. L. Russell. A general theory of observation and control. , 15:185–220, 1977.
S. Ervedoza. Spectral conditions for admissibility and observability of wave systems: applications to finite element schemes. , 113(3):377–415, 2009.
S. Ervedoza. Observability in arbitrary small time for discrete approximations of conservative systems. In [*Some problems on nonlinear hyperbolic equations and applications*]{}, volume 15 of [*Ser. Contemp. Appl. Math. CAM*]{}, pages 283–309. Higher Ed. Press, Beijing, 2010.
S. Ervedoza. Admissibility and observability for [S]{}chrödinger systems: Applications to finite element approximation schemes. , 71(1–2):1–32, 2011.
S. Ervedoza, C. Zheng, and E. Zuazua. On the observability of time-discrete conservative linear systems. , 254(12):3037–3078, June 2008.
S. Ervedoza and E. Zuazua. Sharp observability estimates for heat equations. , 202(3):975–1017, 2011.
S. Ervedoza and E. Zuazua. The wave equation: Control and numerics. In P. M. Cannarsa and J. M. Coron, editors, [*Control of Partial Differential Equations*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, CIME Subseries. Springer Verlag, 2011.
O. Glass. A complex-analytic approach to the problem of uniform controllability of a transport equation in the vanishing viscosity limit. , 258(3):852–868, 2010.
E. Hairer, S. P. N[ø]{}rsett, and G. Wanner. , volume 8 of [ *Springer Series in Computational Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987. Nonstiff problems.
A. Haraux. Séries lacunaires et contrôle semi-interne des vibrations d’une plaque rectangulaire. , 68(4):457–465 (1990), 1989.
J.A. Infante and E. Zuazua. Boundary observability for the space semi discretizations of the 1-d wave equation. , 33:407–438, 1999.
A. E. Ingham. Some trigonometrical inequalities with applications to the theory of series. , 41(1):367–379, 1936.
Y. Kannai. Off diagonal short time asymptotics for fundamental solutions of diffusion equations. , 2(8):781–830, 1977.
Y. Kannai. A hyperbolic approach to elliptic and parabolic singular perturbation problems. , 59:75–87, 1992. Festschrift on the occasion of the 70th birthday of Shmuel Agmon.
Serge Lang. . Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.-London-Don Mills, Ont., 1966.
G. Lebeau. Contrôle analytique. [I]{}. [E]{}stimations a priori. , 68(1):1–30, 1992.
J.-L. Lions. , volume RMA 8. Masson, 1988.
P. Lissy. A link between the cost of fast controls for the 1-[D]{} heat equation and the uniform controllability of a 1-[D]{} transport-diffusion equation. , 350(11-12):591–595, 2012.
A. L[ó]{}pez, X. Zhang, and E. Zuazua. Null controllability of the heat equation as singular limit of the exact controllability of dissipative wave equations. , 79(8):741–808, 2000.
P. Loreti and M. Mehrenberger. An ingham type proof for a two-grid observability theorem. , 14(3):604–631, 2008.
M. Mehrenberger. An [I]{}ngham type proof for the boundary observability of a [$N-d$]{} wave equation. , 347(1-2):63–68, 2009.
S. Micu and I. Roven[ţ]{}a. Uniform controllability of the linear one dimensional [S]{}chrödinger equation with vanishing viscosity. , 18(1):277–293, 2012.
L. Miller. Geometric bounds on the growth rate of null-controllability cost for the heat equation in small time. , 204(1):202–226, 2004.
L. Miller. How violent are fast controls for schr[ö]{}dinger and plates vibrations? , 172(3):429–456, 2004.
L. Miller. Controllability cost of conservative systems: resolvent condition and transmutation. , 218(2):425–444, 2005.
L. Miller. The control transmutation method and the cost of fast controls. , 45(2):762–772 (electronic), 2006.
L. Miller. On exponential observability estimates for the heat semigroup with explicit rates. , 17(4):351–366, 2006.
L. Miller. Resolvent conditions for the control of unitary groups and their approximations. , 2(1):1–55, 2012.
A. M[ü]{}nch and E. Zuazua. Numerical approximation of null controls for the heat equation through transmutation. to appear in Inverse Problems, 2010.
M. Negreanu, A.-M. Matache, and C. Schwab. Wavelet filtering for exact controllability of the wave equation. , 28(5):1851–1885 (electronic), 2006.
M. Negreanu and E. Zuazua. Convergence of a multigrid method for the controllability of a 1-d wave equation. , 338(5):413–418, 2004.
M. Negreanu and E. Zuazua. Discrete [I]{}ngham inequalities and applications. , 44(1):412–448 (electronic), 2006.
K.-D. Phung. Null controllability of the heat equation as singular limit of the exact controllability of dissipative wave equation under the [B]{}ardos-[L]{}ebeau-[R]{}auch geometric control condition. , 44(10-11):1289–1296, 2002.
K. D. Phung. Waves, damped wave and observation. In Ta-Tsien Li, Yue-Jun Peng, and Bo-Peng Rao, editors, [*Some Problems on Nonlinear Hyperbolic Equations and Applications*]{}, Series in Contemporary Applied Mathematics CAM 15, 2010.
J. Pr[ü]{}ss. , volume 87 of [*Monographs in Mathematics*]{}. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1993.
K. Ramdani, T. Takahashi, G. Tenenbaum, and M. Tucsnak. A spectral approach for the exact observability of infinite-dimensional systems with skew-adjoint generator. , 226(1):193–229, 2005.
L. Robbiano. Théorème d’unicité adapté au contrôle des solutions des problèmes hyperboliques. , 16(4-5):789–800, 1991.
L. Robbiano. Fonction de coût et contrôle des solutions des équations hyperboliques. , 10(2):95–115, 1995.
G. Tenenbaum and M. Tucsnak. Fast and strongly localized observation for the [S]{}chrödinger equation. , 361(2):951–977, 2009.
F. Tr[è]{}ves. . Plenum Press, New York, 1980. Fourier integral operators, The University Series in Mathematics.
M. Tucsnak and G. Weiss. , volume XI of [*Birk[ä]{}user Advanced Texts*]{}. Springer, 2009.
E. Zuazua. Propagation, observation, and control of waves approximated by finite difference methods. , 47(2):197–243 (electronic), 2005.
[^1]: e-mail: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: e-mail: [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: The first author is partially supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR, France), Project CISIFS number NT09-437023, and grant MTM2011-29306 of the MICINN, Spain. Part of this work has been done while he was visiting the BCAM – Basque Center for Applied Mathematics as a Visiting Fellow. The second author is supported by the ERC Advanced Grant FP7-246775 NUMERIWAVES, the Grant PI2010-04 of the Basque Government, the ESF Research Networking Program OPTPDE and Grant MTM2011-29306 of the MICINN, Spain.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss the physics of Kaluza-Klein excitations of the Standard Model gauge bosons that can be explored by a high energy muon collider in the era after the LHC and TeV Linear Collider. We demonstrate that the muon collider is a necessary ingredient in the unraveling the properties of such states and, perhaps, proving their existence. The possibility of observing the resonances associated with the excited KK graviton states of the Randall-Sundrum model is also discussed.'
address: |
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center\
Stanford CA 94309, USA
author:
- 'Thomas G Rizzo [^1]'
title: |
[Kaluza-Klein Physics at\
Muon Colliders]{} [^2]
---
/
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In theories with extra dimensions, $d\geq 1$, the gauge fields of the Standard Model(SM) will have Kaluza-Klein(KK) excitations if they are allowed to propagate in the bulk of the extra dimensions. If such a scenario is realized then, level by level, the masses of the excited states of the photon, $Z$, $W$ and gluon would form highly degenerate towers. The possibility that the masses of the lowest lying of these states, of order the inverse size of the compactification radius $\sim 1/R$, could be as low as $\sim$ a few TeV or less leads to a very rich and exciting phenomenology at future and, possibly, existing colliders[[@old]]{}. For the case of one extra dimension compactified on $S^1/Z_2$ the spectrum of the excited states is given by $M_n=n/R$ and the couplings of the excited modes relative to the corresponding zero mode to states remaining on the wall at the orbifold fixed points, such as the SM fermions, is simply $\sqrt 2$ for all $n$. These masses and couplings are insensitive to the choice of compactification in the case of one extra dimension assuming the metric tensor factorizes, , the elements of the metric tensor on the wall are independent of the compactified co-ordinates.
If such KK states exist what is the lower bound on their mass? We already know from direct $Z'/W'$ and dijet bump searches at the Tevatron from Run I that they must lie above $\simeq 0.85$ TeV[[@tev]]{}. A null result for a search made with data from Run II will push this limit to $\simeq 1.1$ TeV or so. To do better than this at present we must rely on the indirect effects associated with KK tower exchange in what essentially involves a set of dimension-six contact interactions. Such limits rely upon a number of additional assumptions, in particular, that the effect of KK exchanges is the [*only*]{} new physics beyond the SM. The strongest and least model-dependent of these bounds arises from an analysis of charged current contact interactions at both HERA and the Tevatron by Cornet, Relano and Rico[[@cornet]]{} who, in the case of one extra dimension, obtain a bound of $R^{-1}>3.4$ TeV. Similar analyses have been carried out by a number of authors[[@host; @rw]]{}; the best limit arises from an updated combined fit to the precision electroweak data[[@rw]]{} as presented at the 1999 summer conferences[[@data]]{} and yields[[@kktest]]{} $R^{-1}>3.9$ TeV for the case of one extra dimension. From the previous discussion we can also draw a further conclusion for the case $d=1$: the lower bound $M_1>3.9$ TeV is so strong that the [*second*]{} KK excitations, whose masses must now exceed 7.8 TeV due to the above scaling law, will be beyond the reach of the LHC. This leads to the important result that the LHC will [*at most*]{} only detect the first set of KK excitations for $d=1$.
In all analyses that obtain indirect limits on $M_1$, one is actually constraining a dimensionless quantity such as $$V=\sum_{{\bf n}=1}^\infty {g_{\bf n}^2\over {g_0^2}}
{M_w^2\over {M_{\bf n}^2}} \,,$$ where, generalizing the case to $d$ additional dimensions, $g_{\bf n}$ is the coupling and $M_{\bf n}$ the mass of the $n^{th}$ KK level labelled by the set of $d$ integers [**n**]{} and $M_w$ is the $W$ boson mass which we employ as a typical weak scale factor. For $d=1$ this sum is finite since $M_n=n/R$ and $g_n/g_0=\sqrt 2$ for $n>1$; one immediately obtains $V={\pi^2\over {3}}(M_w/M_1)^2$ with $M_1$ being the mass of the first KK excitation. From the precision data one obtains a bound on $V$ and then uses the above expression to obtain the corresponding bound on $M_1$. For $d>1$, however, independently of how the extra dimensions are compactified, the above sum in $V$ [*diverges*]{} and so it is not so straightforward to obtain a bound on $M_1$. We also recall that for $d>1$ the mass spectrum and the relative coupling strength of any particular KK excitation now become dependent upon how the additional dimensions are compactified.
There are several ways one can deal with this divergence: ($i$) The simplest approach is to argue that as the states being summed in $V$ get heavier they approach the mass of the string scale, $M_s$, above which we know little and some new theory presumably takes over. Thus we should just truncate the sum at some fixed maximum value $n_{max}\simeq M_sR$ so that masses KK masses above $M_s$ do not contribute. ($ii$) A second possibility is to note that the wall on which the SM fermions reside is not completely rigid having a finite tension. The authors in Ref.[[@wow]]{} argue that this wall tension can act like an exponential suppression of the couplings of the higher KK states in the tower thus rendering the summation finite, , $g_{\bf n}^2 \to g_{\bf n}^2 e^{-(M_n/M_1)^2/n_{max}^2}$, where $n_{max}$ now parameterizes the strength of the exponential cut-off. (Antoniadis[[@kktest]]{} has argued that such an exponential suppression can also arise from considerations of string scattering amplitudes at high energies.) For a fixed value of $n_{max}$, the exponential approach is found to be more effective and lead to a smaller sum than that obtained by simple truncation and thus to a weaker bound on $M_1$. ($iii$) A last scenario[[@schm]]{} is to note the possibility that the SM wall fermions may have a finite size in the extra dimensions which smear out and soften the couplings appearing in the sum to yield a finite result. In this case the suppression is also of the Gaussian variety.
We note that in all of the above approaches the value of the sum increases rapidly with $d$ for a fixed value of the cut-off parameter $n_{max}$. For $d=2(>2)$ the sum behaves asymptotically as $\sim log ~n_{max} (\sim n_{max}^{d-2})$. This leads to the very important result that, for a fixed bound on $V$ from experimental data, the corresponding bound on the mass of the lowest lying KK excitation rapidly strengthens with the number of extra dimension, $d$. Table I shows how the $d=1$ lower bound of 3.9 TeV for the mass of $M_1$ changes as we consider different compactifications for $d>1$. We see that in some cases the value of $M_1$ is so large it will be beyond the mass range accessible to the LHC as it is for all cases of the $d=3$ example.
----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ ------
$n_{max}$ T E T E T E
2 5.69$^*$ 4.23$^*$ 6.63$^*$ 4.77$^*$ 8.65 8.01
3 6.64 4.87$^*$ 7.41 5.43$^*$ 11.7 10.8
4 7.20 5.28$^*$ 7.95 5.85$^*$ 13.7 13.0
5 7.69 5.58$^*$ 8.36 6.17$^*$ 15.7 14.9
10 8.89 6.42 9.61 7.05 23.2 22.0
20 9.95 7.16 10.2 7.83 33.5 31.8
50 11.2 8.04 12.1 8.75 53.5 50.9
----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ ------
SM KK States at the LHC and Linear Colliders {#sm-kk-states-at-the-lhc-and-linear-colliders .unnumbered}
============================================
Let us return to the $d=1$ case at the LHC where the degenerate KK states $\gamma^{(1)}$, $Z^{(1)}$, $W^{(1)}$ and $g^{(1)}$ are potentially visible. It has been shown [[@kktest]]{} that for masses in excess of $\simeq 4$ TeV the $g^{(1)}$ resonance in dijets will be washed out due to its rather large width and the experimental jet energy resolution available at the LHC detectors. Furthermore, $\gamma^{(1)}$ and $Z^{(1)}$ will appear as a [*single*]{} resonance in Drell-Yan that cannot be resolved and looking very much like a single $Z'$. Thus if we are lucky the LHC will observe what appears to be a degenerate $Z'/W'$. How can we identify these states as KK excitations when we remember that the rest of the members of the tower are too massive to be produced? We remind the reader that many extended electroweak models[[@models]]{} exist which predict a degenerate $Z'/W'$. Without further information, it would seem likely that this would become the most likely guess of what had been found.
To clarify this situation let us consider the results displayed in Figs. 1 for $d=1$ where we show the production cross sections in the $\ell^+\ell^-$ channel with inverse compactification radii of 4, 5 and 6 TeV. In calculating these cross sections we have assumed that the KK excitations have their naive couplings and can only decay to the usual fermions of the SM. Additional decay modes can lead to appreciably lower cross sections so that we cannot use the peak heights to determine the degeneracy of the KK state. Note that in the 4 TeV case, which is essentially as small a mass as can be tolerated by the present data on precision measurements, the second KK excitation is visible in the plot. We see several things from these figures. First, we can easily estimate the total number of events in the resonance regions associated with each of the peaks assuming the canonical integrated luminosity of $100 fb^{-1}$ appropriate for the LHC; we find $\simeq 300(32, 3, 0.02)$ events corresponding to the 4(5,6,8) TeV resonances if we sum over both electron and muon final states and assume $100\%$ leptonic identification efficiencies. Clearly the 6 and 8 TeV resonances will not be visible at the LHC (though a modest increase in luminosity by a factor of a few will allow the 6 TeV resonance to become visible) and we also verify our claim that only the first KK excitations will be observable. In the case of the 4 TeV resonance there is sufficient statistics that the KK mass will be well measured and one can also imagine measuring the forward-backward asymmetry, $A_{FB}$, if not the full angular distribution of the outgoing leptons, since the final state muon charges can be signed. Given sufficient statistics, a measurement of the angular distribution would demonstrate that the state is indeed spin-1 and not spin-0 or spin-2. However, for such a heavy resonance it is unlikely that much further information could be obtained about its couplings and other properties. In fact the conclusion of several years of $Z'$ analyses[[@snow]]{} is that coupling information will be essentially impossible to obtain for $Z'$-like resonances with masses in excess of 1-2 TeV at the LHC due to low statistics. Furthermore, the lineshape of the 4 TeV resonance and the Drell-Yan spectrum anywhere close to the peak will be difficult to measure in detail due to both the limited statistics and energy smearing. Thus we will never know from LHC data alone whether the first KK resonance has been discovered or, instead, some extended gauge model scenario has been realized. To make further progress we need a lepton collider.
It is well-known that future $e^+e^-$ linear colliders(LC) operating in the center of mass energy range $\sqrt s=0.5-1.5$ TeV will be sensitive to indirect effects arising from the exchange of new $Z'$ bosons with masses typically 6-7 times greater than $\sqrt s$[[@snow]]{}. This sensitivity is even greater in the case of KK excitations since towers of both $\gamma$ and $Z$ exist all of which have couplings larger than their SM zero modes. Furthermore, analyses have shown that with enough statistics the couplings of the new $Z'$ to the SM fermions can be extracted[[@coupl]]{} in a rather precise manner, especially when the $Z'$ mass is already approximately known from elsewhere, , the LHC. (If the $Z'$ mass is not known then measurements at several distinct values of $\sqrt s$ can be used to extract both the mass as well as the corresponding couplings[[@me]]{}.) In the present situation, we imagine that the LHC has discovered and determined the mass of a $Z'$-like resonance in the 4-6 TeV range. Can the LC tell us anything about this object?
The obvious step would be to use the LC to extract the couplings of the apparent resonance discovered by the LHC; we find that it is sufficient for our arguments below to do this solely for the leptonic channels. The idea is the following: we measure the deviations in the differential cross sections and angular dependent Left-Right polarization asymmetry, $A_{LR}^\ell$, for the three lepton generations and combine those with $\tau$ polarization data. Assuming lepton universality(which would be observed in the LHC data anyway), that the resonance mass is well determined, and that the resonance is an ordinary $Z'$ we perform a fit to the hypothetical $Z'$ coupling to leptons, $v_l,a_l$. To be specific, let us consider the case of only one extra dimension with a 4 TeV KK excitation and employ a $\sqrt s=500$ GeV collider with an integrated luminosity of 200 $fb^{-1}$. The result of performing this fit, including the effects of cuts and initial state radiation, is shown in Fig.2. Here we see that the coupling values are ‘well determined’ (, the size of the $95\%$ CL allowed region we find is quite small) by the fitting procedure as we would have expected from previous analyses of $Z'$ couplings extractions at linear colliders[[@snow; @coupl; @me]]{}.
The only problem with the fit shown in the figure is that the $\chi^2$ is very large leading to a very small confidence level, , $\chi^2/d.o.f=95.06/58$ or CL=$1.55\times 10^{-3}$! (We note that this result is not very sensitive to the assumption of $90\%$ beam polarization; $70\%$ polarization leads to almost identical results.) For an ordinary $Z'$ it has been shown that fits of much higher quality, based on confidence level values, are obtained by this same procedure. Increasing the integrated luminosity can be seen to only make matters worse. Fig.3 shows the results for the CL following the above approach as we vary both the luminosity and the mass of the first KK excitation at both 500 GeV and 1 TeV $e^+e^-$ linear colliders. From this figure we see that the resulting CL is below $\simeq 10^{-3}$ for a first KK excitation with a mass of 4(5,6) TeV when the integrated luminosity at the 500 GeV collider is 200(500,900)$fb^{-1}$ whereas at a 1 TeV for excitation masses of 5(6,7) TeV we require luminosities of 150(300,500)$fb^{-1}$ to realize this same CL. Barring some unknown systematic effect the only conclusion that one could draw from such bad fits is that the hypothesis of a single $Z'$, and the existence of no other new physics, is simply [*wrong*]{}. If no other exotic states are observed below the first KK mass at the LHC, such as $\tilde \nu$[[@rp]]{} or leptoquarks[[@leptos]]{}, this result would give very strong indirect evidence that something more unusual that a conventional $Z'$ had been found but [*cannot*]{} prove that this is a KK state.
SM KK States at Muon Colliders {#sm-kk-states-at-muon-colliders .unnumbered}
==============================
In order to be completely sure of the nature of the first KK excitation, we must produce it directly at a higher energy lepton collider and sit on and near the peak of the KK resonance. To reach this mass range will most likely require a Muon Collider. The first issue to address is the quality of the degeneracy of the $\gamma^{(1)}$ and $Z^{(1)}$ states. Based on the analyses in Ref.[[@host; @rw]]{} we can get an idea of the maximum possible size of this fractional mass shift and we find it to be of order $\sim M_Z^4/M_{Z^{(1)}}^4$, an infinitesimal quantity for KK masses in the several TeV range. Thus even when mixing is included we find that the $\gamma^{(1)}$ and $Z^{(1)}$ states remain very highly degenerate so that even detailed lineshape measurements may not be able to distinguish the $\gamma^{(1)}/Z^{(1)}$ composite state from that of a $Z'$. We thus must turn to other parameters in order to separate these two cases.
Sitting on the resonance there are a very large number of quantities that can be measured: the mass and apparent total width, the peak cross section, various partial widths and asymmetries . From the $Z$-pole studies at SLC and LEP, we recall a few important tree-level results which we would expect to apply here as well provided our resonance is a simple $Z'$. First, we know that the value of $A_{LR}=[A_e=2v_ea_e/(v_e^2+a_e^2)]$, as measured on the $Z$ by SLD, does not depend on the fermion flavor of the final state and second, that the relationship $A_{LR}\cdot A_{FB}^{pol}(f)=A_{FB}^f$ holds, where $A_{FB}^{pol}(f)$ is the polarized Forward-Backward asymmetry as measured for the $Z$ at SLC and $A_{FB}^f$ is the usual Forward-Backward asymmetry. The above relation is seen to be trivially satisfied on the $Z$(or on a $Z'$) since $A_{FB}^{pol}(f)={3\over 4}A_f$ and $A_{FB}^f={3\over 4}A_eA_f$. Both of these relations are easily shown to fail in the present case of a ‘dual’ resonance though they will hold if only one particle is resonating.
A short exercise shows that in terms of the couplings to $\gamma^{(1)}$, which we will call $v_1,a_1$, and $Z^{(1)}$, now called $v_2,a_2$, these same observables can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
A_{FB}^f &=& {3\over 4} {A_1\over D}\nonumber \\
A_{FB}^{pol}(f) &=& {3\over 4} {A_2\over D}\nonumber \\
A_{LR}^f &=& {A_3\over D}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ labels the final state fermion and we have defined the coupling combinations $$\begin{aligned}
D &=& (v_1^2+a_1^2)_e(v_1^2+a_1^2)_f+R^2(v_2^2+a_2^2)_e(v_2^2+a_2^2)_f
\nonumber\\
& & \quad +2R(v_1v_2+a_1a_2)_e(v_1v_2+a_1a_2)_f\\
A_1 &=& (2v_1a_1)_e(2v_1a_1)_f+R^2(2v_2a_2)_e(2v_2a_2)_f+2R(v_1a_2+v_2a_1)_e
(v_1a_2+v_2a_1)_e\nonumber \\
A_2 &=& (2v_1a_1)_f(v_1^2+a_1^2)_e+R^2(2v_2a_2)_f(v_2^2+a_2^2)_e+2R(v_1a_2
+v_2a_1)_f(v_1v_2+a_1a_2)_e\nonumber \\
A_3 &=& (2v_1a_1)_e(v_1^2+a_1^2)_f+R^2(2v_2a_2)_e(v_2^2+a_2^2)_f+2R(v_1a_2
+v_2a_1)_e(v_1v_2+a_1a_2)_f\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $R$ being the ratio of the widths of the two KK states, $R=\Gamma_1/\Gamma_2$, and the $v_{1,2i},a_{1,2i}$ are the appropriate couplings for electrons and fermions $f$. Note that when $R$ gets either very large or very small we recover the usual ‘single resonance’ results. Examining these equations we immediately note that $A_{LR}^f$ is now [*flavor dependent*]{} and that the relationship between observables is no longer satisfied: $$A_{LR}^f\cdot A_{FB}^{pol}(f)\neq A_{FB}^f\,,$$ which clearly tells us that we are actually producing more than one resonance.
Of course we need to verify that these single resonance relations are numerically badly broken before clear experimental signals for more than one resonance can be claimed. Statistics will not be a problem with any reasonable integrated luminosity since we are sitting on a resonance peak and certainly millions of events will be collected. With such large statistics only a small amount of beam polarization will be needed to obtain useful asymmetries. In principle, to be as model independent as possible in a numerical analysis, we should allow the widths $\Gamma_i$ to be greater than or equal to their SM values as such heavy KK states may decay to SM SUSY partners as well as to presently unknown exotic states. Since the expressions above only depend upon the ratio of widths, we let $R=\lambda R_0$ where $R_0$ is the value obtained assuming that the KK states have only SM decay modes. We then treat $\lambda$ as a free parameter in what follows and explore the range $1/5 \leq \lambda \leq 5$. Note that as we take $\lambda \to 0(\infty)$ we recover the limit corresponding to just a $\gamma^{(1)}(Z^{(1)})$ being present.
In Fig.4 we display the flavor dependence of $A_{LR}^f$ as a functions of $\lambda$. Note that as $\lambda \to 0$ the asymmetries vanish since the $\gamma^{(1)}$ has only vector-like couplings. In the opposite limit, for extremely large $\lambda$, the $Z^{(1)}$ couplings dominate and a common value of $A_{LR}$ will be obtained. It is quite clear, however, that over the range of reasonable values of $\lambda$, $A_{LR}^f$ is quite obviously flavor dependent. We also show in Fig.4 the correlations between the observables $A_{FB}^{pol}(f)$ and $A_{FB}(f)$ which would be flavor independent if only a single resonance were present. From the figure we see that this is clearly not the case. Note that although $\lambda$ is an [*a priori*]{} unknown parameter, once any one of the electroweak observables are measured the value of $\lambda$ will be directly determined. Once $\lambda$ is fixed, then the values of all of the other asymmetries, as well as the ratios of various partial decay widths, are all completely fixed for the KK resonance with uniquely predicted values. This means that we can directly test the couplings of this apparent single resonance against what might be expected for a degenerate pair of KK excitations without any ambiguities.
In Figs. 5a and 5b we show that although on-resonance measurements of the electroweak observables, being quadratic in the $Z^{(1)}$ and $\gamma^{(1)}$ couplings, will not distinguish between the usual KK scenario and that of the Arkani-Hamed and Schmaltz(AS) (whose KK couplings to quarks are of opposite sign from the conventional assignments for odd KK levels since quarks and leptons are assumed to be separated by a distance $D=\pi R$ in their scenario) the data below the peak in the hadronic channel will easily allow such a separation. The cross section and asymmetries for $\mu^+\mu^-\to e^+e^-$ (or vice versa) is, of course, the same in both cases. Such data can be collected by using radiative returns if sufficient luminosity is available. The combination of on and near resonance measurements will thus completely determine the nature of the resonance.
We note that all of the above analysis will go through essentially unchanged in any qualitative way when we consider the case of the first KK excitation in a theory with more than one extra dimension as is shown in Fig.6. Here we see that the shape of the excitation curves for the $d=1$ case and the $d>1$ models listed in Table 1 will clearly allow the number of dimensions and the compactification scheme to be uniquely identified.
Randall-Sundrum Gravitons at Muon Colliders {#randall-sundrum-gravitons-at-muon-colliders .unnumbered}
===========================================
The possibility of extra space-like dimensions with accessible physics near the TeV scale has recently opened a new window on the possible solutions to the hierarchy problem. Models designed to address this problem make use of our ignorance about gravity, in particular, the fact that gravity has yet to be probed at energy scales much above $10^{-3}$ eV in laboratory experiments. The prototype scenario in this class of theories is due to Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali(ADD)[[@nima]]{} who use the volume associated with large extra dimensions to bring the $d$-dimensional Planck scale down to a few TeV. Here the hierarchy problem is recast into trying to understand the rather large ratio of the TeV Planck scale to the size of the extra dimensions which may be as large as a fraction of a millimeter. The phenomenological[[@pheno]]{} implications of this model have been worked out by a large number of authors. An extrapolation of these analyses to the case of high energy muon colliders shows an enormous reach for this kind of physics.
More recently, Randall and Sundrum(RS)[[@rs]]{} have proposed a new scenario wherein the hierarchy is generated by an exponential function of the compactification radius, called a warp factor. Unlike the ADD model, they assume a 5-dimensional non-factorizable geometry, based on a slice of $AdS_5$ spacetime. Two 3-branes, one being ‘visible’ with the other being ‘hidden’, with opposite tensions rigidly reside at $S_1/Z_2$ orbifold fixed points, taken to be $\phi=0,\pi$, where $\phi$ is the angular coordinate parameterizing the extra dimension. It is assumed that the extra-dimension bulk is only populated by gravity and that the SM lies on the brane with negative tension. The solution to Einstein’s equations for this configuration, maintaining 4-dimensional Poincare invariance, is given by the 5-dimensional metric $$ds^2=e^{-2\sigma(\phi)}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu+r_c^2d\phi^2 \,,$$ where the Greek indices run over ordinary 4-dimensional spacetime, $\sigma(\phi)=kr_c|\phi|$ with $r_c$ being the compactification radius of the extra dimension, and $0\leq |\phi|\leq\pi$. Here $k$ is a scale of order the Planck mass and relates the 5-dimensional Planck scale $M$ to the cosmological constant. Examination of the action in the 4-dimensional effective theory in the RS scenario yields the relationship $\mpl^2= M^3/k$ for the reduced effective 4-D Planck scale.
Assuming that we live on the 3-brane located at $|\phi|=\pi$, it is found that a field on this brane with the fundamental mass parameter $m_0$ will appear to have the physical mass $m=e^{-kr_c\pi}m_0$. TeV scales are thus generated from fundamental scales of order $\mpl$ via a geometrical exponential factor and the observed scale hierarchy is reproduced if $kr_c\simeq 11-12$. Hence, due to the exponential nature of the warp factor, no additional large hierarchies are generated.
A recent analysis[[@dhr]]{} examined the phenomenological implications and constraints on the RS model that arise from the exchange of weak scale towers of gravitons. There it was shown that the masses of the KK graviton states are given by $m_n=kx_ne^{-kr_c\pi}$ where $x_n$ are the roots of $J_1(x_n)=0$, the ordinary Bessel function of order 1. It is important to note that these roots are [*not*]{} equally spaced, in contrast to most KK models with one extra dimension, due to the non-factorizable metric. Expanding the graviton field into the KK states one finds the interaction $${\cal L} = - {1\over\mpl}T^{\alpha\beta}(x)h^{(0)}_{\alpha\beta}(x)-
{1\over\Lambda_\pi}T^{\alpha\beta}(x)\sum_{n=1}^\infty
h^{(n)}_{\alpha\beta}(x)\,.
\label{effL}$$ Here, $T^{\alpha \beta}$ is the stress energy tensor on the brane and we see that the zero mode separates from the sum and couples with the usual 4-dimensional strength, $\mpl^{- 1}$; however, all the massive KK states are only suppressed by $\Lambda_\pi^{- 1}$, where we find that $\Lambda_\pi = e^{- kr_c\pi} \mpl$, which is of order the weak scale.
This model has essentially 2 free parameters which we can take to be the mass of the first KK graviton mode and the ratio $c=k/\mpl$; the later quantity is restricted to be less than unity to maintain the self-consistency of the scenario (to prevent a radius of curvature smaller than the Planck scale in 5 dimensions) and if it is taken too small another hierarchy is formed. Figs.7 and 8 show the cross section and $A_{FB}$ for the process $\mu^+\mu^- \to e^+e^-$ as a function of $\sqrt s$ in the presence of KK graviton resonances for several values of the parameter $c$. For large $c$ one does not see the individual resonance structures (since the theory is strongly coupled and they are smeared together by their large widths which grow as $\sim c^2$) but only a very large shoulder somewhat similar to a contact interaction. For small $c$ one sees the individual resonances with their widths growing rapidly with increasing mass as $\sim m_n^3$. Note that for large $\sqrt s$ where graviton exchange dominates the value of $A_{FB}$ is driven to zero. Sitting on any of these KK resonances, in the case of small values of $c$, will immediately reveal the unique quartic angular distribution corresponding to spin-2 graviton exchange for the fermions in the final state $\sim 1-3\cos^2 \theta +4\cos^4 \theta$.
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
Present data indicates that the masses of KK excitations of the SM gauge bosons must be rather heavy, , $>3.9$ TeV if $d=1$. We have found that:
- With an integrated luminosity of $100~fb^{-1}$, the LHC will be able to observe KK excitations in the mass range below $\simeq 6$ TeV but may not see any KK excitations when $d>1$ since they are likely to be more massive. The LHC will not see the second set of KK resonances even when $d=1$.
- The LHC cannot separate the KK states $\gamma^{(1)}$ from $Z^{(1)}$ which will appear together as a single resonance, nor can it obtain significant coupling constant information.
- The LHC cannot see the $g^{(1)}$ if its mass is in excess of $\sim 4$ TeV due to its large width and the energy resolution of the LHC detectors.
- The LHC cannot distinguish an extended electroweak model with a degenerate $Z'/W'$ from a KK scenario. All we will know is the mass of these resonances.
- A LC with $\sqrt s=0.5-1$ TeV will be sensitive to the existence of KK states with masses more than an order of magnitude larger than $\sqrt s$ for reasonable integrated luminosities $\simeq 100~fb^{-1}$.
- At a LC, the extraction of the couplings of an apparent $Z'$, whose mass is known from measurements obtained at the LHC, can be performed in a straightforward manner with reasonable integrated luminosities. However, the $Z'$ hypothesis will yield a poor fit to the data if the state in question is actually the combined $\gamma^{(1)}/Z^{(1)}$ KK excitation. The LC will not be able to identify this state as such–only prove it is not a $Z'$.
- A Muon Collider operating at or above the first KK resonance pole will identify it as a KK state provided polarized beams are available.
- Measurements of the KK excitation spectrum at Muon Colliders will be able to tell us both the number of extra dimensions and how they are compactified thus possibly revealing the basic underlying theory upon which the KK scenario is based.
- KK excitations of gravitons in the RS model can be studied in detail at both LC and Muon Colliders with Muon Colliders providing a much larger reach in explorable parameter space. These measurements can completely determine all of the parameters of this model.
Muon Colliders clearly offer a very important window into the physics of Kaluza-Klein excitations.
\#1 \#2 \#3 [Mod. Phys. Lett. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Nucl. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Phys. Lett. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Phys. Rep. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Phys. Rev. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Rev. Mod. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Nuc. Inst. Meth. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Z. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [E. Phys. J. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{} \#1 \#2 \#3 [Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**\#1**]{}, \#2 (\#3)]{}
I. Antoniadis, B246 377 1990 ; I. Antoniadis, C. Munoz and M. Quiros, B397 515 1993 ; I. Antoniadis and K. Benalki, B326 69 1994 ; I. Antoniadis, K. Benalki and M. Quiros, B331 313 1994 . D0 Collaboration, S. Abachi ,B385 471 1996 , 76 3271 1996 and 82 29 1999 ; CDF Collaboration, F. Abe , 77 5336 1996 , 74 2900 1995 and 79 2191 1997 . F. Cornet, M. Relano and J. Rico, hep-ph/9908299. P. Nath and M. Yamaguchi, hep-ph/9902323 and hep-ph/9903298; M. Masip and A. Pomarol, hep-ph/9902467; W.J. Marciano, hep-ph/9903451; L. Hall and C. Kolda, B459 213 1999 ; R. Casalbuoni, S. DeCurtis and D. Dominici, hep-ph/9905568; R. Casalbuoni, S. DeCurtis, D. Dominici and R. Gatto, hep-ph/9907355; A. Strumia, hep-ph/9906266; C.D. Carone, hep-ph/9907362. T.G. Rizzo and J.D. Wells, hep-ph/9906234. J. Mnich, talk given at the [*International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics(EPS99)*]{}, 15-21 July 1999, Tampere, Finland; M. Swartz, M. Lancaster and D. Charlton talks given at the [*XIX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions*]{}, 9-14 August 1999, Stanford, California. T.G. Rizzo, hep-ph/9909232; See also I. Antoniadis, K. Benalki and M. Quiros, hep-ph/9905311; P. Nath, Y. Yamada and M. Yamaguchi, hep-ph/9905415. M. Bando, T. Kugo, T. Noguchi and K. Yoshioka, hep-ph/9906549. See also J. Hisano and N. Okada, hep-ph/9909555. N. Arkani-Hamed and M. Schmaltz, hep-ph/9903417; N. Arkani-Hamed, Y. Grossman and M. Schmaltz, hep-ph/9909411. For a discussion of a few of these models, see H. Georgi, E.E. Jenkins, and E.H. Simmons, 62 2789 1989 and B331 541 1990 ;V. Barger and T.G. Rizzo, D41 946 1990 ; T.G. Rizzo, A7 91 1992 ; R.S. Chivukula, E.H. Simmons and J. Terning, B346 284 1995 ; A. Bagneid, T.K. Kuo, and N. Nakagawa, A2 1327 1987 and A2 1351 1987 ; D.J. Muller and S. Nandi, B383 345 1996 ; X.Li and E. Ma, 47 1788 1981 and D46 1905 1992 ; E. Malkawi, T.Tait and C.-P. Yuan, B385 304 1996 ; E. Malkawi and C.-P. Yuan, hep-ph/9906215. For a review of new gauge boson physics at colliders and details of the various models, see J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo, 183 193 1989 ; M. Cvetic and S. Godfrey, in [*Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and Beyond the Standard Model*]{}, ed. T. Barklow , (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), hep-ph/9504216; T.G. Rizzo in [*New Directions for High Energy Physics: Snowmass 1996*]{}, ed. D.G. Cassel, L. Trindle Gennari and R.H. Siemann, (SLAC, 1997), hep-ph/9612440; A. Leike, hep-ph/9805494. A. Djouadi, A. Lieke, T. Riemann, D. Schaile and C. Verzegnassi, C56 289 1992 ; J. Hewett and T. Rizzo, in [*Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics and Experiments with Linear $e^+e^-$ Colliders*]{}, September 1991, Saariselkä, Finland, R. Orava ed., (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992) Vol. II, p.489, ibid p.501; G. Montagna , C75 641 1997 ; F. del Aguila and M. Cvetic, D50 3158 1994 ; F. del Aguila, M. Cvetic and P. Langacker D52 37 1995 ; A. Lieke, C62 265 1994 ; D. Choudhury, F. Cuypers and A. Lieke, B333 531 1994 ; S. Riemann in [*New Directions for High Energy Physics: Snowmass 1996*]{}, ed. D.G. Cassel, L. Trindle Gennari and R.H. Siemann, (SLAC, 1997), hep-ph/9610513; A. Lieke and S. Riemann, C75 341 1997 ; T.G. Rizzo, hep-ph/9604420. T.G. Rizzo, D55 5483 1997 . T.G. Rizzo, D59 113004 1999 . For a review, see J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo, D56 5709 1997 and D58 055005 1998 . N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, B429 263 1998 and D59 086004 1999 ; I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, B436 257 1998. G.F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi and J.D. Wells, B544 3 1999 ; E.A. Mirabelli, M. Perelstein and M.E. Peskin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 2236 (1999); T. Han, J.D. Lykken and R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{}, 105006 (1999); J.L. Hewett, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4765 (1999); T.G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{}, 115010 (1999). L. Randall and R. Sundrum, hep-ph/9905221 and hep-th/9906182. H. Davoudiasl, J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo, hep-ph/9909255.
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]. Work supported by the Department of Energy, Contract DE-AC03-76SF00515
[^2]: To appear in the [*Proceedings of the Study on Colliders and Collider Physics at the Highest Energies: Muon Colliders at 10 TeV to 100 TeV*]{}, Montauk Yacht Club Resort, Montauk, New York, 27 September–1 October 1999
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.